Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Who is really running Malaysia anyway?
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is a man of contradictions of sorts. For
example, he stands firmly behind certain principles, but, at the same
time, he believes in the principle of the ends justify the means. That
in itself would be regarded as unprincipled by certain quarters. To
Mahathir, however, that is a principle and a principle he holds dear.
The legendary Robin Hood too had principles if you want to go by that
'philosophy'. He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Robbing
would be an unprincipled act to most. But, to Robin Hood, the
principle of robbing would only be unprincipled if one robs from the
poor, or robs from the rich and keeps the loot all to oneself. But
robbing from the rich to help the poor is not wrong if the objective
is to help the poor. And keeping a small 'service fee' in the process
to pay for the overheads of running your operation is also allowed --
or else how would you be able to continue helping the poor? Yes, the
ends justify the means. And that is why Robin Hood is the 'goodie',
the hero of the story, and not the villain.
I remember the first public function I attended soon after Mahathir
became Prime Minister where he was not only the guest of honour but
the host as well. In fact, it was he who invited us to dinner at the
Equatorial Hotel and the purpose was to impart his philosophy to
members of the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce. Basically, it
was a 'to get rich is glorious' speech and Mahathir made this speech
even before China's Premier did. And Mahathir also spoke about how it
is not important whether it is a white cat or a black cat as long as
it can catch a mouse. Later, China's Premier too said the same thing.
Of course, Mahathir did not put it exactly the way China's Premier did
but the implication of what he said was the same.
Mahathir is and always was against the New Economic Policy (NEP). But
he realised that the Malays are so dependent on this 'crutch' that if
you were to abolish it they would go into a panic and revolt. Like it
or not, Umno's fortunes depend on the perception that this party is
the saviour of the Malays and the defender of Malay 'rights', which is
an absolute fallacy of course and Mahathir knew that. In that sense
Mahathir was ashamed of the Malays and he wanted to change their
mindset. He wanted to drag the Malays screaming and kicking into the
'real world', the world where the strong survive and the weak die. But
he discovered, to his horror, that the Malays enjoy being weak so that
they can continue getting government 'protection'. They do not want to
be strong. If they were then the government need no longer continue
protecting them and the NEP can be abolished.
Mahathir knew that the Malays were not ready for shock treatment. They
needed to be slowly weaned away from the NEP. You cannot suddenly
abolish the NEP and declare that Malaysia is now a free-for-all
society and may the strongest survive and the weak die. That would be
the end of Umno and Barisan Nasional. MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the 10
other Barisan Nasional component members do not want this as well. The
non-Malay and non-Umno candidates in Barisan Nasional also depend on
Malay votes to retain power. The death of Umno would mean the death of
Barisan Nasional and the end of non-Malay political power as well. The
thing closest to the hearts of the Malays is their 'rights'. Next is
their religion (yes, in that order). If Umno and Barisan Nasional no
longer guarantee the Malays their 'rights' then they might as well
turn to religion. If Umno goes out the door, then PAS would benefit.
The Malays would turn to PAS in the absence of Umno.
So what can replace the NEP? This Mahathir spelt out clearly to the
gathering of Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce members at the
Equatorial Hotel dinner. The Chinese can get rich. Maybe even some
Malays can become tycoons as well, just like their Chinese
counterparts. But these rich Chinese and Malays must in turn help the
struggling small-time Malay businessmen. This is the umbrella concept.
The government will provide the umbrellas for these big players in the
corporate world. And these big players would then assist the others.
The small-time businessmen can seek shelter under these umbrellas of
the tycoons.
Mahathir then started identifying all those tycoons and potential
tycoons who have either already made it big on their own or have
proven that they possess the business acumen to make it big with a
little help from the government. Basically, Mahathir went hunting for
millionaires and those who have shown their acumen managing government
corporations. These millionaires would be turned into billionaires.
But this comes with a price. They would have to repay this government
help by spawning other businessmen. They would be the trustees of the
umbrella. But they must give birth to thousands of other small-time
businessmen.
There was one flaw to this marvellous plan though. And that flaw is
human nature, basically greed. While they got rich with government
help, they reneged on their promise to help others in return. The rich
got richer but the poor did not share these riches. Many umbrellas
were created, but the umbrella concept did not materialise as planned.
Not many were prepared to redistribute their wealth to others. And
Malaysia Inc. failed to meet its objective. This was Mahathir's
greatest regret.
In 1990, at the end of the NEP, Mahathir tried to get it officially
declared ended. But there was strong resistance from the Malay
grassroots. They did not want it ended. They wanted it to continue
indefinitely. Mahathir was flabbergasted. He knew that the Malays
could not continue depending on the NEP. For one, it is unfair to the
non-Malays who had agreed to the NEP soon after the 13 May 1969 race
riots because it had been promised it would go on for only 20 years.
Secondly, if the Malays continue depending on the NEP, then there
would never come a time when the Malays would be able to stand on
their own two feet. And there would certainly come a time when the
Malays would need to compete once the trade borders are torn down.
Today, those who became rich under Mahathir's grand design of the
umbrella concept or Malaysia Inc. are still rich. But the poor have
not shared this newly-created wealth. And Mahathir has to now live
with the allegation that he created and nurtured cronies. Sure, he
created and nurtured cronies. But he did so for a purpose. The ends
justify the means. But he did not see the ends bearing fruit. And that
is because he overlooked one basic characteristic of human nature,
greed, and the reluctance of those who got rich with government help
to share their wealth.
That, Mahathir has to live with and accept as his failure. His
intentions may have been noble, but is not the road to Hell paved with
noble intentions? And maybe the ends should never justify the means as
Mahathir's experiment in social re-engineering has proven.
Anyway, on Friday, 28 July 2006, Mahathir will be speaking to a crowd
of Umno members in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Much has happened since he
last spoke at the Kelab Century Paradise in Taman Melawati on 24 June.
It would be most interesting to hear what he has got to say this time
around. Since 24 June, Ani Arope has raised the issue of how the IPPs
were badly handled. Malaysia Today has addressed this issue in two
previous episodes of The Corridors of Power. Then there is Anwar
Ibrahim's allegation that Mahathir lost RM30 billion of our money on
the Forex fiasco. I believe this too needs clarification. But we shall
not put words into Mahathir's mouth as that is a most impossible thing
to do when dealing with the Grand Old Man. We shall allow him to do
the explaining himself.
One thing that Malaysia Today would like to raise is the matter of
Terengganu's oil royalty which we hope Mahathir will address on 28
July. Since the mid-1970s, Terengganu had been enjoying a 5% royalty
on all the oil and gas extracted in the state. That is what is
provided for under the Petroleum Development Act. In fact, not only
Terengganu, but any state in Malaysia where oil and gas is extracted
they would enjoy the same. However, in 2000, this royalty was
withdrawn and converted to Wang Ehsan (goodwill money). Suddenly, the
RM800 million or so a year that Terengganu was supposed to get as its
5% share of the oil and gas revenue was transferred out of the state
and into the hands of one man, Idris Jusoh.
Malaysia was then already suffering from an outbreak of JE. But in
Terengganu it was JE of another kind, Jusoh Enterprise, Idris Jusoh's
family business. Jusoh Enterprise or JE was suddenly flush with funds,
RM800 million a year to be exact. Then, in 2004, Umno, under the
stewardship of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, won back the state from the
opposition. But the state did not win back its 5% oil royalty. The
Wang Ehsan continued and Idris Jusoh, who now became the Chief
Minister, continued to single-handedly manage the fund. Even the State
Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) and the Terengganu State
Economic Planning Unit (UPENT) were left totally in the dark. One man,
Idris Jusoh, decided how the money was spent, and it is a lot of
money.
But the new Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, would not tolerate
one man managing the state's coffers. He wanted Idris Jusoh's hands
out of the RM800 million a year cash box. However, to revert to the 5%
royalty only meant that the money would come directly under state
control. That would not serve their purpose. They wanted direct
control of the RM800 million. Now it was under the control of the
Prime Minister's Department but passed down to Idris Jusoh's hands.
What they needed to do was to get Idris Jusoh's hands out of the
equation.
Then Khairy Jamaluddin, Abdullah's son-in-law cum adviser, came out
with a fantastic new 'umbrella concept', better than even Mahathir's.
They wanted control of the RM800 million a year. But they did not want
to get it out of Idris Jusoh's hands by putting it into the hands of
the state. That would merely be a case of out of the frying pan, into
the fire. They wanted direct control of the money without Idris Jusoh
deciding on how the money is spent.
And this is how they did it.
First they appointed Wan Farid, Khairy's 'running dog', as Abdullah's
Political Secretary. Then they appointed Wan Hisham, Wan Farid's
brother, as the State Exco Member in-charge of tourism. Then they gave
Patrick Lim, Khairy's business partner, the sole monopoly of all state
tourism projects. Now the network is intact and Idris Jusoh has been
cut off.
Patrick Lim's job is to create all sorts of state tourism projects at
hugely inflated prices. He would then propose these projects to Wan
Hisham, the man in-charge of tourism. Wan Hisham would then pass them
on to his brother, Wan Farid. Wan Farid would then pass them on to
Khairy. Idris Jusoh would of course be left out of the loop and he
would only know about them when it was a fait accompli -- as the
Malays would say, "Nasi sudah jadi bubur."
They built 30 houses at RM1 million each on an island in the
Terengganu River. They launched a RM300 million a year yacht race
called the Monsoon Cup. Hundreds of millions a year is being spent to
'attract tourists to Terengganu'. It seems this year the amount of
Wang Ehsan has shot up from RM800 million to RM1 billion -- so there
is even more money to play around with.
To ensure that Idris Jusoh keeps his hands out of the cash box,
Abdullah himself chairs the state meetings though he is the Prime
Minister and not the Terengganu Chief Minister. Of course, Idris
Jusoh, being the Chief Minister, is allowed to sit in on these
meetings though he has no say on what they propose. Patrick Lim,
though he is not in the government, is also allowed to attend these
meetings.
Abdullah would then propose all sorts of tourism projects conjured by
Wan Hisham, Wan Farid and Khairy. Details are of course not discussed;
only the gist of things and the amounts involved. Whenever Idris Jusoh
raises any questions, he would be told to 'leave it all to Patrick Lim
who knows what to do'. Idris Jusoh is not to involve himself in the
details.
After awhile Idris Jusoh got quite pissed and tried to resist. One
project that he knew nothing about was placed before him and he was
told by Patrick Lim to sign the papers. But how could he sign the
papers when he knew nothing about it and would eventually have to bear
responsibility for it?
Patrick Lim walked out of Idris Jusoh's office and phoned Wan Farid
who complained to Khairy. Within an hour Idris Jusoh received a phone
call from Abdullah who ordered him to sign the papers, which he of
course did straight away.
Patrick Lim's hold on Abdullah was apparent to all but somehow not to
Idris Jusoh. One day Abdullah visited Terengganu to chair the regular
meetings on how to spend Terengganu's RM800 million (which is now RM1
billion because of the increase in oil prices). Idris Jusoh fetched
Abdullah from the airport but before his car could move Patrick Lim's
car cut in front of Idris Jusoh's car and Abdullah got out of Idris
Jusoh's car and got into Patrick Lim's car. Idris Jusoh should have
realised then who really runs Terengganu.
Yes, RM1 billion a year is a lot of money. This money, which should
belong to Terengganu, is not going to the state. It is going to Wan
Hisham, Wan Farid, Patrick Lim and Khairy. And Abdullah chairs the
state meetings to decide how the money is spent. And Wan Hisham, Wan
Farid, Patrick Lim and Khairy help spend the money. And they spend it
all. And Idris Jusoh has no say in how it is spent. And if he refuses
to sign the papers he will get a phone call from Abdullah.
Now do you know who runs this country? Abdullah says he and not his
son-in-law runs this country. Idris Jusoh however will tell you that
Khairy runs this country. And Khairy also runs Terengganu and manages
its RM1 billion a year through Wan Hisham, Wan Farid and Patrick Lim.
And Abdullah chairs the Terengganu State meetings on behalf of Khairy
and according to the plan on how Patrick Lim wishes to spend the RM1
billion a year.
And now do you know why Mahathir is so pissed? And he has every reason
to be pissed. In fact, I too am pissed. And that is why I agree that
Mahathir stays pissed with Abdullah and his son-in-law. The Terengganu
issue alone is enough for me to get pissed. And rest assured that
Terengganu is but the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, it is nice being able to walk in the corridors of power. And much
can you do when you walk in the corridors of power. And RM1 billion a
year is nice to manage if you have that power to do so. And when you
walk in the corridors of power you would of course have that power.
Perdana Menteri tinjau Pulau Duyong sebelum Piala Monsun
Utusan Online - 25 Julai 2006
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi akan meninjau persiapan untuk
penganjuran kejohanan kapal layar dunia, Piala Monsun di Pulau Duyong
di sini, sempena lawatan dua harinya ke Terengganu mulai 31 Julai ini.
Setiausaha Badan Perhubungan UMNO Terengganu, Datuk Rosol Wahid
berkata, Perdana Menteri memberi perhatian besar kepada pulau itu dan
mahu memastikan penganjuran kejohanan itu pada tahun ini lebih meriah
dan hebat.
Selain meninjau projek berkaitan kejohanan itu, kata beliau, Abdullah
akan turut menyerahkan kunci kepada sebahagian bakal pemilik projek
Rumah Mampu Milik yang dibina oleh kerajaan di pulau tersebut.
''Projek rumah itu dan satu lagi projek jeti baru nelayan dijangka
dapat disiapkan apabila Perdana Menteri tiba di pulau itu," katanya
ketika dihubungi di sini, hari ini.
Menurut Rosol, Perdana Menteri pada hari pertama lawatannya akan turut
menghadap Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin di Istana Badariah dan pada pukul
3 petang akan merasmikan majlis pecah tanah projek pembinaan
Universiti Darul Iman di Dendong, Besut.
Pada pukul 8.30 malam pula, Abdullah akan menghadiri majlis jamuan
bersama rakyat di Kampung Rhu 10, Penarik, Setiu.
Pada hari kedua lawatannya, kata Rosol, Perdana Menteri masih
mempunyai atur cara padat termasuk pada sebelah pagi mendengar
taklimat pembangunan aplikasi sistem tanah di Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah
Kuala Terengganu.
Abdullah kemudiannya akan melawat Pusat Pengumpulan dan Pemproses Nira
Nipah di Kelulut, Marang.
''Dari Marang, Perdana Menteri akan berehat sebentar di calet Pulau
Duyong sebelum melakukan tinjauan di projek pembinaan Taman Tamadun
Islam di Pulau Wan Man.
''Di pulau itu, Perdana Menteri akan turut menyaksikan beberapa majlis
menandatangani MoU termasuk perjanjian tempahan pembinaan perahu
tradisional," kata Rosol.
Pada sebelah malam sebelum berlepas pulang ke Kuala Lumpur kira-kira
pukul 10.30 malam, Abdullah dijadualkan mengadakan perjumpaan dengan
para pemimpin UMNO dan Barisan Nasional (BN) di Kediaman Seri Iman di
sini.
Menurut Rosol, pihaknya percaya Perdana Menteri mengambil kesempatan
dari lawatan dua harinya itu untuk melihat sendiri perkembangan
terbaru projek- projek mega yang sedang dan akan dilaksanakan di
Terengganu.
Kata beliau, antara projek mega untuk Terengganu yang sebelum ini
diumumkan sendiri oleh Abdullah adalah projek UDM, Taman Ilmu, Taman
Tamadun Islam dan pembangunan semula Pulau Duyong - yang setiap satu
projek membabitkan kos bernilai ratusan juta ringgit.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Let's take up Farish's challenge
My ideal politician
By Farish A. Noor ~ July 3rd, 2009. Filed under: TOM_Main.
(Note: This article first appeared in The Nut Graph, where as usual it’s much better laid out and has pretty pictures — Yusseri)
THE historian’s lament is that he or she is often witness to mistakes of the past, and yet is unable to prevent them from recurring. In the end, the historian is cursed with the Cassandra complex and accused of being a tiresome doom sayer.
At the risk of being black-balled from dinner parties, I would like to restate that our country’s current state of affairs should remind us of our collective errors in the not-too-distant past. For example, just when we thought that talk of a unity government was dead and buried, this wearisome poltergeist has been resurrected to spook all and sundry.
One is forced to raise, yet again, the most obvious of questions: How can we work towards national unity as long as there remain politicians who continue to harp on and on about the myth of racial-ethnic unity?
How can we ever dream of a Malaysian nation that is Malaysian in character as long as we cannot make that simple leap beyond communitarian and sectarian politics?
With age, I have begun to feel that the fight is lost and that our efforts are akin to the absurd labours of Sisyphus. But let us entertain a glimmer of hope at least, and in that spirit I would like to state my own preferences for what I would like to see in Malaysia.
The ideal politician
For a start, I would like to see a Malaysian politician for once.
By this I mean a Malaysian-minded politician who can genuinely claim to be blind to the distinctions of ethnicity, culture, language, religion and gender. A politician who is first and foremost a Malaysian citizen. And whose labour and effort are dedicated to upholding, defending and promoting the livelihood, well-being, honour and integrity of fellow Malaysian citizens, on the basis of a common Malaysian citizenship.
In other words, I would like to see a Malaysian citizen assume the role of politician in this country, rather than have communitarian representatives of sectarian interests dominate the political landscape.
Secondly, I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the temerity and moral courage to state the simple fact that racial differences are an absurd fiction and have no basis in biology or history. This politician would accept that the ideological device of racial differentiation was introduced to Southeast Asia during the colonial period as a device to divide and rule Southeast Asian societies.
Form for malay, indian, chinese, lain-lain, with malaysian ticked’I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the courage to admit that, as a nation, we have been conducting our politics for half a century on the basis of a colonial fiction that was fundamentally a lie. And that the time has come for us as a nation to grow up and admit that our settled assumptions about racial identity and difference have to be critically rejected for good.
Thirdly, I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the courage to say that we cannot allow this country to be divided along sectarian cultural-linguistic lines. A politician who understands that we need a comprehensive, universal and inclusive national educational system that reflects Malaysia’s plurality while also uniting the nation under a common citizenship.
I would like to see a Malaysian-minded politician who has the courage to risk the wrath of his/her constituents by arguing for a Malaysian education model that brings together the diverse aspects of contemporary Malaysian society, culture and history.
In other words, an educational system that will be designed to foster the value of a universal Malaysian citizenship rather than to reinforce the sense of ethnic and religious particularism and differences.
I would like to see a politician who is prepared to have our history textbooks revised in order to reflect our diversity and the contribution of all communities to Malaysia’s development.
Fourthly — and this might be difficult for some of our politicians — I would like to see politicians who understand that politics is not a family business. And that the mantle of leadership of political parties is not to be passed from papa to mama to son to daughter, but left open for the public to engage and contest as well. As an appendix to that, I would also be happy to see a politician who can tell his/her son or daughter: “No, you don’t have to be a politician like me, keep studying and just be a good public servant and citizen, and I would be proud of you.”
Fifth — and this may be the most difficult one of all — I would like to see a Malaysian politician state clearly and with conviction that the instrumentalisation of religion, ethnicity and/or language as a tool for whipping up voters’ primordial sentiments is dangerous. And that we need to return to a national politics that is above all rational, objective and free of emotionalism.
Thus far, however, I have yet to encounter any of the above in terms that I can count as genuine or sincere.
The instrumentalisation of the vernacular language debate, for instance, is a case in point where political parties on both sides of the fence are deliberately standing on their soap boxes and playing to the gallery in the crassest of terms. And they do this at a time when the general standard of English in Malaysia has dropped so drastically that I have to reject academic papers by Malaysian professors who cannot string a single English sentence together without half a dozen spelling and grammatical errors.
This, then, is the absurdity of today’s Malaysian politics when it is patently obvious that our nation-building programme has gone off tangent and the existence of multiple educational streams actively and consciously divides our society further.
In a situation where politicians can talk about national unity while also calling for ethnic-religious unity at the same time, the rational social scientist is left baffled. As a historian of contemporary Malaysia, all I can do is record the insanity and inanity of the times we live in, and to remind my students and readers of the mistakes that were made not too long ago.
Yet academic labour has its own limits, and the limit of rational critique is reached when we arrive at the frontier between reason and un-reason. That uneasy boundary is where I am left standing today, and it is an odd feeling to be a historian recording the collective madness of a nation that has lost its way.
Rather than more bridges crooked or otherwise — built by crooks or otherwise — airports, shopping malls and monuments, we need to build some Malaysians first. And for our sake, I hope this process starts sooner than later.
By Farish A. Noor ~ July 3rd, 2009. Filed under: TOM_Main.
(Note: This article first appeared in The Nut Graph, where as usual it’s much better laid out and has pretty pictures — Yusseri)
THE historian’s lament is that he or she is often witness to mistakes of the past, and yet is unable to prevent them from recurring. In the end, the historian is cursed with the Cassandra complex and accused of being a tiresome doom sayer.
At the risk of being black-balled from dinner parties, I would like to restate that our country’s current state of affairs should remind us of our collective errors in the not-too-distant past. For example, just when we thought that talk of a unity government was dead and buried, this wearisome poltergeist has been resurrected to spook all and sundry.
One is forced to raise, yet again, the most obvious of questions: How can we work towards national unity as long as there remain politicians who continue to harp on and on about the myth of racial-ethnic unity?
How can we ever dream of a Malaysian nation that is Malaysian in character as long as we cannot make that simple leap beyond communitarian and sectarian politics?
With age, I have begun to feel that the fight is lost and that our efforts are akin to the absurd labours of Sisyphus. But let us entertain a glimmer of hope at least, and in that spirit I would like to state my own preferences for what I would like to see in Malaysia.
The ideal politician
For a start, I would like to see a Malaysian politician for once.
By this I mean a Malaysian-minded politician who can genuinely claim to be blind to the distinctions of ethnicity, culture, language, religion and gender. A politician who is first and foremost a Malaysian citizen. And whose labour and effort are dedicated to upholding, defending and promoting the livelihood, well-being, honour and integrity of fellow Malaysian citizens, on the basis of a common Malaysian citizenship.
In other words, I would like to see a Malaysian citizen assume the role of politician in this country, rather than have communitarian representatives of sectarian interests dominate the political landscape.
Secondly, I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the temerity and moral courage to state the simple fact that racial differences are an absurd fiction and have no basis in biology or history. This politician would accept that the ideological device of racial differentiation was introduced to Southeast Asia during the colonial period as a device to divide and rule Southeast Asian societies.
Form for malay, indian, chinese, lain-lain, with malaysian ticked’I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the courage to admit that, as a nation, we have been conducting our politics for half a century on the basis of a colonial fiction that was fundamentally a lie. And that the time has come for us as a nation to grow up and admit that our settled assumptions about racial identity and difference have to be critically rejected for good.
Thirdly, I would like to see a Malaysian politician who has the courage to say that we cannot allow this country to be divided along sectarian cultural-linguistic lines. A politician who understands that we need a comprehensive, universal and inclusive national educational system that reflects Malaysia’s plurality while also uniting the nation under a common citizenship.
I would like to see a Malaysian-minded politician who has the courage to risk the wrath of his/her constituents by arguing for a Malaysian education model that brings together the diverse aspects of contemporary Malaysian society, culture and history.
In other words, an educational system that will be designed to foster the value of a universal Malaysian citizenship rather than to reinforce the sense of ethnic and religious particularism and differences.
I would like to see a politician who is prepared to have our history textbooks revised in order to reflect our diversity and the contribution of all communities to Malaysia’s development.
Fourthly — and this might be difficult for some of our politicians — I would like to see politicians who understand that politics is not a family business. And that the mantle of leadership of political parties is not to be passed from papa to mama to son to daughter, but left open for the public to engage and contest as well. As an appendix to that, I would also be happy to see a politician who can tell his/her son or daughter: “No, you don’t have to be a politician like me, keep studying and just be a good public servant and citizen, and I would be proud of you.”
Fifth — and this may be the most difficult one of all — I would like to see a Malaysian politician state clearly and with conviction that the instrumentalisation of religion, ethnicity and/or language as a tool for whipping up voters’ primordial sentiments is dangerous. And that we need to return to a national politics that is above all rational, objective and free of emotionalism.
Thus far, however, I have yet to encounter any of the above in terms that I can count as genuine or sincere.
The instrumentalisation of the vernacular language debate, for instance, is a case in point where political parties on both sides of the fence are deliberately standing on their soap boxes and playing to the gallery in the crassest of terms. And they do this at a time when the general standard of English in Malaysia has dropped so drastically that I have to reject academic papers by Malaysian professors who cannot string a single English sentence together without half a dozen spelling and grammatical errors.
This, then, is the absurdity of today’s Malaysian politics when it is patently obvious that our nation-building programme has gone off tangent and the existence of multiple educational streams actively and consciously divides our society further.
In a situation where politicians can talk about national unity while also calling for ethnic-religious unity at the same time, the rational social scientist is left baffled. As a historian of contemporary Malaysia, all I can do is record the insanity and inanity of the times we live in, and to remind my students and readers of the mistakes that were made not too long ago.
Yet academic labour has its own limits, and the limit of rational critique is reached when we arrive at the frontier between reason and un-reason. That uneasy boundary is where I am left standing today, and it is an odd feeling to be a historian recording the collective madness of a nation that has lost its way.
Rather than more bridges crooked or otherwise — built by crooks or otherwise — airports, shopping malls and monuments, we need to build some Malaysians first. And for our sake, I hope this process starts sooner than later.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Much Ado About The 30% Bumiputera Equity Participation Policy - By Matthias Chang (3/7/09)
By Matthias Chang
Thursday, 02 July 2009 20:19
Any genuine attempts by the government to mitigate the effects of the global financial tsunami and promote growth of the economy must be applauded and I do so here in this column. It is better late than never.
The policy instruments that are available to the Prime Minister who is also our Finance Minister are limited because of the nature of the problem that we have to confront.
If I may be permitted to use a simple analogy - If one has only five bullets and there are ten targets, shooting the wrong targets would be a waste of the bullets and if we end up without any bullets, we will be at the receiving end of hostile fire with no defences whatsoever.
When the government announced recently that the Foreign Investment Committee would be abolished, as its principal role of ensuring the 30% equity ownership by Bumiputeras of the Malaysian corporate cake has failed, it brought cheers from some quarters and deep anxiety and worries from bumiputeras and other stakeholders who were the primary beneficiaries of the “discarded” policy. But the first tier bumiputera elites have no complaints.
I appreciate that there is a desire to effect change and a serious attempt has been made towards that end, but the bullet fired has been wasted, because I take the view that the so-called policy change has not resulted in any fundamental shift in addressing the underlying social and economic issues.
Common sense tells us that this instrument of the NEP is an inaccurate measure of the share of the national corporate wealth and has in fact caused unnecessary friction and misunderstanding between the bumiputera and non-bumiputera communities in Malaysia. It is one of the root causes of the continuing racial tensions between the various communities in Malaysia.
The policy sounds good, looks good but its effects were far from being good for Malaysia, specifically the bumiputera community.
Let me explain this matter by applying common sense.
Step 1
Let us assume that A and B owns an island and the economy of the island rests solely on the extraction of bauxite. A had the capital to start the project while B, the expertise. By mutual agreement, the shareholding was agreed to be in the ratio of A 70% : B 30%.
Therefore, the corporate wealth was divided mutually 70:30 and B therefore achieved 30% equity participation in the corporate pie.
One day, F came along and was eager to purchase a stake in the business. A was reluctant to divest, but B was willing to sell at a premium. The deal was done between B and F.
Now F is the 30% equity owner of the bauxite mining business.
B is happy with the cash payout to spend in ways that he desired. And no one can fault him as it was a business decision. He made a profit. But he no longer owns a stake in the company.
However, it must be recognised that he did at one time acquired and achieved a 30% stake in the corporate wealth of the island economy. But, he chose to cash out. In a free market economy, this makes sense from his perspective.
There is also the probability that sometime in the future, A may cash out his entire 70% stake or part of it if the price is right and there is a willing buyer like F. In that event, F would become the majority owner.
Good luck and best wishes for his future success. But in the latter situation, A and B would be equally contented as they chose a cash payout rather than having a share retention. Who is to judge their business decision? It was a willing buyer, willing seller transaction.
The important thing to remember is that B did achieve 30% equity stake at one point in time. If B wants back the original stake, he will have to pay for it, maybe at a premium.
Step 2
Another island economy.
For historical reasons, the natives in this island were neglected by their former rulers and were mainly confined to an agrarian economy producing food for the growing population which were imported by the former rulers to mine the mineral wealth of the island.
Over the years, a sizeable portion of the immigrant population was able to venture into various kinds of small businesses – retail, small scale construction, barter trade etc.
In 1957, the inhabitants of the island were able to oust the former rulers and began to manage the affairs of the island by themselves. It was apparent to all that unless something was done to address the disequilibrium in the share of the island’s wealth amongst the inhabitants, social unrest and chaos would ensue and the economy would plunge.
Affirmative action was agreed by all as the solution to the pressing problem. The natives should be given every opportunity to acquire a larger stake in the economic pie. And every effort must be made to enlarge the economic pie so that more can share the enlarged economy.
It was a good policy. It was aimed at eradicating poverty and fostering social justice. I was all for it.
One of the methods to promote a greater share of the corporate wealth was to ensure that should there be any new businesses, the natives were to be allocated 30% equity participation in that new venture. An agency was established to ensure its proper implementation – the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC).
The majority of the natives have no idea how this 30% equity participation is to be allocated but it can be said that they were happy and contented that a huge effort has been made to address the problem. It did not really matter to the farmer in Kedah or the Felda settler in Pahang as to who got what and how much. It felt good that efforts have been made to address poverty. As they say, some are more equal than others.
Back to business at hand.
Many businesses were started and because of the affirmative action policy, 30% equity was allocated to the “selected representatives” of the native community.
The selected bumiputeras, were in the situation as Mr. B in the first island story referred to above.
Therefore, at the point in time of the allocation of the 30% equity, the selected bumiputera (be it an individual or a corporate representative) acquired and achieved the target 30% equity stake.
Thus, in the first island story, there was only one company. But 30% equity was acquired by B. The target was achieved in the island’s free market economy.
In the second island story, after the policy was implemented, every new business was required to allocate 30% equity to Bumiputeras.
Thus, at the point in time of every new venture the target of 30% equity participation was indeed achieved. The “bumiputera (native) community” had achieved the 30% equity participation target.
It has now been revealed that RM54 billion worth of this 30% equity stake allocated and owned by the selected bumiputera representatives were in fact sold i.e. they cashed out for a cash gain. Only RM2 billion worth of this 30% equity stake remained in the hands of the selected bumiputera representatives.
These bumiputeras exercised the option to have cash instead of shares. Thus, they realised the equivalent in cash the 30% stake.
Therefore, it is scandalous and seditious to say that these bumiputeras did not achieve and acquired the 30% equity target. That 30% equity stake acquired over the years amounted to RM56 billion, of which only RM2 billion worth of equity are still held by the selected bumiputera representatives.
THEY SOLD OUT!
But can we blame them? It was a business decision. They preferred the immediate realisation of a capital gain to that of collecting interim and final dividends which may or may not be declared, depending on the vagaries of the economy, the industry and the health of the firm in question. And as they say, better to have a bird in the hand, than two in the bush.
SO WHAT WENT WRONG? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
This is because, in all societies, some are more equal than others.
Additionally, in a free market economy, cashing out is a valid option in any business. Even a majority shareholder may one day cash out for his much awaited retirement.
In the above situation, when the selected bumiputera representative cashes out, he/she has exchanged shares for the cash equivalent, often times at a premium. He/she preferred hard cash instead of an equity stake. It is his/her right within the overall scheme of things.
The majority shareholder does not cash out because it is his business, his blood, sweat and tears and unless the business continues he would end up with nothing. It is much easier to sell a minority stake than a majority stake. There is also the emotional attachment which a majority shareholder has (and usually he/she is the founder) for the company.
Obviously, when the selected bumiputera representative sells his 30% equity stake and if he fails to invest wisely the hard-earned cash, there will be no future income. The selected bumiputera representative’s share of the economic cake in the future is thereby reduced, but he/she has enjoyed the benefit of the 30% stake allocated to him/her. So what is there to complain?
Step 3
Don’t blame the existing majority shareholder and or the acquirer of the disposed 30% equity stake. The latter was willing together with the majority shareholder to realise a gain (or loss, which is a risk of business and investment) in the future rather than having the hard-earned cash for immediate gratification.
And, as the business grew, so the profits and the proportionate share thereof between the shareholders A and F. Wealth is thereby created and enhanced. Future income is assured.
Production and the expansion of production of goods and services (and hence wealth) is a direct result of savings, the postponement of immediate gratification for future gains and risks of potential loss!
A simple business decision which everyone has to make!
Common sense tells us that the selected bumiputera representatives had the 30% stake but they literally sold out the community for a cash gain and immediate gratification.
Who tolerated and condoned this state of affairs?
Surely, not the majority shareholder or the acquirer of the 30% stake! They had no choice. They had costed this gigantic tax into their business plans and had to work doubly hard to recover this additional burden.
Who should bear this responsibility? It is the entire bumiputera community who had the wool pulled over their eyes and unquestioningly allowed this policy to be implemented in a manner that benefited the chosen few – the elite bumiputera class.
THIS ASPECT OF THE NEP WAS AN UTTER FAILURE.
BUT THERE WERE SUCCESSES IN OTHER AREAS – OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, BETTER JOB OPPORTUNITIES, A SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IN AGRICULTURE etc.
Step 4
If bumiputeras are the majority shareholders, and having parted with the first tranche of 30% equity in the performance of national duty, were to be asked again to allocate another 30% equity to another group of selected bumiputera representatives when a new venture is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, there will be political and social eruptions greater and more devastating than that of Mount Vesuvius.
We should all pause and think objectively and not let emotions rule our minds!
From an economic point of view, this compulsory 30% equity stake is in fact a tax on all taxpayers, regardless of race, creed and culture. The only people who benefited from this gigantic social and economic tax are the selected bumiputera representatives, the elites.
What has happened over the years is that one generation of selected bumiputera representatives reaped the harvest of this policy, squandered much of the gains, some moved on to greater things while many lost a fortune.
From a gain of 30% equity stake, matters returned to ground zero followed by clamours for social justice, a bigger share of the economic pie and more affirmative actions. The second generation of selected representatives took advantage of the situation and made another grand harvest. Now, the third generation is demanding their dues. But the cake has shrunk as a result of the global financial tsunami.
I would like to pose the following questions to all those disenfranchised bumiputeras who for the last 30 years never had a chance to dream about, what more to have the opportunity to personally acquire and hold a portion of the 30% equity stake allocated to selected bumiputera representatives:
What are you going to do about this injustice done in your name?
When are you going to demand a proper accounting for the “disappearance” of RM54 billion allocated to your selected representatives when they sold out?
Why are you asked to pick a fight with the majority shareholders and the acquirers, when you should be questioning your selected representatives who have been allocated the 30% equity stake?
Is this really a racial issue or an issue of injustice and exploitation within your community?
Why is it that they can drive BMW 7 series, the Mercs, the Jaguars, the Ferraris etc., have multi-million dollar homes while you can only afford to drive a Kancil and live in a rented or low cost flat?
Are we supposed to accept that some are more equal than others?
I am for the NEP to eradicate poverty and social injustice.
But I am not for this social and economic tax borne by us all. Yes, by Malays and non-Malays, except the filthy rich.
The policy has not been abolished as such, but curtailed. The devil is in the details. Those of you who are driving Kancils, you should be happy as this huge tax have been reduced to 12.5% from the previous 30%. The second and third tier elites have been sacrificed so that the first tier elites can survive the coming financial fiasco.
Let us not debate or fight on racial lines, but rather we should collectively turn the spotlight on all those who have been selected to live off this gigantic tax fraud!
This is common sense.
Use common sense when addressing this issue.
By Matthias Chang
Thursday, 02 July 2009 20:19
Any genuine attempts by the government to mitigate the effects of the global financial tsunami and promote growth of the economy must be applauded and I do so here in this column. It is better late than never.
The policy instruments that are available to the Prime Minister who is also our Finance Minister are limited because of the nature of the problem that we have to confront.
If I may be permitted to use a simple analogy - If one has only five bullets and there are ten targets, shooting the wrong targets would be a waste of the bullets and if we end up without any bullets, we will be at the receiving end of hostile fire with no defences whatsoever.
When the government announced recently that the Foreign Investment Committee would be abolished, as its principal role of ensuring the 30% equity ownership by Bumiputeras of the Malaysian corporate cake has failed, it brought cheers from some quarters and deep anxiety and worries from bumiputeras and other stakeholders who were the primary beneficiaries of the “discarded” policy. But the first tier bumiputera elites have no complaints.
I appreciate that there is a desire to effect change and a serious attempt has been made towards that end, but the bullet fired has been wasted, because I take the view that the so-called policy change has not resulted in any fundamental shift in addressing the underlying social and economic issues.
Common sense tells us that this instrument of the NEP is an inaccurate measure of the share of the national corporate wealth and has in fact caused unnecessary friction and misunderstanding between the bumiputera and non-bumiputera communities in Malaysia. It is one of the root causes of the continuing racial tensions between the various communities in Malaysia.
The policy sounds good, looks good but its effects were far from being good for Malaysia, specifically the bumiputera community.
Let me explain this matter by applying common sense.
Step 1
Let us assume that A and B owns an island and the economy of the island rests solely on the extraction of bauxite. A had the capital to start the project while B, the expertise. By mutual agreement, the shareholding was agreed to be in the ratio of A 70% : B 30%.
Therefore, the corporate wealth was divided mutually 70:30 and B therefore achieved 30% equity participation in the corporate pie.
One day, F came along and was eager to purchase a stake in the business. A was reluctant to divest, but B was willing to sell at a premium. The deal was done between B and F.
Now F is the 30% equity owner of the bauxite mining business.
B is happy with the cash payout to spend in ways that he desired. And no one can fault him as it was a business decision. He made a profit. But he no longer owns a stake in the company.
However, it must be recognised that he did at one time acquired and achieved a 30% stake in the corporate wealth of the island economy. But, he chose to cash out. In a free market economy, this makes sense from his perspective.
There is also the probability that sometime in the future, A may cash out his entire 70% stake or part of it if the price is right and there is a willing buyer like F. In that event, F would become the majority owner.
Good luck and best wishes for his future success. But in the latter situation, A and B would be equally contented as they chose a cash payout rather than having a share retention. Who is to judge their business decision? It was a willing buyer, willing seller transaction.
The important thing to remember is that B did achieve 30% equity stake at one point in time. If B wants back the original stake, he will have to pay for it, maybe at a premium.
Step 2
Another island economy.
For historical reasons, the natives in this island were neglected by their former rulers and were mainly confined to an agrarian economy producing food for the growing population which were imported by the former rulers to mine the mineral wealth of the island.
Over the years, a sizeable portion of the immigrant population was able to venture into various kinds of small businesses – retail, small scale construction, barter trade etc.
In 1957, the inhabitants of the island were able to oust the former rulers and began to manage the affairs of the island by themselves. It was apparent to all that unless something was done to address the disequilibrium in the share of the island’s wealth amongst the inhabitants, social unrest and chaos would ensue and the economy would plunge.
Affirmative action was agreed by all as the solution to the pressing problem. The natives should be given every opportunity to acquire a larger stake in the economic pie. And every effort must be made to enlarge the economic pie so that more can share the enlarged economy.
It was a good policy. It was aimed at eradicating poverty and fostering social justice. I was all for it.
One of the methods to promote a greater share of the corporate wealth was to ensure that should there be any new businesses, the natives were to be allocated 30% equity participation in that new venture. An agency was established to ensure its proper implementation – the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC).
The majority of the natives have no idea how this 30% equity participation is to be allocated but it can be said that they were happy and contented that a huge effort has been made to address the problem. It did not really matter to the farmer in Kedah or the Felda settler in Pahang as to who got what and how much. It felt good that efforts have been made to address poverty. As they say, some are more equal than others.
Back to business at hand.
Many businesses were started and because of the affirmative action policy, 30% equity was allocated to the “selected representatives” of the native community.
The selected bumiputeras, were in the situation as Mr. B in the first island story referred to above.
Therefore, at the point in time of the allocation of the 30% equity, the selected bumiputera (be it an individual or a corporate representative) acquired and achieved the target 30% equity stake.
Thus, in the first island story, there was only one company. But 30% equity was acquired by B. The target was achieved in the island’s free market economy.
In the second island story, after the policy was implemented, every new business was required to allocate 30% equity to Bumiputeras.
Thus, at the point in time of every new venture the target of 30% equity participation was indeed achieved. The “bumiputera (native) community” had achieved the 30% equity participation target.
It has now been revealed that RM54 billion worth of this 30% equity stake allocated and owned by the selected bumiputera representatives were in fact sold i.e. they cashed out for a cash gain. Only RM2 billion worth of this 30% equity stake remained in the hands of the selected bumiputera representatives.
These bumiputeras exercised the option to have cash instead of shares. Thus, they realised the equivalent in cash the 30% stake.
Therefore, it is scandalous and seditious to say that these bumiputeras did not achieve and acquired the 30% equity target. That 30% equity stake acquired over the years amounted to RM56 billion, of which only RM2 billion worth of equity are still held by the selected bumiputera representatives.
THEY SOLD OUT!
But can we blame them? It was a business decision. They preferred the immediate realisation of a capital gain to that of collecting interim and final dividends which may or may not be declared, depending on the vagaries of the economy, the industry and the health of the firm in question. And as they say, better to have a bird in the hand, than two in the bush.
SO WHAT WENT WRONG? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
This is because, in all societies, some are more equal than others.
Additionally, in a free market economy, cashing out is a valid option in any business. Even a majority shareholder may one day cash out for his much awaited retirement.
In the above situation, when the selected bumiputera representative cashes out, he/she has exchanged shares for the cash equivalent, often times at a premium. He/she preferred hard cash instead of an equity stake. It is his/her right within the overall scheme of things.
The majority shareholder does not cash out because it is his business, his blood, sweat and tears and unless the business continues he would end up with nothing. It is much easier to sell a minority stake than a majority stake. There is also the emotional attachment which a majority shareholder has (and usually he/she is the founder) for the company.
Obviously, when the selected bumiputera representative sells his 30% equity stake and if he fails to invest wisely the hard-earned cash, there will be no future income. The selected bumiputera representative’s share of the economic cake in the future is thereby reduced, but he/she has enjoyed the benefit of the 30% stake allocated to him/her. So what is there to complain?
Step 3
Don’t blame the existing majority shareholder and or the acquirer of the disposed 30% equity stake. The latter was willing together with the majority shareholder to realise a gain (or loss, which is a risk of business and investment) in the future rather than having the hard-earned cash for immediate gratification.
And, as the business grew, so the profits and the proportionate share thereof between the shareholders A and F. Wealth is thereby created and enhanced. Future income is assured.
Production and the expansion of production of goods and services (and hence wealth) is a direct result of savings, the postponement of immediate gratification for future gains and risks of potential loss!
A simple business decision which everyone has to make!
Common sense tells us that the selected bumiputera representatives had the 30% stake but they literally sold out the community for a cash gain and immediate gratification.
Who tolerated and condoned this state of affairs?
Surely, not the majority shareholder or the acquirer of the 30% stake! They had no choice. They had costed this gigantic tax into their business plans and had to work doubly hard to recover this additional burden.
Who should bear this responsibility? It is the entire bumiputera community who had the wool pulled over their eyes and unquestioningly allowed this policy to be implemented in a manner that benefited the chosen few – the elite bumiputera class.
THIS ASPECT OF THE NEP WAS AN UTTER FAILURE.
BUT THERE WERE SUCCESSES IN OTHER AREAS – OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, BETTER JOB OPPORTUNITIES, A SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IN AGRICULTURE etc.
Step 4
If bumiputeras are the majority shareholders, and having parted with the first tranche of 30% equity in the performance of national duty, were to be asked again to allocate another 30% equity to another group of selected bumiputera representatives when a new venture is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, there will be political and social eruptions greater and more devastating than that of Mount Vesuvius.
We should all pause and think objectively and not let emotions rule our minds!
From an economic point of view, this compulsory 30% equity stake is in fact a tax on all taxpayers, regardless of race, creed and culture. The only people who benefited from this gigantic social and economic tax are the selected bumiputera representatives, the elites.
What has happened over the years is that one generation of selected bumiputera representatives reaped the harvest of this policy, squandered much of the gains, some moved on to greater things while many lost a fortune.
From a gain of 30% equity stake, matters returned to ground zero followed by clamours for social justice, a bigger share of the economic pie and more affirmative actions. The second generation of selected representatives took advantage of the situation and made another grand harvest. Now, the third generation is demanding their dues. But the cake has shrunk as a result of the global financial tsunami.
I would like to pose the following questions to all those disenfranchised bumiputeras who for the last 30 years never had a chance to dream about, what more to have the opportunity to personally acquire and hold a portion of the 30% equity stake allocated to selected bumiputera representatives:
What are you going to do about this injustice done in your name?
When are you going to demand a proper accounting for the “disappearance” of RM54 billion allocated to your selected representatives when they sold out?
Why are you asked to pick a fight with the majority shareholders and the acquirers, when you should be questioning your selected representatives who have been allocated the 30% equity stake?
Is this really a racial issue or an issue of injustice and exploitation within your community?
Why is it that they can drive BMW 7 series, the Mercs, the Jaguars, the Ferraris etc., have multi-million dollar homes while you can only afford to drive a Kancil and live in a rented or low cost flat?
Are we supposed to accept that some are more equal than others?
I am for the NEP to eradicate poverty and social injustice.
But I am not for this social and economic tax borne by us all. Yes, by Malays and non-Malays, except the filthy rich.
The policy has not been abolished as such, but curtailed. The devil is in the details. Those of you who are driving Kancils, you should be happy as this huge tax have been reduced to 12.5% from the previous 30%. The second and third tier elites have been sacrificed so that the first tier elites can survive the coming financial fiasco.
Let us not debate or fight on racial lines, but rather we should collectively turn the spotlight on all those who have been selected to live off this gigantic tax fraud!
This is common sense.
Use common sense when addressing this issue.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Warning revisited 3 months later..
Is The New Captain Another Football Captain Just Warming Up? It May Be Worse, The Team (i.e. Advisers) Is Still In The Dressing Room! - By Matthias Chang
By Matthias Chang
Thursday, 16 April 2009 00:06
When the Badawi regime was listless and napping, Badawi gave the excuse that he was merely warming up.
I pointed out that he had five years to warm up as the deputy prime minister to the then prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and that he cannot have the luxury to “warm up” when the game has already started.
Badawi did not heed my advice and when the game resumed after half-time, he gave away five goals. A third rate team scored five massive goals and was surprised that the much touted BN team was unimaginative in offensive play and its defenders were four overweight and over-rated players.
Badawi refused to accept responsibility for the massacre and demanded that he remain as Captain. The whole team sheepishly agreed that the captain should be allowed to serve the full term. The stupid rationale was that “a captain should not be challenged” as it was against the “culture”.
The fans and critics were so pissed off that they gave the ultimate warning that if there was no change in the leadership, they would bury the entire team.
Some team members asked the Deputy to take over the leadership but he refused. He calculated that it would be safer for his long term future that others should do the heavy work of pushing aside the captain. The Deputy knew that sooner or later, the captain would be toppled as the fans were really pissed off.
The Deputy’s advisers, being opportunists and lacking in principles agreed to this game plan.
The fans and critics fed up with the charade, mounted a massive campaign and indicated that events would turn ugly and the whole team beaten to a pulp, if the captain was not booted out. That scared the shits out of the entire team. And as they say, the rest is history, albeit a recent history.
One would have thought that the Deputy who had assumed the captaincy would be more than grateful to the fans and critics who for five years, did all the heavy work to boot out the under-performing captain.
To the utter consternation of the fans and critics, this new captain was not only ungrateful but worse, he has informed his opportunist “advisers” (a carbon copy of the 4th Floor Boys) that he intends to appoint the moribund and just retired captain as his adviser. It was reported that the new captain was fond of saying that the just retired captain was an “honourable man” as he had kept his word to retire.
Maybe we should remind this new captain that the just retired captain wanted to “retire” in 2010 as he had “unfinished business” to attend. The fans went ballistic and demanded “December 2008 or else….”
The just retired captain, with the tacit agreement of the Deputy, deviously postponed the Annual Meeting from December 2008 to March 2009 in the hope of buying time. But it was not to be, as the fans were adamant that the captain must get out of their sight for good!
So how in the world can this new captain and his opportunist advisers claim that IT WAS THEIR STRATEGY THAT WROUGHT THE CAPTAINCY from the just retired captain?
I am not going to waste my time arguing this point.
I will be blunt and frank.
I will now issue a warning to the new captain and his opportunist advisers.
You had five years of warming up. Enough is enough!
You had five years of experience in mismanaging the country under the just retired captain.
You had five years of experience in how to destroy a political party under the just retired captain.
You had five years of our patience and tolerance.
You had five years to address our grievances but you neglected our frustrations and F#@K up big time and paid a heavy price, when your team gave away five massive goals to our opponents. A day of infamy!
You had five years to prepare a program to make good the damage, but you and your team just did not have the balls to do what it takes to make things right.
You had five years, and it freaks us out that you and your team, right at this moment is still figuring out what is required to put things right.
If your bloody idiotic advisers, whoever they are, cannot see the shits that have hit the ceiling fan and messed up the whole place by now, its about time, you ditch each and everyone of these ass#@L#@!!!!!!!!!!
AFTER FIVE WASTED YEARS, HOW CAN YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPIN OF THE JUST RETIRED CAPTAIN?
You must be freaking out to think we will fall for more spin!
AS A GOVERNMENT, YOU ARE EXPECTED TO PERFORM AND PERFORM WELL. SO DON’T TELL US THAT YOU WILL MONITOR YOUR TEAM’S PERFORMANCE.
YOU ARE THE CAPTAIN. ACT LIKE ONE!
YOU BETTER SHAPE UP FAST OR WE WILL SHIP YOU AND YOUR TEAM OUT!
WE WILL MONITOR YOU AND YOUR TEAM.
So why are you and your team still warming up, when you should be up and running and scoring some spectacular goals so that we have something to cheer, instead of hearing more excuses?
Team BN lost by five goals in the big game in March 2008. Since then you have lost three critical games. It would have been a consolation of sorts to have scored at least one goal in the three matches. But you came up with duds!
That is just not acceptable. It is the same old team, with the same tactics, and the same cheer leaders. Can you just tell us what is new, different and really meaningful? And for heaven’s sake, don’t do or say anything that will remind us of the just retired captain, his arrogant son-in-law and their baggage.
If you should utter again that the just retired captain is OK and you will look to him for advice, then all bets are off. We are tired of watching the same movie over and over again. Is this so difficult for you and your idiotic and opportunist advisers to comprehend?
FINALLY, get into your head that it is the economy that is our priority and if you don’t get it right by July, your time is up and you will have to go the same way as the just retired captain.
Please do the following as proof that you are listening to the rakyat.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Since you became the Finance Minister, why were you not up to speed on the global financial crisis?
If it is because you were getting the wrong data and advice (inspite of all the public warnings and publications), then why are you still keeping these advisers and or officials at the Central Bank and the Treasury?
What is the single most important thing that you must do as captain and treasurer of the team to win the confidence and support of the fans?
If you and your team do not know the answer, I suggest that you join the just retired captain and save us a whole load of aggravation.
You have been warned!
By Matthias Chang
Thursday, 16 April 2009 00:06
When the Badawi regime was listless and napping, Badawi gave the excuse that he was merely warming up.
I pointed out that he had five years to warm up as the deputy prime minister to the then prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and that he cannot have the luxury to “warm up” when the game has already started.
Badawi did not heed my advice and when the game resumed after half-time, he gave away five goals. A third rate team scored five massive goals and was surprised that the much touted BN team was unimaginative in offensive play and its defenders were four overweight and over-rated players.
Badawi refused to accept responsibility for the massacre and demanded that he remain as Captain. The whole team sheepishly agreed that the captain should be allowed to serve the full term. The stupid rationale was that “a captain should not be challenged” as it was against the “culture”.
The fans and critics were so pissed off that they gave the ultimate warning that if there was no change in the leadership, they would bury the entire team.
Some team members asked the Deputy to take over the leadership but he refused. He calculated that it would be safer for his long term future that others should do the heavy work of pushing aside the captain. The Deputy knew that sooner or later, the captain would be toppled as the fans were really pissed off.
The Deputy’s advisers, being opportunists and lacking in principles agreed to this game plan.
The fans and critics fed up with the charade, mounted a massive campaign and indicated that events would turn ugly and the whole team beaten to a pulp, if the captain was not booted out. That scared the shits out of the entire team. And as they say, the rest is history, albeit a recent history.
One would have thought that the Deputy who had assumed the captaincy would be more than grateful to the fans and critics who for five years, did all the heavy work to boot out the under-performing captain.
To the utter consternation of the fans and critics, this new captain was not only ungrateful but worse, he has informed his opportunist “advisers” (a carbon copy of the 4th Floor Boys) that he intends to appoint the moribund and just retired captain as his adviser. It was reported that the new captain was fond of saying that the just retired captain was an “honourable man” as he had kept his word to retire.
Maybe we should remind this new captain that the just retired captain wanted to “retire” in 2010 as he had “unfinished business” to attend. The fans went ballistic and demanded “December 2008 or else….”
The just retired captain, with the tacit agreement of the Deputy, deviously postponed the Annual Meeting from December 2008 to March 2009 in the hope of buying time. But it was not to be, as the fans were adamant that the captain must get out of their sight for good!
So how in the world can this new captain and his opportunist advisers claim that IT WAS THEIR STRATEGY THAT WROUGHT THE CAPTAINCY from the just retired captain?
I am not going to waste my time arguing this point.
I will be blunt and frank.
I will now issue a warning to the new captain and his opportunist advisers.
You had five years of warming up. Enough is enough!
You had five years of experience in mismanaging the country under the just retired captain.
You had five years of experience in how to destroy a political party under the just retired captain.
You had five years of our patience and tolerance.
You had five years to address our grievances but you neglected our frustrations and F#@K up big time and paid a heavy price, when your team gave away five massive goals to our opponents. A day of infamy!
You had five years to prepare a program to make good the damage, but you and your team just did not have the balls to do what it takes to make things right.
You had five years, and it freaks us out that you and your team, right at this moment is still figuring out what is required to put things right.
If your bloody idiotic advisers, whoever they are, cannot see the shits that have hit the ceiling fan and messed up the whole place by now, its about time, you ditch each and everyone of these ass#@L#@!!!!!!!!!!
AFTER FIVE WASTED YEARS, HOW CAN YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPIN OF THE JUST RETIRED CAPTAIN?
You must be freaking out to think we will fall for more spin!
AS A GOVERNMENT, YOU ARE EXPECTED TO PERFORM AND PERFORM WELL. SO DON’T TELL US THAT YOU WILL MONITOR YOUR TEAM’S PERFORMANCE.
YOU ARE THE CAPTAIN. ACT LIKE ONE!
YOU BETTER SHAPE UP FAST OR WE WILL SHIP YOU AND YOUR TEAM OUT!
WE WILL MONITOR YOU AND YOUR TEAM.
So why are you and your team still warming up, when you should be up and running and scoring some spectacular goals so that we have something to cheer, instead of hearing more excuses?
Team BN lost by five goals in the big game in March 2008. Since then you have lost three critical games. It would have been a consolation of sorts to have scored at least one goal in the three matches. But you came up with duds!
That is just not acceptable. It is the same old team, with the same tactics, and the same cheer leaders. Can you just tell us what is new, different and really meaningful? And for heaven’s sake, don’t do or say anything that will remind us of the just retired captain, his arrogant son-in-law and their baggage.
If you should utter again that the just retired captain is OK and you will look to him for advice, then all bets are off. We are tired of watching the same movie over and over again. Is this so difficult for you and your idiotic and opportunist advisers to comprehend?
FINALLY, get into your head that it is the economy that is our priority and if you don’t get it right by July, your time is up and you will have to go the same way as the just retired captain.
Please do the following as proof that you are listening to the rakyat.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Since you became the Finance Minister, why were you not up to speed on the global financial crisis?
If it is because you were getting the wrong data and advice (inspite of all the public warnings and publications), then why are you still keeping these advisers and or officials at the Central Bank and the Treasury?
What is the single most important thing that you must do as captain and treasurer of the team to win the confidence and support of the fans?
If you and your team do not know the answer, I suggest that you join the just retired captain and save us a whole load of aggravation.
You have been warned!
More extrovert than Matthias, but can he do a better job?
Sabah academician named PM’s new political secretary
KUALA LUMPUR, July 2 — Academician Oh Ei Sun, who is also a highly sought international speaker-trainer-motivator, consultant and entrepreneur, has been appointed political secretary to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
An official from the Prime Minister's Office said the appointment was effective June 16.
The 35-year-old Sabahan, trained in law, management, engineering and the languages, has extensive experience serving various international and world bodies under the United Nations.
Oh holds a degree each in aeronautical and mechanical engineering, and another in German language, apart from a double master’s — in science and international management — as well as Juris Doctor in Law (JD), obtained from his eight years of study at the University of Califonia.
His working experience includes serving with international organisation such as International Telecommunication Union and the Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications, both located in Geneva, Switzerland.
Fluent in five languages — Bahasa Malaysia, English, Chinese, German and French — Oh has conducted various consulting works for multinational and international corporations, as well as advising diverse small and medium enterprises on legal and business start-up issues.
Not limited to the corporate sector, he has also rendered his expertise in strategic, technical and legal advice to various international organisations, governments and agencies, political parties, non-governmental organisations, as well as professional, civic and cultural bodies.
Oh once served as a United Nations expert consultant advising various governments on emergency communications. He has also worked closely with various UN partner agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and UN Development Programme.
He has also served as chief executive officer of a telecommunications company based in Hong Kong, and been involved in mobile multi-channel share-trading services in China.
Oh had his share of expertise in training managerial-level professionals, delivered more than 500 modules to more than 20,000 corporate directors where he recently expanded his expertise in the field of financial management and education.
"I am honoured to be able to serve the country and the people at this critical juncture, both politically and economically," he told Bernama today.
The appointment comes at an unexpected time when he had to shift from his normal role as analyst, motivator and moderator to something more challenging — taking care of the political mission of the country's top leader.
Asked what his first mission would be after being appointed, Oh said he would like to promote the concept of 1 Malaysia and engage in dialogue with more people from various backgrounds and communities.
This is particularly important to understand the pulse of the people, as well as to obtain feedback from the people, he said.
"There is one element in 1 Malaysia that I feel most deeply about. It is about integrity, both in the public sector and the private endeavour. I would like to see more emphasis on this as we continue to promote 1 Malaysia," he said.
This former student of Kian Kok Middle School in Kota Kinabalu is also an adjunct professor with Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). — Bernama
KUALA LUMPUR, July 2 — Academician Oh Ei Sun, who is also a highly sought international speaker-trainer-motivator, consultant and entrepreneur, has been appointed political secretary to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
An official from the Prime Minister's Office said the appointment was effective June 16.
The 35-year-old Sabahan, trained in law, management, engineering and the languages, has extensive experience serving various international and world bodies under the United Nations.
Oh holds a degree each in aeronautical and mechanical engineering, and another in German language, apart from a double master’s — in science and international management — as well as Juris Doctor in Law (JD), obtained from his eight years of study at the University of Califonia.
His working experience includes serving with international organisation such as International Telecommunication Union and the Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications, both located in Geneva, Switzerland.
Fluent in five languages — Bahasa Malaysia, English, Chinese, German and French — Oh has conducted various consulting works for multinational and international corporations, as well as advising diverse small and medium enterprises on legal and business start-up issues.
Not limited to the corporate sector, he has also rendered his expertise in strategic, technical and legal advice to various international organisations, governments and agencies, political parties, non-governmental organisations, as well as professional, civic and cultural bodies.
Oh once served as a United Nations expert consultant advising various governments on emergency communications. He has also worked closely with various UN partner agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and UN Development Programme.
He has also served as chief executive officer of a telecommunications company based in Hong Kong, and been involved in mobile multi-channel share-trading services in China.
Oh had his share of expertise in training managerial-level professionals, delivered more than 500 modules to more than 20,000 corporate directors where he recently expanded his expertise in the field of financial management and education.
"I am honoured to be able to serve the country and the people at this critical juncture, both politically and economically," he told Bernama today.
The appointment comes at an unexpected time when he had to shift from his normal role as analyst, motivator and moderator to something more challenging — taking care of the political mission of the country's top leader.
Asked what his first mission would be after being appointed, Oh said he would like to promote the concept of 1 Malaysia and engage in dialogue with more people from various backgrounds and communities.
This is particularly important to understand the pulse of the people, as well as to obtain feedback from the people, he said.
"There is one element in 1 Malaysia that I feel most deeply about. It is about integrity, both in the public sector and the private endeavour. I would like to see more emphasis on this as we continue to promote 1 Malaysia," he said.
This former student of Kian Kok Middle School in Kota Kinabalu is also an adjunct professor with Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). — Bernama
Monday, June 29, 2009
Way to go, Dato' Kadar Shah!
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
M. Bakri Musa
“Apologies – at the very least – are called for.” So began an editorial, “Feast of Lies,” that appeared in the New Straits Times on April 27, 2009. Its pontificating tone continues, “… scandalous allegations are leapt on and gnawed to the bone without even a perfunctory attempt at verification, ….”
What triggered the righteous indignation of the paper’s editorial writers was the alternative media’s widespread reporting of the shenanigans of the Kelantan royal family. Today, thanks to a brave Malaysian, Kadar Shah Sulaiman, and the professionalism of Singapore’s police personnel, the Kelantan Prince’s estranged wife, Manohara, is now free. As the world now knows, her nine-month royal marriage was anything but a fairy tale, at least according to Manohara, which is what matters.
While her husband may be a prince, she discovered too late that he was of the Neanderthal variety. Perhaps her kiss was not powerful enough; the frog still remains in him.
I would have thought that the folks at The New Straits Times, of all people, would not be strangers to royal mischief. All they have to do is review their archives of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
What prompted the sanctimonious editorial was the appearance of the young royal couple at a wedding reception in Kota Baru where they were (or at least she was) seen smiling happily. Any editor who could have been so easily hoodwinked by a “photo op,” well, he or she could also be easily swayed by a mere phone call from someone powerful. So much for being “hardnosed” journalists!
However, this commentary is not on the credibility (or the lack thereof) of The NST. I need not add anything on that matter; the paper’s declining circulation is proof enough of the current sorry state of this once proud publication.
Instead, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had Manohara tried her escape not from a Singapore hotel but one in KL. Three points worth pondering; the first two relate to the professionalism of Singapore’s public service, in this particular case, its Police Force. The third concerns the humanity of one Malaysian who tipped Manohara’s family that the Prince and his wife would be in Singapore and thus was instrumental in her escape.
First, the Singapore police rightly pointed out to the Prince and his hangers-on that they risk being jailed for interfering with police work or obstructing Manohara’s movements. Second was the revealing comment of that taxi driver to the effect that Manohara and her family had nothing to fear from the Singapore police. That such a compliment would come from a taxi driver reflects the integrity of the republic’s police.
Had the Manohara episode happened in Kuala Lumpur, our Chief of Police would be kissing the Raja Temonggong’s hand and asking for forgiveness for “interfering” with royal affairs. The Chief would also probably give Manohara some fatherly “advice” to return to her husband and be a “good” and “obedient” wife.
Alas, we see this blind royal genuflection even among the highest echelon of our leadership. Despite the horrifying details related by Manohara, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyuddin saw fit to comment that the Malaysian government does not want to get involved. “I think this is more of a personal matter,” he was reported to have said. “We should not be dragged into this situation so we want to just leave it as it is,” he continued.
Muhyuddin as Deputy Prime Minister ought to know that once a crime is committed, or alleged to have been committed, then that is no longer a private matter. The state must have an interest in that. That is our Deputy Prime Minister for you. He had so quickly forgotten that he was sworn to uphold the laws of the country. A crime is a crime regardless of who had committed it. And spousal abuse is a crime.
Then there is Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’ office; he is still waiting for a formal complaint! Obviously he did not read his party’s paper, the NST! Poor Aziz would wait till it snows in Malaysia if he were to think that Manohara would trust our institutions well enough to lodge a police report here! This monkey of a minister just refuses to see anything until it is pointed out to him. It did not occur to his thick skull that he should be the one to direct the police to investigate. If nothing else, to protect the integrity of the palace if indeed Manohara were fabricating her allegations.
If Muhyuddin and Nazri could not say anything sensible, they should just shut up. There is no need to embarrass the country. Come to think of it, that is good advice for all our leaders. I wonder if Nazri and Muhyuddin have a daughter; how they would feel if she were to be abused by her husband. The ministers’ utterances were at best boorish; at worse, reprehensible.
Second is the reputation of Singapore’s police in the eyes of the island’s taxi drivers. “… [T]he police would definitely protect us regardless of who we were, whether we were foreigners or locals, whether we were rich or poor,” one driver told Manohara’s family. I wonder what our taxi drivers think of our own police force if we were to engage them in candid conversations.
Here would be some realistic samples. “The last time those bastards stopped me they demanded no less than RM200!” Another: “That huge mansion on the hill, that’s the police chief’s second house!” These supposed comments are not figments of my florid imagination. Witness what happened to former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the hands of the Police Chief. Anwar was even cockier and more certain of his power than Muhyuddin could ever hope to be. Yet that did not protect Anwar.
The scary part of that ugly Anwar incident was not the rogue Chief of Police rather that the assault occurred in front of at least two senior officers. They did not see fit to restrain their brute lawless chief; they also chose to remain silent when the subsequent controversy erupted. They witnessed a major felony being committed and chose not to stop or report it. They were guilty of being accomplices to a major crime as well as obstructing justice. Yet those two officers still serve His Majesty’s Government. That is the Royal Malaysian Police.
It is tempting to condemn Malaysians generally, as many are wont to, for the abject performances of our leaders and institutions. It is after all difficult to separate leaders and institutions from the people.
Seen in this light, the exemplary performance of Kadar Shah Sulaiman, UMNO’s Muar branch chief, deserves much praise and wider recognition. Clearly he saw his duty to a suffering fellow human greater than that to a sultan or sultan’s family. Kadar is truly a modern-day Hang Jebat; he makes us all proud.
The shenanigans of Malay royals are not news. As for the credibility and reputation of our mainstream media editors, now that would be news when they showed any! Currently their reputation may only be slightly less soiled than that of the sultans. Our leaders and institutions are not much better. Given such a milieu it is easy to be pessimistic. Yet amidst such gloom we can occasionally be pleasantly surprised. Kadar Shah Sulaiman’s action assured us that there still exists some humanity among Malaysians. It also shows that one brave soul can indeed make a difference.
As for our editors in the mainstream media, do not expect a mea culpa any time soon; they still delude themselves into thinking that they are doing a swell job. They do not bother with “even a perfunctory attempt at verification.”
M. Bakri Musa
“Apologies – at the very least – are called for.” So began an editorial, “Feast of Lies,” that appeared in the New Straits Times on April 27, 2009. Its pontificating tone continues, “… scandalous allegations are leapt on and gnawed to the bone without even a perfunctory attempt at verification, ….”
What triggered the righteous indignation of the paper’s editorial writers was the alternative media’s widespread reporting of the shenanigans of the Kelantan royal family. Today, thanks to a brave Malaysian, Kadar Shah Sulaiman, and the professionalism of Singapore’s police personnel, the Kelantan Prince’s estranged wife, Manohara, is now free. As the world now knows, her nine-month royal marriage was anything but a fairy tale, at least according to Manohara, which is what matters.
While her husband may be a prince, she discovered too late that he was of the Neanderthal variety. Perhaps her kiss was not powerful enough; the frog still remains in him.
I would have thought that the folks at The New Straits Times, of all people, would not be strangers to royal mischief. All they have to do is review their archives of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
What prompted the sanctimonious editorial was the appearance of the young royal couple at a wedding reception in Kota Baru where they were (or at least she was) seen smiling happily. Any editor who could have been so easily hoodwinked by a “photo op,” well, he or she could also be easily swayed by a mere phone call from someone powerful. So much for being “hardnosed” journalists!
However, this commentary is not on the credibility (or the lack thereof) of The NST. I need not add anything on that matter; the paper’s declining circulation is proof enough of the current sorry state of this once proud publication.
Instead, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had Manohara tried her escape not from a Singapore hotel but one in KL. Three points worth pondering; the first two relate to the professionalism of Singapore’s public service, in this particular case, its Police Force. The third concerns the humanity of one Malaysian who tipped Manohara’s family that the Prince and his wife would be in Singapore and thus was instrumental in her escape.
First, the Singapore police rightly pointed out to the Prince and his hangers-on that they risk being jailed for interfering with police work or obstructing Manohara’s movements. Second was the revealing comment of that taxi driver to the effect that Manohara and her family had nothing to fear from the Singapore police. That such a compliment would come from a taxi driver reflects the integrity of the republic’s police.
Had the Manohara episode happened in Kuala Lumpur, our Chief of Police would be kissing the Raja Temonggong’s hand and asking for forgiveness for “interfering” with royal affairs. The Chief would also probably give Manohara some fatherly “advice” to return to her husband and be a “good” and “obedient” wife.
Alas, we see this blind royal genuflection even among the highest echelon of our leadership. Despite the horrifying details related by Manohara, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyuddin saw fit to comment that the Malaysian government does not want to get involved. “I think this is more of a personal matter,” he was reported to have said. “We should not be dragged into this situation so we want to just leave it as it is,” he continued.
Muhyuddin as Deputy Prime Minister ought to know that once a crime is committed, or alleged to have been committed, then that is no longer a private matter. The state must have an interest in that. That is our Deputy Prime Minister for you. He had so quickly forgotten that he was sworn to uphold the laws of the country. A crime is a crime regardless of who had committed it. And spousal abuse is a crime.
Then there is Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’ office; he is still waiting for a formal complaint! Obviously he did not read his party’s paper, the NST! Poor Aziz would wait till it snows in Malaysia if he were to think that Manohara would trust our institutions well enough to lodge a police report here! This monkey of a minister just refuses to see anything until it is pointed out to him. It did not occur to his thick skull that he should be the one to direct the police to investigate. If nothing else, to protect the integrity of the palace if indeed Manohara were fabricating her allegations.
If Muhyuddin and Nazri could not say anything sensible, they should just shut up. There is no need to embarrass the country. Come to think of it, that is good advice for all our leaders. I wonder if Nazri and Muhyuddin have a daughter; how they would feel if she were to be abused by her husband. The ministers’ utterances were at best boorish; at worse, reprehensible.
Second is the reputation of Singapore’s police in the eyes of the island’s taxi drivers. “… [T]he police would definitely protect us regardless of who we were, whether we were foreigners or locals, whether we were rich or poor,” one driver told Manohara’s family. I wonder what our taxi drivers think of our own police force if we were to engage them in candid conversations.
Here would be some realistic samples. “The last time those bastards stopped me they demanded no less than RM200!” Another: “That huge mansion on the hill, that’s the police chief’s second house!” These supposed comments are not figments of my florid imagination. Witness what happened to former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the hands of the Police Chief. Anwar was even cockier and more certain of his power than Muhyuddin could ever hope to be. Yet that did not protect Anwar.
The scary part of that ugly Anwar incident was not the rogue Chief of Police rather that the assault occurred in front of at least two senior officers. They did not see fit to restrain their brute lawless chief; they also chose to remain silent when the subsequent controversy erupted. They witnessed a major felony being committed and chose not to stop or report it. They were guilty of being accomplices to a major crime as well as obstructing justice. Yet those two officers still serve His Majesty’s Government. That is the Royal Malaysian Police.
It is tempting to condemn Malaysians generally, as many are wont to, for the abject performances of our leaders and institutions. It is after all difficult to separate leaders and institutions from the people.
Seen in this light, the exemplary performance of Kadar Shah Sulaiman, UMNO’s Muar branch chief, deserves much praise and wider recognition. Clearly he saw his duty to a suffering fellow human greater than that to a sultan or sultan’s family. Kadar is truly a modern-day Hang Jebat; he makes us all proud.
The shenanigans of Malay royals are not news. As for the credibility and reputation of our mainstream media editors, now that would be news when they showed any! Currently their reputation may only be slightly less soiled than that of the sultans. Our leaders and institutions are not much better. Given such a milieu it is easy to be pessimistic. Yet amidst such gloom we can occasionally be pleasantly surprised. Kadar Shah Sulaiman’s action assured us that there still exists some humanity among Malaysians. It also shows that one brave soul can indeed make a difference.
As for our editors in the mainstream media, do not expect a mea culpa any time soon; they still delude themselves into thinking that they are doing a swell job. They do not bother with “even a perfunctory attempt at verification.”
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
This summer will be ugly
World Trade, Baltic Dry And Green Shoots - By Financial Ninja (27/6/09)
Financial Ninja
Saturday, 27 June 2009 09:37
25 June, 2009
[FF Editorial: Anyone who still entertain the stupid idea that there are green shoots and that they will sprout and grow, ought to visit a psychiatric ward. There was never a recovery but that spun by Wall Street. This summer will be ugly.]
World trade has collapsed and shows little signs of recovery. Japan posted a 41% yoy drop in exports. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) bounced quite a bit off the lows, but has now started to stall.
As more shipping capacity comes online (yeah they're still building like crazy) and demand continues to slide (yeah demand is still cliff diving) expect the BDI to curl over and plunge.
Box lines staring at $50bn revenue collapse: "TOP container lines could see $50bn or more wiped off their combined revenues this year as conditions continue to deteriorate, industry experts predict.
A new forecast from shipping analyst Alphaliner puts the anticipated drop in revenue from 2008 levels at $40bn-50bn.
This is broadly in line with Drewry Shipping’s projection of a $55bn collapse in revenue from last year’s income of $220bn, which will catapult the entire industry deep into the red.
Drewry said container lines would only be able to find savings of around $30bn, leaving a gap of $25bn, which will push the industry from a modest collective profit in 2008 to a massive deficit of around $20bn in 2009.
This is down from a very early projection Drewry prepared before first quarter results were published.
Alphaliner’s latest forecasts are also based on the performance of top lines in the first three months of the year, when income of those monitored plunged 35% as volumes collapsed by 20% and average freight rates declined 15%.
A survey of 11 of the top 20 lines that report a breakdown of their liner shipping results found that revenue in the January-March period shrank to $14.5bn from $22.4bn a year earlier.
The 11 lines surveyed account for 45% of total fleet capacity.
Of those 11, the two big Chinese lines, China Shipping and CoscoContainer Lines saw the biggest percentage decline, each suffering a drop in revenue of more than 50%.
World number one Maersk Line posted a 28% drop, the smallest reported. Other global carriers saw their revenue contract by about 33%-40%. Figures for Mediterranean Shipping Co, Evergreen and CMA CGM were not included.
Alphaliner noted that no region had been spared in the latest slump. Volumes were down in all parts of the world, leaving carriers unable to shift capacity from a weak trade lane to one faring better.
Furthermore, NOL’s latest results “suggest that there is still some way to go before any recovery is seen,” Alphaliner said.
Trade conditions continue to deteriorate. Drewry reported that average spot rates from Hong Kong to Los Angeles slid over the past week to $914 per loaded 40 ft container from $921 a week earlier and $2,043 in June 2008."
Value of Japan exports falls 41% year on year: "Japan's tentative export rebound faltered in May as shipments fell 41 per cent by value year on year amid a rising yen and continuing weakness in sales in key markets for the nation's electronics and cars.
While most economists believe the world's second largest economy is bottoming out after suffering its sharpest postwar slump, yesterday's trade statistics highlight the shallow roots of a recovery likely to remain highly reliant on external demand and debt-funded fiscal stimulus.
May's year-on-year decline outpaced the 39 per cent drop recorded in April. On a seasonally adjusted month-on-month basis, exports slid 0.3 per cent in May, after having risen in both March and April."
Financial Ninja
Saturday, 27 June 2009 09:37
25 June, 2009
[FF Editorial: Anyone who still entertain the stupid idea that there are green shoots and that they will sprout and grow, ought to visit a psychiatric ward. There was never a recovery but that spun by Wall Street. This summer will be ugly.]
World trade has collapsed and shows little signs of recovery. Japan posted a 41% yoy drop in exports. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) bounced quite a bit off the lows, but has now started to stall.
As more shipping capacity comes online (yeah they're still building like crazy) and demand continues to slide (yeah demand is still cliff diving) expect the BDI to curl over and plunge.
Box lines staring at $50bn revenue collapse: "TOP container lines could see $50bn or more wiped off their combined revenues this year as conditions continue to deteriorate, industry experts predict.
A new forecast from shipping analyst Alphaliner puts the anticipated drop in revenue from 2008 levels at $40bn-50bn.
This is broadly in line with Drewry Shipping’s projection of a $55bn collapse in revenue from last year’s income of $220bn, which will catapult the entire industry deep into the red.
Drewry said container lines would only be able to find savings of around $30bn, leaving a gap of $25bn, which will push the industry from a modest collective profit in 2008 to a massive deficit of around $20bn in 2009.
This is down from a very early projection Drewry prepared before first quarter results were published.
Alphaliner’s latest forecasts are also based on the performance of top lines in the first three months of the year, when income of those monitored plunged 35% as volumes collapsed by 20% and average freight rates declined 15%.
A survey of 11 of the top 20 lines that report a breakdown of their liner shipping results found that revenue in the January-March period shrank to $14.5bn from $22.4bn a year earlier.
The 11 lines surveyed account for 45% of total fleet capacity.
Of those 11, the two big Chinese lines, China Shipping and CoscoContainer Lines saw the biggest percentage decline, each suffering a drop in revenue of more than 50%.
World number one Maersk Line posted a 28% drop, the smallest reported. Other global carriers saw their revenue contract by about 33%-40%. Figures for Mediterranean Shipping Co, Evergreen and CMA CGM were not included.
Alphaliner noted that no region had been spared in the latest slump. Volumes were down in all parts of the world, leaving carriers unable to shift capacity from a weak trade lane to one faring better.
Furthermore, NOL’s latest results “suggest that there is still some way to go before any recovery is seen,” Alphaliner said.
Trade conditions continue to deteriorate. Drewry reported that average spot rates from Hong Kong to Los Angeles slid over the past week to $914 per loaded 40 ft container from $921 a week earlier and $2,043 in June 2008."
Value of Japan exports falls 41% year on year: "Japan's tentative export rebound faltered in May as shipments fell 41 per cent by value year on year amid a rising yen and continuing weakness in sales in key markets for the nation's electronics and cars.
While most economists believe the world's second largest economy is bottoming out after suffering its sharpest postwar slump, yesterday's trade statistics highlight the shallow roots of a recovery likely to remain highly reliant on external demand and debt-funded fiscal stimulus.
May's year-on-year decline outpaced the 39 per cent drop recorded in April. On a seasonally adjusted month-on-month basis, exports slid 0.3 per cent in May, after having risen in both March and April."
The Crisis of Common Sense: Is It So Difficult To Understand The Financial Crisis?
Thinking & Common Sense
God gave us a brain to think, to think naturally and in simple terms, and not in a complicated way.
When we think naturally and use common sense to address problems we will be able to arrive at simple solutions.
But our education system tortures us mentally and forces us to think in complicated ways. Our teachers, economists, politicians and so-called experts in God and religion make mountains out of mole-hills, turning simple truths to complex arguments and “scientific theories and equations”.
These experts need to make things look difficult to survive and to make sure that we have to rely upon them for solutions. It is often said that, “in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the King”.
Thinking used to be a pleasure and so very invigorating. But now experts have ensured that thinking is difficult and tiring, so burdensome, that we don’t think at all.
The result is that common sense is thrown out of the window, and we have been conditioned to rely on our mental crutch, the so-called experts to think for us.
How sad.
It Is So Difficult To Understand The Financial Crisis
Many have expressed to me that they are overwhelmed by the complexity of the global financial tsunami and are absolutely confused as to how to prepare and survive the crisis.
When I explained in simple terms, they refused to accept the explanations as to them “it was too simple. It must be more complicated as otherwise how can the crisis become a global fiasco?
Consider the following and my simple explanation:
1. financial engineering: new ways of gambling
2. Investors: gamblers
3. Stock & Futures Markets: casinos
4. Financial Analysts: casinos’ salesmen / women
5. Bonds: I.O.Us.
6. Banks: Dishonest Money-lenders (actual money-lenders licensed not as banks, but as money-lenders, cannot create “money out of thin air”. They have to use their own capital – 100% to lend)
7. Currencies / fiat money toilet papers
8. Derivative markets: ponzi scheme
So many people have difficulty accepting my explanations as the simple reality. This is even after the recent exposé of the US$50 Billion fraud by Bernard Madoff, the former chairman of NASDAQ. He declared to the FBI, that his scheme was essentially a Ponzi scheme (i.e. using one set of “investors’ money” to pay off an earlier set of “investors”).
Banks worldwide have collapsed!
Why?
Two reasons – (i) they gambled at the casino and lost trillions and (ii) almost all their borrowers that borrowed huge sums (leveraging 30 times or more i.e. if a borrower has $1 million capital, he can borrower $30 million) have defaulted.
Common sense tells us that if our income is only $X and we borrow 30 times in excess of $X, there is no way that we can repay the debt, unless our gambling bets pay out in excess of 30 times the original amount of $X.
Common sense tells us that if our total family monthly income is e.g. RM3,500, we cannot afford a lifestyle that requires a monthly expenditure of RM10,000 financed by credit-cards with only 5% monthly payment on the outstanding. When interests start piling up on the accumulated monthly outstanding, a point will be reached whereby the cardholder cannot even keep up with the payment of the interests. The cardholder defaults and he gets sued by the lawyers acting for the credit-card companies and or banks.
Common sense tells us that if you are conned into buying something allegedly worth US$500,000 when its actual value is US$5,000 and you borrowed to buy the inflated “asset”, there is no way that you will continue paying the installments and the interests on such an acquisition. The bank on the other hand is stuck with an “asset” supposedly worth US$500,000 but its actual worth is only US$5,000 or less.
Common sense tells us that the banks and the governments (fearing a systemic banking collapse) will lie and cover up the con-game until it cannot cover up anymore as too many banks are having the same problems and more importantly, the con-game cannot be covered-up anymore because borrowers are walking away and saying to the banks and governments – “You conned us, you take the blame.”
Common sense tells us that these so-called assets which “investors” have invested cannot be real assets, but mere papers masquerading as assets (such as CDOs, synthetic CDOs and CDO Squared – toilet papers). Therefore, so-called sophisticated “investors” were borrowing toilet papers to “invest” in toilet paper assets!
Common sense tells us, and thinking naturally and in simple terms will enable us to conclude, that only greedy people can be lured by such con-games and that when gambling at such casinos, these so-called sophisticated investors were not using common sense.
Common sense tells us that we, the remaining hardworking people should not allow any government to use our tax revenue to bailout such reckless and greedy b@#st@#ds.
Common sense tells us that when gamblers lose millions at the Las Vegas, Macau or Genting Highlands casinos, no government can justify and or dare to bailout such stupid and greedy gamblers. We would vote them out of office.
Common sense tells us that since all these “clever people” by their reckless, irresponsible and fraudulent conduct have destroyed the economy, they should be prosecuted and sent to jail and the keys thrown away!
Common sense tells us that a system that allows such frauds and gambling should be banned and made illegal.
Common sense tells us that when common thieves rob a jewelry shop or a bank, they are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and whipped as well, these sophisticated thieves should be likewise be whipped and sent to prison for life imprisonment, as their destruction is a million times more devastating than the common thieves!
Common sense tells us that when times are hard, we should be prudent and thrifty to overcome and survive the hardships, so why are we encouraged to borrow more and more and to spend, spend and spend?
Common sense tells us that when a shop is offering a discount, a reduction in the price of a product, the shop-keeper is encouraging us to spend and buy the goods.
Common sense tells us therefore, interest charges and penalty interests are the cost of a debt / borrowings from the perspective of the borrower and revenues and profits, when the debt is fully paid, from the point of view of the lender.
Common sense tells us that it is not out of kindness that banks lower interest charges. Like the shop-keeper, it is to encourage more borrowings. More borrowings mean more debts and ultimately more profits for the bankers.
Common sense tells us that we should not get into debts unnecessarily and not to borrow to purchase things that are not within our income and our ability to repay.
Common sense tells us that we should not commit fraud and or be a party to a fraud.
Common sense tells us more importantly, not to be greedy and lust for material wealth.
Common sense tells us that we should be angry, very angry with the so-called “sophisticated and up-right people” who commit fraud and the regulatory authorities and political leaders who cover-up their crimes.
Finally, common sense tells us that we should take action to put a stop to these crimes and scandals.
Please use common sense and do something before it is too late!
Matthias Chang is a prominent barrister and author based in Malaysia. His website is www.FutureFastForward.com
Matthias Chang is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Matthias Chang
God gave us a brain to think, to think naturally and in simple terms, and not in a complicated way.
When we think naturally and use common sense to address problems we will be able to arrive at simple solutions.
But our education system tortures us mentally and forces us to think in complicated ways. Our teachers, economists, politicians and so-called experts in God and religion make mountains out of mole-hills, turning simple truths to complex arguments and “scientific theories and equations”.
These experts need to make things look difficult to survive and to make sure that we have to rely upon them for solutions. It is often said that, “in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the King”.
Thinking used to be a pleasure and so very invigorating. But now experts have ensured that thinking is difficult and tiring, so burdensome, that we don’t think at all.
The result is that common sense is thrown out of the window, and we have been conditioned to rely on our mental crutch, the so-called experts to think for us.
How sad.
It Is So Difficult To Understand The Financial Crisis
Many have expressed to me that they are overwhelmed by the complexity of the global financial tsunami and are absolutely confused as to how to prepare and survive the crisis.
When I explained in simple terms, they refused to accept the explanations as to them “it was too simple. It must be more complicated as otherwise how can the crisis become a global fiasco?
Consider the following and my simple explanation:
1. financial engineering: new ways of gambling
2. Investors: gamblers
3. Stock & Futures Markets: casinos
4. Financial Analysts: casinos’ salesmen / women
5. Bonds: I.O.Us.
6. Banks: Dishonest Money-lenders (actual money-lenders licensed not as banks, but as money-lenders, cannot create “money out of thin air”. They have to use their own capital – 100% to lend)
7. Currencies / fiat money toilet papers
8. Derivative markets: ponzi scheme
So many people have difficulty accepting my explanations as the simple reality. This is even after the recent exposé of the US$50 Billion fraud by Bernard Madoff, the former chairman of NASDAQ. He declared to the FBI, that his scheme was essentially a Ponzi scheme (i.e. using one set of “investors’ money” to pay off an earlier set of “investors”).
Banks worldwide have collapsed!
Why?
Two reasons – (i) they gambled at the casino and lost trillions and (ii) almost all their borrowers that borrowed huge sums (leveraging 30 times or more i.e. if a borrower has $1 million capital, he can borrower $30 million) have defaulted.
Common sense tells us that if our income is only $X and we borrow 30 times in excess of $X, there is no way that we can repay the debt, unless our gambling bets pay out in excess of 30 times the original amount of $X.
Common sense tells us that if our total family monthly income is e.g. RM3,500, we cannot afford a lifestyle that requires a monthly expenditure of RM10,000 financed by credit-cards with only 5% monthly payment on the outstanding. When interests start piling up on the accumulated monthly outstanding, a point will be reached whereby the cardholder cannot even keep up with the payment of the interests. The cardholder defaults and he gets sued by the lawyers acting for the credit-card companies and or banks.
Common sense tells us that if you are conned into buying something allegedly worth US$500,000 when its actual value is US$5,000 and you borrowed to buy the inflated “asset”, there is no way that you will continue paying the installments and the interests on such an acquisition. The bank on the other hand is stuck with an “asset” supposedly worth US$500,000 but its actual worth is only US$5,000 or less.
Common sense tells us that the banks and the governments (fearing a systemic banking collapse) will lie and cover up the con-game until it cannot cover up anymore as too many banks are having the same problems and more importantly, the con-game cannot be covered-up anymore because borrowers are walking away and saying to the banks and governments – “You conned us, you take the blame.”
Common sense tells us that these so-called assets which “investors” have invested cannot be real assets, but mere papers masquerading as assets (such as CDOs, synthetic CDOs and CDO Squared – toilet papers). Therefore, so-called sophisticated “investors” were borrowing toilet papers to “invest” in toilet paper assets!
Common sense tells us, and thinking naturally and in simple terms will enable us to conclude, that only greedy people can be lured by such con-games and that when gambling at such casinos, these so-called sophisticated investors were not using common sense.
Common sense tells us that we, the remaining hardworking people should not allow any government to use our tax revenue to bailout such reckless and greedy b@#st@#ds.
Common sense tells us that when gamblers lose millions at the Las Vegas, Macau or Genting Highlands casinos, no government can justify and or dare to bailout such stupid and greedy gamblers. We would vote them out of office.
Common sense tells us that since all these “clever people” by their reckless, irresponsible and fraudulent conduct have destroyed the economy, they should be prosecuted and sent to jail and the keys thrown away!
Common sense tells us that a system that allows such frauds and gambling should be banned and made illegal.
Common sense tells us that when common thieves rob a jewelry shop or a bank, they are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and whipped as well, these sophisticated thieves should be likewise be whipped and sent to prison for life imprisonment, as their destruction is a million times more devastating than the common thieves!
Common sense tells us that when times are hard, we should be prudent and thrifty to overcome and survive the hardships, so why are we encouraged to borrow more and more and to spend, spend and spend?
Common sense tells us that when a shop is offering a discount, a reduction in the price of a product, the shop-keeper is encouraging us to spend and buy the goods.
Common sense tells us therefore, interest charges and penalty interests are the cost of a debt / borrowings from the perspective of the borrower and revenues and profits, when the debt is fully paid, from the point of view of the lender.
Common sense tells us that it is not out of kindness that banks lower interest charges. Like the shop-keeper, it is to encourage more borrowings. More borrowings mean more debts and ultimately more profits for the bankers.
Common sense tells us that we should not get into debts unnecessarily and not to borrow to purchase things that are not within our income and our ability to repay.
Common sense tells us that we should not commit fraud and or be a party to a fraud.
Common sense tells us more importantly, not to be greedy and lust for material wealth.
Common sense tells us that we should be angry, very angry with the so-called “sophisticated and up-right people” who commit fraud and the regulatory authorities and political leaders who cover-up their crimes.
Finally, common sense tells us that we should take action to put a stop to these crimes and scandals.
Please use common sense and do something before it is too late!
Matthias Chang is a prominent barrister and author based in Malaysia. His website is www.FutureFastForward.com
Matthias Chang is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Matthias Chang
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Common Sense Planning For Booms and Busts © - By Matthias Chang (26/6/09)
By Matthias Chang
Friday, 26 June 2009 07:57
This article is an edited and summarized version of my seminar paper, Common Sense Planning For Booms And Busts© which I first presented soon after the 1997 financial crisis and which I has since developed further.
The target audience for this article is the hands-on managers and policy makers who are presently confronted with the challenges of overcoming the present painful global financial tsunami.
I have deliberately omitted voluminous data and complex graphs so as to enable my readers to grasp the essence of my analysis.
You will not find this approach in leading international business schools and or management seminars / forums by leading management gurus. We say this because we have brainstormed with executives and consultants from impeccable academic and business backgrounds over the last twenty-five years, and what we found most often missing in our discussions is the application of the tool of common sense in addressing and resolving complex issues.
We have heard often enough the refrain, Come on, it cannot be that simple, there must be a catch. Another common frustration is, we have spent hundreds of man hours on this and we have covered all the angles, and we can’t see how you can get us out of this mess.
We offer no magic bullets and or have we asserted that we have all the answers. But what we do assert is that a proper mindset, one based on common sense is often more effective than complicated theories and equations. I believe that the present crisis has taught us that rocket scientists and Nobel Laureates are not infallible. In fact by ignoring common sense, they have contributed substantially to the present financial debacle!
Often than not, when taking a simple, street wise approach our critics would never cease to caution and remind us that if what we say is right, surely the leading scholars of Harvard and other leading international business schools would have considered it and if applicable, used it.
Take the present crisis, how is it that all the leading international banks and fortune 500 companies were caught with their pants down? The IMF, the World Bank and central banks all over the world were surprised by the scope and depth of the crisis and still groping in the dark for answers and solutions.
At this juncture, we would like all of you to take a break and read as many annual reports of leading companies from all sectors of your economy as well as the multi-nationals for financial years 2005 to 2007. Read also the reports of central banks, the IMF and the World Bank.
Without exceptions, the Chairman’s message to shareholders of these companies has been positive, forecasting continued growth and surging profits for years to come. The good times are here to stay. Financial engineering has assured us that the sky is the limit in wealth creation.
Treasury officials and central bankers were echoing the sentiments in unison, and when the crisis was all too apparent, experts in Asia and elsewhere (especially central bankers) were chanting the mantra, Asia has de-coupled, and will not be affected by the crisis that first exploded in the US.
The rest, as they say, is history.
But those of us who used common sense took pre-emptive measures as far back as early 2006 and parked our hard earned income in safe havens.
A LESSON IN WISDOM
There was a wise businessman who always liquidated his major investments at a certain period and would be severely criticized by brokers, investment bankers and smart graduates from business schools and the much touted advisers from leading international management firms for cashing out too early and missing the big hits. I was with him in the 80s and in the 90s when this tongue lashing was meted out and we would just silently soak up all the verbiage and gratefully thank them for their unsolicited guidance.
What arrogance, when this businessman was a multi-billionaire and none of the so-called experts were near the ranks of multi-millionaires.
This is what he taught me:
1) Don’t be greedy.
2) Be content with the pre-determined profit targets that you have set.
3) Count your blessings
4) Have no regrets if you could have earned more.
5) Nature have seasons, profit-making is also seasonal.
6) Embark on a business when you are ready and not before.
7) Prepare for adversity, for the winter.
Let me assure you that you won’t be taught the above 7 principles in world renowned business schools. Neither will policy makers apply this common sense and wisdom in managing their economies.
The wise businessman also taught me that these principles apply equally when formulating national blueprints such as five-year plans.
MOTHER NATURE AND BUSINESS CYCLES
Mother nature has taught us for centuries that there is a time to plant, a time to grow, a time to harvest, a time to prepare the ground and a time to rest. And there are the four seasons; each assigned a specific role in the overall scheme of things.
Is the business cycle any different?
In every seminar that I had the opportunity to participate either as the leader or as a delegate, I have never ceased to ask the attendees whether they believe in cycles, specifically business cycles and the response has always been unanimous – it is fundamental.
Yet, my colleagues and I seem always to be in the minority when we examine business plans and or national blueprints for development and growth. We do not find any correlation between the plans presented and the relevant business cycle and or the specific period of the business cycle.
The booms and busts, euphoria and despair, alternating as certain as the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
In our daily lives, we prepare for sunrise, to go to work and earn a decent living and after a day’s work, prepare to retire and the well deserved rest.
How strange that we do not apply this nature’s principle in business.
SURVIVING BUSINESS CYCLES
To illustrate the above principles, we have for the purposes of this article taken a business cycle of ten years. [1]
In our strategies, we have always acknowledged that different skills and mindset are required for:
A) a downturn, and
B) an upswing
Thus in our training modules, we have emphasized the development and establishment of the following management teams:
A) The Fire Brigade / Trauma Team
B) The Recovery Team / Money Makers
Let me now explain our common sense approach to planning.
Diagram 1 – Planning For Business Cycles
At Point A which is the bottom of the preceding business cycle, our Recovery / Money-making team would have in the 3-4 years of the downturn been preparing itself for the upswing. Our Fire-Brigade / Trauma Team have retreated to enjoy their well deserved rest.
Most plans, no matter simple or complicated has a duration – from inception to implementation and the realization of profit / loss. Likewise, any economic policy of a government has a similar cycle. And for the purpose of this article and illustration, this duration ranges from three to five years.
Thus our strategy is to ensure that our business plan or policy achieves full realization at Point A-1 with possible spillover to Point B-1. But, not beyond Point B-1.
This is because it is inconceivable for anyone to pinpoint accurately to the year or month the exact peak of any business cycle. In the result, invariably at Point B-1, we are already prepared for any adverse situation.
We have consolidated our growth and its benefits and harnessed our reserves for any eventuality, specifically a downturn – be it a major or a minor disruption (cycles within cycles).
At this juncture, we would like to stress that nothing is more crucial than the need to recognize and have in place teams with the relevant skills and mindsets that at a moment’s notice can be deployed and or re-deployed as circumstances dictate.
At Point B-1, the entire management would be in a pre-emptive mode for a down turn and the tools and probable answers and solutions are on the table. While we may not be able to anticipate all the outcomes, specifically a “black swan event”, nevertheless, the mindset is such that demoralization would not set in and be an issue and that no major restructuring in terms of organization or human resource are required to meet the challenge.
From Point B-1 to Point C, our Fire-Brigade / Trauma team is better prepared than any team that may exist in our competitors’ organization. Typically, we would be at the minimum, nine months ahead of anyone and have a better chance of surviving any crisis.
The finance resources are in place to meet the challenge as we would have unwound our positions and reduced and or minimized exposures.
The right team is already looking out for fires to put out, and is assured that there is a back up team to rebuild when the fires are put out.
Anyone who disputes that there is a necessity for such a team - well trained and with specific skill sets even in times of growth and exuberance is a buffoon.
My simple rebuttal to any criticism is this: If you disagree, why do we have a fire-brigade in every burrough, district, county etc. More lives would have been lost in September 11, 2001 had there been no fire-brigades to help those trapped in buildings.
A trauma team at the emergency ward have different skills and mindset and are better prepared for such eventualities than your physicians in the general ward. Period!
It must also be pointed out that at Point B-1 to Point C, the Recovery / Money-making team is not idle. This team is running parallel with the Fire-Brigade team as they are now deployed to re-train for new opportunities and acquire new skills. The two teams are running parallel but not interfering with each other. They have a common objective – ride out the crisis and recover before anyone else!
They have different mindsets and skills.
They have to assess the extent of the devastation to the organization, the industry, the market and related markets, the national economy as well as the global economy. They are already primed to re-tool and to anticipate future needs.
At Point C, the Recovery / Money-making Team would be in the same position and mindset as they were at the previous Point A ten years ago.
The cycle repeats itself when we reach Point C-1.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Given the above explanation and illustration (for simplicity sake), it is incumbent that every organization must have in place at all times the aforesaid two teams.
We do not subscribe to the use of the blunt tool of retrenchment when crisis sets in because its application reveals and exemplifies a management team that is devoid of any common sense and competency notwithstanding sterling performance during the boom period. For if a manager cannot deliver profits during a boom period, why is he/she still hanging around?
While we take cognizance that frequent turn-over of human resource is inevitable, the very existence of the infrastructure for the two teams ensure that at any one point in time, the teams are able to renew and rejuvenate to meet their specific challenges.
Absent such an organizational structure, the members of the usual management team are often depleted during the crisis, because they may have been terminated, retrenched and or resigned and often blamed for the inevitable losses during the downturn. The surviving members would be exhausted when bottom is reached and would of necessity take a longer time to recover. Some may not even recover, for want of a recovery team!
Neither do we want a situation, as in the case of the American banking giants, where the culprits who caused the devastation are retained. They were neither fit to be in the Fire-Brigade Team or the Recovery Team.
PLANNING FOR FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS
We take the view that an organization should always plan for a ten year cycle. By this I mean, to plan for the major cycle as appropriate for the particular industry or market etc. But within the major cycle, there must be in place plans for any erratic short cycles which may prolong or shorten the major cycle.
Planning for the major cycle is the overall strategy, while planning for the minor cycles are the tactics that we need to use to ensure we survive and prosper during the major cycle.
We hope you will appreciate why at the beginning of this article, we requested that you take a break and read as many annual reports of leading corporations in your industry and five-year plans of countries.
Should we be surprised when a corporation which plans for a major acquisition or an investment and then maximizes its leverage at the peak of a cycle files for bankruptcy when a crisis sets in?
Have you ever come across a government official in the treasury or a central bank that plans for the inevitable downturn?
They have not, because they are mindless and cowardly and they just echo what the politicians want them to say.
What we have instead, is the deliberate creation of one bubble to replace the previous bubble that has burst, thereby ensuring that the next crisis will be more devastating.
So long as the global financial system is grounded on central banks, fractional reserve banking and the insidious shadow money-lending system, there will always be cycles of booms and busts.
This is the sad state of affairs of all governments. They take their citizens for fools, as if they are not mature enough to appreciate the consequences of a downturn and therefore must be fed with sound-bites so as to sustain the “feel good factor”.
Election or re-election to public office is paramount and nothing must derail this objective, even to the extent of lying.
Right now, the Malaysian government is in the process of formulating the 10th Malaysian Plan, another five-year plan to continue the policies of the 9th Malaysian Plan which was for the period 2006 to 2010. I shudder to think that Malaysia may be planning out of the context of the “business cycle” and not even from a ten-year perspective.
The previous five-year plans have served Malaysia well, but we must recognize that the first quarter of the 21st century will be turbulent years and anyone who thinks that the present global crisis will end and recover by 2010 need to re-examine the nature of this crisis.
It is a systemic crisis and it will be prolong. Different skills and mindsets are required to address these challenges.
We must plan beyond blindly adopting the Stimulus mantra!
It behoves all responsible management to use common sense when planning.
We wish our readers every success in their plans for the future.
Endnotes
1. To avoid any misunderstanding, we readily concede that cycles can be of different durations and there are cycles within cycles, but this will not affect the thrust of the thesis that we should plan in anticipation of cycles. The critical issue is: do we have in place the relevant skills and mindsets for different periods of any one cycle to maximize profits and outcomes and minimize losses and disruptions? In Malaysia, we personally experienced three major cycles of ten years duration, cycles ending in 1987, 1997 and 2007.
By Matthias Chang
Friday, 26 June 2009 07:57
This article is an edited and summarized version of my seminar paper, Common Sense Planning For Booms And Busts© which I first presented soon after the 1997 financial crisis and which I has since developed further.
The target audience for this article is the hands-on managers and policy makers who are presently confronted with the challenges of overcoming the present painful global financial tsunami.
I have deliberately omitted voluminous data and complex graphs so as to enable my readers to grasp the essence of my analysis.
You will not find this approach in leading international business schools and or management seminars / forums by leading management gurus. We say this because we have brainstormed with executives and consultants from impeccable academic and business backgrounds over the last twenty-five years, and what we found most often missing in our discussions is the application of the tool of common sense in addressing and resolving complex issues.
We have heard often enough the refrain, Come on, it cannot be that simple, there must be a catch. Another common frustration is, we have spent hundreds of man hours on this and we have covered all the angles, and we can’t see how you can get us out of this mess.
We offer no magic bullets and or have we asserted that we have all the answers. But what we do assert is that a proper mindset, one based on common sense is often more effective than complicated theories and equations. I believe that the present crisis has taught us that rocket scientists and Nobel Laureates are not infallible. In fact by ignoring common sense, they have contributed substantially to the present financial debacle!
Often than not, when taking a simple, street wise approach our critics would never cease to caution and remind us that if what we say is right, surely the leading scholars of Harvard and other leading international business schools would have considered it and if applicable, used it.
Take the present crisis, how is it that all the leading international banks and fortune 500 companies were caught with their pants down? The IMF, the World Bank and central banks all over the world were surprised by the scope and depth of the crisis and still groping in the dark for answers and solutions.
At this juncture, we would like all of you to take a break and read as many annual reports of leading companies from all sectors of your economy as well as the multi-nationals for financial years 2005 to 2007. Read also the reports of central banks, the IMF and the World Bank.
Without exceptions, the Chairman’s message to shareholders of these companies has been positive, forecasting continued growth and surging profits for years to come. The good times are here to stay. Financial engineering has assured us that the sky is the limit in wealth creation.
Treasury officials and central bankers were echoing the sentiments in unison, and when the crisis was all too apparent, experts in Asia and elsewhere (especially central bankers) were chanting the mantra, Asia has de-coupled, and will not be affected by the crisis that first exploded in the US.
The rest, as they say, is history.
But those of us who used common sense took pre-emptive measures as far back as early 2006 and parked our hard earned income in safe havens.
A LESSON IN WISDOM
There was a wise businessman who always liquidated his major investments at a certain period and would be severely criticized by brokers, investment bankers and smart graduates from business schools and the much touted advisers from leading international management firms for cashing out too early and missing the big hits. I was with him in the 80s and in the 90s when this tongue lashing was meted out and we would just silently soak up all the verbiage and gratefully thank them for their unsolicited guidance.
What arrogance, when this businessman was a multi-billionaire and none of the so-called experts were near the ranks of multi-millionaires.
This is what he taught me:
1) Don’t be greedy.
2) Be content with the pre-determined profit targets that you have set.
3) Count your blessings
4) Have no regrets if you could have earned more.
5) Nature have seasons, profit-making is also seasonal.
6) Embark on a business when you are ready and not before.
7) Prepare for adversity, for the winter.
Let me assure you that you won’t be taught the above 7 principles in world renowned business schools. Neither will policy makers apply this common sense and wisdom in managing their economies.
The wise businessman also taught me that these principles apply equally when formulating national blueprints such as five-year plans.
MOTHER NATURE AND BUSINESS CYCLES
Mother nature has taught us for centuries that there is a time to plant, a time to grow, a time to harvest, a time to prepare the ground and a time to rest. And there are the four seasons; each assigned a specific role in the overall scheme of things.
Is the business cycle any different?
In every seminar that I had the opportunity to participate either as the leader or as a delegate, I have never ceased to ask the attendees whether they believe in cycles, specifically business cycles and the response has always been unanimous – it is fundamental.
Yet, my colleagues and I seem always to be in the minority when we examine business plans and or national blueprints for development and growth. We do not find any correlation between the plans presented and the relevant business cycle and or the specific period of the business cycle.
The booms and busts, euphoria and despair, alternating as certain as the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
In our daily lives, we prepare for sunrise, to go to work and earn a decent living and after a day’s work, prepare to retire and the well deserved rest.
How strange that we do not apply this nature’s principle in business.
SURVIVING BUSINESS CYCLES
To illustrate the above principles, we have for the purposes of this article taken a business cycle of ten years. [1]
In our strategies, we have always acknowledged that different skills and mindset are required for:
A) a downturn, and
B) an upswing
Thus in our training modules, we have emphasized the development and establishment of the following management teams:
A) The Fire Brigade / Trauma Team
B) The Recovery Team / Money Makers
Let me now explain our common sense approach to planning.
Diagram 1 – Planning For Business Cycles
At Point A which is the bottom of the preceding business cycle, our Recovery / Money-making team would have in the 3-4 years of the downturn been preparing itself for the upswing. Our Fire-Brigade / Trauma Team have retreated to enjoy their well deserved rest.
Most plans, no matter simple or complicated has a duration – from inception to implementation and the realization of profit / loss. Likewise, any economic policy of a government has a similar cycle. And for the purpose of this article and illustration, this duration ranges from three to five years.
Thus our strategy is to ensure that our business plan or policy achieves full realization at Point A-1 with possible spillover to Point B-1. But, not beyond Point B-1.
This is because it is inconceivable for anyone to pinpoint accurately to the year or month the exact peak of any business cycle. In the result, invariably at Point B-1, we are already prepared for any adverse situation.
We have consolidated our growth and its benefits and harnessed our reserves for any eventuality, specifically a downturn – be it a major or a minor disruption (cycles within cycles).
At this juncture, we would like to stress that nothing is more crucial than the need to recognize and have in place teams with the relevant skills and mindsets that at a moment’s notice can be deployed and or re-deployed as circumstances dictate.
At Point B-1, the entire management would be in a pre-emptive mode for a down turn and the tools and probable answers and solutions are on the table. While we may not be able to anticipate all the outcomes, specifically a “black swan event”, nevertheless, the mindset is such that demoralization would not set in and be an issue and that no major restructuring in terms of organization or human resource are required to meet the challenge.
From Point B-1 to Point C, our Fire-Brigade / Trauma team is better prepared than any team that may exist in our competitors’ organization. Typically, we would be at the minimum, nine months ahead of anyone and have a better chance of surviving any crisis.
The finance resources are in place to meet the challenge as we would have unwound our positions and reduced and or minimized exposures.
The right team is already looking out for fires to put out, and is assured that there is a back up team to rebuild when the fires are put out.
Anyone who disputes that there is a necessity for such a team - well trained and with specific skill sets even in times of growth and exuberance is a buffoon.
My simple rebuttal to any criticism is this: If you disagree, why do we have a fire-brigade in every burrough, district, county etc. More lives would have been lost in September 11, 2001 had there been no fire-brigades to help those trapped in buildings.
A trauma team at the emergency ward have different skills and mindset and are better prepared for such eventualities than your physicians in the general ward. Period!
It must also be pointed out that at Point B-1 to Point C, the Recovery / Money-making team is not idle. This team is running parallel with the Fire-Brigade team as they are now deployed to re-train for new opportunities and acquire new skills. The two teams are running parallel but not interfering with each other. They have a common objective – ride out the crisis and recover before anyone else!
They have different mindsets and skills.
They have to assess the extent of the devastation to the organization, the industry, the market and related markets, the national economy as well as the global economy. They are already primed to re-tool and to anticipate future needs.
At Point C, the Recovery / Money-making Team would be in the same position and mindset as they were at the previous Point A ten years ago.
The cycle repeats itself when we reach Point C-1.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Given the above explanation and illustration (for simplicity sake), it is incumbent that every organization must have in place at all times the aforesaid two teams.
We do not subscribe to the use of the blunt tool of retrenchment when crisis sets in because its application reveals and exemplifies a management team that is devoid of any common sense and competency notwithstanding sterling performance during the boom period. For if a manager cannot deliver profits during a boom period, why is he/she still hanging around?
While we take cognizance that frequent turn-over of human resource is inevitable, the very existence of the infrastructure for the two teams ensure that at any one point in time, the teams are able to renew and rejuvenate to meet their specific challenges.
Absent such an organizational structure, the members of the usual management team are often depleted during the crisis, because they may have been terminated, retrenched and or resigned and often blamed for the inevitable losses during the downturn. The surviving members would be exhausted when bottom is reached and would of necessity take a longer time to recover. Some may not even recover, for want of a recovery team!
Neither do we want a situation, as in the case of the American banking giants, where the culprits who caused the devastation are retained. They were neither fit to be in the Fire-Brigade Team or the Recovery Team.
PLANNING FOR FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS
We take the view that an organization should always plan for a ten year cycle. By this I mean, to plan for the major cycle as appropriate for the particular industry or market etc. But within the major cycle, there must be in place plans for any erratic short cycles which may prolong or shorten the major cycle.
Planning for the major cycle is the overall strategy, while planning for the minor cycles are the tactics that we need to use to ensure we survive and prosper during the major cycle.
We hope you will appreciate why at the beginning of this article, we requested that you take a break and read as many annual reports of leading corporations in your industry and five-year plans of countries.
Should we be surprised when a corporation which plans for a major acquisition or an investment and then maximizes its leverage at the peak of a cycle files for bankruptcy when a crisis sets in?
Have you ever come across a government official in the treasury or a central bank that plans for the inevitable downturn?
They have not, because they are mindless and cowardly and they just echo what the politicians want them to say.
What we have instead, is the deliberate creation of one bubble to replace the previous bubble that has burst, thereby ensuring that the next crisis will be more devastating.
So long as the global financial system is grounded on central banks, fractional reserve banking and the insidious shadow money-lending system, there will always be cycles of booms and busts.
This is the sad state of affairs of all governments. They take their citizens for fools, as if they are not mature enough to appreciate the consequences of a downturn and therefore must be fed with sound-bites so as to sustain the “feel good factor”.
Election or re-election to public office is paramount and nothing must derail this objective, even to the extent of lying.
Right now, the Malaysian government is in the process of formulating the 10th Malaysian Plan, another five-year plan to continue the policies of the 9th Malaysian Plan which was for the period 2006 to 2010. I shudder to think that Malaysia may be planning out of the context of the “business cycle” and not even from a ten-year perspective.
The previous five-year plans have served Malaysia well, but we must recognize that the first quarter of the 21st century will be turbulent years and anyone who thinks that the present global crisis will end and recover by 2010 need to re-examine the nature of this crisis.
It is a systemic crisis and it will be prolong. Different skills and mindsets are required to address these challenges.
We must plan beyond blindly adopting the Stimulus mantra!
It behoves all responsible management to use common sense when planning.
We wish our readers every success in their plans for the future.
Endnotes
1. To avoid any misunderstanding, we readily concede that cycles can be of different durations and there are cycles within cycles, but this will not affect the thrust of the thesis that we should plan in anticipation of cycles. The critical issue is: do we have in place the relevant skills and mindsets for different periods of any one cycle to maximize profits and outcomes and minimize losses and disruptions? In Malaysia, we personally experienced three major cycles of ten years duration, cycles ending in 1987, 1997 and 2007.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Somebody had better listened...
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
SULTAN OF JOHOR REJECTS 3RD BRIDGE - BUT WHY?
Today Online
In what some see as a renewed show of royal power in the game of Malaysian politics, the Sultan of Johor has rejected the proposal for a third bridge with Singapore.
Sultan Iskandar Ismail did not give a reason for doing so, but observers thought it could be because the royal family had not been consulted on the proposal, which was first mooted by Prime Minister Najib Razak on his visit to Singapore last month.
The Sultan’s impromptu decree was delivered by Tunku Mahkota Tunku Ibrahim Ismail at the state legislative assembly opening yesterday.
“I was told by the Sultan that he does not agree with the proposal to build a third bridge,” he said.
To political scientist Alan Chong, there appears to be “some kind of tension being played out between Mr Najib’s government and the Johor royal family”.
“I would suspect there is internal politicking here and the bridge is used as a pawn,” said the assistant professor with the National University of Singapore. “It is also possible this is a case of the Sultan being unhappy about an economic project being built in his state, but conceived at a federal level. One cannot be too sure what is the primary issue here.”
The proposed bridge, which Mr Najib has argued would bring development to the eastern side of Johor up to Desaru and Mersing, has already been drawing flak from some Umno leaders who were concerned Malaysia would have to lift the ban on the sale of sand to Singapore before the bridge could be built.
This was after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said it would not make sense for Singapore to agree on a third bridge if Johor does not lift the ban, which has been in place since 1997.
The Sultan’s remarks are not the first time he had caught people offguard with comments that impinged on bilateral relations with Singapore. Last year, also at the launch of the state assembly, the Sultan had vowed to reclaim what the Malaysians call Pulau Batu Puteh - Pedra Branca - to Singapore.
Responding to the Sultan’s stand yesterday, Mr Najib reiterated that the government had not decided whether to go ahead with the bridge, and that an in-depth feasibility study must be done first to determine if it would benefit both countries.
There was still a lot of time to discuss the matter with the Sultan and the Johor government to find the best solution, should the project go ahead, he added according to Bernama news agency.
None of the analysts TODAY spoke to thought the matter was a major setback for Mr Najib.
Mr Yang Razali Kassim, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: “He was probably expecting a reaction from the ruler of Johor, and a rejection may not be to his surprise given the precedence that we have seen in Johor and the capacity of the Sultan to be independent minded.
“I think we should see this in the context of the dynamics of policy-making in Malaysia ... You have the federal government making decisions but (it) also has to consider other factors, at the state level especially. In this case, the state of Johor sometimes can have as much input as the federal government in matters concerning relations with Singapore. “
How Mr Najib will resolve the issue will be watched with interest. “I don’t he is going to be uptight about it, he has a long-term perspective when it comes to building relations with Singapore,” said Mr Yang Razali. - - AGENCIES, WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY ZUL OTHMAN
*************************************************
One day, a couple of years back, all the Johor Wakil Rakyat (Parliamentarians and State Assemblypersons) were invited to the Johor palace for an audience with the Johor Sultan. They all lined up and one-by-one had to sembah and kiss the Sultan’s hand (the normal protocol when one is having an audience with a Ruler).
Syed Hamid Albar, who was then the Minister of Home Affairs, was of course also in the group since he was one of the Johor Wakil Rakyat. But when it came to Syed Hamid’s turn to sembah the Sultan and kiss his hand, Tuanku pulled back his hand and placed it behind his back.
Syed Hamid was quite taken aback and did not know how to respond. The Sultan then told Syed Hamid to remove his songkok, which he did. The Sultan then quipped that there is a lot of sand in Syed Hamid’s songkok, after which Tuanku turned his back on Syed Hamid.
Now, to those not familiar with the issue, they would either not have noticed this, or, if they did, would probably have found this incident most puzzling. But it is not really that puzzling. The Sultan was sending Syed Hamid a message that he is aware that Syed Hamid’s family is involved in selling sand to Singapore and that the sale of sand to Singapore is attached to the bridge deal.
This means Singapore gets the sand it needs to do their land reclamation and they would in turn agree to the building of the new bridge to Singapore. And the reclaimed land, which will be done on the Malaysian side of Singapore, will not only substantially increase the land area of Singapore, it will also reduce the sea area and push back the common boundary closer to Malaysia. This means part of Malaysia’s sea zone (or whatever you call it) will now become Singapore territory.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was bitterly opposed to this. And this, plus a host of other reasons, was why he wanted to bring Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi down. But at the top of Mahathir’s list of pet hates was the selling of sand to Singapore and linking the sale of land to the approval Singapore would give to the building of the bridge. In other words: no sand, no bridge.
Mahathir viewed this as Singapore putting a gun to Malaysia’s head. And worse than that was the fact that Malaysia kowtowed to Singapore and agreed that we would sell Singapore the sand it wants in exchange for their approval to the building of the bridge. That was why Mahathir told Singapore to go to hell. If they did not agree to the bridge within their territory then Malaysia would build the bridge within our territory and link it to Singapore’s half of the Causeway.
This was how the half-bridge or Crooked Bridge idea came about. It had to be crooked because a half-bridge, if built straight, would be too short. Malaysia wanted the bridge high enough so that coastal ships could pass below it and this would mean the bridge would be too steep if it was short. The only way the gradient could be made gradual would be if the bridge is lengthened and this can only be done if the bridge meanders rather than be built straight.
Thus the Crooked Bridge idea came about to give it more length and therefore it could be built high without the gradient being too steep.
It may sound like a crazy plan but that would have been the only way Malaysia could have built the bridge without having to sell sand to Singapore in exchange for Singapore’s blessing or approval. Build half a bridge, on Malaysia’s side only, and forget about building it on Singapore’s side as well. Then link that bridge to the Causeway. But the bridge would have to be long to be able to be high and the only way it can be long would be not to build it straight but to build it crooked.
Then, when Abdullah took over as Prime Minister, he cancelled the Crooked Bridge and Mahathir went on the warpath. He went on the warpath not so much because the Crooked Bridge was cancelled but more because it was cancelled to make Singapore happy. This was the height of no-no as far as Mahathir was concerned.
Well, Abdullah is no longer Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is now Najib Tun Razak. But Najib is doing exactly what Abdullah did. He is pandering to the wishes of Singapore. And that makes Najib no different from Abdullah.
Last week, when the ‘third bridge’ was announced, Mahathir hinted his disapproval by commenting that if Malaysia sells sand to Singapore then certainly that Island State would agree to anything. That was already the first signal of Mahathir’s displeasure.
Now, the Johor Sultan says he is not agreeable to this third bridge and Najib quickly clarified that it is merely a proposal and that nothing has been confirmed yet. It appears like the Sultan is not happy and therefore Najib may have to rethink the plan. Actually it is not the Sultan who is not happy. It is Mahathir who is not happy. The Sultan is just giving Najib a fallback plan. If Najib announces that the third bridge is to be aborted after all, then everyone would say that Mahathir pressured him into cancelling it. Now they can cancel it and say that they did so because of the Sultan and not because of Mahathir. It is a face-saving exit plan for Najib.
But the damage has been done. Mahathir now sees that Najib is no different from Abdullah. In fact, many had warned Mahathir that if he ousts Abdullah and Najib takes over there is no guarantee he can control Najib. He thought he could control Abdullah but this was proven wrong. Najib may prove equally beyond control just like Abdullah was.
Someone went to meet Rosmah Mansor, the so-called ‘First Lady’, to tell her that Mahathir is not happy. She responded by saying that they owe Mahathir nothing. Najib made it as Prime Minister on his own accord, she replied, not through Mahathir’s help. She also whacked Mahathir for appointing Abdullah as Prime Minister instead of Najib who should have been Prime Minister back in 1 November 2003. Najib was ‘robbed’ of six years. He should have been Prime Minister six years earlier instead of wasting his time as Deputy Prime Minister.
This is Rosmah’s way of telling Mahathir to go to hell.
Rosmah knows that Mahathir is out to get her. Najib can remain the Prime Minister but Rosmah can’t remain the First Lady. Najib has to choose between being Prime Minister or stay married to Rosmah. Rosmah responded by saying that there is no way Najib can divorce her without splitting half of everything he owns with her.
Yes, Rosmah is out to get Mahathir before he gets her. Who is going to kill whom first? At this point of time I would not dare say. If it were anyone else I would put my money on Mahathir. But if it involves Rosmah then I would not be too hasty as to give Mahathir a clear win.
Mahathir may have finally met his match. He defeated so many people in the past starting from Tunku Abdul Rahman right up to Anwar Ibrahim. But this time he may yet hit the dust. And the one who will be trampling him in the dust would probably be that woman who goes by the name of Rosmah Mansor.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
SULTAN OF JOHOR REJECTS 3RD BRIDGE - BUT WHY?
Today Online
In what some see as a renewed show of royal power in the game of Malaysian politics, the Sultan of Johor has rejected the proposal for a third bridge with Singapore.
Sultan Iskandar Ismail did not give a reason for doing so, but observers thought it could be because the royal family had not been consulted on the proposal, which was first mooted by Prime Minister Najib Razak on his visit to Singapore last month.
The Sultan’s impromptu decree was delivered by Tunku Mahkota Tunku Ibrahim Ismail at the state legislative assembly opening yesterday.
“I was told by the Sultan that he does not agree with the proposal to build a third bridge,” he said.
To political scientist Alan Chong, there appears to be “some kind of tension being played out between Mr Najib’s government and the Johor royal family”.
“I would suspect there is internal politicking here and the bridge is used as a pawn,” said the assistant professor with the National University of Singapore. “It is also possible this is a case of the Sultan being unhappy about an economic project being built in his state, but conceived at a federal level. One cannot be too sure what is the primary issue here.”
The proposed bridge, which Mr Najib has argued would bring development to the eastern side of Johor up to Desaru and Mersing, has already been drawing flak from some Umno leaders who were concerned Malaysia would have to lift the ban on the sale of sand to Singapore before the bridge could be built.
This was after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said it would not make sense for Singapore to agree on a third bridge if Johor does not lift the ban, which has been in place since 1997.
The Sultan’s remarks are not the first time he had caught people offguard with comments that impinged on bilateral relations with Singapore. Last year, also at the launch of the state assembly, the Sultan had vowed to reclaim what the Malaysians call Pulau Batu Puteh - Pedra Branca - to Singapore.
Responding to the Sultan’s stand yesterday, Mr Najib reiterated that the government had not decided whether to go ahead with the bridge, and that an in-depth feasibility study must be done first to determine if it would benefit both countries.
There was still a lot of time to discuss the matter with the Sultan and the Johor government to find the best solution, should the project go ahead, he added according to Bernama news agency.
None of the analysts TODAY spoke to thought the matter was a major setback for Mr Najib.
Mr Yang Razali Kassim, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: “He was probably expecting a reaction from the ruler of Johor, and a rejection may not be to his surprise given the precedence that we have seen in Johor and the capacity of the Sultan to be independent minded.
“I think we should see this in the context of the dynamics of policy-making in Malaysia ... You have the federal government making decisions but (it) also has to consider other factors, at the state level especially. In this case, the state of Johor sometimes can have as much input as the federal government in matters concerning relations with Singapore. “
How Mr Najib will resolve the issue will be watched with interest. “I don’t he is going to be uptight about it, he has a long-term perspective when it comes to building relations with Singapore,” said Mr Yang Razali. - - AGENCIES, WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY ZUL OTHMAN
*************************************************
One day, a couple of years back, all the Johor Wakil Rakyat (Parliamentarians and State Assemblypersons) were invited to the Johor palace for an audience with the Johor Sultan. They all lined up and one-by-one had to sembah and kiss the Sultan’s hand (the normal protocol when one is having an audience with a Ruler).
Syed Hamid Albar, who was then the Minister of Home Affairs, was of course also in the group since he was one of the Johor Wakil Rakyat. But when it came to Syed Hamid’s turn to sembah the Sultan and kiss his hand, Tuanku pulled back his hand and placed it behind his back.
Syed Hamid was quite taken aback and did not know how to respond. The Sultan then told Syed Hamid to remove his songkok, which he did. The Sultan then quipped that there is a lot of sand in Syed Hamid’s songkok, after which Tuanku turned his back on Syed Hamid.
Now, to those not familiar with the issue, they would either not have noticed this, or, if they did, would probably have found this incident most puzzling. But it is not really that puzzling. The Sultan was sending Syed Hamid a message that he is aware that Syed Hamid’s family is involved in selling sand to Singapore and that the sale of sand to Singapore is attached to the bridge deal.
This means Singapore gets the sand it needs to do their land reclamation and they would in turn agree to the building of the new bridge to Singapore. And the reclaimed land, which will be done on the Malaysian side of Singapore, will not only substantially increase the land area of Singapore, it will also reduce the sea area and push back the common boundary closer to Malaysia. This means part of Malaysia’s sea zone (or whatever you call it) will now become Singapore territory.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was bitterly opposed to this. And this, plus a host of other reasons, was why he wanted to bring Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi down. But at the top of Mahathir’s list of pet hates was the selling of sand to Singapore and linking the sale of land to the approval Singapore would give to the building of the bridge. In other words: no sand, no bridge.
Mahathir viewed this as Singapore putting a gun to Malaysia’s head. And worse than that was the fact that Malaysia kowtowed to Singapore and agreed that we would sell Singapore the sand it wants in exchange for their approval to the building of the bridge. That was why Mahathir told Singapore to go to hell. If they did not agree to the bridge within their territory then Malaysia would build the bridge within our territory and link it to Singapore’s half of the Causeway.
This was how the half-bridge or Crooked Bridge idea came about. It had to be crooked because a half-bridge, if built straight, would be too short. Malaysia wanted the bridge high enough so that coastal ships could pass below it and this would mean the bridge would be too steep if it was short. The only way the gradient could be made gradual would be if the bridge is lengthened and this can only be done if the bridge meanders rather than be built straight.
Thus the Crooked Bridge idea came about to give it more length and therefore it could be built high without the gradient being too steep.
It may sound like a crazy plan but that would have been the only way Malaysia could have built the bridge without having to sell sand to Singapore in exchange for Singapore’s blessing or approval. Build half a bridge, on Malaysia’s side only, and forget about building it on Singapore’s side as well. Then link that bridge to the Causeway. But the bridge would have to be long to be able to be high and the only way it can be long would be not to build it straight but to build it crooked.
Then, when Abdullah took over as Prime Minister, he cancelled the Crooked Bridge and Mahathir went on the warpath. He went on the warpath not so much because the Crooked Bridge was cancelled but more because it was cancelled to make Singapore happy. This was the height of no-no as far as Mahathir was concerned.
Well, Abdullah is no longer Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is now Najib Tun Razak. But Najib is doing exactly what Abdullah did. He is pandering to the wishes of Singapore. And that makes Najib no different from Abdullah.
Last week, when the ‘third bridge’ was announced, Mahathir hinted his disapproval by commenting that if Malaysia sells sand to Singapore then certainly that Island State would agree to anything. That was already the first signal of Mahathir’s displeasure.
Now, the Johor Sultan says he is not agreeable to this third bridge and Najib quickly clarified that it is merely a proposal and that nothing has been confirmed yet. It appears like the Sultan is not happy and therefore Najib may have to rethink the plan. Actually it is not the Sultan who is not happy. It is Mahathir who is not happy. The Sultan is just giving Najib a fallback plan. If Najib announces that the third bridge is to be aborted after all, then everyone would say that Mahathir pressured him into cancelling it. Now they can cancel it and say that they did so because of the Sultan and not because of Mahathir. It is a face-saving exit plan for Najib.
But the damage has been done. Mahathir now sees that Najib is no different from Abdullah. In fact, many had warned Mahathir that if he ousts Abdullah and Najib takes over there is no guarantee he can control Najib. He thought he could control Abdullah but this was proven wrong. Najib may prove equally beyond control just like Abdullah was.
Someone went to meet Rosmah Mansor, the so-called ‘First Lady’, to tell her that Mahathir is not happy. She responded by saying that they owe Mahathir nothing. Najib made it as Prime Minister on his own accord, she replied, not through Mahathir’s help. She also whacked Mahathir for appointing Abdullah as Prime Minister instead of Najib who should have been Prime Minister back in 1 November 2003. Najib was ‘robbed’ of six years. He should have been Prime Minister six years earlier instead of wasting his time as Deputy Prime Minister.
This is Rosmah’s way of telling Mahathir to go to hell.
Rosmah knows that Mahathir is out to get her. Najib can remain the Prime Minister but Rosmah can’t remain the First Lady. Najib has to choose between being Prime Minister or stay married to Rosmah. Rosmah responded by saying that there is no way Najib can divorce her without splitting half of everything he owns with her.
Yes, Rosmah is out to get Mahathir before he gets her. Who is going to kill whom first? At this point of time I would not dare say. If it were anyone else I would put my money on Mahathir. But if it involves Rosmah then I would not be too hasty as to give Mahathir a clear win.
Mahathir may have finally met his match. He defeated so many people in the past starting from Tunku Abdul Rahman right up to Anwar Ibrahim. But this time he may yet hit the dust. And the one who will be trampling him in the dust would probably be that woman who goes by the name of Rosmah Mansor.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
"Hello, Tan Sri Sanusi? Hisham speaking..."
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Hisham going to the ground to look at Ah Long problems
By MAZWIN NIK ANIS, The Star
PUTRAJAYA: Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein wants to get to the root of the loan shark problem and will go to the streets on Monday in search for answers.
“I think it is time for me to go to the ground to look at this problem.
“I will visit the hotspots and find out more on this loan shark culture that so many people seem to be depending on and later become victims to.
“I want to meet whoever, be it Ah Long or victims - whoever I can catch first,” he told reporters yesterday.
The number of incidents in which defaulters were attacked and even kidnapped by loan sharks has been in the media limelight of late, and even got the attention of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who expressed shock at the level of cruelty inflicted on defaulters.
One of the more prominent cases involved three men who were rescued by police last month after being held captive for two months by loan sharks when they failed to settle their debts.
The victims, aged 25, 34 and 49, were abducted from Segambut, Semenyih and Gombak and held in a shoplot in Seri Kembangan after failing to settle debts of between RM1,500 and RM4,000 each. They were found chained by their necks and legs, and showed signs of having been beaten by their captors.
*************************************************
I must say the above news report sounds good. But that is all it is meant to be, to sound good. Okay, Sham will do an impressive walkabout. Of course, the walkabout will have to be with members of the media in tow. He will then issue a ‘powerful’ statement, which will probably be given 45 seconds airtime on RTM and TV3. It might even make the front pages of the newspapers the following day. But that will be about it.
When the Kampong Medan race riots erupted back in the early 2000s, Sham also ‘went to the ground’. He visited the University Hospital and spoke to one Indian boy who had lost an arm. Some Malays had chopped off his arm with parangs. The Indian boy related how he was lying on the ground in excruciating pain while a policeman just stood at a distant watching.
The Indian boy shouted for help and the policeman walked over to him. The boy pleaded to be sent to hospital. The policeman stepped on him and said, ”Pergi mampuslah kau Keling.” He then walked away and left the Indian boy to die. He did not die though. He spent a long time in hospital recuperating from his wounds minus an arm.
Sham ‘instructed’ the Ministry officers who were with him to ‘look into the matter’. However, the matter was never looked into and no one was ever brought to book even though the Indian boy was able to identify the policeman concerned.
So much for Sham ‘going to the ground’ to investigate the Kampong Medan tragedy and the role the police played in protecting the citizens from violence and racism. Assume this latest ‘going to the ground’ expedition to be as fruitless as the one he conducted soon after the Kampong Medan race riots.
I have written about the problem of Ah Longs a month or so ago. In that piece I mentioned that about 30 years or so ago the Malay Chamber of Commerce did a study to assess the impact of Ah Longs on small-scale Malay businesses. The study was done in the small fishing town of Dungun in Terengganu.
What we found out was that nearly every Malay petty trader and fisherman in Dungun borrowed money from Ah Longs. The rate of interest they paid was 4% a day. So, for every RM1,000 they borrowed, they had to pay RM40 per day.
Every day, the Ah Longs would send ‘runners’ to collect RM40 from the petty traders and fishermen for every RM1,000 they borrowed. That’s all they had to pay, RM40 per day for every RM1,000 borrowed. The runners were not interested in collecting the principal. They just wanted the interest. The petty traders and fishermen can go on owing on the principal as long as they paid the RM40 for every RM1,000 they borrowed.
This meant the petty traders and fishermen would continue owing the Ah Longs the money they borrowed for the rest of their lives. And the Ah Longs would in turn continue collecting the interest without touching the principal for the rest of their lives. It was like making a pact with the devil. The devil owned you until the day you die and long after you have entered your grave when your family would then have to take over your debt and would have to continue servicing the interest on the never-never.
This matter was brought to the government’s attention but nothing was done about it. And that was 30 years or so ago.
Tan Sri Sanusi Junid can relate a similar story that involved him even earlier, about 40 years or so ago. At that time he was with the Chartered Bank. And the story goes as follows.
Sanusi had tendered his resignation and his Mat Salleh boss called him and asked what it would take to get him to withdraw his resignation and stay with the bank. Sanusi replied that if they gave him a few million Ringgit (equivalent to hundreds of millions today) to lend to the Kedah farmers under a special loan scheme then he would probably stay with the bank.
What Sanusi had discovered was that nearly every Kedah farmer owed money to the Ah Longs and were paying an exorbitant rate of interest just like what the petty traders and fishermen in Dungun were subjected to. The interest came to about 100% per year, which is still comparatively lower than the Dungun rate of interest, which was more than 100% per month.
The Chartered Bank agreed and Sanusi arranged for his officers to go down to the padi fields on motorcycles to look for farmers to lend money to. Eventually, they managed to disburse the money to all the farmers and free them from the clutches of the Ah Long.
Sanusi did not make press statements saying that he was ‘going to the ground’. He just got the bank to agree to give him a few million Ringgit and then he sent his officers into the padi fields to search for farmers in debt. They then gave the farmers loans so that the Ah Longs could be paid off in full and the farmers could be free of the blood-sucking rate or interest.
I suggest Sham just contact Sanusi and get Tan Sri to agree to become an adviser to the government. Sanusi has been handling this problem while Sham was still not wearing any underwear, so he knows what to do. Then set aside RM500 million or so under a special loan scheme to help fishermen, farmers and petty traders escape from their debts. Just go buy off their debts from the Ah Longs.
Even if the government has to finally write-off some of this debt it would still be worth it. If we can spend RM300 million a year on the Terengganu Monsoon Cup and a further hundreds of millions on F1 racing, bicycle races, Merdeka Day celebrations, Prophet Muhammad’s birthday celebrations, and whatnot, what is wrong with writing off RM100 million a year on a more worthy cause?
Prophet Muhammad never asked us to celebrate his birthday. I am sure if we cancel Prophet Muhammad’s birthday celebrations and instead use the money to help fishermen, farmers and petty traders the Prophet would find that more pleasing. And if we also cancel the Merdeka Day celebrations and all those other extravaganzas which cost a lot of money but do not improve our lives one bit that would augur well for the country as well.
I am not a genius. But does it really take a genius to think of all these simple things? Stop the wastage. Just use the limited money we have for the right things. And, as I said, if you don’t know what to do then give Sanusi a ring and ask him what to do. You will be surprised to discover that there are a lot of good ideas in the head of that Tan Sri.
Oh, by the way, if you really want to go to the ground, then investigate the role the police are playing in not only giving the Ah Longs protection but in many cases acting as their runners as well.
Hisham going to the ground to look at Ah Long problems
By MAZWIN NIK ANIS, The Star
PUTRAJAYA: Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein wants to get to the root of the loan shark problem and will go to the streets on Monday in search for answers.
“I think it is time for me to go to the ground to look at this problem.
“I will visit the hotspots and find out more on this loan shark culture that so many people seem to be depending on and later become victims to.
“I want to meet whoever, be it Ah Long or victims - whoever I can catch first,” he told reporters yesterday.
The number of incidents in which defaulters were attacked and even kidnapped by loan sharks has been in the media limelight of late, and even got the attention of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who expressed shock at the level of cruelty inflicted on defaulters.
One of the more prominent cases involved three men who were rescued by police last month after being held captive for two months by loan sharks when they failed to settle their debts.
The victims, aged 25, 34 and 49, were abducted from Segambut, Semenyih and Gombak and held in a shoplot in Seri Kembangan after failing to settle debts of between RM1,500 and RM4,000 each. They were found chained by their necks and legs, and showed signs of having been beaten by their captors.
*************************************************
I must say the above news report sounds good. But that is all it is meant to be, to sound good. Okay, Sham will do an impressive walkabout. Of course, the walkabout will have to be with members of the media in tow. He will then issue a ‘powerful’ statement, which will probably be given 45 seconds airtime on RTM and TV3. It might even make the front pages of the newspapers the following day. But that will be about it.
When the Kampong Medan race riots erupted back in the early 2000s, Sham also ‘went to the ground’. He visited the University Hospital and spoke to one Indian boy who had lost an arm. Some Malays had chopped off his arm with parangs. The Indian boy related how he was lying on the ground in excruciating pain while a policeman just stood at a distant watching.
The Indian boy shouted for help and the policeman walked over to him. The boy pleaded to be sent to hospital. The policeman stepped on him and said, ”Pergi mampuslah kau Keling.” He then walked away and left the Indian boy to die. He did not die though. He spent a long time in hospital recuperating from his wounds minus an arm.
Sham ‘instructed’ the Ministry officers who were with him to ‘look into the matter’. However, the matter was never looked into and no one was ever brought to book even though the Indian boy was able to identify the policeman concerned.
So much for Sham ‘going to the ground’ to investigate the Kampong Medan tragedy and the role the police played in protecting the citizens from violence and racism. Assume this latest ‘going to the ground’ expedition to be as fruitless as the one he conducted soon after the Kampong Medan race riots.
I have written about the problem of Ah Longs a month or so ago. In that piece I mentioned that about 30 years or so ago the Malay Chamber of Commerce did a study to assess the impact of Ah Longs on small-scale Malay businesses. The study was done in the small fishing town of Dungun in Terengganu.
What we found out was that nearly every Malay petty trader and fisherman in Dungun borrowed money from Ah Longs. The rate of interest they paid was 4% a day. So, for every RM1,000 they borrowed, they had to pay RM40 per day.
Every day, the Ah Longs would send ‘runners’ to collect RM40 from the petty traders and fishermen for every RM1,000 they borrowed. That’s all they had to pay, RM40 per day for every RM1,000 borrowed. The runners were not interested in collecting the principal. They just wanted the interest. The petty traders and fishermen can go on owing on the principal as long as they paid the RM40 for every RM1,000 they borrowed.
This meant the petty traders and fishermen would continue owing the Ah Longs the money they borrowed for the rest of their lives. And the Ah Longs would in turn continue collecting the interest without touching the principal for the rest of their lives. It was like making a pact with the devil. The devil owned you until the day you die and long after you have entered your grave when your family would then have to take over your debt and would have to continue servicing the interest on the never-never.
This matter was brought to the government’s attention but nothing was done about it. And that was 30 years or so ago.
Tan Sri Sanusi Junid can relate a similar story that involved him even earlier, about 40 years or so ago. At that time he was with the Chartered Bank. And the story goes as follows.
Sanusi had tendered his resignation and his Mat Salleh boss called him and asked what it would take to get him to withdraw his resignation and stay with the bank. Sanusi replied that if they gave him a few million Ringgit (equivalent to hundreds of millions today) to lend to the Kedah farmers under a special loan scheme then he would probably stay with the bank.
What Sanusi had discovered was that nearly every Kedah farmer owed money to the Ah Longs and were paying an exorbitant rate of interest just like what the petty traders and fishermen in Dungun were subjected to. The interest came to about 100% per year, which is still comparatively lower than the Dungun rate of interest, which was more than 100% per month.
The Chartered Bank agreed and Sanusi arranged for his officers to go down to the padi fields on motorcycles to look for farmers to lend money to. Eventually, they managed to disburse the money to all the farmers and free them from the clutches of the Ah Long.
Sanusi did not make press statements saying that he was ‘going to the ground’. He just got the bank to agree to give him a few million Ringgit and then he sent his officers into the padi fields to search for farmers in debt. They then gave the farmers loans so that the Ah Longs could be paid off in full and the farmers could be free of the blood-sucking rate or interest.
I suggest Sham just contact Sanusi and get Tan Sri to agree to become an adviser to the government. Sanusi has been handling this problem while Sham was still not wearing any underwear, so he knows what to do. Then set aside RM500 million or so under a special loan scheme to help fishermen, farmers and petty traders escape from their debts. Just go buy off their debts from the Ah Longs.
Even if the government has to finally write-off some of this debt it would still be worth it. If we can spend RM300 million a year on the Terengganu Monsoon Cup and a further hundreds of millions on F1 racing, bicycle races, Merdeka Day celebrations, Prophet Muhammad’s birthday celebrations, and whatnot, what is wrong with writing off RM100 million a year on a more worthy cause?
Prophet Muhammad never asked us to celebrate his birthday. I am sure if we cancel Prophet Muhammad’s birthday celebrations and instead use the money to help fishermen, farmers and petty traders the Prophet would find that more pleasing. And if we also cancel the Merdeka Day celebrations and all those other extravaganzas which cost a lot of money but do not improve our lives one bit that would augur well for the country as well.
I am not a genius. But does it really take a genius to think of all these simple things? Stop the wastage. Just use the limited money we have for the right things. And, as I said, if you don’t know what to do then give Sanusi a ring and ask him what to do. You will be surprised to discover that there are a lot of good ideas in the head of that Tan Sri.
Oh, by the way, if you really want to go to the ground, then investigate the role the police are playing in not only giving the Ah Longs protection but in many cases acting as their runners as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
