PUSAT KHIDMAT ADN BANTING
NO. 81, TINGKAT 1, JALAN TELUK BUNUT, TAMAN DELIMA, 42700 BANTING.
TEL: +6-012-6834724, +6-012-6924724,
EMAIL: lauwengsan@gmail.com
https://linktr.ee/lauwengsan
Service centre hour: 9am to 5pm (Monday to Friday)
Monday, October 31, 2005
Jalan Universiti道路提升工程-八打灵再也市议会必须解释工程延迟的原因。
Jalan Universiti道路提升工程-八打灵再也市议会必须解释工程延迟的原因。
本人已经于2005年10月29日通过传真和电邮的方式致函八打灵再也市议会主席拿督阿末特米斯,以要求他解释八打灵再也Jalan Universiti道路提升工程延迟完工的原因。
这项道路提升工程的承包商是IJM Construction Bhd。有关工程包括在Jalan Dato’ Abu Bakar(Jalan 16/1)、Jalan Universiti及Jalan Kemajuan建筑一项高架天桥。该工程是在2003年10月开工,预计在2005年10月竣工。然而,该工程在大约一年前就已经停工。
雪州行动党和八打灵再也的行动党党员经常在该处观察,并发现因为该工程的搁置,导致施工之处出现积水,导致蚊虫滋生及生锈铁枝暴露在路旁。
我们已经就此事通知市议会,我们相信现有的施工之处有损八打灵再也的市容,尤其是八打灵再也将会在明年升格为市。有鉴于此,市议会主席必须解释为何有关计划会被搁置至如此长。承包商IJM Construction Bhd是否将会针对有关延迟作出赔偿?还是承包商已经发出任何Variation Order(VO),以致延迟整个工程?如是这样,承包商是否将会采取任何临时措施以确保道路使用者的安全?
这些都是地方当局必须在最短时间之内,以恰当的书面回答来解答的问题。其实大部分报章在周日报道市议会已经获得当局拨款以迁移该处的地下电缆和水管,但是直至今日,雪州行动党并没有获得当局的正式回函,表示他们会开斋节过后施工。如果这是市议会的确实答案,那么我们呼吁市议会应该尽速正式回函通知我们。
刘永山
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
博大以七宗罪再控一学生
以下新闻乃从《独立新闻在线》转载过来。看来我们必须严厉看待校园内违反人权的事件。
===
博大以七宗罪再控一学生
《独立新闻在线》记者林宏祥 2005年10月26日 11时32分
博特拉大学又提控另一名学生,传召一名电脑与通讯工程系二年级学生黄思敏出席11月10日召开的听证会。
博大在信函中列出黄思敏的七大罪状,其中包括在9月21日前往国会呈交备忘录、分别在9月26日的校园选举提名日及9月29日的投票日杯葛校园选举、在9月26日至29日期间参与筹款活动、10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会、在10月7日游行时出现在ntv7镜头,以及曾经出席法庭声援七名因参与反对《内安法令》集会而遭校方开除的学生。
黄思敏是在今天上午十时陪同农业系二年级生黎祖万奥斯曼(Ridhuan bin Othman)前往学生事务处出席听证会时接获此信。黎祖万奥斯曼向校方呈交抗议书,不满校方对本身的三项控状。
黎祖万面对的三项控状包括:9月21日前往国会呈交备忘录、9月29日投票日当天煽动学生杯葛校园选举,以及参与10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会的活动。校方指他触犯了博特拉大学校规,而校规条文源自《1971年大专法令》。
周一(10月24日)上午,外语系(中文)第二年生林仕妆也受传召出席听证会,她面对两项控状,包括 在9月29日投票日当天煽动学生杯葛校园选举以及参与10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会的活动。
林仕壮要求由律师、监护人及记录员陪同她出席听证会,唯学生事务处拒绝此要求。林仕壮进一步追问,学生事务处回应:“这是博大的风格!”无论如何,校方同意林仕壮延后听证会的要求,却将日期改在11月10日。据《独立新闻在线》读者miu miu透露,11月10日是博大考试期。
由此看来,不排除校方以此计分散学生注意力,减少当天前来聚集声援的人群。
===
博大以七宗罪再控一学生
《独立新闻在线》记者林宏祥 2005年10月26日 11时32分
博特拉大学又提控另一名学生,传召一名电脑与通讯工程系二年级学生黄思敏出席11月10日召开的听证会。
博大在信函中列出黄思敏的七大罪状,其中包括在9月21日前往国会呈交备忘录、分别在9月26日的校园选举提名日及9月29日的投票日杯葛校园选举、在9月26日至29日期间参与筹款活动、10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会、在10月7日游行时出现在ntv7镜头,以及曾经出席法庭声援七名因参与反对《内安法令》集会而遭校方开除的学生。
黄思敏是在今天上午十时陪同农业系二年级生黎祖万奥斯曼(Ridhuan bin Othman)前往学生事务处出席听证会时接获此信。黎祖万奥斯曼向校方呈交抗议书,不满校方对本身的三项控状。
黎祖万面对的三项控状包括:9月21日前往国会呈交备忘录、9月29日投票日当天煽动学生杯葛校园选举,以及参与10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会的活动。校方指他触犯了博特拉大学校规,而校规条文源自《1971年大专法令》。
周一(10月24日)上午,外语系(中文)第二年生林仕妆也受传召出席听证会,她面对两项控状,包括 在9月29日投票日当天煽动学生杯葛校园选举以及参与10月7日抬棺游行呈交备忘录给马来西亚人权委员会的活动。
林仕壮要求由律师、监护人及记录员陪同她出席听证会,唯学生事务处拒绝此要求。林仕壮进一步追问,学生事务处回应:“这是博大的风格!”无论如何,校方同意林仕壮延后听证会的要求,却将日期改在11月10日。据《独立新闻在线》读者miu miu透露,11月10日是博大考试期。
由此看来,不排除校方以此计分散学生注意力,减少当天前来聚集声援的人群。
Monday, October 24, 2005
Usul tolak gaji Ketua Pengarah BPS ditolak hari ini di Dewan Rakyat.
Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen YB Lim Kit Siang telah membawa satu usul untuk menolak gaji Ketua Pengarah BPR sebanyak RM10 daripada Bajet 2006 sebagai satu tindakan simbolik untuk menggesa BPS supaya mempertingkatkan usaha membanteras rasuah dan tidak menjadi seekor Harimau Tidak Bergigi (A Toothless Tiger).
Usul itu adalah seperti berikut:
“Bahawa perbelanjaan diluluskan dengan syarat dikurangkan sebanyak RM10.00 daripada Maksud Bekalan 9 - Ketua Pengarah Badan Pencegah Rasuah, Butiran 010000 Khidmat Sokongan, iaitu dengan memotong gaji Ketua Pengarah Badan Pencegah Rasuah sebanyak RM10.00 di bawah Maksud Bekalan 9, Butiran 010000 Khidmat Sokongan.”
Seperti biasa, usul ini ditolak oleh suara majoriti walaupun cukup panas diperbahaskan oleh Yang-yang Berhormat Ahli-ahli Parlimen sekalian.
Butir-butir akan dibekalkan nanti.
Usul itu adalah seperti berikut:
“Bahawa perbelanjaan diluluskan dengan syarat dikurangkan sebanyak RM10.00 daripada Maksud Bekalan 9 - Ketua Pengarah Badan Pencegah Rasuah, Butiran 010000 Khidmat Sokongan, iaitu dengan memotong gaji Ketua Pengarah Badan Pencegah Rasuah sebanyak RM10.00 di bawah Maksud Bekalan 9, Butiran 010000 Khidmat Sokongan.”
Seperti biasa, usul ini ditolak oleh suara majoriti walaupun cukup panas diperbahaskan oleh Yang-yang Berhormat Ahli-ahli Parlimen sekalian.
Butir-butir akan dibekalkan nanti.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
More IT cities, more housing projects or more broadband penetrations?
I think one of the main arguments here is the availability of high speed internet access to all citizens in Malaysia.It is saddening to see that even in place like Ara Damansara, Subang (as described by "Anonymous", where the place he/she stays is part of Klang Valley) does not have broadband access.
If this can happen in Malaysia, something is very wrong with our IT policy. And the only reason that we can have is the monopolization of broadband market by TM Net.During his winding-up speech this evening, Minister Of Science, Technology And Innovation, Y.B. Dato' Dr. Jamaluddin bin Dato' Mohd. Jarjis mentioned that there will be several IT cities set-up in future.
In his reply to a question raised by YB Chow Kon Yeow (DAP-Tanjong), JJ claimed that Bayan Baru is identified for IT development in Penang. (Correct me if I am wrong.)He even claimed that his ministry is trying to secure affordable computers for rural families (about RM500 per unit), in which these computers would be run in Malay to enable kampung folks to use ICT.
I think JJ has somehow missed the point as what is needed by Malaysia to be a fully IT savvy nation is to have an equitable IT development for all. Having a few more IC cities or MSCs, or sourcing affordable computers for kampung folks will not improve the problem as long as there is no commitment from the government to break the internet service monopoly by TM Net, thus creating competition among different ISPs to help the government to boost broadband penetration in Malaysia in a competitive price.
Having a few more IT Cities or MSCs may end up with more profiteering chances for housing developers.
If this can happen in Malaysia, something is very wrong with our IT policy. And the only reason that we can have is the monopolization of broadband market by TM Net.During his winding-up speech this evening, Minister Of Science, Technology And Innovation, Y.B. Dato' Dr. Jamaluddin bin Dato' Mohd. Jarjis mentioned that there will be several IT cities set-up in future.
In his reply to a question raised by YB Chow Kon Yeow (DAP-Tanjong), JJ claimed that Bayan Baru is identified for IT development in Penang. (Correct me if I am wrong.)He even claimed that his ministry is trying to secure affordable computers for rural families (about RM500 per unit), in which these computers would be run in Malay to enable kampung folks to use ICT.
I think JJ has somehow missed the point as what is needed by Malaysia to be a fully IT savvy nation is to have an equitable IT development for all. Having a few more IC cities or MSCs, or sourcing affordable computers for kampung folks will not improve the problem as long as there is no commitment from the government to break the internet service monopoly by TM Net, thus creating competition among different ISPs to help the government to boost broadband penetration in Malaysia in a competitive price.
Having a few more IT Cities or MSCs may end up with more profiteering chances for housing developers.
Who is the "Damn Bloody Stupid Old Man" in the Dewan Rakyat?
If somebody pop into you and ask you who is the "damn bloody stupid old man" in the Malaysian Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives), you could be puzzled by what is this person trying to ask you...
But of course, nobody can ever think that an MP (who is a BN MP from Kedah, who can speak some Hokkien and was once the Speaker of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah) can use such word in the chamber during the house meeting to attack another MP who is from the opposition party.
This is the same MP who has asked MPs from the Oppositions to "Get out of Malaysia" if they are not happy with the facts that Malaysia is already an Islamic State.
I would like to let the readers of this blog to guess who is the "damn bloody stupid old man" this BN MP was refering to at the time of his speech. Definitely speaking, to voice out such words to attack somebody personally is not an act that can be accepted in the holy month of Ramadan.
Probably, you all can have some guess. I let you all to guess.
But of course, nobody can ever think that an MP (who is a BN MP from Kedah, who can speak some Hokkien and was once the Speaker of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah) can use such word in the chamber during the house meeting to attack another MP who is from the opposition party.
This is the same MP who has asked MPs from the Oppositions to "Get out of Malaysia" if they are not happy with the facts that Malaysia is already an Islamic State.
I would like to let the readers of this blog to guess who is the "damn bloody stupid old man" this BN MP was refering to at the time of his speech. Definitely speaking, to voice out such words to attack somebody personally is not an act that can be accepted in the holy month of Ramadan.
Probably, you all can have some guess. I let you all to guess.
Ask the correct question to the correct ministry.
It was another marathon session tonight when the Parliament today (18th October) was only adjourned at 11pm. And the last minister to serve his wonding up speech was Datuk Wira Fong Chan Onn (BN-Alor Gajah), our poor Human Resources Minister who had to take care of some many "minta penjelasans' from the ground.
Of course, the biggest problem he had probably will be questions from Backbenchers especially on unemployed graduates, and also the retraining programmes.
Some backbenchers doesn't seem to be satisfied with his rhetorical answer and continue to pursue the issue even though it was about 10:45pm, 15 minutes more before adjournment. Some of their questions were quite sharp and the Minister seemed to be shaky in his reply.
Finally, Chong Eng (DAP-Bukit Mertajam) stood up to ask him a question...he rejected in the beginning, but Chong Eng kept pursuing:
"Soalan terakhir sekali...terakhir...satu sahaja...terakhir"
"Jangan bimbang, saya mau tolong Menteri."
"Satu soalan terakhir sahaja. Untuk tolong menteri."
So, after a few assurance, Fong Chan Onn finally gave way, and there's when the Parliament was heated up again when Chong Eng pointed to the House that questions from fellow backbenchers should better be directed to Ministry of Higher Education and Ministry of Education as these two ministries are responsible for the low quality of graduates produced by our education institutions while Fong's ministry is merely doing the final dirty job to clear the mess.
Of course, Hishammuddin (BN-Sembrong), the Education Minister was quite frustrated to hear this.
I am quite agreed with what Chong Eng said, that the poor Minister of Human Resources is doing the dirty jobs for the other two Ministers. And of course, all members of the house may as well ask the correct question to the correct ministry, else this will be a great blunder.
Of course, the biggest problem he had probably will be questions from Backbenchers especially on unemployed graduates, and also the retraining programmes.
Some backbenchers doesn't seem to be satisfied with his rhetorical answer and continue to pursue the issue even though it was about 10:45pm, 15 minutes more before adjournment. Some of their questions were quite sharp and the Minister seemed to be shaky in his reply.
Finally, Chong Eng (DAP-Bukit Mertajam) stood up to ask him a question...he rejected in the beginning, but Chong Eng kept pursuing:
"Soalan terakhir sekali...terakhir...satu sahaja...terakhir"
"Jangan bimbang, saya mau tolong Menteri."
"Satu soalan terakhir sahaja. Untuk tolong menteri."
So, after a few assurance, Fong Chan Onn finally gave way, and there's when the Parliament was heated up again when Chong Eng pointed to the House that questions from fellow backbenchers should better be directed to Ministry of Higher Education and Ministry of Education as these two ministries are responsible for the low quality of graduates produced by our education institutions while Fong's ministry is merely doing the final dirty job to clear the mess.
Of course, Hishammuddin (BN-Sembrong), the Education Minister was quite frustrated to hear this.
I am quite agreed with what Chong Eng said, that the poor Minister of Human Resources is doing the dirty jobs for the other two Ministers. And of course, all members of the house may as well ask the correct question to the correct ministry, else this will be a great blunder.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Shahrir's stand on Parliament autonomy questionable.
Perhaps you should have a read on today's Utusan Mingguan Wawancara (Interview) with Datuk Shahrir Samad, UMNO MP for Johor Bharu and Backbenchers Club Chairman.
Let me quote from what he said as followed:
"Pengumuman itu menimbulkan reaksi yang kuat di kalangan semua ahli Parlimen, cuma tindakan masing-masing berlainan. Pihak pembangkang terus menyerang dan menyifatkannya sebagai tindakan yang boleh menggugat kedudukan Parlimen. Kami yang menjadi penyokong kerajaan sebaliknya mengambil sikap yang lebih halus dan berlapik. "
"Kami mengadakan satu pertemuan dengan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Isnin lepas untuk menyuarakan kebimbangan kami. Kami mencadangkan supaya nama itu ditukar kepada sesuatu yang lebih sesuai dengan kedudukan Parlimen, supaya tidak mengikut acuan perkhidmatan awam. Timbalan Perdana Menteri kemudian bersetuju untuk membawa perkara itu kepada perhatian kabinet."
I am not sure if this is the reason why the name of Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Parlimen is changed to pejabat, and further changed to jawatan Ketua Pentadbiran (This is the so-called sotry about capital "J" for Jabatan and the small letter "j" for jawatan).
If it is so, then Datuk Shahrir may have made the biggest by asking for a change of name of the post, instead of pursuing in full swing to remove the post, whether it comes in the form of Ketua Pengarah or Ketua Pentadbiran, whether it is in the form of a Jabatan Parlimen or just a small jawatan.
Of course, another big mistake is that on what basis Shahrir to consult Najib, who is part of the Executive? Shahrir as BBC Chairman should at least display the little dignity he has as a Parliamentarian by not submitting to the Executive. I understand that being an MP from the government side, he may need to consult the Executive before any move from the backbenchers, but judging from the report, it does not seem that Shahrir was talking to the Executive in an equal basis as a Legislative.
While Shahrir's move to urga MPs to stand up as sign to support the re-establishment of Parliamentary Service Act 1963, but Shahrir's stand on Nazri's suggestion to have a Parliament Department has been quite unstable since Nazri announced the Cabinet's decision to establish the department. Maybe fellow Malaysians could put a closer watch on him and his chaps in the Parliament in days to come.
Let me quote from what he said as followed:
"Pengumuman itu menimbulkan reaksi yang kuat di kalangan semua ahli Parlimen, cuma tindakan masing-masing berlainan. Pihak pembangkang terus menyerang dan menyifatkannya sebagai tindakan yang boleh menggugat kedudukan Parlimen. Kami yang menjadi penyokong kerajaan sebaliknya mengambil sikap yang lebih halus dan berlapik. "
"Kami mengadakan satu pertemuan dengan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Isnin lepas untuk menyuarakan kebimbangan kami. Kami mencadangkan supaya nama itu ditukar kepada sesuatu yang lebih sesuai dengan kedudukan Parlimen, supaya tidak mengikut acuan perkhidmatan awam. Timbalan Perdana Menteri kemudian bersetuju untuk membawa perkara itu kepada perhatian kabinet."
I am not sure if this is the reason why the name of Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Parlimen is changed to pejabat, and further changed to jawatan Ketua Pentadbiran (This is the so-called sotry about capital "J" for Jabatan and the small letter "j" for jawatan).
If it is so, then Datuk Shahrir may have made the biggest by asking for a change of name of the post, instead of pursuing in full swing to remove the post, whether it comes in the form of Ketua Pengarah or Ketua Pentadbiran, whether it is in the form of a Jabatan Parlimen or just a small jawatan.
Of course, another big mistake is that on what basis Shahrir to consult Najib, who is part of the Executive? Shahrir as BBC Chairman should at least display the little dignity he has as a Parliamentarian by not submitting to the Executive. I understand that being an MP from the government side, he may need to consult the Executive before any move from the backbenchers, but judging from the report, it does not seem that Shahrir was talking to the Executive in an equal basis as a Legislative.
While Shahrir's move to urga MPs to stand up as sign to support the re-establishment of Parliamentary Service Act 1963, but Shahrir's stand on Nazri's suggestion to have a Parliament Department has been quite unstable since Nazri announced the Cabinet's decision to establish the department. Maybe fellow Malaysians could put a closer watch on him and his chaps in the Parliament in days to come.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Inilah apa yang terpapar pada Harian Metro hari ini (13/10/2005). Di fahamkan bahawa MPPJ pernah berjanji kepada penduduk di sekitar SS7, Petaling Jaya bahawa tasik itu tidak akan dibangunkan setelah dibantah hebat oleh penduduk setempat.
Kalaulah PBT tidak beroperasi seperti kongsi gelap(seperti yang dikatakan oleh M Kayveas), mengapa pula MPPJ sanggup makan janji sendiri?
Kalaulah PBT tidak beroperasi seperti kongsi gelap(seperti yang dikatakan oleh M Kayveas), mengapa pula MPPJ sanggup makan janji sendiri?
Wa!FM – Menuntut penjelasan daripada Effendi Norwawi
Penutupan Wa!FM, iaitu stesen radio Mandarin sukaramai, telah mencetuskan kegelisahan orang ramai. Isu ini mempunyai tiga aspek yang saling berkaitan. Yang pertama, kerajaan berperanan penting untuk mengelakkan operasi stesen radio ini daripada berhenti. Kedua, hakmilik jenis monopoli ke atas media harus dikaji semula. Ketiga, kerajaan sepatutnya menjalankan siasatan ke atas skandal yang melibatkan ntv7 dan Synchrosound Studio.
Sudah waktu berakhirnya “KL Spring”?
Terlebih dahulu, kita perlu membuat andaian bahawa stesen radio dan televisyen adalah institusi dan barangan awam. Walaupun kesemua stesen radio dan televisyen dimiliki penuh oleh syarikat swasta, ini tidak bermakna stesen-stesen tersebut sekadar pencetak wang tunai. Jadi, kerajaan dan dewan yang mulia ini seharusnya mengambil sikap yang lebih serius terhadap isu tersebut, termasuk juga soalan-soalan yang berkaitan dengan pemilikan dan monopoli ke atas media.
Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik memberitahu dewan yang mulia baru-baru ini bahawa meskipun terdapat 1 juta orang yang menandatangani petisyen dan terserah kepadanya, kerajaan tidak berdaya untuk menghalang pemilik swasta Wa!FM, iaitu Synchrosound Studio Sdn. Bhd. daripada menutup stesen radio itu.
Seperti yang saya dapat tahu pagi tadi, terdapat 10,903 orang yang menyertai petisyen melalui laman web (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?WAFans). Memang boleh diakui bahawa bilangan pempetisyen tidaklah banyak sangat. Namun demikian, adakah kerajaan Barisan Nasional bersedia untuk tidak mengendahkannya, sehingga akhirnya memudaratkan kepentingan sendiri.
Dalam isu ini, apa yang lebih penting bukannya perasaan yang diluahkan oleh peminat-peminat radio tersebut, tetapi reputasi keseluruhan pentadbiran kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Datuk Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi. Salah satu program yang paling popular dan dialu-alukan adalah sesi perbualan yang diudarakan dari pukul 5.30 petang sehingga 7.00 petang. Program ini mengizinkan pendengar membuat panggilan “call-in” untuk mengutarakan pandangan mereka masing-masing terhadap isu-isu politik yang serius. Keadaan ini sungguh dihargai ramai, dan mereka selalunya menjadikan program ini sebagai gambaran terhadap keterbukaan relatif yang ditunjukkan oleh kerajaan pimpinan Abdullah Badawi, dan juga dibandingkan dengan era kepimpinan Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad. Memandangkan ruang dan saluran adalah terhad untuk orang awam mengutarakan pandangan mereka dengan cara yang tidak tersekat seperti dalam program Wa!FM tersebut, maka penutupan Wa!FM yang bakal terjadi dapatlah diibaratkan sebagai “the end of ‘KL Spring’ ”, atau dalam kata lain, berakhirnya sesuatu zaman yang lebih terbuka malah juga paling singkat dalam sejarah.
TV tontonan percuma: Monopoli yang terjadi-jadi
Penutupan Wa!FM adalah amat berkaitan dengan persoalan-persoalan mengenai pemilikan media yang lebih luas. Perhatian orang awam ditumpukan ke atas isu Wa!FM adalah disebabkan stesen radio tersebut bebas untuk mengutarakan pandangan awam, dan pada masa yang sama, hanya terdapat segelintir stesen radio yang menggunakan bahasa Cina sebagai bahasa pengantaraannya. Di antara 56 stesen radio yang diluluskan untuk beroperasi di Malaysia, hanya terdapat 4 stesen radio yang berbahasa Cina. Memandangkan permintaan masyarakat terhadap isi kandungan radio yang berbahasa Cina adalah semakin tinggi, maka kerajaan berperanan untuk menghalang Wa!FM daripada ditutup, dan pada masa yang sama, meluluskan lebih banyak lesen untuk tujuan penyiaran tersebut.
Berita yang melaporkan bahawa The Star yang dimiliki oleh MCA telah mengambilalih sebuah lagi stesen radio adalah mengejutkan. Parti-parti pemerintah seperti MCA dan UMNO semakin ghairah untuk melibatkan diri dalam urusniaga media sehingga ke suatu tahap yang tidak mungkin berputar balik. Buat masa sekarang, MCA telah memiliki Nanyang Siang Pau dan China Press, dan juga dua buah stesen radio, iaitu RFM 98.8 dan RED 104.9.
Garisan yang memisahkan media dan parti politik dalam negara kita adalah semakin mengaburkan. Apa yang lebih membimbangkan kita adalah percubaan parti-parti politik BN yang meruncing ke arah untuk memonopoli pengaliran maklumat melalui pemilikan media, terutamanya dalam era globalisasi ini.
Kita mengimport istilah “GLC” atau “government-linked corporations” dari Singapura untuk merujuk kepada syarikat-syarikat yang sahamnya sebahagian dimiliki oleh kerajaan. Saya ingin memperkenalkan istilah “ULC” atau “UMNO-linked corporations” untuk merujuk kepada syarikat-syarikat yang dimiliki oleh UMNO, seperti Media Prima Bhd.
Kes perolehan ntv7 oleh Media Prima adalah satu contoh ketara yang menunjukkan sikap UMNO dan BN tidak mengambil peduli serta tidak menghormati kebebasan media. Pada bulan Julai ini, Media Prima mengumumkan bahawa syarikat itu akan membantu Natseven TV dan dua buah syarikat yang berkaitan dengannya, iaitu Synchrosound Studio Sdn. Bhd. and Questseven Dot Com Sdn. Bhd., untuk menyusun semula hutang mereka yang tidak diketahui jumlahnya. Synchrosound and Questseven adalah pemegang lesen dan operator Wa!FM masing-masing.
Media Prima telah memiliki TV3 dan 8tv, dengan gabungan saham iklan TV (adex) sejumlah 53% dan penonton yang sejumlah 56%. Media Prima baru-baru ini telah membuat pengumuman untuk mengambil alih CH-9 Media, iaitu pemilik Channel 9 dengan RM41.44 juta. Sudahlah dengan lauk-pauk yang begitu banyak dalam piringnya. Ekoran daripada tindakan ini, Media Prima bakal akan menjadi pemilik tunggal kepada semua TV swasta tontonan percuma di Malaysia. Pemilikan monopoli ke atas media adalah sesuatu gejala yang tidak sihat, lebih-lebih lagi dikuasai oleh ULC.
Skandal-skandal
Alasan-alasan yang sering disebutkan dalam kes penutupan Wa!FM adalah kerana Media Prima sedang menjalankan proses penjenamaan semula, dan Wa!FM adalah bertanggungjawab ke atas kerugian terkumpul sebanyak RM 55 juta yang dialami oleh Synchrosound. Ini adalah tidak benar sekali. Mengikut laporan tahunan Synchrosound yang terakhir yang dikemukakan kepada Pendaftar Syarikat pada tahun 2000, hutang syarikat itu telah berjumlah sebanyak RM 23 juta. Dalam kata lain, sekurang-kurangnya setengah daripada hutang itu telah terkumpul sebelum kemunculan Wa!FM pada tahun 2003.
Terdapat beberapa soalan yang saya harapkan kerajaan dan individu-individu yang berkenaan untuk menjawab:
(1) Jumlah hutang yang ditanggung oleh Synchrosound dan ntv7 adalah banyak. Saya tidak berminat untuk mempersoalkan urusan keperibadian, tetapi adalah munasabah untuk saya bertanya bahawa adakah perceraian di antara Datuk Seri Mohd Effendi Norwawi, Wakil Khas Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi yang berstatus Menteri dengan isterinya yang sudah berkahwin 33 tahun, Farida Hashim yang melibatkan beberapa juta ringgit, turut melibatkan ntv7 dan Wa!FM. Dalam laporan Sunday Mail bertarikh 10 Julai 2005, adalah didakwa bahawa penyelesaian kes antara dua orang ini melibatkan wang di antara RM 25 juta dan RM 100 juta. Tiga hari kemudian, Media Prima mengumumkan bahawa bermula prosesnya untuk mengambil alih ntv7. Kebetulan pada waktu adalah memeranjatkan. Adakah Effendi menjual ntv7 untuk menyelesaikan kes perceraiannya? Adakah dia pernah berfikir tentang kebajikan beberapa ratus pekerja yang berkhidmat dalam stesen televisyen dan radio? Kebanyakan mereka kemungkinan besar hilang pekerjaan dalam tempoh beberapa tahun berikutnya apabila selesainya penggabungan dengan TV3.
(2) Gabungan saham iklan TV (adex) untuk ntv7 adalah sekitar 30%. Unjuran pendapatan tanpa diskaun adalah sekitar RM 90 juta dan dijana melalui pendapatan kasar dengan diskaun yang amat rendah diberikan. Dalam apa-apa keadaan sekalipun, sungguhpun pihak ntv7 tidak berupaya untuk menjana keuntungan daripada adex tersebut, namun adalah memeranjatkan jikalau hutang ntv7 untuk tahun-tahun kebelakangan ini adalah lebih daripada RM 200 juta. Saya mendesak Badan Pencegah Rasuah untuk menjalankan siasatan ke atas kes ini, untuk mengenalpasti sama ada terdapat kejanggalan dalam pelaksanaan syarikat tersebut, terutamanya hubungan di antara ntv7 dengan sebuah syarikat yang bernama Air7 Sdn. Bhd.
(3) Adalah didakwa bahawa Wa!FM berhutang kira-kira RM 8 juta kepada TM dalam tahun-tahun kebelakangan ini. Sebagai sebuah syarikat GLC yang berkepentingan awam, TM perlu membuat penjelasan mengapa syarikatnya mengizinkan Wa!FM untuk terus berhutang dan tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan dengan lebih awal?
(4) Adalah didakwa bahawa ntv7 dan Wa!FM telah berhutang EPF pekerja lebih daripada RM 1 juta secara tunggakan. Adalah menyalahi undang-undang bagi sesiapa yang tidak membuat sumbangan kepada Kumpulan Simpanan Wang Pekerja. Perlu diambil perhatian bahawa EPF memegang ekuiti sebanyak 14.9% dalam Media Prima. Dengan itu, EPF perlulah menjalankan siasatan dengan serta-merta ke atas ntv7 dan Synchrosound Studio Sdn Bhd. Sebagai sesebuah perbadanan yang melindungi dana persaraan pekerja, adalah sesuatu yang aneh bagi EPF terus melabur secara tidak langsung dalam sesebuah syarikat yang langsung tidak menunaikan kewajipannya terhadap EPF.
(Teks ucapan Ahli Parlimen DAP untuk Cheras, YB Tan Kok Wai ketika membahas Bajet 2006 di Parlimen pada 13 Oktober 2005)
Saturday, October 08, 2005
MCA Youth should take concrete action for the repeal of UUCA to prove that they are not indulging in plain talk.
DAPSY urged MCA Youth to take concrete action to repeal the University and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) to prove that they are not indulging in plain talk.
Deputy Minister for Higher Education Datuk Fu Ah Kiew had on Monday informed the press that the government is in the process of reviewing all acts and regulations relating to the universities and colleges, including the contentious University and University Colleges Act 1971 to allow more freedom and democratic space for undergraduates.
Although the announcement was warmly welcomed by MCA Youth, there is very little response from other youth organizations. DAPSY certainly does not have any intention to undermine the “good intention” of MCA Youth. However, MCA Youth should take cognizance that the Act contravenes the spirit of the Federal Constitution, in which the basic civil liberties of Malaysian citizens are enshrined. MCA Youth should instead demand that the Act be repealed in full.
In our struggle to fight for greater democratic space in our campus, DAPSY is currently working on the following:
1. Drafting a memorandum entitled “Memorandum from Political Party Youth Wings to Repeal the UUCA”. In several campus elections held recently, campus authorities were said to have misused their power in providing support to candidates who are pro-authority to secure victory. The campus authorities reportedly even bypassed rules and regulations provided under the UUCA. Such action clearly violates the principles of fair play and democracy and is a reflection of the diminishing campus democracy. The memorandum will be submitted to the Ministry of Higher Education. For this purpose, we would welcome constructive input from MCA Youth in drafting the memorandum and hope that they would be one of the first signatories of the memorandum.
2. Arranging the formation of a Parliamentary caucus to repeal the UUCA. We will invite various political party youth wings, NGOs and youth organizations to be members of the caucus. In order to pursue the legislative process in Parliament to repeal the Act, MPs who are part of the youth wings of their respective parties are also invited to be core members of the caucus.
DAPSY believes that only through these steps can the 300,000 undergraduates currently pursuing various courses in public universities enjoy greater liberty, as expressed by MCA Youth Chief Secretary, Wee Ka Siong. Otherwise, what Wee said will remain as plain talk devoid of any concrete action.
Deputy Minister for Higher Education Datuk Fu Ah Kiew had on Monday informed the press that the government is in the process of reviewing all acts and regulations relating to the universities and colleges, including the contentious University and University Colleges Act 1971 to allow more freedom and democratic space for undergraduates.
Although the announcement was warmly welcomed by MCA Youth, there is very little response from other youth organizations. DAPSY certainly does not have any intention to undermine the “good intention” of MCA Youth. However, MCA Youth should take cognizance that the Act contravenes the spirit of the Federal Constitution, in which the basic civil liberties of Malaysian citizens are enshrined. MCA Youth should instead demand that the Act be repealed in full.
In our struggle to fight for greater democratic space in our campus, DAPSY is currently working on the following:
1. Drafting a memorandum entitled “Memorandum from Political Party Youth Wings to Repeal the UUCA”. In several campus elections held recently, campus authorities were said to have misused their power in providing support to candidates who are pro-authority to secure victory. The campus authorities reportedly even bypassed rules and regulations provided under the UUCA. Such action clearly violates the principles of fair play and democracy and is a reflection of the diminishing campus democracy. The memorandum will be submitted to the Ministry of Higher Education. For this purpose, we would welcome constructive input from MCA Youth in drafting the memorandum and hope that they would be one of the first signatories of the memorandum.
2. Arranging the formation of a Parliamentary caucus to repeal the UUCA. We will invite various political party youth wings, NGOs and youth organizations to be members of the caucus. In order to pursue the legislative process in Parliament to repeal the Act, MPs who are part of the youth wings of their respective parties are also invited to be core members of the caucus.
DAPSY believes that only through these steps can the 300,000 undergraduates currently pursuing various courses in public universities enjoy greater liberty, as expressed by MCA Youth Chief Secretary, Wee Ka Siong. Otherwise, what Wee said will remain as plain talk devoid of any concrete action.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Councillors appointed from local community leaders?...No lah, where got?!
Parliamentary Secretary of Ministry of Housing and Local Government, S. Subramaniam was wrong to state that local councilors are appointed from community leader during questions and answers time yesterday in the Parliament. He was also wrong to comment that Kayveas has his own political agenda to say that local governments as mere rubber-stamp operating like a secret society and there should be an end to locally-appointed councils.
Firstly, the current practice of appointing local councilors is neither transparent nor people-oriented as not all councilors are appointed from community leaders. S. Subramaniam should have correct his answer that it is the local BN component parties leaders who are appointed as councilors and to some extent, some of the councilors are not even living in the respective area under the ruling of their respective local councils (a check on MPPJ shows that 13 of its councilors are not staying in PJ) which is a clear violation of the Local Government Act 1997. If local councilors are not staying in their respective areas, how can they claim themselves as “local community leaders”?
Secondly, If Kayveas has his own agenda in his comments, then that will be an agenda to give back the right of the people to elect their local councilors under a democratic country. This is a genuine people-oriented agenda as spelled out by the Prime Minister's pledge of a clean, incorruptible, efficient, trustworthy and people-oriented administration to create a just, prosperous and progressive Malaysia.
DAP has run a nation-wide to restore the third vote by giving back the right of the people to elect their local councilors as the present appointive system works against the pledge of the Prime Minister, and our views and opinions on local governments’ performance has received various positive feedback not only from the public but also from government officials as Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek revealed that 80% of dengue cases come within the jurisdiction of local authorities
Clearly the local authorities have failed to deliver and carry out their basic duty to look after the health, hygiene and safety of the people’s neighbourhoods. Perhaps money spent on such junket trips (as mentioned by Kayveas in News Straits Times, 4th October 2005) can be better spent on providing better drains to reduce the dengue threat. An elected council answerable to the people is the only solution and not the present “rubber stamp” appointed local council operated like a “secret society”.
Firstly, the current practice of appointing local councilors is neither transparent nor people-oriented as not all councilors are appointed from community leaders. S. Subramaniam should have correct his answer that it is the local BN component parties leaders who are appointed as councilors and to some extent, some of the councilors are not even living in the respective area under the ruling of their respective local councils (a check on MPPJ shows that 13 of its councilors are not staying in PJ) which is a clear violation of the Local Government Act 1997. If local councilors are not staying in their respective areas, how can they claim themselves as “local community leaders”?
Secondly, If Kayveas has his own agenda in his comments, then that will be an agenda to give back the right of the people to elect their local councilors under a democratic country. This is a genuine people-oriented agenda as spelled out by the Prime Minister's pledge of a clean, incorruptible, efficient, trustworthy and people-oriented administration to create a just, prosperous and progressive Malaysia.
DAP has run a nation-wide to restore the third vote by giving back the right of the people to elect their local councilors as the present appointive system works against the pledge of the Prime Minister, and our views and opinions on local governments’ performance has received various positive feedback not only from the public but also from government officials as Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek revealed that 80% of dengue cases come within the jurisdiction of local authorities
Clearly the local authorities have failed to deliver and carry out their basic duty to look after the health, hygiene and safety of the people’s neighbourhoods. Perhaps money spent on such junket trips (as mentioned by Kayveas in News Straits Times, 4th October 2005) can be better spent on providing better drains to reduce the dengue threat. An elected council answerable to the people is the only solution and not the present “rubber stamp” appointed local council operated like a “secret society”.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005
令人担忧的连续第9年赤字预算案。
无可否认,此次预算案是大马政府连续第9年的赤字预算案。这无疑是令人担忧的状况。政府在各个领域大量给予税务回扣,并且在施贫增老的领域给予大量津贴和协助,但有鉴于这是政府连续第9年的赤字财政预算案,社青团认为政府在行政开销方面谨慎小心。
在这个星期,国会辩论了2005年财政预算案的附加预算案。附加预算案的出现显示政府部门在规划各自的财务运用方面出现不协调的状况,导致各政府部门必须提呈各自的附加预算案。这是没有效率的财务规划和运用,这也间接把去年的财政预算案的赤字进一步提高。
政府必须坚决提升公共服务的输送系统,并且大刀阔斧改善行政部门的办事效率。社青团也认为政府应该在公共领域进行大型的去芜存菁的计划,因为大马公共行政部门所录用的公务员人数非常多
国内投资环境、私营化计划与政联公司业绩
塑造更友善的投资环境是大马目前所面对的挑战。市场自由化与开放化,政治民主化与去官僚化是当下大马在吸引外资所面临的巨大挑战。
由于私营化与政府应承担的社会责任有所冲突,因此社青团认为《财政预算案》应该反映出私营“公共化”的精神,即利用市场的运作机制来提升公共企业的效率。私营化本来要为政府减少亏损,反而现在变成少数朋党得益,这是不符合市场效率的。
烟草与国民健康
政府平均提升烟草税务13%。社青团认为这并不能起阻吓的作用。烟草商可以把有关税务转嫁在烟民的身上。社青团认为政府必须提高烟草税务至30%以上,同时把有关税收用以帮助烟草农民转行,以便卫生部能够尽快禁止小包装香烟的出售。
卫生部在8月23日决定将每包14支装香烟(也是年轻烟民喜欢购买的香烟包装)在市场的售卖期限延长至2010年,以确保丹登两州约1万3千名从事烟草种植活动的农民能够获得充足的时间转种其他农作物,因为他们需要更长的时间来调整。卫生部的这项决定是不能接收的。
社青团认为政府的这项言论不仅宣示政府再次在公共政策规划上的失策(以致政府在进行“Tak Nak”运动的第一年竟然花费高达2千万令吉的拨款),而且这也间接显示政府在整个打击吸烟运动上遭遇打了第一次的败仗。
正如媒体近来所报道,当“Tak Nak”运动在2004年2月开始进行以来,当局在全国各地树立许多广告牌和在报章上打广告。这些都花上许多纳税人的金钱。对于政府耗费巨资进行这项运动,大马人民期待的是政府在反烟运动能够取得积极的成果,尤其是能够降低烟民人数。
教育拨款
政府应认知其责任为强化我国的教育系统。要达到这点,这些拨款是必须的。教育是培育国家英才之大事业,如果缺乏有素质的人才,我国的种种建国议程将荆棘满布,建国路程势必艰辛无比。
根据政府在国会所公布的数据,从2001年到2005年,国内5755间国小得到当局高达49亿令吉的发展拨款,而半津贴的华小和淡小则获得1亿3360万令吉和5760万令吉的发展拨款。
这就是说49亿令吉的发展拨款如果平分给5755间国小,那么每间国小平均每年获得17万令吉的发展拨款。1287间华小则平均每年获得2万761令吉的拨款,525间的淡小则平均每年只分获2万2千万令吉。
如果要平衡国小和非国小的发展拨款,那么每一间非国小则必须在接下来的5年之内得到额外15万令吉的发展拨款,也就是说政府必须在接下来5年内拨出额外15亿令吉作为非国小的的发展拨款(一年平均是3亿令吉。)
政府应该为国内非国小在未来5年内争取至少15亿令吉的发展拨款。如果政府缺乏经费,国油应从其去年所赚取的355亿令吉抽取一部分以作为非国小的教育发展拨款。
此外,政府应该把大专教育开放化。让学术人员和大专生发挥高度的批判精神,培养和开发具有创意思考的大专生。政府必须了解我国高企不下的失业大专生人数乃是因为当前高等教育沦为填鸭式教育的恶果,如果政府不解决这个根本性的问题,尤其是在校园选举方面允让学生自由参选,并且启动司法程序以废除大专法令,要不然政府即使投入再多的资金,最终也将徒劳无功。
人口问题、交通规划与汽车政策
要把人口从高度密集的巴生谷地区转移到巴生谷外围地区。社青团认为州政府不仅要把人口从巴生谷疏散至其他地区,甚至必须与国家硬体发展委员会协调以便能降低从外州移民。
中央政府应该平衡各州的发展,以便在各州提供和制造更多的就业和升学机会,舒缓巴生谷河流域人口爆炸的压力。中央政府应在预算案中明确指出,在建设任何收费高速大道之前,有关私人公司所提呈的计划书必须公布让公众人士审核,并且定下听审会,以示透明。
社青团建议政府在发展国内城市交通系统时应该把焦点集中在改善城市的交通规划系统,尤其是如何在新兴城市地区建设轻快铁交通系统。社青团认为,政府在《2006年财政预算案》中所提及的策略并没有新点子,因为许多措施已经实行,譬如推行统一的车票制度、在人口密集的地方研究增设公共交通服务和路线等等。
社青团认为,政府应该拟定策略,要求各州城乡规划单位现行拟定每一个新兴发展地区的人口分布、流动量以及对公共交通的需求。这个研究最后必须与一套宏观的交通规划指南接轨。因此政府必须落实一套全面的公共交通规划指南或政策
宽频网络
在资讯工艺方面,社青团感到非常失望,因为政府并没有设下任何目标以增加全国各地的宽频用户数量。社青团认为,政府应该定下目标以便巴大马的宽频渗透率在2020年时达到30%的宽频渗透率。
在这个星期,国会辩论了2005年财政预算案的附加预算案。附加预算案的出现显示政府部门在规划各自的财务运用方面出现不协调的状况,导致各政府部门必须提呈各自的附加预算案。这是没有效率的财务规划和运用,这也间接把去年的财政预算案的赤字进一步提高。
政府必须坚决提升公共服务的输送系统,并且大刀阔斧改善行政部门的办事效率。社青团也认为政府应该在公共领域进行大型的去芜存菁的计划,因为大马公共行政部门所录用的公务员人数非常多
国内投资环境、私营化计划与政联公司业绩
塑造更友善的投资环境是大马目前所面对的挑战。市场自由化与开放化,政治民主化与去官僚化是当下大马在吸引外资所面临的巨大挑战。
由于私营化与政府应承担的社会责任有所冲突,因此社青团认为《财政预算案》应该反映出私营“公共化”的精神,即利用市场的运作机制来提升公共企业的效率。私营化本来要为政府减少亏损,反而现在变成少数朋党得益,这是不符合市场效率的。
烟草与国民健康
政府平均提升烟草税务13%。社青团认为这并不能起阻吓的作用。烟草商可以把有关税务转嫁在烟民的身上。社青团认为政府必须提高烟草税务至30%以上,同时把有关税收用以帮助烟草农民转行,以便卫生部能够尽快禁止小包装香烟的出售。
卫生部在8月23日决定将每包14支装香烟(也是年轻烟民喜欢购买的香烟包装)在市场的售卖期限延长至2010年,以确保丹登两州约1万3千名从事烟草种植活动的农民能够获得充足的时间转种其他农作物,因为他们需要更长的时间来调整。卫生部的这项决定是不能接收的。
社青团认为政府的这项言论不仅宣示政府再次在公共政策规划上的失策(以致政府在进行“Tak Nak”运动的第一年竟然花费高达2千万令吉的拨款),而且这也间接显示政府在整个打击吸烟运动上遭遇打了第一次的败仗。
正如媒体近来所报道,当“Tak Nak”运动在2004年2月开始进行以来,当局在全国各地树立许多广告牌和在报章上打广告。这些都花上许多纳税人的金钱。对于政府耗费巨资进行这项运动,大马人民期待的是政府在反烟运动能够取得积极的成果,尤其是能够降低烟民人数。
教育拨款
政府应认知其责任为强化我国的教育系统。要达到这点,这些拨款是必须的。教育是培育国家英才之大事业,如果缺乏有素质的人才,我国的种种建国议程将荆棘满布,建国路程势必艰辛无比。
根据政府在国会所公布的数据,从2001年到2005年,国内5755间国小得到当局高达49亿令吉的发展拨款,而半津贴的华小和淡小则获得1亿3360万令吉和5760万令吉的发展拨款。
这就是说49亿令吉的发展拨款如果平分给5755间国小,那么每间国小平均每年获得17万令吉的发展拨款。1287间华小则平均每年获得2万761令吉的拨款,525间的淡小则平均每年只分获2万2千万令吉。
如果要平衡国小和非国小的发展拨款,那么每一间非国小则必须在接下来的5年之内得到额外15万令吉的发展拨款,也就是说政府必须在接下来5年内拨出额外15亿令吉作为非国小的的发展拨款(一年平均是3亿令吉。)
政府应该为国内非国小在未来5年内争取至少15亿令吉的发展拨款。如果政府缺乏经费,国油应从其去年所赚取的355亿令吉抽取一部分以作为非国小的教育发展拨款。
此外,政府应该把大专教育开放化。让学术人员和大专生发挥高度的批判精神,培养和开发具有创意思考的大专生。政府必须了解我国高企不下的失业大专生人数乃是因为当前高等教育沦为填鸭式教育的恶果,如果政府不解决这个根本性的问题,尤其是在校园选举方面允让学生自由参选,并且启动司法程序以废除大专法令,要不然政府即使投入再多的资金,最终也将徒劳无功。
人口问题、交通规划与汽车政策
要把人口从高度密集的巴生谷地区转移到巴生谷外围地区。社青团认为州政府不仅要把人口从巴生谷疏散至其他地区,甚至必须与国家硬体发展委员会协调以便能降低从外州移民。
中央政府应该平衡各州的发展,以便在各州提供和制造更多的就业和升学机会,舒缓巴生谷河流域人口爆炸的压力。中央政府应在预算案中明确指出,在建设任何收费高速大道之前,有关私人公司所提呈的计划书必须公布让公众人士审核,并且定下听审会,以示透明。
社青团建议政府在发展国内城市交通系统时应该把焦点集中在改善城市的交通规划系统,尤其是如何在新兴城市地区建设轻快铁交通系统。社青团认为,政府在《2006年财政预算案》中所提及的策略并没有新点子,因为许多措施已经实行,譬如推行统一的车票制度、在人口密集的地方研究增设公共交通服务和路线等等。
社青团认为,政府应该拟定策略,要求各州城乡规划单位现行拟定每一个新兴发展地区的人口分布、流动量以及对公共交通的需求。这个研究最后必须与一套宏观的交通规划指南接轨。因此政府必须落实一套全面的公共交通规划指南或政策
宽频网络
在资讯工艺方面,社青团感到非常失望,因为政府并没有设下任何目标以增加全国各地的宽频用户数量。社青团认为,政府应该定下目标以便巴大马的宽频渗透率在2020年时达到30%的宽频渗透率。
不要把哗!FM事件过渡简单化
读了纪照君于9月28日所撰写之〈哗!FM停播评论流於片面〉一文之后亦有所感言,即舆论界多半对此事的意见相当一般,那就是该台之关闭将导致华社失去一个华语电台,也有评论人因痛惜哗!FM因《哗!下班红绿灯》开创听众叩应讨论时事的风气而挺身支持该台。
持平而论,听众如此反应,乃是基于一片关爱。纪照君在其文章中对这些流于表面的评论不以为然,并认为“他们根本不明了商业问题,或贸易买卖是无法以大义或道理想当然尔来解决的。”
我不否认在现实世界里,确有不少流水式、我手写我口的随便式评论文章。套用纪照君的用语,这些是“拿来讲”的文章。但我们看到的是,公众人士在保哗!FM事件中所发动的舆论压力(暂且不理到底他们是否了解内部的商业决定运作过程)或许并不能仅以此角度来判断。
我更不能赞成纪照君所言,即“哗FM停播与否,只有它的老板与股东,才能解决与决定,局外人多说,无补於事”。
虽其是商业决定,但是人们不应忘记的就是哗!FM也是一所带有公共性质,扮演一定程度公共性质的电台。这就好比华文报章,华文报章归根究底还是由私人企业所出版、印刷和发行,但是报章既然自我定位为社会的传声筒,那么它本身就持有一定程度的公共性质。既然如此,哗!FM的存亡多少都关系到公共利益,至少是其忠实听众的利益-这就说明为何哗!FM的存亡并不能只是以一句“你要它不停播,就请拿钱出来投资吧!”来交代那么简单。
纪照君也不应忘记,我们所听闻的 “这家华文电台每个月蒙受至少马币50万元的亏损,或自开台以来这家电台累积亏损高达马币五千万元”迄今还未获证实。另一边厢,来自内部消息却表示如此天文数字的亏损是不可能的,因为该台仅有8名全职工作人员。这两种说法都不能证伪或证实。如果哗!FM的帐目一日没有公开,人们也一直无法知道到底该电台真正蒙受的亏损是多少。
问题的症结还不是回到以下问题:到底管理层是否愿意公布哗!FM的财务状况,让人们清楚知道该台的财务状况?管理层是否已经尽其全力挽救哗!FM,但仍然回天乏术,以致最后必须开出如此重药?还是这又要回到我国广电政策的不足之处,以致大马广播界处在一个界限模糊的境界操作,即没有政府在政策上的规划(网络设备提供者、频波分配、内容等规定),也缺乏真正开明和自由的运作环境?
或许纪照君认为这些流水文章没有什么意义可言,但是一旦我们说:“你要它不停播,就请拿钱出来投资吧!”,我们更必须在这些问题里得到答案。否则,以上言论也是流水式之言论,因为它也把这事件过渡简单化了。
刘永山
持平而论,听众如此反应,乃是基于一片关爱。纪照君在其文章中对这些流于表面的评论不以为然,并认为“他们根本不明了商业问题,或贸易买卖是无法以大义或道理想当然尔来解决的。”
我不否认在现实世界里,确有不少流水式、我手写我口的随便式评论文章。套用纪照君的用语,这些是“拿来讲”的文章。但我们看到的是,公众人士在保哗!FM事件中所发动的舆论压力(暂且不理到底他们是否了解内部的商业决定运作过程)或许并不能仅以此角度来判断。
我更不能赞成纪照君所言,即“哗FM停播与否,只有它的老板与股东,才能解决与决定,局外人多说,无补於事”。
虽其是商业决定,但是人们不应忘记的就是哗!FM也是一所带有公共性质,扮演一定程度公共性质的电台。这就好比华文报章,华文报章归根究底还是由私人企业所出版、印刷和发行,但是报章既然自我定位为社会的传声筒,那么它本身就持有一定程度的公共性质。既然如此,哗!FM的存亡多少都关系到公共利益,至少是其忠实听众的利益-这就说明为何哗!FM的存亡并不能只是以一句“你要它不停播,就请拿钱出来投资吧!”来交代那么简单。
纪照君也不应忘记,我们所听闻的 “这家华文电台每个月蒙受至少马币50万元的亏损,或自开台以来这家电台累积亏损高达马币五千万元”迄今还未获证实。另一边厢,来自内部消息却表示如此天文数字的亏损是不可能的,因为该台仅有8名全职工作人员。这两种说法都不能证伪或证实。如果哗!FM的帐目一日没有公开,人们也一直无法知道到底该电台真正蒙受的亏损是多少。
问题的症结还不是回到以下问题:到底管理层是否愿意公布哗!FM的财务状况,让人们清楚知道该台的财务状况?管理层是否已经尽其全力挽救哗!FM,但仍然回天乏术,以致最后必须开出如此重药?还是这又要回到我国广电政策的不足之处,以致大马广播界处在一个界限模糊的境界操作,即没有政府在政策上的规划(网络设备提供者、频波分配、内容等规定),也缺乏真正开明和自由的运作环境?
或许纪照君认为这些流水文章没有什么意义可言,但是一旦我们说:“你要它不停播,就请拿钱出来投资吧!”,我们更必须在这些问题里得到答案。否则,以上言论也是流水式之言论,因为它也把这事件过渡简单化了。
刘永山
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)