Crisis in Trengganu? What crisis?
An excerpt from “Disquiet”
Crisis in Trengganu? What crisis?
It may be that in all the posturing that is happening within UMNO, within the Federal Government and the Attorney General’s chamber concerning the events in Trengganu, some of the actors in the unfolding saga have lost sight of the obvious. In the absence of the Sultan, His Royal Highness the Regent of Trengganu has the absolute power and discretion to appoint the Menteri Besar of the state. Put another way, the choice is that of the Regent, and no one else. It is as simple as that. The Constitution of Trengganu is a document in 3 parts: Laws of the Constitution of 1911, Laws of the Constitution of Trengganu (First Part) and Laws of the Constitution of Trengganu (Second Part). In determining the constitutional position on any matter pertaining to the state, all 3 parts must be read harmoniously. Put another way, all three parts must be reconciled.
It follows therefore that in determining the ambit of powers of the Sultan (referred to as Raja in the constitutional documents), or the Regent as the case may be (and for ease of reference, only the Sultan shall be referred to in this comment), reference must be made to all 3 documents.
Chapter Six of the 1911 Laws emphatically provides that His Royal Highness is empowered as the sole authority for appointing ministers and officials. The chapter does not qualify the power of His Royal Highness to do so nor does it set out any criteria by which His Royal Highness is required to exercise his power. As I see it, Chapter Six vests an absolute discretion in the Sultan to appoint ministers and officials. This would necessarily include the Chief Minister or Mentri Besar.
Article 63 of the First Part expressly preserves the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Sultan except where expressed otherwise in the First Part. This is significant as the absolute power of the Raja to appoint a Mentri Besar is preserved except where otherwise expressly provided.
Article 14 of the First Part provides for the appointment of the State Executive Council including the Mentri Besar. The appointment is made by His Royal Highness. The language of the provision does not detract from His Royal Highness’ power to appoint. Criteria are however provided as follows: the candidate selected must be a member of the Legislative Assembly AND must be a member who in His Royal Highness’ judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Second Part is silent on this aspect of the powers of the Sultan.
Reconciling Chapter Six of the 1911 Laws with Article 14 of the First Part, two points are manifest. The power to appoint the Mentri Besar is that of the Sultan and only that of the Sultan. In exercising this power, His Royal Highness must choose a member of the Legislative Assembly who in His judgment commands the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Put another way, it is the subjective view of the Sultan that matters and not of anyone else. Though expressions of support are factors that should be taken into consideration, the Constitution does not bind the Sultan to act only in accordance with such expressions of support.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to suggest that all that matters are the numbers. The Sultan cannot be expected, nor does the Constitution require His Royal Highness, to act as a rubber-stamp
In this context, I am of the view that the Sultan may take into consideration all matters that His Royal Highness may reasonably view as having a bearing on the question of confidence. What if the Sultan formed the view that he was not confident that a particular member who seemingly had popular support would not make a suitable Chief Minister. Statements issued by the Palace indicate the concerns of the Palace over the handling of the Pantai Batu Burok episode as well as events that occurred during the recent General Election by Idris Jusoh. These are matter that are evidently bearing on the minds of those who advise the Regent.
These are considerations of weight that go to the question of confidence more so for the fact that it is glaringly obvious that twenty UMNO assembly-men who have endorsed the appointment of Idris Jusoh may not necessarily be acting in accordance with their own conscience but rather the dictates of the party. There is, in a manner of speaking, a dimension of duress in the saga, made obvious by the threats of disciplinary action that have been leveled against Ahmad Said by UMNO. To this end, it is questionable whether it can be said that Idris Jusoh truly commands the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly.
These factors go to show that there is basis for doubt in the mind of the Regent and the advisory council as to the appropriateness of appointing Idris Jusoh. If so, this doubt may reasonably undermine the belief of the Regent and the advisory council that Idris Jusoh truly commands the confidence of the majority.
Regrettably the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General lend to a conclusion that the Regent and the advisory council are expected to rubber stamp the wishes of the majority. Though this may have been how appointments were made in the past, this does not bind the Sultan or the Regent in the present, more so where the past practice may not have been Constitutionally thought through.
In the same vein, I would say that there is no basis for the assertion that the Regent is acting unconstitutionally. In the circumstances, such statements verge on being disrespectful.
For purposes of argument, I would go further. Even if the Regent had decided for no apparent reason to appoint Ahmad Said as Mentri Besar instead Idris Jusoh, there would be no basis for challenging the decision to appoint the said person. The decision is solely that of the Sultan and as such, is in my view not justiciable in a court of law. The only recourse for those members of the Legislative Assembly who disagree is to move a vote of no confidence in the Legislative the Assembly. This is clearly envisaged under the Trengganu Constitution (Article 14(6)).
Significantly, if that were to happen, a new State Executive Council would be appointed unless the Sultan is requested by the Mentri Besar to dissolve the Legislative Assembly in which event elections would have to be held. This may not be politically expedient for those who complain.
And perhaps that is what this is all about in the final reckoning.
MIS
Add comment March 24, 2008
Why Sultan of Terengganu does not like Idris Jusoh
An excerpt from Malaysia Today…
Why Sultan of Terengganu does not like Idris Jusoh
One thing that Malaysia Today would like to raise is the matter of Terengganu’s oil royalty which we hope Mahathir will address on 28 July. Since the mid-1970s, Terengganu had been enjoying a 5% royalty on all the oil and gas extracted in the state. That is what is provided for under the Petroleum Development Act. In fact, not only Terengganu, but any state in Malaysia where oil and gas is extracted they would enjoy the same. However, in 2000, this royalty was withdrawn and converted to Wang Ehsan (goodwill money). Suddenly, the RM800 million or so a year that Terengganu was supposed to get as its 5% share of the oil and gas revenue was transferred out of the state and into the hands of one man, Idris Jusoh.
Malaysia was then already suffering from an outbreak of JE. But in Terengganu it was JE of another kind, Jusoh Enterprise, Idris Jusoh’s family business. Jusoh Enterprise or JE was suddenly flush with funds, RM800 million a year to be exact. Then, in 2004, Umno, under the
stewardship of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, won back the state from the opposition. But the state did not win back its 5% oil royalty. The Wang Ehsan continued and Idris Jusoh, who now became the Chief Minister, continued to single-handedly manage the fund. Even the State Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) and the Terengganu State Economic Planning Unit (UPENT) were left totally in the dark. One man, Idris Jusoh, decided how the money was spent, and it is a lot of money.
But the new Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, would not tolerate one man managing the state’s coffers. He wanted Idris Jusoh’s hands out of the RM800 million a year cash box. However, to revert to the 5% royalty only meant that the money would come directly under state control. That would not serve their purpose. They wanted direct control of the RM800 million. Now it was under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department but passed down to Idris Jusoh’s hands. What they needed to do was to get Idris Jusoh’s hands out of the equation.
Then Khairy Jamaluddin, Abdullah’s son-in-law cum adviser, came out with a fantastic new ‘umbrella concept’, better than even Mahathir’s. They wanted control of the RM800 million a year. But they did not want to get it out of Idris Jusoh’s hands by putting it into the hands of the state. That would merely be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire. They wanted direct control of the money without Idris Jusoh deciding on how the money is spent.
And this is how they did it.
First they appointed Wan Farid, Khairy’s ‘running dog’, as Abdullah’s Political Secretary. Then they appointed Wan Hisham, Wan Farid’s brother, as the State Exco Member in-charge of tourism. Then they gave Patrick Lim, Khairy’s business partner, the sole monopoly of all state tourism projects. Now the network is intact and Idris Jusoh has been
cut off.
Patrick Lim’s job is to create all sorts of state tourism projects at hugely inflated prices. He would then propose these projects to Wan Hisham, the man in-charge of tourism. Wan Hisham would then pass them on to his brother, Wan Farid. Wan Farid would then pass them on to Khairy. Idris Jusoh would of course be left out of the loop and he would only know about them when it was a fait accompli — as the Malays would say, “Nasi sudah jadi bubur.”
They built 30 houses at RM1 million each on an island in the Terengganu River. They launched a RM300 million a year yacht race called the Monsoon Cup. Hundreds of millions a year is being spent to ‘attract tourists to Terengganu’. It seems this year the amount of Wang Ehsan has shot up from RM800 million to RM1 billion — so there is even more money to play around with.
To ensure that Idris Jusoh keeps his hands out of the cash box, Abdullah himself chairs the state meetings though he is the Prime Minister and not the Terengganu Chief Minister. Of course, Idris Jusoh, being the Chief Minister, is allowed to sit in on these meetings though he has no say on what they propose. Patrick Lim, though he is not in the government, is also allowed to attend these meetings.
Abdullah would then propose all sorts of tourism projects conjured by Wan Hisham, Wan Farid and Khairy. Details are of course not discussed; only the gist of things and the amounts involved. Whenever Idris Jusoh raises any questions, he would be told to ‘leave it all to Patrick Lim who knows what to do’. Idris Jusoh is not to involve himself in the details.
After awhile Idris Jusoh got quite pissed and tried to resist. One project that he knew nothing about was placed before him and he was told by Patrick Lim to sign the papers. But how could he sign the papers when he knew nothing about it and would eventually have to bear responsibility for it?
Patrick Lim walked out of Idris Jusoh’s office and phoned Wan Farid who complained to Khairy. Within an hour Idris Jusoh received a phone call from Abdullah who ordered him to sign the papers, which he of course did straight away.
Patrick Lim’s hold on Abdullah was apparent to all but somehow not to Idris Jusoh. One day Abdullah visited Terengganu to chair the regular meetings on how to spend Terengganu’s RM800 million (which is now RM1 billion because of the increase in oil prices). Idris Jusoh fetched Abdullah from the airport but before his car could move Patrick Lim’s car cut in front of Idris Jusoh’s car and Abdullah got out of Idris Jusoh’s car and got into Patrick Lim’s car. Idris Jusoh should have realised then who really runs Terengganu.
Yes, RM1 billion a year is a lot of money. This money, which should belong to Terengganu, is not going to the state. It is going to Wan Hisham, Wan Farid, Patrick Lim and Khairy. And Abdullah chairs the state meetings to decide how the money is spent. And Wan Hisham, Wan Farid, Patrick Lim and Khairy help spend the money. And they spend it all. And Idris Jusoh has no say in how it is spent. And if he refuses to sign the papers he will get a phone call from Abdullah.
Now do you know who runs this country? Abdullah says he and not his son-in-law runs this country. Idris Jusoh however will tell you that Khairy runs this country. And Khairy also runs Terengganu and manages its RM1 billion a year through Wan Hisham, Wan Farid and Patrick Lim. And Abdullah chairs the Terengganu State meetings on behalf of Khairy
and according to the plan on how Patrick Lim wishes to spend the RM1 billion a year.
And now do you know why Mahathir is so pissed? And he has every reason to be pissed. In fact, I too am pissed. And that is why I agree that Mahathir stays pissed with Abdullah and his son-in-law. The Terengganu issue alone is enough for me to get pissed. And rest assured that Terengganu is but the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, it is nice being able to walk in the corridors of power. And much can you do when you walk in the corridors of power. And RM1 billion a year is nice to manage if you have that power to do so. And when you walk in the corridors of power you would of course have that power.
1 comment March 23, 2008
Malaysia: Election Woes
11 March 2008
Malaysia’s political landscape was dramatically transformed last weekend as the ruling coalition government, Barisan Nasional (BN), suffered its lowest margin of victory in 50 years. BN secured just under two-thirds of the federal parliament, a significant departure from the previous elections held in 2004, when the party won 90%. Islamist and leftist opposition parties also won control of five of the country’s 13 states, up from one in the previous term.While BN won the election as expected, few observers had anticipated that the crucial two-thirds majority, which allows the government to change the constitution at will, would not be attained.
The governing regime has done well to improve the economy, and Malaysia experienced GDP growth of 6.3% in 2007, as well as a 69% jump in foreign direct investment (FDI) to $13.7bn. In this respect, many feel the surprising results stem not from economic, but from political issues, pointing to the unprecedented swing as an indication of growing voter frustrations over inflation, racial tensions and a government that did not perform as much as promised to curb corruption and increase transparency. Since its independence in 1957, Malaysia has had one ruling party with little in the way of opposition representation in parliament, and observers now expect a short period of fragmented government.
The governing party is currently engaged in massive spending programmes, which over the past 12 months have included the introduction of five designated economic development zones. Some fear that many of these projects could be stalled or scaled back should the new state governments decide to review them.
Another concern is related to the potential for a slower decision making process for the passing of crucial economic legislation. For example, BN had indicated prior to the elections that it would review lowering the current subsidy on oil prices in 2008, a policy to which the opposition has already expressed disapproval.With stocks markets across Asia already reeling over investor concerns abuot a possible US recession, the unexpected election results could not have come at a worse time for Malaysia’s stock exchange. On the first Monday of trading after the elections, the benchmark Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (KLCI) fell by 10%. This was the biggest one-day drop since the Asian financial crisis in 1998, and led to the suspension of trading for a brief period towards the end of the day.Share prices in 99 of the top 100 KLCI member companies fell, with major companies linked to the federal government or behind large government projects accounting for the largest declines.
Of the four new states in which the opposition was victorious, foreign investors are looking most closely at the island of Penang, a key manufacturing base and home to major US electronics firms such as Dell, Intel and Motorola. Lim Guan Eng, Penang’s new chief minister elect, has assured foreign investors that the state’s pro-business policies will remain unchanged, telling press, “We will not undertake any policies that will frighten investors away.” Vincent Leusner, president of the American Malaysian Chamber of Commerce, said, “The opposition victories will not hurt American investment.
“Nonetheless, analysts believe that foreign investors will act with caution for the time being, in order assess the impact of the opposition influence on economic policies.While, as demonstrated in the stock market, reactions to such dramatic results will often be knee jerk, political and economic observers point out that there may be substantial longer-term positives. As volatility in a country’s election results is generally seen as indicative of the degree of democracy, some have suggested the recent events could be a catalyst for greater transparency and corporate governance. The private sector may be able to look forward to an era of more transparent public tendering and awarding of government projects.Gerald Ambrose, managing director of Aberdeen Asset Management Malaysia, told OBG, “A powerful opposition is a positive development for the long term, providing checks and balances for trillion ringgit government spending.
“The absence of violence following such hotly contested elections, as well as the success of opposition parties, are also encouraging signs negating any possible suspicions of elections fraud or deceit.The last time the ruling coalition failed to attain the two-thirds margin was in 1969, when polls were followed by a period of race riots and a declaration of a state of emergency. While the past few days have seen some small-scale demonstrations, they have remained peaceful and orderly, a testament to what many believe is a maturing democracy.
Add comment March 12, 2008
Mahathir interview: The Straits Times
Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad was interviewed by Malaysia’s fortnightly political tabloid Siasah on Aug 9. This is an extract from the interview published in the current issue of the tabloid.
THE SHAME OF IT: Today, it looks like Malaysia Tidak Boleh because we try to
seek the advice of outsiders. We ought to be ashamed at having to seek the advice of outsiders after 50 years of independence.
YES MEN: It’s the right of Umno members to topple anyone…(but) today, actually there is no Umno but Umyes. Everyone says ‘yes’. You can’t say ‘no’. At Umno meetings, no one dares speak. - TUN DR MAHATHIR
SIASAH: The Iskandar Development Region (IDR) is a massive and expensive project that is said to be very beneficial especially to Johor in the long run. But various quarters - including you, Tengku Razaleigh, PAS members and international financial analysts based in Singapore - are sceptical about whether the project will run as smoothly as planned.
Tun Dr Mahathir: We can develop our territory anywhere we like. But the problem is Singapore ’s involvement in this project. Why must there be a special joint ministerial committee to decide on the development in Malaysia?
Why must we depend so much on Singapore’s participation to develop the IDR?
As we know, Singapore is not a good neighbour, and even if it agrees to be involved in the IDR, Singaporeans will eventually buy houses or factories and reside here.
Singapore reportedly has plans to increase its population to eight million to 10 million (sic), a large part of which will be imported from mainland China. As Singapore can only accommodate up to five million to six million, the rest of its population will probably be placed in the IDR.
So if we’re not careful, the IDR will eventually be filled with Singaporeans. Past experience has taught us that we lost Singapore because the Chinese population exceeded that of the Malays.
And tomorrow, if the government allows Singapore Chinese to occupy the IDR
(through business, employment and property purchase) to a larger extent than
the Malays, the IDR would be dominated by Singapore Chinese because the
Malays cannot afford to buy homes there.
Malacca and Penang remain in Malaysia because the Chinese population can
be offset by the large Malay population. But in Singapore, the Chinese make up
more than 75 per cent of the population while the Malays make up a mere 15 per cent. The Chinese there are rich and control the economy. For this reason, we had to release Singapore because the Chinese were too numerous and controlled the island.
And at that time, Lee Kuan Yew, who had initially agreed not to interfere in the political affairs of the peninsula, broke his promise by contesting in the 1964 general election in Bangsar, which led to the late Tunku (Abdul Rahman) becoming incensed and expelling Singapore ..
Today, we are trying to invite Singapore to enter Malaysia by participating actively in the IDR through various incentives and investment promotions. Eventually, the Johor Malays - who would initially refuse to sell their land - would be blinded by the highly lucrative offers for their properties and sell them to the Singapore Chinese for instant wealth.
After that, where will the Malays reside? They will be driven away from the rapidly developing IDR. They won’t be able to afford the costly property there and will be forced to live outside the IDR.
The IDR will then be filled with Singapore Chinese and Malaysian Chinese who can afford it. What if their numbers exceed the Malay population? We will once again lose Malay territory to the Chinese, as had happened with Singapore previously.
What about the Singapore Government’s active involvement leading to the formation of the joint ministerial committee? Is this necessary?
All this while, we had never sought anyone’s assistance or advice to develop our country. We had developed Kuala Lumpur ourselves without anyone’s aid. We never called on any foreign minister to advise us on how we should develop KL. We have the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) to plan and advise us on our development.
The development of Putrajaya, Labuan , Langkawi and the whole country was the
result of our hands and the expertise of our people. Why must we develop the IDR by seeking advice from Singapore ministers? They are just like us.
We developed this whole country without the help of foreigners and without the
advice of any foreign minister, including Singapore ’s.
In fact, those Singapore ministers sitting on the ministerial committee can’t even make decisions without the direction and consent of the island’s most powerful man, Lee Kuan Yew.
Does this mean Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi did not receive correct advice on the IDR?
I’m not sure whether or not he received correct advice. But for sure his decision (on the IDR) is wrong.
He often boasts that the idea of the IDR project is his. A leader should be responsible for every decision made, be it on the advice of others or on his own. He has the prerogative to reject incorrect advice if he thinks it is not good for the country. And if he agrees to the advice of others, it means he can’t later wash his hands of the matter and say that the project was made on the advice of others because, ultimately, a premier must be responsible for all the decisions made.
If the government is not careful about securing the participation of bumiputeras, particularly Johor bumiputera businessmen, in the IDR project, they will be driven out of this rapidly developing zone because of unaffordability. What is the government’s role and responsibility to ensure that they are not sidelined but are protected and, if possible, actively involved in the project?
Simple. Don’t involve the Singapore government. We do it ourselves.
If they wish to invest in the IDR, we can study and consider their participation, but there’s no need to seek their advice. We have our own capabilities. We have certain bodies to play their roles. Look at all the development around us (in KL) and throughout the country - it is our own effort, without foreign assistance and advice.
All the development from the time of Tunku and Tun Razak right down to me was never carried out based on the advice of outsiders. We have the EPU to advise us.
When we decided to make Malaysia an industrialised nation, we consulted the EPU and not outsiders. We can do it if we want to because that’s our slogan: Malaysia Boleh. But today, it looks like Malaysia Tidak Boleh because we try to seek the advice of outsiders. What others can do, we can do. We ought to be ashamed at having to seek the advice of outsiders after 50 years of independence.
Take for instance the Petronas Twin Towers - we built them with our own capability and confidence. I visited many countries - Japan , America, Europe and other developed countries. I saw that we could build skyscrapers like them if we wanted to.
At first, many Malaysians doubted our ability to build the tallest building in the world. I said we try. Previously, our roads were built by foreign workers from India, but today Malaysian companies are invited to build roads and highways in India.
Indonesia too is developing a special economic zone encompassing Bintan, Karimun and Batam. Foreign investors particularly from Singapore are said to be actively involved. Won’t this affect the development of the IDR?
That’s not a problem to us. The problem is Singapore’s active participation in the IDR. I was told Indonesia gave exclusive rights to Singapore to develop Batam. Former Indonesian president B.J. Habibie aspired to make Batam like Singapore , but apparently it did not work out. An international airport was not even built, and its port is small. Singapore places its interest above that of other countries.
It does not really intend to develop the special zone.
Recently, Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew commented that investors from Singapore could not expect privileged treatment from the Malaysian government in the IDR project. He said Johor Umno members were not pleased with Singapore ’s active participation in the project, similar to your views and criticisms. And even more strangely, he accused Johor Umno of no longer having confidence in PM Abdullah’s leadership and of wanting to topple (menjatuhkan) him. What’s your comment?
It’s the right of Umno members to topple anyone. Umno members, led by Tengku
Razaleigh, Musa Hitam, Radzi, Shahrir Samad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had
tried to topple me too. It’s their right in a country that practises democracy. If they disapprove of a leader, we may replace him with a more qualified leader. Datuk Onn Jaafar was replaced by Tunku Abdul Rahman. And Tunku was terminated because of opposition from the people. This is common in Umno.
And the allegation about some Umno members trying to topple Abdullah may be
true. Kuan Yew may have gleaned this information from those Umno members
themselves who have vested interest. Many Umno members are now involved
in corruption and always holidaying in Singapore. These people are smart talkers purporting to serve the religion, race and country, but doing otherwise.
You are seen as being critical and have made many criticisms against the attitude of the government and Umno members, who would rather follow the leaders without trying to censure their erroneous acts.
Today, actually there is no Umno but Umyes. Everyone says ‘yes’. You can’t say ‘no’. At Umno meetings, no one dares speak. I tried to become a delegate to speak up but I was restricted through various means. No Umno member dares to speak up and take my side. All have become ‘yes men’.
This mustn’t be allowed to continue, or the Malays will become ‘yes men’ who dare not criticise leaders who commit mistakes. If we don’t criticise leaders, they will continue to make mistakes. And if we let them be, without criticising them, it means we approve of their erroneous acts. If this happens, it spells great misfortune for Umno members and Umno itself.
You are actually angrier about PM Abdullah’s scrapping of the crooked bridge
project than about other issues. What do you think are the real reasons (other than those already given by the government) that caused PM Abdullah to scrap the project, which held such great potential?
The bridge is vital to Johor’s development, especially in relationship to the development of the IDR. The Johor Causeway is too congested and Johor needs a new bridge (be it straight or crooked) that is modern and sophisticated to overcome the congestion which is worsening daily.
It is purported that the crooked bridge can’t be built because Singapore is asking for the use of airspace and the sale of sand. But the crooked bridge has had the approval of then-Singapore PM Goh Chok Tong and it can be built if the government is truly determined to do it.
Why didn’t the government go through with it? I received information that, actually, the Malaysian government - through a certain person – had agreed to sell sand to Singapore, but this was strongly opposed by Johor people (Umno). The straight bridge would have been built if Johor Malays had not opposed the plan.
The issue is, if the straight bridge could not be built, we could have proceeded to build the crooked bridge on our side. But even this, the government didn’t want to do. This is what I don’t understand.
There’s talk that Khairy Jamaluddin’s interference was the key factor influencing the PM’s decision?
This I don’t know, even though there are allegations that this is so. What I know is that when people ask about Khairy, the PM merely says: ‘He’s my son-in-law.’
There’s talk among Johoreans that the crooked bridge won’t be built now, but it may be considered and built if (Deputy Prime Minister) Najib becomes PM. What do you think?
That’ll depend on the considerations of the prime minister (Najib) and Umno then. If he thinks it’s necessary and good for the country, particularly the development and progress of Johor, he may build it. It greatly depends on the will and courage of the PM then.
Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore-Malaysia ties went through a difficult time during your rule. By ‘difficult’, is he referring to your actions, for instance, in the building of the Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP), which was said to have seriously affected the earnings of Singapore ’s key port?
Besides your request to raise the selling price of raw water, which was unthinkable to Singapore , Kuala Lumpur International Airport ’s opening too had to some extent impacted the speed of Singapore Changi Airport ’s progress.
I had initially tried to resolve the issue amicably with Singapore, but Lee Kuan Yew refused to yield. He was very resistant and totally refused to compromise.
Sabahans and Sarawakians can withdraw their CPF money, but West Malaysians
can only do so after the age of 55. Sabah and Sarawak are part of Malaysia. How can foreigners (Singapore ) try to differentiate between them and divide our people as they like? We are one people.
The price of water we sell is indeed not fair - 3 sen (1.3 Singapore cents) per 1,000 gallons. Today, what can be done with 3 sen? We tried to raise the price slightly but they refused, saying that the first agreement had lapsed.
In fact the agreement has not lapsed. How many thousand times the selling price they earn from selling water to their people? So I decided to give a financial allocation to Johor to build its own water filtration plant. This means we don’t depend on buying water from Singapore .
And Johor too can sell water to Malacca at 30 sen (1,000 per cent higher than the price of water sold to Singapore). Johor too can make a reasonable profit from selling water to Malacca.
Besides this, our development of PTP has angered Lee Kuan Yew because it badly affects the income of Singapore ’s key ports. Singapore carries out all sorts of schemes to beat PTP. They reduce their ship-handling charges to woo the foreign businessmen using our ports. And they give financial loans to companies intending to use their port services. But PTP continues to progress and expand, which is what Singapore does not want to see. We are more progressive than Singapore because we try to beat its expertise.
The Indonesian government faces difficulty ratifying the Defence Cooperation
Agreement and extradition treaty with Singapore. Singapore resolutely refuses to amend the contents of the agreements with Indonesia. What’s your take?
Singapore places importance only on its own interests and not mutual interests. It does things that are more beneficial to itself than to its neighbours’ interests and needs. Singapore once considered itself a Chinese island in the middle of the Malay ocean.
3 comments October 2, 2007
Marriage-Minded Women Focus on Men’s Faces
MONDAY, August 13 (Health Day News) — When it comes to a woman’s choice of a life-partner, a man’s face may mean a lot, a new study finds.
Many women regard men with masculine facial features — such as a square jaw, larger nose and smaller eyes — as unsuitable long-term partners, because they’re more likely to be domineering, unfaithful, unaffectionate and poor parents, U.K. researchers have found.
On the other hand, women believe that men with finer facial features — fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows — to be more committed, less likely to cheat, and to make better parents, said the study by psychologists at Durham and St. Andrews Universities.
For this study, British women were asked to view pictures of men’s faces that were digitally altered to look more masculine or feminine and to predict the men’s personality traits, including sexual behavior and parenting skills.
The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
“This research shows a high amount of agreement between women about what they see, personality wise, when asked to ‘judge a book by its cover.’ They may well use that impression of someone to decide whether or not to engage with that person. That decision-making process all depends on what a woman is looking for in a relationship at that time of her life,” lead author Dr. Lynda Boothroyd, a lecturer in the department of psychology at Durham University, said in a prepared statement.
She and her colleagues said their findings provide new information about what people see in others when they’re selecting potential partners and may help advance research in areas such as evolutionary biology, fertility and genetics. It may also offer new insights for use in relationship counseling and psychology.
Add comment August 15, 2007
The tyranny of good intentions
The Shame of Being an American by Paul Craig Roberts
Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions G entle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians. Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel ’s attacks on civilian residential districts are children ? That is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel misses Hezbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS. Don’t be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less evil than the puppet master? Of course, you don’t know these things, because the US print and TV media do not report them. Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush has told the UN “NO.” Bush has told the European Union “NO.” Bush has told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister “NO.” Twice. Bush is very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel ’s rampage and wishes he could do the same thing in Iraq. Does it make you a Proud American that “your” president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet? On July 20, “your” House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of Israel ’s massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every American complicit in war crimes, “your” House of Representatives, according to the Associated Press, also “condemns enemies of the Jewish state.” Who are the “enemies of the Jewish state”? They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant Zionist “settlers” under the protection of the Israeli army who beat and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes because they will be murdered by Israeli “settlers.” The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called “terrorists.” When Bush forced free elections on Palestine , the people voted for Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to Israel . This means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results Bush and Israel want. Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel ’s way are terrorists. Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militia of Shi’ite Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon . During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel ’s atrocities was Hezbollah, which fought the Israeli Army, defeated it, and drove it out of Lebanon . Today Hezbollah not only defends southern Lebanon but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care. To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel . Egypt , Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time. Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran . Both governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White House Moron doesn’t know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be “cakewalks” like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents. If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing nothing good for Israel or for America . On July 20 when “your” House of Representatives, following “your” US Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel’s war crimes , the most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming “The American people overwhelming support Israel’s war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis.” The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do not support Israel ’s war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span. Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US “reporting,” a majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah is located in southern Lebanon . If Israel is targeting Hezbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on northern Lebanon ? Why are they falling on Beirut ? Why are they falling on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals? Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House confirm Osama bin Laden’s propaganda that America stands with Israel against the Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world’s largest per capita incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that much of this “aid” comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect “our” representatives in Congress. This perception is no favor to Israel , whose population is declining, as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel’s actions and inhumane policies. The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a refugee. This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America still had some prestige in the Arab world. The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East . It shows that America is, indeed, Israel’s puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe. With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag militia in southern Lebanon . The vaunted US military cannot defeat a rag tag, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a minority of the population in Iraq , insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in civil war against the Shi’ite majority. What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon , Palestine , Syria , and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel ’s desires. Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual. Rumsfeld’s neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states. Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, “Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world,” thus equating war criminals with civilized men. Neocon Larry Kudlow says that “Israel is doing the Lord’s work” by murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel ’s Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, “go forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands”? The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history. .
Add comment June 18, 2007
Men are like…
MEN, MEN, MEN….can’t live with em, can’t live without em! Hehehe here’s sharing what I got in my e-mail inbox today:
For all those men who say, Why buy a cow when you can get milk for free. Here’s an update for you: Nowadays, 80% of women are against marriage, WHY? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage.
Men are like….
1. Men are like ...Laxatives .….. They irritate the crap out of you.
2. Men are like.Bananas …… The older they get, the less firm they are.
3. Men are like ……Weather Nothing can be done to change them.
4. Men are like .Blenders You need One, but you’re not quite sure why.
5. Men are like …..Chocolate Bars ….Sweet, smooth, & they usually head right for your hips.
6. Men are like ….Commercials ……. You can’t believe a word they say.
7. Men are like Department Stores ….. Their clothes are always 1/2 off.
8. Men are like …...Government Bonds …. They take soooooooo long to mature.
9. Men are like …..Mascara They usually run at the first sign of emotion.
10. Men are like ..Popcorn …. They satisfy you, but only for a little while.
11. Men are like Snowstorms ….You never know when they’re coming, how many inches you’ll get or how long it will last.
12. Men are like ……..Lava Lamps …. Fun to look at, but not very bright.
13. Men are like Parking Spots . All the good ones are taken, the rest are handicapped.
Add comment April 3, 2007
Best lawyer story of the year
A Charlotte, NC, lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost “in a series of small fires.” The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that
the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued….and WON! (Stay with me now.)
In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer “held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire” and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the “fires.”
NOW FOR THE BEST PART….Ya GOTTA LOVE this!!
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. This is a true story and was the
winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
Add comment March 30, 2007
Musings
hmm… something to chew on…
Musings: By MARINA MAHATHIR
LOOKING at recent developments, I think there should be a new association registered for the propagation of the shallow and superficial. It should be called, for short, the SS.
The SS is open for membership to people who have nothing better to do with their lives than look for monsters under their beds, enemies in their blankets or crosses in their buns. The first members of the SS are the people who believe that the path to hell is paved with ice-cream biscuits.
In case there are still people out there who only read the mainstream papers and therefore have been blissfully cocooned in ignorance, a group of defenders of the faith have lodged a report that a certain brand of ice-cream biscuits have (Christian) crosses on them, and therefore this is a grave threat to our faith. If any of us were unaware that all it takes is ice-cream to melt our faith, now we know.
The SS would comprise of people who really believe that their faith needs to be protected from confectionery, lipstick, books, magazines, songs, maybe even SpongeBob SquarePants. Everything should be scrutinized for their ability to creep into one’s soul and destroy one’s beliefs. Having laws that allow for this scrutiny would apparently show how superior and strong their religion is.
The SS are not in the least bit interested in any real issues that might truly be threats to their community. Not for them the trivial matters of poverty and hunger nor of people being bombed to death every day in Iraq or
Palestine, or dying of diseases such as AIDS. Nay, these are unimportant compared to the dangers of ice-cream and lipstick.
In case anyone thinks I am making this up, some people might remember that in the days before the United States invaded
Iraq, an e-mail listing out the brands of cosmetics one should not use because their lipsticks were not halal was passed around. Undoubtedly, several hundred thousand dead Iraqis later, those who boycotted those lipsticks feel very good now.
Let us not forget other SS members, those who should be conferred the special title Simple-Minded and Stupid, otherwise known as SMS. These are the sorts who believe every little message that comes into their hot little phones, no matter how unlikely.
Without even asking simple questions like “Is it true?”, they pass them on as if they were, well, gospel. Even worse, instead of just relying on electronic gadgets, which one can always blame technology for, they pass on these messages verbally to other members of the SS, all of whom accept everything the SMS say is literally The Word of God.
The alleged Word of God is then borne into action by Korrupt Kombative Knuckleheads, otherwise known as the KKK. These will do things like throw firecrackers into churchyards, destroy temples and raid married people’s bedrooms. Pretty soon we may find them dressing up in bedsheets and stringing up people they don’t like on trees.
One thing about the SS, the SMS and the KKK is that they never take responsibility for anything. Unlike hijackers, kidnappers and terrorists who want to be known as people who do bad deeds, the Malaysian versions don’t own up to anything. If SS or SMS talk about how Other People are bad, and the KKK then go and string up people by their necks, the SS and SMS simply put their hands up and say, “But I never told them to do that. I only mentioned these things in passing.”
Thus they can pass out simpleminded but dangerous messages without having to take the consequences. Unlike Other People who are constantly being threatened with all sorts of Dire Consequences should they so much as open their mouths. This is how less than a dozen people talking peace and goodwill can be told to shut up in the face of 10,000 talking war and hate.
It’s the same sort of argument some Neanderthals make about cameras peering in inappropriate places; the victims shouldn’t have worn skirts.
The sad thing is that an association like the SS would have so many members in this country. While those who are reasonable, moderate and tolerant are getting marginalized every day.
The voice of hate is these days so much louder than the voice of peace, love and inclusiveness. Just as we don’t see the supreme irony of trumpeting our religious superiority while at the same time claiming that it only takes biscuits to destroy us, we don’t see the irony of extolling ourselves as a superior race while at the same time insisting on crutches and handouts.
Add comment March 30, 2007
