Lim Guan Eng |
| Posted: 06 Mar 2012 03:01 AM PST Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang akan merayu kepada Perdana Menteri agar memberikan layanan setimpal kepada Pulau Pinang dengan menambahkan peruntukan daripada RM2.88 billion di bawah RMK-10 kepada lebih RM7.2 billion. Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang kesal bahawa hanya RM2.88 billion diperuntukan bagi melaksanakan 259 program/ projek bagi RMK-10 berbanding dengan RM6.54 bilion bagi melaksakan sebanyak 993 program/ projek di bawah RMK-9. Memandangkan bahawa RMK-10 telah ditambah sebanyak 10peratus berbanding RMK-9, maka jumlah peruntukan untuk Pulau Pinang juga harus ditambah 10peratus daripada RM6.54 bilion di bawah RMK-9 kepada RM7.2 bilion di bawah RMK-10. Kegagalan Kerajaan Persekutuan berbuat demikian akan dilihat sebagai tindakan terus meminggirkan rakyat Pulau Pinang atau diskrimanasi terhadap negeri Pulau Pinang hanya kerana rakyat negeri ini telah memilih secara demokrasi Pakatan Rakyat untuk memerintah Pulau Pinang. Kerajaaan Persekutuan harus ingat bahawa Pulau Pinang memberikan sumbangan signifikan dalam pembayaran cukai dan duti kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan. Tambahan pula, Pulau Pinang memainkan peranan penting dalam pembangunan ekonomi dan menarik pelaburan ke Malaysia dan Pulau Pinang. Ini ketara dibuktikan dengan pencapaian cemerlang Pulau Pinang menjadi jaguh pelaburan di Malaysia secara dua tahun berturut- turut dengan RM12.24 billion dalam tahun 2010 dan RM9.1bilion dalam tahun 2011. Sekiranya Kerajaan Persekutuan terus mengambil pendekatan diskriminasi yang tidak matang ini, ia hanya memakan tuan kerana yang rugi bukan sahaja Pulau Pinang tetapi juga Malaysia. Bak kata pepatah Melayu "marahkan seekor nyamuk habis kelambu dibakar". Soalan bertulis yang dikemukakan oleh saya kepada Perdana Menteri adalah seperti berikut : Tuan Lim Guan Eng (Bagan) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan jumlah peruntukan yang diberikan kepada Pulau Pinang di bawah RMK-10 berbanding dengan RMK-9 dan sila nyatakan secara terperinci projek-projek, khususnya kos projek jalan demi mengurangkan kesesakan lalu lintas dan perparitan/ longkang untuk mengatasi banjir kilat. Jawapan: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, Kerajaan Persekutuan telah memperuntukkan sebanyak RM2.88 bilion bagi melaksanakan sebanyak 259 program/projek bagi rolling plan pertama Rancangan Malaysia Kesepuluh (RMK-10) bagi Negeri Pulau Pinang. Sementara itu, dalam Rancangan Malaysian Kesembilan (RMK-9)bagi tahun 2006-2010, Kerajaan Persekutuan telah memperuntukkan sebanyak RM6.54bilion bagi melaksanakan sebanyak 993 program/projek. Untuk makluman Ahli Yang berhormat juga, daripada jumlah tersebut, Kerajaan Persekutuan telah memperuntukkan sebanyak RM873.43juta bagi melaksanakan 50 projek pembinaan jalan dan jambatan untuk mengurangkan kesesakan lalu lintas. Manakala itu, sebagai langkah untuk mengatasi masalah banjir kilat, Kerajaan Persekutuan telah memperuntukkan RM234.96 juta bagi melaksanakan 30 projek untuk mengatasi masalah banjir kilat dalam tempoh RM-9 hingga rolling plan pertama RMK-10. LIM GUAN ENG ========Mandarin Version============= 槟州首席部长林冠英于2012年3月6日在吉隆坡发表的文告: 槟州政府呼吁首相能公平拨款予槟州，在第10大马计划下，望能从28亿8千万的拨款增加至超过72亿令吉。 槟州政府呼吁首相能公平拨款予槟州，在第10大马计划下，望能从28亿8千万的拨款增加至超过72亿令吉。相较于第9大马计划下槟州获得65亿4千万令吉进933项计划，槟州政府对于只能在第10大马计划下只获得28亿8000万令吉进行259项计划感到失望。 纵观第10大马计划已经比第9大马计划增加10%，因此，槟州理应从原本第9大马计划下所获得的65亿4千万令吉，在第10大马计划下增加10%至72亿令吉。联邦政府无法做到这一点，让人看到其边缘化槟州及其是槟州，只因为槟州人民透过民主程序选择了民联政府管理槟州。 联邦政府须谨记槟州上缴联邦政府的税收是占非常重要的比例。更何况槟州在马来西亚的经济发展及吸引外资到大马及槟城方面扮演着举足轻重的角色。这可从槟州在2010年及2011年，连续吸资高居全国冠军，获得证明。2010年槟州获得了122亿4千万令吉投资，2011年则获得了91亿令吉投资。 如果联邦政府继续不成熟地采取歧视政策对付槟州，联邦政府将自食恶果，因为槟州损失，大马也将会损失，就如马来谚语所说的"为了迁怒于一只蚊子，竟然把蚊帐给烧了" 我询问首相的国会问题如下 : 峇眼国会议员林冠英要求首相列出相较于第9大马计划，在第10大马计划下的拨款，同时详细列出其拨款内的全部计划，特别是列出造路解决交通阻塞计划及造沟渠解决闪电水灾计划的费用。 答案: 联邦政府已经在第10大马计划下拨出28亿8千万令吉给槟州进行259项计划，而在2006年至2010年的第9大马计划下，联邦政府已经拨款65亿4千万令吉在槟州进行993项计划。 联邦政府已经拨款8亿7千343万令吉在槟州进行50项造路及造桥计划，以减少交通阻塞。 同时，为了减少闪电水灾，联邦政府已经在第9及第10大马计划拨款2亿3千496万令吉进行30项治水计划。 林冠英 |
| Posted: 06 Mar 2012 02:57 AM PST Speech by the Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of Penang, at the 4th Annual Corporate Governance Summit, Kuala Lumpur, on 6 March 2012. (On The Topic: Whistleblowers Revisited – How Effective Has the Enforcement of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010(WPA) Been in Malaysia?) It gives me pleasure to speak to you today at this 4th Annual Corporate Governance Summit organised here in Kuala Lumpur. I have been asked to speak on the issue of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 (or "WPA") which was passed by the federal Parliament and has been in force in Malaysia since December 2010. Many of us here who are interested in corporate governance will have been captivated by the ongoing saga of alleged corruption and mismanagement in the RM250million National Feedlot Centre project. This is a corporate governance issue as well as a national governance issue. The question is will there be any action taken or will be it just be another case of of the RM2.52 billion losses incurred by MAS without anyone being punished and even those that caused losses such as Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli being let off the hook. Danaharta had agreed to settle with Tan Sri Tajudin on February 14 without enforcing a High Court decision on December 2009 in Danaharta's favour ordering Tan Sri Tajudin to pay RM589.14 million to Danaharta, over a loan taken to purchase MAS. Where is the moral hazard? I think I can summarise my view of the WPA by saying that is not so much a Whistleblowers Protection Act but rather a "Whispering to the Police Act". When one blows a whistle, everyone can hear. This Act is different. It only protects those who report to the police or other government enforcement agencies under conditions of secrecy. Under the WPA, a whistleblower is supposed to make a report to an enforcement agency such as the police. If the police don't take any action, that is tough. If the police decide that action should be taken, but the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, that again is tough. All you have as a whistleblower is the right to be notified of the authorities' decision, and the right not to have any detrimental action taken against you. Under the New South Wales Public Interest Disclosure Act, if no action is taken by the enforcement agencies, a whistleblower will be protected if he brings the matter to the attention of a Member of Parliament or the media. In the UK, once he has reported the wrongdoing, or if he reasonably fears retribution from his employer, there is no restriction at all on whom a whistleblower can notify as long as the disclosure in good faith and judged by an employment tribunal to have been reasonable in the circumstances. However, in Malaysia, it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to RM50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years if a whistleblower or the person receiving or investigating the report discloses any information about the person accused of wrongdoing, or any other information disclosed by the whistleblower, to a third party. Under the WPA, a whistleblower does not enjoy any protection if he decides to communicate his allegation of wrongdoing to a person other than a government enforcement agency. And under the Act, even if the report is made to a government enforcement agency, the protection can be revoked if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the report "principally involves questioning the merits of government policy, including policy of a public body", or if the whistleblower commits an offence under the Act, such as disclosing the contents of his report to a third party. I think we can all see that the WPA would have had absolutely no effect in the present cows and condos scandal, as it would not have protected any whistleblower who believed that the Malaysian public deserved to know about how a RM250 million soft loan given for the rearing of cattle was used to buy luxury condominiums in Bangsar and in Singapore. Without any media and public pressure, it is clear that no action would ever be taken and the allegations of wrongdoing in the NFC issue would simply have hushed up by the authorities. But yet another issue that faces any whistleblower in this country is the fact that any information gained from government sources is routinely deemed to be an official secret, the disclosure of which is punishable under the Official Secrets Act 1972 by imprisonment of a minimum of one year and a maximum of seven years. This is not by any means a hypothetical risk. In 1979, my own father was convicted under the Official Secrets Act when he revealed the purchase price paid by the Government in a Swiss arms deal, though the minimum punishment of one year's imprisonment was not yet then in place. Such information should be made public. Whilst any person who has been unjustly defamed or maligned by malicious and false police reports should have the right to sue, the authorities should make available to the truthful whistleblower or the "lying" whistleblower as well as to the public all information obtained from such investigations. Even I was sued by the late Tan Sri Eric Chia when I exposed the RM 5 billion Perwaja scandal but I did not obtain the requisite information from the authorities. The test should always be whether there is real public loss of funds. If there is then the protective safeguards should be in force. If none, then the whistleblower is merely whistling in the wind. More importantly, the MACC or any body authorised to conduct such investigations must be independent, possess powers to prosecute and free from any political oversight and accountable only to Parliament. It is obvious to me, and I hope also to you, that the WPA will always be ineffective in fighting corruption and corporate wrongdoing involving the Government as long as the Official Secrets Act is not abolished and the culture of secrecy in Government is not replaced by a culture of transparency. Since 2008, both Selangor and Penang have enacted Freedom of Information Enactments that gives the rakyat the right to demand information from the Government instead of giving the Government the right to hide information from the rakyat. In Penang, we have replaced direct negotiations with open tenders for all major government contracts, and introduced public asset declarations for all elected State Executive Councillors. The Penang state government does not expect any praise for our political commitment and personal obligation to promote integrity in leadership and transparency. However neither did we expect to be pilloried for politicising the public declaration of assets and even allowing Ministers to be endangered if they are compelled to follow suit. Is our crime or public safety or the performance of Malaysian police so appalling that even Ministers are not safe if they publicly declare public assets? Or should I be walking around under police protection since I am endangered as I have declared my assets. This endangered argument is nothing more than a silly pretext by Ministers who want to hide their assets from public view. Those who hide their assets behind this "endangered" argument only arouse public suspicion that they have unexplained or unaccounted assets. But to return to the Act that is the subject of this Session, I am afraid to have to conclude that the WPA unfortunately appears to be the product of the old mindset in this country that values secrecy above everything else. I believe that it is now high time for a culture of openness and transparency to become the norm in Malaysia, both in the corporate world and in the world of Government. The lack of protective safeguards and proactive investigation in the WPA makes no difference for genuine whistleblowers. As long as there is no leadership by example and no moral outrage against those who refuse to comply with international norms of proper behaviour and trustworthy conduct of public assets, laws such as the WPA will only be an empty symbol of our fight against corruption. Despite laws such as the WPA, Malaysia has suffered a precipitous decline in the rankings of Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index from 56 in 2010 to 60 last year. For this reason it is political will, national commitment and even personal obligation rather than a single law such as the WPA will determine whether integrity in leadership centred on an ethically based society can be established. Thank you. – Mandarin Version— （主题：再探讨吹哨人 – 马来西亚2010年保护吹哨人法令的执法效率如何？） 政治意志、 国家责任、个人义务将决定能否树立以伦理社会为中心的廉正领导，而不是单靠一条法令如：保护吹哨人法令。 今天我受邀针对国会于2010年12月通过并生效的保护吹哨人法令进行演讲。 在场很多对企业管治在行的人一定对国家养牛中心2亿5000万令吉的贪污及管理不当丑闻感到迷惑。这是企业管治问题也是国家管治问题。这宗案件的问题是，当局是否会采取任何行动，又或者它又是另一宗"马航亏损25亿2000万令吉"，没有人需要受惩罚，而那些导致损失的人士如：丹斯里达祖丁蓝里也被放过一马。 国营金融资产管理公司于2月14日同意与丹斯里达祖丁庭外和解，无需执行2009年12月高庭对国家资产管理有利的判决，一笔勾消达祖丁所需偿还的5亿8914万令吉收购马航的债务。那么商业道德何在？ 我想我可以总结我对吹哨人保护法令的看法，它不是保护吹哨人的法令，而是"吹哨让警方行动"的法令。意思说当一个人吹哨，全世界皆知。我国的法令却不一样。它只保护那些秘密向警方或政府执法单位投报的人。在这条法令下，一名吹哨人应该要向执法单位如警方报案。如果警方没有行动，那就很难了。如果警方决定采取行动，但是总检察长决定不提控，那样更难。一名吹哨人所拥有的权利，就是被告知执法当局的决定，而不是确保不遭"秋后算账"的权利。 在新南威尔斯公众利益公开法令中， 如果执法当局没有采取行动，一旦吹哨人将有关事情告诉国会议员或媒体，他的人身将受保护。在英国，一旦他告发不法事件，或如果他有理害怕雇主的报复，法令没有规定吹哨人只能向什么人透露，只要他的意图良善，而且劳资纠纷仲裁庭判决他的做法合乎情理的。 但是，在马来西亚，如果一名吹哨人或一个人向任何人揭发他收到的情报或调查当中不法勾当涉及人士、或向第三者揭发有关情报，这名吹哨人将被罚款最高5万令吉，监禁高达10年。 在吹哨者保护法令下，一名吹哨者如果决定把情报告知政府执法单位以外的人士，他将不受保护。在法令下，就算他将情报交给政府执法单位，但是，如果执法单位认为有关情报"原则上涉及质疑政府政策、包括公共机构的政策"，或是他触犯这条法令如报料给第三者，他的保护也将被撤销。 我们可以看出，吹哨者法令在现有养牛公寓丑闻中完全没有影响，马来西亚人民有权知道为何原本应该用来养牛的2亿5000万令吉软贷款，为何会被用来购买孟沙及新加坡的高级公寓，但它不保护任何如此相信的吹哨人。要不是因为媒体及公众的压力，当局根本不会采取行动，国家养牛中心所涉及的舞弊案也可能不了了之。 我国许多吹哨人面对的另一个问题是，任何来自政府的资料通常都会被视为官方机密，在1972后官方机密法令，公开官方机密可被判处监禁最少1年、最高7年。这不是假设性的风险。1979年，我的父亲林吉祥就曾被官方机密法令定罪，他当时公开政府瑞士军购案的买价，虽然当时还未列入至少1年监禁的法令条文。 这样的资讯其实应该公开。任何人遭不公平诽谤或遭恶意、虚假警方报案诬赖，应该有起诉权。当局应该向真正的吹哨者、虚报者或公众公布他们的调查结果。就算我曾经揭发50亿令吉的柏华惹丑闻而被已故丹斯里谢英福起诉，但是，我从来没有收过有关当局任何必要的资料。 他们要考虑的应该是有关案件有没有导致公众资金损失。如果有，那么就应该提供保护给吹哨人。如果没有，那么吹哨人也是白费蜃舌的。更重要的是，反贪委会或任何调查团体必须是独立、有提控权、不受政治干预、只对国会报告。 很显然地，我认为，希望你们也有同感，只要政府不废除官方机密法令、不推行施政透明，吹哨人保护法令将永远无法有效反贪及遏止企业的不良作风。自2008年，雪州及槟城两州已经通过资讯自由法令，让人民有权利向政府要求资讯，而不是让政府有权向人民隐埋资讯。 在槟州，我们已经实施公开招标来颁布政府所有主要工程的合约，取代所有的直接商谈， 我们也公开所有民选行政议员财产。槟州政府不期望我们推广廉正领导及透明度的政治责任及个人义务能够赢得表扬。但是，我们没预料到，我们竟然被抨击为将公开财产政治化、若部长们跟随，他们的人身安全将受到危害。 我们的治安、公共安全或马来西亚的警察是不是如此不堪一击？就连部长们如果公开财产也会不安全？那么，既然我已经公开财产，我的人身安全是不是受到威胁而应该在警方的保护下走动？这种公开财产威胁部长安全的言论实在荒唐，是那些有意隐埋本身财产部长的托辞。欲盖弥彰，那些引用上述言论而不愿公开财产的部长，只会让人更加怀疑他们是不是有不可告人的财产？ 回到今天的正题，我不禁要总结，吹哨人保护法令不幸地是我们旧思想的产品，那就是隐藏为先。我相信，是时候让马来西亚更加开放及透明，让它们成为企业界及政府的新文化。 吹哨人保护法令没有为真正的吹哨人提供应有的保护、也没有积极的调查。我国领导人如果不以身作则、没有道德勇气对付那些违反国际公职人员守则、监守自盗的人，吹哨人保护法令等法律对肃贪都是毫无意义的。 尽管我们制定了吹哨人保护法令，马来西亚在国际透明组织的贪污印象指数还是从2010年第56名，降至去年第60名。因此，政治意志、 国家责任、个人义务将决定能否树立以伦理社会为中心的廉正领导，而不是单靠一条法令如：保护吹哨人法令。 林冠英 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Lim Guan Eng To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan