Jikalau anda berarak dengan kepala lembu yang dipancung, kemudian meminta pertolongan daripada seorang menteri UMNO, atau Menteri Dalam Negeri, Hishammuddin Hussein, beliau semestinya mengendalikannya dengan sambil lalu.
Kemungkinan juga anda mengangkat kepala lembut menurut skrip yang tertulis atau mengikut arahan. Kemudian menteri tampil ke depan untuk melindungi anda. Beliau memperoleh manfaat dari sandiwara ini.
Politikus UMNO sebagai pemerintah tidak faham bahawa taktik baru mereka ini tidak disenangi rakyat.
Hishammuddin bertindak secara luar biasa dan tidak bersesuaian apabila menyatakan bahawa mereka yang berarak pada Jumaat lepas tidak harus dipersalahkan. Beliau tidak harus mempercayai sewenang-wenangnya apa yang dikatakan peserta demonstrasi bahawa mereka tidak tahu dari mana datangnya kepala lembu itu.
Sebanyak 50 orang muslim memijak dan meludah pada kepala lembu di depan bangunan kerajaan negeri Selangor pada Jumaat yang lalu, sebagai protes terhadap keputusan kerajaan untuk memindahkan sebuah kuil yang bersejarah 150 tahun ke kawasan komuniti mereka. Lembu adalah binatang suci dalam agama Hindu.
Menteri ini tidak memberi penjelasan berkenaan keganasan terhadap mayat binatang. "Misteri Kepala Lembu" mungkin boleh dijadikan judul buku cerita seram. Walau bagaimanapun, peserta demonstrasi dan Hishammuddin Hussein kelihatan seolah-olah tolol.
Kami tidak membantah demonstrasi. Pakatan Rakyat membela hak bersuara dan berkumpul yang diperuntukkan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tetapi apabila peserta demonstrasi mengugut bahawa seandainya tuntutan mereka tidak diterima, pemindahan kuil Hindu ini akan berakhir dengan pertumpahan darah. Kenyataan sedemikian mungkin mengakibatkan konflik kaum. Pertemuan Hishammuddin dengan peserta demonstrasi menunjukkan bahawa beliau menyokong golongan yang berfahaman sempit dalam agama, juga menunjukkan bahawa Barisan Nasional kini dalam perancangan untuk merampas kuasa kerajaan negeri Selangor. Ini membongkarkan motif politik sandiwara yang merbahaya ini.
Naib Presiden UMNO ini berkata polis tidak menghalang perarakan kepala lembu ini kerana bilangan polis terlalu kecil. Tetapi candle light vigil untuk mengingati Teoh Beng Hock di padang Ampang Jaya pada tahun lepas, telah disuraikan dengan kasar. Polis telah mengerah sebanyak ratusan tenaga FRU untuk menangkap 20 orang aktivis sosial dan pemimpin pembangkang.
Hishammuddin Hussein mendakwa peserta demonstrasi merasakan diri mereka dianiaya, dan beliau berkata tidak mahu mengambil tindakan terhadap mereka. Jelas, Hishammuddin telah mengambil alih tugas Peguam Negara kerana kuasa pendakwaan terletak pada tangan Peguam Negara, dan bukan Hishammuddin Hussein.
Hujah sedemikian jelas menunjukkan bahawa peserta demonstrasi adalah samseng upahan UMNO. Mereka diperalatkan untuk mencungkil sentimen perkauman, dan mengalih pandangan daripada penyelewengan kerajaan.
Rasuah masih berleluasa, ekonomi jatuh merudum, kematian tahanan dalam lokap melonjak, polis dan Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah (SPRM) menyasarkan wakil rakyat PR, media dikawal ketat, blogger ditahan di bawah akta preventive, kadar jenayah meningkat, kaum minoriti terus dipinggirkan, malah skandal seperti Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ) diselindungi.
Walaupun demikian, UMNO masih ghairah dengan menghasut sentimen perkauman dan agama, cuba menakut-nakutkan rakyat untuk mengembalikan sokongan pengundi Melayu.
Hishammuddin Hussein tidak insaf daripada pengajaran tsunami 8 Mac 2008. Beliau telah digelar "kerismuddin" kerana menjulang keris dalam perhimpunan UMNO. Beliau masih dengan keangkuhannya untuk memberi amaran agar bukan Melayu jangan menghasut sentimen perkauman.
Ironinya, Hishammuddin Hussein adalah antara menteri yang menyertai majlis sambutan hari kemerdekaan dan menyahut slogan "1Malaysia". Kempen "1Malaysia" PM Najib supaya rakyat bersatu padu dan menjamin kesaksamaan antara kaum telah terburai dalam hati rakyat.
Walaupun kami bersetuju bahawa hipokrasi adalah persamaan politikus UMNO, namun Hishammuddin Hussein adalah Menteri Dalam Negeri yang gagal kerana beliau tidak dapat mengawal keamanan negara.
Beliau bukan sahaja tidak mengambil tindakan terhadap peserta demonstrasi, dan menghalang konflik kaum yang mungkin berlaku, sebaliknya memihak samseng UMNO dan mengabaikan sensitiviti penganut agama Hindu dan undang-undang negara.
Oleh itu, saya menyeru sekeras-kerasnya agar Hishammuddin Hussein meletak jawatan dengan segera. Saya menggesa agar peguam negara mendakwa peserta demonstrasi dan mengkaji sama ada tindakan Hishammuddin berjumpa dengan peserta demonstrasi semasa siasatan dijalankan itu melanggar undang-undang.
*Kenyataan media ini dikeluarkan oleh Charles Santiago, ahli Parlimen Klang. Diterjemah dari versi bahasa Cinanya.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Kuil Hindu di Kelantan - in Bahasa Malaysia
Saya dibesarkan di Tumpat, sejak dua bulan dilahirkan, sehinggalah Tingkatan Lima. Semasa zaman remaja, kami bersembahyang di Kuil Sri Maha Mariaman Hindu di Tumpat, Kelantan.
Kuil tersebut dibina kelas pekerja India landasan keretapi semasa zaman penjajahan.
Kuil Hindu ini dibina di kawasan yang terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Islam dan diperintah PAS. Dua tahun yang lepas, semasa saya melawat ke kuil ini, saya diberitahu bahawa hanya dua keluarga India sahaja yang tinggal di Tumpat. Namun, kuil Hindu kami tersergam sehingga hari ini di jalan utama menuju ke Tumpat.
Saya menunjuk kepada isteri dan anak-anak kuil Hindu yang menemani saya ketika membesar dengan penuh nostalgia. Kuil ini kekal sebagai warisan sejarah Kelantan sehingga hari ini. Kuil Hindu kami ini boleh dirobohkan atau dipindahkan dari Kelantan memandangkan kawasan ini terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Muslim, atau kerana negeri ini digelar "Serambi Mekah".
Saya percaya bahawa idea ini tidak terlintas dalam minda Menteri Besar, Nik Aziz. Inilah amalan kepelbagaian agama di kawasan yang diperintah 99% Melayu-Muslim PAS. Patung Buddha Tidur yang terbesar bukan terletak di Thailand, Kembodia atau India, di mana Buddhism berasal, tetapi di Kg.Neting, Tumpat Kelantan.
Kepelbagaian kaum dan agama di Malaysia memerlukan kewujudan bersama (religious coexistence), daripada toleransi agama. Maka kita tidak akan berdepan dengan kes bantahan kuil Hindu di mana kawasan majoriti dan didominasi UMNO seperti Seksyen 19 dan 22 Shah Alam, dengan alasan bahawa kawasan ini didominasi Melayu Muslim.
Ektremis agama yang berarak protes dengan kepala lembu tidak akan ditangkap, dan tidak akan didakwa secara serius oleh peguam negara dalam "1Malaysia" yang disarankan PM Najib Razak. Justeru itu, extremism perkauman dan agama berterusan di Malaysia. Pada hakikatnya, mereka memperoleh sokongan Menteri Dalam Negeri Hishammuddin Hussein yang menghalalkan tindakan mereka. Kerajaan Persekutuan yang dikawal UMNO, dan kerajaan negeri Selangor yang dikawal PKR, dan kerajaan negeri yang perintah PR di Barat Malaysia, perlu belajar dari Kelantan yang diperintah PAS.
PM Najib Razak berkuasa untuk mengeluarkan surat pekeliling yang memperuntukkan kuasa kepada Menteri Besar Selangor PKR dan Menteri Besar atau Ketua Menteri di negeri pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat, untuk memberi hak milik tanah kepada semua kuil Hindu yang sedia ada dan digazetkan sebagai kuil Hindu, seperti yang berlaku di kawasan 99% tanah rizab Melayu di negeri Kelantan. Maka, ia akan menoktahkan pemecahan dan ketegangan kaum dan agama di Malaysia yang baru, tidak pernah berlaku malah tidak perlu berlaku ini.
Begitu juga ia perlu dilakukan terhadap semua Hindu crematorium, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk India seperti Kg.Buah Pala. Ini sebenarnya akan menyelesaikan setengah masalah yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India untuk selama-lamanya.
Namun, kedua-dua UMNO, PKR di Selangor dan negeri pantai Barat lain yang diperintah PR hanya bermain politik wayang kulit, dengan "mandores" India mereka melalui media cetak dan elektronik, dengan pengumuman kosong tentang tanah sementara untuk kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium. Kemudian, dihebohkan bak pepatah "ayam telur sebiji riuh sekampung."
