Whole reward-punishment system becomes topsy-turvy if a deal can be struck with Shahrizat’s family

What is the response of the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development and  Wanita UMNO leader Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil to the advice of her Cabinet colleague, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that her family repay the RM250 million government loan obtained for the scandal-ridden National Feedlot Centre (NFC) project?

Would she be telling the Cabinet meeting tomorrow her response to Nazri’s advice who had claimed that this was the best solution to put an end to the ongoing controversy without forcing her resignation as Minister?

Equally important, does the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak as well as the other Cabinet Ministers agree with Nazri?

Nazri’s shocking suggestion has raised many questions as well as evoked various  scenarios.

Firstly, can a deal be struck with anyone facing or likely to face criminal charges for being caught in a sticky political situation?

Retired Kuala Lumpur CID chief, Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, has accusd Nazri of trying to strike a deal with Shahrizat and her family by asking her to repay the RM250 million federal loan for NFC.

He stressed that even if the minister’s family repaid the entire amount of the loan, it could not indemnify her family members who would continue to be liable for the offences of financial abuses and misappropriations committed by them.

Or as a
commentator
 on my blog has argued very cogently:

“Nazri is talking about repatriation of ill-gotten gains. Even if it does happen, it will not absolve wrongdoing committed by relevant parties at 1st instance but may mitigate severity of their punishment for that wrong doing….

“However when it comes to holding public office, it is hard to see how that can be maintained at status quo when abuse, if any, has been conceded by the very act of repatriating the fruits of that abuse!

“Surely one cannot set a precedent where a public office holder can abuse his/her office and risk nothing except only returning/repatriating ill gotten gains as a way not only to escape punishment but to hold on to that office/position abused!

“Like that the whole reward-punishment system becomes topsy-turvy and soon the attitude of ‘nothing ventured nothing gained’ will be prevalent as far as abusing public positions goes when there is no cost but only benefit to venture a wrongdoing!

“Isn’t it so if the best is when one gets to keep the ill gotten gains (if not caught) (a real happy ending), and the worst a wrong doer faces when (bad luck) he/she is caught is just having to give up ill gotten gains (without punishment) (a not so unhappy ending)?”

Secondly, is Nazri privy to information that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC), the Police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers have reached the final conclusion that neither Shahrizat nor her family members had been guilty of any offences under any laws of the land after the investigations into the NFC scandal, that they have not committed any legal wrongs although their conduct may be morally and politically reprehensible.

If so, this reflects  most adversely on the independence, integrity and professionalism of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the two enforcement agencies, MACC and the police.

Otherwise,how could Nazri be so presumptuous as to say:

“She does not have to resign. The main thing is, return the money to the government.

“But after this, it is better to use open tender to avoid such unwanted incidents.”

Thirdly,  was Nazri just reflecting the thinking of the Najib UMNO leadership – that the whole matter can be “covered up” if Shahrizat repays the RM250 million government loan. If so, isn’t this a gross interference with the independence, integrity and professionalism of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the police and the MACC, and a travesty of the rule of law, as it is no less than a very clear signal to the relevant  authorities of the “wishes” of the government political leadership of the day.

It is most unfortunate that one collateral damage of the NFC scandal is that  the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is likely to be  one of the casualties.

NFCorp chief executive officer Wan Shahinur Izmi Salleh has made the shocking public claim that the NFCorp has been given a completely blank cheque to do what it likes with the RM250 million government loan, as “NFC retains the prerogative to invest the funds in the best interests of the company”.

Although PAC member and MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua has said that the PAC had been told by a senior Finance Ministry official at its meeting in November that the NFC loan could not be used for purposes other than what had  been specificed, that the purpose of each drawdown must be clearly stated and that the ministry had never received an application from NFCorp to purchase property, the PAC has not sighted nor verified the NFC loan agreement and other relevant documentation.

MPs from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have a right to expect the PAC to inform them of the outcome of PAC examination into the NFC loan agreement and other relevant documentation and establish the true facts of the case.

Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid would have to explain to Parliament when it reconvenes on March 12 why he had refused to convene a PAC meeting since its last PAC meeting on November 23 to have sight on the NFC loan agreement and other relevant documentation so as to fully discharge its PAC duties.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 3:43 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Critique of the ETP: Part 4 – Enterprise – Private enterprises are rejecting the ETP

By
Dr. Ong Kian Ming BSc (LSE), MPhil (Cantab), PhD (Duke)

Teh Chi-Chang, CFA, BSc (Warwick), MBA (Cantab)

Refsa

The very basis of the ETP is in jeopardy.
 A key foundation of the ETP is that the private sector is to lead the massive RM1.4 trillion of investments needed to catapult Malaysia to high-income status by 2020. But the 35% private sector share of ETP investments to date is far below target. The RM114 billion investments by government and GLCs are nearly double the RM62 billion invested by the private sector.

PEMANDU obfuscating again.
 PEMANDU responds that private sector investments are closer to the targeted 60% share if big-ticket public sector projects like the MRT are excluded. This is intellectually dishonest. The ETP Roadmap Report includes such projects in its desired investment mix. There is no justification to exclude them. It is akin to giving a recipe for a rich chocolate cake and then saying it is not fattening if you exclude the calories from the butter.

Is PEMANDU attempting to cover up tepid private sector response?
 We would expect the big-ticket, long-gestation infrastructure projects to be prioritised in the early days of the ETP. However, PEMANDU has chosen to obfuscate rather than clarify. Is it because the gap between the desired 60% private sector target and the current 30% is unlikely to be bridged?

Grade ‘E’ for developing private sector enterprise.
  PEMANDU includes big-ticket projects when it trumpets its headline numbers, and excludes them when inconvenient. If private sector investment is lagging, hiding behind different sets of data will not take us to high-income status. PEMANDU must take the bull by the horns. Explaining the issues and the remedial measures being taken is crucial if economic transformation is to be achieved.

Has the ETP fostered private enterprise?

A key foundation of the ETP
1
 is that the private sector is to lead the massive amounts of investments needed to catapult Malaysia to high-income status by 2020. The ETP Roadmap Report says:

“the projects and opportunities identified will be mainly funded from private sources. The Government’s role will be that of an active facilitator of the private sector through resource and policy support, rather than the principal driver, as it has been in the past.”
2

This is consistent with the ‘government knows best era is over’ ethos of the government’s other economic plans including the 10th Malaysia Plan and the New Economic Model.

The ETP says RM1.4 trillion of investment is required to take Malaysia to high-income status by 2020. Of this, 92% is to come from the private sector with the balance 8% from the public sector (the government).

Note that the ETP considers government-linked companies (GLCs) as ‘private sector’ and includes them in the 92% private sector total. We take issue with PEMANDU on that definition, which we delve into in Appendix 1. We consider GLCs as a separate class, and the desired split is 60:32:8 – 60% from the ‘true’ private sector, 32% from GLCs and 8% from the government.

Attracting private sector, non-GLC investments is crucial to the transformation objective of making the private sector the main driver of economic growth. The very basis of the ETP is in jeopardy if private sector investment is not forthcoming.

In this paper we focus on Enterprise – the second ‘E’ in the DEEDs framework with which we are evaluating PEMANDU
3
  and the ETP. How effective has PEMANDU been in steering the ETP towards this paramount goal of restoring the private sector as the engine of growth for Malaysia?

Sadly, private sector investments are still lagging

Figure 1: Private sector investments are keeping pace, based on number of projects

Source: ETP website and Ong Kian Ming’s analysis

Figure 2: But by value, the private sector is lagging very far behind

Source: ETP website and Ong Kian Ming’s analysis

Based on number of projects, the ratio of private:GLC:public projects of the 113 EPPs announced so far is 64:12:24:

The 64% private sector participation is close to the 60% target;

GLCs at 12% are far behind the 32% target;

Government at 24% is far ahead of the 8% public sector target
4
.

However, the private sector projects are of relatively small value, averaging just RM864 million per project
5
.  This would be even smaller at RM704 million per project if we exclude the two doubtful multi-billion projects we covered last week in Part 3 (iii): Doubtful EPPs; doubtful projects and due diligence  – the Karambunai Integrated Resort and the Tanjong Agas petrochemical park.

The government projects are far larger, averaging out at RM1,630 million per project. The GLC ones are massive, averaging RM4,957 million each – nearly RM5 billion per project. In fact, GLC and government investments total RM114 billion – nearly double the RM62 billion from the private sector.

Based on investment values of the EPPs, the private:GLC:public projects split is 35:40:25
6
.

Private sector investments at 35% of the total value are far below the 60% desired;

GLC investments at 40% are above the 32% target;

The government investment share at 25% is more than triple the desired 8%. In fact, it will be even higher if the increased cost of the MRT is used. This 25% share is based on the original RM37 billion budget for the MRT. The estimated cost since then has ballooned.

PEMANDU is trying to have its cake and eat it

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim observed that, “a high proportion of the EPPs (upon which the success of the ETP hinges on) are nothing more than large-scale infrastructure projects that will consume a large amount of public money either directly from the public coffers or through funding arrangements with GLCs / GLICs”
7
.

PEMANDU’s response:

It acknowledged that about RM67 billion or 39% of the total investment up to Nov 2011 was contributed by GLCs. However, it pointed out that the percentage falls to 6% if the RM60 billion RAPID project by Petronas is excluded.

Similarly, it said the private sector:public sector ratio (including GLC investment) stands at 75:25. But it also suggested that if GLC investments are excluded, the private to public investment ratio is 60:40
8
.

This is not an isolated example. In response to other similar criticisms, PEMANDU has also trotted out numbers that exclude the MRT and RAPID projects which then takes the private / public investment ratio  much closer to the desired 92:8 ratio
9
.

This is yet another case of PEMANDU obfuscation
10
. It is disingenuous to suggest that the private/public investment ratio would be closer to the ETP targets if certain investments are excluded. The ETP is a holistic plan which includes desired investment targets from the private sector, GLCs and the public sector.

There is no justification for excluding particular projects such as the MRT from the investment ratio calculations. The ETP Roadmap Report already includes the MRT project in its targeted 60:32:8 private:GLC:public investment mix. There is no reason why separate calculations which exclude the MRT project should be highlighted.

On the one hand, in its updates, PEMANDU trumpets the massive amounts of investments and its excellent progress towards its ambitious target.  This large total rightly includes investments from all parties – the private sector, GLCs and the public sector.

On the other hand, when it is pointed out that private sector participation is lagging, PEMANDU trots out statistics which exclude certain projects.  This is intellectually dishonest.

PEMANDU can’t have its cake and eat it:

If it wishes to include the mega-billion GLC and government projects towards its total RM1.4 trillion target, then it has to accept the ensuing ratios which are heavily skewed towards GLC/public sector investments.

If it wishes to exclude GLC/public sector investments in its ratio calculations, then it must also exclude them from its headline investment numbers – which would then be far behind schedule.

Going back to the cake analogy, PEMANDU’s response is akin to saying this delicious chocolate cake is not fattening if you exclude the calories from the butter and icing. The cake has to be eaten in its entirety. You can’t take out the butter!

Is PEMANDU attempting to cover up tepid private sector response?

There really should be no problem with public sector investment being heavier in the early stages of the ETP. The targeted 60:32:8 private:GLC:public ratio is a long-term one over the course of the ETP until 2020.

In fact, we would expect government to feature more prominently in the early days. The government would naturally be expected to pursue very big-ticket, long-gestation, infrastructure projects like the MRT. So, it would actually be sensible for PEMANDU to prioritise these over smaller-ticket, shorter-time frame private sector projects.

However, instead of taking this line, PEMANDU has chosen to obfuscate and cherry-pick. It includes GLC and government projects when it suits its case, and excludes them when it does not.

Is it because there is no visibility in the pipeline for private sector EPPs? Is it because it is unlikely that the gap between the desired 60% private sector investment ratio and the current 35% will be closed?

In fact, because the private sector is already lagging, the ratio of private sector investment must rise to 64% from now to 2020 in order to meet the desired target
11
. That is a massive increase from the 35% today.  Also, because private sector projects will be smaller than the massive multi-billion ringgit GLC and government investments such as the MRT and RAPID, PEMANDU will have to foster a large number of private sector EPPs.

Can PEMANDU do so? Only time will tell. We shall be monitoring.

In the meantime, PEMANDU gets an “E” for developing private sector Enterprise. While a fair number of private sector-driven EPPs have been named, the ETP is still too focused on big ticket government-linked projects in order to drive the headline investment, GNI contribution and job numbers.

What can PEMANDU do?

PEMANDU must take the bull by horns and address the root causes of why the private sector does not have sufficient confidence in the long-term potential of the country to invest large amounts of capital in long-term projects in Malaysia.  To do this, PEMANDU should:

Stick to a consistent data set that includes all EPPs in all its statistics;

Explain the issues and the remedial measures being taken where there are deviations from the targets; and

Stop obfuscating by cherry-picking and trotting out statistics that exclude certain projects. This is unproductive and intellectually dishonest.

If private sector investment is lagging, hiding behind different sets of data will not take us to high-income status. PEMANDU must demonstrate that it is able to mobilise the private sector to drive economic growth through the EPPs.

A related concern is that a small number of EPPs, mostly in the Oil, Gas and Energy NKEA, constitute the bulk of investment numbers.

We will discuss this in detail in Part 5 next week, when we evaluate the Distribution of EPPs across the NKEAs, the second ‘D’ in our “DEEDS” framework.

Appendix 1: GLCs are NOT similar to private sector players

PEMANDU believes government-linked companies (GLCs) should be considered as being similar to other players in the private sector:

“The reality is that GLCs must be considered as part of the private sector as they compete on a commercial basis in their respective sectors, and are accountable for their annual profit and loss performance.”
12

But this statement flies in the face of the reality that many GLCs can run at a loss over long periods of time because there is the underlying assumption that, at the end of the day, the government will bail them out if necessary. Malaysian Airlines, for example, is a GLC that has to compete against other airlines in the international and domestic markets but there is little chance that it will be allowed to go bust.

Also, some of these GLCs have government-granted monopolies or legacy economies of scale. For example, Telekom is dominant in the fixed line aspect of telecommunications, Tenaga has a monopoly on electricity transmission and Petronas is charged with stewarding our country’s oil wealth.

We do not deny that GLC-led EPPs can make important economic contributions to the country. But counting EPPs associated with such GLCs as private sector initiatives overstates the private sector role. It makes private sector participation appear larger than it really is.

Notable examples of EPPs helmed by monopolistic GLCs include:

The massive RM60 billion RAPID project by Petronas;

Other Petronas EPPs including efforts to rejuvenate existing fields through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) under EPP1, develop small fields through innovative solutions under EPP2 and intensify exploration activities under EPP3
13
;

RM4 billion investment by Tenaga to build additional and upgrade existing infrastructure under the Oil, Gas and Energy NKEA;

RM486 million investment by Malaysian Airports to transform KLIA into a retail hub under the Wholesale and Retail NKEA;

RM418 million investment led by Telekom Malaysia to lay the Cahaya Malaysia Cable System linking Malaysia to Japan and Hong Kong.

________

1
 The ETP calls for 131 entry point projects (EPPs) within 12 National Key Economic Areas (NKEAs), which will pour RM1.4 trillion worth of investment into the economy and create 3.3 million new jobs by 2020.

2
 ETP Roadmap Report, Chapter 1, pg.67

3
 The acronym that the Performance Management and Delivery Unit within the prime minister’s department is better known by. PEMANDU is the government agency that created and is now steering the ETP.

4
 Although it can be argued that between 6 to 8 Government EPPs can be categorised as either enablers or SRIs e.g. TalentCorp and TERAS.

5
 RM62.2 billion divided by 72 projects. In fact, excluding the 2 potential dud projects worth a total RM12.9 billion which we covered in Part 3 (iii) leaves an average of just RM704 million per project.

6
 The discrepancies between the figures shown here and PEMANDU’s own figures is probably due to differences in how EPPs were classified – government, GLC or private. These discrepancies are not large and do not change the overall focus of our argument.

7
 By his calculation, 77% of the supposedly private investments amounting to RM173 billion announced as of August 2011 will be funded by GLCs or firms with large GLIC (government-linked investment companies) shareholding. Debunking ETP: Widening Income Gap. Anwar Ibrahim, 16 Dec 2011. Available at http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2011/12/16/debunking-etp-widening-iincome-gap/. Retrieved 3 Feb 2012.

8
 It also said total committed investment as of Nov 2011 was RM177 billion, slightly higher than Anwar’s RM173 billion number. Debunked! Myths created about the ETP. 23 Dec 2011 by ETP Malaysia. Available at http://etpblog.pemandu.gov.my/posts/2011/12/23/debunked-myths-created-about-the-etp/. Retrieved 2 Dec 2011.

9
 After stripping out the MRT and Petronas projects, Pemandu says public sector investment totals roughly 9% (RM6.35bil) while private sector financing is 91% (RM67.3bil). http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/sub_page.aspx?id=66c6c146-2292-4460-a8be-853ac8501ee1&pid=a6014584-aa98-45f1-827e-d4b261e4dae4&print=1. Retrieved 8 Feb 2012.

10
 Very glaring examples of PEMANDU’s intellectual obfuscation rather than clarification are set out in Part 2 – We won’t really be twice as rich in 2020. Available at http://refsa.org/focus-papers/a-critique-of-the-etp-part-2-we-would-not-really-be-twice-as-rich-in-2020/. The most bizarre is a reference to 2020 constant prices.

11
 Because the 35:40:25 ratio of private/GLC/public sector investments achieved so far has seen so little private sector participation, the ratio must change to 64:31:6 from now to 2020 if the ultimate goal of 60:32:8 is to be achieved.

12
 Debunked! Myths created about the ETP. 23 Dec 2011 by ETP Malaysia. Available at http://etpblog.pemandu.gov.my/posts/2011/12/23/debunked-myths-created-about-the-etp/. Retrieved 2 Dec 2011.

13
 The expected GNI investment, jobs and GNI contribution for these EPPs were not given by PEMANDU.

********

About this series

Critics of PEMANDU and the ETP thus far have tended to focus on the expensive costs incurred by PEMANDU and its consultants, accusations of style prevailing over substance, the execution of specific projects (such as the MRT and 1 Malaysia email) and its apparently lofty, unrealistic targets.

We think these issues can be further debated, but these questions ultimately boil down to PEMANDU’s raison d’être.  PEMANDU is already a fait accompli. Debating its existence serves no useful purpose at this point.

Instead, we evaluate PEMANDU and the ETP on its own terms by looking at the goals, plans and targets outlined in the ETP Roadmap document. Doing so facilitates constructive debate as it uses the same framework which PEMANDU has chosen to work within.

In that vein, and in keeping with the spirit of the alphabet soup of NKEAs, NKRAs, SRIs, EPPs, GNI surrounding the entire GTP, we evaluate PEMANDU and the ETP on its DEEDS:

Data transparency – the ease with which an independent analyst can evaluate the figures relevant to the ETP and its targets;

Execution – the progress, or lack thereof, of announced EPPs (Entry Point Projects);

Enterprise – whether the target of stimulating private investment is being achieved. The ETP aims for a 92:8 split between private and public investments;

Distribution – the distribution of EPPs across the NKEAs (National Key Economic Areas), which shows whether a healthy balance of projects is being maintained; and

Socio-economic impact – an evaluation of the main beneficiaries of the economic activities generated by the EPPs.

The story so far

Part 1,
Let’s evaluate PEMANDU on its DEEDS
, introduced our evaluation framework.

Part 2,
We won’t really be twice as rich in 2020
, found us declaring “It does not compute!” PEMANDU’s  target is to double nominal income per capita to RM48,000 by 2020. But using its forecasts for income and population growth, and inflation, the target should be RM54,145, not RM48,000. Can this ‘roadmap to transformation’ be trusted when the highly-paid PEMANDU team and its costly consultants cannot even get the basic math right?

Part 3(i),
PEMANDU strengthens the ‘know-who’ cancer
, focuses on the practice of taking credit for pre-existing projects and PEMANDU’s role in cutting red tape.  PEMANDU is institutionalising the role of middleman if it cuts red tape only for EPPs. If long-term policy changes are not made, Malaysian innovation, creativity and productivity will continue to lag. It does not matter how good your product or idea is, or how efficiently you can make it, it depends on who you know to get it through the system.

Part 3(ii),
The hothouse labs probably killed innovation
 highlights that the tight timeframe of the lab process incentivised lab participants to favour incumbent companies with pre-existing business plans rather than start-ups with genuinely transformative ideas. Also, the labs would be dominated by incumbents striving to maintain their dominance. Start-ups would not have been able to afford to release staff just to attend the labs for 8 weeks.

Part 3 (iii),
Doubtful EPPs; doubtful achievements and due diligence
 concludes our assessment of PEMANDU’s Execution. The selection of possible ‘dud’ projects – projects with very little hope of success – as EPPs raises serious doubts about the due diligence process at PEMANDU. The RM10 billion Karambunai Integrated Resort needs 2.8 million visitors per year to break-even – more than all the travellers arriving at Kota Kinabalu airport! The multi-billion ringgit plan to transform Tanjong Agas in Pekan from a fishing village to a petrochemical hub has REFSA aghast. It creates redundant infrastructure, and goes against the government’s own master plan identifying the already established Kertih and Gebeng as the focus areas for oil, gas and petrochemical clusters in the Eastern Corridor Economic Region (ECER).

Note on PEMANDU’s response

Upon hearing that we were writing an evaluation of the ETP, the communications team at PEMANDU kindly arranged interviews with a Director from the Minister’s Office who is also the Director of the Oil, Gas and Energy & Financial Services NKEAs, the Director of the Wholesale and Retail (W&R) NKEA and the Assistant Director of the Tourism NKEA. We are grateful for these interviews and will include clarification points from these interviews in our evaluation. These interviews were recorded by the ETP communications team and we hope that they would be made available online for public access.

About the authors

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

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

Help REFSA do more!

REFSA is a not-for-profit research institute that provides relevant and reliable information on social, economic and political issues affecting Malaysians. We aim to promote open and constructive discussions that result in effective policies to address these issues.

REFSA depends primarily on donations to fund its operations. Research such as this consumes much time, expertise and effort. Please contribute if you share our vision for a better Malaysia and support our commitment to impartial, constructive analysis. Donations can be:

Made on-line via our website at
www.refsa.org
.

Banked in directly to our Public Bank account number 3128- 1874-30.

Cheques should be made out to “Research for Social Advancement Bhd”.

Please contact us at
[email protected]
 for receipts.

Credit

REFSA allows authorship of derivative works and other transformations of this publication for personal, non-profit/non-commercial use, subject to the inclusion of proper and appropriate credit to “REFSA – Research for Social Advancement”. REFSA expressly prohibits the use of the whole or any part of this publication for defamatory or criminal purposes.

Other Information

The information in this report has been obtained from and is based upon sources that are believed to be reliable but no guarantee is made as to accuracy and completeness.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 5:20 pm and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Another Saturday with The Oracle of Syed Putera

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | February 14, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 14 — Malaysian Indians are back with BN. The Oracle appeared pleased when he told me that. Who told you I asked? Nong Chik. Does the boss (Tun Daim) feel the same way? He does, said The Oracle.

Hmm… this was an unusual slippage on the part of Daim , I said to myself. Usually he takes statements and information as preliminary “noises”. He will then investigate further by sending out the Baker Street Boys or the Baker Street Irregulars like Sherlock Holmes did. It was unusual of Daim to accept what Raja Nong Chik tells him. Daim must be fatigued.

BN must be really desperate. They have resorted to reading tea leaves and, in some places, chicken entrails. Some whispers here and there are taken and read as signifying real and substantial progress. Hence, for example, some casual and insouciant intimation that Indians are coming back to support BN is treated as orgasmic news.

What are we to make of these innocuous remarks? Should they be taken seriously? The Indians are coming back into the fold of BN. Yes indeed, there are so many of them.

The PPP says it has one million members. That’s the figure from the Kaveas faction. Murugiah says he commands 600,000. The MIC says they have two million Indians. The IPF (Pandithan’s) says it has another 700,000. Then we have the number claimed by the newly-minted Senator Nallakarupan.

Geez! I am thinking, these parties must have counted those Malaysian Indians still in the womb. Even worse, even the Indians in the glint in the cowherd’s eye are also counted. Otherwise, how do you account for so many of them?

These encouraging numbers must have in turn encouraged and motivated Najib to participate as a devotee in this year’s Thaipusam. Amma! I asked some Indian friends how do I write “you help me, I help you” in Tamil. I am still waiting.

This was also the information passed on by Raja Nong Chik to Tun Daim. And where does Raja Nong Chik get his source of information? From Bangsar Bala, friend to RPK and resident politician at Plan B, in Bangsar village.

Yes indeed, the same Bangsar Bala who mobilised thousands of Indians to press palms with Anwar Ibrahim when he came over to Brickfields the other day. The same Bangsar Bala who organised a large number of Indian NGOs to meet Tengku Razaleigh. The smart cookie Bala is hedging his bets. And what Bala says is taken as significant by Raja Nong Chik.

Tun Daim Zainudin spoke at a function organised by Lembah Pantai Umno. It was a smart move I thought for Raja Nong Chik to bring on a real firepower. It can serve as an endorsement from the elusive Tun Daim for him.

In 2008, no one batted an eye lid about what Tun Daim said. Indeed many said he is senile and a spent force and one past-shelf-life politician. The man whom he recommended as Selangor MB described Tun Daim in disparaging terms. That man has since been convicted on a corruption charge. It was some sort of a comeuppance for that chap.

In 2008, Daim cautioned the government. It will lose five states. When he said those things, Umno people lambasted and derided him. After the elections, BN lost five states and its seats in Wilayah Persekutuan were almost decimated. After that, people sit upright and at attention whenever Daim speaks. Indeed, people are now desirous at wanting Daim to say something energising about BN.

Daim, who is rarely seen and heard, has now acquired the status of a political bomoh and medicine man. Occasionally he does give speeches like the one he did at TAR University. Otherwise he is most happy counting his money. My first reaction when Daim attended the function organised by Umno Lembah Pantai, with its overt political connotations, is that Daim is looking out for his business interests that can be affected by the decisions of the FT minister. Such as his property business in Malaysia.

I wanted to ask about this when I met up with the Oracle on February 11, 2012. The Oracle is the extension of Daim and he has spoken of many things. On the whole, the prognosis on Umno and BN’s health is dismal and life affecting. I recalled The Oracle of Syed Putra saying that PM Najib should show he means business in tackling the scourge of corruption. The Oracle was echoing what Daim told him. How? By herding in this former Selangor MB, because that is how you deal with the stubborn and obstinate.

I also recalled The Oracle quoting Tun Daim as saying that PM Najib should show he upholds the rule of law by arresting those MACC officers who interrogated Teoh Beng Hock. That is necessary because only some people believe in the fairy tales about Beng Hock wilfully jumping to conceal some minor corrupt practices.

Heck, Daim told The Oracle many things. Najib has lost the plot to manage the country. Najib is scared of three fellows in Malaysia — Mahathir, Rahim Tamby Chik and the diminutive Isa “Beria” Samad.

That’s Lavrenti Beria who served Stalin, folks. Isa is reported to have spent RM350,000 of Felda money on his open house. But even that is small compared to the cost of redoing his Felda office room. But that would be OK since there is this general assertion that Felda’s money is Isa’s to spend as he absolutely wishes. In a term which is current, Isa NFC’d the money.

As to Daim, now it’s a different scenario. The MSM are eager to lap up to what Daim says. He is the media darling, if they can get to him, that is. Fortunately through my friendship with The Oracle of Syed Putera, I am beating them to it.

So I found myself at The Oracle’s office on Saturday to exchange notes. One of the things we touched was Tun Daim’s rare excursion into Lembah Pantai.

What was Daim doing in Lembah Pantai, I asked The Oracle. It seems Raja Nong Chik’s people had invited Tun Daim to participate in a panel discussing social and political issues. Raja Nong Chik was also on the discussion panel. Clever I thought.

The Oracle wasn’t enthusiastic to speak about the event and was initially parsimonious in giving me more details about the event. I don’t think this reluctance to speak with candour is because I have joined the DAP. This is my second visit to him after joining the DAP. In the course of our one-hour free-ranging discussion, we will know Daim’s thoughts on several things. That will be later.

The first question I asked was: if Tun Daim were the finance minister today, would he agree to use the EPF as the lender of last resort? If everything else fails, use EPF.

If the money is managed right, the use of the EPF funds will be OK. The government has always used EPF money for some desired objectives.

Yes, but this time they are lending to future no-hopers. You know, we can’t collect from the house buyers.  When I was ADUN, people don’t even pay when it’s only RM90 per month.

Technically, they are lending to a SPV formed by the FT minister. So, it’s not lending to individual buyers. Two, the government is guaranteeing the loan. Three, the value of the property will appreciate. The value of the portfolio will rise.

Why the semantics, I asked. The government is knowingly agreeing to a scheme where it will end up footing the bill by bailing out the SPV created by Raja Nong Chik. Already public debt is RM456 billion and the off balance sheet spending amounts to almost RM100 billion. In effect public debt is reaching RM600 billion. This will bankrupt the country, not the subsidies going to poor people.

This isn’t the question of building affordable homes for the poor. That is already taken by the PPRT homes and its equivalent in urban centres in the form of high-rise flats. How did the FT Ministry finance the construction of urban PPRTs before?

So why the need to borrow from the EPF?

It’s not comforting being told that the EPF has committed only RM300 million for now. EPF doesn’t say it will NOT go up to RM1.5 billion as stated by the FT minister. The announced lesser amount does not confer a right of indiscriminate spending and investment by EPF. And because the amount, or any amount for that matter, is going to be guaranteed by the government, the loan then raises the issue of prudence on the part of the government. Government guarantee is not a licence for profligacy. That is suggestive of bad governance. It’s not an excuse to be reckless.

Suppose the loan is defaulted, the money has got to come from somewhere right?

Why go the indirect way of directing the EPF to lend money to an SPV and that SPV then lends money to people who otherwise couldn’t qualify to get loans? Why doesn’t the government sell bonds and then set up their own SPV to lend to potential defaulters? The potential defaulters are all sub-prime borrowers.  It’s all semantics describing the SPV is credit worthy even though in actuality the end buyers may not. So, we all chorused saying the EPF lends to a credit worthy entity and that falls within its terms of reference.

Bull, at the end of the day, the buyers will default; the government is too scared to foreclose and ends up bailing the SPV. Money has to be taken out from somewhere.

But is there really a political agenda? The political agenda may be Raja Nong Chik’s. He wants to give houses to his supporters in Lembah Pantai so that he can win Lembah Pantai and kick out Nurul Izzah. So, he wants to build homes to give to his supporters who will in the end get free homes. The rest of the public will be asked to refrain from making noises otherwise we are made out as objectors to building homes to the poor.

We don’t help out the poor by giving them homes financed by unconscionable emptying off the till. That would amount to abuse of government. When a government thinks it can do as it pleases in plain disregard of the checks and balances on absolutist rule, we have a democratic tyranny.

It’s a good portfolio investment since the property will increase in value. In the long run, the property will of course inflate in value. But what’s the use of having property that you can’t collect? You can’t foreclose because of the political ramifications. You can persuade the owners for the time being to cash out then, make some money and move elsewhere. Move where? Isn’t the political agenda is to increase Malay voters in city areas. If they move out into the rural areas and to the fringes, urban areas will be lost forever.

Umno as custodian of Malay interests isn’t thinking on this thing properly. When the property inflate in value, who are the likely buyers? Those vegetable sellers, pork sellers at Selayang and Jinjang and so forth. They buy because they have the money. We can’t fault them for having money and buying into the property.

So, Nong Chik is really not looking at the bigger picture. He is looking out for his immediate interest which is to win Lembah Pantai and send the anak mami packing. —
sakmongkol.blogspot.com

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

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 11:01 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I don’t know, Noh Omar says of NFC breach of trust

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 14, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 14 — Datuk Seri Noh Omar insisted today he did not know if the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) breached loan conditions despite de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz pointing out the family of their Cabinet colleague Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil should return the RM250 million federal loan.

 The agriculture and agro-based industry minister said he could not comment as he has yet to receive any information from ongoing investigations into the controversial national cattle farming project.

“I don’t know. I don’t know because we have not received any decision. As agriculture minister, I have not received any report. Let them investigate,” he told reporters here.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri said earlier today NFCorp, owned by Wanita Umno chief Shahrizat’s husband and three children, had committed breach of trust by using the government loan meant for cattle farming to fund other purchases.

“The loan was given just for that. If you use the money for something else, you don’t need to be a lawyer to see that there is a breach of trust, it’s so simple,” the Padang Rengas MP had said.

PKR has made several claims of abuse of the federal loan involving over RM62 million in land, property and expenses unrelated to cattle farming.

Shahrizat’s son Wan Shahinur Izmir Salleh has insisted that the company decided it would make better use of the money by investing in property during a break in business operations due to the government’s decision to suspend construction of an abattoir that would have been rented to NFCorp.

The government awarded NFCorp the project in 2006, when Shahrizat was women, family and community development minister.

The senator, who still holds the portfolio applied for three weeks’ leave from her ministerial duties last month after new allegations of bribery surfaced. She has since resumed her duties.

Last Wednesday, she was called in for questioning by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

The former Lembah Pantai MP has refused to heed calls for her to resign that have come from the opposition and Umno leaders including influential former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced last month Putrajaya would appoint an auditor to scrutinise NFCorp’s books in light of accusations made against the company but dismissed calls for a royal commission of inquiry into the NFC.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 6:17 am and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #100

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 12:   A Prescription For Malaysia

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister

May 13, 2002

The Next Young Mahathir

Today you are busy attending to the nation’s business. Rightly so, but I do hope that you ponder these questions and answer them in your memoirs. Subsequent generations need to learn the lesson. In the remaining years you must concentrate not on party or policy, but on personnel. You once quipped that you would like to be succeeded by your clone. Alas, there is no young Mahathir out there. Sadly, this more than anything else is the most glaring failure of your leadership.

            Finding the next cadre of leaders will not be easy. While previous generations were inspired by the struggle for freedom, no such inspirations exist now. Today’s young Mahathirs, if they have not already succumbed to the lures of the First World, are busy pitting their talent in the highly lucrative private sector. You must make a personal and concerted effort at talent scouting. Fortunately, again thanks to the successes of your very policies, there are many capable Malaysians. Finding them would not be difficult, but enticing them into public service would be the challenge. There will be a few who, having reached the peak of their career and having put aside a comfortable nest egg, would consider public service a noble calling. Grab them. Under your masterful tutelage, these fast learners would grasp the political skills soon enough. You will also find them to be a different breed from the ones currently serving you.

            Should you restrict yourself to your party, there will be slim pickings. Your track record at talent scouting thus far, to put it charitably, is less than spectacular. You had better luck recently with your choice of a new chief justice in the person of Dzaiddin Abdullah. That one wise pick did more to enhance the judiciary than all your speeches. This should remind you of the importance of personnel.

            The legacy of a parent is their children; a leader, his successor. There is ample time yet for you to enhance your legacy and with it, to secure the nation’s future.

            You have repeatedly grumbled on the lack of Malays in business, and just as predictably, you have denigrated Malay aptitude for and competence in commerce. I again respectfully suggest that you have it all wrong. Malays are indeed shrewd businessmen, Malaysian style that is. The role models you have provided them have been the Halim Saads and Tajuddin Ramlis. These individuals are handsomely rewarded not for their expertise or entrepreneurialism, rather on their coziness with you. Other budding entrepreneurs learn quickly that to succeed, they too need not pay attention to their clients and customers but suck up to the politically powerful. The road to riches in Malaysia is not through creating and building, but getting the right contacts and contracts. You have created a class not of builders and creators, but of rent collectors and economic parasites.

            You frequently lamented to the faithful on the evils of money politics. You have now finally admitted the obvious: UMNO is corrupt to the core. It is no longer only a political party, but a massive and insatiably greedy patronage system. The most comical if not bizarre episode was when UMNO Vice President Muhammad Taib too, condemned corruption. This from a man who was caught with millions in cash in his back pocket! Next you will have Mona Fendi [the woman who killed a senior politician out of greed and lust] lecture us on personal morality! Do you ever wonder why such messages fall on deaf ears?

            You were shocked that in the last election [1999] only non-Malays appreciated your brilliant stewardship. Malays were, to paraphrase you, stupid, forgetful and ungrateful. It finally dawned on you that your party has lost the support of Malays. It took you and your fellow party leaders this long to appreciate this fact, as the loss was not reflected in the number of parliamentary seats your party won. You were shrewd enough to spare your party a humiliating thrashing through smart political maneuvering. You wisely called the election just before thousands of newly registered young and disillusioned voters became eligible. Others may carp but I salute your brilliant political move. Such tricks however, only work once.

            It is my contention that Malays voted for PAS not because they were enamored with that party or that they were impressed with its leadership, rather they were fed up with the corruption (or money politics, as you euphemistically phrase it) of UMNO.

            The next election will be different. If your party does not change radically there will be an implosion. Although I predict that your party will again return to power, it will be denied its two-thirds majority. UMNO will suffer the humiliation of winning fewer seats than PAS. To add insult to injury, your home state of Kedah will fall to PAS. To rub salt on a raw wound, your long-held Kubang Pasu seat, should you not contest it, will also go to the opposition.

            Nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong. Perversely the 9/11 terrorists’ attacks on America could prove to be your and your party’s savior. No, it has nothing to do with your swift condemnation of those abominable acts—you were absolutely right in quickly denouncing those despicable terrorists—rather it has everything to do with the unbelievably stupid reactions of the leaders of PAS. I have never been impressed with the senior leadership of that party, and their behavior following those horrible tragedies merely confirmed my worse suspicion of them. I have every reason to believe that they will continue their present pattern. But it would take more than the floundering of PAS to reverse the fate of your party.

            Malaysians have changed and you can rightfully claim credit for many of those changes. But you are now like an insecure mother who does not notice the subtle changes in her brood, and continue to force-feed them the same pablum to her fully grown children. And when they protest or rebel, she puts on a guilt trip about being ungrateful. Wise parents recognize that the chidings and reprimands that work in childhood are counterproductive on teenagers and grownups.

            Instead of continually berating us, I suggest that you provide us with the necessary ladders and safety net. With enough ladders our people will climb up without your having to exhort them. With an adequate safety net below they will be further emboldened. But do not repeat the mistakes of Western democracies by making too elaborate a social safety net. Too comfortable a safety net and it becomes a hammock, and Malaysians would then succumb to our own version of the “British disease” of social welfarism rampant during the pre-Thatcher era. In many ways our special privileges are doing that now to Bumiputras. The programs are becoming too cushy; they lull instead of invigorating Malays.

            As for ladders, an effective one would be an excellent school system and relevant curricula. We must make all our young fluently bilingual, science literate, and mathematically competent, whether they want to be an alim or a scientist.

            You have concentrated on physical infrastructures in the past. Now I implore you to emphasize our most precious assets – our people. You are mighty proud of our airport being among the best, we should likewise aim for our universities and schools to be the same.

            You never miss to take foreign visitors to see your new pride and joy, the Petronas Twin Towers. Sadly, the only thing Malaysian about that monument is the land on which it is built. Everything else, from the design to the laying of the bricks, was done by foreigners. Wouldn’t it be nice if our universities and research centers too were of such eminence that foreigners would want to visit them?

            You have repeatedly reminded us of Allah’s bounty on our land. Not only are we spared many of nature’s calamities, we are also blessed with some of the richest resources. Our warm waters and pristine beaches are the envy of the world; they would be prime tourist destinations especially for those from the West. You repeatedly sent trade missions to the West to drum up potential investments. But we cannot begin to attract tourists or investors if we continually denigrate their culture. We have enough problems of our own culture; there is no need for us to lecture others. Besides, they have their own critics who are much more eloquent and effective. Quit worrying about the degeneration of the West and concentrate instead on reversing the deterioration of Malaysia.

            So the next time you address us, consider this. If you think that we have not changed under your leadership for the past twenty years, it is unlikely that we would ever do so in the few remaining years you have. Relent. Encourage us instead; it might just work. Do not besmirch your wonderful legacy by having us remember you as other than an esteemed leader.

Respectfully,

M. Bakri Musa

[This concludes the serialization of my book, Malaysia in the Era of Globalization, published in June 2002.]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 3:28 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Moooving Tales in Bolehland!

By Martin Jalleh

Q:
 What is the nation suffering from at this moment?

A:
 Cowburn Mooonoxide!

Q:
 What are the twists and spins given by the bosses of the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal called?

A:
 Mooodifications!

Q:
 Who was the then Agriculture minister who dubiously awarded the project to the incompetent Shahrizats in 2006 and initially said he saw “nothing unusual or anything wrong” with the project and passed the buck to current minister Noh Omar to answer further questions?

A:
 DPM, Mooyiddin!

Q:
 The Shahrizats has no cattle-rearing experience whatsoever?

A:
 Yes, they were moo-clue-less!

Q:
 And they were given RM250 million in soft government loans meant to develop a cattle project but ended up buying luxury apartments and a Mercedes, and going on expensive overseas trips?

A:
 Yes, a very mooortifying fact for the country in hard economic times!

Q:
 What was the PM’s initial response in Parliament over the scandal?

A:
 Najib said it was doing mooovellous!  There was no wrongdoing. Production will soon increase to “12,000 cattle from 6,000 previously”.

Q:
 How can one describe in a word current Agriculture Minister Noh’s initial denial in parliament of any impropriety in the award of the project and even calling the project a “success”?

A:
 Mooonshine!

Q:
 What about Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin, who strenuously defended the project initiated during his father-in-law’s premiership and in trying to douse the growing national anger?

A:
 Sheer mooollifying!

Q:
 What can be said of Shahrizat’s long and lame logic that there was no conflict of interest?

A:
 Mooonologues!

Q:
 What did the cows say of Shahrizat’s lame excuse: “I am only the wife of the NFC boss!”

A:
 Moooshit!

Q:
 MACC’s failure to take any action against the bosses (the husband and children of Shahrizat) in spite of the growing and overwhelming evidence of the misappropriation of public funds, is called?

A:
 Mooockery!

Q:
 What did the Minister in the PM’s Department, Nazri Aziz exhibit when he declared that the NFC has “breached its loan conditions…The money that was meant for the cattle industry was used for something else”.

A:
 A mooodicum of intelligence!

Q:
 Nazri advice that the best way to resolve the issue without having Shahrizat resign is for her family members who are involved in the project to repay the RM250 million soft loan?

A:
 Moooronic, to say but the least!

Q:
 How can Noh Omar’s insistence that he did not know if the NFC breached loan conditions as suggested by Nazri Aziz, be viewed as?

A:
 Pure “moooyang kulit”

Q:
 What did Najib whisper to Shahrizat whilst hinting to her to step down?

A:
 Moooderation!

Q:
 What was the angry Shahrizat’s reply?

A:
 Mooodesty! Tell Rosmah that when she goes on her shopping trips!

Q:
 What could have been Shahrizat’s favourite childhood game?

A:
 Mooonopoly!

Q:
 What did Dr M and Rafidah advise Shahrizat?

A:
 Time to mooove!

Q:
  How has the Opposition viewed the NFC scandal?

A:
 It has been moousic to their ears!

Q:
 How has the NFC scandal affected Umno?

A:
 It has made it look more and more like a moooribund party!

Mooore next time! -mj

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 6:04 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Siapa yang guna wang rakyat untuk kepentingan peribadi, sila kembalikan

By
Aspan Alias
 | February 15, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

15 FEB — Nazri Aziz meminta NFC membayar balik semua wang yang telah dipinjamkan oleh kerajaan sebanyak RM 250 juta itu. Nazri berpendapat Shahrizat Jalil tidak perlu berhenti atau berundur dari kerajaan.

Kata-kata Nazri ini memberikan banyak perkara yang membuatkan kita lebih memahami cara dan kaedah Umno menyelesaikan masalah yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin kita dan keluarga mereka.

Kenyataan Nazri ini boleh membayangkan cara berfikir dan sikap pemimpin kita berhubung dengan isu-isu besar yang dihadapi oleh negara. Sikap pemimpin kita boleh membezakan nilai diantara sikap serta “attitude” kepimpinan yang sepatutnya ada kepada pemimpin demokrasi dengan apa yang sebenarnya ada pada pimpinan kita.

Jika Shahrizat menjadi pemimpin dinegara maju, misalnya di England, beliau sepatutnya berhenti dari awal lagi untuk menjaga imej kerajaan.. Shahrizat adalah ahli jemaah Kabinet negara, maka etika wajar menjadi elemen yang terpenting dalam pentadbiran itu.

Etika dalam kepimpinan merupakan nilai yang lebih tinggi dari undang-undang kerana etika itu datangnya dari disiplin diri yang tinggi untuk mempastikan seseorang pemimpin itu tidak menjejaskan imej kerajaan yang dia berada bersama didalamnya.

Yang terlibat dengan menggunakan wang pinjaman kerajaan secara salah yang telah melanggar perjanjian itu adalah suami kepada Shahrizat dan keluarga terapat yang tinggal sebumbung dengannya. Shahrizat sepatutnyanya berhenti dan berundur dari jawatannya dalam kabinet negara. Yang membolehkan keluarganya mendapatkan wang sebanyak itu adalah kerana Shahrizat seorang yang berpengaruh dalam kerajaan.

Jika Shahrizat hanya seorang bidan di klinik kerajaan di kampong saya, Salleh Ismail tidak mungkin mendapat pinjaman yang begitu banyak dengan menggunakan dan berbelanja pula dengan wang itu untuk membeli benda-benda lain dengan banyak yang pasti akan menjejaskan matlamat NFC itu.

Oleh itu pandangan Nazri yang Shahrizat tidak perlu berundur itu merupakan pandangan yang tidak beretika dan jauh sekali dari menghormati rakyat negara yang demokrasi ini. Shahrizat telah gagal samasekali untuk menjaga statusnya sebagai seorang ahli jemaah kabinet dan inilah yang tidak dapat dihayati oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Umno.

Bagaimanakah kita untuk menuju kepada sebuah negara maju jika etika yang senang di fahami dan diikuti ini tidak dapat dipenuhi semata-mata kerana terlalu sayang dengan jawatan dari sayangkan sebuah kerajaan yang beliau adalah salah seorang menterinya?

Tetapi saranan Nazri supaya NFC membayar kembali setiap sen yang diperolehi dari kerajaan itu dibayar kembali. Kita tidak mahu lagi perkara seperti dahulu berlaku dalam mana kerajaan dan rakyat terpaksa membuat “bail-out” kepada projek-projek kerajaan yang diusahakan oleh kroni-kroni dan mereka yang hampir dengan kuasa itu.

Kita masih teringat bagaimana Mirzan Mahathir di“bailout” oleh rakyat dengan menggunakan wang rakyat untuk menyelamatkan perniagaannya yang gagal dengan jumlah yang berbillion. Sampai bilakah rakyat hendak membayar hutang pemimpin serta sanak saudara pemimpin yang berpengaruh ini. Sampai bila rakyat hendak menahan ragam pemimpin-pemimpin kita tetapi pemimpin-pemimpin sebaliknya memaksa rakyat untuk terus menyokong mereka tanpa berbelah bagi. Sampai bila?

Sekarang ini kita rakyat yang marhein di bawah ini tidak boleh lagi membiarkan mereka merompak dan merosakkan negara kita lagi. Cukup-cukuplah kita memerhati dan bersabar selama ini dengan sikap gila dan tidak malu pemimpin ini. Pemimpin yang baik akan ada perasaan malu sedikit sebanyak, apatah lagi masing-masing mengaku mereka itu Islam. Dalam Islam mencuri begini hukumnya potong tangan.

Bagaimana Nazri boleh kata Shahrizat tidak payah berundur sedangkan NFC telah menggunakan wang pinjaman kerajaan itu hampir RM100 juta dengan membeli kondominium-kondominium mewah, tidak cukup di Kuala Lumpur pergi pula ke Singapura. Bagaimana projek masih bermasalah tetapi sudah bershopping secara gila-gila. Ini memalukan pimpinan sahaja serta bangsa Melayu yang kononnya Umnolah yang menjadi “champion”nya.

Shahrizat wajar berundur dan bantu suami dan anak-anaknya membayar kembali wang ratusan juta ringgit itu yang di salahgunakan oleh keluarganya. Tidak payah hendak membawa wanita Umno keseluruhannya untuk mempertahankan kerja yang tidak molek itu. Kes ini tidak kena mengena dengan wanita Umno.

Elok Sharizat fikirkan pandangan Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Rafidah Aziz, Kamilia dan ramai yang lain dalam Umno yang inginkan beliau berhenti sahaja. Sharizat tidak payah marah-marah kepada pembangkang. Shahrizat sepatutnya marah kepada dirinya sendiri kerana terlalu “silly” kerana termakan hasutan nafsu untuk melakukan perkara-perkara yang mungkar ini.

Ingat Shahrizat, perjuangan yang sebenar dan hakiki ialah untuk berperang dengan nafsu nafsi sendiri, bukannya dengan Rafizi Ramli atau yang lain. Inilah kegagalan besar pemimpin-pemimpin Umno pada hari ini… tidak berdaya menahan nafsu untuk mencuri harta benda rakyat dan sikap ketagih kepada mengambil wang rakyat ini sudah tidak dapat diubati lagi.

Sekarang Shahrizat perlu meletakkan jawatan dan suaminya mesti bayar balik pinjaman itu. Pandangan Nazri itu, satu boleh pakai yang satu lagi kita tolak terus. Kalau boleh Nazri cuba cari Mirzan dan minta dia kembalikan wang rakyat yang berbillion yang digunakannya untuk menyelamatkan perniagaan beliau pada tahun 1998 dahulu.

Jangan hanya melakukan tekanan kepada Shahrizat, Yang lama-lama dahulu pun kita kena ingat. Bukankah wang itu semuanya wang rakyat juga? —
aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 11:19 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What every Malaysian needs to know about ‘race’.Part 2: Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

By
Clive Kessler
 | February 15, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 15 — So important in private thinking and central to public discussion of Malaysia’s most fateful challenges, the word bangsa, it was suggested in Part 1, is inherently vague, complexly ambiguous.

It is a general, multi-purpose word that yokes closely together a number of related but ultimately differing ideas.

That is the strength and value of the word.

By bringing a number of divergent things together, it helps us to compress and condense out thinking and, then too, the verbalisation of our thoughts.

It makes possible all sorts of mental “short-cuts” around difficult issues.

It even enables us to imagine that the difficulties around which we make those tricky short-cuts are not there, that they do not exist at all.

The condensation of ideas that the word bangsa makes possible may be its great strength and benefit.

But also, in that same condensation, lies great danger.

Part 2a

The many faces of “bangsa”: “race” and “racial groups”

How is all this to be sorted out?

Let us begin at the beginning.

What different things, realities, phenomena and processes is the one Malay word bangsa routinely used to denote?

i. Race.

Encountering “strangers” of different “physiognomy”, or outward physical appearance — strangers coming from various geographical areas, all with their distinctive parts of the world’s human population — people immediately noted those visible differences.

Eventually, as they did seek to grasp and “make sense” of those differences, some people began to talk about “race”, meaning a “kind” or “sort” or “type”.

This idea was elaborated in various forms suggesting that the overall human “race” or “humankind” was, or might be, constituted of and sub-divided into several separate, and identifiably distinct, “races”.

There were many forms of this basic classification scheme. The most common recognised five such races: the African or “Negroid” (Black), the Oriental or Mongol, the Indic or Aryan, the Caucasian or “European” and the Amerindian.

These differences were generally seen as deriving from descent, as a matter of who an individual’s parents were — just as people saw that black cows or chickens generally tended to give birth to more black cows and chickens, and the brown to brown ones. In that way “race” or perceived “racial differences” came to be understood as basically a matter of parentage and “breeding”, and hence of biology.

In earlier times, when human populations were far more anchored and “localised” than they now are — in the time long before the era of mass intercontinental migrations — it also became common to associate, even identify, those physically recognizable populations with their various places of origin and development on different continents; and hence, too, with the conspicuously different and distinct ways of life — including ways of speaking and living, of language, culture and society — that people in those different places had elaborated and continued to maintain.

These differences of appearance, geographical origins and of “ways of life” were not unreasonably seen as somehow associated with one another. Apparently, they “all went together”. That was people’s experience of them, in their encounters with people of other backgrounds.

But there was no clear idea of what caused what, of what, if anything, was cause and what was effect. There was no firm view that “the biological level” — the “facts” of biology — was determinative.

More, these differences and understandings, in the time before the era of modern quasi-scientific ideology, were not “ideologized” in that way, as they would later come to be in the age of arrogant biology-centred “scientific triumphalism”. They then could not be. The option was not there.

Here we need to note just two things that modern science, especially research in population genetics, tells us.

First, despite what may appear to us as dramatically different and altogether distinct kinds of outward appearance, “deep down” the range of genetic variation within these so-called “racial groups” of humankind — even in times long before the age of mass migration, and widespread “racial” intermingling and reproduction to which it gave rise — was always far greater than the overall range of typical, or imputed or imagined, biological variation or differences between them.

In our time, in our world, there are no “pure” races.

What’s more, there probably never were.

Not even before the age of mass intercontinental migration and the huge “jumbling” together of people which that migration unleashed.

Despite appearances, despite and beneath all outward differences of physiognomy, there probably were never any such distinct populations. In their underlying genetic composition, the populations that are sometimes called “races” together simply present a single continuum: a great overlapping spread, or distribution, of genetic “traits” and features.

In this sense, at the level of deeper genetic facts, “race”, no matter how plausible it may have appeared, is and always was largely an illusion. Popular experience, the evidence of what many people said they saw “with their own eyes”, was deceiving.

And second, the other side of that same coin. It is an increasingly evident biological, and scientific, fact that the human “race”, or humankind, is one.

Humankind derives, and has emanated and spread, from one generative point or area of origin, in Africa.

This fact spells the end of the central notion so dear to the hearts of so many nineteenth- and early twentieth-century “racial theorists” and to the politicians who took up and rode upon their ideas.

This was the idea or view:

that there had been, from the outset, several different points of human origin, and several different distinct “races” of humankind;

that these different “races” were differently, meaning unequally, endowed and hence unequally suited for modern competitive life;

and consequently that, by undeniable “biological fact”, the members of these various “races” were differently and unequally entitled to consideration and dignity, including access to power, above all the power to manage their own lives as they themselves might choose.

It was a wise man who, when challenged on this matter, said “Racist? Sure I am a racist! I believe that there is just one race, the human race, and that we are all part of it.”

ii. “Racial groups”, “race relations” and “race conflict”.

Those who give credence to the views of those nineteenth- and early-twentieth century “racial theorists” like to think that “the facts of biology”, as they understand them — or, in other words, the supposedly inherent and immutable antagonism, struggle and conflict between the different human “races” — are the primary facts, the “rock-bottom” elemental level, the determining cause and supposed “driving force” of human action and history, the substance in which it is both fated and then later written.

For them “race” is the force and stuff of history itself, the material from which the human story is made.

This, of course, is not true. But men such as Adolf Hitler and those who came before him, the Count de Gobineau or H.S. Chamberlain, wished —by propounding, promoting and then acting upon that false and crude view — to make it true.

It is perhaps a view that — though only at a terrible price, as Hitler’s failed attempt above all demonstrated — can in fact be made true.

Fortunately, so far none of those racial ideologues or politicians has succeeded in making it history’s own demonstrable and objective truth, its guiding script and subsequent transcript. But it has at times, especially between 1933 and 1945, been a “close run thing”.

Yet people these days still talk of certain real problems that do exist as matters of “race conflict” and “racial antagonism”, or at times, more benignly, of bad yet remediable “race relations”.

To clarify simply what is involved in all these situations, let us take the clear-cut case of “pre-liberation” apartheid South Africa.

In South Africa, especially from 1910, and certainly from 1948, there was conflict “along racial lines”. That was inescapable. The entire country was set up on that explicit basis. All official policy was built upon and promoted that view.

Conflict was not just unavoidable but endemic. It was inherent within the innermost structure and character of South African society.

But was this conflict “racial”?

It was not — as in the theories of de Gobineau and Chamberlain and Hitler — a total conflict born of the inherent biological nature and historic destiny of the peoples of South Africa. It did not express any innate “biological imperative”. It was not the localised outbreak of an inherent and worldwide biologically-based conflict of the entire white or European “race” against the entire African “race” and the Aryan-Indian “race”.

It was a conflict, specific to South Africa, between the locally resident “segments” or “fragments” situated in that one place of people drawn from those vast global categories of human beings loosely known as Europeans, Africans and Indians.

Theirs was not a conflict expressing — and giving view and vent at the explicit level — to some immanent, fundamental and irresistible pan-historical war or struggle for domination of between those entire “races”: of the Whites against the rest, the Blacks.

It was not an imminent conflict of races driven by biology but a local political conflict that was born of a cruel local social history, of the local working out of world historical processes and events.

It was a conflict born of, and bequeathed by, the earlier history in the southern part of Africa of the European drive for world domination — especially economic and political but also cultural — from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries.

That terrible, brutal struggle of “White against Black” in South Africa was political, and historically based, not trans-historically “racial”, not biologically driven.

More will be said later, in Part 4 of this commentary, about the origins and nature of the kind of ideas and ideology, and also regime, of “racial domination” that, among other places, was implemented and sustained in South Africa for much of the twentieth century.

Here it is enough to state, most emphatically, that it is a terrible and potentially tragic mistake in such situations as South Africa, and also elsewhere including even Malaysia, to see such conflicts and antagonisms — such differences and matters of contention — as somehow “racial” in nature, as involving matters of “race”.

To the extent that the habitual use of the term bangsa may imply or encourage that attitude, to that extent it is insidious and dangerous.

That is part of the reason why the Malay term bangsa needs to be “disaggregated” — its various uses separated and taken apart — and more precise and specific conceptual terms devised and brought into general public use.

*
Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the School of Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

In this series:-

Part 1 – Words and the world, or ‘bangsa’ in question

Part 2 – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 2b – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 2c – Exploring and disaggregating ‘bangsa’

Part 3 – Distorted reasoning — or thinking ‘bamboozled’ by language

Part 4 – Race and history

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 10:59 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why should I care about 1 Care?

By
Shamini Darshni
 | February 15, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

FEB 15 — When the idea of a national health financing mechanism came up in the mid-2000s, the question of how the funding scheme would be implemented caused much concern.

As a journalist then with an interest in public health issues, I followed the arguments made, then observed how the idea of “the rich paying for the poor” disappeared.

Logic suggests that the then-proposed national health financing mechanism — or scheme, as it was also referred to — had gone back to the drawing board. Today, it seems that the same idea has been repackaged under 1 Care.

Rebranding aside, the idea of 1 Care is noble. But the sketchy details are worrying. Why a major announcement is made without being accompanied by proper details boggles me.

And yes, Mr Director-General, Malaysians are sensitive when it comes to parting with their money. How can we not be, when we already contribute to EPF, Socso, income tax, service tax, sin tax and a higher cost of living (my jaw dropped when 10 rolls of toilet paper and three packages of my favourite 3-in-1 coffee chalked up almost RM60)?

The DG had also said that the 11 technical working groups are still studying the 1 Care system and details on the paying mechanism will be revealed in due course. He goes on to say that apart from the RM34 billion set aside, the costs of medical visit and treatments will be borne by a central government agency that will pool contributions by “the government, employer, employee and those self-employed.”

He had said: “Under the idea, we optimise the system, you can choose your doctor and you can go to any clinic, private or government as the costs will be paid by an authority handled by the government… it’s very simple. Say you need to be hospitalised and this system allows you a two-person per ward stay, but if you want one which you don’t want to share, then you have to pay for that option.”

What happens to our insurance commitments? From where I sit, it seems like double payment for a single service. We need answers.

Under the existing two-tier system, there are still Malaysians unable to access even primary healthcare. I shudder to think what happens to the Orang Asli villager who suffers a heart attack, but lives a week away by boat or foot from the nearest hospital. Would 1 Care ensure that people with no access to healthcare in the first place be able to access their human right?

Or is 1 Care just going to be another fund that the government can tap into to provide housing for 20,000 people at our risk?

Would 1 Care include treatment for anti-retrovirals for people living with HIV, methadone replacement for drug users wanting to kick the habit, mental illnesses, and other diseases that insurance companies refuse to cover? Only then would 1 Care be useful.

I would be open to contributing if I knew my fellow Malaysians, irrespective of colour and creed, were getting the medical attention they needed, whatever the condition. But I would need to know that my contributions were safe from corruption and preferential treatment, and would not be a burden to my existing financial commitments.

Access to healthcare is undeniably important. If details on 1 Care were solid facts with proper statistics to show why we need to contribute to this programme instead of the government increasing the overall healthcare budget, perhaps we would be more open to hearing out the idea.

But with the latest move by the government to consider using EPF contributions so others can purchase homes, coupled with the National Feedlot Corp scandal, can we trust the government to protect our interests?

________

Shamini served as a news journalist for some years and now works as a media and communications manager at a private university. When she’s not stabbing furiously at her computer, she’s in a bar somewhere drinking in great music or at home devouring her favourite authors. She can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 February 2012, 4:30 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dalam pilihanraya lalu lebih 1 juta ahli Umno keluar parti semasa mengundi … Kali ini bagaimana?

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 15, 2012

15 FEB — Saya telah diberitahu oleh rakan-rakan dalam Umno yang parti itu akan membawa Tengku Ahmad Rithauddin, Pengerusi jawatankuasa disiplin parti, ke setiap negeri melalui badan-badan perhubungan Umno setiap negeri. Tujuannya ialah untuk memantau permasalahan yang besar didalam Umno dalam pilihanraya umum nanti, iaitu sabotaj oleh ahli-ahlinya sendiri.

Saya telah banyak menulis tentang kerapuhan sokongan ahli-ahli Umno terhadap partinya. Tidak pernah saya terlupa dalam pilihanraya 1999 dan 2008 begitu ramai ahli-ahli Umno telah mengundi parti-parti pembangkang dan itu merupakan satu perkara yang begitu ‘normal’ dalam Umno sekarang ini. Parti itu sedar yang ia tidak boleh mempercayai ahli-ahlinya apabila sampai waktu pilihanraya.

Umno ini merupkan satu parti besar tetapi masalah menguruskan ahlinya pun besar. Ahli-ahli Umno sekarang bukannya seperti dahulu, hanya mengikut lenggang dan tari pemimpin mereka. Sekarang mereka lebih kritis dari dahulu. Dalam pilihanraya yang lalu lebih dari 50 peratus (1.6 juta) ahli-ahlinya telah bertukar haluan dengan mengundi parti-parti ‘alternative’.

Jika semua ahli-ahli Umno itu menyokong partinya, masakan ramai calon-calon Umno telah rebah bergelimpangan dalam pilihanraya yang lalu kerana ditolak oleh pengundi-pengundi termasuk oleh ahli-ahlinya sendiri. Inilah masalahnya jika sebuah parti itu terlalu bergantung kepada jumlah ahlinya. Banyak parti-parti didunia ini termasuk di negara kita ini, berjaya tanpa ahli yang ramai. DAP hanya mempunyai 135 ribu orang ahli sahaja tetapi undi yang diperolehi oleh parti ini dalam pilihanraya yang lalu melebihi dua juta orang.

Yang penting bagi sesebuah parti politik terutamanya yang memerintah ialah kemampuan untuk menggubal dasar yang dihormati bukan sahaja oleh ahli-ahlinya tetapi oleh pengundi yang ramai. Selain dari dasar yang sempurna, dasar itu mesti dilaksanakan dengan baik tanpa tercemar dengan isu rasuah dan isu salah gunakuasa yang keterlaluan.

Sebaliknya Umno memilih untuk menjadi parti yang besar ahlinya sehinggakan sampai kehari ini ahli-ahlinya melebihi 3.2 juta orang. Kita faham kenapa Umno memilih untuk mengambil keahlian yang ramai. Tujuannya ialah untuk mengharapkan yang kesemua ahli-ahlinya akan mengundi parti itu dalam pilihanraya. Tetapi jika lebih dari 40 peratus orang Melayu menyertai tanpa tapisan maka parti itu akan disertai oleh ramai yang tidak ada perjuangan.

Tugas yang diberikan kepada Tengku Ahmad Rithauddin itu bukan kerja mudah kerana perasaan tidak puas hati ahli-ahli Umno terhadap kepimpinan sudah menyeluruh dan tidak ada cara untuk memantau perasaan dan tindakan individu ahli dalam peti undi itu. Umno telah mengabaikan perasaan ahli-ahlinya dan hanya mahu melakukan pembetulan sesudah penyakit ‘sabo menyabo’ itu sudah mengalir di dalam sanubari mereka. Dulu-dulu kritikan ahli-ahli yang sedar dianggap sebagai membangkang dan itulah yang saya hadapi semasa dalam Umno dahulu.

Ahli-ahli Umno nampak jelas bagaimana pemimpin-pemimpin yang mentadbir dan berjuang dalam parti hanya sambil lewa sahaja dan mereka tidak ditunjukkan tauladan yang baik oleh pimpinan mereka di setiap peringkat. Pemimpin Umno ada satu sikap kepimpinan yang meminta ahli-ahlinya, ‘do what I ask you to do, don’t do like what I do’.

Saya bercakap dan berhubung dengan rakan-rakan saya yang ramai didalam Umno setiap hari dan saya merasakan apa yang mereka rasa. Mereka merasakan mereka telah menjadi orang tawanan kerana mereka terpaksa mengangguk kepada perkara yang mereka tidak yakini. Mereka tidak dapat hendak berfikir kerana mereka dimainkan dengan perasaan rasis yang menebal. Mereka diminta untuk percaya yang hanya Umno boleh menentukan nasib masa depan orang Melayu.

Tetapi nasib mereka masih juga dalam keadaan yang sama; dari dahulu hingga sekarang. Lebih dari lima dekad orang Melayu dijanjikan dengan kemajuan bangsanya tetapi tidak juga maju. Mereka dijanjikan bulan dan bintang oleh Umno yang baru ini. Mereka tahu yang pimpinan Umno merupakan kepimpinan yang ‘clueless’ dan tidak tahu untuk mengatur kemajuan bangsanya dengan baik.

Ramai dikalangan ahli-ahli dan penyokong Umno didalam perkhidmatan awam juga sangat marah dengan apa yang berlaku dalam isu SSBA yang diluluskan oleh kabinet Najib. Penyelarasan gaji dilakukan oleh SPA sahaja, tidak seperti dahulu. Dahulu ada Suruhanjaya Di Raja diwujudkan untuk melakukan penyelarasan gaji kakitangan awam.

Sekarang itu dipertanggungjawabkan kepada pihak yang berkepentingan. Itulah sebabnya terdapat setangah penjawat awam hanya mendapat kenaikkan gaji kurang dari RM10 dan ada yang naik gaji mereka sehingga RM8000 kepada RM20,000 sebulan. Apa maknanya ini?

Mampukah Tengku Ahmad Rithauddin memantau perasaan semua ahli dan penyokong Umno ini dalam peti undi dalam PRU nanti? Justru itu, Umno sepatutnya menumpukan kepada masalah yang sangat besar dalam parti itu terlebih dahulu dari menuding jari kepada pihak pembangkang dalam semua hal.

Tetapi yang kita tahu sekarang, Umno mengakui bahaya yang mereka bakal hadapi tidak lama lagi. Itulah sebabnya orang seperti Tengku Rithauddin kembali penting untuk memantau geraklaku ahli-ahlinya dalam pilihanraya nanti. Perkara yang terbesar yang akan dihadapi oleh Umno ialah masalah calon yang bakal diturunkan nanti. Semuanya merasakan mereka adalah ‘winnable candidates’ dan tidak ada siapa yang tidak ‘winnable’ di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin di bahagian-bahagian masing-masing.

Dalam kata lain Umno dan pucuk pimpinan sendiri tidak percayakan ahli-ahlinya yang ramai itu. Keadaan itu akan berlaku lagi kali ini kerana perebutan untuk menjadi calon dan banyak hal yang lain. Jika ahli-ahli Umno sendiri memangkah pembangkang, apa yang kita hendak sokong sangat Umno ini? — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 February 2012, 11:45 am and is filed under
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP: RM97b in hidden loans pushes public debt over legal limit

By Shannon Teoh

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 16, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 16 — The DAP today accused the government of not reporting RM96.9 billion in loans it has guaranteed as public debt, which would push the amount of federal loans above the 55 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) allowed by law.

Party publicity chief Tony Pua said the combined public debt of RM455.7 billion reported last year and the “off-balance sheet” financing would amount to RM552.6 billion, or 65.2 per cent of the economy.

“For all intents and purposes, even though these loans are not taken by the government, they are essentially government debt or otherwise known as contingent liabilities.

“This expanded figure would then constitute 65.2 per cent of our GDP, well above the 55 per cent federal government loan limit as defined in the Loan (Local) Act 1959 and Government Funding Act 1983,” Pua (picture) said in a statement today.

Malaysia’s national debt has been a hotly debated issue after the Auditor-General said in October it grew by 12.3 per cent to over RM407 billion in 2010, or 53.1 per cent of GDP.

Putrajaya’s economic report for 2011/2 said federal debt will hit RM455.7 billion at the end of 2011, which Pua said amounts to a record 53.8 per cent of GDP, the third consecutive year public debt is worth more than half the economy.

The government has tried to rein in the budget deficit from a two-decade high of over seven per cent in 2009 with Budget 2012 forecasting a 4.7 per cent deficit but the opposition has called for bigger cuts to public spending.

Pua said today government-guaranteed loans taken by its statutory bodies and corporatised entities rose by 14.9 per cent in 2010 from RM84.3 billion in 2009. These loans must be repaid using public funds should the borrowers default.

The Petaling Jaya Utara MP listed the Higher Education Fund (PTPTN) and state-owned public transport company Syarikat Prasarana Negara as owing RM17 billion and RM9.1 billion in government-backed loans.

“They have both been heavily criticised by the Auditor-General for their weak financial management and their inability to repay their loans,” he warned.

He also pointed out that logistics tycoon Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary’s Port of Tanjong Pelepas (PTP) has seen its government-guaranteed liabilities rise from RM715 million in 2009 to RM1.275 billion in 2010.

“The Greek financial crisis has unravelled as a result of hidden contingent liabilities not reflected as official government debt or reported in its balance sheet,” he said, referring to the euro-zone debt crisis that has seen the Mediterranean country teeter on the brink of default.

According to Pua, national debt grew by 11.9 per cent last year, and has ballooned from RM242 billion in 2006 and RM146 billion in 2002. He said the debt amounted to 44.6 per cent of GDP back in 2006.

Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Husni Hanadzlah has insisted public debt is still manageable as Putrajaya still has large reserves and its loan payment to national revenue ratio was at 10 per cent, which was below the “prudent” level of 15 per cent.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 February 2012, 11:50 am and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
DAP
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


If Malaysia does not buck up on the anti-corruption front, Indonesia and China may overtake Malaysia before 2020 in the annual Tl CPI both in ranking and score

Just before I  came up to the rostrum, I was reading the Jakarta Post report today
“
We are the best at anti-graft: SBY
”
, as follows:

Amid intensifying reports of massive corruption implicating many of his Democratic Party members, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono claimed on Wednesday that his administration had conducted the best anti-corruption campaign in Indonesia’s history.

“We have carried out the most aggressive anti-corruption measures in this country’s history,” the President said in his speech before 128 foreign envoys assigned to Indonesia in a meeting held at the Foreign Ministry office.

The foreign representatives, which included foreign ambassadors and country leaders of international organizations, were invited by the Indonesian government to listen to Yudhoyono’s remarks on the latest developments on various issues.

In his speech, which was delivered in Indonesian, the President also claimed that his administration had been eager to impose decisive measures against corrupt state officials without exception.

“From ministers, governors, to regents and mayors, many have been tried for graft. Corruption still exists from the central government through the regional administrations and legislative bodies,” Yudhoyono added.

“However, our work is still far from finished. There is still much homework to accomplish, particularly when it comes to boosting bureaucratic reform,” he said.accomplish, particularly when it comes to boosting bureaucratic reform,” he said.

I felt mortified as a Malaysian reading this report.

Dare the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak make a similar claim as the Indonesian President that under his watch as the Prime Minister of Malaysia for nearly three years, his administration had conducted the best and most aggressive anti-corruption campaign in Malaysian history?

Yudhoyono can boast that under his presidency, many have been tried for graft “From ministers, governors, to regents and mayors”, but what has Najib got to show in his three years as Prime Minister although he elevated “Fighting Corruption” as one of the six key NKRAs (National Key Result Areas) in his Government Transformation Plan (GTP)?

Najib has nothing positive to show on the anti-corruption front as there are only negatives – like the mysterious and unresolved murder of Teoh Beng Hock at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam in July 2009, the unexplained death of Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamad, Selangor Customs assistant director at MACC premises in Kuala Lumpur, the misuse and of the MACC as a political tool of the Barisan Nasional government  to persecute and victimise Pakatan Rakyat leaders, etc.

What is most shocking is the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2011 released last month which showed that Malaysia has fallen to the lowest TI CPI ranking of No. 60 with the lowest CPI score of 4.3.

Based on the latest TI CPI 2011 ranking and score, Malaysia under Najib is even more corrupt than under the two previous Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah. Comparing Najib’s administration  with those of the two previous Prime Ministers, Malaysia’s worst and best TI CPI ranking and score were:

					Best ranking	Best score 	 Worst ranking	Worst score

Tun Mahathir		23 (1995)		5.32 (1996) 	37 (2003)		4.8 (2000)

Tun Abdullah		39 (2004)		5.1   (2005/7/8) 47 (2008)		5.0 (2004/6)

DS Najib                 56 (2009/10)     4.5    (2009)       60 (2011)		4.3 (2011)

What should concern all Malaysians is that from recent trends, Malaysia runs the risk of being overtaken by both Indonesia and China before 2020 in the annual TI CPI both in ranking and score unless Malaysia quickly buck up and show its seriousness on the anti-corruption front.

In the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a CPI score of 5.28.

Seventeen years later, after numerous anti-corruption campaigns, two major anti-corruption legislation, the “elevation” of the former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) into Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the National Integrity Plan, the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme with massive infusion of public funds and increase of staffing, Malaysia has now fallen to the lowest TI CPI ranking in 17 years, viz: No. 60 with the lowest CPI score of 4.3.

In comparison, Indonesia was ranked at the very bottom of No. 41 in 1995 with CPI score of 1.94 while China was ranked No. 40 with a CPI score of 2.16  in 1995. Now Indonesia is ranked  No. 100 with a CPI score of 3.0 in 2011 while China is ranked No. 75 with a score of 3.6.

At the annual average rate of  Indonesia and China’s improvement on TI CPI ranking and score in the past three years, compared with Malaysia’s regression in CPI score in the past three years, Malaysia will be left behind by both Indonesia and China well before 2020.

How are Malaysians going to hold their heads high when the world perceive Malaysia as being even more corrupt than Indonesia and China before the end of the decade?

Is this the fate awaiting Malaysia in the TI CPI ranking and score before 2020?

(Speech at the Pahang DAP Chinese New Year Open House at the Bentong C hinese Asssembly Hall on Wednesday, 15th February 2012 at 9pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 February 2012, 1:54 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Not a penny more, BN

— CL Tang

The Malaysian Insider

Feb 15, 2012

FEB 15 — After handing out one-off payments of RM500 to the poor, the government turns around and is now asking for a handout from the taxpayers, under the guise of paying for an improved healthcare system.

The people must now realise that this is a government that has neither the vision nor the will to move Malaysia forward in the global marketplace. After a lousy victory in 2008 general elections, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government has virtually been on a re-election campaign mode since, devising short-term populist agendas such as KR1M, BR1M, etc., none of which addresses the current malaise the country is facing — stagnant wages in the face of rising costs in the midst of a long-drawn out, slow global growth.

As it stretched out is left hand to hand out cash to poor households, its right hand is dipping into the pockets of ordinary Malaysians to fund its lavish spending and greedy cronies.

This is a government that, after half a century in power, actually praises itself as a “caring” government as it hands out a pittance to poor Malaysians, when it should be ashamed that for a country so blessed with natural resources and talent, we still have three-quarters of households with monthly incomes below RM3,000.

This is the same government that that forked out RM80 million to a foreign media outfit to boost its credentials, and the result was an embarrassing worldwide public relations disaster for Malaysia.

This is the same government that  sees no wrong doing in lending out RM250 million of the people’s hard-earned money to a Cabinet minister’s family, one with no experience or credentials, to run a national project in which the 31-year-old CEO-son duly demonstrated his superior “cow management” skills by purchasing luxury multi-million condominiums. At the same time, the government has to resort to sticking its crummy hands into our retirement funds in order to come up with an initial RM300 million to help fund homes for poor families.

This is the same government that does not blink an eye when its naval defence procurements overshot its budget by billions, as it prepares to fight its imaginary enemies in the high seas, when the real pirates are running wild inland, hand-in-hand with their BN masters, grabbing projects, concessions and sweet deals.

This is the same government whose ministers live in posh mansions in Damansara Heights, send their kids to private schools or foreign universities, and travel around in chauffeur-driven German cars. Meanwhile, the average Malaysian can barely afford his first terrace house, worries about declining education standards in his children’s schools’, and drives an overpriced local car on overpriced and congested tolled roads.

And now with 1 Care, Malaysians are now asked to fork out more of our incomes so that the government can provide us with a better healthcare system. Instead of looking hard at its books, coming up with ways to trim excess and wasteful spending, and re-prioritising spending towards health and education, the government took the rather lazy and predictable route — more tax on Malaysians.

This is from a government that has given Malaysia its biggest national debt in decades. This is from a government who claims to understand the average Malaysian’s daily tribulations in the face of the current economic uncertainty.

This is from a government that is surely disconnected from the realities that we are facing. When it has the audacity to ask the people to pay more tax to feed its out-of-control spending frenzy that yields no long-term benefit to the country, but are more likely to fatten the bank accounts of well-connected individuals.

To you, BN, I say: No more — not a penny more.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 February 2012, 11:40 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.