Recognition towards working mothers
Again, Kampung Tunku would like to begin the debate by giving attention to women who works.
Yesterday during the question time, I have asked the Rt. Hon. EXCO who is responsible for the portfolio of Women Affairs on whether the Government has fixed stricter policy towards big supermarket, commercial shops to prepare a breast feeding hub, nurseries, kindergarden and so forth? If there is, Kampung Tunku would like to ask when will it be implemented?
The answer received states that, it has been proposed to each Local Authorities [PBT] to be considered. This measure is insufficient if it’s only at the proposing stage. For an idea to be translated into the government’s policy, the government must take a strong stand by elevating it to the State Executive Council Members [MMKN] and circulated to all PBT.
To add from the already available Women’s policy, Kampung Tunku urges the government to frame a policy to encourage breast feeding for mothers who work to build a healthy family and society.
Maybe, this problem is small and insignificant but Kampung Tunku is of the opinion that healthy society begins with strong and healthy young generation. It is my recommendation that the government immediately frame a policy that gives special attention in this aspect to provide quit rent and assessment fee rebates to any employers who provide such basic facilities as aforementioned.
Moreover, the Local Councils have to provide a suitable public room to the mothers for the purpose of pumping and breastfeeding. This matter can be one of the pre-requisites in providing planning approval.
Henceforth, I would like to ask MMKN to translate this proposal into a government’s policy immediately and make it as a requirement.
Allocation for the B04 Meaning (State Treasurer) – Question on loans given to Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB)
Kampung Tunku is attracted with the allocation sum of RM517.44 million under B04 Meaning – State Treasurer to increase Tabung Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pinjaman ceiling to Statutory Authorities and other authorities.
Total amount of RM423.3 million was allocated as loan to Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad (KDEB) for the purpose of Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad (KHSB) acquisition.
For this matter, it was reported that KDEB has offered the price of 76 cents per unit of share to purchase 56.57% an overall shares (254.56 million shares) belonging to Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor. The total amount that is required for payment is RM193.47 million.
It was also reported that this price may be increased by 10% making it 83.6 cents per share as the final price. This occurs if the re-evaluation of all KHSB’s assets and properties which will be carried out by an independent valuer reports that the Revalued Net Asset Value (RNAV) is 10% more than the Audited Consolidated Net Assets (NA).
If this occurred, KDEB will have to reimburse a sum of RM212.81 million to complete this transaction.
My first question is: if the government has to loan RM212.81 million to KDEB to complete this transaction, why does the government need to prepare RM423.3 million which is twice the amount needed?
The second question is how much would KHSB’s liability that KDEB will inherit altogether? According to The Edge’s report, KHSB faced loss of RM 39.73 million for FY2011 and RM39 million for FY2010. What about KHSB’s previous yearly financial performance? Did KHSB incur any losses? Will the government bear these losses too? Kampung Tunku would like to demand the State government to provide its accounts and figures to this August House.
The third question is: In a report by The Edge Malaysia dated 10 June 2013, KHSB was reported to own land for real estate development assets with the sum of RM214.6 million whilst its investments asset valued at RM1.1 million. The internet search result shows that KHSB also has a piece of 9.6 acres in Petaling Jaya. What the Selangor government’s plan on all acquired assets and properties from KDEB? Can the government give this August House a complete list of assets and properties that will be acquired from KDEB?
Fourth question: KDEB was reported to have signed the Sale and Purchase Agreement to purchase the aforementioned shares on 29 April 2013 i.e. 25 days after the 12th Selangor State Assembly dissolved. What is the government caretaker’s need at that time to sign such agreement that has such huge financial implication?
I hope the government could provide an explanation on this matter. If not, it will set a bad example for future governments.
RM80 million loaned to Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS)
Kampung Tunku would like to draw the attention of the August House on a loan of RM80 million for PKNS to acquire a piece of land from Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) for the Datum In-City development project.
The Datum In-City project is a combined development project that is formerly known as PJ Elevated City. This development project was once exaggerated by the UMNO/BN as it was reported that the government will build worker’s hostels whilst Malaysians do not have the opportunity to own their own house.
On 16 September 2009, the MTES meeting decided the development land owned by State Government and MBPJ with land of 20 acres has to be developed with inclusion of Western Digital’s (hostels that could accommodate 10,000 workers and 5000 car parking lot) and MBPJ’s (office and garage) need.
The MTES approved development concept on 15 June 2010 includes the components below :-
a. Lodging hostel for 10,000 workers;
b. 5000 additional parking lots for the use of existing industry;
c. Trade purpose (office, retail and service apartment); and
d. Apartment housing
The first question is, in this type of apartment, will the government develop social housing also? If yes, how many unit will be developed? If no, what are the reasons?
The second question, what is the real land acquisition cost for PKNS to purchase this land from MBPJ and private owners? Who are the private owners whose land will be acquired for this development?
Thirdly, is the land acquisition cost higher or lower than the loan amount? If it is lower than the loan amount, then what is the rational for the state government to provide a loan higher than what is needed?
Fourthly, are PKNS and KDEB capable to repay their loan on time? Are their cash flow profiles healthy? This question is particularly important for KDEB as the state government had previously provided several loans to KDEB to finance the free water program.
Instead of borrowing from the state government, can’t the two GLCs source loans from private commercial banks? What is the rational for the two GLCs to borrow from state government?
I hope that the state government can clarify all questions raised.