Thursday, August 31, 2006

Let's take a read, one more time --> The real fighter for MERDEKA

As we celebrate our National Day, there are several incidents which took place for the past few months that are worth to be given serious thought in terms of how far have we moved on in building a multi-racial, multi-lingua, multi-religious society.

Before that, we have textbooks in Universities that told our students that DAP caused the May 13 riots, and that one of the reasons for Peristiwa Kampung Medan was the anti-social behaviour of the Indian youths in Kampung Medan.

We have UMNO MP named Badruddin from Jerai, Kedah that asked the non-Muslims to leave this country if they don’t like Malaysia to be an Islamic State.

We have another a Cabinet Minsiter called Rafidah Aziz who had recently been making fierce statements, such as “no compromise” with the New Economic Policy of 30% Bumiputera equity to the extent of saying that Malaysia was prepared to say “bye-bye” to FDI.

We also never forget that UMNO Youth Deputy Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin said that Chinese could exploit the current internal split of UMNO to advance its interests, giving examples as the memorandum by MCA Ministers to the Prime Minister on freedom of religion and the 1999 Malaysian Chinese Election Appeals (Suqiu) following UMNO disunity during Reformasi following the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim from UMNO and his persecution.

Ironically, this person (Khairy Jamaluddin) who becomes the running dog was also the person taken charge on Ronnie’s article one year ago. I still remember very clearly that UMNO and mainstream newspaper launched an all out attack led by Khairy on Ronnie and DAP. PAS leader, Husam Musa also stood up to defend the Chinese.

And now the PAS Central Research Centre issued a Malay statement entitled “Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan: Satu tuntutan keadilan” (Re-historying the independence struggle: A demand for justice”.

The article said: “History cannot ignore the fact that the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had also played a role in fighting for the independence of this country.”

Maybe this is the time for us to re-read Ronnie’s writing one year ago. Time passed very fast, at times and situation like this, I don’t Ronnie’s article can stir up any sentiment. Instead, reasons and rationality take the ground. Khairy certainly has more to answer than Ronnie at the moment.

Khairy, please explain!

===

The real fighters for MERDEKA
Media Statement
by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

(Petaling Jaya, Saturday): We have just celebrated our nation’s 48th birthday yesterday.Many Malaysians, especially the young generations born after the Independence, knows very little about the history of Malaya (now Malaysia).

The History textbooks they studied in schools do not give them the real picture.

Contrary to what they have learned from the textbooks, UMNO leaders were not the real fighters for Independence.

Most of the UMNO leaders in the Merdeka era were actually senior servants of the British government. Just take the first four Prime Ministers in the country as example.

The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra AlHaj Ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah, was serving the colonial government in Kedah as a District Officer in districts like Langkawi, Kulim and Sg Petani.

After obtaining his LLB at the Inner Temple, London in 1945, he served as a DPP and later promoted to the position of a session court president in Selangor.

His deputy Tun Abdul Razak bin Datuk Hussein (Malaysia’s second Prime Minister), was serving the British as the State Secretary of Pahang in 1952 after obtaining his LLB at the Lincoln’s Inn as a Queen’s Scholar in 1950. Razak served as the Chief Minister of Pahang in 1955.

Tun Hussein bin Dato Onn, the third Prime Minister of Malaysia, was a police depot commander in Johor Bahru in 1945. He later served as an Assistant District Officer in districts like Kuala Selangor and Klang in the fifties. He obtained his law degree at Lincoln’s Inn in 1958.

The fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, was serving as a medical officer in Alor Star, Langkawi and Perlis in the fifties after graduating as a medical doctor in 1953 from Universiti Malaya (Singapore). He opened his own clinic in Alor Star in 1957.

UMNO leaders were treated as friends of the British. Together with the leaders of MCA and MIC, they cooperated with the British master to negotiate for the Independence of Malaya.

Little wonder why The Times of London reported the birth of Malaya with a resonant chord of approval. In particular it pointed out the impeccable credentials of its conservative Malay leaders, who, unlike the troublesome radicals of the Left, had showed that they were of a decidedly more moderate and accommodating temper. It reassured its readers that:

‘Malayan nationalism had not been born out of conflict and there was not a single Malayan Minister who had ever spent a day in prison for sedition’. (The Times, August 31, 1957.)

One may even argue that the Alliance leaders were not the ones that put up real sacrifice for the Merdeka struggle.On the other hand, many of the real freedom fighters were thrown into jails.

Young Malaysians should know that PKMM (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya) leaders like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman, Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmi, Ishak Haji Mohammad (Pak Sako), Arshad Ashaari, Dahari Ali , Baharuddin Tahir,Khadijah Ali, Ibrahim Karim, Kamarulzaman Teh( Pak Zaman),Abdul Rahman Rahim and many others have played a pivotal role in the struggle of Independence.(Merintis Jalan Ke Punchak ,1972)

PKMM sent a big delegation to the historic UMNO (United Malays National Organisations or Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu) congress which was held from March 1 to 4, 1946 in Kuala Lumpur.

In the inaugural congress, PKMM proposed to “reject the Malayan Union and demand for a truly independent Malaya” (menolak Malayan Union dan menuntut Malaya Merdeka yang seratus peratus).

Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the congress and the PKMM delegation staged a walkout as a protest on the third day of the congress. Its leaders continued to step up its struggle for a truly independent Malaya, unlike the other conservative UMNO leaders who wanted to maintain their status quo.

The British started to clamp down on PKMM and API members in 1948. Many members and leaders were jailed and some of those who escaped from the police went into the jungle to join the arm struggle led by MCP. This has created a political vacuum, which was quickly filled up by UMNO with the consent of the British. Both MCA and MIC were also formed after the establishment of UMNO with the encouragement from the British.

It must be pointed out that without the struggle and sacrifice made by these freedom fighters and the pressure mounted by the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng (as acknowledged by Tan Sri Rahim Noor, IGP on signing the peace accord with MCP), the British would certainly not willing to cooperate and negotiate with the Alliance leaders for an “Independence without bloodshed”.

We must also not forget about the struggle put up by visionaries like Ibrahim Haji Yaakob (KMM, Kesatuan Melayu Muda) who dreamed of forming Malaya Raya in the 1940s.Some of these freedom fighters continued fighting for MERDEKA during the Japanese Occupation.

We could even trace some of the freedom fighters way back in 1890s. Some of these legendaries include Dato Bahaman, Mat Kilau and Mat Kelubi.

Note: Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) was formed on 17 October 1945 in lpoh, Perak, a year before UMNO was formed. Founding leaders include legendaries like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman and Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmi (later became President of PAS). The objective of PKMM was to fight for a truly independent nation, free from the stranglehold of the British colonials. Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS) and Barisan Tani Se-Malaya (BATAS), Majlis Agama Tertingga Se-Malaya (MATA) were all wings set up under PKMM to fight for Independence.

Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

(3/09/2005)

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Follow-up on the pest control fiasco - My experience in MPSJ full board council meeting today....

I was later informed by the press that the YDP insist on the decision but other companies which are interested must join the consortium, while the other companies in the consortium which do not have the licenses will have to get one in six-month time.







Talking over the phone on the incident. Two security guards were seen screening visitors who wish to enter the meeting hall. We have only two persons and it seems like the council is putting up a security more than necessary.












Try to have a talk with the YDP when the meeting is over. He asked us to talk to the reporters instead. Is this what accountability meant for YDP?

Not allowed to enter MPSJ full board council meeting - MPSJ's meetings are secret meetings?

I am writing this blog from MPSJ building through their wireless broadband connection.

Below is a letter which I emailed and faxed to the Council YDP's office last week, informing the Council that I will attend the MPSJ Full Board Council Meeting scheduled on 28th August (which was later postponed to 30th August 2006).

My intention to attend the meeting is to observe of whether the council is going to decide on the current pest control scandal whereby the council has recently appointed seven companies to "monopoly" pest control exercisen in area under the jurisdiction of the Council. Failing so, business operators will not be allowed to apply or renew their license.

These companies are later confirmed that they are not recognised by Pesticide Board of the Council, as well as Pest Control Association Malaysia (PCAM).

I arrived at the Council meeting hall, Bilik Mesyuarat Kenanga, Level 2 of the Council's building and was asked to leave by the Council Secretary saying that we are not allowed to enter and we must get approval from the Council President, Dato' Mohd Arif Bin Ab. Rahman, before we can enter.

Also attending the meeting was Mr Thomas Goh, the DAP Bukit Gasing Branch Treasurer. I argued that the meeting should be an open meeting and that the meeting should not conducted in such a secrecy that the Council create so many obstacles for taxpayers and the public to attend the council full board meeting.

The Council Secretary immediately told me that we should write in to the YDP's office to "seek" for approval. I immediately replied that unless the Council wants to hide something from public knowledge, then there is no reason for the Council to close everything from the public knowledge.

If proceeding of the highest legislative council in this country, the proceeding of Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, as well as the Selangor State Legislative Council Meeting (DUN) can be opened to public with simple registration, I do not see any reason why the Council has to be that bureaucratic, undiplomatic (as if we are terrorists) in allowing the public to attend their full board meeting.

We were still not allowed to stay in the meeting room and I rushed to the YDP's office to negotiate with him (At that time, he was not seen in the meeting room yet, meaning that he could still be in his office). I spoken to the guard, he then informed the YDP's PA. I waited for 15 minutes but there are still no people coming out from the office to talk to us while the meeting has already started.

I met a reporters 30 minutes ago and she told me that the council is discussing on the pest control fiasco. She told me that Councilors Lee Hwa Beng is absent. Liew Yuen Keong, Yap Yuen Fatt and Kow Cheong Wei are there. She also said "six or seven Councilors is speaking on this issue but the YDP is very firm on this" but I am not informed of who are the "six or seven Councilors".

Councilor Awtar Singh came out and spoke to me and told me that I should know the procedure. I immediately replied him that what procedure had I not followed when I already emailed and faxed the YDP that I will be attending the meeting. Was he too busy until he had not time to reply my email? Or he does not use email?

"Well, if you have done that, then there should not be any problem." He said.

I told that that should be the way, I am not coming to disturb the meeting. I am merely attending, and I wrote in although the meeting should be conducted openly.

He was speechless.

I am now waiting outside the meeting hall and I will conduct a press conference with the reporters once the meeting is over.

Lau Weng San
DAP Selangor Publicity Secretary.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PEMBERITAHU KEHADIRAN WAKIL DAP SELANGOR KE MESYUARAT BULANAN MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:47:23 +0800
From: LAU Weng San
To: arif@mpsj.gov.my


Rujukan Kami: Letter-MPSJ-Pestcontrol-20060825

Tarikh: 25 Ogos 2006

Dato' Mohd Arif Bin Ab. Rahman
Yang Di-Pertua,
Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya,
Persiaran Perpaduan,USJ 5,
47610 Subang Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Tel: 03-8026 3102, Faks: 03-5637 6569 Melalui Faks dan Emel

PEMBERITAHU KEHADIRAN WAKIL DAP SELANGOR KE MESYUARAT BULANAN MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA

Dengan segala hormatnya bahawa saya ingin memaklumkan kepada pihak MPSJ bahawa wakil-wakil daripada DAP Selangor akan menghadiri sidang mesyuarat bulanan MPSJ pada 9:30pagi, 28 Ogos 2006.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

Lau Weng San
Setiausaha Publisiti DAP Selangor.
(016-3231563)

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

治安败坏——我们看到什么?

罪案频频发生,显示我国治安已经病入膏肓的年代。罪案的发生,却也让我们看见政府和警队在处理罪案中面对态度和行动上的不足两大问题。

态度的问题围绕在于政府和警方是否有坚决的意愿处理和解决导致罪案发生的结构性问题。行动上的问题则关乎政府和警方在实际行动上是否愿意大力重组警力,以及加强警队的资源,让警队真正发挥除暴安良的功能。

态度的问题——虽然防范罪案是全民的责任,但是我们绝对不能否认的事实就是,大马皇家警察在防范罪案方面依然是站在最前线,扮演最重要的角色。日前,国安部副部长在国会指出:“国人大可放心,现在即使在凌晨三四点在吉隆坡市中心逛街还是相当安全的……吉隆坡现在有255架闭路电视监视首都的交通,所有不用担心。”

我不明白为何副部长能够说在凌晨三四点独自一人在吉隆坡市中心逛街会是安全的,我不明白的是吉隆坡现有的255架用以监督‘交通’的闭路电视如何能够有效杜绝罪案的发生,更不明白平时大声叫嚷声讨攫夺匪的国阵国会议员不能在上周四的国会下议院会议起立支持行动党国会议员冯宝君辩论治安败坏的紧急动议。

政府boh rasa

但是如果政府高官继续发表这种否定症候群的言论,或者他们不敢抛开政治歧见要求警方加强治安,或一味以为多设一两架闭路电视就能够维持治安,这只显示政府高官和国阵议员对罪案发生之严重性,以及其对我国家庭、社会和经济等方面所带来的负面影响完全处于‘boh rasa’(没感觉)的状况。

马华的国州议员固然可以带领群众游行,但是面对同僚的这番说辞,马华的内阁部长、副部长以及政务次长却情以何堪?这就是我们面对的态度问题。

在行动上,政府和警队一再表示他们面对严峻的人力问题。国安部副部长拿督胡亚桥更曾经表示警方面对人手不足的问题。这种言论从部长的口一只说到警区主任去,但是由始至今,打从首相至警区主任,没有任何人士愿意站出来指出:为什么警方会面对人手不足?还是这是人力资源分配的问题?

胡亚桥于2006年4月18日在双溪毛糯马登巴加多用途礼堂出席由马华梳邦区会主办、梳邦区各社团协办的“警察之友推介礼暨警民对话会”时指出,美国每名警员对263名市民、香港及新加坡是1警员对230名市民、大马则是1警员对414名市民,惟雪州1警员则对563名市民。(请参阅《中国报网站》)。问题是:这个数据正确吗?

警民比例数据,胡亚桥误导人民

胡亚桥也在8月13日的《星洲日报》表示我国警员对人民的比例是1对414。他在接受专访时指出,我国公民人数是2千545万人,再加上两百万外劳,因此我国总人口是2千745万。大马皇家警察部队的总人数则是9万2千零7人(其实根据皇家调查委员会报告书的数据,大马皇家警察的人数是10万632人)。

因此,正确的比例应该是1对258(用2千745万除以10万632等于258)。这个数字与多数先进国家的比例成正比(美国1:263、西澳1:357、南非1:325、香港1:230以及新加坡1:230)。如果我们根据先进国家的数据,在对比我国警民比例,我们肯定没有面对警察不足的问题。即使是这样,为何先进国家的治安能够比我们做得更好?为何警方还大言不惭地指出‘警力不足’?到底是‘警力不足’,还是‘管理不足’?这是胡亚桥第一个误导人民的原因。

所谓管理,它除了是一般评论人所关注的人力资源管理之外,也包括财物资源的管理。

先从人力资源管理谈起。第一个要问的问题就是:我国约十万名警员当中,多少巴仙的警力是用来防止罪案发生?为何经过王丽涓事件后,警方似乎完全没有得到教训?为什么警方平时不加强巡逻,要等到民怨爆发后才后知后觉地加强巡逻?

要回答这些问题其实不是很难,皇家调查委员会报告书为我们提供很好的答案。马来西亚皇家警察部队十万名队员当中,3万3036名(32.8%)负责行政工作、10万587名(10.5%)负责统筹工作(logistic)、3万3214名(31.9%)负责公共安全(海警、随从、交警、骑警、空中巡逻部队、边界巡警等等)、2713名(2.7%)负责肃毒工作、政治部6026名(6.0%)、公务员7705名(7.7%)。从事罪案调查的警员只有7351名(或总数的7.3%——6661名,或6.6%负责罪案调查,另外0.7%或690名警员负责商业罪案)。胡亚桥又何时向人民解释,为何警方的人力资源会出现如此严重的失衡?

警方把大量的人力资源从事非罪案调查的工作,长期下去固然导致治安败坏。解铃还须释铃人。从这些数据,如果要有效地解决治安问题,人们还需依靠警方。一旦警方无法解决人力资源问题,我们千万不要冀望社会治安会转坏为好。

财物资源管理出现问题

另一个不能不谈的就是财物资源管理的问题。我认为这与警方的效率扮演重要的角色。

根据皇家调查委员会报告书,皇家警察部队在第八大马计划获得8亿5千万令吉的拨款购买各类仪器和配备。迄今,皇家警察部队管理的各类财务总值超过20亿令吉。这是一笔庞大和昂贵的数目。如果没有一套完整和详细的财务管理方针或政策,警察部队在适应这些配备执行任务时往往不能得心应手。

个人电脑可说是资讯时代最基本的资料储存工具。报告书在谈到皇家警察部队的设备首先直指警方在这方面的不足。令人惊讶和失望的是,委员会的第一项建议就是确保每间警局备有个人电脑,因为委员会发现并不是每所警局都备有个人电脑!

在上届砂劳越州议会选举,我曾经在陪同行动党巴都林当区候选人温利山前往古晋市Sentral警察局举报田成凯时,竟然发现这所位于古晋市中心的大型警察局竟然没有个人电脑协助警员接受公众人士的报案,结果温利山的报案书必须由他亲自动笔书写。

此外,在软件配备方面,警方从1992年迄今投下1亿1千310万令吉装置三种电脑:在线罚单付还系统(Compound On-Line Payment System,简称COPS)、车祸投报电脑系统(Computerised Accident Reporting System,简称CARS)以及警察报案系统(Police Reporting System,简称PRS)。遗憾的是,并不是每一个警察局或警区拥有这三个主要系统。即使有,警队的侦查活动和嫌烦扣留管理依然是用传统的方式进行,导致一些用以支援各类警队需求的系统,如PRS系统陷入无用武之地。

另外一个与防范罪案有密切关系的就是巡逻车。警方缺乏足够的巡逻车是众所周知的事实,但是皇家委员会的报告书所揭露的事实更令人震惊的数据,即杂大部分警区,往往每一架警车必须应付超过一万人的需求。例如在2004年,冼都警区(也就是利建业遇害的警区)的警车对人民的比例是1:34299、怡保警区比例是1:39570、八打灵再也警区1:21539、莎亚南警区1:34024、新山南区警区1:13705、新山北区警区1:18032、哥打巴鲁警区1:35660。最低的是金马警区1:715,接下来的蕉赖警区是1:10551,虽然金马警区的数据比例比较‘健康’,但是我们不应忘记金马警区是一个典型的商业和旅游区,居住在内的居民少之又少,但是在白天,这个地方却是万头攒动的繁华都市,这些上班族的人数并没有计算在该警区范围之内。

受人(民)钱财,须替人(民)消灾

俗语说:重赏之下必有勇夫。希望警察部队能过搞好治安,肯定不能忽略他们的待遇和工作环境。只有警察部队的待遇和工作环境能够随时得到关注和适当的提升,我们才有权利对警方有所要求。

治安不靖,如有人企图转移视线,反驳指出警方的待遇问题更应受到关注。那么我们就必须注意,当皇家调查委员会报告书于2005年4月出炉后,首相在5月便宣布拨款25亿令及提升警察宿舍和办公室配备。

随后,政府在9月份提成的2006年财政预算案宣布,从2006年1月1日开始。提高警员的津贴:服务1至10年的警员每月津贴从375令吉提高至600令吉,服务11年至15年的警员每月津贴提高至750令吉,至于服务超过16年的警员,其每月津贴则提高至900令吉。涨幅介于60至140巴仙之间。此外,政府也拨出1亿7百万令吉调整警员的薪金。

有了薪金和待遇上的提升,警方理应提升他们的办事能力,但是为何治安依然拼不好?这显然是管理的问题,也证明薪金和待遇上的提升未必能够提升警察部队的办事效率。警队需要的是一套完整、现代化和专业化的管理方式。

Friday, August 25, 2006

Pest Control Fiasco – Selangor Mentri Besar should listen to both side of the stories

It was reported in the Sun yesterday that Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo has instructed the Subang Jaya and Sepang Municipal Councils to submit reports to him on the vetting procedure for the award of fumigation concessions to two consortiums.

He was also quoted that he is waiting for the reports and if the vetting process is legally wrong, action can be taken. He said that if there is any corruption, a report should be made to the Anti Corruption Agency.

We welcome the statement from the Mentri Besar but we also want the reports to be simultaneously available to the media and public for greater public scrutiny, afterall, the people is the taxpayers and they have absolute right to understand how MPSJ and MPSepang award pest control concessionaire to these companies which are not recognized by Pesticide Board and Pest Control Association Malaysia (PCAM)

On this part, we are willing to assist the Mentri Besar. It is always good to listen to both side of the stories in order to get a clearer picture of the whole incident. Inliue of this, the DAP Selangor is more than ready to present a copy of the materials we have to the Mentri Besar for his reference.

Three more reason for MPSJ to suspend the decision

The Mentri Besar should pay special attention to the different contradicting statement from the council officers, President and Councilors. I had pointed in a press conference on 31st July that DAP Selangor is outraged on the decision made by MPSJ based on the following five reasons:

1. What are the jurisdictions for MPSJ to require non-eatery commercial outlets to conduct pest-control exercise? MPSJ is certainly lacking transparency in it’s policy making when requiring owners of non-eatery commercial outlets to do the same.
2. Even though if pest control exercise is compulsory for all commercial outlets, why do MPSJ only designate one consortium to conduct the exercise for more than 10,000 commercial outlets under MPSJ’s jurisdiction? Is this consortium more experienced than other companies in the market, or it’s charges are more economical than the rest? Is the awarding of the concessionaire conducted based on open-tender system?
3. This consortium is said not a member of the Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM). If that’s the case, why MPSJ does not select a company registered, recognized and accredited by the association? Are the services provided by this consortium guaranteed and accredited by the association? Will it be held liable legally for any losses or accidents by its personnel when conducting pest-control exercises, especially when pest control personnel must be well-trained to handle insecticides and poisonous materials which could also be carcinogenic?
4. DAP Selangor has also conducted a company search for the companies under the consortium and discovered that some of the companies are not only newly established, but also led by directors in their 20s. This raises a question of whether these companies are capable to conduct proper pest-control exercise.
5. The lowest available charge of the consortium is RM600, which is twice the market price. If all owners of commercial outlets under the jurisdiction of Subang Jaya were to sign a contract with this consortium till 2026, that will be a great fortune for the consortium.

After that, Subang Jaya ADUN cum MPSJ councilor YB Datuk Lee Hwa Beng claimed in a Malaysiakini report that the council will not employ companies which are not recognized by the Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department.

Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I then on 9th August obtained the approved companies list from the Board, initially done through the website, in which I discover that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists. Some media have even taken the initiative to write in to Pesticide Board to get a written verification, which they managed to obtain.

Although Lee Hwa Beng claimed that the Council only appoint companies accredited by Pesticide Board, but he failed to explain why the Council persist in appointing these pest-control companies. Even though we have proven that these companies are not accredited by pesticide Board, the Council in a statement said that out of the seven companies mentioned, there are only five accredited by the Board (please refer to a newspaper report published in The Sun dated 8th August 2006, page 11).

On 21st August, Lee Hwa Beng again said that the Council’s License Committee has on 20th June 2006 has decided that companies not accredited by Pesticide Board cannot carry out any pest control exercise. Business operators can still seek services from other pest-control operators.

Unfortunately, although Lee said that the ruling is still effective, there are still business operators who are forced to sign contract with the newly-appointed companies before they can renew or apply their trade license.

He even further pointed that he himself and YB Liew Yuen Keong had opposed to the appointment of the six companies but majority won.

In fact, judging from the different and contradicting statement between Lee Hwa Beng and MPSJ, it is not shocking if they are people lodge reports with ACA against him and MPSJ.

Since first, this has seriously tarnished the image of MPSJ and Lee Hwa Beng; second, this decision has drawn opposition from business operators and third, the Mentri Besar has expressed his own concern over the issue, and has even directed both councils to submit a report, Lee Hwa Beng shall on the up and coming MPSJ full board council meeting on 28th August until there is a full and accountable explanation from the council to the public and the Mentri Besar.

州务大臣应该接纳各方面的看法

昨日《太阳报》报道雪州州务大臣拿督斯里基尔要求梳邦再也市议会和雪邦市议会针对最近的害虫管理风波向他提呈报告书,以解释市议会的遴选程序。他也指出如果遴选过程触犯法律,那么州政府将会采取行动。州务大臣更表示,如果贪污确实发生,那么一定会向反贪污局举报。

我们欢迎州务大臣的这项言论,但是我们也要求有关报告也同时能够公开给媒体和市民阅读。毕竟这并不是机密文件,更何况的是,身为纳税人的居民拥有绝对的权利了解约十家公司所组成的财团公司如何能够获得这两个市议会的信任,进而得到管辖范围内的害虫控制特许经营权。

所谓兼听则明,州务大臣不应该只是听取单方面的意见,反之应聆听各方面的不同意见。有鉴于此,雪州民主行动党准备把我们的资料副本交给州务大臣,以协助州务大臣进一步了解事情的来龙去脉。

三大理由要求市议会暂缓实行新指令

州务大臣应该关注的一点就是梳邦再也市议会官员、市议员和主席一再发出误导性的言论。当我在2006年7月31日首次通过媒体揭发此事时指出雪州行动党是基于以下五大原因对梳邦再也市议会的这项措施表示不满:


第一、 梳邦再也市议会是基于什么理由要求市议会管辖范围之内的所有商店进行害虫控制?为何从事非饮食业生意的商店和工厂也受当局规定呢?

第二、 即使必须进行害虫控制,为何市议会硬性规定商家们必须向这间财团公司签署和约,进行害虫控制?难道其他比这家公司更加有经验、收费更低廉的公司不符合资格吗?市议会是否以公开招标的方式来颁发这项特许经营权?

第三、 这间公司并不是大马害虫控制协会的成员公司。既然如此,为何市议会不选择该协会属下的成员公司?这间公司的服务素质是否得到该协会的核准和保证?万一发生意外(如杀虫剂外泄、或非法使用致癌药物等等),这些公司是否愿意承担法律上的责任?

第四、 这间财团公司的收费比市场上一般害虫控制公司的收费贵。据称,最低收费是六百令吉,这是其他公司收费的两倍。

第五、 部分公司的董事年龄非常年轻。他们是否拥有足够的经验经营这行业?

过后,梳邦再也市议员兼首邦区州议员李华民在8月5日接受英文版《当今大马》访问时指出,市议会不会承认没有获得农业部农药管理局核准公司所发出的准证。

我过后在8月9日那么我便尝试通过网络寻找农药管理局核准的公司名单。发现梳邦再也市议会所承认的财团公司(Konsortium SJ Pest Control有限公司)和这家财团公司旗下的公司成员(Koswasta Asia Pest Control有限公司、Damai Pest Control有限公司、Vetga有限公司、Inspirasi Asia有限公司、Suria Sakti Resources有限公司以及Denmas有限公司),以及雪邦市议会所承认的四家公司(Salak Pest Control有限公司、Wismanis有限公司、Lembah Dahlia有限公司以及Koswasta Asia有限公司)的名字完全没有出现在名单中。一些媒体甚至在过后也获得农药管理局的书面回答,证明这些公司并没有获得当局的执照。

虽然李华民过后表示市议会只委任获得农药管理局承认的公司,但是他却无法解释为何市议会还是委任这些公司进行害虫控制。我们后来也成功证明这些公司并没有获得当局的执照,但是市议会在8月8日的文告表示在这七家公司当中,已经有五家公司获得当局的承认(请阅2006年8月8日《太阳报》第11页)。

李华民在8月21日通过传媒表示:“市议会执照小组在2006年6月20日开会决定,如果首位的公司没有得到农业农药管理局的核准,既不可进行灭虫工作,商家们认可向其他害虫控制公司取得服务。”

虽然李华民也指出是项决定依然生效,但是许多商家早已经被迫向市议会指定的公司获取服务,才能更新或申请商业执照。

他指出他本人与廖润强是在5月份的月常会议中反对市议会委任该六家公司,但是却寡不敌众。

因此我们发现梳邦再也市议会的答案和回复,往往和李华民的答案出现严重的冲突和混淆,或者是李华民的答案与事实不相符合,这也不难怪有人会因此向反贪污局举报他本人和梳邦再也市议会。

有鉴于(一)这项最新发展已经影响梳邦再也市议会和李华民的形象,也因为(二)梳邦再也市议会的这项决定已经引起商家们的大力反弹,再加上(三)州务大臣已经针对此事表示关注,并要求市议会提呈报告书,李华民应该在8月28日的市议会月常会议上再次提出此事,要求市议会暂缓实行这项指令,直至市议会有关方面完完整整、一五一十地针对此事向市民和州务大臣做出交代。

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

最新一期《火箭报》经已出版

马来西亚面临降雪的寒冬国庆!

八月,我国即将迈入49大关的国庆时期,却陷入了热带国家不会降雪的寒冬天气。前首相马哈迪医生与现任首相阿都拉之间纠葛不清的种种指责,让政坛出现暧昧不清的境况。各种种族主义挂帅的情况,经过了49年的独立,改变了什么?

这个八月,就让我们一起来反思国庆。

此外,《火箭报》也迈入了40周年,是我国出版时间最悠久的政治刊物,历经了多次国内的政治改变,本刊也特地走访当年的编辑,畅谈当时的编辑情况。

本报零售价为每份2令吉,并为订户提供最大的优惠:凡订阅12期的《火箭报》,只须付20令吉,节省4令吉;订阅24期为40令吉,节省8令吉,且不另征收邮费。(这项优惠有效期仅至2006年9月30日。)

有意订阅者只需填妥个人基本资料,连同支票或邮政汇票寄至民主行动党总部,支票抬头填写:DAP MALAYSIA(支票背面填写:火箭报)。

同时,订阅者也可通过银行付款,行动党帐户号码为:大众银行Public Bank:DAP MALAYSIA 3063828309(须传真存入证明)

如有任何询问,请联络民主行动党总部林小姐,电话:03-79578022;传真:03-79575718;电邮信箱:rocket@dapmalaysia.org;地址:24, Jalan 20/9,Paramount Garden, 46300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor

No question from YB Lau Yan Peng on the future of SKLTS and when Puchong Bukit Nanas landfill will be closed – Another dereliction of responsibility?

I received a copy of the Order Paper of the current Parliament Session which started yesterday to 13th December 2006. The Order Paper is a print out of all written and oral questions raised by MPs during this Parliament session. I am informed that each MP is allowed to raise 10 oral questions and 5 written questions which will be answered by the relevant Ministry. MPs are allowed to raise any question based on their own discretion.

During the last Parliament session, Gerakan MP for Puchong Lau Yan Peng raised a question on 4th April 2006 on the future of Puchong Bukit Nanas Landfill. The question was answered by Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments. Lau also put up a supplementary question on the fate of South KL Transfer Station (SKLTS).

It was at that time that the Parliamentary Secretary answered that the there is no exact date of when the landfill will be closed and that the Ministry is merely acting as technical consultant in SKLTS project. The decision of whether the waste transfer station will be built in Kampung Bohol will eventually be decided by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL)

According to newspaper report of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press dated 13th August 2006, it was reported that State Assemblyman for Bandar Kinrara, YB Kow Cheong Wei announced in a press conference, which was attended by representatives from No Sampah Station Pro-Tem Committee, that the proposed South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS) project will be scrapped based on unofficial information he obtained from various government departments.

This was further verified when reporters contacted Parliamentary Secretary of Ministry of Federal Territories, YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok, that the project is already cancelled.

What is most mind-boggling in this incident is that nobody from the government, especially concerned ministries, are capable to come out with a proper and official black-and-white, not even Datuk Yew Teong Lok, to CONFIRM that the project is scrapped, as the residents have been waiting for an official answer from the government since months.

I would believe that it will be good if Lau Yan Peng can put up an oral question to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or Ministry of Federal Territories to seek for a more updated and authoritative answer with regards to the fate of SKLTS. I am however disappointed that Lau Yan Peng had failed in carrying out his responsibility when he did not put up any question on this issue, as well as the final closure date of Bukit Nanas Landfill. I would like to re-write Lau Yan Peng’s questions brought up in the current Parliament session, as printed in the Parliament Order Paper in Malay:


1. 22/8/2006, Soalan Ke-7, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah rancangan dan langkah-langkah positif kerajaan untuk mengekalkan pertumbuhan ekonomi negara melebihi unjuran 5% bagi tahun 2006 berikutan penurunan prestasi ekonomi negara kesan daripada kenaikan harga petroleum, tarif elektrik dan kadar faedah bank.

2. 24/8/2006, Soalan Ke-24, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah jaminan dan ‘contingency plan’ Kerajaan bahawa pelaksanaan 880 projek RMK-9 bernilai RM15 bilion yang diumumkan baru-baru ini tiada kemungkinan terbengkalai dengan penubuhan Badan Bertindak Pelaksanaan Negara (BBPN) yang telah diluluskan.

3. 28/8/2006, Soalan Ke-24, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI SUMBER ASLI DAN ALAM SEKITAR menyatakan adakah Kementerian mempunyai program khas untuk menaik taraf sistem pengairan dan salian terutamanya membabitkan kawasan kampong tradisi memandangkan banjir teruk melanda setiap kali musim tengkujuh. Jika ada, berapakah jumlah projek dan kos yang diperuntukkan dalam RMK-9.

4. 30/8/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI KERJA RAYA menyatakan apakah punca utama masalah Projek Menaiktaraf Jalan Batu 12 hingga Batu 16 Puchong di bawah kawal selia JKR Selangor yang dijadualkan siap penghujung tahun 2005 tetapi gagal disiapkan hingga kini. Adakah Kementerian tiada kuasa apabila suatu projek dijalankan oleh JKR negero atau daerah.

5. 6/9/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah pendirian Kerajaan berkaitan percanggahan pendapat antara Kementerian Pelancongan dan Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri berhubung cadangan melanjutkan masa operasi pusat hiburan di lokasi-lokasi tertentu yang menimbulkan kontroversi baru-baru ini.

6. 12/9/2006, Soalan Ke-25, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI TENAGA, AIR DAN KOMUNIKASI menyatakan adakah Kerajaan bercadang untuk memperkanalkan penggunaan meter air berasakan plastik sebagai langkah menangani kecurian meter air besi, justeru adakah Kerajaan bercadang untuk membuat pemasangan meter air secara berasingan bagi pangsapuri pada masa akan datang.

7. 19/9/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI SAINS, TEKNOLOGI DAN INOVASI menyatakan statistic kes jenayah siber di negara ini membabitkan transaksi perniagaan dan urusan Kerajaan bermula dari awal tahun 2005, justeru apakah persediaan Kerajaan untuk melaksanakan Institut Kerjasama Pelbagai Hala Antarabangsa Memerangi Keganasan Siber (Impact) dalam masa terdekat ini.

8. 7/11/2006, Soalan Ke-22, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI KERJA RAYA menyatakan komitmen Kementerian berhubung cadangan pembinaan sebuah ‘interchange’ di laluan persekutuan 3215 Jalan Putra Permai dan Lebuhraya Putrajaya – KL. Adakah kesesakan teruk di laluan antara Pasar Borong Selangor dan Pasaraya Jusco menghala ke Pekan Sri Kembangan tidak cukup untuk cadangan ini dipertimbangkan

9. 13/11/2006, Soalan Ke-21, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah langkah dan tindakan keseimbangan yang dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan untuk menyeimbangkan dasar-dasar ‘affirmative action’ seperti DEB dan dasar keterbukaan ekonomi negara dalam era globalisasi supaya kepentingan dan kesejahteraan rakyat tanpa mengira kaum terjamin.

10. 21/11/2006, Soalan Ke-7, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI TENAGA, AIR DAN KOMUNIKASI menyatakan adakah Kementerian mempunyai program khas untuk mendidik rakyat untuk menjimatkan penggunaan tenaga elektrik dan air. Adakah Kementerian bercadang untuk mengurangkan bayaran atau diskaum ke atas tunggakan sedia ada bil IWK.

It is very clear that Lau Yan Peng did not ask any question on the issue. If Lau Yan Peng would have asked this question, then Kinrara folks who has been living in anxiety since early 2006 could have know the answer before 2007.

Is this another classic example of dereliction of responsibility?

蒲种垃圾土埋场的最后关闭日期以及隆南垃圾转运中心计划的命运——卢永平的沉默是否显示他逃离责任?

国会下议院昨日开始开会至今年12月13日。我在昨日收到一份国会下议院的开会议程书(Order Paper)。这份议程书里面印有每一名国会议员在这一次国会会议所提出的口头问答和书面问答问题。每一名国会议员能够针对任何课题,向国会提交十道口头问题以及五道书面问题。

在上一次国会会议,民政党蒲种区国会议员卢永平在2006年4月4日针对蒲种土埋场的最后关闭日期而向房地部发问。此外,卢永平也针对相同的问题提问一道关于隆南垃圾土埋场的附加问题。政务次长当时回答说当局尚未确定蒲种垃圾土埋场确实关闭的日期。此外,政务次长也表示其部门在隆南垃圾转运站计划知识扮演技术顾问的角色,吉隆坡市政厅才是额定是否进行整个计划。

根据2006年8月13日《中国报》和《南洋商报》雪隆版,雪州金銮镇州议员高祥威博士在一项记者招待会上表示,他从各政府部门所得到的非正式资料显示当局将会取消兴建隆南垃圾转运中心计划,惟这项决定必须得到当局的确认和正式宣布才算生效。

联邦直辖区部政务次长姚长禄过后接受记者询问时也口头上证实这项消息,即有关计划已经被取消。

然而,令人不可思议的是,为何政府迄今不能针对这项计划,一五一十、清清楚楚地交待为何当局迟迟不能针对这项计划的去留作出一个正式的答复,因为在过去数月,当地的居民正引颈长盼政府的决定。

我相信,如果卢永平能够针对这些课题向房地部或两磅直辖区部发问,以求获得政府最新和最有权威的答案,那是最好不过。但是令人失望的是,卢永平完全没有针对这些课题提出任何问题。在此我再次把卢永平的问题全盘抄出来:


1. 22/8/2006, Soalan Ke-7, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah rancangan dan langkah-langkah positif kerajaan untuk mengekalkan pertumbuhan ekonomi negara melebihi unjuran 5% bagi tahun 2006 berikutan penurunan prestasi ekonomi negara kesan daripada kenaikan harga petroleum, tarif elektrik dan kadar faedah bank.

2. 24/8/2006, Soalan Ke-24, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah jaminan dan ‘contingency plan’ Kerajaan bahawa pelaksanaan 880 projek RMK-9 bernilai RM15 bilion yang diumumkan baru-baru ini tiada kemungkinan terbengkalai dengan penubuhan Badan Bertindak Pelaksanaan Negara (BBPN) yang telah diluluskan.

3. 28/8/2006, Soalan Ke-24, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI SUMBER ASLI DAN ALAM SEKITAR menyatakan adakah Kementerian mempunyai program khas untuk menaik taraf sistem pengairan dan salian terutamanya membabitkan kawasan kampong tradisi memandangkan banjir teruk melanda setiap kali musim tengkujuh. Jika ada, berapakah jumlah projek dan kos yang diperuntukkan dalam RMK-9.

4. 30/8/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI KERJA RAYA menyatakan apakah punca utama masalah Projek Menaiktaraf Jalan Batu 12 hingga Batu 16 Puchong di bawah kawal selia JKR Selangor yang dijadualkan siap penghujung tahun 2005 tetapi gagal disiapkan hingga kini. Adakah Kementerian tiada kuasa apabila suatu projek dijalankan oleh JKR negero atau daerah.

5. 6/9/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah pendirian Kerajaan berkaitan percanggahan pendapat antara Kementerian Pelancongan dan Kementerian Keselamatan Dalam Negeri berhubung cadangan melanjutkan masa operasi pusat hiburan di lokasi-lokasi tertentu yang menimbulkan kontroversi baru-baru ini.

6. 12/9/2006, Soalan Ke-25, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI TENAGA, AIR DAN KOMUNIKASI menyatakan adakah Kerajaan bercadang untuk memperkanalkan penggunaan meter air berasakan plastik sebagai langkah menangani kecurian meter air besi, justeru adakah Kerajaan bercadang untuk membuat pemasangan meter air secara berasingan bagi pangsapuri pada masa akan datang.

7. 19/9/2006, Soalan Ke-3, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI SAINS, TEKNOLOGI DAN INOVASI menyatakan statistic kes jenayah siber di negara ini membabitkan transaksi perniagaan dan urusan Kerajaan bermula dari awal tahun 2005, justeru apakah persediaan Kerajaan untuk melaksanakan Institut Kerjasama Pelbagai Hala Antarabangsa Memerangi Keganasan Siber (Impact) dalam masa terdekat ini.

8. 7/11/2006, Soalan Ke-22, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI KERJA RAYA menyatakan komitmen Kementerian berhubung cadangan pembinaan sebuah ‘interchange’ di laluan persekutuan 3215 Jalan Putra Permai dan Lebuhraya Putrajaya – KL. Adakah kesesakan teruk di laluan antara Pasar Borong Selangor dan Pasaraya Jusco menghala ke Pekan Sri Kembangan tidak cukup untuk cadangan ini dipertimbangkan

9. 13/11/2006, Soalan Ke-21, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan apakah langkah dan tindakan keseimbangan yang dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan untuk menyeimbangkan dasar-dasar ‘affirmative action’ seperti DEB dan dasar keterbukaan ekonomi negara dalam era globalisasi supaya kepentingan dan kesejahteraan rakyat tanpa mengira kaum terjamin.

10. 21/11/2006, Soalan Ke-7, Tuan Lau Yan Peng [ Puchong ] minta MENTERI TENAGA, AIR DAN KOMUNIKASI menyatakan adakah Kementerian mempunyai program khas untuk mendidik rakyat untuk menjimatkan penggunaan tenaga elektrik dan air. Adakah Kementerian bercadang untuk mengurangkan bayaran atau diskaum ke atas tunggakan sedia ada bil IWK.

非常明显的,卢永平根本没有提出任何关于蒲种垃圾土埋场和隆南垃圾转运中心计划。如果他在国会能够提出这些问题,那么居民就不用终日忧心忡忡地过日子。

卢永平的沉默是否显示他逃离责任?

Monday, August 21, 2006

博大生动粗事件—高教部应成立自己本身的审查委员会审核博大校方的报告书

有鉴于《独立新闻在线》实习记者周小芳和博特拉大学校长聂慕斯达法针对到底‘周小芳是自己跌倒’出现前后不一的版本,因此高教部应该成立本身的审查委员会,详细研究该报告书的内容,确保没有出现不实内容。

博特拉大学校长聂慕斯达法(Nik Mustapha)日前表示《独立新闻在线》实习记者周小芳向7月17日在“博大学生代表理事会主席阿都马纳夫率众滋扰博大前进阵线成员事件”的调查委员会供证,说她是自己跌倒。

《独立新闻在线》在8月19日发表声明指出博大校长的说词与事实不符。声明指出:


“一、 周小芳在7月28日出席博大调查委员会的听证会,但是调查委员会并没有针对学生对她动粗的事情问问题,周小芳也不曾向校方供证说她是自己跌倒。

《独立新闻在线》记者陈慧思昨天采访博大校长的新闻发布会后访问周小芳,周小芳再次确认并没有向调查委员会供证说是自己跌倒;她也对校长的说法感到非常失望、生气和悲哀。

二、 周小芳是博大现代语文与传播系三年级学生,她是经过校方正式指派,自7月11日开始到《独立新闻在线》实习三个月。

7月17日事发当晚,周小芳并非以“博大学生”的身份出现在博大校园(实习期间周小芳无需回校上课),而是以《独立新闻在线》实习记者的身份到场采访,而且周小芳当时也有表明身份。

本刊向博大校长质询学生粗暴对待周小芳的事,也是以“周小芳是《独立新闻在线》实习记者”的身份为前提。因此,若媒体报道此事时将周小芳的身份简化为“一名学生”,不提她当时是媒体代表的事实,实有漠视“媒体执行采访任务时遭为难”之嫌,令媒体同业失望。”


此事件对国立大专的教学素质与校风有莫大深切的影响,因此该部不能随意忽略报告书不详实的内容。国立大专作为莘莘学子追去学问知识的地方,博大应该把所有事件交待清楚。也有鉴于博大校方无法在这方面给予公众人士一个明确的交代,高教部应插手研究报告书的内容,以确保报告书的内容是正确无误的。

另外,博大校方仅仅向挑起争端的博大学生代表理事会成员发出警告信是令人不满的。

马纳夫所领导的博大学生代表理事会应该知道他们是获得民意的学生代表,而不是一般的博大生。如此粗暴野蛮的行径其实已经损坏博大的校誉以及博大生的尊严。因此,校方必须暂时吊销挑起争端的博大学生代表的职位,以示处罚。

校方的说辞,即整个事件是因为非注册学生团体—博大前进阵线—在博大第十二宿舍开设学生服务柜台引起学生不满,所以引发争端。其实背后的核心问题是学生在校园举办活动的基本人权。即使由玛纳夫领导的学生代表不满,他们也不能干扰这群学生,甚至以流氓的方式威吓和粗暴对待这群学生。他们最多也只能向宿舍管理当局或博大保安处举报,绝对不能把法律操从在自己手上。

Pest Control scandal must be resolved in the coming full board meeting

The pest control concession scandal must be resolved during the up and coming Subang Jaya Municipal Council full board meeting on 28th August 2006, in which the Council should table an explanation to the public on the specific reasons why the Council resort to giving away concession in pest control, why the concession is only given to a certain companies which are neither accredited by Pesticide Board (under the Department of Agriculture) nor Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM)

The Council should also explain of whether it is prepared to take a stand to admit that the selection process is conducted through an open-tender system and whether the Council is prepared to come clear by revealing the content of the contract for public scrutiny.

In this, MCA Adun for Subang Jaya cum MPSJ Councilor YB Lee Hwa Beng had previously promised that he will bring this matter up in the coming full board council meeting in August. I hope that he can keep his word by not only bringing this matter in the meeting but also trying to resolve and fight for the rights of all business operators in Subang Jaya to push the Council to withdraw this ruling which was clearly a decision made without proper consultation with all stakeholders, especially those business operators under the jurisdiction of the Council.

In order to ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the councilors and the mayor, DAP Selangor will attend the full board council meeting.

来次梳邦再也市议会月常会议必须解决害虫控制特许经营权丑闻

即将在2006年8月28日举行的梳邦再也市议会月常会议应该解决害虫控制特许经营权丑闻。

市议会也应该在会议上针对公众人士的不满和指责作出一项详细的交代,尤其是市议会是基于什么原因颁发害虫控制特许经营权予私人公司、为何市议会仅颁发经营权予特定公司,而这些公司不是马来西亚害虫控制协会的会员公司,它们同时也没有获得农药管理局的承认。

市议会也必须交待,到底市议会愿意承认,既有关公司是经过透明的方式遴选出来,以及市议会是否愿意公布有关和约的内容

在这方面,马华首邦市州议员兼市议员李华民曾经表示他将会在即将来临的市议会月常会议提出这事件。我希望他会遵守诺言,维护人民和商家的权益,即他不仅会在市议会提出此事,并且也会在月常会议向市议会施压,要求市议会暂时搁置这项不透明的决定。

为了确保此事能够获得市议会和市议会主席的关注,我将会列席市议会八月份的月常会议。

Friday, August 18, 2006

Another proof of poor delivery system – Upgrading of Jalan Puchong 12th Mile to 16th Mile takes more than two year to complete

It must be a deplorable proof of poor delivery system when the contractor awarded to upgrade Jalan Puchong 12th Mile to 16th Mile takes more than two year to complete the project despite the completed date of the project has been extended.

Tuah Mahir Sdn. Bhd. is the contractor assigned by Public Works Department (PWD) to build a 3.55km four-lane road. The project costs RM 27 million and it started in June 2004. Work was supposed to have finished by December 2005 but Tuah Mahir has asked for an extension of the completion date to June 2006.


While claiming that he will ‘monitor’ the progress of the project, MP Lau Yan Peng also claimed in January 2006 that Tuah Mahir and PWD had assured residents that they would step up safety measures along the stretch. Among the safety measures proposed are:

1. Floodlights would be installed and the number of streetlights increased.
2. Assign a worker present at all times to control the traffic.
3. An overhead pedestrian bridge at 14th Mile is built for people to cross the road to Puchong Utama.

Despite all these sweet promises made more than half a year ago, the entrance from Jalan Puchong into the stretch at 12th Mile is closed now and no vehicles can enter into Puchong 14th Miles via Jalan Puchong.

The confusing traffic lanes have caused several fatal accidents. Vehicles traveling from one direction always have to switch lanes when they reach certain junctions or corners. Besides, there are no adequate signage put up causing confusion to motorists and road users.

DAP Selangor would like to put forward the following six questions to JKR and Lau Yan Peng and we hope that relevant parties including the two and Tuah Mohir could come clear with all the queries we raised:

1. Instead of always giving false hope to the people, could not it be better if Lau Yan Peng utilize part of his RM2 million constituency development allocation for each BN MP to assist in the completion of the project?

2. Tuah Mahir said in January 2006 that work to remove underground pipes and cables had delayed the project. Was there any pre-construction inspection carried out before work started? Or this is not included as part of the scope of works to remove underground pipes and cables included in the Letter of Award (LoA) to Tuah Mahir?


3. Could the Petaling District JKR reveal the contract of the project and to come clear of whether there are any malpractices in awarding the contract to the contractor?


4. Are there additional cost added onto the original cost of RM27 million, since the contractor failed to complete the project in times?

5. Are there any compensation claimed by JKR from the contractor on any delay caused by them? If yes, then how much had been claimed and paid? If not, why?

6. Could JKR shows the track record of the contractor and consider blacklisting the contractor, if they fail to justify their reason for the delay?

超过两年未完工,蒲种路12英里至16英里的道路提升工程成为另一项失败公共输送系统的例子

蒲种路12英里至16英里路段的道路提升工程必须耗时超过两年以上的时间完成,以致这个计划被谴责为失败公共输送系统的另一个例子。

八打灵县公共工程局委任承包商Tuah Mahir Sdn. Bhd.提升这段长达3.55公里的路段,主要建筑工程就是把原有的二行道路段提升至四行道。这项工程于2004年6月开始施工的工程耗资2千7百万令吉。本来预计完工的日期是2005年12月。由于无法在预定时间内完工,承包商Tuah Mahir向公共工程局申请把完工日期延迟至2006年6月。


在今年1月份中旬所主办的闭门对话会中,蒲种区国会议员卢永平曾经向媒体表示他本人将会‘监督’有关工程的进展,而承包商也向居民承诺将会在工程进行期间提升安全措施。这包括:
1. 装设照明灯和增加路灯。
2. 委派一名工人全天候指挥交通(雪州行动党接获人民投报,即该路段根本没有人指挥交通。我们一行人今日下午前往该路段巡逻时也是发现如此)。
3. 在14英里兴建一座行人天桥。

虽然当局许下这些美丽的承诺,但是现在承包商把从蒲种路驶入12英里路段的进出口关闭,导致车辆不能通过蒲种路驶入蒲种14英里。此外,令人混淆的交通安排也导致驾车人士因无法适应新的交通行道而发生车祸,有着甚至是致命车祸。当局也没有设置足够的路牌与告示牌。

因此,雪州行动党向公共工程局和卢永平提出六大疑惑,我们希望他们和承包商能够和Tuah Mahir交待清楚:
1. 与其让工程一拖再拖,或者是继续让人就等,为何卢永平不动用他身为国阵国会议员的两百万令吉拨款协助有关方面早日完成这工程?
2. 包商Tuan Mahir在2006年1月指出工程延迟的原因是地下水管和电缆。问题在于为何有关当局在开始施工之前没有在该地进行详细的检查?还是这项检查并没有列入承包商必须进行的工作范围之内?
3. 八打灵县公共工程局是否愿意公开合约的内容,解释到底当局是否依照正常的程序颁发这项工程合约予Tuah Mahir?
4. 既然承包商无法依时完工,那么整个工程会否超资?超资多少?
5. 公共工程局是否因延迟完工而向承包商索偿?如有,请问已经索偿多少钱?承包商已经赔了多少? 如无,那又是为什么?
6. 公共工程局会否出示有关承包商的工作记录?如果该承包商无法针对延迟完工给予合理的解释,公共工程局是否会把该承包商列入黑名单?

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The Ministry of Housing and Local Governments shall come clear of whether the RM1.5 billion-Broga Incinerator project is scrapped or not

There is an urgent need for the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments to come clear of whether the RM1.5 billion-Broga Incinerator Project is scrapped or not so that the people of Broga do not have to live in uncertainties.

DAP Selangor would like to reiterate our stand that any incinerator can only be built in remote area which is far from water retention area in order to avoid environmental pollution which endanger the health of the residents (by-production of dioxine from incinerator is carsinogenic) as well as contaminating portable water.

This is also the reason why DAP Selangor stage a strong protest against the construction of similar incinerator in Kampung Bohol, Puchong when the project was first poposed to be built in that area before it was relocated to Broga, Semenyih which was also heavily protested by the residents of Broga.

The main question is that to date, there is no proper and official reply from the Ministry to verify the report published in Singapore’s Business Times, whether the project will be continued or scrapped.


The residents will definitely have every reason to celebrate if the project was scrapped while contractor of the incinerator, Ebara Corporation will file their compensation suit against the government to seek for a compensation of RM500 million. If the Government continues with the project, strong and undivided protest from the residents is expected. Three vital questions are to be answered:

1. Why the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments did not clear the air at the first place when the news was published in Singapore Business Times? To date, what is the progress of the project?

2. Whether the Government will source from the public coffer to compensate RM500 million to Ebara Corporation? Will the Government announce the content of the contract or LOA issued to the contractor? Are there any other ways to reduce the compensation?

3. For such an important news affecting the lives of those living in Broga, is it not ridiculous for the people to know about it from a foreign media? Is there any gag order issued to the media of not to highlight the issue? Or is it intentionally arranged by the government so that local media is sealed from the news?

All these queries concern the transparency, integrity and efficiency of the running of government machineries. We cannot agree more with the Government when the Government chooses to silent itself from giving public clearance or verification on various environmental issue, including another waste transfer station proposed to be built in Kampung Bohol, Puchong. It is clear that the people are waiting for confirmation from the Government. There shall be no delay in it.

房屋及地方政府部必须尽快澄清到底政府是否已经腰斩武来岸垃圾焚化炉计划

房屋及地方政府部必须尽快澄清到底政府是否已经腰斩武来岸垃圾焚化炉计划,以扫除当地人民的忧虑。

雪州行动党重申我们的立场,即任何垃圾焚化炉必须建立在人烟稀少、远离集水区的地方,避免焚化炉释放出来的二恶英(dioxine)(一种致癌化学药物)危害人民的健康和污染水源。这就是为什么雪州行动党大力反对当局当初建议在蒲种甘榜波何兴建这座垃圾焚化炉,即使这个计划过后迁移至士毛月武来岸,我们的立场还是不变,因为该地区对雪州人民来说是一个极其重要的集水区。

现在问题在于,这消息是从新加坡《商业时报》引述过来,迄今没有指导到底马来西亚政府是否已经决定腰斩这项计划,还是继续进行这项计划。


如果政府腰斩这项计划,这固然会让受影响的武来岸居民雀跃万分,但是政府也同时面对承包商Ebara Corporation五亿令吉的法律诉讼。如果政府继续这项计划,那么政府必须准备面对人民的大力反弹,甚至是法律诉讼。但是,现在问题关键在于以下三点:
第一、 为何房屋及地方政府部没有在第一时间清楚澄清此事?该工程目前进展多少巴仙?
第二、 到底政府会否动用公款,赔偿五亿令吉予Ebara Corporation?政府是否愿意公布当初和该公司签署的合约内容?有什么办法可以减少这笔赔偿?
第三、 为何这项消息必须通过外国媒体才能知晓?难道本地媒体得到禁令不能大肆报道这项课题,还是政府故意不让本地媒体知道?

这项最新发展严重关系政府的行政和运作方面的透明度、公信力、透明度和效率。对于这项对巴生谷河流域居民影响重大的消息,国人必须通过外国媒体和通讯社的报道知道马来西亚的新闻。这是不可理喻且非常讽刺的事件。

在这之前,政府在处理蒲种甘榜波何垃圾转运站课题上一直摇摆不定。这一次,政府也是以同样的方式处理武来岸垃圾焚化炉计划。我们不能苟同政府一直以这种不发言不回答的方式处理人民的问题,因此我们希望政府能够尽早交待以上三项疑惑。

The fate of SKLTS - Poor public delivery system

According to newspaper report of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press dated 13th August 2006, it was reported that State Assemblyman for Bandar Kinrara, YB Kow Cheong Wei announced in a press conference, which is attended by representatives from No Sampah Station Pro-Tem Committee, that the proposed South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS) project will be scrapped based on unofficial information he obtained from various government department.

This was further verified when reporters contacted Parliamentary Secretary of Ministry of Federal Territories, YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok, that the project is already cancelled.

What is most mind-boggling in this incident is that nobody from the government is capable to come out with a proper and official black-and-white, not even Datuk Yew Teong Lok, to CONFIRM that the project is scrapped.

At the same time, YB Kow Cheong Wei is expecting officers from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as well as those from the Economic Planning Unit (which is under the jurisdiction of Prime Minister Department) to officially announce it.

If it would have been like this, then certainly it will sound very peculiar when the earlier answer received from the Federal Government is that the project will be managed, owned and operated by DBKL whereby the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments is only serving as a technical consultant.


I had earlier highlighted this crucial point in my several statements that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Dr S. Subramaniam had said in the Parliament on 4th April, Monday when he replied to a supplementary question raised by MP for Puchong, YB Lau Yan Peng, that his ministry only serves as a technical consultant whereby the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will be managing the South Kuala Lumpur Transfer Station.

He also said that DBKL will be collecting solid waste from households in Southern Kuala Lumpur before sending to Bukit Tagar Landfill or Broga incinerators for thermal treatment. Dr S. Subramanian also said that his ministry will however convey the grouses, complaints and opinions of the affected people in that area to DBKL. Judging from Subramaniam’s statement, one would easily conclude that it is DBKL to make the decision of whether to continue the project or not.

However, after detailing YB Kow Cheong Wei’s statement, it is highly suspicious of whether DBKL is fully empowered to make the final decision as other agencies under the Federal Government seem to have a hand in it.

After reading all these replies and answers from various governmental department, including statement from YB Kow Cheong Wei and YB Datuk Yew Teong Lok on the fate of SKLTS, which government department is going to announce it?

Is the project such a big hot potato until there are no single government departments, ministries or even BN elected representative come out to clear the uncertainties, fearing that whichever department who announces it will have to bear the blame and responsibility, if it causes any damages?

Such uncertainty should have been cleared by the government so that the people will no longer live in uncertainties and worries. Failing so would only mean that this is another show of poor delivery system in which the DBKL, the Ministry of Federal Territories, the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments and Economic Planning Unit are passing the balls to each other on the proposal to construct SKLTS, implying that we are seriously lacking behind in establishing a first world delivery system, which is crucial and vital in carrying out all the five thrusts outlined in the 9th Malaysia Plan.

The government machineries must run transparently and therefore, DAP Selangor would like to openly call on the DBKL, the Ministry of Federal Territories, the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments as well as the Economic Planning Unit to come out with a proper joint statement to announce the fate of the project, regardless of whether it will be continued or scrapped.

到底隆南垃圾转运中心计划是否将会实行?

根据2006年8月13日《中国报》和《南洋商报》雪隆版,雪州金銮镇州议员高祥威博士在一项记者招待会上表示,他从各政府部门所得到的非正式资料显示当局将会取消兴建隆南垃圾转运中心计划,惟这项决定必须得到当局的确认和正式宣布才算生效。

联邦直辖区部政务次长姚长禄过后接受记者询问时也口头上证实这项消息,即有关计划已经被取消。

然而,令人不可思议的是,为何政府迄今不能针对这项计划,一五一十、清清楚楚地交待为何当局迟迟不能针对这项计划的去留作出一个正式的答复。

与此同时,高祥威博士却期望房屋及地方政府部以及首相属经济策划单位的官员公布这项消息。

如果是这样,那就非常奇怪了,因为我们之前所得到的答案指出吉隆市政局将会拥有,经营和管理这座垃圾转运站;反之,房屋及地方政府部只为这项计划提供技术咨询。


我曾在数篇文告中引述房屋及地方政府部政务次长,苏巴马廉博士在4月4日在国会的答复。

他指出,他的部门只是处理技术咨询,反之吉隆坡市政局将会全权负责该垃圾转运站的经营权。

他也说,市政厅将会从隆南收集垃圾,然后把垃圾转运至该中心进行压缩,才把经压缩的垃圾送往武吉达卡土埋场或武来岸的垃圾焚化炉。无论如何,针对居民的不满,苏巴马廉博士当时在国会表示他的部门将会把居民的心声传达给吉隆坡市政厅。

从苏巴马廉的言论来看,我们似乎不难判断,既吉隆坡市政厅才是最后决定到底该计划会否继续进行。

虽然如此,高祥威的言论却让人怀疑,到底吉隆坡市政厅是否拥有最后的决定权,还是中央政府的其他机构也权力作出决定?

阅读过高祥威和姚长禄的言论,以及比较过苏巴马廉的回应。最关键的问题就是:到底是哪一个政府部门负责管理这个计划,并全权负责这个计划的命运?

仰或使这个计划是一个烫手热芋,以至没有一个政府部门或国阵人民代议士勇敢的站出来澄清与交待一切,以解除人民的担忧,因为害怕如果他们一旦这么做,他们必须面对后果?

我们认为政府应该解释、澄清与交待这些不明确的地方,以便人民能够早日知道政府的决定,不用经常忧虑和提心吊胆的过日子。政府如果无法这么做,显示公共机构的运作系统尚处于非常积弱的程度,因为到现在为止,市政厅、房地部、联邦直辖区部门以及经济策划单位大耍太极。

雪州行动党认为政府的运作程序必须要公开化和透明化,因此我们公开呼吁市政厅、联邦直辖区部门、房地部已经经济策划单位能够针对隆南垃圾转运站计划的去留发表一份像样的联合声明。

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Appointment of BN election chairmen in 22 Parliamentary Seats in Selangor


Seems like election is around the corner.

This is taken from Sin Chew Metro two days ago. BN Chairman appointed 22 Chairmen in charge of election preparations in 22 Parliamentary Seats in Selangor.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

South KL Waste Transfer Station in Kampung Bohol – It’s the time for DBKL and Ministry for Local Government to explain

DAP Selangor believes that now is the right time for the government to decide on the fate of South KL Waste Transfer Station (SKLTS)

The people affected have organized themselves to protest this project when the media announced this project earlier this year.

We have to bear in mind that it is a general perception that Puchong has increasingly became the dumping site of Klang Valley, resulting in severe environmental problem in Puchong. If the government proceeds to construct this transfer station in Kampung Bohol, this perception will certainly deepen.


Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Dr S. Subramaniam said in the Parliament on 4th April, Monday that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government only serves as a technical consultant whereby the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will be managing the South Kuala Lumpur Transfer Station, which will be collecting solid waste from households in Southern Kuala Lumpur before sending to Bukit Tagar Landfill or Broga incinerators for thermal treatment.

Dr S. Subramanian also said that his ministry will convey the grouses, complaints and opinions of the affected people in that area to DBKL.

It is disappointing that the Ministry was unable to deliver a full and proper explanation pertaining to the construction of the transfer station which is believed to have an adverse impact on people’s livelihood in that area.

Being the manager of the transfer station, the failure of DBKL to provide a public explanation is equally disappointing especially when the issue has been several times highlighted by the press and that the people are eagerly waiting for an answer from DBKL?

Far from being a convincing answer, Subramaniam’s explanation that his Ministry is only serving as a Technical consultant is widely regarded as mere rhetoric without addressing the following issues:
• The EIA report has mentioned that the area is one of the largest residential area in Kuala Lumpur with 79,323 houses in this area in 2000. It is questionable that the area is still regarded as “suitable” for a solid waste transfer station.
• The Selangor state government has claimed that they are not informed of any proposal to build any solid waste transfer station nearby the boundary of Kuala Lumpur – Selangor.

These are among some of the arguments included in a official objection to the DEIA report submitted to the Department of Environment on 24th February 2006 filed by DAP Selangor, in which DAP Selangor has yet been informed any decision on the DEIA report to date.

Despite the technical parts of the EIA Report, the second question that would raise many queries is that there are only a total of 487 people interviewed on the acceptance of the proposal. This is reported in the press which it itself is already a question as to how the views of 487 persons can represent the views of an estimated 100,000 people residing around the area? To carry out any public survey, it is normal that a sampling of 1000 interviews is the minimum in order to reduce errors.

The public survey generated form the EIA report also informed that a total of 226 out of 487 residents (or 66.9% of the total residents) had expressed their disagreement towards the project. Cy-waste, the project proponent of SKLTS also claimed in it’s EIA report that the public used to misunderstand that SKLTS is a solid waste incinerator or landfill project, and that they will “employ professional PR firm to undertake the dissemination of correct information and to educate the public on the positive impacts of the project has on the environment”

This is not the impression given when according to the Star dated 20th January 2006, Cy-waste Sdn. Bhd. Chief Executive Officer Daud Ahmad was reported as saying “We held a dialogue with residents from the area in December and they must be satisfied with our answers, which is why there is no objection so far''.

I had earlier on late February 2006 asked that if Cy-waste had organized the said dialogue with residents from the area in December 2005, why now the residents would turn their back on them roughly one month later. Who exactly had Cy-waste met on December 2005? How did they conduct the dialogue?

It would seems that my earlier question coincide well with the findings in the EIA, which unfortunately affect the credibility of Cy-waste as there are inconsistency in their answer.

As to now, will DBKL proceed with this project? Is DBKL fully empowered to put aside this project which has triggered the anger and frustration of the people?

The people are longing for a decision, and it is the right time for DBKL and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to come out with a full explanation without any delay.

甘榜波何兴建隆南固体废料集运站—是时候要求政府交代

针对政府计划在吉隆坡甘榜波何兴建隆南固体废料集运站,雪州行动党认为,现在已经是时候要求政府针对这个计划的去留做出全面的交代。

随着这个计划在今年年初通过媒体公告天下后,受影响的居民已经组织起来,大力反对这项计划。
蒲种一带已经因为Bukit Nanas土埋场而每天必须忍受各项环境污染问题,如果政府一意孤行要在原地兴建这项计划,政府无疑是要把蒲种当作是把巴生谷河流域的垃圾场。


房屋及地方政府部政务次长S.苏巴马廉于4月3日在国会表示在隆南固体废料集运站计划中,该部仅扮演技术顾问的角色,反之吉隆坡市政局才是真正管理该废料集运中心。S.苏巴马廉表示该部将会把民间的投诉与不满传达给吉隆坡市政局。

该部显然无法针对这项关系地方居民日常作业和生活的计划提供令人满意、全面和详细的解释。

作为该垃圾集运中心的管理人,吉隆坡市政局迄今无法给予人们一个合理的解释。这也是同样令人失望的,尤其是这课题已经多次出现在报章上,而且人民一直殷切等待市政局的回应。

苏巴马廉表示该部该部仅扮演技术顾问的角色。与其说这是一个令人满意、全面和详细的解释,倒不如说它是一个忽略以下争议的官腔:
• 该计划的环境评估报告书表示该计划位处吉隆坡最大的住宅区之一。吉隆坡士布爹-甘榜波何一带在2000年已有79,323间屋子。在人口如此稠密的地区兴建一座垃圾集运中心是否恰当呢?
• 雪州政府表示他们由始至终并不知道当局要在雪兰莪-吉隆坡边界兴建一座垃圾集运中心。这显示吉隆坡市政局不仅没有咨询当地的吉隆坡市民,市政局也没有咨询雪州的任何一个官方单位。

这些争议都一一列入在雪兰莪州行动党于2006年2月24日提呈给环境局的正式抗议书。迄今雪州行动党尚未接获有关方面的回应。

除了技术性细节之外,该报告也提及一共有487名人士针对这项计划而接受访问调查以了解他们是否接受这项计划。问题在于这487名人士的看法又如何能够代表该地区大约十万名居民的看法呢?必须知道的是,一般民调所采用的访问调查人数是最少一千名。这份报告又如何确实487名人士的看法会比1000名人士的看法更具代表性?

更惊讶的是,487名受访居民中的226名居民(或总数的66.9巴仙)表示他们反对该计划。承建这项计划的Cy-waste有限公司在环境影响评估报告书中指出居民经常误解隆南垃圾转运站是另一个垃圾焚化炉计划或土埋场计划,因此他们‘将会雇佣一个专业公众关系公司以确保公众人士能够获得正确的资讯,并且同时教育公众,以让他们知道该垃圾转运计划所带来的正面好处。’

这与之前在2006年1月20日《星报》引述Cy-waste有限公司道勿阿末的谈话有所出入。他说该公司在2005年12月已经和受影响的居民举办一项对话会。他说:“居民必须满意我们的答案,这就是为何迄今没有反对声音。”

我曾经在2月下旬提问:为何事隔一个月之后,蒲种以及金銮镇居民现在却通过报章表达他们的反对声音?到底Cy-waste和居民的对话会是如何进行?Cy-waste到底又和谁对话?

这显示我之前所提出的质疑和这份报告书里面提到居民反对这项计划是一致的。很不幸的,这也恰好显示Cy-waste公司的言论似有误导之嫌。

到底吉隆坡市政局会否继续这个计划?市政局是否拥有绝对的权利搁置这项计划?

有鉴于此,现在已是时候让房屋及地方政府部以及吉隆坡市政局针对隆南固体废料集运中心的去留做一个交待,而不是一再拖延此事。

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Three major steps to resolve Pest Control Agreement fiasco

Subang Jaya Municipal Council MPSJ has recently clarified their stand on the pest control ruing fiasco, claiming that the several pest control firms that collected money from business operators, but did not rid their premises of the pests and police are monitoring and investigating such firms. The council also added that there were firms that closed down after operating for only a few months.

This is a weak reason as the council cannot justify its reason to hire a consortium which is neither accredited by the Pesticide Board (Under the Department of Agriculture) nor recognized by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, to run the required pest control exercise for business operators under its jurisdiction.

Whether it is a genuine intention from the Council to “protect the rights of the business operators” or to maintain the cleanliness of areas under the Council’s jurisdiction, the core question is whether the assigned pest-control companies are selected through a professional, transparent and fair procedure.


The Sun dated 10th August 2006 has carried a headline repot on the issue. It is reported that:
Replying to queries from the Sun, an official of the Pesticides Board confirmed that the 10 companies do not have pest control operator licences as required under the Pesticides Act 1974 - and have not applied for it.”

And yet, all business premises under the jurisdiction of these two councils are forced to appoint these companies under the council's two panels - at a standard cost of RM600 - to fumigate their premises before they can renew their business licenses annually.

It is noted that some of these companies have only a RM2 paid-up capital and were set up recently.

To justify its selection, the MPSJ had said in a statement last Friday (Aug 4, 2006) that the companies in their panel have pesticide applicator licences.

To this, the board official said having a pesticides applicator licence does not mean one can run a pesticide or fumigation business.

To do that, he said, one needs a pesticide operator licence. However, one can get this; one needs sales and storage licence for one's premises, and a premise licence from the local authority.

A pesticide aplicator can only be licensed once he has passed the Pesticides Board annual examination.

MPSJ president Datuk Mohd Arif Ab. Rahman, when told of this revelation, expressed surprise and said he would check on it.

It is prevalent to us that there are serious confusions and contradictions between Lee Hwa Beng’s comment and the Council’s statement:

1. If the Council were to assign a designated pest control companies, why companies registered and recognized by the PCAM and Pesticide Board not selected?

2. Lee Hwa Beng claimed that the Council only appoint companies accredited by Pesticide Board, but later in a statement issued by the Council, out of the seven companies mentioned, there are only five accredited by the Board (please refer to a newspaper report published in The Sun dated 8th August 2006, page 11). The rest must ‘get one in one to six-month time’.

a. If there are companies not yet accredited by the Board, why does MPSJ appoint them? Could MPSJ not wait until the other two companies accredited before they are appointed by MPSJ?

b. If there is any accident occurs when these companies are conducting pest control exercises, causing casualties, will the Councils bear any responsibility?

c. What is more serious, why is it that none of these seven companies appointed by the council are registered and accredited with the Pesticide Board after checking as claimed by the Board? Who is not telling the truth?

3. Why did the Councils appoint these companies in a rush without carrying out an detailed background searching? A lot of these companies are newl established and their directors are very young, what sorts of track records they have until MPSJ can appoint them?

4. Lee Haw Beng clained that during th Council’s Full Board Meeting in July, he has suggested to the Council not to appoint companies which are not recognized b the Pesticide Board.

However, Lee Hwa Beng was reported as saying in Malaysiakini.com that companies not accredited by the pesticide board under the Agriculture Ministry would not be recognized by the Subang Jaya Municipality Council (MPSJ) to provide business premises with certificates of pest control treatments. So, apparently, has Lee’s suggestion finally adopted by the council? Why are there contractions between his statement as Councilor and the Council’s statement?

Will the Council’s President and Lee Hwa Beng clarify this during their “Meet The People” session tomorrow in MPSJ?

MPSJ and MPSepang shall adopt three major steps to resolve the fiasco – suspend the order, hold a dialog and re-elect the companies transparently and openly.

Pest Control companies which entered an agreement with MPSJ and MPSepang are not only unrecognized by Pest Control Association of Malaysia but also th

With concern to the recent ruling from Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) which requires all commercial outlet owners under its jurisdiction to sign up with a consortium (SJ Pest Control Consortium Sdn. Bhd.) for pest control services with charges higher than market price prior to renewal or new application of trade license, Subang Jaya ADUN cum MPSJ councilor YB Datuk Lee Hwa Beng claimed in a Malaysiakini report that the council will not employ companies which are not recognized by the Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department.

Since Lee Hwa Beng mentioned about Pesticide Board under the Agriculture Department, I have tried to obtain the approved companies
list from the Board, initially done through the website.

The website shows that any person who is employed to conduct pest control exercise in others’ compound using pesticides, the person must obtain a license issued by the Pesticide Board. The license is subjected to renewal every two years and it is non-transferable.

There is also a list of approved companies in the website. Although the list is almost the same as the
list issued by Pest Control Association of Malaysia, it is ensure that the consortium approved by MPSJ (Konsortium SJ Pest Control Sdn. Bhd.) and it’s members (Koswasta Asia Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Damai Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Vetga Sdn. Bhd., Inspirasi Asia Sdn. Bhd., Suria Sakti Resources Sdn. Bhd. and Denmas Sdn. Bhd.) and the four companies approved by Majlis Perbandaran Sepang or MPSepang (Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.) do not appear on any of the lists.

This only means that these companies are not only unrecognized by PCAM, but also Pesticide Board under the Department of Agriculture. If this is the case, is Lee Hwa Beng’s statement contradicting the decision of the Council?

More important is that these unrecognized companies can be charged under 1975 Pesticide Act. Will MPSJ and MPSepang be charged as well, ending up with both councils have to fork out taxpayers’ money to pay fines?

Before this, we have written to the Presidents of both Councils, urging them based on the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance to:
1. Immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanation from both Councils on this matter. Both Councils should also explain when it enters into an agreement with private consortium/companies without consulting the taxpayers.
2. Immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid both Councils from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to both Councils and their taxpayers.
3. Immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium/private companies and both Councils to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium/companies without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.

Unfortunately, there are no proper replies from any of the Councils’ officers. What is more worrying is that other than the three reasons mentioned above on why the Councils should immediately suspend this ruling, there seems to be another reason why the two Councils should suspend the ruling as they could be held liable under 1974 Pesticide Act when they allowed unrecognized pest control companies to operate within their jurisdiction.

Therefore, we urge Lee Hwa Beng to seriously answer the question of why the council could only recognize one consortium to handle pest control exercise within the council’s jurisdiction, which is the core question remain unanswered to date.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

内阁特别会议应该拟定一项长期的防范罪案大蓝图,制定五大策略打击罪犯,而不是一再头痛医头,脚痛医脚

国内各大城小镇的治安日益败坏已经是不争之事实。就在这两天,全国至少发生四宗罪案。

案例(一):一名19岁的拉曼学院生王子阳昨日下午在旺沙玛朱上学途中,遭两名穿著黑衣黑裤、手持棍子和小刀的攫夺匪跟踪。王子阳在发现情况不对劲后拔腿就逃,两名匪徒追到一个嘛嘛档附近时,才因档口有人而逃离现场。相信攫夺匪已经知道“马青先锋队”的巡逻时间是介於晚上8点至午夜12点,所以他们才会刻意选择在白天干案,以避开先锋队。

案例(二):25岁华裔女郎黄秋玲前日在关丹购物广场内的楼梯间被打抢,结果在纠缠间与攫匪双双摔下楼梯后不治。死者是在8月6日晚上8时许被送入邻近的关丹医药中心(KMC)抢救后,最终因脑部严重撞伤而与8月7日早上11时15分左右,证实不治身亡。

案例(三):发生在亚罗士打。一名16岁的电员诺达郁在上周六晚上(8月5日)外出没有回家。结果尸体作日中午在吉北瓜拉尼浪波卡村一个胶园被人发现。死者双手有伤,警方初步相信死者是遭人捆绑而后奸杀。

案例(四):发生在今天八打灵再也加星路。六名持械匪徒今早闯入一间洋房抢劫,抢走事主50万令吉的财物,过后还尝试驾走事主的明车,但是却不得而尝。

两天之内,我国各地发生四宗轻重不一的罪案、抢劫案和企图抢劫案,严重突显我国治安日益败坏,即使保安一再加强的旺沙玛朱和国安部副部长拿督胡亚桥的选区也无法幸免,证明假如我们不从整顿警方的破案效率夏收,即使马青派遣一百名先锋队配合自愿警卫队人员到所谓的‘黑区’巡逻也是于事无补。


虽然我国在两年前曾经掀起一股全国性的反攫夺和防范罪案的运动,但是却无奈后竟不足,加上政府只是即席性的回应和加强警队在黑取得巡逻,没有全面落实一套完整详细的计划,结果全国各地的罪案率,尤其是攫夺案率再次飙升。

报章与媒体报道罪案是希望通过报道让人民即时掌握国家治安状况的最佳管道,但是长短期来说,我们需要政府拟定给类措施,加强国内各大城镇的治安。要达致这个目标,人民需要一名全职的国安部部长领导和整顿警队,打击罪案,改善治安,恢复人民及外资对我国治安的信心。

目前国安部部长是首相本人。除此以外,首相也同时担任财政部长。一人兼任三个繁重职位显然是下下之举。首相若不能拔出更多的时间和精力领导内安部,为了国民及国家的利益,应辞去内安部长职,另委一名全职的部长领导该部门。

政府有必要体现更大的决心改善国内治安,因此呢个特别会议应该拟定一项长期的防范罪案大蓝图,制定六大策略打击罪犯,而非只在发生引起民愤的案件时说说话,但却没有具体的行动,等到另一宗案件发生再引起人民不安吋,又再一次的发表同样的说话。全国人民所期待的是打击罪案,改善治安的行动,而非一次又一次的光说不做,让人民一再失望。

这五大策略就是:
一、 全面提升大马皇家警察部队的运作,以便能够在两年之内,无论是从仪器配备、破案率、人权醒觉和尊重等等很亮京对服务素质的各种指标达致先进国家的水平。
二、 善用警力打击罪案活动。虽然目前全国有9万名警员,但是只有不超过6%的警力(或7千名警员)是花在打击罪案。目前是警方把这个巴仙率提升至至少20%的水平。
三、 拟定全国警察打蓝图,并且根据这个蓝图在各个警区拟定警区治安蓝图。除了拟定特定的指标来处理警区警员的工作量和表现之外,也拟订降低罪案的指标。这个蓝图也必须着重人民的参与,让人民在防止罪案方面能够成为警方的耳目。
四、 赋权地方上的查案官更大的权利。地方查案官往往是最熟悉地方事宜的人士,也是在防范罪案上位处最前线的警员。如果在查案方面地方警局需要请示警区总部的总查案官,那么这无形中将降低警方破案的效率。
五、 教育及防范工作。政府必须通过媒介和各级政府机构推动民众教育功。这里的政府指的不仅是联邦政府,同时也包括州政府和地方政府的机构。地方政府也扮演重要的角色,尤其是在打造安全城市方面,我国许多地方政府上有许多不足之处。

Monday, August 07, 2006

A feeling of being ignored by the Council

I was in Menara MBPJ, participated in the Budget Dialogue 2007 and 2008m organised by the City Council. Frankly, it was a commendable experience for me as I don't remember of any councils in Selangor or even any councils in my homestate, Perak does this.

Well I submitted a nine-point queries cum proposal to the council. For your information, these are probably the most last-minute kind of skatches that I have ever done, thanks to the last-minute kind of materials given by the Council.

I therefore raised one point in my speech, that I hope the dialogue will be a continuous one, and not a one-off PR exercise just to fulfill the requirement of Local Agenda 21, as most of us who attended the meeting are not adequately supplied with any information for us to provide fruitful inputs to the Council to prepare the Budget. This is why I asked a lot of questions in my submission as I believe the answers to the questions are very important to enlighten us in understanding more about the budget. Moreover, the Council is talking about "Self-sustaining based on a balance budget".

I just wonder how they can appreciate my questions, judging from the eye-contacts I have with the council officer who chair the meeting....she did not jot down what I say (or she is expecting me to write in to her afterwards?). When I was speaking, coincidently, the Mayor was sitting behind, I saw him, and I purposely tried to have eye-contact with him when I talked about billboard, about periodic announcement from his office on the number of billboards taken down every week, he did not seem to be happy with my talks, and he just ignored any eye-contact with me....

Well, these were what I experienced....perhaps the officers are shocked: how come we have one DAP fellow to kacau our show? (I was informed much later that there were attempts from the ground to stop me from talking. Reason being that I am not representing any RA/RT)

Well, I mentioned right from the beginning that I came in my capacity of a resident in SEA Park and a person who works in Paramount Garden. As long as I am a taxpayer to the Council, I think I deserve all the rights to be there. Probably, the problem started when I also mentioned loud and clear that I am also a member of DAP.

However tough it is, I think this is what we should do, we are merely carrying out our responsibilities as a responsible political party.

As a result of the lacks of accountability and transparency, the residents have retaliated. Of course, this is a commendable courageous move. PJ shall take the lead to change, and it's residents are doing a good job.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Seruan Kepada Pihak Polis Untuk Mempertingkatkan Prestasi Polis Dalam Memerangi Aktiviti-Aktiviti Jenayah

Memorandum yang diserahkan kepada Ketua Polis Negeri Selangor....
4hb Ogos 2006

DCP Dato’ Yahya bin Udin,
Ketua Polis Negeri Selangor
Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Selangor
Seksyen 9, Persiaran Kayangan,
Peti Surat 7036,
40912 Shah Alam,
Selangor. Melalui Tangan / Tanpa Prejudis

Y. Bhg Dato’

Seruan Kepada Pihak Polis Untuk Mempertingkatkan Prestasi Polis Dalam Memerangi Aktiviti-Aktiviti Jenayah

Salah satu sebab Suruhanjaya Diraja Penambahbaikan Perjalanan dan Pengurusan Polis Di-Raja Malaysia ditubuhkan selepas Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menjadi Perdana Menteri adalah kerana kebingungan dan ketidakpuasan hati rakyat terhadap kejadian jenayaj yang semakin terjadi seperti perogolan dan pembunuhan Canny Ong pada Jun 2003 serta kematian-kematian yang disebabkan oleh peragut-peragut di mana kes-kes jenayah sebegini boleh dielakkan.

Berbanding dengan keselamatan awam negara kita pada tahun-tahun 50-an, 60-an dan 70-an, keadaan telah menjadi semakin serious sejak kebelakangan ini, di mana rakyat tidak mengira bangsa, agama, budaya dan jantina berasa semakin terancam, sama ada dari segi nyawa mereka ataupun harta benda mereka.


Pembunuhan yang langsung tidak berperi-kemanusiaan sepeti apa yang terjadi pada pelajar 18 tahun yang bernama Lee Kean Yip dari Ipoh di Wangsa Maju sekali lagi menimbulkan tanda soal terhadap keberkesanan polis dalam pembanterasan jenayah.

Perlu diingatkan bahawa kualiti kehidupan tidak harus diukur dari segi pendapatan wang ringgit sahaja, tetapi ianya juga harus meliputi kadar jenayah kerana kadar jenayah yang tinggi boleh menjejaskan kualiti kehidupan sesebuah masyarakat.

Sebagai sebuah negeri yang telah mengiystiharkan dirinya sebagai salah sebuah negeri yang tinggi, keadaan jenayah yang melampung tinggi bukan sahaja merupakan satu senario yang tidak sihat, malahan ianya juga akan mendatangkan beban tambahan dari segi fizikal, mental dan kewangan kepada rakyat.

DAP Selangor berpendapat bahawa:
1. Cara utama yang paling efektif untuk mengesan dan membanteras kegiatan jenayah adalah untuk mengadakan satu pasukan polis yang moden, profesional dan berdaya saingan tinggi yang mampu memberi perkhidmatan polis dunia pertama untuk mengurangkan kegiatan jenayah, ketakutan terhadap jenayah dan memberi keyakinan kepada rakyat bahawa jalanraya dan tempat-tempat awam di Malaysia adalah selamat.

2. Kedua, polis perlu menyusun semula penggunaan sumber manusia pasukan Polis. Pada masa sekarang, walaupun hanya terdapat 90,000 orang anggota Polis, hanya lebih kurang 7% ataupun kira-kira 6,000 anggota polis daripada mereka yang terlibat dalam kerja-kerja pembanterasan jenayah. Peratusan ini perlu dipertingkatkan kepada 20 peratus dengan serta-merta dan beransur-ansur ke paras minimum iaitu 30% dengan membebaskan anggota-anggota polis daripada kerja-kerja kekeranian dan kerja-kerja lain yang tiada kaitan langsung dengan membanteras jenayah seperti Cawangan Khas.

3. Satu Pelan Polis Kebangsaan perlu diadakan. Pelan ini perlu disokong pula oleh Pelan Polis Tempatan di setiap Daerah Polis. Pelan ini adalah penting untuk menetapkan keutamaan dalam kerja polis, bagaimana kerja-kerja polis ini boleh dilaksanakan dan penunjuk-penunjuk tertentu untuk menilai prestasi seseorang anggota polis. Pelan ini harus ditentukan dengan penglibatan orang ramai memandangkan adalah mustahil untuk mana-mana pasukan polis di dunia ini dapat menjalankan tugasnya dengan efektif tanpa penglibatan daripada orang ramai.

Pelan ini juga wajar menetapkan sasaran-sasaran dan jangka masa untuk pengurangan kadar jenayah seperti kes ragut. Sebagai contohnya, kawasan-kawasan hitam di setiap IPD perlu dikenal-pasti supaya tindakan cepat boleh dilakukan apabila sesuatu kegiatan jenayah dilaporkan. Kawasan hitam ini perlu diumunkan kepada orang ramai dan usaha perlu dipergiatkan untuk menjadikannya sebagai kawasan putih.

4. Memberi kebebasan dan kuasa kepada pegawai-pegawai penyiasat di setiap lokaliti untuk menjalankan kerja-kerja siasatan mereka kerana merekalah yang berada di barisan hadapan untuk memerangi penyenayah dan mereka juga merupakan anggota-anggota polis yang paling memahami dinamik kawasan tugasan mereka. Oleh itu, potensi mereka dalama memerangi jenayah tidaka harus diabaikan oleh pegawai-pegawai di Ibu Pejabat. Pemetaan jenayah (Crime Mapping) juga harus diguna untuk menganalisa kadar jenayah yang berlaku di sesuatu tempat dengan komprehensif di mana data-data dan statistik ini merupakan maklumat yang penting untuk merangka cara-cara pembanterasan jenayah yang terbaik.

Harapan kami adalah supaya pasukan Polis Malaysia dapat berubah menjadi antara pasukan polis yang berwibawa dan unggul.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

DAP Selangor.

Nine-Point Proposal And Enquiries On MBPJ's Budgets

I had attended a dialogue with MBPJ on their 2007 and 2008 budgets. Below are my questions and suggestions.

================================================================================

5th August 2006

Mr. Lee Lih Shyan,
Assistant Director,
Development Planning Department
Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) By fax and email

Dear Mr. Lee,

DAP PJ Action Team Nine-Point Proposal And Enquiries On The Drafting Of The City Council’s 2007 And 2008 Budgets

On behalf of DAP PJ Action Team, I welcome very much the good effort from the Council to organize a dialogue with the residents on the up and coming budget of the council for 2007 and 2008 this morning in your office. It is always our belief that good governance, transparency and accountability shall be always upheld in the grass-root level especially in the level of local councils.

However, it is our opinions that concrete and detailed figures shall be provided so as to facilitate our discussion this morning so that we (the community, the public sector, the private sector, the environmental sector and the social sector) can identify exactly the problems.

The answers towards questions raised below could be of good use to enlighten all of us in order to give us some practical and pragmatic inputs for the budget.


1. Would there be an announcement of a list of taxpayers, especially industrial and commercial taxpayers who delay in paying their assessments to the council for years? Although the officer who did the powerpoint presentation this morning mentioned that the amount has not been changing very much for years, it also shows that there are some taxpayers who constantly ignore their payments to the council.

2. Would the council announce a list of compensations to be paid by the council as this is not reflected in the presentation just now? For example in 2005 Shah Alam High Court had ordered MPPJ to compensate 86 residents from Taman Desaria due to the council’s fraud on issuing Development Order.

Another good example is that the MPPJ Football club is just involved in a lawsuit with Football Association of Perlis regarding to a transfer of two players. Perlis Football Association is requesting for a compensation of RM60,000.

Are there any direct and indirect relations between the football club and the council? This is very serious question. For your information, MPSJ is now sued by a private outdoor advertising company for not applying TOL for the companies to set-up outdoor billboards. The whole exercise had caused a lot of financial damages to the council in terms of advertisement revenue. We certainly do not wish MBPJ to be ordered to pay huge sum of monetary compensation which will be channeled from the taxpayers money.

3. For 2006, we are informed that RM166.49 million out of RM200.28 million revenue received by the council is spent for council’s administration. We were later informed that some of these monies were spent for the benefit of the people, for example payment to Alam Flora etc.

Could there be a more accountable explanation, for example an itemized payment under this RM166.49 million is made on how the council spends this RM166.49 million, as well as the RM33.72 million spent for development in PJ?

4. Could there be full release of the number of staffs employed by MBPJ according to departments in year 2006 and the estimated numbers of new staffs to be employed/added by the Council?

5. The expected revenue for the council for year 2007 and 2008 is RM208.85 million and RM214.41 million respectively. Is it true that the council considered that the long overdue unpaid assessment to be paid up by those errant taxpayers in order for the council to reach these numbers?

If not, are there not any worries from the Council that these numbers could be some arbitrary figures?

6. The public is informed that each councilor is allocated RM100,000 every year as revealed by YB Yong Dai Ying (BN Gerakan ADUN for Bukit Lanjan) who is absent in the meeting this morning. Could there be a proper account made available in the public domain?

7. Since the Mayor has claimed that the council had demolished some illegal billboards in PJ, would the Mayor like to report weekly on the numbers, sizes of the billboards as well as the owners of the billboards in order to uphold transparency and good governance?

8. The council officer has mentioned that the budget must be prepared based on a balance budget concept. Would there be any contingency budget allocated for special amenities repairing projects?

To wait for one year is certainly a time too long to wait. The excuse of “not enough budget” is another example of the lacks of consultations with the people

9. Conceptual suggestions – tourism in PJ shall be based on cultural development and integration. Museum is just another construction project which can be meaningless when the most elementary attraction to make PJ a tourism city is the essence of the culture we have. Although PJ has a limited history, the residents are of highly educated, instead of concentrating on shopping complexes which will eventually create more traffic jams, the Council can turn PJ into a city of academics and culture integration.

We certainly hope that the Council can provide us with a proper, accountable, professional and accurate answer (even though written answers) towards all our queries here. We also certainly hope that this is not a one-off PR practice and more dialogues must be done continuously.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Lau Weng San,
Chairman of DAP PJ Action Team.
(016-3231563/lauwengsan@gmail.com)

S.K.:

1. Y. Bhg. Dato’ Ahmad Termizi,
Datuk Bandar,
Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya,
46400, Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
Tel: 603-79563544, Faks: 603-79581494

2. Mr Edward Lee,
Chairman
All PJ Pro Action Committee (APPAC)

Friday, August 04, 2006

Pest Control Scandal – Sepang Municipal Council is also involved, raising question of whether there are any ‘big guys’ behind the scene

Not enough with Subang Jaya, Sepang Municipal Council is also involved in the same scandal. Same as what happened in Subang Jaya, owners of the commercial outlets under the jurisdiction of Sepang Municipal Council are all required to sign a contract with four designated companies to carry out pest-control exercises.

I have a copy of the leaflet with me and I had confirmed this with the council’s president office and the four designated companies. These companies are Salak Pest Control Sdn. Bhd., Wismanis Sdn. Bhd., Lembah Dahlia Sdn. Bhd. and Koswasta Asia Sdn. Bhd.

From our detailed scrutiny, we discover that:


1. The content of the two leaflets (MPSJ and MPSepang) are literally the same. The differences are only on the name of the councils and the name of the companies.

2. The contract are also run based on consortium in which all the four companies are given the concessionaire to run pest-control exercise. While Koswasta Asia is also involved in the MPSJ’s concessionaire and is thus confirmed to be a pest-control company not recognized by the Pest Control Association of Malaysia, we are still in the midst of investigating the backgrounds of the other three companies.

In lieu of all these happenings, DAP Selangor would like MPSepang to come clear to all our questions here:
1. What are the jurisdictions for MPSepang to require non-eatery commercial outlets to conduct pest-control exercise? It is of course reasonable for MPSepang to come out with the ruling to eateries and restaurants as well as food-processing factories but MPSepang is certainly lacking transparency in it’s policy making when requiring owners of non-eatery commercial outlets to do the same.
2. Even though if pest control exercise is compulsory for all commercial outlets, why do MPSepang only designate one consortium to conduct the exercise for more than 10,000 commercial outlets under MPSepang’s jurisdiction? Is this consortium more experienced than other companies in the market, or it’s charges are more economical than the rest? Is the awarding of the concessionaire conducted based on open-tender system?
3. One of the companies, Koswasta Asia is said not a member of the Pest Control Association of Malaysia (PCAM). If that’s the case, why MPSepang does not select a company registered, recognized and accredited by the association? Are the services provided by this consortium guaranteed and accredited by the association? Will it be held liable legally for any losses or accidents by its personnel when conducting pest-control exercises, especially when pest control personnel must be well-trained to handle insecticides and poisonous materials which could also be carcinogenic?

Besides, we are very much concerned of whether there could be some ‘big guys’ behind the scene trying to strike a deal with all 13 local councils in Selangor to monopolise pest-control business in Selangor. As for this stage, we hope that based on the principles of good-governance, transparency and accountability, the presidents of MPSepang and its councilors should be held liable and answerable to the taxpayers. We therefore urge the following:
1. MPSepang to immediately suspend the implementation of this ruling until there is a clear and acceptable explanations from the council on this matter. The council should also explain when it enters into an agreement with a private consortium without consulting the taxpayers.
2. MPSepang to immediately reveal the contents of the contracts in order to avoid MPSepang from entering any unjust contract with any private entity which will cause damage to the council and the taxpayers.
3. MPSepang to immediately arrange for a three-party negotiation between the owners (the taxpayers), the consortium and the council to reach for a solution, so as to avoid innocent owners to sign any contract with the consortium without adequate consultations on what have happened behind.

Billboard scandal – who demolished the billboard we complained?

On Tuesday (1st August), I as my capacity as DAP PJ Action Team Chairman held a press conference in Jalan Universiti Petaling Jaya to highlight a huge billboard constructed by Spectrum Marketing Sdn. Bhd. nearby the junction of Jalan Universiti and Jalan 17/41 which is not only unsafe, but also not in accordance with the concept of a ‘safe city’ and ‘pedestrian first’ when the billboard was too close to the road and it occupied the pedestrian walkway.

To my surprise, I discovered yesterday evening that the bill board was taken down by somebody. Although this is a delighting news, but we do not know who are the authority who took down the billboard (Please refer to the two photographs that I took yesterday night).

It is believed that it was the work of the council, but I had lodged a police report at 7pm yesterday night to seek police’s investigation on the matter.

Actually, if the mayor can be transparent and accountable in his work, he can announce weekly on the numbers, sizes, identities of the owners and the locations of illegal billboard demolished.

This is indeed one of the three demands that I put forward to him. The other two demands are:
1. To demand the Mayor to come out with an order to stop constructions of any new billboard in PJ until there is an accountable, satisfactory and acceptable official explanation given by the council in order to prevent irresponsible outdoor advertising companies from constructing billboards that endanger public safety.
2. To demand the Mayor to draw up a policy for a dialogue must be conducted with the residents before any billboards are constructed in any area.

We do not need to beat around the bushes, if the Mayor can work transparently and accountably.