Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

NFC scandal: Will BN do it right?
It’s a mad, mad world
Empty vessels make the most noise
Our third submarine stirs up muddy waters
When both BN and Pakatan will fail us
Keep it simple and indelible

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 06:33 PM PST

The facts before us point irresistibly to an abuse of power in the award of this project, as well as criminal negligence (of the government) and breach of trust (of the project operator) in the misuse of public funds. The correct thing to do is to nail the culprits, recover the fund and appoint a competent entrepreneur to spearhead the project.

Kim Quek

After almost one month of inexplicable silence, National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd (NFC), which is the target of brick-bat and center of swirling controversy both inside and outside Parliament, finally broke its silence.

Mohamad Salleh Ismail, chairman of NFC and husband of Women, Family and Community Developmet Minister Shahrizat Jalil, gave a press conference on Nov 17 to defend NFC. He said everything was dandy; the project was right on target, and there was no impropriety.

But the facts given by him are far from convincing. In fact, they are merely cover-ups for a botched job, in line with a series of stubborn denials advanced by BN leaders before him.

Before we go into the main subject, let me touch on two side issues.

FIRST, Salleh's press conference was an exclusive event that admitted 6 media that consisted of only the Malay press and TV channels. All others, including all the Chinese press were barred from the press meet. If NFC is sincere in telling the truth, why should it be fearful of journalists other than those from the BN-controlled media, which are generally regarded as BN's propaganda instruments? Isn't it obvious that NFC has no confidence to take on questions from reporters who are not under the tight control of BN? Isn't it obvious that BN wanted to ensure that what the public read is what BN wanted them to read?

CONDO PURCHASE EXCUSE UNACCEPTABLE

SECOND, Salleh wanted us to believe that his purchase of two luxurious condominiums at RM14 million was a legitimate deployment of the government soft loan by telling us that these condos fetch fantastic returns. He said monthly rental for one condo is RM70,000, which no one seems to have believed. Credibility aside, who does Salleh think he is that the public wouldn't mind lending his family a long term loan at 2 % interest for them to earn returns (exorbitant or not) from real estate investment?

The excuse that it was only a temporary investment for surplus cash that could only be utilized later for the project is unacceptable, as NFC shouldn't have requested and the government shouldn't have granted the disbursement of such large amount of idle cash from the Special Loan Account in the first place, the disbursement from which were supposed to be under the strict scrutiny and control of both the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Agriculture. Or, is NFC telling us that no projected cash flow and projected profit and loss account for the project had been presented prior to the government awarding this contract to NFC?

That such misuse of funds has occurred indicates that the government has failed to safeguard public funds, or even worse, criminal conflict of interest (known as corruption) for awarding a contract to a crony without proper basis, if there was no proper project paper considered sufficient to justify such an award.

Now, let us look at the facts presented by Salleh to support his claim that this project is doing well.

PROJECT 'SUCCESS' AN ILLUSION

Salleh said this is only the third year of its operation, and teething problems are expected. Wrong. His own son, Wan Shahinur Izran, the then CEO, said during the signing ceremony for the RM250 million facilities on 6 Dec 20027 that "operations are scheduled to begin in February next year". So, four years have lapsed since then.

Salleh said his company had "raised" 8,016 head of cattle in 2010, "surpassing its target of 8,000 head of cattle". Wrong. The criterion should be the number of cattle slaughtered, not "raised", as this is a beef supply project. The number of cattle in the feedlot cannot be the measure of production, otherwise, large numbers of freshly arrived cattle from overseas could be counted as "production". So, the Auditor General was right in his report that the 3,289 head of cattle slaughtered in 2010 constituted 41% of the scaled down target of 8,000. The original target was 60,000 per year as announced by CEO Wan Shahinur Izran during the loan signing ceremony.

Salleh further said that "at the outset of operation in 2009, NFC had yet to find the market while abattoir was only approved in April that year, halal certification two months later and the Veterinary Health Mark, which was compulsory before meat could be sold, in 2010."

Salleh also added that NFC needed to send its employees for training to acquire specific skills to run the operation.

These words from Salleh seem to be those uttered by a novice in this field who is appealing for understanding for his faltering performance. They stand in stark contrast to the stirring speech by CEO Izran back then in 2007 when he said: "We intend to play an instrumental role to lead, structure and transform the industry to meet 40% self-sufficiency".

Izran further said the company's activities will "include cattle feedlotting and fodder production through contract and satellite farming, slaughtering, processing, marketing, and other upstream and downstream activities."

As for contract farming, NFC would "assist the selected parties in getting financing, provide start-up and follow-up training in production and business administration as well as supply feeder cattle, feed materials and veterinary services".

In fact all these activities are also found in NFC's website as its scope of activities.

INEPTITUDE CONFIRMED

It is apparent that there is a huge gap between rhetoric and realities in the NFC adventure.

Salleh said, NFC only started operation in 2009. But why not in 2008 since it was already granted a huge loan earlier? (Incidentally, was the company operating completely on the soft loan without significant equity input from its shareholders? If so, this would be another anomaly that would pile on the case of criminal impropriety in awarding the contract to the recipient.)

Salleh indicated that market demand had been a constraint that caused its slow pick up even in 2010, but how could that be when the country has been importing 80% of its beef from overseas? Such complaint only reveals the lack of wherewithal to run a business.

As for the slow procurement of approval for this and that, these are lame excuses that reflect the ineptitude of the company to take on a project of this size.

Will the BN government do what is right, or will it be business as usual?

It’s a mad, mad world

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 06:19 PM PST

In our own country, 54 years of single-party incumbency is now unravelling and showing similar symptoms. After many failed attempts, a scheme to construct a monolithic dam in Bakun, Sarawak was put into motion, with the outlandish idea of sending hydroelectricity to the peninsula via 670 kilometres of undersea cables.

Zairil Khir Johari, The Malaysian Insider

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. So goes the ancient phrase that has, throughout the millennia, remained an appropriate and relevant dictum to this very day.

The systemic trait of madness has been an inherent hallmark of declining autocratic regimes since time immemorial. Take, for example, the story of the Roman emperor Caligula, whose reign began with much promise and great popularity, but who quickly succumbed to the luxuries of power and who, towards the end of his short-lived rule, attempted to appoint his favourite horse as a consul of the Roman Senate.

And then of course there is the late totalitarian President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan who, apart from styling himself Turkmenbashi (Leader of Turkmens), also deigned to rename calendar months after members of his own family, in addition to outlawing long hair and beards for Turkmen men and advising the citizenry to gnaw on bones in order to strengthen their teeth, because apparently it works for dogs.

History is rife with more examples of self-aggrandising eccentricities and excesses by leaders inebriated by power. Of the African and Middle Eastern variety, we have colourful characters such as the tyrannical Ugandan President Idi Amin, who insisted on being called the King of Scotland and Conqueror of the British Empire, and of course the recently-deceased erratic demagogue Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his coterie of 40 virgin Amazon bodyguards.

Closer to home, who can forget the epitome of public extravagance, Imelda Marcos? The Filipino Iron Butterfly was the pillar supporting her husband's iron-fisted rule, while making headlines for her multi-million dollar shopping sprees and famed collection of 2,700 pairs of shoes.

The lesson to bear in mind, however, is the fact that every single one of the above megalomaniacal regimes eventually found themselves pulled, almost willingly, into an inescapable whirlpool of self-destruction. Truly, delusion and egomania are signs of a waning regime.

A decade later, after billions of ringgit in cost overruns and the successful displacement of 10,000 indigenous people, we have a spectacular white mammoth (an elephant in this case an unbefitting term) that can produce 2,400 MW of electricity for a state that would be hard-pressed to consume even half that amount.

At the very least, the untenable idea of sending electricity through cables on the seabed has been safely buried, along with a crooked bridge that an infamous prime minister wanted to build halfway to Singapore. Remember that one?

Another rampant scam involving public funds is the Port Klang Free Zone fiasco, where at least RM12.5 billion of public funds has been squandered in an elaborate scheme that involves a trail of prominent characters leading all the way to the federal Cabinet. False claims, payments for imaginary works and ministerial "support letters" are all part of the unfolding drama.

Daylight robbery in this country is also often accompanied by grandiose acts of personal extravagance, such as a late Selangor state assemblyman who (illegally) built a 16-bedroom palatial mansion in the midst of a low-income working-class neighbourhood, complete with a tower that loomed condescendingly over his fiefdom.

But he was really only trying to emulate his boss the former mentri besar who, besides constructing an even larger palace, also spent millions of state funds on purported "study trips" to Europe, Hawaii and Disneyland with his family.

READ MORE HERE

Empty vessels make the most noise

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 03:56 PM PST

MCA leaders are gutless con artists pandering to the demands of Umno just to ensure that they still get a slice of the pie.

When you have dissenting voices within a coalition, this is normal and healthy as a form of public debate. Throughout this entire episode, not once did the DAP say that it would abandon Pakatan Rakyat. Wee represents a party which has no say, so expressing its own views on national issues is an alien concept.

Douglas Tan, Free Malaysia Today

Remember the adage: silence is golden? I'm sure many parents have taught their children that if you do not have anything nice to say, you should keep quiet.

However in politics these days, we have mud-slinging from both sides of the political divide.

It appears that the less relevant you have become, the more you have to shout at the top of your lungs.

For the MCA, it is able to see that it is fast disappearing off the political scene just like Gerakan.

The party has been criticised over the years for being gutless and pandering to the demands of Umno, just to ensure that it still gets a slice of the pie.

It arrogates to itself the divine duty of representing and fighting for Chinese interests in Malaysia. Are we still under the illusion that we need elected representatives of the same ethnicity?

If Barisan Nasional component parties still believe this after having the "1Malaysia" concept shoved down their throats and pinned on their lapels, it quickly becomes clear that they are only interested in serving themselves.

The Malaysian Chinese diaspora in Malaysia is made up of clans which include the Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainanese, Hakka, Foochow, Teochew, among others. From the beginning, they settled in this country and worked hard to get to where they are today.

What has the community asked for? Just freedom to do business, educate their children well and be allowed to live and prosper.

However, even going back to the days when Umno pushed forward the NEP (New Economic Policy), did the MCA speak up at all?

Bashing the DAP

Nowadays, the MCA has resorted to attacking the DAP at every opportunity it gets.

Not a day goes by without Dr Chua Soi Lek or Wee Ka Siong making a press statement in The Star and the Chinese language press about the "shortcomings" of the DAP, with their favourite targets being Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh.

Kit Siang and Karpal Singh have been a constant thorn in the side of the MCA. Due to the consistency of the DAP as both a party and a state government, the MCA has struggled to find issues to harp on. So it brings up old issues or flogs dead ones.

Wee has just hit out at Karpal, after the latter expressed his support for Anwar Ibrahim to be the next prime minister.

Going back to the Sept 16, 2008 fiasco, Karpal was not impressed that Anwar wanted to form a government with frogs coming over from the Barisan Nasional. This issue has been long resolved as the event has already taken place.

Hudud again?

Not stopping there, Wee then continues to flog the hudud horse and how it would infringe on the rights of non-Muslims.

After discussing the matter with several Malay friends and colleagues, it is clear that the principle of hudud is seriously misunderstood.

The MCA is guilty of propagating misinformation in order to make its position look better.

Although opposition parties are not immune from doing this, at the very least the MCA could be creative about it, apart from its "No to Hudud" and "No to DAP" campaign.

The DAP and PAS have already reached a consensus about the issue. Constitutionally, it has been clearly established that hudud cannot be implemented.

Despite this, the debate rages on, fuelled by the irresponsibility of BN component parties, especially the MCA, to spook the non-Muslim community.

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 03:47 PM PST

How much did the Malaysian taxpayer pay for the Agosta-class submarine? When was it purchased and when was it decided to hand it over to Ali Rustam?

Why has there been no mention of the Ouessant until we hear that it will be made into part of Malacca's maritime museum? Gaining ownership of the Ouessant is akin to learning to drive in a 20-year-old Proton Saga, then buying the car for RM200,000 only to use it as a reban ayam (chicken coop).

Mariam Mokhtar, Free Malaysia Today

When the Malaysian government signed a deal in 2002 with the joint naval builders, DCNS of France and Navantia of Spain, to commission two Scorpene-class submarines, it did not realise that the purchases would create an international scandal.

The controversy surrounding the Scorpene-class submarines refuses to sink into oblivion. Now, attention is focused on the little known Agosta-class submarine, the Ouessant (S623), which was completed in 1978 and served the French navy until she was decommissioned in 2001. It appears Malaysia also owns the Ouessant.

