COMMENTING on the proposed reclamation projects in Penang recently, Local Government, Traffic Management and Flood Mitigation Committee chairman Chow Kon Yeow said the government is open to reviewing them.
He said: “The state administration is not above the law and will have to abide by the rules just like everybody else. We have to follow the law.”
Well said. But shouldn’t the government follow all laws and not only laws relating to reclamation?
When residents of Desa Jelita, Permatang Damar Laut, complained about factories operating in their residential zone, the then Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) under the state government emphatically stated that industries were not permitted to operate in residential zones.
They were violating Section 27(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.
Having first told the residents that action would be taken, the very same council then rezoned the three rows of shophouses to “industrial” without consulting the Department of Environment, which would have objected as the “industrial zone” was separated from residences by just a 4m back lane.
Did the government follow the law in this case?
When pressed for an explanation, MPPP claimed that the conversion was done under the directions of the State Planning Committee under section 4(5) of the same Act.
The first part of this section states that the committee can give directions to the local authority, which the latter must carry out.
The second part, a proviso, makes it clear that Section 4(5) is not a blank cheque.
The proviso states that any direction given must not be inconsistent with other provisions of the act.
Since Section 27(2)(a) prohibits industries from operating in residential zones, did the committee have the power to disregard the proviso to Section 4(5)?
Nowhere in the act is the committee given the discretion to oust the operation of Section 27(2)(a) in any residential zone.
Since the committee does not have the power to override Section 27(2)(a) where it is in operation in any residential zone, the conversion of the shophouses in Desa Jelita from “residential/commercial” to “industrial” cannot be legitimate.
Could Chow explain to the committee how overriding Section 27(2)(a) of the act by claiming that Section 4(5) empowers it to give “any” direction to the local authority (in this case, to carry out the conversion from “residential/commercial” to “industrial”) when the proviso to Section 4(5) prohibits the giving of any instruction that is contrary to other provisions in the act.
In Desa Jelita’s case, the instructions were contrary to Section 27(2)(a) under which MPPP had commenced action against the illegal industries.
Since the law was not followed, it is hoped Chow will take steps to restore the original “residential/commercial” status of the shophouses.
I don’t think this would have happened if the backyards of VIP homes were abutting the 4m back lane that separates houses from the industries. The legalising of industries in residential zones is also not consistent with the state government’s slogan about making Penang “Cleaner, Greener, Safer, Healthier”.
Ravinder Singh, Penang