It is a borrowed concept from the west (Heterogenetic) and seen as a Sanitised Space within a city with exclusivity (Voluntary Exclusion). It is also a form of Cultural Imitation and Replication, imitating the western lifestyle what they enjoyed overseas, which can also be seen as increased Materialism in our culture.
Anthropologist Li Zhang cautions against increasing gated communities to the policy makers that it should not be misunderstood as rising affluence in a society but as a source of more Polarization which can lead to Social Conflict. It can also be seen as cleavage in civic engagement against the state or country.
Sociological analysis and data has shown that safety in gated communities may be more of an illusion than reality and that gated communities have no less crime than other similar non-gated neighbourhoods.
The implications of the proliferation of Gated Community schemes in the country is a negative one. The social impact study before the implementation of any GC scheme has never been done properly or is being disregarded. The importance of the study has been neglected and viewed as secondary to profit and other environment assessments.
One always reminisces the good old days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen “bergotong-royong and tolong-menolong di antara satu sama lain”, in unity. Society has changed today … and if the government does not do what it is supposed to do, the rakyat will need to be self reliant and take things into their own hands. We can forget about 1Malaysia then.
**********************************
GC Schemes Contribute To Polarisation, Fragmentation & Diminished Solidarity Within Society
Gated Communities (GC), which are fenced and gated residential neighbourhoods, represent a form of urbanism where public spaces are privatised.
Here, they represent a substantial part of the new housing market, especially in the recently urbanised areas. They have become a symbol of metropolitan fragmentation.
Local governments consider them as a valuable source of revenue because suburbanisation costs are paid by the private developers and the final homebuyer. This form of public-private partnership in the provision of urban infrastructure ultimately increases local segregation.
Gated Communities can contribute to spatial fragmentation not only in urban areas but suburban too, and reflect increased polarisation, fragmentation and diminished solidarity within society.
By excluding residents and people from the adjacent neighbourhoods, GC can contribute to social exclusion, inhibiting the construction of social networks that form the basis of social and economic activities. It will surely lead to some social impact and create a more prominent gap between the communities on both sides of the boom gate who will then look at each other more differently.
Very significant socio-economic dissimilarities are found to be associated with this kind of “enclosure”, thus defining very homogeneous territories especially on income and age criteria, stressing an exclusion that is structured at a municipal scale.
Social interaction takes a back seat and people have become obsessive with the perceived need for neighbourhood security. Everybody is jumping onto the bandwagon without giving much thought to this and that’s why the gated community concept is flourishing these days.
There are also quite a number of GC schemes that are plagued with unscrupulous RAs and syndicates taking advantage of the situation and reaping profits from unsuspecting residents.
As there are already developers here that have experimented with the concept of multiple gated communities within their non-strata development (such as Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja), they are bringing this concept to the masses whereby terrace houses in each precinct have their own gated communities.
This was implemented without getting all the proper consents and approvals from the local authorities beforehand, and thus has created lots of other issues to the residents.
Many so-called gated communities (GC) are in fact, not exclusively gated, as the common areas such as internal roads and vacant land within the residence do not belong to the residents.
Among the confusion of certified GnG (Gated & Guarded), GC (Gated Community) in strata properties and GN (Guarded Neighbourhood) in non-strata properties, the central feature of GCs is the social and legal frameworks which form the constitutional conditions under which residents subscribe to access and occupation of these developments, in combination with the physical feature which make them so conspicuous.
Legally speaking, outsiders who are not living there can still demand access into the residences under the provisions of various Acts and Laws such as under the Road Transport Act.
Security is a complex and costly matter. Communities who have invested heavily in their neighbourhood security such as RFID card based entries and exits are just to make you feel like you are in office, even though you are at home. (That was sarcasm by the way, in case you didn’t get it). Then there are Boom Barriers (or boom gates), just to give you the feel of the Toll plaza. (Again, sarcasm here.)
Data has suggested that gated communities’ rights and responsibilities are, by and large confined to legalities rather than extending to a commitment to enhance social networks either within the development or in the adjacent wider community exacerbating the effect of physical and social barriers between residents within and the wider communities.
Gated communities appear to provide an extreme example of more common attempts to insulate against perceived risks and unwanted encounters. The time-space trajectories of residents suggest a dynamic pattern of separation that goes beyond the place of residence.
Gated Community further extend contemporary segregatory tendencies, and that policy responses are required that will curtail the creation of such havens of social withdrawal. Many of us don’t even bother to get to know our neighbours, so what is the big deal living in a gated community?
Gated communities serve no purpose unless “100% prison or military-like” process of identification and registration is adhered to and monitored 24/7, and without prejudice and favour to any particular group of people.
It is a sad reflection of society that we think we need gated communities to improve security. Nobody likes gated residential areas as they cause a lot of inconveniences when visiting relatives and friends living in those areas, as you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
It’s still okay to go through such registration process provided those are certified Gated and Guarded (GC) private strata properties, as you have no choice here.
However, as for those non-strata properties/residences that have implemented their own GC schemes via their RA, it is not acceptable at all, as these terrace houses (link-houses) are under individual titles and classified as public property, not private.
These non-strata gated communities by unscrupulous RAs have blatantly flouted all the local guidelines and laws - and they are the main problem now. They are the ones to be blamed for residents' bickering, unhappiness, and segregation.
Another con is that most if not all boards (RA committees) go bad as far as they and their friends are above the rules. It is very easy for the board (RA) president to skim money from the padded bill and countless other ways to steal.
Living in a gated community means signing up to a legal framework which allows the extraction of monies to help pay for maintenance of common-buildings, common services, such as rubbish collection, and other revenue costs such as paying staff to clean or secure the neighbourhood.
Many do not believe in gated communities. Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to uphold security and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for them? Besides, even with GnG, there are still thefts, break-ins and other crimes happening.
Many people do not like to be asked so many personal questions and they do not like to leave their personal details with private security guards (some of which looks more like gangsters than guards), especially when at times they are in a hurry. Friends and relatives also prefer not to visit anymore, due to this troublesome inconvenience at the guardhouse.
GnG, all forms of Gated Communities (GC) and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) must be government-controlled so that unscrupulous parties cannot take matters into their own hands and implement as they like. This is also to avoid them taking advantage of the situation in reaping in profits and burdening the rakyat.
The government needs to step in to make every district safe via the police force or some security arrangement. Citizens should not need to pay additional amounts for the security of their homes and families.
The people should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to “work out” the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood.
The laws must be followed through - police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished.
**********************************
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
The phenomenon of gated communities — the fastest-growing form of housing in the United States — continues unabated in California and across the nation. There are now more than 1 million homes behind such walls in the Greater Los Angeles area alone.
One-third of all houses built in the region are in secured-access developments. Across the U.S., there are 7 million households in fortified communities, according to the American Housing Survey of 2001, with the largest number located in the West.
This symbolism of wealth and security is so pervasive that there are now even faux gated communities, called "neighborhood entry identities," in Simi Valley that sport walls and guardhouses but no locked gates or guards.
Yet residents may be walling in more problems than they are keeping out.
Walled communities go way back in the history of human habitation. Ancient towns were surrounded by walls to protect inhabitants and their property. In the United States, gated residential developments first originated in upscale communities such as Llewellyn Park, N.J., in the 1850s, and in resorts like New York's Tuxedo Park, developed in 1886 as a hunting retreat and ringed by 24 miles of barbed wire.
It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, however, that middle-class Americans first sealed themselves inside in planned retirement communities like Leisure World in Seal Beach.
In the 1980s, real estate speculation was the driving force behind building gated communities around golf courses designed for exclusivity and prestige. By 2000, Southern California gated communities expanded to the suburbs and included a broad range of residents, not just the rich — although along with supposed cachet, those walls and gates also added to the price tag.
Unfortunately, this sought-after feature also helped to further divide our society. Of the 219 gated enclaves that Sorbonne geographer Renaud LeGoix identified in a study of Greater Los Angeles, a third were in middle-income white suburbs. But not only whites were isolating themselves: A fifth were in middle- and low-income Latino or Asian neighborhoods.
During ethnographic research from 1994 to 2002, gated community residents told me they were seeking safety and security along with a nice place to live. These desires were often expressed as a wish to live near people like themselves because of a fear of "others."
But in fact there is little evidence that gated communities are any safer, nor do they encourage a sense of community. Residents often acknowledged that they were experiencing a "false sense of security" because they still had to worry about the handymen, gardeners, domestics and even the private guards who entered every day.
The unintended consequences of gating are widespread. In addition to generating a sense of exclusion and social segregation, gating also contributes to an overall shortage of public space. And although proponents say the developments reduce the fiscal burden for their municipalities, if they fail — and some do — municipal costs can increase as local governments have to fund repairs.
Most people who move to gated communities are not aware of what they are giving up in their quest for safety and privacy. Growing up with an implicit fortress mentality, children may experience more, not less, fear of people outside the gates. The costs of maintaining one's home can escalate because of additional fees, such as maintaining privately owned roads and amenities while still paying taxes for unused public services.
Gated communities have homeowners associations with strict covenants, contracts and deed restrictions that regulate most aspects of their houses and environment. Many residents find these rules onerous, as was illustrated in an episode of "The X-Files" in which gated community homeowners who didn't toe the line were eaten by a monster.
One of the striking features of our world today is that many people feel increasingly insecure. To date, the main responses have been more policing, surveillance technology, privatized security forces and barricaded homes.
We must recognize that our fear is not simply about crime and "others" but is a reflection of the inherent insecurities of modern life. Perhaps then we can openly debate the effects of these gated communities — their social and psychological costs as well as their personal benefits.
Setha M. Low, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, is author of "Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness inFortress America" (Routledge 2003).
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times by Setha M. Low
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
*********************************
GCs Do More Harm Than Good
Why do people really go for such a scheme, and what can be regarded the "best model?
British law lecturer Sarah Blandy of the University of Leeds in England knows all about gated communities (GC) and their impact on our social fabric.
Ask her for an introduction to it, and she'll most likely refer to her paper titled "National Study on Gated Communities" that considers their physical as well as legal attributes.
In it, she says that such a community must be one that:
- Has a fence or wall around the residential area;
- Restricts or controls the access for non-residents (via electronic means or with security staff);
- Has private internal roads;
- Subject residents to a common code of conduct; and
- Can manage itself.
Blandy drew her working definition from a survey of a number of planning authorities in the United Kingdom and through interviews with key national players, including officers of residents' management companies, local authorities and the police, besides neighbours or those living outside a GC.
Her study reveals that in the UK, GCs are mainly small in size (containing less than 50 dwellings) and are mostly located in the suburbs of town and cities.
Deeper into her work, things get more interesting with some of her discoveries taking me by surprise. Among them, her finding that contrary to general belief, "the major motivation" for purchasers opting for a GC scheme in the UK is not security but status.
Other nuggets she uncovered that contrast with some popular theories is that in the UK
The GC market is "driven by developers seeking price premium", rather than by "purchasers demanding for safety"; and
There is no conclusive evidence that the enclosed nature of a GC or sell-management by residents actually fosters or encourages a "sense of community".
On balance, Blandy believes GCs do more harm than good, because:
They reduce public space and the permeability of a city:
Their physical security measures leads to "further social divisions";
Putting affluent households behind walls produces a negative impact on poorer neighbourhoods - in terms of urban sustainability, security and social integration.
While GC advocates maintain that such developments do in fact "contribute to improved community safety", academicians and policy makers maintain that they have "side-stepped conventional forms of governance, both in terms of planning control and in the provision of services".
"The likelihood of civic disengagement by GC residents is real and should not be summarily dismissed," they say, adding that if such disengagements remain unchecked, segregation can deepen, if not by race, then certainly by social class.
In the United States, some quarters also think GCs are potential threats to local fiscal autonomy because GC residents "have to pay additional charges for the privatised services rendered within their community". such as security, street maintenance as well as recreation and entertainment upkeep.
"Since their GC makes them pay for these same services that the government is obliged to provide, they feel they should be exempted - if not completely, then partially - from statutory charges," claim the detractors.
Further fuelling argument for payment exemption to the local authorities is a lack of clear policies on GCs in the US that is further compounded by the "general ambiguity of planners" towards them.
Coupled with the absence of local and national guidelines, this has led to an undesirable state of affairs, described as "policy vacuum" (Editor's note: In Malaysia, this has been addressed by recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985).
On our shores, local GC developers too say that management corporations provide the same, if not better, kind of service as the local authorities for which the residents have to make additional payment.
However, they stopped short of suggesting that this means residents should be discharged of their obligation to pay their statutory charges.
Since January this year, I have been very fortunate in being able to inspect various GC schemes around our country together with a team of senior officials from the Office of the Director-General of Land and Mines.
One of this team's principal objectives is to determine the main characteristics of a GC and draw up the criteria for the "best model" scheme.
Accompanied by representatives from the Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association of Rehda, among the first projects we visited were Desa Park City and Sierramas Resort Homes in the Klang Valley.
While these two projects are different in many aspects, they are both impressive and pricey - certainly, they are beyond the reach of average Malaysian house buyers.
Desa Park City has visibly aged over time, but nevertheless, I was impressed by its many attractive features, especially its public park and commercial centre that permit unrestricted access (only the residential precincts are completely gated).
For Sierramas, the latter still appears refreshingly new. However, it is a large CF with public access virtually denied unless a visitor is invited or has a legitimate reason to be there.
After the Klang Valley, the next two places the ministry officials and I toured were Taman Tambun Indah in mainland Penang and Casa Grande on the island. The former is a massive GC comprising over 300 bungalow plots while the latter is pint-sized by comparison, with only 24 units.
Thereafter, we hopped over to Sentosa Island in Singapore to see how our southern neighbour is developing Sentosa Cove, a GC being built on reclaimed land.
On hand to give us a warm welcome was its chief executive officer Gurjit Singh, who gave us a comprehensive picture of how the development was conceived, planned and being executed.
Another scheme I saw was in Sabah, where I was taken on tour of several GCs in the state capital of Kota Kinabalu, including the famous Sutera Harbour.
Deep within this project is a gated enclave known as "The Residency". Though still in its infancy, its average size bungalow plots are being steadily snapped up by West Malaysians despite price tags of over RM1 million.
At this stage, it's still too early to spell out all the various components that can make up the best GC model. Many questions remain unanswered and many issues are still unresolved.
But, nevertheless, are we moving in the right direction insofar as gated living is concerned?
Salleh Buang is a senior advisor of a company specialising in competitive intelligence. He is also active in training and public speaking and can be reached at sallehbuang@hotmail.com
Source:
https://www.hba.org.my/main.htm
21/04/2007
NST- PROP Land Matters
by Salleh Buang
*********************************
BBR Is Not Suitable If You Are Looking For A Gated Community
For those residents who feel insecure without having a gated community (GC) scheme in their neighbourhood, it is better that they move to a Strata-titled and proper "Gated & Guarded" (GnG) residence like "Eco Ardence" or "Eco Park". There are many certified Gated Communities out there, but certainly not those double-storey link houses developed by Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja.
They would feel much safer and secure in such "Strata title" properties which are also gazetted as Gated Community (GC) by the Local Authorities /Council.
Please do not try to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not try to apply from the Land Office to change our current land title from "Individual" title to "Strata". Because this will mean that all maintenance works (such as rubbish collections, drains, maintenance of roads, landscape, streetlights, etc) will no longer be handled by the local council.
Please do not consent or try to form a Residents' Association (RA) to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non-gazetted GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not implement illegal automated card access system which is prohibited by all local councils in Selangor (unless you have 100% consent from the residents).
Please do not set up any illegal barriers to block any public roads or access to any public parks or children's playground.
Please do not consent or condone to such illegal schemes. You cannot implement a GC scheme legally in a Non-Strata titled neighbourhood.
Please do not leave the security of our neighbourhood to "private security guards" hired by the RA. Please do not erect any guard house without proper consent and permission from the local authorities.
We rather trust our local police (PDRM) than the "security services" hired and implemented by the RA. The security and safety of our neighbourhood lies beyond the capability of any RA.
And for those residents who think that non-paying residents are like "parasites", then those who consented to these illegal schemes in the first place, are like "the biggest tumour any cancer has ever seen".
Even though stringent guidelines have been published by the relevant authorities, residents have been bullied or taken advantage of by some unscrupulous residents associations (RAs), some believed to be linked to syndicates. Providing "security services" seems to be very lucrative and easy money for these gangs.
This looks like a classic case of unscrupulous people trying to take advantage of the situation or trying to profit from people's lack of information/knowledge.
Residents were being told to set up their own RA to implement Gated Community or Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) scheme even before checking with the local district police OCPD (PDRM) on whether their residence sits on an identified "high crime zone" or not.
The implementation of such schemes have been highly questionable including the laws and legality of it, guidelines, getting the consent and approval from the authorities, the monthly fees, the hiring of qualified licensed guards, using card access system which is prohibited, and the barring of non-paying residents from entering (harassing, bullying and coercing the non-paying residents into paying).
So you see, we are not the problem here. It is just that you might have a problem moving to or living in a Non Gated Community (GC) neighbourhood now.
And then, through your RA, you are trying to apply from the Local Authorities to convert our non GC neighbourhood to a GC scheme neighbourhood. Now this is the problem!
*********************************
Can Neighbourhood Guards Block Roads In Malaysia?
You are driving down a shortcut that you have used countless times and as you are snickering over gaining the upper hand, you notice a barrier obstructing the road and slam on your brakes. You are confused as to why there is a barrier in the middle of the road and some security guards manning it and roll down your window to ask.
The security guard then demands for your IC/licence and explains that the residents in the area have decided to implement certain security measures and only residents and registered visitors can enter the housing area. Angry over losing your favourite shortcut home, two questions pop into your head:
Can they block off the roads?Can they demand for our IC or licence for registration purposes?
These also happen to be the most-asked questions every time we publish something related to housing or security but since they involve different areas of the law, this article will cover the legalities surrounding the first question while the IC issue will be covered in a separate article.
What is the difference between condominiums and landed property?
To be more accurate, the difference lies in the title to your property. Land titles for residential areas in Malaysia are divided into strata and non-strata (known as individual titles). Typically, strata titles are for condominiums, apartments, and certain landed properties.
The main defining feature for strata properties is not how high it is built but rather owners of strata properties will jointly own what is known as common properties. These are facilities that is provided for by the developer and managed by the management committee and they are things such as roads, gyms and swimming pools.
On the other hand, non-strata (individual) titles are for landed properties alone. The owners of such properties only own the land that their house is situated on and any other facilities that may be in the area, such as roads, and parks, will be public property under the management of the local authorities.
Strata properties can legally block roads
For strata titles, having guards and boom gates is less of an issue because for strata properties, you are not only the owner of your property, you are also the joint owner of all the common facilities provided for you in the development.
This means that anything within the development is essentially private property and is managed by the developers themselves or the management committee.
Since it is private property, the developers are allowed to set up their own gated communities by putting in an application to the relevant authorities. This was allowed after the 2007 amendment to the 1985 Strata Titles Act.
For example, in Selangor, in order to establish a gated and guarded community (“GACOS”), the developer must fulfil certain guidelines laid down by the Selangor government. We don’t have a link to the guidelines and they are pretty long to reproduce here but just know that when it comes to strata properties (ranging from condominiums to exclusive townships), the developers must seek the approval of the authority before creating a GACOS community.
The point of contention for many arises when the owners of landed properties with individual titles try to set up their own barriers and employ their guards. This is especially true for older, non-GACOS developments. To put it simply, older neighbourhoods usually don’t fall under the GACOS scheme which only came into existence in the 2000s.
As these owners merely own the land their unit is situated on, everything else around them is considered public property such as the roads, drainage systems, and parks. Given their public status, you might not be surprised to learn that…
It’s actually “illegal” for non-strata properties to block roads.
Under section 46(1)(a) and (b) of the Street, Drainage, and Building Act 1974, it is an offence for anyone to erect or maintain any obstruction or cover any open drain:
“(1) Any person who—
(a) builds, erects, sets up or maintains or permits to be built, erected or set up or maintained any wall, fence, rail, post or any accumulation of any substance, or other obstruction, in any public place;
(b) without the prior written permission of the local authority covers over or obstructs any open drain* or aqueduct along the side of any street...”
Before you go driving around and refusing to stop for the guards, security concerns have created an understanding that such non-GACOS neighbourhoods could be converted into guarded communities if the Resident’s Association (“RA”) applies for permission from their local authorities.
Whether or not their application will be approved depends on whether they fulfil the guidelines given by the Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing, and Local Government. One of the pre-requisites for putting in such an application is that the RA must get at least 85% consent from the residents, though the local authority can accept a lower percentage in some cases.
However, the problem with this is two-fold. The first is that some of the Resident’s Association will not apply for permission and second, guidelines don’t have the force of law. This created some confusion and strife in certain communities and the municipal authorities would come and demolish barricades which were built illegally or when they failed to obtain the minimum consent from the residents.
While the law has been clarified by the highest court in our country, it is clear that many RAs are still not complying with the guidelines given. According to DBKL, from 2011 to 2017, 158 RAs in KL implemented the guarded communities but only 65 applications were approved by DBKL. This showed that many security schemes are operating illegally and this became a thorn to users of the public areas.
