
Read more...
Liew Jyi-Li ( 1986 - 2009)

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has benefited hundreds if not thousands of temples, churches and schools in Perak contrary to the accusation by Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon that it has done nothing for them.
I am astounded by the arrogance of Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon for stating that he is not accountable to me when I questioned him on what has happened to the RM2 Million that has been allocated for the Perak Non-Muslim Affairs portfolio.
It is fundamental in a democratic system that an Exco member is duty bound to answer questions raised by the elected representatives of the State Assembly just as the Ministers are duty bound to answer questions raised by the MPs. If he does not want to be answerable to me as an elected representative of the Perak State Assembly he should quit his post in the BN Perak State Government.
I have stated before that Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon is not in law (de jure) an Exco member but tentatively the de facto Exco member controlling my non-Muslim Affairs portfolio, I would not mind putting aside our differences for the sake of the non-Muslim community by ensuring that the RM2.0 Million approved by the State Assembly to the non-Muslim community be released by end of the year if not it will be forfeited.
Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon has tried to divert attention will regard the RM2.0 Million and I believe he has something to hide.
The Pakatan Rakyat’s 10 months performance is there for all to see and for Dato’ Dr Mah to claim that we did nothing for the non-Muslims and I did nothing for my constituency he is like an ostrich with his head in the sand. He does not even know what the non-Muslim affairs task force has done before he sacked all its workers.
Since he does not know what I have done for my constituency relating to the non-Muslims affairs let me enumerate a few examples below for his knowledge:-
1. The PR Perak Government approved for religious use the Siamese Temple land in Kg Koh, Sitiawan when they had been un-successful under the BN Government after having applied for the conversion for more that a decade.
2. The Church of Dindings, Spg Tiga, Sitiawan was granted free assessment rate for the portion used for religious purpose.
3. The BN Government imposed a sum of RM654,000-00 on
I have also allocated grants to various temples and churches. Some of the grants have not been disbursed and when BN grab power in the Perak state. Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon had instructed that they be stopped. How can Dato’ Dr Mah Hang Soon claim to represent the interests of the non-Muslims? He has yet to employ new staff to help the non-Muslims handle their affairs after sacking en bloc all the staff employed by the PR State Government.
With the PR Government policy that non profit organizations including religious organizations and schools need only to pay the nominal sum of RM1,000-00 for their land conversions to building category and the quit rent of only RM40.00 per annum, the PR have benefited hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations.
Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham
民联霹雳州高级行政议员兼木威区国会议员拿督倪可汉于2009年9月16日(星期三),在民主行动党霹雳州总部发表文告:
民联在执政期间已经造福了霹雳州上百个庙宇、教堂以及学校,而不是如拿督马汉顺所指责的没有为她们作出任何贡献
当马汉顺表示他不必回应我针对霹雳州非回教徒事务部200万拨款的质问,并对我负上任何责任的高傲言论,我深表震惊。
一名行政议员就如国会的部长一样,有责任答复任何议员的提问,这是民主制度下的基本原则。如果马汉顺不要回复我作为霹雳州民选议员的提问,他就应该撤下他在霹雳州国阵政府内的职务。
我在之前曾经强调,马汉顺在法律下不是一名合法的行政议员,但他目前暂时是掌管原在我属下的非回教徒事务部。为了州内非回教徒社会的利益,我不介意抛开政治上的歧见,以确保该项由霹雳州议会通过的200万令吉拨款可以在年终前全数被分发,而不会被取消。
拿督马汉顺在整个200万令吉拨款的事件中尝试转移他人视线,我相信他有事情在隐瞒。
民联在过去10个月的执政期间的表现有目共睹,而拿督马汉顺指责民联没有为非回教徒社会作出任何贡献、以及我没有为选区服务的言论,显示出他的鸵鸟心态。马汉顺在开除所有非回教徒事务官员的时候,甚至都不知道非回教徒事务部已经带来的改变。
既然他不知道我为选区内的非回教徒事务所带来的一切,让我在此给予他其中的一些资料:
1. 民联政府在实兆远甘文阁批准了暹庙土地作为宗教用途的申请,虽然他们过去几十年向国阵政府申请都不成功。
2. 实兆远格尼市天定教堂获得部分门牌税赦免。
3. 国阵在实兆远Shekinah 教堂申请转换土地为宗教用途上征收高达65万4000令吉,而民联将收费减低到1000令吉。
我也给予教堂以及神庙许多的拨款,而当中一些因为在国阵的抢权行动后在马汉顺的指示下胎死腹中。马汉顺如何声称他代表非回教徒社会的利益?他甚至在集体开除全部民联委任的非回教徒事务官员后,还没有委任新的官员。
除此之外,民联政府改变之前的政策,向非盈利团体如宗教团体以及学校在土地转换申请只征收1000令吉的费用、地税每年低至40令吉,已经造福了霹雳州至少几百个宗教团体。
拿督倪可汉
MEDIA STATEMENT
The Ipoh High Court yesterday struck out with costs the suit filed by Perak Legislative Assembly Speaker, V. Sivakumar against Dato’ R Ganesan seeking damages for assault, battery and wrongful detention as well as aggravated damages.
I would like to express my total disappointment with the judgment for the following 3 reasons:-
1. On the one hand Justice Azahar Mohamed said that the court could not interfere with the sitting of the Perak State Legislative Assembly on May 7 because Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘the validity of any proceeding in any state legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court’ and therefore struck out v. Sivakumar’s suit, but on the same breath he contravened the said provision by stating that the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the Plaintiff, V. Sivakumar as Speaker and to appoint the Defendant, Dato’ R. Ganesan was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the State Assembly on May 7, 2009.
2. The issue of who is the legitimate Speaker was not the subject matter of this suit and therefore, the judge has acted ultra vires (outside his jurisdiction) to state that the removal of V. Sivakumar and the appointment of Dato’ R. Ganesan was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the State Assembly on May 7, 2009.
3. The learned Judge ought not to have strike out the suit as this suit is an action against assault, battery and wrongful detention and not concerning the proceedings of the State Assembly.
In the current Perak crisis, many perverse judgments or judgments not made according to law (in the words of former Court of Appeal Judge, Dato’ NH Chan) have been made and the decision of Justice Azahar Mohamad is definitely another addition.
Dated this 9th day of September 2009.
DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM
- Member of Parliament for Beruas
- Senior Exco Pakatan Rakyat
Perak State Government
------------------------------
民主行动党木威区国会议员兼民联高级行政议员拿督倪可汉于200
撤销霹雳州议长西华古玛诉讼案件的法官已经自我矛盾并且超越权限
怡保高庭在昨天撤销霹雳州议长西华古玛针对拿督甘尼申一系列突袭
我要提出3个原因,表达我对于这个判决的彻底失望:
1. 当阿查哈莫哈末法官表示,在联邦宪法第72(1)条文下,“
2. 关于谁才是合法议长的课题,并不是这项诉讼的主题,
3. 有经验的法官应该不会撤销这项诉讼,
目前的霹雳州危机中,
霹雳州民主行动党即将在国庆日(星期一)当晚举办一场“谁是霹雳州合法议长”讲座会。地点是怡保怡东酒店14楼,时间晚上7点半,入场免费。
霹雳州行动党宣传局发文告表示下一场902州议会即将来临,所以这场讲座会可说为人民对902开始前的认识活动。也让民众知道谁才是真正的合法议长。
当晚主讲者是原任行政议员拿督倪可汉,议长西华古马,陈国强律师和梁卓经律师。当晚讲座会以双语出发,同时欢迎各界出席。
The Malaysian Bar Council Press Release confirms that Dato’ R. Ganesan was dishonest with regard to the time he ceased practice as a lawyer. Dato’ R. ganesan wrote to Bar Council only after V. Sivakumar’s lawyer notified him that even if he had been duly elected as Speaker (which he was not) he would also have been disqualified.
The Malaysian Bar Council Press Release confirms that Dato’ R. Ganesan has been dishonest when he said he ceased legal practice on 6/8/2009. It was obvious that he had fraudulently back dated his letter to the Bar Council.
The Bar Council had issued a letter to V. Sivakumar’s lawyer, Mr Chan Kok Keong informing him that Dato’ R. Ganesan was still in active practice as on 11/8/2009.
On 12/8/2009, Mr Chan Kok Keong served an affidavit containing the said confirmation on Dato’ R. Ganesan’s solicitors.
The Bar Council confirm that it was only on 13/8/2009, that they received a fax from Dato’ R. Ganesan a letter dated 6/8/2009 informing them that he has ceased practice as from 6/8/2009. It was obvious that Dato’ R. Ganesan had back dated his letter.
Only on 17/8/2009 that the Bar Council acknowledged receipt of Dato’ Ganesan’s back dated letter dated 6/8/2009 and his Notice of Cessation and Statutory Declaration dated 17/8/2009.
The spirit of Article XXX VIA (5) of the Perak Constitution is that the Speaker must cease his existing business or profession immediately and in any case not more than 3 months after his appointment as Speaker failing which he shall be disqualified.
While we never at any time recognize Dato’ R. Ganesan as lawfully elected, even if going by BN’s contention that he was lawfully elected (which he was not) he was disqualified as from 7/8/2009. Dato’ R. Ganesan cannot revive his Speaker post after disqualification by back dating his letter.
What is most disappointing is that we see dishonesty everywhere in BN. From Permatang Pasir candidate, Rohaizat Othman to the court appointed Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Zambry Bin Abdul Kadir and now to Dato’ R. Ganesan, they have been less than honest in their dealings and actions.
DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM
- Member of Parliament for Beruas
- Senior Exco Pakatan Rakyat Perak State Government
-------------------------
民联高级行政议员兼民主行动党霹雳州主席拿督倪可汉于2009年
马来西亚律师公会发表的文告证实拿督甘尼申在何时终止律师职务一
马来西亚律师公会的文告确认拿督甘尼申说他在2009年8月6日
律师公会发给西华古玛的律师陈国强的信件中指明拿督甘尼申直至2
在2009年8月12日,
律师公会已经证实在2009年8月13日,
律师公会在2009年8月17日才公认正式收到拿督甘尼申志期2
霹雳州宪法第XXX VIA(5)
我们从来没有承认拿督甘尼申是被合法选出的议长,
最让我们感到失望的是,我们发现国阵充满了不诚实的行为。
At all material times, both BN and the PR parties respected YB V. Sivakumar as the Speaker of the State Assembly at the last sitting of the Assembly on 7/5/2009.
The 7/5/2009 sitting had not commenced until the Regent of Perak gave his opening speech. The purported election of Dato’ R. Ganesan as the Assembly’s Speaker by a small group of BN elected representatives (which was not legal in itself) was done prior to the opening of the State Assembly by the Regent of Perak. How can a decision made prior to the commencement of a meeting be valid? By insisting that the election of Dato’ R. Ganesan was lawful, Dato’ Seri Dr. Zambry Abd Kadir is denying the role played by his Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak or the Regent with regard to the opening of a State Assembly sitting. He should apologize to the palace for taking such a stand.
As YB V. Sivakumar is still the legitimate Speaker of the Perak Assembly, he is the only person entitled to call for the sitting of the coming assembly and Dato’ Seri Zambry Abd Kadir who heads the Executive must direct the State Secretary to respect the separation of powers in our democratic system. He must accord respect and cooperation and allow elected representatives to attend the sessions fixed on 2/9/2009.
Dato’ Seri Zambry must make clear his stand otherwise the elected representatives of Perak will deem that any blockage to the State Assembly on 2/9/2009 will be deemed to be on his instructions.
Dated this 18th August 2009.
DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM
民主行动党霹雳州主席拿督倪可汉于2009年8月18日在怡保霹雳州总部发表文告:
于2009年9月2日召开的霹雳州议会将是有效及合法的,赞比里必须尊重法律
我经已查阅霹雳州议长西华古玛将于2009年9月2日召开霹雳州议会。拿督斯里赞比里的言论指议长或将再次在树下召开议会,如此恰好证明了拿督斯里赞比里将封锁霹雳州议会厅以召开上述议会。
这显示了拿督斯里赞比里彻底蔑视霹雳州议会以及这个国家的民主制度。我希望拿督斯里赞比里尊重法律。虽然他并非霹雳州人民所选择,然而我们依然尊重上诉庭判决赞比里作为霹雳州务大臣。因此他也应该尊重西华古玛为霹雳州议会合法的议长。
在所有重要时刻,包括国阵及民联都尊重西华古玛在最近一次即2009年5月7日召开的州议会上,他仍然是议长的身份。
2009年5月7日召开的州议会,直至霹雳州摄政王发表开幕御词前都未真正开始进行。当时由一群国阵议员选出拿督加尼森为议长(并不合法),在摄政王还未宣布议会开幕前进行。一个会议开始前作出的决定如何能够被视为有效?
拿督斯里赞比里坚持认为拿督加尼森被选为议长是合法的决定,那么他已经拒绝了霹雳州苏丹殿下或摄政王关于宣布州议会开幕所扮演的角色。赞比里必须为他的坚持向皇宫作出道歉。
当西华古玛还是霹雳州唯一合法的议长,只有他有权力召开州议会,而拿督斯里赞比里领导的行政权利必须指示州秘书尊重我国三权分立的民主制度。他必须给予尊重及合作,并且允许议员们出席定于2009年9月2 日的州议会。
拿督斯里赞比里必须做出一个清楚的立场,否则霹雳州的议员将会认为若在2009年9月2日召开的州议会发生任何阻挡及封锁,这都是来自赞比里的指示。

If The Tang Hak Ju Land Scam Involving Undeveloped Quarry Land For A Period Of 15 Years May Finally Cost The State Government RM 40 Million (RM 29 Million + Interest), Forcible Acquisition Of Kampung Buah Pala Involving Developed Land Would Be Of A Frightening Magnitude.
The Penang state government wishes to rebut the lies of Hindraf leaders and collaborators of BN and MIC who claims that acquiring Kampung Buah Pala would cost at the most RM 30 million or even very much less. Where is it stated in the land acquisition laws or approved by the courts that government can acquire land for the public interest at a sum far below the market price?
If the Tang Hak Ju land scam involving undeveloped quarry land for a period of 15 years may finally cost the state government RM 40 million (RM 29 Million + interest), forcible acquisition of Kampung Buah Pala involving developed land would be of a frightening magnitude. The Penang state government simply does not have the financial capability to afford the acquisition of Kampung Buah Pala. We are not talking of millions of ringgit. Neither are we talking of tens of millions of ringgit here!
Any lawyer or even law student knows this. Clearly these Hindraf leaders and BN collaborators are trying to spin a web of deceit and deception to paint the Penang state government as uncaring of Indians. Hindraf may deceive those from outside Penang but those in Penang knows our achievements that we have taken a different path of looking not only after Indians but also after Malays and Chinese as well.
Penang Pakatan Rakyat State Government Fights For All Races And Will Never Become A Single Racial Or Religious Entity.
As with all communities, we have given dignity and respect to ordinary Indians. The first Indian Deputy Chief Minister II of a state in Malaysia was appointed in Penang, all the 28 Tamil primary schools were given a yearly allocation of RM 1.5 million along with other Chinese primary, Sekolah Agama Rakyat, missionary schools and Chinese independent secondary schools. Further, Penang put up the FIRST Tamil road signs in the country alongside with Arabic, Chinese and English bilingual road signs in Georgetown. Even Hindraf had never raised the issue of Tamil road signs.
Hindraf and the BN collaborators must see that the Pakatan Rakyat Penang state government treats all Indians together with Chinese and Malays as Malaysian citizens who desire justice and detest corruption. Unlike Hindraf and the BN collaborators, we fight for all races and religions and will never become a single racial and religious entity.
Hindraf should not stray from its chosen path of defending the victim against the bully or fighting those who are helping the victims. Many Malaysians whether Indians or non-Indians are upset that Hindraf has chosen to pick on the Penang state government instead of the real culprits who sold out Kampung Buah Pala – BN and Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.
Lest we forget, it was Koh Tsu Koon and BN that sold out Kampung Buah Pala at a cheap price of only RM 10 per square feet in 2007 and without consulting the residents. Why has Hindraf lost the courage to oppose the real culprits?
Regrets Unruly Behaviour Of Hindraf Demonstrators
However despite regretting the irrational and unjustified targeting of the Penang state government, Hindraf leaders have the right to exercise the basic human rights of peaceful assembly. I have instructed my officials to respect their rights, accord them full respect and accept any memorandum submitted.
I had also urged the police not to take any action that would lead to untoward incidents. Instructions have also being given that should the police chose to act, then the demonstrators should be led to a place safe from police action in the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium on the 5th floor. This gesture should serve as a contrast to a BN government that would never have invited demonstrators to the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium in the 5th floor but would have used violent force instead to disperse them.
The Pakatan Rakyat Penang State government’s restraint against Hindraf demonstrators yesterday at Komtar despite extreme provocation demonstrates our commitment not only to help Kampung Buah Pala residents but also in upholding the fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly.
I feel sad at the unruly behaviour of those present who called my political secretary and ADUN Komtar Ng Wei Aik “an office boy”. Or even asking for two graves of 2X6 and 4X6 to be dug for Sri Delima ADUN Rayer and Penang DCM2 Professor Ramasamy.
Pressure The Federal Government And Dr Koh Tsu Koon To Correct Their Grievous Mistake By Acquiring Kampung Buah Pala.
Despite such consideration on our part for their safety, there were calls by demonstrators inside the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium that they would vote for BN and against Pakatan Rakyat in the next general elections. It is clear that Hindraf has been infiltrated by BN and MIC collaborators and should return to its original goal of fighting BN who have shown in Kampung Buah Pala as in countless cases of selling out the people’s rights.
Hindraf can start off this process by pressuring the Federal government and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon to correct their past grievous mistake by acquiring Kampung Buah Pala and returning back the land to the people. What the state government can not afford financially is definitely within the means of the Federal government!