The redevelopment of the PKNS football field in Kelana Jaya into a ‘Sports City’ commercial hub appears to be unavoidable, based on a letter from the Selangor State Development Board (PKNS) published yesterday by Kelana Jaya MP Wong Chen ( below ).
In it, PKNS general manager Azlan Md Alifiah admits that it had signed a joint venture development agreement with developer Bayu Melati Sdn Bhd on Jan 28, 2011, because PKNS assumed the site was zoned commercial.
Should the proposed development be disallowed, the developer can sue PKNS for “loss of profits” based on the terms of the signed agreement, which remains undisclosed.
How could such a thing happen?
Back in early 2012, when the project was first mooted for development, PKNS had justified the project because the Petaling Jaya Local Plan 2 (RTPJ2) had shown the site to be a commercial zone and could be developed as such.
However, residents were quick to discover that the original version of the RTPJ2 was zoned as a recreational field and that the change in zoning was done illegally.
During a public hearing by the Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat), MBPJ town planning senior assistant director Faiwos Abd Hamid admitted that she implemented the changes to RTPJ2 on the instructions of her then town planning director Noraini Roslan.
Affecting public confidence
Instead of investigating further on the conduct of Noraini Roslan, she was promoted to the position of Kuala Selangor district council yang dipertua.
No one was found guilty and the case was closed by then Selcat chairperson Teng Chang Khim with the declaration that the field would not be developed.
Well, now PKNS is in danger of being sued out of their pants if the project is denied, and I honestly doubt PKNS wants to go to court as it would make the agreements public and that would certainly be a major embarrassment to Pakatan.
Yet to allow the project to proceed with the excuse that the rakyat will bear the losses if the project is shelved is not an acceptable response either.
This is a popular default response with many Pakatan reps, but it only worked because they could blame BN for approving the project. There is no BN involvement in this case.
This means the only ‘acceptable’ option is to pay the developer off, which is reminiscent of the ‘crooked bridge’ case.
Whichever option Pakatan opts for, this issue will certainly affect public confidence.
It would be prudent for Selcat chairperson Hannah Yeoh to reopen this case and investigate further, while Pakatan introduces a transparent mechanism that will assure the public that this sort of problem will not recur.
