With concern to the recent ruling from Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) which requires all commercial outlet owners under its jurisdiction to sign up with a consortium (SJ Pest Control Consortium Sdn. Bhd.) for pest control services with charges higher than market price prior to renewal or new application of trade license, Subang Jaya ADUN cum MPSJ councilor YB Datuk Lee Hwa Beng claimed in a Malaysiakini report that the council will not employ companies which are not recognized by the Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department.
Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I have tried to obtain the approved companies list from the Board, initially done through the website.
The website shows that any person who is employed to conduct pest control exercise in others’ compound using pesticides, the person must obtain a license issued by the Pesticide Board. The license is subjected to renewal every two years and it is non-transferable.
There is also a list of approved companies in the website. Although the list is almost the same as the list issued by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, it is ensure that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists.
This only means that these companies are not only unrecognized by PCAM, but also Pesticide Board under the Department of Agriculture. If this is the case, is Lee Hwa Beng’s statement contradicting the decision of the Council?
More important is that these unrecognized companies can be charged under 1975 Pesticide Act. Will MPSJ and MPSepang be charged as well, ending up with both councils have to fork out taxpayers’ money to pay fines?
Before this, we have written to the Presidents of both Councils, urging them based on the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance to:
1. Immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanation from both Councils on this matter. Both Councils should also explain when it enters into an agreement with private consortium/companies without consulting the taxpayers.
2. Immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid both Councils from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to both Councils and their taxpayers.
3. Immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium/private companies and both Councils to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium/companies without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.
Unfortunately, there are no proper replies from any of the Councils’ officers. What is more worrying is that other than the three reasons mentioned above on why the Councils should immediately suspend this ruling, there seems to be another reason why the two Councils should suspend the ruling as they could be held liable under 1974 Pesticide Act when they allowed unrecognized pest control companies to operate within their jurisdiction.
Therefore, we urge Lee Hwa Beng to seriously answer the question of why the council could only recognize one consortium to handle pest control exercise within the council’s jurisdiction, which is the core question remain unanswered to date.
Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I have tried to obtain the approved companies list from the Board, initially done through the website.
The website shows that any person who is employed to conduct pest control exercise in others’ compound using pesticides, the person must obtain a license issued by the Pesticide Board. The license is subjected to renewal every two years and it is non-transferable.
There is also a list of approved companies in the website. Although the list is almost the same as the list issued by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, it is ensure that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists.
This only means that these companies are not only unrecognized by PCAM, but also Pesticide Board under the Department of Agriculture. If this is the case, is Lee Hwa Beng’s statement contradicting the decision of the Council?
More important is that these unrecognized companies can be charged under 1975 Pesticide Act. Will MPSJ and MPSepang be charged as well, ending up with both councils have to fork out taxpayers’ money to pay fines?
Before this, we have written to the Presidents of both Councils, urging them based on the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance to:
1. Immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanation from both Councils on this matter. Both Councils should also explain when it enters into an agreement with private consortium/companies without consulting the taxpayers.
2. Immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid both Councils from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to both Councils and their taxpayers.
3. Immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium/private companies and both Councils to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium/companies without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.
Unfortunately, there are no proper replies from any of the Councils’ officers. What is more worrying is that other than the three reasons mentioned above on why the Councils should immediately suspend this ruling, there seems to be another reason why the two Councils should suspend the ruling as they could be held liable under 1974 Pesticide Act when they allowed unrecognized pest control companies to operate within their jurisdiction.
Therefore, we urge Lee Hwa Beng to seriously answer the question of why the council could only recognize one consortium to handle pest control exercise within the council’s jurisdiction, which is the core question remain unanswered to date.
No comments:
Post a Comment