A reader of The Sun has written in to the local newspaper to voice out his opinion in relation to Karpal Singh’s “offensive commentary” which gave him the lime light quite recently.
The following is the letter written by Param Cumaraswamy to the Sun, published on 14 May, 2008, under the Speak Up! Section, pg17.
“Why undue haste in Karpal investigation?”
Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri’s Abdul Aziz’s statement reported in the media yesterday that the government does not practice double standards against anyone who makes seditious remarks against the Malay rulers is very commendable.
He was further quoted as having said “I do not care whether the person is an elected representative from the Barisan National or Pakatan Rakyat.” These are stirring remarks of principle.
However, Nazri should be called upon to answer where he was in 1992/93 when then prime minister and UMNO president (Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad made virulent and highly seditious public statements against the Malay Rulers including the then Yang di Pertuan Agong, questioning their immunities, privileges and withdrawing some. Police reports were lodged all over the country against Mahathir, yet there was no action taken against him. Was not double standards applied then? Was not Mahathir then seen to be above the law?
Why all this undue haste in having the investigation on Karpal Singh expedited? In this regard we should be mindful of the remarks of the Regent of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, reported in the media on Dec 12, 1992. He was reported to have said that “it was a misconception to think that anyone or any institution in the country was exempt from the law because there was not a single system in this modern age which denies the people’s basic rights and freedom”. The Regent made those remarks in the context of the institution of the Sultanate some 15 years ago.
Today Malaysia should be and seen to be in an enlightened era with a robust market place for reason dialogue, the exchange of ideas and opinions. Karpal’s remarks must therefore be seen as an expression of his right to an opinion on a constitutional matter and should not be viewed as an offence.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Draft Local Plan - Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piss
Pissed-off residents now have 6 weeks to raise their objections (if any) on the Draft Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2020 (DKLPT2020). The Draft will go on display at the lobby area of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall starting 15 May 2008.
This is a significant event because it concerns the future of the city as every KL resident, home owner and rate payer will be inadvertently effected by it as it has the ability to either improve their quality of life or destroy it.
The residents who are likely to be affected by the proposals from the DKLPT2020 are those living in Sri Hartamas, Mont Kiara, Bangsar Hill, Bukit Tunku, Bukit Damansara, Damansara Heights, Federal Hill and Segambut/Jalan Duta.
This is a significant event because it concerns the future of the city as every KL resident, home owner and rate payer will be inadvertently effected by it as it has the ability to either improve their quality of life or destroy it.
The residents who are likely to be affected by the proposals from the DKLPT2020 are those living in Sri Hartamas, Mont Kiara, Bangsar Hill, Bukit Tunku, Bukit Damansara, Damansara Heights, Federal Hill and Segambut/Jalan Duta.
KL-Singapore High-Speed Train
One Horsepower - AP PhotoBuild the KL-Singapore high-speed train
-------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia's fuel subsidies have reportedly ballooned to some RM43 billion a year. That's more than three times the Treasury's forecast revenue from personal income tax this year of RM13.4 billion, and over 20% more than the forecast corporate tax of RM34.8 billion. And, it is almost half the total estimated federal government revenue of RM102 billion.
Why avoid a one-time capital investment of less than RM8 billion that improves the country's land transport infrastructure, when the country is already spending five times as much on fuel subsidies in a single year that yield no long-term economic benefits?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Edge Malaysia, May 10, 2008
By Ben Paul
News last month that Malaysia had dropped plans to build a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore was a major disappointment for me. As a Malaysian who works in Singapore, being able to get to the centre of KL within 90 minutes would have improved my life enormously - mostly by putting the food I desperately miss within easy reach. In my view, Malaysia should not only build a high-speed rail link to Singapore, but also invest heavily in expanding rail infrastructure between its major 'cities as well as between its industrial areas and its sea and air transport hubs. But it should drive these projects itself, with private sector companies limited to playing the role of contractors and suppliers.
The rail link proposed by YTL Corp was touted in news stories over the past year as a significant improvement over the existing trains that take as long as seven hours to make the journey between Singapore and KL, and road travel that can take as long as four hours. In fact, it would have been an improvement over flying too. While the flight time is about 40 minutes, travelling to and from the airports as well as the lead time required to check in for the flight typically extends the travelling time between the centre of the two cities to as much as three hours. That might have made the rail link the preferred mode of transport for regular business travellers, who currently have no other practical means of making the trip except by air.
