Friday, June 13, 2008

Attention Diverted On Fuel Price Hike

Has anyone notice that government is doing something to distract our attention away from the recent fuel price hike? Government knows people are now full of dissatisfaction with them and emotions are running high at the moment.

What a coincident that Ian Chin came out at this very moment to expose Tun Dr Mahathir's dictatorship during his reign as PM. He even gave the details of every particular cases. At first I thought it's because he has been keeping it secret for too long and he must let the public know what's going on then.

When think again, questions will be asked: Why don't he mentioned this long ago? Why he choose this very tension moment to expose all these? If permission is not given by the authority, would he has the gut to tell all these? Why only he mentioned about Tun Dr M, and not others who involved?

Very simple! It's because now the situation with Pak Lah and Tun Dr M is at a loggerhead and people would be attracted by whatever issues involving these two. So permission was given for Ian Chin to have total freedom of speech, just tell whatever consider big news to public. Moreover all the major newspapers, all of them controlby BN associates is making all sort of such headlines, and hiding all the fuel price hike issue.

For what the detail of Ian Chin said, I couldn't care more. Hope all of you feel the same, and we should reminding them the current important issue is to focus on the increase of fuel price and living costs. Let's not be distracted by unneccesary issue as such.

Do not let Pak Lah and its administration succeeding in the distraction. More so the case is already 10-plus odd years on and no point in tracing back those old stories.

The Actual Reason For Increasing Fuel Price

Whatever amount it is, you can bet it is COLLOSSAL! In the Time Asia magazine issue on March 15 2004, a South East Asian economist at Morgan Stanley in Singapore, Daniel Lian, figures “that the country may have lost as much as U$$100 billion (RM320 billion) since the early 1980s to corruption.” Mind you, this is only corruption and does not include wastages and mismanagement which would increase the amount!

If the above (which could have been money saved) is added to the nation’s coffers; together with Petronas’ profits; palm oil profits; and profits from rubber, tin, agriculture produce, aquaculture produce, electronic and hardware exports etc., for the past 5 decades, we can all agree on one thing - our country would be wealthier than Venezuela who has little resources except for oil. The petrol in Venezuela is RM0.16 per litre

The article below is a comment made by a Malaysia-Today reader named ez24get as a response to my article “Despite knowing, BN did nothing except remove oil subsidy” which was published by Malaysia-Today. I believe the summary is concise and easy to understand. Enjoy.

Ez24get writes:

Looking at the list below, it looks like the BN government is more determined to help themselves rather than the citizens.And this list below is hardly exhaustive as these are the ones uncovered so far – the tip of the ice-berg, if you will! What lies beneath could be much larger :-

1. The Bank Bumiputra twin scandals in the early 1980s saw US$1 billion (RM3.2 billion in 2008 ringgit) wasted;

2. The Maminco attempt to corner the world tin market in the 1980s is believed to have cost some US$500 million (RM1.6 billion);

3. Betting in foreign exchange futures cost Bank Negara Malaysia RM30 billion in the 1990s;

4. Perwaja Steel resulted in losses of US$800 million (RM2.56 billion). (Eric Chia was charged with corruption for allegedly steering US$20 million (RM64 million) to a Hong Kong-based company.);

5. Use of RM10 billion public funds in the Valuecap Sdn. Bhd. operation to shore up the stock market;

6. Banking scandal of RM700 million losses in Bank Islam;

7. The sale of M.V. Agusta by Proton for one Euro making a loss of €75.99 million (RM 348 million);

8. Wang Ehsan from oil royalty in Terengganu amounting to RM7.4 billion from 2004 – 2007;

9. For the past 10 years since the Philharmonic Orchestra was established, this orchestra has swallowed a total of RM500 million;

10. In Advisors Fees, Mahathir was paid RM180,000; Shahrizat Abdul Jalil (Women and Social Development Affairs) RM404,726; and Abdul Hamid Othman (Religious Affairs) RM549,675 per annum;

11. The government has spent a total of RM3.2 billion in teaching Maths and Science in English over the past five years. Out of the amount, the government paid a whopping RM2.21 billion for the purchase of information and computer technology (ICT) equipment of which the breakdown of costs is unknown;

12. The commission paid for the purchase of jets and submarines to two private companies, Perimeker Sdn Bhd and IMT Defence Sdn Bhd amounted to RM910 million;

13. RM300 million to compensate Gerbang Perdana for the RM1.1 billion “Crooked Scenic Half-Bridge”;

14. RM1.3 billion has been wasted building the white elephant Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities on cancellation of the Malaysia-Singapore scenic bridge;

15. RM100 million spent on the Parliament building for renovations and to patch up leaks;

16. National Astronaut Programme - RM 40 million;

17. National Service Training Programme - yearly an estimate of RM 500 million;

18. Eye on Malaysia - RM30 million and another RM5.7 million of free tickets;

19. RM4.63 billion ’soft-loan’ to PKFZ;

20. RM2.4 million on indelible ink;

21. Samy announced in September 2006 that the government paid compensation amounting to RM38.5 billion to 20 highway companies. A RM380 million windfall for 9 toll concessionaires earned solely from the toll hikes in 2008 alone;

22. RM32 million timber export kickbacks involving companies connected to the Sarawak Chief Minister and his family;Bailouts –

23. Two bailouts of Malaysia Airline System at RM7.9 billion. At a time when MAS incurred losses every year, RM1.55 million was used to buy three paintings to decorate its chairman's (Munir) office;

24. Putra transport system bailout which cost RM4.486 billion;

25. STAR – LRT bailout costing RM3.256 billion;

26. National Sewerage System bailout costing RM192.54 million;

27. Seremban – Port Dickson Highway bailout costing RM142 million;

28. Kuching Prison bailout costing RM135 million;

29. Kajian Makanan dan Gunaan Orang Islam bailout costing RM8.3 million;

30. Le Tour de Langkawi bailout costing RM3.5 Million ;

31. Wholesale distribution of tens of millions of shares in Bursa Malaysia under the guise of NEP to cronies, children and relatives of BN leaders and Ministers worth billions of ringgits;

32. APs scandal that has been going on year-after-year going back for more than three decades,
involving a mind-boggling sum of tens of billions of ringgit;

33. Alienation of tens of thousands of hectares of commercial land and forestry concessions to children and relatives of BN leaders and Ministers worth tens of billions of ringgit;

34. Travel around Malaysia and see for yourself how many white elephants like majestic arches, roads paved with fanciful bricks, designer lamp posts, clock towers, Municipal Council buildings that look more like Istanas, extravagant places of worship, refurbishment of residences of VIPs, abandoned or under-utilized government sports complexes and buildings, etc! Combined they could easily amount to hundreds of billions of ringgit!

35. Since 1997, Petronas has handed out a staggering RM30 billion in natural gas subsidies to IPPs who were making huge profits. In addition, there was much wastage and forward trading of Petronas oil in the 1990s based on the low price of oil then. Since the accounts of Petronas are for the eyes of the Prime Minister only, we have absolutely no idea what the amount is.

Whatever amount it is, you can bet it is COLLOSSAL! In the Time Asia magazine issue on March 15 2004, a South East Asian economist at Morgan Stanley in Singapore, Daniel Lian, figures “that the country may have lost as much as U$$100 billion (RM320 billion) since the early 1980s to corruption.” Mind you, this is only corruption and it does not include wastages and mismanagement which would increase the amount! If the above list (which could have been money saved) is added to the nation’s coffers and together with Petronas’ profits; palm oil profits; and profits from rubber, tin, agriculture produce, aquaculture produce, electronic and hardware exports etc, for the past 5 decades, we can all agree on one thing – our country would be wealthier than Venezuela who has little resources except for oil. The petrol in Venezuela is RM0.16 per litre!

Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
www.malaysiawaves.com

PRESS STATEMENT ON FUEL HIKE

HINDRAF

135-3 Jalan Toman 7

Kemayan Square 70200

Seremban.

HINDRAF supports anti-fuel hike rally on 5th July 2008.

HINDRAF calls upon the Indian community in Malaysia to rally together with our fellow Malaysians on July 5, 2008 on the anti-fuel hike. 

Although Petronas is estimated to have earned RM2.trillion over the last 34 years yet its accounts are not accessible to public nor by the people elected representative in Parliament as the Petroleum Development Act in 1974 does not oblige it.       

Petronas is a nationalist oil company thus why even such a law could be enacted seems unwarranted. 

A nationalist company is one for the benefit of its people and citizens in equal with full transparency and accountability rather than hiding under the veil by the operation of the law, and continuously being used in guise by the ruling administration UMNO led Government to oppress and suppress the Malaysian public what is rightfully belonging to them.    

Although Petronas is well managed, its revenue has always piggybank the ruling “elite UMNO”  administration through corrupt, nepotism and cronyism practices that are of public awareness such as purchase of a Boeing 747 and then leased out to MAS in the 80's and of course the infamous bail out of KPM in the 90's. 

Today, the ruling government is again trying to hoodwink the Malaysian public again by raising the petrol price by an unprecedented 40% increase on various pretext.         

Malaysian public cannot continue to ignore these tyrannical acts of the ruling administration but we need to come together to show unity and strength to voice our dissent and act in uniformity by attending this rally in support for a true and fair Malaysia.      

HINDRAF also proposes that the elected representative should raise a bill to revoke the section in the act that does not require Petronas to produce its accounts to the public or Parliament to ensure there are transparency and accountability on how the national wealth is channelled for the public's awareness and the well being of the society.     

HINDRAF is in full support of the rally on July 5, 2008 to protest against the fuel hike as the public intervention is needed to right the wrong and achieve an objective to create a just and fair Malaysia for our society. PM Abdullah should remind himself of the downfall of the great Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher for imposing the infamous poll tax on the people. We believe if one million people could congregate to voice their objections then the downfall of this oppressive Government is imminent.  

Waytha Moorthy

Chairman

HINDRAF  

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Consequences Of Drink Driving

Show  this to your children, grand children or great children , 

In a message dated 5/18/2005 8:41:54 PM Central Standard Time, Cecill64 writes: 


This young lady was recently on Oprah and what a loving, forgiving young woman she is ! An amazing story of what she has suffered and will bear the rest of her life. Please share this with your friends and especially your teenagers who are driving.





 


This is Jacqueline Saburido on 
September 19, 1999.




This is she and her Father, 1998.




This is she on Vacation in 
Venezuela . 





Birthday party as a child. 





At a party with friends. 





The car in which Jacqueline traveled. She was hit by another car that was driven by a 17-year old male student on his way home after 
drinking a couple of hard packs with his friends. This was in December 1999. 



After the accident Jacqueline has needed over 40 operations.





Jacqueline was caught in the burning car and her body was heavily burnt during around 45 seconds. 





With her Father, 2000. 





Getting treatment. 





Three months after accident. 





Without a left eyelid Jacquie needs eye drops to keep her vision. 





Now 20 year old, he cannot forgive himself for driving drunk on that night three years ago. 

He's aware of devastating Jacqueline Saburidos life. 





Not everyone who gets hit with a car dies. This picture was taken 4 years after the accident and the doctors are still working on Jacqueline, whose body was covered with 60% severe burnings. 


Please send this to as many people as you can to make them aware of the consequences of drink driving. 




PLEASE PASS THIS MAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW




Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Ian Chin contempt of court say Matthias Chang

Lawyer Matthias Chang has his opinion on Justice Chin’s statement:
JUSTICE DATUK IAN CHIN MUST BE SACKED AND CHARGED FOR SEDITION & CONTEMPT
By Matthias Chang
Conduct Unbecoming of A Judge
Justice Datuk Ian Chin must be sacked for conduct unbecoming of a judge and prosecuted for sedition and contempt.
My grounds for calling such actions to be taken against the Judge are as follows:
A Unsubstantiated Allegations
The so-called disclosure made by Justice Datuk Ian Chin and published by the Star and New Straits Times, that the former Prime Minister threatened the judiciary has been contradicted by two judges as at 11th June 2008, namely:
Datuk Shaik Daud Mohamad Ismail, former Court of Appeal Judge:

