PSB questions sole focus on retrenched LBU workers in drafting cabinet paper

0

KUCHING: Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB) has questioned why the cabinet paper on absorbing the retrenched workforce is confined only to Lebuhraya Borneo Utara Sdn Bhd (LBU) workers who have lost their jobs.

The party, in a statement issued yesterday, said while it sympathised with the retrenched LBU workers and would support all efforts to find them jobs, it viewed that Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Datuk Amar Dr James Masing should also look into the plight of thousands of other Sarawakians who had lost their jobs in recent years.

Masing, who is also Minister of Infrastructure and Ports Development, is drafting a cabinet paper on absorbing some of the retrenched LBU workers into his ministry.

“Is he (Masing) aware that many workers in the timber industry have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the timber industry?

“Some of them have been out of job for a long time – why has he not voiced out their predicament so far?” argued PSB.

It pointed out the timber industry was not the only one having to retrench workers, as the recent closure of several supermarkets had also resulted in many employees losing their jobs.

“It seems that the cabinet paper proposed by Tan Sri Masing is a ‘knee jerk reaction’; it betrays his narrow vision of the job market in the state.”

The PSB statement added instead of limiting his cabinet paper on absorbing the retrenched LBU workers, Masing should be looking at the unemployment situation in Sarawak.

“For the Public Works Department (JKR) to utilise RM52 million from the state fund to pay for the salaries of the retrenched LBU workers, (it) is not a long-term solution even though the state government can claim back the amount after the completion of the project.”

The retrenched 68 engineers and support staff members might not fit into the staff structure of the new delivery partners and their absorption into the JKR workforce might force out existing personnel in the department, said the PSB statement.

“It would end up in a case of ‘robbing Paul to pay Peter’,” it added.