Car park is a scarce commodity. The last time I went to Gombak Land Office in Selayang to pay my quit rent I have to go few rounds before I could get a space on the soggy, water logged road shoulder.
Few years back there was ample parking inside the office complex itself and when I asked why parking was not provided for the taxpayers, I was told that now they do not even have enough space for the staff.
The pressure for parking space is a universal problem in cities and towns in Malaysia. Even housing estates and apartment dwellers are not spared. I arrived at a relative apartment block in Sentul just before 8 p.m for hari raya gathering recently, and was able to get a decent parking but could not get out by the time we finish dinner. By late evening most apartment dwellers have returned home and it was just customary for them to park cars at any available space in rows and adopt the last in first out principle.
As a result of these experiences I am becoming conscious of the problem facing car owners everytime I drive around a housing estate at night or during weekend, and the solutions are nowhere near. Land available for parking is limited and expensive and there will never be enough. Suddenly I am beginning to notice a lot of cars parked by the road side at most residential areas at night. Now you see multiple car ownerships by resident in housing estates including apartment dwellers. It is common to see one family that have five cars while the house they live in provide only for one car park.
How do we solve this problem? Obviously the government, especially local government, must take the lead. In some cities in UK, residents are issued with parking permits. Firstly it is to protect residents rights and secondly it is a form of rationing and thus those with commercial vehicles or too many vehicles are deny the right to the limited space. There is now a proposal to link parking space availability to global warming by making it expensive to have the right to a parking space on the road curb.
The time has come for Malaysia to discourage car ownerships, accelerate investment in public transportation and make it user friendly too, and invest in bicycle lanes instead of motorcyle lanes. These measures will not only improve the quality of life for Malaysian as a group but in the long run will also save the government money. The benefits to the community as a whole shall be far greater than the potential loss to a few individuals.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Last Mughal
William Darymple the author of The Last Mughal: the fall of a dynasty(Delhi 1857) wrote in New Statesman that the westerners, especially the Christian extremists, in 19th century India radicalised the moderate Muslim into extremism. He said the venom of one provide the lifebloods of other. He argued that those who fail to learn from history are destined to forever repeat it.
It was, according to him, the same type of madrasah in India (Pakistan was part of India then) that produce Alqaeda and Taliban of today. The rise of wahabbism during that period in India was the result of British aggressive policy of regime change, removing the moderate Muslim Mughal emperor on the excuse that they were morally weak.
Today the evangelical Christians politician regards Muslim as an "incarnate fiends" or evils that needs to be crushed. It is history repeated itself by radicalising moderate Muslims to become extremists believing that an offence, like suicide bombing, is a form of defence against the aggressive Christians.
It was, according to him, the same type of madrasah in India (Pakistan was part of India then) that produce Alqaeda and Taliban of today. The rise of wahabbism during that period in India was the result of British aggressive policy of regime change, removing the moderate Muslim Mughal emperor on the excuse that they were morally weak.
Today the evangelical Christians politician regards Muslim as an "incarnate fiends" or evils that needs to be crushed. It is history repeated itself by radicalising moderate Muslims to become extremists believing that an offence, like suicide bombing, is a form of defence against the aggressive Christians.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Little Napoleon of Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya
Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya or MPAJ is well known for the wrong reasons: abusive, inept, corrupt, ignorant or just dishonest. They are quick to pounce on alleged offenders. However when you ask them to exercise their authority to solve common problems facing residents they are not available or incapacitated. It is inevitable that the public sense of trust on MPAJ is very low, and consequently the public is likely to ignore them or their bylaws.
As ordinary law abiding citizen I employed an architect to design and submit building plan for the renovation of my house to MPAJ.The plan was approved and the work was completed almost a year ago. The certificate of fitness was also issued which signified my compliance with the building bylaw. My architect paid on my behalf a processing fee of RM 120 and a returnable deposit of RM550 when submitting the plan for approval.
I made the request for the return of my deposit on 25 July 2006. The next day an employee of MPAJ by the name of Fazillah phone to ask if I have used their bin for the disposal of the building debris. My spontaneous reply was I did not use their bin because the disposal of the debris was all handled by my building contractor who in turn contract it out to a company specialising in debris disposal called Jiwa Arif. She said that since I did not use MPAJ's bin I have committed an offence and therefore shall be subjected to a penalty. I told her that I am not aware of this rule since there was nothing in writing and she said it is my duty to ask!
MPAJ phone on 18 September 2006 informing me that the check for the deposit was ready for collection. A surprised was waiting for me when I discovered that the amount return to me was only RM 39, i.e. I was fined for RM 511. I consulted my architect who told me that she was not aware of the requirements and later she followed it up with the town planning department of MPAJ. The latter gave the architect the impression that the rule is made by another department and they do not see eye to eye with each other. It was also told to me that MPAJ do not have the bin but make use of the bin from a company registered with MPAJ. It seems there is only one company registered with MPAJ for this purpose.
It is quite obvious that MPAJ operates their business at the whim and fancy of their employees.They do not even understand their own objective and the laws under which they operate. The lack of transparency such as this could only lead to corrupt practices. I feel that they were established not to help residents but to help themselves conduct illicit business. They should be concerned about the disposal of the debris itself instead of which bin I made use of. Imagine if I have my own lorry or a relative has a lorry help to clear and transport the debris, and will this not be sufficient? It could help me reduced my cost of the renovation.
At the rate MPAJ introduced hidden rules to the public I will not be surprised that they may in future ask residents to employ only professionals like architect, engineer, contractor etc. that are registered with them.
As ordinary law abiding citizen I employed an architect to design and submit building plan for the renovation of my house to MPAJ.The plan was approved and the work was completed almost a year ago. The certificate of fitness was also issued which signified my compliance with the building bylaw. My architect paid on my behalf a processing fee of RM 120 and a returnable deposit of RM550 when submitting the plan for approval.
I made the request for the return of my deposit on 25 July 2006. The next day an employee of MPAJ by the name of Fazillah phone to ask if I have used their bin for the disposal of the building debris. My spontaneous reply was I did not use their bin because the disposal of the debris was all handled by my building contractor who in turn contract it out to a company specialising in debris disposal called Jiwa Arif. She said that since I did not use MPAJ's bin I have committed an offence and therefore shall be subjected to a penalty. I told her that I am not aware of this rule since there was nothing in writing and she said it is my duty to ask!
MPAJ phone on 18 September 2006 informing me that the check for the deposit was ready for collection. A surprised was waiting for me when I discovered that the amount return to me was only RM 39, i.e. I was fined for RM 511. I consulted my architect who told me that she was not aware of the requirements and later she followed it up with the town planning department of MPAJ. The latter gave the architect the impression that the rule is made by another department and they do not see eye to eye with each other. It was also told to me that MPAJ do not have the bin but make use of the bin from a company registered with MPAJ. It seems there is only one company registered with MPAJ for this purpose.
It is quite obvious that MPAJ operates their business at the whim and fancy of their employees.They do not even understand their own objective and the laws under which they operate. The lack of transparency such as this could only lead to corrupt practices. I feel that they were established not to help residents but to help themselves conduct illicit business. They should be concerned about the disposal of the debris itself instead of which bin I made use of. Imagine if I have my own lorry or a relative has a lorry help to clear and transport the debris, and will this not be sufficient? It could help me reduced my cost of the renovation.
At the rate MPAJ introduced hidden rules to the public I will not be surprised that they may in future ask residents to employ only professionals like architect, engineer, contractor etc. that are registered with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)