On Thursday morning a week ago, while at the Institute of Integrity for an informal meeting, I received an urgent phone-call from my friend, a 62 year old mechanic whom I have known since 1975.

His third business home (as a small business operator in PJ) was again going to be demolished.

The first one he rented from MPPJ in 1970 when he was only 25 years old. It was in Section 8 of Petaling Jaya, what used to be called the \”automotive valley.\”

They were all (about 50 of them) chased out for reasons that remain unknown but the place was handed over to a private developer for bigger and better shop-lots which benefited business tycoons but which left the small business operators without an operating premise.

To this day, my friend does not understand why he was chased out of a legitimate MPPJ-owned piece of property but all done in the name of development by the Local Council and their allies.

Then he was kicked out with a token compensation which I hear was reputed to have been paid by the local councilman.

Why so, the mystery still remains up till today, and my friend says he will never trust the politician who is still a Member of Parliament.

Last Thursday was the second time of his experience of another day, in his own words, \”the worst day of my life\”.

He and two others had been occupying a TOL land belonging to Petaling Land Office since 1995. One of them had purchased the TOL for a 10 year period which ended 2005. Then it was never renewed, even though they had applied for the same piece of land, neither were they given the reasons.

Three months ago they suddenly received a notice from the PJ Land Office giving them one month to move out as the land had been approved for development.

My friend sought my help as a civil society organization, and I further sought the help of our state representative.

My friend was given another week to move out before the enforcement agents of MBPJ came with their brutal might to demolish and create fear, steal private property and abuse individuals who stood in the way.

\’Kita kuli sahaja\’

Such might has no fear for what is right also, so it would seem! I asked one of the officers, if they know who really owned the land?

They did not know, but claimed \” kita kuli sahaja! \” (We are only workers!)

My reply was, \” kuli pun Tuhan bagi kita otak dan hati untuk memikir dan menentu kebenaran sesuatu perkara .\” (Workers too have the brains to think and determine the truth).

I might as well have been talking to the wall!

The long and short of the issue was that my friend and his partner, with the help of our state representative were given a concessionary ground floor shop-lot in low cost flats to be built by the developers (a well-known private developer) with a discount of RM 7,000.

My friends business since 1975 has to close down and his two workers are now without a job and he has no choice but to decide to give up his business all together.

Is this justice, by any stretch of our imagination? Who really cares for the small man business operators? The government? MBPJ? Elected assemblyman or Councilors? That responsibility seems to befall upon community service organizations to come forward to address the truth of any such matter.

All other actors and players seem to have compromised on the core issue of the real public interest of such subject matter.

At the 4th National Conference on Integrity, Johor Baru MP Shahrir Samad had raised an excellent rhetorical question, \”whose interests should the elected politicians really serve?\”

Do they seek to serve their own selfish interests (often framed for getting re-elected, like the close one-eye case), or the larger interests of their own party (often called crony capitalism) or are they elected to serve some very obvious and ugly self-interest (the Zakaria Mat Deros case) or do they seek to serve the larger interests of the electorate?

Shahrir argued that he always sought to serve the interests of the electorate. He even explained how he does it for his entire constituency; even in terms of ensuring that only the \”right people are appointed to the right positions\” to serve the constituents.

As the BN head of the constituency, he ensures all related appointments are vetted by him.

At least theoretically, that is a model for how good governance can be achieved at the local level, if the MP of the government of the day is genuinely interested to serve the public interest.

The MP for the area becomes the spokesperson and defender of the public interest, and therefore assumes the overall responsibility for good governance which can be regarded as a key responsibility.

The MP therefore can also become the public complaints bureau for the problems in the constituency.

Citizen\’s participation

Premised on this practical view of party politics within the ruling coalition, Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI) launched a Citizen Eyes project for ordinary citizens to participate in improving local governance by becoming the eyes and ears for good governance.

The idea is very simple: take a digital picture of an \”UGHLY SITE\” (pun intended) and do a simple write-up and send the picture with your particulars to the OHMSI website .

After review and authentication, what your Citizen Eyes see will be published on our website. It is the citizen\’s demand for action by the MP.

Can they really ignore such good and public spirited interests of citizens to participate towards improved local governance?

Getting back to my friend and his car repair workshop, I have so many questions which need answers.

How is it that my friend was able to rent an MPPJ business lots for small operators and then he is kicked out by the same people who explicitly developed that piece of land for such a purpose?

Why did not MPPJ plan to the resettlement of the same business operators whom they had encouraged and recognized as legitimate for promoting the improved development of Petaling Jaya?

Whose responsibility is it to provide space and premises for the proper development of a city, especially for service providers like the small business operator?

Why would the Petaling Land Office simply take over the land already leased to the temporary operators without any form of reasonable compensation or alternative site?

Whose interests is the PJ Land Office really serving by acquiring the said land, without an alternative site being provided?

If there was in fact a serious plan to develop the land, why was the notice not given in 1995, when the TOL was not renewed, and an alternative site offered to the operators?

What appears to an outsider is that MPPJ, the local politicians and the private developer are only interested in the interests of the large developer of the land. Why? How is it that the interests of the large developer is protected and preserved by the local politician but no one is too concerned about the interests of the small business operator?

Justice for the small man

I hope someone from the local government institutions either at the federal level or at the local level can answer these questions of mine.

I believe that there are answers and only with transparent and open answers can the public come to the conclusion as to whose real interests all the actors and players are serving.

The only thing I am absolutely sure is that the private developer is only doing it for the profit motive.

But, what about the others; whether MPPJ, the local elected politicians, and especially the appointed local councilors, whose interests do you really serve?

I know whose interest they are supposed to serve, but my question is in this particular case, whose interests did they serve and why these and not other interests?

Whose responsibility is it to ensure and preserve justice for the small man?