Search This Blog

Blogger Widgets
Your Ad Here

20 December 2012

Crony-linked contracts ....Authorities refute claims KKIA runway unsafe, in dispute with Ting

The Transport Ministry has refuted all claims that the KKIA was unsafe

Putrajaya today refuted a claim by Sarawak construction magnate Tan Sri Ting Pek Khiing that the runway at the Kota Kinabalu International Airport (KKIA) was unsafe for take-off and landing, insisting here that it has been certified safe by local aviation authorities.

In a Bernama report yesterday, the Sarawak tycoon announced that Global Upline Sdn Bhd has stopped all works to develop KKIA closed the airport runway, blaming the Transport Ministry for failing to issue the Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) to the firm for completion for one of its work packages at the airport.

Without the certification, Ting said the KKIA was not safe for any activity as it has not been recognised as complete.

“The Transport Ministry vehemently denies GUSB's statement claiming that KKIA is unsafe for airlines operations,” the ministry said in a press statement today.

“The Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), which is the authority to establish airport standards, and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB), the airport operator, have confirmed that KKIA complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO) standards.”

The ministry added that the DCA conducts periodical monitoring of the KKIA runway and has found it that it has duly complied with stipulated standards and is fit for operations.

It also urged the public not to be afraid of safety conditions at KKIA or its airlines operations, giving its assurance that necessary measure will always be taken to ensure their safety.

The ministry then explained that the airport contractor was issued a Certificate of Non-Completion and Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) for failing to complete in totality works in section one of the works by the April 30 deadline, maintaining that this in accordance with the terms and conditions in its contract.

In his statement on Bernama yesterday, Ting had said that GUSB had “practically completed” section one of the works but was still issued the CNC and LAD.

Section one includes the runway extension, resurface of existing runway, new taxiways A, C, D, E and K, installation of a 7km high tension cable and three automated pump stations, according to the Bernama report.

The article also quoted Ting as claiming that the ministry had also to pay RM113 million contractual claim for the upgrade of Kuching International Airport and RM21 million for Labuan Airport, leaving GUSB with no choice but to commence legal action to recover the outstanding payment.

But in response today, the ministry argued that the contractual claim had already been rejected by the government.






DCA confirms it? DCA kept quiet about the malfuction in the air control system in KLIA and only after PKR got insider info, that it was revealed. With the fiasco in KKIA and Penang, you think that the construction is up to standard?

Crony-linked contracts without open tender and the usual obscene markups. The ministry should act without fear or favour. The contractor is well known for greasing politicians and those in command. The ministry should stay firm against unscrupulous businessmen.

Why not adopt anti-lynas idea? Get the minister to ride the plane, taking off and landing at the same airport. If he dare not, then something fishy going on.

This "King" Kong has to go.

UMNO cronies attempt to legalize robbery to the people....AES contractor in legal face-off over removal order

Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd, one of two companies awarded the controversial Automatic Enforcement System (AES) contract, is challenging in court the Sepang Municipal Council’s directive to dismantle two speed-trap cameras installed in Selangor.

“The judicial review application will be heard on February 14,” a lawyer for the concessionaire, Alex De Silva, told The Malaysian Insider when contacted today.

The Sepang local council had, in a letter dated December 6, ordered Beta Tegap to dismantle two of its cameras that had been set up on the North-South Highway and the South Klang Valley Expressway within 14 days.

Beta Tegap is seeking to declare the local council has no jurisdiction over the two highways, but the company’s legal standing will likely be raised as well because it is a private company contracted to install the speed-trap cameras while traffic summonses are issued by the Road Transport Department, considered the rightful authority to issue any legal challenge.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has ordered a halt to all court proceedings related to the AES summonses to study legal issues that have been raised even as it said the tickets were still valid, it said in a statement yesterday.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng in a statement today acknowledged the AGC’s statement as “legally correct” but insisted “there should be no more unnecessary delay in putting an end to this sordid scheme of allowing two BN crony companies to profit based on commissions imposed on every traffic summons disguised as enforcement to reduce accidents”.

Yesterday,Putrajaya was considering suspending the implementation of the system as it appeared to duplicate police speed traps along the highways.

It is understood that Transport Minister Kong Cho Ha has been one of the few ministers who have been defending the implementation of the AES behind closed doors.

The privatised RM700 million project began in September with a pilot phase of 14 cameras but the RTD has pledged to roll out a total of 831 cameras by end-2013 to catch speeding motorists and prevent more road deaths.

The police, who enforce the speeding laws, have said they will continue enforcement and carry on putting up mobile speed traps near the AES cameras, raising the prospect of dual fines for errant motorists.

“The government is considering putting on hold the implementation of the AES due to the duplication of the summons system. That will cause hardship,” a source had told

He also noted that several lawmakers from the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) have also asked the government to stop the implementation until all views are considered.

Another source said the government wants to ensure the AES will help ensure that motorists follow speed limits throughout their journey rather than just in the areas where the cameras are situated.

“This system is to enforce speed limits and ensure road safety,” he added.






Beta Tegap, only 2 cameras to dismantle as directed,so cannot "cari makan"? or eating into your profits to pay those corrupted morons their commissions.

Why not for every one kilometre they (the police, JPJ and even Transport Ministry) put one camera. Then you will make more money for crony companies since every single car will receive summons and some multiple summons.

Let every crony company put up cameras even in the kampong roads.

Our Transport Minister keeps silent ...apparently he has vested interest in this sordid project to collect money without effort .

Another rent-seeking business from BN ...

These BN ministers, and the AG, are just like a group of monkeys running around, have no idea of implementing a scheme never properly thought out. This is a mockery. How to allow them to continue govern the country? All they think of is how to make their cronies richer.

Nothing more dangerous than the deep potholes created by relaying of roads where the manholes are!

These "deliberate" potholes are deadly to both motorcyclists and cars!

These artificial dangers can be avoided but the authorities simply do not insist on the contractors doing a proper job.

19 December 2012

bribery money to buy votes...More than one in three Malaysians to get cash bribery on January 15


About 12 million Malaysians, or more than one in three citizens, will receive cash handouts from the government on January 15, in a major boost for barisan Nasional (BN) ahead of elections expected soon after that.

Sin Chew Daily reported today that the estimated 12 million people will receive the cash through the Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (BR1M) and student aid schemes.

BR1M recipients will get handouts of RM500, while RM100 will be given to students from Standard One to Form Five.

Handouts worth RM250 will also be given out to those 21-year-old-and-above who are single and who earn less than RM2000 a month.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced the handouts as part of his Budget 2013 measures to help cushion the fallout from an uncertain economic outlook.

Dates for the RM250 book coupons for university students and the smartphone allowance given to 21-30 year olds with a monthly income of less than RM3000, will be announced by this week.

Deputy finance minister Donald Lim told Sin Chew Daily that the cash handout for bachelors over the age of 21 and earning below RM2000 a month, will also be announced at the same time.

“We predict that the families receiving handout benefits will increase by 10 per cent, rising from the previous 4.3 million households to 4.7 million.”

Lim also stated that this time two million youths above the age of 21 were predicted to come forward and receive the aid given.






Oh, how I like the use of the word handouts. You give handouts to beggars. What a bloody insult.

No money, facing deficit, but still want to spend money unwisely to buy votes.Take money from your pockets to give it to you, what a plan. Check the source of the money people, BN is skimming EPF, Khazanah, etc, just to buy your votes, and you think you should be celebrating. Other countries borrow money to invest, in Malaysia we borrow money to buy votes.

Twelve million Malaysians out of the population of twenty-eight million to receive govt. handouts shows that the country is a very poor nation, despite the so many slogans being juggled for all and sundry.

To all tax payers stop voting BN because it had squandered your money until today the nation is in deep debt. To all non-tax payers stop voting BN because after 55 years of rule BN has made a begger out of you.

why need to give out all the money in order to buy votes if the government is sincere and honest in managing the country. Dont you think people are short term minded and with RM200 to RM500 people will vote for you with corruption everywhere in Malaysia, from top to bottom.

Blatant bRIbery of the whole of Malaysia - that should be the full name behind the acronym BR1M.

