Many fear that the people who made the proposals to the draft plan are ironically going to be the ones who decide on the hearing and fear that this will lead to prejudice.

Esa’s consultancy firm AJM Planners, of which he is a director, is the main consultant that was hired by the DBKL to produce both city draft plan and the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 (KLSP2020).

However, when contacted, Esa told Star Metro that there was no conflict of interest.

“We are merely providing professional input and I am duty bound to listen to the public. It is just a draft, nothing is being finalised yet. Once we get all the feedback, we will analyse everything,” he said.

“While I agree technically that one can raise the issue of conflict of interest here, I have not agreed to accept the appointment yet. I have to clarify this matter with the mayor” he said.

Esa added that under the Federal Territory Planning Act 1982, the members of the hearing committee are appointed by the Federal Territory Minister and not the mayor.

“I have to clarify the situation first and if there is major objection, I will consider stepping down,’’ he said.

When the panel line-up was announced last week, many felt that it was a biased committee and should be dissolved.

“There should be a special task force comprising City Hall and other relevant parties like MPs, non-governmental organisations, professionals, environmentalists, consumer groups and town planners to conduct the hearing,” said Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai.

Local government expert Derek Fernandez said in other states the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) is clear on the point that the person who proposes the draft is not the person who decides on it.

“This is wrong. There should be an open hearing with the MPs, as they represent the people. And you cannot prepare the draft that is inconsistent with the policies – it clear-cut! Private interest appears to be dictating the development patterns of Kuala Lumpur,’’ said Fernandez.

Federal Hill residents, who discovered that the land status of their neighbourhood has been changed from institutional (police reserve) to commercial, do not believe that the hearing will be a fair one.

“DBKL was supposed to act impartially in hearing the residents’ objections against the development application to change land use from institutional to commercial,” said a resident.

“Instead it has now acted partially by proposing this in its draft local plan. The plan is DBKL’s proposal and not the developers. On what basis is DBKL proposing it when they were supposed to decide this earlier at the objection hearing and how can the hearing be impartial now?” asked the resident.

However, not everyone thinks there is a conflict of interest.

Town Planning expert Dr Kamaruzaman Ujang said the committee needed to have members who are knowledgeable on the topic and that the writers of the plan were the best for this.

“There is a need for them to represent the committee as they are seniors who can explain things better as well as justify matters. There is no bias,” said Kamaruzaman.

“There is no conflict of interest at this stage. It is just an objection hearing and what is important is the appeal stage. People should be more concerned about this. If the same people are sitting there, than we have a problem” he added.

“Bias? There is no bias,” said an irate member of the hearing committee who did not want to be named.

The City Hall Advisory member said he could not understand the fuss as the members were people who were well versed and with an in depth knowledge on the draft plan and as such the best equipped to serve the people.

Structural consultant Professor Dr Gue See Sew said he did not see any conflict of interest provided everything was done professionally.

“The decisions made during the hearing, good or bad, must be supported with reasons. The committee is obligated to explain their findings,” he said.

Malaysian Institute of Planners president and managing director of AJM Planning Norliza Hashim said that Esa was reluctant when the mayor appointed him as he did say that there might be some form of conflict of interest.

“But I really don’t think there is an issue here as it is normal for him to hold advisory positions and he is a credible figure. Furthermore, there is no biasness here as the committee’s role is to listen and not make any assumptions or decisions,” she said.

When the draft plan was made public last Thursday, city folk were dismayed to discover that there were proposals of over-development and encroachment of green lungs.

But the biggest blow was the revelation on the members appointed to sit in the Public Opinion Hearing Committee as they comprised City Hall Advisory Board members, former City Hall directors and town planners who are affiliated to the local authority and whom many believe would be prejudiced.

City folks have six weeks to make their objections in writing. Once the plan is gazetted, there is no turning back and new developments in the city cannot be stopped.

By BAVANI M

- The Star