Adverse acquisition, the compulsory acquisition by the government of properties belonging to the citizen is provided for, under the statute.
However, the manner it can be done and had been done is the fear that wide discretionary and uncontrolled power had been given to the executives and ministers, who could, in the name of the government, under the disguise or pretext of some state needs for development or under the name of HERITAGE, forced the property owner out of their possession.
Title by "adverse acquisition" seems to resemble ‘Title by theft or robbery’, a primitive method of acquiring property without paying adequately for it. Wrongful taking eventually generates rightful title.” (adapted from HW Ballantine; ‘Title by Adverse Possession’)
Lim Kit Siang posted an article today on the matter concerning Coliseum cinema which is owned by Dr Chua Seong Siew's family for some 86 years.
In Kit's article, Dr. Chen Man Hin was quoted to have said that: "this is nothing more than a brazen act of piracy, under the guise of using it for a public purpose."
To Dr. Chen, "an arts centre can be built anywhere in the city of Kuala Lumpur. The city council or federal territory have hundreds of acres of vacant land or properties which can be used as art centres. Why pick on coliseum, a privately owned property whose owner has devoted his life to give it the reputation of an oasis in busy KL for the public and businessmen?"
According to Dr. Chen, "property owners are watching the coliseum theatre case because it would appear that no property (especially top value ones) is safe. The expropriation of coliseum theatre is wrong because:
Coliseum theatre is an cinematic arts centre by itself, and of historical significance. it provides color and unique tourist flavour to kuala lumpur
The present owner and management is doing a good job for nearly a century.
It is a very cruel act to snatch it away from the owner, and tantamounts to daylight robbery.
Why pick on coliseum to be an arts centre when there are government buildings in town lying vacant?
The above points raised by Dr Chen deserves prognosis.
Let's look at another case. This involves the State of Johor.
A controversy is brewing in Johor which spooks prospective foreign investors in the country. At the core of the issue is a proposal by Senai Airport Terminal Services Sdn Bhd (SATS) which is owned by Syed Mokhtar, who wants the state govt to "forcibly" acquire 1,600 hectares of land belonging to Lee Rubber Co. SATS said they wanted the land to develop a cargo hub.
On the 21st July 2006, it was reported in the NST that the State Govt had to put on hold a plan to acquire 1,600ha of land in Senai belonging to Lee Rubber Co to develop a cargo hub. MB Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman said the State was leaving it to the PM to make a decision on the matter. The intended "forced" acquisition would eventually lead to investors loss of confidence with Malaysia as it can be seen that we had evolved into a Feudalistic government.
SATS which acquired Senai Airport in 2003 for RM80 million wanted to develop the surrounding area into a regional air cargo centre. SATS placed a deposit of RM190 million (50% of the offered purchase price) with the Johor Land Office for the compulsory acquisition of the 1,600ha.
Lee Rubber, whose major sharegolder is the family of the late tycoon Lee Kong Chian is not happy with the deal as Syed Mpkhtar only wants to pay RM2 per sq ft. They are seeking RM3 per sq ft. Lee Rubber contends that there is no need for 1,600ha to develop a cargo hub as even the Federal Express hub in Memphis in the United State is only 200ha. The sheer size of the land sought by SATS and the price it only wanted to pay raised eyebrows and pricked the minds of investors' and entrepreneurs' as to the question of honesty and integrity of Malaysian Businessmen and the way they could/had become rich by way of robbing others utilising the law creatively, and without meritocracy.
If Memphis cargo hub only needs 200ha (one of the world largest cargo hub), the need for 1,600ha posed obnoxious smell of dead rats from greedy Malaysian businessmen. It can be observed that Malaysians can be rich-quick without hardwork and sweat because they are allowed to steal and rob legally with the full support of the government, utilising the law innovatively and creative.
It is clear that the divesting operation utilised by Government using the Land Acquisition Act is unjustifiable in that it allowed the real risk of injustice in the adjudication of compulsory acquisition, which causes uncertainties for of titleowner and promotes social instability.It deprive property owners of their substantial property rights and preclude lawful ownership of their land. There had therefore been a violation of law of property and human rights as based on the lack of adequate compensation and the lack of procedural safeguards for registered title holders. The law of compulsory acquisition of property belonging to private owners can be seen as a legalised "daylight robbery". Have Malaysia evolved back to the age of the Barbarians and Feudal Lords? It seems!!!
However, the manner it can be done and had been done is the fear that wide discretionary and uncontrolled power had been given to the executives and ministers, who could, in the name of the government, under the disguise or pretext of some state needs for development or under the name of HERITAGE, forced the property owner out of their possession.
Title by "adverse acquisition" seems to resemble ‘Title by theft or robbery’, a primitive method of acquiring property without paying adequately for it. Wrongful taking eventually generates rightful title.” (adapted from HW Ballantine; ‘Title by Adverse Possession’)
Lim Kit Siang posted an article today on the matter concerning Coliseum cinema which is owned by Dr Chua Seong Siew's family for some 86 years.In Kit's article, Dr. Chen Man Hin was quoted to have said that: "this is nothing more than a brazen act of piracy, under the guise of using it for a public purpose."
To Dr. Chen, "an arts centre can be built anywhere in the city of Kuala Lumpur. The city council or federal territory have hundreds of acres of vacant land or properties which can be used as art centres. Why pick on coliseum, a privately owned property whose owner has devoted his life to give it the reputation of an oasis in busy KL for the public and businessmen?"
According to Dr. Chen, "property owners are watching the coliseum theatre case because it would appear that no property (especially top value ones) is safe. The expropriation of coliseum theatre is wrong because:
Coliseum theatre is an cinematic arts centre by itself, and of historical significance. it provides color and unique tourist flavour to kuala lumpur
The present owner and management is doing a good job for nearly a century.
It is a very cruel act to snatch it away from the owner, and tantamounts to daylight robbery.
Why pick on coliseum to be an arts centre when there are government buildings in town lying vacant?
The above points raised by Dr Chen deserves prognosis.
Let's look at another case. This involves the State of Johor.A controversy is brewing in Johor which spooks prospective foreign investors in the country. At the core of the issue is a proposal by Senai Airport Terminal Services Sdn Bhd (SATS) which is owned by Syed Mokhtar, who wants the state govt to "forcibly" acquire 1,600 hectares of land belonging to Lee Rubber Co. SATS said they wanted the land to develop a cargo hub.
On the 21st July 2006, it was reported in the NST that the State Govt had to put on hold a plan to acquire 1,600ha of land in Senai belonging to Lee Rubber Co to develop a cargo hub. MB Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman said the State was leaving it to the PM to make a decision on the matter. The intended "forced" acquisition would eventually lead to investors loss of confidence with Malaysia as it can be seen that we had evolved into a Feudalistic government.
SATS which acquired Senai Airport in 2003 for RM80 million wanted to develop the surrounding area into a regional air cargo centre. SATS placed a deposit of RM190 million (50% of the offered purchase price) with the Johor Land Office for the compulsory acquisition of the 1,600ha.
Lee Rubber, whose major sharegolder is the family of the late tycoon Lee Kong Chian is not happy with the deal as Syed Mpkhtar only wants to pay RM2 per sq ft. They are seeking RM3 per sq ft. Lee Rubber contends that there is no need for 1,600ha to develop a cargo hub as even the Federal Express hub in Memphis in the United State is only 200ha. The sheer size of the land sought by SATS and the price it only wanted to pay raised eyebrows and pricked the minds of investors' and entrepreneurs' as to the question of honesty and integrity of Malaysian Businessmen and the way they could/had become rich by way of robbing others utilising the law creatively, and without meritocracy.
If Memphis cargo hub only needs 200ha (one of the world largest cargo hub), the need for 1,600ha posed obnoxious smell of dead rats from greedy Malaysian businessmen. It can be observed that Malaysians can be rich-quick without hardwork and sweat because they are allowed to steal and rob legally with the full support of the government, utilising the law innovatively and creative.
It is clear that the divesting operation utilised by Government using the Land Acquisition Act is unjustifiable in that it allowed the real risk of injustice in the adjudication of compulsory acquisition, which causes uncertainties for of titleowner and promotes social instability.It deprive property owners of their substantial property rights and preclude lawful ownership of their land. There had therefore been a violation of law of property and human rights as based on the lack of adequate compensation and the lack of procedural safeguards for registered title holders. The law of compulsory acquisition of property belonging to private owners can be seen as a legalised "daylight robbery". Have Malaysia evolved back to the age of the Barbarians and Feudal Lords? It seems!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment