Monday, August 31, 2009

TheStar: Families sue City Hall

Seeking justice: Chin (centre, in orange batik) along with the village heads, sponsors and contributors on stage to receive acknowledgements of their support for the pro-tem committee’s effort against the demolition of some of the houses in Salak Selatan New Village. On the right is Lawrence, the lawyer engaged by the pro-tem committee.

ABOUT 60 families living in Salak Selatan New Village, who are being represented by a pro-tem committee, have hired a lawyer to sue the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) over their status as residents and for their right to receive land titles for their homes.

“This village was established between 1940 and 1952 under the Emergency Ordinance. From the original 800 families that settled here, the village has now grown to comprise about 1,000 families,” Seputeh MCA vice chairman and Seputeh Barisan Nasional information chief Banie Chin Yen Foo said.

About 200 families were issued eviction notices by the DBKL in March this year with a deadline to shift out by June 8.

“These families comprise mostly the children of the original settlers and have lived here their whole lives. They had tried to apply for land titles years ago but were rejected by the DBKL,” Chin said.

He added that sometime during the late 70s, part of the village was separated from the original settlement and renamed Kg Malaysia.

“The residents of Kg Malaysia applied for land titles and got them within a year. The original 800 villagers of Salak Selatan New Village have obtained land titles for their homes as well,” Chin said.

He added that the 200 residents who were given eviction notices felt that they were being treated unjustly.

“Before they started sending out the eviction notices, the DBKL should have held a dialogue with the 13 NGOs in this village, like the Rukun Tetangga, dialect associations and the Dewan Orangramai dan Kebajikan Kg Baru Salak Selatan committee, to discuss the issue,” Chin said.

“The DBKL organised a balloting in May and about 170 families took up the offer of a unit at PPR Desa Petaling and compensation of RM1,000,” Chin added.

Among the 170 families, 60 have had their homes demolished but the remaining families are still living in the village in the hope that they will be able to keep their homes now that a pro-tem committee has been set up to challenge the DBKL.

“If these villagers and their homes are considered illegal under the zero squatters policy, why were electricity and water supply given to them?” Chin questioned during a press conference at a fund-raising dinner held at the Dewan Orangramai dan Kebajikan Kg Baru Salak Selatan.

The dinner was held to raise RM15,000 to pay the remaining outstanding lawyer’s fees.

According to lawyer Vincent Lawrence from Wan Hazidin Lawrence and Associates, the villagers who have engaged him to file the lawsuit are demanding a declaration of their status as residents and land titles for their homes.

“I have issued a notice to the City Hall with a deadline to reply in two weeks’ time. So far, we have not received any answer, but the deadline has not lapsed yet,” Lawrence said.

The Housing and Local Government Ministry commissioned the New Villages Master Plan Village Survey (2002-2003) and has acknowledged 450 new villages nationwide, comprising those set up under the Briggs plan during the 1948-1960 Emergency Ordinance to quell communist activity as well as the pre-Emergency and post-Emergency Chinese villages.

Salak Selatan New Village is one of the 450 and is one of only three new villages within Kuala Lumpur, the others being Jinjang New Village and Ayer Panas New Village.

“On behalf of the villagers, I would like to extend an invitation to Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail and Federal Territories Minister Raja Datuk Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin to come to the village and see for themselves what is happening on the ground,” Chin said.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2009/8/31/central/4618534&sec=central

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

团结晚宴

捍卫新村木屋法律筹款基金团结晚宴



日期:8月28日
時間:晚上7時
地點:沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂
聯絡人:79811926(新村民眾大會堂)、012-9718668(張茂林)、012-2012022(黃志明)、012-2895779(張桂芳)

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

南洋商报:沙叻秀新村反木屋搬迁委会,28日办晚宴,筹法律金

东方日报:拆木屋没建设,沙叻秀村委轰市局

星洲日报:曾貴:市局拆屋沒發展‧如同毀沙叻秀新村


(吉隆坡)沙叻秀新村發展與協調委員會主席曾貴認為,吉隆坡市政局在過去數年來分階段拆除沙叻秀新村非法木屋後,卻又沒有進行任何發展的做法,宛如企圖毀滅該新村!

他補充,市政局在過去數年開始以零度木屋為由拆除新村外圍非法木屋,但往往在拆除木屋後,就讓空地廢置這裡,最後形成廢墟,對附近居民的生活作息造成影響。

他覺得,若市政局有心要協助新村進行發展,除了不應該執行零度木屋外,也應該協助新村村民擴大和發展,甚至協助沒有非法木屋的居民取得地契才是協助村民和新村發展的上上策。

他也認為,市政局執意執行零度木屋的做法也違反大馬首相發表“一個馬來西亞”概念。

曾貴是在週二(8月11日)上午於沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂舉行的為反對拆除木屋委員會籌募法律基金晚宴的新聞發佈會上,如此表示。

促村民團結保家園

曾貴說,目前新村有約2000住戶,除了其中800戶居民是持有地契外,剩餘的千餘戶都是非法住戶。因此他促請新村村民仿效檳城荳蔻村村民團結一致的精神來協助反對拆除木屋委員會籌募基金來保住家園。

“屆時,我們也邀請聯邦直轄區另外2個新村,也就是說增江新村和熱水湖新村的代表出席晚宴和邀請他們上台發言。”

出席新聞發佈會者包括馬華聯邦直轄區公共投訴局副主任陳元虎、沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂張茂林、沙叻秀新村體育會主席呂順富、反對拆除木屋委員會主席黃志明和財政張桂芳等人。

陳元虎:有水電供應何來非法之說

陳元虎指出,在239戶接獲市政局拆除木屋令的居民當中,有50餘戶居民已拆除木屋和搬遷,剩餘的居民則在法庭於6月10日發出庭令要市政局停止拆除工作後,剩餘的居民都繼續居住在新村內,部份村民則成立反對拆除木屋委員會。

目前,反對拆除木屋委員會分別向廠家和木屋居民收取1000令吉和800令吉的律師費,其中木屋居民只需給500令吉,剩餘的300令吉將通過籌款晚宴去籌募。

他說,他認為新村是在新村法令成立前就存在,加上村民的住家都有水電供應,何來非法之說。

張茂林:設委會非搞對抗

同時,張茂林則呼吁新村村民踴躍協助被逼遷的村民籌募2萬5000令吉的法律基金,以保住家園。

他澄清,成立委員會的做法不是要和政府對抗,純粹是希望政府知道新村的合法性,不要讓在新村居住多年的任居民流離失所。

新聞背景
市局欲拆除239間非法木屋和工廠

吉隆坡市政局打算在6月30日前拆除沙叻秀新村9路、11路、12路、13路、14路、15路、16路、18路、19路、20路及20A路的239間非法木屋和工廠。

在239戶受影響的居民和商家中,其中91%的居民已到市政局進行人民組屋抽籤程序,以在木屋被拆除時,直接遷入人民組屋,至於另外的9%居民在向政黨求助後,60戶居民決定成立反對拆除木屋委員會和入稟法庭起訴吉隆坡市政局,以暫緩市政局要拆除村內239間非法木屋和工廠的決定。

反對拆除木屋委員會籌募律師基金晚宴



日期:8月28日
時間:晚上7時
地點:沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂
聯絡人:79811926(新村民眾大會堂)、012-9718668(張茂林)、012-2012022(黃志明)、012-2895779(張桂芳)
星洲日報/大都會‧2009.08.11
http://mykampung.sinchew.com.my/node/73820

光明日报:拆非法屋沒具體發展計劃‧沙叻秀新村恐遭毀滅

(吉隆坡)沙叻秀新村發展與協調委員會主席曾貴聲稱,吉隆坡市政局過去數年來分階段拆除沙叻秀新村的非法木屋後,卻又沒進行任何具體性的發展計劃,這舉宛如企圖毀滅該新村。

他今日(週二,8月11日)在沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂為反對拆除木屋委員會籌募法律基金晚宴記者會時說,市政局過去邁向零度木屋為由,拆除新村外圍非法木屋,但往往在拆除木屋後,就讓空地廢置最後形成廢墟,對附近居民生活作息造成影響。

他認為,若市政局有心要協助新村進行發展,不應拆屋外,也應協助新村村民擴大和發展,甚至協助居民取得地契才是上策。

他表示,市政局執意執行零度木屋的做法,已違反大馬首相發表“一個馬來西亞”概念。曾貴聲稱,目前新村約有2000住戶,除了其中800戶居民持有地契外,餘者逾千戶都是非法住戶。

他吁請新村村民仿效檳城荳蔻村村民團結一致,與反對拆除木屋委員會籌募基金來保住家園。

“我們也邀請聯邦直轄區另外2個新村,即增江新村和熱水湖新村代表出席晚宴和邀請他們上台發言。”

出席記者會的尚有馬華聯邦直轄區公共投訴局副主任陳元虎、沙叻秀新村民眾大會堂張茂林、沙叻秀新村體育會主席呂順富、反對拆除木屋委員會主席黃志明和財政張桂芳等人。

反拆屋委會籌款打官司

陳元虎聲稱,239戶接獲市政局拆除木屋令的居民中,有50餘戶居民已拆除木屋和搬遷,餘下的居民則在法庭於6月10日發出庭令,要市政局停止拆除工作後都繼續居住在新村內,部份村民則成立反對拆除木屋委員會。

目前,反對拆除木屋委員會分別向廠家和木屋居民收取1000令吉和800令吉律師費,其中木屋居民只需支付500令吉,餘下300令吉將通過籌款晚宴籌募。

他提到,新村是在新村法令成立前已存在,加上村民住家都有水電供應,何來非法之說。

此外,張茂林則吁請新村村民踴躍協助被逼遷的村民籌募2萬5000令吉法律基金,以保住家園。

他澄清,成立委員會的做法並非要和政府對抗,純粹是希望政府知道新村的合法性,不要讓在新村居住多年的居民流離失所。
http://www.guangming.com.my/node/54082?tid=14

Monday, August 3, 2009

20090803 NST: Villagers have right to stay


INSTEAD of engaging in needless polemics, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should give his undivided attention to resolving the Kampung Lorong Buah Pala controversy.

Demolishing the village would reflect badly on Democratic Action Party's promise of "saving the village, no matter what the cost or consequences".

Lim's suggestion that part of the village could be retained for the residents, or that the state refuse planning permission for the apartments, are unworkable.

Lim should also not belittle the Malaysian Indian Congress' genuine offer to pay the RM3.2 million which was paid as premium for the land by the state officers' cooperative. It is good to note that MIC and Pakatan Rakyat are trying to save the village.

It is surprising that residents in a village that is reputed to be more than a century old have been declared as squatters with no rights, legal or equitable, by the Federal Court.


Didn't the residents and their ancestors acquire any legal or equitable right by virtue of their long occupation of the land? How did most, if not all, traditional villages in the country come into existence and become legal entities?

I do not see much difference between Kampung Baru in Kuala Lumpur and Kampung Lorong Buah Pala in Penang.

Both villages were settled by the inhabitants and their ancestors a century back and, therefore, have acquired a legal if not equitable right by way of continuous occupation.

In England, mere squatting for 12 years continuously creates an indefeasible right of ownership to the land. A squatter in the local sense is a short-term occupier of a piece of land.


Furthermore, the Penang government had acquiesced in their century-long domicile in the village.

To say that the residents of Kampung Lorong Buah Pala have no right to remain there is to question the legal existence of every traditional village in the country.

These villages came into existence even before many of the laws of the National Land Code were enacted. No village headman a century ago headed straight to the Land Office to get a legal title before starting a settlement.

It is immoral for the state government to conclude a deal with the cooperative over the heads of the affected residents, and unjust for the courts to conclude the villagers have no right to remain on the land.

Kampung Lorong Buah Pala could very well be a test case as to how traditional villages and settlements belonging to various communities in the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak will fare in the future against the onslaught of development and the relentless urban sprawl.

V. THOMAS
Sungai Buloh
Source: http://www.nst.com.my/articles/18pala/Article/index_html