Public interest must receive top priority

New Straits Times 13/10/2005

THE proposed building of apartments in the Bukit Tunku area has been met with disapproval by the residents.

Many of us know how narrow and winding the roads in Bukit Tunku (formerly Kenny Hills) are and how important the remaining greenery is, not just for Bukit Tunku but for Kuala Lumpur.

As has been pointed out, the roads are not designed for the volume of traffic such development would inevitably bring.

Not to mention the loss of another portion of the very small "green lung" in the federal capital.

Only recently, the people of Petaling Jaya were up in arms about the continued destruction of Gasing Hill. Before that, a section of the precious forest at Bukit Cahaya, Shah Alam, was totally destroyed and the land flattened before anyone noticed.

In all this, what is evident is that no one seems to be responsible for what has happened or is happening. How is it that the interest of the people can be forsaken for the interest of a select few? It is not just in the above instances that the people’s interest has been forsaken. Take, for example, the public transport system in Kuala Lumpur.

The city is not that big but we have four types of trains, a variety of buses and taxis.

Take the two LRT systems that are running — how is it that they were undertaken by different parties using different trains and systems?

What about the Express Rail Link? Why was it given to yet another party? Why can’t our rail transport be handled by a single company?

Of course, Government- owned Rapid KL is trying to merge everything — but this is only after the initial operators ran into difficulties. Is it convenient for the man in the street to have so many operators managing public transport?

Of course, it is not. But again, public interest has been overlooked.

It is so different in other major cities where one ticket is valid not just for the entire rail network but for every other mode of public transport. Many of us observed the mayors of London and New York travelling by train to work to reassure the public about the safety of the rail systems following the attacks in London and the possibility of one in New York.

The mayors of these two cities use public transport daily. But does the mayor of KL use any of the trains to get to work?

I would think not and neither do most of those in authority. This is a major factor in the apparent indifference of the people who make the decisions affecting the man in the street. It does not matter to them because they do not use the system.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. The interest of the public at large should always take precedence over the interest of a select few.

S.A. MUTHU Puchong