• 10 Soalan Mengenai Skim Insurans Pekerjaan (SIP)

    Kenyataan Media oleh Pakatan Harapan pada April 28, 2017 mengenai Skim Insurans Pekerjaan (SIP)

    10 Soalan Mengenai Skim Insurans Pekerjaan (SIP)

    Menjelang Hari Pekerja yang berlangsung pada 1 Mei, kami mengiktiraf sumbangan golongan pekerja di Malaysia terhadap negara. Skim Insurans Pekerjaan (SIP) yang dicadangkan oleh Perdana Menteri, yang dijangka akan dibentangkan di Parlimen pada sidang Julai / Ogos 2017, mempunyai potensi untuk membantu golongan pekerja Malaysia melalui proses peralihan apabila mereka hilang pekerjaan. Namun memandangkan butiran skim ini belum didedahkan dan tiada jawatankuasa parlimen yang ditubuhkan untuk meneliti isu pekerjaan, tenaga kerja dan ekonomi, masih tinggal banyak soalan yang perlu ditanya mengenai SIP.

    Di sini, kami membangkitkan 10 soalan untuk dijawab agar kami boleh lebih yakin bahawa SIP akan menjadi satu program yang berkesan dalam membantu pekerja di negara kita.

    1)                  Pampasan pemberhentian telah pun dinyatakan dalam Akta Kerja 1955 dan Peraturan Kerja (Faedah-faedah Penamatan dan Rentikerja Sentara) 1980. Adakah pampasan pemberhentian masih terus dibayar oleh majikan selepas SIP diperkenalkan? Adakah kebajikan pekerja-pekerja akan lebih merosot dalam jangka masa panjang jika faedah pemberhentian dipotong / dihapuskan sebagai sebahagian daripada pakej untuk memperkenalkan SIP?

    2)                  Anggaran jumlah yang dikumpul adalah antara RM700 juta hingga RM800 juta setahun (berdasarkan sumbangan 0.25% daripada majikan dan pekerja, 6.5 juta pekerja, gaji RM2000). Berapa banyak kos pentadbiran? Adakah ianya akan setinggi 25% daripada jumlah yang dikumpul, seperti yang diagak oleh beberapa laporan?

    3)                  Memandangakan SIP adalah skim insurans seperti PERKESO, adakah ini bermakna bahawa pekerja-pekerja tidak akan mendapatkan kembali dana ini jika mereka tidak diberhentikan dalam seumur hidup mereka? Berapa banyak pendapatan boleh guna yang akan diambil skim SIP daripada seseorang pekerja dalam sepanjang hayat mereka?

    4)                  Bagaimanakah dana SIP akan diuruskan? Adakah ia akan diuruskan dengan cara yang sama seperti dana PERKESO yang telah menghasilkan pulangan yang, secara purata, lebih rendah daripada pulangan KWSP?

    5)                  Salah satu tujuan SIP adalah untuk membantu memberi latihan semula dan latihan kemahiran kepada pekerja yang hilang pekerjaan. Bagaimanakah program-program latihan semula dan kemahiran ini akan berbeza daripada program-program kerajaan yang sedia seperti Skim Latihan 1 Malaysia (SKIM) dan lain-lain? Kerajaan perlu menyediakan hujah yang meyakinkan bahawa peruntukan skim latihan semula di bawah SIP akan lebih berkesan daripada program-program semasa.

    6)                  Terdapat skim latihan sedia ada yang disediakan dan dibayar oleh jumlah dana yang dipungut daripada majikan dan diuruskan oleh Kumpulan Wang Pembangunan Sumber Manusia (HRDF). Terdapat banyak laporan bahawa lebih daripada RM100 juta dana ini masih belum digunakan oleh majikan bagi tujuan latihan semula. Bolehkah skim HRDF yang sedia ada digunakan dengan lebih baik untuk tujuan latihan semula? Apakah jaminan bahawa skim SIP yang dicadangkan ini tidak akan menjadi seperti skim HRDF di mana adanya banyak dana yang tidak digunakan yang tidak dimasukkan ke dalam skim latihan semula?

    7)                  Laporan awal menunjukkan bahawa hanya pekerja-pekerja yang sedang dilindungi oleh PERKESO iaitu mereka yang berpendapatan kurang daripada RM4000 sebulan akan layak untuk skim SIP ini. Namun kini ramai pekerja berpendapatan sederhana juga diberhentikan kerja termasuk di industri kewangan dan industri minyak dan gas. Apakah jenis rancangan dan program yang dipakai oleh kerajaan untuk membantu pekerja-pekerja ini yang berada dalam kategori M40?

