Dear Residents of Taman Desa,
It is most unfortunate that many unfounded and vicious rumours are going around, regarding the events of the security issues of Phase 1. We, the volunteers who had been working very hard to ensure that there is adequate security services have been keeping very quiet on the matter but feel that we now need to ensure that all the resident are informed of our side of the story.
Firstly, we categorically state that at no time was it our intention to split the community of Taman Desa. The attempt to form another Resident Association was solely as a last resort to enable us to maintain the security services of Phase 1 that we have been trying so very hard to provide for all we who live in Phase 1. We have always believed that, even with two Residents’ Association, who will manage their own security, there CAN be cooperation between the two Associations, to organise Social Events for the community as a whole.
In any disputes, there are always two sides to a story. This newsletter is NOT intended to twist any facts so that we can defend our actions but merely to inform you the sequence of events that has led to the present predicament. In the same breadth, we neither question the intentions nor the reasons behind the decisions and actions taken by the Committee and the President of TDRA but merely to inform all the actions that have been taken by them in proper order.
1. March 2010 : the TDRA made the decision to cease operating the Patrolling Scheme because they claimed that there were insufficient subscribers/funds for Phase 1. However, there was no attempt to inform the residents of Phase 1 of the situation or any attempt to increase subscribers prior to their decision. It was also very unfortunate that at the same time, word was circulating that Phase 2 was subsidising Phase 1 for the Patrolling Scheme.
2. April 2010 : A few individuals from Phase 1, after much research and planning, took the initiative to launch the Guarded Neighbourhood Security Scheme. A “Pilot” project was launched confining to Jalan Desa Permai, Jalan Puncak Desa and Lingkungan Desa. It was very encouraging that this Scheme, within weeks, had a subscription of 85%.
3. May 2010 : Briefing by TDRA and Tuah Guard on Objectives, Roles and Functions of Guarded Scheme. Included was long term objectives and strategy to enhance security and reduce cost; one of which was to establish Auxilliary Police for Tmn Desa (which we later found the solution in the formation of Rukun Tetangga. This was not met with enthusiasm from the TDRA).
4. June 2010 : Attempt was made to widen the coverage area of the Guarded Neighbourhood to other streets in Phase 1, due to popular demand. Unfortunately, the TDRA, decided to give priority to Phase 2 and the attention and effort was then given to Phase 2 to change from their existing Patrolling Scheme, which was still running, to the Guarded Scheme. The planned expansion for Phase 1 was delayed.
5. July 2010 : A Briefing was given to the Phase 2 Residents prior to implementation. Against the advice of the team of Phase 1 residents who successfully launched the “Guarded Scheme” in Phase 1, the Guarded Scheme was rushed through and implemented without proper planning and before all the necessary infrastructure was in place. Due to the absence of proper lighting and facilities for the guards at the posts, many of the guards fell sick and many others abandoned their jobs due to the poor working environment. As a result, compounded with the Hari Raya season the service provider, Tuah Guard, were unable to provide adequate manpower for a proper security service.
6. August 2010 : Payment of RM22,972.95 was made to the Service Provider of the Phase 2 Patrolling Scheme from TDRA main account due to shortage of funds from Subscription collection, without approval from members. No EGM or AGM was called for this matter.
Guarded Scheme for Phase 1 was implemented with more than 80% subscribing.
7. Sept 2010 : Tuah Guard was terminated as a service provider for Phase 2 without proper notice. Reasons given was that Tuah Guard could not provide adequate number of guards required, although Tuah Guard explained that the TDRA failed to provide proper Guard Posts and Power supply, and that the situation will definitely improve, once all the proper infrastructure are in place. Tuah Guard had entered into providing their services and invested in all the necessary ground work for Phase 2 in good faith, without any proper contract and never expect such a decision from TDRA.
A new service provider – Sastanis Security was appointed for Phase 2 by TDRA. Foreign Guards (very likely without proper work permits or Home Ministry approval which is mandatory) are provided at the same rate as Tuah Guard. Tuah Guard had to provide local guards, which cost more, and were never given the option to provide foreign guards.
A meeting to discuss security issues was called by TDRA, but note that only selected residents from Phase 1 were informed and invited. The meeting unofficially started with one of resident criticising the efficiency and reliability of local guards (in particularly Malay guards), followed by testimony from Andrew Ng of Bukit Desa on the satisfaction of the residents there on the services of the foreign guards in their scheme. A vote was then very quickly called to terminate Tuah Guard for providing mainly Malay Guards in favour of engaging foreign guards provided by Sastanis Security (the service provider for Phase 2). Mr. Guna then attempted to voice on behalf of Tuah Guard in essence stating why it was decided to engage local guards in the first place. A commotion was started with a Committee member shouting in Chinese and interrupting Mr. Guna. Mr. Guna attempted to speak but the interruption continued resulting in Mr. Guna “banging” the table to get attention. The shouting stopped but only temporarily resulting in Mr. Siva also “banging” the table.
THIS TRUTH IS CRITICAL AS THERE HAS BEEN RUMOURS CIRCULATING ABOUT THE “UNRULLY INDIAN BANGING TABLES IN MEETINGS”
Fortunately, Mr. Guna was given the opportunity to explain the advantages of Local over Foreign Guards. The Phase 1 residents then voted to maintain the security service with local Guards. A Sub-Committee was then formed to handle the Security for Phase 1.
The Sub-Committee convened it’s first meeting with a total of 16 residents from Phase 1 and Mr. Siva Ahnanthan as Chairman but without representation from the Main Committee of TDRA. It was agreed after deliberation that the first step towards improving the Security was to implement a proper Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) including the issuance of Gate Passes. The members also agreed to meet weekly to expedite the implementation.
8. October 2010 : Copies of the SOP and Gate Passes was printed to be distributed to all Residents of Phase I. Mr. Wong Chee How was appointed as Treasurer of the Sub-Committee and Mr. Philip Phang the Secretary.
The advantages for Rukun Tetangga were discussed and a briefing was conducted on 31st October for the Residents to understand how it can further enhance the implementation of the Security for Phase 1.
9. Nov 2010 : SOP and Gate Pass was implemented. There were some complaints, as anticipated, but no violent objections once the purposes were explained. TDRA voiced their concerns that “many” complaints were received. The Sub-Committee request that the TDRA forward the complaints to them, so that the purpose and objectives of the security implementation can be explained to, but NONE was forwarded.
10. 4th Nov 2010 : One day before Deepavali
9.20am - DBKL enforcement removed the cones and road barriers which was place at the entrance of Jalan Desa Aman (Post 2). An attempt was made to remove the CCTV but was stopped by Mr. Jack Lew.
12.00 noon - a warning was issued by Jababtan Keselamatan and Penguatkuasaan Cawangan Seputeh for putting sup signboard without approval of DBKL. One week was given to remove it.
9th Nov 2010 : TDRA issued a letter to Tuah Guard to instruct that ALL boom gates are to remained open at all time.
10th Nov 2010 : at around 9.20am DBKL came to all the Guard Posts in Phase 1 and removed all the signboards. NOTE- this is the Sixth Day, less that the one week, after the warning was issued.
A dialogue session was organised by TDRA at 8.30pm to be attended by TDRA Committee, Phase 1 representatives, PDRM (Police) Brickfields and DBKL (Cawangan Seputeh).
TDRA stated that the objectives of the Dialogue Session was to resolve the “problems” (based on “complaints” received) caused by security procedures implemented in Phase 1. However, they remained silent and made no attempt to protect the interest of the residents of Phase 1, except to emphasise on the “problems” of complaints and conforming to the actions taken by DBKL.
PDRM – stated that they have received “comments” from IPD Brickfields but NO SPECIFIC MENTION of the Complainants.
DBKL – stated that they acted on complaints received, and had informed TDRA of their impending actions.
Residents of Phase 1 – were puzzled that DBKL acted so harshly.
Questions were forwarded repeatedly as to why there were NO attempts to engage TDRA to resolve the matters amicably as the TDRA had always had good relationship with DBKL. This question was never answered.
Questions were forwarded on the proof of complaints, which DBKL stated that they can and will take actions even if it was just a verbal or ‘SMS’ complaint.
Questions were also forwarded on why NO actions were taken on other Security Schemes, which was even less well-managed. Photographic proofs were presented. Some of the residents challenged DBKL that they will collectively make the complaints there and then.
TDRA – chose to remain silent.
At the end of the dialogue, outside the meeting room TDRA Secretary handed out Guidelines that the Sub-Committee needs to follow. It was handed out in the dark and was received without even knowing the contents of the document. Not all sub-Committee members received a copy and many did not read it carefully until it was brought up again in the next meeting.
A decision was made by a group of individuals of Phase 1 residents to proceed with the application to establish a Rukun Tantangga for Taman Desa as a precautionary action and also to supplement the long term plans of the Guarded Scheme.
11. 12th Nov 2010 : Sub-Committee met with anticipation of moving forward with the presence of a representative from the Main Committee of TDRA – Ms Molly Goh. However, after all the cordial briefing on the plans of the Sub-Committee, based on the wishes of the Residents of Phase 1, Ms. Molly Goh had only one message from the President of TDRA: “ the Sub-Committee will follow the Guidelines drawn up by the Main Committee, failing which the TDRA will pull out their support and involvement on the Security Implementations” (which practically means the collapse of the whole Security Scheme of Phase 1, as there will be no means of engaging a Service Provider legally, without a registered Residents Association).
12. 19th Nov 2010 : Another meeting was held by the Sub-Committee, this time TDRA was represented by Mr. Quah, Secretary of TDRA. A request was forwarded to the TDRA to enable Phase 1 implement the SOP and Gate Pass for Phase 1 since we are to strictly follow their guidelines.
Between 20th Nov and 13th Dec. the Sub-Committee did not hear or receive anything from TDRA Main Committee. No feedback, no advisory… NOTHING .Sub-Committee decides to tread carefully so as not to jeopardize the Security Scheme of Phase 1
13. 13th Dec 2010 : A dialogue was held in an attempt to resolve the “impasse”. There was no resolve except that En. Munir (Committee of TDRA) agreed that the SOP was reasonable but may need to be re-worded to be less offensive. He agreed to make the necessary changes and get it approved by the TDRA Committee.
There was no revised SOP or approval from the TDRA, even after repeated request and reminders. Meanwhile, TDRA sent a Circular to Phase 2 residents informing them of a shortfall of RM35,000 to pay for infrastructure costs without reducing security headcount. However, for Phase 1 knowing there is a shortfall, TDRA did not issue similar Circulars but decided to ask for a reduction in security manpower.
14. 23rd Dec 2010 : A group of individuals presented themselves as Taman Desa Phase 1 residents managed to secure an appointment with Datuk Hj Amin Nordin of DBKL to brief him on the Security needs and our proposed methods of Guarded Scheme of Phase 1. Despite the reminder by Datuk Amin that the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for Guarded Community must be strictly adhered to, he was clearly impressed with the SOP and Gate Pass that was proposed by the Phase 1 residents. In short, he had NO objections to the methods used for the implementation of the Guarded Scheme of Phase 1. However, he reiterated the need for a Residents’ Association to manage the Guarded Scheme. This was the beginning of the Sub-Committee dilemma.
15. 7th Jan 2011 : Kawasan Rukun Tetangga Tamam Desa (KRTTD) have been gazetted and approved. The KRTTD, unfortunately, covers only the entire Phase 1 of Taman Desa, as the Jabatan Perpaduan Negara Dan Integrasi Nasional (JPNIN) informed that the whole of Taman Desa is too big to be a single RT Zone.
16. 18th Jan 2011 : KRTTD officially announces its establishment to Taman Desa Residents
TDRA issued a letter to KRTTD Chairman and copied to Tuah Guard stating:
· Their intentions of handing over the security service management of Phase 1 to KRTTD
· Phase 1 Sub-Committee is automatically and immediately dissolved.
The Committee members or KRTTD and the, now dissolved, Sub-Committee were puzzled by TDRA’s decision and actions as:
i. There were no discussion on the intentions of the formation of KRTTD but only assumptions that it was formed to manage the Security Scheme of Phase 1
ii. We have no idea how or if KRTTD can take over the management of the Security Service management.
iii. TDRA should be well aware that KPKT guidelines states specifically that all Guarded Communities must come under the auspices of a Residents’ Association.
iv. The complications of handling the Scheme are not carefully discussed. The Scheme is a contract entered between TDRA and its member and Tuah Guard.
We also understand from JPNIN whilst we were submitting our application to form the Rukun Tetangga that Rukun Tetangga is an official Government organisation and do NOT have the jurisdiction to collect subscriptions from residents for security services or to appoint Security Companies for services. Thus, KRTTD officially writes to TDRA on the 19th January, to inform TDRA that we will need to seek approval and advice from the governing body of Rukun Tetangga, JPNIN before we can accept the role.
This was met with an angry reply from TDRA on 21st January stating their surprise that KRTTD requires JPNIN approval. In the letter, TDRA demanded an official response to take over the management of the Security Services by 24th January. It is also stated that “TDRA Account 4” (set up for Phase 1 Security) has only sufficient funds to pay Tuah Guard for their services till end January 2011, they will have no choice but to terminate Tuah Guard’s services starting February 2011.
On 28th January, after confirmation from JPNIN, KRTTD officially informed TDRA that KRTTD are NOT permitted to take over the role of managing the guarded community with regards to collection of subscription and the appointment of a Security service company.
KRTTD (as the Sub-Committee has been dissolved) also advised TDRA NOT to take unilateral action without first having a dialogue with the residents.
At this point, we would like to clarify the reasons behind the apparent lack of funds to pay for the services of Tuah Guard. To understand this, we have to be very clear that there are THREE very distinct EXPENSES:
1. Cost of building the infrastructure such as the Guard Houses, laying the supply of Power and Water, Spot Lights for the Posts, Boom Gates for all the posts, CCTVs, traffic cones and Barriers, etc. This amounted to RM132,458.95. ALL of which has been paid fully! We were given the impression that the “friendly” contractors and suppliers engaged are willing to accept payment in monthly instalments, and we have time to collect more “CONTRIBUTIONS” in due time. Unfortunately, once the infrastructures are built, they demanded for payment and it was duly paid out, IN FULL.
2. The payment for Security services; that is the Guards. This will vary according to the number of guards that are placed daily. We only pay for the number of Guards that are physically present.
The Monthly Subscriptions you have paid is solely for the purpose of paying for the Security Services provided by Tuah Guard or any other service provider. What have been collected to date IS sufficient to pay Tuah Guard till the end of the contract period.
There was also a campaign to collect “CONTRIBUTIONS” for the building of the INFRASTRUCTURE. Unfortunately, only about RM52,000.00 have been collected. The balance/shortfall was paid using the funds collected from the Monthly Subscriptions; therefore the lack of funds to pay Tuah Guards for part of February and March.
17. 28th Jan 2011 : TDRA issued Notice of Termination to Tuah Guard, last day being 31st January 2011. TDRA requested Tuah Guard to provide services from 1st to 10th February on “Gratis” basis. They informed Tuah Guard that they are not sure if KRTTD will take on the Security Service management for Phase 1.
Letter was copied to KRTTD.
18. 2nd Feb 2011 : Tuah Guard responded to TDRA that:
a. There is an official Notice period under the contract
b. Tuah Guard had not breach the contract
c. The termination is deemed as unfair termination
d. Tuah Guard has the right to impose charges up till 30th March as per contract.
19. 6th Feb 2011 : TDRA writes to Tuah Guard that TDRA will fulfil its obligations until 30 March 2011 BUT Tuah Guard is to continue their services with guards at all posts only until 15th February, after which ALL Gates shall be OPENED and there shall be only 2 Guards on patrol duty.
This letter was also copied to KRTTD.
20. 8th Feb 2011 : DBKL Seputeh manager En. Yaacob calls in the morning for a meeting at 3pm, on the same day, seeking representatives from both KRTTD and TDP1RA Pro-tem Committee to attend. A total of 7 representatives arrived at about 2.45 and were instructed by En. Faizol to wait till 3pm before proceeding to the meeting room. As they proceeded to the meeting room just after 3pm they were surprised to see Mr. William Chan and Mr Quah present already in the meeting room, at least from 2.45pm.
The Phase 1 Pro-tem Committee appointed Mr. Phillip Phang as spokesman, and he briefed the meeting on the wishes of the Phase 1 residence with regards to security. However, when it was the TDRA’s turn to speak, the meeting turn fiery as he touched on personal issues and made accusations. He presented reasons and requested DBKL for NOT recommending the formation of a new Residents’ Association for Phase 1 Residents. However, as the Phase 1 representative further pressed on with their views and reasoning that the only solution is to form a new Residents’ Association to take over the management of the Security of Phase 1, Mr. William “begged” Enc. Yacoob, with hand gestures, to submit a report to recommend the formation of a new Association for Phase 1 residents.
21. 13th Feb 2011 : TDP1RA Pro-tem Committee instructs Tuah Guard to conduct a FULL inventory of the Security Systems and Equipment at ALL the Posts in Phase 1. The Inventory Report was duly submitted on the same day.
22. 15th Feb 2011 : TDP1RA Pro-tem Chairman writes officially to TDRA president and DBKL Seputeh thanking them for the meeting and confirming Mr William Chan’s undisputed support towards the formation of the new Residents’ Association.
23. 17th Feb 2011 : at approximately 10am, TDRA Committee member Mr. Ho Seng Choy removed CCTV Monitors and DVRs from Posts 2,3,4 5, and 6 of Phase 1.
TDRA distributed a Circular dated 16th Feb 2011 to Phase 1 Residents, informing them of the scaling down of the Security Services with effect from 16th Feb 2011 and that they are supportive of the action to form the KRTTD and the new Residents’ Association.
Meeting at Papparich Café, Old Klang Road between TDRA and Protem Committee Members.
Objective was to find a solution to the impasse and to request an official letter from TDRA to state that they have no objection to the formation of the new RA. TDRA refused to issue any official letter or to find ways to continue the security services and not to change to just Patrolling Services.
24. 19th Feb 2011 : Pro-tem Committee issues underwriting to pay any shortfall of funds in TDRA Account 4 (maintained with Public Bank Taman Desa) for services on or after 20th Feb 2011 to TDRA, to ensure that the existing Security services (with Guards at ALL posts) continues. For some unknown reasons, Mr. William Chan refused to acknowledge the receipt of the letter. The letter was acknowledged by Tuah Guard and distributed to all residents of Phase 1 to assure them that the Security services will NOT be disrupted.
25. 20th – 26th Feb : Tuah Guard was advised by Mr. William Chan to pull out the manpower and TDRA Committee continue to “harass” the Guards, insinuating that they will not be paid as TDRA has run out of funds to pay Tuah Guard.
The Pro-tem Committee of the yet to be approved Taman Desa Phase 1 Residents’ Association will continue to ensure that there will be Full Security Services and the security of Phase 1 residents are NOT compromised. We will still work hard towards obtaining the approval for the formation of the New Residents’ Association.
We hope that you now have a better appreciation of the reasons behind the need to form a new Residents’ Association AND continue to extend your support by subscribing to the Scheme under the new RA as well as contributing to the infrastructure cost.
We also hope that you now appreciate that the reasons for shortfall in the quality of the service provided by Tuah Guard is not solely their inefficiency but also the unfortunate fact that they are not allowed to fully implement the SOP that has been carefully and painfully drawn up. It is also our sincere desire, that we will still have a cordial relationship with TDRA and we look forward to jointly organise, even with KRTTD, Community Social Events, to forge a better relationship between all the residents of Taman Desa.
FRANK YEH, Lingkungan Desa | DR AU YONG KOON CHOONG, Lorong Desa Murni 2 |
WONG CHEE HOW, Jalan Desa Damai | CHING ENG SEONG, Jalan Desa Damai |
SAMBANTHAN, Jalan Desa Damai | WONG CHIEW PIN, Jalan Desa Utama |
TDRA_Letter_To_KRTTD_14_03_11
KRTTD_Letter_To_TDRA_07_03_11
DBKL_Dato_Amin_Minutes_Of_Meeting_01_03_11
TDP1RA_Letter_To_TDRA_19_02_11
TDP1RA_Letter_To_Residents_18_02_11
TDRA_Letter_To_Phase_1_Residents_17_02_11
TDP1RA_Letter_To_DBKL_Seputeh_15_02_11
TDP1RA_Letter_To_TDRA_15_02_11
TDRA_Letter_To_Tuah_Guard_06_02_11
Tuah_Guard_Letter_To_TDRA_02_02_11
KRTTD_Letter_To_TDRA_28_01_11
TDRA_Letter_To_Tuah_Guard_28_01_11
KRTTD_Letter_To_TDRA_23_01_11
TDRA_Letter_To_KRTTD_22_01_11
KRTTD_Letter_To_TDRA_19_01_11
TDRA_Letter_To_KRTTD_18_01_11
TDRA_Letter_To_Tuah_Guard_18_01_11
Dato_Amin_Letter_To_Phase_1_Residents_21_12_2010
Email_Comm._Between_TDRA_&_Phase_1_Sub_Committee_13_12_10
Phase_1_Residents_Representative_Letter_To_Dato_Amin_30_11_2010
DBKL_Letter_To_TDRA_29_11_10
Phase_1_Security_Sub_Committee_Minutes_Of_Meeting_12_11_10
TDRA_Guidelines_To_Sub_Committee_10_11_10
TDRA_Letter_To_Tuah_Guard_09_11_10
TDRA_Letter_To_Phase_1_Security_Sub_Committee_08_11_10
DBKL_Notis_Amaran_To_TDRA_04_11_10
