Friday, June 20, 2008

A I D S

Acquired Intense Denial Syndrome (AIDS)

Kenapa masih deny lagi? Sudah ada satu parti komponen yang secara terang-terangan hilang kepercayaan kepada Pak Lah. Kenapa masih dinafikan? Kenapa masih dipersoalkan yang itu bukan keputusan SAPP tetapi itu pendirian presidennya sahaja?

Samada itu pendirian Presidennya atau SAPP tidak penting. Yang pentingnya ada yang sudah tidak percaya kepada Pak Lah.

Kenapa pula sebagai jawapan kepada permintaan SAPP/Yong Teck Lee, Pak Lah katakan yang Yong Teck Lee itu tamak. Sudah ditawarkan Senatorship/Special Envoy, Yong Teck Lee masih tidak mahu. Yong Teck Lee bukan tidak percaya sebab jawatan yang dia hendak. Yong Teck Lee tidak percaya sebab apa yang orang Sabah minta masih tidak dapat.

Apa yang diminta oleh SAPP terdapat dalam blog parti itu http://sapphq.blogspot.com/
Yang mereka minta adalah seperti berikut :

Monday, June 9, 2008

SAPP's 14 Points "Sabah Issues"
SAPP's 14 points submitted to the PM on 7 April 2008. Long and overdue issues highlighted.

SAPP’s 14 points submitted to PM

1. Political autonomy should be enhanced so that Sabah can manage its own affairs, including the implementation of the Sabah Development Corridor, 9th Malaysia Plan projects and the civil service.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

2. Respect for and recognition of the State Government under the leadership of the Chief Minister of the day. At times, Sabah representatives bad mouth other Sabah leaders in front of federal leaders. This has made Sabah look divided and therefore easily manipulated.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

3. Sabah needs increased representation at the national political (Cabinet) and administrative (civil service) main stream and revival of the Ministry of Special Affairs for Sabah and Sarawak.
Response from the Federal Government? PM announced 2 for civil service. No reply on Minister of Special Affairs.

4. A non-racial approach to national unity and the empowerment of minority groups are also important in nation building to stop the polarization of racial and religious communities in the country.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

5. There is also a need to clarify once and for all the validity of post-NEP New Economic Policy) policies so that any affirmative action must reach the target groups, irrespective of race, that is the people truly in need of assistance.
Response from the Federal Government? No clarification to date.

6. The government must embark on an immediate action plan to solve the illegal immigrant situation in Sabah, including the syndicated My Kad and other dubious documents, that has been a source of unhappiness among the people.
Response from the Federal Government? Cabinet Committee merely window dressing. (Same committee was announced in 2004)

7. The closure of the JPPS (Federal Department of Development) in Sabah. The reason for JPPS's existence is long gone.
Response from the Federal Government? Closure affirmative, only after more than a decade. 38 local staff not given post.

8. Abolition of the double taxation on oil palm in the form of cooking oil subsidies paid ever since June 2007. This taxation should be refunded to the oil palm planters concerned. On the other hand, Sabah does not benefit from the other rice-producing regions in the country. In fact, we pay more for the rice that we consume in Sabah.
Response from the Federal Government? A new tax of 7.5% will be imposed on CPO millers in Sabah and Sarawak and 15% from Peninsular Malaysia. Questionable Windfall Profit Levy.

9. To address the higher freight charges, exorbitant air fares, increasing costs of living, inefficient internet broad band services, electric power break downs, bureaucratic red tape and a host of other entrenched interests (BERNAS monopoly, proton car prices, newspaper prices, KLIA-spoke and wheel policy (against an open air policy), etc..) have staked up against a State like Sabah.
Response from the Federal Government? No action.

10. Federal negligence, the abrupt way that the Money Lenders Act 1951 (Act 400) was extended to Sabah on 1 January 2008. No mechanism was put in place to administer the new law. This has caused much confusion, financial losses and potential legal disputes in Sabah. How can this be allowed to happen in the first place? How can the Sabah Money Lenders Ordinance 1901 (Sabah Cap 81) be brushed aside just like that? Where is the hurry to displace an already established administration of the Sabah Money Lenders Ordinance that has worked well for a century? Now, Sabah is left to bear the consequent losses.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

11. Proposal to make legally binding (on the Federal Treasury) the compensation of loss of revenues due to Sabah under the Part V of the 10th Schedule of the Federal Constitution (Additional Sources of Revenue Assigned to Borneo States). This relates to import duty and excise duty on petroleum products in Sabah and Sarawak. Parliamentary amendments (necessitated by the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA)pact) to the Sales Tax Act 1972 in 1999 had caused Sabah and Sarawak to lose this revenue which amounted to about RM 200 million per annum per state.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

12. The Special Status of the High Courts in Sabah and Sarawak under Article 121 of the Federal Constitution must be borne in mind too. The amendments to the Sabah Advocates Ordinance 1953 proposed by the Sabah Law Association has been long overdue to be made into federal law. This is so that the Legal Profession Act need not be extended to Sabah (and Sarawak).
Response from the Federal Government? None.

13. Proposal that Petronas money should be used to build the Labuan bridge because Labuan needs a bridge to the main land.
Response from the Federal Government? None.

14. To seek an increase of oil royalties to 20%.
Response from the Federal Government? None.


Mari kita tackle isu yang sebenar BUKAN ALIHKAN ISU.

No comments:

Post a Comment

No comment moderation but need to know who is commenting. Please let us know who you are. Keep it as professional as possible. Didn't we agree to disagree? Regards and best wishes.(DSN)