I live in the Kampung Tunku area at the fringe of the geography of our local authority, with the Subang Jaya local authority on the outside. Both of these areas were originally under the Land Office jurisdiction of the Petaling District.
This original area is called Sungai Way-Subang One or SS1. It is adjacent to the Sungai Way New Village. Our area was originally developed as a housing cooperative programme for government servants, but over time, the promoters became corrupt and the whole association collapsed under the Mahesan Scheme.
Finally the government took over the housing programme when SPPK Sdn Bhd was first set up with a similar agenda. See details of the news item reported in a UK publication, swarb.co.uk , about the Mahesan case:
April 1, 2013 1.01pm – for UK law
Mahesan -vs- Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society; PC 1978
The appellant, the director and employee of a housing society, was bribed by a real estate agent, one Manickam, and the appellant then caused the society to buy land at an overvalue. The agent was sued for money had and received (for the amount of the bribe paid in breach of the agent’s fiduciary duty) as well as in tort (for the loss suffered by the society for the overvalued land because of the agent’s fraud).
Held: The profit made by an intermediate purchaser, due to the fraud of the agent, was awarded as compensation on the basis that the principal had lost the opportunity to purchase at the lower price. Bribery and corruption are torts. A defrauded principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe, or for damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given. The plaintiffs need not elect between these alternatives before the time has come for judgment to be entered in their favour in one or other of those causes of action.
The reason I state this is the fact that bribery and corruption vide wheeling and dealing within the private sector model was deemed unacceptable by law, even without a public agency responsible for overseeing bribery and corruption. Therefore I find it equally untenable today that public authorities are purchasing items at 40-100 percent more than the original costs of the same services or goods and I find this unacceptable.
Two projects in Kampung Tunku
Recently, the Petaling Jaya City Hall (MBPJ) began two projects within the vicinity of the Kampung Tunku-Taman Aman geography, near the Taman Paramount LRT Station. One appears to be the development of a new parking lot, presumably for the use of LRT users, but what I find not acceptable is that there is no signboard declaring the proposed development order for the project, which is a must for even small projects under the MBPJ bylaws.
Therefore, the following questions for MBPJ:
1. Who is the project promoter, and what is the time frame for the project?
2. Who is the project developer, and what are the project specifications?
3. Who will maintain the parking lot and will it be free for residents, especially if it is developed and paid by taxes of residents?
4. Why is someone already allowing parking and collecting RM3.00 rates? Where does such income go?
5. Is this a public-private initiative, if so, why was there no announcement about the project and invitation for project proposals?
The second project is some kind of so-called “improvement works” in the Taman Aman, where they have dug up a perfectly fine walk-path of concrete and are now re-laying them, for no apparent reason, at least as far as the users of the walkway are concerned.
Therefore, also my following questions:
1. What experience does the project company have to undertake this upgrading job?
2. What exactly does this upgrading involve? As, to us residents, it is not obvious, what is the nature of the improvements? What are the project specifications?
3. Can residents see or view the project specifications and know the costs awarded for this job, so that we the residents know where our monies are being expended?
4. The project time frame seems rather laxed for what appears to be a rather small project. So why should it take so long and upset all of us walkers, daily?
5. As someone who frequents the park daily, I have yet to observe the actual workers who are supposed to be doing the job, but it cannot be more than a few workers, based on the slow rate of progress of the project.
In an earlier column, I had written about the need for Citizen Rangers, who are volunteers who choose to report on the progress or lack thereof, for improvements in the public areas and arenas of life. A Ranger is a resident or netizen, who chooses to voluntarily report on “phenomena in any geography” and bring it to the attention of the local authority, so that we can get some answers to questions we might have.
Therefore, this is my report about the progress, or lack thereof, in the Kampung Tunku vicinity of Petaling Jaya. I hope we can get many more voluntary members who will monitor and report on similar issues of great interest to local residents and netizens in our spaces of life.
Nevertheless, allow me to congratulate and thank the Petaling Jaya City Hall’s Dog Unit for getting rid of the pack of dogs which were attacking the residents in the Taman Aman area. That constituted my first set of reports. At least for now, it appears that the dogs are not in our spaces of walking and talking.
