I have been a Petaling Jaya resident for almost 50 years, starting with Section 17 after campus, then Section 9 and finally, at Kampung Tunku, PJ for the last 30 years since we bought our home there. Therefore, technically and, as a payer of local taxes, I have legal and legitimate rights to question the Kidex project.

Under the local government bylaws, I have locus standi to not only question and seek answers for my concerns about the possible issuance of a development order by the MBPJ, but also give my formal views before the state government gives their green light to this project.

The recent comments by former councillor Derek Fernandez ( left )  and councillor Cynthia Gabriel in Malaysiakini on the same matter are both referred. Please read them here and here .

Why another privatised highway that benefits only non-residents

We have five children and all of them undertook their local schooling and lower education within the PJ area. Therefore once, when my oldest was in SMK BBBS and in Form 5, my wife enumerated that she had to run in and out of the home at least 18 times in just one day with five kids and all their activities; simply to continue to demonstrate love for children and their all-round education. It of course included all their extra-curricular activities as well.

The only problem was that this was all much easier when the SS2 road at the Taman Megah junction was not yet a highway, and they were different spots on the old road where my wife could cross over from Kampung Tunku or SEA Park or SS4 to Taman Megah, to send our kids to school at SJK(C) Yoke Chai for their primary education. Yes, three of them were learning in Mandarin at primary level.

Her real problems started after the federal government ‘pushed through’ a new privatised highway, which is now called LDP, without consultation with PJ residents, and without due process of consultation as per the MBPJ bylaws. Consequently, her 18 trips include now doing multiple U-turns and much longer journeys instead of simple crossing at local traffic lights; which were now gone to make way for the new highway.

We learnt to forgive the BN government for all this localised abuse after we voted them out in 2008.  

I have now voted and will vote against all such abuse and poor governance through the promotion of crony capitalism, at every general election (GE), regardless of which party fields the candidate. I will also protest whenever such poor governance is visible demonstrated to my public service mind and heart.

Therefore, for all of us who supported and argued for good governance in Malaysia since the 12th GE, it was a refreshing breakthrough when the Pakatan government promised to eliminate all the privatised highways, which I have ONLY called, ‘piratised highways’. It is the award of all such public projects without transparency to ‘pirates’ whose explicit agenda is to ‘steal public funds for private agendas.’  Most of these are more than 50 percent over-priced.

Consequently, any policy reversal by Pakatan is a very serious issue. We, the rakyat, have no choice but to also fight the newer Selangor state government to stop all such further abuse of PJ residents with more ‘piratised’ highways.  We have to rid Selangor of all such abusive and costly highways; once and for all. We need to send a clear signal, to all local governments, that they must learn to listen to the people; if they do not want to be thrown out of office.

Rule of law and good governance

I also attended the Bar Council public lecture on the rule of law recently; as opposed to rule by law. My goal was to also be legally educated about issues.

I learned that any rule of law jurisdiction must follow four basic principles:

2. Legality – i.e. the actions must abide by the rule of law, not rule by law… everyone is under the same law; including public authorities;

3. Legal certainty – i.e. the provisions and standards are certain and well defined;

4. Equality within the rule of law – that is all individuals and other formal legal creations are considered the same under the law; and

Access to full rights and justice for all – that there is a due process of legal redress available for all; especially the aggrieved.

My question to all my fellow PJ residents

Has the Kidex project undergone all such legal requirement under our rule of law principle? Please read the two councillor’s views first.

I think not based specifically on their comments published explicitly by Malaysiakini . They write as persons who iare aware of the issues. Therefore allow me to propose that the MBPJ Local Council first get all details about the project proposal before they can host a public dialogue at the Civic Centre with the following objectives

  • Clarify  and reduce anxiety of all PJ residents affected by the proposed project;
  • Have the Selangor State Planning Agency explain to all residents why this project does not violate the current legal structure plans;
  • State leadership (either MB or another exco member) explain why this project is needed for Selangorians; and
  • Seek endorsement and participation of all affected parties in the state.

I offer and propose to organise and facilitate this session (using our NGO called MiDAS@UNIVERSITIES).  I would also invite lawyer Derek Fernandez to become the people’s ‘informal legal counsel’ representing all the aggrieved parties, and I propose that we then invite the Selangor state government to be the proponents/ supporters of this project; that they come with their legal adviser to make the relevant arguments.

The legal adviser is free to invite and bring along the Kidex promoters; but only to answer technical questions raised by residents after the MBPJ Council makes the full case.

Are such town hall meetings unusual or irrelevant?

When MBPJ called for a hearing on the UM proposal to develop their faculty houses into a health metropolis, I did attend the hearing, but neither the room nor the framing of issues was well handled. In all such public meetings, I really and truly believe it is better to use third party moderators, rather than anyone already included and influenced by the agenda, as an interested party or otherwise.  

The residents of PJ spoke loudly and objected to the proposal on the ground of ‘lack of good and proper transportation studies’ to address the PJ residents concerns. These need to be addressed before residents can ever say ‘Yes’ to this project.

What is wrong if MBPJ hosts such a dialogue or town hall meeting, for all residents to attend and then receive good and honest feedback from taxpayers?

Any government that claims to represent the people must be caring enough to hear views of their local residents; especially those who pay the taxes. Otherwise, our one option is – to find legal ways to stop paying our taxes, since we are merely being used to provide services to ‘developers and their ilk’, without any thought or consideration for those of us who helped develop this locality over the last 50 years with our taxes.  

I rest my case; and my view is that we, the residents of PJ, may simply have to use the courts to stop this abuse of our homes and lifestyles.