Kerajaan negeri yang mempunyai kuasa mutlak dalam isu tanah negerinya, tidak mengeluarkan surat bertulis untuk tanah sementara tersebut yang diumumkan oleh mereka, memberi hak milik tanah atau gazet kepada kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium Hindu. Maka, keadaan kelas pekerja India baru-baru ini, di Kampung Buah Pala dan Seksyen 19 dan 22, Shah Alam, hanyalah sebahagian kecil masalah kritikal yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India di Malaysia.
Hanya di Malaysia, dan terutamanya atas nama pembangunan, kuil Hindu, crematorium Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk orang India yang miskin dijadikan sasaran utama. Kami menyimpan rekod ribuan kes sedemikian.
Masalah ini jarang berlaku di komuniti Melayu, Cina, orang asli, Iban atau Kadazan di Malaysia. Ia berlaku kepada hampir semua kelas pekerja India. Mengapa? Kerana BN, PKR, DAP, PAS, NGO dan masyarakat sivil mendakwa diri mereka "berbilang kaum" dan "berbilang agama."
Ini semua kerana kelas pekerja India tidak memiliki kuasa politik atau pengaruh ekonomi, dan seterusnya tiada dalam hampir semua UMNO, PKR, DAP, PAS (kecuali Kelantan), NGO yang sudi untuk menguruskan masalah kritikal India.
*Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan oleh P.Uthayakumar, Setiausaha Agung (pro-tem) Parti Hak Asasi Manusia (Human Rights Party, HRP). Teks asalnya bahasa Inggeris.
Kuil tersebut dibina kelas pekerja India landasan keretapi semasa zaman penjajahan.
Kuil Hindu ini dibina di kawasan yang terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Islam dan diperintah PAS. Dua tahun yang lepas, semasa saya melawat ke kuil ini, saya diberitahu bahawa hanya dua keluarga India sahaja yang tinggal di Tumpat. Namun, kuil Hindu kami tersergam sehingga hari ini di jalan utama menuju ke Tumpat.
Saya menunjuk kepada isteri dan anak-anak kuil Hindu yang menemani saya ketika membesar dengan penuh nostalgia. Kuil ini kekal sebagai warisan sejarah Kelantan sehingga hari ini. Kuil Hindu kami ini boleh dirobohkan atau dipindahkan dari Kelantan memandangkan kawasan ini terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Muslim, atau kerana negeri ini digelar "Serambi Mekah".
Saya percaya bahawa idea ini tidak terlintas dalam minda Menteri Besar, Nik Aziz. Inilah amalan kepelbagaian agama di kawasan yang diperintah 99% Melayu-Muslim PAS. Patung Buddha Tidur yang terbesar bukan terletak di Thailand, Kembodia atau India, di mana Buddhism berasal, tetapi di Kg.Neting, Tumpat Kelantan.
Kepelbagaian kaum dan agama di Malaysia memerlukan kewujudan bersama (religious coexistence), daripada toleransi agama. Maka kita tidak akan berdepan dengan kes bantahan kuil Hindu di mana kawasan majoriti dan didominasi UMNO seperti Seksyen 19 dan 22 Shah Alam, dengan alasan bahawa kawasan ini didominasi Melayu Muslim.
Ektremis agama yang berarak protes dengan kepala lembu tidak akan ditangkap, dan tidak akan didakwa secara serius oleh peguam negara dalam "1Malaysia" yang disarankan PM Najib Razak. Justeru itu, extremism perkauman dan agama berterusan di Malaysia. Pada hakikatnya, mereka memperoleh sokongan Menteri Dalam Negeri Hishammuddin Hussein yang menghalalkan tindakan mereka. Kerajaan Persekutuan yang dikawal UMNO, dan kerajaan negeri Selangor yang dikawal PKR, dan kerajaan negeri yang perintah PR di Barat Malaysia, perlu belajar dari Kelantan yang diperintah PAS.
PM Najib Razak berkuasa untuk mengeluarkan surat pekeliling yang memperuntukkan kuasa kepada Menteri Besar Selangor PKR dan Menteri Besar atau Ketua Menteri di negeri pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat, untuk memberi hak milik tanah kepada semua kuil Hindu yang sedia ada dan digazetkan sebagai kuil Hindu, seperti yang berlaku di kawasan 99% tanah rizab Melayu di negeri Kelantan. Maka, ia akan menoktahkan pemecahan dan ketegangan kaum dan agama di Malaysia yang baru, tidak pernah berlaku malah tidak perlu berlaku ini.
Begitu juga ia perlu dilakukan terhadap semua Hindu crematorium, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk India seperti Kg.Buah Pala. Ini sebenarnya akan menyelesaikan setengah masalah yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India untuk selama-lamanya.
Namun, kedua-dua UMNO, PKR di Selangor dan negeri pantai Barat lain yang diperintah PR hanya bermain politik wayang kulit, dengan "mandores" India mereka melalui media cetak dan elektronik, dengan pengumuman kosong tentang tanah sementara untuk kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium. Kemudian, dihebohkan bak pepatah "ayam telur sebiji riuh sekampung."
Kerajaan negeri yang mempunyai kuasa mutlak dalam isu tanah negerinya, tidak mengeluarkan surat bertulis untuk tanah sementara tersebut yang diumumkan oleh mereka, memberi hak milik tanah atau gazet kepada kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium Hindu. Maka, keadaan kelas pekerja India baru-baru ini, di Kampung Buah Pala dan Seksyen 19 dan 22, Shah Alam, hanyalah sebahagian kecil masalah kritikal yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India di Malaysia.
Hanya di Malaysia, dan terutamanya atas nama pembangunan, kuil Hindu, crematorium Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk orang India yang miskin dijadikan sasaran utama. Kami menyimpan rekod ribuan kes sedemikian.
Masalah ini jarang berlaku di komuniti Melayu, Cina, orang asli, Iban atau Kadazan di Malaysia. Ia berlaku kepada hampir semua kelas pekerja India. Mengapa? Kerana BN, PKR, DAP, PAS, NGO dan masyarakat sivil mendakwa diri mereka "berbilang kaum" dan "berbilang agama."
Ini semua kerana kelas pekerja India tidak memiliki kuasa politik atau pengaruh ekonomi, dan seterusnya tiada dalam hampir semua UMNO, PKR, DAP, PAS (kecuali Kelantan), NGO yang sudi untuk menguruskan masalah kritikal India.
*Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan oleh P.Uthayakumar, Setiausaha Agung (pro-tem) Parti Hak Asasi Manusia (Human Rights Party, HRP). Teks asalnya bahasa Inggeris.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Estimated 99% Indians excluded from and schemes meant for the poor and landless Malaysians
Observation by P. Uthayakumar:
Under Najib’s One Malaysia, an estimated 99% of even the pre-existing Malaysian Indian plantation workers as at Independence were denied opportunities in these Felda, Risda and Felcra (also Fama, the various state government land schemes and later the Agropolitan land schemes).
We are only aware that immediately after independence, only about 1% of the Felda Land schemes were allocated to the Indians. In the last 20 years we have hardly heard of in particular any Indian being granted these land ownerships schemes.
In the latest Agropolitan land ownerships schemes, we have yet to hear of a single Indian poor and landless being granted the opportunities. The UMNO controlled Malaysian government should make public at their websites the list of the poor and landless beneficiaries with their names and other details to prove One Malaysia and non-racism against especially the Indians.
UMNO has never done so as it practices open race-based politics and policies but otherwise preaches One Malaysia.
The aforesaid ‘RM 202.2 Million in dividends to Risda smallholders’ and the ‘90,000 hectares under two (recent) planting schemes involving more than 43,000 settlers’ as stated by Prime Minister Najib and Risda Chairman has obviously excluded an estimated 99% of the deserving poor and landless Indians.
Najib said ‘we want to transform Malaysia into a high income population but this must be planned carefully’ ‘Instead of relying on foreign workers to keep costs low, we want to focus on new ways and activities to raise people’s incomes’. (But again the Indians are excluded.)
An estimated 99% of the deserving Indian poor and landless are excluded from the benefit of this RM 202.2 Million, 90,000 hectares and 43,000 settlers. An estimated 99% of the poor and landless Indians even after 52 years of Independence have been excluded from the national mainstream development of Malaysia so much so that the Tamil papers repeatedly reports that Indian mothers are so poor that they cannot even afford to buy milk for their babies and instead feed them with tea and rock sugar water, stop their children from attending even primary schools because they cannot afford the school bus fare and are so backward and illiterate that they are deliberately denied even birth certificates for their children.
This critical Indian poverty could be solved by the stroke of Prime Minister Najib’s pen if only Najib and UMNO also included these poor and landless Indians on the National Policy and Agenda and include them into the aforesaid land schemes and be transparent about it as opposed to the playing politics using UMNO’s supervisor (mandores) system by creating impressions, perceptions and mere promises as has been done for over the last 52 years of independence. The only difference today that it is now under P.M Najib’s ONE MALAYSIA BUT TWO SYSTEMS.
By Thiagarajan Sasayapillai
Under Najib’s One Malaysia, an estimated 99% of even the pre-existing Malaysian Indian plantation workers as at Independence were denied opportunities in these Felda, Risda and Felcra (also Fama, the various state government land schemes and later the Agropolitan land schemes).
We are only aware that immediately after independence, only about 1% of the Felda Land schemes were allocated to the Indians. In the last 20 years we have hardly heard of in particular any Indian being granted these land ownerships schemes.
In the latest Agropolitan land ownerships schemes, we have yet to hear of a single Indian poor and landless being granted the opportunities. The UMNO controlled Malaysian government should make public at their websites the list of the poor and landless beneficiaries with their names and other details to prove One Malaysia and non-racism against especially the Indians.
UMNO has never done so as it practices open race-based politics and policies but otherwise preaches One Malaysia.
The aforesaid ‘RM 202.2 Million in dividends to Risda smallholders’ and the ‘90,000 hectares under two (recent) planting schemes involving more than 43,000 settlers’ as stated by Prime Minister Najib and Risda Chairman has obviously excluded an estimated 99% of the deserving poor and landless Indians.
Najib said ‘we want to transform Malaysia into a high income population but this must be planned carefully’ ‘Instead of relying on foreign workers to keep costs low, we want to focus on new ways and activities to raise people’s incomes’. (But again the Indians are excluded.)
An estimated 99% of the deserving Indian poor and landless are excluded from the benefit of this RM 202.2 Million, 90,000 hectares and 43,000 settlers. An estimated 99% of the poor and landless Indians even after 52 years of Independence have been excluded from the national mainstream development of Malaysia so much so that the Tamil papers repeatedly reports that Indian mothers are so poor that they cannot even afford to buy milk for their babies and instead feed them with tea and rock sugar water, stop their children from attending even primary schools because they cannot afford the school bus fare and are so backward and illiterate that they are deliberately denied even birth certificates for their children.
This critical Indian poverty could be solved by the stroke of Prime Minister Najib’s pen if only Najib and UMNO also included these poor and landless Indians on the National Policy and Agenda and include them into the aforesaid land schemes and be transparent about it as opposed to the playing politics using UMNO’s supervisor (mandores) system by creating impressions, perceptions and mere promises as has been done for over the last 52 years of independence. The only difference today that it is now under P.M Najib’s ONE MALAYSIA BUT TWO SYSTEMS.
By Thiagarajan Sasayapillai
Oh Maika, I am but a FOOL.................!!!
Would you jump at the chance of purchasing a GLC share for RM5.00 if that particular share is actively trading at the KLSE at RM6.15? What if you were offered 10 million of that GLC company shares?
Let me calculate a bit here. Every share I take up would reap me an automatic profit of RM1.15. If I were to sell the share immediately at a loss of 5 sen (at RM6.10) at the KLSE and after the subsequent deduction of the 0.15% remisier’s commission (brokerage fee) and 0.05% clearing fee, I would still end up earning RM1.028 per share. I could even negotiate with my remisier as to his commission if I were to trade 10 million shares, possibly down to something like 0.05% because he will still be making RM30,500 from these transactions – not a bad payday from one customer but not as good as the owner of the 10 million shares who potentially could make RM10.28 million.
On 29 September 1990, Maika Holdings was specially offered 10 million Telekoms shares at RM5.00 per share by the Malaysian Government. Then Finance Minister DSAI told Parliament that Maika informed the Finance Ministry that they only had the financial resources to take up 1 million shares and proposed that the remaining 9 million shares be allocated to three MIC-linked companies of which the Government acceded to (3 million shares each).
The three companies were Clear Way Sdn Bhd, a RM2 shell company incorporated in October 1988 with two shareholders (Reman a/l Subramaniam and Muniady a/l Sadayen), S.B. Management Services Sdn Bhd, a RM2 shell company incorporated in December 1989 with two shareholders (S. Balasubramaniyam a/l M.S. Survei and Sothinathan a/l Sinna Govinder) and Advance Personal Computers Sdn Bhd (RM250,000 paid up capital) with four shareholders (S. Balasubramaniyam a/l M.S. Survei, Sothinathan a/l Sinna Govinder, R. Selvendra and Isphare Kumar).
SBMS and APC shares the same office at Damansara Town Centre and the same shareholders whilst R. Selvendra is a director of Maika Holdings.
It was also discovered that as on 6 October 1990, the Arab-Malaysia Merchant Banking Berhad had approved a RM50 million loan to finance Maika’s acceptance of the entire 10 million RM5.00 Telekoms shares from the Finance Ministry. Two days later on 8 October 1990, the Maika Board of Directors decided that they were able and willing to take up the entire offer of the10 million Telekoms shares.
In February 1992, rumors abounded that Maika did not obtain the entire 10 million Telekoms shares that was allocated by the Finance Ministry. A journalist from Watan disclosed that “there could have been some hanky-panky in the allocation of Telekoms shares to Maika Holdings.” This was followed up in April 1992 by a Tamil magazine, Thoothan which disclosed that there could have been some discrepancy in the distribution of the 10 million Telekoms shares allocated to Maika by the Finance Ministry.
Until the declaration by then Finance Minister DSAI in Parliament on 6 May 1992 after being questioned by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang, nobody knew that 9 million Telekoms shares had been diverted to three companies instead to Maika. MIC President Samy Vellu immediately left the country “on sick leave” to America. (Tun Daim Zainuddin was the Finance Minister in 1990.)
On 8 May 1992, the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) led by Federal Territories ACA Director, Nordin Ismail, raided these three companies.
On 10 May 1992, Deputy Finance Minister Abdul Ghani Othman said that it was entirely up to these 3 companies “to ensure that the Indian community benefited” and that it was Maika that had recommended these 3 companies and not the Ministry of Finance, and henceforth did not question the status of these 3 companies.
On 11 May 1992, Maika Chairman, Tan Sri G. Pasamanickam held a news conference to publicly announce that he knew nothing about the allocation of the 9 million Telekoms shares to the 3 companies. He also said that he “might bring up this matter” in the monthly Maika board meeting which was scheduled to be held two days later (on the 13 May 1992).
On 12 May 1992, MIC Working Committee member, Dr K.S. Nijhar called for the resignation of the Maika Board of Directors.
On 14 May 1992, Maika members were assaulted when peacefully picketing outside Maika Holding’s HQ in Petaling Jaya. MIC Selangor Assemblyman for Seri Cahaya, S. Sivalingam, was allegedly the leader of a group of Indians that assaulted the Maika members.
On 15 May 1992, MIC President Samy Vellu held a conference (after his return from the US) and said that Maika has never recommended that the 9 million Telekoms shares be allocated to the 3 aforesaid companies. Furthermore, SV said that Maika was never allocated the entire 10 million Telekoms shares but only a part of it due to its past dismal performance. SV also claimed that as of 5 October 1990, Maika had abandoned the offer of the entire 10 million shares but instead approved the purchase of only 1 million Telekoms shares. He also said that the allocation of 3 million shares each to Clear Way, SBMS and ACP were decided by the Ministry of Finance and that none of these companies belonged to him or any of his family members and that he did not have an interest in any of these 3 companies. He also informed the press that these 3 companies had pledged to donate the entire net proceeds of the share sales to Tafe College and proceeded to issue documents of these share sales and the Tafe College building accounts. When as by the press why he sold these shares, SV stated for a fact that he panicked after the trading price of Telekoms fell to RM5.30. As for the assault of Maika members, SV declared that he would himself have “walloped” the Maika shareholders if he had been at the scene then.
It was also later discovered that all these 3 companies had loans from CIMB (through Rashid Hussein Nominees Sdn Bhd) to purchase the Telekoms shares, utilizing these shares as collateral and with conditions that the share prices cannot dip below RM6.50.
On 7 November 1990, CIMB invoked this clause and force-sale the 3 million Telekoms shares held by Clear Way at RM5.95 per share. Telekoms was trading at RM6.00 at that time. CIMB did the same for the other 5.5 million Telekoms shares held by APC and SBMS at between RM5.75 and RM5.95 per share. Wait a minute here! Why only 5.5 million and not 3 million shares each? Well, APC/SBMS managed to hold back 500,000 Telekoms shares. How it was able to do so if CIMB was invoking their loan clause to force-sell these shares is unbelievable but Samy provided no explanation (APC/SBMS sold another 420,000 of these Telekoms shares on April 1992 at RM11.20). Another thing, why did Samy say 6 million shares and not 3 million shares each? Are these supposedly two companies in fact operating as one?
On 17 May 1992, Maika Managing Director, Tan Sri Rama Iyer, contradicted Samy Vellu saying that the latter has not “told the truth” in his explanation of the Maika Telekoms Scandal. Rama Iyer said that he had personally called the Treasury (after being instructed by Arab-Malaysia Merchant Banking Berhad) and had verbal confirmation from Munirah Abdullah Ng (Treasury Officer) that Maika has been allotted 10 million Telekoms shares by the Finance Ministry and that she had a letter to that effect. Rama Iyer also said that he immediately dispatched a senior Maika officer to collect this letter which was dated 27 September 1990 and then approached AMMBB Managing Director Datuk Malek Merican on 4 October 1990 to raise the loan of RM50 million to finance the share allocation in full.
Rama Iyer also said that then Maika Chairman, Tan Sri C. Selvarajah concurred with his actions and asked him to inform the MIC President to tell him of the share allocation by the Ministry of Finance, which he did the next day (at 6.10am). However, during the telephone conversation, SV told Rama Iyer that “there must have been a mistake as the offer to Maika was just for 1 million Telekoms shares and not 10 million Telekoms shares. When Rama Iyer contradicted SV stating the Finance Ministry letter, SV told him that the other 9 million Telekoms shares were for allocation to “other MIC bodies” and that he would contact the Finance Ministry to clarify the matter.
On 6 October 1990, Maika received a letter dated 5 October 1990 from AMMBB offering RM50 million to finance the purchase of the 10 million Telekoms shares. On 8 October 1990, the entire Maiko Board had a meeting and officially approved the purchase of the entire 10 million Telekoms shares. A few days later, Maika received a letter from the Finance Ministry stating that the initial letter of offer for 10 million Telekoms shares was officially retracted and that only 1 million Telekoms shares were on offer for Maika.
On 20 May 1992, Opposition leader LKS produced evidence that Paari Vel was in fact the managing director of APC. In an APC namecard bearing Paari Vel’s name and designation as the MD, the London office address was listed at K.K. Marketing Limited of 12, Whittington Road, Wood Green, London N22 4YD, England. (K.K of K.K Marketing stands for Kumar Kandasamy whose son Isphare Kumar is listed as a shareholder of APC.) BTW, Paari Vel is Samy Vellu’s son.
Also on this day, LKS proceeded to tear apart SV’s documents on the share sales of the 3 companies. One, Clear Way’s accounts did not specify the 0.05% clearing fee. Two, its share financing interest was documented at 14.75% when CIMB was only charging 11.25%. On the SBMS cum ACP accounts (no trouble was taken to separate them), it was stated that some of the proceeds of the sale of the Telekoms shares were used to purchase 3 million Renong shares (no mention at what buying price) and this time the share financing interest was calculated at 14.5%. No reasons were also given as to why SBMS/ACP was able to retain 500,000 of the Telekoms shares.
As for the Tafe College Building (TCB) accounts, LKS questioned the validity of these accounts as simple arithmetic (like addition) were done incorrectly (much like the Home Ministry’s recent poll on ISA). The total income of RM15,468,003.73 were tabulated as from the Federal Government (RM8 million), donations from MIC branches (RM300,000), Clear Way contribution (RM2,318,003) and from SBMS/ACP (RM4,850,000). The correct figures should be RM15,468,003 not RM14,468,003.73 – where did the 73 sen come from? The total expenditure is even worse! The TCB accounts stated that a total of RM24,662,528 were used. The correct addition comes to only RM24,112,528. Where did the difference of RM550,000 go?
Additionally SV stated that the total expenditure incurred was RM24,662,528 and the total payments made was RM15,690,808 and the outstanding is RM9,914,524.27. Simple subtraction of the two figures show an outstanding of RM8,971,720 and not RM9,914,524.27. If indeed the total outstanding is RM9,914,524.27, where did the additional RM942,804.27 go?
Lastly, the trading price of Telekoms shares had never fell to RM5.30 as stated by SV during the press conference on 15 May 1992. Between November 7th and November 15th, Telekoms traded at a low of RM5.85 and a high of RM6.15 and Between November 16th and November 27th, Telekoms traded at a low of RM6.00 and a high of RM6.90. From December onwards, Telekoms never traded under RM7.00.
It must be also noted that the remisier handling these transactions was also a director to both SBMS and ACP. By the way, the brokerage fee for the 8.5 million Telekoms shares came to a total sum of RM505,470.00.
On 24 May 1992, Maika’s offices were broken into and their offices ransacked. Documents in pertinent to the Telekoms shares allocation went missing. The guard was also assaulted. Earlier in the week, employees of the weekly Thoothan magazine were attacked at their Jalan Ipoh office premises (this magazine was giving prominent coverage to the Maika Telekoms shares Scandal and on one of its headlines, the magazine called SV a liar and a thief).
In 1994, then chairman of MIC public claims committee, V. Subramaniam (also known as Barat Maniam) made a startling public accusation. He charged that the accounts were fabricated to make it appear as if all the profits from the sale of Telekom shares were channelled to Maju Institute of Education Development (MIED). V. Subramaniam declared, "I have come out with this statement to prove that Samy Vellu is a thief. He has stolen (Telekoms) shares from the Indian community."
In 1999, SV appointed his son Vell Paari (of the K. Sujatha fame) as CEO of Maika Holdings. From a high of RM106 million in 1984, Maika’s assets fell to about RM32 million in 1992 (after the Telekoms shares scandal) and is in the process of selling off all its assets today (due to massive debts). Vell Paari remained as the CEO of Maika Holdings until today and said that he would step down once “he has cleaned up Maika…” (more like clean out though).
SV was cleared by the ACA over the Maika Scandal and nobody was arrested over it. The 66,000 Maika shareholders are still holding their breath waiting for an explanation by the Maika Board. As for the Maika-Telekoms share scandal, nothing was ever heard of it. S. Sothinathan is now the MIC vice-president and former MP for Teluk Kemang.
In October 2006, the MIC Johor assemblyman for Tenggaroh, the late S. Krishnasamy assaulted the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran at the Maika annual general meeting at the Legend Hotel in KL. Even though Kulasegaran lodged a police report, no action was taken against Krishnasamy.
A bit about Maika. Maika Holdings was once touted as the miraculous economic vehicle to elevate the Indian poor from the shackles of poverty. Launched by MIC in 1982 as their investment arm, the original plan was to ensure that at least RM30 million worth of shares were subscribed to but so successful was the promotion campaign that by 1984, RM106 million was raised from almost 66,400 shareholders with SV being the largest shareholder with 2.8 million shares. From then onwards, it was downhill all the way.
Let me continue the song, “Oh Maika, I am but a fool, Darling I love you, though you treat me cruel…..”
Malaysia Today.com(MT)
Let me calculate a bit here. Every share I take up would reap me an automatic profit of RM1.15. If I were to sell the share immediately at a loss of 5 sen (at RM6.10) at the KLSE and after the subsequent deduction of the 0.15% remisier’s commission (brokerage fee) and 0.05% clearing fee, I would still end up earning RM1.028 per share. I could even negotiate with my remisier as to his commission if I were to trade 10 million shares, possibly down to something like 0.05% because he will still be making RM30,500 from these transactions – not a bad payday from one customer but not as good as the owner of the 10 million shares who potentially could make RM10.28 million.
On 29 September 1990, Maika Holdings was specially offered 10 million Telekoms shares at RM5.00 per share by the Malaysian Government. Then Finance Minister DSAI told Parliament that Maika informed the Finance Ministry that they only had the financial resources to take up 1 million shares and proposed that the remaining 9 million shares be allocated to three MIC-linked companies of which the Government acceded to (3 million shares each).
The three companies were Clear Way Sdn Bhd, a RM2 shell company incorporated in October 1988 with two shareholders (Reman a/l Subramaniam and Muniady a/l Sadayen), S.B. Management Services Sdn Bhd, a RM2 shell company incorporated in December 1989 with two shareholders (S. Balasubramaniyam a/l M.S. Survei and Sothinathan a/l Sinna Govinder) and Advance Personal Computers Sdn Bhd (RM250,000 paid up capital) with four shareholders (S. Balasubramaniyam a/l M.S. Survei, Sothinathan a/l Sinna Govinder, R. Selvendra and Isphare Kumar).
SBMS and APC shares the same office at Damansara Town Centre and the same shareholders whilst R. Selvendra is a director of Maika Holdings.
It was also discovered that as on 6 October 1990, the Arab-Malaysia Merchant Banking Berhad had approved a RM50 million loan to finance Maika’s acceptance of the entire 10 million RM5.00 Telekoms shares from the Finance Ministry. Two days later on 8 October 1990, the Maika Board of Directors decided that they were able and willing to take up the entire offer of the10 million Telekoms shares.
In February 1992, rumors abounded that Maika did not obtain the entire 10 million Telekoms shares that was allocated by the Finance Ministry. A journalist from Watan disclosed that “there could have been some hanky-panky in the allocation of Telekoms shares to Maika Holdings.” This was followed up in April 1992 by a Tamil magazine, Thoothan which disclosed that there could have been some discrepancy in the distribution of the 10 million Telekoms shares allocated to Maika by the Finance Ministry.
Until the declaration by then Finance Minister DSAI in Parliament on 6 May 1992 after being questioned by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang, nobody knew that 9 million Telekoms shares had been diverted to three companies instead to Maika. MIC President Samy Vellu immediately left the country “on sick leave” to America. (Tun Daim Zainuddin was the Finance Minister in 1990.)
On 8 May 1992, the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) led by Federal Territories ACA Director, Nordin Ismail, raided these three companies.
On 10 May 1992, Deputy Finance Minister Abdul Ghani Othman said that it was entirely up to these 3 companies “to ensure that the Indian community benefited” and that it was Maika that had recommended these 3 companies and not the Ministry of Finance, and henceforth did not question the status of these 3 companies.
On 11 May 1992, Maika Chairman, Tan Sri G. Pasamanickam held a news conference to publicly announce that he knew nothing about the allocation of the 9 million Telekoms shares to the 3 companies. He also said that he “might bring up this matter” in the monthly Maika board meeting which was scheduled to be held two days later (on the 13 May 1992).
On 12 May 1992, MIC Working Committee member, Dr K.S. Nijhar called for the resignation of the Maika Board of Directors.
On 14 May 1992, Maika members were assaulted when peacefully picketing outside Maika Holding’s HQ in Petaling Jaya. MIC Selangor Assemblyman for Seri Cahaya, S. Sivalingam, was allegedly the leader of a group of Indians that assaulted the Maika members.
On 15 May 1992, MIC President Samy Vellu held a conference (after his return from the US) and said that Maika has never recommended that the 9 million Telekoms shares be allocated to the 3 aforesaid companies. Furthermore, SV said that Maika was never allocated the entire 10 million Telekoms shares but only a part of it due to its past dismal performance. SV also claimed that as of 5 October 1990, Maika had abandoned the offer of the entire 10 million shares but instead approved the purchase of only 1 million Telekoms shares. He also said that the allocation of 3 million shares each to Clear Way, SBMS and ACP were decided by the Ministry of Finance and that none of these companies belonged to him or any of his family members and that he did not have an interest in any of these 3 companies. He also informed the press that these 3 companies had pledged to donate the entire net proceeds of the share sales to Tafe College and proceeded to issue documents of these share sales and the Tafe College building accounts. When as by the press why he sold these shares, SV stated for a fact that he panicked after the trading price of Telekoms fell to RM5.30. As for the assault of Maika members, SV declared that he would himself have “walloped” the Maika shareholders if he had been at the scene then.
It was also later discovered that all these 3 companies had loans from CIMB (through Rashid Hussein Nominees Sdn Bhd) to purchase the Telekoms shares, utilizing these shares as collateral and with conditions that the share prices cannot dip below RM6.50.
On 7 November 1990, CIMB invoked this clause and force-sale the 3 million Telekoms shares held by Clear Way at RM5.95 per share. Telekoms was trading at RM6.00 at that time. CIMB did the same for the other 5.5 million Telekoms shares held by APC and SBMS at between RM5.75 and RM5.95 per share. Wait a minute here! Why only 5.5 million and not 3 million shares each? Well, APC/SBMS managed to hold back 500,000 Telekoms shares. How it was able to do so if CIMB was invoking their loan clause to force-sell these shares is unbelievable but Samy provided no explanation (APC/SBMS sold another 420,000 of these Telekoms shares on April 1992 at RM11.20). Another thing, why did Samy say 6 million shares and not 3 million shares each? Are these supposedly two companies in fact operating as one?
On 17 May 1992, Maika Managing Director, Tan Sri Rama Iyer, contradicted Samy Vellu saying that the latter has not “told the truth” in his explanation of the Maika Telekoms Scandal. Rama Iyer said that he had personally called the Treasury (after being instructed by Arab-Malaysia Merchant Banking Berhad) and had verbal confirmation from Munirah Abdullah Ng (Treasury Officer) that Maika has been allotted 10 million Telekoms shares by the Finance Ministry and that she had a letter to that effect. Rama Iyer also said that he immediately dispatched a senior Maika officer to collect this letter which was dated 27 September 1990 and then approached AMMBB Managing Director Datuk Malek Merican on 4 October 1990 to raise the loan of RM50 million to finance the share allocation in full.
Rama Iyer also said that then Maika Chairman, Tan Sri C. Selvarajah concurred with his actions and asked him to inform the MIC President to tell him of the share allocation by the Ministry of Finance, which he did the next day (at 6.10am). However, during the telephone conversation, SV told Rama Iyer that “there must have been a mistake as the offer to Maika was just for 1 million Telekoms shares and not 10 million Telekoms shares. When Rama Iyer contradicted SV stating the Finance Ministry letter, SV told him that the other 9 million Telekoms shares were for allocation to “other MIC bodies” and that he would contact the Finance Ministry to clarify the matter.
On 6 October 1990, Maika received a letter dated 5 October 1990 from AMMBB offering RM50 million to finance the purchase of the 10 million Telekoms shares. On 8 October 1990, the entire Maiko Board had a meeting and officially approved the purchase of the entire 10 million Telekoms shares. A few days later, Maika received a letter from the Finance Ministry stating that the initial letter of offer for 10 million Telekoms shares was officially retracted and that only 1 million Telekoms shares were on offer for Maika.
On 20 May 1992, Opposition leader LKS produced evidence that Paari Vel was in fact the managing director of APC. In an APC namecard bearing Paari Vel’s name and designation as the MD, the London office address was listed at K.K. Marketing Limited of 12, Whittington Road, Wood Green, London N22 4YD, England. (K.K of K.K Marketing stands for Kumar Kandasamy whose son Isphare Kumar is listed as a shareholder of APC.) BTW, Paari Vel is Samy Vellu’s son.
Also on this day, LKS proceeded to tear apart SV’s documents on the share sales of the 3 companies. One, Clear Way’s accounts did not specify the 0.05% clearing fee. Two, its share financing interest was documented at 14.75% when CIMB was only charging 11.25%. On the SBMS cum ACP accounts (no trouble was taken to separate them), it was stated that some of the proceeds of the sale of the Telekoms shares were used to purchase 3 million Renong shares (no mention at what buying price) and this time the share financing interest was calculated at 14.5%. No reasons were also given as to why SBMS/ACP was able to retain 500,000 of the Telekoms shares.
As for the Tafe College Building (TCB) accounts, LKS questioned the validity of these accounts as simple arithmetic (like addition) were done incorrectly (much like the Home Ministry’s recent poll on ISA). The total income of RM15,468,003.73 were tabulated as from the Federal Government (RM8 million), donations from MIC branches (RM300,000), Clear Way contribution (RM2,318,003) and from SBMS/ACP (RM4,850,000). The correct figures should be RM15,468,003 not RM14,468,003.73 – where did the 73 sen come from? The total expenditure is even worse! The TCB accounts stated that a total of RM24,662,528 were used. The correct addition comes to only RM24,112,528. Where did the difference of RM550,000 go?
Additionally SV stated that the total expenditure incurred was RM24,662,528 and the total payments made was RM15,690,808 and the outstanding is RM9,914,524.27. Simple subtraction of the two figures show an outstanding of RM8,971,720 and not RM9,914,524.27. If indeed the total outstanding is RM9,914,524.27, where did the additional RM942,804.27 go?
Lastly, the trading price of Telekoms shares had never fell to RM5.30 as stated by SV during the press conference on 15 May 1992. Between November 7th and November 15th, Telekoms traded at a low of RM5.85 and a high of RM6.15 and Between November 16th and November 27th, Telekoms traded at a low of RM6.00 and a high of RM6.90. From December onwards, Telekoms never traded under RM7.00.
It must be also noted that the remisier handling these transactions was also a director to both SBMS and ACP. By the way, the brokerage fee for the 8.5 million Telekoms shares came to a total sum of RM505,470.00.
On 24 May 1992, Maika’s offices were broken into and their offices ransacked. Documents in pertinent to the Telekoms shares allocation went missing. The guard was also assaulted. Earlier in the week, employees of the weekly Thoothan magazine were attacked at their Jalan Ipoh office premises (this magazine was giving prominent coverage to the Maika Telekoms shares Scandal and on one of its headlines, the magazine called SV a liar and a thief).
In 1994, then chairman of MIC public claims committee, V. Subramaniam (also known as Barat Maniam) made a startling public accusation. He charged that the accounts were fabricated to make it appear as if all the profits from the sale of Telekom shares were channelled to Maju Institute of Education Development (MIED). V. Subramaniam declared, "I have come out with this statement to prove that Samy Vellu is a thief. He has stolen (Telekoms) shares from the Indian community."
In 1999, SV appointed his son Vell Paari (of the K. Sujatha fame) as CEO of Maika Holdings. From a high of RM106 million in 1984, Maika’s assets fell to about RM32 million in 1992 (after the Telekoms shares scandal) and is in the process of selling off all its assets today (due to massive debts). Vell Paari remained as the CEO of Maika Holdings until today and said that he would step down once “he has cleaned up Maika…” (more like clean out though).
SV was cleared by the ACA over the Maika Scandal and nobody was arrested over it. The 66,000 Maika shareholders are still holding their breath waiting for an explanation by the Maika Board. As for the Maika-Telekoms share scandal, nothing was ever heard of it. S. Sothinathan is now the MIC vice-president and former MP for Teluk Kemang.
In October 2006, the MIC Johor assemblyman for Tenggaroh, the late S. Krishnasamy assaulted the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran at the Maika annual general meeting at the Legend Hotel in KL. Even though Kulasegaran lodged a police report, no action was taken against Krishnasamy.
A bit about Maika. Maika Holdings was once touted as the miraculous economic vehicle to elevate the Indian poor from the shackles of poverty. Launched by MIC in 1982 as their investment arm, the original plan was to ensure that at least RM30 million worth of shares were subscribed to but so successful was the promotion campaign that by 1984, RM106 million was raised from almost 66,400 shareholders with SV being the largest shareholder with 2.8 million shares. From then onwards, it was downhill all the way.
Let me continue the song, “Oh Maika, I am but a fool, Darling I love you, though you treat me cruel…..”
Malaysia Today.com(MT)
Malaysia's Port Storm - The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission dances gingerly around a huge scandal
Malaysia's Anti-Corruption Commission has been tireless in the pursuit of wrongdoers, particularly those from the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition that controls Selangor, Malaysia's richest state. But somehow – perhaps just an oversight – the MACC has been dawdling for five years on a case that appears to be one of the biggest scandals ever to hit a country that has generated some spectacular ones.
That is the RM7.45 billion (US$2.12 billion) cost to turn Port Klang, the seaport 70 km. west of the capital of Kuala Lumpur, into a national transshipment hub to rival the Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai. Its directors say it is likely to default on billions of ringgit in loans, with the possibility, according to an auditor's report, that accumulated interest could drive the cost to a whopping RM12.45 billion.
Conceived in 1999, the Port Klang Free Zone was yet another massive development scheme put forward by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad although he had left office before the real carnival began. The project appears to have ignited a virtual feeding frenzy for politicians from the Barisan Nasional, or ruling national coalition.
The port development was awarded as a turnkey project without competitive bid to well-connected political cronies of the United Malays National Organisation and the Malaysian Chinese Association, the two biggest components of the Barisan Nasional. Project outlays, originally projected at RM1.95 billion, ballooned to RM3.52 billion, with interest accounting for another RM3.9 billion by 2012. The parties to the contract have fallen on each other, describing illicit payments and filing lawsuits. The squabble appears set to wreck what is left of the MCA, already in disastrous shape after the electoral drubbing it took in March 2008 elections.
The case stands in vivid contrast to the MACC's zeal in prosecuting opposition politicians from the Selangor state government. As many as six or seven have had their office records dealing with constituency expenditures taken away for investigation. The most publicized of those was State Executive Councilor Ean Yong Hian Wah, whose aide, Teoh Beng Kock, died on July 16, either by suicide or other means, after undergoing a marathon questioning session in the MACC offices over RM2,400 worth of flags the lawmaker handed out to his constituents during a Merdeka (Freedom) Day celebration.
An anonymous letter written on MACC stationery was released to the press last week, accusing Hishamuddin Hashim, an MACC deputy director for Selangor state, of conspiring with Mohammad Khir Toyo, a leading United Malays National Organization politician and former chief minister in Selangor state, to start corruption probes into opposition politicians. Khir Toyo has denied the charge. Opposition Democratic Action Party officials have been accused of fabricating the letter. Its origin is currently under investigation by police.
Certainly, there appears to be plenty about the Port Klang development for the MACC to investigate. The project is mired in controversy and name-calling, with Tiong King Sing, the head of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, the company given the turnkey contract to build the massive facility, saying he had paid RM10 million in three installments to Ong Tee Keat, the head of the MCA, "for activities related to the MCA. Tiong is a leader of the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party and head of the influential Backbenchers Club in the Dewan Dakyat, or parliament. Ong, also the transport minister, is offering to sue Tiong for his assertion that he had channeled money to Ong. Other MCA stalwarts are seeking to oust Ong from his leadership position, further fracturing the party.
Kuala Dimensi in turn is wholly owned by Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd, which is the main contractor to Kuala Dimensi. Wijaya Baru is controlled by Wijaya Baru Holdings Sdn. Bhd. Azim Mohd Zabidi, the former UMNO treasurer, is chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd. Chor Chee Heung, former deputy was former deputy home minister under Mahathir, who was home minister and fiance minister at the time. Chor was the Wijaya Baru Global non-executive deputy chairman from April 2004 till July 2007.
"This Port Klang FreeTrade zone is a colossal mess, with billions upon billions gone missing. It was earmarked for the MCA and the Chinese community," said a lawyer with links to the United Malays National Organization. "Many MCA/Chinese contractors benefitted from the deal. It has been an issue for the last six years, but only now has it become explosive."
Opposition member Ronnie Liu, a DAP official, lodged a police report with the MACC on the scandal as early as 2004. The DAP has lodged a series of other reports in the intervening years, said a spokesman for the Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition headed by Anwar Ibrahim. None of the requests, the spokesman said, elicited any response from the authorities. Recently Ahmad Said Hamdan, the chief commissioner for MACC, declined to answer questions in a parliamentary accounts selective committee hearing into the Port Klang scandal, saying the case is still under investigation.
The story was broken wide open, however, with the recent publication of a 51-page confidential report into the port's finances by the international accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The report, dated Feb. 3, was "not intended for general circulation or publication. It must not be reproduced, republished, copied, distributed, excerpted, disclosed, quoted, alluded or referred to, whether in whole or in part, to any other party in any way without prior written consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (PwCAS)." However, selected parts were indeed excerpted, disclosed, quoted, alluded or referred to by the opposition, and since been given wide distribution.
Among other things, according to the report, which was obtained by Asia Sentinel, "…significant project costs, weak governance and weak project management have severely undermined the viability of the project. It is imperative that (the Port Klang authority) take immediate actions to restructure the (ministry of finance) soft loan of RM4.632 billion to avoid a potential default in 2012. The Government of Malaysia would need to make a concerted effort to turn the Port Klang Free Zone into a viable venture."
The report names a veritable rogue's gallery of MCA and other officials involved in the development of the project including two former transport ministers, Ling Liong Sik, the former MCA head, and Chan Kong Choy; three former Port Authority chairmen, the former UMNO treasurer Azim Mohd Zabidi, the first woman general manager of the authority, O.C.Phang and the project executor, Tiong King Sing.In addition to awarding the contract to Kuala Dimensi without competitive bid, the land purchase was never vetted by the Malaysian cabinet, although it cost RM1.088 billion against a market value of the land of only RM442 million. Kuala Dimensi "may have overcharged PKA for interest by between RM51 million and RM309 million in connection with the purchase of the land," the report said.
According to another report, The 1,000 acres for the port were purchased by the government from Kuala Dimensi at RM 25 per square foot, or RM 1.8 billion inclusive of interest, giving Kuala Dimensi a capital gain of RM 993 million because it in turn had purchased the land from the Pulau Lumut Development Cooperative for only RM 95 million -- RM 3 per square foot. An UMNO assemblyman, Abdul Rahman Palil, was both the Pulau Lumut Development Co-operative chairman and a port director in 2002 when the land for the free zone was sold to the port authority. The then-transport minister rejected an assertion by the Malaysian Attorney General that the land could be acquired for "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act at RM 10 per square foot.
As a result, the report said, interest on a soft loan from the Ministry of Finance "will increase the project outlay from RM4.947 billion to RM7.453 billion. Unless the MOF soft loan is restructured, total outlay for the project will increase to RM12.453 billion.
And, five years into the project, it remains only 14 percent occupied and "revenue generated is inadequate to cover its operating expenses." The zone is expected to be in cash deficit from 2012.
The MACC said recently that it had formed a 30- member panel to investigate further.
Asia Sentinel.com
That is the RM7.45 billion (US$2.12 billion) cost to turn Port Klang, the seaport 70 km. west of the capital of Kuala Lumpur, into a national transshipment hub to rival the Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai. Its directors say it is likely to default on billions of ringgit in loans, with the possibility, according to an auditor's report, that accumulated interest could drive the cost to a whopping RM12.45 billion.
Conceived in 1999, the Port Klang Free Zone was yet another massive development scheme put forward by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad although he had left office before the real carnival began. The project appears to have ignited a virtual feeding frenzy for politicians from the Barisan Nasional, or ruling national coalition.
The port development was awarded as a turnkey project without competitive bid to well-connected political cronies of the United Malays National Organisation and the Malaysian Chinese Association, the two biggest components of the Barisan Nasional. Project outlays, originally projected at RM1.95 billion, ballooned to RM3.52 billion, with interest accounting for another RM3.9 billion by 2012. The parties to the contract have fallen on each other, describing illicit payments and filing lawsuits. The squabble appears set to wreck what is left of the MCA, already in disastrous shape after the electoral drubbing it took in March 2008 elections.
The case stands in vivid contrast to the MACC's zeal in prosecuting opposition politicians from the Selangor state government. As many as six or seven have had their office records dealing with constituency expenditures taken away for investigation. The most publicized of those was State Executive Councilor Ean Yong Hian Wah, whose aide, Teoh Beng Kock, died on July 16, either by suicide or other means, after undergoing a marathon questioning session in the MACC offices over RM2,400 worth of flags the lawmaker handed out to his constituents during a Merdeka (Freedom) Day celebration.
An anonymous letter written on MACC stationery was released to the press last week, accusing Hishamuddin Hashim, an MACC deputy director for Selangor state, of conspiring with Mohammad Khir Toyo, a leading United Malays National Organization politician and former chief minister in Selangor state, to start corruption probes into opposition politicians. Khir Toyo has denied the charge. Opposition Democratic Action Party officials have been accused of fabricating the letter. Its origin is currently under investigation by police.
Certainly, there appears to be plenty about the Port Klang development for the MACC to investigate. The project is mired in controversy and name-calling, with Tiong King Sing, the head of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, the company given the turnkey contract to build the massive facility, saying he had paid RM10 million in three installments to Ong Tee Keat, the head of the MCA, "for activities related to the MCA. Tiong is a leader of the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party and head of the influential Backbenchers Club in the Dewan Dakyat, or parliament. Ong, also the transport minister, is offering to sue Tiong for his assertion that he had channeled money to Ong. Other MCA stalwarts are seeking to oust Ong from his leadership position, further fracturing the party.
Kuala Dimensi in turn is wholly owned by Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd, which is the main contractor to Kuala Dimensi. Wijaya Baru is controlled by Wijaya Baru Holdings Sdn. Bhd. Azim Mohd Zabidi, the former UMNO treasurer, is chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd. Chor Chee Heung, former deputy was former deputy home minister under Mahathir, who was home minister and fiance minister at the time. Chor was the Wijaya Baru Global non-executive deputy chairman from April 2004 till July 2007.
"This Port Klang FreeTrade zone is a colossal mess, with billions upon billions gone missing. It was earmarked for the MCA and the Chinese community," said a lawyer with links to the United Malays National Organization. "Many MCA/Chinese contractors benefitted from the deal. It has been an issue for the last six years, but only now has it become explosive."
Opposition member Ronnie Liu, a DAP official, lodged a police report with the MACC on the scandal as early as 2004. The DAP has lodged a series of other reports in the intervening years, said a spokesman for the Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition headed by Anwar Ibrahim. None of the requests, the spokesman said, elicited any response from the authorities. Recently Ahmad Said Hamdan, the chief commissioner for MACC, declined to answer questions in a parliamentary accounts selective committee hearing into the Port Klang scandal, saying the case is still under investigation.
The story was broken wide open, however, with the recent publication of a 51-page confidential report into the port's finances by the international accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The report, dated Feb. 3, was "not intended for general circulation or publication. It must not be reproduced, republished, copied, distributed, excerpted, disclosed, quoted, alluded or referred to, whether in whole or in part, to any other party in any way without prior written consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (PwCAS)." However, selected parts were indeed excerpted, disclosed, quoted, alluded or referred to by the opposition, and since been given wide distribution.
Among other things, according to the report, which was obtained by Asia Sentinel, "…significant project costs, weak governance and weak project management have severely undermined the viability of the project. It is imperative that (the Port Klang authority) take immediate actions to restructure the (ministry of finance) soft loan of RM4.632 billion to avoid a potential default in 2012. The Government of Malaysia would need to make a concerted effort to turn the Port Klang Free Zone into a viable venture."
The report names a veritable rogue's gallery of MCA and other officials involved in the development of the project including two former transport ministers, Ling Liong Sik, the former MCA head, and Chan Kong Choy; three former Port Authority chairmen, the former UMNO treasurer Azim Mohd Zabidi, the first woman general manager of the authority, O.C.Phang and the project executor, Tiong King Sing.In addition to awarding the contract to Kuala Dimensi without competitive bid, the land purchase was never vetted by the Malaysian cabinet, although it cost RM1.088 billion against a market value of the land of only RM442 million. Kuala Dimensi "may have overcharged PKA for interest by between RM51 million and RM309 million in connection with the purchase of the land," the report said.
According to another report, The 1,000 acres for the port were purchased by the government from Kuala Dimensi at RM 25 per square foot, or RM 1.8 billion inclusive of interest, giving Kuala Dimensi a capital gain of RM 993 million because it in turn had purchased the land from the Pulau Lumut Development Cooperative for only RM 95 million -- RM 3 per square foot. An UMNO assemblyman, Abdul Rahman Palil, was both the Pulau Lumut Development Co-operative chairman and a port director in 2002 when the land for the free zone was sold to the port authority. The then-transport minister rejected an assertion by the Malaysian Attorney General that the land could be acquired for "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act at RM 10 per square foot.
As a result, the report said, interest on a soft loan from the Ministry of Finance "will increase the project outlay from RM4.947 billion to RM7.453 billion. Unless the MOF soft loan is restructured, total outlay for the project will increase to RM12.453 billion.
And, five years into the project, it remains only 14 percent occupied and "revenue generated is inadequate to cover its operating expenses." The zone is expected to be in cash deficit from 2012.
The MACC said recently that it had formed a 30- member panel to investigate further.
Asia Sentinel.com
TRUE!!! MALAYSIAN INDIANS HAVE NOT CHANGED - Get rid of selfish Samy
The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) is a communal based party and the third largest party in the ruling Barisan National.
It has yet to make any strong reforms to regain the confidence and support of the Indian community who have defected in large numbers over the years.
And for the first time in Malaysian political history, they aligned with the opposition in the 2008 General Election.
Ever since then, the BN has been trying to regain the glorious support it once enjoyed from the masses.
The MIC has not only lost many of its members to other political parties, but has driven away talented Indians who could have brought about a much progressive community.
Since the MIC represents not only its members but also the Indian community, many concerned Malaysians have continuously given their views and input to the leadership but received only abuse in return.MIC has failed the Indians in the last 51 years. The Indian community is lagging behind in terms of economic equity, around one percent since 1970.
The bulk remains poor, often cited as a race that lacks communication skills. The MIC has grown weak to the extent it is being labelled today as an irrelevant party.
So what does the MIC need to do?
It needs to change its leadership and the leadership style from autocratic to participatory by allowing the subordinates to take part in making decisions.
The MIC president recently announced that he would continue to lead as president till 2012, contrary to the pledge that he would quit in September this year.
By doing this he has once again provoked displeasure and resentment not only among the MIC members but also from Malaysians alike.
One wonders how the other leaders of the BN component parties feel about this as Samy Vellu was deemed one of the reasons why the Indians voted for the opposition.
MIC delegates should do what needs to be done. They should consider backing long-time arch rival of the president Datuk S Subramaniam who is going for the deputy president's post and bring him to power.
They should pick candidates based on a good track record, who will work for the party and the well being of all Malaysian - not the president alone.
P Sivakumar
President
Malaysian Indian Business Association (MIBA)
It has yet to make any strong reforms to regain the confidence and support of the Indian community who have defected in large numbers over the years.
And for the first time in Malaysian political history, they aligned with the opposition in the 2008 General Election.
Ever since then, the BN has been trying to regain the glorious support it once enjoyed from the masses.
The MIC has not only lost many of its members to other political parties, but has driven away talented Indians who could have brought about a much progressive community.
Since the MIC represents not only its members but also the Indian community, many concerned Malaysians have continuously given their views and input to the leadership but received only abuse in return.MIC has failed the Indians in the last 51 years. The Indian community is lagging behind in terms of economic equity, around one percent since 1970.
The bulk remains poor, often cited as a race that lacks communication skills. The MIC has grown weak to the extent it is being labelled today as an irrelevant party.
So what does the MIC need to do?
It needs to change its leadership and the leadership style from autocratic to participatory by allowing the subordinates to take part in making decisions.
The MIC president recently announced that he would continue to lead as president till 2012, contrary to the pledge that he would quit in September this year.
By doing this he has once again provoked displeasure and resentment not only among the MIC members but also from Malaysians alike.
One wonders how the other leaders of the BN component parties feel about this as Samy Vellu was deemed one of the reasons why the Indians voted for the opposition.
MIC delegates should do what needs to be done. They should consider backing long-time arch rival of the president Datuk S Subramaniam who is going for the deputy president's post and bring him to power.
They should pick candidates based on a good track record, who will work for the party and the well being of all Malaysian - not the president alone.
P Sivakumar
President
Malaysian Indian Business Association (MIBA)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Revisiting Malaysia’s Social Contract
The contractual glue that keeps Malaysia’s races together seems to be running out
It was the turn of Malaysia’s Bar Council this time to host a public forum over the weekend in Kuala Lumpur on the country’s Social contract, the arrangement between Malays and non-Malays at the country’s birth to share its wealth.In the end, no surprises were in store. The four panelists were evenly split, two calling it a piece of fiction, two disagreeing in polite terms. This is an endless debate and we can be sure the Bar Council Forum won’t be the end of the matter. Every school child in Malaysia has been well fed in the early years of independence with tons of material on the Social contract. It’s the younger generation that seems perplexed. Hence, the issue is revisited at regular intervals and the debate continues.
The contract, a simple unwritten arrangement fostered between Malays and non-Malays by the founding fathers, brought about a rare unity among the multiracial peoples of British Malaya and expedited the advent of independence on 31 Aug 1957. The Social contract also paved the way for the inclusion of Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei in an enlarged Federation within just six years of the midnight air ringing with shouts of “merdeka” – “freedom” – in Stadium Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur. Brunei stayed out over oil revenues and Singapore, as we will see later, was soon booted out. The Social contract remained intact.
At independence the Malaysian economy was held almost 29 percent by the Chinese; less than 2 percent by the Malays, who were largely outside the money economy; less than 1 percent by the Indians and about 69 percent held mostly by the British and other foreigners. (Malaysia introduced the 20 year 1070-90 New Economic Policy in late 1969. The NEP pledged to eliminate the identification of race with economic function and place of residence; eradicate poverty irrespective of race, color and creed; and ensure that the Malays and other indigenous races own, control and manage at least 30 percent of the nation’s corporate economy by 1990.
But deviations soon set in and there was rampant nepotism, cronyism and corruption to sabotage the NEP and send the economy into a tailspin by the early 1980s. The NEP had to be scaled back to bring the economy out of a recession in the mid-1980s.)
The thrust of the contract was simple: since the Chinese of the towns in particular had considerable economic power in comparison with the largely rural-dwelling Malays who saw themselves as the indigenous people of the country, it was felt that it was only right that the Malays held the reins of political power firmly in their hands in a quid pro quo. This power they would then share with the non-Malays and thereby underwrite the continued economic success of the country. Malay hopes, unlike the disastrous route taken by economic nationalists in so much of Africa, Myanmar and Fiji, hinged on the economy going right. Had the Malays been overwhelmingly in the majority, it is unlikely there would have been a social contract of any sort. The non-Malay numbers almost matched the Malay, even after being bolstered for nearly 150 years by immigrants from the Malay Archipelago. Had overwhelmingly Chinese Singapore been included with Malaya, the Malays would have been in a distinct minority in their “own land”.
There were shades of New Zealand, Australia, Mauritius and the Americas here, all lands where the original inhabitants were reduced to an insignificant minority caught in a vicious cycle of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, ignorance and disease in vice-ridden shantytowns or in god-forsaken reservations apportioned the most inhospitable and difficult terrains.
The founding fathers, perhaps in a stroke of genius, saw no reason for a time-frame-bound social contract, nor did they see any reason for preserving the arrangement in print for posterity. The social contract, it was foreseen, would serve the nation well and melt away when its time came.
As the nation ends its celebration of its 50th anniversary of independence, an important watershed when we look back at this moment in history in the years ahead, the thinking among many Malaysians is that the social contract has entered the history books as a minor footnote. They point out that not only have Malay numbers increased significantly but the community itself has considerable leverage in the economy of the nation within and without the context of an expanding economic pie.
The levers of the economy at the policy level are almost totally in Malay hands, albeit because of their sheer numbers, although the community continues to be edged out at the retail level. The market is a different ball game altogether.
Not so, scream a vociferous minority, who not only see the social contract as far from having outlived its purpose but insist that it also includes other aspects like the granting of citizenship status to hundreds of thousands of stateless and immigrant non-Malays and their descendents; the position of the Malay rulers, the position of Islam as "the religion of the Federation" according to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution; the position of Bahasa Melayu as the basis of Bahasa Malaysia, the national language, and the sole medium of instruction in education; and the special privileges of the Malays, and by extension, other indigenous peoples of the Federation in the peninsula and Borneo.
This revisionist approach among a diehard Malay nationalist core hasn’t gone down well with the Indians and Chinese in particular and they have made no bones about it in the vernacular media and other channels. Malay moderates feel it’s high time to take the debate behind closed doors, not so much to re-negotiate the social contract, “but to remind community leaders about the history of the past so that they can re-assure themselves and their people once again and renew their faith in the nation and a common destiny, sharing and caring alike”.
(Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that "Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." Wanita Umno called in November 2007 at the Umno Assembly for the insertion of the word "official" before the word "religion" to prevent any "misunderstanding".)
Essentially, the various issues being bandied about outside the social contract are either well covered in the Federal Constitution or backed by social convention. Hence, the question of including these in an unwritten political arrangement like the Social contract should not arise at all. Generally, non-Malays are even more for the Malay rulers and see the institution as an important bulwark against mob rule and rabble-rousers. Meanwhile, the Federal Constitution remains secular, despite Islam being recognized by the otherwise color-blind document as the official religion. There’s a fine distinction between official and national and the fact remains that Malaysia does not have a national religion and the Federal Constitution guarantees complete freedom of worship.
Again, the country is definitely multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual and multicultural, as anyone with eyes can see, and nobody can take that away – “Malaysia Truly Asia” runs the official tourism theme proudly all over the globe -- despite conflicting claims that it is an Islamic state one day, Muslim the next day, run according to Islamic principles the third day while admittedly not a theocratic state, a bizarre contradiction in terms.
These shifting mindsets even among the religious moderates can best be seen as their coming to terms slowly and painfully with secular Malaysia and preaching a brave, new way to combat the dangerous mix of politics with religion. Religion is religion, and politics is politics, and never the twain shall meet in Malaysia. We need not go so far as to echo DAP MP Karpal Singh’s infamous outburst not so long ago that, “Malaysia will only be an Islamic state over my dead body”. Karpal was quickly hailed as “the tiger – shouldn’t it be lion – of Jelutong.”
The current debate over the social contract is not the first time that attempts have been made to revise history for reasons of political expediency.
Nearly 40 years ago, after the searing Sino-Malay race riots May 1969 in Kuala Lumpur, many historians attributed the bloodshed to the “breakdown” of the social contract when non-Malay political parties made substantial gains in the May 1969 General Elections. The island of Penang, the Pearl of the Orient, had fallen to the newly-formed Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia, which was in fact mostly composed of ousted rebel leaders from the Malaysian Chinese Association, a key member of the ruling Alliance Party.
The DAP (Democratic Action Party), the Malaysian chapter of Singapore’s ruling PAP, had almost half the seats in the Selangor State Assembly, while the PPP (People’s Progressive Party) made similar gains in its Perak heartland. The MCA saw no further purpose in being part of the Federal Government and pulled out while still remaining as a member of the Alliance. The MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress), the other key member of the Alliance, stayed put in the Federal Government and in the states and at the local levels even as quite a number of panicky families sold their properties for a mere song and packed their bags for India. Elsewhere, long queues of would-be migrants formed for weeks outside the Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian High Commissions in particular and the US Embassy.
The MCA pullout from the federal government was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Race riots erupted first in the Chinatown area of Chow Kit which had a Malay hinterland and soon spread all over the capital city. The incomplete polling was abandoned, Parliament was disbanded, democracy suspended, a state of emergency declared by the caretaker government and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, seen as too pro-Chinese, was ousted and placed virtually under house arrest for a while. It was like a coup d’ etat. There were isolated incidents everywhere. The police were hopelessly outnumbered and overwhelmed and the Malay Regiment was brought in while the multiracial Federation Army and the famed Sarawak Rangers of elite Iban and other Dayak troops were both confined to their barracks. The Malay Regiment were mindless robots who contributed to the carnage as well in perceived defense of race, religion and country. They were eventually ordered, albeit reluctantly and gently, to return to their barracks but not until the blood-letting had dragged on for some ten days or more of unspeakable tales of horror.
In hindsight, the apologists and conspiracy theorists rationalize that the Malay Regiment ran amok in revenge for the killings over two weeks by the Communist Party of Malaya’s Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army which virtually had a free run of the country while awaiting the return of British troops in strength following the Japanese surrender after the 2nd World War. The Japanese looked on. The MPAJA’s victims were mostly Malays seen as Japanese collaborators. There were feeble attempts in official circles to blame the communists for May 13 but these were quickly denounced and roundly condemned by the man in the street. At the height of the Vietnam War, the communists were the eternal bogeyman in Southeast Asia and everywhere in the Free World.
The Malay Regiment, disgraced in the eyes of the non-Malay population, was replaced by the Federation Army and the Sarawak Regiment and calm quickly returned to the burnt-out streets of Kuala Lumpur. There had been a heavy price to pay in innocent lives, all because extreme-right Malays in Umno, the lead player in the Alliance, had been rattled by the electoral setbacks suffered by the MCA and feared the unraveling of the Social contract. Apparently, the rightwing game plan was to intimidate the political opposition, punish the voters and force the MCA back into the Government. The fact that the political opposition had never been party to the Social contract was lost on the rightwing instigators of the May 13 bloodbath.
Even so, the Gerakan and the PPP were virtually blackmailed, with the promise of democracy being restored, to become members of an enlarged Alliance which was renamed Barisan Nasional. The Social contract was back on track. The Alliance, symbolized by a sailing boat, had sunk. The BN chose the scales of justice as the new symbol.
Hardly five years before May 13, Singapore had queried the social contract as a member of the Federation and was quickly ushered out. It's important that Malaysian history books explore the expulsion of Singapore from the Federation. However, this tragedy along with the Japanese occupation is simply glossed over. The key lies in former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's "infamous" outburst: "If these people (Kuala Lumpur) think they can squat on Singapore and get away with it, they are sadly mistaken." Apparently, Lee was alarmed that Kuala Lumpur had rapidly changed track after Malaysia with the extreme right wing in Umno calling the shots.
A serious deviation of the social contract was the misinterpretation by the right wingers that it was a carte blanche for Ketuanan Melayu --Malays first -- Malay political dominance and supremacy. This was anathema to Lee. Many saw Ketuanan Melayu as nothing less than an unabashed amalgamation of the Nazism of Hitler's Germany and the Apartheid of South Africa's white supremacists with the caste system of the Brahmins of India. Surely, such a system could not be good for anyone, even including the great majority of the Malays themselves.
Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo states, remained in the Federation after some initial demands for a review by Sabah. Kadazandusun leader, Donald Stephens (later Mohd Fuad Abdullah), was eventually packed off into exile as the High Commissioner to Australia, before making a stunning political comeback in 1976 and dying mysteriously in an air crash shortly after with almost his entire State Cabinet.
Is the social contract still relevant in this day and age? Every two people have three opinions.
A simple reading of history and the demographics shows that the Malay factor will henceforth continue to be an important aspect of the nation’s politics unlike in the early days when the community genuinely feared being swamped by the immigrants from India and China and their descendents. No longer can a non-Malay be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, unless with the consent of the governed, predominantly Malay and other indigenous peoples.
Malays have also entered the money economy in a big way as a community and made considerable gains as well in this field. As the Malays prosper and emerge more educated and universal in outlook, having a stranglehold on politics will be less and less the community’s main pre-occupation and obsession. Herein lie the seeds of destruction of the social contract despite having served the nation well. It is unlikely too that the Chinese parties in government will ever contemplate leaving the ruling coalition and should they do so, as was the case with MCA in the aftermath of the 1969 polls, they would not be wooed back. The Chinese in the political opposition, too long in the wilderness, are waiting in the wings for a historical opportunity to taste the spoils of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)