Once a development plan in approved, it must be honoured.
Here are some salient points which Roger Chin dared to point out.
The article:
It has been more than 20 years since the law provided for an Appeal Board. Not constituting it after all this time is not just an oversight – it is an abdication of duty. Its time to end the silence and give Sabah the institutional recourse it has long been denied.
My thoughts:
The failure to establish an Appeal Board for over 20 years, if legally mandated, is indeed more than an oversight—it suggests systemic negligence or deliberate inaction. Governments and institutions have a duty to operationalise mechanisms that ensure justice, accountability, and access to remedies. If a law provides for an Appeal Board, its non-existence deprives citizens of their right to appeal decisions, potentially perpetuating unfair outcomes and eroding trust in governance. This is particularly concerning in Sabah, where historical grievances over autonomy, resource rights, and federal-state relations amplify the need for robust institutional frameworks.
The article:
Once a development plan in approved, it must be honoured. A system that undermines its own decisions is a system that cannot be trusted. Digitising the process, enforcing transparency, and upholding legality are not just administrative upgrades – they are safeguards against abuse.
My thoughts:
A development plan, once approved through a legal and consultative process, represents a binding commitment to stakeholders—citizens, developers, investors, and communities. Undermining such plans, whether through arbitrary changes, non-enforcement, or selective implementation, erodes trust in institutions.
A system that fails to honor approved plans—whether by ignoring them, allowing deviations without oversight, or retroactively altering terms—creates uncertainty.
This breeds distrust, discourages investment, and fuels perceptions of corruption or cronyism.
Trust is the bedrock of governance—citizens need to believe that approved plans will guide development fairly, and investors need assurance that rules won’t change midstream.
Under Malaysia’s Housing Development developers must deliver properties as specified in the S&P, which typically incorporates the approved DP. If the S&P referenced the 2011 DP’s 101-foot height, constructing at 106.26 feet without buyer consent constitutes a breach of contract.
The submission of the 2018 DP after construction, reflecting the as-built height of 106.26 feet, raises serious questions about process integrity. Development plans must be approved before construction begins, as outlined in Malaysia’s planning laws. Submitting an amended DP post-construction to match the built structure suggests an attempt to retroactively cover non-compliance, which undermines the rule of law.
Comments