Latest news with #TamanTunDrIsmail
Malay Mail
01-07-2025
- Automotive
- Malay Mail
TTDI residents raise concern over newly-installed EV chargers taking away public parking space
KUALA LUMPUR, July 1 — The Taman Tun Dr Ismail Residents Association has voiced concern over the recent installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers in the neighbourhood, saying it takes away already limited public parking spaces. Speaking to Malay Mail, association spokesperson Khairudin Rahim said residents are against the placement of these chargers along Lorong Rahim Kajai 13 and Jalan Tun Mohd Fuad. According to Khairudin, these areas are already overwhelmed by parking shortages and cannot afford to have EV chargers taking away more spaces. 'We are not against EV chargers and welcome the initiative. However, why did the city council allow the installation at the expense of taking away some of the public parking spaces?' said Khairudin. He also pointed out that such initiatives might not be practical for an area like TTDI as most houses with EV cars already have their own chargers at home. 'Some of the private buildings in the area, including the Petronas petrol station, already have EV charger stations to accommodate EV car owners,' he added. The dissatisfaction centres around the fact that the strategic location of these EV chargers further reduces available spots for the general public. The newly-installed electric vehicle chargers at Taman Tun Dr Ismail neighbourhood July 1, 2025. — Picture by Firdaus Latif Malay Mail conducted a check in the affected areas and observed several newly-installed EV chargers which are not yet operational. The parking bays adjacent to the chargers remain accessible to the public, but it's unclear whether these spaces will soon be reserved exclusively for EVs. Seeking resolution, Khairudin disclosed that the association plans to submit a formal letter to Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur headquarters this week, requesting clarification on the matter. As one of the city's residential hotspots, TTDI residents often complain about parking shortages in the neighbourhood. The newly-installed electric vehicle chargers at Taman Tun Dr Ismail neighbourhood July 1, 2025. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
Free Malaysia Today
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Selangor Club shelves plan for new annexe near homes, school
The proposed annexe was to be located off Jalan Burhanuddin Helmi in upscale Taman Tun Dr Ismail, which borders Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya. (Wikimedia Commons pic) PETALING JAYA : The Royal Selangor Club has decided not to proceed with a proposed annexe that would include a gaming room, after strong objections were raised by residents of Taman Tun Dr Ismail, bordering Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya. The TTDI residents' association was informed of the decision in an email from club president Rizal Edi Effendi Sahbudin to association president Abdul Jabar Ahmad Junid. Rizal said the club and its business partner had 'mutually agreed not to proceed with the proposal for the new annexe at TTDI'. The proposed annexe, on half an acre (2,000 sq m) off Jalan Burhanuddin Helmi, was to include a bar, restaurant, pickleball courts, and slot machines or a gaming room for non-Muslim club members. Khairudin Rahim, a spokesman for the residents' association, lauded the joint decision of the club and its slot machine operator, a company identified as GPL. 'It showed they listened to, and respected, the TTDI community's objections,' he said. However, the association was still anxious to hear city hall's response, which he said would clarify its position on GPL's application, made on March 10, as the area was zoned for commercial use in the city's local plan. On Monday, the residents' association of the upscale housing estate had questioned the logic of placing a gaming operation so close to a residential neighbourhood, police quarters, and a religious primary school. Khairudin said the residents had filed a formal objection on June 16, urging Kuala Lumpur mayor Maimunah Sharif and the city's executive director of planning, Zulkurnain Hassan, to reject the plan. Rizal had previously stated that the proposed annexe was not initiated or undertaken by the club. He said club members had in December 2023 approved a proposal to relocate the club's gaming room, but delays prompted its business partner to propose a new site earlier this year. The Royal Selangor Club, founded in 1884, has its main clubhouse in a historic colonial-era building at Dataran Merdeka. The club currently operates a sports annexe in Bukit Kiara, separated from Taman Tun Dr Ismail by two golf courses.
Malay Mail
18-06-2025
- Malay Mail
Government's mobile phone data grab is not harmless and Malaysians deserve a say — Woon King Chai
JUNE 17 — In 2018 and again in 2022, Malaysians voted for reform, demanding greater transparency, democratic rights, and a government that listens. That is why the public backlash to recent revelations about the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission's (MCMC) mobile data request has been swift and entirely justified. According to local and international media reports, including The Edge Malaysia and South China Morning Post, MCMC issued directives to five major telcos requesting mobile phone metadata for the first quarter of 2025. The fields listed include anonymised user IDs (MSISDN), precise date and time stamps, base station identifiers, GPS coordinates, data type (calls or internet), service type (2G–5G), and mobile country code. On paper, names or Identity Card (IC) numbers were excluded, but in practice, metadata is never truly anonymous. What the data reveals and why it matters Let's consider what this sample allows. A user who connects to a transmitter in Taman Tun Dr Ismail every weekday at 7.20am and another in Putrajaya at 8.45am reveals a consistent home-to-work pattern. Add weekend connections to a location near a cancer centre or a temple, and you have sensitive behavioural data, like one's health or religious beliefs, without ever knowing the person's name. Even if MSISDNs are masked, consistent patterns over time function like a fingerprint. When combined with public sources such as social media check-ins, delivery logs, or workplace directories, the data can be reverse-engineered and individuals re-identified. The time and location data from one's daily mobile phone use is essentially like an 'invisible IC'. This is not hypothetical. A peer-reviewed study published in 2013 found that just four spatiotemporal points, such as where and when someone used their phone, are sufficient to uniquely identify 95 per cent of individuals in large anonymised datasets. Four distinct location points are enough to identify most individuals because human movement patterns are highly distinctive. Just like fingerprints, each person's daily travel routine tends to follow a unique and recognisable path. In other words, location and time are as personal as a name. These risks are compounded by the absence of legal safeguards. There is no statutory opt-out. The public was never notified, and no clear retention limits or independent oversight mechanisms have been disclosed. Why the public reacted swiftly The backlash to MCMC's metadata directive was immediate and cut across political, professional, and generational lines. Civil society organisations, digital rights advocates, opposition leaders, and ordinary citizens voiced strong concerns about the scale of the data requested and the manner in which it was done — quietly and without public consultation or opt-out provisions. The move was seen as part of a worrying pattern: the use of regulatory powers without adequate transparency, oversight, or legal safeguards. Critics pointed out that the government's explanation, that the data would be used for tourism and digital infrastructure planning, did not justify the level of detail requested. The controversy intensified when individuals who publicly questioned the programme were subjected to investigations and enforcement action, further fuelling fears that the initiative was less about planning and more about control. To be fair, the government's intention may not be malicious. There is genuine value in data-driven policymaking. However, without credible safeguards and the absence of open dialogue, what might have been a technical data exercise quickly became a public crisis of trust. When fear replaces trust This incident reflects a broader erosion of democratic norms. When governments collect sensitive data without consent or consultation, people stop feeling safe. They self-censor. They avoid dissent. They begin to fear the very institutions meant to protect them. Malaysia's international standing on civil liberties is already under scrutiny. In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, Malaysia dropped to 107th place out of 180 countries, with specific concerns over growing pressure on online platforms. The Straits Times also reported a spike in content takedown requests and censorship during Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's first year in office. The metadata issue cannot be separated from this broader context. When citizens are punished for speaking up, and when data is collected quietly and forcefully, public trust quickly erodes. Reform is the only path forward If the government is serious about reform, it must act now to restore public confidence. First, all metadata initiatives must be subject to independent technical audits. The public has a right to know what data is being collected, how long it is stored, and who has access. People must be given the legal right to opt out of non-essential data collection. Malaysia's Personal Data Protection Act should be extended to government bodies. Public consultation must be institutionalised, not reactive. And above all, an independent oversight mechanism must be established — one with enforcement powers and complete political neutrality. Finally, we must defend freedom of expression. No citizen should face investigation for raising concerns about government policy. If fear has gripped the public, it is not because of misinformation but because of silence. The stakes are clear This is no longer a technical matter; it is a democratic one. A country cannot claim to value liberty while quietly collecting personal data without consent. A government that wants to be trusted must first act in ways that are trustworthy. Metadata may seem harmless to the untrained eye, but in the wrong hands or without rules, it becomes a tool of profiling, exclusion, or control. It is not the data alone that threatens us; it is the lack of oversight and the slow erosion of public voice. Let data serve the people, not control them. *Woon King Chai is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP) ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
17-06-2025
- Malay Mail
Government's mobile phone data grab is not harmless and Malaysians deserve a say — Wong Kin Chai
JUNE 17 — In 2018 and again in 2022, Malaysians voted for reform, demanding greater transparency, democratic rights, and a government that listens. That is why the public backlash to recent revelations about the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission's (MCMC) mobile data request has been swift and entirely justified. According to local and international media reports, including The Edge Malaysia and South China Morning Post, MCMC issued directives to five major telcos requesting mobile phone metadata for the first quarter of 2025. The fields listed include anonymised user IDs (MSISDN), precise date and time stamps, base station identifiers, GPS coordinates, data type (calls or internet), service type (2G–5G), and mobile country code. On paper, names or Identity Card (IC) numbers were excluded, but in practice, metadata is never truly anonymous. What the data reveals and why it matters Let's consider what this sample allows. A user who connects to a transmitter in Taman Tun Dr Ismail every weekday at 7.20am and another in Putrajaya at 8.45am reveals a consistent home-to-work pattern. Add weekend connections to a location near a cancer centre or a temple, and you have sensitive behavioural data, like one's health or religious beliefs, without ever knowing the person's name. Even if MSISDNs are masked, consistent patterns over time function like a fingerprint. When combined with public sources such as social media check-ins, delivery logs, or workplace directories, the data can be reverse-engineered and individuals re-identified. The time and location data from one's daily mobile phone use is essentially like an 'invisible IC'. This is not hypothetical. A peer-reviewed study published in 2013 found that just four spatiotemporal points, such as where and when someone used their phone, are sufficient to uniquely identify 95 per cent of individuals in large anonymised datasets. Four distinct location points are enough to identify most individuals because human movement patterns are highly distinctive. Just like fingerprints, each person's daily travel routine tends to follow a unique and recognisable path. In other words, location and time are as personal as a name. These risks are compounded by the absence of legal safeguards. There is no statutory opt-out. The public was never notified, and no clear retention limits or independent oversight mechanisms have been disclosed. Why the public reacted swiftly The backlash to MCMC's metadata directive was immediate and cut across political, professional, and generational lines. Civil society organisations, digital rights advocates, opposition leaders, and ordinary citizens voiced strong concerns about the scale of the data requested and the manner in which it was done — quietly and without public consultation or opt-out provisions. The move was seen as part of a worrying pattern: the use of regulatory powers without adequate transparency, oversight, or legal safeguards. Critics pointed out that the government's explanation, that the data would be used for tourism and digital infrastructure planning, did not justify the level of detail requested. The controversy intensified when individuals who publicly questioned the programme were subjected to investigations and enforcement action, further fuelling fears that the initiative was less about planning and more about control. To be fair, the government's intention may not be malicious. There is genuine value in data-driven policymaking. However, without credible safeguards and the absence of open dialogue, what might have been a technical data exercise quickly became a public crisis of trust. When fear replaces trust This incident reflects a broader erosion of democratic norms. When governments collect sensitive data without consent or consultation, people stop feeling safe. They self-censor. They avoid dissent. They begin to fear the very institutions meant to protect them. Malaysia's international standing on civil liberties is already under scrutiny. In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, Malaysia dropped to 107th place out of 180 countries, with specific concerns over growing pressure on online platforms. The Straits Times also reported a spike in content takedown requests and censorship during Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's first year in office. The metadata issue cannot be separated from this broader context. When citizens are punished for speaking up, and when data is collected quietly and forcefully, public trust quickly erodes. Reform is the only path forward If the government is serious about reform, it must act now to restore public confidence. First, all metadata initiatives must be subject to independent technical audits. The public has a right to know what data is being collected, how long it is stored, and who has access. People must be given the legal right to opt out of non-essential data collection. Malaysia's Personal Data Protection Act should be extended to government bodies. Public consultation must be institutionalised, not reactive. And above all, an independent oversight mechanism must be established — one with enforcement powers and complete political neutrality. Finally, we must defend freedom of expression. No citizen should face investigation for raising concerns about government policy. If fear has gripped the public, it is not because of misinformation but because of silence. The stakes are clear This is no longer a technical matter; it is a democratic one. A country cannot claim to value liberty while quietly collecting personal data without consent. A government that wants to be trusted must first act in ways that are trustworthy. Metadata may seem harmless to the untrained eye, but in the wrong hands or without rules, it becomes a tool of profiling, exclusion, or control. It is not the data alone that threatens us; it is the lack of oversight and the slow erosion of public voice. Let data serve the people, not control them. *Woon King Chai is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP) ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
