雪兰莪州政府应拟定一个透明和有效的土著产业转让系统，好让购买土著产业者能够避免在过于严格的规定所导致的麻烦。

雪兰莪州政府应拟定一个透明和有效的土著产业转让系统，好让购买土著产业者能够避免在过于严格的规定所导致的麻烦。

本人最近接获两宗投诉就是很好的例子。这两宗投诉都是来自由Syarikat Perantara Properties有限公司发展Kelana D’Putera公寓。

第一宗投诉是一名年老的土著屋主想要将他的公寓单位卖给一个求学时期就认识的好朋友却因为这间公寓单位是土著固大单位而无法进行转让手续。

第二宗投诉则是一个非土著屋主遭发展商误导而不小心卖了一间土著固大单位。当他打算卖有关公寓单位给另一个非土著但因为无法进行转让手续而作罢。

在这两宗事件上，除非得到雪州政府的批准，原屋主是不可以售卖他们的土著固大单位。在这漫长的申请转让批准的程序相当耗时而且对买卖双方没有任何好处。

很明显的，现有的产业转让系统出现漏洞，有人为了个人利益将规则操作在自己的手上。雪州政府应设法解决这个问题。

举例，一个土著买主可以只有将房子卖给非土著。条件就是买房必须缴交贡献金给一个专门帮助贫穷的人购买第一间房子的援助基金。

那些将土著固大单位卖给非土著的发展上应该受到对付，他们应该被罚缴交一样的贡献金给上述所提到的援助基金。

此外，为了确保贫穷的土著受到照顾，政府应该取消100万令吉以上豪华房屋的土著固大和土著折扣。这是因为有能力购买此类房屋的人已经不需要政府的帮助。

通过这样的安排，发展上再也不须要承担过高的津贴，额外的利润可以拨入援助基金内。这将能帮助更多的贫穷认识，尤其是第一次购买房屋的土著。

雪州政府并没有向Sri Aman组屋居民征收分层地契收费，张胜富再次以假乱真误导选民读者

雪州政府并没有向八打灵再也22区斯里阿曼廉价组屋居民征收分层地契费用，因此张胜富在10月9日召开记者会呼吁雪州政府应该免除收费的说法是站不住脚的。这也再次证明张胜富多次以假乱真误导选民和读者。

张胜富是在10月9日针对斯里阿曼居民所收到的公函召开记者会，表示居民无法承担高达2100令吉的分层地契费用，而要求雪州政府免除该组屋的分层地契收费。张胜富也要求州政府追算从2008年3月开始实行的免费首20立方米自来水的收费（每月11令吉40仙），即410令吉。（详情请查阅各大中文报章10月10日地方版）

我已经针对张胜富的指责进行调查，并发现他的指责错误百出：

第一、居民所收到的公函是来自他们当初向发展商签下买卖合约律师楼的公函。相关律师在1年前就已经根据法律致函每一名居民，即组屋的分层帝地契已经处理好。居民们必须在1年之内清还相关的律师费、所欠下的管理费和水费才能处理分层地契的转换手续。这完完全全是属于发展商和居民之间的事，雪州政府并没有涉及在内。张胜富把雪州政府拖下水，很明显具有政治动议。

第二、居民其实在2010年就已经收到律师楼和发展商的通知信，以便在1年的时间之内解决这个问题，而不是今年才收到通知。在这1年的时间之内，居民应该尽快还清这笔款项，而不是等到最后一分钟才来解决问题。

第三、所谓的2100令吉收费也是非常误导性的，因为在2100令吉当中，只有约一半是处理分层地契转换手续的费用，其他的则是每一个居民迄今所欠下的管理费和水费。张胜富难道不可能要求州政府承担居民所欠下的费用吧？

第三、州政府所能够扮演的角色只有一个，即根据1985年分层地契法令第40A（2）条文延长有关一年的期限，好让居民拥有更充足的时间来解决他们所面对的财务问题。

第四、免费水的计划是在2008年6月才开始推行，而不是3月。我希望张胜富能够弄清楚。另外，高楼组屋的免费水固本是在2009年才开始实验性推行，因此是不能从2008年3月开始追算。我感到非常不解的是，为何国阵州议员在州议会强力反对民联州政府推行免费水，甚至恐吓选民民联政府的这项计划将会导致州政府破产。可是张胜富另一边厢却要求州政府提供更多的免费水给人民，甚至还要追算？到底张胜富的立场是什么？

