MBPJ mocks the law

…But more was revealed at the full council meeting last week. Nine in 10 billboards in the city were being erected on state land – without permission. Kampung Tunku State Assemblyman and councillor Datuk Dr Wong Sai Hou was quoted as saying that the council was working with the Petaling Land Office to ensure a speedy issuance of Temporary Occupation Licences (TOL). It is a new ruling that all billboards must have TOLs or they are deemed illegal.

Is that the job of the council or the councillors? Shouldn’t the TOL be obtained first from the state before an application for licence is submitted?

Question One: Isn’t it a pre-requisite for all applications for outdoor advertising to be accompanied by a TOL or written permission from the owner, in case of private land?

Answer: Very true indeed. But the sports club and some of its promoters needed money – plenty of it. So, this rule was dispensed with in the interests of six-figure cheques.

Question Two: Is it true that the council issued letters to several outdoor companies asking them to bring down the billboards because they had not been licensed?

Answer: Yes. But some councillors had vested interests. Some companies were “advised” to ignore the letters because they had “contributed to the cause”.

Question Three: Is it true that the council and some of the councillors are suffering from the tutup dua mata syndrome?

Answer: That can’t be further from the truth. Along the Federal Highway, a company called Nilam Simfoni Sdn Bhd has been given exclusive rights for billboards in exchange for maintaining the roads and the road shoulder. But others have put up billboards illegally and the council, despite letters from the Public Works Department, has chosen not to do anything.

Question Four: Can you put up a billboard on private land without the owner’s consent?

Answer: No, but going by Wong’s logic, you can put up first and then the council will work with the owner to “ensure a speedy issuance” of the consent letter. Also, by his logic, you can go to anyone’s house, dig a hole, erect a unipole and MBPJ “will ensure speedy issuance” of the consent letter from the owner of the property!

Question Five: Is it not true that some councillors had negotiated with advertising companies for “exclusive rights” in exchange for “donations”. Aren’t councillors supposed to be policymakers and that they have nothing to do with the day-to-day running of councils?

Answer: Yes. In this column previously, we had reproduced letters implicating certain councillors. Yes, the councillors over-stepped their boundaries, but who cares? They are not elected by or answerable to the people. They have and will continue to act as Little Napoleons and Little Emperors because they have political Godfathers who will protect them or give them immunity from protection.

Section 425 of the National Land Code states: Any person who, without lawful authority occupies, or erects any building on any state land, reserved land or mining land or clears, ploughs, digs, encloses or cultivates any such land … shall be guilty of an offence.

So, if no TOL had been issued, didn’t the advertising companies break the law by occupying state land? Did they not break the law by clearing and digging state land? The answers to both are in the affirmative. Then the all important question is: Why have they not been prosecuted?

It is obvious that inefficiency, partiality, favouritism and money – plenty of it – have influenced some lawmakers. They have no time for the law or the statute books and apply their own sets of rules and regulations, or sometimes, jungle law.

…

Source: Welcome to Sun2Surf

Read:

Malaysia’s rotten local councils