Thursday, December 28, 2006

Sign online petition against unfair toll hike!

Please sign online petition to register your strongest disagreement to the unfair toll hike in GCE, Karak Highway, Kesas Highway, LDP and Cheras-Kajang Highway with effective from 1st January 2007.

English version: http://www.petitiononline.com/notolle/petition.html
Malay version: http://www.petitiononline.com/notollm/petition.html

Sign it as soon as possible and spread the words around so that we can create a huge force in the internet to force the government to defer the hike!

Every signature counts! We need to collect as many signatures as possible in the shortest time to exert pressure on the Ministry and the UMNO-led government. The petition will eventually be submitted to the Ministry if we have collected enough number of signatures, say 10,000 signatures!

Monday, December 25, 2006

Floods in Segamat, the aftermath

























































































Johari, wake up and do your work

I cannot agree more with Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum when he said that snatch thefts usually occurewhen the victims carry expensive handbags and wear clothes that invite trouble.

Although I agree with him that snatch thieves will normally target on those who are careless with their properties, women who carry expensive handbags and clothes shall not be blamed for snatch thefts.

More to say, most snatch thieves are not interested on the handbags but the monies and expensive items in the handbags such as handphone etc.

To say so is equal to asking the women not to dress sexily as they could be raped.

Certainly, those who believe so have barked up the wrong tree as the main problem is not the women or the victims but the enforcement.

Johari as Deputy Internal Security Minister whose Ministry is in charge of the Royal Malaysia Police Force should not run away from his duty and responsibility to enhance social security level in this country. He should not put the blame on women when the problem is not with the victims but the law enforcement unit.

I remember what DAP MP Chong Eng said once in a country of law and order, you cannot rape a woman even when she is naked on the street.

Come on, Johari, wake up and do your work.

===============================

Public blamed for snatch thefts

THE public is partly to be blamed for snatch thefts, said Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum.

He said snatch thefts usually occurred when the victims were careless with their property.

“Such an attitude gives snatch thieves the opportunity to strike,” he said when replying to a question from Senator Siw Chun Eam.

Earlier, while replying to a question from Senator Datuk Rizuan Abd Hamid on snatch thefts, Mohamad Johari also placed the blame on women.

“Sometimes, women like to carry expensive handbags and wear clothes that invite trouble,” he said.

Meanwhile, Finance Ministry parliamentary secretary Datuk Dr Hilmi Yahya told the Dewan Negara that the Government had spent RM8bil on oil subsidies this year.

He said that although oil prices had dropped to US$60 (RM213) per barrel, the Government still spent a lot to subsidise petroleum-based products.

“Besides that, the Government also has to give RM8bil in tax exemption, which made the total oil subsidies RM16bil this year,” he said.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Online petition to protest against the unfair toll hike

In lieu of the recent toll hike announcement by the Minister of Works, the DAP Petaling Jaya Action Team (PJAT) today officially launch an online petition to register our strongest protest against it.

The petition in English is accessible through http://www.petitiononline.com/notolle/petition.html while the Malay version is accessible through http://www.petitiononline.com/notollm/petition.html.

The UMNO-led Government had announced tolls will be increased in five main highways in Klang Valley with effective from 1st January 2007.

These five highways are Guthrie Corridor Expressway (GCE), Shah Alam Highway (KESAS), Damansara-Puchong Highway (LDP), Kuala Lumpur-Karak Highway and Cheras-Kajang Highway.

The recent 20%-60% toll rates hike must be condemned as it is of no difference from “highway robbery in broad daylight that sells out” the rights of motorists, consumers and ordinary Malaysians to big corporations, especially when the construction cost does not appear to justify the toll rates to be paid as follows:-

• RM 1.42 billion Lebuhraya Damansara-Puchong (LDP) with a concession period of 1996-2030, its toll rate rise from RM1 to RM1.60, an increase of 60 percent.
• RM 1.3 billion Kesas Highway with a concession period of 1993-2024, the toll rate increased from RM1.50 to RM2.20, a 46.7-percent hike.
• RM 336 million Cheras-Kajang Highway's with a concession period of 1995-2026, the toll rate increased by 30 cents - a hike of between 42.9 and 50 percent.
• RM 568 million Kuala Lumpur-Karak Highway with a concession period of 1994-2032, its toll rate increased between 20 and 25 percent; and
• RM 501 million Guthrie Corridor Expressway with a concession period of 2005-2035, its toll rate went up from RM1 to RM1.40 - a 40-percent increase.

The petition is to register our dissatisfactions over the toll hike when it is proven that the service quality provided by the concessionaires is unacceptable and unjustifiable for a toll hike. Everyday, thousands of users of the highways often endure congestion at toll plazas which is a nightmare for motorists. It is outrageous that motorists in Klang Valley have to pay increased toll rates when there are in fact more traffic jams, poorer services and deterioration of roads on the highways.

The petition is also to press for a full and complete review of such unfair privatization concession agreements, or demand that road tax be reduced to reflect the reduced financial commitments by the UMNO-led Government to building roads.

In September 2004, Works Minister, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu said the UMNO-led Government had paid out RM 1.04 billion in compensation to highway concessionaires as part of efforts to offset toll increment over a five-year period from 1999.

Therefore, the petition suggests that instead of compensating these concessionaires untransparently in 5 to 6 years time in 2011 – 2013, it is more economically feasible to buy back the highways at cost, which would not only save the highway operators from going bankrupt, but also ensure a reasonable toll rate for all motorists as well as good service that is accountable to everyone.

In the petition, we would like to remind the UMNO-led Government that they should not abuse the huge mandate given by the people to the UMNO-led Government during the last General Election. When the Prime Minister pledged for a clean, effective and people-oriented government, he must make sure he and his Cabinet really walk the talk.

Therefore in our petition, we also demand that the UMNO-led Government must respect public opinion by agreeing to a deferment of the unfair toll hike to allow for a full public study and understanding of its socio-economic and long-term implications of the toll hike.

For those who share the same aspirations with us, please also send this message to the relevant government authorities and highway concessionaires to protest against the unfair toll hike. Their telephone numbers and email addresses are as followed:

1. Guthrie Corridor Expressway: 603 - 6038 5052, 603 - 6038 5270, support@gce.com.my
2. KESAS Hotline: 603-5633 7188, email: mm@kesas.po.my
3. LDP Hotline: 603-7494 7333, 603-7494 7020, 603-7494 7000, email: info@litrak.com.my
4. MTD Capital: 603-6120 3322, 09-233 0100,
5. Grand Saga Hotline: 603-9075 0505
6. Dato Seri S. Samy Vellu, Ministry of Works, 603-27714004, menteri@kkr.gov.my
7. Dato' Syed Jamal bin Syed Jaafar, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Works, 603-27714020, SyedJamal@kkr.gov.my
8. Malaysia Highway Authority (Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia), 603-8737 3000 / 8738 3000, llm@llmnet.gov.my

推介网络请愿书,抗议巫统领导的政府无理提高大道收费

针对近来政府刚刚宣布的大道过路费起价,行动党八打灵再也火箭行动队今天正式推介我们的网络请愿书,正是抗议巫统领导的政府无理提高大道收费。这份请愿书以英文和马来文两个版本今日正式在网络发布。

英文版本的请愿书网址是http://www.petitiononline.com/notolle/petition.html,而马来版本的网址则是 http://www.petitiononline.com/notollm/petition.html


巫统领导的政府已经宣布巴生谷河流域的5条收费大道过路费将会于2007年1月1日开始调涨20至60巴仙。这5条大道是牙直立走廊大道(GCE)、莎亚南大道(KESAS)、白蒲大道(LDP)、加叻大道以及焦赖—加影大道。


我们谴责大道收费调高20至60%,因为它与‘在光天化日之下在大道抢劫’无异,政府同时也出卖大道使用者、消费人及百姓的利益予大财团,尤其是它们的承建费与收费率不能成正比:
• 耗资14.2亿令吉的白蒲大道的特许经营权是1999至2030年,过路费从1令吉调高至1.60令吉,涨幅达60%。
•耗资13亿令吉的沙亚南大道的特许经营权是1993至2024年,过路费从1.50令吉调高至2.20令吉,涨幅达46.7%。
• 耗资3.36亿令吉的蕉赖加影大道的特许经营权是1995至2026年,过路费调高30仙,涨幅达49.2至50%。
• 耗资5.68亿令吉的加叻大道的特许经营权是1994至2032年,过路费涨幅达20至25%。
• 耗资5.01亿令吉的牙直利大道的特许经营权是2005至2035年,过路费从1令吉调高至1.40令吉,涨幅达40%。

这份请愿书也要传达我们对这些特许经营权大道公司不合理及不能接受的服务素质是。每一天,数以万计的大道使用者必须在大道和收费站忍受塞车之苦。令人难以接受的是,当驾车人士从1月1日开始必须缴付更高的过路费时,驾车人士却同时必须忍受越来越严重的交通阻塞、越来越恶劣的服务素质和路面状况,耽误驾车人士宝贵的时间。 这份请愿书也要求政府公开政府和私营公司所签署的特许经营权合约,要不然政府应该降低路税,因为随着更多私营大道出现,表示政府所需承担的‘建路’责任自然降低。

我们的请愿书也吁请政府,与其继续以黑箱作业的方式在未来的5至6年之内赔偿大道公司数以亿计的公款,政府倒不如以成本价格来收购这些达到。这样一来,大道公司一方面无需倒闭,大道使用者也可以以更合理的收费使用大道。

我们也提醒巫统领导的政府不应该忘记人民在上届大选所给予他们的强大支持。首相既然已经向人民承诺一个廉洁、有效率和亲民的政府,那么他必须确保他的政府和内阁能够履行承诺。

因此,我们在请愿书中要求巫统领导的政府必须尊重人民的意愿,展延有关决定,并公开和约让人民了解和约的内容。

有鉴于此,我们呼吁任何认同这项请愿书的人民和驾车人士把有关讯息传达给各政府部门和有关的大道公司,他们的电话号码和电邮地址如下:

1. 牙直立走廊:603 - 6038 5052、603 - 6038 5270,电邮:support@gce.com.my
2. 莎亚南大道:603-5633 7188,电邮:mm@kesas.po.my
3. 白蒲大道:603-7494 7333,603-7494 7020,603-7494 7000,电邮:info@litrak.com.my
4. MTD资本:603-6120 3322、09-233 0100
5. Grand Saga葛兰赛佳公司:603-9075 0505
6. 工程部长拿督斯里三美威鲁:603-27714004,电邮:menteri@kkr.gov.my
7. 工程部总秘书Dato' Syed Jamal bin Syed Jaafar:603-27714020,电邮:SyedJamal@kkr.gov.my
8. 马来西亚大道局:603-8737 3000 / 8738 3000,电邮:llm@llmnet.gov.my

Friday, December 22, 2006

雪州政府应该汇集各机构人手,准备面对可能在今日北上的骤雨侵袭

在过去数日,我们目睹南马以及柔佛州各地因暴风雨所带来的水灾。尤其是昨日柔佛州昔加末更发生有史以来最严重的水患,全城几乎淹没,各地受影响灾黎估计有十万人,当地交通,电供和通讯几乎全面中断,财务损失难以估计。

该地的灾情从前晚午夜时分恶化,非传统灾区的居民几乎没有防备,连救灾委员会也措手不及;救援工作完全追不上灾情恶化的情况,令许多灾民盖到恐慌失措。

南马的盘陀大雨其实在上周末已经开始倾盘而泄,南马许多地方的水位其实在周末已经陷入危险状况,但是却因为当局过于低谷这次豪雨所带来的洪水泛滥,导致南马各州,尤其是柔佛面对历史上最严重的水灾,所带来的经济、财务甚至是人命损失一时无从估计。我们谨此向南马的同胞,尤其是柔佛州的灾黎同胞表示慰问。

这也暴露当局在面对和应付天灾人祸方面依然缺乏应有的警戒性。尤其是在暴风雨在近日内有可能北上侵袭雪州,州政府和全国防范天灾委员会更必须积极动员面对洪水泛滥的可能。

众所周知,雪隆一带许多水灾黑区在两三个小时的豪雨下便成为泽园,如果这次侵袭南马的豪雨北上,雪隆一带下雨必定超过数日,到时的水患情况可想而知。

州水利灌溉局应该在豪雨来临之前测试州内所有河流的水位警报系统,确保它们处于良好的操作状况、卫生局必须确保充足的医务人员与医药配备以防止瘟疫爆发、州防范天灾委员会也必须准备充足的快艇与舢舨疏散灾黎、位处高地的学校则必须准备充足的地方安顿灾黎、位于低洼地区的商家、政府和私人办公室则必须把重要的文件的物品叠高。

雪州政府不能轻视这次的豪雨,因为身为先进州的雪州在处理洪水泛滥方面的记录并不佳,尤其是一州之都莎亚南在今年发生两年大水灾,所以州政府绝对不能不理会这一次骤雨可能带来的更严重水灾。

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Satu lagi kes penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh pegawai-pegawai PBT

Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ) harus mengambil tindakan disiplin terhadap dua orang penguatkuasanya, iaitu Abu Samat bin Harun dan Encik Mohd Redzuan bin Azizan.

Pada 13hb November 2006, kedua-dua orang pegawai ini berada di TAK Engineering Work yang beralamat di No. 62, Jalan SS14/2A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor untuk menyemak lesen perniagaannya. Pada masa itu, tuanpunya kedai, iaitu Encik Chan Chee Tak tiada di dalam kedai dan hanya isterinya, Puan Lee Siew Fong dan anaknya Cik Chan Choy Lee yang berada dalam kedai.

Oleh kerana permohonan lesen perniagaan Encik Chan masih dalam pemprosesan, maka atas permintaan kedua-dua orang pegawai ini, Cik Chan Choy Lee telah menunjukkan satu dokumen daripada MPSJ yang bernombor siri MPSJ.186/9/7-330BSJ. Walaupun begitu, kedua-dua orang pegawai ini tidak mengiktiraf dokumen ini dan mengatakan bahawa mereka akan mengeluarkan saman kepada tuanpunya atas sebab menjalankan perniagaan tanpa memohon lesen daripada MPSJ.

Cik Chan Choy Lee kemudian tidak berpuas hati dengan tindakan kedua-dua orang pegawai ini dan bertelingkah dengan mereka dengan mengatakan bahawa surat daripada MPSJ itu sebenarnya telah menjelaskan bahawa lesen perniagaan telahpun dikeluarkan kepada mereka dan apa yang berlaku sekarang ialah mereka masih menunggu lesen perniagaan itu untuk dikeluarkan kepada mereka. Kedua-dua pegawai ini tidak menghiraukan penerangan cik Chan Choe Lee dan terus mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat dengan mengugut untuk membunuhnya dan meminta Puan Lee Siew Fong untuk menghisap kemaluan suaminya, iaitu Encik Chan Chee Tak.

Encik Chan Chee Tak kemudian telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan dengan kejadian yang tidak adil ini. Perisitiwa ini juga pernah dibangkitkan oleh Encik Chan Chee Tak sendiri dengan pegawai-pegawai atasan MPSJ tetapi mereka masih belum memohon maaf daripada Encik Chan Chee Tak.

Saya juga telah mengefaks dan mengemel satu surat kepada MPSJ pada 1hb Disember 2006 untuk meminta MPSJ memberi satu penjelasan terhadap perkara ini. Saya juga menyebut dalam surat saya itu supaya satu surat minta maaf rasmi boleh dikeluarkan dalam masa dua minggu kepada Encik Chan Chee Tak supaya Encik Chan Chee Tak boleh membatalkan kes ini dengan pihak Polis. Sehingga sekarang, saya masih belum menerima apa-apa berita ataupun panggilan telefon daripada MPSJ.

Ini sudah pasti merupakan satu peristiwa yang mengecewakan dan boleh dikatakan bahawa kita seringkali mendengar kejadian penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh pegawai-pegawai PBT tetapi ini mungkin merupakan kali pertama apabila seseorang peguatkuasa MPSJ sanggup mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat yang begitu tidak sopan untuk memalukan pembayar cukai.

Saya menyeru supaya MPSJ memandang serious terhadap peristiwa ini dan memohon maaf daripada Encik Chan Chee Tak, isterinya dan anak perempuannya kerana tindakan kedua-dua orang penguatkuasa ini sebenarnya telah melanggari Kanun Keseksaan.

Saya juga ingin memuji Encik Chan Chee Tak atas keberaniannya untuk berdiri memperjuangkan haknya sendiri apabila beliau telah dilayani dengan tidak adil. Saya juga berharap orang ramai dapat mencontohi Encik Chan Chee Tak atas keberaniannya dan berharap mana-mana individu yang dilayani dengan tidak adil oleh mana-mana pegawai PBT tidak mendiamkan diri tetapi tampil ke hadapan untuk menegakkan keadilan.

梳邦再也市议会应采取纪律行动对付两名粗暴官员

梳邦再也市议会应该采取纪律行动对付两名执法组官员。这两名官员是 Abu Samat bin Harun和Encik Mohd Redzuan bin Azizan.

在2006年11月13日,这两名官员前往TAK Engineering Work(地址:No. 62, Jalan SS14/2A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor)检查该商店的商业执照。当时,店主(陈智德先生/Chan Chee Tak)不在,负责看管店内事务的是陈智德的妻子Lee Siew Fong女士和他的女儿Chan Choy Lee。

由于陈智德的商业执照还在处理中,陈智德的女儿在这两名执法官员的要求下向他们展示一份来自梳邦再也市议会的文件,即MPSJ.186/9/7-330BSJ。然而这两名执法组的官员不承认这份文件,并表示他们将会发出传票予店主,理由是没有向市议会申请商业执照。

陈智德的女儿因此表示不满,并且据理力争,表示这份文件证明他们已经获得商业执照,只是正式的执照还没有拿到手。这两名官员不理会他的女儿的话,并且还口出粗言地对待她们母女俩。这两名官员过后还威胁陈智德的妻子会杀害她的女儿,并且还叫陈智德的妻子为陈智德口交。

随后,陈智德先生前往警察局报案。事情曾经一度闹至数邦再也市议会高官,但是该市议会迄今尚未针对这两名官员的不负责任行径向陈先生道歉。

我本人也曾经在12月1日通过紧急传真和电邮的方式致函市议会,已要求市议会能够针对这事件给予解释。我也在公函中提到,如果这两名官员获证实犯错,我要求市议会能够正式向陈先生发函道歉,但是,让人失望的是,梳邦再也市议会迄今音讯全无。他们不仅没有回函,甚至连一通电话也没有打。

在马来西亚,地方政府滥权事件其事是层出不穷,花样百出,但是对于滥权至口出粗言侮辱纳税人,那倒是头一回听到。

我呼吁梳邦再也市议会能够正视此事,并诚恳地向陈智德及其妻女道歉,因为梳邦再也市议会执法组的两名官员在这事件上已经触犯刑事法典。我也对陈智德勇于站出来道出这不公平事件而表示欣慰,并且希望公众人士如果面对地方政府的刁难,他们必须勇于站出来争取他们的权益,而不是默默忍受不负责任官员的不合理、不公平甚至是过分的对待。

Monday, December 18, 2006

国阵成员党领袖虚伪的一面

国阵成员党领袖在首相针对大道过路费起价发表看法之后噤若寒蝉,显示他们虚伪的一面。

首相是在12月15日说,虽然五条收费大道调高过路费,但政府还是与人民一起承担过路费,没置之不理。他表示,政府每年还须承担26亿令吉的津贴,是很大的数目,减少驾驶人士的负担;若政府没有津贴,驾驶人士须付出更高的过路费,所以希望人民能了解。

这些成员党领袖大多属于马华民政的二三线领袖。他们在首相发表谈话之前,尤其是工程部部长三美公布新收费之前便通过报章传媒发表文告表示反对调高过路费,让人觉得执政党内似乎也有一些人士还能够人民站在一起。

其中马华蒲种区会主席黄福安在三美公布新收费大道之前便会反对政府在经济不景气的时候提高过路费,因为这样将会增加消费任何商家的负担,引发新一轮的通货膨胀。

当三美公布新的收费之后,马青全国先锋队大队长叶天海、民青团总秘书贺绍和以及民政党中央宣传局主任蔡崇安以及执政党的其他大小喽罗纷纷表达不满。

他们有者对巴生谷5条大道从明年一月开始调高收费表示不满及遗憾,并呼吁政府应该刻不容缓的检讨所签署的私营化特许经营大道的合约内容,有者吁请政府公布政府与各私营化大道公司签署的合约并设立一个独立、专业的法律咨询团来研究或改善合约中对政府和人民不利的条文,提高透明度以减轻政府和人民的负担。

然而,随着首相在12月15日主持人民进步党代表大会之后向媒体针对过路费高长发表谈话之后,马华民政和其他国阵成员党领袖便针对过路费起价噤若寒蝉。

虽然行动党公开邀请国阵成员党,包括巫统、马华、民政党、国大党等领袖,出席由蕉赖皇冠镇“开路行动委员会”于12月17日(星期日)上午10时,在皇冠镇通往蕉赖――加影大道的受堵路口举办的“强烈谴责过路费暴涨,倒墩大行动”和平请愿,但是他们并没有出席这场活动,先是他们并没有坐言起行。

执政党领袖的这种摸棱两可、摇摆不定心态一再显示执政党领袖在处理大课题上的无能与无力感,即不能改变现况(虽然是执政党),也没有意愿带领人民争取他们应有的权益。这些应该更加能够让选民了解,即在来届大选时如何运用手上的一票来惩罚这些虚伪的国阵成员党领袖。

Sunday, December 17, 2006

皇冠镇500居民开路示威2句钟

在政府布巴生谷流域5条大道过路费明年猛涨后,民间今早终于爆发首场抗议示威。今早,俞500居民响应蕉赖皇冠镇“开路”行动委员会和民主行动党所号召的和平请愿2句钟,要求政府让把皇冠镇通往蕉赖加影大道的受堵路口通车。

蕉赖皇冠镇开路委员会日前发表文告时表示,除了反对大道涨价,委员会也抗议当局继续封堵皇冠镇通往蕉赖加影大道的路口,导致居民被迫绕道而行。

开路委员会也抗议大马大道局、经营蕉赖加影大道的Grand Saga大道公司及发展商,虽早已在2005年10月知晓此事,却无诚意解决封路事件,导致居民成为牺牲品。

这场题为“强烈谴责过路费暴涨,倒墩大行动!”和平请愿是在今早10时开始举行,并获得多位行动党领袖的踊跃参与,其中包括行动党的国州议员领袖如陈胜尧医生、郭素沁、陈国伟、方贵伦、邓章钦、黄瑞林以及刘天球等。

请愿居民是聚集在皇冠镇通往蕉赖加影大道的受堵路口处示威,他们纷纷高呼要求“开路”的口号。有关的“开路”员会也准备了挖泥车,准备拆除堵住道路的路墩。

不过在集会举行近半小时后,警方就前来干扰,并派出多位警察和镇暴队驻守现场,阻止群众靠近石墩,并谕令在场的行动党领袖致词后就解散集会。尝试拆除路墩的居民数次险与警方发生冲突,场面气氛紧张,惟没有任何人受伤或遭警方逮捕。

其中,“开路”行动委员会主席陈文华在用扩音器呼吁群众离开的当儿,也不幸被一名警察拉扯其手臂,差一点从石墩上跌下。

由于集会居民仍不愿离去,因此“开路”委员会在与警方讨论后,决定象征式在路墩挖一个洞,以表示“开路”的斗争将持续下去。

不过,在集会结束后,部分居民依然留在现场,在雪州宣传秘书刘永山的带动之下,情绪高涨地高呼“buka jalan” 等开路口号。1小时半后,人群才慢慢离开现场。

蕉赖皇冠镇(Makhota Cheras)位于蕉赖吉隆坡大道旁边,是一个新兴的住宅区,拥有一条连接蕉赖吉隆坡大道的新路。由于连接处是在收费站之后,因此这条新路可以让蕉赖皇冠镇及双溪龙镇(Bandar Sungai Long)的居民,避开其中一个蕉赖吉隆坡大道收费站的情况下,使用该大道。

不过,虽然该新路已经建竣,蕉赖皇冠镇居民也已经迁入,但是Grand Saga大道公司却要皇冠镇发展商作出赔偿,否则不得开放该新路。双方之间的纷争导致该新路迟迟未开放,居民被迫通过双溪龙镇进入蕉赖吉隆坡大道,不仅需要缴付多一个收费站的收费,还得面对堵车的问题。

强烈谴责过路费暴涨,倒墩大行动

随着政府宣布巴生河流域5条大道过路费明年涨价高达60%,媒体又受令不得高调报道后,满腹怨气的公众预料将走上街头,通过行动表达他们的不满。

首场反对集会将在本星期天(17日)早上,由蕉赖皇冠镇“开路”行动委员会号召。这场和平请愿题为“强烈谴责过路费暴涨,倒墩大行动!”,将在当天早上10时,在皇冠镇通往蕉赖加影大道的受堵路口展开集会,之后再步往约150公尺外的蕉赖加影大道第11英里收费站。

该委员会今日发表文告表示,除了反对大道涨价,委员会也抗议当局继续封堵皇冠镇通往蕉赖加影大道的路口,导致居民被迫绕道而行。

委员会成员陈文华说,他们将在当天进行倒墩行动,拆除路口的路墩。

委员会也抗议大马大道局、经营蕉赖加影大道的Grand Saga大道公司及发展商,虽早已在2005年10月知晓此事,却无诚意解决封路事件,导致居民成为牺牲品。

委员会呼吁所有居住于蕉赖加影大道附近的居民,以及不满大道涨价的公众,踊跃参与当天的和平请愿。

蕉赖皇冠镇(Makhota Cheras)位于蕉赖吉隆坡大道旁边,是一个新兴的住宅区,拥有一条连接蕉赖吉隆坡大道的新路。由于连接处是在收费站之后,因此这条新路可以让蕉赖皇冠镇及双溪龙镇(Bandar Sungai Long)的居民,避开其中一个蕉赖吉隆坡大道收费站的情况下,使用该大道。

不过,虽然该新路已经建竣,蕉赖皇冠镇居民也已经迁入,但是Grand Saga大道公司却要皇冠镇发展商作出赔偿,否则不得开放该新路。双方之间的纷争导致该新路迟迟未开放,居民被迫通过双溪龙镇进入蕉赖吉隆坡大道,不仅需要缴付多一个收费站的收费,还得面对堵车的问题。

Saturday, December 16, 2006

大道收费起价——政府必坦诚开明面对不满

针对过路费明年1月1日调涨一事,政府应该以坦诚开明的心态来面对人民的不满,而不是以‘希望人民了解’的托词来推卸责任。

首相拿督斯里阿都拉昨日说,虽然五条收费大道调高过路费,但政府还是与人民一起承担过路费,没置之不理。他表示,政府每年还须承担26亿令吉的津贴,是很大的数目,减少驾驶人士的负担;若政府没有津贴,驾驶人士须付出更高的过路费,所以希望人民能了解。

虽然首相针对大道收费发表看法,但是他的言论不仅没有化解人民的不满,同时也没有显示要解决问题的诚意。

数天以来,各政党、非政府组织、商团、工会和地方组织纷纷针对大道收费再次调涨而表示不满。他们纷纷异口同声要求政府一一公布和私人公司所签下的大道私营化特许经营权和约。

发表类似看法的有以下:

大马中华工商联合会总会长丹斯里钟廷森:“消费人协会和非政府组织应联合成立独立的监督及评估小组,探讨达到公司的投资数额以及应征收的合力收费。”

梳邦与沙阿南消费人协会主席兼法律顾问杰克(Jacob George):“它再次证实消费人的担忧,即政府与大道特许经营公司签订的合约,是完全偏向一方的。消费者的利益完全不受考虑。”

大马消费人联合会(Fomca)宣传主任莫哈末尤索夫(Mohd Yusof Abdul Rahman):“联合会反对大道涨价,我们重复要求政府公开大道特许经营权合约,这些合约对消费人利益不利。政府应成立皇家调查委员会,检讨所有大道和约。”

大马罗里同业公会主席余瑞时:“大道合约明显偏向一方,我们这些罗里运输商将受到严重的影响,我们缴付的过路费比汽车高出1倍,我们还须面对高企的柴油价格。我们要求政府重新检讨所有已签署的大道特许经营权合约,我们不应受制于合约。”

大马职工总会(MTUC)主席赛沙里尔(Syed Shahrir Syed Mohamad):“我想政府指消费人必须向大道公司作出赔偿的说法并不公平,是谁草拟合约?谁在怪谁?没有人知道合约里的内容。公众有权利知道合约内容,你高谈透明度,那公众就有权利知道所有的资料。我想公众应该认真行动,你不能让这个政府涨了又涨。”

梳邦再也居民协会联合会(USJRA)主席杨宝春:“我已经对政府失望,其中两项我无法忍受的事件,就是政府签下不利于消费人的特许经营合约,但是却不公开合约内容。大道的兴建也没有出现真正的竞争,合约分配后,也并没有监督随意涨价的公司。如果这样的涨幅持续下去,政府真的是签下非常愚蠢的合约,他们没有考虑消费人的利益。”

马青全国先锋队大队长叶天海:“对巴生谷5条大道从明年一月开始调高收费表示不满及遗憾,并呼吁政府应该刻不容缓的检讨所签署的私营化特许经营大道的合约内容。”

民青团总秘书贺绍和:“公共工程部应该检讨政府与大道管理公司之间的合约,避免大道管理公司一再要求提高过路费,加重政府和人民的负担。”

民政党中央宣传局主任蔡崇安:“吁请政府公布政府与各私营化大道公司签署的合约并设立一个独立、专业的法律咨询团来研究或改善合约中对政府和人民不利的条文,提高透明度以减轻政府和人民的负担。”

民主行动党秘书长林冠英:“行动党建议政府付还41.25亿令吉的建造费,以买回巴生谷的5条大道,将能达致不必时常调高过路费的3赢方案,而非将错就错的,以避重就轻方式让大道调高收费。回购不仅能替政府节省数以十亿令吉计的津贴,避免大道经营者蒙受亏损,而且也降低消费人面对的不合理收费率。”

民主行动党秘书长政治秘书黄伟益:“既然阿都拉相信国内有新闻自由,那么政府就应该让媒体全面报道民众不满巴生谷5条大道过路费调涨,而不是让媒体来扮演粉饰太平的角色。”

独立新闻中心(CIJ):“政府指示媒体编辑低调报道大道涨价的行为明显反映政府毫不顾及媒体的独立性,以及公众的知情权,同时违悖自己作出的透明化施政诺言。”

面对来自四方八面,排山倒海的抗议浪潮,以及来自数个团体和政党人士的正面及建设性的建议,政府应该以开明的态度来面对这些声音,而不是以软硬方法要求媒体低调报道过路费上涨一事。

其次,政府应主动公开所有私营化大道和约,让人民了解到底政府和私人公司所签下不平等和约的内容 ,并自由让人民发表意见看法,以解决这些问题。其中在上面的引述中,各阶层人士均有提出数个相当不错的建议,如设立皇家调查委员会、设立独立监督小组监督大道公司的收费和投资、献议政府以成本价格收购高速大道等等,为何政府不能正面看待这些建议,反之却要求媒体低调报道此事?这完全不符合首相初上台要听真话的承诺。

开明处理民间的声音,公开合约内容以及停止继续和私人公司签下种种不平等合约才是为今之上计。‘希望人民能够理解’显然已经是过去式的托词,政府应该弃之不用。

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

蔡金星,你要先上马华党校吗?

马青总团宣传局主任蔡金星今日发表了在政治上极为幼稚的言论,即挑战行动党秘书长林冠英公布从政以来为华教筹款的总额,让全国华社评估其带领下的行动党,是否真正为华教尽力!

蔡金星最为幼稚的言论就是把争取拨款当作是一个衡量对华教贡献的标准。马华公会是执政党,既然是执政党,就自然掌握政治资源,华社把票投给马华的国州议席候选人,自然希望马华能够在成为政府的一部分之后,把政府的部分资源以公平的方式分发给民间,尤其是资助华教发展。

既然作为政府的一部分,马华公会也直接掌握分配人民税收的权利,这是如行动党一般的在野党所不会享有的政治资源。何以蔡金星却把行动党和马华公会的位置对调?

人民所缴纳的税收是交给由马华公会、巫统、民政党、国大党以及其他不同成员党所组成的国阵政府共同管理及分配。如果蔡金星认为行动党也应该公开为华教所筹获得款项,这是否意味马华公会愿意把它的执政党地位拱手让给行动党,让行动党管理人民所缴纳的税款?

如果要比较谁为华教争取的拨款,或筹得的义款来得多,蔡金星是否也认为人民应该把税收付给行动党,这样才能说比较公正?

如果蔡金星不愿意这么做,这显示蔡金星根本没有使用同样的衡量标准来判断事件,显示蔡金星的政治教育知识尚有许多可以改善的空间。马华是执政党、行动党是在野党,马华公会掌握所有政治资源,包括分配经济资源的权利,行动党连一丁点的政治资源也无法掌握,更遑论是分配经济资源的权利,这还能说是公平的比较吗?我奉劝蔡金星先向马华党校报读课程,理解到底执政党和在野党的分野,才来胡乱挑战行动党人士。

更何况,行动党着数十年来确确实实以我们有限的能力和资源资助母语教育。最近在巴生主办的千人宴,主办当局(也就是巴生公市支部)总共捐献4千令吉给巴生四间独中,必须声明的是,这4千令吉是巴生市民热心捐献给行动党巴生公市支部,但是本着取自于民,用之于民的精神,我们在巴生的同志虽然每次进行活动时经常面对资源缺乏的问题,但是却本着热爱华教的精神把部分所筹获的款项捐给巴生四间独中。

另外,林冠英本人在担任社青团团长的时期曾经在1993年为董教总举办一场义演,结果成功筹获12万令吉的义款。这些铁一般的事实,堂堂正正踏踏实实清清白白地证明行动党在维护母语教育的立场。有了这些铁证,我挑战蔡金星本人收回他在文告中所作出的无理指责。如果他个人不愿意这么做,这只显示他本人的虚伪态度。马青总团其他领袖也应该认清这才是名副其实‘政治乌贼’的行径!

Do you have vested interest, Dr Wong??

A group of six residents from Jalan 20/24, Tama n Paramount yesterday attended a public hearing held by the Department of Town Planning of Petaling Jaya City Hall (Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya, MBPJ) which was chaired by Dato’ Haji Mohd Mokhtar bin Haji Ahmad Dahlan, the Selangor State Government Exco for Housing, Building and Squatters Management, on the 23 proposed draft amendment on the Petaling Jaya Structure Plan 1 (Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1, or RTPJ1).

The residents had voiced out their angers to MBPJ and its councilor, YB Datuk Dr Wong Sai Hou, who is also the MCA State Asemblyman for Kampung Tunku on two reasons below:

1. that the council ignore the will of the residents to grant approval to the developer to construct a two-storey service centre in Lot PT 6947 of Jalan 20/24 of Section 20, although the residents had officially voiced out their disagreement with the Council twice, one in late 2003 and another one in late 2005.

2. that the council is trying to put the horse before the cart when they allow the construction to kick off without amending the structure plan. The draft proposal to amend the structure plan so that that plot of land can be converted form housing purpose to build service centre is made much later.

On 1st September 2006, Petaling Jaya City Hall or Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) released its proposed draft changes on PJ Local Structure Plan (RTPJ1). City folks are given one-month time to view and raise their objections with the City Hall before 29th September 2006.

There are altogether 23 changes proposed by the City Hall in which I had briefly elaborated on the changes in my statement issued on 26th September 2006.

Of all these changes proposed I would like to focus on item Number 18 (the conversion of Lot PT 6947 of Jalan 20/24 of Section 20 from Housing purpose to Public Hall/Service Centre). Residents from Jalan 20/24, Paramount Garden, Petaling Jaya has complained that MPPJ has granted Planning Approval to a person named Quah Peng Chin @ Quah Paik Sze to build a service centre and office on a piece of vacant land along that road.

They were notified about this by MPPJ in a letter dated 6th February 2006 [Reference Number: (34) dlm.MPPJ/JPB331/T/P23/S21/1819/2003]. The residents had objected to the project twice in 2003 and 2005. Instead of building a public hall or service centre, which would be an eyesore, as illustrated in the proposed changes on the Local Structure Plan, they wish that the City Hall could retain the empty lot as greenery.

The residents had picketed once and had even tried to seek for a meeting with the then President of MPPJ, Datuk Termizi Puteh when works started about half a year ago. Due to heavy pressure mounted by the residents, construction was temporarily put on hold.

Even though construction is still on hold, the remained wreck is an eyesore to the residents there. They had tried to seek help from their State Assemblyman, YB Dr Wong Sai Hou to resolve this matter, especially when Wong Sai Hou is also a Councilor in MBPJ.

The City Hall now comes with proposal to convert the same piece of land into Service Centre/Public Hall purpose. It is mind-boggling to witness that the City Hall putting the cart before the horse, whereby conversion should logically be adopted and reflected in the Local Structure Plan before any construction for the new purpose kicks off.

The whole incident has been dragged on for months and Wong Sai Hou, although being an MBPJ Councilor at the same time and has openly said in the press that he does not agree on this project, he must openly clarify whether he has vested interest in this project, as under this project, a new service centre will be constructed. I had never seen any person who needs a service centre except elected representative. In order to clear our doubt, it is advisable for him to clarify now.

Simultaneously, if Dr Wong Sai Hou is sincere enough with his word and in order to demonstrate his sincerity, he does not have to wait for the State Town Planning department to take action or to make any decision which could be made months or years later as he himself can ask the Council to demolish the wreck right now, without having to involve any authority from the State Government ‘to correct the wrongs’.

甘榜冬姑区州议员黄世豪必须澄清是否滥用其市议员地位修改灵市大蓝图?

大约六名来自八打灵再也百乐花园第20/24路的居民做日聚集在八达灵再也市政厅,出席针对灵市市政厅最近公布的23项大蓝图(Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1,或 RTPJ1)更改的抗议听证会。这项听证会由雪兰莪州政行政议员拿督莫达达兰所主持,八打灵再也四名国阵州议员也同时出席。

居民们在拿督莫达达兰面前基于以下两点投诉八打灵再也市政厅和甘榜冬姑区州议员黄世豪医生:
一、 市政厅违反居民的意愿,而一意孤行在该路段未的一片土地Lot PT 6947兴建一所服务中心。居民表示他们曾经在2003年年尾以及2005年年尾向市政厅反映他们的看法,但是市政厅依然我行我素地在今年年初施工兴建该服务中心。

二、 市政厅居然在还没有通过修改大蓝图之前就兴建有关建筑物,显示该建筑物在该法令下属于非法建筑物。到底黄世豪医生身为市议员和该区周议员是否出现任何利益输送的状况?

八打灵再也市政厅在9月1日提出修改灵市大蓝图的建议,并在同一日至9月29日公开有关建议,让市民能够了解市政厅要修改之处。市民一旦有任何反对或建议,则必须在公开期限之内(即从9月1日至29日向市政厅提出书面反对)。

此次市政厅以供推出23项修改建议。我在2006年9月26日星期二的一则文告中简略罗列这23项建议。

在众多修改建议中,我要把焦点放在第18项的修改(把Jalan 20/24的Lot PT 6947地段从房屋用途转换成民众会堂或服务中心)。针对这项修改建议,百乐花园第24路的居民其实已经针对市政厅的建议,即在他们的住家附近兴建一座服务中心和民众会堂,而做出两次反对(第一次是在2003年,第二次则在2005年年尾)以及一次的公开抗议(2006年3月间),原因是居民希望能够保留这一小片的绿肺,因为在这之前这片土地是一片空地,并种有一棵大树。

虽然如此,市政厅依然发出策划准证(Kebenaran Merancang)给发展商发展该片土地。有关工程早已经在半年前开始施工。居民当时指责当时的八打灵再也市议会绕过居民的意愿,批发策划准证予Quah Peng Chin @ Quah Paik Sze,以在该路尾段的一片狭小的空地建设一座服务中心。

灵市市议会是在2006年2月6日的一封公函中通知居民市议会的决定(参考编号:(34) dlm.MPPJ/JPB331/T/P23/S21/1819/2003)。虽然居民曾在2003年和2005年两次反对该计划,但是市议会依然坚持己见。经过一连串的民意反弹之后,有关工程才暂时停止。

虽然有关工程已停工,但是当地居民曾经要求甘榜东姑区州议员拿督黄世豪医生出面解决这项问题,尤其是身为市议员的黄世豪医生应该要求市政厅介入,因为这项工程已经废置数个月,对居民来说已形同时障碍物。

与其拆毁该建筑物,市政厅现在选择以修改大蓝图的方式来合理化之前的错误。本来市政厅应该先通过大蓝图的修改,才能发出规划准证给发展商发展该地,现在到转过来成为市政厅先允许发展商先动工,然后才来修改蓝图。

事情发展至今,甘榜东姑区州议员黄世豪必须立即交待,到底他们有涉及这项工程,因为这项修改就是要为了在当地兴建一所服务中心,尤其是黄世豪本人同时兼任八打灵再也市议员,他是否为了他本身的利益,滥用市议员的地位修改灵市大蓝图?

与此同时,黄世豪医生也应该诚实处理他的承诺,因为在居民第二次公开反对这项计划之后,黄世豪已经通过媒体公开立场,即他不支持继续有关计划,那么他本人因该立即通过市政厅的内部管道拆除该障碍物,而不是通过州城乡规划局拖延时间。

Najib asked Editors to downplay toll hike issue

This is a report from Malaysiakini Mandarin version.

It is reported in the report that the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today met chief editors for all major newspapers, television and radio stations to 'downplay' the issue of toll hike for all five toll concessionaire which will be made public in a day or two.

It is heard that the toll may increase for more than 10% and it will be an increment of more than 50% for Lebuhraya Damansara-Puchong.

Below is the original report in Mandarin:

国内5大道这两天内宣布猛涨
纳吉今午见总编指示低调报道
黄凌风
06年12月12日 晚上9:23 调整字体大小:

《当今大马》探悉,副首相纳吉今午会见各报总编辑和电台新闻负责人,要求媒体低调处理预料在这一、两天内公布的国内5条大道收费涨价的课题。

纳吉是在另外3名部长,即工程部长三美威鲁、首相署部长阿芬迪和新闻部长再努丁的陪同下,于下午3时45分左右在国会召见各报总编辑和电台新闻负责人,发出上述指示。

在这场长达1小时半的会面上,纳吉向媒体披露,当局将在这一、两天内公布国内5条大道收费涨价。

公共工程部长三美威鲁日前已经表示,国内5条高速大道,包括白蒲大道、牙直利走廊大道、莎阿南大道、加叻大道及蕉赖加影大道确定将在明年1月1日调涨过路费。

据悉,这5条大道收费的涨幅皆超过10%,其中以白蒲大道(LDP)的涨幅最为惊人,超过50%。

国内燃油是于今年3月涨价,并引起民间多次示威抗议,进而导致镇暴队以暴力镇压事件。相信政府担心大道收费涨价将引起同样的激烈反弹,因此要求媒体“配合”给予低调报道。

政府近期密集召见媒体负责人

近来政府密集召见媒体负责人,对媒体的掌握显得越来越严密。

首相阿都拉于12月7日也召见主流媒体总编辑,希望主流媒体多配合报道国家发展计划,尤其大事宣传明年的国庆50周年纪念,少渲染血腥和天灾人祸课题,以免给外国人造成不良的印象,以为我国是一个危险的国家。

阿都拉向媒体编辑表示,他希望各民族都能够参与明年的国庆50周年庆典,以加强种族之间的团结。

国安部刚在11月22日召见国内各语文报章总编辑,再次告诫报章不要刊登政治及宗教敏感课题和图片,并点出大山脚斗母宫被拆除以及巫统大会的报道;惟并未提及南洋商报因在周日封面刊登9人党团领袖炮轰巫统代表言论过火可能受对付的问题。

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Is Wee Ka Siong prepared to withdraw his article published in Nanyang Siang Pao?

Is Wee Ka Siong prepared to withdraw his statement made against the fiery speech and Hishammudin’s Keris wielding when Ka Siong said that the DAP is tarnished the good intention of the MCA Youth to explain to UMNO Youth about the uneasiness of the non-Malay community to UMNO Youth?

He said this in a statement issued yesterday which attack the DAP as ‘political squid’ but he himself forgot that he in an article written by him, which was published in Nanyang Siang Pao on the 19th November 2006.

In his article published in Nanyang Siang Pao on the 19th November 2006, he said that

“今年(巫统)大会的一大特色是‘矛头对内’,有人竟要求检讨非马来人国阵成员党的地位,更点名声讨国阵成员党领袖,堂堂一州首长及资深部长更被指‘没教养’,真是‘亲者痛,仇者快’!”

“……要‘用”马来剑究竟是表达些什么?动机何在?难道非要他族流血不可吗?”

which means:

“the major characteristics of the (UMNO) General Assembly this year is that there are people asking to review the status of non-Malay BN component parties, even more so when they openly mentioned the names of BN component parties leaders, one senior Minister and a Chief Minister are even called as “biadap”, it is hurting the feeling of their friends but benefiting their opponents.”

“……what is he going to show when he want to ‘use’ the Keris? What are his motives? Does he want other races to shed-blood?”

Since MCA Youth had already met UMNO Youth Chief and Wee Ka Siong was one of those attending, and since MCA Youth and Wee Ka Song had said that they understand the intention of Hishammudin using the Keris during the UMNO General Assembly, then is Wee Ka Siong prepared to withdraw what he wrote in his article published in Nanyang Siang Pao?

MCA Youth should know that UMNO Youth’s saying that the Keris is meant to ‘protect the all Malaysians and not only Malay’ is a self-manufactured reason to escape from their original intention when UMNO Youth Chief wielded the Keris Panca Warisan for the second time.

If this is the reason, why don’t UMNO Youth explain it publicly last year when the Keris was wield for the first time by Hishammuddin? If this is so, why all other UMNO forefathers did not explain it this way when they wielded their Keris in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s? Why, for example, the Deputy Prime Ministery, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, when was the UMNO Youth Chief in 1987 threathened the Chinese with a Keris when he wielded a Keris, shouting to ‘soak it (the Keris) with Chinese blood’ and not to ‘protect the Chinese and the Malay with the Keris in my hand’?

MCA Youth Chief, especially Wee Ka Siong should not self-consoling themselves when Hishammuddin has already said clearly that he will wield the Keris again next year but to speak up if they themselves are also not happy or they feel neglected by UMNO Youth.

魏家祥是否愿意收回他所发表的文章?

魏家祥昨日发表文告,指责行动党歪曲事实,把马青总团勇于向巫青团团长希山慕丁传达华社对他举马来短剑的不满之行动加以抹黑,并称民主行动党仍停留在扮演“政治墨鱼”的角色中,以一贯的手段抹黑对手,以谋取政治生存空间。

但是,魏家祥在本届巫统大会落幕后,于11月19日在《南洋商报》“异言堂”一栏中发表文章指出:“今年(巫统)大会的一大特色是‘矛头对内’,有人竟要求检讨非马来人国阵成员党的地位,更点名声讨国阵成员党领袖,堂堂一州首长及资深部长更被指‘没教养’,真是‘亲者痛,仇者快’!”

魏家祥也在该文中质疑到底巫统的代表“……要‘用”马来剑究竟是表达些什么?动机何在?难道非要他族流血不可吗?”

随着魏家祥这篇最新的文告,我们要问,到底他是否愿意收回其在《南洋商报》所发表的评论文章?

既然马青总团和魏家祥已经组团拜会巫青团和巫青团团长,并且“已经了解希山慕丁在巫统大会上举剑的用意,并相信他不会把剑用在华人身上”,那么魏家祥是否愿意收回他在《南洋商报》的文章?

马青总团应该了解巫青团的说辞,即拔短剑不仅‘是要维护马来人的权益,同时也是要维护所有马来西亚人的权益’是巫青团企图自圆其说、自欺欺人的理由。

如果这个理由可以成立,为何巫青团部在去年希山慕丁高举短剑时不就此澄清?为何其它巫统元老在50、60、70、80以及90年代当朝举短剑时也没有做出这样的解释?为何现任副首相在1987年当任巫青团团长时高举马来短剑,说的是‘要用华人的血来浸洗这把马来短剑’,而不是‘要用这把短剑来维护华人和马来人的权益?’

因此,马青总团和魏家祥不应如此阿Q和自我安慰,尤其是巫青团团长希山慕丁已经表示他明年还会再把短剑多举一次,反之马青衮衮诸公应该针对马青基层和菲马来人的感受勇于向巫青团说不。

打击大耳窿——房政部肩负同样重大的责任

除了要求警方加强效率,国人也应该了解,既由马华总会长拿督斯里黄家定领导的房屋及地方政府部也在打击非法借贷活动(大耳窿)方面也肩负同样重大的责任。

前国安部副部长拿督诺奥玛在2004年9月21日在国会下议院回答行动党峇眼区国会议员林峰成针对非法借贷(大耳窿)的口头问答时明确指出在1951年借贷法令下,非法借贷的问题落在房屋及地方政府部的权限和范围之内,而不是国内安全部。

除非大耳窿使用暴力,或者是涉及犯罪活动,在国安部管辖下的皇家警察部队才能引用各类法令,如刑事法典、紧急状态颁布令或限制居留法令来对付他们。

诺奥玛当时也指出房屋及地方政府部可以在批准借贷准证之前先向警方审核准证申请者的背景才决定是否应该发出准证。诺奥玛是在国会这么说:

Saya ingin nyatakan lagi bahawa masalah Ah Long ini sebenarnya ialah terletak di bawah kuasa Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan, dan yang mengeluarkan lesen untuk peminjam-peminjam berlesen ini ialah di bawah Kerajaan Tempatan. Kita lihat bahawa kita juga berharap pihak berkuasa tempatan, kalau boleh rujuk dahulu kepada polis untuk kita vetting aktiviti ataupun latar belakang seseorang yang memohon lesen sebagai peminjam berlesen ini. Terima kasih.

Saya percaya Yang Berhormat telah bangkit perkara ini dalam Dewan dan mungkin Kementerian Perumahan sedang mengkaji dan pihak PDRM juga sedang membuat kajian, ingin mencadangkan supaya Akta Peminjam yang kita buat pindaan pada tahun 2003 ini harus dikaji semula, kerana ada beberapa seksyen di dalam itu yang harus diperbaiki.

Sebagai contoh, tindakan untuk kita mengambil kepada seseorang Ah Long sebagai contoh, polis tidak ada kuasa untuk kita tangkap. Polis bila dapat laporan, kita kena rujuk kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan. Pihak berkuasa tempatanlah yang akan menyiasat sama ada peminjam ini melanggar ataupun tidak peraturan-peraturan lesen yang telah diberikan.

Jika didapati Ah Long ini ataupun yang ada lesen ini melanggar peraturan-peraturan, maka pihak berkuasa tempatan kena mohon waran daripada Majistret ataupun polis, kena mohon daripada pihak majistret untuk mendapatkan waran. Jadi, dia punya prosedurnya begitu ada liku-liku tertentu dan agak sukar untuk kita laksanakan. Polis hanya datang apabila Ah Long ini dia melakukan kekerasan, dia menggunakan kongsi gelap, gengster dan sebagainya. Polis akan datang, barulah polis akan mengambil tindakan di bawah Kanun Keseksaan ataupun kalau kita tidak ada bukti, kita akan tangkap mereka ini di bawah EO, tangkap tanpa bicara. Kalau didapati mereka ini tidak menggunakan kekerasan, tetapi dia melakukan aktiviti-aktiviti pelacuran dan sebagainya yang terlibat dengan kegiatan-kegiatan peminjam Ah Long ini, maka kita akan menggunakan RR untuk menahan mereka. Terima kasih.

黄家定的政治秘书翁文志曾经指责林冠英,即黄家定身为部长也必须为大耳聋活动猖獗而负责,为不实的言论。

诺奥玛的言论,以及既有的法律已经证明负责处理借贷准证的部门是黄家定所领导的房屋及地方政府部门的权限。

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

大专法令修改草案迄今尚未提呈至国会,高教部是否要赶紧通过大专法令修改草案?

虽然第十一届国会下议院第三季第三次的会议将于12月13日落幕,但是高教部尚未向下议院会议提呈《大专法令》修改草案一读。 这令人怀疑高教部是否打算在最后一分钟提呈该修改草案,然后让下议院匆匆忙忙地通过该修改草案?

高教部在数月前向媒体高调表示要在这一次的国会会议,也就是所谓的‘国会预算案会议’提呈广受媒体、青年团体、大专院校学生组织、学术人员关注的《大专法令》修改草案。

高教部也成立了本身的《大专法令》修改草案委员会,该委员会也在今年和朝野政党会面,其他大专学生团体、朝野政党以及青年团体也向该修改草案表示关注,并且针对修改的内容作出详细的分析、研究以及意见上的交换。

高教部政务次长阿汉巴巴也在今年第三次会议前夕表示该部已经停止接收外界人士对修改《大专法令》的建议和看法,而且该修改草案铁定将会在今年第三次会议提呈予国会下议院一读。

然而,高教部迄今尚未提呈该修改草案予下议院一读,让人无法了解到底高教部打算在原有的《大专法令》的哪一个部分进行修改。这是因为国会下议院只剩下两个礼拜的时间,也就是不超过八天的会议时间来通过各部门所提呈但必须在这一次会议通过的法案。

根据国会下议院的会议书(Order Paper),国会迄今(12月4日)仍然有15条法令或修改法案必须在这一次通过。除非国会把这些法令挪后辩论,要不然国会议员很可能被迫挑灯夜辩,最终由91%国阵国会议员掌控的下议院必定会匆忙通过这些法令或修正案。即使高教部在这个星期提呈该法令,该法令也只是下议院此次必须通过的第16条法令。这样一来,如果这条修正法令必须在这一次的国会下议院会议通过,国会议员就更加缺乏充足的时间来研究该法令的内容。

社青团呼吁高教部宣布是否会在这一次国会会议提呈《大专法令》修改法令。如果是,高教部应该尽快把这项法令提呈予国会下院一读,然后让法令在下一次的会议,也就是第四季第一次的下议院会议辩论(二读以及三读)通过,以让公民社会及大专生团体有更充裕的时间研究其内容。

Don't protect the rotten system

Ong Ka Ting’s reply to a RM10 salary cut motion moved by DAP MP for Cheras YB Tan Kok Wai on 28th November 2006 in Dewan Rakyat was not only unconvincing but it was this reply that gave a grave impression to the public that Ong Ka Ting is protecting the current rotten system and has shown a bad example for others as he allows law-breakers to become lawmakers in local level.

Recently in Klang, although there are eight BN leaders who broke local by-laws, for example not paying assessment, did not submit building plan to the council for approval before construction and etc, are appointed to be Klang Municipal Councilors. And one of the eight is Datuk Song Kee Chai, MCA Youth Kapar Divisional Chairman. Song’s factory was discovered as not submitting any plan for the extension of his factory but he sworn in as Klang Municipal Councilor on 24th November.

Song’s appointment as councilor reveals the ugly and hypocrite side of MCA when the party top leadership has been calling for clean leadership. How can MCA appoint a law-breaker like Song to be councilor when they clamed that all names submitted by MCA are vetted through and candidates are all called up to pass their interview sessions before they can be appointed as councilors.

This only shows that the system and the so call internal vetting system in MCA is equally problematic when they can let Song escaped scot-free when he at the end of the day is still councilor. When there are law-breakers sitting in the legislative hall as law-makers, what legal and moral authority we have to ask the public to obey law? How are we going to explain this to foreign investors who expect their monies and investment protected by laws and orders?

What Ong Ka Ting should do is to utilize his position as MCA chairman to knock out law-breakers from our councils. Else, all MCA councilors’ integrity are highly questionable. Ong Ka Ting and MCA should be responsible for bad governance in local councils as they are the supporters for a rotten system.

LDP to charge RM2.10?

Is LITRAK, the toll concessionaire for the 40 km-long Damansara-Puchong Expressway or Lebuhraya Damansara-Puchong (LDP) going to increase the toll from RM1.00 to RM2.10, an increment of RM1.10 or 110%?

Is the government going to give in to the demand from LITRAK?

There is an exclusive report in Sin Chew Daily today that LITRAK has applied for an increment of RM1.10, which will allow it to collect toll at RM2.10 from the highway users starting from January 2007.

According to the report, LITRAK justified this with the reason that out of the daily traffic volumes of one million vehicles which travel along LDP everyday, only 36% or 360,000 are toll payers whereby the rest are not but contribute to the traffic jam along the highway, more so when there are a number of highly populated residential areas opened along LDP for the past few years.

Another justification is that LITRAK is only allowed to review their toll charge two times despite granted a concessionaire of 33 years. The first is in 2007 and the second is in 2016. LDP started operation in 1999 and it cost LITRAK RM1.13 billion to construct the highway. Net profit generated from LDP has increased to RM79.7 million for this financial year ended 31st Mac 2006 which is equivalent to an increment of 42.7% from net profit recorded for the previous financial year.

Road users in Klang Valley have been heavily burdened and victimized with unbearably, unreasonably and not transparently charged highway tolls. The government is likely to give in to the demand of LDP as the government has been mentioning several times since mid-2006 that the government is not prepared to compensate highway concessionaires or to expand their concessionaire periods as they government has been paying huge amount of compensation to highway concession companies.

There are altogether 20 private highway and the government compensated them RM175 million and RM104 million to all highway concession companies in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Till 2005, the government compensated a total of RM38.5 billion to all the 12 concession companies and therefore draining a huge sum of monies from the government’s coffer which will likely prevent the government from further compensating private highway concessionaires anymore.

Anyhow the first remedy that the government should do is to be transparent by revealing the content of the privatization contracts so that the people can know what exactly is hiding behind the contract as to prepare the people with the knowledge of where exactly the people’s money spent.

This action shall be followed up by justifications and explanations from the government on first, why the government signed such contract with these 12 private companies, and second, are there any long term solution from the government to rectify the problem, and third, whether the government is prepared to hold a dialogue with various stakeholders and civil society to discuss any future planning to prevent the people from continuing suffered, victimized and burdened by unfair toll charge.

Else, if the new toll rate of RM2.10 is approved, the frustrations and dissatisfactions of the people, especially those residing nearby and using the toll on a daily basis, will reach a higher boiling point with or without the participation of any opposition.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

OKU rights - Shahrizat highlights the importance of MNKT

Rights of the disableds are always not looked into by the authority and they staged a protest two days ago against Rapid KL, a government-controlled public transportation service provider in Klang Valley for not taking good care of the needs of public transportations for the disabled or Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU) in town.

Ministry of Women, Family and Society Development Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil today during her winding speech in the Committee Stage debate of her ministry in the Dewan Rakyat criticised local governments in Malaysia for not being senstive to the needs of the disabled when a lot of facilities provided by local councils are not OKU-friendly.

Shahrizat even warned them (local councils) that the Ministry will go after them, if they are still ignorant or neglecting the rights of the disableds although there are already by-laws which are supposed to be followed to create a disabled-friendly environment.

She said she will bring this matter up to the National Council for Local Government chaired by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and she will push the National Council to push local governments to fully implement what has been legislated in their by-laws to take good care of the needs of the disableds.

She also said that if local councils are still ignorant on orders and decision from the highest authourity from the Federal Government, the Ministry will not let local councils to run away scot-free and promised to give them some teachings.

"Saya nak bagi amaran kepada semua PBT, kalau by-law tidak diikuti, rasakan nanti." She said without any compromise.

Her remark reminds me of what Ong Ka Ting said a few days ago when he said :

"Soal pokok di sini kata kelemahan PBT. Kelemahan PBT memang betul, di bawah perlembagaan, dia adalah di bawah the nine schedule state list. Kuasa PBT memang adalah di bawah jadual kuasa negeri dan di bawah Akta Kerajaan Tempatan amat jelas sekali kerajaan negeri yang menjaga PBT. Itu pun saya tidak menolak, cuba hendak elakkan tanggungjawab.
Yang Berhormat sudah bangkitkan Perkara 95, saya juga terima dalam Perkara 95 ada satu fungsi Majlis Negara bagi kerajaan tempatan. Telah pun disebut siapa pengerusi, ialah Timbalan Perdana Menteri. Saya salah seorang Menteri yang menganggotainya, tetapi pada masa yang sama, terdapat 13 Ketua Menteri dan Menteri Besar yang juga sama dengan keahlian saya.

Di situ, secara kolektif, kita bincang, ada apa-apa kelemahan kita buat bersama untuk melakukannya. Macam mana pula hari ini saya seorang sahaja kena dipotong gaji. Tidak pernah kita berhenti cuba guna majlis ini untuk melakukan apa yang betul, yang terbaik. Jadi, saya tidak pernah kata saya apa pun tidak payah buat, kerana itu bukan kuasa saya.
"

You can read his remark from the Parliament Hansard on 29th November 2006. His remarks give us an impression that he does not have the power to do (it) as the council makes collective decision, though he is a Minister responsible for the portfolio.

However, Shahrizat's remark differs a lot from Ong Ka Ting's statement made when he debated the RM10 salary cut motion tabled against him by DAP MP for Cheras, YB Tan Kok Wai.

Can we expect a further explanation from Ong Ka Ting?

Dirty cops - IPCMC or Police themselves to curb it?

The New Straits Times yesterday put up a front page story on a directive from Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan that he has asked all Officers of Command for Police District (OCPDs) in the whole of Malaysia to watch out for the slightest "hint of abnormal spending habits and lavish lifestyles".

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said for starters, any officer who failed to declare his assets would be asked to produce a show-cause letter and face disciplinary action.

Suspected policemen are followed from the time they get into their vehicles until they reach home. A senior OCPD said under the assessment system, all police personnel were required to declare their assets.

Well, this is of course an applauded approach from the Police force to clean up the force, however, would not it be better if the Independent Police Commission on Misconduct and Corruption (IPCMC) be formed to handle the job, rather than putting it on the hand of a fews in the force's discplinary unit?

To date, the government's reply on the formation of IPCMC is quite standard, that "it is still under study by the Attorney-General Chamber".

I wonder why it takes the Chamber so long to present the bill to the Parliament.

Monday, December 04, 2006

No clear direction from Ka Ting

MCA top leadership is currently running their national roadshow to explain to their grassroots on several current issues which may affect MCA in the coming general election.
Unfortunately, when speaking to reporters at a press conference later, MCA President, Ong Ka Ting refused to elaborate on issues which could be sensitive to handle, including the demolishing of Tou Boo Temple in Bukit Mertajam by Seberang Prai Municipal Council (MPSP).
Ka Ting said that MCA will focus fully on national development agenda, the role of MCA in carrying out the national mission or misi nasional as well as the 9th Malaysia Plan (9MP).
If this is what was conveyed during the roadshow, I am sure their grassroots must be disappointed as Ka Ting did not give them a clear direction ahead in dealing with the coming general election.

地方政府施政日渐败坏,黄家定和马华难纠其责

黄家定于11月28日在国会下议院面对行动党焦赖区国会议员陈国伟动议减薪10令吉作出的答复不仅无法让人信服他在当任部长期间是否有改善地方政府的施政,反之还让人觉得黄家定在维护现有的败坏体制,对良好施政做出最坏的典范,因为马华公会允许违反地方条例的党员成为市议员。

最近8名国阵领袖虽然未缴付门牌税或触犯市议会条例的情况之下(例如在没有提呈图测下兴建违章房屋丶工厂及餐馆),但是还能够受委为巴生市议员,其中一名就是加埔马青团长拿督宋奇才。然而,黄家定在其回答中只字不提宋奇才。宋奇才的工厂是在查卡利亚豪宅风波之后被人揭发没有呈交图测给巴生市议会,但是他却顺利于11月24日宣誓就任巴生市议员。

宋奇才的委任首先显示马华自相矛盾的虚伪真面目。尤其是最近马华高层领袖口口声声说‘
堂堂正正作人、踏踏实实做事、清清白白作官’,但是马华却能够容许违法党员受委任为市议员。在这种情况之下,黄家定如何能够确保马华领袖是否是诚实与清廉的一群?

其实,黄家定应该动用他身为马华总会长的地位和权力,立即撤消宋奇才的推荐,然后向雪州政府推荐党内另外一名人士取代宋奇才。然而,宋奇才却能够在最后一分钟顺利宣誓就职,证明黄家定讲一套,做一套,对本身有双重的道德标准。


众所周知,马华的县市议员是经过内部面试核准之后才呈交予州务大臣批准通过。有时候甚至是黄家定本人亲自主持县市议员候选人面试。如果马华的审核程序是绝对严格的话,为何还会出现类似宋奇才的漏网之鱼?这是否表示人民也可以质疑其他马华县市议员的廉正度?宋奇才最终还能够若无其事当上巴升市议员,是否说马华公会也认同触犯地方条规的党员亦可以成为地方议员?如果是这样,为何政府不能从人才济济的巴生挑选其他奉公守法的市民成为市议员?

要解释这一切,我们只能说马华和黄家定其实也是这个败坏制度的拥护者。所谓的‘堂堂正正作人、踏踏实实做事、清清白白作官’只是为赢取选票,但是内容空洞的竞选标语,宋奇才的委任就是最好的证明。

除非黄家定能够交待为何马华公会违背民意,一意孤行委任宋奇才成为市议员,要不然人民不仅拥有绝对的权利质疑马华其他县市议员的廉正度,同时也有理由在来届大选拒绝马华的国州议席候选人,因为他们都是败坏制度的拥护者。

Friday, December 01, 2006

Give us lights in SS2 at night

The PJ Action Team (PJAT) had decided about two months ago, that instead of having numerous dialogues with police, which to date has not been proven its effectiveness in tackling high crime rate in Petaling Jaya, we rather try our best to rectify the lacks of street lamps and the increasing malfunctioned street lamps in Petaling Jaya, which itself is a long overdue problem known to a lot of us who stay in Petaling Jaya.

One of the major suggestions for local governments to adopt towards a safe city is to ensure that there are enough and bight lightings provided in major areas in each municipality. This is outlined in Point 16 of Safe City Programme – an Illustration of 23 Steps For Crime Prevention by the Town and Country Planning Department of the Peninsula of Malaysia.

An announcement was made earlier and we received some complaints from time to time. Eventually, we took up the task to kick off the first patrol in SS2, Petaling Jaya as the complaints we received main come from this area.

We spent roughly two months to complete the patrol with photos in which some of the photos are provided by the residents who complained to us. These photos were taken in October and November and show the deplorable conditions of street lamps in that area.

AREA: SS2, PETALING JAYA

JALAN:
SS2/4&6 : Street lamps malfunctioned along the roads. (PB210023, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 36, 37, 40)
SS2/7 : No light at Taman Bahagia Garden (PB210038)
SS2/12 : Two lamp posts malfunctioned near park at junction with Jalan SS2/25 (PB210019)
SS2/14 : Lack of lamp posts along the street (PB210010, PB210013)
SS2/17 : Lamp post malfunctioned (PB210043).
SS2/18 : No light at park (PB210016)
SS2/21 : No light along the street (PB210022)
SS2/22 : Lack of lamp posts (PB210010)
SS2/24 : Lamp post malfunctioned at junction with SS2/43 (PB300014)
SS2/24 : Lamp post malfunctioned at junction with SS2/41 (PB300013)
SS2/24 : Lamp post malfunctioned in front of junction with SS2/65 (PB210047)
SS2/25 : two lamp posts malfunctioned. (PB210016)
SS2/30 : Lamp post malfunctioned. (PB160029)
SS2/34 : No lamp post at entrance from Jalan SS2/39 (PB160034)
SS2/35 : Lamp post malfunctioned (PB160030)
SS2/38 : Lack of lamp posts (PB160021)
SS2/43 : Lack of lamp posts (PB160022)
SS2/44 : No lamp post at entrance from Jalan 21/3 (PB160020)
SS2/45 : One light functioning only. No light at park. (PB210045)
SS2/49 : No light at park. The street is lacking of lighting (PB210042)
SS2/52 : No light at park. (PB210045)
SS2/54 : No light at lamp post. (PB160018)
SS2/75&80 : No light at the corner road (PB300018), Lamp post malfunctioned in front of Murni Restaurant. (PB300015).
SS2/80 : Lamp post located at junction with Jalan SS2/77 malfunctioned. (PB300019)
SS2/80 : Lack of lamp posts at junction with Jalan SS2/91, nearby the park. (PB300020)

Our finding shows that there are at least 30 lamp posts malfunctioned and more than 10 black spots in SS2 alone as illustrated in our descriptions with photos above. It has been a rule that electric posts surrounding all parks and playgrounds must be equipped with lamps but a check around all parks and playgrounds in SS2 reveals the opposite, i.e. the parks in Jalan SS2/80 whereby there is a black spot at its junction with Jalan SS2/91. This poses danger towards for those who exercise in the morning.

There is an urgent need for Petaling Jaya City Hall (MBPJ) to work in collaboration with Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) to rectify the problems. We will hand in our findings to the area manager of TNB for him to take immediate actions to rectify the situation. The finding will also be copied to Datuk Bandar of Petaling Jaya for his attention.

防范罪案先决条件之一就是先解决SS2路灯问题

在防范罪案方面,八打灵再也火箭行动队在两个月前决定把焦点集中在灵市的路灯问题,尤其是近年来,灵市的路灯问题,不管是路灯失灵还是路灯不足,这些问题除了一直没有得到当局妥善解决,也没有得到当局的关注。因此,与其主办警民对话(尤其是当警民对话迄今在灵市尚无法解决灵市长期悬而未解的罪案问题),我们选择向路灯问题着手。

这也符合半岛城乡规划局于2004年8月所出版的一本关于安全城市的手册。这本手册以绘图的方式呈现了23项地方政府在迈向安全城市所必须解决的问题和挑战。其中一项挑战就是确保地方上的灯光充足。

我们当时通过媒体宣布我们的这项计划。过后,我们不时获得人民的投诉。由于这是一项不简单的任务,我们因此决定先向其中一个遭投诉最频密的地区,即SS2下手,并不时安排队员在该处的街道巡逻,监视当地的街灯状况,以及报告地方上任何黑暗之处。


我们前后一共花了两个月的时间来完成这项任务,并拍下了一些照片和资料(如以下所示)。这些照片是在今年10月和11月期间拍下来的。

AREA: SS2, PETALING JAYA

JALAN:
SS2/4&6:沿着这两条路的路灯失灵,导致部分街道陷入昏暗一片。(PB210023、26、27、28、30、32、36、37、40)
SS2/7:靠近Taman Bahagia轻快铁车站的街灯失灵。(PB210038)
SS2/12:两个靠近Jalan SS2/25 路口的公园路灯失灵。(PB210019)
SS2/14:缺乏路灯。(PB210010、PB210013)
SS2/17:路灯失灵。(PB210043)
SS2/18:公园路灯失灵。(PB210016)
SS2/21:路灯失灵。(PB210022)
SS2/22:缺乏路灯。(PB210010)
SS2/24:靠近SS2/43路口的路灯失灵。(PB300014)
SS2/24:靠近SS2/41路口的路灯失灵。(PB300013)
SS2/24:靠近SS2/65路口的路灯失灵。(PB210047)
SS2/25:两枝路灯失灵。(PB210016)
SS2/30:路灯失灵。(PB160029)
SS2/34:从Jalan SS2/39 进来的入口处路灯失灵。(PB160034)
SS2/35:路灯失灵。(PB160030)
SS2/38:路灯不足(PB160021)
SS2/43:路灯不足(PB160022)
SS2/44:从Jalan 21/3进来的入口处没有路灯(PB160020)
SS2/45:只有一支路灯。公园灯光不足(PB210045)
SS2/49:公园灯光不足。 街道缺乏路灯。(PB210042)
SS2/52:公园灯光不足。(PB210045)
SS2/54:公园灯光不足。(PB160018)
SS2/75&80:三叉路口处灯光不足(PB300018),在Murni餐馆对面的路灯灵。(PB300015)
SS2/80:靠近SS2/77路口的路灯失灵。(PB300019)
SS2/80:靠近SS2/91路口的路灯失灵。(PB300020)

我们的巡逻报告显示灵市SS2至少有30枝电灯柱失灵,以及超过10处是昏暗之处。至于灵市的公园,当局甚至规定每一支电柱必须配有电灯,以便能够照亮公园的每一个角落,确保晨运人士的安全。虽然当局有这样的规定,但是我们的巡逻却发现并不是每一个公园的电柱都配有电灯,例如在SS2/80以及SS2/91交界处的公园就没有路灯设施。这无形中危害路人和晨运人士的性命与财务安全。

有鉴于此,灵市市政厅有必要和国能携手合作,以解决SS2路灯不足的问题。我们也将会把我们的报告呈交予国能区域经理,要求他在短期之内解决问题。我们同时也会把同样文件副本转交予灵市市长。希望市长能够多加关注。

马华不要顾左右而言它

马华和马青衮衮诸公不应该顾左右而言他,反之必须正面回答为何黄家定在委任巴生市议员事件上,让违法法律的人士成为地方议员?

从查卡利亚违规兴建豪宅、非法沙爹屋、巴生市议会另两名市议员马兹利诺和法以查也涉嫌违规兴建豪宅、到最近马青加埔区区团团长宋奇才也被发现犯上同样的错误,黄家定不管是从责任部长的角度,还是从马华公会总会长的角度来看都是责无旁贷的。

然而,从事情报发到现在,黄家定针对这一连串的事情不仅是一言不发,而且还予人一种漠不关心和袖手旁观的感觉。

然而,当蕉赖区国会议员陈国伟提交一份减薪黄家定10令吉动议之后,马华和马青衮衮诸公基于护主的心态便在这数天发动一连串令人哭笑皆非的文告示众 。

以下就是他们的所发表的言论:


房屋及地方政府部长政治秘书翁文志周日指行动党秘书长林冠英在雪兰莪州巴生市议员课题上含有不良政治动机,并刻意歪曲事实,对该部部长拿督斯里黄家定作出不合理的指责

马华雪兰莪州联委会秘书庄祷融形容,民主行动党秘书长林冠英指责房屋及地方政府部长黄家定“当家不当权”,是“半夜吃黄瓜,不知头不知尾”,误解了雪州委任县市议员的程序。

马青联邦直辖区分团秘书周连琼也发表文告批评提出减薪黄家定10令吉动议的蕉赖区国会议员陈国伟为捞取廉价政治宣传。

蕉赖马青区团署理团长吴心一呼吁陈国伟凡事应该追究问题的源头,才不会让人感到他在歪曲事实。吴心一更指责陈国伟应该尽国会议员责任,为叫赖区人民解决一箩箩的问题。

马华雪州联委会宣传局主任李伟杰反驳行动党秘书长林冠英不明白宪法,发表‘以华制华’的论述。


马华其实无需搬动联邦宪法来维护黄家定,但是如果他们至少先为黄家定正面回答以下他们迄今没有回答的问题:
一、 当查氏事件今年年初被揭发之后,为何黄家定身为房屋及地方政府部部长以及身为国家地方政府理事会副主席,但是却以他的地位、身份和影响力来要求政府严厉查办查卡利亚以及其他贪污滥权的巴生市议员?
二、 联邦宪法第95A(5)条文中阐明国家地方政府理事会的权限,即在征求联邦政府以及州政府的意见之后,规划全国各地地方政府的晋升、发展和管制的国家政策,以及任何有关法律的行政管理;联邦政府以及州政府必须以旬该理事会所规划的政策行事。黄家定是该理事会的副主席,他自然就有权利和责任去纠正任何有关地方政府的课题,更何况是查卡利亚事件从爆发到现在一直都是闹得满城风雨的全国课题。既然如此,为何黄家定不使用这个权力,为何黄家定一言不发?
三、 黄家定不能逃避的另外一个问题就是宋奇才的委任。查卡利亚事件发展的最后,宋奇才的工厂被人揭发没有呈交图测给巴生市议会。既然马华衮衮诸公口口声声说要‘清清白白做官’,但是为何宋奇才却能够顺顺利利当上市议员?众所周知,马华的县市议员是经过面试核准之后才呈交予州务大臣批准通过。有时候,黄家定本人亲自主持县市议员候选人面试。既然这样,黄家定根本难逃其责。

除非马华能够针对这些问题作出答复,要不然他们既是文告再多也是毫无意义的。

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Zam triviliased the police reports lodged by DAP members

Zainuddin Maidin is trivializing the matter when he accused the DAP of having hidden agenda when it lodged police reports against several Umno members for their fiery speeches at the recent party general assembly, when focus should be put on how to preserve national unity by preventing UMNO delegates from making such racist remarks in future publicly again.

Zainuddin Maidin was commenting on several police reports lodged by DAP members against racist remarks of some UMNO delegates and Datuk Badruddin Amilruddin’s May 13 threat to the non-Malay two years ago at the same platform.

To date, there are already five police reports lodged and the fifth one was lodged by Penang DAP in Penang last Saturday. Out of these five police reports, two were lodged by me. My first report was lodged against several UMNO delegates who made racist remarks during the just concluded UMNO general assemblies. The second report was lodged on last Friday against similar remarks made by UMNO MP for Jerai, Datuk Badruddin Amilruddin two years ago in the same occassion.

I cannot agree more with what Zainuddin Maidin when he said that DAP was motivated by self-interest when we lodged these police report.

I must stand up to make it very clear that it is the responsibility of every citizen to come out to preserve racial and social harmony in Malaysia especially it is severely under threat after fiery speeches by UMNO delegates and MP. To lodge a police report against them is merely a fundamental step that must be taken before others, especially UMNO members from continuing such insensitive action.

I cannot agree more with Zainuddin’s statement when he said that DAP asked the police to also investigate UMNO fiery speakers under Internal Security Act (ISA). I must make it clear that I have never asked the police to launch any investigation under ISA. I wonder how a professionally trained journalist like Zainuddin could make such a basic but colossal mistake when he did not read my police report before he commented on the issue.


What I mentioned in my two police reports are that the fiery speeches by UMNO delegates are seditious in nature as these speeches promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia, according to the definition of seditious tendency.

Section 3 and 4 were quoted in my first police report as I intend to assist the police in helping them to identify why I consider the statement as seditious, when this is the most precise legal document in the Land that provide the clearest definition of an act of sedition, including the definition of seditious tendency.

Even if I use content of the Act to point out to the police the seditious element of UMNO delegates’ fiery speeches, it does not necessarily mean that I ask the police to launch investigations under the the Act, or to ask the Attorney-General to charge those UMNO delegates under the Act.

In fact, when Zainuddin said that the DAP ‘agrees’ to ISA and Sedition Act, which is ‘in contradiction with the long standing position of the party to urge the government to abolish the Acts’, does he also agree that UMNO delegates’ fiery speeches are not only seditious in nature, but are also posing serious harm and damages on our social and racial harmony, especially when he claimed that the police reports DAP members lodged show that the act is necessary?

Of course, I also cannot agree more with Zainuddin when he said that DAP has hidden agenda as we are merely saying in our reports that the fiery speeches of UMNO delegates are seditious in nature not to charge them under the Act as it is the job of the police and the Public Prosecutor to raise the charge against UMNO delegates, if they found that there are valid and solid proofs to do so.

I must remind Zainuddin that DAP members had always been threatened numerously that we will be charged under Sedition Act whenever we stand up for public interest and justice, one of the very infamous example is that the defense of the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and “social contract” is regarded as an arrestable offence under the Sedition Act, where the DAP condemns the unilateral ‘929 Declaration’ by former PM, Tun Dr Mahathir that Malaysia is already an Islamic State, while Mahathir and other BN leaders and member enjoy legal immunity for the real “sedition” of openly challenging the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and “social contract” with his “929 declaration”!

Therefore, Zainuddin should be able to differentiate between the real seditious act (by UMNO delegates) and the victimization of DAP members under the Act whenever we stand up for public interest and should not merely equate our police reports with the victimization of DAP members and others under Sedition Act.