Friday, March 3, 2017

Hanizam, DAP nak kenakan isteri AG tapi termalu

Bukan itu saja, Lim Kit Siang pun turut membantu:

DIgemar gemburkan oleh DCM Penang

Kononnya isteri AG adalah Pengarah sebuah syarikat pembinaan dan Dato Rahman Dahlan dituduh salahguna kuasa mintak extention of time (EOT).

Masaalahnya Puan Sri Faridah Begum hanya Pengarah Syarikat Pengurusan dan bukan Pengarah syarikat construction.

Tolong jangan samakan dengan isteri Ketua Menteri. Lihat di

Tambah lagi:

Press Statement 
Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan 
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department 
1st March 2017 

1. I refer to the press statement dated March 1st, 2017 by YB P. Ramasamy the Deputy Chief Minster of Penang.

2. The allegations made by YB P. Ramasamy and YB Lim Kit Siang in his recent blog posting on the same issue are nothing but a reflection of their ignorance of the facts and the role played by the Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in ensuring a sustainable housing industry.

3. We have learned from the lessons of 1980’s where many housing projects were abandoned and buyers were left in the lurch. It was economic crisis of national proportion.

4. Therefore in 1989, the government decided to amend Housing Developer Act (Act 118) to address many issue plaguing the housing industry including paving way for the provision of extension of time (EOT) regulation to put a lid to the widespread of abandoned projects at the time. Since then, the country has seen a significant decrease in abandoned housing projects.

5. Every year Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Housing ministry receives many EOT applications. Many come with supporting letters from prominent people including some from the opposition. Not withstanding the support letters, each application of EOT is evaluated solely based on the merit of each case.

6. For example, if a developer faces delays due to circumstances beyond his control (unexpected weather such as flooding, new regulations by authorities such as stop orders or policies pertaining to supply of construction materials and workers), the developer can apply for EOT from the government. Upon receiving the application, KPKT officers will determine if the circumstances facing the developer are genuine or otherwise. This includes construction site inspection, producing technical report and conducting financial due diligence of the company.

7. Other stringent parameters will also be taken into account such as analysing cash flow of the project, developer's ability to complete the project, progress, size and phases of the project and the number of purchasers involved.

8. After all these factors being considered, the following questions are the most important and difficult to be answered. Will the housing project be abandoned by the developer if the EOT is not granted? Will the house buyers be in worse off position if that happens? Will it be less painful for the house buyers if they waive their right to compensation now instead of losing the house all together in case the house project is abandoned later?

9. These are naturally difficult questions because they involve the interest of the buyers. No one takes pleasure in depriving honest and hardworking house buyers of their right to compensation due to delay in getting their houses. But sometimes you come to a point where you need to choose the lesser of two evils.

10. The government needs to balance between the right to compensation and the possibility of the house buyers themselves getting into much serious problem if the housing project is abandoned. Even the banks will face serious trouble if housing projects are abandoned. Other businesses catering for household items such as electronics, electrical and furniture will also be affected which could lead to lost of jobs in those businesses.

11. So the work of KPKT is to balance each stakeholder's interest. KPKT has to look after the entire industry stakeholders – from suppliers, financial institutions, developers and the buyers.

12. However, it is important to understand that the discretionary power to grant EOT is not the final avenue for the house buyers. Should they be aggrieved with the decision, Section 53 of the Rules of High Court 1980 accords them the right to challenge the legality of the decision by way of judicial review application.

13. In the particular case mentioned by the DAP leaders, there was no abuse of power by me when I was KPKT minister. In fact they are mere allegations without providing proof. Unless, the onus is on the opposition to provide evidence of any wrong doing.

14. If the DAP leaders were referring to the High Court decision, I was told that KPKT will be appealing the verdict because the Housing Developer Act clearly states that the KPKT minister does have the power to approve EOTs.

15. If the DAP leaders were referring to the support letter, I can assure the public that EOT applications are approved based solely on their own merit. No support letters can supersede the stringent procedures in approving the EOT applications. In fact, support letters have no value in determining the approval. Those letters are just formalities and pleasantries.

16. By the way, EOT application is not unique to the federal government only. I am certain that there are contractors who have asked for EOTs in Penang too.

17. Will the DAP Penang state government, to which YB P. Ramasamy is part of, categorically deny that they have issued EOTs to any contractors since 2008? 


Lagi maklumat: