What is cooking under "Subang Ria Park"?
I am from Wangsa Baiduri Condo. I was supposed to meet someone from this forum for the hearing. But, he had not made it and I had passed him the following report on 16/7 but no response. I called him up and he is in bad health and I was asked to do what is possible here.
What happened in 15/7/2007 hearing
I had registered but had not received any notice. I was told by my friend to bring along the assessment receipts. So, I rushed to pay. But, my friend gave me his assessment receipt without name.
I was little late and I was received by a lady in T-Shirt of "Protect Subang Ria Park" on. There was a small crowd in the Que. but, I was led to a MPSJ staff and was given a Sticker without even asking for my the Receipt or IC and move in. I met some other residents of our Development who had prepared some notes to talk.
YB Lee started with welcome and emphasized the historical of having such an objection hearing with so may participants and officials. And, a group of Sime Representative by the side of the stage.
There were noise from the floor when the MD of SIME UEP started to present what they want to fulfill they past obligations. And, the MD requested the floor to be patient for some minutes starting on history on how they got a title of in 199? which had taken considerable portion of the presentation and how much they had paid for the quit rent, etc...and the RM15 million Sime is going to input for the park, etc..and how the Re-Development will benefit the Residents..with two surveys being done - Traffic and Social Impact.. The MD promised what they propose will be fulfilled.
REACTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
One of the Residents posted a question to the floor if anyone would take the proposal for Re-Development. Result - NOT a single response! The question passed to YB Lee, he had not give a direct answer nor other officers.
One asked if SIME was using the same consultants as for their project in SJ & USJ as the result of poor transfer and bad town facilities or layout should disqualified the previous advices and the Floor suggested doing their own survey if needed.
Derek Fernandez, a lawyer, representing a Resident in Wangsa Baiduri, was shooting the officials with "machine-gun" with FULL LOAD of Legal points, or breach of TCPA on the way the proposal was prepared and the calling of Objection, Federal Policies on environmental and Town Planning issues - NOT only on prosperities but to go along with the Nature!! He had pointed out the newest policy that "Open Space" should be in proportion to population rather than by area of development. By law or regulation, NO DEVELOPMENT ON WATER RETENTION AREA. Some written presentation was handed to the Authorities for their study. But, from the loudspeaker, we could here hear an indication from an official that "there could be some other ways!". The presentation ending with a BIG hands from the FLoor. The official had queried the need of a lawyer to speak on behalf of the resident at the beginning.
Eddy Chung shot MPSJ on their "Big Spendings" on a few non-practical displays or facilities. His sorrows over hundreds of BIG OLD trees being cut and moved away within 4-5days were much shared from the Floor. He expressed his last three voting on YB LEE could be reconsidered if the Park failed to continue which would influence his excise to health maintenance. His challenging the authority to acquit the Park with Pro-rata ratio of contribution from the Residents
A lady was disappointed to see a much far less comparable with the Town planning and facilities with the Australian.
A few expressed disappointment of non-fulfillment of the Developers who shared the Subang projects in the past and a great number of dissatisfy of non-transparency and performance of MPSJ as officials can easily change their posts without much worries. The officials had shown impatient in some instances, but, had accepted the reminders from the floor that they were there for hearing and had been quite co-operative to have followed.
A speaker was complaining the no consulting attitude of MPSJ, including the recent approval of Flyovers (Highway) from Batu Tiga via USJ to other district.
A Wangsa Baiduri Resident reminded the Floor that the 10% of 583ha for Subang Jaya should be the target to look into. Sime is at least 20-25years late in delivery. Further he pointed out that the land in Sime Proposal should be from 4 lots of land in which at least one (& the Big one) should have started with Wangsa Baiduri. Therefore, not logic to be developed by Sime and Wangsa Baiduri should have the RIGHTS. Similarly reminded that Water Retention Ponds should not be an area for development. The reactions from the Floor seems to agreed mostly. He was later on "barred" from voicing as he was having a "yellowish color sticker. He tried to protest after raising HIGH with his Assessment receipt and prompted for a chance to speak. But, up to the end, his requested was never entertained. And, I found my sticker also a Yellow one!!
One lady had been quite well prepared to question the Authority on the basis for calling the Objection and wish the Authority to clarify the matters.
Another lawyer has proposed a resolution on the meeting. Even it was seconded, but, disregarded by the officials and also the floor.
And, the officials rushed through the closing.
There were seems to be only a few camera shooting and seemed no interviewing by any "reporters". So, some had queried if Reporters had been invited.
My impression was MPPJ tried to impose a number of restriction during the registration to indicate a "tight" control. But, in fact, everyone can participate and seated randomly and voiced but could be barred if not in the favor of the chairman. HOW MANY ARE EXACTLY SS12-SS19 RESIDENTS REMAINED UNLNOWN OUT OF THOSE 1000-1500?
I go through a leaflet from the PPSJ and surprised to see the chairmans of the wangsa baiduri condos were organizing the PPSJ when they have been relaxed or working along side with the Developer in dragging the Transfer of Strata Titles for years, allowing the Common Properties to remain in the Developer's name, non-justification of expenses and not chasing after the Developer on why no facilities for a Condo or strata title as Apartment!!
Is the Rights of Subang Jayan been respected by MPSJ or SIME?
MAJLID PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA
"BERSAMA KE ARAH KECEMBERLANG"
NO. FAIL: MPSJ/KEY/IN/SJ-6/6/2007
CADANGAN KERJA UNTUK CADANGAN BAGI
TEMPAT LETAK KERATA - PERUBAHAN MATAN KE ATAS TAMAN REKREASI SERDIADA SELUAS 1.218 EKAR DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN LOT 17394 (TAMAN SBUANG RIA), NO.1, JALAN SS12/1A, SUBAGN JAYA, MUKIM DAMANSARA DAERAH PETALING, SELANGOR SARUL EHSAN.
UTK TETUAN SUME UEP PROPERTIES BHD. DAN SUBANG JAYA MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD.
SUBANG JAYA MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD
NO. 1, JALAN SS12/1A
47500 SUBANG JAYA
PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR DARUL EHASAN
This is an official Panel at the construction site of SJ MC carpark in the Subang Ria Park. This is an evidence that:
1. MPSJ already gave approval for a Car Park to be built in this Park which is under Lot 13794 to Subang Jaya Medical Centre (SJMC) which is a wholly owned Hopsital of Sime Darby group as evidenced by the above Panel at the Construction Site of the Car Park without a public objection.
2. The land (Lot 17394) of 29.39 ha was claimed to be under SIME UEP but now 1.218 acres had been transferred to SJ MC!
3. From the Panel, the Lot 1739 is obviously for Taman Subang Ria. Therefore, why it should be under Sime UEP when the Development should had been finished 20 years ago?
Accordingly to http://hwabeng.org.my/node/291
Lee Hwa Beng:
"As for the work in Subang Ria near SJMC, they are actually building a car park. It will initially be a temporary car park for SJMC when they are building car parks (800) and wards in the existing SJMC car park. After that, this temporary car park in Subang Ria will be turned into a public car park for Subang Ria users. This issue was discussed with the JKP representatives of Subang Jaya and they have agreed.
where JKP is an arm of MPSJ "representing" residents.
4. So, when Lee Hwa Beng had approved the Car Park after JKP agreed, it is an approval of Lee Hwa Beng when one of "his arms or legs" had agreed!!
5. If the car park is later to be turned into a Public car park. The land will become Public land! Is it amazing?
There are more evidences in the "Park" that show that the land cannot be private and the lakes are Water Retention Pond where there should not be any building around!!
SO, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS DOUBTFUL AND MPSJ HAD VIOLATED THE PROCEDURES IN GRANTING THE APPROVAL TO SJMC ON THE CAR PARK ALREADY.
SO, THE LAND OF THE PARK ALREADY MANIPULATED BY MPSJ & SIME before the July 15, 2007' PUBLIC "OBJECTION" HEARING!!
I believe PPSJ are having members jogging frequently in the Park and this is known to PPSJ. Therefore, if they are really protecting the Park, should they not filing an injunction to SIME in June before the Objection hearing when they have close contact with a legal advisor?
The Land was marked as "Town Park"!!
I forget to tell that person had got an approval Plan for Wangsa Baiduri for 1986-90. The part behind Holiday Villa is in a Lot 3067 marked as "TOWN PARK" corresponding to right part of Lot 17394 claimed by Sime UEP. The Left Lot behind SJMC and Sheraton was marked as Lot 3065 in his approval plan. So, Lot 17394 should be "TOWN PARK" since 1986-90. WHY TO BE IN HAND OF THE PRIVATE OR NEED TO BE GAZETTED!
Originally Posted by Grandpa
As to PPSJ, I was astonished that as residents of the Condo's we were not aware that our MC were donating the T-shirt until it went out in the Notice of calling up residents for the hearing!! If Rules & Regulations cannot be observed even within a small MC with a million of Revenue per year, will rules & regulations be observed in a bigger society?
DID Dr Zamzam endorsed the SJ MC Carpark in Lot 17394?
When JKP Zone One had been consulted, then has DR Zamzam endorsed this approval? If so, he had bullied the Residents of Zone One already? Should he speak on behalf of the Residents during the last Objection hearing?
Originally Posted by Grandpa
Your Rights are on your Hand! LHＢ& His Runners Had Abused Our Rights & Is Continuing！
1. I had registered via my friend but not got any notice or AR. Similarly to Grandpa and many others who had registered in person. MPSJ or rather LHB had announced in the press that those presenting the Cukai Pintu can be used as evidence as Residents, but, many of those in the Condo where Strata Title had yet to be transferred do not have their names in the Cukai Pintu. So, this should have shut off a number of Condos residents. However, many condo residents were given stickers one way or the other. I understand a number of Condo residents had got yellow stickers including some of those members of PPSJ who are resident of Wangsa Baiduri which can be found in the photo in this website (if one care to resume all photos to its original brightness). I understand from Grandpa that there are more tables than shown in the photo where he was led to get the yellow sticker without explanation. And, in fact, he had been SMS by another resident before he entered the “registration” area : “We do not need 2 register…just walk in only.. Im near d board 2 d right of door….”
2. If we go through the postings in this forum, some one had got the AR even without registered (#145)!
3. As mentioned, I got information from other residents as well, including an approval site plan that marked the Lots 3065 & Lot 3067 in area of “today’s” Park. All basis information had been shared among a few of us. The speaker, on behalf of Wangsa Baiduri, who drew the attention of the floor to 10% of Open Space and a LOT for Wangsa Baiduri claimed to be under SIME was given the plan to speak and to show. But, as mentioned he was interrupted and barred to continue even with his Cukai Pintu HIGH! Therefore, if MPSJ respects Rights of the Resident, they can easily verify and provide the Chance to continue. WHEN ABUSE IS THERE, WHO FAULT IT IS?
3. In fact, the evidence of Lot 17394 with four lots had been posted in this website. Therefore, if anyone really cares to challenge, he should have used it as well. Or, as mentioned by Grandpa, the Panel on the Construction Site is already a good challenge by anyone visiting the park, especially PPSJ. Or, Dr Zamzam being the one involved in the approval of SJ MC Car Park should have more access into information or at least one to warn the Residents in the hearing that LOT 17394 had been approved with the Car Park or even part of it has been transferred. What had DR Zamzam said in the hearing?!!
4. I own a unit in Wangsa Baiduri but I am not residing there. I wanted to participate but I am not in a condition to travel. Therefore, Grandpa is in a better position to advise what happened in the hearing and in the Park. As mentioned, the hearing is not our main battle!
5. Anyone in this Forum who can read the postings clearly and try to read between lines, there are people in the development industry and legal advisor who are in a much better position to challenge the “HEARING” or to STOP the “Re-Development” or To Re-instate of Town Park (an obligation of MPPJ/MPSJ) rather than Gazetting (an act by the State or Federal that will use Tax Payer money).
• Should Derek’s point that NO DEVELOPMENT along Water Retention Ponds be a good enough to void any Development?
• Should the search of 10% Open Space be a good point to solve not only Subang Ria Park but other hidden ones, including USJ’s?
• Should (or How come) “Town Park” at the time of MPPJ be under Private Title?
• Should Tax payer pay to Private Owner to get back Town Park?
• Should residents contribute to get back land under Town Park?
6. If this battle been for all of us, why PC preferred to hide the 7 functions? Why those important questions on posting #138 not been answered?
7. If MC for the Condos can spend some money on the T-Shirt for PPSJ, shouldn’t they take action on the number of pending problems with the Developer and so the Part of land claimed to be SIME?
8. I hope “Respect” should be to the information I provided here and not a “Respect” that I should be the ONLY ONE to Challenge. Anyway, ONE of US did try to Speak Out in the Hearing and it had been turned into “DUMMY’ by the USUAL ABUSE OF RIGHTS BY MPPJ!!
9. If one refers to PC’s posting, JKP Zone one committee was in the 3K meeting on this meeting as well as JG who had been provided with a letter from MPPJ to PKNS approving Lot 1127 & Lot 3067 for Wangsa Baiduri in 1984. Had JG showed it to JC and those JKP Zone One Committees? Had anyone of them taken any action?
Re your posting of #187
JKP is a network of MPSJ. If we know it well before hand, they should be stopped from all kind of approval of MPSJ! Nevertheless, this testified that you and JKP were not blurred to provoke or promote this “approval” process. And, this is surely a Batu Tiga Phenomenon. Your posting of #191 had testified your understanding of the announced procedures of MPSJ/LHB to restrict hearing for SS12-SS19. But in reality, this forum also testified MPSJ practiced something else and in fact cannot be put into practice when Cukai Pintu can be nameless. When 1,006 are mentioned as eligible and you testified “more than 1500” already cast another doubt on the validity of the last “hearing”. When you had confirmed that you are from USJ and so carried yellow sticker and not supposed to voice, but the floor has cast an unanimous voice, THE RIGHTS OF SUBANG JAYAN HAD BEEN INTRUDED. YOU AND UNCOUNTABLE number of USJ residents or yellow stickers had void the PUBLIC “OBJECTION” hearing!
Your photos will be a good evidence on above and a good evidence to call up witness if needed!!
I am ROFL to see what had been organized with such a ROFL idea!!
p.s. From the Dictionary, ROFL could mean Roll on Floor Laughing or Running on Four Legs. The latter to my understanding could mean Baby and those handicapped! These are exactly what those “Smart” Politicians or Runners (RD) had taken the citizen as or even “Not human beings”!
Please use the evidence and information to challenge the authority & Sime NOT ME! Only those hiding under the table or being RED HERRING should be questioned further!
PLEASE NOTE LHB IS USING THE SAME TRICK ON SHERATON – TO SELECT RESIDENTS OR RA TO GO THROUGH THE “OBJECTION” PROCEDURES!!
HAD THE FULL PROPOSAL BEEN ADVERTISED ACCORDINGLY AND SO ARE ALL NEARBY RESIDENTS BEEN NOTIFIED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO OBJECT? Does Sheraton has land to develop or Land from Subang Ria, or, the 10% from Subang Jaya?
Or, Subang Ria Park is just a Red Herring while Sheraton is the one to go through??
CHASE AFTER THe ABUSES OF RIGHTS AS IT WILL BE ON ANYONE, EVEN NOT A MATTER OF DEVELOPMENT!!
Humiliation after Humiliations without Flush!!
What is a kind of JOKE? an Urban Park, privately own!!
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
& Wait for further development from SIME UEP?
SO, THIS IS THE KIND OF "AS IS" PROMOTED BY USJ RA & JKP?
WHY LHB HAS TO INFORM USJ when he had restricted hearing to SJ?
DID LHB & 23 OTHER OFFICIALS HEAR THE OPINION THAT SJ SHOULD BE CHASING AFTER THE 10%? Similarly for USJ!!
WAS ANY REPORTER THERE "FOR THE PEOPLE" TO RECORD SUCH DEMAND?
Should JKP Zone One be for SJ? Why only seeing their message to the Public in private e-mail?
PC or YK : Any further Battle when U say that the Battle only begun, after the hearing? HAD U FINISHED WITH YR 7 functions or LHB's?
How about a second BROGA case to allow lawyers to "negotiate"?
Shouldn't reserved land into Hotels, Hospital, Tamans be greedy enough for Developers & those officials in charge of the "mistaken" titles! Shouldn't Sheraton - a five blocks 23-storey proposal be at least the same size as the last proposed SIME project that justified NOTIFICATION TO THE Public?
LHB - 20.7.2007
LHB - 20.7.2007
LHB - 18.7.2007
LHB - 18.7.2007
The Tricks on approving Subang Boulevard is on again. Being a Subang Jayan, same tricks on Sheraton are still within the "shooting" range!! And, can be targeted not only by 1000 but 40,000 for those in SS12-SS19!!!
Red Herrings found!!
LHB had changed the version of Subang Ria Again
"Do not forget that SS12 – SS19 was approved in 1970’s and Sime got Subang Ria in 1987. "
Continuing with an ROFL excuse on the area will only arouse a bigger Alert:
"Sime is only developing 19 acres and surrender 52 acres."
Has LHB forgort Derek's strongest point - "NO DEVELOPMENT AROUND WATER RETENTION POINTS"!!
Had LHB taken Residents as ROFL (Babies)? To accept the taking away of 19 acres of "meat" and surrender 52 acres of "bones"!!
GIVEN NOTICE ON A WRONGDOING WILL NOT MEAN THEY CAN BE RIGHT TO PROCEED!! OR, CAN WASH THEIR HAND OFF!
The Battle has just begin!!
Fishing among Forums is recreational!! But, shouldn't it be "Heart Broken" to see so many around and so Close??
Any residents in Taman Subang Ria since day 1 or know the history, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Or, confirm if you are also on leasehold land? Thanks!!
RA, JKP - Their representation from this website!
Originally Posted by birdy
PC and some others started with legal standi to "vote out" SJ to their 7th AGM . Then, it started taking in membership to include SJ. As such USJ RA already lost their Identity as USJ RA!! Therefore, the saying of “helps USJ residents to build a better living area” is disputable if viewing from the point of SJ residents being taken by USJ RA. The way of provoking USJ residents to attending the Subang Ria Park “Objection” hearing with desperate ignorance of Legal Standi and Technicalities had misled the USJ residents and misused the “moral” support of USJ residents into a political motion to give MPSJ or LHB a staircase - UP (Gazette) or Down (as-is). If USJ RA is so concerned about Open Space, USJ RA should demand Rights of Residents for Open Space and thereby, the legal standi of USJ residents can continue somewhere.
Whether one goes for practical or for politics can be seen and need not to be sustained by numbers or after being “agreed” by someone!!
An RA with the name for a District or Zone does not automatically qualified representation for their District as RA is not a statutory set-up to be a representation of that District but representation ONLY to their members under the Association Act. This is entirely different from a MC under the Strata Title Acts for properties with strata titles. The maximum extent of a RA or JKP are no more than a liaison unit between the government and their RA members or residents in that particular Zone if JKP is concerned. LHB has taken RA and JKP as "consultation" for his or MPSJ approval of project is an abuse of Rights of the majority of those Residents not covered by the RA or JKP. The representation taken by MPSJ in this respect is only political and for the convenience of MPSJ/LHB. Similar restrictions of representation apply to APPAC or CAHC.
For SJ MC car park, JKP Zone one did “agreed” and so LHB had “approved” – sound STEREO! Also on other "hearings".
If Residents cannot distinguish what is RA and JKP in the representation, the demand for one’s rights can never be achieved but become instrument or even victim of Politics or politicians!! So, PC had been right to describe the incident as "The Rape of Subang Ria Recreational Park" and it had been done openly by using the "silence" of 1000-1500 residents at the hearing!
Any councilor or official should do the jobs right and not to be praised when they had done something right but a number of irregularities that are obvious or even NONSENSE! An Urban Park in Private Land – this is a humiliation besides being NONSENSE! MPSJ to wait for SIME’s “further Development” – a humiliation after humiliation. Insulting the LOGIC of any sensible residents, or, any Malaysian – NOT only should be challenged by SJ, USJ but at least by those in Shah Alam – the humiliation extended to Selangor as this had been mistake by the State!! Is MPSJ under the Governorship of Selangor? HAD SELANGOR CM FORGOT THEIR MISTAKES!!
Alienation of Land is under the State!! The usual Town Park should be in the following sequence:
For Sime to hold the land again, in my opinion, I believe in our case, it could has gone through
Sime --> State--> PKNS--->Sime/Others--->State--->MPPJ--->Sime/others
Why MPSJ is missing and so winding? The one in MPPJ before 1997 and continued to be in MPSJ after 1997 should be the best candidate to answer!
EVERYONE HAD THE RIGHTS TO ASK THE COUNCILOR/MPSJ/MPPJ/SELANGOR/CM AND BE ANSWERED!
ASK DID 'Drainage & Irrigation Department" what are those lakes?
WHO SHOULD MAINTAIN THE "LAKE' or the "PARK' since day 1?
DON'T FORGET WE PAY ASSESSMENT & QUIT RENT!!
For what is JKP, please refer to http://www.usj.com.my/usjXpress/deta...able=usjXpress