    8)                  Anggaran oleh kesatuan sekerja-kesatuan sekerja Malaysia menunjukkan bahawa pekerja-pekerja hilang antara RM50 juta hingga RM100 juta setahun disebabkan oleh pampasan hilang apabila syarikat bankrap. Namun RM700 juta hingga RM800 juta akan dikutip daripada skim SIP, di mana separuhnya datang daripada pekerja-pekerja. Adakah pendekatan ini berkesan dalam menyelesaikan isu pampasan hilang ini?

    9)                  Salah satu sebab utama mengapa pekerja di peringkat bawahan spektrum ekonomi hilang pekerjaan mereka adalah kerana majikan memberi keutamaan kepada pekerja asing. Jika kerajaan tidak mempunyai pelan yang komprehensif untuk mengurangkan kebergantungan kepada pekerja-pekerja asing, sejauh mana keberkesanan skim SIP? Semudah mana pekerja-pekerja yang telah hilang pekerjaan mereka untuk mencari pekerjaan baru, terutamanya apabila mereka perlu bersaing dengan pekerja-pekerja asing yang dibayar lebih rendah?

    10)              Beberapa negara di Asia yang mempunyai skim insurans pekerjaan juga menggunakan sumbangan kerajaan untuk skim ini (Thailand – 0.25%, Taiwan – 0.1%, Vietnam – 1%). Adakah kerajaan telah mempertimbangkan untuk turut memberi sumbangan sendiri kepada skim ini untuk mengurangkan beban kewangan ke atas para majikan serta pekerja?

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, DAP

    Sim Tze Sin, PKR

    Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, AMANAH

    Dr Rais Hussin, BERSATU

  • 10 questions on the Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS)

    Statement by Pakatan Harapan on the Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) on the 28th of April, 2017

    10 questions on the Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS)

    As we approach Labour Day on the 1st of May, we acknowledge the contributions which the workers in Malaysia have made to the country. The proposed Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) by the Prime Minister, which is expected to be tabled in parliament in the July / August 2017 sitting, has the potential to help Malaysian workers through a transition process when they have lost their jobs. But given that the details of this scheme have not been disclosed and there is no parliamentary committee set up on look at the issue of jobs, employment and the economy, there remains many questions to be asked about the EIS.

    Here, we pose the following 10 questions to be answered so that there can be greater confidence that the EIS will be an effective program to help the workers in our country.

    1)                  Retrenchment compensation is currently spelled out in the Employment Act 1955 and the Employment Termination and Lay-Off Benefits (ETLB) Regulations 1980. Will the retrenchment compensation continue to be paid out by the employer after the introduction of the EIS? Will workers be worse off in the long run if retrenchment benefits are cut / abolished as part of a package deal for introducing the EIS?

    2)                  The estimated amount collected will be between RM700m to RM800m a year (based on 0.25% Employers and Employees contribution, 6.5m workers, RM2000 salary). How much will the administrative costs be? Will it be as high as 25% of the amount collected as some reports have indicated?

    3)                  Since the EIS is an insurance scheme like SOCSO, does this mean that employees won’t be able to get back these funds if they don’t get retrenched in their lifetime? How much disposable income will the EIS scheme take away from the regular worker over their lifetimes?

    4)                  How with the EIS funds be managed? Will it be managed in the same manner as the SOCSO funds which has delivered returns that, on average, are lower than EPF’s returns?

    5)                  One of the purpose of the EIS is to help retrain and reskill workers who have lost their jobs. How will these retraining and reskilling programs be different from existing programs which are being implemented by the government such as Skim Latihan 1 Malaysia (SKIM) and others? The government must provide a convincing case that the provision of retraining schemes under EIS will be more effective than current programs.

    6)                  There are already existing training schemes provided and paid for by the sums collected from employers and managed by the Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF). There have been numerous reports that more than RM100m of this fund has not been used by employers for retraining purposes. Can existing HRDF scheme be utilised better for retraining purposes? What is to say that the proposed EIS scheme will not end up like the HRDF scheme i.e. lots of unused funds that are not put into retraining schemes?

    7)                  Initial reports indicate that only those workers who are currently being covered by SOSCO i.e. those earning less than RM4000 a month will be eligible for the EIS scheme. But many middle-income workers are also being retrenched these days including those in the financial industry and the oil and gas industry. What kinds of plans and programs does the government have to help these workers who are in the M40 category?

