The land conversion issue at Queensbay took place under the last state govt-and I remember there were some objections then-but it is strange that it is raised now. Why wasn't it pursued under the Koh administration? Just a guess: Is there some Gerakan interests here?  Was it not a public interests issue then that warrant the voising of concern-or it only warrant it now?  Was the (Federal) law-National Land Code, not the same as before after a change of government?

Reclaimed land not considered foreshore, says CM
Himanshu Bhatt(Sun)

GEORGE TOWN (Oct 13, 2008) : The conversion of the Queensbay land, reclaimed by the state and sold to a developer as freehold, does not contravene the National Land Code, the chief minister said today.

Lim Guan Eng said that state legal advisers informed him that the land was not bound by a crucial proviso in the National Land Code (NLC) 1965 which forbade foreshore land from being converted to freehold. He said the land had been gazetted as state land – and not considered foreshore – by the previous state administration.

Lim Guan Eng
Questions had been raised why the land, originally alienated to the Penang Development Corporation as leasehold for 99 years, was converted to freehold when the proviso in section 76 of the NLC stipulates that a state authority cannot dispose of "any part of the foreshore or sea-bed for a period exceeding ninety-nine years".

theSun reported on Thursday that Lim had overlooked the proviso while telling the state assembly earlier this year that the state was within its rights to grant freehold status to certain reclaimed lands, including the 28ha Queensbay site.

Lim denied yesterday that he had missed the point in his reply. "We agree that foreshore land cannot be converted to freehold," he said.

"But this land is not considered foreshore and therefore not bound to the NLC proviso."

He noted that the conversion was part of a consent order of the High Court. The court-sanctioned arrangement was made after the original developer, Eternal Resources Sdn Bhd, was affected by the economic crisis of the late 90s. The project was then given to CP Landmark Sdn Bhd in a rescue package.

Lim said he was bound by what was signed under the previous state government. "I don’t quite agree with the decision, but I have to comply," he said at state executive councillor Abdul Malik Abul Kassim’s Hari Raya open house.

He also said the state legal adviser’s office would give an explanation on the matter tomorrow, adding that he sympathised with the Bayan Bay Marina Yacht Club, a party to the original project, whose members had invested RM9.8 million in anticipation of the development.

He noted, however, that the club was a party in the court case, and had withdrawn its appeal to the Federal Court.

"As much as I sympathise with them, we are still bound by the agreement of the court and concession made by the previous state government.

"Why was the land let go? ... For the merits and demerits you have to ask the previous state government. What can we do? You should have changed government five years earlier," Lim said.

    Crucial clause overlooked

    Guan Eng missed proviso when defending land conversion

    Himanshu Bhatt(Sun)

    GEORGE TOWN (Oct 8, 2008) : Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had defended the controversial conversion of land housing the Queensbay project, reportedly worth RM3 billion to freehold, at the Penang state assembly in July, but had overlooked a vital clause in the National Land Code (NLC) 1965.

    It is learnt that Lim (who is currently away in the United Arab Emirates on an investment mission) had in a written reply reasoned that the NLC allowed the state to convert the land from leasehold to freehold.

    He made the reply to a question from Batu Uban assemblyman S Raveentharan who asked how reclaimed coastal land had been made freehold in Batu Uban and Pantai Jerjak.

    In his reply, however, Lim missed a crucial proviso in the NLC.

    He reasoned that the freehold status was given as an effort to revive the project after it was left unfinished.

    (The project had been stalled as the original developer Eternal Resources Sdn Bhd was affected by the economic crisis of the late 1990s.)

    Lim referred to section 76(aa)(iii) of the NLC which says land could be converted “where the State Authority is satisfied that there are special circumstances which render it appropriate to do so”.

    It is now learnt that Lim was sent a letter by a senior conveyance lawyer in Aug, expressing concerns about his plan to convert residential leasehold land, including areas that had been reclaimed from the sea, to freehold.

    In her letter, lawyer Agatha Foo pointed out a proviso in section 76 of the NLC, which Lim had overlooked in his assembly reply.

    Foo noted that the proviso expressly prohibits the state from disposing of “any part of the foreshore or sea-bed for a period exceeding ninety-nine years”.

    The proviso had been inserted when section 76 was amended in Parliament in 1985.

    “Consequentially, the said proviso would also prohibit the state from re-alienating or converting any part of the reclaimed foreshore or sea-bed to freehold land.”

    “Any subsequent attempt by the state to re-alienate or convert any part of the foreshore or sea-bed to freehold, notwithstanding that the foreshore or sea-bed have now been reclaimed, would tantamount to a circumvention of the prohibition in section 76 and hence be ultra vires the NLC.

    When contacted, land commentator Prof Salleh Buang, who is currently a visiting professor at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), said the NLC was very clear that the lease for state foreshore land cannot exceed 99 years.

    “The law says it very clearly. It is on record that you cannot make such land freehold,” he said.

    He stressed that the state should be careful to ensure public access remains in foreshore areas.
    “If you allow seafront to be freehold, what would happen to open public access to the area?” he asked.