Anwar loses final bid to get Saiful's statements

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today rejected Anwar Ibrahim final bid to get statements recorded by police from Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan in connection with his (Anwar's) ongoing sodomy trial.

Anwar wanted the statements, claiming that there were contradictions between Saiful's testimony adduced in the trial and the sodomy charge framed against him (Anwar), which he said, could lead to a possible impeachment of Saiful's testimony.

Anwar, the Permatang Pauh MP, claimed that Saiful had testified that the alleged sodomy took place without his consent, but he (Anwar) was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code with consensual sexual intercourse.

Saiful, 25, the complainant, who has concluded giving evidence in the trial, is the star witness in the case.

In a unanimous decision, the apex court led by Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria held that the High Court's ruling was not within the definition of word "decision" and that it was not a final order under Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

"We agree with the Court of Appeal's decision that the ruling of the trial judge in this case was not a decision and that it is not appealable," said Arifin, who sat with Federal Court judges James Foong and Md Raus Sharif in hearing Anwar's appeal.

On the issue of a two-page "broad reasons" raised by Anwar's lawyer Karpal Singh in his submission during the appeal, Arifin said the grounds by the Court of Appeal described as 'broad reasons" was clear and comprehensive, as it contained all the ingredients of an oral judgment.

Broad reasons

Karpal on Aug 19 had insisted that the Federal Court order the Appeals Court to furnish further grounds for its dismissal of Anwar's appeal, saying the judgment were just broad reasons.

However, Arifin in his judgment said the Appeals Court had ! given br ief but concise reasons citing a number of authorities in support of its decision.

"In some instances, short and concise grounds of judgment will suffice. In this case, the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a right of appeal against the decision," he said.

"We agree that as a general rule, it is incumbent upon the court making a decision to provide reasons for its decision as litigants are entitled to the same. But this ground of judgment, as we said earlier, need not be long, depending much on the subject matter in issue," he said.

He pointed out that the reason need not be long especialy when the outcome was obvious and the judgment becomes long because facts which are sometimes unnecessary are repeated.

He stressed that Chief Justice Zaki Azmi had been advocating that judges should strive to write short and concise judgments where appropriate.

"We entirely agree with him. This what the Court of Appeal had done in this case," Arifin said in a 19-page judgment rejecting Anwar's bid to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal.

Anwar, 63, was appealing over the High Court's refusal to allow him to obtain the statements.

He is on trial on a charge of sodomising Saiful, his former aide, at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

He faces up to 20 years in jail and whipping, if convicted.

- Bernama

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II The Recorded Truth 18 October 2010

Di dalam Mahkamah Persekutuan
Di hadapan YAA Tan Sri Ariffin bin Zakaria, CJM
YA Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen, HMP
YA Dato Seri Md. Raus bin Sharif

Pihak-pihak:
PP : MY, WCK, NAA
PB : KS, SN

[3.18 p.m.]

YAA: This case is for decision. This is the judgment of the court. I may not read all of it.

This appeal relates to the ruling made by the trial Judge in the ongoing criminal trial in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, bearing No 45-9-2009, where the Appellant is facing a charge under section 377B of the Penal Code. The ruling arose from the application by the learned counsel for the Appellant for the statement of the Complainant (PW 1), recorded under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (112 statement), to be produced for examination by the Appellant. Learned trial judge dismissed the application and the reasons for his decision are found in his judgment dated 11th May 2010. For the reasons appearing in this judgment, we are not concerned at this stage with the issue of whether the trial judge was correct in his ruling or otherwise. The point issue in this appeal is whether the decision by the trial judge is appealable.
In the Court of Appeal, the prosecution took the stand that the ruling of the trial judge under challenge does not fall within the term decision as defined in section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) and hence not appealable. The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution. The reasons for their decision are found in what is described as the broad reasons read out at the end of the hearing of the appeal.
In his submission before us, learned counsel for the Appellant firstly raised the issue of the failure of the Court of Appeal to furnish the grounds of decision until the date of this hearing even though, according to him, the notice of appeal was filed on 28th June 2010. He submitted that without the de! tailed g rounds of judgment, which the Appellant is entitled to under Rule 91(1) of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, the Appellant is prejudiced in putting up a proper petition of appeal. In support, he cited Ankur Nath Ganguli v. Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 LNS 9. On that premise, learned counsel urged this Court to direct the Court of Appeal to furnish their grounds of judgment and pending that, the appeal should stand adjourned.
The learned Solicitor General II in his respond submitted that the so called broad reasons as furnished by the Court of Appeal in this case is in fact the grounds of judgment of the Court of Appeal and the Appellant can proceed with the appeal relying on the said broad reasons. He submitted that we should look at the content and not the label assigned by the Court of Appeal. Further, since the Court of Appeal had furnished their grounds of judgment earlier, therefore, it is not open to the Court of Appeal at this juncture to furnish any further grounds. He cited a number of authorities in support of his contention.
Having perused the broad reasons, we agree with the learned Solicitor General II that the broad reasons as given by the Court of Appeal for all intents and purposes is their grounds of judgment in support of their decision and on that premise, it is not open to us to direct the Court of Appeal to furnish further grounds.
In this connection, we wish to state that grounds or reasons for a judgment are required so that parties, particularly the unsuccessful one, would know why the judge arrived at the decision the way he did. The reason need not be long especially when the outcome is obvious. It can be obvious when facts are not in dispute and the law is well established. In such a case, all that is needed is the conclusion and his reason in support of the same. This is not to say that in all cases judgments should be brief and concise. Where facts are disputed, the judge has to discuss and analyse them. Where the law is seriously doubtful, he should argue it out be! fore arr iving at a decision. More often than not, judgments become long because facts which are sometimes unnecessary are repeated. Laws and authorities which are well established are recited over and over in the same judgment. Statements are often repeated in different ways. Sometimes, this is intentionally done to stress a point. It only makes the grounds long and unwieldy. Having said that, this is not to discourage judges from writing comprehensive grounds, if they have the ability and time to do so.
In this appeal before us, the grounds of the court of appeal though described as broad reasons are to us clear and comprehensive, it contains all the ingredients of a speaking judgment. Anyone, familiar with the facts and background of this case would understand why the Court of Appeal arrived at the decision.
We agree that as a general rule, it is incumbent upon the court making a decision to provide reasons for its decision as litigants are entitled to the same. But this grounds of judgment, as we said earlier, need not be long, depending much on the subject matter in issue. In some instances, short and concise grounds of judgment will suffice.
In the instant case, the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there is a right of appeal from the decision/ruling of the learned trial judge. The Court of Appeal gave brief but concise reasons citing a number of authorities in support of their decision. In the circumstances of this case, we think the Court of Appeal had properly discharged its duty. In fact, our learned Chief Justice has been advocating that judges should strive to write short and concise judgment where appropriate. We entirely agree with him. This is what the Court of Appeal had done in this case.
Having ruled as above, we then asked the learned counsel for the Appellant to proceed with the appeal.
In the course of the cross-examination of PW 1 at the trial of this case, the learned counsel for the Appellant applied to the Court to be furnished with all the statements made by PW ! 1, inclu ding his 112 statements. Based on the evidence of PW 1 in the court and the charge against the accused the learned counsel claimed that he had a hunch that PW 1s statements to the police were inconsistent with his evidence in Court. In support , he referred the Court to the police report exhibit (P 3) lodged by PW 1 which stated that the alleged act of sodomy was committed without his consent. Similarly in his evidence in Court, he maintained the same stand.
However, the charge the accused is facing is one under section 377B of the Penal Code and not under section 377C of the Code, where the prosecution needs to prove that the alleged act was committed without the consent of the PW 1. For a charge under section 377 B of the Penal Code consent is not in issue, thus the learned counsel contended this is contrary to the evidence of PW 1 that the alleged act was committed without his consent. For this reason, he applied for the statements of PW 1 to the police, in particular the 112 statements, to be furnished to him for the purpose of cross-examination of PW 1 under section 145 of the Evidence Act 1950. Learned counsel cited Husdi v. Public Prosecutor (1980) 2 MLJ 80 and Public Prosecutor v. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim (2010) 4 CLJ 265 in support of his application.
The application was dismissed by the learned trial judge. He gave his reasons for the same in his judgment dated 11.5.2010. Against that the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the sole ground that its not seized with the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. It held that the ruling of the learned trial judge which is the subject of the appeal does not come within the meaning of the word decision as defined in section 3 of the CJA.
Learned counsel for Appellant submitted that the learned judges of the Court of Appeal were wrong in concluding that the Appellants appeal was an interlocutory appeal on the ground that, had the 112 statements been supplied to the Appellant, this woul! d have b een sufficient basis for the Appellant to apply to impeach the credibility of PW 1. Had this been allowed by the Court of Appeal he said, the rights of the parties would have been finally determined. Therefore, he contended that the order of the learned trial judge in dismissing the Appellants application for copies of 112 statements is an order falling within the definition of decision in section 3 of the CJA.
The learned Solicitor General II, in his comprehensive reply contended that it is common ground that the ruling was made by the trial judge in the course of an ongoing trial. As such, he said it is clearly not appealable as it does not come within the word decision in section 3 of the CJA.
It should be stated at the outset that, appeal is a creature of statute. Therefore, whether there is a right of appeal or otherwise in a given case will be governed by the relevant statute. In this present case, it will be section 50 of the CJA, [read Section 50 of CJA].The word decision appearing in sub-section (1) of section 50 is defined in section 3 of the CJA [read Sec.3 of CJA]This provision came for consideration by the Court of Appeal in Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor (1999) 1 MLJ 321. In that case, the issue was whether the matter of bail is appealable to the Court of Appeal, taking into consideration the definition of decision in section 3 of the CJA subsequent to the amendment to it in 1998. In that case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that this new definition of decision in the amendment does not include a judgment or order which does not deal with the rights of the parties in the matters in dispute. It was further held that only the outcome of the trial that would have the effect of finally disposing of the rights of parties would come within the word decision. On this premise, the order of the High Court in refusing bail was held to be unappeallable to the Court of Appeal.
[]
The term interlocutory used therein is specifically in reference to civil matter as oppose! d to a c riminal matter.(See para. 501 of Halsburys laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 26). It includes an order made before and after judgment in a matter before the Court. Whereas, what section 3 of the CJA seeks to exclude from the term decision is a ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. In other words, the ruling must by definition be made in the course of a trial or hearing and not before or after as envisaged in the definition of interlocutory. In fact, in Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor (2010) 4 CLJ 265, this Court was asked to decide whether an order made by the trial judge pursuant to section 51 and/or section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code is appealable. In that case, this Court held that the order was a final order as it finally disposed of the rights of the parties and therefore it was appealable. Further, this Court held that the order was not made in the course of a trial. For that reason, the order made by the trial judge does not fall within word decision as defined section 3 of the CJA. No doubt that the application under section 51 and/or section 51A is an interlocutory application as defined in Halsbury. Therefore, it is highly inaccurate to say that in a criminal trial, all decisions on interlocutory applications are not appealable.
In contrast, we have the Court of Appeals decision in Saad bin Abas & Anor v. Public Prosecutor (1999) 1 MLJ 129. In that case, the applicants were jointly tried before the Magistrate Court and at the close of prosecutions case, they were acquitted and discharged by the Magistrate. On appeal to the High Court, the decision of the Magistrate was reversed and directed the applicants to enter upon his defence. The applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 50(2) of the CJA against the order of the High Court. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The learned Solicitor General II also referred us to the case of Public Prosecutor! v. Hoo Chang Chwen (1962) 28 MLJ 284, which was a case decided under the Singapore Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 132). This case concerned a ruling by the Magistrate ordering copies of statements made to the police by the complainant to be furnished to the defence. The prosecution appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the ruling was made in the midst of a trial and hence it is not appealable. [read decision by Rose CJ]
The underlying reason behind the amendment to the definition of decision in section 3 of the CJA, introduced by Amendment Act A 1031 of 1998, which came into effect on 31 July 1998 is to stop parties from stalling a trial before the trial court by filing appeal after appeal on rulings made by the trial court in the course of a trial. This is what the amendment seeks to achieve as evident from the explanatory statement to the Bill [read expanatory statement]
Quite apart from the explanatory statement to the Bill the definition of decision by itself, to our mind, is sufficiently clear, and it is the duty of the court to give effect to the same. Justice demands that cases should move without unnecessary interruption to their final conclusion. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. The right of a party who is aggrieved by a ruling, after all, is not being compromised, as the party can always raise the issue during the appeal, if any, to be filed after the trial process is brought to its conclusion.
For the above reasons, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the ruling of the trial court in this case is not a decision as defined in section 3 of the CJA and hence it is not appealable. In the light of our decision, it is therefore not necessary for us to consider grounds 3 and 4 of the petition.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[3.45 p.m] Appeal dismissed.

Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Anwar queries Najib on RM250mil EC budget, polls soon?

Najib - closely watched by AnwarIn his debate speech on Budget 2011, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim point-blank asks Prime Minister Najib Razak if it was true that the annual allocation for the Election Commission has been raised to a whopping RM250 million from RM35 million this year.

Why was this not included in the budget? Is it for elections?" asked Anwar



(Malaysiakini) - Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim queried the government over allegations that the Election Commission's budget will be bumped up to RM250 million next year.

He said the Pakatan Rakyat was informed that the EC had been told they would be given the inflated budget next year, which is nearly eight times more than this year's budget of RM35 million.

Why was this not included in the budget? Is it for elections? Our Defence Minister may know, he is smiling as if he knows something, Anwar said when debating the Budget 2011 in Parliament today.

The PKR adviser stressed that the government must clarify whether or not the EC's budget has indeed been increased, and if true, urged the MACC to monitor the situation to keep tabs on the situation.

Anwar, who was formerly Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, also attacked the government for the recent announcement of a RM5 billion 100-storey tower project in the city, calling it the return to the era of wasteful mega projects that bring no benefit to the man on the street.

He pointed out that it was strange for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to announce the new tower project in his budget last Friday, as such mega project announcements would be reserved for the five-year Malaysia Plans.

He noted that since Najib took over the federal administratio! n, there has been an unhealthy expansion of centralised control by the Prime Minister's Department, indicating that either the premier does not trust the ministers he appointed to do their jobs or he wants to have more power.

Anwar said despite Najib's repeated pronouncements of transparency, the government's aversion to open tenders only proves that the BN government is finding it hard to change old habits.

When he travels overseas, he speaks of transparency in the government but when he comes back, they go back to their old ways of robbery. There is no guarantee of transparency when they talk of mega projects.

To quote (18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques) Rousseau, the rush to show the greatness of their empire is a sign of their collapse... we pray it is so, he said to thumps of approval from the opposition bench.
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Anwar: Join me, BN is turning into a Blackhole now !

Anwar says big projects sign of BN’s imminent fall

By Clara Chooi

October 18, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 18 – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim attacked the Najib administration for going down the mega projects track to boost the economy, saying BN’s obsession with “grandeur” marks its imminent fall.

“The government’s excitement to display grandeur, that will be the sign of the fall of their empire. We will pray for this,” the Opposition Leader (picture) told the august House in his debate speech on Budget 2011 in Parliament this morning.

Opposition lawmakers in the House thumped on their tables in rapturous response.

“This rush for symbolic mega projects, supposedly to portray pride for the country, is being repeated now under the present Prime Minister.

“Here I would like to question the wisdom of Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s order from the government to involve itself in mega projects,” he said.

Anwar was referring to the 100-storey Warisan Merdeka skyscraper proposal by the government which is expected to cost over RM5 billion for construction.

When completed, it is to be the tallest building in Malaysia, surpassing even the Petronas Twin Towers. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had unveiled the government’s plans for the structure when tabling Budget 2011 last Friday, along with a slew of other mega-projects set to stimulate the country’s economy.

“The construction cost of the Twin Towers already took about RM6 billion. This is not inclusive of the land cost of RM900 million, KLCC park RM200 million, the Petronas Philharmonic hall RM500 million and the district cooling gas plant RM300 million.

“The total cost was more than RM10 billion and even then, it is not inclusive of the maintenance cost of RM250 million annually. Is this a pride of the nation? Do we need another 100-story tower in Malaysia?” he questioned.

The RM5 billion proposed for Warisan Merdeka project, Anwar pointed out, could go for the construction of at least 1,667 more schools, at a cost of RM3 million each.

“But no, that is not important. What is more important is this show of grandiose,” he jibed.

Anwar said the projects under Budget 2011 did not give consideration to the frame of the country’s current economic standing and the need to lower the budget deficit and improve competitiveness.

“It is a project to show how great we are through mammoth projects,” he continued.

He pointed out that among all countries in Asean, Malaysia was the only one to record a “negative inflow”.

Malaysia’s foreign direct investment, he said, dropped 81 per cent from RM23.47 billion in 2008 to RM4.43 billion in 2009, in comparison with Thailand which recorded an FDI of RM19.01 billion and Indonesia with RM19.08 billion.

“This is the lowest FDI in 20 years, except in 2001 when we recorded an FDI of RM1.54 billion,” he said.

This failure, he pointed out, showed a desperate need for change in the management of the country’s economy from the aspect of good governance and improving its competitive edge.

Anwar pointed out that lessons from failed projects of the past, specifically during the era of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had proven that the mega-project playbook was not successful.

He raised the government’s proposed RM40 billion Kuala Lumpur MRT project, questioning if it would go the way of the Star-Putra LRT project, which saw losses of nearly RM6 billion.

“In 1999, the government was forced to inject RM600 million to Star through the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). The government also allowed both Star and Putra to continue operations although they were ridden with mismanagement problems.

“In 2001, the government confirmed it would take over Putra and Star by issuing bonds worth RM8 billion. Since March that year, both companies faced losses of RM5.5 billion,” he reminded.

Despite this, Anwar pointed out, the government had given a green light for the MRT project to Gamuda-MMC to manage without an open bidding process.

“Our worry now is – will the MRT project result in more leakages and corrupt practices like before and bring benefits to cronies and hefty losses to the people?” he said

Anwar also took a stab at the Najib administration for appointing the government’s strategic development company 1 Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) to develop the multi-billion ringgit Kuala Lumpur International Financial District together with Abu Dhabi’s investment firm Mubadala Development Company.

He revealed that according to checks with the Companies Commission of Malaysia on October 14 this year, 1MDB did not even have a registered business address and had not yet appointed an auditor.

“Despite this, its CEO reported on October 12 that 1MDB had recorded profits of RM425 million, coincidentally just days before the Prime Minister tabled the budget,” Anwar pointed out, adding that the company’s ability to handle the RM26 billion mega-project was suspect.

Anwar: UMNO gets $250M for polls, what about us ?

Anwar claims EC’s getting RM250m budget for snap polls

By Clara Chooi

October 18, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 18 – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim alleged today that the Election Commission had received a whopping RM250 million budget for next year, questioning if this was in preparation for the 13th general election.

The Opposition Leader (picture) told Parliament when debating the Budget 2011 that “inside sources” had informed him of this and demanded for an explanation from the government.

“We received information, and I would like to know the truth, that EC has been told that a RM250 million allocation has been prepared for it for next year’s expenditure.

“This is unlike the figures given by the Finance Minister that the commission was only allocated RM35 million,” he said.

PUBLIC FORUM: BUDGET 2011 – CHANGE OR CONTINUITY?

by Dr. Dzul

PUBLIC FORUM: BUDGET 2011 CHANGE OR CONTINUITY?

Date: 20 Oct 2010 (Wed)
Time: 8pm
Venue: Poolside Cove, Sunway Lagoon Club, No. 3, Jalan Lagoon Timur, Bandar Sunway

Speakers:

MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua
Chief Executive of Selangor Economic Advisory Office, Rafizi Ramli
MP for Klang, Charles Santiago
MP for Kuala Selangor, Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad
Political analyst Dr. Ong Kian Ming

Organiser/moderator:

Office of State Assemblywoman for Subang Jaya, Hannah Yeoh

Admission: Free

Mahathir - Dictatorship or authoritarian govt. better.....

Dictatorships can be good for the people, said former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who himself has been accused of having an authoritarian brand of leadership.

One prime example of how dictatorships or authoritarian governments can work better than a democractically elected one, is China, said Mahathir.

"There is no democracy in China but the system of the government it has can bring lots of benefit to its people," he said, adding that the change of leadership there is more peaceful than some democratic countries who change leaders in uprisings every few years.

source:malaysiakini



Sedikit sebanyak aku setuju dengan Mahathir pasal cara pemerintahan China Komunis. Tapi, sekiranya Mahathir dan penyamun2 UMNO berada di bawah pentadbiran China Komunis, dah lama dah Mahathir dan penyamun2 UMNO ini masuk lokap atau digantung atau ditembak sampai mampauih kerana mengamalkan rasuah,salah guna kuasa,nepotisma,kronisma dsbnya.

Sekira nasihat Mahathir diterima,supaya Malaysia amalkan cara pemerintahan China Komunis,mahukah Najib melaksanakan hukuman gantung dan tembak sampai mati bagi perasuah2 yang majoritinya orang UMNO? Sedangkan hukum hudud pun UMNO tolak?

Apa yang beza antara model kerajaan China Komunis dan Gomen Malaysia ialah China Komunis sanggup tembak dan gantung mereka yang rasuah,termasuk ahli parti, sedangkan gomen Malaysia menggalakkan rasuah secara leluasa di kalangan ahli2 UMNO. Kes2 profile tinggi melibat jerung2 besar UMNO semuanya ditutup dan dicop NFA(no further action)...

Kalau pemerintahan cara diktator ala China Komunis itu baik seperti kata Mahathir, kenapa sistem diktator yang sama g! agal di Burma,Korea Utara,
Zimbabwe dan Pakistan?

cheers.
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

NOT GOOD ENOUGFH ... Racist school heads already transferred out,

Racist school heads already transferred out, says Nazri

Nazri - better late than never when asked why the delay

KUALA LUMPUR - Two school principals who uttered racist remarks were "suspended immediately" pending investigations, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said.

"The principal from SMK Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai, was transferred to the Johor state education department while the principal from SM Bukit Selambau, Sungai Petani was transferred to the Kuala Muda district education office," he said in Parliament, adding that both were transferred on Aug 23.

He was replying to a question from Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan) on the action taken against the school principals who made racist remarks.

When Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) asked why action was delayed against the two, Mohamed Nazri said it was "better late than never."

He said this was the first time action was being taken against a civil servant for making racist statements, "so such things will take time".

He added that for the case in Kulai, there were many witnesses as the racist remark was made in a school assembly.

"The investigating officers had to take down the witness statements. We needed to investigate thoroughly to build a strong case and not one that can flip-flop," Mohamed Nazri said. - Star

PAS has finalized Galas candidate, to name on Wednesday

KUALA TERENGGANU - PAS has picked its candidate for the Galas by-election in Kelantan, and will announce his name soon.

Party secretary general Datuk Mustafa Ali said today that PAS Harian, which is in charge of the daily running of the party, had on behalf of the central committee decided on the cadidate unanimously.

The name of the candidate, chosen from a list of six, would be passed to PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat tomorrow for him to make public, Mustafa told reporters here.

He said the date for naming the candidate has yet to be decided, but the party is believed to be planning to reveal its choice on Wednesday.

Mustafa said the candidate for the state seat in the Gua Musang parliamentary constituenccy was a local party leader who had never held an elected office.

The by-election follows the death of PAS assemblyman on Chek Hashim Sulaima, 46, on September 27. Nomination day is October 26 while polling is set for November 4.

Mustafa conceded that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, the Barisan Nasional director of election for Galas, was a man of influence in Gua Musang, but ádded: “This will not necessarily translate into votes.”

He said the decision of the Election Commission to hold polling for Galas and Batu Sapi in Sabah on the same day would benefit Barisan because of the coalition’s “superior logistics”. – Bernama

Anwar: Najib's penchant for grandiose wastage will mark BN's fall

Anwar - reckless spending will doom BN

KUALA LUMPUR – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim attacked the Najib administration for going down the mega projects track to boost the economy, saying BN’s obsession with “grandeur” marks its imminent fall.

“The government’s excitement to display grandeur, that will be the sign of the fall of their empire. We will pray for this,” the Opposition Leader told the august House in his debate speech on Budget 2011 in Parliament this morning.

Opposition lawmakers in the House thumped on their tables in rapturous response.

“This rush for symbolic mega projects, supposedly to portray pride for the country, is being repeated now under the present Prime Minister.

“Here I would like to question the wisdom of Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s order from the government to involve itself in mega projects,” he said.

Anwar was referring to the 100-storey Warisan Merdeka skyscraper proposal by the government which is expected to cost over RM5 billion for construction.

When completed, it is to be the tallest building in Malaysia, surpassing even the Petronas Twin Towers. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had unveiled the government’s plans for the structure when tabling Budget 2011 last Friday, along with a slew of other mega-projects set to stimulate the country’s economy.

“The construction cost of the Twin Towers already took about RM6 billion. This is not inclusive of the land cost of RM900 million, KLCC park RM200 million, the Petronas Philharmonic hall RM500 million and the district cooling gas plant RM300 million.

“The total cost was more than RM10 billion and even then, it is not inclusive of the maintenance cost of RM250 million annually. Is this a pride of the nation? Do we need another 100-story tower in Malaysia?” he questioned.

The RM5 billion proposed for Warisan Merdeka project, Anwar pointed out, could go for the construction of at least 1,667 more schools, at a cost of RM3 million each.

“But no, that is not important. What is more important is this show of grandiose,” he jibed.

