• Is the Election Commission (EC) trying to add voters via the ‘back door’ to help the BN win the next General Election?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 31st of May, 2017

    Is the Election Commission (EC) trying to add voters via the ‘back door’ to help the BN win the next General Election?

    I was shocked when I received a photo yesterday of the display of new voters for the First Quarter, 2017 at the offices of the Selangor Election Commission in Shah Alam. In the picture, it was stated that the list of voters displayed were “Pameran Senarai Tuntutuan” or Display of List Based on Claims (See Figure 1 below).

    Figure 1: Display of List based on Claims at the Selangor Election Commission office in Shah Alam

    As far as I know, this is the first time where I have seen a display of a list of voters based on ‘tuntutan’ or claims. Unlike the display of the quarterly “Rang Daftar Pemilih Tambahan (RDPT)”, the Election Commission did not make any media statement to notify the public that these additional names to be added into the electoral roll were on display nor did the Election Commission display these names in locations in each of the parliamentary areas in Selangor.

    The EC is making use of a little used and little known section of the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002 – Section 14 – which states the following:

    Section 14 of the Regulations is supposed to address the problem of genuine mistakes by the Election Commission, for example, in the case where an EC staff forget to input a name into the latest RDPT or for some reason, the information of a voter who registers at a post office fails to be included in the latest RDPT.

    However, according to data collected by PEMUDA AMANAH, a total of 28416 voters were added using Section 14 of the Regulations in this most recent display including 1,170 voters in Selangor (See Figure 2 below). Does the EC expected us to believe that it somehow ‘forgot’ to include over 28,000 voters in the RDPT for Quarter 1, 2017? In addition, why is there a big rush on the part of the EC to add these voters now rather than to wait until the public display of the RDPT for Quarter 2, 2017? Is it because the EC wants to make sure that these voters are on the electoral roll if the General Elections were to be called in September?

    Figure 2: Number of voters added using Section 14 of the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002
    Source: PEMUDA AMANAH

    An analysis of the voters added in Selangor shows that all of the voters added are based in military camps and / or are military voters and their spouses (See sample in Figure 3 below). Let me clearly state that I am not objecting to the addition of army voters into the electoral roll. Rather, I am questioning the procedure by which they have been added.

    I have written to the Director of the Selangor Election Commission to explain the addition of these voters and why they were not added during the public display of the first quarter, 2017, of the RDPT. The failure of the EC to provide an adequate explanation will jeopardise public trust in the integrity of the electoral roll.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Figure 3: Sample of Military voters added via Section 14 of the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002

  • 马来西亚选民“用脚投票”倾向移居雪槟两州

    (2017年5月30日)沙登区国会议员王建民博士的媒体声明

    马来西亚选民用脚投票倾向移居雪槟两州

    根据今年5月26日公布的2016年移民报告,雪兰莪和槟城分别乃是迁入人口最高的两个州属。在2015年至2016年期间,雪兰莪州的净迁入人口为19,400人,而槟城则面临12,000的净迁入人口。(请参考图表四)


    来源:2016年的移居调查报告

    雪槟两州的净人口迁入的趋势并不是短暂的现象。根据过去2011年至2016年移居调查报告的数据,雪兰莪州和槟城的净迁入人口分别为125,400人和49,800人,并导致这两州成为国内排名最高的州属。(参考图下)


    来源:2011年至2016年的移居调查报告

    移居调查报告显示了大马人是‘用脚来投票’,大量人口移居指雪州与槟州,明显大马人对这两个由希盟执政的州属非常有信心。

    槟州的成就是最杰出的,虽然它是在大马人口最稠密的州属排名第8,但却是人口移居第二多的州属。根据移居调查报告,“在2015年至2016年,槟州的外来移居者达到58.4%的比例,这意味着每100个人移居,有58人是移居至槟州的。”

    另外,在2009年至2016年期间,国内人口迁离州内最高的两个州属分别为吉隆坡(163,400人)和霹雳(40,000人)。虽然统计局没有在报告中,针对霹雳州人口减少一事提供理由,不过相信是因为雪州与槟州有比较多工作机会的关系。再来,人们从吉隆坡移居去雪州,可能是因为首都的楼价太高,以及被雪州政府的政策所吸引。

    根据2016年的移居调查报告,2014-2015年和2015-2016年,分别有62%和61%都是从吉隆坡外来移居至雪州。(参考以下图表6)

    如果这样的趋势继续,吉隆坡很快就成为了充斥极端的有钱人,外籍人士和来移居的穷人。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

  • Malaysians are voting with their feet by moving to Selangor and Penang

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 30th of May, 2017

    Malaysians are voting with their feet by moving to Selangor and Penang

    In the Migration Report 2016, which was released on the 26th of May, 2017, it was reported that the two states with the highest net migration was Selangor followed by Penang. In the period of 2015-2016, Selangor experienced a net migration of 19,400 persons while Penang experienced a net migration of 12,000 persons (See Chart 4 below).
    Source: Migration Report 2016

    The willingness of people to move to Selangor and Penang is not a short-term phenomenon. According to the data from the 2011 to the 2016 Migration Reports, the net migration for Selangor and Penang were 125,400 and 49,800 respectively making Selangor and Penang the top two states in terms of net migration (See Chart below)

    Source: Migration Reports 2011 to 2016

    The figures from the Migration Reports clearly shows that Malaysians are voting with their feet by moving in large numbers to Selangor and Penang. This is a clear indication that Malaysians have confidence in the state governments of Selangor and Penang under Pakatan Harapan (PH).

    The achievement of Penang is even more remarkable when one considers that it is only the 8th most populous state in Malaysia and yet, it is able to attract the 2nd highest number of net migrants in the entire Malaysia. According to the 2016 Migration Report, “for the period of 2015-2016, Pulau Pinang registered the highest positive effectiveness ratio of migration at 58.4 per cent. This means that the people of Pulau Pinang will be increased by 58 persons for every 100 of inter-state migrants that migrate in and out of the state”.

    On the other hand, the two states with the largest outflow of population are Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur and Perak with a net outflow of 163,400 and 40,000 respectively from 2009 to 2016. The reasons for these migration patterns were not given in the Migration Report. But it is likely that the state of Perak is losing population because of better job prospects in places like Selangor and Penang. For Kuala Lumpur, it is likely that it is losing population because of high housing prices and possibly, the more attractive policies offered by the Selangor state government.

    According to the 2016 Migration Report, 61% of out-migrants from Kuala Lumpur moved to Selangor in the period from 2015-2016 while 62% of out-migrants from KL moved to Selangor in the period from 2014-2015 (See Chart 6 below).

    If these trends continue, Kuala Lumpur will soon be a city comprising of mostly rich Malaysians and expatriates and also poor migrant workers.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • 自愿制的健康保险计划能否解决目前的医疗服务差距

    自愿制的健康保险计划能否解决目前的医疗服务差距

    2017521

    我父母年龄都超过70岁以上了 我父亲是名已退休的建筑师,并拥有自己的私人执业。而我母亲则是一位家庭主妇。据我所知,本地目前没有任何私人医疗保险从业愿意为这样年龄的长辈提供医疗保险计划。

    去年,我父亲自掏腰包在一家人医院接受过心脏绕道手术。最近,我母亲不得不去进行椎手术,当时的她面临种选择:昂贵的私人医院,等候时间颇长却有大量政府补贴的大学医院及两者之间的后者马来亚大学医疗中心。最后,她选择了后者

    在上个月,一名退休公务员的丈夫来到我的服务中心来寻求经济援助,以便购买自己的癌症药物。 尽管身为公务员配偶的他是有资格来享受政府退休医疗计划,但他也被告知自己必须支付治疗过程中所需要服用费用高达数千令吉的药物。

    我的父母和退休公务员的配偶所面对的上述问题,正好反映了我国所面临的其中一个医疗保险问题大部分都面对到左右为难的选择, 若非是在时间上妥协,即选择公共部门更长的等待时间或有的补贴药品,就是得付出高昂的费用,选择越来越高攀不起的人医院

    当然,若我的父母有购买医药保险的话,尽管在选择私人医院后也必然能大幅度减轻自己的医疗费用。同样地,若该名退休公务员的配偶有购买医药保险,也能帮吗负担部分昂贵的治疗费用。

    因此我们面临的问题是:明年教育部打算推介的自愿医疗保险计划是否能解决上述的挑战呢?迄今为止,我们不知道这个答案。原因很简单,目前我们对此医疗计划所了解的讯息根本少之又少。

    当然,我们可以从字里行间里解读这次医疗保险计划的出发点。其中可以被假定的理由是为了降低普遍对老百姓都很昂贵的私人医疗保险费用。

    若这次的医疗保险主要都采用自愿制,可能部分原因是为了避免重蹈覆辙,如上次般强制性登记一马健保计划所面对的反弹。若真如此,卫生部势必又会面对经济成本上的挑战。

    任何自愿制的医疗保险计划都必须设法避免一面倒地招致社会里最不健康的人民来登记。举个例子,所有被私人医药保险公司拒绝的长辈和本身就带有疾病如哮喘和癌症的病人都来登记报名,那该保险费用或政府的补贴会非常高。

    大部分先进国家的医疗保险计划都采用风险平摊机制。有了大量来自各背景,年龄,健康状况的人们参与了这样的医药保险计划的话,那比较健康和比较少用这些医疗服务的人们便能更有效地补贴那些长辈,以便有机会使用这些医疗服务。若该计划是采取自愿制的话,那风险摊平机制的效益就不存在了,因为大部分自愿参与计划的都是老弱残穷的百姓。

    其中的解决方案是政府可以想方设法来吸引比较年轻和健康的国民购买和参与这样的医药保险计划。举个例子,对那些尤其是兼职或频繁转换工作的青年一代,医药保险卡都被普遍地接受。所以,若政府能提供类似私人医药保险但费用较低的选项,那这些风险较低的族群将会更有诱因来选择新计划。

    政府也可以通过税改制度来提供更多诱因,比如让这个医药保险计划被纳入扣税的选项,同时要求雇主将员工所享受的医药保险服务纳进收入的一部分,进而鼓励更多员工选择更新更便宜的保险计划。

    负责掌管和运营这个计划的机构也对这样的自愿制医药保险计划的可持续性发展扮演很重要的角色。若交给一般追求利润最大化的私人公司去打理的话,那我们将面临保险费更高,减免选项更多和医药服务被合理化的风险。

    若交由政府来管理这个计划的话,有了向私家医院施压和谈判的权利,以便能控制医病的成本和费用,那对政府和购买保险的百姓在长期来说都是最佳的方案。可迄今为止,部长只透露该计划将由非政府机构来管理,但目前该非政府机构的身份不详。

    长期来看,政府很可能有意将更多的人纳入此健康保险计划,包括那些已在享用政府医院服务的使用者。若此举能有效地控制医药服务的开销,提高受益覆盖率和保护国民免于遭受重大健康事件,那我们便会无任欢迎这项计划。可是,由于这份计划缺乏细节,透明度和对政府动机的不信任,这让我们对这项复杂却对百万国民非常重要的公共政策无法进行诚恳和理性的辩论。

    王健民博士
    槟城研究所的总经理

Page 8 of 208« First...678910...203040...Last »