A man was hand-cuffed and brought to the police car.
The FRU started shooting water cannon to the crowds.
I was barred from taking photos by this FRU member. I almost fall down because of his pushing!
"Look! You guys better get off my sight! Or I will bite you!"
Dr Hatta was addressing the crowd. He was the first speaker.
I have seen the copter a few times, but never it is so close to my eyesight until I can see the word "POLIS" beneath it. It was trying to fly low to interupt the demonstration with strong wind.
A group of protestors came out with a banner.
"Come on lah! Respect my right! Look at the Constitution! Read what it says!"
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, May 29, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Tough fights in Kuching
For those who has been following my blog for the past one week, I am sorry for not being to update it as I am now in Kuching helping out our three candidates in Kuching to fight their way to the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly Hall.
It is a tough and close fight in Kuching as SUPP is facing the toughest fight in almost every town and city in Sarawak.
Sarawak urban Chinese seems to demand for a wind of change, of course, Chong Chieng Jen (35, lawyer, MP for Bandar Kuching) is a well known face in Kuching and he will fight SUPP’s Alfred Yap in Kota Sentosa. Yap is also a well-known figure in Kuching and it is alleged that he was ordered by CM to come to Kota Sentosa in order to prevent Chong to be elected as ADUN.
According to Chong, it is important for him to be elected to the State Legislative Assembly Hall so that he can continue to expose all the wrong-doings and malpractices in the State Government.
The warfare in Kuching is quite organized and the morale of the members here are very high. All are expecting either two or three seats from Kuching.
The other two DAP candidates are Violet Yong Wui Wui (29, lawyer, DAP candidate for Pending) and Voon Lee Shan (51, lawyer, DAP candidate for Batu Lintang). Violet Yong will face incumbent Sim Kheng Hui, an old guard in Pending while Voon will be fighting incumbent Chan Seng Khai who is also the Mayor of Majlis Bandaraya Kuching Selatan.
All there warfare are tough fight and we shall see if the Rocket can fly high in Kuching on 20th May.
It is a tough and close fight in Kuching as SUPP is facing the toughest fight in almost every town and city in Sarawak.
Sarawak urban Chinese seems to demand for a wind of change, of course, Chong Chieng Jen (35, lawyer, MP for Bandar Kuching) is a well known face in Kuching and he will fight SUPP’s Alfred Yap in Kota Sentosa. Yap is also a well-known figure in Kuching and it is alleged that he was ordered by CM to come to Kota Sentosa in order to prevent Chong to be elected as ADUN.
According to Chong, it is important for him to be elected to the State Legislative Assembly Hall so that he can continue to expose all the wrong-doings and malpractices in the State Government.
The warfare in Kuching is quite organized and the morale of the members here are very high. All are expecting either two or three seats from Kuching.
The other two DAP candidates are Violet Yong Wui Wui (29, lawyer, DAP candidate for Pending) and Voon Lee Shan (51, lawyer, DAP candidate for Batu Lintang). Violet Yong will face incumbent Sim Kheng Hui, an old guard in Pending while Voon will be fighting incumbent Chan Seng Khai who is also the Mayor of Majlis Bandaraya Kuching Selatan.
All there warfare are tough fight and we shall see if the Rocket can fly high in Kuching on 20th May.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
卢永平是否只满足于一间从霹雳州搬迁过来的华小,还是要一劳永逸地解决城市华小长期爆满的问题?
卢永平是否只满足于一间从霹雳州搬迁过来的华小,还是要一劳永逸地解决城市华小长期爆满的问题?
行动党大脚区国会议员章瑛在4月26日迫问教长希山慕丁政府在第九大马计划下将会建多少间华小和淡小时,民政党浦种区国会议员卢永平当时站出來,竟然以syabas称赞教长勤奋,感谢教长批准将一所华小搬到他的选区!
希山慕丁当时并没有回答章瑛的问题:在第九大马计划下将兴建多少所华小和淡小;反而说章瑛只为了捞取政治利益,没有为落后的国小争取拨款。
令人震惊的是卢永平甘做希山慕丁的鹰爪,提高声量要求章瑛坐下,不要纠缠不清,并且还站起来为希山慕丁辩护,以个案说教育部批准其他州属的华小搬迁来蒲种为例,因此希山是照顾全民的部长。
对于是否在第九大马计划下增建新的华小和淡小,虽然部长迄今依然没有做出正式的答复,但是行动党必须提醒卢永平,即国家独立宪法保障各民族学习和传授母语教育的权利。如果国阵政府诚心诚意维护各族群的利益,那么国阵政府应该依据需求增建华小和淡小,以及依据学生人数比例分配教育拨款。
从八十年代到2005年,华小生增加100%,但是华小却从1312 间降至1287间;董教总的统计显示,单在吉隆坡、新山和巴生谷这三个华裔集中的地区,根据官方的标準,就欠缺 137间华小,如果从现在到 2020年政府却不增建华小,那么可预测屆时华小不足的问题将会更严重。
在教育拨款方面,副教育部长拿督诺奥玛在国会表示,在第九大马计划下,当局一共拨出1亿7千430万令吉和6千480万令吉的发展拨款给华小和淡小。直至去年六月,全国共有645,669名学生和98,579名学生分别在华小和淡小就读。
第九大马计划一共拨出48亿3730万令吉的发展拨款予所有小学。基于公平的原则,华小和淡小应该分别获得10亿2550万令吉(或占总数的21.2巴仙)和1千5480令吉(或占总数的3.2巴仙)的发展拨款。
然而,根据以下图表,在第九大马计划下,华小仅仅获得1亿7430万令吉(或发展拨款总数的3.6巴仙)的拨款,而淡小则只获得6480万令吉(或发展拨款总数的1.3巴仙)的发展拨款。
2005年小学学校总数以及在第九大马计划下所拨出的教育拨款
所有学校 国小 巴仙率 华小 巴仙率 淡小 巴仙率
学生总数 3,044,977 2,300,729 75.6 645,669 21.2 98,579 3.2
第九大马计划拨款(百万令吉) 4,837.3 4,598.2 95.1 174.3 3.6 64.8 1.3
华小本应获得10亿2550万令吉的拨款,但是现在仅获得1亿7430万令吉的拨款;淡小本应获得1千5480万令吉的拨款,但是现在却只享有6480万令吉的拨款。这根本无法应付华小和淡小的发展需求,而且是非常不公平、不合理、不负责任,同时也违背国阵公平对待所有族群的大选宣言。
搬迁华小只是治标不治本的权宜之计。它并非是长远解决华小爆满之策。部长赞同从霹雳州搬迁一间华小至蒲种区,但是我们挑战卢永平到底这是否会解决蒲种区华小爆满的问题?这又是否能够解决全国各地城市华小爆满的困境?
民政党自称是个多元种族的政党,却也公认是华基政党,在槟城以华裔首席部长诉求华裔的支持,但是它的国会议员卢永平却无视华社所面对困境,只因为教育部批准一间华小搬到他的选区,他就不理会其他地区的人民所面对困境。
这么见树不见林的短视之见,如何负起为民争取公平的政策责任?我们希望卢永平能够向在2004年支持他的华裔选民清楚交代:到底他是否只满足于一间华小,而且还是一间从霹雳州搬迁过来的华小,而不是一劳永逸地解决城市华小长期爆满的问题?
行动党大脚区国会议员章瑛在4月26日迫问教长希山慕丁政府在第九大马计划下将会建多少间华小和淡小时,民政党浦种区国会议员卢永平当时站出來,竟然以syabas称赞教长勤奋,感谢教长批准将一所华小搬到他的选区!
希山慕丁当时并没有回答章瑛的问题:在第九大马计划下将兴建多少所华小和淡小;反而说章瑛只为了捞取政治利益,没有为落后的国小争取拨款。
令人震惊的是卢永平甘做希山慕丁的鹰爪,提高声量要求章瑛坐下,不要纠缠不清,并且还站起来为希山慕丁辩护,以个案说教育部批准其他州属的华小搬迁来蒲种为例,因此希山是照顾全民的部长。
对于是否在第九大马计划下增建新的华小和淡小,虽然部长迄今依然没有做出正式的答复,但是行动党必须提醒卢永平,即国家独立宪法保障各民族学习和传授母语教育的权利。如果国阵政府诚心诚意维护各族群的利益,那么国阵政府应该依据需求增建华小和淡小,以及依据学生人数比例分配教育拨款。
从八十年代到2005年,华小生增加100%,但是华小却从1312 间降至1287间;董教总的统计显示,单在吉隆坡、新山和巴生谷这三个华裔集中的地区,根据官方的标準,就欠缺 137间华小,如果从现在到 2020年政府却不增建华小,那么可预测屆时华小不足的问题将会更严重。
在教育拨款方面,副教育部长拿督诺奥玛在国会表示,在第九大马计划下,当局一共拨出1亿7千430万令吉和6千480万令吉的发展拨款给华小和淡小。直至去年六月,全国共有645,669名学生和98,579名学生分别在华小和淡小就读。
第九大马计划一共拨出48亿3730万令吉的发展拨款予所有小学。基于公平的原则,华小和淡小应该分别获得10亿2550万令吉(或占总数的21.2巴仙)和1千5480令吉(或占总数的3.2巴仙)的发展拨款。
然而,根据以下图表,在第九大马计划下,华小仅仅获得1亿7430万令吉(或发展拨款总数的3.6巴仙)的拨款,而淡小则只获得6480万令吉(或发展拨款总数的1.3巴仙)的发展拨款。
2005年小学学校总数以及在第九大马计划下所拨出的教育拨款
所有学校 国小 巴仙率 华小 巴仙率 淡小 巴仙率
学生总数 3,044,977 2,300,729 75.6 645,669 21.2 98,579 3.2
第九大马计划拨款(百万令吉) 4,837.3 4,598.2 95.1 174.3 3.6 64.8 1.3
华小本应获得10亿2550万令吉的拨款,但是现在仅获得1亿7430万令吉的拨款;淡小本应获得1千5480万令吉的拨款,但是现在却只享有6480万令吉的拨款。这根本无法应付华小和淡小的发展需求,而且是非常不公平、不合理、不负责任,同时也违背国阵公平对待所有族群的大选宣言。
搬迁华小只是治标不治本的权宜之计。它并非是长远解决华小爆满之策。部长赞同从霹雳州搬迁一间华小至蒲种区,但是我们挑战卢永平到底这是否会解决蒲种区华小爆满的问题?这又是否能够解决全国各地城市华小爆满的困境?
民政党自称是个多元种族的政党,却也公认是华基政党,在槟城以华裔首席部长诉求华裔的支持,但是它的国会议员卢永平却无视华社所面对困境,只因为教育部批准一间华小搬到他的选区,他就不理会其他地区的人民所面对困境。
这么见树不见林的短视之见,如何负起为民争取公平的政策责任?我们希望卢永平能够向在2004年支持他的华裔选民清楚交代:到底他是否只满足于一间华小,而且还是一间从霹雳州搬迁过来的华小,而不是一劳永逸地解决城市华小长期爆满的问题?
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Public Rally in Singapore, More Than 10,000 - Believe it or not??
Frankly speaking, I have never imagined that this will happen or this can happen in Singapore - a public rally organised by opposition party, Worker's Party, which drew more than 10,000 voters in a pseudo-democratic society like Singapore.
Malaysians can no longer tolerate reason that Public Rally is a threat to public safety, unless we admit that we are less capable than Singapore to preserve public safety and order, which I believe is not the case here in Malaysia.
If Singapore's Opposition can be granted permit to organise such public rally, there's no reason why Oppositions in Malaysia not allowed so.
So, where is our permit, Pak Lah?
Development Project in Puchong Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve - Continue or Not??
It is already more than a month and yet the local council (Subang Jaya Municipal Council) and the local state assemblyman who is also a MPSJ councilor failed to reply with any outcome on a hillslope project which is to be developed along the fringes of the Ayer Hitam forest reserve.
Residents residing around the area from Sri Penaga Apartment, D’Palma Apartment, Saraka Apartment, Sri Cempaka Apartment, Desa Tanjung Apartment and D’Kiara Apartment have already submitted their disagreement to the Department of Planning and Development, Subang Jaya Municipal Council on 28th March 2006 in an objection hearing between them, MPSJ and the developer involved. The hearing was chaired by Kinrara Assemblyman Kow Cheong Wei.
State investment arm, Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad, together with another two developers, Citrasama Sdn. Bhd. and Benua Ehsan Sdn. Bhd. applied to develop the same site. The three developers had applied for a planning permission (Kebenaran Merancang) to develop the area.
According to the Objection Letter by residents from the six apartments mentioned above, they had protested the development project based on the following reason:
1. that Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve is the last piece of green lung available in Puchong and it shall be well-protected by the authority without being turned into any housing projects. Residents have been told by their developer, SP Setia Berhad Group, that this piece of land is another forest reserve which shall not be developed.
2. that the retention pond is also located too close to the hillslope and the pond must be combined with a bigger one for easier supervision in future.
3. that landslide, land erosion, air and water pollution, flash floods as well as other natural disasters can easily take place once the hillslope is developed. After all, over development is another major cause of flash floods and storms took place in Klang Valley recently.
4. that the development will definitely worsen the already congested traffic in Persiaran Wawasan, Persiaran Indera, Persiaran Bukit, Jalan Wawasan 4/12 and the junction going out to LDP.
5. that the Primary School Reserve for Pusat Bandar Puchong is located to close to the main entrance of the project.
6. that the gradient of the hillslope is more that 35 degree which is beyond the maximum allowable gradient for any development projects.
The Sun dated 31st March 2006 has quoted Kinrara Assemblyman Dr Kow Cheong Wei that:
‘“The matter will first be discussed at the council planning department committee meeting and if it fails to make a decision, then the matter wil be referred to a full board meeting,” he said.
‘“If this entity does not make a decision, then it will be referred to the Selangor Economic Action Council, and subsequently the state executive council,’ he said’
It is a surprise that technical details on the construction and the content of the EIA and traffic report for the project were provided during the objection hearing.
For such a project It is most disappointing that to date, the local council and the state assemblyman had yet to announce any decision or any outcome from various meeting as well as of whether the meeting had been held or not. Local council shall not practice secrecy in their running and any progress on this matter shall be made known to the public.
Residents residing around the area from Sri Penaga Apartment, D’Palma Apartment, Saraka Apartment, Sri Cempaka Apartment, Desa Tanjung Apartment and D’Kiara Apartment have already submitted their disagreement to the Department of Planning and Development, Subang Jaya Municipal Council on 28th March 2006 in an objection hearing between them, MPSJ and the developer involved. The hearing was chaired by Kinrara Assemblyman Kow Cheong Wei.
State investment arm, Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad, together with another two developers, Citrasama Sdn. Bhd. and Benua Ehsan Sdn. Bhd. applied to develop the same site. The three developers had applied for a planning permission (Kebenaran Merancang) to develop the area.
According to the Objection Letter by residents from the six apartments mentioned above, they had protested the development project based on the following reason:
1. that Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve is the last piece of green lung available in Puchong and it shall be well-protected by the authority without being turned into any housing projects. Residents have been told by their developer, SP Setia Berhad Group, that this piece of land is another forest reserve which shall not be developed.
2. that the retention pond is also located too close to the hillslope and the pond must be combined with a bigger one for easier supervision in future.
3. that landslide, land erosion, air and water pollution, flash floods as well as other natural disasters can easily take place once the hillslope is developed. After all, over development is another major cause of flash floods and storms took place in Klang Valley recently.
4. that the development will definitely worsen the already congested traffic in Persiaran Wawasan, Persiaran Indera, Persiaran Bukit, Jalan Wawasan 4/12 and the junction going out to LDP.
5. that the Primary School Reserve for Pusat Bandar Puchong is located to close to the main entrance of the project.
6. that the gradient of the hillslope is more that 35 degree which is beyond the maximum allowable gradient for any development projects.
The Sun dated 31st March 2006 has quoted Kinrara Assemblyman Dr Kow Cheong Wei that:
‘“The matter will first be discussed at the council planning department committee meeting and if it fails to make a decision, then the matter wil be referred to a full board meeting,” he said.
‘“If this entity does not make a decision, then it will be referred to the Selangor Economic Action Council, and subsequently the state executive council,’ he said’
It is a surprise that technical details on the construction and the content of the EIA and traffic report for the project were provided during the objection hearing.
For such a project It is most disappointing that to date, the local council and the state assemblyman had yet to announce any decision or any outcome from various meeting as well as of whether the meeting had been held or not. Local council shall not practice secrecy in their running and any progress on this matter shall be made known to the public.
蒲种爱以淡森林保留地发展计划 - 到底会否实行?
针对蒲种爱以淡森林保留地边缘地带的发展计划,附近居民已经联署反对在该处进行任何发展计划,但是梳邦再也市议会和州议员(同时也是梳邦再也市议员)迄今尚未给与任何答复,即到底有关计划会否继续实行。
来自Sri Penaga、D’Palma、Saraka、Sri Cempaka、Desa Tanjung以及D’Kiara公寓的居民已经在2006年3月28日所举行的一场公听会上联署上书予梳邦再也市议会规划与发展局,表示他们反对在该森林保留地进行任何发展计划。主持该会议的是金銮镇州议员高祥威(高祥威同时也是梳邦再也市议员)。发展商代表也有出席该公听会。
根据市议会发给居民的通知信,申请发展该森林保留地的是雪州资本有限公司(Syarikat Permodalan Negeri Selangor-该公司也是雪州州政府的投资翼膀),Citrasama有限公司以及Benua Ehsan有限公司。这三间公司已经向梳邦再也市议会申请规划批准书(Kebenaran Merancang)以发展该片土地。
根据居民的联署抗议书,他们是以以下理由反对在该区进行任何发展计划:
一、 爱以淡森林保留地是蒲种区尚存在的森林保留地。当局应该极力保护该地,拒绝任何在该地进行物业发展计划的申请。这些居民的发展商,SP Setia当初也向他们承诺,即这片土地是森林保留地,当局不能在该地进行任何发展计划。
二、 有关地段的倾斜度超过当局所批准的35度。
三、 在该地进行任何发展计划将轻易导致天灾的发生,如土崩、泥土侵蚀、空气和水源污染。更何况,巴生谷一带近来因为过度发展而频频发生闪电水灾和风灾。
四、 这项发展计划无疑将会加剧Persiaran Wawasan、Persiaran Indera、Persiaran Bukit、Jalan Wawasan 4/12以及通往白蒲大道出口处的交通拥挤。
五、 有关计划的出入口处过于靠近蒲种市中心的小学保留地。
六、 现有的化粪池过于靠近该山坡,以致它必须与更大的化粪池结合,以便未来的监管。
《太阳报》在2006年3月31日引述金銮镇州议员高祥威的谈话如下:
他说:“有关事项将会在市议会的规划发展局委员会会议中讨论。如果不能达致任何决定,有关事项将会带上去月常会议讨论。”
他也指出“如果还是没有决定,那么这将会带上雪州经济行动委员会讨论,然后是州行政会议。”
令人惊讶的是,有关方面并没有在公听会上汇报有关计划的技术详情、环境评估报告和交通报告。
这项计划将会对当地的大自然环境造成重大的影响,但是地方政府和市议员迄今无法针对有关计划做出任何回应,甚至到底有关方面是否已经召开任何会议讨论此事。这是令人失望的。
我们认为梳邦再也市议会在这事件不应该隐秘行事,反之市议会应该让有关居民知道市议会的决定和事情的最新发展。
来自Sri Penaga、D’Palma、Saraka、Sri Cempaka、Desa Tanjung以及D’Kiara公寓的居民已经在2006年3月28日所举行的一场公听会上联署上书予梳邦再也市议会规划与发展局,表示他们反对在该森林保留地进行任何发展计划。主持该会议的是金銮镇州议员高祥威(高祥威同时也是梳邦再也市议员)。发展商代表也有出席该公听会。
根据市议会发给居民的通知信,申请发展该森林保留地的是雪州资本有限公司(Syarikat Permodalan Negeri Selangor-该公司也是雪州州政府的投资翼膀),Citrasama有限公司以及Benua Ehsan有限公司。这三间公司已经向梳邦再也市议会申请规划批准书(Kebenaran Merancang)以发展该片土地。
根据居民的联署抗议书,他们是以以下理由反对在该区进行任何发展计划:
一、 爱以淡森林保留地是蒲种区尚存在的森林保留地。当局应该极力保护该地,拒绝任何在该地进行物业发展计划的申请。这些居民的发展商,SP Setia当初也向他们承诺,即这片土地是森林保留地,当局不能在该地进行任何发展计划。
二、 有关地段的倾斜度超过当局所批准的35度。
三、 在该地进行任何发展计划将轻易导致天灾的发生,如土崩、泥土侵蚀、空气和水源污染。更何况,巴生谷一带近来因为过度发展而频频发生闪电水灾和风灾。
四、 这项发展计划无疑将会加剧Persiaran Wawasan、Persiaran Indera、Persiaran Bukit、Jalan Wawasan 4/12以及通往白蒲大道出口处的交通拥挤。
五、 有关计划的出入口处过于靠近蒲种市中心的小学保留地。
六、 现有的化粪池过于靠近该山坡,以致它必须与更大的化粪池结合,以便未来的监管。
《太阳报》在2006年3月31日引述金銮镇州议员高祥威的谈话如下:
他说:“有关事项将会在市议会的规划发展局委员会会议中讨论。如果不能达致任何决定,有关事项将会带上去月常会议讨论。”
他也指出“如果还是没有决定,那么这将会带上雪州经济行动委员会讨论,然后是州行政会议。”
令人惊讶的是,有关方面并没有在公听会上汇报有关计划的技术详情、环境评估报告和交通报告。
这项计划将会对当地的大自然环境造成重大的影响,但是地方政府和市议员迄今无法针对有关计划做出任何回应,甚至到底有关方面是否已经召开任何会议讨论此事。这是令人失望的。
我们认为梳邦再也市议会在这事件不应该隐秘行事,反之市议会应该让有关居民知道市议会的决定和事情的最新发展。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)