During the hey-days of the dotcom, Jack Welch of GE introduced the concept of DYB or destroy your business, as a challenge to existing business units of GE (and there were many), to find ways to reinvent themselves, in other words to destroy the old so that the new can emerge.
We all understand that change posseses a destructive element and the result may be good or bad. That choice is left to man to make, not nature, not god, but man.
The current BN Government, in my view, is unable to grasp the concept of change nor able to implement change. As anyone who has undertaken change management it is painful, there are many vested interests (and I don't only mean pecuniary) and entrenched positions, so much so, that a key element of change management is to have leadership and buy-in. Any corporation that wants to implement change does this.
Yet in a Government that has become accustomed to having its way, controlling 2/3rd of the Dewan Rakyat, seeing itself as a ruler not as a group to govern (a subtle but important distinction), cannot change by simply mandating it with slogans - blue ocean strategy.
If the BN Government really wanted to change, then:
(a) its top leaders must become change agents or if not to empower proper change agents;
(b) it must trust the stakeholders and in this regard must know who the stakeholders are.
(c) a proper plan for change management must be introduced.
In all three points the BN Government has failed spectacularly.
How come?
well what is said is not what is believed, so change is not going to happened because they don't really want change. They want the status quo particularly the brand of economics called mahathirism in all its glory.
Secondly they dont care whether they have stakeholder trust because they dont even know who their stakeholders are. The usual concept of stakeholders are all people who are interested in the result and this can usually be displayed as a pyramid. These guys have inverted the pyramid, so everyone looks to the PM and the PM looks to the Ketua Bahagians' for power/authority. It's almost fuedal like, in fact it probably is.
So if the going has been good, and everyone has grown up in the belief that "I will have to wait my turn to ..." then why should I want the situation to change when it is my turn.
Its like kids at a playground waiting to use the swing, after the first guy goes the second guy gets on, and if you then ask the second guy that the queuing to enjoy the swing approach is to be changed you would hear him howl.
So there aint going to be any change from within, because for all their talk (and that's what it is) they are not prepared to make the sacrifices for changing the way things are for the future generations and this country's survival.
Hence we should not believe a word they say.
So if change aint then what is?
Change from outside is the only answer. Change needs change agents to happen, and this means that all stakeholders have to act as change agents. if we want the change (and why should we not, since a change does not put us in (economically speaking) a worst off position than if no change) we should move for a change.
Next how should we move for a change ...
16 September 2008
15 September 2008
Arresting News
The madness has reached even the most level headed individual. A person can be found to have made racist statements, but a reporter of a newspaper who writes about it is being labelled a racist.
This madness is contagious since at the press conference on Saturday night the Home Minister, Syed Hamid, did say that she was detained because of treats to her safety.
They used section 73 of the Internal Security Act to detain a person who had threats against her life being made.
I have several questions:
I reproduce section 73 Internal Security Act which is the section that was relied upon to detain the reporter, Raja Petra and Teresa Kok.
So my questions are:
(a) what did the reporter, Raja Petra or Teresa Kok do that would be considered by right thinking persons to be "necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof" (this is an extract of section 8(1) ISA)
(b) what evidence is there that he/she has acted or will act in a manner prejudical to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services (e.g. power, telecommunications).
In any way one looks at it there is nothing in section 73 ISA that permits the police to detain the reporter for her own safety, and to think the Home Minister is a lawyer?!!
Secondly section 73 is to permit the police to detain a person for enquiries, so what enquiries could there be if it was for her protection?
Thirdly if she had been detained, she would be subject to DNA profiling and her profile kept on the detainee index and cannot be removed. Is this what we want? See the far reaching effect of the DNA Identification Bill?
At the end of the day, the police was acting beyond their powers (as one must infuse those apparently absolute powers with a degree of reasonableness), since the Home Minister said that they detained her not because she was a threat to national security or to maintenance of essential services but for her safety as there were threats against her.
This alone means that the police had acted beyond their powers and so her detention is both illegal and unlawful. This amounts to a tort (civil action) of false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution.
Either way she and her employers should sue. That is the way to teach the police and the Government a lesson that they cannot abuse their power with regards to the peoples of this country.
This madness is contagious since at the press conference on Saturday night the Home Minister, Syed Hamid, did say that she was detained because of treats to her safety.
They used section 73 of the Internal Security Act to detain a person who had threats against her life being made.
I have several questions:
- Who made those threats?
- Have they been similarly arrested and detained?
- If there were such threats could the police not have stationed police officers at her home to provide protection?
I reproduce section 73 Internal Security Act which is the section that was relied upon to detain the reporter, Raja Petra and Teresa Kok.
| Section 73. Power to detain suspected persons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe—
(2) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person, who upon being questioned by the officer fails to satisfy the officer as to his identity or as to the purposes for which he is in the place where he is found, and who the officer suspects has acted or is about to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof. (3) Any person arrested under this section may be detained for a period not exceeding sixty days without an order of detention having been made in respect of him under section 8: Provided that—
(4)-(5) (Deleted by Act A61). (6) The powers conferred upon a police officer by subsections (1) and (2) may be exercised by any member of the security forces, any person performing the duties of guard or watchman in a protected place and by any other person generally authorized in that behalf by a Chief Police Officer. (7) Any person detained under the powers conferred by this section shall be deemed to be in lawful custody, and may be detained in any prison, or in any police station, or in any other similar place authorized generally or specially by the Minister. |
So my questions are:
(a) what did the reporter, Raja Petra or Teresa Kok do that would be considered by right thinking persons to be "necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof" (this is an extract of section 8(1) ISA)
(b) what evidence is there that he/she has acted or will act in a manner prejudical to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services (e.g. power, telecommunications).
In any way one looks at it there is nothing in section 73 ISA that permits the police to detain the reporter for her own safety, and to think the Home Minister is a lawyer?!!
Secondly section 73 is to permit the police to detain a person for enquiries, so what enquiries could there be if it was for her protection?
Thirdly if she had been detained, she would be subject to DNA profiling and her profile kept on the detainee index and cannot be removed. Is this what we want? See the far reaching effect of the DNA Identification Bill?
At the end of the day, the police was acting beyond their powers (as one must infuse those apparently absolute powers with a degree of reasonableness), since the Home Minister said that they detained her not because she was a threat to national security or to maintenance of essential services but for her safety as there were threats against her.
This alone means that the police had acted beyond their powers and so her detention is both illegal and unlawful. This amounts to a tort (civil action) of false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution.
Either way she and her employers should sue. That is the way to teach the police and the Government a lesson that they cannot abuse their power with regards to the peoples of this country.
Malaysia's DNA Identification Bill - Part 1
Introduction
Malaysia intends to pass a DNA Identification Law. This law is being presented to Parliament in August 29, 2008. On a closer examination we find that the Bill has several flaws. These are discussed below. The Bill creates a DNA Databank which is under the purview of the Royal Malaysia Police. The officer in charge of the DNA Databank has to be an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.
What does the Bill provide?
The Bill provides the following:
1. The establishment of a DNA databank to be known as the Forensic DNA Databank (see clause 3). Its purpose is to keep and maintain the 7 indices for the “purpose of human identification in relation to forensic investigation” (see clause 4(1)); Its function is to store DNA profiles obtained from analysis done by the Chemistry Dept, the Forensic Lab of the PDRM, or any agency or body “designated by the Minister from time to time”;
2. The databank is under the management, control and supervision of the Head of DNA Databank (see clause 3(2));
3. There are 7 indices that are kept or created by the DNA Databank, namely: a crime scene index; a suspected persons index; a convicted offenders index; a detainee index; a drug dependant index; a missing persons index; a voluntary index;
4. The Bill classifies samples into intimate or non-intimate. Intimate samples are samples of blood, semen, tissue, bodily fluid, urine, public hair, swab taken from person’s genitals or any orifice (other than the mouth); Non-intimate samples are hair (excluding public hair), nails, things under the nail, swab from any part of a person’s body (except swabs that would be within the ambit of an intimate sample) or saliva;
5. The taking of samples is to be in accordance with the procedures as set out in the Bill and as per procedures to be established. (clauses 12 and 13) - Intimate samples can only be taken if 2 conditions are satisfied, namely (a) an authorised officer so authorises and (b) appropriate consent is given by the person.
However this consent is not required if the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an offence and that the sample will either confirm or disprove the commission of the offence by that person. It should be noted that non-intimate samples can be taken so long the authorised officer gives his authorisation which can be given if the officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence and the sample will help confirm or disprove the person’s involvement in the crime.
6. A refusal to give a non-intimate sample is an offence and if found guilty liable to a fine of RM10,000 or jail of 1 year or both (clause 14);
7. Removal from register - only DNA profile on the suspected person’s index can be removed if (i) investigations show he/she not involved (clause 18(a)); charges withdrawn (clause 18(b)), discharged by the court (clause 19(c)), he is acquitted (clause 18(d); or he is not charged for an offence within 1 year from the date of taking the sample (clause 18(e)). The removal is by the Head of the DNA Databank only after being notified by the OCPD of the fact of (a) to (e), and then he has 6 months to remove;
8. There is no removal from the following indices: a crime scene index; a convicted offenders index; a detainee index; a drug dependant index; a missing persons index; a voluntary index;
9. The people involved in the DNA databank are immune from legal proceedings (i.e. cannot be sued) [Clause 25] in respect of any negligence, default, omission if done in good faith;
10. The information provided by the DNA Databank is conclusive evidence of the DNA identification and a court must accept it (clause 24).
Similar provisions in other countries.
I have reviewed the legislation in Canada, Australia and Trinidad & Tobago, and this is what I have found as a comparison with the proposed sections in the Malaysian Bill, since the Home Affairs Minister Syed Hamid said our Bill is identical with other countries statute.
Suffice to say that these countries laws differ from the Malaysian law in the following manner:
1. The countries examined had greater number of sections than Malaysia - Australia (123 sections), Trinidad (59 sections). this is indicative of the seriousness those countries place on what the DNA identification Act covers.
2. We have adopted the Australian model, as they too have 7 indices, so in comparison with Australia - the intimate sample cannot be taken after conviction and with consent, unlike in Malaysia where no such consent is needed.
3. Removal is upon court orders unlike Malaysia where the OCPD must inform the Head of the DNA Databank and then there is 6 months.
4. None of the countries' I examined provided that the information from the DNA profile is conclusive evidence, in Malaysia we did.
So we have really departed from these other countries, and the oh-so-intelligent Home Minister has said that we have adopted provisions in other countries when in truth we have not. So he should explain, which he would probably blame the Attorney-General's Chambers for wrongly drafting the Bill.
Issues that the Bill does not address are:
1. How are children and young persons to be treated - the same as adults? Shouldn't consent be obtained from their parents?
2. What about incapacitated persons - should not consent be obtained from their guardians as opposed to themselves since they are in no position to be able to give consent (even in making contracts)?
3. What has happened to the presumption of innocence? Since the Bill seeks to provide that DNA profile (hence identity) is conclusively proven without any right to challenge, in effect the fundamental presumption of the criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty has been turned upside down. Such a fundamental change is not even explained by the Minister.
4. The comparative analysis shows that other Commonwealth countries do not make such a change, and in fact do not provide for such conclusive evidence requirements. This is to preserve the rights of the innocent and the accused.
5. The person who can do the DNA analysis is "any chemist" or "any science officer" without any reference to his or her qualifications. So long as the person is a chemist or science officer who works for the Government suffices. This again is evidence of a lack of thought on the part of the proponents of the Bill.
6. Why is there a need to take intimate samples without consent? Why not all samples with consent?
The MPs debating this Bill should raise these questions; and avoid the political point - that the Bill is politically motivated.
Now I also raise the point that since the Sin Chew newspaper reporter Ms. Tan who was detained under s73(1) ISA she could have her intimate sample taken and her profile kept forever on the detainee index; even after her release 16 hours later.
Is this right? Especially when her detention was clearly illegal.
We need to stop this government from further eroding the rights of people to fair trials, justice and truth. A morally bankrupt government has no right to govern the people. We must protest this Law as it is the start of something insidious to come, ripe with ability to abuse, and a tool for evil.
Malaysia intends to pass a DNA Identification Law. This law is being presented to Parliament in August 29, 2008. On a closer examination we find that the Bill has several flaws. These are discussed below. The Bill creates a DNA Databank which is under the purview of the Royal Malaysia Police. The officer in charge of the DNA Databank has to be an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.
What does the Bill provide?
The Bill provides the following:
1. The establishment of a DNA databank to be known as the Forensic DNA Databank (see clause 3). Its purpose is to keep and maintain the 7 indices for the “purpose of human identification in relation to forensic investigation” (see clause 4(1)); Its function is to store DNA profiles obtained from analysis done by the Chemistry Dept, the Forensic Lab of the PDRM, or any agency or body “designated by the Minister from time to time”;
2. The databank is under the management, control and supervision of the Head of DNA Databank (see clause 3(2));
3. There are 7 indices that are kept or created by the DNA Databank, namely: a crime scene index; a suspected persons index; a convicted offenders index; a detainee index; a drug dependant index; a missing persons index; a voluntary index;
4. The Bill classifies samples into intimate or non-intimate. Intimate samples are samples of blood, semen, tissue, bodily fluid, urine, public hair, swab taken from person’s genitals or any orifice (other than the mouth); Non-intimate samples are hair (excluding public hair), nails, things under the nail, swab from any part of a person’s body (except swabs that would be within the ambit of an intimate sample) or saliva;
5. The taking of samples is to be in accordance with the procedures as set out in the Bill and as per procedures to be established. (clauses 12 and 13) - Intimate samples can only be taken if 2 conditions are satisfied, namely (a) an authorised officer so authorises and (b) appropriate consent is given by the person.
However this consent is not required if the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an offence and that the sample will either confirm or disprove the commission of the offence by that person. It should be noted that non-intimate samples can be taken so long the authorised officer gives his authorisation which can be given if the officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence and the sample will help confirm or disprove the person’s involvement in the crime.
6. A refusal to give a non-intimate sample is an offence and if found guilty liable to a fine of RM10,000 or jail of 1 year or both (clause 14);
7. Removal from register - only DNA profile on the suspected person’s index can be removed if (i) investigations show he/she not involved (clause 18(a)); charges withdrawn (clause 18(b)), discharged by the court (clause 19(c)), he is acquitted (clause 18(d); or he is not charged for an offence within 1 year from the date of taking the sample (clause 18(e)). The removal is by the Head of the DNA Databank only after being notified by the OCPD of the fact of (a) to (e), and then he has 6 months to remove;
8. There is no removal from the following indices: a crime scene index; a convicted offenders index; a detainee index; a drug dependant index; a missing persons index; a voluntary index;
9. The people involved in the DNA databank are immune from legal proceedings (i.e. cannot be sued) [Clause 25] in respect of any negligence, default, omission if done in good faith;
10. The information provided by the DNA Databank is conclusive evidence of the DNA identification and a court must accept it (clause 24).
Similar provisions in other countries.
I have reviewed the legislation in Canada, Australia and Trinidad & Tobago, and this is what I have found as a comparison with the proposed sections in the Malaysian Bill, since the Home Affairs Minister Syed Hamid said our Bill is identical with other countries statute.
Suffice to say that these countries laws differ from the Malaysian law in the following manner:
1. The countries examined had greater number of sections than Malaysia - Australia (123 sections), Trinidad (59 sections). this is indicative of the seriousness those countries place on what the DNA identification Act covers.
2. We have adopted the Australian model, as they too have 7 indices, so in comparison with Australia - the intimate sample cannot be taken after conviction and with consent, unlike in Malaysia where no such consent is needed.
3. Removal is upon court orders unlike Malaysia where the OCPD must inform the Head of the DNA Databank and then there is 6 months.
4. None of the countries' I examined provided that the information from the DNA profile is conclusive evidence, in Malaysia we did.
So we have really departed from these other countries, and the oh-so-intelligent Home Minister has said that we have adopted provisions in other countries when in truth we have not. So he should explain, which he would probably blame the Attorney-General's Chambers for wrongly drafting the Bill.
Issues that the Bill does not address are:
1. How are children and young persons to be treated - the same as adults? Shouldn't consent be obtained from their parents?
2. What about incapacitated persons - should not consent be obtained from their guardians as opposed to themselves since they are in no position to be able to give consent (even in making contracts)?
3. What has happened to the presumption of innocence? Since the Bill seeks to provide that DNA profile (hence identity) is conclusively proven without any right to challenge, in effect the fundamental presumption of the criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty has been turned upside down. Such a fundamental change is not even explained by the Minister.
4. The comparative analysis shows that other Commonwealth countries do not make such a change, and in fact do not provide for such conclusive evidence requirements. This is to preserve the rights of the innocent and the accused.
5. The person who can do the DNA analysis is "any chemist" or "any science officer" without any reference to his or her qualifications. So long as the person is a chemist or science officer who works for the Government suffices. This again is evidence of a lack of thought on the part of the proponents of the Bill.
6. Why is there a need to take intimate samples without consent? Why not all samples with consent?
The MPs debating this Bill should raise these questions; and avoid the political point - that the Bill is politically motivated.
Now I also raise the point that since the Sin Chew newspaper reporter Ms. Tan who was detained under s73(1) ISA she could have her intimate sample taken and her profile kept forever on the detainee index; even after her release 16 hours later.
Is this right? Especially when her detention was clearly illegal.
We need to stop this government from further eroding the rights of people to fair trials, justice and truth. A morally bankrupt government has no right to govern the people. We must protest this Law as it is the start of something insidious to come, ripe with ability to abuse, and a tool for evil.
15 May 2008
Sukhoi Jets (2)
I could not believe the results of the first calculation, so I did more research.
There is no consistency in the information and perhaps this is where the MPs should ask the YB Defence Minister to give some straight answers. (I will deal with this later)
The numbers RMAF has purchased range from 18 to 40 Su-30MKM. The M in MKM stands for Malaysian version as the jet is highly customisable (guess like software).
Price paid ranges from RM3.2B to RM3.55B (according to Bernama).
I found the unit price of Su-30MKx planes - it ranges from US$33 to 45M each.
So if we do the math again,
If we bought 18 planes (and that seems to be the most consistent number appearing) at US$33M the total is US594M, or if we paid US$45M per plane we would have paid US$810M
At the FX rate of 3.5, total bill to us is RM2.079 B (for US$33M p.p) or RM2.835 B for US$45 p.p.
That leaves a balance of either RM1.121 B or a mere RM365M.
However since they (the sellers) paid the local firm RM380M the price must have been US$33M p.plane.
So they had an extra of RM1.121B.
If we deduct US$40M for our space tourist at FX of 3.5 we arrive at a balance of RMRM981M
However if we calculate the costs using the price paid at RM3.55B as reported by Bernama, we arrive at the balance of either RM1.331B or RM575M, after taking into account the commission and the space tour costs.
So what happened to tax payers money ranging from RM575M to RM1.3 B?
Questions our MPs should ask are:
a) How many Sukhoi 30-MKM did we actually buy?
b) Why Sukhoi jets? What is the benefit of Su-30MKM compared to the F-16 or F-22 or Eurojet? Was there an evaluation made? if so can they provide a copy to Parliament.
b) What did the purchase include? (How many years of spare parts and training)
Don't ask the obvious question - how much is the unit price as they will give you their version. We want to catch them out.
So once they answer these questions, we then ask the supplementary question as to where the money went. Now he is put in the spot and no longer ask about whether they paid commission.
Most likely they did not pay any commission (as too obvious), so they would have told the Russians to pay and this would have been added to the price. Now you see the way to ask good and cross examining type questions.
There is no consistency in the information and perhaps this is where the MPs should ask the YB Defence Minister to give some straight answers. (I will deal with this later)
The numbers RMAF has purchased range from 18 to 40 Su-30MKM. The M in MKM stands for Malaysian version as the jet is highly customisable (guess like software).
Price paid ranges from RM3.2B to RM3.55B (according to Bernama).
I found the unit price of Su-30MKx planes - it ranges from US$33 to 45M each.
So if we do the math again,
If we bought 18 planes (and that seems to be the most consistent number appearing) at US$33M the total is US594M, or if we paid US$45M per plane we would have paid US$810M
At the FX rate of 3.5, total bill to us is RM2.079 B (for US$33M p.p) or RM2.835 B for US$45 p.p.
That leaves a balance of either RM1.121 B or a mere RM365M.
However since they (the sellers) paid the local firm RM380M the price must have been US$33M p.plane.
So they had an extra of RM1.121B.
If we deduct US$40M for our space tourist at FX of 3.5 we arrive at a balance of RMRM981M
However if we calculate the costs using the price paid at RM3.55B as reported by Bernama, we arrive at the balance of either RM1.331B or RM575M, after taking into account the commission and the space tour costs.
So what happened to tax payers money ranging from RM575M to RM1.3 B?
Questions our MPs should ask are:
a) How many Sukhoi 30-MKM did we actually buy?
b) Why Sukhoi jets? What is the benefit of Su-30MKM compared to the F-16 or F-22 or Eurojet? Was there an evaluation made? if so can they provide a copy to Parliament.
b) What did the purchase include? (How many years of spare parts and training)
Don't ask the obvious question - how much is the unit price as they will give you their version. We want to catch them out.
So once they answer these questions, we then ask the supplementary question as to where the money went. Now he is put in the spot and no longer ask about whether they paid commission.
Most likely they did not pay any commission (as too obvious), so they would have told the Russians to pay and this would have been added to the price. Now you see the way to ask good and cross examining type questions.
13 May 2008
Sukhoi & Scorpene deals "properly made"
The STAR on Wednesday 7 May 2008 reported that "Najib said in the case of the Sukhoi jet, the Russian Government had the right to appoint the agent." The Star said that "the purchase ... was done according to proper Government procedure." The company that was involved Perimeker Sdn Bhd is a joint venture between LTAT, Boustead Holdings (a GLC) and one KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, and another agent - IMT Defence Sdn Bhd - a company controlled by former CM of Malacca - Adib Adam - earned a commission of RM380 million - with regards to the Sukhoi jets.
The price quoted by the STAR for the Sukhoi jets is RM3.2 billion. A commission of RM380 million represents a staggering 11.8% commission. Now lets assume that the Government paid the Russians RM3.2 billion, from this they would have had to deduct 11.8% to pay the commission, leaving a net amount of RM2.82 billion.
The Indian Air Force purchased 40 Sukhoi jets from Russia in 2007 for US$40 million, approximately US$1M per jet. (A US$ 40 M price tag is equal to RM140M at a 3.5 exchange rate).
The RM2.82 billion could have bought us 800 Sukhoi jets. Yet according to Aljazera in Oct 2007 - Malaysia bought 40 Sukhoi jets.
Part of the RM3.2 billion deal - space tourist - which would have cost the Government - US$40 Million.
Assuming that sum was included (because there is no free lunch) the balance available for the jets comes down to RM2.68 billion. That is still about 766 jets. But we bought 40 jets.
OK now this is really interesting - if we bought 40 jets and India bought 40 jets how come we are paying US$19.1 Million per jet, compared to India who is paying US$1 million per jet?
The difference is 190% - which is impossible to account as being for spares, training, housing, etc etc (all the support services when getting a new product).
So lets assume that the jets cost RMAF US$5 million each including spares, training etc etc. That results in a total of US$200M (about RM750M). So if this is the case what happened to the balance of RM2.75 billion - where did it go, who got it?
If it was by the vendor it made a huge profit and Malaysia has just wasted tax payers money to enrich the Russian Government owned company (Federal State Unitary Enterprise 'Rosoboronexport') that sold us the jets.
Even if we were to double the price to US$10M per jet the total bill is only US$400M (RM1.3Billion), that leaves a balance of RM1.9 billion that is hard to account for.
What is needed is to follow the money in Russia as this would show us what the money was used for.
This point should be asked of the Defence Minister to answer on behalf of the RMAF who bought this (because surely it cannot be expected that the Rt. Hon. Defence Minister would have been intimately involved in commercial negotiations?)
Our MPs must ask this of him, now before the issue slides into oblivion.
The price quoted by the STAR for the Sukhoi jets is RM3.2 billion. A commission of RM380 million represents a staggering 11.8% commission. Now lets assume that the Government paid the Russians RM3.2 billion, from this they would have had to deduct 11.8% to pay the commission, leaving a net amount of RM2.82 billion.
The Indian Air Force purchased 40 Sukhoi jets from Russia in 2007 for US$40 million, approximately US$1M per jet. (A US$ 40 M price tag is equal to RM140M at a 3.5 exchange rate).
The RM2.82 billion could have bought us 800 Sukhoi jets. Yet according to Aljazera in Oct 2007 - Malaysia bought 40 Sukhoi jets.
Part of the RM3.2 billion deal - space tourist - which would have cost the Government - US$40 Million.
Assuming that sum was included (because there is no free lunch) the balance available for the jets comes down to RM2.68 billion. That is still about 766 jets. But we bought 40 jets.
OK now this is really interesting - if we bought 40 jets and India bought 40 jets how come we are paying US$19.1 Million per jet, compared to India who is paying US$1 million per jet?
The difference is 190% - which is impossible to account as being for spares, training, housing, etc etc (all the support services when getting a new product).
So lets assume that the jets cost RMAF US$5 million each including spares, training etc etc. That results in a total of US$200M (about RM750M). So if this is the case what happened to the balance of RM2.75 billion - where did it go, who got it?
If it was by the vendor it made a huge profit and Malaysia has just wasted tax payers money to enrich the Russian Government owned company (Federal State Unitary Enterprise 'Rosoboronexport') that sold us the jets.
Even if we were to double the price to US$10M per jet the total bill is only US$400M (RM1.3Billion), that leaves a balance of RM1.9 billion that is hard to account for.
What is needed is to follow the money in Russia as this would show us what the money was used for.
This point should be asked of the Defence Minister to answer on behalf of the RMAF who bought this (because surely it cannot be expected that the Rt. Hon. Defence Minister would have been intimately involved in commercial negotiations?)
Our MPs must ask this of him, now before the issue slides into oblivion.
11 April 2008
Comic Relief 1
Whilst thinking about issues and converting thoughts to action is the primary aim, it is also good to have some comic relief. So here's a medical prognosis of the 12th Malaysian General Election on the ruling political party (BN), which I received recently. Have a good laugh ... you deserve it.
Enjoy ...
Sometimes humour provides the catalyst for change.
Enjoy ...
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Sometimes humour provides the catalyst for change.
10 April 2008
Wither the "special rights" or "special privileges" of the natives of Sabah, Sarawak & the Malays?
There has been much said about this. The ruling BN/UMNO have always reiterated that citizens do not question the special privileges of the Malays, as enshrined in the Federal Constitution, Malaysia's supreme law.
So I thought that if they (the BN/UMNO) are so sure than there must be something in the Federal Constitution, that spells out this special privileges and how it should be administered or something. I read the Federal Constitution from cover to cover, but found nothing of this special privileges reference.
I did find Article 153 which refers to the "special position" of the Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak. So was this the legal basis for the "special privilege" statements by BN/UMNO?
In order to prevent any misunderstanding I reproduce for all to read the referenced Article 153.
There are several key points that are very important to note:
Point 1: The person who can exercise the powers enshrined in Article 153 is not the Executive but His Majesty the Yang diPertuan Agong. He and only he can do so.
Question: Who has in fact exercised this power (albeit indirectly)?
Hint: Who published the NEP, not the Agong but the Executive. ...
Point 2: the Malays, natives of Sabah & Sarawak do not have any special privileges, but have a special position (i.e. kedudukkan istimewa). This difference is not only material but significant. The powers that be have intentionally or otherwise mislead the public about the position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak, by using the words "special privileges" as if it meant the same thing as "special position".
Point 3: These special position relates to education, public service and business licences, and His Majesty the Yang diPertuan Agong, must issue directions on this matter. What it means is that there must be a document somewhere (and if it is a promulgation it must be gazetted) that directs the number of licences to be given to Malays, etc. Yet we find that houses are sold to Malays at a discount, when such a "privilege" is not proscribed by the Constitution.
So for the last 25-30 years the BN/UMNO leadership has mislead and hoodwinked the public about these alleged special privileges of the Malays, etc; when in truth there is no such special privilege but only a special position.
This evidences 3 things (a) intellectual laziness with a bias towards half-truths or (b) a genuine lack of actual know-how and therefore the statements made are based on hearsay rather than on the persons actual understanding; or (c) the use of the words "special privilege" and "special position" interchangeably was a deliberate ploy to enhance what was a position into a privilege in order to subjugate the non-privileged community.
This is not the case of semantics but of actual differences in meaning of words used. A privilege is equal to a right (the Webster dictionary defines the word as follows "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most") whereas a position is a condition or situation. The two words "privilege" and "position" are not words that can be used interchangeably and are quite different in meaning.
Since Article 153 starts from the condition of the Malays it must presuppose that the condition of the Malays at that time (1957) is worst off than the Chinese or Indians. That may have been true and we're not looking to question that. Hence the contextual nature of Article 153 is that the Agong must make a periodic assessment whether the condition or situation of the Malays at a given point in time still warrants the continuation of the grant of the benefits identifed in sub-articles (2) (3) etc. If the condition no longer warrants it, then the benefits so identified can cease.
However there (as far as I am aware) any contextual assessment made of the conditions of the Malays, etc; nor has there been any analysis of whether or not the continuation of the benefits prescribed by Article 153 is necessary.
What has in fact happened is that Article 153 has been misused by BN/UMNO for their own purposes under the guise of championing Malay rights when in fact there is no such thing as Malay rights (legally speaking). This "championing" is the way for UMNO to continue to claim legitimacy in the continuation of race based politics and this suited the MCA and MIC as well.
Finally if Malaysians do not raise the bar and point out collectively that there is no special privileges but special position of the Malays etc ( a situation or condition that they are in which makes it special) then the BN/UMNO will continue to mislead and misuse the words stated in the Federal Constitution.
You know if no one points out that the Emperor has no clothes, citizens of Malaysia can take the blame for the fact that everyone believes that the Emperor has clothes when he has in fact none. Where is that little boy who said "Look! The Emperor has no clothes" and then we all saw that the Emperor was in fact naked.
So I thought that if they (the BN/UMNO) are so sure than there must be something in the Federal Constitution, that spells out this special privileges and how it should be administered or something. I read the Federal Constitution from cover to cover, but found nothing of this special privileges reference.
I did find Article 153 which refers to the "special position" of the Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak. So was this the legal basis for the "special privilege" statements by BN/UMNO?
In order to prevent any misunderstanding I reproduce for all to read the referenced Article 153.
| FEDERAL CONSTITUTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PART XII - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Article 153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di- Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitutions and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or license for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licenses. (3) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions. (4) In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him. (5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136. (6) Where by existing federal law a permit or license is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonably; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions. (7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or license accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or license or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or license when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events. (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or license is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation—
(b) authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or license or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or license when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or (c) where no permit or license was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorize a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorize a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or license, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or license when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events. (9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak. (9A) In this Article the expression "natives" in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A. (10) The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article. " | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are several key points that are very important to note:
Point 1: The person who can exercise the powers enshrined in Article 153 is not the Executive but His Majesty the Yang diPertuan Agong. He and only he can do so.
Question: Who has in fact exercised this power (albeit indirectly)?
Hint: Who published the NEP, not the Agong but the Executive. ...
Point 2: the Malays, natives of Sabah & Sarawak do not have any special privileges, but have a special position (i.e. kedudukkan istimewa). This difference is not only material but significant. The powers that be have intentionally or otherwise mislead the public about the position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak, by using the words "special privileges" as if it meant the same thing as "special position".
Point 3: These special position relates to education, public service and business licences, and His Majesty the Yang diPertuan Agong, must issue directions on this matter. What it means is that there must be a document somewhere (and if it is a promulgation it must be gazetted) that directs the number of licences to be given to Malays, etc. Yet we find that houses are sold to Malays at a discount, when such a "privilege" is not proscribed by the Constitution.
So for the last 25-30 years the BN/UMNO leadership has mislead and hoodwinked the public about these alleged special privileges of the Malays, etc; when in truth there is no such special privilege but only a special position.
This evidences 3 things (a) intellectual laziness with a bias towards half-truths or (b) a genuine lack of actual know-how and therefore the statements made are based on hearsay rather than on the persons actual understanding; or (c) the use of the words "special privilege" and "special position" interchangeably was a deliberate ploy to enhance what was a position into a privilege in order to subjugate the non-privileged community.
This is not the case of semantics but of actual differences in meaning of words used. A privilege is equal to a right (the Webster dictionary defines the word as follows "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most") whereas a position is a condition or situation. The two words "privilege" and "position" are not words that can be used interchangeably and are quite different in meaning.
Since Article 153 starts from the condition of the Malays it must presuppose that the condition of the Malays at that time (1957) is worst off than the Chinese or Indians. That may have been true and we're not looking to question that. Hence the contextual nature of Article 153 is that the Agong must make a periodic assessment whether the condition or situation of the Malays at a given point in time still warrants the continuation of the grant of the benefits identifed in sub-articles (2) (3) etc. If the condition no longer warrants it, then the benefits so identified can cease.
However there (as far as I am aware) any contextual assessment made of the conditions of the Malays, etc; nor has there been any analysis of whether or not the continuation of the benefits prescribed by Article 153 is necessary.
What has in fact happened is that Article 153 has been misused by BN/UMNO for their own purposes under the guise of championing Malay rights when in fact there is no such thing as Malay rights (legally speaking). This "championing" is the way for UMNO to continue to claim legitimacy in the continuation of race based politics and this suited the MCA and MIC as well.
Finally if Malaysians do not raise the bar and point out collectively that there is no special privileges but special position of the Malays etc ( a situation or condition that they are in which makes it special) then the BN/UMNO will continue to mislead and misuse the words stated in the Federal Constitution.
You know if no one points out that the Emperor has no clothes, citizens of Malaysia can take the blame for the fact that everyone believes that the Emperor has clothes when he has in fact none. Where is that little boy who said "Look! The Emperor has no clothes" and then we all saw that the Emperor was in fact naked.
05 April 2008
Appointed or elected local councillors
During the era when the communist insurgency was around in South-east Asia, a time when when the prevailing ideology descended into armed conflict - a conflict between capital and labour (no matter which way you cut the cake it was basically this), meant that removing avenues which allowed the ideology of labour to be present was necessary. The US feared that if South-east asian countries were not "protected" then (as the domino theory goes) they will fall to communism as Viet Nam did.
Sound thinking(?) and a infant government could easily adopt. Yet during this very time, elections at the local council level was still on-going. It was only after the riots in 1969 did this removal of elections at the local council level took place. In fact sometime in 1974.
There have been a variety of reasons for this, and without wanting to justify or rebut them I want to identify the long term effects of such a policy being entrenched in Malaysia.
As a result of the removal of elections at the local council level, councillors (rightly or wrongly - and in my thinking more wrongly from the 1990s onwards) were appointed by the State Government, as were the JKKK chairman. This meant that councillors no longer felt that they were accountable to the people in the municipality that they served but to the person/government who appointed them. This upwardly deference to the peak of a pyramid meant that a democratic government "of, by and for the people" was no longer in existence.
To me the direct result of the lack of local council elections was that the electorate began to hold the people who appointed these councillors responsible and accountable (as that was their only avenue of expression), and consequently in a federal system (which acts more like a unitary state) the party that ran the federal executive.
However the recent decisions in Perak that all Chairman of JKKKs resign and be appointed as a federal position as well as the side-lining of tourism state committees by the federal government evidences that lack of qualification of these people to govern a democratic state.
If these people who hold Ministerial positions cannot govern how can we expect them to appoint people at the local council level to govern.
It is perhaps too obvious that if and only if the people in power grew up, recognising that the people in Malaysia had out-grown this paternalism that they offered, they may have acted differently.
Hindsight is of course 20-20 vision, but then again the incidents of the past provides lessons for the future. If the current government wants (and this is a big W) to be a democratic government they should present to the Federal Parliament an amendment to the Local Government Act whereby the offending section of that Act should be repealed.
If Malaysians are in favour of such an action, I think a petition to our MPs that such a motion be raised in Parliament and a private members bill be introduce to delete the offending section should be the way we move the democratic process forward.
The question for all of us is this "are we willing to push back the tide of imperialism of the ruling political party i.e. Barisan Nasional, which is the guise of UMNO and her allies. Imperialism need not be by a country but can be by political parties (except political imperialism does not mean conquering third countries).
Sound thinking(?) and a infant government could easily adopt. Yet during this very time, elections at the local council level was still on-going. It was only after the riots in 1969 did this removal of elections at the local council level took place. In fact sometime in 1974.
There have been a variety of reasons for this, and without wanting to justify or rebut them I want to identify the long term effects of such a policy being entrenched in Malaysia.
As a result of the removal of elections at the local council level, councillors (rightly or wrongly - and in my thinking more wrongly from the 1990s onwards) were appointed by the State Government, as were the JKKK chairman. This meant that councillors no longer felt that they were accountable to the people in the municipality that they served but to the person/government who appointed them. This upwardly deference to the peak of a pyramid meant that a democratic government "of, by and for the people" was no longer in existence.
To me the direct result of the lack of local council elections was that the electorate began to hold the people who appointed these councillors responsible and accountable (as that was their only avenue of expression), and consequently in a federal system (which acts more like a unitary state) the party that ran the federal executive.
However the recent decisions in Perak that all Chairman of JKKKs resign and be appointed as a federal position as well as the side-lining of tourism state committees by the federal government evidences that lack of qualification of these people to govern a democratic state.
If these people who hold Ministerial positions cannot govern how can we expect them to appoint people at the local council level to govern.
It is perhaps too obvious that if and only if the people in power grew up, recognising that the people in Malaysia had out-grown this paternalism that they offered, they may have acted differently.
Hindsight is of course 20-20 vision, but then again the incidents of the past provides lessons for the future. If the current government wants (and this is a big W) to be a democratic government they should present to the Federal Parliament an amendment to the Local Government Act whereby the offending section of that Act should be repealed.
If Malaysians are in favour of such an action, I think a petition to our MPs that such a motion be raised in Parliament and a private members bill be introduce to delete the offending section should be the way we move the democratic process forward.
The question for all of us is this "are we willing to push back the tide of imperialism of the ruling political party i.e. Barisan Nasional, which is the guise of UMNO and her allies. Imperialism need not be by a country but can be by political parties (except political imperialism does not mean conquering third countries).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)