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
*****************
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
************
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
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
****************
I WISH to share my experience regarding the subject of gated and guarded neighbourhood. I object to it because of the following reasons (not in order of importance):
First, the committee is “elected” by a small number of attendees who have their own selfish agenda.
Second, only certain roads have road humps so as to divert traffic to other “certain” roads that don’t have them.
Third, guard houses are set up in places where certain members of the community will not be disturbed by the noise coming from the guards (such as their radios or smart phones), and the stopping and starting of cars.
Fourth, diverting traffic when vehicles drop off or pick up the children from the school, twice a day, to certain roads (to the advantage of certain members).
Which means the other roads will face noise, traffic jams and pollution twice a day, as well as speeding cars when they are running late.
Fifth, not every member can afford to pay the monthly fee. And then they have to put up with ugly stares from the guards.
VICTIMISED BY GnG
Kuala Lumpur
LETTERS
Thursday, 20 Jul 2017
https://www.thestar.com.my/
TAGS / KEYWORDS:
Letters , Gated And Guarded Communities
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/07/20/not-for-gated-and-guarded-facility/#hQT4iph5DtELGqPz.99
First, the committee is “elected” by a small number of attendees who have their own selfish agenda.
Second, only certain roads have road humps so as to divert traffic to other “certain” roads that don’t have them.
Third, guard houses are set up in places where certain members of the community will not be disturbed by the noise coming from the guards (such as their radios or smart phones), and the stopping and starting of cars.
Fourth, diverting traffic when vehicles drop off or pick up the children from the school, twice a day, to certain roads (to the advantage of certain members).
Which means the other roads will face noise, traffic jams and pollution twice a day, as well as speeding cars when they are running late.
Fifth, not every member can afford to pay the monthly fee. And then they have to put up with ugly stares from the guards.
VICTIMISED BY GnG
Kuala Lumpur
LETTERS
Thursday, 20 Jul 2017
https://www.thestar.com.my/
TAGS / KEYWORDS:
Letters , Gated And Guarded Communities
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/07/20/not-for-gated-and-guarded-facility/#hQT4iph5DtELGqPz.99
