Govt rapped for losing RM52b Bumi shares

By Patrick Lee, Free Malaysia Today

PETALING JAYA: PKR has slammed the government for losing RM52 billion worth of Bumiputera shares just to bump up Malay equity.

The party found it strange that the government wanted to take credit for raising Malay equity to 22%, when it should have achieved a 30% target in 1990.

“After 21 years and billions’ worth of mismanagement and abuses made in the name of the Malays, Umno-BN (Barisan Nasional) is willing to take credit for any incremental increase in Bumiputera equity ownership,” said PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution.

Last week, International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed said that Bumiputera share distribution through IPOs (initial public offerings) had added to higher Malay equity.

Saifuddin, however, said that the distribution of shares to Bumiputeras had resulted in the loss of RM52 billion out of RM54 billion.

In 2009, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak had admitted that only RM2 billion from the RM54 billion of Bumiputera shares given since 1971 remained in Malay hands.

Saifuddin said the situation repeated itself in 2010 when more than 1.5 billion shares from 18 IPOs were allegedly distributed to Bumiputera investors.

He said the shares in Petronas Chemical Group Bhd and Malaysian Marine and Heavy Engineering Holding Bhd had issue prices of RM5.05 and RM3.61 per share respectively.

Saifuddin said that these shares should be valued at a few billion ringgit.

He urged Mustapa to disclose the recipients of the 1.5 billion shares. He also urged that these shares not go the same way as the lost RM52 billion.

Saifuddin also alleged that the billions of shares given over the years had only benefited a small Malay ruling elite, instead of the greater Malay population in the country.

Hence, he said the government needed to change its focus from the 30% equity target and focus on raising the collective household income of the Malays.

Saifuddin estimated that Bumiputeras made up 75% of Malaysia’s poorest 11 million, with an average monthly household income of RM1,500.

PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli couldn’t agree more.

“We have made it clear that since the NEP has failed, this 30% equity is not going to work,” he said, adding that only BN’s elite stood to benefit from it.

“But if you can manage to raise the household income, you would automatically see improvements,” he added.

Your 10 Questions for Sivarasa Rasiah

Note: from www.thestar.com.my

You have been detained under ISA twice. Yet, you have been undeterred in your opposition role. Don’t you fear at all that it could happen the third time? Kumar, Penang

This is a misunderstanding. I have never been arrested under the ISA although I believe I came close to being arrested in October 1987 during Operasi Lalang when a close friend, Yunus Ali who was staying in my home was arrested at my house under the ISA. I had to “volunteer” for an interrogation at that time to reduce the prospect of arrest.

Sivarasa Rasiah

I have been arrested though, a number of times under other laws such as the Police Act starting from 1996 when activists including Dr Kua Kia Soong and Dr Nasir Hashim and I were detained for a week in Dang Wangi lock-up.

Since my involvement in the “Reformasi” movement from 1998, I have been arrested again about 10 times and spent time in various police lock-ups on several occasions. I was also prosecuted three times for so-called “unlawful assembly”.

Thankfully, all the charges have been dismissed so far, although the prosecutors are appealing. I don’t discount the possibility of an ISA arrest happening though. As a human being, we can experience fear when facing police action.

But the prospect of arrest is an occupational hazard for activists in Malaysia who push the boundaries for reform. If one allowed a fear of arrest to prevail, we would not be able to do what we have to do. If personal freedom has to be sacrificed for the greater good, so be it.

How has your base of social activism helped in your role as a Member of Parliament (MP)? June, Seremban

My social activism since 1986 in Malaysia and in my student years earlier at Oxford and London is what has shaped and built the ideas, principles and political vision that I now carry with me and champion. Without my history of activism, I think I would have been a less interesting MP.

Of course, in my student and NGO days, one had the luxury and space of articulating principles and values in an idealised fashion and pushing for the limits, and which many of my colleagues and I did.

My involvement in the political movement since 1998 has brought a degree of pragmatism into my activism. I learnt that the oft quoted saying that “Politics is the art of the possible” is not an inaccurate statement. Also, dealing with grass roots concerns and widely differing views within the party and coalition posed a different set of challenges from dealing with networks of activists.

What led you to move into politics? Did you see the winds of change just before the March 2008 elections and felt that this would be a good time to embark into politics? Any regrets, so far? Sonia, Selangor

I got involved way before 2008. I would say that seeing the reaction and turbulence in our society to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest and detention and the birth of the Reformasi movement in September 1998 was the start of my direct involvement in politics. When the then largely Malay-based group of political activists decided that racial politics had no future and initiated what was to become the multi-racial Parti Keadilan Nasional in April 1999, me and a number of other social and human rights activists decided it was time to get directly involved.

I preferred, then, to join Parti Rakyat Malaysia whose leaders such as Syed Husin Ali and Sanusi Osman whom I had already supported in previous elections. Recognising that both parties would be strengthened by merger, many of us worked towards that objective which we achieved in 2003. Despite the setbacks we experienced in the 2004 elections when PKR went down to just one parliament seat, we persevered in our belief that this country needed a paradigm shift away from BN’s racial and authoritarian model. Our vision was and continues to be a multiracial platform espousing justice and fairness for all communities, affirmative action based on need not race, a genuine democracy with open and transparent governance. We believed that PKR with Anwar’s leadership had a key role to play in forging a coalition with PAS and DAP to provide a alternative to BN and to create the transition towards a two-party system in a democratic Malaysia. I believe that this is what the rakyatsaw in March 2008 and which together with their growing rejection of BN resulted in the March 2008 political tsunami.

Regrets? I have none, whatsoever. I think we are in the middle of shaping Malaysia’s destiny and an exciting and truly challenging time in our history.

Did you almost choose a different career path and what was it?Gordon, Johor

Yes there was a time in my distant past when I hankered to become a doctor. It did not materialise and I know now that was God’s plan for me. In December 1979, when I successfully applied for the Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford, I made the decision to switch out of the field of genetics, which was my first degree.

Does your wife and family feel uneasy that what you do, as an activist and politician, could be risky? Sumathi, Penang

My wife Anne has been most supportive of my political work, because she shares the same values and beliefs. We met coincidentally at a demonstration in May 1987 in Ipoh Road which was organised as a citizen’s response to the brutal rape and murder of a nine-year old girl Ang May Hong. Operasi Lalang in October 1987 kind of threw us together.

Anne has spent many long hours and days in front of police stations with other friends and supporters, sometimes waiting patiently, sometimes pressing for my release. I have heard from friends that bullying police officers have occasionally scuttled away having experienced the lash of her angry tongue reacting to the injustices taking place in front of her. Really, I don’t think I could do what I have been doing without her.

What is it about Malaysian politics which you would most want to change? Annie Chew, PJ

What I, and most of us in Pakatan Rakyat are striving to do is to change the context in which our politics is played out. We want to change the reality of a 53-year continuing dictatorship by Barisan Nasional.

We want a truly democratic environment. We want free and fair elections. We want a level playing field, not just during elections but as a continuing environment in between elections. We want change that will benefit all stakeholders and players and even BN when one day, which is certainly destined, they become the opposition in Malaysia. We want to see our key institutions, the press, the judiciary, the police, the Election Commission, the AG’s Chambers, the MACC independent and professional. We want to entrench an environment where the government of the day knows that they can be replaced by an alternative that is also available to the rakyat. If we achieve that change of our political environment, then we will see our politics also changed for the better.

Do you think elections will be called next year and why? James Ong, Kuching

I think it will only be called at the end of next year at the earliest, and more likely to take place in 2012. I don’t think Umno/BN is ready for an early election and will only move in that direction if they do well in Sarawak. Given the trend in Sibu and the fact that the Dayak population of Sarawak are now restless because of threats to their Native Customary Land and issues connected to religion, the outcome in Sarawak is difficult to predict.

If true democracy is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, what is your opinion about political leaders who are rejected by the people, yet come through the back door as Senators to become Ministers and party leaders? Dr M Raken, KL

If you look at a presidential system of government such as practiced in the US, France, Brazil, this is actually not a problem. You have an elected President who nominates unelected persons as a cabinet to manage the country. You also have a powerful elected legislature that acts as a real check and balance on the executive. No one says that this is not a democracy although I would say that the US form of democracy still has problematic features – it has not dealt with ownership of the media.

In the Westminster parliamentary system that we have inherited from the British, it is elected legislators who are nominated into an executive cabinet by the Prime Minister who commands the support of the majority of the elected legislators. So, if a Prime Minister wants to use someone who failed to get elected but who is perceived to have the necessary skills and experience, why is that such a problem? I am not convinced that it is one.

Political systems all over the world are evolving. Ours is too. We should not be too rigid in our approaches.

What is the biggest challenge you have faced personally, as well as professionally and what have you learnt from them? Stephenie Lao, Sepang

The biggest challenge I have faced professionally as a practising lawyer (since 1987) is the occasional challenge of arguing contentious cases before corrupt and/or spineless or self-serving judges. We learn that the case will not be judged on its merits as we have been taught in law school. We learn, however, that does not mean withdrawing from the battle. We go to court to present our arguments fairly and without fear or favour.

My biggest challenge, personally, was when I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in April 2009. Because of the different types of cancer involved with different survival rates, there was a difficult one week waiting for the test outcomes. The operation also caused the loss of voice for almost a year – a difficult reality for a lawyer and a politician. However, I am thankful, I fully recovered my voice and my health. I feel that I have been blessed with a second chance at life.

It appears that there’s much back stabbing in PKR and the party is highly divided. How is it supposed to draw the voters in with such a perception? Generis, Kepong

I believe that much of these perceptions have resulted because of gross and continuous exaggerations in the BN-controlled mainstream media. On occasion, even falsehoods have been perpetuated of divisions when none exist.

The obvious fact that our leaders are never or rarely given their full right of reply with equal prominence speaks for itself. For example, when have you ever seen Anwar or Azizah or Syed Husin allowed to speak for several minutes on prime time national television? Just compare that with the media practice in our neighbours in Jakarta and Bangkok and Manila where the people get to hear all their political leaders regularly on prime-time television.

Having said that, we in the party must also take responsibility for the lack of discipline shown by some members who openly attack the party and its leaders. We need to handle discipline better.

Our strength lies in our multi-racial membership, our multi-racial leadership and the 17-point programme we have enshrined in our party constitution. We are the only truly national party in Malaysia today organised in all states and in almost all parliamentary constituencies. In our annual national Congress, you will see the diversity of Malaysia in substance not as tokens.

A dead end in Asian politics

A dead end in Asian politics
Written By: FARISH A NOOR * Article Date: July 14, 2008


It has become the common blight of many a postcolonial state that the discrepancy between political idealism and the realities on the ground grow wider by the day. It has also been my singular misfortune that the nature of my work as a political scientist who studies the uneven development of many such nation-states means that I have grown somewhat jaded by such contradictions that are all too evident when one is distant from the country in question.
Over the past decade I have travelled across South and Southeast Asia looking at the painfully slow pace of development in countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia. The political elite of these countries talk on and on about development, progress, emancipation (both economic and mental) and yet remain beholden captives to the racialised ideologies of the colonial past.
Their feeble attempts at deconstructing the legacy of Empire often dwindles down to little more than a vulgar pastiche of reversed Orientalism at best, (as if the racism of Asians is somehow better than the racism of the European colonialists who came before); and their steadfast refusal to adapt to changes around them is irritating and infuriating to witness at close range.
In India and Pakistan I watched as my fellow academic friends who play the role of public intellectuals and who have been calling for peace and reconciliation between the two countries have been systematically denounced as 'race traitors', 'cowards', the fifth column within, etc.
Some of the best minds that secular democratic India has produced have been pilloried and harangued by right-wing Hindutva fundamentalists who have called them 'traitors' to the great Hindu cause, labelled them 'Muslim-lovers' or worse still, apologists for the great Western conspiracy against the motherland.
The same level of puerile non-debate can be seen in Southeast Asia too: Thai pacifists who have called for a settled end to the hostilities in the Muslim south have been denounced as apologists for Muslim extremists; in Malaysia academics who have called for the re-working and re-negotiation of the social contract have been labelled 'race traitors'; in Indonesia moderate Muslim intellectuals who have defended Indonesia's plural society and culture have been branded enemies of Islam. So what gives?
The country that is closest to my heard is, of course, Malaysia and the recent developments in the country has given me reason to be worried about its future. Religious and racial sectarianism remain the dominant features on its political landscape and there is the apparent need for some form of national reconciliation and healing.
Yet events over the past two weeks have made a mockery of Malaysia's claim to be a developing country with first world ambitions: Despite the skyscrapers that claw at the heavens above Kuala Lumpur, the mega-malls that devour their consumers by the thousands, the massive highways that are crammed with cars; the state of Malaysian politics today beggars belief.
At a time when all of Asia is on the brink of a global recession sparked by the rising costs of oil and gas and the collapse of the American Dollar, the issues that count ought to be structural-economic ones instead. But what has transpired over the past two weeks have shown that despite the flashy suits and corporate videos broadcasting the bold and brazen image of Malaysia Inc., the country's politics remains trapped in the swamp of the banal and ridiculous.
For a start sodomy season has returned to Malaysia with a vengeance with allegations of sodomy being levelled against Anwar Ibrahim, de facto head of the Peoples Justice Party (PKR) and adviser to the Peoples Alliance opposition coalition. Not to be outdone, those close to Anwar have also made disclosures about the alleged sexcapades of Malaysia's ruling elite and senior politicians in the country; but only to have the very same allegations withdrawn a day later.
The rally to protest the rise in oil prices on 6 July that was aiming to gather a million Malaysians only managed to bring together 25 to 30 thousand, and was marred by an equally embarrassing incident when conservative Islamists stormed the stage during the performance of a punk rock band, the lead singer of which decided to moon the crowd.
In the midst of this, have we forgotten our economic essentials? And the real reason behind this global economic meltdown, which happened to be the skewed uneven global economy, we have all inadvertently created thanks to our dependency on the US economy? Or has politics been reduced to bottoms and sodomy for now?
All of this has made it increasingly difficult for me to explain the nature of Malaysian politics to my European colleagues where I am currently on the seminar circuit. How, pray tell, does a global economic crisis degenerate to the level of sodomy allegations and why on earth does the personality of politicians matter more at a time when the overbearing global economic structures have taken on a life of their own?
Voodoo politics was a term once fashionable in the 1970s and we seem to have returned to our political myths and ghost stories with relish. As oil and gas prices are set to soar across Asia, the manifestations of public outrage and frustration is bound to spill into the streets. But in Malaysia, as in the case of Indonesia, the results are freaky and unpredictable at best. Why, in Indonesia the ones who seem to have benefitted the most are the Islamist parties that have been scoring hits at all the local elections. So once again, what gives?
Politics has always been influenced by elements that are variable and sometimes even irrational; but this time round the weird and wonderful manifestation of collective anger and frustration may take us to the end of politics itself, and with that our aspirations for development, progress and political maturity can be dumped into the bin as well. How terribly sad!

Dr Farish A. Noor is Senior Fellow, Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Research Director for the Research Cluster 'Transnational Religion in Contemporary Southeast Asia', Nanyang Tech Uni, Singapore