The Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 that was introduced by the Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak is no better than the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) that is intended to be repealed.
This new law shifts the absolute power from the Minister to the Police and the Public Prosecutor. We are now in a worse position than before with the Internal Security Act (ISA), as the police and the Public Prosecutor are not answerable to Parliament unlike a cabinet minister who is.
A person suspected of a security offence can be jailed for years not unlike the provisions under the ISA. A suspect may be detained for up to 28 days at the order of a police officer of, or above the rank of Superintendent of Police (Section 4).
Within these 28 days, the suspected person may be charged in a High Court. Once charged, no bail can be granted (Section 13) to the suspect. If that is the case, the suspected person will be detained during the trial. After the trial, if he is convicted, he will be imprisoned under the Penal Code. If the suspect is acquitted, at the request of the Public Prosecutor, he will still be remanded in prison pending appeal (Section 30). At the Court of Appeal, if the suspect is convicted, he will be imprisoned under the Penal Code and if he is acquitted, also at the request of the Public Prosecutor, will still be remanded in prison pending appeal to the Federal Court. Only after the Federal Court has acquitted him, will he be finally released. In practice, the entire process will take many gruelling years.
With the intention of incriminating the suspect, false evidence and false witnesses may be used against the accused as the identities of witnesses cannot be known to the accused under this new law. Appallingly, oral and written statements by a person who is dead or missing can be admitted as evidence too against the suspect!
Barisan Nasional is willing to imprison a person even after the courts have found a person innocent! Barisan Nasional has admitted abuses under its rule using the Internal Security Act (ISA). With this new security law, more abuses against freedom and human rights are expected to happen.
Barisan Nasional government has also present amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to empower the police to intercept postal articles, communications and to enter premises to install devices to intercept and to record the communication secretly. The Barisan Nasional government is bringing Malaysia back to the ‘terror’ era of the communist Soviet Union and the Communist China of the 60s and the 70s.
Ngeh Koo Ham
Member of Parliament of Beruas
Friday, June 1, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
MACC must explain
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) must explain if UMNO leaders are interfering in their investigation process or privy to their investigation. BN charging PR elected representatives to distract them from their political campaigns against BN’s misuse of power.
Two days ago, a tweet in the twitter account “Sungai Rapat” stated that YB Nga Kor Ming who is the MP of Taiping and the State Assemblyman for Pantai Remis will be charged in court soon with regard to a tailoring business in which his wife was a passive investor.（https://twitter.com/#!/sungairapat/status/184475844377444352）
The witnesses called by the DAP Disciplinary Committee include 6 Pakatan Rakyat Perak Government Executive Councillors and the Ipoh City Councillors who were in the tender committee have cleared YB Nga Kor Ming of any wrongdoings.
The twitter account “Sungai Rapat” is believed to be operated by the people engaged by current BN Perak State Government Senior Executive Councillor, Dato’ Hamidah bt. Osman as the said name refers to her state constituency.
If at all the contents of the tweet is true, I am puzzled as to how UMNO related people know of MACC’s decision while a case is still under investigation.
This matter is an issue of grave concern as MACC is clearly not independent if UMNO interferes in its investigations or is privy to the cases handled by MACC.
BN has caused many PR elected representatives to be falsely charged in court to distract them from the political campaigns against BN’s misuse of power. Among those PR elected representatives charged in court include YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Karpal Singh, YB Tian Chua, YB Tony Pua, YB Lau Weng San, YB Mahfuz Omar, YB Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad and YB Dr Hatta Ramli.
Hence, we call for MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed to clear the air to maintain MACC’s integrity in this investigation.
29 March 2012
YB Ngeh Koo Ham
Member of Parliament for Beruas
Two days ago, a tweet in the twitter account “Sungai Rapat” stated that YB Nga Kor Ming who is the MP of Taiping and the State Assemblyman for Pantai Remis will be charged in court soon with regard to a tailoring business in which his wife was a passive investor.（https://twitter.com/#!/sungairapat/status/184475844377444352）
The witnesses called by the DAP Disciplinary Committee include 6 Pakatan Rakyat Perak Government Executive Councillors and the Ipoh City Councillors who were in the tender committee have cleared YB Nga Kor Ming of any wrongdoings.
The twitter account “Sungai Rapat” is believed to be operated by the people engaged by current BN Perak State Government Senior Executive Councillor, Dato’ Hamidah bt. Osman as the said name refers to her state constituency.
If at all the contents of the tweet is true, I am puzzled as to how UMNO related people know of MACC’s decision while a case is still under investigation.
This matter is an issue of grave concern as MACC is clearly not independent if UMNO interferes in its investigations or is privy to the cases handled by MACC.
BN has caused many PR elected representatives to be falsely charged in court to distract them from the political campaigns against BN’s misuse of power. Among those PR elected representatives charged in court include YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Karpal Singh, YB Tian Chua, YB Tony Pua, YB Lau Weng San, YB Mahfuz Omar, YB Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad and YB Dr Hatta Ramli.
Hence, we call for MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed to clear the air to maintain MACC’s integrity in this investigation.
29 March 2012
YB Ngeh Koo Ham
Member of Parliament for Beruas
反贪污委员会需解释
反贪污委员会需解释可有巫统领袖干扰或超越于委员会的调查程序
国阵起诉民联民选议员图转移国阵领袖滥用权力的事实
两天前，在@Sungairapat推特里的其中一个推文里提到太平区国会议员兼班台区州议员倪可敏将在近期里，因为他太太在西装合约事件而被提控上法庭。
但是，在包括6名霹雳州民联行政议员与怡保市政府所参与的招标委员会成员所组成的行动党纪律委员会已经成功证明倪可敏在这件事上是清白无罪的。
@sungairapat推特户口（备注1）相信是由现今国阵双溪喇叭区州行政议员拿督哈米达的工作人员所管理。因为Sungai Rapat正是拿督哈米达的选区名字。
如果上述推文所说的一切属实，我很纳闷为什么巫统有关人士可以预先知道反贪污委员会还在调查中的案件结果。
这件事情是一个令人严重关切的问题。反贪会是否真的是独立操作的调查组织？巫统成员是否干涉反贪会的调查过程与结果？
国阵已经对许多民联民选领袖进行诬蔑并且把他们告上法庭，此举是为了转移民联领袖的专注力，让他们穷于应付法庭案件分散他们打击国阵滥用权力的时间。这些受害的民联领袖包括拿督斯里安华，卡巴星，蔡添强，潘俭伟，刘永山，马夫兹，祖基菲里，哈达南立等。
所以，我在此要反贪污委员会主席拿督斯里阿布卡欣澄清，证明反贪会是独立调查组织，在这案件调查中独立，让人们对于反贪会有信心。
*备注 1：@sungairapat推文网址https://twitter.com/#!/sungairapat/status/184475844377444352
国阵起诉民联民选议员图转移国阵领袖滥用权力的事实
两天前，在@Sungairapat推特里的其中一个推文里提到太平区国会议员兼班台区州议员倪可敏将在近期里，因为他太太在西装合约事件而被提控上法庭。
但是，在包括6名霹雳州民联行政议员与怡保市政府所参与的招标委员会成员所组成的行动党纪律委员会已经成功证明倪可敏在这件事上是清白无罪的。
@sungairapat推特户口（备注1）相信是由现今国阵双溪喇叭区州行政议员拿督哈米达的工作人员所管理。因为Sungai Rapat正是拿督哈米达的选区名字。
如果上述推文所说的一切属实，我很纳闷为什么巫统有关人士可以预先知道反贪污委员会还在调查中的案件结果。
这件事情是一个令人严重关切的问题。反贪会是否真的是独立操作的调查组织？巫统成员是否干涉反贪会的调查过程与结果？
国阵已经对许多民联民选领袖进行诬蔑并且把他们告上法庭，此举是为了转移民联领袖的专注力，让他们穷于应付法庭案件分散他们打击国阵滥用权力的时间。这些受害的民联领袖包括拿督斯里安华，卡巴星，蔡添强，潘俭伟，刘永山，马夫兹，祖基菲里，哈达南立等。
所以，我在此要反贪污委员会主席拿督斯里阿布卡欣澄清，证明反贪会是独立调查组织，在这案件调查中独立，让人们对于反贪会有信心。
*备注 1：@sungairapat推文网址https://twitter.com/#!/sungairapat/status/184475844377444352
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
希望拨款可以直接交给董事部全权处理
希望拨款可以直接交给董事部全权处理
(20-3-2012)
2012年才已经进入第三个月，首相拿督斯里纳吉已经来霹雳州四次，而且每次都带着一大笔拨款来宣布。这么频密造访霹雳州显示出大选已接近，首相企图制造美好感觉安抚霹雳州人民不满国阵夺权情绪，为第13届大选造势。
经过我与班台州议员倪可敏争取下，首相在出自于压力下宣布拨款200万令吉给我选区里的其中一间华校直民华校充作建新分校舍基金。这虽然是好消息，但我希望拨款可以尽快完成，因为学校被白蚁严重蛀饲，成为危楼，全校600多个师生性命受影响，所以建校计划已经到了刻不容缓的地步。
另外，我也希望政府可以直接把200万拨款一次性交给学校的董事部，让他们有足够的经费全权处理建校工作。因为这项计划在前几年政府已经拨款三万五千令吉充作建校经费，但支票因为技术问题而下落不明。去年，第二财政部长拿督阿末胡斯尼也拨款七万令吉给直民华小，但这对需要200万建新校舍的直民华小很明显是不足够的。如果不是因为我和班台州议员倪可敏到处演讲给首相施压，相信首相不会在出自于压力下拨款200万给直民华小。
同时，我也担忧这拨款足够建新校舍吗？周边学校如爱大华民德华小的董事部用110万建新校舍，爱大华卫斯里英校的董事部用130万来建新校舍，但政府负责建爱大华华小的新校舍却用了240万。而这三所三层楼的面积几乎是一样的。我相信要是政府把拨款直接交给董事部，不插手让他们来处理建校工作那经费肯定足够。要不然，到时在政府的干扰下，建筑经费可能还不足够，要向华社筹款，这叫华社情何以堪。
拿督倪可汉
木威区国会议员 兼 实兆远州议员
(20-3-2012)
2012年才已经进入第三个月，首相拿督斯里纳吉已经来霹雳州四次，而且每次都带着一大笔拨款来宣布。这么频密造访霹雳州显示出大选已接近，首相企图制造美好感觉安抚霹雳州人民不满国阵夺权情绪，为第13届大选造势。
经过我与班台州议员倪可敏争取下，首相在出自于压力下宣布拨款200万令吉给我选区里的其中一间华校直民华校充作建新分校舍基金。这虽然是好消息，但我希望拨款可以尽快完成，因为学校被白蚁严重蛀饲，成为危楼，全校600多个师生性命受影响，所以建校计划已经到了刻不容缓的地步。
另外，我也希望政府可以直接把200万拨款一次性交给学校的董事部，让他们有足够的经费全权处理建校工作。因为这项计划在前几年政府已经拨款三万五千令吉充作建校经费，但支票因为技术问题而下落不明。去年，第二财政部长拿督阿末胡斯尼也拨款七万令吉给直民华小，但这对需要200万建新校舍的直民华小很明显是不足够的。如果不是因为我和班台州议员倪可敏到处演讲给首相施压，相信首相不会在出自于压力下拨款200万给直民华小。
同时，我也担忧这拨款足够建新校舍吗？周边学校如爱大华民德华小的董事部用110万建新校舍，爱大华卫斯里英校的董事部用130万来建新校舍，但政府负责建爱大华华小的新校舍却用了240万。而这三所三层楼的面积几乎是一样的。我相信要是政府把拨款直接交给董事部，不插手让他们来处理建校工作那经费肯定足够。要不然，到时在政府的干扰下，建筑经费可能还不足够，要向华社筹款，这叫华社情何以堪。
拿督倪可汉
木威区国会议员 兼 实兆远州议员
Friday, March 16, 2012
Soalan-soalan jawapan bertulis dan lisan bagi Mesyuarat Pertama, Penggal Kelima
Soalan-Soalan Yang Memerlukan Jawapan Lisan dan Bertulis Bagi Mesyuarat Pertama, Penggal Kelima, Dewan Negeri Yang Kedua Belas Perak Darul Ridzuan mulai 3hb April, 2012.
Tarikh : 16hb Mac 2012
Daripada : YB DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM (Kawasan Sitiawan)
Soalan-Soalan yang memerlukan jawapan lisan
1. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar kenapa Kerajaan Negeri Perak BN meluluskan projek pusat penagihan bijih besi Syarikat Vale International untuk dibina di kawasan pelancongan Teluk Rubiah dan tidak di Tanjung Hantu yang dicadangkan oleh Kerajaan Negeri Perak Pakatan Rakyat.
2. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar menyatakan kenapa bayaran premium untuk tempoh pajakan 99 tahun lebih tinggi daripada tanah selama-lamanya seperti dalam kes Yeoh Woo Kiang di Kampong Jering, Ayer Tawar (Ruj Pejabat Tanah Manjung Bil(10)dlm PT MJG A2/452/08-5).
3. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar kenapa potongan premium 80% tidak diberikan kepada pemohon Lim Su choon dan Lim Su Jee (Ruj Pejabat Tanah Manjung: Bil(12)dlm PT MJG A2/20/08-3) di Changkat Keruing dan lot-lot kedai di Pasar awam, Ayer Tawar sungguhpun tanah-tanah tersebut adalah juga dalam kawasan kampung-kampung Baru.
Soalan-Soalan yang memerlukan jawapan bertulis
1. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan samada pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) telah menghubungi Kerajaan Negeri berkenaan dengan lapuran SPRM No. 50/2011 yang dibuat oleh ADUN Sitiawan untuk mendapat senarai penerima-penerima 68,503 ekar tanah yang diluluskan oleh Kerajaan Negeri dari 2009 hingga Julai 2011 dan sudahkah Kerajaan Negeri memberikan butir-butir yang diminta oleh SPRM?
2. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan berapakah jumlah keluasan tanah yang telah diluluskan oleh Kerajaan Negeri kepada Yayasan Perak untuk menjana hasil bagi sekolah-sekolah Tamil di Negeri Perak dan sudahkah tanah tersebut didaftarkan atas nama Yayasan Perak.
3. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan butir-butir 7 kes dalam Negeri Perak yang disiasat oleh Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia berkenaan dengan perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan dalam lapuran Ketua Audit Negara bagi tahun 2010.
4. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan kenapa tempat pembakaran yang tertutup (incinerator) di Pulau Pangkor sudah lama siap dibina masih belum boleh digunakan.
5. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar nyatakan jumlah wang yang telah dibayar oleh Kerajaan kepada orang-orang berikut dan senaraikan kerja-kerja yang telah dilaksanakan oleh mereka sejak perlantikan mereka.
(a) Dato’ Chan Ko Youn sebagai penasihat Menteri Besar.
(b) Dato’ S. Veerasingham sebagai penasihat Menteri Besar.
(c) Dato’ Hamdi Bin Abu Bakar sebagai pengarah penerangan Kerajaan Negeri.
Tarikh : 16hb Mac 2012
Daripada : YB DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM (Kawasan Sitiawan)
Soalan-Soalan yang memerlukan jawapan lisan
1. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar kenapa Kerajaan Negeri Perak BN meluluskan projek pusat penagihan bijih besi Syarikat Vale International untuk dibina di kawasan pelancongan Teluk Rubiah dan tidak di Tanjung Hantu yang dicadangkan oleh Kerajaan Negeri Perak Pakatan Rakyat.
2. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar menyatakan kenapa bayaran premium untuk tempoh pajakan 99 tahun lebih tinggi daripada tanah selama-lamanya seperti dalam kes Yeoh Woo Kiang di Kampong Jering, Ayer Tawar (Ruj Pejabat Tanah Manjung Bil(10)dlm PT MJG A2/452/08-5).
3. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar kenapa potongan premium 80% tidak diberikan kepada pemohon Lim Su choon dan Lim Su Jee (Ruj Pejabat Tanah Manjung: Bil(12)dlm PT MJG A2/20/08-3) di Changkat Keruing dan lot-lot kedai di Pasar awam, Ayer Tawar sungguhpun tanah-tanah tersebut adalah juga dalam kawasan kampung-kampung Baru.
Soalan-Soalan yang memerlukan jawapan bertulis
1. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan samada pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) telah menghubungi Kerajaan Negeri berkenaan dengan lapuran SPRM No. 50/2011 yang dibuat oleh ADUN Sitiawan untuk mendapat senarai penerima-penerima 68,503 ekar tanah yang diluluskan oleh Kerajaan Negeri dari 2009 hingga Julai 2011 dan sudahkah Kerajaan Negeri memberikan butir-butir yang diminta oleh SPRM?
2. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan berapakah jumlah keluasan tanah yang telah diluluskan oleh Kerajaan Negeri kepada Yayasan Perak untuk menjana hasil bagi sekolah-sekolah Tamil di Negeri Perak dan sudahkah tanah tersebut didaftarkan atas nama Yayasan Perak.
3. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan butir-butir 7 kes dalam Negeri Perak yang disiasat oleh Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia berkenaan dengan perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan dalam lapuran Ketua Audit Negara bagi tahun 2010.
4. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar untuk menyatakan kenapa tempat pembakaran yang tertutup (incinerator) di Pulau Pangkor sudah lama siap dibina masih belum boleh digunakan.
5. Bertanya kepada YAB Menteri Besar nyatakan jumlah wang yang telah dibayar oleh Kerajaan kepada orang-orang berikut dan senaraikan kerja-kerja yang telah dilaksanakan oleh mereka sejak perlantikan mereka.
(a) Dato’ Chan Ko Youn sebagai penasihat Menteri Besar.
(b) Dato’ S. Veerasingham sebagai penasihat Menteri Besar.
(c) Dato’ Hamdi Bin Abu Bakar sebagai pengarah penerangan Kerajaan Negeri.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Zambry making a cartoon (joke) out of the State of Perak
Media Statement
Najib & Zambry supported by MCA & Gerakan guilty of making a cartoon (a joke) of the State of Perak. The people of Perak suffer in consequence. Inabilility to restore the telephone lines to the State Secretariate & the Director of land and mines buildings after 3 weeks is the latest joke Zambry create out of Perak.
Fresh from the ‘success’ of spinning the ‘Black Metallic Zambry’remark, BN appointed Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Zambry bin Abdul Kadir in trying to split YB Nga Kor Ming’s one remark into 2 to try to score further political points. The remark made the YB Nga Kor Ming was ‘Hitam Metalik Zambry Menteri Besar Perak Darul Kartun’
‘Black Metallic Zambry’ was a humour adapted from the Black Metallic Camry which the BN opposed when the Perak PR government bought Black Metallic Toyota Camry cars to replace the ailing Proton Perdanas. The phrase was used because it rhymes.The skin colour of a person is never described as metallic. Zambry knew that Kor Ming was referring to the colour of the Camry car but played racial politics by twisting it to say it refers to the human skin colour. He makes a cartoon of himself when he twisted the remark to refer to darker skin people.This in the level BN appointed power crazy Menteri Besar will stoop.
Now Zambry in trying to spin and say that YB Nga Kor Ming is disrespectful of the State when he described the State as ‘Perak Darul Kartun’
Najib & Zambry supported by MCA & Gerakan are guilty of making the Perak State a cartoon (a joke) and yet Zambry is accusing others of being disrespectful of the State.
I am astonished that Zambry still did not realize that he has made the Perak State a joke due to his actions. Unfortunately, the people of Perak became victims and suffered in misery.
The following incidences have made the Perak State a joke to many people : -
(i) Democratically elected government ousted by non democratic means
(ii) Refusal of BN to respect the wishes of the people by calling a fresh election.
(iii) Not allowing the State Assembly Speaker (undisputed at that point of time) to
convence a sitting at the State Assembly Hall and he was forced to conduct the
sitting under a tree.
(iv) The State Assembly Speaker was forcibly removed from his seat in the State Assembly
and imprisoned in a room.
(v) State Budget passed within 20 minutes without debate.
(vi) Microphones of opposition elected representatives switched off so that their
speeches will not he heard and also not recorded in the Hansard.
(vii) Using the Police to invade and control the State Assembly.
(viii) Elected representatives not allowed to enter the State Assembly without permission
of the police & civil servants stationed at the locked doors of the Assembly.
(ix) Elected representatives allowed into Assembly only if issued with a pass by the
State Secretary. Even former BN Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Dato Seri Di Raja Tajol
Rosli was offended and described it as demeaning.
(x) Judges do not follow the law (precedents) when deciding on Perak crisis cases.
(xi) Laws are selectively applied (especially Article 72 of the Federal Constitution
prohibiting interference of the Judiciary in matters of the State Assembly)
(xii) A court Registar can appoint a Court of Appeal Judge to sit and stay (suspend) the
decision of the High Court judge who has declared Dato’ Sri Nizar Jamaluddin as the legitimate Menteri Besar when there were 2 other panel of 3 judges each of the Court of Appeal sitting on that day. The stay was granted within 24 hours!
(xiii) The swearing in of Zambly as Menteri Besar was obstructed and spontaneously objected to by thousand of protestors.
(xiv) BN Government refused to answer questions asked in the State Assembly without valid reason.
and the list can continue
Zambry should stop making a clown of himself and continue to make the Perak State a cartoon by continuing to spin falsehood.
Many investors have expressed their unwillingness to invest in the State of Perak until the illeginate government of Zambry is replaced. The Perakeans are unfortunately the victims who continue to suffer in consequent of Zambry continuing to make a cartoon of the Perak State.
The latest joke Zambry created out of Perak is that the telephone lines to the State Secretariate and the Director of land and mines buildings (both buildings form the seat of administration of the Government of Perak) have yet to be restored despite having been down for the last 3 weeks.
Let the people of Perak be reminded of these black days of Perak after the grab of power by BN since February 2009 and be united to oust the undemocratically installed BN government in the coming General Election.
Dated this 8th December, 2011.
NGEH KOO HAM
Chairman Of DAP Perak
State Assemly for Sitiawan & Member of Parliament for Beruas
Najib & Zambry supported by MCA & Gerakan guilty of making a cartoon (a joke) of the State of Perak. The people of Perak suffer in consequence. Inabilility to restore the telephone lines to the State Secretariate & the Director of land and mines buildings after 3 weeks is the latest joke Zambry create out of Perak.
Fresh from the ‘success’ of spinning the ‘Black Metallic Zambry’remark, BN appointed Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Zambry bin Abdul Kadir in trying to split YB Nga Kor Ming’s one remark into 2 to try to score further political points. The remark made the YB Nga Kor Ming was ‘Hitam Metalik Zambry Menteri Besar Perak Darul Kartun’
‘Black Metallic Zambry’ was a humour adapted from the Black Metallic Camry which the BN opposed when the Perak PR government bought Black Metallic Toyota Camry cars to replace the ailing Proton Perdanas. The phrase was used because it rhymes.The skin colour of a person is never described as metallic. Zambry knew that Kor Ming was referring to the colour of the Camry car but played racial politics by twisting it to say it refers to the human skin colour. He makes a cartoon of himself when he twisted the remark to refer to darker skin people.This in the level BN appointed power crazy Menteri Besar will stoop.
Now Zambry in trying to spin and say that YB Nga Kor Ming is disrespectful of the State when he described the State as ‘Perak Darul Kartun’
Najib & Zambry supported by MCA & Gerakan are guilty of making the Perak State a cartoon (a joke) and yet Zambry is accusing others of being disrespectful of the State.
I am astonished that Zambry still did not realize that he has made the Perak State a joke due to his actions. Unfortunately, the people of Perak became victims and suffered in misery.
The following incidences have made the Perak State a joke to many people : -
(i) Democratically elected government ousted by non democratic means
(ii) Refusal of BN to respect the wishes of the people by calling a fresh election.
(iii) Not allowing the State Assembly Speaker (undisputed at that point of time) to
convence a sitting at the State Assembly Hall and he was forced to conduct the
sitting under a tree.
(iv) The State Assembly Speaker was forcibly removed from his seat in the State Assembly
and imprisoned in a room.
(v) State Budget passed within 20 minutes without debate.
(vi) Microphones of opposition elected representatives switched off so that their
speeches will not he heard and also not recorded in the Hansard.
(vii) Using the Police to invade and control the State Assembly.
(viii) Elected representatives not allowed to enter the State Assembly without permission
of the police & civil servants stationed at the locked doors of the Assembly.
(ix) Elected representatives allowed into Assembly only if issued with a pass by the
State Secretary. Even former BN Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Dato Seri Di Raja Tajol
Rosli was offended and described it as demeaning.
(x) Judges do not follow the law (precedents) when deciding on Perak crisis cases.
(xi) Laws are selectively applied (especially Article 72 of the Federal Constitution
prohibiting interference of the Judiciary in matters of the State Assembly)
(xii) A court Registar can appoint a Court of Appeal Judge to sit and stay (suspend) the
decision of the High Court judge who has declared Dato’ Sri Nizar Jamaluddin as the legitimate Menteri Besar when there were 2 other panel of 3 judges each of the Court of Appeal sitting on that day. The stay was granted within 24 hours!
(xiii) The swearing in of Zambly as Menteri Besar was obstructed and spontaneously objected to by thousand of protestors.
(xiv) BN Government refused to answer questions asked in the State Assembly without valid reason.
and the list can continue
Zambry should stop making a clown of himself and continue to make the Perak State a cartoon by continuing to spin falsehood.
Many investors have expressed their unwillingness to invest in the State of Perak until the illeginate government of Zambry is replaced. The Perakeans are unfortunately the victims who continue to suffer in consequent of Zambry continuing to make a cartoon of the Perak State.
The latest joke Zambry created out of Perak is that the telephone lines to the State Secretariate and the Director of land and mines buildings (both buildings form the seat of administration of the Government of Perak) have yet to be restored despite having been down for the last 3 weeks.
Let the people of Perak be reminded of these black days of Perak after the grab of power by BN since February 2009 and be united to oust the undemocratically installed BN government in the coming General Election.
Dated this 8th December, 2011.
NGEH KOO HAM
Chairman Of DAP Perak
State Assemly for Sitiawan & Member of Parliament for Beruas
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Irregularities in the award of contracts by Rural Development Ministry costing the people at least RM500,000,000.00
Media Statement by YB Ngeh Koo Ham, Member of Parliament for Beruas in Parliament on the 10th Nov 2011:
Irregularities in the award of contracts in the Ministry of Rural Development, at least Five Hundred Million Ringgit (RM 500,000,000.00) could have been saved! MACC must conduct investigation immediately.
The Minister of Rural Development must explain the irregularities in the award of contracts in his ministry. There are reasons to suspect the existence of rampant corrupt practices. As much as RM 500,000,000.00 could have been saved had the Ministry followed the proper practice of awarding contract to the lowest qualified tenders.
I stayed up till 10.30pm in Parliament on Monday (8/11/2011) to debate and to wait for the answer from the Ministry of Rural Development with regard to the issues I had raised. I was greatly disappointed when the Deputy Minister of the Ministry refused to answer my questions.
The Rural Development Ministry is awarding 209 projects for the year 2011 and they are numbered KKLW 1/2011 – 209/2011. The Ministry has announced only the award of 129 projects. I have asked what has happened to the other 80 projects. The Deputy has refused to reply.
The projects under the ministry were given by direct negotiation, limited tender or open tender.
I have asked why projects like the Sarawak Rural Water Supply worth RM638,910,000.00 was given through direct negotiation. The Deputy has refused to give an answer. Other projects given through direct negotiation were the Sarawak Rural Water Supply recticulation system worth RM83,860,000.00 and the Sarawak Special Rural water Supply 2011/2012 project worth RM555,050,000.00
I have informed the Deputy Minister that I have received complaints that the companies that submitted the quotations for projects under limited tender category in many cases were in fact submitted by the same person using different names. The Ministry did not invite separate independent companies to bid for the job. The Deputy Minister also refused to answer whether the allegation is true. Projects No. 9–13, 23–40, 43-46, 51-56, 60, 69-75, 82-92, 100, 101, 110, 115 116, 118-124, 131, 132, 143 and 144/2011 (68 of them) were projects awarded through limited tenders.
Although open tenders were conducted for the 68 projects as listed in the schedule hereto, all were not given to the lowest priced bidder except for one. Many of them were awarded at many times more than the lowest price tendered.
The Government lost RM403,857,592.72 for its failure to give to the lowest qualified tenders. The proper way to conduct an open tender is to first determine those qualified to bid for the job. Once the qualifying criteria for the tender have been met, the contract must be awarded to the bidder who submits the lowest bid. Such a system will save the government money and be fair to all those who have make the effort to submit the tenders.
After taking into consideration, the loss the government suffered through direct negotiation and limited tender projects, I estimate the people lose at least Rm500,000,000.00 through the improper way the above said contracts were awarded.
I call on the government to award the balance projects that have yet to be given out to be done in accordance to the abovesaid accepted proper procedure of open tender system.
Unless a satisfactory answer is forth coming from the Minister, I call on the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) to immediately conduct investigation as the facts show prima facie that rampant corruption exists in the award of the above said contracts.
Ngeh Koo Ham
Schedule of 68 contracts awarded by open tender. Comparison of contract price awarded with that of the lowest bidder
No. Project No Lowest Bidder (RM) Awarded to Amount (RM) Difference (RM)
1 KKLWT1/2011 7,775,000.00 8th lowest 41,736,809.77 33,961,809.77
2 KKLWT2/2011 30,774,266.00 9th lowest 50,000,000.00 19,225,734.00
3 KKLWT3/2011 31,819,957.00 10th lowest 46,479,946.70 14,659,989.70
4 KKLWT4/2011 27,543,000.00 23rd lowest 55,864,389.65 28,321,389.65
5 KKLWT5/2011 12,461,000.00 6th lowest 45,212,680.00 32,751,680.00
6 KKLWT6/2011 9,519,000.00 14th lowest 53,303,701.79 43,784,701.79
7 KKLWT7/2011 25,175,862.90 3rd lowest 25,287,395.00 111,532.10
8 KKLWT8/2011 18,949,394.86 7th lowest 23,007,412.00 4,058,017.14
9 KKLWT14/2011 8,188,000.00 14th lowest 10,606,000.00 2,418,000.00
10 KKLWT16/2011 14,907,734.30 lowest 14,907,734.30 0.00
11 KKLWT17/2011 38,317,840.00 9th lowest 44,753,169.50 6,435,329.50
12 KKLWT19/2011 23,980,000.00 13th lowest 26,906,373.30 2,926,373.30
13 KKLWT21/2011 15,940,880.00 17th lowest 18,998,935.00 3,058,055.00
14 KKLWT22/2011 4,014,525.80 3rd lowest 4,940,029.50 925,503.70
15 KKLWT41/2011 7,903,269.00 8th lowest 10,255,000.00 2,351,731.00
16 KKLWT42/2011 12,658,519.10 17th lowest 17,066,668.00 4,408,148.90
17 KKLWT48/2011 33,200,000.00 11th lowest 44,950,336.22 11,750,336.22
18 KKLWT49/2011 19,564,411.00 10th lowest 24,791,993.20 5,227,582.20
19 KKLWT50/2011 13,632,609.50 10th lowest 16,005,736.00 2,373,126.50
20 KKLWT57/2011 4,453,561.00 4th lowest 4,695,656.00 242,095.00
21 KKLWT58/2011 3,999,000.00 6th lowest 4,280,332.00 281,332.00
22 KKLWT59/2011 1,695,423.00 7th lowest 1,778,590.00 83,167.00
23 KKLWT61/2011 3,964,450.00 6th lowest 4,382,653.00 418,203.00
24 KKLWT62/2011 2,630,000.00 6th lowest 2,920,285.00 290,285.00
25 KKLWT63/2011 5,060,000.00 12th lowest 6,188,888.00 1,128,888.00
26 KKLWT64/2011 5,043,124.00 9th lowest 7,185,650.00 2,142,526.00
27 KKLWT65/2011 5,699,000.00 10th lowest 8,050,500.00 2,351,500.00
28 KKLWT67/2011 37,189,000.00 26th lowest 81,475,281.42 44,286,281.42
29 KKLWT77/2011 21,336,333.40 9th lowest 24,896,997.98 3,560,664.58
30 KKLWT78/2011 19,000,000.00 9th lowest 22,176,223.00 3,176,223.00
31 KKLWT79/2011 21,280,142.40 9th lowest 24,297,795.30 3,017,652.90
32 KKLWT80/2011 18,221,634.00 14th lowest 35,500,000.00 17,278,366.00
33 KKLWT81/2011 20,503,925.50 10th lowest 26,640,000.00 6,136,074.50
34 KKLWT82/2011 6,045,771.00 12th lowest 11,912,202.00 5,866,431.00
35 KKLWT93/2011 741,033.20 4th lowest 1,526,400.00 785,366.80
36 KKLWT95/2011 1,391,941.00 11th lowest 1,782,367.00 390,426.00
37 KKLWT96/2011 1,657,385.00 12th lowest 15,076,251.43 13,418,866.43
38 KKLWT98/2011 7,763,788.00 8th lowest 10,422,536.00 2,658,748.00
39 KKLWT99/2011 12,500,774.00 18th lowest 20,791,446.18 8,290,672.18
40 KKLWT105/2011 8,660,014.25 7th lowest 11,369,684.00 2,709,669.75
41 KKLWT106/2011 3,000,000.00 6th lowest 3,778,933.00 778,933.00
42 KKLWT107/2011 1,100,900.00 9th lowest 1,480,000.00 379,100.00
43 KKLWT108/2011 12,348,370.00 5th lowest 16,537,921.90 4,189,551.90
44 KKLWT109/2011 15,160,246.70 2nd lowest 16,348,147.20 1,187,900.50
45 KKLWT114/2011 13,000,000.00 24th lowest 17,839,488.40 4,839,488.40
46 KKLWT125/2011 13,749,759.45 7th lowest 16,484,752.00 2,734,992.55
47 KKLWT126/2011 4,081,600.00 13th lowest 4,466,627.00 385,027.00
48 KKLWT130/2011 9,358,419.00 9th lowest 10,280,339.00 921,920.00
49 KKLWT134/2011 10,300,000.00 14th lowest 12,140,059.35 1,840,059.35
50 KKLWT135/2011 12,382,391.39 5th lowest 21,954,971.00 9,572,579.61
51 KKLWT138/2011 32,619,302.80 7th lowest 35,887,197.90 3,267,895.10
52 KKLWT139/2011 60,571,391.30 2nd lowest 64,444,000 3,872,608.70
53 KKLWT140/2011 8,361,900.10 lowest 8,361,900.10 0.00
54 KKLWT141/2011 5,570,000.00 5th lowest 5,976,000.00 406,000.00
55 KKLWT142/2011 23,089,683.00 10th lowest 27,468,000.00 4,378,317.00
56 KKLWT145/2011 9,008,104.00 12th lowest 10,237,377.00 1,229,273.00
57 KKLWT146/2011 43,444,000.00 3rd lowest 47,588,012.70 4,144,012.70
58 KKLWT148/2011 17,614,726.10 3rd lowest 18,888,000.00 1,273,273.90
59 KKLWT149/2011 25,587,256.50 12th lowest 27,977,000.00 2,389,743.50
60 KKLWT151/2011 11,818,121.42 5th lowest 13,862,680.00 2,044,558.58
61 KKLWT152/2011 9,144,200.00 7th lowest 9,730,267.00 586,067.00
62 KKLWT153/2011 10,389,789.00 2nd lowest 10,680,000.00 290,211.00
63 KKLWT154/2011 15,460,000.00 16th lowest 23,495,935.00 8,035,935.00
64 KKLWT157/2011 18,811,011.00 10th lowest 23,888,888.00 5,077,877.00
65 KKLWT163/2011 1,193,316.80 4th lowest 1,373,282.20 179,965.40
66 KKLWT178/2011 5,039,694.60 5th lowest 6,150,279.00 1,110,584.40
67 KKLWT179/2011 5,648,991.90 4th lowest 6,975,249.00 1,326,257.10
68 KKLWT183/2011 1,846,160.00 4th lowest 1,999,142.00 152,982.00
Total wastage: 403,857,592.72
Irregularities in the award of contracts in the Ministry of Rural Development, at least Five Hundred Million Ringgit (RM 500,000,000.00) could have been saved! MACC must conduct investigation immediately.
The Minister of Rural Development must explain the irregularities in the award of contracts in his ministry. There are reasons to suspect the existence of rampant corrupt practices. As much as RM 500,000,000.00 could have been saved had the Ministry followed the proper practice of awarding contract to the lowest qualified tenders.
I stayed up till 10.30pm in Parliament on Monday (8/11/2011) to debate and to wait for the answer from the Ministry of Rural Development with regard to the issues I had raised. I was greatly disappointed when the Deputy Minister of the Ministry refused to answer my questions.
The Rural Development Ministry is awarding 209 projects for the year 2011 and they are numbered KKLW 1/2011 – 209/2011. The Ministry has announced only the award of 129 projects. I have asked what has happened to the other 80 projects. The Deputy has refused to reply.
The projects under the ministry were given by direct negotiation, limited tender or open tender.
I have asked why projects like the Sarawak Rural Water Supply worth RM638,910,000.00 was given through direct negotiation. The Deputy has refused to give an answer. Other projects given through direct negotiation were the Sarawak Rural Water Supply recticulation system worth RM83,860,000.00 and the Sarawak Special Rural water Supply 2011/2012 project worth RM555,050,000.00
I have informed the Deputy Minister that I have received complaints that the companies that submitted the quotations for projects under limited tender category in many cases were in fact submitted by the same person using different names. The Ministry did not invite separate independent companies to bid for the job. The Deputy Minister also refused to answer whether the allegation is true. Projects No. 9–13, 23–40, 43-46, 51-56, 60, 69-75, 82-92, 100, 101, 110, 115 116, 118-124, 131, 132, 143 and 144/2011 (68 of them) were projects awarded through limited tenders.
Although open tenders were conducted for the 68 projects as listed in the schedule hereto, all were not given to the lowest priced bidder except for one. Many of them were awarded at many times more than the lowest price tendered.
The Government lost RM403,857,592.72 for its failure to give to the lowest qualified tenders. The proper way to conduct an open tender is to first determine those qualified to bid for the job. Once the qualifying criteria for the tender have been met, the contract must be awarded to the bidder who submits the lowest bid. Such a system will save the government money and be fair to all those who have make the effort to submit the tenders.
After taking into consideration, the loss the government suffered through direct negotiation and limited tender projects, I estimate the people lose at least Rm500,000,000.00 through the improper way the above said contracts were awarded.
I call on the government to award the balance projects that have yet to be given out to be done in accordance to the abovesaid accepted proper procedure of open tender system.
Unless a satisfactory answer is forth coming from the Minister, I call on the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) to immediately conduct investigation as the facts show prima facie that rampant corruption exists in the award of the above said contracts.
Ngeh Koo Ham
Schedule of 68 contracts awarded by open tender. Comparison of contract price awarded with that of the lowest bidder
No. Project No Lowest Bidder (RM) Awarded to Amount (RM) Difference (RM)
1 KKLWT1/2011 7,775,000.00 8th lowest 41,736,809.77 33,961,809.77
2 KKLWT2/2011 30,774,266.00 9th lowest 50,000,000.00 19,225,734.00
3 KKLWT3/2011 31,819,957.00 10th lowest 46,479,946.70 14,659,989.70
4 KKLWT4/2011 27,543,000.00 23rd lowest 55,864,389.65 28,321,389.65
5 KKLWT5/2011 12,461,000.00 6th lowest 45,212,680.00 32,751,680.00
6 KKLWT6/2011 9,519,000.00 14th lowest 53,303,701.79 43,784,701.79
7 KKLWT7/2011 25,175,862.90 3rd lowest 25,287,395.00 111,532.10
8 KKLWT8/2011 18,949,394.86 7th lowest 23,007,412.00 4,058,017.14
9 KKLWT14/2011 8,188,000.00 14th lowest 10,606,000.00 2,418,000.00
10 KKLWT16/2011 14,907,734.30 lowest 14,907,734.30 0.00
11 KKLWT17/2011 38,317,840.00 9th lowest 44,753,169.50 6,435,329.50
12 KKLWT19/2011 23,980,000.00 13th lowest 26,906,373.30 2,926,373.30
13 KKLWT21/2011 15,940,880.00 17th lowest 18,998,935.00 3,058,055.00
14 KKLWT22/2011 4,014,525.80 3rd lowest 4,940,029.50 925,503.70
15 KKLWT41/2011 7,903,269.00 8th lowest 10,255,000.00 2,351,731.00
16 KKLWT42/2011 12,658,519.10 17th lowest 17,066,668.00 4,408,148.90
17 KKLWT48/2011 33,200,000.00 11th lowest 44,950,336.22 11,750,336.22
18 KKLWT49/2011 19,564,411.00 10th lowest 24,791,993.20 5,227,582.20
19 KKLWT50/2011 13,632,609.50 10th lowest 16,005,736.00 2,373,126.50
20 KKLWT57/2011 4,453,561.00 4th lowest 4,695,656.00 242,095.00
21 KKLWT58/2011 3,999,000.00 6th lowest 4,280,332.00 281,332.00
22 KKLWT59/2011 1,695,423.00 7th lowest 1,778,590.00 83,167.00
23 KKLWT61/2011 3,964,450.00 6th lowest 4,382,653.00 418,203.00
24 KKLWT62/2011 2,630,000.00 6th lowest 2,920,285.00 290,285.00
25 KKLWT63/2011 5,060,000.00 12th lowest 6,188,888.00 1,128,888.00
26 KKLWT64/2011 5,043,124.00 9th lowest 7,185,650.00 2,142,526.00
27 KKLWT65/2011 5,699,000.00 10th lowest 8,050,500.00 2,351,500.00
28 KKLWT67/2011 37,189,000.00 26th lowest 81,475,281.42 44,286,281.42
29 KKLWT77/2011 21,336,333.40 9th lowest 24,896,997.98 3,560,664.58
30 KKLWT78/2011 19,000,000.00 9th lowest 22,176,223.00 3,176,223.00
31 KKLWT79/2011 21,280,142.40 9th lowest 24,297,795.30 3,017,652.90
32 KKLWT80/2011 18,221,634.00 14th lowest 35,500,000.00 17,278,366.00
33 KKLWT81/2011 20,503,925.50 10th lowest 26,640,000.00 6,136,074.50
34 KKLWT82/2011 6,045,771.00 12th lowest 11,912,202.00 5,866,431.00
35 KKLWT93/2011 741,033.20 4th lowest 1,526,400.00 785,366.80
36 KKLWT95/2011 1,391,941.00 11th lowest 1,782,367.00 390,426.00
37 KKLWT96/2011 1,657,385.00 12th lowest 15,076,251.43 13,418,866.43
38 KKLWT98/2011 7,763,788.00 8th lowest 10,422,536.00 2,658,748.00
39 KKLWT99/2011 12,500,774.00 18th lowest 20,791,446.18 8,290,672.18
40 KKLWT105/2011 8,660,014.25 7th lowest 11,369,684.00 2,709,669.75
41 KKLWT106/2011 3,000,000.00 6th lowest 3,778,933.00 778,933.00
42 KKLWT107/2011 1,100,900.00 9th lowest 1,480,000.00 379,100.00
43 KKLWT108/2011 12,348,370.00 5th lowest 16,537,921.90 4,189,551.90
44 KKLWT109/2011 15,160,246.70 2nd lowest 16,348,147.20 1,187,900.50
45 KKLWT114/2011 13,000,000.00 24th lowest 17,839,488.40 4,839,488.40
46 KKLWT125/2011 13,749,759.45 7th lowest 16,484,752.00 2,734,992.55
47 KKLWT126/2011 4,081,600.00 13th lowest 4,466,627.00 385,027.00
48 KKLWT130/2011 9,358,419.00 9th lowest 10,280,339.00 921,920.00
49 KKLWT134/2011 10,300,000.00 14th lowest 12,140,059.35 1,840,059.35
50 KKLWT135/2011 12,382,391.39 5th lowest 21,954,971.00 9,572,579.61
51 KKLWT138/2011 32,619,302.80 7th lowest 35,887,197.90 3,267,895.10
52 KKLWT139/2011 60,571,391.30 2nd lowest 64,444,000 3,872,608.70
53 KKLWT140/2011 8,361,900.10 lowest 8,361,900.10 0.00
54 KKLWT141/2011 5,570,000.00 5th lowest 5,976,000.00 406,000.00
55 KKLWT142/2011 23,089,683.00 10th lowest 27,468,000.00 4,378,317.00
56 KKLWT145/2011 9,008,104.00 12th lowest 10,237,377.00 1,229,273.00
57 KKLWT146/2011 43,444,000.00 3rd lowest 47,588,012.70 4,144,012.70
58 KKLWT148/2011 17,614,726.10 3rd lowest 18,888,000.00 1,273,273.90
59 KKLWT149/2011 25,587,256.50 12th lowest 27,977,000.00 2,389,743.50
60 KKLWT151/2011 11,818,121.42 5th lowest 13,862,680.00 2,044,558.58
61 KKLWT152/2011 9,144,200.00 7th lowest 9,730,267.00 586,067.00
62 KKLWT153/2011 10,389,789.00 2nd lowest 10,680,000.00 290,211.00
63 KKLWT154/2011 15,460,000.00 16th lowest 23,495,935.00 8,035,935.00
64 KKLWT157/2011 18,811,011.00 10th lowest 23,888,888.00 5,077,877.00
65 KKLWT163/2011 1,193,316.80 4th lowest 1,373,282.20 179,965.40
66 KKLWT178/2011 5,039,694.60 5th lowest 6,150,279.00 1,110,584.40
67 KKLWT179/2011 5,648,991.90 4th lowest 6,975,249.00 1,326,257.10
68 KKLWT183/2011 1,846,160.00 4th lowest 1,999,142.00 152,982.00
Total wastage: 403,857,592.72
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)