A highly developed rail system that spans the country would also reduce the risk that the economy faces from rising oil prices. Malaysia's fuel subsidies have reportedly ballooned to some RM43 billion a year. That's more than three times the Treasury's forecast revenue from personal income tax this year of RM13.4 billion, and over 20 % more than the forecast corporate tax of RM34.8 billion. And, it is almost half the total estimated federal government revenue of RM102 billion.
If oil prices continue rising, which some market watchers say is likely, Malaysia will really have little choice but to shunt the burden onto its citizens. And, unless there are more efficient alternative modes of land transport available when that happens, the impact on the economy could be dramatic. High fuel prices besides surging trade volumes and choked highways are now also spurring investment in railways in many other countries around the world.
So, why is Malaysia's government backing out of the high-speed rail link project? Its stated reason is that it would have had to bear a significant portion of the project's cost. But compared to what it is already spending to shield its citizens from the full weight of fuel costs, that sounds like a lame excuse. Why avoid a one-time capital investment of less than RM8 billion that improves the country's land transport infrastructure, when the country is already spending five times as much on fuel subsidies in a single year that yield no long-term economic benefits?
In my view, a bigger obstacle to the government backing the high-speed rail link than cost is the scrutiny the deal will face from the country's resurgent opposition. Malaysians are understandably leery of the government providing funds for projects conceived and promoted by the private sector. Too often, the infrastructure assets are over-designed and expensive. And, the potential returns and risks of the project tend to be unfairly distributed between the government and its private sector partner.
The reality, however, is that financial support from governments is often necessary to make affordable rail transport viable. That's because the upfront costs are high, the lifespan of the assets are very long, and the economic benefits they generate are hard for private sector investors to capture. On the other hand, these positive "economic externalities" are difficult to measure, making it tough to determine the extent to which these projects deserve government funding.
Malaysia isn't the only country that's grappling with the problem of finding the right balance between private enterprise and government funding that gets railroads built, allows private companies to earn a fair return and protects the public from getting ripped off. Even in the US, some railroads are asking for government support for their investment in new tracks, arguing that the new lines create wider economic and social benefits, like taking the pressure off roads and highways and making land transport more efficient. But their detractors point out that the railroad sector is already so profitable that it is attracting the attention of savvy billionaire investors like Warren Buffett and Carl kahn.
Rather than struggle with these issues and delay much-needed investment in new railways, Malaysia would probably be better off if the government took over as the owner and financier of these projects. Indeed, when infrastructure projects are heavily reliant on public sector funding, the involvement of a private sector player seems to make little sense. Sure, engineering, procurement and construction contracts can be parcelled out to the private sector through competitive tenders. The government could even appoint a private sector operator to run the rail service for a fee, if it felt its civil servants were not up to the task. But there seems little point in allowing a private company to own railways that are built largely with government funding.
Working with experienced consultants, there is no reason the government couldn't come up with designs and plans for new railways that are as good as any private sector player's. It would certainly be able to obtain long-term financing on more attractive terms than the private sector. And, being in no hurry to recoup its capital investment, it would be in a position to price its rail services at levels that attract large numbers of passengers, quickly achieving the economic aims of the project.
This is something that other countries are beginning to discover for themselves. New Zealand's government agreed last week to buy the country's rail and ferry services from Australia's Toll Holdings for NZ$66s million (about RM1.6 billion), paving the way for more investment in the industry. New Zealand wants to encourage rail transport to take the pressure off its roads, but it found that enormous government support of the private sector owner was necessary to achieve this. In the end, it made more sense for the New Zealand government to repurchase its railroads, ending what some of its officials called the "painful lesson" of I5 years of private ownership of these assets.
Malaysians too have endured painful lessons in the development of the country's physical infrastructure. But that shouldn't be a reason to stop building now. Instead, they should just push for change in the way the ownership and funding of infrastructure projects is organised. Ultimately, their lives will be improved by high-speed rail links that quickly get them where they want to go. I know mine will.
Ben Paul is the executive editor of The Edge Singapore
-------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia's fuel subsidies have reportedly ballooned to some RM43 billion a year. That's more than three times the Treasury's forecast revenue from personal income tax this year of RM13.4 billion, and over 20% more than the forecast corporate tax of RM34.8 billion. And, it is almost half the total estimated federal government revenue of RM102 billion.
Why avoid a one-time capital investment of less than RM8 billion that improves the country's land transport infrastructure, when the country is already spending five times as much on fuel subsidies in a single year that yield no long-term economic benefits?
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Edge Malaysia, May 10, 2008
By Ben Paul
News last month that Malaysia had dropped plans to build a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore was a major disappointment for me. As a Malaysian who works in Singapore, being able to get to the centre of KL within 90 minutes would have improved my life enormously - mostly by putting the food I desperately miss within easy reach. In my view, Malaysia should not only build a high-speed rail link to Singapore, but also invest heavily in expanding rail infrastructure between its major 'cities as well as between its industrial areas and its sea and air transport hubs. But it should drive these projects itself, with private sector companies limited to playing the role of contractors and suppliers.
The rail link proposed by YTL Corp was touted in news stories over the past year as a significant improvement over the existing trains that take as long as seven hours to make the journey between Singapore and KL, and road travel that can take as long as four hours. In fact, it would have been an improvement over flying too. While the flight time is about 40 minutes, travelling to and from the airports as well as the lead time required to check in for the flight typically extends the travelling time between the centre of the two cities to as much as three hours. That might have made the rail link the preferred mode of transport for regular business travellers, who currently have no other practical means of making the trip except by air.
A highly developed rail system that spans the country would also reduce the risk that the economy faces from rising oil prices. Malaysia's fuel subsidies have reportedly ballooned to some RM43 billion a year. That's more than three times the Treasury's forecast revenue from personal income tax this year of RM13.4 billion, and over 20 % more than the forecast corporate tax of RM34.8 billion. And, it is almost half the total estimated federal government revenue of RM102 billion.
If oil prices continue rising, which some market watchers say is likely, Malaysia will really have little choice but to shunt the burden onto its citizens. And, unless there are more efficient alternative modes of land transport available when that happens, the impact on the economy could be dramatic. High fuel prices besides surging trade volumes and choked highways are now also spurring investment in railways in many other countries around the world.
So, why is Malaysia's government backing out of the high-speed rail link project? Its stated reason is that it would have had to bear a significant portion of the project's cost. But compared to what it is already spending to shield its citizens from the full weight of fuel costs, that sounds like a lame excuse. Why avoid a one-time capital investment of less than RM8 billion that improves the country's land transport infrastructure, when the country is already spending five times as much on fuel subsidies in a single year that yield no long-term economic benefits?
In my view, a bigger obstacle to the government backing the high-speed rail link than cost is the scrutiny the deal will face from the country's resurgent opposition. Malaysians are understandably leery of the government providing funds for projects conceived and promoted by the private sector. Too often, the infrastructure assets are over-designed and expensive. And, the potential returns and risks of the project tend to be unfairly distributed between the government and its private sector partner.
The reality, however, is that financial support from governments is often necessary to make affordable rail transport viable. That's because the upfront costs are high, the lifespan of the assets are very long, and the economic benefits they generate are hard for private sector investors to capture. On the other hand, these positive "economic externalities" are difficult to measure, making it tough to determine the extent to which these projects deserve government funding.
Malaysia isn't the only country that's grappling with the problem of finding the right balance between private enterprise and government funding that gets railroads built, allows private companies to earn a fair return and protects the public from getting ripped off. Even in the US, some railroads are asking for government support for their investment in new tracks, arguing that the new lines create wider economic and social benefits, like taking the pressure off roads and highways and making land transport more efficient. But their detractors point out that the railroad sector is already so profitable that it is attracting the attention of savvy billionaire investors like Warren Buffett and Carl kahn.
Rather than struggle with these issues and delay much-needed investment in new railways, Malaysia would probably be better off if the government took over as the owner and financier of these projects. Indeed, when infrastructure projects are heavily reliant on public sector funding, the involvement of a private sector player seems to make little sense. Sure, engineering, procurement and construction contracts can be parcelled out to the private sector through competitive tenders. The government could even appoint a private sector operator to run the rail service for a fee, if it felt its civil servants were not up to the task. But there seems little point in allowing a private company to own railways that are built largely with government funding.
Working with experienced consultants, there is no reason the government couldn't come up with designs and plans for new railways that are as good as any private sector player's. It would certainly be able to obtain long-term financing on more attractive terms than the private sector. And, being in no hurry to recoup its capital investment, it would be in a position to price its rail services at levels that attract large numbers of passengers, quickly achieving the economic aims of the project.
This is something that other countries are beginning to discover for themselves. New Zealand's government agreed last week to buy the country's rail and ferry services from Australia's Toll Holdings for NZ$66s million (about RM1.6 billion), paving the way for more investment in the industry. New Zealand wants to encourage rail transport to take the pressure off its roads, but it found that enormous government support of the private sector owner was necessary to achieve this. In the end, it made more sense for the New Zealand government to repurchase its railroads, ending what some of its officials called the "painful lesson" of I5 years of private ownership of these assets.
Malaysians too have endured painful lessons in the development of the country's physical infrastructure. But that shouldn't be a reason to stop building now. Instead, they should just push for change in the way the ownership and funding of infrastructure projects is organised. Ultimately, their lives will be improved by high-speed rail links that quickly get them where they want to go. I know mine will.
Ben Paul is the executive editor of The Edge Singapore
Saturday, May 3, 2008
YB Unruly?
YB unruly, our new MPs? There are many ways to get 'excited', as Teresa Kok puts it, than to act like a bunch of hooligans. Playing down bad behavior is just bad excuse. It is far better to get down to business than to talk Kok. There is really no such thing as 'first day' blues. Once elected, MPs are expected to hit the ground running.
I for one am pleased that Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek declared that live telecast of proceedings in the Dewan Rakyat will continue. In the live circus performance, we can clearly see for ourselves the cast of Big Foots, Big Monkeys and of course, stars of the show, the Big Mouths.
Please lah. Address real issues.
I for one am pleased that Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek declared that live telecast of proceedings in the Dewan Rakyat will continue. In the live circus performance, we can clearly see for ourselves the cast of Big Foots, Big Monkeys and of course, stars of the show, the Big Mouths.
Please lah. Address real issues.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Hills Are Alive with the Sound of Hypocrites
In my humble opinion, I think lawyers representing residents of developments should not be talking to the press and having their name, face and expertise advertised in the media - print, electronic, and online. Who do they think they are? Politicians?
A lawyer should not advertise or solicit business except to the extent and in the manner permitted by the rules of the jurisdiction to which that lawyer is subject. A lawyer should not advertise or solicit business in any country in which such advertising or soliciting is prohibited.
It is difficult enough for seasoned laywers to rebut a conniving lawyer in court. Set a lawyer loose amongst laymen and the legally-ignorant journalists, and you get the media spinning headlines earning public emphaty.
What more, campaigning (public gatherings disguised as 'Family Day'), granting press interviews (there is always the option to decline) before, during and after court hearings.
Why not choose a lower profile case? Certainly there are many more resident-worthy cases. I certainly do not know if, other than mandatory fees, personal legal fees apply. If not, then what other motive? Career advancement? Love of the limelight?
For developments that are located in private land, and have gone through proper technical appraisal, surely the lawyers must know that it is a losing battle right from the start.
And yet, such lawyers play to the residents' sentiments, allow funds and false hopes to be raised. Such funds can be better used to build retaining walls to prevent landslides, or even to buy back the land from the landowner.
You, my learned friend, betray your profession and worst of all, the naive residents.
At the face of it, you are the hero and champion of the residents. But really, you are just another low-down hypocrite.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Prime Minister Speaks (PMS)
The Prime Minister Speaks. Finally.
It was a rare PMS occasion where Pak Lah came forth after the UMNO meeting slamming his critics and nemeses. As reported in NST on (April 7, 2008), Pak Lah speaks:
On Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
"In 2004, when we won, he said we were too powerful and this was not proper, and that we should have some opposition. When the opposition gained ground, we thought he was going to celebrate but, instead, he hit out at us.... He says there is no freedom but calls me soft. Are they afraid of this softie?
On Tengku Razaleign Hamzah
"Ku Li needs to look at himself. He was the reason (in 1990, through Semangat 46) why we lost and Kelantan fell to Pass.... While Pas controlled Kelantan, did he try to return it to BN? That failed too."
On Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
"He considers himself the leader-in-waiting... Let him wait. I am the prime minister now... He will say anything and do whatever is necessary, but it is a form of bribery if the transaction (of trying to engineer defections) involves money."
To me, all these are coming in a little too late. These things are not new and should be mentioned, if deemed important and requires necessary address, during Pak Lah's first term.
Blogger AC_Here talks about the 'unspoken'. But Lim Kit Siang notes the key point underlying the shoot-out session, and that is, a successor was named.
It was a rare PMS occasion where Pak Lah came forth after the UMNO meeting slamming his critics and nemeses. As reported in NST on (April 7, 2008), Pak Lah speaks:
On Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
"In 2004, when we won, he said we were too powerful and this was not proper, and that we should have some opposition. When the opposition gained ground, we thought he was going to celebrate but, instead, he hit out at us.... He says there is no freedom but calls me soft. Are they afraid of this softie?
On Tengku Razaleign Hamzah
"Ku Li needs to look at himself. He was the reason (in 1990, through Semangat 46) why we lost and Kelantan fell to Pass.... While Pas controlled Kelantan, did he try to return it to BN? That failed too."
On Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
"He considers himself the leader-in-waiting... Let him wait. I am the prime minister now... He will say anything and do whatever is necessary, but it is a form of bribery if the transaction (of trying to engineer defections) involves money."
To me, all these are coming in a little too late. These things are not new and should be mentioned, if deemed important and requires necessary address, during Pak Lah's first term.
Blogger AC_Here talks about the 'unspoken'. But Lim Kit Siang notes the key point underlying the shoot-out session, and that is, a successor was named.
A Malaysian Godfather ... Out in Cinemas Soon!
"A Malaysian version of the highly acclaimed 'Godfather' is currently in the making and will be out in the cinema by end of the year," said local filmmaker who only wants to be known as 'Y'. While the film is in progress, she would like to remain anonymous for fear of getting shot before the film is completed.
The multi-award winning filmmaker said that the storyline is loosely based on the acquittal of former Sabah minister Datuk Conrad Mojuntin. She said that this story is entirely Made-In-Malaysia and she is sure that there would be no censorship issues. After all, it has already been widely reported in all the major dailies.
On April Fool’s Day, The Star published a report saying that Mojuntin, 61, has been acquitted of a charge of criminal intimidation in connection with the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man, Anthony Chang Kim Fook, outside Penampang near here about three years ago.
Some believed that former Youth and Sports Minister of the state from 1982 till 1885 was innocent. After all, how could the 'champion' of Youths possibly had any reason to shoot a young man just past his teens? Surely he can't be such a hypocrite?
Well, with elements of mystery, murder, and gang fights, Y is certain that this movie would be an instant hit, especially for those in East Malaysia.
Movie Synopsis:
(Names have been changed to protect identities of individuals)
In 2005, the local newspapers reported the death of a Sabahan youth, who was found dead outside a library at the Penampang area (nearby Kota Kinabalu). The deceased was identified as Anson Chen Ah Fook, a fishmonger, and the third of seven siblings.
At least three versions of Anson’s death popped up in the local newspapers. Although there are variations, one common theme is found in all the stories that had arose in the days after his death - feud. It was believed that the young Sabahan was killed as a result of some “gang fight” which was said to be resolved, until news of Anson’s death proved otherwise.
A fight outside of a local pub in Penampang was the interlude before Anson’s sudden demise. El Macino, from an elite family among the Sabah community, was part of the scene outside the discotheque which turned him from a respected ex-politician to a man who could be a murderer of a local fishmonger.
Fast forward to April 2008, and Macino was finally acquitted, after a three-year court battle. The story ended, of course, with Macino, as the victor whereas for Anson’s side, therein lies the downside of the case which were grief and disappointment.
But which version of the story is really true? The flashbacks reveals startling insights into the underground world of East Malaysia and the gripping truth about issues of justice and safety in the Malaysian community.
According to Y, their designers are already working on the film's merchandise. She believes there would be high demand for their "Shoot and Run" T-shirts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
