Did Kit Siang and Karpal commit sedition?

By
NHChan

Prelude – please read it before reading the article

I write this article so as to apprise the people who, in the mind of the general public, have taken the law into their own hands through the harassment of law abiding citizens of this country with the threat of using the Sedition Act 1948 on them. They should not have done it without first taking expert legal advice on the technical and difficult law of sedition under the Act.

After you have read this article, I am sure you will agree with me that the law of sedition is not easy for a layman to understand. Even lawyers and judges have found great difficulty in understanding it – let alone an uninitiated policeman. If the police are not careful, one of these days they will find themselves at the receiving end of a suit for malicious prosecution, false arrest or whatever the victims of their harassment would throw at them.

I hope you will bear with me if this time I am not able to explain difficult law in simple language as much as I would like to. It is at a time like this that I really appreciate the great ability of the late Lord Denning who was so adept at explaining difficult law to us ordinary folk.

Historical background of how the law of sedition in 1870 India had migrated to Peninsular Malaya in 1948 (Sabah in 1964 and Sarawak in 1969) where this archaic law has been implanted in modern 2l century Malaysia

In 19861 was the judge who tried Mr Param Cumaraswamy for sedition under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. At the end of the trial, I acquitted him. But first, a little bit of history – it is necessary to understand the historical development of how this bit of archaic legislation came to be the law of modem Malaysia. While other countries of the Commonwealth, of which Malaysia is a member, have advanced into the modem age, in this country time has stood still to the time of Sir James Stephen in 1870 British India. This was pointed out by Sinha CJ in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar [1962] AIR, SC 955:

Section 124A was not placed on the Statute Book until 1870, by Act XXVII of 1870. There was a considerable amount of discussion at the time the amendment was introduced by Sir James Stephen ………

The result of my research into the law of sedition is embodied in the judgment of P P v

Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606.1 am sorry for not being able to give you the MU citation – it happened so long ago and I do not have access to a law library. At p 6191 said:

Sir James Stephen, you will remember, was the Judge whose definition of sedition appeared as article 93 of the Digest of the Criminal Law. In facts 124A which Sinha CJ had reproduced in the passage which I have just read was the work of Stephen J. Nowhere ins 124A of the Indian Penal Code did Sir James include the flirther qualification of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders as an ingredient of the offence. As I have said earlier (see my decision when I called on Mr Cumaraswamy to enter on his defence), “Although it may appear to be the position in English case law that incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders is an essential ingredient of sedition, it is not so in a criminal code which has as its model Stephen’s definition.”

Incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder k not an ingredient of sedition

Sir James Stephen was the author of s 1 24A of the Indian Penal Code. He did not in drafting that section make incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorders the gist of the offence of sedition. Nor did he make them the gist of the crime in his defmition in article 93 of the Digest. And article 93 of the Digest was used as the model for the crime of sedition in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. So that when we look at s 124A of the Indian Penal Code or at the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast on sedition or our own Sedition Act (which I have previously said was modeled on Stephen’s definition), we are merely looking at the definition of sedition as apprehended by Sir James Stephen, and not at English case law … which had developed separately from Stephen’s definition. Stephen’s defmition has been codified as the law of the Gold Coast and of this country. And Wallace-Johnson v The King [1940] AC 231 has laid down that since the law is contained in a code, “the Court must look for the ingredients of the offence from the codified law and not import principles which have been established by English case law, and that, accordingly there cannot be imported into the offence (as created under the codified law) the additional ingredient of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder.”

The view expressed by Sinha CJ in the Indian Supreme Court in Kedar Nath cannot by any means be supported. In my judgment, the correct view is that as laid down by the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson.

Therefore, as I have explained above, incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder is not an ingredient of the offence of sedition in this country.

Nor is intention an ingredient of the crime of sedition

Having got that off my chest, the next thing I need to explain is why mens rea is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under our Sedition Act 1948. As every law student knows mens rea is Latin for “intention”. Here is how I explained it in PP v Param Cumaraswamy. I said at p 612:

I have shown that the model for subsection 8 of s 326 of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast was Stephen’s definition of sedition in Article 93 of the Digest. In Wallace-Johnson the Privy Council has laid down that incitement to violence is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. A fortiori, inciting others to public disorders is not a necessary ingredient of sedition.

In Stephen’s definition and as well as the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast, a seditious intention is an essential ingredient, but Stephen in Article 94 of the Digest had expressed the view that intention is no more than the natural consequence of the words, and the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson has held that it is not necessary to prove actual intention. It is enough if the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section.

It looks as if it was with hindsight that the Sedition Act came to be drafted. If intention requires no more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published; if it is not necessary to prove actual intention because seditious words are words which are “expressive of a seditious intention” as defined in the section, then the gravamen or an essential ingredient of sedition is not mens rea (intention) but an actus reus. That is, the words must have a tendency (a seditious tendency) to achieve one or more of the objects specified.

Instead, all that the prosecutor need to prove is a seditious tendency

This is what I said in Param Cumaraswamy, p 611:

In both the Stephen and the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast definitions an intention to achieve one or more of the objects specified in the definition is an essential ingredient of the crime of sedition. The important question is whether the “intention” must be proved. In Article 94 of the Digest (4th edn) Stephen put it thus:

“In determining whether the intention with which any words were spoken, any document was published, or any agreement was made, was or was not seditious, every person must be deemed to intend the consequences which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the

circumstances in which he so conducted himself.”

Stephen’s view did not require any more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published. It would not be necessary to prove an actual intention to achieve any one of the objects specified.

In the Privy Council case of Wallace-Johnson v R [1940] AC 231, it was argued on behalf of the appellant Wallace-Johnson, seep 234:

(a) that both in English common law and in the Criminal Code in question there must be some evidence of intention outside the mere words of the instrument before a seditious intention can be said to exist; and (b) that in the present case, when the document is read, there cannot be found in it any seditious intention at all; and therefore before the appellant can be convicted there must be some evidence of seditious intention extrinsically, and, there being none, this conviction cannot stand on any ground.

The judgment of the Privy Council was read by the Lord Chancellor, at p 240, in which he said:

“Seditious words,” in the terms of sub-s 8, “are words expressive of a seditious intention”.

Then he went on to say, at p 241:

The submission that there must be some extrinsic evidence of intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist, must … fail … If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section, the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence. The Legislature of the Colony might have defined “seditious words” by reference to an intention proved by evidence of other words or overt acts. It is sufficient to say they have not done so.

The headnote in the report of Wallace-Johnson has summarized accurately what was said by the Lord Chancellor. It reads, at p231, thus:

If the words complained of are themselves “expressive of a seditious intention” as defmed in the section they are “seditious words”. It is not necessary to produce any extrinsic evidence on intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist. If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence.

So that in this country, instead of saying “seditious words” are words which are “expressive of a seditious intention ‘ in our Sedition Act we say they are words with a “seditious tendency”

This is how s 30) of the Sedition Act 1948 of this country states it:

3. (1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency –

(a) 	to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) 	to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawfhl means, of any matter as by law established;

(c)	 to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against thc administration ofjustice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) 	to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;

(e) 	to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) 	to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution. (This paragraph did not appear in the original form of the sub-section)

As can be seen from the provisions of s 3 (1) of the Sedition Act, above, intention is not an ingredient of the crime of sedition, and all that need be proved by the prosecution is a seditious tendency as defined ins 3(1). This is established by s 3(3) which says:

3. (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency. (I have supplied the emphasis which is in bold type)

Then, how are we to decide whether the words have a seditious tendency

Although it is unnecessary to prove “intention”: see s 3(3) of the Act above, it is necessary to prove that the words have a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified ins 3(1) of the Act. In deciding whether the words have this tendency, it is proper, and here I would like to use the words of Coleridge J in R v Aidred (1909) 22 Cox CC 1, p 3,:

…..to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used to an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.

On the other hand, here I would like to use the language of Cave J in R v Burns (1886) 16 Cox CC 355, p 365,:

A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words with a [seditious tendency] solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced [by those words].

Therefore, the words are seditious (1) if they are likely to incite or influence the audience actually addressed or (2) if they are likely to incite or influence ordinary people even though the audience addressed was unaffected by the words.

What is not seditious

Stephen in Article 93 of the Digest gave the definition of what is not seditious. Almost identical provisions are to be found in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. With regard to the Gold Coast provisions, this is what the Privy Council said in Wallace-Johnson, at p 240:

Question will necessarily arise in every case, as in this case, as to the facts to which it is sought to apply these definitions. Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justif’ the conclusion that the intention of the person charged was to “bring into hatred or contempt .. the Government of the Gold Coast,” and facts which are consistent only with the view that the intention was no more than, in the words of a later part of sub-s 8, “to point out errors or defects in the Government … of the Gold Coast.”

In the Sedition Act of this country, we have s 3(2). The subsection specifies the circumstances or situations which are not seditious. Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justify the conclusion that there was a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in s 3(1), and facts which are consistent only with the view that the tendency was no more than to do the acts or things mentioned in s 3(2). Provided that in doing any of the acts or things mentioned in s 3(2), the words used do not have the effect of achieving any of the objects specified ins 30).

There is a similar provision to ours 3(2) in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast: see the proviso to subsection 8 of s 326 of the Gold Coast Code. While in this country it is s 3(2) of the Sedition Act 1948 which reads:

3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act. Speech, words, publication or other ting shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –

(a) 	to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

(b)	 to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph (1)0 otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration ofjustice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;

(c) 	except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph

(1)(f) –

(i) 	to persuade the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any terntory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawfiil means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or

(ii) 	to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation,

If the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(I have put the words in bold type to show that they were not found in the original text of sub-section (2))

Did Lim Kit Siang commit sedition?

Now that you know the law of sedition as much as any expert on the subject, we shall examine the law to find out if Lim Kit Siang has, in fact, committed the crime. As I have understood from the internet, all that he did was to point out that the biggest mistake that Naj ib made in the so-called Perak debacle was to approach the sultan for the appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar – that step, as we all know, started the political and constitutional impasse in Perak.

Had Najib not seen the Ruler, but instead had he advised the Barisan Nasional assemblymen to obtain a vote of no confidence against Nizar at the time, he would have succeeded and there would have been no constitutional crisis in Perak. By his rash action to have Zambry appointed Mentri Besar when Nizar is still holding the office of Mentri Besar, he had caused the impasse in Perak. Najib had actually committed a serious political misjudgment. Since then he had been unable to extricate himself out of the political quagmire which he had orchestrated.

Since Lim Kit Siang’ s criticism was only directed at Naj ib for his personal misjudgment in the whole episode, it would not be possible for any prosecutor to establish a “seditious tendency” under s 3(1) of the Sedition Act. This is because paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection concern a seditious tendency against a Ruler or Government – so these provisions do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib in his handling of the affair. Paragraph (c ) concerns a seditious tendency against the administration ofjustice – definitely this does not apply to a criticism ofNajib’s handling of the matter. In paragraph (d) the seditious tendency is to raise discontent and disaffection among the people – so it does not apply. Paragraph (e) deals with race and class, and paragraph (I) deals with privileges, sovereignty etc – so they too do not apply to a personal criticism of Naj ib’ s miscalculation of the situation in Perak.

Therefore, since it is impossible, based on the above circumstances, to establish a “seditious tendency” against Lim Kit Siang for his criticism of Naj ib’ s conduct in the Perak debacle, Lim Kit Siang has not committed any offence under the Sedition Act. As such, what the police did to him was unwarranted and an inexcusable harassment of a respected politician. Such bullying methods by the police should be frowned upon by all right thinking people. By their bad behaviour in the matter, the police have done a great disservice to the Government of the day which eventually may reflect adversely against them in the next election. As a consequence of such outrageous act of harassment which the police have perpetrated against the people, the police were, in fact, promoting feelings of ill will against the Barisan Nasional government which is the government of the day. I wonder if they could have brought themselves within the meaning of “seditious tendency” under s 3(l’)(e) which says “(1) A ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency (e) to promote feelings of ill will … between different … classes of the population of Malaysia” – i.e. between the people and the Barisan Nasional government? Perish the thought. But then, why were they doing this to the government? Were they trying to ensure a change of government at the next general election? Your Guess is as good as mine.

I remember when I was a serving judge, we would never dream of doing anything that would jeopardize the standing of our employer, the Government of Malaysia. Sometimes we would take a member of the executive government, like a minister or a public official, to task if they have done wrong but it must be done in a judgment. As a serving judge, it is taboo to criticize the government of the day out of court. But nowadays we find the police jeopardizing the position of their employer, the government of the day, by their overt action of harassing some members of the general public. Don’t these people realize that such actions would have an adverse effect on the government come next election? I suppose there are some people who think that it is all right for such an undesirable trend to continue like a cancer among the law enforcement agencies.

And what about poor Karpal Singh?

All that Karpal Singh said was that the sultan can be sued. And the next thing we hear is that he has been charged for the crime of sedition. We all know that Karpal Singh was speaking as a lawyer. And why is it wrong for a lawyer to say someone can be sued? All of us know that a ruler can be sued in the Special Court, albeit with leave of the court, for certain things, such as in an action in contract or tort, and also he could be prosecuted for certain crimes. There is no provision in s 3(1) of the Sedition Act which says that for saying that a sultan can be sued is a seditious tendency.

Moreover s 3 (2)(a) totally absolves Karpal Singh of any wrongdoing under the Sedition Act for his remark. Section 3 (2)(a) says:

3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –

(a) 	to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

Rightly or wrongly Karpal Singh thought that the ruler could be sued by way of a judicial review for what was perceived by him as the unconstitutional appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar. Judicial review was thought by many lawyers at the time to be the proper course to take to correct the mistaken step taken by the ruler in the appointment of a new Mentri Besar when the incumbent Mentri Besar is still in office.

So that by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948, what Karpal Singh had said about suing the sultan would not be treated as seditious even though the words spoken by him would show that the ruler was mistaken in his measure to appoint another Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.

PP v Param Cumaraswamy is still the law on the Sedition Act 1948

The law of sedition which I have referred to in this article is taken from my judgment in PP v Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606 which was decided almost twenty three years ago. Cumaraswamy is authority for the statement of the statute law of sedition as it stands. It is also useful for its concise treatment of the Sedition Act 1948. To this day it is still the law of the land as it has not been overruled by any higher court.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 June 2009, 5:25 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Another Lesson in PAS History: The Malaysian Public Does’nt Like Extremists

By
Farish A. Noor

The repercussions of the somewhat clumsy attempt by some sections of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS to call for the investigation, and possibly banning, of the Muslim women’s rights group Sisters in Islam are still being felt today. Many questions have arisen in the wake of the proposal that was passed without debate at the recent General Assembly of PAS: How and why was the proposal passed as one of the ‘non-debated proposals’ in the first place? Why was it not vetted properly and why was it tabled at all? What does this say about the internal cohesion of PAS and its internal discipline? Does this proposal reflect just a faction of opinion among PAS members, or is it actually representative of the party as a whole? And what does this mean with regards to PAS’s avowed claims to be a modern party that supports the democratisation process and dialogue with others?

It is hard, to say the least, to believe that a party can be supportive of democracy if it starts by calling for the banning of NGOs even before it comes to power…

For now however we are left to watch the internal and external drama of PAS unfold as the party seeks to re-consolidate itself after what was clearly a hectic assembly for all. The lingering question of where PAS really stands, and where it goes from here though will have to be addressed sooner than later.

To help answer this question, we would like to propose a quick re-visit to the history of PAS from the 1980s to the present to illustrate a simple yet important point: Namely, that the Malaysian public has never had much appetite for violent, extreme and exclusive political discourse and behaviour, be it from PAS or UMNO.

In the 1980s, some of us will remember that PAS was heavily engaged in a fiery war of words with its nemesis UMNO. The leaders of PAS then – notably Yusof Rawa, Hadi Awang and Mat Sabu – were at the forefront of attacking and condemning the leaders of UMNO – notably (now Tun) Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim. It was during this period that UMNO and PAS both jointly raised the political temperature in the country, leading to the controversial kafir-mengafir episode where both sides were accusing the other side of being hypocrites (munafik) , secular and un-Islamic. This culminated in a number of bitter incidents such as the killing of Ustaz Ibrahim ‘Libya’ Mahmood at the village of Memali in 1985 and the controversy around the book ‘Hadis’ by Kassim Ahmad some years later.

PAS had then gone onto overdrive with its fiery polemics against UMNO, and the infamous proclamation of Hadi Awang that accused PAS’s opponents of being the enemies of Islam had done wonders to transform the image of PAS into that of a violent and extremist party. At the elections of 1986, the result of this overheated rhetoric were obvious: PAS’s share of the vote dropped to 15.3 per cent and Parliamentary seats to 0.6 per cent, winning only one seat.

Then, as now, PAS was trying to court the support of the non-Muslims in Malaysia through the Chinese Consultative Councils (CCCs) of PAS, but to no avail. The Malaysian public demonstrated that they were not able and willing to tolerate the violent oppositional dialectics of UMNO and PAS, but were more worried about PAS’s language of jihad and kafirs.

Fast-forward to 2002 and we see a similar scenario in the off-ing. In the wake of PAS’s victory at the elections of 1999, an over-confident PAS took it upon itself to once again play the role of the ‘defenders of Islam’. In 2002 Muslim writers, academics and NGOs (including Sisters in Islam) were once again attacked and accused of all manner of things. In the same year, PAS declared its support for the Taliban in the most blatant manner when PAS members demonstrated in front of the US embassy with posters and banners that read “Taliban are our brothers”.

The rest of the Malaysian electorate, however, was not inclined to think of the Taliban as their brothers, and once again PAS was badly damaged at the elections of 2004…

These incidents demonstrate a simple fact: That the Malaysian public may vote for PAS as a reaction against UMNO, but this does not mean that the vote is a vote in support of an Islamic state, liberal-bashing or Taliban-supporting. Consistently the Malaysian public has shown that whenever PAS (or UMNO) resorts to extreme communitarian politics and discourse, its votes will swing in the other direction.

PAS, like all political parties, has to learn the simple lesson of representative politics, and realise that the vote given to PAS in 2008 was given by the Malaysian public to the Pakatan Rakyat and what the Pakatan stands for; which is a new, freer, more democratic and plural Malaysia where diversity is respected and enhanced. The call for the investigation and possible banning of a Muslim women’s NGO like SIS on the spurious basis that it is ‘un-Islamic’ beggars belief, and makes a mockery of the Pakatan’s efforts thus far. But the ones who have the most to lose are the members of PAS themselves, who should always study their own history to learn from the past in order not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.

PAS has indeed come a long way, and no doubt will remain on the scene for a long time to come. We hope and pray that as it develops and evolves, PAS will evolve in tandem with the new spirit of the new Malaysia that we are trying to build, and not against it. Having learned from its history, PAS should not condemn itself to becoming a historical relic instead.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 June 2009, 6:45 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ong Tee Keat should be cited for parliamentary contempt in refusing to release the appendices of the PcW audit report on PKFZ scandal to PAC members, allowing them access only during PAC meeting

Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat should be cited for parliamentary contempt for refusing to release the appendices of the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit report on the
 RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 to Public Accounts Committee (PAC) members, allowing them access only during the PAC meeting.

It was Ong, in an oblique response to my queries, blogged from Beijing on 3rd June that he had instructed the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to submit 14 copies of the PwC audit report, “as well as the appendices”, to members of the PAC “as soon as possible”.

However, the PAC members were informed this morning that the 14 sets of appendices were only available for them during  PAC meetings and not meant for them to take back for detailed study.

Such a ridiculous directive restricting access of the PwC Report appendices to PAC members during PAC meetings  makes a total mockery of parliamentary responsibility and accountability of both the Transport Minister as well as PKA and should be deplored in the strongest possible terms.

Ong must be held responsible for such a ridiculous directive and should be cited for parliamentary contempt unless he withdraws the restriction and allow every PAC member to have a copy of the appendices so as to make proper study.

Earlier today, Ong announced a special task force and two committees as a follow-up to the PwC report on the PKFZ.

I have three immediate observations on the PKFZ special task force and two committees just announced.

Firstly, this falls far short of what Ong had promised in his blog from Beijing on 3rd June, where he said:

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

“We are not sitting still and playing rhetoric. In the weeks and months ahead, my Ministry and PKA will put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers.”

What is the outcome of these studies by the Transport Ministry in the past four months following the PwC report to “bring PKFZ back on track for which it was originally conceived”, as the PwC report was submitted as far back as early February?

Apparently, a Task Force to make more “in depth analysis and studies”!

The Transport Minister has taken four long months to study the PwC audit report only to come up with the decision that there should be a Task Force to make some  more studies in the next two months to provide the PKA “the appropriate recommendations…for follow-up actions to be taken by the Government”!

What brilliance and competence!

Secondly, I have a sneaky suspicion that the “big announcement” of the establishment of the Task Force and two committees today is to serve one purpose – to give Ong the excuse to evade accountability on the PKFZ when Parliament reconvenes on Monday.

Ong will say when questioned on the PKFZ that MPs should wait for another two months for the outcome of the probe by the Task Force on the PwC report on PKFZ.

This will be the height of Ministerial and parliamentary irresponsibility and Ong can prove me wrong by coming to Parliament next week to give a full accounting on the PKFZ scandal and subjecting himself to intense parliamentary inquiry.

I will move a motion on the PKFZ scandal on Monday. Let Ong support a full parliamentary debate on the PwC audit report on PKFZ.

Thirdly, I have grave doubts about the efficacy of the measures announced today on the
establishment of the Task Force
 and two committees, especially as Ong has scrupulously avoided the most important issue in the PKFZ scandal – how it could balloon from a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Tun Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than quadruple to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in 2007 and now heading towards the astronomical figure of RM12.5 billion under Ong’s watch!

Although eminent and credible Malaysians in their respective professional fields have been recruited like Vinayak Pradhan from Skrine, who is heading the Task Force, Lim Chee Wee, partner of Skrine, Chin Kwai Fatt, managing director and Lim San Peen, Senior executive director of PwC Advisory Services Sdn. Bhd who are also on the Task Force; Transparency International Malaysia President Paul Low Seng Kuan and Nik Mohd Hasyudeen Yusoff, President of Malaysian Institute of Accountants who are respectively Chair and committee member of the Committee of Corporate Governance, the pertinent question is whether they could be effective.

I had described the PKFZ scandal as a “can of worms” but after going through the PwC report, I have changed the metaphor to a “swamp of crocodiles”.

What happens when you throw eminent and credible Malaysians in their respective professional fields into a “swamp of crocodiles”? Will they be able to discipline the crocodiles or will they end up eaten up by the crocodiles?

I worry and fear for the reputation of these eminent and credible Malaysians as it will be a  great pity if their standing and credibility are soiled and sullied by their inability to straighten out the PKFZ “scandal of scandals”!

Malaysians have a right to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and the only way is by the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, where previous  Transport Ministers Liong Sik and Kong Choy, PKA Chairmen and Board members, as well as the relevant government officials in the Transport Ministry and Finance Ministry are  summoned to testify publicly their role in the “scandal of scandals”.

If no heads roll in the PKFZ scandal, then Malaysians must ensure that the heads of Barisan Nasional leaders must roll in the next general election!

(Speech at the DAP Public Forum “The RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – Will Heads Roll?” at the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 10th June 2009)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 June 2009, 10:46 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Orang Asli in Perak and the 6th Bushido Code

by
Augustine Anthony

I joked candidly that M. Kula, the Ipoh Barat Member of Parliament must have been an Orang Asli in his past life because of his concern and support for my work with the indigenous people of this country. He revved his 4WD on a precariously winding road in the secondary forest that was once ravished and ravaged by the greed of men and narrowly missed the ravine that would have taken all those in the vehicle into the river below.

“You need not be an Orang Asli headman in your past life”, M. Kula was quick with a reply without even looking at me. An instantaneous and poignant response expected of a man who confronts an assortment of rotting issues that emanates unwelcome stench in our midst.

I knew what he was trying to tell me.

The journey beyond that was a humourless exchange of thoughts about the promises and betrayal of Orang Asli for the last 52 years. Though living with physical independence but sadly chained and shackled with a mind of perpetual dependence.

There are no grand tales of the Orang Asli to tell, only the marginalization of this minority group of people. Walk the path of misery and the truth is scattered in all the lonely and desolate journeys into a forgotten world only known to the Orang Asli.

Our destination was a remote village, south of Perak. The inhabitants’ complaints were predictable. Their surrounding ancestral land and all their sources of livelihood are slowly but surely being removed from them, leaving behind a life of agony and uncertainty that promises skinned mother earth and its dust to bite.

A day after my visit to the remote village with M.Kula, I was forced by necessity and urgent appeal to be in another remote Orang Asli village, this time in Ulu Kampar.

One year after promises of road repairs and construction of a safer bridge that would make crossing the river leading to the Orang Asli village safe for children and women, all that remains now is a badly damaged bridge and a road leading to the village that invites danger and possibly death for any of its unlucky users.

The Orang Asli villagers’ complaint was that the loggers had moved in without a care and they now live in danger of land slides and dangerous earth movements which will put unnecessary fear during their foraging activities in the forests.

Why in a nutshell of our visit on the 1st Sunday of June 2009 and a day after? The answer lies 12 months before.

When the Pakatan Rakyat government was formed in 2008, one of the first things on the agenda was the formation of the Orang Asli Taskforce on Land Rights comprising, the majority of its members being the Orang Asli themselves.

Primarily the function and role of this taskforce is to move as quickly as possible to first identify the Orang Asli ancestral land and take all necessary steps to recognize, respect and protect these lands as Orang Asli ancestral land. Any forms of dealings, be it developments or otherwise, in these ancestral land would necessitate a free, prior and informed consent from the inhabitants of the particular parcel of land according to established international standards namely the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People  adopted by Malaysia in June 2006.

Ngeh Koo Ham, the then senior executive councillor and chairman of the taskforce went on to inform all the Orang Asli members of the taskforce that they are always welcome and free to use the conference halls at the State Secretariat Building anytime they needed to do so. This warm gesture led to meetings being conducted by the Orang Asli in one of the many conference halls from time to time.

It was a good feeling, watching the Orang Asli conducting meetings after meetings with many proposals and counter proposals on how best their ancestral land ought to be protected and preserved.

It was however a great feeling to silently appreciate an undeniable fact that the Pakatan Rakyat government under Ir. Nizar Jamaluddin was prepared to open up more decision making space for the Orang Asli thus promoting independence of thoughts and actions and giving hope for the Orang Asli to be partners in managing and sharing the riches of the state.

It was a near fairy tale beginning, one thought that would perpetuate into a “happily ever after story” but all that has come to an end by greed and betrayal of trust by some who are obsessed with their personal well being and interest and in the process corrupting their very thoughts and promises of service to the nation.

They conveniently forgot the urgent and apparent needs of those who are voiceless and dispossessed.  The plight of the Orang Asli is only one of them.

It is most disheartening to note that since the beginning of the constitutional crisis in Perak, the members of Taskforce established by the Pakatan Rakyat government have not been invited to meet and discuss all the problems plaguing the Orang Asli.

And the irony of it all is the fact that, the Selangor government had formed its taskforce and it may be modelled after the Perak Taskforce.

The non-functioning of the Perak Taskforce had created a questionable confidence in the state government in its effective administration which ought to ensure the needed promotion of the well being of all, especially the minority, marginalized and dispossessed groups that require urgent attention.

The fundamental principle of good governance that requires a duty to consult as its integral and important component is ignored and this has created serious questions as to the present government’s ability to administer the state for the good of all.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73
 explains elaborately and sufficiently when the need for a duty to consult is triggered and why the need for such consultation process ought to happen in the first place.

The government’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which must be understood generously.  While the asserted but unproven Aboriginal rights and title are insufficiently specific for the honour of the Crown to mandate that the Crown act as a fiduciary, the Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof.  The duty to consult and accommodate is part of a process of fair dealing and reconciliation that begins with the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond formal claims resolution.  The foundation of the duty in the Crown’s honour and the goal of reconciliation suggest that the duty arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.  Consultation and accommodation before final claims resolution preserve the Aboriginal interest and are an essential corollary to the honourable process of reconciliation that s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, demands.

And why honour?

Perhaps it will not be necessary for all our politicians to embark on the understanding of honour by slurping the succulent pages of the Bushido Code namely the
6th Bushido Code
:-

“The sense of honour, a vivid consciousness of personal dignity and worth, characterized the samurai. He was born and bred to value the duties and privileges of his profession. Fear of disgrace hung like a sword over the head of every samurai……..”  Nitobe Inazo

A Code of Honour?

Well, that will be too much to ask for from many of our local politicians consumed by pettiness and greed.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 June 2009, 7:04 am and is filed under
Augustine Anthony
,
Orang Asli
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The PwC report on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal  which PKA  has taken off the Internet

Since yesterday, the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report on
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ)
 has been taken off the Port Klang Authority (PKA) website.

As a national service,  the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal  is hereby restored online and available
here
 (
Malaysia-mirror
).

As I said, the PwC report is most unsatisfactory with its very narrow and restricted terms of reference, as noted by the PwC in its “Important Notice”, viz:

“The report is limited in scope. It is restricted to a position review of Port Klang Free Zone and Port Klang Free Zone Sdn. Bhd as set out in our Letter of Engagement dated 8th October 2008. We were not asked to and we have not advised on any strategy, valuation, legal implications, tax, operational effectiveness, staff competencies or process improvement. No investigation to detect any wrongdoing or audit to form an opinion on any financial information, including any forecasts and projections, has been undertaken.” (p.1)

Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has not been able to explain why he had decided on such a limited and restricted term of reference for  the PwC study, deliberately excluding from inquiry the conduct or misconduct of previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in the PKFZ scandal, as well as not asking PwC to detect any wrong doing or render advice on “any strategy, valuation, legal implications, tax, operational effectiveness, staff competencies or process improvement”?

The PwC report is even unable to furnish answers to five questions on the PKFZ scandal which I had posed to former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in Parliament in November 27, 2007 and repeated to Ong on 9th April 2009 after  he became Transport Minister, viz:

Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in middle of last year gave retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

Why no action had been taken against the two previous Transport Ministers, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support” – getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 June 2009, 5:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why is  Ong Tee Keat afraid of a Selangor Exco member sitting on the PKA Board and insist on having his own appointee representing Selangor State Govt?

My three questions (No.37 to No. 39 on the 13th day in the current series)  to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal today are:

1.	In his
blog
 from Beijing on 3rd June 2009, Ong wrote:

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

“  We are not sitting still and playing rhetoric. In the weeks and months ahead, my Ministry and PKA will put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers.”

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) submitted its “position review” report of the Port Klang Free Zone (PFKZ) on 3rd February 2009, which means Ong had more than four months to digest it.

Can he explain what he had done in these four months apart from “sitting still and playing rhetoric” to “put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers” with regard to the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and why he needs four months just to announce a blue-ribboned Task Force to make some more studies in the next two months to make recommendations “for follow-up actions” to be taken by the Government? Isn’t this a colossal waste of four months after the PwC report on PKFZ?

2.	In the same blog, Ong had written:

“PKA has been requested to submit fourteen (14) copies of the report as well as the appendices to members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and it will do so as soon as possible.”

At yesterday’s meeting of the PAC, which was attended by the PKA Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng,  PAC members were informed that the 14 sets of appendices were only available for them during  PAC meetings and not meant for them to take back for detailed study.

What is Ong afraid of that he is prepared to commit the parliamentary contempt of imposing such a ridiculous condition restricting access of the PwC Report appendices to PAC members which   make a total mockery of his ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament?

3.	Why is Ong so afraid of a Selangor Exco member sitting on the Port Klang Authority (PKA)  Board that he insists on having his  own appointee representing Selangor State Government instead of the Selangor State Government’s choice?

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s
proposal
to have a state exco member sitting on the PKA Board met with immediate and quite violent opposition from the PKA Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, who claimed:

“For me, there is no need for an exco to be in PKA. I’m an accountant by profession, I was a chairman of a public-listed logistic company before I resigned. I know the business well.”

Lee insisted that the Selangor state government’s representative on the PKA Board should continue to be a civil servant and not a State exco member.

Why is Lee reeking with fear at the very suggestion of a Selangor State exco member sitting on PKA Board?

Since Ong had been micro-managing every step, decision and pronouncement of the PKA Chairman, as evident in the past two weeks, one cannot be very wrong in assuming that Lee was speaking on behalf of the Minister in responding to Khalid’s proposal.

This is most extraordinary, where the Transport Minister, who is the appointing authority for the PKA Board members, wants to overrule the Selangor State Government as who should be the PKA Board member representing the Selangor State Government.

Why is Ong so afraid to allow a Selangor State Exco member to sit on the PKA Board?

Why is  Ong vetoing the Selangor State Exco as to who should represent the Selangor State Government on the PKA Board?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 June 2009, 12:56 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


OTK on the run from 3-questions-a-day on RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal

“Kit Siang ‘misled community’” – New Straits Times

“What’s your stand, Kit Siang asked”  – The Star

Screaming headlines attacking me are back in the Barisan Nasional-controlled mainstream media.

Suddenly the MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat himself has led a ferocious political  charge against me, challenging me to state my stand on the resolutions tabled by PAS at its muktamar last week and wanting me to apologise for misleading and betraying the Chinese community for supporting Pas.

This is the
New Straits Times report
:

He (Ong) said in the run-up to the general election, DAP had appealed to the Chinese community to support Pas by claiming that the Islamic party was harmless and only interested in setting up a welfare state.

However, the stand of Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang on unity talks with Umno has changed the situation.

“Now that the Pas has clearly stated its stand which is contrary to DAP’s stand, Lim should answer to the Chinese community.

“The people want to know: are you agreeable to Pas’ stand? If not, why did you ask the Chinese to throw their weight behind Pas even before you could make the right judgment about them?” he said at a press conference yesterday, adding that he was holding Lim responsible for misleading the community.

This is
the Star report
:

KUALA LUMPUR: MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has challenged DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang to state his stand on the resolutions tabled by PAS at its muktamar last week.

Ong said the people would like to know where he stood on the matter.

“PAS has stated its stand, which is contrary to DAP’s stand. Now, the people wish to know whether you (Kit Siang) are agreeable to this. What say you, Kit Siang?”

Ong said this during a press conference at his service centre in Taman Muda, Cheras, yesterday.

At the muktamar, PAS had proposed a unity government between Umno and PAS. It also called for the 30% bumiputra quota to be maintained, opposed the liberalisation of the 27 service sub-sectors announced by the Government and wanted Sisters in Islam banned.

Ong said Lim had appealed to the Chinese community to support PAS in the previous general elections and said the party would take the Chinese community’s needs and wishes into consideration.

“You asked the Chinese community to throw their weight behind PAS. We hold you responsible. You cannot say that your words are meant for the election period only,” he said.

I confess that I would have been very worried if this had happened ten years ago with me as the subject of such massive firepower by the MCA President, enlisting  the full support of the infamous mainstream media, totally blacking me out in a one-sided campaign of vilification painting me as a traitor of the Chinese in Malaysia and a stooge of PAS!

But this was the “old politics” of the past 50 years which had been decisively  rejected by Malaysians in the political tsunami of the March 8, 2008 general elections.

There are three reasons why, instead of being alarmed I feel amused and even pity for Ong for his politics of desperation in resorting to all the tricks-of-the-trade of “old politics” when Malaysians are ahead of the Ong-led MCA leadership in wanting to see the steady rise of “new politics”.

Firstly, the people know that Ong’s allegations are baseless for they are very clear about the DAP’s stand on various issues.

On the “unity government” issue,
I declared the DAP stand at the PAS muktamar
 when I was asked by the press. Dare Ong get a resolution passed by the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council banning Umno leaders from having any talks or contacts with PAS without specific approval by MCA?

On the  call for 30% bumiputra quota to be maintained and opposition of the liberalisation of the 27 service sub-sectors at the Pas muktamar, these do not in any manner affect or alter the DAP’s stands which are different from these calls.

On the call for the banning of the Sisters in Islam, I immediately twittered my reaction the very same day, when
I said it was “shocking, ridiculous”
.

On 9th June, I received an email from Maria Abdullah, senior manager of Sisters in Islam, asking my endorsement of a joint statement by civil society on the attack from PAS against SIS.

She said that my “support for the statement will mean a lot to the democratic space that civil society, and I believe this is also what DAP is fighting for”.

The following was the draft joint statement:

“JOINT STATEMENT BY MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON PAS RESOLUTION TO BAN SISTERS IN ISLAM

“We the undersigned are deeply disturbed by the call on the part of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) to have Sisters in Islam (SIS) banned and its members rehabilitated should its activities be determined to be contrary to the Islamic shariah. It is apparent to us that in making the call in the manner that it has, PAS has already formed the view that SIS should be banned and its activities brought to an end.

“While we respect the freedom of members of PAS to associate in a manner that they consider appropriate or warranted as well as their freedom to express a view in association on such matters as they see fit, the members of SIS, or any other organization for that matter, are equally guaranteed those freedoms. No one person or organization has a monopoly over the right to express views on matter of public importance. The call to silence SIS and send its members for rehabilitation is an act of violence against those freedoms and their constitutional underpinnings. It also lends itself to further closure of the already narrow space of public discourse and debate that a slew of anti-expression laws have allowed Malaysians.

“For Malaysia to mature into the democracy that Malaysians aspire to, it is vital that diversity, even of views, be protected and nurtured. Respect for the freedoms guaranteed to all Malaysians by the Federal Constitution, be they members of PAS or any other organization or simply individuals, is crucial to this endeavor.

“The demand for action against SIS culminating in a ban is not easily reconciled with PAS public rhetoric in favour of a more democratic and inclusive Malaysia. On the contrary, the demand is wholly anti-democratic. We reiterate that though members of PAS are entitled to their views, the call for the banning of SIS is wholly unacceptable. As a matter of principle, the question of banning any organization purely for their views should not arise at all. Differences of views must be respected and, if at all, be resolved through constructive engagement.

“In view of this, we urge PAS to reconsider its position and take such steps as are necessary to retract the call for action against SIS.”

 This was my immediate reply to Maria:”

“As you would have known from my twitter, I  have described the PAS resolution calling for  the ban of SIS and rehabilitation of its members as ‘shocking’ and ‘ridiculous’.

“DAP and I fully support the petition and you can make this public although we are not signatory to this petition concerning another member of Pakatan Rakyat.”

Did Ong endorse the civil society petition against Pas on the SIS issue?

I do not want to play politics here, or I will
ask Ong why MCA is still in Barisan Nasional
 when three out of four  who responded to his question on his blog had told MCA to get out of BN?

Or why MCA had not learnt from the lessons of the March 8 political tsunami last year and continues to play subservient role to Umno in Barisan Nasional, whether on ketuanan Melayu; abandonment of the Bangsa Malaysia concept and its replacement with 1Malaysia which nobody knows its real meaning;  undermining of the doctrine of separation of powers with the executive usurping the powers of the judiciary and the legislatures; greed for political power in supporting the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak; last but not least, the role of the MCA leadership in the “scandal of scandals”, the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

The second reason why I am not alarmed by Ong’s reversion to “old politics” using the mainstream media in his political onslaught on me is because the mainstream media have lost great credibility and authority in the past decade – and very few Malaysians are going to be influenced by the falsehoods and half-truths against Pakatan Rakyat leaders published in these media, whether New Straits Times or Star.

The third reason is the most potent of all – Malaysians know that the whole objective of the Ong political attack on me is to distract attention from my daily three questions on the PKFZ scandal.

It is more pertinent for Ong Tee Keat  to  explain why he is on the run from my “three questions a day” on the
RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal
 instead of trotting out “old politics” which had been rejected by Malaysians in last year’s political tsunami.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 June 2009, 3:18 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
MCA
,
Media
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAC inquiry into PKFZ scandal – Azmi Khalid should disqualify himself

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid announced after the PAC meeting this morning that the PAC would not summon four key personalities in the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
, viz: the two former Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, former Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman and currently Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung and the former PKFZ general manager O.C.Phang.

This is a most extraordinary decision despite requests by Pakatan Rakyat MPs on the PAC for the four to be summoned to appear before the PAC.

Azmi Khalid should disqualify himself and step aside in the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ  scandal because of conflict of interest as he was Minister in the Cabinet which decided on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout in July 2007.

I am shocked that despite the PAC meeting for the second day on the PKFZ scandal, the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has still refused to release the appendices of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report on the PKFZ scandal  to PAC members, allowing only restricted  access to the appendices during PAC meetings when PAC members should be allowed a set of the appendices each for further study and research by themselves and  their respective staff.

This Ministerial restriction  makes a total mockery of parliamentary responsibility and accountability of both the Transport Minister as well as PKA and should be deplored in the strongest possible terms.

Unless Ong revokes this restriction immediately, allowing every  PAC member  a set  of the appendices of the  PwC report on the PKFZ, I will propose when Parliament meets on Monday that the 83 Pakatan Rakyat MPs submit a joint motion to censure Ong for denying PAC members the right to have full, free and unfettered access to the PwC report on the PKFZ, including the appendices, and in the process impeding and obstructing the PAC from discharging its duties.

(Speech at the Ipoh Barat dinner-dialogue “Political Crisis – What Next” at Florex Restaurant, Ipoh)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 June 2009, 11:24 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Will OTK clip the wings and tie the hands of Paul Low and his corporate governance committee to prevent them from conducting a full probe into past PKFZ misdeeds, corrupt practices and abuses of power?

My three questions (No.40 to No. 42 on the 14th day in the current series) to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

No. 1. Does Ong agree that Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman
Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid
 should disqualify himself and step aside in the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ  scandal because of conflict of interest as Azmi was Minister in the Cabinet which decided on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout in July 2007 and that the entire PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal should be conducted under the leadership of the PAC Deputy Chairman, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw?

No. 2. I have given notice to the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin to move an urgent motion of definite public importance when Parliament reconvenes on Monday on the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.

Does Ong agree that Parliament should have a special urgent debate on the PKFZ scandal on Monday?

No. 3. Speaking  at the DAP Public Forum “The RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – Will Heads Roll?” in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday and commenting on the special task force and two committees which Ong had set up as a follow-up to the PwC report on the PKFZ, I had described the PKFZ scandal not just “a can of worms” but “a swamp of crocodiles”. I added:

“What happens when you throw eminent and credible Malaysians in their respective professional fields into a ‘swamp of crocodiles’? Will they be able to discipline the crocodiles or will they end up eaten up by the crocodiles?

“I worry and fear for the reputation of these eminent and credible Malaysians as it will be a great pity if their standing and credibility are soiled and sullied by their inability to straighten out the PKFZ ‘scandal of scandals’!”

My reservations and concerns  have been proved right in a matter of 36 hours.

In the Sun today, in the report “
Probe on political links
 – ALL PKA’S DEALINGS REGARDING PKFZ TO COME UNDER SCRUTINY”, the newly-appointed chairman of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) ad hoc corporate governance committee, Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan announced that his committee was committed to probe all the past “misdeeds” resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, and ‘the areas to be covered include possible conflict of interest and the authority’s limits”.

Low, who is Transparency International Malaysia president,  said his committee would probe “all dealings” of the PKA and PKFZ “to detect political interference that could have allowed questionable decisions to be made”.

But this is what Ong would not allow, making it crystal clear in a Star report under the headline:
“Ong: it’s not a probe”
.

Ong  said yesterday that the task force and committees which were formed in connection with the PKFZ  issue are to recommend “cures” for the project and not conduct probes.

He stressed:  “We have had enough of investigations and that is why we came up with the PKFZ reports.”

The third question today I want to ask Ong is whether he would bar and ban Low from probing into past misdeeds, misuse of powers, conflict of interests, corrupt practices or all forms of malpractices which landed the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal though it started off as a RM1.1 billion project in 2002 under Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik before quadrupling more than four times to RM4.6 billion in 2007 under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister.

Will Ong clip the wings and tie the hands of Low and the committee on corporate governance to prevent them from conducting a full probe into the past PKFZ misdeeds?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 June 2009, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib must deal with corruption

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz
 | MySinchew

PRIME MINISTER Najib Abdul Razak has done it again. His high income vision for Malaysia, following so closely on the heels of his yet to be fully charted 1Malaysia has caught the nation off guard.

Najib, while remaining largely uninspiring as a leader, is at least aspirational. Nothing wrong with indulging in a little fantasy from time to time, but Najib has to learn to control his propensity for grandstanding. I don’t suppose it is too rude to ask Najib to spell out in the clearest possible terms what precisely he has in mind when he talks about 1Malaysia. Is it fair to ask us to support a concept that he has difficulty in articulating to our satisfaction?

Najib cannot be so naïve that he cannot see what the inherent problems are in the way of turning Malaysia into a high income nation. For starters, a country such as ours which has been so mismanaged these last thirty years in all the important areas of governance is a most unlikely candidate for the High Income Country Stake.

That does not mean that we have not the potential; indeed we have but, I am afraid we have squandered it beyond belief by putting in place investment, trade and industrialisation policies that have tended towards excessive, crippling control rather than encouragement to compete globally.

As long as the spirit of the New Economic Policy is kept alive, competitiveness, the key to growing the economic cake, will remain on the back burner.

Najib and his UMNO colleagues may be dismissive of the debilitating effects of corruption on economic growth that will turn a middle income country such as Malaysia into a high income one. Let us look at countries at the top of the economic league table – countries that enjoy high income status. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, and closer to home Singapore, Hong Kong. Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Australia are among the least corrupt countries in the world.

The message is clear. Corrupt countries like Malaysia may continue to dream: the reality is that if they are happy to bed down with corruption, there is no hope in hell or heaven, take your pick, that they will ever achieve high income status. Corruption is the antithesis of best practices, and as we have seen time and time again, all over the world, they are mutually exclusive.

Najib needs to fully understand the prerequisites for economic sustainability. The government under his stewardship must adopt rules, and values, based policies underpinned by systems of checks and balances as a minimum citizens’ charter. Key institutions such as the judiciary, the office of the attorney-general, the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission have to be revamped to ensure that they perform their duties and functions in accordance with the law.

An incorruptible independent judiciary goes a long way in generating confidence within the business community. It says a lot about the reputation of the judges in our country when disputing parties prefer to seek arbitration elsewhere if they can help it. We need to clean up our act quickly as this is the only way we can show the world that we mean business, and that we have the best justice system that money cannot buy.

While it is necessary to rebuild our institutions at the earliest possible opportunity, more to the point is the need to put men and women of integrity in charge. Integrity is not restricted to any one race in our multi-racial Malaysia. A point often ignored is that if we put crooks and scoundrels in charge, we are putting the future of our country at very considerable risk, and yet the record of government management remains one of unbridled corrupt excesses because the government apparently is more at home with the crooks. The records speak for themselves.

A few years ago, at an anti-corruption conference in Cambodia, I had the honour of sharing the rostrum with Jim Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank. It was his last overseas appearance before stepping down after a long and distinguished career at the WB. He was asked by a reporter what three bits of advice he had for Cambodia in its search for sustainable economic development. He said advice number one, fight corruption; advice number two, fight corruption, and advice number three, fight corruption!

So, Najib, the solution is staring you in the face, and all that is required of you is unadulterated political will. When as a result of systemic corruption government projects are conservatively estimated to cost 30% more than in a non-corrupt country, then is it any wonder foreign contractors concerned about ethical business bypass our country? We need a complete review of our systems of governance because there is much that has gone wrong with the way we manage our affairs. Of course, the tragedy is that there is none so blind as will not see.

In summary, therefore, a high income status is about competitiveness, open and accountable policies. It is also about sustainable economic and social development, equality of opportunity, respect for cultural diversity, human rights and public duty in the public interest. Is Najib up to it?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 June 2009, 2:16 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ scandal – OTK should cancel overseas trip and not emulate Kong Choy to run overseas to avoid parliamentary accounting

On Thursday, I gave notice to Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin that I will move an emergency motion in Parliament on Monday to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM12.5 billion  Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

The notice under S.O. (18)(2) to move a motion of urgent definite public importance in the  Dewan Rakyat on Monday, 15th June 2009, is as follows:

“That the House gives leave to  MP for Ipoh Timor YB Lim Kit Siang to adjourn the House under S.O. 18 (1) to discuss a definite matter of  urgent public importance –  the establishment of a  Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

“The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) audit report into the PKFZ made public on May 28, 2009 was most unsatisfactory as its terms of reference were restricted to “a position review” instead of wide-ranging inquiry as to how a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Tun Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, could more than quadruple to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister in 2007 and now further doubled to RM7.453 billion and heading towards the figure of RM12.5 billion under the present Transport Minister!

“Although the Prime Minister had on 29th May publicly directed the Transport Minister to answer every question raised by any party on the PwC report on PKFZ, and I had been  posing three questions a day on the PKFZ since 30th May, no satisfactory answers had been forthcoming from the Transport Minister.

“RM12.5 billion is not chicken-feed. It is equivalent to five RM2.5 billion BMF scandals. RM12.5 billion can be used to build 25 universities at RM500 million each; 125 hospitals at RM100 million each; 1,250 schools at RM100 million each; 312,500 low-cost houses at RM40,000 each or give everyone of the 27 million Malaysians regardless of age a payout of RM338!

“Only a Royal Commission of Inquiry, where previous  Transport Ministers, PKA Chairmen and Board members, as well as the relevant government officials in  can do justice  for accountability and integrity in the ‘scandal of scandals’.”

One of the major personalities responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, former Transport Minister and MCA President, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, has said that he is  prepared to be summoned by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to assist in the investigations into the PKFZ scandal.

This is no credit to MACC whatsoever, for it shows that nobody is worried by any MACC investigation as the MACC in its short life of five months has proved that it is no different from its predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) as basically a toothless tiger as far as investigation into scandals involving top Barisan Nasional personalities are concerned.

This is why the instruction by the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng to submit a copy of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report on PKFZ to the MACC is so farcical and ridiculous!

Is Liong Sik prepared to support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

Is Liong Sik prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to assist it in its investigation into the PKFZ scandal?

Is Liong Sik in agreement that the PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid should disqualify himself and step aside in the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal because of conflict of interest as he was Minister in the Cabinet which decided on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout in July 2007, and that the PAC investigation into the PKFZ scandal should be conducted by the PAC Deputy Chairman, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw?

In fact, Azmi should appear before the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal as a witness to explain his role in the Cabinet in July 2007 in supporting a RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, instead of leading a PAC inquiry into PKFZ.

In this connection, I call on Ong Tee Keat not to emulate his predecessor as Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, who ran away overseas to avoid a parliamentary accounting of the PKFZ in November 2007.

I understand that Ong Tee Keat is running overseas to avoid having to stand up in Parliament next week to account for the PKFZ scandal, which has become even worse than the time of Liong Sik and Kong Choy as Transport Ministers – ballooning from RM1.1  billion in 2002 to RM4.6 billion in 2007 and now reaching RM7.453 billion and heading towards RM12.453 billion.

Ong is not stupid. He knows that the PKFZ scandal, now the mother of all scandals in Malaysia, will  be the No. 1 topic when Parliament reconvenes on Monday, and he deliberately schedules an overseas trip to avoid having to be in Parliament.

As MCA President, Ong should not emulate Kong Choy to run away from his Ministerial responsibility of parliamentary accountability.  No Umno or MIC Minister had ever done such a thing. Why are MCA Ministers making a habit of scooting overseas to run away from a parliamentary questioning?

Ong should cancel his overseas trip, stay behind, even give his agreement for an emergency debate on the PKFZ scandal on Monday, and explain to Parliament and the nation what has he done on the PKFZ scandal in his 15 months as Transport Minister.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 June 2009, 11:05 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Public forum – RM12 billion PKFZ scandal : In BN we trust?

Public forum : “RM12 billion PKFZ scandal : In BN we trust?”

Date : 16th June 2009, Tuesday

Time   : 8:00pm

Venue : Dewan Hamzah, Majlis Perbandaran Klang (
MAP
)

Speakers :

Lim Kit Siang
, DAP Parliamentary Leader, MP for Ipoh Timur

Tunku Abdul Aziz
, DAP Vice Chairman, Senator

Charles Santiago
, DAP Selangor Vice Chairman, MP for Klang

R. Nadeswaran
, The Sun – Citizen Nades columnist

Terence Fernandez
, The Sun – Down 2 Earth columnist

Organizer : Charles Santiago, Member of Parliament Klang

Enquiries: Sarah (016-6267797) or Yap (012-2658448)

View
DAP’s Point of Interest
 in a larger map

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 June 2009, 3:58 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PwC report on RM12.5b PKFZ and appencices – OTK should ensure every MP gets a set

My three questions (No.43 to No. 45 on the 15th day in the current series) to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal today are:

No. 1.  – Will Ong cancel his overseas trip to be in Parliament to account for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal instead of emulating his predecessor as Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy who ran away overseas to avoid parliamentary accounting on the PKFZ in November 2007?

No. 2 – Former MCA President and Transport Minister Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik has said he is  prepared to be summoned by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to assist in the investigations into the PKFZ scandal. Does he agree that Liong Sik should not only co-operate with the MACC but also the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

 No. 3 – As Parliament is periodically asked to approve allocations for the multi-billion ringgit bailout of PKFZ, is Ong ensuring that  every MP gets a copy of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report of PKFZ, together with the appendices, to ensure that there could be an informed debate and discussion of the issue in Parliament?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 June 2009, 3:06 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


UMNO is no bully in BN? Then why instant removal of poll on  MCA President’s blog where 78.1 per cent  or 2409 out of 3084 persons want  MCA out of Barisan Nasional!

The
instant removal
of the poll “Should MCA leave BN”  on the blog of the MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat where 78.1 per cent or 2,409 out of 3,084 persons polled want MCA out of the Barisan Nasional reminds me of last October’s MCA General Assembly.

In his opening speech, the then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denied  that UMNO was a “bully” party in the Barisan Nasional.

Abdullah’s
denial
, responding to the earlier speech of the outgoing MCA President, Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting’s  “Umno is bully in Barisan Nasional”, made the  newspaper frontpage headlines like “
UMNO IS NO BULLY”
 (New Sunday Times 19.10.08) and
“Umno bukan pembuli: PM”
(Berita Minggu).

If UMNO is no bully in BN, then why the instant removal of the poll “Should MCA leave BN” on  MCA President’s blog immediately after the UMNO President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak expressed his displeasure at such a poll in the MCA President’s blog?

Although
Najib
 was very diplomatic, saying that the MCA President’s online poll “Should MCA leave BN” was “an academic exercise” and that “As far as I am concerned, MCA has no intention of leaving the BN”, there can be no mistaking of his displeasure.

What have  both Najib and Ong to say about the one-sided result in the poll, with 78.1 per cent or 2,409 out of 3,084 persons polled want MCA out of Barisan Nasional?

The latest poll results were published in today’s Utusan Malaysia before the poll was unceremoniously removed from Ong’s blog!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 June 2009, 4:02 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dengue – shouldn’t Health DG be sacked?

Letters

by
ABJ

Here we go again. DG Merican laments yet again that the source of Malaysia’s entire healthcare problems lie with private clinics and hospitals as reported by Annie Freeda Cruez, the New Straits Times’ healthcare correspondent “extraordinaire”.

Incredible as it may seem, DG Merican with all the healthcare resources of the Malaysian government at his beck and call, has chosen to blame, yet again, private clinics and hospitals as the main cause for the rising death toll of dengue in  Malaysia. Why are we not surprised?  What next? Blame the H1N1 on airlines or the virus itself?

Merican appears to have forgotten, that the government’s own understaffed, overcrowded  health and rural clinics conveniently close their doors at 4.30pm on the dot driving the hapless population to private clinics, if there is still one that has not closed, in that locality.

And if there is one in a rural setting that actually opens for 24 hours patients come in late as a result of costs. Patients who come late with all their attendant symptoms get referred to a government hospital quickly.

But Merican of all people should know that getting them to a government hospital that has the resources of a functioning 24-hour laboratory or platelets with a proper ambulance service and an ICU bed on standby is easier said then done.

Please come to Kota Kinabalu and we will take you through the mayhem some people term “makeshift government services” here. In fact no need to blame private clinics here because they have indeed become part and parcel of government service.

DG Merican needs to wake-up, stop his lowly politicking and move away from the blame culture so deeply embedded in his DNA.  Dengue, like almost any other vector borne disease, is all about prevention, not treatment. Merican’s very statement gives him away for the incompetent fool that he is threatening to become. Any other country would have given him the sack instantly. But sigh, we are in Malaysia and so we must tolerate and unfortunately respect his idiosyncrasies too.

Merican. Where are all your health staff? Yes, all those makciks and kakaks who want a cushy 9 to 5 job and refuse to go to the kampongs, shoplots, factories, schools and housing estates to campaign, educate and enforce so that all breeding grounds for this deadly disease are eradicated, assuming of course you have moved away from the “blame the public” doctrine.

Or are they not there at all because, you have channeled all of them and the money the wrong direction into some useless program like halal vaccine or something like that. Is the whole southern region still sharing one useless fogging machine to kill these mosquitoes? And do you still not know that fogging is actually almost useless in today’s battle against dengue.

Private clinics and hospitals have always been the favorite bogeymen for anything and everything that goes wrong in the Ministry of Health ever since the Merican and Chua Soi Lek show began in 2004.

Even Parliament was scammed by these two clowns  when MPs were misled into believing that private clinics and hospitals were the source of all Malaysia’s healthcare problems resulting in the passage of yet another new Act.

Perhaps, Merican should use the services of the almost 50 doctors doing their fault finding and blackmailing rounds of private clinics and deploy them instead to fight the mortal dengue menace.

Perhaps Malaysians should engage in a bit of fault finding themselves and ask how this country has descended to such horrific low standards in public healthcare. This Ministry of Hell, long run by a politically lost party which doesn’t have the confidence of the public compounded further now by an incompetent DG is being hit by one health disaster after another repeatedly.

There is a pattern here. And that pattern is – everytime a major health issue arises, please go raid a clinic or pharmacy and take the attention off the issue. It’s only a matter of time before H1N1, malaria, TB, yellow fever, cancer, diabetes, hypertension and ISS (Intellectual Stupidity Syndrome) is also blamed upon on private clinics.

It’s been 5 years running that DG Merican has fooled the public and the government including the cabinet that all is well at this disastrous Ministry tarnishing the government’s credibility in the process. Isn’t it time Najib or whoever is responsible in running this government put an end to this DG’s charade?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 June 2009, 7:44 pm and is filed under
Health
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s two RM67 billion economic stimulus packages are both failures  – forecast of  3.5%  GDP growth in 2009  ending up in Malaysian economy shrinking  by 4-5 per cent

Datuk Seri Najib Razak is nearing his first two-and-a-half months as the new Prime Minister in Malaysia, but he does not seem to be able to do anything right, as he is still dogged by a deepening crisis of credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership.

This is why  Najib should be brave enough to cut the Gordian Knot of this crisis of confidence and ask for a vote of confidence as the first item of parliamentary agenda  when Parliament reconvenes on Monday.

Whether on the political, economic, educational or nation-building front, Najib has still to deliver his first accomplishment.

Politically, Najib inflicted on himself a deep and grievous wound in orchestrating the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

Economically, Najib’s two RM67 billion economic stimulus packages are both failures as evident by the downward revision of 3.5%  GDP growth in 2009  in the first RM7 billion package last November  to the current estimate that Malaysian economy will shrink by 4-5 per cent.

In a period of nine months, the Malaysian economy has plunged from a government forecast of 2009 GDP growth of 5.4% (2009 Budget presented in Parliament on 29th August 2008) to 3.5% (Najib’s first RM7 billion economic stimulus package in Parliament on 4th November 2008), then down to the range of minus 1.0 per cent to 1.0 per cent (Najib’s second RM60 billion economic stimulus package in Parliament on March 10, 2009) to a contraction by four or five per cent for the whole of this year (announced by Najib on 28th May 2009).

On the law-and-order front, Malaysians, visitors and investors have never felt so unsafe in the streets, public places or even the privacy of their homes because of galloping crime – yet we have a Inspector-General of Police who is so cut off from the people’s basic needs that he could misallocate scarce police resources to harass peaceful demonstrators lighting candles, wearing black or even singing birthday song instead of going after the real criminals!

In education and development of human resources to build a knowledge-based economy, meritocracy is still a bad word – with the annual “begging” session when SPM students with 11As, 12As, 13As, 14As are denied Public Service Department scholarships as compared with applicants with 6As.

If reminders are needed that far from transforming into a developed nation, Malaysia risks becoming a failed state,  there are examples galore from the recent collapse of the roof of the RM300 million 50,000-capacity Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Gong Badak within a year of completion to the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal!

Najib has also failed to send out the right signals that his motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is not just an  empty slogan but driving and living principles of his administration.

What 1Malaysia is Najib talking about when he is the architect as to why there is no 1Perak, when he cannot debunk the equation of his 1Malaysia with 1Black Malaysia, and when there is no 1Barisan Nasional, with 78.1 per cent or 2,409 out of 3,084 persons polled in the blog of the MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, want MCA  to get out of the Barisan Nasional?

(Speech  at the Serdang DAP Branch’s 42nd anniversary dinner in Seri Kembangan, Selangor on Saturday,13th June 2009)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 June 2009, 11:40 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Education
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s indecision to introduce genuine liberalisation major cause of present calamitous economic situation

By
Dr. Chen Man Hin

PM NAJIB MUST INTENSIFY HIS EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY QUICKLY OR THE PEOPLE WILL SUFFER MORE WITH INCREASING UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF POORER BUSINESS ACTIVITY, CLOSURE OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, UNEMPLOYMENT  AND LOWER INCOME TO BUY FOOD AND ESSENTIALS FOR THE FAMILY

The world economic credit crunch and economic downturn has begun to create havoc for the malaysian economy, and this despite the announcement of two stimulus financial packages and liberalisation of services.

On becoming Prime Minister,  Datuk Seri Najib Razak proudly announced his 1 Malaysia, People First and Performance Now program. He was quite sure that the economy would not be affected by the global crunch.

However, with  the fanfare and the shouting  over, the economy has not shown signs of getting better.  On the contrary it is getting worse.

PM Najib has recently admitted that ‘Malaysia had experienced a 6.2 percent contraction in the GDP in the first quarter of this year, with a similar contraction expected for the second quarter.’

He revised the contraction for the whole year 2009 to be from -1% to a contraction between 4 and 5 per cent. Independent analysts expect a 7% contraction.

SEVERE CONTRACTION OF BUSINESS INVESTMENTS

The global recession has caused a sharp drop of manufacturing exports, causing many factories to close down.

The hope for foreign and domestic investments to counter a recession has fallen flat. Najib revealed that last year there was a drop of 21% in foreign investments. For this year, he expected FDIs (foreign direct investments) to drop by 50 – 60%.  Foreign direct investments are shrinking around the world and Malaysia has to compete with other countries of the world for a diminishing foreign investments cake.

Najib made a high-profile visit to China. Other than signing a plethora of MOUs, he did not bring back any substantial foreign investments.

The main reason for  the failure to attract FDIs  is the New Economic Policy, which has driven away foreigners who were initially attracted to invest in Malaysia.

NAJIB’S INDECISION TO INTRODUCE  GENUINE  LIBERALISATION TO THE ECONOMY IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE PRESENT CALAMITOUS ECONOMIC SITUATION.

He has offered some cosmetic measures like liberalising the services sector which are useful but will not attract foreign investments that really matter. The reason why Malaysia and United States of America could not reach a free trade agreement (FTA) is the matter of procurement, which the NEP cannot liberalise, as it is a policy matter to protect bumiputra investors.

The Prime Minister is in a dilemma which he openly admitted. If he were to remove the NEP, he would be damned by the bumiputras. If he does not, he would be damned by foreign investors.

NATIONAL INTEREST AND ECONOMIC SURVIVAL MUST COME FIRST. THE FIRST AND BASIC PRINICIPLE IS  THAT THE ECONOMIC CAKE MUST GROW FAST IN ORDER TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PORTIONS FOR ALL TO BENEFIT FROM.

40 years of the NEP has revealed the stark fact, that the national economy has suffered when compared to other Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Their economies have been leaping forward but Malaysia has been limping along.

40 years ago Malaysia had the second highest per capita income in Asia after Japan. Today Malaysia is way behind with a nominal pci of US$6,000 compared with S Korea USR$19,000,  Taiwan US$18,000,  Hongkong US$30,000 and Singapore US$34,000. Bear in mind that Malaysia has vast natural resources with zero resources for Hong Kong and Singapore. Without the natural resources, Malaysia would be a banana republic.

PM NAJIB MUST ENGINEER AN ECONOMIC POLICY THAT WILL ALLOW FOR UNLIMITED GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, SO THAT ALL MALAYSIANS CAN ENJOY A BETTER LIFE. GROW THE ECONOMY FIRST AND THERE WILL BE ENOUGH FOR DISTRIBUTION..

Najib’s visit to China should have opened his eyes and found out what made China tick to become the third largest economy after USA and Japan. The secret of China’s giant leap from 1974 as a poor Asian couintry to become an economic giant lies in its policy of liberalisation and a market economy. It gave up its socialist economy for a market economy like Usa and Japan.

MALAYSIA MUST LIBERALISE AND GIVE UP THE OLD NEP FOR A LIBERAL MODERN MARKET ECONOMY AND JOIN THE WORLD OF DEVELOPED NATIONS.

FOR BUMIPUTRAS, THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THEM PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE FOR THE POOR AND UNDERPRIVILEGED, EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE TO WEAN THEM AWAY FROM HANDOUTS, AND LEARN TO BE ACHIEVERS AND WINNERS.

THE DAP URGES THE PRIME MINISTER TO DECIDE AND ACT NOW OR MALAYSIA WILL SINK DEEPER INTO THE MORASS OF POVERTY AND ECONOMIC RECESSION.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 June 2009, 7:29 am and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.