Another important point to note is this, while such residential areas can be guarded, they cannot be gated. The difference between guarded areas and gated and guarded areas lies in the fact that if the area is guarded, access is merely regulated. If the area is gated and guarded, then there will erection of fences and the sorts which can obstruct roads. This is why areas with public roads are only allowed to be guarded.
However, many of us still get confused over which security measures are allowed for public areas. The best example of this would be the fact that boom gates which are operated by access cards are actually against MBPJ’s guidelines. This leads us to our final point of…
If you don’t know it, just ask your local council.
If you are unsure about what guidelines your local authorities would have, it is always best to ring them up and ask. It is much better for you to ask them and make sure that you get all the proper permissions before erecting barriers as illegal barriers which get torn down will just end up wasting the residents’ money and leave you guys in a limbo. Aside from that, it is important to note that even if you have procured permission from the relevant authorities, you can never restrict someone’s access into a public area or restrict their access to use the public roads.
We will discuss the issue of demanding ICs and licences in a separate article but as a teaser...requesting for ICs is illegal. At the end of the day, while we all appreciate enhanced security and a sound sleep at night, whatever security system that is implemented should not fall foul of the law nor infringe upon another person’s rights.
AskLegal.my
by Denise C
https://asklegal.my/p/neighbourhood-security-guards-registration-block-roads-malaysia
*********************************
Unlawful ‘Roadblocks’
WHERE do you want to go? Friend’s house? Address? Don’t know, but know which house? If you don’t know, you cannot enter!
Sounds familiar? I have experienced the frustration of being stopped and questioned and, sometimes, denied access on public roads, while trying to visit friends or get across to other areas of various housing estates, the most recent being on a public road at Jalan Anggerik Eria 31/109, Kota Kemuning.
The public could use this road to get to other parts of Kota Kemuning previously without hindrance. At times, I have even been asked to produce my IC before I was allowed access on some public roads.
By the police? No, I am talking about private guards. Do these guards have the authority or power to set up “permanent” roadblocks on a public road and to stop, question and deny access to the public?
Under section 78 of the Road Transport Act, 1987 (Power to set up road-blocks), “any police officer in uniform authorised in writing by a senior police officer of the rank of Inspector and above” or “any road transport officer in uniform authorised in writing by the Director” may erect or cause to be erected or placed any barrier as prescribed on or across any road.
Under section 21 of the Police Act 1967, it “shall be the duty of police officers ? to keep order on public roads, streets, thoroughfares and landing places and at other places of public resort and places to which the public have access.”
Thus, if any other person (other than a police officer or road transport officer in uniform, duly authorised by a senior police officer or Director) erects or cause to be erected or placed any barrier on or across any road, he “shall be guilty of an offence” pursuant to section 119 of the Road Transport Act.
But residents claim that the local authorities have approved such permanent roadblocks or barriers.
Well, section 9 (10) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 provides that “no person shall erect or maintain or permit to be erected or maintained any obstruction in any street ?”
Section 46 of the same Act then provides that “any person who ? builds, erects, sets up or maintains or permits to be built, erected or set up or maintained any wall, fence, rail, post ? or other obstruction, in any public place ? shall be guilty of causing an obstruction and may be arrested without warrant by any police officer or any officer or employee of the local authority ?”
Section 46(4) of the 1974 Act reserves to our local authorities the power to only allow “any temporary erections in any public place or the temporary use of any part of a public place on occasions of festivals and ceremonies.”
It is thus quite obvious in my view that our local authorities do not have the power to authorise any such “permanent” roadblocks or barrier on or across any public road.
Security is important, but can the public’s rights and freedom be curtailed unlawfully in the name of security?
If residents want security, the guards can follow any person who passes or enters their areas but they have no right to stop, question or prevent any person from accessing public roads and enjoying public amenities such as playgrounds, badminton and basketball courts, fields, etc in these public areas.
I thus hope that the IGP and the minister in charge of local government will take the necessary action to stop such unlawful roadblocks on public roads and also ensure that local authorities do not exceed their powers by giving approvals in disregard of the above Acts of Parliament.
AGAINST UNLAWFUL ROADBLOCKS,
Petaling Jaya.
Source:
https://www.hba.org.my/main.htm
11/08/2007
The Star
