Back in 2007, a circular by the *Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), addressed this issue, in regards to the guidelines for identification of visitors entering premises such as condominiums, residential areas, and fenced communities nationwide (that are under "private property"). *Btw, it is illegal to ask for identification of visitors entering "public property" including informal GnG. (An informal GnG residence is not a "private property").
It was stated that only a registration officer, police officer, customs officer, military officer or other officers authorised by the National Registration Department (JPN) director-general, can conduct checks on the identity of a person and request for identification, in accordance with Rule 7 of the National Registration Regulation 1990.
Additionally, National Registration Act 1959 (Act 78) and the National Registration Regulations 1990 (Amendment 2007), under Regulation 8, states that only an authorised personnel may require visitors to show them their MyKad for identity verification. *(Fyi, a private security guard is not an authorised personnel from the government)
In fact, a person who unlawfully keeps another person's MyKad can be charged under Regulation 25 of the National Registration Act.
Despite it being completely illegal, some people still give in to these requests for sensitive, important documents such as MyKad
It is argued that it will be difficult to get things done if a visitor refuses to give a personal document as they will not be allowed to pass through the security check point and get to their desired destination.
Many others have voiced their objection to this practice, only to hear from the security personnel, saying that they are "only doing their job" and that there was no way to win the argument.
Eventually, people comply just because they "do not want any trouble" or to complicate things.
The practice of handing out an identification document to security guards is illegal and it poses the risk of forgery or misuse. For those who think that it's a good security measure, it is not. It is not foolproof as there were many cases whereby gangs and criminals use forged or stolen identity cards to target the GnG communities.
Licensed security guards on duty at "formal gated communities" have the right to ask visitors for identification.
However, security guards at "informal gated communities" do not. In the first place they have no right to block anyone from access to any "public property" residences.Recently, the residents associations (RAs) in Shah Alam are being subjected to the guidelines by the Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) for gated-and-guarded (G&G) scheme. The Star Online reported that the guidelines were amended to streamline the process and avoid confusion.
Here are some of the highlights of the new guidelines:
1. RAs must get consent from residents (100% approval) to set up automated gates and the access card system.
2. Security guards are not allowed to stop anyone from moving in or out of public residences.
3. Security guards are not allowed to ask for anyone's MyKad or even take a photograph of it at informal gated communities (public property or individual title residence).
4. Security guards on duty are allowed to record details of any visitor's MyKad or driving licence only at formal gated and guarded community (private property or strata residence).
A citizen residing in Petaling Jaya wrote in an open letter that was published on The Star, saying that other local city councils such as Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) should take heed and emulate MBSA's efforts in tackling this tricky issue.
The writer said that the current landscape and process at G&G housing areas has made it extremely tedious for non-residents to move around the surrounding neighbourhoods.
It was said that the new stipulations, aimed at establishing orderliness and greater security and convenience for residents and visitors, are welcomed in a step forward towards the development of the country.
"I am sure this may have annoyed some but there must be the rule of law and the MBSA puts it quite clearly what must be complied with."
"I ask those wanting their neighbourhood gated and guarded, how they would feel when they are being asked for their identity card or stopped when visiting another housing area?"
Source: says.com/lifestyle
Original article by: Tang Ruxyn
******************
Many so-called gated communities (GC) are in fact, not exclusively gated, as the common areas such as internal roads and vacant land within the residence do not belong to the residents.
Among the confusion of certified GnG (Gated & Guarded), GC (Gated Community) in strata properties and GN (Guarded Neighbourhood) in non-strata properties, the central feature of GCs is the social and legal frameworks which form the constitutional conditions under which residents subscribe to access and occupation of these developments, in combination with the physical feature which make them so conspicuous.
Legally speaking, outsiders who are not living there can still demand access into the residences under the provisions of various Acts and Laws such as under the Road Transport Act.
Security is a complex and costly matter. Communities who have invested heavily in their neighbourhood security such as RFID card based entries and exits are just to make you feel like you are in office, even though you are at home. (That was sarcasm by the way, in case you didn’t get it). Then there are Boom Barriers (or boom gates), just to give you the feel of the Toll plaza. (Again, sarcasm here.)
Data has suggested that gated communities’ rights and responsibilities are, by and large confined to legalities rather than extending to a commitment to enhance social networks either within the development or in the adjacent wider community exacerbating the effect of physical and social barriers between residents within and the wider communities.
Gated communities appear to provide an extreme example of more common attempts to insulate against perceived risks and unwanted encounters. The time-space trajectories of residents suggest a dynamic pattern of separation that goes beyond the place of residence.
Gated Community further extend contemporary segregatory tendencies, and that policy responses are required that will curtail the creation of such havens of social withdrawal. Many of us don’t even bother to get to know our neighbours, so what is the big deal living in a gated community?
Gated communities serve no purpose unless “100% prison or military-like” process of identification and registration is adhered to and monitored 24/7, and without prejudice and favour to any particular group of people.
It is a sad reflection of society that we think we need gated communities to improve security. Nobody likes gated residential areas as they cause a lot of inconveniences when visiting relatives and friends living in those areas, as you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
It’s still okay to go through such registration process provided those are certified Gated and Guarded (GC) private strata properties, as you have no choice here.
However, as for those non-strata properties/residences that have implemented their own GC schemes via their RA, it is not acceptable at all, as these terrace houses (link-houses) are under individual titles and classified as public property, not private.
These non-strata gated communities by unscrupulous RAs have blatantly flouted all the local guidelines and laws - and they are the main problem now. They are the ones to be blamed for residents' bickering, unhappiness, and segregation.
Another con is that most if not all boards (RA committees) go bad as far as they and their friends are above the rules. It is very easy for the board (RA) president to skim money from the padded bill and countless other ways to steal.
Living in a gated community means signing up to a legal framework which allows the extraction of monies to help pay for maintenance of common-buildings, common services, such as rubbish collection, and other revenue costs such as paying staff to clean or secure the neighbourhood.
Many do not believe in gated communities. Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to uphold security and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for them? Besides, even with GnG, there are still thefts, break-ins and other crimes happening.
Many people do not like to be asked so many personal questions and they do not like to leave their personal details with private security guards (some of which looks more like gangsters than guards), especially when at times they are in a hurry. Friends and relatives also prefer not to visit anymore, due to this troublesome inconvenience at the guardhouse.
GnG, all forms of Gated Communities (GC) and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) must be government-controlled so that unscrupulous parties cannot take matters into their own hands and implement as they like. This is also to avoid them taking advantage of the situation in reaping in profits and burdening the rakyat.
The government needs to step in to make every district safe via the police force or some security arrangement. Citizens should not need to pay additional amounts for the security of their homes and families.
The people should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to “work out” the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood.
The laws must be followed through - police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished.
*(Terima kasih & Penghargaan kpd Plan Malaysia - Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa, KPKT Malaysia)
