Monday, July 28, 2008

PR REPORT CARD: D, MAYBE F

So I’m talking to a young friend of mine working on a class project, for which he’s been reading various reports and wondering why the new Selangor Exco is so anti-commerce. He pointed out the following in particular:


State assemblywoman Elizabeth Wong has said, “Local councils should be the first filter to ensure that there is a sustainable environment, which is why local elected representatives should be on the board… The positions would be filled by non-governmental organisation members, community leaders and some political representatives.” (The Star)

Her partners in the DAP seem to be bent on nationalizing everything:
“Among the initiatives, they [DAP’s Edward Lee Poh Lin (Bukit Gasing state assemblyperson), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan state assemblyperson), PKR’s S Sivarasa (Subang MP) and Hee Loy Sian (PJ Selatan MP)], will undertake is to ask the Federal Territory MPs to raise the matter with DBKL to halt the work and to re-purchase the land from the developer before gazetting it as a green lung… “The question of the compensation will be done in detail but it should not be done at the profit of the developer,” said Lee. (
Malaysiakini)

The State Exco has put various projects on hold. MPAJ was reported as a state acquisition of one of these two properties for RM290 million (The Sun)

First, it’s interesting to observe that the business sector appears to have been sidelined: the assemblypersons don’t seem interested in what local businesses have to say. Second, I work with about 30 colleagues; if the company can't make a profit, well, that would be 30 families without a breadwinner in short order. Is it the intention for the State government to hire the people who will lose jobs as companies go out of business?

Indian industrial leader Tarun Das’ reaction to the momentous fall of the Berlin Wall was cited by TL Friedman in his book “The World is Flat” through an insightful description of the state of India from independence to 1989:

“Nehru had come to power [after the end of British colonial rule] and had a huge country to manage, and no experience of running a country: The US was busy with Europe and Japan and the Marshall Plan. So Nehru looked north, across the Himalayas, and sent his team of economists to Moscow. They came back and said that this country [the Soviet Union] was amazing. They allocate resources, they give licenses, there is a planning commission that decides everything, and the country moves. So we took that model and forgot we have a private sector… That private sector got put under this wall of regulation. By 1991, the private sector was there, but under wraps, and there was mistrust about business. They made profits! The entire infrastructure from 1974 to 1991 was government owned… [The burden of state ownership] almost bankrupted the country… We were always at 3 percent growth, the so-called Hindu rate of growth – slow, cautious, and conservative. To make [better returns], you had to go to America.”

I wouldn’t of course compare BN’s recent election losses to either the fall of the Berlin Wall or Indian independence; or the PR coalition to Nehru’s administration, but there are some interesting parallels. It has been shown again and again that government controls will not lead to the utopia that many social democrats envision. Just look at the state of our steel sector which is rife with profiteering and the size of our government bureaucracy which absorbs a crushing 51% of our GNP.

Can you imagine how many schools RM290million will build? How many impoverished families could be fed if we could reduce some of the resources used to fund our umpteen ministries? Can it be argued that spending monies to buy back pieces of private land is justifiable? At this pace, any time I’m upset about what my neighbour is doing on his land, I’ll petition the government to acquire his property! After all, why should only the residents next to vacant lots be entitled to public funds to expand their backyards?

I’m all for reviewing fishy projects involving persons connected with the old authorities. But it seems like some of our new reps are going on a witch-hunt: Are we going to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Anyways, I told my friend that it is still early days. After all, there are lots of other hypocrites in the assembly: maybe they'll cancel each other out.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

MOOKL - (Coalition to) Move Out Of KL

Here’s a useful suggestion. Move out of KL.

Those who make the most noise about the increasing population in Kuala Lumpur should be the first to volunteer to move out.

Population increase is inevitable. According to Department of Statistics, there is one baby born every 58 seconds in KL. By 2020, there will be over 377 million more people simply by birth.


KL City Plan NOT Flawed

The National Physical Plan (NPP) anticipates population increase, development and refurbishment and there are plans for these.

Featured in NST recently, Derek Fernandez claimed that the KL Draft Plan is flawed because it contradicts the NPP (25 persons per hectare) as stated below:
“…However, in line with NPP objectives to achieve higher levels of land use efficiency, better use of infrastructure, in particular public transport and to create a higher quality urban environment with more parks and recreation areas,the present overall gross urban density of approximately 29 persons per hectare will need to decrease slightly to 25 persons per hectare. This target gross urban density has been adopted to establish a macro level assessment of the need to provide urban land.”

If DBKL were to follow the NPP guidelines strictly, all residents would have to live in detached homes and not terrace/link homes, apartments and condominiums - which is practically not achievable.

A quick check on the NPP’s website revealed that Fernandez conveniently left out the subsequent paragraphs that states:

“For the individual states, this figure will need to be adjusted to account for the development characteristics of each area. The present overall gross density of Kuala Lumpur is for example higher than 25 persons per hectare. At the Kuala Lumpur conurbation level however, 25 persons per hectare is an applicable average even though individual components of the conurbation, such as Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur have been developed at higher
densities.

Accounting for the increase in urban population to the year 2020, a further 331,520 hectares of land will be required for urban uses. This results in a total commitment for urban land in 2020 of some 768,610 hectares; an area equivalent to approximately 5.8% of Peninsular Malaysia’s land area.”

Source: NPP Town Plan
Scroll down to 4.5.4 Urban Land -> i. Requirements

Isn’t it a coincidence that his career has grown (and the number of clients) by leaps and bounds in light of these issues? Are lawyers allowed to ‘advertise’ and 'sell' their service via the media?

The lazy mainstream, alternative media and blogs who don’t bother to do their own research, preferring to conveniently quote him blindly, contribute to his rising popularity.

Taking advantage of such issues for career advancement is just way below ‘low’.

Implication of No-Development and No-Population Increase

Cities should be allowed to grow, given proper development plans. By saying no to development and to population increase, the noisemakers are in fact implying that:

* Children cannot live close to their elderly parents

* Young couples should buy houses outside of KL if they want a home of their own

* Outstation folks and foreigners cannot marry and live with KL-lites

* Outstation and foreign students who come to study in the city cannot stay on to work after they graduate

* Anyone from outstation cannot find employment in the city

* Expatriates are not welcomed

* No one other than existing residents can move to / live in the city

* It’s ok for prices of property to rise due to property shortage


Take Action

Everyone should contribute by taking action, and not just pay lip service. Citizens should do their bit by moving out of the city. The government must do their bit by improving public transportation and building better public roads. Toll rates must be reduced. And City Hall must ensure strict compliance by developers.

Many others have already moved further from the heart of the city because they can get a more comfortable home and a better living environment for a lesser value. I for one am moving my family to Sg Buloh.

The noisemakers should set an example by being the first to move out.

If not, don’t expect any support for exercising hypocrisy.