Why Taman Tun differs from Taman Tugu


I WISH to thank the author of A tale of two taman – the untold tale published on September 27. It is not often that a ministry officer responds to letters to the editor.

It’s true my letter, A tale of city parks – Taman Tugu and Taman Rimba Kiara, was based on the limited information but it is from available sources in the mainstream and also my attendance at the dialogue session with Azman Mokhtar on the Taman Tugu project in September 2016.

I don’t want to go into details on the cabinet paper presented in May 2019 to pass the ownership of Taman Tugu to Amanah Warisan Negara (Awan). But Awan was established in July 2018 and Khazanah Nasional then started work on the transfer.

It seems the author missed a fact that Taman Tun Dr Ismail residents do not want all the 10ha of Taman Rimba Kiara (TRK) and had compromised that development can take place at the present longhouse site.

And I see no reason the author has to politicise this issue.

The point about respecting the wishes of the longhouse residents not to build on the longhouse footprint is noble. But surely there are alternative ways in tackling it.

For information, there is a joint working committee, chaired by the Federal Territories minister, formed last year to discuss and arrive at amicable solutions. Sadly, there was only one solitary meeting and I think the JWC is still not disbanded.

True their wishes have been ignored for the past 37 years, by DBKL. Let us listen to their appeals in the JWC where they are represented and offer some solutions. What was agreed in 2015, in the absence of other stakeholders, can be revisited and maybe a better option presented. There are many ways to skin a cat.

It is rather unthinkable for the author to assume the project to be delayed or abandoned when the developer is of good repute.

Further, to say TTDI residents also have around 162ha of park land at Taman Persekutuan Bukit Kiara (TPBK) does not tell the whole story.

In 1976, the government acquired the then Bukit Kiara rubber estate. The master plan provided for the creation of an arboretum, National Mausoleum and Kelab Golf Perkhidmatan Awam.

TRK was contiguous with and integral to TPBK. Later, the development of private sector recreation clubs and high-end residential and mixed development projects violated the purpose of the government’s acquisition. In 2010, DBKL handed over the management of TPBK to the National Landscape Department.

Given the above, I think it is relevant to draw parallels between Taman Tugu and TRK. I must say Taman Tugu was handled in the best way possible but the same cannot be said for TRK.

Since the court hearing for the appeal against a high court decision will only happen next month, it may not be too late for the author to whisper to the minister to convene a second meeting of the JWC.

In case a response is in the offing, I hope it will not be from the author since the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the minister or the ministry. – October 18, 2019.

* Saleh Mohammed reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments