Duo message of  2014 Budget – Malaysia continues to be land of “heinous crime without criminals” and Ministers enjoy immunity and impunity for Ministerial dereliction of duties

A few hours before the Prime Minister cum Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak presented his 2014 Budget in Parliament announcing the regressive and controversial 6% Goods and Services Tax (GST) from April 2015, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted and discharged former MCA President and Transport Minister Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik for cheating the government over the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project scandal.

Without going into the details of the case against Liong Sik, the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision carries two messages which have a direct bearing on the 2014 Budget, Najib’s National Transformation Plan and the future direction of the Malaysian nation and economy, viz:

•	Malaysia continues to be a land of “heinous crimes without criminals”, with Malaysians victimized by mega corruption and scandals which neither the government nor the anti-corruption agency, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), could do anything to combat  when confronted with “grand corruption” involving “big sharks” instead of “ikan bilis” in the Malaysian corruption waters; and

•	Cabinet Ministers are now given a blank cheque to enjoy immunity and impunity for whatever dereliction of duties in the course of official duties, including up to Cabinet level.

The term “heinous crime without criminals” was made famous 30 years ago in the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal – the first mega-scandal in Malaysian history – as though the Prime Minister at the time, Tun Dr. Mahathir conceded the RM2.5 billion BMF scandal was a “heinous crime”, there were no criminals, as no one was charged whether in the criminal or civil courts.

In the past three decades, the sordid phenomenon  of “heinous crime without criminals” have worsened by leaps and bounds, with each mega scandal exceeding previous one not only in scale and costs but in immunity and impunity of the perpetrators – and the latest being the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

But most shocking of all is the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday that the former Transport Minister cannot be held accountable for any mistakes, misleading information or inaccuracies in the preparation of the ministry’s documents on the PKFZ land acquisition as he was not the ministry’s ‘numero uno’ (number one) but only “the transporter”.

The judge, Justice Ahmadi Asnawi said: “If any, the blame should be apportioned wholly and squarely upon the officers of the Transport Ministry who drafted and prepared the same.”

Isn’t this as good as a “blank cheque” for all Ministers that they enjoy immunity and impunity for whatever dereliction of duties in the course of official duties, including up to Cabinet level?

Is this the end  of the road in the quest to hold the person or persons responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

In September 2009, Najib announced the setting up of a “Super Task Force” on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, headed by then Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

What has happened to this PKFZ “Super Task Force” as in the past four years Najib has not released even an iota of news with regard to the activities and findings (if any) of this Super Task Force.

Has the present Chief Secretary Tan Sri Dr. Ali Hamsa taken over this  PKFZ “Super Task Force” or has it closed shop and  gone defunct?

If the Prime Minister could say nothing about the PKFZ “Super Task Force” although headed by the Chief Secretary, Malaysians cannot have much confidence in the high-level Chief Secretary’s Special Committee on the 2012 Auditor-General’s Report which Najib mentioned in his 2014 Budget.

Over to Najib to break another item of his long list of “elegant silences” as to the outcome of efforts to bring those responsible for the massive PKFZ scandal to account and justice – or is this another example of the failures of Najib’s Government Transformation Programme’s Corruption NKRA to eradicate “grand corruption”?

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/10/28/dua-mesej-belanjawan-2014-malaysia-terus-menjadi-negara-yang-mempunyai-jenayah-besar-tetapi-tiada-penjenayah-dan-para-menteri-pula-kebal-daripada-tindakan-undang-undang-wa/

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 October 2013, 12:18 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


GST: killing the golden goose

 – Liew Chin Tong

MP for Kluang

The Malaysian Insider

October 25, 2013

The proposed goods and services tax (GST) will tax those who can’t afford to be taxed, i.e. 60% of Malaysians  who are eligible for BR1M. These are the people who will soon be taxed by the regressive tax, together with the rest of us who live and stay in this country.

I would like to drop the Orwellian double speak so prevalently employed by many GST apologists who are trying to mask the real issue. I will share my views plainly here.

Flawed arguments

Some argue that the government has to be cruel to be kind. Hence, BN would have us believe that the fuel hike subsidy rationalisation is needed to balance the government’s expenditure and ensure its good financial standing.

In theory, this sounds legit. However, look closer and you will find many flaws in the argument. For one, this argument does not take into account the adverse effects on the man on the street. It also demonstrates an incomplete understanding of how the economy grows or declines.

What is the real reason for the Barisan Nasional government to implement the GST? This tax has hung like a sword of Damocles over our heads since Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s era in 2005.

GST apologists’ main argument is that it is the most effective form of taxation. What does “most effective” mean? Simply put, it means that the government can obtain more tax revenue from our pockets.

Another pro-GST argument is that since 140 odd countries have implemented it, Malaysia should follow suit . However, you do not find BN supporters rushing to follow in the footsteps of other countries’ democratisation processes. For example, most countries in the world set the voting age at around 18, so why do we not adopt the “follow the majority” argument in this instance?

GST widens inequality

In the past decade, particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis, the global economy has become acutely concerned about income inequality – the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Scholars and thinkers the world over have acknowledged the negative effect that GST has on the income gap.

Assume  my income is RM10,000 and I spend RM1,000 and I’m charged a 5% GST or RM50 for the goods and services I consume. RM1,000 is just 1/10 of my supposed RM10,000 income. Imagine a person earns RM1,000 per month and spend all his income to consume goods and services and pays a similar 5% GST. RM50 to a person who earns RM10,000 and to a person who earns RM1,000 carries an absolutely different meaning. The lower income person will suffer more.

The BN apologists also argue that GST is fair, since it taxes everyone in a country where the majority do not pay tax. A belated consolation to the minority taxpaying group who have been contributing to the national coffers, if you will.

However, 60% of Malaysians are eligible for the BR1M financial aid, meaning to say 60% of Malaysian families earn less than RM3,000 a month. They are already struggling to make ends meet. They do not pay taxes because they are below  the tax-paying threshold.

Of course there are those who evade paying tax, I believe that we have adequate laws to deal with this, if the enforcement is done properly.

The middle income group will suffer too

Some advocates for GST said, the daily necessities of the poor are not subject to GST. I would like to ask them, who are the poor? If 60% of Malaysians need BR1M money, that means 60% of the country’s families are struggling. If what the 60% need are exempted from GST, might as well we keep to the old system as there is no GST system that exempts 60% of people and still remains worthwhile to run.

How do we differentiate between daily necessities for poor people and for normal people? Are we not degrading the quality of life of those trapped in the middle income group through their consumption of GST-exempted products meant for the poor?

One other argument is that by introducing GST, we can reduce sales tax and eventually, income tax.

While we recognise that Malaysia’s tax system does no favours to the middle income bracket who earn between RM5,000 and RM10,000, the cure is not the introduction of GST. This unfortunate fact of high tax for middle income bracket should be rectified by tax adjustments to reduce the burden of the middle income families, shifting the focus to the super-rich.

Malaysia’s GST is not like in the UK, Australia and other developed nations where top income tax rate were 50% and above before the introduction of the GST. For them, tax cuts were the natural course of action after the introduction of GST.

There is little room to manoeuvre for a tax cut with the Malaysian income tax rate which is not that high by comparison.

Killing the golden goose

BN ministers have said that the GST is a necessary evil to balance the accounts and to reduce deficit and debts. To most of us, such a statement means that the only “balance” it seems to bring is to allow the powers-that-be to continue to squander the nation’s wealth – business as usual.

The crux of the matter is this: killing the golden goose. Here’s what I mean by “golden goose”- our economy is no longer as export-reliant as it once heavily was. While previously, our biggest trading partner was the US, in the past three years the growth of our economy has heavily depended on domestic consumption.

Apart from the government’s expenditure, domestic consumption comprises the money spent by ordinary citizens, mostly via debt. Hence, the rakyat who spend money are the “golden geese”.

Malaysia’s household debt is the second highest in all of Asia. Should the bubble burst, we will have many casualties.

I would like to reiterate that arguably, GST by nature is designed to tax those who cannot afford to be taxed in the first place. The 60% of citizens who are eligible for BR1M aid will now be taxed by GST, shrinking the domestic consumer market – i.e. the disposable income that could have been spent buying goods is now taken away by tax.

In this scenario, imposing GST at this stage will be akin to killing the golden goose. It would not be far fetched to imagine the worst case scenario of GST not as the feared monster of inflation, but the falling demand that precedes a recession.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 October 2013, 10:39 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s Budget 2014 acid test

Bridget Welsh

Malaysiakini

Oct 25, 2013

COMMENT
 Malaysia’s Budget 2014 represents the most important economic policy initiative of Najib Razak’s premiership. After scraping through GE13 and deal-making his way to an unchallenged presidency of Umno, there are no immediate political obstacles undermining his ability to implement the economic reforms he has repeatedly promised investors and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund.

Najib has gone on record to claim that he will reduce government debt, tighten spending and make the Malaysian economy more competitive. International watchers were initially bought over by all the different acronyms coined by the government, such as the ETP (Economic Transformation Programme).

However, they have become increasingly negative with regard to Najib’s financial management which continued to involve massive overspending and this led to a negative rating by Fitch in July this year. With debt reaching 54 percent of gross domestic product, near the 55 percent government self-imposed limit, Malaysia stands on the precipice of future downgrades.

As the Budget debate begins, it is important to highlight some of the key issues and patterns that have characterised Najib’s tenure as prime minister.

A political adept captive

First of all, it is necessary to appreciate that arguably more than any other premier, Najib uses the Budget to win political support. His four years in office has seen the practice of seeking public approval, time and again. He has not been willing to make hard decisions, especially at Budget time.

This deep-seated insecurity of Najib has led to Budget after Budget full of goodies. This was put down to electioneering. He no longer has this excuse.

This Budget will test whether Najib is confident enough to make unpopular decisions, or continue to be beholden to his need to seek public approval. If the Budget includes additional cash handouts such as BR1M (Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia), this is a sure sign that Najib is still not on firm political ground.

Second, Najib has been adept at spreading out the pain. His approach to the reduction of subsidies has been to do it slowly, hoping that the public can be duped by these initiatives and not lay blame on him. Petrol and gas prices have increased through this method.

Energy subsidies are one of the main areas placing great strain on government finances. They are keenly watched by the public who depend on these subsidies, especially in states like East Malaysia where incomes are comparatively lower and transportation costs higher. The approach has been to wean the public off these subsidies, but without taking blame for doing so.

The same can be said for other measures on revenue that involve public spending, such as the recent increase on cigarette taxes. He hides the pain and showcases the sweet, all of which is a pattern of Najib’s financial management.

Spending without development

Third, spending has reached record proportions. Najib has spent much more than any other premier in real terms and on an annual basis. When one looks at spending in the last two years, he has shattered records.

Najib has outspent his own father, Abdul Razak Hussein, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Hussein Onn and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and is now going after the record of the spending of the entire Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s 22-year period.

The place to look at this is not the Budget speech but the supplementary budget, which is passed by Parliament often without effective debate to cover what was spent after the fact. Last month Najib’s government passed a supplementary budget of RM15 billion! This is the spending beyond what was originally forecast. Indeed, Najib is a big spender.

Fourth, the spending has not been targeted beyond seeking political support. Let’s take the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment (BEE) Agenda. It has no targets, no timeline, no clear objectives, no parameters for assessment and frankly no rationale beyond seeking political support.

The racial basis of BEE is seen by the market as limiting competition and hurting the development of the Malay community, as it increases their dependence on the government rather than nurturing globally competitive entrepreneurship.

It is poised to foster more corruption in a system that is deeply burdened by graft and is skewed to the elites with access within the system, the Umnoputras. The RM30 billion in spending for BEE is pure politics.

BR1M is another measure blinded by politics. How much have people been able to bring longer security from these short-term handouts? At best it has been a band-aid on the fiscal challenges on high household debt – also at record levels of 70 percent of household incomes – and the increasing high cost of living. What is clear is that the spending has centred on short-term initiatives, not long-term development.

Fifth, Najib has yet to clearly outline his development priorities. There is little development planning going on. In fact, the development budget under Najib has shrunk.

Unlike Abdullah, who presented a framework to address development and poverty, including an initiative on rural communities, the broader vision is missing from Najib’s planning. Abdullah did not meet his targets, but put on the table initiatives that generated discussion, such as the development of the halal industry and northern corridors.

All current indicators are that manufacturing exports are on the decline. The only industry that seems to be coming out of the Najib government are the money-making big infrastructure projects such as the MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) expansion. In fact, Najib’s development model appears to replicate the “big” projects and spending of Mahathir, with little attention to how this spending is affecting ordinary people and its long-term implications.

Some go as far to suggest this big project focus is about making money for the elite, rather than promoting development. Where ordinary people fit in, and how Malaysia is to raise incomes, promote jobs and improve the quality of life for citizens is not fully clear.

Najib may be be touted as a technocrat by market watchers, but as a leader focused on development, he has yet to effectively address these concerns.

Managing the money

The Najib administration continues to highlight that it knows how to manage public funds. This claim has increasingly come under scrutiny and raised scepticism.

There are three issues: First is Malaysia’s fiscal deficit – now at record proportions as a result of Najib’s spending. The related second is Malaysia’s revenue shortfall. The third is the excessive government debt.

It is in this vein that the Najib pre-budget spin has been assuring that Malaysia will reach a target of 3.5% fiscal deficit and increase revenue through the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The reality around each of these measures is clouded by exaggerated estimates of growth and performance in the economy (which has been slowing and on the decline), a lack of transparency in how funds are being managed in different accounts and through different government-linked companies and with less than clear estimates on actually how much the GST will bring in as a source of revenue.

There are no timelines and this creates a void in credibility. The costs of these measures have not been outlined, as the burden for revenue moves regressively towards ordinary citizens irrespective of their incomes and backgrounds with little attention to the real wastage for taxpayers – corruption.

By most domestic and international measures, corruption has increased under Najib’s tenure, not decreased. The sources for additional growth in the economy, especially in light of global uncertainties, are not being made clear. The pattern is to rest on the past, with increasing dependence on oil and gas revenue, commodities and government spending to promote growth, rather than prepare for the future.

The Najib administration has engaged in spending cuts: these have come from operating expenditure in the funds to implement policies and carry out government policies. While directly providing civil servants with more money as salaries, the budgets they have had to work with have shrunk.

Najib is the only premier in the history of Malaysia that has repeatedly cut funds for the implementation of government policy. The effect is that government departments are now struggling to actually carry out programmes compared to the past. While everyone can agree that tighter spending can improve efficiency, butchering cuts in operating funds is not helpful for governance.

This is one of the ironies of Najib’s spending – he has increased allocations to salaries which cannot be easily reduced and are in effect permanent increases in outlays, while simultaneously hurting government programming through cuts to actual governance. These cuts can be seen in lower funding of maintenance of facilities, less engagement with citizenry and less funds for training and improving the quality of the civil service.

Today, Budget 2014 will be announced. We will see whether Najib uses his ‘victories’ – however imperfect – for setting Malaysia on a more financially viable track for quality governance for all Malaysians. The test is whether there is a clear direction that is putting Malaysians first and looking out for future generations.

Whatever happens today – from goodies to the GST – Najib will be showing how he envisions the country’s development. One can hope that he shows leadership in making fair decisions, rather than continuing the pattern of trying to play politics. One can hope that he can come out of the shadow of trying to please and point to a path for inclusive development for all Malaysians.

DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University. She can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 October 2013, 10:51 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


GST will up prices even with sales tax gone

By
Ong Kian Ming
 | 12:17PM Oct 27, 2013

Malaysiakini

MP SPEAKS The Barisan Nasional government is trying to mislead the rakyat by giving the impression that the price of most goods and the taxes paid by the consumer will be reduced after the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) because it will replace two taxes – the sales tax and the service tax (SST) – which the consumer is currently paying for.

The truth is that the items taxed under the sales tax and the service tax are far less than what is taxed under the GST, which means that the prices of the majority of goods and services will increase because of the GST even after the removal of the SST.

What the BN has not told the rakyat is that many items are currently exempt under the sales tax. According to the Sales Tax (Rates of Tax No 2) 2012, the number of items which are exempt under the sales tax i.e. not taxed, runs to 250 pages. In contrast, the number of items which are zero rated under the GST – not taxed at any point of the supply chain – is only 21 pages long.

Some of the items which are not charged under the sales tax but will be charged under the GST include many non-luxury items such as milk, coffee, tea, mineral water, canned fruit, newspapers, stationary, school bags, and boxes, just to name a few. Electricity consumption above 200kwH (any amount above RM50) will also be charged GST.

The prices of these goods will definitely increase after the GST because the removal of the SST has no effect on their prices.

Currently the sales tax is restricted to certain restaurants and professional services provided by accountants, architects, motor vehicle service and repair centres, telecommunication services, security services, estate agents, parking space services operators and service firms.

More services will be charged GST

Under the GST, it is possible that services such as that provided by certain tuition centres and hair saloons will be charged the GST.

The wider coverage under the GST means that more services will be charged the GST compared to the current service tax. This means that the prices of more services will increase.

The BN has also included some items to be tax exempt (as opposed to zero rated) under the GST such as residential properties, financial services, health care and transportation. What this means is that the end product sold is not taxed by the GST.

But the inputs used to produce these goods and services will still be taxed by the GST. For example, residential properties won’t be taxed by the GST but the construction materials used in the building of these residential properties will be covered by the GST.

What this means is that the prices of the goods and services which are tax exempt will also likely rise as a result of the GST.

Ultimately, the argument that the rakyat will be paying less tax under the GST compared to the SST is an empty lie. If this was the case, then why introduce the GST as a revenue raising measure in the first place?

How can the government say that tax collection under the GST will improve and at the same time say that the rakyat will pay less taxes? This is misleading and dishonest.

The truth is that the GST will increase prices of a majority of goods and services even after the removal of the SST and that the financial burden to the rakyat will be increased.

____

ONG KIAN MING is the member of parliament for Serdang.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 October 2013, 7:27 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PKFZ scandal: So who cheated the govt?

Jeswan Kaur | October 27, 2013

Free Malaysia Today

How could a minister not be accountable for misinformation or manipulation of figures and facts as evident in the document he would be signing?

COMMENT

Hindraf-HRP leader P Uthayakumar has written to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak saying he was being tortured by the Prisons Department.

Uthayakumar who is serving a 30-month jail sentence for sedition claimed he was made to sleep on the floor.

But the Prisons Department begs to differ, saying Uthayakumar had been placed in solitary confinement for a total of 13 days on two separate occasions as he had “refused to take instructions”.

Just what were the ‘instructions’ was not revealed by the department. Did Uthayakumar’s plea for a humane treatment melt Najib’s heart? It never did.

While Uthayakumar languishes behind the cold walls of a prison, life was so much the better for former transport minister Dr Ling Liong Sik, 70, who was as pleased as a punch to be waking home a free man after he was acquitted of charges of having cheated Putrajaya in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) land deal.

Police started probing the PKFZ land deal in early 2009 after then Port Klang Authority chairperson Lee Hwa Beng lodged a report following a financial audit of the project.

The PKFZ project, initially estimated at RM1.1 billion after it was mooted by Ling in 1997, more than quadrupled in cost to RM4.6 billion a decade later.

High Court judge Ahmad Asnawi found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, making it all too easy for the former MCA president to walk out freely.

What is more disturbing is the fact that Ahmad ruled that Ling could not be held accountable for any mistakes, misleading information or inaccuracies in the preparation of the ministry’s documents regarding the land acquisition, despite Ling signing the documents.

How could an officer bearer, in this case a minister, not be accountable for misinformation or manipulation of figures and facts as evident in the document he would be signing?

Do our ministers not bother to get all the information necessary on a deal, purchase or project before inking it? Or are our ministers illiterate?

Or was exonerating Ling an easy way out for the judge who then conveniently shifted all blame to the officers of the transport ministry who drafted and prepared the documents?

Ling’s acquittal no surprise

Ling’s acquittal was predicted, no thanks to former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad who was among those who gave evidence for Ling.

Mahathir, who was prime minister for 22 years, was also the finance minister between 2000 and 2003, when Ling was alleged to have committed the offences.

It came as a déjà vu when Mahathir claimed he was all too familiar with the PKFZ project, a claim he had years ago made about Perwaja Steel, expressing satisfaction with Perwaja’s turnaround when reality was otherwise.

Mahathir then appointed Eric Chia to “rescue” Perwaja in 1988 and false assurances were given by Chia including talks about the public listing of Perwaja when instead the company was debt-ridden, with fraud and malpractices allegedly taking place.

Almost three decades later, Mahathir tried a similar stunt by trying to ‘rescue’ Ling. Besides Mahathir, there were five other cabinet ministers who had testified in Ling’s favour; they were Dr Fong Chan Onn, Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir and prosecution witnesses Mohamed Nazri Aziz and Mohd Effendi Norwawi.

Even MCA president and former cabinet minister Dr Chua Soi Lek was all too relieved with the court ruling, lauding the nation’s judicial system as being efficient in delivering justice.

As DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang put it, Ling’s acquittal simply reflected the failure of Putrajaya’s system of accountability.

Lim added that Ling’s acquittal showed that Malaysia was no closer to identifying the culprit behind the losses resulting from the mega project, the cost of which had ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion in 2007.

“It shows the whole system – not talking about any particular person – the failure of the whole system of integrity and accountability,” Lim was reported as saying.

“The story has not been probed. The tale has been not been probed. We are as far away as finding the culprit, as far as ever,” Lim added.

But then Malaysia has never been high on accountability, integrity, transparency, justice and truth. A seasoned politician like Lim should not forget that the system collapsed long ago, when the judiciary time and again failed to uphold democracy through its ‘biased’ verdicts.

The system failed the rakyat when a former chief minister was let off the hook for statutory rape.

The system again let the people down when it cleared a cop who beat up a detainee to death of any wrongdoing.

It is the same system that allowed the murderers of Mongolian native Altantuya Shaariibuu go free.

Due to a flawed system, the perpetrators are getting away scot-free. Despite there being evidence that a senior minister’s son had beaten up a security supervisor of a plush condominiun, the police reacted to the contrary.

Courts not upholding democracy

Lim, who is also the Gelang Patah MP, called for an inquiry into the PKFZ scandal, saying that it “cannot just be left like that without any accountability whatsoever”.

However, like all injustices that begged inquiries and never got any, the Ling Liong Sik-PKFZ scandal too will end up being stale news in days to come.

The fact that the PKFZ fiasco leaves more questions unanswered is of no interest to the federal government.

Closing the files on the PKFZ scandal is yet another blotch on the BN government’s refusal to come out clean over this issue.

If Ling did not cheat the government, who did? How did the cost of the project spiral four times more than its actual cost of RM1.1 billion in a spate of 10 years?

To shift blame on Ling’s staff by creating scapegoats to allow the former to escape punishment for his actions puts the judiciary to shame.

With Ling getting on with life as usual, the rakyat are left scratching their heads, amazed at the extent to which the country’s longest-serving premier Mahathir could stoop to ‘safe’ his cronies.

Indeed, when it comes to hiding the truth from the rakyat, it will always be a case of ‘endless possibilities” for nefarious and corrupt politicians like Mahathir.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 27 October 2013, 11:03 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dua mesej Belanjawan 2014 – Malaysia terus menjadi negara yang “mempunyai jenayah besar, tetapi tiada penjenayah” dan para menteri pula kebal daripada tindakan undang-undang walaupun cuai dalam tugas

Beberapa jam sebelum Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Kewangan Datuk Seri Najib Razak membentangkan Belanjawan 2014 di Parlimen dan mengumumkan pelaksanaan Cukai Barangan dan Perkhidmatan sebanyak 6% bermula April 2015, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur membebaskan bekas Presiden MCA dan Menteri Pengangkutan Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik daripada tuduhan menipu kerajaan dalam skandal Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ) yang melibatkan berbilion-bilion ringgit.

Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu membawa dua mesej yang memberi kesan langsung terhadap Belanjawan 2014, Rancangan Transformasi Nasional Najib dan arah tuju negara dan ekonomi Malaysia di masa depan, iaitu:

Malaysia terus menjadi negara yang “mempunyai jenayah besar, tetapi tiada penjenayah”, di mana rakyat Malaysia menjadi mangsa korupsi dan skandal raksasa dalam keadaan kerajaan dan agensi pencegahan rasuah, iaitu Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia, tidak mampu berbuat apa-apa untuk memerangi korupsi yang melibatkan “jerung” dan bukan hanya “ikan bilis”; dan

Menteri kabinet kini kebal daripada hukuman jika mereka cuai dalam menjalankan tugas rasmi, termasuk tugasan di peringkat kabinet.

Ungkapan “jenayah tanpa penjenayah” terkenal 30 tahun lalu dalam skandal Bumiputra Malaysia Finance yang melibatkan dana sebanyak RM2.5 bilion ringgi – skandal raksasa pertama dalam sejarah Malaysia – kerana walaupun Perdana Menteri ketika itu, Tun Dr Mahathir, mengakui skandal RM2.5 bilion BMF itu adalah jenayah besar, tiada penjenayah terlibat, memandangkan tiada siapa didakwa di mahkamah jenayah mahu pun sivil.

Sepanjang tiga dekad yang lalu, fenomena “jenayah besar tanpa penjenayah” semakin menjadi-jadi, di mana setiap satu skandal baru yang muncul melibatkan jumlah wang lebih besar daripada skandal sebelumnya, manakala para pelakunya pula semakin kebal – yang terbaru skandal PKFZ yang melibatkan wang sebanyak RM12.5 bilion.

Tetapi yang lebih mengejutkan kita ialah apabila Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur kelmarin memutuskan bahawa bekas Menteri Pengangkutan itu tidak boleh dipertanggungjawabkan atas sebarang kesilapan serta maklumat mengelirukan atau tidak tepat yang dikemukakan di peringkat penyediaan dokumen kementerian bagi tujuan pembelian tanah PKFZ memandangkan beliau bukan orang “nombor satu” dalam kementerian, sebaliknya hanya berperanan sebagai “penghantar maklumat”.

Menurut hakim Ahmadi Asnawi, “Jika ada, kesalahan hendaklah diletakkan ke atas pegawai-pegawai Kementerian Pengangkutan yang merangka dan menyediakan dokumen tersebut.”

Bukankah ini memberi erti bahawa semua Menteri kebal daripada hukuman jika mereka cuai dalam melakukan tugas rasmi, termasuk tugasan di peringkat kabinet?

Apakah ini penghujung jalan dalam usaha kita mengenalpasti orang yang bertanggungjawab dalam skandal PKFZ yang membabitkan wang sebanyak RM12.5 bilion itu?

Pada September 2009, Najib mengumumkan penubuhan sebuah “Super Task Force”  untuk menyiasa skandal PKFZ itu, diketuai oleh Ketua Setiausaha Negara ketika itu, iaitu Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

Apa yang terjadi pada “Super Task Force” PKFZ itu memandangkan sepanjang empat tahun lalu Najib tidak pernah menerbitkan walau secebis berita tentang kegiatan dan hasil penemuan pasukan tersebut.

Apakah Ketua Setiausaha Negara sekarang, Tan Sri Dr. Ali Hamsa, mengambil alih teraju “Super Task Force” PKFZ atau apakah pasukan tersebut telah dibubarkan?

Jika tiada apa-apa yang boleh dinyatakan oleh Perdana Menteri tentang “Super Task Force” PKFZ yang diketuai oleh Ketua Setiausaha Negara, maka rakyat Malaysia tidak boleh terlalu berharap dengan Jawatankuasa Khas berkenaan Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2012 yang diketuai oleh Ketua Setiausaha Negara dan disebutkan Najib dalam Belanjawan 2014.

Najib membisu tentang banyak perkara. Apakah beliau akan turut membisu tentang natijah daripada usaha untuk menghadapkan pihak yang terlibat dalam skandal PKFZ ke muka pengadilan – atau apakah ini satu lagi contoh kegagalan NKRA Anti-Rasuah Program Transformasi Kerajaan Najib dalam membasmi “grand corruption”?

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/10/26/duo-message-of-2014-budget-malaysia-continues-to-be-land-of-heinous-crime-without-criminals-and-ministers-enjoy-immunity-and-impunity-for-ministerial-dereliction-of-duties/

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 October 2013, 11:03 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Finding the lunatic fringe in Malaysia

NEWS ANALYSIS BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

OCTOBER 28, 2013

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today spoke of the lunatic fringe holding sway in the country, saying that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was acceding to demands from extremists in the opposition.

However, he did not name the extremists or say what their demands were.

“We have a government that is weak because of weak support from the people, and with a tendency to accede to the demands of extremists in the opposition,” Dr Mahathir said in his Perdana Foundation office, across a lake from the prime minister’s office in Putrajaya.

“The worst part is that they make extreme demands to unseat the government who can’t get rid of whatever they don’t like. But if you think that they will then say ‘thanks, we will support you now’, you are mistaken,” said the country’s longest-serving prime minister.

In the past decade since Dr Mahathir stepped down, and even before that, the opposition had been asking for greater democracy, the rule of law, good governance, equity for all citizens and cutting down excesses.

Perhaps only the lunatics dream of such things in Malaysia.

Dr Mahathir is right of course, that the government is weak because support from the people is weak. And that is probably due to the extremists who harangue the government from the far right.

The ones who believe that Malaysia is only for the Malays, who see it as their absolute right to restrict the word Allah to only Muslims in Malaysia and who believe anything else is sacrilegious.

Witness the flip-flop over using the word Allah in Sabah and Sarawak for a dose of what extremists can make the government do.

The thing is, had Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim or even Lim Kit Siang said what Dr Mahathir said today, Umno’s lunatic fringe or shall we say Malaysia’s lunatic fringe, Umno, would have called them traitors and asked for their citizenship to be stripped.

Of course, one has to wonder why Dr Mahathir finally decided to come out today with both guns blazing at the current government. He took a longer time this time than with the Abdullah administration.

Has it got to do with his son Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir’s close loss in the Umno polls? He did say the Umno winners were victorious because of money politics.

Was the loss even bigger to him than Barisan Nasional’s loss in Election 2013, which happened despite his support for the ruling coalition. In 2008, he did not campaign for Barisan Nasional (BN) and they only won 140 federal seats but this time, the coalition fared even worse, winning only 133.

Can the BN government actually stop pandering to the extremists, as Dr Mahathir recommends, and understand the thinking of the moderates and convince them to work together to promote stability?

It only depends if the ruling coalition can determine who and where the lunatic fringe are. They should be looking at their own backyard, not across the aisle. – October 28, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 October 2013, 6:25 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Mahathir
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Improving budget management: Our obssession with the 55% debt ceiling

 – Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

October 27, 2013

MPs were supplied with voluminous documents relating to the state of the economy. We were ploughing through the documents to analyse the management of the economy while Najib drone on waxing lyrical, poetic and at times, waxing sarcastic over his thematic budget. 2014 has another theme. The theme of the 2014 budget is ‘Strengthening economic resilience, accelerating transformation and fulfilling promises’. If that makes him happy, so be it. Giving an artful theme to the budget does not make it a better budget. The devil is in the details.

But where is the promise of giving RM1200 BR1M which he sold the voting public in last May’s elections? Where is the promise to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor?

Najib has reneged on this promise and stated poker-faced about paying out reduced BR1Ms. The scaled down BR1M hand-outs are downsized by the financial capacity of the government. Finally the chickens come home to roost. He has to face reality something the opposition MPs have warned continuously- that out of control spending is bad for the economy.

Public debt is now more than the 55% legislated debt ceiling simply because this government hides the real debt by various tricks. Eventually the weight of public debt will come down crushing. In 2013 alone, the deficit incurred by some GLCs amounted to RM93billion. When opposition MPs say this budget is for the rich, it wasn’t said out of spite. In 2013, the BR1M given to poor people amounted to RM7 billion.

Compare this to the freedom given to some GLCs to overspend by RM93 billion. The people who should be grateful are not the ordinary rakyat but the BN politicians and their corporate conspirators for being able to hide from the rakyat the magnitude of their extravagance.  They should be grateful the public hasn’t turned on them yet. Maybe we should do a Louis and Marie Antoinette on them and that is not even Islamic law.

In the coming days, we will dissect his budget. Apart from minor jeering, we did not steal the Finance Minister’s thunder. We jeered only when he made political capital of certain portions of his presentation.

Improving budget management

The two most important things about a budget  are to reduce the deficit and cut down public sector debt. Apply some common sense- something the PM and his government has been preaching on. Spend within one’s means. When giving out BR1Ms- what was the pious message that he and his ministers gave? With this RM500, spend thee wisely. So why not as an example, the government applies this advice on themselves first- spend wisely and spend within your means.

How does this government plan to better manage the budget? It is now aiming to reduce fiscal deficit gradually achieving a balance budget by 2020. Well, the Pakatan Budget plans to achieve a surplus budget by 2018. BN is trying to get a balanced budget by 2020.

What is the tactic? The tactic is to ensure public sector debt does not exceed 55% of the legislated debt ceiling. It is lying to us. It has already breached this now. Official federal debt is now RM540-550 billion. If you add the deficit from GLCs which has gone beyond RM100 billion, then you end up probably with 650 billion. We can now safely assume public sector debt has reached 65% of our GDP.

Our economy is debt driven. This government fiancés it Business Plan aka budget by taking on increasingly larger debts. Each year it tops up its spending money with borrowings. 2014, it will top up 35-40 billion to make up for the insufficient revenue.

Imagine this. If the interest charged on public debt is 4%, on a debt of 650 billion, the government is paying RM26 billion a year servicing the debt.

So the government manages its sources of deficit around the magical 55% legislated debt ceiling. It looks at the sources of deficits and chooses the deficit-centres which have the weakest and least retaliatory voice- expenditure on the uncoordinated rakyat. Take away subsidies from them under the grand sounding name of subsidy rationalization. Although many, the voice of the rakyat is uncoordinated and they are not capable of mounting strong focused pressures unlike big businesses such as IPP, big monopolies and centres of crony capitalism. These are untouched.

Take always sugar subsidy and the minister rationalise that as something good for the health, prevent diabetes etc. take way diesel and petrol subsidy- the move is rationalised as preventing unqualified users benefiting from the subsidy. Taking away subsides from the rakyat is easier as they can’t mount a forceful retaliation.

Our energies are dictated by the near mythical figure of 55% debt ceiling and so we take measures to circle around the figure. The government has a trick up its sleeves- it circles around this limit by allowing deficits that don’t appear on the balance sheet and our national accounts- the debt and liabilities incurred and made by GLCs. Some of these GLCs are allowed to issue bonds guaranteed by the government because, they are in fact the government. So as long as the Big Spending government can argue that its spending is not beyond the 55% limit, the economy is sound.

This obsession of managing the debt ceiling is the main cause for the  out of control spending. We don’t control the spending, but focus instead of controlling the debt limit.

To me this isn’t right because it violates the basic principle of sound budgeting- spending within your means. By focussing on managing the debt ceiling, we give excessively large space for discretionary spending and the results are what we got as reported by the Auditor General’s Report.

How to make rectify this kind of spending? By setting rules instead of giving room for discretionary spending. It is because we allow in situ discretion, the little napoleons and stalins exploit their empowerment and did all sorts of funny business. If we retain that kind of spending regime, the 2014 Budget will be riddled with the same misdeeds.

The government does not address this kind of deficit-causing centres. They don’t plug corruption, they don’t plug rent-seeking pricing of government purchases and they don’t control project spending.

So instead of making circles around the 55% debt ceiling, why not we specify our budget as a specific percentage of our GDP and then make sure spending does not go beyond this percentage. How to select which percentage?

Look at our economy for the last 10 years and identify which year our economy performed best. In that year what was the budget? For example during those years when our economy grew on an average of 8%, what was the average budget? 22%? If this was the budget in the best year, use 22% as the limit. Make a rule that our budget from now on shall not be more than 22% of our GDP. Then our budget is not made dependent on a near mythical figure of 55% debt ceiling but is made a function of the GDP. Our energy will then be on the GDP i.e. on the economy as a whole.

Once we set our budget as a rule, we adhere to it. For 2014 for example, our GDP is 1,100 billion. Using 22% as the rule, our budget should be around RM220 billion. As our GDP grows, the budget grows too in line with the overall economy.  Our focus isn’t about ensuring federal debt level will remain low and not exceed 55% of GDP.  – sakmongkol.blogspot.com, October 27, 2013.

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de guerre of Datuk Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz who is the Raub MP.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 October 2013, 8:42 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Liow Tiong Lai only interested in competing with Chua Soi Lek for Liong Sik’s MCA delegates’ vote-bank rather than striving for a new political culture of public integrity with zero tolerance for corruption

Either the MCA Deputy President Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai does not understand simple English (which has become quite commonplace at all levels of the Barisan Nasional political structure) or he is just being deliberately obtuse because he has a political axe to grind.

What is this political axe for  Tiong Lai to “grind”?  What else but competing with MCA President Datuk Chua Soi Lek for Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik’s MCA delegates’ vote-bank in the upcoming MCA party elections in December rather than striving for a new political culture of public integrity with zero tolerance for corruption.

I do not think my statement entitled
“Duo message of 2014 Budget – Malaysia continues to be land of ‘heinous crime without criminals’ and Ministers enjoy immunity and impunity for Ministerial dereliction of duties”
 on the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s acquittal and discharge of Liong Sik for cheating the government over the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project scandal is so complex or difficult to understand as to confound Tiong Lai.

As I said in my statement, “Without going into the details of the case against Liong Sik, the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision carries two messages which have a direct bearing on the 2014 Budget, Najib’s National Transformation Plan and the future direction of the Malaysian nation and economy”, viz:

*Malaysia continues to be a land of ‘heinous crimes without criminals’, with Malaysians victimized by mega corruption and scandals which neither the government nor the anti-corruption agency, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), could do anything to combat when confronted with ‘grand corruption’ involving ‘big sharks’ instead of ‘ikan bilis’ in the Malaysian corruption waters;

*Cabinet Ministers are now given a blank cheque to enjoy immunity and impunity for whatever dereliction of duties in the course of official duties, including up to Cabinet level.

I have no doubt if the 2,400 MCA national  delegates had been asked in a secret ballot whether they agree with me on  these two messages from the KL High Court decision and the 2014 Budget, the overwhelming majority of the MCA delegates would have expressed their agreement.

All Malaysians with eyes to see and ears to hear realise that Malaysia must cease to be a land of “heinous crimes without criminals”  where “grand corruption” is allowed to gallop on  unchecked if Malaysia is to start anew with a new political culture of public integrity with zero tolerance for corruption. Undoubtedly and indisputably, the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal fails on counts.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Justice Ahmad Asnawi said in his decision that former Transport Minister cannot be held accountable for any mistakes, misleading information or inaccuracies in the preparation of the ministry’s documents on the PKFZ land acquisition as he was not the ministry’s “numero uno” (number one) but only the “transporter”.

The judge said: “If any, the blame should be apportioned wholly and squarely upon the officers of the Transport Ministry who drafted the prepared the same”.

As former Health Minister and someone who  hopes to get back to the Cabinet as soon as possible, does Liow agree that a Minister is not “numero uno” in his Ministry and need not be held responsible  for any matter in his Ministry which he champions, whether in public, in Parliament or even up to Cabinet level?

It would appear that under the slogan of  “Endless Possibilities” of the Najib administration, the Barisan Nasional is coining a new principle of ministerial responsibility, or to be more correct, a new principle of ministerial irresponsibility  – that a Minister is not “numero uno” in his Ministry and need not be  responsible for any Ministerial dereliction of duty!

If Liew is of the view that a Minister is not “numero uno” in his Ministry and he embraces the obnoxious principle of ministerial irresponsibility, is he of the view that the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail should now arrest, charge and prosecute “the officers of the Transport Ministry” below the level of the Transport Minister responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

Or will Liew claim that the PKFZ scandal falls into the unique Malaysian category of “heinous crime without criminals” in Malaysia and need not be pursued any further to ascertain who were the persons or persons responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

Is this the MCA and Barisan Nasional’s official stand, that the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal is a “heinous crime without criminals” and need not be pursued further to find out the culprits responsible for the PKFZ “mother of all scandals”?

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/10/29/liow-tiong-lain-hanya-berminat-untuk-bersaing-dengan-chua-soi-lek-bagi-mendapatkan-undi-perwakilan-mca-dari-kalangan-penyokong-liong-sik-bukannya-untuk-membentuk-budaya-politik-baru-yang-berintegriti/

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 October 2013, 4:27 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
MCA
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno diseru untuk berhenti menyebarkan pembohongan dalam pilihanraya kecil Sg Limau kerana ia menjejaskan dasar 1Malaysia Najib, mengancam keharmonian hubungan antara kaum dan menjejaskan daya saing Malaysia

Umno diseru untuk berhenti menyebarkan pembohongan dalam pilihanraya kecil Sg Limau kerana ia menjejaskan dasar 1Malaysia Najib, mengancam keharmonian hubungan antara kaum dan menjejaskan daya saing Malaysia.

Dalam sidang media di Sungai Limau menjelang tengah malam Isnin, selepas PAS dan Pakatan Rakyat mengumumkan Mohd Azam Samat sebagai

calon untuk pilihanraya kecil Sungai Limau, saya meminta semua parti yang bertanding untuk menjadikan pilihanraya kecil itu sebagai model bagi politik bersi, jujur, dan bermaruah dengan memastikan pembohongan dan kepalsuan tidak disebarkan dan taktik serangan peribadi atau politik wang tidak digunakan.

Di sini saya melahirkan kekecewaan kerana seruan saya ke arah pilihanraya kecil yang bersih, jujur, dan bermaruah di Sungai Limau telah diabaikan sejak hari pertama kempen pilihanraya kecil itu lagi, iaitu kelmarin.

Seperti dilaporkan oleh wartawan Malaysiakini Susan Loone dalam laporan bertajuk “UMNO bids to undermine PAS’ Islamic credentials”,

dalam sebuah ceramah kelompok malam kelmarin, juru kempen Umno dan Barisan Nasional telah cuba meraih sokongan 93 peratus pengundi Melayu Muslim di Sungai Limau dengan menyebarkan pembohongan bahawa DAP merancang untuk membentuk Negara Kristian di Malaysia.

Seperti telah saya sebutkan sebelum itu dalam ceramah di Sungai Limau Dalam pada malam Isnin, DAP sepenuhnya dan dengan teguh menyokong ciri-ciri asasi dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, khususnya peruntukan berkenaan kedudukan bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa rasmi di samping jaminan terhadap bahasa-bahasa lain, Islam sebagai agama rasmi Persekutuan di samping kebebasan beragama untuk bukan-Muslim, selain sistem Raja Melayu dan raja berperlembagaan dalam negara ini.

Ciri-ciri asasi dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia ini, di samping matlamat untuk mengembangkan demokrasi, tadbir urus yang baik, keadilan

ekonomi, kecemerlangan pendidikan, dan integriti dalam kehidupan awam dengan cara membasmi korupsi, ketamakan, kronisme, dan penyalahgunaan kuasa, adalah juga matlamat bersama parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat, iaitu PAS, PKR dan DAP.

Sememangnya telah diduga bahawa semua parti dan calon yang bertanding akan mencuba sedaya-upaya masing-masing utnuk memenangi pilihanraya kecil Sungai Limau, tetapi kita mesti memastikan kemenangan yang dicapai nanti bukan berasaskan pembohongan, pendustaan, serangan peribadi dan politik wang.

Apakah Umno dan BN sanggup menafikan pembohongan seperti yang disebutkan di atas, iaitu bahawa DAP merancang untuk membentuk Negara

Kristian di Malaysia, dalam pilihanraya kecil Sg Limau ini?

Saya menyeru Umno dan BN untuk berhenti menyebarkan pembohongan dalam pilihanraya kecil Sg Limau kerana ia menjejaskan dasar 1Malaysia Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak, mengancam keharmonian hubungan antara kaum dan menjejaskan daya saing Malaysia.

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/10/24/call-on-umno-to-end-its-campaign-of-lies-and-falsehoods-in-sg-limau-by-election-as-this-is-not-only-a-great-disservice-to-najibs-1malaysia-policy-but-a-grave-threat-to-multi-racial-and-multi/

                This entry was posted on Monday, 28 October 2013, 11:09 am and is filed under
Election
,
Media
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Happy Deepavali

by Allan CF Goh

This day Hindus celebrate

The holy festival of light,

So as to commemorate

The victory of right over might.

This day the lamp’s waving flame

Welcomes the Goddess Lakshimi

To bring blessings, without blame,

To all the faithfuls, every me.

Hindus pray for compassion,

And spiritual awakening,

In their holy communion,

For ignorance’s banishing.

Divali commemorates

Victory of good over evil;

Today Hindus calibrate

Goodness, to reject the devil.

This day is celebrated

With the greatest joy, and good cheer,

And wishes highly rated,

Cherished by family and friends dear.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 3:38 pm and is filed under
Poem
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Liow Tiong Lain hanya berminat untuk bersaing dengan Chua Soi Lek bagi mendapatkan undi perwakilan MCA dari kalangan penyokong Liong Sik bukannya untuk membentuk budaya politik baru yang berintegriti dan anti-korupsi

Sama ada Timbalan Presiden MCA Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai tidak faham bahasa yang mudah dan nyata atau beliau sengaja berpura-pura tidak faham kerana ada muslihat politik tertentu.

Apa muslihat politik berkenaan? Apa lagi kalau bukan untuk bersaing dengan Presiden MCA Datuk Chua Soi Lek bagi mendapatkan undi perwakilan MCA dari kalangan penyokong Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik dalam pemilihan parti MCA bulan Disember nanti dan bukannya untuk membentuk budaya politik baru yang berintegriti dan anti-korupsi.

Saya tidak rasa kenyataan saya yang berjudul “Dua mesej Belanjawan 2014 – Malaysia terus menjadi negara yang “mempunyai jenayah besar, tetapi tiada penjenayah” dan para menteri pula kebal daripada tindakan undang-undang walaupun cuai dalam tugas” berkenaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang membebaskan Liong Sik daripada tuduhan menipu kerajaan dalam skandal Zon Perdagangan Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ) yang melibatkan berbilion-bilion ringgit itu adalah kenyataan yang rumit dan sukar untuk difahami sehingga membingungkan Tiong Lai.

Seperti yang saya sebutkan dalam kenyataan itu, “Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu membawa dua mesej yang memberi kesan langsung terhadap Belanjawan 2014, Rancangan Transformasi Nasional Najib dan arah tuju negara dan ekonomi Malaysia di masa depan,” iaitu:

Malaysia terus menjadi negara yang “mempunyai jenayah besar, tetapi tiada penjenayah”, di mana rakyat Malaysia menjadi mangsa korupsi dan skandal raksasa dalam keadaan kerajaan dan agensi pencegahan rasuah, iaitu Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia, tidak mampu berbuat apa-apa untuk memerangi korupsi yang melibatkan “jerung” dan bukan hanya “ikan bilis”; dan

Menteri kabinet kini kebal daripada hukuman jika mereka cuai dalam menjalankan tugas rasmi, termasuk tugasan di peringkat kabinet.

Saya percaya jika 2,400 perwakilan MCA diberikan peluang untuk menyatakan pandangan secara rahsia, sebahagian besar mereka akan bersetuju dengan dua kesimpulan yang saya kemukakan berkenaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur dan Belanjawan 2014 itu.

Semua rakyat Malaysia yang mempunyai kesedaran penuh akan mengakui bahawa Malaysia tidak sepatutnya terus menjadi sebuah negara yang “mempunyai jenayah besar tetapi tiada penjenayah” di mana korupsi secara besar-besaran dibiarkan berlaku tanpa disekat jika negara ini benar-benar mahu membentuk budaya politik baru yang berintegriti dan anti-korupsi. Tidak dapat disangkal lagi bahawa skandal RM12.5 biion PKFZ adalah sesuatu yang amat menghampakan.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Ahmad Asnawi menyebut dalam keputusan beliau bahawa bekas Menteri Pengangkutan berkenaan tidak boleh dipertanggungjawabkan atas sebarang kesilapan serta maklumat mengelirukan atau tidak tepat yang dikemukakan di peringkat penyediaan dokumen kementerian bagi tujuan pembelian tanah PKFZ memandangkan beliau bukan orang “nombor satu” dalam kementerian, sebaliknya hanya berperanan sebagai “penghantar maklumat”.

Kata beliau: “Jika ada, kesalahan hendaklah diletakkan ke atas pegawai-pegawai Kementerian Pengangkutan yang merangka dan menyediakan dokumen tersebut.”

Sebagai bekas Menteri Kesihatan dan sebagai seorang yang berharap untuk kembali menjadi anggota Kabinet secepat mungkin, apakah Liow bersetuju bahawa seorang menteri bukan orang “nombor satu” dalam kementeriannya dan tidak perlu dipertanggungjawabkan atas sebarang isu yang berbangkit dalam kementeriannya sama ada di depan orang awam, Parlimen atau Kabinet?

Nampaknya di bawah slogan “Endless Possibilities” kerajaan Najib, Barisan Nasional sedang mencipta prinsip baru bagi tanggungjawab kementerian, iaitu bahawa seorang menteri bukan orang “nombor satu” dalam kementeriannya dan tidak perlu dipertanggungjawabkan atas sebarang pengabaian tugas!

Jika Liew berpandangan bahawa menteri bukanlah orang “nombor satu” dalam kementeriannya dan berpegang dengan prinsip kementerian yang tidak bertanggungjawab, apakah beliau berpandangan bahawa Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail perlu menangkap dan mendakwa para “pegawai Kementerian Pengangkutan” di bawah peringkat Menteri Pengangkutan yang bertanggungjawab atas skandal RM12.5 bilion PKFZ?

Atau apakah Liew menganggap skandal PKFZ tersebut termasuk dalam kategori “jenayah besar tanpa penjenayah” yang hanya wujud di Malaysia dan justeru itu tidak perlu dikenalpasti siapa orang yang terlibat dalam skandal PKFZ itu?

Apakah ini pendirian rasmi MCA dan Barisan Nasional, iaitu bahawa skandal RM12.5 bilion PKFZ itu adalah “jenayah besar tanpa penjenayah” dan tidak perlu diselidiki siapa yang bertanggungjawab atas “ibu segala skandal” itu?

This article is also available in English at:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/10/28/liow-tiong-lai-only-interested-in-competing-with-chua-soi-lek-for-liong-siks-mca-delegates-vote-bank-rather-than-striving-for-a-new-political-culture-of-public-integrity-with-zero-tolerance-for-co/

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 3:38 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An open letter to Dr Mahathir

– Wenger Khairy

The Malaysian Insider

October 30, 2013

Dear Tun,

In 1995, I remember that Malaysia was a land of hope, and the envy of many. Even the great Lee Kuan Yew was casting glances at the great hope that lay ahead – an international port which would suck up the entrepôt  trade that had made Singapore so successful and the great Multimedia Super Corridor that would propel Malaysia as the premier hub for Information, Communication Technology.

Alas, almost 20 years later, this is now a pipe dream. Singapore has forged miles ahead whilst Malaysia is still languishing behind, their people divided on the most irrelevant of issues such as whether cows can be slaughtered in public schools and whether non-Muslims can profess belief in Allah.

That is the issues that seem to be on the lips of everybody. Some take one position, others take another.

Let me first clear some of the misconceptions that you would like to have all Malaysians believe. Number one, there is a sizeable majority of non-Malay, non-Muslims who could not care less what the decision is. If, the government decides that cows can be slaughtered in public schools, then so be it. If the government decides, that Allah is only exclusive for Muslims, we could not care less.

We share a desire, like many of Muslim Malay Malaysians for a country that is not ruled based on political expediency but based on an open, transparent Government. We are not different as you would like to point out. We both have desires for a better life, better access to advancement, a safer society and economic advancement. We both would support the government if the government makes tough decisions for the betterment of all people.

But this I have against you. You said that the government is forced to be weak because of us non-Malays.  Because of us non-Muslims. You continue to try to use us as your tool in order to try and find relevance in today’s society.

All I can say is that a) You are going to achieve nothing and b) Your pathetic attempts have and will fail. To your credit, you had been the most able Prime Minister in the history of the country. You had great ambition and courage, which you had displayed while you were Prime Minister, and guess what – you were supported by the same non-Malays and non-Mulims whom you are trying so hard to demonise. You were supported not because we agreed with everything you said, but because you were consistent in whatever you tried to get across. People knew very quickly that in the end, you would still focus on a development agenda and at times, you would use the hard stick to whack others into line.

However, you failed to discipline your own flock. You did not have the guts to tell crony businessmen and rent seekers to piss off. Instead, you used their greed to elicit support. You “closed one eyes” to the many abuses that took place and people have formed their own opinions as to why you did so. Perhaps it was due to politics, perhaps due to other factors.

As a retired statesman, you could have had the opportunity to set the record straight. You could have used your previously considerable influence to direct the government into getting its act together and being clean and transparent, instead of being what it is today, but you failed. You tried to garner support by pitting race against race. Faith against faith. Man against man, woman against woman and child against child.

Today, I will tell it to your face that you have failed.

You have not failed in creating division, for you have been very successful in making sure that people are divided by race and religion, but you have failed in gaining any political capital from that. Your son has failed to defeat even the most weakest of candidates in the Umno elections. Your son failed to defeat Khairy Jamaluddin even when he was at his weakest. Your son has failed to defeat Hishammuddin Hussein Onn even when he was known the country over as “Menteri Amaran”. You yourself have failed even to get your own division to elect you to become a delegate to the Umno General Assembly. Politically, you have failed and your influence can only go one way and that is down.

I do not urge you to do anything different because to me, you are a man without hope. You are so stuck in pursuing a race based agenda that I believe it has consumed you. You have decided to throw away a broad based multiracial support in favour of trying to get a race based support. That has been your decision, and you thought you were right.

I just want to end it by saying you have failed, you will be remembered as a failure. – rembautimes.blogspot.com – October 30, 2013

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How low can you go?

by Leanne Goh

The Star

October 27, 2013

It is common knowledge among teachers that a student who keeps flunking the school test can actually get a decent grade in the SPM exam.

What is the passing mark for an SPM subject? Many teachers estimate it to be seriously low for some papers, way lower than the school’s benchmark.

WHEN I last wrote that more than 100,000 students, or close to a quarter of those sitting for the SPM English, were at risk of leaving school without an SPM certificate, the response was unexpected.

“Ms Goh,” I was told, “don’t worry, the marks may be lowered even further to allow many to pass.”

And that view, I was surprised to learn, was shared by many.

Teachers who have been teaching upper secondary students as well as examiners who have been grading the exam scripts for many years let on that the passing marks are not all they seem to be.

We were discussing the passing grade in view of the new ruling that effective 2016, a pass in SPM English is compulsory for students to graduate from school with an SPM certificate. This is in addition to the long-standing compulsory pass in Bahasa Melayu, and a pass in History that comes into effect for this year’s SPM candidates.

The passing mark for school tests is 40% but it is deemed significantly lower for public exams.

It is common knowledge among teachers that a student who keeps flunking the school test can actually get a decent grade in the SPM exam.

In an anecdote shared by a teacher, he said his colleague once told a school prefect: “If you pass your Add Maths, I’ll chop off my head!” And the prefect did better than just scrape through; he got a credit.

An examiner of 20 years for one of the SPM Maths papers, who has since retired, shares that the mode was always 10 to 20 class marks, that is, the majority scored between 10 and 20 marks, creating a skewed graph instead of a bell curve.

This has not been reflective in the actual results simply because it is possible for the grading system to be “adjusted” to show higher passes.

Examiners, who are usually teachers with many years of experience, are able to estimate or extrapolate based on the number of passes announced by the ministry against the students’ marks.

One SPM Add Maths examiner believes that the passing rate for the subject could be as low as the mid-teens based on how his students perform in school. And teachers are always sharing notes among themselves after the exam results are out.

Though public exam grading is kept under wraps and examiners are sworn to secrecy, teachers say that they have come to the conclusion that the passing grade for certain subjects could be as low as 20 marks, or possibly lower, especially for Maths.

“Although it’s shrouded in secrecy, we believe there is some manipulation of marks because we hear the same thing so many times from so many sources,” shares a teacher who is close to retirement.

This perception is widespread and an examiner describes it as a “trust deficit in the marking system”, despite the involvement of external moderators.

Those who have been examiners for many years see a pattern: the overall quality of the answer scripts has consistently been declining; the questions have been less challenging; and the structure easier to score. In some cases, the more difficult topics have also been removed from the syllabus.

The conclusion: It gets easier to score and harder to fail.

Is it any wonder then that we keep reading of more and more students scoring a string of As and yet the global benchmarking of our students is at the bottom third among 74 countries?

If we’re aiming to achieve top one-third in the benchmarking in 15 years, we cannot afford to deceive ourselves by dumbing down our own exams and the grading of public exams.

“We have Form Four students with an ‘A’ for PMR Maths who can’t even do basic operations. If an ‘A’ is nothing, imagine what a ‘D’ is!’’ says a teacher friend.

A pertinent question is whether our grades are comparable to that of other countries offering qualifications equivalent to O-levels. Is a pass or an “A” in Malaysia the same as that in the UK or Singapore?

A retired education officer from Examinations Syndicate says “yes” to the many doubting Thomases out there and stands by the integrity of the marking and grading of the papers.

He says that examiners’ perception is based on quantitative measures (marks, graphs, etc) while the ministry also takes into consideration qualitative measures (more subjective elements).

“Sample scripts of excellent, average and weak answers are put on a table and examined thoroughly by examiners from Cambridge and examination bodies from other countries,” he shares.

Besides, he adds, it is in the interest of all parties to ensure that a student who applies to study in a British university, for example, has grades that are acceptable regardless of his country of origin.

But there seems to be more ways than one to a decent grade.

Take the instance of the SPM History. Now that it has to be a compulsory pass, an additional Paper 3 has been created as an “open book test”.

Students can bring in their textbooks or any other references; teachers can guide students on themes that will be tested; and students will be informed one month before the exam on the themes to be tested.

One of the objectives of this paper is to prevent a zero score. It’ll now be harder for a student to fail with this potential “bonus” of 20% for paper 3!

Why set ambitious goals if we’re going to create crutches along the way?

Without Paper 3, the failure rate among last year’s candidates was 19.7%.

So what’s in store for a pass in SPM English?

Teachers are already speculating on ways to shore up the scores, considering that a pass has to be achieved in three short years when 70% of our 60,000 English teachers who sat for the English Language Cambridge Placement Test performed poorly.

Teachers are asking whether the oral test would be one avenue to help students meet the passing grade.

Teachers generally feel that three years may be too short a time to effectively bring about the change sought.

While on one hand, students need that push and motivation to work on that compulsory pass, the reality is that their environment remains static over the next three years.

If the family, community and school offer little exposure to the use of the language, how will that effect change?

It is a shame that the progress made with the teaching of Science and Maths in English (PPSMI) was halted with the reversal of the policy.

“PPSMI should have stayed. I could see a real difference in my students,” says an English teacher in a school in Perak.

A new complication to SPM English pass in 2016 is the “school-based assessment”.

With the PMR abolished from next year, students currently in Forms One and Two are being assessed at school. Next year’s Form Three students will sit for centrally set exam but the papers will be graded by their respective schools.

When they reach Form Five in 2016, they will have to pass their SPM English.

The problem is, no one knows yet what percentage of their grade will come from the school-based results, benchmarked at 40% for a pass.

“It’s like asking you to get into the car and drive but only telling you the destination later. Maybe they’ll even tell you to turn back halfway as in the case of PPSMI,” says the teacher-in-the-dark.

With things still unclear, there are concerns that the first batch to face the compulsory pass may be the casualties, especially among rural kids.

Let’s hope the path to be taken will be clearer soon and kinks in the system ironed out. And grades are not lowered to meet cosmetic achievements.

The integrity of the exam and grades awarded must hold us in good stead against international benchmarking, otherwise it will be a mockery of what we set out to achieve.

Note: A few months back, a DAP MP asked the Education Minister to state the passing marks for English, Math and Science subjects. He received a written reply in Parliament that it is under the OSA and cannot be revealed.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 12:48 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kenapa SPRM tidak mampu cemerlang seperti ICAC Hong Kong dalam membasmi rasuah walaupun undang-undang anti rasuah untuk 15 tahun yang lalu dicorakkan berdasarkan model Hong Kong, dan apakah pengajaran yang boleh didapati?

PEMBERITAHUAN PERTANYAAN DEWAN RAKYAT

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [ Gelang Patah ] minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan kenapa SPRM tidak mampu cemerlang seperti ICAC Hong Kong dalam membasmi rasuah walaupun undang-undang anti rasuah untuk 15 tahun yang lalu dicorakkan berdasarkan model Hong Kong, dan apakah pengajaran yang boleh didapati.

JAWAPAN: YB SENATOR DATUK PAUL LOW SENG KUAN MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat Gelang Patah, begitu dalam masa 4 tahun setelah perubahan struktur daripada Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) kepada SPRM, agensi ini telah mengorak langkah dengan melaksanakan transformasi sejajar dengan matlamat transformasi negara. Hasilnya dapat dilihat dengan peningkatan kadar sabitan sebanyak 54% pada tahun 2009 kepada 89% (Jun 2013), tangkapan-tangkapan ke atas individu berprofil tinggi, peningkatan keyakinan masyarakat terhadap SPRM, serta pengiktirafan antarabangsa yang diperolehi oleh Kerajaan Malaysia dalam komitmennya untuk mencegah rasuah.

Hasil kajian yang dibuat menunjukkan tahap keyakinan masyarakat telah meningkat. Kajian Merdeka Center pada tahun 2009 menunjukkan tahap keyakinan masyarakat terhadap SPRM adalah 31 peratus dan pada 2010 pula kajian yang sama menunjukkan ia meningkat kepada 39 peratus. Pada 2011, kajian oleh Business Ethics pula menunjukkan tahap keyakinan pada 43 peratus. Kajian Persepsi Keberkesanan Tindakan Pencegahan Rasuah oleh SPRM kendalian Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia pada tahun 2012 pula menunjukkan keyakinan masyarakat meningkat kepada 64 peratus dan SPRM meletakkan sasaran untuk mencapai 80 peratus.

Malaysia juga telah mendapat pengiktirafan antarabangsa bagi usaha-usaha pencegahan rasuah. Antara yang diperolehi adalah daripada Pasukan Penilai UNCAC (United Nation Convention Against Corruption) di bawah
Bab III UNCAC
 mengenai
Penjenayahan Rasuah dan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang (Criminalization and Law Enforcement)
 yang merangkumi amalan yang baik antaranya adalah pembentukan undang-undang seperti seksyen 25 dan seksyen 50 Akta SPRM 2009, pengwujudan Mahkamah Khas Rasuah, pengwujudan Panel Penilaian Operasi (PPO) yang boleh mengkaji kes-kes tertangguh atau yang tiada pendakwaan serta lain-lain lagi. Malaysia juga turut diiktiraf di bawah
Bab IV UNCAC
 pula merupakan
Kerjasama Antarabangsa yang meliputi
 perjanjian dua hala dan pelbagai hala yang dimeterai oleh Kerajaan, selain kerjasama luas dengan organisasi serta initiatif di peringkat antarabangsa dan peringkat rantau Asia.

Keyakinan masyarakat antarabangsa terhadap SPRM juga terbukti dengan perlantikan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM sebagai salah seorang ahli International Academic Advisory Board di
International Anti-Corruption Academy
 (IACA) yang bertanggungjawab memberi nasihat ke atas pembangunan kurikulum dan menentukan struktur akademik IACA. IACA adalah inisiatif bersama United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Republik Austria, European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dan Iain-lain stakeholders untuk mencegah rasuah melalui penghasilan modul yang menggabungkan kepakaran dan pengalaman pelbagai negara, agensi dan organisasi. SPRM merupakan salah satu daripada agensi yang diminta untuk menyumbangkan kepakarannya dalam pembentukan modul berkenaan.

Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM juga telah dilantik sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Ahli Lembaga (
Vice Chairperson of Board of Governors
) Akademi Pencegahan Rasuah Antarabangsa (International Anti-Corruption Academy or IACA) pada bulan November 2012 bagi tempoh enam tahun.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

Usaha pencegahan rasuah merupakan satu proses yang panjang dan Kerajaan Malaysia melalui SPRM tidak pernah berhenti dari belajar untuk menangani isu-isu rasuah di negara ini. Sejak tahun 2009, SPRM telah melalui transformasi besar-besaran bukan sahaja melibatkan aspek struktur, tetapi juga dari segi cara bekerja, sistem dan operasi. Kerana itulah, Kerajaan telah bersetuju untuk mempertingkatkan jumlah anggota SPRM sehingga menjadi 5,000 orang. SPRM juga sedang melaksanakan proses membawa masuk kepakaran tertentu yang kritikal, contohnya seperti forensik perakaunan bagi membantu agensi ini melaksanakan tugasnya dengan lebih berkesan. Pindaan terhadap Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia seperti Seksyen 23 dan Seksyen 36 juga akan disyorkan kepada Kerajaan bagi memberikan skop kuasa yang lebih luas kepada SPRM.

Sekian, terima kasih.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 30 October 2013, 12:43 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Perspective is everything

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Oct 28, 2013

Kim Jong-un of North Korea, the world’s youngest leader, is usually known as ‘The Great Successor’. He could use other titles like Supreme Leader, First Chairman, Commander and First Secretary, but the one he treasures, because it gives him respect, is the honorary doctorate awarded by HELP University which is based in Kuala Lumpur.

Nowadays, we all take honorary degrees for granted. Despots or those who literally shoot their way to the top, use their titles like badges of honour. Unscrupulous vice-chancellors desperate for donations award honorary degrees like confetti at a wedding.

The honorary award resembles Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘I help you, you help me’. Theoretically, awards may be revoked, if the recipient is involved in human rights abuses or corruption, but few universities are willing. Curtin University has honoured Rosmah Mansor, the self-styled First Lady of Malaysia, and the University of Adelaide gave an honorary doctorate to Sarawak Chief Minister, Taib Mahmud.

Dr Kim’s award brought worldwide notoriety to HELP and its president, Dr Paul Chan, has been villified.

They say that Dr Chan is either stupid or ignorant; he is neither. When Myanmar opened up its doors, there was a stampede of Malaysian businessmen touting for business. North Korea cannot isolate itself forever, but Dr Chan has already got a head start.

Where there’s pain, there’s also gain. Dr Chan has received much flak but he will be rewarded handsomely when more North Koreans enrol at HELP. Perhaps, an invitation to open or advise on an educational facility in North Korea is awaiting him.

Only the naïve will deny that the provision of education is a money-spinner. Parents of legitimate Malaysian students allege that foreign students use some Malaysian universities as a front for their drug or human trafficking business, and money-scamming activities are rarely investigated.

In late September, security forces at border crossings were placed on red alert, to stop any attempt to smuggle the ashes of former Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng. Malaysians were warned against glorifying him. A week later, the government lauded two communist leaders.

On Oct 3, the North Korean ambassador, on behalf of Kim Jong-un, accepted the award from Dr Chan, at a simple ceremony in the North Korean Embassy, in Kuala Lumpur. Kim was the first foreign head of state to receive the honorary degree from HELP, but why was the news report suppressed for three weeks?

The following day, on Oct 4, Najib feted the Chinese leader, President Xi Jinping, who had arrived for bilateral talks. A mixed message is being sent out and the contrast between the treatments meted out to Chin Peng and the two communist heads of state, couldn’t be more startling.

A dead communist is worth two live ones

A dead communist is worth at least two live communist leaders. Chin Peng’s armed struggle and atrocities can be revived, whenever the need arises, to scare the rakyat about an imminent communist threat.

Although Chin Peng fought for Malayan independence, he does not bring any economic value, unlike the PRC which is a world economic power, like North Korea, which is another Myanmar in the making. Chin Peng is worth more dead than alive. He will be a tool for spreading government propaganda.

When critics slammed Dr Chan for not exercising judgment and for failing to use ethical considerations when conferring the award, they should have focussed their attacks on the Malaysian government. It is believed that Malaysian universities are required to obtain authorisation before conferring honorary awards to foreign heads of state, therefore Najib’s government is not as innocent as it would like us to believe.

Malaysians are haunted by the evils of communism and North Korea is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Motivational propaganda songs are sung with religious zeal or blasted-out on construction sites, to boost worker productivity. Older Malaysians recall that during the 80s, nationalist songs were constantly played on TV and radio.

While many North Koreans go hungry, the communist élite dine on imported delicacies and drink. In the presence of foreign visitors, the plentiful array of food gives the impression of wealth and excess, rather like the lavish displays of food at open houses of BN politicians.

As Dr Chan is aware, children of the North Korean élite can afford to study overseas. The pampered child knows little about the sufferings of poorer children. In Malaysia, good education is guaranteed to children of the élite Umno Baruputras, many of whom are not aware that children in rural areas have no proper schools and are starving.

While most children enjoy playing war games with Playstation, Dr Kim toys around with live missiles, from his massive arsenal of weaponry, which includes nuclear weapons. Friendship with Dr Kim carries the risk of being spied on by America, especially as Malaysia has discarded its moderate Muslim image.

The sense of isolation in North Korea is heightened when its citizens are told that they are surrounded by enemies and they must give their utmost loyalty and obedience to their leaders to protect them. Malays are told that their race is under siege, their culture and religion need defending, and the underlying theme is that only Umno Baru can protect the Malays.

The workforce of communist North Korea has limited production capability, because its workers have no real incentives to work harder. With the New Economic Policy (NEP) and Ketuanan Melayu, there are few incentives for Malays to be productive.

State provides from cradle to grave

All that a North Korean could possibly want, is provided for him by the state; from cradle to grave. His schooling, the food he eats, and his job are provided. As long as he accepts what the system offers and is not critical, he is fine. Malaysia’s repressive laws restrict many of our freedoms, and criticism of the government is not tolerated.

Malaysia’s freedom of speech and expression is marginally better than North Korea but the media is severely restricted in both countries. All of this stifles creativity and individualism. In both countries, the people have to struggle with their conscience, because they are afraid to say what they think.

Looking at the grey, drab uniforms of the high ranking officials of North Korea, reminds us that they belong to an élite group of people. At special occasions, members of Umno Baru wear identical shirts, reminding us that they are also a cut above the rest.

Malaysia is a democracy but the top two positions in Umno Baru are not contestable. Cheating in the country’s general election returns the same party every five years, so how different is this to the one party system of the communist countries?

Three generations of the Kim family have ruled North Korea with an iron fist. Some Malaysian politicians aim to emulate this success. The men in the Kim dynasty are infamous for their mistresses and recently, Dr Kim is alleged to have ordered the execution of his mistress, to assuage his wife’s anger.

The parallels between communism and Umno Baruism are obvious. The one lesson at which the communists excel, which Umno Baru is unable to learn, is the manner in which corrupt politicians and party officials are punished.

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 October 2013, 3:04 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ten years after exiting, Dr M remains on stage

by Opalyn Mok, Joseph Sipalan, Ida Lim & Boo Su-Lyn

Malay Mail Online

October 31, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 31 — When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad retired on Oct 31, 2003 after 22 tumultuous years in power, he was the only prime minister many Malaysians ever knew. A decade later, his critics and supporters alike would not be faulted for wondering if he ever intended to leave the political scene.

Or is he even capable of letting go?

The evidence suggests not. After all he was a significant factor in the downfall of his immediate successor and a major reason why the country’s current prime minister came to power.

The man, now a sprightly 88-year-old, has spent a notable number of years in his 10-year retirement making splashes in the media, headlining events and even taking on the political stage for Barisan Nasional (BN) during the just-concluded May 5 general election.

Despite being retired, observers still accuse Dr Mahathir of leading a faction in the ruling Umno through his son Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, even if the latter’s loss in the vice-presidential race recently led to the conclusion that Team Mahathir’s influence has waned.

His former protege and all-time bitter rival Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim too has agreed that Dr Mahathir still commands a significant following in Umno, if not in Malaysian politics in general

But he blamed this on Dr Mahathir’s successors, saying they had allowed his former boss to remain “in power”.

“Of course Dr Mahathir has done a lot for the party, but today, he is still a very strong force to be reckoned with because there is a lack of courage and leadership in Umno,” the Opposition leader said when approached recently.

He noted it was natural for leaders, when they assume power, to be respectful of Dr Mahathir due to his contributions to the party and the nation.

“But they don’t need to be fearful or submissive to Dr Mahathir because in actuality, he does not represent the Umno ideal,” the Permatang Pauh MP said.

“Any Umno member knows Dr Mahathir, today, continues to represent the same cronyism, corrupt system and family interest but why there is no courage to speak up against him?” the PKR de facto leader said.

He then compared Dr Mahathir to Mahatma Gandhi, saying they were total opposites, calling the former the voice of corruption, cronyism and worst excesses.

“Gandhi’s influence is strong because his is the voice of conscience but Dr Mahathir’s influence is strong because there is no courage, no political will power to stand up against him and his corrupt ideals,” he said.

Dr Mahathir helmed the country for 22 years between 1981 and 2003.

He may have retired but has remained vocal on current issues and often speak out against his successors if he disagrees with their policies.

Just recently, Dr Mahathir took a swipe at Najib’s administration by calling it weak while accusing the administration of bowing down to “unreasonable demands” from extremist groups, especially from the opposition, to remain relevant to the public.

He blamed it on weak support from the people that had resulted in a weak government which led to a “lunatic fringe” holding sway over politics in the country.

His political rival and DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang pointed out that it was Dr Mahathir who was holding sway over politics in the country.

“He is the de facto political leader of Umno and indirectly, the country. Since his return to Umno in the last four years, there are viewpoints that he is the most powerful political figure in Umno, and that Najib will have to take into account his wishes and objectives,” Lim said.

The Gelang Patah MP noted that Dr Mahathir may not exert as much influence when it comes to Malaysians generally as proven by his win in Gelang Patah in the May 5 polls despite Dr Mahathir’s vow to “kuburkan” (bury) him there.

Lim believed Dr Mahathir’s continued influence in Malaysian politics is a bane and not a boon to Malaysia’s nation building in its goal to become a united, successful and competitive nation.

“We can see since the last elections, the country has never been more polarised thanks to him and since he rejoined Umno, his growing influence has impeded the recovery of national institutions and he has been an obstacle for the country to achieve Vision 2020 of a modern and democratic nation,” he said.

“That is the greatest irony of all, he is the greatest obstacle to achieving what he preached and what he advocated,” Lim added.

Dr Mahathir’s supporters, however, beg to differ.

A former civil servant who used to serve in the Prime Minister’s Department during the Mahathir administration said the latter was still influential as he was a visionary leader who thinks ahead of others.

Aiza AR, 42, pointed out that Dr Mahathir had placed Malaysia on the world map due to his iconic skyscraper, the Petronas Twin Towers and his other ambitious projects.

“He launched ambitious projects such as the new administrative centre in Putrajaya and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA),” she said.

“He saw that if we don’t do something such as from the aspect of development, the future will be difficult,” added the civil servant, who had also served during Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s time in government.

She believes the country still needs Dr Mahathir’s advice as “no leaders have been able to match his vision and ideas yet”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 31 October 2013, 8:59 am and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Happy Deepavali

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 November 2013, 5:49 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let all Malaysians be inspired and united by the Deepavali message to ensure triumph of light over darkness and the victory of moderation and tolerance over extremism and intolerance

Deepavali Message

Happy Deepavali to Malaysian Indians in particular and Malaysians in general.

The Deepavali message of light over darkness and the triumph of truth, freedom and justice over all forms of corruption, discrimination and exploitation have never been so relevant and pertinent in Malaysian national life than in post-13th general elections.

Let all Malaysians be inspired and united by the Deepavali message to ensure the triumph of light over darkness in all spheres of national life and the victory of moderation and tolerance over extremism and intolerance in multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia.

Malaysians must always be vigilant to foster moderation and tolerance in our plural society and never cede ground to the lunatic fringe of extremism and intolerance especially in their attempt to camouflage themselves as the new voice and exponent of moderation in the country.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/04/semoga-mesej-deepavali-merangsang-dan-menyatukan-rakyat-malaysia-bagi-memastikan-kemenangan-cahaya-ke-atas-kegelapan-serta-agar-kesederhanaan-dan-toleransi-mengatasi-ekstremisme-dan-sikap-tidak-berto/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 November 2013, 5:39 pm and is filed under
Personal
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Muhyiddin allocate RM480 million to the two SRJK©  Kuo Kuang1 and 2 in Gelang Patah based on his promise in Sg Limau by-election?

In the Sungai Limau by-election, Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced allocation of RM1 million for SRJK © Aik Min, RM1 million for SRJK© Yuk Meng in Sungai Limau and RM50,000 for SRJK (C) Pek Hwa.

SRJK © Aik Min has 15 students in five classes, i.e:

Std. 1 – 2 pupils

Std. 2 – 2 pupils

Std. 3 – 5 pupils

Std. 4 – 3 pupils

Std. 5 – no pupils

Std. 6 –  3 pupils

 Total –  15 pupils

SRJK © Yuk Meng in Sungai Limau has 41 students in six classes, viz:

Std. 1 –   1 pupil

Std. 2 –   5 pupils

Std. 3 – 10 pupils

Std. 4 –   4 pupils

Std. 5 – 12 pupils

Std. 6 –   9 pupils

Total  –  41 pupils

In announcing the allocations in the Sungai Limau by-election, Muhyiddin said the Barisan Nasional government will continue to assist Chinese and Tamil schools for as long as there is the sun and the moon.

He said it was not true that the Barisan Nasional was giving allocations to vernacular schools only when there was a general election or a by-election.

He said  the allocations to the three Chinese schools in Sungai Limau  were approved earlier and were not just “goodies” to entice Chinese voters, who number more than 1,800.

He said: “Even if there is no election, we will still help, because the Barisan government is committed to improving education.”

I welcome Muhyiddin’s allocation of more than RM2 million for the Chinese primary schools in Sungai Limau.

Based on the allocation of RM1 million to SRJK © Aik Min, which works out to RM66,666 per pupil for the 15 pupils in the school, the two SRJK © Kuo Kuang in Gelang Patah should be allocated RM480 million, or RM213 million for SRJK © Kuo Kuang1 as it has 3,200 pupils and RM266 million for SRJK © Kuo Kuang2 with some 4,000 pupils

Will Muhyiddin allocate RM480 million to the two SRJK©  Kuo Kuang1 and 2 in Gelang Patah based on his promise in Sg Limau by-election to prove that that the Barisan Nasional will continue to assist Chinese and Tamil primary schools “for as long as there is the sun and the moon”?

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/11/04/apakah-muhyiddin-akan-memperuntukkan-rm480-juta-kepada-dua-srjkc-kuo-kuang-1-dan-2-di-gelang-patah-berasaskan-janjinya-dalam-pilihanraya-kecil-sg-limau/

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 November 2013, 4:15 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Elections
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.