MARCH 2 — The expression “the proof is in the pudding” is an idiom which is used to say that a person can only know if something is good or bad by trying.
There are a couple of similar expressions namely “the proof in the pudding” and “the proof of the pudding”, all being versions of the proverbial “the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting)”.
The expressions are used to say that the real worth, success, or effectiveness of something can only be determined by putting it to the test by trying or using it, appearances and promises aside – just as the best test of a pudding is to eat it.
So, when one says the pudding is in the tasting while describing a work of art, it means the work must be viewed to be appreciated.
What does it mean then when I say the same about the draft Urban Renewal Bill?
You guessed it right. It means the Bill must be read in its entirety, and not in bits and pieces.
Take Clause 3(3) of the draft Bill which reads as follows:
Urban renewal carried out in an area under [subclause](1) shall be subjected to any of the criteria as follows:
(a) consent threshold for participation is based on the age of the building under [Clause] 12.
Clause 12(2) reads as follows:
The consent threshold for participation is as follows:
(a) where the age of building is 30 years, the consent threshold for participation shall be 80 per cent;
(b) where the age of building is more than 30 years, the consent threshold for participation shall be 75 per cent;
(c) where an engineer has issued a certificate under paragraph 3(3)(b), the consent threshold for participation shall be 51 per cent; and
(d) where a building is abandoned, the consent threshold for participation shall be 51 per cent.
Threshold (a) above is the main criticism against the proposed legislation on urban renewal and redevelopment.
The proposed lowering of the consent threshold from 100 per cent to 80 per cent has created a stir. Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman has called the proposed legislation, if passed, the Home Seizure Act (Akta Rampas Rumah).
Is it a fair call?
At the outset, it must be said that Clause 12(2) cannot be read in isolation.
There is Clause 12(3) which says that the developer “shall consult the proprietor or occupier in order to achieve consent threshold for participation and such consultation shall involve the body established by the State Executive Committee under [subclause] 9(5) and the local authority.”
Clause 9(5) seeks to establish a body as the State Executive Committee (SEC) thinks necessary and expedient to assist in performing its functions. The SEC in turn will be established under Clause 9(1) with the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister as its Chair.
The SEC’s functions will include (a) to consider and certify the proposal of urban renewal project implementation received from the developer; (b) to approve urban renewal area for urban renewal declaration after obtaining the advice of the Federal Executive Committee as provided under section 4; and (c) to monitor the urban renewal project in the State – Clause 9(2).
The Federal Executive Committee (FEC) will be established under Clause 6(1) which will be chaired by a minister. Its functions will include (a) to advise the SEC on the declaration of the urban renewal area; (b) to advise the SEC on the viability of the urban renewal project; (c) to determine the criteria for the qualification of the developer as prescribed; and (d) to advise the SEC on the selection of the qualified developer to carry out the urban renewal project.
Clause 8 says that it shall be the duty of every SEC to consult the FEC on urban renewal activities carried out within the States.
In short, there will be a legal framework “to control and supervise urban renewal for the purpose of town and country planning”.
This framework will include the requirement of a declaration of urban renewal area – that is, an area for “redevelopment or improvement or modification of buildings and includes the alteration of any category of land use, partition, subdivision or amalgamation of land, and subdivided building or land”.
Clause 5(3) reads as follows:
(3) Upon an area being declared to be an area for urban renewal, it shall be the duty of any body responsible for urban renewal in such State, to acquire by purchase or court order which has competent jurisdiction, or compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486], all alienated land situated within the area for urban renewal.
Clearly, an urban renewal project will require the acquisition of all alienated land situated within the urban renewal area, either by way of sale and purchase (SNP) or order of a court of competent jurisdiction or compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA).
If detractors of the proposed legislation, like Syed Saddiq, were to have read Clause 5(3) above, perhaps they could have proposed that the acquisition should only be made under the LAA.
The reason is simple: there have been challenges under the LAA, but it has not been declared unconstitutional as being ultra vires Article 13 (right to property) of the Federal Constitution.
The LAA ensures that no individual’s rights and/or property is compulsorily acquired save in accordance with the requirements and procedures set out in it and adequate compensation is paid.
It is in accordance with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property, save in accordance with the law, and that no law may provide for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.
Neither has the LAA been called the Land Seizure Act (Akta Rampas Tanah). Has it?
My concluding point is this: if the draft Urban Renewal Bill is read in its entirety, with its provisions not read in isolation, criticisms can be constructive instead of outright rejection and condemnation.
Prime Minister’s political secretary Muhammad Kamil Abdul Munim has rightly called for detailed examination of the draft Bill.
As the expression goes, the proof is in the pudding.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
