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.
LIM GUAN ENG
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？
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？