    “It is a real shock. I do remember the (then) prime minister conveying the message about higher damages in defamation suits but not of any threats of removing judges via tribunal.” (Emphasis added)
    NST 11th June 2008
    At page 6
    A serving Judge (Name not disclosed in NST):
    “Tun Eusoffe Chin (then Chief Justice) had invited (Tun) Dr. Mahathir (Mohamad) to personally address judges at the 1997 judges’ conference at a hotel in Shah Alam. The former PM did say that the government would not introduce a law to cap damages awarded to a party in a defamation suit and left it to judges to control it. He did also raise (Datuk) Ian Chin’s election petition argument, which the former PM said was “against us”. However, we did not speak up because the majority of senior judges felt that Chin’s ruling on that case was legally flawed. There were about 70 judges at the meeting but I think the majority of us, including Chin, were not influenced by what Dr. Mahathir said. I feel Chin took the opportunity to speak from the Bench because he thought Dr. Mahathir was responsible for blocking his promotion”.
    (Emphasis added)
    NST 11th June 2008
    At page 6
It stands to reason, from the above statements, that Justice Datuk Ian Chin had no basis whatsoever in making the wild allegations against the former prime minister.
It is an indictment against the integrity of Justice Datuk Ian Chin that a serving judge is of the view that Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s wild allegations against the former prime minister may be actuated by malice and or self-manufactured delusion that his promotion was blocked by the former prime minister.
Any reasonable man and woman, in the light of the above wild allegations, can only come to the conclusion that Justice Datuk Ian Chin is not only, not deserving promotion, but to be appointed to the high office of a judge in 1992.
Reference to the term “Boot Camp”
To refer to a conference of judges and judicial officers on the 26th – 30th May 1997 as a “Boot Camp” to be “indoctrinated” is to use language unbecoming of a judge.
Bringing the Judiciary Into Disrepute
By making unsubstantiated the allegations against the former Chief Justice and the former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Datuk Ian Chin has scandalised the entire judiciary and it is submitted that he has also committed contempt of court.
Questionable Motives
On reading Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s statement, one cannot but question his motives.
All we need to ask is the simple question, “Why now?”
If Justice Datuk Ian Chin is a man of principle, he ought to have made a police report and it is a lame excuse to say that “We went to the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it would be his word against that of the Chief Justice.”
If, in fact his allegations are true, as a judge upholding justice and truth, Justice Datuk Ian Chin should have faith in his own integrity and his fellow judges that ultimately truth and justice will prevail.
But, instead he makes excuses and his action is that of a coward and a man without principle.
In the circumstances, I called upon this disreputable judge to an Open Public Debate on the issues raised in his Open Court Statement within a week from the date hereof.
If he refuses, I am calling him a coward, a liar and a man unfit to continue in office as a judge.
And I challenge him to hold me in contempt of his court in making this challenge!
And I am warning Justice Datuk Ian Chin that I intend to lodge a police report against him on his unfounded allegation on the expiry of my notice to him to accept my challenge!
The courage of Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s convictions will be tested by the courage of my convictions!
A Challenge to the Current Chief Justice
If the current Chief Justice was present in the said conference, I demand as a citizen and a lawyer (and lawyers are officers of the Court) to know from the Chief Justice whether the allegation that the former prime minister threatened the judiciary is correct.
If not, whether the Chief Justice intends to advise the Yang Di-Petuan Agong and the Prime Minister to convene a Tribunal to investigate into the misconduct of this despicable judge and to recommend his dismissal and to hold the said judge in contempt of court.
A Challenge to Ambiga
I read with disgust the press statement of Ambiga, the President of Bar Council which presupposes that what Justice Datuk Ian Chin disclosed in Open Court was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If the allegation by the said judge is found to be without basis whatsoever, I am challenging Ambiga to have the courage of her convictions to lodge a police report against the said judge and to lead another “walk to the Prime Minister’s office in Putrajaya” to demand that the said judge be dismissed.
Ambiga, I have previously issued a challenge to you for a public debate.
I am now issuing another challenge to debate on the statement of Justice Datuk Ian Chin. You are to reply within 48 hours from the date hereof.
If you refuse, forever hold your tongue and desists from making stupid press statements concerning the judiciary. You sound like an opportunist and you act like one.
A challenge to Judges
I am sick and fed up of judges who have no guts to speak up when in office and to live up to their oath of office.
Judges demand an independent judiciary but are unwilling to make sacrifices to ensure its independence. It is such silence in the face of such outrages misconduct by a fellow judge that confirms the public’s perception that judges are opportunists and cowards.
Why make spurious allegations now and not before?
The problem of the judiciary is to be found within the judiciary. Don’t blame third parties for your sordid state of affairs!
To Fellow Malaysians
You may have noticed by now, that whenever the Badawi Regime has a crisis eg. The UMNO crisis following the General Election disaster and now the oil price fiasco, the Badawi spin doctors would attempt to divert your attention with allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
This happened just before the General Elections with the setting up of the Royal Commission and the wild allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
This is another side show to throw your mind and anger away from the oil price hike to a non-issue by a frustrated old Judge who cannot even lie properly. This judge is angry because he covets the post of Chief Judge of Sarawak and Sabah. He cannot understand why Tan Sri Richard Malanjun was promoted to the post instead. He blames the former prime minister but he care not to examine is infantile behaviour. And now, the desperate politicians are taking advantage of his stupidity for their political ends!
Don’t fall for this insidious tactic of the Badawi Regime and the blogs and websites fronting for Anwar Ibrahim.

Analysis on Malaysia's oil price

WHAT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN Mainstream Media like NST/TheStar/ Utusan/BH are these facts....

Malaysian PerCapita Income USD 5000
                       Vs
Singaporean PerCapita Income USD 25000

Further The Star made a comparison of prices in Thailand , Singapore and Indonesia .

For Thailand it is quoted at RM3.90/liter, however are they aware that in Thailand new cars are cheaper than Malaysia by RM10,000? They payonly one life time for their driving license? No renewal fee after that? Also that goes for road tax as well? And do The Star also awarethat you can drive all the way from Hadtyai to Bangkok on a six lane highway without paying any Tolls ??!!

Whereas here in Malaysia you have to pay yearly renewal for road tax, driving license and TOLLS, TOLLS, TOLLS!!!

For Singapore how can you quote RM 5.20 ? Please quote in Singapore Dollars because they are earning in Sing Dollars. You might as wellsay Europeans are paying RM10/liter. RM5.20/liter = Sing $ 2.20/liter, still cheaper than Malaysia in view of fact that Singapore is not acrude oil exporter. Are you saying that you fill up petrol in Singapore by paying Ringgit?

In economy, dollar to dollar must be compared as apple to apple. Not comparing like durian in M'sia is much cheaper than durian in Japan!!Of course-lah, Japan is not durian producer!!! Comparing Malaysian durian with Thailand durian make more sense!!

For Indonesia we might say is cheaper there at RM2.07/liter but compare that to their level of income!

Now, let us compare the price with OIL PRODUCING countries:

UAE - RM1.19/litre
Eygpt - RM1.03/litre
Bahrain - RM0.87/litre
Qatar - RM0.68/litre
Kuwait - RM0.67/litre
Saudi Arabia - RM0.38/litre
Iran - RM0.35/litre
Nigeria - RM0.32/litre
Turkmenistan - RM0.25/litre
Venezuela - RM0.16/litre
MALAYSIA - RM2.70/litre

RM 2.70!!! Individual perspective:

As of last month a Toyota Vios would 'cause a damage' of about RM 89,000.

In the international market, a Toyota Vios is about USD 19,000

USD 19,000 = RM 62,700 (using the indicative rates of USD 1 = RM 3.30)

That makes Malaysian Vios owners pay an extra RM 26,300.

This RM 26,300 should be cost of operations, profit and tax because the transportation costs have been factored in to the USD 19,000.

RM 26,300/ RM625 petrol rebate per year translates to a Vios being used for 42.08 years.

I do understand that the RM 625 is a rebate given by the government, but it also means that one has to use the Vios for 42.08 years just tomake back the amount paid in taxes for the usage of a foreign car. Would anyone use any kind of car for that long?

Now with these numbers in front of us, does the subsidy sound like a subsidy or does it sound like a penalty? This just seems to be a heavyincrement in our daily cost of living as we are not only charged with high car taxes but also with a drastic increase in fuel price.

With all the numbers listed out, I urge all Malaysians to join me in analyzing the situation further.

Car taxation is government profit, fuel sales is Petronas' (GLC) profit which also translates into government profit. The governmentmay ridicule us Malaysians by saying look at the world market and fuel price world wide. Please, we are Malaysians, we fought of the British,had a international port in the early centuries (Malacca), home to a racially mixed nation and WE ARE NOT STUPID!!!

We know the international rates are above the USD 130/barrel. We understand the fact that the fuel prices are increasing worldwide andwe also know that major scientist are still contradicting on why this phenomenon is happening. Some blame Bush and his plunders around theworld and some blame climate change and there are others which say petroleum 'wells' are getting scarce.

Again we go back to numbers to be more straight fwd

1 barrel = 159 liters x RM2.70/liter = RM 429 or USD 134

On 1 hand, we are paying the full cost of 1 barrel of crude oil with RM2.70 per liter but on the other hand the crude oil only produces 46%of fuel.

Msia sells crude oil per barrel at USD130 buys back Fuel per barrel at USD134. And not forgetting, every barrel of fuel is produced with 2barrels of crude oil.

1 barrel crude oil = produce 46% fuel (or half of crude oil), therefore

2 barrel crude oil = approximately 1 barrel fuel

In other words, each time we sell 2 barrels of crude oil, equivalently we will buy back 1 barrel of fuel.

Financially,

Malaysia sell 2 barrel crude oil @ USD 130/barrel = USD 260 = RM 858

then, Malaysia will buy back fuel @ USD 134/barrel = RM 442/barrel

Thus, Malaysia earn net extra USD 126 = RM 416 for each 2 barrel of crude sold/exported vs imported 1 barrel of fuel !!!

(USD 260-134 = USD 126 = RM416)

So where this extra USD 126/barrel income is channeled to by Malaysian Govt???????? ?

Another analysis:

1 barrel crude oil = 159 liters.

46-47% of a barrel of crude oil = fuel that we use in our vehicles.

46% of 159 = 73.14 liters.

@ RM 2.70/liter x 73.14 liter = RM197.48 of fuel per barrel of crude oil. This is only 46% of the barrel, mind you. Using RM 3.30 = USD 1,we get that a barrel of crude oil produces USD 59.84 worth of petrol fuel (46% of 1barrel).

USD 59.84 of USD 130/barrel turns out to be 46% of a barrel as well.

Another 54% = bitumen, kerosene, and natural gases and so many more. And this makes a balance of USD 70.16 that has not been accounted for.

So this is where I got curious. Where is the subsidy if we are paying 46% of the price of a barrel of crude oil when the production ofpetrol/barrel of crude oil is still only 46%?

In actual fact, we still pay for this as they are charged in the forms of fuel surcharge by airlines and road taxes for the building of road(because they use the tar/bitumen) and many more excuse charging us but let us just leave all that out of our calculations.

As far as I know, only the politicians who live in Putrajaya and come for their Parliament meetings in Kuala Lumpur (approximately 60+ km)are the ones to gain as they claim their fuel and toll charges from the money of the RAKYAT's TAX.

It is so disappointing to see this happen time and time again to the Malaysian public, where they are deceived by the propaganda held bythe politicians and the controls they have over the press.

Which stupid idiot economist equates rebates for rich or poor with the cc of the vehicles? An average office clerk may own a second hand1300cc proton Iswara costing $7,000 (rebate = $625) while the Datuk's children can own a fleet of 10 new cars of BMW, Audi and Volvo allless than 2000cc costing $2 millions and get a total rebate of $625 x 10 = $6,250! Wow what kind of economists we are keeping inMalaysia.. .wonder which phD certificate that they bought from...

Misleading concept of Subsidy:

The word "subsidy" has been brandished by the BN government as if it has so generously helped the rakyat and in doing so incurred losses.
This simple example will help to explain the fallacy:

Example:
Ahmad is a fisherman. He sells a fish to you at $10 which is below the market value of $15. Let's assume that he caught the fish from theabundance of the sea at little or no cost. Ahmad claims that since the market value of the fish is $15 and he sold you the fish for $10, hehad subsidised you $5 and therefore made a loss of $5.

Question : Did Ahmad actually make a profit of $10 or loss of $5 which he claimed is the subsidy?

Answer:
Ahmad makes a profit of $10 which is the difference of the selling price ($10) minus the cost price ($0 since the fish was caught fromthe abundance of the sea). There is no subsidy as claimed by Ahmad.

The BN government claims that it is a subsidy because the oil is kept and treated as somebody else's property (you know who). By right, theoil belongs to all citizens of the country and the government is a trustee for the citizens. So as in the above simple example, the BNgovernment cannot claim that it has subsidised the citizen!
MALAYSIA BOLEH - PEOPLE ARE SMART MATHEMATICIANS, YOU WON’T WALK ALONE,
WHERE OUR ARAB CAMELS ARE ALL LAUGHING THE WAY TO THE BANKS !

WE, PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND FOREIGNERS OF SECOND HOME IN MALAYSIA SUPPORT ALL MALAYSIANS TO PROTEST THE FUEL AND ELECTRICITY HIKE. BRAVO TO THE BRAVE MALAYSIANS FOR THEIR PROTEST TODAY. MALAYSIANS MUST FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND FREEDOM UNDER MALAYSIA FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS AND MERDEKA !!!!!!


“IN ALLAH WE TURST”

Regards,

Al-Sheikh Ahmeed Al-Malmudi Fuad
(Retired) Senior Fuel Engineer & Analyst
PR Malaysian - from Middle East Arab Largest Fuel Producer Country

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

That MIC-Maika question is back again 
BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

THE 15-year-old Telekom/Maika Holdings share controversy has returned to haunt MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu after police reopened the case following a report lodged by an MIC official.

Yesterday, Klang MIC division chairman Alex Thiagarasan handed to Dang Wangi police a bundle of documents, including Samy Vellu’s 1994 bank statements, reports, receipts and fixed deposit account details connected with the sale of nine million Telekom Malaysia shares that took place in 1990.

“I have given police full details of what really happened and how the shares were received and sold and the huge losses suffered by the Indian community,” Thiagarasan told Malay Mail.

He said previous investigations into the scandal had been “inadequate and suspect”.

“We need a complete, open and transparent investigation into the shares intended for the benefit of the Indian community,” he said.

Thiagarasan lodged a report at the Dang Wangi police station on May 22, detailing what happened to the shares and the role allegedly played by Samy Vellu.

A senior police officer confirmed receiving the report and a bundle of documents.

The case was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Agency in 1992 and Samy Vellu was cleared of all improper behaviour. However, the ACA reopened the case a year later, following evidence given by V. Subramaniam aka Barat Maniam, who claimed he and others worked “day and night” to free Samy Vellu from ACA suspicions.

Asked about Thiagarasan’s police report, Samy Vellu said he had nothing to hide and declined further comment.

“This matter was thoroughly investigated and I have been cleared,” Samy Vellu had said numerous times before.

Thiagarasan said he was raising the matter on behalf of 66,000 shareholders who had suffered badly from the loss of the nine million shares, “which is easily worth over RM300 million now, inclusive of numerous dividends and issuance of bonus shares”.

He urged the government to open a “just, fair and open investigation into this matter”.

In 1990, the government allotted one million Telekom shares to Maika Holdings, the investment arm of the MIC and nine million shares to the Indian community, but the shares allegedly went to three RM2 companies nominated by Samy Vellu and partly owned by his son, Vell Paari, other close associates and a former driver.

Thiagarasan stated in his police report that MIC was never informed that nine million shares had been allocated to the Indian community.

In 1992, then Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim released the names of the three companies and the shares allotted to them, sparking a fierce controversy that, 15 years later, is still raging within MIC.

On May 28, MIC issued a show-cause letter to Thiagarasan, 54.

The letter, signed by Samy Vellu ally Tan Sri G. Vadiveloo, listed three charges against him, among them that Thiagarasan issued Press statements in April accusing Samy Vellu of allegedly misappropriating Telekom shares given to Maika Holdings and MIC in 1990.

HINDRAF : A letter to The MB of Selangor

135-3 JALAN TOMAN 7

KEMAYAN SQUARE

70200 SEREMBAN

Y.A.B. Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim

Selangor Menteri Besar

Selangor State Secretariat Office,


Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah,                        

40503 Shah Alam, 

Selangor Darul Ehsan.     

Tel: 03 5544 7013                             

Fax: 03 5519 0032

08/06/08

Y.A.B.Tan Sri,

Re:  Father’s Day ISA wish.  

Weekly courtesy Public Transport for ISA detainees families from KL to Kemta, Taiping, Perak.

We refer to the above matter and your statement in Utusan Malaysia last week offering transport and travelling expenses to Kemta prison Kamunting and school children’s allowances.

May we propose that the Selangor state government provides a free courtesy bus service belonging to the Selangor State Government from K.L. to Kemta prison once every week until all ISA detainees are released. This bus service could take off from outside Malaysiakini office in Bangsar, KL at 7am on every Sunday and ISA detainee families to be dropped back at the same point on the return journey. The Y.A.B. Menteri Besar could officially flag of this bus service on a date to be fixed preferably on or in conjunction with Father’s Day  shortly. The Gabungan Mansuhkan ISA could be the co-coordinator to inform and publicise this bus service to the ISA detainee families.

 This would help further create public awareness to the atrocities of ISA detention without trial besides enhancing family support groups and fellowship among ISA detainee’s families. We would then be able to create a multi-racial ISA family. There would  literally be an 8 hour weekly meeting of the ISA families in the bus itself “without the risk of being arrested for unlawful assembly”. Wives and children who have been cruelly separated from their fathers and husbands would be able to show their love, care and affection with courtesy of the Selangor State Government.

 This bus service would go a long way in easing the burden of the already financially drained out ISA detainee’s families especially so in the light of the 41% increase in petrol prices announced by the ISA Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on 04/06/08.

 Further this would also reduce the risk of a road traffic accident as what happened to the Kota Alam Shah State Assemblyman and ISA Detainee M.Manoharan’s wife and son who were injured in a road traffic accident last Sunday.

This proposal when approved would be the strongest ever Makkal Sakti “people power” support by the Selangor PKR, DAP and PAS State Government in putting to an end to the draconian ISA.

We seek your kind indulgence in this matter.

Thank you,

Yours faithfully,

P.Waytha Moorthy

(Chairman)    

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008

The Tun Salleh Saga - an open reply to Dr Mahathir

Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.

I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.

It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.

When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you Dr M. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?

That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?

The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.

By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?

Dr M, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?

You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.

Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth (I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.

Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.

If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?

Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.

On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.

I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?

Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.

Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?

You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?

By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?

Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.

Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.

Kind regards,

Art Harun

Sunday, June 8, 2008

MALAYSIA
Malaysia: Government ‘declares war’, socialists fight back


Stuart Munckton
7 June 2008


“The announcement by the Prime Minister of increasing the price of fuel by 78 sen and increasing diesel by RM1 added with the increase in electricity as well lifting the cap on chicken prices tantamounts to a declaration of war against the ordinary people of Malaysia”, S.Arutchelvan, the secretary general of the Malaysian Socialist Party (PSM) declared in a June 5 statement. 

Explaining the impact of the fuel price hike, S.Arutchelvan said: “Last night, thousands of motorists queued for hours to buy fuel at the old price. The scene was chaotic and resembled a nation preparing for emergency. While the Prime Minister very bravely increased the price of fuel, similar commitment was not shown when workers demanded a minimum wage act to be implemented as well as a retrenchment fund to cushion workers who may face retrenchment because of the economic crisis and world food crisis. 

Public ownership and control 

S.Arutchelvan argued: “Only when the people own their oil, can it be put to good use.” He pointed to the example of Venezuela, as a country where “the revenue for oil is used by the Venezuelan state to give free education and health care, besides helping poor neighboring nations.” 

“This was only possible”, he argued, “when a revolutionary Government under the leadership of Hugo Chavez with people power took over the Petrol Company and nationalized it”. While Malaysia’s state-run oil company, Petronas, “is nationalized but it is not in the control of the people, especially the working people”. 

“PSM supports any move to mobilize people power to remedy this situation”, according to the statement. “We call upon all political parties and peoples movements to rise up to demand and reclaim what is ours.” 

The PSM have gained increasing respect as fighters for democracy and people’s rights against the neoliberal policies of the National Front (BN) regime. In the March 8 general elections, the PSM became the first socialist party to win representation in parliament for over four decades, with two PSM members winning a state and national seat. 

Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, the PSM activist who won a national seat, caused a major upset by defeating a senior government minister. Due to an undemocratic law that denies the PSM the right to register to run in elections under its own name, its candidates ran under the logo of the opposition People’s Justice Party (PKR). 

While the BN government has argued that the fuel price increase is needed to deal with the food crisis, the PSM is arguing that a key to the solution was to give farmers titles to their own land to work, according to a June 4 article posted on Malaysiakini.com. As part of a policy adopted at its 10th congress over May 30-June 1, the PSM is advocating providing land for farmers to cultivate food crops instead of profit-oriented cash crops. 

Land to the farmers 

S.Arutchelvan told Malaysiakini.com, “One of the problems for the poor in the context of the food crisis is the fact that the land they cultivate is temporary and developed only for profits. From time to time, these poor farmers will be evicted and they will have no avenue to cultivate subsisting agriculture and this must change.” 

S.Arutchelvan argued that what he predicted would be a “decade-long crisis” required “radical measures to ensure that food supply can either be cultivated by the poor or that the government can ensure that they will not suffer from supply shortages”. 

Other polices adopted at the congress to deal with the crisis included governmental controls over the prices of goods, the passing of a minimum wage act and the use of the organic farming system that is being successfully used in Cuba (where around 90% of Havana’s food supply is grown within city-limits). 

The PSM’s 10th congress occurred at a time when the BN government faces its biggest ever challenge to its survival in the aftermath of its punishment by voters in the recent elections. 

At the same time, the report noted: “Capitalism faces its biggest challenge — World Food crisis. It is an exciting time and it is time for change.” 

According to the report, the congress marked, “Ten years of uncompromising politics to uphold class politics against communal politics, to advance the working class agenda against the ruling capitalist class. Ten years of survival without legal political registration.” The congress noted that since the March election victories, the party had experienced a 400% growth in membership. 

Some of the key policies the PSM will fight for, which were adopted by the congress, according to a report on its website (http://parti-sosialis.org>) included: the PSM must be registered as a legal party; the government must provide permanent land title to farmers; the government must enact a minimum wage law; the opposition, which won control of various states, must execute its election manifesto; the government must stop the national service program; the government must give automatic recognition to workers’ unions; and the PSM is “against the imperialist power clamping down” on “the Socialist government of Venezuela and Bolivia and PSM is against capitalism”.