The Star: Bersih on indelible ink fiasco

By ONG YEE TING

May 18, 2008
PENANG: Someone has to take the responsibility for the indelible ink fiasco before the issue “turns into a fuss,” Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) steering committee member Liew Chin Tong said.

He alleged that Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman had breached the spirit of the Constitution when he agreed with the Cabinet’s decision not to approve the proposal to use indelible ink for the March 8 general election.

Abdul Rashid was reported to have said that he agreed with the Cabinet over two very strong reasons not to use the ink – one was security and the other was law, relating to Article 119 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is the fundamental right for a person to vote.

Liew said the EC’s mission was to ensure a clean, fair and free election and it is “very wrong for them to have listened to the Cabinet.

“EC is an independent body mandated by the Constitution and should be independent of any executive influence,” he told a press conference Sunday after meeting residents of a village in Batu Ferringhi here.

He was commenting on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s statement that the Cabinet had “merely suggested to the EC to not use the ink”.

The Prime Minister was quoted as saying that the Cabinet had made the suggestion a week before Parliament was dissolved, giving its reasons why it did not want the ink to be used.

He said: “We had received information that some quarters had bought the ink although they had no authority to do so and we were suspicious that it could be used to cause confusion and complications during the voting process.”

Liew, who is also Bukit Bendera MP, reiterated Bersih’s call for a Royal Commission to be formed to look into electoral reform.

“It’s already time for us to have a commission to examine the issues, problems and loopholes in the existing electoral system,” he added

He helped rid two PMs, will Pak Lah be next?
Liew Chin Tong
Jun 12, 06 2:17pm

analysis Is Pak Lah the third prime minister to be brought down by Dr Mahathir Mohamad?

Not only did Mahathir send off three of his four deputies - Musa Hitam, Ghafar Baba and Anwar Ibrahim - in his half-a-century political career, he has contributed to the downfall of two of the three Malaysian prime ministers - Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn. The second prime minister, Abdul Razak Hussein, whom Mahathir is closely aligned to, died in office.

Mahathir is poised to doing it again with his latest outburst, despite claiming that he had no intention to bring down Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whom he accused of betraying his trust.

How did Mahathir contribute to the Tunku’s downfall?

In the aftermath of May 13 incident Mahathir wrote a bitter, ostensibly confidential, letter to the Tunku urging him to resign from office. The letter was distributed “by the thousands”, according to the Tunku, and resulted in student demonstrations.

Ironically, Anwar Ibrahim, then a University of Malaya student leader, was instrumental in both the distribution of letter and demonstration - the first collaboration between the two arguably most interesting politicians in Malaysian history.

The Tunku initially blamed the May 13 incident on the communists and Chinese secret society elements but Home Affairs Minister Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman thought otherwise, “we found that they (the communists) were as surprised as we were”.

Mahathir’s letter placed the responsibility for May 13 squarely on Tunku’s shoulders. The Tunku, according to Mahathir, gave “…the Chinese what they demand… The Malays, whom you thought will not revolt, have lost their minds and ran amok, sacrificing their lives and killing those whom they hate, because you have given them [the Chinese] too much face. The responsibility for the deaths of these people, Muslims and infidels, must be shouldered by a leader who was under a misconception.”

[Original text: Orang2 Melayu yang Tunku fikir tidak memberontak telah-pun menjadi gila dan mengamok sehingga mengorbankan nyawa mereka dan membunoh orang yang mereka benchi kerana Tunku terlangsong bagi muka. Tanggong-jawab tentang mati-nya orang2 ini, Islam dan kafir, terpaksa di-letak di-atas bahu pemimpin yang salah pendapat.]

Though this ‘major bruise’ inflicted on the Tunku was retaliated with the expulsion of Mahathir from Umno, his interpretation of events has since become government policies. The Tunku stepped down a year later. And, as they say, the rest is history.

But what about third prime minister, Hussein Onn?

While debatable, the late MGG Pillai’s version of 1978 Umno elections may have some truths. An Umno lightweight Sulaiman Ahmad aka Sulaiman Palestine challenged Hussein for the Umno presidency and received more than a quarter of the total votes. While not intending to defeat Hussein, it was the first time that the Umno president was challenged in an election. The move undermined Hussein’s legitimacy. Citing ill-health, he resigned in 1981 to make way for Mahathir.

Most believed that Harun Idris, then imprisoned for graft, engineered Sulaiman’s challenge but Pillai thought that it was set up by Mahathir. Whether or not Mahathir had a role in it, he was the clear beneficiary of Hussein’s departure.

Despite being the second-in-command, deputy prime minister Mahathir was constantly under threat from various quarters, particularly the then home minister Ghazali Shafie, who wielded a lot of influence on Hussein. Ghazali attempted to implicate Mahathir as a communist agent. Failing which, three days before Mahathir sworn in as prime minister, Ghazali detained Mahathir’s top aide, Siddiq Mohamed Ghouse, who was alleged to have been a KGB agent.

Thus, Mahathir was desperate for an end to the Hussein era so that he could consolidate his power as the new PM.

Khairy the real target

While a single incident of outburst will not bring down a prime minister, Mahathir’s recent declaration of war has crossed a psychological barrier. It was previously hard for political opponents to attack Pak Lah the person, and the Islamic party PAS learnt it in the hard way in 2004.

Mahathir’s censure comes at a time when Pak Lah’s popularity is slowing fading. The high hopes placed on Abdullah for his transformational potentials declines as he flip-flops on police reforms, anti-graft and other policy matters. There is no sense of change for the better.

Further, Abdullah is no longer immune from accusations of cronyism as his son and son-in-law expanded their influence in the business and political arenas. Indeed, some believe that Mahathir’s barb against Abdullah was in part targeted at Khairy Jamaluddin, who has at various occasions portrayed the Abdullah administration as distinctively different from, and less corrupt than, Mahathir’s.

And, the economy is not doing well either, at least from the perspective of a layperson. Inflation, fuel, interest rate and utilities have all surged. Mahathirnomics, for all its faults, did allow some money to change hand and thus keep the economy going, though at the expense of future generation.

Abdullah’s neo-liberal economics is heading nowhere. A vicious cycle of high inflation, a drop in consumption, reduced business confidence, thus domestic investment, and ultimately lesser jobs seems to have taken place. Worst still, interest rate is on the rise, which may well dampen new investments. All these do not bode well for the Abdullah administration. And, if the US economy were to crash, Malaysia will be hard hit.

It’s time for Abdullah to be bold in fulfilling his reform agenda to rescue himself from a precarious position which could create the conditions for Mahathir to bag his third scalp.

RM11 Bln To Develop Putrajaya, Says PM

KUALA LUMPUR, May 15 (Bernama) — RM11 billion. That’s the cost to develop Putrajaya, the new federal government administrative centre. To be exact, it is RM11,831 million.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi disclosed this in a written reply in the Dewan Rakyat to Liew Chin Tong (DAP-Bukit Bendera) Wednesday.

He said it covered the construction of government offices and quarters, the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) and the official residences of the prime minister, deputy prime minister, ministers and judges.

“Apart from that, it also covered the development of infrastructure such as tunnels, roads, bridges, towers as well as public amenities like parks, squares and lakes,” he said.

Abdullah said the government offices in Putrajaya were constructed under the build, lease and transfer method. Putrajaya Holdings constructed the buildings on government land, leased them to the government for 25 years at a monthly charge of RM2.50 per sq ft and, at the end of the concession period, transferred the buildings to the government.

The prime minister said the government paid Putrajaya Holdings an annual rent of RM929.7 million last year. It had paid RM878.1 million in 2006, RM732 million in 2005 and RM434 million in 2004.

– BERNAMA

Media Statement by DAP MP for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong on 15 Mei 2008 in Parliament House.

In my two-part parliamentary question to the Prime Minister on the cost of Putrajaya, I asked the Government to reveal 1) the cost of constructing the Federal Administrative Centre of Putrajaya; 2) the annual rental payment to Putrajaya Holding Sdn. Bhd.

The Prime Minister’s reply confirmed my suspicion that the Government is involved in an exercise of creative accounting of manipulating figures to downplay the unnecessarily exorbitant cost of building Putrajaya.

The construction of the federal administrative capital Putrajaya has cost a whopping RM11.83 billion, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi revealed in Parliament.

In a written reply to Liew Chin Tong (DAP-Bukit Bendera), Abdullah said the cost covers the development of the government departments, the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, the official residences of the premier, his deputy, ministers, judges and other facilities.

Elaborating, the premier said the development of the government departments in Putrajaya was done through privatisation via the build-lease-transfer approach.

The government is renting these premises from the Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd for a concession of 25 years. At the end of the concession period, the buildings will be handed over to the government.