    8)                  Estimates by Malaysian trade unions show that workers lose between RM50 million to RM100 million a year from lost compensation as a result of companies going bankrupt but RM700 million to RM800 million will be collected from the EIS scheme, half of which are coming from workers. Is this an effective approach to solving the non-compensation issue?

    9)                  One of the main reasons why workers at the lower end of the economic spectrum are losing their jobs is because of employer preference for foreign workers. If the government does not have a comprehensive plan to reduce our reliance on foreign workers, how effective will the EIS scheme be? How easy will it be for the workers who have lost their jobs to find new jobs, especially when they have to compete with lower paid foreign workers?

    10)               Some countries in Asia which have employment insurance schemes also feature government contributions to these schemes (Thailand – 0.25%, Taiwan – 0.1%, Vietnam – 1%). Has the government considered having its own contribution to this scheme to decrease the financial burden on employers and employees alike?

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, DAP
    Sim Tze Sin, PKR
    Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, AMANAH
    Dr Rais Hussin, BERSATU

  • 选委会不应允许雪州继续发生毫无根据的反对登记新选民的案件

    (2017年4月18日)沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    选委会不应允许雪州继续发生毫无根据的反对登记新选民的案件

    昨天早上,新古毛区州议员李继香同志和我前往位于沙亚南的雪州选委会办公室视察被举报的选民。根据我们的观察,上述被反对者总共有400名,分别来自4个不同的国会议席。这些议席包括,乌鲁雪兰莪国会议席P94的峇东加里N7州议席,丹绒加弄国会议席P95的伯马登N9和双武隆N8州议席,乌鲁冷岳国席P101的杜順大N23和士毛月N24州议席和蒲种国席 P103 的斯里沙登N29州议席。

    从我们这次与被举报者的视察和访问,我们发现以下很明显的事实:

    (i)               被举报的理由毫无根据和缺乏基础证据。举个例子,在没有任何证据的情况下,蒲种选区的选民被举报的理由是“可疑选民”(请参阅附录1)。另外,乌鲁冷岳选区被举报的理由像剪贴复制般的一样,都是“此选民无法在该住址被发现”(请参阅附录2)。

    (ii)              许多被举报者的唯一共同点就是来自华裔的背景。从我所拍到的附录2至附录5的  被举报者名单,所有都是华裔名字

    (iii)            很多举报者当天并没有现身。

    (iv)            从上述的被举报者的个案来看,我们都发现这些举报都没有拥有任何的实质性的证据。大部分被举报者都只需前往听证室现身几分钟,便成功取消该举报。(请参阅附录6)

    在2002年选举法令第15章(5)下,有阐明“在该法令下,只有受到任何反对的举报,选举官只要认为举报理由不充足,就可以要求举报人在7天内提供相关证据。 另外,第15章(6)有阐明只要举报人无法进一步地提供资料,那选举官有权力马上取消该举报,并不予理会。

    上述案件已清楚显示了选举官可以根据自己的条例,有权力自行决定拒绝那些毫无根据的举报。只要这些虚假举报的案件一再发生,就表示(1)整个举报机制已被滥用。(2)浪费有现身听证会的被举报者的时间。(3)忽略那些由于各种理由如无法请假,缺乏交通,必须上课等理由而最终无法现身听证会的选民的登记权利。

    因此,我们敦促选委会必须拒绝那些反对登记却无法提供有效证据的举报,以便保护合格及有效选民登记的权利。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

    (附录7下的照片组图)

    附录1: 蒲种区无理举报的例子

    附录2: 乌鲁冷岳区P101被举报的选民清单

    附录3: 乌鲁雪兰莪区P94被举报的选民清单

    附录4: 丹绒加弄区P95被举报的选民清单

    附录5: 蒲种区P103被举报的选民清单

    附录6: 推翻被举报的表格

    附录7: 李继香和王建民位于莎亚南的选委会办公室

  • Election Commission (EC) should not allow groundless and baseless objections to take place in Selangor

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 18th of April, 2017

    Election Commission (EC) should not allow groundless and baseless objections to take place in Selangor

    Yesterday morning, myself and my colleague, ADUN for Kuala Kubu Baru, Lee Kee Hiong, visited the Election Commission Selangor branch office in Shah Alam to observe the voters who had been objected to (Orang Kena Bantah or OKBs). According to our estimates, approximately 400 voters from 4 parliamentary constituencies – about 100 from each constituency – were objected to. Specifically, voters from the state seats of N7 Batang Kali in the P94 Hulu Selangor parliament seat, N8 Sungai Burong and N9 Permatang in the P95 Tanjong Kajang parliament seat, N23 Dusun Tua and N24 Semenyih in the P101 Hulu Langat parliament seat, N29 Seri Serdang in the P103 Puchong parliament seat.

    From our visit and our interviews with the OKBs, the following was made clear:

    (i) The grounds on which the OKBs were objected to were groundless and baseless. For example, voters in the P103 Puchong parliament seat were objected to based on the reason of ‘pemilih diragui’ or ‘doubtful voter’ even though there was no further proof given as to why this voter was consider as ‘doubtful’ (See Appendix 1). For voters in the P101 Hulu Langat parliament seat, the copy and paste reason given was ‘pengundi tidak dapat dikesan di alamat tersebut’ or the voter could not be identified at the registered address (See Appendix 2 below).

    (ii) The only commonality shared by all the voters being objected to was that they were Chinese voters. Of the list of voters being objected to which I took pictures of Appendix 2 to Appendix 5), all of the names were Chinese names.

    (iii) A number of those who made the objections did not show up on this day.

    (iv) For the cases where the objectors showed up, no proof was given as to why they objected to the newly registered voters. Almost all of the OKBs who showed up spent only a few minutes in the hearing room and had their objection rejected (See Appendix 6).

    Under the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002, Section 15 (5) states that “Upon receipt of an objection under this regulation, the Registrar may, if he is of the opinion that the particulars given in the objection are insufficient, request for further information from the objector who shall furnish the information within seven days from the date he receives such request” and Section 15 (6) states that “Where the objector fails to furnish the information in the manner provided for in subregulation (5), the objection shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the Registrar shall take no further action”.

    It is clear from the EC’s own regulations that they, acting in the capacity of the Registrar, can reject these baseless objections on the grounds of insufficient evidence and information. To allow such groundless objections to be filed is to (i) make a mockery of the objection process (ii) waste the valuable time of the voters who turn up at the public hearings and (iii) deny the right of registration to those voters who did not turn up to the public hearing for various reasons e.g. could not take leave from work, no transportation to Shah Alam, attending college or university. We call upon the EC to reject the objections which fail to provide sufficient evidence and information so that the right of legitimate voters to be registered is protected and upheld.

    (Selected pictures in Appendix 7 below)

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Appendix 1: Example of a baseless objection in Puchong

    Appendix 2: List of voters objected to in P101 Hulu Langat

    Appendix 3: Voters Objected to in P94 Hulu Selangor

    Appendix 4: Voters Objected to in P95 Tanjong Karang

    Appendix 5: Voters Objected to in P103 Puchong

    Appendix 6: Sample Form of ‘Bantahan di tolak’ or Objection is rejected

    Appendix 7: Pictures of Ong Kian Ming and Lee Kee Hiong at the EC office in Shah Alam

  • 为何选委会允许巫统对雪兰莪州选区的年轻选民作出虚假的举报

    2017年4月8日沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    为何选委会允许巫统对雪兰莪州选区的年轻选民作出虚假的举报

    在2016年第1至第3季度,共有4694名的举报中,共有4427名或94%选民来自雪兰莪州。这显示此次的举报动作都是集中在雪兰莪州的选区。

    根据2016年第1至第3季度之间被举报的数据中,显示2个明显的趋势。首先,共有来自36个雪州议席的选民被举报,其中30席或86%是属于巫统在2013年全国大选攻打的议席。第二,在被举报的4427名雪州选民中,多达92.8%是华裔,其次为5.8%是印裔,马来选民只有1.2%。(请参阅图表1)

    另外,2016年第4季度的最新数据显示,短短3个月就有2550名来自雪州的新选民被举报。在这24个议席,其中20个或83%在2013年大选属于巫统议席。在这2550名选民当中,其中79%为华裔,马来选民占14.2%,印裔6.3%。(请参阅图表2)

    我们并非反对举报选民的权利,但这些举报必须要拥有确实根据的理由。例如,我们来自柔佛州的同事是由于深入调查而发现大量选民都在同一商店地址或不是自己居住的地址下登记。在雪兰莪州,我们看到很多举报的原因是,“这名选民地址错了”或“身为当地居民的我不认识这名选民”等。可实际上,这些举报者根本没有前往过这些地址来与该选民见面!

    我们也找到明确的证据显示这些举报者都是巫统党员。 事实上,选委会理应鼓励更多年轻人登记为选民,我们不能接受选委会竟然允许巫统党员根据种族区分来举报可疑选民,企图使许多选民在大选时失去宪法所赋予的投票权。因此,选委会应采取动作来马上制止雪兰莪州再次发生类似毫无根据的举报。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

Page 5 of 163« First...34567...102030...Last »