Residents want a sense of security before removing boom gates

THE debate on gated and guarded schemes is the hottest and a long standing community issue that has drawn divided views in recent years.

The schemes, which are categorised by the Housing and Local Government Ministry as ‘gated communities’ that has strata titles and ‘guarded neighbourhoods’ — should only be guarded and not gated. These are forced by-products of high crime rates.

Earlier, residents and authorities called for proper guidelines to put a stop to noise pollution. However, the clauses that did not address to realities actually created more questions.

Aside from ambiguously requiring the consent of the majority, the guidelines demand that every boom barrier be manned by a security guard. Have they any idea how many entry and exit points a typical housing estate in the Klang Valley has? Asking the guards not to request for identification from anyone entering the area defeats the purpose of having security. So are the guards supposed to say ‘hi’ to the suspicious-looking people?

In an attempt to set the rules straight, the Petaling Jaya City Council sent out mass notices instructing residents’ associations to remove all barriers built on public roads on Boxing Day last year. The move drew a huge outcry and the matter is still left unresolved.

The directive was insensitive especially when residents have invested thousands of Ringgit in the scheme which was beginning to show results.

Many families — mine included — who are not rich, have to agree to gate-and-guard our neighbourhood because all other housing estates around us have already implemented the scheme. If we don’t do that, then our housing area will become a target for thefts and robberies.

I must admit that subscribing to the scheme has eased my worries as my parents and grandparents are at home.

While the scheme has successfully reduced crimes, it has produced some adverse effects like hampering fire engines and ambulances from reaching the homes of patients and victims as quickly as possible in emergency situations.

While we have to resort to stay behind locked grilles, boom gates and security personnel to feel safe, the situation in some other countries are very different. Homes in Australia do away with perimeter fences and women in Singapore can take public transport at midnight without fear of being robbed.

We all want the same thing — a sense of security.

While becoming comfortable with the gated-and-guarded schemes, we do not want this to be our culture or worst-case scenario, an unwanted identity of a world-class city we aspire to be.

Instead of hitting at the local council to make the schemes work, residents should check how much we have progressed to reduce dependency on the schemes.

Get updates from the police during dialogues and monitor the length of time used by the force to address safety issues.

Also, are CCTVs and other safety measures working effectively to combat crime?

Giving us a sense of security does not happen overnight. Convince us that when we take away the boom gates, we will still feel safe.

Reduced crime rates do not fully reflect the police’s efficiency. There are fewer crime cases because people have compromised on their lifestyle and prefer to stay ‘behind bars’.

Authorities should brief residents on the effectiveness of alternative measures such as auxiliary police, community policing and personnel re-deployment. Explore other means such as mobilising Rela to work closely with the residents.

At the end of the day, I would rather have my tax contribution going to uniformed bodies than to private security firms.