Speech (Part 2) by Penang Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and Assemblyman for Padang Kota, Lim Kit Siang, on the Motion of Thanks debate in Penang State Assembly on Thursday, 2nd June 1994
Arrogance of power of Tan Gim Hwa as MPPP President who even leased out State land as MPPP land as 99 years
The RM2.00 million Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ project is another MPPP scandal of Tan Gim Hwa.
The Deputy Chief Minister, Dr. Ibrahim Saad has finally admitted in the Assembly during the speech of the DAP Assemblyman for Datuk Krainat, K, Balasundram, that the legality of the RM200 million Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre1 project is in doubt because of the inclusion of Lorong Reutens in the MPPP lease to Pangkal Permata Sdn. Bhd. – as Lorong Reutens is not MPPP land but State Government land.
The Memorandum of Understanding signed between MPPP and Pangkal Permata Sdn. Bhd. on 30th October 1993 awarding the 99-year lease of 213,759 sq. ft. MPPP land at Tainan Midlands for the ‘One-Stop Centre’ project specifically Included part of Lorong Reutens, with the MPPP President, Datuk Tan Gim Hwa, who signed the MOU, making the false claim that MPPP is the regis-tered owner of that part of Lorong Reutens.
As far as I know, up to this date, Lorong Reutens has not yet become MPPP land.
This shows the arrogance of power of Tan Gim Hwa as MPPP President that he could even lease out state land as MPPP land for 99 years.
There is now confusion as to whether and when the State Government has given approval for alienation of this part of Lorong Reutens to MPPP.
However, the National Land Code is very clear where under Section 78 (3), it specifically provides:
“27(3) The alienation of State land shall take effect upon the registration of a register document of title thereto pursuant to the provisions referred to sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be; and,
notwithstanding that its alienation has been approved by the State Authority, the land shall remain State land until that time.”
Furthermore, under Section 136 of the National Land Code, two conditions before any sub-division could be approved had been violated in the case of Lorong Reutens, namely:
*that it “would not contravene any restriction in interest in which the land is for the time being subject”;
*that it “would not be contrary to the provisions of any written law for the time being in force, and that any requirements imposed with respect thereto by or under any such law have been com plied with.”
Both conditions have been contravened because Lorong Reutens is a public street, and its present, closure by the MPPP is illegal and violates the Local Government Act.
MPPP had violated all the legal requirements in closing Lorong Rautens without notice and giving the public the right to object
The developer of Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ project, Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. submitted its application for planning approval for the project on November 1, and in remarkable speed, the MPPP Infrastructure and Works Committee met on 24th November to endorse its proposal to close Lorong Reutens, The MPPP full Council approved the closing of Lorong Reutens at its meeting of 9th December 1993.
And a major portion of Lorong Reutens is now closed creating grave inconvenience to the Taman Midlands residents.
Tan Gim Hwa and the MFPE had acted most high-handedly and illegally in closing Lorong Reutens for the Taman Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ in utter disregard, of the interests of the the Midlands residents as well as the requirements of the law.
It would appear that Tan Gim Hwa not only has no respect for the Penang Chief Minister, he also has no respect for the Local Government Act 1976.
Section 67(1) makes very clear the conditions before the MPPP could close Lorong Reutens, all of which had been violated. The section reads:
“67. (1) A local authority may permanently close or divert any public street or permanently close any public place or alter the boundaries thereof:
Provided that –
(a)before the local authority sanctions any permanent closure, diversion or alteration of boundaries, not less than fourteen days’ notice shall be given of the intention to move a resolution in that behalf;
(b)before any such closure, diversion or alteration is carried out, the local authority shall prepare a plan of the proposed work and a statement showing the need therefor and shall not less than one ,month before the commencement of the proposed work give notice thereof in the Gazette and in such other manner as the local authority may by resolution direct and such notice shall state where the said plan may be inspected by the public at reasonable hours and a copy thereof shall be posted in some part of the said street or public place;
(c)it shall be competent for any owner or occupier of any land injuriously affected by such closure, diversion or alteration to make a claim in writing to the local authority within ‘a period of one month from the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette for compensation in consequence of such closure, diversion or alteration, and where such claim is proved to the satisfaction of the local authority, it shall pay compensation to any such owner or occupier and in assessing the amount of compensation payable, the benefit or advantage derived or likely to be derived from such closure, diversion or alteration by such person shall be taken into account;
(d)where any person aggrieved by any proposed closure, diversion or alteration objects thereto in writing within a period of one month from the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette regarding such proposed closure, diversion or alteration, then, unless such objection is withdrawn, such closure, diversion or alteration shall not be carried out without the sanction of the State Authority; and
(e) after the service of any such objection, the State Authority may, on the application of the local authority, appoint one or more persons to make an enquiry into the proposed closure, diversion or alteration and the objection thereto and to report thereon and on receiving the report of such person or persons, the State Authority may make an order disallowing the proposed closure, diversion or alteration, or allowing it with such modifications, if any, as it may deem necessary.
It is very clear from the above that Tan Gim Hwa and the MPPP had violated all the conditions before Lorong Reutens could be closed.
DAP gives MPPP and State Government 48 hours to re-open Lorong Reutens or we are prepared to institute legal action to vindicate the rights of the Midlands residents
There had been no 14 days’ notice before the full MPPP Council decided on December 9 to close Lorong Reutens.
There had been no one month’s notice in the Gazette of the closure of Lorong Reutens, nor had such a notice been posted in some part of Lorong Reutens as required by the Local Government Act.
There had been provision for any owner or occupier at Midlands injuriously affected by the closure of Lorong Reutens to make a claim for compensation to the MPPP before the actual closure itself.
There had been no sanction by the State Authority for the closure of Lorong Reutens although all Midlands residents had objected to its closure.
There had also been no inquiry into the objections by the Midlands residents objecting to the closure of Lorong Reutens as provided under the Local Government Act.
The closure of Lorong Reutens is therefore illegal. DAP gives the MPPP and the State Government 48 hours to re-open Lorong Reutens, failing which, the DAP is prepared to institute legal action to vindicate the rights of the Midlands residents.
State Assembly should establish a committee to investigate as to whether Dr. Ibrahim Saad or Dr. Goh Cheng Teik is misleading the Assembly about the illegal closing and alienation of Lorong Reutens for the RM200 million Taman Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ project
Yesterday, Deputy Chief Minister, Dr. Ibrahim Saad said that the State Exco had severely reprimanded the MPPP for including Lorong Reutens in the 99-year lease to Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. for the Taman Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre1 project, when it is still state land.
Dr. Ibrahim Saad that the State Exco knew about the Lorong Reutens matter recently and that, approval was given by the State Exco only 13th April to alienate a portion of Lorong Reutens to MPPP.
However, as I had quoted from the National Land Code, alienation of state land would only take effect when there is a registration of land title and not when the State Exco makes the decision to alienate. Furthermore, such registration of title can only be made after Lorong Reutens had been closed, which must be done in compliance with Section 67 of the Local Government Act.
The State Assembly must take a serious view of the clarification by Dr. Ibrahim Saad yesterday, for it is not only the MPPP which should be severely reprimanded, even the State Exco and in particular Dr. Ibrahim Saad himself, who should be severely reprimanded for the Lorong Reutens fiasco.
What is shocking is that Dr. Ibrahim’s clarification is completely different from the answer given by Dr. Goh Cheng Teik to a question by K. Balasandrans on Tuesday on Lorong Reutens with regard to the 99-year lease by MPPP for the Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ project, where Dr. Goh said:
“Tanah dim ana terletaknya Lorong Reutens memang merupakan tanah milikan Kerajaan Negeri.
“Pada 28 September 1992, Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang telah mengemukakan permohonan kepada Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang untuk tujuan membangunkan kompleks perniagaan dan kediaman at as tanah Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang Lot No. 30, 2523, 2543 dan 2546 Seksyen 1, Bandar Georgetown, Jalan Burma, Kawasan Midlands Pulau Pinang seluas 4.54 ekar.
“Cadang Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang ialah untuk menswastakan secara tender awam keernpat-empat lot yang tersebut diatas. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang memohon supaya sebahagian Lorong Reutens seluas lebih kurang 17,016 k.p. yang bersempadanan dengan .Lot 2546 diserah dan diberi-milik kepada Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang supaya kesulurahan cadangan projek yang akan diswastakan ini akan mendapat satu tatabentuk yang lebih baik dan teratur.
“Maka Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan di mesyuaratnya pada 3 Mac, 1993 telah meluluskan cadangan Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang tersebut, termasuk menyerahkan kepada Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang sebahagian Lorong Reutens untuk dicantumkan dengan keseluruhan tanah yang akan diswastakan pihak Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang dengan syarat menyediakan satu lorong bagi menggantikan Lorong Reutens yang akan ditutup.”
Dr. Ibrahim Saad said yesterday that this answer given by Dr. Goh Cheng Teik is wrong and that the Exco did not give approval to alienate Lorong Reutens to MPPP on March 3, 1993, but only on April 13, 1994. If this is the case,, then Dr. Goh must have also misled the House when he said that the condition for the alienation of Lorong Reutens to MPPP is that there should be a new road to replace Lorong Reutens.
How could a veteran like Dr. Goh make such a ghastly mistake? There could only be one answer. Dr..Goh was given this reply by the MPPP President, as he has no choice but to read out his answer in the Assembly.
This will not be the first time when Tan Gim Hwa had misled the .House with wrong and untruthful answers and information about the MPPP, and I will come to this issue later.
The State Assembly should establish an inquiry to investigate as to how is really misleading the House in this Lorong Reutens fiasco – whether Dr. Ibrahim Saad or Dr. Goh Cheng Teik.
I notice that although in Dr. Goh Cheng Teik’s reply, he gives the figure of 17,016 k.p. of Lorong Reutens as the part of the road applied for “by MPPP for the 99-year for the Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ Project, the MPPP tender document for the lease gives a separate figure for this portion of Lorong Reutens – 17,384 k.p. What is the cause for this discrepancy?
Had Pangkal Permata paid the balance of RM14.9 million by April 30 – as otherwise it would forfeit its RMS.7 million downpayment under its Memorandum of Understanding with MPPP
Under the Memorandum of Understanding {MOU) signed between MPPP and Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. awarding the 99-year for RM18.7 million, the developer paid RM3.742 million as downpayment and undertook to pay the balance of RM14.969 million not later than 30th April 1994.
Clause 5(iii) of the MOU provides that if Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. fails to pay RM14.969 million by April 30, 1994, the RM3.7 million downpayment would be forfeited and the agreement “shall thereupon become null and void .and of no further effect and neither party shall have any claim against the other under or in respect of this Agreement or otherwise howsoever”.
Had Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. paid the RM14.969 million by April 30. Is Dr. Goh’s inability or unwillingness to reply when I asked this question on Tuesday because this EM14.969 million had not be paid?
The State Government and the people of Penang are entitled to know the full facts about the Taman Midlands “One-Stop Centre’ and the MPPP President, Tan Gim Hwa, must be told in no uncertain terms that he should stop prevaricating and misleading the Assembly.
Lorong Reutens is not the only illegality in the Tainan Midlands scandal. MPPP had also violated the Local Government Act in not getting the specific consent of the State Government before awarding the 99-year lease of the MPPP land to Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd., which is RM3 million lower than the highest tender submitted.
I understand there is a set procedure before the state government could consider an application by the local authority to lease out any piece of council land, which includes the following steps:
(i) The MPPP sends to the State Government its proposal to lease Tainan Midlands land to Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd;
(ii) The state asks for valuation from the Valuation Department;
(iii) The State forwards the proposal to various government departments for comments, such DID, Town Planning, PWD, etc;
(iv) Comments by the various department sent back to the State;
(v) Comments by the various departments sent back to MPFP to see if it can fulfil them;
(vi) Only after the said procedure does the proposal by MPPP to lease the land put ot the State Exco for decision.
It is not enough that the State Exco agrees in principle with the policy proposal by MPPP to ‘privatis’1 the council land, for unless every such MPPP lease had been given individual and separate consent by the State Exco, such leases are illegal, null and void and of no legal effect. It is clear that in the Tainan Midlands case, such a procedure had not been complied with.
Teng Hock Nam has become an Assemblyman for Pangkal Permata and no more Assemblyman for Kebun Bunga
It is most regrettable that the three-man committee set up by the State Government to inquire into the illegal collection of money from potential buyers by the developer of Tainan Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’ before planning approval has done such a shabby and lousy job.
The three-man inquiry committee’s conclusion that there it was not true that Pangkal Permata had collected money from potential buyers before planning approval – which was given on February 28, 1994 – was foregone when Tan Gim Hwa was appointed a member;
Tan Gim Hwa’s role in the – Tainan Midlands scandal should have been investigated itself and the people of Penang was presented with the ridiculous spectacle of Tan Gim Hwa being appointed to investigate Tan Gim Hwa!
In the Assembly on Tuesday, the Gerakan Assemblyman for Kebun Bunga, Dr. Teng Hock Nam, even stood up to ask what evidence the DAP had that Pangkal Permata (M) Sdn. Bhd. had collected money from potential buyer’s even before planning approval.
Dr. Teng.Hock Nam has become Assemblyman for Pangkal Permata and no more Assemblyman for Kebun Bunga. As a result, he has also very short memories and has forgotten what he himself had said in the Assembly only last December.
On 9th December 1993, Dr. Teng said that he was surprised with the speed with which the units of Taman Midlands have all be sold out.
He said, as quoted by the New Straits Times of 10th December 1993:”This gives rise to questions whether there is any irregularity involved and whether they had approvals for selling the units before the signing” – i.e. the MOU between MPPP and Pangkal Permata.
Dr. Teng Hock Nam has now eaten his own words in the Assembly and has now become the champion of Pangkal Permata!
Is Dr. Teng suggesting that when Pangkal Permata sold all the units at Tainan Midlands before planning approval was given on February 28, they were ‘sold’ without any money changing hands?
In fact, in selling units before planning approval, the developer has not only violated the laws in not having developer’s licence, sale and advertising permit, but also breached the Memorandum of Understanding with the MPPP which specifically provided that consent of the MPPP must be given before the could be any sale of the units at Taman Midlands ‘One-Stop Centrel.
In giving planning approval to the Taman Midlands ‘One-Stop Centre’, the MPPP has completely disregarded the objections of the Midlands people who do not want a second KOMTAR to rise in their midst.
Tan Gim Hwa should be suspended for giving misleading and untrue information on MPPP for government answers and replies in the State Assembly
The root cause of the MPPP scandals, like the Hotel Metrepole and Tainan Midlands scandals, is because the MPPP is not elected responsible to the ratepayers.
In fact, the MPPP President not only flouts the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency, he has made it a habit to supply misleading and untrue information on MPPP for government answers and replies in the State Assembly.
The DAP Assemblyman for Paya Terubong, Teoh Teik Huat, had given example about the misleading and untrue information in this Assembly last December about the MPPP’s withholding of certificate of fitness of occupation for Tanjong Court in Tainan Ayer Itam, Bandar Baru Ayer Itam.
I will give another instance today. During the debate on the Penang Development Estimates ‘on December 15, 1993, I asked why the MPPP had approved plans for a 14-storey apartment next to the Penang Swimming Club, in violation of building and planning guidelines requiring 50 feet setback from the sea front for any development project – and where it is over 10 storeys, 50 ft. setback on both sides. I also asked why this apartment was allowed to be approved when across the road, at Tanjong Bungah Park, the authorities had classified it as an “established area” where two-storey buildings are not allowed allowed to be constructed. I said that I understood that this 14-storey apartment at Tanjong Bungah was approved as the result of political intervention, in particular on the part, of the Gerakan President, Datuk Dr. Lim Keng Yaik.
What was Dr. Goh Cheng Teak’s reply during the winding-up. He denied that the MPPP had approved a high-rise apartment block next to Penang Swimming Club. He said that MPPP had approved a 10-storey hotel next to the Chinese Swimming Club at Lot 293, Seksyen 1, Tanjong Tokong, Pulau Pinang by Tetuan Golden’ Pearl Island Hotel Sdn. Bhd.
Dr. Goh Cheng Teik had told the Assembly an untruth when he said the MPPP had not approved a high-rise apartment block next to Penang Swimming Club. I do not blame him. He knows nothing and reads what the MPPP President feeds him.
This is why I submitted a written question asking for a list of high-rise development projects which had been approved by the MPPP in 1993 and 1994 in the Tanjong Bungah area.
From the written answer, the MPPP approved a 12-storey apartment block (pangsapuri) (21units) on Lot 390, Jalan Tanjong Bungah, Bandar Tanjong Bungah which is next to the Penang Swimming Club.
It also confirmed what I said in December last year that this high-rise apartment block next to the Penang Swimming Club does not have to comply with the building and planning guidelines requiring 50 feet setback from the seafront, and 50 feet setback on both sides.
The question is how can the MPPP President be so brazen and blatant as to openly mislead the House about the MPPP approval for a high-rise apartment block next to Penang Swimming Club in violation of planning and building rules? Is this confirmation that there had been political intervention by the Gerakan President, Dr. Lim Keng Yaik, which the MPPP President seeks to hide by denying that there is such a planning approval!
Tan Gim Hwa should be suspended for giving misleading, false and untrue on MPPP for government answers and replies, which make a fool of the Chief Minister and the State Executive Councillors, as well as insulting the Assembly and the voters!