THE Shah Alam City Council’s (MBSA) amended guidelines for
the gated-and-guarded scheme is aimed at streamlining the process and avoiding
confusion.
Among the new stipulations is 100% approval from residents
for automated gates and access cards. Approval for manual boom gates is 75%.
Barricades, which must be removable, are only permitted between midnight and
6am.
A guard has to be on duty by the barricade at other times in
the event of an emergency. Security guards are also not allowed to take away
the driver’s MyKad or other documents. Fencing is also not allowed unless the
area is located near a highway, road, river or monsoon drain.
The amended guidelines are based on the state government’s
recommendations, which were sent to 12 local councils.
Shah Alam city councillor Foong Saik Hoong said the
guidelines were meant to resolve or avoid untoward issues.
In recent years, the issue divided residents in existing
neighbourhoods over the implementation of the gated-and-guarded scheme with
local councils being trapped in the middle.
“The conflict often happens with individuals who have
personal agendas. “For it to work, residents associations (RAs) need to be
united,” pointed out Foong,
“If there is a need to fence up the area, residents will
have to apply to change the land status to strata but this means all
maintenance work will be their responsibility instead of the council’s,” said
Foong, adding that this would comprise road maintenance and rubbish collection.
Foong pointed out that some stipulations in the amended
guidelines conflict with federal law such as the Street, Drainage and Building
Act 1974 Section 46 that do not allow temporary buildings or obstructions
without approval. This would include guardhouses and posts but they are allowed
in the state-approved guidelines.
The amended guidelines require that submissions for approval
be made to the One-Stop Centre (OSC) as well as the Planning Department for the
guardhouse, speed breakers, boom gates and road excavation works.
“This way, there will be no illegal works that might pose a
problem later,” said Foong. RAs will also have to apply for a temporary
occupation licence (TOL) from the land office for their guardhouses.
There will also be a one-off payment of RM400 for the
guardhouse per application which was not imposed previously. There is no
requirement to obtain a certificate of completion and compliance (CCC) or
certificate of fitness (CF) for the structure.
RAs will also not be allowed to block any road permanently
or remove pavements to redirect traffic. Foong said approval for the guarded
schemes was previously valid for two years but it has been extended to three
now.
Some RAs expressed concerns about the amended guidelines,
saying it may be tough for them to comply with. Bukit Kayangan Residents
Association president Datuk Helmi Daud said there was no way a neighbourhood
could get 100% approval from residents. “Getting 75% approval is already
difficult, so we had to come up with an alternative solution,” he added.
Helmi said they hired guards who patrol around the
neighbourhood from 7pm to 7am but had no guardhouse. The authorities, he added,
should have consulted the RAs before implementing the guidelines. Kota Kemuning
Residents Association president Allan Lee said 100% consent is too strict.
“It would only take one resident to stall all RA
initiatives,” he said, adding that the strict guidelines made it seem like the
authorities did not care about residents having a safe environment to live in.
Lee said most RAs are run by volunteers who may not have the time and resources
to fulfil all the stringent requirements.
METRO NEWS
By Priya Menon
Friday, 7 Jul 2017
https://www.thestar.com.my/
Below are other similar comments by Selangor residents pertaining to informal GnG schemes in Subang Jaya...
5 comments:
USJ 2 Resident said...
The law is there for a reason, MPSJ should just execute the law. Whether or not G&G is good or bad is not a decision for an individual or even a collection of individuals who work at MPSJ.
All G&G's should be torn down as they are illegal. Placating the dominant few who feel they are right in setting it up is biased. Who audits the validity of approvals that the RA can just easily claim but not easily defend.
The law is there, abide by it.
March 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...
Police reports have been made against the illegal blocking of public roads in USJ2, USJ4 Tudor etc but nothing has been done. Recently residents have even protested in front of TV cameras.
This madness to fence up, gate up and taking over of public roads by a few selfish residents has gone out of hands. Many people are angry with the DAP leaders for originally advocating this.
March 8, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...
commitee members are just out to make a fast buck. I am a resident of USJ2 but i don't know who are the committee members & also who elected them? Why must I support an action that is considered illegal. If Rajiv really want to be reappointed in future he must get MPSJ to stop the nonsence. How many residents are willing to accept a $600.00 increase in assessment pa. I am of the opinion that if all agree to an increase in assessment then MPSJ can afford to employ more enforcement officers to overtake security arrangents for subang jaya.having foreigners guarding the neighbourhood is not a solution & having committee members threatening residents who don't support them is extremely bad bad bad
March 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM
rajiv said...
You don't have to pay a single sen if you choose to. Please report incidents where the committee has harassed any resident into paying.
March 11, 2010 at 10:22 PM
USJ 2 Resident said...
Just because payment is optional, it doesn't mean that non-supporters of GnG must tolerate its over-zealous and vigilante neighbours.
MPSJ should abide and execute the law as it stands, personal opinions of its staff are irrelevant. Rajiv, it's obvious to me that you support GnG, otherwise USJ 2 would be barrier free by now.
Isn't there already sufficient evidence or at least doubts that the 85% minimum for support has not been achieved in USJ 2? How can MPSJ trust an RA and its claims? I've never been asked by anyone whether or not I support the GnG. Furthermore, the RA is set up solely for the GnG, obviously by its supporters. In fact, joining the RA requires you to pay an equivalent amount to what the GnG group is asking for. And yet, MPSJ listens to them just because they claim to speak on behalf of the community.
TV3 has covered this incident, residents have signed protests. What more do we need to do as it seems that MPSJ is blindly allowing GnG in USJ 2 just because its councillors stand by the idea?
The law is clear on the matter. I don't pay my assessments and my taxes to fund enforcers and councils to decide on which law to enact. If I as a Malaysian are bound by all laws, so is MPSJ. It really is as simple as that.
March 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM
THERE was overwhelming response from StarMetro readers to our story on gated and guarded communities in Petaling Jaya entitled “Barricade City” which was published on Monday.
Besides Petaling Jaya, we also received letters from readers staying in Subang Jaya, Kuala Lumpur and even Rawang, where most have come up strongly against the concept.
·Kam from Petaling Jaya:
I live in Jalan SS 24/3 where the house owners have arbitrarily put up oil drums to block off all access roads. There are two schools (Taman Megah & Yuk Chai) nearby. On weekdays the road leading to the area from across would be jammed, holding up traffic going down to the LDP. We already have security guards to look for suspicious characters, so why these barricades?
·Cecilia Choong from SS3, Petaling Jaya:
I do not agree with this growing idea of guarding individual communities because:
1. It restricts and hinders people moving in and out.
2. In the event of emergencies it can be dangerous to lives.
3. The guards are foreign nationals and their legal status is in doubt.
4. The possibility of insider jobs greatly increases.
5. The guards monitor our goings-on and know the times when our homes are vacant.
·A non-participating resident:
I observe that residents are led to believe there is a threat because they hear daily news of snatch thefts, burglaries and robberies happening everywhere in the city.
Would a guarded scheme then guarantee personal safety and protection of property?
Not everyone share the belief that the housing estate is under threat at any time. People must also take means to ensure their safety rather than depending on others to protect them.
Most older housing estates are not designed as guarded communities as there is limited space.
No one knows how much it will cost in the future to sustain such a guarded scheme. If the guarded scheme becomes abandoned, would the resident committee be responsible for dismantling all the boomed gates and related accessories or will they be left an ugly sight everywhere?
·Helen Tan:
This is a sickening and selfish act and causes inconvenience to unsuspecting drivers like me, who want to visit friends. People who are not familiar with the roads would have to go round and round to find an entry or exit. One will have a big headache just to get permission from the foreign guards stationed there. They don’t even understand simple English.
Boom gates were also installed on inner public roads in USJ 11 and 13, forcing motorists to use the outer main roads. This is a selfish and senseless approach!
We, the road tax payers and law abiders would like to demand immediate banning of such boom gates and barriers.
·Safety Conscious from Taman Megah:
Individuals or groups of people whether representing some association have NO RIGHT to barricade public roads without approval. Residents used to have many access roads (mind you, these are public roads, not private roads!) but are now completely barricaded with only one access road.
·A Gill:
The government should never legalise these acts (whether in Selangor, in KL or elsewhere) in any form whatsoever and politicians should never lend support to these gated streets but should instead play their role in helping the public in addressing their security needs with the government, the police and local authorities.
Allowing these gated streets would be “opening the floodgates” to allowing the public take the law into their own hands.
Having these private security guards would only encourage the police to “step back” from their primary responsibility of looking after public security.
·Erik Fearn:
If you want private roads, move to a private housing development. Otherwise, respect the right of the rakyat to use the public roads we pay for with our taxes.
If neighbourhood crime is the problem, barricading thousands of public roads throughout the Klang Valley is not the answer.
I wonder if the irony escapes most residents’ committees that by illegally blocking public roads to - somehow - stop law-breakers, they themselves become law-breakers!
·Sia:
The MBPJ should put their foot down and demolish all these “blockades” and FINE the relevant parties.
I am a resident of Bandar Utama and have gotten into many arguments with the security guards who have in the past denied my entry to the roads leading back to my home.
I have even been harrassed by the police for trying to force my way through to get back home, and the policeman tried to put the blame on me for trying to cause a commotion.
It is NOT their right to build illegal barricades and guard houses on public roads as the public roads not only belong to those who want it to be built but also those who do not want to. This is sort of like a VETO where even if one person do not want it to be built, it should not.
·Long time PJ resident from SS3:
Clear guidelines for gated and guarded communities should be given by local authorities and made available to the public.
·Not So Happy from Petaling Jaya:
Perhaps one day the Petaling Jaya map should include the locations of boom gates and oil barrels are located.
For the safety of my children who come back late at night, I joined the security scheme in SS26 but I do not agree to place permanent barrels across the roads.
Besides Petaling Jaya, we also received letters from readers staying in Subang Jaya, Kuala Lumpur and even Rawang, where most have come up strongly against the concept.
·Kam from Petaling Jaya:
I live in Jalan SS 24/3 where the house owners have arbitrarily put up oil drums to block off all access roads. There are two schools (Taman Megah & Yuk Chai) nearby. On weekdays the road leading to the area from across would be jammed, holding up traffic going down to the LDP. We already have security guards to look for suspicious characters, so why these barricades?
·Cecilia Choong from SS3, Petaling Jaya:
I do not agree with this growing idea of guarding individual communities because:
1. It restricts and hinders people moving in and out.
2. In the event of emergencies it can be dangerous to lives.
3. The guards are foreign nationals and their legal status is in doubt.
4. The possibility of insider jobs greatly increases.
5. The guards monitor our goings-on and know the times when our homes are vacant.
·A non-participating resident:
I observe that residents are led to believe there is a threat because they hear daily news of snatch thefts, burglaries and robberies happening everywhere in the city.
Would a guarded scheme then guarantee personal safety and protection of property?
Not everyone share the belief that the housing estate is under threat at any time. People must also take means to ensure their safety rather than depending on others to protect them.
Most older housing estates are not designed as guarded communities as there is limited space.
No one knows how much it will cost in the future to sustain such a guarded scheme. If the guarded scheme becomes abandoned, would the resident committee be responsible for dismantling all the boomed gates and related accessories or will they be left an ugly sight everywhere?
·Helen Tan:
This is a sickening and selfish act and causes inconvenience to unsuspecting drivers like me, who want to visit friends. People who are not familiar with the roads would have to go round and round to find an entry or exit. One will have a big headache just to get permission from the foreign guards stationed there. They don’t even understand simple English.
Boom gates were also installed on inner public roads in USJ 11 and 13, forcing motorists to use the outer main roads. This is a selfish and senseless approach!
We, the road tax payers and law abiders would like to demand immediate banning of such boom gates and barriers.
·Safety Conscious from Taman Megah:
Individuals or groups of people whether representing some association have NO RIGHT to barricade public roads without approval. Residents used to have many access roads (mind you, these are public roads, not private roads!) but are now completely barricaded with only one access road.
·A Gill:
The government should never legalise these acts (whether in Selangor, in KL or elsewhere) in any form whatsoever and politicians should never lend support to these gated streets but should instead play their role in helping the public in addressing their security needs with the government, the police and local authorities.
Allowing these gated streets would be “opening the floodgates” to allowing the public take the law into their own hands.
Having these private security guards would only encourage the police to “step back” from their primary responsibility of looking after public security.
·Erik Fearn:
If you want private roads, move to a private housing development. Otherwise, respect the right of the rakyat to use the public roads we pay for with our taxes.
If neighbourhood crime is the problem, barricading thousands of public roads throughout the Klang Valley is not the answer.
I wonder if the irony escapes most residents’ committees that by illegally blocking public roads to - somehow - stop law-breakers, they themselves become law-breakers!
·Sia:
The MBPJ should put their foot down and demolish all these “blockades” and FINE the relevant parties.
I am a resident of Bandar Utama and have gotten into many arguments with the security guards who have in the past denied my entry to the roads leading back to my home.
I have even been harrassed by the police for trying to force my way through to get back home, and the policeman tried to put the blame on me for trying to cause a commotion.
It is NOT their right to build illegal barricades and guard houses on public roads as the public roads not only belong to those who want it to be built but also those who do not want to. This is sort of like a VETO where even if one person do not want it to be built, it should not.
·Long time PJ resident from SS3:
Clear guidelines for gated and guarded communities should be given by local authorities and made available to the public.
·Not So Happy from Petaling Jaya:
Perhaps one day the Petaling Jaya map should include the locations of boom gates and oil barrels are located.
For the safety of my children who come back late at night, I joined the security scheme in SS26 but I do not agree to place permanent barrels across the roads.
The Star
Community
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009
12:00 AM MYT
Community
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009
12:00 AM MYT
----<<<>>>----
Why is the RA using auto access card system in a guarded neighbourhood?
Since when is the RA allowed to implement auto access card system in a guarded neighbourhood scheme without sufficient consent and approval? Why did the RAs implemented it despite illegal to do so? This is not a gated community!
Even though this has been spelled out clearly in the guidelines, unscrupulous RAs still blatantly disregarded it. Is there an element of corruption, abuse of power, or the RA simply think that they can do whatever they want?
Where is the rule-of-law here? What happened to "Kedaulatan Undang-Undang" under Rukun Negara?
Why are these Guarded Neighbourhood schemes (illegal gated communities) using auto access card system even though they do not have all the residents' agreement? Even strata or private properties are required to have 100% agreement from their residents!
The majority of residents now want the relevant authorities to investigate and put a stop to these illegal practices asap. Residents are urged not to support these schemes anymore!
----<<<>>>----
Dear Residents of Selangor,
How do you know whether your RA chairman is an ethical law-abiding-citizen chairman or a corrupt conman?
Your chairman is a conman when he breaks multiple laws to implement his own GnG scheme so that he can collect monthly fees (some call it toll, others would call it protection money) from the community.
Even though the property developer have clearly stated that the residence is not a gated community, your chairman still want to operate an illegal scheme taking advantage of the grey area and the residents' lack of knowledge in this subject.
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the community the scheme that they are allowed to operate is only an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the residents and the community the differences between a formal gated community scheme (under private/ strata residences) vs. an informal gated community scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he operates an informal gated community scheme as if it is a formal GC scheme. Both schemes are very different, one is legal but the other is actually illegal. (Comparing an illegal scheme to a formal GC scheme is like comparing an apple to a pineapple).
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the community of the limitations of an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he never inform the community what they "can and cannot do" under the local council guidelines while operating an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he instructs his security guards to stop and ask people for ID (such as MyKad or Driver's License), even though it is an offence.
Your chairman is a conman when he instructs his security guards to block the community or anyone that did not join his illegal "GnG" scheme. (Not having a residents' sticker on the windscreen does not give RA the right to stop and check anyone - it is illegal, unlawful and an offence to do so).
Your chairman is a conman when he implements the prohibited card access system in non-private residences without sufficient consent and approval.
Your chairman is a conman when he breaks the laws to stop the community from moving in and out freely. (It is illegal and unlawful requiring residents of non-private residences to register at the guardhouse every time; it is also illegal and unlawful to stop others from access).
Your chairman is a conman when he has no regards for the laws, the rights of others and he thinks he owns the entire residence. He also does not believe in "the rule of law", has selfish agendas, and he imposes his beliefs and preferences on others. Your chairman is a conman when he indirectly forced the community to subscribe to his illegal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he never considers Rukun Tetangga scheme as another option for the community. (He is not interested in KRT because it is FOC for the community).
Above all, your RA chairman should have been more transparent first on the laws, guidelines, rules and regulations of what an informal scheme can and cannot do - and then let the community decide whether they want to sign up or not; not coerce them into joining without any knowledge whatsoever.
If your chairman didn't do this before implementing his illegal gated community scheme, then he is more likely a conman.
