Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Turning Wheel of Democracy: The story behind the scenes of the NO to Tmn Kemuncak Land Conversion Campaign-

Kah Woh was first engaged by Teresa on the issue, at a breakneckingly swift speed when she first found out about the planning application. Kah Woh was also rather expedient in the speed in which he drafted the petition introduction. The momentum was carried on almost at the speed of professional pressure groups and the efficiency of seasoned lobbyist, by Teresa, under the support and assistance of many more local residents.

At this juncture, there were some very bold, yet underhanded political maneuverings made by certain quarters, in an attempt to ‘hijack’ the issue in claiming it their own. I shall remain cryptic on this issue as those who understands what I’m writing here, can have a little chuckle at the failure of those undignified and cheeky attempts, at seeking glory without contribution.

This was when I had the privilege of meeting with Teresa, when I was immediately touched by her sincerity, assertiveness and focused manner. Moreover, it was the underlying modesty behind her courageous actions that made me work harder with her in making the petition-signing and submission a success.

Signatures came in like hot cakes, and the petition was on track for a respectable number well ahead of schedule. More importantly, what started off as 3-4 letters sent to specific addresses, in the space of 10 days or so, had transformed in to the hot topic discussed by everyone in the entire Ipoh Garden East. Those who knew about it were talking about it; and those who didn’t know about were more than likely being told about it. So, hats off to those who were involved in the dissemination of the message; a big thank you to those did the leg work of canvassing door to door for signatures; and heartfelt acknolwedgements to the likes of Teresa, Alan, Rajiv who kicked off the debate initially.

Like many operators within political folds, I have a multitude of opinions on most topics ad issues I come across. They normally conflict, which is great for academic and political purposes, as it presents the decision making mechanisms more choice, not to mention an ‘objectivity cushion’ for the debater to bounce around unscathed . This availability of choice though, does become a burden upon one’s own conscience and peace of mind as it become very difficult to decide upon a personal stance when the issue at hand affects one’s own life.

It can be said that I’m one of the many affected residents and my wife and I live in Taman Perak. As usual, I can see the many positive arguments and negative arguments in allowing or disallowing the planning application. Sometime, when deliberating within my own on an definitive stance on an issue, my mind goes off on very crazy tangents and almost always end up maiing some kind of political point out of the issue at hand…. (can’t guarantee this won’t happen hereJ)

Before I share with you my vote on the issue, I’d just like to share with you some of my thoughts thorugh my insignificant involvement in getting the ball rolling with the NO campaign...

The main arguments bouncing around the walls of Kopitiams, as well as on the wall of the facebook group is that the residents don’t want to ‘live near the dead’, or ‘be near a place full of death’. Others are citing their dissatisfaction towards the prospective increase in traffic into the area, in the case of the proposal being realized. Some are speculating the drop in the value of their property and others’ in the area if and when the colambarium/crematorium is built.

All of the above are valid arguments against the application. I wouldn’t say any of them are particular strong arguments, but nonetheless, they are how the residents feel and that’s that. A vote by a big strong muscular healthy man, isn’t any more or less of a vote than a skinny, short and fat and ill man. In fact, by going down that chain of thought, the needn’t even be a reason for one’s support or objection of the application. But I’d like to take this opportunity to articulate my personal reasons.

Here goes;

Despite the fact that the proposed project will affect all houses and shops which happen to be en-route to the proposed site when entering the area from all major routes, only 3-4 house were informed of the application. That to me, as a resident who lives one of several routes that will DEFINITELY be affected in more ways than the obvious increase in traffic, is a blatant disregard of the importance of public consent.

Furthermore, If I’m not mistaken, the city councilor appointed to the area would also have been informed. Why did the residents contact Kah Woh instead of the city councilor for assistance as this is within the remit of the city council? More pressingly, why did the councilor not proactively seek feedback on the issue? And VERY importantly, how do we hold the councilor to account for not performing adequately or sufficiently in the proceedings of pushing for the residents agenda on the matter in hand.

Yes…. Lots of questions, isn’t there? But to me, that’s a good thing.

Insufficiency in the required publicity for planning applications

Yes, I realize that according to the planning regulations and legislations, what has been done is well and legally sufficient. That to me doesn’t give the application any more credence, it simply means tthat there are holes in the current legislations and regulations, and naturally need to be CHANGED.

My suggestion is, for a development (very loosely used term for this situation) of this scale and of such geo-social-political impact and sensitivity, there needs to be a much wider public notice mechanism involved in the consent seeking process. With it being a residential area, and therefore full of lamp-posts, how about having a laminated A4 sheet of paper, with a summary of the application cable tied to one in every 3 lamppost. On said summary, it will include details of how to support or object the application. It’s obvious why it’s better, and how it’s better. Every affected will have a much better chance of findng out, and therefore supporting or objecting the project. Greater transparency, with much better community communications; It’s a win-win proposal.

Yes, it’s a great deal more administration than is legally required by the town and country planning act 1976 but I genuinely feel that it’s absolutely crucial. If it wasn’t for the extremely enthusiastic and assertive, not to mention highly efficient way in which Teresa and her neighbours set the right things in motions and placed it in the hands of the right people, the NO campaign wouldn’t see the support it’s enjoying right now.

Holding councilors to task

The economic system that we live in, dictates that everyone who is financially compensated for a service, duty or task must be held to account for his/her performance. Failing that, would mean individuals being paid to do nothing, or worst still, being paid to do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. That’s bad in any country!

Politics should be the same as any other profession or sector of service. We claim to live in a democratic system, with the different levels of legislative assemblies and representation. In Ipoh, there’s the Ipoh city council, the the Perak State Assembly, the federal Parliament, and the Upper house of Senate. Sounds like quite a robust system of lawmaking, and public interest assurance right? Let me just make the following points;

  • 1) Ipoh City Councillors are all political appointments.
  • 2) The Perak state assembly is chaired by an unelected individual who got there unconstitutionally, and the state executive(government) started this parliamentary term as opposition and have gotten into power without being re-elected. All in all, pretty unconstitutional!
  • 3) The current head of the current federal government, also didn’t start the current parliamentary cycle as our prime minister. He inherited it from either his father, or Tun Adbullah Badawi, depending on how deep you want to dwell.
  • 4) The upper house of the Federal legislature are also all political appointment.

Not so robust and not so democratic after all, is it? At least not here in Ipoh.

Returning to holding councilors to account, it think it’s unfair to blame the councilor directly and entirely for not doing the job. A big part of it is to do with the system, which allows incompetent individuals to be appointed to play an integral role in serving and representing the residents in matters within the remit of the city council.

The solution is simple: Restore the third vote.

At least, by experiencing the difficulties, it has highlighted things that we can bring to the fore to be discussed and suggested. The outcome of those discussions then will and can be put forward for our elected legislative representatives to propose so for it to be debated, and passed through the legislature to become law….. This is democracy at work!

And oh, If I haven’t made it clear enough, MY VOTE IS A NO to the land use conversion!