In February 1997, the then Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim told Parliament that the projected cost of constructing Putrajaya was RM 25 billion, which was the only occasion in the last thirteen years since the project was launched in 1995 that the Government attempted to provide the overall expenditure of the Putrajaya project. 

By making Putrajaya Holdings paying for construction cost, the RM 11.83 billion figure provided by the Prime Minister yesterday is a clear example of untruthful creating accounting.

During the Mahathir years, as the criticism against the building of the new administrative centre escalated, he rebuked and argued that it was all financed by “the private sector.” Yet the so-called “private sector” is actually Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, which is 64.4% owned by Petronas.

In the 25-year concession arrangement, the Government is paying a whopping RM 1 billion annually to Putrajaya Holdings for office space only!

Through this dishonest creative accounting, the Government attempts to hide the fact that the Putrajaya project is essentially an unjustifiable white elephant which cost a hefty taxpayers’ money that could have benefit Malaysians in other more effective ways.

Liew Chin Tong

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali (Gombak) to ask the Minister of Finance to state:

(a)    the rationale of selling 60% of MOF’s shares in Bakun to Sime Darby; and

(b)   the additional claim made by the international contractor from Argentina who has received the electromechanical (turbine) in Bakun. The Ministry’s stance in this matter.

Mental Exercise

I wanted to ask the Minister

“Why is the Government approving the construction of a 700km undersea cable which costs RM 15 billion, which is twice the construction cost of Bakun Dam itself, to transmit electricity from Sarawak to Yong Peng?”

“Given that the electricity capacity for Malaysia excluding Sarawak state exceeds peak demand by 43 percent, according to Tenaga Nasional, and Sarawak has excess capacity of about 10 percent, is it rationale to spend the colossal sum for the construction of the undersea cable?”

Additional readings:

Bakun Puzzle by Charles Raj in Malaysian Business

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn6207/is_20080116/ai_n24373086

Sarawak Energy plans to add 6 power plants

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/31/bloomberg/sxsara.php

The Bakun Dam:a Case Study http://www.idsnet.org/Resources/Dams/Bakun/BakunDam.html

I would like to start a series of “Mental Exercises” which documents issues which I researched for the purpose of raising “supplementary question” in Parliament.

Supplementary Questions is part of the parliamentary mechanism of Question Time. The time runs from 10:00 – 1130 am each day when Parliament sits.

When a Minister or his deputy has answered each question listed on the Order Paper of the sitting day, two supplementary questions are then allowed to be fielded by the members of parliament. The first preferred question usually goes to the MP who has submitted the original question.

Other MPs will try to compete by raising the second Supplementary Question. It is like a sporting event whereby MPs will try to compete and catch “the Speaker’s eye” and whoever does that successfully, he/she will get a chance to field the question.

After seven out of eight sitting days (with the exception of 8 May sitting) and trying to raise Supplementary Question, I have yet to be successful in getting a chance to do so.

I take this candid moment to share some of these snippets of thoughts as it requires some form of mental exercise to research on topics as well as to strategize and decide on which angle to take or what information to seek whenever a Supplementary Question is raised.   

That is all for now.

Chin Tong

I posted a two-part question on Putrajaya. In February 1997, the then Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim told Parliament that the projected cost of constructing Putrajaya was RM 25 billion. As you would notice, that was before the economic crisis which happened in the latter part of that year. No figure was given since then.

Now we know, through the parliamentary reply to me, that infrastructure, quarters and residences in Putrajaya cost around RM 11.8 billion to construct.

Notice a difference between Anwar’s 1997 figure (of RM 25 bilion) and the RM 11 billion figure? Someone is untruthful here.

During the Mahathir years, as the criticism against the building of the new administrative centre escalated, he rebuked and argued that it was all financed by “the private sector”.

The so-called “private sector” is actually Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, which is 64.4% owned by Petronas.

In the 25-year concession arrangement, the Government is paying a whopping RM 1 billion annually to Putrajaya Holdings for office space only! Landscaping, maintainance and other expenditure not included.

Worth it? Over to you.

Putrajaya construction cost RM12 bil … so far
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz, Rahmah Ghazali & Beh Lih Yi | May 14, 08 10:00pm
Parliament snippets The federal administrative capital has cost a whopping RM11.83 billion in its construction cost so far, among other round-ups from the House today.

Putrajaya construction cost RM11.83 bil

The construction of the federal administrative capital Putrajaya has cost a whopping RM11.83 billion, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi revealed in Parliament today.

In a written reply to Liew Chin Tong (DAP-Bukit Bendera), Abdullah said the cost covers the development of the government departments, the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, the official residences of the premier, his deputy, ministers, judges and other facilities.

Elaborating, the premier said the development of the government departments in Putrajaya was done through privatisation via the build-lease-transfer approach.

The government is renting these premises from the Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd for a concession of 25 years. At the end of the concession period, the buildings will be handed over to the government without any additional payment.

The prime minister also gave the breakdown of the rentals it paid to Putrajaya Holdings from year 1999 to 2007.

They are RM929.7 million (2007), RM878.1 million (2006), RM732 million (2005), RM434 million (2004), RM373 million (2003), RM309.8 million (2002), RM247.9 million (2001), RM129.8 million (2000) and RM18.6 million (1999).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speech was delivered at noon today (14 May 2008) in Bahasa Malaysia. I was only given 5 minutes to deliver my speech and I was only able to read para 1-12. Other parts of the text would have to wait until future opportunity

Ucapan Ahli Parlimen DAP bagi Kawasan Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong pada 13hb Mei 2008 semasa membahas Usul Menjunjung Kasih Titah Ucapan Seri Paduka Bagainda Yang di-Pertuan Agong

Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

1.Dengan rendah hati, saya bangun memohon menyampaikan ucapan sulong, ataupun maiden speech, saya di Dewan yang mulia ini untuk membahas Usul Menjunjung Kasih Titah Ucapan Seri Paduka Bagainda Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

2.Dalam tradisi ataupun amalan sistem berparlimen Westminster, maiden speech seseorang ahli baru sepatutnya tidak seharusnya dihadkan masa dan tidak seharusnya diganggu oleh permintaan penjelasan. Maiden speech seharusnya diteliti dengan hormat oleh ahli yang lain kerana ini adalah peluang untuk ahli baru membentangkan visi, misi dan falsafah politiknya.

3.Saya ingin menyatakan kesyukuran saya kepada pengundi-pengundi Kawasan Bukit Bendera kerana memberi amanat kepada saya untuk mewakili mereka di Dewan yang mulia ini. Tiada siapa tahu berapa lama saya akan berada di Dewan ini, tetapi saya akan memastikan setiap hari saya berada di sini, saya menyumbang sedaya upaya tenaga saya untuk membawa pembaharuan kepada negara yang tercinta ini.

4.Malaysia kini berada di simpang jalan ataupun crossroad. Dalam bidang ekonomi, Malaysia terperangkap dalam apa yang disebut sebagai “middle income country trap” dimana gaji tidak lagi murah berbanding dengan negeri-negeri jiran tetapi tahap kemahiran belum dapat bersaing dengan negara-negara maju. Masalah rasuah menambahkan lagi keadaan yang sediakala buruk.

5.Dalam bidang politik, PRU ke-12 pada 8hb Mac telah menujukkan bahawa rakyat Malaysia telah matang dan tidak mudah ditipu lagi dengan propaganda seperti dahulu. Masa sudah sampai untuk Malaysia menuju kearah menjadi sebuah demokrasi yang sihat dipandu oleh institusi-institusi yang berfungsi dengan baik. Untuk tujuan ini, reformasi ataupun pembaharuan inistitusi-institusi kehakiman, parlimen, polis, suruhanjaya pilihanraya, birokrasi, dan sebagainya harus diutamakan demi masa depan negara kita. Dasar-dasar yang diamal oleh Kerajaan sejak Merdeka juga memerlukan “overhaul” ataupun kajian semula.

Tanjong Tokong

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

6.Salah satu contoh kenapa dasar-dasar Kerajaan BN memerlukan kajian semula adalah masalah “harapkan pagar, tetapi pagar makan padi.” Apabila Dasar Ekonomi Baru digubalkan pada awal tahun 1970-an, niat dan hasrat mungkin adalah baik, tetapi dasar tersebut telah terbukti disalahgunakan untuk keuntungan peribadi kroni-kroni BN.

7.Di kawasan saya yakni Bukit Bendera, Projek UDA (salah satu agensi DEB) di Tanjung Tokong gagal disempurnakan selepas 35 tahun. Kampung Tanjong Tokong adalah salah satu kampung tersusun Melayu yang terawal di negara kita. UDA adalah salah satu agensi DEC sebelum ia diswastakan. Tanah tersebut diserah kepada UDA pada tahun 1973 dengan objektif membawa proses “urbanisation” untuk kebaikan orang kampung yang berketurunan Malayu. Namun sehingga hari ini kampung Melayu tersebut turut diabaikan. Bukan saja begitu, UDA telah memesong dari objektif asalnya dan kini hanya berminat untuk projek komersial. Mereka kini dihalau dari tempat bermastautin mereka sejak beberapa generasi.

Parlimen Dalam Krisis Kelalaian dan Di Bawah Tahap Prestasi

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

8.Oleh kerana masa yang terhad, saya akan menumpukan ucapan ini terhadap isu-isu pembaharuan institusi parlimen.

9.Parlimen kita adalah salah satu daripada tiga cabang yang penting dalam kerajaan, namun pada waktu ini ia seolah-olahnya ‘kedai kopi’ di mana terdapat banyak ‘cakap kosong’ tapi pengaruhannya dalam proses isu-isu pembentukan dasar agar kekurangan.

10.Pertalian di antara Parlimen dan pihak Eksekutif diperlihatkan berat sebelah, seperti yang terbukti dalam pembahagian sumber-sumber insan dan kewangan terhadap Parlimen dan terhadap Jabatan Perdana Menteri (JPM). Parlimen mempunyai 156 kakitangan pada tahun 1981 sementara 4,414 orang bekerja di Jabatan Perdana Menteri – iaitu pihak yang terpenting dalam Eksekutif tersebut (nisbah 1:28). Perangkaan tahun 2007 menunjukkan bahawa seramai 253 kakitangan di Parlimen sementara jumlah kakitangan di JPM meningkat kepada 26,300 orang (nisbah 1:104).

11.Dalam hal-hal sumber kewangan, Parlimen kini menerima kurang daripada 1 peratus daripada jumlah yang diperuntukkan kepada JPM. Perlu diingatkan bahawa JPM hanya salah satu institusi di antara kementerian-kementerian, agensi-agensi dan institusi yang terdapat dalam kerajaan.

12.Bagi menjadikan Parlimen sebuah entiti yang relevan dengan mutu pembahasan yang tinggi, pertamanya, ia haruslah mempunyai struktur pentadbiran yang bebas, yang dipimpin secara bersama oleh Speaker Dewan Rakyat dan Presiden Dewan Negara dengan penyertaan ahli-ahli pihak kerajaan serta pembangkang dari kedua-dua Dewan. Untuk tujuan itu, Akta Perkhidmatan Parlimen 1963 yang dimansuhkan pada tahun 1992 haruslah dipulih.

13.Kedua, Parlimen Malaysia memerlukan suatu sistem jawatankuasa yang berfungsi. Sesebuah Parlimen tidak akan berkesan dalam menjalankan urusan tanpa sistem jawatankuasa yang efektif dan komprehensif. Sebenarnya, kebanyakan urusan Parlimen seharusnya dijalankan oleh jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa supaya ahli-ahli pihak kerajaan dan pembangkang dapat bersama-sama mengkaji dan meneliti rang undang-undang dan bajet secara objektif. Sistem jawatankuasa juga akan menggalakkan ahli-ahli supaya menjadi pakar bidang-bidang dasar dan dengan sedemikian juga meningkatkan mutu pembahasan parlimen.

14.Ketiga, Ahli-ahli Parlimen sepatutnya dibekalkan dengan pembantu penyelidik dan pembantu politik. Parlimen sepatutnya menyediakan sekurang-kurangnya dua pembantu politik dan pembantu penyelidik yang berkelayakan bagi membantu setiap ahli Parlimen agar mereka dapat menjalankan bidang tanggungjawab mereka dengan berkesan.

15.Sebagai contoh, di Kongres Filipina, setiap ahli Parlimen dibekalkan dengan enam atau tujuh kakitangan yang dibiayai oleh kerajaan. Selain itu, ahli tersebut juga boleh memohon kepada Speaker kakitangan tambahan seperti pembantu hal undangan. Namun negara-negara yang kurang berkemampuan, seperti India dan Afrika Selatan, ada juga menyediakan pembantu-pembantu dan penyelidik bagi ahli-ahli Parlimen mereka.

16.Keempat, ahli-ahli Parlimen patut dilengkapi dengan pejabat di Parlimen mahupun di kawasannya. Kerajaan patut mempertimbangkan cadangan membina bangunan-bangunan tambahan di kawasan Parlimen bagi menempatkan kesemua Ahli Parlimen dan Senator bagi memudahkan kerja mereka.

17.Kelima, tempat letak kerata. Bangunan Parlimen didirikan pada tahun 1963. Pada waktu itu hanya terdapat beberapa kereta sahaja. Akan tetapi, buat masa sekarang, memiliki kenderaan peribadi merupakan satu keperluan di Kuala Lumpur – juga disebabkan sistem pengangkutan awam yang tidak memuaskan. Justeru, tempat letak kerata bertingkat perlu dibina bagi menempatkan jumlah kenderaan yang semakin bertambah di Parlimen.

18.Keenam, bilik media juga haruslah diperbesakan untuk menumpang keperluan pemberita media massa.

19.Ketujuh, kakitangan, struktur fizikal dan sumber-sumber keperluan di dalam perpustakaan Parlimen juga perlu ditambah sepuluh kali ganda daripada apa yang ada pada waktu ini agar Parlimen Malaysia setanding dengan Parlimen negara maju. Parlimen-parlimen di Australia, United Kingdom, Jepun dan Amerika Syarikat patut dijadikan kayu ukur untuk tujuan perbandingan dengan Parlimen Malaysia.

Penyiaran Persidangan Parlimen

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

20.Parlimen ialah institusi di mana ahli-ahli parlimen ditugaskan untuk menggubal undang-undang, memantau kerajaan, dan memastikan wang pembayar cukai digunakan dengan wajarnya. Adalah menjadi hak rakyat Malaysia melihat ahli-ahli parlimen yang dibiayai oleh orang awam beraksi di Parlimen melalui pelbagai kaedah siaran media.

21.Jawapan kepada soalan yang dikemukakan oleh saya berkaitan dengan perkara yang sama pada 30 April 2008 jelas membuktikan bahawa siaran langsung digunakan oleh Kementerian Penerangan sebagai satu contoh keterbukaan dan ketelusan media massa, di mana, menurut Menteri, “ia selaras dengan amalan demokratik di Negara kita”.

22.Bagi menjadikan siaran langsung lebih bermakna, saya ingin mencadangkan langkah-langkah yang patut diambil oleh Kerajaan sekiranya diluluskan oleh Parlimen:

23.Pertama, Kementerian Penerangan sepatutnya memanjangkan tempoh siaran Sessi Pertanyaan Bagi Jawab Lisan dari 30 minit kepada 1 ½ jam, selaras dengan amalan antarabangsa. Semua Parlimen Westminster seperti United Kingdom, Kanada, Australia namun Afrika Selatan menyiarkan keseluruhan segmen Sessi Pertanyaan di televisyen.

24.Kedua, Kementerian Penerangan sepatutnya mengenalpasti dan memperuntukkan frekuensi radio, dan juga Internet, untuk siaran kesemua persidangan, memandangkan kedua-duanya melibatkan kos dan tenaga kerja yang rendah.

25.Ketiga, saya menyeru Kerajaan, melalui Menteri Penerangan, membawa usul di Parlimen bagi mewujudkan Jawatankuasa Pemilih Parlimen yang terdiri daripada ahli-ahli parlimen pihak Kerajaan dan Pembangkang, dan juga dari kedua-dua dewan, iaitu Dewan Negara dan Dewan Rakyat, bagi mengkaji parameter, cara dan kaedah perjalanan siaran langsung parlimen.

26.Semasa Parlimen British membuat keputusan untuk menyiarkan sidang parlimen secara langsung pada 1989, sebuah Jawatankuasa Pemilih Khas iaitu ‘ Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House’ mengambil masa setahun untuk menyelidik, merancang dan melaksanakan usaha tersebut bagi pihak Parlimen. Jawatankuasa ini kemudian memutus untuk mengkontrakkan perkhidmatan ini melalui proses ‘tender’ terbuka. Jawatankuasa tersebut masih wujud sehingga hari ini walaupun dengan nama lain iaitu The Broadcasting Etc Select Committee.

27.Sistem yang serupa juga wujud di Parlimen Australia yang dinamakan Joint Committee (of Senators and House of Representatives) on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Atas janji-janji keterbukaan dan ketelusan, pengendalian siaran langsung persidangan parlimen bagaikan satu ujian litmus atau cabaran bagi pihak Kerajaan.

Pendaftaran Undi Otomatik

Tuan Yang di-Perua,

28.Berdasarkan kepada SPR, terdapat sejumlah kira-kira 15 juta rakyat Malaysia mencecah usia 21 tahun, usia layak mengundi. Namun, hanya 10 juta sahaja yang didaftarkan dan diperolehi dalam senarai pemilih. Dengan kata lain, satu pertiga daripada rakyat mececah usia 21 tahun terdapat di luar proses pengundian.

29.Daripada jumlah hampir lima juta rakyat Malaysia yang layak mengundi tetapi masih belum berdaftar sebagai pengundi, 80 peratus daripada mereka ialah Melayu. Selain itu, 80 peratus daripada mereka terdiri daripada belia yang tinggal di bandar yang berusia di antara 21 dan 30 tahun.

30.Sebuah sistem yang menafikan satu pertiga daripada rakyat yang layak daripada memilih wakil mereka secara “indirect” adalah sistem yang memerlukan pembaharuan serta-merta.

31.Pendaftaran secara otomatik pengundi ialah salah satu jalan keluar dari kancah yang berlaku kini, dan secara teknikal, ia memungkinkan untuk SPR untuk melaksanakan serta-merta, asalkan pindaan dibuat agar ianya relevan kepada undang-undang pilihanraya dan peraturan.

32.Sejak 16 Julai 2002, SPR berupaya untuk akses kepada maklumat pengundi sejak pengkalan data JPN dengan hanya memasukkan nombor kad pengenalan pengundi.

33.Pendaftaran pengundi dikendali oleh SPR berkos RM30 juta pada 2007. Pembayaran awam ini akan dijimat jika adanya perkongsian pengkalan data di antara SPR dan JPN. Sepatutnya, wang sedemikian sepatutnya dibelanjakan bagi memastikan akan datang bersih, bebas dan adil.

34.Kesimpulannya, Malaysia yang tercinta ini memerlukan pembaharuan ataupun reformasi dan pembaharuan ini haruslah bermula dari institusi-institusi Parlimen dan pilihanraya.

Liew Chin Tong

Opposition MPs to get RM500,000 fund too
Beh Lih Yi | May 12, 08 8:09pm
The announcement came as a good news to the opposition MPs who were not entitled for the annual fund previously, and other round-ups from the House today.
MCPX
BN, Pakatan MPs to get RM500,000 fund

The Prime Minister’s Department has announced a RM500,000 annual development allocation for all 222 parliamentary constituencies in the country, including those won by the opposition.

Although this came as a good news to the opposition MPs who were not entitled for the fund previously, it however saw a sharp cut for the BN MPs who received RM2 million previously.

The amount was revealed by Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Hassan Malek in a parliamentary written reply to Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah) dated May 6. A copy of the reply was distributed to the media today.

“The allocation to the parliamentary constituencies is the Prime Minister’s (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) special allocation to the constituencies which will be channelled through the state development office in respective states.

“After the 12th general election, the allocation that will be given to each constituency is RM500,000. All MPs can suggest to the state development office on the projects that are suitable to be carried out with the allocation,” Hassan added in the reply.

Loke had asked for the new amount of the annual allocation and whether it will be given to the opposition MPs so that they too can enjoy the same rights as the government MPs.
Prior to the March 8 polls, the BN MPs received RM2 million for their respective constituencies while state assemblyperson also received a similar budget but the amount varied from state to state. However, constituencies held by the opposition did not get the annual allocation.
In an immediate response, Liew Chin Tong (DAP-Bukit Bendera) argued the announcement was “not truthful” and has reservation on whether the fund will eventually reach the opposition MPs.

He said this was because the BN federal government has announced the setting up of the ‘federal action council’ at the five Pakatan Rakyat-led states to deal with federal funding and it will not deal with the state development office.

11:02p.m. Tuesday 13.5.2008

In the last Parliament when Barisan Nasional held 91 percent of seats, you can hardly see full ministers in the chamber. Kit Siang called the then Minister of International Trade and Industry, Rafidah Aziz, a queen, whose presence is supposed to be rare. Prime Minister’s presence in Parliament was also extremely rare.

Slightly before 1100p.m., the Prime Minister entered the Dewan quietly. What a surprise. I guess Malaysians should congratulate themselves for creating a new era on March 8th which gives rise to all surprises ever since.