Stop the monopoly of rice import;review the policy of 70% self-sufficiency.
DAP National Deputy Chairman and MP for Kepong Dr Tan Seng Giaw calls on the Government to review seriously whether:
(1) to stop the monopoly of rice import by Bernas, (2) to decide if the policy of 70% self-sufficiency is still reasonable, (3) to open more land for paddy cultivation, (4) to ascertain whether the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs or the Ministry of Agrculture and Agro-based Industry or both are effectively in charge of the price of rice.
Recently, many factors contribute to the hike in the price of rice in the world. There is a pressure on the price of the commodity in this country. Bernas does not have competition in the import of rice. Although for many years we have asked the Government to review the part of Bernas in rice import and the strategy of 70% self-suffciency in rice. But, this fell on deaf ear.
Now, Bernas does what it likes. The relationship between consumers and Bernas can be liken to that of a sheep and a tiger, or the weak against the strong. It is time for the Government to study this state of affair and to find ways to introduce competition in rice import.
Rice of ordinary grade contains 15% broken grain and that of super grade between 5 to 10%. Ordinary grade is a controlled item. There is shortage of supply. Most Malaysians eat super grade rice.
When Bernas bought paddy from farmers, it paid RM 700 per tonne. Two months ago, other companies offered RM 1150, forcing Bernas to pay RM 1,000. The increase in rice price is not reflected in the price of paddy.
Two days ago, I said that the effort of the Government to open up land (100,000 acres) to plant paddy in Sabah and Sarawak may show its result in 10 years. The Government bases its policy of 70% self-sufficiency of rice on strategic factors. 30% are imported. It is relatively cheaper for countries such as Thailand to produce rice. Now, for the first time in history, Malaysian rice is smuggled into Thailand.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry says that a plot of paddy land (1.2 hectares or 3.3 acres) can produce 8 tonnes of paddy. That in Endau Rompin, Chui Chap and Sekinchan can reach 12 to 13 tonnes.
Dr Tan Seng Giaw
posted by Tan Seng Giaw @ 5/06/2008 10:53:00 PM
1 Comments:
Dear YB Tan Seng Giaw will you please ask this question in Parliament for me.
QUESTIONS FOR PARLIAMENTRY QUESTION TIME
I refer to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd and to the adjudicating Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, of said Petition. According to CHARGES made by one Yap Chong Yee husband of Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had 1st approved all 6 Respondents’ application for security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 and upon payment of said security for costs of said Rm.60,000, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali followed up the receipt of said Rm.60,000 by the approval to Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban a 2nd and subsequent application by Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for an Order to strike out said Petition.
The second and subsequent Application for an order to strike out said Petition was made even without there being any court order for the SETTING ASIDE of the 1st order for securing said Rm/60,000 for security for costs pursuant to the 1st order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. That being the facts of the case my question directed to the attention of the Malaysian Attorney General Tan Seri……. Are the following :
(1)Was not the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s approval of Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s 2nd and subsequent application to strike out said Petition, while the said cash of Rm60,000 security for costs was still held in the hands of all 6 respondents to the petition, pursuant to the order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to petitioner to provide security for costs constitute ABUSE OF POWER ?
Will the Attorney General investigate Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for the criminal charge of ABUSE OF POWER & MALFEASANCE and will the Attorney General, if upon investigation find that sufficient evidence exist to support a criminal Charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for abuse of power and/or FOR MALFEASANCE proceed to lay criminal charges against Judge Zainon for a criminal prosecution ?
(2)Is it not the case that while Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and the other 5 respondents hold on to the security for costs pursuant to Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to Petitioner to provide security for costs and in the absence of any Order to set aside the 1st Order for security for costs, the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the conduct of the 6 respondents IN TAKING AND KEEPING SAID RM.60,000 not amount to committing the criminal offence of obtaining money under false pretences ? And further, do the facts not indicate that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the 6 respondents had acted with a common intention to induce Petitioner to pay said Rm.60,000 while not intending that upon payment of said Rm.60,000 THERE WILL BE A COURT TRIAL OF SAID PETITION ? The being the case do the facts not constitute a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences ? The facts speak for themselves as an investigation will prove.
Will the Attorney General investigate said 2 police reports and if the investigation give up facts that will support criminal charges against the said parties, will the Attorney General lay criminal charges against such persons ?
Petitioner’s husband Yap Chong Yee had formally filed 2 police reports at the Balai Polis Jln. Tun H S Lee, in the first police report Yap Chong Yee had CHARGED the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon with PERJURY, for having lied in their supporting affidavits applying for security for costs.
In the second police report Yap Chong Yee had Charged Stephen Lim Cheng Ban with FORGERY, PERJURY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, contained in his supporting affidavits applying for leave to strike out said petition.
Both police reports were annexed to Petitioner’s affidavits as exhibits supporting Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents for PERJURY & FORGERY and both of Petitioner’s applications were refused leave to cross examine said Respondents, by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. The refusal by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to allow Petitioner leave to cross examine Respondent Stephen Lim and made in the face of the existence of 2 FORMAL POLICE REPORTS THAT CHARGED STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN with Perjury & forgery constitutes the charge of MALFEASANCE, AIDING & ABETTING Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to commit the criminal offences of PERJURY & FORGERY.
Will the Attorney General investigate these criminal charges that are made against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and if sufficient evidence is uncovered that will support criminal charges, will the Attorney General prefer criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; will the attorney General formally charge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with the said criminal offences ?
Post a Comment
<< Home