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.
The Star
Community
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009
12:00 AM MYT
Community
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009
12:00 AM MYT
----<<<>>>----
Dear Selangor Residents /Home Owners (of non-private terrace houses),
Do you currently live in an informal gated community and paying monthly 'security fees' to your RA?
How do you know whether your RA chairman is an ethical law-abiding-citizen chairman or a corrupt conman?
Your chairman is a conman when he breaks multiple laws to implement his own GnG scheme so that he can collect monthly fees (some call it toll, others would call it protection money) from the community.
Even though the property developer have clearly stated that the residence is not a gated community, your chairman still want to operate an illegal scheme taking advantage of the grey area and the residents' lack of knowledge in this subject.
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the community that the scheme that they are allowed to operate is only an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the residents and the community the differences between a formal gated community scheme (under private/ strata residences) vs. an informal gated community scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he operates an informal gated community scheme as if it is a formal GC scheme. Both schemes are very different, one is legal but the other is actually illegal. (Comparing a legal scheme to an informal scheme is like comparing a pineapple to an apple).
Your chairman is a conman when he failed to inform the community of the limitations of an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he never inform the community what they "can and cannot do" under the local council guidelines while operating an informal scheme.
Your chairman is a conman when he instructs his security guards to stop and ask people for ID (such as MyKad or Driver's License), even though it is against the law.
Your chairman is a conman when he instructs his security guards to block the community or anyone that did not join his illegal "GnG" scheme. (Not having a residents' sticker on the windscreen does not give RA the right to stop and check the community - it is illegal, unlawful and an offence to do so).
Your chairman is a conman when he implements the prohibited card access system in non-private residences without sufficient consent or approval.
Your chairman is a conman when he breaks the laws to stop the community from moving in and out freely. (It is illegal and unlawful requiring residents of non-private residences to register at the guardhouse every time; it is also illegal and unlawful to stop others from access).
Your chairman is a conman when he has no regards for the laws, the rights of others and he thinks the entire residence belongs to him. He also does not believe in "the rule of law", has selfish agendas, and he imposes his beliefs and preferences on others. Your chairman is a conman when he indirectly forced the community to subscribe to his illegal scheme.
Above all, your RA chairman should have been more transparent first on the laws, guidelines, rules and regulations of what an informal scheme can and cannot do - and then let the community decide whether they want to sign up or not; not coerce them into joining without any knowledge whatsoever.
If your chairman didn't do this before implementing his "GnG" scheme, then he is more likely a conman.
----<<<>>>----
So, is this GnG scheme or scam? Let us keep formal GnG residences private and exclusive. And put a stop to informal "GnG schemes" in public property residences. Informal GnG schemes are actually a nuisance and a hindrance in today's society. It is worrying as these illegal schemes are sprouting all over the country.
RAs operating informal schemes have been flouting the laws and causing the communities a lot of disharmony and disunity. Certain group of people with personal agendas are taking the opportunity to enrich themselves in the name of providing "neighborhood security", which in fact looks more like an illegal "toll collection" from its residents.
No private facilities to offer and no amenities to maintain, but the RA still want to operate a GnG scheme by hiring private security guards and installing unlawful access card system which the majority of the community do not want.
"Even though there is no law that says you cannot hire security guards for your residence... you cannot block the community or others from moving in/out. You must also respect the rights of others.
You will be breaking the laws when you block public roads, or stop cars and ask for identification such as MyKad or Driver's License from the public. [Fyi, using access card system is also illegal in all non strata residences.]
You can only instruct your private security guards to take down the details of vehicles moving in/out, such as the date & time, car model, colour and registration number only.
Do not intimidate or bully other law-abiding residents/citizens. Do not act like gangsters and please do not act as though you own the housing estate. Please do not operate informal GnG scheme if you do not know the laws/guidelines. Please be informed accordingly."
The Silent Majority
----<<<>>>----
There is a lot of confusion when it comes to this "GnG" subject. This lack of clarity and knowledge by the communities have been used by unscrupulous RAs to bully its non-paying residents and the surrounding communities.
Due to the lack of awareness by the public, corrupt RAs have been taking advantage of this grey area to coerce residents to sign up/pay for their bogus schemes that are breaking the laws.
So now, some people ask... can security guards ask for your MyKad or Driving License for identification (even just for recording purposes)? And the other related question is, can they block public roads or stop you from entering? How about the usage of auto access card system?
When we want to talk about this subject, we need to define first whether we are referring to a formal GC scheme or an informal "GC" scheme? They are both very different and shouldn't be mixed up. There is a big difference between "formal" gated communities and "informal" gated communities...
All "Informal Gated Community" schemes that are operated by Residents Associations (RA) in non-private housing areas are not legal gated communities at all. Actually, these so-called "GnG" schemes implemented by RAs are against the laws and guidelines.
Only "Formal Gated Community" schemes that are managed by Management Corporation (MC) or Joint Management Body (JMB) are legal GnG schemes protected and bound by the Strata Title Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013.
First and foremost, gaining entry into a "private property" such as a formal gated community or a stratified condominium is different from gaining entry to a "public property" such as an informal GnG residence. Both schemes are very different and people ought to know the difference.
Security guards at an "informal gated community" do not have the right to ask visitors for MyKad or driving license. It is against the law and it is an offense (Regulation 7).
In the first place they have no right to block anyone from access to any "public property" residence. It is illegal to block public roads as the roads do not belong to the RA or any particular group of residents. [Sek 80 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (Akta 333) dan Sek 46 (1) Akta Jalan, Parit & Bangunan 1974]
The usage of auto access card system at informal GC is also prohibited and illegal.
Only licensed security guards on duty at a "formal gated community" and/ or a stratified condominium have the right to ask visitors for MyKad or driving license for identification and recording purposes. Only formal gated communities (strata or private properties) can legally block roads and implement auto access card system for their residents.
----<<<>>>----
Can security guards ask for your MyKad or Driving License (even just for recording purposes only)?
Regulation 7 of the Peraturan-Peraturan Pendaftaran Kebangsaan 1990 clearly states that security guards (or any persons) are not allowed to conduct checks on your identity, let alone request for any kind of identification documents.
Regulation 7 also explicitly states that only certain officers are allowed to inspect the identity of a person and request the person to produce his/her MyKad for inspection. These officers include:
- registration officers (of the National Registration Department of Malaysia or JPN)
- police officers (PDRM)
- customs officers/ immigration officers
- members of the Armed Forces on duty
- public officers authorized by the Director General
"Informal Gated Community" schemes that are run by RA in non-private housing areas are not legal gated communities at all. Actually, these so-called "GnG" schemes implemented by the RAs are against the laws and guidelines. They have no right to ask for anyone's ID.
However, formal gated communities (private properties) that are managed by Management Corporation (MC) or Joint Management Body (JMB), are legal GnG schemes protected and bound by the Strata Title Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013. So, they have the right to ask visitors for their ID such as MyKad/ driving license for taking down the details.
Security guards at an "informal gated community" do not have the right to ask visitors for MyKad or driving license. It is against the law and it is an offense.
Only licensed security guards on duty at a "formal gated community" or a stratified condominium have the right to ask visitors for MyKad or driving license for identification and recording purposes.
Pengawal keselamatan yang bertugas di kediaman awam (termasuk di komuniti berpagar yang tidak formal) tidak dibenarkan untuk meminta dokumen identiti seperti MyKad ataupun lesen memandu daripada pihak awam.
Tetapi pengawal keselamatan yang bertugas di premis persendirian (seperti di komuniti berpagar yang formal, kondominium dan bangunan swasta) dibenarkan untuk meminta dokumen identiti pelawat bagi tujuan rekod butiran.
Peruntukan Peraturan 7 Peraturan-Peraturan Pendaftaran Kebangsaan 1990 memperuntukkan bahawa hanya seorang pegawai pendaftaran, pegawai polis, pegawai kastam, pegawai tentera atau pegawai lain yang diberi kuasa bertulis oleh Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran sahaja yang dibenarkan untuk meminta dan memeriksa identiti seseorang dengan mengemukakan kad pengenalan.
"Syarikat Kawalan Keselamatan hanya boleh meminta dokumen identiti pelawat semata-mata bagi tujuan semakan dan rekod kemasukan ke premis persendirian dan kemudian mengembalikannya kepada pelawat selepas identiti mereka direkodkan."
Therefore, only formal gated communities have the right to block roads and demand visitors for their MyKad or Driving License. So, only licensed security guards on duty at formal gated communities can ask for your MyKad or Driving License for recording purposes only.
This is as clear as it can get... hope this helps!
----<<<>>>----
If you are someone who are denied access to a (non-private /non-strata) residence whether to visit your family, friend or simply just going home, you can lodge a complaint with your Municipal /Local Council and/or PDRM.
If you are being stopped by the security guard and asked to produce your ID such as MyKad or Driver's License, you can lodge a complaint with your Local Council and/or PDRM.
If you are a resident or someone who encounters problems with the security guards (or have been harassed from moving in and out freely) just because you don't subscribe to their scheme, you can lodge a complaint with the authorities.
----<<<>>>----
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
----<<<>>>----
What your RA won't tell you :-
- That it is illegal to block public roads in residential areas (only allowed in private property /residences)
- That it is an offense for security guards to ask for I.C. or driving license even for recording purposes only (only allowed in strata or private GC residences)
- That auto access card system is prohibited and illegal (only legal in strata and/or formal GC residences)
- That they have no right to stop non-participating residents or any law-abiding citizens access
- That rightfully, they can only apply for a Guarded Neighbourhood GN scheme (classified as an Informal GC scheme)
- That they are required to put up a Notice Board containing all relevant information (please refer below guidelines by one of the local councils)
- If they have obtained all the necessary requirements & approvals from the relevant authorities
- That all their security guards have license and have undergone all checks, tests and other requirements from KDN
- How much money they are making every year from operating these schemes
- That they have their own personal selfish agendas to fulfill and are profit driven
- How lucrative is this industry and how easy it is for them to bs the residents
- That many residents have dropped/opted out of the scheme along the way and they no longer have enough consensus to operate
- That their GN scheme approval is actually on a temporary basis
- Not only is their scheme unlawful, it is also discouraged by the government and is actually against the National Unity Blueprint
- That there are other neighborhood watch schemes such as Rukun Tetangga, Skim Rondaan Sukarela SRS and Community Policing CP that don't cost any monthly fee at all.
- Yes... you can guess a few more (or you can read about them from the media)
----<<<>>>----
RAs can also start Kawasan Rukun Tetangga KRT instead of GnG if they are sincere...
Residents, please do not condone to any form of illegal gated community scheme or wrong doings by corrupt RAs.
For the many, not the few...
The Silent Majority
Residents, please do not condone to any form of illegal gated community scheme or wrong doings by corrupt RAs.
For the many, not the few...
The Silent Majority
----<<<>>>----
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
