This is shaping into yet another nightmare.
I copy here ref extracted from a PutraJaya net or something (dun know why National Land Code is not in the AG site???)
I have put the relevant clauses in bold.

CATEGORY : AGRICULTURE
Implied conditions affecting land subject to the category "agriculture"
115. (1) Where any alienated land is subject by virtue of any provision of this Act to the category "agriculture", the following implied conditions shall, subject to sub-section (3), apply thereto-
(a) that no building shall be erected on the land other than a building or buildings to be used for one or more of the purposes specified or referred to in sub-section (4);
(b) that a bona fide commencement of cultivation of the land shall be made within twelve months of the relevant date;
© that the whole area of the land, other than any part thereof-
(i) occupied by or in conjunction with a building (whenever erected) used for one or more of the purposes, specified or referred to in sub-section (4), or
(ii) used for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (e) of that sub-section, or any other purpose which the State Authority may specially authorise,
shall be brought fully under cultivation within three years of the relevant date;
(d) that the area referred to in paragraph © shall be maintained and cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; and
(e) that the said area shall be continuously cultivated:
Provided that the condition specified in paragraph (e) shall be regarded as complied with in the case of any area so long as any period during which less than the whole thereof is cultivated does not exceed twelve months.
(2) In sub-section (1) "relevant date" means the date on which the land became subject to the category:
Provided that, where any land becomes subject to the category on its amalgamation with other land already so subject, the date on which a register document of title to the amalgamated area is first registered shall become the relevant date as respects the whole of that area.
(3) The conditions specified in sub-section (1) shall be implied in the case of any land to the extent only that they are not inconsistent with any express conditions to which the land is for the time being subject.
(4) The purposes referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) are the following-
(a) the purposes of a dwelling-house for the proprietor of the land or any other person lawfully in occupation thereof, or for the servants of, or any persons employed for agricultural purposes by the proprietor or any other such person:
Provided that the dwelling-house for the proprietor of the land or any other person lawfully in occupation thereof shall not occupy more than one-fifth of the whole area of the land or two hectares, whichever is the lesser;
(b) the purposes of agriculture;
© the purpose of extracting or processing raw material from any agricultural produce of such land;
(d) the purpose of preparing for distribution any such material or produce, or any honey-bees, livestock or reptiles kept or bred on such land, or the produce of such livestock or aquaculture on such land;
(e) the purposes of providing educational, medical, sanitary or other welfare facilities, including (so far as they are provided primarily for use by persons employed on the land) facilities for the purchase of goods and other commodities;
(f) any purpose which the State Authority may prescribe for the purpose of this section by rules under section 14.
(g) any purpose which the State Authority may think fit to authorise in the circumstances of any particular case;
(h) any purpose incidental to a purpose falling within any of the preceding paragraphs.

CATEGORY : BUILDING
Implied conditions affecting land subject to the category "building".
116. (1) Where any alienated land is subject by virtue of any provision of this Act to the category "building", the following implied conditions shall, subject to subsection (3), apply thereto-
(a) that, unless on the relevant date such a building already existed on the land, there shall within two years of that date be erected thereon a building suitable for use for one or more of the purposes specified or referred to in subsection (4);
(b) that no part of the land shall be used for agricultural or industrial purposes (except in so far as the erection or maintenance of any building for a purpose or purposes falling within paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (4) may constitute such a use);
© that every building thereon (whensoever erected) shall be maintained in repair;
(d) that no such building shall be demolished, altered or extended without the prior consent in writing of the appropriate authority.
(2) In subsection (1) "relevant date" means the date on which any part of the land first became subject to the category.
(3) The conditions specified in subsection (1) shall be implied in the case of any land to the extent only that they are not inconsistent with any express conditions to which the land is for the time being subject.
(4) the purposes referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) are the following-
(a) residential purposes;
(b) administrative or commercial purposes, or the purposes of passenger transport;
© the purposes of exhibiting, selling by retail, repairing or otherwise dealing in any goods or commodities, or of providing any services;
(d) the purposes of providing educational, medical, sanitary or other welfare facilities;
(e) the purposes of entertainment, refreshment or recreation;
(f) any purpose which the State Authority may prescribe for the purposes of this section by rules under section 14;
(g) any purpose which the State Authority may think fit to authorise in the circumstances of any particular case;
(h) any purpose incidental to a purpose falling within any of the preceding paragraphs.

In essence, once yr agri land is converted to building land, you cant have agri activities.
(IMHO the law is fine as it is to have BH on agri land...unconverted (see below) ...I suspect, the conversion is merely to generate additional state revenue.)
CATEGORY : AGRICULTURE
(4) The purposes referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) are the following-
(h) any purpose incidental to a purpose falling within any of the preceding paragraphs.

I hope the guideline is as stated below and NOT as 'anytime'.
Just doesnt make sense to me, why there is a need to come up with new and different regulation that differ from existing ones.

General powers of State Director, etc.
15. (1) The State Director, the Registrar, and any Land Administrator, may for the purposes of this Act (and without prejudice to the exercise of any powers conferred upon him by any other written law) -
(a) at all reasonable times have free access to, and enter upon, any land in the State;

Like I have stated before, if the PBT wants this (not that I agree with it) then they have a responsibility to ensure that no residential development encroaches onto our 1.5km 'safe haven' subsequent to approval of the BH. Else thru no fault of yours , your BH is deemed to be 'out' of the guideline if the PBT approves such development.
There be a fallout from having BH in any area????? Any BH is the vicinity will automatically render any land within 1.5km unsuitable for residential development!!! Is the residential here the zoning or literal ie a residential house? If zoning then it means a housing estate, if the later it means even if a kampung house is within 1.5 km also tak boleh!!!!

I presume the 40db is still in place? or maybe the more ridiculous ultrasonic sound!!!

What if the owner don't use sound. I saw some of the BH in Sekinchan also not not many birds even though you have loud speaker.

I don't think many bird houses located outskirt also successful . If good bird nest house , this bird house will be targeted by robbers. So if bird houses located deep into agricultural land, what type of security can be use since robbers have gun and parang.

Alarm and Network CCTV sure cannot help in this.

So did the guidelines and laws look into the aspect of losses and security when imposing gazetted areas to the bird house owners. Any bird houses located farther away from town will not even have police respond if robbers attack the place.

The guideline must not be a hindrance to those who have the eye or instinct to locate the sanctuary home for the birds.

Last night, I saw NTV 7 even put up the poll for the tv viewers to vote . I mean can anybody who are clueless about the bird nest knowledge can determine the outcome and decision to draw such guideline?

Are our nation full of numb and dumber these days?

Can we have more people in this forum who can rather make more sense than a public voting or any ministry who had never even gone into the field before.
Dunsun seems to be one of the victim that obviously shared the Reality TV scenario or UNcut Version. Director's Chair View of the situation right now. i wonder how many believe sitting on the fence is the right true solution?

---

Added on February 19, 2010, 9:09 pmi see Dead People.
http://swiflet.blogspot.com/2010/02/borneo...t-eco-park.html

I got this feeling that these powerful dark force is in the work to monopolize the swiftlet industry and uses the law to close down sundry shops.

This post has been edited by hackwire: Feb 19 2010, 09:09 PM

hi..i am new to this swiflet farming..i just do a survey by reading V1 swiftlet keeping..if i wan to build a BH..which government department i should go to apply for the licensed?..i wan to build a BH at my father's hometown Limbang, Sarawak where there are many trees..anyone running any BH at limbang sarawak?mine to share? thanks

No amount of security will dissuade determined thieves/robbers.
IMHO security is put in place merely as a deterrence for the likely thieves/robbers who are so inclined to be so deterred.
It's those hardcore armed and determined ones that everyone fear. These are fearless and bold robbers.
It's not worthwhile to trade your life for a few kilos of EBN.
Short of hiring your own armed private army, there's only so much each of us can do.

Like some of the sifus here have stated, I will not worry abt until you start to harvest plenty.
Let the initial returns pay for the security as appropriate.
If you produce enuff to hire a armed guard, why not? Just a matter of economics.

One suggestion is to have local BHs to come together to hire armed patrols like the KL/PJ housing estates are doing.
If the guards drop in at unannounced and odd hrs and they are armed, it may prove a real deterrence.
This will be like a private police patrol.

The guidelines are a result of the biz being perceived as a public nuisance and the subsequent raids in S'wak which generated a lot of publicity.
A lot of the sifus here have also contributed to subsequent roadshows/workshops to offer feedback.
It's the outcome of all these ie the 1GP that all of us are eagerly awaiting to view.
In terms of security we still need to fallback on our PDRM, not the guidelines.
Don't dream that they will setup a special security unit to prevent theft and robberies pursuant to the 1GP.
If housing estates in KL/PJ need their own security tells you how thinly the PDRM is stretched.

In terms of the 1GP, dun expect much either. Like I have speculated in a prev post. The time will have been spent not working out a 'friendly' guidelines but at turf wars between the different ministries. I think I read on the MOA site that the Health Ministry has yet to respond to the draft.
A realistic expectation will be take all existing regulations; merge them together and the result will be a thicker guideline with more requirements....that is 1GP. Call me a cynic but I will be delighted to be proved wrong.

I dont watch TV, do you mean that there was a program on ENB biz and viewers were asked to vote? On what specifically?

Cheap things no good. Good things no cheap.

My ss-99 running 24/7 non stop since 1 year ago still going. As I understand from james blog the internal parts are very important.

Thanks Cergau for posting that newsclip, read it earlier today but was on the road. Heres one from the Star;

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...5583&sec=nation

Federation of Swiftlet Nest Merchants Association chairman Datuk Beh Heng Seong said the guideline would resolve the problem as owners of premises would have to agree with the conditions if they wanted to remain in business.
“It will become a standard for all local authorities,” he said.

Now... if all i said was true from reading the 'draft' 1GP... quoting in BM;

6.1 Status Tanah
i. hendaklah dikategorikan sebagai bangunan perniagaan
ii. bagi bangunan 'free standing' di atas tanah pertanian, syarat nyata tanah ditukar kepada kategori bangunan perniagaan.

6.2 Jarak Bangunan
i. Mempunyai jarak 150m daripada mana-mana bangunan kediaman berdekatan
ii. Hendaklah tidak kurang dari 0.5km daripada kawasan perumahan dan bangunan komersial

6.10 is about Rakaman Bunyi, totally contradicting statements in item (6.10)i, ii, ii with iv and item 7.3 prohibits 'Penggunaan Alat Memanggil Burung'.

6.17 is about Kuasa Pegawai;
i. 'hendaklah membenarkan pegawai daripada Majlis serta mana-mana pegawai agensi kerajaan yang berkaitan untuk memasuki mana-mana rumah burung atau premis untuk menjalankan pemeriksaan pada bila-bila masa'.
ii. PBT bersama lain-lain pihak berkuasa boleh menutup/menyita, memindah, termasuk kuasa memecah masuk premis bagi melupuskan apa-apa peralatan yang dirampas.

6.19 item ii. Dicadangkan jumlah bangunan yang dibenarkan menjalankan industri ini pada satu deretan bangunan pada kadar 1:5
(meaning to say, only 1 out of 5 units are allowed to be used for SSP's... and even this is attached with other conditions).

So next week they will table the 1GP... with all the do's and dont's... must this and that... if the cabinet does approve of such policies... then there's not much we can do. One obviously good thing about it, commercial lots are safe, as long as they abide and follow the rules... which translates into recommendations by 5-7 relevant agencies before licensing approval. It would seem Datuk Beh has done his job... on the other hand it would also seem that instead of DVS being the 'peneraju'... most of the authority is held by PBT's (and we all know which agency is synonymous with CORRUPTION and ABUSE of power).

What i really disagree is the change of land status for stand alones. JPBD itself doesn't have a standard specification for standalones... whatmore PBT. Commercial lots of course have CF... but asking standalones to follow suit... dunno la... lost for words. I am tempted to ask JPBD or PBT do they have standard specs for kandang lembu, kambing as well (SSP's is categorized as industry asas tani). I am also tempted to ask them to issue CF's for kandang lembu feedlot in the middle of estates or kolam ikan canvas or greenhouses (by definition 'pembangunan' could mean a single tiang yang dinaikkan). Since most agriland are 'kawasan kawalan' and not 'kawasan operasi'... i tend to use this loophole. If they want to gazette agriland into 'kawasan operasi'... lets see the kampung folk riot and bring the ruling party down (in other words... from no taxes, to being taxed). Cergau, thanks for the definitions of the land code... i only had them in BM, which ended up making me more confused. Its good material for reference).

Despite all this said... i do understand why they are doing this. The DVS faced a similar issue years back with poultry, namely chicken farming (kandang terbuka/tertutup). However... it should not be compared with that industry since there is a marked difference. A very-very big difference. Whatever it is... i plan to oppose parts of the draft. Screw them... they should have offered the public to view the draft earlier on and get feed back from a wider range of audiences. Not all of us are members of associations. I think i'll become a cynic like bro Cergau la. ;p
Agri to bangunan land... nak pergi convert satu hal!!(Pejabat Tanah, another agency littered with corruption).

I'll be making some noise tomorrow. It seems Unit Walit (seksyen aneka haiwan) is moving by itself without considering input from state DVS. Don't know how true that is yet. They made the old GAHP in a rushed and messy way... repeating the same mistake is not favorable for the departments integrity. All i can say, this new guideline will be a haven for MACC... opening far more corruption opportunities! Horey 1Malaysia!!!

(my apologies to all forumers... i do not have a scanner available here... i bloody want to share and get feedback from others)

hackwire... the powerful dark force might even be amongst SSP's themselves. Someone posted in V1 a proposal to the Johor State government... whereby a state controlled company was to handle A to Z regarding swiftlets... even licensing!!! One special purpose vehicle to rule them all! Bloody politicians (thank God they revised the GAHP, if not i believe many other state gov's might follow such an example). about public opinion... we still need to educate the public in whatever capacity we can. they normally hate or fear things they do not understand (typical Malay attitude, call me a racist if you want).

---

Added on February 20, 2010, 11:09 amBro Cergau, can u post the link for the National Land Code? thx.

This post has been edited by dunsuntutmybuntut: Feb 20 2010, 11:09 AM

The problems with GP1 or any are that those who are drafting the guildlines may not know the differences between swallow and swiftlet and some even mistaken martin for swiftlet. Recently, on the TV on swiftlets, showing the swallow as swiftlet and the cave type birdnest as house birdnest and from what I saw on the TV, Indo workers arranging birdnests into shapes that were cave nests, I think and hope that I was wrong.......

The federation of National Swiftlets Association should take the initiatives to input the true and correct information to those who are drafting the GP so as to ensure that it is done correctly instead of leaving it to them.

In the end, it shall be the starters, may it be in the towns or agriculture land that will suffer as some of the guildlines may sound absurd or unrealistic, no thanks to the lack of knowledge and understandings in the field by the authorities .............and the Federal Association should take pat of the blame if it happens to cause hardship to the BH owners because they did not provide the right information at the right time and to the right people until everything is too late.

Only if we here have the opportunity to talk to them but we are just small flies..........so, Taikos up there, you need to ensure that all end well for the sake of our future and that of the nation, too.

Hope my comments didn't hurt or offend anyone as I mean well for all in the trade, my income...and for Malaysia, my country ......and also swiftlets, my love.

---

Added on February 20, 2010, 11:37 amCheap thing no good and Good things no cheap and what if I were to sell sell no good thing expensive, then will the cheap thing be good then.

Let your 6 senses be your judge of qualities and if you are able to buy quality thing as a discount price, then why not??? Obviously, don't buy lousy equipment that sound like a bull instead of swiftlet in you BH cos bull can't fly, my friend. Use your ears and eyes when buying and not the price tag.

This post has been edited by West Wing: Feb 20 2010, 11:37 AM

We all share your compassion bro WW. The truth be told... we might be small flies... but we carry a contagious disease called transparency, democracy & the industry's interest. I believe Datuk Beh has done whatever he can... and this proven, by no mention of removing commercial lot BH's anywhere in the guideline. We win some, lose some but never take things lying down... we must voice out our dissatisfaction especially when theres a basis for it.

Saying so... Malays own agriland & Malay reserves which mostly are agri. The proposed conversion of agri to building will bring about a few consequences;

1. Leceh/Hassle dealing with Pej tanah, PBT, JBPD and the other half dozen or so agencies which will have to give favorable comments BEFORE any business pr premise license is issued. Yeah... corruption 101, the more levels/people involved, the more opportunity for abuse. Well my commercial lot friends... looks like i'll be getting a taste of what you guys have faced all these years!

2. it may as well increase land value. A positive thing?

3. As mentioned... ikut specs apa???? Standalones must follow the same quality of build as those of commercial lots, hotels, residential buildings??? (this even JPBD tak tau and blur). This will increase cost... definitely.

4. Since taxes and permits are paid... as clients of PBT, we could demand services... say, lampu jalan... besarkan jalan or making an access road, kutipan sampah... etc2. What, you think i wanna pay for nothing in return??? Silap besar la. I'll demand and hunt them down until they get sick or jump off from the 12th story. They brought this to my door steps, i'm gonna give them a taste of their own medicine... and the buety of it... i have the time and sadistic joy of doing so.

This post has been edited by dunsuntutmybuntut: Feb 20 2010, 11:55 AM

Dunsun,
Try yr camera with diff settings. Sometimes you can get it almost like a scanned copy.
I am eager to view it in it's entirety & then discuss it here.
You can also try a fax machine if you hv 1.
I think we need to quickly view and discuss and quickly start any action like writing to the cabinet members etc..
Are you in Selangor today? I dont mind picking it up to be scanned somewhere. Need to be back home by 6PM today.

From my brief viewing of the para you typed out (thks bro), I am beginning to see a pattern.
I will withhold my observation till I view the entire draft.

As for the National Land Code 1965, it's not on the AG site. I pulled it out in html (page by page) from the Putrajaya net site. I dont know what this Putrajaya thingy is. PBT or what???? I can try pulling them ALL out page by page in it's entirety frm the same site later if I can't find a complete document somewhere else

Can't find a complete doc, not on the AG site, not in Parliament site, There's an amendment Bill (maybe that's why it's yanked off the AG site).
From Putrajaya.net
http://www.putrajaya.net.my/portal/page?_p...&_schema=PORTAL

This post has been edited by Cergau: Feb 20 2010, 06:10 PM

.

This post has been edited by ChanK: Mar 2 2010, 09:09 PM

Do you have prior knowledge of the guidelines?
May I request you share with us for discussion, I do not wish to see my fellow BH owners going down w/o trying to reverse this.

Just on the distance clauses:
6.2 Jarak Bangunan
i. Mempunyai jarak 150m daripada mana-mana bangunan kediaman berdekatan
This seem in place for Agri/Kampung land, this too will bring some BH down.
ii. Hendaklah tidak kurang dari 0.5km daripada kawasan perumahan dan bangunan komersial
This seem the catch all....@shophse as well as eco parks?
Strange!!! all eco units are close to each other arent they? Notice this is Jarak Bangunan & NOT jarak tanah!!!
If all agri land for BH are now converted to bangunan then all eco units too will kena!
The converted land of ecoparks will instantly make them commercial buildings!!

I had initially thought unseen hands were at play to fix a negative perception of eco parks.
Buyers fear that a failed eco unit cant be resold for it's initial purchasing price cos' no commercial activities are allowed.
So if now converted to 'bangunan' then legally can be used for commercial purpose.

This bring up another issue of CF & building specs that Dunsun mentioned.
Most standalone are not build to pass commercial building specs as they are build for a specific purpose and does not have 'normal' load bearing capacity.
As for Dunsun's Qs on increased commercial value, it's exactly the opposite.
If ikut this guideline then no residential houses nor commercial building can be approved with 500m of a BH!!!
If I were to interpret this literally then a single hse can be built within 150m of a BH. If more than 1 hse (my interpretation) within that distance then tak boleh!

---

Added on February 20, 2010, 7:28 pm6.17 is about Kuasa Pegawai;
i. 'hendaklah membenarkan pegawai daripada Majlis serta mana-mana pegawai agensi kerajaan yang berkaitan untuk memasuki mana-mana rumah burung atau premis untuk menjalankan pemeriksaan pada bila-bila masa'.
ii. PBT bersama lain-lain pihak berkuasa boleh menutup/menyita, memindah, termasuk kuasa memecah masuk premis bagi melupuskan apa-apa peralatan yang dirampas.

I do not like this 1 bit. I already can imagine it like a movie set of Genghis Khan mob sacking a city, rape & pillage, with victims crying, pleading. I do not see in my funny eye a movie set FBI/SWAT operasi with battering ram, bolt cutters and shouts of 'CLEAR'.
Also notice pihak pihak lain...wah maybe invite Hitler also-lah. RELA maybe? I think we either give out queuing nos or take our money & do the same biz in Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia with less hassle. Seriously I am abt to firm up my land purchase on Monday. Looks like I have to hold this off now. Instead of feeling all high abt it, I am feeling really down like the political situation in BolehLand. And I thought I can go hide on my land watching swiftlets and take my mind off my country going down and being bankrupted by those filthy politicians. Will end here b4 I become more descriptive with my words.

This post has been edited by Cergau: Feb 20 2010, 07:28 PM

I 100% agree with ChanK. I do not know Datuk Beh personally... whether or not there are other hidden interests... but i do know i am relieved that no order was mentioned for our commercial lot BH friends to move out... like what happened previously to our Sabak friends with Ronnie Liu.

It is WRONG for DVS to only get input from certain associations. They should have done what KL did, circulate publicly KL's new master-plan and get input. They should have distributed some sort of feedback questionnaires, hold briefings at every state level and have debates or discussions with BH owners. Not all BH owners are association members, not all owners have access to internet or updates about the 1GP... it is the DVS's duty to get as much input possible from every corner of the industry and inform those involved.

Today i've met a lot of enthusiasts, ranging from many backgrounds. I even met some acquaintances of Engineer Lee (i wonder why he hasn't been posting lately), Uncle Ben, Jahani and a lot of interesting people. Good day this day. Happy.

I've confirmed that the draft i have is the draft 1GP with a state level director. We will soon lose a bloody good state director who is not only committed to the industry... but at the same time pushing with whatever capacity his office bears to the federal level. There are things he highlighted many times over to central... but the guys higher up seem to have compacted ear wax. Lets just say he shares what most of us aspire for... facilitation, not frustration. I wish more gov officers were like him.

I don't know where exactly to upload for pdf files, so i used scribd instead. Sorry lambat post, its due to be tabled in cabinet next week. Like most policies, it will be tabled a few times. I'm thinking of bugging the Unit Walit (aneka haiwan) Putrajaya again soon.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27157792/1GP-Draft

Just on the distance clauses:
6.2 Jarak Bangunan
i. Mempunyai jarak 150m daripada mana-mana bangunan kediaman berdekatan
ii. Hendaklah tidak kurang dari 0.5km daripada kawasan perumahan dan bangunan komersial

To create a buffer zone of 150m, you'll need a land of no smaller than 6 acres.
6 acre = 24 281.138 534 square meter, assuming the land is square (which is almost impossible) = 155.824 X 155.824 m Still have not taken consideration on the BH dimension.

To have a buffer of 500m, you'll need a 23 acres land! If i remember correctly, under our land & mine code, certain industry/useage has higher priority. I'm sure Swiftlet farming is not on the top few priority. Don't be surprised that the BH is the one that is evicted when there is a conflict arised. in order to protect your investment, then you'll need to build a BH on Agriland bigger than 25 acres.

With the CF thing and some many licence involved, so many departments, the cost of doing business is just too high, more than i can afford
Am holding my plan until the Guide line is done, then re-evalute. Maybe i was not meant to do Swiftlet Farming.

.

This post has been edited by ChanK: Mar 2 2010, 09:09 PM

Here's another option to download the draft 1GP.
OOps Sorry, I tried uploading the 1GP directly to Lowyat 3x, how do I retrieve the download URL?
Or I do not hv sufficient access?
Can someone help so more viewers can get the doc, scribd require registration and not very intuitive.

This post has been edited by Cergau: Feb 21 2010, 03:51 AM

Well, well,well…………very noisy over here…..it seems so many started crying………sigh………

I remember those days DL already predicted what would happen in the end of the days like today by depending on those idiots from the so called Federation Asso whom he knew too well as he ever worked with them long time ago……DL ever said…..never never never trust these few top idiots to negotiate for all of u…….many didn’t believe just bcos the biggest idiot is a Dato…… These people should go to Kedah to find out about this idiot Dato’s dark history…….and also the idiot from Malacca and the one from Kuantan……..

DL has been fighting for all in the industry since early 2000 across the whole country at his own cost despite he didn’t own any bh outside his hometown in Kedah……he led a big group in hundreds and thousands of locals in 2003,2004 and 2005 picketed, confronted and forced the former Penang BN Govt finally succumbed to issue licences to all the BHs. He resolved the Malacca BH crisis in 2002. He mediated, negotiated and arranged meeting for the Perak BH owners, opposition leaders and the former BN Exco, Dato Chang to sit down together and happily resolved those problems given by the Perak Civil Service and BH licenses issued in 2004 ……DL also in respond to the SOS received from Mukah Bh owners assisted and supervised the Sarawak owners to resist the white hair Govt’s nonsense during the Sarawak crisis in oct 2008 ……He openly whacked a certain corrupted dept and highlighted their wrong doings in his speech without fear in an official workshop organised by the Vet Dept in June 2009. Many Govt depts feared of him…….But that bloody idiot group for own hidden agenda ganged up to isolate him…….

Numerously, DL had been appealing to all the ‘small fries’ to stand up and come forward and form their own localized associations to take care of their own immediate interest instead of trusting and depending the idiot group to do also on their behalf, but not many heed his advice thinking that the Dato would also fend for them…….In the end, see what has happened today??? From bad guidelines to worse….

After more than a decade of fighting for the interest of the BH owners in the country and most of them he didn’t even know or meet with, and all these are on his own cost. Many owners agreed to come forward to join in and support him but with lip service only……when come to work, everybody has very good excuse…..The family felt it was time that he should retire from all these social services as he had already done and contributed more than his own share and in fact, even more than many who combined and also he was too tired… So, he retired completely since mid last year….. Today’s scenario is actually within his prediction before he retired…he already forecasted this outcome…..His only advice is if every small fry were to gang up, it is more than enough to drown even an elephant…….it is time that some new leaders with righteous, sincerity and dedication and without fear among the small fries emerge to take the lead by organizing and rounding up others locally first…. and spread to all……before too late…….He reminded that remember, never never trust the idiots…..u can work with them but never be dictated by them….. U can get the dept to listen to u also…….The federation Association does not have full representation of all…….it is only in name they sound big…..but there are many other existing legal BNest Associations with equal standing that are not associated with them and did not give them the mandate…… If every man wants to be only good and silent man and dared not to speak up and fight for JUSTICE, in the end, all of them will be killed by the bad man one by one.

For those who are interested to know the Bnest industry history and its predicaments so far faced, u can flip back from the beginning of this forum. Anyway, I also already very seldom surf this forum any more at least for more than 6 months…..tonight, so happened accidentally entered, only managed to glance through a few posts ……don’t think have much time to chat like those days again………btw, before his retirement, DL ever mentioned dusuntutmybuntut with assistance from west wing and the rest could be made a good leader to organize and spear head …..so, have a good thought…….good luck and bye……and good nite……

Lucas 1, thks for yr advice.

Dunsun! WW,
What abt it?
You 2 are being annointed to lead.
Count me in as the 1st volunteer foot soldier.


btw, anyone here know how to upload to LowYat direct and then retrieve URL for forumers' use?
The same was done with the V1 docs at the beginning of V2.
Do I need to request admin?

.

This post has been edited by ChanK: Mar 2 2010, 09:10 PM

Chan K,
Thanks for providing another easier the link, I has the same intention of making easier to download.

I have picked up similar points as you have shared here.
I am in the midst of drawing up an alternative guidelines incase any pleading is successful.
IN the interest of time, the parties may be ameable to adopt my alternative after feedbacl from forumers.
I will try to complete it today. I will provide the basis for each of the my proposals either new, removed or amended from 1GP.
Appreciate yr all feedback including if my drawing of the alternative is wise and not a waste of time.

I have earlier (mths back) mentioned a proposal to request my local MP to raise a private members Bill in Parliament to remove Fuciphagus from Schedule 4 of the WilfLife Act and was advised by the MP that I need to publicise it else it will fail w/o sufficient support from the Parliament floor.

I agree with yr suggestion of the publicity of the draft 1GP to a wider audience and request them to write to both their local MP and to the Cabinet members.

I think we need a 2 prong approach here
1)Publicity to generate interest and critical mass of voices
2)Continue collaboration with the agencies involved with the drawing up of 1GP

Pls pls provide comments.

I been reading this and as a newbie who hardly know about the history can simply summarize the bird nest scenarios in Malaysia.

1) Political Dato involvement in the Bird Nest Industry using the government mechanism to cripple the newcomers, expansion by current bird nest farmers, talented farmers and new consultants, small business investor (shoplots buyer)

2) Same herd of people protecting each other interest and do not allow or accept views of people that one to see growth using their skills, talent and same time to compete in the world market.

3) Dominion of soverign and territories of successful farm.

4) Disguised as good and honourable figures to lead and to help to boost the industry. ( It's like an old man on the bamboo crutch that also keeping a hidden dagger ) . Always remeber that what one perceived the shape as a pretty lady can also be identified as old lady.

....