Wong sing Nang webpage

Encik Wong Sing Nang: Thank you, Tuan Speaker. I rise to take part in the debate on the Motion of Appreciation to the Tuan Yang Terutama Yang di-Pertua Negeri?s Address in this August House on the 4th May, 1998.

Tuan Speaker, never in the history of our country have we encountered the kind of our entire nation economic and financial turbulence and uncertainty that have permeated during the second half of 1997 and which continued right through to the first quarter of 1998. We are all obviously distressed by the magnitude of the downturn and its repercussions and are frustrated by our inability to effectively respond to the challenge in the face of such adversity. Everyone asks what happens to our Asian miracle? What went wrong? There is no escaping the fact that all development plans of developing nations in Asia, in particular, will be seriously set back by the impact that the economic downturn will have.

RETHINKING OF ECONOMIC POLICY

What has to be recognized and not ignored is that the turmoil began more than a decade ago. Everyone was in a hurry to build, and consequently the checks and balances which is fundamental to economic growth were largely ignored.

Spectacular growth is not sustainable as the Americans and the Europeans have discovered much earlier unless it is accompanied by fiscal management. It is common knowledge that rampant corruption and nepotism are amongst the factors that have led to this massive meltdown but which seemed to be inconceivable a year ago.

But, the meltdown, Tuan Speaker, has in fact just begun. Unemployment is growing. Companies go into liquidation or into the hands of receivership. Individual goes into bankruptcy because too many loans from the banks are unable to be repaid. It is a common saying now that the bigger the car you drive, the bigger the house you live in, the deeper you are in trouble.

The intervention and support of the IMF and the restrictions and conditions that they have placed upon the huge loans in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea have implications that go beyond the bailout. There is the question of sovereignty which gives the right of all independant nations to act in their own interests.

The growing unrest in Indonesia worries each and everyone of us. What also cannot be ignored is the real danger of growing social unrest which could destablise the Government. The tremendous effect and impact on the people of Asia are real.

The question is where do we go from here now? While there is much speculation as to how long it will take for the region to recover, there are forecasts of six months to around two years. Senior Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew has come up with an assessment that many believe is realistic.

Speaking in Bangkok on January 21 1998, Lee Kuan Yew said, I quoted: ?East Asia Governments must carry out sweeping reforms to their political and economic system in order to recover from the economic crisis- a prospect which is possible within three years if the global economy is healthy.?

Mr. Lee also said: ?Relationship amongst businessmen and civil servants must not degenerate into cronyism where favours are given for return favours.?

Tuan Speaker, central to the Asian economic crisis is the lack of accountability. A system of checks and balances and public accountability must be installed to restore public confidence in the administration. Policy towards the construction of mega-projects and ?white elephant? should be reviewed and abandoned. Public tenders must be opened and not negotiated.

Sarawak Government is urged to rethink of a strategy in order to overcome the economic downturn which is expected to last for another three years.

HOUSING DEVELOPER (CONTROL AND LICENSING)
ORDINANCE 1993

Tuan Speaker, the next issue I am going to bring up is the Housing Developer (Control and Licensing) Ordinance, 1993. In Semenanjung Malaysia, we have the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act, 1966 and Regulations made thereto to control and to license the business of housing development in the Peninsular Malaysia. In Sabah, there is also an ordinance the Housing Developers Ordinance, 1978. In Sarawak, we have the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Ordinance, 1993 passed in this Dewan on 16th November, 1993. This ordinance has been gazetted on 13th December, 1993 but not yet enforced. I have checked with all the statutory bodies and have discovered that this Ordinance has indeed not been enforced.

Tuan Speaker, this Ordinance is essential and very important to give protection to house purchasers. One wonders why such an important Ordinance to protect house purchasers? has still not been enforced despite the fact that it has been passed in this August House five years ago in 1993.

Many purchasers have saved just enough money in their lifetime to purchase a house. However, very often they are in a poor bargaining position. With modest means against the rich and powerful developers, the terms and conditions of sale set by the developers are either ?you take it or you leave it.? They are many occasions where the developers absconded and ran away with the deposits and instalment payments made by the purchasers leaving them in a desperate state, unable to have their purchased houses completed and moved in. On other occasions, the developers charged the parent land to banks or financial institutions to raise bridging loan to finance the development of the housing projects. The banks took foreclosure proceedings and the purchasers lost everything. Such deplorable state of affairs are happening in the State every now and then.

The housing project along Lane 13 Oya Road, Sibu is but one of the few examples. The developer abandoned the project a few years ago. The second example is the housing project along Jalan Sungai Merah near the new Federal Complex, Sibu. Here, the developers Grand Hill Construction Sdn Bhd also abandoned and absconded and the whole project left uncompleted. There are 40 over purchasers who have to face the prospect of eviction by the landowners. Tuan Speaker, there are many other examples in the state where the purchasers face the same consequence and fate. Another example is the Tanjung Batu Condominum Project in Bintulu undertaken by Kabuli Sdn Bhd.

The 1993 Ordinance provides for the control and licensing of housing development in the State. Any housing developer who engages in, carries out or undertakes a housing development of more than eight units has to apply to the Ministry responsible for housing license under S.5(I) and the license will only be granted if a deposit in the amount of RM100,000 in the form of cash or an amount equivalent of 5% of the value of the works to be undertaken as may be determined by the Controller whichever amount is the lesser.

No housing development shall be allowed unless a housing developer license is granted under the said Ordinance. The Minister responsible for Housing will appoint a Controller of Housing, Deputy Controller and such number of inspectors and officers as the Minister deems fit.

There are however conditions and restrictions for the granting of the license and provisions for the setting up and opening of the Housing Development Account under S.8(1) is one of such conditions. If in the opinion of the Minister that the developer is likely to become unable to meet his obligations to the Purchasers, then the Controller can serve a notice on the developer to direct the licensed housing developer to open and maintain a Housing Development Account with a bank or financial Institution and direct the licensed developer to immediately give account to the Controller all purchase monies received from the sale of housing accommodations under the housing development project undertaken by him and, monies which are still due and payable by the purchasers to be paid into the Housing Development Account.

This Housing Development Account shall not be deemed to form part of the Developers? property or the property of his company in the event that:

(a) The licensed developer enters into composition or arrangement with his creditor or has a receiving order or adjudication order made against him, or

(b) The licensed housing developer, being a company, goes into voluntary or compulsory liquidation under S.8(4). Upon the happening of any of these two events, then the monies in the Housing Development Account shall be vested in the Official Assignee, trustee in bankruptcy or liquidate as the case may be and to be utilized for all or any purpose, for which monies are authorised by regulations made under this Ordinance to be withdrawn for this project alone.

Tuan Speaker, this will give the consumers or the purchasers a protection in the event that the licensed developer goes bankrupt or absconded. The money in the Housing Development Account shall be utilized to complete the abandoned projects. The Minister responsible for the housing should be given power to give directions for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the purchaser.

If the licensed developer shall be in breach of the 1993 Ordinance a fine will be imposed which shall not be less then RM10,000 and not more than RM100,00 and/or an imprisonment term not more than five (5) years.

During this crucial period of economic meltdown, there are a lot of cases where housing projects were abandoned by the developers who have absconded and those purchasers who have purchased their respective houses from them are facing the consequence of not being able to become owners of their houses.

Tuan Speaker, the Dewan and the Government must immediately take steps to enforce this ordinance, in order to safeguard the interest of the purchaser. A good Ordinance must be enforced as soon as possible and I do not know why the State Government takes five years up and till now have not enforced this ordinance and I know in Semenanjung Malaysia there is the same act and there are regulations and by-law are to be made under this ordinance. I do not know whether the by-law and ordinance has been made under this ordinance. If not, I urges the State Government to immediately look into this matter and make regulations and by-law under this ordinance and enforce it as soon as possible because the purchasers? interest, the interest of the buyer of the house is of paramount importance that the State Government must safeguard it. Sarawak is the only state which has not enforced this ordinance while Sabah and Semenanjung Malaysia already have the Housing Developer Act or Ordinance which is in force.

RM4.14 MILLION SAND ROYALTIES ? NOT COLLECTED

Tuan Speaker, the next issue I want to talk about concerns the sand royalties due on the sand extracted between the years 1991 to 1995 which I believe stands at RM4.14 million. I now wish to call upon the Government to take immediate action on the Company concerned to collect that amount.

The 31st Report of the Public Account Committee laid in this Dewan Undangan Negeri on 4th May, 1998 on page (ii) provided that, I quote:

? An Audit of the collection of royalties on the extraction of sand was carried out in Divisional Lands & Survey Office, Sarikei on November, 1995. The audit covered the estimate usage of sand for 13 construction projects. The audit revealed that about 9.49 metric tons of sand had been used to fill the site of the 13 projects for the period of 1991 to 1995.?

