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.

再努丁鸡蛋里挑骨头

新闻部长再努丁迈丁日前指出行动党党员向警方举报巫统中央代表们在该党代表大会上所发表的极端言论具有隐议程。再努丁的这番话显示他本人在鸡蛋里挑骨头,因为他根本没有看见巫统中央代表们极端言论对国民团结所带来的破坏,也没有看到以报案方式阻止这些巫统中央代表们以后继续发表类似的言论的重要性,反之他尝试以‘行动党拥有隐议程’的说辞来模糊焦点。

迄今,行动党党员已经向警方报案五次。最后一次的报案是在上周六,由槟城行动党代表在槟城报案。在这五份报案书中其中两分,也就是第一份和第四份报案书,是由我来举报的。在我这两份报案书中,我并没有要求警方或监察署以1948年《煽动法令》来调查或举报他们,更何况我并没有权力要求警方和检察署以该法令去调查或提控任何人士,除非他们已经寻获足够的证据。

我只是在报案书中表示他们的言论具有煽动性质和倾向。我在报案书中引用该法令的第三及第四条文的用意是为了协助警方了解煽动倾向的诠释,尤其是第三条文指出凡是任何能够煽动马来西亚各组群和各阶层人士的相互憎恨和不满情绪的言论都是具有煽动倾向的言论。

由于巫统中央代表们的言论已经明显破坏大马的国民团结,因此每一名公民都有权力和义务举报他们,防止他们以后继续发表同样言论,进一步破坏大马的国民团结。

再努丁也指责我们引用煽动法令和内安法令。其实再努丁的言论是错误的,因为首先我并没有动用内安法令。再努丁作为一名受过专业新闻从业员训练的人士不能再没有阅读我的报案书之前就妄下定论。


我们也不能苟同再努丁的说辞,即行动党报案是拥有其隐议程,因为这是每一名公民的责任与义务。更何况,我们是真正因为巫统中央代表们的煽动性言论而举报巫统中央代表,这与当权者过往以似是而非的理由,通过煽动法令控告行动党领袖和党员的案例大不相同。

再努丁不能不明白这点。

马华和马青衮衮诸公不应该顾左右而言他

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苦笑皆非的文告示众 。

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。

Friday, November 24, 2006

Lodge police report against UMNO MP for Jerai

Together with DAP Selangor State Committee Batumalai, PKR Selangor Youth Publicity Secretary Khairul, DAPSY Assistant National Organising Secretary Loh Chee Heng, DAP Seri Setia Branch Chairman T. Kannan, DAP Kota Branch Chairman Phillip Tan dan DAP International Secretary Ronnie Liu, I lodged a police report with IPD PJ against racist and seditious remarks from UMNO MP for Jerai and Deputy Speaker for UMNO General Assembly, Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin.

During his speech at the UMNO General Assembly two years ago, Badruddin waived a book on May 13 incident and spoke to warn the non-Muslims and non-Malays of not to offend the Malay by challenging the special rights of the Malay and the special position of Islam in this country. Although this took place two years ago, we strongly feel that the police must start investigation on him against his remarks which are racist and seditious in nature. We also wish that through this police report, the police and the Attorney-General can take action against those whose remarks are hurting the feelings of others and jeopardizing our national unity. Police’s investigation and AG’s legal action can stop others, especially those hot heads from UMNO from delivering such racist remarks in future.

Below is my police report:

Laporan Polis Terhadap Hujah-Hujah Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah.

Nama: Lau Weng San
No Kad Pengenalan: 78XXXX-XX-XXXX
Jantina: Lelaki
Alamat Kerja: No. 24, Jalan 20/9, Taman Paramount, 46300 Petaling Jaya.
Nombor Telefon Kerja: 03-79578022
Alamat Rumah: No. 67, Jalan 21/22, SEA Park, 46300 Petaling Jaya.
Nombor Telefon Rumah: 03-78751837.
Nombor Telefon Bimbit: 016-3231563.
Pekerjaan: Setiausaha Politik Kepada Setiausaha Agung DAP.
Jawatan: Setiausaha Publisiti DAP Selangor.


Saya dengan nama di atas, ingin membuat satu laporan polis untuk meminta pihak polis memulakan siasatan terhadap hujah-hujah berbau perkauman yang dilafazkan oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah (yang turut memegang Timbalan Pengerusi Tetap UMNO sejak tahun 2004) semasa beliau membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden UMNO pada 24hb September 2004.

Selepas saya membuat laporan polis untuk meminta pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan terhadap hujah-hujah berbau perkauman yang dilafazkan oleh perwakilan-perwakilan UMNO, Pemuda UMNO dan Puteri UMNO semasa mereka berhimpun di Dewan Merdeka, Pusat Perdagangan Dunia Putra untuk menghadiri Perhimpunan Agung UMNO ke-57 yang berlangsung daripada 13hb November hingga 17hb November 2006, saya mendapati di pejabat saya di Petaling Jaya melalui laman web arkib Harian Metro yang diterbitkan oleh News Straits Times Press Berhad bahawa Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah juga pernah melafazkan kenyataan yang lebih kurang sama pada tahun 2004 yang pada pendapat saya akan merosakkan keharmonian sosial dan perpaduan nasional serta bersifat hasut-menghasut.

Antara kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin semasa beucap adalah seperti berikut (laporan terperinci boleh dibaca daripada laporan akhbar Harian Metro di mana teksnya dimuat-turun daripada lam web arkib News Straits Times Press Berhad seperti yang dilampirkan selepas laporan ini):

‘"Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini,

Sambil memberikan pesanan itu, beliau mengangkat sebuah buku 13 Mei supaya semua perwakilan mengambil ingatan, sekali gus menjadikan peristiwa terbabit sebagai pengajaran dan mengelakkan daripada berulang.

"Ingat buku ini...Jangan persoalkan suara azan kerana ini maruah agama ku dan agama tuan-tuan. Jangan persoalkan kedudukan Perdana Menteri kerana itu hak kami sebagai negara kami," kata Badruddin ketika membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden semalam.’

Hujah-hujah Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin pada masa itu telah merosakkan keharmonian kaum, integrasi dan perpaduan nasional di mana hujah-hujah ini bersifat menghasut dan berkauman ini ditujukan untuk mengapi-apikan perasaan dan sentimen perkauman bagi mengukuhkan kepentingan politiknya.

Bahkan hujah-hujah Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin seperti ‘Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini ’ dan tindakan beliau melayang-layangkan buku mengenai peristiwa Mei 13 juga telah menimbulkan perasaan takut, terancam, dimusuhi dan tidak selamat bagi warganegara bukan Muslim dan bukan Melayu.

Walaupun peristiwa ini telah berlaku kira-kira dua tahun yang lalu, tetapi impaknya amat besar kerana baru-baru ini semakin ramai ahli-ahli politik, khususnya mereka yang datang daripada UMNO yang mengeluarkan hujah-hujah yang bersifat menghasut ini.

Perbuatan sebegini perlu disekat dan mereka yang mengeluarkan kenyataan sebegini adalah tidak bertanggungjawab dan perlu diambil tindakan sebelum mereka mengorbankan keharmonian sosial negara ini untuk kepentingan politik mereka.

Berikut ialah teks laporan akhbar Harian Metro:

Publication : Harian Metro
Date : 25/09/2004
Page Number : 04
Headline : Usah pertikai hak Orang Melayu
Words : 256
Byline :
Text :

KUALA LUMPUR: "Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini," pesan Ahli Parlimen Jerai, Datuk Badruddin
Amiruldin kepada pihak tertentu di negara ini.

Beliau yang terpilih bagi jawatan Timbalan Pengerusi Tetap UMNO pada pemilihan kelmarin, memberikan pesanan dengan lantang dan penuh bersemangat bagi mengingatkan pihak berkenaan supaya tidak mempertikaikan hak orang Melayu.

Menurutnya, negara sudah merdeka berpuluh tahun dan sejak itu kuasa pemerintahan berada di tangan orang Melayu.

"Kita sudah ada perjanjian dengan bangsa lain yang kita beralah memberi mereka menumpang negara ini, termaktub dalam perlembagaan hak kita sebagai bangsa Melayu.

"Jangan ada bangsa lain mempertikaikan hak bangsa Melayu di negara ku ini. Jangan pertikaikan agama Islam di negara ku ini kerana ini hak ku sebagai orang Melayu. Jangan persoalkan ketuanan negara kita ini," katanya.

Sambil memberikan pesanan itu, beliau mengangkat sebuah buku 13 Mei supaya semua perwakilan mengambil ingatan, sekali gus menjadikan peristiwa terbabit sebagai pengajaran dan mengelakkan daripada berulang.

"Ingat buku ini...Jangan persoalkan suara azan kerana ini maruah agama ku dan agama tuan-tuan. Jangan persoalkan kedudukan Perdana Menteri kerana itu hak kami sebagai negara kami," kata Badruddin ketika membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden, semalam.

Beliau berharap pemimpin yang diamanahkan jangan sesekali menghina bangsa Melayu, kerana bangsa inilah yang meletak diri mereka masing-masing di atas kehendak Allah.

Sekian, laporan saya.

Lau Weng San

举报巫统日莱区国会议员

我今天上午十点在雪州州委巴都马莱、公青团雪州宣传秘书凯鲁、社青团全国副宣传秘书罗志兴、雪州双溪威支部主席甘南、雪州巴生哥打支部主席陈春水以及行动党国际秘书刘天球的陪同下前往八打灵再也警区总部,针对针对巫统日莱区国会议员兼巫统全国代表大会副主席拿督巴都鲁丁的具有种族性和煽动性言论报案。

巴都鲁丁是在两年前的巫统代表大会上以513事件来威胁非穆斯林和非马来人不要挑战马来人和伊斯兰在马来西亚的特别地位。巴都鲁丁当时也高举一本关于513事件的小红书。虽然事情已经发生了两年,但是巴都鲁丁必须针对他所发出的种族性和煽动性言论负责。我们希望警方能够针对我们的报案书进行详细地调查,并且以大公无私的精神提空那些发表类似不负责任言论的人士,尤其是巫统代表。此外,我们也希望通过这份报案书能够警惕那些狂热种族极端分子,避免他们继续类似能够伤害他人感受、破坏国民团结的言论。

以下就是我的报案书:


Laporan Polis Terhadap Hujah-Hujah Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah.

Nama: Lau Weng San
No Kad Pengenalan: 78XXXX-XX-XXXX
Jantina: Lelaki
Alamat Kerja: No. 24, Jalan 20/9, Taman Paramount, 46300 Petaling Jaya.
Nombor Telefon Kerja: 03-79578022
Alamat Rumah: No. 67, Jalan 21/22, SEA Park, 46300 Petaling Jaya.
Nombor Telefon Rumah: 03-78751837.
Nombor Telefon Bimbit: 016-3231563.
Pekerjaan: Setiausaha Politik Kepada Setiausaha Agung DAP.
Jawatan: Setiausaha Publisiti DAP Selangor.


Saya dengan nama di atas, ingin membuat satu laporan polis untuk meminta pihak polis memulakan siasatan terhadap hujah-hujah berbau perkauman yang dilafazkan oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah (yang turut memegang Timbalan Pengerusi Tetap UMNO sejak tahun 2004) semasa beliau membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden UMNO pada 24hb September 2004.

Selepas saya membuat laporan polis untuk meminta pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan terhadap hujah-hujah berbau perkauman yang dilafazkan oleh perwakilan-perwakilan UMNO, Pemuda UMNO dan Puteri UMNO semasa mereka berhimpun di Dewan Merdeka, Pusat Perdagangan Dunia Putra untuk menghadiri Perhimpunan Agung UMNO ke-57 yang berlangsung daripada 13hb November hingga 17hb November 2006, saya mendapati di pejabat saya di Petaling Jaya melalui laman web arkib Harian Metro yang diterbitkan oleh News Straits Times Press Berhad bahawa Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin, Ahli Parlimen UMNO Untuk Kawasan Jerai, Kedah juga pernah melafazkan kenyataan yang lebih kurang sama pada tahun 2004 yang pada pendapat saya akan merosakkan keharmonian sosial dan perpaduan nasional serta bersifat hasut-menghasut.

Antara kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin semasa beucap adalah seperti berikut (laporan terperinci boleh dibaca daripada laporan akhbar Harian Metro di mana teksnya dimuat-turun daripada lam web arkib News Straits Times Press Berhad seperti yang dilampirkan selepas laporan ini):

‘"Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini,

Sambil memberikan pesanan itu, beliau mengangkat sebuah buku 13 Mei supaya semua perwakilan mengambil ingatan, sekali gus menjadikan peristiwa terbabit sebagai pengajaran dan mengelakkan daripada berulang.

"Ingat buku ini...Jangan persoalkan suara azan kerana ini maruah agama ku dan agama tuan-tuan. Jangan persoalkan kedudukan Perdana Menteri kerana itu hak kami sebagai negara kami," kata Badruddin ketika membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden semalam.’

Hujah-hujah Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin pada masa itu telah merosakkan keharmonian kaum, integrasi dan perpaduan nasional di mana hujah-hujah ini bersifat menghasut dan berkauman ini ditujukan untuk mengapi-apikan perasaan dan sentimen perkauman bagi mengukuhkan kepentingan politiknya.

Bahkan hujah-hujah Datuk Badruddin Amilrudin seperti ‘Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini ’ dan tindakan beliau melayang-layangkan buku mengenai peristiwa Mei 13 juga telah menimbulkan perasaan takut, terancam, dimusuhi dan tidak selamat bagi warganegara bukan Muslim dan bukan Melayu.

Walaupun peristiwa ini telah berlaku kira-kira dua tahun yang lalu, tetapi impaknya amat besar kerana baru-baru ini semakin ramai ahli-ahli politik, khususnya mereka yang datang daripada UMNO yang mengeluarkan hujah-hujah yang bersifat menghasut ini.

Perbuatan sebegini perlu disekat dan mereka yang mengeluarkan kenyataan sebegini adalah tidak bertanggungjawab dan perlu diambil tindakan sebelum mereka mengorbankan keharmonian sosial negara ini untuk kepentingan politik mereka.

Berikut ialah teks laporan akhbar Harian Metro:

Publication : Harian Metro
Date : 25/09/2004
Page Number : 04
Headline : Usah pertikai hak Orang Melayu
Words : 256
Byline :
Text :

KUALA LUMPUR: "Jangan cuba hendak menjolok sarang tebuan, kerana seandai sarang tebuan ini dijolok maka tebuan ini akan menyengat dan sengatan ini akan berakhir di negara ini," pesan Ahli Parlimen Jerai, Datuk Badruddin
Amiruldin kepada pihak tertentu di negara ini.

Beliau yang terpilih bagi jawatan Timbalan Pengerusi Tetap UMNO pada pemilihan kelmarin, memberikan pesanan dengan lantang dan penuh bersemangat bagi mengingatkan pihak berkenaan supaya tidak mempertikaikan hak orang Melayu.

Menurutnya, negara sudah merdeka berpuluh tahun dan sejak itu kuasa pemerintahan berada di tangan orang Melayu.

"Kita sudah ada perjanjian dengan bangsa lain yang kita beralah memberi mereka menumpang negara ini, termaktub dalam perlembagaan hak kita sebagai bangsa Melayu.

"Jangan ada bangsa lain mempertikaikan hak bangsa Melayu di negara ku ini. Jangan pertikaikan agama Islam di negara ku ini kerana ini hak ku sebagai orang Melayu. Jangan persoalkan ketuanan negara kita ini," katanya.

Sambil memberikan pesanan itu, beliau mengangkat sebuah buku 13 Mei supaya semua perwakilan mengambil ingatan, sekali gus menjadikan peristiwa terbabit sebagai pengajaran dan mengelakkan daripada berulang.

"Ingat buku ini...Jangan persoalkan suara azan kerana ini maruah agama ku dan agama tuan-tuan. Jangan persoalkan kedudukan Perdana Menteri kerana itu hak kami sebagai negara kami," kata Badruddin ketika membahaskan ucapan dasar Presiden, semalam.

Beliau berharap pemimpin yang diamanahkan jangan sesekali menghina bangsa Melayu, kerana bangsa inilah yang meletak diri mereka masing-masing di atas kehendak Allah.

Sekian, laporan saya.

Lau Weng San

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Zakaria may have his chance for another term

Zakaria claimed that there were 1500 who turned up at his Hari Raya open house on Monday and he said that he will stand up for the next general election.

He seemed to be not bothered with the demolishment of his satay house while he claimed that his new luxurious mansion would be used to hold another open house when it is fully constructed next year.

Are you angry with his statement, are you going to vote him if he is a BN candidate in Selangor? Are you going to urge your local BN ADUN and MP to push Prime Minister not to list him as one of the candidate for the next general election in Selangor? What will you do if it turn up to be the opposite?

Think about it, Khairy attended his open house and he got a warm welcome hug from Zakaria...I think his chance for another term is quite bright. Don't you think so?

连行政议员也不守法,雪州政府如何要求人民守法?

虽然巴生市议会执法组人员今日上午10时至12时动用3部和大约60名人员成功把查卡利亚拥有的DZ沙爹屋拆毁,但是查卡利亚的千万豪宅、查卡利亚利用雪州发展机构土地委员会主席的身份,涉及多项出现利益冲突的丑闻(例如同样是雪州羽毛球协会主席的查卡利亚曾经向该委员会申请4公顷的土地,以及该委员会向巴生市议会申请发展土地,过后被雪州州议会反对党领袖邓章钦揭发有关计划的主要发展商为其儿子的公司。)

邓章钦昨日在此揭发雪州政府另外一名行政议员西华令甘在没有呈交建筑图测的情况下,经营了一间位于莎亚南Padang Jawa餐馆近3年。该餐馆也获得沙阿南市政厅发出的临时营业执照。

随着这起最新的丑闻,雪兰莪州已经沦为一个政治道德沦落、腐败以及败坏的州属。如果雪州上自州务大臣、下至州议员及地方官僚都不遵守法律,国阵政府又有什么道德光环要求雪州人民遵守法律?


尤其是在西华令甘事件中,他本人除了没有遵守地方条规之外,西华令甘也涉嫌触犯《雪州宪法》第53(8)条文以及《联邦宪法》第8列表第2(8)条文清楚列明:

“任何一名州行政议员不能涉及任何与他所掌管部门或领域有关的贸易、商业或专业活动,以及在担任州行政议员期间,不能参与任何州行政议会针对该行政议员所涉及的任何贸易、商业或专业活动所作出的决定,或者是参与任何会影响该行政议员金钱利益的州行政议会决定。”

这也并不是雪州行政议员第一次涉及商业活动。在2004年11月下旬,邓章钦曾经揭发另外一名行政议员拿督邓诗汉在巴生新镇开设一间中医保建中心。这家保健中心的股东为邓诗汉的太太及太太弟媳和一名拿督级马华领袖,邓章钦指责邓诗汉自1998年4月3日起便是公司幕后老板。公司盈利归邓诗汉,然后转到其太太名下的公司。

此外,邓诗汉直接涉及商业活动,主持该公司董事局会议及作决策,每次农历新年,邓诗汉及其股东丶职员都设宴庆祝,全部职员都知道邓诗汉为公司幕后老板。过后,由于公司出现股东发生内部纠纷,邓诗汉曾向警方报告案指遭勒索,其2名中国籍股东不忿之下向他揭发邓诗汉涉及商业活动秘闻。

这些涉及州务大臣、州行政议员以及州议员的大型丑闻一而再,再而三在雪州发生,显示雪州国阵并不珍惜雪州选民在上届大选所赐予他们的强大委托。雪州国阵在上届大选以矿风扫落叶的姿态夺走所有22个国会议席。在州议会方面,雪州国阵也以同样的方式夺走56个州议席中的54个,只剩下两席归行动党所有,最终导致雪州国阵在雪州州议会获得比国会92巴仙更高的议席巴仙率,即96.4巴仙的州议席。

如此强大的国阵,不到三年换来的就是一大箩的丑闻,而反对党由于无法获得强大的委托,以致无法发挥强大的监督、制衡角色,最终让国阵一党独大,为所欲为。因此,雪州选民必须在来届大选擦亮眼睛,让更多的反对党候选人,尤其是行动党候选人进入州议会,挽救雪州的日渐败坏的政治道德。

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

查卡利亚可能成为国阵候选人?

经过州务大臣的层层保护下,查卡利亚的豪宅至今还在巴生屹立不到。

虽然查卡利亚最后必须缴付所欠下的门牌税、他的非法沙爹屋也将会在明天(明天是市议会限期的最后一天)被拆除以及他本人已经失去巴生市议员的职位,但由于雪州政府并没有采取严厉的行动对付或告诫查卡利亚,导致查卡利亚昨日在开斋节的开放门户上意气风发、大发豪言表示他将会继续争取在来届大选成为国阵候选人,同时将会在明年豪宅建峻后在豪宅举办开放门户。在这之前,查卡利亚也指出他当不上市议员是‘人民的损失’。

事实上,雪州行动党除了对州务大臣不仅迟迟没有向查卡利亚采取行动(以致雪州苏丹必须在最后插手处理此事),反之还处处偏袒查卡利亚,纵容查卡利亚而感到非常失望和愤怒。

如果雪兰莪州安邦市议会能够因为木屋居民的庭令失效而残酷地援引紧急状态法令69条款(清除非法木屋)摧毁非法木屋,将居住在木屋区的城市开拓者逼迁,为何查卡利亚的豪宅却能够免除执法人员拆毁的厄运?

这项苛政的最新受害者就是雪州安邦路甘榜伯仁邦(Kampung Berembang)木屋区的大约50户人家,他们在当地住了超过30年,却在阻挡安邦再也市议会拆除他们的栖身之所时遭警察逮捕,最终仅有的栖身之所也在一天之内化为乌有。

苛政猛于虎

雪州行动党不满当局在法庭还没有做出判决之前便派员以粗暴的方式对待木屋居民和非政府组织成员,雪州行动党更不满为何州政府的施政会出现双重标准!如果州政府不敢拆除查卡利亚的豪宅,而且还处处维护查卡利亚,为何雪州政府却以坚决和惊人的速度拆除城市拓荒者所居住的木屋?

如果由国阵执政的雪兰莪州能够保留查卡利亚的豪宅,为何同样由国阵执政的槟城州却无法留住大山脚的斗母宫?为何基尔的雪州政府不能公平对待安邦路甘榜伯仁邦被逼迁的50户人家,以及其他千千万万名受逼迁的木屋区居民?

在苛政频频犯境的情况下,如果查卡利亚还能够在下届大选成为雪州国阵的候选人,雪州行动党因此在这里谨此呼吁雪州选民能够基于透明和公平施政的大原则下把国阵的候选人送出州议会和国会。

Monday, November 20, 2006

Peaceful demonstration at Bukit Gasing on 19th November

There is a plan to to build more than a hundred luxury bungalows on Bukit Gasing, involving the clearing of massive tracks of land and trees.

Unfortunately, as usual, there has been no public consultation on this development project and DBKL is keeping quiet about this.

This will have direct and indirect effect, in terms of safety and the environment, to a sizeable population, ranging from PJ Section 5, Gasing Indah as well as Pantai Dalam.

Can you imagine another Highland Towers again? This will no doubt happen if we allow this development to proceed!

The residents under the Joint Action Committee for Bukit Gasing held a protest against the development and clearing of Bukit Gasing yesterday, 19 Nov 2006 at the Gasing Indah Playground at 4.30 pm. (Near Jalan 5/46 Petronas Station) to ensure that the people's voices are heard.

报案查巫统代表言论

转载自光明日报:

火箭∶抵触煽动法令
报案查巫统代表言论

updated:2006-11-18 20:05:42 MYT

(八打灵再也讯)行动党针对巫统代表在最近的大会上发表的言论过於极端,因此前往警察局报案,促请警方彻查代表的言论是否已抵触法律。

雪州行动党宣传秘书刘永山於周六早上11点到灵市警局报案。他向记者表示,该党认为巫统代表们的言论已伤害了非回教徒,甚至包括一些在非政府组织内的回教徒。


言论“吓跑"外资

他希望警方能彻查巫统代表、包括巫青和巫统妇女组在大会上所发表的言论。行动党认为,这些代表所发表的言论我国的种族和谐和团结,造成种族之间的恐慌和仇视。

他形容这些代表是为了捞取个人的政治资本,并不是为了族群的利益。

另外,他也指出,这些代表的言论在一定程度上已影响我国的经济,因为他们过激的言论已“吓跑”外资。

他说,这些代表的言论已抵触了1948年煽动法令4(1)(b)条文,在此条文下,涉案者将面临不超过5000令吉,或监禁3年,也或者两者兼施。

他说,此举已伤害了我国种族之间的感情。

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Laporan Polis Terhadap Hujah-Hujah Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Perwakilan-Perwakilan UMNO.

I lodged a police report yesterday morning against all the racist slurs from UMNO delegates during the five-day General Assembly of UMNO.

For the past five days, Malaysians were bombarded with all sorts of racist remarks from UMNO delegates all around the country and this posed a serious alarm on our national integration and social harmony.

At the same times, it also fears off investor from investing in Malaysia as delegates called for the government to demand all GLC CEOs to be UMNO members and urged government to regulate provate companies to employ at least 30 percent Bumiputera employees.

These racist remarks are seditious in nature and there can be no way for any Malaysian to tolerate such remarks which tear racial harmony into pieces.

Below is my police report:



Laporan Polis Terhadap Hujah-Hujah Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Perwakilan-Perwakilan UMNO.

Nama: Lau Weng San
No Kad Pengenalan: 78XXXX-XX-XXXX
Jantina: Lelaki
Alamat Kerja: 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 untuk meminta pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan terhadap hujah-hujah berbau perkauman yang dilafazkan oleh perwakilan-perwakilan UMNO, Pemuda UMNO dan Puteri UMNO semasa mereka berhimpun di Dewan Merdeka, Pusat Perdagangan Dunia Putra untuk menghadiri Perhimpunan Agung UMNO ke-57 yang berlangsung daripada 13hb November hingga 17hb November 2006.

Hujah-hujah mereka ini telah merosakkan keharmonian kaum, integrasi dan perpaduan nasional di mana hujah-hujah mereka yang bersifat menghasut dan berkauman ini ditujukan untuk mengapi-apikan perasaan dan sentimen perkauman bagi mengukuhkan kepentingan politik mereka.

Bahkan hujah-hujah mereka juga telah menimbulkan perasaan takut, terancam, dimusuhi dan tidak selamat bagi warganegara bukan Muslim, bukan Melayu dan mereka yang menganggotai beberapa Badan-Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO) yang dibidas semasa perjalanan Perhimpunan Agung UMNO ini.

Selain itu, hujah-hujah mereka ini juga akan menjejaskan iklim pelaburan dan pembanguan ekonomi negara yang sedang mengalami kemelesetan sekarang.

Di antara hujah-hujah menghasut yang dapat dikumpulkan bagi memulakan siasatan awal PDRM ialah seperti yang berikut. Hujah-hujah ini merupakan petikan daripada laporan-laporan akhbar tempatan.

Razali Idris, Ketua Penerangan Pemuda UMNO Terengganu

“Hak Orang Melayu tidak boleh dicabar, jika tidak orang Melayu akan mengamok, peristiwa Mei 13 akan berulang yang ianya akan lebih teruk daripada tahun 1969 yang akan menjadikan Kuala Lumpur padang terkukur.

UMNO rela mengorbankan nyawa dan bermandi darah untuk mempertahankan bangsa dan agama daripada bukan Muslim atau bukan Melayu.”

Reezal Merican Naina Merican

“Maka berdasarkan fakta-fakta ini, Pemuda dengan tegas menyelar tindakan bekas Presiden ASLI (Institut Kepimpinan dan Strategik Asia), Dr. Lim Teck Ghee yang cuba memutarbelitkan fakta dengan niat ingin menidakkan agenda Melayu, sekaligus merubah kontrak sosial.

“Tinjauan Pemuda mendapati hampir 80 peratus daripada jumlah kontrak keseluruhan, pusingannya pergi ke tangan bukan Melayu.
“Ini kerana pembekal bahan binaan terdiri daripada kaum Cina yang wujud dalam rangkaian kartel yang begitu kuat sejak sekian lama dari dahulu lagi.

“Pemuda juga meminta kerajaan terus menamakan pembekal bumiputera dalam setiap kontrak yang diberikan di bawah tender bagi memastikan pusingan kontrak dinikmati oleh bumiputera.”

Datuk Salamon Selamat

“UMNO Selangor mencadangkan agar proses pemberian kontrak secara berkelompok diberi keutamaan manakala syarikat bumiputera yang berpotensi diberi peluang memperoleh kontrak projek mega melalui Inisiatif Pembiayaan Swasta (PFI).

“Peluang perlu diberi kepada kontraktor bumiputera berkemampuan mendapatkan kontrak dengan GLC, mewajibkan semua GLC mewujudkan Unit Penyertaan Bumiputera dan mengadakan pakatan strategik antara GLC dengan industri kecil dan sederhana (IKS) dalam projek pembangunan dan infrastruktur.”

Datuk Hamdi Abu Bakar, Ketua UMNO Bahagian Beruas

“Kita ini sebagai tuan, tetapi tuan apa kalau papa kedana, tuan apa kalau tak mampu, tuan apa kalau selekeh, sengkek dan lembek? Tuan mesti hebat, barulah kita kata kita kuat.

“Jika dicabut semua bangunan milik bukan bumiputera di Kuala Lumpur, rakyat boleh melihat bahawa tidak ada apa lagi bangunan yang tinggal. Ibu negara akan menjadi ‘padang jarak padang tekukur’.

“Begitu juga dengan Bursa Malaysia. Kalau digugurkan saham milik bukan bumiputera, maka tidak ada apa-apa lagi yang tinggal kecuali papan sahaja.”

Datuk Azimi Daim

“Kerajaan perlu melantik ahli UMNO yang profesional menggantikan CEO GLC terbabit yang tidak mampu menjalankan tugas.”

Senator Mohd. Puad Zarkashi

“UMNO Johor juga ingin mencadangkan supaya televisyen berbayar diletakkan di bawah Kementerian Penerangan dan tidak lagi diletakkan di bawah Kementerian Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi, dan kementerian itu sendiri mesti diketuai menteri UMNO.
“Langkah tertentu diambil termasuk mensyaratkan syarikat berkaitan kerajaan (GLC) memperuntukkan peratusan tertentu untuk iklan dalam akhbar-akhbar Melayu sahaja.”

Naib Ketua Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO, Khairy Jamaluddin

“Angka 45 peratus yang sengaja dikeluarkan oleh Institut Strategi dan Kepimpinan Asia (ASLI) itu sengaja mengelirukan kita.
“Tidak kiralah ASLI itu think tank siapa. Hakikatnya orang Melayu masih lemah dan perlu dibantu.”

Ketua Puteri UMNO bahagian Tangga Batu, Azlieza Azizan

“Pergerakan Puteri UMNO Melaka meminta kerajaan menentukan syarikat-syarikat swasta mengambil lebih 60 peratus bumiputera profesional untuk mengisi keperluan dalam organisasi mereka.”

Hujah-hujah sebegini sebenarnya digolongkan sebagai hujah-hujah yang mempunyai kecenderungan menghasut di bawah Seksyen 3(1)(e) Akta Hasutan 1948 yang menakrifkan bahawa ianya merupakan kecenderungan yang menyebabkan perasaan sakit hati di antara kaum atau kelas di kalangan rakyat Malaysia.

Mereka yang melakukan kesalahan ini boleh disabit bersalah di bawah Seksyen 4(1)(b) Akta Hasutan 1948 kerana mengeluarkan kata-kata yang menghasut dan boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM5000 atau penjara maksimum tiga tahun atau kedua-duanya untuk kesalahan pertaman dan hukuman penjara tidak melebihi lima tahun untuk kesalahan seterusnya.

Sekian laporan saya.

Lau Weng San

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Chew Mei Fun, please announce your expenditure on MP Constituency Development Allocaitons.

It is reported in the press that MCA MP for Petaling Jaya Utara, YB Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun pledged another RM12,000 to fund a river mitigation project in PJ Utara. Another RM12,000 is also pledged by her to build safety gate next to the river to prevent residents from accidentally falling into the river. RM50,000 has also been pledged to resurface loopholes in that area.

Despite several calls for her to fully announce the whereabouts of her BN MP Constituency Development Fund for the past few months, which has been increased to RM2 million a year, a four-fold increment from the previous RM500,000 annual allocation, Miss Chew has not been transparent in dealing with our calls.

Chew Mei Fun should set a leading example by becoming the first BN MP in Selangor to announce the expenditure of her annual BN MP Constituency Development Fund.

It has been the eleventh month of the year. For the past ten months, Chew Mei Fun has failed miserably in announcing how the allocation is carved out. Public can only know about it whenever she went to the press and made announcements pledging donations to societies or associations and development projects for the community which should have been taken care by the local authority in the first place.

From what we read from the press, the total amount that she pledged so far hardly reach RM 2 million. This raise a good question of where has the rest of the money gone to and Chew Mei Fun owes us a very important answer.

Besides it is also important for the various aspects of how the money channeled to the beneficiaries to be announced, i.e. the various means allocation channeled to the public, projects that are funded by this fund as well as the final beneficiaries of the money. This question is raised because MCA MP for Kelana Jaya, YB Loh Seng Kok has claimed that MPs do not hold the money directly as they merely serving as the person who makes recommendations to the related authority for them to release the allocation.

In terms of various means allocation channeled to the public, there should be a proper disclosure of whether the money is directly distributed by MP according to their own discretion, or the money is channeled by various government departments like local councils, Public Works Department (PWD) or Welfare Department?

In terms of the projects funded by the allocation, it will also be interested to understand of whether the money is used to upgrade public facilities and infrastructure, or the money is treated as donation to various societies and association to assist them in running their activities for the communities.

Of utmost importance is the question about the beneficiaries of the allocation as we need to ensure that MPs do not carve out the money to benefit his/her cronies.

Such call is not a call without reason.

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 and the taxpayers deserve their rights to know the whereabouts of the monies.

Furthermore, Selangor is in serious crisis of political integrity when Zakaria Mat Deros, Port Klang Pandamaran who erected a luxurious bungalow of more than RM 10 million without submitting his building plan can run away scot-free with minimal penalty despite his position as Member of the Selangor State Legislative Hall (ADUN) as well as an about-to-be-appointed councilor in Klang Municipal Council.

While the public still remain unknown of how Zakaria could accumulate such overwhelmingly huge wealth until he can afford such a luxurious mansion for his family, Zakaria’s scandal is definitely not an isolate case but it is just a small tip of the iceberg. Selangor MB and local councils are always caught involving in scandals and corruptions which have severely tarnished the ‘developed’ image of the State.

In the name of good and accountable governance, we urge Chew Mei Fun to explain the whereabouts of her RM 2 million allocation which has been increased from RM 500,000 a year to RM 2 million a year for each BN constituency, and if possible, future beneficiaries of her RM 2 million allocation.

I would like to even suggest to her that the most immediate and efficient way for her to do so is to announce and regularly put up information on her BN MP constituency development fund expenditure on her website to enable greater public scrutiny of the fund as this is not her personal money but public fund.

We are waiting for your announcement, YB Chew Mei Fun!

周美芬应该树立良好的榜样,公开国会议员选区拨款下落

报章今日报道马华八打灵再也北区国会议员拿丁巴都卡周美芬宣布拨款1万2000令吉提升百合玫瑰公寓旁边的河流、1万2000令吉为公寓进行围栏工作,以免老幼不慎掉入河流以及另外5万令吉重铺百合玫瑰公寓破烂不堪的停车场。

在过去数月,虽然八打灵再也行动党多次呼吁周美芬在公开透明的原则之下,向外公开这笔拨款的下落,但是周美芬迄今没有向外做出任何声明。这笔选区拨款是拨给每一名国阵国会议员,以让他们能够通过这笔钱解决选区内的民生问题,而且致使拨给国阵议员,其总数已经在数年前从50万令吉提升到200万令吉。

周美芬应该以身作则,成为雪州国阵第一个公开选区拨款下落的国会议员,而不是一直针对我们的呼吁展示不闻不问,不理不睬的态度。


在过去数月,我们不仅不能从周美芬的口中得知拨款的详情,我们甚至必须通过她在报章上的新闻发布会才能以捕风抓影的方式了解拨款的去向。

从报章所收集到的资料,周美芬今年所拨出的拨款其总数根本还没接近200万令吉。从这里我们要质问,到底剩余的款项去了哪里?

除此以外,我们也呼吁周美芬能够针对以下数点来公开她的选区拨款去向:
一、 有关拨款是以何种方式拨出去;既到底它是以金钱的方式拨出去,还是以发展项目的方式拨出去?这是一个很重要的问题,因为格拉那再也区国会议员卢诚国曾经表示国会议员其实只是推荐人,代表该团体或个人向有关政府机构申请拨款。至于成功与否另当别论。
二、 该拨款花在什么用途或项目;既到底这笔钱是以一般的捐款发出去,还是以拨款支付项目的方式拨出去?
三、 谁是拨款的受益人或团体;这是为了避免任何人士滥用公款。

我们并非是故意刁难周美芬,而是有鉴于雪州最近所发生的一连串贪污、腐败和滥权事件加强我们要求国阵的国州议员能够真的‘清清白白做官、堂堂正正做人、踏踏实实做事’。这些事件包括巴生港口区州议员查卡利亚的千万豪宅和非法沙爹屋事件。

虽然法贪污局正在调查查卡利亚到底如何获得这笔钱来兴建如此豪华的洋楼,但是雪州其他国州议员,尤其是每年获得200万令吉拨款的国会议员比平时更应该基于道德责任、透明廉洁的大前提之下公开他们的财产以及公布选区发展拨款的下落。

我甚至更大胆地向周美芬建议她在她个人的网站里一一公布这笔钱的下落,因为这是最快捷方便的方式。能够以最快捷方便的方式让选民对她的选区拨款下落一目了然肯定是落实透明施政的力证。

YB周美芬,我们正在等待您的答案!

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Bumi equity – more questions than answers after Awang Adek and Effendi gave their replies

One must be very confused when reading Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr. Awang Adek’s reply last Tuesday as compared with statement made by the Minister in the Prime Minister Department, YB Senator Datuk Effendi Norwawi, after doing a close checking on the mathematics.

During his reply to a oral question from MP for Gua Musang, YB Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek revealed that Bumiputeras own 36.6 percent of equity ownership at Bursa Saham valued at RM78.4 billion as at Dec 31 last year, as compared to 46.9 percent or RM100.4 billion for non- Bumiputeras and 16.45 percent or RM35.2 billion for foreigners.

Bumiputeras own 45% equity in nominee companies – Awang Adek did not say it in hansard

Datuk Effendi Norwawi challenged Datuk Dr Awang Adek’s reply by clarifying that Awang Adek wrongly apportioned 45 percent of equity ownership held by nominee companies to Bumiputeras when it should be 8.3 percent.

One should not be seemed as defending Awang Adek’s figure when one argues about the validity of Effendi’s claim against Awang Adek’s that Awang Adek has wrongly apportioned 45 percent of equity ownership held nominee companies to Bumiputeras which leads Awang Adek to conclude that Bumiputeras own 36.6 percent equity.


A double check with the hansard on 7th November 2006 discloses that Awang Adek has never mentioned about this, that the figure of 36.6 percent equity ownership is based on 45 percent apportion of the equity in nominee companies owned to Bumiputeras.

Until there is a clear clarification from Awang Adek to specifically deal with this issue, i.e. of whether his figure of 36.6 percent equity ownership is based on 45 percent apportion of equity in nominee companies to Bumiputeras, Effendi’s statement can be legitimately doubted and cannot be taken as truth since there is no substantial fact to back-up in his clarifications.

8.3 percent Bumiputera equity in nominee companies not accurate when 180 out of 359 nominee companies are excluded

Effendi also further illustrated that instead of taking the figure as 45 percent, Bumiputeras actually control 8.3 percent equity in nominee companies based on a survey on 359 nominee companies to ascertain the status of ownership and beneficiaries of shares registered under nominees, which was conducted in March 2005 by EPU with the cooperation of SSM (Companies Commission of Malaysia).

A total of 179 companies (which equities represent 74.3 percent, or RM103.7 billion of the total equity held by nominee companies) are said to have responded to this survey. It is from this survey that the figure of 8.3 percent Bumiputeras ownership in such companies is derived.

This means that there are another 180 nominee companies (in which their equities represent the rest of the 25.7 percent of the equity, or RM35.9 billion of the total equity held by nominee companies) did not respond to this survey.

By assuming that 100 percent of the share of these 180 nominee companies are owned by Bumiputeras, it would mean an additional of RM35.9 billion of equity on top of the RM8.6 billion (equivalent to 8.3 percent of the share owned by Bumiputeras, value: RM8.6 billion out of RM103.7 billion – 179 nominee companies from a total of 359 nominee companies) equity owned by Bumiputeras as informed by Effendi.

Therefore, total equity owned by Bumiputeras in all the 359 nominee companies can be as high as RM 44.5 billion (RM35.9 billion + RM 8.6 billion = RM 44.5 billion) which is 31.9 percent of a total of RM 139.6 billion (RM 44.5 billion + RM 103.7 billion), the total equity value owned by nominee companies in Bursa Malaysia.

It could be unreasonable to assume that 100 percent equities of the rest of the 180 nominee companies are solely owned by Bumiputeras. It is also equally ridiculous to exclude the other 180 nominee companies which had not responded to the EPU-SSM survey when we come to evaluate the real percentage of equity owned by Bumiputeras in nominee companies listed in Bursa Malaysia. Therefore, in releasing his clarifications on nominee companies, we just cannot afford to ignore the rest of the 180 companies.

Since there is no further information on these 180 nominee companies, Effendi’s remark that Bumiputeras only controlled 8.3 percent of equity in nominee companies stands no ground. According to Effendi, it is this figure (Bumiputeras only controlled 8.3 percent of equity in nominee companies) that derives the conclusion that Bumiputeras only control 21.8 percent of equity in 914 listed companies in Bursa Malaysia. This percentage is reduced to 18.9 percent after extrapolation done against 609,595 active companies registered with the Companies Commission, which is also another question that why extrapolation is used instead of direct computation of the real figures.

Effendi: 609,595 registered companies; Awang Adek: 717,935 registered companies – Who is correct??

There is also a huge difference between 609,595 companies used by Effendi Norwawi and 717,935 companies used by Awang Adek. Effendi chooses to use 609,595 active companies for the extrapolation whereas Awang Adek could have included another 108,340 inactive companies for his computation. It is interesting to further pursue what type of extrapolation technique they used in order to come out with the same figure – 18.9 percent Bumiputera equity ownership – when there is such a huge difference in the total number of registered companies used by both of them.

What I wish to establish here is that all the numbers that both of them provide must be able to speak for themselves. With so many flaws and doubts after detailed examination of the figures provided by both high level officers of the administration, there is an urgent need of the government, in particular the Prime Minister himself to clarify everything once and for all.
One must be very confused when reading Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr. Awang Adek’s reply last Tuesday as compared with statement made by the Minister in the Prime Minister Department, YB Senator Datuk Effendi Norwawi, after doing a close checking on the mathematics.

During his reply to a oral question from MP for Gua Musang, YB Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek revealed that Bumiputeras own 36.6 percent of equity ownership at Bursa Saham valued at RM78.4 billion as at Dec 31 last year, as compared to 46.9 percent or RM100.4 billion for non- Bumiputeras and 16.45 percent or RM35.2 billion for foreigners.

Bumiputeras own 45% equity in nominee companies – Awang Adek did not say it in hansard

Datuk Effendi Norwawi challenged Datuk Dr Awang Adek’s reply by clarifying that Awang Adek wrongly apportioned 45 percent of equity ownership held by nominee companies to Bumiputeras when it should be 8.3 percent.

One should not be seemed as defending Awang Adek’s figure when one argues about the validity of Effendi’s claim against Awang Adek’s that Awang Adek has wrongly apportioned 45 percent of equity ownership held nominee companies to Bumiputeras which leads Awang Adek to conclude that Bumiputeras own 36.6 percent equity .

A double check with the hansard on 7th November 2006 discloses that Awang Adek has never mentioned about this, that the figure of 36.6 percent equity ownership is based on 45 percent apportion of the equity in nominee companies owned to Bumiputeras.

Until there is a clear clarification from Awang Adek to specifically deal with this issue, i.e. of whether his figure of 36.6 percent equity ownership is based on 45 percent apportion of equity in nominee companies to Bumiputeras, Effendi’s statement can be legitimately doubted and cannot be taken as truth since there is no substantial fact to back-up in his clarifications.

