LETTER | I refer to the articles in Malaysiakini and The Star.

I would like to share my thoughts and experience in the preparation of the draft local plan (RT2035). I had the privilege (for lack of a better word) to do my civic duty by submitting in writing my 15 suggestions (no objection) based on what was displayed during the publicity period at various locations within the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) area as required by Section 13 of ACT172 (TCPA).

For unknown reasons, the publication of the draft plan was not put up online in GIS mapping format for the ease of the public despite living in the 21st century. We spent lots of time doing multiple visits to designated sites to obtain information.

MPAJ officers on site, as the custodian of the RT2035, do not have or are unwilling to share details of proposed land use in many areas as well information on the alignment of highways and MRT lines that starts and end outside the MPAJ area. (KLNode and MRT lines)

On Oct 4, I had the opportunity to attend a tightly controlled public hearing as provided by Section 14 of ACT172 (TCPA). Despite it being a public hearing, only selected participants are allowed to enter the hall at a given time slot. We are only allowed to speak for three minutes.

The chairperson who was supposed to chair the meeting to “gather and capture” all the thoughts raised failed to do so when he started to defend and justify the plan. This is not a meeting to defend and justify what is being presented but rather to capture more of the public pulse on the proposed planning.

I had 15 suggestions (no objection), is it possible to cover the 15 suggestions in 15 minutes? The meeting deviated from its true purpose to look at planning and when into many other unrelated issues. The true intention of the law was not observed. This is based on the following:

a. RT requires MPAJ and the state government to observe and follow the certain defined process as provided under ACT172 (TCPA). It starts with having a clear objective that is developed with public consultation. The objective is clearly about the people and environment aimed at creating a better and more balanced living environment for the people of Ampang. It is about meeting people's needs. To do this, the whole process starts with a survey as required under Section 7 (Survey of planning areas) of the act.

b. The key point of Section 8 (1) (Preparation of draft structure plans) “is to prepare and submit to the committee a report of his survey under Section 7”. The survey is the most critical process in the preparation of the local plan. Did the state or its appointed planner survey to find out the critical issues that matter to the residents? Being an active member of my society, I can confirm that I have not seen or heard of any direct engagement in the preparation of the structure plan.

c. Time and energy should have been focused on gathering public feedback before a draft state and local plan is drawn. Eighty percent of the effort should have been focused on this stage. Regretfully the politically appointed local council members are not doing what is expected of them. No direct engagement and feedback gathering were done. In summary, the provisions provided under Section 7 were not done to the fullest but rather merely fulfil a legal requirement. If the process was not adhered to legally to meet the objectives (about the people and environment), then it can be said that the requirement Section 7 of the local plan was met.

d. How could it be about the people when the people have not consulted adequately during the preparation of RT2035 as required by Sect 7 of the ACT172 (TCPA)? The whole process of RT2035 has not met the true objectives. It's about the people and the environment and this was taken lightly by the state and MPAJ.

A survey should involve localised public engagement. For example, for every residential area of a certain size, public dialogue is done to capture the resident's concerns. It must be a face-to-face engagement where the appointed parties were to capture as many viewpoints as possible from the residents on how to further improve the existing local plan.

This is a detailed information-gathering session. This is a critical stage of any planning exercise. Regrettably, this was not done adequately. Therefore, can we say the law is being observed?

Certainly, any feedback given must be taken with a balanced view by considering many other factors and does not mean that every resident view is taken into consideration. Things that matter to the residents are green lung, public parks, forest conservation, the development of public transportation systems and the provision of public services like schools, clinics, and police stations. These were the main issues raised during the public hearing at the meeting on Oct 4. Surely if a proper ground survey with face-to-face engagement was done, most of the issues raised would have been addressed.

People want public transport development and forest conservation and a reduction of the carbon footprint but instead, residents were presented with a highway which does not show the areas outside the control of MPAJ.

There was no BRT or urban regeneration planning presented. Instead, we are losing green spaces for development. The concept of TOD is not a feature of this local plan. It can be seen during the session on Oct 4 that the chairperson failed to appreciate the concept of TOD and circle line.

Stations are meant to be at a walkable distance for residents so that number of cars on the roads is reduced.

The people who drew up the alignment do not have a proper understanding of the alignment and service of MRT. He defended the alignment and admitted it is not finalised.

If it is not finalised, why is it in the draft local plan? He contradicted himself and cause mayhem in the meeting. If this plan gets approved, it means residents will lose lots of clean air, get more traffic congestion and without any further improvement in their quality of life.

What has transpired shows that those people involve are merely interested in completing the process defined in the law. There is almost certainty, that the plan will not change. It has been decided. Eventually, people will be living under or next to a highway somewhere and wearing a mask will be a permanent feature.

As for interested residents, their options are limited once the feedback is consolidated, the local planning authority shall act as defined in Section 15. Though unconventional, private-public engagement must be done with the local planning authority (planning director) now to convince her of certain critical points before she takes the next step to submit the draft local plan to the committee for approval.

As long as local council members are political appointees and aligned with political parties, people with the best brains and skills would not be able to contribute effectively to the state and the interest of the local population.

I have lived in Bukit Antarabangsa for over 25 years and my quality of life has deteriorated tremendously. I am a victim and living proof of the weakness of our current system and probably would not survive beyond 2035.

Ampang forest provides the much-needed oxygen for Kuala Lumpur. Once gone, it cannot be replaced.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.