The FGVH issue, again and again

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 02, 2012

JUNE 2 — This issue is not going to stand down.

I have to repeat this question. FGVH has not even been listed, the government of the day plans to give a total of RM15,000 to each FELDA household. The pop gets 5k first, then the mom and, finally, junior. Where did the government appropriate the money? Advances from the underwriting banks? From FELDA itself?

If the money is from FELDA coffers, then the FELDA folks must be suffering from a peculiar mental illness, the name of which I don’t know. But it entails a person feeling jubilant receiving his own money but given by another person.

If the money is not from the listing exercise, it must come from somewhere. So for what purpose was the money given? I have said it many times; Najib’s favourite way is to pay his way through. The FELDA settlers are no exception. Moreover there are 52 parliamentary seats to be won in FELDA areas. Sabah and Sarawak are almost certainly gone. FELDA is now the favourite political fixed deposit. Najib is pre-paying the interest amounts.

And Najib at least knows the Malay mentality — anything given free will be wiped clean. He told this once to me when I complained that FELCRA settlers wanted shares for every member of the family when only per household was meant to be given. So now he has improved on his delivery system — RM15k to be divided among pop, mom and junior. That’s representing every member of the family.

Clearly, this is a financial inducement to FELDA settlers to persuade them to decide in a particular way. It is corruption. If settlers are given RM15k, what about the ordinary traditional villagers? FELDA settlers are better off than most of them. This government is being selective again. So, intelligent sons and daughters of discriminated villagers — go back and tell your parents not to vote for a government that is playing favourites.

The original idea to list FGVH came from CIMB Investment Bhd. It was also aided by Ethos Consulting as joint global co-ordinator. Probably now many others have been roped in to become joint co-ordinators. It’s Don Corleone assembling a gathering of the families from New York, Nevada, Vegas to join in to share in wetting their beaks.

This probably was the source of the idea when Najib announced some time in October 2011 that he wanted to list FGVH and its related companies.

If he has studied FELDA, he would have not agreed to the idea in the first place. If the idea has always been the welfare of the settlers and FELDA employees as he claimed, the better idea was to allow KPF to buy out FGVH completely and then go for listing. KPF can hire a top management team to run the business. FGVH is doing the same too, so managing better is not something exclusive that can be done only by FGVH. Moreover, if KPF had been allowed to buy out FGVH and gained 100 per cent control of FH, the claim that we are looking out for the welfare of settlers and FELDA employees first would have been more credible.

The business outfit making money for FELDA is FELDA Holdings, which is owned by KPF and FELDA (through FGVH). FGVH is the smaller partner of FH and in theory the bigger partner offers to buy out the smaller.

FELDA the authority made a judgment and subjective call; it favoured FGVH to buy KPF out instead of the other way round. Now, please tell us, based on that decision, which side does FELDA support? The settlers and employees or the corporate marauders?

The owners of FGVH, upon receipt of the purchase sum, will then do whatever they want in the downstream side of the business or whatever. They can even buy shares in the FELDA Holdings. If that has happened, then FELDA settlers and FELDA employees would have become 100 per cent owners of FH and all assets therein. Moreover, FGVH has no standing to swallow up FELDA Holdings because as a business it hasn’t done well. The last two years profits were probably not enough to cover all the previous losses it incurred.

It has to tackle one nagging question. After the listing, where would FELDA (the parent company) get money to run its business? It has to pay employees, manage the welfare of the settlements and carry out its social and political responsibilities. It needs about RM3 billion a year to finance its operations. When the listing takes place, it will be left with RM400 million a year which is not enough to see it through. It can of course operate from the earnings it gets from selling its 49 per cent in FH to FGVH. How much will it get? It will have to use its portion from the listings to pay off EPF debt, for example. It borrowed RM6 billion from EPF the last time. And don’t forget, it has to allocate a big amount to the ministry in charge of FELDA to allow the minister in charge to play Santa Claus all over.

Probably realising that, FELDA says it will set aside 20 per cent of its earnings from the listing in a new vehicle named Amanah Saham FELDA. I suspect Amanah Saham FELDA will become the repository of moneys deposited there (either from earnings of its 20 per cent share in FGVH or from direct government transfers) to take care of the usual income which FELDA has now lost. From RM3 billion to RM400 million a year. So when Isa says Amanah Saham FELDA will use the dividends and earnings it gets to distribute dividends to settlers, that claim is dubious.

We don’t know whether Amanah Saham FELDA will get 20 per cent from FELDA’s portion of the profits upfront or 20 per cent in the form of shares in FGVH, entitling it to get dividends each year later. Will that 20 per cent equity entail getting RM3 billion a year, we don’t know. Suppose it doesn’t get RM3 billion, where will the shortfall come from? It will have to come from the government. If at the end of the day the government ends up having to contribute money into FELDA which previously doesn’t need help from it, doesn’t this show the myopia of the government? We can even call it stupidity. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 June 2012, 11:00 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Felda
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yang baik itu datang daripada Mahathir, yang tak baik itu datang daripada Pak Lah

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 03, 2012

3 JUN — Dr Mahathir menyalahkan Pak Lah lagi. “sendiri punya salah, dia salahkan orang lain pulak” kata beberapa orang yang berhubung dengan saya dan orang-orang yang berhubung dengan saya itu adalah dikalangan yang hadir semasa perjumpaan dengan Dr Mahathir di Johor dulu semalam. Sebagaimana yang saya dan ramai yang lain berkata, Dr Mahathir dihujung-hujung hayatnya asyik menyalahkan orang lain terutamanya Pak Lah diatas segala kelemahan BN dan Umno Baru itu.

Beliau tidak pernah membuat salah dan segala yang baik itu adalah dibuat oleh Dr Mahathir dan semua yang buruk itu adalah kesilapan dan kesalahan orang lain. ‘Yang baik itu semuanya datang dari Mahathir dan yang buruk itu adalah diatas kelemahan orang lain terutamanya Pak Lah. Mahathir seolah-olah ada benda yang hendak beliau bersihkan dari diri beliau sehinggakan Pak Lah tidak terlepas dari bibir dan ingatan beliau. Disebaliknya Pak Lah yang tahu apa yang Mahathir lakukan terhadap segala sistem kerajaan, tidak berkata apa-apa dan berdiam diri sahaja. Itulah perbezaan di antara kedua-dua bekas pemimpin negara kita itu.

Mahathir sentiasa mencari alasan untuk mengalihkan kesalahan besar beliau terhadap negara kepada orang lain tetapi satu perkara yang kita mesti ingat yang sejarah akan menghakimkan Dr Mahathir Mohamad ini dari rasuah dan salahguna kuasa. Segala kata-kata dan tindakan beliau tercatat di dalam buku nota sejarawan dan akan sampai masanya ia akan tertulis dalam sebuah buku sejarah khas untuk beliau suatu ketika nanti.

Bak kata perpatah, ‘masakan bangkai gajah boleh ditutupi dengan nyiru’. Suatu ketika nanti akan terbongkar juga. Saya tidak mempertahankan Pak Lah, tetapi kita mesti berlaku adil terhadap beliau kerana beliau yang lemah itu dilantik oleh Mahathir juga. Beliau sebagai orang yang saya kenali, tidak pernah tergila-gila hendak menjadi PM walaupun pun beliau mengharapkan untuk mendapatkan kedudukan itu.

Mahathir sendiri yang telah mewariskan pimpinan negara yang mana semua sistem pentadbiran demokrasi telah diruntuh dan dikorbankan oleh beliau (Mahathir). Semasa Pak Lah mengambil tempat beliau, segala institusi dalam negara kita telah dibinasakan oleh Mahathir. Kehakiman, perundangan, polis, institusi raja-raja dan banyak yang lain sudah diranapkan oleh Mahathir. Beliau tahu yang Pak Lah tidak mampu untuk membetulkan keruntuhan yang telah beliau (Mahathir) lakukan tetapi beliau mahukan juga Pak Lah untuk mewarisi kepimpinan dari beliau.

Jika Mahathir teruskan memegang jawatan itu sehingga sekarang, beliau sendiri akan menghadapi krisis keyakinan ini seperti yang dihadapi oleh Pak Lah dan Najib sekarang ini. Tetapi oleh kerana Mahathir bersara tepat pada masa masalah yang beliau wujudkan itu hampir terlambak, maka lambakkan masalah-masalah itu terpaksa dipikul oleh semua pewaris kepada kepimpinannya dan yang terawal mewarisi keruntuhan semua sistem ini adalah Pak Lah.

Lain-lain perkataan keruntuhan moral demokrasi dan tatacara kepimpinan negara telah dilakukan oleh Mahathir dan masalah-masalah yang kita lihat sekarang tidak akan dapat diperbetulkan lagi oleh pemimpin-pemimpin yang telah terbentuk dengan acuan Dr Mahathir itu.

Sesiapa pun boleh menyangkal pendapat saya ini, tetapi saya memilih untuk tidak menghiraukannya kerana ia adalah kebenaran dan Umno Baru tidak mungkin mampu memberikan penyelesaiannya sampai bila-bila. Manusia yang boleh menyelesaikannya ialah pemimpin yang tidak berada atau terbentuk dalam satu acuan dengan Mahathir.

Semua yang berada didalam barisan kepimpinan hari ini adalah dari acuan yang sama dan tidak ada seorang pun dikalangan ahli-ahli Jemaah Kabinet dan MT Umno Baru akan berjaya melakukan pembaharuan dalam politik negara kita. Mahathirlah yang perlu dipersalahkan kerana acuan kepimpinan hari ini adalah acuan beliau sendiri.

Mungkin Pak Lah adalah orang yang ‘responsible’ terhadap kelemahan BN pada hari ini dalam skala yang kecil, tetapi yang mesti mengambil ‘accountability’ sepenuhnya ialah Dr Mahathir sendiri yang suatu ketika dahulu dijunjung sebagai pemimpin yang mengalihkan paradigma kepimpinan negara dan kerajaan. Sekarang segala paradigma-paradigma itu telah banyak menyebabkan kerosakkan dari kebaikan.

Menyalahkan segala-gala kesalahan kepada Pak Lah seorang merupakan satu tindakan yang sangat tidak berhati perut. Hanya dendam kesumat sahaja yang boleh menyalahkan Pak Lah seratus peratus. Mahathir mesti faham yang rakyat khususnya yang berminat untuk menulis sejarah akan menulis segala apa yang dilakukan oleh Dr Mahathir itu. Memoir Mahathir yang ditulisnya itu tidak akan lengkap sampai bila-bila selagi beberapa orang yang sebarisan dengan beliau tidak menulis memoir-memoir mereka masing-masing.

Segala sistem pemerintahan yang ada telah dipunahkan oleh Mahathir kerana beliau mahu mewujudkan sistem beliau sendiri. Sesiapa juga yang mengambilalih kepimpinan beliau akan ketiadaan sistem pemerintahan yang betul kerana kerajaan dan rakyat telah dibudayakan dengan sistem acuan peribadi beliau, bukannya sistem pentadbiran sebuah negara yang baik yang boleh digunapakai  buat selama-lamanya.

Saya tidak dapat menerima yang kesalahan semuanya dilambakkan kepada Pak Lah semata-mata. Takkanlah wang rakyat sebanyak RM1.8 billion yang digunakan oleh Mirzan Mahathir untuk menyelamatkan perniagaannya pun kesalahan Pak Lah. Takkanlah pembuangan lima orang hakim mahkamah agung pada tahun 1998 dahulu kesalahan Pak Lah Badawi.

Membariskan pemimpin-pemimpin lemah yang gunanya untuk mengangguk dalam kabinet itu adalah kesalahan Mahathir. Pak Lah itu sendiri yang tidak sepatutnya berada didalam kabinet itu pun diambil oleh Mahathir juga dan itu yang dikehendaki oleh Mahathir. Apabila Pak Lah tidak mahu mengangguk kepadanya apabila mengambilalih kuasa, itulah kesalahan Pak Lah kepada Mahathir yang sebenarnya.

Mahathir sanggup meninggalkan parti kerana tidak sebulu dengan Pak Lah dan beriya-iya ingin melihat Umno Baru dan BN itu hancur dalam pilihanraya yang lalu. Apabila Pak Lah meninggalkan Putrajaya, Mahathir kembali kepada Umno Baru dan kembali bercakap tentang Umno dan menyalahkan semua orang di atas kelemahan Umno Baru itu.

Adalah tidak munasabah yang segala-gala kesalahan ditolak kepada Pak Lah seorang sedangkan Pak Lah itu hanya melakukan lebih kurang sama dengan apa yang Mahathir lakukan semasa memegang kuasa.

Jika Najib tercari-cari formula untuk melakukan perubahan kepada negara, beliau tidak akan jumpa formula yang terbaik selain dari semua kepimpinan yang terbentuk dengan acuan Dr Mahathir, termasuk beliau sendiri (Najib) tidak bersedia untuk berkorban dengan meletakkan jawatan dan memberikan tugas menyusun semula negara ini kepada sesiapa yang berpengalaman dan boleh mendapat sokongan dan rasa hormat dari semua kaum dan pemimpin-pemimpin mereka.

Selagi itu tidak dilakukan selagi itulah negara tidak akan mendapat sebuah kerajaan dan kepimpinan yang dihormati rakyat.

Jika dikaji betul-betul, itulah sebabnya rakyat sendiri yang mahu melakukan perubahan ini kerana terlalu lama tertunggu-tunggu perubahan sikap dan cara Umno Baru mentadbir negara.

Kepada pemimpin-pemimpin bahagian-bahagian di Johor yang mendengar kata-kata Dr Mahathir dulu semalam, boleh memilih untuk mendengar nasihat Mahathir itu. Anda semua tidak boleh mengikut jejak langkah Mahathir untuk menyalahkan Pak Lah semata-mata, kerana kesalahan yang besarnya datang dari Mahathir sendiri. Kalau benar Pak Lah yang bersalah ingat kepada satu perbilangan, ‘there must be a cause for a cause’. Tidak mungkin kesalahan Pak Lah tidak disebabkan oleh kesalahan Dr Mahathir. Ingat itu.

Sesungguhnya Dr Mahathir mempunyai banyak lubang-lubang yang belum beliau kambus lagi. Jika beliau dan penyokong-penyokongnya tidak mahu mengaku pun tak mengapa, asalkan beliau mengakuinya kepada diri beliau sendiri sudah memadai.

Orang lain tidak payah mendengar pengakuannya. Kita pun hendak juga menjaga air muka beliau itu. Mahathir tidak perlu takut dengan apa yang beliau telah lakukan kerana yang mengambilalih tidak akan berdendam seperti sikap yang ada kepada beliau itu. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 June 2012, 11:20 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bitter harvest for land below the wind

Myles Togoh | June 4, 2012

Free Malaysia Today

 Kaamatan or harvest festival in Sabah this time round is tempered with weariness and to some extent anger over the way genuine Sabahans have been treated.

COMMENT

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah is holding its collective breath as talk gathers steam that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is expected to visit this week bearing a long-awaited “gift” to drum up support for his stumbling Barisan Nasional coalition government.

But the mood among non-partisan Sabahans as the Kadazandusun and Murut communities celebrate their biggest festival is a mixture that suggests bad temper and weariness.

Najib, as the leader of the BN who is fighting to stay in power for a second term, has, as expected, played the federal government’s vote-buying trump card by announcing on Friday the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the extraordinary population increase in the state over the last 20-odd years.

It is to settle a long-held demand for answers on how hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants gained citizenship and even special Bumiputera privileges that have almost wrested control of the state from the locals.

Najib is due in the state during an auspicious time for the local community. The Kaamatan or harvest festival celebrations started last week.

While the festival itself is a time of merry-making and fellowship, especially in the kampung, this year’s celebration comes with a bitter edge.

“There’s this general air of change in the state like what we saw when PBS came to power,” said Charles, a retired civil servant who has witnessed the various political and social changes taking place in Sabah from the time it was a British colony.

“It’s the feeling I get… like when PBS won,” he said, referring to the shock overthrow of the Berjaya government under Harris Salleh in 1985 by the newly-formed PBS [Parti Bersatu Sabah] under the leadership of Joseph Pairin Kitingan.

“I get this feeling even though I don’t go out much anymore. I even saw a car with a sticker saying ‘Ini Kali lah’,” said Charles, who admitted that he usually voted for the ruling coalition in the past.

“It’s different this time. These people are so arrogant. They will say anything to escape from criticism… it’s not logical.”

RCI may mean nothing

He is referring to statements by government leaders explaining events and incidents that people are now privy, too, with the advent of the social media and online news portals.

Charles is not alone. Others have piled up the criticism with phrases like: “Harap ini kali lah” (hopefully this time) and the Chinese have decided “anything can happen… we threw out the BN before.”

“They have seen how the government has given illegal immigrants in Sabah privileges that were for Bumiputeras. They can say ‘no’ but I personally know many who even have ASN (a profitable investment fund open only to natives),” said a doctor working at a government hospital.

Confidence is low that the RCI and its “terms of reference” will right a situation that was welcomed by those in authority for years in order to change the social structure of the state.

Simon Sipaun, a former state secretary and vice-chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, in comments made recently believes the royal commission is just a bit of plaster for a fatal wound.

Like many others, he asked why after years of denial the federal government has just realised there is a big problem in Sabah and also the timing of that realisation.

As Sabahans wait for Najib to come bearing gifts and other what-nots, the sobering thought lingers for most: a toothless RCI serves no purpose other than to acknowledge that the federal government is looking into the problem but it still going to lose its state.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 June 2012, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


FGVH listing: Misery or windfall?

 — Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 04, 2012

JUNE 4 — Every FELDA settler is an automatic member of their co-operative (KPF). KPF owns 51 per cent of FELDA Holdings, the business unit that is the rainmaker for FELDA. Has any settler asked what happens to KPF after the listing? Where is its 51 per cent in FELDA Holdings?

Did KPF get anything? If an EGM has taken place and delegates agreed to the transfer of KPF’s interest in FELDA Holdings and in 10 other subsidiaries, how was its stake in FH valued? Where did it go and how much stake does it get in the enlarged FGVH? I haven’t seen any clarification on this matter written anywhere. It’s as though KPF’s stake has vanished into thin air. Was this the reason Isa Samad came up with a statement that FELDA has allocated 20 per cent to settlers’ interest to be handled by a trust fund? Will KPF continue to exist?

Let’s be clear about this. We are not opposed to the idea of the settler receiving RM15,000 per household. The money is probably theirs anyway, derived probably from previous underpaid dividends. How many times have settlers gone before the courts demanding FELDA make good over its under-declaration of extraction rate on fresh fruit bunches (FFB)? Probably over the years, the value of the extra extraction ran into hundreds of millions. RM15k is probably a cumulative backdated under-payment to each FELDA household (112,635 of them).

The settler, especially the first generation, must think of the future by assessing what they are losing out. There is no way now second-generation FELDA settlers can lay claim on the 360,000 hectares of land managed by FELDA Plantations. All the land and the assets therein are leased to FGVH for 99 years. While FELDA probably gets payments on the lease, the lease rate is revisable every 20 years. They must also be mindful of the fact that they also lose about RM2.5 billion a year from earned revenues which are used to manage the FELDA plantations and provide social amenities. FELDA needs RM3 billion a year to run its operation.

If the money comes from the government, this raises another issue. From which source too, it does no matter now. Probably when in London, the PM sold this business of FGVH IPO to Louis Dreyfus and sold 20 per cent of the business and got RM3 billion. Maybe part of the money is allocated for paying off FELDA settlers. The SC should look whether all material information has been given by FGVH. I don’t see the sale to Louis Dreyfus in the FGVH prospectus. Did it materialise? Or is it hidden under the 23 per cent share under FAHC?

We are therefore left with the question: why is the settler given RM15k when ordinary kampung folks are not? The plausible answer is, it’s done to soften settlers up into forcing KPF to agree to the FGVH listing. Then, clearly that is bribery.

Secondly, it’s given to actually soften up the settler when he realises that he will get a smaller value when the FGVH IPO takes place. He will probably get around RM810 or even less after deducting banking charges and other fees.

It’s crucial to put pressure on KPF through the settlers. So when an EGM or AGM takes place, the delegates can vote asking KPF divests its 51 per cent in FELDA Holdings as the interests they have in 10 FELDA Holdings subsidiaries. Unless KPF divests its 51 per cent in FELDA Holdings, FELDA only has one portion of the core asset. Indeed the only asset that matters — FELDA Holdings.

Now FELDA is at again. What we are opposed is seeing the settler believing that this IPO is done to elevate their welfare. This IPO will lead to the concentration of vast resources and power in the hands of a few mandarins.

After the listing how much will settlers get? 91.2 million shares or 2.5 per cent out of the 3.648 billion shares. FELDA employees will get 3 per cent of the offered shares or 109.44 million shares. Settlers and employees get 5.5 per cent of the shares offered. Institutional investors (41 per cent), MITI (11.5 per cent) and the public (2 per cent).

FELDA settlers really don’t know what they are getting into. By hook or crook KPF is made to give up its 51 per cent share in FELDA Holdings. FELDA owns FGV. FGV owns 49 per cent of FELDA Holdings. KPF is the 51 per cent owner of FELDA Holdings. KPF is 30 per cent owned by FELDA directly and 70 per cent owned by settlers. So, any which way FELDA is in the loop. So, all the while FELDA and the consultants are the ones planning to wet their massive beaks in this deal.

As for the settlers, they may well find themselves in the same position as they are now. Each year, Najib will come around handing them dividends telling them this is government money that we are giving out to you because we care for you. We are such a good government because the people are always in our heart. The sad truth is, they may even find themselves receiving less dividend payments if the management at FGV fumbles and earns less revenue or becomes less efficient.

Being co-operative members, they get dividends each year anyway. Will they not get their yearly dividends if the IPO doesn’t take place? They will still do. They get miserly amounts. Sometimes the people in FELDA Chini in Pekan get RM400 each after paying off kedai koperasi from where they have taken provisions. So, yes, the RM15k is much welcome and some portion of the money is used to settle debts.

Again yes, the RM15k is a welcome relief and a windfall. It is the price of future misery. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 June 2012, 10:18 am and is filed under
Felda
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishammuddin’s assurance of “order during and after GE” quite meaningless if not coupled with public pledge by Najib and key UMNO Ministers that BN will leave Putrajaya peacefully if it loses election

After prolonged silence, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has given the assurance that the authorities would maintain peace and order at all costs should there be attempts to create chaos during and after the next general election.

He said the police would act impartially and according to the law to maintain order, declaring “Anyone who violates the law will be prosecuted to ensure the safety of the innocent. The safety of the people is of paramount importance.”

However, Hishammuddin’s statement failed to achieves the effect of giving full assurance to Malaysians for two reasons, viz:

•	The inaction/indifference of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the police authorities to the recent escalation of the political culture of aggression, thuggery and violence targeting Pakatan Rakyat and Bersih 2.0 leaders, including Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng, Nurul Izzah, Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and most recently, the vicious attacks on DAP Selangor State Committee member V. Ganapathirao and his brother Papparaidu in Klang last Wednesday.

•	The threat by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak when invoking the language of “crushed bodies, lives lost” for UMNO to defend power at any cost in Putrajaya at the 2010 UMNO General Assembly.

Hishammuddin’s assurance of “order during and after GE” is quite meaningless if it not coupled with a public pledge by Najib and key UMNO Ministers that BN will leave Putrajaya peacefully if it loses the 13 general election – especially after his “crushed bodies, lives lost” speech at the UMNO General Assembly two years ago.

Is Hishammuddin prepared not only to give a personal assurance as Home Minister that UMNO and BN would leave Putrajaya peacefully if they lose the general election, but to get the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the UMNO/Barisan Nasional Supreme Councils to make such a public pledge?

This has nothing to do with whether Pakatan Rakyat is confident of winning Putrajaya in the next general election, but whether the UMNO/BN leaderships can pass the supreme test as Malaysian democrats who are prepared to accept the fundamental rights of Malaysian citizens to change the national government through the ballot box – one of the prerequisites for a country to claim that it is a normal democracy before any pretension to want to be the world’s best democracy!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 June 2012, 4:36 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Impact of Growth in International Schools

by M. Bakri Musa

The government has gone beyond removing quotas, as with granting tax and other incentives, to encourage the growth of international schools. However, growth depends more on market forces, principally the demand which in turn is related to costs. Lower the cost and you expand the market. Reducing red tape, as with making it easy to get permits and secure visas, would lower costs far more effectively than any other move.

If there is a market and profit to be made, entrepreneurs will come in. That is the beauty and genius of the capitalist economy. I have no problem with education being “for profit”. That would be no different than the health and other sectors. Profit is just another measure of discipline, effectiveness, and productivity.

There will some educator-entrepreneurs who would focus only on quality education and dispense with fancy gyms, Olympic swimming pools, and ornate entrance arches, thus making their services affordable. Some parents may even accept slightly crowded classrooms in return for affordability. After all they willingly choose international schools and pay those huge expenses; they and their children are thus motivated and could handle larger classes and other inconveniences. They do not need pampering; they just want a Western education and are not interested whether their children would play soccer with the children of Mat Salleh diplomats and expatriate executives. These local children would be diligent no matter how big the class is; their parents would ensure that. Besides, research indicates that there is little correlation between class size and students’ achievements. The most important factor to a child’s success in school is parental involvement; and motivated parents (meaning, those who have fork out tons of money) are involved parents.

Those newer and less expensive schools would not be competing against Tunku Jaafar College, rather our national schools. Their major selling point would not be that these schools are “international” rather that they use English and have a Western curriculum. You can be assured that with the removal of quotas there will still be no lineups at the Chinese or Indonesian International School.

With the increased demand, I envisage our government-linked companies setting up international schools. After all they are already involved in owning and running private hospitals, why not international schools? MARA could also set up such schools or even convert their existing junior colleges and open up the enrolment. Imagine those colleges being sources of revenue instead of draining it!

Removal of quotas is only the first step. The government’s next major role should be to protect the public by keeping out hustlers and fly-by-night operators who are more adept at ripping off customers than serving them. One provision would be to require performance bonds so that if the school were to close down, parents would be reimbursed, plus an appropriate penalty. That should be the minimum “soft” requirement; there of course would be other “hard” requirements aimed at ensuring pupil safety.

At the next level the government should ensure quality, again to protect consumers. However, I do not think that the teachers at Tuanku Jaafar or Bukit Kiara would look kindly to overbearing Ministry officials setting the standards. Instead the ministry should encourage self-regulation and accreditation. Again here we should be careful that the process aims for enhancement of quality and not be subverted to become hidden barriers to new entrants, or worse, another source of corruption. That would only increase costs.

Increased competition would result in the trickling down of affordability. This is true for education as well as aviation. The success of Air Asia is testimony to that. The government’s projection of 75,000 students and 87 schools by 2020 could be easily exceeded. Thailand already has over 200 such schools. Based on our economy and tradition of English education, aided considerably by the deplorable quality of our public schools, the potential local market is even larger and definitely ready for massive expansion.

Impact of More Malaysians at International Schools

Those who enroll in international schools are no ordinary Malaysians; they are the children of the rich and powerful. As such they are destined to play major roles in the nation’s affairs. They will have a clear path to the top because of their superior education and parental influence, though more likely in the reverse order, this being Malaysia. Right now their impact is minimal because of their small numbers. With the anticipated growth, their influence will surely grow.

Even if they were to become only teachers (not to slight the profession), they will bring new style and perspectives to their classrooms; they will be noticed though initially only by their students but later, fellow teachers and the general community. That can only be positive, for the pupils, fellow teachers, the school, and indeed the entire system. Were they to end up as headmasters, professors, senior civil servants, and executives helming major GLCs, their impact would only increase, to the benefit of the nation.

Prime Minister Najib brags of his “transformation program”. However, it is too much to expect present ministers and civil servants to effect that. Brought up under the current system and having reached the top under it, they are not likely to find fault. To them, the ingrained ethos of the civil service, kami menurut perentah (I follow orders!) is hard to break. Their schools and universities have not taught them how to think critically and independently, only to regurgitate what had been fed into them and to perform according to what had been programmed in them. Their career successes have been predicated on complying diligently with the commands of their superiors. When they reach the top they perpetuate that culture.

The only hope for change is to have a critical mass of Malaysians brought up through international schools becoming policymakers and heads of departments. That is the more significant long-term benefits I see with the removal of quotas and other restrictions on international schools.

Meanwhile in the short term expect some difficulties. The initial accompanying educational inequities could potentially be explosive especially when tied to race. However, with the rise of the Malay upper class (either legitimately or otherwise) and with international schools becoming less expensive, we could also soon get a critical mass of these Malays.

The flip side is that with affluent and influential Malay parents abandoning national schools, the impact on those remaining would be severe. With the top creamed off, the average in national schools would go down. Whereas before those parents would demand higher expectations from these schools, now that they are gone, there will be little impetus for improvement. That would grease the slide of our national schools.

It would not be long before a culture of mediocrity and low expectation would become entrenched. Our national schools would then be like America’s inner-city public schools, dangerous and dysfunctional warehouses for the young, the breeding grounds for Mat Rempits and Minah Karans.

Such a dismal future is not destined. Creatively handled, the removal of quotas for international schools could be the impetus for improving our national schools. For one, for every local child enrolled in an international school means that there would be one fewer pupil in national school and one less associated expense. The saved resource could then be showered on those remaining. Even if there were to be an exodus out of national schools, the bright side would be that those schools would now be less crowded and the teachers could afford to spend more time with their pupils.

With quality international schools being the new model, there will be the associated general uplifting of educational expectations among Malaysians. Malay parents will now aspire an education for their children the caliber of that offered at Tuanku Jaafar, not Malay College or MARA Junior College. Consider the example of the retail sector. Now with clean, air-conditioned supermarkets found even in small towns, Malaysians demand fresh products, efficient services, and pleasant environment. Those sundry store operators with their bare armpits contemptuously “serving” their customers will have to change or risk closing down.

That is the positive impact on our national schools I envisage with the removal of quotas on international schools. We have to strive to achieve that end; it will not happen by default.

       If we fail to achieve that, then be prepared to suffer the consequence of our national schools being reduced to dysfunctional human warehouses. With that, we condemn future generations of Malays. That would be far from being an inconsequential impact as Muhyyiddin had assured us earlier.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 June 2012, 10:28 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Mahathir give assurance that he will not suffer another attack of amnesia when testifying before RCIII in Sabah?

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who is acting more and more like the de facto sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia after going on a 5-year “Sabbatical” following his 22-year premiership as the fourth PM of Malaysia, made two remarkable statements yesterday.

Firstly, he said he is unperturbed that the truth in all the alleged financial scandals during his 22-year premiership would be exposed if Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election.

He said I could do whatever I wanted even now to prove there were financial scandals during his premiership.

He said: “He can open any file, even now. He can bring me to court. I am not afraid.,”

What bravado indeed!

Secondly, he said he is prepared to testify if asked by the Royal Commission of Inquiry investigating problems related to illegal immigrants in Sabah, saying:

“I don’t know what I can testify to. If I have any knowledge that they want, I am quite willing.”

There can be no doubt that the person who has the most knowledge about the long-standing problem of illegal immigrants in Sabah is none other than Mahathir, especially as the infamous “Project IC” is known as “Project Mahathir”.

Can Mahathir give an assurance that he would not suffer another attack of amnesia when testifying before the Royal Commission of Inquiry on illegal immigrants (RCIII) in Sabah, as happened when he testified before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Videotape in January 2008?

Mahathir, who is well-known for his “elephantine memory” before and after his appearance before the Lingam Videotape RCI, said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times during his 90-minute testimony  in January 2008.

Would Mahathir suffer another attack of amnesia if he is to appear before the RCIII in Sabah?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 June 2012, 12:05 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s time to repeal the Sedition Act

 — Jeyaseelan Anthony

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 05, 2012

JUNE 5 — The Sedition Act has reared its ugly head again. This time it is against Irene Fernandez and former Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Seri Nizar Mohamed.

We have seen how the Sedition Act was used against Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer and politician, when he was charged for insulting the Sultan of Perak for saying that His Majesty should not interfere with matters concerning the state and that he can be sued for doing so. Some may wonder what sedition is all about as the word sounds very serious and terrifying.

No doubt it is a serious and terrifying offence as one may be imprisoned for merely voicing out different views and opinions. Worst still one may even be branded as a criminal, not for committing crimes like theft and murder but by only having different views or opinions that may be interpreted as being anti-establishment by the powers that be.

The prime minister had announced recently that the Sedition Act will be reviewed. This article posits that the Sedition Act 1948 should not be reviewed but repealed. The question is why?

I say this because, any piece of legislation which imprisons people for holding different views and opinions is to say the least, draconian. Such a law should not be a part of any legal system.

To understand why this is so, one needs to inquire into history to look at the origins of the offence of sedition. The offence itself is made in England. It is part of the common law of England. It was created to protect the British monarch and the British Empire from being criticised or vilified. The law on sedition came about during a period when kings and queens were believed to have divine powers and they were believed to be god-sent and as such, the laws dispensed by them were unquestionable and criticism of rulers were seen as sinful and unlawful. Today, this believe is no longer true and is seen as foolish.

Therefore, a law, which was created with such a purpose in mind, may not be suitable or relevant in present times.

The common law provides that one is only deemed to have uttered or published words which are seditious if those words incite people to violence. Therefore words which do not incite others violence does not amount to sedition. Although this was the case in Britain, its colonies were visited with legislation against sedition which was more draconian. In India, for example, the British colonial courts through several cases decided that the common law on sedition as applied in England will not be applied in India. That means words which merely criticised the British colonial government in India over its unfair policies and practices amounted to sedition.

That explains why prominent Indian freedom fighters and nationalist like Mahatma Gandhi, V.O. Chidambaram Pillai and Balgandhar Tilak were arrested charged for sedition for speaking against the British in India. Mahatma Gandhi, for example, was imprisoned several times after being convicted for sedition. The intention of the British was clearly to suppress and punish per se any individual who attempts to create feelings of disaffection, hatred or contempt to its rule, irrespective of the whether or not disorder follows or is likely to follow.

Clearly, this was the most convenient way to successfully prosecute freedom fighters and nationalists. The crime of sedition was the most effective weapon used by the British to suppress dissent and to fulfill its colonial agenda in India. A further qualification of incitement to violence and public disorder to prove the offence of sedition would have definitely been a hindrance.

The law on sedition that was applied in India is the same as ours in Malaysia. The Sedition Act 1948 was enacted by the British to suppress communist elements within the Communist Party of Malaya and its propaganda which was active in Malaya during the emergency period. The communist officially surrendered to the Malaysian government in 1989.

Although communism is no longer a threat, nevertheless the Sedition Act has been used against members of the opposition, Members of Parliament, journalists and other NGO leaders pursuing campaigns that imply some criticism of the government policies and its institutions. Some of these individuals have been fined and one occasion even imprisoned under the Sedition Act. The current Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng, for example, was charged and convicted for sedition and was imprisoned.

The British left Malaya in 1957; however, the Sedition Act never left with them. It was actually adopted into the Malaysian legal system by a constitutional amendment. It is unfortunate that we are still being dictated by colonial laws like the Sedition Act, which is considered obsolete in many Commonwealth countries due to its history of being an instrument of oppression.

The Sedition Act is a piece of legislation that can be easily abused and manipulated by the powers that be because of the uncertainty contained in its provisions. The provisions of the Act are couched with archaic and vague language in particular Section 3(1) (a)-(f) which lays down the situations where words can come within the meaning of ‘seditious tendencies’. They are as follows:

(a) Bring hatred or contempt to the government or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;

(b) To excite its subjects to procure the alteration of the government by unlawful means;

(c) To bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the administration of justice;

(d) To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the people;

(e) To promote feeling of ill-will and hostility between the different races;

(f) To question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative protected by the Federal Constitution.

The uncertainty of its provisions is implicit in words like “bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government” in Section 3. The language used here is broad and vague enough to catch anything and everything particularly the tendency to question or criticise any government about their policies or actions. There seems no line drawn between legitimate criticisms and criticisms that lead to incitement to violence and disorder. It seems that any criticism aimed at any government or its institutions are capable of having seditious tendencies under the Act.

Of grave concern is the fact that the Act can be used quiet easily to stifle legitimate criticisms against the government and its institutions. Cases have shown that this is possible.

For example, Dr. Ooi Kee Saik a opposition politician, was charged and sentenced to pay a fine under the Sedition Act for having lamented during his speech about the domination of one particular race (the Malays) in the army, police, educational institutions and business and that these policies do not augur well with the government’s policy on racial integration and he accused the government of gross partiality in favour of one race. The court found that the issues raised by Dr. Ooi amounted to bringing the government into hatred or contempt, or exciting feelings of disaffection against the government.

It is clear that Dr. Ooi was only calling for greater racial integration between the various races in Malaysia in order to prevent racial imbalance in the institutions of government and that he was only pointing out to the government that they should do away with policies that do not promote racial integration which is a recognised objective of the government. He did not incite any members of his party or the general public to violence. In fact many government ministers today have time and again called on the government to maintain better racial balance in the various institutions of the government. It is difficult to understand how Dr. Ooi’s statements could be considered as seditious.

The wanton use of the Sedition Act can also be seen in the prosecution of Param Cumaraswamy, a prominent lawyer and a human rights activist, who was charged for having uttered seditious words at a press conference ,where he made statements calling upon the Pardons Board to recommend to the King that the death sentence of a man charged for possession of a firearm be commuted to life imprisonment as it had done in another more serious case, where the accused a influential politician and a serving minister was guilty discharging a firearm and committing murder. The accused also urged the Pardons Board to exercise their powers fairly and uniformly so that people would not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between the rich and the poor in terms of severity of sentence. The prosecution alleged that the utterance of these words above by the accused have a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any ruler of any state and to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any Government.

Param Cumaraswamy, was acquitted and discharged after being called to enter his defence on the grounds that the alleged seditious statements did not have the tendency to incite or to raise disaffection among the people and it did no refer to the King but only to the Pardons Board.

In hindsight, Param Cumaraswamy should not have been prosecuted in the first place since it is obvious that he was only seeking reprieve for his client by calling on the Pardons Board to act according to good conscience so that it would not be seen to be discriminatory. His plea was for a good cause and as such there was nothing seditious in his plea.

Even more worrying is the fact that the truth or falsity of the words uttered or written, are immaterial and will not provide a defence. Even if the words are uttered by the speaker with the most, noblest intention again this will not provide him with a defence. It is therefore an absolute liability offence where intention is irrelevant. In Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding, Justice Azmi Kamaruddin in the course of his judgment said: “… It is immaterial whether the accused intention or motive was honourable or evil when making the speech”.

All the judge has to do is to see whether the words are likely to create disaffection against the government, the ruler or the people. If in his honest judgment he finds it is likely to do that then the statement is seditious. The Malaysian courts have adopted the meaning of “disaffection” in the Australian case of Burns v Ransley, which means disloyalty, enmity and hostility. In other common law jurisdictions like Canada, Australia and India it has been established sedition could not be established without proof of acts that have implicit in them the idea of subverting the government by violent means and inciting others to violence and disorder.

Unfortunately the trend in Malaysia gleaned from the cases decided, does not require any proof of incitement to violence or unlawful behaviour. In essence the Malaysian courts have rejected the common law requirement.

It is quite clear that prosecutions under the Sedition Act are carried out to suppress dissent and its reach even extends to what is said by Members of Parliament in Parliament. This is rather shocking as the electorate expects the people whom they have voted into Parliament to speak on their behalf without fear or favour. The question is, how are the representatives of the people expected to perform their parliamentary duties if their mouths are gagged by the Sedition Act? This is definitely an affront to the principle of parliamentary democracy. No other parliament in the world is subjected to such a restriction.

The recent incidences involving Irene Fernandez, Datuk Seri Nizar and Karpal Singh and has indeed attracted much public attention and we have seen how the machinery of the government particularly the police have swiftly swung into action to investigate the case. However in hindsight, the alleged seditious statements uttered by Irene Fernandez, Datuk Seri Nizar and Karpal Singh seems to be rather trivial, when compared to the statements made by certain Umno delegates at the Umno general assembly in 2007.

Although there were speeches made that were racially inflammatory which would clearly come within the ambit of the Sedition Act, no action taken by the police and surprisingly no one was charged for sedition. Their inaction seems to be rather mind boggling when compared with the swiftness of the investigations done in the Irene Fernandez case’s, Datuk Seri Nizar case’s and Karpal Singh’s case. Again in the Permatang Pauh by elections in 2008 certain racially inflammatory statements were made against the Chinese community in Malaysia by an Umno politician but lo and behold although the police investigated him, he was never charged for sedition.

Conversely, two bloggers who were perceived to be anti-establishment and one of the founders of Hindraf who only tried to raise the legitimate concerns of the Indian community were speedily charged for sedition. The point here is that laws like the Sedition Act can be used to create a culture of fear among the people that they may prosecuted if they spoke their mind on certain issues and of course these type of laws can used at the whims and fancies of the powers that be to only prosecute those whom they feel is a threat to their existence and as shown from the examples above, the Act can be used as a tool for selective prosecution.

I do not understand why is there such a hue and cry made about the Irene Fernandez and Datuk Seri Nizar’s statements made to the press about the ill-treatment of foreign workers and about the Sultan of Johor purchasing a car number plate. The authorities should instead investigate Irene Fernandez’s claim rather than threatening her with sedition. His Majesty the Sultan of Johor has already clarified that he had purchased the number plate with his own money after being questioned by Datuk Seri Nizar, who for all intents and purpose has a right to express his opinion that His Majesty may have made a mistake.

In many countries, sedition laws have either become obsolete or have been repealed. There has not been a prosecution for sedition in Canada since the 1950s.This may be due to the fact that the Law Reform commission of Canada in 1986 had described that the offence of sedition as “an outdated and unprincipled law” and that there no longer seems to be a need for separate offence of sedition since the conduct that would be proscribed by can be dealt with as incitement, conspiracy, contempt of court or hate propaganda.

In Australia, the post 9/11 era led to the passing of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 which made substantial amendments to existing sedition laws by repealing several sections of the Crimes Act 1914 concerning sedition. In India, most charges of sedition are dismissed since the Indian Supreme Court has adopted the British common law where the incitement to violence and disorder must be proven in order to constitute the offence of sedition. In England, the last conviction for sedition occurred in 1909 and thereafter prosecutions have become very rare. Kenya has repealed their Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act actually spells the death knell for the opposition in any Parliamentary democracy and therefore this is another justification for the repeal of the Sedition Act. Even if it is argued that that the Sedition Act is necessary to maintain public tranquillity and racial harmony, there are enough provisions in the Penal Code to deal with racial strife and anarchy. People who cross the line by inciting others to overthrow the government or the monarchy through violence or to commit crimes against another community can be dealt with under the Penal Code.

The Sedition Act 1948 is a relic of its time. The relevance of the Sedition Act today must be looked at along the lines of maintaining public order by punishing and deterring those who incite violence and public disorder and curbing the threat of subversion and terrorism. However, the main theme of the Sedition Act currently in force today clearly, does not address these concerns but it seeks only to criminalise speech or expression that is merely critical of the government and its institutions.

The opposition as the elected representatives of the people and civil society groups should be allowed to criticise the administration of government and its policies since it is the legitimate expectation of the people that the government and the institutions of government are administered in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability.

As such the repeal of the Act is necessary and timely since the Malaysian Penal Code is equipped with provisions against racial incitement, subversion and curbing terrorist activities which includes inciting people to engage in terrorism against the state and other terrorist activities.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 June 2012, 11:01 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Law & Order
,
Lim Guan Eng
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stunt-man politicians

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 04, 2012

JUNE 4 — “Actors” are running amok in Malaysia these days, with their mouths and actions.

First there was the sometimes DPM (sometimes because sometimes he behaves like the PM) Muhyiddin Yassin saying that that the skirmish at Bersih 3.0 was a precursor to violence by Pakatan Rakyat once they lose the elections.

Today, Information Minister Rais Yatim said that Anwar Ibrahim must behave like a gentleman and accept the election results and not riot, etc.

It is interesting till today Najib Razak has not given his word that the BN will leave Putrajaya peacefully if it loses the election. You know why he is silent? Because his party has already unleashed the troublemakers and they are called Perkasa, Pekida, the petty traders association and the Rempits.

In fact, not one senior Umno leader has said that they will accept the people’s verdict.

I am tickled that Muhyiddin and Rais (yes, Malaysians, this is the quality of our ministers) are reading from the same script. The script is aimed at creating the impression that the opposition and Bersih are troublemakers/spoilsports and that BN is confident of victory.

Let me tackle the notion that BN is confident of victory. Could this be the reason why till today the PM is dithering over the date of the polls and the de facto PM Mahathir Mohamad says that the government is weak?

I suppose fiddling with the electoral rolls is a sign of strength as is the use of thugs to disrupt opposition rallies as is the unprecedented use of government funds to buy support, pay cybertroopers.

I get the game being played by Muhyiddin and Rais. They expect some trouble if/when BN lose and they are laying the foundation to blame the opposition/Bersih.

But most Malaysians know the machinations of Umno/BN. We have lived with scoundrels for a long time.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 June 2012, 10:48 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Undermining 1 Malaysia

— The Malaysian Insider

Jun 05, 2012

JUNE 5 — If there is any reason why Malaysians can’t seem to warm up to the 1 Malaysia concept, look no further than Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim’s comments today.

The Information, Communications and Culture Minister spoke at the 1 Malaysia Social Media Convention in Selangor that Malays must unite for a Barisan Nasional (BN) win in the upcoming general election to ensure their rights are not taken away by the opposition.

Fine. He is from Umno. He can say that and it is well within his right. But at a 1 Malaysia event? Really?

Where are the fine words to push a concept that promotes national unity? When Datuk Seri Najib Razak took office, he launched the 1 Malaysia concept because the country seemed divided along racial lines. Much to his credit, 1 Malaysia became the byword that even his political foes grudgingly accepted in a backhanded way.

But not many of Najib’s Cabinet colleagues have warmed up to the idea, well not at public events anyway. Or events supported with public funds.

Today, Rais said Malays “must understand who they are” and “know their rights”.

“The reason we lost so many seats in the 2008 election is because the Malays have forgotten themselves,” he said.

“For a community to stay in power, they must understand politics of numbers, which states when many come together, we can determine something,” he added.

Of course, Rais can say all that. At an Umno event, where its leaders appear to want to drive a wedge between the Malays and those not from the dominant community. How long more before we get leaders who want to promote everything Malaysian, rather than narrow racial lines?

Or do we wait for gems from leaders like Rais who also told the Malays today not to worry over the latest survey by independent pollster Merdeka Center which found support for BN among the Chinese was waning.

“Though recent polls show that Chinese support is low, don’t worry. As long as Malays practise politics of numbers, we will benefit,” he added.

Rais is a well-respected minister with years of experience and that is why it is disappointing that such talk should come from him. Especially when his boss is criss-crossing the country with a slew of 1 Malaysia-stickered initiatives to get the people together and be 1 Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 June 2012, 6:23 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN sedang berusaha rebut mandat rakyat daripada Pakatan

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 06, 2012

6 JUN — Sesungguhnya pilihanraya kali ini ialah pilihanraya untuk mengalahkan Pakatan Rakyat. Begitulah situasi sebenarnya kerana banyak dalil yang menunjukkan yang Barisan Nasional (BN) sedang tercari-cari waktu yang sesuai sejak setahun yang lalu untuk menentukan tarikh pilihanraya umum ini.

Sesungguhnya jika PRU di adakan sekarang PR akan mendapat mandat rakyat dan hakikatnya BN sedang berusaha untuk mengalahkan Pakatan Rakyat dan Pakatan Rakyatlah yang sebenarnya yang  sedang mempertahankan mandat itu.

Sebagai parti yang memerintah BN masih  membelek tarikh-tarikh yang sesuai kerana jika salah tarikh mereka khuatir BN akan dikalahkan dengan teruk oleh Pakatan Rakyat yang kini mendapat perhatian rakyat sebagai satu-satunya pilihan jika hendak menolak BN. Inilah kali pertama kita melihat keadaan parti pemerintah tidak dapat menentukan tarikh pilihanraya walaupun segala usaha telah dilakukan untuk memujuk rakyat kembali kepangkuan BN khususnya Umno Baru. Usaha untuk membetulkan Umno Baru sudah tidak akan berjaya lagi kerana untuk membetulkan Umno itu ia mesti di lakukan oleh pemimpin Umno Baru yang tidak terlibat dengan pentadbiran sekarang.

Ia tidak boleh lagi dilakukan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin yang telah secara “collective” membinasakan Umno Baru  itu. Baik Najib Razak, atau pun Muhyiddin dan semua barisan pimpinan pada hari ini tidak akan mampu untuk mengembalikan Umno ketahap yang pernah mereka alami dahulu. Bagaimana mereka yang merosakkan Umno boleh memperbaikinya?

Umno  Baru ini sepatutnya diperbetulkan semasa parti ini belum mengalami kerosakkan yang seburuk sekarang. Kalau diperbaiki dari dulu mungkin jugalah parti ini mampu diperbaiki. Semasa dahulu belum ramai lagi barisan pemimpin yang melakukan rasuah misalnya. Maka Umno boleh membaikinya dengan cara kita makan tebu….busuk seruas kita buang seruas.

Tetapi sekarang ini keseluruhan batang tebu itu telah berulat dan tidak ada lagi ruas yang baik untuk dimakan. Maka terpaksa kita buang keseluruhan batang tebu itu, dan itu pun yang hendak dilakukan oleh rakyat termasuk ahli-ahli Umno yang akan membuat perhitungan di dalam peti undi nanti.

Ibarat kata keseluruhan tanaman tebu itu mesti dilakukan “replanting” keseluruhan kepada kebun tebu yang berulat itu jika masih berminat untuk mendapatkan tebu-tebu  yang boleh mendatangkan hasil. Rakyat mahukan batang-batang tebu yang tinggi kualitinya, bukan setakat batang-batang tebu yang layak untuk dimakan oleh gajah sarkis sahaja.

Pendeknya sekarang begitulah yang dihadapi oleh Umno Baru ini.  Kalau Umno masih lagi berkeyakinan untuk menang tidak munasabah Najib belum berani mengadakan pilihanraya umum kali ke-13 ini.

Jika begitu keadaannya, hakikatnya BN sedang berjuang untuk mengalahkan pengaruh PR yang mereka anggap akan memenangi PRU ini jika dipanggil sekarang atau sebelumnya. Jika kita hendak fahami lagi maksud saya  itu, BN sudah kalah, dan jatuh sebelum terbang (crashing before taking off).

Maka menghadapi situasi ini bukannya satu perkara yang mudah kerana BN tahu yang parti itu akan tewas dalam pilihanraya kali ini. Justru itu jugalah sebabnya beberapa orang pemimpin besar Umno Baru telah membuat berbagai-bagai cerita yang kita akan menghadapi huru-hara jika PR kalah dalam PRU ini

Sebenarnya BN lah yang akan kalah dan BN jugalah yang akan “orchestrate” huru hara itu. Umno belum pernah hilang kuasa lagi. Oleh kerana itulah untuk menerima penolakkan rakyat itu sangat susah bagi BN, seolah-olah seperti hendak memisahkan kulit dengan daging. Umno sebenarnya tidak “gentleman” seperti parti-parti pemerintah di negara-negara maju.

Di negara-negara maju, parti pemerintah yang kalah dalam pilihanraya begitu “gentleman” dan menyerahkan kuasa dengan berhemah dan halus mengikut tata-cara peralihan kuasa yang telah dimaktubkan dalam perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara. BN ini jika kalah sekali pun, ia akan berusaha untuk menyekat PR untuk mengambil alih kuasa dan semuanya bersebab.

Sebenarnya jika pimpinan itu bersih mereka tidak akan takut dengan kekalahan dalam pilihanraya kerana itu adalah biasa dalam mana-mana negara yang demokratik. Di negara Jepun, PMnya pernah bertukar sebanyak tiga kali dalam dua tahun tetapi tidak memberikan masalah kepada negara itu.

Tetapi disini pemimpin-pemimpin kita terlalu banyak kesalahan dan jenayah yang mereka lakukan semasa berkuasa. Jika terlepas dari kuasa mereka takut untuk menghadapi “consequence” kepada kekalahan itu.

Ini adalah akibat dari kita tidak menghormati sistem pentadbiran dan memilih untuk menjahanamkan sistem itu untuk kepentingan politik peribadi yang tiada hadnya. Sejak Dr Mahathir Mohamad menjadi PM, beliau yang menguasai sistem bukannya sistem yang menguasai negara.  Dr Mahathir mahukan segala-galanya berada di dalam tangan beliau.

Beliaulah Hakim, beliau jugalah Polis, beliau jugalah Undang-Undang. Akhirnya undang-undang yang mengikut kehendak beliau dari beliau mengikut undang-undang. Cara beliau mentadbir tidak ubah seperti P. Ramlee dalam lakonan beliau dalam filem “Ahmad Albab” yang beliau sendiri arahkan. Kalau kita tengok filem itu beliau mengaku yang beliaulah general manager, beliau lah peon dan beliau jugalah yang menjadi salesman dan kontraktornya.

Apabila beliau merasakan tekanan setelah begitu lama memerintah, beliau meletakkan jawatan dan menyerahkan segala warisan yang luntur itu kepada Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Segala-galanya telah berkecai semasa Pak Lah mengambil alih dan Pak Lah tidak mampu untuk membetulkannya kembali.  Rakyat melihat ini semua dan sejarah Dr Mahathir ini akan ditulis dengan teliti oleh beberapa orang sejarawan apabila sampai waktunya.

Sekarang Dr Mahathir menyalahkan semua orang terutamanya menyalahkan Pak Lah sedangkan Pak Lah semasa mengambil alih kuasa, segala sistem negara telah hancur lebur. Tinggal lagi Dr Mahathir bijak untuk meletakkan jawatan betul-betul sebelum masalah ciptaan beliau itu meletup. Beliau melepaskan tangan dan akhirnya Pak Lah lah yang menerima akibatnya.

Kerosakkan itu sekarang di warisi oleh Najib dan Najib menerima jawatan itu kerana menjadi PM itu adalah “ultimate” bagi beliau dan Najib sekarang sedang menghadapi masalah yang lebih besar dari yang dihadapi Pak Lah kerana Najib sendiri menambah masalah negara dengan lebih besar lagi.

Isu terhadap Najib dan BN terlalu besar dan tidak dapat diperbaiki lagi. Usaha Najib untuk membetulkan keadaan ibarat tikus membaiki labu. Ini semua mendapat perhatian rakyat yang sudah terlalu jemu dengan isu-isu yang tidak dapat lagi diterima oleh sebahagian besar rakyat.

Rakyat sudah letih dengan gelagat pemimpin-pemimpin kita maka mereka (rakyat) mengambil pendirian, “enough is enough”. Rakyat sudah tidak lagi mahukan “faked leadership” yang terlalu bergantung kepada “form” mereka sahaja dan tidak kepada “substance” kepimpinan mereka.

Kalau dahulu seorang PM yang tidak “effective” itu boleh diganti dengan orang kedua dan ketiga atau seterusnya, kali ini amat malang bagi Umno Baru kerana keseluruhan kepimpinan dibawah Najib, iaitu Muhyiddin dan yang lain-lain itu tidak akan berjaya memperbaiki keadaan kerana mereka tidak mempunyai “legitimacy” untuk mewarisi kepimpinan negara. Ada pihak yang memberi komen, “jika Najib yang begitu teruk, Muhy lagi teruk dan yang lain pun lebih teruk”.

Maka rakyat kini mengambil sikap, “let”s go for a change…real change” untuk negara kita. Umno Baru masih tidak tahu formula untuk memperbetulkan keadaan politiknya sendiri. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 June 2012, 6:34 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Priority duty of Hishammuddin as Home Minister is to give full support to Suhakam inquiry into Bersih 3.0 rally  and dissolve the Hanif Panel  instead of kicking off a video war to support official version of what happened on “428”

The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has announced that a compilation of videos on the Bersih 3.0 rally would be uploaded on the Home Ministry website today for public viewing to enable people to see the events that occurred during the rally.

He said: “With the video recording, the people can make their own judgement based on facts and not other consideration.”

This is a  most deplorable development post-Bersih 3.0, as it is continuation of  the vilification and  demonization campaign launched by the Barisan Nasional government against Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat  after April 28, like the 30-minute documentary “Bersih 3.0 itu Kotor” telecast on TV1 on Sunday, 13th May  which only antagonised and turned off the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who had gathered peacefully in Kuala Lumpur in support of the Bersih 3.0 call for a clean election.

The priority duty of Hishammuddin as Home Minister is not to be accused, judge,  jury and executioner all in one but to give full support for an independent, impartial and credible investigation into what actually happened at the  Bersih 3.0 rally and establish  what went wrong which marred a great historic event of peaceful people empowerment uniting Malaysians transcending race, religion, region, class, age or gender for a common national cause  with incidents of violence and brutality, regardless of whether the victims were police personnel, media representatives or peaceful protestors.

What Hishammuddin should do is to give full support to the Suhakam inquiry into Bersih 3.0 and  dissolve the Hanif Omar “independent advisory panel” now that two of the six members, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim and Petronas corporate affairs senior general manager Datuk Medan Abdullah have withdrawn from the panel rather than to launch off a video war to support the government version and its conspiracy theory of what happened on April 28.

Hishammuddin’s insistence to upload the  video compilation  of what happened on April 28 only confirmed suspicions that the Hanif panel’s real objective is to produce a finding to  match the government script, particularly when Hanif is on open record as supporting the wild and baseless allegation of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the opposition to topple the government.

I fully agree with Suhakam Commissioner Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah who said  that Hishammuddin’s uploading of the Bersih 3.0 video compilation is against the government objective of setting up the Hanif panel, as it could only be interpreted as a form of pressure to influence both the investigation and outcome of the inquiry.

Two days ago, Hanif said his panel had been shown over 43 minutes of footage of videos on the April 28 rally out of a total of 73 hours of  clips available.

If Hishammuddin is prepared to let the public draw their own conclusions on what happened at the Bersih 3.0 rally, is he prepared to upload all the 73 hours of the video clips on Bersih 3.0?

How can Hishammuddin expect the public to have faith and confidence that he would discharge his duties as Home Minister fairly and impartially when he is not prepared to give full support for a credible,  independent and  impartial inquiry such as the Suhakam inquiry instead of the Hanif inquiry?

For a start, is Hishammuddin prepared to withdraw completely from playing any part or role in the vilification or demonization campaign  of Bersih 3.0 rally so as to allow a credible, independent and impartial Bersih 3.0 inquiry by Suhakam  to carry out its task?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 June 2012, 12:00 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Selangor: Life is better after Umno

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 06, 2012

JUNE 6 — You will remember last month, when the Umno president visited Selangor and proclaimed boastfully that he was confident in recapturing Selangor?

He came with a thousand menacing and peace-disturbing motorcyclists in what was basically a show of force.

There is a famous quotation that says force works on servile natures, not the free. That would be an apt description of Umno people at the moment. Their servitude and muted acceptance of the excesses of their leaders is mindboggling. It suggests a terrible affliction of mental blockage.

That is why Najib Razak prefers the language of force and violence. He is a keen follower of the actress Katherine Hepburn, who once retorted: Why tap on their hands with feathers when you can knock their heads with sledgehammers.

The need for Umno in associating with disparate groups of dubious repute such as Perkasa, bikers aka Mat Rempits, martial arts groups, and the shadowy Pekida, exposes the real bully in Umno.

Umno is just a big bully organisation who likes to intimidate people and threaten them with the use of force.

I have to say a big bully organisation because the majority of Umno supporters are rational and polite but duped masses. It’s the leadership that has corrupted the integrity of Umno.

What Najib conveniently forgot was that he entered Selangor as the leader representing the opposition in Selangor. Remember, Umno is the opposition in Selangor. Umno has 20 seats to Pakatan Rakyat’s 36.

That immediately places what Najib said in its proper perspective. He had to offer some words of confidence and bravado to his paid audience to inspire them. To which I responded with an extempore rhymed quatrain (the Malay Pantun):

One, two, three, four

Lima, enam, tujuh, lapan

Dato Najib cakap saja besor

Nak tawan Selangor tidak ada harapan.

But remind yourselves of his boasts. He challenged all and sundry to judge him by his track record and big ideas. His track record is littered with tales of controversy and corruption.

His big ideas are generally the ideas presented to him by his well-paid consultants. But because he challenged everyone to inspect his track record and big ideas, we will take him on.

Let’s take one record of achievement in Selangor, which Najib will find difficult to emulate.

Let’s talk about the only meaningful measure by which we judge an administration. How has the state government handled the economy? How is the performance of Selangor in this aspect thus far?

Selangor state assembly was told recently that the state government’s revenue increased by RM200 million during the first six months of this year. The state’s cash reserve stood at RM918 million at the end of 2010, RM1, 100 million at June 30, 2011.

 Investment has increased by RM557 million as at June 30, 2011 compared to RM668 million at December 31, 2010.  That’s six months ( 2011)  compared to 12 months (2010). With the two sources combined it will be RM1,760 million compared to RM1, 580 million for the same period in 2010.

In six months, the state government has managed to increase the state revenue by RM200 million and this is the best financial record over the last 28 years, said Khalid Ibrahim. The last 28 years, it was Umno who managed the state.

Najib should take a leaf from Khalid’s book as to how this was achieved. Khalid stressed that the state not only achieved revenue increase but also good financial management.

Yes, good financial management is how we should judge Najib’s track record. He is a big spender out to please people.

Look at the Selangor government’s initiatives in its microcredit programme, for instance. The Selangor government has distributed RM50 million to the people with sources generated from debt collection.

The debt collected was grouped under the Mentri Besar Consolidated Account. The amount of debt collected also reflected the state’s civil service for efficient management of the state revenue.

Perhaps the Najib administration can emulate Khalid Ibrahim’s efforts in keeping score on who owes what amount to the government.

The Selangor state has begun to digitally document details of debtors. The Selangor government has now digitised its filing system. In particular, Najib should learn the art of defraying the cost to any of his initiatives. In Selangor almost two million records have been digitized and the cost came from debt collection.

Will the mainstream media owned and controlled by Umno dare publish these achievements so that people can judge the ideas and track record of Pakatan governments? — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 June 2012, 9:49 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Selangor
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dissecting the ETP Annual Report (Part 2): The mystery of the disappearing entry point projects

— Ong Kian Ming and Teh Chi-Chang

The Malaysian Insider

Jun 07, 2012

JUNE 7 — The investments enigma. PEMANDU in its Annual Report claims that investments by the private sector were well above target last year. The headline claim may not withstand scrutiny though. Very large entry point projects (EPPs) appear to have faltered. We highlight just three examples here. If they had indeed faltered, which projects stepped up and more than filled their large shoes?

The shifting sands of LFoundry. PEMANDU gave itself full marks for the completion of construction of this 200mm wafer fab. However, very strangely, elsewhere in the Annual Report, a much less significant RM100 million equipment refurbishment project was showcased instead of this RM1.9 billion fab. The uncharacteristic modesty by PEMANDU led us to do some digging, which suggests that this lab might never have been constructed at all, contrary to PEMANDU’s claim.

What happened to Damansara City 2 and Marina Island Pangkor? These two EPPs announced last year were perhaps the most important in the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley and Tourism NKEAs. But the ETP Annual Report omits any mention of them, focusing instead on modest “heritage trails” in Kuala Lumpur, and Penang, Klang and Kota Kinabalu as the three ports with the most tourism potential.

PEMANDU’s chimera of perfection. Glossing over issues merely results in a growing gap between reality and delusions of grandeur, and the facade will ultimately come crashing down. Rather than prolonging the charade of infallibility, PEMANDU should be frank and confess to problems, and state the remedial steps it took. This may well help others avoid making similar mistakes and adds much more value to Malaysians.

Some very large EPPs announced in the ETP Updates last year were strangely omitted in the recently released ETP Annual Report 2011.

● These include a RM1.9 billion wafer fab in Kedah, the RM1.9 billion GuocoLand Damansara City 2 project and the RM600 million Marina Island Pangkor Extension .

● Did these EPPs hit problems? If they did, PEMANDU should come clean and transparently explain the issues.

● Problems are part of the business landscape. PEMANDU would add far more value if it shared its experiences in surmounting obstacles instead of glossing over issues.

PEMANDU’s unrealistically perfect world

PEMANDU in its inaugural Annual Report of the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) claimed many successes including:

1. Economic growth being ahead of its target;

2.72 out of 131 EPPs (entry point projects) taking off;

3. EPP investments totalling RM179 billion, creating RM130 billion of GNI and nearly 314,000 new jobs.

Last week, in Part 1 of our series, we gave PEMANDU an A+ for obfuscation, for being less than clear and truthful about its economic growth targets.

This week, we drill down to Execution — the first E in our DEEDS framework for evaluating the ETP. Acolytes of PEMANDU would surmise that business and economic management is effortless. Hardly a hint of difficulty is ever expressed in PEMANDU’s rhapsodic reports.

Those grounded in reality will not be surprised to learn that REFSA finds at least two major issues with the claim of entry point project successes:

1. Some major EPPs announced during the ETP Updates given by PEMANDU last year were strangely omitted in the Annual Report;

2. A number of projects, including big-ticket projects such as Karambunai Integrated Resort City, Tanjong Agas Oil and Gas Hub and LFoundry Wafer Fab, may not pass muster under close scrutiny.

Let us start with the wafer-thin foundations of the RM1.9 billion LFoundry Wafer Fab project in the Kulim High-Tech Park.

The shifting sands of LFoundry

The very first entry point project (EPP) stated under the Electrical and Electronics NKEA (National Key Economic Area) is “Executing a smart follower strategy for mature technology fabrication.” In Update 1 on October 25, 2010, PEMANDU said LFoundry Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of German-based Landshut Silicon Foundry GmbH, would undertake this RM1.9 billion project.

Subsequently, the ETP Annual Report proclaimed that the “construction of the 200mm wafer fab” had been completed by December 2011 and PEMANDU gave itself full marks for delivering on this EPP.

Oddly enough, nothing was mentioned in the “Achievements” section of the ETP Annual Report. Instead, a much smaller RM100 million equipment refurbishment and training centre project was highlighted.

We were very surprised that this astounding execution of completing a wafer fab way ahead of schedule and within just 12 months was not trumpeted. And indeed, we would have supported such publicity as well-founded and a wonderful example of Malaysian construction and engineering prowess.

This uncharacteristic coyness of PEMANDU in choosing to highlight a much smaller RM100 million “refurbishment” project instead of a spanking new RM1.9 billion wafer fab plant completed in record time spurred us to do more research. We found that LFoundry in Germany is declaring itself insolvent and going into bankruptcy proceedings! In fact, there is no mention of this project on:

1. L Foundry’s own website; or on

2. Kulim Hi-Tech Park’s list of tenants.

Note that L Foundry’s financial woes had been in the news as far back as November 2011. But this fact was never mentioned in the ETP Annual Report published in April 2012 when PEMANDU took “100 per cent” credit for the achievement in constructing a 200mm wafer fab.

It was only later that Chris Tan, PEMANDU director for the Electrical & Electronics NKEA, revealed the following in the ETP blog:

“…the German partners ran into operational difficulties … and were forced to pull out. The project as originally envisaged was scrapped … MIDA … shifted to Plan B, and facilitated capacity increases via other companies.”

Taking Tan’s comments at face value, PEMANDU’s achievements are even more breathtaking. It surmounted difficulties with the original German partners and managed to find “other companies”‘ and still complete a 200mm wafer fab factory all within 12 months!

The story behind such “remarkable” execution should certainly be shared with all Malaysians. It would indeed help in transforming the economy if PEMANDU were to share its knowledge with all entrepreneurs:

Who are these “other companies” who stepped in and filled the gap so quickly? Please name them so that we may study and emulate their abilities;

Better still, please set up a site office and a case study. How was construction fast-tracked? Our contractors might learn a thing or two about project management.

Or is the truth more prosaic, and the reality is that there is no 200mm 100 per cent completed wafer fab as claimed in the Annual Report?

We conjecture that PEMANDU gave itself full marks for completion on the basis that while the original projected floundered, it still managed to “facilitate capacity increases via other companies”. We could debate this point further — are full marks deserved if the total investment is less than originally targeted? Furthermore, increasing capacity at existing companies is less valuable than introducing a new player who can broaden and deepen the industry.

However, there are other pressing issues — such as missing projects. These are EPPs which were proudly presented during PEMANDU’s numerous ETP Updates in 2010 and last year, but which, very oddly, received no mention in the ETP Annual Report released in April this year.

We shall highlight just two examples — Damansara City 2 and the Marina Island Pangkor extension.

What happened to Damansara City 2?

The Damansara City 2 project by GuocoLand (Malaysia) Berhad was unveiled in the 3rd ETP Progress Update on January 11, 2011. This mixed development comprising retail and office blocks and a hotel and service apartment was by far the largest project mentioned under EPP 7: Creating Iconic Places and Attractions in the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley NKEA (National Key Economic Area).

We shall set aside the questions of how “transformative” really are property development projects such as this, as well as the process which resulted in GuocoLand’s proposal being granted EPP status and thus, at least implicitly, being more iconic and transformative than, say, the KL Eco City and Icon City projects by SP Setia and Mah Sing, respectively.

What is shocking is that this EPP, which at RM1.9 billion is by far the largest project in EPP7 in the Greater KL/Klang Valley NKEA, receives no mention at all in the ETP Annual Report. There was no status report, and in fact, it was not even mentioned in the “Moving Forward” section. Instead three additional heritage routes and the upgrading of Masjid Jamek were highlighted instead.

Marina Island washed away?

Moving on from the LFoundry and Damansara City 2 projects on the shifting sands of dry land, we come to seaside projects which may have been “washed away”.

The Marina Island Pangkor’s International Resort & Entertainment Extension Project was showcased in the 4th ETP Progress Update on March 8, 2011. This “World-Class Integrated Passenger Seaport Transportation Hub and a World-Class Waterfront Development” which “will position Malaysia well into the future” appears to dovetail nicely with EPP6: Creating a Straits Riviera Cruise Playground in the Tourism NKEA.

Strangely though, no progress update was given in the Annual Report on this huge project which will require RM600 million of investments, and is expected to provide 27,000 jobs and contribute RM9 billion of GNI (Gross National Income) by 2020.

Instead, the ETP Annual Report points out that the Cruise and Ferry Integrated Seaport Infrastructure Blueprint for Malaysia identifies Penang, Klang and Kota Kinabalu as the three ports with “potential to contribute significantly to the Malaysian cruise industry”.

Whatever happened to Marina Island Pangkor? The Blueprint, no doubt, was commissioned by the Economic Planning Unit. But surely PEMANDU in its Annual Report should have stated where this important EPP stands in the overall scheme of things.

Let’s be frank

Uncertainty and adjustments are part and parcel of the business landscape. It is normal for projects to be varied, postponed or even abandoned. Companies do get into financial difficulties. Some go bust. It would be irrational to expect all the entry point projects (EPPs) under the ETP to progress with smooth precision. Problems are to be expected, which good project managers recognise and surmount.

Glossing over and ignoring issues as PEMANDU is wont to do is a terrible approach. Plans, assumptions and forecasts must accommodate changing circumstances. Pretending that all is going perfectly to plan merely results in an escalating divergence between reality and delusions of grandeur, and the facade will ultimately come crashing down.

PEMANDU must be transparent about the EPPs which are facing difficulties. The contribution of these troubled EPPs to investment, GNI and jobs created should be stated clearly and transparently so that shortfalls caused by the affected EPPs and the effects on their respective NKEAs can be addressed and given extra attention moving forward.

In addition, it is also good practice and would be very helpful to other entrepreneurs if PEMANDU were to disclose what went wrong and the remedial steps taken. PEMANDU’s experience and knowledge gained may well help others avoid making similar mistakes.  This kind of transparent evaluation regarding the execution challenges faced by entrepreneurs and entry point projects was sadly lacking in the ETP Annual Report. The pace of private investments is well behind the ETP targets in terms of the share of private to public investments.

In the next instalment of this series which will cover Enterprise, the second E in our DEEDs framework to dissect the ETP Annual Report, we shall uncover more evidence showing why the gaudy investment figures highlighted under the ETP should not be taken at face value.

About this series and DEEDS

Earlier this year, we published a series assessing PEMANDU and the ETP on the goals, plans and targets stated in the ETP Roadmap document. To facilitate constructive discourse and in keeping with the spirit of the alphabet soup of NKEAs, NKRAs, SRIs, EPPs, and GNI surrounding the entire GTP, we evaluated PEMANDU and the ETP on its DEEDS — Data transparency, Execution, Enterprise, Diversity and Socio-Economic Impact. The 8 Focus Papers in this Critique of the ETP Series, together with related infographics and a powerpoint presentation can be found at www.refsa.org. — REFSA (Research for Social Advancement)

* Dr Ong Kian Ming holds a PhD in Political Science from Duke University and Economics degrees from the University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is attached to UCSI University, which has been named as the project owner of two entry point projects (EPPs). To avoid any potential conflict of interest, he will not make references to or analyse these two EPPs. He can be reached at
[email protected]
.

* REFSA (Research for Social Advancement) executive director Teh Chi-Chang holds a first-class degree in Accounting & Financial Analysis from the University of Warwick, an MBA from the University of Cambridge and the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) charter. Prior to joining REFSA, he headed highly-regarded investment research teams covering Malaysia, and was himself highly-ranked as an analyst. He can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 June 2012, 11:57 pm and is filed under
ETP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Home ministry withholds its Bersih 3.0 clip

Malaysiakini

Jun 6, 2012

The home ministry has confirmed that it is withholding its video clip on the Bersih 3.0 rally violence, a move which have initially drew scorn from civil society.

In a press release today, the ministry said the video will not be released until after the ministry appointed panel investigate all the footages which they have been furnished with.

“The independent panel should be given adequate space and time to assess each video,” read the statement.

In addition, the ministry said it would acknowledge all views and advice from the panel, which will meet on Monday.

Previously, there were concerns that the ministry’s video would be a conflict of interest because the ministry had commissioned a panel – led by former police chief Hanif Omar – to probe alleged police violence during the rally.

Earlier, Chinese dailies reported that Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein had instructed his officers to withhold the video clip, which was slated for release on the ministry’s website today.

Video based on ‘facts’

Last Sunday, Hishammuddin said the purpose of making the video public was to enable people to get a proper perspective on events that occurred during the rally.

“With the video recording, the people can make their own judgment based on facts and not other considerations,” he said.

He also said the ministry is ready to face civil suits from those dissatisfied with the source of the video recording.

“This is part of our responsibility to give justice to the participants, police personnel and media people who were assaulted during the rally.”

He added that there is no reason for the ministry to hide the truth as shown by the video recording to be uploaded.

To counter the ministry’s video, the DAP today uploaded a 15-minute video on the rally that focuses on police brutality.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang has slammed Hishammuddin’s insistence on publishing the ministry’s video which he said is nothing more than a continuation of the vilification and demonisation campaign launched by the BN government against Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 June 2012, 12:53 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.