By Y.B. Ting Tze Fui, ADUN for Meradong
Dato Sri Speaker,
This is the fourth occasion upon which I have the privilege and honour to participate in the debate of the Supply Bill, tabled in this August House, albeit as an Opposition representative.
Upon reflection of the previous three sittings of this State Assembly, it is most regrettable to note and conclude that this very State Government has largely chosen to ignore the Opposition and regard it as a pest, and give the Opposition little chance to ask questions or to move motions. For such a long time we do not have as many Opposition representatives sitting on the Opposition Bench like now. Against a stronger Opposition, the Government’s strategy has been to romp through new Bills, amendments to Bills, to throw out any opposition motion being tabled and to mostly not to respond to questions from the Opposition, pleas and positive suggestions.
Bear in mind that we have a fine democratic institution inherited from the British Colonial Government, an institution exemplified in so many parts of this Globe to which we are proudly part of it, i.e. this State Assembly. It would not be much of a fine political institution if the main participant of it, i .e. the Government, choose not to uphold the democratic ideals inherent in the political system.
In a democratic state, such as Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on, Opposition parties and elected members of the Opposition are always held with the highest regards by the governing parties which may became Opposition parties if they lose the general election. Unfortunately, the current BN Government has been in power for decades and for so long that it has become too smugly complacent and arrogant, even though the results of the last state election has shown clearly that many voters in the State are grossly dissatisfied with the Government’s performance, some of its policies, malpractices and extravagances. So far, it seems not much the component BN parties have learned from the last state election results.
Dato Sri Speaker,
Now take an example of the plight and poverty of the indigenous inhabitants of this State.
This BN Government is largely comprised of Bumiputra elected representatives who are supposed to protect the interests and livelihood of the very people who have voted for them. You, the BN representatives are supposed to be duty-bound to ensure that the native people’s rights to life and an adequate standard of living are safeguarded at all times.
However, sadly, after decades of the BN Government so many of the longhouse inhabitants in my constituency, Meradong are still living below poverty line. Having visited several dozens of longhouses since I was elected as Meradong representative and having talked to many longhouse folks and their Tuai Rumahs, my conclusion cannot be mistaken,
The few privileged, few, like some of u sitting across the Bench who are YBs and senior bureaucrats, have rather cushy and enjoyable lifestyles. But what about the many thousands of your fellowmen who have to travel daily along unsealed tracks, walk on wooden planks and cross dilapidated bridges and to climb old wooden ants-infested staircases to their longhouses? The youngsters have virtually all left their longhouses in search of greener pastures in other urban centres, West Malaysia, Sabah, Brunei or even in Singapore. Most elitists have also chosen to migrate to some western countries.
Dato Sri Speaker,
Of course, there are plenty of them still dwelling on their traditional birth places, viz. their customary native land which has been occupied by their ancestors for generations unperturbed, not even by Raja Brooks or the British Colonial Government.
Alas, their very present Government is rapidly encroaching on and depriving of their sacramental traditional land which they have been occupying for generations. This Government has shown itself to be plainly indiscriminate and arrogant in handling native customary land matters, having lost a few court battles in recent years to the native plaintiffs/claimants.
How on earth can this “protector” i.e. the Government of these native people simply grabbed their native customary land, by alienating and re-classifying it as state land, even without the prior knowledge or consent of these traditional owners/occupiers, and later on grant to some land hungry individuals or corporations on the pretext of development, with millions of dollars changing lands between individuals and middlemen? How sinful and immoral it can be to systematically and unambiguously deprive these native occupiers of their birthright, by the stroke of a pen, without even an adequate compensation. These native people are not necessarily against development provided it does not unduly compromise and interfere with their culture, customs and long held rights over their land.
Dato Sri Speaker,
Now let's look at the plight of the Iban people who traditionally have an ultra strong attachment and sentiment to a specific locality or particular ecological niche. Many of the ministers and Honourable members across the Bench should appreciate better than me. To the Iban people, their environment and land are fundamentally the basis of their spirituality and the very source of their identity which have to be treated with caring respect and kept in balance. They are not merely a collection of trees, plants, rocks and stones, other landforms and wild animals which they can hunt and consume daily.
Dato Sri Speaker,
In my constituency of Meradong, there are some 52 longhouses which are now facing the fate of losing their customary native land which they have lived on for at least half a century . These 52 longhouses are situated within Area B of the Sungai Lasi camp. Some 1,414 hectares of the coupe area consisting of 18 blocks have been given to Forespring Sdn. Bhd. and Jinhold Timber Contractor Sdn. Bhd vide Timber Licence T/3496 dated 10th July, 2007 under PEC Ref No. T/3496/07/01B to fell and extract timber therefrom. No environment impact assessment (EIA) study in this coupe was ever required to be carried out before the grant of the Licence by the Sarawak Forestry Corporation and to be approved by the Controller of Natural Resources and Environment Board (NREB).
Dato Sri Speaker,
The above stated land is part of the land having been claimed and occupied by the 52 longhouses folks and their generations of ancestors as their native customary land. The said land was granted on the even date without their prior knowledge or consent, without any forms of compensation. It must be pointed out that from Ulu Strass of Jalan KJD in Meradong right up to Jalan Pakan and Skim B area, there are some 25,000 hectares of N.C.R. land wherein the right Honourable Minister of Social Development and Urbanisation’s constituency squarely sits. So, what is your attitude of the very fact that your supporters, voters or members of your party are being deprived and robbed of their traditional land which have been reclassified as state land and now being given and granted to some outsiders without your people’s knowledge, let alone any consent or one cent of compensation? How is the State government going to reallocate these longhouse folks who might be chased out of their NCR land which has now been converted to State land??
To the Deputy Chief Minister, how do you feel when so many of these longhouses folks who have always formed the backbone support for the SUPP in Meradong are being cheated out of, dispossessed and stripped of their birthright and birthplace of their traditional land? How pitiful they are? To all these loyal BN supporters, can you, as the SUPP leader gives assurance that their NCR land would remains theirs for their livelihood?
It is ironical that they are voicing their disappointment, complaints, grouses, disgust and agitation to the Opposition. No one on your side, though sympathetic in heart, is gutful enough to speak out. We are the only one who dare to voice out their concerns, frustrations and demands in this August House. To all the Iban YBs , what do you have to say? Don’t you feel strongly about the very fact that your fellow people are being systematically deprived of their rightful land - land where they were born, grown up, lived there and died there, over several generations? Are all of you going to support your own people in their relentless campaign and crusade for their sacred rights to their land or rather you are going to support the ongoing drive by the authorities to usurp their land and to re-classify it into state land?
Be reminded that there would be backlash against you in the next election if you choose to ignore the choking voice and cries of your own people who have been occupying, cultivating, hunting and wandering on the land - their native customary land now being reclassified as state land, for generations.
Dato Sri Speaker,
What these native dwellers at the above-mentioned NCR land want is to have their land back, just and proper compensation, and for the authorities to survey and conserve large tracts of their land to be legally protected and clarified as NCR land pursuant to Section 5, 15(1) and 18(1) of the Sarawak Land Code (Chapter 81).
Dato Sri Speaker,
Once their land is given to companies like Forespring Sdn. Bhd. for logging, what would happen next to this land that has been totally logged? Is the Government going to leave the land bare and idle? Presumably No! So what happens next?
Many of the Iban people shall be permanently deprived of their customary rights to their land. Their traditional simple lifestyles would be disrupted irreparably and they would be displaced irreversibly and indefinitely unless they may be able to win their land back through court battles against this mighty BN Government, which is supposedly the Government for all people!
The next thing to happen is to find the same or another company granted with a lease to develop it into oil-palm plantation. The land as mentioned beforehand, is of hill-forest area. If the land, after logging is completed, shall be turned into oil-palm plantation by some oil-palm companies, the livelihood of the Meradong people shall be affected and in particular the drinking water of the Meradong population may be polluted. The water supply of Meradong comes from the upper part of Sg Bakong, i.e Lemayong area, which is the catchment area of our water, where if oil palm trees are to be cultivated, and all sort of chemical fertilizer , pesticides used widely, is bound to be polluted, thus affecting the very water supply and the general health and well-being of Meradong people.
Furthermore, soil erosion would worsen, thereby accelerating the pollution of our mighty Rejang River and other associated geographical problems such as global warming which is partly caused by too widespread clearing and logging of the tropical rainforests throughout the world.
Dato Sri Speaker,
These Iban folks have just celebrated the 50th year of the nationhood with the rest of the Malaysians. What did they get in return? Land grab and usurpation of their land by their own Government! Coupled with these uttermost predicament, plight and sufferings, these unfortunate folks and all other Malaysians are facing many other increasing numbers of woes, miseries heartaches and hardships.
Dato Sri Speaker,
All Malaysians are faced with not only rising crime rates and rampant corruption, which have been covered by the media widely, they are further bedeviled and plagued with ever rising cost of living. They are confronted with the escalating challenges of their daily living, with dearer food products and other commodities, such as medicines, cloths, petrol and gas and almost everything else, while their salaries and income stagnate.
The Government usually takes credit for anything good happening to the people. Undoubtedly the Government would attribute the inflationary pressures and other economic problems facing the nation and all Malaysians to external factors. Government would not admit to their own wrongdoings, mismanagement, negative and discriminatory fiscal policies which resulted in undesirable consequences and negative impact on the lives of the people as a whole.
Dato Sri Speaker,
Surely our current inflationary problems, stagnating growth may be to certain extent attributable to international factors. Nevertheless, our own Government’s economic policies, such as allowing substantial hikes in electricity tariffs, toll and parking fees and fines, and other form of administrative charges definitely have a significant impact on our inflation and casting a heavy burden on all Malaysians.
Going around the coffee shops in Meradong nowadays, the common complaint from people from all walks of life is “Everything is so expensive nowadays lah”. Indeed, the prices of all goods and commodities, with the exception of certain electrical items, have been creeping up and escalating fast beyond the affordability of the majority of Malaysians. The rich who becomes richer because of good stocks market are able to cope better. But what about the vast majority of the population who can hardly make ends meet with their salaries not increasing at the same pace with the price increase of goods and services and other commodities.
Undeniably, inflation is the biggest single economic problem facing all sectors of the population. The worse thing to come is the proposed abolition of subsidies to petrol and gas. The Federal Government has promised not to increase the price of petrol after the last one in February 2006, thereby postponing the plight and pain of consumers from higher petrol prices. A price hike in gas is imminent, as urged by Petronas, which has claimed that it is unable to subsidize the price of petrol, in the tune of RM50 billion in gas in the last 10 years. But it is making and raking in more than RM5 billion profits every year, much of which comes from its LNG ( Liquified Natural Gas ) Operations in Sarawak.
We have had several huge price increases in petrol prior to February 2006. It is predictable that after the coming parliamentary election, petrol price would be increased immediately from thirty to fifty cents per litre at the very least. With that increase, there shall be periodic increases until in four years time; all subsidies would be phased out, according to the Federal Government. It’s a shame that the Government has to do away subsidy. We are self-sufficient in oil and gas and we can afford to export a lot of these valuable resources overseas. Our prices are much higher than that in Brunei where per capita income is far higher than in Malaysia. Lucky Bruneians are able to enjoy the ownership of much much cheaper motor vehicles than we Malaysians. Why? The Federal Government has such lousy policies of the Approved Permit (AP) System to import cars and far higher excise duties and sales taxes and the collection of these duties and sales taxes plus road taxes have amounted to multi-billion ringgit revenue to the Federal Government yearly. Therefore, there is no complete logic for the Government to reduce or abolish petrol subsidy altogether.
If the prices of petrol and gas go up, there would be a chain reaction. The prices of transportation and other forms of services and production costs would escalate automatically. Hence inflation goes up and the life of all citizens in the country would worsen. Due to higher unemployment and more expensive cost of living, some individuals would most certainly resort to crimes, thereby fostering the growth of gangsterism and so forth.
Oh yes, Dato Sri Speaker, we have not forgotten the fundamental inability and weakness of this State Government in many aspects.
For example, the royalty payable to Sarawak still remains a laughable figure of 5% till now. The State Government has failed miserably in this respect for not able or even try to fight for, on behalf of Sarawak, which is extremely rich in natural resources, such as oil and gas. Petronas’ gas operations in Sarawak have resulted in multifold increase in revenue over the years while the State Government still receives a mere pittance, totaling 5% royalty which has never been adjusted at all.
It is common practice for landowners in Sarawak to receive 20-50% of all houses or shops constructed on a sharing basis. How on earth Sarawak is still receiving merely 5% royalty till now? With rising inflation and mushrooming profits by Petronas and other oil companies, this 5% should deservedly and justifiably be increased to 15% or 20%. It is time and it is time indeed to act. Sarawak should petition to the Federal Government for a greater share of the natural resources belonging to our State.
To our Chief Minister, be a fearless strong state’s rights Chief Minister, do take a strong stand with the Federal Government. Do demand a substantial increase in the royalty payment and all Sarawakians would be thankful to you forever.
Any extra payments from the royalty increase should benefit all Sarawakians because the State Government would find it unnecessary to find extra revenue from the people’s pockets to meet its ever expanding budget expenditures.
If the State Government has an expanding budget surplus because of greater royalty income, then it would be in the position to reduce various state’s taxes and charges, to help to improve the general livelihood of all Sarawakians who should legitimately and reasonably be awarded with a greater share in the State’s vast wealth and natural resources.
Admittedly, the extra royalty should help and accelerate the development in general of this State is lagging far behind the States in West Malaysia. How sad that some forty years after joining the Federation of Malaysia, Sarawak is still lagging far behind West Malaysia !
In the last federal budget Sarawak and Sabah were allocated some Ringgit Malaysia FOUR BILLIONS fund. But a whopping sum of Ringgit Malaysia ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE BILLIONS investments were initiated by the Federal Government for the East Coast Economic Region to be found in three smallish states of Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang.
Therefore, it is suggested that our Chief Minister should push and propose strongly to the Prime Minister for a Yearly Chief Minister’s conference whereby all Chief Ministers can congregate and negotiate and bargain with the Prime Minister for bigger allocation of funds for their respective states. I truly and sincerely hope that our Chief Minister would look into this constructive proposal and take it up with the Prime Minister.
Dato Sri Speaker,
In my previous speech in the last DUN sitting, I have urged the State government to pay special attention to the roads, drainage problems and high costs of bridge tolls. But it seems that no action has been taken by the State government or local government so far. As a responsible State government, how can the voice of the people hat has been brought by us, the Opposition representatives, simply be ignored??
It is sad to say that the State government has discriminated against constituencies now held by the Opposition. In Meradong, we have to privately pay for stones or gravels from our own pockets. In a democratic country, it is never the role of the Opposition wakil rakyat to fork out their own money to do the road repairing works, to build bridge etc etc, as Opposition parties are not the one who collect various taxes, council rates and so on. These are some of the receipts and where do I get reimbursements? Shall I get it back from you, our Honourable Chief minister ? To you, this is just a peanut sum of money, but to the people, this is the sum of money they need to have better maintained roads and public utilities.
The Government should be one for all Sarawakians, irrespective of race, colour, religious, or political affiliations. We believe in fairness, equality and fair play. Why not the BN government ?
The District Office and the local council have perpetually maintained that they have no funds. Where has the money gone to? Meradong people also pay all sort of direct and indirect taxes, and all other charges levied by Government or local authorities, just like all other Sarawakians.
In Meradong, roads and tracks have always been poorly maintained over the years and more so now. From the toll gate of the Rejang Bridge to the junction of Kelupu Road, no strret lamp posts have yet been erected for the safety of night travelers and road users.
A lot of potholes remain unrepaired. The precints at the only traffic light in Meradong remains and is prone to flood every time after rain. The traffic configuration at the junction of Sarikei/ kelupu/ Paradom Roads, though new, is in a mess, having caused several traffic accidents. Along several parts of the Paradom/Sibu roads, there are deep drains and due to road accidents, some drivers have been drowned in them. Pity their families! Shouldn’t a so called caring government pay attention to all these matters affecting our people’s daily life?
If there is less unnecessary wastage, extravagances and unproductive investments by the government, for instance, the First Silicon project, which if efficiently implemented and properly managed would have saved the State government multi-million ringgits, then the money saved can be used to upgrade our public infrastructures and utilities such as roads and bridges, providing better public services and perhaps contributing more development grants to all the constituencies in the State.
Let me repeat , it’s both morally wrong and politically sinful for the Government to withhold and deny special development grants to Opposition representatives, and treat the people of Meradong unfairly and shamelessly.
Next, I would like to reiterate about the high cost of crossing the Rejang Bridge. The Government has done nothing to alleviate the burden of all bridge users, especially the frequent travelers. No discounted season pass has been introduced by the Bridge Concessionaire for frequent Bridge users. Even the Kuching Airport Carpark has recently launched the forty-dollar a month parking permit for car drivers who frequently park their cars at the Kuching International Airport Carpark. I would suggest to the Government and the Bridge Concessionaire to generously institute a cheaper system of toll collections for frequent users of the Rejang Bridge. They do not ask for free passage and they would be most grateful indeed if toll charges can be reduced generally.
Dato Sri Speaker,
Our Government should always strive for a corrupt-free, responsible, transparent, competent and an efficient public service sector which is costing the tax-payers millions & millions of dollars to run every year. Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable for all citizens and private corporations to expect the highest standard of service to be provided for by the public sector.
All too often, there are complaints against the public service. Let me bring to the attention of this August House what may have happened to the Sarikei District office recently. I wonder whether Honourable member for Repok has heard about the mishandling or sheer incompetence on the part of the officers of the Sarikei District Office? I have received some complaints from vehicle hirers. It was brought to my attention that at the Sarikei District Office which is responsible for the registration of the original copies of hire-purchase agreements, hundreds of copies of original copies of the hire-purchase agreements belonging to such Banks such as Bank Rakyat, RHB, AmBank in Sarikei have been misplaced, mishandled or lost. Can the Minister responsible for the District Office verify whether hundreds of hire-purchase agreement indeed simply vanished from the 8th floor of the Sarikei District Office without proper accountability . If a few copies of the agreements were lost, then it is understandable and it may be due to carelessness or human error. But if hundred of them which may involve some 30 over million ringgit hire-purchase loans were lost, then something is grossly wrong and it is tantamount to total and absolute incompetence, ineptitude and an infamous scandal. Those who are responsible must be severely punished indeed. What is the Minister of Local government going to do if indeed such thing happened and what measures is he going to take to prevent such occurrences to be repeated in Sarikei District Office or in any other District Offices in Sarawak ?
Is the Honourable Minister responsible for the Sarikei District Office aware of the implications and seriousness of the loss of several hundreds of Banks’ hire-purchase agreements?
If the Land and Survey Department simply losses hundreds of original issue documents of titles belonging to landowners, shouldn’t the Superintendent of the Divisional Land & Survey be held responsible ?
Tourism
"Now everyone can fly" has become an effective advertisement tagline for Air-Asia. It has enabled many ordinary people in Malaysia to do intra and international traveling or holidays affordably, by operating more than EIGHTY (80) domestic and international routes. By carrying more than 40 million passengers so far, Air Asia has helped to generate significant economic spin-offs for Sarawak and Malaysia. Air-Asia singly has helped, more than the Sarawak Government, to boost tourism, hotel and retail industries. So, to the Minister of Tourism, don’t you agree?
Regrettably, the State Government has barely made an impact for Sarawak as a major tourist destination even though the State has set up the 1st State Tourism Board in Malaysia. The State Government did not aggressively work with airlines to attract more tourists to this State by taking full advantage of direct flights to the Kuching International Airport.
Kuching has not become a regional air hub as compared to Kota Kinabalu. Its passenger load is more noticeably outbound. The trophy for Borneo’s undisputed premier tourist destination must go to Kota Kinabalu or Sabah as a whole. Consequently, most tourist dollars have flown to Sabah rather than Sarawak, not that Sarawak has less to offer than Sabah! Some 10.69 million tourists visited Malaysia from January to June 2007. How many tourists have visited Sarawak ? Can the Honourable Minister for Urban Development and Tourism give some comments in respect of this?
Woman
Malaysia does not have a University ranked in the top 200 in the world (MU is ranked 247th place). Neither is Malaysia ranked very highly in term of gender gap. Say for instance, though woman form about 50% of the registered voters in the country, they constitute merely 10% of the members of Parliament, even less in this State Assembly. In fact, Malaysia is spot lit with a dim and dismal 92nd ranking among the 128 nations listed in the Global Gender Gap Report 2007. Even Vietnam was ranked 42nd place.
India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Philipines, Indonesia and even Bangladesh have female Prime Ministers or Presidents.
It is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to choose elected representatives as Ministers or Assistant Ministers. As there is no legal obstacle to participate in Government and politics, there is always still subtle male resistance to women’s participation and placements in higher political posts.
So, to the Chief Minister who has stated recently that he is ready to handover power to any PBB leader who is ready. Don’t you think it is high time that you anoint and appoint one of your female YB as the next Deputy Chief Minister at least? What about our one and only female Assistant Minister in this State Assembly? The Assistant Minster of Human resource and Agriculture? I believe she is both capable and eligible to handle the post.
CONCLUSION
1. Vital measures and urgent steps need to be adopted to make sure that our State laws do not simply deprive and usurp the Iban people of their inherent rights to their N.C.R. land without proper notice, adequate compensation and alternative resettlement areas. Sufficient land must be given to the Iban longhouse folks as they are dependent on forest produce for food, water, and other basic necessities.
2. We the Opposition are here to make positive contributions and to give constructive criticisms. We are not here to purposely disrupt the sitting and to disobey the Standing Orders. When we feel that there are legitimate questions and concerns touching the livelihood and well-being of our constituents, we shall without fear or favour bring the matters to this State Assembly, the proper forum for discussion and solution to the problems of our citizens.
3. I sincerely hope that extra development grants will be given to all constituencies so that our basic infrastructures and other public utilities may be maintained and kept under proper repair. It is further wished that the Chief Minister would push for greater royalty payment for the betterment of this great State of Sarawak. Lastly, I wish that democracy in our State can be further nurtured so that Sarawak may become an exemplary State in Malaysia.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Dewan Diary - Day 3
By Y.B. Wong Ho Leng, ADUN for Bukit Assek
Voon’s question on 20 Points Agreement for the formation of Malaysia was listed to be answered first. It was rare privilege. DCM Jabu was the main star from the BN bench this morning. He answered the questions raised by Voon and the Opposition members with political overtures. It was always BN this and BN that. He had an obsession on BN and to bring it into the answering session is dubious.
Hitting hard into the tummy, Jabu said that Sarawak did not submit the 20 Points!
His way of answering questions from the Opposition showed that he has become a cranky man. Before answering Chin Sing’s question, he praised Chin Sing for his moderation, “an exception” in the Opposition, he said. What a divide and rule tactics. Luckily, Chin Sing is not one easily pampered. He can see through Jabu.
At the end a rather eventless QA session, Dominique rose to demand Jabu to honour his promise to supply written answer to his question on CMS. The Speaker said he would not be able to direct Jabu and other Ministries. It is entirely up to the Ministers, he said. Jabu stood to retort but the fact remains that the written reply had not been given to Dominique despite his promise in the Dewan 6 months ago. How can these people feel that they are honourable when a simple promise could not be honoured? An altercation broke out between Dominique and Jabu. Jabu waved his magic wand, “I won’t run away” etc. Who bothered whether he is running away or not.
I then rose to state that there was a typo error in the Hansard. In answering to Saribas on the issue of land premium, I was actually saying in a rising tone that “25% to 40% land premium is not heavy premium?” But the Hansard recorded the obvious “?” with a “.”. The meaning is entirely different, especially when I had all along stated my and my Party’s stance that the land lease should be unconditionally extended for 99 years without having to pay premium. However, the BN made noise and the Speaker asked me to fill in the form. Obviously, my intention was to state on record my stance and not wish the unedited Hansard to be used to distort me or the DAP in the future. The BN/SUPP is full of tricks. A lot of dishonest acts could be conjured by them.
I was also about to state something else, ie, there is no water for the public and reporters at the front of the Dewan, unlike before, but I was disallowed even to begin, with an enraged Speaker (by Dominique) wanting to proceed to the debate on the Budget.
I have been observing SUPP’s Lee Kim Shin for the past 3 days. He has become very quiet. Why has this vocal chap been muted? Maybe the SUPP internal bickering has taken a toll?
Because of cough, I had to leave the Dewan early. It is better to get some medicine and then gear up for the budget speech.
Chong delivered another good speech today, touching on the nerve of those who hold power. There were only very occasional interjections in his one hour speech.
In reply to Jepak who accused the Opposition of making noise only, Chong said DAP do not take rubbish thrown by the administration, unlike the BN.
When Chong was speaking on inflation, smart alec Larry asked Chong to justify that inflation was not 2%. The figure is manipulated, Chong yelled. A rich kid won’t understand the burden of the people. Go to coffee shop and ask, he checkmated the young Assistant Minister.
Why should people have to pay so much connection charges to SESCO, now a private company?
Chong also spoke on the nerve spot of the Government investment arm – 1st Silicon. Without even hearing anything yet, the Speaker wanted to stop him, saying much has been delved on it in the previous sitting. No, said Chong, he had further information, and proceeded. Massive debts to the tune of RM3,152,725,672 had been transferred to the X-Fab Silicon Sarawak Sdn Bhd, a state owned company. Every single sen comes from the state coffer. Has the administration told us about this? BN did not bother to ask. Yet, these expenditures appeared in our Budget under item Government’s contributions toward approved agencies’ trust fund. No beneficiary was ever mentioned, just investment in high tech industry. There was absolute silence in the Dewan, despite Chong’s strong words that they all sit there and took all these from the administration.
Calling it the prodigal son of Sarawak, Chong said RM1,719,083,100 was used to bail out 1st Silicon. The Accounts showed that since its inception the accumulated loss of 1st Silicon was RM2.5 billion. Chong suggested for a white paper to be presented on 1st Silicon - why 1st Silicon lost so much? Who was responsible?
Chong went into the Auditor General’s Report. The Administration takes great pride that the Auditor-General gave Sarawak a clean bill of health. But what would happen to certain scandals and malpractices that are highlighted in the Report?
Chong said of Trienekens, the privatized project of waste disposal in Kuching. He asked how much has the Government to pay for collection of rubbish in Kuching? How much MBKS has to pay before privatization and after. Chong said he never got the answer. The Administration just beat around the bush. The truth will come out and it was exposed in the Auditor General’s Report.
Chong said MBKS paid Trinekens RM4.8m per year before privatization exercise. After privatization, in 2001 MBKS paid Trinekens RM8.38m. 2002 (10.17m), 2003 (RM11.02m), 2004 (RM10.52m), 2005 (RM9.99m), 2006 (10.5m).
MBKS had an analysis which showed that before privatization exercise, MBKS paid Trienekens RM6.02m, yet with their knowledge, state Government continues with the privatization exercise. Not right, Chong said.
On top of that, MBKS continued to employ 39 workers to sweep the floors and collect garden waste because all these were not provided in the concessionaire agreement with Trienekens.
The Auditor-General’s Report said that the exercise failed totally to achieve the goal of saving costs to Government. Is the state Government going to turn a blind eye to shortcomings that were pointed out?
Chong proceeded to go to another area highlighted in the Audited-General’s report. In 2000, a contract to build 384 bridges had been given to Titanium Management Sdn Bhd for RM551.02m. The contract was awarded without tender. One stroke of a pen, Chong said, though at the time of the award, the company was less than 2 years old; It being formed in 8.10.1998.
After a few years of implementing, there was a cost overrun by 76%. Only 322 bridges were built as opposed to 384. Titanium claimed RM947.84m. The Government agreed to pay. The Auditor-General made comparative study between 2 similar bridges, one by direct negotiation, and another by open tender. As Chong went through the figures, the BN listened in absolute silence. It was of course, less costly by open tender.
Why did the Government award the contract in this manner, to one company? Because of this cost-overrun, the Government could not come out with the money in time to pay Titanium. The Government as at Dec 2006, owes Titanium approximately RM240m. Under the contract, our state Government has to pay interest calculated at 3.8% per month on the debt. Soon Koh was laughing at what was said. Chong said that rate was loan shark rate. Soon Koh stood to say that Chong’s reading of the Report was wrong. But like all ADUNs, I am eager to seek the truth. I hope Soon Koh would be very enlightening.
Chong said the state Government said the bridges were awarded to Titanium based on track record. What track record has Titanium got? Chong asked whether the only record was because the majority shareholder of Titanium was the Chief Minister’s son? Also, he said, all the bridges were built by Sub-Contractors. Something is very wrong.
The Minister should offer a truthful explanation. Jabu said he would, and insisted that all Opposition members be present to hear his explanation. He can be assured that the DAP will turn up in full force to hear him.
Chong spoke on the land title that was supposed to be issued to Chung Hua Primary No.2. There had been no progress for the last 6 months. He urged the SUPP not to play another political stunt or stage another popularity show to give the land title during election time. “Do not let the students wait until election time. If you want to claim the credit, you can have the credit”, he said. He then told the story about the land. Initially when the committee of management of the school applied for the land plot, they were informed by the SUPP leaders that this land is for national school, not for Chinese schools. It was after Chong continuously wrote to Lands and Surveys for another parcel that he was informed that this land was designed for this school. Chong said he exposed the matter. Then came SUPP leaders and they said they are applying, and at the same time asked Chong not to meddle.
“Since last sitting, I have been waiting. No good news. Don’t use it as a campaign gimmick to lure the Chinese community to support SUPP. Education of our children is involved. This is not a matter that any political Party should hold Chinese community to ransom or use as a bait to lure them to support SUPP”, Chong said.
Tea break came and we saw Soon Koh and Jabu talking about the issues. I led all my charges (except Chong) to see the DUN Secretary. We saw that unlike the previous sessions, there was no water for anybody at the front of the Dewan. This inconvenienced reporters, members of the public as well as ADUNs, I said. The Secretary promised that there would be a water dispenser there tomorrow.
Andy Chia had a short speech, but when I tried to seek for clarification of a few issues that he raised, he categorically showed no guts to take me on. He went to attack the Opposition. His issue on the position of adopted children in Sarawak would be one that I would be addressing. He asked the State Government to consider amending the Adoption Ordinance.
Andy Chia said fuel subsidies amounts to RM40 billion a year. 2/3 of income collected are used to subsidize fuel, he said. I don’t know whether his figures are correct but he said had there been no subsidy, the money could be spent on schools etc. Who enjoy subsidies? He answered that they are the owners of big cars. Those poor and those who do not own cars do not enjoy the subsidies. He said the Government needs to address this unfairness. He agreed with the PM’s proposal for a new system of subsidy. Let’s see how that system will be implemented.
Andy rained a charade of praise to the BN Government, as did 2 PBB members after him. Chong and I decided to move off at 6. The meeting continued.
Voon was the last to speak today, Chin Sing was with him in there.
A line of dignitaries lined up the main entrance to Hilton Kuching. The Housing Ministry had a function, and its Minister Abang Jo and Assistant Minister Dr Soon had packed themselves at the front entrance waiting, obviously, for the arrival of the CM. As I shook hands with the Ministers and the office bearers of the Housing Developers’ Association, I told them that the Housing Ministry is the best of all the Ministries. “You can quote me”, I told Abang Jo. In jest, I also said that the Housing Minister is also a good man. His Assistant too. “Quote me”, I said. As a matter of fact, comparatively, the Housing Ministry is the better one, least complained so far. But, I reminded Abang Jo to look into the Schedule of Payment in the prescribed form under the Housing Developers’ law of Sarawak. “The Schedule is not too good, and you had promised me and Chong to look into it”, I reminded Abang Jo. They would have their dinner, and I would write this diary.
I need to re-charge my battery, and another session will begin tomorrow. I hope to bid bye bye to my cough tomorrow. If not, I have to postpone my speech by another day.
Voon’s question on 20 Points Agreement for the formation of Malaysia was listed to be answered first. It was rare privilege. DCM Jabu was the main star from the BN bench this morning. He answered the questions raised by Voon and the Opposition members with political overtures. It was always BN this and BN that. He had an obsession on BN and to bring it into the answering session is dubious.
Hitting hard into the tummy, Jabu said that Sarawak did not submit the 20 Points!
His way of answering questions from the Opposition showed that he has become a cranky man. Before answering Chin Sing’s question, he praised Chin Sing for his moderation, “an exception” in the Opposition, he said. What a divide and rule tactics. Luckily, Chin Sing is not one easily pampered. He can see through Jabu.
At the end a rather eventless QA session, Dominique rose to demand Jabu to honour his promise to supply written answer to his question on CMS. The Speaker said he would not be able to direct Jabu and other Ministries. It is entirely up to the Ministers, he said. Jabu stood to retort but the fact remains that the written reply had not been given to Dominique despite his promise in the Dewan 6 months ago. How can these people feel that they are honourable when a simple promise could not be honoured? An altercation broke out between Dominique and Jabu. Jabu waved his magic wand, “I won’t run away” etc. Who bothered whether he is running away or not.
I then rose to state that there was a typo error in the Hansard. In answering to Saribas on the issue of land premium, I was actually saying in a rising tone that “25% to 40% land premium is not heavy premium?” But the Hansard recorded the obvious “?” with a “.”. The meaning is entirely different, especially when I had all along stated my and my Party’s stance that the land lease should be unconditionally extended for 99 years without having to pay premium. However, the BN made noise and the Speaker asked me to fill in the form. Obviously, my intention was to state on record my stance and not wish the unedited Hansard to be used to distort me or the DAP in the future. The BN/SUPP is full of tricks. A lot of dishonest acts could be conjured by them.
I was also about to state something else, ie, there is no water for the public and reporters at the front of the Dewan, unlike before, but I was disallowed even to begin, with an enraged Speaker (by Dominique) wanting to proceed to the debate on the Budget.
I have been observing SUPP’s Lee Kim Shin for the past 3 days. He has become very quiet. Why has this vocal chap been muted? Maybe the SUPP internal bickering has taken a toll?
Because of cough, I had to leave the Dewan early. It is better to get some medicine and then gear up for the budget speech.
Chong delivered another good speech today, touching on the nerve of those who hold power. There were only very occasional interjections in his one hour speech.
In reply to Jepak who accused the Opposition of making noise only, Chong said DAP do not take rubbish thrown by the administration, unlike the BN.
When Chong was speaking on inflation, smart alec Larry asked Chong to justify that inflation was not 2%. The figure is manipulated, Chong yelled. A rich kid won’t understand the burden of the people. Go to coffee shop and ask, he checkmated the young Assistant Minister.
Why should people have to pay so much connection charges to SESCO, now a private company?
Chong also spoke on the nerve spot of the Government investment arm – 1st Silicon. Without even hearing anything yet, the Speaker wanted to stop him, saying much has been delved on it in the previous sitting. No, said Chong, he had further information, and proceeded. Massive debts to the tune of RM3,152,725,672 had been transferred to the X-Fab Silicon Sarawak Sdn Bhd, a state owned company. Every single sen comes from the state coffer. Has the administration told us about this? BN did not bother to ask. Yet, these expenditures appeared in our Budget under item Government’s contributions toward approved agencies’ trust fund. No beneficiary was ever mentioned, just investment in high tech industry. There was absolute silence in the Dewan, despite Chong’s strong words that they all sit there and took all these from the administration.
Calling it the prodigal son of Sarawak, Chong said RM1,719,083,100 was used to bail out 1st Silicon. The Accounts showed that since its inception the accumulated loss of 1st Silicon was RM2.5 billion. Chong suggested for a white paper to be presented on 1st Silicon - why 1st Silicon lost so much? Who was responsible?
Chong went into the Auditor General’s Report. The Administration takes great pride that the Auditor-General gave Sarawak a clean bill of health. But what would happen to certain scandals and malpractices that are highlighted in the Report?
Chong said of Trienekens, the privatized project of waste disposal in Kuching. He asked how much has the Government to pay for collection of rubbish in Kuching? How much MBKS has to pay before privatization and after. Chong said he never got the answer. The Administration just beat around the bush. The truth will come out and it was exposed in the Auditor General’s Report.
Chong said MBKS paid Trinekens RM4.8m per year before privatization exercise. After privatization, in 2001 MBKS paid Trinekens RM8.38m. 2002 (10.17m), 2003 (RM11.02m), 2004 (RM10.52m), 2005 (RM9.99m), 2006 (10.5m).
MBKS had an analysis which showed that before privatization exercise, MBKS paid Trienekens RM6.02m, yet with their knowledge, state Government continues with the privatization exercise. Not right, Chong said.
On top of that, MBKS continued to employ 39 workers to sweep the floors and collect garden waste because all these were not provided in the concessionaire agreement with Trienekens.
The Auditor-General’s Report said that the exercise failed totally to achieve the goal of saving costs to Government. Is the state Government going to turn a blind eye to shortcomings that were pointed out?
Chong proceeded to go to another area highlighted in the Audited-General’s report. In 2000, a contract to build 384 bridges had been given to Titanium Management Sdn Bhd for RM551.02m. The contract was awarded without tender. One stroke of a pen, Chong said, though at the time of the award, the company was less than 2 years old; It being formed in 8.10.1998.
After a few years of implementing, there was a cost overrun by 76%. Only 322 bridges were built as opposed to 384. Titanium claimed RM947.84m. The Government agreed to pay. The Auditor-General made comparative study between 2 similar bridges, one by direct negotiation, and another by open tender. As Chong went through the figures, the BN listened in absolute silence. It was of course, less costly by open tender.
Why did the Government award the contract in this manner, to one company? Because of this cost-overrun, the Government could not come out with the money in time to pay Titanium. The Government as at Dec 2006, owes Titanium approximately RM240m. Under the contract, our state Government has to pay interest calculated at 3.8% per month on the debt. Soon Koh was laughing at what was said. Chong said that rate was loan shark rate. Soon Koh stood to say that Chong’s reading of the Report was wrong. But like all ADUNs, I am eager to seek the truth. I hope Soon Koh would be very enlightening.
Chong said the state Government said the bridges were awarded to Titanium based on track record. What track record has Titanium got? Chong asked whether the only record was because the majority shareholder of Titanium was the Chief Minister’s son? Also, he said, all the bridges were built by Sub-Contractors. Something is very wrong.
The Minister should offer a truthful explanation. Jabu said he would, and insisted that all Opposition members be present to hear his explanation. He can be assured that the DAP will turn up in full force to hear him.
Chong spoke on the land title that was supposed to be issued to Chung Hua Primary No.2. There had been no progress for the last 6 months. He urged the SUPP not to play another political stunt or stage another popularity show to give the land title during election time. “Do not let the students wait until election time. If you want to claim the credit, you can have the credit”, he said. He then told the story about the land. Initially when the committee of management of the school applied for the land plot, they were informed by the SUPP leaders that this land is for national school, not for Chinese schools. It was after Chong continuously wrote to Lands and Surveys for another parcel that he was informed that this land was designed for this school. Chong said he exposed the matter. Then came SUPP leaders and they said they are applying, and at the same time asked Chong not to meddle.
“Since last sitting, I have been waiting. No good news. Don’t use it as a campaign gimmick to lure the Chinese community to support SUPP. Education of our children is involved. This is not a matter that any political Party should hold Chinese community to ransom or use as a bait to lure them to support SUPP”, Chong said.
Tea break came and we saw Soon Koh and Jabu talking about the issues. I led all my charges (except Chong) to see the DUN Secretary. We saw that unlike the previous sessions, there was no water for anybody at the front of the Dewan. This inconvenienced reporters, members of the public as well as ADUNs, I said. The Secretary promised that there would be a water dispenser there tomorrow.
Andy Chia had a short speech, but when I tried to seek for clarification of a few issues that he raised, he categorically showed no guts to take me on. He went to attack the Opposition. His issue on the position of adopted children in Sarawak would be one that I would be addressing. He asked the State Government to consider amending the Adoption Ordinance.
Andy Chia said fuel subsidies amounts to RM40 billion a year. 2/3 of income collected are used to subsidize fuel, he said. I don’t know whether his figures are correct but he said had there been no subsidy, the money could be spent on schools etc. Who enjoy subsidies? He answered that they are the owners of big cars. Those poor and those who do not own cars do not enjoy the subsidies. He said the Government needs to address this unfairness. He agreed with the PM’s proposal for a new system of subsidy. Let’s see how that system will be implemented.
Andy rained a charade of praise to the BN Government, as did 2 PBB members after him. Chong and I decided to move off at 6. The meeting continued.
Voon was the last to speak today, Chin Sing was with him in there.
A line of dignitaries lined up the main entrance to Hilton Kuching. The Housing Ministry had a function, and its Minister Abang Jo and Assistant Minister Dr Soon had packed themselves at the front entrance waiting, obviously, for the arrival of the CM. As I shook hands with the Ministers and the office bearers of the Housing Developers’ Association, I told them that the Housing Ministry is the best of all the Ministries. “You can quote me”, I told Abang Jo. In jest, I also said that the Housing Minister is also a good man. His Assistant too. “Quote me”, I said. As a matter of fact, comparatively, the Housing Ministry is the better one, least complained so far. But, I reminded Abang Jo to look into the Schedule of Payment in the prescribed form under the Housing Developers’ law of Sarawak. “The Schedule is not too good, and you had promised me and Chong to look into it”, I reminded Abang Jo. They would have their dinner, and I would write this diary.
I need to re-charge my battery, and another session will begin tomorrow. I hope to bid bye bye to my cough tomorrow. If not, I have to postpone my speech by another day.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Motion on Anti-Corruption
Speech by Wong Ho Leng, ADUN Bukit Assek on 20th November, 2007: Motion on Anti-Corruption
On 29.10.2007 I gave notice under Standing Order 23 that I shall move the following motion:
That the Sarawak Government gives full support to Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s efforts to eradicate corruption in Malaysia.
Today, without notice, the BN Government amended the Motion and adopted it as its own. The amended Motion standing in the name of Adenan Satem, and which is the subject of debate, 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.
This is an important Motion. Malaysians are waiting for the outcome of this Motion.
We cannot deny that corruption is rampant in Malaysia. Our top leaders had spoken of its carnage and rampancy.
The BN had said Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the most brilliant leader of the country. Let’s see what he has to say on corruption and its ills.
On 26th May 2005, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad warned that corruption was becoming a culture in Malaysia. He said corruption was almost at the “above the table” level, with a significant number being involved. “We are slowly breaking through the ceiling. We are slowly emerging ‘above the table’,” he said.
