I salute this *m*f* fellow and his long story to Chinese voters......food for thought
Bob
Ken!!! <na...@pacific.SPAMMERSDIE.net.sg> wrote:
> sometimes it is not enough to observe... someone wrote: if we do not
> act, it is worse...
True, very true !!
> i seriously doubt michael wang as an objective observer
> (misunderstood?)... too many times, he has defended the
> establishment against the indefensible which are neither wild nor
> baseless but rooted in fact which is so clear, even RTM could not
> blank it out... i find that disturbing for a 'objective observer'...
But then, my dear Ken, we have to understand that "unca Yap" is of the same
"observer" calibre as our good friend, Michael Wang.
Hehehehe....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Yap Yok Foo
>But then, my dear Ken, we have to understand that "unca Yap" is of the same
>"observer" calibre as our good friend, Michael Wang.
Especially when observing spammers like this born loser aka as Bob,
gold leaf, goldhawk, etc, etc Bob, how come they never pick you to
lose a deposit this election? All the MDP candidates will be
contributing to the national coffers :-)
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at
http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
Please go to http://www.onelist.com/
Click on Find a list
Type in "bmalaysia" in the search box
Click on bmalaysia
Click on Subscribe to this list
Register
Once registered and subscribed, you will get the daily articles about
Malaysia delivered to your e-mail box
BUSHIDO
wrote:
>Especially when observing spammers like this born loser aka as Bob,
>gold leaf, goldhawk, etc, etc Bob, how come they never pick you to
>lose a deposit this election? All the MDP candidates will be
>contributing to the national coffers :-)
Empty vessels like Bob can only make noise ,
put some money in & he will rattle no end
so how dare he stand for election ?
You think money grows on trees ah ?
regards,
Yap Yok Foo
1st December 1999
Editorial : Mahathir gets almost everything
THE incumbent National Front coalition seems to have got everything it
asked for in the just-concluded general election -- it was returned
with a two-thirds majority of the parliamentary seats and saw the
defeat of two of the most prominent opposition figures.
The 14-party coalition won 148 seats which, as Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad pointed out, was more than the 132 parliamentary seats that
the Front garnered in the 1995 polls, prior to defections. Once again,
Dr Mahathir has proved he is a superb election tactician; he ably
survived the toughest challenge in 18 years in office, facing down an
opposition which was united for the first time since independence. The
opposition grouping was determined to take away the two-thirds
majority which the National Front has enjoyed for 30 years and which
enables it to change the Constitution. Equally, Dr Mahathir staked his
reputation on retaining that special majority.
In part, the Front's win took on such proportions because he persuaded
Malaysian Chinese voters, who form a great portion of the business
community, to back Front candidates. Obviously, business folk
appreciate the unorthodox measures taken by the government to overcome
the financial and economic problems in the wake of the 1997 East Asian
economic crisis. They may also have been voting to ensure that the
social upheavals that beset neighbouring Indonesia did not visit their
shores. In the event, it is clear that they were instrumental in
delivering the convincing victory to the National Front.
Why, then, did the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange register its biggest
one-day drop since Nov 1? The 100-stock Kuala Lumpur Composite Index
fell 11.25 points, or 1.5 per cent, to 734.66 yesterday. The reason
has to do with the fact that a close examination of the results shows
that the Front's victory came at a considerable cost to Umno, the
dominant partner of the coalition. Dr Mahathir lost four of his
ministers and five deputy ministers. His party also saw one more
state, Terengganu, which it has held for about 35 years, go to the
opposition party, PAS. And just as significantly, voters in his own
home state of Kedah elected eight PAS candidates to Parliament against
the seven Front candidates who were returned.
Predictably, in the hours immediately after the results, Umno leaders
downplayed the shift in Malay sentiment away fromtheir party. But
there can be no doubt that reasons for the drop in Malay support will
be intensely debated within the party backrooms in the months to the
party's general assembly sometime in the new year. Equally, there can
be little doubt that the saga of Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy
prime minister, will figure in their discussions. In particular, the
defeat of Consumer Affairs Minister Megat Junid who was cited in
Anwar's court case will be carefully studied, as will the easy victory
of Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Anwar's wife, who contested his old seat of
Permatang Pauh.
Malay support
Umno leaders think of their party as the natural choice for the
majority Malay community. With National Front winners admitting to
winning with the help of non-Malay voters, questions will be asked why
Malay support for the party has eroded. At the very least, as Umno
vice-president Najib Tun Razak indicated yesterday, it's time for some
soul searching. As he put it: The voting trend of Malays who favoured
the opposition is a signal to Umno. He added that the party should,
from now on, correct its mistakes and look at itself before pointing
fingers at others for its surprise defeats.
How far this soul searching business will go remains to be seen. But
for now, it looks as if uncertainty will continue to haunt the
political landscape. The next government's policy agenda will be set
in this context, and economic reforms could take a back seat to
pressing political concerns.
http://biztimes.asia1.com/
Yap Yok Foo
1st December 1999
Pundits see more protest than pro-Islam votes
Analysis of voting trends shows NF lost more popular votes despite
getting 148 parliamentary seats
By Eddie Toh in Kuala Lumpur
A STRONGER showing by the theocratic Parti Islam SeMalaysia has raised
questions about Malaysia's secular approach to governance but some
political observers said yesterday that Monday's poll was not about
religion.
"It's (the fall of Terengganu state) not a good thing but it doesn't
affect national policies. They are more protest votes than pro-Islam
votes," said former finance ministry deputy secretary-general Ramon
Navaratnam about the capture of the east coast state by PAS from the
ruling coalition.
PAS was the big winner in Monday's 10th general election, more than
tripling its numbers in Parliament to 27. It won 13 of the 14
parliamentary seats at stake in its stronghold of Kelantan and made a
clean sweep of all eight parliamentary seats in Terengganu which the
National Front (NF) had ruled for 35 years.
At the state legislature level, PAS almost made a clean sweep in
Terengganu, with 28 out of the 32 state seats, capitalising on the
widespread anger in the state over the Anwar saga and charges of
corruption, cronyism and nepotism in the government. The party had
earlier pledged to implement full Islamic or Hudud laws in the state
if elected to power.
Besides retaining Kelantan with 41 out of 43 state seats, PAS made
greater inroads in two other states in the Malay heartland -- Perlis
and Dr Mahathir's home state of Kedah.
Mr Navaratnam said the shock may force the NF to be more sensitive to
grouses and perceptions of injustice in the nation.
An analysis of the nationwide voting trends showed the NF had lost
more popular votes despite securing more than a two-thirds majority in
parliament.
Unofficial estimates put the NF's share of the popular vote at 56.01
per cent against 65.13 per cent in the previous polls in 1995. But the
performance was better than its record low of 52 per cent in 1990 --
when the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), which is the
lynchpin of the ruling coalition, was rocked by internal strife.
In terms of seats won, the ruling coalition managed to romp home with
148 of the 193 parliamentary seats, a comfortable majority of 77 per
cent but below its record-breaking margin of 84 per cent in the
previous election.
PAS raised its share of the popular vote to 15.07 per cent from 7.31
per cent in 1995.
Still, analysts noted that PAS' showing was still lower than its share
of total valid votes cast in 1986 and 1978 when the party garnered
15.5 per cent.
Analysts therefore withheld judgment on whether PAS could capture more
states in future elections.
They said the erosion in the number of total votes obtained by the NF
was due to widespread discontent in the Malay community over the
sacking and the treatment of former deputy prime minister Anwar
Ibrahim.
Chinese and Indian voters appeared to have backed the 14-party ruling
coalition this time around due to fears of political unrest in the
event of a change in the government.
At the state level, strong support for the NF from the minority
communities was negated by the schism in the majority Malay community.
Political observers said the legacy and stature of Dr Mahathir could
also be affected, especially in the next Umno supreme council election
next year.
Dr Mahathir, who is also the president of Umno, has become the first
premier during his 18-year tenure to lose two states to the
opposition.
By tradition, the president of Umno will also become the prime
minister of Malaysia.
J2R
>
> From Singapore Business Times
> 1st December 1999
>
> vice-president Najib Tun Razak indicated yesterday, it's time for some
> soul searching. As he put it: The voting trend of Malays who favoured
> the opposition is a signal to Umno. He added that the party should,
> from now on, correct its mistakes and look at itself before pointing
> fingers at others for its surprise defeats.
WHAT? An UMNO strongman admitting that they have made mistakes. I
thought all our problems were caused by those dastardly foreigners???
Or is this report a figment of some foreign journalists imagination?
*
sabre 2/3 tiger
j2r...@pc.jaring.my (J2R) writes:
> Yap Yok Foo wrote:
>> From Singapore Business Times
:
>> vice-president Najib Tun Razak indicated yesterday, it's time for some
>> soul searching. As he put it: The voting trend of Malays who favoured
>> the opposition is a signal to Umno. He added that the party should,
>> from now on, correct its mistakes and look at itself before pointing
>> fingers at others for its surprise defeats.
> WHAT? An UMNO strongman admitting that they have made mistakes. I
> thought all our problems were caused by those dastardly foreigners???
> Or is this report a figment of some foreign journalists imagination?
Reading between the lines of the article in Utusan Malaysia today (1
Dec 99) on the same issue by Najib is even more enlightening. ;-}
UMNO perlu perubahan - Najib
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[...]
Beliau turut menekankan budaya memberi teguran dengan ikhlas perlu
ditanam di kalangan ahli-ahli UMNO bagi memastikan setiap kelemahan
yang ada dapat diatasi.
"Ini tidak... bila jumpa saya melawat kawasan, kata semuanya tidak
ada masalah, tetapi kini kita liha sendiri apa yang berlaku."
"Saya berharap pada masa depan orang yang tampil memberi nasihat
biarlah bersikap ikhlas untu memperbaiki dan mengukuhkan parti,"
katanya.
[...]
regards,
.sabre
J2R
> Reading between the lines of the article in Utusan Malaysia today (1
> Dec 99) on the same issue by Najib is even more enlightening. ;-}
>
> UMNO perlu perubahan - Najib
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> [...]
> Beliau turut menekankan budaya memberi teguran dengan ikhlas perlu
> ditanam di kalangan ahli-ahli UMNO bagi memastikan setiap kelemahan
> yang ada dapat diatasi.
> "Ini tidak... bila jumpa saya melawat kawasan, kata semuanya tidak
> ada masalah, tetapi kini kita liha sendiri apa yang berlaku."
> "Saya berharap pada masa depan orang yang tampil memberi nasihat
> biarlah bersikap ikhlas untu memperbaiki dan mengukuhkan parti,"
> katanya.
> [...]
>
> regards,
> .sabre
This is getting sicker and sicker!!! The blinkers seem to have suddenly
come off (the 200+ majority probably had something to do with it)!
Only problem is...for how long?
*
Yap Yok Foo
2nd December 1999
EDITORIAL: Mahathir has won the battle but lost the war
PRIME Minister Mahathir Mohamad might have won Monday's election but
in the heartland of Malaysia, he has lost. Terengganu and Kelantan on
the eastern coast of Malaysia voted solidly for the Muslim
fundamentalist PAS. This Muslim enclave will sow the seeds of
discontent that can only further polarise Malaysia and jeopardise
Mahathir grip's on local politics. Whatever happens from now on,
Mahathir must be held responsible.
It is interesting to study the shift of mood and support of the Malay
voters. Obviously, the nonMalay sectors decided to keep the status
quo. They would have a lot to lose if there was a sudden change to the
political equation, and so prefer to continue to thrive in an
environment of apolitical sentiment and apathy. By opting once again
for the National Front, they have failed to grasp the opportunity to
create history and change the shape and direction of their country.
For instance, Chinese voters in Penang, instead of choosing one of
their own, pushed Lim Kit Siang aside and lost what the outspoken
opposition leader described as a ìhistoric opportunity to oust the
National Frontî and change Malaysia.
However, the victory of Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, wife of the ousted
former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, sends a powerful message
about the dissatisfaction of young voters, who have not been impressed
by the political drama of the past 15 months. They want change, but it
will not come easy, judging by this result. Nevertheless, the voting
pattern indicates they will become a big challenge to the National
Front in years to come.
Because of the interdependence of economics and politics, changes in
one country in the region can affect all. And as those changes are
continuing unabated, Malaysia cannot expect to remain unaffected for
long if Indonesia is any indication. Certainly, other countries. like
Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand were forced to adjust their
economic policies after Malaysiaís imposition of capital controls.
For Thailand, Mondayís poll, which has strengthened the Islamic bases
in Malaysiaís two northern states, will have both a direct and an
indirect impact on its sensitive southern provinces and its future
body politic. The clamour for independence in Aceh in Sumatra is
definitely being felt in the Muslimdominated South.
Over the years Thai policymakers have become more receptive to the
needs of Thai Muslims and have adjusted their policies accordingly.
Many Muslim countries have supported Thailand's approach and continue
their stand. But there are pockets of resistance in the deep South
that want to unleash their anguish. It has only been through close and
sincere cooperation between Mahathir and his Thai counterpart Chuan
Leekpai and the two governments that the situation has improved,
removing the perceived threat of violence. Although it is not a cause
for alarm, there is an urgent need for better understanding of the new
Malay politics from the Thai side. Additional efforts are required to
understand the dynamism of a strengthened Islamic community so near to
the Thai border.
Mahathir has led his country for almost two decades. He has
demonstrated his ability to outmanoeuvre any forces that go up against
him and his beliefs, be they domestic or international. He has proved
far beyond any doubt that he is one of the greatest maverick leaders.
As it is, he should think of retiring from the political arena now and
allow a younger generation of politicians, who have a better feel for
the political climate, to run the country. That way, his political
legacy will be a more pleasant one.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com
Bad boy
Yap Yok Foo wrote in message <385cd8d4...@news.jaring.my>...
>From The Nation
>2nd December 1999
>
>EDITORIAL: Mahathir has won the battle but lost the war
>
The standard of journalism is appalling.
The Nation can't get the title of its editorial right.
The battle was in the Malay heartland and the war was
the election to decide who will form the next government.
Mahathir lost the battle in Trengganu but he won the war,
and will be the PM for another 5 years.
The title of the editorial should be "Mahathir lost the battle but
won the war".
sabre 2/3 tiger
> The Nation can't get the title of its editorial right.
> The battle was in the Malay heartland and the war was
> the election to decide who will form the next government.
Different battle, different war.
The battle is forming the next government.
The war is Mahathir gaining the support of the Malays, Malaysia-wide.
Perhaps that was what The Nation meant.
regards,
.sabre
Yap Yok Foo
wrote:
>The title of the editorial should be "Mahathir lost the battle but
>won the war".
He He, you are perceptive
Uncle Yap thinks you would have made a better editor :-)
icsbi43
m knj.k.j
mkk.njk.njk
njkj.h
mkk/nmk
http2://fearless.com
>
>Still, analysts noted that PAS' showing was still lower than its share
>of total valid votes cast in 1986 and 1978 when the party garnered
>15.5 per cent.
damned analysis... PAS did not contest in nationwide for GE99.. how to
make comparison with 86 and 78 if the sample pool is different.
Yap Yok Foo
4th December 1999
Malaysians plant the seeds of doubt
Mahathir Mohamad may have comfortably won another term, but voters
have planted the seeds of doubt, reports Don Pathan.
In a remote village on the island of Borneo in the state of Sarawak
where headhunters once roamed, a man was seen running up a hill to
meet with the leader of the State Reform Party (Star), one of
Malaysia's handful of ethnic-based parties.
''Dr Rubis, Dr Rubis. Your top aid has defected to the ruling
coalition,'' said the man, huffing and puffing as he tried to catch
his breath. ''At least this is what the Borneo Post has reported today
anyway''.
Although the article was entirely false, there wasn't much Dr Patau
Rubis could do. Most of the people had already caste their vote by
midday and the outcome of Malaysia's tenth general election would be
known in just a few hours anyway.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Borneo in the state of Sabah, a
Filipino migrant worker was caught red handed with an identification
card of a deceased person. He was trying to cast a vote but ran into a
group of people who knew the late Edward Bin Sindan, along with his
son.
Despite the fact that Muslims believe in resurrection, nevertheless
the angry crowd, most of whom were supporters of a local favourite
Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), was convinced that this was the work of the
ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) side.
Fearing that he might face the same fate as another Filipino caught in
a similar incident last March in a state election when the angry crowd
beat the man to death, some in the crowd quickly brought in the police
to settle the matter.
Back in Sarawak's capital, Kuching, in the days leading up to the
election where campaigning took on a more passive note, BN was using
its own form of ''pork barrelling'' to appeal to the Chinese community
-- telling them that if the opposition wins, they will forever be
denied the good taste of pork. Because the Pan Malaysian Islamic
Party, or PAS, was in the opposition coalition, they said, non-Muslims
in the culturally-diverse country would risk losing their way of life
if BN members were not elected. At least that was the message anyway.
It may seem ironic to some people that a Muslim-dominated ruling
coalition would be using pork to lure Chinese voters. But the growing
sentiment resulted from the political drama of the past 17 months, and
cut-throat politics is likely to become more and more the norm in the
future.
Local residents said campaign ethics have long taken a back-seat to
political goals in a country where race and religion have always been
the hallmark of politics.
And with the help of the mainstream media, together with a
well-engineered campaign to ensure a favourable outcome, no one
doubted that the ruling coalition would not come out victorious.
In spite of the fact that BN won more than two-thirds of the
parliamentary seats, the shift in the voting pattern suggested that
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's Umno Party may have to do some
serious soul searching.
The task of maintaining the status quo of the old days will not be the
same as more ethnic Malays, who make up nearly 60 per cent of the
population, turned their back on BN, taking away 20 seats previously
held by the ruling BN.
As for Mahathir's Umno, the party won 72 seats compared to 88 in 1995.
Moreover, its seats in 11 state parliaments dropped from 231 to 175.
For a number of other top Umno figures, the election was too close for
comfort. Umno vice president Najib Tun Razak managed to scrap through
with a 214-vote margin in a constituency where he won by 10,000 votes
in the last general election four years ago.
Mahathir, considered invincible in his own constituency, polled 7,000
less than the last time.
The Chinese, who form 30 per cent of the electorate, opted for the
status quo for fear that an opposition dominated by Pas would hamper
their way of life.
In Penang, Chinese voters sidelined outspoken leader of the Democratic
Action Party, Lim Kit Siang, leading him to bewail that Malaysians has
lost a ''historic oportunity to oust the BN''.
''The ruling coalition has successfully painted a harsh picture of
Pas'', said Faiz Abdul Rahman, a leading human rights activist in
Malaysia.
But in the Malay-dominated heartland, disenchantment with Mahathir
over the sacking of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim last
September has help PAS to expand its power base.
Pas easily retained Kalantan and at the same time extended its power
base to resource-rich Terengganu by winning all the seats. The party
also won the state election as well. They are already talking about
asking for a bigger piece of the pie from the federal government.
Kuala Lumpur has so far been tight-lipped over the matter. Denying Pas
more state royalties could have resulted in alienating ethnic Malays
in the heartland, while giving in to them could have set an unwanted
precedent as well as boost the group's popularity.
Indeed, the champion of Islamic law now holds 27 seats in the
Parliament, up from eight from the previous government. Though the
number may not be much compared to BN's 148 seats, nevertheless, said
a diplomat and analysts, it was enough to plant the seed of discomfort
in Mahathir's Umno, the largest in the BN bunch.
Meanwhile, back in Sarawak and Sabah where talk of succession from
mainland Malaysia pops up every now and then over tea and beer but
rarely gets beyond that point, Rubis said change is inevitable.
Moreover, he said, one should not dismiss the return of sentiment for
succession in the two Malay states in Borneo.
While no one doubts the prosperity brought about by Mahathir's
leadership, nevertheless, many agree that the younger generation have
developed new inspiration.
''I give Umno one more generation,'' Rubis said. ''They can't go on
this way for long.''
But the end of ''functional unity'' may not come easy, however.
Already, the marriage of convenience among the opposition parties
appears to be heading towards a crash.
For example, in the Pas-dominated heartland, Muslim leaders are
calling for stricter Islamic laws. Talk of curbing ''immoral
activities'' such as gambling, sales of alcohol and lotteries have
irked the opposition coalition, which consisted of the Chinese
dominated DAP, a more moderate Muslim Justice Party headed by Wan
Aziza Wan Ismail, the wife of Anwar, and the multi-ethnic Malaysian
People's Party.
Indeed, in a country where voting has always been along racial lines,
finding a Malaysian to lead all of Malaysia doesn't seems to be high
on any anybody's agenda.
''Unity in Malaysia is merely functional. It has never been a rallying
point or a cause for celebration,'' said Rahman. The statement applies
to all political parties and the Malaysian society as a whole.
Nevertheless, Malaysian authorities get really annoyed when such
issues are brought up. In the days leading to the election, local
media were unleashed to attack foreign press and critics, accusing
them of trying to destroy racial unity in the Muslim-dominated
country.
One television stationed blasted CNN for merely suggesting that the
Chinese community could be a major factor in the outcome of the
election, while at the same time, the government was playing the race
card to its absurdity.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com
Bad boy
sabre 2/3 tiger <*@sabri.pc.my> wrote in message
<19991202.21584...@sabri.pc.my>...
>"Bad boy" <B...@pacific.net.sg> writes:
>> The Nation can't get the title of its editorial right.
>> The battle was in the Malay heartland and the war was
>> the election to decide who will form the next government.
>
>Different battle, different war.
>
>The battle is forming the next government.
>The war is Mahathir gaining the support of the Malays, Malaysia-wide.
I would agree with you if the title is phrased differently.
Has won the battle.( It was in the past tense).
Lost the war.( It was also in the past tense).
It has nothing to comment on what is happening now
or will happen in the future.
Bad boy.
Bad boy
Yap Yok Foo wrote in message <3848161...@news.jaring.my>...
>On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:26:46 +0800, "Bad boy" <B...@pacific.net.sg>
>wrote:
>>The title of the editorial should be "Mahathir lost the battle but
>>won the war".
>
>He He, you are perceptive
>Uncle Yap thinks you would have made a better editor :-)
>
Bad boy thinks that uncle Yap is doing all of us a great service.
But Bad boy is unfit; his English is bad, he is anti USA and anti bully :-)
Bad boy.
Ain't-No-Saint
>Has won the battle.( It was in the past tense).
>Lost the war.( It was also in the past tense).
Ahem, first sentence is a past perfect, and the second is a simple
past.
By the way, I would see if differently, "the people of Malaysia
succeeded Mahathir and lost themself".
Yap Yok Foo
(Ain't-No-Saint) wrote:
>>Has won the battle.( It was in the past tense).
>>Lost the war.( It was also in the past tense).
>
>Ahem, first sentence is a past perfect, and the second is a simple
>past.
There was only one sentence
and "but" was used as a conjunction joining
"has won the battle" and "has lost the war"
The second "has" became redundant (understood)
IMO, nothing grammatically wrong with the headline :-)
Ain't-No-Saint
sentence into 2. :)
On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 23:33:18 GMT, yf...@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo)
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 16:59:36 GMT, chr...@pl.jaring.my
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 11th-17th December 1999
Letter : Democracy or Islam
SIR
You argue that a more democratic treatment of Islamist parties could
be the solution to a good deal of the social ills in many Muslim
countries (“Islam’s Arab backlash”, November 27th). I disagree.
First, Islamist parties are trying to use current democracy in order
to abolish it later, when they come to power. They are aiming to bring
in religious laws that are laid down by a divine being, and can be
interpreted by only a handful of people. Not obeying these rules, or
just daring to criticise them, can bring very harsh sentences. Even if
one day a majority wants to be subject to these laws, democracy does
not require us to obey this desire. The rights of the minority need to
be protected. Islamic republics, such as Iran, fail to provide this
protection. Religious parties, therefore, cannot be treated the same
way as other political groups. They present the same problem as
ultra-nationalist groups in Europe.
More important, democracy is based on the belief that two sides of an
argument can try to persuade each other or come to a compromise.
However, this is not the case here. It is impossible to live in a
society where secular and religious rules can live side by side. It is
a choice between one or the other. A similar analogy can be made with
communism and capitalism. Both these regimes could not exist side by
side in one country; so whichever one was in control attempted to
suppress the other.
BURCIN BAYTEKIN
Berkeley, California
http://www.economist.com/editorial/justforyou/current/index_let.html
myl...@pop.jaring.my
QUOTE
The wave of democracy has swept across the Muslim lands. From Algeria
to
Indonesia, Muslims are calling for more ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’
within
their system of ruling. These Muslims have a vision that democracy
would
remove their corrupted regimes, alleviate their suffering and
oppression
under a ‘dictatorship’ rule and perhaps give them more freedom to
implement
Islam.
The Muslims’ version of democracy is that of the ability to vote for
the
person they wish to rule over them and the choice of choosing the type
of
rule, even perhaps for them to choose to be ruled by Islam. This is
probably
the reason why we witness many Islamic parties/ groups entering
‘democratic’
elections in order to create an ‘Islamic government’. We saw this in
Algeria
with FIS (Islamic Salvation Front), in Turkey with the Refah Party and
in
Malaysia with PAS. We can sense the yearning for Islam within the
Ummah when
they voted for FIS in the 1992 Algerian Elections, Refah Party in the
Turkish Elections and their support for various Islamic groups such as
Ikhwanul Muslimin in Egypt and Jamiyatul Islami in Pakistan.
However, what these sincere Muslims did not realise is the true face
of
democracy and what it actually entails. Democracy, unlike popular
belief in
the Muslim world is not merely a ballot box in which one casts votes
and
expresses their ‘rights’. Democracy in this sense is a kufr concept of
legitimising the sovereignty of man to create his own rules and laws.
Democracy gives human beings the sole rights to make laws for
themselves;
this is irrespective of whether a few men or many men make the law.
Democracy is definitely NOT giving any rights to God to make laws for
man.
Defining Democracy
Democracy in its present form has no roots from Islam. It is adopted
from
the ancient Greek Athens concept of ‘demos-kratos’ which stands for
‘demos’
people and ‘kratos’ rule. This literally means that the people rule.
During
the 5th century BC (thus democracy is an ancient concept and not
modern at
all), the Greek Athens used to practise direct democracy where all
citizens
of the state except women (so much for democratic rights), slaves and
children would gather in a meeting place called Agora. In this place,
they
will debate and create laws for the state according to majority
agreement.
Present day democracy as implemented by western nations is known as
elected
or parliamentary democracy. This means that instead of having the
entire
citizenry making laws, people are given the ‘rights’ to vote for
representatives who will sit in Parliament e.g. MPs in Britain. In
return,
these MPs will make the laws on behalf of the people. Although the
practical
implementation is different between the Greeks and today’s democracy
but the
central concept is the same i.e. the laws are made by man, thought of
by
man, the rights and the wrongs, the good and the bad are all decided
by
human beings. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he made his
famous
Gettysburg speech “Ruling for the people, by the people, of the
people”.
This clearly states that sovereignty is for the people and that people
or
man makes laws for himself. With this in mind, God does not even enter
the
picture because democracy has decided that man is the legislator, not
God.
Dr. Abdul Hamid Mitwalli the professor in Law said, “In the ruling
systems,
democracy is referred to as the principle of ‘the mastership of the
nation’…
the mastership according to its definition, is a supreme authority
above
which there is no authority”. Joseph Frankel, a western politician
then
added, “the mastership means the supreme authority which does not
acknowledge any authority to be above it, nor does it possess from
behind it
the legality of reconsidering its decisions.” Therefore, the Master
according to democracy, is the people and that the people are the
lawmakers.
Why democracy works for the West
Many Muslims may seem perplexed by the fact that democracy works so
well for
the West and yet, brings chaos to the Muslims. The West on the other
hand,
enjoys watching the Muslims in this state of confusion and they (the
West)
further sell the idea that the Muslims are not Democratic enough and
that
they should be more Democratic in order for Democracy to work for
them. Let
us examine this closer.
Democracy is the ruling system for the Western nations. It is a
concept
which gives man the rights to legislate and to be their own masters.
The
concept of Parliamentary Democracy was introduced in England and
France
during the 18th Century and later propagated to other nations. The 6th
act
of declaration of rights in 1789 following the French revolution
states “the
law is the expression of the will of the nation”. This is a
proclamation
that the law is derived from the will of man, not God or the Church.
For one
who is aware of the making of ‘modern’ Europe, they will be aware that
this
is derived from the secularisation of Europe and their bloody struggle
to
separate religion (Church) from Politics (the state). Hence, for the
West
Democracy is the way forward in making man his own Master and to break
free
from the shackles of the Church.
As far as the West is concerned, there is no dilemma as to who should
make
the laws. They embraced Democracy with open arms because they have
come to a
common agreement that it is they and only them who deserves to make
laws. As
to what kind of system should be implemented, they also have arrived
to a
common agreement that the system/ideology they believe in is
Capitalism. If
we take Britain as an example of a Capitalist nation who implements
democracy within its ruling system, we can see that there are no
fundamental
differences between the people and the ruling authorities. There are
no
fundamental differences within the different political parties whether
they
are Labour or Conservatives. This is simply because the entire nation
have
agreed upon the concept of man rules and when it comes to general
elections,
the only issue in question are the policies of the different
candidates
regarding branch issues of ruling e.g. taxation, health, education.
Britain,
as a nation has unanimously come to an agreement that they will rule
by
man-made laws and that their ideology is Capitalism. Hence, it makes
no
fundamental difference as to whether their Prime Minister is Tony
Blair or
William Hague. This is because either one of them in power will
implement
the Capitalist system, probably with some differences in flavour i.e.
more
left or more right.
Let us compare this to Muslim countries. Within Muslim countries, the
Ummah
themselves are divided into different factions. Even within the
general
public there is a division as to what sort of rule they want; is it
Islam,
Capitalism or Socialism? Within the political parties, there are the
avowed
secularists who wish to rule by man-made laws and will never rule by
Islam.
Then, there are the so called ‘modernists’ who want to implement parts
of
Islam but maybe not everything yet and then, there are the
‘fundamentalists’
who want to implement the whole of Islam but sometimes come up with
peculiar
models (re Afghanistan). We can see that there is no common agreement
within
the Ummah as to the fundamental question of who’s authority should be
ruling
or even by which approach, God’s or man’s?
Why ‘Democracy’ will never work for Muslims
For Muslims, the question of who should rule, man or Allah s.w.t is
fundamentally a ridiculous question. This is because by professing the
Shahadah ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ immediately negates the concept of
man-made
law and puts the highest authority in the hands of Allah s.w.t. God is
declared Sovereign and this means that His Shariah is the only
legislation
worthy of being implemented. Human beings are in themselves created,
hence
limited and incompetent. They do not possess the capability to make
laws for
themselves especially when Allah s.w.t has made the laws for them and
gave
them the guidance. This means that Muslims submit to the rules and
laws laid
down to them by the Creator.
Allah s.w.t says in surah 6:57 “And the rule is for none but Allah”
He (s.w.t) also says in surah 18:26 “No guardian (Wali) have they
apart from
Him, since He allots to no one a share in His rule!”
Democracy by its core concept gives sovereignty to man and is clearly
a
contradiction to Islam, which gives sovereignty to Allah s.w.t.
Democracy
reveals the arrogance of man and his pride in making himself the
legislator.
Democracy allows man to rule by his own desires and makes his desires
his
‘god’. How can such a system work for Muslims and how can such a
system be
used to bring back Islam?
Some Islamic groups claim that we can manipulate and use Democratic
elections in order to restore Islamic rule with the claim that it is
the
only ‘practical’ method available to us today even though they
acknowledge
that it is a kufr and easily corrupted method. For this, let us look
at the
example of Algeria. In 1992, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won
majority
seat in the general elections. However, the army and the authorities
cancelled their short-lived victory. Since then, the country has been
reduced into turmoil with massacres by all sides. The Islamic Party,
FIS was
banned from participating in any other Democratic elections. The
reason why
the so-called Democratic elections weren’t so tolerant of an Islamic
victory
was answered by El Assil daily when it accused the Islamic leader,
Mahfood
Nahnah for trying to ‘infiltrate democracy’ and steal a win for
Islamists!
El Assil daily said, “Public opinion realised a long time ago that the
Islamization of democracy is boyish attempt that will disappear like
dust.”
This should be an eye-opener to the Islamic groups who participate in
democracy for whatever reasons that by the very nature of democracy,
it is
there to protect the idea of man’s sovereignty. Hence, democracy will
never
allow the implementation of laws other than man-made ones. Democracy
only
gives man the ‘freedom of choice’ so long as the choice is restricted
to man
legislating for himself. Democracy makes man ‘god’ for himself. This
democracy is a Kufr concept that can not be reconciled with the Haq
(Islam).
Allah s.w.t says in surah 2:42 “And mix not truth (Haq) with Falsehood
(Batil) nor conceal the Truth while you know.”
Besides, the Prophet s.a.w said in a hadith “A believer is never stung
by
the same hole twice” yet, we find Muslims ignoring this Command from
Rasulullah s.a.w to be bitten by the same hole again and again. Have
we lost
our sense of judgement?
Some leaders of Islamic groups claim that ‘there is nothing wrong with
using
Democracy, even though it is a Kufr concept as a means to achieve the
implementation of Islam’. We ask these leaders as to where are the
evidences
from Shariah that allows Muslim to use Kufr and Haraam means to try
and
resume Islam? We challenge them to swear by Allah s.w.t that such
claim is
legitimate from Islam when it is clear from the reality of Democracy
and the
textual evidences that Democracy clearly contradicts the very Aqeedah
of
Islam. Doesn’t the reality in Algeria, Turkey, Egypt and many other
Muslim
countries prove that to resume Islam via Kufr will never achieve
success
rather, it leads to the disgrace of the Ummah and the slaughtering of
her
sons and daughters.
Democracy and Syura
As for the misconception that Democracy is Syura. We would like to ask
the
question does Syura constitute the rights to legislate by man? Does
Syura
give sovereignty and mastership to human beings to make up laws for
themselves? Syura is an Islamic concept of consultation and seeking
advice
by the Khalif from his subjects i.e. citizens of the Islamic state.
Syura
does not negate the fundamental principle of Islamic ruling system
(Nidzamul
Hukmi Fil Islam) that the sovereignty belongs to the Shariah as
defined by
Allah s.w.t in surah 6:57 “The Rule is for none but Allah”. This was
clearly
demonstrated by the Prophet s.a.w in the incident of the Treaty of
Hudaibiyah when he (s.a.w) ignored the objections of the Muslims
regarding
the contents of the treaty. He followed the revelation and ignored the
opinions of the Muslims. This was followed by Abu Bakr’s decision to
fight
the rebels who refused to pay Zakah when he became Khalif whilst Umar
objected to this decision. Abu Bakr was acting upon the Islamic
verdict of
“whoever changes his Deen, kill him” (subject of course to stringent
conditions within the Syariah).
Hence, Syura only carries weight in issues that are Mubah meaning in
areas
which Allah s.w.t has not specified for Muslims as to do something or
not to
do something. In other words Mubah is only when Allah s.w.t has
allowed
Muslims to perform something in one way of the other and has not set
any
preference as to one or the other. An example would be when the
Prophet
s.a.w consulted the people of Medina during the Battle of Uhud as to
whether
to go out of the city to fight or to stay within the city. It is also
clear
from the example of Al Hubab b. Al Mundhir when he asked the Prophet
s.a.w
in the battle of Badr concerning the place in which they were to camp.
He
said “is this a place which God has ordered you to occupy so that we
can
neither advance nor withdraw from it, or is it a matter of opinion and
military tactics.” The Prophet s.a.w answered it is the latter and so,
Al
Hubab pointed to a more strategic place and the Prophet s.a.w took his
advice. There was no confusion within the minds of the Muslims as to
the
fact that Allah s.w.t is the legislator and that their opinion carried
no
significant weight with regards to the verdict set upon by the
Shariah. It
was only in the Mubah issues that their opinion carried any weight in
decision making.
The issue of whether God should legislate or man should legislate
definitely
does not come under the criteria of Mubah and hence, how can one
equate
Democracy with Syura? Democracy gives credence to man to legislate and
to
decide what is right and wrong even if it means to make Halaal the
Haraam
and Haraam the Halaal.
Following the revelation of the truth concerning Democracy and its
lies, we
can only say to those Muslims who still support it, participate within
its
system and calls for it. They can either be:
1. Ignorant to the reality of Democracy and its contradiction towards
Islam
This is because no sincere Muslim who loves Allah s.w.t and believes
in Him
and understands that Allah s.w.t is the legislator (Al Hakam) would
ever
agree that human beings have a share in His rule and that the position
of a
human being is equal to Allah s.w.t. We do not believe that any
sincere
Muslim would participate within a system that declares man the rights
of
godliness and feels that man, with his limited mind and capacity could
be a
better legislator than Allah, the Almighty, the Supreme being who
Created
man. Allah s.w.t says in surah 56: 57-61 “We Created you, then why do
you
believe not? Then tell Me (about) the human semen that you emit. Is it
you
who create it or are We the Creator? We have decreed death to you all
and We
are not unable to transfigure you and create you in (forms) that you
know
not.”
If your support for Democracy is out of ignorance then our advice to
you,
our sincere brothers and sisters is to move away from this corrupted
idea/system that has been fed to you by the Kaafir Laknatullah. Do not
be
fooled by their deceitful arguments and influence to make you believe
that
Democracy is the only ‘practical’ solution for you. They claim that if
you
do not support Democracy that you’ll never have Islam but it is their
trick
to make you support Kufr and take you even further away from Islam,
making
it harder for you to achieve it. They are trying to deviate your
energy and
efforts away from the true call for Islam. We call upon you sincere
Muslims
to denounce this corrupted idea because we know that once you have
seen the
true nature of Democracy that you will never support it because you
love
Islam more that life itself and will never deliberately get involved
in
Kufr.
2. As for those who are already aware of the Truth concerning
Democracy but
still support it, calls for it with clear conscience and knowledge of
its
lies and deceit, we advice you to fear Allah s.w.t and remember His
Promise
to those who stand in the Path of Islam in order to corrupt it.
Allah s.w.t says in surah 5: 44, 45, 47 “And whosoever does not judge
by
what Allah has revealed, such are the Kaafir, Zalimun and Fasiqun.”
And remember when Allah s.w.t says in surah 9: 67-68 “The hypocrites,
men
and women are from one another. They enjoin Al Munkar and forbid Al
Maaruf
and they close their hands (from giving in Allah’s cause). They have
forgotten Allah so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are
the
Fasiqun. Allah has promised the hypocrites; men and women and the
disbelievers, the Fire of Hell, therein shall they abide. It will
suffice
them. Allah has cursed them and for them is the lasting torment.”
We have mentioned earlier that the lack of clear and common idea
amongst the
Muslim Ummah prevents her from implementing a system that will bond
and
unite her and gives her a correct vision. Democracy, apart from the
fact
that it is a corrupted idea of ‘people rule’, still does not give rise
to a
comprehensive system from which mankind may live and rule themselves
by.
This is because even after man has decided that he should rule
himself, he
still has to come to an agreement of what sort of man-made system to
implement. Hence, not only is Democracy Kufr and Haraam, it still does
not
solve the problem of mankind.
As we said earlier, in the West people have come to an agreement that
man
should rule himself and that they have adopted the man-made system of
Capitalism. In Muslim countries and some Kaafir ‘third world
countries’,
even after achieving ‘Democracy’, it still has not solved their basic
problems. Take Indonesia as an example, democratic elections have not
solved
the problems faced by the nation. This is because who rules or how
they are
elected is not the real problem as they have been made to believe.
People
are made to believe that by having democratic elections they will
solve
their problem by having the ruler they like. What the Ummah needs is a
correct comprehensive system i.e. Islamic, not just a nice ruler
sitting on
a throne but don’t know what he’s ruling by, is it Islam, Capitalism,
Socialism or mixed ‘Rojak’ system
When the Ummah have come to a common agreement that it is Allah s.w.t
who is
the legislator and Islam is the only system to rule by, they can
choose from
amongst themselves a Khalif who will rule by Islam. This is because
regardless of whoever becomes the Khalif, he is obliged according to
the
Islamic constitution to rule by the laws of Allah s.w.t and nothing
else. If
he refuses to rule by Islam and wishes to rule by his own mind then,
the
Syariah can dispose him by the authority of the Ummah and elect a new
Khalif. The Ummah gives the Khalif the Bay’ah (pledge of obedience) to
obey
him so long as he implements Islam. Hence, the sovereignty of the
Islamic
State belongs to Allah s.w.t and there is no place for Democracy (in
the
present Western form) to exist within the Islamic ruling system.
6th November 1999
UNQUOTE
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:54:49 GMT, yf...@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo)
wrote:
>From The Economist
sabre 2/3 tiger
> Democracy by its core concept gives sovereignty to man and is clearly
> a contradiction to Islam, which gives sovereignty to Allah s.w.t.
> Democracy reveals the arrogance of man and his pride in making himself
> the legislator. Democracy allows man to rule by his own desires and
> makes his desires his "god".
I believe this is incorrect.
Democracy with Quran and Sunnah as its Constitution allows man to rule
according to the words of God and the way of his Prophet.
Democracy does not give anymore power to man than there already is to
man who choose to disbelieve the words of God.
regard,
.sabre
... a consensus is not necessarily right ...
... but a consensus is likely to be right, where good men prevails ...
... "Democracy for Islam" not "Democracy or Islam" ...
Lincoln Yeoh
>myl...@pop.jaring.my writes:
>> Democracy by its core concept gives sovereignty to man and is clearly
>> a contradiction to Islam, which gives sovereignty to Allah s.w.t.
>> Democracy reveals the arrogance of man and his pride in making himself
>> the legislator. Democracy allows man to rule by his own desires and
>> makes his desires his "god".
mylias, what if a bunch of people said that God made them rulers over all
of us? How do you know if they are right or wrong?
Just say we don't have pride and arrogance to make ourselves the
legislators. What happens if some evil person with pride and arrogance
makes himself The Legislator? How do you stop that? Where are your checks
and balances? What if the few religious leaders are fooled? With
centralisation you only need to fool/subvert/corrupt a few people.
What if suddenly a religious leader said that God told him that he was to
rule over everybody? Who has the authority to oppose him? Only other
religious leaders? What if God hinted to you that the religious leader
can't be telling the truth?
>I believe this is incorrect.
>
>Democracy with Quran and Sunnah as its Constitution allows man to rule
>according to the words of God and the way of his Prophet.
>
>Democracy does not give anymore power to man than there already is to
>man who choose to disbelieve the words of God.
Does Islam require that the rulers pick the rulers? Or is there scope for
the ruled to pick their rulers?
Are muslim believers given the authority to make decisions on their faith
for themselves? Or only the clergy have access to the Truth?
You could have believers who pray and ask God for guidance so that they can
democratically choose their leaders who are wiser and
_can_better_serve_God_and_them. And since the leaders like us are fallible
and prone to weaknesses they do not "serve" for life, and need to be
reelected.
Sabre, see what I was worried about? Some people blindly think that a
monopoly on truth and authority by a small bunch of humans is good.
Cheerio,
Link.
****************************
Reply to: @Spam to
lyeoh at @peo...@uu.net
pop.jaring.my @
*******************************
Xac
the last apostle.
There will be no more messengers from God until the End of Days (pun
intended)
That will be the return of Jesus to fight against the Anti-Christ in the
Armageddon.
So until then, Muslims will have to be firm, and DO NOT believe anyone
claiming to be God's messenger or whatever.
sabre 2/3 tiger
> *@sabri.pc.my (sabre 2/3 tiger) wrote:
>> Democracy with Quran and Sunnah as its Constitution allows man to rule
>> according to the words of God and the way of his Prophet.
> the ruled to pick their rulers?
I understand the first Khalifah (caliph) Abu Bakar as-Siddiq RA was
selected by consensus of the muslims then. AFAIK, that's the case for
the first four Khalifah. I'm not toos sure of the process of ruler
selection after that.
> Are muslim believers given the authority to make decisions on their faith
> for themselves? Or only the clergy have access to the Truth?
The ulamak in Islam (the clergy you say) does not have innate rights to
interpret Islam, other than they being more knowledgeable in Quran and
Sunnah and hence the teachings of Islam. That is anyone who have deep
knowledge in Quran and Sunnah, and earn respect of other muslims, will
be considered ulamak.
The ulamak does not need to be selected by other ulamak or be endorsed
by the rulers. Though that generally does show they have earned the
respect of other muslims. So I believe.
> Sabre, see what I was worried about? Some people blindly think that a
> monopoly on truth and authority by a small bunch of humans is good.
AFAIK, most muslims believe taqlid (*blind* following) of anyone
(including ulamak) is not good. We are encouraged to equip ourselves
with basic knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah to enable us to
differentiate the good and the bad.
Hope that helps,
.sabre
Lincoln Yeoh
>AFAIK, most muslims believe taqlid (*blind* following) of anyone
>(including ulamak) is not good. We are encouraged to equip ourselves
>with basic knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah to enable us to
>differentiate the good and the bad.
>
>Hope that helps,
I sure hope so too :).
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 18th-24th December 1999
Snapped
“FOR sale: 140,000 tonnes of rubber. One slightly careless owner.”
Such could be the epitaph for the International Natural Rubber
Organisation (INRO), the cartel of rubber-growers and consumers, which
has come to a sticky end. Its former members met in Kuala Lumpur this
week to decide how to sell a huge “buffer stock” of natural rubber
left after the cartel’s demise in October. When that disappears, the
final traces of INRO will disappear with it.
Rubber was introduced into Asia by the British, whose traders smuggled
seedlings out of Brazil in 1876 and brought them to plantations in
colonial Malaya, breaking the Brazilian rubber cartel. By 1900, a
“rubber revolution” on the Malay peninsula saw the trees replace
almost all other cash crops.
More recently, lower-cost countries such as Thailand and Indonesia
have taken most of the market, while Malaysia has begun to grow
higher-value crops, such as palm oil. Its government turned against
INRO because it thought that the nation’s development would be
hindered by making rubber planting more lucrative than it deserved to
be. Malaysian interests also shifted from producer to consumer, as it
became the world’s biggest maker of surgical gloves.
But INRO had more fundamental problems. Like most of the cartels that
preceded it, including sugar, tin and tea, it failed to keep the
market at bay. INRO was leaky, because hundreds of “smallholder”
plantations and other producers operated outside the cartel. And
rubber consumption is slowing as more passenger-car tyres are made of
synthetic rubber, leaving truck and aircraft tyres (which need the
tougher natural product) as the main markets.
Because INRO contained both producers and consumers, there was also
conflict between its members. Although all agreed that the aim was
price stability, importers and exporters in INRO wanted to push prices
in opposite directions. The cartel could not stretch enough to
accommodate both.
This tension, which had existed for years, finally became unbearable
in the Asian financial crisis. Before the crisis, INRO’s members had
agreed on a price band, below or above which the cartel would
intervene. But the prices were defined in local currencies, a
combination of the Malaysian ringgit and the Singaporean dollar,
whereas the producers of the end products pay in American dollars or
yen. Although rubber prices have fallen sharply since 1995 (see
chart), INRO did not intervene, because the rubber price was going up
in local-currency terms, as those currencies devalued.
Importing countries thought this within the rules. But Thailand, the
biggest producer, was outraged. Although it made money as a result of
the crisis, it would have made much more if INRO had in fact
intervened. Early this year, both it and Malaysia quit INRO, killing
the cartel by depriving it of most of the fees it needed to intervene
in the market.
INRO’s demise is no tragedy. When it was created in 1979 rubber prices
were rising fast, as the price of synthetic rubber climbed because of
the oil crisis. Importers wanted to bring order to the market. For a
while it worked, but at a cost. By limiting the amount by which prices
later fell, INRO encouraged over-production and the perpetuation of
nearly half a million small, inefficient rubber plantations where
workers earn some of the lowest wages for the drudgery of collecting
meagre latex dribbles from each tree.
So goodbye and good riddance? Not quite yet. At INRO’s wake this week
some exporting countries were talking of reinventing the cartel as a
producers’ club more along the lines of OPEC. Will Indonesia and
Thailand succeed where an entire industry failed? Unless the world
suddenly depends on rubber the way it does on oil, it is hard to
imagine the rubber barons bouncing back.
http://www.economist.com
**************From Uncle Yap**************
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
To subscribe:just send blank e-mail to bmalaysia...@onelist.com
To unsubscribe: bmalaysia-...@onelist.com
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 18th-24th December 1999
Newspapers are quick to crow about their predictive triumphs. But what
about when they are wrong? The editor of The Economist owns up to our
recent, er, disappointments and explains why forecasts are so often
wrong
A MESSAGE was sent to all our writers, offering a bribe (a bottle of
good wine) for every admission of a forecast gone wrong that ended up
being used in this article. Amazingly (that’s British irony, see
article), the editor’s wine cellar has not been much depleted as a
result. A remarkable number of the non-confessors—the biggest category
of replies—defended our apparent errors by quoting John Maynard
Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
sir?” Some even got the quote right, unlike Charlemagne in our issue
of October 17th 1998.
Actually, that is an exaggeration. Nobody needed to own up to either
of the two forecasts that most readers will remember as having been
wrong this year—about oil prices and the bursting of America’s
stockmarket bubble—because they were obvious for all to see. (Though,
as this article will argue, only one of them was an error.) Still, the
exercise did reveal a general reticence that goes beyond simple
self-defence in the face of the boss. Part of the explanation is the
weekly cycle: such is the urgency to move to the next issue once one
has been printed, that writers tend to forget their previous
prognostications, often conveniently. But also there is a real
dispute—hidden in that quote from Keynes—about what counts as a bad
forecast.
Such bloopers rarely—thank goodness—come clearer or more spectacular
than our cover, “Drowning in oil”, on March 6th, which speculated that
having fallen to $10 a barrel, the price of oil might soon fall
further, even as far as $5. This view was surrounded by weasel
words—possibly, perhaps, may—but no matter, for our leaning was clear.
The world was already awash in oil. And the country with the biggest
oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, looked as if it might react to this not by
cutting output in a concerted effort by OPEC members, as in the past,
but rather by “throwing open the taps” in an effort to boost its own
oil revenues.
It wasn’t long before this was proved wrong. About four days, in
fact: the following week, OPEC ministers agreed to cut their
production, in a deal that was formally confirmed a fortnight later.
By then, the price had risen by 30%. By December, it had hit $25 and
was therefore getting close to having trebled since our forecast that
the price might soon halve.
How could we get something so wrong? Aren’t Economist journalists
supposed to be well informed and, dare one say it, clever? Well yes,
and we certainly wish we had got it right. But it may at least be
helpful to slice up the background to this prediction, to understand
the peril that surrounds all such forecasts as well as to see why they
are nevertheless worth making.
The first point to bear in mind is that forecasts of this sort are not
made in isolation. The view that oil prices might continue to fall
reflected a more general view about the world economy, and hence about
the likely demand for oil. We felt queasy about American stockmarket
values, and thought in any case that American economic growth was
likelier to slow down than to accelerate. It hasn’t slowed, to
widespread—but not universal—surprise. That fact, combined with rapid
recovery in some East Asian economies, has enabled OPEC to keep prices
rising and has limited the temptation for members to cheat on their
output quotas. So be it, but the point remains that the oil-price
error really reflected a wider misjudgment.
A second, narrower, point concerns Saudi Arabia. It is not a country
about which it is possible to be well informed. Journalists, by and
large, are kept out. “No publicity is good publicity” is the Saudi
principle. Decisions are made in secret, with no public debate. So
guesswork about what the Saudi government might want to do, concerning
OPEC or anything else, is just that: guesswork. And it is not even
guesswork about a clear national interest, but rather about the views
and interests of a closed ruling elite. Why, then, even guess what
these secretive sheikhs might do? Because it will affect what
others—firms, people, governments—do.
Finally comes a point common to many forecasts, especially those that
relate to or depend on the behaviour of a fairly small group of
people. This is that a forecast can often be self-negating. By showing
clearly where current trends are leading, it helps to galvanise minds
into altering that direction. This is not to claim that our cover on
March 6th singlehandedly persuaded oil ministers that they were
heading towards disaster, and that they had better cut output,
double-quick. Rather, the point is that it was part of, and
contributed to, a general climate of concern about the over-supply of
oil and the downward drift of prices. And that is what galvanised
ministers into action.
Indeed, the giveaway words in many doomed predictions are “on present
trends”, since trends often contain the seeds of their own
destruction. Our error lay in not giving that possibility its due
weight.
This is, of course, just one case, albeit an embarrassingly prominent
one. For sure, there have been plenty of others. But we do at least
get some things right, even if modesty prevents them being listed
here. The trouble is, it is impossible to know in advance which are
which. So wouldn’t it be better to give up making predictions
altogether?
Predictions and policy
Let’s own up to a few more mistakes first, before explaining why we
will carry on making forecasts. One that would be claimed in many NATO
defence ministries is that we were wrong to criticise the American and
European bombing of Serbia this year, as well as to suggest that it
was unlikely to succeed. “Stumbling into war” were our cover words on
March 27th, when we feared that the NATO effort could well fall flat,
leaving the Balkans ablaze and the alliance weakened.
It didn’t, they weren’t, and it wasn’t. The Serbs were indeed driven
out of Kosovo. On the other hand, Slobodan Milosevic remains president
of Serbia, and Russia has been bombing its own renegade province of
Chechnya, partly on the grounds that if NATO can bomb things to
smithereens, so can it. So were we right or wrong? Here is where the
question of error blurs.
When we analyse a decision such as that of NATO to bomb Serbia, we are
in reality trying to assess the risks and rewards of a piece of public
policy, and in the case of a military action such as this the risks
must be taken particularly seriously. Our view was that the risk of
air power failing was high, and therefore it would be better for NATO
to send in a proper force of ground troops as well. In the end
President Milosevic capitulated, in a manner that surprised even the
NATO commanders. But we would still argue that if preparations had
been made to send in a ground force from the very beginning, Mr
Milosevic might well have backed down sooner. The eventual outcome did
not make our advocacy—with its implied predictions—unreasonable.
The same could be said of another president who remains in office, one
William Jefferson Clinton. “Just go”, we said, and he didn’t. This,
rather plainly (and, to some, objectionably) was advocacy rather than
prediction, though it also contained a view that America would have
been better off if he had resigned, during 1998 or even after his
impeachment. Would it have been? There is no way to be sure, and
President Clinton has arguably had a more vigorous 1999 than we might
have expected. But his political capital is pretty negligible, there
were broader (but even less provable) questions of the defence of the
rule of law, and the recent debacle at the World Trade Organisation in
Seattle might well have been avoided by a more confident, more
legitimate president. In the “what-if?” game, there are no winners.
Perhaps, though, it would be as well to put politics aside and return
to economics, which is supposed to be more predictable. East Asia’s
financial crash of 1997 surprised many people, and so has its fast
recovery this year. Would either have surprised readers of The
Economist? We did, in fact, point out in advance that things were
going wrong in the region, particularly with property booms and
fragile banks. Indeed Chris Patten, the former governor of Hong Kong,
wrote in his book “East and West” (Macmillan, 1998) that Asia’s
troubles “had been both predictable and predicted, for example by The
Economist.” (Thank you, Mr Patten.)
We also, in a survey of East Asia in March 1998, said that the region
could recover quite quickly, if the right economic policies were to be
followed. So far, so good. But what of our survey of Indonesia in July
1997 that said that, of the East Asian economies, this one looked to
be reasonably healthy? Or of the warnings we gave, at several moments
during 1997-99, that things could become much worse, particularly in
China and Japan?
There are two defences, which it is hoped might be illuminating rather
than actually defensive. One is that the thing that makes economic
forecasting difficult, if not impossible, is the sheer complexity and
variability of the relationships involved. What virtually everyone got
wrong in East Asia, including us, was the way in which one country’s
troubles fed on others’, and the way political instability blended
with economic woes. (Conversely, misjudging the link between politics
and economics probably explains why the Russian financial collapse we
predicted on March 27th has not yet happened.)
The other defence returns to the earlier point about advocacy: to get
the “right” economic policies followed you need to warn of the risks.
But if the right policies are followed, the risks diminish.
Right because we are wrong
When you offer an opinion about public (or private or corporate)
policy, you must also offer a view about the future: the possible
consequences if the policy is followed, or if it isn’t. Indeed, the
point is even broader than that. In every way that people, firms or
governments act and plan, they are making implicit forecasts about the
future. Many will prove to have been wrong. Still, one function a
publication like The Economist can perform is to make such forecasts
more explicit, to test or challenge them.
Some may be right at the time, but the facts change. For example,
scepticism about the boost to American productivity from information
technology is gradually being counter-balanced by new facts; and as it
has done so, we have changed our minds about this so-called “new
economy” (though not yet completely). Other forecasts may be right but
not yet. That remains our view of the “bubble” in the American
stockmarket, on the basis of which we have for two years been urging
the Federal Reserve to keep monetary policy tight. The Fed has been
slow to do so, and in our view has thus taken a risk that today’s
rising corporate and consumer debt levels may turn into tomorrow’s
crash. We hope this proves to be wrong.
But might we be proved right? We cannot know. And that is the best
point with which to leave this subject. For the irony is that getting
things wrong actually reinforces one of The Economist’s main messages:
namely, that free markets are better at determining outcomes than are
brilliant people sitting in smart offices, be they central planners or
journalists. Not that we get things wrong deliberately in order to
prove this point, you understand. But if we were right all the time,
communism might have worked. Then we would have been wrong about that
too.
anticronies
j2r...@pc.jaring.my wrote:
> sabre 2/3 tiger wrote:
>
> > Reading between the lines of the article in Utusan Malaysia today (1
> > Dec 99) on the same issue by Najib is even more enlightening. ;-}
> >
> > UMNO perlu perubahan - Najib
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > [...]
Komplain banyak-banyak alamat nak kena terajang keluar UMNO ler tu.
Bukan tak tak tau UMNO nih bukan boleh kena tegur. Nak pulak orang tua
yang dah 73 tahun tu.
Prebet Ryan Abdullah
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sam
tampered with/wether it truly has remained the same for 1400 years.
Bahai'ullah claims to be the last prophet following moses, jesus, mohd etc
..
Yap Yok Foo
19th December 1999
Holy cow! Milk's an oppressor of the races
By ROGER FRANKLIN NEW YORK
What could be more innocent and pure than a tall, cool glass of milk?
Just about everything, according to America's Congressional Black
Caucus, which recently passed a resolution ranking the bovine elixir
right up there with the Ku Klux Klan as a mortal threat to the
nation's black families.
"When I see a milk carton where my kids could reach it, it's like a
bunch of guys in white sheets have have planted a burning cross in my
refrigerator," said Ms M'pala Rinkwea, a young New York mother who has
been petitioning New York's Board of Education to remove all dairy
products from the city's schools.
"Milk," she adds with steely conviction, "is white power."
It would be easy to dismiss Ms Rinkwea's crusade as the rantings of
just another fanatic food faddist if the anti-milk campaign was not
making so much noise. Although United States health officials swear
there is not a shred of evidence to warrant the belief that America's
dairy farmers are part of a gigantic conspiracy to poison minority
children, the clamor to ban it is growing. From Holstein-infested
Vermont to the cow towns of Texas, worried farmers and processors have
been forced to abandon their bemused indifference to the anti-dairy
movement in favor of a more aggressive defensive.
"This is America - we don't want to find ourselves on the wrong side
of a billion-dollar lawsuit," a Washington lobbyist for the dairy
industry said recently. "You know, there was even a doctor in
Baltimore who has been saying he would rather give kids a plug of
chewing tobacco than a milkshake. This, from a doctor!"
The anti-milk argument is based on a well known medical oddity - the
fact that people of northern European descent are generally better at
processing lactose than those whose ancestors hailed from Africa and
the Mediterranean rim. While milk's enemies attribute this to a random
and quirky genetic mutation, more orthodox researchers see a link to
sunshine, which helps to promote the absorption of vitamin D. If your
distant ancestors lived in the gloomy north, it was a distinct
advantage for them to have evolved gastro-intestinal tracts that made
it possible to extract vitamin D from a cow.
In America, talk of genes and evolutionary imperatives gets short
shift from the dairy defamers. As a dismissive Ms Rinkwea put it:
"That ain't nothing but science for white folks."
Her own young son's tummy troubles brought about her enlistment in the
cause, she explained, when she sought an explanation for his loose
bowels, gales of wind and constant stomach aches. That was when a
friend introduced her to a book entitled Milk: The Deadly Poison, by
Robert Cohen, one of America's most energetic foes of milk in all its
many forms.
"I started reading and the conspiracy became clear," she continued in
the voice of someone who had just spotted a cow on the grassy knoll .
"How can the Government subsidise dairy farmers when their products
are making our black children sick?"
According to the US Department of Agriculture, complaints about milk's
alleged dangers are vastly overblown. True, roughly 20 per cent of
black, Asians and Latin-American people display some degree of
intolerance. But overall, with dairy foods providing approximately 75
per cent of the calcium in a typical American's diet, the Government
insists overall gains far outweigh particular disadvantages. "People
can get the required calcium from other sources - but they usually
don't," said an agricultural spokesman.
http://www.theage.com.au/
Ken!!!
seeing it affects the 'ang-mohs' more than the asian people :-)
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:41:38 GMT, yf...@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo)
wrote:
>Holy cow! Milk's an oppressor of the races
>By ROGER FRANKLIN NEW YORK
*************************************
delete SPAMMERSDIE for correspondence
ICQ:42366740
*************************************
witra
>Her own young son's tummy troubles brought about her enlistment in the
>cause, she explained, when she sought an explanation for his loose
>bowels, gales of wind and constant stomach aches. That was when a
>friend introduced her to a book entitled Milk: The Deadly Poison, by
>Robert Cohen, one of America's most energetic foes of milk in all its
>many forms.
How much milk do you have to drink to be classified as
lactose-intolerant? How many people drink that much milk?
I guess this is a good reason to smirk and be proud that we over here
are not that crazy. But then, our government says eating sugar causes
diabetes. ;)
Charles
as little as two ounces will do it, depending on the severity of the
problem
Yap Yok Foo
20th December 1999
After 442 years, Macau returns to Chinese rule
By Lorien Holland in Macau
A jubilant China raised its red flag over Macau early this morning,
ending close on 450 years of Portuguese rule here and erasing the last
of the foreign enclaves that once littered its coastline.
On the stroke of midnight, Chinese President Jiang Zemin welcomed
Macau's 430,000 people back to the "embrace of the motherland", while
1,500 miles to the north, the night sky over Peking filled with
fireworks as the Chinese capital celebrated.
In Macau's city streets, crowds watching banks of televisions
broadcasting the handover ceremony roared with approval when they saw
the flag of the People's Republic of China replace that of Portugal.
The city's 24-hour casinos were also packed as locals looked forward
to a lucky night and the start of a two-day holiday to celebrate the
handover.
"That's the end of rule by foreigners, of course we are glad," said
Pang Wai-cho, who had turned out with his two small daughters to
witness events.
Almost everyone agreed that China's resumption of sovereignty would
help wipe out a turf war that has gripped Macau's gambling industry
and sparked 39 triad gangster killings this year alone.
Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio said he felt pride over the
territory, and hoped it would continue to bridge Europe and Asia.
Chinese and Portuguese officials have been working for months to
ensure a trouble-free handover, and have contrasted their cooperation
with the hostilities displayed between China and Britain prior to Hong
Kong's handover in 1997.
Heavy winds that picked up through yesterday afternoon forced the
cancellation of a grand fireworks display and the frantic
re-scheduling of the official banquet for 2,500 guests.
And saturation security was unable to stop around 40 members of the
Falun Gong spiritual movement from holding a prominent display of
their breathing exercises outside Macau's biggest casino in the Hotel
Lisboa.
The movement, outlawed in China, is still legal in Macau, which will
have 50 years of autonomy from Peking. But the enclave's police seized
American passport-holder Sun Jie and Australian Helen Tao as they
unfurled banners, and ordered the others to disperse.
Peking has pledged not to interfere in Macau's lucrative gambling
sector – which employs one in four of the workforce – even though
gambling is outlawed in mainland China.
Macau started as a trading centre back in the 16th century and became
a beachhead of foreign influence in China, introducing chillies to
Chinese cuisine and rhubarb to the outside world.
China handed Macau to the Portuguese in 1557, by some accounts as a
reward for fighting pirates. When Portugal tried to give it back in
1974, Beijing refused, although it is now proclaiming the territory's
"bright future" under Chinese rule.
http://www.independent.co.uk
piper
>How much milk do you have to drink to be classified as
>lactose-intolerant?
[snip]
None. People are lactose-intolerant because they stop producing
lactase, the enzyme which catalyses lactose.
[snip]
> But then, our government says eating sugar causes
>diabetes. ;)
And you're sure it doesn't?
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only!
James Lee
: How much milk do you have to drink to be classified as
: lactose-intolerant? How many people drink that much milk?
Not sure, but I still try to drink a little bit a day, whether in my
coffee, or with cereals. And usually, a half hour after, I will need to
go to the "L". My wife and children do much better with milk. My
children, especially, seems not to have any significant problems with
milk. My younger one takes about 25 oz a day.
Chee Kok How (Central)
Perhaps, some doctor may want to comment on this?
Regards
> [snip]
> > But then, our government says eating sugar causes
> >diabetes. ;)
>
> And you're sure it doesn't?
>
> Michael
>
>
----
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe general' to majo...@jaring.my.
Archives of this list can be found at ftp://ftp.jaring.my/pub/archives/general/
Chee Kok How (Central)
There are more doctors and nutritionists there;-)
> ----------
> From: James Lee[SMTP:le...@cs.utexas.edu]
> Sent: 21 December 1999 03:07 am
> To: gen...@jaring.my; s...@news7.jaring.my
> Subject: Re: Holy cow! Milk's an oppressor of the races
> ----
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 1st January 2000
So Long, Snoopy & Co.
Comics: For 50 years, 'Peanuts' has tickled the world's funny bone.
But more than that, Charles M. Schulz's characters mirrored our lives.
By Sharon Begley
It was, all in all, a typical few days for the "Peanuts" gang. Linus,
having built a lopsided snowman, quietly instructs his creation,
"Don't slump..." Sally has trouble sending her teacher a Christmas
card because she doesn't know her name; when Charlie Brown asks what
she says when called on in class, Sally responds, "Who, me?" Snoopy,
leaning over the typewriter atop his doghouse, writes the scene in his
novel where one dogwalker touches another's cheek, and the dog
thinks, "Sooner or later, one of them is going to forget and drop the
leash." And on Sunday, as Snoopy and Woodstock trudge through the
snows of Valley Forge, they reach the Delaware just as Washington
pushes off. "Rats! We're too late," says Snoopy. "I was hoping we
could get a ride into town."
A sense that the great events of history are passing one by. A dream
of liberation. The ability to be at peace despite abject cluelessness.
A plea for things to right themselves. Last week brought, in other
words, the usual sweetly melancholic depiction of the human condition
from the pen of Charles M. Schulz that the previous 2,500-plus had.
But for fans, the latest strips were seen through a glass darkly, for
Schulz had pulled the oldest trick in the cartoonist's book: he had
proclaimed that, after almost 50 years, "the end is nigh." It was no
joke. Schulz, already suffering from Parkinson's disease, had several
small strokes in November and underwent emergency surgery, during
which doctors diagnosed colon cancer. Hardly able to draw, he
announced that there would be no new daily "Peanuts" strips after Jan.
3, and no new Sundays after Feb. 13.
Good grief.
We don't mean to sound like a doctoral dissertation (though "Peanuts"
has been the subject of learned treatises invoking semiotics, Adler
and Freud). But let us point out that those who mourned the imminent
passing of Charlie Brown and his gang weren't upset solely at the
prospect of one daily chuckle fewer in their lives. For many of its
355 million readers around the globe (the world's most widely read
comic strip, it appears in 2,600 newspapers in 75 countries and 21
languages), "Peanuts" touches something much deeper than the funny
bone. It embodies a world where first innings last so long the
outfield goes home for lunch, where "the meaning of life is to go back
to sleep and hope that tomorrow will be a better day," where beagles
writing the great American novel struggle to get past "It was a dark
and stormy night."
"Peanuts" was born with the baby boomers and the suburbs, into a time
when Americans, flush with victory and prosperity, could afford to see
childhood as a separate stage of development. It offers an affirmation
of childhood as what Dostoevsky, in "The Brothers Karamazov," called a
"sacred memory." Before "Peanuts," most strips featuring children
"were about mischievous kids pulling gags on their parents," says Mort
Walker, creator of "Beetle Bailey." "Schulz gave us a realistic
childhood with all its losses and rejections. His kids had pathos."
Like Oskar in "The Tin Drum," the children never age. But then, they
don't have to. They already suffer from adult disillusionment, failure
and self-doubt. (Adults themselves are never seen; when heard, they
speak in a honking squawk.)
This cross-generational appeal helps explain why, although boomers
grew up with "Peanuts," their children turn to it, too. The
off-Broadway musical "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown," which debuted
in 1967, was revived in February 1999, and the Emmy-winning "A Charlie
Brown Christmas" has run every year since 1965. The strip inspired
four feature films, three amusement parks and books that have sold a
total of 300 million copies.
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Why me?" Then a voice
answers, "Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."
"Peanuts," like any great work of art, can be read on many levels.
Older fans have no trouble identifying with Charlie Brown's nocturnal
epiphanies about cosmic angst, or seeing in the children the
foreshadowings of what they themselves would become. "The poetry of
these children arises from the fact that we find in them all the
problems, all the sufferings, of the adult," Italian novelist Umberto
Eco wrote in The New York Review of Books in 1985. Kids, of course,
are oblivious to all of this. They simply smile in agreement when,
after a 63-0 first inning, Linus says sadly to Charlie Brown, "There
goes our shutout."
Schulz, a devout Christian, imbues "Peanuts" with gentle lessons in
faith, hope and charity. Is there a faith greater than Charlie Brown's
that Lucy will, this time, hold the football in place? The strip has
cited the Book of Job; in the Christmas special, Linus gives a
heartbreaking recitation from Saint Luke's Gospel. More often, though,
the "Peanuts" gospel means lessons in life. As cartoonist Bill Mauldin
once put it, "Love thy neighbor even when it hurts. Love Lucy." And
don't expect the twists of fate to change eternal verities. After 43
years, Charlie Brown hit a home run. His angst remains.
I thought I had life solved. But there was a flag on the play.
Although the place is clearly an America of coed sandlot baseball, the
time is... well, it is every time in the postwar era and it is no
time. In "Peanuts," the '60s never happened; neither did Vietnam or
Watergate or Monica. The only reflections of the times are subtle,
like the 1968 introduction of Franklin, Charlie Brown's black friend.
And Woodstock is now using a cell phone.
Like Charlie Brown, Schulz, too, showed an early talent for snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory. Born in Minneapolis in 1922, "Sparky"
Schulz once showed up at a movie theater that was promising free
Butterfingers to the first 100 customers. Schulz was the 101st. His
high-school yearbook never ran the drawings a teacher invited him to
submit. At 17 Schulz enrolled in art correspondence school (receiving
his lowest grade in drawing children), but his studies were
interrupted by World War II. Schulz served as an infantryman before
working his way up to staff sergeant and leader of a machine-gun
squad. While in the service, he drew emotional sustenance from
Mauldin's Willie and Joe cartoons. Every Veterans Day since the 1980s,
Snoopy announces that he is going to "quaff a few root beers" with
Mauldin.
After the war Schulz worked as an instructor at the correspondence
school, and there he fell in love with the red-haired Donna Johnson in
accounting. But Johnson married another (Schulz explained her choice
as a result of her mother's belief that he would never amount to
much). Thus was born Charlie Brown's unrequited love for The Little
Red Haired Girl.
In 1948 Schulz sold a single-panel comic called "L'il Folks" to the
St. Paul Pioneer Press. When the paper refused to run it more than
once a week, he offered it in 1950 to United Feature Syndicate, which
promptly changed the name to "Peanuts," which Schulz still hates.
Since then Schulz has drawn every line, inked every background,
lettered every dialogue bubble on seven strips a week. It is an
astounding output—more than 18,000 strips. "The majority of
cartoonists, especially ones who've been drawing for a long time, have
gang writers, people who draw the background, and often people who
actually do the artwork," says editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich.
"Sparky was never like that."
Colleagues see Schulz as an almost mythic figure in the history of
cartooning. Garry Trudeau, writing in The Washington Post, called
"Peanuts" "the first (and still the best) postmodern comic strip. It
was populated with complicated, neurotic characters speaking smart,
haiku-perfect dialogue." Cathy Guisewite, creator of "Cathy," said
that "a comic strip like mine would never have existed if Charles
Schulz hadn't paved the way. He broke new ground, doing a comic strip
that dealt with real emotions, and characters people identified with."
Happiness is a warm puppy.
"Peanuts" is (we refuse to say "was") infused with an almost quaint
optimism, one that tiptoed all the way up to unrequited hope. It was
Linus's hope that this time the Great Pumpkin would visit, Lucy's that
this time Schroeder would notice her. As sociologist Paul Schervish of
Boston College describes it, "Expectation and aspiration never cease,
but are... ever foiled." Yet if the characters' faith in a better
future is quintessentially American, it travels well. "Peanuts"
merchandise, starting with a six-inch plastic Snoopy in 1958, now
includes toys, videos, clothing, Hallmark cards, sheets, MetLife ads
and... well, more than $1 billion in sales every year. If the
"Peanuts"-ing of the world seems crassly exploitative to some critics
(even one United Media insider says it "casts a mercantile pall over
something innocent"), it's because Schulz can't say no. It is as if
Schulz—who worries that promised TV interviews will be canceled once
people realize how unworthy he is—thinks spurning a deal would tempt
fate.
You kind of like me, don't you Chuck?
Schulz chose to retire, he told NEWSWEEK at his rambling home in the
hills above Santa Rosa, Calif., because "all I care about now is
tomorrow; I want to feel better tomorrow." The ideas do not come
anymore, and since his strokes he often struggles to find the right
expression. "Words are just gone," he says. But although Schulz has
laid down his pen, "Peanuts" will go on: United Media will rerun old
strips, from 1974 forward. And so Schroeder will still play Fur Elise
and Pig Pen will be trailed by the dust of history and Charlie Brown's
costume for Halloween will have eyeholes everywhere but over his eyes.
Fans will still open the paper with the faith of a Charlie Brown
running up to the football. But Charles M. Schulz will no longer be
whisking away new footballs.
With Yahlin Chang, Peter Plagens and Devin Gordon in New York, Mark
Miller in Santa Rosa and bureau reports
http://www.newsweek.com/
Yap Yok Foo
24th December 1999
Corruption kills countries
He made them laugh. He made them think. And when he wanted them to
really listen, he had them sitting in dead silence.
His Majesty the King combined his wits and wisdom and used them to
great effect yesterday as the beloved monarch addressed government
dignitaries gathered at the Chitrlada Palace's Dusitdalai Pavilion on
the occasion of his 72nd birthday anniversary and New Year.
It was a wonderful opportunity for the high-profile audience and Thai
people watching the taped meeting on TV to again witness the monarch's
great spirit, absorb his knowledge and enjoy his sense of humour. He
teased politicians, many of whom were among the audience, setting off
a string of laughter, talked about Y2K from a new perspective, and
clarified his concept of a self-sufficient economy.
''People are afraid that on the first, second or third of January,
banks will tell them that this is the year 1900 and you have no
money,'' the King said.
''But the situation [of Thai people] is different. We don't have money
in accounts. We have only debts. So if it was really 1900 for us, we
all should celebrate.''
His Majesty flashed a few smiles, and despite the usual formality of
the gathering -- the audience lined up in orderly rows and dressed in
official white uniforms -- it was as if he was talking to them rather
than giving a speech.
''It feels good to put a CD-ROM in the computer and operate it. You
feel like an expert,'' the King, an avid computer user, joked. He was
talking about how debates on the self-sufficient economy made him
wonder if he really explained the term's meaning in a book that
compiled royal speeches.
The King said he checked in the CD-ROM provided by Her Royal Highness
Maha Chakri Sirindhorn and found that the explanation of the
self-sufficient economy was clear.
He called on experts not to go extremes when pondering the concept of
a self-sufficient economy. It was not a stone-age kind of living, he
insisted. Sometimes big projects, if they yield proper results for the
majority's interests, can be considered part of the self-sufficient
economy, he said, citing as an example the construction of the Pasak
Dam.
''Big projects must be coordinated so that they can bring desired
results,'' he said.
Responding to remarks that the self-sufficient economy cannot be found
in any economic textbook, the monarch said he was glad to hear that.
''If it is in text books, that means we have copied the idea. It is an
honour to hear that the self-sufficient economy is not in textbooks,
and yet the term has caught the attention of experts. Once they are
interested, they can polish the idea and utilise it for the sake of
the domestic and world economies,'' he said.
The King noted that the term had been much quoted, as well as his
name.
''I'd like to invoke my right to respond,'' he said, using a phrase
popularly used in parliamentary debate. ''My mouth has been itching
[to clarify the self-sufficient economy]. It is good that there is
only one microphone here,'' he added.
Laughter subsided as His Majesty diverted to a serious subject --
corruption.
''Corruption destroys countries. We haven't been destroyed because we
have strength. ... But it's like a shaking house, which can collapse
any time. We must not wait for that to happen,'' he told the silent
and attentive audience.
He thanked Thai people for the birthday celebrations, saying ''I'm
happy and really appreciate it,'' and added that his health is now
improving because of the blessings.
''Before coming here I intended to say things but I have forgotten. So
I have to rely on impromptu comments though I'm not good at it. See
you next year for what I haven't finished today,'' His Majesty said at
the end of the audience as he wished all Thais happiness and strength
to contribute to national development.
The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com
Yap Yok Foo
28th December 1999
Southeast Asia searching for solutions
Southeast Asia's economy may have ended the year on a positive note
but there are still long-term security and political challenges to
overcome, writes DON PATHAN of The Nation .
In Thailand, the two-year old crisis was a blessing in disguise. Sins
of the past have been met with calls for transparency, accountability
and good governance from the military, as well as the public and
private sectors. The country's fiscal crisis has taken its toll on
just about every military procurement project, thus ending years of
frivolous spending and shopping sprees for military hardware that
critics said might or might not enhance country's overall defence
capability. A frigate without a minesweeper is a useless frigate,
indeed.
Moreover, the move towards reforming the armed forces is well on the
way and a new batch of officers is being trained to command units that
are leaner, meaner and quicker. A new defence mandate aimed at uniting
all forces under one tactical command is also in the pipeline.
Army Chief Gen Surayudh Chulanont has kept his promise to take the
military out of politics and educate the men to make them
''professional soldiers''. But the making of a respected institution
means giving up scores of radio stations, as well as a number of
army-owned enterprises. The idea of putting their future in the hands
of civilians might not sit well with many of the top brass.
Nevertheless, all are agreed that there is no turning back.
This year also saw the Thai military's ego get a big boost with the
departure of about 1,850 troops to East Timor on a peacekeeping
mission. Thailand was made second in command after Australia in a
multinational peacekeeping operation in the war-torn island nation.
In Indonesia, the world was brutally jolted when its fourth most
populous nation was brought to the brink of collapse.
A near-blind Muslim cleric with great vision for diplomacy and good
governance stepped into the political arena and restored a sense of
hope. Abdularahman Wahid is an Indonesian president extraordinaire.
Besides East Timor, which had drifted violently towards independence,
Indonesia is currently witnessing calls for separation and autonomy in
other parts of its territory.
The country's military is keeping a low profile as it licks its wounds
from the violence in East Timor. But though it may be down, no one is
counting it out.
Trouble-plagued Burma got a wake-up call when five armed dissidents
stormed the country's embassy in Bangkok, taking diplomats and
foreigners hostage at gunpoint and stating their grievances to a world
that doesn't seem to be listening.
In spite of the fact that the 25-hour crisis ended peacefully with no
bloodshed, the aftermath resulted in a drastic downturn in
Thai-Burmese relations. It was also a big blow for the so-called Asean
solidarity.
Meanwhile, the Rangoon government's offensive against the ethnic rebel
armies is reportedly moving into full swing and more refugees are
expected to flood over the border into Thailand in the coming days.
Talk of Tokyo aiding Rangoon financially in return for economic reform
may not go down too well with Burmese dissident groups but many are
taking silence from Washington as a tacit sign of approval. After all,
say Bangkok-based diplomats, neither Washington nor Tokyo would like
to see Rangoon drift further into the hands of Beijing.
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen if the new American administration
will carry the ''free Burma'' torch of Secretary of State Madeline
Albright, sometime referred to as the ''Burma Desk Officer''.
Burmese dissidents say Washington's rhetoric against Rangoon is likely
to fade away with Albright's departure as the next administration
takes over after the American presidential election next year.
Land-locked Laos was brutally jolted after a group of students,
disgusted at the way things are going -- or perhaps at the way things
aren't going -- were reportedly planning to stage a public protest.
Vientiane was dumbstruck by the unprecedented incident because never
before had anybody dared to question the Communist rule. The move was
stopped before it got off the ground but those in the know said the
issue is far from over.
Along the Thai-Malay border, the threats of the old days have faded
with more cross-border links between ethnic Malays. Thai Muslims in
the South are delighted at the outcome of the recent general election
in Malaysia that resulted in the expansion of the Islamic party, PAS,
in Malaysia's northern states. On the Thai side of the border,
community and religious leaders say Bangkok has to get over the old
fear of armed separatists and look to PAS in terms of what it has to
offer.
Outspoken Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammad called on the
region to form its own security forum but did not elaborate on the
nature of the proposed body or how it would be any different from the
half-hearted Asean Regional Forum, often referred to as a ''talk
shop''.
Meanwhile, future joint military exercises between the US and the
Philippines aimed at turning the bilateral tie into equal partnership
will replace the outdated security arrangement. The Philippines is
supposed to feel that it's on an equal footing with the American
military but it is well understood that the bilateral defence
agreements between the US and a number of countries in the region will
continue to be the main security arrangement for some time to come.
In Cambodia, the collapse of Khmer Rouge has enabled the government to
cut back on military spending. But a planned tribunal to try former KR
leaders could very well turn out to be a mockery of justice. If a
compromise between the western countries and Cambodia cannot be
reached, Phnom Penh ties with the international community could go
into a tailspin again.
Talk of upgrading the Asean Regional Forum from a talk-shop on
''confidence building measure'' to an organisation with teeth capable
of managing conflicts received a boost at the 1999 ministerial meeting
in Singapore.
However, Asean's call for a ''code of conduct'' in the South China Sea
for countries engaged in territorial disputes doesn't seem to have a
chance of survival unless common ground can be found between Beijing
and other claimants.
Meanwhile, Beijing continues to play hardball with its neighbouring
countries, particularly those with overlapping claims, refusing to
negotiate with them in a multinational forum. Instead, the Chinese are
calling on these countries to engage them in a bilateral setting.
To deal with hot issues that may pop up unexpectedly, Asean has
proposed setting up a ''troika'' similar to the three member ad-hoc
committee that helped end the dispute between the two warring
Cambodian factions two years ago.
It is believed that its small size would help it respond more quickly
than Asean could acting as a whole. The idea is still floating in the
air, however, and more debates will come up in the near future.
All in all, Southeast Asia in 1999 was shaped by events that called
for political changes and questioned the old social and political
models that have sustained decades of economic growth. If the trend
continues, such concepts as ''Asian values'' or ''Asean ways'' may no
longer be a thing of the past. Until then, nations in the region will
continue to do more soul-searching in order to find ways to meet the
challenges of the future in a sustainable manner.
Yap Yok Foo
29th December 1999
Restraining corruption requires restraining governments
Corruption has become an insidious part of public and private life in
many emerging countries and some would say that, at a low level, it is
a necessary social evil that can be beneficial to economic
development.
In this article, Christopher Lingle argues that such tolerance of
corruption can only harm a country's place in the global market place
and that a free market and less government interference is the only
way forward.
CORRUPTION is a structural and deep-rooted problem in many emerging
economies and the exchange of money for favours affects many aspects
of business and life.
Such illicit payments may originally have been interpreted as
expressions of generosity. And this perception may have contributed to
a general tolerance of low levels of corruption and illegality,
especially when bribery is mistakenly seen to be beneficial to overall
economic development.
In all events, it is easy to lose control over the level and extent of
corruption. According to Transparency International's Corruption
Perceptions Index that measures the degree to which a country is free
from corruption, the worst offenders are emerging economies with a
culture of corruption.
Most would agree that corruption refers to the abuse of authority and
misuse of discretionary power in pursuit of personal interests, rather
than public interests. However, there is considerable confusion and
disagreement over the source and impact of corruption.
One flawed perception of bribery is that it serves as a lubricant that
gives flexibility to the management of political affairs. In this
view, bribery of officials can be beneficial to economic activity and
graft can increase the efficiency of the bureaucratic system. Yet
corruption pollutes society by lowering the authority of public
office. It lowers economic efficiency by destroying the principle of
fair competition and imposes unnecessary costs on the private sector.
It also harms the place in the global market by a country such as
Indonesia by raising the cost of international credit.
The recent spate of financial crises in emerging markets can be widely
attributed to a reassessment of risk that resulted in a crisis of
confidence and net outflows of capital. Governments were considered
unable to provide an environment where asset values would be protected
and domestic financial institutions were seen as non-responsive to
market signals. Restoration of confidence requires decisive and
convincing action to limit government regulations and interventions
that invite corruption.
In proclaiming war on corruption, success will not be found in passing
laws to punish corruption or pursuing a moral campaign. Corruption is
a problem of the incentive structure of public officials and not the
morals and ethics of public officials, per se. In all events, judicial
investigation and purification campaigns to reduce corruption face
practical limits.
The idea that expanding political power can eradicate the corruptive
practices is fundamentally flawed. Purification campaigns cannot be
effective in removing corruption. This is because the enhancement of
political power demanded to pursue such campaigns is susceptible to
corrupting influences. Considers Lord Acton's admonition that ''power
tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely''.
Yet many politicians and bureaucrats distrust the private sector due
to a belief that unfettered markets cause undue harm without the
oversight and regulation of public officials. As such, regulatory
authorities are created to issue licences and permits. In this
setting, there is an imbalance of power with public officials having
monopolistic power with the understanding that they will act in the
best interests of their fellow citizens. However, these unequal powers
impose harm on some citizens who face a strong incentive to protect
themselves through bribery.
Instead of moralising, legal and institutional reforms are necessary
to prevent public graft. Giving extensive authority to government
officials over quotas and to assign privilege invites corrupt
practices. Since the essential problem with corruption arises from
excessive government intervention, the best solution involves
reduction of political intervention in people's lives.
The answer to resolving corruption is to move towards depoliticising
life and having governments that regulate less. In the free
competition of the market, no corruption arises in the relationship
between consumers and suppliers since both parties have equal power.
Indeed, almost all sustained market imbalances arise when governments
act to restrain competition.
Competition in open markets will always involve legitimate actions,
not unlawful means. Those who wish to live in a free and open society
should insist upon greater guarantees of free and open markets with
less government involvement in their life.
Yap Yok Foo
Malaysian officials seize dried crocodile penises
Source: AFP | Published: Thursday December 30, 3:02 PM
>Would you believe it ? This was posted under
>"Breaking News"
Kuala Lumpur: Officials in a northern Malaysian state have detained an
Indonesian trader who tried to sell dried crocodile penises as a
traditional remedy, reports said today.
Newspapers said the trader in the town of Changlun near the Thai
border offered the items to a plainclothes Kedah state anti-smuggling
official yesterday.
The vendor claimed the items could cure low sexual drive, impotence,
high blood pressure, heart disease, shortness of breath, asthma and
arthritic pains.
An unimpressed official seized the 22 penises, covered with tiny
spikes and measuring about 22 cm. The vendor will be charged with
violating customs regulations.
http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/9912/30/A64713-1999Dec30.shtml
Hung Wei Lo
wrote:
>An unimpressed official seized the 22 penises, covered with tiny
>spikes and measuring about 22 cm.
Must have been Japanese crocodiles...
***********************
If it aint Hung Wei Lo it just aint shit.
***********************
J2R
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:40:56 GMT, yf...@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo)
> wrote:
>
> >An unimpressed official seized the 22 penises, covered with tiny
> >spikes and measuring about 22 cm.
>
> Must have been Japanese crocodiles...
>
>
Can't be....22cm is 9 inches, man!!! :)
*
Hung Wei Lo
Oops.
I thought it said 22mm.
Yap Yok Foo
1st January 2000
When a 'brilliant movie' is banned in Thailand
Many Americans have praised ''Anna and The King'', with some giving it
rave reviews. Thailand's decision to ban the film has therefore
puzzled many and raised questions about the true state of democracy in
this country, writes Veeree Trangtrakul.
WASHINGTON -- After watching ''Anna and The King'', many Americans
said they wanted to visit Thailand. The movie, they noted, portrayed
the ancient history of Siam and reflected what one fan described as an
''an amazing and neat'' culture. Many Americans did not know much
about Thailand before seeing this Hollywood piece, apart from negative
images of crime, poverty and prostitution.
''The movie did somehow change my attitude about Thailand,'' one
moviegoer said. ''I had not realised how pretty and amazing the
country is, especially all of the architecture, customs and the
different but unique lifestyle.''
''Anna and The King'' is the story of an English woman who comes to
Siam to teach English to the King's children. She has no knowledge of
the country and has to adjust to a new culture. From the King's
perspective, as written in the movie blurb, ''This women, this
foreigner, this outsider, she has become a friend''.
All of the American audiences are aware that the movie is merely a
fictional recreation of the Siam of more than 100 years ago. They all
question whether or not Thailand has retained the historical places
depicted in the movie. ''I would die to see those places,'' one
American viewer said. ''Considering the fact that the United States
has little more than 200 years of history, Thailand's thousand years
is really miraculous,'' said another.
The ban by Thailand's Censorship Board has surprised many American
viewers. ''I would understand it if the movie had revealed some
dreadful things that the King had done. But it's the opposite,'' said
one viewer.
''The Thai government, instead of banning the movie, should have
thanked Hollywood for making this historical movie and letting the
world know about their beautiful country.'' he said, adding: ''I bet
this movie will encourage more travellers to visit Thailand.''
Cholthanee Koerojna, a native Thai who has lived in the US for
decades, applauded the movie, saying that ''Anna and The King'' really
does reflects the King's character as a ''decent, generous and brave
person''. She cannot comprehend why the Thai government decided to ban
the film.
Although Koerojna left Thailand a long time ago she has been involved
in Thai activities ever since. She has created the website
thailink.com that aims to preserve the brain drain from Thailand. In
addition, she took a leading role in the recent International Festival
that honoured King Bhumipol's 72nd Birthday in Boston, Massachusetts.
''I would encourage everyone to see this movie,'' she said. Although
she has already seen ''Anna and The King'', she said she will see it
again.
Another native Thai who has been living in the US since she was young
said the movie makes her want to learn more about her home country.
''I have been far away for such a long time, and I can hardly speak or
understand Thai, but the movie reminds me of where I came from, and I
wish I could learn more about my country,'' she said.
She was very surprised when she was told that the movie has been
banned in Thailand. ''I might not understand a lot about Thailand, and
that disqualifies me from making any comment,'' she said. ''But this
kind of censorship would never have happened in the States. Is
Thailand practising free speech and freedom of the press?
''I did not know that the Thai government had the power to impose such
a ban.'' She added that this made her feel ''glad'' that she was an
American. ''I would be really upset if the government told me that I
could not watch a movie that I wanted to see,'' she said. ''And I know
all Americans would feel the be the same.''
''Anna and The King'' has been showing in American cinemas for the
past two years. Both Chow Yun-Fat, the Hong Kong actor who plays the
King, and Jodie Foster, who plays Anna, have won praise from critics
and audiences alike.
Unfortunately, Thai people have been prohibited from watching this
historical drama set in their own country, while audiences around the
world have been able to admire the old Thailand depicted on the silver
screen.
The ruling by the Censorship Board has raised questions about the
democratic system in Thailand. As one American viewer put it: ''The
movie is like a beautiful fairly tale. How can a government deprive
its own people of their rights to explore a piece of art?'' Nobody
understands.
The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com
DMC
this movie will encourage more travellers to visit Thailand.''
isn't the whole movie filmed in Malaysia ?
starkindler
generated much revenue. The props made a great tourist attraction too.
Too bad the Thai government wouldn't let them film it in Thailand.
2. The film is banned in Thailand because of lèse-majesté. Basically,
the law in Thailand is such that insult to the king is considered an
offence. However, 'The legislation has to be understood in the context
of the genuine respect for the King and his role.' (--Asiaweek)
(The full essay can be found at
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/99/1203/soc.thailand.lesemajeste.html)
DMC wrote:
>
> >''I bet
> this movie will encourage more travellers to visit Thailand.''
>
Ken!!!
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:45:37 GMT, hung...@schwingthatschlong.com
(Hung Wei Lo) wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:46:16 +0800, J2R <j2r...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>
>>Hung Wei Lo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:40:56 GMT, yf...@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >An unimpressed official seized the 22 penises, covered with tiny
>>> >spikes and measuring about 22 cm.
>>>
>>> Must have been Japanese crocodiles...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Can't be....22cm is 9 inches, man!!! :)
>
>Oops.
>I thought it said 22mm.
>
*************************************
icqman
dol...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Message from the Deja.com forum:
> soc.culture.malaysia
>>just talk about frequency for a second. how often is the problem that
you
>>need to have TNB handed over to francis yeoh? everyday? twice daily?
or
>>just 6 hours out of 365 days? how many hours in the last 3 years?
>In the early '90s, TNB screwed up the supply situation
>big time!
>This country had Yeoh to be thankful for.
What is this fuss of Francis Yeoh taking over TNB?
would you prefer TNB to be taken over by an Ahmad Bumiputra?
This is the fucking probem with the chinese in malaysia.
i can speak volumns on the good and bad attributes of the chinese in
malaysia and singapore.
but one central issue of the chinese is they are inordinately selfish
among themselves thus making
the chinese the MOST EASILY RULED RACE IN MALAYSIA BY THE MALAYS
--
Cheers
icqman
--------------------------------------
HP http://icqman.free.web1000.com/
Shiokman
witra
>What is this fuss of Francis Yeoh taking over TNB?
>would you prefer TNB to be taken over by an Ahmad Bumiputra?
>This is the fucking probem with the chinese in malaysia.
>
>i can speak volumns on the good and bad attributes of the chinese in
>malaysia and singapore.
>
>but one central issue of the chinese is they are inordinately selfish
>among themselves thus making
>
> the chinese the MOST EASILY RULED RACE IN MALAYSIA BY THE MALAYS
My, my. What pronounced racist sentiments you have, grandma.
Sorry. Just kidding. :)
Ken!!!
On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:02:02 +0800, Shiokman <Shio...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I wonder what they are going to use them for?Send them to " A I" ?
*************************************
Shiokman
is being sent to " A I " is most important.
Ken!!!
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:51:12 +0800, Shiokman <Shio...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
>It's irrelevent whether there is a conspiracy or not.The fact remains it
>is being sent to " A I " is most important.
*************************************
Shiokman
Ken!!!
maybe it is a conspiracy...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:32:59 +0800, Shiokman <Shio...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
Shiokman
Yap Yok Foo
14th January 2000
EDITORIAL: Kuala Lumpur deals blow to regional press freedom
THE Malaysian government has behaved outrageously by arresting
Sulkifli Sulong, the editor of Harakah, the bi-weekly newspaper of the
opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), and Chia Lim Thye, whose
company prints the newspaper.
Both Zulkifli and Chia were charged under Section 4 (1) (C) of the
Sedition Act for an article carried in Harakah last August which
accused the mainstream media of working in concert with the judiciary
in the persecution of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, who
is currently on trial for sodomy. On the same day, two opposition
leaders were arrested on unrelated sedition charges.
From a regional point of view, it is a classic case of a government
getting nervous about the growing influence and power of those who are
on a different side to the government, whether they are politicians or
the press. The government's action is clearly intended to further
intimidate those Malaysians who do not support it. Further, it is
clearly meant to put pressure on journalists who do not belong to the
pro-government camp. It also wants to frighten any printers who might
be inclined to publish unauthorised material.
In the past two years, Malaysian journalists have been working under
the difficulty of a controlled situation. All mainstream newspapers,
as correctly pointed out by Harakah, publish only news that makes the
government happy.
The government's action demonstrates the anxiety it feels towards the
growing influence of PAS and its newspaper, along with others, of
course. The outcome of the recent election shocked the ruling party
because of the heavy gains by its Islamic opposition.
It is an open secret that the Malaysian press has been biased in
reporting Anwar's trial. In fact, the average reader has turned to
alternative newspapers for more impartial coverage and analysis. It is
also known that in recent months the mainstream newspapers have been
rapidly losing readership. That helps to explain why Harakah has
become so popular and is now a force to be reckoned with.
Interestingly, the government's tight grip on the media has not
stopped the growth of new online sources of information. Despite its
infancy, Malaysiakini.com has quickly become the best source of
information for what is really going on in Malaysia. If history is any
judge, it will surprise nobody if the government decides to crack down
on the Internet as well, even though it would taint and stall the
government's multimedia investment plans.
As freedom of the press grows throughout the region -- epitomised by
the unshackling of the media in Indonesia -- Malaysia's action is a
big blow. Not too long ago, the Malaysian press was an inspiration for
the region, as the government and public interest accommodated one
another. But political greed has changed the equation.
Malaysia has many times proved its critics wrong, especially in the
field of economic management. Given its current strong economic
performance, it should be in a position to handle its critics without
the need for harsh measures. This latest incident of suppression
impresses no one and can only further damage the country.
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 22-28th January 2000
Open wounds
K U A L A L U M P U R
AFTER a bruising election campaign last November, many Malaysians had
been looking forward to the period of healing and reconciliation that
traditionally follows the period of fasting in Ramadan, which ended
earlier this month. But the bonhomie did not last long. In a series of
arrests that began on January 12th, four opposition leaders and a
printer were charged with offences against the state. The round-up
came soon after the prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, went on holiday
to the Caribbean and Argentina, leaving his deputy and home minister,
Abdullah Badawi, to explain what was going on.
Mr Abdullah denied that the arrests had anything to do with “political
revenge” for the opposition’s gains in the election. He said that “the
court is the best place for them to prove their innocence”. The
foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, weighed in, criticising Amnesty
International and America’s State Department, among others, for
questioning the arrests. “It is not up to international bodies to
decide how we should administer our laws,” he said.
The first to be charged, under Malaysia’s Sedition Act, were Zulkifli
Sulong, editor of Harakah, the newspaper of the Islamic opposition
party, PAS, and its printer, Chea Lim Thye. Their “offence” was to
publish a claim that the former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim,
was the victim of a government-led conspiracy. Mr Anwar, who was
jailed last year after being convicted of abusing his power as a
minister, is currently on trial for sodomy.
Next day, two senior opposition leaders were also charged with
sedition. Karpal Singh, a veteran of the Democratic Action Party
(DAP), is one of Mr Anwar’s lawyers. He had told the court that
“people in high places” had tried to poison his client. Marina Yusoff
is a vice-president of the National Justice Party (NJP), which is led
by Mr Anwar’s wife. She was accused of inciting racial unrest at a
political rally last year. The fifth person to be charged was Mohamed
Ezam, the youth leader of the NJP. He is accused of breaking the
Official Secrets Act by leaking to journalists documents detailing
alleged government corruption.
Over the years, several opposition politicians and other government
critics have fallen foul of the Sedition Act, a British law retained
by Malaysia after it gained its independence in 1957. Five months ago,
another opposition leader, Lim Guan Eng of the DAP, was released after
a year in jail. He had been convicted of making seditious statements
against the judiciary. The act has been condemned by Chandra Muzaffar,
a member of the NJP, as a “relic of the past” used by Dr Mahathir’s
government to undermine Malaysia’s democracy. Mr Anwar’s arrest in
1998 was under the Internal Security Act, a harsh, but far blunter,
instrument. It allows for detention without trial.
Lim Kit Siang, chairman of the DAP, has accused government ministers
of making statements that might also be regarded as seditious, without
facing prosecution. Public confidence in the rule of law and the
judiciary has been damaged, says Mr Lim, and the five arrests will not
restore it. Adding to the unease, a law minister, Rais Yatim, has
given warning that anyone saying the government had “a hand in the
prosecution of prominent opposition leaders should realise they too
can be prosecuted for spreading lies.”
Dr Mahathir told Malaysians in a recent speech to stop complaining.
“People must learn to be grateful, otherwise nobody will have peace,”
he said. Nevertheless, some people within Dr Mahathir’s ruling United
Malays National Organisation (UMNO) are not heeding his call. They are
worried that UMNO’s Supreme Council has agreed that there will be no
contest for the two top positions when they come up for election in
May. The intention is that these will go unopposed to Dr Mahathir and
Mr Abdullah. Some in UMNO, including Ghafar Baba, a former deputy
prime minister, have said they would rather see a vote held.
Some of the party’s younger leaders are worried that the Malay
community remains split in the wake of PAS’s gains in the November
general election, especially as most of those gains came in the
traditional Malay heartland. The search for people to blame has
already claimed one prominent scalp, that of Abdul Kadir Jasin, chief
editor of Malaysia’s New Straits Times Group, which publishes the main
Malay and English-language newspapers. It is controlled by interests
close to the ruling party. Mr Kadir is said to have gone on “extended
leave” after his newspapers’ support for the government was deemed to
be overly slavish, an unusual handicap for a Malaysian journalist.
With the economy on the mend and the stockmarket booming, Mr Abdullah
is also worried about the street protests that are planned to coincide
with the resumption of Mr Anwar’s trial on January 25th. “Why are we
resorting to such actions just because of hatred towards the
government?” he has asked. Perhaps his boss, Dr Mahathir, is right:
Malaysians should learn to be grateful.
http://www.economist.com
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 5-11th February 2000
Lucio Tan, PAL’s friend
FOR the past four months, the Philippines and Taiwan have been at
war. Not a big war, of course, but for the victims it was real enough.
A simmering aviation dispute blew up last October when the Philippines
imposed a total freeze on flights between the two countries.
Electronics firms such as Acer and Intel, which assemble chips and
circuit boards in the Philippines to ship to Taiwan, the main PC maker
in the region, had to find slower and more expensive routes for their
goods at a cost of millions of dollars each week. Tourism in the
Philippines fell off sharply. And Taiwanese firms, which are among the
biggest investors in the Philippines, began to pull out.
On January 28th the conflict ended as suddenly as it had begun. Taiwan
caved in, agreeing to cut by half the number of seats its airlines
flew to and from the Philippines. With presidential elections looming
in Taiwan, the government did not want a diplomatic dispute to cast a
shadow over the country. The victor? Not the Philippines, despite its
government’s claims. Instead, the main beneficiary was a single man,
Lucio Tan, a well-connected tycoon who serves as perhaps the best
reminder that, despite the purge of the Asian financial crisis, some
things never change.
Crony capitalism was supposed to be a thing of the past in Asia,
cleansed by the fire of hot money and hedge funds. But what other
description is there when the president of the Philippines agrees to
start a diplomatic row to help bail out an old pal in financial
trouble? By convention, any decision to revise an air-service treaty
between two countries requires a year’s notice. But all that went out
of the window when Philippines Airlines (PAL), the country’s largest
carrier and one of several owned by Mr Tan, went bankrupt last year.
PAL claimed that the Taiwanese carriers were undercutting its prices
and ferrying passengers via Taiwan to America. On the direction of
Joseph Estrada, the Philippine president, officials gave Taiwan 30
days’ notice that its carriers were to be banned. “We were acting on
the directive of the office of the president to save PAL, and we could
not wait for one year,” testified Franklin Ebdalin, an official in the
foreign ministry who negotiated with Taiwan. Mr Estrada put it more
simply: he decided to give PAL “some protection.” After years of
welcome liberalisation in the Philippines under the former
administration of Fidel Ramos, this represented an alarming retreat.
PAL has never been the healthiest of airlines. Operating out of one of
the poorest and most geographically fragmented countries in Asia, it
has been an underachiever for most of its existence. But PAL really
got in trouble in the mid-1990s, after Mr Tan took it over and
embarked on an ambitious “re-fleeting” programme in the mid-1990s that
nearly doubled the number of aircraft to 54, and left the firm with
$2.3 billion of debt.
This expansion hit its peak just as the Asian financial crisis struck
the region in 1997, slashing both travel and rates. A strike shut PAL
for two weeks in late 1998, eroding its already-poor reputation for
service. By the middle of 1999, creditors were attempting to seize
PAL’s assets, and the airline was only days away from liquidation.
Only after Mr Tan, at Mr Estrada’s request, pledged $200m of his own
money for PAL’s rescue did the creditors agree to a workout plan
supervised by the court. The money went straight to PAL’s bank, which
happens to be owned by Mr Tan. Little of it has been spent. Even so,
Mr Tan wanted some favours in return. For instance, PAL pays no
landing fees at Manila international airport, where it has exclusive
use of a sparkling new building paid for by the taxpayer. The airline
also lobbied the government to require all of the nearly 3m Filipinos
working overseas to use it for their flights home.
But the real clincher was PAL’s plan to hobble its competitors by
stripping airlines from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore of their
operating permits in the Philippines. Taiwan was the easy target,
because mainland China views it as a renegade province and few
countries recognise it. A new Philippines Civil Aviation Board,
composed mostly of Tan supporters, told Taiwan to slash capacity. When
Taiwan understandably demurred, it shut the door altogether.
Although this helped PAL, it is less clear how it helped the country.
Dozens of Taiwanese companies, such as Acer, a computer maker, have
gone to Subic Bay, an industrial park sited on a former American naval
base. Most of these firms make electronic parts, which until the ban
were shipped in the belly of passenger aircraft flown by EVA Air and
China Air, the two main Taiwanese carriers. In an industry where
things are increasingly built to order, a day’s delay in Singapore or
Hong Kong can make the difference between profit and loss.
Although flights will now resume, they will do so only at half the
previous frequency. And the message is clear: given a choice between
foreign investors and Filipinos, the current government will bend the
rules to help its own. The price of this policy is also emerging. The
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, now based in Manila, plans to
move to Malaysia. And some Taiwanese firms might decide to go, taking
with them the Philippines’ hopes of becoming a high-tech manufacturing
base. Mr Estrada praises Mr Tan as a national hero for coming to PAL’s
rescue. Mr Tan is one hero the country could do without.
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 12-18th February 2000
The tigers that changed their stripes
Now that South-East Asia is roaring again, economic reform may be
postponed, writes Paul Markillie. But the biggest change of all could
be the growth of democracy
THIS is supposed to be the “Asian century”, and already many people in
South-East Asia are of good cheer. Among them is Goh Chok Tong,
Singapore’s prime minister. The doom and gloom of the financial crisis
which began to engulf the region in 1997 has given way to renewed
optimism. The decade of despondency that many predicted now seems
unlikely to materialise. But it’s not quite business as usual. The
crisis, says Mr Goh, has produced “four positive outcomes”: it has
speeded up the opening of economies, forced Asians to be more aware of
good corporate governance, made the region concentrate on its real
competitive strengths, and provided a hard lesson about globalisation.
If so, that is all for the good. But this survey is mostly about
another positive outcome, the one that Mr Goh left out: the emergence
of more open and democratic government.
This is also the one that will make the most difference to the future
of South-East Asia. Most people believed that a big reason for the
region’s decades of rapid economic growth were its tough, often
authoritarian leaders. These strongmen tolerated little dissent, but
delivered increased wealth and stability. It was a bargain many
South-East Asians were prepared to accept as millions of them were
lifted out of the poverty that still haunts many developing countries.
But the bargain was also abused by political and business elites,
nowhere more so than in Indonesia during 32 years of repressive rule
by President Suharto. By the time he was forced to step down in May
1998, a new acronym had entered the lexicon of South-East Asian
politics: KKN. In Indonesian Bahasa, it stands for korupsi, kolusi and
nepotisme. It hardly requires translation, but corruption, collusion
and nepotism are the evils against which all governments in the region
are now being judged.
The complexion of those governments is as diverse as the ten countries
this survey covers. They are all members of the regional club, the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). They range from
Indonesia, the world’s biggest Muslim country, to Vietnam, one of the
last bastions of communism, Brunei, a small oil-rich Islamic
sultanate, and the Philippines, the region’s most raucous democracy.
In-between come Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore and
Thailand. And now there is another place close to becoming a country:
East Timor. Amid horrendous violence last year, the East Timorese
opted for independence from Indonesia. The territory is now under the
protection of the United Nations while it prepares for
statehood—although some East Timorese do not want to join ASEAN.
