Dear YB Teng Chang Khim,
It seems both I and The Sun editor Nadeswaren have caught your attention on the PKNS field.
Nadeswaren has already penned his reply , and like him, I will declare that I will make a correction and offer an apology if I had erred in my comments.
Here are my comments as well on the issue:
You said, “(Selcat) had categorically pronounced that the officers in the Development Planning Department of the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) were reckless, incompetent and unprofessional. This means that officers involved were found ‘guilty’.
Despite finding them ‘guilty’, the Selangor government did not take steps to prevent the problem from recurring.
In fact, the problem of officers amending the local plan without consulting the public happened again in July 2014 when MPSJ officers included mention of the Serdang-Kinrara-Putrajaya Expressway (SKIP) into the Subang Jaya Local Plan when nothing was presented to the public on the development, as attested by Bukit Gasing assemblyperson Rajiv Rishyakaran.
Your response then was that the plans could be amended by calling for yet another public hearing but makes no mention of investigating and punishing those responsible for making the changes. I called you out on this in a letter published on July 26, 2014 in The Malay Mail .
Secondly, in finding the officers ‘guilty’, Selcat did not speak up against the promotion of Noraini Roslan that was done by the Selangor government. Someone is either guilty or innocent to the layperson, not an ambiguous ‘guilty’ that comes with no prescribed disciplinary action.
You also said, “Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) expressly prohibits the use of land or building for purposes not in accordance with the local plan. As such, despite the wish or the predicament of the landowner, the land cannot be approved for any development under the law.”
The Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) did not bother what Section 18 of the TCPA says when the SS2 Mall was developed in 2009. Part of the area for that mall was zoned residential, and the surrounding residents argued it as such, yet full rights were given to the developer to build a commercial building because the land title says it is commercial land.
Is that too not the case for the PKNS field? Did the Selangor government not issue PKNS land titles with the terms ‘commercial use’ on said land title? So, which law is the Selangor government going to use to resolve the issue?
As a Selangor exco member, you have the resources of a state government at your disposal. You can put this considerable power to use and put right what is wrong with the Selangor government administration that is riddled with inconsistencies.
Thank you.
