BN had made Perak a police state. They invites police to step in and interfere in the State Assembly's proceedings, the Dewan was heavily guarded to create white fear, all the 28 PR ADUN'S mike were off all the time, the media were prohibited from covering the sitting and media only allow to cover the event from public gallery where the mike of the PR ADUNs were off & cannot be heard, no standing order is allowed to be referred, no question can be asked, no debates on the Royal Address and all 28 PR Assembly persons were not allowed to debate the motion, the state building which cost RM100 million's taxpayer money only hold half day of the sitting. The Democracy in the State is dead. God save Malaysia!
Call to revert the filing of returns and the payment of Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT) to that practiced in 2007. New procedure unfair cumbersome, burdensome and has caused uncertainty.
Real Property Gains Tax was introduced in 1976 through Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976. RPGT was abolished from 1/4/2007 but was reinstated by the Government from 1st January 2010. From 1/1/2010, the Government imposed 5% tax on gains received from the disposal of a property which was acquired within 5 years.
The new RPGT rules, however, require the Purchaser to forward the returns and 2.0% of the purchase price to the income tax department within 60 days from the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement failing which an additional 10.0% on this amount will be imposed.
These new rules are unfair, cumbersome, burdensome and has caused uncertainty for the following reasons:-
2.0% of purchase price very often far exceeds the 5.0% RPGT that is imposed.
e.g. If a property acquired at RM1.0 million is sold for RM1.1 million there is a gain of RM100,000-00. A sum of RM22,000-00 will have to be paid to the income tax from the deposit paid within 60 days. The tax payable is however, only RM5,000-00. A sum of RM17,000-00 will have to be claimed back from the income tax department on a later date. From experience, it will take a long long time to claim back money from a government department. This constitute undue enrichment to the Government who does not pay interest on this additional sum paid.
The Purchaser or his solicitor is under a duty to forward this 2.0% of the purchase price. This placed an unfair duty and burden on the Purchaser because additional 10.0% penalty will be imposed on this amount if payment is delayed.
Those who will not be taxed will also be required to file form.
Getting the refund and filing of the unnecessary CKHT 3 form will cause the parties expenses and time. This is unproductive work for both the government servants and the additional staff that the solicitors and tax agents will have to employ.
It create uncertainty when a sale falls through. In such an event the deposit paid will be forfeited by the Vendor. The 2.0% purchase price which form part of the deposit was paid by the Purchaser to the income tax department. Will the tax department refund the amount to the Vendor or the Purchaser in the event of a dispute?
In the case where a sale is contingent on an event e.g the requirement for the Menteri Besar’s consent, will the 2.0% purchase price still have to be forwarded to the income tax department within the 60 days period? (one income tax officer says the 60 days period operate from the date the Menteri Besar consent is received but it is not stated in the rules. Will the Purchaser be slamned with a 10% increase if another officer interprete otherwise?)
I proposed that we revert back to the practice in 2007 before RPGT was abolished. Both Vendor and Purchaser submit their respective returns within 30 days and RPGT be paid upon the tax department issuing the notice for payment. The estimated RPGT payable be retained by the Purchaser’s solicitors until then. At least the Purchaser is entitled to the interest earned if the tax department delayed in assessing and issuing the notice for payment.
Dated this 22nd day of March 2010.
DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM
Deputy Secretary General
DAP Malaysia
MP for Beruas
Press Conference at DAP HQ Ipoh. Left: YB Lim Pek Har, YB Wong Kar Woh
(23.3.2010)
I have submitted a question to this coming State Assembly regarding the Barisan Nasional Perak Government stance on the issue of issuing freehold title to Rancangan Rumah Tersusun and Chinese New Village in the state. The original text of the question sounds:
“Ramai warga Negeri Perak yang mempunyai hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal oleh Kerajaan Negeri pada ketika itu.
(i) Sila nyatakan samaada Kerajaan Negeri berhasrat untuk meneruskan polisi pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal kepada warga Negeri Perak yang memegang hartanah di Kampung Baru dan Kampung Tersusun dan alasannya; dan
(ii) Apakah status pemberian suratan hakmilik kekal bagi mereka yang telah menyerah balik suratan hakmilik hartanah mereka kepada Kerajaan Negeri pada tahun 2008 untuk tujuan pemberian hakmilik kekal.”
Despite the fact that the current State EXCO Dato’ Mah Hang Soon had given his open concurrence and agreement, during the time he was in the opposition, over the issuance of freehold title and which he had even further suggested “for more” – a 90% discount on the Premium payable instead of 80% discount as adopted by Pakatan Rakyat, he has failed to walk the talk when turning into power and the Barisan Nasional State Government has refused to continue the implementation of the freehold title policy adopted by Pakatan Rakyat during the 10-months-regime.
The Barisan Nasional had in Decemer 2008 through its National Land Council objected to the freehold title policy in Perak, the Barisan Nasional especially UMNO had blamed that the then Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Mohd Nizar bin Jamaluddin for giving away lands to the Chinese community in Perak by adopting the freehold title policy, and the Barisan Nasional had eventually formally put a stop to the freehold title application in the State after the grabbing of power. All these clearly show that Barisan Nasional is still confining themselves in the racial circle, and has no Political Will to continue the good policies set up by Pakatan Rakyat.
If Barisan Nasional has no political will to do, we will do it after we come back into power. However, the refusal of BN in continuing this policy had caused uncertainties, difficulties and hardship for the Rakyat who had earlier surrendered their original title back to the State Government and submitted their application for freehold title and which the BN State Government is obliged to answer and resolve. We have received complaints and I quote 2 cases here:
Case 1: refer appendix Case 2: refer appendix
The above cases show that the Rakyat are not only not getting freehold title from the BN State Government, they will even need to pay more than what they are supposed to pay under the PR’s freehold tile, for only a 99 years old lease. Some of them who only wish to apply for freehold title and do not wish to have further leasehold as the current lease are still long way to expiry. They are stuck in between, whereby they cannot get their freehold title as wish, and they are facing the risk of their original being retained or even forfeited by the State Government if they do not pay for the premium f the extended lease as offered as the title had been surrendered.
The Rakyat want an explanation from BN over this issue. It is utmost important for Barisan Nasional to answer the questions on freehold titles and to allow more supplementary questions be asked in the assembly. Let’s walk the talk.
Appendix:
Case 1：
A resident in Kg Simee had in the month of July 2006 paid the Premium of RM1705.00 for the extension of 60 years leasehold title. In January 2009, he has surrendered the title back to the State Government for the issuance of new freehold title at the estimated cost calculated at RM3285.00.
He received a letter from Ipoh Land Office 3 weeks back whereby the Land Office requested him to make an extra payment of RM1616.00 to procure a 99 years leasehold title. In other words, while the title is still with 57 years lease left, the BN Government had charged another RM1616.00 on the resident for another 42 years lease (because he will only get 99 years lease calculating from 2010, whereby the 57 years unexpired lease is considered burned). Bear in mind, the estimated cost for him in getting a freehold title with security of Property which no renewal in future is necessary, is around RM3285.00 only.
This has caused a dilemma on the resident. His intention from day one is to get the freehold title, and yet he was now offered 99 years which practically had made no difference with the leasehold title he is holding. It is only a matter of time for the lease be expired although both might not expired until after this resident passed away. The dilemma is that: if he wants back the title, with no choice he has to take the 99 years lease as offered and pay RM1616.00 for the title which is practically extended for 42 years; or he will have to face the risk of the title being retained or even forfeited by the State Government.
BN is to be fully responsible for this.
Case 2:
There is another case from Kg Simee. The leasehold was expired in year 2009. The landowner was given 2 choices: either he needs to pay an estimated cost of RM8000 ++ for a 60 years leaseholdor pay RM13000 ++ for a 99 years leasehold title. Comparing this figure with PR’s offer for freehold title, for the same piece of land, the landowner needs only to pay an estimated cost of RM11,000++.
If BN is for the People, why do they slash the People on this? Wouldn’t be it is ridiculous for a 99 years leasehold be more expensive than a freehold title?
(22/3/2010)
Dato’ Ganesan’s action in inviting the police to take action against YB V.Sivakumar , The Legitimate Speaker of the Perak State Assembly, clearly shows his willingness to destroy the democratic institution in Malaysia. He is not part of the Perak State Assembly and neither is he the Legitimate Speaker. Therefore, he has no qualms about destroying the institutions of the Speaker and the State Assembly.
King Solomon was once asked to decide who is the mother of a child. Two women both claimed to be the mother of the child. King Solomon in his wisdom (then he did not have the benefit of DNA tests) decided that in order to be fair to both the child be cut into two and each woman be given one half. One agreed but the other woman immediately requested the King to spare the child’s life and have the child given to the first woman. The wise King immediately knew who the child’s mother was. A mother will never want to see harm befall his child.
The police report lodged by Dato’ Ganesan on 19/3/2010 inviting the police to take action against YB V. Sivakumar, the Legitimate Speaker of the Perak Assembly, is clearly an action calculated to destroy the democratic institution of the Perak Sate Assembly. Dato’ Ganesan had on 7/5/2009 invited the police force to invade the Perak State Assembly and forcibly removed YB V. Sivakumar from the State Assembly. The harm that was done to this democratic institution of Perak was beyond repair.
Like the woman who is not the mother of the child, Dato’ Ganesan has no qualms about destroying this democratic institution of Perak. He was a reject. The people rejected him during the last General Elections. He is not part of the State Assembly and neither is he the Legitimate Speaker of the Perak State Assembly. His ascension to the Speaker’s seat on 7/5/2009 was done by using the police to forcibly removed YB V. Sivakumar.
In a democratic system, the separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature the executive have been clearly defined. All matters pertaining to the State Assembly must be dealt with by the Assembly itself. The independence and the sanctity of the legislature must never the sacrified or compromised. What Dato’ Ganesan is doing in to encourage a Police State where might is right.
YB V. Sivakumar has in all his conduct tried to maintain and uphold the independence and the sanctity of the State Assembly. He was never cowed by the threat or force used by BN and the police against him.
All Malaysians must condemn Dato’ Ganesan for his treacherous act against our democratic institutions.
Dated this 22/3/2010
Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham
DAP Perak Chairman
State Assemblyman for Sitiawan
M. Indira Gandhi, who was embroiled in a custody battle with her Muslim convert husband, Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, was given custody of her 3 children by the Ipoh High Court last week.
It was indeed a most welcomed and long waited for judgment for her.
Her husband had in March last year, without her consent and knowledge, converted all their three children into Muslims.
However, there was no total joy as till today, her youngest child has still not been handed over to her although Justice Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim had ordered that Prasana Diksa be handed over immediately.
The judge had said as Indira Gandhi's two other children were with her now, it was in the family's best interest that the toddler be returned to her
The children's father and their lawyers were in Court last week when the Judge gave the order of custody.
We have given notice to all concerned to hand over the child but one week has passed and Indira continues to suffer the pain and torment of being separated from her loving child.
In fact, she has been separated from the toddler for more than a year.
We ask that the father or anyone having custody of the child to immediately return her to the mother as failure to abide by the Judge’s order is an act of contempt. of the Court.
Yesterday Mohd Ridzuan through his lawyers served a copy of an application to stay the order made by the Judge. The application is now fixed for Hearing on 25thMarvh2010 at 8.30am the Ipoh High Court.
We would like to notify all that notwithstanding this application it is pertinent that the child should be handed to the mother at all cost.
The law and practice on children's custody and their upbringing is so uncertain now and different courts come with varying and confusing decisions.
It is the duty of Parliament to clarify and bring a finality and certainty on issues of conversions and custody of children.
Why is the BN government dragging its feet with no light at the end of the tunnel? Why are they causing so much of emotional stress to families affected by conversion?
Why is there no political will by the government to resolve this issue?
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world yet it has no similar conversion problems. We should ask why we have such problems here?
We urge the BN component parties to prevail on the government to legislate laws which will bring certainty to all Malaysians when a conversion to another faith takes place
Deputy Education Minister, Dato Dr Wee Ka Siong was wrong to say that Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham was not in favour of Local Government Elections.
Last Night, the Deputy Education Minister, Dato’ Dr Wee Ka Siong during the Editor’s Time Forum Special program televised on NTV 7 at 11.00pm last night (18/3/2010) quoted me as not in favour of Local Government Elections.
I would like to reiterate that I have all along advocate for local government elections. The Deputy Minister was wrong in quoting me as not favouring local government elections.
The Pakatan Rakyat Perak government during its 10 ½ months’ reign had not immediately implemented local government elections as there were differering views as to whether federal laws need to be amended before local government elections can be implemented.
As a government, we wanted to make sure that whatever we do is according to law as we uphold the rule of law. We were awaiting expert legal opinions on the matter when BN undemocratically seized power on 6/2/2009..
Now that he Penang State Government has written to the Election Commission, I hope this legal issue will be settled soon.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2010.
Dato Ngeh Koo Ham
DAP Perak Chairman
State Assemblyman for Sitiawan
MP for Beruas.
(16 March 2010)
Pakatan Rakyat Perak (PR) heeds the people’s call to move forward and hope Perak BN will do the same by allowing the legitimate speaker YB V.Sivakumar to chair the State Assembly sitting on 30/3/2010. PR state Assemblymen/women will disclose to the public questions and issues raised to ensure accountability and transparency on the part of BN.
Yesterday, all 27 Perak PR elected representatives have submitted their question to the secretary of the Perak State Assembly to be answered by the BN Government at the coming assembly sitting on 30/3/2010. The People are angry that BN has refused to dissolve the Perak State Assembly to pave way for a fresh election to allow the people to decide democratically who to lead the state. Many have indicated to us that they will teach the BN a lesson and vindicate PR in the next general election. Meanwhile, the people want us to move forward for the sake of Perak and PR heeds their call.
I call on Dato’ Seri Zambry bin Abdul Kadir the BN Menteri Besar to also heed the people’s call by allowing the legitimate speaker, YB V.Sivakumar to chair the meeting on 30/3/2010 so that the sitting will not be tainted with controversies as Dato’ Ganesan cannot be a valid or legitimate speaker by any account.
Dato’ Ganesan cannot be a valid speaker as he was elected by the BN elected representatives in a chaotic environment and before the session was opened by his Royal Highness the Regent of Perak. Even had he been lawfully elected, which he was not the Perak Constitution would have declared his position vacant as he did not resign from his legal profession within 3 months from his purported election. His ascension to the speaker’s seat was by forcibly removing the legitimate speaker which is unlawful and an offence. If Dato’ Ganesan is accepted as a legitimate speaker, it will set a precedent that the opening of the Assembly sitting by the Sultan or Regent will no longer be necessary.
In order that the rule of law can be observed, I call on Dato’ Seri Zambry to allow YB V.Sivakumar to chair the Perak Assembly on 30/3/2010 so that the questions can be answered by the BN Government and the debates can conducted in an orderly and lawful manner. For the People’s Sake, PR Perak wants to move forward and we hope BN will also heed the wishes of the people of Perak.
In order to ensure accountability and transparency on the part of the Perak BN Government, the PR elected representatives will in this coming 2 weeks disclose to the public the questions and issues raised by them. Perak BN must answered each and every question or issue raised.
As a start I attach herewith the 8 questions submitted by me. An assemblyman/woman is allowed to ask a maximum of 3 questions requiring oral reply and 5 questions requiring written reply.
Dated this 16th day of March 2010
Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham
DAP Perak Chairman
Assemblyman for Sitiawan
Soalan-soalan yang memerlukan Jawapan Lisan dan Bertulis bagi Mesyuarat Pertama, Penggal Ketiga, Dewan Negeri Yang Kedua Belas Perak Darul Ridzuan mulai 30 Mac 2010.
Soalan-soalan yang memerlukan jawapan lisan
1. Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar kenapakah kerajaan BN tidak mengamalkan sistem tender terbuka untuk pengeluaran balak di negeri Perak. Adakah ia bercadang berbuat demikain dan jika ia, bila?
2.Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar apakah kedudukan tentang pengumuman Kerajaan BN untuk meluluskan lebih kurang 14,000 hektar tanah kepada Rahman Hydraulic Tin Sdn Bhd untuk cari gali bijih timah. Berikan butir-butir tentang tanah ini dan adakah ia akan diberikan kepada syarikat itu untuk dilombong jika didapati tanah ini mempunyai bijih timah yang mencukupi untuk dilombong?
3.Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar samada Kerajaan Negeri atau Menteri Besar sendiri yang membayar untuk makan malam Persatuan Hai Nan, Pangkor yang diadakan pada 2/8/2009 dan nyatakan jumlah perbelanjaannya. Nyatakan semua jamuan-jamuan yang telah dianjurkan oleh Menteri Besar atau Kerajaan Perak sejak rampasan kuasa pada 6/2/2009 dan nyatakan berapakah perbelanjaan setiap jamuan-jamuan tersebut.
Soalan-soalan yang memerlukan jawapan bertulis
1. Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar berapakah jumlah perbelanjaan yang digunakan oleh Kerajaan untuk banner, banting, poster dan lain-lain iklan sejak rampasan kuasa dari 6/2/2009 hingga sekarang untuk setiap sambutan /perayaan. Senaraikan mereka satu persatu.
2. Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar jumlah tanah Kerajaan yang telah diluluskan kepada orang perseorangan dan syarikat sejak 6/2/2009 dan senaraikan nama-nama mereka satu persatu.
3. Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar berapakah gaji, elaun atau lain-lain bayaran yang dibayar kepada YB Pengkalan Baru sebagai pengarah penerangan, YB Dato’ Chan Ko Youn dan Dato’ Veerasingham sebagai penasihat kepada Menteri Besar ? Nyatakan kerja-kerja yang telah dilakukan oleh mereka dan kenapa Menteri Besar perlukan penasihat-penasihat khas ini padahal Dato’ Seri Nizar Bin Jamaluddin tidak perlukan penasihat-penasihat khas ini apabila meyandang jawatan Menteri Besar?
4.Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar berapakah jumlah pelabuhan-pelabuhan luar negara dan tempatan yang sudah diluluskan untuk dijalankan sejak 9/2/2009 hingga sekarang dan nyatakan nilai-nilai projek-projek tersebut.
5.Bertanya kepada Menteri Besar rancangan pemutihan tanah-tanah ternakan udang dan ternakan air di Perak terutamanya di kawasan Manjung. Apakah rancangan yang telah diputuskan untuk dilaksanakan.
