FAQs - Garis Panduan Gated Community and Guarded Neighbourhood

GP GATED 04.03.2011

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) GARIS PANDUAN PERANCANGAN GATED COMMUNITY AND GUARDED NEIGHBOURHOOD

MAKSUD `GATED AND GUARDED COMMUNITY’ 1.

Bolehkah Gated Community (GC) and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) datang sekali?

GC didefinisikan sebagai suatu kumpulan penduduk atau komuniti yang tinggal di kawasan berpagar dan berpengawal sama ada di kawasan bangunan kediaman berbilang tingkat (high-rise property) seperti pangsapuri, kondominium dan `town-house’ atau di kawasan kediaman bertanah (landed property) seperti banglo, teres dan rumah berkembar. Walau bagaimanapun, pemahaman `gated community’di Malaysia lebih tertumpu kepada kumpulan penduduk atau komuniti yang tinggal

di

kawasan

kediaman

bertanah

berhakmilik

strata.

Pembangunan GC adalah selari dengan peruntukan seksyen 6(1A) Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (Akta 318).

GN didefinisikan sebagai satu kawasan kediaman terkawal secara keseluruhan atau sebahagian di dalam skim-skim perumahan sedia ada atau baru yang pegangan tanahnya berhakmilik individu (individual land title).

Skim GN menyediakan perkhidmatan kawalan

keselamatan sama ada dengan atau tanpa pondok pengawal. Dari segi undang-undang, ia tidak boleh mempunyai halangan fizikal di atas jalan awam dan menguatkuasakan sebarang sekatan keluar-masuk kepada penghuni dan orang ramai.

Kewujudan GN adalah tidak berdasarkan kepada peruntukan manamana undang-undang atau peraturan. Ia hanya wujud secara `ad-hoc’ 1

berdasarkan persetujuan penghuni-penghuni di sesebuah kawasan kejiranan

untuk

menjadikan

kejiranan

mereka

sebagai

kawasan

berpengawal.

GC dan GN tidak boleh datang bersekali kerana ia berada di bawah peruntukan undang-undang yang berbeza.

PENGGUNAAN PENGAWAL DAN SEKATAN DI PINTU MASUK 2.

Adakah satu kesalahan mengguna pengawal keselamatan di pintu masuk kawasan perumahan?

Penggunaan pengawal bagi mengawal keselamatan rumah individu atau kawasan skim perumahan tertentu pada asasnya tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang dengan syarat ianya mematuhi keperluan / syaratsyarat yang ditetapkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN). Telah terdapat Pekeliling Khusus yang digubal pada tahun 2006 oleh KDN berkaitan hal ini iaitu Surat Pekeliling Agensi Persendirian Bil. 1 Tahun 2006 dan Surat Pekeliling Agensi Persendirian Bil. 2 Tahun 2006 (Rujuk http: moha.gov.my).

3.

Apakah tindakan bagi menangani masalah pembinaan sekatan secara berleluasa untuk menghalang orang awam daripada memasuki kawasan taman perumahan yang bukan dibangunkan di bawah Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (Akta 318)?

Undang-undang sedia ada iaitu Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (seksyen 80) dan Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 (seksyen 46(1)) secara tegas menghalang pemasangan sebarang halangan tetap di pintu masuk atau di kawasan laluan awam, termasuk di lorong tepi dan lorong belakang kediaman. Hanya halangan dalam bentuk sekatan fizikal secara sementara

seperti

`manual

boom 2

gate’,

kon

dan

papan

tanda

keselamatan yang boleh diberi pertimbangan untuk dipasang atau diletak di lokasi tertentu di jalan masuk berhadapan dengan pondok pengawal dengan syarat terdapat pengawal keselamatan bertugas mengawal sekatan tersebut selama 24 jam.

Pada masa yang sama, pengawal keselamatan yang dilantik tidak boleh menyekat atau menghalang kemasukan penghuni atau orang awam ke kawasan skim perumahan yang tidak berbentuk `landed strata’. Amalan semasa yang mensyaratkan orang awam menyerahkan dokumen pengenalan diri (khususnya lesen memandu dan kad pengenalan) adalah tidak selaras dengan peruntukan undang-undang. Dalam hal ini, penghuni atau orang awam perlu melaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa, khususnya kepada PDRM. 4.

Apakah tindakan terhadap Persatuan Penduduk yang menutup tepi jalan dan lorong belakang di kawasan perumahan yang mengganggu pergerakan penduduk serta kemasukan ambulans, peronda polis dan bomba?

Sebagaimana dijelaskan, penutupan lorong belakang / lorong tepi adalah satu kesalahan di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974. Dalam hal ini, penghuni atau orang awam perlu melaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan yang berkenaan.

5.

Adakah Kerajaan mempunyai polisi untuk menangani masalah sekatan di jalan awam kerana ia telah melampau dan bercanggah dengan undang-undang?

Bagi menangani masalah ini dalam tempoh jangka panjang, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT) telah mencadangkan supaya pihak-pihak berkuasa tempatan menggubal Undang-Undang Kecil (ByLaws) bagi memudahkan penguatkuasaan dijalankan ke atas persatuanpersatuan penduduk kejiranan berpengawal yang beroperasi atau

3

bertindak secara bertentangan dengan peruntukan Undang-undang Kecil atau peruntukan undang-undang lain sedia ada.

KAWALAN PENUBUHAN GUARDED NEIGHBOURHOOD (GN) 6.

Pada masa kini terdapat skim GN yang beroperasi di kawasan yang mempunyai kemudahan awam dan kawasan perniagaan. Apakah ia dibenarkan?

Garis panduan yang digubal adalah secara tegas tidak membenarkan penubuhan dan operasi GN jika di dalam kawasan kejiranan terdapat komponen-komponen kemudahan awam utama seperti sekolah, masjid, dewan orang ramai dan sebagainya serta jika merupakan kawasan laluan pengangkutan bas awam.

7.

Bagaimana jika terdapat penduduk yang tidak bersetuju dengan penubuhan skim GN. Adakah pihak persatuan penduduk boleh menghalang kemasukan mereka ke kawasan kediaman milik mereka?

Garis panduan yang digubal telah menggariskan bahawa sebarang cadangan untuk mewujudkan GN perlu mendapat persetujuan majoriti penduduk (ketua isi rumah), tertakluk kepada tiada sebarang paksaan dan tekanan kepada penduduk yang tidak bersetuju. Dalam hal ini, penduduk yang tidak bersetuju tidak boleh dipaksa untuk membuat bayaran penyelenggaraan atau bayaran khidmat pengawal keselamatan.

MASALAH PEMBINAAN PONDOK PENGAWAL 8.

Adakah pondok pengawal boleh didirikan di laluan awam, khususnya di tengah-tengah jalan masuk utama di dalam skim GN?

4

Garis panduan yang digubal tidak membenarkan pembinaan pondok pengawal di tengah jalan masuk ke kawasan skim GN. Pondok pengawal hanya dibenarkan disedia atau dibina di kawasan bahu jalan (road shoulder) dan perlu dipastikan tidak menghalang lalulintas. Jika cadangan binaan pondok pengawal di kawasan bahu jalan adalah berstruktur kekal (permanent structure), pemohon (persatuan penduduk) perlu memohon kelulusan Lesen Pendudukan Sementara (Temporary Occupation Licence – TOL) daripada Pejabat Tanah Daerah (PTD) yang berkenaan. Peraturan ini adalah selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 65, Kanun Tanah Negara, 1965 (Akta 56).

Saiz pondok pengawal hendaklah tidak melebihi 1.8 meter X 2.4 meter.

Cadangan rekabentuk pondok pengawal perlu dikemukakan kepada PBT (Bahagian Bangunan) untuk mendapat permit atau kelulusan pembinaan sementara bagi pembinaan bangunan pondok pengawal.

Pondok pengawal hanya boleh dibina setelah mendapat permit atau kelulusan pembinaan sementara daripada PBT.

PEMASANGAN PAGAR / PERIMETER FENCING 9.

Adakah pemasangan pagar / perimeter fencing dibenarkan di kawasan skim GN?

Garis panduan yang digubal tidak membenarkan pembinaan pagar (perimeter fencing) mengelilingi kawasan sempadan skim kejiranan GN. Ini adalah kerana pemasangan pagar di kawasan GN adalah melibatkan kawasan rizab jalan awam, berbeza dengan skim GC yang dibina di kawasan tanah persendirian (lot utama landed strata).

5

PENGUATKUASAAN TERHADAP SKIM GN SEDIA ADA 10.

Adakah tindakan pemutihan akan dilakukan ke atas skim-skim guarded neighbourhood sedia ada yang beroperasi bertentangan dengan garis panduan yang digubal?

Garis Panduan `Gated Community and Guarded Neighbourhood’ yang diluluskan oleh Jemaah Menteri dan MNKT pada umumnya terpakai bagi skim-skim GN yang baru. Bagi skim-skim lama, tindakan pemutihan seperti perobohan pagar, pondok pengawal dan `automated boom gate’ tidak akan dilakukan secara segera dan tergesa-gesa.

Tindakan akan

dijalankan secara selektif ke atas skim GN sedia ada yang secara keterlaluan memasang halangan sehingga mengganggu pergerakan penghuni dan menghalang kemasukan kenderaan pihak berkuasa, khususnya bomba dan ambulan. Dalam hal ini, PBT perlu memainkan peranan secara lebih berkesan supaya masalah yang wujud tidak menimbul kesulitan dan menggangu gugat ketenteraman dan keselamatan awam.

11.

Bilakah undang-undang atau peraturan berkaitan dengan Komuniti Berpagar dan Berpengawal di kawasan kediaman akan berkuatkuasa?

Sehingga kini, kerajaan persekutuan tidak bercadang untuk menggubal satu undang-undang khusus berkaitan dengan skim GN. Penggubalan garis panduan dilihat memadai bagi memandu Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, PBT, agensi-agensi berkaitan, pemaju dan persatuan penduduk dalam membangunkan

skim

GC

dan

menubuhkan

skim

GN.

Walau

bagaimanapun, kerajaan (melalui KPKT) akan menghalusi perkara berhubung dengan penggubalan undang-undang kecil (By-laws) oleh PBT bagi memastikan proses, prosedur dan tindakan-tindakan penguatkuasaan dapat dilakukan secara lebih berkesan.

6

Di

peringkat

persekutuan,

garis

panduan

yang

digubal

adalah

berkuatkuasa pada tarikh ianya diluluskan oleh Majlis Negara Bagi Kerajaan Tempatan (MNKT) iaitu

pada 2 September 2010. Walau

bagaimanapun, ia akan melibatkan proses penerimapakaian secara berperingkat oleh pihak-pihak berkuasa negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia dan pihak-pihak berkuasa di kawasan Wilayah Persekutuan. Di peringkat negeri, garis panduan ini akan dibentangkan di Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perancang

Negeri

di

setiap

negeri

untuk

diterimapakai

dan

dikuatkuasakan di peringkat negeri dan seluruh PBT. PERMASALAHAN BAYARAN PENYELENGGARAAN 12.

Adakah wujud satu sistem yang memastikan ketelusan Persatuan Penduduk dan "Gated Community" serta mencegah pengelapan tabung persatuan penduduk dan penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh ahli jawatankuasa?

Perkara berhubung dengan sistem bagi memastikan ketelusan Persatuan Penduduk ‘Gated Community’ serta mencegah penggelapan tabung persatuan penduduk adalah tidak digariskan dalam garis panduan yang digubal.

Walau bagaimanapun, sebahagian daripada persoalan yang

ditimbulkan telah disentuh di dalam Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007 (Akta 663) yang secara perundangannya terpakai bagi pembangunan dan pengurusan ‘gated community’ yang dibangunkan di bawah Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (Akta 318).

Dalam hal ini, ahli-ahli persatuan penduduk boleh membuat aduan atau laporan kepada pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan berpandukan kepada undang-undang sedia ada sekiranya terdapat bukti penyelewengan dan penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh persatuan penduduk yang dilantik.

7

RESPONSE TO THE STAR’S QUESTIONS (POSTED ON THURSDAY – 14 OCTOBER 2010) 1.

Under what law are the guidelines for Gated Community and Guarded Neighbourhood provided for? (If the guidelines do not have a legal footing, the councils that are executing these guidelines will be held liable if any untoward incidents happen as a result of GC and GN) The

preparation

of

planning

guidelines,

including

that

of

gated

communities and guarded neighbourhoods, are in line with the provision of subsection 2B (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) that requires the Director General of Town and Country Planning to formulate and advise the government upon matters concerning the use of town and country planning and the use and development of lands in Peninsular Malaysia.

The integrity of a planning guideline is further strengthened when it is presented to the Cabinet (article 43 of the Federal Constitution) and the National Council for Local Government (NCLG) (article 95A of the Federal Constitution) for consideration and approval. The Guideline on Gated Community and Guarded Neighbourhood was approved by both the Cabinet and NCLG on 28th July 2010 and 2nd September 2010, consecutively.

At the State level, it is a duty of every State, through the State Planning Committee (SPC) as provided for in subsection 4(4) of the Act 172, to promote the use of the planning guidelines as approved by the Cabinet and the NCLG. In addition, the guidelines for Gated Community (GC) was formulated to support and complement the requirements and provisions in existing laws, such as the Strata Title Act, 1985 (Act 318);

Building and Common

Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (Act 663); Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974 (Act 133); and Road Transport Act, 1987 8

(Act 333). The amendment of Act 318 in 2007, through new provision of section 6(1A) has enabled landed residential property to be subdivided from main title to small land parcels with strata title ownership (not an individual land title). The strata title ownership enables landed strata residential schemes to enjoy communal benefits stated in the Act 318 and Act 663, such as clubhouses, swimming pools and private recreation areas. Other requirements include the payment of monthly maintenance fee for the operation of the Management Corporation (MC) The general and detail planning guides in the Guideline are in line with the above laws specifically on the erection of security posts, installation of perimeter fencing and physical obstruction on the road reserve and public area. Considering the GC area is a private property, the residents (or the MC) is permitted to erect and install such structures in their area. The Guideline however strictly prohibits the GC’s from erecting security post or perimeter fencing and obstruction on the road reserve.

For guidelines on Guarded Neighbourhood (GN), no specific law governs the operation of GN. Furthermore, local councils have no authority to approve the application in setting up the GN. The GN had taken form in an ad hoc manner in existing and new housing schemes. Similar to the GC, the Guideline on GN strictly prohibits residents (or resident association (RA)) from erecting security posts, install perimeter fencing and physically obstruct the road reserves. This is in line with the provisions of subsection 46(1) of Act 133 and section 80 of Act 333. For the erection of permanent structured security post on the road shoulder, it is only permitted when the application of temporary occupation license (TOL) and temporary erection permit is approved by the land office and the local council.

Considering the erecting of structures is under the purview and responsibility of the GC and the RA and that these actions are voluntary,

9

the local councils cannot be legally blamed for any untoward incident in both GC and GN areas.

2.

Respondents find that the guidelines are inconsistent with existing laws - The Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) and the Road Transport Act 1987 - as clauses in these acts prohibit any form of restriction of access on roads while Guarded Neighbourhood allows for temporary obstacle to be placed as long as a guard is stationed there. Can the Ministry explain this inconsistency?

The decision to allow temporary obstacles, i.e. cones, security signboards and manual boom gates, was made after considering opinions and suggestions

from

stakeholders,

such

as

local

councils,

resident

associations and the police. This temporary barrier shall only be allowed if there is a 24 hour security guard to control the obstacles, thus effecting it as a temporary, non-stationary and non-dangerous obstacle. This does not contradict with Road Transport Act 1987, which prohibits dangerous obstacle. Furthermore, when a temporary obstacle is installed, all residents, either member or non member of RA are free to enter their housing scheme and the security guard appointed has no authority to deny them from entering the premises. The Guideline also states that a temporary obstacle or barrier can only be considered by a local authority on a case-by-case basis. If other residents disagree with such obstacles, the local authority may decline the installation of temporary obstacles.

The issue on temporary obstacles has been debated at length by Cabinet members as well as by members of National Council for Local Government (NCLG) before the decision to agree with the temporary barriers was made.

This leads to other implications, please explain: a)

The clause means to say that every entry/exit point must have at least a guard but housing estates in the Klang Valley tend to have many 10

entry/exit

points,

it

would

be

impractical

to

do

this.

Two main points of discussion are pertinent. Firstly, the NCLG has made a decision that this Guideline is only applicable to new GN schemes i.e. not applicable to existing GN schemes which are often unplanned thus not suitable for operation as a GN. Secondly, the clause `halangan dalam bentuk sekatan fizikal secara sementara seperti `manual boom gate’, kon dan papan tanda keselamatan boleh diberi pertimbangan untuk dipasang atau diletak di lokasi yang sesuai di jalan masuk berhadapan dengan pondok pengawal dengan syarat terdapat pengawal keselamatan bertugas mengawal sekatan tersebut selama 24 jam’ is only an option, it is not a condition of the operation of GN. The RA can option to operate the GN through patrolling and other surveillance methods without having to station guards at every entry/exit point. b)

If the guards are not supposed to stop anyone from entering or even seek identification, how will the guarded neighbourhood scheme be effective at all?

