• Why is the government of Malaysia spending RM15 million to subsidize an event for affluent Malaysians and big corporate organizations organized by a private company?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 23rd of March, 2017

    Why is the government of Malaysia spending RM15 million to subsidize an event for affluent Malaysians and big corporate organizations organized by a private company?

    The Global Transformation Forum 2017, featuring internationally renowned speakers and celebrities such as Sir Richard Branson, Jack Ma and Usain Bolt, is currently taking place at the KL Convention Center from the 22nd to the 23rd of March, 2017.[1] It has a number of corporate sponsors including Tenaga, Hong Leong Bank, YTL, MMC Gamuda, KL Kepong and many others. The cost of entrance for this forum starts at RM4,000 for a basic package (“Club Pass”) and going up to RM10,000 for the most expensive package (“Signature Pass”). As of today, tickets for the Circle Pass (RM6,000) and the Signature Pass (RM10,000) has been sold out and only a limited number of Club Passes (“RM4,000) are left (See Figure 1 below).

    Figure 1: Cost and Benefits of the Club Pass, Circle Pass and Signature Pass packages for the Global Transformation Forum 2017

    If this was a purely private affair, organized by the private sector for the private sector, it would be no business of mine as a Member of Parliament (MP) to question the costs of organizing such an event. But a similar forum had previously been organized in 2015 at a cost of RM10 million to the taxpayer.

    In the parliamentary reply given to me today, the cost to the taxpayer for organizing this event has escalated to RM15 million! (See Appendix 1)

    When government funding to our universities and our hospitals are being cut left, right and center, and government subsidies for essentials such as sugar and cooking oil are being cut, why is the government subsidizing an event that will be almost exclusively attended by affluent and well-connected Malaysians? So that the Prime Minister will have more opportunities to take selfies with celebrities? This is a slap in the face of Malaysians who are suffering because of increases in the cost of living and cuts in government expenditure. The organizers of the event should be ashamed of themselves for asking the government for RM15 million to organize this forum for the rich, of the rich and by the rich.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    [1] http://globaltransformation.com/

    Appendix 1: Answer to my Parliament Question of the Government Allocation for the Global Transformation Forum 2017

  • Intention to designate the old MATIC building (Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman) as a heritage site must be fulfilled

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Member of Parliament for Serdang, on the 19th of March, 2017

    Intention to designate the old MATIC building (Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman) as a heritage site must be fulfilled

    On the 8th of December, 2016, the Commissioner of Heritage published a public notice to de-gazette the national heritage status of three plots of land on the Malaysian Tourism Center (MATIC) which is located along Jalan Ampang in Wilayah Persekutuan (See Appendix 1 below). This public notice raised many concerns including the president of the Badan Warisan Negara, Elizabeth Cardosa.[1] Some feared that the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman (currently known as the MATIC building), where Malaysia’s first Agong was installed in 1959 and where the Malaysian parliament first met in 1959, would be demolished and go the way of the Bok House.[2]

    I put in a question to the special chamber of parliament during the ongoing parliament sitting, specifically asking about the status of the MATIC building and I received an official reply from Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister of Tourism. In his reply, the Minister stated that the reason why the three plots of land were degazetted as heritage sites was because only one of the plots namely Lot 139 Section 58 has heritage value, namely the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman building. In his reply, the Minister also stated that the public notice to state the government’s intention to designate this building as a heritage site has already been published on the 26th of January 2017 (See Appendix 2 below).

    The Minister also gave me his verbal assurance that any construction that will take place in the plot of land adjacent to the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman would be in line with the conditions stipulated in the National Heritage Act 2005 including having the necessary buffer zone as a protection against the heritage site.

    I welcome this decision by the Minister to ensure that an important building in Malaysia’s history in the heart of Kuala Lumpur will be preserved and protected under the National Heritage Act 2005. As citizens who care about the history and heritage of our nation, we must continue our efforts to protect important heritage sites not just in Wilayah Persekutuan but all over the country as well. In the meantime, we will be waiting for the publication of the public notice confirming that Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman has been officially been designated as a heritage site (since the public notice on the 26th of January only states the intention of declaring this building as a heritage site).

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Appendix 1: Public Notice degazetting three plots of land on the Malaysian Tourism Center (MATIC) as a heritage site

    Appendix 2: Federal Government Gazette stating the intention of designating the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman as a heritage site

    Further References:

    1. Parliamentary Reply on degazetting of heritage sites: 1, 2 and
    2. P.U. (B) 57 Notice to Designate MATIC as a Heritage Site 

    [1] http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/202296/status-revocation-not-provided-law?d=1

    [2] https://cilisos.my/for-the-first-time-in-history-malaysian-heritage-buildings-are-going-to-be-de-heritaged/

     

  • More mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd Public Display of the 2016 Delimitation Exercise (or “Syor 2”)?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Member of Parliament of Serdang, 17th of March, 2017

    More mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd Public Display of the 2016 Delimitation Exercise (or “Syor 2”)?

    Yesterday, I highlighted two possible mistakes by the Election Commission in the 2nd public display of the 2016 delimitation exercise (referred to as “Syor 2” here on). There was a case of a ‘missing’ polling station in Johor and also a case of a new polling station in Pahang.

    In today’s statement, I want to highlight 10 cases where the number of voters in polling stations have been changed from the first public display (Syor 1) to the second public display (Syor 2). Why is this an issue? Think of the delimitation exercise as one big jigsaw puzzle. Each polling station is one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. From Syor 1 to Syor 2, the Election Commission can shift polling stations from one state seat to another, but it cannot change the size and composition of the individual polling stations. The reasoning is simple: If voters are shifted from one polling station to another between Syor 1 and Syor 2, there is no way for the voters to know if they are the ones who have been shifted. This would obviously affect their constitutional right to object to the delimitation exercise under Syor 2.

    For example, in Syor 1, the Taman Temiang Jaya polling station in the N12 Temiang state seat under the P128 Seremban parliament seat had 2994 voters (See Figure 1 below)

    Figure 1: Taman Temiang polling station with 2994 voters in N12 Temiang under the P128 Seremban parliament seat

    However, under Syor 2, the number of voters in the Taman Temiang Jaya polling station has decreased from 2994 voters to 2412 voters (See Figure 2 below). Note that the number of voters for the other polling stations remain the same. Note also, that I am not challenging the ability of the EC to shift polling stations from one state seat to another, which is what it has done to the Kampong Nee Yan polling station (from N12 Temiang to N11 Lobak). What I am challenging is the EC’s ability to change the composition of the individual polling stations and hence the number of voters in each polling station from Syor 1 to Syor 2.

    For example, if I am one of the 2994 voters in Taman Temiang Jaya in Syor 1, I have no idea if I am still a voter in Taman Temiang Jaya in Syor 2 or if I have been shifted to another polling station. So, I cannot make an objection even if I wanted to since I have no idea which polling station or which state seat or which parliament seat I will be voting in if Syor 2 is passed in parliament.

    Figure 2: Number of voters in Taman Temiang Jaya reduced from 2994 in Syor 1 to 2412 in Syor 2

    Another example of this mistake made by the EC is found in the Sura Gate polling station in the N27 Sura state seat under the P39 Dungun parliament seat. In Syor 1, the Sura Gate polling station has 1387 voters (Figure 3 below). In Syor 2, the number of voters in Sura Gate has been increased to 2550 (Figure 4 below).

    Figure 3: Sura Gate polling station in N27 Sura state seat in P39 Dungun parliament seat with 1387 voters in Syor 1

    Figure 4: Number of voters in Sura Gate polling station increased to 2550 in Syor 2

    In total, I identified 10 such cases, whereby the number of voters in each polling station was changed from Syor 1 to Syor 2. The full list of polling stations is listed in Table 1 below.

    The EC needs to state if it has made a mistake in changing the number of voters in these polling stations from Syor 1 to Syor 2. The failure to do so may mean that the constitutional right of certain voters to voice their objections to the delimitation exercise proposal in Syor 2 are affected.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Table 1: 10 Polling Stations where the number of voters have changed from Syor 1 to Syor 2

  • 选委会是否在第二轮选区划分展示中错误地排除掉现有的投票站和添加新的投票站

    (2017年3月16日)沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    选委会是否在第二轮选区划分展示中错误地排除掉现有的投票站和添加新的投票站

    在2017年3月8日,选举委员会发布一项公告来宣布针对马来西亚半岛(不包括雪兰莪)2016年的第二轮选区重划展示正式开始。这项公告除了刊登在国家的联邦宪报上,[1] 也在各大主流媒体,各州的地方办事处上广泛流传。

    看过了在2016年9月15日首次发布的第一轮选区重划展示(Syor 1)和2017年3月8日所发布的第二轮选区重划展示(Syor 2),我就发现到一些在第一轮展示出现,但被第二轮展示排出在外的投票区,如属于柔佛州国席Ledang(P144)和州议席Gambir(N9)下(参考图一)拥有876名选民的Kampong Teratai投票区。这是其中一个从Pagoh国席(P143)移到Ledang国席(P144)的投票站。

    图表一:2016915日的第一轮展示所公布的柔佛州国席Ledang(P144)和州议席Gambir(N9)下拥有876名选民的Kampong Teratai投票区

    令人惊讶的是,在第二轮展示中,Kampong Teratai投票区不见踪影。请问这个投票站去哪儿了?这个问题重要吗?这个课题之所以重要的原因是如果Kampong Teratai的876名选民不知道他们所在的国州选区的话,他们就无法反对第二轮展示的选区划分。因此,他们将被剥夺联邦宪法第十三条第5章节所赋予的反对权利。

    而事实证明,Kampong Teratai投票站很可能被移回Bukit Kepong(N7)州选区和Pagoh(P143)国会选区。在第二轮展示中,Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席的选民总数为27,350(参阅下图二),不过合算了26个投票站中的选民人数仅有26,474。[2] 而巧合的是,这个876个选民人数的差距和从第二轮展示消失的Kampung Teratai投票站的选民人数不谋而合。

    图表二:在第二轮展示中Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席底下26所投票站的选民总数原为27,350,但实际合算仅有26,474位选民(共有876位选民的差距)

    如果选举委员会确实犯下这起错误,从Bukit Kepong(N7)州议席中排除了Kampong Teratai投票区,那便应立即作出回应,包括在宪报和主流报纸上公布修正启示。若不这样做便可能意味着这次第二轮的公告是违宪的。

    同时,我也找到了一些在第二轮展示被新添加的投票站的例子。虽然选委会有权添加新的投票站,但也必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条。根据这项法令,选委会可以重新安排现有和添加新的投票站。(参阅图三)

    图表三:(公布在2016429日的宪报)重启现有和新添投票站必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条的法令

    如果选委会想要增加新的投票站,就必须遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条。但并不是在第一轮和第二轮展示的过程中这样做。但选举委员会恰恰就在第二轮展示中在Temerloh(P88)国席和 Mentakab(N30)州议席下添加新的Taman Rimba投票站。(参阅图四) 此前,Taman Rimba在第一轮展示中并没有被规划成一所投票站。

    新增的投票站也会影响选民反对第二轮选区划分的能力,因为选民可能不知道自己已经被分配到如Mentakab(N30)下新增的投票站。 若是这样,那么这些被联邦宪法第13条第5章节所赋予权利的选民将被受到影响。

    图表四Temerloh(P88)国席和 Mentakab(N30)州议席下添加新的Taman Rimba投票站

    根据上述所提供的证据,选委会应立即回答以下两个问题:(1) 有无投票站错误地在第二轮展示中被排除掉(例如Pagoh(P143)的Bukit Kepong(N7)的Kampong Teratai投票站)和(2)有无在第二轮展示中新增任何投票站及为何没有遵守1958年选举法第7(2)条文。

    若非如此,这举动恐怕会影响马来亚各州选区划分在宪法上的正当性和在程序上的有效性。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

    附录一:在第二轮展示中Bukit Kepong (N7) 的投票站和选民人数名单

    [1] http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputp/pub_20170308_PU%20(B)%20127%20(2)%20latest.pdf

    [2] Refer to Appendix 1 below to check the total number of voters as shown in Syor 2.

Page 18 of 213« First...10...1617181920...304050...Last »