The controversy over the conversion of foreshore land from leasehold and freehold land has not completely subsided.
While it may now be too late for the State to do anything about previous projects such as Queensbay, there may be current projects where applications have been submitted for conversion (from leasehold to freehold), which could now be awaiting approval.
Defending the conversion in the Queensbay case, the Penang Chief Minister was reported in theSun (16 October) as saying that he had been advised by lawyers and consultants with the PDC and the state legal advisor that the conversion was legal.
But is the opinion of the PDC – which had an interest in the project – independent and objective, asks conveyancing lawyer Agatha Foo.
The Chief Minister was said to have been advised that “after reclamation, there [was] no more seabed and foreshore” and therefore the National Land Code (NLC) prohibition on the alienation of foreshore or sea-bed for a period longer than 99 years would not apply.
To this, Agatha responds that although the foreshore and seabed ‘cease to exist …physically…’ after reclamation, in light of the spirit of the law the state’s argument may be legally untenable. If such argument holds, then the express prohibition of the proviso in s.76 NLC would be vitiated, she adds.
“It is clearly the intention of Parliament to ensure that the State has full control over its foreshore and sea-bed when it amended s.76 NLC by inserting the proviso,” she points out.
It is thus assuring to read the CM’s statement in theSun (16 Oct 2008) that “the new Penang state government has no plans to follow the previous state government’s policy of circumventing the National Land Code (NLC) by converting all reclaimed land from leasehold to freehold status”.
The other argument put forward in favour of conversion was that there were ‘special circumstances’ to support it.
In this case, the State would be obliged to fulfill the requirement under s.76(aa)(iii) NLC to justify such ‘special circumstances’, says Agatha.
One of the justifications given for the conversion was that it was to “guarantee the business success of the new developer … as an incentive for the company … to take over the development”.
That’s the big question, isn’t it? Does guaranteeing “the business success of the new developer” and “incentive for the company” qualify as ‘special circumstances’? Is it the job of the State to guarantee the business success of a developer or to act in the public interest? (What about guaranteeing public access to the beach, for instance?)
Although ‘special circumstances’ is not expressly defined in the NLC, Agatha points out that the courts have defined it to mean circumstances which are “not ordinary, common or usual”, “something exceptional in character, something that exceeds or excels in some way that which is usual or common”.
“It must constitute ‘something distinctive and out of the way’ which is sufficiently compelling for the State to render it appropriate to convert the land from leasehold to freehold,” asserts Agatha.
This requirement of ‘special circumstances’ applies to all types of alienation of land for a period exceeding 99 years unless the land is to be used for public purpose or unless such alienation is required by the Federal Government. Hence, the State does not have an unfettered discretion to arbitrarily construe the meaning of “special circumstances”, she says.
anil,
was this done during KTK’s administration? if so, isnt it proper for him to give an answer instead of LGE having to defend the previous administration allegation of this wrongful act.
In any event, if the state wants to go out of its normal way to assist, shouldnt it:
1. allow a tender to maximise benefit.
2. ensure that the state gets a fair share of the benefits.
Another question, was this transaction done under a shroud of secrecy, as normal under the previous administration?
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wake up People of Penang!
As Quoted:
The Chief Minister was said to have been advised that “after reclamation, there [was] no more seabed and foreshore” and therefore the National Land Code (NLC) prohibition on the alienation of foreshore or sea-bed for a period longer than 99 years would not apply.
How can the lawyers and consultants with the PDC and the state legal advisor says that “after reclamation, there [was] no more seabed and foreshore” and the conversion was legal?
After reclamation of the land, it is still sitting on the original seabed and foreshore that belongs to the State (people to the of Penang)which was surveyed and mapped out in the official Penang maps many hundreds years ago. Someone is misleading the people of Penang for their own gains again.
When the first reclamation took place around 1987, the contracts given out by PDC was called “Reclamation at the Eastern Foreshore of Penang Phase 1-A1″. Therefore, PDC knew that it was a foreshore project. Thus, the project of reclamation continues in other parcels, including the one Queensbay is sitting on which was originally Bayan Bay.
Another question arises, why the original parcel of land sold by PDC to Anson Perdana, the previous developer which Queensbay has taken over, was on leasehold and now can be converted to freehold after construction had already started but stalled in the late 90s? Why?
Furthermore, PDC had a stake in the Bayan Bay development project and at that time PDC did not have the idea of freehold to boost sales. What was PDC’s losses in the abandoned project and what was PDC’s status when the supposed white knight took over the project?
Maybe those days, we more honest people that were working for PDC including the chairman, Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu and followed the rules and regulation?
Let’s not forget the Tanjung To’Kong reclamation project is also sitting on the foreshore and it is given freehold status.
It is up to the present state government to look into this issue deeply on how such rights of the people of Penang were been given away by the previous state government and who are the people benefitted from it.
If PDC says that the reclaimed land as qouted above is legal, why didn’t PDC gave those who have bought properties at GoldCoast by Techware, those SME factories in Bayan Baru sitting on the phase 1 & 2 reclaimed land, those in McCullum Street Ghuat low cost flats and houses built by PDC be given freehold also.
Did the previous government took the people of Penang for a ride? I think they did, that is why the people of Penang kicked them out. Therefore, the present government MUST right the wrong doings and not repeat the mistakes of the previous government or they will be kick out by the people of Penang at the next election.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Que Sera Sera, KTK/Gerakan can kiss Penang goodbye. Nobody uncovered the scam, so don’t put the blame of LGE. LGE’s team is working hard to move forward but with so much baggage under KTK’s admin, one would wonder what will happen if they ever come back in Power!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The best reward the PR state government could do is to give conversion from leasehold to freehold. Villagers have been constantly threatened to gave up land if they do not give support in the time past.
Especially in Perak, PR was offering to villagers at 999 years lease. After the collapsed of PR, I dont know the status now.
It is a blessing to receive free hold or 999 years lease. I will be happy for fellow Malaysians if kind government could offer such status to them.
No jealousy, no hatred and fear God only
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0