Has Zahid Hamidi been caught red-handed telling another lie?

I applaud the Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein for his prompt response and clarification that he had never written a letter stating support for any individual to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) now or during his time as Home Minister.

Hishammuddin was asked about this today, as I had issued a statement last Friday asking previous Home Ministers, in particular Zahid’s predecessor Hishammuddin as well as former occupants of this key post like Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad and Datuk Azmi Khalid to “speak up and clear themselves and to put the record straight” whether they had also written clarification letters to FBI has Zahid had done.

This was because Zahid had made the astonishing claim in his statement last Thursday when trying to exonerate himself from any wrong in his infamous letter to the FBI vouching for the character of alleged gambling kingpin Paul Phua, standing trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for illegal gambling, that previous Home Ministers before him had also written such clarification letters.

Has Zahid been caught red-handed telling a lie, unfairly, unjustly and dishonourably  implicating other Ministers whether of this administration or previous regimes?

To be frank, I never believed that previous Home Ministers had behaved like Zahid, writing unilaterally to the FBI, without the knowledge or the police or the Inspector-General of Police at the time, contradicting earlier police reports to the FBI, as well as without the knowledge or clearance from the Foreign Ministry.

This would be the conduct of a disgraceful and shambolic government, with Ministers acting in so  indisciplined, wild and arbitrary fashion,  betraying and disgracing  the national trust imposed on them in their appointment as Home Ministers in the Cabinet.

It is pertinent to note that Zahid used the plural of “Home Ministers” and not the singular, which means more than one, of his predecessors who had penned letters like what he had done.

Hishammuddin has denied.l What about the others – Hamid Albar, Mohd Radzai, Azmi Khalid? Probably, we should go further back which will rope in Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Mahathir Mohamad as previous Home Ministers?

Zahid had already told untruths about the Cabinet having approved  his infamous letter to the FBI, as Wisma Putra had clarified  the Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Anifah Musa’s statement that the Cabinet only “heard” and not “accepted” Zahid’s explanation.

Zahid should be reminded of the axiom that if a person tells a lie, he would have to tell a thousand lies to cover up the original line – which seems to be the dilemma Zahid has put himself in.

Be that as it may, national interests demand that the whole truth about Zahid’s infamous letter to FBI to vouch for the character of the alleged gambling kingpin must be fully revealed, or Zahid should expect to be impaled on the issue in the  March meeting of Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 January 2015, 4:15 pm and is filed under
Hishammuddin
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%

Larry Elliot

Guardian

January 19, 2015

Oxfam warns of widening inequality gap, days ahead of Davos economic summit in Switzerland

Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.

Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.

Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International and one of the six co-chairs at this year’s WEF, said the increased concentration of wealth seen since the deep recession of 2008-09 was dangerous and needed to be reversed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Byanyima said: “We want to bring a message from the people in the poorest countries in the world to the forum of the most powerful business and political leaders.

“The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for.”

Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with a study showing that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people). The charity said this year that the comparison was now even more stark, with just 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people, down from 388 in 2010.

Byanyima said: “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

Separate research by the Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in the UK, found that the richest 100 families in Britain in 2008 had seen their combined wealth increase by at least £15bn, a period during which average income increased by £1,233. Britain’s current richest 100 had the same wealth as 30% of UK households, it added.

Advertisement

Inequality has moved up the political agenda over the past half-decade amid concerns that the economic recovery since the global downturn of 2008-09 has been accompanied by a squeeze on living standards and an increase in the value of assets owned by the rich, such as property and shares.

Pope Francis and the IMF managing director Christine Lagarde have been among those warning that rising inequality will damage the world economy if left unchecked, while the theme of Thomas Piketty’s best-selling book Capital was the drift back towards late 19th century levels of wealth concentration.

Barack Obama’s penultimate State of the Union address on Tuesday is also expected to be dominated by the issue of income inequality.

He will propose a redistributive tax plan to extract more than $300bn (£200bn) in extra taxes from the 1% of rich earners in order to fund benefits specifically targeted at working families.

However, the odds of the White House having any success persuading Congress to adopt the plan, given the Republicans’ new grip on both chambers, are extremely long. But Obama’s embrace of what he calls “middle-class economics” – as opposed to the trickle-down economics of the Republicans – is likely to ensure that inequality remains a pivotal theme of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014, and that there was an increasing tendency for wealth to be inherited and to be used as a lobbying tool by the rich to further their own interests. It noted that more than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches, while 20% have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group which saw their cash wealth increase by 11% in the 12 months to March 2014.

These sectors spent $550m lobbying policymakers in Washington and Brussels during 2013. During the 2012 US election cycle alone, the financial sector provided $571m in campaign contributions.

Byanyima said: “I was surprised to be invited to be a co-chair at Davos because we are a critical voice. We go there to challenge these powerful elites. It is an act of courage to invite me.”

Oxfam said it was calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:

• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.

• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.

• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth.

• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.

• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.

• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.

• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.

Speaking to the Guardian, Byanyima added: “Extreme inequality is not just an accident or a natural rule of economics. It is the result of policies and with different policies it can be reduced. I am optimistic that there will be change.

“A few years ago the idea that extreme poverty was harmful was on the fringes of the economic and political debate. But having made the case we are now seeing an emerging consensus among business leaders, economic leaders, political leaders and even faith leaders.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 January 2015, 10:24 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sad and tragic Prime Minister and Cabinet do not seem to be understand the grave sentiments expressed by Yang di Pertuan Agong that he had never been more concerned about race and religious relations in his 57 years as ruler

It is most sad and tragic that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his Cabinet do not seem to understand the grave sentiments expressed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, Kedah Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, that he had never been more concerned about race and religious relations in the country since ascending to the throne 57 years ago in 1958 – a year after the country’s independence.

The year 2014 which ended about three weeks ago had been bedevilled by  a host of disasters and misfortunes like

(1) the two air crashes of MH370 on March 8 and MH 17 of July 17 with a total toll of 537 crew members and passengers of different nationalities, together with a third air disaster in one  year, Air Asia QZ8501 which crashed into Java Sea with 162 victims on Dec. 28;

(2) the year-end worst floods catastrophe within  living memory, with close to a million flood victims, evacuating a quarter of a million flood refugees to the various flood relief centres, created the devastation of Zero Ground zones like  Manek Urai, Kg. Manjur and Kg Karangan all in Kuala Krai, Kelantan, a death toll of 25 and billions of ringgit of damage;

(3) the burgeoning multi-billion ringgit 1MDB scandal threatening to become the “mother of all financial scandals” in Malaysia;

(4) the disastrous Report of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the “mother of all problems in Sabah”, the 40-year-old nightmare of illegal immigrants in Sabah, but which turned out to be only  the latest of the four-decade-old merry-go-round with no light at the end of the 40-year illegal immigrant “tunnel” in Sabah;

(5) the bleak and gloomy economic picture with the double whammy of the plunge in crude oil prices hitting a six-year low, declining by almost 60% from the middle of last year to trade below US$50 per barrel and the unprecedented depreciation of the Malaysian ringgit since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997.

Today, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak played the role of the Great Contrarian dismissing the mounting calls on the government to brace for another grave economic and financial crisis, made not only by economists but by former Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

When Najib declared that the Malaysia economy is not in crisis, he appears to justify his role as the “absentee Prime Minister” in the nation’s history, as he gets ready for another international junket.

Will Najib perform the Double Whammy of the Great Contrarian and declare that there is no basis for the Yang di Pertuan Agong to be never more concerned about race relations in the country since ascending to the throne 57 years ago or for the following statement by Sultan Abdul Halim:

“I have been on the throne for 57 years. Even though I have witnessed many incidents, I have never been this worried about race and religious relations, which are becoming brittle.”

Najib will be doing the nation a great disservice by acting as the Great Contrarian, whether in denying  the need to brace for another major economic crisis the nation’s history or at the most “brittle” race and religious relations in the nation’s history.

It is this concern about the country’s future  as a nation that has prompted the Open Letter by  25 Eminent Malays and the snowballing of support by ordinary Malaysians, whether NGOs or NGIs, regardless of race, religion, politics or region, to reaffirm moderation as the hallmark of Malaysia’s multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural nation and to save the country from the bigots and extremists who have been rearing their ugly heads in recent years with their blasphemous claim that they are the real personification of moderation in the country.

The Yang di Pertuan Agong’s concerns have  vindicated the Open Letter of the 25 Eminents and the snow-balling support of Malaysians regardless of race, religion, region or politics to reaffirm Malaysia as a moderate nation to drown out the voices of the  tiny minority of bigots and extremists so that Malaysia can be a model to the world as the oasis of multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural harmony, tolerance and co-existence.

The first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn would have been horrified by the blasphemous claims of the political charlatans, bigots and extremists of today who are claiming to cloak their rhetoric and politics of hatred, fear, intolerance, bigotry and extremism under the banner of moderation!

This is why Malaysians should remember the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, especially after the grave sentiments of the Yang di Pertuan Agong that race and religious relations in Malaysia had never been so bad in the nation’s history since Merdeka in 1957.

Under the first three Prime Ministers, Malaysia’s foundation as a  tolerant, open, liberal, democratic, multi-racial, multi-religious and secular nation with Islam as the religion of the Federation,  was never doubted,  questioned or challenged.

This was also the basis for Sabah and Sarawak’s Agreement, embedded in the 20 Points and 18 Points respectively for Sabah and Sarawak in the the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

In fact, for 47 years of our nation-building until 2001, this bedrock of the basis of Malaysian nation-building spelt out in the Malaysian Constitution of 1957 and 1963 was never doubted, questioned or  challenged – but things began to go  awry after 2001.

I have no doubt that the country’s first three Prime Ministers would have understood the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s grave concerns about being never more worried about race and religious relations in the country, and would have taken positive and pro-active measures to address concerns, including swift and immediate response to the Open Letter by the 25 Eminent Malays.

Can we expect the present Prime Minister to show similar qualities as the first three Prime Ministers and to have a meeting with the 25 Eminent Malays before he embarks on another international junket in keeping with his reputation as  “Absentee Prime Minister”?

Tunku Abdul Rahman’s 112th birthday anniversary falls on Feb. 8. Let Malaysians remember Tunku’s legacy of moderation in a meaningful way to help ensure that Malaysia will forever be  a land for moderates with no place for the bigots or extremists of any ilk.

(Media Conference Statement in Sibu on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2 pm)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 January 2015, 12:53 pm and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sustainable development goals: changing the world in 17 steps

Liz Ford

Guardian

19 January 2015

The countdown has begun to September’s summit on the sustainable development goals, with national governments now discussing the 17 goals that could transform the world by 2030

What are the sustainable development goals?

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a new, universal set of goals, targets and indicators that UN member states will be expected to use to frame their agendas and political policies over the next 15 years.

The SDGs follow, and expand on, the millennium development goals (MDGs), which were agreed by governments in 2000, and are due to expire at the end of this year.

Why do we need another set of goals?

There is broad agreement that while the MDGs provided a focal point for governments on which to hinge their policies and overseas aid programmes to end poverty and improve the lives of poor people – as well as provide a rallying point for NGOs to hold them to account – they have been criticised for being too narrow.

The eight MDGs – reduce poverty and hunger; achieve universal education; promote gender equality; reduce child and maternal deaths; combat HIV, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop global partnerships – failed to consider the root causes of poverty, or gender inequality, or the holistic nature of development. The goals made no mention of human rights, nor specifically addressed economic development. While the MDGs, in theory, applied to all countries, in reality, they were considered targets for poor countries to achieve, with finance from wealthy states. Every country will be expected to work towards achieving the SDGs.

As the MDG deadline approaches, around 1 billion people still live on less then $1.25 a day – the World Bank measure on poverty – and more than 800 million people do not have enough food to eat. Women are still fighting hard for their rights, and millions of women still die in childbirth.

What are the proposed 17 goals?

1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture

3) Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages

4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all

9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation

10) Reduce inequality within and among countries

11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)

14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss

16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development

Within the goals are a proposed 169 targets, to put a bit of meat on the bones. Proposed targets under goal one, for example, include reducing by at least half the number of people living in poverty by 2030, and eradicating extreme poverty (people living on less than $1.25 a day). Under goal five, there’s a proposed target on eliminating violence against women. Under goal 16 sits a target to promote the rule of law and equal access to justice.

How were the goals chosen?

Unlike the MDGs, which were drawn up by a group of men in the basement of UN headquarters (or so the legend goes), the UN has conducted the largest consultation programme in its history to gauge opinion on what the SDGs should include.

Establishing post-2015 goals was an outcome of the Rio+20 summit in 2012, which mandated the creation of an open working group to come up with a draft set.

The open working group, with representatives from 70 countries, had its first meeting in March 2013 and published its final draft, with its 17 suggestions, in July 2014. The draft was presented to the UN general assembly in September.

Alongside the open working group, the UN conducted a series of “global conversations”, which included 11 thematic and 83 national consultations, and door-to-door surveys. It also launched an online My World survey asking people to prioritise the areas they’d like to see addressed in the goals. The results of the consultations should have fed into the the working group’s discussions.

Are governments happy about the proposed 17 goals?

The majority seem to be, but a handful of member states, including the UK and Japan, aren’t so keen. Some countries feel that 17 goals are too unwieldy to implement or sell to the public and would like a narrower brief. Or so they say. Some believe the underlying reason is to get rid of some of the more uncomfortable goals, such as those relating to the environment. Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, has publicly said he wants 12 goals at the most, preferably 10. It’s not clear, though, which goals the UK government would like taken out if they had the choice.

Some NGOs also believe there are too many goals, but there is a general consensus that it’s better to have 17 goals that include targets on women’s empowerment, good governance, and peace and security, for example, than fewer goals that don’t address these issues.

Is the number of goals expected to change?

Those who have been involved in the process say no, although they do expect fewer targets. Many of the proposed targets are more political statement than measurable achievement at the moment.

In his synthesis report on the SDGs in December, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon gave no hint that he would like to see the number of goals reduced. In a bid to help governments to frame the goals, Ban clustered them into six “essential elements”: dignity, prosperity, justice, partnership, planet, people.

Amina Mohammed, the UN secretary general’s special adviser on post-2015 development planning, said it had been a hard fight to get the number of goals down to 17, so there would be strong resistance to reduce them further.

Member states will begin formal discussions on the content of the SDGs on 19 January, and are expected to meet each month until September. Any serious faultlines should be evident over the next three to four months.

How will the goals be funded?

That’s the trillion-dollar question. Rough calculations from the intergovernmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing have put the cost of providing a social safety net to eradicate extreme poverty at about $66bn a year, while annual investments in improving infrastructure (water, agriculture, transport, power) could be up to a total of $7tn globally.

In its report last year, the committee said public finance and aid would be central to support the implementation of the SDGs. But it insisted that money generated from the private sector, through tax reforms, and through a crackdown on illicit financial flows and corruption was also vital.

A major conference on financing for SDGs will be held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in July, where it is hoped that concrete financing will be agreed.

When will the new goals come into force?

If member states agree the draft set of 17 SDGs at a UN summit in New York in September, they will become applicable from January 2016. The expected deadline for the SDGS is 2030.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 20 January 2015, 10:42 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Less than 50% Malaysians trust Putrajaya, survey shows

The Malaysian Insider

20 January 2015

Malaysians remain suspicious of Putrajaya, with a survey showing that less than half of the country’s citizens trusting the government this year.

The 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey by global public relations firm Edelman found that only 45% of Malaysians trusted the government, down from last year’s 54%.

In contrast, neighbouring Singapore and Indonesia garnered higher level of trusts from their people, registering 70% and 72% respectively this year.

The island republic saw only a 5% decline in trust from last year’s 75%, while Indonesians’ trust in their government jumped by 19% from 53% last year.

However, the survey acknowledged the lack of trust in leaders was not unique to Malaysia.

“There has been a startling decrease in trust across all institutions driven by the unpredictable and unimaginable events of 2014,” said Edelman president and CEO Richard Edelman in a press release.

“The spread of Ebola in West Africa; the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370, plus two subsequent air disasters; the arrests of top Chinese government officials; the foreign exchange rate rigging by six global banks; and numerous data breaches, most recently at Sony Pictures by a sovereign nation, have shaken confidence.”

The disappearance of MH370 last March en route to Beijing, China, with 239 people on board, saw contradicting statements being made by various Malaysian authorities.

An ongoing international search in the Indian Ocean, where the plane is believed to have ended, has yet to yield any finds.

Interestingly, the survey found that Malaysians slightly trusted local governments more than the federal government headed by the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, with 51% less suspicious of local governments compared with the 48% garnered by the federal government.

Besides a lack of trust in government, Malaysian trust in businesses, media and NGOs all recorded a downtrend this year from 2014.

The Edelman survey found that trust in NGOs recorded an eight percentage point dip, from 75% last year to 67% this year.

Similarly, trust in media plunged to 46% this year, from 2014’s 59%, while businesses also suffered the same fate with trust slipped by five percentage points to 67% this year from last year’s 72%.

Overall, the survey found that trust in governments, businesses, media and NGOs in the general population is below 50% in two-thirds of countries, including the US, UK, Germany and Japan.

The 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey was conducted between November 13 and November 24 last year in 27 countries, sampling 27,000 general respondents and an oversample of 6,000 informed public aged from 25 to 64. – January 20, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 January 2015, 6:12 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia ranks 35 out of 50, loses to Singapore in talent competitiveness index

The Malay Mail Online

January 20, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 — Malaysia has been ranked 35 out of 50 countries in international business school Insead’s global talent competitiveness index (GTCI) for 2014, trailing behind Singapore, which retained its number two spot for a second-year running.

The index placed Switzerland at number one, followed by Singapore and Luxemborg in second and third places, while Australia came in at number nine.

Malaysia scored higher than China, Brazil and Greece, which came in at number 41, 49 and 50 respectively.

The study, produced by Insead along with the Human Capital Leadership Institute of Singapore (HCLI) and Adecco Group, measures a nation’s competitiveness based on the quality of talent it can produce, attract and retain.

This is the second time Singapore, the only Asian country, was featured in the top ten rankings of the index.

Malaysia moved up two notches from the number 37 spot in GTCI’s 2013 rankings index which continues to be heavily-dominated by European countries.

Commenting on the latest ranking, Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director of Global Indices at Insead pointed out that the top three countries — Switzerland, Singapore and Luxemborg are small but high-income nations, and therefore have no choice but to practice an open and competitive economy.

“Faced with specific geographical challenges and a quasi-absence of natural resources, these countries have had no choice but to be open economies, a critical ingredient to being talent competitive.”

“The top countries on this year’s GTCI have played the game of globalisation and played it well,” he said in a statement.

Lanvin said the other countries within the top 20 category, which includes the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, have “strong immigration traditions” and prioritises sound education policies.

Kwan Chee Wei, CEO of the Human Capital Leadership Institute (HCLI), said most Asian countries lack transparency, empowerment and growth in its economies — key ingredients that were reflected in the results of last year’s GTCI.

“In certain Asian countries, there is a need to see value and worth in both professional and technical vocations.

“Beyond this, traditional hierarchies and bureaucracy in many Asian corporates, often hold back openness, transparency and empowerment – important levers in accelerating talent growth,” Kwan was quoted as saying.

The report pointed out that fiscally stable countries needed talent competitiveness for sustainable development, and that the onus was on mineral or oil-rich countries or those with a specific competitive advantage to foster this to ensure sustainable prosperity.

“Countries must consider employability or risk high unemployment: ‘talent for growth’ means meeting the actual needs of a national economy,” the report said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 January 2015, 6:36 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians’ trust in Putrajaya would have plunge far below 45% into the region of the thirties if the Edelman Trust Barometer survey had been conducted in 2015

It has been reported that the 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey found that only 45% of Malaysians trusted the government, down from last year’s 54%.

Malaysians’ trust in Putrajaya would have plunged far below 45% into  the region of the thirties if the survey had been conducted in the new year of 2015, and not between November 13 and November 24 last year.

If the Trust Survey had been conducted in the new year, it would have to take into account public’s further deteriortion in their  trust perceptions on Putrajaya as a result of the following five  events:

1. The worst floods catastrophe in living memory in Malaysia and the Federal government’s appalling state of unpreparedness in all three phases of response, relief and reconstruction to the floods disaster, to the extent that there were flood victims who were completely left without    food, water or power for days on end.  The Federal Government failed and it was the ordinary citizens, whether as individuals, groups or NGOs, who saved the day by organising themselves to rush  help  and relief to the flood victims.

2. The grave breach of trust in the failure of the Federal Government to provide a definitive solution  to the 40-year nightmare of the illegal immigrant problems in Sabah, which has changed the political demography of the state and reduced native Sabahans into strangers in their own land, despite the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Immigrants in Sabah (RCIIIS).

3. The deplorable Zahid-Phua-Shafee-Khalid quadruple tangle, with Malaysia reduced to  a laughing stock in the world by the sorry episode of the Home Minister writing an infamous letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to vouch for the character of an alleged gambling kingpin, contradicting his own police account, and the maze of lies and falsehoods tying up the Home Minister in trying to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible.

4. The humongous denial complex of Putrajaya, best exemplified by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s declaration  yesterday that Malaysia is not facing any economic crisis, which was quickly followed by the announcement by the credit ratings agency Fitch that it may downgrade  Malaysia’s rating  as it viewed Najib’s revised 2015 Budget and the government’s revision of its fiscal deficit to 3.2 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) as evidence that “dependence on commodities remains a key credit weakness for Malasia”.

5. The Open Letter by 25 Eminent Malays with snowballing support from all strata of Malaysian society, regardless of race, religion, region or politics, whether NGOs or NGIs, and most recently and  significantly, the grave sentiments of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, Kedah Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, that he had never been more concerned about race and religious relations in the country since ascending to the throne 57 years ago in 195

It is most pathetic about the state of governance in Malaysia that at this time of the people’s lowest trust in Federal Government in the nation’s history, the Prime Minister has  himself little trust of the Cabinet and Parliament which was probably why his revised 2015 Budget was never brought to Cabinet for approval and it never occurred to the Prime Minister to convene an emergency meeting of Parliament, which was the body which had approved the 2015 Budget in the first place.

Did the Cabinet at its meeting today discuss the 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey  that only 45% of Malaysians trusted the government, down from last year’s 54%?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 21 January 2015, 5:57 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Calling Taib’s bluff

By Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Jan 19, 2015

What now, Abdul Taib Mahmud? Neither your vast billions, nor the legal letters from one of London’s more prominent lawyers, were able to stop Swiss NGO Bruno Manser Fund’s executive director, Lukas Straumann, from exposing your terrible legacy.

Taib’s threats and intimidation were unsuccessful, and the book launch of ‘Money Logging: On the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia’ by Straumann went ahead as scheduled on Friday, Jan 17, in London.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was not deterred by Taib’s bully boy tactics, when his lawyers tried to stop the broadcast of the interview with Straumann. To make things worse, Amazon has started stocking the book, despite earlier intimidation by Taib’s lawyers who threatened to sue Amazon, for selling what they had termed a “defamatory book”.

At the launch, the main speaker, Straumann, summarised the role of the major players in the deforestation of Sarawak and gave an insight into Taib’s money logging activities, the politics involved, Taib’s family, Swiss activist Bruno Manser, how governments and multinational banks surreptitiously aid Taib, and more importantly, how he (Straumann) became involved.

Clare Rewcastle Brown (left), the founder of Sarawak Report, said former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had criticised Taib and stressed that he should not “get away” with timber corruption.

The only Malaysian panel member, lawyer See Chee How, claimed that he had won all of his land rights cases on behalf of the indigenous people. Sarawak land laws are based on UK land laws, but he stressed that “winning is one thing, the enforcement of the law is another”.

Jetty Word, the director of the Borneo Project, talked about the dams which Taib was building and how these had wrecked people’s lives, for instance, from the ill-effects of polluted water.

Although Rewcastle Brown noted that Mahathir was displeased with Taib, we must question the role of Putrajaya and Taib. One cannot exist without the other. The two are like a growing foetus, linked by an umbilical cord to its mother.

‘No BN without Taib’

Most of Sarawak’s petroleum revenue goes to Putrajaya and in return, Taib is allowed to plunder his own nation using timber revenue.

Taib treats Sarawak as his personal fiefdom and Putrajaya is complicit. Putrajaya depends on Taib to deliver BN to Parliament. Without Taib, BN would have long ceased to rule Malaysia, perhaps even ceased to exist.

The current redelineation exercise in Sarawak will create more seats for Sarawak. Mahathir may criticise other PMs for supporting Taib, but what did he do during his 22 years in power. He had the chance to intervene, but he did not.

What about the people? Taib knows that money talks. There are allegations of him bribing his way into power, paying the tuai rumah (village chief) to vote BN, and paying party members to vote for him.

He uses money to ‘compensate’ the tribal people for the loss of their ancestral lands and replacing virgin forest with oil palm. Everything he does is for his own profit. Very little is given back to the people. Taib makes billions from all his ventures, but the people are given only a few thousand ringgits in compensation.

Taib has homes all over the world, but the villagers who are displaced find themselves in shanty towns, far away from their ancestral lands. Deprived of their normal hunting grounds, they can neither cultivate crops, nor hunt. People become ill from having to live with polluted water.

Taib is aware of the historical and sociological background of Sarawak. He practised 1Malaysia long before Najib (right) thought of the idea. Taib capitalises on the harmony of the multi-ethnic races, and he keeps Umno Baru out of Sarawak because he knows that this is his only usefulness to Sarawakians.

The political parties in Sarawak are like the swaying palm trees – one day they are with you, the next day, they are not. Money is useful and Taib knows how to exploit the indecision of the tribal leaders. It is also alleged that Taib grants favours to his cronies and they, in turn, make sure he is kept happy.

Silent Sarawakian majority

Taib sends his children abroad to study, but the folk in the interior do not have that luxury. Children may have to walk or travel by boat for several hours to reach school. The rivers are not just their source of livelihood, but also a means of transport.

That is why children are vulnerable when they hitch rides in timber lorries to go to school.

Look at the manner in which the general populace of Sarawak dealt with the rapes of the Penan girls. What happened to the voices of disgust? Where were the protests in the major towns and cities? The citizens of India voiced their anger when their women were raped and were denied justice.

When some Sarawak leaders claimed that the Penan were good storytellers, the majority of Sarawakians kept quiet.

Taib’s lawyers said that Straumann’s book was “based on an entirely false and highly damaging premise”. When asked to explain how Taib got his wealth, the lawyers gave no information.

Did the London lawyers really believe that Taib had amassed his wealth like another Malaysian celebrity who started saving from her teenage years, to buy diamond rings and handbags? Did the lawyers fall for the story that Taib’s children are intelligent and business savvy, and were able to turn RM1 into a few billion ringgits?

Today, Malaysia’s reputation is at stake. The success of the illegal logging in Sarawak has meant that the Taib timber model is being exported to countries with weak governments. The local people in Cambodia, parts of Africa and Papua New Guinea, are suffering just as the Sarawakians have suffered.

Shame on us Malaysians, for not doing enough to remove Taib and his ilk – be they in Putrajaya or Petra Jaya.

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

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 January 2015, 5:10 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib as yet to prove that he is Prime Minister for all Malaysians who is the chief exponent of the politics of inclusion and moderation instead of allowing the rhetoric and politics of exclusion and extremism a free run in the country

In his interview on the “Soal Jawab” programme over TV3 last night, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the government remained committed to maintaining peace and harmony in the country by ensuring that no serious racial disputes broke out and that he would do his best to protect the interests and well-being of all Malaysians.

He stressed that as Prime Minister, he was responsible to the people of Malaysia and that he would do his best to protect the interests and well-being of Malaysians.

While Najib’s assurance is most welcome, it needs to be pointed out that Najib, coming to the end of his sixth year as Prime Minister in less than three months’ time, has yet to prove that he is Prime Minister for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region, and who is the chief exponent of the politics of inclusion and moderation instead of allowing the rhetoric and politics of exclusion and extremism a free run in the country.

No one doubts the eloquence of Najib in promoting the cause of moderation in international circles, with his initiative of the Global Movement of Moderates promoted thrice in the United Nations General Assembly, but unfortunately, Najib has yet to “walk the talk” of his periodical preaching of moderation in international forums in the local scene.

If Najib could put in practice 10% of his espousal and advocacy of the cause of moderation in the country as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he would have been more successful in gaining the trust and confidence of Malaysians.

Instead, Najib has the dubious distinction of being the Prime Minister with the lowest popularity poll.

The 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey found that
only 45% of Malaysians trusted Putrajaya
, down from last year’s 54%.

Najib’s failure to be the chief exponent of the politics of inclusion and moderation could be seen by his refusal to convene a special Parliament meeting for the revised 2015 Budget or even to invite Pakatan Rakyat leaders and MPs to discussions before the finalisation of the revised 2015 Budget.

In fact, not only Barisan Nasional leaders but even Cabinet Ministers were excluded in the process of formulation and finalisation of the revised 2015 Budget, as the Cabinet meeting yesterday was presented with a fait accompli of the revised 2015 Budget announced a day earlier.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders have repeatedly said that we are prepared to co-operate with the Prime Minister and Putrajaya to advance the cause of national reconciliation but the Prime Minister has yet to act on this offer to promote the cause of inclusion and moderation.

In his State of the Union Address yesterday, US President Barack Obama said:

“If you share in the broad vision I outlined tonight, join me in the work at hand.

“If you disagree with parts of it, I hope you’ll at least work with parts of it. I hope you’ll at least work with me where you do agree.

“And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger.”

There is now great controversy whether Obama could “walk the talk” of the commitment he made in his State of Union address.

But in Malaysia, Najib has yet to make a commitment to be prepared to work with all Malaysians, regardless of political differences – and the Prime Minister is still keeping the 25 Eminent Malays who penned the Open Letter to the Prime Minister last month cooling their heels waiting for a meeting with the Prime Minister!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 January 2015, 9:47 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Najib be Mahathir’s sixth scalp or is Malaysia hauling the first “tiger” or “crocodile” to court and prison in the country’s anti-corruption campaign?

The country’s politics  is abuzz with extraordinary news recently, raising the question whether the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia will be the sixth scalp of the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia or whether the country is hauling the first “tiger” or “crocodile” to court and prison  in Malaysia’s anti-corruption campaign.

In the past 45 years, the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had collected five scalps of top political leaders in the country, starting with Bapa Malaysia and  the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, two Deputy Prime Ministers who might have gone on to become Prime Ministers, Tun Musa Hitam and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and the eternal Prime Minister-aspirant Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

The question now is whether Mahathir will add the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, to his collection of six top political scalps in Malaysia.

But Najib is evidently not taking the possibility of his “political scalping” by Mahathir lying down, and the question has arisen whether the first “tiger” or “crocodile” will be hauled to court and prison in the history of Malaysia’s lack-lustre anti-corruption campaign.

Recently, the Najib administration and its publicity machinery trumpetted Malaysia’s anti-corruption “achievements”, even  falsely claiming that Malaysia’s ranking in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Indeex (CPI) 2014 is “the country’s best in 10 years”.

This is of course untrue.

The TI CPI 2014 is the country’s best in six years under Najib’s premiership, but the worst compared to Tun Abdullah’s premiership with TI CPI from 2004 to 2008 ranging from 39th to 47th ranking and even worse in the nine years of Mahathir’s premiership from 1995 – 2003, ranking from 23rd placing in 1995 to No. 37th placing in 2003.

Studying the TI CPI 2014 ranking and score for the 175 countries and the 20-year series of TI CPI from 1995-2014, there is no reason or ground for anyone to believe that the target of Malaysia being ranked in the top 30 of TI CPI in 2020 is a realistic or achievable one.

In fact, come 2020, Malaysia faces the risk of being overtaken by China and even Indonesia in both in TI CPI ranking and score, when in the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a score of 5.28 out of 10, while China and Indonesia were ranked as the last two bottom countries with CPI score of 2.16 and 1.94 out of 10 respectively (i.e. hovering in the lowest 90 percentile of the CPI score).

However, in the last 20 years, Malaysia achieved the dubious distinction as one of the few countries which had been downgraded both in TI CPI ranking and score, and losing out to countries which had lower CPI ranking and score in 1995 as well as now at risk of being overtaken by countries including China and Indonesia which had been at the bottom of TI CPI in 1995.

In Indonesia, the new President Joko Widodo is personally leading the campaign against corruption while in China, though it had dropped four points in the TI CPI score last year, its corruption campaign against “tigers and flies” have seen a tremendous improvement in China’s  TI CPI score in the past two decades.

Corruption arrests and prosecutions against tigers and crocodiles, whether ministerial rank or equivalents, are now a common scene in the anti-corruption campaigns in Indonesia and China, but there had not been a single “tiger” or “crocodile” hauled to court and  successfully prosecuted for corruption in Malaysia in over three decades.

All Malaysians should be concerned that from these 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.

Suddenly, there seems to be a possibility that Malaysia’s anti-corruption campaign may enter a new era.

Is the country’s anti-corruption campaign on the eve  of a new scenario, with “tigers” or “crocodiles” hauled to court and prison in Malaysia, like in China and Indonesia?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 January 2015, 11:30 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Corruption
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stop making the Deputy VCs as sacrificial victims when the people who should resign are  the DPM and Education Minister Muhyiddin and the VC Amin Jalaludin for continued political interference against academic freedom and excellence

The Deputy Vice Chancellors, Professor Dr. Mohd Hamid Abd Shukor (academic and international) and Professor Datuk Dr. Rohana Yusof (student affairs) should not be made sacrificial victims in the continued political interference with the  once leading university in the country.

If any body should quit their posts, it is  the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for continued political interference against academic freedom and excellence in  University of Malaya and the Vice Chancellor, Professor Datuk Dr. Mohd Amin Jalaludin who had dismally failed to stand up for  the academic staff  and the university students  in University of Malaya against such political interference by the politicians from Putrajaya.

The greatest tragedy of University of Malaya is that it has fallen off  from the pedestal as one of the leading world universities even in the sixties and seventies, left far behind by its earlier peers and even equals among the leading national universities in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia and there are no signs that University of Malaya is on the bend to restore her prestigious world top positions for academic freedom and excellence some  forty years ago.

Instead, there are unending efforts by the bureaucrats in Putrajaya, obeying the dictates of their political masters, to dumb down the university population, whether academicians or students, wanting them abandon their idealism and to accept uncritically  the status quo in the country – which is in fact robbing the country of the best in idealism and constructive ideas of the most educated and  young generation of Malaysians.

The Cabinet at its meeting next Wednesday must bestir itself to reverse the punitive decisions against the two Deputy Vice Chancellors, one for not supporting UMNO and the other for being too lenient with students in the banned talk featuring opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at the end of last year.

The universities in the country must be an arena for the contest of ideas and not for the continued suppression of ideas.

This is for the sake of the country, to ensure our  university excellence and continued competitiveness , and not for the sake of UMNO or Barisan Nasional.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 January 2015, 3:17 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Between ‘divine’ punishments and taxpayers’ rights

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

23 January 2015

In PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s worldview, punishments like chopping off hands and stoning for crimes are par for the course but taxpayers cannot elect local government representatives because it can lead to racial discord.

He also subscribes to the view that most Malays still remain in rural and semi-rural areas while the Chinese are the majority in urban areas, if his comments against the DAP’s proposals to have the third vote is anything to go by.

“What more when we look at it from a racial aspect which could cause the gap to widen and polarisation to happen, as well as tensions between residents in a town with a Chinese majority.

“Just compare the RM250 million annual income of a local council in Selangor with the RM50 million of another local council in the same state where the majority is of a different race,” Hadi said.

“We should not see political victory and economic power as being for one race only in a multiracial society.

“We should not support something that can be a catalyst for instability, or something that would widen the divide between urban and rural communities, and more frighteningly, something that could result in a repeat of the May 13 riots that is a black mark on our country’s history,” he said.

Really? This from the leader of a party that once pushed for an Islamic welfare state as its mission in the last general election, only to once again go back to insisting on hudud for the only state it runs.

Is it any wonder that PAS can only be one-term governments in other states than Kelantan? It’s insistence for “divine” punishments over taxpayers’ rights is a turn-off, even for urban Malays in Terengganu where it ruled for one term from 1999 and Kedah from 2004.

From Hadi’s comments, one can only surmise that he is not above canvassing for votes among all races but will cite racial factors to deny something as democratic as choosing one’s own local government.

Or is he against the DAP’s proposal for the third vote because that party is against PAS’s push for hudud? It this a case of tit-for-tat between the two allies in Pakatan Rakyat (PR)?

Perhaps Hadi should get up to speed on the fact that more Malays are now in urban areas, and that urbanisation has spread to more areas in Malaysia – even his sleepy fishing village of Marang in Terengganu.

And that local government elections and policies cut through race and religion – it is about services and facilities, and planned development rather than a case of racial supremacy.

If one didn’t know better, Hadi sounds more like an Umno man rather than a PAS politician who talks about Islam rather than race.

Hadi’s view reflects that of a man and politician still stuck in the race-and-religion divide, the urban-rural gap politics of a developing Malaysia. But this is Malaysia of the 21st century where Malaysians of all stripes just want a government that represents their wishes.

After all, the PR alliance has agreed on local government elections but not hudud.

If Hadi truly believes that Malaysians want hudud, why can’t he see that they also want local government elections. Or, at the very least, put it to vote in Parliament – the same way he wants hudud to be debated.

But, Hadi rather take potshots from his fishing village home and be content with preaching from the pulpit every Friday, instead of confronting his allies in a PR leadership meeting and thrash out all issues.

If that is the case, PAS has to review its options of whether to remain in PR. It cannot have a village ustaz leading a party of scholars and professionals in the 21st century. Malaysia deserves better politicians than those who just harp on racial discord as a reason not to have more democracy. – January 23, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 7:07 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Here’s The Ridiculous Loot That’s Been Found With Corrupt Chinese Officials

Harrison Jacobs

Business Insider

Jan. 23, 2015

China President Xi Jinping is two years into his unprecedented fight to eliminate the corruption that permeates the Communist Party in China. Since assuming office in early 2013, Xi has vowed to “hunt tigers and swat flies,” meaning he’ll target both high- and low-level officials.

In contrast to previous Chinese leaders, Xi has been adamant that no one is untouchable. Big targets like former security czar Zhou Yongkang and former military chief Xu Caihou, once thought untouchable by even top officials, were some of the first to fall in Xi’s crusade.

While Xi and the Party are notoriously tight-lipped about the inner workings of the Communist Party, they have been remarkably open about the illicit goods, cash, and properties found in the hands of the corrupt officials they’ve taken down.

Of course, Xi may have a hidden motive for being so transparent — to convince the public he’s winning the battle against corruption. Whatever the reason, he’s given Western observers an unprecedented view into the level of corruption of Chinese officials.

Here are a few of the more outrageous examples:

Zhou Yongkang

Zhou Yongkang once belonged to the all-powerful Politiburo Standing Committee and served as national police chief when he came under investigation in July 2014. His arrest in December could be a move to add legitimacy to Xi’s corruption campaign. It was previously taboo to investigate current or former members of the Politiburo.

NTD Television reported Zhou’s ill-gotten gains, which include assets totaling $16.05 billion.

Here’s a taste of Zhou’s confiscated spoils:

Cash stashed in Zhou’s residences totaling $300.3 million dollars in US dollars, Euros, Yuan, British Poundnds, and Swiss Francs.

    62 cars including military Jeeps and a tourist bus

    55 paintings by famous painters with a market value between $128 million to $161 million

    Hundreds of foreign and domestic bank accounts belonging to Zhou and relatives totaling $6.06 billion.

    Petroleum, aviation, wine, and financial securities with a total value of $8.24 billion

    Foreign securities and bonds totaling $27.3 million

    326 properties all over China totaling $1.76 billion in value

    42,850 grams of gold, silver, and gold coins

General Xu Caihou

General Xu, formerly the vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, confessed to taking bribes in October after the party’s seven-month investigation found he took huge bribes for promoting people in his command. He was expelled from the Communist Party and had his rank of general revoked.

When investigators came to Xu’s 21,500 square-foot Beijing mansion, the extent of Xu’s corruption became obvious. In the basement, investigators found more than one ton (in weight) of cash, as well as countless jade, emeralds, calligraphy, and paintings, according to Foreign Policy. It reportedly took more than 10 military trucks to cart off the loot.

Here’s how investigators found the cash at the house, according to The Financial Times:

The cash was neatly stacked in boxes, each with the name of the soldier who had paid the bribe in exchange for promotion up the chain of command. Many of the boxes, each containing millions of renminbi, had never been opened, said people familiar with the case.

Liu Han

Former mining tycoon Liu Han, who ranked 148th on Forbes’ list of richest Chinese business people in 2012, was sentenced to death last year for “organizing and leading mafia-style crime and murder,” according to Xinhua, China’s official news agency.

Liu occupied the murky space in China between businessman and crime boss, heading up mining conglomerate Sichuan Hanlong Group while also leading a gang that committed murders, assaults, kidnappings, fraud, and contract rigging.

At the time Liu was detained, his accumulated assets totaled $6.4 billion, including hundreds of cars such as Rolls-Royces, Bentleys, Ferraris, 20 guns, 677 bullets, 2,163 shotgun cartridges, and more than 100 knives, according to state-run news agency Xinhua. Liu wore a diamond-encrusted Franck Muller watch and often ordered bottles of French wine that cost more than $12,000.

At his trial, his ex-wife, Yang Xue, relayed this story of how Liu dealt with government officials:

Liu Han would take me to dine with them, and offer them gifts such as gold or jade items worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of yuan … Sometimes he would deliberately lose when gambling, just to bribe them.

Liu Zhijun

Liu Zhijun joined the Communist Party as a low-level bureaucrat at the national ministry of railways in the 1970s, eventually rising to become the minister of the department. This past July, a Beijing court sentenced him to death for bribery and abuse of power.

Liu accepted bribes totaling $10.4 million from 1986 to 2011, according to Xinhua. In 2013, investigators seized 142.1 million in cash, undisclosed amounts of shares, 16 vehicles, 374 properties, and other valuables, according to The Guardian. In addition, investigators found the minister had 18 mistresses, including multiple actresses from a popular television show, nurses, and train stewards.

Gu Junshan

Lieutenant General Gu Junshan was arrested in early 2012 after his suspected involvement in a massive scheme that involved the sale of military appointments. The supposed bribery scheme involved nearly $5 billion, roughly $100 million of which Gu allegedly kept for himself.

When police raided Gu’s mansion in 2013, they found the stupendous spoils from that racket, including four military trucks worth of luxury items, a cellar of expensive wine, a gold hand basin, and a pure gold statue of Chairman Mao, according to The Telegraph.

Gu reportedly distributed the money from the racket to his underlings by filling Mercedes vehicles with $3.8 million in gold bars and handing the recipient the keys.

Ni Fake

The former vice governor of Anhui province in central China, Ni Fake, is one of Xi’s strangest targets. He’s hardly the big name that Xu or Zhou are, but the Chinese media has given him a lot of attention because of the form his loot has taken. Almost 80% of the Ni’s fortune was jade.

Ni’s obsession with jade was well-known, leading party investigators to warn him about his ostentatiousness nearly two years before the investigation. By most accounts, Ni did not listen. He always wore a jade necklace and carried a small flashlight and magnifying glass to examine new jade that might enter his collection, according to The New York Times.

The state-run China News website reported that, on the weekends, Ni would spread out his favorite jade pieces and look at each. Every other week, he waxed his jades and, on every work trip, he would visit the local jade market. His jade collection amounted to an estimated $1.6 million in pendants, ornaments, and carved stones. The rest of Ni’s bribes came in the form of cash, paintings, or property.

Wei Pengyuan

Wei Pengyuan, deputy chief of the coal bureau at the National Energy Administration, has been charged with taking $5.8 million in bribes from 2002 to 2012. When investigators searched his home, they found an astounding amount of cash: $33 million or 200 million yuan.

It is estimated that the cash, which was likely in 100-yuan banknotes, would weigh more than 2.2 tons and climb 656 feet in the air if it was stacked.

Ma Chaoqun

Not every official nabbed with a ridiculous fortune was a “tiger.” Many, like Ma Chaoqun, were flies. Ma was a midlevel water supply official in Beidaihe, a resort town near Beijing favored by top government officials.

Ma allegedly used his position to stack up a prodigious fortune: $19.3 million in cash, 81 pounds of gold (worth about $1.4 million), and 68 properties totaling $163 million.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 7:38 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is the economy in crisis now?

By P Gunasegaram

Malaysiakini

Jan 22, 2015

QUESTION TIME
Granted we have lots of problems in the country and tonnes of wastage. We overpay for contracts, we have a strategic investment fund which has gone amok and is investing willy nilly with borrowed money, we have a looming disaster in the form of RM30 billion at risk in a private finance initiative gone wrong and we have loads of patronage.

Does this necessarily mean that the economy is in crisis if we put all this together with a weakening ringgit and oil prices which have fallen off a cliff? Does this mean this year will be a disaster and one of gloom and doom for Malaysia?

It is tough to do but this is when we need to be rational about things and assess economic conditions with a cool head, separating this to some extent from the sad state of politics in the country which leads to a whole host of economic concerns.

Let’s just take a couple of the most serious concerns and examine them in some detail to see what gives. First, the weakening ringgit which was at its lowest levels in six years. But why was it low six years ago – early 2009 to be precise?

Yes, it was when the world financial crisis (WFC), caused by the subprime mortgage issue in the United States was raging. It was biting hard at that time after it surfaced in 2008. And what were the pundits predicting, especially those who had huge funds at their disposal to make their predictions come true, at that time?

Yes, a weak ringgit (to be fair not just the ringgit but currencies of other countries as well which had open markets) because the funds were going to repatriate money back to the US where it will be needed. And also because these countries will have problems with their exports to the US whose purchasing power will fall.

Also, you have a strange situation of the US dollar strengthening against currencies of those countries whose economies were in much better shape than the US. Is that sustainable? No. Is the analysis smart? No. Was that done for a trade then? Highly likely because that was a smart if crooked way to influence markets and if you did it first, you can make a lot of money.

As it turned out the US undertook the biggest exercise of printing money in history through quantitative easing 1 and 2 by buying government bonds from investors and injecting money into the system, driving interest rates down next to nothing.

The excess funds flew out of the US finding a home in countries like Malaysia where stock market returns were better and interest rates were higher. And yes, you guessed it, Malaysia’s currency appreciated against the US dollar to levels not seen since the Asian financial crisis (AFC) of 1997/98. And so did the currencies of many other countries.

Now, it seems, because of falling oil prices, Malaysia’s budget deficit as a proportion of GDP (gross domestic product – sum of goods and services produced) is likely to increase – by all of 0.2 percentage points to 3.2 percent from, a projected 3.0 percent last year, as the prime minister pointed out two days ago.

Poor outlook for the ringgit

These and slowing growth are the main reasons for the outlook for the ringgit to be poor this year, along with the stoppage of money-printing by the US. Such arguments have resulted in a weak ringgit (also other currencies as well but the ringgit has weakened more than most), the weakest seen in six years. And continued capital outflows are supposed to result in persistent weak demand for ringgit. But will that situation prevail?

According to the government, as announced by the PM, given a new forecast price of US$55 per barrel for oil (instead of US$100 previously), the revenue shortfall will increase by RM5.5 billion to RM13.8 billion. To compensate for this, the government has proposed to cut operating expenditure by RM5.5 billion.

But let’s look at what the oil price fall will do. First, it increases the disposable income available to the public which helps to boost the demand in the economy by increasing consumer spending. The government estimates disposable income to increase RM7.5 billion.

Second lower oil prices and a depreciating ringgit reduces costs of producers and makes them more competitive in international markets, which does help to push growth up. While as a net exporter of oil and gas, Malaysia can expect export proceeds to decrease because of the oil price fall, this is mitigated by other factors.

On balance, the impact on the Malaysian economy is minimal. Growth will come down to about 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent from 5-6 percent, which is still pretty respectable by world standards. Government finances will suffer slightly but not by a lot.

By any reckoning of what one means by a crisis, and using as yardsticks the 2008-9 WFC and the 1997-8 AFC, Malaysia is quite far from an economic crisis as are most countries in the region, despite being a net exporter of oil and gas.

So why is the ringgit weakening? I reckon it is the same reason why it weakened in 2009 – a trade, perhaps a few trades, basically. When it becomes obvious that Bank Negara Malaysia, with foreign exchange reserves approaching RM500 billion, is quite willing and able to deal with massive capital outflows, it should move back up again as speculative selling of the ringgit diminishes.

My conclusion – despite all the bad things happening in the country – the wastage of public funds, 1Malaysia Development Bhd, Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd, poor decision making and a whole host of other things – the economy is not in crisis now although it could be lot better if these things were properly handled.

That does not mean that we can continue with all those bad practices which we have accumulated over the decades. If we continue with them and add on to them instead of turning against them, it will be inevitable that we will have not just an economic crisis but a national crisis of epic proportions not long from now!

Let’s turn back from this path of doom quickly before it’s too late.

P GUNASEGARAM is founding editor of business news portal KiniBiz.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 9:49 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Now that the two immediate former Home Ministers, Hishammuddin and Syed Hamid have denied sending any unilateral letter to FBI, it is up to the three  previous Home Ministers, Radzi, Azmi and Tun Abdullah to clear themselves

Now that Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar have joined Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein,  as the  two immediate former Home Ministers (March 2008 – May 2013),  to deny that he had sent any letter unilaterally to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) when holding the Home Ministry’s post, it is up to the three previous Home Ministers serving from 1999 to 2008, i.e. Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, Datuk Azmi Khalid and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step forward and clear themselves.

The trio should speak up as elder statesmen to clear the air  and not behave like fugitives from justice seeking refuge from the truth as if they had done a great disservice to the nation.

The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had made a most astonishing claim when trying to exonerate himself from any wrong in his infamous letter to the FBI vouching for the character of the alleged gambling kingpin Paul Phua, standing trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for illegal gambling, that previous Home Ministers before him had also written such “clarification” letters.

This is why all previous Home Ministers for the past 15 years should speak up and put the record straight, not just in the national interests, but to remove any stain on their record as Home Minister.

Radzi, Azmi and Tun Abdullah would not be doing themselves any service by keeping mum on their record as Home Minister whether they had written unilaterally any “clarification letter”  to the FBI not only contradicting the Police force but without the knowledge of the police, the foreign ministry or even the Cabinet.

In other words, whether Radzi, Azmi and Tun Abdullah had, like Zahid,  been a “rogue” Home Minister, acting unilaterally writing to the FBI, without the knowledge of the police, the Foreign Ministry or the Cabinet.

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had said that Zahid had written the letter to the FBI without the knowledge or authority of the Cabinet.

Is the Cabinet on Wednesday going to revisit the tissue of lies Zahid had been telling about his infamous letter to the FBI, consider what action should be taken against Zahid as vital  principles of  accountability, rectitude and proper conduct of Ministers as well as  national interests are involved – even proposing to the Prime Minister that Zahid should be suspended as Home Minister?

Zahid had been his own worst enemy.

He had been a political heavyweight, one of the leading contenders for the premiership post-Najib but overnight he so damaged himself that he became a political lightweight – losing credibility not only as a senior UMNO political leader but also as a professional Minister of a leading and important portfolio.

He did even more damage to his political and Ministerial credibility by taking the entire Cabinet and the literate Malaysian population as fools when he  brazenly insisted that his unilateral, unauthorized, infamous letter to the FBI did not vouch for the character and integrity of an alleged gambling kingpin.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 10:37 am and is filed under
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


So what’s your freedom worth?

Syerleena Abdul Rashid

The Malaysian Insider

23 January 2015

As the world experiences the worrying expansion of global radicalism, reports of violence and killings committed in the name of religion evoke all sorts of emotions – it propels humanity into extreme ends: you either strongly disagree or strongly agree with the atrocities committed in the name of God, religion and faith.

Many of us are still trying to make sense of the recent attacks in Paris, the battles fought by Isis and the massacres carried out by Boko Haram. These aggressions aren’t just about a series of offensive cartoons or the overzealousness of installing an Islamic caliphate or even the evil of Western education, but it is a declaration of war against freedom of expression and human rights. Most of all, it signals the breakdown of logic – the raison d’être of religious wisdom and prudence; it indicates an abrupt shift to feverish radicalism.

Every heinous attack committed by religious extremists leaves many of us wondering: what is it about religion that makes one more inclined to embrace violence and lose one’s sense of humour or common sense? Where do you draw the line between jest and insolence?

When the freedom to freely express oneself becomes incompatible with another religion, humanity is faced with the classic dilemma: do we adhere to religious constitutions or internationally protected rights? Although the idea of freedom (in this case, freedom of expression) is not without its fair share of controversy, it is not an absolute right but a privilege for some nations. On the other hand, freedom sometimes lack precise guidelines needed to identify the uncertainties on whether it can absolutely safeguard one’s faith from insult and mockery.

Although most of us were not entirely shocked that such heinous crimes were committed (Charlie Hebdo, a weekly French satirical publication, was notorious for publishing materials that were tasteless, offensive and insensitive to religious communities. The publication had been attacked in the past and various staff received death threats), what transpired on the morning of January 7, 2015 introduced us to another layer of evil – “sleeper cells” that violate freedom, democracy and most of all, common sense. However, what transpired in Paris wasn’t just about satire; it was about radicalism asserting its dominance over democracy and shadowing the positive teachings of religion. This has been the dominating message extremists and religious fanatics convey worldwide.

Yes, satire can be dangerous and offensive because there are people who will not understand such jokes. It takes a certain level of political sophistication to appreciate an otherwise very serious message through humour. There is a saying that when rationality in politics begins to break down, the shift towards satire becomes eminent because at the end of the day, that is the only thing that makes any sense.

When the lives of civilians are threatened because certain factions are unable to resolve conflict through discussions or open debates, our lives become a commodity that is not without an expiry date. Democracy often becomes collateral damage in this tug-of-war between logic and religious fanaticism. This is when opinions, beliefs and feelings can get you killed.

But the threat of suppression of one’s beliefs or opinion isn’t always as black and white as you would like to believe. It is almost always complicated and the more you look for explanations, the more you find yourself engulfed in the horrors of religious conflict that seemingly have no end and whose beginnings are difficult to ascertain.

Most of us view freedom of expression as a right for all humans because it permits people to express their thoughts and opinions and allows them to be themselves. Unfortunately, not many understand the responsibilities that come with freedom – freedom of expression and speech can be harmful to some communities who may possess an oversimplified view of life. These factions believe that freedom of expression can be used to discriminate against and harm people without themselves suffering any consequences. They also believe that it allows them to convey slanderous opinions just so they can gain trust and attain power over communities. And this concept is something Malaysians are growing weary of.

In Malaysia, we witness how certain factions misuse power and curtail our own liberties. We are told that freedom is a myth and that human rights are a ruse invented by the Judeo-Christians. Freedom can only lead to chaos, riots and anarchy which will have an adverse effect on our Malaysian way of life. Malaysians do not like confrontation and can be regarded as peaceful, but we aren’t by any means dumb. Freedom of expression serves many functions. It is a catalyst that encourages discussion and considerations needed at decision-making levels.

Proper evaluation and judgment can only be passed after sufficient consultation has been made. Freedom is an important factor at all levels of society and a crucial issue for the government. It has been said that a “government which does not know what the people feel or think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people”.

The rise of radicalism and the spread of intolerance will continue to bully democracy and peace unless something drastic is done to curb this rot. Closing an eye or denying the evils of radicalism is a risk no democratic nation can afford to take. Freedom of expression and other civil liberties that come with democratic practices exist to protect the common good of the people. It is the keystone of democracy and the foundation of civility, important factors for society to thrive in and when living itself becomes too dangerous, it is no longer a democracy but an unjust system against which humanity must dissent. – January 23, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 10:35 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Supremacy of the Federal Constitution

Azrul Mohd Khalib

The Malay Mail Online

January 21, 2015

JANUARY 21 ― The indignant tone that recently came out of Jakim’s Director General Datuk Othman Mustapha, who denounced the questioning of religious authorities as being part of a liberalism movement, is representative of the larger problem we have with the government religious institutions in this country.

They feel that they are above criticism. That they can do no wrong and are infallible. That to criticise them is to question Islam.

Yet, the attitude and actions of the religious authorities over the past decade have shown all too clearly why the Shariah system in Malaysia is where it is in our Federal Constitution.

There is an actual risk of abuse and misuse of power. It is not abstract or theoretical. It is very real. Ask Nik Raina of Borders.

The Nik Raina-Borders case is one situation where all too human ego and pride got in the way of justice, fairness and righteousness. It demonstrates in very real terms why it is necessary for us to provide a check and balance on those who perceive and have anointed themselves as God’s enforcers of law and judgement here on the temporal plane. Why we must hold them to the higher moral and virtuous standard which they lay claim to.

For more than two and a half years, the Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (Jawi) have wasted time and taxpayers’ money chasing the prosecution of Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz, an employee of the Borders bookstore.

It has also cost Nik Raina years of her life which have been under the shadow of an erroneous and unjust charge.

During the appeal hearing back in August last year, Justice Datuk Umi Kathom Abdul Majid had stated: “Remember the basic principle of law, that you cannot commit a crime before knowing it is against the law.”

This was not an issue of ignorance of the law but the authorities had yet to even declare illegal on May 23, 2012 that which Nik Raina was charged with: distributing or selling a banned book. The book in question was only effectively banned by the Home Ministry three weeks later.

The observations contained within the March 2013 High Court judgement stated that Jawi’s actions have been an infringement of Article 7 of the Federal Constitution which protects against making offences retrospective. A point which Jawi seems to not understand or refuses to comply with. They went ahead and appealed the outcome leading to similar admonishments and incredulous observations from the panel of Justices in the Court of Appeal. Justice Datuk Umi Kathom went as far as to remind Shariah enforcement officers that they can’t be syiok sendiri in enforcing laws.

Two Malay proverbs come to mind: menegak benang yang basah and bodoh sombong. Also, I am tempted to ask, “Apa lagi Jawi mau?”

However, there has been a bit of a silver lining in this story. From her family, friends and especially her employer. Berjaya (owned and managed by mostly non-Muslim management) has set an amazing and inspiring standard and example by standing up, speaking up and providing Nik Raina with moral, emotional and legal support throughout this entire ordeal. They have committed considerable time and resources to fighting back this injustice.

It would have been far more convenient to look the other way. But they have stressed time and again that they do this not only for Nik Raina but the fact that this case could have repercussions to the livelihoods of hundreds of Muslim employees under their care and responsibility.

Nik Raina has been lucky to have people who have stood by her side to fight it out. Others have not been as fortunate. For far too long, our religious authorities have relied on those being persecuted and prosecuted to admit guilt without contestation and defence, to quietly pay fines and do penance at rehabilitation camps (yes, these exist in our country).

Jawi’s consistent and persistent actions in this case demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the basic legal principles of justice, fairness and equal treatment of all under the law. How can we then trust them to enforce our Shariah laws and respect the supremacy of the Federal Constitution? Are they to be able to act with impunity simply because they claim to do so on behalf of Islam?

We must be able to continue to speak out against injustice. We cannot and must not be silent at the threats of religious tyranny and actions which compromise the fundamental liberties and protections we have under the Constitution. If we are to act in the name of Islam, we must aspire to reach the high levels and standards of justice, ethics and compassion which are the hallmark of this great religion. Let us not sully it by acting or expecting any less.

Despite the almost two-year-old High Court order to Jawi to withdraw the charges against Nik Raina and the judgement of the Court of Appeal last month, she remains charged with an offence under Section 13(1) Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997.

Will Jawi comply with fairness and compassion? Only God and Jawi knows, I suppose.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 8:33 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yang tidak dimengerti Hadi tentang ‘undi ketiga’

 – Izmil Amri

The Malaysian Insider

23 January 2015

Salah tanggapan Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang terhadap pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan amat disesalkan. Di saat Pakatan Rakyat (PR) berusaha menjauhi wacana politik perkauman, beliau pula gigih membangkitkan momok 13 Mei, dan mengaitkannya dengan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan.

Tidak jauh beza dengan buah butir percakapan kumpulan-kumpulan ultra Melayu. Sikit-sikit 13 Mei, seolah-olah tidak ada hujah bernas lain selain hujah kaum dan politik ketakutan.

Lebih menyedihkan, modal pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan ini kini dijadikan modal perbandingan dengan cita-cita pelaksanaan hudud di Kelantan. PAS membandingkan urusan jenayah syariah berasaskan firman Tuhan, dengan isu pemilihan tukang urus longkang tersumbat dan lampu jalan tidak menyala. Ini amat memilukan hati.

Apa yang Hadi nampak barang kali, hanyalah kalau dibuat pilihan raya ini, yang akan jadi ahli majlis dan datuk bandar, semuanya Cina belaka. Geleng kepala.

Hadi gagal memandang pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan, atau ‘undi ketiga’ sebagai langkah penampan. Di saat PAS ketiadaan Kedah dan Terengganu, seharusnya Hadi memikirkan ‘undi ketiga’ patut dijadikan modal simpanan bagi memastikan PAS (dan juga PR, kalau masih sudi) dapat terus bekerja melayani rakyat di peringkat akar umbi.

Seharusnya juga PAS dan Hadi mengambil pengajaran daripada apa yang terjadi kepada Iszuree Ibrahim di Pulau Pinang, yang digantung tugasnya dan kemudian tidak disambung kontraknya sebagai ahli Majlis MPPP lantaran komen melulunya terhadap kerajaan negeri.

Iszuree pasti masih lagi tidak digugurkan daripada menjadi ahli majlis sekiranya beliau dipilih melalui pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan, dan bukan melalui cara pelantikan.

Namun ternyata PAS gagal mencari apa peluang yang ada untuk terus berfungsi sebagai pelayan rakyat. Bukan itu sahaja, ia malah mengecam peluang tersebut dengan sentimen perkauman dan momok 13 Mei.

Kita sebenarnya harus mengerti apa fungsi dan peranan ahli majlis, dan kenapa mereka ini perlu dipilih oleh rakyat, dan bukannya dilantik pakai tangkap muat.

Wakil rakyat, fitrahnya dipilih oleh rakyat melalui pilihan raya untuk menganggotai dewan-dewan pembuat dasar negeri dan negara. Wakil rakyat ini ada antaranya yang mempunyai ciri kepemimpinan.

Mudahnya disebut ciri orang politik. Suka bergambar, berucap, dan dilihat membuat sesuatu.

Sekumpulan wakil rakyat yang lain pula barangkali tidak mempunyai ciri-ciri sedemikian selain keinginan melayani dan berkhidmat untuk rakyat. Tetapi ini sebenarnya bukan kerja wakil rakyat. Bukan kerja wakil rakyat untuk urus longkang tersumbat, sampah tidak dipungut dan tiang lampu tidak menyala.

Itulah kerja ahli majlis. Mereka inilah yang sentiasa mendapat panggilan telefon daripada wakil rakyat apabila rakyat mengadu longkang depan rumah tersumbat, atau gerai cucur pisang ibu tunggal di simpang kampung perlukan lesen supaya mengelak daripada dirobohkan.

Ahli majlis adalah wakil kepada wakil rakyat. Yang penat dan letih melayan rakyat, selalunya mereka inilah. Yang berasa denyut nadi rakyat saban hari, ahli majlis.

Tetapi siapa yang melantik ahli majlis? Takkanlah rakyat tidak punya suara untuk menentukan siapa yang bertanggungjawab menguruskan hal-hal runcit bandar dan pekan mereka. Dan bukankah ahli majlis juga yang meluluskan binaan infrastruktur setempat?

Berbanding PAS, DAP percaya rakyat mempunyai hak demokratik untuk memilih siapa yang mewakili mereka di Parlimen, Dewan Undangan Negeri, mahupun di majlis bandaran. Ini memastikan akauntabiliti wakil rakyat dan ahli majlis kepada rakyat yang meletakkan mereka di posisi itu, bukan tuan-tuan politik yang melantik mereka.

Kebertanggungjawaban kepada pembayar cukai, pembayar saman, pembayar meter petak letak kereta, pembayar lesen niaga, adalah elemen yang memastikan kecekapan, ketelusan dan integriti dalam menguruskan infrastruktur dan perancangan setempat.

Rasa bertanggungjawab inilah yang dimahukan rakyat terbanyak, yang hari demi hari bertanya ‘mana wakil rakyat kami, musim pilihan raya baru nampak muka’.

Memanglah tak nampak muka wakil rakyat, mereka kerja di Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negeri. Ahli majlislah yang kerjanya turun padang selalu, di zon dan autonom yang lebih kecil. Muka mereka ini nanti memanglah nampak selalu; tapi tak kenal, sebab bukan rakyat yang pilih.

Tidak sepatutnya timbul persoalan jurang kaum, tidak kiralah di bandar atau luar bandar. Penyakit mudah menimbulkan momok perkauman ini sepatutnya sudah tidak lagi diperbahaskan. Bukankah kita juga yang dahulu menyeru supaya pengundi memilih calon yang berkaliber dan tidak memilih berasaskan kaum dan keturunan?

Jika pendekatan garang Hadi terhadap DAP ini sekadar untuk menunjukkan beliau masih bergigi dalam mempertahankan kerusi presiden PAS menjelang muktamar nanti (seperti dianjurkan Utusan Malaysia) maka barang kali sudah tiba masanya untuk PAS mempertimbangkan calon presiden baru bagi mengemudi PAS menuju Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14. – 23 Januari, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 January 2015, 8:43 am and is filed under
Elections
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thanks to Hadi, Malaysians must focus on why there should not be local government election  in Malaysia on the 50th anniversary of suspension local council polls

Thanks to Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, Malaysians must focus on the question why there should not be local government election in Malaysia on the 50th anniversary of suspension of local council polls.

Fifty years ago, on 1st March 1965, the then Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman suspended local council election, giving as justification the threat of Indonesian Confrontation. However, he gave the  solemn undertaking that “The very moment peace is declared, I can assure this House that the elections will be held”.

It is 50 years down the road and Malaysians are entitled to ask why they should continue to be denied local government election, when local government election is accepted as a basic democratic right  of citizens in countries committed to a democratic way of life.

Of course, I do not agree with Hadi that local government election may lead to another May 13 race riots.

In fact, this is the first time anyone has claimed that the restoration of local government election could result in another May 13 race riots.

The causes of the May 13 race riots are still a guarded secret and this is why in my first speech in Parliament in February 1971, I had called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a wide-ranging investigation  into the causes.

I do not propose to  discuss the causes of the May 13 riots but they were not caused by the 1969 General Election but by  irresponsible elements who exploited the  general election results for their own ends.

It is therefore a great fallacy for anyone to assert that the restoration of local government election could result in another May 13 race riots.

However, with  Hadi opening the way, I will not be surprised if this will henceforth be used by reactionary Barisan Nasional leaders as an additional reason for opposing the restoration of local government elections.

Malaysians are already seeing the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Abdul Rahman Dahlan springing to the support of an opposition leader – with his own twisted  logic.

Many seem to have forgotten that a very vibrant local government democracy had existed in the country in  the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s.

There were 373 local authorities that had well over 3,000 elected local councillors before local government elections were suspended in 1965.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Datuk Athi Nahappan was established into the workings of local government, which recommended the restoration of local government elections.

However, a law was finally passed in 1976 to abolish local government elections, and although a more efficient and accountable local government were presented as the arguments for the abolition of local government elections, the real reason was that BN leaders had no confidence of victory in the local council elections – or the lack of commitment to democracy and the principles of good governance.

It is also wrong and misguided for anyone to argue that the restoration of local government elections will benefit anyone race or on the ground that the towns are dominated by the Chinese, and that the DAP will be the main beneficiaries.

This is to ignore the process of Malay urbanisation in the 45 years since the 1969 general election.

As DAP MP for Serdang, Ong Kian Ming, has pointed out in his statement today, the ethnic composition of many of the urban councils have changed significantly since the May 13th incident in 1969. The large migration of Malays from the rural to the urban areas have made areas like Kuala Lumpur very different from today from what it was in 1969.

According to the 2010 census data, the Malay population in Wilayah Persekutuan KL (45.9%) outnumber the Chinese population (43.2%). In fact, out of the 3 city halls, 9 city councils and 37 municipal councils in Malaysia, only 6 have populations where the Chinese outnumber the Malays – Ipoh, Kuching Selatan, Johor Bahru Tengah, Pulau Pinang, Sibu and Subang Jaya!

In other words, 88% of these large urban areas have a plurality and in most cases, a majority, of Malay residents. Even in a place like Petaling Jaya, the Malay population (46.2%) outnumber the Chinese population (39.6%)!

I don’t think Kian Ming can be faulted when he concluded:

“While the Malays may be slightly under represented in the voting population in some of these urban areas because of their younger demographic profile, it is clearly wrong to say that the DAP will dominate local elections on the basis that urban areas are largely Chinese dominated. “

Fifty-eigtht years after Merdeka and 52 years after Malaysia, Malaysians should move beyond the politics of race to an inclusive politics to embrace all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, age or gender.

The 2008 and 2013 general elections are proof of this politics of inclusion which unite Malaysians instead of the “divide and rule” politics of exclusion, and this is one important reason why after 50 years, local government elections should be restored to Malaysia.

(Speech at the DAP kopitiam dialogue in Batu Pahat on Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 10 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 January 2015, 3:29 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Business leaders fret over ‘cocktail of political risks’ as UK election nears

Larry Elliott and Jill Treanor in Davos

The Guardian

25 January 2015

Davos delegates fear possibility of minority government and second poll, as well as uncertainty over EU membership

The general election risks exposing the UK to a “cocktail of political risks” that could threaten growth and force the country out of the European Union, according to business leaders.

The growth of minority parties such as Ukip and the Greens and the fall in popularity of the Liberal Democrats are forcing bosses to prepare for the possibility that a second poll may have to be called months after the one scheduled for 7 May.

The Conservatives’ pledge to call an EU referendum in 2017 if they are in government is also causing anxiety. Doubts over Britain’s political future were voiced openly by executives at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Speaking on the sidelines at the gathering of political and business leaders in the Swiss Alps, John Cridland, director general of the CBI, said: “Britain is no longer a two-party system, it is a six-party system, and it looks like it won’t be until 5am on the morning after the election until we know what the result is going to be. The UK could end up with a minority government and a repeat of 1974, when there were two elections in swift succession.

“The uncertainty of the result is what business is most concerned about. Back home most CBI dinner tables are discussing this issue.”

Cridland said he saw the election as being bookended by the referendum on Scottish independence last September, which was still having political ramifications, and a possible EU referendum. “Scotland, six parties, 1974 and Europe: this cocktail of political risks is what companies are focused on.”

Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the advertising company WPP, said: “It looks like there will be a coalition government. It looks more likely to be a Labour-led coalition which we – business – may not like but may be the case.”

Sorrell said he was concerned about the possibility of an in/out referendum on the EU. “This would cause real uncertainty,” he said. “At best it would be neutral, at worst it will be harmful.”

The situation is also concerning leaders across the channel. Nicolas Moreau, a senior executive at the French insurance group Axa, said the UK election was even more significant than the one taking place in Greece on Sunday.

“This is the most important election of the coming year because depending on the outcome, whether there will a referendum or not, this could change Europe. Europe, without the UK, can be different. There is a huge challenge there,” he said. “I think that it would be sad to have the UK [leave the EU].”

George Osborne told Davos delegates that he hoped voters would recognise the Conservatives’ track record on the economy. The chancellor also said he wanted the UK to remain in the EU but with rewritten treaties and renegotiated terms.

Anne Richards, chief investment of Aberdeen Asset Management, said it was possible that there would be another election within 18 months. She said there was a “feeling we’ll have some sort of minority-led government and they will have to negotiate issue by issue vote by vote”, although a coalition was also possible.

Gary Cohn, boss of Goldman Sachs, told the BBC that the UK should remain in the EU. “I think that having a great financial capital of the world staying in the UK and having the UK be part of Europe is the best thing for all of us,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 January 2015, 11:07 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
,
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.