You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020’ tag.

Gasing Meridian’s proposed development at Bukit Gasing.

The fight to save Bukit Gasing on KL side from ravages of development had been fought for more than a decade. Promises to listen and even to gazette Bukit Gasing have been made, but nothing have changed. Petitions to DBKL and former PM Abdulah Badawi had been futile. Lately, the pace of development have accelerated. Even residents in low cost apartments in the kampong areas are being evicted to make way for development. If nothing is done, the rich will increasingly own the greens of Bukit Gasing.

In Feb 2008, residents/Owners in close proximity feared for their safety and took DBKL to court for approving development on the steep hill slopes of Bukit Gasing without having a public hearing. After more than 4 years, they are still seeking transparency of approval process through the judicial processes. In the meantime the Federal Territory Minister, Datuk Raja Nong Cik is proposing to wipe clean the stain of devastation of Bukit Gasing by renaming Bukit Gasing in KL to Bukit Kerinchi. Any visitors to Bukit Gasing will have seen that the pace of development on KL side Bukit Gasing has picked up. Locals on KL side are well aware of how Bukit/Kampong Kerinchi (the original ones) are slowly disappearing.

We now seek your support for a Petition to the Prime Minister, YAB Datuk Seri Najib Razak. Please email us if you able to help gather signatures for the petition the traditional way or you can help by signing the online version here…

We seek your support and help in communicating to the wider public such that our PM will be aware of the wide public concern on the rampant development on Bukit Gasing KL side that threatens the safety of residents there. Without a public hearing, both the risks of steep hill slope development and the sustainability of Bukit Gasing/Gasing Ridge will not be known. Rampant developments in Bukit Gasing KL side cannot be of benefit to the wider population.

Please help with this appeal.

JAC for Bukit Gasing.

Sign Online Petition here….

On Tues 27th March 2012, DBKL held a seminar in Institut Latihan DBKL to present changes to the Draft KL City Plan. Presentations were made on DBKL plans for providing recreation parks, “Blue Corridor”, “River of Life” and cycle ways plus much more in present a caring City Hall for improving our lot.

As they spoke, on the north side of Pantai Dalam and just beside the Community Centre down from Pantai Hill Park Phase 5, massive earthworks have began. There have been protests by the people in Pantai Hill Park and Pantai Panaroma against development on the site over the last year or so. They have been blighted by the massive traffic congestions and have voiced their concern on the many developments eating away into Bukit Gasing/Gasing Ridge. See the DBKL approved destruction of Bukit Gasing.

Pantai Hill Park

Click on photo montage to see photo gallery of development near Pantai Hill Park Phase 5….

Do you notice how close the development is to Angkasa Apartments in Kampong Kerinchi? What of their safety? Those who hike through Bukit Gasing will find that their hiking pathways will shrink over time unless the public can unite to turn the tide to restrain DBKL in reducing Bukit Gasing as now set in their revised Draft KL City Plan.

Again, one mighit recall Datuk Raja Rong Cik’s boast about Taman Bukit Kerinchi and his desire to change KL Bukit Gasing to Bukit Kerinchi.  Well, I challenge you all to find the park that was published with pictures in “RM20mil park in Taman Bukit Kerinchi“. Do note that it’s supposed to be a “big” 34.6ha [sic]. What happened to the 52ha mentioned in The Sun report? Whilst at the Community Centre, I was informed by the locals there that Bukit Kerinchi is essential the hill the centre sits on and the rest was for them Bukit Gasing, a series of hills to their south and along PJ Bukit Gasing.

It is amazing how DBKL would rather create “recreation parks” then preserve and conserve forests that would provide a green belt that both PJ and KL residents can enjoy. Isn’t conserving and preserving as much of Bukit Gasing/Gasing Ridge as we have now more effective and sustainable?

Can we afford to remain silent? What will our children be left with in the future?

The High Court is set to deliver its judgement on the Judicial Review filed by 108 applicants representing communities in Gasing Condos (Fraser, Cameron and Maxwell), Gasing Indah (both KL and PJ sides) back in February 2008.

The Judicial Review was made initially to challenge DBKL’s decision to deny affected residents the right to a public hearing. In the course of the hearing, it became known that DBKL had approved development orders for Gasing Meridian Sdn Bhd (GMSB) to build some 68 multi-million ringgit bungalows on the steep hill slopes of Bukit Gasing under DBKL’s jurisdiction. This resulted in a change to the Judicial Review to include decision by DBKL to issue GMSB a development order.

This blog has written about the tactics of DBKL and the developer to derail residents’ right to a judicial review over the years. They had refused to accept the clearly written judgement of the then High Court Judge, Madam Lau Bee Lan in April 2009 and had appealed against her grant of leave for the Judicial Review. Their appeals to Court of Appeal and Federal Court failed. The Federal Court set an exemplary charge on DBKL and Gasing Meridian for legal costs of RM20K each of their failed Federal Court hearing.

Having failed in their arguments that the Judicial Review was filed “out of time” (using deception and by being “economical with the truth”) they had attempted to argue that the High Court had no locus standi to accept the Judicial Review.

One of the core arguments in the Judicial Review was that Town and Country Planning ( Amendment) Act 2001, passed by the Parliament that brings Federal Territories into uniformity with the rest of the country, should have been applied by DBKL with respect to its approval of GMSB proposed development on Bukit Gasing.  DBKL continues to argue they have the right to ignore wishes of our Parliament.

The Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail, had recently commented in The Star of how carefully DBKL considers steep hill slope developments. If that is so, how is it that lives were almost lost at Medan Damansara in August 2008? What about the failure of retaining walls at Amanah Raya on Jalan Semantan in December 2008? Will Bukit Gasing be another Damansara 21 in the making?

The Mayor of Kuala Lumpur talks about gazetting of Bukit Gasing as forest reserves and not allowing developments on Bukit Gasing, Yet, all the areas marked in the much challenged Draft KL City Plan seems on the way to being approved.  Is DBKL continuing the policy of being “economical with the truth” ?

Residents in Bukit Antarabangsa, Taman Melawati, Medan Damansara and many other areas on hill slopes live in fear. Yet, authorities continue to champion the land owners’ right to make profit at the expense of safety of people and sustainable development.

Residents under threat from GMSB proposed development and DBKL’s refusal to acknowledge genuine residents’ fears await the High Court to deliver a judgement that puts  planning authorities on notice to act transparently and in act in accordance with the law.

Will you come and stand with us to send a loud and clear message that we want authorities and developers to ensure safe and sustainable development? If you do, please come to the KL High Court Complex, Rayuan & Kuasa-Kuasa Khas (RKK 1 court room) level 3 on Monday, 6th September 2010 at 2:30pm

Gary Yeoh – JAC for Bukit Gasing.

This is Part 2 of report on the Court of Appeal hearing on Wednesday, 11th November 2009

Bukit Gasing response as Respondent to the appeals

Legal counsel for Bukit Gasing, YB Sivarasa Rasiah (supported by Mr. Derek Fernandez),  opened his arguments by bringing the judges attention to the site of the proposed building. Explaining that 3 condos (Fraser, Cameron and Maxwell Towers, total 6 block), houses in Taman Gasing Indah are all in close proximity to the proposed development. In addition, there is a 23 million litre reservoir with a 2 meter diameter pipeline along boundary of the proposed development.  Proposed development will be on steep hill slopes.

The chronology of events was made to the court. He highlighted that the application for the 1st judicial review was submitted  when it became clear that DBKL would ignore their concern for safety and had rejected a public hearing via the hand delivered letter of 31.1012.2007 from DBKL. This was despite the impression given at the 14.11.2007 meeting with Director of Planning KL (Tuan Haji Mahadi) that DBKL would respond to petitions for a public hearing. He highlighted that minutes of the 14.11.2007 (dated 21.11.2007) was provided to DBKL with request for detail of approval for sub-division of land. However, DBKL did not respond to repeated request for information.

YB Sivarasa pointed out that the High Court,  Honourable Judge Madam Lau Bee Lan, had given details of arguments by the parties and her reasons for granting extension of time in her written judgement. The residents only became aware of a DO (in the form of approval of sub-division of land on 2.10.2007) in affidavits from the developer dated 15.4.2008. He stated that residents could not file an application on verbal communication without having details.

During exchanges between counsels and judges, the Honourable Datin Paduka Zaleha commented that the residents did not know a DO was given at the time suggested by the appellants.

YB Sivarasa also confirmed his withdrawal of cross appeal against the dismissal of the 2nd judicial review on the DOs for Hoarding and Earthworks by the High Court.  This was in the context that the Honourable Madam Lau Bee Lan’s written judgement had stated that these two DOs are consequential and purely administrative, resulting from DO for sub-division of land.

With regard to locus standi, YB Sivarasa, highlighted various case histories and that the reasons for application for 1st judicial review are not “frivolous or vexatious”. He pointed out the High Court had considered the arguments presented at the inter partes hearing before grant of leave for judicial review.

Note: The Honourable Judge Madam Lau Bee Lan’s written judgement had highlighted the contention between the parties on whether the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2001 (Act 1129) or the FT Planning Act (1982) with “1994 Rules” should apply. She concluded these are arguable issues.

YB Sivarasa told the court that numerous guidelines in the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan (KLSP) were breached in DBKL’s approval of DO to developer. In particular, Policy EN 6 that states “City Hall shall not permit development on hillside with slope that exceeds the allowable level, rules and regulations set by the Federal Government”. The Total Planning and Development Guidelines (2nd Edition) by Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia) states under “Steep Slope Areas” that, “Construction is not permitted in areas on steep slopes (exceeding 25 degrees) “.  In addition, there are common law reasons which were detailed in his submission in response to the appeals.

He highlighted that the Appellants litigating the issues extension of time for leave and locus standi militate against views of Chief Justice in the recent Federal Court judgement of “Majilis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen.

In closing responses, DBKL stated that the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan is not a legal binding requirement when considering the development orders. Counsel for the developer reiterated the key points he had made.

The Honourable Datin Paduka Zaleha, after consulting the other judges moved to adjourn the hearing and fixed  20th November 2009 (coming Friday) at 10:00am to deliver  the court’s decision on the appeals. The hearing ended well after 5:00pm.

Note: The “1994 Rules” is an amendment to the Planning (Development) Rules 1970, made by DBKL (under powers conferred by s 64 of FT Planning Act) after DBKL lost the case between of Datin Azizah v. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur[1992] for failure to notify and hear objections from residents before granting development order.

Gary Yeoh

JAC for Bukit Gasing

An artist’s impression of the proposed project in the green area in Jalan Medang Serai

Streets – NST Online 2009/10/23
Nuradzimmah Daim and Noel Achariam

KUALA LUMPUR: In a move which would surely cause dismay among residents in Bukit Bandaraya, Bangsar, mayor Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail said yesterday that the development order for another controversial project — a highrise luxury condominium in Jalan Medang Serai — had been approved.

He said the approval was given in August last year.

“We have checked and found that the development order and earthwork plans were approved last year. However, we have engaged our consultant Ikram to look into the project,” he said when asked about the status of the project.

Fuad said that Ikram would be presenting their preliminary report to City Hall in November.

“We will have a look at the report. Then maybe, we may ask the developer to reduce the area of the development,” he said.

The proposed project on a plot of land near the Tivoli Villas apartment and facing a row of townhouses, would comprise eight blocks of luxury apartments totalling 212 units. The blocks will be 6, 11 and 28 storeys high and will have three and five-storey multi-level carparks for the apartments’ residents.

Initially the project would have increased the density capacity of this area by 500 per cent from 30 people per acre to 175 people per acre. However, Fuad said that the density had been reduced to 157 people per acre.

The announcement was greeted with shock and disappointment by the Bukit Bandaraya Residents Association and also the Jalan Medang Serai action committee.

Both parties were aghast that they were not informed about the approval of the development order.

“We are very disapppointed,” said Bukit Bandaraya Residents Association vice-president Mumtaz Ali.

“We were told that everything hinged on the outcome of the Kuala Lumpur Draft Plan 2020 and that no development plans would be approved until then.

“We expected more transparency and City Hall should have called or written to us to inform us of its decision and the reasons for it, just as they did when they asked us to attend the public hearing on the project.

“What is the point of the residents attending the public hearing and submitting their objections if we were never informed of the outcome?”

Mumtaz said the association would be writing to City Hall to voice its disappointment and seek an explanation for the decision to approve the development order without waiting for the approval of the KL Draft Plan 2020.




Some of you may have seen the film “A Bridge Too Far” or have heard the phrase “a bridge too far”. Is SaveBukitGasing digressing a tad too much? I hope not.

On 17 September 1944, thousands of US & British paratroopers descended from the sky by parachute or glider up to 150 km behind enemy (German) lines. Their goal was to secure bridges across the rivers in Holland so that the Allied army could advance rapidly northwards and into Germany with hope to end WWII before Christmas 1944. Alas, after 10 days of intense fighting, the failure to secure the bridge at Arnhem (the last major bridge that had to be secured) amidst various problems, caused the Allied army to withdraw and the campaign failed.

For SaveBukitGasing and the residents affected by proposed development by Gasing Meridian Sdn Bhd, our fight is against DBKL and FT Ministry. Our fight had been driven by a fear of “Highland Towers” disaster at our doorsteps. Our determination had been further stiffened by the unfortunate landslide disaster at Bukit Antarabangsa.

As early as September 2005, residents of Section 5 in PJ had written to the then Mayor of KL raising concerns about proposed development at Bukit Gasing (KL side). Numerous other letters and petitions were sent to DBKL and FT Ministry. Meetings were held with senior officers of DBKL and FT Ministry since 2005. Letters were written to the former Prime Minister. Two previous Mayors of KL even gave categorical assurances that no development would be allowed on Bukit Gasing.

Despite all the above, on 31 December 2007, DBKL issued letters to residents opposing the proposed development that their request of public hearing will not be entertained. As a result, concerned residents had no choice but to file an application for Judicial Review of DBKL’s decision. Subsequent inter-parte hearings on the application revealed that DBKL was not merely denying residents their rights to a public hearing. DBKL had in fact given certain approvals to the developer whilst presenting a facade of listening to the residents’ safety concerns and paying lip service to application of building regulations to development applications.

DBKL had presented developer’s application for sub-division of land as an administrative approval that landowners are entitled to. Yet, that approval seem to be the basis that approvals for erecting hoardings and earthworks were given, almost as an administrative process. Residents’ request for a copy of the approval of sub-division of land received no responses.

Those that had been monitoring the news on Bukit Gasing would have noted the farce of the Deputy FT Minister having been told that no development orders were given whilst the Director of Planning DBKL said that DOs had been given in stages. How did the Director of Planning justify approving earthworks on steep hill slopes when the Federal Town and Country Planning Department’s “Total Planning Guidelines” 1997 (2nd edition, 2001) prohibits development on hill slopes greater than 25 degrees gradient? The reason for this is to ensure the safety of residents. Almost 50% of the hill slopes of the proposed development are above 25 degrees gradient, a figure submitted by the developer.

The High Court was initially scheduled to announce its decision on leave to proceed with the residents’ application for Judicial Review on 20th February 2009. It seems events are such that 3 postponements had to be issued at short notices by the High Court. “D Day” is now set for Monday, 13 April 2009 at 2:30pm.

So, will the case of Bukit Gasing’s request for Judicial Review in its fight against development on Bukit Gasing be “a bridge too far”? We hope not, if the case of the Former Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is to be used as the most recent bench mark. Our solicitors had presented a very strong case to demonstrate that application for Judicial Review is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Whilst the Allied Forces may have failed in the setting of “A Bridge Too Far”, their challenge on that front contributed eventually to the full liberation of Holland in May 1945.

Our country is now under a new regime, that of our “1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now” Prime Minister. Will the new FT Minister and Mayor of KL realize that too many have suffered from inappropriate and unsafe hillside and hill slope developments? Will they act now in obedience to the former PM and our new PM who had both called for a ban on hillside development?

The people are watching and waiting.

Gary Yeoh

JAC for Bukit Gasing.

Derek Fernandez's interview on The Fairly Current Show. Click on Image to watch the video.

Derek Fernandez's interview on The Fairly Current Show. Click on Image to watch the video.



DEREK FERNANDEZ (urban planning lawyer & MBPJ councillor) talks about the controversial Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 on the web based talk show; The Fairly Current Show

If you want to have participate and have a say in how your neighbourhood and KL will develop over the next 12 years, check out this week’s episode.

If you have a blog, please embed this episode.

If you have email, please forward.

If you have concerns, please raise them now. You have one month – the dateline for public response to the draft is 31 August 2008!

Visit &

PEARL LEE, Malay Mail, Friday July 4, 2008

THE views of Kuala Lumpur residents are not important when structuring a strategy as important as the Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020, Mayor Datuk Ab Hakim Borhan has ruled.


It does not matter, it seems, if the draft plan does not comply with Section 12A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 that requires consultation with the public when structuring such a plan.

Nor does it matter that the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Amendment 2001) was ignored – the plan was done according to the Federal Territory Planning Act 1982.

And finally, according to him, the strategic policy of the National Physical Plan and the National Urbanisation Policy does not apply to City Hall in the formulation of the draft plan.

This was the gist of a detailed explanation on the Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 sent to the Coalition to Save Kuala Lumpur by Ab Hakim. Coalition chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman said yesterday he was not satisfied.

Aziz, who received the two-page letter and a 20-page annexure from the mayor yesterday afternoon, said the coalition and City Hall had differing views on matters which are legal in nature pertaining to the draft plan.

“There are fundamental differences in views from a legal aspect.” He said the mayor had stated in the letter that the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Amendment 2001) did not apply to City Hall in the preparation of the draft plan. Instead the planning was done according to the Federal Territory Planning Act 1982.

“We are saying that this is not right as both the 1976 and the amended Act must be complied with by City Hall in the creation of the draft plan.” The coalition had on June 20 written a letter to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Federal Territories Ministry, the Housing and Local Government Ministry as well as City Hall, in which they raised nine main objections to the draft plan.

One was the nondisclosure by City Hall of Volume 3 of the draft plan.

Among the others: that the draft plan violates the National Physical Plan and National Urbanisation Policy; that it is inconsistent with the KL Structure Plan 2020; and that City Hall continues to accept and approve applications for development projects although the draft plan is pending.

Aziz said unlike the stand taken by City Hall, the coalition is of the view that the strategic policy of the National Physical Plan and the National Urbanisation Policy should apply to City Hall.

Aziz said certain issues that were raised by the coalition, such as the population density, which is stated in the National Physical Plan as 25 person per hectare, should apply in KL. But City Hall, he said, is not of the same view.

“They (City Hall) have increased the population density in Kuala Lumpur to 600,000 and they say this is based on the structure plan which was gazetted in 2004. This is in direct conflict with the National Physical Plan,” Aziz said.

Another matter which was raised by the coalition is the non-compliance with Section 12A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 that requires the public to be consulted before any plan is drafted.

“On this matter City Hall said that they do not need to comply with such a requirement, as stated in the letter,” Aziz said.

However, Aziz said he would like to thank the mayor for writing to the coalition and for also offering them the chance to submit their objections or recommendations directly to him.

“The mayor said he will also send our recommendations to the draft plan’s Public Opinion Hearing Committee and, that if the recommendations were feasible, they would be submitted to the Federal Territories Ministry,” Aziz said.

On Sunday, the coalition had said that if it did not hear from the parties they had written to earlier, they might consider organising a street protest.

The coalition had also said that if everything else fails, as a last option they would take the matter to court.

In their effort to creatively conceal the fact that the KL Draft Plan 2020 grossly violates the ‘National Public Planning’ laws enacted in parliament on population density controls, DBKL has introduced its latest obfuscation called the “private open spaces’, which unfortunately must have been coined to fool idiots. Perhaps they have equally atrocious other tems up their sleeves like “really private public spaces” (this could be your living room) or “really, really private public spaces” (your bathrooms) etc.

This is the sad, sad state of affairs with DBKL.

Ashok Menon

JAC Bukit Gasing



 Surprisingly, the part of Bukit Gasing earmarked for 68 bungalow lots has been named “Gasing Indah” in the draft plan, said Bukit Gasing Joint Action Committee member Gary Yeoh


TheStar MetroCentral, Monday June 16, 2008

The term “private open space” introduced in the draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 had experts, residents and environmentalists scratching their heads at the KL Green Lung seminar organised by the Malaysian Nature Society on Saturday at Rimba Ilmu, Universiti Malaya.

A table in the draft plan indicates that the city aspires to increase the ratio of public parks and open space to population (sq m per person) from the current 7 to 11, which is almost double.

The area required to achieve this target is 2,418ha but the total land allocated for public parks in 2020 is 1,882ha (at present 1,543ha).

So, where does the rest of the open space come from?

According to Malaysian Nature Society executive director Dr Loh Chi Leong, the answer he received from the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and the draft plan’s consultants in a recent briefing was that the rest would be “private open space”.

“They said developers would in the future be required to set aside 30% of their development area as open space.

“However, we wonder how is that going to be implemented as these so-called private open space will be private areas, which are not obliged to be open to the public,” he said.

Moreover, the ratio of 11 was still far from the National Physical Plan’s target of 20, he added.

Dr Loh also pointed out that even though the draft plan had listed out the environmental protection zones, there were still more open space in the city, such as those in Hartamas and Damansara, that ought to be protected.

He added that despite the technical complexity of the draft plan, it did not show clearly how much of the remaining 36% open space and unused green areas in the city had been earmarked for development.

“Even though it does not show how much land will be touched eventually, encroachment into Bukit Gasing is already a clear sign to this,” he said.

Residents from affected areas were invited to share their experiences of seeing green lungs raped by unsustainable development.

Bukit Gasing

Surprisingly, the part of Bukit Gasing earmarked for 68 bungalow lots has been named “Gasing Indah” in the draft plan, said Bukit Gasing Joint Action Committee member Gary Yeoh.

“On top of that, even though it is said clearly in the draft plan that areas above 100m of Bukit Gasing would be protected, the planned development will in fact cut through the hill’s peak at 135m,” he said.

More worryingly, the planned development is just next to a 23mil litre capacity reservoir that supplies water to Petaling Jaya and Shah Alam.

The hill’s soil combination of sandstone and shale has been confirmed by academicians as not fit for development and a landslide ocurred last year just at the doorsteps of the Sivan Temple, but all these have not stopped developers from eyeing its lucrative returns.

Federal Hill

To the shock of residents, the stretch of Federal Hill earmarked for the much-opposed development has been changed from an institutional land to commercial.

The piece of “commercial land” will house a police station.

“It is the first time we are hearing of a commercial police station,” said Sri Bukit Persekutuan representative Charles Tan.

Bukit Kiara

Despite having been gazetted as forest reserve, Bukit Kiara has not been spared from damage with some parties chopping down trees and clearing land to create a 25km-long horse trail, said speaker Dr Pola Singh.

Under maintained water points for horses are becoming mosquito-breeding grounds, not to mention a string of consequences of the horse trail such as soil erosion and muddy land surface.

Bukit Sungai Putih

The “death” of Bukit Sungai Putih in Cheras started with the local council secretly de-gazetting the forest reserve that was gazetted in the 1930s.

Speaker Dr Anne Munro-Kua said the residents found out about the “crime” the hard way when a jogger spotted land-clearing and was beaten up by the workers.

Strong protests over 12 years, including lodging complaints with the Anti-Corruption Agency, could not stop the local council from granting approvals to unscrupulous developers.

For more photos click on image:


2008 06 14 MNS KL Green Lung Seminar

*The Future of Kuala Lumpur*



The Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 is the blueprint of Kuala Lumpur for the next 12 years or more. It will have a far reaching impact on the people of the city once it is implemented. It is important for the people of Kuala Lumpur to understand the Plan and get involved in the process to ensure that transparency and accountability is practiced by the DBKL and Federal Territory Ministry. Please join us in this public forum to find out and discuss what will be the future of Kuala Lumpur from a sustainable development perspective for a liveable city.


Organised by Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower) & Socio-Economic Committee of the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

*Date : 18 June, 2008 (Wedndesday)*

*Time : 7.30 pm (arrival)*

* 8.00 pm- 10.30 pm (Forum) *

*Venue : Upstairs Auditorium , KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall,*

* No. 1, Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur.*

*Medium : in English*

*Speakers : *

*1) Mr Goh Bok Yen ( Town Planner/Traffic Consultant) *

*2) Mr Gurmit Singh (Chairperson of Cetdem, an NGO promoting sustainable

*3) Puan Khairiah Talha (**Council Member of the Malaysian Institute of
Planners and Chairperson of the Sustainable Planning and Community Development Committee of the MIP)***

*3) Mr Mumtaz Ali (Vice President of Bukit Bandaraya Residents’
Association) *

*Moderator: Mr Gopalan Papachan (Empower member)*

For enquiries, please contact Teh Chian Yi or Thency at Empower at 03- 7784
4977/ 7774 1075.

(This public forum in Mandarin will be conducted soon.)




Follow Save Bukit Gasing On Twitter

Follow Us On Facebook

Recent Posts

July 2021
%d bloggers like this: