A local heritage group, closely monitoring the case involving the 100-year-old Atkinson Clock tower, is hoping the court will rule in favour of transparency and openess.
KOTA KINABALU: The applicants in the judicial review of the building of a controversial 16-storey integrated complex on the land adjoining the 100-year-old Atkinson Clock Tower have filed an affidavit to the High Court, urging it to continue hearing its case.
They said a continued hearing would enlighten the public on the extent of power wielded by the Central Town and Country Planning Board and the State Cabinet in approving the project.
The affidavit, filed by applicants Lim Swee Geck and Chang Chiew Kok @ Jefferi Johari on July 8, wishes for the court to clearly interpret the jurisdiction of local authorities, the central board and the State Cabinet with regards to town and country planning, protection of sites and buildings possessing heritage significance and the alienation of state land.
Both Lim and Chang were responding to an affidavit submitted by the director of the Town Planning Department and the Chief Executive Officer and Technical Advisor to the Central Town and Country Planning Board, Mursidi @ Dinin bin Sapi.
Murshidi’s affidavit states that the development is being reviewed and pending approval from the State Cabinet, after receiving feedback from the relevant authorities.
“This is ultra vires the Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 14) because under Section 28 G only the local authority may decide to revoke or to modify a planning approval,” said applicants in their counter affidavit.
“Even if this is made possible only with the approval of the Central Board, it certainly does not allow the Central Board to be the instigator of such a move nor does it allow the State Cabinet to get involved.
“What is very clear is the fact that once an approval is granted by the local authority, no other state authority has the power to interfere in the local authority’s decision to honour that approval or to influence the local authority to reverse its approval by modifying or revoking the approval,” the applicant’s affidavit noted.
It also noted that the affidavit submitted by Mursidi did not disclose that the development project was approved by City Hall (the first respondent in the judicial review) on Sept 2, 2010, following the approval of the state cabinet in July 2009.
It also failed to note the proceedings of a Central Board meeting on Sept 30, 2010 when it had decided to submit the project for approval by the State Cabinet after it had received feedback from the relevant authorities.
“The court has been told in the affidavit (by Mursidi) that the project is on hold pending review by the Cabinet when in fact the Cabinet has already met and given its approval and agreement to the project.
“Based on the facts of the matter, it would be unfair to the applicants and the citizens of Sabah for this court to allow the defendants to continue to hide behind the cloak of secrecy erected around Cabinet, the Central Board, and now the ocal authority’s planning processes and procedures,” it said.
Public-orientated review
Meanwhile, local conservationist group, Heritage Sabah spokesperson Richard Nelson Sokial hopes that the court will rule in favour of transparency and openess. The next hearing of the case is tomorrow (Tuesday).
“If the Sabah Housing and Town Development Authority (SHTDA), City Hall and Central Board have indeed been exercising a fair, corruption-free, transparent and public-orientated review of all projects submitted to them all these years, then there should be no problem for them to produce the actual minutes of meetings they have had upon request on how they reviewed the merits of the proposed shopping mall development at the Atkinson Clock Tower site.
“It is stated in our state laws that such information is not confidential and may be inspected upon public request.” Sokial said in a statement.
“Why has the judicial review been adjourned again and again?
“Is it an attempt to hide the truth behind how the project was approved?
“They (the defendants) keep saying that the project is being reviewed. But that was several months ago, what was the verdict of their meetings?
“Why does it take so long for them to make a decision? Is this a reflection of how other reviews of developments in Sabah is done as well?
“What actually goes on during these Central Board meetings?
“How efficient is this system that takes months to come up with a proper solution?
“So far, all the delay and false-starts have done is to raise more questions and doubts about how commercial development projects are approved in Sabah,” he said.
Right to know
Sokial added that as stakeholders and Sabahans they had a right to know how the project was approved and to have all the facts pertaining to the case laid bare in the court of law.
He said this was neceessary so that, in the future, all property owners, heritage lovers, developers, investors and Sabahans in general are better informed and empowered to understand how the process for approval for the city, towns and our entire state are evaluated.
“If the court allows for a fair review for this case, it will be an eye-opener for the general public of how our laws act in serve the best interests of our local people,” Sokial added.
He urged the public to keep close tabs on the developments of the Atkinson Clock Tower case as a point of reference.
He reiterated that Heritage Sabah was not anti-development organisation but was concerned about the diminishing value of the city’s historical landmarks.
“A lot of people – including commercial developers – will be affected by the outcome of this judicial review.
“It will shed light on certain practices made by local authorities in order to allow for proposed commercial developments to be approved.
“Hence I would urge local developers to support the plea for a judicial review for the clock tower site.
“We must encourage responsible development proposals.
“Let the judicial review of the Atkinson Clock Tower have its day in court.
“Show the people of Sabah that the court of law upholds truth and justice for all,” he concluded in his statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.