A general view of Taman Rimba Kiara in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 29 — City Hall (DBKL) must explain how a section of Taman Rimba Kiara in Taman Tun Dr Ismail was allowed to become the site of high-end serviced apartments, said a local MCA leader.

The chairman of the MCA branch of Petaling Jaya Utara Tan Gim Tuan said this was because the contested area had been officially identified as a public park and that taxpayers’ funds were also used to maintain the site.

He said it was imperative that DBKL explain how a commercial entity came to possess the land along with the necessary approval to use it for commercial purposes.

“It was earmarked as a sprawling green lung recreational park for city folks to ‘relax and enjoy Mother Nature’. Ten years later until today, the policy still stands,” he said in a statement.

Tan added that Putrajaya introduced the National Urbanisation Policy that stipulated the requirement for two hectares of open space for every 1,000 residents, which he said was maintained in the National Urbanisation Policy 2.

On Sunday, over 300 people attended a sit-in protest at the park after they discovered that DBKL gave the developer permission to build a showroom for the project, despite an ongoing lawsuit to stop the development.

This was also after Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor pledged to leave the park untouched. Residents were additionally upset that the minister has not responded to attempts for another meeting following a forum on November 3.

The land in question was surreptitiously alienated to Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan — the welfare arm of Tengku Adnan’s Federal Territories Ministry — and approved for mixed development.

On August 11, five residents and five management bodies jointly filed for judicial review of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and its mayor’s decisions on the proposed development.

The hearing date for the actual lawsuit has yet to be fixed, with the High Court set to hear on December 13 the plaintiffs’ application for an order to freeze any action arising from the conditional planning permission and development order granted until the lawsuit ends.