• Has the Election Commission just implicated itself by admitting that it has destroyed the electoral rolls it used for the 1994 and 2003 delimitation exercises?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 22nd of July, 2017

    Has the Election Commission just implicated itself by admitting that it has destroyed the electoral rolls it used for the 1994 and 2003 delimitation exercises?

    The recent decision made by the Court of Appeal on Thursday, 20th of July, 2017, to set aside the High Court order for the Election Commission to provide the Selangor government information on 136,272 registered voters without proper addresses, may seem like a setback for those seeking to put a stop to the ongoing delimitation exercise. But part of the argument used by the federal counsel – namely that the Election Commission had discarded the records of these voters from the electoral rolls used in the 1994 and 2003 delimitation exercise – may come back to haunt the Election Commission.

    The Selangor government can still appeal the Court of Appeal judgment at the Federal Court. But even if it loses the appeal at the apex court, the judicial review filed by the Selangor government against the Election Commission will still have to be heard at the High Court (Proceedings were postponed while waiting for the Court of Appeal decision stated above).

    Recall that in December 2016, the High Court granted leave to the Selangor state government for its judicial review challenging the constitutionality of the ongoing delimitation exercise, which started on the 15th of September, 2016.

    To recap, the judicial review case brought forth by the Selangor government was based on the following four grounds:

    1. Ground ONE: The EC’s Proposals are Unconstitutional as Tainted by Malapportionment and Gerrymandering
    2. Ground TWO: The Electoral Roll Complaint:  Unconstitutionality arising from the EC’s failure to use the Current Electoral Rolls
    3. Ground THREE: Election Commission’s Use of a Defective Electoral Roll With Missing Addresses of Voters
    4. Ground FOUR: Insufficient Particulars in the Proposed Recommendations Which Impaired Right To Make Meaningful Representations

    By admitting that it has destroyed previous records of voters, including details containing the addresses of these voters, the Election Commission may have opened the door for its ongoing delimitation exercise to be questioned under Ground THREE (see above), which is the use of a defective electoral roll to conduct the delimitation exercise.

    To make things easier to understand, let me illustrate with a simple example. Jalan Cheras is a very long road which starts in the heart of Kuala Lumpur at the intersection between Jalan Pudu and Jalan Tun Razak. It snakes through many housing areas in Cheras before finally ending in the center of Kajang town. (One has to remember that the naming of this road predated the creation of the Federal Territories Kuala Lumpur so the entire Jalan Cheras would have been in the state of Selangor)

    Imagine if the voter was assigned to a particular locality along Jalan Cheras and the exact address of this voter was subsequently destroyed. How will the Election Commission determine which constituency this voter will be placed if the boundaries of the constituencies of the seats along Jalan Cheras were to be changed? At the time of writing, under the boundaries used in the 2013 general elections, Jalan Cheras passes through the P123 Cheras parliamentary constituency and the N23 Dusun Tua and N25 Kajang state seats in the P101 Hulu Langat parliament constituency. With the rapid development which has happened and is currently happening along Jalan Cheras, how can the EC accurately determine which constituency to place a voter without knowing his or her exact address?

    In reality, the dirty little secret which the EC already knows but does not want to admit to is that our electoral roll is seriously flawed. In the past, when the BN was dominant and there was little scrutiny of the electoral roll, the EC allowed politicians (mostly from the BN) to register voters en masse with little regard to knowing exactly where these voters were living at. Some had complete addresses, others didn’t. Prior to 2002, voters did not need to register according to their IC address. We are still living with this legacy till today. Which is why there is a large number of voters without complete addresses even in developed states like Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

    This much was clear to me as I uncovered various problems associated with the electoral roll under the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) in 2012.

    This is also the reason why lawyers representing the EC always refer to Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 which prevents a gazetted electoral roll from being challenged in court. They hide behind this so-called ‘defense’ even though in this particular case, the Selangor government is not questioning the inclusion of these 136,272 voters in the electoral roll, but is asking for more information to determine if the constituency delimitation process has been carried out in accordance to constitutional principles.

    The fight against the unfair delimitation exercise will continue. The judicial review case taken up by the Selangor government has prevented the Election Commission from starting the First Round of the constitutionally mandated public hearing process. The High Court also recently ruled in favour of the Selangor state government by granting an injuction application to stop the Election Commission from passing the delimitation exercise proposal to the Prime Minister without the inclusion of Selangor.

    The judicial review in the High Court will continue. In the worst of circumstances, even if the High Court rules against the Selangor government, the EC must complete two rounds of a public hearing including a public display of maps and relevant information between rounds one and two before the delimitation exercise for Peninsular Malaysia can be completed. This gives time for the Selangor government to mount an appeal all the way up to the Federal Court if necessary.

    There is also another High Court hearing on the right of the EC to move voters from the Batang Kali state seat to the Kuala Kubu state seat in Selangor during the ‘boundary correction’ exercise which took place in April 2016.

    The Election Commission must be surprised by the slew of court cases taken up by the Pakatan Harapan state governments in Selangor and Penang and by groups of affected voters in various states including Penang, Perak, Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Melaka and Johor. Even though some of these cases have been ruled in the favour of the EC, it must know that the will of the people cannot be defeated so easily, especially when the pressure for reforming our electoral system is maintained by organisations such as BERSIH and by supporters who want clean and fair elections in Malaysia.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • 陆地公共交通委员会应确保出租车司机与网召车服务司机之间存有公平竞争的关系,并提供司机适当的安全保障








    (i) 提升网召车服务公司司机对修正案的意识和对细节的了解

    (ii) 确保网召车服务不会成为垄断/寡头垄断的市场,并损害司机和乘客的利益

    (iii) 规范网召车服务公司可向司机收取佣金的多寡

    (iv) 设立仲裁庭以便听取网召车服务司机针对自己认为被公司不公平地吊销服务的上诉

    (v) 确保出租车司机与网召车服务司机之间在车票价和工资方面存有一个公平的竞争关系


    下载: Self-Employed E-Hailing Services Drivers (SEEDs) Survey Findings (5 July 2017)

  • SPAD perlu memastikan pentas sama rata bagi pemandu teksi dan pemandu perkhidmatan e-hailing dan juga menyediakan langkah perlindungan yang sewajarnya untuk mereka

    Kenyataan Media oleh Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Ahli Parlimen Serdang dan Liew Chin Tong, Ahli Parlimen Kluang pada 6hb Julai 2017

    SPAD perlu memastikan pentas sama rata bagi pemandu teksi dan pemandu perkhidmatan e-hailing dan juga menyediakan langkah perlindungan yang sewajarnya untuk mereka

    Dengan anggaran seramai 37,000 pemandu teksi dan 60,000 pemandu Uber dan Grab di Lembah Klang, jenis pengangkutan awam ini bukan sahaja menawarkan perkhidmatan yang penting kepada pengguna, malahan ia juga merupakan sumber pendapatan yang penting bagi pemandu-pemandu. Memandangkan semakin ramai rakyat Malaysia yang kini menjadi pemandu perkhidmatan e-hailing (GRAB dan UBER), sama ada secara separuh masa mahupun sepenuh masa, adalah perlu untuk SPAD memastikan pentas sama rata dinikmati oleh pemandu-pemandu teksi serta perkhidmatan e-hailing. SPAD juga harus memastikan bahawa pemandu-pemandu teksi serta perkhidmatan e-hailing diberi perlindungan yang sewajarnya.

    Melalui sebuah kajian dalam BM dan BC melalui laman web yang dikendalikan oleh pasukan penyelidik DAP di mana hampir 300 jawapan diterima, kami mendapati bahawa 40% daripada pemandu UBER dan GRAB memandu sepenuh masa menggunakan kenderaan sendiri dan 53% yang lain memandu separuh masa bukannya sebagai hobi tetapi pekerjaan. Dengan erti kata lain, kebanyakan pemandu UBER dan GRAB yang menjawab kaji selidik itu bergantung besar kepada pendapatan mereka sebagai pemandu. Sebahagian besar pemandu yang dikaji mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya diploma, yang menunjukkan bahawa ramai yang berpendidikan tinggi melihat perkhidmatan e-hailing sebagai peluang pekerjaan yang berdaya maju. Tambahan pula, kajian ini mendapati bahawa 34%, iaitu satu pertiga daripada keseluruhan pemandu e-hailing, berada di luar Lembah Klang. Jumlah ini akan meningkat lagi apabila UBER dan GRAB dilanjutkan ke bandar dan pekan di luar KL dan Selangor.

    Pendapatan purata bagi para pemandu sepenuh masa dianggarkan hampir RM3200. Walaupun jumlah ini nampak berpatutan, namun ia belum mengambil kira kos penyelenggaraan kenderaan yang boleh mencecah hampir RM1000 sebulan. Walaupun syarikat e-hailing menyediakan insuran kemalangan peribadi kepada pemandu-pemandu dan penumpang-penumpang, namun kos insuran kenderaan dan pembaikan adalah ditanggung sepenuhnya oleh pemandu sendiri. 

    75% daripada pemandu yang dikaji menganggap kadar komisyen 20-25% yang dikenakan oleh UBER/ GRAB adalah tidak adil, dan lebih daripada 60% daripada pemandu mahukan kerajaan untuk mengawal jumlah komisyen yang boleh diambil oleh syarikat e-hailing. Tambahan lagi, sebilangan pemandu merasakan mereka tiada saluran untuk membuat aduan jika mereka digantung atau diharamkan oleh UBER/GRAB disebabkan oleh aduan penumpang yang tidak berasas. Isu kes penggantungan secara tidak adil ini akan bertambah serius dengan bertambahnya bilangan pemandu sepenuh masa UBER / GRAB, termasuklah mereka yang telah membeli kenderaan baru bagi tujuan menjadi pemandu e-hailing sepenuh masa.

    Walaupun pindaan yang dicadangkan terhadap Akta Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat 2010 dan Akta Lembaga Pelesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan 1987 adalah langkah yang baik, banyak lagi yang perlu dilakukan termasuk:

    1. Meningkatkan kesedaran pemandu e-hailing berkenaan maklumat pindaan akta-akta tersebut
    2. Memastikan pasaran e-hailing tidak dijadikan monopoli/ oligopoli hingga menjejaskan pemandu dan penumpang
    3. Mengawal kadar komisyen yang boleh dicaj oleh syarikat e-hailing terhadap pemandu
    4. Menubuhkan tribunal untuk mendengar rayuan pemandu e-hailing yang merasakan mereka telah dihalang / digantung oleh syarikat e-hailing secara tidak adil
    5. Memastikan pentas yang adil bagi pemandu teksi dan pemandu e-hailing dari segi tambang dan gaji

    Matlamat akhir seharusnya adalah pasaran di mana pemandu teksi dan juga pemandu e-hailing menerima pampasan sewajarnya dan syarikat teksi serta e-hailing tidak boleh menyalahgunakan kedudukan oligopolistik dan monopoli mereka untuk menganiaya pemandu dan memberi pengalaman perkhidmatan yang buruk kepada penumpang.

    Muat turun: Self-Employed E-Hailing Services Drivers (SEEDs) Survey Findings (5 July 2017)

  • SPAD should ensure a level-playing field between taxi and ehailing drivers and provide these drivers with proper protections and safeguards

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang and Liew Chin Tong, MP for Kluang on the 6th of July, 2017

    SPAD should ensure a level-playing field between taxi and ehailing drivers and provide these drivers with proper protections and safeguards

    With an estimated 37,000 taxi drivers and an estimated 60,000 Uber and Grab drivers in the Klang Valley, this form of public transportation not only provides a crucial service to consumers but also an important source of employment for the drivers themselves. As more and more Malaysians are joining the ranks of e-hailing drivers (GRAB and UBER), either on a part time or on a full-time basis, it is crucial for the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) to ensure that there is a level playing field between the regular taxi drivers and the e-hailing drivers and also to ensure that the taxi and e-hailing drivers themselves are given proper protections and safeguards.

    In a web-based survey conducted in BM and in Chinese by the DAP Research team where we obtained close to 300 replies, we found that 40% of UBER and GRAB drivers are driving their vehicles on a full-time basis and another 53% are driving on a part time basis not as a hobby but as a job. In other words, most UBER and GRAB drivers surveyed depend greatly on their income as drivers. A significant proportion of the drivers surveyed – 64% – have at least a diploma which indicates that many with tertiary qualifications look at e-hailing as a viable form of employment. Furthermore, our survey found that 34% or about one-third of e-hailing drivers are based outside the Klang Valley. This number is likely to grow as UBER and GRAB expand to the cities and smaller towns outside KL and Selangor.

    The average monthly wages for full time drivers were estimated to be approximately RM3200. While this may seem like a decent amount of earnings, it does not take into account the maintenance cost of the vehicles which can average more than RM1000 a month. While e-hailing companies provides personal accident insurance for drivers and passengers, the car insurance and repairs cost are totally borne by the drivers themselves.

    75% of the drivers surveyed feel that the 20-25% commission rate charged by UBER / GRAB are unfair and more than 60% of drivers want the government to regulate the amount of commission which the e-hailing companies can charge. In addition, some drivers also feel that they have no avenues of appeal if they are suspended or banned by UBER / GRAB because of unreasonable complaints by customers. The cases of unfair suspensions will become more serious as the number of full time UBER / GRAB drivers increases, including those who have bought new vehicles for the purpose of becoming full time e-hailing drivers.

    While the proposed amendments to the Land Public Transport Act 2010 and the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 are a step in the right direction, much more needs to be done including:

    (i)               Increasing the awareness of e-hailing drivers on the details of the amendments

    (ii)              Ensuring that the e-hailing market does not become a monopoly / oligopoly to the detriment of drivers and passengers

    (iii)            Regulating the commission rates which e-hailing companies can charge the drivers

    (iv)            Setting up a Tribunal to hear the appeals of e-hailing drivers who feel they have been unfairly banned / suspended by the e-hailing companies

    (v)              Ensuring that there is a level playing field between the taxi drivers and e-hailing drivers in terms of fares and wages.

    The end goal should be a market whereby taxi drivers as well as e-hailing drivers are properly compensated and the taxi companies and e-hailing companies cannot abuse their oligopolistic / monopolistic positions to mistreat the drivers and give passengers a bad service experience.

    Document: Self-Employed E-Hailing Services Drivers (SEEDs) Survey Findings (5 July 2017)

Page 5 of 208« First...34567...102030...Last »