First Article:
Source: http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2008-06-03&sec=malaysia&art=0603m99a30.txt
郭素沁:克連沙嘉出示信函 - 大道局暗示可設路障
(巴生2日訊)雪州高級行政議員郭素沁揭露,承建蕉賴加影大道的克連沙嘉公司,向雪州政府出示一封大馬大道局的信函,並指信函內容暗示該公司可在皇冠城大道設路障。
她指出,在最近州行政議會中,當局邀請克連沙嘉大道公司代表出席開會,以瞭解皇冠城封路的詳情。
雪政府堅持開路
她昨晚出席巴生健身社6週年紀念暨籌募四川賑災基金晚宴上,如是指出。出席者包括雪州行政議員歐陽捍華及劉天球等。
“雪州大臣丹斯里卡立在會上不斷詢問大道公司代表,是誰批准大道公司設路墩,對方才取出大道局的信函,並表示信中暗示大道公司可設路墩。”
她說,民聯政府每週州行政議會上都有討論皇冠城封路事件,她嘲諷前州政府,在兩年時間都無法處理的問題,但民聯政府在執政不足100天就已解決。
“大臣以雪州柏朗桑集團在大道公司中有20%的股份,要求召開股東大會,要股東決定是否開路,而雪州政府強硬的態度,使中央政府的態度放軟,贊成開路。”
On the other hand ....
Second Article:
Source: http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2008-06-03&sec=malaysia&art=0603m99a31.txt
再那阿比丁否認出示大道局信函
(吉隆坡2日訊)克連沙嘉執行董事再那阿比丁否認,曾向雪州政府出示大馬大道局信函,暗示該公司可在蕉賴皇冠城主要大道設路障。
《中國報》針對雪州高級行政議員郭素沁于昨晚的揭露,電訪再那阿比丁。
再那阿比丁堅稱自己對以上事件毫不知情,也不了解有關信函的詳情。
他也聲稱自己對大馬大道局是否曾發出信函,表示不知情。
另外,大馬大道局職員說負責人不在,本報無法求證。
記者聯絡大馬大道局中馬區分局,惟職員指負責人兼主任不在,隨后轉聯絡給該分局主任蘇萊雅,惟對方指此事交由總部監督及協調組主任蘇海米負責。
但當記者多次撥電欲聯絡蘇海米時,其下屬均指他在開會,不方便回電。
本報惟有轉聯絡大馬大道局總監拿督莫哈末拉查利,聯絡多次,其秘書都指對方在開會。
后來本報再度聯絡他秘書時,對方指他已外出並將到外國2星期,無法回應記者的提問。
她也指出,公司另一名副總監今日恰好休假,要求記者明日再撥電詢問。
My 2 cents worth: I am lazy to do the full translation but the content of both article are something like this:
First article - Teressa Kok said that in the Selangor Exco meeting, they invited a representative from Grand Saga to attend. The Selangor Mentari Besar, Tan Sri Khalid asked the representative from Grand Saga who had approved the barricade to be placed up. the representative mentioned that there's a letter from Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM) hinting that Grand Saga is allowed to re-build the barricade.
Teressa Kok then went on to tease the previous Selangor Government was unable to resolve this issue after two years but the PR Lead Selangor government just solved it withing 100 days of administration.
Second article - Grand Saga Executive Director, Zainal Abidin did not admit that they have presented the PR Lead Selangor government a letter from LLM, hinting Grand Saga is allowed to re-build the barricade.
Chinapress also tried to contact various officer at LLM to comment on this but were unable to reach any of them, either they are in meeting or they went oversea or they are on leave.
So now there are two version of stories, which version should we believe? You choose your own version of story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment