Saturday, 30 January 2016

Jom cari dan baca buku Dr. M. Bakri Musa

'Malaysian leaders have been intentionally entrapping the minds of Malays as a means to retain their power and positions'

'This ability to look beyond race would help draw the Malays out of their shells'
Dr. M. Bakri Musa

Read more about the book here:

Friday, 29 January 2016

Now pay attention

Please read:

Biar orang yang bijaksana berbicara

Biar orang yg bijaksana berbicara:

YAYASAN 1Malaysia (Y1M) supports wholeheartedly the decision of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to refer the attorney-general's directive to close three investigative files involving Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak to its Operational Evaluation Panel (PPO). It is within the PPO's ambit of authority to evaluate the AG's decision.

There are at least seven reasons why the PPO should undertake this task.

ONE, there are contradictory views on the authenticity of the donation allegedly made by the late Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, to Najib in March-April 2013. According to the BBC, an unnamed Saudi source has confirmed the deposition of US$681 million from the Saudi monarch into Najib's personal account.

A report in the Wall Street Journal however has cast doubts on the claim. It says that "A Saudi government official while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement said that the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented". The truth about the donation should be established once and for all.

TWO, if it is true, as suggested by the BBC story that the donation was to help Najib and the Barisan Nasional to win the 13th General Election in May 2013, it raises a serious ethical question.

How can the leader of a foreign nation – which incidentally does not hold elections – seek to determine the outcome of an election in our country through the use of money?

Wouldn't that be a violation of election rules? Would that be a corrupt act implicating both the giver and the recipient?

How would we have reacted if it was known that the president of Indonesia or the prime minister of Singapore had through secret donations, attempted to determine election results in Malaysia?

THREE, if a small portion – US$61 million – of the donation was used for various purposes, who were the beneficiaries? Presumably, the BN election machinery was one of them.

Was there a proper accounting of electoral expenditure, as required by electoral law? Since it is the prime minister of a nation that claims to practise accountability that was the recipient of the donation, shouldn't there be a proper explanation of how the money was spent?

FOUR, since the AG claims that US$620 million was returned to the sender in August 2013, one wonders why when it became public knowledge that there was a huge sum of money in the prime minister's personal bank account in July 2015, there was no attempt by Najib or anyone around him to inform the people that most of the money had been returned to the sender? It would have been in Najib's interest to do so which is why his silence for the last six months is puzzling.

FIVE, if it is true that US$620 million was returned to the Saudi monarch in August 2013, was Bank Negara aware of it? When such a huge sum of money exits our banking system, wouldn't it have alerted our central bank? What was Bank Negara's response?

SIX, there is also the allegation that the money that was purportedly returned was actually kept frozen in a Singapore bank account. Was it unfrozen and sent back to the Saudi ruler? What is the role of the Singapore authorities in all this?

SEVEN, the AG in his statement failed to address yet another similar issue. It is alleged that the money that actually flowed into Najib's account was through an anonymous British Virgin Islands company and a Swiss private bank owned by an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Is this true? The people have a right to know.

It is because the questions which trouble Malaysians about the money in the prime minister's bank account are so fundamental that an evaluation by the PPO of the attorney-general's decision is so important. If these questions are answered in an honest and truthful manner, public trust in the prime minister and the government would be restored to a considerable extent.

Honest answers would also convince Malaysians and the world that the Najib government is sincere about upholding integrity. We have seen how in the Berlin based Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for 2015 announced on Jan 27, 2016, Malaysia's ranking has dropped from 50 to 54 out of 168 countries. Controversies related to the prime minister have been cited as among the reasons.

This is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG's decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny. In a democracy that values good governance, the decisions and actions of an officer of the state entrusted with the protection of the rule of law and the preservation of justice should never be shielded from evaluation and appraisal by the citizenry.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar
Board of Trustees
Yayasan 1Malaysia

Read in full here.

and another one from TMI:


The controversy continues unabated. It is about the attorney-general’s directive to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the 1Malaysia Devleopment Berhad (1MDB) affair.

Perhaps adding fuel to the fire is the rather abrupt “retirement” of former attorney-general Tan Sri Gani Patail on health grounds while these investigations were initially proceeding (he has since gone on to work for a law firm); and his replacement with the present A-G.

The latest volley in the barrage of citizens’ demand for reasons and accountability for the decision was carried in the Sun by Yayasan 1Malaysia Chairman Dr Chandra Muzaffar, “7 reasons to evaluate AG’s decision” on January 29, 2016.

‘That is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG’s decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny.”

That is the question – is his decision beyond scrutiny?

The simple answer is no. The power given to him by the Federal Constitution to institute any proceedings for an offence is “exercisable at his discretion”. This power is not absolute.

As long ago as 1979, the then chief justice, Sultan Azlan Shah declared in a landmark case that it is wrong to speak of absolute discretion. This is what he said in his usual pithy style:

“Unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms. Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.

“In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene.”

His Lordship was speaking of the discretion exercised by a land office.

Is it any different with the discretion exercised by the high constitutional office of an A-G?

Well it could be said there is a greater need for this to apply to the A-G’s exercise of discretion. Because outside of his constitutionally prescribed duties, the AG is the guardian of the public interest, a right conferred on him under the common law, which is made applicable by Article 160 of the constitution.

Indeed then Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim countenanced a remedy against the decision of an A-G not to prosecute – although he said “but not in the courts”.

The Privy Council, the then highest court for Malaysia, alluded to the many factors which a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion whether to charge a person at all.

It remarked that this “should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration”.

To summarise: the A-G’s discretion not to prosecute (or any other power that he is entitled to exercise) is not without limits. It cannot be exercised for an improper purpose and unreasonably; or on the basis of an irrelevant or wrong consideration.

If it is so exercised then it could be subject to challenge through the courts.

In fairness to the A-G, he has invited anyone unhappy with his decision to have the limits of his powers determined by the Federal Court.

For this to be properly determined the A-G should give his reasons. Only then can the court properly evaluate the legal propriety of his decision.

In a landmark English case routinely cited in our courts, the House of Lords said that the minister may have good reasons for refusing an investigation.

In this present case, the A-G directed that investigations be stopped although the MACC had asked him to initiate the process for witnesses to be examined.

There was then a duty to give the reasons for the court’s examination. Else it could be assumed there were no good reasons.

Indeed in another English case it was pointed out that if all prima facie reasons point towards one course of action and the minister takes another without giving a reason, the court may infer he has no good reason for the decision and is using his discretion for an improper purpose.

Admittedly these cases involve the exercise of power by a minister in the exercise of administrative functions – as distinct from constitutional powers.

But surely it cannot be denied that public confidence in a prosecutor’s work is the cornerstone of a proper, efficient and fair administration of the justice system. so these decisions should apply with equal – if not more – force to the A-G’s powers.

Finally, let’s take a page from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which the government is eager to sign and ratify.

It requires each party to adopt or maintain “measures to promote transparency in the behaviour of public officials in the exercise of public functions”.

Although this provision relates only to international trade and investment matters, should not this be extended to matters over which there seems to be so much disquiet, if not outrage, among the citizenry. – January 29, 2016.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

This thinghy that just refuses to go away

Breaking news from Reuters:

excerpts from Reuters:

"A source at the MACC told Reuters that, when it handed its findings to the attorney-general last month, the agency had recommended that Najib be charged with criminal misappropriation. The source did not specify the grounds or the legal basis for the MACC's recommendation.

"It's a pretty straightforward case. We had made recommendations for charges to be filed that the attorney-general has instead chosen to reject," said the source, who declined to be identified or to elaborate on the MACC's findings.

The attorney-general's office declined to comment. Najib's office said it had no immediate comment.

The MACC said it would not comment on whether it made any recommendation to charge the prime minister.

In a statement on Wednesday, the agency said it would seek a review of the attorney general's decision to close the investigations, but declined to make any further public comment on his findings

Read full news here and here. I think the AG Apandi Ali will have to deal with the fireworks for some time to come. Good Luck to you Tan Sri sir.

Meanwhile, a former AG Tan Sri Abu Talib also chipped in:

excerpts from TMI:

Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has no authority to order the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation in the prime minister's bank accounts, says a former A-G.

Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman also said that Apandi had not helped MACC to obtain documents and statements from abroad as part of its probe, under the mutual legal assistance (MLA) initiative.

"Under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, the A-G has power only to institute, conduct and discontinue any (criminal) proceedings, but has no authority to order any investigation agency to close its investigation papers."

"This is a case of public importance that has attracted worldwide attention, the A-G must help the MACC to collect evidence as the source of the fund is outside Malaysia,"

Read the news in full here.

And this are many questions from Dr. Dzul of PAN, questions the ordinary people would like to ask but too nice to ask:

AG has made it worse for Najib

by Dzulkefly Ahmad

So the Attorney-General thinks he has finally buried the controversy over the RM2.6 billion donation given to Prime Minister Najib Razak. On the contrary, he has immortalised the acrimony till Doomsday.

It is now impossible for the PM to regain the trust he has lost. Indeed, it is likely that he’ll even lose whatever trust he has left, if there’s any by now.

The announcements Apandi Ali made at Tuesday’s press conference have left the nation gasping in disbelief. The latest revelation of an admission by an unnamed Saudi source that his country indeed donated the RM2.6 billion to Najib is nothing short of bewildering. The late King Abdullah must have turned in his grave.

The rakyat must find it atrocious to hear that the money was to be used in efforts to counter the potential of Muslim Brotherhood influence in Malaysia and to help the PM win the 2013 polls.

So we are to believe that the nation is under the hegemonic influence not only of the United States, Europe and China, but also of a nation advocating a brand of Islam called Wahhabism, which is quite at variance with the brand of Islam championed by the Malaysian government, Jakim and other agencies in the country. What a mind-blowing thought!

For the rakyat to buy into all the ‘fairy tales’, let the AG and the government disclose everything that needs to be disclosed. Perchance, the issue can then be laid to rest.

The AG must disclose the findings of the investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation as well as of the probe into the Finance Ministry-owned SRC International.

To recap, the Saudi donation was transferred in 2013, whereas the RM42 million from SRC International was channelled into Najib’s accounts in late 2014 and early 2015. Note the time gap between the transactions.

Although SRC International’s RM42 million was transferred into Najib’s personal bank accounts, the AG said that the PM had no knowledge of it and that he was not informed that the sum originated from the former 1MDB subsidiary.

The bone of contention now becomes: who in SRC authorised the transfer? Did SRC have details of Najib’s personal accounts? Who provided those details to the company? The rakyat could very well say it must be Najib or his wife. It is only logical. Do you ever share your personal account with anyone else, except perhaps your wife? How could he be conveniently oblivious and yet grinning? Isn’t all this a blatant lie, to put appropriately?

How could the rakyat reconcile with the fact that the same benefactor who donated money to Najib just before the 2013 general election decided to donate to him again a year later, this time through his SRC account? Was it because Najib was generous enough to return RM2.03 billion from the first donation?

Have we indeed been told everything? Will anyone have to concoct anything else after this? The question that begs an immediate answer would be: if it was so clear and simple, why didn’t Najib tell us all this before? Did he premeditate this decision to agonise the entire nation?

Yes, he has turned to be the greatest destroyer of our nation’s integrity. Why has it taken so long to have this story disclosed and is he sure that there isn’t anything else left to be told or to be thought of later?

Please, Mr AG, don’t hide behind “confidentiality” any more if you want your verdict of “no criminal wrongdoing” to be truly understood.

Just because Najib has returned RM2.03 billion to the Saudi donor, you can’t expect the rakyat to accept that the case is closed.

Why did Bank Negara have to slap AmBank Islamic with a hefty fine of RM53.7 million? You haven’t told us anything about this.

Does it have anything to do with Najib’s personal accounts and is it related to all these donations and benevolent transfers?

Finally, what were the many recommendations made by MACC after it completed its investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation and related probe into SRC International?

The fact that MACC is now seeking a review of the AG’s decision speaks volumes of the resentment felt by its officials.

Should they possess the power to prosecute, we could guess the verdict they would have handed down.

Both the MACC and the Bank Negara, as well as the entire rakyat, want the issue to be put to rest forever, so that we all can move on to rebuild this beleaguered and very embattled nation.

But this “straightforward case”, as alleged by the AG, has been ironically immortalised till kingdom come.

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad is Strategic Director for Parti Amanah Negara.

and I think maybe all is not lost:

'SPRM boleh cabar Apandi di mahkamah'


"Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) boleh mencabar keputusan Peguam Negara (AG), Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, jika didasarkan kepada satu keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu, kata Penyelaras perundangan Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), Michelle Yesudas.

Menurut Yesudas, keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu itu, mempertikaikan bagaimana mutlaknya kuasa AG.

Dalam satu kes baru-baru ini, katanya, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Vazeer Alam memutuskan bahawa keputusan AG boleh dicabar jika ia berdasarkan kepada satu pertimbangan yang tidak relevan, menyalahi undang-undang, atau jika berlaku salah guna kuasa.

Yesudas memetik keputusan Hakim Vazeer di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu, ketika menolak permohonan bekas Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail untuk membatalkan saman terhadapnya oleh bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial, Datuk Ramli Yusuff dan peguamnya Rosli Dahlan."

Read more here.

Well like I said, this thinghy just refuses to go away.

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

AG Shocker (Continued)

Susulan dari AG Shocker semalam.

Lawyer Ambiga's reaction:

TS Rafidah pun tak berapa happy dengan keputusan AG:

Then dapat berita dari BBC:

Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak 'for election campaign'

I was a bit disappointed with the report though as the BBC only said they obtained the information from a 'Saudi Source' this meant that the source cannot be verified and is  just 'khabar angin' or unsubstantiated rumors. More so when the source was quoted to say 'the donation was made amid concern in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood'. Muslim Brotherhood? Those brothers have never had any real presence in Malaysia lah kawan. I think our Special Branch would have rounded these people up as soon as they landed in the KLIA airport anyway. Tak payah bagi derma pun.

Some of the Pronajib bloggers did went to town with the BBC story, but I am sure they'll recover from their festivivities soon.

Ok now read this:

The headline is a bit off because in it Dow Jones Business News reported:

'A Saudi government official, while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement, said the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Representatives of the royal family couldn't be reached for comment. Critics of the Malaysian prime minister said it was implausible the money had come as a personal donation.'

Note that the Dow Jones Business News used the word Saudi Government Official instead of the BBC's "Saudi Source". Now it goes on to say that the Saudi Government had NO information of such gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Never been done lah maknanya tu.

Anyway I did ask yesterday when SPRM and Dr Mahathir will enlightened friends:

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

AG Shocker?

AG's clearance of Najib on RM2.6b shocks Azmin

A shocker?

....well not really a shocker....actually Dr Mahathir had predicted it to happen in early January, and he was sadly right:

My friend @ckliio9 gave his observation on twitter and he is correct in that AG should give more explanation to his decision:

....without proper explanation quoting why the various penal codes cannot be applied to the SPRM investigation...the AG decision will not put to rest the issue as it will be used as cannon fodder by the Pakatan and Pas people to whack BN in PRU14. 

Remember BN lost the popular votes in PRU13 and today BN have lost more votes in PRU14. How many votes need to be lost before BN realised the tsunami coming their way in PRU14 is lots bigger than the tsunami in PRU13?

Monday, 25 January 2016

The answer to blatant racism in our school system is a 'Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua' system, not sweeping under the carpet

The incident at SJKC Pai Chee Mersing had elicited different reactions from different parties:

Lets hear from Professor Ridhuan Tee first:

Sekolah mana lebih rasis?
INSIDEN seorang guru Melayu, yang bertugas di sebuah SJKC di Mersing, yang ‘diserang’ oleh bapa murid ultra kiasu patut membuka mata semua. Walaupun insiden ini dikatakan bukan isu perkauman, sorotan ceritanya tidak menampakkan sedemikian. Kasihan guru Melayu tersebut. Bayangkan jika guru Cina diperlakukan sedemikian di sekolah kebangsaan.

Bila kena pada kita, cepat-cepat kata itu bukan isu perkauman, minta disenyapkan. Namun, bila kena pada mereka, kata kita rasis belaka, diulang-ulang sentiasa dalam akhbar mereka. Seolah-olah kitalah paling rasis.  

Apakah ia tidak rasis, apabila guru besar ultra kiasu tersebut meminta guru berkenaan meletakkan jawatan dan meminta Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah supaya memindahkan guru berbangsa Melayu daripada berada di sana. Alasannya, guru Melayu tidak layak mengajar di sekolah Cina. Tidak kompeten, malas dan tidak memberi kerjasama.

Saya tidak menuduh semua SJKC sebegitu, tetapi bagi sesiapa yang mengkaji dan mengikut perkembangan SJKC, persepsi sebegini memang suatu yang lumrah dalam kalangan mereka yang ultra kiasu.

Saya amat mengharapkan Kementerian Pendidikan (KPM) supaya bertegas. Jangan berpolitik lagi kerana undi. Pertama, keadaan ini akan meracuni pemikiran murid menjadi rasis. Guru Melayu yang ditindas sepatutnya dikekalkan, bukan ditukar.

Kedua, kembalikan semula sekolah bantuan modal seperti dahulu. Setakat ini, kerajaan memberi layanan yang sama kepada semua sekolah walaupun tidak mendaulatkan agenda kebangsaan. Nasib Sekolah Agama Rakyat pula tidak menentu.  

Ketiga, pengecualian GST terhadap empat buah Sekolah Persendirian Cina baru-baru ini, hendaklah difikirkan semula. Percayalah. Berilah sebanyak mana pun kemudahan, undi mereka tetap kepada ultra kiasu. Jangan haraplah mereka akan mengundi BN.

Keempat, kerajaan tidak boleh lagi tunduk kepada tekanan parti politik dan NGO ultra kiasu. Sepatutnya, ultra kiasu yang tunduk kepada syarat kerajaan. Misalnya, guru bukan Cina yang mengajar di SJKC mesti boleh berbahasa Cina dan mendapat kredit dalam mata pelajaran tersebut di peringkat SPM.

Mata pelajaran Sejarah yang pada awal arahan kementerian diajar dalam bahasa Melayu, akhirnya terpaksa tunduk diajar dalam bahasa ibunda. Itu pun mereka tidak puas hati. Mereka telah hantar memorandum supaya kerajaan mengubah silibus Sejarah tersebut, kerana terlalu bersifat ‘kemelayuan’ apabila menceritakan tentang sejarah kemerdekaan. Hampir 100 ‘kesalahan’ dikenal pasti. Mereka juga mahukan pemimpin mereka turut diiktiraf sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan. Siapakah yang paling ramai terkorban menentang British? Apakah komunis itu pejuang kemerdekaan?

Kelima, dalam memperkasakan agenda negara, pendidikan adalah asas. Kerajaan mesti bertegas, seperti yang pernah dilakukan oleh Kerajaan Thailand dan Indonesia demi pembangunan negara bangsa. Hanya ada sekolah satu sistem.

SJKC yang dibina dan dibantu oleh kerajaan sepenuhnya hendaklah ditukar statusnya menjadi Sekolah Wawasan. Benar, buat masa ini Sekolah Wawasan yang menempatkan semua sekolah di bawah satu bumbung, tidak mendapat sambutan ultra kiasu. Atas alasan, jika banyak bercampur dengan Melayu, maka hilanglah penguasaan bahasa Cina mereka.

Keenam, pembinaan sekolah vernakular yang sentiasa bertambah dari setahun ke setahun perlu difikirkan semula. SJKC yang muridnya kurang dari 100 hendaklah ditutup.

Ketujuh, kelas peralihan yang wujud sehingga ke hari ini hendaklah dihapuskan. Mereka yang gagal BM hendaklah dihantar ke kem pemulihan bahasa selama dua tahun. DBP boleh diamanahkan tugas tersebut.

Kelapan, sijil UEC tidak boleh diiktiraf selagi kurikulumnya tidak mematuhi kehendak KPM.  

Kesembilan, jangan biarkan Pakatan Harapan menang dalam PRU yang akan datang kerana lubuk ultra kiasu adalah di sana. Jika mereka menang, semua yang dibincangkan di atas akan terkubur.  

Kesepuluh, siasatan juga hendaklah dibuat di SJKC yang lain. Tempatkan lebih ramai guru-guru Melayu di sana, supaya anak-anak mereka dapat dibimbing?

Kesebelas, jika sekolah kebangsaan boleh menerima guru besar (pengetua) bukan Melayu, kenapa SJKC tidak boleh menerima guru besar Melayu? Sekolah mana lebih rasis?

Akhirnya, sedarkan rakan sebangsaku, bahawa kerajaan (orang Melayu) sudah terlalu banyak bertoleransi kepada sekolah vernakular yang tidak pernah ada dalam dunia ini kecuali Malaysia. Masih tidak cukupkah lagi? Belajarlah bersyukur.

* Prof Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Felo Utama, INSPIRE dan pensyarah PPI, UniSZA

The DAP together with the rest of the Chinese Educationists and Vernacular Newspapers, as usual think that the SJKC Pai Chee incident is just an isolated case:

Jangan kritik sekolah aliran Cina kerana insiden terpencil

...knowing full well that incidents such as these could have the potential to blow this country apart. 

I think the only way to stop racism in our schools is to have a Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system not the cacamerba system that we have now, where anything goes. 

We need this Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system now...lets join the rest of the world in having a One School For All System where our kids and teachers study and teach together. The longer the powers that be delay this system the worse will the racism be and watch my words it will overflow from the schools to everyday life.

Note: Sekolah vernakular tidak ada peruntukan didalam Pelembagaan Malaysia.

Thursday, 21 January 2016

Kepada YB Ahli-Ahli Parimen BN, Pakatan Harapan dan PAS

Harap YB-YB dapat baca dengan minda terbuka..especially YB-YB dari BN..Terima Kasih ye:

Dengan penuh takzim kepada sekalian yang berhormat ahli Parlimen yang bertanggungjawab ke atas kepentingan negara tercinta, saya mengutus surat ini mengenai suatu isu kritikal yang menjadi dilema negara kita sekarang, dan bakal tercatit sebagai noktah penting dalam sejarah negara untuk dikenang generasi akan datang.

TPPA, Perjanjian bebas yang mengikat

Sebagaimana semua sedia maklum, Malaysia bakal menandatangani Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) pada bulan Februari 2016, sekiranya diluluskan Dewan yang serba mulia dalam perbahasan selama 3 hari yang sangat singkat kelak.

 Rundingan TPPA selama 5 tahun tersebut dimuktamadkan pada 5 Oktober 2015, dan akan diikuti tempoh ratifikasi selama 2 tahun untuk kita meminda undang-undang dalam negara -  lebih 27 akta dan beberapa pekeliling dan aturan Kerajaan - bagi mematuhi peraturan yang terkandung dalam TPPA, seterusnya memberi laluan kepada penguatkuasaan TPPA kepada negara anggota selewatnya pada 2018.

Penyertaan Malaysia di dalam TPPA akan meletakkan Malaysia di dalam kelab 12 buah negara di rantau Lautan Pasifik, iaitu Amerika Syarikat, Australia, Brunei, Kanada, Chile, Jepun, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapura, dan Vietnam yang bakal muncul sebagai sebuah blok ekonomi terpenting di dunia, bagi menyaingi kebangkitan gergasi ekonomi dunia yang baharu, iaitu Brazil, Rusia, India dan China (BRIC).

Tiadalah salah untuk Malaysia menjalin hubungan dagang dengan dunia luar, namun apa yang menjadikan TPPA begitu kontroversi adalah kerana skop perjanjiannya yang lebih komprehensif dan meluas, meliputi aspek harta intelek, tender kerajaan, syarikat berkaitan kerajaan, buruh, dan alam sekitar, berbanding skop ekonomi dan pelaburan yang terkandung dalam FTA biasa.

Secara keseluruhan, TPPA merangkumi 30 bab meliputi bidang tradisional dan bidang baharu.

Ia mengandungi 6,350 muka surat - 595 halaman teks perjanjian, 5,755 halaman lampiran (annexes) berkaitan akses pasaran, syarikat milik kerajaan dan peraturan tempat asal, serta 20 surat sampingan (side letters) yang dipersetujui secara 2 hala mengenai isu spesifik.

Hujah dibalas hujah

Saya mengucapkan tahniah sekiranya yang berhormat berkesempatan untuk mentelaah setiap 6,350 halaman perjanjian tersebut, kerana kami rakyat marhaen di luar ini bukan sahaja tidak berkesempatan, malah tidak berkeupayaan untuk memahami setiap terma yang digunakan dalam perjanjian yang serba mengikat ini.

Dalam memperhalusi kesan perjanjian yang serba mengikat ini, kerajaan hanya melantik konsultan untuk menjalankan kajian impak TPPA selepas rundingan dimuktamadkan pada 5 Oktober 2015, dalam keadaan tiada lagi pindaan yang dibenarkan pada teks perjanjian tersebut.

Sewajarnya kerajaan menjalankan kajian sebelum rundingan ditamatkan, tetapi ternyata kita memilih jalan sebaliknya.

Kerajaan melantik sebuah firma audit antarabangsa, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) yang mengambil masa tidak sampai 2 bulan untuk menjalankan kajian kos dan manfaat (Cost & Benefit Analysis) terhadap negara, dan merumuskan bahawa penyertaan Malaysia dalam TPPA akan membawa manfaat kepada ekonomi dengan peningkatan dalam pertumbuhan KDNK, pertambahan pelaburan serta import dan eksport.

Manakala sebuah badan pemikir tempatan, Institut Kajian Strategik dan Antarabangsa (ISIS) mengambil masa sebulan untuk menyiapkan analisa kepentingan negara (National Interest Analysis), dan menyimpulkan TPPA akan memberi kesan positif kepada kepentingan dan kedaulatan negara.

Malah kerajaan turut menangkis segala tohmahan yang menyatakan TPPA akan menggugat agama Islam, perlembagaan, bumiputera, keselamatan makanan, hak cipta, dan ubat-ubatan.

Di pihak kerajaan pula, siri taklimat dan penerangan tentang TPPA giat dijalankan ke seluruh negara.

Rakyat diberikan jaminan TPPA ini serba indah dan Malaysia bakal ditimpa malang sekiranya tidak menandatangani TPPA sekarang, sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam sesi taklimat Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) bersama ahli Parlimen bertarikh 12 Januari dan dokumen jawapan kepada kebimbangan, salah faham dan tuduhan bertarikh 11 Januari.

Tiga hujah yang dikemukakan kerajaan untuk menyokong penyertaan Malaysia ke dalam TPPA, dan wajar dinilai yang berhormat, antaranya:

Peningkatan pelaburan yang menyumbang kepada pewujudan peluang pekerjaan

Menurut simulasi yang dijalankan PWC, kesan TPPA kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia tidaklah terlalu besar – hanya menyumbang kenaikan 1.1% KDNK dan kenaikan 0.9% eksport negara pada 2027, satu lonjakan yang sangat rendah dan tidak signifikan kepada ekonomi negara yang berkembang pada kadar 4% - 6% setahun.

Model ekonomi CGE yang digunakan PWC mengunjurkan GDP akan meningkat sebanyak ASD107-211 bilion dalam tempoh 10 tahun sekiranya Malaysia menyertai TPPA, atau hanya ASD10 bilion setahun (RM40 bilion).

Namun, jika andaian model CGE tersebut direndahkan daripada ‘baseline GDP growth’ 5.0% kepada 4.0% sebagaimana negara maju yang lain, peningkatan GDP Malaysia hanyalah pada kadar ASD85-168 bilion, atau hanya ASD8 bilion setahun.

Akses pasaran ke negara ahli TPPA yang Malaysia belum ada FTA, iaitu Amerika Syarikat, Kanada, Mexico dan Peru

Hakikatnya, sebagaimana dilaporkan kajian PWC, jumlah dagangan Malaysia ke Amerika Syarikat mencecah RM116 bilion dan dijangka terus meningkat, walaupun tanpa TPPA, bermakna lonjakan yang bakal diterima Malaysia adalah sangat minima.

Malah, kajian PWC turut mengunjurkan nilai imbangan dagangan yang lebih rendah sekiranya Malaysia menyertai TPPA, pada kadar USD29.7 bilion berbanding USD42.3 bilion sekiranya tidak menyertai TPPA.

Integrasi lebih menyeluruh dalam rantaian bekalan di peringkat serantau dan global bagi perusahaan kecil dan sederhana (PKS)

Selain TPPA, Malaysia sedang dalam proses rundingan 4 FTA yang lebih meluas di peringkat serantau dan global, iaitu Perkongsian Ekonomi Komprehensif Serantau (RCEP) melibatkan semua 10 negara ASEAN dan 6 rakan FTA ASEAN iaitu China, India, Jepun, Korea Selatan, New Zealand dan Australia; Malaysia-EU melibatkan  Malaysia dan Kesatuan Eropah yang terdiri daripada 27 buah negara; Perjanjian Perkongsian Ekonomi Malaysia - EFTA (MEEPA) di antara Malaysia dan European Free Trade Association yang terdiri daripada Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway dan Switzerland; dan ASEAN-Hong Kong melibatkan semua 10 negara ASEAN dan Hong Kong.

Selain itu, 3 hujah dikemukakan kerajaan berkenaan kesan buruk sekiranya Malaysia tidak menyertai TPPA, dan wajar dibahas yang berhormat, antaranya:

Malaysia akan kurang daya tarikan sebagai destinasi pelaburan bagi pelabur yang mengeksport produk dan perkhidmatan ke pasaran TPPA.

Realitinya, faktor utama yang menjadi daya tarikan sesebuah negara untuk menjadi destinasi pilihan pelabur adalah kestabilan politik, iklim pelaburan yang kondusif, dan kualiti modal insan tempatan, di samping karenah birokrasi dan amalan rasuah yang rendah.

Antara indeks antarabangsa yang mengukur tahap daya saing negara adalah “World Competitiveness Ranking (IMD)”, “Ease of Doing Business (World Bank)”, dan “Corruption Index (Transparency International)”.

Syarikat tempatan dan asing yang kini beroperasi di Malaysia mungkin akan mengecilkan skala operasinya.

Kajian PWC mendapati 3 sektor yang bakal mendapat manfaat adalah perniagaan yang berorientasikan eksport seperti tekstil, komponen automotif, dan elektrikal & elektronik (dikuasai firma Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah).

Manakala 3 sektor yang bakal mendapat kesan negatif adalah industri yang menghadapi persaingan yang lebih sengit pasca-TPPA seperti minyak & gas, minyak sawit, dan pembinaan, di mana sektor ini merupakan penyumbang utama kepada ekonomi negara dan dikuasai syarikat tempatan.

Malaysia akan berdepan dengan persaingan lebih sengit dari Vietnam dan Singapura dalam menarik pelaburan asing.

Dan sekiranya Indonesia, Thailand dan Filipina memilih untuk menyertai TPPA kemudian hari, Malaysia akan ketinggalan lebih jauh.

Elemen tariff dan duti hanyalah faktor sampingan yang menjadi pertimbangan pelabur, bukannya faktor penentu sebagaimana faktor kestabilan politik dan transparensi dalam pasaran tempatan. 

Hakikat globalisasi dan penjajahan moden

Menurut Syeikh Prof. Dr.Yusuf al-Qardhawi, pengertian globalisasi (al-‘Awlamah) hampir sama dengan nilai kesejagatan (al-‘Alamiyyah) yang dibawa Islam.

Namun, menurut Syeikh al-Qardhawi, globalisasi dalam gambaran yang sangat ketara pada hari ini bererti membaratkan dunia (Westernisation) atau mengAmerikakan dunia (Americanisation), dengan tujuan untuk menguasai dunia di bawah satu ungkapan yang lunak iaitu globalisasi bagi menjayakan agenda pemaksaan pengaruh Amerika dan Eropah ke seluruh dunia.

Untuk makluman yang berhormat, perbahasan mengenai sikap dan pendirian Islam terhadap globalisasi moden ini dikupas dengan teliti Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang (TGHA) di dalam kertas kerja beliau yang yang diterjemahkan daripada Bahasa Arab berjudul "Globalisasi: Pendirian Islam Mengenainya", dibentangkan sempena Kolokium Antarabangsa Penyatuan Umat Sedunia di Tehran (Urusetia Penerangan Negeri Terengganu, 2003).

Di dalam kertas kerja tersebut, beliau menggariskan bentuk dan pendekatan globalisasi di zaman moden ini, seterusnya mengemukakan tindakan dan strategi yang perlu diambil dunia Islam, dengan mengambil pandangan tokoh ilmuan Islam kontemporari, termasuklah Syeikh Prof Dr.Yusuf al-Qardhawi, Prof Dr. Najmuddin Erbakan, Syeikh Dr Fathi Yakan, dan Syeikh Mohammad Hussin Fadlullah.

Antara sikap yang perlu diambil Malaysia dalam menghadapi cabaran globalisasi ala-Barat dan ala-Amerika ini adalah membebaskan diri daripada penjajahan pemikiran sekular agar dapat kembali kepada agama pemahaman dan pelaksanaan Islam yang sempurna, serta mengurangkan pergantungan kepada Amerika dengan meningkatkan kerjasama sesama negara umat Islam dan negara serantau.

Sewajarnya yang berhormat menyarankan agar kepentingan Malaysia dilindungi secara bermasyarakat madani di kalangan negara serantau (ASEAN), negara satu umat dan seagama (OIC) dan juga satu kemanusiaan (NAM) dengan adil dan saksama,  serta membebaskan Malaysia daripada bergantung dengan dolar Amerika kepada dinar atau mata wang Asia, tanpa bermusuh dengan sesiapa dan tidak berpihak kepada sesiapa.

Berdasarkan pertimbangan di atas, jelas menunjukkan tiada keperluan untuk Malaysia terikat dengan perjanjian TPPA yang tidak menjamin kesejahteraan hidup rakyat, dan tidak membawa manfaat yang besar kepada ekonomi negara, berbanding risiko dan kerugian yang tidak dapat dipastikan.

Mungkin yang berhormat fikir saya ini seorang pesimis. Sebenarnya saya sangat optimis dan yakin akan kemampuan kita sendiri, khususnya kebolehan yang ada di kalangan generasi muda, yang akan mewarisi negara tercinta ini dan memimpinnya ke persada antarabangsa. – 21 Januari, 2016.

* Syahir Sulaiman ialah Pengarah Strategi Dewan Pemuda PAS Malaysia (DPPM)



Baca ni pula, ditulis oleh Dr. M:
20 Jan 2016 | Economics

1. The International Trade and Industry (MITI) Minister says it will take two years to amend 26 laws to meet TPP requirements.

2. This is a clear admission that the TPP limits Malaysia’s freedom to make laws deemed necessary for the country. These laws have been passed by the Malaysian Parliament apparently because they were considered essential and god for the country. But now they have to be amended because the TPP is apparently more powerful than our elected parliament in determining what laws Malaysia should have.

3. By the same token future laws to be debated in Parliament must be subjected to the requirements or conditions in the TPP. Being right and suitable for Malaysia’s needs is not enough anymore. The needs of TPP will outweigh Malaysia’s needs.

4. Malaysia is not exactly like the other members of the TPP. We have many sensitivities because of our racial mix, our economic disparities, our poverty rates and our low levels of incomes. To correct all the economic, political and social problems certain policies and laws must be put in place. These are meant for overcoming our domestic problems. But these are no longer enough. If they don’t conform to TPP conditions they may not be passed by Parliament. A part of our independent rights will be eroded. The need to amend 26 of our existing laws carries this implication.

5. When those opposed to the TPP claim that the so-called free-trade agreement would undermine our sovereignty, and our freedom to act in our interest, they are dismissed for being emotional. But now it is clear that the TPP will stand in the way of our legislative rights, a fundamental freedom of a sovereign country.

6. Our founding fathers fought hard to gain independence; to be masters of our own affairs and destiny and now we are going sign away our rights and our freedom because of the need to obey the dictates of TPPA.

7. I have no doubt the rubber-stamp parliament will approve the TPP. That in itself is evidence that we are preparing to submit to foreign forces and give up the Merdeka that our former leaders had fought so hard for.

8. Truly cash is king.



1. Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI) berkata ia akan mengambil masa dua tahun untuk meminda 26 undang-undang untuk memenuhi keperluan TPP.

2. Ini adalah satu pengakuan yang jelas bahawa TPP menghadkan kebebasan Malaysia untuk menggubal undang-undang yang dianggap perlu untuk negara. Undang-undang ini telah diluluskan oleh Parlimen Malaysia kononnya kerana ianya dianggap penting dan baik untuk negara. Tetapi sekarang ianya perlu dipinda kerana TPP nampaknya lebih berkuasa daripada Parlimen kita yang dipilih rakyat dalam menentukan apa undang-undang Malaysia yang sepatutnya.

3. Atas sebab yang sama undang-undang masa depan yang akan dibahaskan di Parlimen mesti tertakluk kepada kemahuan atau syarat-syarat dalam TPP. Tepat dan sesuai untuk keperluan Malaysia sahaja tidak lagi mencukupi. Keperluan TPP akan melebihi keperluan Malaysia.

4. Malaysia tidak sama seperti anggota-anggota TPP yang lain. Kita mempunyai banyak sensitiviti kerana kepelbagaian kaum, jurang ekonomi, kadar kemiskinan dan tahap pendapatan yang rendah. Untuk membetulkan semua masalah ekonomi, politik dan sosial, dasar dan undang-undang tertentu perlu diadakan. Ini adalah bertujuan untuk mengatasi masalah dalaman kita. Tetapi ini semua adalah tidak lagi mencukupi. Jika ianya tidak mematuhi syarat-syarat TPP ianya mungkin tidak akan diluluskan oleh Parlimen. Sebahagian daripada hak-hak kebebasan kita akan terhakis. Keperluan untuk meminda 26 undang-undang yang sedia ada membawa implikasi ini.

5. Apabila mereka yang menentang TPP mendakwa bahawa perjanjian yang dikenali sebagai perdagangan bebas ini akan melemahkan kedaulatan negara, dan kebebasan kita untuk bertindak demi kepentingan diri sendiri, mereka dihalang kerana dianggap beremosi. Tetapi kini adalah jelas bahawa TPP menghalang perjalanan hak-hak perundangan kita, kebebasan asasi negara yang berdaulat.

6. Bapa-bapa pengasas negara kita berjuang bersungguh-sungguh untuk mendapatkan kemerdekaan, supaya kita menjadi penguasa hal ehwal dan takdir diri sendiri, dan sekarang kita akan melepaskan hak dan kebebasan kita kerana perlu mematuhi telunjuk TPPA.

7. Saya tidak ragu-ragu bahawa Parlimen Pak Turut akan meluluskan TPP. Itu sendiri adalah bukti bahawa kita sedang membuat persiapan untuk menyerah kepada kuasa-kuasa asing dan mengorbankan Merdeka yang pemimpin-pemimpin kita yang dahulu telah berjuang begitu keras untuk mendapatnya.

8. Sesungguhnya wang adalah raja.

Saturday, 16 January 2016

Al-fatihah untuk Almarhum Tun Razak pejuang bangsa dan negara

Al-fatihah untuk Almarhum Tun Razak dan semua ikon-ikon dan pejuang bangsa dan negara yang telah meninggalkan kita.

I had a long chat with Dato' Rahman yesterday, he was reminiscing the days when he was a young PSD officer in London 40 years ago when Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak was receiving medical treatment for cancer which ultimately took his life. 

He remembered vividly how Toh Puan Rahah, PM Najib's mother carried herself in quite dignity throughout that period in her life yang sangat mencuba and wished that any PM's wife would be like Toh Puan Rahah standing firm and behind the scene giving strong moral support while the PM carried out his duty for the nation. 

This great nation of ours is being shaken morally and economically, what we need now is a Leader who is competent and honest who places nation first before family party or anything else, really some one like Tun Razak and his wife Toh Puan Rahah.

On Dato' Abdul Rahman's request and as a way of commemorating 40 years of Tun Razak's leaving us forever, I am reposting my blog post dated 22nd January 2015:


I received this email from my old friend Dato' Rahman who has kindly shared some lost moments in our Nation's History when he was a young PSD officer newly stationed in London during the passing of Malaysia's second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak. 

Dato' Rahman request that his article be posted as a lasting legacy for his children and a history lesson for all who would find time through their busy schedule to read:


Bagi memperingati pulangnya ke rahmatullah Almarhum Tun Abdul Razak 39 tahun dahulu beberapa catatan telah di sertakan oleh beberapa orang tertentu. Saya secara peribadi, ingin juga berkongsi pengalaman semasa di arahkan menjadi pegawai bertugas selama Almarhum Tun menerima rawatan di London.

2.       Tidak ramai yang mengetahui kehadiran Almarhum Tun  di London untuk menjalani rawatan. Kami mula sadar apabila mantan Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Malaysia ke London Almarhum Dato Abdullah Ali telah mengarah kami (katakanlah orang kepercayaan Pak Duta) menjadi pegawai bertugas.

3.       Ekoran daripada arahan tersebut maka mulalah saya dan Tuan Syed Kassim (colleague saya di Jabatan Penuntut Malaysia) berkongsi secara bergilir-gilir melaksanakan tugas selama 7/8 jam setiap hari.

4.       Kami telah diingatkan supaya merahsiakan kehadiran Almarhum Tun daripada warga Malaysia di UK terutama sekali oleh penuntut kerana ianya adalah  arahan daripada Timbalan Perdana Menteri sendiri (Almarhum Tun Hussein).

5.       Pada mulanya Almarhum Tun telah tinggal di York House (rumah tetamu Kerajaan Malaysia). Almarhum Tun amat jarang sekali keluar dari kamar tidur dan hanya menerima pelawat yang dekat dan sah sahaja dibenarkan berjumpa beliau.

6.       Saya dimaklumkan bahawa ada juga ketika Almarhum Tun bersama pembantunya akan bersiar-siar di HydePark pada awal pagi (saya kurang pasti kerana hanya mula bekerja pada jam 9 pagi hingga 4/5 petang atau 5 petang hingga 11/12 malam setiap hari).

7.       Apa yang terpahat diingatan saya adalah cara YAM Tun Rahah (isteri Almarhum) membawa dirinya (carryherself) sepanjang masa beliau mendampingi Almarhum Tun. Beliau senantiasa berwajah ‘elegant’ serta murah dengan senyuman dan menerima tetamu dengan penuh kesantunan yang tulen. Hanya Tuhan sahaja yang mengetahui betapa gundah gulananya perasaan beliau melihat suami terbaring (berehat) sambil melayani tetamu.

8.       Saya pernah juga memerhati secara dekat YAM Tun Asmah (isteri Tun Mahathir) semasa mereka berada di London dan semasa saya di arah untuk mengiringi mereka melawat Universiti Oxford; Sussex University di Brighton (tempat Marina menuntut) dan semasa bertemu penuntut-penuntut Malaysia di Caudiff. Perwatakan mereka berdua hampir sama. Saya juga perhatikan Ibu Negara Iriani Jokowi (isteri Presiden Joko Widowo) mempunyai karektor dan  perwatakan yang hampir sama. Ada kemungkinan besar rakyat Indonesia akan memberi penghormatan yang tinggi kepada beliau sama seperti rakyat Malaysia memberikan penghormatan dan menyanjung YAM Tun Rahah dan YAM Tun Asmah.

9.       Setelah beberapa ketika tinggal di York House, Almarhum Tun telah meminta beliau dipindahkan ke Tower Hotel yang lebih berdekatan dengan Hide Park.

10.     Pada hari yang bersejarah itu, saya ditakdirkan bertugas di sebelah pagi. Sebaik sahaja saya sampai ke tingkat 7 (tempat kediaman Almarhum Tun) saya dikejutkan dengan aktiviti yang luar dari biasa. Saya telah dimaklumkan oleh Pembantu Khas Almarhum Tun, arwah Dato Ghazali Khalid bahawa mereka sedang menunggu ambulan untuk membawa Almarhum Tun ke Hospital.

11.     Almarhum Tun dengan memakai gown mandi (bath towel) telah di usung ke lobi Hotel dengan kerusi roda dan diletakkan di dalam ambulan.

12.     Itulah ketikanya saya dapat melihat tubuh Almarhum dengan jelas. Bukan  sahaja keadaannya amat lemah tetapi mukanya amat cengkung dan seluruh badannya amat kurus sekali.

13.     Saya tidak sedari air mata saya mengalir dan rasa sayu serta emosi saya amat tersentuh. Ini adalah kerana saya anak kelahiran Pekan, Pahang dan rasa terhutang budi kepada Almarhum Tun kerana memberi kerja tetap kerajaan kepada arwah ayah saya (Hj. Mohd Noor Bin Osman).

14.     Saya telah mengiringi ambulan dengan kenderaan saya. Sebaik sahaja Almarhum dimasukkan ke dalam Unit Rapi Harley Street Clinic, saya dan Arwah Dato Ghazali terpaksa kembali ke Tower Hotel untuk mengambil barang-barang ‘personal’ Almarhum Tun. Namun sekembalinya kami ke Harley Street Clinic, pakar yang merawat Almarhum Tun telah mengistiharkan pemergian Almarhum Tun.

15.     Tidak ramai yang ada di sisi Almarhum ketika itu. Salah seorang yang membisikkan syahadah ke telinga Almarhum ialah Tn Hj (arwah) Jamaluddin (Warden Malaysia Hall). Beliaulah yang telah mengambil alih semua urusan menyempurnakan jenazah.

16.     Jenazah Almarhum telah dimandi; di kafan dan di sembahyangkan di East London Mosque sebelum di bawa ke Kedutaan Malaysia di Belgrave Square untuk rakyat Malaysia terutama penuntut-penuntut memberikan penghormatan terakhir.

17.     Sungguhpun jangkamasa pengumuman kematian Almarhum Tun sangat singkat, namun ribuan juga yang sempat datang untuk memberikan penghormatan terakhir.

18.     Kami terpaksa juga menerima kritikan yang amat hebat terutamanya daripada Pemimpin Persatuan Pelajar serta beberapa orang pelajar ‘senior’ yang mempersoalkan keperluan merahsiakan kehadiran Almarhum Tun di London kerana mereka dengan lantang mengatakan  bahawa Almarhum Tun adalah Perdana Menteri mereka juga. Sungguhpun kami bersimpati dengan rasa kecewa mereka tetapi kami perlu patuh untuk memastikan maklumat ini tidak sampai kepada rakyat Malaysia di UK.

19.     Pada sebelah petangnya jenazah telah dibawa di Terminal 4 (bahagian kargo) Heathrow Airport. Apa yang saya kesalkan ialah keranda Almarhum Tun yang hanya di selubungi dengan bendera Malaysia telah di tinggalkan bersendirian di atas ‘tarmac’ beberapa jam sebelum keranda di pindahkan ke pesawat Khas. Maklum sahajalah cuaca ketika itu amat sejuk sekali dan semua pegawai Kedutaan serta individu yang mengiringi jenazah terpaksa berlindung dan memasuki dalam kawasan menunggu yang lebih selesa.

20.     Oleh kerana kematian Almarhum Tun adalah tidak diduga, maka banyak persiapan dibuat secara ‘ad hoc’. Alangkah baiknya jika sekiranya kedutaan ketika itu menjemput pelajar-pelajar melayu Islam untuk sama-sama membantu. Sekurang-kurangnya mereka boleh bertahlil dan bersedekah Yassin sementara menunggu jenazah di bawa pulang ke Malaysia.

21.     Tn Hj Jamaluddin telah mengiringi jenazah sampai ke Lapangan Terbang Subang di mana pihak berkuasa di Malaysia telah mengambil alih. Saya mendapat maklum bahawa sepanjang perjalanan ke Malaysia Tn Hj Jamaluddin telah memimpin bacaan tahlil dan Yassin. Jasanya tidak seharusnya dilupakan oleh sesiapa. Bayangkan betapa sulitnya jika beliau tidak mampu memimpin dan menguruskan jenazah Almarhum dari Harley Street Clinic sehinggalah ke Lapangan Terbang Subang.

22.     Semasa bertugas banyaklah episod-episod yang baik dan yang kurang menyenangkan yang boleh saya kongsikan bersama. Namun biarlah kita tumpukan sahaja kepada legasi-legasi positif yang di tinggalkan oleh Almarhum  Tun  agar rakyat sekarang dan pada masa akan datang akan mengingati beliau sebagai salah satunya anak watan yang terulung.

23.     Almarhum Tun meninggalkan kita di dalam usia yang realitifnya muda dan saya percaya banyak lagi usahanya untuk memperkasakan bangsa melayu amnya dan rakyat Malaysia umumnya yang tidak sempat di laksanakan.

24.     Saya percaya orang yang boleh membantu kita dalam hal ini ialah Dato Amir Yaakub (x Boss saya di Kementah). Beliau pernah menjadi Setiausaha kepada MAGERAN dan Majlis Keselamatan Negara (MKN) semasa Almarhum Tun menjadi Pengerusinya. Perhubungannya dengan Almarhum Tun sangat rapat sekali. Selaku Setiausaha beliau berurusan dengan Almarhum Tun hampir setiap hari bagi membincangkan program dan hala tuju Negara.

25.     Dato Amir pernah menceritakan kepada saya perasaan amat terkilannya kerana pelawaan Almarhum Tun secara beria-ia supaya  beliau mengikuti rombongannya ke London untuk rawatan telah tidak di sambut olehnya. Pada pertemuan mereka yang terakhir Almarhum Tun telah membuka rahsia bahawa beliau bertambah uzur sambil menunjukkan kepada Dato Amir keadaan badannya yang amat kurus dengan membuka butang ‘bush jacket’nya.

26.     Dato Amir telah bersara dari perkhidmatan kerajaan dengan penuh rasa kekecewaan. Jasa besarnya harus dikenang dan di ikhtiraf oleh Kerajaan. ‘That is the least the government can do to reward him for his dedication and for being a true nationalist’.

27.     Saya pernah juga terfikir kenapa banyak ikon-ikon bangsa melayu meninggalkan kita di usia yang masih muda dan dalam keadaan penuh ‘misteri’. Mungkin personaliti seperti Maarof Zakaria (Banker); Hanafiah Raslan (Banker) dan Aminuddin Baki (educationist) belum sempat memberi sumbangan yang optima serta amat bermakna sebelum meninggalkan kita. Begitu juga dengan Almarhum Tun. Pemergian beliau amat dirasai sehingga ke hari ini. Marilah kita bersedekah ‘al-fatihah’ semoga semua mereka ini di cucuri rahmat oleh Allah swt dan diletakkan mereka bersama-sama orang yang solehah. Amin.



Thank You.

Additional reading:

Wednesday, 13 January 2016

Do you often wonder how serious is the wealth gap in Malaysia?

'Our politicians have wasted too much time on their own positions. It is time for them to shift their attention to the underprivileged group in the society and care more about the revitalization of our economy, trimming of government’s operating expenditures and diverting some of our resources to social welfare programs.'
Lim Sue Goan

From the Malay Mail Online:

Widening wealth gap from GST — Lim Sue Goan

JANUARY 13 — How serious is the wealth gap in Malaysia? Perhaps we can get some idea from two recent pieces of news:

1. Some 18,675 undergraduates in the country’s universities do not have enough money to take proper meals.

2. Sale of Mercedes cars jumped by 56 per cent or 3,913 units last year.

We have undergraduates who can only afford to drink plain water instead of rice, or a very modest RM2 plate of rice with a few pieces of vegetables and gravy. 

In the meantime, housing developers in the country are rushing to introduce luxurious residential units that cost several million ringgit each.

The poor will suffer more in the event of an economic recession while the income gap broadens further. To the have-nots, a RM2 plate of rice is a big deal but to the loaded, RM2,000 for golf membership is way too trivial to mention at all.

Hyperinflation and diving ringgit exchange rate will eat into the meager income of the poor. At a time when cash is king, the rich can afford to bag in great bargains when property prices tumble, and have their wealth inflated remarkably when asset prices pick up later.

While the poor are the hardest hit when goods prices soar, the rich hardly feel the pinch.

World Bank estimates that the Gini coefficient of Malaysia stands at 0.462, above the 0.4 warning level, as the richest 15 per cent controls 80 per cent of the entire society’s wealth. After the latest storm, this gap is anticipated to widen further, sowing the seed of social instability.

In a recent survey conducted by Muslim Volunteer Malaysia on students from six local universities, it is found that 24,914 out of 25,632 respondents require a helping hand from the association, of whom 10,439 could only afford instant noodle for their meals while 14,458 could afford not more than RM5 for a whole day’s food.

It is shocking that 97.2 per cent of undergraduates responding to the survey are actually facing severe life pressure mainly due to their impoverished families. Some of these students even send home the unused portions of their PTPTN loans to help their families.

This points to the fact that life is indeed very tough for the bottom-40 (B40) families.

How could an economic downturn make life so unbearable for these families? I thought the government has implemented the minimal wage scheme? Because of this the government needs to up its BR1M handouts.

Goods prices started to climb soon after GST went into effect last April, followed by the removal of subsidies owing to the government’s straitened financial situation (including electricity rebates and steep public transport fares), topped up by ringgit devaluation that sends prices of imported goods skyrocketing.

As if that is not enough, PTPTN has cut the loans for students of public universities by 5 per cent and private colleges by 15 per cent.

While the government can call GST savior of the national economy, the 6 per cent tax really weighs down the poor. Lest we forget, some 40 per cent of Malaysian families earn less than RM3,000 a month. What they earn is barely enough to make ends meet.

The treasury bagged in RM27 billion of tax revenue from GST last year, and if the poor were to bear only 1 per cent of it, the burden is still way too much for them.

the tougher the life of our poor the more it proves the failure of our social restructuring effort. Instead of giving them fish, why not teach them how to fish? The non-elevation of the job competency of B40 has significantly impeded their potential income growth.

Meanwhile, we have been focusing too much on mega projects and the impressive transformation programs but have grossly overlooked the reformation of the poorest in our society. The government has put too much of its resources on GLCs, grooming aspiring entrepreneurs. And when oil prices tumble, social benefits have to be slashed and the poor are the ones to take the brunt.

Higher education minister Idris Jusoh has called on undergraduates who cannot afford their meals to seek assistance from their respective principals and student affairs offices. But with allocations drastically reduced, how much can these public universities help? As a matter of fact, the most effective way of addressing this problem is to bring down their tuition fees.

Our politicians have wasted too much time on their own positions. It is time for them to shift their attention to the underprivileged group in the society and care more about the revitalization of our economy, trimming of government’s operating expenditures and diverting some of our resources to social welfare programs.

What social justice to talk about if even our people cannot be adequately fed?

Friday, 8 January 2016

No to TPPA! (updated 11 January 2016)

Updated today 11 January 2016:

The Malaysian Cabinet should really call up Dr Jomo to give briefing to them on the effects of the TPPA and the obvious problems that it would cause our future generations:

TPPA will lead to greater inequality, job losses, says economist
The contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will lead to greater inequality and net job losses over a 10-year period among member countries, said former senior United Nations official and renown economist professor Jomo K.S.

Economic gains from the United States-driven supra-trade pact would also be negligible at 3% over the span of 10 years for developing countries in the TPPA while developed countries would only see gains of less than 1% in the same period, he said.

Jomo said these findings were from a yet-to-be released UN study on the impacts of the TPPA which he had led. The full study uses the UN’s own global policy economic model (GPM) to anticipate the TPPA’s impact on its 12-member countries.

Speaking at a forum on the TPPA today, Jomo said the modest economic impact of the TPPA should force Malaysia to reconsider signing on to it, given that the pact could significantly alter the country’s ability to craft national policy.

This is since unlike previous trade pacts, the TPPA introduces new rules for how a country manages, among others, intellectual property rights, labour affairs and the operations of government-linked companies.

It also allows foreign investors to sue governments through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism for loss of business and potential profits as a result of national policy decisions.

In his presentation, Jomo said these projections are due to how the TPPA would likely change economic activities in member countries.

“First, the production for export will partly replace production for domestic markets with negative consequences. Exports are less labour intensive and use more imported inputs than production for domestic markets.

“Second, businesses in participating countries will strive to become more competitive by cutting labour costs. This will have a negative effect on income distribution and weaken domestic demand,” Jomo said in his paper titled Why Parliament Should Reject the TPPA in the Public’s Interest.

Jomo was one of the speakers at the Malaysian Economic Association’s forum on the TPPA. Others include Bank Muamalat chairman Tan Sri Mohd Munir Majid, Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers president Datuk Seri Saw Choo Boon and University Malaya law professor Prof Gurdial S. Nijar.

In his comments, Gurdial said the deal’s proponents claimed that the ISDS system had safeguards which prevent frivolous suits against governments.

But these safeguards still did not stop companies from suing several governments over policies which they claimed interfered with their ability to turn a profit.

In 2014, there were 608 governments that were sued under the ISDS primarily by US corporations, with 60% of those suits being against governments in developing countries, said Gurdial.

“We are now suspending bauxite mining operations because of public health and environmental hazards. Imagine with ISDS, if a foreign company was involved in mining and we stopped them, we could get sued.”

Gurdial questioned the impartiality of ISDS as it was an open secret that the judges who sit on these international arbitration tribunals are also lawyers who represent corporations suing governments. – January 11, 2016

Original Post:

Latest news:

TPP will be signed in Feb with or without Malaysia: Mustapa

I think better not sign.

I do not understand why this Najib Gomen is so keen to enter into an agreement which would surrender  our sovereignty to the US and the other big economies in the TPPA. Been talking in the coffee shops and warungs... I think majority Malaysian in the know does not see any benefit for Malaysia to enter the TPPA there will be many traps. Listen to what an internationally renowned Malaysian Economist has to say about the TPPA:

Read this also:

Malaysia should ditch Pacific trade pact – it will hurt trade with China, UN economist warns 

A 12-nation Pacific free trade pact pushed by the United States will not benefit Malaysia as it is meant to isolate fast-growing economic giant China, United Nations economist Jomo Kwame Sundaram said last night

Malaysia is currently in talks to ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) but there has been growing opposition to the deal due to its impact on procurement, medicines and business regulations in the country.

“The purpose of the TPP is to isolate China and you don’t want to do that to your main trading partner,” the prominent Malaysian economist said at the launch of his latest book in Kuala Lumpur.

The former University Malaya academic has worked as the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) since 2005.

Jomo said the trade agreement’s main purpose to isolate China became meaningless after the US narrowed its deficit against the Asian giant.

“The US dollar has devalued the last few years so the huge US deficit with China has closed,” he said after launching his book Malaysia@50 in Universiti Malaya.

“So now it’s yesterday’s problem. Why should we get stuck in such a policy and an agreement which was hatched up earlier?” he added.

The trade pact has been viewed as the US’s entry point into market dominance within Asia, which China sees as an attempt by Washington to overstep on the Chinese’ backyard.

The Wall Street Journal had quoted the former World Bank chief for China, Yukon Huang as saying the pact discouraged and complicated shipping of parts to and from Asian countries.

He pointed out the implication would affect China’s role as the final assembly point for electronic items whose parts are usually from other nations.

Jomo believed that instead of getting into trouble, the Malaysian government should be aware of the potential trade agreement between the US and the European Union.

“The bigger problem now is that the US and EU will come up with an economic NATO that’s going to weaken the WTO,” he said, referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence pact and the World Trade Organisation.

Jomo expressed concern that a trade pact between Western nations would affect Malaysia’s exports, in particular palm oil which competes with other vegetable oils including the popular soya oil in the US.

“That’s why we need to keep multilateral agreements,” the economist said, explaining that such agreements allow Malaysia to have more control over negotiating the terms.

He also reasoned that Malaysia’s trade negotiators are inexperienced to deal with such a complex agreement, placing the country at a losing end at the bargaining table.

At the centre of the protests against the TPPA is concern that it would destroy the local and smaller enterprises. The agreement has appeared more favourable to foreign established firms that would have the technology and skills to receive tenders. While the awarding of contracts appear merit based, many are worried that Malaysia got the worst end of the deal.

“If this was an APEC deal, we have partners that are negotiable,” said Jomo, referring to the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

“But with bilateral agreements, what power does Malaysia have against other countries?” he added.

Apart from the TPPA, Malaysia is also involved in the negotiations for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, another trade pact that includes China. It is between Southeast Asian nations, China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. - October 3, 2013

....of course Dr M is dead against the TPPA too:

Read this post too by Prof. Madya Mohammad Agus Yusoff:


Prof. Mohammad Agus Yusoff jawab

SAYA menerima banyak permintaan dari sahabat supaya menulis tentang Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik atau Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement yang akan ditandatangani pada Oktober nanti. Pada mulanya saya tidak mahu menulis tentang isu ini kerana mahu serahkan kepada pakar ekonomi untuk menulis mengenainya. Tetapi apabila tidak ada ulasan yang saya harapkan, maka saya menulis juga untuk memberi pencerahan kepada kawan-kawan supaya kita semua tahu tentang inti Perjanjian ini dan kesannya kepada kita.

TPPA adalah perjanjian multilateral terikat yang melibatkan negara Asia Pasifik seperti Australia, AS, New Zealand, Kanada, Mexico, Chile, Brunei, Malaysia dan Vietnam. TPPA ini alah tentang liberalisasi pasaran di mana negara ahli bebas berniaga di pasaran negara ahli secara terbuka sesuai dengan konsep globalisasi.

Masalahnya dengan TPPA ini ialah semua perbincangannya dibuat secara rahsia dan semua teks perbincangan adalah rahsia sehinggalah selepas empat tahun perjanjian dimeterai. Ini bermakna perjanjian TPPA ini meletakkan rakyat dalam kegelapan, sesuatu yang cukup pelik dalam sebuah dunia terbuka tanpa sempadan.

Apabila ditanya mengapa dirahsiakan, jawapan kerajaan adalah standard: Perjanjian ini baik untuk negara kerana memudahkan barangan kita untuk memasuki pasaran luar. Persoalannya, jika TPPA begitu bermanfaat, mengapa teks perjanjian yang sedang dirundingkan tidak dibentangkan untuk pengetahuan umum? Mengapa perlu berahsia?

Saya tanyakan hal di atas kerana terdapat beberapa klausa dalam TPPA ini yang akan memberikan kesan yang cukup besar kepada rakyat dan negara dan cukup membimbangkan saya. Untuk maklumat ringkas, di bawah ini saya perturunkan beberapa kesan negatif yang perlu sangat kita ketahui:

i. Hampir 80% harga ubat akan menjadi mahal, sehingga mencecah 1000% dari harga sekarang. Ini kerana ubat generik yang lebih murah tidak boleh dijual lagi kerana Malaysia terikat menggunakan ubat patented (asli) yang dihasilkan syarikat famarkeutikal dari luar negara. Kesannya akan menyukarkan pesakit berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana kerana kos untuk mendapatkan ubatan menjadi sangat tinggi. Bayangkan jika seorang guru menghidap penyakit barah yang memerlukan ubat bernilai RM7000 sebulan, mampukah mereka untuk membayar kos perubatan semahal itu? Apakah nasib ramai rakyat di negara kita nanti?

ii. Syarikat gergasi akan bebas berniaga di negara kita menyebabkan usahawan-usahawan kecil terpaksa bersaing dengan syarikat gergasi dari luar negara. Ini seolah-olah meletakkan kepentingan syarikat asing mengatasi kepentingan rakyat kita. Ini juga seperti memberi kuasa kepada negara maju seperti AS, Singapura dan Australia untuk mencereboh ekonomi negara kita.

iii. Kerajaan boleh disaman oleh pelabur luar di tribunal antarabangsa yang berpangkalan di Washington dan Geneva jika terdapat dasar-dasar kerajaan yang boleh merugikan hak pelabur luar dan menghalang aktiviti perdagangan mereka. Ini tentunya menjejaskan bidang kuasa kerajaan dalam menentukan apa yang terbaik untuk rakyat dan negara.

iv. Petani kita terpaksa bersaing dengan hasil pertanian luar negara. Lebih merisaukan lagi ialah TPPA bakal memberi kesan buruk ke atas industri padi negara apabila beras dari AS yang menerima subsidi yang tinggi dipasarkan di negara ini. Ratusan ribu keluarga petani padi di negara ini akan terjejas jika TPPA dimeterai.

v. TPPA juga menyebabkan bidang pelaburan dan khidmat undang-undang dan pelbagai khidmat profesional tempatan yang lain terpaksa berhadapan dengan persaingan pasaran terbuka. Mampukah industri perkhidmatan kita berhadapan dengan kemasukan syarikat gergasi ini?

vi. TPPA melanjutkan perlindungan hakcipta bahan-bahan rujukan dari 50 tahun selepas kematian penerbit kepada 120 tahun. Ini bermakna segala bahan-bahan rujukan yang kini percuma dan telah didigitalkan akan menjadi terhad kepada pengguna. Ini juga bermakna segala bahan rujukan wajib dibeli atau wajib dibayar sewa, sekaligus menghadkan kemudahan ilmu kepada rakyat yang kurang mampu.

Justeru implikasi TPPA ini besar kepada rakyat dan negara, maka saya merayu supaya kerajaan mengambil tindakan berikut terlebih dahulu sebelum memetarai perjanjian ini. Antaranya:

i. Menangguhkan perundingan TPPA sehingga segala teks mengenainya didedahkan kepada rakyat untuk mendapatkan maklumbalas. Rakyat berhak tahu dan diberi hak memberi pandangan kerana perjanjian ini melibatkan kualiti hidup mereka.

ii. Ahli parlimen perlu diberi pencerahan dan perlu membahaskan baik buruk Perjanjian ini. Semasa membahaskan hal ini, ahli parlimen perlulah melihat Perjanjian ini dari aspek kebaikannya untuk rakyat dan negara, bukannya berterusan terikat kepada kepentingan parti.

iii. Kerajaan mesti menolak status layanan tempatan yang perlu diberikan kepada syarikat gergasi luar.

Saya akui TPPA ini ada baiknya untuk negara kerana kita bergantung kepada kemasukan pelaburan luar untuk memacu ekonomi negara kita. Namun, setelah mengamati kesan perjanjian ini, saya dapati perundingan TPPA ini perlu disemak semula dengan teliti oleh kerajaan kerana ia memberi kesan besar kepada rakyat. Sekiranya kerajaan mendapati keburukannya lebih banyak dari kebaikan, maka masih belum terlewat untuk kita menarik diri daripada Perjanjian ini.

Harapan saya cuma satu dari keputusan muktamad yang bakal diambil oleh kerajaan nanti: Jangan biarkan anak cucu kita tergadai melalui perjanjian yang bersifat globalisasi ini. Jangan biarkan menang sorak kampung tergadai.