To all friends and readers,
Wishing you a HAPPY NEW YEAR and may you have a prosperous year in 2010.
Best Regards,
Tan Keng Liang
31 December, 2009
29 December, 2009
GOVERNMENT NEED TO RESTUDY THE ROLE & DUTIES OF AUDITOR GENERAL AFTER UNREPORTED MISSING JET ENGINES INCIDENT
I refer to my recent statement requesting the Auditor General to explain why the irregularities involving the two (2) missing jet engines were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report in year 2007 or even 2008, notwithstanding a police report was alleged being lodged.
It was recently reported that Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the Auditor General replied that the National Audit Department had yet to receive a report about the engine. He was further reported as saying that:-
1. in a case of theft of government assets, a police report must be made and a copy of the police report must be lodged with the National Audit Department.
2. the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so. An audit is done on a particular case if there is a specific need for it.
Firstly, it should be the responsibility of the National Audit Department to ascertain whether there is any police report filed for any theft of government assets. The National Audit Department cannot just rely on the ministries to forward such police reports to them. There must proactive steps taken by the National Audit Department, such as requiring an annual statutory declaration by the respective ministries that there is no police reports filed for any theft or misappropriation of government assets.
Secondly, the reported statement that the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
Under Section 5(1) of the Audit Act 1957, the Auditor General shall in such manner as he may deem fit examine, enquire into and audit the accounts of accounting officers of the Federation.
Under Section 9(1) of the Audit Act, the Minister shall, as soon as a statement required under section 16 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 (which includes statement of the assets and liabilities of the Federation, including the manner in which the assets are held), has been prepared, transmit the statement to the Auditor General who shall forthwith cause the statement to be examined and audited and prepare his report thereon.
Section 9 (2) of the Audit Act further states that in the event of any such statement not being received within a period of (7) seven months after the close of the financial year to which it relates, the Auditor General shall submit a report to that effect to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who shall cause it to be laid before the Dewan Rakyat at its next meeting.
Based on the aforesaid, the Auditor General should have alerted the Parliament in accordance to Section 9(2) of the Audit Act in the event the Ministry of Defence had excluded the assets or inventory list of the Royal Malaysia Air Force (RMAF).
Further to that, the assets of the RMAF are certainly part of the assets of our country.
Thus, the Auditor General should have audited the RMAF’s inventories or demand a copy of the RMAF’s inventory list (if it was not given to them) whether or not there is a report requiring it to do so or just for any specific reason.
If there is no requirement for the Auditor General to automatically audit the assets of the RMAF or any other departments of various ministries in our country, then I believe the purpose of establishing the Auditor General under Article 105 of the Federal Constitution is defeated.
It is now important for the Auditor General to explain and confirm whether the National Audit Department had complied with their duties under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.
The non-reporting of the incident surrounding the missing RMAF jet engines in any of the Auditor General’s Annual Report, including the unsatisfactory reply from the Auditor General may need the government to seriously restudy the role and duties of the Auditor General under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.
It was recently reported that Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the Auditor General replied that the National Audit Department had yet to receive a report about the engine. He was further reported as saying that:-
1. in a case of theft of government assets, a police report must be made and a copy of the police report must be lodged with the National Audit Department.
2. the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so. An audit is done on a particular case if there is a specific need for it.
Firstly, it should be the responsibility of the National Audit Department to ascertain whether there is any police report filed for any theft of government assets. The National Audit Department cannot just rely on the ministries to forward such police reports to them. There must proactive steps taken by the National Audit Department, such as requiring an annual statutory declaration by the respective ministries that there is no police reports filed for any theft or misappropriation of government assets.
Secondly, the reported statement that the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
Under Section 5(1) of the Audit Act 1957, the Auditor General shall in such manner as he may deem fit examine, enquire into and audit the accounts of accounting officers of the Federation.
Under Section 9(1) of the Audit Act, the Minister shall, as soon as a statement required under section 16 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 (which includes statement of the assets and liabilities of the Federation, including the manner in which the assets are held), has been prepared, transmit the statement to the Auditor General who shall forthwith cause the statement to be examined and audited and prepare his report thereon.
Section 9 (2) of the Audit Act further states that in the event of any such statement not being received within a period of (7) seven months after the close of the financial year to which it relates, the Auditor General shall submit a report to that effect to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who shall cause it to be laid before the Dewan Rakyat at its next meeting.
Based on the aforesaid, the Auditor General should have alerted the Parliament in accordance to Section 9(2) of the Audit Act in the event the Ministry of Defence had excluded the assets or inventory list of the Royal Malaysia Air Force (RMAF).
Further to that, the assets of the RMAF are certainly part of the assets of our country.
Thus, the Auditor General should have audited the RMAF’s inventories or demand a copy of the RMAF’s inventory list (if it was not given to them) whether or not there is a report requiring it to do so or just for any specific reason.
If there is no requirement for the Auditor General to automatically audit the assets of the RMAF or any other departments of various ministries in our country, then I believe the purpose of establishing the Auditor General under Article 105 of the Federal Constitution is defeated.
It is now important for the Auditor General to explain and confirm whether the National Audit Department had complied with their duties under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.
The non-reporting of the incident surrounding the missing RMAF jet engines in any of the Auditor General’s Annual Report, including the unsatisfactory reply from the Auditor General may need the government to seriously restudy the role and duties of the Auditor General under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.
23 December, 2009
AUDITOR GENERAL MUST EXPLAIN WHY 2 MISSING JET ENGINE INCIDENT NOT IN ANNUAL REPORT
I refer to the recent controversy involving the theft of two (2) Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fighter jet engines, which costs approximately RM50 million each if they were new.
The said theft of the RMAF fighter jet engines was alleged to have been committed somewhere in the year 2007.
Besides the said RMAF fighter jet engines, the Ministry of Defence was also reported yesterday as stating that there may be other related equipments missing.
To date, the Ministry of Defence and our Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak had pledged that full investigation would be conducted on that matter and the appropriate legal action would be taken against the perpetrators, who were labeled as traitors to our country.
No doubt, the theft of national defence assets, irrespective of its value, amounts to an act of treason. These national defence assets are purchased to defend our country and financed by the people’s money.
However, it is suprising as to why the disappearance and theft of such large national defence assets were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report for the year 2007 or even 2008. This incident had occurred in the year 2007 and the Ministry of Defence had also filed a police report on that matter in the same year, which would have alerted any auditing of the ministry’s assets.
Under Section 6(ba) of the Audit Act 1957, the nature of audit of the Auditor General includes examining whether due care has been taken to account for and to ensure proper use, control, maintenance and disposal of all public chattels and property of any such authority.
Section 9(5) of the Act provides that the Auditor General may in any report submitted in accordance with Article 107 (1) of the Federal Constitution (commonly known as the Auditor General’s Annual Report) make recommendations and may generally comment upon all matters relating to public chattels and property of any such authority.
In view of the nature of the disappearance of the large defence assets, the Auditor General should have made known these irregularities in its Annual Report, which are of public interest.
The Auditor General must explain why such irregularities involving large national defence assets and of public interest were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
The government also should take steps to ensure that the Auditor General highlights any future irregular loss of national assets in the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
The said theft of the RMAF fighter jet engines was alleged to have been committed somewhere in the year 2007.
Besides the said RMAF fighter jet engines, the Ministry of Defence was also reported yesterday as stating that there may be other related equipments missing.
To date, the Ministry of Defence and our Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak had pledged that full investigation would be conducted on that matter and the appropriate legal action would be taken against the perpetrators, who were labeled as traitors to our country.
No doubt, the theft of national defence assets, irrespective of its value, amounts to an act of treason. These national defence assets are purchased to defend our country and financed by the people’s money.
However, it is suprising as to why the disappearance and theft of such large national defence assets were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report for the year 2007 or even 2008. This incident had occurred in the year 2007 and the Ministry of Defence had also filed a police report on that matter in the same year, which would have alerted any auditing of the ministry’s assets.
Under Section 6(ba) of the Audit Act 1957, the nature of audit of the Auditor General includes examining whether due care has been taken to account for and to ensure proper use, control, maintenance and disposal of all public chattels and property of any such authority.
Section 9(5) of the Act provides that the Auditor General may in any report submitted in accordance with Article 107 (1) of the Federal Constitution (commonly known as the Auditor General’s Annual Report) make recommendations and may generally comment upon all matters relating to public chattels and property of any such authority.
In view of the nature of the disappearance of the large defence assets, the Auditor General should have made known these irregularities in its Annual Report, which are of public interest.
The Auditor General must explain why such irregularities involving large national defence assets and of public interest were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
The government also should take steps to ensure that the Auditor General highlights any future irregular loss of national assets in the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
19 December, 2009
IMPLEMENT PAKATAN COMMON POLICIES IN PAKATAN STATES FIRST, IF SINCERE
I refer to the Common Policy Framework declared at the Pakatan Rakyat Convention today.
Although Pakatan Rakyat had failed to state their position clearly in some critical issues, such as the creation of an Islamic country and the implementation of the Hudud law as dreamed by PAS, I salute several policies and reforms declared by Pakatan Rakyat today in particular those involving abolishment of race based policies.
Obviously, it is easy to declare some well stated policies or reforms, but sincerity in their implementation is totally a different thing.
As such, if Pakatan Rakyat is sincere in implementing those Common Policy Framework as declared today, the leaders of Pakatan Rakyat should immediately implement those policies and reforms that are within their control at the Pakatan Rakyat states, being Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Kelantan.
This would include implementing the following in Pakatan Rakyat states based on the Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework:-
1. Affirmative action policies based on needs and not race (on economic & education assistance)- Abolishment of all forms of bumiputra quotas & requirements in Pakatan Rakyat states involving:-
(i) housing & commercial development
(ii) award of state government contracts
(iii) state funded financial assistance to entrepreneurs
(iv) award of state funded education scholarship
(v) entrance in college or universities funded by these states
(vi) employment opportunities in state government and local authorities
2. Democratic & Transparent Economy (in reforming tender system, renegotiate unfair concensions and reject burdening tax schemes)
- ensuring all awards of contract in Pakatan Rakyat states are done through open tender system. All previous awards of contract by the Pakatan Rakyat states not done through open tender should be immediately disclosed and reviewed by the state government for transparency.
- abolishing quit rent and housing assessment (“cukai pintu” & “cukai tanah”) in Pakatan Rakyat states for low cost houses/ flats and agricultural land less than 50 acres as thoses taxes are burden to the poor and the small planters & farmers
- substantial reduction of other quit rent and assessment (“cukai pintu” & “cukai tanah”) in Pakatan Rakyat states for all types of properties, in particular those burdening the poor and middle income people as well as the Small & Medium Enterprises (SME).
3. Environment (in controlling deforestation, restricting development at hill-slopes)- Immediately cancelling and stop of all logging and timber concession awards in all Pakatan Rakyat states, in particular in Kedah (Ulu Muda Forest) and Kelantan.
- Immediately stop all development at hill-slopes at Pakatan Rakyat states
There are no reasonable grounds for Pakatan Rakyat to refuse to immediately implement their Common Policy Framework (as declared today) on matters which are within their control in their own controlled states.
Thus, if Pakatan Rakyat fails to implement all these policies and reforms, as stated above, within one (1) month in all their Pakatan Rakyat states, then the sincerity of Pakatan Rakyat would be questionable in implementing their Common Policy Framework should they take over the Federal government, if ever.
Although Pakatan Rakyat had failed to state their position clearly in some critical issues, such as the creation of an Islamic country and the implementation of the Hudud law as dreamed by PAS, I salute several policies and reforms declared by Pakatan Rakyat today in particular those involving abolishment of race based policies.
Obviously, it is easy to declare some well stated policies or reforms, but sincerity in their implementation is totally a different thing.
As such, if Pakatan Rakyat is sincere in implementing those Common Policy Framework as declared today, the leaders of Pakatan Rakyat should immediately implement those policies and reforms that are within their control at the Pakatan Rakyat states, being Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Kelantan.
This would include implementing the following in Pakatan Rakyat states based on the Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework:-
1. Affirmative action policies based on needs and not race (on economic & education assistance)- Abolishment of all forms of bumiputra quotas & requirements in Pakatan Rakyat states involving:-
(i) housing & commercial development
(ii) award of state government contracts
(iii) state funded financial assistance to entrepreneurs
(iv) award of state funded education scholarship
(v) entrance in college or universities funded by these states
(vi) employment opportunities in state government and local authorities
2. Democratic & Transparent Economy (in reforming tender system, renegotiate unfair concensions and reject burdening tax schemes)
- ensuring all awards of contract in Pakatan Rakyat states are done through open tender system. All previous awards of contract by the Pakatan Rakyat states not done through open tender should be immediately disclosed and reviewed by the state government for transparency.
- abolishing quit rent and housing assessment (“cukai pintu” & “cukai tanah”) in Pakatan Rakyat states for low cost houses/ flats and agricultural land less than 50 acres as thoses taxes are burden to the poor and the small planters & farmers
- substantial reduction of other quit rent and assessment (“cukai pintu” & “cukai tanah”) in Pakatan Rakyat states for all types of properties, in particular those burdening the poor and middle income people as well as the Small & Medium Enterprises (SME).
3. Environment (in controlling deforestation, restricting development at hill-slopes)- Immediately cancelling and stop of all logging and timber concession awards in all Pakatan Rakyat states, in particular in Kedah (Ulu Muda Forest) and Kelantan.
- Immediately stop all development at hill-slopes at Pakatan Rakyat states
There are no reasonable grounds for Pakatan Rakyat to refuse to immediately implement their Common Policy Framework (as declared today) on matters which are within their control in their own controlled states.
Thus, if Pakatan Rakyat fails to implement all these policies and reforms, as stated above, within one (1) month in all their Pakatan Rakyat states, then the sincerity of Pakatan Rakyat would be questionable in implementing their Common Policy Framework should they take over the Federal government, if ever.
16 December, 2009
Consider Legislating Proxy Votings For Parliament
I refer to the incident in Parliament yesterday, whereby substantial members of Parliament failed to turn up for an important debate and voting of the national 2010 Budget. As a result, the national 2010 Budget was passed by a thin majority of 66-63 in favour of the national 2010 Budget.
However, the pertinent issue in the incident is not the thin majority of just 3 votes. It is the number of absentees of members of Parliament that is mind boggling, from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.
On record, there are only 129 members out of the whole 222 members of Parliament who attended the debate and voting of the national 2010 Budget. That’s only about 58% attendance for the debate and voting of an important issue, being the national 2010 Budget.
It is disappointing, as a Malaysian, to see 42% of our representatives in the Parliament failed to attend for the debate and voting of the national 2010 Budget. So, does the voting yesterday really represent the votes and views of all Malaysian representatives around the country? Or does it just represent the votes and views of only those representatives that attended the sitting yesterday?
This should be an “eye opener” for Malaysians to see how they are represented in the Parliament.
It is a known practice around the world that it may not always be possible for all Members of Parliament to attend Parliament sittings all the time due to their hectic schedules, in particular those holding important government positions.
There are even some absentees in yesterday Parliament sittings, who are holding the position of members of state assembly as well as in the Parliament. Although it is permitted under the Federal Constitution, it is now questionable whether a person holding positions in both the state assembly and Parliament would be able to effectively fulfill their Parliamentarian obligations.
Member of Parliament are actually voted by their respective constituencies and paid by the taxpayers to attend and represent them in the Parliament sittings, no matter how trivial the matter that would be tabled in the sitting. Their failure to attend Parliament sittings would amount to failure to fulfill their obligations, even in situations where there are genuine reasons to serve the people elsewhere, fulfilling duties of national interest or even on medical leave.
Thus, it may be time for our Parliament to consider legislating and implementing “proxy votings” in our Parliament i.e. members of Parliament are entitled to appoint an alternate person to vote on his behalf in Parliament when there is genuine reason for absence. The members of Parliament shall be responsible for the conduct and votes of their respective proxies in Parliament.
This is to ensure that the Parliament actually represents the votes and views of all Malaysians’ representatives in their respective constituencies, instead of just the votes and views of those who attended the sittings.
However, the pertinent issue in the incident is not the thin majority of just 3 votes. It is the number of absentees of members of Parliament that is mind boggling, from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.
On record, there are only 129 members out of the whole 222 members of Parliament who attended the debate and voting of the national 2010 Budget. That’s only about 58% attendance for the debate and voting of an important issue, being the national 2010 Budget.
It is disappointing, as a Malaysian, to see 42% of our representatives in the Parliament failed to attend for the debate and voting of the national 2010 Budget. So, does the voting yesterday really represent the votes and views of all Malaysian representatives around the country? Or does it just represent the votes and views of only those representatives that attended the sitting yesterday?
This should be an “eye opener” for Malaysians to see how they are represented in the Parliament.
It is a known practice around the world that it may not always be possible for all Members of Parliament to attend Parliament sittings all the time due to their hectic schedules, in particular those holding important government positions.
There are even some absentees in yesterday Parliament sittings, who are holding the position of members of state assembly as well as in the Parliament. Although it is permitted under the Federal Constitution, it is now questionable whether a person holding positions in both the state assembly and Parliament would be able to effectively fulfill their Parliamentarian obligations.
Member of Parliament are actually voted by their respective constituencies and paid by the taxpayers to attend and represent them in the Parliament sittings, no matter how trivial the matter that would be tabled in the sitting. Their failure to attend Parliament sittings would amount to failure to fulfill their obligations, even in situations where there are genuine reasons to serve the people elsewhere, fulfilling duties of national interest or even on medical leave.
Thus, it may be time for our Parliament to consider legislating and implementing “proxy votings” in our Parliament i.e. members of Parliament are entitled to appoint an alternate person to vote on his behalf in Parliament when there is genuine reason for absence. The members of Parliament shall be responsible for the conduct and votes of their respective proxies in Parliament.
This is to ensure that the Parliament actually represents the votes and views of all Malaysians’ representatives in their respective constituencies, instead of just the votes and views of those who attended the sittings.
13 December, 2009
MAJORITY OF NON-BUMIPUTERA MALAYSIANS ALSO CANNOT AFFORD PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES' FEES
I refer to the statement by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the opportunities given to Bumiputeras to enter public universities should not be disputed as a racist act that favours one race at the expense of the others. Our former Prime Minister was further reported to state that:-
1. the enrolment of bumiputeras in private institutions of higher learning (“private universities”) is low at only about 10% as the Bumiputeras could not afford the fees;
2. if we conduct a census of the number of students in private universities, there are more non-Bumiputera students in private universities. That's why the government gives attention and more places to Bumiputeras in public universities; and
3. the affirmative action policy of bringing Bumiputeras into the mainstream of development in the country was not something extreme because although they made up about 60 per cent of the population, the quota was only 30 per cent.
With due respect to our former Prime Minister, I would like to state that:-
1. majority of the non-bumiputeras Malaysian too cannot afford the fees of the private universities. A large number of non-bumiputeras Malaysian have to take out loans to enter private universities and subsequently, they have to repay the large education loan (due to the higher education fees in private universities) upon graduation by installments. This would be an extreme burden to the non-bumiputeras at a later part of their life. But what choice does these non-bumiputeras Malaysian have if they persist to further their education?
2. As the number of places for non-bumiputeras Malaysian in public universities are extremely limited, there are no other option for non-bumiputeras Malaysian who wishes to further their education in the country, except to enrol in local private universities. That’s the obvious and actual reason of the high rate of non-bumiputeras Malaysian in private universities.
On the contrary, it is cynical to state the existence of more non-bumiputeras Malaysian in private universities would be a good reason for the government to give attention and more places to Bumiputeras in public universities.
3. No doubt, Article 153 (8A) of the Federal Constitution permits the reservation of places for bumiputeras in public universities. However, I am doubtful of our former Prime Minister’s remarks that the bumiputera quota is only 30%, for the enrollment in public universities.
1. the enrolment of bumiputeras in private institutions of higher learning (“private universities”) is low at only about 10% as the Bumiputeras could not afford the fees;
2. if we conduct a census of the number of students in private universities, there are more non-Bumiputera students in private universities. That's why the government gives attention and more places to Bumiputeras in public universities; and
3. the affirmative action policy of bringing Bumiputeras into the mainstream of development in the country was not something extreme because although they made up about 60 per cent of the population, the quota was only 30 per cent.
