Chang asks why state government allowed S’wak’s special grant reduction in Budget 2021

SIBU: Bukit Assek assem­bly­woman Irene Chang said the Gabun­gan Parti Sarawak (GPS) govern­ment should clar­ify to the Sarawakians if they had known of the re­duc­tion of the spe­cial grant to RM16 mil­lion from the al­lo­cated sum of RM32 mil­lion in Bud­get 2020 be­fore the tabling of Bud­get 2021.

She asked why the GPS govern­ment had al­lowed the re­duc­tion of the spe­cial grant made un­der Ar­ti­cle 112D of the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion it had known about the drop in the grant.

“The GPS govern­ment should there­fore come clean to ex­plain the short­fall of the spe­cial grant to Sarawak to as­sure the peo­ple that their rights and in­ter­est have not been short changed in any way.

All per­ti­nent de­tails of ne­go­ti­a­tion and agreed terms should be re­vealed in­clud­ing the agree­ment ar­rived at for the agreed re­duc­tion of the spe­cial grant from RM32mil­lion to RM16 mil­lion in Bud­get 2021,” she said in a me­dia state­ment.

Ban­dar Kuch­ing MP Dr Kelvin Yii re­cently re­vealed the re­duc­tion of the spe­cial grant to RM16 mil­lion from the al­lo­cated sum of RM32 mil­lion in Bud­get 2020.

Given the in­her­i­tance of huge debts from the pre­vi­ous BN govern­ment and which had then left the coun­try on the brink of bank­ruptcy, Chang said the in­cre­ment of the spe­cial grant from RM16 mil­lion to RM32 mil­lion in 2020 was one of the most her­culean ef­forts made by the Pakatan Ha­paran (PH) fed­eral govern­ment for the ben­e­fit of the peo­ple of Sarawak.

She said the PH govern­ment had re­mem­bered its pledge to help Sabah and Sarawak and dou­bled the spe­cial grants to the two states.

She said this spe­cial grant had never been re­viewed since 1969 and yet the PH Govern­ment had on its own ac­cord, in­creased the grant to RM32 mil­lion from 2020 un­til 2023 and was to be dou­bled again to RM64 mil­lion in 2024.

 “It is now there­fore cru­cial for GPS to ex­plain to the Sarawakians this re­duc­tion of RM16 mil­lion.

They have to clar­ify if this re­duc­tion was part of the ne­go­ti­a­tion on the com­mer­cial ar­range­ment be­tween Petronas, Fed­eral Govern­ment and the GPS Govern­ment.

“Was it also a part of the terms of ne­go­ti­a­tion for Petronas to agree to pay the RM2.95 bil­lion in the state sales tax? (RM2 billion 950 million)

The peo­ple of Sarawak have the right to know as this con­cerns their in­ter­est and wel­fare. They are the ones who stand to ben­e­fit or to suf­fer from any deal which the State govern­ment has made with the Fed­eral Govern­ment and Petronas.”

So far since the takeover of the fed­eral govern­ment by the Perikatan Na­sional(PN) govern­ment, Chang said both the GPS and the PN gov­ern­ments have re­fused to re­veal any re­port on the de­tails of ne­go­ti­a­tions or agreed terms held be­tween them. 

“Even the Sarawak Leg­isla­tive Assem­bly Con­sul­ta­tive Com­mit­tee, which was formed to ad­vance and safe­guard the spe­cial in­ter­ests, rights and po­si­tion of Sarawak as en­shrined in MA63 and the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion, have not been up­dated since June 2020,’ she said.

Adding on, she said in the just con­cluded Sarawak DUN sit­ting, her mo­tion to move for the terms of set­tle­ment of the cases be­tween Petronas and State Govern­ment to be re­vealed to De­wan was also dis­al­lowed on the ground that the Con­sul­ta­tive Com­mit­tee had not at the ma­te­rial time of DUN sit­ting, re­ceived any re­port from the State Govern­ment for the mem­bers of the com­mit­tee to dis­cuss among them first.

“All th­ese re­ports on the de­tails of ne­go­ti­a­tions and terms of set­tle­ment are shrouded in se­crecy plus the fact that PN Fed­eral govern­ment has not al­lowed the fi­nal re­port from the Cabi­net spe­cial com­mit­tee which was tasked with re­view­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tion of MA63, to be made pub­lic should raise the Sarawakians’ guard on whether mis­takes of the past would be re­peated which would cause our rights to be fur­ther eroded.”

 

 

應公開MA63檢討報告 黃首詠：砂人有知情權 （詩巫23日訊）留華砂總總會長黃首詠醫生批國盟政府將1963 年《馬來西亞協議》（MA63）的最終檢討報告列為機密文件是嚴重侵犯砂拉越和沙巴人民的知情權。 “知情權是基本人權之一，也是公民的基本政治權益，任何公民都享有知道國家的活動及了解國家事務的權力。他對現任政府的舉動感到失望且不會認同，促政府透明處理並公開報告內容。” 他今日發文告指出，身為公民也是國家的納稅人，有權知曉所有會影響我們生活的政策制定和內容，國盟不應該把報告以機密為由掩蓋起來，反之應該透明執政以消除社會疑慮。 他說，公開報告可以帶來更大的辯論空間，甚至政府應該公開向公眾和專家收集對這份報告的意見，讓全民參與討論如何讓國家繼續前進，這是讓參組馬來西亞的三邦共同往前發展的方法。 勿國家安全作擋箭牌 他強調，政府是作為人民代表在履行國家事務，原則上其決定和行動應當是透明的，向公民及社會公開內容，是民主政治的重要方面。一個民主國家，主權應該是在人民手中， “但是，身為砂沙公民，我們竟然無權知道政府到底以砂沙人民的名義做了哪些事情和決策。我們要了解檢討報告是因為我們享有這個知情權，並有權力監督政府的政策。部長和議員們只是受人民的委托而暫時行使政治權力，應該是要維護人民的意願，而不是濫用權力，與民意背道而馳。在這課題上，怎麼就不敢還政於民？” 他指，1946年聯合國大會已經將知情權列為基本人權之一，聯合國人權專家也闡明各國不能以‘國家安全’，和‘公共秩序’為擋箭牌來剝奪民眾對重要議題的知情權。我國在2017年落選聯合國人權理事會，這清楚表明國際社會對於我國近年的人權狀況是持不樂觀的態度。 “大馬是聯合國的成員國，理應遵守有關人權準則。公民知情權不會危害國家安全，唯有作為一個追求和尊重人權的國家，我國才會在國際社會中真正得到他國的尊重。” 促修改官方機密法令 他亦批評政府有必要修改現有的官方機密法令以符合國際標準，而不是濫用此機密法令來隱瞞真相。在現有的國家機密法令下，任何文件只要被政府視為是機密就不能公開，法庭亦無權限去檢視政府的決定，這是我國政府的慣常做法，公民難以獲取信息以參與國家的決策。 他說，民選政府要盡可能縮小機密法令的限制範圍，而不是無限大的擴大機密文件範圍。多年來，民間都有許多聲音要求政府修改《1972 年官方機密法令》，同時盡速擬定《知情權法令》或《資訊自由法》，以平衡資訊透明和保密原則。 他表示，在特殊情況下國家有保密的需要，但公民享有知情權是基本人權，政府需要認同人民的知情權不一定會危害國家的安全。 知情權淩駕機密法 “這二者中，知情權法是淩駕於機密法令之上的。”他說，政策和法令的基本任務是維護人民的基本人權，促請政府聽取民意，也呼籲砂拉越民眾關心此議題，避免公民權益一再被剝奪。 版权所有 © 2020 诗华资讯网

Mycomments

华总，中华总商会，还有各社团领袖们应该向留华砂总总会长黄首咏看齐，不平则鸣，不任人鱼肉。 缩头缩尾非做领袖的规范。 这么重要关键时刻，这些领袖怎么允许自己不吭一声。 MA63谈判结果却被列为机密文件，这是非常严重打压砂沙人民的事。 这简直是高官们特意以不正当的勾结手段有意欺骗砂沙人民。 把MA63谈判结果列为机密文件分明是高官之间狼狈为奸，想继续掠夺和剥削砂沙人民的权益。

 

theborneopost.com

‘Sarawakians have right to know outcome of MA63 talks’

---

Dr Wong shows a copy of the Malaysia Act 1963 document.

SIBU: Chairman of Sarawak China Graduates Alumni Association, Dr Wong Siu Eing, said East Malaysians have the right to know the report on the discussion of the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government on matters relating to MA63.

In a press statement yesterday, he said keeping the matters secret violate the rights of the people of Sarawak and Sabah who had direct interest on the matter.

He said the right to know is their basic human rights and the right of being Malaysian citizens.

“East Malaysians were disappointed when they learnt that the PN government will keep the MA63 discussion outcome secret.

“I hereby call on the PN government to be transparent in this matter.”

Dr Wong added that the people are the country’s tax payers, and they have the right to know the government’s policies and actions that affect them.

“The PN government should not classify the report as official secret; instead, they should be transparent.

“The report will give the people and the experts an opportunity to express their views on matters of national interests, and the government should consider their views seriously.

“Only through this, the nation can progress with the participation of the people.

“In this light, it is important that the three equal partners (of Malaysia) – Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah – progress together.”

He said the government should represent the people, and therefore, such related matters should be executed in a transparent manner.

“In a democratic country, the power is in the hands of the people.

“But, as the people of Sarawak and Sabah, we have been deprived of the right to know the decisions that have been made on their behalf.

“We want to have a picture on the matter because we need to know and because we have the right to know.

He added: “We have the right to supervise the government’s policies. The ministers and the people’s representatives are only executing the duties on their behalf.”

He said they should execute the will of the people and not abuse the power given to them by the people.

“Why shouldn’t they give back the power to the people?”

He said in 1946, the United Nations had listed the people’s right to know as a basic human right.

“It has spelt out that they cannot use the excuses of public order and national security to keep matters from the people. It clearly spells out the people’s right to know.”

He said Malaysia is a member of the United Nations.

“They should observe matters relating to human rights.”

Only through such practice, Malaysia would be respected by other countries, he added, while pointing out that the rights of the people to know would not threaten national security.

 

 

Mycomments on Bill to define ‘resident’ in Sarawak Constitution passed in DUN - Borneo Post Online

 Whether this Bill amendment is for the best interest of Sarawakians or not, time will tell everything.  Getting the majority support of the said Bill is nothing to boast about for the BN-GPS government as the representatives from the same coalition are expected to act in accord and dance to the same tune.  These YBs have been habituated and conditioned to act so. 

That’s why I see that the BN-GPS government should be flushed out for good as it has stayed in power for far too long –à 50+7 years/half a century+7 years.  I think that they have thought that they are legitimated by birth or privilege to be the masters of DUN, not knowing that they are doomed.  The 12^th PRN will reveal the truth.   I doubt if these YBs always acting in accord to any Bills presented to them, so said to the best interest of Sarawakians still in DUN after the PRN 12^th election

        The victory of these YBs now for the said Bill, does it mean that they will enjoy the same victory in the PRN12 election? 

        It is imprudent, rude and rough to present the difficult Bill to be debated without proper preparation for other members knowing that it needs an depth study to understand it (Article 16, clause 2 (1)(c)). 

        Ambiguity of any nature should be removed to avoid the backfire.  Many Sarawakians, I believe, are confused with the definition of Sarawakians --  [the second part of the Bill, which seeks to amend the expression “resident in the State” in Article 16 clause 2(1) (c) of the Sarawak Constitution.]   It is no doubt confusing to laymen.  And why should it be passed in such a hurry without being suspicious of some ulterior motives by many Sarawakians?

        Do you still bluff it to be the victory of the BN-GPS government to have passed the Bill in that imprudent, rude and rough manners without being scorned and scoffed at by the public?

                Saying that the opposition members’ “sole intention was to run down the bill regardless.” may not be true as many Sarawakians share the same opinions as they. 

So said “They misled the DUN and those outside after only looking at the first part of the bill without trying to look deeper.  It is indeed very uncivilised, aggressive and arrogant of Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, to condemn the opposition members (Frankly speaking, I am not the supporter of them.) in that regard without giving them enough time for the indepth study and yet expecting them “to look deeper“.  Which field of logic is it, I wonder?

“--he is normally resident in the State; or a citizen, though not born in the State, whose parents or either of them was born in the State and he is normally resident in the State.”

If the ambiguity is to be done in court, only the plaintiff/prosecutor who brings this Bill to be judged wins all because the Malayan judges are always judge all. 

For the adverb of frequently, “normally” is to be put at the place in the sentence to avoid confusion.   It should be placed –--“ … normally, he is the resident in the State  – before the clause.  An adverb of frequently which does not modify verb at all might be taken as an adverb of manners which modify “verb” only. 

There are, no doubt, anomalies need time to be clarified with enough time given, not in haste.

                                                        Belinda Ling Moi Hung

                                                          (17^th November, 2020)