Tuesday, 6 December 2011

lembah permai residents say no to high rise

'No' to high-rises in Lembah Permai

SOME 70 residents of Jalan Lembah Permai and Lorong Lembah Permai 1 to 5 staged a peaceful protest against a proposal for two 32-storey apartment towers and a nine-storey block in the neighbourhood.

Development

The site of the proposed development.

The residents also spoke for an hour and 20 minutes with Tanjung Bungah assemblyman Teh Yee Cheu.

Chris Tewson, who has lived with his wife Chan Phaik Ngoh in Lorong Lembah Permai 4 for 11 years, said most residents there were not aware of the changes in the developer's construction plans, which he claimed was being altered for the third time.

Tewson also alleged that only two residents had received notification of the objection hearing.

"The residents are wondering if this could be a tactic to reduce the number of objections," he said.

He said the residents were objecting to the proposed development because of the anticipated increase in traffic, which was already heavy in  Jalan Lembah Permai.

"Jalan Fettes, the winding road that joins to Jalan Lembah Permai, was not so jammed years ago. However, there have been numerous bad accidents in Jalan Fettes in recent years.

"The residents here are fed up with the traffic jams," Tewson said, adding that the proposed development would bring a few thousand vehicles into the neighbourhood.

He said Lorong Lembah Permai 4 had, for the past 30 years, been zoned for single-storey detached bungalows, and was currently restricted to two-storey buildings by the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP).

He said it was unreasonable to construct tower blocks just six  metres from single and double-storey dwellings.

"The residents also object to any access road from Lorong Lembah Permai 4 to the proposed development," said Tewson.

The residents questioned why it was not proposed for the development to be located adjacent to the international school and commercial area instead of near the single and double-storey houses.

Chan said letter requesting a dialogue session with MPPP president Patahiyah Ismail was hand-delivered on Nov 29, but it had yet to receive a reply.

Monday, 5 December 2011

Listen to experts and islanders

Listen to experts and islanders

HERITAGE is a tricky issue, well at least for Penang. It is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

  After all, it was no easy feat for George Town to make it on to   the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's prestigious World Heritage List  in July 2008.

  Those involved in the painstaking process would attest to it.

Penangites, especially heritage aficionados, are willing to go the extra mile to ensure that George Town stays on the list for a  long time to come.

  Recently, flood alleviation works taking place within the heritage enclave has set alarm bells ringing among heritage activists. This is not the first time such an issue has been raised by activists.    

  Previously, there were  controversies over  abandoned pre-war houses  and   swiflet farming.

  Penang Citizens' Awareness Chant  said it was not against  development but felt that any works should carried out  in a manner which did not jeopardise  George Town's  world heritage site status.

  A member of the group, Rebecca Duckett-Wilkinson, who is also Penang Heritage Trust council member, said the ongoing works were being carried out without taking into consideration the structural make-up of the buildings around the project site.

  She said some structures were  being compromised as a result of digging works. She said the group was concerned that the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) had resorted to using concrete covers which would further aggravate the situation in the event of flooding as concrete does not allow for the absorption and evaporation of water.

  The group is understandably worried   as it has experts who  have in-depth knowledge of  the consequences of such flood alleviation methods. They have done their homework on the old drainage system and how the new system will worsen the situation.

  All they are asking for is  that the  state authorities seek their views before  proceeding with projects within the heritage enclave. Is that too much to ask?

  Wouldn't it be better for the state government to consult the experts to ensure that projects are carried out properly, rather than end up having to pump in more money to rectify problems  afterwards.

  Penangites are passionate about every sen spent on projects, especially if they result in unintended consequences.

  As Duckett-Wilkinson rightly puts it: "There is no point spending RM500,000 on some works and because the result is undesirable, spend another RM500,000 to rectify the initial works".

  This kind of wastage can be avoided. Penang belongs to all Penangites. As such, they  have every right to speak their minds  for  the good of the state and its residents.



Read more: Listen to experts and islanders - Northern - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/streets/northern/listen-to-experts-and-islanders-1.14961#ixzz1fcwSsxI6

Sunday, 4 December 2011

咖哩粉党劫网咖杀顾客案 警方已掌握1凶手身分


咖哩粉党劫网咖杀顾客案 警方已掌握1凶手身分

  • 绰号“阿boy”的嫌犯脸部拼图。

(槟城30日讯)“咖哩粉党劫网咖杀顾客”一案,警方已掌握其中一名凶手的身分并取得脸部拼图,相信近日内可缉拿此名凶手及另一名同伙归案。

嫌犯绰号“阿boy”

槟州刑事调查主任查鲁丁助理总监今日指出,根据网咖目击者的描述,两名凶徒皆是20余岁的巫裔男子,警方已取得其中一名嫌犯的脸部拼图,并获知此人绰号是“阿boy”,相信也是住在武拉必的当地人。

“根据目击者描述而拼出的嫌犯脸部拼图,警方相信与嫌犯的真面目有90%相似。”

他说,警方前几天已几近将嫌犯逮捕归案,可惜让对方逃脱,但基于警方已掌握对方的相关资料,相信近日内可再将对方逮捕。

盼公众提供情报

他指出,根据调查,两名凶徒在杀害死者的同时,也抢走网咖柜台的700令吉现金,警方已援引刑事法典第302条文即谋杀罪名,并以谋财害命的角度展开调查。

他说,无论如何,警方促请公众向警方提供更多的资料及情报,让警方的调查工作能够更尽快完成,公众可联络此案查案官旺海鲁丁,电话号码是017-520 0074。

顾客抗匪遭刺死

案件于26日清晨5时半在大山脚武拉必一间网咖内发生,死者是37岁的何顺来,他当时是网咖内的顾客,事发时有两名佯装顾客的巫裔男子上门,先用咖哩粉撒向两名店员,再抢走柜台的现金,后来凶徒也抢走何顺来的钱包,何顺来相信是反抗而遭下毒手,肚子被对方用武士刀刺伤,伤势严重而被送院抢救,但因大肠外露而伤重不治。

武拉必华青命案 警疑为寻仇非劫杀

对于大山脚武拉必华青命案,警方已排除谋财害命因素,暂循复仇角度展开调查。

身上财物未失

槟州刑事调查主任查鲁丁今早在槟州总警局召开记者会指出,警方已援引刑事法典有关谋杀的第302条文调查此案,目前未确知杀人动机,但相信是仇杀,因死者身上财物未失。

他说,37岁的未婚死者是一名网络中心的店员,事发时正与友人在神庙前聚会,有4名凶徒突然出现,其中一人把死者揪出庙外,再联手殴打死者。

他指出,虽然4名嫌犯干案时皆戴雪帽,面貌看不清楚,但根据目击者口供,相信嫌犯都是华裔男子,其中三人分持棒球棍及巴冷刀袭击死者,后者头破血流及右手险被砍断,躺在血泊中奄奄一息,不久便断气。

他说,凶徒砍死人后,跳上一辆深色轿车逃走,在场的死者友人未被袭击,皆无恙。

“死者遗体已在诗布朗再也医院太平间解剖,警方正追缉4名凶徒。”

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Established housing areas no increase of density allowed




Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 26, 2011 15:27:23 GMT+08:00
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press




मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 26, 2011 15:23:04 GMT+08:00
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press

add that roads in the vicinity r too narrow.

Because of trees u cannot widen the roads.

Establishd housing area density shall not be allowed to increase.


मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 11, 2011 17:48:47 GMT+08:00
To: sharanjit <sharannst@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press

hi

Maybe you can add this.

Say something to the effect that a lot of people in Penang do not understand or are aware that they can object to the MPPP when a high density development is being proposed by a developer.

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1975 MPPP only have to inform neighbours who are 20 meters from the boundary line. In 1975 buildings are only mostly  double storeys and density 6units per acre.

Today they are trying to build 87 units per acre and 30 storeys, surely what was intended in the Act has to change today. Neighbours 2km away will be affected as well.

Penang people if they need help can email the Penang Citizen Awareness Chant Group email is 
citizenchant.group@gmail.com or call 0124846682 for assistance.

मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: yan lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 10, 2011 12:38:23 GMT+08:00
To: sharannst@gmail.com
Subject: 20 pykett

S

Below I have set out in point form issues relating to this development as mentioned yesterday.

I heard rumours that they have accepted the donation to the Heritage fund.

In relation to density, this new 2.8 plot ratio seems a bit suspect as no formal announcements made by the PGGOV, only write ups are announce by Rehda's Jerry Chan and Khor Ting Tong of Hunza, kinda odd. [maybe u can get some1 to check your archives]

No public consultation done. 

Maybe we should ask about what is the function of this SPC [State Planning Commission]

I have also attached some pictures which are relevant to points I have raised below.

Catch up soon

Regards

=======================================================

There is concerns expressed by the residents of Pykett, Khaw Sim Bee , Westlands and Padang Victoria about the intended development on the above property.

PENANG IS NOW A UNESCO HERITAGE CITY, please don't forget that and Malaysia has just won a seat in the WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE. ANNOUNCED TODAY 9/11/11.


We question the following :-

a. The illegal demolition of the building, why rebuilding not started ?? Unconditional rebuild order issued by the MPPP since January 2011.


b. why MPPP have not penalised the landowner for not starting rebuilding works as allowed for in the Town n Country Planning Act. A daily fine can be imposed.

IS OUR HERITAGE FOR SALE ??
IF THE LANDOWNER IS ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO A HERITAGE FUND AS PUNISHMENT, ALL OUR HERITAGE BUILDINGS IN TOWN ARE NOT SAFE

CONTRIBUTE MORE AND YOU CAN DEMOLISH KHOO KONGSI !!


c. concerns about traffic

d. concerns about parking
in the event project allowed to start, each unit must have two car parks.

visitors car parks to be provided, at least 100 units strictly for visitors, to be in common area


e. concerns about sewrage and drainage and water pressure in the area

f. concerns about flooding, every time it rains there is flooding, with the raising of the level of the new development and water run off from 4 blocks of 30 storeys. This need to be studied and addressed.

MPPP Engineering informed us at our last meeting 6 months ago that thee was some upgrading of the drainage system planned, but to date no further information or work had commenced yet. By this MPPP is aware that there is a problem with the underground drainage system.


g. every time it rains the man holes on Perak Road near Dunn Road, due to force of water it will explode and blow out. There must be a problem with the underground sewrage system. All MPPP have done is to patch up the manhole area.

h. A social impact assesment to be done and displayed for public comment and feedback, This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

i A Traffic impact assesment study o be done and displayed for public comment and feedback.This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

j. An Environmental impact assesment report and displayed for public comment and feedback. This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

k. In the event the project is allowed to start, a condition shall be for the developer to prepare a Dilapidation survey report of the surrounding buildings, this shall prevent any disputes later.

l. All trees on the said land shall be marked and highlighted and as stipulated in the Town and Country planning Act, trees of girth more then 800mm , MPPP has to approve before the land owner is allowed to chop down the trees.

m. There is some 200 households living in our area.


On issue of density

aa. This area under the zoning plan , allowable density is 15 units per acre.


bb. Landowner has submitted for 294 units.

cc. Under garis panduan from MPPP on the increase density to 2.8 plot ratio. It is stated clearly that this density cannot be applied for "established housing" area. This is the case for the Pykett area.

dd. If you check your archives no official announcement made by Penang Government on this , but announced by Khor Ting Tong and Jerry Chan of REHDA

MPPP has to be responsible to the people, MPPP is run by elected representative of the people. All the recommended studies must be done and displayed for public comment and feedback. When the recommendations are implemented then only the Local council can allow this huge development to proceed.

Why not build a high end gated and guarded development, with Terraces houses, Semi - Ds and Bungalows. Penang is ready for a Gated Guarded Community. This is sustainable development.

Perak Road


Perak Road Cnr Dunn Road


Perak Rd near Logan Rd.

Structure of local councils and role of councillors

Structure of local councils and role of councillors

We need to lobby for all important decisions and minutes of meetings to be made available on both the Penang councils' websites and for the actual council meetings to be opened to the public, says Lim Kah Cheng.

MPPP Councillor Lim Kah Cheng speaking before the historic Penang Forum 3 elections to select civil society's nominees to serve as MPPP and MPSP councillors for 2011 - Photo by Anil Netto

The Municipal Council of Penang has a long and proud history of local elections with the first elections being held way back in 1857. Its long history, however, also partly explains why the MPPP (Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang or Penang Island Municipal Council) is such a "dinosaur" today. It is overwhelmed with tons of documents, some dating back to the 19th century, lots of property which it is not managing well, and some ancient by-laws which have not been revised.

The Municipal Council of George Town was established in 1857, the first local authority in Malaya, after Singapore. Three out of five municipal commissioners were elected by a limited franchise, but these elections were abolished in 1913.

In 1951, local elections were re-introduced for nine of the 15 commissioners for George Town. By 1956, George Town had become the first municipality in the Federation of Malaya to have a fully-elected council, with Councillor G H Goh of the Alliance Party as its first President.

On 1 January 1957, George Town became a city by a royal charter granted by Queen Elizabeth II, becoming the first town in Malaysia to become a city. The first Mayor was Councillor D S Ramanathan of the Labour Party.

In 1965, the Federal Government suspended local elections. At that time, the City Council of George Town was the richest local authority in the country.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry under Senator Athi Nahappan, reporting in 1968, recommended the restoration of elected local councils, but this was never carried out.

Instead the Local Government Act 1976 provided for non-elected local councils and the local council areas in Penang were permanently merged into the two municipal councils: Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP) and Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai (MPSP).

Since 1966, as a result of administrative re-organisations, the City of George Town no longer exists as a legal entity and does not appear in the list of cities published by the Federal Government although the City of George Town Ordinance 1957 had not been repealed. Space does not allow me to elaborate on this on-going debate.

Governing laws/legal structure of local authorities

The powers of local authorities are provided under the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA).

The relationship between the State Government and the local authority is spelt out under Sections 9 and 10 of the LGA.

S. 9: Power of State Authority to issue directions
(1) The State Authority may from time to time give the local authority directions of a general character, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, on the policy to be followed in the exercise of the powers conferred and the duties imposed on the local authority by or under this Act in relation to matters which appear to the State Authority to affect the interests of the local authority area, and the local authority shall as soon as possible give effect to all such directions.

S.10. Councillors
(7) If the Mayor or President does not agree with the other Councillors as to the exercise of any of his powers or of the powers of the local authority, he shall refer the matter to the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of the State whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the local authority.

PART III of the LGA provides for the appointment and discipline of officers and employees of the local authorities. This is important as the local authorities need to assert more control over the performance of their staff instead of being held back by the Public Service Department.

PART IV of the LGA provides for the conduct of business by local authorities. I would like to emphasise the democratic powers provided under Sections 23 and 27 of the LGA which should be fully restored in practice.

S. 23. Meetings of local authority to be public
All meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public and to representatives of the Press unless the local authority by resolution at the meeting otherwise decides:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any Committee of the local authority unless such Committee by resolution otherwise decides.

Over the years, the full council meetings which are open to the public are shortened to just approving decisions already made in the Committees which are not open to the public. There is a need to restore the original spirit of this section.

S.27. Minutes ….
(3) The minutes of all proceedings…. shall be kept at the office of the local authority and shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection of any Councillor or rate-payer of the local authority area and of any officer of the Government of the Federation or of the State…., any of whom may at all reasonable times make a copy of any part thereof without fee.

In the name of transparency and accountability, we need to lobby for the minutes of all proceedings to be made available on both councils' websites and for all applications for planning permissions, building plans, etc to be displayed there as well.

Other provisions of the LGA include Financial Provisions, Control of Public Places, Pollution of Streams, Food, Markets, Sanitation and Nuisances, By-Laws and Penalties, and Rating and Valuation.

The Town And Country Planning Act 1976 provides for the proper control and regulation of town and country planning, development plans, tree preservation, the Appeals Board, etc

The Street, Building and Drainage Act, 1974, (which precedes the LGA) consolidates laws relating to street, drainage and building in local authority areas. It is the enabling legislation for the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 (UBBL), which control construction/inspection of structures, technical requirements for fire prevention, structural integrity, electrical wiring, ventilation and sanitary facilities.

I wish to emphasise By-law 34A of the Uniform Buildings By-Lawswhich was gazetted in Penang on 11 November 1993. These by-laws make it mandatory for all buildings (except for existing shop houses and single family private dwelling houses) to provide access to disabled persons to get into, out of and within the buildings. Those built before the commencement of these by-laws must be altered to comply within three years of commencement. Unfortunately they are largely not adhered to.

The Road Transport Act 1987 provides regulation of motor vehicles and traffic on roads and parking, protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles, etc. It is the enabling legislation for local authorities to regulate car parking provisions.

Work of councillors

All councillors must attend the ordinary meetings (Mesyuarat Biasa Majlis, MBM) of the local authorities which take place once a month to:

  • be informed of the decisions of the One Stop Centre (OSC), which is the committee that considers all the applications for planning permission and other plans. Only four councillors sit in the OSC together with the President of the Council and other officers;
  • confirm the decisions of the Committees;
  • seek clarifications and sometimes debate on issues which rarely happens as the councillors expect their fellow councillors to respect each other's decisions;
  • make policy speeches; and
  • meet the press.

The structure of the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) (click to enlarge)

All Councillors are appointed to two to four committees and each committee meets at least once a month. The Committees are:

  • Pentadbiran dan Kewangan (MPSP)
  • Pengurusan Kewangan (MPPP)
  • Pelesenan dan Penguatkuasa (MPSP)
  • Penguatkuasaan dan Pendidikan Awam (MPPP)
  • Lalulintas dan Infrastruktur (MPSP and MPPP)
  • Pembangunan dan Pengindahan (MPSP)
  • Perancangan Pemajuan (MPPP)
  • Pusat Setempat (OSC) (MPSP and MPPP)
  • Kesihatan Awam (MPPP only)
  • Pihak Berkuasa Perlantikan dan Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib (MPPP and MPSP)
  • Tender Boards (MPPP and MPSP)

Most councillors also take part in the following:

  • Technical committees or task forces, e.g. review building guidelines, address problems, cemetery, poverty programme, bus stops, review of rent, dealing with stray cows, etc;
  • Interviews of applicants, e.g. for jobs, licences;
  • Visits to Council properties, Pulau Burung dump site, IWK treatment plants and sites, etc;
  • Inspections e.g. of eateries, advertisement buntings and streamers;
  • Briefings by and meetings with other parties, eg the SPCA, contractors (wishing to provide alternative LED lighting or to put up bus stops), solid waste, etc;
  • Official functions organized by the Penang State Government;
  • Functions of other organisations e.g. clan associations, museum, etc;
  • Handling complaints by members of the public;
  • Informal meetings with officers of the Councils, JKR, JPS; etc
  • Pre-MBM (for MPPP only) and drafting of minutes.

Role of councillors

It is my view that the role of the councillors is to:

  • work to achieve the vision of the council. In MPPP the motto is "Leading We Serve". Both councils adopt the State Government's CAT principles. As an NGO representative, I work to promote the objectives set out in the Penang Forum Declaration;
  • shape policies – e.g. on hawkers, use of open spaces, illegal structures, traffic, tender procedures, use of resources e.g. renting of premises;
  • plan budgets/oversee expenses and income, e.g. every month we check on income, expenses, arrears owing and consider applications for use of council properties;
  • oversee the work of the officers/staff;
  • act as a bridge between local authorities and rate payers;
  • check abuse and corruption;
  • hold constructive dialogues with the state and federal departments;
    help solve problems, e.g. stray animals;
  • not just address the symptoms but look for longer term solutions, e.g. congestion related to car park provisions, public transport, bus stops and pavements, by-laws;
  • promote positive values, e.g. racial unity, good governance, gender equality, empathy for the disadvantaged groups

Prerequisites of a councillor

  • Personal integrity, honesty and humility;
  • Ability to make time for council work, which is a lot, including time needed to do 'homework', e.g. read minutes and seek information;
  • Mature enough to shoulder heavy responsibilities, especially when the councils are dealing with budgets of over RM200 million a year;
  • Some form of expertise to contribute;
  • A desire to serve the people;
  • Ability to be constructive;
  • No hidden agenda for self enrichment or power;
  • A vision and a passion to achieve that vision.
  • Courage to stand up for what s/he believes in and to speak up even if in the minority.

I can only conclude with an appeal: please vote wisely for the civil society representatives to be nominated to the local authorities.

Lim Kah Cheng, an MPPP Councillor, made the above presentation at the Penang Forum 3 elections held on 14 November 2010.

TALK TO US - PENANG'S NGO MADE A REQUEST TO THE PGGOV

'Talk to us before you do anything'

Heritage conservation groups want government to consult the experts and the people before starting projects in the city

 Jalan Sungai Ujong

Heritage activists are concerned that MPPP is using concrete covers for the drains in Jalan Sungai Ujong, which forms part of George Town's heritage enclave. Pic by Asman Ibrahim

GEORGE TOWN: HERITAGE conservation groups here are urging the state government to talk to them before embarking on any kind of work in the city's heritage areas.

 Penang Heritage Trust (PHT) council member Rebecca Duckett-Wilkinson said this was to prevent damage to George Town and subsequent jeopardy of its status as a Unesco World Heritage Site.

  "We are not against any work... however, we are of the opinion that it should not be done at the expense of  the prestigious listing.

  "It will be good for the state authorities to get public feedback before it proceeds with any work so as to ensure it does not have to do rectification work."

  The Penang Island Municipal Council's  (MPPP) ongoing work to mitigate floods in the city centre has met with protests from NGOs.

MPPP is upgrading  and widening drains in Lebuh Cintra, Lebuh Kimberly, Jalan Lim Chwee Leong, Jalan Kuala Kangsar and Jalan Sundai Ujang.

  Duckett-Wilkinson said the NGOs were not objecting for the sake of objecting, but because they felt that the work should be carried out in a proper manner.

  She said the work was being carried out without taking into consideration the structural  make-up of the building around the project site.

  She said digging work had compromised the structures of some buildings, while the council's use of concrete covers would aggravate the very flood situation it was trying to mitigate as concrete does not allow the absorption and evaporation of water.

  "MPPP has not  understood the structural make-up of the heritage drainage system.

 "If the state authorities had consulted the NGOs and stakeholders, we would have advised them and the  situation could have been averted."

 It was love for the state that had prompted the newly-established Penang Citizens' Awareness Chant  to speak out, said member Prof Dr Jimmy Lim.

  "As Penang people, we only want what is best for the state and the people it is better for us to speak out now before it is too late.  Lim suggested that the authorities carry out public surveys  before proceeding with projects.



Read more: 'Talk to us before you do anything' - Northern - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/streets/northern/talk-to-us-before-you-do-anything-1.13169#ixzz1fFdhAbTU