This aspect has also been debated at length at the ministry level as well as in other agencies including the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police.

Residents operating the GN scheme should be aware of the requirements of the law that only the police and other legally designated personnel, has the authority to stop, seek identification cards or investigate people.

Security guards employed by resident have no power to stop anyone from entering or seek identification at the GN scheme. Moreover from the perspective of land ownership, the GN scheme is just a normal housing scheme (with individual land title, not strata title), unlike GC which is planned as a private property. Even without stopping or seeking identification, guards can be proactive by familiarizing themselves with local residents and the inventory of residents’ vehicles so that potential intruders can be recognized and monitored.

11

3.

Does majority mean 51%? But wouldn’t that be too small a difference? Can the Ministry explain the rationale behind this?

There are many interpretation of majority. Mathematically majority means 51%. In popular politics, a majority should be substantial, thus the term two-third majority is often used. The spirit of this prescription is that it should be both fair and realistic. Selangor has imposed an 80% consent requirement and initially in March 2010, the Ministry had proposed a requirement more stringent than Selangor i.e. a 100% consent from residents are required before operating the GN. Following this, the ministry has received many responses and complaints from the public including the media saying this regulation is not logical because it is very difficult to get a 100% agreement from residents The Ministry had further stepped up its public engagement as well as consulting views and advice from the legal perspective before prescribing the majority concept. It was also found that there is no law that prohibits one house owner and a group of house owners from appointing security guards to oversee their house and their housing schemes. However with public welfare and public rights in mind, the Guideline has clearly stated the condition that the majority rule would only apply with undue force or pressure to those residents who do not wish to pay for security services, the special clause being `‌.tertakluk kepada tiada sebarang paksaan dan tekanan kepada penduduk yang tidak bersetuju’.

4.

Some commented that the need to apply for TOL makes it difficult for those who genuinely need the GN scheme, can the Ministry explain why the need?

The requirement to apply and obtain approval for Temporary Occupation License (TOL) for a security post (in this context refers to security post on the road shoulders as allowed by the Guidelines) is a land condition enacted in section 65, National Land Code (NLC) 1965. The Ministry has no intention to cause unnecessary difficulties to the GN operation but its 12

objective is to ensure that the guard house erected by RAs is legal and follows the provision of NLC. This is also to avoid guard houses from being demolished by the land office that has the legal right to demolish buildings which are not in line with the NLC provisions.

5.

The guideline forbids the scheme to be implemented in areas with public facilities but almost every neighbourhood in Subang Jaya and Petaling Jaya has common facilities, this clause makes the guidelines impractical. .

As explained in the response for Question 2(a), the NCLG has made a decision that the Guideline approved is only applicable to new GN schemes. It is not the intention of the Guideline that ALL neighbourhoods be implemented with GN. Only neighbourhoods that meet certain criteria can be considered. One criterion is that of serving the wider public interests such as the right to accessibility and the use of common facilities.

In its pure form, only neighbourhoods that are planned to be mutually exclusive and have communal facilities like those of Gated Community (GC) set ups are practical because they should not have public facilities in their premises.

6.

The attached FAQ states that ‘’legalization process would not be done immediately and hastily’’, so the councils are supposed to let the illegal ones go?

?

What this means is that the illegal erection and installation of guard post, perimeter fencing, boom gate, oil drum, etc. in existing GN shall be dealt with in phases, and using case-by-case basis, priority focusing on areas that compromises critical public services such as the obstruction or impedance of Authorities’ vehicles such as ambulances and fire brigades.

Focus areas also include GNs that install boom gates, oil drums or other obstruction onto a public road, or any other public access that is being

13

used by other neighbourhoods and that by doing so causes difficulty and instigate the disturbance of public peace..

7.

Respondents feel that the task to monitor GC or GN schemes should go back to the local councils, hence a town planning lawyer suggested to amend Section 46 of the 1974 Act and Section 80 of the Road Transport Act by adding the words — ‘’unless approved by the local authority’’ to give council the legal right to do so. Can this be done?

