New wet market, other developments in Datuk Keramat soon


KUALA LUMPUR: A host of new developments is slated to take place on a 5.3 acre piece of land in Datuk Keramat.

This includes the construction of a wet market and affordable housing.

The land is currently owned by a private developer, after Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) reportedly sold the plot of land last year.

Most notably, a portion of the land is occupied by the Keramat wet market, whose traders have been refusing to move to the controversial Keramat Mall for several years now.

Speaking to FMT, Datuk Keramat Malay Hawkers and Petty Traders Association Chairman Shoid Chee said the private developer who purchased the land had submitted development plans to the authorities.

He hoped DBKL would issue a development order soon so that construction could begin. He added that the traders had been waiting a long time for a new, modern wet market.

Shoid said he had learned that of the 5.3 acres, some 2.5 acres would be allocated for a new three-storey wet market.

He said the developer had sought the feedback and views of the association in designing the market, and that the traders were agreeable to the plans.

“On top of the market houses under the Federal Territories Affordable Housing programme will be built, and next to it, a Rumah Belia scheme will be constructed.”

“The remaining land will be used to build serviced apartments, and this is to cover the development costs.”

The Rumah Belia is a special scheme tailored for Malaysian youths to obtain home financing facilities. It is to help young people who don’t have a house to own one.

When contacted, a DBKL spokesperson confirmed that the developer had submitted plans for the site and that the development order should be issued before the end of the year.

For the past few years, the authorities have been urging the remaining 333 traders at the wet market to relocate to Keramat Mall, which was initially built as a new location for the traders.

After the RM70 million mall was built, only 91 traders moved, and the rest refused, citing the location and design of the mall, which they claimed was not trader friendly or consumer friendly.