Comment
Letter from Pulau Tikus
|
Comment
Letter from Pulau Tikus |
| Scandal
land JUDGING FROM the never ceasing flow of abuse of power and corruption news this country seems to be rocketing to top reputation as a country of scandals. Remember the false mileage claims by MPs? And the story of the policeman with RM34 millions? Then came the AP story and the former PM pointing a finger at Rafidah Aziz; this proved to be great entertainment. By the way, instead of waving flags why don't MPs demonstrate their patriotism by buying Protons, instead of AP cars. We were still laughing when news came in about how privileged persons can make staggering sums out of something as simple as city government Ramadan lots. Every year the auditor general regales us with tales of financial wrong-doing. Remarkably, the wrongdoers are not even admonished. Examples: claims by assemblymen and exco councillors for trips and private functions not related to official duties; a computer system in a social security organisation which hasn't worked since 1996; a RM45 million aquatic centre in Shah Alam which was a disaster, and so on. Then we learn that the councillors of the municipality of Malacca had a six day holiday in China at public expense. That they did not meet their counterparts in the cities they toured underlined the relaxed nature of the trip. We are told that the excursion was to reward those hard-working appointed councillors. To "brighten up" their offices the Seberang Perai Municipal Council contracted for freshly cut flowers, delivered once a week, costing RM1.5 million or about RM5,700 a week. Not to be outdone, George Town presented us with a RM300,000 atrocity at the Udini Road roundabout which has become a huge joke and yet another thing costing RM350,000 at the Clock Tower said to be a buah Pinang, a symbol of Penang. Everything is hush-hush. The public is not only denied the right of electing councilors but are even excluded from council meetings. What is there to hide? The rate payer has the right to know where their taxes go and should be able to supervise spending. They would like to ask questions like the Kuala Kangsar MP Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz, who wondered how her municipal council could have asked for RM51.5 million for landscaping but set aside only RM1.5 million for poverty eradication. This surveillance will also be an obstacle to those in public office paying themselves more every few years, as the Perlis people did recently, giving themselves a ten per cent rise. One cannot help but recall the Baling incident which revealed that when MPs increased their pay farmers were actually starving in the area. Rate payer participation will also be a fetter on arrogance such, for example, as the George Town ban on parking in parking bays with defective or missing coin-parking |
| meters. As Mr P
Ramakrishnan, president of Aliran, says, it is council's business to ensure
that the meters are in working order. And an end note. Is the Pinang tree rightly the symbol of Penang? According to Dr David Jones, Associate Dean (Academic), School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture & Urban Design, Adelaide University, the name "Penang" derives from the Tanjong Penaigre Cape, upon which George Town stands, after the hardy ironwood Penaga (Mesua ferrea) that were growing on the site. Treason Members of Parliament should brush up on their law. They have just amended the constitution. The amendment, believe it or not, is for punishing judges who are slow in delivering judgments and also those who keep postponing cases. The MPs' move reveals how low the judges have sunk in the estimation of the public, to be punished like so many naughty children. That there are incompetent judges is a well known fact. I have known one or two who simply could not make up their minds. Some simply hated trials and would anything to avoid trying cases. One method employed to avoid them is the shot gun wedding - compelling litigants to settle, or else ... Some even find the judgments of the privy council tough and difficult reading. Others are confused by conflicting decisions. But punishing the unfit is surely no remedy for a sad state of affairs created mainly by the failure to respect the independent choice of the chief justice of the state. Disgust and anger do not put wrongs right. We should be rid of the present defective that allows executive intrusion into the sphere of justice. Now there is a book by a well known New York state Judge called Berman in which he tells us that when he was proposed for the bench he had to face 20 men of the New York Bar called the Judiciary Committee. After a tough grilling he was approved unanimously and his name forwarded to the New York state governor who was bound to accept the recommendation. And he turned out to be a good judge too. We should think seriously about New York. But there is one aspect of the constitutional amendment that should worry the MPs and which prompted me to say at the beginning of this piece that the MPs should brush up on their law. This is because it was said in a case in 1999 that to criticise a judge is not only a contempt of court but an insult to the "King" and that therefore the Bar should not meet even to discuss the setting up of a royal commission of inquiry on judges "because confidence in the judiciary has been undermined." Articles 125 and 127 of the constitution are mentioned; any resolutions would be seditious because it was criticism of a "King's judge" and therefore an insult to the "King". This case of 1999 has been supported by a recent federal court decision. Allowing an open discussion on conduct of the judges could amount to questioning the wisdom of the "King" in his selection of judges, they have ruled. But wait a minute, let's look at Article 125. It provides a procedure for a judge to be removed on the ground of misbehavior or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office. |
| (It is of recent memory that Prime
Minister Mahathir took advantage of this provision to have Salleh Abbas,
the president of the Federal Court, dismissed from office). Article 127 says
that Parliament may not discuss the conduct of a judge, unless on a motion
supported by at least one quarter of the total number of MPs. This article
emphasises the separation of powers. Now where is that provision which
prevents the public discussing the conduct of a judge?. But silencing criticism of judges relies also on the notion that such discussion would be an insult to the "King." But the question is: do we have a "King"? The answer is clearly "No". The office of "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" was the brain child of Dato Onn who, by this subtle devise, created the new post of head of state for 1957 Malaya. He could not be called "president," for that would have smacked of republicanism, a repugnant concept in a country with nine sultans. The solution was a "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" who would preside over meetings of the sultans in council, but without sovereignty. He was neither a "sultan" nor a "king" but was to be elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among the Rulers. Being a creation of statute he was required to swear to carry out his duties in the administration of Malaya in accordance with the laws and constitution. He has no inherent "divine right of kings" nor is he the "fountain of justice." The kings, the sovereigns, are in the nine sovereign Malay states, as the privy council reminded us in 1910 The oath of office of a judge binds him to allegiance to Malaysia and to defending the constitution - which goes to show that he is not the "king's judge" but a judge of the constitution. To say that a judge is the king's judge is legal illiteracy. The monumental myth making by the judges conjured up a Palestinian wall shielding them from future claims by those who allege that they are victims of judicial wrongdoing. There is a present danger that the MPs who voted for the amendments may be guilty of contempt and treason; and it is even possible that a court may one day declare the amendments to be unconstitutional Build/sell Once again the build and sell concept is being discussed, though with much more interest than before. The question posed is this: if cars can be built then sold why can't the same be done with houses? Is it not time that government stopped protecting developers? The developers and their associated trades oppose the scrapping of the iniquitous system which makes house buyers finance the building trade. The builders claim that, if the build/sell concept takes hold, houses will become dearer, the smaller developers will be wiped out, the housing industry will collapse. Who are these people trying to bluff? The industry in the USA and UK is alive and kicking. Everything is secretive in this country and we are unable to tell how much of the cost of providing cheaper housing (a requirement if a developer wants to get a licence) is thrown on the buyer. But look at the advantages of build/sell. We won't have cases of so-called developers running off with the money down paid to them, and yes, we have no more of those $2 capital licensed developers. In 2004, 227 housing projects were abandoned which meant that 75,000 houses were not built as promised and 50,000 buyers lost their money and the cost - RM7 billion. These are Ministry of Housing and Local Government figures quoted in "The Edge" magazine of 3.10.05 |
The House Buyers Association is not helpful when it advocates the "Australian" system of "10:90" This statement was misleading because the statute they are quoting from is a Victorian state law. The act is the Sale of Land Act, 1962, Victoria, section 9AA which applies to sales of lots of subdivided land prior to registration and has nothing to do with houses I have taken down from the Net a sample of the cost of house buying in Victoria, Australia Purchase Costs Purchase price $350,000 Stamp duty in Victoria $16,660 Registration of title transfer $951 Registration of mortgage $59 Conveyancing/legal fees $800 Building assessment $500 Lenders mortgage insurance $4,604 Total purchase costs $23,574 Deposit saved $63,574 Minus purchase costs $23,574 Deposit remaining to be used towards the purchase price $40,000 Plus amount borrowed $310,000 Purchase price $350,000 Monthly Repayments (Based on a 25 year loan of $310,000 at an 8% variable interest rate) $2,393 Stamp duty varies state by state. Property investors can claim repairs, maintenance & expenses such as rates & real estate agents fees as tax deductions. Make sure you keep all receipts 1st time buyers get a grant of $7000. Some states have additional grants For details see www.ato.gov.aus See also Real Estate Institute of Australia Lighting the fire A friend in Kuala Lumpur moved into his new flat the other day. He invited his mum and dad from Penang to k'ee hoay (starting the fire). This pleased the older generation, who at once jumped on an express bus and duly performed their duty - they boiled a kettle of water. This is the simplest of procedures that I have ever heard of. It is more usual to hear of the gods being invited in after the the fire is started. Mr Tan Kim Hong, formerly of the Han Chiang College, tells me a more complicated story. In his case his mother (a widow) did the honours, lighting joss sticks and scattering rice and salt |
| in all four
corners of his new place. They called it ong lor (bless the stove).
But there was one more thing they had to do. That was the pasting of a talisman
(hoo t'au) on the entrance of the new abode, right at the centre
of lintel. .Mr Oon, the father of a lawyer friend, tells me that must
have been because the day they had chosen was not propitious according to
the Taoist books. And KH adds: And there is yet another thing to remember. Before moving into your new home make sure that your rice, sugar and salt jars are full, the chooi tnee (bathroom water well) is filled to the brim. On the day you move in, the stove should be ready filled with charcoal, then the fire started (anyone can do this.) The stove is then brought into the house, water boiled and tea made. Deities, if any, are then invited in and joss sticks burnt. On that same day it is important that everyone entering the house should have their pockets full. Some take the extra precaution of sprinkling salt and rice in the hall, dining room and kitchen and other rooms. It is only after three days that the rooms are swept clean Where to serve tea Our neighbour's niece has just got married. She is from Medan. After the preceding night's dinner it was time for the bride to be introduced to her in-laws by serving them tea after each introduction. Tea was served in a hotel, the reason being that it would not have been proper for the bride to be fetched from her aunt's house (where she was staying) for the ceremony because her aunt had a little daughter living with her. Why this created an obstacle no one could explain. Seeing is believing Mama mee hawker at Lau Hio Hnooi served his mee without the customary fork and spoon. His customers - two humble Indian workers - fell to with the disposable chopsticks supplied without protest Full marks I have from time to time mentioned government websites which act out of character and are worthy of praise because of their miraculous efficiency. This issue would like to highlight the streamyx support team for excellence, inquiries being patiently listened to and advice offered with courtesy. Another department which is worth a double star for excellence. It is the national registration department. This department was a remarkable exception to the couldn't-care-less departments when it was in Northam Road. It's move to Anson Road has not spoilt it and it remains quietly efficient and without fuss. K L Chai |
Friends of the Penang Botanic Gardens
Tel 227 9915
|
| ______ INDEX Point to the article that you want to read, and CLICK Index page Book review The captive mind Chinese words in Malay Food guide Hen or rooster? Letter from Pulau Tikus A people's constitution (2) Poh Choo's wedding (9) The war in the jungle(2) |
____________________ The Penang File Issue 43 |