Guan Eng: Shahrizat letak jawatan 'sekadar drama'

Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang Lim Guan Eng melabelkan peletakkan jawatan Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil sebagai menteri pembangunan wanita, keluarga dan masyarakat sebagai keputusan  'separuh hati' bagi mengurangkan keributan umum sekarang tetapi pada masa yang sama merancang untuk kembali semula.

"Ia jelas, ini akan menjadi persepsi kepada masyarakat," kata Lim yang juga setiausaha agung DAP apabila ditanya mengenai pengumuman Shahrizat untuk berundur daripada kabinet selepas jawatan senator yang disandangnya tamat bulan depan.

"Beliau berbuat demikian kerana beliau merasakan boleh kembali semula... tetapi kita kata beliau melakukannya dengan 'separuh hati'. Jika beliau mahu meletakkan jawatan, (jadi) letak semua jawatan.

"Sudah tentu, beliau tidak mahu mendengar desakan pembangkang, tetapi saya berpendapat beliau perlu mendengar nasihat rakannya, Ketua Umno bahagian Cheras Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee yang menggunakan perkataan yang lebih keras berbanding saya," kata Lim.

Beliau yang juga ahli parlimen Bagan berkata sekiranya niat Shahrizat untuk melepaskan jawatannya adalah asli, beliau tidak perlu menunggu sehingga 8 April ini untuk berbuat demikian.

Semalam, Syed Ali mendakwa tindakan Shahrizat itu hanya sebagai satu 'drama'.

Katanya, sebagai seorang menteri, Shahrizat sepatutnya menunjukkan sikap bertanggungjawab terhadap parti dan negara dan bukan bermain tarik tali.

"Kalau berhenti, berhenti sahajalah. Tapi kenapa macam nak main tarik tali. Kenapa perlu kumpulkan wartawan hari ini sedangkan esok ramai wartawan akan buat liputan di Parlimen.

"Ini semua Bollywood punya cerita. Saya boleh katakan dia ini sebagai makcik Bollywood," katanya pemimpin Umno itu.

Kit Siang minta Ketua Hakim campur tangan kes Hoslan

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 Mac: Ketua anggota Parlimen DAP, Lim Kit Siang menuntut Ketua Hakim Negara Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria campurtangan dalam hukuman penjara setahun terhadap imam Hoslan Hussein yang melempar selipar ke arah hakim Mahkamah Rayuan.

Lim (bawah) berkata, tindakan itu wajar kerana insiden itu berlaku pada 22 Februari, lebih dua minggu sebelum beliau tiba-tiba dipanggil dan dihukum pada 8 Mac.

"Adakah Ketua Hakim Negara Arifin Zakaria akan campur tangan terhadap hukuman penjara setahun oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan yang keras dan berlebihan terhadap imam Hoslan Hussein semalam kerana membaling kasut, meringankan hukuman demi belas ehsan?" tanya Lim sebagaimana yang dilaporkan oleh Malaysiakini.

Mahkamah Persekutuan semalam menjatuhkan hukuman penjara setahun ke atas Hoslan atas kesalahan menghina mahkamah dengan melempar selipar ke arah panel hakim.

Pegawai alam sekitar yang mempunyai tujuh anak itu turut mendapat julukan 'imam BERSIH" kerana mengangkat jubah dan menunjukkan baju-T BERSIH yang dipakainya ketika khutbah Jumaat melarang orang ramai turut serta dalam perhimpunan itu.

Ekoran hukuman ini, Pemuda dan Muslimat PAS berazam untuk membantu keluarga Hoslam yang ditinggalkan.

Hoslan mempunyai seorang isteri dan tujuh anak yang sedang membesar.

NFC's acquisition of a residential property in Kazakhstan is ludicrous as well as a complete abuse and waste of public funds

It was exposed by The Malaysian Insider (TMI) yesterday that the police are investigating the fact that the directors of National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) has used part of the RM250 million government soft loan to purchase an "apartment" in Kazakhstan. The apartment is said to be worth RM1.7 million.

What justification can there be now from NFCorp for such a purchase, which is understood to be an "all-cash" transaction? Does the company even have any clue about the cattle industry in Kazakhstan, which is blessed with large tracts of the Central Asian Steppes or grasslands? Are we planning to export beef to Kazakhstan or are we planning to buy meat from them?

If the TMI report is indeed accurate, then there was "a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was inked in June 2011 between NFCorp and the Jambyl district of Kazakhstan to raise cattle for export to Malaysia and neighbouring countries."

While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with cattle imports as a business in Malaysia, the purpose of the RM250 million government loan is clearly not intended for such purposes. The purpose as specifically defined in the loan agreement is to establish and operate "a National Feedlot Centre to be consistent with the Government of Malaysia's policy of developing, promoting and nurturing the production of beef and beef products..."

Based on the loan agreement, NFCorp is certainly not meant to be raising cattle in, or acquiring meat from Kazakhstan, much less buying an "apartment" there.

We call on NFCorp to come clean on the Kazakhstan property purchase and confirm if the report by TMI is true. In public interest, the following questions must be answered:

1. Did NFCorp acquire an "apartment" in Kazakhstan?
   
2. What was the full purchase price of the "apartment"?
   
3. Is the property registered to NFCorp or to individual directors of NFCorp?
   
4. What is the status and use of the "apartment" as of today?
   
5. Did the acquisition of the property in Kazakhstan receive the endorsement of the Ministry of Finance?
   

If NFCorp refuses to answer the above questions, then surely Datuk Seri Najib Razak, as the Minister of Finance and the governing authority over the RM250 million soft loan must surely respond over the preposterous scandal. Datuk Seri Najib Razak must confirm if any approval has been given to NFCorp to acquire an "apartment" in Kazakhstan, whether the Ministry of Finance endorses such an acquisition and what actions will be taken by the Ministry to protect the interest of Malaysian tax-payers, if indeed such an acquisition is deemed highly improper.

The Prime Minister has no right to talk about "transformation", "fighting corruption" and ending "political patronage" if he does not even have the steel and ability to act tough on those who abuse power. Malaysians are thoroughly disappointed that the NFCorp scandals have only grown in size and incredulity over the past 6 months and yet do not see an end in sight with the Government taking any decisive action.

---

* Tony Pua Kiam Wee, DAP National Publicity Secretary & MP for Petaling Jaya Utara

Political will, national commitment and even personal obligation rather than a single law will determine whether integrity in leadership centred on an ethically based society can be established

It gives me pleasure to speak to you today at this 4th Annual Corporate Governance Summit organised here in Kuala Lumpur. I have been asked to speak on the issue of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 (or “WPA”) which was passed by the federal Parliament and has been in force in Malaysia since December 2010.

Many of us here who are interested in corporate governance will have been captivated by the ongoing saga of alleged corruption and mismanagement in the RM250million National Feedlot Centre project. This is a corporate governance issue as well as a national governance issue. The question is will there be any action taken or will be it just be another case of of the RM2.52 billion losses incurred by MAS without anyone being punished and even those that caused losses such as Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli being let off the hook.

Danaharta had agreed to settle with Tan Sri Tajudin on February 14 without enforcing a High Court decision on December 2009 in Danaharta’s favour ordering Tan Sri Tajudin to pay RM589.14 million to Danaharta, over a loan taken to purchase MAS. Where is the moral hazard?

I think I can summarise my view of the WPA by saying that is not so much a Whistleblowers Protection Act but rather a "Whispering to the Police Act". When one blows a whistle, everyone can hear. This Act is different. It only protects those who report to the police or other government enforcement agencies under conditions of secrecy. Under the WPA, a whistleblower is supposed to make a report to an enforcement agency such as the police. If the police don't take any action, that is tough. If the police decide that action should be taken, but the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, that again is tough. All you have as a whistleblower is the right to be notified of the authorities' decision, and the right not to have any detrimental action taken against you.