MEDIA STATE
In Response of report on NST 6/2/2012 page 6 “This Begs the Question – Normal Sight : Penang govt quizzed about the rising number of vagabonds, beggars”
The criticism of State Government for not doing enough to solve beggar and vagabond by Barisan Nasional coordinator for the Komtar, Loh Chye Teik is ridiculous and baseless.
The State Government has taken few initiatives and plans to curb the problems, which was the first in the country and has never been implemented during previous administration under Barisan Nasional.
These include the implementation of Partners Against Poverty Program and the plan to set up a shelter in Georgetown for vagabond to bathe and put up for nights.
The Partners Against Poverty Program aims to eradicate hardcore poverty in the State. Those households with income less than RM500 or per capita less than RM100 or unmarried individuals with income less then RM300 are given monthly monetary aid by the State Government. It is extra monetary aid in addition to the monthly welfare aid given by the Social Welfare Department.
The State Government has announced achieving of Zero Hardcore Poverty in March 2009 following the monetary aid given to the families which were identified living under hardcore poverty line. The objective of Zero Hardcore Poverty has been achieved since then, despite new cases would exist from time to time, which mostly happens due to sudden lost of income in ones family especially from those came from single source of income.
Loh Chye Teik’s claim of increase of number of beggars in the State is baseless. Social Welfare Department has carried out operations frequently to assist vagabonds and beggars to appropriate institutions or return to their home. The local media have even highlighted many times the State Exco and Chairman for State Welfare Committee, Phee Boon Poh, has personally helped out during various operations.
The beggars who turned up in Penang during recent Chinese New Year were mostly those traveled purposely to Penang from other states as they have learnt that tremendous amount could be collected during the festival due to the generousity of Penangites and visitors. There were also “part time” beggars and syndicates who took advantages during the religious ceremonies where thousands of devotees would give out cash.
Loh Chye Teik should not harp on this issue as he clearly heard of the trend of these part-time and foreign “beggars” turning up at Penang during festive season, which were existed for long time since previous administration.
The State Government will assist anyone that qualified for the poverty eradication program regardless of their race, gender and political beliefs. The State Government responded instantly to cases which were identified by all parties and even those highlighted just through the media.
I wonder if Loh Chye Teik’s claim that there were strategies to overcome beggars problem discussed by Barisan Nasional’s administration in early 2008 before the State were taken over, why it took Barisan Nasional so long before they finalized such strategies after they have been ruling the State for 50 years? Have any other states which are still under the administration of Barisan Nasional adopted the strategies and how were the results?
Lai Hon Meng
Special Assistant to Penang State Exco YB Phee Boon Poh
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
涂仲仪请别糊涂
一名阿婆拿着光华2012年1月5日异言堂涂仲仪撰写的“阿婆的故事”上我办事处求助。我看了她带来的剪报和其他资料后，哭笑不得。不卖关子，让我直接指出被涂兄弄糊涂了的事：
一、涂仲仪在他2010年10月11日致槟州联邦发展总监 （首相署执行协调单位属下）的信件提到， 一项原本提供给阿婆的屋租援助金已经从槟岛市政局转换到该总监（槟州联邦发展处）管辖下，因此要求该总监考虑批准继续提供阿婆“屋租援助金”；
二、涂仲仪在以上的信，印着首相署执行协调单位的笺头，而且是用协调员身份发出的，也就是同一个单位发给同一个单位（自己人）的要求信 ;
三、 在以上要求不获回应后，涂仲仪在2011年12月19日致函槟岛市政局法律单位，为阿婆求情，提出让阿婆以分期付款方式偿还其拖欠月的22个租金，却不再向本身所属的首相署州联邦发展处申请已获分配的“屋租援助金”拨款；
四、“屋租援助金”是联邦政府在“消灭城市贫穷计划”下而设立， 在我国308政治海啸前，由房屋与地方政府部管辖，在槟州由两地市政局负责管理和分配。308后，转由联邦直辖区与城市和谐部管辖，管理事务却由首相署执行协调单位属下的联邦发展处处理。涂仲仪理应就是堂堂正正掌握该“屋租援助金”的协调员，惟阿婆的援助金几经辗转后就在国阵政治议程下弄丢了；
五、阿婆曾在2010年从国阵部长丹斯里诺莫哈默耶谷手中领取一张一千四百余令吉的“屋租援助金”， 这款额的分发应归功于槟岛市政局，市政局在2009年至2010年向联邦政府不停追讨最终获得的成绩，惟不幸有关支票却在国阵政治议程下，刻意将收款人发给阿婆，而不是像308之前交至“人民房屋”即廉价租屋的业主---槟岛市政局手中。结果阿婆把一千四百令吉全数用完，一分钱都没交给屋主即槟岛市政局；
六、尽管阿婆告诉了涂仲仪一千四百令吉的故事，然而阿婆却被要求过来找彭文宝解决问题，阿婆开始时埋怨州政府没有协助她。好在阿婆不糊涂，一经我解释，她就明白“屋租援助金”已经被转至国阵管辖的单位里，而且了解到国阵政府发给她名下一千四百令吉供房租的支票的时候，阿婆就被陷入了圈套，因为只要阿婆错用该款项，阿婆就无法偿还屋租，民联州政府和市政局又不能动用在国阵财库里的拨款，结果一般人就错怪民联政府不协助贫户。
如果国阵有良知，那么就懂得在一般部门在发放特定目标援助金的时候，必定会考虑直接发给真正目标单位，以避免交给贫户后被用作他途。
涂仲仪在“阿婆的故事”里， 对他本身所属的联邦发展处所拥有的资源，只字不提，更甚的是连“屋租援助金”就在国阵的政治议程下弄糊涂了，也不取回，不敢实事求是，倒是一味往首长、州议会、槟州零赤贫计划身上冷嘲热讽。涂兄，望您能够协助槟州人民，给槟州人民一个交代，把国阵从槟岛市政局（以及威省市政局）手里夺走的援助金管理权交还回来，让我们发给有需人士。
一、涂仲仪在他2010年10月11日致槟州联邦发展总监 （首相署执行协调单位属下）的信件提到， 一项原本提供给阿婆的屋租援助金已经从槟岛市政局转换到该总监（槟州联邦发展处）管辖下，因此要求该总监考虑批准继续提供阿婆“屋租援助金”；
二、涂仲仪在以上的信，印着首相署执行协调单位的笺头，而且是用协调员身份发出的，也就是同一个单位发给同一个单位（自己人）的要求信 ;
三、 在以上要求不获回应后，涂仲仪在2011年12月19日致函槟岛市政局法律单位，为阿婆求情，提出让阿婆以分期付款方式偿还其拖欠月的22个租金，却不再向本身所属的首相署州联邦发展处申请已获分配的“屋租援助金”拨款；
四、“屋租援助金”是联邦政府在“消灭城市贫穷计划”下而设立， 在我国308政治海啸前，由房屋与地方政府部管辖，在槟州由两地市政局负责管理和分配。308后，转由联邦直辖区与城市和谐部管辖，管理事务却由首相署执行协调单位属下的联邦发展处处理。涂仲仪理应就是堂堂正正掌握该“屋租援助金”的协调员，惟阿婆的援助金几经辗转后就在国阵政治议程下弄丢了；
五、阿婆曾在2010年从国阵部长丹斯里诺莫哈默耶谷手中领取一张一千四百余令吉的“屋租援助金”， 这款额的分发应归功于槟岛市政局，市政局在2009年至2010年向联邦政府不停追讨最终获得的成绩，惟不幸有关支票却在国阵政治议程下，刻意将收款人发给阿婆，而不是像308之前交至“人民房屋”即廉价租屋的业主---槟岛市政局手中。结果阿婆把一千四百令吉全数用完，一分钱都没交给屋主即槟岛市政局；
六、尽管阿婆告诉了涂仲仪一千四百令吉的故事，然而阿婆却被要求过来找彭文宝解决问题，阿婆开始时埋怨州政府没有协助她。好在阿婆不糊涂，一经我解释，她就明白“屋租援助金”已经被转至国阵管辖的单位里，而且了解到国阵政府发给她名下一千四百令吉供房租的支票的时候，阿婆就被陷入了圈套，因为只要阿婆错用该款项，阿婆就无法偿还屋租，民联州政府和市政局又不能动用在国阵财库里的拨款，结果一般人就错怪民联政府不协助贫户。
如果国阵有良知，那么就懂得在一般部门在发放特定目标援助金的时候，必定会考虑直接发给真正目标单位，以避免交给贫户后被用作他途。
涂仲仪在“阿婆的故事”里， 对他本身所属的联邦发展处所拥有的资源，只字不提，更甚的是连“屋租援助金”就在国阵的政治议程下弄糊涂了，也不取回，不敢实事求是，倒是一味往首长、州议会、槟州零赤贫计划身上冷嘲热讽。涂兄，望您能够协助槟州人民，给槟州人民一个交代，把国阵从槟岛市政局（以及威省市政局）手里夺走的援助金管理权交还回来，让我们发给有需人士。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
