Screenshots

The Star Metro Tuesday May 23, 2006

Councillor to shed light on allegations
By K.W.MAK

IT was a showdown between the differing forces working within the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) last week with Councillor Subramaniam Veruthasalam allegedly accusing MPPJ legal advisor Abd Muttalib Mohd Ali of corruption.

Subramaniam had reportedly been quoted as having accused Muttalib of siphoning billboard licence fees for the MPPJ Sports Club and wanted to know why these and other illegal structures and billboards were not taken down.

“The moment it is illegal, it is corruption,” Subramaniam was quoted as saying.

Those accusations were hurled when Muttalib went down to the ground to prevent Poly Dimension Sdn Bhd from building a pedestrian bridge at Section 10 in Petaling Jaya as the council contended that proper approval was not obtained for the construction.

Termizi (right) chairing a briefing session last month to explains MPPJ’s stand on the controversies. With him were (from left) Muttalib, Damansara Utama assemblyman Datuk C.K. Lim and Kampung Tunku assemblyman Datuk Wong Sai Hou.
Subramaniam, however, declined to comment further on his allegations, but said all would be brought to light during a press conference that he intended to hold on Thursday.

“The Majlis (council) has no rights on Federal roads. There are a lot of illegal structures on such roads that have been approved by the Majlis,’’ he said, adding that he would clarify these at the conference.

Section 5 Residents Assocation president Edward Lee commended Subramaniam for being forthright in his ticking off of Muttalib as reported in a local daily.

Lee called on Subramaniam to take necessary measures to back up his accusations and reveal the details of the wrongdoings to the public.

“Until such time, the project should be put on hold indefinitely,” said Lee.

Although Lee was quick to commend Subramaniam, he also pointed out that the council had not been forthright in coming forward with other information that would prevent MPPJ officers from being corrupt.

Residents had recently asked for the council’s detailed accounts so they could be convinced that the increase in assessment charges were justifiable.

But council president Datuk Ahmad Termizi Puteh refused to give residents the accounts, citing Section 53 of the Local Government Act that prevented him from doing so.

Backing Termizi’s statement was Muttalib, who said: “Section 53 is restrictive and also a specific provision on who is allowed to scrutinise the accounts.” (The Star, March 15)

It would seem that Termizi’s reasons for keeping quiet is no longer valid, since Termizi and any one of the councillors could, if they so wished, reveal the accounts to the public and be indemnified by Section 33 of the very same Act.

Surely allowing PJ residents to know how their assessment, parking and licensing fees collected are being utilised would be considered as an act in good faith.

Going further back, none of the agreements for privatisation of MPPJ’s services, like the privatisation of solid waste management to Alam Flora and the privatisation of parking to Swastapark Sdn Bhd (name has since changed to Godell Parking Sdn Bhd), were ever revealed, .

Lee is posing the following questions to the council again to allow the councillors to act in good faith and answer the questions.

“Termizi has said that Alam Flora’s rates have gone up and that was one of the reasons MPPJ is increasing the assessment,” said Lee.

“Can the council reveal the exact agreement between the council and Alam Flora so that residents know that Alam Flora is not hoodwinking the council?”

Lee also wanted to put on record that since the councillors represents the residents (and being indemnified Section 33 of the Act) they should have no qualms in revealing all to their constituents.

“The residents would like to have access to the detailed accounts and copies of the summarised accounts that were shown to us on March 29,” said Lee.

* * *

The Star Metro
Wednesday May 24, 2006

Residents: A bridge to fear
By K.W. MAK

RESIDENTS of Section 10 Petaling Jaya handed over a memorandum stating their objection to a pedestrian bridge to the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ).

The Public Works Department proposed the bridge and Poly Dimension Sdn Bhd funded the project in return for advertising rights on the structure.

The memorandum, containing 102 signatures from a residential area with 260 houses, was presented by Section 10 Residents Association president M. Paramasivam and vice president Tony Danker to MPPJ president Datuk Ahmad Termizi Puteh.

“We do not want the bridge because it is located in a place that will not be used by many people,” said Paramasivam.

Among other reasons for the protest was that the bridge was an additional entry point into the neighbourhood that posed security threats and the bridge would have more advertising banners with bright lights that would shine into residential homes at night.

“It would be better located near the Jalan Universiti flyover where there is no proper pedestrian crossing and there are many students using that road,” said Paramasivam.

Termizi said the council had to act fairly on behalf of numerous parties.

“MPPJ is concerned about the residents, but we are also taking care of everyone’s interest (within the council’s jurisdiction) and sometimes we are being pressured by other agencies.

“Sometimes we are being pressured by outside forces and we end up in a dilemma. We will try to make a fair decision for all parties concerned,” said Termizi.

Termizi added that the council was consulting the state government on the issue and he preferred to resolve the matter quietly.

* * *

The Star Metro
Wednesday May 24, 2006

Act gives councillors an edge over complainants

COUNCILLORS are appointed to the office of local authority by the state government based on their professional expertise and ability to contribute towards the development of a township while representing the interests of their constituents.

Naturally, the law would demand that such individuals be of the highest calibre, professionals who have contributed to the community or are residents within the local authority area.

Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 1976 provides for this, except that there is a clause that says “most’’ of the councillors should fulfil the criteria.

In the case of the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ), the councillors are mostly from outside the township. Fourteen out of the 24 councillors are from areas such as Taman Puchong Kinrara, Cheras and Shah Alam.

This does not make the council illegal, despite the fact that MPPJ technically needs to have 13 councillors that reside in Petaling Jaya to show compliance with Section 10.

Damansara Utama Residents and Owners Association legal advisor Rajes Patel added that Section 31 of the same Act validates all acts of any councillor on behalf of the council regardless of defect in the appointment.

“Furthermore, Section 33 gives the council, officers, employees and other persons acting under the direction of the local authority immunity to any claims such as for damages, demands or liability and that any expenses incurred in defending such claims would be paid out by the local authority from the Local Authority Fund.”

While the immunity only applies if the contract or action undertaken was done “in good faith,’’ the onus is on a claimant to prove that such acts were not in good faith.

These are just some of the legal hurdles that residents have to contend with if they have any grouses with their local council.

When asked what this means to the All-PJ Pro Tem Committee should they decide to file any legal case against the council to get the information they requested, committee member and Section 5 Residents Association president Edward Lee said: “It is not surprising that MPPJ has resorted to keeping quiet instead of responding publicly to our questions with such immunity.”

Lee said the law could not have intended to protect the council from prosecution for possible acts of fraud or deliberate criminal breaches of trust.

With so much immunity granted to councillors, Lee was of the opi- nion that councillors be domiciled in the area that they represent in accordance with Section 10 so that they would have to face the very people they are supposed to serve and be reminded of their obligations as councillors when they meet in the neighbourhood.

The law is not one-sided, however, as it could also provide legal immunity to the councillor in doing the right thing by revealing all.

In the recent case of councillor V. Subramaniam publicly accusing MPPJ legal advisor Abd Muttalib Mohd Ali of corruption involving illegal billboards, the councillor could effectively use Section 33 to his advantage by revealing the wrongdoings.

Section 5 Residents Association legal advisor Derek Fernandez urged Subramaniam to do this.

“Subramaniam should exercise his right as a councillor and apply for all detailed accounts of the municipality and, in particular, the accounts pertaining to the licensing of advertising billboards and information relating to the number of licensed and unlicensed billboards in order for him to support his allegations,” said Fernandez.

As it is, the council has stirred up much controversy in raising the assessment rate without making any serious attempt to collect the long outstanding assessment dues which, as of Feb 28, amounted to RM-50,686,417 (figures obtained from MPPJ website) and approving a RM6mil budget for the City Day celebrations.