Polis oh polis...

Debate Speech by Ali Biju

Debate Speech by Ali Biju, ADUN N34 (Krian), on Motion To Appreciate the Speech by the TYT Governor 

Datuk Sri Speaker Sir,

I rise to join my honourable colleagues in this august House to participate in the debate in respect of the Motion to appreciate our TYT’s address.

Whilst TYT’s speech encompasses numerous issues, touching on the socio-economy of Sarawak, I shall raise some issues pertinent to my constituency N34 Krian in particular and Sarawak in general.

Datuk Sri Speaker, Sarawak’s rural population has been in acute poverty since independence. The World Bank confirmed late last year that Sarawak has achieved the dubious distinction of being one of the poorest states in Malaysia. The Director General of the Economic Unit Datuk Dr. Sulaiman Mahbob disclosed that the poorest people in Malaysia are indigenous communities living in Sarawak and Sabah and that a high level of income disparity contributes to a high level of poverty since a smaller share of income is obtained by those at the bottom of the income distribution. According to the IMF and the World Bank, the causes of inequality are: (i) improper government policies and (ii) exploitation by government agencies and businesses with power and influence.

Land Development Policies - Plantation

At Krian Ulu, many landowners have participated in SALCRA (Sarawak Land Consolidated and Rehabilitation Authority) schemes to develop their land for the last 15 years with high hopes of getting benefits in terms of dividends. SALCRA has land coverage of 48,721 ha of oil palm estate. Early this year SALCRA, through the Minister of Agriculture, announced the amount of dividends in the sum of RM74, 260,000.00 to be distributed to participants for 2011. Landowners were very happy and excited to hear this good news since it means on average, each participant could receive about RM1,500.00 per ha. However, the participants at Krian Ulu received almost nothing. So, I strongly demand that SALCRA, in particular, the Minister in charge, explain to the affected landowners the reasons they got almost nothing.

If during this period of high commodity price of palm oil, SALCRA is still not making profit, may I suggest that SALCRA revert and return the cultivated land back to landowners immediately and not wait for the agreed period of 25 years? I believe many of the participants are in better positions to manage their own land profitably.

Some SALCRA land areas are not even planted yet with oil palm. I have also received the Statement of Account for the Year Ended Dec. 31, 2009 of SALCRA which states that the net profits for “authority” and “group” are RM12, 775,332 and RM22, 475,081 respectively. So, when the Minister cum Chairman announced dividends of RM74 million, I wonder where the profit has come from. The Minister should furnish us with the Statement of Account Ended Dec. 31, 2010 to explain this disparity.

Another agency that is involved in land development is PELITA which is under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister. PELITA has been cultivating land under “New Concept” in many areas of Sarawak such as Kanowit, Meruan, Dijih and Mukah. PELITA also has about 9,000 ha of provisional lease of NCR land in Kabo-Awik-Budu area. In reference to this type of development and poor testimonials of PELITA, the majority of landowners in my constituency particularly in Kabo-Awik-Budu areas do not want to participate in this so called New Concept JV land development.

Any proposed agreement to develop land through this New Concept between PELITA and community leaders like Tuai Rumah, Penghulu or Pemanca is legally null and void because community leaders are in neither legal nor traditional positions to represent anybody with regard to private land ownership. As such, there must be no coercion or intimidation or pressure at all on those who refuse to participate. The names of native landowners who refuse to participate in Kabo-Awik-Budu scheme will be submitted to PELITA soon.

Instead of participating in large scale “New Concept”, mono-crop land development, the landowners prefer to develop their own land through agencies of their choice like RISDA, smallholdings under RME-Rubber Mini Estate or Palm Oil Mini Estate concepts. Smaller scale land development is more environmentally friendly since not all areas are cultivated. It is also sustainable in the sense that it guarantees that our future generations will have land to live on.

The IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) Rural Poverty Report 2011 highlights changes in agricultural markets that are providing new opportunities for smallholders to increase productivity. The report emphasizes “there remains an urgent need to invest more and better in agriculture and rural areas” based on a new approach to smallholder agriculture that is both market oriented and sustainable. The report makes it clear that it is time to look at poor smallholders in a completely new way as people whose innovation, dynamism and hard work will bring prosperity to their community. The report also states that low levels of investment in agriculture, weak infrastructure, low production and lack of financial services make it hard for smallholders to participate in the agricultural market.

It is to my dismay that the State Government closed an office of the Agricultural Department at Ng Budu.

I also believe that the Farmers Organization is sliding backward and not of any assistance to the farmers anymore.

It is of paramount importance that the authorities concerned should deploy more resources and relieve the situation through technical measures such as:

(a) Introducing the new concept of agro-enterprise;

(b) Promoting agricultural development on mini-estates or smallholdings for crops like rubber and oil palm with infrastructure assistance from the government; and

(c) Providing more allocation for agencies such as RISDA and MPOB.

Landowners want to control and manage their own land in their own style. If they cultivate a few hectares of rubber trees or oil palm with proper guidance or assistance from the government, which many of them are capable of, they should be able to get quite a decent income of RM2, 000/month. If they can make RM2, 000/month, a lot of rural people who are working at various parts of Malaysia such as Johor and KL will be willing to go back to their longhouses to cultivate their lands. In this way, we will be able to reverse the rural-urban migration which has created many socio-economic problems in the city and rural community as well. Currently, general labourers in oil palm plantations are paid a daily wage of RM17-RM20, amounting to around RM450/month, which is far below the poverty line RM750/month.

According to Robert Pringle’s authoritative book “Rajah and Rebels” written and published in the 1970s, more than 2 million rubber trees were officially planted in Krian area during a brief period of colonial time which covered areas totalling more than 5,000 hectares. Total cultivated areas including unrecorded areas were probably double that figure, being close to 10,000 hectares. A lot of rural communities participated actively and rubber was the major contributor of cash income. Some of them, by their own initiative, even managed to cultivate bigger areas to become mini-estates of sorts and employing many rubber tappers from outside. This was possible due to assistance and advice given to planters by the government of the day.

Sadly, more than 2 generations later, the livelihood of these members of the rural community still depends very much on these rubber trees that were planted by our late grandparents. So far, the government has cultivated approximately 3,500 hectares of rubber trees in the last 15 years in the Krian area. Considering the population growth during the last two generations, this quantity is not sufficient. If you visit longhouses in Krian constituency and ask them where their income comes from, do not be surprised if they say 70%-80% of longhouse dwellers depend on rubber from their grandparents’ trees to survive.

Provisional Licences for Plantation

The state government has issued provisional leases within Krian constituency which overlaps with NCR land:

(i) Lot 410 Blk 18 Krian Awik LD to Kenyalang Resources Sdn Bhd (now known as THP Saribas Sdn Bhd) in the area of Bajau-Selambong-Sedan-Jenggara

(ii) Lot 3 Blk 16 Krian Awik LD to Kenyalang Resourses Sdn Bhd (now known as THP Saribas Sdn Bhd) in the area of Sg Gruyu

(iii) Lot 155 & 156 Kalaka LD to Kenyalang Resources Sdn Bhd (now known as THP Saribas Sdn Bhd) in the area of Jln Pusa Sessang

(iv) Licence for planted forest to No. LPF/0034 to R.H. Forest Corporation Sdn Bhd.

The companies that have been given PL have encroached illegally into NCR lands of the native communities. This has resulted in disputes over rights to land and resources. Currently, there a a few cases where natives have initiated legal action against PL holders and Land Survey Department.

Logging

Tuan Speaker,

The government has issued many logging licences within NCR lands in my constituency. This has created a lot of animosity among rural community since most of them disagree with logging activity. Logging has destroyed our Pemakai Menoa and Pulau Galau which provide the natives with valuable construction materials to build longhouses, boats and other wooden amenities vital to our way of living.

It is very unfortunate that the state government has issued timber licences in my constituency without the prior informed consent of the native landowners. Listed are the known timber licences issued by the state government in Krian area without prior consent of native landowners.

(a) T/3436 – issued to Vita Hill Sdn Bhd which overlaps NCR land in the area of Dassey, Budu

(b) T/3463 – issued to Pelita Holding Sdn Bhd which overlaps NCR land in the area of Kabo-Awik

(c) T/8475 – issued to Syarikat Kayu Rimba which overlaps NCR land in the area of Mapar-Babang

(d) T/3431 – issued to Tunggal Enterprise which overlaps NCR land in the area of Mudong

(e) T/3497 – issued to Solid Sunshine which overlaps NCR land in the area of Awik-Seblak.

(f) Timber licence also issued to Sebetan area.

All of these licences were issued without prior consent of native landowners. As such, the State Government must withdraw the licenses.

For example, Rh Gayan of Dassey, Budu, in my constituency has been affected by Vita Hill Sdn Bhd’s logging activity. Various complaints had been made to the authorities. However, no action was taken. Left without an avenue for redress, the Rh Gayan community took the matter to High Court and legal process is still ongoing.

The State Government has issued timber Licence No. T/8440 to a RM2 company namely Budimar Sdn Bhd. Its subcontractor is Rimba Jaya Lumber Sdn Bhd at the vicinity of Bukit Pengajar. The company is in the process of constructing a logging road from the Ulu Krian road towards the concession area through lands of the Iban community particularly in the Sg Pilai area. If the company proceeds with this plan, besides doing damage to environment, biodiversity and ecosystem, logging trucks will totally destroy the roads of Ulu Krian and Rimbas roads, which are already in poor condition.

Infrastructure, Amenities and Utilities

Tuan Speaker,

Basic requirements such as road, water and electricity are basic human rights. Any government of the day must provide these necessities to all its people regardless of their political affiliations.

Road : The road system in the Krian constituency is in a very bad shape particularly roads to Ulu Krian, Kabo, Budu, Awik, Bajau, Engkudu, Ibus and Babang. Ulu Krian Road and Awik Road were Federal roads constructed more than 30 years ago but their condition is similar to that of logging roads. I urge the government to ensure tar-seal to be implemented immediately as promised by the PM during the last state election.

Electricity : The majority of my constituents do not have electricity. Only recently we noticed that power posts have been erected along roads in Krian, Budu, Kabo, and Awik. I urge the government to speed up the work to get power supply to every longhouse, school and clinic in my constituency.

Water : Clean water is also a major issue in my constituency as many longhouses are still getting drinking water from rivers or unreliable gravity water. The water is not hygienic and contains germs and bacteria that can cause diseases. I urge the government to carry out the construction of a new dam at Kaki Wong to start immediately as promised by the PM during the last state election. On top of that, the current water supply from Lichok Water Treatment Plant is not capable of providing the water needs for all people in Saratok areas. During the dry season Lichok WTP runs out of water. What is the state government doing about this?

In conclusion, Datuk Sri Speaker, I urge this august House to seriously look into the matters I have raised. These issues are not mere political rhetoric. These are bread and butter issues affecting the peoples of Sarawak and it is the ultimate responsibility of this House to take these matters seriously and it is incumbent upon the respective Ministers in charge to act accordingly to alleviate the suffering of the rakyat. Demi Rakyat.

Thank you Datuk Sri Speaker Sir for giving me this opportunity to air my views.

Posted by Jetty at 10:00 PM  

Labels: Ali Biju, debate speech, Dewan Undangan Negeri, Krian, Saratok, Ulu Rimbas

Samad Said's Unggun Bersih

Semakin lara kita didera bara -
kita laungkan juga pesan merdeka:
Demokrasi sebenderang mentari
sehasrat hajat semurni harga diri.

Lama resah kita - demokrasi luka;
lama duka kita - demokrasi lara.
Demokrasi yang angkuh, kita cemuhi;
suara bebas yang utuh, kita idami!
Dua abad lalu Sam Adams berseru:
(di Boston dijirus teh ke laut biru):
Tak diperlu gempita sorak yang gebu,
diperlu hanya unggun api yang syahdu.

Kini menyalalah unggun sakti itu;
kini merebaklah nyala unggun itu.

Ulasan:
Bayangkan, hanya dengan deklamasi sajak ini, Pak Said - Sasterawan Negara dipanggil dan disiasat polis.

Pihak tertentu semakin TERDESAK untuk mempertahankan kuasa. 

Tidak akan dapat membuat apa-apa. Semakin ditahan semakin teruk padahnya nanti.
Rakyat semakin muak dengan pihak yang mementingkan diri, keluarga dan kroni.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) sedang menuju ke Putrajaya!!
Kuasa di tangan RAKYAT. Demi Rakyat - PERUBAHAN pasti terjadi.

PKR sacks ex-deputy sec-gen, 28 others

Hafiz Yatim
Jun 21, 11
1:14pm

10 friends can read this story for free

In a bid to nip party indiscipline before the crucial 13th general election, PKR today announced it has sacked 29, suspended 10 and warned 12 members between January and June this year.

Among the offences which warranted the sack are contesting under a different party banner or as an independent, posting complaints about the party on Facebook, attending another party's launching or being seen supporting another candidate from outside the party.

PKR disciplinary committee chairperson Dr Tan Kee Kwong (right) said the decision to expel, suspend and issue warnings has been submitted to the party's political bureau and endorsed by PKR's powerful central committee.

“Despite the decision to expel them, the affected members could still file an appeal to the party president or secretary-general, where another committee will be formed to hear their appeals,” he said.

“The party has sent out its decision via registered letters to the said individuals. If members want to criticise the party, they should use it through party means and not the media or even Facebook, which can be accessed by others,” he warned.

Among those expelled are former deputy secretary-general and former communications chief Jonson Chong, whom Tan said had been found guilty of aiding an opposing candidate in the recent Sarawak election. Most of those were expelled following their offences in the recent Sarawak state election.

Others expelled included Thony Anak Badak (contested under Snap), Michael Jok (contested as an Independent candidate), Joyce Lee (offending Facebook posting), Shaharuddin Shahabuddin (attacking a party electoral officer), and Suhaimi Hashim (attending a Kita launch in Kedah).

In addition S Kotappan, Muhd Zamri Vinoth Abdullah, Kumaravelu Subramanian, Mahadzir Hasman, Amir Hasan Haris, Mohd Shukor Haris, Saiful Izham Misuan, Mohd Nazir Yaakob, Zairul Adnan, Shahrul Nizam Musa, Sheik Mohamad Sheik Ahmad, Mohd Zaki Samsuddin, Saiman Marzuki, Tengku Mohd Ariffin, Soo Lina and Cobbold anak Lusai are also given the boot.

Others are Kirawi Suhaili, Kenneth Adan Silek, Liam Anak Rengga, Michael Ding Tuah, Jok Ding, Paul Kadang anak Dinggat, and Hasrul Muhaimin Hasbo.

Those suspended included are S Murali, Annuar Ismail, R Annan, M Veerapan, Mohd Sham Barat, Ramesh Kumar Theetan, Mohd Abdul Wahab Pangeran Abdullah, Lee Wee Han, Ronnie Klassen, and Asainar @ Hassnar Ebrahim.

Members who are let off with a warning are Jamiah Hassan, Norliza Zairan, Abd Razak Mohd Jalil, Dr S Vigneswaran, Safinas Salleh, K Vasantha Kumar, Abd Kadir Abd Rasyid, Abu Talib Bujang, Raduan Bistaman, Wan Bukhari Wan Muhamad, Anthony Mandiau and Ahmad Ibrahim.

'Letters sent to registered address'

Quizzed by reporters on whether all those mentioned had received the letters from the party, Tan said the party had already sent them out to the address which they had registered.

When told that some of them claimed they had not received such letters, Tan said the party had mailed them to the proper addresses and was not responsible if the person had moved somewhere else.

“We are basing our correspondence on the address which they had provided to us,” he said.

Source : Malaysiakini

S'wak gov't strikes back at NCR land owners

Jun 17, 11

5:01pm10 friends can read this story for free
The Sarawak state government is striking back at the native customary rights (NCR) land owners after it lost a court battle in the Pantu land case.

Land Development Minister James Masing (right) said today he will table the Land Custody and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011, which seeks to plug the loopholes in the LCDA Ordinance.

He confirmed that the amendments to the LCDA Ordinance arise out of the Pantu land case in which High Court judge justice Linton Albert made a damning judgment against the state government, state-owned LCDA and Pelita Holdings Sdn Bhd over the principle deed signed with a group of NCR landowners claiming native customary rights to the land.

“We can't have a decision that affects the investors' confidence. We need to protect those who have invested huge sums of money in the oil palm plantations,” he said.

He said landowners who have signed the development agreements cannot later on withdraw from the NCR land development, once the amendments come into force.

“They have to stick to the agreement,” Masing, who is also the Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) president, insisted.

NCR land law expert See Chee How said the tabling of the Bill showed that the government does not believe in the court's decisions.

See, who is also the PKR Batu Lintang state assemblyperson, said the Bill should not have retrospective effect.

“Yes, your suspicion is right that the tabling of the Bill has something to do with the Pantu land case,” he said when contacted.

The Bill, to be tabled at the next week's meeting of the Sarawak state legislative assembly, seeks to spell out more clearly the functions, role and responsibilities of LCDA in regard to the development of land declared as a development area.

The Bill, under clause 3, seeks to define a company formed by LCDA and whose controlling shares are held by LCDA as “native” for the purposes of the Sarawak Land Code.

The state government and LCDA lost in the Pantu land case because the court ruled that the joint company formed by LCDA was not a native under the Sarawak Land Code.

This is what Masing meant as plugging the legal loopholes in the LCDA Ordinance.

But the far-reaching consequences of the Bill is on the introduction of Clause 7 which seeks to amend Section 12 of the Principle Ordinance to empower LCDA or any person authorised by LCDA, to enter upon and remain on land within a development area, where development agreements have been signed.

In undertaking development of the land in a development area, LCDA acts as the agent of the government. Thus, the provisions of Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, 1956, should apply to LCDA.

The section prohibits the court to grant any injunction or order of possession against a government, or its public officer or agent.

Any disputes or differences concerning any development agreement will be referred to mediation, and if it fails, to arbitration.

Such requirements will be deemed to have been incorporated into any development agreement signed before or after the date of coming into force of the proposed amendments.

The Bill states that the new proposals are intended to facilitate the resolution of disputes between the parties to the development agreements, including the owners of NCR land, in an amicable manner.

In the Pantu Land case, the court attacked a joint-venture agreement (JVA) between Pelita Holdings Sdn Bhd (PHSB) and a plantation company, Tetangga Arkab Sdn Bhd (TASB) and Tetangga Arkab Pelita (Pantu) Sdn Bhd (Tetangga).

Tetangga is the joint venture company formed by PHSB and TASB that undertook the development of an oil palm plantation project involving the NCR land in Pantu district.

The principle deed and the JVA were signed on Sept 3, 2004 for the development of 7,000ha of NCR land.

Twelve NCR landowners have sued the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA), PHSB, Tetangga and the state government as first, second, third and four defendants respectively.

PHSB is a wholly subsidiary of LCDA, a state government land agency.

The plaintiffs are Masa Nangkai, Christopher Ambu, Engkana Talap, Sinju Senabong, Uban Bundan, Albert Waler Skinner Tulis, Jacob Emang, Len Jubang, Liap Giling, Ivanhoe Anthony Belon, Morice Renggi and Gima Belon.

They were suing on behalf of themselves and 90 other occupiers, holders and claimants of NCR land situated at or around Kampung Tekuyong, Kampung Dadak Aping, Kampung Aping, Kampung Lubok Abok, Kampung Sungai Tenggang, Kampung Limau and Kampung Pantu.

The plaintiffs claimed various declaratory reliefs relating to their native customary rights over land in the disputed area land which was established to be within the oil palm plantation project and for restraining orders against LCDA, PHSB and Tetangga and for them to give vacant possession of the plaintiffs' native customary rights land and damages.

'Fig leaves too scanty to conceal violations'

In his judgment, Justice Albert said the principle deed and the JVA had deprived the plaintiffs of their native customary rights land which was a source of their livelihood and lost the rights to their property which were violations of Articles 5 and 13 of the constitution.

“Irrespective of the cleverly-devised legal mechanism and legalistic language which constituted the principal deed and the joint-venture agreement, they are mere fig leaves too scanty to

conceal their violations of Articles 5 and 13 of the constitution because the sum total of the rights of the landowners, to put it crudely, and for want of a better word, is zero,” Albert had said.

He said this was patently demonstrated by the following aspects of the principal deed which was briefly set out for emphasis and at the risk of repetition.

“Firstly, PHSB was to receive and collect the benefits of the development of the native customary rights land into an oil palm plantation, not the landowners;

“Secondly, the commercial development of the native customary rights land into an oil palm plantation was to be carried out by a joint venture company formed by PHSB and TASB, a company exclusively chosen by PHSB under a joint-venture agreement in respect of which the landowners are not even a party to.

“Thirdly, the native customary rights lands are immediately amalgamated and title is to be issued in the name of the 'joint venture' company and the landowners would have no beneficial legal equitable or caveatable interest in the land to be issued with title.

“And one can go on and on to illustrate how the terms of the principal deed have stripped the landowners of their rights in every conceivable way and reduced those rights into nothingness.

“The fact that the landowners were not parties to the agreement between PHSB and TASB, under which it was agreed for the commercial development of the native customary rights land by Tetangga, meant that the landowners' rights in and over the oil palm plantation was also definitively zero.

The judge said the JVA was also in contravention of Section 8 of the Land Code because neither TASB nor Tetangga had been declared a native at the time of the JVA and it did not matter that Tetangga was subsequently declared a native because it is a principle of antiquity that things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by a subsequent act.

Source: http://malaysiakini.com/news/167245

KAMPUNG BADENG LONG DUNGAN, BELAGA, SARAWAK KEBAKARAN PADA 13.6.2011

Ketua Kampung menerima derma ikhlas dari KeADILan

yang disampaikan oleh Abun Sui Anyit

Setiausah KeADILan Hulu Rajang

Bagi meringankan sedikit keperitan hidup akibat kebakaran.

                             Kesan kebakaran rumah Long Dungan.

Saya mendapat berita kampung halaman saya Uma Badeng Long Dungan, 96900 Belaga, Sarawak terbakar pada 13.6.2011 jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam. Deretan rumah panjang utama terbakar dari Rumah milik Pesaging (Amai Bit) sehingga ke Rumah Pagang (Mertua Kaunselor Betik Lahang).

Penghargaan dan terima kasih untuk saudara kita yang membantu termasuk dari Sekapan yang telah berusaha "merobohkan" sebuah rumah bagi mengelak api terus merebak ke semua rumah di Long Dungan.

Buat masa ini penduduk masih dalam keadaan terkejut. Punca sebenar kebakaran dan nilai kerugian akan dimaklumkan kemudian oleh pihak bomba yang ke sana hari ini untuk membuat penyiasatan.

Kepada yang prihatin dan bersimpati dengan mangsa kebakaran dan tergerak hati untuk membantu, boleh hubungi saya di no 013-8332574.

Doakan agar mangsa kebakaran tetap tabah menghadapi dugaan ini.

Lagi Surat Terbuka Dato' Mat Zain Ibrahim Untuk Perdana Menteri

Mat Zain bin Ibrahim,

10hb.Jun 2011.

Kepada;

YAB Dato Seri Mohd.Najib Tun Abdul Razak,

Perdana Menteri Malaysia,

Jabatan Perdana Menteri,

Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan Dengan Tangan

62152 Putrajaya,

Wilayah Persekutuan.

Yang Amat Berhormat Dato Seri,

PERANAN PEGUAM NEGARA DALAM SKANDAL MAS.

Assalamualaikum wbt.

1. Saya muncul kali ini untuk, menarik perhatian YAB kepada pengumuman yang dibuat oleh Tan Sri Dr.Hadenan Abdul Jalil pada 31.5.2011 yang “membersihkan” Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Peguam Negara sekali lagi, daripada sebarang salah laku jenayah,berkaitan pemergiannya menunaikan Haji di-Mekah, bersama-sama dengan seorang Shahidan Shafie yang dikatakan seorang proxy kepada Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.

2. Saya menyatakan bahawa tindakan Tan Sri Hadenan sedemikian itu, adalah tidak teratur serta tidak mengikut peraturan Undang-Undang sedia ada.Ini memandangkan beliau, sama ada secara persendirian atau sebagai sifat Pengerusi Operation Review Panel MACC tidak mempunyai sebarang kuasa atau hak mengikut Perlembagaan atau mana-mana Undang-Undang,untuk menyemak apa-apa keputusan yang dibuat oleh Pendakwa Raya atau SPRM sendiri.

3. Untuk penekanan yang lebih jelas,saya sertakan salinan surat Lembaga Penasihat Pencegahan Rasuah (LPPR) bertarikh 23.7.2009, menyentuh bidangkuasa mereka,yang ditanda tangani sendiri oleh YA Bhg.Tun Abdul Hamid bin Haji Mohamad,Pengerusi LPPR dengan maksudnya berpenerangan sendiri.

4. Sekiranya Jawatankuasa induk LPPR yang diperngerusikan oleh seorang mantan Ketua Hakim Negara, telah mengesahkan bahawa mereka sendiri TIDAK mempunyai kuasa menyemak keputusan yang dibuat oleh Pendakwa Raya atau SPRM,maka persoalannya ialah;darimana pula Tan Sri Hadenan memperolehi kuasa beliau untuk membersihkan Gani Patail.Selain itu Tan Sri Hadenan sendiri dipercayai telah menerima surat rayuan saya bertarikh 15.4.2009 dialamatkan kepada LPPR dan dipercayai juga, telah mengambil pendirian secara kolektif sepertimana jawapan Pengerusi LPPR bertarikh 23.7.2009 tersebut.

5. Pada pendapat saya persoalan sama ada Tan Sri Hadenan serta Ahli-Ahli jawatankuasa beliau berpuas hati atau sebaliknya, berkaitan siasatan SPRM itu tidak timbul,memandangkan beliau tidak ada kuasa untuk berbuat apa-apa sekalipun beliau tidak berpuas hati.Malahan Tan Sri Hadenan sendiri telah membuat kenyataan umum, bahawa Operations Review Panel (ORP) tidak terlibat didalam sebarang proses penyiasatan SPRM memandangkan ORP bukan sebagai sebahagian organisasi SPRM melainkan sekadar mewakili orang ramai sahaja,sepertimana yang dilaporkan oleh Bernama pada 12.11.2009. Beliau membuat kenyataan ini ketika mengesahkan akan menghantar peromohan ORP kepada Peguam Negara untuk mendapatkan kebenaran bertulis meneliti kes berkaitan V.K.Lingam.Saya sendiri tidak nampak apa yang ORP boleh buat dengan kes berkenaan oleh kerana ORP tidak mempunyai kuasa penyiasatan atau pendakwaan ataupun kuasa dan hak menyemak semula apa apa keputusan yang dibuat oleh SPRM atau Pendakwa Raya.

6. Seterusnya saya berpendapat bahawa tindakan Tan Sri Hadenan membuat pengumuman berkaitan pemergian Peguam Negara ke-Mekah sedemikian itu, sekadar merupakan suatu eksesais “white-washing” yang tidak teratur dan sia-sia,bertujuan untuk menyelamatkan Gani Patail daripada dikenakan hukuman jenayah, berdasarkan daripada penerangan yang saya berikan diatas dan juga hujah lanjutan dalam perenggan-perenggan yang akan menyusul selepas ini.

7. Antara dakwaan utama yang dibuat terhadap Gani Patail berkaitan isu pemergiannya ke-Mekah itu,ialah beliau didapati bersekongkol dengan seorang En.Shahidan Shafie yang dikatakan sebagai seorang proxy kepada Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli (TRI) yang sedang menghadapi penyiasatan SPRM berkaitan skandal MAS.Hubungan erat antara Gani Patail dengan Shahidan seperti ahli keluarga didakwa telah mempengaruhi Gani Patail untuk tidak mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadap TRI.

8. Saya menyatakan bahawa Shahidan bukan sekadar seorangproxy biasa kepada TRI.Malah Shahidan mempunyai liabiliti penjenayahannya yang tersendiri dalam Skandal MAS tersebut, berasingan dengan liabiliti jenayah TRI.Dakwaan ini dapat dilihat dengan jelas dalam laporan kepada SPRM yang dibuat oleh En.Shahari bin Sulaiman Pengarah Urusan MASKargo Sdn Bhd.sebuah anak syarikat MAS pada 20.5.2009.Untuk kemudahan rujukan,saya lampirkan salinan laporan berkenaan yang pernah disiarkan kepada umum oleh blog Malaysia Today sekitar bulan Ogos 2010.

9. Siapa Shahidan,apa hubungan beliau dengan TRI dan apa peranan yang dimainkan oleh Shahidan, dilaporkan secara teratur dan kemas dalam laporan berkenaan.Begitu juga dengan peranan dan tanggungan liabiliti jenayah oleh individu-individu lain yang dinamakan dalam laporan sama.Kredibiliti laporan oleh MAS tersebut tidak boleh dipertikaikan memandangkan terdapat wakil Kerajaan dalam Lembaga Pengarah MAS sendiri. Malahan laporan dari MAS itu seharusnya dianggap sebagai laporan daripada Kerajaan.Kerugian terkumpul RM 8 Billion akibat Skandal MAS itu juga wajar dianggap sebagai pendedahan oleh Kerajaan sendiri.

10. Pada 15 Disember 2010,Tan Sri Hadenan telah membuat pengumuman bahawa Skandal MAS tersebut masih dalam siasatan SPRM setelah muncul keterangan dan saksi-saksi baru.Pengumuman ini telah disiarkan secara meluas oleh media MSM dan alternatif.Ini bermakna status TRI ialah beliau masih dalam siasatan.Begitu juga dengan status setiap seorang yang dinamakan dalam laporan MAS tersebut.Ini juga bermakna bahawa status Shahidan dalam Skandal MAS ini juga, adalah beliau masih dalam siasatan SPRM.

11. Persoalannya ialah adakah wajar,Gani Patail seorang Peguam Negara yang masih berhidmat dilihat sebagai bersekongkol dengan Shahidan, seorang yang masih dalam siasatan serious SPRM, yang mana hasil siasatannya kelak, dipertimbangkan oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara yang diketuai oleh Gani Patail sendiri.Mampukah SPRM atau Jabatan Peguam Negara bertindak berkecuali serta memberikan pertimbangan yang adil dan saksama dalam kes ini sedangkan skandal ini melibatkan kerugian melebihi RM 8 Billion wang Rakyat.

12. Ketika membuat pengumuman pada 31.5.2011 itu pula,Tan Sri Hadenan tidak langsung menyebut berkaitan status Shahidan dalam penyiasatan SPRM ataupun mengesahkan sama ada Gani Patail dan keluarganya benar telah pergi dan tinggal bersama dengan Shahidan ketika di-Mekah ,walapun fakta ini adalah fakta material dalam penyiasatan.Sekiranya Tan Sri Hadenan mengharapkan untuk menemui rekod transaksi kewangan antara TRI atau Shahidan didalam akaun persendirian Gani Patail,maka itu seolah mengharapkan bulan jatuh keriba.Sama ada beliau sedar atau tidak,Tan Sri Hadenan boleh disifatkan telah menyembunyikan sesuatu fakta material yang boleh dianggap sebagai suatu perdayaan sepertimana yang ditakrifkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan.

13. Perkara utama dalam isu ini, tidak lain daripada mempertimbangkan tingkah laku atau conduct Gani Patail.Sama ada sebagai seorang Peguam Negara,sepadan atau tidak, beliau bersekongkol secara terang-terang dengan seorang yang sedang dalam penyiasatan pihak berkuasa kerana didakwa terlibat dalam suatu skandal besar melibatkan wang Rakyat.Apabila ianya melibatkan isu conduct seorang Peguam Negara yang sedang berhidmat,maka pihak yang mempunyai kuasa atau hak mengadilinya, hanyalah sebuah Tribunal yang dilantik oleh SPB Yang Di-Pertuan Agong setelah dinasihatkan oleh Perdana Menteri, sepertimana yang sedia ada secara spesifiknya dalam Artikel 125 (3) dibaca bersama Artikel 145 (6) Perlembagaan.Saya yakin saya tidak perlu menjelaskan perkara ini lebih lanjut lagi memandangkan Kerajaan sendiri pernah menghadapi situasi serupa dalam isu conduct mantan Ketua Hakim Negara, YA.Bhg.Tun Salleh Abbas.

14. Seorang Peguam Negara yang berwibawa dan mempuyai kredibiliti tidak tercemar, akan mempertahankan hak dan keistimewaan jawatan beliau yang sedia diperuntukkan dalam Perlembagaan.Beliau tidak akan sama sekali membenarkan, mana-mana pihak yang tidak berkenaan, sewenang-wenangnya mengadili atau meneliti perihal conduct beliau sepertimana yang pernah dicabar oleh Tun Salleh Abbas suatu ketika dahulu.Malangnya Gani Patail yang kita kenali, sanggup merelakan dirinya diadili oleh sesiapa jua asalkan pihak berkenaan sanggup mengistiharkan secara umum, bahawa beliau bebas daripada sebarang salah laku jenayah.Sekiranya Gani Patail tidak mampu dan berani mempertahankan hak dan keistimewaan jawatan beliau sendiri,maka bagaimanakah Rakyat boleh mengharapkan beliau menjadi pelindung serta mempertahankan hak kesamarataan Rakyat dari sudut Perlembagaan dan undang-undang Negara.

15. Walaubagaimanapun perkara yang ,menarik dalam laporan Pengarah Urusan MASKargo itu ialah; “modus operandi” (M.O.) yang diamalkan oleh TRI dan lain-lain individu terlibat dalam Skandal MAS tersebut. M.O yang dimaksudkan ialah, “membuat perjanjian/konrak jangka panjang yang berat sebelah”. M.O sebegini dikatakan telah diamalkan oleh TRI dalam beberapa perjanjian/kontrak sejak beliau mengambil alih MAS dari tahun 1994 sehingga 2001 yang menyebabkan kerugian terkumpul lebih daripada RM 8 Billion.

15.1. Rakyat juga kini mendapat tahu bahawa Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) juga dilaporkan telah menandatangani beberapa perjanjian/kontrak jangka panjang yang berat sebelah dengan beberapa Penjanakuasa Bebas (IPP),yang mengakibatkan Rakyat menanggung kerugian lingkungan RM 20 Billion.

15.2. Begitu juga dalam hal skandal kewangan Syarikat Perwaja Steel, dimana beberapa perjanjian/kontrak jangka panjang yang berat sebelah telah dibuat dengan beberapa Syarikat dalam dan Luar Negara yang mengakibatkan dana Rakyat sekitar RM 4 Billion lesap.

16. Secara kebetulan pula ketiga-tiga “skandal kewangan” ini berlaku atau bermula antara tahun 1994 hingga tahun 1996.Tidak salah jika demi kepentingan Rakyat, Kerajaan meneliti semula kesemua perjanjian/kontrak yang dikatakan berat sebelah itu memandangkan terdapat keserupaan dalam M.O yang digunakan oleh ketiga-tiga Syarikat terlibat untuk mencari “common factor” yang mungkin boleh ditemui jika penyiasatannya dilakukan dengan teliti.Kita tidak boleh mengenepikan kemungkinan mendapati orang atau kumpulan orang-orang yang menyediakan terma-terma perjanjian/kontrak berkenaan terdiri dari kumpulan orang yang sama.Kajian kriminologis telah membuktikan bahawa pencuri,perompak dan penipu lazimnya akan mengamalkan M.O yang sama setiap kali melakukan jenayah kerana itu adalah kelebihan atau kemahiran mereka.

16.1. Saya percaya eksesais ini berbaloi memandangkan kerugian yang Rakyat telah tanggung melebihi RM 30 Billion.Mungkin Rakyat sendiri tidak dapat membayangkan nikmat dan kemudahan yang mereka akan rasai jika wang sebanyak itu telah dibelanjakan untuk kepentingan mereka.

17. Boleh dikatakan tahun 1994 hingga 1996 merupakan suatu tempoh bila mana “skandal-skandal” dan kontroversi menggemparkan Negara berlaku atau bermula.Selain daripada skandal kewangan melibatkan MAS,TNB dan Perwaja Steel yang telah dibincangkan dalam perenggan diatas, beberapa peristiwa menarik perhatian umum yang saya masih ingat antaranya;

17.1. Beberapa orang Menteri Kanan dan Ketua Menteri didedahkan melakukan salahgunakuasa dan rasuah melibatkan ratusan juta Ringgit.

17.2. Pendedahan percutian mantan Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Eusuff Chin dan keluarga ke New Zealand bersama VK Lingam dan keluarga.

17.3. Pendedahan percutian Peguam Negara Allahyarham Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah dengan VK Lingam dan ahli perniagaan Vincent Tan ke-Italy/Spain.

17.4. Rompakan terbesar dalam sejarah Negara berlaku di-gudang MASKargo, Terminal B Lapangan Terbang Subang dalam bulan Ogos 1994.Dalam kejadian ini kumpulan “Geng Mamak” terdiri daripada kumpulan 6 adik-beradik berasal dari Kuala Kangsar,Perak telah melakukan rompakan nekad, 300 ketul jongkong emas bernilai RM 10 juta.Kami mengenalpasti Geng Mamak yang melakukan rompakkan ini berdasarkan daripada kajian M.O mereka.

18. Kecuali kes rompakan 300 jongkong emas di-MASKargo itu,peristiwa-peristiwa lain yang disebutkan diatas masih lagi diperbualkan dan dibahaskan sehingga hari ini.Mungkin kerana kerugian lebih RM 30 Billion itu adalah terlalu besar untuk Rakyat berdiam diri atau memaafkan sesiapa juga yang terlibat mengakibatkan kerugian sebanyak itu yang menyebabkan sebilangan besar Rakyat menderita selama itu.

19. Dalam tempuh 1994 hingga 1996 itu juga,Gani Patail turut sibuk memainkan peranannya menutup kes atau membenamkan maklumat yang melibatkan Menteri-Menteri atau Ketua Menteri berkaitan yang boleh dibuktikan sebagai telah melakukan salahguna kuasa dan rasuah.Tidak ketinggalan juga berkaitan kes Perwaja dan kemudiannya yang berkaitan dengan TRI.

20. Berbalik kepada perkara eksesais membersihkan Gani Patail daripada sebarang salahlaku jenayah pada 31.5.2011 itu, bukanlah kali pertama SPRM lakukan. Bukan sahaja keputusan ini sudah dijangkakan,malahan Rakyat telah sampai ketahap meluat dengan tindak-tanduk SPRM yang tidak putus-putus berbohong, semata-mata untuk menyelamatkan Gani Patail daripada dikenakan hukuman jenayah. Rakyat telah hilang keyakinan terhadap SPRM sehinggakan apa juga kebaikkan dan kejayaan yang dipamirkan oleh SPRM dianggap sebagai sandiwara untuk mengabui mata Rakyat semata-mata.

21. Padahalnya, Operasi 3B yang SPRM lancarkan 2 bulan lalu, yang menghasilkan kejayaan cemerlang, patut diberi pujian dan sepatutnya mampu mengembalikan maruah SPRM yang telah tercemar.Bukan mudah untuk mencapai kejayaan sedemikian itu,melainkan operasinya dirancang dan dilaksanakan dengan tahap professionalisma yang tinggi dan kerahsiaan maklumat yang ketat, yang diamalkan oleh setiap seorang Pegawai dan angguta terlibat dalam operasi tersebut. Malangnya segala usaha mereka dianggap sebagai sandiwara semata-mata.Namun kita tidak boleh menyalahkan Rakyat kerana mereka mempunyai sebab untuk membentuk persepsi sedemikian.

22. Walaubagaimanapun dalam hal ini hanya SPRM sahaja yang berhak memilih jalan terbaik untuk mereka.Sama ada mereka terus memilih untuk melindungi Gani Patail seorang dan sanggup membiarkan Rakyat terus mengecam mereka, ataupun mereka memilih mempertahankan nama baik dan maruah organisasi dan setiap seorang warga SPRM dan keluarga mereka.Saya yakin Yang Amat Berhormat tidak keberatan membantu mereka.

Selamat sejahtera.Wassalam.

Terima kasih,

Yang benar,

(MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM)

10.6.2011.

Sumber : keadilanputrajaya

Asapkoyan:3000 Pasangan Muda Tanpa Rumah Dan Tanah.

 

By belagakini
1. Tahun 1998 seramai 1639 keluarga Orang Ulu dikerahkan supaya berpindah ke skim penempatan semula Bakun Sg.Asap untuk memberi laluan kepada pembinaan Bakun. Hari ini setelah 13 tahun menghuni kawasan Asap-Koyan keluarga asas ini telah berkembang hampir 3 kali ganda.
2. Hasil bancian tidak rasmi menunjukkan seramai 3,278 pasangan muda yang baru mendirikan rumah tangga di Sg.Asap tidak memiliki rumah dan tanah. Dalam erti kata lain mereka masih menumpang di rumah ibu bapa mereka.
3. Saya nak tanya James Masing (Pengerusi Penempatan Semula Bakun), Billy Abit Joo (Ahli Parlimen Hulu Rejang) dan Liwan Lagang (ADUN Belaga), bagaimana anda bertiga menyelesaikan masalah ini. Tak kan selama 13 tahun ini masalah terbabit langsung tak terlintas di fikiran anda bertiga.
4. Tak apalah kita tinggalkan cerita 3 sekawan PRS yang langsung tak komited dalam kerja mereka ini. Tapi apa hal pula dengan ketua-ketua masyarakat kita di Sg.Asap. Temenggong, Pemanca,Penghulu dan Maren-Maren Uma. Kenapa tak ada seorang pun yang berani membuka mulut untuk menyuarakan masalah penduduk rumah panjang masing-masing???
5.CM Taib telah memberi jaminan bahawa dia tidak akan memberi lot pertanian baru kepada penduduk Sg.Asap. Justeru adalah menjadi tanggungjawab pasangan muda ini untuk menentukan nasib CM Taib dan BN keseluruhannya dalam pilihanraya Parlimen yang akan datang.
6. Jika semua pemimpin BN dan Ketua masyarakat kita telah bisu, buta dan pekak. Apakah mungkin kita masih mengharapkan mereka memperjuangkan nasib kita di masa depan.??? Ayuh anak-anak muda ..tepuk dada masing-masing dan tanya diri sendiri dengan akal dan fikiran yang waras.
7. Di penempatan lama hulu Balui dahulu. Kita tidak pernah menghadapi masalah tanah dan kawasan untuk membina rumah baru. Miskipun dahulu kita dikatakan miskin, namun adakah kini di penempatan semula Sg.Asap kita telah menjadi semakin kaya???
8. Dua tiga hari ini, surat khabar memberitakan perihal kejayaan empangan Bakun dan keuntungan yang bakal diperoleh oleh kerajaan negeri dan persekutuan. Kenapa tidak diberitakan juga habuan yang bakal diterima oleh 15 buah rumah panjang yang telah berkorban untuk kejayaan perlaksanaan Bakun.
9. Rasanya penduduk Bakun dan Belaga keseluruhannya janganlah terlalu berharap kepada BN. Sudah terang lagikan bersuluh. Projek-projek yang diumumkan bersama oleh PM Najib,CM Taib sebelum pilihanraya Sarawak yang lalu pun belum dilaksanakan , mana mungkin kita boleh berbicara soal royalti.
10. Ketahuilah penduduk Belaga sekalian, apa yang kita tuai hari ini adalah hasil dari benih yang kita tanam semalam. BERUBAHLAH demi masa depan generasi akan datang.

Sumber : Belagakini

BERSAMA RAKYAT MERAIKAN GAWAI DAYAK DAN ADAT TIMANG

PERSIAPAN HARI GAWAI 2011

BERSAMA "TIMANG PANGAU"

                     SEDANG MELAKSANAKAN PROSES NIMANG

Hasrat saya untuk menyaksikan Adat Nimang di kalangan masyarakat Iban menjadi kenyataan semasa perayaan Gawai Dayak 2011 di Baleh. Menurut mereka di rumah panjang tersebut, adat ini semakin pupus. Tidak banyak 'timang pangau" yang ada di kalangan masyarakat Iban di Baleh lagi.

"Kita berharap pihak berkewajipan dapat mendokumentari adat ini untuk tatapan dan rujukan generasi akan datang". Kata timang Pangau semasa ditanya apakah harapannya terhadap adat ini.

Sepanjang malam dari pukul 6.00 petang hingga pukul 8.30 pagi adalah proses nimang ini telah dilaksanakan. Saya sangat bertuah kerana berpeluang menyaksikan adat lama ini sendiri. 

Semoga ianya tetap dipelihara. Selamat Hari Gawai dan Selamat Ngiling Bidai.