Diminished in 2016, what lies ahead for Malaysia?

REVIEW 2016

PAULINE NG

Business Times Singapore

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Kuala Lumpur

TO many, 2016 was a year of diminishment for Malaysia.

Not only has the ringgit’s value declined considerably, public confidence and consumer sentiment have waned noticeably. Meanwhile, the 1MDB financial scandal has also diminished Malaysia in the eyes of the international community.

Unless credibility is restored, the regression is expected to continue in 2017 amid great uncertainties – one of which are the policies of the mercurial Donald Trump who will be sworn in as US president later this month.

New leaders could also emerge in Europe as Germany and France head to the polls in the coming months.

Domestically, even though Prime Minister Najib Razak’s mandate expires in 2018, the smart money is on him dissolving Parliament this year, likely after an electoral re-delineation exercise has been completed.

Mr Najib has had a tumultuous year wrestling with the damaging revelations from the various international probes into 1MDB and its global trail of transactions, particularly the civil forfeiture suits filed by the US Department of Justice to recover more than US$1 billion in assets that is allegedly associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated from the state-owned development fund.

Closer to home, Singapore has pursued criminal charges against individuals found to have breached the city-state’s laws.

Upwards of US$3.5 billion of 1MDB funds remain unaccounted for, according to some estimates. Both 1MDB and Mr Najib, who established the fund and chaired its advisory panel, deny any wrongdoing.

Thus far, Mr Najib’s party Umno and the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, which it helms, have stood behind him.

In the absence of a united opposition, Deputy Home Minister Nur Jazlan Mohamed believes BN, which won 133 parliamentary seats in 2013, may retain a comfortable majority in the 222-seat chamber.

He does not expect Umno’s dominance to be significantly dented and believes Malaysia’s biggest political party can clinch 75 to 80 seats (88 in 2013) and its component parties in Sabah and Sarawak may notch up another 50-plus seats.

“Plus-minus, I expect 120-135 seats as the rural areas remain an Umno stronghold,” he declared.

Voter disillusionment with the Islamic party PAS could see it decimated. Conservatives in the party, which holds about 14 seats, are trying to get new laws through that “upgrade the Syariah courts” but many fear the moves are a backdoor attempt at the eventual implementation of hudud laws.

A less conservative splinter group from PAS has gone on to form Amanah which has aligned itself with the opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan.

Mr Nur Jazlan reckons Bersatu – another new party helmed by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and erstwhile deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin – could pick up a handful of seats.

But he conceded that the impact of a deteriorating economy and rising unemployment is hard to quantify. So too the fallout from 1MDB.

Not only is the political scene more fragmented, Sabah and Sarawak-based parties are no longer prepared to play second fiddle to peninsula-based parties because they realise their role as king-makers.

“Local sentiment in the two states is getting stronger and peninsula parties will have to play a less prominent role if they want to work with new political forces in both states,” said independent political analyst Khoo Kay Peng. “Malay politics is going to be more fragmented than ever. Even BN has to realign its strategy.”

A media practitioner who did not want to be named reckons Mr Najib is playing off PAS against its former coalition partners in Pakatan Harapan. At the same time Dr Mahathir is trying to split Umno voters. “This game is totally a mess,” he sighed.

For BN’s non-Malay coalition partners – already perceived to be riding on Umno’s coat-tails – Mr Khoo predicts “greater marginalisation”.

The media practitioner believes the 14th General Election is not likely to see significant changes. “It will probably be status quo, but the government will be even weaker as Najib will be beholden to so many people for his survival. He will owe them even more favours,” he said, bemoaning the quality of the cabinet.

He expects some political skulduggery after lawmakers have secured their seats – especially if the ringgit and the economy continue to decline.

“It’s all relative. Investors still need to be in Malaysia because of its weightage in the indices,” insisted Mr Nur Jazlan. He maintains that the ringgit’s collapse to 4.48 to the US dollar, a 19-year low, is due to “a mixture of factors but mainly because of portfolio rebalancing”.

Dispirited businesses and individuals are bracing for leaner times as the ringgit continues to shrink and daily expenses and unemployment creep up. The economy is stalling but Treasury is constrained by a near 20-year deficit and cutting spending in many areas including healthcare and education.

Businessmen complain about the lack of focus on real issues affecting the economy; one glaring issue is corruption. “The government hasn’t shown its interest in solving some of these issues,” said Mr Khoo, who believes consumer confidence and government credibility have to be restored if conditions are to improve in 2017.

“This government is so profoundly debilitated by the 1MDB scandal and the considerations of political survival that it is not about to undertake the bold initiatives which are needed,” economist Jomo Sundaram said in an interview with The Star newspaper.

Buttressed by the institutions of the state, Mr Najib remains resilient and seems impervious to public opinion, including a rally in November attended by tens of thousands of people urging him to step down.

Mr Khoo said the events of 2016 drove home the lack of accountability and institutional independence in the country. “The excessive power of the executive branch can easily curtail the rule of law and separation of powers in the country.”

At 91, Dr Mahathir is perceived to be too frail to pose a real threat to Mr Najib although this is belied by the resources employed to rebut his many allegations.

“The past year has shown the PM is very strong,” Mr Nur Jazlan observed, noting that Mr Muhyiddin, whom Mr Najib sacked for publicly questioning him about 1MDB, could do little to dislodge him from Umno’s top position.

He also appears to have received cabinet backing for a costly and possibly unfeasible project which had been on the back-burner for over a decade: the RM55 billion (S$17.7 billion) East Coast Rail Line which the Chinese have agreed to fund.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, 2:21 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Give the Ipoh “dare-devils” a dressing-down but don’t treat them as criminals and definitely don’t throw criminal charges at them

Yes, give the Ipoh “dare-devils” a dressing-down, but don’t treat them as criminals and definitely don’t throw criminal charges at them.

The eight thrill-seeking youths, five men and three women aged between 20 and 24,  were foolish in the extreme in their death-defying stunts on the “Ipoh” sign, and their  pictures and videos went viral.

They thought they were “brave”  did not fully realise that they were toying with their lives, as the “Ipoh” sign structure could have collapsed and cost them their limbs and lives and irreplaceable sorrow to their loved-ones.

The eight did not have any criminal intent and they should not be charged in court under any criminal law, although technically they could be charged under Section 336 of the Penal Code for endangering the lives or safety of others, which carries the maximum penalty of a RM500 fine, or three month jail term, or both.

The same applies to the youth who scaled the top of a crane at the site of the Ipoh convention centre. It was another act of folly which deserved a serious “lecture” but not any criminal charge.

May be the Ipoh Municipal Council should look into strengthening the support structure for the “Ipoh” sign and allowing “dare-devils” in Ipoh to climb atop it, but under proper conditions and with permission of the Council.  This will make the “Ipoh” sign another icon in the Perak capital.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, 3:11 pm and is filed under
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Liow Tiong Lai, Mah Siew Keong and Subramaniam must explain whether they have deviated from the stand of their parties and broken ranks with BN component parties from Sabah and Sarawak by secretly agreeing  with UMNO to support BN government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill?

MCA President Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Gerakan President Datuk Mah Siew Keong, the MIC President Datuk S. Subramaniam should know that silence is no option and that they should explain whether they have deviated from the stand of their parties and broken ranks with the Barisan Nasional component parties from Sabah and Sarawak by secretly agreeing with the UMNO leadership to support BN government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill.

This is the logical conclusion from their continued silence on the Pensiangan Formula as the best way to address the political and constitutional stalemate created by UMNO’s support for PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Awang Hadi’s private member’s bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355).

The Pensiangan Formula comprises two elements, viz:

•	Firstly, no  government take over of Hadi’s private member’s bill; and

•	Secondly, the  formation of an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee with the overall objective to  strengthen inter-religious relations in Malaysia based on the Malaysian Constitution, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and Rukunegara, and with the specific objective to study Hadi’s private member’s motion, and to make recommendations.

I first spoke about the Pensiangan Formula when I was in Sook, Sabah last week and Liow, Mah and Subramaniam are welcome to  point out the flaws of the Pensiangan Formula as the best way to address the political and constitutional stalemate created by UMNO support for Hadi’s private member’s bill motion.

Malaysians are utterly shocked by the trio’s silence to the secret UMNO agenda to present a “fait accompli” to the other 13 Barisan Nasional component parties which was revealed by two UMNO leaders when addressing the UMNO Overseas Club Alumni annual general meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 18th December last year:

•	The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom revealing that Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355) enabled the government to circumvent the due constitutional process, as requiring consensus from all states, the National Islamic Council and the Rulers’ Conference.According to Jamil, the BN government cannot propose such a bill to the Rulers’ Conference if there is no consensus from the 14 states, but a private member’s bill requires only one state or one person to table it.

•	The Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Ahmad Mazlan who said that BN component parties will not be able to object against amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355) once the relevant bill is taken over by the Federal Government as BN component parties are compelled to support the bill as part of the ruling coalition.  Ahmad Mazlan went on to  admit that the ulterior objective of UMNO’s support for Hadi’s private member’s bill motion was to cement UMNO’s “unity” with PAS!

There had been two Cabinet meetings since the revelation of the secret UMNO agenda behind the back of the other 13 Barisan Nasional component parties on the last two Wednesdays of the year, i.e. Dec. 21 and 28, but none of the non-UMNO Ministers had dared to confront their UMNO counterparts in Cabinet to demand a clarification and retraction of the UMNO secret agenda.

The first Cabinet meeting of the year tomorrow, Wednesday January 3, 2017, will the third opportunity for the leaders and Ministers from the other Barisan Nasional component parties to thrash out the vexing issue of a secret UMNO agenda as revealed by Jamil and Ahmad Mazlan to compromise the 13 other Barisan Nasional parties on Hadi’s private member’s bill motion in the March meeting of Parliament.

Will Liow, Mah, Subramaniam as well as the other non-UMNO Ministers from Sabah and Sarawak again avoid the issue of the secret UMNO agenda as revealed by Jamil and Ahmad Maslan in tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting?

Malaysians were dumb-founded when the UMNO and Barisan Nasional secretary-general, Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor said last October that all the Barisan Nasional leaders have reached a consensus on Hadi’s private member’s bill.

Was this what Adnan was referring to in October last year – that Liow, Mah and Subramaniam were among the Barisan Nasional leaders who had agreed to the government take-over of Hadi’s private members’ bill?

Liow, Mah and Subramaniam should explain how they can reconcile MCA, Gerakan and MIC’s so-called opposition to Hadi’s private member’s bill and yet want their MPs to vote in support of Hadi’s private member’s bill motion in the March Parliament (which will be equivalent to passage of the first reading of Hadi’s private member’s bill), to enable a BN government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill to prepare for the second-reading development of the bill?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, 5:44 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO leaders and propagandists as well as mainstream media are the worst culprits in concocting and disseminating fake news and false stories about critics and the Opposition

It is the irony of ironies.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, kicked off the new year warning about “fake news” and “false stories” as a grave problem in the country, loyally echoed by his propaganda lieutenant, the Communications and Multimedia Minister, Datuk Seri Said Keruak Salleh who dutifully warned “a most unpredictable and probably ‘dangerous’ year” because of “fake stories” being spread about Malaysia, but it is the UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers including the country’s mainstream media like New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia who are the worst culprits in concocting and disseminating fake news and false stories about critics and the Opposition.

Their action befits  a Chinese saying about “Thief shouting thief” which basically means to divert the attention of others so as to cover up one’s misdoings.

Najib was the first to lead UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers in the “thief shouting thief” act, warning about Nazi “Big Lies” propaganda campaign to  divert attention from the very Nazi-type “Big Lies”  propaganda he was guilty of in his UMNO Presidential speech on Nov.30.

The three  “Big Lies” Najib told  in his UMNO Presidential Speech were:

1. That the 14th General Elections will be a contest between UMNO and DAP.

2. That the DAP is anti-Malay or anti-Islam.

3. The “nightmares” Malay will suffer if UMNO loses power in the next general elections.

Najib’s three “Big Lies” were worthy of Nazi “Big Lies” technique perfected by Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

There no need to repeat my rebuttal of Najib’s Three Nazi-style “Big Lies” which the Prime Minister and his propaganda team had not been able to refute.

I had in my media statement dated December 2, 2016 challenged Najib to list the three Big Lies which DAP had told about him and the UMNO leadership, but there is only thundering silence in the past month – proof that that concoction of fake news and false stories is “one-way traffic” –  the specialty of UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers.

There is a Goebbels serving Najib, who is responsible for the flood of “false news” and “false stories” about critics and Opposition leaders.

For instance, new lies have been told about me – accusing me of being the cause of the May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur in 1969 as well as being a “communist”, apart from the lies  that I am anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers although they could not offer a shred of evidence from the some ten millions words I have spoken or written in the past 51 years of my political activities.

Discerning Malaysians will realise that the allegations that I was the cause of the May 13 riots and that I was a communist was minted after the “political tsunami” of the 2008 General Elections – a fantastic case where I was never accused of these charges for four decades of my political life from 1969, but suddenly I am accused of causing  the May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur and being a communist – all  because of Goebbel’s dictum: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it!”

The latest handiwork of such Nazi-style “Big Lie” concocted by Najib’s Goebbels is the fairy tale that I had met Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on Dec. 3 and “sealed a deal that Mukhriz would become prime minister with Kit Siang as his deputy”.

I had said in my statement dated Dec. 27 that this is a total figment of imagination, and that I had never met Mahathir, “whether on Dec. 3 or before to ‘seal a deal’ on the question of PM or DPM if UMNO/Barisan Nasional is ousted from Putrajaya in the 14th General Election” and that “In fact, I had never at any time discussed such a question with Mahathir”.

I had announced that I had instructed  my lawyers to look into the possibility of instituting legal action against New Straits Times (NST) for publishing such lies.

But this has not deterred Najib’s all-powerful Goebbels, and NST and Utusan have continued to publish the “fake news” and “false stories” about the alleged meeting between Mahathir and myself on Dec. 3 to “seal the deal” for Mukriz to be the Prime Minister and myself as Deputy Prime Minister.

I have instructed my lawyers that legal proceedings should take into account the latest “fake news” and “false stories” about me and to extend legal action to Utusan Malaysia apart from New Straits Times.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, 12:32 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who’s Had the Worst Year? How Asian Leaders Fared in 2016

And some of the headaches they face in 2017.

by
David Tweed | Bloomberg

December 29, 2016, 7:07 AM GMT+8

In a year dominated by Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise U.S. election win, Asia felt like a relatively stable part of the world. A closer look shows that the region endured its own seismic events in 2016, from a Philippine leader embracing China to massive street protests in Seoul to the elimination of 86 percent of India’s hard currency.

Here we look at how key leaders performed. They are listed in order of the size of their economy.

Chinese President Xi Jinping

Xi Jinping, 63, further consolidated power in 2016 after Communist Party leaders declared him the “core,” a designation that strengthens his hand ahead of a twice-a-decade power reshuffle in late 2017. Xi also shone internationally, hosting G-20 leaders for the first time and positioning China as a leading advocate for free trade and the fight against climate change in the wake of Trump’s election win.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Responding to Trump’s tougher line on issues like trade and Taiwan while ensuring China’s economic recovery stays on track amid the power transition.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

Shinzo Abe, 62, ends 2016 with the sort of support levels that may convince him to call an election in 2017, giving him a chance to become the longest-serving leader since World War II. While Trump’s win dealt a blow to Abe’s push for an Asia-Pacific trade pact, he rounded off the year by seeking progress on a territorial dispute with Russia and becoming the first Japanese prime minister to visit Pearl Harbor in decades—both popular moves at home.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Navigating relations with China while convincing Trump of the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi, 66, dominates Indian politics in a way unseen in decades. His move to abolish 86 percent of hard currency overnight on Nov. 8 showed that he’s willing to risk imposing hardship on millions of people to implement his vision of a modern India: Free of corruption, fewer internal trade barriers and a tougher line against archrival Pakistan.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Reviving the economy after his surprise cash ban dented India’s growth prospects, while also fighting a bellwether election in India’s largest state and rolling out a national goods-and-services tax.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye

Park Geun-hye, 64, easily had the worst year of all Asian leaders. She was impeached Dec. 9 over an influence-peddling scandal after weeks of protests drew hundreds of thousands into the streets calling for her resignation. If the constitutional court approves the impeachment motion, Park will lose her presidential immunity and an election will be held in 60 days. The prime minister has temporarily taken charge.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Staying out of jail.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

After Malcolm Turnbull, 62, saw his parliamentary majority reduced to one seat in a July election, he has struggled to stimulate an economy still in transition from a mining boom. Beholden to the right wing of his party, his popularity has sagged as he has adopted policies that appear to run counter to past positions on issues like climate change and same-sex marriage.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Staving off a potential leadership battle in his party.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo

Joko Widodo, 55, asserted his authority over Indonesia’s political establishment in 2016. With a mix of patronage and political savvy, he controls more than two-thirds of seats in parliament—support he used to pass a controversial tax amnesty bill in June to help fund an infrastructure program.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Ensuring that his plans to bolster economic growth aren’t derailed, particularly as he looks to placate Islamic groups looking to prevent one of his allies from becoming Jakarta’s first elected Christian governor.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak

Najib Razak, 63, appears to be weighing early elections to secure his grip on power, a move that would display his confidence in weathering more than a year of political attacks over allegations he took $1 billion from a state-owned investment company — charges he denies. This month a court upheld a sodomy conviction for Anwar Ibrahim, effectively sidelining Najib’s chief rival and leaving the opposition in disarray.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Najib will have to check rising living costs for his Malay base while keeping the fiscal deficit under control to keep investors happy, particularly as market volatility hits the ringgit.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte

Rodrigo Duterte, 71, remains highly popular in the Philippines despite international criticism over a war on drugs that killed as many as 5,000 people since he took power in June. He’s repeatedly questioned his nation’s alliance with the U.S. in expletive-laden outbursts while moving closer to China, a geopolitical shift that has rocked the region.

Biggest challenge in 2017:
 Balancing relations with the U.S. and China in a way that keeps the economy humming and prevents challenges to his rule from business and military elites.

—
With assistance from Iain Marlow, Karlis Salna, Sam Kim, Isabel Reynolds, Ting Shi, Anisah Shukry, Norman P Aquino, Hannah Dormido and Adrian Leung.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 January 2017, 10:17 am and is filed under
Foreign
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC is like Alice in Wonderland  becoming “curiouser and curiouser”- in its pronouncements,  staff movements as well selective even malicious  investigation of corruption cases

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC),  like Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland,  is becoming “curiouser and curiouser” –  in its pronouncements, staff movements and selective even malicious investigation and prosecution of corruption cases.

I agree with Tun Mahathir’s lawyer Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla who questioned why  the MACC issued a statement of denial on the reason cited by its former Special Operations Division director, Bahri Mohd Zin, on his early retirement.

It is certainly “strange and awkward” that the MACC had done this after allegedly contacting Bahri, who allegedly denied to MACC in  making such a statement and yet the MACC could not  coax Bahri to issue a denial – resulting in the MACC statement losing all credibility.

There is considerable merit in Mohd Haniff’s challenge  calling on the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohanmed Apandi Ali and the MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad to explain transparently the MACC’s investigations into SRC International and why the SRC International case was never brought to court, when it seems to be an open-and-shut case against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak for corruption and abuse of power.

Earlier yesterday, Bahri confirmed that he opted to retire from his post two years earlier because he was frustrated with how the MACC investigations into SRC International went.

When contacted last night by Malaysiakini on the MACC statement, Bahri said to wait for his official statement soon, commenting that  “Those who consume ‘dedak’ (animal feed) are everywhere, on the outside and within the government.”

He said: “Don’t confuse the people by making statements on my behalf, hear it from my own mouth.”

The whole scenario became trebly “curiouser” when the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, tweeted for “stern action” against retired civil servants who used their position to make statements which could cause a bad perception on the present government.

What if these retired servants are speaking the truth?

Does Azalina want the retired civil servants to live with lies and falsehoods for the rest of their lives, as if they are not upright, honest and God-fearing human beings?

Bahri’s early retirement reminds Malaysians of another  early retirement of the MACC Chief Commissioner, Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamad mid-year which was more than two years earlier than his contract which was due to end on Dec. 4, 2018.

Both “early retirements” were supposed to be “voluntary” – although the more correct term would have been “voluntarily forced out” of their positions because they have lost the power to be effective MACC officers.

Malaysians are also reminded of Tan Sri Gani Patail’s “voluntary relinquishment” of the post of Attorney-General three months before his retirement, allegedly for “health” reasons, but in his recent call to the Bar on 23rd December last year, Gani was the very picture of “health and fitness”.

What was the real cause of Gani’s unconstitutional sacking as Attorney-General which he had held for 13 years – had it anything to do with the alleged charges being prepared against the Prime Minister himself in connection with corruption and abuse of power relating to MACC’s  SRC International investigations under Abu Kassim and Bahri?

The “forced” early retirements of Abu Kassim, Bahri and even Gani Patail, are the  latest examples that the Federal Government had lost its moral compass, deviating from the five Rukunegara principles, viz: Belief in God; Loyalty to King and Country; Upholding the Constitution; Rule of Law and Good Behaviour and Morality – the legacy of Tun Razak, the second Prime Minister of Malaysia and father of the present Prime Minister.

Is  the Najib Government prepared to restore the moral compass  to his government by commissioning a Public Inquiry where former  public servants like Gani Patail, Abu Kassim and Bahri Mohd Zain can speak openly, freely and frankly on the lessons the country and future generations can learn from their public services?

A government which is afraid of the truth and want to hide in the darkness of deceit and falsehood would not want any such airing of what the country can learn from the public service experiences of leading public servants.

We would then be afraid of the light, cower from the truth, and deviated from the Rukunegara principles in particular “Upholding the Constitution, Rule of Law and Good Behaviour and Morality”.

This is the greatest tragedy of Malaysia – six decades after Merdeka in 1957!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 January 2017, 1:21 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Guardian view on the Arab spring: it could happen again

Editorial

Guardian

3.1.2017

The Arab world is home to 5% of the global population, but accounts for half of all terrorist attacks. With poverty outpacing the growth in numbers of young people and democracy crushed, a revolt could re-emerge

This month marks six years since the beginning of the Arab spring, a series of events that were meant to be a major turning point in the modern Middle East.

It was the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor and his death on 4 January that initiated a revolutionary year.

The subsequent protests energised ordinary Arabs, who recovered, it seemed, a popular self-confidence diminished by six decades of autocracy.

The Arab street was honoured for its people’s courage and determination, inspiring movements across the world. Protesters did not just voice their complaints, it was said, they changed the world. Four Arab leaders fell.

Yet six short years on those dreams are now in tatters. In Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, a counter-revolution has returned a military dictatorship. Much of Libya and Yemen is reduced to rubble in a war where outside powers are the principal actors, prepared to fight until the last local is dead. Syria is in ruins, stained by rivers of blood.

The sole democratic success was Tunisia, which did see a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to elective government. The main Islamist party won power and last year declared it would end all of its cultural and religious activities to focus only on politics – becoming a Muslim democratic party, rather like its western Christian counterparts.

But every silver lining has a cloud: Tunisians make up the largest number of foreign fighters in the ranks of Islamic State.

The underlying reasons for revolt have not gone away. In many ways the conditions today are even more explosive than in 2011.

The Arab state is in crisis almost everywhere: plunging oil prices have holed Saudi’s economy; Egypt’s flawed leadership has created crisis after crisis. The desperate men and women leaving for Europe want a better life than that found at home.

According to the UN’s Arab Development Report – the first since the Arab spring erupted – the Middle East is home to only 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for 45% of the world’s terrorism, 68% of its battle-related deaths and 58% of its refugees.

This at a time, the UN warns, when the population of young Arabs exceeds 100 million and is growing fast – but not as fast as rates of unemployment, poverty and marginalisation.

The rise of the largest, best-educated and most highly urbanised generation of young people in the region’s history – far more pious than their peers in other parts of the world – looks like a destabilising force.

The response in the region has been a crackdown: crushing dissent, but not addresssing the reasons why it exists. Small wonder the UN warns of an “accumulation of demands and their re-emergence more violently”.

The reasons for another cycle of protest are obvious. The Arab world bristles with swords not ploughs, spending $75bn a year on arms in the past quarter of a century.

A hereditary elite hoards power. Business is undergirded by “wasta”, the Arabic for connections.

Corruption has resulted in the waste of vast resources: the UN says about $1tn has been pilfered over half a century.

This could have been invested in creating jobs and improving basic services. The thinking that shuts out challengers to the status quo needs to be dispensed with.

In politics the dangers are clear. If there are no mechanisms for participation and accountability which allow for peaceful protest, then the disgruntled may explore direct, violent actions.

In the Arab world this requires an insight into political Islam. The Sunni world is dealing with a psychology of anxiety. A people sharing a rich cultural, religious and linguistic heritage, the Arab world’s largest ethnic group has seen its great cities fall to rivals: Mosul, Aleppo, Jerusalem, Baghdad and Damascus.

In the geopolitics, recent events have exposed how Arabs have once again become pawns on the chess board. The landmark resolution at the UN demanding a halt to all Israeli settlement in the occupied territories was not presented by an Arab nation. In Syria, a peace plan was delivered not by a Sunni Arab power, but by Russia, Iran and Turkey.

The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House will allow Arab despondency to be dismissed. Theresa May’s ill-judged jab at US Secretary of State John Kerry for a speech criticising Israel was a move in this direction.

Mrs May, who refused to follow the Obama administration in blocking arms exports to Saudi Arabia after civilans were bombed, is more interested in defence sales than the well-springs of democracy in the Arab world.

This is a mistake: those cut off from changing their own societies by democratic means may turn their anger inwards – or outwards.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 January 2017, 3:03 pm and is filed under
International
,
Political Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


As world closes doors to refugee surge, Aceh aid expert urges Japan to open up, play lead role

BY SHUSUKE MURAI

STAFF WRITER

The Japan Times

JAN 2, 2017

The global refugee crisis is stoking anti-immigration sentiment in Europe and the United States, but Japan could take the initiative to become a leading voice to protect those who are displaced, an expert on assistance to such people in Asia has said.

“I’m not very confident that the West can play a lead in being that voice,” said Lilianne Fan, co-founder of Geutanyoe Foundation, a nongovernmental organization based in Aceh, Indonesia.

“I think we need actors from our regions — from Asia — and I think Japan is the best candidate to be the leading voice in trying to champion peace,” Fan said in a recent interview with The Japan Times. Fan was visiting to discuss refugee issues with Japanese stakeholders.

Fan has worked for more than 16 years to support refugee and other displaced people in Asia and other parts of the world, particularly in Aceh, Myanmar, Haiti and Jordan. Having received a master’s degree from Columbia University in 2004, Fan, who concurrently works as a research associate at the London-based Overseas Development Institute, has served as an adviser for the United Nations, the World Bank and the Red Cross.

As Japan is a signatory of the U.N.’s 1951 Refugee Convention, “I think that it’s important for Japan to take the lead and to show that the asylum system can work, because the rest of Asia would be looking and trying to follow the model that Japan is setting,” she said.

Japan’s contribution to the ongoing refugee crisis has been questioned by human rights advocates, because the country remains reluctant to accept refugees. Only 0.4 percent, or 27 people out of 7,586 applicants, were granted refugee status in 2015.

Japan’s reluctance became official in September 2015 when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that, before accepting refugees or immigrants, Japan needs to take care of its own people, particularly women and the elderly, and have them play more active roles in society.

But Japan has also been among the major donors of humanitarian aid.

In 2015, Japan was the fourth-largest donor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, behind the U.S., the U.K. and the EU. And in September, Abe pledged $2.8 billion to refugees and migrants overseas between 2016 and 2018 to promote their “self-reliance” and to spur the economic development of their host countries.

But human rights experts, including former UNHCR chief and new U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, have urged Japan to increase the number of refugees it accepts. In November 2015, Guterres said Japan needs to “progressively improve the asylum system … to make it more effective in the reception and in the recognition and integration of refugees in Japanese society.”

According to the UNHCR, 65.3 million people had been displaced by the end of 2015, the highest ever recorded.

While Fan appreciates Japan’s financial support for host countries including Jordan and Lebanon to help them provide education and the health care needed for the flood of Syrian asylum seekers, she said Japan can play a bigger role by becoming a model in building a community where people mutually support each other in difficult circumstances — like people in Japan have shown in their disaster recovery efforts.

She said Japan should not shy away from accepting refugees out of fear of the crises in Europe and other countries where discord between local citizens and refugees has triggered violent incidents and xenophobia.

“There has been a lot of media focus on the situation of Europe. But the real crisis is in Syria,” she said. “The real crisis is for millions of Syrians who have been facing years of war right now, and have no way to survive inside Syria.

“I think you won’t solve the problem just by increasing the numbers that you take in. You have to look at solving the global problem. Japan should play a very active role on all the different levels,” Fan said, adding that actions from the private sector are the key.

“Maybe different organizations who are here could propose to the government and try — test out their pilot project, for example — to see if you can have a better integration,” she said. “Then from there, you can actually weigh the risk and say, ‘OK, if that’s a success, maybe it’s not a bad idea.’”

One good example of a successful private sector campaign, she said, is the refugee internship program offered by Uniqlo.

Fast Retailing Co., the operator of the multinational clothing chain, was the first Asian firm to sign a global partnership with UNHCR in 2011 and has taken in refugees in Japan, offering job training. Some refugees are promoted to full-time staff after completing their training.

“I think Uniqlo’s approach is really good, because you are giving skills to the refugees,” Fan said. “I don’t think any refugees want to be dependent on aid. They don’t just want handouts. They want to have opportunities. They want to have the skills to start their new lives.”

Asked if there is a risk of Japanese jobs being taken over by refugees, Fan said that should not be a reason for Japan to reject refugees.

“(Refugees are) people from conflict areas who have had schools burned down, their villages burned down, or maybe have had no education, have been struggling for years to survive and (they are) not in a situation to compete at all with Japanese citizens,” she said.

“Don’t see them as coming in trying to looking for work. See them as coming in looking for protection and looking for a way to survive,” Fan said.

“There are a lot of things that the international community hasn’t got right when it comes to looking at stabilization and peace-building and state-building. At the larger global level, there is a lot of rethinking that needs to be done,” she said. “Japan should be one of the key actors in that process to really try to support the rethinking of the architecture globally.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 January 2017, 4:07 pm and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Conversations and Explorations: Pauline Fan an Exciting Time for Malaysian Literature

By Gareth Richards

Penang Monthly

January 2017

Translation matters. It always has, but perhaps now more than ever. It is a paradox that globalisation offers the technological means of communication and conversation across borders, and yet politics (including the culture wars) seems to be driven by small-mindedness, xenophobia and enmity. It is these “moments in time when the world is changing” that “bring out the best and the worst in people,” as Malaysian author Tan Twan Eng puts it. If literature possesses an emancipatory potential – if it can open up spaces for critical thinking and be a flame in the darkness – then the act of translating fiction and poetry surely lies somewhere near its centre.

The recent edition of the George Town Literary Festival offered a clear focus on the potential of literary translation. In general terms, the thematic core of the festival – captured by the Welsh word hiraeth, the longing for a homeland that is no longer there – necessarily explored the ways in which literatures travel, across time and space. In addition, there were also dedicated panels that discussed the subtle arts of reading, reimagining and translating foreign fiction and poetry across many different languages. One thing was made clear: no one will ever read an author’s work as closely as her translator does.

We caught up with a number of respected literary translators at the festival to reflect on the process, products and prospects for this work in Malaysia and beyond. Here we feature the KL-based poet Pauline Fan, who is also co-editor of NARATIF | Kisah, a bilingual literary journal that features work by both Malaysian and international authors. For her, translation is a “confluence” of literary traditions where important connections are made. And this work is nested within an ongoing moment of “encounter, engagement and critical contemplation”.

Tell me about your childhood and youth, and how books and reading played a part in your early life. Did you want to become a writer when you were young?

I grew up surrounded by books. Most of the gifts my parents gave me and my sister when we were children were books, and these opened doorways in our imagination that could never again be closed. Both my parents had a vast collection of books, but it was in my father’s library that I fell in love with literature, particularly the modernists. As an adolescent, it was the most exciting thing in the world for me to stand in the dim corners of his study, discovering the works of George Orwell, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Franz Kafka … The books I found there that left the deepest impression on me at the time were Death in Venice by Thomas Mann, The Outsider by Albert Camus and Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground.

My father [Fan Yew Teng] was a writer, an outspoken and well-read commentator on politics and society, as well as a firebrand politician and a human rights activist. He spent hours on end at his old typewriter and I loved to sit by his room, listening to the incessant clicking of the keys and the sharp ring of the margin bell. So, in a sense, I lived in a writer’s world from a young age, and the thought of being a writer was something both intriguing and natural to me.

How did you get into writing and what was/is the writing process like?

I discovered that I enjoyed writing around the age of 16. I was already reading voraciously, and had begun scribbling juvenile lines of poetry in notebooks (none of which had any literary worth, of course, but which were necessary conduits for the solitude, disquiet and awkwardness of adolescence). After nine years in the local Malaysian school system, I spent three months at an international boarding school in Singapore. I mostly hated it, except for the literature class, which was taught by a wonderful man by the name of Mr Cox.

This is where I wrote my first real essay on literature – on George Orwell’s 1984 – for which Mr Cox gave me top marks in the class, much to my surprise. He also found me, one afternoon, scribbling in my notebook and somehow convinced me to let him read it. He recognised something in me, it seems, and I am grateful to this day for his kindness and encouragement.

I ended up doing my first degree at the Gallatin School for Individualised Study at New York University, eventually focusing on history, literature, philosophy and art history of East Asia. This was an important time to hone my writing skills, to read as much as possible and to engage in meaningful discussions, both within and without the university walls. It was a time of intellectual awakening for me.

After returning to Malaysia, I soon started writing book reviews for a Malay-language magazine, Siasah, that was published by Khalid Jaafar and edited by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmod Radhi. The magazine only lasted a few years in print, but was an important platform for a discussion of culture and politics among young Malay intellectuals. That was my first regular writing engagement. I welcomed the challenge of writing in Malay, a language with which I was comfortable but had, up till then, never written in besides the dreaded “karangan” for school. I remember my first book review for Siasah was on Elsa Morante’s magnificent History: A Novel. I loved the sense that I was discovering the Malay language anew (for myself) as I wrote, and that my writing would perhaps lead to the discovery of unfamiliar literary landscapes (for others).

While I write primarily in English, I still write occasional essays for my column in the Malay edition of Malaysiakini. I love writing in, and translating into, Malay. It is by nature a lyrical and sensual language, and expresses the intertwining of human beings and the natural world in ways that English simply cannot.

What was your original stimulus for engaging seriously with translation work?

I began seriously translating literature soon after I returned to Malaysia after completing my first degree at NYU. While deeply immersed in studying East Asian literature of the early twentieth century, I was particularly struck by the writers and intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement in China, such as Lu Xun and Xu Zhimo, as well as the early modernist writers of Japan such as Natsume Sōseki, Yasunari Kawabata and Yukio Mishima. Many of the May Fourth intellectuals translated works from European languages to introduce new ideas and literary forms into the Chinese language.

I also learnt something about the intricacies of literary translation from the scholars I had studied with at NYU, especially the eminent Moss Roberts, who had translated the definitive version of the historical novel Three Kingdoms and Laozi’s Dao De Jing: The Book of the Way, and Rebecca Karl, who at the time was translating the writings of the reformist thinker Liang Qichao. Upon my return to Malaysia, I became involved with a community of young writers and intellectuals who were actively discussing society, politics and literature. We encouraged each other to translate works from the world’s languages into Malay, with the aim of introducing Malay-language readers to world literature while opening up the Malay language to its own possibilities.

Could you tell me something about the process of choosing both who and what to translate? What kind of work do you deal with? And perhaps you could say a bit about the importance of literary forums that promote translation?

I can only translate writers with whom I connect. Otherwise the language does not flow and ends up feeling forced or affected. This is especially true in the translation of poetry. So it is only natural that I choose to translate works that speak to me on a deep level. I have translated poems from English to Malay and vice versa, for example poems by W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and Louise Bogan. I have also translated German literature into Malay, including poems by Bertolt Brecht and Paul Celan, and prose by Franz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke, as well as into English, including poems by Georg Trakl, Else Lasker-Schüler and, currently, Joachim Sartorius. Some of my translations have been commissioned and published by Institut Kajian Dasar, including one my first translations into Malay – Immanuel Kant’s seminal essay “Was ist Aufklärung?” (Apa itu pencerahan?). I am also the Malaysian curator for Lyrikline, a Berlin-based international poetry archive and network which encourages translations of their featured poets into other languages. They do not feature amateur translations, only those that are published or authorised by the poets. Efforts such as these are an excellent resource for those who wish to discover translations of contemporary poetry.

What were the motivations for producing the journal and where might your ambitions for it lead?

NARATIF | Kisah is a new bilingual literary journal that features established and emerging literary voices from Malaysia and South-East Asia to explore the idea of the narrative – through reimaginings, retellings, experimentations with form and genre, as well as through literary translation and visual narratives. It also offers a platform for the confluence of oral traditions and written expression, something we come across too rarely in our region. I am the creative director of the cultural organisation PUSAKA, which works to support the continuity and viability of the arts. All of PUSAKA’s work is urged by the desire to rediscover ourselves through processes of encounter, engagement and critical contemplation. Both the journal and translation work in particular are embedded in that ethos.

For this inaugural issue of the journal, we invited some distinguished guest writers and also put out an open call for submissions, in English and Malay. We received an overwhelming response to the open call – more than 200 submissions, from which we eventually selected around 50. Although we actively sought submissions in Chinese and Tamil as well, we received only a handful in Chinese and none at all in Tamil. We will certainly look to featuring these languages in future issues.

Though it’s relatively new what has been the reception for Naratif | Kisah? Where do you envisage it going in the next issues?

The reception for Naratif | Kisah has been overwhelmingly positive and affirming. More than half the 2,000 printed copies have been taken, and many people have told us that they are impressed by the quality and variety of material. Readers appreciate the fact that the journal is bilingual, and that we are encouraging of work that challenges conventional notions of form and content. Our next issues will likely be shaped around a theme. We hope to feature more writers and artists from South-East Asia, both invited guest contributors and through open calls for submissions. We also hope to feature more archival material, particularly contemporary writers engaging with or reflecting on work from the past.

What are the main challenges you face in pursuing literary translation?

The main challenge I grapple with as a literary translator is finding the time to work for extended periods, without interruption, on a text. Our days are filled with too much noise. Most of my translation work (and writing, for that matter) is done after midnight, for the simple reason that I can hear myself think and can listen to the voice and rhythms of the text I am engaging with. I think there is an audience for literary translation in Malaysia, especially among young Malays who are hungry to devour literature these days. One hopes that this hunger and enthusiasm for literature will encourage writers to engage seriously with literary translation. It takes patience, discipline and hours of close reading. The best literary translators are often writers and poets themselves, because translation requires a certain sensibility and an (almost musical) instinct for phrasing. This is even truer of poetry. Anyone can translate word for word. It takes something more to breathe life into a poem in another language.

What is the prospect for the future, both in terms of your own work in literature but also the wider canvas of Malaysian and South-East Asian letters?

I am working seriously on the translations of two German-language poets. One is Paul Celan; my Malay translations of his poems will be published in 2017. The other is Joachim Sartorius, whose poems I am translating into English as well as Malay. I have written essays over the years and would like to do more of this; the essay is one of my favourite literary genres. I feel the urge to write prose that hovers between essay, fiction and memoir. Some of the writers I love best – Annemarie Schwarzenbach, Clarice Lispector, Raduan Nassar – defy easy categorisations of genre. I write poetry (very slowly) but am reluctant to publish anything yet; it is the literary genre I am most deeply connected to and, therefore, tend to be more self-critical when it comes to poetry.

Overall, I feel it’s an exciting time for Malaysian literature – there is a burgeoning of interest in literature and much energy to be tapped. In many ways, Malaysia is a fragmented society and this is reflected in the divergent development of literature in our various languages. There’s nothing wrong with divergence and diversity, it’s something to be celebrated, but it’s a shame that these linguistic-literary communities are so insulated from each other. Now is the perfect time to begin engaging in deeper conversations and explorations of the literatures of our own country, as well as of our region. We hope NARATIF | Kisah will contribute significantly to this process.

Copies of NARATIF | Kisah are available from PUSAKA. Please email info@ senipusaka.com.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 January 2017, 4:34 pm and is filed under
culture
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Liow Tiong Lai, Mah Siew Keong and Subramaniam must not be afraid of Pensiangan Formula, but learn to understand it and present it to the Cabinet as the best way to address political and constitutional stalemate caused by UMNO support for  Hadi’s private member’s bill

After MCA’s degeneration into a “7/11 political party”, very few Malaysians paid much attention to sayings and doings of MCA leaders, including Ministers – and I am one of them.

But the Malaysiakini headline yesterday
“MCA slams ‘amnesiac’ Kit Siang over hudud bill”
 aroused my curiosity, for there is some mental life left if one can use words like “amnesiac”!

This led me to read the report but I was bound for a disappointment.

I was accused of having lost my memory and advised to immediately consult a doctor  for forgetting that “on Dec 30, 2016, MCA president Liow Tiong Lai had declared that ‘regardless of any bill tabled by the opposition or Umno, if it is against the constitution, MCA will oppose it to the end’.”

I did not forget. I just did not know.

In utter humility, I searched the website of MCA’s official mouthpiece, the Star. It was not there.

For the first time, I visited the MCA website, and it was also not there.

Liow might have told the Chinese media, but that is exactly the point about MCA Ministers and leaders – they say one thing to the Chinese media but a very different thing to UMNO leaders!

May be the only occasion when MCA leaders dare to differ from UMNO leaders is over my relationship with Tun Dr. Mahathir.

UMNO leaders are telling the Malays that Mahathir has become my pawn and puppet, but MCA leaders disagreed, for they are telling the Chinese that I am Mahathir’s pawn and puppet.

Can the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council convene an emergency meeting to resolve this conundrum – whether I am Mahathir’s stooge or Mahathir is my stooge?

Clearly, it has never entered into the mind of MCA leaders that one should have the courage of conviction of one’s beliefs, the dignity and humility to stand by one principles, and one should never forget the injunction 不為五斗米折腰 or bowing for five pecks of price (meaning, unwilling to do anything demeaning for material gain).

I would advise  MCA President Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Gerakan President Datuk Mah Siew Keong, the MIC President Datuk S. Subramaniam not to be afraid of the Pensiangan Formula but to learn to understand it and present it to the Cabinet as the best way to address the political and constitutional stalemate created by UMNO’s support for PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Awang Hadi’s private member’s bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355).

The Pensiangan Formula comprises two elements, viz:

·        Firstly, no  government take over of Hadi’s private member’s bill; and

·       Secondly, the  formation of an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee with the overall objective to  strengthen inter-religious relations in Malaysia based on the Malaysian Constitution, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and Rukunegara, and with the specific objective to study Hadi’s private member’s motion, and to make recommendations.

I am very disappointed that Liow, Mah and Subramaniam did not raise the Pensiangan Formula at the Cabinet meeting yesterday.

Even more shocking, the leaders of the three Barisan Nasional leaders dare not raise the subject of the secret UMNO agenda to present a “fait accompli” to the other 13 Barisan Nasional component parties which was revealed by two UMNO leaders when addressing the UMNO Overseas Club Alumni annual general meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 18th December last year:

·        The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom revealing that Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355) enabled the government to circumvent the due constitutional process, as requiring consensus from all states, the National Islamic Council and the Rulers’ Conference. According to Jamil, the BN government cannot propose such a bill to the Rulers’ Conference if there is no consensus from the 14 states, but a private member’s bill requires only one state or one person to table it.

·        The Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Ahmad Mazlan who said that BN component parties will not be able to object against amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355) once the relevant bill is taken over by the Federal Government as BN component parties are compelled to support the bill as part of the ruling coalition.  Ahmad Mazlan went on to  admit that the ulterior objective of UMNO’s support for Hadi’s private member’s bill motion was to cement UMNO’s “unity” with PAS!

Malaysians were dumb-founded when the UMNO and Barisan Nasional secretary-general, Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor said last October that all the Barisan Nasional leaders have reached a consensus on Hadi’s private member’s bill.

Was this what Adnan was referring to in October last year – that Liow, Mah and Subramaniam were among the Barisan Nasional leaders who had agreed to the government take-over of Hadi’s private members’ bill when Parliament reconvenes in March, with MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers and MPs voting in support of Hadi’s private member’s bill motion?

Liow, Mah and Subramaniam should explain how they can reconcile MCA, Gerakan and MIC’s so-called opposition to Hadi’s private member’s bill and yet want their MPs to vote in support of Hadi’s private member’s bill motion in the March Parliament (which will be equivalent to passage of the first reading of Hadi’s private member’s bill), to enable a BN government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill to prepare for the second-reading development of the bill?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 January 2017, 10:09 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
MCA
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nur Jazlan should produce the papers to prove that Najib is entitled to use government  jet to gallivant around the world with his family

Deputy Home Minister Nur Jazlan Mohamed has claimed that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is entitled to use the government jet to gallivant around the world with his family.

I am not convinced and I challenge Nur Jazlan to produce the papers and documents to prove Najib has such entitlements as Prime Minister.

Let Malaysians have a full accounting of the Australian end-of-the-year holiday trip of the Prime Minister, his family and whoever were on the junket, the destinations and the costs of the jet-abouts involved.

Since the Prime Minister had the use of the government jet before the Australian trip, as he was in Kuantan, Kuching  and Tawau attending the Pahang Federation of Chinese Association dinner in Kuantan, the Batang Sadong bridge launch in Kuching and the launching of the Sabah section of the Pan-Borneo Highway in Tawau, Najib should explain why he could not slot into his itinerary to attend the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) Christmas High-Tea so that he would not be absent from such a significant function in a multi-religious Malaysia for three consecutive years in a row.

Would it be difficult, with the facility of the government jet at his disposal, for Najib  to attend the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) Christmas High-Tea this year, unless the function had fallen sharply in terms of priority, significance and importance in Najib’s estimation as compared to his first five years as Prime Minister?

[Media Conference Statement (2) at Wisma Penang DAP in Penang on Thursday, 5th January 2016 at 12 noon]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 January 2017, 3:51 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who is Najib’s Goebbels? Is he prepared to emerge from the darkness and come into the light to identify himself and explain why he is masterminding so many “fake news” and “false stories” about critics and the Opposition?

It is indeed supreme irony that  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, should kick off the new year warning about “fake news” and “false stories” as a grave problem in the country, when it is the UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers and the  country’s mainstream media like New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia which are the worst culprits in concocting and disseminating fake news and false stories about critics and the Opposition.

Their action befits the Chinese saying about “Thief shouting thief” which basically means to divert the attention of others so as to cover up one’s misdoings

In the fifth day of the new year, we already have several examples of such “fake news” and “false stories” perpetrated by UMNO leaders, propagandists, cyberbtroopers and sycophants and I shudder to think of the mountain of lies, “fake news” and “false stories” that will be concocted this year in the run-up to the 14th General Election, which can be held anytime between May and October.

Najib gave the “official launch” for the UMNO/BN campaign of “fake news” and “false stories” – a classic “thief shouting thief” act reminiscent of the Nazi “Big Lies” propaganda offensive – in his UMNO Presidential Speech on Nov. 30, telling three “Big Lies”, viz:

1. That the 14th General Elections will be a contest between UMNO and DAP;

2. That the DAP is anti-Malay or anti-Islam.

3. The “nightmares” Malay will suffer if UMNO loses power in the next general elections.

Najib’s three “Big Lies” would make  Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, green with envy as it was Goebbels who gave the following definition of Nazi’s Big Lies offensive:  “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

There no need to repeat my rebuttal of Najib’s Three Nazi-style “Big Lies” which the Prime Minister and his propaganda team had not been able to refute.

I had in my media statement dated December 2, 2016 challenged Najib to list the three Big Lies which DAP had told about him and the UMNO leadership, but there is only thundering silence in the past month – proof that concoction of fake news and false stories is a  “one-way traffic”,  the specialty of UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers as DAP is not in the “fake stories” and “false news” market.

There is a Goebbels serving Najib, who is responsible for the flood of “false news” and “false stories” about critics and Opposition leaders.

Let me ask a specific question: Who is Nazi’s Goebbels?  I would not name him for the moment, a person whose name has not appeared in the media at all –  but a very powerful person in Najib’s corridor of power,  whom even the UMNO warlords keep a wide berth, as he  is not a person   to be trifled with!

Is Najib’s Goebbels prepared to come out into the light and identify himself, and explain why he is masterminding the load of “fake news” and “false stories” about critics and the Oppositon?

Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng is a favourite target of BN/UMNO “fake news” and “false stores”.

Recently, there was circulated on the social media the “fake news” that Guan Eng supported Myanmar’s crackdown on its Rohgingya minority, alleging that Guan Eng had said: “Tindakan Aung San Suu Kyi terhadap kaum Rohingya adalah tepat. Malaysia tiada hak untuk campur tangan dan dianggap mencabul urusan negara Myanmar”.

This was a “fake news” and “false story” at their worst as Guan Eng had  in fact  ordered Penang Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Mohd Rashid Hasnon to table a motion at the recent  Penang state legislative assembly to condemn the Myanmar military for  driving out the Rohingyas from their home on top of murder and ethnic cleansing of the community.

Yesterday, the aide to the Penang Chief Minister, Zaidi Ahmad lodged a police report on a fake WhatsApp message accusing Guan Eng of saying that Pakatan Harapan would shut down MARA.

I myself have been the object of  constant attacks by such “fake news” and “false stories”.

Yesterday, the  twitter of human rights lawyer Syahredzan Johan carried  the following message: “Meanwhile, an UMNO guy in my WhatsApp group shared this. Yes they have resorted to linking DAP leaders with Chin Peng”.

Syahzedzan attached a chart of a “family tree” alleging that former MCP Secretary-General Chin Peng, former  Singapore Prime Minister and PAP Secretary-General Lee Kuan Yew and I were inter-related as  cousins, with an assortment of other allegations dragging Pakatan Harapan leaders including Guan Eng, Teresa Kok, Tony Pua, Anthony Loke, Ngeh Koo Ham, Nga Kor Ming and Nizar Jamaluddin into the picture  – although apart from Guan Eng, I have no idea how I could be related to all the other named personalities.

Meanwhile, an UMNO guy in my WhatsApp group shared this. Yes they have resorted to linking DAP leaders with Chin Peng.

Chin Peng, a Hockchia,  the nom de guerre of Ong Boon Hua, was born in Sitiawan in 21st October, 1924; Lee Kuan Yew, a Hakka, was born in Singapore on 16th September 1923 and I, a Hokkien,  was born in Batu Pahat on 20th February 1941. How we could be cousins is testimony of the “fertile imagination” of the Najib’s troupe of  creators of “fake news” and “false stories” who could turn white into black and black into white!

I noticed that great efforts had been expended by Najib’s Goebbels to demonise me, accusing me of being the cause of the May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur in 1969 as well as being a “communist”, apart from the lies  that I am anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers although they could not offer a shred of evidence from the some ten millions words I have spoken or written in the past 51 years of my political activities.

What is interesting is that the allegations that I was the cause of the May 13 riots and that I was a communist was minted after the “political tsunami” of the 2008 General Elections – a fantastic case where I was never accused of these charges for four decades of my political life from 1969, but suddenly I am accused of causing  the May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur and being a communist – all  because of Goebbel’s dictum: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it!”

The allegations that I was the cause of the May 13 riots in 1969 or a “communist” were never made before the political tsunami of 2008.

Why?  The reasons are simple –  there is no basis or truth to such lies and falsehoods!

The UMNO leadership  of the first four Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein and Tun Mahathir, never made these two allegations against me for the Special Branch of the period would know whether I had been the cause of the May 13 riots in 1969 or whether I was a  communist.

If I had been the cause of the May 13 riots of 1969 in Kuala Lumpur or a communist, the Special Branch would have been utterly incompetent instead of being one of the best in the world, to allow me to operate for half a century when the detention-without-trial Internal Security Act (ISA) would be easy weapon to be used against me until the ISA abolition in 2012.

I had been detained twice under the Internal Security Act, the first time after the May elections in 1969 and the second time during Operation Lalang in October 1987, but I had never  been detained because of the May 13 riots or because I was a communist.

In fact, I was not even in Kuala Lumpur during the tragic days of May 13, 1969.

I was contesting in the Bandar Melaka parliamentary seat in 1969, and the last days of the 1969 general elections campaign were really hectic ones, which included waiting for the results of the May 10, 1969 general election, as the counting of votes were not completed and the results announced until the  early hours of Sunday, May 11, 1969.

I returned to my Petaling Jaya house on Sunday evening and simply collapsed from the accumulated tiredness of the campaign.

Early on Monday, May 12, 1969, I returned from Petaling Jaya to the Bandar Melaka constituency to thank the voters and I had a  thank-voters public rally on Monday night – probably the only elected MP in the 1969 general elections to have a thank-voters public rally before the clampdown on political activities as a result of the May 13, 1969 riots and declaration of emergency.

This was because I was in a hurry, as I was scheduled to fly to Kota Kinabalu the next day on the morning of Tuesday, May 13, 1969 to help the election campaigning of independent candidates in Sabah as voting in Sabah would only be held some two weeks after the voting in Peninsular Malaysia.

The first time I heard that trouble had broken out in Kuala Lumpur – what became known as the May 13, 1969 riots – was when I was speaking at a public rally in Kota Kinabalu that evening.

But “revisionist” UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers are now spreading lies that I was in Kuala Lumpur during the May 13 riots, leading illegal processions and hurling anti-Malay and anti-Islam slogans marching through the Malay heartland in Kampung Baru in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969 – when I was never in Kuala Lumpur after the May 10 general election!

I am also accused of being a communist – an accusation that was never levelled before the “political tsunami” of 2008, for the simple reason that the first four UMNO Prime Ministers – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein and Tun Mahathir – knew from Special Branch briefings that this was impossible.

In fact, in the 1969 general election, apart from having to contest against the Alliance, DAP had to contest against an invisible foe – the Labour Party and the Malayan Communist Party which were  advocating boycott of the 1969 general election on the ground that elections in Malaysia was a fraudulent process, advocating instead “street protests”.

This was why in a letter to the then Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, from my detention cell in Muar on 5th August 1969, I wrote:

 “The May 13 disturbances have left two serious after effects:

“Firstly, inter-racial understanding and relationships have been gravely damaged….

 “The loss of lives, suffering and hardships of May 13 disturbances will not be completely in vain, however if they serve as salutary lessons to all of the madness of racialism, and the need to usher in an era of racial reconciliation, understanding, tolerance and the development of a Malaysian consciousness and identity.

“We must do all we can to prevent the memory of the May 13 disturbance from working like an acid, silently but relentlessly eating away the remaining fabric of inter-racial relationship, for then all is lost for Malaysia…

 “The second serious after-effect of the disturbances is its blow to the people’s confidence in the democratic process and the booster it has given to the declining political and propaganda appeal of the Malayan Communist Party.

“The May 10 General Elections result was a defeat for the Alliance Party. But it was graver blow to the M.C.P.

“During the general elections campaign, the M.C.P. and its open auxiliaries campaigned for a boycott of elections to discredit parliamentary democracy and to prepare the political base for its second armed insurrection.

“The people rejected the M.C.P. line and came out solidly to vote. This proved that the people had faith in the democratic process to peacefully bring about the changes they want.

“The result of May 10 was the people’s verdict for democracy, as against the M.C.P. campaign. There was joy and expectancy, after the results, not to deprive anyone of his rights, but at the new hope to work for a more just, equal and fulfilling society.

“The May 13 disturbances and the subsequent events, however, had greatly undermined the people’s faith in democracy.

“I believe that the situation, though grave, is not irretrievable, if the government can spearhead a national, all-party, all-races effort to restore communal confidence through the pursuit of genuine multiracial politics and policies.”

I would advise UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers, as well as Najib’s Goebbels who is masterminding a massive campaign of black operations against the DAP and the Opposition, to do some homework and learn  about Malaysian history.

The latest handiwork of such Nazi-style “Big Lie” concocted by Najib’s Goebbels is the fairy tale that I had met Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on Dec. 3 and “sealed a deal that Mukhriz would become prime minister with Kit Siang as his deputy”.

I had said in my statement dated Dec. 27 that this is a total figment of imagination, and that I had never met Mahathir, “whether on Dec. 3 or before to ‘seal a deal’ on the question of PM or DPM if UMNO/Barisan Nasional is ousted from Putrajaya in the 14th General Election” and that “In fact, I had never at any time discussed such a question with Mahathir”.

I was visiting the Sabah interior of Tenom, Keningau and Pensiangan the last few days of last year  when I received a call from a reporter in Kuala Lumpur who asked for my response to comments which had just been made about me. I asked who had made the comments and when I heard who it was, I told the reporter that I would not even waste time and would not want to know what he had said – as he had lost all respect, honour and credibility as to deserve any attention.

I had announced that I had instructed  my lawyers to look into the possibility of instituting legal action against New Straits Times (NST) for publishing such lies.

This has not deterred Najib’s all-powerful Goebbels to use his agents and poodles to continue to disseminate “fake news” and “false stories”, including the alleged meeting between Mahathir and myself on Dec. 3 to “seal the deal” for Mukriz to be the Prime Minister and myself as Deputy Prime Minister.

Are they capable of citing the place and time  on Dec. 3 when  Mahathir and I met to seal such a so-called deal?

Of course, they are incapable of doing so, as they are only retailing lies – and what is worse, lies, “fake news” and “false stories”  concocted by Najib’s Goebbels.

I have instructed my lawyers that legal proceedings should take into account the latest “fake news” and “false stories” about me and to extend legal action to Utusan Malaysia and others  apart from New Straits Times.

(Media Conference Statement at Wisma DAP Penang on Thursday, 5th January 2016 at 12 noon)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 January 2017, 1:34 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia starting the new year not just with double whammy but a multitude of whammies!

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s hint to the first Cabinet meeting of the year on Wednesday that 2017 is going to be an “interesting year” has already been more than fulfilled in the first five days of the year.

The new year in the past five days started not just with a double whammy but a multitude of whammies, including:

The Malaysian ringgit currency starting the new year with a new record low of RM4.5002 against the US dollar since the 1998 Asian financial crisis, signifying very tough economic year for Malaysians;

The gutting of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) although it was already quite impotent to fighting grand corruption. No “tiger” or “crocodile” had been caught by the MACC,but there seems a “devil’s bargain”: that the MACC is given the green light to go after civil servants so long as they leave the politicos and their “favourite” civil servants alone.

The unrelenting international expose of Malaysia as a global kleptocracy because of the international multi-billion dollar 1MDB money-laundering scandal, with the Singapore prosecutors slapping 16 criminal charges against the former local branch manager of Swiss-based Falcon Private Bank AG, Swiss national Jens Sturzenegger – after the conviction and imprisonment of three former bankers in Singapore over 1MDB-related charges.

The intensification of the Nazi Gobbels’s-style propaganda offensive of “fake news”, “false stories” and downright lies by UMNO leaders, propagandists and cybertroopers  about the Opposition leaders and critics, even to the extent of accusing that I am cousin to Chin Peng and Lee Kuan Yew, although they could not explain how a Hock Chew Ong (as  Chin Peng  is the nom de guerre of Ong Boon Hua) from Sitiawan, a Hakka Lee Kuan Yew  from Singapore and a Hokkien Lim Kit Siang from Batu Pahat could be related cousins!

The determination of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that the Barisan Nasional government take over PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355), although there is no such consensus whether by the Cabinet or the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri has admitted that the Sarawak BN leaders have yet to be briefed on the proposed government takeover of Hadi’s private member’s bill – and the same applies for the other 13 Barisan Nasional component parties, whether MCA, Gerakan or MIC.

I hope the MCA, Gerakan and MIC leaders, particularly the presidents Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Datuk Mah Siew Keong or  Datuk S. Subramaniam respectively will pluck up the courage to present the  Pensiangan Formula to the Cabinet as the best way to address the political and constitutional stalemate created by UMNO’s support for Hadi’s private member’s bill.

The Pensiangan Formula comprises two elements, viz:

Firstly, no  government take over of Hadi’s private member’s bill; and

Secondly, the  formation of an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee with the overall objective to  strengthen inter-religious relations in Malaysia based on the Malaysian Constitution, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and Rukunegara, and with the specific objective to study Hadi’s private member’s motion, and to make recommendations.

This is particularly important and pertinent as two UMNO leaders, namely Jamil Khir Baharom and Ahmad Mazlan had publicly admitted about a secret UMNO agenda and conspiracy to present a “fait accompli” to the other 13 Barisan Nasional component parties to compel them to support the BN government takeover of Hadi’s private member’s bill in the March meeting of Parliament.

These are only five of multiple “whammies” which had confronted the country in the first few days of the year.

The new year will be a very challenging and testing one, especially as the 14th General Elections is expected to be held this year, and could be in May or September/October.

If the UMNO/BN leaders are not prepared to deal with these multiple whammies; then  Malaysians must  address these multiple “whammies” which have hit the country, resulting in constitutional,  political, economic and nation-building crisis of confidence in the country, in the 14GE.

Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Gelang Patah Lim Kit Siang to DAP MPs and State Assembly representatives at Komtar in Penang on Friday, January 6, 2016 at 2.30 pm

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 January 2017, 4:28 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Economics
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tan Sri Alwi Jantan’s mournful poem “Cry my Beloved Country” is the plaintive cry of all patriotic Malaysians who love Malaysia and grievously hurt at the harm we have done to ourselves

When I received on the WhatApps a poem
“Cry my Beloved Country”
by
“Alwi Jantan, Perth, 1st January 2017”
, I wanted to be sure that it was penned by Tan Sri Alwi Jantan himself, and not a “fake”.

I took pains to check its veracity and I  was vindicated when I spoke to the 81-year-old former top civil servant himself, and he confirmed that he had himself written the poem.

Born in Dungun, Terengganu  on 16th April 1935, Alwi had a long civil service career belonging to the first Merdeka generation of public servants, starting in the civil service in August 1958, and who went on  to serve as Director-General of National Archives and Library Malaysia in 1971; Selangor State Secretary (1972-76); Secretary-General of three Ministries, namely Local Government and Federal Territory, Health and Agriculture; Deputy Secretary-General of Prime Minister’s Department (1981-1984), ending his public service career as Director-General of Public Services Department (PSD) (1987-1990).

Alwi’s mournful poem “Cry my Beloved Country” to ring in the New Year of 2017 for a very troubled Malaysia is the plaintive cry of all patriotic Malaysians who love Malaysia and grievously hurt at the harm we have done to ourselves.

This is Alwi’s “Cry my Beloved Country” on behalf of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region – a cry deep from the heart of grieving Malaysians in the run-up to the 60th anniversary celebrations for the Proclamation of Merdeka on August 31, 1957:

CRY MY BELOVED COUNTRY

When I grew up in the kampong,

Life was sublime bonding was strong.

I had many friends young and old,

Rich and poor were all in the fold.

As I grew up I moved out of town

To study in a world I hadn’t known.

To part from friends was not easy,

It was for my future they say.

I was sent to the Malay College,

A school built for the privileged.

Life had become quite hectic,

To meet the school’s objective.

From school I was sent to varsity,

Located in Singapore city.

An institute with melting pot

Of all races, the whole lot.

I studied for new skills to acquire

Which four long years would require.

The country was approaching independence,

We wanted to be part of the new nation.

Our leaders laid the foundation

For a multi-racial nation.

We strived and toiled to make it happen.

Everyone was united then.

Alas, now that I have retired,

I see the country being squandered.

Race and religion are touted,

Law and order are flouted.

The economy is in tatters

From which everyone suffers.

Ya Allah, give us compassion,

Show us the way to salvation.

Cry my beloved country.

O, what will the future be.

Alwi Jantan,

Perth, 1st January 2017

The sorrow expressed and the question asked by Alwi is the sorrow and the question in the hearts and minds of all patriotic Malaysians.  As Alwi lamented:

“Alas, now that I have retired,

I see the country being squandered.

Race and religion are touted,

Law and order are flouted.

“The economy is in tatters

From which everyone suffers.

Ya Allah, give us compassion,

Show us the way to salvation.

“Cry my beloved country.

O, what will the future be.”

Alwi’s poem immediately brings to mind the article by the former US Ambassador to Malaysia, John R. Malott on the “state of Malaysia” which ended thus:

“Cry, the beloved country. I can only weep when I think of Malaysia’s future, when one man is able to subvert the institutions of government and thwart the will of the people. And when the great majority of the Malaysian people, from former leaders to the man in the street, stand by silently, and let him do it.”

Malott lamented at the irony that “many Malaysians are now being threatened for taking actions that are ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’” when “actually,  they are the very people who are struggling for democracy and political freedom”.

He wrote:

“Those who seek democracy are called the enemies of democracy.

“Meanwhile, those who really are the enemies of democracy – the people who close newspapers, charge opposition politicians with sedition, round up the leaders of peaceful protests, and arrest government officials who are investigating corruption at the highest levels – call themselves the ‘patriots’ of the nation and the defenders of parliamentary democracy.

“How perverse it all has become under Najib.”

Because of Najib’s actions, Malott said Malaysia can no longer claim to be a democracy.

He said:

“Democracy means freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. It means that there are checks and balances – that the judiciary, the press, the parliament, and so on, can comment and criticise what the government is doing.

“But today in Malaysia, none of that exists. There is no check on Najib’s power. There is no institution that can balance his power, especially when the police are so ready to arrest anyone who dares to criticise Najib, including government officials who are investigating the many allegations of corruption against him and his wife.”

When renowned author Alan Paton penned the words –
“Cry, the Beloved Country”
 – as the title of his seminal novel in 1948, it ultimately became a call for South Africa to put its past behind it and look to a new and a brighter future.

Are Malaysians capable of putting the past behind them and look to a new and brighter future that can only come from the welding of the wealth of the  diverse races, languages, religions, cultures and civilisations which meet in confluence in Malaysia or are we condemned to end up as a failed and rogue state?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 January 2017, 5:34 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Charismatic Banker Who Led Singapore’s BSI Into the Abyss

by Andrea Tan  and Chanyaporn Chanjaroen

Bloomberg

January 6, 2017

He was the leader of one of the largest mass defections in private banking history, with more than 100 staff following him from RBS Coutts Bank Ltd. in the thick of the global credit crisis to create a financial phenomenon in Singapore at a little-known Swiss bank.

Hanspeter Brunner, together with former deputy Raj Sriram and chief operating officer Gary Tucker, were the kernel of a plan by BSI SA, founded in 1873 in Lugano, to build up a $10 billion wealth-management business serving the burgeoning ranks of Asia’s millionaires.

Brunner, a veteran Swiss private banker who has spent more than two decades in Asia, offered his Coutts colleagues an extraordinary lifeboat.

Then-parent Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc was being bailed out by the U.K. government, while all around the financial industry was culling tens of thousands of jobs.

Brunner knew every banker, analyst, back-office worker and client at Coutts, according to people familiar with the move. When he went to BSI, even the pantry lady followed, three of the people said. This wasn’t just a chance for BSI to grab a few star talents in the cutthroat world of private banking in Asia, this was a wholesale exodus. Brunner’s lawyer Ng Lip Chih of NLC Law Asia LLC declined to comment.

The mass move to BSI Bank Ltd., the Singapore unit, forged a sense of camaraderie among the defectors and cemented a bond with Brunner, who managed to negotiate pay increases of as much as 40 percent, according to the people, who didn’t want to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter. BSI’s payroll swelled from 30 employees to 200 within a year, according to a company report.

They little knew that Brunner was bringing them from one crash to another. In May, Singapore’s financial watchdog ordered the bank to shut its operations in the city-state, blasting BSI as the nation’s worst case of banking misconduct.

The reason was BSI’s links with 1Malaysia Development Bhd., the Malaysian state investment fund at the center of a series of international fraud investigations, and wealthy Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, known as Jho Low.

A laissez-faire attitude meant deals were done with insufficient oversight, according to documents filed in a Singapore state court by Yak Yew Chee, 1MDB’s and Low’s former wealth manager. With BSI determined to grow fast, there were cases of deals happening against the advice of a bank compliance officer, the documents show.

Brunner had put in place compliance rules when he built up BSI Bank, but some of those involved in handling the accounts of Low and 1MDB didn’t follow the rules, a person with knowledge of Brunner’s actions said.

“There’s pressure within banks and industry to get the deal done, but the reality is that if you get the deal done without compliance checks that’s going to come back and bite you,” said Andre Jumabhoy, a former prosecutor and an enforcement lawyer at K&L Gates LLP in Singapore. “Certainly that would appear to be the case with BSI.”

As business rolled in from 1MDB and Low, BSI became the custodian bank of $2.3 billion of investments from the Malaysian fund, according to a report from a Malaysian parliamentary hearing. Yak and team members were lauded by Brunner and his bosses in Lugano, who handed out bonuses as big as S$5.5 million ($3.8 million), according to court papers filed by Yak.

Brunner, voted “Outstanding Private Banker Asia Pacific” in 2008 by Private Banker International, promoted a collegial environment and built strong personal relationships, according to people who worked with him. He made a point of walking the floors of the bank at least once a week to meet and chat with people. He would take groups of colleagues out for lunch or drinks and invite senior ones to dinner at his S$8.7 million conservation home near the city’s main shopping district.

Straits Chinese

The house in Cairnhill Road, an old Straits Chinese home, was described by the real-estate vendor as “like living in the royal palace.” Brunner filled it with Asian artifacts from his trips around the region, Persian carpets and fine red wines, according to people who have been to the house and pictures posted on an architectural firm’s website. He had traditional Chinese doors installed and hunted down tiles made in Vietnam.

Former coworkers described Brunner as a man who celebrated success, often opening his home to staff for an annual party. Along with the wine, he collected contemporary Asian art, some of which adorned his office.

But as the success mounted, so did the investigations.

‘Biggest Customer’

1MDB became the subject of probes stretching from the U.S. to Switzerland over money laundering and corruption allegations where billions of dollars may have been drained from the fund. Prosecutors began to raise questions about the millions flowing through BSI and accounts controlled by Low.

Low was BSI’s “biggest and most important customer,” Yak said in a mitigation plea in November after being charged in Singapore with offenses related to transactions allegedly involving Low. U.S. prosecutors characterized Low as the controller of an illicit payments scheme that drained billions from 1MDB. Low has described his role with 1MDB as informal consulting that didn’t break any laws.

Calls to Low’s Jynwel Capital Ltd. in Hong Kong weren’t answered. He has not been charged with any offense and 1MDB has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

In his mitigation plea, Yak, Low’s former private wealth manager, said “BSI’s management was always prepared to act on Low’s requests and give Low the benefit of the doubt.”

A BSI compliance officer on Nov. 6, 2012, flagged Low’s circular flow of funds to his father and back to him as “nebulous to say the least and not acceptable in compliance’s view,” according to court records filed in Yak’s case. Despite this warning, the transactions were eventually processed, according to the filing. BSI spokesman Luciano Crobu declined to comment for this story. Attempts to contact Low’s father were unsuccessful.

‘Dereliction of Duty’

That breach was among 41 lapses at BSI uncovered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The regulator slammed BSI for having a “pervasive pattern of non-compliance” and found “considerable evidence of gross dereliction of duty.”

Heads soon began to roll from Brunner’s team. Yak, 58, was given an 18-week jail term and fined S$24,000 after being convicted in November of forging documents and failing to disclose suspicious transactions allegedly related to Low. Yvonne Seah Yew Foong was jailed for two weeks and fined S$10,000 on Dec. 16 for similar offenses. Lawyers for Yak and Seah said they didn’t appeal.

Then on Dec. 22, Yeo Jiawei, 34, a former wealth planner at BSI, was sentenced to 30 months in prison, the longest term yet handed down by the courts in Singapore’s probes linked to 1MDB. Yeo’s lawyer said he’s appealing.

Giving testimony in Yeo’s trial, former head of wealth management services Kevin Swampillai said BSI’s management in Singapore was a “lame duck committee.” Bankers were allowed free rein in dealing with clients with a lack of central control, he said.

Brunner himself may face charges after the Swiss regulator began proceedings against him and he, Sriram and Swampillai were referred to Singapore prosecutors by MAS. Tucker has not been accused of wrongdoing. Efforts to reach Tucker through social media and via Singapore telephone listings weren’t successful. Sriram’s lawyer said he declined to comment.

“It is unprecedented for MAS to name individuals publicly that they have referred” for investigation, said Sandy Baggett, a Singapore-based lawyer at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and former deputy director for financial securities offenses at the Singapore attorney general’s office. “That tells you something about the level of evidence they must have.”

Tarnished Image

The lapses at BSI tarnished Singapore’s image as a financial center, MAS chief Ravi Menon said, and the government has vowed tough action to repair the damage to its reputation. The 1MDB scandal has also resulted in fines for banks including UBS Group AG and Standard Chartered Plc, and a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker may be banned. On Jan. 5, Singapore prosecutors charged Jens Sturzenegger, a former branch manager of Falcon Private Bank Ltd., with 16 offenses related to the scandal. MAS ordered Falcon Bank to shut in Singapore in October.

BSI was acquired by EFG International AG last year. The Zurich-based lender has said the deal contains indemnities for BSI’s legal issues. Daniela Haesler, an EFG spokeswoman, declined to comment on the matter.

The 1MDB case and revelations leaked in the Panama Papers “demonstrated that everyone in Singapore needs to be a lot more vigilant about systems and controls to prevent transnational money laundering,” said Baggett at Freshfields.

Two months before MAS ordered BSI to shut in Singapore, the bank announced Brunner, 64, would retire. Brunner and the bank in August settled a lawsuit after he sued over deferred bonuses. The private banker saw himself as instrumental in building up BSI’s business in Asia, according to a person close to Brunner.

The legal spat had echoes of Brunner’s departure from Coutts, bankers to the British royal family. In 2010, Brunner sued for wrongful dismissal from Coutts while the bank sought the return of an advance on his bonus. That complaint was also settled, according to court records.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 January 2017, 9:10 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.