Pengikut

LEE GUAN AIK for KOTA DARUL AMAN 李源益州议员

Posted by : Admin Direktori Blog | Khamis, 14 Oktober 2010 | Published in

sumber :-

LEE GUAN AIK for KOTA DARUL AMAN 李源益州议员


吉州水供高涨话题,还人民真相。

Posted: 14 Oct 2010 08:35 PM PDT

国阵在吉打州执政50载以来,吉打便欠下了2.4亿令吉的庞大巨额,其中的1.7亿是向中央政府借来缴水费的。自2008年上任,民联发现吉打州除了庞大的债务以外,其基础设施和服务规划已远远跟不上时代的需求。
这些问题的发生,是因为当时的州政府并没有接受当时中央政府所提供的特别援助,反而选择向中央政府贷款,也不依照政策的需求性和重要性来做资金分配。巴东色奈的水供发展便是其中一个鲜明的例子。
无法偿还水费是每一个在国政执政下的政府常常面对的问题。这些欠下的债务又成了中央政府的负担,努力确保每一州都还清债务的中央局,在如此情况之下只好剥削了州政府在管理水源的权利。
与此同时,前朝政府决定把水供私营化,这个对人民不负责的行动将事情更严重化。
人民有权知道的事实
日前,国会通过议决案修改联邦宪法,把水供事务从州政府的权限中转移到中央政府。
而此项变数带来的影响有
1)2006年水务服务法令(Water Services Industry Act-WASIA):
a.国家水务服务委员会(SPAN)的成立,监管水务公司的运营及管理
b.由财政部拥有的水务资产管理有限公司(PAAB)负责协调,包括接管资产及现有的债务如债券等。
c.根据此项法令,州政府不得不成立企业/实体公司如水务机构(SADA)
d.州政府拥有企业/实体公司,但中央政府全权管理
2。水务机构的成立
根据国家税务服务委员会法令,中央政府有权接管任何一州的水供服务。宪法里说明,倘若该局的财务报告显示任何一州的政府无财务能力承受水供服务费用,中央政府便会插手管理该州的水供。这样的现象可谓是一种:侵犯州属主权(kedaulatan negeri)
水务资产管理有限公司(PAB)的掌权
a) 由国家财政部全权拥有,目的是:
i〉 准备足够的资金于水供公司进行有关提升水供服务的计划(如建立水厂、水箱等)
ii〉 协调/管理州属的贷款,债务等
b) 资金来源
i. 中央政府贷款(原先属于州政府,如今交移PAB)
ii. 国际金融市场
iii. 所有由水务资产管理有限公司的资金投资建设的资产将出租给水供公司,根据税率征收的租金将用来解决州属的债务

c) 水务资产管理有限公司向中央政府接管债券,并一次性通过国际融资偿还所有债务。与此同时,水务资产管理有限公司变成了州政府的债主,并且需要接受以下条件:
i. 所有水务资产必需抵押给水务资产管理有限公司作为贷款担保
ii. 水务资产管理有限公司将水务资产租借给作为运营商的水务机构(SADA)
iii. 支付水务资产租金给水务资产管理有限公司
iv. 定期偿还欠下的债务

通过水务资产管理有限公司摆脱中央政府的掌权
为了防止吉打州的子民的利益被剥削,州政府通过水务机构已经有所行动,其中设下了一个条例:
-水务资产管理有限公司的股权仍然完全属于财政局,若股权因任何理由或方式转让给外方,租赁协议即刻无效,所有债账自动一笔勾销。通过与水务机构的商讨,水务资产管理有限公司已接受此协议。

目前财务状况导致关税税率增加。
~自从水务资产管理有限公司接管州属债务后,水务资产管理有限公司便遣派国家水务服务委员会监督调查国内水供公司的财政状况,确保能够征收回报。

~调查结果证明,在国阵50年的统领下,水源部和水务机构的财政能力是属于"财政吃紧"的状态。

~国会在2009年尾正式通过议案,宣布提高半岛的水源关税税率

~能源部已通过公函要求州秘书及运营商提交关税模型

~国家水务服务委员会为监督,下令要求各州水源运营商提交关税模型。

~吉打州水务机构提交3种关税模型

~国家水务服务委员重新检讨,并决定关税率的提高不包括宗教场所及福利院。

提高关税计划
在2013年,水源关税将与电源关税统一,国家水务服务委员提议每立方米(Semeter Padu)90仙。(与柔佛州相同)

为了人民的负担起见,水务机构争取水源关税只提高10仙。一切与国家水务服务委员会的谈判都以人民的福利作为主要考量。

吉打州在国内的情况
共有52千家用户,百分之90是住家用户,而百分之10是工业用户。这类的情况导致水务机构(SADA)面临关税太低的问题。而槟州的情况恰恰相反。

吉州需管理长达13,000公里的供水管道,相比起槟州的谦恭立即拨周的千公里,吉打州在这方面所付出的管理费及维修费是远远超越邻州的。

除此之外,由于人口分布不一,所花的费用比回报率高,此类情况更加中了吉打州政府的负担。

水供私营化带来的影响
-前朝政府于1995年把浮罗交怡的水供私营化,与Taliworks (Langkawi)有限公司签署私营化合约,为期25年,结果造成的州政府必须承担所面对的损失,例如在2009年,州政府在水费收入只获得1千400万令吉,但是,必须付还给 Taliworks公司3千900万令吉。"
-Taliworks公司是负责从玻州供应水源至浮罗交怡,在私营化合约下,Taliworks公司每立方米向州政府收1令吉93仙,惟州政府仅向用户收取每立方米40仙,换句话说,州政府必须承担1令吉53仙的津贴。
-至于Air Utara Indah 在柏鲁邦发展水供计划所提供的食水,据私营化合约,该公司每天提供的食水,征收的费用是水源的处理费,而不是以用量作为标准,却因为州政府面对水管损坏或破漏影响造成约43%水源的流失,真正只获得57%的水源,使州政府也蒙受损失。

水是基本人权,为人民提供安全、足够及价格合理的食水是政府的责任。联盟认为,私人财团利益先行,一旦水供由私人界操控,消费人的权益将备受剥削,吉州人民与政府必需要并肩作战,保护属于自己的主权,不要让外方一点一点地占领了我们的水资源,水资产,因为这些都是属于州属拥有的宝藏。我们决不能因为水费只涨了区区的10仙而漠视这个问题。人民应全力支持当朝政府,为了我们的利益及福利,也为了吉打州的昌盛与繁荣。

1Nation? Learning fromThailand,Indonesia

Posted: 14 Oct 2010 10:24 AM PDT

BY DR BOO CHENG HAU


The Malay supremacists have consistently characterized efforts by non-Malays to maintain vernacular schools as 'anti-national'. Why so?
'Anti-national' was, in fact, the same term used by the South African apartheid regime against other mediums of instruction in school aside from Afrikaans.
And Malay supremacists keep citing Indonesia and Thailand as examples of the one-language school policy to unite the races. Yet in Thailand, we can see that there is a secessionist movement by its Malay minority in the southern provinces not only because of discriminative language policy but religious policy too.
The Jakarta riots still occurred at the height of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 where the ethnic Chinese minority was targeted. The Chinese were victims of mob violence even though by then Indonesia's forced assimilation had already deprived this minority community of their Chinese names, suppressed expression of Chinese culture as well as caused many Chinese to lose the ability to speak their dialects.
However, after the 1998 reformasi movement, Indonesia has in recent years eased its strict imposition of Bahasa Indonesia and Mandarin has begun to pick up again. Our 'big brother' has gone one step forward and ahead of Malaysia by abolishing the segregation of its citizens into Pribumi and non-Pribumi.
Many Indonesian students learning Mandarin are not only Chinese but of other ethnicities who want to capitalize on growing economic ties between Indonesia and China. The post-Suharto Indonesian authorities no longer discriminate against Chinese Indonesians who wish to reconnect with their own culture through language.
The questions to ponder on, from the experience of our neighbours, are: Would allowing multilingualism and multiculturalism have prevented Thailand's militant insurgency? Another question is why the Chinese in Indonesia -- in spite of having Indonesian names and speaking Indonesian -- were still singled out as a distinct people in the Jakarta riots?
Likewise, Canada was confronted by Quebec separatists who wanted to establish an independent French-speaking republic. To avoid the secession of Quebec, French was declared additionally an official language in 1969.
Evidence has shown that monoligualism and one-race supremacy has resulted in racial polarization and ethnic conflicts around the world.
Is 'oneness' key to unity?
Integration can never be realised with Malay supremacy being the predominant ideology. When racial discrimination is deeply ingrained in our official education policy, how do we expect ordinary citizens not to propagate 'reverse' racism at interpersonal and social levels?
It is not inaccurate to say that racist connotations are often found at these informal levels. Howeverinstitutionalized racism is the culprit for its creation. Is it thus unfair to blame non-Malays for being unwilling to be assimilated by Malay culture and subjected to religious indoctrination?
But let's look beyond Asean region countries on their experiences. Previously in the United States, the various ethnic groups had tended to live within their own ethnic enclaves but governmental institutions and policies encouraged inter-racial integration through 'bussing' to mixed-race schools following the success of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.
American affirmative action is for its ethnic minorities yet in the truly unique and one-in-the world Malaysia, it is for its dominant majority!
The US has been wrongly quoted as an example of success in monolingualism by Dr Mahatir Mohamad in his book The Malay Dilemma. English was never made an official language by the American constitution whereas attempts to impose English as such had actually failed.
According to the country's 1990 Census, 13.8 percent of US residents speak some non-English language at home. Another 2.9 percent, or 6.7 million people, did not speak English at all, or could not speak it well.
Over there, the Hispanics have fought most earnestly for bilingualism where Spanish has been effectively used as language of instruction in schools together with English. There are even bilingual colleges that use both English and Spanish. This approach has effectively integrated Spanish-speaking Americans into the mainstream.
Moving away from supremist ideology
Dr Mahatir misrepresented English as the only official language, and language of instruction in American schools. There is no actual restriction in the use of any other language of instruction even though usage of English is predominant in schools, government agencies and more importantly as the de facto lingua franca. In the USA, multilingualism has gained ground as the way forward.
Another famously polyglot country Switzerland not only designated four official languages but also mandates funding for development of mother tongue education.
Despite having its four languages, national identity is strong among the Swiss who predominantly regard themselves as Swiss rather than German, French or Italian as per the native languages they speak. Four languages of instruction including English are allowed in schools and up to tertiary level.Multilingualism has contributed to Switzerland's position as a global financial centre.
The Swiss also live in their own ethnic enclaves but cross-interaction is free without any institutionalized racism, unlike the 'nativism' of South African apartheid and the Bumiputera-ism of Umno. Institutionalised racism in official education policy has caused severe brain drain over the years in both apartheid South Africa and Umno-ruled Malaysia.
Malaysian public universities and teacher training colleges do not accept the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) although this A-level equivalent is accepted by universities in other countries. Students who complete their education in the independent Chinese secondary schools are therefore denied the opportunity to converge into Malaysia's mainstream tertiary education system.
Yet these are the very students who are able to integrate themselves into British, Australian, Canadian and American universities. After graduation, they can hold top positions in multinational corporations but ironically, they could not have earned a seat in their own kampung universities earlier.
Therefore any hope of ameliorating our country's severe brain drain lies in a reformed education system, whereby students from vernacular schools are integrated into mainstream public universities.
Monoligualism is a myth
It is a myth that monolingualism promotes integration. South Africa is one example where a monolingual education policy, closely linked to white supremacy, worsened racial animosities.
South Africa's revamped constitution post-apartheid recognizes as many as 11 official languages as well as equitable allocation of funding for mother tongue education, moving the country away from theAfrikaner supremacy of the past.
Multilingualism is shown in many multiethnic countries to ensure integration at all levels of the society. It especially cultivates cultural sensitivity among the majority ethnic group towards the minorities. Ethnic integration can, in fact, take place through any common language but cultural sensitivity must be the pre-requisite for integration in schools and in the wider populace.
In the apartheid regime of South Africa, English and Afrikaans were the only two official languages. The Malay supremacists have taken a leaf from their book with tacit approval of English as the de facto second language and common language in the private sector.
Needless to say, the Malay elites and GLC top professionals are comfortable in English. Former Lord President Mohamad Suffian made it clear that use of other languages in the private sector is allowed. It is the Umno firebrands complaining about Mandarin in the private sector that is going against the spirit of the constitution.
Diversity under threat
The spirit of voluntary integration in the form of universal participation is granted in the federal constitution, which also recognizes the need for a lingua franca, and hence we had the formulation of Article 152. Malay has logically been accepted for official purposes. Nonetheless, the use and learning of other languages are not only permissible, but the state has also to preserve and sustain these endeavours.
The constitutional right of non-Malays to their mother tongues must be translated not only into non-discriminative legislation but also their impartial implementation in the form of affirmative action for the minorities. Legislation alone is not enough to sustain the ideals of promoting integration and diversity if the majority ethnic group refuses to accept co-existence of cultural diversities.
Being the dominant majority in the country, the Malays must also accept that non-Malays would like to learn at their best capacity, and this would be in their mother tongues in school although not at the expense of national language proficiency.
Assimilative language and cultural policies have entrenched the supremacy of the dominant ethnic group. Their worship of the 'one language, one culture, one nation' policy, manifested through discriminative education policy, has understandably turned off non-Malays.
That Chinese and Indian parents have lost confidence in the national schools is patent. But why have they rejected too the Sekolah Wawasan concept of the different language streams grouped under one umbrella in terms of physical location?
In truth, with all that's been going on in national schools and their negative culture and bullying that has come to light, one can hardly blame the non-Malay parents for distrusting the authorities to treat vernacular schools with some decency. They are afraid -- and rightly so -- that once the vernacular schools fall under the influence of the supremacist bureaucracy, Chinese and Indian pupils will suffer discrimination.
Malaysia has been a multiracial society in reality since the Malaccan Sultanate where hundreds of different tongues were used. Malay scholar Munshi Abdullah in his famous work Pelayaran Munshy Abdullah gave a vivid account the multilingual and multicultural Malayan societies in olden times.
Historically speaking, despite Malay having been the lingua franca since the Malaccan Sultanate, it was nonetheless acceptance of diversity that made the entreport a cosmopolitan haven for international traders.
On the other hand, it is the Umno culture of chauvinism and linguistic policies that have made Malays lose the trait of their adventurous ancestors as gifted seafarers and outward-looking travellers.
Malaysians today should view our own diversity as a valued asset rather than a threat to further advance our beloved nation. The Malaccan Sultanate is a good example.

(0) Comments

Leave a Response

Sayap Parti