SECTIONS SS4C and SS4D in Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya, were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At the time, the gated-and-guarded concept was not part of the development plan.
As a result, the two neighbourhoods have multiple entry and exit points, which in the past made them vulnerable to break-ins, robberies and snatch thefts.
In the early 2000s, residents decided to form residents’ associations (RAs) to address these safety concerns.
The SS4D RA was formed first, followed by the SS4C RA, which obtained the support of about 80% of residents.
Boom gates were introduced to help control traffic and improve security.
These gates were installed after obtaining approval from Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), and they have served as a deterrent to would-be burglars, robbers and snatch thieves.
Access to all roads was open during the day.
At night, however, several entry points are closed, with three main roads guarded from 7pm to 7am.
This arrangement has significantly reduced break-ins over the years.
However, earlier this year, a resident from SS4D lodged a complaint with MBPJ about movement restrictions caused by the boom gate at Jalan SS4D/10.
The complaint was made without consulting the RA, which only learned of the matter after being informed by MBPJ.
The RA later approached the complainant and requested that the complaint be withdrawn, but the request was unsuccessful.
Recently, MBPJ informed the RA that it would issue a notice requiring the removal of all boom gates in SS4C and SS4D, as the complainant has not retracted the complaint.
In the meantime, the RA has voluntarily removed the boom gate at Jalan SS4D/10.
This raises an important question: why is there a need to remove all boom gates in SS4C and SS4D when other residents have not complained, and when the gates have helped reduce crime over the past decade?
Isn’t MBPJ’s decision too irrational?
WONG SOO KAN
Petaling Jaya
