I met Khoo Salma Nasution before she got married to Abdur-Razzaq, possibly in 1992 or is it 93? She was already quite prolific in Penang, writing deliciously portent articles with beautiful photographs on Penang's heritage magazine called "Pulau Pinang", which has stopped its circulation for quite some time. Khoo Salma then ventured into a variety of things and all to do with heritage, from being a conservation activist, to managing a heritage project (Syed Alatas Mansion) and even helping out Razzaq with the Mandailing book. I worked with Khoo Salma on the Penang's Conservation Guidelines drafts in 1996-97, and stayed at the magnificent 120, Armenian Street home at that time, for about one month at a stretch at one time.
Ever since I went into disability activism in 1998, I had worked less with Khoo Salma, but we kept on contacting each other.
Now she has gone back to what she knows best, writing those articles and snapping those photos, and editing the Lestari Heritage Network. It makes me think about the things that I do best, as well. It's a no brainer actually. Two things that people actually tell me that I do well, and that's teaching (training would be architects) and sketching ideas, and translating them visually.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Nuts and Bolts
M Bakri Musa's latest posting on Malaysian Education System struck a similar chord in my understanding of mission statements and how that could be translated to the classroom. He was suggesting practical objectives, which are really the "nuts and bolts" of making it all work. At the end of the day, as an academic I would want my students to be equipped with the essential skills to do the job right and have many possibilities to position themselves well in getting a job.
In the past, I had often found myself "lost" from the practicalities of teaching. No one else at fault, just my own doing. But I could have had a better guidance from my peers and my line managers, the head of department and dean. How does a team of academics keep a check on each other to keep to the objectives? What evidence will determine whether we all are on the right course of action?
We have a system, but I feel that it did not really work because it became a poltical farce in the end. It was ambitious. Anyway, this gives me something to think about when I start to teach again.
In the past, I had often found myself "lost" from the practicalities of teaching. No one else at fault, just my own doing. But I could have had a better guidance from my peers and my line managers, the head of department and dean. How does a team of academics keep a check on each other to keep to the objectives? What evidence will determine whether we all are on the right course of action?
We have a system, but I feel that it did not really work because it became a poltical farce in the end. It was ambitious. Anyway, this gives me something to think about when I start to teach again.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
It is easy to be cynical
When I think about the recent ruling by the Malaysian Federal Court judges to declare "immunity for local authorities" when a building collapse, it is so easy to be cynical and skeptical about the accountability and responsibility of authorities in my country. It is easy to turn to despair and abandon the cause.
I think there are people out there who cares. Who wants to have a better education system, a better local government, and better way of life, where there is a level playing ground and no favouritism.
I was thinking about the judges, and it is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking that they are on the take or have their own agendas. The case is so obvious that the local authority is at fault because the local authority officers proceeded to approve the Highland Towers development and construction without a proper drainage system and 40 something people died and many people were displaced and lost their homes. (Victim's verdict)
Even if the developers have to pay compensation due to this "criminal act", the local authority had been a "partner" simply because the local authority concern had approved the development. We rely on our local authority to solve many problems concerning health and safety in our cities. And if they do not do the job properly, how do we solve the problems? How do they perform if there is no accountability, meaning they don't really have to check the drawings and the construction sites because if the building falls down, it is not their fault. They have immunity from such occurences.
So, don't have the planning and building control system in the first place.
It is so easy to be cynical...
I think there are people out there who cares. Who wants to have a better education system, a better local government, and better way of life, where there is a level playing ground and no favouritism.
I was thinking about the judges, and it is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking that they are on the take or have their own agendas. The case is so obvious that the local authority is at fault because the local authority officers proceeded to approve the Highland Towers development and construction without a proper drainage system and 40 something people died and many people were displaced and lost their homes. (Victim's verdict)
Even if the developers have to pay compensation due to this "criminal act", the local authority had been a "partner" simply because the local authority concern had approved the development. We rely on our local authority to solve many problems concerning health and safety in our cities. And if they do not do the job properly, how do we solve the problems? How do they perform if there is no accountability, meaning they don't really have to check the drawings and the construction sites because if the building falls down, it is not their fault. They have immunity from such occurences.
So, don't have the planning and building control system in the first place.
It is so easy to be cynical...
Letter to the editor - Highland Towers verdict
Dear Editor,
I wished to express my utmost concern about the lack
of accountability of local authorities when it comes
to the health and safety issues, in particular with
regards to Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya as a
statutory body,to control the planning and building
projects in Ampang Jaya district. This is in relation
to the recent ruling by the Federal Court, which was
quoted in the article, February 18, 2006, "Federal
Court: MPAJ has full immunity from claims".
