Use tougher law on land violators

Charge offenders under the Town and Country Planning Act instead of the more lenient Street, Drainage and Building Act, says the Consumer Association of Penang

PENANG: State authorities must charge companies and their principal directors under the tougher Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1976 if they carry out projects without permission, especially illegal hill clearings, said the Consumer Association of Penang.

CAP president SM Mohamed Idris said that if found guilty, the offence under Section 19 carried a maximum fine of RM500,000 or two years imprisonment or both as stipulated under Section 26(1) of the TCPA.

He said that under Section 52A of TCPA, the director, manager, secretary or other similar officers of the body corporate, as well as the company, can be held accountable for acts done in the name of the company.

The CAP is against the authorities applying the more lenient Street, Drainage and Building Act (SBDA) 1974 to charge and punish such offenders, said Idris.

He said SDBA does not have a provision for directors to be held responsible for acts of the company in violation of the law.

“In view of the serious nature of the acts done, the prosecution should have preferred charges under the TCPA against the company and its principal director.

“Unless the authorities go after the human agency, that is the directors for their violation of the planning laws, the whole legal process could be a mere sandiwara,” said Idris.

In addition, in view of the conduct of the landowner, he said the state should re-declare the land as “hill land” under the Land Conservation Act 1960.

He said it would serve as a good precedent to deter landowners from flouting the law as well.

Idris was referring to a recent case of General Accomplishment Sdn Bhd. On July 11, the company was charged under Section 70A(1) of SBDA with illegal hill clearing and earthworks in Bukit Relau.

It was found guilty and fined RM30,000, which Idris described as less than a “slap on the wrist.”

He said the sentence meted did not even come close to the maximum penalty allowed under Section 70A(9) of the law, which is a fine of RM50,000 and/or five years imprisonment.

‘Why go after the company alone?’

Idris said that despite the judge’s impassioned speech to send a strong message against illegal hill clearing and destruction of environment, the fined failed to commensurate with his message.

“The court decision revealed that we were led down the rosy path only to end at a thorny bush,” said Idris.

He slammed the island’s municipal council (MPPP) for giving a false impression that it was serious in taking action against the company – that too only after the developer’s identity was exposed by the media.

He questioned why only the company, not its officials, was charged for the offence if MPPP was serious about applying the full force of the law, including imprisonment.

By charging the company and not the officials, he said it was clear from the start that the only punishment would be a monetary fine.

He said maximum penalty was just a tiny fraction of the company’s profits that can be regarded as a small cost of doing business. In fact, he said it was a message to developers that it pays to flout the laws.

“A company cannot be imprisoned, only individuals can. A company cannot make decisions, only individuals can.

“So why mislead the public into believing the authorities will take stern measures by taking the legal route, but then go after the company alone?” asked Idris.

He rebuked the state authorities for not executing their duties effectively to monitor and inspect destruction and violation of the environment as they depended on the public to alert them.

He chided the authorities of being lame ducks despite visible ugly patches of land and hill clearing appearing in Batu Maung, Balik Pulau, Tanjung Bungah, Bukit Gambier, Tanjung Tokong, Paya Terubong, Teluk Bahang and Sungai Ara

“Do they need the public to alert them before they take notice or need to prodded to act? Are these all done according to legal requirements and conditions? Has any legal action been taken against the violators other than stop work orders?” asked Idris.