Dr Zaliha: RM4b Madani City to be fully transferred to government after 25 years, no public funds involved
She further said the RM4 billion development will be fully funded and maintained by the developer, Putrajaya Holdings, under a Build-Lease-Maintain-Transfer (BLMT) model.
'This project does not waste public funds, as claimed by some,' she wrote in a statement posted on Facebook.
Dr Zaliha said Madani City would also provide 10,000 new housing units for civil servants, addressing a current backlog of more than 17,000 unfulfilled applications.
She stressed that the development is a necessity, not a luxury, as demand for government quarters far exceeds existing supply.
Madani City, located in Precinct 19 of the federal administrative captial, spans just 102 acres — about 0.8 per cent of Putrajaya's total land area.
'It will not replace Putrajaya,' she said, countering what she described as a common misconception.
She added that the project was designed in line with the government's vision of a clean, healthy, advanced, safe and eco-friendly city.
The name 'Madani' reflects values of humanity, balance, justice and sustainability, and is not a political label, she added.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced the Madani City project on June 3, and is expected to officiate the groundbreaking ceremony tomorrow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
23 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How a tear or two spooked markets and dominated UK's political narrative
LONDON (AP) — The weekly session in which the British prime minister is questioned by lawmakers in Parliament can be an ordeal for the government leader. For Cabinet members, it's usually simply a matter of backing their boss. But on Wednesday the spotlight ended up on Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during the Prime Minister's Questions session because it became evident that she was crying as she sat beside Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It's not known what triggered the tears, later said to have been personal. They came as Starmer sought to fend off attacks that his year-old government was losing its authority and that he was about to fire Reeves to regain the initiative. Markets spooked Traders got spooked, with the interest rate charged on the U.K.'s 10-year benchmark bond in the markets up sharply, and the pound down. The moves were a sign investors had lost confidence in U.K. financial assets. Reeves had become associated with fiscal discipline, in particular a rule of covering day-to-day government spending with tax revenue, said Andrew Wishart, an economist at Berenberg Bank. 'The markets are concerned that if the Chancellor goes, such fiscal discipline would follow her out of the door,' he added. With Starmer insisting Thursday that Reeves would remain in post, the markets calmed down. Prime minister's weekly ordeal Prime Minister's Questions, or PMQs, can come as close to a gladiatorial contest as is possible in a modern legislative chamber. Very little deference is given to the man or woman holding the highest office in the land. The prime minister is considered the first among equals. Like all other members of Parliament, the prime minister represents one of 650 constituencies. And nowhere is that shared connection more noticeable than at noon every Wednesday in the House of Commons. Starmer stands for half an hour every week to be quizzed by friends and foes. He may get soft balls, but there's always a potential zinger around the corner. The leader of the biggest opposition party, currently the Conservative Party's Kemi Badenoch, has the best chance to knock the prime minister off course. With six questions, she can lay traps and go for the jugular. Typically it's more theater than substance, and the weekly shouting match is consistently the most-watched parliamentary event, viewed around the world, including on C-Span in the United States. This week was fraught This week's session appeared to have more at stake than usual following a chaotic run-up to a welfare reform bill. With scores of Labour lawmakers opposed, Starmer was forced to scrap key planks of the bill — at a cost, politically and economically. For a prime minister, with one of the biggest majorities in history, it was a sign of weakness. Many Labour MPs blame Reeves, for her rigid adherence to her budget rules. As usual, Starmer was flanked to his left by Reeves, who didn't look her usual self, clearly bloated around the eyes. Badenoch showed little mercy, describing Reeves as 'absolutely miserable' and a 'human shield' for Starmer. She asked Starmer whether he could repeat a pledge that Reeves would stay in her post until the general election, which has to take place by the middle of 2029. While praising Reeves' handling of the economy, Starmer didn't give that assurance, and it was around this point that Reeves wiped away a tear. 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place,' Badenoch responded. The immediate political aftermath Starmer's Downing Street operation faced questions over Reeves' teary appearance. Could it have been hay fever? Had Starmer told Reeves she would be fired for the government's recent woes, which has seen Labour's approval ratings slide? Starmer's press spokesman said it was a 'personal matter,' insisted Reeves was 'going nowhere' and had the prime minister's 'full backing.' Later, Starmer told the BBC that Reeves would be Chancellor for a 'very long time' and that it was 'absolutely wrong' to suggest her distress was related to the welfare U-turn. A day on Images of Reeves' agitated state were emblazoned across newspapers and remained a key item on the news agenda. Starmer repeated on Thursday that Reeves would remain Chancellor 'for years to come' and sought to explain why he hadn't comforted Reeves during PMQs. 'In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,' he said at an event where he and Reeves hugged. 'That's what it was yesterday and therefore I was probably the last to appreciate anything going on in the chamber.' Reeves appeared more like her usual self. 'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday,' she told Sky News. 'I guess the thing that is different from my job and many of your viewers is that when I'm having a tough day, it's on the telly.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
You can't fix the NHS without fixing social care, Streeting warned
MPs have warned the Health Secretary that 'you can't fix the NHS without fixing social care' following the launch of the Government's 10-year health plan. Social care was described as a 'very significant question' hanging over the blueprint by the shadow health secretary. Speaking in Commons on Thursday, Edward Argar warned Wes Streeting he risks failing to 'seize the genuine opportunity' presented by the plan if social care is not also reformed. There were also calls to bring forward the end date of the Casey Commission, which aims to set out a plan to implement a national care service, in order to go 'further and faster' on social care. Mr Argar said: 'Unless we move faster to adjust the challenges of social care and put it on a sustainable footing, these reforms risk failing to seize the genuine opportunity presented.' Mr Streeting said: 'We're not waiting for Casey. The Spending Review gave an additional £4 billion to social care, and we're delivering the biggest expansion of carers allowance since the 1970s, significant increase in the disabled facilities grant. 'And the deputy prime minister and I will shortly be setting out how we will deliver the first ever fair pay agreements for the care workforce, building a real social care progression.' The Casey Commission launched earlier this year, with the first phase expected to report in 2026, although recommendations from the initial probe will be implemented in phases over the course of 10 years. Social care leaders have raised concerns over the potential timeline of 2036 for some reforms to be introduced. The second phase of the commission, setting out longer-term reforms, is due to report by 2028. Mr Streeting said social care 'has to be part' of neighbourhood health, adding: 'In the context of this plan, social care features because it has a role to play on admission avoidance and speeding up delayed discharges.' Helen Morgan, Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, said a plan for the future of the NHS is 'welcome' but sought reassurance on social care. 'In 143 pages of the 10-year plan, there is only a passing reference to social care,' she said. 'Everyone knows that you can't fix the NHS without fixing social care. 'With so many people unable to return home from hospital to get the care they need, solving the crisis in social care is a huge part of moving care out of hospital and into the community.' Mr Streeting said: 'I hope the house is reassured by the action we've already taken on social care, that's greater funding, the expansion of carers allowance, increasing the disabled facilities grant, the Fair Pay agreements, and the role and the partnership that we will see with social care to deliver better neighbourhood health services. 'And I should also say, especially in the context of what we've been describing about the importance of data and digital connections and better systems, in some parts of the country the social care system is actually ahead of the NHS, making better use of data, joining up systems in a more effective and efficient way. 'And there's lots that the NHS can learn from social care as well as the other way around.' The chief executive of Care England, Professor Martin Green, also warned that the NHS 'cannot deliver this vision alone'. 'If adult social care is not put at the centre of delivery – not just as a partner, but as a leader – this plan will falter,' he added. 'The plan speaks to a future we've already been building. But vision alone isn't enough. Providers need clarity, investment, and status. 'Without a clear role for adult social care, this plan will leave a gap between policy and reality.'
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Best Way to Take RMDs From Your Retirement Accounts
As investors enter retirement, the U.S. government currently requires them to start taking required minimum distributions from their 401(k) and traditional individual retirement accounts at age 73. But which way is best to take those distributions? Should one take money out at the end of each year so that it sits in the market as long as possible and earn the potential extra return that one can get by staying in the market? Or should one take money out at equal installments throughout the year to spread out exposure to market conditions? Or a hybrid strategy of both?
