Ultraman says: "Up Yours, PPIM! I'm not Insensitive."

Following PPIM (Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia) or Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association's police report against Unilever Malaysia for putting Christian crosses on its ice cream, another favourite of Malaysian children fears that he might be targetted next.

Not only is he known to frequently strike a pose with his arms positioned to resemble a cross, but he is afraid that the PPIM might mistake him for trying to impersonate the son of god or one of the prophets (depending on which holy book you read). In an exclusive interview with this blog, he tearfully cried that it's not his fault that he has 2 arms and 2 legs just like Jesus - which by PPIM's standards, is more than enough to implicate him as being religiously insensitive.

When even Paddle Pops are Religiously Insentitive

The PPIM (Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia) or Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association has lodged a police report against Unilever Malaysia and sent them a letter demanding an explanation why their Walls Paddle Pop ice cream depict crosses (salib) which they say is offensive to Muslims.

The pictures are from PPIM's website.

Here are links to PPIM's website where they detail their errr.... outrage.
ADUAN PILIHAN-WALLS AISKRIM!

PENJELASAN MENGENAI ISU AISKRIM WALL'S

LAPORAN POLIS BERHUBUNG AISKRIM WALL'S MOO

Outrage? Insulting the public's intelligence is more like it.

Does that even resemble a cross to you? And so what if it does?
Christians don't go making police reports against Proton for blatantly putting a non-Christian religious symbol (muslim crescent) on the nose of each and every car it sold for almost 20 years.

Rather than Unilever, I feel it is PPIM that is exhibiting thinly disguised religious-intolerance and anti-social behaviour.

Perak Mufti Harussani and the Silibin Conversion SMS

I'm not indulging in any mufti-bashing here. But I have to say that it was definitely a bad move on Harussani's part to bring up an unsubstantiated rumour to the muslim NGOs - some of which he must surely know are fairly excitable when it comes to "perceived" provocations against Islam. Things like apostasy, conversion of muslims and imaginary crosses on Paddle Pops are very volatile issues in the current climate.

A person of his experience should have known that those NGOs would (1) over-react, and (2) spread the rumour. And if I were amongst those he spoke to - why wouldn't I believe the words of such a senior mufti reflects more truth than rumour? And is it not reasonable for me to believe that by his telling me (of the coming incident), he was subtly reminding me of my duty to act?

Influential religious leaders like Harussani need to cast a wider net. He needs to realise his words and actions affects people deeply. Not only might he spur Malaysian muslims into action - but that those actions affect the lives of all Malaysians. Matters pertaining to the religion of the country invariably affects the entire country.

I am just disappointed that he doesn't quite grasp how he can use his revered standing in the muslim community to reconcile the sad state of current multi-religious affairs in Malaysia and draw the various communities closer.

The media quotations below are consistent with his interview on rtm1.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...763&sec=nation

Harussani said the woman had sent him an SMS message on Oct 21 to give the time and place of the alleged baptism. He asked her to meet him at his house.

“She came with her husband a day before Hari Raya,” he said, adding that she brought along compact discs and documents that purportedly disclosed that Azhar would be at the church to baptise the Malay students.

Harussani claimed he handed all the information to the police and the Special Branch for their investigation.He said he raised his concerns over the allegations with representatives of Muslim NGOs at the state mosque here on Nov 2.

“What I revealed was meant to stay within the confines of the meeting. I did not know that those present would pass the word around.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...717&sec=nation

Sisters In Islam programme manager Norhayati Kaprawi said the Perak Mufti should have kept the information of the alleged baptism ceremony to himself if he had doubts about the authenticity and validity of the claims.

“He should have kept the information to himself and submitted it only to the police for further investigation.

“He should not have disseminated the unverified outrageous claims to other Muslim NGOs in a mosque,” she said in a statement here yesterday.

What's wrong with NEP's Par Value.

According to an article entitled "The Government's Methodology" in The Sun:

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Abdul Raman Suliman said par value was used in the calculation [of share ownership for the purposes of the NEP] because it could give a general view on the initial paid-up capital for the whole corporate sector.

"Market values can be used but only for listed companies. For unlisted companies, market values cannot be used because they are always changing and influenced by factors that do not reflect the true value of the shares and companies' performance, such as window dressing.

Well, what's wrong with Par Value?

1. Par value is meaningless in today's financial markets.

Take for instance, Berjaya Toto. It is being traded on the KLSE at a range of RM4.40-4.60 (October 2006) when the par value of the share is merely RM0.50. It is a simple case where the market value of the shares (and ostensibly the company itself) is worth nearly 9X its par value.

What using par value does is undervalue the company back to the value of its original capital injection at its formation (this initial capital is valued at par value). This ignores all the value created and assets gained by the company's operations since its formation.

Therefore, in the EPU's eyes, there is no difference between a very valuable listed share like Maybank (market value RM11.30 & a par value of RM1) and a much less valuable one in a dormant Sdn Bhd (Pvt Ltd) company which is worth exactly the 1 ringgit it has in it's bank account (market value RM1 & a par value of RM1)!

I can't say, without more analysis of the EPU's data, whether such a ridiculous conceptual base will swing the final percentages towards the non-bumi's or bumi's favour, but suffice it to say that the calculations from the application of the EPU's methodology can only be characterised as totally inconclusive and misrepresentative of the true situation.

2. Par value doesn't differentiate between the funding structures of the companies.

What this means is that a RM1,000,000 company funded entirely out of shareholders funds (initial capital injection) is worth RM1,000,000 to the EPU's methodology.

But a RM1,000,000 company funded out of RM2 shareholder funds and a RM999,998 govt loan is only worth RM2 using the same methodology.

It ignores the basic concepts of resource and control. Both companies have the same capacities or resources to buy a million ringgit of assets or pay a million ringgit of salaries. And both shareholders (one who contributed a million ringgit and the other who contributed 2 ringgit) have the same powers and rights to control that million ringgit of assets or employees.

The more astute readers of this blog will realise that the former is suggestive of the funding structure of a self-funded non-bumi enterprise and the latter is suggestive of a bumi company that is assisted by the NEP (albeit with some exaggeration to underline my basic belief that non-bumi companies are mainly self-funded and bumi ones are govt funded. And it also makes the calculations below a lot more intuitive).

For the sake of illustration, let's suppose that these 2 companies are the only ones in the market. Therefore according to the EPU's NEP methodology, the market is defined as below:

Total Market: RM1,000,002

Bumi Value: RM2
Non-bumi Value: RM1,000,000

Bumi %: zero or negligible
Non-bumi %: 100%

As absurd as this may seem, this is exactly what the limited disclosure of the EPU's methodology prescribes. Doesn't it mean that the NEP will have to produce 150,000 bumi 2-dollar companies worth RM1,000,000 each so that their calculation will yield a "bumi ownership share" of 30%?

Like the first reason above, this has the effect of making the EPU's calculations totally inconclusive and misrepresentative of the true situation. Only this time, my intuitive conclusion is no longer neutral. I reckon it results in the gross underestimation of the bumi share in the economy.

Can the methodology be improved? Of course it can, and in one of my next posts in the near future, I will reveal my thinking on how the share ownership can be better calculated with the information already available to the EPU. The proposal will be based on the concept of Beneficial Control of an entity and Net Tangible Assets (NTA).

A little bit more was said by our Deputy Minister regarding how 30% should actually be 60%?!

Quizzed by opposition Abdul Raman said based on the composition of bumiputra in the country, the objective of the bumiputra equity ownership should be 60%. Thus, he said the 30% bumiputra equity ownership objective set under the New Economic Policy (NEP) should not be questioned.

"The 30% is the minimum objective. If we follow the racial composition, it has to be 60%. If we want to look at this emotionally, then we (bumiputra) are also not satisfied," he said.

My friend, 30% is already a nearly unattainable goal given the deeply biased methodology the EPU has used, 60% will practically ensure that the NEP is aptly the Never Ending Policy.

Btw, what about foreign investors? Shouldn't the bumi's 60% be somewhat less in order to accomodate the foreigners? Or should their investments come out of the non-bumi's "allocation" only?

400 Years of Debt.

What do you guys think about this statement? That the privileges and rights are to pay back (pay off is more like it) a "national debt" accumulated over 400 years?

Here's something Najib said in response to Ghani's dumbass statement on Bangsa Malaysia. http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=16018

"In his speech at the state Umno convention, Najib said the country's leaders have the wisdom to champion the interests of the Malays without violating the other races' rights."

"We will continue to fight for the Malays without any time-frame. It would not be possible to erase 400 years of being backward in 20 years.

