|
|||||||||||||||
|
Judge Grants Crucial Injunction Government's zero squatter policy put in the spotlight by Sivarajan Aliran Monthly 2003:10 Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
This morning, Judge Suriyadi, the judge known for his courageous judgements, called for a stand down and inquired about the large crowd present at the Shah Alam High Court. Yes, the crowd was huge. More than 150 urban settlers from Kg. Rimba Jaya had gathered at about 8.30 am at the Shah Alam High Court entrance, holding banners to highlight their cause. This morning the fate of their homes was to be decided by the courts. Among the large crowd were Parti Sosialis Malaysia�s chairperson Nasir Hashim and treasurer A.Sivarajan. Also present were members of the PSM Subang Branch, who have worked hard to empower the Rimba Jaya settlers. Today the court was to hear an interim injunction against the Shah Alam Town Council (MBSA) preventing it from demolishing 12 homes in Kg.Rimba Jaya. The settlers were represented by comrade Teng Chang Khim while Sharizal appeared for the MBSA . The case was stood down momentarily till 11.00 am to allow other cases to be heard. This was only the beginning of a very interesting morning. Court Room 1 was packed with many more waiting outside.
Teng further pointed out that the 1969 regulation was meant to be executed under Emergency conditions and was thus not relevant under current conditions. Previously, the Emergency Ordinance had been used to evict many squatter settlements although the Emergency had long ended. Justice Suriyadi then took center stage and put things in perspective. He agreed with Teng that the settlers (peneroka) - though they do not hold � legal title to the land � do have equity over the land as they have worked and developed the area. The judge further established that the developer too has accepted this right of equity, as compensation of house rent for 18 months had been offered to the peneroka. The validity of the MBSA notice was then torn apart by the Judge. Sharizal, MBSA�s counsel, revealed innocently that the MBSA acted on a directive from the Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri (SUK) Selangor. He said there was a directive from the State Exco dated 7 October 2003 directing the MBSA to go to the land and demolish the houses. This revelation raised eyebrows, as it clearly contradicted the Clearance of Squatters Regulation 1969, which requires the MBSA to decide. Why was there an overriding directive from the SUK? It was a question Sharizal failed to answer. The MBSA counsel was further lost for words when Justice Suriyadi asked him whether the local council had carried out any study or survey at the kampung to enable it to exercise its discretionary powers in coming to an informed �opinion�. The MBSA took a second beating when the court was made aware that the MBSA notice had no date on it. Why was there no date on an official letter? Sharizal tried hard to convince the judge that below the notice was a column for the person who serves the notice to write the date upon service. Unfortunately, the MBSA counsel�s attempt only backfired on him, when Justice Suriyadi noted the words �notis ditampal� (notice pasted) on the letter. The judge hit out at the MBSA for behaving irresponsibly as the regulation clearly states that the notice must be �served� on the occupant of the house. A claim of �notis di tampal� cannot be accepted. The judge further explained that people were very mobile these days and travelled far to make a living. �If someone has been away for two months for Haj and you break down his house in his absence claiming you sudah tampal the notice, is it acceptable?� Frequent peals of laughter could be heard among the urban pioneers whenever the MBSA counsel was cornered and unable to answer the judge�s questions. Looking pale and sweaty, he was seen rummaging through his documents several times. Justice Suriyadi took time from the legal aspects of the case to examine the situation on the ground. �Why did the urban pioneers reject your offer for compensation and the offer to buy the low cost flat?� he asked. The Kg.Rimba Jaya settlers were only offered RM400 per month as rental money for 18 months. They were also offered low cost houses at RM35,000. The developer also claimed to have arranged 100% loans from AM Finance for the housebuyers provided that they were eligible to receive the loan . �RM 400 sebulan mana cukup�mahu cari rumah dekat Shah Alam atau Klang?� Justice Suriyadi continued. �Sekarang sewa satu bilik pun sudah RM 250; satu keluarga sewa rumah macam mana?� �Lagipun, you kata loan untuk mereka yang layak - bagaimana orang yang sudah berumur 50 tahun lebih? Kebanyakan mereka kalau setinggan adalah orang berpendapatan rendah. Kalau gaji sebulan RM1000, mahu bayar ansuran bulanan rumah lebih kurang RM400 hingga RM 500, apa mahu makan? Adakah mereka layak mendapat loan?� �So counsel,� said the learned judge, as he looked at the MBSA counsel, �tell me why should the people accept the offer? Why do you think this is a good offer? Convince me!� The way the MBSA rushed the notice was also questioned. The offer to the urban pioneers was made by the developer on 14 August 2003. Suddenly, the State Exco directs the MBSA on 7 October 2003 to demolish the houses. Which means that a space of less than two months after the offer was made, the landowner would have made an application to the local council or the SUK requesting it to demolish the houses. �For the families who have been living there for more than 50 years, you only give them less than two months to accept the offer and vacate� the judge asked. �Dua bulan mana cukup, kadangkala you peguam pun minta case postpone nak jumpa client pun mahu tiga bulan! Ini banyak keluarga dengan anak -anak pula, you ingat senang mahu cari tempat tinggal yang lain?� The MBSA, grilled by the judge, finally claimed that they were only carrying out the directive of the State Government, SUK in line with its Squatter Free Policy 2005. But �walaupun nak menempatkan setinggan ini baik plan dia, tapi itu tidak bermaksud semua perundangan boleh diketepikan�. Thus based on the arguments mentioned, Justice Suriyadi granted an interim injunction to the Kg . Rimba Jaya urban pioneers. The hearing for the case was fixed on 30 March 2004. Although it was expected that the MBSA would appeal to the KL Appeals Court, it was nevertheless a great victory for the peneroka. There were smiles and cheers all round as they stepped out of the court room. The victory earned by the Rimba Jaya peneroka extends beyond their kampung as their case has laid a foundation to examine the government�s discriminatory �Squatter Free Policy 2005�. Many such cases in the Klang Valley are ongoing on as poor urban pioneers are evicted forcibly only to receive meagre compensation and pigeon-hole flats and homes. Commenting on the decision, PSM Chairperson Nasir said, �Justice Suriyadi has once again made a landmark judgement which will give hope to the many poor settlers around the country.� We will claim the victory today and continue to defend the homes tomorrow, he said. Source: PSM. Now e-mail us and tell us what you think in fewer than 250 words. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. Alternatively, post your comments to the message board. | |||||||||||||||
RM400 sebulan mana cukup�mahu cari rumah dekat Shah Alam atau Klang? Sekarang sewa satu bilik pun sudah RM250; satu keluarga sewa rumah macam mana?
