A White Paper on Catamaran to Pulau Mengalum's ?

A White Paper on Catamaran to Pulau Mengalum’s ?

After 15 days of the sunken Catamaran, the search would continue for the 5 missing persons including two already confirmed dead by the survivors according to Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) Sabah and Labuan Regional Director First Admiral Mohd Zubil Mat Som.

It is appropriate that maximum attention and action be accorded to this disaster albeit the Police Report was lodged 12 hours late.

Several key questions for the departure jetty, the age and quality of the Catamaran have been answered and more questions would need some good answers.

Is it usual that five orange life jackets were fished out from the sea during the search and rescue effort?  These life jackets have been confirmed nothing to do with the sunken Catamaran on the way to Pulau Mengalum.  So where do these fairly new and partly old ones come from? Would it be normal for such life jackets to be strewn over the sea for nothing?  We are told that the survivors had life jackets on while in the sea for 30 hours. We were also told that there were not enough jackets for some travellers and yet some life jackets were found floating in the sea. 

The editor made a note under letter headed “Nothing from the survivors” that Policeman was stationed at each hospital bed. Was it really that it was meant to stop local reporters speak to the survivors?  So was it that such action was taken for a capsized boat? What else do we not know? Maybe the China’s CCTV would come out with a full report soon.

Now the China Consulate in Sabah asked for compensation for the 27/28 victims –both dead and survivors.  So who is to be held responsible for such massive compensation?

Earlier, there was a report by Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) Sabah and Labuan Regional Director First Admiral Mohd Zubil Mat Som that his people had some issues and problems in the Search and Rescue operation. According to Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) Kota Kinabalu director, First Admiral Adam Aziz on 5^th February, the hospital also conducts counselling sessions for those involved in the operation to ensure the mental and physical health of every personnel. Who are really in charge of the SAR-  Mohd Zubil or Adam Aziz?

Would a white paper be prepared by the State Government?

Joshua Y C Kong 12/2/2017

Call RCI on Prices

Call RCI on Prices

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said in his speech at the inaugural Sabah Port Forum on 16^th February.  “I am pleased to announce that the government is currently reviewing the cabotage policy for further liberalisation mechanisms to ensure affordable cost of goods and services in the state,”

Liow also noted that the main cause of the high prices of goods in Sabah was not due to the cabotage policy and shipping costs, but weak distribution channels, high handling charges and inefficient inland transportation.

Earlier local exporter Richard Wong Tzu Piaw once again springs to its defence by debunking what he calls as myths surrounding the controversial issue – cabotage policy.

Wong reiterated his conviction that the policy has never been the reason behind the higher cost of living in Sabah as compared to the peninsula, contrary to what many critics from the industry and political circles have claimed.

So we have been arguing for decades (still doing it) over Cabotage policy without any solution insight to reduce the burden of higher prices in Sabah.

Since 1980 until 2000, at every business seminars the issue of higher shipping costs to Sabah was always raised but Cabotage policy was not a reference.

Since we have identified the various reasons for prices disparity within the nation and Sabah is the victim for decades and for 1Malaysia, we hope we can have one price across the board for all consumer items especially the basic ones and costs such as transportation should not be factored in the final consumer prices for imported items.

We all want solution and maybe it is timely for a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Prices  (RCIP) including the costs of transportation and Sabah Ports can be a key parameter here.

So the agenda/Terms of Reference (TOR) for RCIP should include the following:-

1.       Cabotage Policy

2.       Prices disparities within the nation from the manufacturers/importers to the consumers including those in the rural areas.

3.       Sabah Ports performance for costs effectiveness as Liow confirmed ports impact prices.

4.       Business profiteering elements and doing business in Sabah,

5.       Corruption if any,

6.       Subsidies and their impacts for products and fuel if any.

7.       Basis for a single price across the nation.

Another important issue not dealt with by the Sabah ports is the security and safety of the ports and ports area including adverting boats capsizing within the port area by the users both small boats and big ships. Security and safety of ports impact the prices of goods imported and tourism business.

Isn’t there any role for Sabah Ports with jurisdiction over the ports area while there maybe overlapping governance with other authorities?  I hope the authorities concerned including Sabah Ports would examine the possibilities of making our ports and nearby zones safer for tourists (foreign and local) such as domestic transportation  including Esszone as port businesses depends on good security and safety. Can we afford any lame duck excuses?  Maybe we have to come to a time to have some port guards to enable Sabah ports to head for world class for all users/consumers?

Joshua Y C Kong 17 Feb 2017.

Some important clarification by Mayor of Kota Kinabalu

Some important clarification by Mayor of Kota Kinabalu

Recently, there was a statement that Kota Kinabalu would be a liveable city by 2022, and not now.  This Sunday Daily Express published a fairly detailed interview with the fourth Mayor of Kota Kinabalu.  In the interview, there was no references to the scenario of liveable city but I would like to refer to several matters raised therein.

The breakdown of the sources of KKCH revenue in 2015 was as follows: assessment rates (72.4pc), licences (9.7pc), fees (3.9pc), compound (3.2pc), property management (2.4pc), interest and dividend (2.4pc), conservancy fee/sewerage (1.4pc), rental (1pc), miscellaneous (0.5pc) and annual grant from the Federal Government (3.1pc).

I do not see any revenue from the parking charges by coupons started in October, 2014 in the breakdown of revenue. Can it be included under miscellaneous?

Compound at 3.2 % was quite substantial amounting to RM4m and more and how would such compound be utilised for the betterment of the consumers to learn from such faults?

Datuk Mayor mentioned the relocating SK Tanjung Aru would only start and "The new school will be built after the TAED gets final approval."  Where would such fund come from to rebuild the school timely without disturbing or disrupting the semesters of the thousands of school children for the education cannot be broken as TAB would be” closed” soon?

DBKK spent around RM882,000 to maintain existing parks and the revenue of DBKK is about RM140m.  We were told by the promoters of Tanjung Aru Eco Development Sdn. Bhd. that the budget of about RM45m annually to maintain the artificial reclaimed beach and the Prince Philip Park as expanded.  So would the Mayor tell us how would RM45m come from while the said project is still very much in progress as there would not be any revenue thereof?  Mayor Datuk Yeo had indicated that RM140m is just enough for its present affairs of Kota Kinabalu City.  Annual grant from Federal Government is 3.2% amounting to less than RM4m.

Joshua Y C Kong 6^th February, 2017