I cannot really make out what Tony Pua really is. What, not who. Either he is showing one of the early signs of dementia, or he truly is a retard.
Mr Puaka, as he is fondly referred to with a hint of sarcasm on social media, mentioned to the press that the DAP should contest in all the now-defunct Pakatan Rakyat seats held by former partner, PAS. That has brought about negative responses from PAS office-holders who still cling to the past and forgetting that DAP has welcomed PAS splinter-group PAN, as its partner in the recently announced Pakatan Harapan that has replaced the Pakatan Rakyat (except in Selangor).
The only reason for the Pakatan Rakyat to still exist in Selangor is because the Menteri Besar, Azmin Ali, knows if PAS is excluded then he would have to face the possibility of being ousted from office by the real holders of Selangor political power – the DAP. That is why I used the term Pakartun to describe the loose political cooperative.
Of course Mr Puaka talks big only when he is in Selangor, or when protected by immunity in Parliament.
Puaka has been using his privilege as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to hit out at 1MDB’s Arul Kanda. He dared Arul Kanda to an open forum or debate bit received no response from the latter. Now that Arul has turned around and accepted the debate challenge without terms and conditions, Mr Puaka has seemed to chicken out, giving all sorts of excuses not to debate, including saying:
“It should be a question-and-answer session and not a debate because I am asking the questions. There’s nothing for him (Arul) to ask me.”
He said the above to Pakartun’s unofficial media, Malaysiakini.
Like I said, I don’t know what to make out of Mr Puaka. He surely suffers from short-term memory loss. It was he who dared Arul Kanda to an open debate, but now wants to protect himself from being scrutinised by the latter. Lest we forget:
He is a bright spark from the DAP. Therefore he can’t be suffering from dementia. But it sure proves that he is nothing but a yellow-bellied, milksop!
N.B: for some reason I can hyperlink the NST story on Puaka and PAS but cannot hyperlink Malaysiakini’s story. So you can copy the URL here and paste into your browser’s address bar.
141 years ago Perak became the first sovereign state in the Malay peninsula to come into a treaty with the British for the latter to provide the former with protection, while the former has the “right” to interfere in the internal administration of the state – by the appointment of a Resident or Adviser to the Sultan, on the payroll of the Sultan, and whose “advice” must be asked and “acted upon” in all matters other than the ones affecting the Malay religion and custom (C.D Cowan, 1961; Emily Sadka, 1968; Eunice Thio, 1969). Between 1874 and 1930, similar but not identical treaties were signed with the other Sultans and Head of States. The treaties notwithstanding, the Sultans and Head of States remain the sovereign ruler of their respective sovereign state. De facto however, the British assumed the unstated “right” to administer the states as well with the exception of Kelantan through the Kelantan Treaty of 1910 (signed in Kota Bharu on 22 October 1910) when the government of King George V undertook not to interfere in the “internal administration” of the state or to curtail the “administrative authority” of the Ruler.
Sovereignty of the Rulers
Although the Rulers had divested much of their independence, both they and their state remained sovereign. Independence is not equal to sovereignty. As a principle of international law, sovereignty denotes, in its purest form, the concept of a ‘supreme authority’ be it an individual or a collective unit and implied power to exercise independence both internationally and domestically. Paradoxically, inherent in this conception of sovereignty is the possibility that the sovereign state could also impose limits on its own independence without suffering a diminution of its inherent sovereignty (L Oppenheim, 1928 pp 135 and 250; Albert Lau, 1991). In other words, the Anglo-Malay treaties in no way compromised the de jure sovereignty of the Malay Rulers.
There were three test cases to determine the sovereignty of the Rulers and the State they ruled:
The infamous Mighell v Albert Baker a.k.a Mighell v The Sultan of Johore (1894) which I have also covered in a previous article when the issue of the Ruler’s immunity as a sovereign was raised in an English court, it was ruled that, although the Sultan by treaty had bound himself not to exercise some of the rights of a sovereign ruler, this did not deprive him of his character as an independent sovereign.
In Duff Development Company Limited v The Government of Kelantan (1924), the House of Lords similarly upheld the sovereignty of Kelantan and its Ruler was not intended to be qualified by the terms of the treaty.
In Pahang Consolidated Company Limited v State of Pahang (1933), the Privy Council summarised the constitutional position in Pahang as follows: subject to the limitations which the Sultan had from time to time imposed upon himself, he remained ‘an absolute ruler in whom resides all legislative and executive power.’ (See, 1894; Q.B 1924; A.C and M.L.J)
The above implied that Britain could do nothing in these states contrary to the terms of the existing treaties. W. Ormsby-Gore, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies put it in 1928:
“Our (Britain’s) position in every State rests solemnly on treaty obligations….We neither have the right nor the desire to vary this system of government or to alter the type of constitution or administration that now obtains.”(W Ormsby-Gore report, 1928).
This was later echoed by Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister, the 1st Earl of Swinton and a prominent British Conservative politician, on 14 July 1933:
“There is no question at all of altering in any degree, even by a comma, the Treaties which bind us…and which are charters of the agreements with the Rulers both of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.”
Interesting, however, is that the Colonial Office came close to discussing the deposition of two Sultans namely the Sultan of Johore (1906) and the Sultan of Terengganu (1919). In the case of the Sultan of Johore, the Colonial Office was told that unless Sultan Ibrahim of Johore complied with His Majesty’s Government’s wishes, he must “retire from the business altogether.” In 1914, Sultan Ibrahim was brought to task again for allowing conditions in Johore to deteriorate “to that which called for decided action in 1906” and warned that, unless the administration improved, “the only alternative is his removal from the State.” In 1919, Malayan officials, increasingly piqued by the obstructive nature of Sultan Muhammed of Terengganu, similarly recommended that “sufficient pressure” should be put on him to “compel his resignation.” (Minute by Lucas, 30 March 1906 CO 273/324 no. 10619; Young to Harcourt, 19 March 1914, CO 273/406 no. 13282; and report by J. Humphreys, 3 December 1919, CO 537/797 no. 5002).
Having said that, it frustrated the British that they had no jurisdiction whatsoever by virtue of the treaties signed, and a movement was initiated by Edward Gent, to change all that.
Willan’s Mission and the Malayan Union
Among the thorny problems of pre-WW2 Malay States is the question of the Chinese immigrants brought in by the British. In the Strait Settlements of Penang, Melaka and Singapore, they could be given the status of British Protected Persons. In both the Federated Malay States (FMS) and the Unfederated Malay States (UMS) the British have no jurisdiction to apply the same rule to them, nor are they citizens of their respective host state. As far as the Malay Rulers were concerned, only the Muslim Malays are their subjects, not those who are alien, non-native and are non-Muslims. The British tried to convince the Rulers and also by asking the Chinese to pledge loyalty to the Rulers. However, the Chinese were disinclined to accept the Malay Rulers as theirs.
The problem arose when in 1929 the Chinese government passed the Chinese Nationality Law stating that all persons of the Chinese race, wherever born, were considered as subjects of China. As such, the Chinese government could intervene in cases where the Chinese are not being fairly treated.
In 1911, the Malays made up 53% of the population. By 1931, they were already outnumbered and in 1941 formed only 41% of the population. The Chinese community was at 43%, displacing the Malays as the dominant racial group. The Malays were in a disadvantageous position and this proved explosive in 1946 during the Bekor tragedy. The Malays remained as the minority until 1970.
The only solution out of this is for the Chinese in the Malay states to be declared as British Protected Persons, but such move is against the treaties. To put this into effect, Malaya has to come under a federation or a union where power is central, and the Anglo-Malay Treaties be reviewed and replaced by a new one.
Following the Fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942, the British saw that it was no longer possible to return to the pre-war system as they had failed to provide the Malay states the protection from the Japanese. Edward Gent saw this as an opportunity to streamline all the Malay States and the Strait Settlements excluding Singapore under one administration to be based in Kuala Lumpur. A month after the Fall of Singapore, he set up a team to quickly work out a solution and framework even though it was still not known then how the war would end.
When the war ended, this plan was quickly put in place. Between 8 to 29 September 1945, the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs Officer of Malaya, HC Willan, accompanied by the Senior Civil Affairs Officer for Johor, Colonel MC Hay, made his way to the Pasir Pelangi palace and interviewed the Sultan Ibrahim. Having studied files and found proof of Sultan Ibrahim collaborating with the Japanese, his task was to assess the Sultan’s reception of the British. Not once, noted Willan, did Sultan Ibrahim hinted that the British had let him down by losing Johor. More remarkably, Sultan Ibrahim wrote to Colonel Hay the very next day intimated his willingness to “serve under the British Military Administration.” Willan opined that Johor would sign the new treaty.
Of all the Malay Rulers, only the Sultan of Perak proved difficult. Willan proposed that Johor, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang should be approached in that order to sign the revised treaty. Once the rest have signed, there would not be any reason for Perak not to sign. When Harold MacMichael arrived in Johor, Sultan Ibrahim offered no resistance although he produced a memorandum containing points relating to the Sultan’s personal prestige and the status of Johor reproduced as Annex I in MacMichael’s report – Albert Lau, 1991). This is the “1946 agreement” made in conjunction with the signing of the Malayan Union agreement between the government of Johor and the British Military Administration that has been played up in the social media of late as the Federated Malay States agreement of 1948 had yet to be formulated. Johor was the first state to submit to being colonised by the British.
As expected, Sultan Abdul Aziz of Perak became the stumbling block. For Sultan Abdul Aziz, the central issue was still sovereignty. He wrote:
“It is true that under the Treaties I was bound to accept the advice of the British Resident, but nevertheless I was a Sovereign in my State having power to assent or withhold assent to legislation. I am now invited to sit as a member at an Advisory Council with the Governor assuming the function which rightly belongs to me. Being a member of the Advisory Council with authority over the other States is a doubtful honour. I neither desire to have any influence over the other States nor welcome any other Ruler to have influence within my State.”
The Sultan was also further incensed that under the new agreement the Malays in Perak would no longer swear allegiance to him but to the Malayan Union, thus in effect reducing him to the position of a Sultan without subjects:
“All these facts tend to show that my sovereign rights are in real danger. You can well imagine my feelings. I have no status, no State and no subjects.”(Sultan Abdul Aziz to Alexander Newboult, 20 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1)
By the latter half of February 1946, there was more cohesiveness amongst the Rulers in going against the Malayan Union. The Rulers had tactically rallied behind an informal united front presided by the Sultans of Perak and Kedah. In a concerted display of solidarity, the Rulers of Perak, Kedah, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan jointly petitioned to defer the implementation of the new Malayan Union constitution until an independent commission had first visited the country and consulted local opinion. (Newboult to Hall, 22 February 1946, CO 537/1548 no. 50823/34 Pt.1).
The movement against the Malayan Union was born and so was UMNO. The discussions on the formation of the Federation of Malaya began with the British, the Rulers and UMNO taking part in the discussions.
The Anglo-Malay treaties were left relatively intact with more power given to the people to effect some degree of self-governance, the Rulers continued with their ceremonial roles and duties. The Federation of Malaya came into effect on 1 February 1948, replacing the Malayan Union.
On 31 August 1957, the Federation of Malaya became independent, not from colonisation, but from feudalism. Executive powers that were given to the British have been given to the people of Malaysia to determine how they are to be governed and by whom. All agreements and treaties made between the Rulers and the British since 1874 became void. Professor Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam said all agreements inked during the British colonial period are considered void automatically after Aug 31, 1957.
“These issues are over. The powers of the Malay royalty are now included in the Federal Constitution.”
There is no more “state citizenship” but only “federation citizenship,” which makes Malaysians who they are irrespective of where they were born. The Federal Constitution too does not provide for any state to secede from the Federation. This was further enhanced in Sabah where the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 specifically says the state cannot secede.
Unsolicited remarks should not be made and the spirit of history has to be understood in order to understand why are we where we are, and why are we who we are. Such talks only put the sacrifices of our predecessors in vain.
The recent hike in toll prices have riled users up, including those who have no qualms about spending RM13.80 on a packet of Dunhill cigarettes daily; queued 30 hours for an iPhone 6s rose/gold version; and spend a ridiculous amount of money for Starbucks’s Macchiato Frap.
And they blame Najib for the increase on toll rates.
Virtually all the concessions agreement were signed during Mahathir’s time, and for some like the Maju Expressway, built by Abu Sahid, a good friend of Muhyiddin and crony of Mahathir, and the Senai Desaru Highway built by Ranhill’s Hamdan Mihamad were built in 2004. Both had their concession agreement signed before Mahathir stepped down. The Senai Desaru Highway had its Development Order signed in the late 1990s.
PLUS’s North South highway was built initialy by the government via Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia. Planned during Tun Hussein Onn’s time in 1977, it began construction in 1980, a year before Mahathir became the PM.
Between 1980 and 1985, the LLM built 366km or 41% of the proposed 823km of the highway at a cost of RM3.2 billion borne by the government.
In 1986, the whole project was transferred to UMNO-crony, Halim Saad’s UEM, despite being the most expensive bidder and having had no experience whatsoever in constructing highways.
In the end the highway was delivered two years late and the government then had to finance half of the RM3.5 billion budget.
Yes, our money for half of that RM3.5 billion budget. In fact, it was RM1.65 billion.
If you think that that was a bad deal, try swallowing this: we also now have to pay 30 years of toll, and also pay 10% of the bill every three years if tolls are not allowed to be increased. This is reminiscent of the rip-off IPP deal that Mahathir gave YTL that agreement has ended and not renewed by the Najib administration.
In 2011, Najib’s administration took over PLUS from private hands, restructured the deal and avoided future toll hikes. The government owns 51% of PLUS while 49% is owned by the EPF.
All the concession agreements are now no longer being subjected to the Official Secrets Act. I am sure there is a link somewhere where we can view these agreements and the terms given to the concessionaires. However, MEX has this far declined to open up its concession agreement and we must all call for the agreement to be made public as it affects us all.
This brings me to remember what Miss Lim Sian See wrote a few months ago:
Dear Siti Nurhaliza (always wanted to write to her), the PEMUDA UMNO, Pakatan leaders, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, Khairy Jamaluddin dan yang lain lan penyokong Tun Dr M,
If I may seek your passion again, sirs and madams,
The last few days, you people have demanded to seek the truth about the Tabung Haji land purchase from 1MDB as you say it is shameful, putting Haji money at risk, against Agama, etc – with a vengeance and with a vigor thus far unseen.
Now, Malaysia Insider (not always correct nor 100% truthful, I must admit) has bongkar certain Lembaga Tabung Haji deals that seems to be clear bail-outs of the Maju group that has actually caused losses of depositor money. http://tinyurl.com/lmuaz45
These are the allegations by Malaysia Insider (citing Wall Street Journal) regarding Tun M’s govt bailing out private companies using Tabung Haji Money.
1) 1996,- LTH invested RM67m with Maju Holdings project in Johor – only for the project to immediately run into trouble:
Total loss to Tabung Haji: RM67m
2) 1998 – LTH paid RM436.38 million to Maju Group for two then uncomplete properties valued at RM267.92 million.
Total loss to Tabung Haji: RM168.46m
Other allegations include: -The chairman of Tabung Haji then was Tun M’s brother in law, the late Tan Sri Ahmad Razali Mohamed Ali – a clear case of nepotism.
– Immediate upfront payment RM220 million for a building yet to start construction even though Treasury guidelines only allow maximum of RM5 million – which was 15% value of the construction work.
Let me highlight the differences between the deals then and now for you:
1) MAJU HOLDINGS deals of he 1990s – Tabung Haji paid RM504 million to a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL COMPANY for assets professionally valued at RM267.92m – causing REAL LOSSES to TH of RM235.5m
2) 1MDB TRX deal of the 2015 – Tabung Haji paid RM188.5 million to a 100% GOVT-OWNED COMPANY for assets professionally valued at RM195 million (and secured further with another asset worth RM370m) . But will soon sell off at a PROFIT to TH for a few million.
See the difference?
Tun M time:
One is LOSSES to TH and payment by TH to a private company- money never to be recovered for assets worth less than half of what was paid.
One is PROFIT to TH and payment by TH to a 100% GOVT company – money – money that will immediately be recovered within a week for assets worth more than was paid.
I am just asking you all to be fair and use the same enthusiasm, venom and vigor to seek the kebenaran on the Tun M era deals.
You have asked MACC, AG, PDRM to investigate 1MDB and TH and Najib.
Just to be fair, can you please also ask MACC, AG (actually already investigated and found wrong-doing), PDRM to investigate Maju and TH and Tun M?
And if Tun M is guilty as accused (or refuses to answer) then please condemn him as much as you have condemned others and please never again side with him.
Also find out who is responsible but make sure you ask about the case where Tabung Haji lost money and not the one where it made money.
Please be fair and act fairly – or be considered hypocrite.
It stares at you. It is dead, has been so for the past 15 months, victim of a struggle it never was a part of. Yet you cannot avoid the stare and today we know why.
A couple of hours after the MH17 went down, I was asked to appear on a TV channel to try and make sense of what was happening. I finally left the studio at 6.30am saying that a BUK system had downed the aircraft.
We know now that it’s true. The 9M-MRD was downed by a proximity-fused BUK. Conspiracy theorists were quick to jump the gun saying a Su-25 Frogfoot did it using its cannons while others posted a video of a plane going down somewhere in India and passed that off as the MH17.
There were no bombs on board, no were there bullet holes on any part of the fuselage. In fact Malaysia Airlines too cannot be faulted for flying in that area because 61 carriers flew there, with 160 aircraft flying there on that fateful day itself until the airspace was declared off-limits.
When the announcement was made by the Dutch Safety Board, everyone thought it would be the day we would know who the perpetrators are. When no such detail was given, families were left disappointed. Some journalists and even a cabinet minister asked on social media why have the perpetrators been allowed to go scot-free?
This is the Dutch Safety Board. It operates in accordance with Annex 13 of the ICAO guidelines as follows:
The investigation team was only to find out hownthe plane was brought down and if there were weaknesses in the system that could have prevented the incident from happening – and learn lessons to prevent recurrence. To find the perpetrators is the job of another investigation team that looks at the criminal aspects of the MH17 incident.
We all want to know who made 9M-MRD stare at us like in the photo above. But that is not for us to know tonight. That will come at a time I hope that is not too far in the future.
I am glad that the cockpit crew did not know what happened to them. It was swift. It was in the microseconds. I am not too happy that some had a minute or slightly more to digest what was happening. I don’t even want to imagine those last moments.
And we wouldn’t have known anything much had we not been able to retrieve the black boxes as well as most of the bodies of the victims if not for these two men who worked in an unorthodox manner to secure them.
While everyone else was figuring on how to get to Donetsk, these mostly-forgotten two paved the way for our team to get there.
FAQ ISU KENAIKAN KADAR TOL SOALAN : MENGAPAKAH PENGUMUMAN KENAIKAN KADAR TOL DIBUAT OLEH SYARIKAT KONSESI?
Pengumuman mengenai kadar tol yang baru di 18 lebuh raya tol bermula 15 Oktober 2015 telah dibuat sendiri oleh syarikat-syarikat konsesi lebuh raya yang berkaitan memandangkan mereka mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk menguruskan lebuh raya masing-masing untuk satu tempoh masa berdasarkan Perjanjian Konsesi yang ditandatangani.
SOALAN : ADAKAH MELALUI PERJANJIAN KONSESI (CA) SESUATU KADAR TOL PERLU DINAIKKAN?
Didalam Perjanjian Konsesi yang ditandatangani, ada beberapa komponen seperti jadual kadar tol sepanjang tempoh konsesi di mana penentuan kadar tol dan tempoh kenaikan kadar tol adalah mengambil kira kos operasi, penyenggaraan, unjuran trafik dan kos pembiayaan kewangan (loan repayment). Atas faktor-faktor inilah, tempoh kenaikan kadar tol perlu dikaji secara puratanya di antara 3 hingga 5 tahun. Oleh yang demikian, kenaikan kadar tol adalah diperlukan oleh syarikat-syarikat konsesi yang terlibat untuk membolehkan mereka menampung kos-kos operasi dan penyenggaraan di lebuh raya masing-masing demi memastikan keselamatan dan keselesaan pemanduan yang optimum.
SOALAN : APAKAH PERKARA YANG DIAMBIL KIRA KERAJAAN DALAM MEMBUAT KEPUTUSAN KADAR KENAIKAN TOL PADA TAHUN 2015?
Bagi tahun 2015, kenaikan kadar tol telah dikaji dengan teliti dengan mengambil kira beberapa parameter. Antara parameter yang telah digunakan adalah penstrukturan semula dasar subsidi nasional di mana kenaikan kadar tol ini dapat menjimatkan perbelanjaan Kerajaan yang dianggarkan sebanyak RM580 juta yang seterusnya boleh digunakan untuk tujuan pembangunan lain yang lebih memerlukan. SOALAN : APAKAH KESAN KENAIKAN TOL KEPADA KEWANGAN KERAJAAN ?
Kenaikan kadar tol mulai 15 Oktober 2015 seperti yang diumumkan oleh syarikat-syarikat konsesi lebuh raya perlu dilihat dari segi penjimatan kepada kewangan negara. Setiap tahun, Kerajaan perlu membayar pampasan penangguhan kenaikan kadar tol kepada syarikat-syarikat konsesi lebuh raya sekiranya kadar tol tidak dinaikkan. Dalam hal ini, Kerajaan perlu membayar pampasan yang dianggarkan sebanyak RM580 juta kepada syarikat-syarikat konsesi lebuh raya sekiranya kadar tol tidak dinaikkan pada tahun 2015. Penjimatan sebanyak RM580 juta ini boleh digunakan untuk membiayai perkara-perkara seperti berikut: penurapan semula 380km jalan-jalan sediada; pembinaan sebanyak 380 buah jejantas baru; pembinaan 19 jambatan baru; dan pembinaan 58 sekolah rendah yang baru. Kenaikan kadar tol adalah salah satu langkah awal yang perlu diambil oleh Kerajaan untuk mengawal bilangan kenderaan yang masuk ke Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Sekiranya langkah ini tidak dilaksanakan, ianya dikhuatiri akan menyebabkan kesesakan yang agak kritikal di Kuala Lumpur.
SOALAN : APAKAH KEBAIKAN PENJIMATAN PERBELANJAAN KERAJAAN HASIL DARIPADA KENAIKAN KADAR TOL?
Melalui penstrukturan semula dasar subsidi ini, Kerajaan dapat menumpukan perhatian dalam membangunkan ekonomi negara yang pada akhirnya akan memanfaatkan rakyat sekalian. SOALAN : APAKAH TINDAKAN MITIGASI OLEH KERAJAAN DALAM MENGURANGKAN KESAN KENAIKAN TOL KEPADA RAKYAT DI BANDAR ? DAN APAKAH SOLUSI UNTUK RAKYAT YANG MEMBAYAR TOL NAMUN MASIH TERPERANGKAP DENGAN KESESAKAN JALANRAYA?
Pemantapan sistem pengangkutan awam darat adalah antara usaha Kerajaan untuk mengurangkan kesan kenaikan tol ini dengan menggalakkan pengguna beralih kepada penggunaan pengangkutan awam. Ini kerana kadar tol untuk bas tidak akan dinaikkan dan akan kekal seperti mana sekarang. Rakyat mampu memperolehi penjimatan untuk urusan seharian mereka apabila mereka tidak perlu mengeluarkan perbelanjaan tambahan untuk tol, kos bahanapi serta mampu meminimakan risiko kemungkinan berlakunya kemalangan akibat sikap pemandu di jalanraya. Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) melalui Government Trasnformation Programme : NKRA Urban Public Transport mempunyai perancangan jangka panjang dalam meningkatkan sistem pengangkutan awam darat. Tiga (3) bentuk approach telah dikenal pasti iaitu: pembangunan sistem rel (MRT, LRT & monorel); pembangunan hub pengangkutan awam darat (hub utara di Gombak, hub selatan di Bandar Tasik Selatan dan hub utara di Sungai Buloh); dan pembangunan sistem pengangkutan awam seperti teksi dan GoKL. Usaha ini mampu mengurangkan kesesakan di bandar besar seperti Kuala Lumpur. Pembinaan Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) juga adalah salah satu aspek yang dikenal pasti untuk mengurangkan kesesakan di kawasan-kawasan yang mempunyai tahap kepadatan penduduk yang tinggi. Fasa pertama yang menghubungkan kawasan Subang, USJ dan Sunway telah siap dan buat masa ini, ridership BRT di kawasan tersebut sedang meningkat. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) telah membina dua (2) kawasan park-ride di Stesen LRT Sungai Besi dan Bandar Salak Selatan bagi kemudahan pengguna-pengguna LRT yang ingin ke bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Satu lagi kemudahan park-ride sedang dibina oleh DBKL berdekatan dengan Taman Segar, Cheras untuk kegunaan para pengguna MRT. Oleh yang demikian, Kerajaan berharap agar usaha penambahbaikan sistem pengangkutan awam darat ini mampu menyediakan prasarana yang boleh membantu mengurangkan beban perbelanjaan dan kos sara hidup atau sebagai alternatif kenaikan kadar tol di lebuh raya-lebuh raya.
SOALAN : APAKAH USAHA KERAJAAN MENGURANGKAN BEBAN KEWANGAN PENGGUNA LEBUH RAYA?
Kerajaan pada dasarnya prihatin terhadap peningkatan kos sara hidup rakyat. Oleh yang demikian, beberapa pendekatan telah diperkenalkan oleh Kerajaan untuk mengurangkan kos sara hidup rakyat yang berkaitan dengan kadar tol. Antara pendekatan yang telah diambil oleh Kerajaan adalah seperti berikut: Penutupan Awal dan Pemansuhan Kutipan Tol Sejak 1993, Kerajaan telah melaksanakan penutupan serta pemansuhan kutipan tol di lapan (8) lokasi seperti berikut : 11 Januari 1993 – penutupan Plaza Tol Slim River, Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan (PLUS) 1 Mac 2004 – Pemansuhan kutipan tol di Plaza Tol Senai, Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan (PLUS); 18 Mac 2004 – Penutupan awal plaza tol di Jalan Pahang, Lebuhraya Hubungan Timur Barat (Metramac) (Tarikh sebenar penutupan mengikut perjanjian konsesi adalah pada 31 Mac 2004); 14 Februari 2009 – Pemansuhan kutipan tol di Plaza Tol PJS2 (arah Kuala Lumpur), Lebuhraya Baru Pantai (NPE); 24 Februari 2009 – Pemansuhan kutipan tol Plaza Tol Salak Jaya di Lebuhraya Sungai Besi (BESRAYA); 21 Disember 2009 – Penutupan awal Plaza Tol Teluk Kapas, Lebuhraya Pintas Selat Klang Utara (NNKSB) (Tarikh sebenar penutupan mengikut perjanjian konsesi adalah pada 29 Disember 2009); 16 Mei 2011- Pemansuhan kutipan tol di Lebuhraya Hubungan Timur Barat (Metramac); dan 2 Mac 2012 – Pemansuhan kutipan tol di laluan ke Kuala Lumpur, Plaza Tol Batu 9 dan laluan Ke Kajang, Plaza Tol Batu 11, Lebuhraya Cheras – Kajang (GRANDSAGA). Pengurangan Kadar Tol Sehingga kini, pengurangan kadar tol telah dilaksanakan di tiga lebuh raya, seperti berikut: 1 September 2007 – Pengurangan kadar tol di Plaza Tol Sungai Nyior, Lebuhraya Butterworth Outer Ring Road (BORR), dari RM0.90 ke RM0.50 sejak tahun 2007; 18 Februari 2011 – Pengurangan kadar tol di Plaza Tol PJS2 (arah Subang), Lebuhraya Baru Pantai (NPE) bagi kenderaan Kelas 1 dari RM1.60 ke RM1.00 sejak tahun 2011; dan 15 Januari 2013 – Pengurangan kadar tol di Lebuhraya Shah Alam (KESAS) bagi kenderaan Kelas 1 dari RM2.20 ke RM2.00 bagi tempoh 2013 hingga 2015. Penstrukturan Semula Kenaikan Kadar Tol Kerajaan juga pada masa yang sama telah melaksanakan penstrukturan semula kenaikan kadar tol di lebuh raya-lebuh raya di bawah kendalian syarikat Plus Expressways Berhad (PEB) dan Kumpulan MTD. Penstrukturan ini dilaksanakan melalui tiada kenaikan tol bagi lebuh raya-lebuh raya di bawah kendalian PEB untuk tempoh dari 2011 hingga 2015. Manakala, bagi lebuh raya-lebuh raya di bawah kendalian Kumpulan MTD pula, tiada kenaikan tol dari tempoh 2011 hingga 2014. Lebuh raya-lebuh raya di bawah kendalian PEB yang terlibat adalah seperti berikut: Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan (PLUS); Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan Hubungan Tengah (ELITE); Lebuhraya Laluan Kedua Malaysia
My take on yesterday morning’s press conference where the group of 6 spoke against SOSMA being used on Mahathir’s running dogs.
1) Mahathir now publicly admits that Dato Sri Najib has telor (balls).
Not only has Najib dismissed the two unlucky persons sitting on the right of him from cabinet, Mahathir also admits that Najib is brave enough to throw two of his idiots in jail – Mr Botox and Mr Fast-Until-Death-For-Eight-Days-Only.
The two were hit by SOSMA and charged under Section 124(L) of the Penal Code for passing unverified OSA documents to foreign agencies in their round-the-world trip to no less than half a dozen countries – and in the process, have hurt our country’s economic sentiments and our Ringgit.
“Roti Telor Satu!”
They were not held for speaking out against the government as Mahathir alleges. If this was indeed the case, Anina, Tony Pua and even Mahathir himself would already be held under SOSMA. Perhaps, Mahathir was trying to equate the arrest of the two to the hundreds of detentions without trial he prescribed during his 22-year dictatorship. Those were the years when, as Mahathir aptly describes, no one was arrested under the ISA for making a police report – because no one dared to make any police report against him for fear of being incarcerated.
2) Mahathir also brought Ku Li – who has stated that this is his last term as MP – just to tell the world that a vote of no confidence against Najib will not succeed. Ku Li also subtly took a swipe at Mahathir for introducing the self-serving system that is now protecting Najib.
3) Mahathir is also telling the world that he has failed to protect the people who trusted him – either they are in jail or they lost their job and is now in political wilderness.
Mahathir is essentially sending out the message that he has failed those who trusted him. Who else would want to listen to the old fart now?
Mahathir also appears to be saying he is now afraid of Najib. And that Najib may even be brave enough to act against him. Much like how Mahathir acted against his seniors in the past such as Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn.
4) Mahathir brought Sanusi Junid and Ong Tee Keat to send a message that the only persons willing to support him now are those frustrated politicians of the past.
Sanusi Junid left UMNO in 2008 and consequently lost his prestigious post of UIAM president. He also did not get a chance to defend his seat in the 2013 General Elections. He remains in the political wilderness.
Ong Tee Keat became the shortest lived MCA president (he lasted just 17 months) when he lost to Chua Soi Lek despite Chua having a sex-scandal on him. He was also dropped unceremoniously in the 2013 elections. Later in the year, he was crushed in his bid for MCA presidency and came a distant last out of three candidates.
He, however remains as the chairman of Yayasan Bakti Nusa Malaysia, a NGO he founded whose head office is above the local 7-11 in Pandan Jaya.
Ong too remains in the political wilderness and unable to garner any support.
5) The smartest person here who did not attend appears to be long-time Mahathir supporter Tun Daim who refuses to appear in public with this bunch of frustrated leaders since he knows that Tun M can no longer defend him from harm.
Tun Daim is smart enough to stay away and not put his rumoured billions of ringgit wealth in jeopardy.
And that is my understanding of what Mahathir was actually trying to say yesterday morning.
“Jom balik! Chek tak mau dah tengok muka Najib. Apa hat Chek dok buat kat dia semua dok kena tang hidung mamak chek!“