The countries of South-East Asia are home to some 500m people and have
a combined GDP of more than $700 billion (see map). Their largely
young populations, with large numbers of well-educated and
hard-working people, helped to make the region one of the
fastest-growing in the world. But rampant KKN, many now think, made
the financial slump inevitable. True, there were other flaws, such as
poorly developed financial systems, but nobody seemed to notice these
as long as South-East Asia’s tiger economies looked like a one-way bet
on rapid growth. Besides, until 1997 there was a sense that the
economic order was changing; that the West seemed to be in decline,
and that the Asian century was about to dawn. All the lines on the
flip-charts about business prospects in South-East Asia pointed one
way: upwards. No one believed that the boom could stop.
When it did, the region’s self-confidence was shattered. As the value
of South-East Asian currencies tumbled, foreigners and locals alike
tried to pull their money out, causing fragile financial systems to
collapse. Far from being a little local difficulty—a “few small
glitches along the road”, as President Clinton initially described
it—the trouble spread well beyond East Asia, to Russia and the
Americas. For the people of South-East Asia, the worst part of it was
western triumphalism. Their economies, which had once been held up as
models, were now depicted as fundamentally flawed. Indeed, many in the
West seemed to revel in the victory of American capitalism over
so-called “Asian values”. Seen from within the region, the crisis
looked extremely dangerous, having brought a number of countries to
the point of economic collapse and perhaps social chaos. Yet the West
seemed to be offering help only grudgingly, showing little concern for
growth and stability in South-East Asia. This is a memory that is
likely to stick.
In the end the bust proved to be overhyped, just like the boom before
it. Last year the region staged a sharp recovery, with average growth
of about 3.4%, and some countries doing far better than that (see
chart 1). This swift upturn contains its own risk: that many of the
promised reforms which governments said they would undertake will not
now be completed. This is particularly worrying in the financial
sector, with its mountains of debt. Paul Krugman, an American
economist and one of the few who were sceptical about the “Asian
miracle”, even when Asia was fashionable, reckons there is now no
prospect of serious financial reforms. “This crisis has come to an end
too soon,” he told a group of Thai bankers last December.
The speed of the recovery has been such that growth is likely to slow,
perhaps later this year. If it turns out that countries have indeed
failed to put their houses in order, growth will flatten further.
Whether the region then heads back into another crisis could hinge on
external factors, such as Japan’s ability to revive its own sickly
economy or, more important, whether the American economy continues to
thrive and suck in imports from the region. The chances are that
growth will settle down to a slower pace than the breakneck speed of
much of the 1990s. That may be no bad thing.
Nevertheless, the possibility of another financial shock is not lost
on South-East Asia’s leaders. They are now trying harder to work
together, and to co-operate with their powerful northern neighbours,
China, South Korea and Japan. Should there be another crisis, East
Asia might well try to deal with it by itself. Eventually such
regional co-operation could lead to the emergence of a trading block
with enough clout to rival America and the European Union.
More immediately, South-East Asia’s leaders will be trying to ensure
that their economic recovery is sustainable. Some of these leaders are
not the same ones who held power when the region got into its mess.
Indonesia, for the first time in more than 30 years, is now run by a
freely elected government, and new governments have taken over in
Thailand and the Philippines. Even where there has been no change in
leadership, as in Malaysia, there is clamour for more accountable
government. Yet the new, more liberal leadership that is emerging will
still have to deliver what the old order did: social harmony and
increased wealth. The biggest test case will be Indonesia, long the
local giant with a defining influence on the whole region. If
Indonesia can thrive as a democracy, then South-East Asia’s tigers
will really have changed their stripes.
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 12-18th February 2000
How will Malaysia and Singapore respond to greater openness in the
region?
Only the brave protest in Kuala Lumpur
THE Hard Rock Café in Bangkok has one of Thailand’s ubiquitous
tuk-tuks (a type of motorised tricycle-taxi) hanging over its door.
Its sister restaurant in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, boasts a
Formula One racing car. Something symbolic here? Malaysia, and
especially the tiny island-nation of Singapore off its southern tip,
are South-East Asia’s economic superstars and enjoy the highest living
standards in the region. After gaining independence, both pulled ahead
of their neighbours with strong men at the wheel: Mahathir Mohamad,
Malaysia’s prime minister since 1981, and Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s
founding father. Yet these veteran leaders are not the best of
friends.
Mr Lee was swept to power as Singapore’s prime minister in 1959, when
the island was moving towards full independence from Britain to become
part of a federation with newly independent Malaya. At that time Mr
Lee’s People’s Action Party (PAP) had a fiery left-wing image, but
once in power it became less radical and shed its communist members.
That enabled it to get closer to the United Malays National
Organisation (UMNO), the voice of growing Malay nationalism on the
peninsula.
Singapore joined the Malaysian federation in 1963, but there were
bitter divisions from the start. When the PAP campaigned in an
election on the peninsula, it was seen as encroaching on UMNO’s Malay
heartland. Singapore refused Malays the special privileges they
enjoyed on the peninsula, which contributed to bloody race riots on
the island. In Kuala Lumpur the attacks on Mr Lee and his party
intensified. One of them was led by Dr Mahathir, then a radical UMNO
member of parliament, who denounced the PAP as “pro-Chinese,
communist-orientated and positively anti-Malay.”
Mr Lee was distraught. “We had jumped out of the frying pan of the
communists into the fire of the Malay communalists,” he wrote.
Singapore was expelled from the federation after only two years, and
Singaporeans were left wondering how their tiny state, with no natural
resources, was going to survive. Remarkably, it turned into one of the
richest and most modern city-states in the world. “And that’s the
problem,” says a senior Singaporean official, insisting on anonymity.
“They [Malaysia] look at us and see what might have been.” But the
Malaysians can give as good as they get, jibing that Singaporeans,
stuck in their tiny apartments, are jealous of Malaysia’s open spaces.
Relations between the two countries remain frosty, but never to the
point of breaking off.
Malaysia and Singapore still have authoritarian leaders (Mahathir
Mohamad remains in office; Goh Chok Tong, who took over as prime
minister from Mr Lee in 1990, is no more of a softie than his
predecessor), but their political landscapes are very different. In
Singapore the ethnic Chinese are in the majority, accounting for over
three-quarters of the population of 3.5m. In Malaysia they account for
about 25% of the population of 22m, with Malays and other indigenous
people making up around 60%. Much of the tension comes from a
lingering fear of the Chinese, who are seen as dominating business,
big and small, throughout much of South-East Asia.
One estimate being bandied about is that people of Chinese origin
control up to 70% of private wealth in Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines and Singapore, even though they make up only 6% of the
combined population. They control much of the corporate wealth too.
Some no longer speak Chinese or use Chinese names, but even so they
are often seen as different from the rest, and richer. This has made
them kidnapping victims in Manila, and scapegoats during times of
tension in Indonesia, though in Singapore and Malaysia such
inter-racial strife now seems to be largely a thing of the past.
This is why both countries can claim success in delivering not only
prosperity, but also social harmony. With a GDP per head of $25,500,
Singaporeans are now among the world’s richest people. In Malaysia,
economic development has been spread much more evenly than in some of
the neighbouring countries. But although the two countries have both
been successful, that success has been achieved through different
political approaches. Singapore’s PAP, a single multi-racial party,
currently holds all but two of the elected seats in parliament. In
Malaysia, UMNO dominates a coalition of 14 parties organised mainly
along racial and religious lines. Both countries say they are
democracies, although few voices are ever raised in opposition. Both
the PAP and UMNO tend to deal with potential opponents either by
co-opting them or by crushing them. For most Singaporeans and
Malaysians, that has been the price of prosperity and stability. But
the financial whirlwind that engulfed the region has set some of them
thinking.
That black eye
It was not only the PAP that the young Dr Mahathir attacked in the
1960s, but also the prime minister of the day, Tunku Abdul Rahman, for
creating a political elite that abused power and became estranged from
the people. The government, glorying in its massive strength, “became
contemptuous of criticisms directed at it either from the opposition
or its own supporters,” Dr Mahathir wrote in his 1970 book “The Malay
Dilemma”. In November 1999, after 18 years as prime minister, Dr
Mahathir led his ruling coalition into a snap election. He faced an
opposition united as never before that criticised him in much the same
terms as he had criticised the government over 30 years earlier.
Garlands for Goh Mahathir
What drew the opposition together was the sacking and prosecution of
Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Mahathir’s deputy and finance minister. This, too,
had its roots in the financial crisis: Mr Anwar seemed prepared to
work closely with the IMF to promote domestic reforms and tight
monetary and fiscal policies, whereas Dr Mahathir blamed the crisis on
all manner of things, mostly foreigners, hedge-fund managers and Jews.
Mr Anwar appeared to be going against his boss. By the summer of 1998
he had started attacking cronyism, corruption and nepotism in
government. He was asking for trouble, and trouble duly arrived.
Malaysia refused IMF help and introduced selective currency controls.
In September Mr Anwar was sacked, and subsequently arrested. He
appeared in court with a black eye inflicted in a beating by police.
Many Malaysians were appalled by his treatment. He was later convicted
of conspiracy and is currently standing trial for sodomy, which is a
crime in Malaysia. Mr Anwar maintains he is innocent.
With the economy rebounding and Mr Anwar in jail, there was one more
thing Dr Mahathir needed: a victory at the polls. This would prove he
was right about everything all along. To nobody’s surprise, in the
November election his coalition easily retained its two-thirds
majority in parliament, which has a practical as well as a symbolic
value because it allows the government to amend the constitution. The
election gave Malaysia’s 74-year-old leader a new five-year mandate.
But his victory was not as sweet as it might have been because the
opposition managed to split the Malay vote. Many Malays deserted the
ruling coalition, chiefly for the opposition Muslim conservative Parti
Islam se-Malaysia (PAS). This meant Dr Mahathir had to rely more
heavily than ever on the Chinese and Indian parties in his coalition.
PAS, which has long held the north-eastern state of Kelantan, also
captured the oil-rich neighbouring state of Terengganu. By tripling
its number of parliamentary seats, it became Malaysia’s main
opposition party. The opposition gained strength by forming a united
front in the election and teaming up with other parties, including
that established by Mr Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Ismail.
As Mr Anwar’s second trial continues, Dr Wan Azizah can use her seat
in parliament to try to keep her husband’s cause alive. But the fight
against the ruling coalition is now being led by PAS, which could
prove far more threatening to Dr Mahathir. UMNO officials like to
portray PAS as a party of religious hardliners who intend to impose an
intolerant form of Islam on secular Malaysia. Certainly there have
been moves in that direction in the two states that PAS now controls:
in Terengganu non-Muslims and other ethnic minorities have been
angered by plans to impose Islamic taxes. But PAS is now a modern
party whose parliamentarians and new members are mostly professionals
keen to take up other social and economic issues, says Fadzil Noor,
the party’s president. One of those issues is KKN.
Growing support for PAS would widen the split among Malays, Dr
Mahathir’s own constituency. Many of them seem to have been upset by
what they saw as the excessive use of the institutions of state
against Mr Anwar, whether he was guilty or not. Many were also riled
by the government’s heavy-handiness in relentlessly showing Indonesian
riots on television and in campaign material to frighten the ethnic
Chinese, implying that such things would happen in Malaysia if the
ruling party fell. Some also wondered about the wisdom of Dr Mahathir
forging ahead with quite so many ambitious pet projects: the new
motorway to the new airport has turnings to a new administrative
capital, a new high-tech business corridor and a new Formula One
motor-racing circuit, all recently built.
Try voting for the opposition
Meanwhile the mass media, with their government-biased reporting, have
lost all credibility. Sales of PAS’s newspaper Harakah have soared in
the past year, even though government officials have lately been
stopping news vendors from selling it because it is supposed to be
distributed only to party members. Scores of Internet sites have also
sprung up to distribute news and commentary. With the strength of the
ruling party’s machine behind it, everyone knew a vote for the
opposition would not change the government, says Lim Guan Eng, an
opposition politician recently released from jail after serving a
sentence for sedition and publishing false news. But, he adds, those
who voted for the opposition were making a protest which they hoped
might check the powers of government.
It did not happen. In January, five critics of the government,
including the editor of Harakah, were arrested and charged with
sedition. Dr Mahathir also persuaded UMNO’s Supreme Council to let him
stand unopposed in the party leadership election due in May. Whoever
heads UMNO runs Malaysia: it has been that way since independence. But
at least Dr Mahathir has anointed someone to succeed him when the time
comes: Abdullah Badawi, who replaced Mr Anwar as deputy prime
minister. Mr Abdullah will also stand unopposed as vice-president of
UMNO, or at least that is the plan: a challenge for either of the top
jobs is still possible.
Mr Abdullah has spelled out clearly what he wants to happen: “In order
to spread our message, UMNO must embark on recruiting more educated,
young professionals and thinkers into our ranks so that the party
remains committed to reform and is better able to empathise with the
concerns of the younger electorate.” He maintains that PAS will not be
able to claim broad-based support because only the ruling coalition
promotes religious moderation and tolerance, and that is what most
Malays want. But they may want more. “Some sort of dislocation is
coming because the process of democratisation is not taking place,”
says Hishamuddin Rais, a film maker and a veteran activist. “Malaysia
is increasingly getting out of step with our neighbours.”
Perhaps Dr Mahathir should have followed the example of his opposite
number in Singapore and handed over the reins of power while remaining
a spokesman for his country. Indeed, Dr Mahathir has been a vocal and
often conscience-pricking champion for developing countries. Somehow,
though, retiring does not seem to be his style. Those looking for
change, provided they look hard enough, are more likely to find it in
Singapore.
“It’s a change in the generations,” explains Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew
when asked if the government really has begun a cautious dismantling
of the country’s nanny state. Younger leaders, mostly more widely
travelled and often educated abroad, have different experiences and
expectations, “so you have got to adjust a couple of things.” Yet Mr
Lee also talks of the danger that change might inflame racial and
religious tensions: “It has to be a compromise between a cosmopolitan
elite and a still very conservative base.”
Letting go a little
A compromise it may be, but Singapore is loosening up. In the 35 years
since its Malaysian divorce, the city-state has prospered by offering
what the rest of South-East Asia did not: an honest and professional
administration; a modern, clean and efficient environment; a highly
trained workforce; and a big welcome to foreign investors. But in
embracing the global market, Singapore also has to move with it. Its
leaders are well aware that as its neighbours are forced to put their
houses in order, the island risks losing some of its competitive
advantage.
The effort to keep Singapore ahead of the competition is being led by
a younger generation, in particular Lee Hsien Loong, the deputy prime
minister. He is also the veteran Mr Lee’s son, so it is tempting to
imagine him being advised by his father not to push change too far.
But the younger Mr Lee is widely respected as his own man. He won
praise for slashing business costs, not least by cutting everyone’s
benefits by 5%, which helped Singapore to weather the financial crisis
with only the shallowest of recessions. Now he is trying to open up
the economy to foreign competition, starting with the banking industry
and telecoms. But his plan also calls for the creation of a more
entrepreneurial workforce, able to think for itself, to innovate and
to stay ahead in the knowledge-based, Internet-wired commercial future
that is believed to lie ahead. For a government used to telling its
citizens what they can and cannot do, that is quite a challenge.
Hence other boundaries are being pushed outwards too. A lot of
censorship has gone, and political debate has become a little more
open: some of Singapore’s opposition leaders, for instance, have been
allowed to address students instead of being locked up. But there is
no sign that mechanisms of control such as the Internal Security Act
will be removed, and until they are, critics doubt that reform will go
very far. One of them observes: “This sort of loosening has happened
before, only for it to be drawn back in again once elections
approach.”
Those elections are not due until mid-2002. Mr Goh, the present prime
minister, remains popular among Singaporeans. He is expected to stay
on until after the poll, and then to hand over to the younger Mr Lee.
Like previous leaders, this Mr Lee seems convinced that in the end PAP
knows best. The ruling party is determined not to lose a single seat.
Singapore, Mr Goh and his colleagues argue, is a small place well
suited to a government that wins overwhelmingly—as long as it does a
good job running the country. This, they say, is because local issues
tend to be national issues too.
So loosening up in Singapore seems at best to offer a younger, more
liberal nanny. Will that be enough for Singaporeans? Provided their
government remains competent and honest, they seem unlikely to take to
the streets demanding reformasi. But stranger things have happened in
South-East Asia. Singaporeans who want more will probably pack their
bags to work overseas. That means the island risks losing some of the
home-grown talent it is desperately trying to cultivate. Today’s
entrepreneurs, after all, can increasingly choose where to live and
work. If they don’t like Singapore, they won’t stay there. Yet
Singapore is a paragon of virtue compared with some of its neighbours.
Yap Yok Foo
Issue 12-18th February 2000
J A K A R T A
A top general defies the president and refuses to resign. Yet
Indonesia’s democracy, though shaky, should endure
Wiranto prepares to meet his president
THE showdown, when it comes, may not be explosive. That is not the
style of Abdurrahman Wahid, Indonesia’s president. While on a 16-day
overseas tour, he has tried repeatedly to dismiss General Wiranto from
his cabinet. He has even asked the country’s new civilian defence
minister to give the general his marching orders. But General Wiranto
stubbornly refuses to go and says he wants to talk to Mr Wahid when he
returns to Jakarta on February 13th. Although fears of a coup have
subsided, the stand-off reinforces deep concerns about the stability
of Indonesia’s new government.
General Wiranto became commander of the armed forces in the final
months of ex-President Suharto’s rule, which ended in May 1998 when he
was persuaded—by General Wiranto among others—to step down. The
general wielded considerable power during the subsequent 17-month
transition to democracy, and at one point seemed poised to become
vice-president. It was popular outrage over the army’s continuing role
in politics that helped prevent it. When Indonesia’s newly elected
parliament chose Mr Wahid as president last October, he promptly
removed General Wiranto from his command position and made him
minister for political and security affairs. It was hardly enough to
cement the new president’s control over the armed forces. But, as
expected, a report last week by a special commission investigating
atrocities in East Timor gave Mr Wahid his chance to sideline the
general.
The report found evidence that elements of Indonesia’s security forces
were in cahoots with pro-Jakarta militias in East Timor, during and
after the referendum on independence last August. When nearly 80% of
East Timorese voters chose independence, the militiamen unleashed a
wave of violence. The report not only accused some soldiers of
directly helping the militias, but also blamed senior members of the
military command, including General Wiranto, for at best doing too
little to prevent the bloodshed.
The commission also recommended that the attorney-general should
investigate those who might be culpable and consider bringing charges.
Mr Wahid had already said he would ask General Wiranto to resign if
the report implicated him. When it did—the president was in
Switzerland—he publicly called for the general’s resignation.
Although he repeated this several times, Mr Wahid fudged the issue so
that it was unclear whether General Wiranto was being sacked or told
to step down during the investigation. That may be because he wished
to leave the general some room for manoeuvre. On only one point has Mr
Wahid been consistent: that he will grant the general a pardon if he
is convicted.
Yet General Wiranto has continued to ignore the president’s wishes.
The general maintains that the report into the atrocities is
misguided, that he is innocent and that there is no good reason for
him to go. On February 7th he told Singapore’s Straits Times that he
was concerned that his resignation might “be interpreted as an
admission of guilt”. General Wiranto has said he wants to talk to Mr
Wahid about it. There are few doubts about the outcome. “It’s hard to
imagine that he won’t step down—ultimately,” says Harold Crouch, who
studies Indonesia’s armed forces at Australian National University.
Although Mr Wahid is expected to win the power struggle, his handling
of the episode has been criticised at home. Not only is he spending
far too much time abroad, people complain, but he also says the
strangest things. This week the president recounted a bizarre story
about a plan to assassinate him that General Wiranto had warned him of
during Mr Suharto’s years. In Jakarta, people quickly refined this to
a statement of support for the general, and dismissed the details as
of no consequence.
Mr Wahid also caused a stir when he claimed that several generals had
held a secret meeting without telling him, although there was no
evidence of this. When Mr Wahid claimed that he had reached a
ceasefire agreement with the exiled leader of a separatist group from
the province of Aceh, it was discounted even before the rebel leader
concerned had denied it.
Mr Wahid’s supporters maintain that such statements are not for mass
consumption but unfortunately get beamed around the world. They say he
remains the right man for the presidency because of his legendary
mastery of Indonesia’s political shadow-play. If democracy is to
prevail, they argue, outsiders will have to live with this Javanese
mumbo-jumbo. As for Mr Wahid spending too much time abroad, that seems
wide of the mark. Indeed, if the past fortnight has shown anything, it
is that the presidency is strong enough to withstand his absence.
Yet, if Mr Wahid is to restore any kind of stability, he needs
co-operation from the armed forces. It is harder to gain control of
such an organisation, spread across Indonesia’s vast archipelago, than
it is to keep the tanks off the palace lawn in Jakarta. Mr Wahid has
already taken some important steps, such as appointing a civilian
defence minister. But he is still a long way from removing the armed
forces from politics completely.
The appointment of Admiral Widodo Adisujipto to General Wiranto’s old
job as commander of the armed forces is helpful. But he was in some
ways a compromise candidate—not too threatening to either Mr Wahid or
the general. And the decision to move Agus Wirahadikusumah, a general
who has denounced the army’s extensive political links, into an
unimportant post is much less comforting. General Wiranto’s influence
has forced Mr Wahid to move gradually.
If and when General Wiranto goes, Mr Wahid will be able to tip the
balance further his way. The annual promotion round at the end of
March would provide an opportunity: all being well, navy and air force
officers could again be favoured, as they have recently, to promote a
balance with the army. And perhaps the president may be able to change
a couple of senior posts sooner than that, especially if another
military man is chosen to fill General Wiranto’s shoes as minister for
political and security affairs.
