9 Storey Telekom Project at USJ 6

Wednesday (28/9/09)brought cheers to the residents of USJ 6 as MPSJ has decided to revoke the development order granting permission to Telekom Malaysia (TM) to build a 9 storey commercial building on land designated for public utilities.

The residents have battled with the authorities for more than a year to have the project scrapped. The vacant land is sited right among the residential houses.

The crux of the issue is that the land was originally designated for public utilities (telecommunication purposes) and along the way, the status was changed to commercial. How did the change happen and shouldn't the residents have a say in the change?

Many other issues and controversies have also irked the residents.At the first public hearing in MPSJ held in June 2008, the deputy YDP who chaired the meeting has denied that there was any previous applications to develop the land commercially. The residents later found out that 2 previous applications in 2006 to split the plot for commercial development were rejected outright, on the basis that the land was reserved for telecommunication purposes only. How could the Chairman of the hearing lied to the residents? What kind of nonsence and transparency are we talking about?

It is also interesting to note that Telekom Malaysia (through its subsidiary Telekom Facilities Sdn Bhd) had signed a S & P agreement with the developer on the same day as the public hearing? Was it a mere co-incidence?

The One Stop Centre (OSC)held its meeting to consider the application during the transition period whereby there wasn't any councillor as the new Pakatan Rakyat Councillors were not sworn in yet. Again was it a mere co-incidence?

Has MPSJ fully disclosed all pertinent information (especially with regards to previous rejections) to the Selangor State Planning Committee ?

The time is right for MPSJ and other Majlis in the country to seriously strike a balance between overdevelopment and quality of life of the residents.

Let this case be the beginning of an era where residents will have more says in the development of their neighbourhood.

TNB Bill Rip-Off?

I have been monitoring my monthly electric bills. I noticed my last 2 bills were much higher than my normal bills. I thought TNB issued the bill based on "estimate" but it wasn't the case. I have in fact relocated my TNB meter to face directly my front gate.

I noted that my latest bill was done 36 days from the previous reading. My previous bill was read 40 days from the bill early.

What does it mean to you if TNB reads your bill much later than the normal 30 day cycle? You would definitely pay higher than normal due to 2 factors:
(1) Higher kWhs consumed (More days involved and thus higher consumptions)
(2) Higher tariff rate

I want to highlight factor(2) due to the tariff rate structure as follows:

For the first 500kWh (1-500kWh) per month 28.6 sen/kWh
For the next 100 kWh (501-600kWh) per month 37.8 sen/kWh
For the next 100 kWh (601-700kWh) per month 38.7 sen/kWh
For the next 100 kWh (701-800kWh) per month 39.7 sen/kWh
For the next 100 kWh (801-900kWh) per month 41.7 sen/kWh
For the next kWh (901 kWh onwards)per month 44.6 sen/kWh

Say my monthly consumption is usually at about 500 kWh (500 * RM 0.286=RM 143.00). However when the TNB guy comes and does the reading on the 40th day, my electric consumption will be around 667 kWh (500 X 40 days/30 days). My bill for that month would end up(500 * RM 0.286+ 167*RM 0.0378= RM 206.00). Because TNB came late by 10 days, by virtue of the staggered tariff structure, I ended up paying at a higher tariff for the additional 167 kw (normal rate of RM 0.286/kWh against RM 0.378/kWh). The extra amounted to (RM 0.378-RM 0.286)*167Kw = RM 15.00, or about 8% higher than the normal bill had TNB read my meter every 30 days.

If TNB does this to every user (household/industrial/commercial), can you imagine how much extra revenue it would garner annually? Is this a case of consumer rip-off?

MCA aka Mired in Crisis Association

Delegates at the EGM on 10/10/09 dealt a near fatal blow to both the President (OKT) and the Deputy (CSL). The result was a shock to most delegates. Not only it did not resolve the original crisis but instead drove the party deeper into crisis.

During the campaign leading up to the EGM, OKT did mention that the Presidential Council and the Central Committee would resign en block if a vote of no confidence against him was passed. CSL's camp countered it by saying that it was not fair for OKT to hold the delegates at ransom. OKT later announced that he would take sole reponsibility and resign should the no confidence vote is passed.

The aftershocks of the EGM were far reaching. First, OTK refused to step down after the EGM. Instead he blamed that some of his so called loyal liutenants had back stabbed him by not voting him during the EGM which he lost narrowly. These same group of people were later acccused of power crazy and were behind the plot to force him to resign from the president's post after the EGM. He further revealed that the sacking of CSL as deputy President and the suspension of his party membership were recommended by these same lietenants. He felt utterly betrayed.

In response, he has decided to call for a second EGM! At the same time, CSL has written to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) for an reinstalment of his deputy president's position in the party! Meantime, Liow Tiong Lai, who was appointed as the deputy President to replace CSL was himself defending an allegation over a MPV gift to his wife by a company often invloved in his Health Ministry's projects!The latest development(20/10/09)in MCA is that OTK has removed its legal bureau chief!

What has happened in MCA has parallels in UMNO and MIC as well. The No 1 and No 2 in these 3 parties do not always get along well and are forever at each other's throats!

The MCA crisis has dragged on for a while and the party's Ministers and Deputy Ministers are practically involved full time in the party's affairs. Is it fair for the taxpayers to continue to pay them full time salary for doing nothing?

Postal Voters

Election Commission (EC) deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar was reported as saying in Malaysiakini that there is no duplication of names in the Bagan Pinang by election electoral roll as claimed by PAS.

However this is only part of the story. EC did in fact agree with PAS that 253 postal voters at Bagan Pinang are also registered as ordinary voters (non postal voters) outside Bagan Pinang.

However, what guarantee can the EC give to confirm that none of the ordinary voters (non postal voters) in Bagan Pinang are not registered as postal voters in other constituencies?