Yes, this was in the newspapers few days ago. For those of you who still have no idea what I'm saying...
A gated community in Malaysia is generally focused on the need for a safer community with secured and guarded surroundings. In our residential development sector we see advertisements almost daily, exhorting the virtues of gated and guarded housing schemes or gated community as they are commonly called as a new privatized way of life. Property developers today are reinvesting themselves in response to needs of an increasingly affluent population, keeping pace with the rapid changes in trends and consumer preferences in order to thrive. What has happened is that property developers have managed to creating a safe community through the provisions of security and exclusivity as part of a community’s lifestyle. Although some housing schemes are not categorised as gated and guarded schemes, residents have nevertheless taken steps to restrict access of the general by setting up guard posts with the hope of preventing and reducing crime in the area. Usually some form of physical barrier surrounds the boundaries to the housing estate where residents employ private security to provide security services. This often involves an attempt to restrict or regulate public spaces privately by erection of barriers on public needs, guardhouses, etc.
Sounds okay to me. A safer place to live in, you can sleep better at night and you can leave your house to go on a vacation without having to worry much about break in. Perfect? No?
No, because some people in the neighbourhood just couldn't agree with this. They do not want to live in a gated place. When they bought their houses there 20 years ago everything was perfectly fine. Then 20 years later some new folks moved in to their neighbourhood and somehow they got burglarised or robbed and then they freaked out and they introduced this G n G scheme to their neighbours. With this scheme every household has to chip in a sum to pay for the security package like cctv, setting up of barriers, fences, guards' wages etc. Some agreed, some don't. Or most agree and a few don't? Then how? Yes or no?
I think if you have been robbed before or if your house has been burglarised before then you might say "yes". Why "no"? Could be the money. Some folks who have stayed there for more than 20 years could be retired by now and they might not be able to afford paying thousands a year. Maybe they have no income at all? Or maybe they thought they have nothing valuable in their house and therefore no one would want to rob them? So, they felt that they do not need this G n G thing.
Okay, they did it anyway because majority say "yes". The majority are paying and those who oppose did not pay. Then problem arise, someone would say "Why do we need to pay and they don't and yet they get to enjoy the security provided?" Hmmm....unfair? Then car stickers were introduced and those who pay gets them. When the guards see the stickers, no question asked. Those without stickers will have to be screened and filtered with many questions. And of course this goes to those house owners who didn't pay. This is where the inconvenience comes in for them and they felt they are being penalised! And they got angry and somehow things turn ugly? Sigh....
I think this problem will continue and there is no good solution as long as someone still oppose to the idea. I guess you just have to tolerate? If you can afford it, for the safety of your loved ones, why not? If others are not in line with your thoughts, let it be. It's not important. But try to compromise? Try also not to cause any inconvenience to others? Peace!
No comments:
Post a Comment