Mr Wahid will also have some delicate decisions to make about how to
handle the army’s past misdeeds. While picking his way through the
difficult legal issues, he must also convince the vast majority of the
men in uniform that only the worst offenders are his enemies. And he
needs to manage all this without giving the UN a pretext to hold a
tribunal on the events in East Timor. At present the UN is holding
back because of Indonesia’s desire to stage the proceedings itself.
On top of all this is the separatist campaign in Aceh, where killings
continue, and religious violence in the Molucca islands, not to
mention the battered state of the economy. But before Mr Wahid can
tackle these issues, he first has a general to sack.
Bad boy
Yap Yok Foo wrote in message <38a66aa...@news.jaring.my>...
>From The Economist
>Issue 12-18th February 2000
>
>The tigers that changed their stripes
>
>Now that South-East Asia is roaring again,
The Economist is wrong again. It is the stock
market that is roaring, not the SE Asian economies.
According to a LSE's prof. when interviewed by
BBC, he said, "less than 10% of the investment in the
stock market goes into actual investment in industries
and business. The rest is pure speculation. Indonesia
Thailand and the Philippines are not out of the wood
yet."
>
>The crisis, says Mr Goh, has produced “four positive outcomes”: it has
>speeded up the opening of economies, forced Asians to be more aware of
>good corporate governance, made the region concentrate on its real
>competitive strengths, and provided a hard lesson about globalisation.
There is no evidence of this "opening of economies, good governance
improvement in competitive strengths" In Singapore and Malaysia,
it is business as usual, definitely no change.
>
>When it did, the region’s self-confidence was shattered. As the value
>of South-East Asian currencies tumbled, foreigners and locals alike
>tried to pull their money out, causing fragile financial systems to
>collapse.
It is a bald headed lie. The financial systems collapsed was due to
manipulation of the stock market, property market and currency
market by hedge fund operators.
>Yet the West
>seemed to be offering help only grudgingly, showing little concern for
>growth and stability in South-East Asia. This is a memory that is
>likely to stick.
A weak Asia is good for the USA and the West. Why should
they help? In fact they took the opportunity to squeeze country
like Indonesia, Thailand, Korea...
>Whether the region then heads back into another crisis could hinge on
>external factors, such as Japan’s ability to revive its own sickly
>economy or, more important, ........
Wrong again. SE Asian countries are heading for
another crisis, but it has a lot to do the speculation
in the stock market fueled by short term "hot money".
The signs are there. It is a little too early now for
the hot money to strike, but strike it will when the
time is right to pull the plug.
>Nevertheless, the possibility of another financial shock is not lost
>on South-East Asia’s leaders. They are now trying harder to work
>together, and to co-operate with their powerful northern neighbours,
>China, South Korea and Japan
Apart from Malaysia which has the necessary mechanism
in place, the others are wide open for the raiders.
Bad boy.
Bad boy
Yap Yok Foo wrote in message <38a76b61...@news.jaring.my>...
>From The Economist
>Issue 12-18th February 2000
>
>Only the brave protest in Kuala Lumpur
>
>.......................Malaysia, and Singapore are South-East Asia’s
economic
> superstars and enjoy the highest living standards in the region. After
>gaining independence, both pulled ahead of their neighbours
Protest against what ?!*# Against high living standards and
economic success ?
>Much of the tension comes from a
>lingering fear of the Chinese, who are seen as dominating business,
>big and small, throughout much of South-East Asia.
>One estimate being bandied about is that people of Chinese origin
>control up to 70% of private wealth in Indonesia, Malaysia, the
>Philippines and Singapore, even though they make up only 6% of the
>combined population. They control much of the corporate wealth too.
This is mischevious. The Jew and whites control much of
the wealth in the USA. Why is this fact not highlighted again
and again.
>.................. both countries can claim success in delivering not only
>prosperity, but also social harmony. With a GDP per head of $25,500,
>Singaporeans are now among the world’s richest people. In Malaysia,
>economic development has been spread much more evenly than in some of
>the neighbouring countries.
What is need for demonstration and street protest?
>That black eye
Just like the cigar used in the White House, it is
dramatic. It is a tool used by opponent, trying to bring
down a successful leader.
> Mr Anwar maintains he is innocent.
All rapists, murderers and thieves will similarly swear
that they are angels. Is there such a thing as an honest
criminal, or an honest politician. Anwar is both a
convicted criminal and a politician.
> PAS, a party of religious hardliners who intend to impose an
>intolerant form of Islam on secular Malaysia.
This will spell troubles for Malaysia, may be
the downfall of Malaysia.
>...........................Indeed, Dr Mahathir has been a vocal and
>often conscience-pricking champion for developing countries.
Is there anything wrong with this ?
>Letting go a little
>
>........................................ Singapore is loosening up. In the
35 years
>since its Malaysian divorce, the city-state has prospered by offering
>what the rest of South-East Asia did not: an honest and professional
>administration; a modern, clean and efficient environment; a highly
>trained workforce; and a big welcome to foreign investors.
IS IT??? There is no evidence at all. Any way, Singaporean are
not complaining. Why is the foreign media so concerned?
>Its leaders are well aware that as its neighbours are forced to put their
>houses in order,
Putting the house in order ??
Singapore is in better shape than England. What is the
need to put the house in order.
> His plan also calls for the creation of a more
>entrepreneurial workforce, able to think for itself, to innovate and
>to stay ahead in the knowledge-based, Internet-wired commercial future
>...........................
This is not putting the house in order. This is planning
ahead, with effective strategies and tactics. Singapore
has been doing this since 1965. This is why Singaporean
have better income and live better than even the Briton.
>So loosening up in Singapore seems at best to offer a younger, more
>liberal nanny. Will that be enough for Singaporeans? Provided their
>government remains competent and honest, they seem unlikely to take to
>the streets demanding reformasi.
Singaporean live in beautiful houses, drive BMW and Benz,
work as professionals with high salaries, play tennis and golf, go
to airconditioned churches, enjoy overseas holiday yearly,
wear expensive branded clothings, served by maids,...................
Do you think they have a good reason to take to the streets?
The Economist is talking nonsense.
>............. Singaporeans who want more will probably pack their
>bags to work overseas. That means the island risks losing some of the
>home-grown talent it is desperately trying to cultivate.
Again talking nonsense. If the Economist bother to
check the fact, say with EDB, it will know that foriegn
talents applying for PR by the thousands evey year.
Yes, we do send our talent overseas, but to work in Singapore-
owned multi-national companies eg SIA sent over a1000
young talents to manage their branches overseas. When
these talents return after a few years, they are recruited to
head many local companies.
Bad boy.
john
>Singaporean live in beautiful houses, drive BMW and Benz,
>work as professionals with high salaries, play tennis and golf, go
>to airconditioned churches, enjoy overseas holiday yearly,
>wear expensive branded clothings, served by maids,...................
>Do you think they have a good reason to take to the streets?
>The Economist is talking nonsense.
which part of singapore do you come from? sixth ave?
>
>>............. Singaporeans who want more will probably pack their
>>bags to work overseas. That means the island risks losing some of the
>>home-grown talent it is desperately trying to cultivate.
>
>Again talking nonsense. If the Economist bother to
>check the fact, say with EDB, it will know that foriegn
>talents applying for PR by the thousands evey year.
FT from other third world nations more than first world nations i would
guess.
>Yes, we do send our talent overseas, but to work in Singapore-
>owned multi-national companies eg SIA sent over a1000
>young talents to manage their branches overseas. When
>these talents return after a few years, they are recruited to
>head many local companies.
>
hahahah..is that a fact?
Bad boy
john wrote in message <882vbo$t6j$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>...
>
>>Singaporean live in beautiful houses, drive BMW and Benz,
>>work as professionals with high salaries, play tennis and golf, go
>>to airconditioned churches, enjoy overseas holiday yearly,
>>wear expensive branded clothings, served by maids,...................
>>Do you think they have a good reason to take to the streets?
>>The Economist is talking nonsense.
>
>
>which part of singapore do you come from? sixth ave?
According to an excutive of Daimler/Benz, the number
of Benz sold in Singapore is the highest in the world in
terms of ratio per million population. BMW and Benz
are parked over night in HDB estates all over Singapore.
If you are not blind, you would see the large number
of BMW, Benz and Hondas on the roads everywhere in
Singapore.
You can check with Inland Revenue to find out the
number of workers earning more than $24,000 a year
or the number of family with income more than $50,000
a year. The middle income families is substantial in
Singapore.
More and more churches are air-conditioned now.
More are being converted.
Most of the overseas tours are fully booked during
school holiday. In fact, you will have problem getting
a seat on the plane without reservation during school
holiday, unless you are willing to pay first class.
Maids are seen everywhere in HDB estates. On Sundays
go down to Orchard Road, you will find 30,000 (estimated)
maids gathered there.
Singaporean do not have a reason to take to
the street. That is why there is no reformasi in Singapore.
Bad boy.
Paul Saccani
wrote:
>This is mischevious. The Jew and whites control much of
>the wealth in the USA. Why is this fact not highlighted again
>and again.
Could it be because they are much of the population?
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Hulu Langat,
Selangor,
Malaysia
Yap Yok Foo
14th February 2000
Group wants probe into Telekom bribes
Japan's Mitsui firm paid $4.7 million to a dummy firm in Malaysia to
clinch a Telekom deal worth 10 billion yen, according to the Asahi
Shimbun
KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's Anti-Corruption Agency should investigate a
report that Japan's Mitsui and Co paid about 300 million yen (S$4.7
million) in kickbacks to Telekom Malaysia, rights group Aliran urged
yesterday.
A Japanese newspaper on Friday said the sum was paid through a
consultants' firm in Malaysia, which turned out to be a dummy company,
in return for the purchase of telephone switchboards.
The Asahi Shimbun, quoting sources at the Tokyo Regional Taxation
Bureau, said Mitsui -- in a syndicate with NEC Corp -- landed orders
from Telekom Malaysia in late 1996 for the switchboards with a total
capacity of about 800,000 circuits.
It said the Japanese syndicate won the deal, estimated to be worth
more than 10 billion yen, by outdoing a number of European rival bids.
The switchboards were delivered from 1996 to 1998.
Mitsui registered the kickbacks, paid in 1997 to the Malaysian agent
under a consultant contract, as "commissions" which were reported as
losses, Asahi said.
But the tax bureau is believed to have determined the payments were
rewards for the orders and were categorised as taxable "entertainment
fees".
"There was a difference of view with tax authorities" over the
payments "but we ultimately paid the taxes", Mitsui's public relations
office was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
No one was available for comment at Telekom Malaysia.
But Aliran, in a statement, urged the anti-graft agency to disclose
the name of the dummy firm which received the kickbacks and whether
Telekom Malaysia executives and government ministers knew of the deal.
"How much more did the Malaysian telecom firm -- and ultimately the
Malaysian consumer -- have to pay as a result of accepting the Mitsui
switchboards?" it asked.
Aliran noted the agency had recently asked for more powers to combat
corruption.
"It sounds like they are really serious about wiping out corruption
but many Malaysians will be sceptical as long as it remains under the
Prime Minister's department," the group added. -- AFP
http://www.nationmultimedia.com
Yap Yok Foo
14th February 2000
Instability in Indonesia worries KL: Analysts
They say Malaysia is afraid that Abdurrahman will be unable to bring
peace to Indonesia, threatening its own stability as immigrants rush
in
KUALA LUMPUR -- Ethnic and religious violence in Indonesia is
unsettling neighbouring Malaysia, fanning fears that a rush of
immigrants could undermine regional stability.
Analysts and diplomats said Malaysian policymakers were concerned
Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid might prove unable to put an
end to the sectarian violence, which officials say has killed more
than 1,600 people in the past year.
A Western diplomat, referring to the Indonesian President's extensive
overseas trips since his October election, said: "Malaysian officials
are concerned about Wahid and his extensive travels. They wonder if he
can pull it off."
In the decade before Asia's financial crisis erupted in mid-1997,
Malaysia took in hundreds of thousands of Indonesian workers who
filled a huge employment gap.
Many have since either left Malaysia or been deported, but officials
remain worried over a possible influx.
Mr Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, director-general of the Institute of
Strategic and International Studies in Kuala Lumpur, said instability
in Indonesia was a threat to Malaysia.
"If Indonesia falls apart or becomes unstable, all will become very
concerned," he said.
Mr James Wong, a former member of parliament and columnist for the
Chinese-language Sin Chew Jit Poh newspaper, said Malaysia's concerns
went beyond immigration.
"The events in Indonesia are like the French revolution's impact on
Europe," he said. "The whole paradigm is shifting. Malaysia's leaders
are very anxious."
Malaysia has been anxious about Indonesia since the fall of President
Suharto in May 1998.
Dr Mahathir's discomfort grew when his then deputy Anwar Ibrahim began
calling for the winds of change and his supporters took up the rally
cry of Mr Suharto's opponents -- "reformasi" (reform) -- as their own.
Bilateral relations were strained in 1998 when then Indonesian
President B.J. Habibie expressed concern about Anwar's treatment
following his indictment and arrest.
Dr Bilveer Singh, a professor in Singapore and expert on Indonesia,
said policymakers remembered the period of "Confrontation" in 1963-65
when Malaysia and Indonesia under then President Sukarno engaged in a
tense border standoff.
"The fear is that if there are difficulties, Indonesia just may be
tempted to divert them internationally," he said.
"The whole of the region has a certain anxiety. An unstable Indonesia
is a dangerous Indonesia." -- Reuters
john
who is really in-charge now? is it still a political battle to grasp the
reins of power?
Abdurrahman Wahid has government and the presidency, Wiranto has the
military..
Wahid's plotical move to force Wiranto to resign backfired? or is there some
other political maneuvering under currents?
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>
>This is mischevious. The Jew and whites control much of
>the wealth in the USA. Why is this fact not highlighted again
>and again.
Probably because it's assumed that because there are more whites,
they'd have the most collective wealth. Someday soon the Latinos will
be the largest minority (when whites will, in fact, become a minority,
too), and the Latinos will then control much of the wealth in the US
by shear numbers.
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
It's been Oolong time, my Darjeeling Jasmine, dee...@mm.com
since we've had some Tea together. webm...@straitscafe.com
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^ http://www.sundberg.tc
Affordable Website Design & Maintenance | http://www.eggsco.com
john
Steve Sundberg wrote in message <38a850d5...@news1.mm.com>...
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:24:04 +0800, "Bad boy" <B...@pacific.net.sg>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>This is mischevious. The Jew and whites control much of
>>the wealth in the USA. Why is this fact not highlighted again
>>and again.
>
>Probably because it's assumed that because there are more whites,
>they'd have the most collective wealth. Someday soon the Latinos will
>be the largest minority (when whites will, in fact, become a minority,
>too), and the Latinos will then control much of the wealth in the US
>by shear numbers.
>
it'll have to be a very large shear numbers...the rich gets richer don't
they?
john
>
>Sure. How many non-white millionaires do you think MS alone has
>created?
welcome to the new world where wealth is created from inventing new
industires..
>Then again, income ain't where it's at; it's buying power. That's what
>moves markets and products. And Latinos have it.
>
so there's no link between income and buying power?
Latinos have that? any stats? i do know latinos tend to have a propensity to
spend more than they save from some marketing studies...is that what you
imply?
Yap Yok Foo
Mahathir suspects 'political stunt'
The Prime Minister says he will appear as a witness in the Anwar
sodomy trial if required, but he questions the defence team's motives
By DOUGLAS WONG IN KUALA LUMPUR
PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday he would
testify in the sodomy trial of his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim if
necessary, but he questioned whether the move to call him was a
"political stunt".
"If I'm required at the court and it's relevant, then I suppose I will
have to go. That is the law, there is nothing I can do about it," he
said.
But he said he did not think it was necessary for him to testify.
"I don't think it is necessary," he said. "I don't know much about
these things and I think all the evidence has already been given, but
apparently there are some political nuances in their desire to put me
on the stand.
"I wouldn't like this to be a kind of political stunt. I hope it is
relevant to the case. But if they want to make a political show out of
it, I don't think it is very fair."
High Court Judge Arifin Jaka said yesterday he would decide today
whether Dr Mahathir would be called as a witness.
In the High Court, the defence lawyer who subpoenaed Dr Mahathir said
he would examine whether the Premier's comments amounted to contempt
of court.
"I understand the Prime Minister made a statement this morning saying
he need not appear in court. Even before your lordship has decided, he
has already made up his mind," said Mr Gobind Singh Deo.
Judge Arifin, who heard legal arguments on the relevance of Dr
Mahathir's testimony yesterday, said it was a question of law.
"The court has the power, I will decide," he said.
The prospect of the first face-to-face confrontation between Anwar and
his former mentor since his sacking in September 1998 has renewed
interest in the ongoing sodomy trial.
After weeks of minimal turnout, the courtroom was packed yesterday
morning.
Both the prosecution and defence lawyers spent the whole afternoon in
a complex legal tussle over whether the Premier should obey a defence
subpoena.
Government prosecutor Abdul Ghani Patail said the Premier's evidence
was irrelevant and the judge could cancel the subpoena under the
Evidence Act.
"It's not for the prosecution to say Dr Mahathir can't give any
material evidence," defence lawyer Karpal Singh argued.
Anwar was jailed for six years in April last year for abusing his
official powers to cover up allegations of sexual misconduct.
If convicted of sodomy, he could face another 20 years in jail.
Anwar claims the charges against him were fabricated in a high-level
political conspiracy after he threatened to expose corruption. The
government denies any plot.
Putting Dr Mahathir on the stand is not without risks to the defence
team.
The Premier had been slated to be a witness in Anwar's corruption
trial, but it was decided not to call him "since we are not in a
position to know what sort of evidence he will adduce", Raja Aziz
Adruse, Anwar's lead lawyer in that case, said last March
Yap Yok Foo
19th February 2000
Singaporean and proud of it
Almost everyone polled in a survey said they love their country. Two
out of three would even die for it
By SUSAN LONG
SINGAPOREANS fly the flag proudly, says a brand-new report card on
national pride.
An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey just released found that
three out of four citizens believe that Singapore is worth defending,
no matter what.
Just as many citizens bristle whenever people criticise Singapore.
And nine out of 10 would see red if anyone burned the national flag.
IPS polled 1,451 citizens last year, a representative sample, to probe
their feelings.
Almost everyone said they love their country and that Singapore
citizenship means a lot to them.
On the chest-thumping matter of national pride, Singaporeans' score is
on par with that of United States citizens. Both score 17.2 on a pride
scale of five to 25 points, second highest among the 24 countries
surveyed by the National Opinion Research Centre in Chicago.
Singaporeans rate even higher on this score than the Japanese and
British who have longer histories as nations.
Overall, the report card shows that a robust national identity
prevails across age, race, gender, income and education divides.
Nine in 10 agree that only in Singapore do they feel completely at
home.
Proudest to be Singaporean are those who are 60 or older, Indian
Singaporeans, people with only primary-school education and people in
households earning between $5,000 and $5,999.
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser said: "If we use this as a report card of
Singaporean identity in the last 34 years, we're doing pretty okay
when benchmarked against international standards." But he added that
"there's work to be done".
Overall, the results showed that Singaporeans have warm psychological
ties with their country.
Three in four citizens, for example, believe it is wrong to give up
Singapore citizenship in order to dodge national service.
Two in three professed to be willing to die for their country, while
three in four said they would not flee even if there was war.
But IPS senior research fellow Ooi Giok Ling, who coordinated the
study, noted that commitment dipped several notches whenever
self-interest entered the equation.
Almost half would not support Singapore if they had to take huge
pay-cuts or pay higher taxes.
The survey was done when Singapore was coming out of a recession and
had done better than other countries in the region, she pointed out.
"It could explain why Singaporeans felt such strong pride and strong
ties to their country," she said, adding: "It will be interesting to
see what their feelings will be like five years from now."
Yap Yok Foo
19th February 2000
Mahathir to meet PM 'at some stage'
CLOB IMPASSE
By DOUGLAS WONG IN KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIAN Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday he would meet
his Singapore counterpart to discuss the Clob impasse "at some stage"
but added that a date had not yet been fixed.
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had said last month that he hoped to meet
Dr Mahathir after the Chinese New Year to discuss outstanding
bilateral issues including Clob.
Dr Mahathir had said he was agreeable to a meeting but told reporters
yesterday that he did not manage to meet Mr Goh to discuss Clob in
Bangkok last weekend, when both premiers were at the opening plenary
session of the 10th UN Conference on Trade and Development.
Asked if a meeting would be held, Dr Mahathir replied "at some stage"
but when asked if it was likely to take place at the end of the month,
he replied: "We don't know yet."
Besides the matter of Clob shares, which have been frozen from trading
since Malaysia's introduction of capital controls in September 1998,
other bilateral issues include the supply of water to Singapore, CPF
savings of Malaysians and Malayan Railway land in Singapore.
Malaysia's Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin has said that the Clob
issue should be resolved by the stock exchanges of the two countries
but a meeting between the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the
Singapore Exchange at the end of last month failed to come up with a
solution.
ahxiang
wrote:
>Nine in 10 agree that only in Singapore do they feel completely at
>home.
~ oi! pls lah! kena east-west facing room, hot machan like oven, how
to feel at home!? some old HDB estate you build huge carpark tat is
4/5 empty at night, and you build machan like kachan puteh carpark tat
yields not a single lot after 10pm in the new estates like mine, must
park a mile away, how da!?
>Sociologist Tan Ern Ser said: "If we use this as a report card of
>Singaporean identity in the last 34 years, we're doing pretty okay
>when benchmarked against international standards." But he added that
>"there's work to be done".
~ ya, pls come and build goalposts on the field downstairs so tat we
can play soccer!
>Overall, the results showed that Singaporeans have warm psychological
>ties with their country.
~ dun wan lah, lets outlaw neckties! casual dress for everybody at
work! no wonder productivity always struggle.. how to work when you're
constantly choking! how to feel happy at work when you have to wear
that ridiculous looking tie bcoz your darling bot it! everytime u pee,
it gets in the way! apa lah!
>
>Three in four citizens, for example, believe it is wrong to give up
>Singapore citizenship in order to dodge national service.
~ oh pls!! i'll be very afraid if we dun allow such freedom of
expression.. can't imagine been in the same trench when the rounds are
going off and the next guy is cursing the govt, his parents, his god
for putting him there! let him go!!
>Two in three professed to be willing to die for their country, while
>three in four said they would not flee even if there was war.
~ first, you gotta make your enemy 'die for his country'.. and if you
wanna die for your country, pls make sure you take down 10 enemies b4
u go meet your creator hor.. and of the 3 who chooses to stay and not
flee, make sure they medically fit hor, skali all 3 are older than 50
and female! sure die!
>Almost half would not support Singapore if they had to take huge
>pay-cuts or pay higher taxes.
~ ask not wat you can do for your country, ask wat the country can do
for your selfish..er.. yourself!
m0bius
<yf...@pop.jaring.my> wrote:
>From The Singapore Straits Times
>19th February 2000
>
>Singaporean and proud of it
>Almost everyone polled in a survey said they love their country. Two
>out of three would even die for it
>By SUSAN LONG
>
>SINGAPOREANS fly the flag proudly, says a brand-new report card on
>national pride.
About bloody time.
>An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey just released found that
>three out of four citizens believe that Singapore is worth defending,
>no matter what.
>
>Just as many citizens bristle whenever people criticise Singapore.
Hopefully Singaporeans will continue to criticise Singapore so that the
nation can grow.
We have to learn to take criticism in the right spirit, ie. not to
"react" to some other persons view of reality.
I do hope our govt. stops suing people who criticise Singapore, because
it shows the world that we are petty.
[...]
>Three in four citizens, for example, believe it is wrong to give up
>Singapore citizenship in order to dodge national service.
Absolutely. Only cowards desert their friends.
[...]
>But IPS senior research fellow Ooi Giok Ling, who coordinated the
>study, noted that commitment dipped several notches whenever
>self-interest entered the equation.
Aha. Self Interest. Opposition, Mr Chee, SfD please take note. All
"Win-Win" situations hinge on self interest; mutual benefit.
The PAP-led Singapore governement UNDERSTANDS the mindset/conciousness
of Singaporeans regardless of what the (foreign) media, "experts",
"analysts" and armchair critics say.
m0bius
--
Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different
speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.
-- Clive James
+++++++++++++ ROT13 to email: z0o...@hfn.arg +++++++++++++++++
Bad boy
m0bius wrote in message <190220001225386942%m0b...@somewhere.com>...
>I do hope our govt. stops suing people who criticise Singapore, because
>it shows the world that we are petty.
>
Newspapers now stop telling lies about Singapore and its leaders.
This is because they are held responsible when they slander
Singapore. They will be sued for their lies about Singapore and
will be made to pay for it. I cannot fault this policy.
For a small nation, our integrity and our clean image is
very dear to us and we would not allow others to smear it
in dirts. This is why, this "red dot" enjoy certain standing in
international affairs.
I cannot remember a case when a party or a newspaper were
brought to court for constructive criticism about Singapore.
Bad boy.
Ken!!!
methinks the truth would be somewhere in the middle...
but can't help thinking about the MAD magazine gag:
"what they tell you:
80% approve of Clinton's policies
what they don't tell you:
90% of the same people believe that pro-wrestling is real"
On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:19:06 GMT, samm...@webcom.com (Samuel Leong)
wrote:
>It is quite obvious that Singaporeans have been programmed to
>give politically correct answers to official surveys.
>
>My unofficial survey tells a different story...I just called up
>10 of my friends and 9 of them said they would run for their
>lives long before the first shot was fired. The 10th guy?.... he
>wasn't at home... Probably in one of those health centres.......
ahxiang
wrote:
>My unofficial survey tells a different story...I just called up
>10 of my friends and 9 of them said they would run for their
>lives long before the first shot was fired. The 10th guy?.... he
>wasn't at home... Probably in one of those health centres.......
>
~ tats bcoz the 9 hasnt yet seen their loved ones blown to bits or
raped or tortured.................... and per chance they will still
run despite such intolerable acts agst mankind, well, you just re-
defined the term 'friends'.........
m0bius
<B...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> I cannot remember a case when a party or a newspaper were
> brought to court for constructive criticism about Singapore.
Who says criticism has got to be constructive to be useful?
m0bius
Universe
"Yap Yok Foo" wrote "Dating yes, sex no but fucking, yes"
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>>
>~ tats provided they havent disabled all runways, piers and the
>causeway.. and anyhow, i assume when the first bomb falls, no
>able-bodied singaporeans will be allowed to leave.. i hope your
>'frens' and their families can swim..
You don't think there'd be some period of time *before* any bombs fell
when people would attempt to leave?
Bushido
wrote:
>My unofficial survey tells a different story...I just called up
>10 of my friends and 9 of them said they would run for their
>lives long before the first shot was fired. The 10th guy?.... he
>wasn't at home... Probably in one of those health centres.......
but them Singies will not shirk their duties,
I am sure they will march bravely to their deaths.....
if the government tells them that those who die in the service of
their country will be given Hello Kitty toys post humously.
Bushido
wrote:
>To think that we will wake up one morning to find bombs raining
>down upon us is naive to say the least. Wars simply don't happen
>that way.
Tell that to the poor buggers on the Arizona in Pearl Harbour. :-)
m0bius
<B...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
> m0bius wrote in message <38aee...@news.per.paradox.net.au>...
>>Who says criticism has got to be constructive to be useful?
>
>
> Lies and slanders are never useful to Singapore. It can hurt
> us if not challenged.
How? Must we challenge everything? Is our collective self esteem that low or
are Singaporeans (and their govt.) basically insecure?
> Perhaps they are useful to the liars and slanderers.
Perhaps they are ;)
m0bius
m0bius
<her...@home.com> wrote:
> save some face leh.... 6-pack of VBs heading your way...
Mate, there is only one decent beer in Oz. It is Crown Larger
:)
m0bius
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>
>Tell that to the poor buggers on the Arizona in Pearl Harbour. :-)
Compared to, say, the London Blitz or even Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?
Besides, the US knew Japan would strike *somewhere* soon in Dec. 1941;
they just thought it would only be the Philippines that was attacked.
A strike at Pearl Harbor was not considered to be among Japan's
martial options. In fact, a war alert was sent to all Pacific area
commanders a week prior to the PH attack, and the PH command prepared
itself for what it thought would be its greatest danger -- acts of
sabotage.
So you can't really claim that war with Japan in 1941 came as a
complete surprise. The only surprise was the target. I'm not aware of
any overseas bases run by the SAF or RSAF, so chances are any
Singaporean target an enemy would want to attack would be in Singapore
itself.
Yap Yok Foo
No bak kwa from Malaysia
BAK KWA lovers here who think they have a bargain in Malaysia may find
themselves in trouble if they bring in the sweetmeat from across the
Causeway.
This is because, under the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, it is an
offence to bring in pork and its products from Malaysia, said Dr
Astrid Yeo, head of the Primary Production Department's development
and compliance branch. The Act came into effect last December to
regulate the processing and sale of meat and fish meant for human
consumption.
But there are exemptions for personal consumption:
Up to 5 kg of seafood products per person can be brought in from
overseas. This includes crab and prawn meat, oysters and cockles.
A maximum 5 kg of beef, mutton, pork or poultry products per person
may be brought in. But meat from some countries is not part of this
exemption. For example, only poultry is allowed in from Malaysia and
Thailand, and beef from Britain is prohibited.
Fish and meat imports are regulated strictly to prevent introducing
animal diseases, such as anthrax or mad-cow disease, into Singapore.
Beef and mutton from Malaysia are prohibited because of the dangers of
foot-and-mouth disease which may afflict animals.
Under the Act, importing illegal meat carries maximum penalties of two
years' jail and a $50,000 fine for the first offence, and three years'
jail and a $100,000 fine for repeat offenders.
More information about the Act and the exemption list can be found at
a PPD exhibition to be held at the World Trade Centre from March 9 to
12.
It will showcase PPD's achievements and highlight its food-safety
programme.
Yap Yok Foo
21st February 2000
Foreigners are most at ease in S'pore
The Republic is the least xenophobic among 12 Asian countries, say
expats in a survey by Hongkong-based PERC
By LYDIA LIM
SINGAPORE is the Asian country that foreigners feel most comfortable
doing business in.
A recent survey by the the Hongkong-based Political and Economic Risk
Consultancy (PERC) said expatriates surveyed recently rated Singapore
the least xenophobic among 12 Asian countries. Hongkong came in
second, followed by Vietnam. China was at the bottom of the league.
The survey findings, released last week, will form part of PERC's
comparative country-risk report for 2000.
It had asked expatriates working in the region to rank the countries
in terms of how nationalistic they were.
Nationalism was defined negatively as a sense of devotion which
emphasised promoting that nation's culture or interest at the expense
of others.
Respondents graded the countries on a scale of zero to 10, with 10
being the worst.
Singapore scored 2.33, its best rating in recent years. Hongkong was
only a little behind, scoring 2.81.
At the other end was China, with a score of 8.75.
The report cited America's "accidental" bombing of the Chinese Embassy
in Belgrade last year and the resulting anti-US student demonstrations
in Beijing as developments that could have fanned nationalism in the
region.
But on the whole, the trend of nationalism in most Asian countries has
stayed the same or improved slightly, it said.
Foreign direct investment into the region and the spread of the
Internet have helped moderate nationalist tendencies, it added.
In its report, PERC described Singapore as "more patriotic than
nationalistic" and said that, as expected, expatriates rated it as one
of the "very few places in Asia where nationalist sentiment rarely
impinges negatively on the business environment".
Singaporeans are patriotic and take pride in the country's
achievements, such as its world-class airport and efficient
bureaucracy, it said.
"Fortunately, the self-congratulation rarely seems to encourage
complacency," it added.
Singaporeans, in general, welcome foreigners but a significant
minority fear that an increased foreign presence would lead to job
losses and undermine local culture, it said.
While the commitment of Singapore's leaders to free trade and an open
economy counted in the country's favour, an intolerance of foreign
critics who question Singapore's long-held policies and ways of doing
things did not.
In its conclusion, PERC said that of concern was Singaporeans'
"patronising attitude towards other South-east Asians" which did
little to enhance Singapore's economic integration with the rest of
the region.
SINGAPORE:
More patriotic than nationalistic
SINGAPOREANS, in general, welcome foreigners but a significant
minority fear that an increased foreign presence would lead to job
losses and undermine local culture, says PERC.
MALAYSIA:
Clob issue? 'It's part of the efforts to take control of our own
affairs'
Malaysia did not suddenly turn virulently nationalistic in response to
the economic crises of 1997 and 1998.
The on-going dispute with Singapore over the fate of shares in
Malaysian companies once traded on the ill-fated over-the-counter
market (Clob) in Singapore is a case in point.
The sudden closure of this market in late 1998 when Malaysia
instituted capital controls may have jolted foreign investors but,
from the Malaysian point of view, it was merely an extension of Kuala
Lumpur's on-going effort to take control of its own affairs.
The nation was ranked seventh in the Perc listing.
HONGKONG:
Regionalism with nationalistic characteristics Any nationalism seen in
Hongkong is really more a form of regionalism and is directed not so
much against foreigners as against people from other parts of China.
Business credentials and wealth tend to be the defining features of
this attitude.
What makes people in the Special Administrative Region defensive is
seeing immigrants entering the territory without the means to support
themselves.
Consequently, emotions run high whenever there is the threat of an
influx from China.
Yap Yok Foo
Razaleigh rebuked over Umno polls
Call for secret voting in party polls should have been raised the
proper way, not in the media, says Abdullah
By BRENDAN PEREIRA IN KUALA LUMPUR
JUST days after saying he had no plans to contest Umno's May
elections, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah cranked up the rumour mill with a
statement suggesting that he still had an eye on the party polls --
and earned a quick rebuke from Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.
The Kelantan prince's proposal for secret ballots to pick delegates to
the Umno general assembly and nominate candidates for all posts -- and
the manner in which it was delivered -- appears to have irked several
party leaders.
Said Datuk Seri Abdullah: "Umno members can voice their views or
comments to the headquarters. As for supreme council members, it is
better to raise them during the meetings.
"As a supreme council member, Tengku Razaleigh should do just that,
during the meeting.
"There is no point bringing it out in the press as we don't know
whether it can be accepted.
"When you do it the proper way, we can view it together."
It is understood that some Umno leaders are tired of the conflicting
signals from Tengku Razaleigh in the press over his political
ambitions.
If he is serious about challenging Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad or
DPM Abdullah for either of the party's top posts, they want him to
state his intentions plainly.
Commenting on the issue, the Malay-language Berita Harian newspaper
said in an editorial that Tengku Razaleigh's statements that he had
"no plans to contest" did not mean "a definite decision not to
contest".
It urged him to "make a clear statement" once and for all.
Supporters of Tengku Razaleigh, a former finance minister, say there
is a groundswell of discontent against the party leadership and
predict that his name will pop up at divisional elections beginning
next month.
But the main obstacle to his being nominated is Umno's open
show-of-hands voting style, which puts pressure on grassroots leaders
to stick to the status quo or risk retribution.
Hence Tengku Razaleigh's suggestion of a secret ballot, but some Umno
leaders disagree that this ought to be made compulsory.
Said acting Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Tun Hussein: "If we really
want democracy, we should allow delegates and divisions to decide on
their own how to choose the delegates as we are always quite open at
the divisions."
Noting that some party members were hard to please, he added: "If we
are too strict, they accuse us of being undemocratic, but when we are
lenient, some people call for a stricter ruling."
Yap Yok Foo
22nd February 2000
Sales contracts may soon have to be in Malay
The government is studying proposals to have all agreements in the
national language as many people are cheated by not understanding
English terms
KUALA LUMPUR -- The use of Malay may be made compulsory in all
agreements of sale and purchase, as such documents are not easy to
understand when they are drawn up in English, said the Minister in the
Prime Minister's Department Datuk Rais Yatim.
Utusan Malaysia quoted Dr Rais as saying the government was unwilling
to compromise on the matter as almost all sale-and-purchase agreements
between the private sector and buyers were still written in English.
According to him, the government was aware that many people lost out
after signing such documents, particularly those involving property
purchases such as houses.
"Those documents were written in English, using difficult terms and
language," he said.
He added that it was no wonder that many people felt cheated because
they had to use English words, which they did not understand, in
negotiating the terms of contracts with housing developers and
financial institutions.
The Federation of Malaysian Consumers' Association proposed last week
that the use of Malay be made mandatory in sale-and-purchase
agreements as people, even graduates, had a poor grasp of English.
Dr Rais said the Malaysian government's policy on the use of Malay in
business transactions had not been implemented effectively, because of
bureaucratic problems.
He said a meeting, involving several Non-Governmental Organisations
and the Bar Council, was scheduled to be held today. The Bar Council
should urge its members to uphold Malay as the national language as it
was used widely in the judicial system, he added.
"Legal documents issued by the government today are in Malay," he
said.
On when Malay would be made compulsory for such documents, the
minister said the government was studying the matter.
"The government is flexible about this and is allowing documents to be
written in English as well as Malay according to customers' needs," he
added.
During this period, he said, people had the right to reject a document
written in English and to ask for a Malay version.
Mr Abdul Aziz Deraman, head of the National Language and Literary
Agency (the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka), said the government had to be
tough on such issues.
"All proposals and directives must be acted on as more than 90 per
cent of such transactions involve Malay-speakers," he said.
"There is no reason why English must be used, as the national language
can also be the language of economics and business," he said.
"The DBP is ready to help in aspects of translation and terminology
and hopes that this proposal is implemented," he added.
Meanwhile, head of the National Writers' Association, Tan Sri Dr
Ismail Hussein, said he supported the suggestion and called for its
swift implementation.
Yap Yok Foo
22nd February 2000
SGX is still working on Clob solution
Effective Capital's formal offer document has not been distributed
despite its proposal expiring today
By DOUGLAS WONG IN KUALA LUMPUR
THE Singapore Exchange (SGX) said yesterday it had not distributed the
Clob offer of Effective Capital because it was still working on a
comprehensive solution which would serve the interests of all Clob
investors.
Effective Capital's 18 month share migration proposal closes today but
its formal offer document has not been distributed to the 172,000 Clob
investors and there was no indication yesterday if it would extend the
acceptance date.
The vehicle of businessman Akbar Khan is the only private-sector
proposal which has the go-ahead from the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange
(KLSE), and some investors were concerned that it was the only option
available.
"SGX and the Singapore Central Depositary (CDP) are aware of Clob
investors' concern that Effective Capital's offer for Clob securities
closes tomorrow," an SGX spokesman told The Straits Times last night.
"SGX has held back distributing Effective Capital's offer to work out
a comprehensive solution that will serve the interests of all Clob
investors.
"SGX hopes to make an announcement on the matter within the next few
days," the spokesman said.
Effective's proposal was first submitted to CDP last December and had
already extended its closing date once from Jan 31 to today.
Effective could not be contacted for comment, but sources said it was
still keen to proceed with its offer.
SGX had said on Feb 1 after meeting the KLSE that the terms of
Effective's offer -- an 18 month staggered migration with a 2 per cent
fee based on Dec 22 closing share prices -- were not satisfactory, and
Effective was believed to be considering improving its terms.
SGX also said that a comprehensive Clob solution must involve the
migration of all Clob securities to investors' accounts, and it would
resort to the courts and the World Trade Organisation to ensure this
if necessary.
The Malaysian authorities have rejected this position.
KLSE had said Clob investors who did not wish to accept Effective's
offer "would have fully recognised that upon the expiry of CDP's
authorised nominee status on June 30, 2000, any securities not held in
the account of a beneficial owner or an authorised nominee shall be
transferred to the Minister of Finance".
Trading in Malaysian shares on Singapore's Clob market ended in
September 1998 after Malaysia introduced capital controls.
Since then nearly 11.5 billion shares in 112 public companies have
been frozen.
Besides Effective Capital, which first made a cash-discount offer for
the Clob shares last year, some half a dozen other private proposals
have been made to resolve the impasse.
However, only Effective had the go-ahead from KLSE, which had even
given the company written assurances that its scheme could be
implemented.
Separately, Bintang Melewar, another company proposing a share
migration scheme, said yesterday it had received written confirmation
from the Securities Commission (SC) that it had no objections,
provided it obtained KLSE approval.
"With the SC advice and pending clearance from the KLSE, Bintang
Melewar is happy that Clob investors are given a choice in their
selection to resolve the Clob impasse," Bintang spokesman Tunku
Iskandar said.
SGX had said on Feb 1 that it was considering distributing all of the
Clob offer documents together to enable investors to decide and
compare the various offers on their merits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE'S OFFER
THE company's two-step proposal calls for the release of the shares
over 18 months once they have been moved into the investors'
individual accounts over a four-month period.
For this service, Effective Capital is asking for a 2 per cent fee
based on the valuation of the shares as at the closing of the KLSE on
Dec 22 last year.
Yap Yok Foo
22nd February 2000
Editorial : Counting on Singaporeans
IT WAS not long ago that someone turned the line "Count on me,
Singapore" into "Count money, Singapore". How very Singaporean, that
wit. It captured the gist of the national love affair with wealth.
This is an affair which most citizens would readily own up to, though
the barb about counting money suggested that the pursuit of wealth was
all that tied Singaporeans to Singapore. The accusation is not
accurate. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey reveals that
patriotism is well and alive in this young nation. Seventy-six per
cent of the respondents, a representative sample composed of 1,451
citizens, declared that the country was worth defending, no matter
what the personal cost. An equal proportion said they would fight for
Singapore even if they did not derive any personal benefit from doing
so. Seventy-three per cent promised not to leave the country in the
event of war. Almost 90 per cent said they would be upset if they saw
anyone burn the National Flag. Respondents scored highly in many other
areas as well, of loyalty to the country and affection for it.
Singapore citizenship means a lot to them, and they do not like their
nation being criticised. Indeed, 73 per cent thought that it was wrong
for people to give up citizenship to avoid national service. However,
the wit had a point. A staggering half of those surveyed said that
they would not support Singapore if they had to take substantial pay
cuts or pay higher taxes! Singaporeans, it appears, are willing to be
counted on, but unwilling to stop counting money.
There is no major contradiction between those two attitudes. War is a
catastrophe that offers citizens a stark choice: either they fight or
they surrender, either they stay or they quit. Given the starkness of
the choice, it is impossible to hedge one's bets. What the survey
shows is that Singaporeans, by and large, are prepared to defend their
country even if that entails losing their lives. Living those lives is
another matter, though. Enduring pay cuts or tax rises is not in the
same league as defending the nation. The degree of commitment that
informs the latter does not, therefore, go into the former. That said,
it is not true that Singaporeans are unwilling to make economic
sacrifices should they be essential. The CPF cuts that they accepted
as the price of emerging from the recession prove their capacity to
work for the collective good even when the effects are felt
personally. And what is the collective but Singapore?
The survey also revealed that high national-pride scores -- assessed
on a scale ranging from five to the highest total of 25 points --
applied to all Singaporeans, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender,
age, income or education. For example, citizens aged 60 and above
scored high at 18 points, but that was not far from the 16.9 scored by
those from 15 to 19. Males (17) and females (17.4) were almost the
same. Indian Singaporeans scored the highest (18.1), followed by
Malays at 17.7, Chinese at 17.1 and Others at 16.7 -- again, fairly
close figures. The university-educated, at 16.1, did not lag far
behind those with primary-school education, at 17.6.
Similarly, those with a total monthly household income of $6,000 or
more (16.8) were not lacking in national pride compared to those
earning less than $1,000 (17.4) -- a finding that should help to
dismiss the notion that the richer have weaker ties to the country
because they can afford to leave. Overall, these figures show that
social stratification notwithstanding, Singaporeans have much in
common when it comes to Singapore. They are Singaporeans