8.3 percent Bumiputera equity in nominee companies not accurate when 180 out of 359 nominee companies are excluded

Effendi also further illustrated that instead of taking the figure as 45 percent, Bumiputeras actually control 8.3 percent equity in nominee companies based on a survey on 359 nominee companies to ascertain the status of ownership and beneficiaries of shares registered under nominees, which was conducted in March 2005 by EPU with the cooperation of SSM (Companies Commission of Malaysia).

A total of 179 companies (which equities represent 74.3 percent, or RM103.7 billion of the total equity held by nominee companies) are said to have responded to this survey. It is from this survey that the figure of 8.3 percent Bumiputeras ownership in such companies is derived.

This means that there are another 180 nominee companies (in which their equities represent the rest of the 25.7 percent of the equity, or RM35.9 billion of the total equity held by nominee companies) did not respond to this survey.

By assuming that 100 percent of the share of these 180 nominee companies are owned by Bumiputeras, it would mean an additional of RM35.9 billion of equity on top of the RM8.6 billion (equivalent to 8.3 percent of the share owned by Bumiputeras, value: RM8.6 billion out of RM103.7 billion – 179 nominee companies from a total of 359 nominee companies) equity owned by Bumiputeras as informed by Effendi.

Therefore, total equity owned by Bumiputeras in all the 359 nominee companies can be as high as RM 44.5 billion (RM35.9 billion + RM 8.6 billion = RM 44.5 billion) which is 31.9 percent of a total of RM 139.6 billion (RM 44.5 billion + RM 103.7 billion), the total equity value owned by nominee companies in Bursa Malaysia.

It could be unreasonable to assume that 100 percent equities of the rest of the 180 nominee companies are solely owned by Bumiputeras. It is also equally ridiculous to exclude the other 180 nominee companies which had not responded to the EPU-SSM survey when we come to evaluate the real percentage of equity owned by Bumiputeras in nominee companies listed in Bursa Malaysia. Therefore, in releasing his clarifications on nominee companies, we just cannot afford to ignore the rest of the 180 companies.

Since there is no further information on these 180 nominee companies, Effendi’s remark that Bumiputeras only controlled 8.3 percent of equity in nominee companies stands no ground. According to Effendi, it is this figure (Bumiputeras only controlled 8.3 percent of equity in nominee companies) that derives the conclusion that Bumiputeras only control 21.8 percent of equity in 914 listed companies in Bursa Malaysia. This percentage is reduced to 18.9 percent after extrapolation done against 609,595 active companies registered with the Companies Commission, which is also another question that why extrapolation is used instead of direct computation of the real figures.

Effendi: 609,595 registered companies; Awang Adek: 717,935 registered companies – Who is correct??

There is also a huge difference between 609,595 companies used by Effendi Norwawi and 717,935 companies used by Awang Adek. Effendi chooses to use 609,595 active companies for the extrapolation whereas Awang Adek could have included another 108,340 inactive companies for his computation. It is interesting to further pursue what type of extrapolation technique they used in order to come out with the same figure – 18.9 percent Bumiputera equity ownership – when there is such a huge difference in the total number of registered companies used by both of them.

What I wish to establish here is that all the numbers that both of them provide must be able to speak for themselves. With so many flaws and doubts after detailed examination of the figures provided by both high level officers of the administration, there is an urgent need of the government, in particular the Prime Minister himself to clarify everything once and for all.

土著股权课题—与其解决疑惑,阿芬迪和阿旺阿迪的解释制造更多问题和疑惑

任何人是如果尝试跟进副财政部长拿督阿旺阿迪博士上周二在国会针对土著股权问题的回答以及首相署部长拿督阿芬迪(掌管经济策划单位)在前晚所发表的文告,他一定会觉得模糊不清。

阿旺阿迪11月7日国会下议院回答话旺生区国会议员东姑拉查里的口头问题是支出,截至2005年12月31日,大马股票交易所的价值784亿令吉的股权,或总数的36.6巴仙由土著拥有,非土著则拥有1004亿令吉的股权,或总数的46.9巴仙,外国人则持有352亿令吉的股权,相等于总数的16.45巴仙。

土著在托管公司拥有45%的股权—阿旺阿迪在国会会议记录并没有这么说

拿督阿芬迪过后在周一晚上发表文告指出拿督阿旺阿迪博士的说法不正确。他说阿旺阿迪已经错误地把托管公司的45%股权当作是土著所拥有的股权,其实真正的数字只是8.3%而已。阿芬迪说,由于阿旺阿迪做出这错误的预设,所以才得出土著在股票交易所掌握36.6%股权的说法。

任何人士如果挑战阿芬迪的说法,他们不应被视为故意维护阿旺阿迪,因为阿旺哈迪本人并没有在国会会议时这么说。


这可以通过当天的会议记录中查寻得到。阿旺阿迪当天只是表示股票交易所(第一和第二交易板)由土著掌握的股权是36.6%,但是他并没有公布他是如何获得这个数字,更甭勇说阿旺阿迪当天发表‘土著在托管公司控制45%的股权’的论述。

除非阿旺阿迪本人能够针对阿芬迪的说法进行反驳或澄清,尤其是到底土著在托管公司到底控制多少巴仙的股权,要不然我们不能轻易接纳阿芬迪的说法,因为阿芬迪的说法还是有许多疑点。我接下来将会一一作出解释。

土著只是掌握托管公司8.3巴仙的股权并不是精准的言论,尤其是359间托管公司中的180间并没有列入计算范围之内

阿芬迪说,由他掌管的经济策划单位早在2005年3月与大马公司委员会(Companies Commission of Malaysia)向359所托管公司进行联合调查,已确定到底是谁委托这些公司持有他们的股票。

阿芬迪说当局一共受到179间公司的回复。这179间公司所持股票价值是总数的74.3巴仙,或1037亿令吉。通过这些数据,当局得到的结论就是土著只控制其中的8.3巴仙的股权。

既然只有179间公司答复,这意味着还有另外180间托管公司并没有答复当局。这也显示这剩余180间托管公司一共控制市场上25.7巴仙的股权,或价值359亿令吉。

如果我们预设立场,即这剩余的180间托管公司所持有的股权全部都是由土著拥有,那么土著通过托管公司所持有的股权价值为445亿令吉(即359亿令吉和86亿令吉的总和。这86亿令吉是阿芬迪所公布的数字)。新的总数将会是1396亿令吉(359亿令吉和1037亿令吉的总和)。445亿令吉就是1369亿令吉的31.9巴仙。这个巴仙率与阿芬迪的数字(8.3巴仙)向去甚远。

当然,我不否认人们可以反对我的预设,那就是把这180间托管公司所持有的股权全数归为土著所拥有的股权,是不正确的预设,但是与此同时,我们也不能随意忽略这180间托管公司所持有的股权,只凭179间公司的股权结构变妄下定论,指土著仅拥有8.3%的股权。

既然当局并没有进一步透露这180间没有答复的托管公司,因此阿芬迪的说法也同样难以令人信服。既然阿芬迪接下来的数字(土著在914间上市公司中只是掌握21.8巴仙的股权,而在609,595间向公司注册局注册的活跃公司中,土著仅掌握18.9巴仙的股权。)都是奠基在这个托管公司的8.3%之上,那么我们同样要对阿芬迪的数字抱持存疑的态度,尤其是18.9巴仙的土著股权巴仙率是通过预算(extrapolation)的方式算出来的,而不是根据确实的股权计算出来。

阿芬迪:609,595间注册公司;阿旺阿迪: 717,935间注册公司—到底谁的才是对的?

除此以外,阿芬迪表示他是引用609,595间活跃的注册公司来算出18.9%的土著股权控制率。反之,阿旺阿迪泽则使用717,935间注册公司来计算出18.9%的控制率。两者之间相差108,340间公司,但是却能够得出18.9%的控制率。到底他们是使用哪一类的预算方式(extrapolation methods)?

我要在这里交待的就是,官员们所提供的数字必须是相通的数字,而不是自相矛盾的数字,也不是计算的前提是自相矛盾的数字,但是最后的结论却是一样的?这种现象在数学里是不能理解的。由此看来,政府高官,尤其是首相本人必须一劳永逸地清除交待所有的疑点。

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Jikalau kerajaan Selangor bersedia untuk meluluskan 5000 kilang haram dan Istana Zakaria, bagaimana pula dengan kuil-kuil Hindu yang haram?

Jikalau Menteri Besar Selangor, Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo mengatakan bahawa beliau terpaksa mengambilkira pelbagai aspek termasuk kepentingan kaum, agama dan ekonomi sebelum mengambil tindakan merobohkan mana-mana banguan yang tidak dihantar pelan pembangunan/pengubahsuaian untuk kelulusan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT), adakah MB sendiri sudi meluluskan kuil-kuil Hindu yang tidak mempunyai Lesen Menduduki Sementara (LMS) sebagai bangunan yang sah?

Ini merupakan satu persoalan yang ditimbulkan apabila MB mengatakan bahawa beliau perlu “bertimbang rasa dan sensitif terhadap perasaan” rakyat berbilang kaum di Selangor.

Apa yang MB sendiri mungkin tidak tahu ialah keadaan sebenar sebenarnya bertentangan dengan apa yang disarankan oleh MB.

Ini adalah kerana kuil-kuil Hindu di Malaysia, termasuklah kuil-kuil yang dibina di Selangor dirobohkan dengan kadar yang cukup dahsyat.

Sehingga keadaan ini tidak diperbetulkan seperti yang disarankan oleh MB sendiri, rakyat Selangor masih berhak untuk menuntut supaya bukan sahaja Rumah Satay kepunyaan Datuk Zakaria Mat Deros dirobohkan, bahkan Istana mewahnya yang berharga berpuluh-puluh juta ringgit juga perlu dirobohkan atas sebab yang sama, iaitu bersalah kerana tidak mendapat kebenaran merancang daripada PBT.

Jikalau Kerajaan Negeri Selangor sudi meluluskan hampir 5000 unit kilang haram di Selangor sebagai kilang yang sah, mengapakah kerajaan negeri pula tidak cuba menghalalkan kuil-kuil Hindu yang kebanyakkannya dibina di dalam ladang dan estet serta tidak mempunyai LMS yang sah?

Adakah keputusan MB ini akan dijadikan salah satu dasar kerajaan Negeri Selangor?

Seboleh-bolehnya Kerajaan Negeri harus menghulurkan bantuan kepada kuil-kuil ini dan bukannnya mengarahkan PBT untuk terus meroboh mana-mana kuil yang menduduki di atas tanah kerajaan.

MB juga menyatakan bahawa sesebuah bangunan itu akan diroboh sekiranya didapati bangunan itu tidak selamat, mengganggu keselamatan awam atau trafik setempat. Jikalau kita mengikut logik MB ini, kita akan mendapati lebih banyak sebab untuk merobohkan Istana Mahligai itu kerana mahligainya yang mempunyai empat tingkat melibatkan kerja-kerja pilling yang banyak.

Memandangkan ianya amat berdekatan dengan rumah awam, maka saya sendiri mengesyaki sama ada satu akses impak alam sekitar (Environmental Impact Assessment Report, atau EIA Report) telah disediakan oleh pihak Zakaria untuk kelulusan daripada Jabatan Alam Sekitar sebelum kerja-kerja pembinaan dimulakan. Jikalau laporan EIA tidak dijalankan, sesuatu projek ini masih lagi dipercayai mendatangkan kemudaratan bukan sahaja kepada alam sekitar tetapi juga kepada penghuni-penghuni persekitaran. Menteri Besar harus memberi penjelasan yang lebih mendalam berkenaan dengan dakwaan ini.

如果雪州政府准备合法化州内逾5千间非法工厂,为何政府不同时把州内的非法兴都庙宇予以合法地位?

如果雪州州务大臣,拿督斯里基尔医生指出,在决定拆除任何未呈交图测建筑物之前,他必须考虑各项因素,包括族群、宗教和经济上的利益,既然如此,州务大臣所领导的雪州政府是否准备批准没有获得临时地契而兴建的兴都教庙宇?

我们纵然欢迎州务大臣的这番话,但是州务大臣是否知道正是的情况却并非如此?因为在马来西亚,包括在雪兰莪州,地方当局往往以占据政府地为理由而把兴建在这些土地上的‘非法’兴都教庙宇予以拆除。

如果州务大臣一天没有针对这个问题作出完整的交代,以及承诺以更协商性的方式来处理这个问题,我们还有权利向州务大臣追究查卡利亚豪宅事件,即地方政府当局也应该拆除查卡利亚的豪宅,而不只是拆除他的沙爹屋,因为在法律上,这两所建筑物都是没有获得地方当局的规划准正下动工兴建,触犯1976年建筑物、道路及沟渠法令。

我们觉得已获的是,如果州政府准备批准州内5000所非法工厂成为合法工厂,为何政府也不能同时网开一面,发出临时地契予坐落在政府地上的兴都庙宇?

州政府至少应该协助这些兴都庙宇搬迁至其它地方,而不是谕令地方政府立即拆除这些庙宇。

州务大臣也表示如果某一座建筑物被发现危害公共安全或阻碍当地的交通顺畅,那么那座建筑物则必须拆除。如果我们依循州务大臣的逻辑,我们会发现更多拆除查卡利亚豪宅的理由,因为这座四层楼的豪宅涉及许多地基工作。

由于这项工程的地点非常靠近民宅,因此我非常怀疑到底查卡利亚当初大兴土木兴建豪宅是是否也向环境局申请进行环境评估工作。如果没有进行这项工作,那么工程局是不可能批准查卡利亚的工程,尤其是该豪宅的面积非常大(总面积超过43,000平方公尺)。因此,我呼吁州务大臣本身亲自针对这点做出交代。

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Invited to attend FES' function in New York - Day One

I am invited by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) to participate in the First Fall Academy for Young International Policy Analysts “Understanding the United Nations.”

The Fall Academy will take place in New York from Monday, 6 November 2006 until Friday, 10 November 2006.

This will be an excellent opportunity to deepen my understanding of the UN. More specifically, I can be informed about the capacities of the UN to deal with policy issues that are relevant to my work in Malaysia.


The first day of the programme was merely familiarising with the structures, operations and daily works and tasks handled by the different entity under the umbella of UN.

Mr Jurgen Stetten and Volker Lehmann from FES New York first briefed us on the programme. It was followed by a talk by Mr Hazem Fahmy, Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General. Mr Hazem Fahmy is currently serving in the UN Secretariat and he talked about the challenges of reforming the UN.

We were then brought to the UN building for a guided tour for one hour by walking to the UN headquarters.

In the afternoon, Sebastian Einsiedel from
International Peace Academy talked on Terrorism. International Peace Academy is an independent, international institution dedicated to promoting the prevention and settlement of armed conflicts between and within states through policy research and development.

In the context of their works with UN, IPA mainly serves to channelling external researches to the UN for decision-making.

We learnt more about UN Peacekeeping operations when we were given the last talk of the day by Lisa Buttenheim from the
UN Department of Peace-Keeping Operations (Asia and Middle East Division).


Saturday, November 04, 2006

More scandals coming, is Zakaria still fit as ADUN?

Yesterday, the Sun reported that Port Klang Assemblyman and Klang Municipal Councillor, Datuk Zakaria Mat Deros remained as senator while being an undischarged bankrupt.

The report also says that:

According to Dewan Negara records, Zakaria, who was then known as Zainal Mohd Deros, was appointed a senator on July 30, 1991, and served two terms which ended on July 31, 1997. In the 1999 general election, he stood as a candidate for the Selat Klang state seat which he won.

Two days ago, News Straits Times carried a front page report (Headline: Zak to Zak!) which reported Zakaria, as president of SBA, is alleged to have made the application for 10 acres (four hectares) of land to PKNS - he is chairman of its land committee, in which this is in a typical example of conflict of interest.

That was also the day when the UMNO Supreme Court ruled that Zakaria has to withdraw from being appointed as Klang Municipal Councillor.

Yesterday, Utusan Malaysia carried a front page report which headlined “Saya tidak perlu ikut cakap Menteri Besar – Zakaria” (I don’t have to follow what MB said – Zakaria).

With this latest remark and the two scandals highlighted by the press, the UMNO Supreme Council should embark on an emergency meeting to reveal it’s earlier decision that Zakaria shall withdraw from being appointed as Klang Municipal Councillor as Zakaria is no longer deemed fit as a State Assemblyman.


What moral and political legality does Zakaria enjoy to continue his ADUNship for Port Klang when he is not even fit, suitable and clean to be a councilor?

If Zakaria’s position as ADUN is maintained as it is, this is not only another episode of grave injustice from the current administration, but it is also a blow to the electoral pledge from the Prime Minister to uphold integrity and fight corruption.

DAP Selangor strongly urges the Prime Minister to take stern action on Zakaria and review the decision by the UMNO Supreme Council. To uphold law and order and to send a strong reminder to all elected representative, not only Zakaria should resign from his councillorship (which he claimed that it is a non issue as he has not sworn in as councilor yet) but Zakaria should better resign from his ADUNship to avoid tarnishing the image of the highest legislative entity in the State of Selangor. At the same time, not only Zakaria’s DZ Satay House must be demolished but his luxurious mansion must be demolished as well.

越来越多丑闻涌现,难道老查还适合当州议员吗?

昨天的《太阳报》报道巴生港口区州议员兼巴生市议员拿督查卡利亚在约十年前接获破产令时依然担任上议员。

该报道也指出:

“根据当时上议院的纪录,当时被称为Zainal Mohd Deros的查卡利亚市在1991年7月30日被委任成为上议员。他担任了两届上议员,直至1997年7月31日。在1999年大选,他在巴生海峡州议席上阵并获胜。”

两天前,《新海峡时报》头条新闻指出身为雪州羽毛球总会会长的查卡利亚致函向雪州发展机构申请一片4公顷的土地。同一时间,该机构的土地委员会主席也是查卡利亚本人!这是另一宗针对查卡利亚办事出现利益冲突的例子。在同一天,巫统最高理事会决定查卡利亚必须腾出他的市议员职位。

昨天,《马来西亚前锋报》头条新闻的标题是“Saya tidak perlu ikut cakap Menteri Besar – Zakaria”(意即“查卡利亚:我无需听州务大臣的话”)

短短两天,我们通过报章读到一篇有一篇针对查卡利亚的丑闻,随着《前锋报》的这则映射查卡利亚目中无人的新闻之后,巫统最高理事会应该召开紧急会议,重新审核理事会之前作做出的决定,那就是查卡利亚必须腾出他的巴生市议员职位,因为查卡利亚本人已经完全不符合资格成为州议员。


如果查卡利亚的道德和政治正确已经荡然无存,以致他再也不能当上巴生市议员的职位,那他又本着什么本事成为州议员?

如果查卡利亚还能继续担任州议员,这不仅是另一不公事件,同时也挑战首相廉政承诺的威信。

雪州行动党因此强烈呼吁首相检讨最高理事会的决定,并且向查卡利亚采取严厉的行动。为了弘扬法治精神,以及要起杀一儆百的作用,查卡利亚不仅应辞掉巴生市议员的职位(虽然他日前已经指出他担任市议员与否已经不是问题,因为他本人就还未正式宣誓成为市议员,因此还不是市议员),同时也应该辞掉州议员一职。与此同时,巴生市议会不仅要拆除查卡利亚的沙爹屋,同时也应该把他的千万豪宅予以拆除,以消民怨。

Friday, November 03, 2006

查卡利亚的理由欠缺说服力

虽然查卡利亚昨日终于召开记者会,向报界澄清千万豪宅丑闻,但是他始终没有交代其他针对他个人的指责。

查卡利亚不应以‘一哭、二闹、三上吊’的伎俩来掩盖他所犯下的错误,反之他应该遵守雪州苏丹殿下的劝告,立即辞掉他的市议员职位。如果他不符合市议员的资格,那么查卡立亚更应该辞掉他的州议员职位,以免雪州人民因为查卡立亚而继续丢脸。


以下是查卡利亚为兴建豪宅的用意与解说∶
• 家庭成员人数多达34人(包括1女佣),但却全挤在一间只有6间房间的双层排屋,查卡利亚说他有义务为家人提供较舒适的居住环境。
• 在甘榜依达曼里兴建这座住家(豪宅),能继续与当地居民,朋友,亲戚和选民为邻,感觉更亲切,也方便他们上门探访或求援。查卡利亚已经在这里居住了30年。
• 查卡利亚有11名孩子,7名媳妇和11名孙子,未来还会有更多。他兴建的新屋只是2层半,不是媒体说的4层楼。这样的屋子能容纳一家人及符合未来的需求。
• 这只是为了留给后代一个纪念,同时也提供一个更舒适的家族聚会环境。
• 为了上门求援的选民提供服务的空间,过去他们人数众多,现有的房子不够容纳他们,访客的车辆更是造成邻居出入不便。
• 每年的开斋节查卡利亚都需准备20个帐蓬接待访客,甚至安排到邻居家门前,络绎不绝的访客,也干攘了邻居。
• 豪宅附有的公共设施包括小型回教堂以教授回教知识,补习中心及社区活动中心,公开让地方居民使用。

许多公众人士认为查卡利亚的解释不能接受,并且欠缺说服力,他们尤其不相信查卡利亚指出他现有的旧居有34名家庭成员共宿。

无论如何,即使我暂时宽容地相信查卡利亚的家族成员必须挤在一间只有6间房间的双层排屋,但是为何查卡利亚不能在行动党双溪槟榔区州议员邓章钦在2月间公开查卡利亚的豪宅时,立即交待清楚他呢?

当这个事情在10月间闹大后,为何查卡利亚没有在第一时间之内向外界和传媒澄清呢?当查卡利亚在开斋节前夕向州务大臣表示他的绘测师没有如期把图测提呈给市议会批准时,为何查卡利亚没有在当时向州务大臣解释他是基于家庭成员众多的原因才兴建这座千万豪宅?

既然查卡立亚老早就知道为何他要兴建这座千万豪宅,当着课题闹大之后,查卡立亚必定能够在第一时间之内作出反驳,为何他选择保持沉默?为何他在麦加朝圣回来之后也没有立即向传媒澄清?

很明显的,查卡立亚的解释与其是真诚的解释,它在很大程度上已经成为查卡立亚推卸责任的借口。查卡立亚必须耗时8个月的时间来解释为何他要承建千万豪宅,意味着他现在的解释欠缺说服力。

除此以外,查卡立亚在记者会上没有针对其他丑闻做出澄清,让人觉得查卡立亚并没有诚意一劳永逸地交待这一连串的事件。

如果查卡立亚有诚意道歉的话,唯一的办法就是辞掉州市议员二职,只有辞职谢罪才是查卡立亚当今的唯一出路。

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

应详细解释为何Syabas获准调整水费

掌管雪州基本设施及公共设施事务的州行政议员拿督阿都法达周一代表雪州政府宣布新水费架构。

在新的水费架构之下,家庭用户的用水量如果介於20至35立方米,其收费周二开始将调高13.2%,即每立方米1令吉3分。至于用水量超过35立方米,水费则调高17.6%,即每立方米2令吉。

工商用户在新水费架构下,如果用水量少过35立方米,收费率将调高15%,即从原有的1令吉80仙调至2令吉7分。用水量超过35立方米的用户则须面水费调高18.8%,即从原本的每立方米1令吉92仙,调至2令吉28仙。

身为消费人,雪隆一带的用户必须强力要求中央政府、州政府甚至是雪州水供有限公司(Syabas)出示证据,证明雪州水供有限公司成功提升其水供服务素质才批准提高水费。


近来因查卡利亚事件而威信受损的雪州政府更应该基于透明、公平以及良好施政的大原则之下公开所有提升水费的理由。雪州行动党不为了反对而反对,当时雪州政府和Syabas应该努力向人民(消费者)证明Syabas已经符合这些条件。

虽然阿都法达表示42%的用户(即每月用水量低于20令方公尺的用户)不会受到这项调整所影响,但是在经济状况一片低迷、百姓生活负担水涨床高之际,水费上涨肯定将会令老百姓更加吃不消,因为其他大量使用自来水的行业,如洗衣店、洗车店、熟食店、咖啡店、小贩中心等等的生意成本将会随着调高。在成本水涨船高的状况下,商家最终只有让消费者承担全部或部分的成本。如此一来,即使个人用户每月用水低于20立方公尺,但是他们最后还是间接受到影响,政府说这42%用户不会受影响并非完全正确。

如果雪州水供有限公司已经成功把无效益用水率从42巴仙降低至37巴仙,盈利也从一年前的9亿令吉提高至11令吉,但是我们不明白为何雪州水供有限公司还是必须提高水费来缴还债务?州政府以及Syabas是否能够公开他们是如何计算这笔帐?如果雪州水供有限公司要在不必调整水费的情况之下承担这笔债务,那么该公司的盈利应该要达到哪一个水平?

巴生巫统宣传主任大错特错

雪州行动党强烈谴责巴生巫统宣传主任苏海米沙菲宜的言论,因为他尝试模糊整个事情的焦点,并且企图违抗苏丹和雪州州务大臣的命令。

区部宣传局主任苏海米沙菲宜昨天说,此事的争论不再是查卡利亚个人的事,而是涉及到捍卫整个巫统巴生区部领导人的地位,因此他们是以捍卫马来人尊严为出发点。

苏海米并不知道查卡利亚已经是达到‘犯众怒’的严重阶段。这就是为何出席星期六和星期天的集会主要是当地的居民,尤其是不满查卡利亚妄顾法律,私自绕过市议会大兴土木兴建他的豪宅。


如果苏海米的言论可以成立,也就是查卡利亚所犯下的错误是‘一般的错误’,那么苏海米是否能够交待为何雪州苏丹殿下会对查卡利亚所犯下的‘一般的错误’那么有兴趣?这确确实实的显示查卡利亚所犯下的错误是非比寻常的严重错误。

除了企图模糊视线之外,苏海米的言论显示他连苏丹的命令也胆敢违抗。雪州行动党希望苏海米能够反省他本身的言论。

苏海米也抨击反对党的叫嚣企图欲挑起马来人的不满。这是错误的说法,因为真正引起人民和当地马来村民不满的是查卡利亚的妄顾法律,傲慢自大的态度。针对这点,昨日的《马来西亚前锋报》社论也撰文批评查卡利亚。作为所谓的主流马来文报章,苏海米的言论无疑是在自打嘴巴。

行动党的抗议不是针对查卡利亚,而是针对查卡利亚的态度。我们是对事不对人。更何况,这起事件涉及公共利益。其次,它已经深深影响政府的施政信誉以及雪州的声誉。

苏海米和这群巴生巫统的党员应该深刻的自我反省,而不是一再玩弄种族情绪。