MY VOICE FOR NATION |
| Posted: 29 Dec 2014 01:24 AM PST |
| You are subscribed to email updates from MY VOICE FOR THE NATION To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Chong Chieng Jen's Blog |
| Chong files Legal Suits Against SESCO for over-charging its Customer by RM11,668.30 Posted: 26 Dec 2014 12:50 AM PST  On 24-12-2014, I have filed a Sessions Court Summons against SESCO for over-charging its customer, one Mr. Bong. The background facts of the case is as follows: 1. On 27-10-2011, SESCO changed the meter at Mr. Bong's house. 2. 18 months later, SESCO issued a letter alleging that the meter was defective and that because of the defect, Mr. Bong had under-paid SESCO a sum of RM11,668.30. 3. The average monthly electricity consumption of Mr. Bong before the change of meter was RM71. After the change of meter, his average monthly electricity consumption was only RM69. Basically, there is no change in the recorded monthly consumption before and after the change of meter. 4. Despite Mr. Bong's appeal to SESCO, SESCO insisted that Mr. Bong pays the said RM11,668.30 failing which SESCO shall disconnect electricity supply to his house. While DAP does not condone electricity theft, we also condemn SESCO for exploiting its innocent customers, especially where there is no change in consumption level before and after the change of meter. In Mr. Bong's case, the alleged under-payment of RM11,668.30 implies that his monthly consumption level before the change of meter would have been RM400 per month. This is absolutely ABSURDbecauseuntil today, Mr. Bong's monthly electricity consumption level is still well below RM100. The allegation of underpayment of RM11,668.30 defies all logics. In such clear case of injustice, we DAP lawyers are prepared to defend the rights of the people in Court with token fee or no fee at all. However, we have limitation of manpower and time, especially when we are up against a multi-billion corporation financed by public fund. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that SESCO is not exploiting the people and abusing its power to disconnect electricity supply to coerce its customers into paying exorbitant charges. At present, in any case of alleged arrears, SESCO's customers can only appeal to the internal appeal committee of SESCO. In most cases, the internal appeal committee of SESCO will simply uphold its alleged arrears, even though there are glaring inconsistenciesin the figures, as evident in the case of Mr. Bong. In short, SESCO plays the prosecutor, judge and executor roles 3-in-1. With such appeal process, how can anyone expect fairness and impartiality? To prevent such continued exploitation of the people, the Government should set up an independent appeal board to address the complaints of the people against the exorbitant charges by SESCO. Chong Chieng Jen MP for Bandar Kuching ADUN for Kota Sentosa |
| Posted: 26 Dec 2014 12:49 AM PST （古晋26日讯）古晋市国会议员兼哥打圣淘沙州议员张健仁于本月24日，代表一位黄氏民众，入禀法庭起诉砂电力公司胡乱征收不合理的电费。张健仁透露，有关案件的重点如下： 1. 在2011年10月27日，砂电力公司更换黄氏住家的电表。 2. 18个月后，砂电力公司出信表示该电表有问题，因而黄氏少还了1万1668令吉的电费。 砂电力公司向黄氏追讨这笔1万1668令吉的电费。 3. 黄氏平均每个月的电费，在换电表前是71令吉，在换电表后则是69令吉。 基本上，换电表前后，黄氏每个月的平均电费都没有什么大变动。 换电表之后，他的平均电费，不增反降。 4. 虽然黄氏有向砂电力公司上诉，但是，砂电力公司却坚持黄氏必须还清这1万1668令吉的电费，不然，砂电力公司就会割电。 张氏表示，行动党不鼓励偷电行为，但是，行动党也谴责砂电力公司滥用其"割电"的权力，欺压它的顾客，尤其是当换了电表之后，也没有显著的增加电费记录。 "在黄氏的这个个案，砂电力公司的指责是他少还1万1668令吉。 这也意味着，若根据砂电力公司的指责，黄氏在换电表前的平均用电量是每月400令吉。 到今天为止，黄氏的每月用电量还是少管100令吉。 因此，这少还1万1668令吉的指责，根本就不合逻辑和常理。" 张氏表示遗憾，砂电力公司根本就不考虑这些理由。 它因为有"割电"的权力，就采取了非常霸道的态度，即，"你不还，我就割电"，强迫黄氏还这笔不合理的电费。 张健仁说，如此不公平的案例，行动党的律师准备以象征式收费或不收律师费的方式，捍卫受欺压人民的权力。但是，个人力量有限，毕竟我们所面对的是一间庞大的官联公司。因此，政府有责任确保砂电力公司没有滥用"割电"的权力欺压人民及强迫人民还不合理的收费。 张氏也说，目前，任何针对砂电力公司不合理收费的上诉，都是向砂电力公司内部委员会上诉。张氏所接到的许多投诉，这所谓的上诉委员会，往往都保持原本的收费，就算这些收费一看就知道是不合理的，如黄氏的案列。 "基本上，砂电力公司一人扮演主控官、法官和执法官的3个角色。 这种上诉程序又那有公正可言？" 张健仁建议，为了避免砂电力公司继续滥用"割电"权力向人民征收不合理的费用，砂州政府应设立一个独立的投诉委员会，监督砂电力公司的收费和运作。 |
| Posted: 20 Dec 2014 12:43 AM PST  Right from the start, the secretive conversion of "open tender" to "selected tender" process for the award of the said project smacks of cronyism and improper industrial practice. This is especially so when 53 contractors have already submitted their tenders, thinking that it was still an "open tender" project. Many in the construction industry were shocked and furious when they heard about such abnormal secretive conversion of "open tender" to "selected tender". Only the MACC thinks that it is acceptable. Anyway, if such abnormal practice does not even raise the eye brow of MACC, then the following new information will surely warrant an investigation by MACC into the matter: 1. The project was awarded to Impian Zaman Sdn Bhd at the price of RM119,830,000. There were 32 contractors who can do the job at much cheaper prices, some as low as RM83,000,000 (RM36 million cheaper). Why was Impian Zaman Sdn Bhd chosen instead of one of the 32 contractors who can do the job at much cheaper price? 2. Impian Zaman Sdn Bhd is a company with only a paid up capital of RM1,000,000. How can such company carry out a road construction contract costing RM119 million? These information are public information, and can be gathered from the JKR department and the Malaysia Companies Commission (CCM). There are further information which the public has no access and only the MACC has the power and means to obtain by conducting an investigation into the matter, ie.: 1. Except for the RM1 million paid up capital, what is the present financial position of Impian Zaman Sdn Bhd? (as it is a private exempt company, it needs not file its return with the CCM. As such, the public has no means of knowing its financial position.) 2. Given that this company only has RM1 million paid up capital, how many machinery it has to carry out the said project? 3. How is this company going to carry out the RM119 million construction work with RM1 million paid up capital? Is it going to be another of those Alibaba contractor? 4. What are the relationship between the shareholders and directors of this company with the BN leaders? Therefore, the appeal by the MACC Investigation Department Director for public to furnish further information is just excuse for the said Director to NOT DOING HIS JOB. In the present case, the media expose of the matter will also not jeopardise any MACC investigation because, the company, its directors, the award document, financial statements and machinery and equipment cannot be changed over-night. In such a simple case, 7 days will be more than sufficient for MACC to complete the whole investigation. When Datuk Mohd Jamidan Abdullah can be so efficient in replying to my statement in press within one day of my statement, to explain why no action was taken against the Ministry of Finance, I expect the same efficiency from him in carrying out the investigation of this matter. As such, I urge Mohd Jamidan to immediately initiate an investigation into the award of the said project to Impian Zaman Sdn Bhd. 20-12-2014 Chong Chieng Jen MP for Bandar Kuching ADUN Kota Sentosa |
| Posted: 20 Dec 2014 12:42 AM PST  （古晋20日讯）民主行动党古晋市国会议员兼哥打圣淘沙州议员张健仁挑战马来西亚反贪委员会调查局局长Datuk Mohd Jamidan Abdullah，调查有关加帛省桑路（B段）(CH.5+460 to CH.17+560)建路工程的得标公司及整个"邀请性招标"过程。 张健仁表示，这个工程的整个招标程序，从一开始的"公开招标"被偷偷改成"邀请性招标"，就充满着"朋党运作"的味道及不寻常的建筑行业的惯例。 更甚的是，有53家承包商还不懂这工程已被"内部搞定"了，还傻傻的呈上他们的标书，以为有机会得标。 张氏说，当他暴露出财政部私底下取消"公开招标"程序，改为"邀请性招标" 并指定10家由财政部所列出的公司为受邀请投标的承包商时，许多承包商都对这种不寻常的运作，感到惊讶和愤怒。 只有马来西亚反贪委员会可以接受这种朋党运作，并认为"可以被接受的"。 张健仁也说，无论如何，就算反贪委员会对于之前的事件不认为有问题，但，之后所发生的以下事件，应可以构成反贪委员会对此事展开调查的理由： 1. 这工程以1亿1983万令吉的价钱，批给Impian Zaman私人有限公司。 有32家承包商所投标的价钱，比它更便宜(有者甚至便宜3600万令吉)。 为什么偏偏选中Impian Zaman私人有限公司，而还要还它更高的价钱？ 2. Impian Zaman 私人有限公司的已缴资本只是100万令吉。 它又如何有能力去进行一个价值1亿1900万令吉的建筑工程？ 张氏表示，这两份资料，都可从工程部和公司注册局索得。 但是，以下的一些资料，却只有反贪委员会在进行调查时才可得到的，即: 1. 这家公司目前的财政状况如何？ 2. 既然这家公司只有100万令吉的已缴资本，它拥有多少辆机器、车辆来进行该工程？ 3. 这家公司将如何去进行该工程？ 是否还是另一个"Alibaba"承包商？ 4. 这家公司的股东和懂事，与国阵领袖有什么关系？ 张健仁说，反贪委员会调查局局长之前表示民众可以针对这工程，提供给反贪委员会更多的资料。 张氏抨击说，Mohd Jamidan的这番话，只是在"耍太极"，为自己不做工找藉口。 因为，他所需要的资料，只有反贪委员会才可得到，民众无法得到，他却要民众给他，而自己不去调查、不去找。 张氏也说，他在报章公布此事，不会对调查有任何影响，因为该公司的董事，工程文件，财政报告，公司资产，都不可能在一夜之间被篡改。 "反贪委员会若有心要调查这个工程的批发程序，7天时间就够了。 因此，我敦促反贪委员会调查局局长Datuk Mohd Jamidan Abdullah，立刻对此事展开调查，并在7天内给予民众一个交代。 反贪委员会的责任不是为纳吉掩饰朋党运作。" |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Chong Chieng Jen 張健仁 To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
