Unlike Abdul Rahman, I will not run away. But I will return the favour by also asking him 15 questions so that when he is enjoying himself overseas he can formulate his replies during the debate – if it ever takes place(e/c)

Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 12.4.2016.

Whilst we are still waiting for Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan to return home for the debate he had challenged me, he has released 15 questions he intended to ask during the debate. Clearly this is his desperate attempt to distract attention from the fact that he had run away overseas after I had immediately accepted his debate challenge.

Unlike Abdul Rahman, I will not run away. But I will return the favour by also asking him 15 questions so that when he is enjoying himself overseas he can formulate his replies during the debate – if it ever takes place.

1. Housing is under federal government purview according to the Federal Constitution. Can he deny that building PPR(people housing project) is the responsibility of the Federal government with maintenance of the flats done either by the state or Federal government? Why is Penang marginalised with the lowest number of PPR built with 999 units out of a total of 102,118 units nationally(or a mere 0.98%)?

2. If he claimed that Taman Manggis was meant for PPR(People Housing),explain how a layout plan submitted by the National Housing Department(under his Ministry) in 2001 earmarked Taman Manggis not for PPR(People’s Housing) but for “future development?”

3. Is he going to deny that the previous BN had given up on building PPR and instead intended to do mixed development, including shophouses? This was proposed by ex-EXCO member and current Penang BN Chair Teng Chang Yeow and supported by the then Penang Chief Minister in the declassified EXCO minutes on 2005?

4. How can he made false claims that the present state government sold land meant for PPR when it is the previous BN state government that had rejected in 2007, a proposal by the Federal government for the Taman Manggis land to be converted for housing purposes.

5. How can he personally escape responsibility when the Ministry currently proposes to increase the price of low-cost housing from RM42,000 to RM65,000 and low-medium cost housing from RM72,500 to RM100,000, which is strongly opposed by the Penang state government?

6. As Taman Manggis is only one acre, does he deny that Federal government housing guidelines requires the minimum size for public housing to be 2 acres as announced by the then Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung on 13 July 2012?

7. Does he deny that the density and plot ratio throughout Malaysia, not only in Penang, is much higher for commercial property as compared to housing, where the height of the commercial building is alsohigher?

8. Why does the Minister refuse to acknowledge that under BN from 2001-7 only 5,124 units of public housing was built(4,355 low-cost and 769 low-medium cost) as compared to Pakatan government’s from 2008-2015 of 16,199 units of public housing (8,092 of low cost and 8,107 of low-medium cost)?

9. How can the Minister say that the sale of the land was corrupt when it was done by open tender and not closed tender? How come KLIDC, which won the open tender by offering the highest price for the land, was able to pay in full the tender price of RM11.5 million, despite the claims that it was in financial trouble,?

10. Is the Minister willing to admit that the title document is the definitive evidence of land ownership? Why then question the land title that still states the land ownership remains in the hands of KLIDC, not other parties as claimed, and with the express conditions that 66% of the land use must be for hospital with the remainder 34% for hotel and service suites that cannot be sold to the public(not 70% commercial and 30% hospital as claimed)?

11. If a Sales & Purchase Agreement for sale of shares is not completed, without a single cent being paid, then it is either a breach of contract or a cheating case, then knowing the share sale agreement is not completed why does he still insist that the shares of KLIDC has been sold? Does he not owe me an apology for disputing the state government’s explanation that we have not been informed by KLIDC of any proposed share transfer and the companies search at Companies Commission of Malaysia reveals that the shares ownership of KLIDC remains unchanged.

12. The state government sold by open tender in 2010 at a price of RM11.5 million, higher than the market price. Does the Minister dispute the valuation made by the Federal government’s Valuation & Property Services Department of Taman Manggis land in 2009, of RM8.5 million? BN offered RM22.4 million two years later in 2012, but only paid 1%, which was forfeited when BN could not pay the remainder 99%.

13. How can state land sold by the state government be corrupt or under-valued when it is sold by open competitve tender? Or is the land sold by PERDA at a loss of RM15.2 million justified because it was not done through an open competitive tender?

14. Has my landlady made any special or extraordinary benefit from the state government by selling her house to me? Instead, both of us has been subjected to a vicious trial by media by BN-controlled media as committing wrongdoing. Even my reply that I do not know about UMNO’s claims that my house is worth RM6.5 million has been twisted and distorted to that I do not know the value of my house.

15. Will you finally admit that the maximum affordable housing price of RM400,000 is fixed by the Federal government as announced by the Prime Minister himself during the 2012,2013 and 2014 Budget and PR1MA websites? Why do you not credit the state government for allocating 11.1 acres of land in Jalan S.P. Chelliah to build 2,093 units of affordable homes as an alternative, that is 10 times bigger than Taman Manggis?

These are my first 15 questions and there will be more during the debate. I hope that he does not disappoint Malaysian public by leaving for another overseas trip again.





1. 根据联邦宪法,房屋事务乃归联邦政府的权限,那请问部长是否拒绝承认兴建人民组屋是联邦政府的责任,而维护楼房则由州或联邦政府负责?另,为何全国共有10万2千118个人民组屋单位,但槟城仅仅只有999个单位或占全国的0.98%,这是不是在边缘化槟州?

2. 如果他宣称山竹园原为建设人民组屋之用,是否能请部长解释一下,为何国家房屋局(在部长旗下的单位)在2001年呈上的平面布置图上却标记山竹园为“未来发展”之用,而非建设人民组屋的用途?

3. 他是否不愿承认前朝国阵已经放弃建设人民组屋,并打算以综合发展包括兴建店屋取而代之?据已解密的2005年行政议会会议记录显示,是项建议乃是前行政议员兼现任槟州国阵主席邓章耀所提出,并获得当时的槟州首长所支持。

4. 他怎么能辩称现任州政府把原定人民组屋的地段出售,而事实上前朝国阵州政府早就在2007年否决了联邦政府欲把山竹园转换成房屋用途的企划。

5. 现在,房地部欲调整房屋价格,把廉价房屋从4万2千令吉增加到6万5千令吉,而中廉价屋方面则从7万2千500令吉提高到10万令吉,面对如此情况,作为部长的他怎能逃脱责任?

6. 山竹园佔地仅1英亩,根据联邦政府的房屋规格指南,若要建造公共房屋,需至少2英亩的地段。前房地部部长拿督斯里曹智雄曾在2012年7月13日作出相关公布,现在,他是否要推翻有关指南?

7. 不仅是槟城,甚至是整个马来西亚的商用物业密度及容积率都比住宅来得高,而商业建筑的高度也永远比其他来得更高,他是否不肯承认这件事?

8. 为什么部长拒绝承认,在2001年至2007年国阵统治期间,他们只兴建了5124个人民房屋单位(4355所廉价屋及769所中价屋),而联盟政府在2008年-2015年期间兴建了1万6199个人民房屋单位(8092所廉价屋及8107所中廉价屋)?

9. 当土地买卖是通过公开招标,不是秘密招标时,部长怎么能够说这是贪污?为什么出最高价的KLIDC赢得招标后,有能力缴付1150万令吉的招标额,尽管很多人说他们面对财务困难。

10. 部长是否愿意承认,地契是土地拥有权的最佳证据? 为什么在地契上写明KLIDC是地主,还说明66%的土地为医院、34%为不可转售的酒店及服务套房(而不是传言中的70%商业及30%医院?)部长还要质疑地契?

11. 如果股份的买卖合同还没有完成,即买家一分钱也还没有支付,那么就是违约或欺骗案,他明知道合同不完整,还坚持说KLIDC已经被转售?他针对州政府的解释与我争论后,还欠我一个道歉,我们已经解释KLIDC没有通过我们关于股分转售事项,在马来西亚公司注册网站也证实,KLIDC的持股人保持不变。

12. 州政府在2010年通过公开招标以1150万令吉高出市价的价格出售上述土地。部长是不是要与联邦估计及产业服务局争论山竹园2009年的估价850万令吉? 国阵在2012年出价2千240万令吉购地,却只还了1%,这笔款项后来已经被没收,因为国阵还没支付剩余的99%。

13. 为什么州政府买卖土地变成贪污,或者市价被低估后通过公开招标进行?槟州区域发展局PERDA没有通过公开招标 买地亏了1千520万令吉该如何解释?

14. 请问我的前屋主售卖房子给我后,是否从州政府身上得到任何超乎寻常的利益?事实上,我们俩遭到国阵控制的媒体群起恶意攻击,并妖魔化这起事件。即便是我回应不知房子是否有如巫统宣称的650万,也被扭曲成我不知道这栋房子的市价。

15. 最后,你是否会承认可负担房屋的最高价为联邦政府制定的40万令吉,而有关价码曾被首相在2012、2013以及2014年的财政预算案中多次提及,亦出现在PR1MA的网页之中?为何你没有嘉许州政府在S.P齐来耶路拨出11.1英亩的地段兴建2千093单位的可负担房屋?有关地段比山竹园大出10倍,是一个更好的选项。