HAVING gone through the GP022 document drawn up by the Federal Town and Country Planning Department under the Housing and Local Government Ministry and run through its guidelines, and taken a legislative look at what the local law and its Acts state, we now look at the social and emotional implications of guarded communities. One asks then, if this is a privilege or a necessity?
Are we buying safety or exclusivity? And how will this impact society down the road?
Western view
A dissertation was written by Keith Veal, a political science student at the University of Michigan, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In it, he cited his experience, having walked into a G&G residential area where the guard was no where to be found, and how he was rudely questioned and shown the way out, when his entry was discovered.
Hostile, sharp, accusatory and unpleasant words were uttered by the "security" personnel, almost instantly putting Veal in defence mode. Haven't many of us encountered similar experiences?
This sparked many questions, of which Veal decided to ask those living outside the boundaries of the G&G area, their views on gated communities.
On social and emotional implications, it really boils down to which side of the "gate" you're on inside or out.
Here are some facts Veal learnt:
» Gated communities – overall – do not have lower crime rates compared to similar communities without gates (Blakely and Snyder, 1997).
Gated communities do not tend to have higher resale values in the market when compared to similar housing. In some cases they even had a slight price disadvantage (Ibid).
Gated communities do not have higher levels of community or being "close-knit" (Low, 2001).
No doubt, G&G areas restrict access, limit interactions and divide communities. Veal also mentioned that if G&G areas focus on safety, then those on the outside become the "amorphous other … not limited to solely criminals and potential law-breakers …"
And when G&G areas are occupied by the "upper class," Veal considers those "gated-out" as "different from the upper class – socially, economically and politically."
Beginning of G&G
Preferring to remain anonymous, a reader (and "provider of security for 10s of housing estate committees in Klang Valley") emailed his views on how G&G first started.
He says: "Some 15 years ago, there was a need to form some sort of security scheme as crime, house break-ins and snatch theft was on the rise.
We called this scheme 'homeguards' which was basically patrolling without requiring any fencing or boom-gates.
The monthly fee was cheap. However, this did not deter the ruthless and crafty criminals … and the police could not do anything but say to the public: 'Itu biasa dah'."
He adds that this led to complaints that reached the ears of the many politicians who were further enraged when "bad reports" from the media put them in tight spots and the government was not much help.
"It was the local councillors and politicians that came up with the many suggestions and ideas to close up roads and place guards from private security companies in hotspot crime areas.
It all worked well until law suits followed (referring to the case where the fire engine could not get to a location in time, blaming the key to the locked boom gate was not accessible, and a person's life was lost)."
He also names a couple of housing areas where the developer's or property management company has put up notices claiming no liability if motorists get their vehicles damaged by the boom gates.
"Crime rates still rose in the subsequent years which led to the residents associations deciding to take matters into their own hands – hence (to keep costs low/affordable), foreign 'guards' were employed."
Citing many reports including the Berkeley Gardens case in Klang, go-downs in Banting and Sungai Buloh area and such, which led to the rakyat losing trust in our police force and the authorities, he states, "All this mooted the idea of proper security-guarded enclaves."
The reader also says that there are laws governing G&G housing estates where the developers have applied for this status (with one main entrance and exit, with a proper guardhouse and boom gates) which has been approved by the authorities.
"Maintenance fees are high and a joint management board is engaged to run the day-to-day activities. It is similar to an up-market condo, with all the rules and extras where one has to pay to keep the premises clean and orderly."
His point: "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 also should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to 'work out' the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood. The law must be followed through – police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished."
He also condones whipping in public as punishment and asks for more CCTVs. "And G&G must be government-controlled."
Others' perspective
theSun considered the views of the rakyat where gated communities and social segregation is concerned. Says Y S Ying, a retiree who lives in a condominium: "I don't believe in gated communities.
Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to restore peace and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for safety? Besides, even with G&G areas, there still are thefts, break-ins and such.
In addition, I know many residents who do not like to be asked so many personal questions and have to leave their personal details with guards, especially when at times they are in a hurry.
Friends also prefer not to visit due to this inconvenience." On it spurring social segregation, Sandra doesn't think it does. "Generally, there is a perceived notion that gated communities are better neighbourhoods with real estate that fetches better resale value."
Sharon Saw comments: "It is a sad reflection of society that we need gated communities to improve security. Personally, I do not like gated residential areas as it causes a lot of inconvenience when visiting people living in that area – you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
Says Jenn Salim: "Gated communities serve no purpose unless the full and complete process of identification/registration is adhered to and monitored properly. On the residents, whether gated or not, it is one's attitude that causes segregation in the community."
One who wishes to be known as Anak Malaysia states: "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 look at each other differently."
Anak Malaysia reminisces the days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen "bergotong-royong, tolong menolong 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."
Excerpts from
theSun daily
24 APR 2015 / 16:45 H.
Komuniti Berpagar vs Komuniti Rukun Tetangga