Anwar said the projects under Budget 2011 did not give consideration to the frame of the country’s current economic standing and the need to lower the budget deficit and improve competitiveness.

“It is a project to show how great we are through mammoth projects,” he continued.

He pointed out that among all countries in Asean, Malaysia was the only one to record a “negative inflow”.

Malaysia’s foreign direct investment, he said, dropped 81 per cent from RM23.47 billion in 2008 to RM4.43 billion in 2009, in comparison with Thailand which recorded an FDI of RM19.01 billion and Indonesia with RM19.08 billion.

“This is the lowest FDI in 20 years, except in 2001 when we recorded an FDI of RM1.54 billion,” he said.

This failure, he pointed out, showed a desperate need for change in the management of the country’s economy from the aspect of good governance and improving its competitive edge.

Anwar pointed out that lessons from failed projects of the past, specifically during the era of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had proven that the mega-project playbook was not successful.

He raised the government’s proposed RM40 billion Kuala Lumpur MRT project, questioning if it would go the way of the Star-Putra LRT project, which saw losses of nearly RM6 billion.

“In 1999, the government was forced to inject RM600 million to Star through the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). The government also allowed both Star and Putra to continue operations although they were ridden with mismanagement problems.

“In 2001, the government confirmed it would take over Putra and Star by issuing bonds worth RM8 billion. Since March that year, both companies faced losses of RM5.5 billion,” he reminded.

Despite this, Anwar pointed out, the government had given a green light for the MRT project to Gamuda-MMC to manage without an open bidding process.

“Our worry now is – will the MRT project result in more leakages and corrupt practices like before and bring benefits to cronies and hefty losses to the people?” he said

Anwar also took a stab at the Najib administration for appointing the government’s strategic development company 1 Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) to develop the multi-billion ringgit Kuala Lumpur International Financial District together with Abu Dhabi’s investment firm Mubadala Development Company.

He revealed that according to checks with the Companies Commission of Malaysia on October 14 this year, 1MDB did not even have a registered business address and had not yet appointed an auditor.

“Despite this, its CEO reported on October 12 that 1MDB had recorded profits of RM425 million, coincidentally just days before the Prime Minister tabled the budget,” Anwar pointed out, adding that the company’s ability to handle the RM26 billion mega-project was suspect. - Malaysian Insider

Anwar queries Najib on alleged RM250mil budget for EC

Najib - closely watched by Anwar

In his debate speech on Budget 2011, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim point-blank asks Prime Minister Najib Razak if it was true that the annual allocation for the Election Commission has been raised to a whopping RM250 million from RM35 million this year.

“Why was this not included in the budget? Is it for elections?" asked Anwar

(Malaysiakini) - Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim queried the government over allegations that the Election Commission's budget will be bumped up to RM250 million next year.

He said the Pakatan Rakyat was “informed” that the EC had been told they would be given the inflated budget next year, which is nearly eight times more than this year's budget of RM35 million.

“Why was this not included in the budget? Is it for elections? Our Defence Minister may know, he is smiling as if he knows something,” Anwar said when debating the Budget 2011 in Parliament today.

The PKR adviser stressed that the government must clarify whether or not the EC's budget has indeed been increased, and if true, urged the MACC to monitor the situation to keep tabs on the situation.

Anwar, who was formerly Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, also attacked the government for the recent announcement of a RM5 billion 100-storey tower project in the city, calling it the return to the era of wasteful mega projects that bring no benefit to the man on the street.

He pointed out that it was strange for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to announce the new tower project in his budget last Friday, as such mega project announcements would be reserved for the five-year Malaysia Plans.

He noted that since Najib took over the federal administration, there has been an unhealthy expansion of centralised control by the Prime Minister's Department, indicating that either the premier does not trust the ministers he appointed to do their jobs or he wants to have more power.

Anwar said despite Najib's repeated pronouncements of transparency, the government's aversion to open tenders only proves that the BN government is finding it hard to change old habits.

“When he travels overseas, he speaks of transparency in the government but when he comes back, they go back to their old ways of robbery. There is no guarantee of transparency when they talk of mega projects.

“To quote (18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques) Rousseau, the rush to show the greatness of their empire is a sign of their collapse... we pray it is so,” he said to thumps of approval from the opposition bench.

I did it my way

The Tiananmen Square revolt was soon enough quelled but China realised that it could not ignore what the people want. So they decided to allow economic reforms as long as the people stay out of politics and do not call for political reforms as well.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dictatorships can be good for the people, said former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who himself has been accused of having an authoritarian brand of leadership.

Taking such accusations on the chin, Mahathir, who was addressing an international forum at the Putra World Trade Centre today, cheekily said: "Malaysia is said to be ruled by a dictator for 22 years. I enjoyed it."

"But at least we made some progress. This building was not even here (before my time)," he said.

Besides being accused of governing with an iron grip, Malaysia's longest serving prime minister was alleged to have played a part in channeling taxpayers' money to partly finance the construction of Umno-owned PWTC.

One prime example of how dictatorships or authoritarian governments can work better than a democratically elected one, is China, said Mahathir.

"There is no democracy in China but the system of the government it has can bring lots of benefit to its people," he said, adding that the change of leadership there is more peaceful than some democratic countries who change leaders in uprisings every few years.

In his speech, the veteran politician also lambasted his most severe critics from the developed nations, branding them hypocrites for trying to champion democracy.

Referring to the US-led war on Iraq, which was later justified as a means to spread democracy, Mahathir cuttingly said: "Maybe in the afterlife (the dead) can experience democracy but dead people won't enjoy it much." -- Malaysiakini

***********************************************

Some say that Tun Dr Mahathir’s favourite song is ‘My Way’. Others tell me that this is not really Dr Mahathir’s favourite song but happens to be the only song that he can sing. I suppose I can say the same about myself. I sing Elvis Presley’s song ‘In the Ghetto’ because that is the only song I can sing.

Anyway, ‘My Way’ has somehow become synonymous with Dr Mahathir. And we must certainly admit that he looks at things his way, which may not always be the correct way of seeing it.

However, one must be able to read between the lines of what Dr Mahathir says. When asked about his favourite football team he replied that he does not like football and does not see why 22 players should chase one ball all over the football field. Just buy them all one ball each, he quipped.

First of all, only 20 players chase the ball. The other two guard the goal. Secondly, these 20 players chase the ball not because they want to own the ball. So buying them one ball each will not solve the ‘problem’. They chase the ball to see who can control the only one ball and then shoot it into the goal. It is almost like politics where so many people ‘chase’ the only one position at the very top, the post of Prime Minister. Do we solve the problem by creating 65 positions of Prime Minister so that all 65 can become Prime Ministers without them all having to ‘chase’ the position?

When asked about golf, Dr Mahathir again quipped that he does not see the logic of chasing the small ball all over the golf course when the ball was with you in the first place.

Was Dr Mahathir being serious or was he being cheeky? Seeing that many Malaysia Today readers do not recognise tongue-in-cheek or sarcasm even if it bit them in the butt they would probably take Dr Mahathir’s replies at ‘face value’.

Anyway, I would like to reply to what Dr Mahathir said about dictatorships being good for economic growth. And he used China as an example of a good dictatorship. Dr Mahathir also made a sarcastic remark about the invasion of Iraq, which removed the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Dr Mahathir probably feels that Saddam was good for the people of Iraq.

Have we forgotten how many of his own citizens Saddam murdered? Entire villages were gassed and women and children were not spared. This was ethnic cleansing of the highest degree. Is the economy more important than people’s lives? This appears to be what Dr Mahathir is saying -- the economy comes first and people’s lives is not that crucial.

I started going to China just before it became an 'economic miracle'. This was not long after the Tiananmen incident and I made about ten trips to China in all. I visited not only the major cities but also many rural parts of China where no Malaysian has ever visited before. Some places I visited did not even have proper roads or train service and I had to ride on the back of a lorry to get there.

So I saw how China ‘exploded’ from ‘ground zero’. I also visited Pudong and went up the tower even as it was still being built and before it was opened to public. I was the guest of the Shanghai provincial government and the most exciting thing about those trips was probably being able to ride around in a military car where all the traffic was stopped so that we could pass. We did not even have to stop for the red light. I can’t do that in Malaysia even with my ‘royal status’.

To understand the ‘Chinese miracle’ you have to study Deng Xiaoping. He was the man who said: never mind if it is a black cat or a white cat as long as the cat catches a mouse. This means never mind whether it is Communism or Capitalism as long as the economy grows. Dr Mahathir says almost the same thing: never mind whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy as long as the economy grows.

But how did China grow? And was it China or Pudong that grew? And is the development of China spread evenly throughout China or is it concentrated only along the East Coast, the Shanghai-Pudong region in particular?

First of all, the entire area of Pudong is 467 square miles and it has a population of 4 million. Shanghai’s land area is 2,717 square miles and it has a population of 20 million. China’s land area is 3,600,950 square miles and it has a population of 1.4 billion. Malaysia’s land area is 127,354 square miles and it has a population of 27 million.

So, are we comparing apples to apples? Are we comparing China to Malaysia or are we comparing Pudong to Shah Alam? It is not fair to compare Pudong to Malaysia and say that Pudong is proof that China’s dictatorship is better than a democracy.

The next point I am trying to make is: is it Communism or the dictatorship that resulted in the ‘Chinese miracle’ or is it due to the size of that country? We must understand that China is one of the oldest civilisations in the world but only over the last 20 years since 1990 have we seen this country ‘explode’. Why is it what happened over the last 20 years could not happen over 3,500 years before that?

It all started in Tiananmen Square in 1989, ten years after the Islamic Revolution of Iran. Now, we must remember, that same year, 1989, Boris Yeltsin introduced economic and political reforms known as Perestroika. Encouraged by what happened in Russia, the Chinese activists decided to push for the same in China.

The Tiananmen Square revolt was soon enough quelled but China realised that it could not ignore what the people want. So they decided to allow economic reforms as long as the people stay out of politics and do not call for political reforms as well.

That was the beginning of ‘The Great Leap Froward version 2’.

But the Tiananmen Square revolt was not really the cause of these reforms. It may have accelerated the reforms but China was already on the road to economic reforms even earlier.

In November 1978, Deng visited Singapore and met up with its Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who advised Deng to open up the country and institute reforms, as well as to stop exporting Communist ideologies to other Southeast Asian countries. Deng was so impressed by Singapore's ‘economic miracle’ that he listened to Lee and upon returning home he opened up China to the world.

Under Deng's direction, relations with the West improved remarkably. Deng travelled abroad and had a series of meetings with western leaders and became the first Chinese leader to visit the United States in 1979 where he met up with President Carter. Shortly before this meeting, the U.S. had broken diplomatic relations with Taiwan and established them with the People's Republic of China.

It took another ten years before the ambitious plan to develop Pudong was mooted. And Singapore played a very crucial role in the Pudong blueprint.

What I want to stress here is that first of all, China grew when it decided to upon the country to the world. Secondly, Singapore played a crucial role in advising China on what to do. Thirdly, the development in Pudong or Shanghai may be impressive but this does not mean that in the rest of China the roads are also paved with gold.

Can we say that just because Kuala Lumpur has the most number of Mercedes Benz E Class cars in SEA then this means the entire Malaysia is rich? There are still many Malaysians in the rural parts of Kelantan, Terengganu, Sabah, Sarawak, etc., who do not even have water or electricity supply.

Let’s look at some statistics below. If China’s growth is so great, and if it is because it is a dictatorship that it has grown, why is the GDP per capita for China so much lower than that of Pudong? The figures below clearly show that the wealth of China is concentrated in only a small part of China and not spread evenly around the entire country.

In fact, Malaysia’s GDP per capita is more than double that of China. However, if you look at Pudong’s GDP per capita, it is higher than Malaysia’s. So maybe Malaysia should go meet Lee Kuan Yew and appoint Singapore as our economic adviser. Then we shall really see Malaysia ‘fly’. And further proof would be to look at Singapore’s GDP per capita. It is even higher than Britain’s.

Maybe we should not have sent the British home and declared Merdeka in 1957. If economic growth is all that matters and if it does not matter whether it is a white cat or a black cat as long as it catches a mouse then Malaysia would be better off as a British colony just as long as we see the country’s economy grow in leaps and bounds.

Historical GDP of the People's Republic of China versus India

Pudong's gross domestic product for 2008 amounts to an estimated US$53.98 billion, roughly equal to that of Slovenia. Its GDP per capita is therefore around US$16,938.

China's gross domestic product for 2008 amounts to an estimated US$45.22 billion. Its GDP per capita is therefore around US$3,414.

Malaysia's gross domestic product for 2010 amounts to an estimated US$213.21 billion. Its GDP per capita is therefore around US$7,547.

Singapore's gross domestic product for 2009 amounts to an estimated US$177.13 billion. Its GDP per capita is therefore around US$37,293.

Britain's gross domestic product for 2009 amounts to an estimated US$2,183.13 billion. Its GDP per capita is therefore around US$32,798.

cakap cakap...Warisan Merdeka Tower and other thoughts!

As Malaysia descends from being a failed state into what we could possible be termed as stage four of our its terminal farce as a nation I can only shake my head in amazement at the antics of Barisan Nasional as it lurches from one lunatic shambles to another.

I do not see how Pakatan Rakyat can responsibly take a position against a Barisan Government that is hell bent on building a 100-storey “supertall” Warisan Merdeka tower because “it is good for the country, as it would create economic opportunities!”

Seriously folks how can Pakatan Rakyat counter this kind of logic? Logic? Yes logic according to Najib and Mahathir! Is it not logically that building a RM5 billion structure will create jobs and give business to many sub contractors and suppliers of building materials? Not to mention money in Barisan Nasional politicians pocket? I SAY NOT TO MENTION THAT! …sorry lah.

You cannot fault Mahathir’s logic too …he said “What is interesting for me is that money is being spent to build this tower. When you spend money, then you create jobs, you create opportunities for doing business,” he said today.

“I don’t know if it should be a 100-storey tower or not but spending money is good.” Yes Sir spending money for greedy Barisan Politicians people to profit from is good. And you must not forget that Gordon Gecko said, “ Greed is Good”…how come you did not quote that?

Every week without fail these Barisan Nasional politicians comes out with something that will whack us again and again - and how much more can we take when we are already being pummeled by other massive “business and economic opportunities”. All these opportunities coming in at us at lightning speed and knocking us senseless!

Please Najib…please stop creating these business and economic opportunities for us…just take the money and put it straight into your pockets..that way no money is wasted on projects that fails –money goes straight to UMNO politicians!

And then just as we are about to stagger to our corner to prepare ourselves for the next bruising and punishing round we are again hit below the belt with this: “We can reveal that Malaysia’s RHB Bank has just lent Raziah Mahmud, the Chief Minister’s sister and her second husband, Robert Geneid, a whopping RM 880 million ringgit!”

Why do you want me to be bothered about the basis that loan was granted? I am still trying to work out in my head Khir Toyo’s spending while he was Mentri Besar. I am still trying to come to grips with the billions lost via PKFZ! And of course Najib’s was spending our ringgit as if it was going out of style while he was Minister of Defense. Then the costs of Putrajaya, KLIA and KLCC – all in billions of ringgits – not millions. Then there is Greater Kuala Lumpur…etc etc etc.

At least we can lay claim to the fact that the Barisan Nasional Government is a high spending government even if our nation will never reach the high-income nation status that Najib seems to want to take us to – with or without our agreement.

Najib you are judged by what you do – not what you say! Some men are born great some have greatness thrust upon them. Najib is hell bent on pursuing greatness even as greatness is running away from him at great speed in the opposite direction! They say no one has achieved greatness by playing it safe. Najib is certainly giving the phrase “not playing it safe” a new paradigm entirely.

To me what Najib is doing each day is simply stupid. While a genius does have its limit – stupidity is not bound by any boundaries! And he is well assisted when he has all the fools in the Barisan Nasional cabinet on his side. It would seems that you must be stupid, selfish and greedy to get anywhere in Barisan Nasional. In Najib’s case he seems to be endowed with all three! But the operative word here is stupid – breathtakingly stupid!.

Sometimes when I think of what we are up against I despair. I despair that Malay leaders can be so shallow in their thinking and their decision-making. They think the people of Malaysia are gullible and unable to work out in their head the rubbish that these Malay Leaders are dishing out. And what he has been saying to the UMNO club for retired senior government officers is a case in point. But first thing first.

The club president is Aseh Che Mat – this is the same guy who was prancing around on stage like a monkey on heat during the 2004 election with Pak Lah and other UMNO politicians who were celebrating their victory then. The same Aseh Che Mat who became “family’ to Pak Lah when preparation for KJ’s and Nori’s wedding was being planned. This is also the guy who was doing all he could to be KSN! And the guy who was ‘business minded’ enough to start preparing for his retirement while he was still a government servant…the same Aseh Che Mat who will carry the balls of anybody in power just so he could be with them!

But then for Najib it is any port in a storm! (Remember that Son of Ali!) These retired senior government officers must have served under Mahathir, Tun Hussein and Tun Razak. They are wise enough to know why Najib is speaking to them and why UMNO is so weak now. While in government they would have to toe the line of their political master but when in retirement their interest would be for the Malays and for their country more then for UMNO. Let us hope that common sense will prevail.

And now while all these new fangled ETP, Warisan Merdeka Tower, and the retired senior civil servants club are being mobilized to ‘contribute’ to the survival of UMNO, Najib wants to introduce a new political model to ensure UMNO continues to lead the nation.

This is more like it. Straight to the point…that UMNO will continue to lead the Nation! While he is talking about developments (the ETP, Warisan Merdeka Tower etc) he is playing it safe by advocating that the strategy of politics of development was no longer effective! In as far as Najib is concern these two statements are not contradictory! Sounds familiar? The same as 1 Malaysian and Ketuanan Malaysia are not contradictory! …but always he covers himself by saying “However, if we change and are seen as a fresh and dynamic party, God willing, the people's support for us will continue into the future”…that “GOD Willing” covers everything!

READ MORE HERE

THE BUDGET FOR 2011: eulogy for the new economic model and a relaunch of the Mahathir economic model

What is becoming clear is that the Government is embarked upon a dangerous path of massive borrowing and spending. The spending is directed and channeled towards projects and activities that will not contribute to either enhancing the productive or the competitive capacity of the economy. The key beneficiaries are likely to be a small coterie with links to the Barisan.

Lim Kit Siang

The Budget presented by the Prime Minister was a eulogy for the death of the New Economic Model. It provides a clear confirmation that this Government is incapable of living up to the rhetoric of reform that it had vigorously promoted over the past year.

The slogans and feel good speeches crafted by highly paid spin doctors have not been translated into clear action programs. The divided and weak BN Government remains mired and has now demonstrated its inability to deliver upon its promises of change.

The Budget marks the return to failed economic policies of the past. The Mahathir Economic Model built around mega projects, crony capitalists as key players, bailouts and handouts is once again alive and returns to haunt the nation.

The Budget yet again demonstrates that this administration is incorrigibly incapable of drawing lessons from the past and persists with policies that have entrapped Malaysia in the middle income trap.

The Budget for 2011 has all of the attributes of a blunt tool for distributing public funds to UMNOputras, BN cronies, and vested groups that constitute the vote bank of the Barisan.

The distribution of public resources is to be achieved by way of granting mega projects to UMNOputras and cronies, new and additional perks to the 1.2 million public servants and party hacks that feed at the public trough.

The timing is indeed not a coincidence as it is ahead of the impending General Election. In brief, the Budget is more than just a throwback to the discredited Mahathir era of mega projects, bailouts, piratization of public assets and rampant corruption.

The Budget will not only return the nation to that tragic era of bad governance but put it on a path to economic disaster in the medium term.

Underlying Budget Strategy

The Budget provides in rather stark terms confirmation of the fact that the Prime Minister is indeed consistent.

After having used the technique of dishing out grants and “projects” in recent by-elections in a desperate attempt to win, he is now resorting to the use of the same methods to win the GE 13.

The only difference is that what was practiced at a “retail” level is now being translated into a “wholesale” activity to blatantly buy the next election.

The announcement of multiple mega projects with little economic rationale, and the handing out of perks to particular constituencies and interest groups is nothing but a magnified and enlarged game plan to win the next election at all costs. Party interest is placed ahead of the national interest.

The Prime Minister stated in his speech that the “era of Government knows best is over” and referred to the so-called consultations in the formulation of the Budget. These consultations were nothing but process-driven and largely concentrated on the identification and confirmation of projects of benefit to UMNOputras and BN cronies.

No consultations were held with the State Governments. Neither the BN nor the Pakatan state governments were engaged in a dialogue, giving a lie to the statement that the Federal Government no longer takes the position that it knows best.

The much promoted NEAC analysis and recommended policy reforms under the rubric of the New Economic Model have been totally ignored in the formulation of the budget for 2011. Indeed, the only reference to the NEM is in this preamble to the speech.

The Budget presented on Oct 15th is singularly silent on the issue of key reforms needed to restore competitiveness, provide the basis for the private sector to assume the lead role in spearheading economic growth and transformation, and place Malaysia on a path that would permit it to escape the middle income trap by the end of the next decade.

Recent Economic Performance & Prospects

In the formulation of the Budget for 2011, the Prime Minister made the claim that the Malaysian economy had recovered from the global economic recession.

In an act of self congratulation, he attributed this to the proactive measures taken by the Government through the RM 67 billion stimulus package. He however failed to acknowledge that other countries in the region had performed equally well or even exceeded Malaysian performance.

The statistics he cited refer to the short term and are soothing. However, he made no mention of the challenging issues that will determine the medium term performance of the nation’s economy.

He appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia about the need to address the issue of subsidies and to achieve fiscal balance.

He appears to have chosen to sweep under the carpet the entire issue of needed fiscal and structural reforms which were highlighted by the International Monetary Fund during the 2010 annual Article IV consultations.

The consultations had stressed the need to take steps to support the recovery and the priorities for structural reforms over the medium term. On the issue of Fiscal Policy, the Fund argued that “budgetary gains would prove transitory, however, if the broader agenda of fiscal reforms remains unfinished.”

The IMF report touched on the various steps announced by the Government – the 1Malaysia program, the Government Transformation Program, the Economic Transformation Program built on the New Economic Model, (NEM) and the Tenth Malaysia Plan, (10MP).

It is most significant that the IMF was blunt in stating its assessment. It stated: “Development policies have been dressed in rhetoric before but the sense of urgency seems higher now than in the past.” This is a rather remarkable and blunt statement and points to a question about the credibility of the Government.

The Prime Minister projected optimism about growth prospects in the year ahead based on the recovery in the global economy coupled with private investment and consumption expanding by 10.2% and 6.3% respectively.

These assumptions are highly speculative when account is taken of the continuing fears about a double-dip in the global economy.

The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the IMF’s assessments. The Fund in its report is pessimistic about a pronounced recovery in the year ahead in private investment, given still unused capacity. The Fund had noted that capital expenditure of public enterprises is expected to pick up.

Thus, the prognosis is for government induced investment rather than the private sector providing the impetus for growth. These trends are indicative of the fact that public investment is likely to be the dominant factor as in the past.

It is significant that the Prime Minister did not deal with the issue of declining FDI flows and how he proposes to reverse these trends.

Looking ahead, the IMF report mades the following comment: “The outlook for the medium term depends on the scope and speed of the government’s own economic transformation program”.

Further comments in the report suggest that the Fund does not have much confidence in full and speedy implementation of reform measures. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Fund sees the external imbalance reflecting impediments to investment and high precautionary savings, which current policies address only partially.

The ostrich-like approach adopted by the Government in reacting to these issues in the formulation of the Budget for 2011 is further magnified by the fact that no attempt has been made to acknowledge the critical issues the economy faces, inter alia : continued weaknesses in FDI flows, significant capital flight, loss of human capital and policy paralysis brought about by the demands of reactionary vested interest groups opposed to reforms.

In his speech, the Prime Minister stated: “To attain developed nation status, we cannot remain complacent. We must change our mindset. Business is not as usual. Success demands drastic changes, not incremental. It requires a quantum leap. The choice before us is clear. Change is not an option but an imperative. We must change or risk being left behind.”

These are fine words. There can be no disagreement with this statement. However, the speech offers no evidence of this rhetoric being transformed (to use a rather fashionable term that has entered the Government’s lexicon) into actionable programs.

The Prime Minister, for instance, has gone totally silent on the issue of subsidies and the broadening of the tax base and gaining control over unsustainable budget deficits.

Indeed, new subsidies and numerous handouts have been incorporated into the Budget.The Government has yet again ignored the opportunity to seriously address the need for measures that would result in economies that would result from improved procurement as well as cuts in discretionary spending and transfers.

In a speech of 34 pages there is not a single reference to these issues. It is appropriate to ask: Why this deafening silence? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s rhetoric about not being caught in the business-as-usual syndrome?

The report made the following pointed criticisms of Government fiscal policies:

• “Fiscal risks in Malaysia have grown over the years. Policy has been pro-cyclical in good times, setting the stage for unprecedented deficits when budget support was necessary during the crisis. Increased dependence on oil revenue further undermines the public finances.”

• “Consolidation is needed to reconstitute room for maneuver and forestall market concerns”.

• “Budgetary gains will prove transitory, however, if the broader agenda of fiscal reforms remains unfinished.”

• “Savings can be achieved by rationalizing subsidies and tax structures. Political realities suggest that subsidy reform needs to be gradual but sustained. The sooner it starts the better. The broad approach under consideration—centered on periodic reductions of key subsidies with compensatory cash transfers to the most vulnerable groups—seems broadly appropriate, provided that reform fatigue does not set in.”

It is legitimate to ask the Prime Minister how and when he proposes to deal with these issues.

The Pivotal Role of the Private Sector

Much was made in the ETP presentation about reinvigorating private investment, with 92% of the total projected investment of US$444 being investment by the private sector. These expressions are repeated in the Budget Speech. However no details have been provided as to how this target is to be achieved.

The speech tantalizingly offers the suggestion that the Government will intensify the Public-Private Partnership to “… enhance private sector involvement in economic activities” To this end the Government proposes to invest RM 1 billion from the Facilitation Fund in support of several infrastructure projects.

On the one hand the formulation is built upon the notion that the private sector will be unleashed; and yet the ETP is in reality a top down creation. PEMANDU is seemingly picking “winners” and it would imply that Malaysia is about to embark upon a new form of central planning to get to highly untenable targets.

The approach contradicts the very notion that the private sector will be freed to make investment decisions without interference from the Government. A grave omission in the ETP is the singular lack of an articulation of changes in the policy regime to arrest corruption, increase competitiveness and transparency in procurements, introduce meaningful safety net programs, rationalize labor market policies including the adoption of a minimum wage policy and the abolition of anti-competitive measures, e.g. APs.

The PPP modality appears to be a thinly-disguised mechanism to overcome certain obstacles. The mechanism will enable GLCs and crony corporations to gain approval of mega projects. These entities will then receive government guarantees (as in the case of the PKFZ project) to borrow from the government controlled commercial banks and other financial institutions such as the EPF and Khazanah Nasional . It is patently clear that even the largest private sector firms are not in a position to go ahead with the projected mega projects on their own.

The private sector investment program has been woefully inadequate. Private investment grew only 2 per cent on average between 2006 and 2010 but is projected to be 10.8 per cent of GDP this year and 11.3 per cent of GDP next year The so-called private sector driven investment remains a mirage; it is the GLCs and crony corporations that will be the main players acting on behalf of the Government. This is akin to a ponzi scheme and the end result will be the Government assuming large off budget contingent liabilities. These hidden liabilities will permit the Government to claim that the budget deficit is under control.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no intent to adopt a true New Economic Model. The path being taken, to put it simply, is one that represents a return to the era of mega infrastructure and “feel good” projects undertaken by the Government in an indirect manner via GLCs and crony corporations.

Much has been made of several mega projects. The MRT project, projected to cost RM 40 billion, will if the past is any guide, cost considerably more with massive cost overruns. This will indeed be the case in respect of all of the other construction and infrastructure projects.

Again based on history, the operators of the system will receive firm government guarantees or be subsidized from public funds. Much the same can be said about the Hi-Speed Rail link to Singapore. It is highly questionable that there is an established economic viability for the project. The Sungei Buloh project represents yet another construction project that will utilize public funds and contribute to further congestion in the Klang Valley.

The Warisan Merdeka development scheme has been much derided by the public. It represents a gross misuse of much needed capital. This together with other commercial development of real estate in the Klang Valley will inevitably create a huge glut in real estate space. Asset bubbles of these kinds inevitably lead to crisises.

Revitalization of the financial sector will demand more than what the Prime Minister outlined. It is time for privatization of banks. The sector is dominated by government owned banks thus permitting directed lending to GLCs and friends of the BN. Small and medium sized enterprises are disadvantaged. If the private sector is to prosper, finance for these SMEs is critical and yet the Budget makes little or no provision.

True divesting by GLCs is unlikely as the existing GLC holdings are shuffled around. A case in point is the deal associated with PLUS wherein EPF and Khazanah acquire the former.

The Prime Minister’s announcement that GLICs will increase investment in overseas markets is at odds with national objectives. The intent to increase the EPF’s overseas investments from 7% to 20% is a strong endorsement and official support for capital flight. It is illogical to send capital abroad at a time when resources are needed to upgrade the capacity of the domestic economy and improve its competitiveness.

The intent to enhance and upgrade the Electronics industry is laudable and long overdue. However, the approach taken is merely throwing money at the activity. This approach is unlikely to yield the desired outcome. What the industry needs is a strong injection of skilled workers.

As the domestic educational system is incapable of churning out a sufficient number of workers, and Malaysians acquiring such skills overseas are unwilling to return, the only option is to liberalize the hiring of high skilled foreign workers at internationally competitive wage rates.

It is time we emulate and learn from the practice of Silicon Valley firms who attracted skilled professionals from East and South Asia. It does appear that the Government has an overall and integrated policy. The much hyped Cyberjaya project continues to languish after more than a decade in part because of shortages of skills.

The Prime Minister announced a slew of tax concessions and incentives to advance the adoption of Green Technology. The practice of including tax and other incentives in the Budget has become an annual ritual.

If the past is any guide, there is hardly any assurance that investors are attracted into investing on the basis of such inducements. The overall investment climate, government policies, the creation of a competitive environment free of corruption constitute important factors that enter into investment decisions.

The failure to act upon these aspects is a negative factor that plays a major role in investment decisions. Furthermore, the fiscal cost of these incentives and tax breaks weighs heavily on fiscal stability. It is time that the Government reviews the entire strategy of giving generous incentives which do not have the requisite outcomes.

For invigorating the agricultural sector, vast sums are to be allocated. Here again, it is pertinent to ask why the public sector needs to intervene. This is inconsistent with the notion of letting the private sector taking a lead.

The multiplicity of expenditure proposals announced by the Prime Minister in sector after sector is indicative of the overwhelming role Government proposes to play. For instance the proposal to construct hotels and resorts in remote areas is clearly something the Government does not need to undertake. Such projects are best left to the private sector. An approach that leads to government interventions of this kind will stifle private sector initiatives and lead to the creation of a command economy overseen and managed by bureaucrats. These actions are clearly in contradiction to the highly trumpeted goals encompassed by the NEM that envisage the private sector leading the growth effort.

The intent to provide funding for replanting oil palm plantations and to support oleo derivatives is a highly questionable use of public financial resources. These allocations are tantamount to the provision of subsidies to producers or the granting of corporate welfare payments. By acting in this manner, the Government is placing Malaysia in danger of attracting WTO sanctions.

Among the other proposals that the Prime Minister unveiled, mention must be made of the intent to amend the Bankruptcy Act of 1967 by introducing “ … provision relating to relief mechanism for companies and individuals with financial problems.” This would appear to be an opening of the door for future bail outs for cronies of the BN.

Among the few tax measures announced in the Budget was the raising of the service tax from 5% to 6% and its application to television broadcasts. This sly tax effort is nothing but a meek effort to introduce the much debated GST by stealth. The Government appears to want its cake and eating it at the same time.

The announcement that toll charges on the PLUS operated highways shall be frozen appears generous to consumers on the face of it. In reality PLUS will continue to be compensated by the Government at the tax payers’ expense. The appropriate step that the Government needs to take is to renegotiate all existing toll concession agreements with the respective operators.

Human Capital Issues

The allocations announced in the Budget for human capital development are indeed impressive. However, the question arises if the nation will get value for its money. There can be no denial of the fact that the Malaysian educational system is in disarray.

Standards have fallen dramatically. Our universities turn out graduates who lack rudimentary skills demanded by employers thus contributing to low productivity and loss of competitiveness. Our secondary school system is in disastrous shape.

Those who are charged with educating the next generation of Malaysians to be responsible citizens are more interested in promoting race hate as recent episodes of misbehavior by teachers highlight.

The lack of an adequate reaction from the top echelons of the Government has sent a strong signal to others in the educational system to project the message of hate that BTN promotes with impunity. These despicable acts and patterns of behavior give credence to the notion that the 1Malaysia slogan is nothing more than a catchy slogan devoid of meaning or sincerity.

Creating a skilled, innovative and knowledgeable work force demands a major revamping of the existing system. The Prime Minister gave no indication that a rethinking is contemplated.

The fact that the country is entrapped in the middle income trap can in large measure be attributed to the fact that the current educational system and labor market policies have been inappropriate. It is clear that without a fundamental change in these areas the country faces the prospect of remaining a middle income country.

The Prime Minister made much of the fact that efforts are being made to attract Malaysians working abroad to return to the land of their birth. The establishment of a Talent Corporation has been announced with great fanfare. It is far from clear how and what it will do.

There is hardly any recognition of the fact that Malaysians migrate partly in search of a better quality of life and higher incomes. What is becoming increasingly evident is that race polarization and increasing intolerance are emerging as negative factors that encourage migration and discourage a return to Malaysia. It is most sobering to note that the Government has yet to acknowledge the need for addressing the root causes.

The Prime Minister made reference to the fact that 375 native English speaking teachers will be hired to enhance the teaching of English. This proposal is somewhat laughable as the number involved is minute in relation to the demand.

If the Prime Minister and his Deputy, the Minister for Education are sincere and acknowledge the role English plays in commerce and industry and the modernization process, there is a need to mount a crash program.

The Government should promptly hire 1000 lecturers to train existing secondary school teachers in the teaching of English as a second language. Other steps worthy of consideration would be to making a pass in English in the MCE a requirement; all undergraduates be required to pass a course in English.

Again large allocations have been made for programs for Intensifying Training and Skills. A new program (1Malaysia Training Program) has been added. There is no indication that these multiplicities of programs have had a favorable impact. There is a clear need to review and evaluate these programs and to ensure that they are effective in meeting new goals and objectives of national policies.

The proposed establishment of a National Wage Consultation Council as the main platform for wage determination represents a modest and belated attempt to bring greater equity in the determination of wages.

For far too long the Government has indulged in policies that favor employers. Its labor market policies favoring the inflow of low wage migrant labor have contributed to a suppression of wage levels and pushing many working Malaysians to below poverty income levels. These distortions have become serious and require rectification. Time will tell if the new Council will contribute to correcting these anomalies.

The ad hoc setting of wage levels for different occupations such as security guards, postmen etc that the Prime Minister cited raise an issue of equity. It is hard to rationalize why there should be different minima for different occupations and these minima are either close to or even below the poverty line. In setting a minimum wage, it is imperative that wage levels be not near or below the poverty line.

Budget expenditures

The Budget for the year ahead calls for an expenditure of RM 212 billion and is 2.8 percent higher than in 2010. There is however little doubt that the final outturn will exceed by a sizable margin the budgeted amount when customary Supplementary Allocations are taken into account. The projected reduction in the deficit to 5.4% from 5.6% is not likely to be met. It is also important to note that expenditure increases of the order of 2.8% are unrealistic when account is taken of likely inflation in the range of 2 to 2.5%. That expenditure in real terms will increase by only 1% stretches credibility to the limit.

It is to be noted that the expenditure proposals generously allocate funds to Federal Government controlled projects. The Prime Minister’s speech was eloquently silent on the amounts that are to be transferred to the various State Administrations. Federal revenue sharing in the face of major structural changes appears to be wholly ignored.

The revenue projections call for an increase of 2.3% in current price terms. Several comments are in order. Firstly, it is most odd that revenue growth will be slower than GDP growth. GDP at current prices is likely to be of the order of 7 to 8 percent. It implies that tax revenues will not keep pace and point to large leakages in tax collections. That expenditure growth will outpace revenue growth is most telling. It signifies that prudent budgeting principles are being set aside in the interests of short term expediency. The much touted goal of bringing the deficit under control is thus unlikely to be achieved. The Mahathir model of large deficits continues to drive economic policy.

The fiscal picture presented in the Prime Minister’s speech is far from transparent. No indication is given of the large hidden off budget transactions. Nor is there even a hint of the increase in contingent liabilities that the Government will assume via the granting of loan guarantees. The lessons from the PKFZ fiasco have yet to be learnt.

What the Prime Minister failed to disclose in his speech was that net domestic borrowings by the federal government would rise to RM51.1 billion in 2011, from RM36.5 billion in the current year. A 40% jump in net borrowing and the lack of disclosure of this fact in the Budget Speech is not an oversight or non-disclosure of a fact of insignificance. The concealment is a clear example of lack of transparency and accountability. The nation is being misled and lulled into a false sense of wellbeing.

Conclusion

What is becoming clear is that the Government is embarked upon a dangerous path of massive borrowing and spending. The spending is directed and channeled towards projects and activities that will not contribute to either enhancing the productive or the competitive capacity of the economy. The key beneficiaries are likely to be a small coterie with links to the Barisan.

Short term political objectives are being placed ahead of the long term needs of the nation. A weak and divided Government is being driven to adopt failed and disastrous policies of the past. Reforms are being obstructed by vested interests whose narrow agenda is without vision. The nation’s path to the future and its destiny cannot and must not be set by yesterday’s men. If this path is pursued, Malaysia tragically is headed towards the same situation as faced by Greece in its recent economic crisis. A crisis of that nature will result in deep austerity, a falling of living standards and the destruction of wealth.

Malaysia must move away from that path to the precipice and must instead embrace reforms that will lead the country to a higher plane.

Dr M: Tough for Najib to regain two-thirds majority at 13th GE

Dr M okay with Najib, hates Badawi

Malaysia Chronicle

Former premier Mahathir Mohamad believes it will be tough for Prime Minister Najib Razak to regain the two-thirds parliamentary majority held by his Barisan Nasional since independence in 1957 until the landmark 2008 general election.

But the 85-year Mahathir blamed it on his immediate successor Abdullah Badawi, saying it was not Najib's fault that he "inherited a bad government".

Mahathir, the country's fourth prime minister, was mobbed by reporters on Monday amid swirling speculation that Najib would dissolve Parliament after the Chinese New Year and hold simultaneous national polls along with Sarawak, which has to conduct state elections by July 2011.

"Najib inherited a bad government. He is better than number five Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who was totally incompetent," Mahathir was quoted as saying by Malaysiakini.

"When you have two-thirds majority, it should be used for doing the right things. In the four years, 2004 to 2008 Abdullah did the wrong things so in 2008 he lost it."

The monster tidal wave Mahathir created

Mahathir also took a swipe at Opposition Leader Anwar Leader, the de-fact head of both the Pakatan Rakyat coalition and PKR party.

Anwar has found his own niche and party

"He is having a difficult time. Najib has some good ideas and some not so good ideas. I hope Najib does garner support because the alternative is that someone who is worse may take power," Mahathir said.

Anwar was Malaysia prime minister-in-waiting and an outstanding Finance minister before he was jailed on manifestly trumped-up sodomy and corruption charges in 1998.

Fearing that he would lose power, Mahathir sacked Anwar, imposed a 24-hour curfew and to prevent capital flight banned trading of the Ringgit and closed down the CLOB - an offshore trading platform for Malaysian shares.

Mahathir's drastic moves not only sparked huge losses among foreign investors, damaging until now their confidence in the BN government, but also split his Umno party down the line.

Recently, Najib hinted that a lot of the disunity problems he currently faced in the Malay community now could be traced back to the 1998 sacking and jailing of Anwar.

EPF - Growing or Otherwise?

G. Manimaran did many Malaysians a favor by writing his report on Unionists insist on ‘security net’ as EPF invests more in The Malaysian Insider this morning. It comes as no surprise that unionists are asking for guarantees on workers’ contributions to Malaysia’s largest pension fund as the Najib administration turns to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to invest more on the local and foreign fronts.

Many are deeply concerned that there are BIG fingers dipping directly into the EPF i.e. the rakyat's pockets as the EPF is the result of our blood, sweat, toil and tears over the years and MUST BE SACROSANCT.

Does the EPF seem to be the last pot of gold for some to achieve their dreams or to leave a legacy? Input and output have to balance - otherwise we will be very poor in the long run.

Should our money be used for dubious projects in the name of nation-building? We want transparency in the investments.

Why is the EPF paying a lower dividend than the ASM when the funds from EPF are MUCH LARGER than ASM funds?

Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad, a wholly owned subsidiary of Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) launched Amanah Saham Malaysia on 20th April 2000. Click here for more information.

According to The Malaysian Insider, "as at 31 December 2009, EPF’s investment portfolio grew 8.55 per cent or RM29.25 billion to RM371.26 billion compared to RM342.01 billion in 2008."

Please refer to THIS SITE to see the Historical ASM Dividend Rate since 2001. You can see the dividends paid out for the last ten years are MUCH HIGHER than EPF dividends on a year by year basis.

According to the EPF official page HERE:

EPF dividends for 2009 was 5.65%. The dividend rate was declared on the back of the highest ever net income achieved of RM19.63 billion. According to THIS SITE, until March 19, 2010, ASM recorded a gross income of RM 800.83 million. Click here for more.

The dividend rate declared for year 2008 was 4.50%.

This site says that the EPF dividend rate for 2007 was 5.8%.

The dividend for 2006 was 5.15%. As at 31 December 2007, total accumulated investments increased by RM26.88 billion to RM312.80 billion compared to RM285.92 billion a year ago, and these were invested in asset classes detailed in Table 1. Click HERE for more.

In a nutshell:

READ MORE HERE