Friday, December 2, 2016

火箭与民交流 Dialogue With DAP



民主行动党将于12月3日(星期六)下午2时至4时在BDC 的 C Three Food Corner 举办一场《火箭与民交流会》,届时行动党的领袖以及实淡宾区国会议员陈国彬将会前往该处接收投诉,注册选民登记以及向人民汇报刚刚结束的州议会以及国会的事宜。
古晋区国会议员张健仁特别助理俞利文表示,当天行动党砂拉越主席张健仁也将会在交流会上向人民汇报他被议长禁足州议会的来龙去脉。哥打圣淘沙区州议员张健仁是由于在州议会召开的第一天向首席部长追问小型乡村发展金当中的2亿5千万不翼而飞一事而遭到砂州议长指示第二财政部长黄顺舸动议禁足。
俞利文说,人民有权力知道政府的发展动向,也有权力知道政府所拨款的钱到底去了哪里;而人民是透过他们所委托的代议士进入州议会以监督以及确保政府所批出的拨款不会被干捞。倘若由人民一人一票所选出来的代议士在神圣的议会殿堂就连最基本的知情权都没有的话,那么人民委托的代议士的职责是什么?
We will be having a Dialogue Session with DAP tomorrow at BDC. (3/12/2016)
YB Chong Chieng Jen and YB Julian Tan will be present to engage the public as well as discuss on updates in the recently concluded Parliament Session as well as the State Assembly.

‘Wong’s answer on ‘missing MRP fund’ raises more questions than answers’

Chong (right) during a press conference yesterday accompanied by Pending assemblywoman Violet Yong
KUCHING: Second Finance Minister Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh’s answer on the ‘missing RM250 million MRP (Minor Rural Project) Fund’ has raised more questions than answer on the subject, says Kota Sentosa assemblyman Chong Chieng Jen.
Chong, who is state DAP chairman, quoted Wong as saying during his ministerial winding-up speech at the recently concluded State Legislative Assembly (DUN) sitting in respect of the approved RM905.9 million MRP Fund allocation, “at the closing of 2015 account, an amount of RM572.8 million was spent while the un-utilised allocation of RM333.1 million has, in fact, remained intact in the Consolidated Fund”.
“From this one answer from Wong Soon Koh, there are five more questions for him to answer. His answer is in direct contradiction with the Chief Minister and Finance Minister I’s (Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem) answer on the approved allocation for MRP fund in year 2015.
“The full text of the Chief Minister’s answer given in October, 2016 is as follows: ‘For the information of Ahli Yang Berhormat for Kota Sentosa, the total allocation approved for Minor Rural Projects in 2015 was RM655.9 million to implement 11,878 projects in the State. Of these projects, 11,465 have been completed. The remaining 413 are still under various stages of implementation and scheduled for completion in 2016.’
“From Wong Soon Koh’s answer, he confirms that the total approved allocation for MRP fund in 2015 is RM905.9 million. Why is there such a discrepancy in the ‘approved allocation for MRP fund’ in the sum of RM250 million between the answers given by the Finance Minister II (Wong Soon Koh) and Finance Minister I (Chief Minister)? Was Adenan trying to hide something?” Chong questioned during a press conference here yesterday.
The Bandar Kuching MP said if Wong’s answer were correct, then, out of the total approved RM905.9 million MRP fund in year 2015, a large sum of RM333.1 million remained un-utilised.
“That is 36.8 per cent of the approved fund not utilised and it is highly inefficient rate of implementation of projects and budgetary allocations by the Sarawak State Government. Is this 36.8 per cent rate of un-utilised approved fund the general rate across the board for the State Government’s budget? If it were the case, then for every announced allocation of RM1 billion, only RM632 million of the fund will be used by the end of the year.
“Adenan/Wong Soon Koh must give the people of Sarawak a full account of the utilisation rates of all the approved allocation and explain their inefficiency.”
Chong pointed out that the RM905.9 million MRP fund for year 2015 was approved by the DUN in two stages, namely, on Nov 19, 2014, a sum of RM655.9 million was allocated under Budget 2015; and on April 24, 2015, an additional sum of RM250 million was approved under the first Supplementary Estimates of Development Expenditure 2015.
“When the Government could not even fully utilised the initial RM655.9 million MRP fund approved in the Budget 2015, why did the State Government seek another RM250 million MRP fund allocation in the same year? Was it done for the purpose of image building and to trick the rural people into voting for BN during the Sarawak Elections?”
Additionally, he questioned whether there were proposed MRP when Wong tabled the first Supplementary Estimates of Development Expenditure 2015 April 24, 2015 for an additional RM250 million MRP fund?
“If yes, what are these proposed projects and why are these projects not carried out? If no, is it a practice of the State Government to simply seek DUN’s approval of allocation without even having any idea what to do with the fund?
“If such were the case, then it could be RM250 million today, tomorrow, it can be RM2.5 billion. Then, all those announcement of allocation will amount to nothing, because at the end of the day, it is still up to the Government whether to implement such projects or otherwise.”
Chong said the fact remained that in the answer given by Adenan, an amount of approved RM250 million MRP fund is missing, adding that when the actual approved MRP Fund in year 2015 was RM905.9 million, the answer provided by Adenan was that the total approved MRP fund was only RM655.9 million, a shortfall of RM250 million.
“If Wong Soon Koh is so sure of his answer, why is he not confident enough to face my questioning in DUN but instead chose to suspend me from DUN and thereafter have a monologue in DUN by him alone on the matter?”
He said in either of the answers from Adenan or Wong, it was thus revealed that the Government might have announced hundreds of millions of allocation during the presentation of Budgets, but at the end of the day, when it came to implementation, it fell far short of the announced allocation.
“This is irresponsible and untruthful budgeting and it is just gimmicks to fool the people about how caring and generous the government is while in actual fact, the full amount of the approved allocation will not be used.”
Chong said in the case of the RM250 million MRP funds, in May, 2015, Adenan was boasting about using the money to uplift the livelihood of rural people, thus giving lots of excitement to rural folks.
“Yet, it is only at end of 2016, after persistent probing by DAP elected representatives that we discovered, not a single sen of the RM250 million MRP fund approved by the DUN was spent on the rural folks. Had there not been the persisting supervision by DAP elected representatives, all Sarawakians will still be fooled by Adenan thinking that the additional RM250 million MRP fund has been used for the benefits of the rural folks.”
Meanwhile, Chong said DAP would be holding a ‘Kopitiam Ceramah’ at C3 Cafe in BDC from 2pm to 4pm, this Saturday (Dec 3).
TheBorneoPost  Friday 2/12/2016

针对2亿5000万拨款 张健仁再抛5疑问

砂行动党哥打圣淘沙区州议员张健仁发言时摄。
(本报古晋1日讯)砂行动党哥打圣淘沙区州议员张健仁表示﹐砂第二财政部长拿督斯里黄顺舸针对“2亿5000万令吉小型乡区计划拨款”课题所给予的答案﹐非但没有真正回答有关课题﹐反而带出更多与砂拉越政府财政部拨款事项相关的问题﹐所以他就此另外提出5道问题﹐以期其疑惑能够从中获得解答。

同时身为砂行动党党主席的他是在今早于该党总部召开的新闻发布会上发言时﹐如是表示。
他说﹐拿督斯里黄顺舸日前在砂拉越立法议会中进行部门总结时说明﹐在2015年12月31日结帐时﹐是笔总数为9亿零590万令吉的小型乡区计划拨款﹐其实只用了5亿7280万令吉﹐而还没有用上的3亿3310万令吉拨款﹐则还是留在政府的统一户口中。
他表示﹐针对有关回应﹐他将另外提出5道问题﹐以期其疑惑能够从中获得解答。
差钜额意味效率差?
“我的问题是;砂财政部长与砂第二财政部长的答案.为何出现2亿5000万令吉的差别?36.8%拨款未获使用,是否意味砂拉越政府的效率奇差?2亿5000万令吉拨款的增加,是否是为了要应付砂拉越大选?财政预算案是否没有计划就先拨款?”
在质问小型乡区计划拨款数额为何相差2亿5000万令吉时﹐他就透露﹐根据砂财政部长拿督巴丁宜丹斯里阿迪南沙登在今年10月份所给予的书面回答﹐砂拉越政府在2015年所批准的小型乡区计划拨款总数为6亿5590万令吉﹐而拿督斯里黄顺舸所给予的相关答案则显示﹐砂拉越政府在2015年所批准的小型乡区计划拨款总为9亿零590万令吉。
“财政部长和第二财政部长针对同一项拨款所给予的答案﹐为何却有不同的数额﹐并且还出现2亿5000万令吉的差距﹖”
他披露﹐若拿督斯里黄顺舸所给予的答案是正确的话﹐那则意味说﹐虽然砂拉越立法议会已予以批准﹐但当中36.8%的小型乡区计划拨款却未被使用。
“在执行工程方面﹐这是奇差的效率﹐这是否就是砂拉越政府在执行其他工程方面的效率指标﹖”
他也透露﹐2015年的小型乡区计划拨款乃是由砂拉越立法议会在两次会议中通过的﹐而其第一次及第二次被通过的拨款数额﹐就分别为6亿5590万令吉﹐以及2亿5000万令吉。
另行拨款为了大选﹖
“在原来通过的6亿5590万令吉都还不能用完的情况下﹐为何还要寻求砂拉越立法议会另行批准一笔多达2亿5000万令吉的小型乡区计划拨款﹖难道有关拨款是为了要应付砂拉越大选﹖”
他还说明﹐先有工程计划﹐再寻求砂拉越立法议会拨款﹐乃是正常的政府拨款程序﹐但在寻求砂拉越立法议会再批准2亿5000万令吉小型乡区计划拨款时﹐砂拉越政府又是否已有计划要落实哪一些乡区工程﹖
他还置疑﹐如果真的对自身所给予的理由有信心的话﹐那为何相关部长不选择与他当面对质﹐反而选择将他逐出砂拉越立法议会后才一个人在议会内发言﹖
转载自诗华日报

Monday, October 24, 2016

Chong regrets Foo’s defence of Maybank

KUCHING: Bandar Kuching MP Chong Chieng Jen regrets that SUPP Central Youth publicity secretary Milton Foo has defended corporations rather than the interests of the community.
Chong, also Kota Sentosa assemblyman and state DAP chairman, wondered why Foo had recently hit out at him for appealing to Maybank to reconsider its decision to close down the MJC branch.
“Even though a bank is a profit-making institution, it also has social obligation, not to mention that Maybank is the largest banking institution in Malaysia.
“The MJC branch is the only Maybank outlet serving people in the area. No doubt that e-banking is convenient but it may not be such a case for some especially senior citizens,” he told reporters here yesterday.
Chong said he had recently written to Maybank headquarters, requesting the bank to continue operating its MJC branch.
He added that a copy of the same letter had also been delivered to Bank Negara Malaysia.
“Never mind that Milton Foo did not defend the people, it is his choice. But at the very least, do not mess with what I’m trying to do — defend the interest of the people.”
He also ridiculed the justification Foo gave for the closure of Maybank MJC branch.
“I have never heard of closing down a branch to keep the same number of employees. When you cut down branches, the next step would be cutting down the number of employees.”
In a press statement last week, Chong said the MJC branch was the only Maybank outlet for Batu Kawa area, and that its relocation would cause great inconvenience to businesses and residents.
TheBorneoPost October 24, 2016

MJC Mutiara residents complain of cracked, sinking walls

KUCHING: Residents of No1 to No 26 houses at MJC Mutiara here are frustrated with the developer’s indifference to solve engineering issues affecting their houses.
The gate to Simon’s (right) house cannot be properly closed due to the sinking walls. Also with Simon are Chong (centre) and his special assistant Kelvin Yii.
Many of them have complained individually about the cracks on concrete walls and sinking walls in the past couple of years, but the developer has so far taken no serious action to resolve the matter.
Simon Ritom, owner of house No 25, moved into his ‘dream home’ in 2008. Little did he know that his beautiful dream has now turned into a nightmare when the walls of his house began to show cracks from 2011.
He brought the problem to the developer, only to be told ‘Sorry, your warranty has lapsed’ although the developer did eventually patch up some cracks following his numerous complaints.
“If it is a leaking roof or minor cracks, I can repair them  myself. But we are talking about the main pillars of my house, which isn’t just (any) minor defect. After complaining for three years, I gave up. And now, I cannot even close my gate,” he said when met at the residential area yesterday.
Simon said he was more concerned about his safety, and hoped that the developer would do something before any untoward incident happened.
“I don’t even know when the ceiling will fall. This is my life investment. When I bought the house in 2008, it was perfect. I was so attracted to it that I quickly signed the contract.”
Just as Simon was about to accept his fate, his neighbours — who face the same problem — decided to defend the interest of house owners there by approaching Bandar Kuching MP and Kota Sentosa assemblyman Chong Chieng Jen.
Prior to seeking help from Chong, the residents jointly wrote a letter to the developer in May. They appealed to the developer to look into the structural defects given that these cracks were not just cosmetic.
“The walls are actually sinking. The sinking wall can even be a safety hazard as it may collapse and cause injury. We have consulted an engineering company and we have confirmed that the cracks were caused by lack of structural foundation when the walls were built,” the letter stated.
However, their letter was apparently ignored because the developer did not contact any of the house owners.
Left with no choice, one of the residents, Wong Shian Long, approached Chong, who then set up a meeting with the developer on July 19.
“If not for Chong, the developer wouldn’t even want to take our calls, let alone meet us. I have lived in Mutiara for at least eight years, and I have been begging the developer to look into those cracks since six years ago,” lamented Wong.
According to Chong, the meeting in July went well with the developer pledging to send engineers within two weeks and rectify the problems faced by the residents within two months.
Three months on, the developer has taken no serious effort to solve the issue as of yesterday.
Chong said many residents told him that the developer did send some ‘young trainees’ to walk around the gated community but they did not enter any house to check the cracked and sinking walls.
“All that the residents want is for the developer to resolve the problem. You cannot just leave them high and dry. They gave the developer a chance by not going to the press but went to meet them in July. Yet nothing was done.”
He said he would write another letter to the developer as well as the Ministry of Housing as the next course of action, if the developer continued to remain deaf to the complaints.
TheBorneoPost October 24,2016

从“梦想房屋”变“破裂房屋” 26住宅围墙倾斜陷龟裂

(本报古晋23日讯)疑因地基问题,石角区26间住宅屋外地面下陷,水泥围墙出现裂痕并呈倾斜,一些房子也面对墙壁、柱子龟裂等问题。
房子后水泥围墙龟裂,已可透过裂痕看到墙外景物。
行动党古晋区国会议员兼哥打圣淘沙区州议员张健仁今日携媒体巡视石角区一住宅区,他称,当地房屋疑因地基问题,导致26间住宅屋外地面下陷,屋后水泥围墙也出现裂痕并呈倾斜,一些房子也面对墙壁、柱子龟裂等问题。
屋主西门向记者展示,其屋外地面下陷程度。
曾向发展商反映
他指出,屋主们过去曾个别向房屋发展商反映,但不得要领,因此今年7月份向他求助。经他向发展商联络,双方展开会议,发展商答应2周内派工程师考察,并于2个月内作出改善。
但根据居民所见,发展商的年轻工程师只是到当地走马看花,而且直到目前还是没有采取行动。有鉴于此,他们希望透过媒体的报导,让发展商重视此问题。与此同时,张健仁表示,他将就此事致函有关发展商以及砂拉越房屋部。
影响车房天花板
其中一名屋主王小龙向媒体指出,他在购买房子时曾发现屋内墙壁有龟裂现象,但发展方告诉他,那只是油漆问题。但没想到,问题一年比一年严重,当年的“梦想房屋”如今成了“破裂房屋”。
另一名屋主西门也表示,其屋子情况最为严重,因地面下陷,所以屋前篱笆如今无法关上,而且柱子也出现裂痕,甚至车房天花板也受影响。他称:“这间屋子是我毕生的投资,我已经没有能力再购买其他房屋。”
转载自 诗华日报

张健仁抨符祥威 为何捍卫马银行?

(本报古晋23日讯)行动党古晋区国会议员张健仁炮轰符祥威,在马来亚银行关闭石角分行课题上不为人民仗义执言,反而搞破坏!
行动党古晋区国会议员张健仁(左)炮轰符祥威,在马来亚银行关闭石角分行课题上若是不敢为人民仗义执言,至少也不要搞破坏。右为张健仁特别助理俞利文。
同时是行动党哥打圣淘沙区州议员的张健仁表示,人联党青年团宣教秘书符祥威在马来亚银行关闭石角分行课题上抨击该党,令他感到遗憾。
他称:“人联党依然在为大公司发言,而非老百姓利益为出发点。我感到不解,为什么他要去捍卫银行的决定?”
不顾百姓利益
他表示,虽然银行是商业机构,但除了利益,他们对社区有其责任和义务,包括给民众带来发展和便利,特别是作为国内最大银行的马来亚银行。该银行石角新市镇分行是2公里内的唯一分行,虽说采用电子化可以省时,但对许多民众,特别是年长者而言并不方便,甚至他本身也很少以电子化处理银行事务。
“我们提出问题,据理力争,我们有理由,为了人民利益。我非常遗憾,人联党符祥威却置平民百姓利益于不顾,贯彻人联党一贯作风。”
奉劝别搞破坏
“对于符祥威的立场,你不帮人民发言,这是你的选择,至少你不要搞破坏。我奉劝人联党,若是不敢仗义执言,不敢站在人民立场发言,至少不要搞破坏。”
对于关闭石角新市镇分行是为了削减开销,否则会有人被解雇的说法,张健仁直言,这是胡言乱语,若是关闭分行,反而才会出现此情况。
转载自 诗华日报