With due respect to our former Prime Minister, I would like to state that:-
1. majority of the non-bumiputeras Malaysian too cannot afford the fees of the private universities. A large number of non-bumiputeras Malaysian have to take out loans to enter private universities and subsequently, they have to repay the large education loan (due to the higher education fees in private universities) upon graduation by installments. This would be an extreme burden to the non-bumiputeras at a later part of their life. But what choice does these non-bumiputeras Malaysian have if they persist to further their education?
2. As the number of places for non-bumiputeras Malaysian in public universities are extremely limited, there are no other option for non-bumiputeras Malaysian who wishes to further their education in the country, except to enrol in local private universities. That’s the obvious and actual reason of the high rate of non-bumiputeras Malaysian in private universities.
On the contrary, it is cynical to state the existence of more non-bumiputeras Malaysian in private universities would be a good reason for the government to give attention and more places to Bumiputeras in public universities.
3. No doubt, Article 153 (8A) of the Federal Constitution permits the reservation of places for bumiputeras in public universities. However, I am doubtful of our former Prime Minister’s remarks that the bumiputera quota is only 30%, for the enrollment in public universities.
09 December, 2009
Reply to Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam Chairman of MACC Advisory Board - Disclose What Are Your So Called Long Term Plans
I refer to the statement by Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, Chairman of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Advisory Board (Berita Harian on 8th December, 2009 - page 2) in relation to the proposals made by Kedah Gerakan Youth to improve MACC a few days ago. A copy of the full details of the proposal can be obtained at tankengliang.blogspot.com.
Amongst others, the Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board was reported as saying:-
1. there is no need for any political party to disturb or interfere with the investigation conducted by MACC as it will only destroy efforts to improve the MACC.
2. there is no need for anybody to give any instruction on what ought to do or not to do by MACC as the commission knows what is best to eradicate corruption.
3. the MACC Advisory Board was formed to supervise the progress of MACC and surely have a long term plan to be implemented.
As such, I would like to clarify and state as follows:-
1. I was merely making a proposal to MACC to improve the public perception of MACC on its role to eradicate corruption. It is unfortunate that my intention to give a suggestion to MACC is construed by the Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board as disturbing or interfering with the investigation conducted by MACC and destroying efforts to improve MACC.
2. I agree that MACC knows what is best to eradicate corruption. However, “knowing” and “doing” are completely two different things. The most recent example are the alleged corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, no action had been taken against a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC). The failure of MACC to automatically scrutinize the Auditor General’s Annual Report had subsequently led to our Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak to form a Special Task Force led by Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Sidek Hassan to investigate the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
3. It is good that the MACC Advisory Board has a long term plan to improve the MACC. But Malaysian may not be that forgiving in granting more time to MACC to eradicate corruption.
Thus, I would like to request Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board to disclose to Malaysians “What are the long term plans of MACC’s Advisory Board to improve MACC” and whether there is any timeline to implement such long term plan.
I believe that the MACC’s Advisory Board should be accountable to Malaysians on their long term plans for MACC, if any. Malaysians should know what are the so called “Long Term Plans”.
Amongst others, the Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board was reported as saying:-
1. there is no need for any political party to disturb or interfere with the investigation conducted by MACC as it will only destroy efforts to improve the MACC.
2. there is no need for anybody to give any instruction on what ought to do or not to do by MACC as the commission knows what is best to eradicate corruption.
3. the MACC Advisory Board was formed to supervise the progress of MACC and surely have a long term plan to be implemented.
As such, I would like to clarify and state as follows:-
1. I was merely making a proposal to MACC to improve the public perception of MACC on its role to eradicate corruption. It is unfortunate that my intention to give a suggestion to MACC is construed by the Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board as disturbing or interfering with the investigation conducted by MACC and destroying efforts to improve MACC.
2. I agree that MACC knows what is best to eradicate corruption. However, “knowing” and “doing” are completely two different things. The most recent example are the alleged corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, no action had been taken against a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC). The failure of MACC to automatically scrutinize the Auditor General’s Annual Report had subsequently led to our Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak to form a Special Task Force led by Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Sidek Hassan to investigate the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
3. It is good that the MACC Advisory Board has a long term plan to improve the MACC. But Malaysian may not be that forgiving in granting more time to MACC to eradicate corruption.
Thus, I would like to request Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, Chairman of the MACC Advisory Board to disclose to Malaysians “What are the long term plans of MACC’s Advisory Board to improve MACC” and whether there is any timeline to implement such long term plan.
I believe that the MACC’s Advisory Board should be accountable to Malaysians on their long term plans for MACC, if any. Malaysians should know what are the so called “Long Term Plans”.
Performance of MACC, Including Setting Policies & Strategies, In Eradicating Corruption Are The Independent Responsibilities Of MACC
I refer to the statement (reported in Bernama 8-12-2009) by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) soon to be chief commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed who states that MACC is merely law enforcement agency and not policy makers. As such, he stated that the correct channel for Kedah Gerakan Youth to present any suggestion for improvement in MACC is through the government.
This was in relation to the suggestion earlier on the following:-
1. MACC should automatically investigate any form of corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report. MACC would publish an annual report on the actions taken by MACC on the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC) had not been charged and the government had failed to recover the misappropriated funds.
2. MACC should disclose in an annual report on how many of the reported cases per year that they have received and what are the actions that had been taken. For cases which MACC have decided no action to be taken or action failed to be taken after the lapse of six (6) months after receipt of the public complaints/ reports, MACC must list out the reason for their failure or reluctance to prosecute.
In this regards, I would like to highlight to Datuk Abu Kassim that under the new Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009:-
1. Section 13(2) of the Act provides that the Chief Commissioner of the MACC is automatically appointed in the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) as “ex-officio member”.
2. Section 13(5) of the Act further provides that the Advisory Board shall advise MACC on policies and strategies of the commission in its effort to eradicate corruption.
As such, under the new Act, the role of MACC shall not only be in the form of enforcement agency, but also having a role of setting policies & strategies in MACC through their Advisory Board to eradicate corruption. The existence of the Advisory Board is to provide more independence to MACC in setting policies & strategies and not depending on the government. Otherwise, the principal objective of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 i.e. to create a “more independent” MACC in eradicating corruption is defeated.
Thus, I hope that Datuk Abu Kassim would be able to adhere to the independence of MACC from the government as provided under the Act upon taking over as the MACC’s Chief Commissioner. The performance of MACC, including setting of policies & strategies, in eradicating corruption in Malaysia are the responsibilities of MACC, independent from the government.
This was in relation to the suggestion earlier on the following:-
1. MACC should automatically investigate any form of corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report. MACC would publish an annual report on the actions taken by MACC on the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC) had not been charged and the government had failed to recover the misappropriated funds.
2. MACC should disclose in an annual report on how many of the reported cases per year that they have received and what are the actions that had been taken. For cases which MACC have decided no action to be taken or action failed to be taken after the lapse of six (6) months after receipt of the public complaints/ reports, MACC must list out the reason for their failure or reluctance to prosecute.
In this regards, I would like to highlight to Datuk Abu Kassim that under the new Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009:-
1. Section 13(2) of the Act provides that the Chief Commissioner of the MACC is automatically appointed in the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) as “ex-officio member”.
2. Section 13(5) of the Act further provides that the Advisory Board shall advise MACC on policies and strategies of the commission in its effort to eradicate corruption.
As such, under the new Act, the role of MACC shall not only be in the form of enforcement agency, but also having a role of setting policies & strategies in MACC through their Advisory Board to eradicate corruption. The existence of the Advisory Board is to provide more independence to MACC in setting policies & strategies and not depending on the government. Otherwise, the principal objective of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 i.e. to create a “more independent” MACC in eradicating corruption is defeated.
Thus, I hope that Datuk Abu Kassim would be able to adhere to the independence of MACC from the government as provided under the Act upon taking over as the MACC’s Chief Commissioner. The performance of MACC, including setting of policies & strategies, in eradicating corruption in Malaysia are the responsibilities of MACC, independent from the government.
08 December, 2009
Part 2 (Letter to Minister of Finance II) - EXEMPTION OF SERVICE TAX FOR ONE PRINCIPAL CREDIT CARD & SUPPLEMENTARY CARD ISSUED TO SPOUSE & CHILDREN
I refer to the soon to be implemented RM50 service tax on every principal credit cards and RM25 service tax on supplementary cards as announced in the budget for year 2010.
Prior to this letter, I have actually issued a request to your Ministry to consider exempting the payment of RM50 service tax for one principal credit card for each Malaysian and exemption of the payment of RM25 service tax for supplementary card issued to spouse and children. A copy of the request had been forwarded to your ministry on 9th November, 2009 via fax only.
However, to date, I have yet to receive any response on the said proposal. As such, I am rewriting this request officially to Dato’ Seri for your due consideration as the dateline for the implementation of the service tax is approaching.
Firstly, I agree with the effort by the government under the leadership of Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak and Dato’ Seri’s Ministry to implement measures to encourage prudent financial management by Malaysians and to curb excessive borrowings via multi credit cards.
Undoubtedly, there are many Malaysians which abuse credit cards as a source of borrowings. However, there are also many Malaysians who genuinely use credit cards for:-
1. Cost Savings Transactions
Such cost saving transactions includes purchase of goods & services via internet (e.g. purchase of airline tickets & hotel reservations, payment of phone, electricity and other utility charges, subscription of online news portal, purchase of computer peripherals, etc); and
2. Reduction of Carriage of Physical Cash
The reduction of carriage of physical cash by many Malaysian is due to security factor, including avoiding theft of the physical cash.
3. Providing Emergency Funds for Family Members
This includes issuance of supplementary credit cards to spouse and children when the principal card holder is not around, such as when the children are studying away from home and for actual emergency events (e.g. when one of the family members is hospitalized away from home).
As such, the efforts by government to encourage prudent financial management and curb excessive borrowings via multi credit cards should not be seen as giving negative impact towards the growth of the e-commerce industry in Malaysia and penalizing current genuine credit cards user who don’t actually intend to use the credit cards as a source of borrowings.
Thus, I would like to propose for the government to consider allowing:-
1. exemption of the payment of RM50 service tax for one principal credit card for each Malaysian; and
2. exemption of the payment of RM25 service tax for supplementary card issued to spouse and children.
As the dateline for the implementation is just 3 weeks ahead, I hope that Dato’ Seri would be able to consider the aforesaid proposal at the soonest time.
I believe that any effort by the government to provide any relief to Malaysians to ease their financial burden would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your due consideration.
Prior to this letter, I have actually issued a request to your Ministry to consider exempting the payment of RM50 service tax for one principal credit card for each Malaysian and exemption of the payment of RM25 service tax for supplementary card issued to spouse and children. A copy of the request had been forwarded to your ministry on 9th November, 2009 via fax only.
However, to date, I have yet to receive any response on the said proposal. As such, I am rewriting this request officially to Dato’ Seri for your due consideration as the dateline for the implementation of the service tax is approaching.
Firstly, I agree with the effort by the government under the leadership of Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak and Dato’ Seri’s Ministry to implement measures to encourage prudent financial management by Malaysians and to curb excessive borrowings via multi credit cards.
Undoubtedly, there are many Malaysians which abuse credit cards as a source of borrowings. However, there are also many Malaysians who genuinely use credit cards for:-
1. Cost Savings Transactions
Such cost saving transactions includes purchase of goods & services via internet (e.g. purchase of airline tickets & hotel reservations, payment of phone, electricity and other utility charges, subscription of online news portal, purchase of computer peripherals, etc); and
2. Reduction of Carriage of Physical Cash
The reduction of carriage of physical cash by many Malaysian is due to security factor, including avoiding theft of the physical cash.
3. Providing Emergency Funds for Family Members
This includes issuance of supplementary credit cards to spouse and children when the principal card holder is not around, such as when the children are studying away from home and for actual emergency events (e.g. when one of the family members is hospitalized away from home).
As such, the efforts by government to encourage prudent financial management and curb excessive borrowings via multi credit cards should not be seen as giving negative impact towards the growth of the e-commerce industry in Malaysia and penalizing current genuine credit cards user who don’t actually intend to use the credit cards as a source of borrowings.
Thus, I would like to propose for the government to consider allowing:-
1. exemption of the payment of RM50 service tax for one principal credit card for each Malaysian; and
2. exemption of the payment of RM25 service tax for supplementary card issued to spouse and children.
As the dateline for the implementation is just 3 weeks ahead, I hope that Dato’ Seri would be able to consider the aforesaid proposal at the soonest time.
I believe that any effort by the government to provide any relief to Malaysians to ease their financial burden would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your due consideration.
07 December, 2009
Give Assurance That Deferment of 50% Bumi Quota Does Not Freeze “Malay Reserve Land” Swapping Application
I refer to the announcement by the PAS-led Kedah state government today to defer the implementation of the 50% bumi quota for housing development in Kedah involving swapped “Malay Reserve land” (the previous quota was 30%).
This policy applies to swapped Malay Reserve land in Kedah whereby, a Malay Reserve land is converted into a non-Malay Reserve land. The process involves swapping the land’s Malay Reserve status with a similar size non-Malay reserve land (plus 5%). Thus, every swapping process would actually lead to the increase of 5% in size of the Malay Reserve land and there is no decrease of Malay Reserve land in Kedah.
Under the previous administration of the state by Barisan Nasional, the housing development on such swapped Malay Reserve land is subject to a 30% Bumi Quota. The swapping normally occurs in the area of Alor Star whereby majority of the land in the city are designated as “Malay Reserve” area. It is done to promote housing development and to create more affordable houses in the city.
However, since September last year, the PAS-led Kedah state government had increased the Bumi Quota to 50% for housing development on swapped Malay Reserve land, notwithstanding strong objection from all corners of the state.
Today, I would like to state my appreciation to the PAS-led Kedah state government for putting a hold on the implementation of their policy to increase the bumi quota from 30% to 50% for housing development in Kedah involving swapped Malay Reserve land.
Although it took more than a year for the PAS-led Kedah state government to realize their irrational policy, any further delay in cancelling this policy would cause further damage to the housing industry in Kedah as well as losses to the people in Kedah.
However, to avoid any confusion, I hope that the PAS-led Kedah state government would clarify and give assurance that the deferment of the implementation of the 50% bumi quota would not eventually lead to the freezing of the “Malay Reserve swapping application” for land in Kedah designated for housing development, particularly in Alor Star.
Otherwise, the deferment of the implementation of the 50% bumi quota would only cause more damage than solving anything to the stagnant housing industry in Kedah.
This policy applies to swapped Malay Reserve land in Kedah whereby, a Malay Reserve land is converted into a non-Malay Reserve land. The process involves swapping the land’s Malay Reserve status with a similar size non-Malay reserve land (plus 5%). Thus, every swapping process would actually lead to the increase of 5% in size of the Malay Reserve land and there is no decrease of Malay Reserve land in Kedah.
Under the previous administration of the state by Barisan Nasional, the housing development on such swapped Malay Reserve land is subject to a 30% Bumi Quota. The swapping normally occurs in the area of Alor Star whereby majority of the land in the city are designated as “Malay Reserve” area. It is done to promote housing development and to create more affordable houses in the city.
However, since September last year, the PAS-led Kedah state government had increased the Bumi Quota to 50% for housing development on swapped Malay Reserve land, notwithstanding strong objection from all corners of the state.
Today, I would like to state my appreciation to the PAS-led Kedah state government for putting a hold on the implementation of their policy to increase the bumi quota from 30% to 50% for housing development in Kedah involving swapped Malay Reserve land.
Although it took more than a year for the PAS-led Kedah state government to realize their irrational policy, any further delay in cancelling this policy would cause further damage to the housing industry in Kedah as well as losses to the people in Kedah.
However, to avoid any confusion, I hope that the PAS-led Kedah state government would clarify and give assurance that the deferment of the implementation of the 50% bumi quota would not eventually lead to the freezing of the “Malay Reserve swapping application” for land in Kedah designated for housing development, particularly in Alor Star.
Otherwise, the deferment of the implementation of the 50% bumi quota would only cause more damage than solving anything to the stagnant housing industry in Kedah.
05 December, 2009
HOPES ON REMOVAL OF UNNECESSARY TAXES DEPENDS ON MACC’s PERFORMANCE
I refer to the statement by Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deputy chief commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed who vowed that he would take steps to restore the credibility of the organisation when he takes over the top post from 1st January, 2010.
I acknowledge that it is no easy task to redeem the credibility of MACC and public confidence in any short span of time. However, the general Malaysians may not be that forgiving in granting any further extension of time to MACC in bringing persons alleged in corruption to justice. Thus, time is of essence in any steps to redeem the credibility of MACC and public confidence.
Undoubtedly, the public views corruption as the main cause of wastage of government funds, increasing government expenditures and leading to greater budget deficit.
I believe corruption is one of the indirect causes which led to the introduction of various form of taxes to replenish government coffers, including the reintroduction of the 5% Real Property Gains Tax (which now applies even for property acquired more than 5 years), the imposition of RM50 service tax for every credit card (notwithstanding calls for exemption for one credit card per Malaysian) and the soon to be tabled Goods & Services Tax (GST) (which is viewed as taxing the poor via consumption).
In turn, corruption would indirectly burden all Malaysians (except the perpetrators). Thus, the success of MACC in lowering the rate of corruption is crucial to every ordinary Malaysian and the possibility of removal of any unnecessary taxes on Malaysians in future.
In this regards, I would like to propose to Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed for him to consider the following upon taking over the post of MACC Chief Commissioner from 1st January, 2010:-
1. MACC would automatically investigate any form of corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (irrespective of whether the matter occurs at the federal or state level BN or PR government). MACC would publish an annual report on the actions taken by MACC on the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC) had not been charged and the government had failed to recover the misappropriated funds.
2. MACC should disclose in an annual report on how many of the reported cases per year that they have received and what are the actions that had been taken. For cases which MACC have decided no action to be taken or action failed to be taken after the lapse of six (6) months after receipt of the public complaints/ reports, MACC must list out the reason for their failure or reluctance to prosecute.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed as the new MACC chief commissioner comes this 1st January, 2010 and to wish him all the best in weeding out corruptions in Malaysia.
I acknowledge that it is no easy task to redeem the credibility of MACC and public confidence in any short span of time. However, the general Malaysians may not be that forgiving in granting any further extension of time to MACC in bringing persons alleged in corruption to justice. Thus, time is of essence in any steps to redeem the credibility of MACC and public confidence.
Undoubtedly, the public views corruption as the main cause of wastage of government funds, increasing government expenditures and leading to greater budget deficit.
I believe corruption is one of the indirect causes which led to the introduction of various form of taxes to replenish government coffers, including the reintroduction of the 5% Real Property Gains Tax (which now applies even for property acquired more than 5 years), the imposition of RM50 service tax for every credit card (notwithstanding calls for exemption for one credit card per Malaysian) and the soon to be tabled Goods & Services Tax (GST) (which is viewed as taxing the poor via consumption).
In turn, corruption would indirectly burden all Malaysians (except the perpetrators). Thus, the success of MACC in lowering the rate of corruption is crucial to every ordinary Malaysian and the possibility of removal of any unnecessary taxes on Malaysians in future.
In this regards, I would like to propose to Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed for him to consider the following upon taking over the post of MACC Chief Commissioner from 1st January, 2010:-
1. MACC would automatically investigate any form of corruption or misappropriation of funds highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (irrespective of whether the matter occurs at the federal or state level BN or PR government). MACC would publish an annual report on the actions taken by MACC on the Auditor General’s Annual Report. To date, a large number of the reported alleged wrongdoers highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report (since the formation of MACC) had not been charged and the government had failed to recover the misappropriated funds.
2. MACC should disclose in an annual report on how many of the reported cases per year that they have received and what are the actions that had been taken. For cases which MACC have decided no action to be taken or action failed to be taken after the lapse of six (6) months after receipt of the public complaints/ reports, MACC must list out the reason for their failure or reluctance to prosecute.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammed as the new MACC chief commissioner comes this 1st January, 2010 and to wish him all the best in weeding out corruptions in Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
