A public carpark for market patrons in Taman Muda, Ampang has been barricaded for a project, leaving traders with no space to conduct business. Pix by Amran Yahya

TAMAN Muda morning market traders in Ampang Jaya are unhappy over an alleged illegal project in their trading vicinity.

Taman Muda Hawkers and Small Traders Association president Chow Chee Keen said a plot of land had been barricaded a year ago, but it used to be a public carpark for market patrons.

“We were promised a market on that plot of land since the 1980s but until today nothing had been realised.

“Earlier this year, one of the former Ampang Jaya Municipal Council members lodged a complaint on our behalf, and managed to put a halt to the project.

“But I noticed that two weeks back, construction has resumed. Building materials have been transported into the barricaded plot of land.”

Chow had lodged several complains with the authorities but to no avail.

“Most of us did not receive formal education, but we hope that the authorities do not take advantage of us.

“There are 300 morning market stall owners and 400 stalls at the night market. Where are we going to go when the building is completed? The completed project will surely cause more traffic jams in Jalan Bunga Mawar.”

According Chow, they were not informed about the project.

“We don’t want to be forced to move as this morning market is the heartbeat of Ampang. Many of us grew up and worked as market traders here.”


ACTIONLINE:

Ampang Jaya Municipal Council public relations officer Norhayati Ahmad said, since 1980, that plot of land belonged to a private landowner.

“There was never a reserved land for the market. No land was gazetted for a market. The only space that was gazetted for a market is the road and drainage.

“That privately-owned land was never gazetted for a market.”

Norhayati also dismissed traders’ claims that they were promised a market built on the said land.

“That plot of land was registered as private land since 1980. We advise the public to refer to MPAJ for future clarification on the land ownership.”

279 reads