MP SPEAKS The convoluted clarification by the Land Public Transport Commission (Spad) did not clarify at all anything, much less the misgivings expressed by the Jalan Sultan/Jalan Petaling folks over the imminent land acquisition for the MRT project.

Despite the assurance that acquisition will only be done on a “willing seller and willing buyer” basis, the affected historic shophouse owners are now given a deadline to submit their own respective property valuation reports.

NONE The majority of the puzzled property owners - who remained adamant with their stance of being unwilling to allow their shophouses to be acquired - were visibly perturbed when they met me a few days ago.

They were virtually told to accept the imminent acquisition irrespective of the hope portrayed to them that the property ownership rights are probably to be returned to them once the tunnelling work is completed in six months. But with the demand for the submission of property valuation reports from the owners, no doubt the writing is now on the wall.

NONE This would lead any thinking individuals to question the lack of respect manifested by the authorities for the rights of property owners who do not wish to sell their properties nor to submit valuation reports. Failure to clarify this would only make the “willing seller and willing buyer” concept sound hypocritical and insincere.

Spad cautioned the public, particularly the affected owners, not to be influenced by “disinformation”, but unfortunately to date we have yet to see the following concerns be properly addressed by them or the authorities:

  1. Why was there no prior consultation or public hearing conducted with full details of the project divulged to the public in the name of transparency?
  2. Has there been any comprehensive Social Impact Assessment done on the potentially acquired tract of land that is currently densely populated with intense business activities? If so, please release it for good. If not, why? In this perspective, the authorities truly owed the public an explanation if principles of transparency and public accountability were to be upheld with commitment, and not mere political rhetoric.
  3. It stands to reason that Spad or any project owners should always choose the best solution based on optimal usage of land with minimal adverse impact to persons affected by the project. The most obvious choice for the authorities would be to acquire the under-utilised or barren tracts of land, such as the Jalan Panggung car park and the Jalan Tun HS Lee traffic police station adjacent to the controversial piece of land. Unfortunately to date, Spad is still silent on why were these pieces of under-utilised and barren land  spared. We have a legitimate right to know the technical and ethical reasons for their decision.
  4. Both the Plaza Warisan and UDA-Ocean buildings that were once built with public funds on the site of some historic shophouses acquired with taxpayers’ monies are now earmarked to be acquired and demolished in due course.
Poor and myopic planning

Is this not a sheer waste of public funds due to poor and myopic planning as well as unprincipled accommodation of afterthoughts?

In this respect, the authorities should keep the public informed, though more than two decades late, of the true rationale for the initial acquisition that witnessed the ultimate construction of the aforementioned two commercial buildings unrelated to public amenities.

Indeed the bitter experience stemming from the Plaza Warisan and UDA Ocean development serves as a lesson to us all about projects being compulsorily acquired for an excuse to subsequently emerge years later as justifying money spinning development unrelated to its initial promise.

The resurrection of the said past agony has over the weeks been fuelling fear that the acquisition of the current shops in the name of urban public transport will eventually turn out to be nothing more than land grab, as presently feared and alleged by certain quarters, to quench the thirst of eventual greedy developers.

NONE The current shop owners’ fear is not at all unfounded as they could foresee that they have no rights to the future development as well as any eventual price appreciation of their land, after receiving measly pay-offs based on current value of their land.

By then, where will they find their future source of income or ply their trade? Worse, the entire local community would also lose their heritage, identity and values that simply doesn’t have a price tag to it.

So far their plea to the authorities for re-routing seems to have gone unheeded. The reluctance, if not outright rejection, of any alternative routes as was indicated by the Spad chairperson has clearly implied that the door for consultation was closed.

Given the benefit of hindsight, the tripartite meeting involving Spad, Prasarana and the affected property owners, held on Aug 23, 2011, was generally perceived as a mere public relations ploy, leaving the affected folks with literally no choice but to accept acquisition.

ONG TEE KEAT is member of parliament for Pandan and is a former president of the MCA. He blogs at http://www.ongteekeat.net/ .