Bar Council are asked to give the name of attorney in SD PI Bala

Lawyer-turned-activist Haris Ibrahim wrote to the Bar Council again today, this time releasing the name of the lawyer who was suspected to have drawn up P. Balasubramaniam's second sworn statement on the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

In his letter, Haris maintained that the “Tan Sri” lawyer should not have drafted the second statutory declaration (SD) without consulting Balasubramaniam, pointing out that the private investigator had effectively admitted to committing perjury when he signed the document.

The letter, received by the Bar Council secretariat at 1.45pm this afternoon, also suggested for the second time that this was tantamount to professional misconduct by the renowned “Tan Sri” lawyer.

Writing in his blog this afternoon, Haris revealed that he had also ticked off Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee in his letter, accusing him of publicly maligning Deepak Jaikishan's character instead of choosing to investigate the businessman's claims.

Deepak, who is also in the centre of the controversy surrounding Balasubramaniam's two statutory declarations (SDs), had recently slipped out the name of the lawyer behind the second SD during an interview with PAS organ Harakah.

But when the interview was carried on PAS' “TVPAS” channel on Youtube, the lawyer's name was muted out.

Haris had used this in his first letter to the Bar Council on Monday, urging its members to uncover the lawyer's identity and investigate if he or she had gone against the legal profession by drafting the SD without consulting Balasubramaniam.

But, citing Lim's remarks in news portal Free Malaysia Today to back his accusation, Haris said that the Bar Council chief had only chosen to criticise Deepak by saying that the businessman's “background is cause for concern”.

“Has the Bar Council investigated the background of this Deepak such that the president can now publicly call into question his credibility, or is this based on market talk or what is written in cyberspace?” he asked in his blog posting.

Haris pointed out that as Deepak is presently involved in a civil suit where he is represented by PKR lawyers R. Sivarasa and N. Surendran, Lim could have called on the solicitors to seek their client's cooperation to openly disclose the identity of the lawyer in Balasubramaniam's case.

“Instead, the president sees fit to publicly malign the character of the one person who might be able to immediately assist the Bar Council if it chose to investigate this matter?” he argued.

He later wrote in his blog that he had decided to disclose the lawyer's name privately to the Bar Council, saying he hoped this would put its members of their present “dilemma”. He did not, however, repeat the name in his blog.

Speaking to The Malaysian Insider earlier today, Haris maintained that the said lawyer should have consulted the private investigator first, pointing out that the document effectively contains his confession to perjury.

Haris also fumed over the Bar Council's seemingly non-committal response to his complaint on the matter yesterday.

Lim, in a statement yesterday, had urged more compelling evidence against the unnamed lawyer in Balasubramaniam's case after receiving Haris' complaint, saying the activist's knowledge of the individual's identity but decision to withhold it had caused “unnecessary speculation and confusion”.

Haris refuted this in a blog posting yesterday, pointing out to Lim that he had merely written to the council requesting an investigation to identify the lawyer concerned and to ascertain if there had been any impropriety in the preparation of the sworn statement.

He noted that he had mentioned in his letter to be in possession of information from reliable sources on the solicitor's identity, but said that this should not be taken to mean that he has “direct knowledge” of the person.

Haris insisted that the pertinent point of his letter had been overlooked - whether the lawyer had committed professional misconduct when preparing Balasubramaniam's  second statutory declaration (SD).

“Given that by the terms of SD2, Bala would be admitting to an offence of swearing out a prior false statutory declaration, was it not incumbent upon the solicitor(s) concerned in its preparation to have taken instructions from Bala and to have warned him of the consequences of affirming the statutory declaration that was being drawn up for his affirmation?” he asked in his blog.

Citing Section 42 and 99 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA), Haris pointed out that the Bar Council could lodge a complaint against members of the Bar to the disciplinary board and did not need to wait for others to come forward.

Section 42 states that the purpose of the Bar is to “uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour”.

According to Haris, Section 99 (3) stipulates: “Nothing in this section shall be taken to preclude the Bar Council or a State Bar Committee from making any complaint of its own motion to the Disciplinary Board against an advocate and solicitor or a pupil.”

“Is it powerless to investigate? The Malaysian Bar is powerless to investigate? Do not the decent lawyers remaining at the Bar want to get to the bottom of this?” Haris asked.

There has been a cloud of mystery over the identity of the lawyer who had drawn up Balasubramaniam's second SD on the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Balasubramaniam’s second SD had come a day after his first on July 3, 2008, regarding Altantuya’s 2006 murder, for which two elite police commandos have been convicted and are facing death sentences.

In a harried press conference on July 4, 2008, Balasubramaniam, accompanied by lawyer M. Arulampalam, came out to withdraw his first SD, where he negated the contents of the first statement, claiming it had been signed under duress.

He then produced a second one, which he claimed later in 2009 had been prepared by another lawyer, whom he did not meet with and who did not consult him when drafting the document.






Lim, you are a shame to the legal profession and NOT fit to be the president of the Bar Council. As president of this esteem council, it your duty to investigate and uphold justice and NOT to maligning the victim. SHAME on you.

EC himself conspiring to defraud the election argued about other people ....EC accuses Ambiga, Bersih of partisan agenda

The Election Commission (EC) questioned today the ability of Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan to ensure all ‘citizen observers’ in her Bersih 2.0 electoral watchdog group obey the law and steer clear of fouling up the polls regulator’s work.

EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar was reported by a Malay news portal as saying Bersih 2.0 was formed along partisan lines and that it was possible the group may have a certain agenda to protect its partisan interests.

He told Sinar Harian Online that while the prominent legal expert who is co-chairman of the electoral reforms group is seen to be familiar with the law, he asked: “But is she capable of taking care of members involved in the Jom Pantau PRU13?”

“Not all know the law, with the election closing in, this campaign launch may cause all sorts of problems to arise,” Wan Ahmad was reported as saying.

The grassroots movement that has been pressuring the government to clean up the election process had earlier this week announced it will be employing thousands more “citizen observers” as their eyes and ears to monitor the election process on polling day.

Wan Ahmad said the EC acknowledged the right of citizens to monitor the election process for any possible fraud that may arise, but said they must not disturb the work of the authorities and EC.

“We want to remind them so that Bersih 2.0 that launched this campaign will not disturb this election’s affairs,” he told the news portal.

Bersih 2.0 has already launched its “Jom Pantau” and “Jom 100” but Ambiga Sreenevasan said on Monday that these campaigns would be expanded next month to keep up the pressure on the authorities.

The lawyer-activist insisted that the polls would not be as clean as Bersih 2.0 wants and the best way to keep the authorities in check is by increasing voter turnout and employing citizens to watch out for any hanky-panky on polling day.

Ambiga said Bersih 2.0’s latest plans were born out of frustration that despite its push over the past few years, the government and the EC’s polls reform efforts have been unsatisfactory.

She rapped the EC for purportedly being “insincere”, pointing out that the agency had only recently decided to set up a special unit to clean up the electoral roll.

Ambiga also complained that the EC had failed to fulfil other key demands of Bersih 2.0, including an undertaking that all contesting parties would be given free and fair access media, international observers would be allowed on polling day and a firm commitment is made to put an end to all forms of political violence before or during campaigning.

Bersih 2.0, a coalition of more than 82 non-governmental organisations, had held its second rally for free and fair elections since 2007 on July 9 last year, earning international recognition when scenes of chaos and violence were plastered across the foreign media.






Hahaha... EC is questioning Ambiga and Bersih can be neutral!!!
But EC Chief, says EC Chief or Deputy Chief or clerks can be members of BN members, so long they work objectively....

Is EC Dep Chief so arrogant and holy that he and his people are above all other men and women?

If only the EC is committed to running a clean and fair elction, will there be Bersih? Will there be a need for the Rakyat to rally for a clean and fair election?

There is no point blaming Ambiga, all you need to do is to run the Elections clean and fair, EC! Are you committed to it? Will you be remembered as an impartial EC or one that runs an Election that favours your political masters?

If election is open, fair, clean and transparent, EC has nothing to fear unless of course Ec wants to rig the election

The real and more important question is whether EC is fair and non-partial? This is highly in suspect and doubtful giving rise to the need for Bersih. If the EC had acted all this while in fairness, there would have been no need for Bersih!

Popular Posts

Your Ad Here