Point 1: “The purpose of the highway is to ease the traffic at KL-Seremban highway. It is important to proceed as the traffic volume at KL-Seremban highway has increased significantly.”
Residents Response:
The residents support development projects by the Government. We believe the Government has done proper due diligence and viability studies before approving this highway project. However, we do not believe that it is the Government’s intention to plan for certain sections of the highway (in this case the stretch along Jalan 2/149 at Sri Petaling) to cause the residents to live in fear for the rest of their life. This is definitely not consistent with the “Caring Government” as advocated.
In additions, we do not believe that the Government would approve the setback of 2.3m which is clearly breaching its own guidelines; the Government would also not allow project to be carried out without prior consultation/ briefing with the affected residents
Point 2: “Construction work started about 30% and spent about RM400mil. If changes to the engineering construction design, it will cause delay and additional costs.”
Residents Response:
We believe our Government is far sighted. We understand that this is supposed to be a “Protocol Highway” that will be another national icon for Malaysian. Surely, we would not allow mistake/error by the authorities to make us a laughing stock for the world. There are alternatives to resolve the mistake and timely resolution will cause the Government less as compared to ignoring the mistake made.
Point 3: “Contractor will use strong building materials to prevent cars from crashing over and will also build sound barriers.”
Residents Response:
We understand that engineering is an evolving profession. Technically, anything is possible from an engineering perspective. However, implementation is done by human being and human being is subject to error. Appropriate setback requirements are to prevent unforeseen engineering or human default.
In addition, we should not allow mistake committed in the planning stage to be ratified with measures that are inconsistent with our own guidelines. We must make sure that our own guidelines are respected at all times, especially when the non-compliance will cause residents’ life be threaten.
Point 4: “During construction work, it should not cause disturbance to the livelihood of the residents.”
Residents Response:
This clearly showed that the Minister was not given the correct information. In actual fact, the residents’ livelihoods are affected; the construction work has caused serious cracks to their houses; it has also brought about environmental issues, such as noise and air pollutions. This is worst when the contractors are not complying with the operating procedures agreed and failure of Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM) in monitoring the work at site. For example, on numerous occasions, the residents have formed action teams to stop construction work which was carried out till midnight (see photos taken). The residents also have been complaining (via telephone and letter) on work done beyond stipulated hours, traffic lights and street lights out of order, pot-holed roads were not covered in time and etc..
Point 5: “Actual construction has not started, how can the houses have cracks? When you want to accuse others, you must have evidence. After investigation by the engineer, the cracks only happen at the extended portion of the houses that were not built according to engineering standards”
Residents Response:
Again, the Minister was not given the correct information. The Minister is absolutely right that when we make accusation, we must have evidence. Let us demonstrate the evidence in three parts:
a) The construction work started about two months ago and we are surprised that the Minister is not aware of this, see photo and we invite the Minister to visit the site. The cracks at the houses are caused by resettlements due to piling work being carried out at site. The impact is worst due to the closed proximity between the construction site and the houses. (see diagram).
b) The cracks are not only found at the extended portion of the houses. It is also found at the main body of the houses (see photo and we invite the Minister to visit the houses affected). It most likely happens to houses/portion of the houses that are situated within the“Cone of drepression” created by the excavation work (see diagram).
c) To say that the extended portions of the houses were not built according to engineering standards is a serious matter and involved the jurisdiction of the local authority (DBKL). We have obtained all relevant approvals by the local authority before extension work is being carried out. (see documents).The approval for extension work is between DBKL and the house owner, it should not be used as an excuse to deny responsibility.
Point 6: “Government announced the highway project in October 1997 but the affected houses were only ready in 2003. The housing developer should know about the highway project before developing the houses.”
Residents Response:
If what the Minister claimed is correct, then this is a good example of peoples’ life being threaten or victimized due to poor coordination between Government agencies, in this case between Ministry of Works, LLM and DBKL. This is not fair to the people particularly the house buyers. They should not be the victims, more so it is mistake caused by the Government agencies. The Government agencies should be braved to accept the mistake together and address it without compromising anyone’s interest and our own guidelines.
Based on document obtained (see document), the Development Order (DO) of this parcel (Zone N) was approved in early October 1997. We are not sure when the highway project was announced in October 1997. Whichever date, clearly one of the government agencies failed in its obligations to “preserve” or “acquire” sufficient land to meet the setback requirements of the highway.
Our meeting with Datuk Bandar recently revealed that the DO of the project was given before the announcement of the highway project by the federal government. If this is true, then the implementation agency (LLM) has failed in its obligation.
In addition, LLM also cannot claim ignorance on this issue as one of our residents had written to LLM at end 1997 (see letter) to remind and suggest LLM to ensure that sufficient land be acquired for setback requirements. However, till to-date, LLM has not provided a formal reply to this letter.
Point 7: “Based on the investigation by the engineers, some of the houses are extended near to the highway construction site and occupy the backlane.”
Residents Response:
Based on our facts, not a single unit of house has extended beyond their property line. We invite the Minister to visit the site.
Point 8: “We will not acquire land, if we are to acquire land, then the whole country land will be acquired”
Residents Response:
Again the Minister is not given the correct facts. Based on information available to us, the Government is negotiating with vacant land owners along our houses (one piece of land is designated for Church and the others are for bungalow houses) to acquire part or whole of their lands for this highway. We cannot understand the inconsistency?
We would like to state our position again that it is not our desired outcome for the Government to acquire our houses to resolve the mistake made by Government agencies. We prefer the Government to realign the route to other alternatives (see map). However, as a responsible “Rakyat Malaysia”, we are prepared to work with the Government to achieve an amicable solution, even if it means to acquire our beloved houses.
Point 9: “The setback for LDP is only 5ft and there is no problem.”
“Similar elevated sections had been built through residential areas in the case of the Ampang Elevated Expressway, the Damansara-Puchong Expressway and the Sprint Expressway and the Penchala Link, and none had posed problems to the people living nearby.”
Residents Response:
We do not know what the Minister meant by “no problem”? Is he saying that the residents enjoy leaving next to the highway or is he saying there is no tragedy so far for houses near to the highway? Must we wait for tragedy then only we take action? We urge the minister to pay a visit to the impacted residents who live next to highway to understand their grievances, their anxiety and their quality of life.
Based on our own random survey done at several residential locations near to highway, we would like to state the following facts:
a) The issues are not the same.
b) The number of houses and people affected are also not the same.
c) The residents are upset and angry but feel helpless as their voices were over thrown by the authorities.
d) Past mistakes should not be used as benchmark for future development projects.
In view of this, we believe that there are weaknesses in our current guidelines for highway development. We would like to urge the Government to immediately develop a clear framework and guidelines to regulate the setback requirements for highway development particularly within residential areas to protect the public health, safety and interest. The framework must clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders which include local authority and federal agency.
In our case, we are given to understand that LLM made a major mistake. They claimed that their setback of 2.3m, although not meeting its own guidelines, is however meeting the guidelines of DBKL. In our meeting with DBKL, we were told that DBKL do not have setback requirements for residential houses and highway. The setback requirements of 2.3m used by DBKL are for residential to residential houses only (see Building By-law used by DBKL). DBKL also recognizes that there are different setback requirements for different categories of buildings, for example industrial buildings will have wider setback requirements.
|
Issues were raised by Minister of Works during his press conference