Dear All,
Some readers of this blog has been trying to post comments not related to the blog post. Such comments will not be published as I think the comments and the blog post should be inter-related.
For those who wants to express their opinions on some other issues including the upcoming state convention, please email me at lauwengsan@gmail.com and identify yourself.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Lau Weng San
Thursday, November 25, 2010
MCA should reveal how many study loans were offered to Chinese applicants in states run by BN
It is quite disturbing to read statement from several MCA leaders attacking Selangor State Government by implying that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR)-led state government only approves 12 Chinese applicants for study loan, when MCA leaders are not prepared to reveal how many study loans were offered to Chinese in states ruled by Barisan Nasional (BN).
In fact, I was the first assemblyman who helped promoting the study loan scheme offered by the state government as early as in August 2010. All elected representatives in Selangor received letters and brochures from the state government requesting helps from elected representatives to promote such scheme and to recommend suitable students to apply for the study loan irregardless of race and religion.
This prompted me to request for more details about the almost-interest-free study loan in August 2010. I also called a press conference to promote the study loan, which is opened to applicants from all races provided that the applicants must be born in Selangor.
It is clear that lately, some MCA leaders are playing racist politics by blaming the Selangor state government for not helping Chinese when there are only 12 successful Chinese applicants.
Selangor government EXCO Teresa Kok had clarified that while it is true that there are only 12 successful Chinese applicants, but the hard fact that MCA leaders choose to ignore is that there are only 12 Chinese students who applied for the study loan!
In fact, each state government in Malaysia does offer study loans to deserving and qualified students from their state to pursue tertiary education. However, Selangor State government study loan is probably the first study loan offered by any state government in Malaysia to accept application from Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) holders of whom majority of them are non-Malay.
I urge MCA leaders like Ti Lian Ker and Wee Ka Siong to reveal how many Chinese students have benefitted from the Pahang and Johore State Government study loan in 2009 and 2010.
In fact, I was the first assemblyman who helped promoting the study loan scheme offered by the state government as early as in August 2010. All elected representatives in Selangor received letters and brochures from the state government requesting helps from elected representatives to promote such scheme and to recommend suitable students to apply for the study loan irregardless of race and religion.
This prompted me to request for more details about the almost-interest-free study loan in August 2010. I also called a press conference to promote the study loan, which is opened to applicants from all races provided that the applicants must be born in Selangor.
It is clear that lately, some MCA leaders are playing racist politics by blaming the Selangor state government for not helping Chinese when there are only 12 successful Chinese applicants.
Selangor government EXCO Teresa Kok had clarified that while it is true that there are only 12 successful Chinese applicants, but the hard fact that MCA leaders choose to ignore is that there are only 12 Chinese students who applied for the study loan!
In fact, each state government in Malaysia does offer study loans to deserving and qualified students from their state to pursue tertiary education. However, Selangor State government study loan is probably the first study loan offered by any state government in Malaysia to accept application from Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) holders of whom majority of them are non-Malay.
I urge MCA leaders like Ti Lian Ker and Wee Ka Siong to reveal how many Chinese students have benefitted from the Pahang and Johore State Government study loan in 2009 and 2010.
Monday, November 22, 2010
打击非法马机店——警方不应等新总长或大选将近才行动
网络媒体《辣手杂志》引述消息人士指出新任总警长依斯迈上任后将首度展开大规模的扫荡行动，而矛头则瞄准赌博性质的马机，并将从下月起全面扫荡马机，以达致「零马机」的目标。
民联和雪州行动党非常欢迎警方大规模扫荡马机。其实，警方老早就应该配合民联政府和县市议会眼里打击跑马机活动。在过去两年，民联政府一直无法获得地方上警方的配合扫荡跑马机的活动，间接促成马机店四处林立。
因此，在过去两年，民联政府仅仅能够发动地方政府的执法人员进行扫荡活动。即使是县市议员或行政议员亲自监督扫荡工作，马机活动容易死灰复燃，乃因背后操控这些马机店乃大型集团，马机货源充足，即使地方政府执法人员扣留马机，但是非法集团依然有能力立即补放新的马机。
在这次刚刚结束州议会，我们得知莎亚南市政厅曾经把非法马机店业者控上法庭。最后法庭判决有关业者有罪，罚款2000令吉，惟市政厅必须支付2万5000令吉的律师费给市政厅的律师。再加上这2000令吉的罚款并非缴付给地方政府，而是缴付予中央政府，因此得不偿失。
此外，地方政府没有法律权利扣留非法马机，也没有权利要求水务公司、国能以及马电讯切断非法马机店的水电供应和电话联络，反之警方却拥有更大的权力。在衡量法律权力的悬殊，地方政府执法单位肯定无法应付如此繁重的取缔工作，除非获得其他政府部门，尤其是警察的协助。
如今，新上任的全国总警长犹如新官上任点三把火。我们希望警方能够真正身体力行，和民联政府和地方政府配合打击非法马机活动，而不是每一次要出现新任全国总警长，或者将近大选，警方才动作频频取缔非法马机店。
Friday, November 19, 2010
優異生申請不到貸學金‧致函撥電公服局無回應
李聰美（左起）、劉永山及洪秋娟展示他們為李兆生申請公共服務局貸學金，致給教育部、公共服務局及蔡細歷的公函。（圖：星洲日報）
（雪蘭莪‧八打靈再也3日訊）一名華裔生申訴在大馬教育文憑考試（SPM）中考獲10A與1B的優異成績後，卻無法申請到首相署公共服務局貸學金，感到失望不已。
該華裔生是李兆生（22歲），家住森美蘭州的瓜拉庇朥，來自小康之家，家有4名兄弟姐妹。
李兆生是以“2＋2”（泰萊學院2年＋伯明翰大學2年）的形式來考取化學工程碩士，明年7月畢業。
9月致函林星豪吳秋花
李兆生的叔叔李聰美（67歲）表示，他在今年9月間先後致函給教育部副部長拿督魏家祥機要秘書林星豪及馬華總會長拿督斯里蔡細歷秘書吳秋花（要求會見蔡細歷）。
李聰美說：“林星豪曾在電話上告訴我，公共服務局已經沒有錢了。吳秋花也說，倘若李兆生考獲10A1，要取得貸學金根本就不成問題。”
李兆生的媽媽洪秋娟（52歲）表示，她傳送兩次郵件給公共服務局，並撥電給各相關單位，可是無任何回訊。
她說，她曾把李兆生申請貸學金的所有文件和資料呈交給公共服務局一名叫仄松的巫裔女職員，並不斷撥電詢問進展，令他們驚訝的是，對方最近表示她已辭職兩年。
甘榜東姑州議員劉永山在新聞發佈會上說，李兆生來自小康之家，7萬5000令吉的學費對其家人來說是相當昂貴和吃力的經濟負擔。
雙親湊學費英國深造
“他的父親是經營祖傳的五金店，做的是小生意，母親是退休教師；他是靠雙親東湊西借，才能到英國深造，並且必須半工半讀才能完成學業。”
他說，蔡細歷將此事交給魏家祥處理，他上個月14日協助他致函給公共服務局人文發展部主任拿督莫哈末達祖丁反映（副本呈交給慕尤丁），但同樣沒有任何回音。
劉永山：若沒行動將向首相署交涉
他說，倘若此事見報後，有關方面仍沒有行動，他準備向首相署、公共服務局和教育部交涉。
吳秋花：已過上訴期可尋求馬華教育局援助
蔡細歷特別助理吳秋花受詢時指出，其實她有告知對方，李兆生已過了上訴期，不過他可以尋求馬華教育局的援助。
她說，李兆生的親人可尋求馬華教育局的協助，以解決他向公共服務局申請貸學金遭拒的問題。
星洲日報‧2010.11.03
雪州议会服务法案乃带领议会改革的重大第一步
我在周一结束的雪兰莪州议会辩论关于《2009年雪州立法议会服务法案》的提案时提出，州政府必须尽快提呈有关法案，让州议会能够独立和专业操作。
我在州议会上提出，随着议会的运作日益壮大，开会的数量逐渐增加、所处理的事务和课题也越加繁重，因此州政府必须严正考虑提呈这项法案，让州议会拥有本身独立运作的空间。
此外，随着议会所处理的事务日益繁重，加上州议会已经成立三个专案委员会（Select Committee）监督地方政府、土地局以官联公司的运作，因此州议会也必须提供足够的人力和专才协助这三个专案委员会。
我在州议会辩论这个提案的时候强调，若《2009年雪州立法议会服务法案》最终能够通过，那么这将再次让雪州耀视国内所有议会，因为雪州州议会比国会成为马来西亚议会民主改革的先驱。这绝对符合雪州作为马来西亚先进州的称号。
《2009年雪州立法议会服务法案》将会是议会民主改革的第一步。英国西敏斯特议会民主制度，以及其他先进英联邦国家议会民主制度将是民联议会改革的参考模式。例如在英国国会，议长的遴选制度是以秘密投票的方式进行，意即朝野议员都可以依据本身的意愿，无需受制于党鞭而投下心中所属一票。议长必须获得至少50巴仙的选票，如果没有获得50巴仙的选票，那么获得最低票的候选人将会被淘汰出局，然后进行第二轮选举，直至选出获得50巴仙多数票的议长为止。
议长中选后必须保持超然的态度，甚至必须辞掉党籍、推出政党政治。当议会解散之后，议长仍然可以参与选举。根据英国国会传统，一般朝野政党都不会派员出战议长的选区。虽然如此，英国媒体报道议长的选区最近也有英国数个小党派员参选。
另外一点，虽然英国国会和大马国会一样，即必须经由首相向国王/英女皇（最高元首）进谏解散议会，但是英国和大马不同的是英国国会的解散日期众人皆知，不像大马往往依靠首相的灵感或喜好。
其实，《2009年雪州立法议会服务法案》不是什么新的改革，因为过去60年代也曾制定《1963年国会服务法令》（Parliamentary Services Act 1963），只是随后在90年代废除了，如今则是恢复有关体制而已。
因此，我希望州行政议会最终能够提呈这项法案予来届州议会，加强州议会的问政能力。
Restructuring of the Water Industry in Selangor
The Selangor State Government cordially invites you to a Briefing on “Restructuring of the Water Industry in Selangor”The objective of the event is to allow the Selangor State Government to provide a briefing and explanation on its position in regards to the restructuring of the water services industry in Selangor, which has taken more than two years and has not yet been resolved.
The water services industry in Selangor used to belong to the state government, but over the years was corporatised and eventually privatised to four water concession companies. The Water Services Industry Act 2006, together with several other national policies, set out to reverse the wrongs of the privatisation. This briefing is meant to clarify the Selangor State Government’s position on the matter and allow an avenue for discussion, questions and dialogue with those present. We look forward to meeting with you.
Selangor is embarking on a campaign to return the rights of water to the people of Selangor. Please visit www.airuntukrakyat.net for more information. To support the Selangor government in taking over the water industry, sign the signature petition at http://www.airuntukrakyat.net/main/petition.php
2.30 pm: Arrival of Guests and Registration
2:45 pm: Welcoming Remarks
Y.B. Teresa Kok, Selangor State Executive Councillor
3.00 pm: Presentations
Y.B. Tony Pua, MP for PJ Utara (Selangor State Water Review Panel)
Y.B. Charles Santiago, MP for Klang (Selangor State Water Review Panel)
4.00 pm: Discussion
5.00 pm: Closing
Monday, November 15, 2010
Motion on Malpractices #2 - Mischievous house sales in Kuala Selangor
Ucapan pencadang oleh ADUN Kampung Tunku, Lau Weng San semasa mambahas Usul No. 14 di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3) oleh ADN Hulu Kelang pada:
Saya selaku ADUN Kampung Tunku dengan ini turut membahas satu usul yang dibawa oleh ADUN Hulu Kelang di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3), di mana usul adalah seperti yang berikut:
“Bahawa Dewan ini menarik perhatian terhadap manipulasi penjualan sejumlah sembilan (9) unit rumah teres milik SAP Holdings Bhd di Taman Malawati Jaya, Kuala Selangor dengan mengkelaskan penjualan unit-unit tersebut sebagai pembelian pukal dengan harga potongan sebanyak 50.90% yang menyebabkan syarikat kehilangan hasil penjualan sebanyak RM617,000.
“Bahawa dengan ini Dewan yang mulia ini menggesa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk mewujudkan satu badan bebas di bawah Kerajaan bagi menjalankan penyiasatan dan membentangkan siasatan ke Sidang Dewan Negeri.”
Tuan Speaker,
Saya juga telah membuat semakan secara kasar daripada laman web yang sama dan saya telah mendapati bahawa harga jualan seunit rumah teres satu tingkat ialah RM130,000.
Adakah harga jualan ini mencerminkan harga pasaran? Saya telah menjalankan satu pengiraan di mana saya telah menggunakan harga RM130,000 ini sebagai harga dasar dan harga ini dikenakan potongan sebanyak 50.9%. Selepas potongan ini, maka harga jualan baru ialah RM64,000, ini bermakna potongan yang dikenakan ialah RM66,170 untuk setiap satu rumah.
Jika RM66,170 didarab dengan sembilan, maka jumlah potongan yang dikenakan ialah hampir RM600,000 dan angka ini tidak jauh berbeza dengan potongan yang ditawarkan oleh SAP Holdings Bhd di Taman Malawati Jaya, Kuala Selangor, iaitu RM617,000.
Saya juga telah menyemak lokasi ini dan saya mendapati ianya terletak berhampiran dengan bandar Kuala Selangor dan jaraknya di antara Taman Malawati Jaya dengan Gedung Pasaraya Teso Kuala Selangor hanya lebih kurang 2km sahaja.
Oleh itu, saya tidak begitu mengerti rasionalnya untuk menjual rumah ini dengan potongan harga yang begitu tinggi. Saya menggesa kerajaan untuk menjalankan siasatan seperti yang berikut:
1. Adakah Jabatan Audit Negara telah mengaudit transaksi ini?
2. Bilakah dan siapakah yang memutus untuk memberi diskaun yang begitu tinggi? Apakah rasional di sebalik keputusan ini?
3. Siapakah pembeli-pembeli rumah ini?
4. Sekiranya didapati terdapat elemen-elemen penyalahgunaan kuasa, apakah kuasa atau tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor terhadap mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab?
Saya selaku ADUN Kampung Tunku dengan ini turut membahas satu usul yang dibawa oleh ADUN Hulu Kelang di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3), di mana usul adalah seperti yang berikut:
“Bahawa Dewan ini menarik perhatian terhadap manipulasi penjualan sejumlah sembilan (9) unit rumah teres milik SAP Holdings Bhd di Taman Malawati Jaya, Kuala Selangor dengan mengkelaskan penjualan unit-unit tersebut sebagai pembelian pukal dengan harga potongan sebanyak 50.90% yang menyebabkan syarikat kehilangan hasil penjualan sebanyak RM617,000.
“Bahawa dengan ini Dewan yang mulia ini menggesa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk mewujudkan satu badan bebas di bawah Kerajaan bagi menjalankan penyiasatan dan membentangkan siasatan ke Sidang Dewan Negeri.”
Tuan Speaker,
Saya juga telah membuat semakan secara kasar daripada laman web yang sama dan saya telah mendapati bahawa harga jualan seunit rumah teres satu tingkat ialah RM130,000.
Adakah harga jualan ini mencerminkan harga pasaran? Saya telah menjalankan satu pengiraan di mana saya telah menggunakan harga RM130,000 ini sebagai harga dasar dan harga ini dikenakan potongan sebanyak 50.9%. Selepas potongan ini, maka harga jualan baru ialah RM64,000, ini bermakna potongan yang dikenakan ialah RM66,170 untuk setiap satu rumah.
Jika RM66,170 didarab dengan sembilan, maka jumlah potongan yang dikenakan ialah hampir RM600,000 dan angka ini tidak jauh berbeza dengan potongan yang ditawarkan oleh SAP Holdings Bhd di Taman Malawati Jaya, Kuala Selangor, iaitu RM617,000.
Saya juga telah menyemak lokasi ini dan saya mendapati ianya terletak berhampiran dengan bandar Kuala Selangor dan jaraknya di antara Taman Malawati Jaya dengan Gedung Pasaraya Teso Kuala Selangor hanya lebih kurang 2km sahaja.
Oleh itu, saya tidak begitu mengerti rasionalnya untuk menjual rumah ini dengan potongan harga yang begitu tinggi. Saya menggesa kerajaan untuk menjalankan siasatan seperti yang berikut:
1. Adakah Jabatan Audit Negara telah mengaudit transaksi ini?
2. Bilakah dan siapakah yang memutus untuk memberi diskaun yang begitu tinggi? Apakah rasional di sebalik keputusan ini?
3. Siapakah pembeli-pembeli rumah ini?
4. Sekiranya didapati terdapat elemen-elemen penyalahgunaan kuasa, apakah kuasa atau tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor terhadap mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab?
Motion on Malpractices #1 - Dengkil land deal
Ucapan pencadang oleh ADUN Kampung Tunku, Lau Weng San semasa mambahas Usul di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3) oleh ADN Hulu Kelang pada:
Saya selaku ADUN Kampung Tunku dengan ini turut membahas satu usul yang dibawa oleh ADUN Hulu Kelang di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3), di mana usul adalah seperti yang berikut:
“Bahawa Dewan ini menarik perhatian terhadap kecuaian pengurusan KDEB/KHSB dalam membuat keputusan untuk membangunkan tanah seluar 9.554 ekar milik KDEB/KHSB di HS(D) 18264 PT No. 32547 Mukim Dengkil Daerah Sepang kepada pihak ketiga dengan hanya menerima bayaran sejumlah RM4,154,849.40 tanpa mengambil kira peruntukan jumlah premium yang akan ditanggung oleh KHSB dan dengan hanya mendapat pulangan sebanyak RM37,026.40 atau RM3,875.81 seekar di tanah berlokasi amat strategik.
“Bahawa dengan ini Dewan yang mulia ini menggesa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk mewujudkan satu badan bebas di bawah Kerajaan bagi menjalankan penyiasatan dan membentangkan siasatan ke Sidang Dewan Negeri.”
Tuan Speaker,
Saya telah mambuat sedikit siasatan melalui internet dan saya telah membandingkan harga jualan tanah milik KDEB ini dengan sebidang tanah yang dmiliki oleh pihak lain.
Perbezaan harga jualan antara kedua-dua bidang tanah ini ialah RM5/kaki persegi, iaitu tanah yang dimilliki oleh KDEB ini dibangunkan dengan harga pulangannya lebih rendah daripada harga yang sepatutnya sebanyak RM5/sekaki.
Jikalau kita back-calculate, maka nilai yang sepatutnya diterima oleh KDEB/KHSB ialah RM6,159,349.10 iaitu sekurang-kurangnya RM6juta.
Kampung Tunku dengan ini menyokong usul ini dan meminta Kerajaan Negeri untuk tidak memandang remeh terhadap aduan yang dikemukakan ke Dewan yang mulia ini. Sememangnya, tanah merupakan aset yang paling penting untuk kerajaan negeri dan kita tidak boleh sekalipun membiarkan harta rakyat yang berharga ini disalahgunakan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu untuk kepentingan sendiri.
Biarpun kerajaan negeri masih perlu menyiasat dan mengesahkan aduan ini, tetapi saya mengucapkan syabas kepada Yang Berhormat Hulu Kelang kerana membangkitkan usul ini kerana usul ini membuktikan bahawa Pakatan Rakyat menentang penyalahgunaan kuasa, kronisme dan nepotisme dan kita tidak sekalipun berundur walaupun yang dituduh melibatkan pegawai atau syarikat kerajaan negeri yang diterajui oleh Pakatan Rakyat.
Saya menggesa kerajaan untuk menjalankan siasatan seperti yang berikut:
1. Adakah Jabatan Audit Negara telah mengaudit transaksi ini?
2. Bilakah dan siapakah yang membuat keputusan membangunkan tanah ini dengan pulangan yang lebih rendah daripada harga pasaran?
3. Apakah rasional di sebalik keputusan ini?
4. Adakah kawasan ini terletak berhampiran dengan Lapangan Terbang Antarabngsa Kuala Lumpur? Jika ya, maka saya meminta supaya satu siasatan dijalankan terhadap potensi tanah serta jangkaan pulangan maksimum yang boleh diperolehi?
5. Sekiranya didapati terdapat elemen-elemen penyalahgunaan kuasa, apakah kuasa atau tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor terhadap mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab?
Saya selaku ADUN Kampung Tunku dengan ini turut membahas satu usul yang dibawa oleh ADUN Hulu Kelang di bawah Peraturan Tetap 27(3), di mana usul adalah seperti yang berikut:
“Bahawa Dewan ini menarik perhatian terhadap kecuaian pengurusan KDEB/KHSB dalam membuat keputusan untuk membangunkan tanah seluar 9.554 ekar milik KDEB/KHSB di HS(D) 18264 PT No. 32547 Mukim Dengkil Daerah Sepang kepada pihak ketiga dengan hanya menerima bayaran sejumlah RM4,154,849.40 tanpa mengambil kira peruntukan jumlah premium yang akan ditanggung oleh KHSB dan dengan hanya mendapat pulangan sebanyak RM37,026.40 atau RM3,875.81 seekar di tanah berlokasi amat strategik.
“Bahawa dengan ini Dewan yang mulia ini menggesa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor untuk mewujudkan satu badan bebas di bawah Kerajaan bagi menjalankan penyiasatan dan membentangkan siasatan ke Sidang Dewan Negeri.”
Tuan Speaker,
Saya telah mambuat sedikit siasatan melalui internet dan saya telah membandingkan harga jualan tanah milik KDEB ini dengan sebidang tanah yang dmiliki oleh pihak lain.
Perbezaan harga jualan antara kedua-dua bidang tanah ini ialah RM5/kaki persegi, iaitu tanah yang dimilliki oleh KDEB ini dibangunkan dengan harga pulangannya lebih rendah daripada harga yang sepatutnya sebanyak RM5/sekaki.
Jikalau kita back-calculate, maka nilai yang sepatutnya diterima oleh KDEB/KHSB ialah RM6,159,349.10 iaitu sekurang-kurangnya RM6juta.
Kampung Tunku dengan ini menyokong usul ini dan meminta Kerajaan Negeri untuk tidak memandang remeh terhadap aduan yang dikemukakan ke Dewan yang mulia ini. Sememangnya, tanah merupakan aset yang paling penting untuk kerajaan negeri dan kita tidak boleh sekalipun membiarkan harta rakyat yang berharga ini disalahgunakan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu untuk kepentingan sendiri.
Biarpun kerajaan negeri masih perlu menyiasat dan mengesahkan aduan ini, tetapi saya mengucapkan syabas kepada Yang Berhormat Hulu Kelang kerana membangkitkan usul ini kerana usul ini membuktikan bahawa Pakatan Rakyat menentang penyalahgunaan kuasa, kronisme dan nepotisme dan kita tidak sekalipun berundur walaupun yang dituduh melibatkan pegawai atau syarikat kerajaan negeri yang diterajui oleh Pakatan Rakyat.
Saya menggesa kerajaan untuk menjalankan siasatan seperti yang berikut:
1. Adakah Jabatan Audit Negara telah mengaudit transaksi ini?
2. Bilakah dan siapakah yang membuat keputusan membangunkan tanah ini dengan pulangan yang lebih rendah daripada harga pasaran?
3. Apakah rasional di sebalik keputusan ini?
4. Adakah kawasan ini terletak berhampiran dengan Lapangan Terbang Antarabngsa Kuala Lumpur? Jika ya, maka saya meminta supaya satu siasatan dijalankan terhadap potensi tanah serta jangkaan pulangan maksimum yang boleh diperolehi?
5. Sekiranya didapati terdapat elemen-elemen penyalahgunaan kuasa, apakah kuasa atau tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor terhadap mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab?
大臣：盼收集逾10万户‧雪发动签名促“还水予民”
《星洲日报》雪隆 2010-11-14 15:19
雪州“未来主人翁”向州政府表达要“还水予民”的意愿，后排左一起为查尔斯、卡立、郭素沁及刘天球。（图：星洲日报）
（雪兰莪‧巴生13日讯）雪州大臣丹斯里卡立表示，雪州若继续让雪州水供公司（Syabas）管水，雪州水价一定会再调涨；因此雪州政府极力要求重组水供工业，並把水供管理权交回给州政府是势在必行之事！
他说，只要州政府成功取回水供管理权，届时州政府则可控制水价並保持在合理价格水平，並且能为雪州子民提供更有品质的水源。
他今日出席“还水予民”运动主持推介礼时指出，雪州政府早前向中央政府提出的收购雪州水供工业的价格与条件是合理的，而且符合2006年水供法令，惟却遭中央驳回。
30日截止12月呈备忘录
“为了雪州子民的利益，雪州政府决定发起签名运动，誓要中央政府‘还水予民’，目標暂定至少要收集到超过10万户人的签署，截止日期为本月30日。”
他表示，州政府会於12月5日提呈这份备忘录，並到国家回教堂展开大游行，拉大队步行到皇宫，向中央政府反映民声，表达要重组雪州水供工业的意愿，对国阵政府施压。
雪苏丹拒出席开销大宴会对州机构是“好教训”
卡立说，雪州苏丹沙拉弗丁因雪州基金会40週年庆宴会开销预算超过30万令吉而拒绝出席的举动，对雪州各政府机构来说，是一个“好教训”。
“殿下要提醒大家，凡事都勿过於劳民伤財，更不要做无谓的浪费，应把钱花在正当的用途上。”
他表示，基於殿下不赞成该基金会铺张和奢侈的做法，进而拒绝出席宴会，他已促该基金会取消相关宴会。
出席者包括巴生区国会议员查尔斯、雪州高级行政议员郭素沁及雪州行政议员刘天球等。
星洲日报／大都会‧2010.11.13
Saturday, November 13, 2010
KEMBALIKAN HAK AIR KEPADA RAKYAT!
Bermula tahun 1997, kerajaan BN telah menswastakan syarikat-syarikat air di Selangor.Sejak ini, Syabas dan syarikat-syarikat lain telah merugikan ratusan juta duit rakyat.
Kerajaan negeri Selangor yang diterajui Pakatan Rakyat kini ingin mengembalikan pengawalan syarikat-syarikat air ini kepada tangan rakyat.
Pelan Syabas:
Tahun | Kenaikkan Tarif |
2009 | 37% |
2012 | 25% |
2015 | 20% |
- Laporan audit terhadap SYABAS menunjukkan bahawa lebih daripada 72% kontrak bernilai RM 600 juta diberikan kepada syarikat-syarikat yang dipilih melalui rundingan terus dan tanpa tender terbuka.
- RM 325 juta ‘hilang’ apabila perbandingan teliti dibuat antara kontrak yang dianugerahkan dari 2005 hingga 2007 dan akaun awam Syabas.
- Pada Jun 2005, SYABAS melanggar perjanjian dengan menggunakan paip yang diimport daripada Indonesia bernilai RM 375 juta. Syarikat Indonesia tersebut dimiliki oleh Tan Sri Rozali Ismail, CEO Syabas. Gaji beliau adalah RM 5.1 juta setahun atau RM 425,000 sebulan.
- RM 51.2 juta dibelanja untuk mengubah-suai pejabat SYABAS sedangkan Jabatan Kawalselia Air Selangor (JKAS) hanya meluluskan sebanyak RM23.2 juta.
- Setelah kerajaan Selangor menghentikan Syabas dari menaikkan tarif air dengan mendadak, Syabas kini berhasrat menyaman Selangor untuk pampasan sebanyak RM 1 billion.
Pelan Selangor:
Tahun | Kenaikkan Tarif |
2009 | 12% |
2012 | 12% |
2015 | 12% |
Apakah pelan Selangor?
- Kerajaan negeri Selangor yang kini diterajui oleh Pakatan Rakyat berhasrat membeli balik konsesi air demi menjamin hak rakyat untuk mendapat air yang mencukupi pada harga yang berpatutan.
- Aset awam seperti air harus dikendalikan oleh kerajaan yang berjiwa rakyat, bukan Syarikat yang hanya pentingkan keuntungan.
- Empat syarikat swasta air akan dibeli balik dan diletak dalam satu badan di mana rawatan dan agihan air akan dilakukan oleh satu pengendali tunggal. Ini akan meningkatkan kecekapan dan mengurangkan tarif air kerana tiada isu "kos pemindahan".
- Penekanan terhadap integriti dan ketelusan - seperti yang termaktub dalam Enakmen Kebebasan Maklumat yang diperkenalkan oleh kerajaan Selangor - akan mengelakkan dari sistem yang hanya menguntungkan kroni dan merugikan rakyat.
- Dengan sokongan rakyat yang mencukupi, kerajaan Selangor akan mampu mendapat balik kawalan syarikat-syarikat air demi rakyat, menekankan integriti dan ketelusan, dan memastikan akses air yang mencukupi dengan harga yang berpatutan untuk semua lapisan rakyat.
Pilihan di tangan anda!
Pertahankan Hak Rakyat Untuk Dapat Air Bersih & Murah
Beri sokongan anda kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dengan menghadiri perhimpunan penyampaian memorandum kepada DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada 5 Disember, 2010 di Masjid Negara Kuala Lumpur.
Pengurusan Perkhidmatan Air akan lebih terjamin di bawah kelolaan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor.
Kembalikan Hak Air Kepada Rakyat!
Pertahankan Hak Rakyat Untuk Dapat Air Bersih & Murah
Beri sokongan anda kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dengan menghadiri perhimpunan penyampaian memorandum kepada DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada 5 Disember, 2010 di Masjid Negara Kuala Lumpur.
Pengurusan Perkhidmatan Air akan lebih terjamin di bawah kelolaan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor.
Kembalikan Hak Air Kepada Rakyat!
Friday, November 12, 2010
The role of the Speaker
[Another interesting article from BBC website]
The Speaker presides over the House of Commons and is responsible for keeping order during debates and ensuring that the rules of the House are obeyed.
The Speaker must always act impartially and protect the right of all MPs to speak during debates. He or she does not take part in debates and votes only if there is a tie and a casting vote is needed.
The Speaker also represents, or speaks for, the House of Commons in its dealings with the monarch and has the responsibility for maintaining the dignity and privileges of the Commons.
Elected by all members of the House of Commons, the Speaker is a respected senior MP. Once elected, however, the Speaker ceases to represent any political party.
Traditionally, in the event of a general election, the Speaker's seat is not contested - though Betty Boothroyd was opposed by two minor parties in 1997.
Ancient title
The Speakership dates back under its present title to 1377, when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed.
Equivalent presiding officers before this time were called parlour or prolocutor, and existed as far back as 1258, when Peter de Montfort is said to have presided over the "Mad Parliament" held at Oxford.
The Speaker acts as chairman during debates, and sees that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying on of its business are observed.
In recent years Speakers have tended to have three spells in the chair: 1430 to 1630, 1830 to 1930, and a period near the end of the day. For the rest of the time, one of the deputies will preside.
Reprimands offenders
It is the Speaker who selects members to speak. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies, the House of Lords and the Crown.
It is also the Speaker who reprimands any offender brought to the Bar of the House.
The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House.
The Speaker must preserve order in the House.
For instance, an MP who makes an allegation against another member, or uses language which the rules do not permit, may be ordered to withdraw the remark concerned.
In the case of serious general disorder, the sitting may have to be suspended.
In the event of disobedience by an MP, the Speaker can "name" him or her, which will result in their suspension from the House.
Speaker's House
The Speaker has an official residence at the Westminster Bridge end of the Palace of Westminster.
From here begins a formal procession before every sitting of the House, via the Library Corridor, the Lower Waiting Hall, Central and Members' Lobbies to the Chamber.
The Speaker is preceded in the procession by a Bar Doorkeeper and the Serjeant at Arms with the Mace, and followed by the Chaplain, Secretary and Trainbearer.
Black silk robe
On normal sitting days, the Speaker wears a black cloth court suit with linen bands, over which is worn a black silk robe with train.
Betty Boothroyd decided against wearing the full-bottomed wig used by her predecessors.
On state occasions, such as the opening of parliament, he or she wears a robe of black satin damask trimmed with gold, with a lace jabot at the neck and with lace frills at the sleeves.
The Speaker is paid a salary similar to that of cabinet ministers.
The Speaker presides over the House of Commons and is responsible for keeping order during debates and ensuring that the rules of the House are obeyed.
The Speaker must always act impartially and protect the right of all MPs to speak during debates. He or she does not take part in debates and votes only if there is a tie and a casting vote is needed.
The Speaker also represents, or speaks for, the House of Commons in its dealings with the monarch and has the responsibility for maintaining the dignity and privileges of the Commons.
Elected by all members of the House of Commons, the Speaker is a respected senior MP. Once elected, however, the Speaker ceases to represent any political party.
Traditionally, in the event of a general election, the Speaker's seat is not contested - though Betty Boothroyd was opposed by two minor parties in 1997.
Ancient title
The Speakership dates back under its present title to 1377, when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed.
Equivalent presiding officers before this time were called parlour or prolocutor, and existed as far back as 1258, when Peter de Montfort is said to have presided over the "Mad Parliament" held at Oxford.
The Speaker acts as chairman during debates, and sees that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying on of its business are observed.
In recent years Speakers have tended to have three spells in the chair: 1430 to 1630, 1830 to 1930, and a period near the end of the day. For the rest of the time, one of the deputies will preside.
Reprimands offenders
It is the Speaker who selects members to speak. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies, the House of Lords and the Crown.
It is also the Speaker who reprimands any offender brought to the Bar of the House.
The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House.
The Speaker must preserve order in the House.
For instance, an MP who makes an allegation against another member, or uses language which the rules do not permit, may be ordered to withdraw the remark concerned.
In the case of serious general disorder, the sitting may have to be suspended.
In the event of disobedience by an MP, the Speaker can "name" him or her, which will result in their suspension from the House.
Speaker's House
The Speaker has an official residence at the Westminster Bridge end of the Palace of Westminster.
From here begins a formal procession before every sitting of the House, via the Library Corridor, the Lower Waiting Hall, Central and Members' Lobbies to the Chamber.
The Speaker is preceded in the procession by a Bar Doorkeeper and the Serjeant at Arms with the Mace, and followed by the Chaplain, Secretary and Trainbearer.
Black silk robe
On normal sitting days, the Speaker wears a black cloth court suit with linen bands, over which is worn a black silk robe with train.
Betty Boothroyd decided against wearing the full-bottomed wig used by her predecessors.
On state occasions, such as the opening of parliament, he or she wears a robe of black satin damask trimmed with gold, with a lace jabot at the neck and with lace frills at the sleeves.
The Speaker is paid a salary similar to that of cabinet ministers.
The Speaker
[An interesting article from UK Parliament Website]
The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons chamber. The holder of this office is an MP who has been elected to be Speaker by other Members of Parliament. During debates they keep order and call MPs to speak.
The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times. The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The current Speaker is John Bercow, MP for Buckingham.
Chairing debates in the House of Commons
The Speaker is perhaps best known as the person who keeps order and calls MPs to speak during Commons debates.
The Speaker calls MPs in turn to give their opinion on an issue. MPs signal that they want to speak by standing up from their seat (a custom known as 'catching the Speaker's eye') or they can notify the Speaker in advance by writing.
The Speaker has full authority to make sure MPs follow the rules of the House during debates. This can include:
John Bercow was elected House of Commons Speaker on 22 June 2009.
The Speaker was elected using an exhaustive secret ballot system, the first time this procedure had been used for the election of a Speaker.
The process is as follows:
Politically impartial
Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP.
Speakers and general elections
Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the Speaker seeking re-election'.
When was the current Speaker elected?
The election of Speaker Bercow took place on 22 June 2009.
The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons chamber. The holder of this office is an MP who has been elected to be Speaker by other Members of Parliament. During debates they keep order and call MPs to speak.
The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times. The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The current Speaker is John Bercow, MP for Buckingham.
Chairing debates in the House of Commons
The Speaker is perhaps best known as the person who keeps order and calls MPs to speak during Commons debates.
The Speaker calls MPs in turn to give their opinion on an issue. MPs signal that they want to speak by standing up from their seat (a custom known as 'catching the Speaker's eye') or they can notify the Speaker in advance by writing.
The Speaker has full authority to make sure MPs follow the rules of the House during debates. This can include:
- directing an MP to withdraw remarks if, for example, they use abusive language
- suspending the sitting of the House due to serious disorder
- suspending MPs who are deliberately disobedient - known as naming
- asking MPs to be quiet so Members can be heard
John Bercow was elected House of Commons Speaker on 22 June 2009.
The Speaker was elected using an exhaustive secret ballot system, the first time this procedure had been used for the election of a Speaker.
The process is as follows:
- MPs are given a list of candidates and place an x next to the candidate of their choice
- if a candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the votes, the question is put to the House that he or she takes the chair as Speaker
- if no candidate does so, the candidate with the fewest votes, and those with less than five per cent of the vote, are eliminated
- in addition, any candidate may withdraw within 10 minutes of the announcement of the result of a ballot
- MPs then vote again on the reduced slate of candidates and continue doing so until one candidate receives more than half the votes
Politically impartial
Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP.
Speakers and general elections
Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the Speaker seeking re-election'.
Frequently Asked Questions: Speaker's Election
The election of Speaker Bercow took place on 22 June 2009.
What happened on that day?
- Nominations were formally tabled between 9:30 and 10:30am.
- In the absence of a Speaker the Father of the House (Rt Hon Alan Williams MP, Swansea West, elected 1964) took the chair and presided over proceedings of the House.
- After the business began at 2:30pm, each candidate had a chance to address the House. The order of candidates speaking was chosen by the Father of the House by drawing lots earlier in the day.
- All MPs were then able to vote for their preferred candidate by secret ballot. As no candidate achieved over half the vote there were further rounds of voting.
- For following rounds, any candidates who achieved less than 5% of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes and any candidates who chose to withdraw from the election were removed from the ballot paper. This continued until one candidate achieved over half of the votes cast or only one candidate remained.
- A motion was put before the House proposing the successful candidate as Speaker.
- When the question was agreed, the Member then took the Chair as Speaker-elect. Traditionally he is pulled ‘reluctantly’ to the chair.
- The Speaker-elect goes to the House of Lords to receive the Queen’s approbation from a Royal Commission.
How long does the process take?
The time taken to get a candidate with the support of half of the votes cast in a ballot will depend on how many candidates present themselves for the position. There may be several rounds of voting each of which may take up to two hours. At the election of Speaker Bercow proceedings started at 2.30pm and there were three rounds of voting with the Speaker-elect taking the chair at 8.30pm.
Was this the first time the Speaker has been elected?
No, the election of a Speaker takes place at the beginning of every Parliament and every time a Speaker steps down from the post. The timetable and procedure for the election of a Speaker are set out in Standing Orders 1, 1A and 1B. Standing order 1A has been used before in the re-election of the Speaker in 2001 and 2005, but this is the first time the system of exhaustive secret ballot introduced in 2001 and set out in Standing Order No. 1B will have been used to elect a new Speaker.
What is different from the old system to elect a Speaker?
The old system was based on a motion put to the House. In the motion, one candidate would be proposed as Speaker and the other candidates would be presented as successive amendments to the main motion. One key change in the new system is the introduction of an exhaustive secret ballot system. Each MP will be able to vote for their candidate without anyone else knowing who they voted for. The new system will also allow MPs to vote for any of the candidates on the first ballot.
Why was the system changed?
The old system put an emphasis on the candidate who would be proposed first to the House and this provided the Father of the House with a difficult decision. The system also meant that it was possible for candidates to be presented as later amendments to the first name not to be considered at all by the House, as an earlier candidate might win before they were reached. The new system was adopted by the House following recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in a report published in 2000-01.
The time taken to get a candidate with the support of half of the votes cast in a ballot will depend on how many candidates present themselves for the position. There may be several rounds of voting each of which may take up to two hours. At the election of Speaker Bercow proceedings started at 2.30pm and there were three rounds of voting with the Speaker-elect taking the chair at 8.30pm.
Was this the first time the Speaker has been elected?
No, the election of a Speaker takes place at the beginning of every Parliament and every time a Speaker steps down from the post. The timetable and procedure for the election of a Speaker are set out in Standing Orders 1, 1A and 1B. Standing order 1A has been used before in the re-election of the Speaker in 2001 and 2005, but this is the first time the system of exhaustive secret ballot introduced in 2001 and set out in Standing Order No. 1B will have been used to elect a new Speaker.
What is different from the old system to elect a Speaker?
The old system was based on a motion put to the House. In the motion, one candidate would be proposed as Speaker and the other candidates would be presented as successive amendments to the main motion. One key change in the new system is the introduction of an exhaustive secret ballot system. Each MP will be able to vote for their candidate without anyone else knowing who they voted for. The new system will also allow MPs to vote for any of the candidates on the first ballot.
Why was the system changed?
The old system put an emphasis on the candidate who would be proposed first to the House and this provided the Father of the House with a difficult decision. The system also meant that it was possible for candidates to be presented as later amendments to the first name not to be considered at all by the House, as an earlier candidate might win before they were reached. The new system was adopted by the House following recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in a report published in 2000-01.
Escaping the middle-income trap
Posted by Michael Schuman The Curious Capitalist Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 12:49 am TIME
Read more here
Read more here
I returned a few days ago from Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, where the talk of the town – well, at least among economists -- is the “middle-income trap.” What's that, you ask? A developing nation gets “trapped” when it reaches a certain, relatively comfortable level of income but can't seem to take that next big jump into the true big leagues of the world economy, with per capita wealth to match. Every go-go economy in Asia has confronted this “trap,” or is dealing with it now. Breaking out of it, however, is extremely difficult. The reason is that escaping the “trap” requires an entire overhaul of the economic growth model most often used by emerging economies.
Malaysia's caught in the “trap” right now, and getting out if is going to be tough. Simply put, Malaysia needs to change what it has been doing economically for the past 40 years. How Malaysia got itself into the “trap,” and how it could escape from it, can provide us with some valuable lessons on development and, more specifically, how developing nations can graduate into becoming fully advanced economies.
The concept behind the “middle-income trap” is quite simple: It's easier to rise from a low-income to a middle-income economy than it is to jump from a middle-income to a high-income economy. That's because when you're really poor, you can use your poverty to your advantage. Cheap wages makes a low-income economy competitive in labor-intensive manufacturing (apparel, shoes and toys, for example). Factories sprout up, creating jobs and increasing incomes. Every rapid-growth economy in Asia jumpstarted its famed gains in human welfare in this way, including Malaysia.
However, that growth model eventually runs out of steam. As incomes increase, so do costs, undermining the competitiveness of the old, low-tech manufacturing industries. Countries (like Malaysia) then move “up the value chain,” into exports of more technologically advanced products, like electronics. But even that's not enough to avoid the “trap.” To get to that next level – that high-income level – an economy needs to do more than just make stuff by throwing people and money into factories. The economy has to innovate and use labor and capital more productively. That requires an entirely different way of doing business. Instead of just assembling products designed by others, with imported technology, companies must invest more heavily in R&D on their own and employ highly educated and skilled workers to turn those investments into new products and profits. It is a very, very hard shift to achieve. Thus the “trap.”
South Korea is probably the best current example of a developing economy making the leap into the realm of the most advanced. Companies like Samsung and LG are becoming true leaders in their fields. Taiwan isn't far behind. China's policymakers are fully aware that, with labor costs rising, it needs to follow suit.
Malaysia, though, is quite far from where it wants to be. That's a bit surprising based on its remarkable recent history. Malaysia has been among the best performing economies in the world since World War II, one of only 13 to record an average growth rate of 7% over at least a 25-year period. The country has an amazing record of improving human welfare. In 1970, some 50% of Malaysians lived in absolute poverty; now less than 4% do. Yet Malaysians also feel that they've become somewhat stuck where they are. GDP growth has slowed up, from an annual average of 9.1% between 1990 and 1997 to 5.5% from 2000 and 2008. Meanwhile, other Asian economies have zipped by Malaysia. According to the World Bank, the per capita gross national income (GNI) of South Korea in 1970 was below that of Malaysia ($260 versus $380), but by 2009, South Korea's was almost three times larger than Malaysia's ($21,530 versus $6,760). Malaysia is getting “trapped” as a relatively prosperous but still middle-income nation.
Can Malaysia escape? The initial indications are not encouraging. The economy's growth engine remains unchanged – export-oriented manufacturing backed by foreign investment. Its companies are just not innovating or adding much value to what they produce. You can find all of the ugly details in a very thorough study by the World Bank, released in April. Private investment has sunk precipitously, from more than a third of GDP in the mid-1990s to only some 10% today. Labor productivity is growing more slowly than in the 1990s. The “value-added” in manufacturing in Malaysia trails many of its neighbors – an indication that Malaysian factories are mainly assembling goods designed elsewhere. R&D spending remains frighteningly low, at about 0.6% of GDP (compared to 3.5% in South Korea). If Malaysia is going to break the “trap,” it has to reverse all of these trends.
How can Malaysia achieve that? The World Bank report has pages of recommendations. The basics include slicing apart the bureaucratic red tape that stifles competition and suppresses investment, bolstering the education system so it can churn out more top-notch graduates, and funneling more financial resources to start-ups and other potentially innovative firms. To its credit, the government of Malaysia is fully aware of what it needs to do. In March, Prime Minister Najib Razak introduced a reform program called the New Economic Model. You can read the initial report here. The NEM shows that Najib realizes that excessive government interference in the economy is dampening investor sentiment and holding back Malaysian industry. All eyes now are waiting for the more detailed policy recommendations for the NEM (though it is not clear when those might appear).
Yet I'm wondering if getting policy right is really enough. Of course, it would help, by setting in place better incentives for private businessmen to invest in innovative projects, and creating the tools they need to make those projects work. But I don't think that's the whole story. I've been musing on the differences between South Korea and Malaysia. Why has Korea jumped so far ahead? I think the reason is embedded in the different methods the two countries used to spur rapid growth.
Both countries relied exports to create rapid gains in income, but they did so differently. South Korea, from its earliest days of export-led development in the mid-1960s, had been determined to create homegrown, internationally competitive industries. Though Korean firms supplied big multinationals with components or even entire products, that was never enough – Korea wanted to manufacture its own products under its own brands. The effort was often a painful one – remember Hyundai's first disastrous foray into the U.S. car market in the late 1980s and early 1990s – but Korea is where it is today because its private companies have been working on getting there for a very long time, backed in full by the financial sector and the government.
Malaysia, on the other hand, relied much, much more on foreign investment to drive industrialization. That's not a bad thing – multinational companies provide an instant shot of capital, jobs, expertise and technology into a poor country. MNCs, however, aren't going to develop Malaysian products; that has to take place in the labs and offices of Malaysia's private businesses. But those businessmen have been content to squeeze profits from serving MNCs and maintaining their original, assembly-based business models.
In other words, what is needed for Malaysia to break from the “middle-income trap” is a greater national commitment to innovate on its own. Entrepreneurs and bankers have to be willing to take more risks to support inventive ventures and new technologies. Talented workers have to be willing to take jobs at home instead of Silicon Valley. The Malaysian private sector has to be more devoted to the country's future. This is fuzzy stuff, outside of the realm of usual economics. But I fear the kind of commitment needed to escape the “trap” unfortunately can't be created by government initiatives alone.
Malaysia's caught in the “trap” right now, and getting out if is going to be tough. Simply put, Malaysia needs to change what it has been doing economically for the past 40 years. How Malaysia got itself into the “trap,” and how it could escape from it, can provide us with some valuable lessons on development and, more specifically, how developing nations can graduate into becoming fully advanced economies.
The concept behind the “middle-income trap” is quite simple: It's easier to rise from a low-income to a middle-income economy than it is to jump from a middle-income to a high-income economy. That's because when you're really poor, you can use your poverty to your advantage. Cheap wages makes a low-income economy competitive in labor-intensive manufacturing (apparel, shoes and toys, for example). Factories sprout up, creating jobs and increasing incomes. Every rapid-growth economy in Asia jumpstarted its famed gains in human welfare in this way, including Malaysia.
However, that growth model eventually runs out of steam. As incomes increase, so do costs, undermining the competitiveness of the old, low-tech manufacturing industries. Countries (like Malaysia) then move “up the value chain,” into exports of more technologically advanced products, like electronics. But even that's not enough to avoid the “trap.” To get to that next level – that high-income level – an economy needs to do more than just make stuff by throwing people and money into factories. The economy has to innovate and use labor and capital more productively. That requires an entirely different way of doing business. Instead of just assembling products designed by others, with imported technology, companies must invest more heavily in R&D on their own and employ highly educated and skilled workers to turn those investments into new products and profits. It is a very, very hard shift to achieve. Thus the “trap.”
South Korea is probably the best current example of a developing economy making the leap into the realm of the most advanced. Companies like Samsung and LG are becoming true leaders in their fields. Taiwan isn't far behind. China's policymakers are fully aware that, with labor costs rising, it needs to follow suit.
Malaysia, though, is quite far from where it wants to be. That's a bit surprising based on its remarkable recent history. Malaysia has been among the best performing economies in the world since World War II, one of only 13 to record an average growth rate of 7% over at least a 25-year period. The country has an amazing record of improving human welfare. In 1970, some 50% of Malaysians lived in absolute poverty; now less than 4% do. Yet Malaysians also feel that they've become somewhat stuck where they are. GDP growth has slowed up, from an annual average of 9.1% between 1990 and 1997 to 5.5% from 2000 and 2008. Meanwhile, other Asian economies have zipped by Malaysia. According to the World Bank, the per capita gross national income (GNI) of South Korea in 1970 was below that of Malaysia ($260 versus $380), but by 2009, South Korea's was almost three times larger than Malaysia's ($21,530 versus $6,760). Malaysia is getting “trapped” as a relatively prosperous but still middle-income nation.
Can Malaysia escape? The initial indications are not encouraging. The economy's growth engine remains unchanged – export-oriented manufacturing backed by foreign investment. Its companies are just not innovating or adding much value to what they produce. You can find all of the ugly details in a very thorough study by the World Bank, released in April. Private investment has sunk precipitously, from more than a third of GDP in the mid-1990s to only some 10% today. Labor productivity is growing more slowly than in the 1990s. The “value-added” in manufacturing in Malaysia trails many of its neighbors – an indication that Malaysian factories are mainly assembling goods designed elsewhere. R&D spending remains frighteningly low, at about 0.6% of GDP (compared to 3.5% in South Korea). If Malaysia is going to break the “trap,” it has to reverse all of these trends.
How can Malaysia achieve that? The World Bank report has pages of recommendations. The basics include slicing apart the bureaucratic red tape that stifles competition and suppresses investment, bolstering the education system so it can churn out more top-notch graduates, and funneling more financial resources to start-ups and other potentially innovative firms. To its credit, the government of Malaysia is fully aware of what it needs to do. In March, Prime Minister Najib Razak introduced a reform program called the New Economic Model. You can read the initial report here. The NEM shows that Najib realizes that excessive government interference in the economy is dampening investor sentiment and holding back Malaysian industry. All eyes now are waiting for the more detailed policy recommendations for the NEM (though it is not clear when those might appear).
Yet I'm wondering if getting policy right is really enough. Of course, it would help, by setting in place better incentives for private businessmen to invest in innovative projects, and creating the tools they need to make those projects work. But I don't think that's the whole story. I've been musing on the differences between South Korea and Malaysia. Why has Korea jumped so far ahead? I think the reason is embedded in the different methods the two countries used to spur rapid growth.
Both countries relied exports to create rapid gains in income, but they did so differently. South Korea, from its earliest days of export-led development in the mid-1960s, had been determined to create homegrown, internationally competitive industries. Though Korean firms supplied big multinationals with components or even entire products, that was never enough – Korea wanted to manufacture its own products under its own brands. The effort was often a painful one – remember Hyundai's first disastrous foray into the U.S. car market in the late 1980s and early 1990s – but Korea is where it is today because its private companies have been working on getting there for a very long time, backed in full by the financial sector and the government.
Malaysia, on the other hand, relied much, much more on foreign investment to drive industrialization. That's not a bad thing – multinational companies provide an instant shot of capital, jobs, expertise and technology into a poor country. MNCs, however, aren't going to develop Malaysian products; that has to take place in the labs and offices of Malaysia's private businesses. But those businessmen have been content to squeeze profits from serving MNCs and maintaining their original, assembly-based business models.
In other words, what is needed for Malaysia to break from the “middle-income trap” is a greater national commitment to innovate on its own. Entrepreneurs and bankers have to be willing to take more risks to support inventive ventures and new technologies. Talented workers have to be willing to take jobs at home instead of Silicon Valley. The Malaysian private sector has to be more devoted to the country's future. This is fuzzy stuff, outside of the realm of usual economics. But I fear the kind of commitment needed to escape the “trap” unfortunately can't be created by government initiatives alone.
Free Mammogram For 1 Million Women In Selangor
Do you know breast cancer is the most common form of cancer afflicting Malaysian women of all races. Breast cancer doesn’t discriminate - whether you’re Malay, Indian, Chinese or everything in-between.
Breast Cancer in Malaysia – the stark facts
* Breast cancer was the commonest overall cancer as well as the commonest cancer in women amongst all races from the age of 20 years in Malaysia for 2003 to 2005.
* Breast cancer is most common in the Chinese, followed by the Indians and then, Malays.
* Breast cancer formed 31.1% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women in 2003-2005.
* The Age Standardised Rate (ASR) of female breast cancer is 47.4 per 100,000 population (National Cancer Registry Report 2003-2005). Amongst the Chinese, it is higher at 59.9 per 100,000 population, for the Indians, the ASR is 54.2 per 100,000 and it is lowest in the Malays at 34.9 per 100,000 population.
* A woman in Malaysia has a 1 in 20 chance of getting breast cancer in her lifetime
* The cumulative life time risk of developing breast cancer for Chinese women, Indian women and Malay women were 1 in 16, 1 in 17 and 1 in 28 respectively.
* The peak incidence appeared to be 50-59 years old.
Over the years from 1993 to 2003, there were a total of 1818 breast cancer patients in the University Hospital. The number of breast cancer patients increased annually, with the highest recorded in 2003. This was 6 times the number of breast cancer patients in 1993.
Breast cancer is more common in Chinese women compared to Malay women. 2% of these patients were below 30 years of age. The majority of the cancer patients were in the 40-49 year age group when they were first diagnosed. However, this is NOT age-specific incidence but hospital incidence that could be influenced by the population it serves. Perhaps, there is a younger urban population or perhaps, the older folks prefer traditional/kampung treatment. 30-40% of the patients presented in the late stage and although women are now presenting with smaller tumours, the decrease in size is not significant. (Source: http://www.radiologymalaysia.org)
-----
The Selangor State Government launches a new scheme under its "Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor" to cater for the health of women.
The scheme is named as "1 million Healthy Selangor Women Campaign - Women Health Scheme" or "MammoSEL"
The State Government under its Women Affairs Standing Committee is providing free mammogram screening for ladies who are 40 years old or above.
For women residing in DUN Kampung Tunku, please call the ADUN's office for registration at 03-78754724. Members of the public can also call toll free hotline at 1300-800-800 for more information.
The program will be a monthly program in DUN Kampung Tunku on eveery 20th of each month. Transportation will be provided.
Breast Cancer in Malaysia – the stark facts
* Breast cancer was the commonest overall cancer as well as the commonest cancer in women amongst all races from the age of 20 years in Malaysia for 2003 to 2005.
* Breast cancer is most common in the Chinese, followed by the Indians and then, Malays.
* Breast cancer formed 31.1% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women in 2003-2005.
* The Age Standardised Rate (ASR) of female breast cancer is 47.4 per 100,000 population (National Cancer Registry Report 2003-2005). Amongst the Chinese, it is higher at 59.9 per 100,000 population, for the Indians, the ASR is 54.2 per 100,000 and it is lowest in the Malays at 34.9 per 100,000 population.
* A woman in Malaysia has a 1 in 20 chance of getting breast cancer in her lifetime
* The cumulative life time risk of developing breast cancer for Chinese women, Indian women and Malay women were 1 in 16, 1 in 17 and 1 in 28 respectively.
* The peak incidence appeared to be 50-59 years old.
Over the years from 1993 to 2003, there were a total of 1818 breast cancer patients in the University Hospital. The number of breast cancer patients increased annually, with the highest recorded in 2003. This was 6 times the number of breast cancer patients in 1993.
Breast cancer is more common in Chinese women compared to Malay women. 2% of these patients were below 30 years of age. The majority of the cancer patients were in the 40-49 year age group when they were first diagnosed. However, this is NOT age-specific incidence but hospital incidence that could be influenced by the population it serves. Perhaps, there is a younger urban population or perhaps, the older folks prefer traditional/kampung treatment. 30-40% of the patients presented in the late stage and although women are now presenting with smaller tumours, the decrease in size is not significant. (Source: http://www.radiologymalaysia.org)
-----
The Selangor State Government launches a new scheme under its "Merakyatkan Ekonomi Selangor" to cater for the health of women.
The scheme is named as "1 million Healthy Selangor Women Campaign - Women Health Scheme" or "MammoSEL"
The State Government under its Women Affairs Standing Committee is providing free mammogram screening for ladies who are 40 years old or above.
For women residing in DUN Kampung Tunku, please call the ADUN's office for registration at 03-78754724. Members of the public can also call toll free hotline at 1300-800-800 for more information.
The program will be a monthly program in DUN Kampung Tunku on eveery 20th of each month. Transportation will be provided.
Elizabeth Wong claims plastic bags are ‘massive’ environmental problem
By Boo Su-Lyn November 12, 2010
SHAH ALAM, Nov 12 — Selangor executive councillor Elizabeth Wong has defended the state government’s plastic bags policy by declaring it a “massive” environmental issue but provided little evidence of the severity of the problem in the state.
Scientists and international environmentalists have dismissed plastic bags as a non-issue, pointing out that anti-plastic bag campaigns are based on exaggerated claims and flawed science.
But Wong, a major proponent of the policy which has caused unhappiness among some voters in the state, said it was an issue of waste.
“It (plastic bag) is an issue of waste,” she told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.
“Waste is an environmental threat. It’s a massive environmental issue. When it (plastic bag) breaks down, it breaks down to dangerous particles,” she said, adding that plastic bottles and styrofoam also contributed to waste.
The state Tourism, Consumer Affairs and Environment Committee chairman, however, did not provide the percentage of plastic bags in the state’s total waste stream.
Selangor’s “No Plastic Bag Day” policy, which bans free plastic bags on Saturdays, has caused business declines, and annoyed voters who deride the ban as inconvenient and ultimately having little impact on the environment.
Hypermarkets and retail shops in the country’s wealthiest state say they have suffered business declines of up to 30 per cent on Saturdays since Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s administration implemented the policy across shopping malls, retail chains and hypermarkets, among others, in January this year.
Selangor charges 20 sen per plastic bag on Saturdays.
Wong, however, stressed that the state’s anti-plastic bag policy was not a form of token environmentalism as the state government also ran other environmental campaigns.
“That’s not the only thing the Selangor government is doing. There’s water, waste, rivers, protection of forests, transport. We’re also running a climate change policy,” said the Bukit Lanjan assemblywoman.
“We want to show people that if you change a little in consumer habits, it goes a long way,” she added.
Wong also said the state’s “No Plastic Bag Day” policy was run under the Consumer Affairs branch of her committee.
“I’m running this campaign under Consumer Affairs, not Environment,” she said.
During the state assembly sitting yesterday, Wong stressed that the government’s aim was to reduce usage of plastic bags, but not to eradicate it.
“We’re not running a campaign to ban, or stop the usage of plastic bags, but to show users that plastic bags have their value. It’s not free or gratis. The basis of plastic bags is petrochemical which is a limited resource,” she said.
On the Selangor government’s “No Plastic Bag Day” campaign website, plastic bags are blamed for the deaths of marine animals and for polluting rivers and beaches.
There is, however, little evidence that plastic bags pose a huge threat to the environment as the state government has made it out to be.
Scientists, politicians and marine experts have reportedly slammed the British government for joining a “bandwagon” based on flawed science, after then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in 2008 that he would force supermarkets to charge for plastic bags.
“This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything,” Sense about Science chairman Lord Taverne was quoted as saying in British daily The Times in 2008.
Experts have also reportedly dismissed widely stated claims that plastic bags kill 100,000 marine animals and a million seabirds every year.
This figure is reportedly based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets between 1981 and 1984. There was no mention of plastic bags in the study.
According to David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, evidence showed that few animals were killed by plastic bags.
“With larger mammals it’s fishing gear that’s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags,” he was quoted as saying in The Times.
The British daily also quoted Professor Geoff Boxshall, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, as saying: “I’ve never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag. Other forms of plastic in the ocean are much more damaging. Only a very small proportion is caused by bags.”
But Wong announced this week that Selangor would extend the anti-plastic bag policy by another day.
“It will be on Sunday... starting January next year,” she told The Malaysian Insider later.
The federal government has also decided to launch a “No Plastic Bag Day” campaign beginning January 2011, said Wong.
In Penang, the “No Plastic Bag Day” policy would be enforced every day starting from January 1 next year, said the state’s Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng recently when tabling the 2011 Budget at the state assembly.
The Penang ruling is already seeing opposition from the public.
SHAH ALAM, Nov 12 — Selangor executive councillor Elizabeth Wong has defended the state government’s plastic bags policy by declaring it a “massive” environmental issue but provided little evidence of the severity of the problem in the state.
Scientists and international environmentalists have dismissed plastic bags as a non-issue, pointing out that anti-plastic bag campaigns are based on exaggerated claims and flawed science.
But Wong, a major proponent of the policy which has caused unhappiness among some voters in the state, said it was an issue of waste.
“It (plastic bag) is an issue of waste,” she told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.
“Waste is an environmental threat. It’s a massive environmental issue. When it (plastic bag) breaks down, it breaks down to dangerous particles,” she said, adding that plastic bottles and styrofoam also contributed to waste.
The state Tourism, Consumer Affairs and Environment Committee chairman, however, did not provide the percentage of plastic bags in the state’s total waste stream.
Selangor’s “No Plastic Bag Day” policy, which bans free plastic bags on Saturdays, has caused business declines, and annoyed voters who deride the ban as inconvenient and ultimately having little impact on the environment.
Hypermarkets and retail shops in the country’s wealthiest state say they have suffered business declines of up to 30 per cent on Saturdays since Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s administration implemented the policy across shopping malls, retail chains and hypermarkets, among others, in January this year.
Selangor charges 20 sen per plastic bag on Saturdays.
Wong, however, stressed that the state’s anti-plastic bag policy was not a form of token environmentalism as the state government also ran other environmental campaigns.
“That’s not the only thing the Selangor government is doing. There’s water, waste, rivers, protection of forests, transport. We’re also running a climate change policy,” said the Bukit Lanjan assemblywoman.
“We want to show people that if you change a little in consumer habits, it goes a long way,” she added.
Wong also said the state’s “No Plastic Bag Day” policy was run under the Consumer Affairs branch of her committee.
“I’m running this campaign under Consumer Affairs, not Environment,” she said.
During the state assembly sitting yesterday, Wong stressed that the government’s aim was to reduce usage of plastic bags, but not to eradicate it.
“We’re not running a campaign to ban, or stop the usage of plastic bags, but to show users that plastic bags have their value. It’s not free or gratis. The basis of plastic bags is petrochemical which is a limited resource,” she said.
On the Selangor government’s “No Plastic Bag Day” campaign website, plastic bags are blamed for the deaths of marine animals and for polluting rivers and beaches.
There is, however, little evidence that plastic bags pose a huge threat to the environment as the state government has made it out to be.
Scientists, politicians and marine experts have reportedly slammed the British government for joining a “bandwagon” based on flawed science, after then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in 2008 that he would force supermarkets to charge for plastic bags.
“This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything,” Sense about Science chairman Lord Taverne was quoted as saying in British daily The Times in 2008.
Experts have also reportedly dismissed widely stated claims that plastic bags kill 100,000 marine animals and a million seabirds every year.
This figure is reportedly based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets between 1981 and 1984. There was no mention of plastic bags in the study.
According to David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, evidence showed that few animals were killed by plastic bags.
“With larger mammals it’s fishing gear that’s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags,” he was quoted as saying in The Times.
The British daily also quoted Professor Geoff Boxshall, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, as saying: “I’ve never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag. Other forms of plastic in the ocean are much more damaging. Only a very small proportion is caused by bags.”
But Wong announced this week that Selangor would extend the anti-plastic bag policy by another day.
“It will be on Sunday... starting January next year,” she told The Malaysian Insider later.
The federal government has also decided to launch a “No Plastic Bag Day” campaign beginning January 2011, said Wong.
In Penang, the “No Plastic Bag Day” policy would be enforced every day starting from January 1 next year, said the state’s Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng recently when tabling the 2011 Budget at the state assembly.
The Penang ruling is already seeing opposition from the public.
拆除蒲种兴都庙部分建筑物乃是为了扩建淡小幼儿园
我要谴责马华雪州副财政兼华团咨询局主任李万行针对梳邦市议会早前拆除蒲种兴都庙部分建筑物的行动所发表的言论。
李万行把所有民联政府无关痛痒的政策扯进来谈，但却故意掩盖整个事情的真相。我认为这是非常不负责任的从政态度，更何况李万行以种族角度的思维，即通过拆除兴都庙部分违规建筑物来煽动印裔同胞的种族情绪来评论此事。
李万行应该知道，地方政府拆除兴都庙部分违规建筑物是为了让路给隔壁的淡小建立幼儿园，更何况土地是属于淡小的。兴都庙和淡小都是印裔社群的资产，所谓民联政府压制印裔族群，拆除兴都庙的指责根本是无中生有。
众所周知，在提升印裔社群的整体地位，教育扮演非常重要的角色。雪州民联政府每年固定拨款4百万令吉给州内97所淡小。州政府也已经拨出一块坐落在巴生Taman Sentosa约2.74依格的土地建立州内第98所淡小。
和华小400万拨款不同的地方就是，从这400万淡小的拨款之中，一部分拨款是用于提升淡小的教学素质，包括和淡米尔教育组织（诸如华社的董教总）联办活动以加强淡小三机构的组织等等。
我希望马华各级领袖在高调问政的同时也必须秉持专业态度，而不是故意捏造事实逞英雄。
李万行把所有民联政府无关痛痒的政策扯进来谈，但却故意掩盖整个事情的真相。我认为这是非常不负责任的从政态度，更何况李万行以种族角度的思维，即通过拆除兴都庙部分违规建筑物来煽动印裔同胞的种族情绪来评论此事。
李万行应该知道，地方政府拆除兴都庙部分违规建筑物是为了让路给隔壁的淡小建立幼儿园，更何况土地是属于淡小的。兴都庙和淡小都是印裔社群的资产，所谓民联政府压制印裔族群，拆除兴都庙的指责根本是无中生有。
众所周知，在提升印裔社群的整体地位，教育扮演非常重要的角色。雪州民联政府每年固定拨款4百万令吉给州内97所淡小。州政府也已经拨出一块坐落在巴生Taman Sentosa约2.74依格的土地建立州内第98所淡小。
和华小400万拨款不同的地方就是，从这400万淡小的拨款之中，一部分拨款是用于提升淡小的教学素质，包括和淡米尔教育组织（诸如华社的董教总）联办活动以加强淡小三机构的组织等等。
我希望马华各级领袖在高调问政的同时也必须秉持专业态度，而不是故意捏造事实逞英雄。
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Pas desak siasat PKNS
Dipetik daripada laman web Sinar Harian
SHAH ALAM – Pas Selangor mendesak Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim menyiasat dakwaan salah guna kuasa pengurusan Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS).
Timbalan Pesuruhjaya III Pas Selangor, Dr Che Rosli Che Mat berkata, Abdul Khalid perlu mendapatkan maklumat tentang kesahihan dakwaan yang dibongkarkan Ahli Dewan Negeri (ADUN) Hulu Klang, Shaari Sungib dalam ucapan perbahasan Bajet kelmarin.
Menurutnya, sekiranya maklumat itu berasas, maka tindakan drastik mesti diambil sebagai langkah membebaskan PKNS daripada segala gejala yang boleh merosakkan dan meruntuhkannya.
“Sebagai sebuah parti yang menghormati ketelusan, amanah dan kebertanggungjawaban Pas Selangor terkejut dengan fakta yang dikemukakan.
“Jika tidak ditangani dengan bijak, ia akan menjejaskan imej dan kredibiliti PKNS yang menjadi agensi utama kepada usaha pembangunan di Negeri Selangor,” katanya.
Che Rosli berkata, Pas Selangor juga mengarahkan Iskandar Abdul Samad yang dilantik sebagai Ahli Lembaga Pengarah PKNS membawa mesej Pas Selangor ini di dalam mesyuarat Lembaga Pengarah Perbadanan tersebut dijangka selepas sambutan Aidil Adha.
Beliau berkata, antara dakwaan tersebut adalah pelantikan pegawai kontrak yang merupakan kenalan pengurusan PKNS yang dibayar gaji lumayan berbanding pekerja tetap PKNS dengan gaji lebih rendah.
“Mereka ini ditempatkan di satu syarikat PKNS untuk melaksanakan projek ‘join venture’, sedangkan arahan sudah ’join venture’ dengan PKNS tidak boleh lagi.
“Malah PKNS dikatakan menjadi penaja perkahwinan angkawan (Datuk Dr Sheikh Muzaffar) dan angkasawan luar ke majlis itu dengan jumlah yang besar,” katanya.
Sementara itu, Abdul Khalid sudah mengarahkan PKNS membentuk pengurusan selari ‘Integrity Pact’ melalui kerjasama Transparency International (TI).
Menurutnya, PKNS mesti mempunyai kumpulan audit luaran yang bertugas menyemak jika terdapat perkara yang dikatakan tidak mengikut pengurusan baik bagi PKNS termasuk rasuah.
“Kalau saya menerima apa-apa perkara yang dibangkitkan, kita mempunyai pasukan audit MBI yang akan ke PKNS untuk mengaudit dan kita akan menyiarkan maklumat tersebut,” katanya.
SHAH ALAM – Pas Selangor mendesak Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim menyiasat dakwaan salah guna kuasa pengurusan Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS).
Timbalan Pesuruhjaya III Pas Selangor, Dr Che Rosli Che Mat berkata, Abdul Khalid perlu mendapatkan maklumat tentang kesahihan dakwaan yang dibongkarkan Ahli Dewan Negeri (ADUN) Hulu Klang, Shaari Sungib dalam ucapan perbahasan Bajet kelmarin.
Menurutnya, sekiranya maklumat itu berasas, maka tindakan drastik mesti diambil sebagai langkah membebaskan PKNS daripada segala gejala yang boleh merosakkan dan meruntuhkannya.
“Sebagai sebuah parti yang menghormati ketelusan, amanah dan kebertanggungjawaban Pas Selangor terkejut dengan fakta yang dikemukakan.
“Jika tidak ditangani dengan bijak, ia akan menjejaskan imej dan kredibiliti PKNS yang menjadi agensi utama kepada usaha pembangunan di Negeri Selangor,” katanya.
Che Rosli berkata, Pas Selangor juga mengarahkan Iskandar Abdul Samad yang dilantik sebagai Ahli Lembaga Pengarah PKNS membawa mesej Pas Selangor ini di dalam mesyuarat Lembaga Pengarah Perbadanan tersebut dijangka selepas sambutan Aidil Adha.
Beliau berkata, antara dakwaan tersebut adalah pelantikan pegawai kontrak yang merupakan kenalan pengurusan PKNS yang dibayar gaji lumayan berbanding pekerja tetap PKNS dengan gaji lebih rendah.
“Mereka ini ditempatkan di satu syarikat PKNS untuk melaksanakan projek ‘join venture’, sedangkan arahan sudah ’join venture’ dengan PKNS tidak boleh lagi.
“Malah PKNS dikatakan menjadi penaja perkahwinan angkawan (Datuk Dr Sheikh Muzaffar) dan angkasawan luar ke majlis itu dengan jumlah yang besar,” katanya.
Sementara itu, Abdul Khalid sudah mengarahkan PKNS membentuk pengurusan selari ‘Integrity Pact’ melalui kerjasama Transparency International (TI).
Menurutnya, PKNS mesti mempunyai kumpulan audit luaran yang bertugas menyemak jika terdapat perkara yang dikatakan tidak mengikut pengurusan baik bagi PKNS termasuk rasuah.
“Kalau saya menerima apa-apa perkara yang dibangkitkan, kita mempunyai pasukan audit MBI yang akan ke PKNS untuk mengaudit dan kita akan menyiarkan maklumat tersebut,” katanya.
MB digesa beri respons isu pegawai kanan
Dipetik daripada laman web Sinar Harian
SHAH ALAM – Dewan Pemuda Pas Negeri Selangor (DPPNS) mendesak Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim memberi maklum balas kedudukan terkini dakwaan salah laku pegawai kanan kerajaan negeri.
Ketua DPPNS, Hasbullah Mohd Ridzwan berkata, salah laku tersebut berkaitan pemberian kontrak oleh Pejabat Kewangan Negeri kepada kontraktor pilihan mereka bagi kerja membina dan membaiki longkang untuk Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ).
Menurutnya, desakan tersebut susulan memorandum yang dihantar kepada Abdul Khalid dan Speaker Dewan Negeri Selangor, Teng Chang Khim semasa sidang dewan lalu untuk siasatan dan tindakan sewajarnya.
“Memandangkan belum ada tindakan yang diambil pihak berwajib, maka sekali lagi DPPNS mendesak agar pejabat Menteri Besar memberi maklum balas mengenai kedudukan terkini perkara tersebut.
“Perkara ini telah ditimbulkan semula Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Kampung Tunku, Lau Weng San dalam perbahasan Bajet kali ini,” katanya.
Hasbullah berkata, DPPNS amat prihatin tentang hal berkaitan dengan amanah, kebertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan dalam pengurusan Kerajaan Negeri terutamanya melibatkan kewangan dan pengurusan projek pembangunan melibatkan agensi Kerajaan Negeri.
Beliau berkata, DPPNS juga sentiasa mengikuti perkembangan dalam hal-hal sedemikian dan mengambil tindakan yang wajar setakat yang difikirkan munasabah.
SHAH ALAM – Dewan Pemuda Pas Negeri Selangor (DPPNS) mendesak Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim memberi maklum balas kedudukan terkini dakwaan salah laku pegawai kanan kerajaan negeri.
Ketua DPPNS, Hasbullah Mohd Ridzwan berkata, salah laku tersebut berkaitan pemberian kontrak oleh Pejabat Kewangan Negeri kepada kontraktor pilihan mereka bagi kerja membina dan membaiki longkang untuk Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ).
Menurutnya, desakan tersebut susulan memorandum yang dihantar kepada Abdul Khalid dan Speaker Dewan Negeri Selangor, Teng Chang Khim semasa sidang dewan lalu untuk siasatan dan tindakan sewajarnya.
“Memandangkan belum ada tindakan yang diambil pihak berwajib, maka sekali lagi DPPNS mendesak agar pejabat Menteri Besar memberi maklum balas mengenai kedudukan terkini perkara tersebut.
“Perkara ini telah ditimbulkan semula Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Kampung Tunku, Lau Weng San dalam perbahasan Bajet kali ini,” katanya.
Hasbullah berkata, DPPNS amat prihatin tentang hal berkaitan dengan amanah, kebertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan dalam pengurusan Kerajaan Negeri terutamanya melibatkan kewangan dan pengurusan projek pembangunan melibatkan agensi Kerajaan Negeri.
Beliau berkata, DPPNS juga sentiasa mengikuti perkembangan dalam hal-hal sedemikian dan mengambil tindakan yang wajar setakat yang difikirkan munasabah.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
劉永山：保障購屋者利益雪州應推行先建後售
《星洲日报》雪隆 2010-11-10 10:42
（雪蘭莪‧沙亞南9日訊）甘榜東姑區州議員劉永山認為，雪州政府目前是時候應該推行先建後售政策，以保障購屋者的利益和減少房屋計劃擱置所引起的問題。
他說，在目前的先售後建制度下，發展商如果不負責任，購屋者會非常吃虧。除此之外，政府得花費很多資金和人力來復甦擱置的房屋計劃。
無塑膠袋日有待改善
他認為，雪州政府應該首開先河推行先建後售政策，不必等待房屋及地方政府部門的指示，畢竟房屋發展計劃是否通過，權力落在州政府和地方政府的手上。
另外，劉永山在辯論雪州2011年度財政預算案時指出，無塑膠袋日運動從去年實施以來，仍存在很多缺點。
他說，很多消費者都不清楚，星期六每購買一個塑膠袋所花費的20仙究竟用在甚麼地方，這方面應該要有透明的管理。
另一方面，他建議州政府研究是否可以讓單親媽媽和失業人士以合約方式為地方政府打工，做清理溝渠、馬路等性質的工作。
他認為，與其付錢給阿南弗拉承包商卻還要被批評，地方政府不如考慮直接聘請弱勢群體，既能減少地方政府對阿南弗拉的依賴，並可協助改善弱勢群體的生活素質。
星洲日報／大都會‧2010.11.09
（雪蘭莪‧沙亞南9日訊）甘榜東姑區州議員劉永山認為，雪州政府目前是時候應該推行先建後售政策，以保障購屋者的利益和減少房屋計劃擱置所引起的問題。
他說，在目前的先售後建制度下，發展商如果不負責任，購屋者會非常吃虧。除此之外，政府得花費很多資金和人力來復甦擱置的房屋計劃。
無塑膠袋日有待改善
他認為，雪州政府應該首開先河推行先建後售政策，不必等待房屋及地方政府部門的指示，畢竟房屋發展計劃是否通過，權力落在州政府和地方政府的手上。
另外，劉永山在辯論雪州2011年度財政預算案時指出，無塑膠袋日運動從去年實施以來，仍存在很多缺點。
他說，很多消費者都不清楚，星期六每購買一個塑膠袋所花費的20仙究竟用在甚麼地方，這方面應該要有透明的管理。
另一方面，他建議州政府研究是否可以讓單親媽媽和失業人士以合約方式為地方政府打工，做清理溝渠、馬路等性質的工作。
他認為，與其付錢給阿南弗拉承包商卻還要被批評，地方政府不如考慮直接聘請弱勢群體，既能減少地方政府對阿南弗拉的依賴，並可協助改善弱勢群體的生活素質。
星洲日報／大都會‧2010.11.09
州政府须检讨额外开销
雪州州议会将于从11月8日召开5天至11月12日。这是雪州民联政府上台以来第三个财政预算案州议会。预料州务大臣将会提呈14亿3千万令吉的2011年州政府平衡财政预算案。2010年的财政预算案是13亿令吉。惟过去三次州议会（包括这次州议会），州政府一直都有提呈附加预算案。迄今，州政府今年已经提呈共1亿9400万令吉的附加预算案，因此2010年的州政府的总开支是14亿9400万令吉。
州政府在规划明年的财政预算案依然秉持“取之于民，用之于民”的政策。因此，在这14亿3千万令吉的开销之中，州政府拨出将近42巴仙或6亿令吉予发展开销，另外58巴仙则用于行政开销之中。
这和联邦政府提呈的财政预算案有很大的不同，因为联邦政府2011年的财政预算案之中，行政开销占77巴仙，只有不超过24巴仙是用于发展用途之中。
从过去数次州议会州政府必须提呈附加预算案，我们也看到州政府在规划控制开支方面尚未做全面考量，导致出现额外开支的现象。此外，一些地方政府长期拖欠自然花乐的服务费导致必须向州政府举债，也导致州政府必须承担额外开销。这是州政府必须严正关注的。
州政府在规划明年的财政预算案依然秉持“取之于民，用之于民”的政策。因此，在这14亿3千万令吉的开销之中，州政府拨出将近42巴仙或6亿令吉予发展开销，另外58巴仙则用于行政开销之中。
这和联邦政府提呈的财政预算案有很大的不同，因为联邦政府2011年的财政预算案之中，行政开销占77巴仙，只有不超过24巴仙是用于发展用途之中。
从过去数次州议会州政府必须提呈附加预算案，我们也看到州政府在规划控制开支方面尚未做全面考量，导致出现额外开支的现象。此外，一些地方政府长期拖欠自然花乐的服务费导致必须向州政府举债，也导致州政府必须承担额外开销。这是州政府必须严正关注的。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)