\"\"

We are a country of laws, but not yet a country of justice. We usually rule by law; but do not practice enough rule of law. Rule of law requires all of us to come under the same set of laws and rules. Today we are a rule of the few, for the few, and maybe even by the few. Although Umno claims to represent 3.5million members, only about 3,000 of them define all their truths and reality.

The participation of non-Malay parties in the so-called Barisan Nasional or BN is completely shameful because they do not matter at all. It is only the 3,000 Umno members who decide the choice and determine the direction of this nation-state. We have a lame-duck PM who is facing serious assertions and accusation against his credibility from within Umno, but he continues unfazed by simply rearranging furniture on the Malaysian Titanic.

The last attorney-general was removed, allegedly without just cause. Now, the governor of the Central Bank will not have her term renewed. Both of them had access to the full 1MDB investigations and have interests in its outcome. Two MACC officers were transferred, and then they were reinstated .

I am therefore reminded of Emperor Nero partying while Rome burned to the ground. It was argued by historians that he may have been actually responsible for starting the fire simply to build and relocate his new palace. But who knows?

Green rape or theft?

The Friends of Bukit Kiara, or FoBK, is a registered NGO which focuses on preserving Bukit Kiara as a green lung for Kuala Lumpur and for use of all the residents and citizens of Malaysia. Anyone can and will enjoy a walk in this park and climbing up and down the many routes, and tracks available there. Much like the Lake Gardens; this green space must be declared a green lung as per original plans.

In fact in 2007, the Malaysian cabinet directed the whole of the 189-hectare (467acres) of Bukit Kiara be gazetted as a green lung. I understand it has yet to be gazetted. Through the years, many plots of such green lands were distributed to the well-connected. Now we learn that the acreage to be gazetted next year has been reduced to 159 hectares. Not sure whether this figure will be further reduced come next year.

Rather unfortunately though, some of us have found a signboard which states that some works are to be carried out, but then we also hear rumours that the earth and other drainage works for this project are costing Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) about RM300 million. Is this true?

The role of maintaining this green lung for the last few years is now the responsibility of the National Landscape Department or JLN. Only DBKL can be transparent about the real plans for this now preserved and protected green lung.

The land owner of Bukit Kiara is DBKL. A company even went to extent of taking legal action against DBKL to force the latter to lease them a 69.845-acre plot (Lot No 50642). DBKL lost the case but what was surprising was that they never filed an appeal despite the cabinet decision to make the whole of Bukit Kiara green.

To demarcate this plot, which they claim, the company has quickly erected a high fence called the ‘Great Wall of BK’ (a 3.5m-high fence along a 4.7km stretch).

Fearing for its unknown future of this green lung, the FoBK mobilised its third ‘Save Bukit Kiara’ Walk recently and I attended as my classmate and walker invited me to attend. There I met also the famous ‘Captain Maniam,’ our well known informal Mayor of Bukit Kiara Hill who walks daily.

Everyone who walks regularly knows Captain Maniam, the former pilot with MAS who lives nearby. The photo shows the columnist ( centre in photo ) with Leo Moggie ( left in photo ) and Jawhar Hassan at FoBK Walk on Jan 31, 2016.

\"\"

My question to DBKL – is the theft of such a green lung not called theft or rape? Theft means it is stolen land even if the land was legitimately allocated but not done transparently and not sold vide public sale. It is rape if the original land was designed, planned, and approved for a green lung for public interest but somehow, without a transparent process, the same piece of land was ‘allocated to some business entity, without any public disposal process’.

It is rape and theft, as it has already been established by the Subang Ria case; when it was established that when the development of the green lung encroaches upon the well-being of the residents already living in this location.

Is this then a theft/rape model?

Let me try and articulate or postulate how all such rape and theft takes place in all public authorities but which the federal land and local government authorities, plus state land offices, close one eye on these matters and then get amnesia for various reasons. I got some advice from a legal counsel familiar with land and local government laws, and all related by-laws.

  • Federal land Code authorises the related bodies to ‘alienate’ any of its lands to anyone, usually for some kind of payment;
  • The Town and Country planning laws allow each local authority to designate their parcels of land by different purposes and uses as different categories of land use;
  • Usually this is quite clearly reflected in the council’s Structure Plan and all district councils and city councils are subject to these laws and by-laws;
  • They classify and define the different classifications of the land, and any development order (DO) must take cognisance of the structure plan and abide by these classifications;
  • Therefore, all approved development plans recognise the classifications and paint them in different colours for the green lung and spaces; usually green;
  • The goal of the structure plan is to create longer term certainty abd sustainability in terms of planning assumptions and the building or roads, drains and bridges. These have to be planned based on population demands of the future;
  • The planning parameters are usually defined by future population density and the plot ratios thereby approved;
  • The Land Code defines these national and public interest priorities and profits for owners is definitely not one of them;
  • Such planning is for the purpose of predictability and for good, transparent development agenda;
  • There can be no development without local authority plans and approval in 80 percent of Malaysia;
  • All inconsistencies between these planning assumption and the land use structure does not change without appropriate authorities colluding for this to take place;
  • This is high-level corruption of both intent and purpose. Such a deviation or violation is now called fashionably ‘maqasid syariah’ or the higher purpose of the syariah;
  • In the case of the Land Code case it is also related to what is called the higher purpose of the land code and structural plans. Violation against these is also unethical and moral corruption even when one holds the land title.

My question to all authorities

When the original purpose of the law or code is violated, is this not always a violation? Is this not what is called the tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law? Is this not what in philosophy is called both context and content?

The now famous American judge appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States recently passed away at the age of 79. He was called an ‘originalist’ in terms of legal interpretations and jurisprudence. Originalism is not simply fashion, or the latest brand name, it is always the principle that defines the ‘author’ of the rules and laws.

From the authors, we usually get the word and meanings of ‘authority’ as defined by the same set of laws. The framers of the constitution are usually the ‘authors’ of that piece of law and therefore the motive of being an originalist in legal jurisprudence.

May God help Malaysians understand his view and values on the green environment.