For two decades DAP’s Supremo, Emperor Lim Kit Siang, fought to bring to justice those responsible for the loss of RM30 billion (RM45.25 billion in today’s terms) through foreign gambling exchange by the Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) back in the early 1990s. The greed of those responsible saw the BNM increase its trading volume to USD50 million lots (RM74.46 million or RM205.65 million today) compared to the market norm then of USD5 million (RM7.45 million or RM20.56 million today) to USD10 million (RM14.90 million or RM41.12 million today), amounting to billions of Dollars per day!
BNM’s maximum exposure in the foreign exchange markets then reached as high as RM270 billion – three times the country’s GDP and more than five times the country’s foreign reserves at the time!
Imagine what would have happened had we lost all that! But imagine what RM30 billion then could have done to arrest the massive fall of the Ringgit from RM2.4765 to the USD on 1 April 1997 to RM4.88 to the USD in early January 1998.
Has Lim Kit Siang accepted the loss of the RM30 billion he’s been screaming about?
Now Lim Kit Siang plays innocent saying he has nothing to do with wanting a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the BNM Forex scandal. Is it because he and Mahathir are good friends now? Or is it because Mahathir’s involvement means that the DAP has lost one of its Malay political mules?
Best friends forever
If I recall correctly, it was Lim Kit Siang who mentioned that Mahathir has to answer for the Forex loss, and that if Pakatan captures Putrajaya, he would re-open the BNM Forex scandal. He even asked if (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak got life imprisonment, then why should Mahathir go scot-free?
Lim Kit Siang’s demands re the BNM Forex Scandal
Has Lim Kit Siang forgotten all the above? If he has, has he gone senile due to his age? If he has problems retaining his memory, then I don’t think he ought to contest in the next general elections.
Whatever it is, the biggest winner would be Anwar. Not only does he get to see his jailor jailed, but he won’t be lonely anymore.
I received this copied in a Veterans’ WhatsApp group. I omitted some parts of the message as it was just gibberish talk:
_Copied from write up by Mej **** ***** TUDM (Rtd)_
Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.
We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.
Clean elections
Clean government
Right to dissent
Save our economy
Fine words they are, but for someone with some legal training to write as such shows how much understanding the author has of the Federal Constitution.
Let us address this “call”:
Point 1:
“Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.
We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.”
The country and the government cannot be separated, neither can a state be separated from its state government. Yes, governments come and go, but a government is still a government. Officers and men of the civil service, the Armed Forces, the Police owe their allegiance to the King and Country. The King rules the Country, as do the Sultans their respective state, through a government that was picked by the people. Be they the Federal Government or the State Government, they administer the country and the states on behalf of the King and Sultans, as well as the Governors. This is prescribed by Article 39 of the Federal Constitution where the Executive Authority of the Federation is vested in the Yang DiPertuan Agong by him, or by the Cabinet, or by any Minister authorised by the Cabinet.
In the case of the Armed Forces, the King exercises his power through the Minister of Defence. Which is why the officers and men of the Armed Forces are required to salute the Minister of Defence who represents the King’s executive power over the Armed Forces, and the Prime Minister who is the King’s Chief Executive, representing the King.
Article 41 states that the King is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and therefore those representing the King as prescribed by Article 39 are performing their duties on behalf of the King.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Armed Forces, as well as the civil service and the Police, remain loyal to the government of the day as the government of the day represents the King – be it bad or otherwise. Whether or nor a member of the Armed Forces, or the civil service, or the Police subscribes to the government of the day politically is a secondary matter. The oath that was taken was to be loyal to the King and Country; therefore loyalty shall be given to the government of the day.
The Minister who represents the King in matters of defence is also made the Chairman of the Armed Forces Council which is responsible for the command, the discipline and the administration of the Armed Forces, except for matters relating to their operational use. This is prescribed in Article 137 of the Federal Constitution.
And it is the Parliament that passed an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment, government and discipline of the Armed Forces is made which is called the Armed Forces Act, 1972.
It is also the Armed Forces Act, 1972 that gave the powers to the Armed Forces Council to enable Brigadier-General Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican be promoted to Major-General while she is being seconded to a Federal Government Department. Section 5C of the Armed Forces Act, 1972 determines that she remains a member of the regular forces but her remuneration shall be paid by that Federal Government Department.
By the same token, even the ordinary people who are citiens of Malaysia must realise that the Federal Government represents the King, the state governments represent the resective state’s Ruler. These are governments chosen by the people but was appointed by the Rulers to administer the country and states on their behalf. The only way to change these governments is by a democratic process called ELECTIONS (unless you have not heard of that word before).
Point 2:
“Clean elections”
Since 1955, Pulau Pinang, Perak, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Selangor and Sabah have all seen a change in government. If the elections were not clean, would it have been possible for the Opposition to have won cash cows such as Pulau Pinang and Selangor?
Point 3:
“Clean government”
I must admit there are bad hats in the government, be it the Federal government or the states government. This is why we have seen people like Harun Idris, Mokhtar Hashim, Khir Toyo, Lim Guan Eng charged in court for corruption. All but Lim Guan Eng have served jail time. Guan Eng, who said that he is not afraid to go to prison, has been delaying his corruption trial using technical issues.
Many more state excos have also been arraigned in a court for corruption. This is not possible without agencies such as the Auditor-General’s Office and the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission which act as checks and balances to ensure that the Federal as well as states governments are run efficiently and cleanly.
Of course there are those who have yet to face the music. For example those responsible for the Maminco scandal in 1985 that saw a loss of RM1.6 billion (about RM2.56 billion in today’s terms); the Perwaja scandal in 1982 that saw a loss of about RM10 billion (RM18.73 billion in today’s terms); the BMF scandal of 1983 that had caused a loss of RM2.5 billion (RM4.5 billion today); the 1986 Deposit-Taking Cooperative Scandal that caused a loss of RM1.5 billion (about RM2.58 billion today); the RM30 billion loss by Bank Negara Malaysis through foreign exchange gambling in 1994 (RM45.25 billion today); the Malaysia Airlines scandal of 1994 with the loss of RM9.4 billion (RM14.18 billion today); the PKFZ scandal of 1999 with a loss of RM12.5 billion (RM13.5 billion in today’s terms).
The above all happened during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister. The grand total of losses is RM67.5 billion (or RM101.3 billion in today’s terms). The amount shown does not include the bailouts reported in various books, Opposition leaders’ blogs and so on.
I do hope that the cry for a clean government will also call for the arraignment for the Prime Minister during whose tenure the financial scandals happened. Had the RM101.3 billion been put to good use during those 22 years, Sabah and Sarawak would have had SIX toll-free Pan Borneo Highways, or 1,013 80-bedded Government hospitals all over the country!
Instead, it enriched the few and killed one person.
Point 4:
“Right to Dissent”
I have not seen any Opposition-leaning media being taken off print or air, unlike during a certain 22-year period of my life. Malaysiakini et al are still spinning their version of what they call “balanced news” (read: news the way we want you to see it). The way these media operate reminds me of a character in Netflix’s limited series called “Godless” called A.T Grigg, a newspaper owner-editor who writes news the way he sees it, not how it truly happens.
The ISA was repealed six years ago by this present administration. Although replaced with SOSMA and POTA, it doesn’t give powers to the authorities to hold anyone without trial as the ISA did. And the ISA was being used a lot against political dissenters especially in the late 1990s during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister.
This administration also introduced the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 that has allowed more freedom to assemble peacefully, unlike during those days of a certain former Prime Minister where at the slightest hint of a political dissent, you get whisked away to the University of Kamunting.
Has the author of the message been arrested yet? Of course not. Even when he actually committed sedition against Malaysia by encouraging Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.
How is it that a legal-trained person does not know that his act is seditious escapes me
Now, how is that seditious? If you look at Section 2 of the Sedition Act, 1948 it tells you the following:
Section 2 defines how an act is seditious. He has committed a seditious act by definition of Section 3(1)(a)
This former Armed Forces officer also committed a crime of sedition under Section 3 (1) (b) of the same Act for encouraging Sarawak to leave Malaysia:
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Sedition Act, 1948
And you thought that the Federal Constitution protects freedom of speech? Yes, it does. But as with all other liberties, they are subjected to restrictions. Article 10(1) guarantees that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, but at the beginning of the Article it also says the following:
You cannot just say anything you like although you have the freedom of speech and expression
To dissent is okay. To dissent seditiously, or criminally, or dangerously, or incitingly, is not okay.
Any legal-trained person ought to know this, right? What more a former officer of the Armed Forces!
Point 5:
“Save Our Economy”
In April 2017, the World Bank forecasted that Malaysia’s GDP would be at 4.3 percent. This was revised in June 2017 to 4.9 percent due to an acceleration in domestic economic activities (people in Malaysia are actually spending more) by 5.7 percent year-on-year. The GDP growth was revised again in October 2017 to 5.2 percent.
Let me quote several reports here by the World Bank.
World Bank Group lead economist Richard Record said at a media briefing on the update that Malaysia’s robust GDP growth in the first half of 2017 was largely underpinned by strong private-sector expenditure, with additional impetus from an improvement in external demand.
“Private consumption expanded firmly this year, supported by favourable income growth amid stable labour market conditions, and improved consumer confidence. Private investment also sustained rapid growth rates during the period, reflecting mainly continued capital spending in the manufacturing and services sectors,” said Richard Record.
“On the external front, gross exports rebounded strongly from the subdued growth experienced in 2016, supported by double-digit growth in commodity and manufactured exports,” he added.
Economic watchdogs are generally bullish on the Malaysian economy’s performance, buttressed by strong expansion in private consumption and private investment. In the latest update on its World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund has upped its GDP growth projection for Malaysia in 2017 to 4.8 percent from 4.5 percent previously.
Apart from that, the Asian Development Bank has also upgraded its 2017 growth outlook for Malaysia to 4.7% from 4.4%, and indicated that the two-year slowdown in economic growth is likely to have bottomed out last year.
Richard Record also predicted Malaysia’s economy for 2018 and 2019.
“We are forecasting Malaysia’s GDP to grow by 5 percent next year (2018) and 4.8 percent in 2019. Our prediction reflects how we are seeing the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals’ performance and the baseline scenario,” he said.
Online economics portal ‘Focus Economics’ also said the following:
“Economic momentum remained robust in Q3 as confirmed by more complete data. Export growth expanded by a double-digit pace in September, underscoring thriving external demand for Malaysian goods. Household spending was buoyed by a low unemployment rate in September and by higher wages, which were propped up by a thriving manufacturing sector, the key driver of industrial production growth in the quarter. The 2018 budget passed on 27 October is focused on fiscal consolidation and is expected to narrow the fiscal deficit from 3.0 percent in 2017 to 2.8 percent in 2018. Despite the tightening, the budget has consumer-friendly components that will increase disposable income. These include lower income tax rates, especially for middle-income earners; higher public wages; and increased assistance spending.”
Of course, with the oil prices continue to stay below the USD70 per barrel level, Malaysia as well as other countries will continue to experience some sluggishness in the economy. However, good fiscal policies have allowed us to grow unlike a neighbour of ours that is often quoted as being a model economy. That country’s growth have been at 2 percent in 2016, and 2.5 percent this year.
The outlook for the construction sector has taken a sharp turn for the worse, with poll respondents tipping a contraction of 4.2 per cent. The previous survey, released in June, had respondents forecasting 0.2 per cent growth in the sector.
The outlook for the accommodation and food services sector in this model country has also worsened – it is now expected to shrink 1.5 per cent, from previous estimates of a 1 per cent expansion.
Economists polled expect overall economic growth of 2.5 per cent next year for this model country, the same pace as this year.
Perhaps the author of the message we are discussing here should go down South and help revive the economy of that model country.
So, there have you. I really do not know what the fuss is about. All I can deduce is that the author of the message is all hot air – you can feel it blowing on your face, but there is no real substance there. This is the same as BERSIH, and the recycling of petty but stale issues by the Opposition just so that they can remain relevant, and justify for the allowances they receive from the pockets of the rakyat.
You can express your dissatisfaction, but always do so constructively. Especially if you are a member of the Malaysian Armed Forces and Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans.
I received the following WhatsApp message from my father earlier today:
The government has to stop its lies and bullshit. Everybody in the oil industry globally confirms one thing. Malaysia has the “sweetest” crude oil in the world. What this means is this, we produce the highest quality oil in the world. The best of the best. But the rakyat don’t see this. This is exported for other people in the world to use. Then Malaysia reimports low grade and low quality oil at a very cheap price for the rakyat to use. Dirty oil.
The question is this. Isn’t the beautiful sweet high grade quality oil Malaysia produces belong to the rakyat of Malaysia? Why sell it of at a higher price to other countries? The oil belongs to the rakyat of Malaysia. It should be given to the people of Malaysia first. Why import dirty and filthy oil and give the rakyat of Malaysia? Why are Malaysians treated like dogs and be given the bones when other people are given the nice flesh to eat?
Another issue is subsidy. There is no such thing of subsidy. The Government of Malaysia has been lying to Malaysians the past 20 years about subsidy. You see, what you produce, you cannot subsidise. If the government does not sell our high grade oil overseas and give it to Malaysians to use, what is there to subsidise?
This story has been going around a long time to fool the people of Malaysia, especially, the kampung people that petrol need to be subsidised. We don’t need to subsidise any petrol or fuel because Malaysia produces ample oil not only for its rakyat but also for export. So, if you produce your own oil, what is there to subsidise?
If you grow vegetables in your garden to eat, you cannot go around telling people that your vegetables are subsidised. You are growing it. You are producing it. You don’t have to buy it at all from an external source. The same with oil. We produce it. We should be using it first. This is how the Sultan of Brunei thinks. That is why he gives his rakyat very cheap fuel. Then the balance, he exports it at global prices. For him, rakyat comes first. he gives the rakyat clean and cheap oil because he cares.
Our government, terbalik. Rakyat comes last. And our oil resources are far more than Brunei. Few years ago, in the global media, Petronas struck the largest oil reserve and land in the world. Global media confirmed it was the largest oil reserve in the entire world. Then the next day, our government covered it up as mere speculation. So, in actual fact, Malaysia’s petrol company Petronas has unlimited reserves of oil for the next 50 yrs. Can we Malaysians please have the priority to get this fuel first for the rakyat cheaply?
My reply is somewhat simple:
Brunei has a population of 434,000 and produces 110,000 barrels of oil per day. Malaysia has 32 million population and produces only 659,000 barrels of oil per day. Of course Brunei can afford to produce, refine and supply to her own citizens while Malaysia becomes a net importer of processed oil.
Furthermore, Malaysia produces the Tapis crude which is sweet and light with a API gravity of 45.5 degrees and sulphur content of only 0.1 percent, making it expensive on the market.
Petronas sells the Tapis crude to get more money and purchases cheaper crude oils for consumption in Malaysia.
Between 14 August 2017 and 20 November 2017 the average value of retail petrol per liter was RM2.20 with a minimum of RM2.12 and a maximum of RM2.38. For comparison, the average price of petrol in the world for the same period was RM5.80 per liter.
As at 20 November 2017, Malaysia’s retail petrol price is 20th cheapest at USD 0.58 per liter. Among the Asian countries only Myanmar is cheaper than ours – by one US cent. Indonesia is 4 spots higher at USD 0.65.
The Brunei government does not publicise its retail petrol price and is therefore not listed. It subsidises its fuel very heavily. However, in 2008 it increased prices for foreigners to B$1.18 per liter (RM2.832 in November 2008).
If Brunei is the model for Malaysians, let it be known that last year its fiscal deficit hit 16 percent of its GDP as a result of the decline in oil prices. Its 2017 budget was slashed by USD100 million to B$5.3 billion. In 2016 it was B$5.6 billion. It was B$7.3 billion in 2014 when the slump in oil prices began.
The government has frozen new staff hires for the bureaucracy. Certain civil servants benefits such as housing, electricity and petroleum subsidies have been cut.
The grass is always greener elsewhere, until you look hard.
Although the Second Finance Minister said in September that the Finance Ministry would first and foremost get some clarification from Maju Holdings on how they plan to execute the no-toll-hike deal before deciding whether or not to allow the deal to happen, I can bet my bottom dollar that at the time of writing this post, they have not met.
The Second Finance Minister wants to obtain clarification from Maju Holdings before deciding
I have written on this matter before and I have laid down my reasons and Tan Sri Abu Sahid’s explanation that he made to the press during his interview sessions, but I am writing this again because I am alarmed at how the government has made a decision without even doing its due diligence on the matter.
The government’s decision to do away with four tolls beginning 1 January 2018 may be good news for those in the Klang Valley and those who go shopping at Bukit Kayu Hitam or drive into Thailand, but we also know that it costs 20 sen to 30 sen to use a public toilet. So, nothing is for free. While the people in the areas mentioned above enjoy their toll-free highway, the rest are made to pay in the form of an extension to the conclusion of the concession of other highways operated by PLUS beyond 2038.
That is not all. The government would have to fork out RM110 million a year as compensation to PLUS, not inclusive of the compensation the government would have to pay every time they disallow a toll rate hike. Multiply that figure alone by 20 years, it would come up to RM2.2 billion. Now that is not a small sum of money. RM2.2 billion could get you 22 80-bed hospitals that could benefit especially the rural areas of Sabah and Sarawak, or in a term that I am more familiar with, four squadrons of the KAI FA-50 supersonic advanced trainers and light combat aircraft. That is almost 50 badly-needed aircraft altogether.
Not only does the government have to think about finding money to compensate PLUS every year for the loss of income from the four tolls, the government also has to think about compensating PLUS and other concessionaires every time they are allowed to increase their rates.
With the global oil price rebounding, the government has also announced that it would think of a measure to not allow retail petrol (RON95). That sounds like more money flying away in the form of a subsidy – something the government has fought hard to do away with.
The proposed deal by Maju Holdings sounds sweet to me now. Question is, what is the Finance Ministry and/or Khazanah afraid of?
Is it because Abu Sahid is perceived as Mahathir’s crony? Then again, which owner of a Malaysian conglomerate isn’t a crony of Mahathir’s? Out of the 10 richest persons in Malaysia in 2016 perhaps only a couple are not Mahathir’s cronies.
Is it because the Finance Ministry and/or Khazanah thinks that Abu Sahid does not know what he is talking about because he only operates a 26-kilometre highway therefore what does he know about a 800-kilometre one? The question is what highway did UEM even operate before it was given PLUS? How different is Maju Holdings to MTD Prime and Anih Berhad that are now running the 358-kilometre East Coast Highway after running only the 60-kilometre KL-Karak highway?
Or are people on different levels making PLUS their cash cow? I’m just throwing my thoughts here because I cannot see what are they so afraid of if someone can help them lower their financial burdens.
The Finance Ministry keeps saying that it does not want to have to bail out Maju Holdings should the deal go wrong in the future, I ask myself, and perhaps the Finance Ministry and Khazanah too, should they not pray for the Maju Holdings to fail? Abu Sahid wants to give the UEM and EPF RM4 billion in cash for free as a return on investments made in PLUS. That is a 20 percent Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
On top of that Abu Sahid through Maju Holdings, with the backing of his financiers, seeks to forfeit the government’s compensation of about RM900 million owed to the toll road operator, which arose as a result of toll hikes not being implemented. Imagine what the government could do by chanelling this money to sectors that badly need such funds.
In other words, the government should pray for Abu Sahid to fail after giving him PLUS – the government takes back the highway which is already toll-free then as there would not be any concessionaire, while Maju Holdings would have to face its financiers. The highway and all its infrastructures already belong to the government no matter what, and the government can still impose tolls albeit minimal to help maintain the PLUS highways. So, what has the government got to lose?
Loss of income by EPF that affects its contributors? I find that hard to swallow. EPF has so much money that it would seek to re-invest in PLUS even after the deal takes place. EPF needs to make money for its contributors. Or it could just seek to invest in another company. EPF has so much money that it is investing in both money-making and money-losing companies as it is now.
Therefore, as a rakyat, I reiterate my concerns taking into account the amount of money needed to compensate PLUS for abolishing the four tolls, the amount of money needed to compensate PLUS and other concessionaires to not increase toll prices, and the imminent need to subsidise RON95 – has the government seen the assumptions made by Maju Holdings? Has the government called Maju Holdings or its financial adviser Evercore for a meeting like it said it would, before even deciding to shut the door on Maju Holdings? Has the government done a due diligence on the proposal by Maju Holdings?
The government should seriously rethink its stance in this issue. There is just too much money that needs to be involved if the government continues to keep PLUS. This is money that could be used to pay the other concessionaires to not hike up their rates as PLUS under Maju Holdings would not be increasing theirs until the concession agreement runs out. Or the savings could go to building more schools, hospitals or buy more fighters for the Air Force.
The government has an opportunity to offload its financial burdens. But why is it so afraid to take that step?
Forest City was under a considerable amount of pressure when it first started due to the knee-jerk reactions of some environmentalists and half-baked as well as over-ripe politicians seeking quick publicity to remain relevant. While the environmental concerns have been addressed and continues to be addressed as the project progresses, it is notable that the political concerns seem to originate only from the Malay politicians. It seems that the Chinese politicians realise the potential this development brings.
In the meantime, Forest City continues to develop and progress, in very notable ways.
A UN Global Model
On the 31st October 2017, Forest City won the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park for the second consecutive year. The award was part of the Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements Award (SCAHSA) ceremony held in New York.
Forest City wins the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park award for its industrial park which has boosted the construction industry
The SCAHSA award established by the Global Forum on Human Settlement (GFHS), a non-profit organisation with Special Consultative Status within the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is a trend setter for urban construction everywhere that respects sustainable development.
Forest City, China’s Wuyi County and Indonesia’s Surabaya City were among the winning entries submitted from 23 countries and regions worldwide. Forest City won the SCAHSA Global Human Settlements Award on Planning and Design at the 11th Global Forum on Human Settlements (GFHS – XI).
Dr. Arab Hoballah (right), former Chief of the Sustainable Lifestyles, Cities and Industry Branch at United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) presents the Global Model of Green Building Industrial Park award to Forest City
Forest City, by taking full advantage of its technical resources, is creating a 1.7-square-kilometer construction-focused industrial park, to promote the development of a green building industry and improve building precision and quality, said Dr. Wang Jiying, vice general manager for overseas business at Country Garden.
Forest City will include several support facilities and a powerful water transportation system, all of which are expected to be operational in 2019, with the aim of creating a truly industrialised manufacturing base for the construction industry over the next three to five years.
Creating Potential Future Workforce
A month and a half ago when I was at Forest City, I was brought to visit one of five schools adopted by Forest City where children are given free Mandarin lessons for three months. This is one of the ways by Forest City to ensure that the local community, especially those in the Tanjung Kupang area, have roles to play in the development.
The result is excellent:
The student above is from the first batch of students who started their Mandarin language course in August 2017 and has graduated. Forest City is not stopping there. Forest City’s master developer, Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd (CGPV), aims to give back to the community by offering three-month basic Mandarin language courses to some 100 school children there.
CGPV plans to continue to offer the Mandarin courses in the future as part of its corporate social responsibility effort for the community here.
“The second intake will be conducted from January until March next year,” Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd corporate communications head Aeron Munajat told reporters when met at SK Tanjong Adang here today where she handed over certificates to the participants.
Aeron said that apart from learning Mandarin as a third language, the three-month language course will also help the students develop self-confidence which will further enhance their competitiveness in the job market in the future.
She said the course involved students and teachers from five schools, namely SK Morni Pok, SK Tanjong Adang, SK Tiram Duku, SK Tanjung Kupang and SK Pendas Laut.
“The classes are conducted every Friday and Saturday from 10am to 12 noon, at the community centre in Kampung Pok,” she added.
Forest City Does Not Pawn Johor Land
The continued but futile attacks on Forest City by Malaysia’s Mugabe and his followers have again earned the ire of His Majesty The Sultan of Johor.
“Has Johor ever pawned its land? What is the meaning of pawning? With Forest City, the state of Johor has increased in size. It is not about seizing land to be pawned. In Johor, there are international lots and Malay reserve land. Anyone can buy at the international zone, be it the Mat Salleh from England or people from India, Japan, China. All of them can purchase it. They can buy (property), but it does not mean they purchase the land to bring it back to their respective home country,” chided the Sultan.
“In Johor, we have an international zone, which means that foreigners could buy. It has international status. In Forest City, we do not sell the land, we sell the strata (titles) and these strata (titles) are for permanent ownership in Johor,” he remarked.
The Sultan added that 40 percent of the investors in Forest City are Malaysians and that even the government has shares in the project, and that the project gave a lot of revenue for the state government, including quit rent and assessment, which the state of Johor benefits.
“How much revenue will the Johor government get? When Forest City is completed, the assessment, quit rent will go to who? Who will get the jobs? There are transportation (initiatives), businesses and job opportunities. Don’t be narrow minded about this,” said the Sultan.
A throwback at the Sultan of Johor’s displease of Mahathir’s lies about the Forest City project
The Sultan also said that the most visible benefit of the Forest City project was the boost it has given to the value of real estate in its surrounding areas, particularly in Pontian district, which is now developing at a rapid pace.
He gave an example of how in the past, the people of Pontian were only picking buah duku (lanzones), but now people in Pontian own Mercedes Benz cars.
“It means that Pontian has become a district that will see rapid development,” the Sultan stressed. “In the past, an acre (0.4 hectares) of land used to cost RM100,000, but now, it is valued up to RM3 million.”
It is no doubt that Forest City will boost the Iskandar region’s marketability. With consumer prices 100 percent higher than in Malaysia, rent prices 500 percent higher than in Malaysia, many companies in Singapore were driven to relocate to Iskandar, while Johor Bahru’s shopping malls, food outlets and amusement parks have become a favourite for Singaporeans. Bangkok’s recent wish for Malaysia to extend its High Speed Rail into Thailand will soon make the Iskandar Econmic Region attractive to the millionaires and billionaires of Indochina. And the green, affordable buildings of Forest City will definitely be a hit.
While they all win, the real winners will be the people of Johor and Malaysia.
Four days ago, just before the retail fuel price hike of six to seven Sen, the average price of retail petrol per litre was USD1.09 (RM4.59).
I won’t touch on the complexities of how we calculate how much we should be selling petrol week after week, but as a rule of thumb, countries that are richer (UK, France, Germany etc) have higher fuel prices. Countries that are less rich, or countries that produce and export oil, have lower fuel prices. The only exception is the US which is economically advanced but has low fuel prices.
How a country taxes or subsidises fuel contributes to the differences in fuel prices around the world. Since all countries have access to the same fuel prices of the international markets, it is taxes and/or subsidies contribute to the difference in retail fuel prices.
This is how Malaysia fares. If you don’t see the names of other countries then it means that fuel prices are actually much higher than Malaysia’s.
I saw ill-informed people saying that fuel prices and the cost of living in neighbouring Thailand are much lower than in Malaysia. There were also those who said that Malaysia should follow the global prices.
My question to them is: if fuel prices in Thailand are much lower, why do we find people smuggling fuel from Malaysia to Thailand and not the other way round?
And as for the cost of living, this is the cost of living indices for Malaysia versus Thailand:
Taking the last three months (from 7 August 2017 until 13 November 2017), the average price of fuel in Malaysia was around RM2.18 per litre with the lowest being RM2.07 per litre on 7 August 2017 and highest at RM2.31 per litre on 13 November 2017.
The average price of fuel per litre on the international markets for the duration was at RM5.84. So, would those asking Malaysia to follow the international markets prices want to pay this sum per litre?
I hope that these gullible Malaysians would pause to breathe and check the “facts” that are being shared in chat groups and social media before hitting that “SHARE/FORWARD” button.
But that is like hoping to see anencephalic babies become Einsteins.
I blame our history books. In our eagerness to instill the spirit of nationalism, we took an easy way out by saying that we were colonised by the British, when in actual fact the whole of Malaya came under British rule only during the Malayan Union period. Only Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Singapore, and for a while Pangkor and the Dindings were under the direct rule of Britain when they were part of the Strait Settlements. Other than that, the British advisers administered the Malay states through treaties, and the administrators were under the payroll of the respective Sultans or Rajas, not the British.
One of the leading evidence of the sovereignty and independence of the Malay states was a landmark case in England where in 1885 the Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor went to England, and according to the plaintiff of the case, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her.
It was held by court that the Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly concealed the fact that he is a sovereign, and has acted as a private individual.’ ‘When once there is the authoritative certificate of the Queen (Victoria) through her minister of state as to the status of another sovereign, that in the courts of this country is decisive’.
To an argument that Sultan Abu Bakar had waived this immunity, the court held that the only way that a sovereign could waive immunity was by submitting to jurisdiction in the face of the court as, for example, by appearance to a writ. If the sovereign ignored the issue of the writ, the court was under a duty of its own motion to recognise his immunity from suit.
The roles of the Malay Rulers are somewhat misunderstood. While many often think that the Institution of the Rulers mirror that of the British’s Westminster-style monarchy, it is not. The Rulers ruled this land even when the British were here to administer the land on behalf of The Majesties.
When 31 August 1957 arrived, the powers that the Rulers had invested in the British was duly transferred to a government that was chosen by the people through a process of democracy called Elections. It is untrue that during the British administration of this land, and now, that the Rulers have no other power other than having a say in the matters of the Religion of Islam and the Malay custom.
The Rulers, as keepers of this land, continue to enjoy their position with their income regulated by the respective laws, and receive advice from the Menteris Besar (or in the case of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, the Prime Minister). This is evident in Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution which states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,” the “sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers…as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.”
The same was noted by Mark R Gillen of the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria (Gillen 1994:7). In the words of the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President, it is:
“a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution, His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions” (Azlan Shah 1986:89)
In other words, the Rulers may be Constitutional Monarchs, but they are not limited to what have been spelt out in the Federal Constitution.
When Syed Saddiq, the runner for Mahathir wrote to the Sultan of Selangor after His Royal Highness expressed great displeasure over Mahathir’s labelling of the Bugis as “pirates who should return to their own land” and pleaded for the Sultan’s support to “fight against corruption and injustice with the people” it shows this great-person-wannabe’s lack of understanding of the position of the Rulers in the Federal Constitution.
The Rulers are apolitical. The Rulers do not take sides, or do not express openly whom they prefer over those they do not. For instance, when the Menteri Besar of Selangor does something that is deemed un-Menteri Besar-like, the most the Sultan would do is to express a reminder for the Menteri Besar to improve his performance so that the lives of the subjects of His Royal Highness are not in any way adversely affected. To encourage certain courses of action is part of the duty of a Sultan, but the Sultan is above politics.
In the words of Sultan Nazrin Muizuddin Shah of Perak in July 2011:
“Rulers must use wisdom to calm situations, but they do not have a ‘magic lamp’ to keep unity, especially when the situation has become chaotic.“
When racial strife hit Malaysia on 13th May 1969, the Sultan of Terengganu as well as other Rulers took steps to protect their non-Malay rakyats (Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Faculty of Humanities, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Kobkua 2011:364). This goes to affirm the special press statement made by the Conference of Rulers in October 2008 explaining that the Institution of Rulers is a “protective umbrella ensuring impartiality among the citizens.”
After 2008, we have witnessed how lawmakers from a certain party have been rude towards the Malay Rulers, forgetting their place in the Federa Constitution. The Rukunegara – means nothing to them: there is no Loyalty to the lawmakers themselves are rarely guided by the belief in God as they lie as if God does not exist, they show no loyalty to King and Country except when they need favours or awards which also means they do not subscribe to the supremacy of the Constitution, they don’t believe in the Rule of Law when it does not work according to their overall game plan, and by being rude to the authorities beginning with the Malay Rulers show that they do not practice courtesy and morality.
And are we surprised that we now have common people threatening the police, council enforcement officers, biting court officers, or show gross disrespect for the authority of the Malay Rulers? They learn such absence of manners from their political idols.
If I were to write a letter to His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor, it would be to plead to His Royal Highness to pressure the authorities to hasten their investigation into the seditious nature of Mahathir’s remark.
THIS would be my mellow version of the Ops Lalang.
The Internal Security Act, 1960 or the ISA, was probably the most draconian law to ever exist in Malaysia. Prior to having the ISA, preventive detention was done through the Emergency Regulations Ordinance of 1948 aimed at combatting the communist threats.
With the end of the first Malayan Emergency in 1960, the Ordinance of 148 was done away with but was replaced with the ISA. The mood of the period must be understood to see the reason for having such law.
Although the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had lost the fight, the struggle was continued from across the Thai border by cadres, as well as their supporters (Min Yuen) in Malaya. They penetrated unions, the press, as well as associations, causing occasional racial tensions in the country.
Pre-1970 Malaysia was not all dandy when it came to race relations. The economic power was held by the Chinese since the days of the British administration while the Malays had been relegated to being farmers or lower ranking civil servants.
The Chinese immigrants first came to the Malay states in 1777, and first settled in the state of Perak in 1830 (Patrick Sullivan, 1982: 13). Within 44 years, they numbered 26,000 in Perak alone. In 1921, the number of Chinese immigrants in the Malay states numbered 1,171,740. Ten years later, it was 1,704,452. In 1941, it became 2,377,990 while the Malays were at 2,277,352 (Paul H Kratoska, 1997:318). The Malays remained as a minority until the census of 1970.
During the war, the Malays did not face much hardship as the Chinese did at the hands of the Japanese.
After the war, the CPM/MPAJA and their Chinese supporters took revenge on the Malays. In Batu Pahat, Muslims were forbidden from congregating at mosques or suraus to perform the Terawih prayers (Hairi Abdullah, 1974/5: 8-9).
The same occurred in Perak and some parts of Batu Pahat where Muslims were gunned down and burnt together with the mosque they were in during Friday prayers.
Mosques and suraus were often used as places of meeting for the Chinese community (WO 172/9773, No.30: 478) and were tainted by incidents such as slaughtering of pigs, and mosques’ compound was used to cook pork, where Malays were forced to join the larger Chinese groups. Pages were torn from the Quran to be used by the Chinese using these mosques as toilet paper.
Racial clashes had begun in September 1945 where Malays and Chinese clashed in Kota Bharu, Selama, Taiping, Sitiawan, Raub.
This culminated in the slaughter of Malays early one morning in a hamlet near Kuala Kangsar called Bekor where 57 men and women, and 24 children were killed by about 500 members of the CPM aided by 500 Chinese villagers from Kelian in March 1946 (CO 537/1580: 21 and Majlis, 24 Februari 1947:5).
All in all, 2,000 lives were lost.
Such was the mood and the ISA was introduced to also prevent further racial clashes by preventing instigators from achieving their objective whatever that may be.
Therefore, it was an Act of Parliament that was used to preserve public order and morals. If one is to read the ISA thoroughly, then it would be easier to see that the Act was not just about detention without trial, but also as a weapon for the Royal Malaysian Police to nip any cancerous threat to public order and morals in the bud.
Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad was Prime Minister as well as Home Minister when Ops Lalang was executed on Oct 26 1987 (arrests were made in the early morning of Oct 27).
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was Umno Youth chief and also Education Minister in Dr Mahathir’s Third Cabinet.
Anwar had made several unpopular moves that earned the wrath of the MCA such as the removal of crucifixes from missionary schools, introduction of Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction for Tamil and Chinese studies at the University of Malaya, as well as the introduction of non-Chinese educated senior assistants and supervisors to Chinese vernacular schools.
Deputy MCA president Datuk Seri (now Tan Sri) Lee Kim Sai who was also Selangor MCA chief, on the other hand, had also uttered words implying that the Malays were also immigrants.
A 2,000-strong gathering by the Dong Jiao Zong that was also attended by the DAP, MCA and Gerakan was held and a resolution was made to call a three-day boycott by Chinese schools.
Umno Youth responded with a 10,000-strong gathering at the TPCA Stadium in Kampung Baru. It is said that Dr Mahathir then instructed Datuk Seri (Tan Sri) Sanusi Junid, who was Umno secretary-general then, to organise a rally of 500,000 members in Kuala Lumpur.
I remember feeling the tension in the air, especially when an army personnel, Private Adam Jaafar, ran amok with his M-16 in Kampung Baru, adding more fuel to a potentially explosive situation.
The senior police management met in Fraser’s Hill to plan and then launched Ops Lalang to prevent bloodshed.
Whether or not Dr Mahathir disagreed with the police for Ops Lalang to be launched, it must be remembered that even if the police had wanted to launch the operations unilaterally, Section 8(1) of the ISA specifically mentions that it is the Home Minister who, upon being satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary, may make an order for the person to be detained for a period of not more than two years.
According to Section 73 of the Act, the police were not given the power to detain a person for more than 30 days unless the Inspector-General of Police had reported of the detention and its reason to the Home Minister.
Nowhere does the Act mention that the Home Minister SHALL or MUST act as advised by the police. The police provided the names in a list, with reasons why they should be or were detained, but only the Minister could sign the detention order.
Dr Mahathir may now claim that Ops Lalang was the police’s idea, which may be true. But as mentioned at the beginning of this article that the ISA is an Act of Parliament giving powers to the police to diffuse potentially explosive situations and also to protect and preserve public safety and morals.
The police used the ISA during Ops Lalang as it was intended to be used (there were also detainees from Umno during the sweep), but the Home Minister was the one who played God, and decided whom to be released before the 60 days was up, and whom to hold up to two years.
And that Home Minister is the same unrepentant person now touted to become the next PM by the DAP.
Kedai-kedai runcit lama banyak yang tutup sekitar tahun 1980an disebabkan pertumbuhan pesat kompleks membeli-belah dan pasaraya-pasaraya (Gambar ehsan PL1M)
Sehari dua ini kita disajikan dengn berita bahawa lima cawangan pasaraya Giant bakal ditutup dan dikhabarkan bahawa ini petanda ekonomi negara kita sebenarnya meruncing dan bukannya mengembang sepertimana yang diwar-warkan oleh kerajaan. Berita penutupan cawangan-cawangan pasaraya Giant ini juga disebarkan melalui aplikasi WhatsApp.
Pagi ini juga saya melihat status seorang pengguna Facebook yang juga memberi khabar muram mengenai penutupan beberapa buah perniagaan besar di Malaysia.
Rangkaian Pasaraya Giant mengumumkan penutupan lima buah cawangan di seluruh negara. Ia merupakan penutupan lima cawangan lama yang mana premisnya akan tamat tempoh pajakan dari sejumlah 122 cawangan di seluruh negara.
Cawangan-cawangan tersebut adalah di Seri Manjung, SACC Mall Shah Alam, Selayang Lama, Sibu dan Sungai Petani.
Walaupun keseluruhan daerah Manjung mempunyai 233,000 penduduk, Lumut hanya mempunyai kurang dari 33,000 orang penduduk dan sebahagian besarnya adalah merupakan warga Tentera Laut DiRaja Malaysia. Giant perlu bersaing dengan dua buah pasaraya besar yang lain iaitu TESCO dan AEON Mall.
Sibu mempunyai 163,000 penduduk dan selain mempunyai dua cawangan Giant, ia juga mempunyai pusat-pusat membeli-belah seperti Sanyan Mall, Delta Mall, Star Mega Mall dan Medan Mall.
Sebuah Giant Hypermarket yang jauh lebih besar juga wujud berhampiran Giant Selayang Lama iaitu di Batu Caves, sementara cawangan di Selayang Lama terpaksa bersaing dengan pasaraya NSK Selayang yang menawarkan barangan runcit dengan harga yang lebih murah.
SACC Mall di Shah Alam itu sendiri tidak menarik ramai pengunjung. Selain Giant, banyak premis perniagaan di situ telah ditutup dan berpindah terutamanya syarikat-syarikat yang mendaftarkan perniagaan yang telah menarik ramai pengunjung. Di Shah Alam sendiri terdapat empat cawangan Giant yang berhampiran iaitu di Seksyen 9, Seksyen 13, Seksyen 18 dan juga Kota Kemuning.
Sungai Petani, walaupun mempunyai lebih kurang 280,000 orang penduduk, mempunyai dua buah cawangan Giant, iaitu Giant Hypermarket dan Giant Supermarket. Saya yakin yang ditutup ialah Giant Supermarket. Sungai Petani juga memberi saingan lain kepada Giant Supermarket dalam bentuk Pasaraya Econsave, Tesco, SP Plaza, Petani Parade, Central Square dan Amanjaya Mall.
Nampak gayanya penutupan lima cawangan tersebut merupakan langkah penyatuan atau konsolidasi dan bukannya disebabkan keadaan ekonomi yang muram. Pengenalan sistem GST juga tidak memberi kesan yang besar kepada para peniaga kerana rata-rata pusat membeli-belah masih dikunjungi ramai orang.
Namun tidak dinafikan peranan yang dimainkan oleh online shopping ada memberi kesan terhadap para peniaga. Ini adalah kerana ada masanya harga barangan yang dijual secara online adalah jauh lebih murah dari apa yang ditawarkan oleh para peniaga runcit.
Menurut PwC dalam laporan Bancian Runcit Keseluruhan 2016 yang dikeluarkannya baru-baru ini, 3/5 responden dari Malaysia telah mula membeli barangan secara online sejak tiga tahun yang lalu dan angka ini masih mengembang.
Aéropostale, sebuah syarikat yang menjual pakaian golongan belasan tahun telah membuat permohonan untuk dibankrapkan. JC Penney telah menutup 40 cawangannya selain membekukan tuntutan elaun lebih masa dan memotong gaji para pekerja. Sears telah menutup lebih 200 cawangannya. Macy’s telah menutup 136 cawangan yang menyebabkan 4,500 orang pekerja hilang pekerjaan. American Eagle telah menutup 150 cawangannya manakala Sports Authority telah menutup kesemua 450 cawangannya. Office Depot telah menutup 749 cawangan, The Children’s Place telah menutup 271 cawangan, manakala Walgreens telah menutup lebih 1,000 cawangan.
Pasaraya terkemuka Walmart telah menutup 269 cawangannya, manakala pendapatan pengasas Amazon yang juga CEOnya, Jeff Bezos, telah meningkat sebanyak USD6 billion dalam masa beberapa jam sahaja dalam bulan April 2016. Banyak syarikat perniagaan runcit besaran di Amerika Syarikat terpaksa menutup cawangan, membuang para pekerja dan bergabung dengan syarikat-syarikat lain untuk terus hidup disebabkan persaingan yang diberikan oleh Amazon.
Trend yang sama kini dilihat di Malaysia. Pada bulan April 2017, syarikat gerbang pembayaran online Malaysia iPay88 yang menguasai 70 peratus pembayaran online di Malaysia mengumumkan bahawa angka pembelian online di Malaysia meningkat 161 peratus pada tahun 2016 berbanding tahun sebelumnya, iaitu 38.2 juta transaksi pada tahun 2016 berbanding 14.6 juta pada tahun 2015.
Menurut iPay88 lagi, barangan yang lazim dibeli oleh rakyat Malaysia termasuk pakaian, kasut, barangan kemas, barangan elektronik dan peralatan sukan.
Oleh kerana iPay88 hanya mempunyai 70 peratus penguasaan, ini bermakna jumlah transaksi pembelian online di Malaysia adalah jauh lebih tinggi dari apa yang dilaporkan oleh iPay88. Angka ini tidak melibatkan pembelian online secara Cash-On-Delivery.
Lazada kini mengalami masalah untuk melayan nafsu serakah rakyat Malaysia yang gemarkan online shopping
Transaksi online, termasuk perbankan digital, adalah sebab bank-bank di Malaysia menutup 63 cawangan setakat April 2017. HSBC telah menutup lebih 50 peratus cawangannya di UK iaitu sebanyak 62 cawangan. ING di Netherlands telah menutup beberapa cawangannya menyebabkan 1,000 pekerja bank kehilangan pekerjaan.
Citigroup telah menutup sekitar 9 peratus cawangan-cawangannya di seluruh dunia manakala Bank of America pula menutup 206 cawangannya. Kedua-dua syarikat ini juga beralih kepada perbankan digital.
Pembelian peribadi meningkan kepada 6.6 peratus pada suku pertama tahun 2017 menurut Persatuan Peruncit Malaysia. Rakyat Malaysia kini lebih banyak berbelanja untuk pembelian barangan secara online dan menjamu selera di luar daripada makan di rumah. Indeks Sentimen Pengguna yang dikumpul oleh MIER juga menunjukkan peningkatan iaitu pada kadar 76.6 peratus. Jumlah pembelian kenderaan peribadi bagi tahun 2017 juga adalah 425,711 buah setakat 30 September 2017 berbanding 418,277 buah dalam tempoh yang sama tahun lepas.
Adakah ekonomi Malaysia menghadapi kemarau seperti yang didakwa? Anda putuskan sendiri.
Pakatan Cry BabiesBarely a few hours after Najib Razak’s announcing of the budget for 2018, the DAP came up with the above graphic to inform the people that (as usual) Najib Razak’s budget is a copycat budget.
But is it?
It must be remembered that the budget announced by Najib Razak will be implemented nationwide whereas the “Pakatan budget” mentioned in the graphic above is a pick-and-choose budget that only one has been implemented in just one state administered by Pakatan, and not a nationwide solution.
Abolish All Tolls
The Barisan Nasional (BN) -led government announced that from 1 January 2018, tolls at four locations, actually, will be abolished. They are the Batu Tiga toll on the Federal Highway, the Sungai Rasau toll near Klang that is also on the Federal Highway, the EDL highway toll in Johor Bahru as well as the Bukit Kayu Hitam toll in Kedah.
Pakatan Harapan proposed to abolish all toll collections. But it has not explained how they plan to compensate in the region of billions to the toll concessionaires for all the money that they have put into the highways they operate and loss of future earnings.
Furthermore, Pakatan promised since before GE12 to abolish toll collection at the Sungai Nyior toll plaza in Pulau Pinang but has not done so to-date.
Pakatan’s de facto a third of a leader, Anwar Ibrahim, had in fact made a promise not too long ago to not allow toll charges to be increased on highways they have shares in, namely, the LDP, KESAS and SPRINT. So far they have done nothing. If they cannot even control the highways that they have substantial shares in how can we hope for them to abolish all tolls?
Anwar’s broken promisePakatan’s alternative budget is also unreliable when it comes to the abolishment of toll on highways. Azmin Ali as the Menteri Besar of Selangor admitted that it was not going to be easy for them to reduce tolls let alone abolish them on highways where the state government has shares in.
Azmin Ali’s admission that it is difficult to reduce toll rates on highways Selangor has shares inBut instead of reducing or abolishing tolls, Azmin Ali introduced three new tolled highways namely the Sungai Besi-Ulu Klang Elevated Expressway (SUKE), the East Klang Valley Expressway (EKVE), and the Damansara-Shah Alam Elevated Expressway (DASH). This is a total of 89 kilometres of new tolled highways offered by the Pakatan government versus the 2,083 kilometres toll-free Pan Borneo Highway offered by the Barisan Nasional government.
Instead of reducing or scrapping tolls, Azmin introduced three more tolled highways in SelangorSo, who is Pakatan trying to kid when it says it wants to abolish tolls on highways? What funds do they plan to use to acquire the concessions from concessionaires? The government is able to abolish tolls at four locations because three of them are under PLUS which is 100 percent government-owned through UEM and EPF, and one under MRCB which has Bank Rakyat and Tabung Haji, both are government entities, as shareholders.
Another puzzling behaviour of the Pakatan is that while it claims that it will abolish tolls in total, or in Selangor or Sungai Nyior only, or just reduce the rates, it has been proven that they are just a bag filled with hot air. It has been almost a decade since their coming into power in Pulau Pinang and Selangor yet they have nothing to show. So when the BN government abolishes tolls at four locations, the reaction from them should be one of sheer happiness. Yet they seem to be otherwise. Why?
One example is Azmin’s communications director Yin Shao Loong who is unaware that the concession period for the Batu Tiga toll was extended to 2038 and not 2018.
Had the Batu Tiga toll concession period been extended, the rate users would be paying according to the original agreement signed during Mahathir’s period is RM2.40 instead of the RM1.10 users are enjoying now.
In a way, the recent offer by Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd to buy the PLUS Expressway from UEM and EPF and not increase toll rates on the highway for 20 years may have triggered the government’s decision to abolish toll collection at those four highways. I still hope that the PM could bring all the relevant parties together to discuss the proposal as it surely benefits the rakyat if feasible.
Abolishing the GST
Prior to the introduction of the 6-percent Goods & Services Tax (GST), business owners were charged the 16-percent Sales & Services Tax (SST). The Sales Tax was a federal consumption tax imposed on a wide variety of goods, and governed by the Sales Tax Act 1972. The Service Tax, also a federal consumption tax, was levied on customers who consumed certain taxable services, and was governed by the Service Tax Act 1975.
GST versus SST (courtesy of Bloomberg BNA)The SST was a single stage of consumption tax where businesses cannot recover the tax paid on their purchases. This tax will be treated as a cost to business. However, it was not a transparent form of taxation as many business owners fail to declare their taxes through transfer pricing. The GST introduces transparency, curbs the inefficiencies, tax-payment and misappropriation issues of the SST.
This incurred the wrath of big business owners as they can no longer hide actual sales figures to avoid being taxed.
As opposed to the SST where every single item is taxed 16 percent, household items such as but not limited to sugar, flour, cooking oil, vegetables, fish, meat, poultry and services such as healthcare, education, public transport, housing and agriculture land are exempted from the GST. If there is a spike in the prices of these items, it is the business owners that are to be blamed for marking up prices, and consumers can report them to the KPDNKK.
It is the efficient way to collect tax from businesses that has helped the government to find an alternative form of income when price of oil have gone down tremendously.
Pakatan wants to either revert back to the SST system but has not mentioned how it plans to make up for the loss of income since oil prices cannot be depended upon, or zero-rate everything as per its alternative budget if it decides to keep the GST system, with the option to increase the rates later.
Again, Pakatan is not being transparent to the masses.
120-Day Maternity Leave versus 90-Day Maternity Leave
There are two aspects to look at when talking about maternity leaves. First, on the employers’ side – a worker that is unable to perform her duty taxes the company as she receives full pay during her absence, and other workers have to double up to do her work. Second, going by the concept of ‘iddah of a divorced woman – the waiting period is three menstrual cycles or three months. I did not use the example of a widow’s waiting period because that includes a period to sufficiently overcome a huge part of grief.
Let us compare with other Muslims countries:
Bangladesh – 112 days: 8 weeks (56 days) before delivery and 8 weeks (56 days) after delivery.
Indonesia – 3 months (90 days)
Pakistan – 90 days (45 before delivery and 45 after)
Oman – 100 days (50 days before and 50 days after)
Qatar – 50 days
Saudi Arabia – 70 days
Syria – 50 days
UAE – 45 days
Yemen – 60 days
Pakatan wants to implement 120 days maternity leave, but evidence shows that after introducing a 90-day maternity leave for Selangor’s civil servants, only 30 employees have actually utilised the 90-day leave in full.
Not many took up the 90-day maternity leave provided by the Selangor state government
I guess 90 days about stretches the limit, especially for employers providing 100 percent pay during maternity leave.
TAWAS versus ADAM50
Tabung Warisan Selangor (TAWAS) is a RM100 one-off gift for every child born in Selangor with the hope of accumulating RM1,500 when they are eligible to withdraw the money when they turn 18. Amanah Dana Anak Malaysia 2050 (ADAM50) is a 200-unit gift in the form of a trust fund for 2.8 million Malaysian babies born from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022. The 200 units will be credited automatically in the unit trust funds managed by Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd after the registration process is completed by their parents or guardian.
TAWAS was launched in 2008 as part of fulfilling Pakatan Rakyat Selangor’s manifesto promise. Between 2008 and 2011, RM588,391 was spent on advertising and promotion for TAWAS but less than 20 percent of newborns (60,972 out of 313,706) in Selangor were registered by the end of 2011.
The Selangor state government had no choice but to extend the registration deadline to allow for more participants but as at 22 July 2014, only 159,953 registration was collected. The total number of live childbirths in Selangor was 421,652 by the end of 2012. By end of August 2017, TAWAS only managed to get 280,568 registrations.
TAWAS started off with funds amounting to RM13.5 million but the state government has had to spend RM22.87 million annually on TAWAS despite getting only 19.4 percent registration. Why is there a need to spend so much on so few participants?
The Auditor-General reported that TAWAS, which was formed under the Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) through Yayasan Warisan Anak Selangor (YAWAS) failed to submit documents of issuance of Fixed Deposit Certificates (SST) between YAWAS and AmBank to the auditors.
There is no standard operating procedures (SOP) to fix a deadline for the issuance of SST to the participants from the date the registration was made or was approved. Audit checks found that there is no record of actual of issuance and receipt of actual SST to and from participants.
“The TAWAS system only provides information on SST that had been prepared by AmBank, furthermore even YAWAS does not have detailed records on the interests received for each of the SST issued,” the report added.
ADAM50 is managed by Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNB) which has been managing funds such as Amanah Saham Nasional, Amanah Saham Bumiputra and Amanah Saham Malaysia. The 200 incentive units and all dividends received on this initial amount of ADAM50 can only be redeemed when the child reaches 18 years of age.
Pakatan cannot even handle a far smaller fund efficiently and it wants to compare itself to a single corporation that handles funds in excess of RM265 billion. Where has all the millions of Ringgits pumped into TAWAS gone to despite not getting the number of participants it had envisaged in 2008?
The Return of Petrol Subsidies
I won’t even go there. Everyone knows the removal of subsidies is so that it could be chanelled to the target groups instead of providing everyone, even foreigners, with subsidised petrol.
The Pakatan budget plans to subsidise only cars and motorcycles below 1,000cc. Only the Perodua Kancil and Perodua Viva would fit into the given category. How would the petrol pump know what cars are below 1,000cc and which ones are 1,000cc and above?
Other Pakatan Budget Jokes
While the BN government strives to lower taxes Pakatan’s alternative budget plans to introduce, on top of the 16 percent SST, an Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax and increase Personal Income Tax to make up for the loss of income through the abolishment of the GST. Yet the pantywaist Pakatan have the cheek to cry foul and claim that the BN’s budget is oppressive.
So I will leave it up to you to decide whom to choose come GE14.
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.