SLOPEWATCH, a programme run by residents of Bukit Antarabangsa to monitor slopes in their area, is gaining popularity.

Communities from as far as Sabah are asking the residents for advice on starting up their own programmes.

Programme chairman Abdul Razak Bahrom said although SlopeWatch started in May 2009, it was only this year that the programme really picked up its pace following Ampang Jaya Municipal Council’s (MPAJ) involvement.

“We are now in the midst of coming up with a standard operating procedure with MPAJ on the steps to report slope-related problems,” Abdul Razak said in a press conference after MPAJ donated RM3,000 to SlopeWatch for its activities like exhibitions and awareness programmes.

SlopeWatch is a programme under the Coalition of Bukit Antarabangsa Residents Association (CoBARA). On an average they receive two calls a week by residents who noticed problems in their area.

“We visit the problematic site after the call, get the details and report it to the authorities. The usual problems are broken drains and water gushing out of unexpected locations such as holes in the ground,” Abdul Razak said.

CoBARA chairman Shahrul Hafiz Teh Abdullah said that MPAJ already have a standard set of procedures when dealing with such problems and SlopeWatch’s procedures will be in sync with theirs.

“The procedures we are setting up will also contain standards for respond time, period for action taken and such. All will be in line with MPAJ’s existing procedures,” Shahrul said.

Shahrul said the procedures and right mechanism need to be made public so people will know what to do when caught in such a situation.

Hesaid currently CoBARA represents about 4,500 residents from eight out of the 17 housing estates in Bukit Antarabangsa.

“Those who are running it now are all volunteers and residents of Bukit Antarabangsa. Sometimes we are unable to take immediate response when we receive a call because we are busy with our own lives. So we need more people to be a part of the programme,” Shahrul said.

MPAJ president Datuk Mohammad Yacob said that SlopeWatch was to be recommended and encouraged other communities to start such a programme.

“They are our eyes and ears. We currently have 10 officers monitoring slopes in Ampang but SlopeWatch makes us able to respond that much faster before anything bad happens. We never know when a disaster will strike,” Mohammad said, adding that there were lots of hilly areas in Ampang including Melawati and Bukit Cheras.

MAYOR SPEAKS
DATUK AHMAD FUAD ISMAIL, Kuala Lumpur

When my neighbourhood in SS2, Petaling Jaya, initiated guarded service recently, I was one of those who decided to wait before opting to join the scheme.

I wanted to see whether the security company would place barricades and block the access roads to make their work easier in monitoring the neighbourhood.

I am not in favour of such a move because placing permanent structures at some of the inner roads would lead to unnecessary congestion on the artery roads.

There are valid reasons why housing developers are required to build inner roads and one of them is to ensure smooth flow of traffic in the neighbourhood especially during peak hours in the morning and evening.

For the first few days when the guarded scheme was implemented in my neighbourhood, there were many near misses as motorists, especially those who don’t live in the area were caught unawares by the sudden closure of the inner roads.

A mother who was taking her usual route to drop off her toddler son at a babysitter’s home in the vicinity almost knocked into my car when she was forced to reverse as a result of the inner road suddenly being blocked by empty oil drums.

There are also residents, especially those living in the corner and end lots, who use part of the inner roads to park their vehicles. Now that these inner roads are barricaded, they are not utilised and have become no man’s land.

Another reason why I did not sign up for the guarded scheme was the mode of payment. Households are required to pay for the security scheme upfront for six months. Thus if the monthly security fee is RM50, the residents are required to pay RM300 to cover six months of security service and later another RM300 for the remaining six months.

I find the payment scheme lopsided in favour of the security company. What if the security company winds up due to unforseen circumstances, surely we as customers will be at the losing end.

A few days ago on my way home in the afternoon, I noticed a man walking about and behaving suspiciously in the area. Upon sensing that I was observing him, he walked in the opposite direction.

I drove off but decided to turn back and alert the guards. True enough, along the way I spotted the guy was checking out a house which had its front gate ajar.

Two of the guards got onto a motorcycle and started to look for the “intruder”. Alas, they were not going to find him, simply because they were looking for him on a different road!

The next day, three vehicles in my row of houses, including mine, had scratch marks on the door.

Whether this was the price my neighbours and I had to pay for not joining the guarded scheme is anybody’s guess, but the fact remains that our cars were damaged in broad daylight despite having guards patrolling the area.

Residents associations (RAs) must realise that guarded schemes are not without flaws. First you need a reputable security company which has capable guards to carry out the task of providing security in the neighbourhood.

You cannot just employ foreign workers, retirees or jobless youths from the outskirts and expect them to do a great job in overseeing the neighbourhood’s security.

RAs also cannot do as they please in the name of ensuring security in the neighbourhood. Barricading public roads and giving second-class treatment to those who opt not to join the scheme will divide instead of unite the neighbourhood.

The way forward for neighbourhood safety is community policing by the stakeholders.

So long as I am healthy and fit, I am more than prepared to take turns to patrol the neighbourhood at night so that others, including my family members, can have a good night’s sleep.

What about you, folks. Will you grab a baton and torch and join me in keeping the burglars and thieves far, far away?

CAN a Joint Management Body (JMB) restrict the number of occupants living in a condominium or apartment unit? Or is it illegal for them to do so despite what the JMB says it is looking into the interest and welfare of other owners at large?

Last month, the issue became contentious between two parties of the Le Chateau 2 condominium in Taman Seputeh - the JMB and a college.

Both were at loggerheads over the number of people allowed to stay in a unit, when the JMB imposed its in-house ruling of limiting just five people per household as decided during its annual general meeting (AGM) last year.

In discussion: This filepic shows the college representative Maran (facing camera, second from right) talking to some of the JMB members and residents.

That ruling did not go down well with the college which is renting some of the units of the condominium for its students, and had placed between eight and 10 students per unit.

The JMB said the policy was introduced following issues like overcrowding, noise, and misbehaving of the students while the college management demanded that such in-house ruling cannot override the tenancy agreement which was signed in 2006, and that they even have authorities’ approval on this.

Based on this case study, StarMetro spoke to some other parties who gave mixed views.

An apartment JMB president in Subang Jaya Lim Ai Yim, thinks there is a need to control the number of people in condominiums or apartments because they would inevitably turn into student hostels or hostel for factory workers.

“In my place, too, we’ve got about 30 units per block that have been rented out to factory workers, in different floors.

“In one instance, a unit had between 17 and 20 people, and because they work two shifts, you cannot detect them.

“The college had signed a contract with the developer but this was not made known to our residents association then.

“When you have large groups of students or workers, there is a tendency of facilities being monopolised and whatever damages done are repaired using our own JMB maintenance fund,” said Lim.

She said there was no reason why house rules could not be changed, subjected to JMB as per requirements as certain policies could not stay on forever since there would be issues cropping up from time to time.

“It is not healthy for condo or apartment units to be turned into hostels because ideally, three rooms can accommodate just six people or four rooms eight.

“But JMB has no right to impose that limitation on immediate family members,” said Lim.

She added that such in-house ruling should be carried out properly and with consultation like calling for an AGM to see if there were objections because disputes could arise in future and the unit owner could sue the JMB.

Another JMB chairman of a condominium in SS2, Petaling Jaya, who wanted to be known as just Ng, said the restriction of tenants was a way of taking care of the overall welfare of owners.

“In our case, too, the developer did sign a contract with a college whereby five units was rented out to more than 30 students, but we later set our own ruling to stop that.

“When you have more tenants, the wear and tear in common areas increases and that’s when it eats into our JMB maintenance funds.

“It’s a case of when companies or colleges just want to save cost hence putting so many people in one unit,” he said.

“But of course if it’s a big family consisting of immediate family members, we don’t have such restrictions.”

He said it was not illegal for the JMB to have such a ruling, claiming that there was such a bylaw that provided for the management committee (MC) to follow, but the other party (college or company) had to be informed of the policy first.

The Le Chateau 2 JMB chairman, Foong Chin Fee, reiterated that his committee had been vested with the power by the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) to implement such house rules within their own fenced property.

“I don’t think we are doing anything illegal, as we have sought legal advice and know of other condos elsewhere imposing similar policies.

“The CoB is well aware of our action as we have deposited a copy of our ruling with them,” he said.

The Housing and Local Government Ministry, when contacted, said under Act 63, the JMB has the right to impose house rules for proper management and maintenance of the building as long as they are not contradictory to existing national laws.

When asked about the aforementioned case, a source said it was not a straight-forward thing to tackle as students were under the jurisdiction of the Higher Education Ministry, and for factory workers, the Human Resource Ministry. The guidelines should probably come from them.

“There are two different interests to look at here — one being business (as with the college), and the other being the residents or owners themselves.

“We have to see if the contract signed is in line with the status of land ownership which the building sits on, whether it is commercial (service apartment) or residential,” the source said.

The National Housebuyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, when contacted, said JMB could not simply impose any limitation to its whims and fancies as any house rules must conform with existing laws.

“Under the Building and Common Property Act, whatever house rules cannot intervene with existing local council laws, and must be consistent with their bylaws as local authorities will have taken into consideration issues like noise and so on,” Chang said.

Local government expert Derek Fernandez said under the Local Government Act 1976, the minimum requirement for living space is 350 cubic ftt per person, and this is applicable across all local authorities.

“The JMB cannot infringe the rights of property owners restricting the number of occupants as long as the above minimum space under the Act is adhered to.

“The onus is for both parties - the college and the JMB in this case - to adhere to this 350 cubic feet policy,” he said.

THE residents of the 40-year-old Kampung Kerinchi flats in Pantai have chosen Suez Domain Sdn Bhd to develop the flats in Pantai Dalam.

A total of 369 residents voted to choose the developer they wanted to develop their homes and the vote counting was carried out in a transparent manner in front of the residents yesterday.

A total of 177 residents chose Suez Domain while 120 votes went to UDA Holdings Berhad, 46 picked MAHA Development and two voted for Puncak Seputih. There were 24 spoilt votes.

Federal Territories Minister Datuk Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin said the voting was done in an open manner to dispel any allegation of political inteference.

“The people have chosen and 90% have decided on Suez Domain,” Nong Chik said.

“Everything went smoothly and it is the first time that the Government has used this method to help the poor people,” Nong Chik said.

Nong Chik said since the method worked well in Kerinchi, the same formula might be used in other areas in the city like Kampung Baru and Jinjang.

Kampung Kerinchi Residents Association chairman Ahmad Rahman said he was happy with the decision made by the residents as Suez Domain offered the best package compared with the other developers.

THE Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister Datuk Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin said the owners and tenants of One Bangsar are entitled to legal redress if they feel there is any wrongdoing in the decision made by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) not to renew their lease.

“Everyone has a right to sue. But in this case the lease was for five years and when the mayor briefed me that he was not going to renew it, I endorsed that decision,’’ Nong Chik said.

Nong Chik said when the owners and tenants signed the agreement, they were well aware of the terms and conditions.

Time out: After five years in business One Bangsar is set to close.

“When you invest in any business venture you should know everything about that business before getting into it. If there is any legal wrongdoing then of course they have the right to adress that,’’ he added.

The minister stressed that the decision was made based on the residents feedback and that it was in line with the call by the government of putting people first.

One Bangsar is challenging the validity of the decision by the DBKL not to renew their five-year lease which expired in December last year.

In an email to StarMetro, it said: ‘‘One Bangsar and its tenants have thus appointed Messrs. Tommy Thomas, Advocates and Solicitors, to act for them. We have challenged the validity of the decision of DBKL in legal proceedings just filed. Our lawyers have advised that we have a strong case.’’

KL mayor Datuk Seri Ahmad Fuad Ismail said he was merely keeping his promise to the residents that he would not renew the lease when it expired following complaints by residents of the area’s commercial activities.

The business operators had been given six months to vacate and look for alternatives.

When contacted, One Bangsar said they had yet to receive any notice from the DBKL.

THE recent fires, both small and big, at high-rise condominiums and apartments that have caused death show that fire safety measures are very important and although Malaysian fire safety requirements are top notch, these have to be properly maintained to be fully effective.

Kuala Lumpur Fire and Rescue Department (WPKLFRD) assistant director Abd Halim Mohammad Jadi said the Uniform Building by-laws 1984 were used to set each building’s fire safety requirements.

“This law is adopted from Britain and is comparable to those from the United States and even Japan. However, without proper maintenance all the requirements, no matter how good, will not be effective,” Abd Halim said.

Routine check: Shuhaimi (right) and Kuala Lumpur Fire and Rescue Department officer Mohd Rahimi Ismail checking the air flow into the fire bunker area where the air pressure is high during fires to prevent smoke from entering the area where fire fighters start fighting fires.

He added that vandalism of fire safety components was preventing the full effect of the system to come into play when required.

Fire safety starts from the time of construction of any building as any proposed architectural plan has to have a fire safety system.

Different plans may require different systems and set of conditions and requirements as given by the Malaysia Fire and Rescue Department (MFRD) based on the building use, height, basement and others as stated in the by-laws.

Among the information required that should be marked on the plan are fire hydrants, entrances, fixed foam monitors, if any, and other details.

The plans should also indicate passive or architectural protection such as fire resistance doors, roller shutters, compartment walls, fire-fighting lobbies, staircases. fire engine access and fire lifts.

Lastly, the plan should also show fire warnings and active or mechanical and electrical protection such as the location of fire alarm buttons, wet or dry risers, hose reel and others.

In order: Shuhaimi (left) checking the pressure gauge as fire contractor and company supervisor Kong Koy Chuen (right) manipulates the pumps that pushes the water through the pipes throughout the building for the sprinkler system as well as the hose reels located within a high-rise building during a fire safety inspection.

Among the conditions that need to be met before project inspections are carried out are getting approval from the Fire Department on the architectural as well as mechanical and electrical plans, connecting fire hydrants to the Water Supply Department’s main pipe, having power supply or generator and having all other fire safety conditions fulfilled depending on the project.

Once the inspection is complete, the inspection officer will prepare a report that will be presented to the director along with the full, partial or temporary support letter which will also state any action needed to be taken before the support letter for a CF can be issued.

Subsequent checks will be conducted by the officers until all the fire safety requirements are fully met.

According to MFRD corporate communications head Morni Mamat, only buildings listed under the category of designated premises will be checked every year to get the fire certificate according to the Bomba Services Act 1988.

“At this time, residential buildings are not listed under that category and therefore there are no requirements for these to be checked after the buildings have been issued a CF,” Morni said.

According to Abd Halim, fire contractors can be hired to do the checks and maintenance of the fire safety system of residential properties.

“There are various fire contractors who have been given the certification by the FRD to perform such jobs and it is up to the residents or their management to check if they are qualified for it,” he said.

Fire extinguishers, part of the fire safety system, also need to be renewed yearly, said Kuala Lumpur Fire and Rescue Department senior assistant fire department enforcer Shuhaimi Mahmood.

“This is because the contents of the extinguishers will start to compress after a year and may not be as effective when used from that point onwards,” Shuhaimi said.

A receipt will be issued by the fire stations referred to for each serviced extinguisher and this costs RM5.

The receipt is issued when the owner of the fire extinguisher or the fire extinguisher maintenance company brings the extinguisher along with a form filled by the owner that verifies the servicing of the extinguisher to the fire department.

Morni said checks on fire safety at high-rise residential properties were made at random intervals from time to time.

“The checks are usually done when we receive a complaint from the residents or their association regarding faulty fire safety equipment or blockage at the safety passage,” Morni said, adding that no special charges were needed for the checks.

He said action was taken under the Bomba Services Act 1988 and among the common problems were vandalism, misused hose reels and staircases blocked by various items including old furniture.

Abd Halim said for high-rise residential buildings, the responsibility of maintaining the fire safety system and all its components, facilities and equipment fell on the management team.

“However, these days it is getting harder to tell who should be held responsible. Issuing notices is becoming harder for us because of this,” Abd Halim said.

Shuhaimi said it was necessary to lodge a report with the nearest fire station for all fires regardless of the cause.

“This is so we can conduct checks and investigate. “Insurance claims also need to be accompanied by a letter issued by us based on the checks conducted,” Shuhaimi said.

The fire department hotline for nationwide is 999.

THE taxi associations say they have seen positive results in drivers’ attitudes since the new rulings were introduced.

According to the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor’s Taxi Drivers’ Welfare Association’s S. Augustine, a survey showed that 70% of the drivers had started using the meter.

“Since the guidelines were introduced, members of the public have become more aware of their rights and insist the drivers use the meter,” he said.

When asked for the reason behind those who didn’t use the meter, Augustine said many of the drivers were forced to pay a hefty monthly rental to their companies.

“These people have no benefits as most of it goes to their company and the company makes the profit. This is why they resort to fixing the rates,” he added.

Augustine believed the problem could be solved if more individual permits were given out. He said by doing so, they would only have to pay RM400 a month to the banks.

“Their costs would be reduced to only 50% and that would give them more leverage in the matter. This would definitely reduce the number of taxi drivers who do not use the meter,” Augustine said.

Meanwhile, CVLB director Datin Naimah Ramli said the number of complaints under the CVLB Act 334 had increased from 171 in Nov to Dec 2009 to 190 from Jan to Feb 2010. The offences carry a maximum fine of RM300.

“There has been an 11% increase but this could be because many passengers are excited about the campaign and are eager to play a part now,” Naimah added.

However, she said it was still too early to determine if the campaign was working.

“We are carrying out on-going operations but the people’s feedback is important. We urge members of the public to come forward and lodge their complaints,” Naimah said.

She said the public could not rely on CVLB officers alone as one officer sometimes had to keep track of 100 taxi drivers.

“We do not divulge informants details so the public need not worry. They should also play a role in this.

“We have 31,000 taxis in operation and we can’t keep tabs on all of them at the same time,” she added.

Among the list of common offences are:

1. Not using the meter

2. Extra charges above metered rates

3. Haggling for fares

4. Refusing to take passengers to desired destination

5. Using longer, more time-consuming routes to passengers’ desired destination.

TAXIS in Kuala Lumpur have begun sporting big ‘No Haggling’ stickers on the sides of their doors as part of new rulings imposed by the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (CVLB).

The rulings, which are aimed at improving the services of taxis, also include the mandatory issuance of receipts to all passengers and list down a variety of compoundable offences.

The move comes after complaints continued to flow that taxi drivers were fleecing customers in spite of a hike in metered fares.

A StarMetro team recently took to the streets to see if the new rulings have had any effect on the situation.

Tightening the reins: Under the new rules, taxi drivers will no longer be able to turn away customers and they are also required to provide receipts for fares tabulated by the meters.

Four out of six taxis we hopped into used the meter without being asked to and the drivers insisted that they had always done so.

Our journey began at Lorong Maarof, Bangsar, where we hopped into a taxi to the Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd (KTMB) station in Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin.

The cab was driven by Ng Hong Foh, 62, who has been driving his taxi for five years.

“Some of the other drivers used to reprimand me for using the meter but I would not feel that I’ve earned an honest wage if I cheated my passengers,” Ng said.

Ng paid RM8 for the ‘No Haggling’ stickers outside his door and another RM8 for the list of offences.

From the KTMB station, we ventured to Bukit Bintang and proceeded to KLCC from there. Both these areas are hotspots noted for price-y taxi fares but, this time around, the drivers also used the meter.

Our joy was shortlived when we met a driver Muru (not his real name) who charged us a flat rate of RM15 to Petaling Street despite sporting the ‘No Haggling’ sign.

Muru was parked along the road and insisted that all the taxis charged the same rate or perhaps higher.

“I’m charging you a cheaper rate, the others would probably charge you RM20 or more,” he claimed.

According to him, he is left with little choice as the monthly payment and maintenance of a rented taxi costs about RM1,500.

“Those who have their own taxis can afford to use the meter but people like us have to make ends meet,” Muru said.

To make matters worse, he said he would be returning empty-handed from Petaling Street as there was an alleged turf barrier.

He claimed that some taxi drivers had conquered certain locations within the city and other taxis were not allowed to poach passengers.

At the Chempaka LRT station, a group of taxi drivers had banded together in an attempt to rake in unreasonable profits by ignoring the meters.

The drivers divide passengers among themselves based on their destinations. One taxi driver charged RM4 per head for three people to a destination where the metered rate would cost RM4.50.

RESIDENTS Associations (RA) in the Klang Valley are trapped in a Catch-22 with regard to the guarded and gated community schemes implemented in many neighbourhoods to curb crime.

Many are aware of the legal ramifications as they know that under the law, they have no power to block public roads but they feel they have no choice but to turn a blind eye and go ahead with the scheme.

Also the proposed guideline by the Housing and Local Government Ministry that RAs must get the 100% consent from residents before they are allowed to implement the scheme has got many of them riled up.

Medan Damansara Residents Association committee member Randir Singh said the 100% requirment as proposed by the ministry was “down right ridiculous.”

No through road: According to the two Acts, barricading public roads like in the picture is illegal and those doing so may even be arrested.

“It is impossible to get everyone to agree on this but we have done it because there is a demand for it.

“We know that it is against the law, but we have followed all the rules and we have done everything right and the crime rate has dropped in our neighbourhood,” he said.

“We are catering to the majority. The government and the police are not able to help us so we are helping them to do their jobs,” Randir said.

Taman Mayang RA chairman Liew Wei Beng said he had no choice but to implement the guarded scheme in his neighbourhood as he was more afraid of the criminals than the courts.

“No one wants to live in a barricaded community, but we have to protect ourselves. If I take out all the barriers today, tomorrow the crime rate will go up,” Liew said.

Liew suggested that the ministry come up with a workable percentage. He felt that 100% consent was ridiculous.

“A simple majority of 51% is a more reasonable number,” he added.

Speaking on the legality issue, TTDI RA president Datuk Abdul Latif Mohd Som said that RAs were also liable if any accidents were to happen as a direct result of the roads being obstructed.

“Morally, we want to support them (the residents) but we cannot take the law into our own hands as we (the office bearers) are the ones who will be sued,” Abdul Latif said.

Under the law, two Acts of Parliament — the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) and the Road Transport Act 1987 — directly prohibit any restriction of access to any public road by a private individual or RA.

This makes every barrier, boom gate, guard house, fence and steel drum put up by RAs to obstruct public roads illegal.

The Acts also say that those guilty of doing so may be arrested without warrant by any police officer or employee of the local authority authorised in writing by the local authority and taken before a magistrate’s court and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding RM500 and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding RM1,000.

“In TTDI, we cautioned the residents of the legal implications but they still went ahead and implemented the scheme. We empathise with the residents as security is a legitimate concern.

“We are trapped in a Catch-22. If we don’t support them, the neighbourhood will not be safe but if we give our support, we are breaking the law,” he said.

Taman Bukit Maluri Houseowners and Residents Association treasurer See Beng Loo agreed that RAs were stuck in a dilemma.

“We have seven security committees and two RAs here and since the guarded neighbourhood scheme was implemented about three years ago there has been a reduction in crime. Legal problems aside, we want peace of mind,” See said.

Most RAs also agreed that a solution must be found before the matter gets out of hand and that the answer may lie amending the said Acts in Parliament.