R. Nadeswaran
The Sun Daily
30 October 2012

IN early February, 2006, I was at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport awaiting the arrival of passengers on Flight MH9042 from Mauritius. Among them was a delegation from the Selayang Municipal Council which included nine councillors, the president, the secretary and his wife, two officials and four businessmen who had contracts with the council. They had also dropped by South African cities, among others, to study how public toilets are maintained and kept clean. I had then asked: “How did contractors become part of an official delegation? Don’t the rules require councillors to keep at arm’s length, dealings with suppliers of goods and services?”

Subsequently, I wrote outlining their programme in both the countries and asked what they had learnt when they were out shopping and sight-seeing all the time. As usual, the silence was deafening.

All these memories came back last week as I read about the same council and the proposed development around Batu Caves. Both sides – the present and past administrations – have started pointing fingers and let it be stated that it is not this writer’s intention to take sides but put the record straight. The remarks made by some of the past councillors who approved the development are so ludicrous that they have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

Former councillor and current Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk A. Kohillan Pillay who was one of those who went on the toilet inspection trip said what had been approved in 2007 was only a “planning permit” which did not specify the number of storeys.

May be, after all these years he has forgotten terms like “planning permission”; “development order” and other terminology because he is concentrating on foreign policy matters and more travelling. Thus, we shall not burden him compelling him to read the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in its entirety. However, he should not overlook the central concept – the definition of what amounts to development.

“Development” means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. Technically, if you want to build a permanent garage over your driveway, you have to get planning permission or approval.

If “planning permit” was issued, then it would have specified what could be built because the applicant has to submit the proposed plans to be deliberated by the planning department of the council after which they are presented to the council for approval.

You can’t submit plans for a bungalow and then build a condominium. That’s because the council takes into consideration whether existing infrastructure like roads, drains, power, etc would be able to support the development. So to say that it “did not specify the number of storeys” is crass, obtuse and ridiculous. It insults the intelligence of all right-thinking people.

There are no two ways about this matter. Did the council approve the plans and issue a development order? Did the council seek the views of owners of neighbouring property as required by the Act? Because of the sensitivity of its proximity to a place of worship, was there a public hearing?

These questions have to be answered by the council and its councillors who took part in the approval process. They cannot run away from responsibility by giving all kinds of excuses. In the meantime, in the interest of good governance, the state government should order the council to make available all minutes and other related documents so that Malaysians can see for themselves how the decisions were made.

R. Nadeswaran says it would be foolhardy to conclude that discerning Malaysians could be taken for granted and would swallow everything – hook, line and sinker. Comments: [email protected]