Saturday, September 30, 2006

反驳马华中宣局——为何马华国会议员和部长不立即驳斥诺奥玛?

马华中宣局在9月29日的文告,指责民主行动党领袖林吉祥的言论,即教育部长宣布增建两所新华小,须归功于行动党国会议员古拉追问副教育部长诺奥玛的结果,为‘自己不做事,却大言不惭自我居功的典型台词’。

该文告也指责诺奥玛是因为没有出席内阁会议,不明白内阁的决定,才会以本身的见解发表“政府不准备增建华淡小”的违背内阁决定的谈话。

文告也指出马华公会总会长黄家定在教育部长希山慕丁宣布政府将增建两件新华小的同一天也披露,内阁早在一个月前通过教育部长提出的这项建议。

首先,我们要指出马华中宣局文告中一大堆的错误。林吉祥在他的
文告中是这么指出:

I believe the person who should be thanked for forcing this issue into the public domain should be the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat M. Kulasegaran who cornered Noh Omar to reveal the Education Ministry’s Ninth Malaysia Plan agenda and turned it into a public issue.

换句话说,林吉祥认为应该感激的是民主行动党怡保西区国会议员古拉,因为他对诺奥玛穷追不舍,暴露教育部在第九马来西亚计划期间的隐议程,进而把政府不增建华淡小的课题,演变为公众关注的课题。

显而易见的是,感激古拉的原因是因为他成功‘暴露教育部在第九马来西亚计划期间的隐议程,进而把政府不增建华淡小的课题,演变为公众关注的课题’,而不是因为他成功争取两间‘新华小’。

更何况这两间华小并不完全是新华小,第一间古来二校实际上是迁校,不是新校。第二间敦陈修信华小却是一所宏愿学校。

其实,我们不曾因为教育部宣布增建两间华小而赶到欣慰,我们也不会因为这两间华小而跟马华强功劳,反之我们认为这只是杯水车薪,无法一劳永逸的解决华教所面对的问题,因为全国至少需要134所华小才能解决华小爆满难题。我们对马华中宣局衮衮诸公对文告的理解能力感到非常遗憾,因为他们竟然错误理解行动党的文告。

此外,这里有两个问题要马华没有交待的是:
第一、 如果诺奥玛的言论是错误以及具误导性的?为何马华衮衮诸公没有在诺奥玛的言论见报后立即谴责、驳斥以及纠正诺奥玛的言论,如果他们认为诺奥玛的言论不仅是误导国民,甚至也不符合国阵的‘协商精神’?为何马华衮衮诸公要要等到教育部长开口宣布政府将兴建这两座新华小之后,才姗姗来迟的表示诺奥玛的言论是‘错误’、‘不符合国阵精神’以及驳斥‘不增建华小是政府政策’的谈话?

诺奥玛是在9月20日在国会下议院为2007年财政预算案(政策辩论阶段)总结陈辞时作出这样的回应。如果我们翻开隔天的报章,我们并没有发现马华领袖,包括黄家定立即纠正诺奥玛的谈话。为什么黄家定要等?或许马华中宣局可以问问黄家定。

第二、 除了没有在诺奥玛言论见报后予以驳斥,我们也要质问,为何当诺奥玛在国会发表这项‘错误’言论时,非巫统的国会议员,尤其是包括马华和马青的国会议员,没有立即打岔要求副部长纠正或澄清他的言论?

如果马华认为诺奥玛的言论是错误的,为何马华不责怪他们的国会议员没有在现场第一时间纠正诺奥玛?为何马华中宣局也不在当时驳斥诺奥玛?

还是他们已经知道‘第九大马计划下没有增建新的华淡小’是事实,或者是他们不敢打岔追问,而必须劳动行动党的非华裔国会议员代劳?

如果黄家定要在数天之后才来驳斥诺奥玛,那么他是否也应该驳斥马华的国会议员没有尽他们的责任,在第一时间之内驳斥和纠正诺奥玛的言论?

既然马华认为他们必须踏踏实实从政,那么他们也应该踏踏实实的回答这些问题?

在这里我们转摘当天的会议记录如下:

Tuan M. Kula Segaran [Ipoh Barat]: Soalan saya yang spesifik yang saya bangkitkan adalah di manakah di negara ini sekolah-sekolah baru Cina, sekolah-sekolah baru Tamil akan dibina? Saya ada bangkitkan mengenai perkara tersebut.
Dato' Haji Noh bin Haji Omar: Di dalam Rancangan Malaysia yang Kesembilan ini memang tidak ada.”

Tuan M. Kula Segaran [Ipoh Barat]: Jadi dasar kerajaan dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan tidak ada sekolah baru Cina dan Tamil akan dibina langsung? Itulah pendirian kerajaan?
Dato' Haji Noh bin Haji Omar: Setakat dalam senarai yang dibawa dalam Kementerian Pelajaran tidak ada.”

公众人士也可以同时浏览行动党电台收看当时的录影,以了解当时的情况。

明显的,当时诺奥玛不仅一次,而是两次以毫无含糊的语气表示政府并不打算在第九大马计划下增建新的华淡小。

诺奥玛也说他是根据他手上的教育部名单做出这样的回应,这也意味着从2006至2010年之间,教育部打算要兴建的180间小学没有一间是华淡小。其实,教育部长在4月/5月的国会会议时指出教育部已经准备好一份在第九大马计划下该部所要进行的发展计划的最后清单。既然名单已经出来,那么踏踏实实从政的马华可否向外公布这份清单,尤其是针对学校建设的发展计划,以及教育部在明年是否会增建任何新的华淡小?

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Wong Sai Hou should clarify whether he has vested interest in PJ Local Plan Draft Changes

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.

So far, Wong has not done or said anything on this issue. Instead of picking a stand, 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, being an MBPJ Councilor at the same time, 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, we also demand MBPJ to extend the public viewing and objection period for another four weeks under Section 13(3) of Town Planning Act 1976 so that more people can have the chance to raise their concerns and disagreements.

The PJ Action Team will write in to the relevant authority in MBPJ to seek for the extension tomorrow under the same legal provision.

甘榜冬姑区州议员黄世豪滥用市议员地位?

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,我们也要求八打灵再也市政厅在1976年城乡规划法令第13(3)条文下延长公共检验期限多四个星期,以便让更多灵市市民能够前往市政厅检阅蓝图修改。

1976年城乡规划法令第13(3)条文下,八打灵再也火箭行动队将会在明日致函八打灵再也市政厅相关单位,要求有关单位展延四周。
民主行动党主办
《从希山慕丁VS翁诗杰看:华小危机,如何突围?》讲座

日期:2006年9月28日(星期四)
时间:晚上7时30分
地点:隆雪华堂一楼会议室( 欲知隆雪华堂位置,请按这里
媒介语:华语

主讲者:国会反对党领袖林吉祥、隆雪华堂会长拿督黄汉良、民主行动党教育局主任章瑛、华总副会长兼森美兰中华大会堂主席周世扬

任何疑问请联络民主行动党(03-79578022/8127)黄伟益(019-245 9305) 或 刘永山(016-323 1563)

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Huge turn-out at DAP English Forum on NEP

An estimated 400 people turned up for the DAP forum on the National Economic Policy (NEP) and Vision 2020 last night (Sept 27, 2006), surpassing our expectations.

The upstairs hall at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall was packed and additional chairs, standing fans and a video screen had to placed on the landing to cater to people outside the hall.

We would like to apologise to those who had to sit outside the hall as we did not expect such an overwhelmingly huge turn-out.

胡亚桥应停止发表敷衍言论

针对国安部日前发函要求中文报章停止提出华小紧急拨款被“干捞”一事,如果胡亚桥‘查一下才知道’,这是令人难以信服。如果胡亚桥确实必须‘查一下才知道’,这是否意味着这封由国安部出版与可兰经文本管制组秘书仄汀尤索(Che Din bin Yusoh)代表国安部秘书长阿都阿兹尤索夫(Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof)所签发的公函并非是经过该部更高层领导人的通过或指令下发出?

除非胡亚桥在国安部被边缘化,以致他虽贵为副部长但他并不完全知道部门的操作,也无法了解部门对外的通讯内容,要不然我们无法理解为何胡亚桥贵为国安部第二号人物会发表如此的言论?


如果我们浏览国安部的
网站,我们可以发现国安部出版与可兰经文本管制组秘书一职至少比胡亚桥的副部长职还要低四级。副部长下面还有国安部政务次长、国安部秘书长以及三名国安部署理秘书长。 国安部出版与可兰经文本管制组则是隶属于负责保安事务的署理秘书长。

如果胡亚桥没有被边缘化,那么这表示胡亚桥确实知道这封信的存在,因此他根本不用再浪费时间去‘查一下才知道’,因为他本来就已经知道事情的来龙去脉,‘查一下才知道’只是他敷衍媒体追问的花招。

国安部出版与可兰经文本管制组秘书仄汀尤索是在2006年9月21日代表国安部秘书长阿都阿兹尤索夫签发一封公函给本地报章,促请报章给予合作,停止报道华小拨款的课题。

也就是这封公函,本来干等在各大华文报章夜报,关于雪州五条港新民华小校舍维修拨款被不负责任承包商‘干捞’的新闻在隔天早报临时被抽起。

五条港新民华小本来获工程部4万令吉的拨款,以维修受白蚁侵蚀的校舍,但二手承包商却表示只领取7000令吉包工费,而材料估计只花费逾5000令吉,剩余拨款用途不明。

新民华小于早前被白蚁侵蚀,学校即向政府申请拨款供作抢修用途,工程是在今年8月杪动工,并于一周内完工,惟该校仅更换教室走廊的木板桥(40尺长)、粉刷教室墙壁(10尺乘18尺)及在校长室和救护室注射白蚁药水,却耗资了4万令吉。二手商包商表明仅收取7000令吉的人工费,而工程所动用的材料及运输费,大概只需约5000令吉,因此其他款额的用途不明。

很明显的,这是另一项严重的问题。媒体如果能够详尽报道此事,那么国人将不会以为华小拨款遭人‘干捞’是冰山一角的个案,而是长期累积下来的丑闻。如果国人和政府以为这些都是个案,那么政府所采取的解决方案将会把范围缩小,只针对某些人士、特定的承包商或特定地方的华小下手。相反的,如果这种现象举国皆有,那么政府所采取的行动也当然有所不同。因此,我们绝对不能忽视媒体报道的功能及其影响力,我们更应该正视媒体在解决这方面问题所扮演的正面角色。难道国安部一味要求媒体低调处理这课题又能够解决这累计数年的老问题吗?

我们认为,媒体广泛报道此事并不一定影响人民对政府解决问题的能力。如果政府能够在第一时间采取制度性的改革,即把华小的拨款方式制度化、以及以迅雷不及掩耳的速度解决问题‘干捞’的问题,说不定政府反而还会赢得人民的赞扬。国安部官员认为媒体的广泛报道会影响人民对政府解决问题的能力,这只是国安部官员自我矮化的体现。

有鉴于此,雪州行动党要质问的是:胡亚桥发表如此敷衍言论,是不是说他要成为骑劫华小拨款的帮凶;还是他个人更本力不从心,无力监督政府施政偏差,虽然他本人贵为国安部第二号人物?

雪州行动党当然希望胡亚桥不会成为骑劫华小拨款的帮凶,因此他个人应该立即下令官员收回有关公函,并允许各语文媒体针对政府拨款遭人骑劫、滥用甚至是干捞做出详尽的报道。

我们认为,只有允许媒体报道事实,政府才能知道问题的根源。一味要求媒体‘配合’、‘合作’,低调处理敏感课题是落伍、封闭、封建、违反民主原则以及违背国阵准备听真话的承诺。

Safe in her little enclave

I received an email from M Chang which was also carbon-copied to Malaysiakini.com, indicating his/her latest frustration with BN MP for PJ Utara, YB Chew Mei Fun's comment on gated communities.

Chew was slammed that she is not only oblivious to the real issues of the day, but her opinions are naïve, condescending and insensitive, to say the least.

Below is the full content of his/her email which he/she has agreed for me to publish in this blog:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to the article in The Star titled Chew is all for gated communities, I have to say that the MP for Petaling Jaya Utara, Chew Mei Fun, has demonstrated that she is not only oblivious to the real issues of the day, but her opinions are naïve, condescending and insensitive, to say the least.

Is she advocating that we all move to gated communities – which are basically enclaves for the wealthy - just so we can feel safer.

Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, be able to rely on the police to keep our country safe for all Malaysians? Isn't she just as concerned as the rest of us that her government (I didn't vote for BN) hasn't really got a concrete plan to reduce crime and corruption in this country?

Not only does she not say much in Parliament, she doesn't seem to have a stand in matters that are of concern to the people. We have hardly heard her opinions on PJ issues, such as the billboard issue, the pest control issue (when it was raging), the increase in assessment rates, etc.

And what, pray tell, YB, is your stand on the IPCMC?

Chew is all for gated communities

From the Star Metro Tuesday:

Chew is all for gated communities

stuart@thestar.com.my

Women, Family and Community Development Ministry parliamentary secretary Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun is all for gated communities.

Having been a victim of burglary and snatch theft herself, Chew said the incidents made her decide to move to the gated community of Aman Suria Damansara in Petaling Jaya.

“I was a victim of snatch theft a few years ago while my house was burglarised last year. I was scared, so I moved to Aman Suria. It’s a safe place to come to,” she told reporters after attending a Mooncake Festival at Aman Suria last Saturday.

Wendy Chan lighting Chew’s lantern before the lantern walk.
“I feel that there will be fewer crimes if people live in gated communities where security is tight.

“Gated communities also promote a closer relationship between neighbours,” she said, adding that people who lived in villages felt safer because they knew their neighbours also watched over their houses.

She said it was sad that some people these days did not even know their neighbours.

Chew suggested that the Housing and Local Government Ministry made gated communites an example for other neighbourhoods to emulate because the practice helped prevent crime and made an area safer to live in.

Earlier, Chew joined the housing estate’s children and their parents in a 200m walk while carrying lanterns around the Aman Suria garden.

The festival, organised by the Aman Suria Residents Committee, was attended by 126 residents.

A food tasting competition was also held in conjunction with the festival. Residents prepared homemade dishes like chicken rendang, yam cake, fried rice, pasta, chicken curry, mushroom with chicken legs, seafood marinara and dessert.

Natalie Wong, 38, who made a colourful Rabbit Jelly, won the contest. There were also prizes for best costumes and best lantern. The event included a clown performance, fun and games for children and adults, and a lucky draw.

Aman Suria Residents Committee chairperson Wendy Chan said the Lantern Festival was their second and it was aimed at getting residents from th 285 houses there to mingle and get to know their neighbours.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

PJ Local Structure Plan Changes Proposal – why BN elected representatives mum on it?

The PJ Local Structure Plan Changes Proposal (Cadangan Pengubahan Rancangan Tempatan Petaling Jaya 1, RTPJ1) is now available for public viewings, comments and objections for more than three weeks but most people in PJ are still kept in dark on the proposed changes on the Structure Plan which could affect their livelihood and environment.

The Structure Plan was available for public viewing in the lobby of Petaling Jaya City Council (Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya, MBPJ) since 1st September until 29th September.

Despite the month-long public viewing period, the publicity for the proposed changes on the structure plan is not adequately planned and conducted. It is most shocking that for such an important event, the taxpayers are not adequately informed about it.

PJ Councilors and elected representatives should be the first to bear the responsibility for failing to alert the residents in their respective constituency to take early actions to raise their comments or objections to MBPJ.

MPs and ADUNs are normally invited to attend the fullboard council meeting and they should know that the proposed changes on the draft plan are available for public scrutiny from 1st September to 29th September before the draft changes are gazetted, unless there are some hidden agenda to hide some crucial information from public knowledge, hoping that the proposed changes can get through without any objection.

I would like to list down all the 23 proposed changes in the Structure Plan:
1. To convert No. 26, Jalan Universiti (Lot 414) Petaling Jaya from Limited Commercial Institution to Religious Institution.
2. To convert Lot 11, Section 52, Mukim Bandar Petaling from Car Park to Commercial purpose.
3. To convert Lot 8, Section 52, Persiaran Barat from Government Institution to Commercial purpose.
4. To convert No 16, Jalan Tinggi 6/12 from Empty Land to Housing purpose.
5. To convert Lot 141, Jalan Selangor from Limited Commercial Institution to Commercial purpose.
6. To convert Lot 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 and 63 of Jalan 5/58 and Lot 426, 428, 430, 432, 433 and 436 of Jalan 5/46 from Housing to Commercial purpose.
7. To convert Lot No. 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 and 325 of Jalan 5/44 from Commercial purpose to Housing purpose.
8. To convert No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Jalan 5/44 from Commercial purpose to Housing purpose.
9. To convert KTMB Reserve of Section 1 from KTMB Reserve to Hawkers Centre.
10. To convert Lot 83 (PKNS) of Jalan Templer, Section 51 from Government Institution to Commercial purpose.
11. To convert Lot 179 and 180 of Jalan Selangor, Section 6 from Commercial purpose to Limited Commercial Institution.
12. To convert Lot 181 of Jalan Selangor, Section 6 from Commercial purpose to Limited Commercial Institution.
13. To convert Lot 182 of Jalan Selangor, from Commercial purpose to Limited Commercial purpose.
14. To convert Sungai Way from High Tension Electric Cable Reserve to Housing purpose.
15. To convert SS9A/14 from Government Clinic to Community Centre/Library purpose.
16. To convert SS9A/2 from Drainage Department Reserve to Housing, Hawkers Centre and Recreation Park purpose.
17. To convert Lot PT 3 of Jalan 14/64 from Empty Land to Housing purpose.
18. To convert Lot PT 6947 of Jalan 20/24 of Section 20 from Housing purpose to Public Hall/Service Centre.
19. To convert No. 2 and 4 of Jalan SS2/57 and No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 11A, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of Jalan SS2/59 from Limited Commercial purpose to Housing purpose.
20. To convert Lot 7614 (PT &) of Section 17 (PERTIWI) of Jalan Universiti from Commercial purpose to Education Institution purpose.
21. To convert Lot 1 and 4 of Section 17 from Institution purpose to Housing purpose.
22. To convert Jalan 17/27 of Section 17 from Road Reserve to Market purpose.
23. To convert No. 1 Jalan 12/16 from Housing purpose to Limited Commercial purpose.

Of all these changes proposed I would like to focus on item Number 18 whereby the residents of that area had previously objected to the proposal of having a service centre cum public hall right in front of their houses twice in their meetings with MBPJ and had protested against it publicly.

Despite all their grievances, MBPJ went on to issue the Planning Permission to the developer to develop the land. Works started since half a year ago and it was put to a halt after several public pressure mounted by the residents nearby.

It seems that the Council is putting the cart before the horse by submitting a suggested change in the draft structure plan when construction had already started.

As service centres are always owned by elected representative, it is highly suspicious that Kampung Tunku ADUN, YB Dr Wong Sai Hou or PJ Utara MP YB Chew Mei Fun is connected to this suggested change in structure plan, especially when YB Dr Wong Sai Hou is also serving as a councilor for MBPJ. Moreover, MCA elected representative always maintain a record of constructing service centres cum public hall/community centre on empty lands, whether it is state lands or private lands.

Their silences are deafening and we are waiting for their clarifications.

修改八打灵再也地方大蓝图——为何国阵人民代议士只字不提?

虽然八打灵再也市政厅于2009年9月1日至9月29日公开八打灵再也地方蓝图的修改版,让市民针对大蓝图的修改提出意见和任何反对意见,但是市民对修改大蓝图的反应却异常冷淡,因为许多市民并不知道市政厅已经提出修改,而且这些修改可能对地方上的发展面貌带来巨大的改变。

任何要了解这项的修改的群众可以前往八打灵再也市政厅的大厅翻阅市政厅所作出的修改建议。其实市政厅早在9月1日就已经开放蓝图的修改建议让公众人士审核,但是由于市政厅在宣传方面的工作并不足够,因此许多市民对这项修改猛然无知。我们也是在上周五前往市政厅才知道这项修改。

我们认为这种状况非常令人惊讶和失望的。市政厅以及市议员有责任在宣传工作做足功夫,让纳税人了解蓝图修改的大纲及其重要性,并且能够针对当局的修改建议做出反对或其他建议。可惜的是,当局并没有这么做,国阵的国州市议员也没有向灵市市民作出公告。

我们失望的原因是,国州议员,尤其是国阵的国州议员通常受邀出席市政厅的月常会议,因此他们有理由知道市政厅向大蓝图所作出的修改。他们必须知道的是,如果居民没有及时向市政厅提出建议或反对,那么当局将会通过大蓝图的修改,倒是如果居民要提出任何反对就为时太晚了。他们由始至终都保持沉默,未免令人怀疑他们背后是否有隐议程。


在此,我列出市政厅针对大蓝图所作出的23项修改:


1. 把Jalan Universiti 门牌26号的Lot 414地段从限制商业用途转换成兴建宗教机构用途。
2. 把Mukim Bandar Petaling第52区的Lot 11地段从停车场用途转换成商业用途。
3. 把Persiaran Barat第52区的Lot 8地段从政府机构用途转换成商业用途。
4. 把Jalan Tinggi 6/12门牌16号从空地转换成房屋用途。
5. 把Jalan Selangor的Lot 141地段从限制商业机构用途转换成商业用途。
6. 把Jalan 5/58的Lot 53, 55, 57, 59, 61以及 63地段;以及Jalan 5/46的Lot 426, 428, 430, 432, 433及436地段从房屋用途转换成商业用途。
7. 把Jalan 5/44 的Lot 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324以及325地段从商业用途转换成房屋用途。
8. 把Jalan 5/44 门牌1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14以及15号从商业用途转换成房屋用途。
9. 把第1区的铁道局保留地转换成小贩中心
10. 把第51区Jalan Templer 的Lot 83(雪州发展机构的地段)从政府机构用途转换成商业用途。
11. 把Jalan Selangor 的Lot 179 和 180地段从商业用途转换成限制商业用途。
12. 把第6区Jalan Selangor 的Lot 181地段从商业用途转换成限制商业用途。
13. 把Jalan Selangor 的Lot 182地段从商业用途转换成限制商业用途。
14. 把双溪威火界限保留地转换成房屋用途。
15. 把SS9A/14从政府诊疗所转换成社区中心或图书馆用途。
16. 把SS9A/2 的水利灌溉局保留地转换成房屋、小贩中心及公园用途。
17. 把Jalan 14/64的Lot PT 3地段的空地转换成房屋用途。
18. 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。
19. 把Jalan SS2/57门牌2号和4号,以及Jalan SS2/59门牌1号、3号、5号、7号、9号、11号、11A号、15号、17号、19号、21号、23号、25号、27号、29号以及31号从限制商业用途转换成房屋用途。
20. 把第17区Jalan Universiti Lot 7614地段从商业用途转换成教育机构用途。
21. 把第17区白小原校附近的Lot 1和4地段从机构用途转换成房屋用途。
22. 把第17区的Jalan 17/27 的道路保留地转换成菜市场用途。
23. 把Jalan 12/16 门牌1号从房屋用途转换成限制商业用途。

在众多改变当中,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)。针对这项更改,当地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,而做出两次反对以及一次的公开抗议。

虽然如此,市政厅依然发出发展准许证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。经过一连串的民意反弹之后,有关工程才暂时停止。

看来市政厅已经本末倒置。本来市政厅应该先通过大蓝图的修改,才能发出准正给发展商发展该片土地,现在却变成市政厅允许发展商先动工,然后才来修改蓝图。

除此之外,我们也希望人民代议士(灵北区国会议员周美芬及甘榜东姑区州议员黄世豪医生)能够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,再加上马华的国州议员曾经拥有霸占他人土地兴建服务中心或民众会堂的纪录,不管这些土地是私人地段还是政府地段。因此,我希望他们能够交待一切。

Monday, September 25, 2006

DAP English Forum:

"NEP Vs Vision 2020: Where Has All Our Money Gone?"
Date: 26th September 2006 (Tuesday)
Time: 7.30pm
Venue: The KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
(No. 1, Jalan Maharajalela, K.L.)


Speakers:
Prof. Dr Lim Teck Ghee
(Former UN and World Bank Economic Advisor & Director of Centre for Public Policy Studies),

Prof. Dr Ramasamy
(Prominent UKM Professor),

YB Lim Kit Siang

Tan Sri Dato' Abdul Khalid Ibrahim
(Former Group CEO of Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd. & Former Chief Executive of Permodalan Nasional Bhd.)

Sdr Lim Guan Eng


For queries, pls contact : DAP HQ (03-7957 8022/8127) or Ng Wei Aik (019-245 9305) or Lau Weng San (016-323 1563)

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Laporan Polis Terhadap Penyalahgunaan Wang Rakyat Untuk Menaja Calon-calon Pilihanraya Kampus UM

Nama: Lau Weng San
No Kad Pengenalan: 78XXXX-XX-XXXX
Jantina: Lelaki
Alamat: No: 24, Jalan 20/9, Taman Paramount, 46300 Petaling Jaya.
Jawatan: Setiausaha Publisiti DAP Selangor.

Saya dengan nama di atas, ingin membuat satu laporan polis bahawa saya meminta pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan terhadap kejadian penyalahgunaan wang pembayar-pembayar cukai negeri Selangor oleh YB Menteri Besar Selangor, Datuk Seri Khir Toyo untuk menaja dan
memberi ganjaran kepada mahasiswa-mahasiswi yang menjadi calon pro-kerajaan dalam pilihanraya kampus Universiti Malaya sessi 2006/2007.

Mengikut laporan media elektronik Malaysiakini yang bertarikh 19hb September 2006, saya difahamkan bahawa terdapat seramai 42 mahasiswa-mahasisiwi menginap di sebuah hotel empat bintang di Petaling Jaya minggu lalu, iaitu Hotel Crystal Crown sebagai sebahagian daripada tanda terima kasih daripada kerajaan.

Mahasiswa-mahasisiwi dari Universiti Malaya (UM) ini menjadi calon pro-kerajaan dalam pilihanraya kampus yang akan berlangsung pada 21hb September 2006 ini.

Laporan itu juga menyatakan bahawa pejabat YB Menteri Besar Selangor, Datuk Seri Khir
Toyo, telah menjelaskan bil yang berjumlah lebih daripada RM5,000, atau dalam perkataan lain, wang ini adalah wang rakyat. Mereka menginap di 32 bilik – termasuk beberapa bilik eksekutif yang terletak di tingkat tertinggi hotel tersebut – yang turut ditempah. Selain daripada menginap di hotel tersebut, mereka juga kemudiannya menjamu selera di restoran hotel tersebut.

Pada 20hb September 2006, saya telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media bahawa Datuk Seri Khir Toyo mesti memperjelaskan sama ada beliau telah menyalahguna wang pembayar cukai untuk memberi ganjaran kepada calon-calon pro-kerajaan dalam pilihanraya kampus UM. Walau bagaimanapun, YB Menteri Besar belum lagi menjawab tuduhan yang dilemparkan kepada beliau ini.

Biarpun wang sebanyak RM5000 ini bukanlah jumlah yang besar tetapi soalannya bukan pada amaunnya. Ini adalah kerana Menteri Besar Selangor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo pernah terbelenggu dengan banyak skandal dan malpractices dalam pentadbiran kerajaan negeri Selangor sebelum ini.

Saya berpendapat tuduhan ini merupakan satu tuduhan yang cukup serious sehingga ianya boleh menjejaskan martabat dan maruah negeri Selangor sebagai sebuah negeri yang terulung kali mengiystiharkan dirinya sendiri sebagai negeri maju di Malaysia. Sesebuah negeri yang dikatakan maju harus menjunjung nilai-nilai pentadbiran baik dan beramanah. Pentadbiran Kerajaan Negeri Selangor di bawah kepimpinan Khir Toyo memang selalu dibelenggu dengan masalah rasuah dan penyalahgunaan kuasa. Keadaan bertambah perik dengan berlakunya skandal penglibatan politik wang oleh Pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor dalam pilihanraya kampus UM.

Dengan berasaskan prinsip-prinsip pentadbiran baik dan beramanah juga, saya meminta campur tangan daripada pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan ini memandangkan YB Menteri Besar masih enggan untuk tampil ke hadapan demi memperjelaskan tuduhan ini.

Sekian laporan saya

Lau Weng San

滥用公款干预校园选举—要求警方介入调查基尔

我今天早上前往八打灵再也警察总部,正式向警方报案,要求警方介入调查雪州州务大臣(拿督斯里基尔)办公室滥用公款,为2006/2007学年马来亚大学校园选举的亲校方阵线候选人提供免费酒店住宿和膳食。

根据网络媒体《当今大马》在2006年9月19日的
报道,我得知马大校园选举42名亲校方阵线候选人在上星期入宿八打灵再也四星级酒店,晶冠酒店,以为他们愿意站出来为校方(政府)竞选而致谢。
这些学生同时也是在2006年9月21日校园选举的亲校方阵线候选人。

报道也指出这笔超过5千令吉的开销是由雪州州务大臣拿督斯里基尔办公室所支付,意即该办公室已经滥用纳税人的款项干涉校园选举。报道指出这群学生一共入住32间房间,其中包括该酒店顶楼的几间总统套房。住了入宿酒店,学生们也在酒店享用膳食。


在2006年9月20 日,我发表了一篇紧急文告,要求州务大臣拿督斯里基尔交待此事,即他本人是否曾经滥用公款,以支付马大校园选举亲校方阵线候选人酒店住宿和膳食的方式,干涉校园选举。无论如何,周五大臣迄今尚未针对我的质问做出任何回应。

虽然这笔超过5千令吉的款项并非是一笔巨额款项,但是它始终是纳税人的金钱。而且我们不能忘记的是,雪州州务大臣拿督斯里基尔之前曾经涉及多宗滥用公款和权利的丑闻。这是前车之鉴。

既然州务大臣但敢自我宣布雪州为先进州,那么他理应展示一个先进州领导人的风范,正视这项指责,立即交待此事。我也是基于透明与良好施政的基本原则要求州务大臣这么做。

由于州务大臣一直没有交代此事,因此我要求警方能插手处理和调查此事。

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Meeting with new Mayor - PJU Allocation - Nazri should apology to disableds

Still no news about meeting with new PJ Mayor

DAP PJ Action Team had written twice to PJ Mayor’s office to seek for an appointment and wish to bring up and discuss with him several critical issues that need his urgent attention, including the recent billboard fiasco, assessment hike, high crime rate, safe city concept etc.

The first letter was sent out on 25th August 2006, that was at times when the new mayor was about to assume the post. The second letter was sent and emailed out on 19th September 2006.
Unfortunately, we have yet to receive any reply from the Mayor’s office. We do not intend to delay the meeting further and we hope the Mayor could at least give us a courtesy reply, else we will go to the Mayor’s office in near future to meet him personally.

Chew Mei Fun – please declare where you spent your allocation

In my capacity as DAP PJ Action Team Chairman, I would like to call on MCA MP for PJ Utara Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun to openly declare where she spent her RM 2 million BN MP allocation which is increased from RM 500,000 a year to RM 2 million a year for each BN constituency.

Chew Mei Fun should follow Datuk Ong Tee Keat when Ong had openly declared that he will declare where he had spent his RM 2 million allocation through his personal website. Since Ong is also an MCA Selangor MP and although all other BN MPs is obliged to come clear on this matter, I would like to urge Chew Mei Fun as MP for PJ Utara to follow suit in my capacity as DAP PJ Action Team Chairman.

We believe that this is a very vital move to hold MP and other agencies which manage public monies to be accountable to taxpayers. It is also in the name of good and accountable governance that we urge Chew to explain the whereabout of this RM 2 million allocation.

This is not a call without reason also. Recently, there have been reports that government and MPs allocation are being misused. The worry is not without reason because these monies are public monies. The taxpayers deserve their rights to know the whereabout of the monies.

Karpal scolded for not being able to stand – Chew Mei Fun should initiate a demand of apology should be put forward to Nazri in the Cabinet by KPWKM through her Minister

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz was singled out for their lack of sensitivity to the conditions and challenges faced by the disabled.

Various disabled groups yesterday slammed Nazri for being insensitive to the disabled. In fact, Nazri’s remarks is not only insulting Karpal but also the feeling and dignity of ten of thousand of disableds in this country,

The Ministry of Community, Family and Women Development should advise Nazri to avoid such remarks and demand him to tender an open apology immediately to the disableds. Chew Mei Fun as Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry should take up the initiative to speak to Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the Minister of Community, Family and Women Development to do so in the Cabinet meeting.

求见新市长·公布灵北拨款·要求纳兹里道歉

求见新市长一直毫无下文

自从八打灵再也新市长上任以来,火箭行动队已经致函市长两次,希望能够能够和市长会面,以便能够向市长反映数项问题,包括广告牌、门牌税、安全城市概念的问题。
我们的第一封信是在8月25日发出,也就是在市长初上任期间发出。第二封信则是在9月19日发出。

但是迄今为止,我们尚未获得市长办公室方面的任何回应。我们不想再拖延下去,因此我们希望市长能够在近期之内答复我们,要不然我们将会在近期之内前往市长办公室一趟,要求会见市长。

周美芬—请公布拨款详情

从今年开始,国阵国会议员的选区拨款从以往的每年50万令吉提升到200万令吉。

随着雪州马华班丹区国会议员翁诗杰日前宣布将会通过他的个人网站公布这200万令吉拨款的下落,我们也呼吁雪州国阵国会议员也做同样的公布,以示透明。

就此,我们特别呼吁本区国会议员周美芬能够向翁诗杰开启,本着透明廉洁的从政态度,公布这200万令吉拨款的去向。

既然这200万令吉国阵国会议员选区拨款是出自人民的口袋,那么也理所当然的花在人民的身上。公布拨款的下落是为了确保有关拨款不会遭不负责任的人士干捞,因为这笔拨款是人民的钱。

辱骂卡巴星不能站立—周美芬应要求部长在内阁会议要求纳兹里公开向残障人士道歉

纳兹里在周一总结首相署的财政预算案委员会阶段辩论时辱骂坐在轮椅上的卡巴星为妒嫉他不能好像他站立发言。

纳兹里贵为一名部长,他的这番话不仅伤害卡巴星的感受,同时也伤害国内数以万计的残障人士。
万绕独立生活与训练中心(Independent Living and Training Centre)负责人G·法兰西斯·西华直接要求纳兹里应该辞职,因为他在道德上已经不符合一名部长的操守。

马来西亚残障和年老人士动物治疗协会(Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association)主席T·安东尼指出政治任务更应该懂得如何准重残障人士的感受,尤其是他们不应该拿残障人士身体上的残障向有关残障人士进行人身攻击。

社会、家庭与妇女发展部应该劝诫纳兹里不应该再发出如此言论,并立即向国内残障人士道歉。而身为八打灵再也北区国会议员兼该部门政务次长的周美芬更是责无旁贷,而应该向部长拿督斯里沙莉查阿都查利在内阁要求纳兹里公开道歉。

Penginapan hotel untuk pro-aspirasi - Khir Toyo perlu jelaskan

Mengikut laporan Malaysiakini yang bertarikh 19hb September 2006, 42 orang mahasiswa menginap di Hotel Crystal Crown, sebuah hotel empat bintang di Petaling Jaya minggu lalu sebagai sebahagian daripada tanda terima kasih daripada kerajaan. Mereka ini merupakan mahasiswa-mahasiswi dari Universiti Malaya (UM) ini menjadi calon pro-kerajaan dalam pilihanraya kampus yang akan berlangsung Khamis ini.

Laporan juga menunjukkan bahawa bil yang mencecah RM5000 ini dibayar oleh Pejabat Menteri Besar Negeri Selangor, Datuk Seri Khir Toyo. Ini juga bermakna bahawa bil ini dijelaskan dengan menggunakan wang pembayar-pembayar cukai.

DAP Selangor amat terperanjat dengan laporan ini dan jikalau laporan ini benar maka ianya menunjukkan bahawa wang politk UMNO sudah meresap ke dalam kampus IPTA-IPTA tempatan.

Apa yang lebih memeranjatkan kita ialah bahawa bil ini dibayar oleh Pejabat Datuk Seri Khir Toyo. Ini menunjukkan bahawa kos penginapan dan makanan kesemua 42 orang calon ini ditanggung dengan oleh wang rakyat.


Biarpun wang sebanyak RM5000 ini bukanlah jumlah yang besar tetapi soalannya bukan pada amaunnya. Ini adalah kerana Menteri Besar Selangor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo pernah terbelenggu dengan banyak skandal dan malpractices dalam pentadbiran kerajaan negeri Selangor sebelum ini, dengan berbekalkan pengetahuan ini, Khir Toyo sekali lagi terjerumus dengan politik wang di pilihanraya kampus, sekaligus menunjukkan bahawa Khir Toyo tidak sesuai lagi untuk memimpim kerajaan negeri Selangor.

Oleh kerana ini merupakan satu tuduhan yang cukup serious, dan dengan berdasarkan prinsip pentadbiran baik dan beramanah, kami menyeru supaya Menteri Besar dapat memperjelaskan perkara ini dengan sejelas-jelasnya iaitu:
1. sama ada Menteri Besar pernah terlibat dengan skandal ini, iaitu membayar bil penginapan dan makanan calon-calon ini?
2. mengapakah Pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor boleh terlibat dalam kes ini?
3. apakah jumlah bayaran yang dibayar oleh Pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor?
4. sama ada Pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor menganjurkan aktiviti-aktiviti yang lain untuk kumpulan pelajar ini?

Kami menyerus supaya Khir Toyo boleh memperjelaskan perkara ini secepat mungkin dan kami tidak akan teragak-agak untuk membuat laporan polis jikalau Menteri Besar gagal untuk memperjelaskan perkara ini.

雪州州务大臣应该公开交待,到底州务大臣办公室是否滥用纳税人金钱作为马大‘亲校方’阵线候选人的酬劳

根据中文网络媒体《当今大马》在9月19日的报道,42名马来亚大学(马大)的“亲校方阵线”候选人在上周入住八打灵再也的四星级皇冠酒店(Crystal Crown)一晚,并在酒店的餐厅用餐,以作为参选的酬劳。

报道也指出这笔超过5千令吉的帐单却由雪兰莪州务大臣办公室支付,易言之,就是纳税人的金钱。

雪州行动党对这则新闻表示极大的震惊,因为这显示巫统的金钱政治文化已经渗透国立大专院校,严重侵袭校园民主。

更令我们震惊的是,报道指出这笔钱是由雪州州大臣拿督斯里基尔办公室所发出。这表示42名马大学生在酒店的住宿和膳食费用由纳税人的金钱支付。


虽然5千令吉并不是一笔很大的款项,但是问题绝对不在于数额的多寡,而是如果这则报道属实,那么州务大臣已经涉嫌滥用公款。州务大臣之前曾经因为早多宗丑闻缠身,如果这次在卷入校园选举的金钱政治,周五大臣已经不能继续领导雪州政府。

因此,我们认为这则报道的内容是非常严重的指责。基于良好施政和公信力的原则, 我们要求州务大臣能够一五一十的交代这事件,并交待一下问题:
1. 州务大臣本人是否曾经涉及这项活动?
2. 为何雪州州务大臣办公室会卷入其中?
3. 州务大臣办公室前后所支付的总数额?
4. 州务大臣办公室是否还有或将会赞助其他活动的经费?

我们呼吁雪州州大臣基尔能够公开澄清此事。如果州务大臣拒绝这么做,我们将会向警方报案,要求警方介入调查。

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

SPNB shall form a consultative, implementation and monitoring committee

Besides appointing private consultant to carry out opinion polls, Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad (SPNB) shall also form a consultative, implementation and monitoring committee, comprised of residents, representatives from political parties and societies to consult and monitor the construction and implementation of the third LRT system.

According to our understanding, SPNB had on June appointed a private consultant to carry out opinion poll and survey on passengers to collect suggestions and opinions from them before a full report can be issued on October and works be started next year.

The government had also in its 2007 Budget claimed that it will allocate RM 10 billion to improve public transportation system in Klang Valley form 2006 to 2010. This includes the RM 7 billion allocated for LRT systems, which will be used for the procurement of another 140 trains, expansion of PUTRA and STAR LRT system and the construction of the Third LRT System which connects Kota Damansara and Cheras.

We would like to put forward our suggestion to SPNB and the government to form a consultative, implementation and monitoring committee which will serve as a link between the people, various government agencies and various contractors involved, to ensure that the needs of the people are well taken care of as well as to ensure that an integrated and comprehensive rail link system can be put in place to really benefit the people.

It is also to ensure that the third LRT system will not repeat the errors of the first and second LRT system. SPNB CEO Shaipudin Shah Harun also admitted that the first and second LRT Systems (Star and Putra LRT Systems) lacked of comprehensive pre-construction preparation in terms of selection of stations’ locations and route selections until it fails to fulfill and cater the needs of its potential passengers.

Therefore, it is vital for the SPNB to enable the formation of the suggested committee in order for it to launch a series of interactions with people from various walks of life, as well as to educate the public on the details of the LRT system, i.e allocations, locations of the stations etc. This will also serve to encourage the public to rely on public transportations for their daily travels as well as to ease the increasingly congested traffic in Klang Valley.

Besides, the reported to be completed by the appointed private consultant could best be made available to the public and public input should be allowed before the constructions starts next year.

On the formation of the committee, I will write in to suggest it to SPNB to ensure that the RM 70 billion will be spent effectively and efficiently.

国家基建公司应该成立轻快铁咨询、监督和执行委员会

除了委任私人顾问公司进行民意调查之外,国家基建公司也应该成立轻快铁咨询、监督和执行委员会,让居民、朝野政党以及社团人士能够参与第三轻快铁计划以及相关的监督与协调工作。

根据我们的理解,国家基建公司在6月份已经为人顾问公司进行搭客民意调查和研究,预料在今年10月份将会完成这项研究报告,并且在明年开始动工。

政府在2007年的财政预算案表示政府在2006年至2010年之间将会拨出100亿令吉提升巴生谷河流域的公共交通系统,其中兴建新的轻快铁路线的将耗资70亿令吉。这70亿令吉的拨款将用来增购140辆电动火车的车厢,延长现有的两个系统轻快铁路线,以及承建一条衔接哥打白沙罗和蕉赖的轻快铁路线,既第三轻快铁路线。

轻快铁咨询、监督和执行委员会的成立是要成为人民与政府各部门及承包商的桥梁,传达民意,接洽相关单位,确保轻快铁计划能为八打灵再也、梳邦再也以及蒲种地区的居民提供更完善公共交通系统。


此举是为了确保第三轻快铁系统不会重蹈覆辙,犯上第一和第二轻快铁系统所犯上的错误。国家基建公司总执行长赛普定已经承认,第一和第二轻快铁系统在车站以及路线筛选方面做的不够全面,无法照顾到所有人士的需求,结果不能如愿吸引更多人士使用这项公共交通服务。

该委员会必须展开一系列的交流会,让各阶层人士和政党团体的人士进一步了解轻快铁路线的细节、拨款、车站数目,同时协助推广与鼓励公众使用公共交通,改善日趋严重的交通阻塞问题。国家基建公司也应该同时在10月份 公布私人顾问公司的民意调查报告,让人民以及该委员会共同审核报告书的内容。

针对此事,我本人将会亲自致函国家基建公司,建议该公司成立该委员会,以便能够共同讨论巴生谷河流域,尤其是八打灵再也、蒲种、梳邦再也等地的公共交通发展。

Monday, September 18, 2006

Six MCA Selangor MPs must follow suit by declaring how they spent their RM 2 million MP Constituency Allocations

MCA Vice President and MP for Pandan Datuk Ong Tee Keat yesterday announced that he will declare through his website on how the RM 2 million MP Constituency Allocations allocated for Pandan be spent.

He also said that he has put up a link about Constituency Affairs in his website earlier this year and public can log on to his website to check on how the allocation is spent, in which he said that the allocation is mainly used for maintaining basic infrastructure and amenities in his area.

DAP Selangor welcomes such move from Ong Tee Keat, as MP Constituency Allocations are sourced from public coffer and there is no reason why the purpose of the allocation be kept from public knowledge, in order to avoid leakages.

It is a deploring situation that such leakages are very rampant not only in schools but also in a lot of organizations.

Chairman of the Federation of Pahang Chinese Associations Tan Sri Fang Tian Xing.

The United Chinese School Managers of Pahang said that the leakage does not only take place in schools but also in various organizations, welfare societies and community societies.

He said that they have no problems with cash donations but not allocations on various facilities and infrastructure as recipients have to employ authorized contractors to carry out the works which a lot of time do not really worth the money paid.

DAP MP for Bagan Lim Hock Seng also said in a public ceramah in Penang three days ago that there are a lot of temples complained to him that some elected representatives promised to sponsor furniture worth RM3000 but the recipient must buy them from authorized dealers or companies.

There was also one incident when the temple committees was informed that 25% of the cash allocation will be deducted from the total allocation when they requested for cash allocations instead of material donations from this particular elected representative.

In the same occasion, DAP MP for Chong Eng also quoted one example that there was a BN MP who pledged RM 20,000 allocation to a church for its renovation but the church could only get RM 16,000 finally.

She said that although there were dissatisfactions but they have to bear with it as they all need the money to carry out works. It has been a norm when theh could only get RM 8,500 when the full allocation is RM 10,000. Indirectly, this kind of system is no different from encouraging more corruption.

DAP Selangor believes that such unhealthy way to distributing public money for constituency allocation must be conducted in a fair, open and transparent system while an institutionalized system must be in place for the government to pass on allocations to various welfare bodies to avoid leakages and misuse of public money, as one of the crucial long term solution that the government should kick off now.

On a short term basis, all BN Selangor MPs should start declaring how their MPs Constituency Allocations are spent and used so far. Since Ong Tee Keat is one of the seven MCA Selangor MPs who do so and he is holding high post in the government and party, we therefore urge the other six MCA Selangor MPs (Selayang – Chan Kong Choy, PJ Utara – Chew Mei Fun, PJ Selatan – Donald Lim Siang Chai, Serdang – Yap Pian Hong, Kelana Jaya – Loo Seng Kok and Klang – Tan Yee Kew) to follow suit.

呼吁雪州马华六名国会议员公布200万令吉选区拨款的用途

马华副总会长兼班丹区国会议员拿督翁诗杰昨日宣布,他将于本月内透过个人网站www.ongteekeat.com),公布本身选区200万令吉国会议员拨款的用途,以示透明。

他说,今年初,他在个人网站附上选区事务,希望公众上网查询,这笔拨款充作发展班丹选区内的各种基本设施,如舖路等细节。

雪州行动党欢迎翁诗杰这么做,因为这200万令吉的国会议员拨款的用途是纳税人的血汗钱,任何领取、处理或分发拨款的人士或机构应该公布拨款的用途。

最近闹得满城风雨的华小拨款“干捞”现象,原来并不只发生在学校,许多民间组织获得的拨款也遭染指。


彭亨华人社团联合会会长丹斯里方天兴昨天为彭亨华校董联会庆祝17周年会庆暨筹募教育基金文娱晚会主持开幕时说,最近引爆的柔佛两所华小拨款被指“干捞”现象,其实不只发生在学校,甚至在社团、慈善机构及社区等的拨款都有人染指。

他说:“历年来,我们对于现金拨款,都没有问题,只是对于软硬设施的拨款,往往只能接受当局指定的承包商或商家处理,到头来往往却发现物无所值。”

峇眼区国会议员林峰成也声称,北海有很多神庙向他投诉,有某些议员承诺拨款3千令吉赞助经费,却指定受惠单位必须通过指定公司买桌椅。

他说其中有一神庙组织找这名议员说要钱而不是要桌椅的时候,对方说要钱可以,但必须扣除25%。

大山脚区国会议员章瑛说,有一名国阵议员拨款2万令吉予一间教堂以维修危墙,然而,对方真正拿到的钱只有1万6千令吉。

她说:“许多受惠单位都不满拿拨款须被抽佣,却没有办法,因为他们都需要钱,所以,1万令吉拨款只获得8千500令吉是平常事,而这种拨款制度是鼓励贪污。”

雪州行动党认为要长远根除这种所谓“干捞”的弊病,政府应检讨拨款机制,以更透明的方式来公开招标,剔除垄断式的做法,才能确保各种拨款都能物有所值,真正让民众受惠。

短期来说,我们呼吁雪州国阵国会议员全面公布这笔选区拨款的用途。由于翁诗杰是来自马华的副部长,因此我们也希望雪州马华的其他六名国会议员(士拉央区—陈广才、八打灵再也北区—周美芬、八打灵再也南区—林祥才、沙登区—叶炳汉、格拉那再也—卢诚国、巴生区—陈仪乔)也能够向翁诗杰看齐,公布这笔选拨款的用途。

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Mat Rempit and Thomas Goh's experience

I received an email from Thomas Goh, who was on his way back from his hometowm, Sitiawan to Petaling Jaya on 9th September 2006 night when he met with a group of Mat Rempit numbered in thoudsands. It was a bad experience for him as he was trapped in the middle of the Mat Rempits' convoy.

As you all know, Putera Umno chief Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim is standing firm with his Mat Rempit despite their image as the motorcycle bad boys.

Below is his email:


Weng San,
on 9 september night around 8.30pm majority of
the group just arrived at sitiawan town.altought there
were traffic policemen and policewomen control the
traffic a lot of them still behave like "idiot
bastard" doing the stunt driving, no helmet, girls in
sexy clothing,their number plates unreadable. Majority
of them do not have luggage with them(those who have
it approx 500 only).That time my family just finish
dinner at Sitiawan town and heading to Lumut town for
a walk.
The way they riding their bikes endanger others
road users, not event the law enforcers able to
control the scenario.And i do not know whether all the
participants registered with the PUTERA UMNO. around
100-200 of them whom i saw was heading to KG.sitiawan,
lumut,Sumudera at Sri MANjung...these are the "stray
piglets." which PUTERA UMNO claim to disown them,when
they being caught for drunk,intimate attitude by the
religious officers.
certain group do not stay at the camp or the
chalet,the went up the hill side of the beach and the
nearby waterfall areas...these promoted the "khawalt"
and the "SIN ACtivities...". whole night long they
hardly slept and drunk, how they able to do the
charity activities and the "gotong-royong."
The whole project was fail... the people who actually
did the job were the actual PUTERA UMNO members around
5% of the group who dress up good look to be taken
into press and media.(a drama show shown by the PUTERA
UmNO.)just figure 8,000 peoples how to mobile them to
take instruction to work.
unfortunately the second day(10/9) around 4.30pm
while i departed Sitiawan heading toward KL,I met
these whole group of "monkeys and hooligan".
they ride dangerously occupied both lanes of the
road ignoring the coming traffic from opposite
direction,around 500 infront and back each surounded
my car.(whole journey from sitiawan to Teluk Intan
around 50km with i being forced to drive around 20-40
kmh).here nobody controll them..no more police escort,
the whole road belong to them...legal mat rempit stunt
show live for the villages to watch whom were sending
them off at the road side.
just imaging a small accident will involved
scarifying a lot of life bacause it pilled up.

Benarkan SUHAKAM masuk jika yakin

Menteri Pengajian Tinggi Datuk Mustapa Mohammend berkata pada hari Jumaat bahawa SUHAKAM tidak diperlukan untuk memantau pengendalian pilihanraya kampus yang bakal diadakan di semua IPTA kecuali Univerisit Utara Malaysia (UUM), kerana Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi (KPT) mempunyai keyakinan dengan pihak Universiti dalam pengendalian pilihanraya kampus.

Beliau turut mengatakan bahawa jikalau SUHAKAM dibenarkan masuk ke dalam kampus, ianya menunjukkan bahawa KPT tidak mempunyai keyakinan pada pihak Universiti.

Ini ialah apa yang diutarakan oleh Mustapa semasa mereka berjumpa dengan segolongan mahasiswa-mahasiswi pro-establishement, yang sedang memegang tampuk kepimpinan Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa di kebanyakan IPTA sekarang di Pusat Perdagangan Dunia Putra (Putra World Trade Centre, PWTC) pada hari Jumaat bersama-sama dengan Timbalam Perdana Menteri (TPM), Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

DAPSY berasa amat kecewa dengna hujah-hujah Menteri ini kerana SUHAKAM harus dibenarkan masuk jikalau KPT benar-benar percaya dan yakin bahawa pilihanraya kampus yang bakal dijalankan dapat dijalankan dengan telus, adil dan saksama. Apabila SUHAKAM tidak dibenarkan masuk, ini sebenranya menunjukkan bahawa KPT sendiri pun mengesyaki sama ada pilihanraya kampus dapat dijalankan dengan telus dan adil biarpun KPT tidak bercakap sedemikian.

Sebenarnya, persoalan sama ada sesuatu pilihanraya itu ialah pilihanraya yang adil dan telus bergantung kepada dua faktor utama:

Pertama, sama ada pihak Universiti betul-betul mengikut undang-undang dan peraturan-peraturan yang diperuntukkan,
Kedua, sama ada pihak pemantau pilihanraya bebas dari luar kampus, termasuk SUHAKAM, dibenarkan masuk ke kampus untuk memantau pengendalian pilihanraya kampus.

Ingin kami tekankan di sini ialah bahawa pemantauan pilihanraya tidak hany dihadkan kepada pilihanraya kampus sahaja, malahan dalam sejarah perjalanan pilihanraya umum di negara kita, terdapat juga badan-badan pemantau pilihanraya asing yang diundang khas oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) untuk datang ke Malaysia demi memantau perjalanan proses pilihanraya di Malaysia.

Satu contoh yang paling baik ialah pilihanraya umum pada tahun 1990, di mana SPR menjemput badan pemantau pilihanraya Komanwel untuk datang ke negara kita untuk memantau perjalanan proses pilihanraya pada tahun 1990.

Dengan itu, kita boleh mengatakan bahawa perjalanan proses pilihanraya dengan pemantauan badan bebas merupakan satu perlaksaan proses demokrasi paling asas yang tidak boleh dilengah-lengah atau dilalaikan. Apabila KPT tidak membenarkan SUHAKAM untuk memantau pengendalian proses pilihanraya IPTA, maka ini juga menunjukkan bahawa Menteri Pengajian Tinggi, Datuk Mustapa Mohammed langsung tidak menunjukkan keinginan politiknya untuk melaksanakan pembaharuan-pembaharuan yang sudah lama dinanti-nantikan ini.

高教部应允许大马人权委员会监督国立大专院校选举

高教部长拿督幕斯达法昨日表示大学校园选举不需要大马人权委员会的监督,因为该部对大学校方有信心。

他指出:“如果让大马人权委员会监督大学校园选举,显示该部不信任校方。”

拿督幕斯达法是在吉隆坡太子世界贸易中心和副首相拿督斯里纳吉敦拉萨,会见亲校方派系的学生代表理事会成员后向报界发表这样的谈话。

社青团对幕斯达法的谈话表示失望。如果高教部对校方有信心,高教部应该允许大马人权委员会监督国立大专院校选举。高教部不允许大马人权委员会进入校园监督校园选举,显示高教部本身也质疑校方能否公正透明的进行校园选举。

其实,校园选举是否能够在公正透明的状况下进行,有赖于两大因素:


第一、校方是否依据法律或校园的条规进行选举。
第二、外来的独立监督团体是否允许进入校园监督选举的进行。

监督选举的进行并不只限于校园选举,我国全国大选也曾经在许多非政府组织和外国团体的监督下进行,不管他们是否得到官方邀请来监督我国的全国大选。其中一个最好的例子就是1990年的全国大选。当时的选举委员会更邀请共和联邦国家所组成的选举监督团前来马来西亚监督1990年全国大选的进行。

我们姑且不谈全国大选是否能够在有监督的状况之下公正透明地进行,但是这是最基本的民主程序的体现。高教部如果不敢让得到官方承认的大马人权委员会进入校园监督校园选举,可见高教部在新上任部长的领导之下并没有意愿通过这一次的校园选举向世人证明高教部愿意大刀阔斧的改革大马的高等教育,让大马的高等教育领域能够呈现百花盛放、百鸟争鸣的状况。

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Menyeru kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk memberi perhatian serious terhadap pengusiran peneroka-peneroka bandar di Selangor

DAP Selangor menyeru kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk mengambil tindakan dan memberi bantuan kepada peneroka-peneroka bandar yang terus diusir oleh syarikat-syarikat pemaju swasta. Kami berpendapat bahawa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor tidak harus mendiamkan diri dalam perkara ini dengan alasan bahawa tanah-tanah yang terlibat bukan tanah kerajaan.

Harus kami tekankan di sini ialah di Selangor, kebanyakkan tanah yang diduduki oleh oeneroka-peneroka bandar ini merupakan tanah swasta ataupun tanah kerajaan yang ditukarmilik kepada pemaju-pemaju swasta.

Malangnya, pemaju-pemaju swasta ini selalunya memakan janji, tidak mengikut peruntukkan kontrak, memberi pampasan yang tidak mencukupi atau langsung tidak memberi pampasan, tidak memberi penempatan semula yang mencukupi, dan semua ini menyebabkan mereka terpaksa diusir keluar daripada bandar-bandar yang mereka selama ini bangunkan dengan tenaga kudrat mereka.

Kami juga ingin menekankan bahawa tempat yang mereka duduki ini tidak sepatutnya dipanggil sebagai “setinggan”. Kebanyakkan daripada mereka ini merupakan mereka yang menyahut seruan daripada Kerajaan Perikatan (iaitu Kerajaan Barisan Nasional sekarang) untuk berpindah dari kampung mereka ke bandar untuk meneroka dan membangunkan bandar-bandar yang kita ada sekarang.

Pada masa itu, kerajaan memberi tanah, menempatkan mereka di tepi tasik lombong ataupun sungai. Rumah yang mereka dirikan itu biarpun diiktiraf oleh kerajaan dan diberi bekalan elektrik dan air, malaha ada sesetangah mereka mendirikan cawangan-cawangan parti komponen BN di tempat itu, tetapi kos pembinaan rumah ini selamanya ditanggung oleh mereka sendiri. Oleh itu, kerajaan tidak harus mengusir mereka keluar daripada tempat mereka dengan cara kekerasan atau cara ala-samseng tanpa memberi pampasan yang mencukupi.

Mereka ini semalam datang ke Parlimen untuk menyerah satu memorandum kepada Perdana Menteri.


Dalam pada itu, cara penanganan masalah ini oleh Kerajaan telah jelas tidak mengikut peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Deklarasi Habitat Agenda 1992, termasuk peruntukan di mana kerajaan jikalau ingin membangunkan kawasan tersebut mesti meminta pendapat daripada peneroka-peneroka bandar, kerajaan juga perlu mengiktiraf hak milik tanah mereka dan jikalau terdapat pemindahan geran tanah. Kerajaan juga perlu cuba membawa mereka untuk berunding dnegan pihak pemaju sebelum sebarang tindakan roboh rumah diadakan.

Walaupun memorandum itu diserah kepada YAB Perdana Menteri tetapi kami berpendapat Menteri Besar Selangor tidak boleh lari daripada tanggungjawabnya. Lebih-lebih lagi, mereka ini telah memberi sumbangan yang besar kepada pembangunan perindustrian dan perdagangan di Selangor.

Sekarang, terdapat 27 buah kawasan peneroka bandar yang telah dirobohkan, dan dalam proses perobohan ini, Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) telah meminta bantuan daripada FRU, PDRM untuk menahan peneroka-peneroka yang cuba melindungi rumah mereka daripada diroboh. Kadang-kala PBT menggunakan Ordinan Darurat 1969 untuk mengusir penduduk-penduduk ini.

Salah satu contoh yang paling baik ialah operasi roboh rumah di Kampung Maha Tambahan, Taman Datuk Harun, Petaling Jaya. Operasi berkenaan dipimpin oleh YDP MPPJ pada masa itu, iaitu Datuk Termizi di bawah Ordinan Darurat 1969 yang mana operasi berkenaan sepatutnya tidak sah kerana rumah-rumah peneroka bandar itu terletak di atas tanah swasta dan Ordinan Darurat hanya boleh diterimapakai ke atas tanah kerajaan.

Dan di antara 27 kawasan yang dimaksudkan tadi, satu pertiga daripada penduduk-penduduk itu tidak diberi rumah sementara oleh pemaju apabila mereka diusir daripada rumah mereka. Terdapat juga rumah sementar yang tidak siap dibina walaupun sudah dijanjikan. Ada juga yang terletak terlalu jauh daripada tempat kerja mereka.

Kesengsaraan yang dirasai oleh mereka ini cukup mencerminkan kehilangan demokrasi di Selangor. DAP Selangor dan ADUN kami di DUN Selangor selalunya menghadapi masalah untuk mengetengahkan suara rakyat tertindas di DUN Selangor kerana DUN Selangor hanya bersidang lima hari setahun dan ini ternyata amat kekurangan untuk ADUN-ADUN sekalian untuk membincangkan isu-isu rakyat dengan mendalam. Oleh itu, kami berharap rakyat boleh membuat pilihan yang bijaksana dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang dengan membuat pilihan yang betul untuk mengubah nasib mereka.

要求雪州政府正视城市开拓者遭驱逐的问题

雪州政府应该正视城市开拓者被私人公司无情驱逐的问题,而不是一直以他们所居住的土地为私人土地为理由而拒绝提供合法房屋予他们。

在雪兰莪州,大部分城市开拓者所聚居的地方都是私人土地,或者是政府转让给私人发展商的土地。

可悲的是,私人发展商往往食言、毁约,赔偿不足甚至毫无赔偿、没有妥善安置城市开拓者等,导致这群居民如今被逼走出定居数十年的木屋区,幡然发现这个自己曾经开拓的城市,已无容身之地。

城市开拓者居住的木屋区并不能被归纳为“非法木屋区”,其中大部分是应1970年代联盟(现为国阵)政府的呼吁,从乡区搬迁到城市,共同发展国家。

政府提供土地、废矿湖、河边的荒地,让他们建筑自己的屋子。政府承认了他们的存在,给予电源、水供。在这些乡村中,更有许多有国阵成员党的支部。

这份由超过十个木屋区代表是在昨日前往国会提交一份连署备忘录予首相。他们认为开拓该土地的人,为废矿湖填土、铲平土地、开荒,一切开荒的费用、承建屋子的开销都由他们承担,因此政府不能强制、无理驱逐他们。


马来西亚政府在处理木屋区事件过程中,违反了政府本身签署的1992年人居议程宣言(Deklarasi Habitat Agenda),其中包括政府在发展木屋区时并没有寻求当地居民意见、政府不承认城市开拓者的拥有权、地契的转手并没有咨询开拓者、政府没有努力促成发展商与开拓者共同发展该地、未经城市开拓者同意、强硬驱逐开拓者、甚至摧毁他们的屋子。

虽然备忘录是提交给首相,但是雪州行动党认为雪州州务大臣难究其责。土地问题、地契问题、房屋问题、地方政府执法等问题都是州政府的权限,州政府绝对有责任提供良好舒适的居住环境给雪州的城市开拓者,更何况他们为雪州的工商业发展做出巨大的贡献。

全国共有27个城市开拓者的木屋区被拆毁,其中一些在被拆毁的过程中,地方政府甚至出动了镇暴队、警察,逮捕捍卫木屋区的居民,还援引1969年紧急状态法令驱逐当地居民。

其中一个最好的例子就是八打灵再也Kampung Maha Tambahan木屋区。地方政府(即当时的八打灵再也市议会)执法组在当时的市议会主席拿督特米兹的亲自带领下拆除居民的木屋。市议会主席当时是援引1969年紧急状态法令驱逐当地居民。

在27个木屋区中,其中三分之一的木屋区居民在被驱逐时,并没有获得发展商的任献议。当然,“替代组屋尚未建好,木屋已经被拆毁”的案例也不少,再不然就是发展商食言、毁约,没有给予所承诺的赔偿。

发展商所安排的廉价组屋环境危险,导致一些已经搬迁的城市开拓者重返旧居。另外,新组屋的地点距离原居太远,导致常年在当地做工维持生计的居民,面对交通问题,再加上雪州的公共交通系统不发达,而且到处都是收费大道,导致他们生活在水深火热的状况之中。

这一切再再显示在缺乏充足的民主空间下,雪兰莪已经成为一个压迫地下人民生活的州属。州政府没有理由拒绝城市开拓者对合法房屋和土地拥有权的权利。雪州行动党屡次希望通过我们的唯一一名州议员在州议会里面多次提出低下阶层人民所面对的问题,但碍于雪州州议会缺乏民主,导致我们的州议员英雄无用武之地,无法通过雪州最高的立法机关为民伸张正义。这是身为先进州的最大耻辱。

国立大专如何进行校园选举将反映高教部修改《大专法令》的立场

社青团对即将在下周举行的校园选举表示关注,并认为校方在进行校园选举所展现的态度将反映高教部在修改《大专法令》方面所采取的立场。

经过数年来各项课题的困扰,此次校园选举也是新上任高教部长的一个测验。高教部长是否能够公正、透明和开放地处理全国各国立大专的校园选举,将会对我国高教部的发展扮演中压迫的角色。

我们也认为,我国国立大专经过这数年来的风风雨雨,现在已经是时候让新上任的高教部部长拿督慕斯达法展现他的领导才能,而要做到这点的第一步就是允许大马人权委员会进入校园监督校园选举的进行和操作,而不是背其道而行,拒绝让委员会进入校园监督选举。

人权委员会委员西华苏巴马廉昨日表示,高教部长慕斯达法已拒绝大马人权委员会进入国立大专监督下周进行的校园选举。西华昨日下午在吉隆坡的委员会总部接受学生的投诉后向记者这么透露。他说,委员会在上个月与慕斯达法举行会议,之后也在本月1日与各国立大专的校长开会,但是两者都拒绝人委会进入各大专监督校园选举的要求。

高教部长应该了解,允许人权委员会进入校园观察校园选举并不能被无理及简单地诠释为亲学生阵线的胜利,反之这应被视为正常民主制度运作的常态。


须知道,大马人权委员会是国会通过成立的官方机构,目标是要在大马推广人权概念的认识和尊重。除非高教部长交待为何不允许人权委员会进入校园,否则我们将会在国会内外继续向高教部施压。

第二、高教部在来届校园选举应该恢复使用 2001年之前的选举条规。马大新青年协会昨日发表的文告指出刚公布的马大2006/07年校园选举条例,依然规定学生的投票地点设在各宿舍礼堂和学生活动中心。此举是要让校方更容易追踪学生的选票,也导致学生因担心受到秋后算帐,而改变他们的投票倾向。

此外,马大也继续沿用一些在上届校园选举中受到争议的条例,如候选人须自掏腰包印制政纲、候选人平均累积学分(CGPA)须高过3.0、不能通过媒体宣传、选举委员会主席由副校长担任、禁止候选人公开结盟并提出共同竞选宣言、将竞选期限从以前的5天缩短至现在的两三天、设立电子投票与具有编号的选票、候选人必须通过演讲测验或面试等等。此外,在2001年以后,校方也惯常以恐吓的手段来威吓学生和候选人,意图制造白色恐怖。


2001年之前的校园选举条规相对于现在的条规来得简单,而且一向以来,这些简单的条规并没有带来严重的问题。

校园选举是一个让学生参与校园政治的重要平台。如果连这方面校方也无法让大专生自由发挥他们的才华,这对提升国内大专教育素质来说是一项重大的打击。

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Seruan sembilu daripada Noritta...

Sebagai seorang yang mempunyai perasaan, saya merasa sungguh sedih, marah, geram dan kecewa apabila membaca laporan media mengenai cubaan Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (MPAJ) untuk merobohkan khemah (saya ulangi: khemah) setinggan di Batu 8, Hulu Kelang. Tidak puaskah dengan tindakan merobohkan rumah mereka baru-baru ini?

Hati saya pedih bagaikan ditusuk sembilu apabila melihat wajah seorang anak yang sedang mengharungi ujian Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) hanya mampu duduk termenung memandang sisa-sisa runtuhan rumahnya tatkala pegawai MPAJ masih berada di situ.

Bayangkanlah perasaan anak ini, hanya berusia 12 tahun, dan tidak termampu berbuat apa-apa apabila jentolak meranapkan rumah dan segala miliknya. Hanya air mata dan tangisan yang tinggal. Yang lain semuanya ranap bersama-sama rumah yang didiami sejak kecil.

Saya tidak pernah kenal Shariman atau saudara kandungnya yang lain yang berusia antara dua hingga 13. Saya juga tidak pernah mengenali ayah atau ibu Shariman. Tetapi, saya ulangi, saya ada perasaan.


Anak kecil ini, apabila ditanya wartawan sama ada dia tahu masalah yang sedang menimpa keluarganya, menjawab: "Saya tak tahu, dan kami tak buat apa-apa. Mengapa mereka (MPAJ) buat begitu". Saya yakin jawapan ini lahir dari hati yang tulus, yang ikhlas dan yang suci.

Saya faham MPAJ ada perintah mahkamah untuk melakukan ini. Dari segi perundangan, tindakan MPAJ ini memang tak perlu dipertikaikan lagi. Tetapi apakah maknanya apabila undang-undang tidak dilaksanakan pada masa dan tempat yang sesuai? Di manakah akal yang dianugerahkan kepada kita?

Dalam kita melaung-laungkan keadilan untuk rakyat Lebanon dan Palestin, kita alpa dengan apa yang berlaku di depan mata kita. Tidak ada bezanya dengan tangisan air mata anak kecil di Gaza yang rumahnya diranapkan jentolak Israel dengan tangisan anak-anak di Hulu Kelang yang rumahnya diranapkan jentolak MPAJ.

Kepada bapak menteri, Yang Berhormat, Dato'-Dato', Tan Sri-Tan Sri, jenguk-jenguklah masalah mereka ini. Mungkin ada dari kalangan warga emas itu yang dahulunya menggadai nyawa di belantara melawan komunis.

Mungkin ayah dan ibu merdeka dahulu adalah pejuang kemerdekaan. Paling kurangpun, tangan-tangan merekalah yang bekerja di kilang-kilang atau menyapu sampah di jalanan.

Kerajaan Negeri Selangor gagal menangani masalah banjir – tuduhan melulu atau lari daripada tanggungjawabnya?

Menteri Besar Selangor Datuk Seri Dr. Khir toyo telah pada 12hb September menyatarkan bahawa tuduhan bahawa kerajaan negeri gagal menangani masalah banjir dengan baik adalah tuduhan melulu yang bertujuan untuk menjatuhkan imej kerajaan negeri.

Kami berpendapat bahawa MB tidak seharusnya asyik menuding jari terhadap orang lain tanpa melihat apakah kelemahan pada kerajaan negeri sendiri kerana ini bukannya kali pertama berlakunya banjir yang sebegini serious di Selangor tahun ini. Pada bulan Februari yang lepas, satu banjir kilat yang jauh lebih serious telah melanda kawasan yang sama dan kerajaan negeri Selangor di bawah kepimpinan Khir Toyo sudah sepatutnya mempelajari pengajarannya, apatah lagi negeri Selangor di bawah kerajaan pimpinan Khir Toyo sudah mengisytiharkan dirinya sendiri sebagai negeri maju.

Apa yang patut dilakukan oleh Khir Toyo ialah untuk memperjelaskan keadaan sebenarnya dan ini paling baik dilakukan pada bulan Mac yang lepas apabila kerajaan negeri mempunyai peluang untuk membentangkan satu kertas putih di DUN Selangor pada 14hb Mac untuk memperjelaskan segala-galanya.

Ini antaranya merupakan seruan utama DAP Selangor semasa berlakunya kejadian banjir besar pada bulan Februari.


Malangnya, seruan ini tidak dihirau langsung. Dan apabila MB sendiri tidak ingin tampil memberi penjelasan kepada rakyat, bagaimana MB boleh menolak segala tanggungjawabnya kepada orang lain dan mendakwa bahawa tuduhan-tuduhan terhadap kerajaan negeri sebagai tuduhan melulu?

Saya sendiri telah melawat ke tempat kejadian iaitu Kampung Melayu Kebun Bunga untuk memantau keadaan di situ dan saya mendapati keadaan itu sangat serious di mana jalan-jalan di sana begitu becak dan penduduk-penduduk kampung menuduh bahawa air banjir mencecah ke paras satu meter dalam. Kedalaman air sebegini cukup untuk melemaskan mana-mana budah kecil.

Malangnya, saya tidak melihat apa-apa bantuan kemanusiaan ataupun skuad pembantu daripada agensi kerajaan untuk membantu penduduk-penduduk kampung. Yang kelihatan ialah penduduk-pendudk sendiri yang kena bertungkus-lumus membersihkan kampung halaman masing-masing dan banyak harta benda mereka yang rosak akibat ditenggelami air banjr.

Inilah mentaliti yang ditonjolkan oleh kerajaan negeri yang kononnya sebuah kerajaan yang mengurus negeri yang maju.

Siapa yang boleh dipersalahkan kecuali MB sendiri jikalau kerja-kerja penanganan banjir ini tidak dijalankan dengan baik dan betul.

州政府没致力治水——恶意中伤还是逃避责任?

雪州州务大臣拿督斯里基尔医生与9月12日表示有关州政府没有致力解决水患的谈话,是不正确的指责,同时也有蓄意出中伤的成分。

州政府不能一味指责他人蓄意中伤州政府,反之应该正视本身的问题,即为何发生225雪州大水灾之后,一个管理‘先进州’的州政府依然没有办法良好地处理雪州的水患问题,尤其是州首府莎亚南的水患问题。

我们认为,与其以毫无说服力的解释来尝试掩盖事情的真相,州政府倒不如履行其最基本的任务向州民交待,而最好的场合就是在州议会里提呈白皮书。


在上一次2月25日发生在州首府莎亚南的大水患,雪州行动党曾经呼吁州政府在周一会提成一份白皮书,向人民一五一十的交代为何归为‘先进州’的雪兰莪州州首府能够一雨成灾。

当时,我们呼吁州政府必须在3月14日的州议会会议向州议会提呈一项白皮书,已全面解释这场水灾发生的来龙去脉(包括为何白沙罗河水位升高警报系统失灵)、州政府将采取什么补救行动(包括州政府是否准备赔偿灾黎)等等。

基尔当时在水灾发生后指出,虽然水利灌溉局在白沙罗河装置水位升高警报系统,但是该警报系统却无法在水灾发生当天操作,故他将要求该局提呈报告(见2月27日《星洲日报》大都会ME05页)。

当时,雪州行动党也要求州政府针对以下问题做出答复:

一、 有鉴于当时的严重水灾导致严重损失(逾九千名居民被紧急疏散、超过三千间屋子遭受破坏、一千辆交通工具被洪水淹没),州政府是否准备向灾黎做全面赔偿?如果不,州政府的理由是什么?
二、 南北大道高级工程师卡马如查曼当时向传媒表示水灾是因为白沙罗河上游过度开发所致。州政府必须解释这是否有牙直利(Guthrie)集团在武吉日落洞的房屋发展计划所致?仰或这是由于农业公园过渡开发所致?
三、 莎亚南区国会议员(兼乡村与区域发展部部长)拿督阿都阿兹斯三苏定当时表示附近地理位置较高的发展计划导致大量雨水无法均匀的流入白沙罗河而纷纷流入低洼地区,导致水灾。州政府因此是否愿意公布地理位置较高发展计划的环境影响评估报告?

然而这些问题迄今依然没有获得任何答案,更甭用说要提呈任何白皮书。如此不负责任的态度,周五大臣如何能够罪怪别人为‘蓄意中伤’?
其次,我本人在周日下午前往灾区(Kampung Melayu Kebun Bunga)视察情况,发现当地的情况非常严峻。由于甘榜的道路泥泞处处,因此一般汽车无法驶入,当地村民向我投诉,虽然当时水深将近一尺,并足以淹死任何孩童,但是州政府在水灾发生时和发生后并没有提供任何援助予当地村民,我也没有看到任何州政府机构的工作人员在现场提供人道援助。

莎亚南号称先进州的首府,理应在天灾管理方面展现现今州所应有的管理素质。虽然如此,从225大水灾到上周六所发生的水灾,我们看到一个事实,那就是雪州政府不仅无法展示第一世界的思维,甚至连第一世界的设备也乏善可陈。这也一再现实州政府在上一次水患后依然还没有兑现搞好治水的承诺。

治水工作做不好,基尔除了怪自己之外,还能够怪谁?

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

致函吉隆坡市政厅,呼吁吉隆坡市长针对隆南垃圾转运站计划的去留尽早做出交代

我今日上午正式电邮和传真吉隆坡市政厅市长,呼吁市长吉隆坡市长针对隆南垃圾转运站计划的去留尽早做出交代。有关计划是由Cywaste私人有限公司在甘榜波何承建,并在今年一月初通过媒体曝光。由于该计划深深影响雪州金銮镇和蒲种一带居民的日常生活,因此该计划从曝光迄今已经引起该地区人民的强烈反对。

对于中央政府是否继续进行有关计划,居民的询问一直不得下文。由于房屋及地方政府部政务次长拿督苏巴马廉医生今年4月在国会下议院回答问题时指出吉隆坡市政厅才是决定该计划是否进行,因为吉隆坡市政厅才是这个计划的主人。

吉隆坡市政厅必须尽快针对这个计划的去留作出一个明确的交代,而不是一再拖延,因为有关计划深深影响当地人民的日常生活。

我个人希望市长本身或其下属能够针对我的询问作正式回函。

Billboard scandal – Land Offices in Selangor to bear the blame?

Although the Auditor-General’s report on Federal Government and it’s agencies activities were tabled simultaneously on 1st September together with 2007 Budget, the Audirot-General’s report on various State Government and their agencies activities were only tabled yesterday in the Parliament.

After spending one whole night to flip through the report, it is interesting that Auditor-General is also interesting in billboards in Selangor, when the Auditor-General Office discovered that there are billboards built on Government land without Temporary Occupancy License (TOL).


The Auditor-General has conducted an audit on the management of Temporary Occupancy License (TOL) in all the Land and District Offices in Selangor, only to discover that the Offices failed to fully adhere to the rules and regulations prescribed when processing the applications of TOL.

There are altogether nine Land and District Offices in Selangor, namely Gombak, Klang, Kuala Langat, Kuala Selangor, Petaling, Sabak Bernam, Sepang, Hulu Langat and Hulu Selangor. The Office of Auditor-General only audited six Land and District Offices, i.e. Klang, Kuala Langat, Kuala Selangor, Petaling, Hulu Langat and Hulu Selangor.

A total of 475 application received by the six Land Offices from 2003 to 2005, while only 38 applications were approved, 79 were rejected and 358 delayed.

There were 248 applications filed with the Petaling Land and District Offices, which mainly cover areas under the jurisdiction of Petaling Jaya City Hall (MBPJ) and Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ).

It was also mentioned that certain advertising companies did not know that they have to apply for TOL from the Land Offices before they can proceed with the applications for license from Local Councils.

It is also concluded that there is no coordination between the State Government, Land and District Offices, Land and Mineral Offices and Local Councils to ensure that billboard licenses be only issued when the applicants (advertising firms) prove to the Councils their proofs of obtaining TOLs for their proposed billboards.

There was also no action taken against billboards without TOLs.

The questions are:
1. Do Local Councils aware of the requirement for any advertising companies to apply for a TOL before they apply their licenses from Local Councils, thus advising the companies to do so as necessary?
2. Since most of these billboards stand on government lands, which are under the jurisdiction of the Land Office, why has the Land Office not taken any action against the MBPJ or the concessionaires?
3. The Auditor-General mentioned that such negligence had caused revenue loss for the State Government. Is there any projection or estimates of how much the losses could be?
4. Could this claim by the Auditor-General means that some of the so called “legal” billboards in Petaling Jaya, which is approved and granted with MBPJ’s licenses, are not legal in full as these billboards may not have TOL?
5. It was earlier reported from the press that there are 172 billboards which are deemed to be illegal and are to be taken down. Apart from the, there are several hundred other unlicensed billboards all over Petaling Jaya. It was reported widely in the press recently that only 282 out of 800 billboards erected in PJ were licensed by MBPJ (this means that there are at least another 518 unlicensed billboards). Could these mean that the actual number could be larger?

The billboard fiasco is a consequence of a serious lack of transparency, accountability and poor governance. The scandal has strengthened our legitimate call for the restoration of local government elections.

DAP PJ Action Team and DAP Selangor will attempt to get to the bottom of the matter and a thorough study will be conducted on the Auditor-General report.

广告牌丑闻——雪州土地局也必须承担责任?

总稽查师昨日在国会下议院会议提呈各州的稽查报告书。

雪州行动党发现总稽查师针对雪州各县土地局在处理广告牌的临时地契进行稽查研究。总稽查师发现雪州各县土地局没有依照原有的条规处理广告牌临时地契的申请,而且总稽查师也发现许多广告牌并没有获得临时地契。


雪州共有九个土地局。这九个土地局是依据雪州九个县而设立的。这九个县是峨唛县、巴生县、瓜拉冷岳县、瓜拉雪兰莪县、八打灵县、莎白安南县、雪邦县、乌鲁冷岳县以及乌鲁雪兰莪县。总稽查师只是稽查六个土地局,即巴生县、瓜拉冷岳县、瓜拉雪兰莪县、八打灵县、乌鲁冷岳县以及乌鲁雪兰莪县土地局。

总稽查师的报告显示从2003年至2005年,这六个土地局一共收到475份广告牌临时地契申请书,其中被批准的只有38份,79份被拒绝,其他358份被展延。

在这475份申请书当中,有248份是向八打灵县土地局提出的申请。众所周知,八打灵县土地局所管辖的范围涵盖八打灵再也市政厅和梳邦再也市议会所管辖的范围。

总稽查师也指出许多广告公司不知道他们还得向各县土地局为他们的广告牌申请临时地契,他们大多以为只要获得地方政府的准证便可以在所建议的地方建立广告牌。

总稽查师也指出州政府、土地局以及地方政府之间没有很好地协调广告牌准证,尤其是地方政府必须确保广告公司成功获得土地局颁发的临时地契后,方能发放广告准证给广告公司。

总稽查师也点出土地局并没有采取任何行动对付这些广告公司。

我们所要提出的问题是:
第一、 地方政府是否知道,任何广告公司如果要在州政府的土地上建立广告牌,他们必须先向各县土地局申请临时地契?有或者地方政府如果知道有关条件之后,有无要求不知情的广告公司这么先向土地局申请临时地契?
第二、 既然大部分广告牌是坐落在州政府所拥有的土地,再加上土地局知道这些广告牌没有地契,为何土地局不采取向地方政府或广告公司行动?
第三、 总稽查师指出这导致州政府的地税收入减少。到底所预计的地税损失是多少?总稽查师或土地局是否曾经作出一个预算?
第四、 这是否意味着之前灵市市政厅所说的‘合法’广告牌也很可能因为没有临时地契而成为非法广告牌?
第五、 在这之前,八打灵再也市政厅指出共有172面非法广告牌(意即没有向市政厅申请广告准证)。非正式计算指出灵市一共有800面广告牌,只有282面获得准证,这意味着其他518面广告牌没有获得市政厅的广告准证。总稽查师的报告是否也意味着这282面广告牌当中也有一部分是没有临时地契?

广告牌风波从开始到现在其实是一连串欠缺透明度、公信力和欠缺良好施政的事件。这也显示我们的呼吁,即政府应该恢复地方议会选举是刻不容缓的。

我们将会继续详读总稽查师的报告,全力追踪此事。

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Pest Control fiasco – More wrongdoings exposed, MPSJ’s credibility at stake

The Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) credibility is at stake, as it is further reported in the Sun dated 5th September 2006 in it’s news report entitled “MPSJ putting cart before the horse, council to implement privatization of pest control services to one consortium after all”, that ‘the council finance committee had its meeting on 28th August decided to put the entire exercise on hold pending a detailed study, but the council at its full-board meeting on Aug 30 decided to implement the system’.

It is this act that is described as putting the cart before the horse. I was in MPSJ on 30th August with the intention to attend the full board council meeting in particular relation to the ongoing pest control fiasco which has been going on for more than one month.

Unfortunately, I was asked to leave the meeting room together with Thomas Goh, Treasurer of DAP Bukit Gasing branch when we were noticed by the Council Secretary Slamat Hamzah that our presence is not approved by the Council’s President.

What I can confirm from that meeting is that the council will continue with the policy by granting a 20-year concessionaire to Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd. whereby other companies which is interested can come under the consortium which will eventually be placed under the supervision on the Council.

Having said that, nobody was ever informed that the Council’s Finance Committee had met on 28th August and decided to put the entire exercise on hold. So what we have right now is a self-contradictory situation. Should the Council full board meeting accept and adopt the decision of the Council’s Finance Committee meeting? Or the Council Full Board meeting has the right to overturn the decision of the Finance Committee meeting? Are all these ruling provided by the Full Board council meeting standing order? Or can there be a secret ballot to overturn the Council President’s insistence to go ahead with the decision?


The biggest question behind is: if there is a clear violation of council full board meeting’s standing order when a cart is put before the horse, who will bear the responsibility? Will the decision become null and void?

The Sun has also reported that “it had been repeatedly point out that MTES – as held by the Shah Alam High Court – is not a legal entity and has no powers whatsoever to decide on any issue”. This will be the second wrongdoing the Council and probably MTES had committed.
It is our advice that MPSJ should put everything transparently by putting the decision on hold before there can be a resolution beneficial to all stakeholders and parties concerned, while MTES should make the report submitted by MPSJ to be available in public domain in accordance to the principle of good governance and transparency.

We would like to reiterate our stand from day one, that there must be a dialogue between MPSJ, business operators under its jurisdiction and fumigators to reach a triple win solutions. Further insistence of the Council to continue with the original decision will certainly draw backfires from the business community under the jurisdiction of MPSJ.

Lee Hwa Beng – Where were you on 30th August?

Although DAP Selangor welcome the decision of the council’s finance committee meeting to put the entire pest control exercise privatization on hold, I still do not understand why Lee Hwa Beng failed to attend the full board council meeting on 30th August to bring up this very important decision of the committee to the knowledge of the President and other councilors?

If Lee Hwa Beng is sincere to uphold the dissatisfactions of the ground towards the council’s unfair ruling, and if Lee Hwa Beng made known of his stance from day one that there should be no monopoly, as reported in The Sun today, why could not he come forward and talk in the face of other councilors and most importantly, the President himself?

Instead of coming forward, Lee Hwa Beng was absent at the meeting, leaving the job to other councilors, which was not something that we can expect from a councilor cum state assemblyman like Lee Hwa Beng.

I hope Lee Hwa Beng can explain this as well, besides him questioning the council on the decision.

Asked to leave full board meeting – I will make a formal complaint to the State Government and seek for an appointment with the Mentri Besar

According to Section 23 Local Government Act 1976, All meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public and to representatives of the Press unless the local authority by resolution at the meeting otherwise decides.

As this concerns good governance in the local level, and also this local councils is by and large a state affair, I will therefore write in to the Mentri Besar not only to highlight the seriousness of the scandal, but also seek the Mentri Besar to at least reprimand the council for showing a poor role model to be an accountable council.

害虫控制经营权风波——更多丑闻被揭发,梳邦再也市议会威信不在

梳邦再也市议会的威信不在,因为2006年9月5日星期二的《太阳报》指出,市议会在决定委任一家财团公司处理市议会管辖范围内的害虫控制时不决先行。该报指出市议员李华民的谈话,即市议会财务委员会在2006年8月28日星期一的内部会议上已经决定展缓实行有关指令,但是市议会在8月30日星期三的月常会议上却决定继续实行有关指令,只是市议会允许其他公司加入该财团公司。

‘不决先行’所要指出的就是这事件。我在8月30日时便连同武吉加星支部财政吴炳顺尝试列席市议会的月常会议,因为闹得满城风雨的害虫控制经营权风波可能成为市议会月常会议的议程之一。

很不幸的,我们两人由于没有得到市议会主席的准许,结果只议会秘书Slamat Hamzah要求我们离开会议室。

我们过后所能够理解的是,市议会将会继续实行有关指令,Konsortium SJ害虫控制有限公司依然可以在市议会管辖范围之内进行有关活动,惟其他有兴趣的公司可以加入该财团公司,以方便市议会监督它们的服务素质。

话说如此,我们当时(8月28日)出席市议会月常会议时并不知道市议会财务委员会在2006年8月28日星期一的内部会议上已经决定展缓实行有关指令。如果李华民所言属实,那么市议会是否因此陷入一个自相矛盾的状况?到底月常会议可否推翻财务委员会的决定?还是月常会议必须接纳财务委员会的决定?月常会议的会议常规是否有详细阐明这些细节?还是会议常规是否有允许市议员已秘密投票的方式来推翻市议会主席的单向决定?


背后更大的问题就是:如果这种‘不决先行’被证实是违反条规的,那么谁应该负起最大的责任?市议会的指令还成不成立?

《太阳报》也同时指出莎亚南高亭曾经作出宣判,即雪州经济行动理事会(Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Selangor,MTES)并不是一个正式的组织,因此没有任何决定权。如果这个指责又成立,这意味着市议会可能有犯上第二个错误。

我们曾经劝告梳邦再也市议会在处理这事件上必须秉公和透明处理,展缓实行有关指令,并且召开三照(商家,害虫控制公司和市议会)对话,以便能够构思出一个三赢方案。与此同时,雪州经济行动理事会应该基于透明和良好施政的原则,公开梳邦再也市议会提呈给该理事会的报告书。这是我们迄今所采取的立场。市议会一意孤行只会引起更多人的反感。

李华民——8月30日您去了哪里?

虽然雪州行动党欢迎梳邦再也会财务委员会的决定(即展缓试行有关决定),但是我还是不能明白,为何李华民不能堂堂正正做人、清清白白做官、踏踏实实做事?这是因为他本人就没有出席8月30日这么重要的会议,好让他能够众市议员在讨论这个课题时提出财务委员会的这项决定,让市议员和主席也知道。

如果李华民却是有诚意为民请愿,如果李华民口口声声表示他从第一天就表示不赞成单一公司垄断和约,诚如2006年9月5日《太阳报》所报道的,为何他缺席会议,从而错失机会,让市议员和主席知道委员会的决定?为何李华民自己不出席,不争取,反而却必须让其他人为他代劳?难道这就是一名双议员(州议员兼市议员)的责任吗?

我希望李华民除了能够质问市议会的决定之外,也能够一五一十地交待此事?

将针对我们不被允许列席月常会议与州务大臣要求见面和投诉

根据1976年地方政府法令第23条文,所有地方政府的会议必须公开给公众人士和媒体代表参与,除非市议会另有议决。

由于这涉及地方上的良好施政,而市议会事务属于州政府管辖权限,因此我将会致函州务大臣,要求见面以表明问题的严重性,我们也呼吁大臣能够针对我们不能出席月常会议而至少向警告梳邦再也市议会。

Act Gives Public Right To Be At Council Meetings