Khairy Jamaluddin must apologise and UMNO must take stern actions against its members
The UMNO bloggers are individuals with absolutely no scruples or morals. They are willing to sink to despicable depths to achieve their political goals. They are the bottom feeders of the society, and are a complete disgrace to their race, religion and country.
They have attempted to defame the 16 year old son of Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng and humiliate his family with a completely fictitious sexual harassment story. These bloggers even attempted to lend credibility to the concoction by putting up the picture of a young girl.
Nobody from the school of Lim’s son knew who she was, including the principal and teachers. It is not surprising, especially since, the girl never studied in Penang, and “better” still, is not even a Malaysian resident!
With some quick sleuthing work by Goh Kheng Teong, our IT Manager at the DAP Headquarters, we soon discovered that the girl in question is not only a foreigner, but also a high achiever. Anya Corke has been Hong Kong’s national champion of chess for many years as a teenager, and is now a 21 year old 3rd year student at a top liberal arts college in the United States.
The above proves beyond doubt that all the accusations by these UMNO cybertroopers are nothing by barbaric lies. They are willing to destroy the life of an innocent 16 year old and bring the country into disrepute by defaming a foreign top achiever for political ends.
UMNO Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin must immediately withdraw his tweet yesterday which said “Mungkin dia roboh Kampung Buah Pala sebab nak ganti dengan Kampung Buah Dada”. His snide remark was not only crass, he was perpetuating the vicious lies to his 64,000 followers on Twitter.
As an UMNO Youth Chief who is a role-model for many Malaysian youths, and who claim to be an example of “new politics”, he must take responsibility for his callous action and publicly apologise, especially to the victimised 16-year-old son of Lim Guan Eng. The failure to do so will only further taint his character in the eyes of Malaysians.
We would also like to call upon all UMNO cybertroopers who have concocted the lies and making Malaysia a centre for gutter politics to repent for their actions.
The UMNO disciplinary committee must also take harsh and stern actions against the UMNO members and leaders who perpetrators of the above slander to prove that UMNO is not beyond redemption. The failure to take actions against these rogue and vulgar members such as Dr Novandri Hassan Basri and “Papagomo” will only lead to the conclusion that UMNO is the real culprits behind these concerted efforts to slander and libel Pakatan Rakyat leaders, even if young innocent boys and girls become collateral damage in the process.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Why No Open Tenders for IPPs?
I raised the question in Parliament to the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water to explain the reason why the latest 1,000MW coal-fired power plant project was awarded in June 2011 without any open tender. I also asked for the key terms and conditions of the Independent Power Producer (IPP) concession agreement, such as the price of electricity, capacity charges etc., to be disclosed in Parliament.
In the Minister’s reply to me yesterday, it was disclosed that a closed tender was called for the award of the project because the project needs to be completed within a short period of time. Hence only 2 companies were called to take part in the “closed tender” – Jimah Energy Ventures and Tanjung Bin Power, a subsidiary of Malakoff Bhd. The new power plant is required to commence operations in 2016.
I fail to understand how a project which is only expected to commence operations in 2016, 5 years from now is so “urgent” that only 2 companies were called in a limited tender exercise. Having had more than a decade of experience with IPPs, as well as more than half-a-dozen of qualified IPPs in the country, there is little excuse for the Ministry to avoid an open and competitive tender.
What is perhaps more shocking was the Minister’s reply that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has not been finalized and hence, the expected tariff rate for electricity generated to be sold to Tenaga Nasional Bhd as well as the period of concession have not been finalized. He added that the terms will only be finalized at the end of the year.
It defies belief that the Government has taken the decision to award an IPP concession without even first finalizing key terms such as tariff rates and the length of concession.
It is hence not surprising that Malaysian electricity prices remains relatively high despite the amount of subsidies the Government has allocated to the industry. The subsidies have obviously not reached the man-on-the-street, but have instead been siphoned off as super-profits for these IPPs.
For example, despite the subsidies for natural gas supplied to IPPs being much higher in Malaysia compared to Thailand, consumers and businesses in the latter pay a lower electricity tariff than in Malaysia. Natural gas is supplied to Malaysian IPPs at RM13.70 mmBtu while it is 68.6% higher in Thailand at RM23.10 mmBtu. Despite that, a consumer using 500kW of electricity a month in Thailand pays only RM129.50, or 21.4% cheaper than Malaysians at RM157.20.
The underlying reason for the lower tariff rates in Thailand is because Thailand runs an extremely competitive IPP market where the Government awards IPP concessions after a prequalification exercise, based strictly on price.
If the Government is sincere about prices low in Malaysia to relieve the burdens of the rakyat, then the manner in which privatization projects and concessions are awarded in such an opaque and anti-competitive manner must be immediately “transformed”, or the rakyat will continue to suffer from unreasonably higher cost of living.
In the Minister’s reply to me yesterday, it was disclosed that a closed tender was called for the award of the project because the project needs to be completed within a short period of time. Hence only 2 companies were called to take part in the “closed tender” – Jimah Energy Ventures and Tanjung Bin Power, a subsidiary of Malakoff Bhd. The new power plant is required to commence operations in 2016.
I fail to understand how a project which is only expected to commence operations in 2016, 5 years from now is so “urgent” that only 2 companies were called in a limited tender exercise. Having had more than a decade of experience with IPPs, as well as more than half-a-dozen of qualified IPPs in the country, there is little excuse for the Ministry to avoid an open and competitive tender.
What is perhaps more shocking was the Minister’s reply that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has not been finalized and hence, the expected tariff rate for electricity generated to be sold to Tenaga Nasional Bhd as well as the period of concession have not been finalized. He added that the terms will only be finalized at the end of the year.
It defies belief that the Government has taken the decision to award an IPP concession without even first finalizing key terms such as tariff rates and the length of concession.
It is hence not surprising that Malaysian electricity prices remains relatively high despite the amount of subsidies the Government has allocated to the industry. The subsidies have obviously not reached the man-on-the-street, but have instead been siphoned off as super-profits for these IPPs.
For example, despite the subsidies for natural gas supplied to IPPs being much higher in Malaysia compared to Thailand, consumers and businesses in the latter pay a lower electricity tariff than in Malaysia. Natural gas is supplied to Malaysian IPPs at RM13.70 mmBtu while it is 68.6% higher in Thailand at RM23.10 mmBtu. Despite that, a consumer using 500kW of electricity a month in Thailand pays only RM129.50, or 21.4% cheaper than Malaysians at RM157.20.
The underlying reason for the lower tariff rates in Thailand is because Thailand runs an extremely competitive IPP market where the Government awards IPP concessions after a prequalification exercise, based strictly on price.
If the Government is sincere about prices low in Malaysia to relieve the burdens of the rakyat, then the manner in which privatization projects and concessions are awarded in such an opaque and anti-competitive manner must be immediately “transformed”, or the rakyat will continue to suffer from unreasonably higher cost of living.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
KLIFD: Another Real Estate Play
The Budget 2012 delivered an enormous set of incentives to “kickstart” the 1MDB flagship Kuala Lumpur International Financial District (KLIFD) project. The project is to be built of a 75 acres piece of government prime land which has been transferred to 1MDB.
The incentives for “KLIFD status” companies announced by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak include:
The incentives are generous to say the least and replicate the models utilized for earlier mega-projects which were unmitigated disasters such as the Bio-Valley and the E-Village, or the fluttering Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC).
The Government has described the role of KLIFD is to turn Kuala Lumpur into a “new icon for the financial world”, “the global financial city of choice” and “bring together world-class names to operate closely in a physical location.” Similarly, the Bio-Valley, E-Village and MSC were all sold to Malaysians as transformative projects in their respective sectors and launched with much fanfare.
In the 2001 budget speech, Tun Daim Zainuddin said the 1,200 acres E-Village was to “offer state-of-the-art facilities” to “attract international film producers to Malaysia”. The project was launched in the September 2000 in the presence of Jackie Chan. Dr Mahathir had said then that we “will witness a growth of opportunities” and “the transforming of society”. Today, the site of E-Village looks like an abandoned ghost town.
The 1,200 acres BioValley project sited at Dengkil on the other hand, was primed as the transformative project in the 2003 Budget to drive Malaysia’s “knowledge economy”. Despite receiving generous incentives like all the other projects cited, the Bio-Valley was unceremoniously buried two years later. The authoritative Nature scientific journal had labelled the project “the valley of ghosts”.
While the MSC had fared better than the rest, it is a far cry from the lofty goals that the project had sought to achieve. The MSC had kicked off with luminaries such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Acer’s Stan Shih constituting its International Advisory Panel, but their names have since been replaced with lower ranking corporate managers. In fact, the name of the panelists could not even be found on the MSC website today.
The failure of these projects lies in the common factor that these projects were schemed as property development projects and real estate plays, with the Government providing financial incentives for companies to be sited at a particular venue for the purported objective of boosting the industry. There is in reality no practical need for these companies to be sited physically next to one another for the industry to succeed.
We fear that the KLIFD will suffer a similar fate as there is no physical need for financial institutions and related professional services to be sited a stone’s throw away from one another. There will be little synergy generated as telecommunications technology, video-conferencing facilities as well as secure and instantaneous electronic transactions obliterates the need for physical proximity. There is little or no added business advantage for example, for the Maybank headquarters to be shifted to the KLIFD compared to its current venue, with the exception of potential tax benefits.
Hence, instead of actually promoting the financial services industry in the country directly, the Government, having already provided the prime land to 1MDB without any open bidding, is further providing unfair crutches for the latter to succeed in the KLIFD real estate play. Such incentives however, given the experience with the MSC, Bio-Valley and E-Village however, may not be sufficient to ensure its success.
The Government must learn from its failures of the past. The decision of global financial institutions to site their offices in Malaysia will not be based on short term benefits as a result of the choice of real estate. It will instead be based on the demand for its services and funds, the sophistication of the market instruments and the openness of the economy.
The incentives for “KLIFD status” companies announced by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak include:
- Income tax exemption of 100% for a period of 10 years
- Stamp duty exemption on loan and service agreements
- Industrial Building Allowance and Accelerated Capital Allowance
- Income tax exemption of 70% for a period of 5 years for property developers
The incentives are generous to say the least and replicate the models utilized for earlier mega-projects which were unmitigated disasters such as the Bio-Valley and the E-Village, or the fluttering Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC).
The Government has described the role of KLIFD is to turn Kuala Lumpur into a “new icon for the financial world”, “the global financial city of choice” and “bring together world-class names to operate closely in a physical location.” Similarly, the Bio-Valley, E-Village and MSC were all sold to Malaysians as transformative projects in their respective sectors and launched with much fanfare.
In the 2001 budget speech, Tun Daim Zainuddin said the 1,200 acres E-Village was to “offer state-of-the-art facilities” to “attract international film producers to Malaysia”. The project was launched in the September 2000 in the presence of Jackie Chan. Dr Mahathir had said then that we “will witness a growth of opportunities” and “the transforming of society”. Today, the site of E-Village looks like an abandoned ghost town.
The 1,200 acres BioValley project sited at Dengkil on the other hand, was primed as the transformative project in the 2003 Budget to drive Malaysia’s “knowledge economy”. Despite receiving generous incentives like all the other projects cited, the Bio-Valley was unceremoniously buried two years later. The authoritative Nature scientific journal had labelled the project “the valley of ghosts”.
While the MSC had fared better than the rest, it is a far cry from the lofty goals that the project had sought to achieve. The MSC had kicked off with luminaries such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Acer’s Stan Shih constituting its International Advisory Panel, but their names have since been replaced with lower ranking corporate managers. In fact, the name of the panelists could not even be found on the MSC website today.
The failure of these projects lies in the common factor that these projects were schemed as property development projects and real estate plays, with the Government providing financial incentives for companies to be sited at a particular venue for the purported objective of boosting the industry. There is in reality no practical need for these companies to be sited physically next to one another for the industry to succeed.
We fear that the KLIFD will suffer a similar fate as there is no physical need for financial institutions and related professional services to be sited a stone’s throw away from one another. There will be little synergy generated as telecommunications technology, video-conferencing facilities as well as secure and instantaneous electronic transactions obliterates the need for physical proximity. There is little or no added business advantage for example, for the Maybank headquarters to be shifted to the KLIFD compared to its current venue, with the exception of potential tax benefits.
Hence, instead of actually promoting the financial services industry in the country directly, the Government, having already provided the prime land to 1MDB without any open bidding, is further providing unfair crutches for the latter to succeed in the KLIFD real estate play. Such incentives however, given the experience with the MSC, Bio-Valley and E-Village however, may not be sufficient to ensure its success.
The Government must learn from its failures of the past. The decision of global financial institutions to site their offices in Malaysia will not be based on short term benefits as a result of the choice of real estate. It will instead be based on the demand for its services and funds, the sophistication of the market instruments and the openness of the economy.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
MRT: Government Concession Proves Strength of Civil Society
Despite being peppered with snide remarks against the protesting parties, we welcome the statement by Dato’ Azhar Abdul Hamid, the Chief Executive Officer of the newly established MRT Corporation to finally end the 10-week old MRT land acquisition controversy. Dato’ Azhar has pledged that Jalan Sultan properties will not be acquired for the Klang Valley MRT project, as long as businesses and landowners vacate their premises temporarily during tunnel construction.
This was in direct contrast to the reply provided in Parliament earlier in the morning when the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato’ Ahmad Maslan had responded on behalf of the Government that there will be no guarantee of “returning” of the surface land rights to the respective owners.
It also makes a mockery of the initial claim by Syarikat Prasarana Bhd, the previous owner of the MRT project, that they’ve had months of discussion with the Attorney-General’s Chambers before concluding that there is no provision on how the tunnel could be constructed without affecting the ownership of the surface properties.
The Government has effectively conceded that it is entirely possible for underground stratum land to be acquired for tunneling purposes under the National Land Code without affecting the ownership and the surface land use. As highlighted many times during the controversy, the National Land Code 1965 had been specifically amended in 1990 to allow for the acquisition of underground land without affecting surface property by inserting Part Five (A) (section 92A to 92G) under Clause 3. The amendment enables the disposal of “underground land”, which can then either be alienated or leased for the use to construct tunnels, car parks and to lay pipes.
This concession also renders the re-alignment of the tunnel and its entry point at Jalan Damansara, off Jalan Duta to save a VIP residence an unnecessary and costly exercise, since the land underground could be acquired without affecting the ownership of the surface land and property.
To remove any lingering doubts, the MRT Co. should declare an official position that no surface land above tunneling works for the MRT project will be forcibly acquired and that land will be acquired strictly on the basis of the construction of MRT stations or its ancillary facilities such as air vents and access points. No parcel of land should be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of profit generation by the Government.
Finally, the U-turn by the Barisan Nasional Government proves time and again that the rakyat needs to mobilise and speak up for their rights to ensure that they are not be victimized and the powers of the Government abused. The Bersih rally, for example has forced the Government to set up the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reforms. While this does not yet guarantee actual reforms, especially if elections are held before the reforms are exercised, it is a step forward for the country’s political system. Outrage from the civil society has also led to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister to lift “the state of emergency” and promise to abolish several draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act.
The above actions also prove that civil and political pressure works to correct the wrongs and abuses, and hence more Malaysians must speak up and take part in activities to defend their basic rights and entitlements.
This was in direct contrast to the reply provided in Parliament earlier in the morning when the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato’ Ahmad Maslan had responded on behalf of the Government that there will be no guarantee of “returning” of the surface land rights to the respective owners.
It also makes a mockery of the initial claim by Syarikat Prasarana Bhd, the previous owner of the MRT project, that they’ve had months of discussion with the Attorney-General’s Chambers before concluding that there is no provision on how the tunnel could be constructed without affecting the ownership of the surface properties.
The Government has effectively conceded that it is entirely possible for underground stratum land to be acquired for tunneling purposes under the National Land Code without affecting the ownership and the surface land use. As highlighted many times during the controversy, the National Land Code 1965 had been specifically amended in 1990 to allow for the acquisition of underground land without affecting surface property by inserting Part Five (A) (section 92A to 92G) under Clause 3. The amendment enables the disposal of “underground land”, which can then either be alienated or leased for the use to construct tunnels, car parks and to lay pipes.
This concession also renders the re-alignment of the tunnel and its entry point at Jalan Damansara, off Jalan Duta to save a VIP residence an unnecessary and costly exercise, since the land underground could be acquired without affecting the ownership of the surface land and property.
To remove any lingering doubts, the MRT Co. should declare an official position that no surface land above tunneling works for the MRT project will be forcibly acquired and that land will be acquired strictly on the basis of the construction of MRT stations or its ancillary facilities such as air vents and access points. No parcel of land should be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of profit generation by the Government.
Finally, the U-turn by the Barisan Nasional Government proves time and again that the rakyat needs to mobilise and speak up for their rights to ensure that they are not be victimized and the powers of the Government abused. The Bersih rally, for example has forced the Government to set up the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reforms. While this does not yet guarantee actual reforms, especially if elections are held before the reforms are exercised, it is a step forward for the country’s political system. Outrage from the civil society has also led to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister to lift “the state of emergency” and promise to abolish several draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act.
The above actions also prove that civil and political pressure works to correct the wrongs and abuses, and hence more Malaysians must speak up and take part in activities to defend their basic rights and entitlements.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Budget 2012: Where Are The Highways?
Highway projects in the last Budget has yet to kick off and the Prime Minister has announced 6 new highway projects in the new Budget 2012
In the recently announced budget for 2012, the Prime Minister has announced 5 new “high impact” highway and major road projects. They are:
While we welcome the provision for new infrastructure projects, the credibility of these announcements are in doubt because even the 6 “high impact” highway projects which were announced in last year’s Budget 2011 speech, none had taken off the ground.
The highway projects announced last year are:
In the Prime Minister’s lengthy written reply to my oral question yesterday – which asked on the status of the highway projects he announced in the previous budget, it was stated that the projects are still being evaluated and only some had received in-principle approval. The projects which have received in-principle approval by the Cabinet are still being studied by the various government agencies, and none of these projects have been awarded.
Besides the fact that a project – Lebuhraya Pantai Barat – was re-announced in the current Budget, it appears that the announcement by the Prime Minister has no tangible substance because the likelihood of the projects being implemented is actually questionable. If not even a single one of the “high-impact’ highway projects announced for 2011 is close to kicking off by October today, then surely the highway project announced in the current budget will see the light any time in the near future, if they ever kick off.
In fact it is completely irresponsible for the Prime Minister to be making announcement for projects where their viability are yet to be ascertained in the country’s financial budget. The Prime Minister’s reply to me on last year’s announcement did not even include an expected date for the projects to commence.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak must explain in parliament the reasons why the projects which have been announced last year have not even reached finalization stages, and whether these “high impact” highway projects announced this year are just part of a “wish list”, and not projects which have been thoroughly evaluated for commencement next year.
In the recently announced budget for 2012, the Prime Minister has announced 5 new “high impact” highway and major road projects. They are:
- Lebuhraya Pantai Timur Jabor – Kuala Terengganu
- Lebuhraya Pantai Barat Banting – Taiping
- Lebuhraya Segamat – Tangkak
- Lebuhraya Central Spine
- Kota Marudu – Ranau Road
While we welcome the provision for new infrastructure projects, the credibility of these announcements are in doubt because even the 6 “high impact” highway projects which were announced in last year’s Budget 2011 speech, none had taken off the ground.
The highway projects announced last year are:
- Lebuhraya Bertingkat Ampang – Pandan – Cheras
- Lebuhraya Guthrie – Damansara
- Lebuhraya Damansara – Petaling Jaya
- Lebuhraya Pantai Barat (Banting – Taiping)
- Lebuhraya Sungai Dua – Juru
- Lebuhraya Senawwang - KLIA
In the Prime Minister’s lengthy written reply to my oral question yesterday – which asked on the status of the highway projects he announced in the previous budget, it was stated that the projects are still being evaluated and only some had received in-principle approval. The projects which have received in-principle approval by the Cabinet are still being studied by the various government agencies, and none of these projects have been awarded.
Besides the fact that a project – Lebuhraya Pantai Barat – was re-announced in the current Budget, it appears that the announcement by the Prime Minister has no tangible substance because the likelihood of the projects being implemented is actually questionable. If not even a single one of the “high-impact’ highway projects announced for 2011 is close to kicking off by October today, then surely the highway project announced in the current budget will see the light any time in the near future, if they ever kick off.
In fact it is completely irresponsible for the Prime Minister to be making announcement for projects where their viability are yet to be ascertained in the country’s financial budget. The Prime Minister’s reply to me on last year’s announcement did not even include an expected date for the projects to commence.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak must explain in parliament the reasons why the projects which have been announced last year have not even reached finalization stages, and whether these “high impact” highway projects announced this year are just part of a “wish list”, and not projects which have been thoroughly evaluated for commencement next year.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
MAS Must Sell Firefly To Protect Competition
Under the share swap signed on August 9 2011, AirAsia’s main shareholder Tune Air Sdn Bhd will swap 10 per cent stake in the budget carrier for 20.5 per cent share of the ailing flag carrier in the agreement called a “Comprehensive Collaboration Framework.”
The situation in MAS was so bleak that the Finance Ministry had in Parliament last week argued that the government had no choice but to go ahead with the share swap between AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines (MAS) to allow the national carrier to move forward, especially since the latter made losses of RM770 million for the first half of this year.
There were many critics, especially from the Barisan Nasional backbenchers had argued that the deal is against national interest. The Member of Parliament for Kinabatangan and BN Backbenchers deputy chairman had for example likened the deal to “ikan bilis makan ikan jerung”, where “small fry” Air Asia should not be allowed to swallow up “big fish” MAS.
The critics seem to have forgotten the fact that Air Asia has overtaken MAS in terms of stock market capitalization on Bursa Malaysia since October 2010. The gap has since widened to the extent that Air Asia is now worth RM8.8 billion practically double the size of MAS at only RM4.5 billion.
The key issue in the exercise is not the fact that our national interest in MAS has been compromised. The real concern for the rakyat is the fact that the public interest will not be protected with the share swap between the 2 key domestic airlines in the country.
Over the past 10 years since Tune Air took over the management of Air Asia from DRB Hicom, Malaysians in nearly all major cities have enjoyed spectacular benefits from the competition created with MAS. The prices for domestic and regional flights were reduced by more than 50% allowing travel for millions of Malaysians resulting in exponential increase in domestic tourism as well as hundreds of millions of ringgit in travel expenses.
The competitive scene however, changed drastically when the share swap took place resulting in the creation of a collusive duopoly which will naturally seek to protect the interest (profits) of each other, instead of being dictated by market forces to lower prices.
Since the swap is now a fait accompli, there is little or no likelihood of reversal. Hence what is more important will be the actions of the Government moving forward to ensure that competition is protected in the Malaysian airline industry.
Pakatan Rakyat has in its Alternative Budget for 2012 called for the break up monopolies and block cartels so as to ensure lowest possible market prices for ordinary Malaysians. In line with the Pakatan Rakyat agenda, I have called for the Government to compel MAS to sell its budget air service, Firefly Sdn Bhd to the highest available bidder in my speech to debate the Budget for 2012 yesterday in Parliament.
This will ensure that competition and real alternatives are available to ordinary Malaysians when seeking to travel domestically and regionally especially in the budget sector, which allows more people to fly. Competition in the airline industry had benefited Malaysians and our economy immensely over the past decade. Therefore competition must be preserved, cartels and collusions crushed to ensure that all Malaysians and our economy continue to benefit.
The situation in MAS was so bleak that the Finance Ministry had in Parliament last week argued that the government had no choice but to go ahead with the share swap between AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines (MAS) to allow the national carrier to move forward, especially since the latter made losses of RM770 million for the first half of this year.
There were many critics, especially from the Barisan Nasional backbenchers had argued that the deal is against national interest. The Member of Parliament for Kinabatangan and BN Backbenchers deputy chairman had for example likened the deal to “ikan bilis makan ikan jerung”, where “small fry” Air Asia should not be allowed to swallow up “big fish” MAS.
The critics seem to have forgotten the fact that Air Asia has overtaken MAS in terms of stock market capitalization on Bursa Malaysia since October 2010. The gap has since widened to the extent that Air Asia is now worth RM8.8 billion practically double the size of MAS at only RM4.5 billion.
The key issue in the exercise is not the fact that our national interest in MAS has been compromised. The real concern for the rakyat is the fact that the public interest will not be protected with the share swap between the 2 key domestic airlines in the country.
Over the past 10 years since Tune Air took over the management of Air Asia from DRB Hicom, Malaysians in nearly all major cities have enjoyed spectacular benefits from the competition created with MAS. The prices for domestic and regional flights were reduced by more than 50% allowing travel for millions of Malaysians resulting in exponential increase in domestic tourism as well as hundreds of millions of ringgit in travel expenses.
The competitive scene however, changed drastically when the share swap took place resulting in the creation of a collusive duopoly which will naturally seek to protect the interest (profits) of each other, instead of being dictated by market forces to lower prices.
Since the swap is now a fait accompli, there is little or no likelihood of reversal. Hence what is more important will be the actions of the Government moving forward to ensure that competition is protected in the Malaysian airline industry.
Pakatan Rakyat has in its Alternative Budget for 2012 called for the break up monopolies and block cartels so as to ensure lowest possible market prices for ordinary Malaysians. In line with the Pakatan Rakyat agenda, I have called for the Government to compel MAS to sell its budget air service, Firefly Sdn Bhd to the highest available bidder in my speech to debate the Budget for 2012 yesterday in Parliament.
This will ensure that competition and real alternatives are available to ordinary Malaysians when seeking to travel domestically and regionally especially in the budget sector, which allows more people to fly. Competition in the airline industry had benefited Malaysians and our economy immensely over the past decade. Therefore competition must be preserved, cartels and collusions crushed to ensure that all Malaysians and our economy continue to benefit.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
MRT: SPAD Must Stop The Half-Truths
SPAD must stop trying to deceive the public with half-truths and start acting in the interest of ordinary Malaysians instead of the politically-connected elite
SPAD CEO Mohd Nur Kamal has responded to our press conference held on Wednesday last week exposing the fact that the Klang Valley MRT tunnel has been realigned to save the bungalow residence of a VIP late on Thursday evening.
In a long-winded reply that tried hard to steer away from the subject at hand, SPAD has essentially confirmed that the tunnel has indeed been realigned at the site which we had pointed out. In the statement, SPAD said that:
“Following the feedback from the land owners given before the final approval of the alignment by the government, SPAD evaluated the alternatives and accepted the option of moving the original alignment further to the edge of the plot of land.One almost needs to shake his or her head with incredulity that SPAD has decided that the tunnel realignment was necessary as it could reduce land acquisition by some 1,000 square meters. At prime residential land prices, the land could be worth just above RM5,000 per square meter, meaning a “saving” of just about only RM5 million ringgit. We call upon SPAD to disclose in full the total cost incurred for the realignment especially since tunnelling works have already commenced on the initial alignment by the relevant contractors.
The re-alignment was possible because firstly there was suitable alternative land available. However, more importantly, the realignment reduced the amount of land acquisition by over 1,000 square metres… Indeed there was a cost to this realignment but it is lower than the potential compensation payout.”
SPAD even had the cheek to be sneaky by claiming that the original alignment did not affect the bungalow residence and that our “allegation is totally false and the item marked on the map as the “VIP House” is totally incorrect.”
I have attached once again the original alignment plan for the tunnel, this time the plan issued directly by SPAD and Syarikat Prasarana Bhd above. It is beyond the doubt of anyone with reasonable eyesight that the tunnel had cut through underneath the swimming pool and an ancillary building at the bungalow residence. Is the SPAD CEO trying to wriggle out of the issue by claiming that the swimming pool is not strictly speaking the bungalow?
SPAD should stop giving incongruous, unbelievable and contradictory excuses in the entire land acquisition exercise. SPAD claims close consultation with all affected parties before decisions on the alignment was finalised, including we assume, the above VIP bungalow-owner. However, that is completely untrue in the case of the Bukit Bintang and Jalan Sultan shop-owners where the notices for land acquisition caught them by complete surprise.
SPAD CEO has also admitted in an earlier statement that the underground stratum can be acquired without affecting the land use and ownership of the surface land where “all affected individual land owners [can] apply for stratum titles to be issued to the Government”.
This is because as highlighted many times during the controversy, the National Land Code 1965 had been specifically amended in 1990 to allow for the acquisition of underground land without affecting surface property by inserting Part Five (A) (section 92A to 92G) under Clause 3. The amendment enables the disposal of “underground land”, which can then either be alienated or leased for the use to construct tunnels, car parks and to lay pipes.
Hence even the rationale for realignment of the tunnel below the bungalow residence is based on a false premise, that the Government will “save” from the acquisition of 1,000 square metres of land (or 32m x 32m) as the acquisition of surface land is completely unnecessary.
The flimsy reply provided by SPAD is completely unacceptable and only serves to confirm the fears of ordinary Malaysians that special privileges are accorded only to the very privileged few, while the rights of the honest man trying to make a living on the street are trampled upon indiscriminately.
Budget 2012: BN vs PR
It is difficult not to “feel good” after a record-breaking pre-election budget where goodies big and small, were liberally handed out to practically all segments of society. The question is, beneath the sweeteners, are there substantive reforms proposed in the Budget 2012 to make “transformative” changes to our economy to achieve the goal of becoming a “high-income nation” by 2020.
The answer, when compared side by side with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Alternative Budget is obvious. There is little in the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government’s budget that indicates a determination to slaughter sacred cows and take the Malaysian economy to the next level.
Both the PR and BN’s budgets had proposed cash grants to various deserving segments of society in order to help alleviate their increasingly heavy burdens. However, PR matched its welfare benefits with policies to rectify the distortions created by the current government to reduce inflationary pressures and the cost of living over the longer term.
PR has called for the abolition of artificial monopolies licensed by the Government such as Bernas which monopolises the sale and distribution of local and imported rice. In addition, predatory market strategies by Telekom Malaysia to stifle competition will be made illegal while the monopoly of satellite and cable television will be abolished.
On top of that we will dismantle cartels in the telecommunication, media, airline, oil and gas as well as other industries to ensure a genuine competitive market which will benefit the man on the street with lower prices.
What’s more, we have promised drastic changes to the current privatisation policies which are opaque, uncompetitive and clearly benefit the concessionaires at the expense of the Government and the rakyat. The 2-prong strategy demands the renegotiation or expropriation of current concession assets such as independent power producers, highway and water companies, while putting in place an open, transparent and competitive framework to ensure only the parties with the best services at the lowest price will be awarded the relevant contracts in the future.
Under PR for example, all Approved Permits to import cars will be auctioned not only to increase government revenue, but also to ensure only genuine businessmen and not rent-seeking middle-men secure the rights.
PR has also committed to transform our labour market in the interest those who are paid suppressed wages by instituting a minimum wage of RM1,100 per month. This will ensure that all workers will receive a humane subsistence wage. The measure will not only stimulate domestic demand in our economy, it will also increase the attractiveness of hiring local workers as opposed to foreign workers while phasing out low value-added industries.
It is only with these institutional and structural changes, can we be assured of lower cost of living in the middle and longer term. The budget announced by the Prime Minister has instead chosen to prescribe pain-killers which will ease the rakyat’s suffering in the short term, without the medication to cure the actual illness.
In fact when comparing the two budgets, had PR used the more optimistic BN revenue assumptions of RM186.9 billion and our planned expenditure of RM220 billion, the projected deficit of PR’s budget would further decline to 3.8%, significantly lower and healthier than BN’s 4.7%. This proves that PR can provide not just the “pain-killers” with welfare grants and “cure” the economy by removing artificial barriers to lower cost of living; we can do it all by spending less, and incurring lower debts than BN.
The above also shows that with good governance and the necessary political will to reform and restructure our economy, there will be no need for the Government to further tax the rakyat via BN’s proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST). Therein lies the fundamental difference between BN and PR’s budget – the former prescribes a sugar-coated placebo that makes you feel good in the short term only to tax you more later, while the latter seek to ease the pain and cure the illness at the lowest possible cost.
The answer, when compared side by side with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Alternative Budget is obvious. There is little in the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government’s budget that indicates a determination to slaughter sacred cows and take the Malaysian economy to the next level.
Both the PR and BN’s budgets had proposed cash grants to various deserving segments of society in order to help alleviate their increasingly heavy burdens. However, PR matched its welfare benefits with policies to rectify the distortions created by the current government to reduce inflationary pressures and the cost of living over the longer term.
PR has called for the abolition of artificial monopolies licensed by the Government such as Bernas which monopolises the sale and distribution of local and imported rice. In addition, predatory market strategies by Telekom Malaysia to stifle competition will be made illegal while the monopoly of satellite and cable television will be abolished.
On top of that we will dismantle cartels in the telecommunication, media, airline, oil and gas as well as other industries to ensure a genuine competitive market which will benefit the man on the street with lower prices.
What’s more, we have promised drastic changes to the current privatisation policies which are opaque, uncompetitive and clearly benefit the concessionaires at the expense of the Government and the rakyat. The 2-prong strategy demands the renegotiation or expropriation of current concession assets such as independent power producers, highway and water companies, while putting in place an open, transparent and competitive framework to ensure only the parties with the best services at the lowest price will be awarded the relevant contracts in the future.
Under PR for example, all Approved Permits to import cars will be auctioned not only to increase government revenue, but also to ensure only genuine businessmen and not rent-seeking middle-men secure the rights.
PR has also committed to transform our labour market in the interest those who are paid suppressed wages by instituting a minimum wage of RM1,100 per month. This will ensure that all workers will receive a humane subsistence wage. The measure will not only stimulate domestic demand in our economy, it will also increase the attractiveness of hiring local workers as opposed to foreign workers while phasing out low value-added industries.
It is only with these institutional and structural changes, can we be assured of lower cost of living in the middle and longer term. The budget announced by the Prime Minister has instead chosen to prescribe pain-killers which will ease the rakyat’s suffering in the short term, without the medication to cure the actual illness.
In fact when comparing the two budgets, had PR used the more optimistic BN revenue assumptions of RM186.9 billion and our planned expenditure of RM220 billion, the projected deficit of PR’s budget would further decline to 3.8%, significantly lower and healthier than BN’s 4.7%. This proves that PR can provide not just the “pain-killers” with welfare grants and “cure” the economy by removing artificial barriers to lower cost of living; we can do it all by spending less, and incurring lower debts than BN.
The above also shows that with good governance and the necessary political will to reform and restructure our economy, there will be no need for the Government to further tax the rakyat via BN’s proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST). Therein lies the fundamental difference between BN and PR’s budget – the former prescribes a sugar-coated placebo that makes you feel good in the short term only to tax you more later, while the latter seek to ease the pain and cure the illness at the lowest possible cost.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Budget 2012: Najib Fails Reform Credentials
Budget 2012 fails to live up to the Prime Minister’s reform pledges in NEM, GTP and ETP
The expectations were high for a pre-election budget where Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak will stamp his “reformist” credentials. It is for the Prime Minister to put into action the various reform pledges made in his cornerstone policy blueprints – the New Economic Model (NEM), Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).
However, the announcement of the budget left much to be desired as little has changed beyond tweaking the budget of the previous financial year. Instead what is perhaps the most worrying is that Malaysians are like the proverbial frog in the hot soup – where the frog does not realise the soup is slowly but surely reaching the boiling point.
We may not yet be facing the crisis of Greek proportions, but Budget 2012 is doing very little to avert such eventuality, leaving the Malaysian economy nakedly exposed to the inevitability.
Federal Government Debt
Our Federal Government debt has increased rapidly from RM242 billion in 2004 to RM363 billion in 2009 and RM456 billion in 2011. That represents a marked 88.4% increase in debt over the past 7 years. It is also an increase of 25.6% or nearly RM100 billion over 2 years.
The increase in debt has increased the pressure on reigning in our budget deficit as our annual debt service commitments have increased to RM20.5 billion next year from only half the amount 5 years ago in 2007.
While our federal government debt to GDP ratio is still at a moderate 53.8%, a far cry from Greece's 117%, we are not far from Spain's 64% or Ireland's 67%, both of whom are facing economic turbulence of their own.
Our debt levels will only worsen in the next few years as we embark on record levels of infrastructure spending such as the RM53 billion Klang Valley MRT project which is expected to be funded entirely on debt.
Wages and Pensions
At the same time, our public sector expenditure is increasingly mirroring that of the European countries with ballooning civil service obligations. The budgeted expenditure for wages and pensions for 2012 is a whopping RM64.1 billion, an increase of RM6.2 billion or 10.8% budgeted for 2011. The increase is even more worrying when contrasted against the budgeted RM36.9 billion 2007, a 73.7% increase in just 5 years.
The GTP had promised a more efficient and cost effective government and civil service. What we are seeing from the Budget is only on which is indebting our children, entrenching our structural problems and very weak expenditure controls.
Economic Growth
Despite the Governments efforts in the ETP, our manufacturing and export statistics paint a starkly different picture.
Our export sector grew a miserly 2.7% in 2011 against 13.2% in 2010. However, we should be further alarmed by the fact that the growth was a result of increased contributions from exports of rubber, paper, textiles, clothes and shoes which grew in excess of 15%, and the petroleum products by 9.3%. Our electrical and electronics sector, which constitutes 26.4% of our total exports industry shrunk by 4.9% in 2011.
From the above indicators, there appears to be a shift away from higher value-added export sectors to the primary products industry such as rubber, wood, textiles and crude oil. This is the exact reverse of what we are trying to achieve via the ETP.
Budget deficit
Based on the Economic Report, we are expected to meet our deficit target of 5.4% for this year only because our revenues had grown beyond the expected in the 2010 budget due to very strong commodity prices. The Government has managed to collect RM21.1 billion of extra revenue on top of the originally budget RM165.8 billion. If not for the unexpected increase in government revenue, our budget deficit would have been a shocking 7.9%.
The Government is planning a 4.7% deficit for 2012, a figure which doesn't give hope that the 2.5% deficit target promised by Najib can be met by 2015. Even then, based on poor expenditure controls and the habitual ad hoc expenditure patterns of past BN governments, even meeting the 4.7% target will be a challenge, especially if commodity prices were to fall below expectations next year.
Optimistic projections
Finally, despite having achieved on 4.2% growth in the first half of 2011, and a slowing global economy in the face of another potential economic crisis, the Government has retained its unrealistic growth assumptions of 5.0 to 5.5%. To meet the target, Malaysia's economy will have to grow by at least 5.7% in the 2nd half of the year, which is highly optimistic to say the least.
The Federal Government's unrealistic expectations coupled with a budget which failed to demonstrate substantive reforms and political will for change makes the 2012 budget a highly disappointing and puts in serious doubt our ability to become a high income nation as aspired in Najib's New Economic Model.
The expectations were high for a pre-election budget where Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak will stamp his “reformist” credentials. It is for the Prime Minister to put into action the various reform pledges made in his cornerstone policy blueprints – the New Economic Model (NEM), Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).
However, the announcement of the budget left much to be desired as little has changed beyond tweaking the budget of the previous financial year. Instead what is perhaps the most worrying is that Malaysians are like the proverbial frog in the hot soup – where the frog does not realise the soup is slowly but surely reaching the boiling point.
We may not yet be facing the crisis of Greek proportions, but Budget 2012 is doing very little to avert such eventuality, leaving the Malaysian economy nakedly exposed to the inevitability.
Federal Government Debt
Our Federal Government debt has increased rapidly from RM242 billion in 2004 to RM363 billion in 2009 and RM456 billion in 2011. That represents a marked 88.4% increase in debt over the past 7 years. It is also an increase of 25.6% or nearly RM100 billion over 2 years.
The increase in debt has increased the pressure on reigning in our budget deficit as our annual debt service commitments have increased to RM20.5 billion next year from only half the amount 5 years ago in 2007.
While our federal government debt to GDP ratio is still at a moderate 53.8%, a far cry from Greece's 117%, we are not far from Spain's 64% or Ireland's 67%, both of whom are facing economic turbulence of their own.
Our debt levels will only worsen in the next few years as we embark on record levels of infrastructure spending such as the RM53 billion Klang Valley MRT project which is expected to be funded entirely on debt.
Wages and Pensions
At the same time, our public sector expenditure is increasingly mirroring that of the European countries with ballooning civil service obligations. The budgeted expenditure for wages and pensions for 2012 is a whopping RM64.1 billion, an increase of RM6.2 billion or 10.8% budgeted for 2011. The increase is even more worrying when contrasted against the budgeted RM36.9 billion 2007, a 73.7% increase in just 5 years.
The GTP had promised a more efficient and cost effective government and civil service. What we are seeing from the Budget is only on which is indebting our children, entrenching our structural problems and very weak expenditure controls.
Economic Growth
Despite the Governments efforts in the ETP, our manufacturing and export statistics paint a starkly different picture.
Our export sector grew a miserly 2.7% in 2011 against 13.2% in 2010. However, we should be further alarmed by the fact that the growth was a result of increased contributions from exports of rubber, paper, textiles, clothes and shoes which grew in excess of 15%, and the petroleum products by 9.3%. Our electrical and electronics sector, which constitutes 26.4% of our total exports industry shrunk by 4.9% in 2011.
From the above indicators, there appears to be a shift away from higher value-added export sectors to the primary products industry such as rubber, wood, textiles and crude oil. This is the exact reverse of what we are trying to achieve via the ETP.
Budget deficit
Based on the Economic Report, we are expected to meet our deficit target of 5.4% for this year only because our revenues had grown beyond the expected in the 2010 budget due to very strong commodity prices. The Government has managed to collect RM21.1 billion of extra revenue on top of the originally budget RM165.8 billion. If not for the unexpected increase in government revenue, our budget deficit would have been a shocking 7.9%.
The Government is planning a 4.7% deficit for 2012, a figure which doesn't give hope that the 2.5% deficit target promised by Najib can be met by 2015. Even then, based on poor expenditure controls and the habitual ad hoc expenditure patterns of past BN governments, even meeting the 4.7% target will be a challenge, especially if commodity prices were to fall below expectations next year.
Optimistic projections
Finally, despite having achieved on 4.2% growth in the first half of 2011, and a slowing global economy in the face of another potential economic crisis, the Government has retained its unrealistic growth assumptions of 5.0 to 5.5%. To meet the target, Malaysia's economy will have to grow by at least 5.7% in the 2nd half of the year, which is highly optimistic to say the least.
The Federal Government's unrealistic expectations coupled with a budget which failed to demonstrate substantive reforms and political will for change makes the 2012 budget a highly disappointing and puts in serious doubt our ability to become a high income nation as aspired in Najib's New Economic Model.
Friday, October 07, 2011
IWK Should Be Returned To Local Councils
We welcome the reply by Finance Ministry to my question in parliament today as to whether the Indah Water Konsortium will be privatised to 1MDB together with other private entities such as Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd.
When asked to confirm if the IWK will be privatised in whatever form to 1MDB, the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Donald Lim has responded that it will not. He has further added that IWK will instead be restructured and placed under the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water.
However, we would like to call upon the Government to take a further step of decentralising the IWK sewerage treatment and management business, and returning it to their respective local councils. The IWK was formed in 1994 as part of Dr Mahathir’s privatisation initiative and took over all the relevant functions from the local government authorities. To ensure increased effectiveness and greater responsiveness to issues faced by the people, it is crucial that the local councils are empowered to manage its services.
The centralisation of IWK services has resulted in a costly privatisation exercise where the Government was bailed out IWK from its concessionaire with RM192 million in 2000. The exercise has since resulted in further cost to the government amounting to RM1.2 billion to make up IWK’s operational deficits since then.
We would warn the Government against reversing the decision to reject 1MDB’s privatisation proposal, especially when attempting to privatise to parties which are facing financial difficulties such as Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd. The latter had recently announced that its shareholder’s funds have plunged to RM36 million breaching the Practice Note 17 guidelines of a minimum of RM40 million of Bursa Malaysia before receiving reprieve from Bursa to regularise its position by June 2012.
Should the Government decide at any point of time to revive the privatisation exercise, such exercise must be conducted in an open, competitive and transparent manner to ensure that the interest of the rakyat is prioritised, and the cost to the Government minimised.
When asked to confirm if the IWK will be privatised in whatever form to 1MDB, the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Donald Lim has responded that it will not. He has further added that IWK will instead be restructured and placed under the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water.
However, we would like to call upon the Government to take a further step of decentralising the IWK sewerage treatment and management business, and returning it to their respective local councils. The IWK was formed in 1994 as part of Dr Mahathir’s privatisation initiative and took over all the relevant functions from the local government authorities. To ensure increased effectiveness and greater responsiveness to issues faced by the people, it is crucial that the local councils are empowered to manage its services.
The centralisation of IWK services has resulted in a costly privatisation exercise where the Government was bailed out IWK from its concessionaire with RM192 million in 2000. The exercise has since resulted in further cost to the government amounting to RM1.2 billion to make up IWK’s operational deficits since then.
We would warn the Government against reversing the decision to reject 1MDB’s privatisation proposal, especially when attempting to privatise to parties which are facing financial difficulties such as Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd. The latter had recently announced that its shareholder’s funds have plunged to RM36 million breaching the Practice Note 17 guidelines of a minimum of RM40 million of Bursa Malaysia before receiving reprieve from Bursa to regularise its position by June 2012.
Should the Government decide at any point of time to revive the privatisation exercise, such exercise must be conducted in an open, competitive and transparent manner to ensure that the interest of the rakyat is prioritised, and the cost to the Government minimised.
Government Must Not Pay RM0.50 To Send Bills Via Email
We view with concern the announcement made by Tricubes Bhd that 4 government agencies have been approached to adopt the MyEmail system and 2 agencies are commencing pilot projects with the company. The agencies which have been approached are the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL), Road Transport Department (JPJ) and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF).
We have no objection to government agencies negotiating with any commercial companies to provide better and more efficient services to the public.
However, we are duly worried when the Government starts to use tax-payers’ monies to pay for services which are either unnecessary or excessive.
Tricubes CEO, Khairun Zainal Mokhtar has reiterated that He added that “each bill sent via myemail be charged 50 sen to the agency” while normal emails will not be charged.
We would like to reiterate our position in the strongest possible terms our objections to Government agencies paying a single sen for any bills delivered via email. If our local and foreign banks, as well as other utility operators in the country can send my statements and bills to me via normal Yahoo or Gmail accounts, there is absolutely no reason at all for Government agencies to be delivering emails via service providers that charge anything for its use.
We would like to warn that any agency signing agreements to make payments for emails delivered borne by the tax-payers will be referred to the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee to answer for its decision and provide full details on the terms and conditions agreed to in the service contract.
This objection is not aimed against private innovative enterprises but to prevent parties from manipulating exclusive positions and restrictive government concessions from profiting either via rent-seeking or the sheer ignorance of our agencies.
We have no objection to government agencies negotiating with any commercial companies to provide better and more efficient services to the public.
However, we are duly worried when the Government starts to use tax-payers’ monies to pay for services which are either unnecessary or excessive.
Tricubes CEO, Khairun Zainal Mokhtar has reiterated that He added that “each bill sent via myemail be charged 50 sen to the agency” while normal emails will not be charged.
We would like to reiterate our position in the strongest possible terms our objections to Government agencies paying a single sen for any bills delivered via email. If our local and foreign banks, as well as other utility operators in the country can send my statements and bills to me via normal Yahoo or Gmail accounts, there is absolutely no reason at all for Government agencies to be delivering emails via service providers that charge anything for its use.
We would like to warn that any agency signing agreements to make payments for emails delivered borne by the tax-payers will be referred to the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee to answer for its decision and provide full details on the terms and conditions agreed to in the service contract.
This objection is not aimed against private innovative enterprises but to prevent parties from manipulating exclusive positions and restrictive government concessions from profiting either via rent-seeking or the sheer ignorance of our agencies.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
MRT: Tunnel Realignment for Luxury Bungalow?
The Land Public Transport Authority (SPAD), Pemandu and Syarikat Prasarana (or its new owner MRT Co.) must answer to the public for the double standards which have been shown in its treatment of a VIP bungalow in Jalan Damansara, off Jalan Duta.
In the original plan, the tunnel was clearly shown to pass through underneath the VIP bungalow, which based on the arguments put forth by SPAD and Pemandu so far, necessitates the acquisition of the land. The original plan is attached in Diagram A. The contract for the tunnel “portal” has already been awarded and works commenced near the site.
However, for reasons best known to the authorities, the works on the original site has now been stopped, the tunnel portal relocated and a variation order has been issued to the contractor. The last minute tunnel realignment can be seen in the updated plan shown in Diagram B, where the tunnel no longer passes underneath the VIP house.
The costly and last minute change flies in the face of SPAD and Pemandu’s arguments that the tunnel route has already been optimised and finalised and is no longer subject to change. The tunnel route, passing through Chinatown and Bukit Bintang has sparked protests from landowners in the areas because of the authorities’ intent to acquire all land above the tunnel.
This is despite the fact that we have argued that the Government is able to, under the amended Land Acquisition Act, acquire the underground land without having to affect the land and its use on the surface. Alternatively, the land owners have suggested that the tunnel routes can be realigned to prevent the costly and inconvenient acquisitions. However, the Government has to date, refused acquiesce to the requests from the landowners.
Now with the fact that SPAD did indeed make a realignment concession to “save” a VIP’s bungalow house from being affected by the tunnel route, the Government must explain its hypocrisy and double-standards in dealing with the above issues. On the one hand, the Government remains stubborn in refusing to hear out the pleas of the landowners and traders in Jalan Sultan and Bukit Bintang, many of whom have been earning a living there for decades, while on the other hand, the Government goes out of its way to save a luxury bungalow, despite its cost to the taxpayers.
In the original plan, the tunnel was clearly shown to pass through underneath the VIP bungalow, which based on the arguments put forth by SPAD and Pemandu so far, necessitates the acquisition of the land. The original plan is attached in Diagram A. The contract for the tunnel “portal” has already been awarded and works commenced near the site.
Diagram A: Original Alignment
Diagram B: New Alignment
However, for reasons best known to the authorities, the works on the original site has now been stopped, the tunnel portal relocated and a variation order has been issued to the contractor. The last minute tunnel realignment can be seen in the updated plan shown in Diagram B, where the tunnel no longer passes underneath the VIP house.
The costly and last minute change flies in the face of SPAD and Pemandu’s arguments that the tunnel route has already been optimised and finalised and is no longer subject to change. The tunnel route, passing through Chinatown and Bukit Bintang has sparked protests from landowners in the areas because of the authorities’ intent to acquire all land above the tunnel.
This is despite the fact that we have argued that the Government is able to, under the amended Land Acquisition Act, acquire the underground land without having to affect the land and its use on the surface. Alternatively, the land owners have suggested that the tunnel routes can be realigned to prevent the costly and inconvenient acquisitions. However, the Government has to date, refused acquiesce to the requests from the landowners.
Now with the fact that SPAD did indeed make a realignment concession to “save” a VIP’s bungalow house from being affected by the tunnel route, the Government must explain its hypocrisy and double-standards in dealing with the above issues. On the one hand, the Government remains stubborn in refusing to hear out the pleas of the landowners and traders in Jalan Sultan and Bukit Bintang, many of whom have been earning a living there for decades, while on the other hand, the Government goes out of its way to save a luxury bungalow, despite its cost to the taxpayers.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
An Internship Experience: Sara Lau
Sara Lau is a lawyer who has recently graduated from Reading and will be completing her bar in London. She interned with me in August and below are her thoughts.
“You are young, talented, hardworking and determined – where do you want to go after you graduate?”
I have always thought myself optimistic about my country. When people asked me whether I wanted to stay or leave after my studies, I always answered that I wanted to be a lawyer in Malaysia – to work for my community and my country. When my peers told me that their parents told them to run, I was judgmental of them. To me, they were quitters. Maybe Malaysia was not in a good economic place at the moment, but I was so sure in my heart that this will come to pass. On closer inspection, I realised it was not just because of the returns and low wages in Malaysia that was making them run...
I called myself an optimist, but maybe I was just ignorant. Like so many of us, maybe I wanted to close my eyes to the bigotry and pretend that everything was as it should be. But there came a point when I could not answer my friends’ retort on why there was a withholding and vandalism of bibles; why the Government was so pressed against a campaign calling for free and fair elections; why Valentine’s Day cannot be a joyous ocassion back home! I was cornered when they asked – Why should we put up with this partiality? They were hurt. They were discontented and they were just tired of fighting back. I called myself an optimist, but maybe I was just in denial.
I was jaded by the time I came back because suddenly I didn't know the answer. I knew of all these political instabilities, racial insecurities, economic urgencies.... Yet the government remained idle at the height of needing to prove itself. I never called myself a Party supporter because what was logic in my mind was that it did not matter what the government did, and why it did. What mattered was that the people were well taken care of, not taken advantage of, had its civil liberties and were happy. But second chances prove futile when the Government kept letting me down. I remember asking my friend Jian Wei, why didn't they take a stand and do something? He jolted me when he said... "Don't you see? They have already taken their stand."
And then, I needed to find the alternative. Were there people as perplexed as I was? Most want to save themselves before they can't, but this land is mine to inherit! I needed to find people who were geared up as I, who could remind me why I wanted to fight when I am giving up. I needed to find out if I was alone, wanting to return and work because I was needed, because I know I still counted as a number at the very least. I still wanted to be that number for Malaysia.
We hear of our counterparts and peers, tired, wearied, disheartened saying that hope is lost. That while they were young and had alternatives, had to find a place to build themselves, their homes, their families away from injustice, unfairness and discrimination. This was logical - why return to a lover who doesn't love you back? But Malaysia wasn't just a lover, this wasn't just a two person relationship - it was a cause bigger than myself and while I have one life to give, I wanted to make it count. So, likewise disheartened, but contrariwise eager, I wanted to see if the Opposition proved any better than the Government.
My stint with DAP was only a month long. The reason I came into it was because I thought it was not enough to know alternative policies. I wanted to see if their actions corresponded with the news. I wanted to be a judge in my own right and to find out if the Opposition was a risk worth taking. I have always been one to play safe, but these were desperate times to me.
One mistake I had made coming into it was my expectation: unwittingly I had thought my internship would be likened to a classroom where information I wanted came almost automatically. I was wrong. Tony was not the kind to spoon feed - when I wanted information on something, he only provided it if I had done my homework. He wasn't the kind who sat you down, event after event, asking you "Did you understand?", "Do you know what's happening?", "What conclusions can we draw from this?" like a teacher would; instead he allowed you in on the face of conflict there and then, expected you to draw your own inferences and naturally allowed you to draw personal stands and opinions. Looking back, I realise that when I was frustrated about not satisfying my deep hunger for knowledge, I had gotten it all wrong. This stint was about instigating mature observations, not manipulating naivete. And in that sense, he gave me what I asked for in the beginning - a platform to ponder.
Only a 4 week internship, my tasks were varied. Needless to say the high points of the internship revolved around press conferences because it was exciting and in the face of current political happenings, but also because it satisfied a curiosity. Coming from these events to reading mainstream media and then comparing it to online media revealed me to disparities, and unwittingly, the truth (or lies) of Government action. Perhaps the most memorable press conference was at Jalan Sultan where the Opposition pledged support to protecting the area from the MRT land grab fiasco. As a layperson exposed to interactions between politician and politician, public and politician, I saw how the once untouchable arena of politics became unbelievably humanised before my eyes.
Another event that had been incredibly eye-opening was the various voter registration campaigns held almost every week and weekend. Together with Ee May, who is Tony's new assistant, I went to as many drives as I could to volunteer my service. Again, being revealed to the process of voter registration and some conflicts that are embedded in it (such as people being registered as other voters, citizens being denied voting rights because of a lack of religion, disparities in the system regarding voters' information) showed me that there were fundamental flaws within the system that needed to be addressed. More frustrating was also the fact that many young people did not bother to get registered as voters at all, even with our team cajoling and persuading them to! However, seeing Ee May who was relentless in her quest to recruit new voters, I realised that I was not alone: that there were many Malaysians, young and old, fighting for a better Malaysia while they could and before they tired.
This was again proven to me in the focal point of my internship - organising the DAP Selangor English Speaking Fundraising Dinner. The dinner saw an 1000 strong audience, but behind the scenes, I knew that there had been a long waiting list of Malaysians who were very keen to support the dinner and to donate as much funds as they could afford. As I personally managed the bookings, I had multiple conversations with multiple people of all backgrounds, echoing the same sentiments: that they all wanted a better Malaysia. That they had not given up. That they were willing to run the race. That they all loved their home and want to be counted in the numbers. But most importantly – they all spoke with a sense of belonging for Malaysia. As a young Malaysian, jaded by unimpressive returns in her home country, this was enough to remind me, my country was worth my investment, my time, my effort.
I do not know what I had expected to gain from this DAP internship, but what I got was incredibly personal. It was not about politicking or support. It was about self-discovery about my Malaysian identity, about what I can do for my country and about how this will always, always be where my heart belongs. Everyone is looking for a better Malaysia in their lifetime, but now I know it is equally important to run the relay race and pass the baton until that better Malaysia comes to pass.
“You are young, talented, hardworking and determined – where do you want to go after you graduate?”
I have always thought myself optimistic about my country. When people asked me whether I wanted to stay or leave after my studies, I always answered that I wanted to be a lawyer in Malaysia – to work for my community and my country. When my peers told me that their parents told them to run, I was judgmental of them. To me, they were quitters. Maybe Malaysia was not in a good economic place at the moment, but I was so sure in my heart that this will come to pass. On closer inspection, I realised it was not just because of the returns and low wages in Malaysia that was making them run...
I called myself an optimist, but maybe I was just ignorant. Like so many of us, maybe I wanted to close my eyes to the bigotry and pretend that everything was as it should be. But there came a point when I could not answer my friends’ retort on why there was a withholding and vandalism of bibles; why the Government was so pressed against a campaign calling for free and fair elections; why Valentine’s Day cannot be a joyous ocassion back home! I was cornered when they asked – Why should we put up with this partiality? They were hurt. They were discontented and they were just tired of fighting back. I called myself an optimist, but maybe I was just in denial.
I was jaded by the time I came back because suddenly I didn't know the answer. I knew of all these political instabilities, racial insecurities, economic urgencies.... Yet the government remained idle at the height of needing to prove itself. I never called myself a Party supporter because what was logic in my mind was that it did not matter what the government did, and why it did. What mattered was that the people were well taken care of, not taken advantage of, had its civil liberties and were happy. But second chances prove futile when the Government kept letting me down. I remember asking my friend Jian Wei, why didn't they take a stand and do something? He jolted me when he said... "Don't you see? They have already taken their stand."
And then, I needed to find the alternative. Were there people as perplexed as I was? Most want to save themselves before they can't, but this land is mine to inherit! I needed to find people who were geared up as I, who could remind me why I wanted to fight when I am giving up. I needed to find out if I was alone, wanting to return and work because I was needed, because I know I still counted as a number at the very least. I still wanted to be that number for Malaysia.
We hear of our counterparts and peers, tired, wearied, disheartened saying that hope is lost. That while they were young and had alternatives, had to find a place to build themselves, their homes, their families away from injustice, unfairness and discrimination. This was logical - why return to a lover who doesn't love you back? But Malaysia wasn't just a lover, this wasn't just a two person relationship - it was a cause bigger than myself and while I have one life to give, I wanted to make it count. So, likewise disheartened, but contrariwise eager, I wanted to see if the Opposition proved any better than the Government.
My stint with DAP was only a month long. The reason I came into it was because I thought it was not enough to know alternative policies. I wanted to see if their actions corresponded with the news. I wanted to be a judge in my own right and to find out if the Opposition was a risk worth taking. I have always been one to play safe, but these were desperate times to me.
One mistake I had made coming into it was my expectation: unwittingly I had thought my internship would be likened to a classroom where information I wanted came almost automatically. I was wrong. Tony was not the kind to spoon feed - when I wanted information on something, he only provided it if I had done my homework. He wasn't the kind who sat you down, event after event, asking you "Did you understand?", "Do you know what's happening?", "What conclusions can we draw from this?" like a teacher would; instead he allowed you in on the face of conflict there and then, expected you to draw your own inferences and naturally allowed you to draw personal stands and opinions. Looking back, I realise that when I was frustrated about not satisfying my deep hunger for knowledge, I had gotten it all wrong. This stint was about instigating mature observations, not manipulating naivete. And in that sense, he gave me what I asked for in the beginning - a platform to ponder.
Only a 4 week internship, my tasks were varied. Needless to say the high points of the internship revolved around press conferences because it was exciting and in the face of current political happenings, but also because it satisfied a curiosity. Coming from these events to reading mainstream media and then comparing it to online media revealed me to disparities, and unwittingly, the truth (or lies) of Government action. Perhaps the most memorable press conference was at Jalan Sultan where the Opposition pledged support to protecting the area from the MRT land grab fiasco. As a layperson exposed to interactions between politician and politician, public and politician, I saw how the once untouchable arena of politics became unbelievably humanised before my eyes.
Another event that had been incredibly eye-opening was the various voter registration campaigns held almost every week and weekend. Together with Ee May, who is Tony's new assistant, I went to as many drives as I could to volunteer my service. Again, being revealed to the process of voter registration and some conflicts that are embedded in it (such as people being registered as other voters, citizens being denied voting rights because of a lack of religion, disparities in the system regarding voters' information) showed me that there were fundamental flaws within the system that needed to be addressed. More frustrating was also the fact that many young people did not bother to get registered as voters at all, even with our team cajoling and persuading them to! However, seeing Ee May who was relentless in her quest to recruit new voters, I realised that I was not alone: that there were many Malaysians, young and old, fighting for a better Malaysia while they could and before they tired.
This was again proven to me in the focal point of my internship - organising the DAP Selangor English Speaking Fundraising Dinner. The dinner saw an 1000 strong audience, but behind the scenes, I knew that there had been a long waiting list of Malaysians who were very keen to support the dinner and to donate as much funds as they could afford. As I personally managed the bookings, I had multiple conversations with multiple people of all backgrounds, echoing the same sentiments: that they all wanted a better Malaysia. That they had not given up. That they were willing to run the race. That they all loved their home and want to be counted in the numbers. But most importantly – they all spoke with a sense of belonging for Malaysia. As a young Malaysian, jaded by unimpressive returns in her home country, this was enough to remind me, my country was worth my investment, my time, my effort.
I do not know what I had expected to gain from this DAP internship, but what I got was incredibly personal. It was not about politicking or support. It was about self-discovery about my Malaysian identity, about what I can do for my country and about how this will always, always be where my heart belongs. Everyone is looking for a better Malaysia in their lifetime, but now I know it is equally important to run the relay race and pass the baton until that better Malaysia comes to pass.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
An Internship Experience: Jason Chow
Jason Chow a 2nd year Psychology student in London interned with me in July/August this year. Below are his thoughts.
Sometimes I wonder if ‘home’ is really worth coming back to.
I’m one of the few lucky enough to be studying abroad. I’m one of the few unlucky enough to have an interest in politics. I’m also part of the growing community realizing that there is something seriously wrong with our country.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t one of those pieces that goes on and on about how good being abroad is. This is a piece that deals with how bad the current situation is, and whether or not we have something to move forward to.
Bear with me while I wade through the more depressing bits.
Our local landscape can hardly be described as positive. Anaemic growth is touted as an economic success, while the core problems of corruption and overdependence on government funding remain unaddressed. Note how well the rest of the region is doing. It’s like cheering at a bag of peanuts while everyone else is getting ready to play for real money.
Crucial issues like education and race are both politicized and sidelined – institutions play up the hype but never sustain any meaningful reform. Our leaders aren’t much help. They deliver crude, patronizing statements that condescend the intelligence of our citizens and play up the public’s ignorance.
Most members of the public aren’t even ignorant by choice. Force-fed extracts from biased media sources, they are led to know what they know from misrepresentative facts.
Don’t even get me started on the state of our civil liberties.
But far from being an authoritarian dystopia, Malaysia is a country with incredible potential. And it is changing. More precisely, it is teetering on the edge of change, waiting for something to tip it over. And this possibility is exactly why I haven’t given up yet.
I’ve always been a skeptic. This doesn’t mean I have no ideals; I just find it very difficult to believe in the ones I have. So even though I found some hope in the notion that our country was changing, I had to justify that.
Was change a realistic assumption? Were we headed for a better time and place? Did we have good alternatives, not just in terms of leadership, but also in terms of policy?
I took my questions with me to the Opposition, via the DAP’s internship programme.
I applied under YB Tony Pua.
The decision had been an easy one. He was one of the more vocal Opposition MPs. His forte was economics, my extra-curricular interest. He had a penchant for explaining complicated things in a relatively simple way, so he seemed like a good sort of mentor.
My one-month stint worked out pretty well. Attending a wide range of events gave me a powerful sense of political exposure – I encountered people as far up the ladder as Pakatan Rakyat’s own leadership, all the way down to some of Tony’s own grassroots communities.
The pieces came together quite easily. I was able to see how individual politicians handle their daily routine, and how political organizations attempt to function from the inside out – all on a first hand basis. Everything about the whole process was quite enlightening.
While my time with them was short, I managed to learn a few key things, particularly about the attitudes of our potential leaders.
There is a refreshing, genuine quality to their actions, particularly amongst the younger MPs, that has been absent from our political system for a long time. To put it bluntly, they seem to genuinely care about the needs of the people. Whether out of political necessity, or for more heartfelt reasons, their purpose, at the moment, seems strong: Undo unfairness and prevent future injustice to the electorate.
Maybe I’m being too charitable. We still see hiccups – the issue in Kedah, for example, a strong example of how worryingly new this alliance is. Decisions made were reconsidered, and the media plays it up as evidence of over-compromise and factionalism.
But the willingness of leaders to make necessary changes isn’t a sign of weak governance; on the contrary, it demonstrates the requisite humility needed to admit mistakes and make tough choices, something that we haven’t seen in a while. If anything, it highlights the strength of the between-party relationship, built on mutual respect and some level of consideration for the people.
I know I’m slightly biased. They say the youth tend to support the Opposition, and I think we have a good reason for that – we’re more invested in the country’s future.
There’s a principle in private portfolio management. Young people can afford to take more risk, because they have the rest of their lives to make up for whatever loss incurred. Older people aren’t so lucky. So the young are advised to go for broke on high profit, high-risk assets (I am not liable for any losses you make on this investment advice).
The parallel is simple – we stand to lose more if things turn out terrible. The current situation is pretty bad, and most of us don’t see it getting worse. So we place our bets on change. We want it to change for the better, and the only way to do that is by getting the future to change at all.
Move from race-based politics to a system based on more meaningful policies and philosophies. Become a more mature democracy. Free up the media channels, giving everyone access to the same facts. Fairly represent the electorate. Properly unite the people under a single banner – sloganeering and logo-mongering don’t help when the spirit of a message is consistently violated.
Then we can start tackling the bigger problem of economic reform. Kudos to Penang for getting a headstart on this one.
It isn’t impossible; all we need to do is start making the right decisions. While it may be a lot tougher than it sounds, I think we’re already on the right track.
Change isn’t far off. We just need to make it happen.
Sometimes I wonder if ‘home’ is really worth coming back to.
I’m one of the few lucky enough to be studying abroad. I’m one of the few unlucky enough to have an interest in politics. I’m also part of the growing community realizing that there is something seriously wrong with our country.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t one of those pieces that goes on and on about how good being abroad is. This is a piece that deals with how bad the current situation is, and whether or not we have something to move forward to.
Bear with me while I wade through the more depressing bits.
Our local landscape can hardly be described as positive. Anaemic growth is touted as an economic success, while the core problems of corruption and overdependence on government funding remain unaddressed. Note how well the rest of the region is doing. It’s like cheering at a bag of peanuts while everyone else is getting ready to play for real money.
Crucial issues like education and race are both politicized and sidelined – institutions play up the hype but never sustain any meaningful reform. Our leaders aren’t much help. They deliver crude, patronizing statements that condescend the intelligence of our citizens and play up the public’s ignorance.
Most members of the public aren’t even ignorant by choice. Force-fed extracts from biased media sources, they are led to know what they know from misrepresentative facts.
Don’t even get me started on the state of our civil liberties.
But far from being an authoritarian dystopia, Malaysia is a country with incredible potential. And it is changing. More precisely, it is teetering on the edge of change, waiting for something to tip it over. And this possibility is exactly why I haven’t given up yet.
I’ve always been a skeptic. This doesn’t mean I have no ideals; I just find it very difficult to believe in the ones I have. So even though I found some hope in the notion that our country was changing, I had to justify that.
Was change a realistic assumption? Were we headed for a better time and place? Did we have good alternatives, not just in terms of leadership, but also in terms of policy?
I took my questions with me to the Opposition, via the DAP’s internship programme.
I applied under YB Tony Pua.
The decision had been an easy one. He was one of the more vocal Opposition MPs. His forte was economics, my extra-curricular interest. He had a penchant for explaining complicated things in a relatively simple way, so he seemed like a good sort of mentor.
My one-month stint worked out pretty well. Attending a wide range of events gave me a powerful sense of political exposure – I encountered people as far up the ladder as Pakatan Rakyat’s own leadership, all the way down to some of Tony’s own grassroots communities.
The pieces came together quite easily. I was able to see how individual politicians handle their daily routine, and how political organizations attempt to function from the inside out – all on a first hand basis. Everything about the whole process was quite enlightening.
While my time with them was short, I managed to learn a few key things, particularly about the attitudes of our potential leaders.
There is a refreshing, genuine quality to their actions, particularly amongst the younger MPs, that has been absent from our political system for a long time. To put it bluntly, they seem to genuinely care about the needs of the people. Whether out of political necessity, or for more heartfelt reasons, their purpose, at the moment, seems strong: Undo unfairness and prevent future injustice to the electorate.
Maybe I’m being too charitable. We still see hiccups – the issue in Kedah, for example, a strong example of how worryingly new this alliance is. Decisions made were reconsidered, and the media plays it up as evidence of over-compromise and factionalism.
But the willingness of leaders to make necessary changes isn’t a sign of weak governance; on the contrary, it demonstrates the requisite humility needed to admit mistakes and make tough choices, something that we haven’t seen in a while. If anything, it highlights the strength of the between-party relationship, built on mutual respect and some level of consideration for the people.
I know I’m slightly biased. They say the youth tend to support the Opposition, and I think we have a good reason for that – we’re more invested in the country’s future.
There’s a principle in private portfolio management. Young people can afford to take more risk, because they have the rest of their lives to make up for whatever loss incurred. Older people aren’t so lucky. So the young are advised to go for broke on high profit, high-risk assets (I am not liable for any losses you make on this investment advice).
The parallel is simple – we stand to lose more if things turn out terrible. The current situation is pretty bad, and most of us don’t see it getting worse. So we place our bets on change. We want it to change for the better, and the only way to do that is by getting the future to change at all.
Move from race-based politics to a system based on more meaningful policies and philosophies. Become a more mature democracy. Free up the media channels, giving everyone access to the same facts. Fairly represent the electorate. Properly unite the people under a single banner – sloganeering and logo-mongering don’t help when the spirit of a message is consistently violated.
Then we can start tackling the bigger problem of economic reform. Kudos to Penang for getting a headstart on this one.
It isn’t impossible; all we need to do is start making the right decisions. While it may be a lot tougher than it sounds, I think we’re already on the right track.
Change isn’t far off. We just need to make it happen.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Drop "Illegal Assembly" Charges
A total of 21 people, including Tony Pua, Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara, two state assemblymen – Lau Weng San and Ronnie Liu, MBPJ Councillor Tiew Way Keng and a Catholic priest from Church of Divine Mercy – Father Paulino Miranda, were charged in the Sessions Court on 23 January 2009.
They were arrested on Nov 9 last year under Section 27 of the Police Act for allegedly taking part in an illegal assembly. The gathering was a candlelight vigil held at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) park in front of the Civic Centre to commemorate the first anniversary of the Bersih march in 2007 and to protest the Internal Security Act (ISA).
In the light of the Malaysia Day pronouncements by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak last week, we call upon the Attorney-General to heed to spirit of the speech and drop all “illegal assembly” charges against the above individuals.
The Prime Minister said the government will review Section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into account the provision in Article 10 of the Federal Constitutions concerning freedom of assembly. He has also announced that the ISA will be repealed.
Hence the participants of the candlelight vigil held peacefully and briefly in an open park – who posed no security threat or inconvenience to the public – should similarly be protected by the spirit of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which states that
The case has taken exactly 33 months to date and is a drain in time and finances for not only the accused, but also for the prosecution and judiciary.
Our lawyers will be writing to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to make an official appeal for the charges to be dropped.
They were arrested on Nov 9 last year under Section 27 of the Police Act for allegedly taking part in an illegal assembly. The gathering was a candlelight vigil held at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) park in front of the Civic Centre to commemorate the first anniversary of the Bersih march in 2007 and to protest the Internal Security Act (ISA).
In the light of the Malaysia Day pronouncements by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak last week, we call upon the Attorney-General to heed to spirit of the speech and drop all “illegal assembly” charges against the above individuals.
The Prime Minister said the government will review Section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into account the provision in Article 10 of the Federal Constitutions concerning freedom of assembly. He has also announced that the ISA will be repealed.
Hence the participants of the candlelight vigil held peacefully and briefly in an open park – who posed no security threat or inconvenience to the public – should similarly be protected by the spirit of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which states that
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;We believe that the decision to drop all charges under Societies Act and Internal Security Act recently against the 30 Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) should be lauded, and the same should apply to all other similar cases, including those arrested for holding candlelight vigils.
(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
The case has taken exactly 33 months to date and is a drain in time and finances for not only the accused, but also for the prosecution and judiciary.
Our lawyers will be writing to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to make an official appeal for the charges to be dropped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)