Monday, December 31, 2012

MB dan EXCO Selangor tak isytihar harta sebab keselamatan

S'gor cabinet's asset declaration 'laughable'


Monday, November 19, 2012

Mathematically, Hadi Awang could be next PM

Now that PAS has claimed stake of the Prime Ministership if Pakatan Rakyat wins the 13th general election, a very interesting scenario is possible.

You see, according to the article 43(2a) of the Malaysian Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint Prime Minister a member of the House of Representative who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

I believe PAS knows BN just can't stomach Anwar Ibrahim as the Prime Minister.

What does that mean then?

It means that, if PAS demands for vote of confidence in Dewan Rakyat to show who gets the biggest support or confidence to be the Prime Minister, and if BN MPs, particularly muslim BN's MPs, vote in favor of PAS, then it is possible that PAS' candidate for the Prime Ministership will be the next Prime Minister and not Anwar!

Will Anwar once again fail in his attempt to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia? Will he miss the boat again?

Or will Hadi Awang create history by being the first PAS Prime minister of Malaysia?

Time will tell.

Of course before this could happen, PAS needs BN to like them first and Pakatan will have to conquer Putrajaya and dislodge a very popular Prime Minister. A tough feat indeed which makes the questions above moot.

But still, the possible scenario is something to think about.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Bekalan Air Kota Belud: Jawapan Kepada Penantian Puluhan Tahun


Beberapa minggu yang lalu saya berjumpa dengan blogger terkenal di Kota Belud iaitu Saudara Musram Rakunman. 

Menyedari minat beliau untuk menulis isu-isu semasa negara, negeri Sabah dan daerah Kota Belud, saya cadangkan kepada beliau untuk menulis artikel mengenai status terkini bekalan air di Kota Belud. Saya kata saya terlalu sibuk dengan tugasan dan ramai penduduk Kota Belud tidak tahu apa perkembangan projek-projek air yang sedang dilakukan oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional. Saya minta beliau berjumpa dengan Jurutera Air Daerah Kota Belud untuk mendapatkan maklumat sahih dan terkini.

Saya sebenarnya ingin menulis tentang isu ini kerana isu air ini begitu dekat di hati saya. Sejurus saya menjadi Ahli Parlimen Kota Belud, soalan yang selalu ditanya oleh penduduk Kota Belud kepada saya ialah "Bolehkah YB selesaikan isu air di Kota Belud?".

Jawapan saya, "Dengan iltizam kerajaan, sokongan rakyat dan usaha pemimpin-pemimpin lain di Kota Belud, insyaallah masalah bekalan air Kota Belud akan kita atasi bersama. Doakan ya..".

Saya bersyukur kerana doa dan harapan orang Kota Belud kini menjadi kenyataan. Ikuti artikel Saudara Musram yang saya petik dari blog beliau di alamat http://www.one-kotabelud.blogspot.com/2012/11/bekalan-air-luar-bandar-kota-belud.html

Salam.

******** 

BEKALAN AIR LUAR BANDAR - KOTA BELUD

AIR merupakan keperluan asas bagi setiap mahkluk, tidak terkecuali manusia. Atas sebab itu, setiap penempatan penduduk biasanya berhampiran dengan sumber air. 

Akibat kemajuan industri, dengan terciptanya batang-batang paip, penempatan manusia tidak perlu lagi berdekatan dengan sumber air, atas sebab air boleh disalurkan berkilometer daripada sumber air ke rumah-rumah penduduk. 

Manakala, sumber air daripada tanah boleh dimanafaatkan melalui tubewell”, manakala air daripada mata-air perbukitan, keadah yang digunakan adalah melalui graviti

Walaupun berbagai teknologi ditemukan untuk digunakan mendapatkan air untuk keperluan manusia, namun perkembangan pertanian yang terpengaruh menggunakan baja-baja kimia, menyebabkan sumber air tercemar. Hujan pula tercemar kerana perlepasan asap monokside ke udara, sehingga air daripada hujan bertukar kepada air asid.

Akibat pencemaran sumber air, maka terciptalah kaedah perawatan air, demi kegunaan manusia/penduduk.

Loji-loji besar perawatan air di bangun, terutama di Bandar-bandar dan pekan-pekan termasuk daerah Kota Belud.

Masalah bekalan air kepada penduduk daerah Kota Belud bermula sejak awal kemerdekaan lagi. Atas sebab itu, pada tahun 1978, kerajaan Berjaya pimpinan Datuk Harris Salleh (kini Tan Sri) mengarahkan pemasangan paip-paip ke kampung-kampung berdekatan pekan Kota Belud; namun kerana sumber air terawat terhad, maka akhirnya paip-paip itu hanya berjaya dipasang, namun tidak berair.

Keperluan air bagi Kota Belud, merupakan isu politik utama bagi daerah itu, atas sebab itu semasa kempen pilihanraya tahun 2008, calon BN bagi kawasan Parlimen Kota Belud, Rahman Dahalan (kini Datuk) berjanji akan memperjuangkan penyediaan air terawat kepada sebahagian besar penduduk.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

"Guanomics" And "Kreatif Aka-untung" Rule In Penang


A few weeks ago, I made a remark about “creative accounting” practiced by Pakatan states. As a result thereof, I got brickbats thrown in my direction from Pakatan leaders. 

Maybe I was not being clear, I was actually alluding to “kreatif aka-untung”, a term I coined in reference to the creative interpretation of the term “state revenue” by Pakatan leaders. 

In short, it is a term to describe the act of taking money from left pocket and  put it into the right pocket and subsequently trumpet it as an “increase of revenue for the state”.

Although the numbers are accurate and permissible in terms of accounting procedure, but to take credit and attribute the increase of revenue to Pakatan Rakyat government’s economic management is simply misrepresentation of facts.

Let me illustrate my point.

Take for example YAB Lim Guan Eng and the DAP Penang government.

Until now, I still could not believe his audacity in making outrageous claim that within two years of being Chief Minister, he has managed to reduce Penang government’s debt by RM600 million, when the truth remains that it was the federal government who took over the debts as part of Penang water supply rationalization plan.

Similarly, Penang state government has duped DAP supporters to believe that the increase in state revenue in 2011 was simply because of Guan Eng’s exemplary economic skills. This is the classic art of embellishing one’s economic credentials without basis. I prefer to call it "Guanomics".

Here is the example.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Dana Politik: Realitinya




​APABILA Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz mengumumkan di Parlimen mengenai keputusan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SRPM) dan Suruhanjaya Bebas Menentang Rasuah (ICAC) Hong Kong yang membersihkan Datuk Seri Musa Aman daripada dakwaan rasuah, saya pantas tersenyum sinis: sewajarnya pembangkang berada dalam keadaan serba salah ketika ini.
Jika sebelum ini mereka rancak `menyerang' Musa atas dakwaan penyalahgunaan kuasa dan rasuah, pengumuman itu nyata mengubah strategi mereka kepada `serangan melampaui prasangka'.
Beberapa hari selepas pengumuman itu, pembangkang dengan mudah mengalih serangan daripada Musa kepada sumbangan politik bagi UMNO. Kali ini, antara kutukan kedengaran ialah menyifatkan sumbangan itu sebagai tidak munasabah, tidak boleh diterima dan Suruhajaya Siasatan Diraja (RCI) mesti dibentuk serta-merta.
Sementara saya tinggalkan pembangkang dengan agenda mereka, mari kita kupas satu persatu kebenaran di bawah lapisan politik Malaysia. Rakyat Malaysia dibenarkan menyumbang wang kepada parti politik pilihannya, malah kepada sesiapapun yang dimahukan. Jika penyumbang enggan identitinya didedahkan, permintaan itu mesti dipenuhi selagi sumbangannya tidak menyalahi undang-undang.
Bagaimanapun, dunia pembangkang berpusat kepada suasana ketidakadilan dan pilih kasih. Izinkan saya jelaskan. Apabila UMNO menerima sumbangan, identiti penyumbangnya mesti didedahkan segera. Bagaimanapun, pernahkah anda mendengar pembangkang mengumumkan sumber derma yang diterima sekata ini? Kita tahu mereka juga menerima sumbangan politik daripada pelbagai pihak. Anda lihat ironinya?

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Kenapa saya undi menyokong AES di Parlimen?


Negara kita adalah salah satu negara yang mempunyai rekod kemalangan jalanraya yang paling buruk dalam dunia. 20 orang mati setiap hari atau 7,000 nyawa melayang setiap tahun. Ramai dari mereka yang mati tersebut adalah anak-anak muda berumur dibawah 25 tahun yang mati menunggang motorsikal. Kematian mereka adalah kerugian besar kepada masa depan negara kita.

Kajian oleh pakar menunjukkan kos sosial kemalangan di Malaysia ialah RM9 bilion seperti kos perubatan dan kehilangan pendapatan. Ini tidak termasuk penderitaan dan trauma keluarga yang kehilangan suami, isteri, bapa, emak dan anak. Apatah lagi kalau yang mati itu adalah punca menyara keluarga. Jika tidak ada kematian pun, kecacatan teruk juga akan membebankan keluarga tersebut.

AES mula dibincangkan oleh kabinet sejak 2006 lagi. Ianya bukan keputusan tergesa-gesa. Melihat trend kemalangan jalanraya Malaysia yang semakin meningkat dan langkah-langkah pencegahan oleh pihak berkuasa tidkak efektif, maka kerajaan perlu mengambil langkah baru. 90 negara di dunia sistem AES dan sistem ini terbukti efektif. 

Sebenarnya, sejak 20 tahun yang lalu, kita sudah pun terdedah kepada sistem pengambilan gambar pesalah jalanraya oleh pihak berkuasa. Ingat saman ekor oleh polis trafik? AES bukannya perkara baru. Malah, AES ebih baik dari ops saman ekor kerana menguna teknologi yang tercanggih untuk merakamkan gambar yang lebih jelas supaya pengguna jalanraya yang disaman tidak teraniaya.

Apabila saya membaca facebook dan twitter, saya dapati ramai yang kurang faham walaupun kerajaan telah menjelaskannya berkali-kali. Berikut adalah soalan lazim dalam facebook dan twitter. Untuk jawpan kepada soalan lazim yang lebih akademik dan ilmiah,  sila layari laman JPJ ini (http://www.jpj.gov.my/aes-system

“Kenapa kerajaan tak buat sendiri?” 

Monday, October 29, 2012

Mengimbangi Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2011

Menarik sekali. Jika anda mendengar apa yang hangat diperkatakan oleh ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang di Parlimen minggu lepas, sudah pasti anda terfikir bahawa Laporan Ketua Audit Negara hanya tertumpu kepada kebocoran dan pembaziran di negeri-negeri di bawah pentadbiran Barisan Nasional semata-mata.

Hakikatnya jauh panggang dari api.

Usaha saya untuk mengimbangi lapuran audit 2011 secara mendedahkan salah urus  di negeri-negeri Pakatan, telah disambut dengan bantahan keras di dalam Dewan yang dihormati ini. Tidak kurang daripada lima orang ahli parlimen pembangkang bangun untuk menghalang saya menghabiskan ucapan. Tidak mengapalah. Laporan Hansard tidak pernah berbohong. Apabila kacau-bilau berjaya menghalang saya dari bercakap, maka saya ambil keputusan untuk menulis analisa ini untuk menyampaikan kepada masyarakat bahawa kehidupan di negeri-negeri Pakatan tidaklah seindah yang mereka gambarkan.

Kelantan

Ayuh kita lihat kepada salah urus yang besar dalam Program Ladang Rakyat oleh Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan. Program ini bukanlah sebuah program yang kecil. Ia melibatkan sejumlah 19 buah projek kesemuanya, dan meliputi kawasan seluas 81,095 ekar (satu setengah kali keluasan Kuala Lumpur sebenarnya!).

Let’s talk about the AG’s Report

Lo and behold! If you were to listen to what the opposition MPsaid in Parliament last week, you would think that the Auditor General's Report was centered mainly on the leakages and wastages in Barisan Nasional states.

But the truth is stranger than fiction – or so I have found out.

My attempt to level the playing field by speaking up against the mismanagement of Pakatan states was met with thunderous objection in the august house. No less than five opposition MPs stood up to prevent me from finishing my speech. All is well, for Hansard never lies. When chaos got the better of my words, I decided to pen down my analysis in the spirit of informing the public that life in Pakatanstates is not necessarily a bed of roses, too.

Kelantan

Let's take a look at the severe mismanagement of Program Ladang Rakyat by the Kelantan state government. Theprogram is not miniscule by any standards. It involved 19 projects in total, covering massive land area of 81,095 acres (one and a half times the size of Kuala Lumpur no less!).

Friday, October 26, 2012

AES: Mengupas Kebenaran

Timbul pelbagai isu tentang Sistem Penguatkuasaan Automatik (AES) di dalam media sejak beberapa hari yang lepas, apabila ahli-ahli politik pembangkang memperbesarkan isu ini dan menjadikannya persis sebuah sarkas.

Kenapa kita begitu kuat mempertahankan pesalah-pesalah trafik? Bukankah kita menggunakan jalanraya setiap hari dan menyedari betapa tingkahlaku sesetengah pengguna-pengguna jalanraya adalah sangat menjengkelkan dan merbahaya?

Memandu melebihi had laju, melanggar lampu insyarat, memotong barisan, memotong di jalan garisan dua selari serta mereka yang memasuki jalan-jalan larangan pada waktu-waktu yang sibuk; ini semua adalah senario harian dalam pengalaman pemanduan kita semua.

Adakah kita ini semata-mata sebuah negara yang dipenuhi pengguna-pengguna jalanraya yang tidak bertimbangrasa sehinggakan kita harus menyuarakan ketidakpuasan hati kita kepada sebuah sistem baru yang boleh memastikan keselamatan jalanraya untuk kita semua?

Pertama sekali, AES telah pun dilaksanakan di seluruh dunia terutamanya di negara-negara membangun seperti Perancis, Jerman, Australia, Singapura dan Amerika Syarikat. Terdapat lebih daripada 90 negara-negara di seluruh dunia yang melaksanakan sistem elektronik yang serupa, dan hasilnya amat memberangsangkan.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Political Funding: A Reality Check.


WHEN Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz recently made an announcement in Parliament reflecting on the decision ofthe Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in clearing Datuk Seri Musa Aman of the alleged corruption charges, cynical smile cracked my face: the opposition must be finding themselves in a very awkward position now.

While previously they have had a field day attacking Musa's alleged abuse of power and corruption, the same announcement has coerced them into changing their 'attack-with-extreme-prejudice’ strategy.

A few days after the announcement, the opposition conveniently shifted the attack from Musa to political funding for UMNO. Source of the condemnation - this time around - includes calls that such funding is preposterous, labeling such funding as unacceptable and that the RCI must be called in instantly.

While I leave the opposition to their agenda, let’s peel some underlying truth within the fabric of Malaysian politics. It is not illegal for any Malaysian to give money to a political party of his or her choice – or to anybody for that matter. Should the donor wish to remain under the cloak of anonymity, the request should be respected as long as the donation stays within the confines of the law.  

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Anak Sabah, Jiwa Malaysia





Di sebalik beberapa lukisan yang menghiasi dinding kediaman saya, ada satu yang kerap mencuri perhatian. Lukisan hitam putih itu menampilkan imej detik bersejarah 16 September 1963. Bintangnya adalah tiga bapa kemerdekaan – Tun Fuad Stephens, Tun Datu Mustapha Harun dan Tun Abdul Razak Hussein – berdiri seiring di podium di Kota Kinabalu bagi menyambut kelahiran negara dinamakan Malaysia.

Pada tarikh keramat itu, ribuan rakyat Sabah asyik mendengar Tun Fuad Stephens (ketika itu dikenali sebagai Donald Stephens) membacakan skrol Pengisytiharan Malaysia. 

Bagaimanapun, ada sedikit suntikan elemen luar realiti atau surreal di lukisan itu. Imej seorang remaja lelaki berpakaian `hip hop’ berwarna-warni dan melakukan aksi tarian `breakdance’ diselit bersebelahan ketiga-tiga tokoh itu.

Jika diteliti, anda boleh melihat pandangan penuh kecurigaan di wajah tiga Tun itu terhadap remaja lelaki berkenaan – bimbangkan generasi masa depan Malaysia mungkin tidak memahami pengertian sebenar kemerdekaan negara.

Hari ini, terjemahan remaja lelaki itu mungkin boleh dikaitkan dengan sesiapa saja di kalangan kita hari ini. Sebagai contoh, ada golongan tertentu di Sabah mendakwa Sabah sepatutnya menjadi satu daripada empat bahagian (bukan satu daripada 14 negeri) dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Mereka mendakwa Sabah ditipu sejak 49 tahun lalu dan tuduhan ini adalah sangat serius.

Benarkah begitu? Kita mulakan dengan mengkaji dokumen sejarah berkaitan pembentukan Malaysia yang merangkumi:


* Dokumen 20 Perkara 
* Laporan Jawatankuasa Perundingan Perpaduan Malaysia
* Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold
* Laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan
* Laporan Hansard (berhubung perbahasan Malaysia di Parlimen Malaya dan British)
* Perjanjian Malaysia 1963; dan 
* Dokumen Pengisytiharan Malaysia. 

Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Three)


Although in terms of membership, Sabah is equal to the other states in the peninsular, Sabah does have its own autonomy as stipulated in the constitution which other states (except Sarawak) do not have. Immigration is under the control of the state government.

Sabah is allowed to continue its cabinet system while some taxation and land matters are still within the state’s prerogative. Even certain laws passed in the Malaysian parliament cannot be implemented in Sabah without express consent from the state.

It bothers me when some quarters in Sabah love to give an impression that Malaysia was thrust upon the Sabahan leaders despite their dissenting views. According to them, that was cogent evidence that the idea of Malaysia federation was faulty from the get-go. 

I admit there was earlier dissention among Sabah leaders at the point when Tunku Abdul Rahman first announced the idea of Malaysia. Tun Fuad, for intance, was initially suspicious of it.

This is understandably so since Sabah leaders were about to commit the state into a complicated collaboration of great consequence upon the people of Sabah. But the dissenting views of Sabah leaders slowly changed after extensive consultation, private meetings and intense negotiation were held between the founding fathers of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. 

Tun Fuad, for example, was clearly inching toward the approval of federation of Malaysia. Their approval was evident in series of agreements, which had been executed to form Malaysia. In so far as history is concerned, the signed agreements what matter the most.

Would Sabah be better off on her own instead of joining Malaysia? In answering that question, we must be fair to our founding fathers. What was it like to be in their shoes at the time when they were pushing for Malaysia? The question must be answered in the context of what actually transpired in the 1960s instead of our penchant of looking at history from our 2012 perspective when the state and the nation are doing fine.


There was the issue of security concern prior to the British consenting to grant Sabah her independence. The British were worried that being independent on her own would seriously undermine Sabah’s security. And if history were to be the torch of truth, their fears were not completely unfounded.

If we look at the regions around Sabah back then, we know that this part of the world, at the time, was quite unstable politically and that peace was very fragile commodity. The communist insurgency in Indo-China was gaining momentum and that made the Thais, Malayans and Singaporeans genuinely nervous. To the east of Sabah, President Macapagal of the Philippines was pursuing the “Sabah claim” rather aggressively. The Philippines issued threats and later had secretly sanctioned covert military plans to invade Sabah in the infamous incident of Corregidor island which elicited condemnation by unanimous Malaysian Parliament.

To the south of Sabah, President Soekarno of Indonesia was also increasing his vitriol against Sabahan and Malayan governments. Against this backdrop of threats, Tun Fuad and Tun Mustapha knew they had very little choice. In the end they chose the most sensible thing to do: to merge into a bigger entity called Malaysia which would provide similarities and familiarities in terms of British administration system, judicial process, laws and civil service in Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. They knew that being part of a bigger entity would give Sabah the advantage of economies of scale in terms of attracting investment, lowering cost of development, sharing the prohibitively expensive defense spending and dramatically cutting short the learning curve of nation building.

The Future

Admittedly, federalism is not some foolproof or completely perfect solution for every nation. There is bound to be points of contention especially on distribution of revenue, development funds and claims of unfair relationship. These debates occur wherever federalism is practiced in any part of the world. But these issues can be debated with decorum without going through such destructive polemic, which along the way inflicting severe damage to the very fiber of our nation’s being.

Some go to the extent of to misguidedly attribute current day problems on the concept of federalism. They shift every issue from poverty, lack of infrastructures to illegal immigrants onto the shoulders of federalism.

I do admit that Sabahans have every right to raise these legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, these issues have more to do with policies and priorities of the government. The same should not be allowed to spill over into emotional debate of whether or not Sabah should be a part of Malaysia. Policies and priorities can always be contested, debated and adjusted accordingly.

We Sabahans must look beyond the futile debate of "Sabah for Sabahans" and “Sabah vs. Malaya”. The concept of ‘Malayan government in Putrajaya’ is but a flicker of the opposition’s imagination. There is only one Malaysian government where the voices of each race and state are being simultaneously heard and represented. Needless to say, out of the entire current federal cabinet, 4 Ministers and 5 Deputy Ministers are from Sabah.

From my perspective, the Sarawakians and Singaporeans have decided to move on, refusing to split hairs over the polemic of divisive politics even though they were very much part of the Malaysia Agreement before.

In Sarawak, for instance, the question of whether to celebrate independence day on 31st August or 16th September is not something the Sarawakians would dwell much upon. And ironically, Sarawak celebrated her independence on 22nd July 1963.

Similarly, over in Singapore, the people have stopped whining about the fateful day in history called Singapore Day (that is the name of the Act passed by Malaysian Parliament to expel Singapore from Malaysia in 1965). Like Sarawak, they have moved on and concentrated on making Singapore of what it is today.

The debate of 49th vs. 55th year of independence must cease with immediate effect. While it is true that Sabah gained her independence 49 years ago, we cannot deny that our fellow Malaysians in the peninsular had their independence 55 years ago.

Shifting the year of independence to 1963 rather than 1957 would make 3million Sabahans happy, but may in turn slight the feeling of more than 20millions Peninsular Malaysians who gained independence 55 years ago.

We may solve one problem but create another! That is why the government decided to be diplomatic in solving this conundrum. But things have taken a positive turn, for instance, the official logo of 55th Merdeka does not bear the word ‘Malaysia’. To me, that is a good start. Perhaps in the future, the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry will drop the contentious reference of base year altogether and instead just use the plain "Hari Merdeka" in its official promotion material. This will make 28 million Malaysians happy!

Lastly, in conjunction with the auspicious Hari Malaysia, I urge all Malaysians -- especially my fellow Sabahans -- to move on. It is undeniable that we must at all times preserve Sabah's constitutional rights, but let us not be clouded by any shadow of doubt that Sabah's future lies firmly with Malaysia, as much as the future of Malaysia is with Sabah.

If you ask me, I have always been a proud Sabahan yet feeling like a true Malaysian. So can you.


*End*

Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Two)


The federation of Malaysia was to be formed on 31 August 1963, which was the same date British would grant Sabah her independence. Despite great challenges, everything went according to the plan until the Philippines and Indonesia decided to throw a spanner into the works. 

At the eleventh hour, President Macapagal and President Soekarno demanded the United Nations to form a special team to ascertain the support or rejection thereof of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak in so far as the new federation was concerned. 

Tunku Abdul Rahman objected to the formation of the special team since the deadline for Malaysia Day was fast approaching. He also argued that the demand was redundant since British had earlier commissioned Lord Cobbold team to do the exact same thing. 

But by sheer twist of fate, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the leaders of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore relented to the request since they were adamant in proving the two Presidents wrong. Hence, the formation of Malaysia was delayed for two weeks to pave way for the United Nations team to report its findings.

Interestingly enough, the findings of the team reaffirmed the earlier conclusion by Lord Cobbold’s Commission that majority of Sabahans agreed to be under Malaysia.

When the date 31st August 1963 came, British decided to proceed with earlier plans to give Sabah her independence, with an understanding that, in two week’s time,  she would be forming Malaysia together with the states in Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak on the 16th September 1963.

Historians are of the view that Sabah independence was basically a paper declaration because the executive power to administer Sabah - even after 31st August 1963 - largely remained in the hands of the last British Governor, Sir William Goode. Sabah did not have her own Chief Minister and Head of State until the 16th September 1963 when Fuad and Mustapha were sworn in to fill the respective posts. 

For all intents and purposes, Sabah was still very much administered by the British in the span of two weeks between 31st August and 16th September 1963 even though Sabah was supposedly accorded self-government in that short nationhood of two weeks.

*Continue to part three in the next posting

Being Sabahan, feeling Malaysian (Part One)



Of all the paintings on the walls of my house, there is one that always steals my attention away. It is the historic image of 16 September 1963, captured in a quaint black and white style. It is the one where the nation’s fathers of independence -- Tun Fuad Stephens, Tun Datu Mustapha Harun and Tun Abdul Razak Hussein -- stood together on a podium in downtown Kota Kinabalu to usher in the birth of a new nation called, Malaysia.

History was made that day when thousands of joyous Sabahans listened attentively as Tun Fuad Stephens (then known as ‘Donald Stephens’) held up a scroll and recited the Proclamation of Malaysia.

However, to infuse a dash of surrealism to the image, there is a colored superimposed image of a boy in hip-hop clothing, pulling a breakdance move next to where the founding fathers stood.

If you look closely, you can see the weary eyes of the three Tuns fixed on the boy. Their facial expressions locked in disbelief and trepidation that one day, the future generation of Malaysians – as represented by the boy's image – will not understand the significance of our independence.

That imaginary boy in the painting could very well be anyone of us today. Take for example the claim by certain people that Sabah is supposed to be one of four  (not just one of the fourteen states) in the federation of Malaysia. They claim that Sabah had been cheated out of this position for the last 49 years. It is a very serious allegation, one which questions the very need of our nation's existence.

Is this claim true? Let’s find the truth by examining historical documents relevant to the formation of Malaysia. These included, among others,

  1. the 20-Points Document
  2. the Malaysian Solidarity and Consultative Committee Report
  3. the Cobbold Commission Report
  4. the Inter-Governmental Committee Report
  5. Hansard reports (on the Malaysia debate both in the Malayan and British Parliaments)
  6. the Malaysia Agreement 1963
  7. and Proclamation Malaysia document.

These documents together with Tunku Abdul Rahman’s and Lee Kuan Yew’s autobiographies give us a better perspective of the circumstances which led to the formation of Malaysia in the 1963. They narrate the state of affairs in South East Asia in the 50s and 60s, especially in terms of security and uncertain future that our leaders had to deal with at the time.

Firstly let's look at some excerpts of the documents and agreements. Judge for yourself if the argument that Sabah was meant to be one of four member states of the newly formed Malaysia Federation, holds any water.

Malaysia Agreement

Article I of the agreement crystalized Sabah status within Malaysia. It reads,

“The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called “Malaysia”.

Malaysia Agreement clearly states that Sabah was to be one of the fourteen states within Malaysia.

Proclamation of Malaysia

Similarly, the final paragraph of the Proclamation of Malaysia (which was read out by Donald Stephens on the morning of 16th of September 1963 in Kota Kinabalu) reads,

"... that Malaysia comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, the Lord of the Universe, forever be an independent and sovereign democratic State founded upon liberty and justice.”


The Inter-Governmental Committee Report

The Inter-Governmental Committee Report, partly set up to work out the constitutional arrangements of Malaysia, remains steadfast on Sabah being one of the 14 states of the Federation via point 10 of Chapter II (Establishment Of The Federation Of Malaysia)

"The Federation will consist of the States of the existing Federation of Malaya, Sabah (at present known as North Borneo), Sarawak and Singapore... The name of the Federation shall be Malaysia."


Malaysia Act 1963

In Section 4, Part II (The States of the Federation) it states

“…that the Federation shall be known, in Malay and English, by the name Malaysia. The States of the Federation shall be - (a) the states of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak; and (c) the State of Singapore."

The Malaysia Act 1963 is also unequivocal on this point.

As an MP from Sabah, I would glady and readily agree if Sabah was to be one out of four parts of Malaysia. Unfortunately, the documents above clearly stated otherwise. We cannot ignore those facts as they are part of history which were extensively argued and subsequently agreed upon, drafted and jointly signed by Sabah leaders of the time.

*Continue to Part Two in the next posting

Friday, September 07, 2012

Implikasi cadangan harga kereta murah Pakatan Rakyat

Dalam keghairahan Pakatan Rakyat untuk menurunkan harga kereta, mereka terlupa untuk memberi  maklumat kepada rakyat Malaysia apakah impak cadangan tersebut terhadap kualiti alam sekitar dan kenaikan sisa karbon serta kesesakan lalu lintas di jalanraya.

Sudah tentu ratusan ribu kereta baru yang bakal dibeli ini akan menambah implikasi buruk kepada alam sekitar dan kesesakan jalanraya yang sekarang ini pun sudah begitu kronik di bandar-bandar utama di negara kita.

Apakah kita akan terpaksa membelanjakan berbillion ringgit lagi untuk membina lebih banyak jalan dan lebuhraya bagi menampung lebih banyak kereta yang murah ini?

Atau haruskah kita belanjakan duit berbillion itu untuk perkara lain seperti sekolah, hospital dan balai polis, termasuk penambahbaikan sistem pengangkutan awam, bagi mengelak impak negatif bertambah terhadap alam sekitar dan kesesakan lalu lintas yang kronik.

Ramai orang merasakan cadangan mengurangkan harga kereta ini bercanggah dengan tindakan kerajaan untuk menubuhkan Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) yang dipertangggungjawabkan untuk mereformasikan sistem pengangkutan awam di negara kita.

Seperkara lagi, orang kampung di luar bandar tidak akan mampu untuk membeli kereta walaupun harga kereta diturunkan. Tetapi mereka akan merasa implikasi dari cadangan ini. Besar kemungkinan mereka terpaksa berkorban kerana sekolah dan klinik di kawasan pendalaman terpaksa di kurangkan akibat kekurangan peruntukan pembangunan disebabkan cukai kereta berbillion ringgit yang dipungut oleh kerajaan sudah berkurangan.

Ini belum lagi membicarakan tentang komitmen negara kita untuk mengurangkan intensiti karbon negara sebanyak 40% sepertimana yang diperakui oleh Malaysia dalam Protokol Kyoto.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Mengapa Harga Getah Sabah Rendah Berbanding Semenanjung?


(Dipetik dari laman web Lembaga Industri Getah Sabah. Klik disini untuk ke laman web tersebut.)

Harga getah mentah seperti lateks, kepingan tidak diasap, kentalan dan sekerap di Sabah adalah berbeza dengan harga di Semenanjung Malaysia disebabkan oleh kos-kos yang lebih tinggi di Sabah seperti berikut:-

  1. Kos Pengangkutan (Logistik) Tambahan
  2. Kos Pemprosesan Getah lebih tinggi
  3. Kos Perkhidmatan Pembelian secara langsung getah lebih tinggi
1. Kos Pengangkutan Tambahan Getah SMR (Standard Malaysian Rubber) yang dikeluarkan oleh Kilang Getah di Sabah perlu dihantar ke Pelabuhan Klang (Semenanjung) atau Singapura sebelum dihantar kepada pembeli.  Ini melibatkan kos tambahan pengangkutan kepada pengilang di Sabah. Penjual getah di Semenanjung Malaysia tidak terlibat dalam kos tambahan ini, manakala untuk Negeri Sarawak, kos pengangkutan tambahan ini adalah lebih rendah daripada  Negeri Sabah kerana jaraknya yang lebih dekat dari Semenanjung atau Singapura. Maka dengan itu, Mereka berkemampuan untuk membayar harga yang lebih tinggi kepada para pekebun kecil getah . 

2. Kos Pemprosesan Getah Kos memproses getah di Sabah adalah lebih tinggi berbanding dengan Semenanjung Malaysia.  Ini adalah kerana:-

2.1 Semua alat ganti, bahan kimia, bahan pembungkusan dan bahan-bahan  lain harus diimport dari Semenanjung Malaysia.  Harga bahan-bahan tersebut adalah lebih tinggi kerana dikenakan kos tambahan perkapalan dari Semenanjung Malaysia ke Sabah.

2.2 Harga minyak diesel untuk industri di Sabah adalah lebih tinggi daripada di Semenanjung Malaysia.  Minyak diesel diperlukan untuk kegunaan mesin pengering getah di kilang getah.

2.3 Mutu getah yang rendah daripada para pekebun kecil Sabah juga menyebabkan peningkatan kos pemprosesan kilang kerana ianya memerlukan mesin tambahan dengan motor berkilowatt tinggi.  Penggunaan mesin tersebut meningkatkan kos modal, kos pemakaian elektrik, air dan bahan kimia.

3. Kos Perkhidmatan Pembelian Getah LIGS telah melaksanakan perkhidmatan pembelian getah secara langsung di ladang (farm gate) pekebun kecil sejak tahun 1970 sebagai tanggungjawab sosial untuk membantu para pekebun kecil memasarkan getah mereka.  Perkhidmatan ini dijalankan di kampung-kampung diseluruh Sabah.  Kebanyakkan kampung-kampung ini berselerak dan terpencil.  Keadaan jalan ke kampung-kampung juga kurang baik serta berbukit-bukau dan sebahagian dari jalan-jalan ini hanya boleh dilalui dengan kenderaan berpacuan empat roda. Untuk memastikan semua pekebun kecil menikmati harga yang sama di seluruh negeri, harga getah juga diseragamkan di semua daerah tanpa mengambil kira lokasi sama ada ianya terletak di kawasan terpencil (520 km jauh dari kilang) ataupun berdekatan dengan kilang memproses getah.  Jarak yang jauh dikebanyakkan lokasi pembelian ini menyebabkan kos pengangkutan dan kos pengendalian yang tinggi.  Ini jauh berbeza dengan di Semenanjung Malaysia di mana harga getah yang dibeli di ladang (farm gate price) diantara negeri-negeri dan juga dalam setiap negeri adalah tidak seragam. Oleh demikian, kos untuk pembelian getah secara langsung daripada para pekebun kecil di Sabah adalah lebih tinggi berbanding dengan Semenanjung Malaysia disebabkan oleh infrastruktur mereka yang jauh lebih baik. Getah mentah yang dikeluarkan oleh pekebun kecil di Sabah adalah lebih basah dibandingkan dengan di Sarawak.  Contohnya, purata Kandungan Getah Kering (KGK) untuk getah kepingan tidak diasap di Sabah adalah 68% - 70% manakala KGK di Sarawak adalah 85% - 90%.  

Inilah sebabnya harga getah di Sarawak adalah lebih tinggi. Oleh yang demikian adalah sukar untuk menyamakan harga di Sabah, Sarawak dan Semenanjung Malaysia.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Cermin diri sendiri dulu, Kit Siang

Saya selalu menjadi sinis setiap kali membaca kenyataan Lim Kit Siang tentang Sabah, sebahagiannya kerana beliau menolak mentah-mentah untuk mengakui kegagalan kerajaan DAP di Pulau Pinang.

Lim Kit Siang harus mengkaji semula janji-janji palsu kerajaan DAP di Pulau Pinang. Mereka telah menang di Pulau Pinang bersandarkan janji-janji berpublisiti tinggi semata.

Ini termasuklah janji untuk menyelesaikan masalah kekurangan perumahan kos rendah, mengurangkan kesesakan lalulintas, mengekang kenaikan harga perumahan, memelihara alam sekitar, berlaku adil kepada masyarakat minoriti Pulau Pinang terutamanya masyarakat India Pulau Pinang, dan juga menjadi sebuah kerajaan yang telus.

Malangnya, kerajaan DAP di Pulau Pinang di bawah kepimpinan anak beliau sendiri telah gagal sama sekali. Pemuliharaan alam sekitar semakin merudum, pembangunan cerun bukit berleluasa; kesesakan lalulintas yang mencekik keselesaan warga pulau semakin teruk; golongan miskin dan bumiputera masih tidak mampu memiliki perumahan yang sangat tinggi harganya, kecuali jika mereka berhijrah ke tanah besar; dan walaupun dengan janji berpublisiti tinggi melimpah ruah dari Anwar Ibrahim, masyarakat minoriti India di Kampung Buah Pala tetap kehilangan tempat tinggal dan perkampungan mereka di tangan Lim Guan Eng.

Sejak DAP mengambil alih Pulau Pinang, tanah-tanah premium kerajaan telah dijual kepada kroni-kroni mereka dan pertukaran status tanah (yang mana sebelum ini kerajaan Gerakan telah dikritik teruk oleh DAP) telah menjadi satu sumber pendapatan utama.

Selain daripada itu, banyak penjelasan yang mengelirukan telah diberikan kepada penduduk-penduduk Pulau Pinang tentang kegagalan kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang dalam program perumahan kos rendah, jualan kontroversi tanah mahkota Pulau Pinang, iaitu Bayan Mutiara, yang bernilai ratusan juta dan dakwaannya berjaya mengurangkan hutang kerajaan negeri kepada kerajaan Persekutuan pada kadar 95%.

Contoh terakhir di atas mengenai pengurangan hutang kerajaan negeri Pulau Pinang adalah satu kenyataan yang benar-benar mengelirukan dari Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang. Beliau mendabik dada dan mendakwa bahawa Pulau Pinang telah mencipta sejarah apabila ia berjaya mengurangkan hutang dari RM600 juta kepada RM30 juta dalam tempoh dua tahun sejak beliau dilantik sebagai Ketua Menteri.

Apa yang sengaja disembunyikan dari penduduk-penduduk Pulau Pinang adalah fakta bahawa hutang kerajaan negeri telah kurang, kerana Kerajaan Persekutuan bersetuju untuk mengambil alih hutang sebanyak RM600 juta itu lalu menukarkannya kepada status geran selama 45 tahun, di bawah program rasionalisasi sistem perbekalan air negeri!

Ia tidak ada kaitan langsung dengan polisi-polisi ekonomi milik Lim Guan Eng. Tanpa persetujuan kerajaan Persekutuan, tidak mungkin Pulau Pinang akan berupaya mengurangkan hutang-hutangnya. Sepatutnya beliau berterima kasih kepada kerajaan Persekutuan, namun sudah menjadi tabiat Lim Guan Eng suka menukar cerita dan memuji diri sendiri atas usaha orang lain.


Satu lagi contoh yang mengelirukan rakyat adalah apabila Lim Kit Siang sekeras-kerasnya membantah pembinaan sebuah empangan di Kota Belud, ironis sekali bila beliau memilih untuk berdiam diri apabila anaknya bersetuju dengan sebuah projek empangan bernilai RM1.2 bilion (3 kali lebih mahal dari kos cadangan empangan di Kota Belud) yang akan dibina oleh kerajaan Persekutuan.

Apabila ditanya kenapa DAP bersetuju dengan pembinaan empangan tersebut sedangkan DAP membantah pembinaan empangan di Kota Belud, kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang berkata mereka memerlukan empangan tersebut untuk tujuan pertanian dan memastikan bekalan air Pulau Pinang sentiasa cukup.

Itu adalah sebab-sebab yang sama kenapa empangan di Kota Belud harus dibina! Nampaknya, bagi Lim Kit Siang, kehidupan penduduk-penduduk Pulau Pinang lebih bernilai daripada penduduk-penduduk Kota Belud dan Sabah.

Apa yang lebih mengecewakan adalah apabila ditanya oleh ahli-ahli parlimen BN di Parlimen, kombinasi bapa dan anak ini enggan memberikan penjelasan yang jelas tentang isu-isu yang menghantui Pulau Pinang.

Sent by Maxis from my BlackBerry® smartphone

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Look at your own backyard, Kit Siang

It always amuses me whenever I read Lim Kit Siang's statement on Sabah, partly because he refuses to see the failures of his own DAP government of Penang.

Lim Kit Siang should start looking at the failed promises of DAP government in Penang. They won Penang on the back of many higly publicised promises. These include promise to solve low cost housing, easing traffic jam, putting a cap on escalating prices of houses, guarding the environment, being fair to the Penang minorities especially the Penang Indians and being transparent.

Unfortunately, DAP government in Penang, under his son leadership, has failed miserably. The environment is getting worse, the hill side developmet continues unabated, traffic jam increasingly notorious, the poor and bumiputras are priced out from the expensive housing market on the island and slowly driven out to the main land and despite a much publicised promise by Anwar Ibrahim, the minority Penang Indians in Kampung Buah Pala lost their houses and village in the hands of Lim Guan Eng.

Since DAP took over Penang, premium state lands were sold to cronies and land conversion (which Gerakan was fiercely criticised by DAP before) had became an important source of revenue.

For example, a lot of misleading explanantion were offered to Penangites on the truth about DAP Penang government's failed low cost housing program, the controversy sale of Penang's crown jewel of land, the Bayan Mutiara sea front land which was worth hundreds of millions and its claim of reducing state debts to the Federal government by 95%.

The last example on reduction of Penang state debt was a blatant misleading statement by the Chief Minister of Penang. He boasted and claimed credit that Penang made a history when it sliced its debts from RM600mil to RM30million within 2 years he was appointed Chief Minister.

What he conveniently left out from telling the Penangites was that the state debt was reduced because the Federal Government had agreed to take over the RM600 million debt from the Penang state government and turned it into a 45 year grant status under the water rationalization program! It had nothing to do with Lim Guan Eng's economic policy. Without the federal government's agreement, there was no way Penang would be able to reduce its debts. Instead of thanking the federal government, the typical Lim Guan Eng turned and took all the credit.
Another example of misleading the rakyat was when Lim Kit Siang adamantly objected a dam in Kota Belud but chose to remain dumb when his son gleefully accepted a RM1.2billion dam to be built in Penang by the federal government.

When asked why DAP agreed to the dam when DAP rejected a dam in Kota Belud, DAP government in Penang said they need it for agriculture and to ensure enough water supply for Penangites. Those are the very reasons why the dam in Kota Belud was needed to be built! It seems, to Lim Kit Siang, the lives of Penangites worth more than the people of Kota Belud and Sabah.

What is more frustrating is when asked in Parliament by BN MPs, the father and son combo refused to give clear explanantion on many issues affecting Penang.
Sent by Maxis from my BlackBerry® smartphone

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Malaysia's steady but sure growth


Welcome to Kuala Lumpur, the IPO town … where bankers are enjoying a boom of breathtaking proportions." This is how one journalist described the recent initial public offerings of Felda Global Ventures Holdings and IHH Healthcare on the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange, in the world's second- and third-biggest listings this year.

Equating Kuala Lumpur with major financial centres such as Hong Kong or Singapore, as some reporters have done in recent weeks, is perhaps indicative of the hype that tends to surround major stock market listings. But the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange is gaining in strength; it hit a record high in July. By bucking the gloomy global trend, it also mirrors the wider Malaysian economy.

In the first quarter of this year, the Malaysian economy clipped along at a respectable 4.7per cent, even as our main export markets in Europe languished in recession, and important trading partners such as China and India came off the boil. Malaysia's debt levels remain at a manageable 53.6per cent of gross domestic product, while our unemployment rate stands at 3per cent. Per capita income has increased from US$6,700 in 2009 to US$9,700 at the end of last year. British Prime Minister David Cameron recently referred to Malaysia as a "powerhouse of the modern global economy".

As Malaysia's prime minister, it would be tempting, but wrong, to claim the credit for this economic success. The real praise must go to the brilliance of our entrepreneurs, the enthusiasm of our young, plugged-in graduates, and of course the dedication and hard work of the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who work in core industries such as plantations, services and manufacturing. That being said, the government's steady economic stewardship, and in particular our Economic Transformation Programme, has provided a sound basis for our country's economic resilience.

Malaysia never embraced the unregulated, instant-gratification capitalism that has proved catastrophic to some economies since the global financial crisis. Instead, we focused on ensuring stability and making considered, iterative reforms that accrue long-term dividends. We have liberalised services sectors, focused investment in key growth industries and divested state ownership in well-established companies. Felda Global and IHH Healthcare are cases in point. For many years, the government owned majority holdings in these fledgling companies, shielding them to some extent from the vagaries of the market until they were mature enough to fly the nest. Felda Global is now the world's third-largest palm oil company by acreage, while IHH Healthcare is Asia's biggest hospital operator.

The government continues to support emerging industries that will power the Malaysian - and the global - economy in the decades to come. For example, we aim to grow our information, communication and technology sector to provide 17per cent of national income by 2020; and we are supporting low-carbon technologies, such as solar modules, super-efficient LED lighting and hybrid and electric cars. Our tourism and high-end manufacturing sectors are already global leaders; while Malaysia is the world's front runner in Islamic finance.

Last Monday, I cut the ribbon on the Tun Razak Exchange, Kuala Lumpur's new international financial district. The exchange aims to attract 250 companies, create 500,000 new jobs and generate over US$8billion in development value. Our aim is to transform Kuala Lumpur into a global financial centre.

The value of the Islamic finance sector, for example, was just US$5billion in 1985 but is over US$1trillion today. Malaysia accounts for some 40per cent of this trade and we plan to triple the value of this sector over the next decade. Growth areas such as these will ensure that we are well positioned to lead tomorrow's global economy and achieve our ambition of reaching developed country status by 2020.

In Malaysia, however, we avoid equating development purely with economic growth. An open and dynamic economy requires equally vibrant and competitive politics. For Malaysia's long-term stability and success, our political system must evolve and mature alongside our economy. For these reasons, the government has in the past few months implemented a raft of reforms aimed at strengthening and deepening our democracy.

These reforms include ending Malaysia's decades-old state of emergency; repealing the Internal Security Act - that permitted detention without trial - with legislation that allows police to detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days, and only for the purpose of active investigation; introducing legislation to liberalise the media; widening the scope for student participation in politics; and, most recently, repealing the much maligned Sedition Act, which dated back to colonial times.

I believe that the Malaysian approach - a steady, nurturing form of capitalism, with economic and political reforms going hand in hand - can continue to bring success. And I hope that the Kuala Lumpur bourse, like our economy, will continue to experience more of the Malaysian boom, and less of global gloom, in the months and years ahead.

Aug 04, 2012
South China Morning Post

Najib Razak says Malaysia's decision to develop its economy through measured reform, rather than embrace unregulated capitalism, has shielded it from the downturn and laid the groundwork for growth. Source here >> 







Kongsi artikel ini: