Dewan Diary - Day 2

By Y.B. Wong Ho Leng, ADUN for Bukit Assek

You want to know how superior a DAP product is? The BN hijacked my Motion and turned it into its own, just by changing some of its wordings. This, because they could not support a Motion moved by me, but on the other hand, they could not decline to support it. So, by hook and crook, they have to twist my Motion and adopt it as their own. That is the BN brand of integrity.I had to miss the morning’s Q & A session. Lack of sleep and pressure had taken a little toll on me. But otherwise I have been fine. My colleagues are wondering why each time during DUN sitting I am unwell. Well, I now realise even more the correlation between pressure, lack of sleep and a person’s susceptibility to illness due to that. Of course, age is catching up on me too.

I came to the Dewan during tea break to witness Voon debating on the Sarawak Stadium Corporation (Repeal) Bill, 2007. He said he could not understand the reason for the repeal unless the original law does not live up to expectations.

Chong had earlier debated on it, asking whether the state Government is actually bailing out the Corporation.

William Mawan said there was no bail out but did not do well in answering the issues raised and was therefore reluctant to give way. I said that as a Minister he should have the material to give way and answer questions. He did, but just a little.

The most important law for this sitting is the Land Code (Amendment) Bill 2007. I was the 2nd to speak, after SUPP’s Tan Joo Phui. His speech had nothing in it, except to agree, what else? As he spoke, Awang Tengah, the Minister introducing the Bill, kept shaking his head.

I thought I delivered a scorching speech on the Land Code Amendment Bill. Several ADUNs wanted to interject. It was the time that I savoured. I swiped at them all, with answers plus interest. The person who was most on the receiving end was Talip of Jepak. As I cannoned my missiles at him he found himself too late to duck for cover. It was not worth playing smart with a DAP man who can talk.

I brought up several issues, including the fact that the Government had been slow to uplift s.47 from hundreds of acres of land in Sibu despite more than 10 years have lapsed.

I scorned at the BN Ministers for stooping so low as to take the opportunity of handing out land titles to the landowners as popularity show or publicity stunt.

If Ministers had to fly here and there to give out land titles, with other cabinet Ministers and entourages from BN component parties welcoming them at various airports and entertaining them at hotels and restaurants, with drivers driving them around in posh imported cars etc, there are surely expenses involved. The Bill was therefore not honest saying otherwise.

I asked why had the BN Ministers become so cheap as to seek publicity stunt and popularity show at the expense of the rakyat?

Chin Sing, Voon and Violet also spoke. Ting said much land in Australia are granted in perpetuity. Though the CM graduated from University of Adelaide, she regretted that the University of Adelaide has not influenced Taib to be fair.

We were all offended that the law after the amendment remains that there is no automatic right to renew land leases. We called on the Government to automatically and unconditionally extend the land titles for 99 years when their terms expire.

We also asked for the lifting of s.47 not more than 2 years after it was imposed. Each one of us had specific examples of land problems to give, showing the Government that we came well prepared.

Dominique also launched a scathing attack and rebuke on the BN. He said he had no choice “but pour scorn on the ability of SUPP to influence the Government to handle the sensitive issue of land. The amendment showcases lack of influences on the SUPP.”

He criticized the stupendous idea of Saribas who said that city dwellers should pay for high premium. Dominique said that there are thousands of poor people and they come from all races despite living in town and city.

On SUPP/Vincent Goh, who said that the State Government had sacrificed so much for the people over their land, Dominique urged Vincent Goh to stop from being an apologist. The Government is trying to squeeze money from poor people, trying to squeeze blood from stone, he said.

I interjected Dominique saying that when landowners could not renew their land, the Government may think that the landowners may carry their houses on their backs, and there will be plenty of human snails walking on the road. Apparently, Dominique’s reading of the law (s.27 Land Code) was more drastic than that, he said, in that case, all the improvements will not be compensated.

I complained that hundreds of acres of land in Oya Road, Sibu, had not been released of s.47 despite the fact that s.47 had been on for over 10 years. Chong brought out a sad story of a parcel of land in Matang. A landowner dug ponds in his neighbouring land to rear fish. That was not allowed because it is a river reserve of about 100 acres. He applied for the land but there was no answer for 30 years. But this land is now alienated to a private dormant company, Ariff Hemat Sdn Bhd. The landowner resigned to the fact that he had no connection and couldn’t get the land although he had dug ponds on it. The land was given to Ariff Hemat for recreational park. His present lease term which is adjacent to the river reserve will expire in 2010. He applied to the Government for renewal. He was informed that his land is subject to s.47 and application was rejected. See the injustice in it?

There was absolute quietness in the Dewan when this sad incident was disclosed, the only movement happened to be the coming in of the CM and DCM George Chan, probably hearing Chong mentioning Ariff Hemat.

Chong said s.47 is used by the Lands and Surveys as an excuse not to renew leases. He said, when s47 is imposed on a land for 4 or 5 years, it is in itself an injustice because compensation would be based on the market price at the time when s.47 was imposed. The government is using the injustice to inflict another injustice, Chong said.

Andy Chia found he had not much to offer this time. When I wanted to seek clarification, he did not have “guts” to give way. He expressed satisfaction that after the amendment, landowners would be able to renew at any time. He also said that even if the Opposition shouts in the Dewan, the Government won’t hear. Quoting Mahathir speaking of MCA President Ling Liong Sik, Andy said that “speaking out is only good if it is effective. We talk to BN brothers. The BN needs only to whisper”. Chong took a swipe at this. While the CM listened attentively, Chong said he wondered whether the whispers are the whispers of the people or the voices of the people. He cited Daniel Ngieng who said that 25% of premium is fair. 99% of the people won’t agree to this rate, Chong insisted. 25% of the market value may be peanuts to BN ministers but to retirees and low income earners it will be a bomb. Let not your children curse you for the problem that you created in this house, Chong warned.

All we ask is to ask the Government to give guaranteed right to renew. Is it too difficult to do or is it because the BN Government has not lost enough?

There was absoluuuuuute, pin drop silence in the Dewan as Chong punched his way down the straight. This is the first time ever since the appearance of Chong in the Dewan that he was not interrupted in his entire speech, and not only that, every living thing in the Dewan listened in absolute quietness. If tears had flowed, they might have been wiped quietly. It was Chong’s best speech ever.

I note that the Attorney-General was nodding his head most of the time that Chong spoke. He must have concurred on everything that was said. It takes a lawyer to understand a lawyer.

SUPP’s Opar/Lanun found himself defending his stupidity this morning. When Ting asked whether the SUPP would support her proposal for automatic and unconditional renewal of lease, Lanun instantaneously stood to shout “NO. We have our own stand”.

This afternoon, he had to explain, to do damage control. I believe he must have been advised by his leader to explain. He said he had this morning “dengan pantas menjawab tidak”. He tried to justify himself, and said that SUPP has its own principles. Too late, I must say, the horse has bolted. The true colours of SUPP has been truly exposed. It is only in spontaneity would one see the true person.

When I stood to try seek clarification of Opar, he again yelled “NO”. He got no guts, I said, but more importantly, no confidence to answer questions.

Tasik biru he said he did not wish to add to what had been said, but would rebut the Opposition. He equated land ownership to having a pen – that was his interpretation of the leasehold concept. We staged a walkout. It was for about 2 min. He stopped his stupendous charade. When Aaa Jaya spoke, we returned to the Dewan. It shows we do not wish to listen to rubbish.

Asa Jaya explained that Ministers had to go to the ground to explain distortion by the Opposition. It is expenditure for a good purpose. Not popularity show. He was not prepared to give way to our interjections until I said he was the “top brain” of the BN backbenchers (he is the Chairman of the Backbenchers Club). He at least agreed that extra financial expenditure will be incurred because the Ministers moved around handing out land titles. So, what about the explanatory statement in the Bill to the contrary?

In his brief Reply, Awang Tengah said all positive suggestions will be considered. He said automatic renewal is not suitable for the land system in Sarawak. On premium payable, he gave an example of a land in Kenyalan Park. If there is 18 years left, and the application is made now, the premium will be RM2,600.00 he said. The extended title will be for 60 years. Awang Tengah was careful not to give everything away, but the meaning is simple - the balance 18 years will be forfeited. Soon Koh was very uncomfortable with this, because that contradicted Soon Koh’s earlier press statement that the balance term would not be forfeited. Soon Koh looked at Awang Tengah several times, may be praying that the latter would say something different.

There was time for Private Members’ Motion, despite the fact that it was past 6pm. The BN hijacked my Motion and turned it into its own, just by changing some of its wordings. Adenan, in explaining why this measure was taken, said that my Motion would be a double edged sword. If the BN agreed with my Motion, the DAP would get credit. If the BN do not agree, that would embarrass the BN. So, they did what they did - use my Motion, amend it, and said that it would be their Motion. Things were arranged in such a way that the 2 Motions would be put to a vote first. The one chosen by the majority shall be debated. Of course, their numbers overwhelmed ours. My Motion reads:

That the Sarawak Government gives full support to Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s efforts to eradicate corruption in Malaysia.

The amended Motion standing in the name of Adenan Satem reads:

That this House gives full support to Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s National Integrity Plan to promote good governance and thereby eliminating corrupt practices in all sectors of society within Malaysia.

The Speaker made a ruling which was shocking. He said each person (myself and Adenan) would be given 30 minutes to speak and the first mover would then reply. I pointed out to the Speaker that this ruling was inconsistent with his previous decisions. In the Motion moved by Chong on Local Council elections, the Speaker ruled “no reply”. In my Motion on the Automatic Renewal of Land Titles, there was “no reply”. Why this inconsistency? Of course, it was because Adenan is a BN man. The Speaker, despite being embarrassed, insisted that he would give the first speaker (that would be Adenan) a right to reply.

I did what I have to do. As Adenan went through his short speech, I quickly modified my speech to suit his Motion. Adenan said the anti-corruption laws are in place, the ACA is doing its job. I could not understand why they should move the Motion in the first place.

Surely, we would not oppose this Motion, much that it was downright dishonest on the BN’s part, but in many areas of my speech, I urged the BN to “walk the talk”, not “chin chai chin chai” talk in this Dewan.

As the sitting adjourned, Masing came over, purportedly apologetic. Obviously referring to the “hijacking”, he said, “sorry, we just have the numbers”. Adenan said the same thing as we walked down the stairs.

But whose initiative was the Motion? The DAP’s. Can the BN feel proud that they hijacked my Motion in this way? Let that be answered by others.