KONTRAK SEWA BELI JET PERIBADI BARU PERDANA MENTERI BERJUMLAH RM465,411,952.58

17 MAC 2015

Saya telah mendedahkan semalam bahawa pentadbiran Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak telah membeli sebuah lagi jet peribadi (“private jet”) kerajaan jenis ACJ320. Perkara ini telah disahkan oleh Jabatan Perdana Menteri melalui satu kenyataan yang dikeluarkan lewat semalam.

Isu utama yang dipersoalkan ialah kewajaran membeli sebuah lagi jet peribadi di kala kerajaan sudah pun mempunyai 6 jet peribadi termasuklah pesawat ACJ319 sedia ada. Tambahan pula kedudukan kewangan negara yang dibebani dengan hutang sehingga subsidi minyak pun terpaksa dihapuskan menimbulkan kemarahan rakyat apabila dana rakyat seolah-olah digunakan untuk Perdana Menteri dan Jemaah Menteri bersenang-lenang.

Oleh sebab itu, rakyat perlu tahu berapakah dana rakyat yang telah dan akan digunakan untuk membiayai pembelian jet peribadi baru ini. Bersama-sama ini saya sertakan satu mukasurat perjanjian di antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan Jet Premier One (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd yang memperincikan kos pembelian jet peribadi baru ACJ320 ini.

Perlu diingatkan bahawa kos yang diperincikan di sini hanyalah kos membeli (melalui kaedah sewa beli) dan tidak termasuk kos operasi, kos penyenggaraan dan lain-lain yang dipersetujui melalui satu lagi perjanjian.

Butir-butir utama pembelian jet peribadi baru ACJ320 untuk kegunaan Perdana Menteri, keluarga dan Jemaah Menteri adalah seperti berikut:

  1. Kerajaan Malaysia akan membayar pembelian ini dengan pembayaran deposit USD20 juta (telah dibayar) dan bakinya dibayar melalui ansuran bulanan selama 15 tahun
  1. Bayaran deposit USD20 juta yang telah dibayar adalah bersamaan RM65.22 juta mengikut kadar tukaran matawang yang ditetapkan semasa perjanjian iaitu USD1 bersamaan RM3.261
  1. Kerajaan Malaysia akan membayar ansuran sebanyak USD679,984 sebulan bersamaan RM2.217 juta sebulan selama 15 tahun untuk melangsaikan baki hutang
  1. Jumlah kos sewa beli keseluruhan untuk membeli jet peribadi baru ini adalah RM465,411,952.58 termasuk yuran perkhidmatan (“entry into services”)
  1. Sebarang risiko kadar matawang yang menyusut ditanggung oleh Kerajaan Malaysia sepanjang tempoh 15 tahun itu. Dalam keadaan nilai matawang Ringgit Malaysia turun seperti sekarang, Kerajaan Malaysia akan membayar lebih untuk menanggung kerugian akibat nilai matawang Ringgit Malaysia yang jatuh

Berdasarkan terma-terma ini, sudah tentu harga akhir yang akan ditanggung oleh rakyat adalah lebih tinggi dari RM465,411,952.58. Saya yakin tidak ada rakyat Malaysia yang bersetuju membelanjakan hamper setengah billion Ringgit Malaysia dana rakyat sedangkan masih ada mangsa banjir di Kelantan yang tinggal di dalam khemah.

RAFIZI RAMLI

NAIB PRESIDEN/SETIAUSAHA AGUNG

AHLI PARLIMEN PANDAN

Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar investigated under the Sedition Act on a speech made in Parliament

IMG-20150316-WA0091 IMG-20150316-WA0136

Sedition investigation on Nurul Izzah is unconstitutional and in contempt of the Dewan Rakyat


I refer to the ongoing police investigation on Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar under the Sedition Act on a speech made by her in Dewan Rakyat. She had read out the speech of jailed opposition leader and prisoner of conscience Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on 10th March, which allegedly attacked the judiciary.

This police investigation is illegal, unconstitutional and a serious interference with the rights and privileges of Parliament.

Article 63(2) of the federal constitution confers immunity from any proceedings in court for anything said by an MP in the Dewan Rakyat.

Subsequent to the May 13 1969 riots, the Constitution was amended to include a new Article 63(4). Article 63(4) provides an exception to the immunity under 63(2) for words uttered by MPs which fall under the Sedition Act 1948.

But this exception under 63(4) is limited. Action can only be taken against MPs for words uttered which fall under section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948 ie: on citizenship, the position of Rulers, national language or special position of Malays.

In other words, MPs cannot be charged for anything said in Parliament unless they question the foregoing ‘sensitive’ matters.

Clearly, the speech made by Nurul Izzah on behalf of the opposition leader did not touch any of the matters prohibited by section 3(1)(f) Sedition Act. Thus, no action or criminal proceeding can be commenced or maintained against her for criticism of the judiciary.

The IGP Khalid Bakar and the state police chief are thus in contempt of the Dewan Rakyat for initiating a criminal investigation under the Sedition Act against Nurul Izzah.

We hold the Home Minister fully responsible for this interference with the Dewan Rakyat as the Minister responsible for the police. The investigation must be dropped immediately and the Minister must provide an explanation to the Dewan Rakyat as to how and why such an investigation was sanctioned and commenced.

Meanwhile, the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat must in his capacity as chairman of the committee of privileges initiate an immediate inquiry into this blatant breach of parliamentary privilege by the IGP and state police chief.

Issued by,
N Surendran,
Member of Parliament,
Padang Serai.

16 March 2015

PENTADBIRAN DATO’ SERI NAJIB BELI “PRIVATE JET” BARU

16 MAC 2015

Private Jet baru yang dibeli

Private Jet baru yang dibeli

Dalam suasana rakyat tertekan akibat kenaikan harga barang dan Barisan Nasional terus memotong subsidi dan perbelanjaan pro-rakyat yang lain, saya terkejut dengan sikap tiada kepedulian pentadbiran Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak yang dengan sewenang-wenangnya membeli sebuah jet peribadi (“private jet”) baru.

Menurut jawapan Parlimen yang diberikan Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada sidang November 2013, Kerajaan Malaysia sudah mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya 6 jet peribadi termasuklah sebuah Boeing Business Jet.

Saya sertakan bersama satu surat perjanjian yang mengesahkan pembelian jet baru ini yang bertarikh 1 Disember 2014. Perolehan jet peribadi baru untuk Perdana Menteri ini dianugerahkan secara rundingan terus kepada Jet Premier One (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd yang turut mengendalikan jet peribadi sedia ada iaitu ACJ319.

Penggunaan jet peribadi sedia ada iaitu ACJ319 melibatkan kos sebanyak RM28.8 juta setahun dalam bentuk sewaan dan RM5.5 juta setahun dalam bentuk kos penyenggaraan.

Pembelian sebuah lagi jet peribadi baru yang kini di bawah pendaftaran 9H-AWK dan telah siap dicat dengan logo 1Malaysia (seperti di dalam gambar yang disertakan membuktikan bahawa pentadbiran Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak terus menerus bergelumang di dalam keborosan dan pembaziran, pada kala negara masih dikejutkan dengan skandal kewangan 1MDB.

Tindakan membeli sebuah lagi jet peribadi baru ini sudah tentu menimbulkan kemarahan rakyat pada kala rakyat terpaksa berdepan dengan pelaksanaan GST dalam tempoh 2 minggu dari sekarang. Rakyat terpaksa menanggung cukai baru yang sebahagiannya akan digunakan untuk membayar jet peribadi baru Perdana Menteri ini.

Saya mendesak supaya pembelian jet ini dibatalkan serta merta dan Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak meminta maaf dengan rakyat kerana tindakan membeli jet peribadi baru ini membelakangkan kepentingan rakyat.

RAFIZI RAMLI

NAIB PRESIDEN/SETIAUSAHA AGUNG

AHLI PARLIMEN PANDAN

TANAH PERKUBURAN BARU DI DUN TAMAN MEDAN

Pihak Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya telah melantik kontraktor melalui dokumen tawaran tender untuk Cadangan Pembinaan Kubur Islam di Taman Medan Atas Plot A dan Plot B PJS 4, Petaling Jaya. Maklumat yang tuan kehendaki adalah seperti berikut :-

TAJUK PROJEK              :   CADANGAN PEMBINAAN KUBUR ISLAM DI TAMAN MEDAN ATAS

                                              PLOT A DAN PLOT B PJS 4, PETALING JAYA

TEMPOH PROJEK           :   06 MAC 2015 Sehingga 18 SEPTEMBER 2015 ( 28 Minggu )

KOS PROJEK                 :   RM 2,146,820.00

MAKLUMAT PROJEK        :   1. KERJA-KERJA AWALAN

                                               2. KERJA-KERJA MEMBONGKAR

                                               3. KERJA-KERJA LUARAN

                                               4. PROVISIONAL SUM

                                               5. KERJA-KERJA ELEKTRIKAL

Response to We the People Petition on Anwar Ibrahim

Thank you for your petition.

The United States is deeply disappointed with Mr. Anwar’s conviction following a government appeal of the original verdict finding him not guilty. We have made this clear both through statements and in our interactions with the Government of Malaysia, and we will continue to do so.

The initial decision to prosecute Mr. Anwar, the decision to appeal the not guilty verdict, and the overturning of that verdict raise a number of serious concerns about the rule of law and the fairness of the judicial system in Malaysia. These concerns are compounded by the government’s intent to expand its sedition law, which Prime Minister Najib had pledged to repeal, to prosecute critics of the government.

The United States and Malaysia have built a strong “comprehensive partnership,” and we remain committed to expanding our cooperation on shared economic and security challenges affecting our countries’ interests in Asia and globally. At the same time, we have and will continue to urge the government to apply the rule of law fairly, transparently, and apolitically in order to promote confidence in Malaysia’s democracy, judiciary, and economy. History has shown that countries that uphold the human rights of all their citizens — regardless of their political affiliation, ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation — are ultimately more prosperous and more stable.

LAW ON ROYAL PARDON

Law Speak – The royal pardon

Posted on 1 March 2015 – 08:18pm

Gurdial Singh Nijar

RECENT events have propelled into the public domain the topic of the pardon for a criminal conviction. Several questions have emerged: Who exercises this power? How is it exercised? Who can ask for a pardon? When can it be sought? Does an application imply guilt? Can the decision to grant or reject be challenged? What is the effect of a pardon?

This article seeks to look at the applicable law and, where known, the practice in relation to pardons.

Who is given the power?

The power to grant a pardon is given explicitly by the Federal Constitution to the King – for offences committed in the Federal Territory; and to the ruler or governor of a state if the offence is committed in a state.

It is an exercise of executive power – as contrasted with the judicial functions of the courts or legislative functions of Parliament. Although executive power is vested under our constitution in the King, he is required to act on advice – either of the Cabinet or any other designated body.

The constitution has also established a Pardons Board for each of the states as well as one for all the Federal Territories. It comprises the attorney-general (or his representative), the Federal Territories minister and three other members to be appointed by the King. The King presides over the board. The board must consider the written opinion of the attorney-general before giving its decision.

The appointment of a cabinet minister seems to be at odds with the spirit of a constitutional provision which states that Parliament may make a law requiring the King to act after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, any person or body of persons other than the Cabinet – although no law has been enacted. The spirit of this provision implies that the Cabinet (which must necessarily include any cabinet member) must not be in any advisory body.

Courts often look not only at the letter of the law but, as well, its spirit to determine its reach.

In summary, the King decides whether or not to grant a pardon. He must seek the advice of the Pardons Board. Further, it is questionable whether a cabinet minister should be in the board.

Must the King act in accordance with the advice?

Does the King act in his own discretion; or must he follow the advice given by the Pardons Board?

Pre-1994 court decisions declared that it was the King’s personal discretion to decide on the grant or refusal of a pardon. A 1974 Supreme Court decision declared: “Clearly the Yang di-Pertuan Agong himself exercised the power.”

However, in 1994, the constitution was amended, following upon an intense contest between the rulers and the executive under Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The power of the King to act on his own was dramatically curtailed – except in a very limited number of prescribed situations.

A new provision was added: whenever the King exercises his functions under the constitution or any federal law where he is required to act “in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice”, then he must accept and act in accordance with such advice: Article 40(1A).

This implies that after the amendment, the advice of the Pardons Board must be accepted and acted upon. However the relevant Article 42 – which deals with pardons – was not amended to reflect this change. And court decisions since the amendment seem to reflect the same position as before the amendment. As late as 2002, a full five-judge panel of the Federal Court approved the pre-amendment principle (cited above); as did a recent 2011 High Court case.

So although the legal position – on a straight reading of the constitutional provisions – is that the King does not act in his personal discretion, case law supports the proposition that the King has the personal discretion to decide whether or not to grant the pardon. Further, he is not bound to act on the “advice” given by the Pardons Board.

The process

There are no rules governing the process. It is not stated who should be the applicant. Nor is the form of the petition prescribed. Also, there is neither a time limit for submitting the petition; nor for the King to decide. The considerations that the King must take into account are also not stated.

This is left to be inferred from matters relevant to the grant of “mercy”. The Supreme Court merely states that each case is to be decided on its own merits. The King can take into consideration matters which courts, bound by the law of evidence, cannot take into account; and he can consider public policy.

Admission of guilt?

The person convicted of a crime is appealing to the King to grant him a reprieve from the sentence. Generally and quite logically this would connote an admission of guilt.

Most cases where a pardon is sought fall in this category. Mokhtar Hashim’s death sentence was commuted. A 14-year-old boy sentenced to death was instead sent to a school for delinquent juveniles. The jail sentence of Harun Idris, one-time mentri besar of Selangor, was reduced.

What if the petition for pardon is made on the basis that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that the convict is innocent? Can a pardon be given where guilt is not admitted?

There is nothing in law to say that a pardon cannot be made on this basis; or that a pardon cannot be given taking this “innocence” into account. Of course, it may be a lot harder to get a pardon on this basis. But there is no legal constraint.

The King must act “with the greatest conscience and care and without fear of influence from any quarter” – as the higher courts have repeatedly affirmed. So he can decide on the basis of the grounds of innocence set out in a petition. The King is not obliged to give any reasons for his decision; nor are reasons normally provided when the pardon is granted.

This suggests that there is no limit to the situations when a pardon can be granted on the basis of mercy.

Further, as the courts have repeatedly declared, the King does not sit as a court. He is entitled to take into consideration matters which courts cannot take into account. He can decide on his view of public policy.

So legally speaking, it is open for the petition to be considered on the grounds it refers to, including assertions of innocence and miscarriage of justice.

In these circumstances a particular petition presented on these grounds does not necessarily imply an admission of guilt.

Can it be challenged?

Whatever decision the King makes cannot be challenged in a court of law. The courts have consistently ruled that the discretion exercised is not justiciable. Nor can anything indirectly related to it be challenged – such as a delay in coming to a decision.

What is the effect?

Harvard Law Review article, after a review of copious case law, concludes that the pardon removes all legal punishment for the offence; and if the conviction involves certain disqualifications the pardon removes such disqualifications. These accord with the provisions of our Federal Constitution which state that a member of parliament who has received a free pardon is not disqualified from being such a member. Additionally, the King is also authorised to remove the disqualification of a convicted member of parliament.

Gurdial is Professor at the Law Faculty, University of Malaya. 

KAJIAN RANCANGAN STRUKTUR NEGERI SELANGOR 2035 YANG MELIBATKAN KIDEX DITOLAK

KENYATAAN MEDIA YAB DATO’ MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR

27 Februari 2015

PENDENGARAN MAKLUMBALAS HASIL PUBLISITI LAPORAN TINJAUAN, KAJIAN RANCANGAN STRUKTUR NEGERI SELANGOR 2035 YANG MELIBATKAN PROJEK LEBUHRAYA KINRARA DAMANSARA (KIDEX)

Status penyediaan Kajian Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 (RSN Selangor 2035) adalah di peringkat Laporan Tinjauan dan telah dipublisitikan bermula 8 Disember 2014 hingga 9 Januari 2015 dan telah dilanjutkan tempohnya sehingga 31 Januari 2015. Salah satu perkara yang dimasukkan di dalam Laporan Tinjauan, Kajian RSN Selangor 2035 adalah berkaitan dengan cadangan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) yang dikemukakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan melalui Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM).

Walaubagaimanapun, Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (MMKN) ke 7/2015 pada 17 Februari 2015 dan disahkan oleh Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (MMKN) ke 8/2015 pada 25 Februari 2015 telah membuat keputusan tidak mempertimbangkan dan membatalkan pembangunan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) selaras dengan kuasa Kerajaan Negeri berhubung pembangunan tanah dan kelulusan perancangan. Keputusan ini selaras dengan pendirian Kerajaan Negeri yang tegas mengambil tindakan terhadap kegagalan pemaju untuk memenuhi syarat-syarat yang telah ditetapkan demi menjamin kesejahteraan rakyat Selangor.

Berikutan itu, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor telah mengarahkan Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor supaya semua perkara berkaitan dengan cadangan pembangunan  Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) tersebut TIDAK AKAN DIAMBIL KIRA semasa penyediaan draf Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2035 kelak dan Mesyuarat Pendengaran Hasil Maklumbalas Publisiti Laporan Tinjauan, Kajian RSN Selangor 2035 yang berkaitan cadangan Pembangunan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) yang telah ditetapkan pada 10 Mac 2015 ini adalah DIBATALKAN. Pendengaran bagi perkara-perkara lain adalah diteruskan.

MOHAMED AZMIN ALI