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