Sunday, December 28, 2008

Sarawakians For Sarawak

A politically-inclined friend of Sarawak Headhunter has suggested that instead of the potentially divisive slogan of "Sarawak for Sarawakians", a better slogan would be "Sarawakians for Sarawak". That sounds reasonable, especially if it can be used to rally Sarawakians to contribute towards change for the better for Sarawak and Sarawakians themselves.

Let us all contribute what we can towards this rallying call and each in our own way volunteer our services. We cannot expect change if we do not work towards it and we cannot blame anyone else if we sit back and let others do all the work. Every little bit counts and it will all add up.

Think about it and do something about it. Don't just leave it to the politicians and political parties and later blame them for pursuing their own interests - that's what politicians do, unless we influence or force them to change or support those who want change for the better - that's what we can do, and more.

Best wishes from Sarawak Headhunter to all those interested in a New Sarawak and willing to do something to achieve that goal for the betterment of all Sarawakians, irrespective of race or religion.

Sarawak Headhunter will be taking a short break in the mean time, but will be back in the New Year 2009, hopefully with a resolution to do better.

Let's make it better for all Sarawakians, especially the downtrodden, the oppressed and the dispossessed. Out with tyranny, corruption and the politics of feudalism! Let freedom and a new beginning sweep the land.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year 2009
Selamat Menyambut Ma'al Hijrah 1430

From Sarawak Headhunter

May there be change for the better for Sarawak and all Sarawakians

Monday, December 15, 2008

Does The Attorney-General Know What He Is Doing? Sarawak & Sabah Ignored Yet Again By The BN Federal Government!

JAC Bill Ignores Sarawak, Sabah's Constitutional Rights, Claims DAP

KUCHING, Dec 14 (Bernama) -- The DAP today claimed that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill if passed will infringe the constitutional rights of Sabah and Sarawak.

Making it clear that DAP wanted the Bill tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi recently, to be further scrutinised, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said Sabah and Sarawak's rights would be affected if due consideration is not given to Articles 122B and 161E(2)(b).

"These two articles in the Federal Constitution serve to preserve, protect and promote the rights of Sabah and Sarawak over the appointment, removal and suspension of judges of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak," he said at the 14th DAP Sarawak annual convention here Sunday.

"In other words, Sabah and Sarawak rights are not consulted or taken into account as required under the Federal Consititution as agreed to when Sabah and Sarawak joined to form Malaysia in 1963," he added.

Later in the news conference, Lim explained that the bill will overide the power of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of the respective states in term of appointment, promotion and suspension of judges.

Lim proposed that a separate committee that took into account the interest of Sabah and Sarawak should be formed in line with the Federal Constitution to ensure that the constitutional rights of both states were protected and at the same time ensure that the power to appoint judges should not rest solely in the hands of the Prime Minister.


Sunday, December 14, 2008

Proof Of Jabu's Lies

Friday, December 12, 2008

From Teropong Dunya Aki Andan

I am here making special reference to the challenge that Tan Sri Jabu made in the Borneo Post on 8 December asking us to prove 10 percent of what SALCRA had achieved or else he insisted we cannot be genuine in our effort to assist the Dayak. He declared that it was his extraordinary patience and ingenuity that has brought great success to SALCRA since its establishment 32 years ago, to which we strongly disagreed. To us, as far as landowners are concern, it is a bane.

In view of that challenge I am now publishing herein below the extract from an actual income of a participant of SALCRA land development programme for the years 2000-2005. The land, which is the subject matter of this extract, was first planted in 1989. However, there was no figure available for the years 1989-1999.

Please readers, compare the size of land and the dividend distributed generated from land that SALCRA had planted with oil palm.

Facts would speak for itself. Based on what the facts speak, there is nothing near or close to 10 per cent returns for the size of land that SALCRA is using. If one were to plant chillies, for example, on that 5.6 acres of land, the return would be a thousand times bigger than the dividend that SALCA had distributed to the participant of Lot 926.

From the above case study, can any of us tell whether the participant herein below would ever be rich solely relying on that income? The answer is obviously in the negative. This is just one example, which is the reflection of many more participants.

Are we just talking rubbish and know how to talk only, as the honourable Second Deputy Chief Minister had alleged? The corroborative evidence we have irresistibly points out that we are not making bare allegations but consistent with the true state of affairs.

It is so sad that the honourable minister does not have the humility to admit that he has all along misled the entire nation into believing that SALCRA participants have been making tons of money from the venture. But instead he has arrogantly condemned everybody else is wrong but him and him alone.

I like to believe that SALCRA has been making money but the dividend distributed to the landowners are nothing but peanuts. Where does the money go then? People are therefore compelled to make many curious and even wild guesses.

By the way, on my way to visit a lecturer friend at UNIMAS this evening, I passed by the half-completed multi-storey SALCRA building complex. By its look and the artist's impression of the complex, the cost of constructing the complex must be in the millions of ringgit. The question is, from where the fund to build the complex had come from? If it has come from the land of the participants, are the participants in the know? Have they no say in the way income generated from their land would be used?

What conclusion or inference can we draw? In my humble opinion, I submit that there is so much that is hidden that participants and members of the public should know. I further submit that SALCRA has achieved nothing. If any or at all, SALCRA has only succeeded in providing Sarawakians with certain permanent employment.

It is pitiful that hopes for a better living have been taken for a ride.



Area: (2.27 ha or 5.6acres)

Bonus/Dividend Received from Year 2000 to Year 2005

Year Dividend Received (RM) Yearly Dividend (RM)

2000 224.07 224.07
2001 000.00 000.00
2002 000.00 000.00
2003 182.84
2003 270.77 453.61
2004 477.96
2004 484.65 962.61
2005 757.08 757.08

Total 2397.37

Average Income Per Year 399.56

Average Output /Acre/Year 71.35

Average Output /Acre/Month 5.95

Taking MPOB price at RM350/Ton
RM5.95/RM350x1000kg = 17kg/month or 567gm/day
If 1 acre is planted with 40 palms, then 1 palm produces only 425 gram/ month

***Bonus and dividend are being used interchangeably and both refer to the same thing.

Further comments by Henry Anak Joseph:

The case is real. The figures and details were given by the landowner himself to me. He has got all the records.

Since the location of the land can be traced and the landowner can be reached, members of the public may ask him for confirmation. I have his telephone number. I can arrange a meeting with him if anyone wishes to dispute or verify the figures.

And today, at page 5 of the Borneo Post Home news, Tan Sri Alfred Jabu warns the Dayak to beware of some people whom he labelled as jealous of SALCRA's success. He said, as quoted by the Borneo Post, “Our main enemies are people jealous of our success”.

Who is jealous of such bane? To the landowners, SALCRA is a total failure. And if I were to come in, I have to come as participating landowner. So why I should be jealous of something that would definitely cause me losses. In the case we mentioned, the average annual income generated from 5.6 acres of land was RM399.56 and per month was RM33.29. Who in his right mind would be jealous of such an income?

To Tan Sri Jabu, SALCRA is a big success. Otherwise, how is it possible that SALCRA is coming up with such a big and impressive building? It is also a success to him, otherwise how is it possible certain people are awarded with big contract by SALCRA? It is also a success to him otherwise how could SALCRA still exist for 32 years if it suffers losses every year. And as appearing in the Borneo Post today, Tan Sri Jabu is donating RM250,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand only) of SALCRA’s money to five recipients, and one of the recipients is Dayak Bidayuh National Association (DBNA). Who decides or in other words who has the authority to approve the giving away of such large amount of money for benefits not related to SALCRA’s?

The point is, the landowners only get peanuts in comparison to the sizes of their demised land but non-landowners continuously getting fat lambs for their meals! What is SALCRA for if not for the landowners? But why the landowners are getting peanuts?????????

Good Sarawakians, what have the landowners done to deserve that injustices??????

What merits people who are not associated with SALCRA through land ownership or participating land owners reap what they do not deserve???????

Are we stupid or being jealous or seeking cheap publicity or driven my malice or anti-development (this one terminology I am borrowing from Tan Sri Jabu himself)or being sour grape or politicising the issue???

We are very concern because many of the participating landowners are our friends and relatives and most of them are poor village folks who are naive. And we cannot swallow any longer the lie, the blatant lie by the honourable minister about the actual state of affairs.

We are educated Dayak. What have we got to gain from raising the issue and let alone jealous of something that is a bane?

Come on, honourable minister! It is not going to auger well for you to continue your battle of words with us. We have every proof of what we say. And we know what we are saying and we are saying it with passion. We are saying it from the hearts and brains.

If you want to continue your battle of words with us, yes, you may because time and tide is with us. For you time and tide is not on your side. Don't tell us that we don't forewarn you. It's no longer for a mere picnic that we say what we have said. I repeat, it is not picnic (I am borrowing his words).

We just want to be fair so that you have the time to have the flaw corrected. Remember when time comes, it comes like tsunami. But even tsunami is not coming without fore-warning.

Have pity on the land owners, Mr Minister. I know you are always briefed by at least two people, ie, Mr. R and Mr C, about the contents of our blogs. Therefore you know what we write.

Even Chinua Achebe's Okonkwo had to bow to changes that he never anticipated. The changes that had made him irrelevant.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Julaihi Narawi's Companies

From Sayot Taib

Old info which needs to be updated, but damning enough.

Julaihi is the bullshit incumbent BN (PBB) ADUN for N.22 Sebuyau, and needs to be defeated and replaced in the next state elections. Off with his head!

Kawasan Pilihanraya: N.22 SEBUYAU

Tarikh Lahir: 13.04.1955
Alamat: Lot 342, 167A, Tingkat 2, Lorong Satok,
No.9, Jalan Satok, 93400 Kuching
No. Telefon (Pejabat): 082 - 231818
No. Telefon (Kediaman): 082 - 259102
No. Fak: 082 - 232318
Parti: Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu - PBB (BN)

Arrogance Of The Sarawak BN & How The Opposition Is Bullied In The Sarawak State Assembly

DUN Diary - Day 5

Posted by Wong Ho Leng on November 07, 2008 at 18:10:31:

From Sarawak Talk

DUN Diary: Day 5

A Motion will be moved by Soon Koh to refer me to the Committee of Privileges coming Monday. I was elected to represent my constituents. I was sworn in to serve not only my constituency, Bukit Assek, but also the whole of Sarawak. RM900 million had been proposed in the Supplementary Supply Bill tabled by Soon Koh. I questioned it, and action will be taken against me. God Bless Sarawak.

(1) Question time

Did they say that the Dewan will be less boisterous with Chong suspended until the end of the session? Well, it was a wrong assumption. It looked like the BN folks were so afraid about the Opposition raising supplementary questions that they, the BN members, would exhaust the 2 Supplementary Questions. 12 questions were answered orally due to the number of Supplementary Questions from the members. All other 50 questions lapsed under the Standing Orders.

(2) Rude Shock

We were at the Dewan 10 minutes early. As we chatted, we were surprised when seeing notice of a Ministerial Motion was being placed on our tables. It looked like an innocent Motion but my 6th sense told me that something was amiss. The Motion was to be tabled by Soon Koh and it reads:

“THIS DEWAN hereby resolves that to maintain proper decorum in this Dewan and for the smooth and expeditious dispatch of its Business and the discharge of its duties, all Honourable Members shall abide strictly with the Standing Orders of the Dewan and accord due respect to all rulings and decision of the Speaker.”

(3) Soon Koh’s Motion Hijacked by Voon

Voon was not amused by the Motion. Taking a cue from the BN, he typed out a little amendment and converted the Motion as his own. I called this “hijack”. Voon showed me his hijacking Motion outside the Dewan after I chanced to meet Datuk Pattingi Dr Wong Soon Kai at the Dewan Lobby. He had come to the Dewan with the Sarawak Golf Club committee.

I would actually disapprove the hijack, but because Voon had prepared it, I would let him object to the Motion, as it could be a message to the BN that what they had done to my 3 previous Motions, we could too. Call this giving the BN a taste of their medicine.

(4) Government Business

The Motion by the Minister is a Government business. As soon as the oral question time was up, the Motion was called for debate. The speeches by the remaining 16 members on the Supply (2009) Bill 2008 had to wait.

There was nothing much in the Motion tabled by Soon Koh. As Honourable Members of the Dewan, it is expected that we would uphold its decorum. We are also expected to accord due respect to the rulings of the Speaker. We objected merely because it was unnecessary.

However, as I had expected, there was an agenda in the Motion that was not glaring on its face, and that was the agenda to get me. I knew this because it was reported in the press on Tuesday that both Finance Ministers (CM and Soon Koh) had taken great offence to my using the word “camouflage” while debating and demanding for details to the RM900 million to be contributed to the Statutory Funds via the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Sylvester Entri seconded the Motion. This Assistant Minister talked so much about observing decorum of the Dewan, yet he and other BN backbenchers had disturbed the Opposition bench so much over the past 2 years. Once, he was extremely rude to me when I urged him not to call an Opposition member (Dominique) a “dog”.

Words such as dogs, frogs, bullshit, jangan jurang ajar, kurang ajar etc had been uttered by the BN front and backbenchers in the Dewan against Opposition members. I had never allowed myself to utter those words or to answer back.

If the BN wanted the Members to give due respect to the rulings of the Speaker, then they should too. But it has never been the law that the Speaker’s rulings are unimpeachable. Bona fide comments on the rulings, not calculated to ridicule the Speaker, are always allowed, in the same manner as we criticized judgments of the courts.

The BN wanted proper decorum in the House, but have they observed decorum?

It was a “holier than thou” Motion. At least an Assistant Minister (to protect him, name is withheld) suggested to me that this is so. I absolutely agreed.

In the course of my speech, I asked why the member for Asajaya (Abdul Karim) could utter “kurang ajar” on me, 3 times. Sebuyau (Julaihi Narawi) worked in tandem with Asajaya. Both of them used the word “bullshit” while I was delivering my speech on the Budget. I did not provoke them.

Yet these 2 spoke about decorum to be observed in the Dewan as if they are saints.

Despite hearing all these rude and unparliamentary words, the Speaker did not admonish these 2 BN members. To be fair, he did order 3 times that Asajaya should withdraw the word, but it could only be described as a half hearted effort. He never ordered the 2 to withdraw “bullshit”.

Is uttering “kurang ajar” and “bullshit” Parliamentary under any circumstances, provocation included?

The Speaker should have insisted their withdrawal if he had meant it. On the other hand, the Speaker ordered me to withdraw the word “Young Man” which I used on Assistant Minister Larry Sng, and only then would he order Asajaya to withdraw “kurang ajar”.

Since when has “Young Man” become so obnoxious and unparliamentary a language that it had to be withdrawn as a condition to ordering withdrawal of “kurang ajar”?

On the other hand, “bullshit” remains intact!

The Member for Asajaya is the BN Backbenchers Club Chairman. He had uttered “kurang ajar” and “jangan kurang ajar” many times. How could he set a good example for his members? How could he debate on supporting Soon Koh’s Motion, and offering explanation that he said it because he was provoked into saying it?

No matter what provocation from the Opposition, and there was none on Asajaya and Sebuyau, what justified the repeated utterances of “kurang ajar” and “bullshit” in the august House? What justified Asajaya’s rude physical gesture in thumping the table? Would provocation make the usage of unparliamentary words Parliamentary?

If anyone should talk about observing decorum, why should he not observe decorum first before talking like saints?

The whole fiasco was an utter disgrace! It was beyond me that Soon Koh had the audacity to move such a Motion. In moving it, Soon Koh said that recent utterances in the Dewan had made the Motion necessary.

Yes, there were rude and unparliamentary utterances in this meeting. But they were made by the BN members!

I said in my speech that I would not use the same words back in reply. Is that my reward for observing decorum?

I said to the Speaker that when one finger is pointing at others, 3 or 4 fingers are pointing at yourselves. The BN never seemed to know that they are the transgressors, accusers, Judge and executioners.

With Chong out for the time being, we have now only 6 genuine Opposition members (5 DAP and 1 PKR). Even BN Ministers and Assistant Ministers joined in the fray to interrupt my speech, and the speeches made by Violet, Tze Fui and Dominique. How could our voice be louder than they? Interruption pertains to decorum! Is it easier to control 6 of us or the 60 plus from the BN bench?

In my speech to move Chin Sing as Senator, even the Speaker asked me, quite wrongly, whether my voice could be louder than the BN’s! In the course of my speech introducing Chin Sing’s resume, the backbenchers uttered “we know” to the resume of Chin Sing. Under the Standing Orders, they were supposed to listen silently.

In her speech, Violet was interrupted so much that she stopped short of plucking her ears but went full steam reading out her text. The disturbance was, in any event, so phenomenal, that she finished 3 only of her 9 issues.

In her speech, Tze Fui was disturbed so much by the BN front and backbenchers that she had to yell to them to be gentleman when a lady speaks. She even had to tell off the arrogant Jabu to not interrupt but to speak whatever he wanted, and sing whatever he wanted in his Ministerial reply, where he could take his unlimited time.

When I spoke yesterday, being the 2nd day of the debate and the first time that I did not anchor for my Party, I was disturbed so much and so relentlessly that I was able to finish 2 out of 6 issues that I had prepared.

When Vincent Goh (SUPP - Pelawan) was speaking in the afternoon, singing truck loads of praises to Soon Koh, while at the same time complaining so much about development in his constituency, I had stood to request for “penjelasan”. He did not give way. I did not pursue further or make noise, much that I wanted to tell him how inconsistent his speech was, and how good an apple polisher he was.

When Snowden Lawan (PBB - Balai Ringin) spoke on an issue that had concluded, I invoked Standing Orders 32(3) which prohibited reopening. He refused to give me the floor. I did not pursue further, though I felt that the Speaker should have been quicker upon my raising a Point of Order and make a ruling, instead of waiting for a while, and then said “he is on a different subject matter now”. But I let it by and listened attentively.

None of my 4 other members interrupted the BN members so far in their speeches.

So, talking about observing decorum, it was not us who had fallen short.

The BN marked us out in a divide and rule tactic. When Chin Sing delivered his speech yesterday afternoon, there was not a single noise from the BN front and backbenchers. Had Chin Sing been such an exemplary YB from the DAP that he was left to his peace? Of course, Chin Sing, being a mature and seasoned politician, knew that BN divide and rule tactic. Remember, this is the very same Chin Sing who in Nov 2005 was referred to the Privileges Committee for speaking out against the UCS on issue concerning “China Doll”. Who moved the Motion? Soon Koh!

Those who uttered “kurang ajar” were spared. Those who uttered “bullshit” were spared. They were even allowed to put on record that they would use the same tactics in the future if provoked. Their justification is hence “provocation”. If provocation is such a magical excuse, would they be provoked to jump into the lake?

Soon Koh said he would give me till Tuesday to withdraw the word “camouflage” that I used in debating the Supplementary Supply Bill or face privilege Motion. He also challenged me to repeat the word outside the Dewan so that the Government may take Court action against me.

I was so flattered by those challenges. As if Soon Koh can dictate terms. I am elected by the people, not him, to speak in the Dewan, and why should I see what his face colour is?

However, why wait till Tuesday, I asked. You have the numbers! Remove, if you had to. Yes, you have the numbers, but where is your conscience?

When I responded that I would not withdraw the word “camouflage”, the Speaker told Soon Koh that he may move the Motion by Monday.

Which Standing Orders have I transgressed? Soon Koh said Standing Order 32(6). If that be the case, then the privilege that I breached must have been that I had imputed improper motive on a member or make an allegation against a member which I could not substantiate.

By using the word “camouflage” and suggesting that the Government must provide details of the RM900 million contributions to the Statutory Fund, what sin and crime had I committed?

The only ground for referring me to the Privileges Committee for breach of privilege is when I used treasonable and seditious word. There is only one provision for this and that is Standing Order 32(10). Is “camouflage” a treasonable or seditious word?

If my using the word “camouflage” was so offensive, why did it take so long for Soon Koh and the CM to complain to the Dewan? They heard every word I said since they were sitting right in front of me.

My conscience is clear. The people know who were the transgressors. That is the only reason why I would not allow myself to be cowed by predators.

The BN said the minority is oppressing the majority. I wonder whether they know what they are saying or where their brains are.

Has it not been written somewhere, God makes a man mad before allowing him to perish?

I will take on the fight like a soldier. I have not only my office as an elected wakil rakyat to protect, but I also have to protect the dignity of the Dewan. Ironic, isn’t it?

(5) Continuation of Debate

The Motion on decorum finished at 4p.m. The BN folks had preferred to spend hours and hours of the people’s time to debate on a meaningless Motion. Yet, 16 members had yet to present their speeches.

The Speaker apologized after saying that each of these members would be given 10 minutes to present their speeches. To the BN, it has no problem. They would sing the same tune of praises to themselves. But poor Voon, he has to dump 2/3 of his speech. The state Government has denied justice to him and his constituents.

(6) Home Sweet Home

I left the Dewan in protest. I was unlucky, as my flight home was delayed for more than 3 hours. As I was about to pack my 2 baggage into the taxi at 10pm at the Sibu Airport, I saw Soon Koh’s Black Mercedes 320 SEL QSG 9 moving forward. I wondered why this Minister had to go all out against me. I thought I was emotional when I told myself that I wanted to see to it that this is his last term in Bawang Assan. I know that this is the wish of the people.

I remember the occasion that I was required to rush back in November 2006 to prepare materials for an anticipated Motion against Chong for relating the SUPP to communists in the 1970’s. That Motion did not materialize. But for this Motion on Monday, no preparation is needed. My conscience stands tall and unconquered. Can the BN say likewise?


Privileges Committee Hearing - Background
Posted by Wong Ho Leng on December 10, 2008 at 12:06:45:

From Sarawak Talk.

Privileges Committee Hearing - Background

Many have asked for details. They want to know. That is a good sign.

The Dewan Undangan Negeri Privileges Committee will hear witness/evidence on my alleged breach of privileges on Friday, 12th December, 2008.

What was the alleged breach that was complained of against me? To start with, it has to do with the Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill 2008. I was the only one taking part in the debate. In the course of my debate, I raised query about the sum of RM900 million that was sought to be authorized out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2008 for contributions to Statutory Funds. The total Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill 2008 comprised RM921,517,361. In the course of my impromptu speech, I used the word “camouflage”. That word was the sting of the complaint.

In total violation, in my view, of my right to speak without fear or favour as an elected representative of the people of Sarawak, a motion was moved to refer me to the Privileges Committee, on ground that I had breached the privileges of the Dewan. The following is from the 10.11.2008 Hansard, verbatim – word for word, interruption by interruption. I had, however, underlined the parts why Dominique and I were sent out. This will give you some food for thoughts how an Opposition operates in the Dewan:

Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat, I have received a notice of Ministerial Motion dated 10th November, 2008 under Standing Order 23(1)(a) read with Standing Order 73(3)(a) from the Minister for Finance II and Minister for Environment and Public Health, Honourable Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh; giving notice that he intends to move a motion to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges. I called upon the Honourable Minister to table his motion.

Menteri Kewangan II dan Menteri Alam Sekitar dan Kesihatan Awam (Y.B. Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh): Thank you, Tuan Speaker. Pursuing to Standing Order 23(1)(a) read with Standing Order 73(3)(a), I would like to move the following motion to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges. This is my motion:

Whereas on the 3rd day of November, 2008, being the first day of the Second Meeting of the Third Session of this Dewan, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek, during proceedings of the Committee of the whole House to consider, inter alia, Command Paper No. 5 of 2008 together with Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill, 2008, uttered the following words on three occasions:- One, I quote from the Hansard,

“…it will be very irresponsible of a Minister to ask this Dewan to rubberstamp without debate or amendment with a huge sum being camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill…” as appeared on page 8 of the Hansard dated 3rd November 2008; Two,

“Do not hide a fact. RM900 million is camouflaged…” as appeared on page 8 of the Hansard; and

“Do not hide them just because it is a Supplementary Supply, don’t seen it, it is possible to hide them, camouflaging it” as appeared on page 9 of the Hansard.”

Whereas by the said words the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has imputed into the Honourable Member for Finance II and Honourable Member for Bukit Assek an improper motive…(Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: for Bawang Assan.

Menteri Kewangan II dan Menteri Alam Sekitar dan Kesihatan Awam (Y.B. Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh): Honourable Member for Bawang Assan an improper motive to conceal or hide the expenditure item of RM900 million for which approval of the Dewan is sought, so as to deceive the Dewan into approving the expenditure item.

Whereas by the use of the said words, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has committed a breach of privilege by violating Standing Order 32 (6) or the Dewan’s Standing Orders.

And, Whereas despite various opportunities being accorded to the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to withdraw the words complained of, he has stated he would not do so.

And whereas the Speaker has, on the 7th day of November 2008, directed that in the circumstances, a motion be moved in this Dewan to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges.

Wherefore I hereby move that the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek be referred to the Committee of Privileges so that the Committee can investigate into the matter and make the report to the Dewan for such action as the Dewan may deem fit to take against the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek. Sekian, thank you.

Menteri Muda Kemudahan Awam dan Menteri Muda Kemajuan Tanah(Y.B. Encik Sylvester Entri anak Muran): Tuan Speaker, I beg to second.

Tuan Speaker: Honourable Member for Bukit Assek.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: I will clarify a few things first, Tuan Speaker. Referring to the motion, the penultimate paragraph, can I take it that this motion is at the behest of Tuan Speaker.

Tuan Speaker: You read the motion as it is.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That is my question now.

Tuan Speaker: Ya, ya.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: The motion in the event that the Minister is to move a motion, he must do so in his own volition and not as directed by Tuan Speaker. You have no power to direct a Minister to table a motion against a Member. That is the reason why I am asking for clarification first. Was this very motion tabled at the directive, at the prompting and at the behest of Tuan Speaker? If that is not the case, the penultimate paragraph ought not to be there. It is improper, it suggests that Tuan Speaker, you are the, “mastermind”, the culprit, the one who engineers it… (Booing)

Tuan Speaker: No, no, you withdraw the word.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: No.

Tuan Speaker: You withdraw the word.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, let me explain to you.

Tuan Speaker: It was debated on Friday.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That’s right.

Tuan Speaker: You wanted it there and then.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That’s right.

Tuan Speaker: The Minister wanted it on Tuesday.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That’s right.

Tuan Speaker: I propose it today.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Now, you propose to the Honourable Minister that it could be moved today but the penultimate paragraph says what? It was you, Tuan Speaker, you directed that this motion be tabled, Tuan Speaker, come on, you must be honest about it. Can we have it on record that it was not you who directed the motion?

Tuan Speaker: It was a continuation of the debate on Friday. As I stated just now, you can move to another point.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Alright.

Tuan Speaker: I reply to that.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Now, Tuan Speaker, is it your opinion that this motion has satisfies the threshold?

Tuan Speaker: You submit on it.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Alright. Tuan Speaker.

Tuan Speaker: Go on.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: The threshold to move this motion is, it must be, seems it concerns the matter of privilege, it must be moved at the earliest opportunity. Tuan Speaker, you, yourself have to be satisfied, that it satisfied that threshold. My speech was made in this august House on the 3rd of November. Today, I am sure, Tuan Speaker, you agree with me, today is the 10th of November, a week has passed. Alright, you may say that a suggestion was made and the matter was raised on Friday but Friday was on the 7th. Does this motion satisfy the threshold? A fundamental question that must be answered. That is the law, Tuan Speaker. And it is for you to satisfy that threshold. It’s not for Honourable Member for Bawang Assan or any other member in this august House to say I want to move a motion. Without first, Tuan Speaker, you, your very self, being satisfied, that it satisfied and complies with that very threshold.

On the matter concerning privilege, is very different from a matter concerning an attempt to ridicule this House, its very different. The threshold is very earliest opportunity. Now, let me elaborate on two fronts. On the very first front, I was addressing this Supplementary Supply Bill on the morning of the 3rd November. When I addressed the issue, I saw all members of the cabinets there, including Member for Bawang Assan being Finance Minister II, and I also saw the Honourable Chief Minister being Finance Minister seated there too and all other members. Everybody heard what I said, nobody complained that it was out of order to use that word under any of the Standing Orders. Nobody complained at all. That shows what? The word was neither insulting nor offensive, nor unparliamentary nor against any of the provisions of the Standing Orders. Now, the conscience must be clear, nobody raised any issue out of it. That is the first front.

The second front is I don’t know when but it was reported in the Borneo Post that Honourable Member for Bawang Assan said, we leave off, Tuan Speaker, if I may? Honourable Member for Bawang Assan, of course in the very meeting, very sitting on the first day of the Dewan said, “I was totally ignorant of the Budgetary process”. Whatever he said, never mind, I won’t take him as my teacher. Now, I declined that.

Menteri Kewangan II dan Menteri Alam Sekitar dan Kesihatan Awam (Y.B. Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh): Point of order, point of order.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Point of order, under what Standing Order?

Menteri Kewangan II dan Menteri Alam Sekitar dan Kesihatan Awam (Y.B. Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh): Point of order, Tuan Speaker.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: What order, what Standing Order?

Menteri Kewangan II dan Menteri Alam Sekitar dan Kesihatan Awam (Y.B. Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh): Point of order, Tuan Speaker.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, can you… (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: No, you bring your point to your conclusion because the arguments, I don’t want any arguments on Friday to be repeated, no repetition.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: You mean I have to conclude now?

Tuan Speaker: Just on the point you mentioned, the proviso of 73(3). That’s all, now, you submit on that.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That is the point I am trying to make now. That is the point I am trying to make now.

Tuan Speaker: You submit on that.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: On 3rd of November, that was Monday because it was reported on the 4th November issue of the Borneo Post, Honourable Member for Bawang Assan said this, “Wong pointed out that any money taken out for development from the State Statutory Funds would still need the approval of the august House, I would check the Hansard and if he (Ho Leng) had not withdrawn the word camouflaged, I will let the House take action against him, he said.” That was on Monday otherwise it could not be reported on Tuesday, that is common sense. Now, did the Honourable Minister check the Hansard on the second day, that being Tuesday and said the word “camouflage” was there? In fact, it appeared three times and did the Honourable Minister bring this matter out to the attention of Tuan Speaker, at its earliest opportunity under Standing Order 73(3)(c). That is the very point. Has that threshold been satisfied? You could not say, you could not say that you were aware of the usage of the word “camouflage” on Monday. And yet, after saying that you will be checking on the Hansard, you slept on it, committing a matter of contumelies delay, truncated and then say, look I am complaining today. In other words, before I addressed the very issue of privilege being committed, a less privilege being committed, let this be decided by Tuan Speaker, by you alone. Whether and not by any other Member, whether you, yourself are satisfied that that threshold is satisfied.

Before I address further…(Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: No, only on this. Because, otherwise it would be repetition of what you said on Friday.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: No, no, of what?

Tuan Speaker: You proceed to the next point, if you have any.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Have you satisfied? Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Tuan Speaker: I will give my ruling as soon as you finished.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Goodness, you should be satisfied first.

Tuan Speaker: As soon as you finished, I will give my ruling. Please.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That is not fair, is it? That is not right too, Tuan Speaker.

Tuan Speaker: You move to the next point, if any. I will make my ruling whether it should be put to the vote or not.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: You want me to proceed without having a ruling first?

Tuan Speaker: I will give my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Alright. Now, on the issue of privilege, Tuan Speaker, an allegation was made that I breached it. It was said, it was breached under Standing Order 32 (6) that imputing improper motive to Honourable Member for Bawang Assan as the Minister for Finance II.

Tuan Speaker: That is the first limb of 32 (6). The second limb is making allegation that has to be substantiated.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Allegation of a member which must be substantiated.

Tuan Speaker: Standing Order 32 (6).

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, unfortunately the second limb does not concern this motion, does it? Can we go to the motion first?

Tuan Speaker: You have read the motion, you move to the next point.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Alright, it seems, Tuan Speaker, you wish it to be alerted, you asked me to read the motion. I read the motion, right, one, two, three, four, five. The sixth paragraph to show the second limb is irrelevant for this motion. “Whereas for the said word, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has imputed onto the Honourable Minister for Finance II and the Honourable Member for Bawang Assan, an improper motive to conceal or hide an expenditure item of RM900 million for which approval of the Dewan is sought, so as to deceive this Dewan into approving that expenditure item.

In others, Tuan Speaker, with all due respect to you, the second limb is irrelevant. And you would like me not to address on that I am sure.

Tuan Speaker: Your choice.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, you said it is under Standing Order 32(6) second limb. Only first limb concerns us. How can you say my choice?

Tuan Speaker: You refer … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: When I address the issue, you say I am going out of it.

Tuan Speaker: You make your submission.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Alright, that shows how fair the matter is in this august House.

Tuan Speaker: You make your submission.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: When I said that is irrelevant, you said that is under second limb. When I move it to you, when I alert it to you, that it is not under the motion at all, you said, look you submit on it, it is your choice. Tuan Speaker, with all … (Interruption).

Tuan Speaker: I will make my ruling. Don’t worry. I make my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: With all due respect to you, that is not fair.

Tuan Speaker: I make my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: That is not fair.

Tuan Speaker: No, order.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Now the Supplementary Supply concern the matter of appropriating … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: No, no, that one I have given my ruling, Standing Orders 67(4), 66(4), no details being divulged, no need to go to that.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Let me assure you that I am not going to the details. Don’t pre-empt that Tuan Speaker, don’t anticipate that. Now, let me assure you, the moment I go into it, you can ask me to sit down. Now, the Supplementary Supply says this, the Bill says this, can I read, Tuan Speaker, “the issue is authorized out of the consolidated fund for the service of the year 2008 of a sum not exceeding RM921,517,361 for expenditure on the various services specified in the Schedule hereto” and Tuan Speaker, please listen attentively on this “not provided for or not fully provided for by the Supply (2008), Ordinance 2008.” The Supplementary Supply in very simple language, is this. Money is not enough for that particular year, more money has to be appropriated into the account for 2008 year. Now in other words, the very … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: That’s not relevant.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: How could that be not relevant? There is the very foundation of my debate. Why did I say … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Have you got any more points?

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Of course I have.

Menteri Muda Pembangunan Usahawan dan Menteri Muda Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber (Y.B. Tuan Haji Mohd. Naroden bin Haji Majais): Tuan Speaker, this one has already been explained by the Minister before.

Tuan Speaker: What is your other points?

Menteri Muda Pembangunan Usahawan dan Menteri Muda Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber (Y.B. Tuan Haji Mohd. Naroden bin Haji Majais): It has already been debated, been explained.

Tuan Speaker: That is not relevant. That’s not relevant.

Menteri Muda Pembangunan Usahawan dan Menteri Muda Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber (Y.B. Tuan Haji Mohd. Naroden bin Haji Majais): Don’t waste our time.

Tuan Speaker: I rule. That’s not relevant.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: The Administration urges this august House to approve a sum of RM900 million, RM900 million and I used the word “camouflage” because the Administration is asking this august House to approve that sum of money, RM900 million, without stating for what purpose that money is.

Tuan Speaker: Okay, I have heard that argument on Friday.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: No, No, Tuan Speaker, you have not heard me.

Tuan Speaker: I have heard.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Why can’t you hear me out?

Tuan Speaker: Okay, I heard, I heard.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: The very office of my election is challenged in this august House. You mean you are not going to hear me out.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Tuan Speaker, Bukit Assek is repeating what he had said on Friday.

Tuan Speaker: Alright, it is a repeat.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: No, no, I am not repeating, Tuan Speaker. How could … (Interruption)

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: We have heard, we have heard what you said.

Tuan Speaker: You conclude your … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: No, no, Tuan Speaker, not yet. I have other issues to go into. The only word complained in this august House in this motion, is “camouflage”. When I said the sum of money was hidden, was being hidden, the word “hide” was not complained of. The only word was “camouflage” that was complained of. Can we say that that word is unparliamentary? Can you say that word is in violation of Standing Order 32 (10)? Is it treasonable? Is it seditious? Is it calculated? Is it a word calculated to promote ill feelings and ill-will? Under Standing Order, Tuan Speaker, you are the custodian of the Hansard, you are the custodian of the Standing Orders … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Honourable Member for Bukit Assek, I have heard you.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: You have not heard me.

Tuan Speaker: I now, I now. I am now asking you to sit down so that I can give my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: How can you ask me to sit down before I finish?

Tuan Speaker: No, no, okay. I am asking you to sit down. I am asking you to sit down.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: You are simply not fair.

Tuan Speaker: Please sit down.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Come onlah.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: You have been given a chance to explain on Friday.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: This motion was tabled this morning. Whatever I said on Friday, I can read the statement … (Interruption)

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Don’t repeat yourself.

Tuan Speaker: I give my ruling.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: You are wasting our time.

Tuan Speaker: Sit down, sit down.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, you have not heard me.

Tuan Speaker: I’ve heard.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: How can you be so unfair?

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: We have heard enough of Bukit Assek.

Tuan Speaker: Honourable Members … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Tuan Speaker, please listen to his defence, Tuan Speaker.

Tuan Speaker: This is my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Tuan Speaker, the right offered here, fair hearing is important to serve justice in this august House, Tuan Speaker. We should not rubberstamp this motion.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: You are the rubberstamp.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: I demand Padungan withdraw the word “rubberstamp”. Withdraw the word “rubberstamp”. We have agreed … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Order, order.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Do not rubberstamp.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Padungan, sila tarik perkataan “rubberstamp”.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Order, order.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Just like what you say, jangan kurang ajar.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Ambil tindakan kepada Padungan to withdraw.

Tuan Speaker: Okay, sit down, sit down. Everybody sit down.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: When you say kurang ajar, nothing happen to you. When I say it, it goes wrong.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: You are very rude, you know. You are very rude, Padungan.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: No, I am never rude.

Tuan Speaker: Sit down, sit down.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Yes, you are very rude.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: You are ruder.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Crude and rude.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, is that the behaviour of … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: You are the worst. You are the one who said bullshit, didn’t you.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Honourable Assistant Minister is banging the table? The Honourable Assistant Minister is banging the table.

Tuan Speaker: Order, Honourable Members, please sit down.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: I said do not rubberstamp. I said do not rubberstamp.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Very misleading I tell you Padungan. You don’t mislead this august House.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: I never mislead, you are the one twisting the word here now.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: You are a twister.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: You are the one who said jangan, bullshit, you said. You are the one who said bullshit.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: You are repeating the word again.

Tuan Speaker: Sit down. Alright Honourable Members, this is my ruling. Honourable Members, the matter was first raised at the earliest opportunity inside the Dewan and outside the Dewan on the 3rd November, 2008, the first day of sitting. The Honourable Minister for Finance II asked the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to be disciplined by the Disciplinary Committee as shown at page 13, line nine from the top of the Hansard which I quote: “I think disciplinary action ought to be taken against him”. The matter was again raised by the Honourable Minister for Finance II to challenge the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to withdraw the word “camouflage” on Friday, 7th November, 2008.

The motion is brought up today by the Honourable Minister in pursuant of the exchanges on Friday. The reason why this motion is tabled today is not because it was not raised at the earliest opportunity when it actually was but the Honourable Minister is gracious to give time to the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to consider and ponder introspection whether to withdraw the matter or not. Since the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek had steadfastly refused to withdraw, I am satisfied that the provision of Standing Order 73 is complied with, namely … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Tuan Speaker, … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: I am giving my ruling.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: No, No, I know.

Tuan Speaker: Out.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Padungan, don’t kacau.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Are you reading from a prepared text? Are you reading a … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Padungan, out.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: Tuan Speaker, are you reading from a prepared text? Are you already given a judgement before you hear him.

Y.B. Encik Chiew Chiu Sing: Tuan Speaker, you cannot ask him to go out yet.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Padungan, don’t question the Speaker.

Y.B. Encik Chiew Chiu Sing: Tuan Speaker, you should have at least give him a chance to speak before you ask him to go out.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: You already made up you mind before you hear, Tuan Speaker.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Get out, get out.

Tuan Speaker: Out.

Y.B. Encik Dominique Ng Kim Ho: I am sure you … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, does the matter raised by Padungan just like that … (Interruption) How can you do that?

Tuan Speaker: That the matter raised, the privilege of the Dewan and two it has been raised at the earliest opportunity. I therefore allow the motion to proceed for the votes to take place. (Applause)

Honourable Members, the question before the Dewan is that … (Interruption)

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, before you proceed … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Honourable Members, the question before the Dewan is that the motion by the Minister for Finance II and Minister for Environment and Public Health, the Honourable Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges be approved.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, under Standing Order 4 … (Interruption)

Motion is put and agreed to

Motion is passed

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, point of order, point of order.

Tuan Speaker: I have given my ruling under Standing Order 33 (9), my decision is final. There is no appeal except there is a substantiative motion.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, point of order.

Tuan Speaker: Proceed, Mr. Secretary. No more Point of Order.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Standing Order No. 4. Point of order, Tuan Speaker? Are you ignoring me? You were reading from prepared text, Tuan Speaker. Your answer was not impromptu, it was somebody who wrote it for you, is it not? Can you tell us?

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Bukit Assek, we have decided, sit down please.

Menteri Muda Pembangunan Usahawan dan Menteri Muda Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber (Y.B. Tuan Haji Mohd. Naroden bin Haji Majais): Bukit Assek, we are finished already. Decision already given.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Standing Order 4, Standing Order 4.

(It was here that I pointed out that the Speaker was reading his ruling from a text prewritten by someone but I don’t know why this was not recorded. The text was passed to him by the Dewan staff from the row behind me when I was addressing him. The words were written in red colour)

Tuan Speaker: That is an insult to the Chair. That is an insult to the Chair. Either you withdraw that or I send you out. Are you withdrawing?

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng:No.

Tuan Speaker: No, you are not. Okay, out.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker … (Interruption)

Tuan Speaker: Okay, out, out, out. This is my opinion. Nobody draft for me.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: You read it from a prepared text. I have not even raised it. My objection was raised after the motion was moved. Tuan Speaker, you should have given your impromptu answer, impromptu answer and not read out, somebody who prepared the text for you.

Tuan Speaker: Out.

Y.B. Encik Ranum anak Mina: If not handcuffed him.

Y.B. Dr. Abdul Rahman Junaidi: Bukit Assek, that is enough. We have heard you. That is enough, Bukit Assek.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Don’t touch me.

Tuan Speaker: You move out.

Y.B. Cik Violet Yong Wui Wui: Tuan Speaker, you have to be fair, Tuan Speaker.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: The Speaker has been fair. He has given all the chance.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Tuan Speaker, Standing Order 4 – violating.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Bukit Assek, that is enough.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: Don’t touch me. I go out myself, I lost faith, I go out myself. I will go out myself.

Y.B. Tuan Haji Julaihi bin Haji Narawi: Bukit Assek, you are pointing finger. You are very rude.

Y.B. Encik Voon Lee Shan: Tuan Speaker, there are too many Speakers here.

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: I will walk out myself in protest. Let me get my things.

Tuan Speaker: Alright.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The Truth Behind SALCRA & Afraid Jabu's Evasiveness & Lies

SALCRA Dividends - should we say thank you?

From Dayak Baru Weblog

Posting of YB Wong Ho Leng’s view:

What is in it for Dayak NCR Owners?

Have the “owners” of Native Customary Rights (NCR) land been paid their rightful or fair dividends for their participation in joint venture schemes? Or have they been short-changed, having first been sweet-talked into participating in the joint ventures, only to find out later that they would not get their rightful or fair dividends?

This is an area of concern, more so when it was reported in Malaysiakini on Dec. 5, 2008 of a protest by NCR owners in front of the Kuching High Court (See Malaysia Kini report entitled “Sarawak NCR landowners protest company let-down”).

Changgai of Rh Ranggung vs Niamas Istimewa Sdn Bhd

According to the report, more than 220 people from two Iban longhouses in Ulu Niah, Miri, staged the angry protest. They had signed a joint venture in 1997 with KTS Group subsidiary Niamas Istimewa Sdn Bhd and Sarawak Land Development Board, a statutory body and a shareholder of Sarawak Plantations Bhd, to develop 2,508 hectares of NCR land for oil palm.

New Concept of NCR Land Development

Under the New Concept of NCR land development scheme, the landowners would hold 30% of the equity, the government agency 10% and a private investor 60%. It was said that Niamas Istimewa Sdn Bhd had made an initial payment of 10% of the agreed sum but it has not paid a single sen of the 30% by way of unit trust shares to the landowners over the last nine years, even though the harvested oil palm has brought returns to the joint-venture (JV) company.

I feel duty bound to investigate and verify the matter reported. There is reason to help push our native friends out of the ring of poverty.

Meaningful NCR Land Development – DAP says:

No DAP leaders had ever been against meaningful NCR land development. The umpteenth accusations by the Deputy Chief Minister and Member for Layar, Alfred Jabu, that DAP has oppressed and suppressed the opportunity of the NCR landowners from participating in the government poverty eradication program in the rural areas has been a diabolical lie.

DAP’s ADUN for Kidurong, Chew Chin Sing, had spoken on the matter many times since 2001. DAP ADUN for Meradong, Ting Tze Fui, and ADUN for Batu Lintang, Voon Lee Shan, had also spoken a few times since their election in 2006. I had also spoken many times since 1996 for meaningful NCR land development, including obtaining the assurance from the Minister of Land Development, James Masing, to give priority to employ the local Ibans in oil palm plantations.

This is our way of speaking for the Ibans when their wakil rakyat are shy and meek, fearing of antagonizing their Boss. Our mission is to see that the Ibans get out of the cesspool of being the poorest folks in Sarawak, no thanks to the BN Government for their predicament.

Delay or Failure to pay Dividends by plantation companies

This is not the first complaint on delay or failure to pay the rightful share of dividends from plantation companies.

A year ago, a group of 20 Ibans complained that they had received very little dividends from their joint venture in Kanowit. I contacted the Minister (not Jabu) immediately. I was told that the lack of payment was because those Ibans did not work hard enough at the plantations! I was shocked by the answer but I had no means to verify.

Has money for rural development project being hijack into private account?

During the DUN proceedings on Nov. 5, 2008, DAP ADUN for Pending, Violet Yong, asked a Supplementary Question on whether there was a mechanism to ensure that money for development projects “are not siphoned or hijacked into private accounts”.

The issue pertains to corruption in the dissemination of development funds to constituencies but Jabu refused to give a straight forward answer. Instead, he reiterated his lie that “DAP has oppressed and suppressed the opportunity of the NCR landowners from participating in the government poverty eradication program in the rural areas”.

Question asked to Jabu in DUN by Wong not not given a proper answer

Since he started the issue, I asked Jabu whether the natives in the Kanowit plantations had been paid their fair dividends or not. The following is verbatim from the Hansard:

“Timbalan Ketua Menteri dan Menteri Pembangunan Infrastruktur dan Perhubungan dan Menteri Pembangunan Luar Bandar (Y.B. Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri (Dr) Alfred Jabu anak Numpang): Tuan Speaker, if you read and if you follow my movement, less than a month ago, on the second phase of paying the dividend over to the NCR landowners, I was participating with Yang Berhormat Datuk Gramong Juna distributing dividends to the NCR landowners joint-venture in Kanowit almost amounting to RM1 million. So I am surprise, Tuan Speaker … (Interruption).

Y.B. Encik Wong Ho Leng: My question is, have the natives got all the fair dividend or not? It is not a matter of RM1 million.

I had since checked with some of the NCR land owners in Kanowit. They maintained that they have not been given their rightful or fair dividends.

Jabu’s reply – blur and sweeping

From Jabu’s reply, the lingering questions remains, how much had been paid to these landowners during the first phase? Since the joint venture had commenced in the late 1990’s, why the payment of dividend is still only at “the second phase”? How many NCR land owners were to share this dividend which Jabu said “almost amounting to RM1 million”?

NCR Land Owners have not been fairly treated

As a matter of fact, I have always felt that the NCR land owners have not been fairly treated in the joint venture schemes. Many Ibans have complained that they were not consulted before entering into the joint venture, as consultations were only with their Tuai Rumah.

They have further complained that apart from providing the labour, they have little say in the decision making process, which would explain why dividends in some cases have either not been paid, or delayed. It is unfortunate that my comments in the DUN on 13th November, 1997 had fallen on deaf ears.

Suggested safeguards for NCR Land development

This was what I said:

“I propose that in order that the joint venture between the big corporations and the natives can be considered safe and meaningful, there must be the following safeguards:

“(a) the CEO (Chief Executive Officers) of all these body corporate should be natives;
“(b) the natives should be allocated at least 30% of the share or equities in these body corporate; and
“(c) the shares of these natives should carry full voting and participation rights.

“Only upon fulfillment of these conditions may the natives have an effective and meaningful say in the running of these corporate, including the incorporation of policies and the running of the joint venture. …“We are supportive of meaningful development, so that the disparity between the rich and the poor can be narrowed. “We also wish to see the Ibans, Bidayuhs and other native groups and other anak-anak Sarawak thrive in their business ventures, so that lives can be better off for them as well as their next generations. …“I am speaking on the NCR land as anak Sarawak, as bangsa Sarawak, in the spirit and wisdom of Martin Luther King, “One Nation, One Voice.”“These natives, whose land is the subject of our debate are our brothers and sisters, and I am duty bound to speak on their behalf when their own representatives are constrained because of Party whip.”

The matter concerning payment and receipt of dividends to the NCR land owners will have to be probed further.


The Dyaks Blog Final Analysis:

The above view came from a Foochow as good as we hope if it was said from a Dayak. Nevertheless Mr. Wong did present a good points, a damn good one, that surely strike any spineless Dayak ADUNs/ MPs to shame.

None of our own Dayak leaders dare to review all those plantation schemes is just beyond logic. Is there any conscience left at least to ask if it is simple right or wrong for our Dayak leaders? Cheating is cheating, there is no such thing as ‘grey area’ when trying to dupe the Dayaks but our own Dayak leaders put a blind eye on it.

It’s pathetic to note that J*bu even try to portray Dayak as lazy and deserve the low returns when at the first place the joint venture was mostly one-sided so how can you expect any initiative for Dayak to feel some sense of meaningful partnership when even the return itself you barely received it.

Initiative is like foreplay in which someone must get laid first so Salcra ought to very hardworking if they deserve to reap all the money to offset the allegedly ‘lazy’ Dayaks. When the new, gleaming Salcra headquarters at Jalan Kota Samarahan due to completion then it’s the time to see how J*bu will struggle to claim the palm oil money will be in ‘good custody’ and for ‘good use’.

Expect the rest of Dayak participants that put up their NCR lands to bring more smoked skulls for rituals then.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Afraid Jabu - The Only Smart Iban Sarawak Has Ever Produced

Monday, December 8

The Jabu condemnation: who will be next?

It is Alfred Jabu’s habit to condemn Dayaks who do not “kow-tow” to him. Since he became YB and minister in 1974, he had been criticising his own people and his choice of words is always similar: anti-establishment, anti-development, instigators, ungrateful, what have you done to help the community, you know how to criticise, etc.

When the defunct Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS) was in the opposition, its leaders - Leo Moggie, Daniel Tajem, Edmund Langgu, Jawi Masing, James Masing, and the late Joseph Samuel, – had also been condemned by Jabu. He had also criticised leaders of Sarawak National Party (SNAP) such as the late Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Dunstan Endawie, Edwin Dundang, Justine Jinggut, Stanley Jugol, etc.

All Dayaks’ non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – Sarawak Dayak National Union (SDNU), Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA), Sarawak Dayak Graduate Association (SDGA), Dayak Cultural Foundation (DCF) and Dayak Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) – have been at the receiving end of his ‘loquacious’ mouth (baka mulut indu).

A couple of days ago, he chided SDNU and SADIA for not praising him and SALCRA for helping the Dayak community. And today, 8 Dec 2008 (according to The Borneo Post), he accused bloggers of discrediting him and SALCRA, instigating the people to go against the government and hampering its efforts by abusing and misusing the internet.

He said: “They blog every day and night but have done nothing for the people. They only talk”.

It is true we have done nothing in term of physical development. But our job is to help change the mindset of the people and help them to know their rights especially their customary rights over land that had been created by their forefathers centuries ago.

As a minister Jabu is in a better position to help the people as he has the federal and state funds at his finger tips. But yet he has failed miserably as many of his projects (kononnya) to help the Dayaks have become white elephants. Perhaps only SALCRA appears to be doing much better than many of his projects. But then he is not the originator of the project.

No doubt some SALCRA participants have received some substantial amount of money from its dividends and bonuses, but the bulk of such money goes to some rich Dayaks and non-Dayaks, while some of the poor Dayak participants receive as little as RM2.70 as dividends. One non-Dayak in Saratok, for example, has received over RM500,000 in dividends last year because some scheme participants have sold their land and shares to the 'Chinaman'. Did Jabu speak about him as a successful SALCRA participant?

On development, it is undeniable that Jabu has brought some development projects to Betong which is under his constituency. But that is Betong only. What about other Dayak areas? In fact some money meant for projects in other divisions have been diverted to Betong.

His political enemies have accused Jabu of only having interests in the development of politics and business for his family and cronies. For example, who is this Gerald Rentap who owns Utahol Sdn Bhd that has been given 6,900 hectares of land, Ulu Medamit, Limbang for the planting of oil palm? And who is this Robert Lawson Chuat who owns Durafarm which was given land totalling 1501.825 hectares at Tanjong Bijat and Skrang Land districts and 3665.1 hectares of land in Betong? And what about Henry Jantum’s Ever Herald Sdn Bhd that was given 2,127 hectares of land of Batang Layar/Batang Lupar land district and another 2,873 hectares of Sablor and Sebelak land districts in Betong?

The way I see it, the more Jabu criticises and condemns people from his community the more he will be isolated and the more people hate him. Now after criticising the Dayak bloggers, who will be his next targets? - The Broken Shield

Friday, December 5, 2008

Taib Mahmud aka Mahalanun Not Scared Of Iban Rituals

Thursday, December 4, 2008

From Mahalanun

I'm Not Scared Of These Stupid Ibans & Their Stupid Rituals

KUCHING: Native customary rights (NRC) landowners from an Iban longhouse in Bintulu Division came in full force for a case involving one of them and a plantation company at the High Court here yesterday.

However, it was the ritual aspect that attracted all the attention.

They arrived about 8am in two buses and cars, and began the miring (prayers for God's help and blessings) ritual in front of the court complex.

After the prayers were chanted, a man placed the piring (offerings) on the mat, next to six human skulls collected during the headhunting days of the tribe.

The ritual, which lasted less than an hour, was conducted in a peaceful manner.

A man, when asked about the ritual, said it was to strengthen their spirits.

"You know, land is our life and without it, we cannot live," he said.

The case involves BLD Resources Sdn Bhd, which seeks for a court injunction against Changgai Dali of Rumah Ranggong longhouse in Sungai Sah, Ulu Niah, Bintulu Division, from trespassing on a piece of land which it said was leased to it by the government.

Changgai maintained that he had customary rights over the land.

Judicial commissioner Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer adjourned the case to Jan 13 to allow BLD Resources to file an application to include the state government as a party. BLD Resources counsel George Lo made the application in chambers.

Harisson Ngau Laing, counsel for Changgai, said he would file a suit on behalf of Changgai and the other residents of the longhouse against the company for trespassing on their NCR land.

Ngau said the longhouse residents would also name the government as a party to the suit.

When asked by Cyber Jungle Network News (CJNN) about these claims, Chief Minister Taib Mahmud aka Mahalanun shouted, "I am the Government! These Ibans are trespassers on my land. They can sue me if they want. I don't care. There has been no new NCR in the state since 1958. Let them die without the land! I am the Government! I am the Government!"

He then started overturning tables, throwing chairs and kicking flowerpots and anyone within range, including Afraid Jabu and Awang Tanah.
Jam Masin narrowly escaped a flying teapot, while Will Morewant panicked and fell head over heels by himself. Abang Jauh Pak Awi was the first to run off and was nowhere to be seen. Awang Asfiaxated was uncharacteristically shocked speechless and was found hiding behind his wife.

Taib had to be forcefully ejected from the press conference for running out of control. Since Sarawak Police Chief Mat Slave and his boys also ran off, the job was left to a lowly off-duty Sarawak Ranger, Private Kiri Anak Kanan, who managed to subdue Taib with a kick to the groin.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

What Is The Real Sarawak Dilemma?

The Sarawak Dilemma

Posted by admin
Tuesday, 02 December 2008 20:22

From Malaysia Today

Comments by Sarawak Headhunter in red.

Why the Federal Government prefers to separate the state elections for this East Malaysian state is irrelevant. The fact that Pakatan Rakyat desperately needs to win here to get the momentum of “change” going is of paramount importance.

The fact is that it is not that the Federal Government prefers to separate the state elections for Sarawak. It has no choice in the matter, given that the last state elections were only held hardly 2 years ago. Historically this can be traced back to the revolt against Taib Mahmud in 1987 which caused the state elections to be held in mid-term. Since then, the Chief Minister decides when to call for state elections, after ostensibly consulting or informing the Prime Minister as head of the BN.

One relevant query at this point in time is whether there is a Pakatan Rakyat in Sarawak or not, given that the State DAP has not yet agreed to cooperate with PKR - in view of its misgivings about the PKR Sarawak Head, Dominique Ng - and as to what role PAS would or should play, if any.

As the largest state in Malaysia with a land area equivalent to approximately 124,450 square kilometers, Sarawak has 71 state constituencies making it the state with the highest number of state constituencies. Though not the most heavily populated state with only about 2,400,000 residents, Sarawak nonetheless represents an important part of Malaysia with its abundance of natural resources, namely timber, LNG and petroleum. With Kedah (rice), Penang (tourism & technology), Perak (tin and rubber), Selangor (business) and Kelantan already being PR controlled, adding Sarawak to the list is of utmost importance as this is one of the two East Malaysian states. It also represents a vital foothold across the sea to establish an effective opposition front during the next general elections.

Sarawakians are made up from 52% Ethnics, 26% Chinese, 21% Malays and 1% Indians and others. The major political parties here consist of Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu (BN), Sarawak United People’s Party (BN), Parti Rakyat Sarawak (BN), Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (BN), Sarawak National Party (Independent), DAP (PR) and PKR (PR). Using the previous Parliamentary Elections as a yardstick, the BN coalition won 30 seats out of a total of 31 seats contested. This represented a 96.8% win for the BN parties. That however only exhibits one side of the grim picture. What PR needs to understand when looking at the alternate side is that there was an additional 3.0% swing to the BN parties when compared to the 2004 Parliamentary elections (only Perlis on the Malaysian peninsular swung to BN whilst Sabah and Labuan both swung 4.0% to BN).

It should be noted that the so-called 52% "Ethnics" or rather natives comprise a fairly diverse group of ethnicities which the Iban majority (30%) has tried to rally under the unifying umbrella of "Dayakism". This has not worked and the Ibans themselves remain divided among the major state BN parties such as PBB, PRS, SPDP and (surprise!) even SUPP - a Chinese-based party itself while those who used to be in or affiliated with the dying or dead SNAP and PBDS and stillborn MDC are now faced with joining PKR or setting up a completely new party.

While they have stopped trusting Taib, the real Sarawak Dilemma is that the natives also don't trust the Malayans, whether of the BN or of Pakatan Rakyat origins. This is what PR needs to understand. Sarawak needs a completely new party and a new leader to rally ALL Sarawakians. Whether this can be done in time or not is another matter.

With Gabriel Adit’s entry into PR early this month, Sarawak is now represented by 2 PR parliamentarians. That is still a 93.5% BN parliamentary representation. He brought over 12,000 supporters but this only represents a miserly 0.5% of the state’s population. For the state elections, PR needs to win a simple majority of 36 seats. To achieve this, the swing must almost be identical to Kuala Lumpur’s 2008 results (19.7% to PR). Is this possible? That percentage equates to a minimum of 240,000 BN votes changing to PR votes. Take away the 12,000 new votes and PR still requires a minimal 228,000 BN voters to change their mind.

Presumably the writer meant "State Assemblymen" instead of "parliamentarians". Sarawak Headhunter however is not adverse to the Sarawak State Assembly being renamed the Sarawak State Parliament, once Taib Mahmud is gone of course. A 20% swing is possible, but not just to PR. A completely new Sarawak-based party leading PR in the state could even make it a 30% swing to the opposition.

DAP now has 6 (Pending, Batu Lintang, Kota Sentosa, Meradong, Bukit Assek & Kidurong) state seats whilst PKR has 2 (Padungan & Ngemah) and SNP (independent) has 1 (Engkilili). That is 9 opposition seats against 62 BN seats. That means BN parties make up 85% of the state government and this entitles them to a “carte blanche” situation whereby the opposition voice is effectively muted. If 14 BN state councilors cross over to PR, the BN coalition still retains a two-third majority. If the opposition party intends to curtail this overwhelming BN position, they will need to win at least 24 state seats (to deny BN the two-third majority).

Let’s look at Sarawak in detail. Sarawak is divided into 11 administrative divisions. They are Betong, Bintulu, Kapit, Kuching, Limbang, Miri, Mukah, Samarahan, Sarikei, Sibu, and Sri Aman. Of the nine state opposition seats, Padungan and Pending are under Kuching – a 90% Chinese populated area. Batu Lintang and Kota Sentosa are under Stampin, which is another Chinese populated area (78%). Meradong (Sarikei) has a 67.2% Chinese population, Bukit Assek (Lanang) has a 73% Chinese population and Kidurong (Bintulu) has a 26% Chinese population. These are the state seats that were won at the polls by PR. Look closely and one will identify one quantifying factor – the Chinese vote. With only a 25% Chinese population within the state of Sarawak, will this be sufficient to cause a change of state government? The answer is no.

Obviously, but the Chinese vote is still critical to ensure that the BN loses in all the urban areas and that these seats, most of whom were won by the DAP and one by PKR, are retained in the hands of the DAP and PKR respectively.

Before PR can look at other alternatives, they must get the fundamentals right. Let’s look at the state constituencies with more than 50% Chinese as voters. Other than those stated above, the rest are Bawang Assan, Pelawan and Nangka in the Sibu Division (60%); Piasau, Pujut and Senadin in the Miri Division (55%); Repok in Sarikei (67%); Batu Kawah in Stampin (78%); and Dudong in Lanang (73%). This is only another miserable 9 state seats. Add this hypothetical figure to the existing 9 seats and you get 18 seats altogether (if PR relies purely on the Chinese votes). BN still holds the two-thirds majority.

If the Chinese voters are convinced to vote for DAP, these 18 seats are nothing to sniff at and would go a long way towards ensuring the overall and crushing defeat of the BN in the next state elections.

It can henceforth be determined conclusively that PR needs to court the critical Iban and Melanau votes. Without these, PR can never string up sufficient state seats to trouble the BN parties. The theoretical 18 seats only make up 25% of the state assembly. PR needs 24 state seats to deny BN the two-thirds majority and 36 state seats to form the state government.

Other than the Iban and Melanau votes, the Malay, Bidayuh and Orang Ulu votes must not be forgotten. Every vote counts, especially when Taib Mahmud and the Sarawak BN will use all means, mainly foul, to stay in power even after losing the support of the majority of Sarawakians.

With the impending state elections due in 30 months (or thereabouts), everything should be on express mode now. PR must start, and start now to establish themselves in Sarawak. This is the last chance for them to grab another state before 2013. They must be ready when it happens because the 31 parliamentary seats are actually on stake here even though it is only the 71 state seats that are being contested. A good showing here would mean that the possibility of a federal election win is underway. A fair showing would mean that there are still a lot of things to be done in Sarawak and a bad showing would be disastrous. Both Sabah and Sarawak have 25 and 31 parliamentary seats respectively. That is 56 out of the 222 available seats, or 25% of the total.

The next state elections are not due until 2011, but with the pressure that Taib Mahmud is now facing and the questionable state of his health, he could conceivably call for snap elections at any time from now, given that the opposition (PR) has not yet garnered sufficient support in the state nor consolidated its position. Are they ready?

And then there are Pensiangan and Kuala Terengganu to see where the pendulum swings.

Sarawakians don't care which way the pendulum swings in Sabah or Malaya. What they are more concerned about is how they will be treated by a new government. Only the confidence of better treatment will swing the votes needed to topple the BN in Sarawak.

- Hakim Joe