第五、虽然张胜富要求州政府免除收费，可是一起出席记者会的林春锦律师却要求州政府提供折扣。免费和折扣是两回事，到底马华在这事情的立场是要免费还是折扣？

第六，根据张胜富的说法，其他廉价组屋如Impian Baiduri和美丹花园的分层地契转换费只不过是1000令吉左右。如果张胜富要求免除斯里阿曼组屋的收费，那么这是否对八打灵再也其他组屋居民公平？

无论如何，我将会在10月26日上午10点半在有关组屋的礼堂会见面对这个问题的居民。我也已经在10月14日致函雪州土地和矿务局总监纳西尔，要求延长转换分层地契的期限。我希望届时面对问题的居民能够准备他们的个人文件呈交给我们处理。

Program Pemberian Air Percuma Pangsapuri Kos Rendah

Program Pemberian Air Percuma Bagi Pangsapuri Kos Rendah Yang Menggunakan Meter Pukal Melalui Sistem Kupon

MEKANISME PENDAFTARAN
Sila kunjungi Unit Pesuruhjaya Bangunan (COB) di kawasan pihak berkuasa tempatan anda.
Nota:
1. Pemilik boleh membuat pendaftaran terus dengan pemaju/JMB/MC/ejen pengurusan dilantik COB/lain-lain.
2. Hanya pemaju/JMB/MC/ejen pengurusan dilantik COB/lain-lain/ pemilik yangberdaftar dengan JMB dan mengemukakan dokumen lengkap kepada COB yang layak menyertai program ini.

Muat Turun Dokumen berikut :-
1. Borang Pendaftaran Pembeli - Kupon 01
2. Borang Pendaftaran Pemaju/JMB/MC/Ejen Pengurusan Dilantik COB/Lain-lain - Kupon 02
3. Daftar Pemilik (Format Inventori)
4. Surat Pengesahan Penyewaan
5. Syarat-syarat

Sebarang maklumat lanjut sila hubungi urusetia berikut:
Unit Pengurusan JMB/MC
Lembaga Perumahan Dan Hartanah Selangor
Tel : 03-55447196 / 7079 / 7157
Fax : 03-55447314 / 55135568

以保障住房取代廉价组屋，林祥才视而不见听而不闻令人失望

雪州马华联委会主席林祥才再次发表谬论，指责雪州民联政府上台以来没有兴建廉价组屋照顾低下阶层人民住房的需求。其实，州政府已经不再兴建前朝政府所遗留下来的廉价屋计划，反之民联州政府更着重于设立保障住房的，以提供更舒适廉宜的住房给州内的低下阶层人民。

虽然州政府已经多次对外表明此事，但是林祥才却选择视而不见，听而不闻。我对林祥才这种不负责任的从政态度感到失望。

其实，雪州政府已经多次对外澄清，由于前朝政府在处理廉价组屋问题显得力不从心，因此为了避免日后州政府再次面对类似的问题，所以州政府才大刀阔斧地进行房屋改革计划，重新整顿雪州境内的住房政策。

首先，州政府在2009年就已经开始从西方国家引进“保障住房” （Affordable Homes / Rumah Mampu Milik）的概念，以取代前朝州政府所推行的“廉价组屋”概念。其次，州政府把承建保障住房的责任放在雪州发展机构（PKNS）的身上，一改过去州政府强迫私人发展商兴建廉价组屋的做法。这是因为兴建足够的保障住房永远是政府的责任。强迫私人发展商兴建廉价组屋只不过是把提供足够住房的重任转嫁给私人发展商而已。

第三，州政府已经制定政策，即雪州发展机构所承建的保障住房将保留40巴仙给35岁以下的年轻购屋者，同时所承建的住房将介于750至850方尺之间。这类住房比以往650方尺的廉价组屋更为舒适宽敞。第四，这类住房比联邦政府推出的“一个大马房屋计划”来得更加廉宜。该计划房屋的售价是22万，反之雪州政府推出的保障住房则以10万令吉出售给年轻人。

州政府也已经在今年5月31日在万宜推出这类保障住房。州政府也将会通过雪州发展机构陆续在州内各地推出超过2000个保障住房单位，好让州内收入介于2500令吉和5000令吉之间的35岁以下年轻人购买。州政府也在今年7月5日举办一项研讨会，邀请房屋界人士参与讨论保障住房的前景和设计。

既然州政府已经朝“保障住房”的方向发展，我不明白为何林祥才突然指责州政府没有为人民兴建廉价组屋。更何况，我们要质问林祥才为何前朝州政府以提供黄金地段作为交叉津贴，强迫私营发展商承建廉价组屋，为何迄今私人发展商偷工减料的投诉依然频频，导致现在的廉价组屋在入住两年之后便问题重重？我甚至可以挑战林祥才是否愿意拜访国阵执政时期在全雪所承建的廉价组屋，真真实实地了解这些廉价组屋现在的面貌？

前朝州政府在分派廉价组屋方面也办得非常不透明。由于经常出现掉包的现象，导致不符合资格的人士也获得这些单位，更有人转售手上的单位来牟取暴利。面对这一箩箩的问题，林祥才当灵南国会议员是否曾经为这些低下阶层人民发言？

马华是否变得越来越不重要，以致他们连最基本的数据也无法掌握清楚？

我对某些人士最近针对本人在州议会所提出的问题而通过媒体抨击本人和雪州民联政府感到非常惊讶。

我是在4月的雪州州议会针对州政府打算在八打灵再也SS8的一片土地上进行一项称为“PJ Elevated City”的项目而发问，尤其是州政府曾经提到该项目也涵盖兴建能够容纳1万名工友的宿舍。

数日前，雪州马华公会公共投诉局主任汤木指责本人更加关心外国人的住宿问题，并且利用外国人作为理由来发展该地段。

其中一家英文网络媒体“Free Malaysia Today”甚至引述汤木的谈话，即“八打灵再也的人民要小心！”以及“他们正夺走你们的土地”。其法律顾问林春景律师更指出这项计划将会严重打击出租屋子给外劳的双溪威新村村民收入。

他们的言论再次显示马华公会在公共议题方面极其低落的论述能能力，因为他们的领袖无法掌握最基本的数据。这也显示马华领袖杂乱无序的政治思维，一直他们往往为了争取上报，以致他们的言论和文告往往漏洞百出、甚至毫无根据。

事实上，“Petaling Jaya Elevated City”是州政府打算通过雪州发展机构（PKNS）所推出的综合性发展项目。这意味着政府要兴建的不仅是工友宿舍而已，也包括商业大楼、休闲设备以及各类型的高密度住宅区。

马华也抨击州政府没有提供足够的房屋给雪州子民。他们更以联邦政府最近推出的22万房子作为所谓的“反面教材”来揶揄雪州民联政府。

马华这个说法一再显示他们的弱点，因为雪州民联政府确实最近在万宜推出面积介于750至850平方英尺，价格不超过10万令吉的保障住房（affordable housing）。负责掌管房屋发展的雪州行政议员伊斯干达表示这项计划将有雪州发展机构（PKNS）全权发展。一般来说，保障住房的面积是介于750到850平方英尺之间。无论从面积和舒适程度来说，保障住房将比过去的廉价组屋还要更好。

更重要的就是价格。雪州政府推出的保障住房售价为10万令吉，即比中央政府推出的“我的第一家园”房屋还要便宜至少12万令吉。难道这不是民联政府为民提供更多保障住房的努力吗？如果不是，那么马华公会又有什么道德制高点来抨击民联政府，尤其是联邦政府推出的房屋比雪州发展机构的保障住房还要贵至少12万令吉？为何马华能够对这点视而不见，听而不闻？还是马华公会真的变得越来越不重要，以致他们连这最基本的数据也无法掌握清楚？
我在州议会提出这个问题，乃是因为双溪威新村的外劳人口过度密集。双溪威自由工业区的厂家所聘用的外劳女工大多都是居住在双溪威新村的外劳宿舍。在双溪威新村600家屋子之中，有至少100家屋子已经改造成数层楼高的印尼女工的宿舍。每一间宿舍至少容纳60至100名女工。这造成双溪威新村的人口过于密集，也导致许多社会问题如卫生问题、基本建设问题等等。当我们几乎每天都接获村民的投诉之际，雪州马华却批评州政府兴建外劳宿舍将会影响本地房东的收入。这证明马华与草根人民的生活严重脱节。

对雪州来说，除了要吸引本地和外来投资之外，州政府也必须提供充足的人力资源，包括知识型员工来推动雪州的经济发展。因此，学州政府已经要求所有工业园的发展商，包括雪州发展机构承建足够的员工宿舍，以避免引发更多潜在性的社会问题。这也让工业园的管理层能够更有效地管理工业园内工作的外劳。

迄今，雪州依然缺乏将近6万名员工，这显示投资者依然对雪州充满信心。无论如何，我们不能满足于现状。如果州政府无法协助投资者解决他们的问题，投资者将会舍我们而去。总的来说，雪州必须时刻保持竞争力方能吸引投资者。为了证明这点，我引述前新加坡财政部兼首相署秘书长严崇涛在其书《一名状元与公共政策的制定》的一篇文章，这本书的第64页提及双溪威自由工业区：

“就在这个时候，曾振木成功吸引手机先驱摩托罗拉考虑在新加坡设立他们的海外生产大本营。后来摩托罗拉告诉我们他们的公司不允许设立职工会的政策之后，我们的喜悦就变成失望。当我们无法劝告全国职工总会即使在原则上接受这个要求之后，摩托罗拉专项马来西亚八打灵再也投资。我每次上吉隆坡出席货币局的会议经过摩托罗拉工厂时，我都会感到妒嫉。”


我谨此附上我在州议会针对这个项目所获得答复：

PERTANYAAN-PERTANYAAN MULUT DARIPADA
Y.B. TUAN LAU WENG SAN
(KG. TUNKU)

TAJUK : PJ ELEVATED CITY

202. Bertanya kepada Y.A.B Dato’ Menteri Besar:

a) Meminta kerajaan negeri memberi penerangan terperinci terhadap projek “PJ Elevated City” ini, khususnya terhadap pembinaan kompleks asrama yang akan menempatkan 10,000 pekerja kilang?

JAWAPAN :
a) Mesyuarat MTES pada 16hb September 2009 telah memutuskan pembangunan di tanah milik Kerajaan Negeri dan MBPJ seluas 20 ekar perlu dibangunkan dengan mengambil kira keperluan Western Digital (10,000 unit asrama dan 3000 tempat letak kereta) dan MBPJ (bengkel dan pejabat) .

Tapak cadangan akan berfungsi sebagai “service centre” bagi perindustrian FIZ. Kawasan ini akan dibangunkan dengan kemudahan perdagangan, rekreasi dan perumahan berkepadatan tinggi (apartmen/apartmen servis/studio apartmen). PKNS telah dilantik sebagai pemaju dan MBPJ adalah pemilik sebahagian tanah.
Konsep pembangunan yang telah diluluskan oleh MTES pada 15hb Jun 2010 merangkumi komponen-komponen berikut :-
i. Hostel penginapan bagi 10,000 pekerja
ii. Tempat letak kereta tambahan sebanyak 3,000 petak untuk kegunaan industri sedia ada
iii. Kegunaan perdagangan (pejabat, retail, service apartment) dan
iv. Perumahan jenis apartmen

Kemajuan projek setakat ini masih diperingkat pengemukaan pelan cadangan dan penetapan tapak gentian bengkel.

MCA becoming more irrelevant when they can’t even get their facts right on Petaling Jaya Elevated City

I am very surprised to read some of the criticisms thrown at me and the state government on an issue that I had raised in the previous state assembly and recently in a press conference.

I asked in the state assembly during the April session a question on a proposed development named “PJ Elevated City” on a piece of land in SS8 Petaling Jaya, especially on the part of the construction of hostels which accommodate more than 10,000 factory workers.

A few days ago, Selangor MCA public services and complaints bureau head Theng Book accused me of being more concerned about foreigners than Malaysians, and using the foreigners as an excuse to develop the land.

Theng Book even said “Watch out, people of Petaling Jaya” and “They are taking all your land”, as reported in Free Malaysia Today, an online news portal. MCA legal adviser Lim Choon Kin, also pointed out that the project will drastically affecting the income of house owners in the area, who rent rooms to foreign workers.

Their statements reflect the poor performance of MCA leaders in dealing with issues as they cannot even get their facts right. This is only to show that MCA leaders are in desperado mode that they have to get themselves some quick media exposure, even if they have to issue partially wrong or totally wrong and unfounded statement.

As a matter of fact, “Petaling Jaya Elevated City” is a mixed development comprising not only the said hostels for factory workers but also commercial and recreational facilities as well as various high density residential projects.

They also accused the state government of not providing enough affordable homes to the people of Selangor, citing example that the federal government cares for the poor people by providing affordable homes which are to be sold at RM220,000 a unit.

This is another example on how irrelevant MCA is as they cannot even get the fact correct again. The Selangor PR state government Selangor had in fact launched an affordable housing scheme in Bangi not too long ago. Iskandar Samad, the state EXCO in charge of housing, told that the project will come under the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) and this affordable housing scheme actually has houses that are bigger (750 to 850-sq ft) and more comfortable than low-cost houses, which are only 660-sq ft.

More important is that the maximum cost for each house is RM100,000, which is RM120,000 cheaper that houses built by the federal government under “My First Home Scheme”. If this is not PR’s commitment to provide more affordable homes to the people, then what authority does MCA have to criticize PR when homes to be built under “My First Home Scheme” are sold at RM120,000 higher than PKNS’ affordable homes? MCA cannot be so ignorant to ignore this fact or is it that they are becoming more and more irrelevant that they can’t even get their facts right?

The reason why I raised this question during the previous sitting of the State Assembly is because of the over-population in Sungai Way new village caused by a huge influx of factory workers who are mainly foreigners. No more than 100 houses out of 600 houses in the new village are converted into multi-storey hostels. Each hostel can easily accommodate 60 to 100 workers and the whole new village is over-crowded and choked with all sort of social, cleanliness and infrastructure problems. When we receive complaints from villagers almost on a daily basis, MCA Selangor’s criticism that the state government’s move is affecting the incomes of the locals who rent out their premises to foreign workers simply shows how disconnected MCA are from the ground.

More over it is very important for Selangor, not only to attract enough foreign and domestic investments, but also to supply sufficient labours, including knowledge workers to fuel the economic growth in Selangor. Therefore, the Selangor state government has requested all developers of industrial parks, including PKNS to also provide enough accommodation for both foreign and local workers to alleviate any potential social problem. This will also enable the management of the industrial parks to better manage foreign labours working in the industrial parks.

The fact that Selangor still lacks 60,000 workers proves that investors are still confident with Selangor. However, we shall not take things for granted. Investors will leave for better environment if the state government is incapable to fulfill their requirements. In short, Selangor must be competitive enough to attract investments.

In order to substantiate this, I would like to provide an extraction of a write up from Ngiam Tong Dow, former Permanent Secretary (Administrative Vice-Minister) of the Singapore Ministry of Finance and the Singapore Prime Minister’s Office. In his book entitled “A Mandarin and the making of public policy: reflections By Ngiam Tong Dow”, he wrote in page 64 and I quote:

“Around this period, Motorola, the handphone pioneer, was successfully wooed by Mr Chan Chin Bock to consider Singapore as one of their offshore manufacturing bases. Joy turned to anguish when Motorola told us that their company had a ‘no union’ policy. When EDB could not persuade the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) to accept this even on principle, Motorola left for Petaling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur (KL) in Malaysia. Every time I went to KL for Currency Board meetings, the gleaming Motorola factories on the way to town turned me green with envy.”


I hereby attach a copy of the answer I have from the State Government to further clarify the matter.

PERTANYAAN-PERTANYAAN MULUT DARIPADA

Y.B. TUAN LAU WENG SAN(KG. TUNKU)

TAJUK : PJ ELEVATED CITY
202. Bertanya kepada Y.A.B Dato’ Menteri Besar:

a) Meminta kerajaan negeri memberi penerangan terperinci terhadap projek “PJ Elevated City” ini, khususnya terhadap pembinaan kompleks asrama yang akan menempatkan 10,000 pekerja kilang?

JAWAPAN :
a) Mesyuarat MTES pada 16hb September 2009 telah memutuskan pembangunan di tanah milik Kerajaan Negeri dan MBPJ seluas 20 ekar perlu dibangunkan dengan mengambil kira keperluan Western Digital (10,000 unit asrama dan 3000 tempat letak kereta) dan MBPJ (bengkel dan pejabat) .

Tapak cadangan akan berfungsi sebagai “service centre” bagi perindustrian FIZ. Kawasan ini akan dibangunkan dengan kemudahan perdagangan, rekreasi dan perumahan berkepadatan tinggi (apartmen/apartmen servis/studio apartmen). PKNS telah dilantik sebagai pemaju dan MBPJ adalah pemilik sebahagian tanah.
Konsep pembangunan yang telah diluluskan oleh MTES pada 15hb Jun 2010 merangkumi komponen-komponen berikut :-
i. Hostel penginapan bagi 10,000 pekerja
ii. Tempat letak kereta tambahan sebanyak 3,000 petak untuk kegunaan industri sedia ada
iii. Kegunaan perdagangan (pejabat, retail, service apartment) dan
iv. Perumahan jenis apartmen

Kemajuan projek setakat ini masih diperingkat pengemukaan pelan cadangan dan penetapan tapak gentian bengkel

RM2juta untuk penyelenggaraan rumah pangsa kos rendah bukti kerpihatinan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat

[Ucapan (2) Menjunjung Kasih Titah DYMM Sultan Selangor oleh ADUN Kampung Tunku Lau Weng San pada 29 Mac 2011 di Shah Alam]

Saya mengalu-alukan keputusan kerajaan Selangor yang akan memperuntukkan RM2 juta untuk membantu membiayai 50% kos penyelenggaraan rumah pangsa di seluruh Selangor. Kos 50% yang selebihnya akan dibiayai oleh penduduk sendiri yakni melalui kutipan kos penyelenggaraan yang dibayar setiap bulan kepada MC atau JMB.

Harga jualan rumah ini perlu diselaras dari semasa ke semasa mengikut peningkatan kualiti. Bagi tujuan penyelenggaraan rumah pangsa kos rendah, saya mencadangkan supaya satu caj tambahan ditetapkan terhadap pembeli rumah mengikut keluasan unit rumah yang dibeli bagi tujuan penyelenggaraan bangunan. Caj tambahan ini dijadikan sebagai sebahagian daripada harga jualan dan ditetapkan di dalam perjanjian jual beli. Setelah ianya diterima oleh pemaju, wang ini perlu disimpan di dalam sebuah tabung yang akan diuruskan oleh Kerajaan Negeri .

Dengan itu, pembeli rumah tidak perlu menjelaskan caj penyelenggaraan dan sinking fund setiap bulan kerana wang ini telahpun dibayar oleh pembeli rumah semasa pada awal lagi.

Contohnya, kalau seorang pembeli rumah kos rendah perlu membayar lebih kurang RM80 sebulan untuk kos penyelenggaraan dan sinking fund, maka jumlah yang perlu dibayar ialah RM960 setahun. Kalau ianya dibina atas tanah pajakan sementara 99 tahun atau leasehold, maka jumlah yang dibayar dalam masa 99 tahun ini ialah lebih kurang RM95,000. Kiraan ini tidak mengambil kira inflasi.

Memang kiraan terperinci diperlukan untuk menetapkan jumlah caj tambahan yang perlu dibayar kerana amaun ini mestilah berada pada paras yang adil. Walaupun begitu, kerajaan perlu mengambil inisistif untuk cuba menyelesaikan masalah ini.

Masalah sekarang ialah pihak pengurusan secara purata hanya mampu mengutip lebih kurang 20% daripada caj penyelenggaraan dan sinking fund yang sepatutnya mereka dapat dan ini merupakan sebab utama rumah pangsa kos rendah tidak dapat diselenggara dengan baik.

Masalah ini dapat diatasi dengan cara di atas kerana pihak pengurusan tidak akan menghadapi masalah kekurangan dana pada peringkat permulaan. Satu permulaan yang baik diperlukan untuk memastikan masalah kekurangan penyelenggaraan di rumah pangsa kos rendah bertambah serious sehingga ianya tidak dapat ditangani pada akhirnya.

Satu penambahbaikan yang boleh dijalankan terhadap caj tambahan yang akan dikenakan ialah supaya wang ini dikumpulkan dalam satu tabung yang diuruskan oleh kerajaan negeri dan tabung ini akan melantik kontraktor atau syarikat-syarikat pengurusan yang berkemampuan untuk menjalankan tugas-tugas penyelenggaraan di semua rumah pangsa kos rendah ini. Ini diharapkan dapat mengurangkan kos penyelenggaraan dengan lebih banyak lagi kerana kontraktor akan mempunyai skala ekonomi yang mencukupi.

Dengan ini, kerajaan akan bertanggungjawab untuk menguruskan bangunan-bangunan ini tetapi kerajaan tidak akan menghadapi masalah kekurangan dana kerana wang yang mencukupi telah ada pada peringkat awal, manakala penduduk-penduduk tidak perlu membayar penyelenggaraan dan sinking fund setiap bulan keranan ianya telah dibayar apabila mereka membeli rumah.

Saya berharap kerajaan negeri dapat menggunakan model ini sebagai satu permulaan untuk menjaga kebajikan penduduk-penduduk rumah pangsa kos rendah yang kebanyakannya golongan berpendapatan rendah.

7% Bumiputera discount for high-end property should go

My colleague Tony Pua, Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara, said during Selangor State Government Budget Dialogue that the state government should reconsider its decision of allowing discount of up to seven percents to Bumiputera property purchasers, that the discount should be abolished for purchasing residential property of more than RM500,000 and commercial property of more than RM2 million.

Unfortunately mainstream Malay newspapers had twisted his words. UMNO leaders even misled the public that DAP is suggesting the full abolishment of discount for Bumiputera property purchasers.

This is untrue as the reason why such discount should be abolished is it goes against the policy of affirmative action when such discount does not benefit low-income Bumiputeras while stiffening the competitiveness of local property market.

Such discount is meant to encourage Bumiputera property ownership, especially house ownership for Bumiputera community as most of the under-privileged Bumiputeras live in rented property and could not afford to own their own houses.

We must also acknowledge that high-income Bumiputera purchasers who can afford such expensive properties are financially sound, independent and competitive. Thus they do not need such discount.

If we are suggesting that such discount should continue, are we suggesting that rich Malays like Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar, Tan Sri Rozali Ismail or Dato’ Seri Nazir Tun Razak, who earn six-figure or seven-figure monthly income, also qualify for the seven percents discount whenever they buy any residential property above RM500,000 or commercial property above RM2 million, even though they afford to pay the market price?

I further suggest that Bumiputeras who purchase residential property below RM500,000 and commercial property below RM2 million merely for investment purpose and not for own usage should not be given any discount as any discount given will be seen as an act of rent-seeking.

The responsibility of the government is not to help the rich Bumiputera to become richer by giving them more discounts but to ensure that the under-privileged Bumiputeras can own their dream house.

Letter from Councillor Richard Yeoh In Response To Nadeswaran

Dear Nadeswaran:

I am responding to your article as an MBPJ councillor and a member of the Audit & Corporate Governance Committee of MBPJ.

I shall confine myself to clarifying key points raised in the article. This email is copied to others who were copied in the original email of your article that was sent to me, for their info only.

When I became aware of the matter sometime in February this year, I did contact my fellow councillor Mr KW Mak to offer my assistance in taking the matter to the Audit & Corporate Governance Committee of MBPJ of which I am a member, with the intention of carrying out an investigation if there was evidence of irregularity in the allocation of low-cost housing units. At that time, Mr Mak told me that he had given the Mayor a deadline to take action failing which, he would refer the matter to SELCAT.

I subsequently heard that the matter was acted upon by the Disciplinary Committee of MBPJ chaired by Mayor. It was reportedly also discussed at SELCAT.

I subsequently did follow up with Mr Mak on the matter and to offer my assistance and he informed me that he was capable of pursuing the matter.

The only correspondence that I received from Mr Mak was a letter dated April 29th that was copied to Mayor, State EXCO members, Speaker, and MBPJ Councillors wherein a copy of an unsigned anonymous general complaint alleging malpractices in the acquisition of low-cost housing units and a copy of a purported letter offering banking facility to an MBPJ staff member were appended. Mr Mak's letter requested Mayor to do an audit of all low-cost houses in PJ to ascertain if any officer of MBPJ or their close relatives owned low-cost houses and for the results of the audit to be tabled at MBPJ's full council board meeting and to SELCAT for further investigation.

The special full council board meeting on May 25th was called to deliberate on the best way to investigate the matter in view of the serious allegations published in the press recently. Mr Mak left very early in the meeting when a few councillors were debating on how such allegations should be handled. To the best of my recollection, the meeting deliberated mainly on how the matter should be investigated. Mr Mak's role in this matter was not the subject of discussion at the meeting.

As a result of the meeting, the Audit & Corporate Governance was tasked to investigate the matter and the first meeting to plan the work will be held on May 27th.

The reason for the Committee not inquiring into the matter earlier, was due to the belief held that the matter was being handled by Mayor through the Disciplinary Committee.

Now that the Council has referred the matter to the Audit & Corporate Governance, we will ensure that the full facts are uncovered. If appropriate, we should even hold a public inquiry into the matter since issues of public interests are involved here.

Let me state clearly here that I have the highest respect for Mr Mak's work as a councillor and have had no occassion to doubt his good intentions and integrity.

We hope all parties concerned will offer their full cooperation to the inquiry and investigation.

Yours sincerely,

RICHARD Y W YEOH

Phase in build-then-sell system

By Chang Kim Loong, Secretary-General of National House Buyers Association

I REFER to recent calls for the government to replace the proposed 5% deposit with a Home Completion Guarantee Scheme.

The subject of abandoned housing projects has been a bane for the house-buying public.

Hundreds of thousands of housebuyers and their families are left suffering in the wake of such abandoned projects where they have paid a lot of money and not obtained their houses. Most of them are compelled to continue servicing their housing loans that their banks had disbursed to the developers while they continue to live in rented houses.

The government had spent huge sums of taxpayers’ money to revive some of these failed projects (But more soon come on line). Some of these abandoned projects are the results of fraud and deceit. How else can we explain that in many of the cases the land and the houses (although uncompleted) become net liabilities to the extent that the cost of reviving them requires large amount of money. Even “white knights” are reluctant to go near most of these failed projects. In property development, any construction put onto a piece of land will progressively enhance its value. Full value is attained when the houses are completed. Thus the fact that a large number of these abandoned projects become financially not viable for revival only indicates that their developers have been paid more than what the construction stage entitles them to and/or that the money collected from buyers are channelled elsewhere instead of towards the completion of the projects. In both these cases, fraud is involved and in any case the buyers are the ones who suffer most although the banks involved are also put in a quandary.

Recently the Real Estate Housing Developers’ Association (Rehda) has proposed the setting up of a home completion guarantee scheme (insurance). In this scheme, participating developers are required to contribute 0.25% of their construction costs (not project value) so that their buyers can be assured of getting their houses. Rehda even suggested that taxpayers’ money be used to augment this insurance scheme. We have elucidated on the practicality of this proposed scheme.

In 2006, the then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that the build-then-sell 10-90 scheme would be put on trial for two years. Also announced were a host of incentives to encourage developers to adopt this system that basically insulates buyers from the hazards of abandoned projects (plus a host of other advantages, little highlighted in the media).

But the system was left to the option of developers with the present hazardous sell-then-build (STB) still very much alive and creating havoc. For obvious reasons developers are adamant about sticking to the STB despite the attractive incentives. It is high time that a firm timeline be established for the industry to progress to the BTS 10-90.

Rehda has repeatedly stressed that the choice of either STB or BTS (10-90) should not be compelled but to be “market driven”. We would like to point out that this present option of either STB or BTS (10-90) definitely cannot be termed as “market-driven” but more “developer-driven”. It is solely the developers who make the choice, not housebuyers or any other party, for that matter.

Is it surprising then that there had been few, if any, who voluntarily chose the BTS (10-90). The reasons are obvious.

Rehda went further to state that after a three-year trial period, the system has proved to be not workable. We would like to state that the BTS (10-90) has never be given the chance to see daylight because it was given as an option. Thus the system in effect, was never put to test against the prediction of doom and all the other frighteners put forward by interested parties in defending their turf. Thus unless the government put in a time-line for the industry to adopt the system to get rid of the problems, the following will prevail:

>The house buying rakyat will continue to face the Russian Roulette every time someone buys a new house. (8% of housing projects are categorised as “problematic”)

> Poor/unacceptable quality houses will continue to rule the day.

> Taxpayers’ money will continue to be channelled to revive such projects.

> The government will continue to face the wrath of frustrated buyers.

> The industry will continue to attract bogus/questionable developers due to its low entry barrier.

> Our image abroad will continue to be adversely looked at from the eyes of property investors and potential participants of the Malaysia My Second Home programme.

> Banks (both bridging and end-financiers) will continue to grapple with the problems of loan defaults when housebuyers are unable to pay back because they never got their houses.

> Large amount of funds will continue to be made dormant when tied up in abandoned projects.

> Our beautiful skyline will continue to be peppered with ugly abandoned project sites with the attending health and social problems.

> Joint venture land owners will continue to face the possibilities of not getting the promised returns from their land.

It is time the authorities bite the bullet and set a timeline for the phasing out of this outdated and hazardous STB and phase in the BTS (10-90) system.

Low cost house fiasco: Publishing names of owners is the first step towards clearing the mess of the past

The Selangor State Government has responded to the ownership of low cost houses by 500 unqualified Petaling Jaya City Council staffs that unqualified owners of low cost houses should return the unit to the state government.

It is high time that the state government should do something to rectify as much as possible mistakes of the previous government in allocating low cost houses in the state, particularly in highly developed cities like Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Shah Alam and Ampang Jaya.

In fact, right after March 8th 2008, I have suggested to the state government to carry out a thorough audit in identifying the flaws in allocating low cost houses to the poor. Action plan suggested included conducting a house-to-house survey (banci) to identify whether the owners of the low cost houses are staying in the unit themselves or merely renting the unit to outsiders, especially foreign labours for extra incomes. Worst still, the survey is also to find out whether the units were sold by rent-seekers to other party at a higher price.

I have always stressed numerously that low cost houses are not commercial products but controlled items. Therefore, the sales of low cost houses, must be strictyly regulated by the state and not subject to market force.

In the case of unqualified council staffs owning low cost houses, I urge that the focus should not be placed on council staffs only but on a larger scope on “unqualified buyers” as I believe not only there are unqualified council staffs, but also politically connected individuals who such the units.

Thus, I welcome the suggestion from state EXCO on Housing, Building Management and Squarters, Iskandar Abdul Samad that the state will consider publishing a name list of those who own low houses for public scrutiny as this is the first step towards rectifying the mistakes and correct the “inherited sins” from the previous administration.

There are also many flaws in the previous “zero-squarters” programme and actions must be taken to correct these flaws step-by-step. In the past, a unit of low cost house is to be allocated for each registered squarter, meaning that the first criterion to qualify for a unit of low cost house is that the buyer must be a squarter first.

Unfortunately, this has neglected the rights of other low-income earners who eargerly want a unit of their low cost houses. Many times they have to rent houses or rooms from others and have to buy low cost houses from open market and pay huge amount of under table money.

Secondly, since low cost houses are mainly offered to first and second families of the squarters, some of them already have big houses outside. Allocating a unit of low cost house to them means giving them an extra income, is this fair? The state must have strict regulations on low cost houses whether these houses are built by the government or private developer, that these houses are to be meant for own stay and should not be sold or rented to third party.