But when elections were called more than two years ago, Pakatan Harapan knew that it would be a drawcard and featured in its manifesto: “City councils like DBKL are now seemingly run like private, for-profit companies that prioritise the interest of developers without taking any heed to the welfare and interest of residents.

“Therefore, we need more effective democratisation to protect the interests of the people. Malaysians have the right to participate in the democratic process at the local government level to ensure their welfare is safeguarded.

“The Harapan government will work hard to empower democracy and transparency in DBKL through systematic methods. This effort will ensure that all Malaysians can elect representation that is reliable, inclusive, and represents the interests of the people, not the developers.”

DBKL’s lack of transparency, accountability

DBKL only has an advisory board and does not have appointed councillors. It also lacks state-level representation, such as state assembly members, as in other states.

What about the de facto DBKL councillors who are referred to as advisors? Don’t they have a say in, or are they required to endorse, any land transaction?

I doubt that any of them know how many parcels of land have been sold over the years and will be unable to say if DBKL obtained “fair value” for the land.

There have been rumours that specific individuals, through their respective companies, had acquired up to 20 tracts of land each from DBKL. In the absence of transparency, it will remain so until proven or dismissed.

However, it is essential to note that most of them are party appointees, and would they have the gall and gumption to ask questions, let alone raise objections, or have their wings been clipped? They would rather feign ignorance, claiming not to have seen or heard anything, lest they not be reappointed.

Well, like many other promises of reform, we continue the “tradition” of appointing party members or cronies to local authority boards as a reward for their loyal services.

Ability, competency, and qualifications do not matter, as you are only expected to raise your hand and say “setuju” (agree) to proposals presented at the meeting.

There was one outstanding exception when the Petaling Jaya mayor tried to overrule the decision of its One-Stop Centre to reject an application to develop a parcel of land.

Councillors stood up to him, citing Section 26 (1) of the Local Government Act, which states: “Except as otherwise prescribed, all questions coming before any meeting of the local authority shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the councillors present.”

So, who keeps an eye on their activities and, sometimes, dubious transactions? It is left to citizens to glean whatever knowledge from leaks and publicly available information to question land deals, a prime example being the sale of land meant for a police station in Taman Desa, Kuala Lumpur.

Will we see a glimpse of the reformasi that was promised in DBKL, or will it be another case of reformati?