"He the 400 years of colonial rule had left "piles of national debts to the Malays" which could not be settled in a short time.

I find the particular use of the term "without any time-frame" very ominous.

And I just finished reading LKY's memoirs. He mentioned that during the Malaysia negotiations in the early 60's, the "rights and privileges" were normally referred to as "special position" of the Malays. The connotation being that once the position improved, then the special position will not be required.

When did a special position based on economic position and natural justice devolve into rights and privileges based on birthright?

One last comment on Najib's statement. 400 years? The Portugese, Dutch, British and Japanese were responsible for most of that. And the last 50 years of 'backwardness' can only be due to our own govt and the elite. The irony is that the Europeans, the govt and the elite are not the ones repaying this "debt". Indeed, the latter 2 are benefitting improperly from it.

The other thing would be many 'Malays' of immigrant origin should not be entitled to that entire 400 years. Many like the Syed Albar family are only entitled to 80 years at most, or 2 generations, if they are entitled at all. Many more are first generation, coming to Malaysia only after independence. Why are they entitled to the whole 400 years of debt when many non-Malay families who have been in Malaysia for 4 generations (almost 200 years) are entitled to nothing, except the pleasure of paying off that debt?

Some liken this debt to the ones that the Australians owe the Aborigines. Yes, but then nobody ever emigrated into Australia to become an Aborigine before, have they?

Sultan of Johor's SJER Speech. The media quotes Tuanku.

Here are quotes taken from Malaysia-Today, NST Online, Star Online and Bernama. At the time of writing (updating) this, I couldn't find anything quoting Tuanku's speech in Sun2Surf and Berita Harian Online.

It's amazing to me how different some of the quotes are, and how much the emphasis differs between them. If I didn't know better, I might think each reporter was listening to a different speech.

And as if to confirm NST's current status as bootlicker #1, top arse kisser and spin doctor extraordinaire, note how they ahem... subtly include (add?) "quotes" about the virtues of the govt. Funny.... nobody else did.

Malaysia-Today
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=515

"The colonialists built it to develop Keppel Harbour in Singapore," Sultan Iskandar, 74, said in remarks broadcast live on television.

"Many people think foreigners are great but I think they are dirty," he added.

"If the causeway is removed, then the economy will develop," he told a crowd of some 2,000 onlookers, who cheeered and clapped at his suggestion.

"Let ships go through," said Sultan Iskandar, who was flanked by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the launch.

News Straits Times
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/Frontpage/20061105075459/Article/index_html

"What we want is for the Causeway to be torn down. The water is so filthy. Tear it down and Johor will prosper. Ships can then pass through."

"Let’s not be proud of the Mat Sallehs. They will only play you out."

"We have to work together, the state and the federal governments, to make this a success. Insyallah, bermuafakat itu berkat. (God willing, there will be benefits if we co-operate)."

"I want to thank the federal government, especially sahabat lama saya (my good old friend) Pak Lah (Abdullah). I have known him for decades."

The Star
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/11/5/nation/15929677&sec=nation

“The Causeway has to be removed to allow ships to pass,” the Sultan said before
launching the multi-billion SJER.

In his address the Ruler, who was clad in a T-shirt, said he would not “give face” (bagi muka) to the foreigners (Mat Sallehs) and urged the people not to hold them in high regard.

He also reminded locals and their children to be wary of them as they were “vultures”.

Bernama
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=227890

"Causeway tu, bukakan...baru negeri Johor ni maju (the causeway has to be demolished, only then Johor will develop)," the Sultan said before launching the project which was televised live.

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=227815

He said the causeway, built by the British colonialists, was blocking ships from passing through the Tebrau Straits. This had subjected Johor to constant condemnation, he said.

He also reminded Johoreans to learn a lesson from the experiences of the forefathers who were easily deceived by the British. "We better not be naive to be not cheated again," he said.

Why isn't the Govt curious where Happy Balls Zakaria's money is from?

Good article by Kim Quek, a guest columnist on Malaysia-Today. He eloquently and in detail, asks the most important question: Why isn't the govt curious where Happy Balls Zakaria got all that money from?

Could it be that they already know?
Could it be the same place where their land & palaces come from?

Zakaria scandal: fiasco to UMNO?

...the UMNO supreme council deliberated the Zakaria case on 2 November. Emerging from the meeting, Abdullah announced that the only action to be taken against Zakaria was to ask him to withdraw himself from the swearing-in ceremony for councillors scheduled on 8 November. Asked why no further action was taken against Zakaria including his position as UMNO’s Kelang division chief, Abdullah said Zakaria had been a good division leader and his wrongdoings were not party matters. Abdullah said: “It has to do with the government. It is enough for us to decide that he should not be appointed councillor”.

Such arrogance and contempt for public opinion by UMNO and the Prime Minister in covering up the wrongdoings of the ruling elite is a matter of the gravest concern to the nation, as it not only signifies that Abdullah has given up his pretensions of his reform agenda, but also brings into serious doubt his ability to uphold the rule of law in this country. To understand how serious the implications are, let us look into the details of these scandals, itemized as follows:

1. Zakaria has constructed his luxuriously finished 4-storey 17 room mansion, reputed to cost RM8 million, without any building approval from the Kelang Municipal Council (MPK).
2. The land on which the mansion was built, a 43,000 sq. ft. plot situated in a low-cost housing area, was alienated by the Selangor state government to Zakaria’s wife for RM180,000, which was grossly below the market value. The well-to-do recipient of the land was obviously unqualified to apply for this land which was meant for the poor.
3. Zakaria has built a restaurant without building approval, on an illegally occupied state reserve land.
4. Zakaria has failed to pay assessment for his house for the past 12 years.
5. Zakaria, his son Zainuri and daughter-in-law Rosalinda Abdul Jamil were all appointed to the Kelang Municipal Council.
6. Zakaria, appointed a senator on 30 July 1991, had illegally remained as senator since 10 September 1992 when he was declared a bankrupt and became disqualified.
7. Zakaria was suspected to be involved in a dubious sale of land from Selangor Development Corporation (PKNS) to the Selangor Badmintion Association (SBA) in 2004. The 7-acre land in Shah Alam was offered at RM18 per sq.ft., which was grossly below the market value; and Zakaria was then the chairman of the PKNS land committee approving the sale while he was also the SBA president.
8. Apart from Zakaria, two other Kelang Municiapal councillors – Mazlynoor Abdul Latif and Faizal Abdullah -- also built their mansions without building approval. Mazlynoor is UMNO’s Kelang division deputy chief, while Faizal is UMNO’s Kapar youth chief (also in Kelang).

Complex as the above case may be, still, the first question that comes to the mind of anyone who has seen a photo of the awesome mansion must be: Gosh, where did he find all that money to build this palace -- being only a councillor, not a business tycoon himself?

Regrettably (or rather expectedly), none in the authorities has expressed this curiosity...

The complete text of Kim Quek's article is here.

NST drops Brendan Pereira - Plagiarism or Politics?

NST Group Editor, Brendan Pereira (BP) will resign on 31 December 2006. The circumstances behind his resignation have at least 2 versions or possibilities.

One is that he is being dismissed because he plagiarised the work of a columnist from Detroit Free Press named Mitch Albom. This sad story of BP's lack of journalistic creativity and integrity was carried by the BBC in Jonathan Kent's article 'Malaysia editor in plagiarism row' - which said that internet commentators (ie. bloggers) noted the striking resemblance of BP's writing to Mitch Albom's. It went on to say that BP will resign over this issue.

NST has issued a statement that they have demanded that BBC retract the assertion that BP is resigning due to the plagiarism "row". What is probably most most damning though, is that NST did not demand BBC to retract the claim that BP plagiarised Albom.

Brendan Pereira's article: 'How dearly we miss June 6' was said to have plagiarised at least 6 or more sections from Mitch Albom's article: 'Remembering the day before the day'. Here's a side by side comparison of selected excerpts from the 2 articles.

Here's a comparison of the 2 articles in their entirety from screenshots. Geez, this is good stuff but something only full time bloggers can spend doing.

Plagiarism is a difficult thing to define, especially when it's creative writing rather than academic or scientific publication. But I'm sure you agree with me that the similarities are indeed overwhelming. If BP is innocent of plagiarism, he is definitely guilty of being an incompetent writer, inept copycat and embarassment to himself and the NST.

There is perhaps another explanation for BP's sudden urge to resign. Leslie Lau, BP's one time compatriot at Singapore's The Straits Times, has written in his article 'NST to get new group editor amid Umno pressure' that it is UMNO that is forcing BP out. He says UMNO feels that NST (which UMNO owns) should have a Malay group editor at the helm. And since the only thing Malay about BP is the fact that he can spell word 'Malay' (although he might have to plagiarise someone else to get the spelling right), he's being put out to pasture, looking for some other newspaper to embarass with his services.

Another line of thought is that Tun M's supporters might make loud, discontented noises about BP and Kalimullah during the upcoming UMNO General Assembly. BP's early departure might be a convenient sidestep. However, where does that leave Kalimullah? If there is anyone in NST that Tun M disparages more than BP, it is Kalimullah. So, might he also be leaving sometime soon?

In any case, no matter which is the true cause, there is no doubt the mighty spin doctor has fallen. With his career stalled, and his reputation tainted irreparably, BP has gone from a high & mighty cock in a henhouse -to- an embattled hen in a cockhouse virtually overnight. And by the way, that phrase is a sean-the-man original. Don't you go steal that too.

Rights of family more important than good of nation?

In the article "I never gave favours to my kin", Pak Lah said he had never abused his powers as Prime Minister by giving favours to his family members.

“I have never misused my powers concerning my son,” Abdullah stressed.

Asked whether he was prepared to declare the assets of his family members, the Prime Minister replied: “That is the right of my family members. There is no need to declare them. There is no wrongdoing on their part that makes it necessary for them to do so.”

On whether that would be against his principle of transparency, he said: “This is not an issue of transparency. This is (about) the rights of an individual.”

Like Nostradamus' prophecies of ancient times, had I not - equally prophetically - already addressed this issue in a previous blog post about Conflict on Interest? Damn, why doesn't he read what I write before shooting his mouth off?

"Is it fair then, to penalise the businesses of family members and friends of politicians?"

"HELL YES! Of course it is! A political leader that is unquestionably free from conflicts of interest (and therefore, has the undivided trust of the people), is infinitely more valuable than a little inconvenience to his family and friends."

"If we can tell the world that laws like ISA and the Sedition Act are needed because the rights of certain individuals must not threaten the greater interests of the nation... how is this any different? Shouldn't the individual rights of your children, Tun M's children, Ling Leong Sik's children, the children of all other politicians and bureaucrats... shouldn't their rights to make money be restrained from threatening the interests of our great nation?"

ACA's Hands are Tied, says Nazri Aziz.

Did you read my previous blog about corruption and how local politicians seek to exclude "Conflict of Interest" as corruption?

Apparently, now there's another exception. Corruption is not corruption if no public funds are involved because it's all within the party/family.

According to Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in the article ("ACA’s hands are tied")...

“Members are immune from action outside the party (for wrongdoings within the party). That’s my opinion. I may be wrong but I tabled the law (Anti-Corruption Act) in Parliament. That’s my understanding of it.”

“But the ACA can’t come in because this (money politics) has nothing to do with the public. It does not affect the public in the sense that it does not involve public projects or public funds.”

WRONG!

The ICAC in HK investigates commercial crime. No public funds involved there. They also investigate police misconduct, for example when police steal money left behind during drug busts. No public funds there... unless of course you're a drug dealer.

How can a technicality like that even purport to restrict the ambit of the ACA? It goes against spirit of the law, and it goes against the principles of natural justice.

Dictionary.com defines cor-rup-tion [kuh-ruhp-shuhn] as:

1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
2. moral perversion; depravity.
3. perversion of integrity.
4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
5. BRIBERY
6. putrefactive decay; rottenness.
7. any corrupting influence or agency.
8. debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.
9. a debased form of a word.

Not bad, you guys in UMNO and the govt score 7 out of 9.

—Synonyms 2. dissolution, immorality. 8. rot, putrefaction, putrescence, foulness, pollution, contamination.
—Antonyms 1–3. purity. 3, 4. honesty.

Again, the synonyms fit 100% and the antonyms don't fit at all.

“For example, in a family where you have 10 children and you have a ruling that the family must decide on things together, and the father gives one of his children RM1 and says ‘support papa, not mama’ is that corruption?” he asked. "I don’t think so, because there is no abuse of public funds here.

I'm sure that the mama will beg to differ, don't you?

“Corruption is the abuse of public funds. You must read it in the context of the law. You can’t take one section away. The law is all about public projects and funds.”

The law is all about justice, fairplay and moral obligations. Obviously, things you know nothing about.