Justify legalising illegal factories in a housing zone
Defending administrative decisions portrays the culture of “tell a lie and repeat it often enough and the people will believe it is the truth.”
By Ravinder Singh
In his article “Hill development issue resolved”, Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar states that one of the findings of the Appeal Board hearing the case of Sunway City in Penang, was that it was wrong for the City Council to decide for itself in 2012 that this was a “special project” without reference to and approval of the State Planning Committee (SPC). The Board’s decision set aside the City Council’s approval.
When the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) and other NGOs first raised this issue, their objections were dismissed as being anti-development in nature. This was like saying that the City Council was infallible in making decisions, and so its decision to approve hill development should not be questioned. The Appeal Board’s findings prove that both the City Council and the State authorities were wrong. Hopefully, a lesson is learnt.
The Penang state government should not look at the public who raise issues of concern as being “anti-development” and brush them aside while defending all decisions of their administration and agencies, right or wrong, to make a show of competency and infallibility. This leads to a culture of “tell a lie and repeat it often enough and the people will believe it is the truth”. No politician should adopt this style and make it their SOP.
Take the case of re-zoning shophouses in Desa Jelita from a residential zone to “industrial”. The SPC approved the re-zoning on June 14, 2012, after the Local Council meeting passed “garis panduan (guidelines)” on this matter on May 14, 2012 (JPN Pulau Pinang Bil. 4/2012). But Desa Jelita was zoned as public housing in 1996, and soon after developed as a residential area.
Is it legally and morally right to re-zone the shophouses in this housing scheme, used illegally as factories, to “industrial” in order to legalise them?
The scenario would be different if a place once zoned as residential but never developed, let alone resided in, was later re-zoned to “industrial”, provided environmental requirements of a buffer zone relevant to industry types and other requisites were fulfilled.
City Council authorities claimed that the SPC can lawfully give instructions to the Planning Authority, which the latter must carry out, implying that the re-zoning was done upon a directive originating from the SPC. Is this true, or was it the Planning Authority’s own work ending with the SPC endorsing it without fully appreciating that its “OK” would mean:
- interfering with the enforcement action that was on-going against the illegal factories under Section 27(2)(a);
- setting a precedent for factories to begin operating illegally in residential zones, knowing they will be legalised instead of acted against under Section 27(2)(a);
- defeating the state’s vision of making Penang “Cleaner, Greener, Safer and Healthier”
Interestingly, while the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 does allow the SPC to give directives to the planning authority, which the latter must carry out, the provision also clearly restricts the SPC to only giving directives which are not inconsistent with the same Act.
If the SPC did give the instructions, was this not inconsistent with the Act as it ousted the operation of Section 27(2)(a) of the Act under which enforcement action was already underway against the illegal factories in a residential zone?
On August 20, 2010, the then senior deputy director of the development planning department of the City Council gave the excuse that his department could not proceed with enforcement action against illegal factories as his officers faced difficulties gaining entry to take photographs. Did the SPC’s instructions put him in a quandary such that he had to create a story of abandoning enforcement action and begin re-zoning action to legalise the illegal industries in Desa Jelita?
It is hoped the Town & Country Planning and Housing Committee can show transparency and accountability by stating its own stand on this matter and explaining why the shophouses should not be re-zoned to their original status of “residential/commercial”. So far all “explanations and clarifications” have been given by civil servants in the City Council, who paint the picture that their hands are tied as they are merely carrying out the directive of the SPC.
I do not suppose anyone in the planning department, city councillors or elected representatives would like to have factories operating within 4 to 5 metres of their homes. Can what’s not good for them be good for the public?
Just state whether the shophouses in Desa Jelita will be re-zoned to their original status of “residential/commercial” or not. If not, please give legal and moral justifications for downgrading the citizenship of the residents of Desa Jelita by taking away the protection of Section 27(2)(a) that they originally had when they purchased their homes here 15 to 20 years ago.
Ravinder Singh is an FMT reader
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.