Tuesday, December 15, 2015


Media statement by . Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman, Cheong Chee Khing ADUN Bercham in Ipoh on 15 the December 2015

St.Philomenia Tamil school was built some 100 years ago and has a student population of over 600 hundred students. It's the 2nd only Tamil girls school in the country. Adjoining this school is apiece of land measuring 1 and half acres which was a JKR quarters( hereafter called the said land).

For over 20 years the school has been writing to the State Governemnt to alienate the said land to the school. The school wanted the land to be converted into a a plying field as the school has no such available land.

Next to the said land is a big housing and residential area known as Lim Gardens.
Although the school has been applying for the said land suddenly recently the land was alienated to Yayasan Perak who have now proposed a commercial development to the said land
The school PIBG committee led by Jayaseelan and the neighbours have filed objection to the proposed development
An inquiry was held today within the requirement of the Town and country planning Act. It took place today on the 15th December 2015 at 9am at Dewan Azlan Shah, Tingkat 10, Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh in a hearing called Majlis Pendengaran Awan. The reason for this hearing is concerning the many objections 

This hearing was represented by the persons affected by the planned development as following:
1. Luis Alexander a/l Selvanathan 2. A. Jayanthi No. 6, Solok Segar, Taman Lim 3. Jayalachimi and M.Kula Segaran 4. Anbalagan a/l Appathurai 5. Sellamal a/p Arumugam of Kg. Tai Lee, MR Jeyaseelan a/l Raju PIBG chairman of St. Philomenia school 7) Seelvaganeasean a/l Subramaniam and concerned citizens

The Coram of the panel were as following:
1. YB. Dato Rusnah – Chairman 
2. Encik Ismail bin Abdullah – Pegawai Pejabat Tanah Galian
3. Puan Asni bin Mustafa – Jabatan Perancang Negeri Perak 4) Encik Zaquan Zakaria – Setiausaha MB Perak

Among the issues raised during the hearing were as following:

1. By proceeding with the development of land it would certainly be considered as unsound development in exchange with cost of public interest; and being a girls school it would be unwise and unhealthy to have a commercial compleat or ang business to be placed next to the school

2. If at all the area is ever developed then it would be subjected to many kinds of social problems as such would be instances where it would lead to traffic congestion and also further social problems; 

3. It should act as buffer to any persons that prevents incompatible or antagonistic people from coming into contact with or harming each other especially the young school girls studying at the school premises.

4. Once the commercial buildings be allowed to spring up then the parking facilities needed allocations for the employees at those premises and in a residential area certainly not feasible to allow for such developments as there would be massive traffic congestion.

5. There should be SLOPE allocations where every built up area for such upcoming commercial developments needed a necessary amount of spacing for approval but in such a development is there a space which could be allocated here.

6. Such compliance shall be followed within section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 where such an approval or rejection of draft local plans should be allowed only after due consideration after the objections or representations which shall be modified accordingly and submitted to the Committee for approval. 

The proposed redevelopment is on the basis of "perniagaan dan perkhidmatan”. This proposal is vague and ambiguous.

Perniagaan means business and perkhidmatan means services. Now what type of business is proposed is not clear.? Is it shop lots are or a commercial complex and thus the residents are to guess on the proposed projects to take place.How many shop lots how big each lots?? How busy it would be? 

Perkhidmatan means service? What type of services has been proposed? Massage parlour services, snooker or the said area would be turned into and entertainment centre? All these must be made known for the objectors to clearly argue their case and put forward their grievances. But this was denied and thus unreasonable and unfair to the objectors as they have to play a guessing 
7. The school is the only girls’ school in that area and there is also a church next to the school. Currently the traffic flow is so heavy and there is already problems coping the volume of traffic and what more could be encountered should the development be allowed.

8. It would further lead to social problems where bad guys would be frequenting in that area and further encourage the social problems to increase in volume.

9. The adjoining area was also fenced up without further notice given by the relevant authorities and this is certainly a disappointment to those persons been affected in that area.

10. There was a recognition to promote “one child one sport” policy. How could it be implemented if the school does not even have a school field to call of its own thereby forcing the school has to look for other places to hold their activities elsewhere.

11. Under the Local Agenda 21, the local authorities should have gone to the ground to meet the residents in that area and find out the problems encountered by the surrounding residents where the authorities here have failed in their efforts to review the matter seriously and leading failure of justice. This failure todo consultations with stake holders is unacceptable.

Therefore the affected residents seriously hope that the planning authorities should view the plea of the residents and also that of the PTA of St. Philomena Tamil School with deep consideration where the residents affected hope for the proposed development to be cancelled. and be allowed for the approval to provide a space where the school and neighbours certainly deserves a field to hold their activities.

A win win formula is required here. Surely a commercial gains cannot and should be allowed to overtake the interest of our students and residents who want a quiet living.

M. Kula Segaran and Cheong Chee Khing

No comments:

Post a Comment