Tuesday, June 30, 2009

误购认购权证损失2400万 投资者控诉马交易所欺骗


http://www.merdekareview.com/news/n/10086.html

【本刊特约记者陆秋錤撰述/摄影】一名投资者今天申诉马来西亚交易所(Bursa Malaysia)没有把投资性质的“权证”(warrant)和投机性质的“认购权证”(call warrant)分开,导致他误购风险高的“认购权证”,并因此损失大约马币2400万元。

投资者卢汕华今天由人民公正党霹雳务边区国会议员李文才、雪州士拉央区国会议员梁自坚及吉隆坡峇都区(Batu)国会议员蔡添强陪同,在国会召开记者会,指责马来西亚交易所企图欺骗投资者,并提醒其他投资者投资时应谨慎。

卢汕华(左图左)宣称有三至四年的投资经验,近期通过网络从联昌投资(CIMB Investment)的网站购买权证,而他选购的“权证”,都是在马来西亚交易所网页排行榜的“20大权证”。

“可是,马来西亚交易所却把权证与认购权证放在一起,没有任何方式区分两种性质不同的权证。”

(按:“权证”为认购母股的一项权利,由发售该母股的上市公司发售,投资者可以以特定的价钱(通常比直接买母股更低的价钱)买下权证,在成熟期前(通常为十年)兑现(即是以低于市价的价格认购母股)。

“ 认购权证” 也是认购母股的一项权利,由投资银行或经纪行发售,投资者可以以特定的价钱(通常比直接买母股更低的价钱)买下认购权证,在成熟期前(通常为两年)兑现(即是以低于市价的价格向有关投资银行或经纪行认购母股),不过,如果“认购权证”与母股市价的价差太大,有关投资银行或经纪行可以行使取消“认购权证” 的权利,投资者必须承担亏损。)

“认购权证”风险高

卢汕华说,由于“认购权证”是属于投机性质,投资者需承担的风险非常高,交易所有必要特别注明属于“认购权证”的投资产品。

他说:“在新加坡和香港,‘权证’和‘认购权证’都被列在不同的排行榜内。马来西亚交易所网页虽然提醒投资者两者是不同的投资产品,却毫无注明地把两者列在一起,导致‘认购权证’却被当成‘权证’来卖,企图混淆投资者。”

因此,卢汕华(右图)质疑马来西亚交易所与发售“认购权证”的投资银行或经纪行,为了吸引投资者购买“认购权证”,特地把它们与“权证”放在一起,企图让投资者上当。

卢汕华表示,他花钱投资在马来西亚交易所网站排行榜的“20大权证”后,却发现其中一部分实为“认购权证”,在成熟期后无法兑现,令他损失了大约马币 2400万元。他向马来西亚证券监督委员会(Securities Commission)投报,而该委员会建议他控告马来西亚交易所。

梁自坚在记者会上表示,证券监督委员会与财政部有必要对马来西亚交易所的做法展开调查,并立刻纠正此错误。

“马来西亚交易所把两类权证混在一起的做法很糟糕,导致投资者无法辨识所买的投资产品。当他们发现真相时,通常已经太迟了。”

Investors Warned On Call Warrants

The Minister of Finance in answer to a question from MP Selayang, confirmed that Call Warrants are not the same as dsc01223.JPGWarrants. Warrants are issued by the public listed company and are convertible into mother shares. Call Warrants on the other hand are not issued by the listed company but by third parties such as banks and stockbrokers. On Maturity, they are not converted to shares but the investor is paid a profit if the price is more than the exercise price but the investors has all his money forfeited if the exercise price is less .

These are third parties. In the internet website list the Call Warrants together with Warrants without differentiating them. Many members of the public discovered they had purchased call warrants and not warrants after they had entered into the transaction. Many have lost millions. One of these unfortunate investors is Peter Loo. He lost RM24 million and intends to sue Bursa Malaysia and CIMB over his losses I am sure there are many more who have suffered similar losses.

I call on the Government and the authorities to review this unhealthy practice and to put the Call Warrants on a different list from the Warrants. A clear and prominent notice to warn investors stand the risk of having their entire investment forfeited. When they buy Call Warrants should also be given. I am of the opinion that this is not investment and is more of a form of gambling and it should not be allowed.

30 June 2009

William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament
Selayang


Tuesday, June 2, 2009

梁自坚促解释实施依据,仓促禁售燃油影响业者

独立新闻在线 – 2/6/0809:39:31 pm

n070816_11png.jpg人民公正党总财政兼士拉央国会议员梁自坚律师今日质问政府,为何仓促实施引起混淆和不满的边境禁售汽油和柴油的措施。

他指出,既然财政部将于8月公布燃油津贴的新方案,这意味著政府今日起在马泰边境实施,以及6月9日起在马新边境实施的禁售汽油和柴油的措施,极大可能只会实施2至3个月的时间。

贸消部长沙里尔今日下午在国会召开的记者会上表明,财政部将8月公佈燃油津贴的新方案,因此,禁售汽油和柴油的措施只是短暂的应对措施。

梁自坚今日发表文告指出,政府必须向人民解释清楚,特别是受到影响的油站业者及柔佛居民,仓促实施这项措施的依据。

“难道2至3个月的措施,真的可以解决油价高涨的问题?政府为何不等到整套方案出炉,相反地,却不顾民意,仓促实施这项措施?”

Monday, June 1, 2009

Text Of Speech On Debate Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008

Tan Sri Speaker,

I thank the Honourable Speaker for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008.

Forward

I wish to record my profound disappointment with this Bill. This is because the public and I have waited for more than 20 years for this opportunity to rehabilitate the Judiciary but now I receive this Bill containing 37 provisions that is insufficient and incomplete to correct the problems of the Judiciary. This Bill is not the medicine that can cure the disease affecting the Judiciary.

The Judiciary is the third pillar of the Government, the two others is the executive and the legislature. Tun Mohammed Suffian, the former Lord President of the Malaysian Courts, in his book, “An Introduction to the Constitution” observed that on Merdeka Day, 31st August 1957, the judiciary was vested with the powers of the judiciary as the legislative powers are vested in the parliament and the executive powers in the Executive. The Judiciary occupied the same status as the Legislature and the Executive.

But this changed after the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato Yap Ping [1987] 2 MLJ 311 SC when Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution was amended with the deletion of the words “The Judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in…” and replaced by the substitution that there shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status.

The first 30 years after independence the judiciary was calm and free of interference from outside influence. The second 20 years have been turbulent. Tun Suffian, the former Lord President observed in a speech delivered at the Malaysian Institute of Management in Kuala Lumpur in 1987:

“The reputation that the Malaysian judiciary enjoys of being able to decide without interference from the executive or the legislature or indeed from anybody contributes to confidence on the part of the members of the public generally that should they get involve in any disputes with the executive or with each other, they can be sure of a fair and patient hearing and that their disputes will be determined impartially and honestly in accordance with law and justice.”

The preservation of public confidence in the impartial and independent administration of justice is a vital element in the judicial function. Loss of confidence in the system whether due to inefficiency or more particularly due to perceptions of a want of independence or impartiality on the part of the judiciary is extremely damaging to the effective working of the justice system.

What is the cause for the erosion of public confidence in the Judiciary?

In 1988, Tun Salleh, the Lord President and two other Judges of the Supreme Court Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman bin Pawan The and Dato’ George Edward Seah were sacked from their high office. Three other Judges, Tan Sri Mohamed Azmi bin Datuk Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Dato Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah bin Mohd Salleh were suspended pending official investigations.

Immediately following these shocking events, Tun Hamid Omar was appointed Lord President. The appointment was controversial because he chaired the Tribunal sacking his predecessor, Tun Salleh Abbas. This contravened established principles of natural justice that Tun Hamid Omar ought not to have participated in the Tribunal in which Tun Hamid had an interest in the decision as he would as deputy to Tun Salleh succeed him. The tenure of the Chief Justices following the Judicial crisis in 1988, Tun Hamid Omar, Tun Eusoffe Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz were filled with controversies culminating in the infamous Commission more popularly known as the Commission on VK Lingam Video.

It is therefore important that we should consider the role played by the Executive in these unfortunate events. These events started when certain decisions of the Judiciary earned the ire of the former Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir. Following the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, the Supreme Court became the apex court of the land and fully aware of its responsibility the Supreme Court to deliver decisions especially those involving the Executive without fear or favour. Dr. Mahathir was displease with the Court’s decisions in cases such as JP Berthesen v Director General of Immigration (1987) 1 MLJ 134 SC the Supreme Court held that the Director General of Immigration’s cancellation of the employment passes of Asian Wall Street Journal’s reporters John Berthelsen and Raphael Pura were wrong.

Following these decisions, Dr Mahathir carried out a series of public attacks in the newspapers against the Judiciary. Several judges in Kuala Lumpur held a meeting and requested Tun Salleh write to the King to intervene. Tun Salleh wrote to the King and this led to Dr. Mahathir calling the Lord President to his office to ask for his resignation. Tun Salleh initially agreed but changed his mind the next day. Tun Salleh was then suspended and a tribunal established under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution to sack him.

Tun Hamid Omar appointment after the sacking of Salleh Abbas was thus shrouded in a cloud of controversy and the persons appointed subsequently, Tun Mohd Eusoffe Chin, were also filled with controversies. The scandals became an open secret and one of the cases is that of Ayer Molek Rubber Co. v Insas Bhd (1995) 2 MLJ 734 where Court of Appeal Judge, NH Chan said in his judgment as reported in the Malayan Law Journal that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” which was intended to refer to the House of Denmark where the Kuala Lumpur High Court was situated.

From the time of Tun Eusoffe Chin until Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice, there have been scandals after scandals culminating in the Commission of Inquiry into the VK Lingam video which found that VK Lingam had influence in the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as President of the Court of Appeal and later Chief Justice.


These events showed how fragile is the independence of the judiciary under the Federal Constitution. The safeguards to preserve the independence of the Judiciary can and was dismantled and removed with ease.

These events contravened an important principle, the independence of the Judiciary.

Tun Mohamed Suffian in his book, ”The Constitution of Malaysia: Its Development” said:

“Judicial Independence has always been a pillar of the Constitution. Judges do not take orders from Parliament, nor do they from the Prime Minister or from anybody in Government. Judges are not civil servants who quite properly take orders from ministers and their senior in the service”

After the Judicial Crisis the public perception of the Judiciary is that Tun Suffian’s statement no longer reflected the situation in the country.

This is the central and core issue before us the Independence of the Judiciary.

The events I have narrated is the cause and root for the erosion of public confidence in the Judiciary and the public is presently resigned to the idea that they will not receive justice in our Courts. The independence of the Judiciary is the corner stone for the rule of law. This corner stone has been demolished and the foundation for the rule of law and justice is in danger of collapsing.

The Independence of the Judiciary

I have given a history on the appointment of the Chief Justices for the past 20 years and to explain that it is absolutely critical for there to be a transparent system for the appointment and elevation of judges clear from Executive influence.

I request the Honourable Minister to explain how this Bill is able to restore public confidence in the judiciary and re-establish an independent judiciary. I also request the Honourable Minister to explain how public confidence can be restored that the Prime Minister will not have any influence over the Judiciary.

Pursuant to the provision of this Bill, the Prime Minister has a pivotal role in this Commission, from the appointment of the 4 eminent persons under section 5 to the determination of their emoluments under section 7 and their dismissal from the Commission under section 9 which the Prime Minister may carry out without giving any reasons. This is not a transparent process and certainly not the way to restore public confidence in the system.

Amendment to the Constitution

It is critical that the Federal Constitution is amended to put into practice what other countries have established in the appointment and promotion of judges. Many of the developed and developing countries have established a Judicial Services Commission with powers to appoint, promote and provide for the


remuneration and emoluments of judges. The power of the Prime Minister to appoint judges under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution should be amended to give meaning and effect to the doctrine of the separation of powers.

We must take into consideration and learn from history by establishing a Judicial Services Commission and not just a Judicial Appointment Commission to preserve the integrity and the independence of Judiciary according to the following principles:

    • clear recognition of the separation between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches of Government;
    • greater transparency at all levels of the appointments process;
    • representation of various stakeholders in the judicial system on the JAC;
    • meaningful consultation between the JAC and other concerned parties in the selection of candidates for judicial office;
    • accountability of those involved in the process; and
    • clearly defined criteria for the selection and promotion of judges.

There is a general move in developed and developing countries towards a more transparent and independent system for the appointment of judges. Research indicates that judicial appointment commissions feature in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Germany.

Malaysia has also made commitments with international organisations to maintain an independent Judiciary and in that regard, to promote a transparent and accountable system of appointment of judges:

(i) In 1997, at a conference of Chief Justices of the Asia Pacific Region in Beijing, a “Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region” (“Beijing Statement”) was adopted. The Beijing Statement, endorsed by Malaysia’s then Chief Justice, sets out internationally accepted key indicators of an independent Judiciary.

(ii) In 2003, the Commonwealth Heads of Government endorsed the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government (“Latimer House Principles”). The Latimer House Principles set out guidelines on the accountability and relationship between the

three branches of government, which had previously been approved by Law Ministers and Chief Justices of the Commonwealth countries. The guidelines include the setting up of an independent judicial appointments process. And to give effect to the doctrine of the separation of powers.


Section 28

The entire Bill may be summarized in one section. This is section 28 which states as follows:

“Where the Prime Minister has accepted any of the persons recommended by the Commission, he may proceed to tender his advice in accordance with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.”

The word “may” means that it is not mandatory and the Prime Minister is not obliged to accept the Commission’s recommendations. This means that the Prime Minister’s prerogative and powers as set out in Article 122B of the Federal Constitution remains unaffected. The doctrine of separation of powers is not given effect and the Prime Minister retains his powers over the Judiciary. This will not restore public confidence in the Judiciary.

Transparency

The procedure in sections 13 and 16 do not promote transparency.

“The appointment of Judges should be a transparent process. It should be open to questioning by the general public. Demanding judicial accountability for judicial appointments.”

I suggest that a Judicial Services Commission be established instead of the present proposed Judicial Appointment Commission with a clear transparent process for the appointment, promotion and remuneration of judges and to provide information to the public.

Judicial Accountability

Sections 23(1) and (3) is deficient in respect of providing judicial accountability. Judicial independence must be balanced by Judicial accountability.

Promotion/elevation of Judges

I support YB Ipoh Barat and Teluk Intan’s call for provisions on the promotion of judges to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. The case of Dato Gopal Sri Ram is an example where an able and esteemed Judge held in high regard by judges in the common law jurisdictions have been neglected. The Courts in Singapore decline to follow decisions of the present Malaysian judges except those of Dato Gopal Sri Ram. While the foreign judges hold him in high regard this is not the case with those exercising the powers of promotion to the Federal Court. Many who were elevated to the Court of Appeal after Dato Gopal Sri Ram has been appointed to the Federal Court while he remains languishing in the Court of Appeal for more than 13 years. There must be clear and fair objective criteria for the elevation and appointment of Federal Court Judges.

Remuneration.


I request the Honourable Minister to provide for powers to be given to the Commission to review the remuneration and emolument of judges. One of the biggest problems in the judiciary is to obtain the appointment of the best and the brightest lawyers to be judges. However, the growing disparity in the income a good lawyer obtains in practice compared to the salaries paid to our judges prevents the better lawyers accepting the post of a judge.

It is suggested that urgent attention be given to this issue to address the problem.

Section 5

The events relating to the sacking of Tun Salleh, the appointment of Tun Hamid and the VK Lingam episode shows that there is a real danger of judges desiring promotion to be exposed to pressure from their superiors to make decisions according to directions and not according to law and justice.

Section 5(1)(e) of the Bill retains this unhealthy aspect because the four eminent persons to be selected by the Prime Minister is a minority. Section 13 provides that decisions of the Commission is by majority.

It therefore suggested that the number of persons to be appointed should be six and that there are to be representatives of the Bar Council, the law society of Sabah and Sarawak as well the law academies of the local universities. They should not be subject to the appointment of the Prime Minister to retain and give substance to the doctrine of separation of powers.

Select Committee

This is an important bill to the nation. I request the Honourable Minister not to rush this Bill and waste this golden opportunity to make the amendments and changes necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary by sending this Bill to a select committee to rectify the many weaknesses I and my colleagues on this side of the House have highlighted. This is not a matter of politics and there should be a bipartisan approach to restore the I ndependence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Thank you


17 December 2008

William Leong Jee Keen

Member of Parliament Selayang


Kuang villagers lead the way with Village Security Patrol Units

The Star Online

THE Selangor government has introduced a neighbourhood watch programme for the suburbs and outskirts which will involve residents patrolling their villages to reduce crime.

The first of these units, called the Village Security Patrol Units (Unit Kawalan Keselamatan Kampung, UKKK), was set up at Kuang, near Sungai Buloh recently.

The villagers in Kuang have given their support to the formation of UKKK, which is similar to the Rukun Tetangga programme of the 1970s and 1980s.

Informing the others: A UKKK member speaking on a walkie-talkie at Lorong Mangga in Kampung Chempedak, while a few other members, on motorcycles, wait.

Some of the villagers turned up for the night patrol with torchlights, batons, walkie-talkie and whistles.

Selayang MP William Leong, who joined the villagers during one of their night patrols recently, was impressed with the good turnout at the designated areas in Kuang.

Some of the villagers even turned up in their sarongs.

Others were making coffee in a kettle to keep themselves alert throughout the night.

“This is a good way to get youths involved in helping to deter crime instead of participating in unhealthy activities like lepak and illegal motorbike racing.

Having a chat: Leong (right) talking to the volunteers doing their rounds in Ladang Baru, Sungai Buloh.

“Each time we ask the police personnel about the crime rate getting higher in the area, the police always say they are short-handed and there are not enough patrol cars, especially with the high crime throughout Selayang area.

“So, we took this matter into our own hands and formed this UKKK. Eventually, other areas throughout Selangor will adopt this concept to keep the neighbourhood safe, especially in villages,” Leong said, adding that he used to do this when he was living in Petaling Jaya about 30 years ago.

Leong was at the event to give biscuits and mineral water to six UKKK zones, which he had visited throughout Kuang.

“The UKKK people on patrol do not have the power to arrest thieves. They have the contact numbers of the Rakan Cop and the nearest police station should they come across any suspects in their area.

“All this is on a voluntary basis – even items like torch lights, vest, sticks and walkie-talkie are their own.

“I will be requesting the Selangor government to provide some of the zones an allowance for those who ride their motorcycles during the patrolling,” he said.

Resident R. Subramaniam of Taman Prima Selayang was impressed with the commitment of the villagers and their interest in forming a UKKK in Taman Prima Selayang.

Subramaniam said a total of 400 motorcycles, 72 cars and 13 lorries had been stolen in the area since he has lived there for the last eight years.

“Residents there are very fearful that their vehicles might get stolen. We have to put a stop to it and so we came here to see how the UKKK is being run,” he added.

There are six UKKK zones in Kuang – Ladang Baru, Balai JPK Ladang Baru, Surau Al-Munirah, Lorong Mangga, Lorong Beringin and Kampung Damai – involving a total of 36 people – with each zone having about five or six people at any one time.

The UKKK patrol starts at midnight and continues until 5am daily.

Kuang UKKK zone director Saad Ramilan said so far, 30 vests, 12 walkie-talkies, 60 T-Shirts, 10 torchlights and some batons had been sponsored for the unit and distributed to the six zones.

“With so many villagers helping out, each person need only do one shift a week, which is quite reasonable for working people.

“Last week, our patrol managed to deter a house break-in in Lorong Atap in Kampung Chempedak and a thief just ran away. We want tell thieves out there that the UKKK is here is stay and will keep doing this until crime rates are low.

“We don’t want to catch the thieves in the act but if we do, it is a bonus. We just want to deter thieves from coming to our village to steal and we will send a clear message to everyone out there,” he said.

梁自坚:减轻人民通膨压力,雪政府正研究改善税务系统

当今大马 –2008年 6月2日- 傍晚5点24分

images.jpg 士拉央国会议员梁自坚(左图)指出,新任雪州人民联盟政府正积极研究如何通过改善州政府的税务系统,来减轻人民的生活负担,以化解因全球石油价不断上涨,所造成的通膨压力。

他说,雪州民间团体要求民联新政府多点关注人民的生活压力,要求减少过去国阵州政府鸠收过多的税务,以减轻居民负担的诉求是合理的。

他是针对日前万成花园居民张精生以雪州子民、居民及选民召集人身份,呼吁雪州人民与社团参与收集30万个签名,要求雪州民联政府降低各种税收,以减轻人民生活负担、落实福利州政策时,发表文告做出回应。

前朝政府耗尽议员拨款添阻力

然而梁自坚表示,雪州国阵前朝政府在头两个月内耗光议员拨款一事,已经阻碍民盟雪州政府改善人民生活素质的努力。

雪州人民联盟政府自上任后已意识到自己不得不承接国阵政府所遗留下来的前朝州财政预算案,尤其是为了应对308大选而在头两个月内大派糖果,花光2700万令吉议员拨款以拉拢选票一事。

然而,人民更有权利理解,2008年度雪州预算案内拨出29544000令吉作为议员的选区拨款,其中的90.16%选区拨款,早已在今年3月前,即全国大选前被耗尽,徒增更多阻碍给民盟政府执政雪州后,要推行如何改善人民生活素质的政策努力。

号召签名要降低鸠收过多税务

梁自坚指出,自中选为国会议员,他与万成花园服务中心多位助理,在处理邓普勒州选区内的地方投诉案件,如过高的门牌税、地税、排污费、汽车停泊费、水费、电费、交通传票、交通停泊费及商店招牌税等,都很强烈感受到人民的饭碗,在国阵过去执政雪州50年来皆被忽略掉。

身 为人民代仪士的我誓要从根本解决积累已旧的问题,一直都在连同多位选区助理竭尽本身有限资源与能力,寻求一个州新政权在首60天内可做到的最佳解决方案, 如何快速处理国阵政府执政50年后所遗下的烂摊子问题,如土地局未批准购屋者申请超过20年的房屋地契、新村地契或分层地契等。

他最后说,万成花园服务中心非常欢迎士拉央选区内各个社团,上门来其士拉央万成花园服务中心,让沟通的方式来拉近雪州民联政府与人民的距离。

有 关的邓普勒州服务中心地址为No.24A, Jalan SJ 17, Taman Selayang Jaya, 68100 Batu Caves,联络电话为03-61388088,电邮为adilcn@gmail.com,此外也可联络中心投诉主任徐灶生012-309 6671

身 为人民代仪士的我誓要从根本解决积累已旧的问题,一直都在连同多位选区助理竭尽本身有限资源与能力,寻求一个州新政权在首60天内可做到的最佳解决方案, 如何快速处理国阵政府执政50年后所遗下的烂摊子问题,如土地局未批准购屋者申请超过20年的房屋地契、新村地契或分层地契等。

他最后说,万成花园服务中心非常欢迎士拉央选区内各个社团,上门来其士拉央万成花园服务中心,让沟通的方式来拉近雪州民联政府与人民的距离。

有 关的邓普勒州服务中心地址为No.24A, Jalan SJ 17, Taman Selayang Jaya, 68100 Batu Caves,联络电话为03-61388088,电邮为adilcn@gmail.com,此外也可联络中心投诉主任徐灶生012-309 6671

Capable Individuals Will Be Picked For The Job

The Star – Tuesday March 11, 2008

THE new Selangor state government is likely to select a Chinese or an Indian as council president in any of the 12 municipal and city councils in Selangor.

Newly elected Selayang MP William Leong Jee Keen, a lawyer by profession, said that the state government would elect a council president who is fair, not corrupt and qualified to take the position.

He said that the new government would be formed within a week to make their decisions.

“This does not mean a Malay cannot be a council president.

“Anyone who is qualified and is capable could be selected for the job.

“If a council president who is Indian or Chinese can be fair to the Malays and do their jobs well, the people would definitely be happy with him.

“Those chosen to be council presidents will also be trained if we find that they need it,” said Leong who also plans to continue in the legal profession.

Leong, from PKR, won with a majority of 3,567 votes and had his family – sons Nicholas, Benedict, Gregory and wife Alice Chan – with him during his victory.

Leong added that it was very difficult to change the mindsets of people on corruption and it would have to start at the council level.

“For the past 50 years, the people have been used to a mindset of encouraging corruption and treasuring material wealth.

“It will be an uphill task for us to stop this and the people have to bear with us.

“We want to promote good values like integrity and transparency within the council,” he said.