Approved Permits (APs) for Cronies (II)

I wasn't particularly happy with the response provided by the Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI) to my questions regarding "auctioning" the Approved Permits (APs) to import cars during the committee stage budget debate as blogged earlier.

I argued that if the intent of the 'APs' are to encourage bumiputera participation in the auto sector, then the current system doesn't work either for the award of APs are completely discretionary and are given to a handful of parties who are closely connected to MITI.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Terima kasih Tuan Pengerusi. Mengenai dasar AP untuk membantu bumiputera. Perkara tersebut kita tidak bantah, kita tidak kata tidak boleh tetapi untuk membantu kaum bumiputera pun boleh ada lelong terbuka bagi semua peniaga bumiputera untuk mengambil bahagian dalam sektor ini. Untuk membantu bumiputera tidak sepatutnya bermaksud pemberian AP ini adalah mengikut cara yang ditentukan oleh kementerian sahaja, iaitu ikut siapa yang dia hendak beri, kementerian berikan kepada dia.

Boleh juga terbuka kepada semua bumiputera dan kita rasa untuk mempertingkatkan daya persaingan dan juga business bumiputera, kita tidak patut memberikan keuntungan kepada syarikat-syarikat ini melalui satu AP. Mereka tidak patut untung daripada AP tersebut, iaitu harga beli RM10,000 tetapi boleh terus dapat keuntungan RM30,000 daripada AP dan yang patut kita berikan adalah khas dia boleh dapat AP untuk mengimport kereta, tetapi keuntungan anda perlu datang daripada pengimportan kereta dan bukan kerana mendapat AP.

Itu cara kita meningkatkan daya persaingan mereka, kalau tidak mereka hanya dependent daripada RM30,000 yang mereka boleh untung daripada AP sahaja. Kita hendak mereka untung daripada business dan bukan daripada AP yang diberikan oleh kerajaan yang mengehadkan pengimportan kereta. Terima kasih.

Dato' Mustapa Mohamed: Tuan Pengerusi, saya mohon izin untuk wind up perkara ini... Mengenai perkara ini saya ingin memaklumkan seperti saya sebutkan tadi perkara ini amat rumit, sudah 30 tahun menimbulkan pelbagai kontroversi dalam dan luar Dewan, amat memeningkan kepala. Bukan tidak ada satu penyelesaian yang jelas, tetapi yang penting lagi ialah kita harus ada satu process transition.

Itu yang kita buat pada hari ini dan kalau kita buka kepada semua umpamanya seperti mana Yang Berhormat katakan, kita dapati bahawa ada juga kelemahan. Bukan tidak ada kelemahan dan yang akan monopolinya mungkin beberapa orang tertentu juga yang mampu, mungkin dua tiga orang. Dari segi hasil mungkin bagus, tetapi dari segi kalau kita hendak bantu bumiputera mereka yang kaya-raya mungkin merekalah yang dapat semua sekali.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Akan tetapi sekarang pun bagi empat orang sahaja.

Dato' Mustapa Mohamed: Satu orang sahaja. Jadi dapat kita bantu beberapa ratus orang, dari seorang sahaja dapat manfaat. Jadi cadangan Yang Berhormat, kita sudah kaji semua sekali dan kita rasakan it is not perfect lah dengan sempurna. Ada kelemahan juga Yang Berhormat sebut tadi, tidak semestinya betul dan baik belaka.

I believe that the argument that the Minister put forward that when the APs are openly auctioned, then only the rich will be able to purchase the APs is complete nonsense. Even if you are rich, if you pay an exorbitant price for the AP and is unable to pass the cost ultimately to the consumer, you will still lose you pants in the business! So final bidding price will certainly not be dominated by the so-called "rich" businessmen, but instead by those who are able to maximise efficiency, lower cost and market best, will be able to afford bidding at slightly higher prices and yet make reasonable profits for their business.

Yet, the Government is unwilling to do so, letting these AP hawkers earn billions at the Government's expense. However, when the Government is short of funds, they'll turn to the rakyat to squeeze more blood out of the people with more taxes like the real estate property gains tax, the credit card tax and soon, the goods and services tax.

Read more!

Approved Permits (APs) for Cronies (I)

Last week on Wednesday's committee stage debate for the 2010 Budget for the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), I managed to raise the perennial issue on "Approved Permits", on why there's open tenders for them, which can in turn raise billions annually for the Government.

Terima kasih Tuan Pengerusi. Saya ingin menyentuh Butiran 401000 - Pembangunan Perindustrian di bawah Kementerian, International Trade and Industry. Hanya dua perkara sahaja. Perkara pertama adalah mengenai Approved Permit (AP). Setiap tahun kementerian mengeluarkan 60,000 lebih AP kepada pengimport kereta dan tahun ini, bagi tahun depan, Yang Berhormat Perdana Menteri telah mengemukakan dalam ucapan bajet dia bahawa setiap AP yang dikeluarkan akan dikenakan kos sebanyak RM10,000 setiap AP. Ini adalah satu langkah ke arah yang betul iaitu AP ini tidak patut diberi secara percuma kepada pihak pengimport kereta yang mendapat keuntungan yang lumayan daripada pengimportan kereta dengan AP yang dikuasai oleh mereka.

Akan tetapi, soalan saya ialah kenapa kerajaan langsung tidak mengambil cadangan
untuk melelongkan AP ini sebab harga pasaran AP ini ialah lebih kurang RM40,000 dan boleh jadi lebih tinggi. Kalau RM40,000 boleh dapat dicapai, hasil yang dapat dikutip oleh kerajaan bagi semua AP yang dikeluarkan adalah lebih kurang RM2.4 bilion. Sekarang RM10,000 hanya dapat mengutip RM600 juta. Kenapa kerajaan tidak mengambil langkah untuk melelongkan AP? Ini supaya hasil bagi kerajaan yang amat berkurangan pada tahun depan akan dapat ditingkatkan dengan sebanyak lebih kurang RM1.8 bilion lagi.

Kita hendak kemukakan cukai baru kepada kad kredit, RM500 juta dapat dikutip. Kita hendak kemukakan cukai baru kepada penjualan hartanah, lebih kurang RM500 juta juga boleh dikutip. Kalau kita hapuskan cukai-cukai ini dan kita lelongkan AP sahaja, kita akan dapat hasil yang melebihi RM1.8 bilion, jauh lebih banyak daripada cukai-cukai yang lain. So kita hendak tahu kenapa kerajaan tidak melelongkan AP ini?

Kalau kita nak melelongkan AP ini, sepatutnya kita tidak payah tamatkan polisi AP. Ini sebab kalau 60,000 AP dikeluarkan untuk mengawal pengimportan kereta dan dilelongkan secara terbuka, polisi ini akan dapat diteruskan sebab kita hendak hadkan berapa kereta import boleh masuk. Akan tetapi, kita boleh teruskan polisi ini supaya kerajaan terus mendapat hasil yang mencukupi daripada AP.

So kita harap kerajaan akan mempertimbangkan tentang perkara. Polisi ini pun telah dilaksanakan secara successfully di negara-negara seperti Singapura melalui prinsip COE di mana kalau demand tinggi, harga AP naik, kalau demand rendah, harga AP turun. So kita harap kerajaan dapat mempertimbangkan perkara ini.

And the Minister's Reply was as follows, arguing that the AP policy is temporary, and its specifically to assist bumiputera businessmen to expand in the automotive industry, plus it should not be auctioned to protect those who has invested millions into their showroom etc:

Dato' Mustapa Mohamed: [...] Jadi persoalannya kenapa tidak dilelong, dibuka untuk semua dan kalau begitu mengikut Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara umpamanya kita boleh teruskan dengan AP ini sampai bila, kita lelong. Itu cadangan Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara apabila berucap kali yang pertama jam 11.30 pagi tadi.

Jadi untuk ini saya hendak maklumkan bahawa yang pertamanya apa jua dasar, kita harus ada peralihan ataupun transition face, apa jua yang hendak dibuat, Yang Berhormat pun hendak buat sesuatu, kita tidak boleh bribe. Lebih-lebih lagi dasar ini ialah untuk membantu bumiputera dalam bidang motor trade ini, kerana apabila dasar ini diperkenalkan 30 tahun yang lalu memang tidak ada bumiputera dalam motor trade, Yang Berhormat pun tahu semua. Hari ini pun memang tidak ramai lagi. Itu sebabnya dasar AP ini diperkenalkan supaya bilangan bumiputera dalam bidang ini bertambah. Pertama.

Kedua, hasrat kerajaan adalah supaya mereka daripada benefit privilege atau keistimewaan yang diberikan ini dapat mengembangkan perniagaan untuk terlibat dalam bidang-bidang yang lain untuk mempelbagaikan perniagaan mereka. Jadi yang pertama untuk membantu penyertaan bumiputera dan yang keduanya untuk membolehkan mereka ada tapak untuk mempelbagaikan, untuk menceburi bidang-bidang lain. Itu dasarnya.

Jadi itulah yang kita lakukan. Kalau kita buka semua sekarang, kita merasakan ini akan menimbulkan banyak masalah kerana mereka sudah melabur setengahnya RM10 juta. Dasar-dasar sebelum ini yang memberi gambaran seolah-olah ia akan berterusan selama-lamanya, maknanya AP ini akan sampai bila-bila, sampai kiamat kita katakan. Jadi oleh hal yang demikian, maka ada di antara mereka yang telah melabur RM10 juta, RM50 juta. Jadi dengan izin, we’ve got to be fair. Kita harus adil kepada mereka. Itu sebabnya mengambil kira pertimbangan tersebut, kita telah buat keputusan bukan 2020, kita tarik balik lima tahun, 2015.

What do you think? I'll blog on my rebuttal and the subsequent exchange in the next post.

Read more!

GST Debate Commences

The debate has begun. Should we or should we not implement the controversial Goods & Services Tax (GST). I've received a comment from a supporter in my earlier post that he supports GST. His arguments are as follows:

1. Currently our Sales Tax is 10%. So, I think anything lower than that is a better deal for the Rakyat.


2. GST is fairer. GST is a consumption tax, people with more income consume more, so they will be taxed more often. People cheats on Income Tax, which explain the low percentage of Rakyat who are tax payer. With GST, those who cheats by not paying or paying less will still have to pay some tax to the Govt, especially when they buy big nice cars and houses.


3. GST is more difficult to cheat than sales tax. Because Sales Tax is so easy to cheat, SMEs who are honest are forced to cheat in order to survive. An example, it's common to find a clause in an open tender that states that the provider has to bear all taxes, and every participant knows that if he doesn't cheat on Sales Tax, he would not have the chance to win the tender. This scenario cannot happen in case of GST, as everyone in the supply and consumption chain has to pay GST, therefore you can't have a clause in the tender to excuse yourself of not paying the GST. With GST, all honest SMEs and providers can now compete fairly and squarely in the market place.


4. As GST is more efficient, the revenue for the Govt will increase. In theory, the Govt will have more money to do all kind of wonderful things for the Rakyat. Now, the track records show that our Govt favors a selected groups of Rakyat and often squanders billions of MYR. Still, I think GST do more goods than harms. Especially when DAP comes into power.

My short response will be as follows:

1. Our sales tax is 5%, and that's only on very selected goods.
   
   
2. I agree with all the theoretical arguments mentioned - (2) and (3). But you have to balance that against the pain you will incur on 85% of the working population who does not pay any income tax at this point of time because their income levels are too low (and not because they are evading taxes)
   
   
3. As for(4), I fully agree that implementing GST will increase govt revenue, that's why BN is doing it, 'cos they've run out of money after wasting it in the last 10-20 years. It has bled Petronas dry and now it wants to bleed the people too.
   
   Lets increase govt revenue by increasing the income of the people (more income, more people will need to pay tax) instead of increasing govt revenue by increase tax rates.

Our BN govt wants to increase tax rates without first increasing the income of the people, and hence it is both unfair and burdensome to the people.

Read more!

Deputy Finance Minister was Clueless on GST

I raised my concerns on the controversial Goods & Services Tax (GST) in my committee stage debate on the Ministry of Finance, you can hear it here. The key gist of my argument was that while GST is in theory, more effective and efficient, it has to be noted that in Malaysia only 6.7% of its 27 million population pay any income taxes, or 15% of its working population. This means that any introduction of GST today would mean a substantial burden on 85% of the working population who current do not pay a single cent of tax. They are not pay tax not because they are evading, but because their income is below taxable levels.

Hence my argument was that the GST should be implemented only after a sizeable majority of the working population are able to increase their income to taxable levels. Then, it may be appropriate to switch from a direct taxation mechanism to an indirect one like GST. In essence, until the Prime Minister's stated goal of becoming a "high income" society is achieved, the Government must not implement the GST.

The Minister replied to my concerns very briefly. He said he agreed with my comments, but the Government at this stage is only studying the matter and do not have any intentions at all to implement a GST any time soon. This was on the 18th November 2009 (Wed).

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek Hussin: [...] Saya ingin menyebut beberapa perkara lain. Salah satunya GST di mana Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara pun ada enyebutnya. Dia kata sokong dari dasarnya bagus cuma masanya tidak ready lagi. Pertamanya saya ingin menyatakan di sini bahawa kerajaan tidak berhasrat melaksanakan GST dalam masa yang terdekat ini tidak ada. Sekarang ini pada peringkat kajian, mengkaji, memahami dan mencari penyelesaian kepada masalah-masalah yang mungkin timbul.

Apabila kita sudah dapat ke tahap di mana kita yakin bahawa semua ini sudah dibereskan, barulah pengumuman akan dibuat. Akan tetapi, buat masa ini tidak ada lagi sebab ada juga orang dan media pun bertanya adakah kita hendak laksanakan tahun depan kerana perbincangan- perbincangan yang sering disuarakan di dalam Dewan yang mulia? Akan tetapi bagi pihak kerajaan, saya boleh katakan bahawa kita tidak ada perancangan untuk melaksanakan dalam masa yang terdekat.

[...]Cuma, ada seolah-olah tadi di mana saya tidak mahu ada tanggapan bahawa Malaysia tidak ready, negara-negara lain ready melaksanakan kerana mereka ready. Mereka sudah bersedia tetapi tidak bagi Malaysia. Saya cuma mahu katakan, negara-negara yang telah melaksanakan termasuklah negara yang berpendapatan lebih rendah daripada Malaysia dan sudah melaksanakan. Contohnya, Sudan, Indonesia, Thailand, dan Vietnam sudah pun memperkenalkan GST ini. Maknanya, kalau sesuatu yang tidaklah di luar kemampuan kita sekiranya kita sudah bersedia. Akan tetapi, pada peringkat ini kita sedang mengkaji.

And then, guess what, in less than a week, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Dato' Seri Najib Abdul Razak announced that the Government will table the GST bill for first reading in the current session of parliament!! The 2nd Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah even indicated yesterday, the the GST rate will likely be at 4%!

Obviously, the Deputy Finance Minister, Dr Awang Adek was complete out of the loop and clueless about the GST and should not have been allowed to answer the question! This shows how important the Government treats the Parliament as its highest legislative body.

Read more!

Convention Centre "For Free" and Pigs Can Fly

Minister of International Trade and Industry's statement that the Government is getting the MATRADE Convention & Exhibition Centre for “free” leaves Malaysians “flabbergasted”

In an astounding reply to the reporters at the Parliament, the Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Datuk Mustapa Mohamed claimed that:

Matrade is not putting up a single cent. Otherwise we have to beg and steal and borrow from the government. But maintenance is, of course, ours. That building, when it is completed in four years, is going to be ours. We are getting the building for free, otherwise we have to pay RM628 million, which is a big amount of money.

The usually composed and competent Minister fondly known as Tok Pa, must have had a moment of madness for claiming that the Government will get Malaysia's largest convention and exhibition centre “for free” from Naza TTDI, when the latter is being paid with 62.5 acres of prime land.

The Minister had earlier replied in Parliament that the 62.5 acres of land given in exchange for the convention and exhibition centre was valued at RM197 million.

The reply still leaves Malaysians completely flabbergasted as the Minister expects us to believe that Naza TTDI, a private company belonging to the Naza Group which has milked billions from “Approved Permits” to import luxury cars via MITI is so charitable as to build a RM628 million convention and exhibition centre at the price of RM197 million. If what the Minister had said is true and accurate, Naza TTDI is in fact “donating” RM431 million to the Malaysian Government, and we should all be eternally indebted to Naza for its immeasurable generosity.

However, the Minister's reply only raises more questions, for there must be a catch somewhere in the entire exercise. At RM197 million for the 62.5 acres piece of land means it is valued at only RM72 per square feet, which is unbelievably low for the prime land between Mont Kiara and Jalan Duta.

In a report by The Star on the 18 November:

Sources valued the state land, when converted to commercial land, at between RM350 to RM500 per sq ft. “RM500 may be a bit on the high side, but it makes sense. The total gross development value (GDV) of all the projects on that 65 acres is going to be RM15bil. That means the market value of that commercial land of 65 acres is RM1.5bil,” Kumar said.

A source who declined to be named said at RM500 per sq ft, the land cost would comprise 10% of the total GDV of RM15bil that Naza is undertaking. In Singapore, the land cost can go up to 50% of GDV, in Hong Kong, it is 65% of total GDV. “If it is valued at RM350 per sq ft, the cost of land is about RM970mil. So it is around that range,” Kumar said.

Kumar Tharmalingam is the chairman of Hall Chadwick Asia Sdn Bhd, a leading property consultant in Malaysia. He is also a resident of FIABCI Asia Pacific Real Estate Federation and Secretary General of FIABCI Asia Pacific Secretariat, the International Real Estate Federation headquartered in Paris and a Board Member of FIABCI International based in Paris and Immediate Past President of FIABCI Malaysia, so he should certainly know what he is talking about.

Hence, even by taking the conservative estimate of RM350 per square feet by the experts, which works out to a valuation of RM970 million for the land paid paid to Naza TTDI, the Government is in fact paying RM342 million more than the stated RM628 million cost of building the Matrade Convention and Exhibition Centre! And if we take the higher estimate of RM500 per square feet, then the Government is in fact paying in excess of RM870 million! Under such circumstances, it will not be wrong to say that it is Naza TTDI which has received land from MITI “for free”.

When asked why was Naza TTDI awarded the contract without “open tender”, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed responded that it was because they were the first company to “propose the project”. Instead of reassuring the public, this reply has cemented the fact that the Barisan Nasional Government is addicted to cronyism for the Naza Group had intimate links with MITI having received hundreds of thousands of APs from the Ministry. It is now clear that due to the connections of Naza, they were able to table the convention and exhibition centre proposal to the powers that be at MITI and as a result, ensure that they will have exclusive rights to the project.

Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak's “second wave of privatisation” announced in the 2010 Budget is starting on a disastrous note, and his promise and commitment to “open tender” to “curb corruption and bring back the people’s confidence in the Government” lying in complete tatters.

Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak must immediately conduct a probe into the irregularities surrounding the project and make immediate rectifications to ensure that the income for all its existing assets are maximised. He must suspend the project pending the investigations, and all its outcome must be disclosed publicly to ensure that the final decision of the Government is able to withstand scrutiny.

Read more!

RM15b Matrade Convention Centre Raised in Parliament I

Last Thursday (19 Nov) was the very first time the RM15 billion mega-convention and exhibition centre project was raised in Parliament, when the Deputy Finance Minister, Dr Awang Adek was winding up the committee stage debate on his Ministry. I saw the project reported for the very first time on the headlines of Financial Daily, and was completely shocked that such a project can still be awarded in today's environment without any tender at all, open or restricted.

Unfortunately, the Deputy Finance Minister was clueless about the project and requested that I refer the matter to the Prime Minister's Department. I managed to raise this issue again yesterday in Parliament during the committee stage debate on the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. There' certainly more to come on this topic, watch this space.

Read more!

PKFZ: Want to Pay or Don't Want to Pay?

The Government sues Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd for RM1.4 billion in excess payment and yet at the same time guarantees payment to Kuala Dimensi's creditors – does it know what it is doing?

On August 26, 2009, the Port Klang Authority (PKA) sued Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) for wrongful or excess claims amounting to RM1.4 billion. This amount include

• excess interest calculations of RM720 million,
• wrongful claims for RM255 million for monsoon drain works and water supply works,
• excess claims of RM93 million for Office Blocks and Light Industries Units, and
• RM83 million for electricity supply and other works which have yet to be carried out

PKA has to date paid RM2.04 billion for the purchase of the land and the construction works carried out. There is an outstanding amount of RM2.80 billion to be paid out of a total of RM4.84 billion for the project payable to KDSB.

KDSB in turn has borrowed RM3.685 billion by issuing bonds to both local and international investors.

It was then arranged that since PKA will owe the contract fees to KDSB and KDSB owes money to its bondholders, PKA will make payments directly to KDSB's bondholders, on behalf of KDSB.

However, since the Government via PKA is clearly disputing a huge amount of RM1.4 billion payable to KDSB, PKA should not be making further payments to KDSB and by the above arrangement, to its bondholders until the disputed amount is resolved.

This is because should the Courts decide that KDSB has made wrongful or excess claims amounting to RM1.4 billion, the outstanding loans due to the bondholders must be settled by the owners of KDSB themselves (since they borrowed the money) and not by the Malaysian Government.

However, both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak and the Deputy Finance Minister, Dr Awang Adek have confirmed that “the government would guarantee around US$1 billion [RM3.685 billion] in bonds issued [to KDSB] to fund a free zone project to allay investor concerns over the debt,” reported by Reuters yesterday. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had told an investor briefing in New York yesterday that the government would honour all PKFZ obligations.

The Prime Minister's guarantee hence tantamounts to an official bailout of KDSB who may be unable to repay the bondholders, if PKA is successful in its suit against KDSB. What is happening is that the Government on the one hand, believes that KDSB should not be paid RM1.4 billion for wrongful claims, while on the other hand, assures the bondholders that it will pay all debts owed by KDSB to its creditors.

The rakyat will want to ask why is the Government giving an iron-clad assurance to settle KDSB's debt obligations, even if the KDSB is subsequently proven to have failed to perform a satisfactory job on PKFZ and should not be paid in full? This only goes to show that at best the Government is completely clueless about its actions, or worse, it is sanctioning a bailout of KDSB which is owned by the Barisan Nasional Backbencher Club's Chairman, Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing.

We call upon the Government to pay only for services and works which has been satisfactorily completed and not a cent more for wrongful claims. Any outstanding debt to bondholders as a result of payment shortfalls by the Government must be settled by KDSB or its shareholders without involving a single cent of public funds.

Read more!

On Public Transport, Privatisation and Open Tenders

After speaking on the 5% real property gains tax (RPGT) and the proposed goods and services tax (GST) during the committee stage debate on the Ministry of Finance, I moved on to 3 additional topics - insufficient funding allocated for Syarikat Prasanara owned by the Finance Ministry, which owns RapidKL, the concern over the "second wave of privatisation" announced by the Prime Minister in his 2010 Budget speech as well as the Government's procurement policies which are opaque and open to abuse.

Read more!

On Real Property Gains Tax and GST

I had the opportunity to speak in Parliament last Thursday during the committee stage debate on the Ministry of Finance. During the first part of my speech above, I spoke on the Government's intention under the 2010 budget announced by the Prime Minister to impose a new flat 5% tax on all gains derived from the sale of property in Malaysia (it has been tax free for the past few years at least). I also raised the issue of the impending implementation of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) which was also highlighted in the Budget although no definite time-frame has been mentioned.

The Hansard text, if you prefer reading the speech rather than listening to it, is available here from page 48 to 51. I'll blog on the 2nd part of my speech and the Ministerial reply to my queries soon.

Read more!

Crony Piratisation Returns

The Minister and Deputy Minister of Ministry of International Trade and Industry
launches the construction of Malaysia's largest convention centre.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak has announced in his inaugural budget speech on 23 October, “a second wave of privatisation” on the pretext of reducing government expenditure. There was then an immediate fear of a return to the glorious days of old where billions of privatisation projects were dished out to people who were connected, or who were acting on behalf of the country's political elite.

It took no more than a month for the fears to come true as among the first of these privatisation projects by the Government was the construction of Malaysia's largest convention centre by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) with a gross development value (GDV) of RM15 billion. This project was awarded to Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd via direct negotiations, and in exchange, the company was 2.8 million sq ft of prime land near Mont Kiara worth some RM628 million.

Naza TTDI made RM86 million in profits last year on revenue of RM239 million. Formerly known as TTDI Development Sdn Bhd, it had to be bailed out by Danaharta in 2001 before it got acquired by the late Tan Sri Nasimuddin Amin, the founder of the Naza Group famous for its automotive trading business. The question is, on what basis was Naza awarded this new mega-project, especially given the fact that there are many other equally, if not bigger and more competent and experienced contruction companies and property developers in the Malaysian market?

The late Tan Sri Nasimuddin Amin was infamous for being one of the 4 “AP Kings” who monopolised the issuance of “approved permits” from MITI to import foreign cars into Malaysia and made hundreds of millions, if as a result when the scandal was first exposed in 2005. It appears that today his sons who has taken over the Group has continued the cozy relationship with MITI to be awarded the mega “Matrade Convention Centre” without any competitive tender.

This award flies in the face of what Datuk Seri Najib has promised us first, when he was newly appointed the Finance Minister in November 2008, and confirmed again, after he became the Prime Minister in April 2009 a commitment to the “open tender” system.

It was reported in The Star, 5 November 2008:

Open tenders to ensure transparency and value for money as well as to generate more income will be the way forward for the Government. Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the Government would ensure that a large portion of government procurement would be via open and restricted tenders... Najib said that the Government planned to maximise income on all its existing assets, including on parcels of land that have not been developed, via open tender.

It was reported in The Star, 21 April 2009:

[Najib] said this method [direct negotiations] of awarding contracts should be replaced with open or restricted tenders. “Opting for the tender system will curb corruption and bring back the people’s confidence in the Government.”

When I posed the above questions to the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Awang Adek on Thursday last week during the committee stage debate on the Ministry of Finance, on why this project was not awarded via open tender, he could only reply that he's not aware of the project as this is a “privatisation exercise” which falls under the office of the Prime Minister, and directed that I enquire with the PM's Department instead.

We have also been informed via reliable sources that the next similar privatisation project will involve 6.5 million sq ft (150 acres) of land at Jalan Cochrane to an MRCB joint venture with an estimated GDV of RM15 billion.

Hence it appears that the Prime Minister has failed to heed his own advice in the privatisation of the above mega-projects, directly failing his own “key performance index” (KPI) in promoting integrity and curbing corruption. This is also the likely reason why there was a total silence of the concept of “open tender” in the Budget 2010 announcement despite its critical role in bring about better governance in Malaysia.

We call upon Datuk Seri Najib to re-tender the above projects to select the best contractor or developer who could provide the highest level of services at the lowest possible price in the shortest possible time to ensure that the interest of the Government is fully protected. Failing which, we demand that all ministerial papers relating to the above projects be declassified and tabled in parliament to proof that all necessary due diligence has been conducted with no inflated cost to the government or inflated profits to the concessionaire.

We must prevent another episode of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) which was a privatisation project via direct negotiations mired with incompetence, abuse of power and wanton recklessness, resulting not only in the Government purchasing land worth RM10 per sq ft at RM42 psf, and the project cost escalating from an initial RM1.8 billion to a potential RM12.5 billion all within 7 years.

If the Prime Minister cannot even commit to his own promises to the people on a straightforward issue of open tenders to uphold integrity and transparency, then it'll certainly be harder for him to fulfil his other promises to the people under the slogan of “people first, performance now”.

Read more!

DAP PJ Annual Fund Raising Dinner 2009

Come join us in our annual fund-raising dinner (halal) to support the DAP Petaling Jaya Utara Service Centre operations organised by the DAP Damansara Branch.

The speakers for the evening will include:

• Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Menteri Besar Selangor
• Tony Pua, MP Petaling Jaya Utara & DAP National Publicity Secretary
• Lau Weng San, ADUN Kg Tunku & DAP Selangor State Secretary
• Hannah Yeoh, ADUN Subang Jaya & DAP Selangor State Treasurer
• Dr Cheah Wing Yin, ADUN Damansara Utama*
• Khalid Samad, PAS MP Shah Alam

(* to be confirmed)

The price of the dinner tickets are as follows:

• RM600 per table or RM60 pax
• VIP tables are also available for RM1,500 per table

Please contact Ms Carmen Leong @ leongooikuan@gmail.com or 016-2208867 to book your tickets!

For those who are not able to make the dinner, donations are also very much welcome ;-). Cheques should be written to "DAP Damansara Branch" or cash can be deposited at DAP Damansara Maybank account: 5141 9634 2008. Credit card payment is also available upon request.

Read more!

Wishy-washy Ministerial Replies

Among the items raised during my Budget speech earlier in parliament was the issue of the dozens of hanky-panky items brought up by the Auditor-General on an annual basis. One of the "highlights" this year for 2008 is the purchase of pole-platforms worth RM990 by the Miri Industrial Training Centre (ILP) under the purview of the Human Resources Ministry for RM30,000 each. And at the Kepala Batas ILP, a cabinet worth RM1,200 was purchase for RM13,500.

The Minister of Human Resources responded during the budget policy stage winding up debate last Wednesday, by saying a "task force" has been set up and the cases will be investigated (as usual).

Menteri Sumber Manusia [Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terlebih dahulu saya mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, yang telah memberi perhatian terhadap beberapa isu yang membabitkan Kementerian Sumber Manusia. Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara telah membangkitkan isu-isu berkenaan dengan Laporan Ketua Audit Negara dan kementerian telah mengambil maklum mengenai teguran Ketua Audit Negara tersebut dan kita akan mengkaji perkara ini melalui mengkaji proses perolehan peralatan dan kelengkapan ILP supaya perkara seperti ini tidak berulang di masa hadapan.

Kementerian pada masa yang sama telah menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa siasatan
bagi mengenal pasti sekiranya terdapat unsur-unsur penyelewengan atau kecuaian dalam proses tersebut. Sekiranya terbukti wujud unsur-unsur tersebut, tindakan yang sewajarnya akan diambil oleh mereka yang bertanggungjawab. [...]

I wasn't satisfied, and I stood to ask for more details. Surely if you have set up a task force (note the use of "telah"), the Minister should at least be able to tell us who the members of the task force are. Of course, we wanted to know how long the investigations will take.

Tuan Tony Pua [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Sedikit sahaja soalan. Pasukan bertugas yang akan membuat siasatan itu, siapakah yang akan buat siasatan - the membership, siapa yang akan dipilih dan apakah masa yang akan diambil sebab saya nampak perkara ini bagi kementerian ini agak senang sebab pembelian pole platform harga asal RM990, dia beli RM30. Itu adalah obvious, jadi berapa lama akan diambil? Terima kasih.

But what you get is the "standard" replies once again - errr... "high ranking officials will be appointed" and investigations will be completed "as soon as possible".

Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam: Ya, saya terima pandangan bahawa apa yang berlaku itu tidak betul tetapi apa yang menjadi isunya ialah mengapa ia berlaku? Adakah ianya kerana sistem yang ada telah membolehkan perkara-perkara itu berlaku supaya kita kaji dan memperbaiki sistem ini supaya tidak berlaku pada masa akan datang, atau ada isu daripada manusia di dalam segi penyelewengan atau ada kecuaian.

Ini ialah apa yang disiasat dan akan dibuat oleh pegawai-pegawai yang tinggi di dalam
kementerian saya sendiri dan kita akan buat di dalam satu jangka masa yang pendek kerana seperti Yang Berhormat beritahu ini bukan satu perkara yang tidak jelas.. Seperti Yang Berhormat maklum, kita mahu mendapat satu penyelesaian kepada isu ini, kerana kita semua mempunyai pandangan yang sama iaitu perkhidmatan di dalam kerajaan memang telus dan terbuka. Okey.

Sigh. I didn't bother pursuing the question this time round, since it was obvious that the Minister was making it up as he goes along.

Read more!

No Plans to Restructure Police Force

One of the key recommendations of the 2004 Royal Commission of Inquiry on Police is the need to restructure the police for to be more aligned to its main objective of fighting, preventing and arresting crime. During the closing debate with the Home Minister, Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, I asked this question, why has there been no plans at all to restructure the force in the 2010 Budget. This is despite the so-called "Key Result Area" focus on reducing crime in the country.

The reason for the call to restructure is simple. The existing structure does not put sufficient resources to fight crime for less than 8% of the police force is dedicated to fighting crime.

There's absolutely no plans to increase or restructure the police force as the number of police officers allocated in the budget for 2009 and 2010 are exactly the same:

Source: Anggaran Perbelanjaan Persekutuan 2010 (pg 649)

From the above chart, what stands out is the fact that only 7.65% of the police force is specifically dedicated fighting crime, while 33.1% of the force is dedicated to "internal security", that is the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), the Light Strike Force, and a "Pasukan Gerakan Am", which was originally intended to fight the Communists in the jungle! It is almost as if the country is in a state of emergency to the extent that more than 40,000 police officers are tasked to "internal security".

What's more, the obvious disjoint is the fact that the Special Branch of the police force is almost the same size as the team dedicated to fighting crime with 9,130 officers! For those who are not aware, these are the officers who attends all the opposition ceramahs and functions to record all that is said (you won't see them doing the same at BN functions).

I raised the following in parliament last week:

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: [Ketawa]... Soalan, ada antara satu cadangan yang telah dibuat oleh Suruhanjaya Polis Diraja beberapa tahun yang lalu, yang masih saya agak belum dilaksanakan oleh pihak polis.

Iaitu penstrukturan semula kerja-kerja pihak polis dalam bahagian-bahagian yang
tertentu. Sebab bagi bajet yang telah pun dibentangkan kali ini, saya nampak bahawa tidak ada langsung pelan untuk mengagihkan tasks and duties of the different departments. So, bagi penyiasatan jenayah, masih lagi 9300 orang lebih dan bagi pasukan keselamatan dalam negeri dan ketenteraman awam iaitu FRU, pasukan gerakan am, masih ada lebih kurang 40 lebih orang.

So adakah polis akan mengambil tindakan untuk menstrukturkan semula supaya lebih ramai lagi boleh diagihkan kepada bahagian penyiasatan jenayah supaya mereka menjadi lebih efisien.

Antara satu step yang saya sokong KDN telah buat kini adalah untuk membuat pilot project . Kawasan hotspot, lebih ramai polis, lebih roadblocks. Akan tetapi, kompelin yang saya dapat daripada penduduk saya yang tidak ada dalam hotspot itu, dia kata balai polis yang tidak ada hotspot, anggota polisnya dihantar ke hotspot. Apa yang terjadi adalah jenayah di kawasan yang kurang polis meningkat pula. Sebab di hotspot ramai polis, jenayah tidak ada di sana dan selepas itu pergi ke tempat lain.

So, saya agak yang penting adalah untuk meningkatkan lagi jumlah polis yang berada dalam bahagian penyiasatan. Terima kasih.

The Minister's reply unfortunately, whether intentional or otherwise, did not touch on the restructuring of the police force at all.

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein: Pertamanya, tidak benar bahawa kita menggunakan polis biasa untuk mengalih jumlah petugas di kawasan-kawasan yang bukan hotspot ke kawasan-kawasan hotspot. Seperti yang saya sebut tadi, kita telah pun menggerakkan pihak Gerakan Am yang tiada kena mengena dengan kawasan-kawasan yang disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat tadi.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Saya dimaklumkan oleh pihak polis.

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein: [...] Sekiranya kawasan-kawasan 50 yang telah pun dikenal pasti tidak mencukupi dan merangkumi dan ada kawasan-kawasan yang memerlukan tumpuan kita. Maka kita tidak ada sebab tidak boleh dipastikan bahawa kawasan-kawasan lain juga akan dimasukkan di dalam kawasan-kawasan panas yang telah pun dikenal pasti tadi.

Keduanya yang saya hendak nyatakan di sini, bahawa tugas dan juga peranan dan kesan yang kita hendak kurangkan kadar jenayah tidak berkisar kepada tindakan PDRM sahaja dan hanya melihat kepada badan mereka yang terlibat sebagai omnipresent present polis.

Apa-apa yang kita lihat sekarang menggunakan teknologi seperti CCTV tadi, menggunakan balai-balai bergerak supaya tidak perlu kita menunggu lama untuk membina balaibalai baru atau menaik taraf balai yang sedia ada ...Menggunakan kaedah-kaedah lain yang menggerakkan pihak masyarakat setempat, NGO dan badan-badan sukarelawan seperti RELA dan JPAM contohnya, jumlah saya sebutkan tadi. Tidak menyentuh kepada kemampuan pihak PDRM hari ini [...]

I'll continue to raise this question in parliament whenever possible, possibly in the committee stage debate on the Budget for the Home Ministry next week. I believe that by restructuring the police force, we can very quickly increase the presence of police on the streets in more places, and will help deter crime in the high risk areas. It's bad enough that the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), but even a less controversial recommendation on restructuring the police force such that at least 30% of the force is directly involved in fighting crime has been neglected.

Read more!

The Need for Transport Council

Letter to the editor by Moaz Ahmad of TRANSIT, an NGO dedicated to public transport in the country.

The time is right for Transport Council

The members of the Association for the Improvement of Mass Transit (TRANSIT) know that generally there are two major problems with public transport in Malaysia. The first major problem is a fragmented regulatory system, where regulatory, planning and enforcement powers are divided among 13 different agencies in 6 different government ministries.

This problem has led to poor organization and planning of public transport, underfunding, lack of timely, effective and efficient investment, poor quality and safety levels, and poor government enforcement.

The government is working on resolving the first problem by creating the Public Land Transport Commission, which will take over the duties of the Department of Railways, Road Transport Department and Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board. Creating SPAD will reduce the 13 different agencies into 11 different agencies and only 5 ministries, with more consolidation in the future.

The second major problem is a lack of coordination of public transport service with development & planning. This can be especially obvious in urban public transport situations, where bus operators compete to offer service on higher-demand routes but ignore low-demand routes, block traffic indiscriminately, and use city streets and streets in housing estates as their own 'bus hubs'.

The lack of coordination at the local level is what leads to poor enforcement. It is also what leads to poor service and increased traffic congestion. What's worse, it prevents good public transport ideas from being successful.

One example of this is the whole concept of 'rangkaian pengangkutan integrasi deras,' or the 'rapid integrated transport network.' We are more familiar with the operator, RapidKL, but unfortunately, we see it as just another operator.

When RapidKL was first conceived, it was supposed to improve public transport in the Klang Valley by creating a complete network of services both in the city and the suburban areas. The combination of short distance routes through the "Hub & Spoke System" introduced in January 2006 was expected to cut operating costs and increase the coverage and frequency of service.

Of course, the service did not work as well as anticipated. RapidKL was never really able to meet their promised frequencies and they started revising routes almost immediately. As costs and losses mounted, RapidKL started revising routes, with a massive reduction of Tempatan (Local) service in April 2007. On Monday 16 November, RapidKL will largely shut down its "Bas Bandar" City Shuttle service, replacing these bus routes with extensions of the mainline "Utama" buses.

Responsibility for the failure of the "Hub & Spoke" concept should not be placed at the feet of RapidKL. In fact, it is the lack of coordination that failed RapidKL. Because of the lack of coordination and opportunities to communicate, we see RapidKL as just another operator.

The best solution for our public transport woes is to reduce the fragmentation and increase the level of coordination. And that is why TRANSIT was happy to learn that the Menteri Besar of Selangor has proposed a Klang Valley Transport Council in the 2010 Selangor Budget. (see http://transitmy.org/2009/11/11/selangor-2010-budget/ for an excerpt).

The Klang Valley Transport Council would bring together the 4 stakeholder groups (the wakil rakyat, the civil service, the public transport users and NGOs and the operators) to plan, organize, manage and discuss ways to improve public transport in the Klang Valley - The Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya and the surrounding communities in Selangor.

The Klang Valley Transport Council will bring together the important areas of public transport and the federal and state governments. The State Government will handle the local planning and land use, while the Federal Government will handle the regulation and coordination (through SPAD), overall planning (Economic Planning Unit) and funding (Ministry of Finance).

The beauty of the Klang Valley Transport Council is that all stakeholders will have a voice at the table, including the operators - provided that they have contracts with the Transport Council. The Council will be able to handle local planning and coordinate the different master plans and structural plans of the different authorities.

It will also be able to help with the coordination of transport modes (private and public), and encourage the gradual shift towards public transport use that is a goal of the National Key Result Area.

TRANSIT urges the Selangor government and the Federal Government to cooperate and work together to get the Klang Valley Transport Council operating by early 2010.

Sincerely

Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
on behalf of TRANSIT

Read more!

Home Minister Rejects Own Crime Survey

My earlier post "Home Minister Supports KPI Minister" focused on the fact that Dato' Seri Hishammuddin supports the thesis that the crime index will inevitably rise as the confidence in the police is returning to the people. One of the basis we rejected this thesis is the fact that the Home Ministry's own surveys indicated a total lack of confidence in the police force!

Some of the survey results are as follows:

Jul 09: Out of 9,319 responses, 95% felt that their safety is "not secured"

Jul 09: Out of 10,060 responses, 97% "do not feel safe"

Jul 09: Out of 9,261 responses, 94% felt the Government "has not done enough"

Jul 09: 63% felt unsafe because they have been victims of crime,
while 36% have read crime stories

Sep 09: 76% felt angry/pissed when seeing the police (!);
only 12% is respectful or impressed with them

Anyone reading the above survey results can only come to 1 conclusion. The rakyat doesn't feel safe in the country and have little or no confidence in the Police. Mind you, the survey was conducted by the Government, not by the opposition! What's more, thousands of people responded even if you give a reasonable margin of error, not just hundreds. Hence we asked in Parliament, "how can the Minister say that the confidence in our police has increased, resulting in a temporary spike in crime index, as more reports are being filed?" And we were of course, accused of "politicising the issue".

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]: Terima kasih. Kita di sini dan tidak ada sesiapa yang mahu mempolitikkan hal keselamatan rakyat negara dan janganlah semacam tadi ada Ahli-ahli Parlimen yang mahu memperkecil-kecilkan perkara ini dan kita akan memberi segala sokongan terhadap apa usaha-usaha yang boleh memberi sumbangan untuk menurunkan kadar jenayah yang serius.

Kita tidak boleh menafikan adalah kadar jenayah serius atau mempersetujui bahawa perlu masa kalau kita mahu kembalikan satu keadaan yang selamat tapi kita perlu mengakui keadaan sekarang sangat serius khasnya website Yang Berhormat Menteri sendiri di mana 97% yang berpendapat bahawa dengan landskap semasa Malaysia bahawa mereka tidak rasa selamat dan bahawa 95% yang berpendapat bahawa keselamatan rakyat tidak terjamin dan bahawa 94% berpendapat bahawa kerajaan tidak ambil segala tindakan usaha yang perlu memastikan keselamatan rakyat pada tahap yang terbaik.

Ini semua bukan rekaan atau ciptaan parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat. Inilah reflection perasaan rakyat yang tulen dan itulah apa yang kita perlu tangani dan adakah sebab itu kita mahu tanya sama ada kerajaan rela untuk ambil segala usaha yang perlu seperti Yang Berhormat Menteri apabila mengambil alih kementerian ini pada mulanya ada umumkan mahu review semula 125 perakuan royal commission enquiry tetapi oleh kerana bantahan daripada pihak polis nampaknya Yang Berhormat Menteri pun berundur.

And this is the reply which "floored" Lim Kit Siang - the Minister in essence, rejected the findings of his own Ministry's survey!

Dato' Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein: [...] Tuan Yang di-Pertua, akhir berhubung kait dengan jenayah ialah berhubung kait dengan poll yang disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur tadi. Poll KDN mesti dilihat dalam konteks sebenarnya yang disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak tadi. Kalau sekiranya kita ambil bulat-bulat macam itu sememangnya akan mewujudkan satu persepsi bahawa hanya 1% sahaja rakyat Malaysia merasa selamat tinggal di negara ini berdasarkan kepada poll KDN.

Akan tetapi yang saya hendak jelaskan tinjauan pendapat yang dibuat menerusi IKDN merupakan portal kementerian, satu tinjauan pendapat secara rambang bagi mendapatkan pandangan orang ramai secara umum. Semua pihak yang berkepentingan seharusnya mempunyai pertimbangan yang sewajarnya memandangkan peratus responden yang menyertai tinjauan pendapat itu 10,060 iaitu 0.037% daripada penduduk Malaysia berbanding dengan jumlah keseluruhan penduduk di negara ini seramai 27 juta orang. Dengan itu peratusan rakyat yang berpendapat negara ini adalah tidak selamat tidak menggambarkan melalui poll IKDN.

What can you say! The Minister actually said that the 10,060 survey respondents constitute only 0.037% of the population! There's a reason why it's called a "survey" not a referendum!

(Note: For those who are keen, you can read the entire debate on crime in the Hansard here, from page 168 to 185)

Read more!

Home Minister Supports KPI Minister

We saw here how our KPI Minister, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon claimed that the crime index has risen not because there's actually increased crime, but because the people has gotten more confident with the police force, and hence are reporting crime which would not have been reported previously.

This issue popped up again during the budget policy debate wrap up by the Home Minister on Wednesday night (along with many other issues of course), and he defended the views of our KPI Minister.

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein:[...] Memang seperti Menteri KPI Tan Sri sebut baru-baru ini, memang dijangkakan kalau dengan keyakinan rakyat kepada keseriusan kita untuk melihat kepada kadar jenayah menurun dengan tindakan-tindakan yang proaktif ini.

Sememangnya kita menjangkakan bahawa indeks ini akan meningkat kerana mereka ada banyak kes jenayah di mana tidak ada laporan polis yang dibuat dan pengalaman daripada... Mereka yang telah melalui usaha ini telah menunjukkan dalam masa yang terdekat selepas pengumuman NKRA tadi. Memang kita akan menjangka untuk sedikit masa di mana indeks itu akan meningkat. Akan tetapi insya-Allah SWT ia akan menurun kerana itu merupakan satu perkara yang suka atau tidak suka, telah pun kita janjikan dan akan kita tunaikan.

We were obviously in clear disagreement over this view - first, the crime index has increased significantly annually over the past 7 years, does this mean that the confidence with the police must be sky high now? And secondly, as MP for Serdang, Teo Nie Ching argued, the Ministry's own survey on its website has shown a total lack of confidence in the Police by the respondents.

Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Saya hendak bertanya sedikit. Rasanya dalam pandangan Yang Berhormat Menteri bahawa indeks jenayah kita meningkat bukan kerana kes-kes jenayah kita meningkat. Akan tetapi adalah kerana PDRM kita adalah lebih berkesan.

Jadi saya hendak bertanya sekiranya memanglah rakyat kita merasa, “Wah! PDRM sekarang lebih efisien lebih berkesan”, kenapa ada 97% pengundi di laman web Kementerian Dalam Negeri yang merasakan bahawa mereka tidak rasa selamat? Kenapa? Sekiranya memanglah PDRM kita adalah sangat efektif, sangat berkesan, kenapakah kebanyakan rakyat akan merasa bahawa keselamatan mereka adalah tidak terjamin.

Hence how can the Home Minister argue that confidence with the police has increased? Good question by Serdang, and for the "shake your head in disbelief" type answer by the Home Minister, catch the next blog post.

Read more!

RM231 Billion for Highways? No Way!

The Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Najib Abdul Razak has promised in April this year upon assuming the premiership that he recognised the toll concessionaire issue which is hurting Malaysians all over the country and has indicated that the EPU will complete its study on structuring toll concessionaires throughout the country within 3 months, i.e., by the end of July 2009. However, the EPU has failed to do so, and has indicated that the report will only be ready in December.

However, the Minister in-charge of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) in the Prime Minister's office, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop has on Monday revealed in Parliament that it will cost a total of RM231 billion to acquire the 26 highway concessionaires in Malaysia, essentially hinting that the effort to restructure the toll concessionaires in Malaysia will not happen.

I have requested for the detailed breakdown of the cost of the buy-back in the Parliament and the Minister has agreed to provide them in writing. I will be handing over a formal letter to request to request for the above information from the Minister and I hope that he will reply as soon as possible so that the interest of millions of users who use tolled highways are protected.

We firmly believe that the cost indicated by the Minister is grossly inflated at prices which are meant to compensate fully the concessionaires for the loss of future profits. Should the Government decide to pay these concessionaires for 100% of the loss of future profits, then it makes the entire buy-back exercise pointless as it just means that the burden of toll is shifted from the commuters to the tax-payers.

However we estimate that the real cost of buying back the toll concessionaires will be closer to RM25 billion based on the following factors:

1. The declassified highway concession contracts has revealed clearly under expropriation terms of the highways that the Government does not have to pay compensation for future profits, with the exception of the North-South Highway and the Penang Bridge. Therefore, for a highway like the LDP which still have a lifespan of 20 years, and the toll rates expected to be increased to RM3.20 from the current RM1.60 by 2016, it is expected to only cost the government less than RM1.5 billion to buy back. In my previous 2 oral questions in parliament, the Ministers have outrightly refused to honestly answer my question on the cost of expropriation.
   
   
2. For the North-South Highway and the other highways owned by PLUS Expressways – Butterworth-Kuli, ELITE, 2nd Link and Seremban-Port Dickson Highways, the Government will be above to buy-back the shares it does not already own from Bursa Malaysia for a total cost of approximately RM15 billion only. The North-South Highway is by far the largest and longest highway in the country making profits of RM1.4 billion per annum and increasing, with compensation amounting to more than RM700 million per annum from the Government. This concession is set to expire only after another 30 years.
   
   
3. The Government does not need to buy-back all highways, but only those who are clear-cut making astronomical profits at the expense of the daily commuters. Litrak, the owner of the LDP had for example projected total profits of RM18.8 billion for the LDP concession, despite the cost of the highway, including interest, amounting to only RM1.327 billion.

In our detailed analysis based on facts derived from the declassified contracts as well as the annual financial statements of the toll concessionaires, the Government will also not have to bear the cost of the RM25 billion proposed acquisition fund as even after reducing the toll rates, the revenue within 10 years will be more than sufficient to repay the RM25 billion cost of buy-back. For example, by freezing toll rates for the North South Expressway at the current rates and continuing the toll collection for the next 7 years will be more than sufficient to pay for the RM15 billion cost of buying back PLUS. In essence our proposed acquistion plan is self-financing and doesn't cost the Government a single cent!

In addition, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop had provided the excuse that the RM231 billion cost mentioned had also included future operational and maintenance cost. This is once again misleading as the maintenance cost as a proportion of capital outlay is very low (and can be even lower with open and competitive tenders), amounting to approximately RM200 million and RM10 million per annum for PLUS and LDP respectively. These amounts are less than the hundreds of millions allocated to compensate concessionaires annually today.

We look forward to the reply from the Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, and should the Minister require any assistance or further clarifications from us with regards to formulating the buy back plan which will cost tax-payers the least amount of money, we will be most obliged to provide them to the EPU at no cost to the Government. We have also provided him with a complimentary copy of our Alternative Budget which outlines the concessionaires buy back proposals for his reference.

Read more!

UMNO MP: "Gated Community" v "Electric Gate"

I forgot to mention this bit in my earlier post on 'UMNO: "Gated Community" is for "Exclusivity" not Crime' about another laugh out loud interjection by the UMNO MP from Pasir Salak on the issue of the rise in number of "gated communities" as a result of rampant crime.

Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: [...] Fikirlah, pihak pembangkang dia bercakap, buat cerita cuma hendak buat gambaran buruk kepada kerajaan. Itu sahaja. Ini “gated, gated, gated”. Berapa ramai sekarang ini yang bukan sahaja “gated,” rumah pakai electric gate. This is a trend, dengan izin, it is not because of the security problem kadang-kadang lembu pun pakai gate. Fahamlah sikit.

This is where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Our Right Honourable Member of Parliament joint the "gated community" debate arguing that there's nothing wrong as it's a trend now to have "electric gate"!!!

Read more!

UMNO: "Gated Community" is for "Exclusivity" not Crime

(Update 13/11 7pm: MP for Kota Belud has responded to this post on his blog. Free free to check it out and get a "balanced" view ;-))

We have argued the case many times in the past, provided hard facts and statistics, including comparisons with many other countries, that the state of crime in Malaysia is both real and serious. It is so serious that residents have put up boom gates all around the residential areas to check rampant crime and to increase security, despite these gates being unauthorised and in many instances technically illegal.

This issue was hotly debated in Parliament on Wednesday night when the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein was summing up the Budget Debate for his Ministry. It went to the extent that UMNO MP for Kota Belud, Dato' Abdul Rahman Dahlan arguing that residents wanting "gated communities" is to them wanting "exclusivity", and not necessarily due to crime.

The full text of the debate is available in the Hansard here from page 168. The edited section is copied below.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]: Minta penjelasan boleh?

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein: Ya.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Sungguhpun kita faham kenapa ada dengan izin, rush untuk mengadakan gated community dan juga ada implikasi-implikasi yang luas oleh kerana beberapa ‘repercussion involved’. Akan tetapi bukankah rush kejar untuk mengadakan gated communities sebenarnya satu pengakuan mengenai kegagalan pihak PDRM untuk menjaga dan memastikan bahawa negara kita selamat.

Satu KPI mungkin kita boleh kembalikan kepada satu keadaan di mana tidak perlu ada gated community oleh sebab itulah tanggungjawab PDRM ada lebih banyak tempat gated community. Ini kerana kegagalan dan apakah pendekatan dalam perkara ini Yang Berhormat Menteri? [...]

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: [Bangun]

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: Yang Berhormat Menteri boleh sambung sedikit? Kota Belud. Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan Yang Berhormat Menteri. Saya amat kecewa dengan pandangan daripada Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur. Pandangan beliau ini...

Seorang Ahli: Sempit.

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: Sempit dan terlalu berpolitik. Sebenarnya gated community Yang Berhormat Menteri dan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pertamanya ia bukannya satu.. [Disampuk] Satu indicator yang menunjukkan bahawa negara kita ini seolah-olah sudah menjadi satu masalah jenayah yang berleluasa.

Pertamanya gated community ini adalah untuk exclusivity. Keduanya, Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur saya minta perhatikan ini kadang-kadang mereka ini mahukan exclusivity, kerana ada salesman yang datang bawa lori, hantar tong gas, jual tilam. Ini adalah sebahagian daripada sebab kenapa gated community ini wujud. Jadi untuk Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur ini Yang Berhormat Menteri [Disampuk] mengatakan bahawa ini adalah petunjuk adalah satu pemikiran yang betul-betul beku.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: [Bangun] [Dewan riuh]

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: Ini masalahnya... dan sebabnya inilah Yang Berhormat Menteri saya....[Dewan riuh]

Beberapa Ahli: [Menyampuk]

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: Yang Berhormat Menteri sedikit sahaja lagi. Saya ingin bertanya kepada Yang Berhormat Menteri.

Seorang Ahli: Salah sangka.

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: Apakah ini adalah permainan politik pembangkang?

Seorang Ahli: Memang.

[...]

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Kota Belud. Sememangnya... Memihak kepada pihak pembangkang untuk mewujudkan persepsi seolah-olah keadaan sekarang ini tidak dapat dikawal. Sama ada melalui istilah-istilah yang digunakan atau daripada segi memutar-belitkan fakta dan indeks jenayah yang telah pun dibahaskan dalam perbahasan belanjawan kali ini.

Saya bersetuju dengan Yang Berhormat Kota Belud. Bukan satu perkara sahaja yang kita ambil kira. Kita telah menyatakan lebih awal lagi bahawa pencapaian yang diutamakan tidak berkisar kepada indeks semata-mata. Ianya berkisar kepada sama ada rakyat merasakan diri mereka selamat [...]

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Yang Berhormat Menteri, boleh sambung sini? Terima kasih. Saya bersetuju dengan kandungan yang diutamakan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang dan saya ingin menjemput Yang Berhormat Kota Belud datang ke kawasan saya di Petaling Jaya Utara...[Tepuk]

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: ...Di mana semua taman hendak membuat gated community atas alasan satu sebab sahaja. Satu sebab sahaja [jenayah]. Gated community. Datang ke constituency saya.

Dato’ Abd. Rahman Dahlan [Kota Belud]: No.

Tuan M. Kula Segaran [Ipoh Barat]: Beranikah?

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Dan cakap sama dengan penduduk di kawasan Petaling Jaya Utara. [Dewan Riuh]

I then proceeded to ask the Minister on the reorganisation of the police force, which I'll blog later.

For those residents in my constituency and all others affected by crime, and hence forced to come up with additional expenses to engage the services of guards and installation of CCTVs, boom gates etc., feel free to write to Kota Belud, and gently let him know what you think. He has his blog here, and contact details (including Yahoo! Internet Messenger) here.

It is really a reflection of how these Barisan Nasional law-makers view the state of crime in this country. Residents are installing boom gates to enjoy "exclusivity" and prevent "salesmen coming in with lorries, delivering gas cannisters and mattresses"!! And when we raise these issues relating to crime, they'll say that we are "politicising" the issue. Sigh.

Read more!

High Investment Outflow: Government Not Worried

For Malaysia, not only has foreign direct investment dropped, which was in line with the global trend, but our investment outflow has also increased and represents among the highest in the region. I posed this question to the Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI) when he was responding on behalf of the Ministry two nights ago in Parliament, as to whether to government will be taking steps to remedy the situation.

Tuan Tony Pua [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Timbalan Menteri, terima kasih. Ada dua soalan sahaja. Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Pertama mengenai statistik yang diberikan UNCTAD mengenai pelabur yang masuk ke Malaysia tetapi antara satu statistik yang agak menakutkan sedikit, walaupun kita adalah dalam ekonomi yang tidak baik pada masa ini, semua negara di kawasan ini pelaburannya menurun, tetapi satu angka yang meningkat bagi Malaysia berbanding dengan negara-negara lain adalah pelaburan yang keluar daripada Malaysia, investment outflow so oleh sebab investment inflow itu lebih kurang kalau tidak salah USD7 bilion tetapi investment outflow pun lebih kurang USD7 bilion [untuk 2007], ia menyebabkan the net in flow bagi Malaysia adalah lebih kurang kosong ataupun sedikit negatif.

So, adakah kementerian telah pun membuat kajian mengapa ada investment outflow yang sebesar ini dan apakah langkah untuk mengatasi masalah ini. Itu soalan yang pertama dan kita hendak tahu bagi tahun ini dan tahun depan, apakah sasaran foreign direct investment untuk masuk ke Malaysia yang akan diusahakan oleh Kementerian MITI. Terima kasih.

Dato' Jacob Dungau Sagan: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat. Kenyataan yang pertama itu tadi memang saya terima betul, oleh kerana dari statistik yang kita ada setakat ini kita sudah nampak kalau Malaysia inflow kita tahun 2008 itu tadi USD8.53 bilion, tetapi outflow yang keluar itu USD14,059 milion. Ini memang nampak lebih besar mungkin RM6 bilion lebih besar dari inflow kita.

Jadi walaupun demikian, kerajaan memang juga dalam IMPT, memang kita menggalakkan supaya syarikat-syarikat yang besar, yang ada di negara ini perlu juga mengambil peluang untuk melabur di negara-negara yang lain, di mana mereka dapat perniagaan yang cukup baik dan mungkin kemudian membawa pulang keuntungan-keuntungan mereka ke negara kita, lebih-lebih lagi seperti syarikat Petronas yang banyak melabur di negara-negara yang lain dan banyak juga menyumbang kepada keuntungan mereka itu dibawa balik ke negara kita Malaysia. Begitu juga saya rasa banyak syarikat yang lain seperti Sime Darby, Maybank, YTL dan yang lain ada juga dan yang kedua itu tadi tidak dapat, can you repeat the second question?

Tuan Tony Pua [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Second question senang sahaja. Apakah sasaran yang ditentukan oleh pihak kementerian, sasaran FDI bagi tahun ini dan juga tahun depan, adakah ia akan melebihi apa yang kita capai pada tahun lalu ataupun masih dalam keadaan yang kurang memuaskan bagi semua orang.

Dan hendak tambah sedikit lagi tentang apa yang dijawab oleh Timbalan Menteri tadi. Kalau mengikut jawapan Timbalan Menteri, adakah kementerian menganggap bahawa the outflow daripada negara kita ini tidak menjadi satu isu ataupun ianya adalah memang satu isu yang diambil perhatian oleh kementerian, dan apakah langkah untuk reverse this track. Saya faham kalau Petronas melabur keluar negeri, memang ini baik untuk negara kita dan kalau Petronas boleh membawa balik keuntungan yang lumayan, tetapi kalau katakan outflow jauh melebihi inflow seperti apa yang disebutkan oleh Timbalan Menteri sebentar tadi. Ini ada menunjukkan bahawa peluang untuk melabur dan buat untung di negara kita ini macam sudah kurang.

Dato' Jacob Dungau Sagan: Ya, terima kasih Yang Berhormat. Dalam IMP3 ini, kita mempunyai sasaran dan target untuk membawa FDI yang lebih RM2.75 bilion FDI dalam setahun. Jadi, nampaknya mungkin oleh kerana ekonomi kita masih nampak belum pulih lagi, ini memberi satu cabaran yang lebih besar kepada kementerian untuk mencapai sasaran tersebut.

Walaupun demikian, saya rasa kita tidak berapa khuatir atas lebihan outflow itu dengan yang inflow itu oleh kerana kita masih berharap bahawa inflow ataupun cross border investment ini nanti akan membawa lebih banyak lagi keuntungan ataupun penempatan untuk negara kita. Jadi itu harapan kita pada masa depan.

That's the answer to my question. Although the net direct investment into Malaysia is increasingly negative, the Government "tidak berapa khuatir atas lebihan outflow itu". This is despite the clear implications that Malaysia is losing its attractiveness as an investment destination. Even in Singapore, where they have plenty of excess capital to invest overseas, the investment outflow forms less than 40% of the total foreign direct investment inflow of US$22.7 billion in 2008.

Read more!

Public Transport in Petaling Jaya

I was interviewed for my comments on the situation of public transport in Petaling Jaya by Star Metro. They carried a whole chunk of it a few days ago ;-) Below is an excerpt, or you can get the full article here.

...Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua admitted that he was among those shocked at the high number of projects approved for PJ without careful consideration on the traffic impact, adding that the problem was compounded by a public transportation system that could not meet the needs and expectations due to poor planning.

“Developers are not required to submit public transport plans as part of the development approval while the local authorities do not have plans either when approving the projects.

“Although developers submit reports as required but they focus on the immediate vicinity while turning a blind eye to the overall area.

“Worse still, the traffic consultants are paid by the developers, resulting in vested interests,” he said, adding that fragmented land ownership made the matter worse.

He highlighted that having 13 government agencies to handle public transportation issues was a killer.

“Centralisation of public transport decision-making at the federal level makes it practically impossible to make the best decision for each town and city all over the country.

“On the other hand, route networks are largely left to private or semi-private entities who favour profitable routes, and local authorities have no say at all,” he added.

The solution to this, he suggested, was to have a local transportation authority controlling and managing the system with guidelines issued by a federal body.

The authority should also keep the necessary checks and balances with reformed mechanisms, such as a regime of limited competition adopted by the European Union states.

Read more!

50% Broadband Penetration by 2010?

After struggling for 8 years, the Government has only managed to achieve broadband penetration of approximately 24%. Hence the BN Government's National Broadband Plan target of 25% household penetration by 2006 and 50% by 2008, has clearly failed miserably. The Government has now set a new target, which has been endorsed by none other than the Prime Minister himself. I had sought clarifications from the Deputy Minister of Information, Communications and Culture, Heng Seang Kie.

...saya hendak tanya Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri, target sebenar bagi National Broadband Plan bagi Malaysia adalah untuk mencapai 50% penetration pada tahun 2008, tetapi sampai sekarang kita tidak sampai lebih kurang 25%. Saya difahamkan melalui media statement yang dikeluarkan oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri, Datuk Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim, dia kata dia hendak capai 50% pada tahun hadapan.Jadi, kita ingin tahu apakah langkah yang akan diambil untuk mencapai 50%? How realistic is this? Adakah ini menubuhkan KPI yang fix bagi Menteri ataupun disebutkan sebagai sasaran sahaja? Adakah ini sasaran KPI seperti sasaran KPI antara kementerian yang lain? Apakah dibuat untuk menjamin supaya sasaran ini akan dicapai? Terima kasih.

And the Deputy Minister's reply is as follows:

[...] Seterusnya ialah tentang soalan yang ditujukan oleh Yang Berhormat PJ Utara lagi iaitu untuk pengetahuan Yang Berhormat PJ Utara, sebenarnya sasaran kadar penembusan yang telah ditetapkan pada akhir tahun 2009 adalah 30% dan seterusnya 50% pada akhir tahun 2010, bukan pada tahun 2008 seperti mana yang telah didakwa oleh Yang Berhormat PJ Utara tadi.

Satu lagi ialah tentang soalan yang dibangkitkan sama ada ini merupakan KPI, sama ada penembusan perkhidmatan jalur lebar ini merupakan KPI kementerian, jawapannya ialah ya.

Listen to some of the replies from the Ministers, and you can understand why we can get frustrated in parliament. I can understand that the newly appointed Deputy Minister has no clue about the previous National Broadband Plan targets of wanting to achieve 50% penetration by 2008.

But while she has confirmed that the 50% target for 2010 is indeed the Ministry's KPI, she didn't say how this was going to be achieved, beyond earlier stating that the Highspeed Broadband project worth RM11.3 billion has been awarded to Telekom Malaysia.

We have only 24% penetration today, do you think we'll achieve the 50% target by December 2010? Forgive me for being a pessimist, but based on the answers and actions taken by the Government today, we should be thankful if we hit 35% broadband internet penetration.

Read more!

Why Was Telekom Given Wired Broadband Monopoly?

The Deputy Minister for Information, Communication and Culture, Heng Seai Kie was wrapping up the budget debate policy stage for the Ministry yesterday. You can read her reply on issues relating to broadband in the Hansard here (pg 63 onwards) and decide for yourself if we have the right competence in this ministry (headed by Rais Yatim)

The government was reiterating its commitment to achieve top quality broadband services and maximum penetration in the shortest possible time. Sri Gading said something sensible this time, asking why is there no competition.

Datuk Haji Mohamad bin Haji Aziz [Sri Gading]: [...]Yang Berhormat menceritakan tentang jalur lebar ini begitu begini, begitu begini. Saya hendak tanya projek jalur lebar ini pun akan gagal kalau sistem monopoli TM ini berterusan. Kenapa, kenapa, kenapa, perempuan, perempuan, perempuan, kenapa dan mengapa, tidak ada pilihan lain kah? Mesti TM juga. Kenapa dan mengapa mesti TM juga? Tidak boleh kah dia beri peluang, rezeki ini kepada syarikat-syarikat lain. Jadi, kalau ada persaingan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, mungkin akan memberi faedah kepada rakyat yang ramai. Ini kerana, apabila ada persaingan ia tidak monopoli. Ia akan menjaga pelanggannya lebih kerana takut kehilangan pelanggan. Akan tetapi, kalau dia punya sendiri, macam kepala bapa dia punya lah... [Ketawa] [...]

Puan Heng Seai Kie: Yang Berhormat, saya memang setuju bahawa apabila ada persaingan, maka ada kemajuan dan perkara ini memang adalah polisi kementerian untuk memperbanyakkan pemain di dalam bidang jalur lebar ini. [...]

Ummm... that's the answer? She said she agreed that with greater competition, there will be more progress... but then why Telekom monopoly, especially with regards to the HighSpeed Broadband project? I stood to ask (but it was damn tough asking IT questions in Malay... ;-))

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Saya sebenarnya bersetuju dengan pandangan yang telah pun dibentangkan oleh Yang Berhormat Sri Gading. Saya agak jawapan yang diberikan oleh Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri itu macam tidak selaras dengan hakikat iaitu sebenarnya pada masa ini, buat lane line broadband secara berwayar, hanya satu syarikat sahaja diberi.

Ada orang lain boleh pakai tetapi perlu sewa daripada Syarikat Telekom dan Syarikat Telekom akan sewa dengan harga yang mahal. Oleh sebab itu, tidak ada syarikat lain yang ingin memberikan perkhidmatan broadband secara berwayar. Ada sedikit persaingan melalui wayarles tetapi secara berwayar boleh dikatakan dengan most convenient sebab tiap-tiap rumah ada telefon line, itu semua kuasa monopoli Telekom.

So, apakah langkah yang akan diambil oleh kementerian untuk memecahkan kuasa monopoli ini supaya lebih ramai pemain dari syarikat-syarikat baru dapat masuk dalam bidang ini.

Kedua, kita sudah tahu bahawa high speed broadband project ini akan dilancarkan dan mungkin akan habis pada tahun 2012 tetapi sehingga tahap 10MB per second sahaja. Akan tetapi banyak negara-negara lain sehingga tahun 2012 sudah akan sampai mencapai 1 GB dan bukannya 10MB. So, kita hendak tengok bukan sahaja rancangan dua tahun yang akan datang, apakah dasar bagi kerajaan untuk lima tahun, sepuluh tahun yang akan datang sebab ini akan menyebabkan memberi kesan kepada competitiveness sesebuah negara. Terima kasih.

And the reply was (after initially not understanding my question):

Puan Heng Seai Kie: Okey, terima kasih kerana membantu. Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara, berbalik kepada soalan yang ditujukan. Kita tahu bahawa bagi perkhidmatan jalur lebar ini merupakan sesuatu yang baru untuk Malaysia. Jadi, sebagai permulaan, kerajaan haruslah mencari satu rakan kongsi yang boleh dipercayai dengan latar belakang yang mantap.

Jadi, pada masa itu Telekom Malaysia telah dipilih sebagai rakan kongsi ini. Walau
bagaimanapun, kementerian ini memang maklum tentang dua isu yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara tadi. Percayalah buat masa ini, kementerian memang sedang mengambil usaha untuk memperbaiki keadaan ini. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, boleh saya teruskan.

And that was the answer. She said broadband is "something new for Malaysia". Excuse me? For 8 years we have been talking about MSC and broadband and have failed miserably with Streamyx or other wireless services, and the Deputy Minister claims broadband is something new for Malaysia? No wonder we are that far behind.

And being new is apparently the reason for TM to be chosen as the sole "rakan kongsi" and hence creating once again a monopoly, going exactly against what she had stated earlier, that is "ada persaingan, maka ada kemajuan"! Habislah macam ini!

Read more!

Crime Index Up Because Police More Effective

Yes, that's exactly what our KPI Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon said in Parliament yesterday. He was asked why was the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan given such high marks for his performance, when the crime rate in Malaysia has sky-rocketed over the past few years, during his winding up speech for his portfolio on the Budget debate. As per the Hansard records (pg 78) yesterday:

Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon: ...Yang Berhormat Serdang.

Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Berbanyak-banyak terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri, terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. [Ketawa] Saya hendak bertanya sedikit kerana memanglah saya berasa betul bahawa berbagai-bagai badan mempunyai tugas mereka. Bagi saya, sekiranya kita hendak membanteras rasuah, memanglah amat penting bahawa kita mesti memastikan PDRM dan MACC boleh berfungsi.

Akan tetapi Dewan Rakyat ini dimaklumkan bahawa Ketua Polis kita mendapat KPI yang tinggi sehingga 113.8%, dan saya hendak bertanya bagaimana Ketua Polis kita mendapat satu markah yang begitu tinggi. Kerana bagi saya sejak tahun 2004 sehingga tahun 2008, kes-kes jenayah telah meningkat sehingga 35.5%. Pada 1 Ogos yang lalu, semasa perhimpunan anti ISA dan memansuhkan ISA, ada remaja yang ditangkap dan terdapat salah seorang yang hanya berumur 13 tahun, seorang budak sahaja yang PDRM telah tangkap dan masukkan ke dalam lokap.

Dalam history Malaysia buat kali pertama, ada lima orang peguam, yang telah pergi ke Balai Polis Brickfields untuk menasihati klien mereka dan menasihati individu yang ditangkap, tetapi mereka juga turut ditangkap dan dimasukkan ke dalam lokap. Oleh itu saya hendak bertanya, bagaimana Menteri KPI kita memastikan bagaimana markah diberikan kepada Ketua Polis dan bolehkah menjelaskan apakah total mark untuk KPI? Sampai 1000 kah, sehingga Ketua Polis kita mendapat 113 markah? Terima kasih.

Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, mengenai KPI bagi sebarang pegawai, ini belum dilaksanakan dengan sepenuhnya di semua peringkat. Apa yang mungkin dimaksudkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang, ialah apa yang dikatakan sebagai peningkatan jenayah. Peningkatan jenayah ini ada dua aspek, satu ialah kadar jenayah yang dilaporkan.

Pengalaman dari negara-negara lain menunjukkan bahawa apabila pihak berkuasa, penguat kuasa menjadi lebih berkesan. Maka bilangan laporan akan meningkat, sebab dahulu sebelum sistem menjadi berkesan, maka orang awam enggan melaporkan.

Ada juga yang dikatakan anggota-anggota Polis yang tidak menggalakkan supaya sesuatu dilaporkan sebab... Kes ragut misalnya. Amat sukar untuk mangsa mengenal pasti siapa peragut itu, oleh itu mungkin banyak kes tidak dilaporkan. Akan tetapi apabila keyakinan orang awam terhadap pasukan penguat kuasa meningkat maka mereka akan tampil ke hadapan, itu satu. Yang keduanya, sistem untuk menerima laporan itu.

Based on Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon's enlightened logic, should the crime index increase further over the next few years, it is definitely because the rakyat's confidence in the police force has increased significantly due to the vastly improved performance from our police.

The question is, have the people's confidence in the police force increased so much over the last few years? Or has it actually been the reverse? The Ministry of Home Affairs conducted a survey just a few months back, and the result only shows overwhelming number of Malaysians do not feel safe in the country. Is that the confidence Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon's talking about?

Read more!