Corruption is seldom seen but real.
Tun said corruption is a pervasive cancer that will kill a nation. It eats away into the very fabric of our society.
The victims are the 99.999% of the people in this country who have to pay more for all and everything, from ordinary consumer items to air tickets to using toilets, to property ownership and education and etc.
The only people who do not complain are those who were fed to the full and who were not caught. It is human greed, those who have received only wanted more, like a python expecting to swallow an elephant.
Corruption is based on perception. Statistics are talking loud and clear. In 1995, our country was placed 23rd on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). When Pak Lah became Prime Minister, in 2003, we were placed at No.37. Now in 2007 we stand at No.43.
We ought to be ashamed of this index. Our country is faring worse off now despite a declared crusade by Pak Lah against corruption. Malaysians will remember that Pak Lah elevated the fight against graft into the centrepiece of his administration when he became Prime Minister on 31st October, 2003.
Is all well in Malaysia? When appointment of judges can be brokered, you sense corruption. When judgments can be arranged, you sense corruption. When politicians, local councillors and political secretaries live in multi million Ringgit bungalows way beyond their means, you are entitled to ask where they get the money from. When a top cop has undeclared assets worth RM27 million, you are entitled to ask whether there was corruption. When we have millionaire police officers, do you see anything wrong?
Not all these people are corrupt, but a small group of greedy men can tarnish the image of all.
When certain well connected contractors only received awards not through open tenders but according to the whim and fancy of the powers that be, you are entitled to ask whether there were corruption. Why these people get the major contracts and other registered contractors merely get the crumbs.
When Ministers use Government cars for private functions, you see abuse of power, lack of integrity and corruption.
When professionals who walk closely with the powers that be are given lucrative contracts, you must ask whether there was corruption.
For example, the Bintulu Port Authority paid RM11.65 million to a single legal firm for legal consultation services for year 2000 without through tender for services, you know that money had been squandered and there was everything wrong – see Bintulu Port Authority 2000 Annual Report. When legal fees of RM5,887,208 could be paid for a case which did not go to the court you know there is everything wrong. Had there been any investigation, may I ask? Does that not reflect how serious we are in handling mismanagement of public funds, integrity and corruption?
When concessions can be given out at the whim and fancy of a Minister, the people are entitled to ask what the terms and conditions for these concessions are, and whether there is any corruption.
Contractors and laymen alike are saying that gratification would help to get faster approval for plans, permits, licences, processing of complaints or other matters. But the consumers suffer. They are the ones who have to pay more for everything.
Sim Kwang Yang, the former DAP MP for Bandar Kuching, one who had been offered (which he declined) an Assistant Ministerial post to jump to SUPP, said in his Malaysiakini column, “The root of corruption is human greed operating freely under a cloud of bad governance and lack of transparency, starting from the very top level. Punishing mid-level civil servants while powerful politicians continue to get fabulously rich is tantamount to curing the symptoms, and not striking at the root cause of the problem. It can be seen as merely finding scapegoats for this national malaise.”
He also said, “Most people have long realized that for every application to the government to do any business of any sort, there is always a greedy palm begging to be greased. It is that bad.”
He also said: “Ask any citizen with a healthy dose of cynicism and access to privileged information how many federal ministers, state mentri besars, state chief ministers, state executive councillors, state ministers in Sarawak and Sabah, or any elected representative for that matter, can be described as squeaky clean like a whistle, and you will hear the sneering grunt that deafens the ear.”
From the DAP we are clean. Would the BN say they are squeaky clean?
With the power structure and abundant resources that nature has blessed Sarawak, the perception of the people is that Sarawak is far from clean from the corruption gangrene.
In this era, the acquisition of knowledge is important. Hence, we are talking about k-economy, which means knowledge-economy. But many intellectuals have equated “k-economy” to “kantow-economy”. People want some explanation to how some people in power are able to get so rich and so quick.
The issue of kantow very frequently creeps out in coffee shops. When you sit in coffee shops, you will hear specific names of some of our Ministers and their families being mentioned, of how they have become fabulously rich, having massive palatial mansions, involved in corruption etc.
In the name of better accountability and transparency, I believe these questions are morally, politically, and legally valid in Malaysia.
We can start by taking the first step, and that is to support this Motion, and then walk the talk. In order to walk the talk, we must not live in a cocoon but admit that corruption exists. The prevalent denial syndrome about the complex problem of corruption in our state is most disturbing.
To support Pak Lah, Sarawak must have the moral fibre to declare that war against corruption is to be a top priority for the administration.
What can the state do? System for people … seminars, forums
- A transparent and accountable Government must be implemented.
- The State Government must cut down bureaucratic red tapes in Government departments and agencies because red tapes are primary grounds for breeding graft in Government departments and agencies.
- This Dewan can make laws so that all Ministers and Assistant Ministers, elected representatives, political secretaries, local councillors, heads of departments etc, must declare their assets and their next of kin’s to the Dewan and the declarations must be made public.
- The Dewan Undangan Negeri must appoint a Select Committee to monitor our anti-corruption drive.
- The Government must improve on the procedures for awarding contracts. Direct negotiation procedures for government tenders should be abolished. All contracts must be by public tender and based on merits.
- The Government must restore clean governance, truly expressing the essential value of democracy and accountability.
Pak Lah’s war against corruption was the centerpiece of his Government. In 2004, the war against corruption helped him get 91% of Parliamentary seats. It jolted all Malaysians to rise to stop the rot. But the rot has not stopped. The momentum against corruption has almost stopped. The zeal and spirit have almost stopped. All, because Pak Lah is alone. The popular belief is that he has abandoned the war against corruption.
The popular belief is that not a single BN component party thus far is seriously supporting his crusade against corruption.
The PM launched the National Integrity Plan (NIP) 4 years ago. When a forum on Integrity was held in Sibu recently, no one from the Leadership of the BN in Sibu attended. That shows how serious the SUPP politicians looked at the issue of integrity. Where there is a lack of integrity, corruption flourishes. Corruption increases as integrity decreases. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sarawak should openly declare support to Pak Lah’s zero tolerance to corruption declaration. But there are skeptics. A surfer in Sarawak talk wrote: “If you think that Sarawak Government is making any attempt to curb corruption, you may as well ask a cow to fly over the moon. There had been no attempt to combat corruption ever since the BN is in power. There will be none. Corruption will only get worse.”
That shows the writer has no confidence at all in our state Government to support Pak Lah in the war against corruption.
Give clean governance a chance – I challenge you, the BN Government. If the leaders are corrupt, nobody has the moral right to ask the followers to be clean. So, stay clean.
We should not be indifferent to the sin of corruption. The war against corruption should transcend Party politics. Hence, we saw the sincerity in Pak Lah’s crusade when he announced it in 2003. DAP has been whole heartedly behind Pak Lah in his crusade against corruption.
When Pak Lah almost wails in despair for being lonely in the war against corruption, shall we not desert him. If he has become disinterested, shall we encourage him to move on at full throttle?
Is Sarawak with our Prime Minister? Not by words only in this august house. Let that be recorded in the Hansard for future generations to read.
DAP supports the Amended Motion.
On 29.10.2007 I gave notice under Standing Order 23 that I shall move the following motion:
That the Sarawak Government gives full support to Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s efforts to eradicate corruption in Malaysia.
Today, without notice, the BN Government amended the Motion and adopted it as its own. The amended Motion standing in the name of Adenan Satem, and which is the subject of debate, 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.
This is an important Motion. Malaysians are waiting for the outcome of this Motion.
We cannot deny that corruption is rampant in Malaysia. Our top leaders had spoken of its carnage and rampancy.
The BN had said Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the most brilliant leader of the country. Let’s see what he has to say on corruption and its ills.
On 26th May 2005, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad warned that corruption was becoming a culture in Malaysia. He said corruption was almost at the “above the table” level, with a significant number being involved. “We are slowly breaking through the ceiling. We are slowly emerging ‘above the table’,” he said.
Corruption is seldom seen but real.
Tun said corruption is a pervasive cancer that will kill a nation. It eats away into the very fabric of our society.
The victims are the 99.999% of the people in this country who have to pay more for all and everything, from ordinary consumer items to air tickets to using toilets, to property ownership and education and etc.
The only people who do not complain are those who were fed to the full and who were not caught. It is human greed, those who have received only wanted more, like a python expecting to swallow an elephant.
Corruption is based on perception. Statistics are talking loud and clear. In 1995, our country was placed 23rd on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). When Pak Lah became Prime Minister, in 2003, we were placed at No.37. Now in 2007 we stand at No.43.
We ought to be ashamed of this index. Our country is faring worse off now despite a declared crusade by Pak Lah against corruption. Malaysians will remember that Pak Lah elevated the fight against graft into the centrepiece of his administration when he became Prime Minister on 31st October, 2003.
Is all well in Malaysia? When appointment of judges can be brokered, you sense corruption. When judgments can be arranged, you sense corruption. When politicians, local councillors and political secretaries live in multi million Ringgit bungalows way beyond their means, you are entitled to ask where they get the money from. When a top cop has undeclared assets worth RM27 million, you are entitled to ask whether there was corruption. When we have millionaire police officers, do you see anything wrong?
Not all these people are corrupt, but a small group of greedy men can tarnish the image of all.
When certain well connected contractors only received awards not through open tenders but according to the whim and fancy of the powers that be, you are entitled to ask whether there were corruption. Why these people get the major contracts and other registered contractors merely get the crumbs.
When Ministers use Government cars for private functions, you see abuse of power, lack of integrity and corruption.
When professionals who walk closely with the powers that be are given lucrative contracts, you must ask whether there was corruption.
For example, the Bintulu Port Authority paid RM11.65 million to a single legal firm for legal consultation services for year 2000 without through tender for services, you know that money had been squandered and there was everything wrong – see Bintulu Port Authority 2000 Annual Report. When legal fees of RM5,887,208 could be paid for a case which did not go to the court you know there is everything wrong. Had there been any investigation, may I ask? Does that not reflect how serious we are in handling mismanagement of public funds, integrity and corruption?
When concessions can be given out at the whim and fancy of a Minister, the people are entitled to ask what the terms and conditions for these concessions are, and whether there is any corruption.
Contractors and laymen alike are saying that gratification would help to get faster approval for plans, permits, licences, processing of complaints or other matters. But the consumers suffer. They are the ones who have to pay more for everything.
Sim Kwang Yang, the former DAP MP for Bandar Kuching, one who had been offered (which he declined) an Assistant Ministerial post to jump to SUPP, said in his Malaysiakini column, “The root of corruption is human greed operating freely under a cloud of bad governance and lack of transparency, starting from the very top level. Punishing mid-level civil servants while powerful politicians continue to get fabulously rich is tantamount to curing the symptoms, and not striking at the root cause of the problem. It can be seen as merely finding scapegoats for this national malaise.”
He also said, “Most people have long realized that for every application to the government to do any business of any sort, there is always a greedy palm begging to be greased. It is that bad.”
He also said: “Ask any citizen with a healthy dose of cynicism and access to privileged information how many federal ministers, state mentri besars, state chief ministers, state executive councillors, state ministers in Sarawak and Sabah, or any elected representative for that matter, can be described as squeaky clean like a whistle, and you will hear the sneering grunt that deafens the ear.”
From the DAP we are clean. Would the BN say they are squeaky clean?
With the power structure and abundant resources that nature has blessed Sarawak, the perception of the people is that Sarawak is far from clean from the corruption gangrene.
In this era, the acquisition of knowledge is important. Hence, we are talking about k-economy, which means knowledge-economy. But many intellectuals have equated “k-economy” to “kantow-economy”. People want some explanation to how some people in power are able to get so rich and so quick.
The issue of kantow very frequently creeps out in coffee shops. When you sit in coffee shops, you will hear specific names of some of our Ministers and their families being mentioned, of how they have become fabulously rich, having massive palatial mansions, involved in corruption etc.
In the name of better accountability and transparency, I believe these questions are morally, politically, and legally valid in Malaysia.
We can start by taking the first step, and that is to support this Motion, and then walk the talk. In order to walk the talk, we must not live in a cocoon but admit that corruption exists. The prevalent denial syndrome about the complex problem of corruption in our state is most disturbing.
To support Pak Lah, Sarawak must have the moral fibre to declare that war against corruption is to be a top priority for the administration.
What can the state do? System for people … seminars, forums
- A transparent and accountable Government must be implemented.
- The State Government must cut down bureaucratic red tapes in Government departments and agencies because red tapes are primary grounds for breeding graft in Government departments and agencies.
- This Dewan can make laws so that all Ministers and Assistant Ministers, elected representatives, political secretaries, local councillors, heads of departments etc, must declare their assets and their next of kin’s to the Dewan and the declarations must be made public.
- The Dewan Undangan Negeri must appoint a Select Committee to monitor our anti-corruption drive.
- The Government must improve on the procedures for awarding contracts. Direct negotiation procedures for government tenders should be abolished. All contracts must be by public tender and based on merits.
- The Government must restore clean governance, truly expressing the essential value of democracy and accountability.
Pak Lah’s war against corruption was the centerpiece of his Government. In 2004, the war against corruption helped him get 91% of Parliamentary seats. It jolted all Malaysians to rise to stop the rot. But the rot has not stopped. The momentum against corruption has almost stopped. The zeal and spirit have almost stopped. All, because Pak Lah is alone. The popular belief is that he has abandoned the war against corruption.
The popular belief is that not a single BN component party thus far is seriously supporting his crusade against corruption.
The PM launched the National Integrity Plan (NIP) 4 years ago. When a forum on Integrity was held in Sibu recently, no one from the Leadership of the BN in Sibu attended. That shows how serious the SUPP politicians looked at the issue of integrity. Where there is a lack of integrity, corruption flourishes. Corruption increases as integrity decreases. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sarawak should openly declare support to Pak Lah’s zero tolerance to corruption declaration. But there are skeptics. A surfer in Sarawak talk wrote: “If you think that Sarawak Government is making any attempt to curb corruption, you may as well ask a cow to fly over the moon. There had been no attempt to combat corruption ever since the BN is in power. There will be none. Corruption will only get worse.”
That shows the writer has no confidence at all in our state Government to support Pak Lah in the war against corruption.
Give clean governance a chance – I challenge you, the BN Government. If the leaders are corrupt, nobody has the moral right to ask the followers to be clean. So, stay clean.
We should not be indifferent to the sin of corruption. The war against corruption should transcend Party politics. Hence, we saw the sincerity in Pak Lah’s crusade when he announced it in 2003. DAP has been whole heartedly behind Pak Lah in his crusade against corruption.
When Pak Lah almost wails in despair for being lonely in the war against corruption, shall we not desert him. If he has become disinterested, shall we encourage him to move on at full throttle?
Is Sarawak with our Prime Minister? Not by words only in this august house. Let that be recorded in the Hansard for future generations to read.
DAP supports the Amended Motion.
Debate on Land Code (Amendment) Bill
DEBATE ON LAND CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2007 by Wong Ho Leng, ADUN Bukit Assek on 20th Nov., 2007
Laws are amended in order to improve them.
But this Bill does not do that, despite the voices of the people spoken through the ballot on 20th May, 2006.
The Minister announced the New Land Policy in Miri on 26th May, 2007 without going through this Dewan. Now you are coming back to this Dewan to ask for legitimate authority to the New Land Policy. That is an irresponsible way of doing things.
The Government should hear out all members of this Dewan first, and only then consider announcing the New Land Policy. Not the other way around.
Why has the Government to make life difficult for its subjects?
Yet, everyday, we see the BN Ministers and backbenchers singing that the BN Government cares. If you do care, go for affirmative and proactive action. This is not seen in this Bill.
I will concentrate on 3 issues to show how this amendment Bill is not acceptable.
(1) Clause 4
Clause 4 seeks to amend s.26 of the Land Code. The original section provides that upon the expiration of the lease term, no person has any right to renewal, and the Director may re-alienate the land to anybody on certain conditions.
I cannot think of any reason why a person may become disinterested in the land. There could be explanations why he could not apply for extension. The Lands and Surveys require that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation before extension is granted. What if a co-owner cannot be found or a co-owner is not able to pay the high premium? Then the lease term cannot be extended. The fault lies in the requirement that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation and the heavy premium that they have to pay to get their lease terms extended.
Land is central to the subjects. Possession of land can be threatened by trespass or it can be threatened by Government policies. Today’s amendment to s.26 and the New Land Policy that was announced in Miri threatened the subjects’ right to land.
After the amendment, Section 26 says no persons shall have any right to renewal. How can that be just? The registered proprietor must have the automatic and unconditional right to renew or extend his title when the lease term expires.
Land ownership is a constitutional right. Hence, renewal of lease should be a legal right and not grace. Grace should not be part of the terms and conditions under the amendment to s.26.
(2) Terms and Conditions
These words appear in Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill.
Clause 4 amends s.26 of the Land Code to contain a proviso that the Director may impose terms and conditions before he re-alienates the land to the registered proprietor.
Clause 6 states that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri may impose conditions and mode of re-alienation.
Why can’t we be more specific what these mode and terms and conditions are? The Government’s administration has to be transparent. No loophole should be allowed which only breeds corruption.
Let us examine some of these terms and conditions which are already known to us:
(i) The premium payable ranges from 25% to 40% of the market price, depending on the category of land. That should not be the case, for that only burdens the people.
The burden will be more seriously felt in an economy which is inflationary and depressive. That is the economic situation now. A lot of people earn a meagre income and because of spiraling prices, cannot make ends meet. So, why burden the people?
(ii) Why the premium payable for agricultural land is 25% of the market price but the Minister may decide on the amount of premium payable for special cases involving the low income group or those living below the poverty line based on merit of each case? Isn’t this fertile ground for corruption? How can we be sure that the Minister will be fair and squeaky clean?
(iii) Why should the Government impose conditions on the new titles that there should be no transfer or dealing, subleasing etc? These conditions are unfair and uncalled for. Why restrict the rights of the registered proprietors?
(iv) Why has the Government disallowed extension to land under section 47 of the Land Code? In many cases, s.47 had been imposed for over 10 years, yet there has been no plan to resume them. Despite the promise by the Government that there is a policy that all s.47 will be lifted upon the expiry of 2 years, yet, the section still remains after more than 10 years on many of the land in Oya Road, Sibu. Why? These land cannot be developed because of s.47. These land leases will expire soon, and the landowners will see their land gabbled up by the Government with no compensation. That is not fair. Yet, the BN says it cares. The yardstick of being caring in the dictionary of the BN is so low indeed.
(v) Will the Government attach a condition that land lease renewal is a grace of the Government? Can the Government attach conditions to the release of the land titles? A specific example can make this obvious. I have come to know that land titles have already been issued by the Lands and Surveys. But the Lands and Surveys will not release the titles to the owners because of a directive from the Government that these land titles can only be handed to them over a ceremony graced by the presence of BN Ministers. Why should the Government use the release of land titles to the owners as a popularity show?
We had already seen what happened in the beginning of May 2006. Ministers came to the Lands and Surveys Department to hand out letters which approved lease extensions. The senior staffs of the Lands and Surveys were reduced to nobody as the Ministers and SUPP candidates gave out letters of approvals to the landowners. This was done as a popularity show. It was an election stunt.
Despite being unwilling, these landowners had paid the premium. So why should they have to wait for the Ministers, in their own chosen free time, to hand the titles to them?
Some of these landowners need the land titles badly to raise money for business, children’s education, or even medication. Why make them wait? Yet you said the BN Government cares.
(3) Financial Expenditure
The Bill says it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. This cannot be true. If Ministers have 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. These expenses are incurred unnecessarily.
Everyone is entitled to wonder why the BN Ministers have to become so cheap as to seek publicity stunt and popularity show at the expense of the rakyat?
With these observations, I must put on record my and my Party’s stance that the Government should automatically and unconditionally extend lease terms for 99 years when they expire.
I say that the Bill only reaffirms the draconian and onerous burden on the people envisaged in the New Land Policy and for that reason I do not support the Bill.
Laws are amended in order to improve them.
But this Bill does not do that, despite the voices of the people spoken through the ballot on 20th May, 2006.
The Minister announced the New Land Policy in Miri on 26th May, 2007 without going through this Dewan. Now you are coming back to this Dewan to ask for legitimate authority to the New Land Policy. That is an irresponsible way of doing things.
The Government should hear out all members of this Dewan first, and only then consider announcing the New Land Policy. Not the other way around.
Why has the Government to make life difficult for its subjects?
Yet, everyday, we see the BN Ministers and backbenchers singing that the BN Government cares. If you do care, go for affirmative and proactive action. This is not seen in this Bill.
I will concentrate on 3 issues to show how this amendment Bill is not acceptable.
(1) Clause 4
Clause 4 seeks to amend s.26 of the Land Code. The original section provides that upon the expiration of the lease term, no person has any right to renewal, and the Director may re-alienate the land to anybody on certain conditions.
I cannot think of any reason why a person may become disinterested in the land. There could be explanations why he could not apply for extension. The Lands and Surveys require that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation before extension is granted. What if a co-owner cannot be found or a co-owner is not able to pay the high premium? Then the lease term cannot be extended. The fault lies in the requirement that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation and the heavy premium that they have to pay to get their lease terms extended.
Land is central to the subjects. Possession of land can be threatened by trespass or it can be threatened by Government policies. Today’s amendment to s.26 and the New Land Policy that was announced in Miri threatened the subjects’ right to land.
After the amendment, Section 26 says no persons shall have any right to renewal. How can that be just? The registered proprietor must have the automatic and unconditional right to renew or extend his title when the lease term expires.
Land ownership is a constitutional right. Hence, renewal of lease should be a legal right and not grace. Grace should not be part of the terms and conditions under the amendment to s.26.
(2) Terms and Conditions
These words appear in Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill.
Clause 4 amends s.26 of the Land Code to contain a proviso that the Director may impose terms and conditions before he re-alienates the land to the registered proprietor.
Clause 6 states that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri may impose conditions and mode of re-alienation.
Why can’t we be more specific what these mode and terms and conditions are? The Government’s administration has to be transparent. No loophole should be allowed which only breeds corruption.
Let us examine some of these terms and conditions which are already known to us:
(i) The premium payable ranges from 25% to 40% of the market price, depending on the category of land. That should not be the case, for that only burdens the people.
The burden will be more seriously felt in an economy which is inflationary and depressive. That is the economic situation now. A lot of people earn a meagre income and because of spiraling prices, cannot make ends meet. So, why burden the people?
(ii) Why the premium payable for agricultural land is 25% of the market price but the Minister may decide on the amount of premium payable for special cases involving the low income group or those living below the poverty line based on merit of each case? Isn’t this fertile ground for corruption? How can we be sure that the Minister will be fair and squeaky clean?
(iii) Why should the Government impose conditions on the new titles that there should be no transfer or dealing, subleasing etc? These conditions are unfair and uncalled for. Why restrict the rights of the registered proprietors?
(iv) Why has the Government disallowed extension to land under section 47 of the Land Code? In many cases, s.47 had been imposed for over 10 years, yet there has been no plan to resume them. Despite the promise by the Government that there is a policy that all s.47 will be lifted upon the expiry of 2 years, yet, the section still remains after more than 10 years on many of the land in Oya Road, Sibu. Why? These land cannot be developed because of s.47. These land leases will expire soon, and the landowners will see their land gabbled up by the Government with no compensation. That is not fair. Yet, the BN says it cares. The yardstick of being caring in the dictionary of the BN is so low indeed.
(v) Will the Government attach a condition that land lease renewal is a grace of the Government? Can the Government attach conditions to the release of the land titles? A specific example can make this obvious. I have come to know that land titles have already been issued by the Lands and Surveys. But the Lands and Surveys will not release the titles to the owners because of a directive from the Government that these land titles can only be handed to them over a ceremony graced by the presence of BN Ministers. Why should the Government use the release of land titles to the owners as a popularity show?
We had already seen what happened in the beginning of May 2006. Ministers came to the Lands and Surveys Department to hand out letters which approved lease extensions. The senior staffs of the Lands and Surveys were reduced to nobody as the Ministers and SUPP candidates gave out letters of approvals to the landowners. This was done as a popularity show. It was an election stunt.
Despite being unwilling, these landowners had paid the premium. So why should they have to wait for the Ministers, in their own chosen free time, to hand the titles to them?
Some of these landowners need the land titles badly to raise money for business, children’s education, or even medication. Why make them wait? Yet you said the BN Government cares.
(3) Financial Expenditure
The Bill says it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. This cannot be true. If Ministers have 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. These expenses are incurred unnecessarily.
Everyone is entitled to wonder why the BN Ministers have to become so cheap as to seek publicity stunt and popularity show at the expense of the rakyat?
With these observations, I must put on record my and my Party’s stance that the Government should automatically and unconditionally extend lease terms for 99 years when they expire.
I say that the Bill only reaffirms the draconian and onerous burden on the people envisaged in the New Land Policy and for that reason I do not support the Bill.
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.
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.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Debate on Motion to Amend Standing Orders
DEBATE Speech by Wong Ho Leng, ADUN Bukit Assek, on 19th Nov., 2007 on MOTION by Deputy Chief Minister I & ADUN for Piasau George Chan TO AMEND STANDING ORDERS
We are proud to have the oldest legislature in the country. But we cannot be proud that the Government is trying everything possible to stiffen the Opposition’s voice.
Half a year ago, the Government moved The Dewan Undangan Negeri (Privileges and Powers) Bill, 2007. As we said, that was designed to gag the Opposition.
As if that was not enough, in the space of 6 months, you still look for blood. This time, you move this Motion, in the name of maintaining decorum in the Dewan.
Sarawakians ought to be ashamed of our Government for habouring the tenacity to stifle and gag the Opposition members. How shameful it is that stifling Opposition voice has become institutionalized in this Dewan?
True, this is the first time that this Dewan has seen a true Opposition, but there is no reason for you to labour day and night to try kill the legitimate voices of the Opposition members. Like all of you, we were elected by the people, only that we are definitely more clean because we could never be involved in money politics. We had always been victims of money politics.
We are duty bound to voice out. When BN backbenchers cannot speak the plight of the people due to Party whip or you are too scared to antagonize your leaders, we can, and we promise to do it well. We are able to do well because we subscribe to our inner belief and our inner conscience that we can speak without fear or favour.
You don’t expect the DAP wakil rakyat to take oppression and intimidation lying down. We are not yes men. We are not puppets. We are not apple polishers. We talk as people of principles.
We tell the truth. In Parliament we speak the truth to Pak Lah. Here we speak the truth to all of you. You may not like to hear what we say, but you can go home, look at yourself in the mirror, and ask whether you have done justice to the voters who elected us, to the Sarawakians who treasure us to be their mouthpiece.
We are not lepers. Until I bring in more of the peoples’ choice, we are small in number in this Dewan. Therefore, you do not have to be so terrified as to deem it necessary to amend the Standing Orders. What an excuse that the stifling is to be done in the name of the need to maintain decorum.
You can stand assured that we have abided by decorum in this Dewan more than the BN front and backbenchers. Who first shouted “kurang ajar” in this dewan? … (Speaker disallowed proceeding along this line and ordered me to sit down …)
We do not have a level playing field. But we will soldier on.
The Standing Orders is full of lacunae. Mr. Speaker, you are the keeper of both the hansards and the Standing Orders. It is your job to see improvement by filling these lacunae. Why don’t we spend time to study them and improve them? Improvise, that must be the philosophy of life.
The following are the lacunae which have to be improved:
1. On Oral Answers:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that Oral Questions that lapse should automatically generate written answers? As of now, the questions are recycled, year in and year out. Out of 250 questions, only 50 normally became answered. That is 20%. 200 are old stuff. These are Recycled. No wonder the life as BN ADUN is so “senang”. You are not burdened, nor eager, to know how the Government works. How can our Government and administration improve, when the Dewan is reduced to regurgitating old, stale oral questions year in and year out? Much energy and time are wasted for nothing as the answers were all prepared, and they are ditched. Come next sitting, the answers are recycled to recycled questions.
As elected representatives, we owe the people of Sarawak a duty to provide check and balances. Have our administration and the Ministers who head them performed up to standard? How much money has been squandered due to inefficiency and corruption? We need to know, because every sen belongs to the tax payers. Yet, do we care whether duties have been discharged? How many of you BN backbenchers seriously ask questions? How many of the BN backbenchers complained that answers are not given to them? They keep quiet because BN backbenchers do not understand the plight of the people. Also they are bound by BN Party whip and therefore cannot ask the Ministers nasty questions. Also, they don’t know how to ask. They also dare not ask. So the Standing Orders allow the recycling of stale questions.
2. On Motions:
Why don’t we redefine the Standing Orders to allow Motions on Chinese education to be moved in this Dewan, instead of at least 5 times rejecting my Motion on it? And, 3 times rejecting Padugan’s Motion on it.
We have a Minister overseeing education here, but that is beside the point, because there is nothing to stop the state Government to allocate financial grants to Chinese Schools, without having anything to do with the federal Parliament.
3. On Live telecast:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that proceedings in this Dewan can be telecast live over the TV and the Internet? With Malaysia talking so much about the Multimedia Super Corridor and even going to space with so much waste of money, we still cannot see proceedings in this Dewan telecast live over the TV and Internet. Perhaps the reason was we are not ready because the people here are rowdy. Now that the Standing Orders are amended, can we telecast live now? Sarawak boasts to be the first in the country for having Video conferencing and Technology courts. When are we in this Dewan going to leap out the circle of the dinasaurs? Would you allow members to skype? Where is it in the Standing Order?
4. On Supplementary Supplies:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that all Supplementary Supplies Bills may be debated without giving the impossible 2 days notice? Why do we allow the Government to hide documents till the last minute, ie, documents are only laid on our table on the very morning of the debate and to be passed on the same day, yet whoever wants to debate the Supplementary Supply Bills need to give 2 days’ notice in advance? Mr. Speaker, you should know by now that this 2 days’ notice required is impossible to comply and illogical.
5. On Ministers’ Replies:
The Speaker had said before that whatever way a Minister addressed a question that was raised, he will be deemed to have answered the question. With respect, this decision cannot be right because there must be certain standard which a Minister must attain. If the Minister answered that a deer is a horse (指鹿為馬), according to speaker he has answered, but that is no standard or decency.
Instead of spending time on unnecessary amendments, why don’t we consider amending the Standing Orders so that a Minister must answer questions to a certain standard of decency?
By The Dewan Undangan Negeri (Privileges and Powers) Bill, 2007, we were not allowed to comment on decisions made in the Dewan. What if the decision is obviously wrong? We can comment on the decisions of judges, why is this Court different?
The former Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan wrote a book, “Judging the Judges”. The cover says, “It is only when you know of the Judge’s craft that you will be able to Judge the performance of the judges: only then will you know the difference between the good and the bad judges”. So, the Deputy Chief Minister is wrong in saying in the press that lawyers are not allowed to comment judgments of judges. Similarly we are entitled to comment on decisions made in this Dewan. The Dewan is also a Court of law.
These are the drawbacks when the Government is getting too strong, and yet arrogant not to listen to the small Opposition. The Motion is tainted with bad faith, and I am not going to be tainted.
My Party and I Oppose the Motion.
We are proud to have the oldest legislature in the country. But we cannot be proud that the Government is trying everything possible to stiffen the Opposition’s voice.
Half a year ago, the Government moved The Dewan Undangan Negeri (Privileges and Powers) Bill, 2007. As we said, that was designed to gag the Opposition.
As if that was not enough, in the space of 6 months, you still look for blood. This time, you move this Motion, in the name of maintaining decorum in the Dewan.
Sarawakians ought to be ashamed of our Government for habouring the tenacity to stifle and gag the Opposition members. How shameful it is that stifling Opposition voice has become institutionalized in this Dewan?
True, this is the first time that this Dewan has seen a true Opposition, but there is no reason for you to labour day and night to try kill the legitimate voices of the Opposition members. Like all of you, we were elected by the people, only that we are definitely more clean because we could never be involved in money politics. We had always been victims of money politics.
We are duty bound to voice out. When BN backbenchers cannot speak the plight of the people due to Party whip or you are too scared to antagonize your leaders, we can, and we promise to do it well. We are able to do well because we subscribe to our inner belief and our inner conscience that we can speak without fear or favour.
You don’t expect the DAP wakil rakyat to take oppression and intimidation lying down. We are not yes men. We are not puppets. We are not apple polishers. We talk as people of principles.
We tell the truth. In Parliament we speak the truth to Pak Lah. Here we speak the truth to all of you. You may not like to hear what we say, but you can go home, look at yourself in the mirror, and ask whether you have done justice to the voters who elected us, to the Sarawakians who treasure us to be their mouthpiece.
We are not lepers. Until I bring in more of the peoples’ choice, we are small in number in this Dewan. Therefore, you do not have to be so terrified as to deem it necessary to amend the Standing Orders. What an excuse that the stifling is to be done in the name of the need to maintain decorum.
You can stand assured that we have abided by decorum in this Dewan more than the BN front and backbenchers. Who first shouted “kurang ajar” in this dewan? … (Speaker disallowed proceeding along this line and ordered me to sit down …)
We do not have a level playing field. But we will soldier on.
The Standing Orders is full of lacunae. Mr. Speaker, you are the keeper of both the hansards and the Standing Orders. It is your job to see improvement by filling these lacunae. Why don’t we spend time to study them and improve them? Improvise, that must be the philosophy of life.
The following are the lacunae which have to be improved:
1. On Oral Answers:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that Oral Questions that lapse should automatically generate written answers? As of now, the questions are recycled, year in and year out. Out of 250 questions, only 50 normally became answered. That is 20%. 200 are old stuff. These are Recycled. No wonder the life as BN ADUN is so “senang”. You are not burdened, nor eager, to know how the Government works. How can our Government and administration improve, when the Dewan is reduced to regurgitating old, stale oral questions year in and year out? Much energy and time are wasted for nothing as the answers were all prepared, and they are ditched. Come next sitting, the answers are recycled to recycled questions.
As elected representatives, we owe the people of Sarawak a duty to provide check and balances. Have our administration and the Ministers who head them performed up to standard? How much money has been squandered due to inefficiency and corruption? We need to know, because every sen belongs to the tax payers. Yet, do we care whether duties have been discharged? How many of you BN backbenchers seriously ask questions? How many of the BN backbenchers complained that answers are not given to them? They keep quiet because BN backbenchers do not understand the plight of the people. Also they are bound by BN Party whip and therefore cannot ask the Ministers nasty questions. Also, they don’t know how to ask. They also dare not ask. So the Standing Orders allow the recycling of stale questions.
2. On Motions:
Why don’t we redefine the Standing Orders to allow Motions on Chinese education to be moved in this Dewan, instead of at least 5 times rejecting my Motion on it? And, 3 times rejecting Padugan’s Motion on it.
We have a Minister overseeing education here, but that is beside the point, because there is nothing to stop the state Government to allocate financial grants to Chinese Schools, without having anything to do with the federal Parliament.
3. On Live telecast:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that proceedings in this Dewan can be telecast live over the TV and the Internet? With Malaysia talking so much about the Multimedia Super Corridor and even going to space with so much waste of money, we still cannot see proceedings in this Dewan telecast live over the TV and Internet. Perhaps the reason was we are not ready because the people here are rowdy. Now that the Standing Orders are amended, can we telecast live now? Sarawak boasts to be the first in the country for having Video conferencing and Technology courts. When are we in this Dewan going to leap out the circle of the dinasaurs? Would you allow members to skype? Where is it in the Standing Order?
4. On Supplementary Supplies:
Why don’t we amend the Standing Orders so that all Supplementary Supplies Bills may be debated without giving the impossible 2 days notice? Why do we allow the Government to hide documents till the last minute, ie, documents are only laid on our table on the very morning of the debate and to be passed on the same day, yet whoever wants to debate the Supplementary Supply Bills need to give 2 days’ notice in advance? Mr. Speaker, you should know by now that this 2 days’ notice required is impossible to comply and illogical.
5. On Ministers’ Replies:
The Speaker had said before that whatever way a Minister addressed a question that was raised, he will be deemed to have answered the question. With respect, this decision cannot be right because there must be certain standard which a Minister must attain. If the Minister answered that a deer is a horse (指鹿為馬), according to speaker he has answered, but that is no standard or decency.
Instead of spending time on unnecessary amendments, why don’t we consider amending the Standing Orders so that a Minister must answer questions to a certain standard of decency?
By The Dewan Undangan Negeri (Privileges and Powers) Bill, 2007, we were not allowed to comment on decisions made in the Dewan. What if the decision is obviously wrong? We can comment on the decisions of judges, why is this Court different?
The former Court of Appeal Judge NH Chan wrote a book, “Judging the Judges”. The cover says, “It is only when you know of the Judge’s craft that you will be able to Judge the performance of the judges: only then will you know the difference between the good and the bad judges”. So, the Deputy Chief Minister is wrong in saying in the press that lawyers are not allowed to comment judgments of judges. Similarly we are entitled to comment on decisions made in this Dewan. The Dewan is also a Court of law.
These are the drawbacks when the Government is getting too strong, and yet arrogant not to listen to the small Opposition. The Motion is tainted with bad faith, and I am not going to be tainted.
My Party and I Oppose the Motion.
Dewan Diary - Day 1: Addendum
By Y.B. Wong Ho Leng, ADUN for Bukit Assek
The Speaker does not “speak”, in the sense that he would not take part in the debate. But this was not the first time that he spoke.
While telling PKR’s Dominique that Sarawak is the only state which allows debate in English, Bahasa Malaysia and other native languages, I stood to say that Chinese should also be allowed to be used. The Speaker asked me why I did not propose it in my speech earlier. I asked whether I could still propose it. His answer was not forthcoming.
It is good to have members who are ready to speak at any time’s notice. When Chong had his turn, he proposed that Chinese be also allowed to be used in the debate. He asked who would second his proposal. I did. He then asked the BN/SUPP members who would agree with his proposal. None moved. All must be feeling a chill inside them. That shows how serious the SUPP is in promoting Chinese. They talked so much, yet did not walk the talk. All are empty talks.
Soon Koh ought to have had a hard time answering my and Chong’s queries on the Supplementary Supply Bills. I asked why expenses incurred in 2005 could not be brought up for consideration in the 2006 Supplementary Supply Bill? Why a year later? There ought to have been mid-term and year-end reviews and what not? The question was fundamental but Soon Koh did not reply to the point. I warned that a floodgate would be opened. If today’s Bill could be passed, there would be nothing to stop future Bills, incorporating expenses incurred in 1990 or 1980, to be brought to the Dewan for rubber stamping. Of course, the BN had made the Dewan a rubber stamp and passed the Supplementary Supply (2005) Bill 2007.
Chong talked on matters concerning expenses in the Supplementary Supply (2007) Bill 2007. He asked the Government to be thrifty. If the PM can be driven around in Proton Perdana, why can’t the Ministers in Sarawak, he asked. Why need we have Mercedes benz cars, Rolls Royce and BMWs? I took the opportunity to borrow Chong’s floor to say that some Ministers had the Government cars for private Party uses, that these SUPP Ministers were chauffeured to go to their Party office to “hantam” own comrades. The Speaker was furious with I don’t know what, but I sensed that it was with the word “hantam”, so I withdrew it. Not too nice lah, the word. I would name the Ministers if I am permitted to, I told the Speaker. Of course, the Speaker won’t let me go into the issue. But did Soon Koh reply to Chong and my issues? No. Not at all. Had he replied and swayed from the truth, I would have shown the Dewan the photos which I personally took of his official car parked below the SUPP Sibu office when the meeting upstairs concerned not Government business but how to deal with Dudong Branch and the Signboard.
If Sarawak has a Finance Minister who cannot answer questions, yet the Supplementary Supply (2007) Bill 2007 is passed by sheer majority of the BN members, I think we have to rethink Sarawak’s destiny.
The Speaker does not “speak”, in the sense that he would not take part in the debate. But this was not the first time that he spoke.
While telling PKR’s Dominique that Sarawak is the only state which allows debate in English, Bahasa Malaysia and other native languages, I stood to say that Chinese should also be allowed to be used. The Speaker asked me why I did not propose it in my speech earlier. I asked whether I could still propose it. His answer was not forthcoming.
It is good to have members who are ready to speak at any time’s notice. When Chong had his turn, he proposed that Chinese be also allowed to be used in the debate. He asked who would second his proposal. I did. He then asked the BN/SUPP members who would agree with his proposal. None moved. All must be feeling a chill inside them. That shows how serious the SUPP is in promoting Chinese. They talked so much, yet did not walk the talk. All are empty talks.
Soon Koh ought to have had a hard time answering my and Chong’s queries on the Supplementary Supply Bills. I asked why expenses incurred in 2005 could not be brought up for consideration in the 2006 Supplementary Supply Bill? Why a year later? There ought to have been mid-term and year-end reviews and what not? The question was fundamental but Soon Koh did not reply to the point. I warned that a floodgate would be opened. If today’s Bill could be passed, there would be nothing to stop future Bills, incorporating expenses incurred in 1990 or 1980, to be brought to the Dewan for rubber stamping. Of course, the BN had made the Dewan a rubber stamp and passed the Supplementary Supply (2005) Bill 2007.
Chong talked on matters concerning expenses in the Supplementary Supply (2007) Bill 2007. He asked the Government to be thrifty. If the PM can be driven around in Proton Perdana, why can’t the Ministers in Sarawak, he asked. Why need we have Mercedes benz cars, Rolls Royce and BMWs? I took the opportunity to borrow Chong’s floor to say that some Ministers had the Government cars for private Party uses, that these SUPP Ministers were chauffeured to go to their Party office to “hantam” own comrades. The Speaker was furious with I don’t know what, but I sensed that it was with the word “hantam”, so I withdrew it. Not too nice lah, the word. I would name the Ministers if I am permitted to, I told the Speaker. Of course, the Speaker won’t let me go into the issue. But did Soon Koh reply to Chong and my issues? No. Not at all. Had he replied and swayed from the truth, I would have shown the Dewan the photos which I personally took of his official car parked below the SUPP Sibu office when the meeting upstairs concerned not Government business but how to deal with Dudong Branch and the Signboard.
If Sarawak has a Finance Minister who cannot answer questions, yet the Supplementary Supply (2007) Bill 2007 is passed by sheer majority of the BN members, I think we have to rethink Sarawak’s destiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)