Penukaran Pegangan Tanah Hak Milik Kekal PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd(PHH) Melindungi Kepentingan Awam

Penukaran Pegangan Tanah Hak Milik Kekal PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd(PHH) Bukan Sahaja Menambah Hasil Tanah Kerajaan Negeri Sebanyak RM 8,216,751.38 Tetapi Juga Melindungi Kepentingan Awam Dengan Memastikan Garispanduan Warisan Dipatuhi Dan PHH Tidak Dikuasai Swasta Tetapi Dikongsi Bersama Kerajaan.

Deklasifikasi minit mesyuarat keputusan oleh Penang Development Corporation(PDC), Jawatankuasa Tanah dan EXCO Pulau Pinang jelas menunjukkan jelas menunjukkan penukaran pegangan tanah hak milik kekal PHH adalah berkepentingan rakyat. Faedah kepada rakyat boleh dilihat bukan sahaja menambah hasil tanah kerajaan negeri sebanyak RM 8,216,751.38 tetapi juga melindungi kepentingan awam dengan memastikan garispanduan warisan dipatuhi dan PHH tidak dikuasai swasta tetapi dikongsi bersama kerajaan

PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd (PHH) adalah syarikat usaha sama di antara PDC (49%) dan YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (YTL H&P) (51%). Minit mesyuarat EXCO yang mengesahkan keputusan pada 3.6.2009 menetapkan tiga syarat iaitu:

1) Ketinggian bangunan mesti mengikuti garis panduan warisan UNESCO dan tidak melebihi 5 tingkat

2) Semua kos tukar syarat nyata tanah dan bayaran premium pegangan hak milik kekal mesti ditanggung oleh YTL H&P.

3) Kenaikan ekuiti pegangan PDC sebanyak 1% daripada 49% ke 50%, dimana kosnya juga dibayar penuh oleh YTL H&P

Ketinggian yang dihadkan kepada 5 tingkat membuktikan komitmen kerajaan negeri memelihara, melindungi dan mempromosi warisan. Bayaran-bayaran hasil tanah RM 8.3 juta yang dikenakan dan akan dibayar penuh oleh YTL H&P adalah seperti berikut:-

a) RM6,320,000.00 – premium tambahan untuk hakmilik kekal.

b) RM1,896,751.38 – premium tambahan untuk tukar syarat nyata.

RM 8.3 juta adalah satu sumber hasil besar kepada kerajaan negeri. Di samping itu, kos menaikkan pegangan ekuiti PHH sebanyak 1% kepada 50% juga akan ditanggung oleh YTL H&P. Yang lebih penting ialah PHH tidak lagi dikuasai 51% oleh syarikat swasta tetapi dikongsi bersama bermakna PDC ada hak 50% ke atas tanah dan boleh menentukan halatuju projek ini. Sebelum ini syarikat swasta dengan hak milikan 51% boleh buat apa-apa tanpa menghiraukan pandangan PDC.

Deklasifikasi minit dengan sendirinya menolak dakwaan parti pembangkang UMNO bahawa saya telahpun mengelirukan Dewan Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang dalam jawapan bertulis saya kepada ADUN Pulau Betong Y.B. Tuan Haji Sr. Muhamad Farid Bin Saad. Ulasan awal daripada Pejabat Tanah dan Galian(PTG) mengenai dakwaan ADUN Pulau Betong Y.B. Tuan Haji Sr. Muhamad Farid Bin Saad adalah bahawa soalan yang dikemukakan oleh beliau adalah lebih menjurus kepada ‘tanah-tanah kerajaan negeri’ yang berbentuk pajakan. Mengikut PTG, ini bermakna tanah-tanah yang dimaksudkan adalah tanah kerajaan yang dipegang atas nama State Secretary Incorporated (SSI). Buat masa ini tidak ada permohonan sedemikian diterima oleh SSI.

Oleh itu dakwaan UMNO memang tidak berasas dan semata-mata berbau politik untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat. Nampaknya urustadbir CAT kerajan negeri Pakatan Rakyat begitu berkesan sehingga UMNO dan BN terpaksa mereka-rekakan cerita yang bukan-bukan demi menanam kebencian terhadap Pakatan Rakyat.

3 Replies to “Penukaran Pegangan Tanah Hak Milik Kekal PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd(PHH) Melindungi Kepentingan Awam”

  1. Since the last election, our political landscape has changed beyond recognition. Many have openly adopted partisan stands on issues affecting the people on a zealous quest to defend the Pakatan Rakyat state governments whenever there is a criticism.

    The Penang government under the leadership of Lim Guan Eng surprised a lot of those who voted for change by pursuing the policies and projects of former chief minister Koh Tsu Koon with a zeal beyond the imagination of Penangites.

    Lim Guan Eng has willingly – without bribery or corruption – fast-tracked all the projects he inherited from Koh Tsu Koon’s administration.

    When pressed on the Queensbay land conversion controversy, Lim Guan Eng blamed Koh Tsu 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 Tsu 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 was not considered foreshore – by the previous state administration.

    In a press report, lawyer Agatha Foo pointed out a proviso in section 76 of the NLC, which Lim had overlooked in his reply to the state assembly. 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 of how can the chief minister miss 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 own free will.

    On Oct 15, Lim Guan Eng issued a press statement promising not to follow the footsteps of Koh Tsu koon in circumventing the National Land Code by converting all reclaimed land from leasehold to freehold status. But hardly a year has gone by and Lim Guan Eng has silently converted the PDC Heritage Hotel site from leasehold to freehold status.

    The PDC Heritage Hotel site is on a 1.4ha seafront site adjacent to the 124-year-old Eastern and Oriental (E&O) Hotel along Lebuh Farqhuar. This site is not even on reclaimed land.

    The conversion is clearly against the NLC proviso. Had Lim Guan Eng 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 plead ignorance on the proviso. Why did Lim Guan Eng opt 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 being not taller than 18 metres. Without the conversion from leasehold to freehold, the project will not have sufficient commercial value to sustain. Does Lim Guan Eng want to mislead us again that the prime seafront land which is a state land can not be considered as foreshore land?

    I am calling all concerned Penangites to stand up and voice their concern over the conversion of reclamation land from leasehold to freehold. We want a state government that abides by the law and not look for loopholes to circumvent any proviso of the National Land Code when dealing with state land.

    We need to initiate a movement to stop all illegal land conversion especially on reclaimed land and seafront land. I believe we need to put a full stop to this bad practices before it gets out of control. For those who are interested, you are welcome to join us in our fight against all illegal seafront land conversion issues. I can reached at [email protected]

  2. The declassified minutes on the conversion of PDC Heritage Hotel released yesterday by the Lim Guan Eng administration reveal that the PDC Heritage Hotel site is foreshore land.

    Foreshore is the area that is exposed to the air at low tide and underwater at high tide. For development on the coastal zone, a construction setback of 60 metres is normally observed. Setback is a guideline to developers on how far to site permanent structures behind the shoreline in order to avoid problems with short-term coastal response and flooding problems during rough weather.

    If we strictly follow the guidelines from Department of Drainage and Irrigation Circular 1987, no permanent structures should be permitted within this setback zone. Guidelines for the width of the setback zone arise from Department of Drainage and Irrigation Circular 1987, which specifies 60m on the open coast.

    The 60m setback creates a costal buffer zone that should remain in the public domain. This coastal buffer zone effectively allows public access to the foreshore.

    The land of any development site that fails to observe this requirement should be considered as foreshore land. Or in another words, the land of any development site that falls within the 60m setback from the foreshore line is consider as foreshore land.

    The minutes on the land conversion reveal that the state legal advisers had reminded LGE that the site is foreshore land, that under the National Land Code proviso it cannot be converted from leasehold to freehold status. In converting the land, Lim has 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” . What are the special circumstances that LGE referred to in justifying the land conversion?

    The special circumstances that Lim has cited for justifying the conversion are as follows:

    1) That the project was neglected and in an “abandoned” state

    2) That the equity held by PDC has been raised from 49 per cent to 50 per cent

    3) That the cost of equity conversion is borne by YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd

    Lim failed to address public concern over the sale of our foreshore land to private interests.

    On Oct 15, 2008, in a press statement, Lim promised that the state government would not follow the footstep of his predecessor in circumventing the National Land Code proviso that prohibits the conversion of foreshore land from leasehold to freehold status.

    The sad truth is that the Chief Minister who once fought alleged land scams committed by the previous state government is now personally involved in a questionable land conversion. This is a treacherous betrayal of the people by Lim.

    Lim hoped by releasing the minutes on the land conversion, he can divert the attention of the people on the questionable land conversion. As usual he took the opportunity to blame Koh Tsu Koon for the land conversion. If Lim sincerely believes that what Koh did was wrong, he should not go ahead with the land conversion.

    This most disturbing incident comes after Lim openly promised not to cheat Penangites of their foreshore land. Disturbing because Lim loves to continue what Koh did, but will blame the latter whenever he is criticised for whatever decisions he makes.

    It is important for Penangites to understand why he made the decision that he made. Lim should walk Penangites through the reasoning why that decision was made. The special circumstances that Lim referred to are hardly special at all.

  3. Dear Y.A.B Tuan Lim Guan Eng,

    If you don’t mind please respond to what our friend saudara Eusoon comment.

    That is great that opportunity for your goodself to interact with the public.

    Why don’t the Penang government fully control the PDC Heritage Hotel Sdn Bhd?

    As I do not fellow this issue, please correct me if anything that I am not aware.

    Hope to hear from you soon.

    Thank you.

    TL Ong

Leave a Reply