Buah Pala land when “the available evidence seemed to show that the
land is still vested in the Federal Lands Commissionerâ€, wonders a
bewildered P Ramakrishnan.
Negative elements - greed, corruption, abuse of power and judicial
indifference - have conspired to wipe out part of Penang’s history and
destroy its heritage.
History and heritage are assets of a nation and they should be
preserved for posterity. All civilised nations take pride in their
history and heritage and accord them the rightful place in honouring
these assets.
But we in Malaysia do not attach as much affection and concern for our
history and heritage. There was a time when we even considered getting
rid of the Merdeka Stadium to make way for commercial projects.
Merdeka Stadium is best remembered as the place where our beloved
first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, declared this nation’s
independence. It represents so many memories and so much history but
that meant nothing to human avarice. Thank God it did not take off but
the point is we were even prepared to commit this sacrilege!
Then there was an attempt to shift the well-known St Michael’s
Institution in Ipoh somewhere else just because it was in the middle
of a fast growing township. But St Michael’s was there long before
so-called development caught up with it. Thank God it did not take
place!
But Bukit Bintang Girls’ School in Kuala Lumpur was not that
fortunate. This famous school, which was a landmark in the history of
our education, had produced so many brilliant students and leaders but
that notable achievement did not spare it. It eventually lost to
development and greed. It was demolished to make way for commercial
purposes. Though the school was shifted elsewhere, they made sure that
its history would not continue. They got rid of that famous name:
BBGS. They did not even bother to retain the old name of the school to
honour its history and contribution to our education.
I’m sure there are numerous other examples of indifference and acrilege.
But the latest example to wipe out history and a legacy that goes back
nearly 200 years and make way for greed and corruption is taking place
in the Pearl of Orient: Penang’s version of High Chaparral is facing
extinction within a matter of weeks.
How did the Penang govt acquire the land?
Much has been written about the history of this community that has
been occupying this parcel of land which has been home to more than
five generations of descendants. Therefore it is unnecessary to dwell
on this.
What I’m interested in is how this land was acquired by the Penang
Government Officers Cooperative â€" Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau
Pinang. How was the cooperative able to obtain this parcel of land
below market value? Did the officers who were influential and closely
linked to the Barisan Nasional Government and Umno just help
themselves to it with the blessings of the Penang state government?
After all it was Umno that was effectively running the government and
who would have dared to question it or oppose whatever that was done
by the Umno Exco Members?
Did the land actually belong to the Penang state for these officers to
grab it on behalf of their cooperative?
According to legal circles, this land was under a trusteeship. But
this trusteeship was dissolved by an Act of Parliament in 1976. When
this took place, we are told, this parcel of land reverted to the
federal government. The ownership of this land, it is believed, is
still with the federal government.
It is a mystery why the BN government deprived these poor Kampung Buah
Pala residents of their land by passing this Act of Parliament. The BN
with its majority simply took over this land â€" nay, it just robbed
them of their land.
There is no evidence that the Penang state government had ever paid a
premium to buy back this land. There is no evidence when this land
reverted back to the state of Penang. In all probability, the land is
still vested in the Federal Lands Commissioner.
A repeat of the Nizar case
That being the case, how was this land transferred to the cooperative?
There appears to be a fraudulent transfer of land which is a very
serious matter. Why did the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court
totally ignore this vital point when the residents turned to these
courts for justice?
It is significant to note that the High Court Judge had ruled that the
villagers and the residents of Kampong Buah Pala have a claim to this
land.
In a well-argued judgment, Justice O’ Hara had clearly established
that there are points to be tried before the courts and there are
issues for the courts to weigh and consider before arriving at the
truth as to the ownership of the land.
In upholding the decision of the Deputy Registrar (DR), Justice O’
Hara referred to the DR’s ruling, “There is no evidence before this
court that the land in question had reverted back to the state under
the operation of the old Article 84. The ownership of the land when it
was purportedly alienated to the 2nd defendant - Koperasi Pegawai
Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang - is an important issue to be
considered and for that reason I am not prepared to grant summary
judgment as sought by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.â€
The Court of Appeal totally ignored the valid points raised by the
High Court and, without any legally established basis, ruled in favour
of the defendants in setting aside the High Court ruling.
This decision seemed to be a repeat of Nizar’s case in which the High
Court in a sound judgment had ruled that Nizar was the legitimate
Menteri Besar of Perak at all material times. But the one-man Appeal
Court set aside this finding without any written judgment. This
scandalous situation was re-enacted in the case of the Kampung Buah
Pala case.
In both cases the Federal Court was a total disappointment. In the
Buah Pala case, it ruled that the plaintiff had no locus standi. How
could this be so when the residents of Buah Pala can trace their
ancestry to more than five generations!
It is this vital and critical point that has to be addressed. Whose
land is it? Does it belong to Penang? If so, what is the evidence and
where is it?
If “the available evidence seemed to show that the land is still
vested in the Federal Lands Commissioner, regardless of whether the
Commissioner is aware of that fact†as contended by the Deputy
Registrar, how could this transaction have taken place?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment