Saturday 24 July 2010

Khairy Jamaluddin : Gelagat Kerajaan Negeri Pakatan Rakyat.

Mutakhir ini kita dikejutkan dengan beberapa insiden dan isu yang mempamerkan betapa Kerajaan Negeri di bawah Pakatan Rakyat antara tidak telus dan tidak kompeten melaksanakan tanggungjawab mentadbir negeri.

Ketua Pemuda UMNO Malaysia, Khairy Jamaluddin berkata, di Selangor, kepimpinan YAB Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim sudah lama dipersoalkan, termasuk oleh pemimpin tertinggi Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) sendiri. Skandal perlombongan pasir haram yang melanda kepimpinan Tan Sri Khalid menjadi episod terbaru dalam siri insiden pentadbiran longgar Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor.

Apa yang menimbulkan kekesalan di kalangan rakyat bukan sekadar kejadian perlombongan pasir haram yang merugikan rakyat serta mengancam alam sekitar, malah juga respon dari Kerajaan Negeri yang seakan berada dalam sindrom penafian. Daripada kenyataan beliau, Tan Sri Khalid seperti tidak tahu menahu mengenai apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.

Contohnya, laporan media pada 12 Julai yang mendedahkan aktiviti perlombongan pasir haram di Kampung Bukit Changgang dinafikan langsung oleh Tan Sri Khalid. Beliau tanpa ragu-ragu mengatakan bahawa gambar-gambar dalam akhbar harian sebenarnya menunjukkan aktiviti perlombongan di Kampung Olak Lempit, sungguhpun 30 wartawan akhbar telah pergi ke lokasi perlombongan haram itu sendiri. Kemudian kita dimaklumkan bahawa sebenarnya memang wujud aktiviti perlombongan yang dibenarkan Kerajaan Negeri di Kampung Bukit Changgang Persoalannya, apakah kualiti kepimpinan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor sedangkan Menteri Besarnya sendiri seperti keliru lokasi sebenar aktiviti perlombongan di negeri sendiri?

Tidak cukup dengan itu, pada 17 Julai, Tan Sri Khalid tanpa segan silumenafikan sebarang pengetahuan wujudnya kontraktor-kontraktor kecil yang menjadi "orang tengah" dalam kegiatan perlombongan pasir di Selangor. Menjadi satu kekhuatiran yang cukup besar bagi rakyat sekiranya fenomena asas seperti kewujudan kontraktor kecil pun tidak diketahui seorang Menteri Besar. Bayangkan sahaja, apakah lagi yang sedang berlaku tanpa pengetahuan Menteri Besar Selangor?

Barangkali sebab ketidakmampuan pentadiran Kerajaan Negeri, mereka telah memohon bantuan Kerajaan Pusat untuk menyelesaikan masalah pasir ini. Anehnya, dalam isu pembinaan loji rawatan air pula, Kerajaan Negeri enggan bekerjasama dengan Kerajaan Pusat sungguhpun krisis bekalan air di Selangor agak genting sehingga mampu menyebabkan pencaturan air pada tahun 2014. Di manakah keikhlasan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor sekiranya perkara yang membabitkan kepentingan langsung rakyat seperti bekalan air pun cuba dipolitikkan?

Kalau Menteri Besar Selangor dengan gelagatnya yang tidak kompeten dan tidak tahu apa yang berlaku di negeri sendiri, Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang pula mempamerkan sikap seorang yang tidak layak digelar pemimpin, jauh lagi seorang negarawan. YAB Lim Guan Eng menyerang habis-habisan Nik Ali Mat Yunus, seorang Pegawai Kemajuan Negeri (SDO) gara-gara beberapa isu termasuklah kes kecurian pasir di tapak cadangan membina politeknik di Balik Pulau atas tanah milik Kerajaan Pusat, sungguhpun aspek pemantuan adalah di bawah bidangkuasa agensi Kerajaan Negeri. Apapun isu yang menimbulkan konflik antara Lim Guan Eng dan Nik Ali, seorang Ketua Menteri tidak wajar menyerang keperibadian seorang penjawat awam dengan menggunakan ungkapan seperti "tidak berguna", "lidah biawak" dan "pengecut".

Apakah jenis pemimpin sekiranya seorang SDO pun habis dimaki? Lim Guan Eng sepatutnya memfokuskan masa dan usaha kepada isu-isu lain yang membabitkan kepentingan rakyat Pulau Pinang, bukannya menyerang keperibadian kakitangan awam. Kenyataan-kenyataan Lim Guan Eng menggambarkan seorang manusia yang cepat melatah dan mudah membenci. Beliau juga perlu akur bahawa kakitangan awam merupakan nadi pentadbiran sesebuah Kerajaan, dan mereka tidak wajar dipandang serong oleh ahli politik seperti Lim Guan Eng yang menggambarkan mereka ini seolah-olah mendapat bayaran lumayan tetapi tidak mendatangkan apa-apa kebaikan untuk rakyat.

Semua perkembangan ini menggambarkan Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat yang tidak kompeten dalam melaksanakan amanah selaku pemimpin. Sikap bongkak, kabur fakta, malahan biadap yang dipamerkan sudah cukup menimbulkan tanda tanya sejauh mana kemampuan pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat. Jika setakat memimpin beberapa buah negeri pun sudah menimbulkan pelbagai masalah, kita wajar mempersoalkan kesediaan mereka untuk memegang tampuk kepimpinan pusat.

Isu Air Selangor: Penduduk Lembah Klang, protes kerajaan negeri Selangor PR yang telah menipu hak mereka!


Hanya sekadar gambar hiasan

Oleh: Bro Jinggo

Kerajaan Selangor telah berjanji untuk memberikan sebanyak 20 liter padu air percuma pada semua isi rumah Selangor pada Pilihanraya yang lepas. Janji ini telah terlaksana namun dasar yang dirancangkan tidak diikuti dengan perlaksanaan yang baik. Rumah-rumah pangsapuri dan flat menggunakan sistem meter pukal, yang mana satu bangunan yang mempunyai isi rumah yang ramai berkongsi satu meter. Oleh kerana dalam penggubalan dasar oleh kerajaan selangor yang mana air percuma diberikan berdasarkan meter, rumah pangsapuri yang mempunyai 100 keluarga mendapat jumlah air percuma sama banyak dengan satu rumah teres satu keluarga kerana mempunyai satu meter. Ini merupakan satu ketidak adilan bagi mereka kerana mereka juga berhak mendapat janji kerajaan selangor.

Masalah

Masalah dengan mudah boleh selesai sekiranya Kerajaan Selangor memberikan subsidi berdasarkan isi rumah dan isu penukaran kepada meter individu sepatutnya tidak timbul. Ini kerana pegawai daerah dan syabas sendiri boleh memberikan bil kepada Kerajaan Selangor berdasarkan jumlah isi rumah. Sebagai contoh, satu pangsapuri 50 rumah, akan diberikan air percuma atau pelepasan bil sebanyak 20 Meter x 50 isi rumah, selebihnya barulah dimasukkan ke dalam bil. Disyaki kerajaan selangor ralat hendak bebuat begini untuk tidak menambahkan bebadan membayar subsidi air.

Langkah Kerajaan Negeri tidak Berkesan

Kerajaan negeri memperkenalkan sistem kupon yang mana setiap isi rumah pangsapuri akan mendapat kupon sebagai bauchar (voucher) ketika membayar bil air. Akan seperti biasa masaalah timbul pada perlaksanaan. Sebagai contoh ambil petikan dari ADUN Bukit Antarabangsa dan Ahli Parlimen Gombak saudara Azmin Ali .

1. Kerajaan Negeri telah memulakan langkah yang lebih proaktif dengan mengeluarkan kupon untuk mendapatkan air percuma bagi penduduk-penduduk rumah pangsa kos rendah. Saya berharap program ini akan meliputi semua rumah pangsa dalam Negeri Selangor tanpa perlu menunggu pilot project.

2. Dalam sesi yang lepas, Dewan telah pun meluluskan perbekalan tambahan untuk tujuan yang sama berjumlah RM 69 juta dengan harapan masalah air ini boleh diselesaikan sebelum bulan September 2010. Namun, hari ini Dewan pohon lagi peruntukan tambahan bagi meneruskan program untuk kesejahteraan rakyat Negeri Selangor.

Perbahasan Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor 12 Julai 2010 YB AZMIN ALI

Masaalah yang timbul di sini ialah pembahagian Voucer masih lagi tidak diedarkan secara keseluruhan dan lambat menyebabkan kemarahan rakyat.

Kebanyakan penduduk Flat dan pangsapuri adalah mereka yang terdiri dari golongan berpendapatan rendah jadi mereka inilah yang paling memerlukan subsidi air. Bukan sahaja subsidi mereka ditipu bebadan ditambah kepada mereka apabila kerajaan selangor meningkatkan kadar sewa rumah PPR sebanyak 100%, ini bererti air diberikan kepada orang berada, duit diambil dari orang miskin

KUANTAN, 4 Dis (Bernama) -- Tindakan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor menaikkan kadar sewa rumah Projek Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) daripada RM124 kepada RM250 sebulan tidak wajar, kata Timbalan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin.

Walaupun kerajaan memberi kuasa kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan (PBT) untuk menguruskan hal berkaitan rumah PPR namun ini tidak bererti pihak terbabit boleh menaikkan kadar sewa rumah tanpa memikirkan kebajikan rakyat.

http://kpdnkk.bernama.com/newsBm.php?id=376423&


Tuntutan

Kami telah mendapat maklumam bahawa beberapa kain rentang yang menghentam kerajaan selangor mengenai isu ini telah muncul di kawasan perumahan pangsapuri PARLIMEN GOMBAK dan HULU KELANG kami percaya ini adalah luahan hati penduduk di kawasan berkenaan atas kegagalan kerajaan negeri Selangor yang diterajui PR telah menipu hak mereka. Walaupun kain rentang ini muncul kurang 2 minggu dari kenyataan YB Azmin Ali di DUN Selangor serta menimbulkan pelbagai cerita di belakang tabir kami menganggap bahawa apa sekalipun rakyat tetap berhak mendapat manafaat ini dan kami menyokong pihak yang menjalankan protes kain rentang berkenaan demi kebaikan rakyat selangor sejagat.


Berita terdahulu:
http://www.mmail.com.my: Mystery banners stump state govt

Penduduk Lembah Klang PROTES kepimpinan Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor!!

Source - brojinggo.blogspot.com

Thursday 22 July 2010

Khairy Jamaluddin : New ways needed to create a strong BCIC

By: Khairy Jamaluddin

(this post appears as a column in the latest edition of The Edge)

In case you missed it, I have been embroiled in a war of words with the Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas, Datuk Ibrahim Ali, lately. What began with my criticism of his unfounded attack on my MCA counterpart's remarks about government scholarships quickly descended into an admittedly juvenile rally of name-calling and petty insults.

But sometimes, in politics, a brusque and unrefined approach is a necessity, especially when dealing with individuals who embody the uncouth and only understand the language of confrontation. But beyond the derogatory labels we gave one another, my spat with Ibrahim goes to the core of the modern Malay dilemma that is at the epicentre of our nation's survival.

As far as the future of the Malay economy is concerned, Ibrahim represents the orthodox school, while I bat for the reformists. In a nutshell, he believes that there should be more of the same old affirmative action and I want radical changes to policy instruments that have in part failed in their objective of creating a competitive bumiputera commercial and industrial community (BCIC). He has also gone about his business in a rather nasty manner with rhetoric that, to me, falls foul of the inclusiveness inherent in 1Malaysia. Predictably, however, for emotional and political reasons, many have jumped on his orthodox bandwagon that will only perpetuate the Malay siege mentality characterised by mediocrity and dependency.

Let me say this clearly; fundamentally, I do not have an issue with the objectives of Ibrahim and his associates. I too want to see an economically developed bumiputera community. They are correct in frequently quoting the Yale law professor Amy Chua, who has written about the politically and socially destabilising effects of economies that have market dominant minorities. I also want to see a reduction in income disparity, especially across ethnic lines since racial identity markers result in potentially combustible groupthink.

But our paths diverge on how we go about achieving these aims. I have examined in some detail the resolutions adopted by both Perkasa and the Majlis Perundingan Melayu (MPM), which are both led by Ibrahim. These are well-meaning if somewhat misguided documents that attempt to defend the Malay community from the New Economic Model that they perceive relies too much on the market and therefore will eventually result in Malays falling further behind economically. Among the specific measures the resolutions demand are for the nation’s wealth to be divided according to demographic representation, the continuation of ethnic quotas in strategic sectors and that the government not abolish quotas for open approved permits (APs) for used cars given to bumiputera companies.

The entire tenor of the resolutions is very much an extension of what there already is – quotas, government intervention and enforcing the bumiputera agenda across the entire economy. On the plus side, the resolutions recognise a wider benchmark for bumiputera economic success that goes beyond corporate equity ownership (the sacred 30% target of the New Economic Policy) and includes income, real estate and intellectual property.

Notwithstanding, the more all-encompassing view of economic advancement, the resolutions do not examine the fundamental flaws inherent in the existing affirmative action programme. They call for an intensification of same old policy instruments that are no longer, and probably never really were, effective. For instance, the resolutions speak of the need to continue the strategy of growth and distribution – in simple terms, enlarging the cake and giving more of the extra bits to the bumiputera community.

They fail to acknowledge the fact that the period during which growth was at its highest also saw a stagnation in bumiputera corporate equity and a deterioration of inter-ethnic income. From 1990 to 1999, despite high growth rates for most of that decade, bumiputera corporate ownership fell from 19.3% to 19.1%. In terms of inter-ethnic income inequality, between 1987 and 1997, when growth rates were at 10.1%, the ratio of average Chinese to bumiputera household income went up to 1.83 from 1.65 in 1987. This in itself illustrates that the existing policy instruments did not work as they should have, otherwise we would have hit the magical 30% corporate equity target and seen greater income parity long ago.

The only thing that I agree with the orthodox school is that you need growth to redistribute wealth and opportunities. Otherwise you would be robbing Ah Chong to pay Ali, which is clearly not what anyone wants. But how do you possibly get an economy to grow when you have already pre-determined a distributive outcome the way Ibrahim’s resolutions do? How can we promote economic growth and attract investments when a stated aim of the orthodox school’s resolutions is to divide the country’s wealth into two – 67% for the bumiputera community and 33% for the non-bumiputeras. The last economic system that tried to determine distributive outcome in such a manner ended with the demolition of the Berlin Wall, notwithstanding a couple of holdouts, that surely we don’t want to model ourselves after.

I fail to see how an economy with a fixed distributive outcome based on ethnicity can be competitive and drive growth, something which everyone has agreed is needed for redistribution. So the orthodox school immediately gets itself caught in an economic paradox with no chicken let alone an egg. If they have accepted that there must be growth before we can improve income inequality between ethnic groups, they must also accept that any suggestion that will prevent such growth from taking place is a non-starter.

Moving on from this brief critique of the orthodox position, it is important for the reformist approach to explain what changes in policy instruments are needed to achieve both aims of growth and redistributive justice. Let’s take the most obvious failure – corporate equity ownership. Under the original affirmative action programme, corporate equity was seen as an important measure of economic advancement. It roughly translated into a desire to see the BCIC own a sizable portion of the private sector, which would then translate itself to greater income and job creation for other bumiputeras. It also presented itself as a chance for ordinary bumiputera individuals with low incomes to own part of the nation’s private sector through trust funds like the various Amanah Saham schemes. The trust fund managers would pool money and use it to buy controlling stakes in big companies and in turn nurture bumiputera management to run these corporations.

To be sure, not all of this has been a failure. In fact, the emergence of many qualified and highly competitive bumiputera professionals is the direct result of this approach. Also many ordinary bumiputera (and later non-bumiputera) investors have received steady returns from their various Amanah Saham investment schemes.

However, the big issue here is whether or not a genuine BCIC has been created through the transfer of equity ownership. It is well known that the policy instrument of choice for this were special bumiputera share allocation schemes popularly referred to as pink forms. And it is equally well known that many recipients of the discounted shares had no intention of hanging onto their corporate ownership and expanding their investment organically. Rather, they flipped their stocks at the first available moment – usually after having secured some back-to-back arrangement with a non-bumiputera partner.

It wasn’t clear how rampant this practice was and how large the “leakage” it caused until Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak himself stated recently that out of RM54 billion worth of shares allocated to bumiputera investors, only RM2 billion remains in their hands. That is a clear indictment that this policy instrument needs to be consigned to the policy trash can of history.

So what takes its place? What can help create a strong and competitive BCIC and yet adhere to the tenets of being market-friendly, transparent and merit-based? Well, an innovation in this regard would be something like private equity fund Ekuiti Nasional Bhd and similar investment agencies. Their brief is not to create new shares for bumiputera investors just so that there can be nominal corporate ownership but rather to invest in bumiputera companies that require capital to take their businesses to the next level. They may be looking to list or are already publicly traded, like Tanjong Offshore Bhd. In short, this policy instrument assists those who deserve help based on potential, ability and merit.

There are many other examples which I will highlight in my next column on proposed and also fresh policy instruments which can do what Ibrahim and his friends want – which is to see an economically competitive BCIC – without scaring anyone off and dragging the nation’s economy down with a pre-determined distributive outcome.

I want to end this column by recommending a book to Ibrahim. Since he is so fond of quoting from Amy Chua’s World on Fire, I suggest he expand his literary horizon ever so slightly by reading her other book, Day of Empire. In that publication, Chua charts the rise and fall of dominant powers throughout history, from imperial Rome, the Mongol and British empires to present-day America.

The common traits she identifies as key to the initial success of these powers are tolerance, inclusiveness and embracing differences of ethnic and cultural origin in these empires. While some of these differences were exploited, Chua concludes that these civilisations flourished because they were able to get the best out of all their diverse subjects in a tolerant environment. Chua goes on to say that these powers collapsed because of intolerance and an insistence on racial superiority or purity. I think even Ibrahim can draw the obvious conclusion from this.

Wednesday 21 July 2010

PKR dedah niat pemimpin keluar parti!!!


Ada sebilangan pemimpin PKR di Kedah yang menunggu kesempatan untuk keluar parti...