Don’t tell Najib the truth or risk charge of sedition/criminal defamation!

I believe the overwhelming majority of the people, in Perak and Malaysia, agree with what I said at the Guar Perahu ceramah – that Najib must bear the greatest responsibility for the protracted Perak political and constitutional crisis, set off by Najib’s unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, which has now broadened into a larger national crisis of confidence of key national institutions, like police, election commission, MACC, civil service, judiciary, whose credibility, legitimacy and integrity have been compromised in serving Najib’s political agenda.

Are there enough court houses for the police to prosecute the overwhelming majority of Malaysians who think alike with me and are there enough prisons for them if they are convicted of the serious offences of sedition and criminal defamation of the Prime Minister?

What really surprised me is not that the police are investigating a police report lodged against me for sedition and criminal defamation, but that the police report was lodged by the police itself.

Chief Inspector Pang Meng Tuck lodged the police report against me because, as the police recording officer for the PKR Penanti by-election ceramah in Guar Perahu, Kubang Semang on Sunday, 24th May 2009, he was of the view that my speech defamed the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and was seditious.

If my speech is defamatory of Najib’s character and reputation, why is the Prime Minister not instituting civil legal proceedings to clear his name and secure just compensation from me?

When did the Police acquire the new task of protecting the reputation or lack of reputation of Barisan Nasional leaders in government?

Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research conducted several polls on the popularity ratings from Feb. 08 to Dec. 8 of the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Deputy Prime Minister, Najib.

Although Abdullah’s popularity rating had plunged from a record high of 91 per cent in November 2004 to 61 per cent in January 2008 (just before the March 8, 2008 general election), down to 46 per cent in Dec 2008, he was at all times more popular than Najib, as demonstrated by the following surveys by Merdeka Centre:

Popularity rating

Abdullah

Najib

Feb. 08

                      62%

                45%

Mar. 08

                      54%

                46%

Jul. 08

                       42%

                34%

Sept 08

                    43%

                40%

Oct. 08

                      45%

                43%

Dec. 08

                     46%

                41%

I do not think anyone will dispute that if an opinion poll is now conducted, Najib’s popularity would have fallen further even below the lowest point of 34% recorded in July last year.

Is it going to be an offence, whether sedition or criminal defamation, to speak the truth in holding Najib responsible for the protracted Perak political and constitutional crisis or to express Najib’s e unpopularity held by the public towards him?

The lodging of a police report by Chief Inspector Pang Meng Tuck against me for sedition and criminal defamation over my Penanti by-election ceramah last Sunday is a clear abuse of police powers, betraying the total lack of independence, impartiality and non-partisan position which the police and all branches of government should maintain towards the roiling political storms whether the Perak political crisis which sees no light at the end of the tunnel or over the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of Najib as Prime Minister among 27 million Malaysians.

Was Pang acting under the directive from the “highest up” to lodge the police report against me for sedition and criminal defamation?  If not, Najib and Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should publicly dissociate themselves from Chief Inspector Pang’s action.

Otherwise, Malaysians are safe to conclude that Chief Inspector Pang’s lodging of a police report against me has the blessing and support Najib and Hishamnmudin – a clear message of Malaysia moving towards a Police State in a darkening national landscape particularly on political rights, civil liberties and human rights..

(Media Conference  Statement in Penanti, Penang on Sunday, 31st May 2009 at 8.30 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2009, 10:21 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Mansor the new Penang Deputy Chief Minister

The Penanti by-election in Penang is no contest.

PKR Mansor Othman winning with a historic majority, unofficially 5559 votes, in a historic low turnout of 46.15 per cent or 7,100 people out of 15,384 voters.

All three Independent candidates lose their deposits.

Mansor is the new Penang Deputy Chief Minister. He will be sworn in on Wednesday.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2009, 7:34 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ “mother of all scandals” – 2nd set of 3 questions for OTK: agree to RCI to nab all culprits?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced on Friday that he had  directed Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to “provide answers on every question raised by any party” involving the PricewaterhouseCooper  audit report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ).

I am still waiting for  Ong’s full response  to my first three questions on Malaysia’s  “Mother of All Scandals” – the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off.

Ong should end his linguistic  games and boldly admit that he had failed   the public pledge he made in his first month as Transport Minister to  “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal, that he would not condone or protect wrongdoers responsible for the PKFZ “Mother of All Scandals” , even though they were former top leaders, whether MC A or Barisan Nasional.

The following are the media reports of Ong’s first promise as Transport Minister in April 2008 to “Tell All” about the PKFZ Rip-off –

• “Ong to tell all on the PKFZ – ‘I wish to reveal to the people the true situation’” (Star 8.4.08)

• “Report on PKFZ – IT WON’T BE JUST A STATEMENT, PLEDGES TRANSPORT MINISTER” (The Sun, 8.4.08)

• “Won’t consider whether former leaders would be investigated – Ong Tee Keat:

Revealing the truth is about the issue and not personalities” (Sin Chew 9.4.08)

The Sun reported:

Asked when the report will be ready, he said it will be out soon once a thorough report is completed. “We will not just give a statement to explain everything.”

These statement by Ong  in early April 2008 was reinforced by  the New Straits Times report (8.4.08) which made it  clear that the Transport Ministry was completing its own inquiry into the PKFZ Rip-Off, as this New Straits Times report said  that:

•	the Transport Ministry will announce its findings on the PKFZ “soon”;

•	the Transport Ministry’s investigation “is currently ongoing” ;

•	“the probe would reveal how the development cost has risen to RM4.6 billion,

how to revive the free zone and also to identify those responsible for cost overruns”.

But suddenly, the Transport Ministry’s own investigations into the PKFZ Rip-0ff disappeared from the radar of  the Transport Ministry, government and the public, as in its place, Ong announced a high-profiled inquiry by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

But what happened to Transport Ministry’s inquiry into the PKFZ which Ong said “would be out soon” long before the appointment of PwC to conduct an audit report on the PKFZ?

Was the Transport Ministry investigation aborted, and if not, what happened to its report and finding?

How many separate inquiries had been conducted by the Transport Ministry since the conception of the PKFZ concept and where are their reports?

Was there anything new in the PwC audit report which Ong had not known from the Transport Ministry’s files and records as well as from the Transport Ministry’s inquiry into PKFZ?

If so, then let Ong list out the matters and revelations in the PwC report which he had not known  before from the Transport Ministry records and inquiry, and had learnt for the first time from the PwC audit report!

If there is nothing in the PwC audit report which Ong had not known earlier from Transport Ministry records, files and inquiries, then the PwC inquiry and report are a waste of public funds although it  appeared to have played the role of allowing Ong to stall public accountability on the PKFZ Rip-Off!

Ong is alternating at different times  between being all-powerful  and all-impotent as Transport Minister in his relationship with the Port Klang Authority  (PKA) Chairman.

He was all-powerful when he directed the  chairman of PKA, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng,  to submit  a copy of the PwC report to MACC and Public Accounts Committee, but suddenly became all-impotent in claiming that he had no role to play in determining and limiting the terms of reference of the PwC audit study to a “position review”, excluding detection of  “any wrongdoing” including the  conduct or misconduct of previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in the PKFZ scandal.

Ong should decide whether he is “all-powerful” or “all-impotent” vis-à-vis the PKA Chairman as he could not pick and choose to be  “all-powerful” in certain issues but  “all-impotent” in other areas with regard to PKA and the PKFZ!

As the PwC audit report is so unsatisfactory and unacceptable because of its restricted scope and limited terms of reference, will Ong agree to the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a  thorough, indepth and wide-ranging investigation to bring to book all present and past characters who had played a role in the creation of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ monster scandal?

This is the
first question
of my second set of  three questions to Ong on the PKFZ Rip-off for him to answer, as assigned to him by the Prime Minister.

Question No.
2 – What  follow-up actions is Ong  taking from the PwC audit report on the PKFZ scandal apart from directing the PKA Chairman to submit a copy each to MACC and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee?

In fact, Malaysians are entitled to know what actions Ong had taken to “clean house” in the PKA and PKFZ based on Transport Ministry’s own information and inquiries, or nothing whatsoever  had been done by Ong as Transport Minister in the past 14 months despite both entities, PKA and PKFZSB, being run down to insolvency status and would have been declared bankrupt if not bailed out by public funds.

Otherwise the  PKFZ scandal would not have been described as a  “can of worms” or even  a “swamp of crocodiles” snowballing from a RM1.8 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than doubling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of a RM12.5 billion scandal under Ong’s watch as Transport Minister?

Question No. 3
 – This query is  from the SMS of a member of the public, which reads:

“For the PKFZ project, government now only audit land and admin problems. They should also audit buildings that already completed and awarding of contract. I think a lot of rakyat money already wasted during award of contract to sub-contractors. In order to arrive at the true estimates of the construction costs, a Building Inspection and (Investigation) Audit has to be carried out to assess objectively any discrepancies and to quantify the non-compliance of Contract, Drawings and Specifications to that of currently completed works. This exercise would include the overall audit of Architectural items, M & E installations, infrastructure and amenities/facilities built. The materials, quantity and costs can be compared against contract specifications and most importantly to confirm the quality and acceptability of construction work to acceptable standards undertaken so that the government can anticipate and factor the immediate and long term Maintenance, Repair and Replacement costs. Who knows if the quality and workmanship  meet standards or are there more hidden problems that require more rakyat money for remedy?”

I take the Prime Minister at his word, that Ong has been instructed to answer all and every question from any person with regard to the PKFZ scandal. Ong must not disappoint the Prime Minister.

Before I conclude, I welcome Malaysians to send to me questions they have about the PKFZ scandal, for onward transmission  to Ong for him to answer and take action.

(Media Conference Statement by in Bukit Mertajam on Sunday, 31st March 2009)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2009, 7:49 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abolish Overseas Undergraduate Scholarships

by
M. Bakri Musa

Every year at this time the nation goes through its regular spasms of indignation over perceived unfair distribution of scholarships for studies abroad for those with the Sijil Persekutuan Malaysia (SPM).  This being Malaysia, such controversies inevitably and quickly acquire ugly racial overtones, no matter how ‘objective’ or ‘sophisticated’ the arguments put forth.

            I suggest that we abolish all public scholarships for undergraduate studies abroad.  That would at least remove yet another source of racial disagreement.  The fewer such contentious issues we have, the better it would be for Malaysia.

            Public scholarships for studies abroad should only be given to those pursuing higher degrees.  As for the handful of our brightest who secured undergraduate slots at the world’s most competitive universities, rest assured that there will be no shortage of sponsors outside of government if these students were truly in need of financial aid.

            Whatever money left over after funding those pursuing higher degrees abroad should then be diverted to strengthening our local universities, which desperately need the support.

            A candidate with only the SPM regardless of the number of A’s obtained could secure a place only at a third-rate institution in America.  We do not need to send our students there.  Even when on the rare occasions that they do end up at a respectable university, these students have to spend a semester or two doing preparatory courses (essentially Sixth Form).

Cheaper To Hire American Professors

This may surprise many, but it is actually less expensive to hire a full (not an assistant) professor from America than to send one undergraduate there.  Let me review the arithmetic.

            The average American professor earns about US$100K annually; pay her that to come to Malaysia.  Out of that she would probably spend about $40K for local living expenses.  At that level (about RM140K) she would have a lifestyle that would be the envy of her former colleagues in America.  Additionally she would spend $10K for transportation, another $10K for her driver, maid and gardener, and $5K for local holidays.  Then there is the local income tax of about $20K.  At the end of the year she would be lucky to have $15K to remit home.

            The rest ($85K) would be spent locally to benefit the area hamburger joints, satay sellers, and apartment owners, among others.  Imagine the multiplier effect of that spending.

            Contrast that to sending one student to America at an average cost of $50K per year.  That whole sum is lost from the country, with no spin-off or multiplier effect in Malaysia.  Thus in terms of actual foreign currency loss, it is over three times more expensive to send a student to America than to hire an American professor ($50K versus $15K).

            That extra expense would have been worthwhile if we were to send our students to the MITs and Harvards of America, but we are not.  This is true especially of JPA and MARA students, and only slightly less so with Petronas.

            Imagine if our universities were to have a critical mass of American faculty members.  The first impact would be felt at the faculty level.  Those local faculty members would now have real competition and new academic role models, scholars instead of politicians in academic robes.  One reason the National University of Singapore had a quantum leap in improvement was its recruitment of many foreign academics way back in the 1970s, despite the opposition of local professors.

            Our universities need a generous infusion of foreign academics as there is a limited local supply.  Even our so-called top tier universities have fewer than half of their faculty members having terminal qualifications.

            For the students, they would now have not the typical aloof and imperious Third World professor but a more approachable and less formal teacher.  Lastly for the university, it would end up with a scholarly-productive faculty.  That incidentally is the only way for the university to ascend the academic scale.

            Sending a student abroad would only benefit him; the nation would gain later, and only if he were to return.  If he would not, the country could never recoup the loss.  On the other hand, that one professor would directly and immediately benefit local students, the university, and thus the nation.

            We send about 2,000 new students abroad a year at a cost of at least RM350 million.  Assuming that such students spend on average about four years abroad, the total annual budget must be in the range of RM1.4 billion (350 x 4).  Compare that to the 2009 operating budget for all our public universities of RM14.1 billion!

Fallacious Arguments on Meritocracy

I am surprised how otherwise intelligent Malaysians would suddenly have a sudden and almost religious faith in the validity of the SPM as a measure of merit.  One needs only peruse the examination, as well as the syllabus and textbooks on which those examination is based, to be disabused of this misplaced confidence.  If you need further affirmation, just sit in one of those classes and see what the teachers’ expectations are of the students.

            The SPM measures how faithfully the students could regurgitate what the teachers had imparted to them in class.  Thus it is an excellent surrogate indicator of a student’s memory, hard work, and obedience to authority figures.  The first two qualities will get you far anywhere.  I am uncertain of the value of the third.  While it will get you far in the Third World and authoritarian societies, I am certain that it is not an attribute that we should hold at a premium if we were to progress.

            What we need instead is the ability for critical thinking, problem solving, and communicating effectively.  Unfortunately those are not the skills we are teaching and testing our students.

            Nobody even questions the ridiculousness of a student sitting for 20 subjects!  A matriculating American high school student sits for only seven subjects, at most.  The American standardized test, SAT I, covers only three:  English, mathematics, and writing skills.  Even top American universities require the SAT II (or subject SAT) in only three subjects, while students sit for at most five subjects.

            Seven should be enough fro SPM, and focus more on content.  The International Baccalaureate, now recognized as the global standard for matriculation, offers only six subjects, while its middle school program (equivalent to our SPM), only 8.

            Minister of Education Muhyyuddin’s proposal to reduce the SPM offerings to 10 subjects represents the usual seat-of-the-pants decision rather than the result of serious policy deliberations.  He only adds to the muddle.

            Even SAT which has been the most evaluated is not the end all and be all in terms of student evaluation.  Harvard and other top universities could easily fill their slots with class valedictorians and perfect SAT scorers, but they do not.  These institutions recognize that no one test can be valid for all students.  And on any one test, its discriminatory value diminishes rapidly at the extremes of the curve.

            Yet we have those who would ascribe miraculous powers to SPM such that someone with 20 A’s should automatically get a scholarship over another with only 13 or 9!  They are ascribing to the SPM a degree of precision it does not deserve.  The SPM has yet to prove itself as a valid instrument in the first place.

            These misplaced discussions on merit remind me of two items.  I am told that in the old cemeteries of Beijing, the civil service examination scores of the ancient Mandarins were chiseled onto their tombstones!  Nobody bothered to find out how well those Imperial civil servants were at solving the problems of the Empire.  The second was a delightful essay, “Lost in the Meritocracy” I read The Atlantic in 2005 (now available in a book form) by the writer and critic Walter Kirn.  His thesis is essentially that these tests really measure how well you could outwit the test designers!

            Back in my days in high school when examinations were essays rather than the SAT-style multiple-choice fill-in-the-blanks, success was measured on how well you could “spot” the questions, which of course is a variation on the same theme.

            The controversies over SPM are symptomatic of a much more serious problem with our entire school system.  These arguments over scholarships based on SPM distract us from addressing these other more fundamental issues.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 8:42 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Higher Education Minister should ensure that new university intake by UPU to be announced on June 19 provide places for the 4,574 student-victims of the USM Apex University fiasco

The fiasco of 4,574 students being wrongly informed that they had obtained places at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) cannot be a worse start for USM as the Apex University – a bungle and blunder which should not have happened at all and completely inexcusable.

In keeping with its status as an  Apex University, USM was for the first time exercising the freedom to choose the best students before the University Admission Unit’s (UPU) selection of students for the other public  universities.

But the USM chancellory yesterday was the venue for emotional havoc for hundreds of students and their parents when they  found that they had been wrongly informed about being accepted as students in USM, with lost tempers and heart-rending scenes of tears and frustration.

Acting USM Vice Chancellor Prof Ahmad Shukri Mustapha Kamal explained to DAP Penang State Assemblyman for Komtar and Political Secretary to Penang Chief Minister, Ng Wei Aik and me at the USM Chancellory yesterday how the error where 4,574 students were wrongly informed that they had been offered places in USM came about.

Apologising profusely, Ahmad Shukri said out of over 22,000 who applied for places in USM, 8,173 were pre-qualified, out of which 3,599 were offered places.

The mistake occurred as USM was working under time pressure to submit the list of successful applicants to UPU for it to start the process of selecting students for the other universities.

The 3,599 successful students were informed by SMS, web, phone and letter. There was no problem with the 3,599 SMS but the USM wrongly uploaded the names of all the 8,173 pre-qualified students on its website as successful students.

I promised when I met the disappointed students and their parents at the USM Chancellery yesterday that I will contact the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Seri Mohamad Khaled Nordin and Higher Education Department director-general Datuk Prof Radin Umar Radin Sohadi in Kuala Lumpur today.

I could not contact Khaled Nordin as the Minister is overseas. I spoke to Prof Radin and conveyed to him the scene of emotional havoc at the USM chancellory yesterday.

I told him that Ahmad Shukri has agreed to send to UPU the list of the 4,574 students who had been victimized by the USM blunder and bungle and urged on him to give particular attention to the list of  4,574 pre-qualified by USM to ensure that they will not be victimized a second time by the university selection system.

Prof Radin said the results of the UPU selection of students for all the other public universities would be announced on June 19, where some 40,000 would be selected for places out of some 60,000 pre-qualified students.

I call on Khaled Nordin as Higher Education Minister and all the other Cabinet Ministers to  ensure that new university intake by UPU to be announced on June 19 provide places for the 4,574 student-victims of the USM Apex University fiasco.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 3:58 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ questions – why Transport Ministry should not cut losses instead of continuing to throw good money after bad to create a RM12.5 billion PKFZ “white elephant”?

In less than two days, MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has forgotten the
directive of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak
 to “provide answers on every question raised by any party” on the PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC) audit report on the
Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ)
 and has started to be abusive and refused to answer the many queries raised by the Malaysian public in the past three days.

Ong even refused to answer the
six

questions
 I have posed on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal in the past two days, but I will pose another three questions today, as this is what the Prime Minister had promised – that he had directed Ong to respond to “every question raised by any party” on the PKFZ.

Ong  seems to be “on the run” from these questions, like his predecessor as Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in November 2007. Why is this?

At the media conference at Port Klang Authority (PKA) on Friday, after a DAP team had spent five hours leafing through the three-and-a-half-inch high documentary annexure to the PwC audit report on PKFZ, containing 20 appendices, I had asked the government to consider the option to cut losses in PKFZ instead of continuing to incur further losses in view of the PWC warning that the cost of the ill-advised project could skyrocket by another RM5 billion to reach the astronomical total of RM12.453 billion.

This is the
first of my three questions
 on the PKFZ today, why the Transport Ministry should not cut losses instead of continuing to throw good money after bad with another RM5 billion losses to create a RM12.5 billion PKFZ “white elephant”?

Ong had tried to pour scorn on the proposal that the government cut losses and close down PKFZ as “a premature statement by politicians who think they can make well-informed financial decisions based on a few hours of looking through the PKFZ report”, saying that he will let  “the financial consultants and management experts work out a more viable solution based on further in-depth studies before a more structured approach and solution is implemented”.

Ong had said quite a mouthful, but  it is no answer at all. It is just  meaningless gobbledegook, another example of Ong refining to a fine art his specialty of making a very complex statement because he is incapable of giving a simple answer!

 I did not say last Friday that the Transport Ministry should cut losses and liquidate the PKFZ, even allowing the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to go bankrupt if this is one inescapable consequence – but that such an option should be seriously considered by the Transport Minister, as such an option stared me in the face when reading the shocking disclosures in the PwC audit report and the three-and-half-inch high annexures in the PKA library.

The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) has called  on the government to ensure the
completion of the PKFZ project
 despite its present shortcomings.

Its vice-president, A. Balasubramaniam, said it would be a great waste to abandon the project mid-way as billions of ringgit of taxpayers’ money had been poured into it.

“With better management and adjustments the project can become a future money spinner for the Port Klang Authority,” he said.

Balasubramaniam, who is also secretary of the Union of Employees in Port Ancillary Services Suppliers (Unepass), said the PKFZ would also open up opportunities for hundreds of jobs for local workers.

I respect Balasubramiam’s views. Let us have an informed and intelligent national debate whether the government should continue with the PKFZ “white elephant” although it has snowballed from a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than quadrupled  to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now skyrocketed to RM7.453 billion under Ong’s watch, and likely to require another RM5 billion commitment to reach the astronomical total cost of RM12.5 billion!

This is why I am posing this first of my three questions on the PKFZ today, for Ong to explain why the Transport Ministry should not cut losses instead of continuing to throw good money after bad with another RM5 billion losses to create a RM12.5 billion PKFZ “white elephant”?

Ong cannot pass the buck by saying that the financial consultants and management experts will “work out a more viable solution based on further in-depth studies before a more structured approach and solution is implemented” when there should first be a policy decision whether the government should cut losses on PKFZ or continue to burden the present and future generations with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ “white elephant”.

This option must now be seriously on the agenda of policy makers because it is now revealed by the PwC audit report that PKFZ,  based on its own assumptions, will be in cumulative cash flow deficit for the next 42 years, until 2041!

PKFZ’s assumptions are obviously too optimistic. Just to give two reasons:

Occupancy rates. Current occupancy rate is only 14%. PKFZ assumes that occupancy rates for its Light Industrial Units (LIU) will rise to 20% in 2009, 47% in 2011 and 100% by 2014.

Rental rates. The current actual LIU rental rate is already 20% below forecast. (RM1.20 per square foot per month vs RM1.50 forecast)

The PKFZ project cost now is already RM7.453 billion. If, as it appears, PKA will not meet its own cash flow assumptions, there would be an additional RM5bn cost.

With this scenario, the question that is legitimately asked is: Rather than wasting this further RM5 billion, shouldn’t PKA just be declared insolvent and the PKFZ “white elephant” shut down?

DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua, in his blog yesterday,
 “
PKFZ: Should it be kept alive?
”
 asked a most pertinent question:

“Should we throw good money after bad? Will there ever be a businessman (or even government) in the world, who will invest in a commercial project which is projecting cumulative cashflow deficit (note: we are not even talking about profits here!) after 33 years (2042)!!”

Can Malaysians expect a decent, sensible and well-considered response from Ong to my first question today (or No. 7th question) on the PKFZ?

Now to my
second question
 on PKFZ today. The PcW audit report is very polite to say that “PKA may not have received value for money due to its heavy reliance on KDSB as turnkey developer”.

Lets put aside the period before Ong became Transport Minister, but can he answer what he has done since becoming Transport Minister in the past 15 months to ensure that PKA truly receive value for money from the PKFZ turnkey contractor, Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, giving facts and figures.?

My
third question
 is very simple. Although the DAP team had spent five hours at the PKA Library to leaf through the three-and-a-half-inch high PwC audit report annexure with 20 appendices, we have not been able to study them as thoroughly and satisfactorily as we wanted.

As Ong has directed the PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, to submit a copy of the PwC audit report, complete with the 20 appendices, to the MACC and the PAC, is he prepared to direct the PKA Chairman to give to the DAP Parliamentary team a complete set of the PwC report together with the 20 appendices for thorough study?

This might give us more ammunition to grill Ong and the PKA, but if Ong believes in the principles of accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance, he should be prepared to say “yes”.

In directing Ong “to answer every question raised by any party” on the PKFZ, the Prime Minister is clearly prepared to subject the PKFZ scandal to the widest and tiniest scrutiny.

For this reason, Ong will be invited to a public forum on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off and I hope he will appear at this forum to answer all questions whether by panellists or concerned members of the public on the PKFZ. Tony Pua is organising the forum.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 11:55 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Policy changes to be made to expand and strengthen Malaysian-China relationship

By Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life advisor

From a poor communist country has been transformed into the fourth richest country in the world after USA, Japan and Germany, the man who started the phenomenal change was Deng Xiao Peng who introduced liberal and modernisation policies.

Although it still keep its communist ideology, China now intend to be friends with the whole world. She has won friends with the West, the developed countries and has given large financial handouts to the poor countries of the world. Her diplomacy offensive as a friend of the world has won tremendous appeal.

Malaysia ostensibly also adopt a policy of being a friend to the whole world, and PM Najib’s visit to China tomorrow is meant to expand and strengthen Malaysia-China relationship.

LET CHIN PENG RETURN

if we are friendly with China, then why is Chin Peng denied his desire to return to Malaysia as he is a citizen of this country?

He has long given up the communist struggle of world domination which was the battle cry of Communism last century. He is no longer a threat to the security of Malayaia.

Historically speaking, Chin Peng was a freedom fighter during the Japanese occupation of Malaya. Many of his comrades died in the struggle to free Malaya from imperialist Japan.

Those who opposed the return of Chin Peng said that he was responsible for the deaths of many Malayan army and police officers. True, but was not Japanese soldiers responsible for the killing of untold innocent people of Malaya during the Japanese occupation.

The war with Japan is over, and Malaysia and Japan are now friends. If Japan could be forgiven for countless  atrocities, why cannot be Chin Peng be forgiven. He fought not as a murderer but as a solider in the service of communism.

Communism in Malaysia is not a threat any longer, as is communism in Russia and China.

It is time to allow Chin Peng to return. Relationship with China would become warmer and stronger. PM Najib should announce this while visiting Chinese, to show ‘let bygones be bygones’.

To forgive Japan, but not Chin Peng is a grave injustice.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 5:41 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


‘Political Crisis  . . . What’s next?’

DAP Ipoh Barat proudly present English Speaking Dinner on
“Political Crisis . . . What’s next?”

Date : 11 June 2009, Thursday

Time : 7pm – 11pm

Venue : Florex Restaurant Ipoh

Ticket : RM 100

For tickets kindly contact : P. Sugumaran 017-5677276

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 8:37 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Streamyx in Malaysia really sucks

On Saturday, I blogged
“Streamyx in Penang sucks. What do you say?”

There were 32 responses.

Conclusion – Streamyx in Malaysia really sucks.

Until recently, Streamyx service in Green Lane area in Penang had been fairly reliable. But not now, as disruptions have become quite common.

What do you say when not only Streamyx went down, Maxis 3G and Celcom 3G were  also down, all at the same time, in the same place and for quite a period!

I do not know how often this happens in Penang as I am all over the country most of the time.

But from responses, Malaysians have universal internet complaints rather than universal internet service.

Other countries are leapfrogging into super-fast broadband networks while Malaysia is still bogged down with super-slow broadband service.

Time for long-suffering Streamyx customers as well as other providers to get their voices heard loud and clear!

A revolt of Streamyx subscribers?

What do you say?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2009, 6:30 pm and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet assurance needed – all 4,574 student-victims of USM foul-up will be given places in other public universities

From the statement of the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Seri Mohamad Khaled from Yemen and my discussion with the Higher Education Department director-general Datuk Prof Radin Umar Radin Sohadi, no concrete assurance is forthcoming that the 4,574 student-victims of USM Apex University student intake fiasco will definitely be given places in other public universities.

Although Khaled described the foul-up by the country’s only apex university as serious and directed that an independent committee be set up to investigate the matter, he has no assurances for the 4,574 student victims.

All Khaled said was that students who were rejected by USM will get another bite of the cherry, as they will be considered for placements in other public universities by the University Admissions Unit (UPU).

This is scarce consolation for the 4,574 students who went through emotional havoc over the USM foul-up.

Over 22,000 students  applied for places in USM, which was conducting its own intake of undergraduates for the first time, in line with its status as an apex university. Out of this number, 8,173 were pre-qualified but only  3,599 were offered places.

The problem arose when all the 8,173 pre-qualified students were mistakenly uploaded on the USM website as being successful in their applications, creating emotional shockwaves for  4,574 students and their parents when their joy of being accepted by USM were immediately dashed by the USM bungle.

Khaled’s assurance that the 4,574 will be considered for placements in other universities is totally unsatisfactory, as  this means that they are placed in the same category as the over 14,000 students who applied for admission to USM but were not pre-qualified. How can this be fair?

My discussion with Radin Umar is also not successful in getting any assurance that the 4,574 students would all be offered places in the other public universities.

He said that there are 40,366 places for public universities available for the 2009/2010 academic session while the UPU has received 61,027 applications. The UPU results would be announced on June 19.

When I asked that the 4,574 students should be given special attention as they are  pre-qualified by USM, Radin Umar said that all the 61,027 applicants  received by UPU are also  “pre-qualified”. He said meritocracy has to be the yardstick unless the meritocracy selection system is not  followed.

 I do not know what this “meritocracy” Radin Umar is talking about, but I agree that the 4,574 students should be given places in the other public universities without jeopardizing or denying the chances of other eligible students.

This can be done by a two-step process.

Firstly, in the selection of the placement of 40,366 places for the public  universities from the 61,027 applications, the UPU uses its meritocracy selection system.

Secondly, those from the 4,574 student-victims of the USM Apex University fiasco who failed to get UPU  offers  for the 40,366 university places should all be given places in the public universities, which would mean an expansion of public universities places from 40,366 to include this group.

As the 4,574 students were “pre-qualified” by USM from over 22,000 students, I will be surprised if there is even five  per cent or less than 250  students from this group who are not offered places by UPU.

I do not believe that it is beyond the capability of the Malaysian public university system to increase university intake by one per cent of its target intake of 40,366 students for the new academic year when such a tiny increase in university places will see that justice is done and that not a single one of the 4,574 students nurse a life-long grievance against an unfair university selection system.

This is a decision which cannot be taken at the bureaucratic level of the UPU but only at the policy level of the Cabinet.

For this reason, I call on the Cabinet tomorrow to  give categorical assurance that the 4,574 student-victims of USM Apex University student intake foul-up  will be given places in other public universities without jeopardizing or denying chances to other eligible applicants.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, 12:15 pm and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Have MARA run out of funds leaving hundreds stranded without their bumiputera student loans – and how can such a financial scandal happen?

Has MARA run out of funds leaving hundreds stranded without their bumiputera student loans – and how can such a financial scandal happen?

I have received the following email from a Malay student in a private college:

“I am 21. My father left the family in 1995 and since then my mother has been taking care of the family by herself. I have two other elder sisters, all of whom are working now. My mother was a teacher but now she is retired. She is taking care of the family by herself with the pension she receives every month.

“I studied in … School and later at International Islamic College (IPTS), taking a diploma in computer science. I was a self-sponsored student in IIC.

“I was supported by my mother since she could afford it back then but I had to keep to a really tight budget. Although we were in a quite a difficult financial situation back then, I didn’t waste any time and studied hard.

“I was in the dean’s list every semester until I graduated, with an overall CGPA of 3.931. After graduating, I worked for one year as a technician to gain some experience before I furtherd my studies at …College, taking Bachelor in Computer Science.

“In December 2008, I went to … College to enquire about their courses and other details such as the fees. My enquiries was handled by Mr. … and he helped me a lot with my documentations. I asked him if there’s any financial aid for bumiputera students and he said that most bumiputera students in …are sponsored by MARA and he encouraged me to apply for the same MARA loan (discounts apply if my results are good).

“In early January 2009, I went to see … again to submit my application form, but I didn’t submit it together with the MARA form as the deadline for the MARA loan application is on the 14th of March 2009. I paid RM4750.00 as part of my first semester fees. I was told that the remainder will be settled by MARA when the MARA loan is approved.

“… I submitted my (MARA)  form on the 14th of March 2009. I was made to understand that this is the deadline for both January (Foundation students) and February (degree students) intakes. The application forms for both the intakes will be compiled and sent to MARA HQ after the deadline.

“Recently, on the 28th of May 2009, I went to MARA marketing office in …to check my application status. When I arrived, I asked the same officer about my application and she said ‘Sorry but right now all loan applications are frozen because MARA doesn’t have the funds to support students’. She said  that all other students nationwide are affected, not just students from …College.

“When I asked how long must we wait till MARA has the funds, she said ‘We don’t know. We keep calling MARA HQ and they keep asking us to check back one week after another, delaying. Maybe some politicians have their own agenda, even the students who applied in January also has had their loan application frozen’.  I was shocked to hear this because when I asked her about the probability of a student like me getting the loan, she practically said it was virtually guaranteed as I had nothing to worry about if I got my application form in order.

“Worst of all, there is no black and white notification saying our applications are frozen and why it is frozen. We were not contacted at all! We weren’t even stopped from applying for the loan if indeed MARA had run out of funds. If I didn’t follow-up and check on my application, I don’t know when will they tell me the true status of my application, if they are planning to do so in the first place. MARA running out of funds seem a far-fetched reason to me. If it is true, perhaps MARA should come clean on its current situation instead of leaving all of us in the dark.

“I am not begging for the MARA loan but there were no notification given that our applications are frozen nor were we stopped from applying for it, giving us false hope. If MARA had told me earlier, I would have tried to find other alternatives to finance my studies. Now with the final exams three weeks away, I am left with this huge problem as I’ve only settled a part of the first semester fees. I can only hope that …College will allow me to sit for the exams while I try to sort out this problem.

“I find this MARA absurdity very funny. Where did the funds of this big organization which is under Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah go?”

I call on the Minister for Rural and Regional Development, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal to personally look into this problem and explain to all stranded MARA students as well as their parents where have  the millions of ringgit approved by Parliament for purposes loans to bumiputera students gone to.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, 3:55 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib should seek a vote of confidence as the first item of June meeting of Parliament starting on June 15

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s win in the Penanti by-election is nothing to boast about as it cannot be used as a yardstick to gauge the popularity of any political parties.

He told reporters at the 20th Asean-Republic of Korea Commemorative Summit on Jeju Island that
Mansor Othman’s win
 was “
not exciting
” as the voter turnout was less than 50 per cent and “
a win against independent candidates is not an absolute win…something that one can be proud of
”.

This is really sour grapes by Najib, who should be ashamed of himself that the UMNO and Barisan Nasional that he leads dare not contest in Penanti, for fear that it would be his third consecutive by-election defeat in the Peninsular since becoming Prime Minister and the Barisan Nasional’s fifth consecutive defeat since the March 8 political tsunami in last year’s general election.

The Penanti by-election results are very telling. Although Umno sponsored one independent candidate and Gerakan sponsored another Independent candidate, all three independent candidates lost their deposits – although the Gerakan-sponsored candidate beat the Umno-sponsored candidate by 102 votes!

Mansor Othman garnered 6,052 votes to win the Sunday by-election against the three independent candidates — Aminah Abdullah (392 votes), Nai Khan Ari Nai Keow (494 notes) and Kamarul Ramizu Idris (56 votes).

Many Pakatan Rakyat voters did not come out to vote, especially those working outside the constituency who did not take the trouble to return to the constituency to cast their votes as they regard it as a certain victory for PKR.

If Barisan Nasional had contested, the Umno candidate would have got a thrashing even worse than in last year’s general election.

As it is, the one-sided by-election result was a clear repudiation of Najib’s premiership.

Coming together with the latest opinion poll which showed that he is the most unpopular Prime Minister in the first two months in office in the nation’s 52-year history of six Prime Ministers, it is Najib who should feel the heat that his record is nothing to be proud about.

It is indeed shocking that less than two months into his administration, Najib could only muster the approval of 45 per cent of Malaysians polled recently in a Merdeka Centre survey.

It is clear that Najib is still in the very throes of a crisis of confidence in the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership, compounded by his refusal to dissolve the Perak State Assembly to hold general elections in the state to allow Perakians to elect the government of their choice – the only fair, democratic and honourable solution to the Perak political and constitutional crisis for which Najib must bear the greatest responsibility.

Najib should seek a vote of confidence as the first item of parliamentary business when Parliament reconvenes on June 15 for the next meeting, or is Najib afraid that he would not be able to get 100 per cent support from UMNO and Barisan Nasional MPs?

Both Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sought a vote of confidence from Parliament in their first month in office as Prime Minister. Why is Najib afraid to follow in their footsteps?

Kuala Lumpur was named among the 10 riskiest locations in the world for outsourcing by the “
Black Book of Outsourcing
”. Kuala Lumpur was named the
4th riskiest location
, while Singapore tops the list of the world’s safest location in the world for outsourcing.

This is an indication of the continuous erosion of national and international confidence in Malaysia under Najib’s premiership, an added reason why Najib should be brave enough to seek a vote of confidence in Parliament on June 15.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, 3:19 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why was Ong Tee Keat so irresponsible to talk about PKFZ may cost less than RM4.6 billion when PwC reported that the PKFZ “white elephant” had escalated to RM7.5 billion and may cost another RM5 billion to total RM12.5 billion?

Silence, sense-surround silence, thundering silence from Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, MCA President and Transport Minister, to my daily three questions on the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit report on the RM12.5 billion
Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-Off
 despite the open and public directive by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to Ong  “
to provide answers on every question raised by any party
” on PwC’s PKFZ report.

Am I surprised? I am not.

However, as there is standing instruction by the Prime Minister to Ong to answer every question on the PKFZ “mother of all scandals” by anyone, I will continue with my daily three question to the Transport Minister, this being the fourth consecutive “
3

questions

a day
”.

My
first question
 today  to Ong is why he was being downright irresponsible when he said in Penang yesterday that “outlays for the controversial Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project could end up being less than RM4.6 billion” (“
PKFZ could cost less than RM4.6b
” – New Straits Times June 2, 2009) by engaging legal experts and consultants to recover the “overcharging” reported by PcW.

Engaging legal experts and consultants to “probe and also consider the recovery of overcharging elements” is going to incur further costs, and its not going to be cheap. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that any money would be recovered. What is certain is that more money would go down the drain!

How can Ong be so irresponsible as to be talking about the PKFZ “white elephant” costing less than RM4.6 billion when the PwC report stated that PKFZ project had escalated to RM7.453 billion and could cost another RM5 billion to reach the astronomical total of RM12.453 billion.?

Probably, Ong does not fully understand the contents and grasp the implications of PwC’s PKFZ audit report.

Let me just refer him to the Executive Summary of PwC’s PKFZ report, which stated:

“Project outlay has escalated from RM1.957 billion to RM3.522 billion,  excluding interest cost.  Including interest cost, the Project outlay increases to RM7.453 billion

2.5 PKA entered into several agreements with KDSB to purchase the Land and develop the Project on a turnkey basis. The original estimated cost for the land purchase and development works in 2001 was RM1.957 billion.  As shown in the chart on the next page, Project outlay has escalated to RM3.522 billion as at 31 December 2008.  Interest cost of the deferred payments to KDSB amounted to RM1.425 billion resulting in a total Project outlay of RM4.947 billion.

2.6 PKA was unable to fund its obligations to KDSB from its own resources when the first scheduled payment was due in 2007.  PKA secured a 20-year soft loan of RM4.632 billion from MOF, of which RM4.382 billion is available for draw down.  This loan would impose an additional interest cost of RM2.506 billion resulting in a total Project outlay of RM7.453 billion.

PKA must restructure the MOF soft loan to avoid a potential default in 2012

2.7 Cashflow projections prepared by PKA management show that PKA would be in a cumulative cash deficit position between 2012 and 2041, after paying two instalments to MOF. Should PKA fail to meet the MOF soft loan instalments as scheduled and if these instalments are deferred to match its projected cashflows, it would incur additional interest cost of approximately RM5 billion. This would further increase the outlay of the Project to RM12.453 billion.”

In fact, there are grounds to believe that not all the costs incurred for the PKFZ project had been brought to the notice and knowledge of PwC.

For instance, it is reported today that Port Klang Authority (PKA) was yesterday sued for a RM147 million bill for “corporate advisory services” by Mega-Wan Corporate Services Sdn Bhd.

As reported
by the Sun, this RM147 million bill
 is made up of three claims for professional fees for corporate advisory and associated services, viz

RM97.27 million on the management of the PKFZ from January 2006 to August 2007 which covers consultation on the appointment of Jebel Ali Free Zone (JAFZ) to manage PKFZ as well as the eventual termination of the management agreement;

RM1.9 million to Port Klang Authority (PKA) on issues and queries related to PKFZ project between August 2007 and May 2008; and

RM48.6 million for professional fees to advise and conduct financial re-engineering rendered to PKA to facilitate the appeal for a RM4.6 billion loan from the Ministry of Finance to fund the PKFZ project.

Ong should explain whether PwC was informed  of this RM147 million claim in connection with the PKFZ project  when conducting its audit, and if not why, as Mega-Wan Corporate Services Sdn. Bhd had submitted its claim for repayment to the then PKA general manager Lim Thean Shiang as far back as Sept. 12, 2008 when PwC was in the process of conducting its audit.

If PwC had been notified of this RM147 million claim in connection with the PKFZ project, why was it omitted in the PwC audit report as this raises the question of its  professionalism?

My
second question
 to Ong is what is the cost of the PwC audit investigation. It is bruited that the fees paid to PwC is RM3 million. Can Ong give the exact sum?

Third question
: Why is the PwC audit report on PKFZ going to be available online at
www.pka-report.com
 for only a period of two weeks from 28th May to 10th June 2009, which is a most unusual practice.  Could Ong ensure that the PwC audit report on PKFZ should remain on the PKA website so long as the PKFZ scandal is not resolved?

In fact, what Ong should do is to ensure that all the 20 appendices of the PwC report should be uploaded on the same site so that all Malaysians can access them to find out why the interests and rights of present and future generations should be pawned away by a RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off.

If Ong or PKA have technical problems of putting the appendices on the Internet, the DAP IT team is prepared to render its help and services.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, 11:30 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Has Malaysia lost the battle to become a developed nation and entered the cycle to become a failed state?

The collapse of the roof of the RM300 million 50,000-capacity
Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Gong Badak
 within a year of completion provoked disbelief, shock and outrage with a whole spectrum of unflattering comments and reactions.

One reaction is that the shocking collapse of the RM300 million stadium within a year of completion is a disaster waiting to happen. An engineer,
A. Mohamed who often jogged in the area, has told the media
 that he had noticed that the space frame which held the roof was getting bent out of shape but his efforts to warn government agencies and the media of the stadium defects were ignored.

Another is that the collapse is the inevitable consequence of a system which gives premium to “know who” than “know how”, the curse of Umno cronyism hiding under the guise of New Economic Policy. Will the Umno cronies responsible for the infamous collapse of the RM300 million stadium roof within a year of completion be exposed and fully penalized?

I was told this morning that the collapse of the Gong Badak Stadium symbolizes the collapse of the “1Malaysia” slogan of Datuk Seri Najib Razak marking his second month as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Another opined that it marked the fulfilment of the most famous
 Malaysian political prophecy, RAHMAN, with Najib as the last Umno Prime Minister
.

From the larger national macro perspective, the collapse of the roof of the RM300 million stadium within a year of its completion is the latest warning of the serious and quite terminal breakdown of standards and benchmarks of excellence with the consequence that far from realizing Vision 2020 and becoming a developed nation, Malaysia risks entering the cycle of being a failed state.

There is no shortage of such shocking examples in recent months, viz:

The
collapse of the five-storey portion of the Jaya supermarket
 in Petaling Jaya during demolition work, killing seven, when in developed countries the implosion of skyscrapers without mishap has become a routine.

The Universiti Sains Malaysia
Apex University fiasco
 where  4,574 university students suffered emotional havoc when they were told  that they had been mistakenly informed that they had been successful in their applications for admission;

Universal broadband complaints
, such as the complaint in Penang since last evening of sheer inability to access Internet even when trebly insured, having Streamyx, Maxis 3G and Celcom 3G.

Ah Longs having parallel system of underground IGP
, CPOs, OCPDs and prisons, with endemic crime and police inability to ensure that Malaysians, tourists and investors are safe in the streets, public places and the privacy of their homes.

The list can go on. As if these signs are not bad enough,
Kuala Lumpur has been  named No. 4 as the riskiest locations
 in the world for outsourcing by the “
Black Book of Outsourcing
”, in a survey of 50 international locations. Singapore tops the list of the world’s safest location in the world for outsourcing.

On “Personal Crime Rate & Police-to-citizen ratio”, Kuala Lumpur is ranked the fourth worst of 50 locations while Singapore is ranked the top best!

Cabinet and Parliament must focus on the issue whether Malaysia has lost the battle to become a developed nation and has entered the cycle to become a failed state under Najib as Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 3 June 2009, 11:56 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ – submission of PwC report to MACC just OTK’s PR gimmick?

This is the fifth consecutive day of three daily questions to the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-off
, in response to the public announcement and invitation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that he had directed Ong “to provide answers on every question raised by any party” on the
PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC)’s audit report on the PKFZ
.

Although Ong had responded valiantly to Najib’s directive with the bravado statement that he was honoured with Najib’s trust in him, the MCA President had let down the Prime Minister badly in failing to answer adequately and satisfactorily a single one of the 12 questions I had posed in the past four days on the PKFZ.

I do not know whether Najib will have to end Ong’s misery by coming out publicly to withdraw
his public invitation and directive to Ong to “provide answers on every question raised by any party”
 on the PwC’s report on PKFZ, but until then I propose to continue with the three daily questions to Ong on the PKFZ.

When the PwC audit report on the PKFZ was released publicly  last Thursday, Ong secured a lot of publicity by directing the Port Klang Authority Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng to submit a copy of the report to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC).

My
first question
 to Ong today is whether the  submission of PwC PKFZ audit report to MACC wasn’t  just PR (public relations)  gimmick when Ong knew that  the four previous police/ACA reports by Selangor DAP leader Ronnie Liu on PKFZ had come to nothing  and when he himself  as MCA President was not prepared to take action against  the MCA deputy finance minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung?

The Anti-Corruption Agency had been completely  ineffective and impotent despite the lodging of  four police/ACA reports on the PKFZ by Ronnie Liu between December  2004 and August 2007, while the PKFZ scandal escalated from a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than quadrupling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of RM7.5 billion  and even reaching RM12.5 billion scandal under Ong’s watch.

Does Ong believe he could claim that he had done his full duty as Transport Minister and could wash his hands of the PKFZ Rip-off by just sending the PwC’s PKFZ report to the MACC?

PwC admitted that its audit report was based on information gathered from a number of sources, including the MACC (formerly ACA) as some of the principal sources about the PKFZ, like “books, minutes, agreements, reports, notices of payments, accounts, certificates, financial statements, forecasts and  projections, valuations, print-outs” were kept in the office of the MACC.

So  we have the ridiculous situation of the PwC having to depend among others, on the MACC for the principal sources of information, to produce a report which is now submitted to MACC for its study – a merry-go-round in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off  without a single person  being brought to book for the “Mother of all Scandals” in Malaysian history.

Last Friday, when PKA Chairman Lee Hwa Beng submitted a copy of PwC’s PKFZ report to the MACC, the MACC director of investigations Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdul said  MACC has completed its initial investigations into the PKFZ project and handed over the papers to its Legal and Prosecution Division for further action.

He said the Commission would compare its findings with that of the audit team to see if there was any new lead.

He said: “If there is a need for us to call up certain people named in the report, we will do so.”

Has the MACC decided whether the PwC’s audit report on PKFZ has provided any new lead to justify the re-opening of investigations?

Why is the MACC taking  its own sweet  time to act on the PwC report which concerns “the mother of all scandals” scaling the astronomical heights of RM12.5 billion when it could spring into action in a matter of hours in cases involving Pakatan Rakyat leaders, even in situations where there is the flimsiest of excuses for MACC intervention?

I am interested in knowing what Shukri really meant when he said last Friday that the MACC had completed its “initial investigations” into the PKFZ and handed over the papers to the Legal and Prosecution Division for further action.

As
Ronnie’s first report was lodged in December 2004
, why had the Commission and its predecessor the ACA taken such an inordinately long time of more than four-and-a-half years and still unable to produce any results?

When did the MACC complete  its “initial investigations” into the PKFZ and when were  the papers handed over to its Legal and Prosecution Division for further action?

My
second question
 to Ong today is why the MCA has not taken any action to suspend the MCA deputy finance minister, Datuk
Chor Chee Heung, who was PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008, as the PwC audit report had named him as one of those involved in potential conflicts of interest
.

The MCA, through its leadership of the PKA and the Transport Ministry through three successive MCA Transport Ministers Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and four MCA PKA Chairmen, Datuk Seri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon, Datuk Chor Chee Heung and Datuk Lee Hwa Beng have brought deep shame and great dishonour to Malaysians and the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off.

This itself should be reason enough, apart from others, for the immediate suspension of Chor as Deputy Finance Minister until he is fully cleared.

My
third question
 – have the present PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng  and the PKA Board members  no powers whatsoever to decide on whether to submit the PwC audit report on PKFZ to the MACC and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC), that they have to be led by the nose by Ong who had to issue specific directives to Lee on the matter?

If so, what is the use of having puppets as PKA Chairmen and Board members – and isn’t this the strongest proof why it is the MCA Transport Ministers, rather than the MCA PKA Chairmen, who must bear the fullest responsibility for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off from start to finish?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 3 June 2009, 7:59 am and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Axe MARA and JPA scholarships for ACCA abroad

Letters

by  a Malay  accountant in London

Dear Uncle Lim

I am called to write to you following your post
(Have MARA run out of funds…)
 on your blog.

First of all, I admit that the whole scholarship system is flawed and needs to be overhauled. Scholarships should be awarded on merit, and if at all, certainly not to rich students. However, asking for such a radical change from a half-past-six administration with no balls is almost futile, or as we Malays say, ‘anjing menyalak bukit’.

My letter today is to focus in prioritisation of issues within the existing framework. Today, I would like to focus on MARA and JPA scholarship for professional courses.

http://www.jpa.gov.my/perkhidmatan-teras/latihantajaan/pinjaman-luar-negara/

http://www.mara.gov.my/web/guest/kursus_ditaja

With all due respect, I firmly believe that these schemes are a total waste of taxpayers’ money, especially in the recession. I will outline my reasons, with focus on the ACCA programme.

ACCA is a world-recognised professional qualification in accountancy (and finance), and is the key to membership with many professional accountancy bodies worldwide (in Malaysia, MICPA). Past leaders were correct in identifying this programme for Malaysians to pursue if we ever want to move towards a knowledge-based economy, since it covers the area of accounting, finance and management.

However, in formulating the policy, I have identified many flaws that in my opinion, could have been easily identified if the officers/thinkers involved have done further research, particularly seeking a third party opinion, before coming up with the policy. A blatant example would be that many years back, JPA used to send students here for 10 years to do ACCA, without any foundation course whatsoever. Only over time they realised that the ACCA programme has got a higher pass rate if the candidates actually have a diploma or a degree! This is rather obvious because ACCA assumes that their candidates are working professionals that seeks to become qualified accountants rather than greenhorns in their wet pants!

http://malaysia.accaglobal.com/

The policy has much changed since then, although part of this policy is still being carried our by MARA/UiTM. UiTM still enroll students to do Certified Accounting Technician (CAT) qualification (
http://www.accaglobal.com/students/cat/
) before they move on to the next level. Although this is a recognised route, UiTM is treating ACCA like an alternative to their diploma course, which in my opinion, is terribly wrong! An academic qualification is meant to test a student’s academic capability, and a university course is meant to also incorporate other elements such as soft skills into the students. A professional qualification is simply meant to test a candidate’s professional knowledge! This logic is simple yet very few seems to get it!

The good part of the policy, which rationale behind it I duly recognise, is that people with a degree can apply for financial assistance to do the ACCA programme in UiTM (previously, or at other recognised institutions). The part that I refuse to recognise even now is that both MARA and JPA are giving out scholarships for people to go and do their ACCA abroad!

Perhaps I should also explain their ‘rationale’ behind this. They claim that these programmes are critical to produce more accounting professionals because our people would otherwise will not be able to become accounting professionals. I will refute this claim as below:

1. Even after finishing all the exam course, candidates (now carrying the title ACCA) will still have to do a 3-year training contract to actually qualify as a professional accountant (carrying the title CCA). Without finishing this chapter, the said candidate is not a professional accountant. Many ACCA return to Malaysia and did not pursue this path but simply choose another career option. This is their choice, but then again, a lost opportunity, and it costs taxpayers a  lot of money while the original objective was not achieved.

2. Many ‘scholars’ come here for 2 years, and could not even finish their studies. Again, this is a wasted opportunity.

3. This is a professional course, and it is mostly offered on a part-time basis. A popular choice amongst students would be to go to a 3-month ‘intensive’ course. Given that the other 3 months are not quite occupied with other programmes, students have 6 months per year off for themselves (in the 2 years of the scholarship). Assuming that they receive £900 per month (RM 4,500) for cost of living allowance (CoLA), they are getting paid higher that most of our junior civil servants! That’s RM 54,000 of free money on holiday for a year! I find this amount unjustified.

4. The ACCA programme is offered in Malaysia, and one reputable institution is Sunway College. While ACCA restricts its exam centres (due to our own misguided policy), ACCA tuition can be given by many qualified professionals, serving and retired. The same is also true for ICAEW and CIMA and other qualifications. Why waste money sending students abroad when we can pay tutors (even from the UK) to teach in Malaysia?

5. There are claims that the ACCA programme being offered in Malaysia is below par, and the pass rate is low. This is not something surprising. If our authority in higher education is more obsessed with sending students (their children) abroad (on taxpayers’ money), there is little fund for investment in local education system, isn’t it? Improvements come with enough investment over time, not by waving wands and uttering ‘hocus pocus’!

6. The money is better off spent in Malaysia on many other students, like the chap who sent the email to you.

I also recognise the fact that there are other pressing issues facing our country now. However, since the scholarship issue by MARA has been brought up, I felt that I need to put forward an area which I think is not critical to our nation’s development and can be axed immediately with a viable alternative already available in out homeland. Scholars who are studying abroad now can finish their ACCA programme at lower costs back home, or even in Singapore. This programme, in my opinion, is better abolished altogether because it causes so much strain on our financial resources, denying local students from their much-needed financing, and does not bring any benefit, let alone multiplier effect, to the local education system.

If there is a programme that must go in the recession for the benefit of more Malaysians, particularly bumiputras if MARA is concerned, this can be  one.

In the long run, however, we should ponder a more serious effort to shore up our professional qualification standards. 50 years after merdeka, we still send out students to do ACCA, RIBA and whatnot abroad! I remember it was only last year that our government unveiled a bill to found a professional body for geologists! This is very late indeed for a country that wants to build a knowledge-based economy.

I believe that you can bring forward this issue and seek for a resolution sooner rather than later.

1. On the loans/scholarship to do professional qualifications abroad: This programme can at least be frozen for now. For programmes that are available locally (eg: ACCA), it can be abolished and the money can be invested to improve education standards in Malaysia.

2. For programmes that are not available locally, efforts must be made to establish the respective professional body so that our professionals can be trained locally. This includes architecture (in the UK: RIBA), geology, public administration, secretaries and administrators, etc.

3. Existing professional qualifications (eg: CLP) must be made accessible to many, including those without a degree but with the relevant work experience. If the Bar Council, Law Society and ACCA can do this, for example, why can’t we do the same? Datuk Zaid Ibrahim was correct to have proposed reform measures for the CLP but sadly he left early. If such qualifications are hard to obtain, then Bar-at-Law and other foreign qualification will still gain popularity amongst aspiring Malaysians. I certainly do not blame them.

Thank you for listening. I will try my best to help if you need any on this issue.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 3 June 2009, 2:29 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Cabinet meeting yesterday a double-disappointment on university education – PSD S’ships and USM Apex Uni fiasco

The Cabinet meeting yesterday was a double disappointment on university education  particularly to the young generation of Malaysians which must be rectified in a special  Cabinet meeting on university intake as well as PSD scholarships for SPM students with 12As.

I am very disappointed that my call for a colour-blind JPA scholarship system has not been heeded by the Cabinet. Clearly, the Cabinet Ministers themselves have yet to fully understand the meaning of 1Malaysia which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has adopted as the slogan of his administration.

Furthermore, my specific proposal to resolve this year’s public ruckus over the unfair and discriminatory award of JPA selection of foreign degree scholarships has also not been acted upon.

I had proposed that all students with SPM 9A1s and above should be awarded PSD scholarships – which would mean an increased allocation of RM300 million for JPA scholarships budget from RM700 million to RM1 billion this year.

I had said that Pakatan Rakyat MPs are prepared to vote in support of a special supplementary estimate of RM300 million for 2009 when Parliament reconvenes on June 15 to ensure that all students with 9A1s and above in SPM would be given PSD scholarships.

How could the Cabinet Ministers or Barisan Nasional MPs conceivably oppose the allocation of RM300 million for the development of the best and brightest talents among the new generation of Malaysians especially when the country is in the throes of the greatest financial scandal in the nation’s history – the
 RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
?

The open letter of a Bentong mother, Madam Yap Chwee Lian, 44, to the MCA Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong (Sin Chew) expressing her despair at her son’s failure to get a PSD scholarship despite appeal as he got 12A1s in SPM is heart-rending and should be compulsory reading for every Cabinet Minister.

As she said rightly, the wish of every parent is for “son to become dragon”.

Is Wee prepared to ensure that every Cabinet Minister gets a copy of Yap’s open letter, properly translated into Bahasa Malaysia, so that a special Cabinet meeting could be held to do justice to Madam Yap and her son, as well as to similar cases?

Madam Yap rightly asked in her open letter why her son, Leong Choon Lin could not get a PSD foreign scholarship for engineering when the government had announced that 20% or 400 of the PSD overseas scholarships would be allocated according to meritocracy.

In last year’s SPM results, three students scored 16 1A’s, two scored 15 1A’s, six 14 1A’s, 41 of them scored 13 1A’s while 229 scored 12 1A’s.

Why was Madam Yap’s son left out?

It is pathetic that Cabinet Ministers, whether from MCA, Gerakan, MIC or the other component BN parties, could not check and end injustices like the case of Madam Yap’s son with 12A1s or to ensure that the PSD make public the full list of the successful applicants as well as the criteria of selection so that there is transparency to satisfy all concerned that there is no hanky-panky concerned.

The Cabinet handling of the Universiti Sains Malaysia Apex University student intake ruckus is most scandalous.

Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri
Muhyiddin Yassin merely said the Cabinet received a report
 from the Higher Education Ministry on the “confusion” that arose out of a technical glitch in USM’s student intake for the 2009/2010 academic session – when 8,173 pre-qualified students were put up on the website as successful when actually the number should have only been 3,599.

Apart from stating that “while accepting the reasons for the technical glitch, he sympathised with the predicament faced by the affected students”, Muhyiddin held out no glimmer of hope whatsoever that all the 4,574 victims of the USM foul-up would be given places in the other public universities.

The Cabinet meeting yesterday appeared to be a total waste of time for the 4,574 students and their parents.

When Najib returns from his China trip, he should convene a special Cabinet meeting to urgent address these two issues, viz:

Firstly, do justice to Madam Yap, her son and all in their shoes and approve a special supplementary estimate of RM300 million for 2009 to ensure that all students with 9A1s and above in SPM would be given PSD scholarships this year. Pakatan Rakyat MPs assure Najib full support for such a supplementary vote in the June meeting of Parliament.

Secondly, adopt a solution for the
USM Apex University fiasco that not a single one of the 4,574 would be denied places
 in the other public universities, without prejudicing the chances of other eligible students. This can be done through a two-step process, viz:

University Admission Unit (UPU) selection of the placement of 40,366 places for the public universities from the 61,027 applications through its normal “meritocracy” selection system; and

those from the 4,574 student-victims of the USM Apex University fiasco who failed to get UPU offers for the 40,366 university places should all be given places in the public universities, through  an expansion of public universities places from 40,366 to include this group.

As the 4,574 students were “pre-qualified” by USM from over 22,000 students who applied, I will be surprised if there is even five per cent or more than 250 students (which works out to only one per cent of the total public university intake this year) from this group who are not offered places by UPU.

I do not believe that it is beyond the capability of the Malaysian public university system to increase university intake by one per cent of its target intake of 40,366 students for the new academic year when such a tiny increase in university places will see that justice is done and that not a single one of the 4,574 students nurse a life-long grievance against an unfair university selection system.

Is the Cabinet capable of making these two decisions in a special meeting to give real meaning to the Najib motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 June 2009, 11:40 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ong Tee Keat’s “roadmap to recovery of PKFZ” reminds me eerily of Myanmar military junta’s “seven-step roadmap to democracy” which leads to nowhere!

Transport Minister and MCA President Datuk Seri
Ong Tee Keat blogged a response  from Beijing to my 15 questions (three per day)
 on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) Rip-Off
 but he was forced to camouflage his failure to honour the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s directive and promise of a question-by-question reply as well as very weak and insipid contents by very harsh language and distractions.

“…a knee jerk reaction which spells of political agenda and defeatist attitude”.

“It will save people a lot of time not to repeat ourselves for the benefit of self-serving politicians”.

“I see no reason to waste valuable time to engage in fruitless public debates of any form that does not help to solve the problems”.

“… public debates are the opposition’s obvious idea of resolving all the country’s ills”.

Just four quotes from his short statement.  What character of the man, at least for this moment, do they reveal?

Pompous. Arrogant. Quite insufferable. Worse than Najib on all three scores!

This speaks a lot for Ong Tee Keat, illustrating again the truism of historian Lord Acton’s maxim “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

I will not respond in kind except to remark that public debates, forum, scrutiny and accountability do not end up in Rip-offs like the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “mother of all scandals” – which is six times more than Tun Mahathir’s classic scandal, the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal.

I have goose pimples reading Ong’s reply, as his so-called “
roadmap to recovery of PKFZ
” reminds me eerily of Myanmar military junta’s “seven-step roadmap to democracy” which leads to nowhere!

It is six years since the Myanmar military junta first introduced to the world community the cruel euphemism of “roadmap to democracy” but the benighted land has never been further from national reconciliation and democratisation, with the Burmese pro-democracy icon and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate currently under going a sham trial in a kangaroo court in a country which is no different from a prison!

So my
first question
 today (No. 16th in the series) is what guarantee Ong can give Malaysians that his “roadmap to recovery of PKFZ” will not end up like the Myanmese military junta’s “seven-step roadmap to democracy” after six years – as had in fact happened previously to the PKFZ itself, when the PKFZ scandal escalated from a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than quadrupling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of RM7.5 billion and even reaching RM12.5 billion scandal under Ong’s watch!

Ong said:
“When billions of ringgit and the future of our children are at stake, we should take this situation very seriously and make wise decisions based on the best input available from relevant parties.”

My second question to Ong is whether he is suggesting that his two predecessors as Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and the three previous Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen, Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon and Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung had all failed to pass this test of taking their trust over billions of ringgit and the future of our children “seriously” and making “wise decisions based on the best input available”?

If this coterie of five MCA leaders who had helmed the Transport Ministry and the Port Klang Authority since 2,000 had acted seriously and responsibly based on “best wise advice available”, Malaysia and her 27 million people and future generations would not be burdened with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-0ff.

On the other hand,if Liong Sik, Kong Choy, Chew Peh, Pian Hon and Chee Heung had acted  irresponsibility in landing the country and people with the PKFZ “mother of all scandals”, why Ong had not  said a single word about the action that must taken against all five or any one of them so that the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off would not end up as the century’s “heinous crime without criminals”?

Ong said: “At this very moment, professional experts and entrepreneurs have been roped in to provide their views and expertise on how to bring PKFZ back on track for which it was originally conceived.“

What was conceived was a RM1.1 billion self-financing and viable PKFZ which would not require a single sen of subsidy from public funds. It has now transformed into a  monster which may require RM12.5 billion bailout from public funds!

In any event, is this a confession by Ong that for 15 months since becoming Transport Minister after the March 8 political tsunami last year, he had been “sitting still and playing rhetoric” while doing nothing to put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers – except to pass the buck to the PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an audit report, which is promptly passed to the MACC and the PAC for public relations effect?

This is my
third question
 for the day.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 June 2009, 4:05 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Signs of Malaysia on the verge of vicious cycle of a failed state spreading to more aspects of national life

Yesterday, I said that the collapse of the roof of the RM300 million 50,000-capacity Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Gong Badak within a year of completion  is symptomatic of a society in serious disrepair and
Malaysia at the verge of a vicious cycle of a failed state
.

Five years ago, when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Prime Minister, he struck a national chord of resonance when he spoke of the goal to transform Malaysia from a nation of “first-world infrastructure, third-world mentality” to one which is “first-world infrastructure, first-world mentality”.

Under another Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Malaysia is now in danger of regressing to become a nation of “Third-World Infrastructure, Fourth-World Mentality”!

Such signs of a grave breakdown of Malaysia threatening to reduce the country to a  fourth-world status instead of the Vision 2020 aspiration of a fully developed nation is everywhere to be seen, almost every day, not only in the maintenance culture but in the attitudes and commitments to the fundamental principles and values which distinguishes a country from a fully-developed one and  from those that  are not.

In Ipoh today, 64 people arrested during the
May 7 “Day of Infamy”
 in the ongoing and protracted Perak political and constitutional crisis –  which witnessed the shameful episode of the lawful and legitimate Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar physically dragged out of the Assembly in Speaker robes and in the Speaker’s chair –
reported to the Ipoh police headquarters as required by their police bail
.

They came from far and near, Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Seremban and Malacca, only to be told at the Ipoh police headquarters that their police bail had been cancelled pending completion of police investigations, instructions from the Attorney-General’s Chambers and further notification.

If the police had decided to cancel the police bail of the 64 arrested (the police had announced 69 arrests on May 7 “Day of Infamy”), couldn’t the police inform them by phone, especially those who are from out-of-state so that they need not make the long journey to Ipoh, even having to spend overnight in the Perak capital.

Or are the police still living in the dinosaur age quite uncomfortable with the modern gadgets of communication, or just oblivious of their role as servants of the people who should minimize inconvenience to the public or is this part of the police harassment campaign?

And why continue to hang the Sword of Damocles over the 64 Malaysian nationalists  committed to democracy, justice and peaceful change, instead of an outright announcement that no charges would be preferred against them?

What happened in Ipoh today are triple black-eyes for the Police – for incompetence, incivility and contempt for citizen rights.

A second instance is the police double standards in the speed with which it acted, lodging a police report against me as well as taking a
police statement from me, on charges of sedition and criminal defamation against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak
 the very next day of my speech at the Penanti by-election ceramah  on May 24, 2009.

What was my crime? For speaking the truth that Najib was  responsible for the  Perak political and constitutional crisis because of an unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab, resulting in the expansion of the crisis of confidence, with one national institution after another, such as the Police, Election Commission, MACC, civil service, judiciary compromising their credibility and legitimacy as they just serve Najib’s political agenda.

But in a clear case of rank sedition and unadulterated communal poison by Umno-owned Mingguan Malaysia, trying to
fuel racial discord by referring to non-Malays as “Kaum Pendatang” or immigrants
, the Police had been conspicuously silent and inactive in the past five days.

DAP National Publicity Secretary and MP for PJ Utara,
Tony Pua had slammed Mingguan Malaysia for its racist line dividing Malaysians
.

MIC President, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu has gone one step further, demanding that the writer of the offensive article on Sunday should be
charged with sedition for the “racial slur”
 against the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia which is totally against Najib’s 1Malaysia concept.

Deepening crisis of confidence over the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of  key national institutions, whether the police, the civil service or the judiciary are sure signs of a nation in distress caught in the vice hurtling down the slippery slope towards a failed state.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 4 June 2009, 2:22 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.