Home
Book Review
Comment
Concerns
Concordance
Heritage
News
People
Page 11
 

THE ATTACKS ON the chief minister continue unabated. The latest salvo accuses him of doing nothing to stop the decline of George Town due, it is said, to the lifting of the Rent Control Act

We do not think the attacks are justified. It must be remembered that the Rent Control Act is a Federal Act passed in 1948; it is not a state Act, much less an Act brought in by the chief minister of  Penang. The Act was repealed by Parliament, not by the local assembly, which had no say in the matter.

Surely commonsense would reason that since the Act is a Federal matter providing a safety net for deserving cases should have been a Federal concern, and so also investigation and funds for the deserving cases.

But if we go back a little bit in time we will recall that the decline of George Town is certainly not due to the lifting of rent control. The first blow fell just after Merdeka, when Penang’s free port status was abolished. The port which had served Thailand, Indonesia and Burma was severely hit. Hundreds of export/import and trading houses, some three generations old, were destroyed; particularly hit were Beach Street and Bridge Street. The second set back was a created by the active encouragement of shipping to use the facilities of Port Klang: the result was a fall in tonnage at the harbour, the daily count of ships at anchor falling from 20 or so to just over ten at any one time. A consequence was that ship chandlers and suppliers along Bridge Street closed down. In recent years the relocation of banks and financial houses to Pulau Tikus and Northam Road and the attendant movement of lawyers has led to an exodus from the city

We do not know how many houses and buildings have been emptied by the causes mentioned above nor we have statistics on rent controlled buildings. Anecdotal evidence is hardly reliable as a source of cursing and blaming. It is of no help to say that a  “recent municipal survey showed 569 pre war houses vacated at 123 streets in Tanjong  Parliamentary constituency but not all are cases of eviction”. And here arises possible justification for finger pointing. With a fund at its disposal the state government has failed to gather vital statistics relating to empty houses, concentrating on those relating to rent control. These are important because they will surely narrow down the numbers of persons said to be unjustly affected.

Everyone knows that the 53 years of rent control has led to abuse. Examples are absent tenants who keep a lock on a door and thus claim protected “possession”, while making a profit sub-letting; strangers claiming to be protected “members of the family” and so on. Clearly in the 53 years that have gone by it stands to reason that the numbers of original protected clients must have been considerably reduced. But what exactly is the number of those who are protected remains a mystery. And the state government has itself to blame if it does not make an effort to find out

Then there is the fund. Surely its object is misguided. It was aimed at landlords to encourage them retain tenants, an impossible hope as its failure has shown: only six landlords have applied for the fund and their cases are still tied up with long drawn out bureaucratic discussions with the local and state governments.  The fund should be revamped and its purpose redefined.#