Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Who can solve Bukit Jalil estate workers problems?

August 3rd, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Its a pity that we have to read this problem every few months. You can search just in this blog and find that Bukit Jalil estate workers issue already started in 2007 itself. 3 years of ding-dong. MPs came and went. DPM came and went. One MP even shed tears. MIC came and went. HRP came and went. DBKL came and talk and talk and talk. Opposition also came and went.

And surely you remember the school to be located into cemetery vicinity? Yeap, the same area. Malaysia Boleh!

Somewhere in April this year, FT Ministry gave out compensation to some of the workers:

ONLY two former Ladang Bukit Jalil Estate workers have come forward to claim compensation from the Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Ministry.

The two workers — P. Malliga, 47, and her mother, D. Thanabakkiam, 64, are among the 93 workers from the estate near Jalan Puchong. The estate was taken over by the government in 1980s and operations ceased in 1992, forcing the workers to lose their jobs.

The remaining 91 workers could not attend the cheque-presentation ceremony at the Kuala Lumpur City Hall headquarters on April 22 due to unforeseen circumstances.

Deputy Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister Datuk M. Saravanan said RM734,160 had been put aside for these workers but only 29 would receive the money during the first phase.

“These 29 workers have proper documentation to successfully claim the compensation but I urge the remaining workers to come forth and claim their money,” he added.

The workers are advised to visit the DBKL headquarters in Jalan Raja Laut next Thursday to speed up the process.

“The rest of the workers will be given the compensation as soon as the documents and statutory declarations are complete,” Saravanan added.

Workers with the estate for seven and a half years are entitled to RM6,370 while those with 15 years of service and more will be given RM11,620.

Development work on the land have not begun as some 40 families are still residing on the grounds of the former estate.

Thanabakkiam and her daughter are among the few who shifted into PPR Muhibbah five years ago. Thanabakkiam said the estate was also home to dangerous wild animals.

“Once I felt something on my feet and, thinking it was my pet cat, I shook it off only to see a cobra slithering away. We use to have wild boars and monkeys wreaking havoc in our homes as well,” said Thanabakkiam, who served at the estate for 40 years.

Malliga added that flash floods were very common and their homes were in a terrible state. She also said the move was a blessing in disguise for them.

And as recent as June, DBKL said no eviction until discussion by FT Ministry and HR Ministry (MIC folks). Then, on July 20, the residents received eviction notice. Means what? Discussion over?

THE 41 families from Bukit Jalil Estate feel cheated by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) over a promise made to them that they would not be evicted until their housing matter is resolved through a discussion.

On June 8, the residents received a letter from DBKL stating the city council would postpone demolition of the houses at the estate.

It also stated DBKL had received orders from the Federal Territories and Urban WellBeing Deputy Minister Datuk M. Saravanan that the next course of action would only be taken after a discussion between Federal Territories and Urban WellBeing and the Human Resource ministers.

However, the residents received a final eviction order on July 20 asking them to evacuate their houses by tomorrow.

Resident S. Thiagarajah said the families felt that the letters were contradictory and it seemed like DBKL was not keeping their word.

“Now we are to move out by tomorrow and failure to do so will not stop DBKL from demolishing our homes. What about the promise made to us in the June 8 letter?” he said at a press conference yesterday following DBKL’s announcement on July 30 that the land would be converted into a cemetery.

Kajang councillor S. Arutchelvan said a local authority had the right to enter a piece of land and evict squatters after giving them notice under the Clearance of Squatters Regulations 1969.

However, former estate workers are not squatters, he said.

“Squatters are illegal as they build houses on private or government land, but former estate workers were given houses built by a company with the full knowledge of the Government,” he said.

Arutchelvan said although the workers were asked to move into the public housing scheme at PPR Muhibbah in Puchong and given the option to buy, it was not a permanent solution to the problem.

He said they should be given permanent homes.

He cited Ladang Braemar in Kajang, Ladang Bukit Tinggi and Ladang Sungai Rasa in Klang and Brooklands Estate in Banting as examples where workers were given permanent homes and compensation.

Federal Territories and Selangor Community Association (Permas) president and Subang Jaya councillor Tan Jo Hann urged both the Federal Territories and Urban WellBeing and the Human Resource ministers to sit down with DBKL and the former estate workers to discuss the matter.

Right now both ministries and DBKL are passing the buck to one another and the workers are the victims. This mixed development is not well thought out and the authorities should not use eviction notices on these people,” he said.

The issue of the estate workers also garnered interests from neighbouring housing areas, as residents feel converting the estate land into a cemetery was not a suitable option.

Alam Putra Residents Asso-ciation chairman R.S. Maniam said a cemetery in the area was not wise planning, and according to local agenda 21, the local authorities should get neighbouring residents’ input before a plan was carried out.

“We have the right to have a say but we were not consulted,” he said.

No wonder people from Kampung Baru to rumah panjang Subang to Kampung Jinjang Selatan Tambahan don’t trust these people in DBKL. Got black and white also no point, everything can be changed. (Not to mention, own minister word also worthless 🙂 ).

It gets worse here. The resident said Mayor PROMISED to postpone eviction:

THE Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) is standing by its decision to evict the former estate workers from Ladang Bukit Jalil today despite the residents’ appeal to postpone the deadline.

The workers were told the eviction order dated July 20 was valid and they have to move out by today, as demolition works could be carried out any time after the deadline expires.

In a brief meeting between the residents and DBKL deputy director (services) Datuk Amin Nordin Abdul Aziz yesterday, Bandar Tun Razak MP Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s special representative Azman Abidin said he was informed the eviction order was valid, although a letter dated June 8 stated the local authority would postpone demolition of the houses at the estate.

The letter also stated DBKL had received orders from the Federal Territories and Urban WellBeing Deputy Minister Datuk M. Saravanan that the next course of action would only be taken after a discussion between the ministers for the Federal Territories and Urban WellBeing Ministry and the Human Resource Ministry.

The ministers have not delivered what they have promised and until then, it is unfair to evict the residents because they are not squatters, they are former estate workers,” said Azman.

He said the ministers should address the issues in the area, which also involved a Tamil school and temple.

“These issues should be resolved first before the workers are evicted. I was told by Amin to ask Khalid to convince the residents to move out to the nearby PPR Muhibbah, but the residents do not want that,” he said.

Resident S. Thiakarajah said City Hall was labelling the former estate workers as squatters and wanted them to take up the PPR housing scheme.

Once we take it, we will be given RM1,000 and automatically we will lose our rights as former estate workers,” he said.

He added that the residents were disappointed with DBKL and the ministries, as there were no follow-ups or meetings after the June 8 letter.

“All of a sudden we receive an eviction order on July 20, although two days later, Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Seri Ahmad Fuad Ismail promised Khalid to postpone the eviction order during a meeting with the MPs,” he said.

If protest, kena from police or labelled troublemakers or pro-opposition. If keep quiet, then lose out.

So, who can help the estate workers? Don’t tell this problem also need PM Najib to interfere. Others do what then?

Which is which 1Malaysia?

August 3rd, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Interesting words from ex-PM.  This time, its about 1Malaysia (a.k.a. 1 Malay-sia; 1Malaysia, 2System; and few other varieties.).

Malaysian Insider wrote this:

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed has criticised the Najib administration’s 1 Malaysia slogan, claiming that the concept needed further “explanation” to prevent it from being interpreted differently by various races.

Dr Mahathir lamented the fact that the 1 Malaysia slogan, introduced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak shortly after he took office on August 3 last year, had failed to unite Malaysians as a whole.

I have spoken to the Chinese, the Malays, each person has different opinions and cannot be united. I feel that an explanation is needed,” Bernama quoted Dr Mahathir (pic) as saying here today.

Dr Mahathir said that the onus was on the Najib administration to ensure that Malaysians understood the idea behind the 1 Malaysia slogan, to avoid further misunderstanding or confusion.

They (the rakyat) do not know which is which, which ones are for the Chinese and which ones are for the Malays. If I were to explain, how should I know, I was not the one who created the slogan,” said the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister.

Dr Mahathir’s remarks today come after a recent public opinion poll by the Merdeka Center found that a majority of non-Bumiputeras in the country considered Najib’s 1 Malaysia slogan a mere political gimmick.

According to the poll, only 39 per cent of non-Bumiputeras accepted the 1 Malaysia concept despite the fact that it had been introduced for over a year.

Forty-six per cent out of 3,141 respondents interviewed felt that 1Malaysia was only a “tactic to win over non-Malay support”, while another 16 per cent had either refused to answer the poll questions or claimed to have no understanding of the concept whatsoever.

Respondents were undecided on whether Malaysia had become more united under the Najib administration, with 48 per cent saying yes and 43 per cent claiming that the country was still disunited.

Its quite clear actually. The slogan is based on constitution, so its not 1Malaysia in the literal sense (equality) or what one would expect it to be.  Its based on Article 153 (reproduced below from Wikipedia):

  1. It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
  2. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special provision of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
  3. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.
  4. In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.
  5. This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.
  6. Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
  7. Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorised a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
  8. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation-
    • (a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him;
    • (b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with he other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or
    • (c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
    1. (8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
  9. Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
    1. (9A) In this Article the expression “natives” in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.
  10. The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.

That why we have this confusion. That’s why we have different people singing different tunes. That’s why we have ex-PM saying things like “They (the rakyat) do not know which is which, which ones are for the Chinese and which ones are for the Malays”. For the uninitiated or those plan to “misuse” the term, they consider that everybody is same in this country. However, those who really understand the meaning behind it, will realise that 1Malaysia is a different concept. So, which is you?

Teachers given green light to be active in politics

July 27th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The Chief Secretary announced that beginning August 1st this year, teachers in the DG41 and DG44 pay level can be active in politics, except those who are HMs or principals, and those who are holding administrative posts. The reason given:

He said the move was based on the fact that teachers, at one time, played an important role as community leaders in the country’s political scenario.

“The time has come for them to be allowed to be active again in politics,” he said in a statement.

I find it a lame reason. Long time ago, yes, teachers were at the forefront because the limited jobs during pre- and post-independence period. As long as you had some basic education, you can be a teacher. Teachers were the “educated” group and respected by the relatively uneducated community in the villages and towns. It was a prestigious job.  In those days, you couldn’t be a doctor or engineer easily, unless you can from the connected families and studied in the elite schools.

Now, in 2010, we have so many academically educated people in a variety of field. Sad to say, teachers level has deteriorated while others became more prominent. Those days, teachers knew many things because they could read, and they did read a lot. Nowadays, even students seem to know more facts/information than some teachers, thanks to Internet.

As it is, teachers complain about workload and pressure. If still can find time to dabble in politics, means those teachers are quite free?

If want to give permission, then should give it to all the graduates in all the schemes in the 41 to 44 range. Then only its fair.

Tony Pua on removing discount for property buyers

July 27th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Did you read about the couple whose buying a house for RM300K and hoping to get good discount for being in the privileged group? I think its something wrong. And so, I agree with Tony Pua’s suggestion. In fact I would go as far as to suggest that only residential properties for the low income category buyers (monthly income below Rm1500 in Selangor, or RM750++ elsewhere) should be given bumiputra discount as they can do much with the savings. If you can afford to buy property for more than 150k, then no special discount for you.

The responsibility of helping the poor should not be pushed to the rest of the house buyers based on their race. If you can afford it, then you should also do your part. Isn’t it fair?

PJ Utara MP Tony Pua urged the Selangor government today to slash Bumiputera discounts for luxury homes and commercial property in the state, to improve competitiveness and restore investor confidence.

“Sacred cows need to be slaughtered,” said the chief economist for the DAP.

Pua’s statement, which will raise eyebrows among the country’s Malay majority population, follows a recent United Nations report which showed that Malaysia’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) had plunged 81 per cent last year.

However, Pua (pic) said the seven per cent discounts enjoyed by Malays and other Bumiputeras should be retained for homes below RM500,000.

“I am not against affirmative action but not for homes that cost RM1 million or RM2 million,” said Pua.

He argues that no discounts should be given for commercial property above RM2 million.

The Oxford graduate, who was among panellists at a dialogue to discuss Selangor’s 2011 budget, pointed out that many “brokers” were taking advantage of the policy.

Pua said effectively these units are being bought by middlemen, with a seven per cent discount, and then re-sold for profit of two per cent.


Rm23 million for graduates to become entrepreneurs

July 25th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Firstly, only RM2 million has been utilised from the total amount of RM25 million allocated for last 5 years (9th MP). Something seriously wrong with fund management? Not enough publicity?

People complaining not enough funding, and yet, only received 1347 application for last 10 years???

Secondly, is this reserved for certain group of the population or open to all citizens of Malaysia? I didn’t get the impression that its open to all, when I read their website at http://www.insken.gov.my/home (refer their application guidelines at http://www.insken.gov.my/web/guest/training/1/4 )

Hopefully they can clarify so that don’t give false hope for the rest of the citizens of our country.

Probably, all those schemes reserved for that particular group of population should be put under one of the agencies handling just their matters (like MARA, TEKUN, MEB, etc.) Then it won’t mislead or give wrong impression to the rest of us on what is the reality.

The article on RM23 million which appears on Malaysiakini.

Graduates keen to start their own businesses can apply to the Graduate Entrepreneur Fund which still has RM23 million from the RM25 million allocated under the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

Deputy director of the International Trade and Industry Ministry’s Entrepreneurship Institute Malaysia, Samsu Kadir, said from 2000 to May this year, only 1,347 applications had been received for the fund.

“From the number, a total of 659 applicants received loan approvals with the cooperation of SME Bank,” he told reporters after officiating a basic entrepreneurship training programme here today.

Samsu said the ministry encouraged graduates from local institutions of higher learning to make use of the opportunities to become entrepreneurs.

He said the ministry had conducted various training programmes which covered 7,943 participants from 2000 to 2009.

Samsu said the institute targeted 30 participants for each programme and as at May 2010, 31 applications were received for the Graduate Entrepreneur Fund with four of them already approved.

He said the amount given out under the fund was from RM20,000 to RM250,000 with a maximum repayment period of 10 years.

– Bernama