C4 Questions Mbpj S Move To Stifle Councillors Objections

---

The Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4) has expressed alarm over the “stifling” of Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) councillors in stating their objections during a full-board council meeting.
This comes after 19 councillors staged a meeting walkout recently following Petaling Jaya Mayor Mohamad Azhan Md Amir alleged refusal to heed their concerns regarding the approval procedure for a development project on Lorong Sultan.
The approval was reportedly granted despite the applicant’s appeal still pending before the Appeal Board.
In a statement today, C4 called for a probe into the matter and remedial actions to be taken if needed.
“The mayor and/or MBPJ must come clean and explain their reasoning for this sudden alteration in the procedure.
“They must seriously consider the 19 councillors’ concerns by ensuring that any decision made is in compliance with the correct laws, procedures and practices, and to maintain full transparency regarding the decision-making process.
“MBPJ must refrain from violating fundamental principles of freedom of information and transparency by removing data which was previously available to the public from easily accessible channels,” it said.
Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin ShariC4 also demanded an explanation from Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari who stated that the entire disagreement was a “misunderstanding”.
“We call upon the MB to explain what he meant by simplifying the entire situation as being a mere ‘misunderstanding’, in light of the blatant manner in which the mayor steamrolled the councillors,” it added.
Hasty manner of approval
C4 said it was concerned by the “hasty manner” the approval for the project was pushed through, as well as how the councillors’ opposing views were allegedly met with disdain.
“As the councillors have noted it has been common practice, where an appeal regarding an application is made to the Appeal Board, for the local authority to refrain from making any decision thereto, because the matter has been brought before a different forum.
“It is unclear why this particular applicant/project is being treated differently, especially when the Appeal Board is set to make its final decision on June 20,” it added.
It cited the councillors’ recent joint statement, saying that MBPJ made this decision despite the disagreement of a majority of the members present at a One-Stop Centre (OSC) meeting on May 17, where the matter was discussed.
“The councillors have maintained that this decision is in stark contravention of the relevant laws governing local authorities and MBPJ’s previously established practice in similar cases, which would set a dangerous precedent and possibly expose MBPJ to future legal challenges.
“The question then arises - why can’t MBPJ simply wait for a few weeks before deciding on their steps regarding the approval of the application, especially when serious doubts have been raised on the propriety of the decision?
“Why is MBPJ displaying such urgency in approving this particular project with little regard to potential procedural defects, to the extent of reversing established practice?” asked C4.
Iconic plot of land
It reminded the authorities that the plot of land in question, where the iconic A&W drive-in restaurant is situated, has sentimental value to the local community and must therefore be handled with care and sensitivity.
Any impropriety in the development process may attract legal actions which may further complicate the matter, it added.
“C4 also deeply regrets how the mayor responded to the councillors voicing their disagreements during the full-board meeting, by repeatedly stating that the matter is only being raised to inform the council and that there can be no debate on it.
“Not only is this a clear example of stifling dissent, but it is also perplexing how the mayor is able to insist that the decision to grant approval has been made when a majority of the members had disagreed with the decision.”
It said according to Section 26 of the Local Government Act 1976, the general rule is that “all questions coming before any meeting of the local authority shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the councillors present”.
“Hence, the mayor’s reliance on subsidiary legislation and guidelines to support the validity of this decision is misguided.”
C4 also criticised the mayor’s assertion that the councillors’ only role in the meeting was to provide input from social and political aspects.
“This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role councillors play in the structure of local government,” it added.
Under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1976, councillors are appointed on the basis of “wide experience in local government affairs, distinction in any profession, commerce or industry, or being capable of representing the interests of their communities”.
Check and balance needed
C4 said this indicated that they are meant to have an important role in the system of checks and balances, to prevent concentration of power and promote diversity of opinion within local governments.
“Thus, to completely shut these 19 councillors out of the decision-making process and unilaterally decide on a course of action which they have strongly opposed, seriously calls into question the commitment of MBPJ to principles of good governance and the law,” it added.
It noted that this is not the first time that such a walkout has been staged.
Councillors must be commended for steadfastly upholding their principles and demonstrating their ability to make independent decisions in the interests of the people, it added.
“Worse still, the video recording of the May 30 full-board meeting which was posted on MBPJ’s official Youtube has been inexplicably removed,” C4 said, calling it a tactic that leads to suppression of public awareness.
“MBPJ must come forward to explain who issued the instructions to remove the recording and the grounds for doing so.” - Mkini

---