I came across the article by Wong Ho Leng in reply to Alan Sim of Kuching and would take the opportunity to comment the prevailing situation in Sarawak. Did SUPP or the DAP really represent the Chinese to fight for the rights to live long in the land? The marginalization of the Chinese is a reality and not a baseless accusation. If one read the Article of 143 of Malaysian Constitution or commonly known as Malaysian Social Contract by Singapore PM Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, there is erosion of rights for the minority Chinese population in the country.
The Malaysian Constitution was drafted on the basis of a report from the Reid Commission. The commission, which had been formed to lay the groundwork for a Constitution in the run-up to Malaysia's pending independence, released the report in 1957 as the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957 or The Reid Commission Report. The Reid Commission reported that Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay Rulers had asked that "in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed. "
It spells out the equal rights for the Chinese, Ibans, Kadazan, Lun Bawangs and natives in the interior of Sarawak, one must be dissatisfied that this rights have been left out for the non-bumiputeras. Regarding the Land Code in Sarawak, it is the most vital for the Chinese in the State to own a permanent lands and footings in the country. But one can see that it is never amended to safeguard the Chinese who are mainly dwelling in the urban and own shop houses, residential premises and lands.
Unfair Delineation of Constituencies
Strategies like delineation of more constituencies in Malays or Melanau polluted areas to ensure majority of seats and reports of "transplanted" voters practice are all unfair play of the current electoral system. For instance in Sarawak, the total number of seats in non-Malays constituencies is less than that of the Malays constituencies even though the population in those non-Malays constituencies like Kuching, Sibu and Miri warranted to delineate to 2 or more smaller constituencies. Instead one sees the Malays constituencies at the coastal areas like Daro, Dalat, Matu & Mukah having sparse population are a separate constituency. It does not make sense when a constituency with a population of 5,000 people needs a State Assemblyman while another constituency densely populated by 15,000 people is only represented by one State Assemblyman. The weightage of the votes from the Chinese seems to be lesser in value and the Assemblymen for densely populated constituencies does not get a higher pay for his task. This is not a fair play of the electoral system and payment of wages for the assemblymen. Since the delineation of rural and coastal constituencies is to serve the people effectively, then delineation of constituencies of non-Malays constituencies in the cities will serve the same purpose in term of people to assemblyman ratio.
The Amended Land Code
The lease lands in Sarawak are mainly for 60 years period. Why the State government or the BN component party such as SUPP has not represented the Chinese to alter the Land Code to ensure automatic renewal of up to 99 years. Some lands are with lease period of perpetuity such as 999 years. But most lands estimated at 90% in Sarawak are merely 60 years lease. Upon expiry of one generation, the second generations have to pay high land premium of around 25% of the land. That is pretty high premium. If the breadwinner in the household can live up to 90 years, he would be facing financial difficulty to pay the land premium.
Let's say one buy the house at age of 30 years and by 90 years, the land lease shall expire. Where to find the money to pay the land lease premium when one is in old age and deprive of income? Now if he passed away at younger age, it is also a financial burden for the children to choke up the large sum of money to pay the land lease premium. Let's say the land and buildings costs is RM300,000.00 in year 2007 and the land is worth 45% of the total price or RM135,000.00. In another 60 years, the land market value may rise by RM2,000 per year. Land in Kuching City has seen drastic bloom in market price during the last 10 years. Hence the estimated increase in land price of RM2,000 per year is a reasonable figure. So the market value of the land after 60 years may be around RM255,000.00 and 25% of the land market value is lease premium of RM63,750.00!
Do not be selfish to care for our own selfish gains and ignore the hardship for our children in the future. If we do not fight for our rights and privileges today, in the near future, the all the property will belongs to the State government and the Chinese and Ibans will toil and toil to make the ends meet. Even nowadays we feel the pinch of hardship after the petrol price hike.
Sarawak goes easy on land lease rates
The Star Online, May 27, 2007
MIRI: The Sarawak Government has revised its policy guidelines for land lease premium rates, which were a heated issue in the state elections last year, leading to the Barisan Nasional losing eight state seats.
Under the new policy, announced by state Public Utilities Minister Datuk Seri Awang Tengah Ali Hassan yesterday, premium rates for leased land in the various categories have been reduced, with 25% of the market value as the minimum rate in all categories.
Lease owners can also now decide if they want to renew for 60 years or 99 years and pay 30% of the market value. They would be allowed to renew the leases at anytime, instead of the current practice of five years before expiration.
They would also be allowed to pay the premium over a 10-year period instead of one lump sum payment.
"The Barisan Nasional government has come up with the new policies in the hope that it will satisfy the people. The land lease issue was used extensively by certain quarters against the government.
"The government has always been very concerned about the welfare of the people. We believe that the changes will both meet the needs of the people and also take into account the interests of the government," he told reporters here.
Awang Tengah said for land used to build residential homes and recreation grounds, the lease premium would be 25% of the market value, in both urban and rural areas. The old rate was between 25% and 50% of market value.
For commercial and industrial land, the new lease premium would be between 25% and 40% of market value, compared to the previous rate of between 25 % and 61%.
As for agricultural land, the rate would be 25% of market value or not more than RM10,000 per 0.4ha, whichever is lower in urban areas, 25% or not more than RM5,000 per 0.4ha, whichever is lower in sub-rural zones, and RM200 per 0.4 ha for rural areas.
Awang Tengah said the rates would be negotiable in cases in which the lease owners were poor, adding that the state government would decide on a case-by-case basis.
He said the renewal rates would be calculated based on prevailing market value at the time of application and not based on the original price of the land.
==================================
Reply to Alan Sim
Posted by Wong Ho Leng on December 07, 2007 at 19:15:46:
Alan Sim is the SUPP Youth Chief, and the candidate designate for the SUPP/BN for Bandar Kuching in the 2008 Parliamentary election.
My attention was drawn to Alan Sim's write-up in his blog under heading "My Thoughts @ SUPP Youth CC Meeting!"
Alan Sim was proud that he spoke "in great length on several issues" when he chaired the SUPP Youth Central Committee meeting.
I would like to answer Alan and challenge him in the issues raised by him.
(1) "Dwindling Political Influence"
Alan said of the dwindling Chinese political influence in this country:
"I guess we all must realise that the Chinese population in this country has seen a declining trend since our independence 50 years ago with our population now stands at only 25%."
The "age" of this country aside, is Alan trying to tell us that though they are BN component Parties, the SUPP and other Chinese Parties are not conferred equal status in the BN big family?
Alan then said:
"At the moment, there are only 20 out of the 219 parliamentary seats which are predominantly Chinese while at the state level, there are only 15 Chinese majority seats out 71."
Alan, who helped to cause this imbalance? Who condoned this inequality in delineation in electoral boundaries? With the DAP complaining inside and outside Parliament about manipulation in electoral delineation, why has the SUPP not uttered a word in support against this imbalance?
The DAP has opposed inside and outside Parliament that the voting weightage has been very unfair to the Chinese. In many Chinese majority areas, the number of voters is 4 or 5 times more than many non-Chinese areas. A non-Chinese vote is 4 to 5 times more valuable than a Chinese vote. What has the SUPP to say on this?
(2) "Splitting up the Chinese"
Alan said:
"So, what I am trying to say is simple. The DAP is splitting up the Chinese when what we should do is to be united."
This "simplicity" borders on illogic and stupidity. If Alan subscribes to what he said, I feel sorry that the SUPP has a Youth leader in him. Worse, the SUPP has found a candidate designate in him.
Just because we contest in elections, so we are "splitting up the Chinese"? What sort of political maturity is this!
When you say that the DAP split up the Chinese, have you ever examined that we actually obtained more than 50% of the votes in those 12 seats contested by us in the May 2006 election? Do you realize that we secured a lot more Chinese votes than the SUPP?
So, how can we be accused of "splitting up the Chinese"?
Alan, can you be really honest to tell us who split up the Chinese? Before answering with embarrassment, please listen to the tape of what Robert Lau said in your own Party function in Bintulu. Robert Lau mentioned that someone split the Chinese, but mind you, he did not mention the DAP. He named your own members and branch leaders in Sibu!
Perhaps the SUPP leadership should all learn to be mature and humble, and not to view the world from the desk, and worse, while wearing the myopic lenses!
(3) "Be United"
Alan said "what we should do is to be united". Has SUPP propagated unity? On the issue of the appointment of the Mayor in Kuching, the first round of party bickering broke out. This, you called "unity"?
Then there was the 2nd round of party bickering. Your leaders spent time and energy, not in solving the people's problem, but to gun down your own leaders, including an Assistant Minister from your Party. Your Party leaders in Sibu and Sarikei wanted to fire the Party President etc. Your Party split into Team A and Team B. This, you called "unity"? So, what is "disunity" in the SUPP's dictionary?
When you say that we should be united, have you ever examined the SUPP? Has your Party and leadership led by example?
Even the Chief Minister reminded the SUPP in the Dewan Undangan Negeri that "internal bickering would not benefit anybody". Alan, weren't you seated in the Dewan when the Chief Minister made this statement?
Your Party leaders held meetings to "tussle" with Dudong branch after its registration was accepted by the Registrar of Societies. Your party leaders abused power and used Government cars to attend the meetings. Six resolutions were passed, and one of them was to demand that the signboard of Dudong branch be dismantled. Alan, do you know that this goes against the very grain of Chinese culture that it is taboo to dismantle a signboard? Yet, you proudly talked about unity!
(4) Representation to Fight
Alan said:
"That is why it is very important that we must have representation in the Government to fight for our welfare and rights."
Alan, when you are a part of the Government, do you have to "fight for … welfare and rights"?
If you are a respected member-party of the coalition which forms the Government, do you have to kneel and kawtow and beg for this and that as favours?
"Welfare and rights" are not favours, are they?
The Government is supposed to look after the welfare and rights of the people. Yet, you mean to tell us that despite the fact that SUPP has representation in the Government, it still has to "fight" for welfare and rights?
Let's say, on annual allocation of financial grants to Chinese and Missionary schools in Sarawak . Isn't that part of the "welfare and rights" of Sarawakians? What has your Party done to "fight for our welfare and rights"? A sham and a shame, isn't it?
The Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak had rejected my motions to move for financial grants to these schools 5 times. PKR, on its part through Dominique Ng, had his motions rejected 4 times. When told that Motions involving finance have to be endorsed by the Minister charged with the portfolio, ie, the Minister of Finance, Dominique said he had written twice to your Soon Koh, the Minister of Finance II. But has the Minister from your Party endorsed or supported it? No! Has any of your party leadership moved similar Motions like this? No! Have your Party Ministers pressed for these financial grants or for fair treatment of Chinese and Missionary schools in the Cabinet? No! yet, this is what you called "we must have representation in the Government to fight for our welfare and rights."
Let's say, on use of Chinese language. Before the SUPP joined the Government in 1970, Chinese language was allowed to be used in the Dewan Undangan Negeri. To use the Chinese language is our rights. What has happened to this Chinese language after the SUPP joined the Government? Can you check your Party history and tell us what had the SUPP done? So, wasn't it equally your Party's responsibility to restore the right to use Chinese language in the Dewan Undangan Negeri?
But what had your Party done when the DAP proposed on 20th November 2007 in the Dewan that the Chinese language be allowed to be used in the Dewan? Weren't you and your other political secretaries seated in the Dewan when your SUPP colleagues and Ministers blasted the DAP for making this proposal?
Can you tell us whether you had said anything outside the Dewan to support our proposal to allow Chinese language in the Dewan? Need you be reminded that your Ministers blasted us for stirring up communal issue which may flare into confrontation? Can you tell the people of Sarawak whether you would agree with your Party Ministers and backbenchers that by proposing the use of Chinese language in the Dewan, we were stirring up sensitive issue?
Do you have the moral fibre to suggest to the people of Sarawak that in view of the emergence of China, the Chinese language is acceptable to be used in the Dewan Undangan Negeri?
(5) Opposition Can't Do Anything
Alan said:
"There is no point to shout when the Opposition can't do anything at all."
Do you know the different and distinct roles played by the Government and the Opposition? Maybe go read a few books on Government and democracy.
Who was shouting? Maybe you can give just a little murmur, but an honest one, to your voters and the people in Sarawak your stance on the use of Chinese language in airports and in the Dewan?
Since you said "the Opposition can't do anything at all", maybe you can also give us a little murmur what you or your Party have achieved on financial grants to Chinese and Missionary schools in Sarawak? Afterall, you are the Government and therefore you should have the powers and ability to do all and everything!
Maybe you can also give a murmur, but an honest one, what you and your Party have achieved in matters concerning s.47 on the poor rakyat's land? Since you seem to imply that the Opposition can't do anything but the Government can do everything, can you let us know why s.47 is still imposed on massive land in Matang since 34 years ago? This s.47 was imposed after your Party joined the Government. Since when had your Party done anything to these land?
Now that these landowners have come to see you, and since your Party is in the Government and can therefore do everything, and since you have the added advantage as the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister, and therefore easily able to gain access to the Chief Minister, can you guarantee that all those s.47 will be uplifted before the Parliamentary election?
And, there are also massive land in Sibu, Miri, Bintulu and elsewhere in Sarawak , where s.47 had been imposed more than 10 or 20 years ago. What has your party and BN done? As a part of the Government, wouldn't you think that the "welfare and rights" of the people are paramount? Yet, is it the Opposition which "can't do anything at all" or is it your Party which "can't do anything at all"?
(6) Well Done, BN Backbenchers
Alan said:
"I must say the existing young BN backbenchers have done their work tremendously well. They are very vocal at times on certain Government policies which may not benefit the people."
Can I ask you which "existing" BN backbenchers have done tremendously well? Can you name them? Who knows, your assistance is needed for these "good ones" to be appointed to be Ministers and Assistant Minister? You may know that there are so many of your Ministers and Assistant Ministers who need to be replaced.
Let's see how well have you backbenchers performed. You ought to know because you ought to be seated in the Dewan during the proceedings. From your party, your backbencher (Jerip) said that the land issue was not an issue at all. Did he do well? Pelawan called me "Che Meh" (Hokkien - meaning blind). Did he do well? Opar shouted "NO" to our proposal for automatic and unconditional extension to land titles. Did he do well? Pujut helped submitted a Memorandum to Awang Tengah at the Miri Airport asking for reconsideration of the industrial tariff when the cabinet had approved (unanimously) for its hike. Has he done well? Your Batu Kawa. What had he said for the people that had enabled you to say that he had done tremendously well?
You want me to name the others too from the SUPP? What about your other BN colleagues?
What are the Government policies which may not benefit the people which your BN backbenchers had been vocal at? Maybe you can just name one or two of such policies?
For these policies which may not benefit the people, what is the result after your BN backbenchers have been vocal?
No wonder you used the word "existing backbenchers". So you are not totally satisfied with the performance of your former BN backbenchers? Remember your comrade Daniel Ngieng when he was serving for Bukit Assek? He proposed in the Dewan in 2005 that the premium for lease extension be fixed at 25%. The Government accepted this rate. So, had he done well?
(7) Deliver Results
Alan said you "we need is representation in the Government who can both speak up for the people at the same time deliver results".
On the above issues, and there are more, can you tell us what results have been delivered?
What is the fate of the Memorandum through Pujut? I had helped you to ask. You won't like to know the results. The industrial tariff hike had not been reduced. That is the result your Party delivered?
Is the SUPP going to deliver us a 3rd round of volcanic Party-bickering after the Parliamentary election?
( Communal Issues
Alan said we must "stop harping on communal issues if we want to be competitive and compete with the outside world".
Do you include the usage of Chinese language in this category also? At least your Party Minister said that this was a communal issue. Tell us whether the use of Chinese language in the Dewan Undangan Negeri would impede competition with the outside world?
(9) Oil Price Hike
Alan also said that "the oil price hike has definitely burnt a hole in everyone's pocket".
So, what has your Party done on this? Don't you think Sarawak deserves better from oil and gas pumped from underneath our own feet?
As a part of the BN Government, your Party leader had been harping that it has its own style of negotiation with the federal Government to increase the royalty which now stands at a pathetic 5%. What own style? Or was it "No style"?
Have you read your former President Datuk Amar Stephen Yong's book, A Life Twice Lived, on his discourse about the pathetic 5% oil royalty? Before he left this world, he spoke to me about his displeasure that his men (meaning who?) had not done enough on this issue. Nothing was changed since the day he wrote his book. So, this is the result the SUPP delivered with the representation in the Government?
The Chief Minister was recently reported as saying that he was happy with the 5% royalty. So, how has your Party leader negotiated with the Federal Government in the light of what was said by the Chief Minister?
The failure to deliver, as described in Stephen Yong's book, continued.
Has your party ever voiced out against oil price hike? Will you and your Party voice out against oil price hike after the Parliamentary election?
You said you would propose that the Government "improve on our public transportation system not only in KL but other major cities in the country". So, you would admit that not much had been done outside KL despite the Federal Government's promise that the savings from the subsidy will be used to improve transportation in the country?
What have you said on this issue between 28th February 2006 and yesterday?
(10) Education
Alan said he "spoke at length on education issue which is close to everyone's heart."
It is good that you spoke on it. If you aspire to be a political leader, please do continue to work for everybody.
Have you spoken out on the imbalance of intake that had caused so many students who achieved meritorious results to be kept outside the door of the local public universities?
Why could Sarawak students be accepted into Harvard University but not good enough for local public universities?
Were there scholarships given out based not on results but race?
What is your stance on more Australian universities in Sarawak ? Your Party Minister Soon Koh had told the Dewan last year that two Australian universities in Sarawak are enough. "Three could be disastrous". What is your stance on that? What could be disastrous if students are able to study in a third or fourth university from Australia?
I am glad that the SUPP Youth helped "hundreds of local students to step into local public universities" but have you ever told them the standard of our universities? How employable would these students be after they graduate?
On the home front, did you ever tell them that UNIMAS does not make it into the 2007 Webometrics Ranking (WR) of 3,000 Premier Universities when even the newer University Malaysia Sabah sits at 2969 in the WR ranking?
What is your stance on the Independent Chinese schools? Don't you think it is high time that their certificates be recognized by the Government? What has taken the Government, of which the SUPP is part, to give them due recognition?
I believe that every political party has a role to play to ensure the survival of our schools, and no less the Chinese schools which have not received equal treatment from the BN Government. But what has the SUPP and yourself done to redress this imbalance?
With increasing Chinese population, we have decreasing number of Chinese schools. You have representation in the Government. You promised the delivery of results. What are the results?
Your Party almost became an expert in moving or relocating Chinese schools. But is this the best solution? Isn't it a better solution to demand the Government to give fair treatment to all schools in the country?
Do you know how many Chinese schools have been closed in Sarawak alone? What plans are there in the SUPP to revive these schools in densely populated residential areas?
(11) Mother Tongue Education
Alan said:
"As for the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English, I still believe that it should be reverted [back] to using mother tongue, in this case Mandarin."
Yeah. I have the same belief. I had stated my belief since day 1 when it was hastily implemented when Mahathir suggested it.
The SUPP had always claimed Mahathir as the mega brilliant Prime Minister of Malaysia. Being mega brilliant, how could his policy on teaching of Science and Mathematics be wrong? And worse, it runs contrary to your belief!
Since when did you hold the belief that this education policy was wrong? Did you express it to your leaders? No less to Mahathir himself?
However, as a part of the Government, your Party is guilty in agreeing to implement it 5 years ago.
Since you said that it is still your belief, surely, you would not sit quietly still since the Government has implemented this education policy against your belief! Apart from stating this in your blog, can you give a murmur what had you done before the system was implemented? It has been years now since the system of teaching was implemented, if you had not sat quietly still, can you let the people know what had you and your party done? And, what was the result?
On the other hand, if you can sit quietly still though against your belief, how can the people entrust you on other issues?
(12) Crime
Alan said:
"Next, I spoke on crime where I made it loud and clear that Sarawakians no longer feel safe and we want the police to get down to work immediately".
I presume this message was "loud and clear" to your Youth Section. Did you make it "loud and clear" to the police and the general Sarawakians?
Is that all you can do? When police conducted forums in Sarawak in April this year, did your party leaders participate in them, at least by attending and asking the Police to "get down to work immediately"?
Can you tell Sarawak whether any of your Party leaders were connected to triads and gangsterism? Who are the Deputy Federal Minister, state cabinet Minister and ex-MP who are said to be connected to triads? What would you do if they were connected?
Your Party leaders play ostrich to the serious crimes and said they did not believe that triads and gangsterism is even serious, especially in Sibu! You want me to name them for you so that you can "murmur" to them that it is not your "belief"?
More than some of your Party leaders cum Ministers had said that it was safe to walk in the streets in Sibu, whereas the people in Sibu would share your view that "Sarawakians no longer feel safe".
You want the words of your former Youth Chief? He said in the Dewan Undangan Negeri sitting in May 2007, "If you go around Sarawak, I am sure you find people "alive and well" enjoying themselves at night."
Do you agree that as a part of the Government, you do not wait until a person is no longer "alive and well" before taking action?
Alan said: "I propose the mandatory whipping for convicted snatch thieves which I had submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee which sat in Kuching in 2004."
May be that was a good proposal. But 3 years had passed. Has your proposal been accepted at all? Has snatch thefts increased or reduced? How many have been prosecuted in Court? Are there enough prosecutors properly trained to prosecute crimes?
Whereas I accept that you had made proposal on snatch thieves, I may also let you know that I had made proposal for different categories of sexual crimes. Yes, I can let you know that my proposals, which was a DAP proposal, had been accepted.
(13) Civil Service
Alan also said:
"On the civil service, I also talked at length on the need to have more Chinese youth to be in civil service to reflect a balance proportion."
I am glad you recognized the imbalance. And, uou are the Political Secretary to the CM. Have you spoken to him on this? Have you spoken to the PM on this? What is the result? Isn't it still imbalance?
The SUPP has been in Government for 37 years. The number of Chinese in the civil service had decreased significantly. May be you had been concerned and had spoken about it before, but since when have you and your Party spoken seriously about it? By seriously, I mean, you and your Party had been able to push the federal and state Government to see your points and remedy the imbalance. It was overdue, right?
(14) Action Speaks Louder, especially when you are Government
I had raised only some issues to reply to Alan Sim. The SUPP will see that they had not done enough for the community it hopes to serve. The SUPP has not been effective, and it has practically little say in the Government. Not because its representation in the Government is inadequate, but because its Party leaders do not have the courage to speak the "truth".
A cabinet decision has to be made collectively. A simple vote of "No" will mean that a Government policy, even if suggested by the most powerful leader, will not be carried. The appointment of Chong Teck Hsiung as the Mayor for Kuching was a classic example, and Michael Manyin, for the first time yesterday, let us know that his appointment was the unanimous decision of the Cabinet. But the SUPP had not admitted this.
The issue of lease extension and the high premium, including the "forfeiture" of the balance of the term if the lease holders apply to renew now, is all the work of a unanimous decision in the Cabinet.
As the Youth Chief, Alan Sim should know how the Government works. It is no use talking in a blog what he believes in. He should make sure that the Party believes what the people believe. The mandate comes from the people. The people are the Masters. Has the SUPP served the Masters? Not in my book, and I am sure my belief is shared by many more than what Alan Sim may think.
As a part of the Government, do everything that a Government ought to do.
DAP is important. It provides the checks and balance. We have done well, because we operate and speak without fear or favour. Unlike the SUPP, we dare to speak the truth. We are not "politikus". We can never be belittled. We have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy popular support, despite the uneven playing field caused by money politics in Sarawak. We have popular support, and we even gathered more than 60% of the votes in certain constituencies, So, it is a sin to accuse us of splitting the Chinese. Politicians who are worth the salt must talk sense.
8th December, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment