Q&A with Datuk Wira Chor Chee Heung

The recently released Gated Community and Guarded Neighbourhood Guidelines has raised some doubts among residents prompting the minister in-charge Datuk Wira Chor Chee Heung to clear the air.

Q: Under what law are the guidelines provided for?
A: The preparation of the planning guidelines are in line with Section 2B (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172), which requires the Town and Country Planning director-general to formulate and advise the government on matters concerning town and country planning and the use and development of lands in Peninsular Malaysia.
For the guidelines on guarded neighbourhood, no specific law governs its operation. Furthermore, local councils have no authority to approve the application in setting up the schemes, which had taken form in an ad hoc manner.
Q: Would the local councils be held liable should any untoward incidents happen as a result of the gated community and guarded neighbourhood schemes?
A: Considering the erecting of structures is under the purview and responsibility of the gated communities and residents associations, and these actions are voluntary, the local councils cannot be legally blamed for any untoward incidents in both gated communities and guarded neighbourhoods.
Q: Some feel that the guidelines are inconsistent with the existing laws (Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Road Transport Act 1987) as clauses in these acts prohibit any form of restriction of access on roads, while the guidelines for guarded neighbourhood allow temporary obstacles, such as cones, security signboards and manual boom gates, as long as the locations are stationed by a guard.
A: The issue has been debated at length by Cabinet and NCLG members, and the decision to allow temporary obstacles was made after considering opinions and suggestions from stakeholders including local councils, residents associations and the police.
The temporary barrier shall only be allowed if there is a 24-hour security guard to control the temporary, non-stationary and non-dangerous obstacles. This does not contradict with the Road Transport Act 1987, which prohibits dangerous obstacles. Furthermore, the guidelines also state that a temporary obstacle can only be considered by the local authority on a case-by-case basis. If other residents disagree, the local authority may decline the installation of such obstacles.
Q: The guidelines imply that every entry-exit point must have at least a guard (as no permanent obstacle is allowed) but housing estates in the Klang Valley tend to have many entry-exit points. It would be impractical to place a guard at every location.
A: Firstly, the NCLG has made a decision that these guidelines are only applicable to new guarded neighbourhood schemes, and not the existing schemes which are often unplanned and thus not suitable for operation as a guarded neighbourhood.
Secondly, the clause about temporary physical obstacle is only an option, and not a condition. The residents associations can opt to operate the guarded neighbourhood through patrolling and other surveillance method without having to station guards at every entry-exit point.
Q: If the guards have no authority to deny anyone from entering the neighbourhood, how will the guarded neighbourhood scheme be effective at all?
A: This aspect has also been debated at length at the ministry level as well as the Home Affairs Ministry and the police. Residents operating the guarded neighbourhood schemes should be aware that only the police and other legally designated personnel have the authority to stop, seek identification cards or investigate people. Security guards employed by residents have no power to seek identification or stop anyone from entering.
Moreover, from the perspective of land ownership, the guarded neighbourhood scheme is just a normal housing scheme with individual land titles, unlike gated community which is planned as a private property.
Even without stopping or seeking identification, the guards can be proactive by familiarising themselves with local residents and the inventory of residents’ vehicles so that potential intruders can be recognised and monitored. The guarded neighbourhood is just a loose concept to deter criminal activities. After all, guarded neighbourhoods are an “afterthought” ad hoc action, unlike gated communities.
Q: Does majority mean 51%? Wouldn’t that be too small a difference?
A: Mathematically, majority means 51%. In politics, two-thirds majority is often used. The spirit of this prescription is that it should be both fair and realistic.
Selangor has imposed an 80% consent requirement and initially in March, the ministry had proposed a 100% consent requirement before operating the guarded neighbourhood. Following this, the ministry has received many responses and complaints from the public and media saying that this regulation is not logical because it is difficult to get 100% agreement from the residents. There is no law that prohibits a house owner, or a group of house owners, from appointing security guards to oversee their houses. With public welfare and public rights in mind, the guidelines have clearly stated the condition that the majority rule would only apply with undue force or pressure on those residents who do not wish to pay for security services. In other words, those who do not wish to be part of the scheme are not obliged to pay for the expenses.

 Safe and secure: The entrance of USJ 5, a gated and guarded community.

Q: Some commented that the need to apply for Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) for permanent structures on the road shoulder makes it difficult for those who genuinely need the guarded neighbourhood scheme.
A: The ministry has no intention to cause unnecessary difficulties to the guarded neighbourhood operation but its objective is to ensure that the guardhouses erected by the residents associations are legal and in accordance with the provision of National Land Code 1965.
This is also to avoid the guardhouses from being demolished by the land office, which has the legal right to demolish buildings which are not in line with the National Land Code.
Q: The guidelines forbid the guarded neighbourhood scheme to be implemented in areas with public facilities but almost every neighbourhood in Subang Jaya and Petaling Jaya has common facilities.
A: As explained, the NCLG has decided that the guidelines approved is only applicable to new guarded neighbourhood schemes. It is not the intention of the guidelines that all neighbourhoods be implemented with the scheme.
Only neighbourhoods that are planned to be mutually exclusive and have communal facilities like those of gated community are practical because they should not have public facilities in their premises. It should also be noted that the majority of the housing schemes outside the Klang Valley do not have boom gates and guardhouses, but only security patrolling in and around the housing schemes. The public are free to use such roads and public facilities.
Q: The attached FAQ states that “legalisation process would not be done immediately and hastily”, so the councils are supposed to let the illegal ones go?
A: What this means is that the illegal erection and installation of guard posts, perimeter fencing, boom gates and oil drums, in existing guarded neighbourhoods shall be dealt with in phases and using case-by-case basis with priority on areas that compromise critical public services like ambulance and fire brigades.
Focus areas also include guarded neighbourhoods that install boom gates, oil drums or other obstruction on public roads, or any other public access that is used by other neighbourhoods and by doing so, cause difficulty and instigate the disturbance of public peace.
Q: Some feel that the guidelines were drawn without consulting the people on the ground, hence some impractical clauses.
A: The fact is that the guidelines have been drawn up in consultation with people on the ground. The study group from the ministry has made extensive consultation with various stakeholders discussing the issues on guarded neighbourhood and gated community.
Within the two-year period that this guideline was developed, consultation with more than 50 groups of stakeholders were made, including Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia, developers, police, academicians, residents associations and the public. Seminars and focus group discussions have also been arranged for and analysed as input to the guidelines. The ministry has also conducted a special study to obtain responses from the public, involving 450 respondents in several local authority areas in the Klang Valley and Penang in formulating the guidelines.
Q: The Guarded Neighbourhood Guidelines forbid the residents to fence up their neighbourhoods but some felt that the fence is an essential part of the scheme to prevent strangers from entering and exiting the neighbourhoods freely.
A: Roads and backlanes in housing schemes are public roads and are accessible to the public. It was because of the change in circumstances pertaining to the security problem, the ministry decided to do something helpful by introducing the guidelines. In the context of liveable and social integrative communities, housing schemes with perimeter fencing or walls that promote social exclusion would not support integrative approaches towards a common cohesive society.
Moreover, fences and walls are aesthetically unpleasing, exude paranoia and can be visually intrusive. A home is not an army camp or a government complex. What would our country be if the whole length and breath of this beautiful country consists of fenced up or walled up neighbourhoods? Will it portray that our country is an unsafe place to live in and that there is no other option to address the safety issue?
Q: The guidelines specify that perimeter fencing is not allowed as it is normally built on road reserve.
A: Residents associations should understand that the construction of perimeter fencing will involve road reserve which, under the provision of National Land Code, is legally under the ownership of the public. Road reserves do not exclusively belong to members of the residents associations in guarded neighbourhood schemes.
Q: The guidelines discourage gated community to be implemented in rural areas, for fear of negative impact and social division. Does the ministry feel that such schemes can cause social division among the people in urban areas? Some felt that the schemes have actually brought the urban residents closer in terms of working hand-in-hand to make the neighbourhood a safer place for all.
A: There are cases that the schemes have brought the residents closer. However, this is mutually exclusive and rarely extend beyond the walls and fences of their neighbourhoods. There are many factors that can bring residents together.
Commons interests in safety (not necessarily walls or fences), such as community policing and community welfare have often brought people together. The timeless and priceless concept of “love thy neighbour” should be re-introduced by creative residents associations. This goes way beyond the need for fences and walls.
Q: Respondents have urged the government to set up a similar administration to the Commissioner of Building to oversee the residents associations in the event of disputes. Can this be done?
A: The guarded neighbourhood scheme operates on houses with individual land titles and not strata titles.
As such, there is no provision of a management corporation as with gated communities under the Strata Title Act 1985. The guarded neighbourhood scheme has sprung out to mirror facilities in a gated community, but still hold the benefits of individual titled land. The management corporation to some extent relieves local authorities from the responsibilities of daily upkeep, maintenance and administration. The ministry has no plan to set up a special administration to oversee the operation of the residents associations in guarded neighbourhoods as at present, the capacity and resources of local authorities are limited and catered for the interests of the wider community.

source: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2010/10/29/central/7301521&sec=central

Non-paying residents at receiving end

By THO XIN YI thoxinyi@thestar.com.my

Subscription to security schemes in residential areas often cause dispute among paying and non-paying residents.
While those who disagree with the schemes maintain that they have the freedom of choice, the rest think the former are taking advantage of those who contribute to the monthly fees.
A resident in Bukit Rahman Putra 7, Sungai Buloh, who stopped subscribing to the security services, was unhappy that the residents association put up two banners that read “Do not live on the charity of your neighbour. Please pay your share to protect your family”.
“No one can insult or humiliate us. We have equal rights to stay here without prejudice, shame and fear as the rest of the paying residents,” she said.
The resident spoke strongly against the action of putting up the tri-lingual banners at the guardhouse to embarrass the non-paying residents.
“It does not promote harmony within the neighbourhood and I certainly do not live on my neighbours’ charity,” she said.

 Do your part: Bukit Rahman Putra 7 Residents Association chairman K.S. Ooi said this banner was put up to create awareness and encourage the residents to join the security scheme and not to humiliate them. – By THO XIN YI/The Star

The resident said she opted to drop out from the scheme as she was dissatisfied with the services provided by the security company.
She pointed out that a neighbouring residential area, Bukit Rahman Putra 6, also has a similar banner put up near its guardhouse.
When contacted, residents association chairman K.S. Ooi said the intention of putting up the banners was not to embarrass the residents and was not targeted at anyone in particular.
“It’s a general banner to create awareness and encourage the residents to join the security scheme,” he said.
He added that the fees charged by the security companies increased when the government stopped them from employing foreign guards.
“The residents association faced the plight when there is insufficient subscription to pay for the fees.
“Some residents take the security services for granted as it is paid for by other residents,” he said.
Ooi said he was upset over the sole complaint by the resident.
He added that out of the 348 houses, about 220 were participating members.
“Last year, two or three burglaries happened fortnightly. We are having the security service for the benefit of all,” he said.
Over in Taman Mutiara Puchong, the residents association face a problem of non-paying members and visitors hitting the boom gates to enter or exit the neighbourhood.
The association has to fork out RM600 every time the boom gate was hit, and it has happened more than 10 times.
Gerard Lim, a association committee member, said they had lodged police report and even took the matter to the magistrate court.
In a residents association meeting, it was decided that the signs that read “You Bang You Pay” to be displayed on the boom gates to stop the stubborn ones from hitting the bar again.
The method has proven effective as no other incident happened since then.
“The paying residents are given access cards to raise the automatic boom gates, while non-paying residents and visitors have to register at the guardhouse every time they want to enter the neighbourhood.
“It is not fair to 80% of the residents to pay for the non-paying ones.
“Our guards take care of the common area, such as the field, where children gather and play,” Lim said.

source: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2010/10/29/central/7309795&sec=central

Increase in burglary cases in commercial area

By PRIYA MENON priya@thestar.com.my

THERE has been an increasing number of burglaries at the Taman Commercial Park in Pandan Indah, Ampang, recently.
The office unit owners have been losing electrical items, wire rolls and metal to burglars believed to be foreigners.
At one block, the office units were ransacked and walls damaged by burglars looking for concealed wires.
An office unit owner, Crispine Pereira, 53, said his unit had been burgled eight times and he had lost about RM7,000 in the last four incidents.
“The last renovation cost me RM2,500,” he said.
Pereira said he had lodged four complaints since 2005 and had tried several ways to fortify his unit but all failed.
His tenant’s items including computers, washing machines and a printer had also been stolen in the past.
“The rent is only RM350 and I am paying double the amount to the bank and I have to spend money to repair this place,” he said.
He even asked his friend who lives nearby to check on his unit at night.
“However, I believe these culprits enter the units between 2am and 4am and they take several hours to complete the job,” Pereira added.
After lodging the last complaint, a police officer stopped by his unit and confirmed that he has received similar complaints from other owners.
Pereira requested for a police beat in the commercial park, however, the officer said the decision could only be made by the head office in Bukit Aman.
“Now we may have to resort to stationing a guard at the night. I hope the other owners would contact me so that we can organise this together,” he added.

source: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2010/10/27/central/7293326&sec=central

November & December payment

Please be aware that we are collecting November & December payment starting 24 Oct 2010. (RM70 x 2 = RM140)
Kindly call our representatives to collect the payment. Thank you!

Jalan 1A: Mr. Teng (012-3973139)
Jalan 2A: Mr. Teng (012-3973139)
Jalan 3: Mr. Lim (019-3337522) / Ms. Christine (016-2038511)
Jalan 4: Mr. Tong (012-2002201)
Jalan 5: Mr. Ng (012-2296112)
Jalan 6: Mrs. Goh (017-8833362) / Ms. Chan (012-2355157)
Jalan 7: Mr. Soon (016-3563939) / Mr. Kan (012-3287072) / Mr. Derrick Teh (016-2017883)
Jalan 8: Mr. Koh (019-3424648) / Ms Vivian (012-3990666)
Jalan 9: En. Hassan (012-2315533) / Mr. Kent Lam (012-3248787) / Mr. Ch'ng (010-2666160)
Jalan 10: Mr. Suresh (016-6899357) / Ms. Karen (012-3898299) / Mr. Thong (012-2210236)
Jalan 11: En. Hassan (012-2315533) / Mr. Ch'ng (010-2666160)
Jalan 12: Mr. John Chung (019-3818914) / Ms. Lee (016-2968043) / Ms. Tammy (017-8797393)

.....

Important Security Number

If you found suspectious vehicle, persons, alarm checking, break-in, emergency etc, please call the below number:

Jalan 3 security booth: 010-2968687
Jalan 9 security booth: 010-2000157
Supervisor (Mr. Alam): 012-6883327
Manager (Mr. Muthtear Singh): 017-2970740

[ I-Hawk Security Consultant Sdn. Bhd. ]

蒙面刀匪 綑綁全家

4蒙面刀匪令勿反抗
綑綁全家劫萬六財物

24 October 2010   19.40

地點：蕉賴斯里拉也花園
（加影24日訊）蕉賴斯里拉也花園十多年來，首次發生破門行劫事件，4名蒙面匪徒手持巴冷刀，把事主五花大綁，短短20分鐘內將屋內所有貴重物品洗劫一空！
遇劫者鐘水財（44歲）指出，匪徒于（21日）凌晨3時，從住家大門進入屋內，當時一家人已熟睡，他則在樓下房間睡覺。
他說，由于房外燈光亮著，當匪徒欲進入其房間時，已發現有人影經過，打算起床拿硬體物件防衛，但劫匪們行動迅速，立即使用電腦電纜綑綁手腳、及把毛巾塞入其口里。
20分鐘洗劫一空
“太太及3名孩子手腳也被綑綁，劫匪口操馬來文，不斷叫我們不要出聲及反抗，因為他們只是要求錢財。”
他今日在加影市議員李亞成陪同下，這么指出。
鐘水財說，劫匪干案手法熟練，20分鐘內已將屋內貴重物件搬空，估計損失超過1萬6000令吉。
他說，被偷竊物品包括新購買42吋等離子電視（Plasma TV）、7台手機、現金7000令吉、2支XO烈酒等。
“居住這里12年不曾發生治安問題，前往警局報案時，警方說近來經常發生破門行竊事件。”
李亞成強調，兩週內已接獲3宗破門行竊投訴，分別位于蕉賴萬蓮花園4路、布特里再也6路（Taman Putri Jaya）及蕉賴斯里拉也花園，顯示這區治安亮紅燈。
他說，近來擁有一個不法集團，專門駕駛豪華轎車打劫，后者打扮穿著斯文，公眾受促提高警惕並發揮守望相助精神。
“居民一旦發現有可疑人物需立即聯絡警方，或義務性展開巡邏行動。”

source: http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2010-10-25&sec=local&art=1025lk04.txt 

RADA Car Stickers are ready!

Our Car Sticker has finally ready for distribution.
Please contact your representatives for collection.

• RADA member is entitled for 4 stickers
• RADA contributor is entitled for 2 stickers
• Each extra sticker costs RM5.00
• Please place your sticker at driver side
• Make sure sticker are written with correct vehicle number
• Sticker valid from Oct 2010 till December 2011
• The sticker is property of RADA. RADA reserve the right on the usage and return of stickers.

Security improvements

As many residents aware, yesterday I-Hawk did a training to our Taman's security guards on 7.00pm (Jalan 9 entrance), to improve their services and security procedures.

Meanwhile, all roads in our taman has installed a key-checkpoint for security guards to 'punch' the time clock once in every 60-90 minutes. (total 18 points).

Bicycles and walkie-talkie are allocated to them too, in addition to touch lights, bike, baton, etc.

So far investment by I-Hawk includes the below:
1. 2 x Boom Gate (RM2200)
2. 2 x Guard House (RM3800)
3. Key Check-point system (20 points) (RM2000)
4. Bicycle/Uniform/Gears/Walkie-talkie/2 x handphone/lights
5. Agency fee + payroll + meal/accommodation for 8 guards+ 1 supervisor
6. Travelling/Petrol/Tel bill

Letter to Security company (I-Hawk)

19^th October 2010

I Hawk Security Consultant Sdn Bhd

D-7-1B, Jalan Prima Saujana 2/E

Seksyen 2, Taman Prima Saujana

43000 Kajang

Selangor Darul Ehsan

Attention: Mr. Mukhtear Singh

Dear Sirs,

RE: SECURITY SERVICES

I refer to the above and would like to point out several issues about the services:

We found out your service did not satisfy our requirement. As per our conversation on 9^th Oct 2010 at Jalan 9 guardhouse and we have pointed out the problems:

1.      Did not arrange for repair of boom gate (knocked down by a careless driver on 3^rd Oct).

2.      No STOP/Security Check signage on boom gate.

3.      Lady and small size guards employed.

4.      Local guards employed instead of foreign guards.

5.      House plate not ready.

6.      Guards found sleeping on many occasions especially 11pm-6am period.

7.      Boom gates on Jalan Desa Aman 3 always open, instead of close.

8.      No checking on suspicious car.

9.      No check points installed.

10.  No bicycles provided.

11.  No contact numbers of guard house provided.

12.  SOP of guards not yet checked.

We have your promise everything will be solved by 15^th October 2010.

On our meeting on 16^th Oct 2010 (En. Hassan’s house: 21 Jalan Desa Aman 10), we pointed out again many issues above still unsolved. Again, you promise to solve it on Sunday, 17^th Oct 2010, especially repair of boom gate, change of security staffs, give us SOP and improve on security job. But till today many issues still not solved.

We understand that I-Hawk would be very busy initially and we are willing to help up whenever we can, including handle all complaints by residents, writing email or call residents to explain, answering all doubts in our website feedback sections, and send out sms to update residents on any progress.

Some issues that we believe it can be solved without any delay, should be implemented immediately, such as:

1.      No more sleeping/chit-chating/relaxing guards for both stationed and patrolling guards.

2.      Patrolling guards should not always gather at gates, instead of patrolling.

3.      Use touch light at night patrolling, and watch all house/dark areas instead of ‘rushing’ to check point.

4.      Some patrolling guards walk too slow. Should use bicycle instead and stop at all suspicious area for a check.

5.      Always close all boom gates (especially low traffic period 8pm - 6am, 9am-12pm, 1pm-5pm).

6.      Stop and ask for all suspicious cars/bikes, and do necessary recording.

7.      Do not open the gate even cars still far away. WATCH every car/bike/lorry/person that enter into our taman.

8.      Follow suspicious car/bike/man to the house.

We sincerely hope we would not issue any such letter in future. Your kind cooperation is very much appreciated.

Best regards,

Residents Association of Taman Desa Aman (RADA)

Hassan Ghani Hamid

Chairman

Pro-tem committe

Guarded neighbourhood: 51% of residents must approve

Hemananthani Sivanandam

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 8, 2010): A neighbourhood planning to set up the guarded neighbourhood scheme can do so only with the approval of 51% of the residents.
Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung said that under the new guidelines for gated community and guarded neighbourhoods, the approvals should not be forced.
"However, it will be better if all or maybe 80%-90% of the residents agree to it," said Chor.
 ...


Guidelines for guarded neighbourhoods (GN)
* GN is allowed only in town areas, especially in areas with high crime rates based on police records;
* GN is not allowed in areas with public amenities such as schools, mosques or public halls, and in areas where public transportation routes are located;
* The local councils can determine the number of housing units for a particular GN for better management;
* The size of the guardhouse should not exceed 1.8m x 2.4m;
* The security guards employed by the residents' association (RA) must be registered with the Home Ministry;
* Any reversion of the GN to its former status (without having guards) by the RA must be made known to the local councils.

for more info:
source: http://sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=51619

Letter to RADA

Hello,

I would like to thank the pro-tem committee for a job well done! It’s a good start, we can work on further improvement, other issues and details later on.

I appreciate representatives going round to collect the monthly fees from residents. However, since we are not always at home, we don’t mind dropping the check into the letter box of one of the representatives. May I suggest that you publicize this in the blog? Or reply to me with this info? Thanks!

Also, to encourage more residents to participate in this security project, may I suggest that the blog also list all the houses in Tmn Desa Aman,  and indicate which are the ones participating (i.e. paying fees) in the project?

Thanks!

Rgds,
Gan SL  
Oct 7
..............................................................................

Dear Dr Gan,

Thanks for your support and encouragement.

In fact we received calls from residents on fee collecting suggestions:
1. To pay quarterly.
2. Online payment.
3. Permanent mailbox or location for payment.

We propose the following:
1. For November, we shall collect 2 months payment (Nov & Dec 2010). Thereafter quarterly payment from January 2011 onwards.
2. Online payment: our registration still in progress. Before this we can't open own bank account hence this option has to defer.
3. Permanent mail box/location for payment: Currently you can drop your cheque to the following address:
    a) 22 Jalan 10 (En. Hassan - Chairman)
    b) 6 Jalan 8 (Mr. Kor - Secretary)
    c) 47 jalan 10 (Mr. Ch'ng - Treasurer)
Note: Only Cheque or Postal Order. Don't drop Cash!

On your suggestion of listing all house that participating in this project, yes we will, but would be at end of this month as we are trying to push more participants.

best regards,
Ch'ng Soo Yang
Pro-tem Treasurer

Some Q&A

Q: Why we having female guards? some guards looks young age too.
A: Due to the short notice given to security company, we are actually having some local guards temporarily. Some guards will be replaced once the right guards are recruited. We are planning a mixed of 3 foreign: 1 local mix initially. The local guards are more experienced and will guide the new guards.

Q: When will we have car stickers?
A: Due to the machine breakdown of original printer, we have changed the printer company. The car stckers will be available starting end of this week. For those members that have not submitting your car plate numbers, please contact your representatives or committee members.

Q: Why RADA haven't come to collect our fees?
A: Due to initial difficulties and more time spent to explain Security system, most of our representatives are short of manpower to cover every house. As most representatives have full time work and only can allocate some spare time to help our Taman community, please be initiative and help them by calling them to collect, instead of ask them to knock every house at evening or weekend.

Q: What happened to Jalan 9's gate?
A: It was knocked down by a careless lorry driver. Compensation has been made to us, but repair work would take longer time as we are redesigning the gate.

Q: How was the response of collection so far?
A: Out of about 280 occupied houses, we have collected 80% (220 houses).  (Note: total houses in our Taman = 350 but many are unoccupied or rented). As we still collecting the remaining few, the final figure would be available by end of the month.

Q: Why some are paying less?
A: We classified the full paying houses as "member", while those paying below full fee, as "contributor". Those paying less mainly due to poor financial status, or contributions from tenants/outsiders. Only member will be given House Plate, where the security guards will pay attention to their house. No obligation for the guards to check the non-member house even it could be a break-in or rob case.

Q: Would it be possible to reduce monthly fee of RM70?
A: Yes it is possible. Currently the fees collected are used to pay security company (90%), gates and guard houses (30%), car stickers and house plates (20%) and stationery, still a bit short of fund. If we could collect all full fee from at least 250 houses, the fee could be reduced in January 2011 onwards.

24 Hour Security Started 1st October 2010!

28^th September, 2010

ALL RESIDENTS OF TAMAN DESA AMAN

24 HOURS SECURITY GUARD

1.               We are please to announce that, with the your support, we have finally manage to employ Security Guards with effect from Friday 1^st October, 2010 to provide 24 hours security in and around Taman Desa Aman.

2.               During the initial stages of the deployment of the guards, teething problems are inadvertent. Hence, we seek your kind co-operation and indulgence to please bear with us as we work to overcome all teething problems in due course.  

3.               We take this opportunity to thank those who have given us their support and we sincerely hope that those who had not or do not supported us will at least extend their fullest co-operation to us.

4.               Thank you

from THE PRO-TEM COMMITTEE