The PAC was informed ?That the total outstanding royalties as on the 18th October, 1997 is RM4,039,534.40 despite reminders being sent to the supplier of sand concerned. The Acting Director of Lands & Surveys reiterated that they can only collect deposits from those who have licenses, but not the illegal extractors?.

The question we have to ask here is why this RM4.039 million is only confined to Sarikei Division for the year 1991 to 1995. What about other divisions? Will the Minister concerned explain the positions in other divisions? How much royalties are now owed to the State of Government?

The government should formulate ways and means to collect the royalties on the extraction of sand as speedily as possible. The Government should immediately take action against the contractors or companies who have failed to pay the royalties on the extraction of sand and publish the names of the defaulting companies as the public has a right to know the companies involved.

As I have said in the Public Accounts Committee Meeting on page 18 and I quote, what I had said on that occasion,

?Look at this, some are really ridiculous, you know. Look at the proposed TAR College in Bintangor, M.V. Wee Hong, Lorong 9, Bintangor Road. I doubt if we could we collect any of this. And then these are very big companies involved. Hock Seng Lee Development Company, even Rimbunan Hijau was involved. Apa itu, we cannot allow this sort of things to go on. I am surprised that this is the first information I have on this with the names of the companies.?

Tuan Speaker, the Government must take drastic action to recover the overdue royalties on the extraction of sand.

SIBU JAYA LOW-COST HOUSING ESTATE

The next issue, Tuan Speaker, I would like to raise is to urge the Government to build schools, clinics and markets at Sibu Jaya Low Cost Housing Estate at Sibu/Durin Road.

Phase I of the Sibu Jaya Low-Cost Housing Estate has been completed and over five hundred plus house owners have already moved into the new housing estate. More will be moving in and, from the information I gathered, more than one thousand units have been sold. The main complaint from the housing estate owners is that at present there is no primary schools or secondary schools or even kindergarten. Residents would have to send their children to Sibu town for schooling which is approximately 24 km away. This has greatly hindered many buyers of their intention to move into their new houses.

The Government should in future stipulate as a condition precedent for the low cost housing estate developer to construct the basic infrastructure in the housing estate in proportion to the housing units such facilities as schools, clinics and markets, so that when the new house owners move into the estate, they will be able to send their children to the schools thereby.

Tuan Speaker, I call on the Government to rent temporary premises such as shophouses which will be completed soon, for schools to cater for the education of the children of those house owners who have already moved into the housing estate. These temporary premises may be used as primary schools as an immediate short term solution. In the long term the Government must construct schools both for primary and secondary education to cater for all the children of the house owners living in the estate.

Another complaint from the people in the housing estate is that at present there isn?t any vegetable market there. I propose that the Government, especially Sibu Rural District Council should construct a market as soon as possible instead of letting the private sector to construct the market and then rent it out to the Council. To my understanding, there is a proposal from a one private developer to construct the market of 47 stalls for the sum of RM90,000. Upon completion thereof the Council will issue licence to each hawker stall for a fee of RM300 per month. A simple calculation will show that in one year a sum of RM169,200 will be collected from the hawker stalls as licence fee.

I also understand that the Developer will be allowed to collect the fee for a period of two years to recover the cost of construction and make a handsome profit as the total fee to be collected would be RM338,400 assuming that all the hawkers licence fee are the same at RM300 per licence per month and assuming that all the 47 stalls are rented out.

The Sibu Rural District Council should itself embark to construct a vegetable market in the Low-Cost Sibu Jaya Housing Estate and should not at any time thereafter to privatize it. It is high time for the Sibu Rural District Council to look into this problem urgently and not to impose high hawkers? licence fee. This will alleviate the estate dwellers? financial burden in not having to buy expensive vegetables which they would have to otherwise.

Tuan Speaker, the Government should also look into the possibilities of building bus stops, clinics, sport facilities, etc. to cater for the increasing population of the estate dwellers.

KUCHING TAMAN RIVERVIEW

Tuan Speaker, I am going to touch on the Kuching Taman Riverview. SEDC should remedy the defects to the various houses complained of being cracked and sinking.

The Kuching Taman Riverview Housing Estate owners in the past had complained that the houses constructed by SEDC had failed to comply with the drawings and as a result the purchasers suffered great inconvenience and losses. Some of the buyers had booked and paid their deposits as early as 1971. At that time those houses were advertised at RM14,000 per unit but the final price for each unit was eventually transacted at about RM60,000.

In a report prepared by a qualified civil engineer, it states that there is strong evidence that the whole retaining and protection structure is sliding away. The road ending at between Lots 1758 and 1757 has piled about five feet from the retaining structure and has settled by more than nine inches. The concrete apron for each of the lots has failed totally. Very serious cracks occurred at the riverside concrete footpath and in some areas as much as five inches.

Tuan Speaker, the concrete apron slab which is supposed to be 100 mm thick is actually only 65 mm thick and in some places as Lot 1757 the apron slabs are about 50 mm thick only. The substantial size of broken slabs found to be without any reinforcement could imply that the laying of BRC during construction was done in a substandard manner. Generally, the report say cracks of varying degree in width about 1-1 mm are quite common occurrence at the car porch area.

The SEDC has in 1991 offered to repair the houses up to the value of RM3,000 only. However, some house owners never got paid, for example owners of Sublot 1599, 1608, etc. Why such selective payments? We wonder.

Tuan Speaker, in view of the problem faced by the house owners in the Taman Riverview, SEDC should set up a five-men committee, empowered to look into the matter urgently and seriously try to find a solution to this long delayed problem. Morally, SEDC as a statutory agency involved in housing estate development, should provide all necessary assistance to solve the problem as speedily as possible.

FISHING RIGHT OF THE SARAWAK FISHING COMMUNITY

Tuan Speaker, the next issue I intend to touch is on the fishing right of the Sarawak fishing community.

Recently, the State Government has announced to review and intend to invite the entrepreneurs in fishing industry from Semenanjung Malaysia to enter into joint venture agreement with local fishing communities to engage in fishing in Sarawak territorial waters. The various fishing associations have expressed their views through all mass media and overwhelming majority oppose to such move because they view the move by the State Government is against their interests and also the interest of the consumers at large, for the price of fish in Sarawak is much cheaper than the price in Semenanjung Malaysia.

From the historical and constitutional aspects, the local fishing industry has done very well both in terms of volume caught and the method employed.

Constitutionally, when Sarawak jointed the Federation of
Malaysia as a co-partner it was expressly agreed that the
rights of the territorial fishing grounds shall absolutely belong
to the State Government. The Inter-Government Committee
Report (IGC) states and , I quote,

?We consider that fisheries are appropriate to the Concurrent List. On the one hand international complications. Sometimes arise which are the concern of the Federal Government; on the other hand there is the need to ensure that day-to-day administration is on a local basis and that traditional fishing grounds and local rights are fully protected, and this is probably the concern of the State Government.?

Tuan Speaker, thus, the fishing rights belong to Sarawakians. The State Government should consider seriously not to invite the fishing entrepreneurs from Semenanjung Malaysia to enter agreement with local communities to fish in Sarawak waters, otherwise it constitutes a violation of our constitutional arrangement with Semenanjung and the spirit thereof when Sarawak becomes a partner in Malaysia in 1963. The State Government should stand firm not to give in despite pressure from Semenanjung Malaysia and we are fully behind the State Government to safeguard our constitutional rights to our fishing grounds.

Tuan Speaker, according to a leading US scientific magazine ?Science? (Volume 279 dated 26.2.1998) and the voice of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the destruction of life in the oceans has reached an alarming stage. As the catch in the world?s oceans continues to drop, it has triggered off new trends which have accelerated the whole process of depletion. Unless urgent steps are taken to arrest this process, our children will inherit oceans without fish.

The main agrument for the State Government to invite the fishing entrepreneurs from Semenanjung Malaysia to enter into joint venture with the local fishing industries is that they have better facilities and are equipped with modern equipment and technology which would enable them to harvest very well thereby increasing the volume of catch for export.

Speaking as a non-fisherman but with friends and relatives in the fishing industry, I am confident to stand up and say aloud that our local fishing vessels and trawlers are even better equipped than our counterparts in Semenanjung Malaysia. It is our methods of sustainable fishing that our 200 miles economic zone is still having plenty of fish. Had our local fishermen use trawl nets fitted with wheels and rollers that drag across the bottom of deep oceans, removing everything of any size, then our 200 miles economic zone would have no fish left.

Tuan Speaker, also our local fishing trawlers are well equipped. Radar allows ships to operate in the fog and in the dark; Solar locates the fish precisely, and GPS (geographical positioning system) satellites pinpoint locations so that ships can return to productive spots.

We have to bear in mind the practice of sustainable fishing and not ?once for all? fishing. Combined with larger nets made from new, stronger materials, modern fishing vessels guided electronically which can sweep the oceans clean is precisely what is happening in other countries but, luckily not in Sarawak. We have to pay tribute to our local fishing industries for their sustainable fishing and quality fish yield.

In view of such grave consequences if we let the Semenanjung Malaysia fishing trawlers to enter Sarawak on a joint-venture with local fishing communities, the Government should embark on a consultation with all the fishing communities and unless and until the majority agree to such a movement, the State Government should consider not to review it and let us jointly uphold and respect the Cobold Commission Report Recommendation?s spirit when Sarawak joined Malaysia as a partner and not merely as a State within Malaysia.

Tuan Speaker: Yang Berhormat, how much more time do you need?

NCR LAND

Encik Wong Sing Nang: The last issue, I would like to touch on the NCR land.

Tuan Speaker, since the second half of 1995, the State Government has introduced a NCR land development scheme called ?Konsep Baru?. Under this scheme, the NCR lands in the area would be amalgamated into a ?land bank? and a land title issued in the name of joint-venture company lasting for a period of 60 years. Furthermore, the Government has repeatedly said that this joint-venture development is originated from the NCR landowners? own initiative to invite the Government to develop their land. We fully support this type of development if the local communities and NCR landowners are willingly and without coercion to participate in this ?Konsep Batu? NCR development.

But cases of dispute over NCR land prove otherwise. There have been cases where dispute over NCR land ever resulted in death as in the case in Bakong when the police opened fire and killed a person involved in the dispute.

The Bakong shooting case was a dispute between an Iban longhouse dwellers in Bakong (about 100 km from Miri) and the workers of the companies that were going to develop their land. During the height of the incident, the longhouse people were said to have seized three bulldozers from the workers and attacked the police officers who moved in to retrieve the bulldozers. Three of the longhouse residents and eight policemen were injured in the clash. One person from the said longhouse later died from a gunshot wound in the head at the Miri General Hospital.

Tuan Speaker, on 29th December, 1997, the longhouse head TR Banggau Andop and two others filed a suit to stop the activities of the oil plam plantation companies, Segarakam Sdn Bhd, Prana Sdn Bhd, Empresa (M) Sdn Bhd within their native customary land. They also named LCDA and the State Government as defendants in the case. They challenged the right of the Companies and sought a declaration that the provisional lease granted by the Lands and Survey Department to the Companies was illegal, null and void.

Tuan Speaker, from information obtained, the companies had already stopped operating in the area and are withdrawing their activities therein.

I also understand that immediately after the Court case on 23rd January, 1998, Headman TR Banggau was arrested by the police. There was no explanation given to him for his arrest. When TR Banggau was released, he was charged with ?gang robbery? and ?using of arms in a riot?. The police had also conducted an investigation into the killing of the man from the longhouse.

In another case, as an example, 42 indigenous people had been arrested in Sungai Bong, Miri Division in a dispute with an oil palm plantation company when they were trying to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with the land surveyors who worked for the plantation in June, 1997. The 42 people arrested were then asked to sign a bond of good behaviour by the Magistrates Court, Miri. A number of them refused to sign and challenged the Magistrate?s Court decision in the High Court Miri. The High Court Miri ruled in favour of the indigenous people.

Tuan Speaker, these two cases clearly show that some of the indigenous people are not willing to participate in the New Concept of NCR land development. A word of caveat. In embarking on the new concept of NCR land development, the Government should handle it on a harmoniously and amicably and to settle any disputes before the plantation companies move in. I support the NCR land development concept that it is done with the peoples? participation and at the local communities invitation over their initiative. Only then can we develop together and work for a better future.

Tuan Speaker, the reason I cited these two cases is not because, I am against this concept of NCR land development but because I feel that this House should be informed so that the authority concerned can approach the problems better instead of having disputes between the authority concerned and the landowners, resulting in somebody being killed or arrested by the police. I am sure there are ways and means to convince the people to participate in the NCR land development in the event that they are not willing to do so. I will call on the Government not to put pressure on them but let them participate when they decide to do so.

Tuan Speaker, these are the issues that I have raised in this debate and thank you for giving me the chance to put forward my views.