Quoted:"Local councils cannot be held liable for
losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse".
I question the court's ruling by asking these
questions:
Is it true that the local authority (MPAJ) as a
statutory body passed by Parliament, accepted the
plans from the applicant (developer), approved the
plans, monitored the building and approved the
certificate of fitness when Highland Towers were
completed? Is it also true that the local authority's
duty among others is to make sure of the health and
safety of the citizens in its given authority, hence
having the statutory powers to enforce and monitor
errant developers?
Let us be clear on this. There are many developers who
submitted plans, incomplete and not up to full
specifications, but at the end of the day - Did the
local authority check and monitor the building
undergoing construction, and the local authority
officers be satisfied with the work and then finally
give the approval needed for occupancy?
Too many questions unanswered thus far.
I cannot see any more reasons other than the local
authority being at fault, or at least share the
majority of the blame with the developer. The local
authority's function is to deter errant developers and
give confidence to residents that they are doing their
job, and clearly there should be a clear verdict of
irresponsibility and not "immunity" as was quoted.
What a worrying precedent to be set by a Federal
Court. The court ruling could have easily made local
authorities be more cautious, instead it is the other
way round.
Pseudonym:
Resident, Hulu Kelang
(I sent this letter to the STAR newspaper editor just now.)
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Who is responsible for the Highlands Tower disaster?
I read with concern the February 18, 2006, STAR online report on a ruling given by the Federal Court judge on the Highland Towers disaster. The whole article could be read from this link: Federal Court: MPAJ has full immunity from claims
The article by Raphael Wong had highlighted the fact that local councils "cannot be held liable for losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse," and it further stated that,"the court said that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people."
And the reason given by Justice Abdul Hamid (with a three-member panel of judges), was quoted that, "Projects will stall. The local council may go bust"... This is something really serious. Something is not right.
And then the most interesting fact of all is that, "they (the judges) said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period". Apparently MPAJ had appealed against the decision, "holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period". And the court unanimously allowed to MPAJ's appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal's decision .
On reflection, in 2000, "High Court Judge James Foong ruled for the 73, and apportioned liability as follows: Arab-Malaysian 30%, Metrolux and MBf Property Services together 20%, Highland Properties 15%, MPAJ 15%, draughtsman Wong Ting San 10% and engineer Wong Yuen Kean 10%."
My concern is among the lot, who is responsible for the disaster which was clearly a result from not providing enough drainage infrastructure to prevent the building from collapse?
Is it the local authority (MPAJ) who accepted the plans from the applicant (developer) , approved the plans, monitored the building and approved the certificate of fitness? The local authority's duty among others is to make sure of the health and safety of the citizens in it's authority, by using the statutory power that was bestowed upon it.
What is further interesting is based on a 2-1 majority with Justice Shim (one of the three judges) gave a dissenting judgment, "it dismissed the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal's ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period."
And finally, "Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council's resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure."
Justice Abdul Hamid said further that, "In my view, the provision of basic necessities for the general public has priority over compensation for pure economic loss of some individuals, who are clearly better off than the majority of the residents in the local council area." The other judge, Judge Ariffin, agreed with him.
The only judge to dissent on the post-collapse liability, Justice Shim said, "MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three."
Let us be clear on this. The developer submitted the plans. The drainage plans (civil engineers plan) may have been included in geting approved but certainly were not followed through and built in the end. Didn't the local authority need to check and monitor the building undergoing construction, and the local authority officers be satisfied with the work and then finally give the approval needed for occupancy?
I cannot see any more reasons other than the local authority being at fault, or at least share the blame with the developers.
This is not a good court ruling and it should be contested further, or be appealed further and more effort should go into finding a satisfactory verdict in the end.
The article by Raphael Wong had highlighted the fact that local councils "cannot be held liable for losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse," and it further stated that,"the court said that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people."
And the reason given by Justice Abdul Hamid (with a three-member panel of judges), was quoted that, "Projects will stall. The local council may go bust"... This is something really serious. Something is not right.
And then the most interesting fact of all is that, "they (the judges) said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period". Apparently MPAJ had appealed against the decision, "holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period". And the court unanimously allowed to MPAJ's appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal's decision .
On reflection, in 2000, "High Court Judge James Foong ruled for the 73, and apportioned liability as follows: Arab-Malaysian 30%, Metrolux and MBf Property Services together 20%, Highland Properties 15%, MPAJ 15%, draughtsman Wong Ting San 10% and engineer Wong Yuen Kean 10%."
My concern is among the lot, who is responsible for the disaster which was clearly a result from not providing enough drainage infrastructure to prevent the building from collapse?
Is it the local authority (MPAJ) who accepted the plans from the applicant (developer) , approved the plans, monitored the building and approved the certificate of fitness? The local authority's duty among others is to make sure of the health and safety of the citizens in it's authority, by using the statutory power that was bestowed upon it.
What is further interesting is based on a 2-1 majority with Justice Shim (one of the three judges) gave a dissenting judgment, "it dismissed the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal's ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period."
And finally, "Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council's resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure."
Justice Abdul Hamid said further that, "In my view, the provision of basic necessities for the general public has priority over compensation for pure economic loss of some individuals, who are clearly better off than the majority of the residents in the local council area." The other judge, Judge Ariffin, agreed with him.
The only judge to dissent on the post-collapse liability, Justice Shim said, "MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three."
Let us be clear on this. The developer submitted the plans. The drainage plans (civil engineers plan) may have been included in geting approved but certainly were not followed through and built in the end. Didn't the local authority need to check and monitor the building undergoing construction, and the local authority officers be satisfied with the work and then finally give the approval needed for occupancy?
I cannot see any more reasons other than the local authority being at fault, or at least share the blame with the developers.
This is not a good court ruling and it should be contested further, or be appealed further and more effort should go into finding a satisfactory verdict in the end.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Non disabled-friendly Kuala Lumpur
The following post was a comment that I did on Peter Tan's blog on "Kuala Lumpur City of Barriers".
Hi Peter,
Please allow me to rant about the issue of accessibility of the street environment. It is interesting that you did a wheel-about around the Masjid Jamek area, and highlighted the issues of the lack of accessibility, safety and usability of the streets, pavement and crossings.
We did a report on Pedestrian-friendly Kuala Lumpur back then in 1999, and it was also sponsored by JICA. During the Interim Stage, DBKL decided to take out the title below : "Disabled Friendly Study", hence it was watered down after that, meaning disabled-friendly is not the focus. I wondered what DBKL did with the report. I assumed some of the findings were referred to, but since you highlighted the problems, I realised that the same problems are there.
That reminded me of the question that I posed to a DBKL engineer at a seminar. How come the pavement heights are not 6 inches (15cm) maximum but get to be even 8 inches to a foot at times? He said that is because of wanting the monsoon drain grilles to let the water drain away easily. He also said that when they lay the roads with tarmac, they needed the extra inches so that when they top it up, the pavement is still high enough.
Sorry but I think its all a load of bullshit. Firstly, rather than concentrating on the monsoon drain grilles to be at a certain spot along the underside of the pavement, say after every 30 ft, why not have the whole pavement grilles at the side, so more holes are available for drainage, and also lower the height of the grilles. Secondly, why not scrape the old tarmac from the road first and then re-lay the new tarmac rather than do a patched up job layer upon layer, so that a certain height of tarmac is achieved everytime.
The reason why these issues are the basis for unaccessible curbs are simple. It's a design and maintenance problem, and when they decided to go above 6 inches, the ramped curb if built will not have the correct gradient / slope to be usable.
So the problems that I highlighted here then suggests that it became impossible for them to implement the legislation which by the way never got gazetted at all. I remember now that it was Malaysian Standards MS 1331 - Disabled Access for Outside of Buildings. The problem was when they did that MS 1331, they "copied" the British version. You see, although Malaysia followed British Administrative Laws, when we expand our townships, we never actually followed through, hence we had designed and built the environment to our own set of standards. What is riduculous is the fact that they cancelled MS 1331 which never got to be gazetted through an Act like the Town and Country Planning Act but instead they got an academic to do a set of guidelines. Guidelines are just a set of administrative document, which is not even a standard. At least standard you can go through SIRIM, and make sure of the quality.We only got MS 1884 which is for "inside buildings" (gazetted).
Also many ministries are involved with different elements of the street environment, so that is one of the reasons for poor coordination and management. Min. of Transport - Highways Act, Pedestrian crossings and lights/warnings; Min. of Entrepeneur - Public Vehicle Licensing that determine bus-stops locations; DBKL (?) - Prime Minister's Dept. / Fed. Territory Min.; Outside buildings area / LRT stations (?) - Min. of Housing and Local Govt.; Min. of Public Works (?) - Pedestrian Bridges, Flyovers(?) ( I am actually assuming these functions to the ministries, need to confirm it though...)
Perhaps we should propose for a Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) like in the UK that is a "statutory body" established under the UK Transport Act 1985.
Hi Peter,
Please allow me to rant about the issue of accessibility of the street environment. It is interesting that you did a wheel-about around the Masjid Jamek area, and highlighted the issues of the lack of accessibility, safety and usability of the streets, pavement and crossings.
We did a report on Pedestrian-friendly Kuala Lumpur back then in 1999, and it was also sponsored by JICA. During the Interim Stage, DBKL decided to take out the title below : "Disabled Friendly Study", hence it was watered down after that, meaning disabled-friendly is not the focus. I wondered what DBKL did with the report. I assumed some of the findings were referred to, but since you highlighted the problems, I realised that the same problems are there.
That reminded me of the question that I posed to a DBKL engineer at a seminar. How come the pavement heights are not 6 inches (15cm) maximum but get to be even 8 inches to a foot at times? He said that is because of wanting the monsoon drain grilles to let the water drain away easily. He also said that when they lay the roads with tarmac, they needed the extra inches so that when they top it up, the pavement is still high enough.
Sorry but I think its all a load of bullshit. Firstly, rather than concentrating on the monsoon drain grilles to be at a certain spot along the underside of the pavement, say after every 30 ft, why not have the whole pavement grilles at the side, so more holes are available for drainage, and also lower the height of the grilles. Secondly, why not scrape the old tarmac from the road first and then re-lay the new tarmac rather than do a patched up job layer upon layer, so that a certain height of tarmac is achieved everytime.
The reason why these issues are the basis for unaccessible curbs are simple. It's a design and maintenance problem, and when they decided to go above 6 inches, the ramped curb if built will not have the correct gradient / slope to be usable.
So the problems that I highlighted here then suggests that it became impossible for them to implement the legislation which by the way never got gazetted at all. I remember now that it was Malaysian Standards MS 1331 - Disabled Access for Outside of Buildings. The problem was when they did that MS 1331, they "copied" the British version. You see, although Malaysia followed British Administrative Laws, when we expand our townships, we never actually followed through, hence we had designed and built the environment to our own set of standards. What is riduculous is the fact that they cancelled MS 1331 which never got to be gazetted through an Act like the Town and Country Planning Act but instead they got an academic to do a set of guidelines. Guidelines are just a set of administrative document, which is not even a standard. At least standard you can go through SIRIM, and make sure of the quality.We only got MS 1884 which is for "inside buildings" (gazetted).
Also many ministries are involved with different elements of the street environment, so that is one of the reasons for poor coordination and management. Min. of Transport - Highways Act, Pedestrian crossings and lights/warnings; Min. of Entrepeneur - Public Vehicle Licensing that determine bus-stops locations; DBKL (?) - Prime Minister's Dept. / Fed. Territory Min.; Outside buildings area / LRT stations (?) - Min. of Housing and Local Govt.; Min. of Public Works (?) - Pedestrian Bridges, Flyovers(?) ( I am actually assuming these functions to the ministries, need to confirm it though...)
Perhaps we should propose for a Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) like in the UK that is a "statutory body" established under the UK Transport Act 1985.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
From Bentong to Manchestee - Part 3
How long have I traveled? What did it take for me to get here? Is the length of time proportionate to the lessons that I learned? Have I learned from experiences? If so, how do I know that I have learned from experiences?
I believed that maturity happens with the apparent seamlessness of conscious thoughts. Maturity, like the fermentation of wine or cheese gives more "body" to the senses and thought processes, while believing that maturity is a positive phenomenon.
I have traveled far but not far enough, as I felt that the better part of me has not blossomed yet. The coming together of what are the best qualities of me, have not surfaced in harmony as yet. But it will come as surely as a lot of things that had come into fruition before.
It took a far amount of having to grow up and coming to terms about a lot of things for me to get here. And here is nowhere yet. Here is just a reflection point in time.
You cannot measure experience as you cannot measure time. You may have milestones or rites of passage, perceived through one tunnel, and then leading to another. Some tunnels led to nowhere and even dead ends. And some led to ideas and discoveries.
Experiences are like shifting sands, formed by the currents or the winds in the dessert, formed for awhile and then reformed again and again. Not the object but the process of change. Experiences are fluid and not motionless. Embracing the wind the maker of it, the currents that shifts it into temporal forms. Experiences may be learned once and deposited and surfaced again later, but in different guise, touching you in recognition, emboldened your position to act upon the next decision or action.
I know that I have learned from experiences when I realise that I am no more that person that I was a week ago, a year ago, a decade ago and that is a positive thing because I let myself be free of expectations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)