The formulation of the Guideline is an initiative by the Ministry as a result of public opinions and issues related to the impacts of GN on surrounding communities and Local Authorities’ added responsibility that has arisen from GN issues. The Ministry has also received suggestions from certain parties (not necessarily representative of the wider community) to amend the provision of section 46 of Act 133 which is directly under the jurisdiction of KPKT. The Ministry retains its present position until further empirical evidence, studies and public opinion warrants the need for an amendment.

At present the Ministry would not want to encourage any kind of obstruction at the entrance of housing schemes throughout the country. It is also useful to note that the Road Transport Act, 1987 (Act 333) is also under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport.

8.

Respondents also urged the government to set up a similar administration to the Commissioner of Buildings to oversee the residents associations in the event of disputes, can this be done?

It should be noted that the Guarded Neighborhood (GN) scheme operates on houses with individual titled land and not on strata title ownership. As such there is no provision of a Management Corporation (MC) as with Gated Communities (GCs) under Strata Title Act, 1985 (Act 318). The GN Scheme has sprung out to mirror facilities in a Gated Community but still hold the benefits of individual titled land. The Management Corporation in 14

GCs to some extent relieves Local Authorities from responsibilities of daily upkeep, maintenance and administration. The Ministry has no plan to set up special administration like the Commissioner of Buildings to oversee the RA’s operation in GN scheme as at present the capacity and resources of Local Authorities are limited and catering for the interests of the wider community.

9.

Some also feel that the guidelines were drawn without consulting the people on the ground, hence some impractical clauses. Can the Ministry explain please?

The fact is, that the Guidelines have been drawn up in consultation with people on the ground. The study group from the Ministry has made extensive consultation with various stakeholders discussing issues on GC and GN. Within the two year period that this Guideline have been developed, consultation with more than 50 groups of stakeholders have been made, including REHDA members, developers, the police, academicians Residents’ Associations and the public. Seminars and Focus Group Discussions have also been arranged for and analysed as input to the Guideline. The Ministry has also conducted a special study to obtain responses from public, involving 450 respondents in several local authority areas in the Klang Valley and Penang in formulating the Guideline.

10.

The guidelines forbid the residents to fence up their neighbourhoods, but some felt that fence is an essential part of the scheme to prevent strangers from entering and exiting the neighbourhoods freely. The guidelines specify that it is not allowed as the fences are normally built

on

road

reserve.

Can

the

Ministry

explain

further?

In the context of liveable and socially integrative communities, housing schemes which are installed with perimeter fencing or walls that promotes social exclusion would not support integrative approaches towards a 15

common cohesive society. We do not want to promote social exclusion and division among communities of the future. Moreover fences and walls are aesthetically unpleasing, exude paranoia and can be visually intrusive.

A home is not an army camp or a government complex. What would our country be if the whole length and breath of this beautiful country consists of fenced up or walled up neighbourhoods? Will it portray that our country is an unsafe place to live in and that there is no other option to address the safety issue? On the issue of encroachment on road reserves, RAs should understand that the construction perimeter fencing will involve the road reserve which, under the provision of the National Land Code is legally under the ownership of the public. Road reserves do not exclusively belong to members of the RA in GN schemes.

11.

One of the clauses in the guidelines discourage gated community to be implemented in rural areas, for fear of negative impact and social division. Does the Ministry feel that such security schemes can cause social division among the people in urban areas? Some people felt that the schemes have actually brought the urban residents closer in terms of working hand-in-hand to make the neighbourhoods a safer place for all.

There are cases that some schemes have brought urban residents closer.

However this is mutually exclusive and rarely extend beyond the walls and fences of their neighbourhoods. There are many factors that can bring residents together. Common interests in safety (not necessarily walls or fences) such as community policing, community welfare and common interests have often brought people together and the timeless and priceless concept of ‘love thy neighbour’ should be re-introduced by creative Residents Associations. This goes way beyond the need for fences and walls.

16

Nota: Senarai FAQs di atas adalah merujuk kepada soalan-soalan yang sering ditanya oleh pihak awam, persatuan penduduk, pihak media serta soalansoalan yang dibangkitkan di Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri, Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara sepanjang tahun 2009-2011.

Sebarang pertanyaan, sila hubungi: Pengarah Bahagian Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia Tel: 03-2699 2172 Faks: 03-2693 3964 E-mail: bpp@townplan.gov.my Laman web: http://www.townplan.gov.my

Tarikh kemaskini: 4 Mac 2011

17