When pressed on the Queensbay land conversion controversy, Lim Guan Eng blamed Koh Tzu Koon for the decision. Lim Guan Eng said he does not quite agree with the decision, but he has to comply. Lim Guan Eng continued to defend the decision of Koh Tzu Koon. The Chief Minister said that state legal advisers informed him that the land was not bound by a crucial proviso in the National Land Code (NLC) 1965 which forbade foreshore land from being converted to freehold. He said the land had been gazetted as state land – and not considered foreshore – by the previous state administration.
Crucial clause overlooked Guan Eng missed proviso when defending land conversion Himanshu Bhatt(Sun)
GEORGE TOWN (Oct 8, 2008) : Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had defended the controversial conversion of land housing the Queensbay project, reportedly worth RM3 billion to freehold, at the Penang state assembly in July, but had overlooked a vital clause in the National Land Code (NLC) 1965. It is learnt that Lim (who is currently away in the United Arab Emirates on an investment mission) had in a written reply reasoned that the NLC allowed the state to convert the land from leasehold to freehold. He made the reply to a question from Batu Uban assemblyman S Raveentharan who asked how reclaimed coastal land had been made freehold in Batu Uban and Pantai Jerjak. In his reply, however, Lim missed a crucial proviso in the NLC. He reasoned that the freehold status was given as an effort to revive the project after it was left unfinished. (The project had been stalled as the original developer Eternal Resources Sdn Bhd was affected by the economic crisis of the late 1990s.) Lim referred to section 76(aa)(iii) of the NLC which says land could be converted “where the State Authority is satisfied that there are special circumstances which render it appropriate to do so”. It is now learnt that Lim was sent a letter by a senior conveyance lawyer in Aug, expressing concerns about his plan to convert residential leasehold land, including areas that had been reclaimed from the sea, to freehold. In her letter, lawyer Agatha Foo pointed out a proviso in section 76 of the NLC, which Lim had overlooked in his assembly reply. Foo noted that the proviso expressly prohibits the state from disposing of “any part of the foreshore or sea-bed for a period exceeding ninety-nine years”. The proviso had been inserted when section 76 was amended in Parliament in 1985. “Consequentially, the said proviso would also prohibit the state from re-alienating or converting any part of the reclaimed foreshore or sea-bed to freehold land.” “Any subsequent attempt by the state to re-alienate or convert any part of the foreshore or sea-bed to freehold, notwithstanding that the foreshore or sea-bed have now been reclaimed, would tantamount to a circumvention of the prohibition in section 76 and hence be ultra vires the NLC. When contacted, land commentator Prof Salleh Buang, who is currently a visiting professor at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), said the NLC was very clear that the lease for state foreshore land cannot exceed 99 years. “The law says it very clearly. It is on record that you cannot make such land freehold,” he said. He stressed that the state should be careful to ensure public access remains in foreshore areas.
“If you allow seafront to be freehold, what would happen to open public access to the area?” he asked.
In the press report, lawyer Agatha Foo pointed out a proviso in section 76 of the NLC, which Lim had overlooked in his assembly reply. Foo noted that the proviso expressly prohibits the state from disposing of “any part of the foreshore or sea-bed for a period exceeding ninety-nine years”. The proviso had been inserted when section 76 was amended in Parliament in 1985. “Consequentially, the said proviso would also prohibit the state from re-alienating or converting any part of the reclaimed foreshore or sea-bed to freehold land.” “Any subsequent attempt by the state to re-alienate or convert any part of the foreshore or sea-bed to freehold, notwithstanding that the foreshore or sea-bed have now been reclaimed, would tantamount to a circumvention of the prohibition in section 76 and hence be ultra vires the NLC.
A lot of critics were puzzled by the fact how can the Chief Minister missed a crucial proviso in the National Land Code. The truth is now being revealed! The Chief Minister has since wanted to convert a 1.4ha seafront site, adjacent to the 124-year-old Eastern and Oriental (E&O) Hotel along Lebuh Farqhuar, from leasehold to freehold on his free will.
The heritage enclave of George Town in Penang may see a waterfront development soon.It is learnt that YTL Corp Bhd will embark on a project, through joint-venture company PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd, to build luxurious condominiums and an eatery on a 1.4ha seafront site adjacent to the 124-year-old Eastern and Oriental (E&O) Hotel along Lebuh Farqhuar.PDC Heritage was set up about a decade ago, with YTL Corp holding 51 per cent stake and Penang Development Corp (PDC) the remaining 49 per cent.It is not known if PDC has since divested its interest in the joint-venture company.
According to sources, the project will feature six blocks of high-end condominiums.A double-storey building housing food and beverage outlets will also be built on the site where two dilapidated heritage structures are currently standing.However, the development value of the proposed project is not known.Local authorities gave PDC Heritage approval in June this year to convert its prime seafront land from leasehold to freehold status.The land, bordered by the E&O Hotel and St Xavier’s Institution, was originally state-owned and had nine pre-war buildings.In 1996, the land on which sat government staff quarters, the former Public Works Department district engineering office, watchman’s quarters and a garage, was alienated to PDC.In 1998, PDC came under fire from heritage activitists when it demolished the 80-year-old buildings without local council approval to make way for a five-star hotel, which was to be developed by PDC Heritage Hotel.YTL Corp group managing director Tan Sri Francis Yeoh could not be reached for comment.By Business Times (by Marina Emmanuel)
Is Lim Guan Eng has something to hide from Penangites when he defended Koh Tsu Koon's decision on the Queensbay land conversion controversy? Did Lim Guan Eng learn anything from the Queensbay land conversion controversy? Lim Guan Eng has no excuse to pledge ignorant on the proviso. Why Lim Guan Eng opted to flout the National Land Code proviso by converting the 1.4ha seafront site adjacent to the 124-year-old Eastern and Oriental (E&O) Hotel from leasehold to freehold? The PDC heritage project is within the heritage enclave which means it must comply to the height requirement of not taller than 18 metres. Without the conversion from leasehold to freehold, the project will not have sufficient commercial value to sustain. Is Lim Guan Eng want to mislead us again that the prime seafront land which is a state land can not be considered as a foreshore land?
I am calling all concerned Penangites to stand out and voice their concern over the conversion of reclamation land from leasehold to freehold. We want a state government that abide by the law and not to find any loophole to circumvent any proviso of the National Land Code when dealing with state land.
Read about the promises made by Lim Guan Eng
ReplyDeletePress Statement by Penang Chief Minister YAB Lim Guan Eng In Georgetown, Penang On 15.10.2008.The New Penang State Government Has No Plans To Follow The Previous BN State Government's Policy Of Circumventing The National Land Code (NLC) By Converting All Reclaimed Land From Leasehold To Freehold Status.
The new Penang state government has no plans to follow the previous state government's policy of circumventing the NLC by converting all reclaimed land from leasehold tofreehold status. Under Section 76 of the NLC a state authority cannot dispose of "any part of the foreshore or sea-bed for a period exceeding ninety-nine years." In other words the NLC expressly prohibits the state authority from converting foreshore land to freeholdto protect and reserve coastal areas for public interest.
However I have been advised that after reclamation, there is no more seabed and foreshore, and therefore it is within the state's right to give private individuals freeholdstatus for such areas. In other words, once a particular area is reclaimed, the foreshore and seabed cease to exist factually, physically and legally. The new government will not choose to exercise its powers to convert reclaimed land to freehold.
Whilst I disagree with the previous state government's arbitrary policy of converting reclaimed land to freehold, we have been advised by both the lawyers and consultants with the Penang Development Corporation(PDC) and the State Legal Advisor that :this conversion is legally valid as it was gazetted as state land and no longer as foreshore land;the state government has to comply with the consent order directed by the Penang High Court to give effect to a "scheme of arrangement" to rescue the Bayan Bay project with a package that included converting what was once seabed and foreshore into a reclaimed land that has been converted to freehold.All the parties involved had exercised their legal rights fully in court before withdrawing its final appeal to the Federal Court; andAny attempt to refuse to comply with the consent order by the courts would attract substantial damages to be paid by the state government.
The Penang state government hopes that the public including some ADUNs and NGOs would not equate the necessity to comply with the scheme of arrangement decided by the previous state government as concurrence or even endorsement to converting reclaimedland (that were previously foreshore or seabed) from leasehold to freehold land. Even though the official legal view is that whilst the state authority can exercise such powers, the new government would not exercise such powers.
Gerakan new President Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon is advised again to co-operate with the new state government to expose more land scams such as those done in on Bayan Bay Development project. and clarify or pour light in the one-sided agreements done to the detriment of the state and rendering the NLC a meaningless.
It is regrettable that despite the new government's repeated calls to promote CAT, the old state government has still refused to step forward and come clean on the land scams that have caused losses of hundreds of millions of ringgit.
LIM GUAN ENG