Wednesday, May 28, 2008

财政部2007年度第二附加供应法案欠缺透明!

财政部所提呈的2007年度第二附加供应法案欠缺透明度!
我于27日在国会下议院参与2007年度第二附加供应法案辩论时作出是项指责。
财政部今次所提呈的第二附加供应法案,寻求国会批准政府动用170多亿令吉的额外拨款。 其中,许多寻求额外拨款的部门,都有列出额外拨款的用途。唯独财政部所寻求额外拨款的168亿令吉,并没有列出这笔钱是用在什么用途上。
在2007年度第二附加供应法案,各部门所寻求的额外拨款,不论大小数目,有些是几百万令吉,有些甚至只是几十万令吉,都有大约列出额外拨款的用途。财政部在这附加供应法案中所寻求的额外拨款是16,810,108,100.00令吉,当中法案的说明书里,只列出9,000,000.00令吉是用在总结1998年在吉隆坡所主办的英联邦运动会的财政户口等用途上。
为什么附加法案说明书唯独漏掉这笔16,801,108,100令吉的额外拨款?这168亿令吉的数目,是占了第二附加供应法案总数(176亿令吉)的超过90%。我感到惊讶为何财政部没有列出这笔钱是要还给什么人。 我希望尊敬的副财政部长可以在总结时让国会知道这笔钱是要用在那里。
基于这一点,即,超过90%的额外拨款财政部没有在2007年度第二附加供应法案说明书里列出它的用途,国会下议院在通过这2007年度第二附加供应法案前,副财政部长至少要给于国会下议院一个清楚的交代。不然,国会如何能够就如此的通过这法案。

政府应重新检讨外劳体检政策

我于本周二在国会下议院参与2007年度第二附加供应法案辩论时,呼吁政府重新检讨有关FOMEMA Sdn Bhd(外劳体检公司)与外劳体检的政策。
FOMEMA是衛生部委任的私人公司,全面監管外勞體檢服務。 卫生部授权于这间叫FOMEMA的私人公司处理全马外劳体检,所有外劳的健康检查必须经过这间公司,然后再由这间公司分配给一些病理学实验室去进行验血工作和医生作检验。政府给这间FOMEMA公司的垄断授权合约为期15年。
我引诉星期日新海峡时报首版报导有关去年有约4万2千身患疾病的外劳被发现在我国工作。他们之中,1万6697人被檢驗出患上肺癆、1万953人被检验出患上B型肝炎、2千824人被检验出患上梅毒及683人被检验出患上愛滋病。
根据新海峡时报的报导,許多这些身患疾病的外勞,尤其是女佣,仍在我國第二輪FOMEMA的体检中过关,因此許多女佣雇主對FOMEMA的体检制度失去信心,选择帶女佣到非FOMEMA指定的診所進行体检。 因此,他们被逼要付双倍的体验费。
我质疑卫生部为何不能直接由卫生部的官员来处理外劳体检的工作,而需要经过FOMEMA这间私人公司,由这间公司发出体检合格证明书。
在马来西亚,所有的医生和病理学化验室都需要向卫生部注册,只要是有通过这些合格医生和化验室进行体检的外劳,卫生部理应就可以接受并发出体检合格证明书。
但是,在目前政府授权FOMEMA私人公司的制度下,只有一些被FOMEMA所指定的医生和化验室的报告才获得FOMEMA的承认。 这种制度含有严重的朋党因素。
至于为什么经过FOMEMA所指定医生和化验室体检的外劳还会被发现身患疾病,我质疑是否有关去年FOMEMA特别指定,将全国30%外劳的体检,交由一间与巫统女青团领袖有关系但没有track record的病理学化验室进行体检。 这是一个很明显的朋党主义的证据。
我也质疑FOMEMA体检制度的可靠性。且也担心,在现今我国社会,数万家庭都依靠外国女佣照顾家里的小孩,老人或在家中帮助煮饭及处理家务。如果政府在这方面没有实施一个有效的体检制度,它将危害我国人民的健康。

Monday, May 19, 2008

Suing DBKU and MBKS for the Relocation of the Gambier Street Market

I have just spoken to the hawkers at the Gambier Street Market (GSM), telling them that the last resort is to take up an administrative action against the government of Sarawak, challenging the government's decision to relocate the GSM.

Under administrative action, one has to show that the decision of the government is so unreasonable that no reasonable government will come to such decision, that the government has taken into consideration irrelevant factors or wrong factors when making the decision or that the government has failed to take into consideration relevant factors when making the decision.

If more than 40 hawkers agree to take up the action, I shall be file the action to sue the government, applying for the review by the Court on the decision of the government to relocate the GSM to Stutong market.

To the hawkers, it is their livelihood at stake. Their customers in the GSM is very different from the potential consumers staying around Stutong. Their customers are more from the lower-income group and the Bumiputras living across the river.

To the Ministers, they only want to have a lovely view of the waterfront so that they can show off to the foreign dignitories.

By relocating the GSM, there will be many adversed effects to the people, namely:
1. the hawkers' livelihood affected, some even refused to take up the offer to go to Stutong market on the ground that they will surely have no business there;
2. the business of the traders at the shophouses around Gambier Street, Market Street, Power Street, India Street, Khoo Hun Yaeng Street will also be affected (less people will visit the area, given that there is no more market);
3. shopkeepers cannot do marketing at their convenience;
4. the whole-salers for vegetables and fishes will also be relocated to places not suitable to the nature of their trade;
5. the sampan operators will be put out of business;
6. residents living across the river can no longer do their marketing at the GSM;
7. Kuchingites will lose a historic heritage (the oldest market in Kuching) forever. The heritage building will be replaced by the extension of the waterfront which has now become the haven for crimes, snatch-thieves, glue-sniffers and drunkards.

Given the public interest and the wide-ranging effect of this matter, if the hawkers are willing to sue, I will be taking up this matter free of charge as their lawyer, putting the administrative decision of the Sarawak State government to test by the Court.

When the government goes bonkers, the Court is the last defence of the individuals' rights. That is why we can never over-emphasise the importance of judiciary independence as judiciary forms the very foundation of our legal system.

The latest the hawkers must sign their Warrant to Act and return to me is by this coming Friday (23-5-2008).

Friday, May 16, 2008

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Suspended From Dewan Undangan Negeri (Part 1)

I was suspended from the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak on May 13th for criticising the Speaker of the House of being biased and unfair.

In this Part 1, I will only highlight the irregularities in the proceedings. In Part 2, I will post the hansard of the proceedings relating to the Motion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 13th May, after lunch break, we found a notice of motion put on all the tables of the ADUNs. The copies of the notice on the tables of the DAP ADUNs did not have the names and signatures of the mover and seconder of the Motion.

When Dewan sat, Jabu stood up and moved the motion. All the DAP ADUNs objected because the notice that we have was incomplete. The speaker and Jabu just bull-dozed through.

After Jabu spoke, I was asked to defend myself. Naturally, my line of defence is that I am justified to make the comment that the Speaker is unfair.

In my defence, I highlighted the clearest example of the unfair acts of the Speaker, ie. when it comes to criticism on the Chief Minister of Sarawak.

I went into specific encounters in the Dewan, eg. when I mentioned the words "Wikipedia" and the information contained in Wikipedia about the CM, the Speaker stopped me immediately on the ground that it is "sub-judice". But on the other hand, when the BN ADUNs sang praises of the CM, the Speaker allowed them.

If criticism against the CM is "sub-jice", then equally praises on the CM has also to be "sub-judice".

Even when I was talking about "Wikipedia" in my defence, the Speaker was trying to stop me and the BN ADUNs were jeering and booing, trying to drown my voice in the Dewan. Luckily I have a loud voice.

Throughout the proceeding, the Speaker was reading out notes and messages passed to him. It looked like he was taking instruction from someone. We objected. After a huge commotion, finally, the speaker took the advice from Asajaya (Abdul Karim) and adjourned the proceeding.

How could the Speaker act on the advice of an ADUN or another person as to how to conduct the proceeding?

When DUN re-convened, the Speaker limited the time for me to present my defence to 15 minutes only.

There were many interjections to my debate.

Finally, after my defence and Jabu's reply, it was put to vote by the House whether to carry the motion through, ie. to exercise the power under Section 24 of the Ordinance. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Then Jabu urged the Speaker to invoke Section 14 of the Ordinance to suspend me till the end of the Session, ie until end of 2008. Section 14 was never in the motion. Section 24 was the subject matter of the motion and under Section 24, the heaviest penalty is RM2,000.00 fine, nothing about suspension.

Again, we DAP ADUNs objected vehemently. The Speaker was again at a lost adn did not know what to do. At the suggestion of the Ministers, he adjourned the proceedings, supposedly to seek further instruction.

When Dewan re-convened, the Speaker merely read out his judgment, paying no heed to our objection and without regard to the fundamental principle of fair trial.


The morale of the story:

In DUN, brute majority rules the day. Standing Orders are only there to shoot down the opposition ADUNs. When it comes to the BN ADUNs or the ministers, provisions of the Standing Order can be conveniently ignored.

In this proceedings, the notice was bad, there were 2 versions of the notice, one with the signature of the mover and seconder (on the tables of the BN ADUNs) and one without the signature of the mover and seconder(on the table of the DAP ADUNs). Despite such glaring irregularities, the Speaker simply proceed with the motion.

The Speaker taking notes and directions from the floor instead of making his own decision.

Motion was only to invoke the power under Section 24 of the Ordinance but after finding of guilt, power under Section 14 was invoked.

This is a privilege motion which ought to be made at the time when the alleged offence was made. My motion against Daud the day before was shot down, inter alia, because I moved the motion 5 days late. This motion was moved 7 days after the event and yet was allowed.

Monday, May 5, 2008

接收古晋国会选区选举诉讼案诉讼书

今早(5月5日),我正式接收古晋国会选区选举诉讼案的诉讼书。
这起选举诉讼案的起诉人许怀标是在今年4月28日通过其代表律师林光猛入禀高庭,要求高庭宣判古晋国会选区选举成绩无效。而我是这诉讼案的唯一答辩人。
林光猛律师今早已经将诉讼书交给我。我们行动党将成立一个律师团,针对这起选举诉讼案进行研究与处理。
我非常感谢这段时间接获不少选民们的慰问,我非常感谢他们的关心。同时,我也感谢行动党砂州署理主席周政新同志于今早陪同我一同接收诉讼书,给予我精神上的支持。这也显示了行动党的立场,与我共同面对这场选举诉讼案。

Friday, May 2, 2008

《万人注册、全民参政》选民注册运动 VOTERS REGISTRATION

03/05/08 7.30 pm to 10 pm
古晋桑路商业中心
Jln Song Commercial Centre

04/05/08 8.00 am to 10 am
古晋达闽再也菜市场
Tabuan Jaya Market