|
View: 10321|Reply: 94
|
[Tempatan]
Ketelusan ke jadah lagu tu ?
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 03:36 PM
Dah wujudkan DEIG baru nak fikir mengenai greater accountability ..... err what about transparency ?  Bab ni dah fail siap2 dah pun nampaknya.
Patutnya sebelum wujudkan company tu , perlu di bincangkan dulu la kan oleh sesama pemimpin ketika di peringkat cadangannya lagi, agar semua rakyat sedia maklum untuk apa nak di wujudkan company sebegitu, agar perbahasan boleh di buat untuk menilai baik buruk di wujudkan compny sebegitu.
Ini dah wujud baru rakyat dapat tau, tu pun bukan dari info yg official, telus kat mananya kalau gitu . 
Nak independent kalau harta sendiri tak pa la, ini harta kerajaan negeri , mana boleh segalanya nak di biarkan director dan company tu yg decide 100% secara independent plak investment lagu mana nak di buat .
Patutnya kena di bawak berbincanglah dulu sesama pemimpin setiap cadangan investment yg nak di buat oleh company itteww , agar segala cadangan investment boleh di pantau agar tak lari dari objektif nya yg sebenar, yg tentunya untuk rakyat kann , so rakyat perlu maklum mengenainya lah kann ketika di peringkat cadangan lagi kalau nak ketelusan yg sebenar.
PR nak ubah sistem ke atau nak teruskan sistem yg sama aje dgn yg BN buat ? 
--------------------------------------------------
PKR backs DEIG, but calls for greater accountability By BY MAYURI MEI LIN | The Malay Mail Online – 38 minutes ago
Related Content
 View PhotoPKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli said good governance must be entrenched in DEIG’s …
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1 — PKR today declared its support for Selangor’s Darul Ehsan Investment Group (DEIG), with the proviso that the state-owned firm takes steps to make it more accountable to the public. PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli said good governance must be entrenched in DEIG’s operations, which includes having independent members on its board. “The issue is bigger, the issue is governance. It is incumbent upon PKR and the leadership of the state government to prove to the public that our governance is a lot better,” he said at a news conference here.
“That includes to constitute a very independent governance in the company not just at the board level but also at the management and investment level,” he added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
please elaborate. teringin nak tau pasal DIEG ni |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nanti macai mai kata dah buat report polis blum? dalam erti kata lain team haku buat takpa... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isunya bukan dah songlap ke belum, tapi apabila pencegahan tarak in the first place di letakkan untuk menghindar potensi penyonglapan berlaku , maka peluang untuk berlakunya songlap menyonglap pasti ada la jawabnya, tak cepat lambat, tu je.
Kalau dah songlap baru nak riuh , buat hapa, duit dah di larikan dahh , kalau nak riuh sebelum jadi lagi la perlu riuh agar harta dan duit rakyat dapat di selamatkan sebelum ia berlaku.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
governance is check and belen, supplementing legal provision backstop in any setup when it comes holding trust.
governance proviso tp legal provision takdak in the first place apa kes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
riuh tetap riuh....
tapi sprm, polis, kastam, lhdn bagai tak dapak nak serbu sebab songlap itu belum terjadi.....
dari segi undang2 belum ada kesalahan yg berlaku.
apa pon rakyat selangor yg intelijen dan urban mmg sentiasa memerhati dan buat riuh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aku tak sure how exactly it is structured.. but apa beza nye dengan MBI ?MBI bukan controlled by BoD appointed by Gomen jugak ke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PR memperjuangkan ketelusan ke idak ? Nak ubah sistem jadi lebih baik ke idak ? Atau nak sistem yg sama je yg BN guna selama ni ?
Korupsi terang nyata adalah apabila ketelusan tak wujud menyebabkan rakyat tertanya2 mengenai company ni dan aktivitinya sedangkan harta dan duit rakyat yg nak di handle oleh company tu , tak gitu ?
Tarak ketelusan adalah satu bentuk korupsi sebenarnya , yg bakal membawa kepada kejadian songlap menyonglap di kemudian hari.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1MDB korup kerana tarak ketelusan, period. Dah buat kemudian baru rakyat dapat tahu itu ini , rakyat tertanya2 mengenai macam2 perkara setelah investment dah di buat. Bermakna nasi dah jadi bubur baru rakyat dapat tahu.
Dalam 1MDB bijan dapat kebebasan 100% untuk buat investment itu ini , DEIG plak board of directors dapat kebebasan 100% untuk buat investment itu ini ..... dua2 uruskan investment yg ada kaitan dengan kepentingan rakyat, dua2 tarak ketelusan lah pada rakyat apabila dah di beri kebebasan 100% pada pihak tertentu gitu kann .
Makna dah berlaku investment baru rakyat akan dapat tau , apa guna lagu tu ? Nak riuh pun tak guna apabila dah invest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harap thread nih meriah.....
Nak sgt tahu pasal DIEG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masaalahnya pemimpin dan kerajaan tak telus tak tertera dalam undang2 sebagai kesalahan punn. So camne polis nak tangkap.
Tapi ketidak telusan tu la permulaan untuk korupsi jadi bermaharajalela di kemudian hari.
Apabila tiada perbincangan terbuka apa investment yg nak di buat sedangkan harta dan duit rakyat yg jadi taruhan , camne rakyat nak tahu investment tu betoi2 menguntungkan rakyat atau idak sebelum ia nak di laksanakan lagi ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 04:42 PM
Lihat apa yg rafizi ucapkan di main page , fokus pada kata2 nya tu . Tak perlu pergi jauh untuk melihat wujudnya sikap " buat dulu baru fikir", yg jelas memperlihatkan kurangnya "pandangan jauh" apabila di wujudkan company ni .
The fact that setelah di tubuhkan sebegini lama, setelah di riuhkan sesetengah rakyat , baru depa nak sebut bab perlunya good governance la itu ini , menunjukkan tiada persediaan rapi di buat ketika di peringkat cadangan untuk mewujudkan company ni lagi dulu tu , macam dah terantuk baru nak terngadah ?
Dah riuh baru la nak timbulkan soal perlunya good governance segala pehal , short sighted sesangat lah tu .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 04:57 PM
Soalan cepumas : siapa yg akan memastikan board of directors company tu buat pepe investment pun adalah untuk kepentingan rakyat semata-mata kalau CEO tu semua di beri 100% kebebasan untuk invest itu ini lagu tu ?
Sila jawab macai PR sekelian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 05:06 PM
Senang le nak terloncat2 untuk demand bersih itu ini sesambil berbaju kuning semata-mata , sebab tak perlu perah otak pun boleh buat mende tu.
Tapi susah ya amat untuk fikirkan praktikal nya kann camne nak bagi jadi bersih dari A sampai Z dari segi kepimpinan yg sebenar.
Nak bersih kejadah apabila bab permulaan nak buka company pun fail untuk di pastikan tujuan dan perlaksanaannya tak akan di cemari oleh kepentingan peribadi.
Camne nak bersih dari segi pengendalian dan perlaksanaannya kelak yg lagi susah apabila berbagai aktiviti investment di buat kelak nantinya. Simple logik je tu pun dah boleh faham.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 05:25 PM
Nak menghindari skandal macam 1MDB dari berulang lagi dan lagi, memana kerajaan dan pemimpin kena bersikap telus, dari peringkat cadangan hingga ke peringkat perlaksanaan apa2 investment pun kalau ia ada kaitan dengan harta kerajaan dan duit rakyat maka perlu di buka info mengenai setiap investment itteww seluas-luasnya untuk di ketahui dan di nilai oleh semua rakyat, dari A sampai Z .
Itu baru telus yg sebenar , so far kerajaan PR dan BN tak bersikap telus la haih terutama yg membabitkan company . Rakyat blur memanjang melainkan ada whistle blower baru rakyat nak boleh dapat info , tu pun tak lengkap, semua pakat tertanya2 payah nak cari info lengkap , the fact that ramai tertanya2 tu lah memperlihatkan tiada ketelusan .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
harap wisel blower x kn tangkap..pegawai penyiasat x kn tangkap dan pindah sana sini..rakyat x kn haram jadah sekor2..
so berapa duit derma dlm akaun peribadi ajemin? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acah2 je tue kalau sanggup fitnah TKSI takkan bab ni tak boleh konar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by blastoff at 1-9-2015 05:50 PM
atira replied at 1-9-2015 03:57 PM
riuh tetap riuh....
tapi sprm, polis, kastam, lhdn bagai tak dapak nak serbu sebab songlap itu belum terjadi.....
dari segi undang2 belum ada kesalahan yg berlaku.
apa pon rakyat selangor yg intelijen dan urban mmg sentiasa memerhati dan buat riuh...
Adakah tak boleh demo dan riuh rendah di jalanan bermakna tak intelligent dan tak urban ? Kalau gitu kat singapore habih bodo2 blaka la ye penuh dengan rakyat yg kekampungan je la sebab kerajaannya tak benarkan depa berdemo ?
2 owang yg sedang berdemo di tangkap kerana buat demo tak puas hati pada kerajaannya, di singapore tu ye yg lebih maju dari negara kita, nilai mata wang pun tinggi dari kita .
Kat sana nak demo kena dapatkan permit , tapi pihak berkuasa sukarkan proses nak dapatkan permit tu kaw kaw la haih hingga jadi payah sesangat la untuk dapat, apabila di tolak boleh la merayu ke menteri tapi keputusan pak menteri plak final , mahkamah tarak kuasa nak arahkan permit di beri.
Last last tak boleh demo la walau berdiri sorang2 nak demo pun tak boleh jugak.
============================================
Arrest of 2 peaceful protesters raises questions on freedom of assembly in Singapore By Carlton Tan Apr 05, 2015 7:32AM UTC
-
 Protestor holds a placard outside the Istana. The placard reads: “INJUSTICE”. Pic: TRS.
SINGAPORE—Police arrested two men, aged between 24 and 25, on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4) as they held up placards outside the Istana in a peaceful protest against the Government. They were apparently protesting the Government’s repression of free speech. The placards read: “Injustice” and “You Can’t Silence the People” (see picture above and below).
According to the police, the duo was arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit after they had refused to stop the protest despite requests from officers. This was despite the fact that only two people were involved and there was no disruption of public order at the time.
If found guilty of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act (POA), Chapter 257A, the two men may be fined up to S$5,000.
Public protests are de facto illegal
In Singapore, public protests are de facto illegal everywhere except within the confines of Hong Lim Park—a 0.94-hectare heritage park that is the only place where Singaporeans can conduct public demonstrations legally.
Under the Act, Singaporeans have to apply for a permit from the police before they can hold a protest outside of Hong Lim Park. On the surface, the police make their decisions on a case-by-case basis based on their assessment of the threat posed to public order. However, the Act amounts to a blanket restriction on public protests because the police exercise a strict policy against granting such permits.
In 2006, Deputy Superintendent Mark E Kwan Szer stated that the “police’s policy position on outdoor demonstrations and processions is one of disallowance” to explain why Dr Chee Soon Juan application’s had been rejected. In the same explanatory letter, DSP Mark reiterated his position in no uncertain terms: “The policy position has always been to disallow demonstrations and processions.” He also noted that this policy applied regardless of whether there was a major meeting going on. (See Public Prosecutor v Chee Soon Juan and Others [2010] SGDC 128).
Judicial review?
Despite this policy, Singaporeans have limited legal recourse. In a separate but related case in 1989, Justice Chan Sek Keong explained that the court has no power to direct the licensing officer to grant an application. In his decision, he stated that the court may only direct the officer to consider the application afresh, and only if the applicant had commenced proceedings for judicial review. (See Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419; [1989] SGHC 90).
Furthermore, although Singaporeans whose applications have been denied may appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Act states that his decision is final. Whether or not the judiciary is willing to accept that the Minister’s decision cannot be subject to judicial review is still an open question. But if it accepts this, this means that public protests are effectively illegal in Singapore, and it would illustrate how power is concentrated in the executive branch of Government.
This would also be contrary to a 1988 decision by the Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs. In it, the Court stated that: “[T]he notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power.” This means that as a general principle, the judiciary acknowledges its role as a check and balance on the abuse of power by the executive branch of Government.
However, in at least one instance where the judiciary attempted to fulfil this role—checking the excesses of the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government—its ruling was quickly undermined by amendments to the Constitution and the relevant law (see Internal Security Act case). This was possible because of the PAP’s near-uncontested dominance in Parliament.
 Second protestor holds a placard outside the Istana: “YOU CAN’T SILENCE THE PEOPLE”. Pic: TRS.
Two’s a crowd
Optimistic observers frequently point to the Government’s relaxation of rules on free speech as evidence of increasing democratisation in Singapore. The introduction of a Speakers’ Corner in 2000, in Hong Lim Park, allowed people to make speeches in an open area without having to apply for a permit, although they still had to register their intention with the police. In 2008, the rules were further liberalised and Singaporeans were allowed to hold demonstrations within the confines of the park.
The PAP portrays this as a cautious attempt to give Singaporeans “greater space for political expression”. There is indeed a growing recognition within the ruling party that Singaporeans are becoming more well educated and would like to see greater liberalisation. This is coupled with the gradual realisation that an active citizenry is not necessarily a threat to its dominance and may in fact contribute to the renewal of talent within the party.
But if the optimists are right, the Public Order Act (POA) represents an instance of the PAP moving in the opposite direction, contrary to its stated intentions. Instead of making it easier to organise public protests, they made it harder.
The Act was introduced in 2009 to replace certain provisions in the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA). But whereas an “assembly” was defined as “a group of 5 persons or more” before 2009, an “assembly” under the POA imposes no such limitation on the number of persons. As such, by default, even one person can now constitute an assembly. The two men who protested outside the Istana were thus arrested for illegal assembly.
In 2009, the Ministry of Home Affairs explained that this “rationalises the current approach of regulating groups of five or more under the MOA and groups of four or less under the PEMA, (where there is public entertainment).” However, there is nothing rational about calling two protesters an assembly.
In fact, if the purpose of the law is to strike a balance between maintaining public order and allowing people to express themselves, then factors relevant to that end should be considered. In this case, the number of people involved is a relevant factor and it is hard to imagine how an “assembly” of two people can possibly pose a threat to law and order. A further “rationalisation” is necessary.
A diversionary tactic
Regardless of the absurdity of this legal terminology, and regardless of whether Singaporeans may appeal the Minister of Home Affairs’ decision in the courts, the Government has successfully made it prohibitively costly for citizens to engage in peaceful protests through the requirement of a permit, and later an appeal to the Minister, under the Public Order Act.
The Act has also allowed it to divert attention away from its policy of prohibiting all public protests outside of Hong Lim Park to the fact that offenders failed to obtain a permit. Thus the offense is often euphemistically reported as “organising a public assembly without a permit” rather than simply “organising a public assembly”. For instance, the state-linked Channel News Asia’s headline reads: “Duo arrested for organising public assembly without permit outside Istana”.
On top of that, this complicated procedure—of applying for a permit then appealing to the Minister of Home Affairs when it is denied (as should be expected)—allows the Government to divert attention away from the issue of its blanket ban on public protests, and towards the offender’s failure to follow the right procedures. It is as if to say that the fault lies with the offender for failing to obtain a permit, even though it is practically impossible to succeed, rather than with the Government for its illiberal policy on public protests.
All this is not to say that the Government’s position on public protests is ill-founded, merely that it is disingenuous. It is akin to a women’s modelling agency saying that it will hire both male and female models on a case-by-case basis.
Why the attempt to hide the obvious? If indeed there are strong grounds for the blanket ban on public protests outside Hong Lim Park, why not be upfront about it?
 Two protestors outside Istana. Threat to public order? Pic: TRS.
A strangely supportive populace
This is also not to say that the Government’s justification for restricting freedom of assembly and freedom of speech is without support. In fact, it remains very much the opposite. Singaporeans are still largely conservative and the Singapore consensus remains largely unchallenged. The culture of conducting public demonstrations disappeared along with the decline of the politically active Chinese-educated trade unionists and student activists in the 1960s and 70s. Since then, Singaporeans have accepted Lee Kuan Yew’s little nugget of wisdom: you stay off the streets and the PAP will keep you in your jobs. Much remains the same today.
Moreover, Singaporeans view public protests as a poor way to challenge the PAP’s hegemony and a dangerous threat to public order. In fact, very few see the duo’s protest as anything more than a foolish move; and almost no one sees the incident as an example of the Government’s repression on free speech.
Singaporeans, it appears, prefer the online media and the ballot box—avenues of political expression where the cost of participation is low and the risk of repression is negligible. However, these options are also limited because of the Government’s restrictions on online news websites such as The Online Citizen and because of the PAP’s systematic use of its executive powers to engage in gerrymandering and pork barrelling. Thus it remains to be seen whether Singaporeans will take to the streets to force the Government to do more on issues like high housing prices, widespread underemployment and persistent income inequality. The answer, it seems, still depends very much on whether the Government fulfils its end of the bargain.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/13 ... assembly-singapore/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1MDB bukan mengenai duit derma dalam akaun peribadi je kan, tapi ia mengenai investment yg di buat atas nama rakyat yg tarak ketelusan langsung hingga boleh di salahguna sewenang-wenangnya tanpa rakyat tahu pun apa berlaku melainkan melalui whistle blower je info itu ini .
So ketidak telusan tu la yg jadi punca masaalah, kalau itu tak settle maka jadi bergantung pada nasib je la, nasib dapat pemimpin ok dia tak songlap la tapi sistem tu membuka ruang seluas2 nya untuk korupsi berlaku.
Persoalannya kenapa guna jugak sistem korup tu yg dah jelas tiada ketelusan ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 1-9-2015 03:36 PM
变色卡
Author
![[Disney+ 2024] BLOOD FREE/DOMINANT SPECIES - Ju Ji Hoon, Han Hyo Joo, Lee Hee Joon, Lee Mu Saeng](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/19/19d21a65bfffd47b8261100ca1c0fb1b.jpg)
