`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, September 4, 2011

Tee Keat: Why pick the busiest and most historical part of Chinatown for MRT

Tee Keat: Why pick the busiest and most historical part of Chinatown for MRT

I have been following very closely and patiently the recent development of the imminent acquisition of Jalan Sultan (Chinatown) for the construction of Klang Valley MRT project.

Apparently the affected property owners have been totally caught off-guard without any prior information, much less consultation, that their properties inherited from their forefathers would ever be targeted and potentially acquired by the authorities in the name of infrastructural development.

I can’t agree more with those who opined that we need to strike the right balance between preserving the historic heritage and the necessity of pursuing development so as to keep abreast with the contemporary needs, but the issue at hand is certainly far more thought-provoking than many might have envisioned.

Let us not be swayed by the ambiguous claims arisen from the supposedly problem-resolving tripartite dialogue between Dr Chua Soi Lek, SPAD and the affected property owners.

Of course, to the owners, it is crucial to ascertain if they would ever be allowed to retain their property ownership once the underground is acquired. But certainly it is meaningless for anybody to dwell on such hair-split as whether the chagrinned owners should be given structural safety assurance of the affected historic buildings when the construction of MRT is in progress.

The bone of contention should rightly be:

(i) why was there no prior consultation with the affected community on the part of Prasarana, the outgoing owner of MRT, and SPAD as what they have done in the past in the handling of the LRT line extension? ;

(ii) why did they choose to target the most densely populated business district that is characterised with the historic building, knowing very well that it is likely to trigger community protest? This seems to run contrary to the usual norm in the practice of Prasarana of evading as much as possible the resistance from the affected community.

If in the recent past, protest raised by any residential village or kampung affected by the new proposed LRT route could warrant considerate accommodation from Prasarana and result in the ultimate re-routing, why then should it be so difficult to practice the same in handling the Jalan Sultan protest?

I sincerely hope the adamant stance of Prasarana and SPAD in pursuing the Jalan Sultan land acquisition issue is not driven by the commercial values of the land acquired following PEMANDU’s clarification on the misgiving arisen from Minister Idris Jala’s letter to ACCCIM president Tan Sri William Cheng.

The minister’s letter had indeed caused a stir as it was perceived as an indication of strong desire of the authorities in re-developing the land nearby, modelling the “rail plus property model” in Hong Kong.

To the local community, the apprehension is real and valid following the acquisition of old shophouses in JalanTun HS Lee (formerly known as Jalan Bandar), Jalan Sultan and Jalan Sekolah by UDA in the 1970’s for the development of UDA Ocean and Plaza Warisan.

The two blocks of buildings built have over the years widely been seen as serving commercial purposes only. This had triggered an unanswered question as whether the acquisition then was done for the right reason since both UDA Ocean and Plaza Warisan are totally unrelated to public amenities.

Premised on the past unpleasant perception that went unanswered, understandably certain quarters especially the critics and skeptics may view the present move of acquisition in the name of making way for MRT development as a ploy designed to nibble the Chinatown (encompassing Jalan Petaling, Jalan Sultan and JalanTun HS Lee) progressively.

The affected community is now expecting a clear-cut answer as to whether their property ownership rights would in any way be jeopardised, in view of the conflicting and confusing statements issued by both Dr Chua Soi Lek and Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, the SPAD chairman.

To the discerning public, “would the authorities ultimately seek to re-route the MRT line in face of such vehement protest from the locals, as was manifested in the redevelopment of Kampung Bahru?” is likely to be their main common concern.

To those who believe in the ultimate spin-off effects of MRT that should not be allowed to by-pass Chinatown, though not at the expense of the historic shophouses, perhaps relocation of the MRT station to the vicinity is the answer.

After all, locations like Klang Bus Station and the previous site for Jalan Bandar Police Station, both within a stone’s throw from the present controversial tract, could have been maximised for their respective utilisation in the name of infrastructural development.

As an MP myself with the benefits of spending my childhood years in JalanTun HS Lee (formerly known as Jalan Bandar or High Street), as well as the experience in helming the Transport Ministry, I couldn’t help but to think aloud that several initiatives could have been done in the interests of all stakeholders. These include:

(i) A town hall-like meeting involving the local community could be conducted specifically to deliberate the issue as had been done by me as the Transport Minister when the proposed LRT line were to be extended to Subang.

All views expressed verbally or in written form as well as those via the new media must be properly recorded and displayed for public scrutiny. This should be done over and above what is being done under the provision for public displays under the Railways Act.

(ii) A committee comprising of experts needs to be commissioned to look into alternative solutions, such as re-routing and to resolve the woes and misgiving of the local community.

Expert lawyers are to be engaged to draft iron-clad agreements that serve to protect the stakeholders’ interests, including the necessity to preserve land ownership as well as render the assistance for facilitating sufficient compensation to be granted to those affected should their interests be infringed upon. In addition, post-development issues such as sound and traffic control ought to be given due consideration.

(iii) SPAD, Prasarana and the new KV MRT owner are to address each and every point raised by the people after three months in an open and transparent manner. Any ambiguity and hesitation in addressing such concerns would readily be construed as reducing the town hall-like dialogue engagement with the stakeholders to a mere political ploy.

All in all, it is true that we need infrastructural development to pump-prime our economy as well as meeting the contemporary needs of the people. But certainly it is not a carte blanche for us to ignore the elements of cost effectiveness and cultural heritage in due process.

- Ong Tee Keat is the MP for Pandan and the former president of MCA

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.