I invite the people of Johor who wish to have questions put up to Ministers in Parliament to email them to the five Pakatan Rakyat MPs in Johor, including email to me at [email protected] .
The proposed questions should reach us by June 3 as the deadline for MPs to submit questions for the first meeting of the 13th Parliament is 5th June 2013.
The 13th Parliament will meet for 16 days from June 24 to July 18, with the swearing-in of the 222 new MPs elected on 5th May on 24th June, the official opening of Parliament by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on 25th June and the working session of Parliament starting with the debate on the Royal Address on 26th June 2013.
The 13th Parliament will have three meetings this year. The second meeting of Parliament will be for eight days from 23rd September to 3rd October.
The third meeting, the 2014 budget meeting, will be for 27 days from 21st October to 5th December 2013.
Thumb up to PRs’ MPs for giving the rakyat to air their questions. Hopefully other MPs will follow suit..
*correction :
..for giving the rakyat the chance to air…
PR is Rakyat Party; BN is UMNO Party!!!!!!
This is good. Keep it up.
Exemplary! Government that listens to the people! Unlike the bloody BN only interested in lining their own pockets & wasting country’s money. F*** Naj & BN!
My questions are:
1. The constitution does not provide for dual pricing of goods, services and properties why does the government continue to allow policies which force non-bumiputras to pay 7 percent more than bumiputras in the purchase of identical dwelling unit. When bumiputras and non-bumiputras are employed by the government, they receive the same pay for same work. Why should non-bumis pay 7% more when their colleagues earning the same salary pay less.
2. The NEP was supposed to last a generation of twenty years with a specific target of achieving 30% equity share in the corporate sector. When the target was said not to have achieved in the specific date, why did the government not concentrate in acquiring the equity shares and holding them in trust for Malays, and disband all race-based policies spawned by NEP. The government failed in 1990. Why does the government choose to fail even now?
3. The government linked corporations were originally created to help Malays achieved the 30% equity target. Has the government included GLCs share accrued in the computation of Malays ownership in the corporate sector? If it has, what is the amount contributed to Malays. If it has not, why not?
4. NEP target of 30% equity capital owned by Malays did not specify that they should be owned by capable Malays; these are to be shared widely by Malays. Why did Najib choose to sell GLCs to Malays of his choice who are said to be enterprising?
5. The government statistics on Malays’ ownership in the corporate sector is questionable, as scholars of all races including Malays have questioned the reliability of government statistics. NEP has gone on for 42 years, more than twice the promised duration made by the late Tun Razak. Why should not the government be transparent on the computation of the most important set of data which not only affect the reputation of the government for failing to implement a programme set for a fixed duration, but it also prolongs the implementation of government programmes based on race alluding to government practicing racial discrimination? Would the government agree to engage an independent body to assess the achievement on Malays ownership in corporate equity. Should there be a shortfall, it is suggested that the shares in GLCs and where necessary, more market purchase by Petronas funds, up to the 30% target, and have these equity be distributed widely to bumiputras, and end NEP. Would the government agree? if not why not?
Additional questions:
1. It appears that the BN government is too modest for not claiming credit for having achieved the goal of NEP with regard to the 30% equity share. Why does the government prefer to keep NEP when it has already achieved the target?
2.The proportion of government servants by race almost reflected the racial composition in 1970. It is now skewed towards identifying government employees with Malays, an objective NEP was supposed to prevent, but was responsible for its creation instead. When would government servants intake begin to reflect racial composition in the country?
3.Perkasa demanded that 60% of seats of learning be reserved for Malays. UiTM has more than 60% Malays. When would the other 40% be reserved for non-Malays?
4. The matriculation classes have only 10% non-Malays among the students. When would the government increase non-Malay share to 40%?
Additional question:
1. Is FELDA scheme treated as if they were small holdings in the computation of Malays ownership in equity capital? If not how much do FELDA schemes and its subsidiaries contributed to the total equity share held by Malays. How much still are plantation estates held by foreigners, in terms of acreage and equity capital held by foreigners in that regard.
2. The original requirement in the NEP was for Malays to achieve 30% participation in commerce and industries. The 30% equity share was a proxy measure, a statistical equivalent, accepted by the government to effect that measure. Corporate sector was selected because these corporations maintain separate accounts exclusively for their economic activities. FELDA is run on a corporate scale as it maintains exclusive accounts of its economic activities. Thus FELDA might not have paid up equity, the equity capital should be equal to its net-worth. Corporations owned by FELDA should accrue 100% to Malays since FELDA settlers are exclusively Malays. How much has FELDA FGV accrued to Malays total equity capital?