人联党在上届州选后失去六个州议席后,曾经不断表明将进行改革。人联党所谓的改革是只见楼梯响不见人下来。这届的州议会已经过了一半的任期,还不见人联党在土地政策上有任何改变。行动党在州议会提呈土地修改法令,要将现有的不公平的土地政策修改,给人民更好的土地保障,这包括地契免费自动更新及红线两年自动解除。人联党却不敢面对人民的诉求,在动议这法案时选择逃避。也因此创造了我国有史以来第一次集体离席州议会事件。这导致了这法案“流产”。
对于这起事件人联青至今仍采取谩骂的态度,尝试丑化行动党的议员。但是州议会是讨论人民的事。人联青如果要接过未来执政的棒子,应该发表政策上的意见。因此我想请问人联青几个个关于土地政策的问题:-
1. 砂地广人稀,但是许多地主频频面对地契更新费高得惊人。请问这合理吗?
2. 如果将法令改成地契到期免费自动更新99年,这好不好?
3. 土地法典第47条文赋予州政府权利可以将土地画上红线几十年,无需真正使用或赔偿,请问这合理吗?
4. 如果将法令改成红线过了两年自动取消,这好不好?
5. 现今的政策是,土地遭政府征用,所获得赔偿是土地遭画红线时的市价。如果有地主是在红线后几十年才获得赔偿,不过又是获得几十年前市价的赔偿,这合理吗?
6. 如果将法令改成红线两年内必须宣布赔偿数额,之后的3个月内必须付还赔偿,这好不好?
Monday, May 25, 2009
请人联青不要再谩骂,请回答政策问题
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
砂国阵又赶行动党州议员出州议会
国阵屡次将行动党议员逐出州议会,显示政府没有决心解决人民的民怨。这届的州议会,国阵首先先对行动党州主席黄和联下禁足令长达12个月,之后将温利山州议员逐出州议会一天,现在又再次威胁以特权委员会对付张健仁州议员,这是鸵鸟心态,为了逃避面对人民的诉求。
议会殿堂讨论的是人民的事情。国阵将行动党议员逐出议会能够解决自己怨气,但是不能解决人民的怨气。行动党在州议会是批评政府的不公政策,不是为了惹议员们的怒气。黄和联在辩论附加法案,为了争取更透明的政府财政账目而被政府禁足议会一年。张健仁及温利山在提呈一个更利于人民的土地改革法典及提出治水计划而遭到对付。如今,人联党要在次将张健仁交予特权委员会,因为提出甘密街巴刹被关闭事件。
这种种的对付行动是有计划性的,目的是要逃避人民的诉求。国阵及人联党如果是以身为“父母官”的心态来参政,就不应该只顾着解决自己被人批评的怨气,而罔顾人民的怨气。
Monday, May 4, 2009
Introducing the Land Law Reform (Renewal of Terms and Documents of Titles and Acquistion) Ordinance 2009 Bill
From SarawakUpdate.com.my
Assemblyman for Sentosa, Chong Chieng Jen submitted a Notice of Motion pursuant to Standing Order 45 today, first time an opposition party has done so in DUN.
In the notice of motion made available to the press today, it stated “Whereas under the existing Section 26 of the Land Code (cap 81) upon expiration of the term secured under a document of title to land, the person claiming thereunder has no guaranteed right of renewal of the term.
And Whereas this has created great uncertainty, anxiety and concern amongst landowners throughout the State of Sarawak whose terms of documents of title will expire within the next 20 years.
And whereas the premiums imposed by the Government on renewal of terms of documents of title are excessive and many landowners find them burdensome and unaffordable.
And Whereas the provision under the Land Code (cap 81) in respect of Resumption of Alienation land are unfair, in particular, the ooperation of Section 47 thereof in the asessment of the compensation amount and the delays in the payment of compensation amount for land resumed by the government.
wherefore:
for the better protection of the rights of landowerns in the state of Sarawak. It is hereby moved that leave be granted by this house to the Member for kota Sentosa to introduce the Bill entitled “an ordinace to provide far automatic renewal of terms of documents of title to land an a fair process of compulsory acquisition of land, the assessment of compensation to be made on account of such acquistion and other matters incidental thereto”. The short title of the Bill shall be “Land Law Reform (Renewal of Terms and Documents of Titles and Acquistion) Ordinance 2009.
With the passing of t his Bill, it will solve the predicament of the landowner of Sarawak. The Bill will repeal part of the Land Code (CAp 81) in so far as relating to renewal of terms of documents of title and resumption of alienated land. the leading features of this Bill are:
1. It provides for automatic renewal of terms of documents of title to land without any payment of premium.
2. It provides that the notice issued under Section 47(1) of the Land Code (Cap 81) shall lapse and cease to be of effect on the expiry of two years after the date of the notice in so far as it related to any land or part thereof in respect of which the government has not acquired within the said period of two years and
3. It provides for prompt payment of reasonalble compensation amount for land resumed by the government.
Where are the Summons Coming From?
From SarawakUpdate.com.my
Summonse flying around cause for concern, DAP
Mechanic, Henry Goh approached the DAP for assistance yesterday which he felt he and his wife were wrongly issued summons on December 3 last year at Tunku Abdul Rahman at 8.55 pm and March 23 last year at 7.07 pm at Green Road.
Wong King Wei, Special Assistant to MP for Kuching, Chong Chieng Jen said he received the december summon recently by post and even though he was sure his wife, Lo Siew Lee (the car under her name) never go out at night, he decided to pay the summon as it was RM30.
Yesterday morning, while at the police station, he was shocked when he was told that there was another unpaid summon in March.
Goh said he decided not to pay both summons and asked the DAP for help. He said he would not know if the police would issue him more summons without his knowledge.
Wong said his legal firm had decided to help Goh and would take out the case. He said it was up to the police to prove that the car was there both times. He said he was worried that the summon could be posted with malice.
7 Summons of Jalan Court House cancelled by JPJ
From SarawakUpdate.com.my
The Road Transport department has issued a letter to Wong King Wei, Special assistant to MP for Kuching Chong Chieng Jen to allow seven car owners to have their summon cancel and instead be given a warning.
Talking to reporters yesterday, Wong said he was approached by seven car owners who had parked their vehicles along Jalan Court House on February 17 this year. The car owners were customers and business owners in the area.
Wong wrote a letter to the Director of RTD on February 18 asking the department to cancel the summon as he felt that the said road was closed for construction purposes and there was no through road in the area.
He said since the closure of the road on April 1 last year, the businessmen in the area complained that their business had dropped by 50%. Wong said due to that, even with the closed road, the RTD still wanted to issue summon to the people.
Wong said after the RTD replied, he hoped that the road would be reopened as construction work on the building had stopped for a while. He said the road belonged to the people and to close the road is not only affecting the business of the people there but also affecting the smooth flow of the traffic.
Despite him bringing the matter to the Land and Survey two weeks ago, Wong said he had yet to receive any reply from them.