Press Statement by Perak DAPSY Chief and Canning State Assemblyman YB Wong Kah Woh in Ipoh on Thursday 07.10.2010:
DAPSY Perak shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters in manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP and the same shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was reported that the group of some 20 members gathered in front of the state DAP Perak Headquarter carrying banners yesterday in criticisms of the Perak DAP leadership were DAP Youth committees and members from Buntong. There were even being addressed as “PR youth group” by some writers.
As far as Pakatan Youth and DAPSY Perak are concerned, we have verified that none of the protesters are DAP members from the Buntong branches or Pakatan Youth in Perak.
I have further obtained the confirmation from the Perak Dewan Pemuda PAS (DPP) Chief Sdr. Zawawi Hassan and Angkatan Pemuda Keadilan (AMK) Chief YB Abd Yunus Jamhari that DPP and AMK had never consented to the said protest and none of their youth members were involved.
The purpose and genuineness of the protest is highly questionable and doubted. We have reason to believe this is one of the dirty tactics being employed by the opposite party to tarnish the image of DAP. Some of the protestors had portrayed themselves to be the committee of the DAP youth wing in Buntong. This clearly shows that the protestors do not even know who actually they are or purported to be. The DAPSY Statute provides that DAPSY Division is formed by the name of the relevant Parliamentary constituency and as far as Ipoh Barat Division is concerned, it was formed in 2008 in a meeting chaired by me and none of the protestors are seen to be the committee. There will also never be any DAPSY organization formed by the name of a branch or state constituency.
The Perak DAP issue is an internal matter to be resolved and shall be dealt with internally. We shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP. This dirty tactics shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
The police shall conduct immediate investigation to identify the person portraying themselves wrongfully as DAP members and the Black Hand behind the scene.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
DAPSY Perak shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters in manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP
Press Statement by Perak DAPSY Chief and Canning State Assemblyman YB Wong Kah Woh in Ipoh on Thursday 07.10.2010:
DAPSY Perak shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters in manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP and the same shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was reported that the group of some 20 members gathered in front of the state DAP Perak Headquarter carrying banners yesterday in criticisms of the Perak DAP leadership were DAP Youth committees and members from Buntong. There were even being addressed as “PR youth group” by some writers.
As far as Pakatan Youth and DAPSY Perak are concerned, we have verified that none of the protesters are DAP members from the Buntong branches or Pakatan Youth in Perak.
I have further obtained the confirmation from the Perak Dewan Pemuda PAS (DPP) Chief Sdr. Zawawi Hassan and Angkatan Pemuda Keadilan (AMK) Chief YB Abd Yunus Jamhari that DPP and AMK had never consented to the said protest and none of their youth members were involved.
The purpose and genuineness of the protest is highly questionable and doubted. We have reason to believe this is one of the dirty tactics being employed by the opposite party to tarnish the image of DAP. Some of the protestors had portrayed themselves to be the committee of the DAP youth wing in Buntong. This clearly shows that the protestors do not even know who actually they are or purported to be. The DAPSY Statute provides that DAPSY Division is formed by the name of the relevant Parliamentary constituency and as far as Ipoh Barat Division is concerned, it was formed in 2008 in a meeting chaired by me and none of the protestors are seen to be the committee. There will also never be any DAPSY organization formed by the name of a branch or state constituency.
The Perak DAP issue is an internal matter to be resolved and shall be dealt with internally. We shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP. This dirty tactics shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
The police shall conduct immediate investigation to identify the person portraying themselves wrongfully as DAP members and the Black Hand behind the scene.
DAPSY Perak shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters in manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP and the same shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was reported that the group of some 20 members gathered in front of the state DAP Perak Headquarter carrying banners yesterday in criticisms of the Perak DAP leadership were DAP Youth committees and members from Buntong. There were even being addressed as “PR youth group” by some writers.
As far as Pakatan Youth and DAPSY Perak are concerned, we have verified that none of the protesters are DAP members from the Buntong branches or Pakatan Youth in Perak.
I have further obtained the confirmation from the Perak Dewan Pemuda PAS (DPP) Chief Sdr. Zawawi Hassan and Angkatan Pemuda Keadilan (AMK) Chief YB Abd Yunus Jamhari that DPP and AMK had never consented to the said protest and none of their youth members were involved.
The purpose and genuineness of the protest is highly questionable and doubted. We have reason to believe this is one of the dirty tactics being employed by the opposite party to tarnish the image of DAP. Some of the protestors had portrayed themselves to be the committee of the DAP youth wing in Buntong. This clearly shows that the protestors do not even know who actually they are or purported to be. The DAPSY Statute provides that DAPSY Division is formed by the name of the relevant Parliamentary constituency and as far as Ipoh Barat Division is concerned, it was formed in 2008 in a meeting chaired by me and none of the protestors are seen to be the committee. There will also never be any DAPSY organization formed by the name of a branch or state constituency.
The Perak DAP issue is an internal matter to be resolved and shall be dealt with internally. We shall never allow nor tolerate dirty tactics employed by certain quarters manipulating the opportunity to tarnish the image of DAP. This dirty tactics shall not and should never be condoned by any of the DAPSY members.
The police shall conduct immediate investigation to identify the person portraying themselves wrongfully as DAP members and the Black Hand behind the scene.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The conundrum of freehold title of Perakians...
Press Conference by the State Assemblyman for Canning and DAP Perak Publicity Secretary YB Wong Kah Woh on 23.03.2010 (Tuesday) at DAP HQ Ipoh:
I have submitted a question to this coming State Assembly regarding the Barisan Nasional Perak Government stance on the issue of issuing freehold title to Rancangan Rumah Tersusun and Chinese New Village in the state. The original text of the question sounds:
“Ramai warga Negeri Perak yang mempunyai hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal oleh Kerajaan Negeri pada ketika itu.
(i) Sila nyatakan samaada Kerajaan Negeri berhasrat untuk meneruskan polisi pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal kepada warga Negeri Perak yang memegang hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun dan alasannya; dan
(ii) Apakah status pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal bagi mereka yang telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal.”
Despite the fact that the current State EXCO Dato’ Mah Hang Soon had given his open concurrence and agreement, during the time he was in the opposition, over the issuance of freehold title and which he had even further suggested “for more” – a 90% discount on the Premium payable instead of 80% discount as adopted by Pakatan Rakyat, he has failed to walk the talk when turning into power and the Barisan Nasional State Government has refused to continue the implementation of the freehold title policy adopted by Pakatan Rakyat during the 10-months-regime.
The Barisan Nasional had in Decemer 2008 through its National Land Council objected to the freehold title policy in Perak, the Barisan Nasional especially UMNO had blamed that the then Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Mohd Nizar bin Jamaluddin for giving away lands to the Chinese community in Perak by adopting the freehold title policy, and the Barisan Nasional had eventually formally put a stop to the freehold title application in the State after the grabbing of power. All these clearly show that Barisan Nasional is still confining themselves in the racial circle, and has no Political Will to continue the good policies set up by Pakatan Rakyat.
If Barisan Nasional has no political will to do, we will do it after we come back into power. However, the refusal of BN in continuing this policy had caused uncertainties, difficulties and hardship for the Rakyat who had earlier surrendered their original title back to the State Government and submitted their application for freehold title and which the BN State Government is obliged to answer and resolve. We have received complaints and I quote 2 cases here:
Appendix:
Case 1：
A resident in Kg Simee had in the month of July 2006 paid the Premium of RM1705.00 for the extension of 60 years leasehold title. In January 2009, he has surrendered the title back to the State Government for the issuance of new freehold title at the estimated cost calculated at RM3285.00.
He received a letter from Ipoh Land Office 3 weeks back whereby the Land Office requested him to make an extra payment of RM1616.00 to procure a 99 years leasehold title. In other words, while the title is still with 57 years lease left, the BN Government had charged another RM1616.00 on the resident for another 42 years lease (because he will only get 99 years lease calculating from 2010, whereby the 57 years unexpired lease is considered burned). Bear in mind, the estimated cost for him in getting a freehold title with security of Property which no renewal in future is necessary, is around RM3285.00 only.
This has caused a dilemma on the resident. His intention from day one is to get the freehold title, and yet he was now offered 99 years which practically had made no difference with the leasehold title he is holding. It is only a matter of time for the lease be expired although both might not expired until after this resident passed away. The dilemma is that: if he wants back the title, with no choice he has to take the 99 years lease as offered and pay RM1616.00 for the title which is practically extended for 42 years; or he will have to face the risk of the title being retained or even forfeited by the State Government.
BN is to be fully responsible for this.
Case 2:
There is another case from Kg Simee. The leasehold was expired in year 2009. The landowner was given 2 choices: either he needs to pay an estimated cost of RM8000 ++ for a 60 years leaseholdor pay RM13000 ++ for a 99 years leasehold title. Comparing this figure with PR’s offer for freehold title, for the same piece of land, the landowner needs only to pay an estimated cost of RM11,000++.
If BN is for the People, why do they slash the People on this? Wouldn’t be it is ridiculous for a 99 years leasehold be more expensive than a freehold title?
Case 1: refer appendix Case 2: refer appendix
The above cases show that the Rakyat are not only not getting freehold title from the BN State Government, they will even need to pay more than what they are supposed to pay under the PR’s freehold tile, for only a 99 years old lease. Some of them who only wish to apply for freehold title and do not wish to have further leasehold as the current lease are still long way to expiry. They are stuck in between, whereby they cannot get their freehold title as wish, and they are facing the risk of their original being retained or even forfeited by the State Government if they do not pay for the premium f the extended lease as offered as the title had been surrendered.
The Rakyat want an explanation from BN over this issue. It is utmost important for Barisan Nasional to answer the questions on freehold titles and to allow more supplementary questions be asked in the assembly. Let’s walk the talk.
I have submitted a question to this coming State Assembly regarding the Barisan Nasional Perak Government stance on the issue of issuing freehold title to Rancangan Rumah Tersusun and Chinese New Village in the state. The original text of the question sounds:
“Ramai warga Negeri Perak yang mempunyai hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal oleh Kerajaan Negeri pada ketika itu.
(i) Sila nyatakan samaada Kerajaan Negeri berhasrat untuk meneruskan polisi pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal kepada warga Negeri Perak yang memegang hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun dan alasannya; dan
(ii) Apakah status pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal bagi mereka yang telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal.”
Despite the fact that the current State EXCO Dato’ Mah Hang Soon had given his open concurrence and agreement, during the time he was in the opposition, over the issuance of freehold title and which he had even further suggested “for more” – a 90% discount on the Premium payable instead of 80% discount as adopted by Pakatan Rakyat, he has failed to walk the talk when turning into power and the Barisan Nasional State Government has refused to continue the implementation of the freehold title policy adopted by Pakatan Rakyat during the 10-months-regime.
The Barisan Nasional had in Decemer 2008 through its National Land Council objected to the freehold title policy in Perak, the Barisan Nasional especially UMNO had blamed that the then Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Mohd Nizar bin Jamaluddin for giving away lands to the Chinese community in Perak by adopting the freehold title policy, and the Barisan Nasional had eventually formally put a stop to the freehold title application in the State after the grabbing of power. All these clearly show that Barisan Nasional is still confining themselves in the racial circle, and has no Political Will to continue the good policies set up by Pakatan Rakyat.
If Barisan Nasional has no political will to do, we will do it after we come back into power. However, the refusal of BN in continuing this policy had caused uncertainties, difficulties and hardship for the Rakyat who had earlier surrendered their original title back to the State Government and submitted their application for freehold title and which the BN State Government is obliged to answer and resolve. We have received complaints and I quote 2 cases here:
Appendix:
Case 1：
A resident in Kg Simee had in the month of July 2006 paid the Premium of RM1705.00 for the extension of 60 years leasehold title. In January 2009, he has surrendered the title back to the State Government for the issuance of new freehold title at the estimated cost calculated at RM3285.00.
He received a letter from Ipoh Land Office 3 weeks back whereby the Land Office requested him to make an extra payment of RM1616.00 to procure a 99 years leasehold title. In other words, while the title is still with 57 years lease left, the BN Government had charged another RM1616.00 on the resident for another 42 years lease (because he will only get 99 years lease calculating from 2010, whereby the 57 years unexpired lease is considered burned). Bear in mind, the estimated cost for him in getting a freehold title with security of Property which no renewal in future is necessary, is around RM3285.00 only.
This has caused a dilemma on the resident. His intention from day one is to get the freehold title, and yet he was now offered 99 years which practically had made no difference with the leasehold title he is holding. It is only a matter of time for the lease be expired although both might not expired until after this resident passed away. The dilemma is that: if he wants back the title, with no choice he has to take the 99 years lease as offered and pay RM1616.00 for the title which is practically extended for 42 years; or he will have to face the risk of the title being retained or even forfeited by the State Government.
BN is to be fully responsible for this.
Case 2:
There is another case from Kg Simee. The leasehold was expired in year 2009. The landowner was given 2 choices: either he needs to pay an estimated cost of RM8000 ++ for a 60 years leaseholdor pay RM13000 ++ for a 99 years leasehold title. Comparing this figure with PR’s offer for freehold title, for the same piece of land, the landowner needs only to pay an estimated cost of RM11,000++.
If BN is for the People, why do they slash the People on this? Wouldn’t be it is ridiculous for a 99 years leasehold be more expensive than a freehold title?
Case 1: refer appendix Case 2: refer appendix
The above cases show that the Rakyat are not only not getting freehold title from the BN State Government, they will even need to pay more than what they are supposed to pay under the PR’s freehold tile, for only a 99 years old lease. Some of them who only wish to apply for freehold title and do not wish to have further leasehold as the current lease are still long way to expiry. They are stuck in between, whereby they cannot get their freehold title as wish, and they are facing the risk of their original being retained or even forfeited by the State Government if they do not pay for the premium f the extended lease as offered as the title had been surrendered.
The Rakyat want an explanation from BN over this issue. It is utmost important for Barisan Nasional to answer the questions on freehold titles and to allow more supplementary questions be asked in the assembly. Let’s walk the talk.
已申请永久地契的霹雳州子民该何去何从呢?
民主行动党桂和区州议员兼霹雳州宣传秘书黄家和律师于2010年3月23日（星期二）在怡保霹雳州总部新闻发布会上所发表的声明：
（怡保23日讯）民主行动党桂和区州议员黄家和律师今天表示，他已经向州议会提呈提问要求国阵州政府解释拒绝发出永久地契的原因、以及如何处理已经呈交给州政府的永久地契申请，以解决因国阵霹雳州政府没有政治意愿、没有政治勇气延续民联推行的马来重组村以及华人新村永久地契政策，而导致已经呈交永久地契申请的市民给面对许多问题以及困扰。
也是民主行动党霹雳州宣传秘书的黄家和今天在一项新闻发布会上表示，自从霹雳州的政变事件后，许多在2008年以及2009年初将地契交回给州政府以重新申请永久地契的市民都感到十分的迷惑，不清楚国阵州政府在永久地契上的立场。
黄家和表示，国阵在政变后对于这个政策始终立场模糊，直到国阵高级行政议员拿督哈米达在去年12月终于宣布国阵州政府将只给于99年地契的时候。黄氏表示，国阵拒绝延续永久地契政策的宣布已经造成市民许多的不便，一些市民必须缴纳额外的费用但只得到延长数十年的地契、而一些更发现国阵给于的99年地契比民联推出的永久地契费用更来得昂贵而负担不起。
“由于国阵只颁发99年地契，使到已经将地契交回给州政府以申请永久地契的市民正面对进退两难的情况，要不必须无辜缴纳额外费用延长地位数十年、要不就面对地契被州政府被扣留甚至被没收的危机。”
有鉴于此，国阵必须严正看待这个问题，解释拒绝发出永久地契的原因、以及如何处理已经呈交给州政府的永久地契申请。
国阵没有政治意愿 延续利民政策
黄氏说，在民联掌权的时候，国阵特别是巫统已经多番提出反对永久地契政策，并在马来社群中煽动情绪、诋毁民联前任州务大臣拿督斯里尼查在土地政策上出卖马来族群。犹记得当时的马华州议员拿督马汉顺则对于政策表示认同，并表示民联州政府给于80巴仙折扣并不足够而要求更多，国阵在永久地契上的立场，已经印证了马华作为巫统奴才的事实，没有能力影响巫统的决定。
“从国阵巫统在作为在野党时多番反对、2008年12月时任副首相拿督斯里纳吉以国家土地理事会不批准为由打击永久地契政策、直到国阵在重夺政权后拒绝发出永久地契，显示出国阵还停留在狭窄的种族主义框框里，并没有政治意愿延续民联的利民政策。
附录1：
个案1：进退两难
一名来自狮美新村的市民在2006年7月缴纳1705令吉获得长达60年的新村地契复新；而在民联执政期间2009年1月间将地契交回给州政府以获得永久地契，当时的收费估计是3285令吉。
但是地主在今年3月收到土地局的来函，要求地主缴纳1616令吉的费用以获得99年的地契，换句话说在原本地契还有57年的时候，国阵州政府竟然为延长42年征收额外1616令吉收费，而相对永久地契的费用只是3285令吉。
由于国阵拒绝发出永久地契给华人新村地契，该名地主面对进退两难的情况：如果缴纳土地局要求的费用，他必须以1616令吉德费用延长地契42年，也不能取回2006年7月间所缴纳的1705令吉费用；但是如果不缴纳的话，在法律上土地将会被州政府没收。
进退两难，国阵拒绝落实永久地契是罪魁祸首！
个案2：国阵99年地契费用比民联永久地契高
同样来自狮美新村的一名市民，屋子地契在2009年末刚刚到期，在经过向土地局询问过后，他被告知必须为66年的地契缴纳估计超过8000令吉的收费、而99年的地契则必须缴纳估计超过1万3000令吉的费用。但是，在民联的永久地契计算方式下，该名屋主大概只需要缴纳1万1千令吉德费用。
如果国阵政府要落实亲民政策的话，为什么要向人民开刀？
附录2：
国阵在永久地契上立场演进表：
2008年3月： 民联州政府宣布颁发永久地契给霹雳州马来重组村以及华人新村。
2008年10月： 民联州政府州政府宣布转换永久地契费用计算方式、给于80巴仙折扣并颁发第一批永久地契。
2008年10月： 拿督马汉顺表示民联州政府必须展现体恤民情的胸襟，应该把原本折扣80巴仙的优惠提高到90巴仙。
2009年2月： 政变过后，州内土地局张贴告示停止接受永久地契申请。
2009年4月： 拿督马汉顺建议每10年给于99年地契以便10年付款一次
2009年12月： 拿督哈米达宣布州政府将给于华人新村一律99年地契
（怡保23日讯）民主行动党桂和区州议员黄家和律师今天表示，他已经向州议会提呈提问要求国阵州政府解释拒绝发出永久地契的原因、以及如何处理已经呈交给州政府的永久地契申请，以解决因国阵霹雳州政府没有政治意愿、没有政治勇气延续民联推行的马来重组村以及华人新村永久地契政策，而导致已经呈交永久地契申请的市民给面对许多问题以及困扰。
也是民主行动党霹雳州宣传秘书的黄家和今天在一项新闻发布会上表示，自从霹雳州的政变事件后，许多在2008年以及2009年初将地契交回给州政府以重新申请永久地契的市民都感到十分的迷惑，不清楚国阵州政府在永久地契上的立场。
黄家和表示，国阵在政变后对于这个政策始终立场模糊，直到国阵高级行政议员拿督哈米达在去年12月终于宣布国阵州政府将只给于99年地契的时候。黄氏表示，国阵拒绝延续永久地契政策的宣布已经造成市民许多的不便，一些市民必须缴纳额外的费用但只得到延长数十年的地契、而一些更发现国阵给于的99年地契比民联推出的永久地契费用更来得昂贵而负担不起。
“由于国阵只颁发99年地契，使到已经将地契交回给州政府以申请永久地契的市民正面对进退两难的情况，要不必须无辜缴纳额外费用延长地位数十年、要不就面对地契被州政府被扣留甚至被没收的危机。”
有鉴于此，国阵必须严正看待这个问题，解释拒绝发出永久地契的原因、以及如何处理已经呈交给州政府的永久地契申请。
国阵没有政治意愿 延续利民政策
黄氏说，在民联掌权的时候，国阵特别是巫统已经多番提出反对永久地契政策，并在马来社群中煽动情绪、诋毁民联前任州务大臣拿督斯里尼查在土地政策上出卖马来族群。犹记得当时的马华州议员拿督马汉顺则对于政策表示认同，并表示民联州政府给于80巴仙折扣并不足够而要求更多，国阵在永久地契上的立场，已经印证了马华作为巫统奴才的事实，没有能力影响巫统的决定。
“从国阵巫统在作为在野党时多番反对、2008年12月时任副首相拿督斯里纳吉以国家土地理事会不批准为由打击永久地契政策、直到国阵在重夺政权后拒绝发出永久地契，显示出国阵还停留在狭窄的种族主义框框里，并没有政治意愿延续民联的利民政策。
附录1：
个案1：进退两难
一名来自狮美新村的市民在2006年7月缴纳1705令吉获得长达60年的新村地契复新；而在民联执政期间2009年1月间将地契交回给州政府以获得永久地契，当时的收费估计是3285令吉。
但是地主在今年3月收到土地局的来函，要求地主缴纳1616令吉的费用以获得99年的地契，换句话说在原本地契还有57年的时候，国阵州政府竟然为延长42年征收额外1616令吉收费，而相对永久地契的费用只是3285令吉。
由于国阵拒绝发出永久地契给华人新村地契，该名地主面对进退两难的情况：如果缴纳土地局要求的费用，他必须以1616令吉德费用延长地契42年，也不能取回2006年7月间所缴纳的1705令吉费用；但是如果不缴纳的话，在法律上土地将会被州政府没收。
进退两难，国阵拒绝落实永久地契是罪魁祸首！
个案2：国阵99年地契费用比民联永久地契高
同样来自狮美新村的一名市民，屋子地契在2009年末刚刚到期，在经过向土地局询问过后，他被告知必须为66年的地契缴纳估计超过8000令吉的收费、而99年的地契则必须缴纳估计超过1万3000令吉的费用。但是，在民联的永久地契计算方式下，该名屋主大概只需要缴纳1万1千令吉德费用。
如果国阵政府要落实亲民政策的话，为什么要向人民开刀？
附录2：
国阵在永久地契上立场演进表：
2008年3月： 民联州政府宣布颁发永久地契给霹雳州马来重组村以及华人新村。
2008年10月： 民联州政府州政府宣布转换永久地契费用计算方式、给于80巴仙折扣并颁发第一批永久地契。
2008年10月： 拿督马汉顺表示民联州政府必须展现体恤民情的胸襟，应该把原本折扣80巴仙的优惠提高到90巴仙。
2009年2月： 政变过后，州内土地局张贴告示停止接受永久地契申请。
2009年4月： 拿督马汉顺建议每10年给于99年地契以便10年付款一次
2009年12月： 拿督哈米达宣布州政府将给于华人新村一律99年地契
怡保道路破旧难堪 州政府应给予满意的答复
民主行动党桂和区州议员黄家和律师于2010年3月22日（星期一）在怡保所发表的新闻稿：
（怡保22日讯）民主行动党桂和区州议员黄家和律师今天促请国阵霹雳州政府在即将来临的霹雳州议会中，答复怡保市政厅是否准备落实惠民计划，重铺怡保区内的住宅区许多破旧的道路。
也是民主行动党霹雳州宣传秘书的黄家和日前在行动党白兰园支部主席郑亚财的陪同下，巡视白兰园一带破旧的道路后，向报界如此表示。
黄氏表示，怡保市政厅在去年耗巨资重铺市区内主要的道路，确实令人有焕然一新的感觉，但是同时市政厅也不应该忽略怡保区内许多住宅区的道路已经年久失修，包括白兰园、怡保花园、高尔夫球花园等住宅区内的道路，相对其去年获得重铺的道路更为破旧、路面凹凸不平已经出现路洞，危害市民尤其是摩托骑士的安全。
黄氏表示，他本身在去年12月与市长拿督罗斯迪会面时曾经反映选区住宅区道路破旧的问题，而后者当时表示市政厅将会在今年进行重铺工作。由于至今尚未见任何工程进行，他就此促请州政府在来临的州议会中，针对他所提出的问题给于一个满意的答复。
图：黄家和（右）在郑亚财的陪同下巡视白兰园36路破损的道路。
民主行动党
Friday, March 12, 2010
Exclusive: 马华党争燃烧到怡保？ MCA internal fight burn till Ipoh?
I was on my way to my office at around 8.30a, yesterday, and I noticed these banners were hanged in my constituecy - Stadium Roundabout, perhaps put up by some anti-Chua's MCA group and managed to grab some photos of it.
---
The Banners were subsequently found to be taken down when i passed by the same area again at around 10.30 a.m.
---
Seems the MCA internal fight had burned until Ipoh...
---
Anyway, we just do our part in serving people, while watching all these things happening...
---
昨天上午我发现这两张横幅张挂在选区内的交通圈，看来马华党争已经燃烧到怡保，猜想应该是不满蔡派的马华内部的杰作吧？让利益互换的马华继续为个人利益斗争，火箭会继续服务人民，以人民利益为先。
Thursday, March 11, 2010
法院驳回安华上诉 黄家和：政治案件判决矛盾
民主行动党霹雳州社青团团长兼桂和区州议员黄家和律师于2010年3月11日（星期四）在武吉干当直弄所发表的新闻稿：法院驳回安华上诉 黄家和：政治案件判决矛盾
（直弄11日讯）民主行动党霹雳州社青团团长黄家和律师表示，联邦法院三司日前驳回前副首相安华指他12年前遭革除副首相兼财政部长职位无效的上诉申请，显示出联邦法院在涉及国阵政治利益的案件上再度作出了矛盾的判决。
也是桂和区州议员的黄家和在日前受邀出席回教党在武吉干当直弄区主办的青年论坛座谈会上发表演说时表示，霹雳州双包大臣案件中，联邦法院没有根据已经拥有40多年历史的《史蒂芬卡隆宁甘》一案的案例，在州议会没有通过不信任动议下宣判国阵赞比里为霹雳州大臣，一夜间改变了40年来的法律。
“在安华的案件中，上诉失败意味着在君主立宪的制度下，最高元首没有权力对一名副首相或内阁部长的革职作出任何反对；但是在霹雳州双包大臣案中，法院5司却认为苏丹在委任或革除一名州首长中拥有绝对的权力，矛盾的判决已经使到人民对于国家的法律感到模糊和混淆。”
黄家和表示，这证明了国家的司法制度在巫统的强权下已经沦陷，再度在涉及国阵政治利益的案件中，无法给于公平和依据法律的判决。
黄氏同时也在其演说中以流利的国语向国阵和巫统多年来所实施的种族政治左右开弓，他表示民联已经给于人民一个打破种族政治的选择，其此番言论得到出席者报以掌声的共鸣。
当晚的座谈会吸引将近400名以马来同胞为主的群众出席，而回教党青年团总团长纳沙鲁丁、槟城州团长莫哈默尤斯尼以及太平区社青团团长郑国霖也出席参与座谈会。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
