Gated and Guarded Community

The debate on Gated and Guarded Community has always been a hot topic in town and there are two categories of opinions from the residents which are very much different against each other.

The first group of the residents are those for it, normally grouped under the resident associations (RAs) or Rukun Tetangga (RTs). Their members are normally the active and concerned residents in their neighbourhood.

The second group are those who disagree with it and requested some guidelines to regulate such community. These groups of the people are mostly not represented in the RAs or RTs. They could be outsiders who complained that the closure of certain roads in certain areas cause inconveniences to them. Some of them are unhappy about being requested by security guards to show their Identity Cards (IC).

The issue was also raised to the new state government of Selangor under Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and in 2010, the state government did come out with its own version of guideline to be followed by local council. Prior to that, the draft guideline was tabled many times for open consultation with RAs and RTs for inputs and opinions.

The guideline was put on hold to avoid redundancy when it was told that the federal government under the Local Government and Housing Ministry intends to propose another guideline.

The idea of issuing a new guideline to regulate Gated and Guarded Community in Selangor is necessary as the councils keep receiving complaints against illegal closure of roads, unaccountable collection, incompetent security guards etc. While it is impossible to remove all perimeter fencing and boom gates at the moment, a guideline is deemed necessary.

It is the council who first propose a guideline, which was later put on hold pending another guideline from the federal government. There are several differences between the two guidelines. The very first difference is the required support from residents to establish a Gated and Guarded Community. The state proposes an 80% support from the residents while the federal government suggest a mere 51% support, which is a simple majority.

In my opinion, a 51% support is a very thin majority and a sustainable Gated and Guarded Community can't be set-up with such a thin majority as some residents may consider not to support and this will fail the 51% support required.

It is imperative for both state and federal government to meet and converge for common solutions in resolving some of the differences between the two guidelines.