A few readers may recall very sketchy details about a third submarine which was used to train the Malaysian submariners. That was the Agosta-class Ouessant, which the "Asia Sentinel" described in its reporting on the Scorpene scandal as a "retired submarine manufactured by a joint venture between DCN and Spanish company Agosta".

Opposition politicians have bombarded Umno with questions about the submarine deal but have been thwarted by unintelligent and conflicting answers from the Defence Ministry.

Now, the curious case of the Agosta-class submarine, the Ouessant (S623), is only just surfacing.

"The Asia Sentinel" stated in April 2010 that this third ageing submarine was leased for training purposes.

However, we are now told that the Malaysian Navy has bought the Ouessant, the Agosta-class submarine.

If so when? And, for how much?

So, was the Agosta thrown in as as sweetener for the purchase of the two Scorpenes? Did the French try to appease the Malaysians because one of the Scorpenes was faulty?

Malaysians first read of the Agosta-class submarine in a rather obscure report by Bernama on April 22, 2011, when the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) chief Admiral Abdul Aziz Jaafar said that the Ouessant was unsuitable for naval operations but would be converted into a museum piece to show the progress made by the RMN.

Abdul Aziz said, "We are expecting its arrival in August. There will be a signing ceremony between the Defence Ministry secretary-general and the French side before it is handed over to us.

"It is a second-hand submarine we bought for training RMN personnel. Now that its services are no longer needed, it will be brought to the Lumut naval base in August".

RM12.6 million museum project

Abdul Aziz explained that the Ouessant had been used as a training submarine for the submariners of the two Scorpene-class submarines KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Abdul Razak, which were commissioned in 2009 and 2010.

Then on the Sept 23, the Malaysian Ambassador to France, Abdul Aziz Zainal and the Director of International Development in the French Defence Ministry Yves Blanc, signed the documents for the transfer of ownership of the Ouessant.

The submarine was then transported on a floating dock to Malaysia in early October in an operation organised by Felda Transport. After being at sea for 32 days, the Ouessant arrived off the Malacca coast.

Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam said that the submarine would be transported to the exhibition site at the 1Malaysia Square, Klebang.

During the site visit, Ali explained that the Malacca government had been given custody of the French-made Ouessant. The submarine museum project, he said, had cost RM12.6 million and would attract more tourists to Malacca.

Earlier, Abdul Aziz denied that Malaysia's first two Scorpenes, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Abdul Razak, were not operational and he affirmed that they were "in the open sea and operating smoothly".

He also rubbished claims that kickbacks were involved in the purchase of the two Scorpenes, and by way of assurance, stated that neither the European Union nor the RMN condoned such acts.

Is Abdul Aziz really that naïve?

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) convention states that it is a crime to bribe foreign public officials in international business transactions.

The OECD convention may have been signed by countries in Europe but it didn't prevent former premier Tony Blair from stopping investigations into allegations of kickbacks by the arms company BAE and the Saudi royal family, under the guise of national interest and security for Britain.

There are numerous questions about the purchase of Malaysia's Scorpene submarines.

Why did the Malaysian government omit to procure the weapons systems for the two submarines and why did they purchase submarines that were not fitted out for use in tropical waters?

The empty shells that were purchased then had to be equipped with torpedoes, sea-to-surface missiles and mines, all of which cost the taxpayers several millions more ringgit. Perimekar Sdn Bhd, which received the kickback in the Scorpene deal, is intricately linked with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak through his friend Razak Baginda and Baginda's wife, Mazalinda.

Baginda and his wife are co-owners of Perimekar and it is alleged that the Scorpene deal involved kickbacks, money-laundering and a series of unexplained "co-ordination services".

READ MORE HERE

When both BN and Pakatan will fail us

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 03:35 PM PST

Corruption is the mother of all problems which neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat want to sort out, says Zaid Ibrahim.

Stolen moneys will have to be refunded. Those ill-gotten assets will be confiscated. Laws will be passed so that any corruption and abuse of power of more than a million but less than RM10 million will attract mandatory five-year jail sentence.

Zaid Ibrahim, Free Malaysia Today

In the coming general election the people have an excellent opportunity to elect good and responsible governments at both the state and federal levels. But regrettably, the people will probably continue to be disappointed after the election euphoria dies down.

If the Barisan Nasional wins, there will be more of the same: there will be no institutional independence and integrity; corruption will still be rife; wastage and senseless over-spending will continue; the national debt will keep on rising; and EPF will still lend money to the government regardless of the risks involved. Malaysia will be bankrupt in 2020.

If the Pakatan Rakyat wins and Anwar Ibrahim is the PM there will not be any meaningful reform either. We can expect them to espouse generalities like "Justice" and "Fairness for All".

In fact the first violation of institutional integrity will take place.

For Anwar to be PM, Pakatan will need to appoint an Attorney-General who will play ball to help clear Anwar of the crimes he is charged with.

For this, Pakatan will not have a truly independent inquiry because they want Anwar exonerated at all costs. They cannot allow "God's gift to Malaysia" (or so Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail describes him) and the "man touched by God" (as Chua Jui Meng calls him) not to be the Prime Minister.

For them the ends justify the means. This is exactly the sort of questionable ideology they have always accused BN of obeying.

So, the first thing they will do is to violate the integrity of the Attorney-General's Office.

They have already said they will not do anything about the bloated civil service. They will not reform the education system—they have said this as well.

They are against the Goods and Services Tax and they have said so. By that they probably mean to do nothing to make fiscal polices more progressive and attractive to increase government revenues.

Of course they say they will reduce corruption and wastage, but this is something easier said than done.

Doling out taxpayers' money to Pakatan assemblymen is corruption, and yet they are proud to match the BN's political strategy in this.

Handing out cash to win votes is also corruption but both the BN and Pakatan do this routinely.

READ MORE HERE

Keep it simple and indelible

Posted: 17 Nov 2011 10:55 AM PST

By Azmi Sharom, The Star

Why must the use of indelible ink need a constitutional amendment? If you have the right to vote under Article 119 and as long as that right is not taken away from you, there should be no problem.

I HAVE always advocated respect for the Constitution and constitutionalism. I had no idea that the Attorney-General was of the same mindset.

In fact, he is so concerned about ensuring the Constitution is adhered to that he seems to have spotted constitutional issues where there appear to be none at all.
Right to vote: Under Article 119 of the Constitution, you can vote if you are a citizen who is past the age of 21, resident in your constituency (or an absent voter), duly registered, not mad and not a convict.

You see, according to him, if we were to use indelible ink during our elections, where those who have voted will be smeared with a bit of ink to ensure they don't vote again, it would require an amendment to Article 119 of the Constitution.

Dutifully, I whipped out my copy of the Constitution and checked out the said article. Good news, it does exist and furthermore it is about the electorate.

Examining Article 119, I see that it is about who is entitled to vote. Basically you can vote if you are a citizen who is past the age of 21, resident in your constituency (or an absent voter), duly registered, not mad and not a convict.

I read it and I read it again, but I can't for the life of me see how the use of indelible ink is going to need a constitutional amendment.

In essence, Article 119 is about who can vote. If you have the right to vote under Article 119 and as long as that right is not taken away from you, I don't see what the problem is.

You can smear my index finger with indelible purple or draw an intricate pattern on my face as a sign that I have voted if that's what you want, but as long as you don't stop me from actually voting, there's nothing unconstitutional here.

I tell you what should be amended though; the need to register to be a voter. Why can't we just be automatically registered once we have reached the age of 21? It's not difficult to ascertain a Malaysian citizen who is over 21; they are the ones with the blue identity cards which say their birthday is over 21 years ago. See, simple.

I like simple things. For example, I like the simple pleasure of making a cross on a piece of paper next to the candidate of my choice.

I like that if you can count, you can count the votes.

I like that anybody can check if there is hanky panky in the electoral process because checking little pieces of paper does not require any sort of qualification.

I don't like complex things like e-voting. It sits uncomfortable with me that my vote is converted into electronic form and then disappears into the ether where who knows what's being done to it.

All I want is to go with my MyKad to a voting centre, get my piece of unmarked voting paper slip and a pencil, make my choice, get my finger or whatever digit they choose smeared with ink, then leave knowing I have done my civic duty. Simple.

Maybe that is why I can't see what the AG is getting at, I am far too simple.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 18 November 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan