-
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Perception and Royal Reality in Malaysia
Asia Sentinel
Malaysia has gone into mourning for the Sultan of Johor, Mahmud Iskandar Almarhum Sultan Ismail, who died Friday at 77. He was buried in an elaborate ceremony on Saturday. In Malaysia's oddball rotating kingship, which allows each of the country's nine sultans to wear the king's hat for five years, Iskandar became Malaysia's Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, or king, in 1984, relinquishing the title in 1989.
Najib Tun Razak, the prime minister, cut short a visit to India to extend his condolences and issue a statement: "On behalf of the government and people. I express sadness and extend condolences to Her Royal Highness Sultanah Zanariah and her children as well as the royal household on the demise of His Royal Highness the Sultan of Johor."
The massive Iskandar development project in Johor across from Singapore was named for him.
Muhyiddin Yassin, the deputy prime minister, said that Iskandar's death "is a big loss to the people of Johor, and also of Malaysia, because of his priceless contributions during his lifetime."
But it is difficult to see just what those priceless contributions were. Despite the encomiums, the Johor sultan embodied just about everything that was ill-starred about Malaysia's system of royalty.
Both The Star, owned by the Malaysian Chinese Association, and the New Straits Times, owned by the United Malays National Organisation, issued respectful obituaries. To most Malaysians, the New Straits Times said, "the Sultan will be remembered for his mercurial ways, as well as his inadvertent role in the constitutional crisis of 1993 which dramatically ended the legal immunity of the country's nine hereditary monarchs."
Iskandar's role was hardly inadvertent but it was certainly mercurial. In fact it was integral to it and it stemmed from his brutal beating, along with members of his staff, of a field hockey coach. And although the end of legal immunity was pushed through 17 years ago, today Malaysian royalty pretty much act any way they want without facing arrest. Several have left huge gambling debts in London casinos to be picked up by Malaysian state governments. Recently there have been incidents reported of fistfights between rival royals in Malaysian night clubs.
In recent months, in fact, UMNO, the country's leading political party, has led a charge to report to the police anyone who dares criticize the royalty. Several critics have been charged with sedition.
Iskandar was one of the worst of Malaysia's sultans, a violent, often brutal and impulsive man who seemingly knew no bounds to his behaviour. He was lucky to be a sultan at all. He was ignominiously dismissed as the Tunku Makhota, or prince regent of Johor, by his father, Sultan Ismail Ibrahim, in 1961 after he reportedly chained two policemen into a dog kennel for a day after they displeased him. He was later reported to have attacked a young couple with Mace after they allegedly offended him. In 1972, he was charged for Macing two men because their car had had overtaken his on the highway.
He regularly patrolled Johor roads with a red light and siren on the top of his Rolls Royce and a shotgun strapped to the dashboard, pulling over speeders and ordering them to perform enjut ketampi, the Malay term for squat jumps, until they fell over. Any driver who inadvertently passed the sultan's car on Johor's roads or obstructed him was subject to exorbitant fines. His staff was petrified by him. Once, at a diplomatic reception for example, he was seen to simply hold out his glass when it was empty and drop it as a terrified servant raced across the room to catch it before it shattered on the marble floor.
In 1971, he got into real trouble by shooting and killing a trespasser whom he took to be a smuggler walking near his private helicopter. He was charged with manslaughter but his father intervened, as the sultan did repeatedly at other times, and granted him a pardon despite his disapproval of his actions. Iskandar's family wasn't much better. His eldest son, Tunku Ibrahim Ismail, shot a man dead in a nightclub but was also pardoned.
There was considerable speculation in Kuala Lumpur that despite the fact that the kingship rotated on a set basis, his fellow sultans would block him because of his behaviour. But they elected him Agong in 1983. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad promptly fomented a constitutional crisis by ramrodding through a series of actions in the Dewan Rakyat, or Parliament, that removed the power of the royalty to veto legislation, along with closing other loopholes within the Malaysian constitution.
That didn't slow down the sultan much. In 1987, after he became the Agong, he allegedly clubbed a caddy to death at the Cameron Highlands golf club for laughing when the sultan missed a putt. He also was said to have maimed the caddy's brother, who suffered a mental breakdown from seeing the incident and had to be restrained in a mental hospital.
Although the killing was given wide currency among Kuala Lumpur's political and social circles, Iskandar was never arrested. It remained out of the government-controlled press. It so distressed the retired Tunku Abdul Rahman, the country's first leader after independence, that he publicly condemned the assault without naming Iskandar. The Tunku, however, also pointed out that as a sultan, Iskandar was immune from prosecution.
In 1992, following Iskandar's departure from the kingship, his son, Tunku Abdul Majid Idris, assaulted the goalkeeper of the Perak hockey team after Perak won a match with a penalty stroke. The goalkeeper lodged a police report against the son, who ultimately was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. The charges were dropped on grounds of immunity. Later the sultan himself was involved in the other field hockey controversy that finally made Malaysia say enough. He called a local coach to his palace over a minor dispute. He and his bodyguards assaulted the coach, who had to seek medical attention for injuries to his face and body. The coach also filed charges. This time, the press reported on both incidents.
Despite the fact that the sultan had won Mahathir's approval by firing Mahathir's nemesis, Tun Salleh Abbas, the highly respected lord president of Malaysia's highest court, which brought an end to the independence of the country's judiciary, the assaults were enough for the prime minister. He led a campaign in the parliament to remove legal immunity from prosecution for the royalty that passed resoundingly.
Iskandar reportedly finally calmed down in later years, and lived a life largely out of the public prints. None of his misdeeds made the Malaysian press after his death. One blog cheerily said he would "always be remembered as Malaysia's unconventional King. He preferred to drive his own car or pilot his own helicopter. He also loved sports, especially golf and was not afraid to lose in a game."
Or a caddy. He was called "a King with the common touch."
Malaysia has gone into mourning for the Sultan of Johor, Mahmud Iskandar Almarhum Sultan Ismail, who died Friday at 77. He was buried in an elaborate ceremony on Saturday. In Malaysia's oddball rotating kingship, which allows each of the country's nine sultans to wear the king's hat for five years, Iskandar became Malaysia's Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, or king, in 1984, relinquishing the title in 1989.
Najib Tun Razak, the prime minister, cut short a visit to India to extend his condolences and issue a statement: "On behalf of the government and people. I express sadness and extend condolences to Her Royal Highness Sultanah Zanariah and her children as well as the royal household on the demise of His Royal Highness the Sultan of Johor."
The massive Iskandar development project in Johor across from Singapore was named for him.
Muhyiddin Yassin, the deputy prime minister, said that Iskandar's death "is a big loss to the people of Johor, and also of Malaysia, because of his priceless contributions during his lifetime."
But it is difficult to see just what those priceless contributions were. Despite the encomiums, the Johor sultan embodied just about everything that was ill-starred about Malaysia's system of royalty.
Both The Star, owned by the Malaysian Chinese Association, and the New Straits Times, owned by the United Malays National Organisation, issued respectful obituaries. To most Malaysians, the New Straits Times said, "the Sultan will be remembered for his mercurial ways, as well as his inadvertent role in the constitutional crisis of 1993 which dramatically ended the legal immunity of the country's nine hereditary monarchs."
Iskandar's role was hardly inadvertent but it was certainly mercurial. In fact it was integral to it and it stemmed from his brutal beating, along with members of his staff, of a field hockey coach. And although the end of legal immunity was pushed through 17 years ago, today Malaysian royalty pretty much act any way they want without facing arrest. Several have left huge gambling debts in London casinos to be picked up by Malaysian state governments. Recently there have been incidents reported of fistfights between rival royals in Malaysian night clubs.
In recent months, in fact, UMNO, the country's leading political party, has led a charge to report to the police anyone who dares criticize the royalty. Several critics have been charged with sedition.
Iskandar was one of the worst of Malaysia's sultans, a violent, often brutal and impulsive man who seemingly knew no bounds to his behaviour. He was lucky to be a sultan at all. He was ignominiously dismissed as the Tunku Makhota, or prince regent of Johor, by his father, Sultan Ismail Ibrahim, in 1961 after he reportedly chained two policemen into a dog kennel for a day after they displeased him. He was later reported to have attacked a young couple with Mace after they allegedly offended him. In 1972, he was charged for Macing two men because their car had had overtaken his on the highway.
He regularly patrolled Johor roads with a red light and siren on the top of his Rolls Royce and a shotgun strapped to the dashboard, pulling over speeders and ordering them to perform enjut ketampi, the Malay term for squat jumps, until they fell over. Any driver who inadvertently passed the sultan's car on Johor's roads or obstructed him was subject to exorbitant fines. His staff was petrified by him. Once, at a diplomatic reception for example, he was seen to simply hold out his glass when it was empty and drop it as a terrified servant raced across the room to catch it before it shattered on the marble floor.
In 1971, he got into real trouble by shooting and killing a trespasser whom he took to be a smuggler walking near his private helicopter. He was charged with manslaughter but his father intervened, as the sultan did repeatedly at other times, and granted him a pardon despite his disapproval of his actions. Iskandar's family wasn't much better. His eldest son, Tunku Ibrahim Ismail, shot a man dead in a nightclub but was also pardoned.
There was considerable speculation in Kuala Lumpur that despite the fact that the kingship rotated on a set basis, his fellow sultans would block him because of his behaviour. But they elected him Agong in 1983. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad promptly fomented a constitutional crisis by ramrodding through a series of actions in the Dewan Rakyat, or Parliament, that removed the power of the royalty to veto legislation, along with closing other loopholes within the Malaysian constitution.
That didn't slow down the sultan much. In 1987, after he became the Agong, he allegedly clubbed a caddy to death at the Cameron Highlands golf club for laughing when the sultan missed a putt. He also was said to have maimed the caddy's brother, who suffered a mental breakdown from seeing the incident and had to be restrained in a mental hospital.
Although the killing was given wide currency among Kuala Lumpur's political and social circles, Iskandar was never arrested. It remained out of the government-controlled press. It so distressed the retired Tunku Abdul Rahman, the country's first leader after independence, that he publicly condemned the assault without naming Iskandar. The Tunku, however, also pointed out that as a sultan, Iskandar was immune from prosecution.
In 1992, following Iskandar's departure from the kingship, his son, Tunku Abdul Majid Idris, assaulted the goalkeeper of the Perak hockey team after Perak won a match with a penalty stroke. The goalkeeper lodged a police report against the son, who ultimately was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. The charges were dropped on grounds of immunity. Later the sultan himself was involved in the other field hockey controversy that finally made Malaysia say enough. He called a local coach to his palace over a minor dispute. He and his bodyguards assaulted the coach, who had to seek medical attention for injuries to his face and body. The coach also filed charges. This time, the press reported on both incidents.
Despite the fact that the sultan had won Mahathir's approval by firing Mahathir's nemesis, Tun Salleh Abbas, the highly respected lord president of Malaysia's highest court, which brought an end to the independence of the country's judiciary, the assaults were enough for the prime minister. He led a campaign in the parliament to remove legal immunity from prosecution for the royalty that passed resoundingly.
Iskandar reportedly finally calmed down in later years, and lived a life largely out of the public prints. None of his misdeeds made the Malaysian press after his death. One blog cheerily said he would "always be remembered as Malaysia's unconventional King. He preferred to drive his own car or pilot his own helicopter. He also loved sports, especially golf and was not afraid to lose in a game."
Or a caddy. He was called "a King with the common touch."
Sunday, January 24, 2010
CORRUPT LEADERS CORRUPT THE NATION
Our country has many aspiring political leaders but how many display admirable leadership ideals? Many political leaders seem to severely lack some of the most important leadership qualities, such as integrity and accountability. To many people, the label “politician” has such negative connotations! All is not lost as there are still a few who come close to the leadership ideals and who are good examples of an effective political leader.
For a nation to progress, we need political leaders who through good governance can legitimately assess and determine the distribution of power and resources in ways that can positively impact the well-being of a nation and its people.
A good leader considers the long-term good of a country, above and ahead of any personal short-term gains. Malaysia needs leaders with charisma and integrity, analytical abilities to assess a situation and the ability to make sound decisions. Leaders must not use tax payers' money for enhancement of self-image or national program. Tax payers MUST object when this happens!
Is it a tall order that leaders display ‘statesmanship’ and demonstrate sincerity, humility and integrity, even if it means admitting faults to show their remorse or by resigning to maintain honor for misdeeds or losing an election? We can only dream on.
Upright leaders have no problems demonstrating integrity and loyalty to all always. Consequently, they can resist the various temptations of the political arena. Communication and inter-personal skills must be evident to achieve the greatest good for the general population and not that of their collaborators!
A leader who is not corrupt is willing to listen to the needs of the common people and to represent them faithfully. Courageously, they can stand up and say what needs to be said – rather than just tell the general public what it wants to hear. Fine leaders are willing to make difficult (and possibly unpopular) decisions for the greater good.
Good leadership builds harmony and unity by being fair to all regardless.
Contrastingly, useless and hopeless leaders are like bandits who use manipulation or corruption instead of inspiration and motivation to get what they want. Corrupt leaders run away from situations or the consequences of their misguided actions. Such leaders, instead, prefer to point their dirty fingers at everyone else. They seldom accept responsibility for their mistakes, admit their political failures and acknowledge their own contribution to a problem!!!
In any situation, accountability is crucial to effective leadership, without which followers will have no respect for them. A good political leader is honest and responsible for their own actions and decisions and is willing to admit when they have made a mistake. They will focus their on representing the people rather than spewing lies and criticizing or condemning others.
The effectiveness of his leadership is assessed via public opinion. He can laud and claim how good he is and how much good he has done for the nation but at the end of the day, it is the people's verdict. Yet, many choose to live in denial and enjoy strutting around in a delusional state because of self-serving tendencies.
Many forget that leaders are not static entities locked within a vacuum. Leaders come and go except many don't know when to go! Worse still, they fight tooth and nail to cling on to their position. It is a reciprocal relationship. He exists in a leader-and- followers scenario. He can only lead if people allow him to lead and will follow his bidding. If he receives a lot of flak, it is testimony of his failed leadership or statesmanship. However, the truth of this statement depends on the thickness of their facial epidermis for a few ignore reality and continue their charade and nonsensical rants! They ignore public perception at their own peril!
Expectations of leadership have not changed over time as many still uphold ideals such as honesty, vision, ability to inspire, and competency. Thus, true and effective leaders are the ones who can meet the people's needs and dreams, not their own.
However, a nation of corrupt leaders corrupts itself absolutely. If leaders don't display high standards of integrity and accountability, many can become corrupt. Ultimately, everyone's pocket $$$ will be affected!
If corrupt leaders with no integrity can remain in power, it is testimony to the world that the nation condones wrongdoing at the highest levels.
No thanks to these leaders, our international repute will suffer. A Catch-22 situation emerges when a corrupt populace produce corrupt leaders.
Democracy allows us to choose the best leaders who can lead and guide the people to honor, integrity, principles and high moral standards.
Choose wisely. Make THE RIGHT CHOICE and DO NOT condone any form of corrupt, incapable and insincere leaders!
For a nation to progress, we need political leaders who through good governance can legitimately assess and determine the distribution of power and resources in ways that can positively impact the well-being of a nation and its people.
A good leader considers the long-term good of a country, above and ahead of any personal short-term gains. Malaysia needs leaders with charisma and integrity, analytical abilities to assess a situation and the ability to make sound decisions. Leaders must not use tax payers' money for enhancement of self-image or national program. Tax payers MUST object when this happens!
Is it a tall order that leaders display ‘statesmanship’ and demonstrate sincerity, humility and integrity, even if it means admitting faults to show their remorse or by resigning to maintain honor for misdeeds or losing an election? We can only dream on.
Upright leaders have no problems demonstrating integrity and loyalty to all always. Consequently, they can resist the various temptations of the political arena. Communication and inter-personal skills must be evident to achieve the greatest good for the general population and not that of their collaborators!
A leader who is not corrupt is willing to listen to the needs of the common people and to represent them faithfully. Courageously, they can stand up and say what needs to be said – rather than just tell the general public what it wants to hear. Fine leaders are willing to make difficult (and possibly unpopular) decisions for the greater good.
Good leadership builds harmony and unity by being fair to all regardless.
Contrastingly, useless and hopeless leaders are like bandits who use manipulation or corruption instead of inspiration and motivation to get what they want. Corrupt leaders run away from situations or the consequences of their misguided actions. Such leaders, instead, prefer to point their dirty fingers at everyone else. They seldom accept responsibility for their mistakes, admit their political failures and acknowledge their own contribution to a problem!!!
In any situation, accountability is crucial to effective leadership, without which followers will have no respect for them. A good political leader is honest and responsible for their own actions and decisions and is willing to admit when they have made a mistake. They will focus their on representing the people rather than spewing lies and criticizing or condemning others.
The effectiveness of his leadership is assessed via public opinion. He can laud and claim how good he is and how much good he has done for the nation but at the end of the day, it is the people's verdict. Yet, many choose to live in denial and enjoy strutting around in a delusional state because of self-serving tendencies.
Many forget that leaders are not static entities locked within a vacuum. Leaders come and go except many don't know when to go! Worse still, they fight tooth and nail to cling on to their position. It is a reciprocal relationship. He exists in a leader-and- followers scenario. He can only lead if people allow him to lead and will follow his bidding. If he receives a lot of flak, it is testimony of his failed leadership or statesmanship. However, the truth of this statement depends on the thickness of their facial epidermis for a few ignore reality and continue their charade and nonsensical rants! They ignore public perception at their own peril!
Expectations of leadership have not changed over time as many still uphold ideals such as honesty, vision, ability to inspire, and competency. Thus, true and effective leaders are the ones who can meet the people's needs and dreams, not their own.
However, a nation of corrupt leaders corrupts itself absolutely. If leaders don't display high standards of integrity and accountability, many can become corrupt. Ultimately, everyone's pocket $$$ will be affected!
If corrupt leaders with no integrity can remain in power, it is testimony to the world that the nation condones wrongdoing at the highest levels.
No thanks to these leaders, our international repute will suffer. A Catch-22 situation emerges when a corrupt populace produce corrupt leaders.
Democracy allows us to choose the best leaders who can lead and guide the people to honor, integrity, principles and high moral standards.
Choose wisely. Make THE RIGHT CHOICE and DO NOT condone any form of corrupt, incapable and insincere leaders!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Google founders to cut stake by selling $5.5 billion in stock
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Google Inc. co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who still own nearly one-fifth of the Internet giant, disclosed Friday that they intend to significantly reduce their stake by selling roughly $5.5 billion worth of stock over five years.
The sales are significant, because they would effectively eliminate Brin and Page's control of their company by cutting their collective voting power below 50%. Still, the 48% voting power that the co-founders' would retain following the sales nonetheless constitutes a formidable position of influence.
Google: When good isn't good enoughGoogle reports big Q4 profit and sales gains, but investors are unimpressed. Plus, EU regulators approve the Oracle-Sun deal, Kindle apps and what Chuck Norris means to Facebook.
In a regulatory filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Brin and Page, who started Google /quotes/comstock/15*!goog/quotes/nls/goog (GOOG 550.01, -32.97, -5.66%) as graduate students at Stanford University, disclosed that under a five-year "diversification plan" adopted in November, they'll be selling 5 million shares each.
Brin and Page currently own roughly 57.7 million shares of common stock in Google, or about 18% of its outstanding capital stock. Their diversification plan is intended "to allow Larry and Sergey to sell a portion of their Google stock over time as part of their respective long-term strategies for individual asset diversification and liquidity," according to the regulatory filing.
At Google's closing stock price of $550.01 on Friday, the co-founders' sale of stock would result in proceeds of roughly $2.75 billion each.
Brin and Page have maintained significant ownership stakes in Google, while also relying on a dual-class stock structure at the company that currently grants them about 59% of the voting power of the company's outstanding capital stock.
After their planned five years of stock sales, their voting power would be reduced to roughly 48%, according to the regulatory filing.
Google shares dipped $6.47 to $545.25 in after-hours trading.
The search giant's stock price has been on a wild ride over the past two years, veering toward $250 in late 2008, before mounting a steady recovery throughout 2009.
Early last year, Google took the unusual step of resetting stock options for employees at lower prices, making it easier for them to cash in on their equity.
The sales are significant, because they would effectively eliminate Brin and Page's control of their company by cutting their collective voting power below 50%. Still, the 48% voting power that the co-founders' would retain following the sales nonetheless constitutes a formidable position of influence.
Google: When good isn't good enoughGoogle reports big Q4 profit and sales gains, but investors are unimpressed. Plus, EU regulators approve the Oracle-Sun deal, Kindle apps and what Chuck Norris means to Facebook.
In a regulatory filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Brin and Page, who started Google /quotes/comstock/15*!goog/quotes/nls/goog (GOOG 550.01, -32.97, -5.66%) as graduate students at Stanford University, disclosed that under a five-year "diversification plan" adopted in November, they'll be selling 5 million shares each.
Brin and Page currently own roughly 57.7 million shares of common stock in Google, or about 18% of its outstanding capital stock. Their diversification plan is intended "to allow Larry and Sergey to sell a portion of their Google stock over time as part of their respective long-term strategies for individual asset diversification and liquidity," according to the regulatory filing.
At Google's closing stock price of $550.01 on Friday, the co-founders' sale of stock would result in proceeds of roughly $2.75 billion each.
Brin and Page have maintained significant ownership stakes in Google, while also relying on a dual-class stock structure at the company that currently grants them about 59% of the voting power of the company's outstanding capital stock.
After their planned five years of stock sales, their voting power would be reduced to roughly 48%, according to the regulatory filing.
Google shares dipped $6.47 to $545.25 in after-hours trading.
The search giant's stock price has been on a wild ride over the past two years, veering toward $250 in late 2008, before mounting a steady recovery throughout 2009.
Early last year, Google took the unusual step of resetting stock options for employees at lower prices, making it easier for them to cash in on their equity.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Malaysia gets poor marks for human rights
KUALA LUMPUR: To ensure it stays in control and in power, the Malaysian Government has turned its back on promises to protect people’s rights, said Human Rights Watch.
In its report released Thursday, it said that when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took over as prime minister in April 2009, he promised to respect the fundamental rights of the people but his government has failed to undertake the systematic reforms needed to fulfil that pledge.
It said the Government harassed the Opposition, improperly restricted the right to peaceful expression, association, and assembly, and mistreated migrants.
When it comes to human rights, Malaysia is more about rhetoric than reality, it said.
“The Malaysian Government appears to be more interested in pursuing short-term political advantage rather than safeguarding rights,” said Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson.
The 612-page World Report 2010 reviewed human rights practices around the world over the last year.
It said the release of a number of Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees early in Najib’s term was a positive development, but stressed that Parliament should repeal the ISA and other repressive laws including the Police Act 1967, which it said, was used to justify a “violent crackdown” on a citizens’ march against the ISA.
The report also said that following the impact of the Internet on the last general election, the Government has tried to rein in non-traditional media, putting them and bloggers under closer scrutiny.
It also voiced concern over continued government control of the traditional media and called for the Printing Presses and Publications Act to be rescinded.
The report also criticised the Government for failing to distinguish refugees and asylum seekers from undocumented migrants and for its use of an “ill trained, abusive civilian force” (Rela) to crack down on undocumented migrants.
It said detainees were kept under inhumane conditions causing several of them to die last year while dozens were infected with leptospirosis, a disease spread by animal faeces in unclean water.
“How many more migrants have to die in detention before Malaysian policymakers wake up?” said Robertson.
The report also criticised Malaysia for continuing to crimininalise adult consensual sexual behaviour including sodomy and said it is about time the government brought its criminal code into the 21st century.
In its report released Thursday, it said that when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took over as prime minister in April 2009, he promised to respect the fundamental rights of the people but his government has failed to undertake the systematic reforms needed to fulfil that pledge.
It said the Government harassed the Opposition, improperly restricted the right to peaceful expression, association, and assembly, and mistreated migrants.
When it comes to human rights, Malaysia is more about rhetoric than reality, it said.
“The Malaysian Government appears to be more interested in pursuing short-term political advantage rather than safeguarding rights,” said Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson.
The 612-page World Report 2010 reviewed human rights practices around the world over the last year.
It said the release of a number of Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees early in Najib’s term was a positive development, but stressed that Parliament should repeal the ISA and other repressive laws including the Police Act 1967, which it said, was used to justify a “violent crackdown” on a citizens’ march against the ISA.
The report also said that following the impact of the Internet on the last general election, the Government has tried to rein in non-traditional media, putting them and bloggers under closer scrutiny.
It also voiced concern over continued government control of the traditional media and called for the Printing Presses and Publications Act to be rescinded.
The report also criticised the Government for failing to distinguish refugees and asylum seekers from undocumented migrants and for its use of an “ill trained, abusive civilian force” (Rela) to crack down on undocumented migrants.
It said detainees were kept under inhumane conditions causing several of them to die last year while dozens were infected with leptospirosis, a disease spread by animal faeces in unclean water.
“How many more migrants have to die in detention before Malaysian policymakers wake up?” said Robertson.
The report also criticised Malaysia for continuing to crimininalise adult consensual sexual behaviour including sodomy and said it is about time the government brought its criminal code into the 21st century.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Can I retire early?
(Money Magazine) -- Kevin Ford has worked as an engineer in the Detroit auto industry for more than three decades - currently for the car company that best suits his name. His wife, Janice, is also a veteran of the field, a fellow engineer who even ran her own dealership for a few years before leaving the industry in 2005 to do part-time business development consulting.
Kevin hoped to follow her into retirement at age 55, and two years ago that seemed doable. The family had nearly $1 million saved, plus a hefty pension; they had no debt besides a $300,000 mortgage; their son, Darrell, was out of college and daughter, Kimberly, would be done in 2011.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
Income:
$170,000
Assets:
$710,000 in retirement funds
$172,000 in other investment accounts
Goals:
Kevin's retirement at age 55
Renovate their summer home
Build a new primary home for retirement CDs & Money Market
MMA 0.95%
$10K MMA 1.04%
6 month CD 0.99%
1 yr CD 1.45%
5 yr CD 2.66%
Find personalized rates:
Rates provided by Bankrate.com. Then came the great crash of '08. "With the losses in the market, I was certain my retirement was pushed back 10 years," says Kevin. But last year's rebound has revived his portfolio and his dream: Is it once again realistic?
What the planner says
It'll be difficult for Kevin to realize his dream of retiring in four years, especially given the family's future plans to build a custom home in Virginia and renovate their lake-front summer cottage in Michigan, says financial planner Sam Fawaz of Canton, Mich. Figuring in those goals, Fawaz estimates that the Fords will need $1.2 million, alongside pension and Social Security, to sustain 40 years of retirement. They currently have $882,000 with other investment accounts, and are saving $21,000 a year for retirement, including catch-up contributions allowed for people age 50 and older.
While they could hit their target by socking away another $30,000 a year until Kevin retires, that would be a stretch since they're still paying college bills for Kimberly. And while Kevin's pension - $65,000 a year at 55 - allows him to invest more aggressively than most people his age, he shouldn't go above his current 65% stock allocation, given the short time horizon and the uncertainty of his industry. All that said, some smart portfolio moves could give the Fords a shot - albeit slim - of getting to $1.2 million by the time Kevin is 55, says Fawaz.
What they should do
GO ABROAD. The Fords' portfolio is heavily weighted toward U.S. large-cap stocks. But foreign stocks are expected to grow faster in coming years than their domestic counterparts, says Fawaz. Kevin and Janice should take advantage by putting 13% in small- and midcap international funds, like T. Rowe Price International Discovery (PRIDX).
DUMP COMPANY STOCK. About 8% of Kevin's 401(k) is in Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) stock. Investing in any single stock is risky, but this one's a doozy. The company is his employer; it's his pension provider, and it's in an industry that's in ill health. Kevin should scale back to less than 5%, says Fawaz.
PUT CASH TO WORK. The Fords have 35% of their portfolio in cash. Fawaz recommends moving two-thirds of it to a high-quality short-term bond fund, as such funds typically have better returns without a lot more risk for long-term investors. One good, low-cost option: Vanguard's Short-Term Federal (VSGBX) fund.
BE FLEXIBLE. If the portfolio doesn't reach $1.2 million by 2013, Kevin could delay retirement or work part-time (he'd be interested in teaching at a community college).
Kevin hoped to follow her into retirement at age 55, and two years ago that seemed doable. The family had nearly $1 million saved, plus a hefty pension; they had no debt besides a $300,000 mortgage; their son, Darrell, was out of college and daughter, Kimberly, would be done in 2011.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
Income:
$170,000
Assets:
$710,000 in retirement funds
$172,000 in other investment accounts
Goals:
Kevin's retirement at age 55
Renovate their summer home
Build a new primary home for retirement CDs & Money Market
MMA 0.95%
$10K MMA 1.04%
6 month CD 0.99%
1 yr CD 1.45%
5 yr CD 2.66%
Find personalized rates:
Rates provided by Bankrate.com. Then came the great crash of '08. "With the losses in the market, I was certain my retirement was pushed back 10 years," says Kevin. But last year's rebound has revived his portfolio and his dream: Is it once again realistic?
What the planner says
It'll be difficult for Kevin to realize his dream of retiring in four years, especially given the family's future plans to build a custom home in Virginia and renovate their lake-front summer cottage in Michigan, says financial planner Sam Fawaz of Canton, Mich. Figuring in those goals, Fawaz estimates that the Fords will need $1.2 million, alongside pension and Social Security, to sustain 40 years of retirement. They currently have $882,000 with other investment accounts, and are saving $21,000 a year for retirement, including catch-up contributions allowed for people age 50 and older.
While they could hit their target by socking away another $30,000 a year until Kevin retires, that would be a stretch since they're still paying college bills for Kimberly. And while Kevin's pension - $65,000 a year at 55 - allows him to invest more aggressively than most people his age, he shouldn't go above his current 65% stock allocation, given the short time horizon and the uncertainty of his industry. All that said, some smart portfolio moves could give the Fords a shot - albeit slim - of getting to $1.2 million by the time Kevin is 55, says Fawaz.
What they should do
GO ABROAD. The Fords' portfolio is heavily weighted toward U.S. large-cap stocks. But foreign stocks are expected to grow faster in coming years than their domestic counterparts, says Fawaz. Kevin and Janice should take advantage by putting 13% in small- and midcap international funds, like T. Rowe Price International Discovery (PRIDX).
DUMP COMPANY STOCK. About 8% of Kevin's 401(k) is in Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) stock. Investing in any single stock is risky, but this one's a doozy. The company is his employer; it's his pension provider, and it's in an industry that's in ill health. Kevin should scale back to less than 5%, says Fawaz.
PUT CASH TO WORK. The Fords have 35% of their portfolio in cash. Fawaz recommends moving two-thirds of it to a high-quality short-term bond fund, as such funds typically have better returns without a lot more risk for long-term investors. One good, low-cost option: Vanguard's Short-Term Federal (VSGBX) fund.
BE FLEXIBLE. If the portfolio doesn't reach $1.2 million by 2013, Kevin could delay retirement or work part-time (he'd be interested in teaching at a community college).
Friday, January 8, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Polygamy club draws criticism
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 6 — Rohaya Mohamad, 44, is an articulate, bespectacled medical doctor who studied at a university in Wales. Juhaidah Yusof, 41, is a shy Islamic studies teacher and mother of eight. Kartini Maarof, 41, is a divorce lawyer and Rubaizah Rejab, a youthful-looking 30-year-old woman, teaches Arabic at a private college.
The lives of these four women are closely entwined — they take care of each others’ children, cook for each other and share a home on weekends.
They also share a husband.
The man at the centre of this matrimonial arrangement is Mohamad Ikram Ashaari, the 43-year-old stepson of Hatijah Aam, 54, a woman who in August established a club to promote polygamy.
“Men are by nature polygamous,” said Rohaya, Ikram’s third wife, flanked by the other three women and Ikram for an interview on a recent morning. The women were dressed in ankle-length skirts, their hair covered by tudungs. “We hear of many men having the ‘other woman,’ affairs and prostitution because for men, one woman is not enough. Polygamy is a way to overcome social ills such as this.”
The Ikhwan Polygamy Club is managed by Global Ikhwan, a company whose businesses include bread and noodle factories, a chicken-processing plant, pharmacies, cafes and supermarkets. Ikram is a director of the company.
While polygamy is legal here, the club has come under fire from the government and religious leaders, who suspect it may be an attempt to revive Al-Arqam, a defunct Islamic movement headed by Hatijah’s husband, Ashaari Mohamad, who is the founder and owner of Global Ikhwan. Al-Arqam was banned in 1994 for “deviant” religious teachings.
The club denies allegations that it is trying to revive Al-Arqam, and says that the aim of the club is to help single mothers and women past “marrying age” find husbands.
The Ikhwan Polygamy Club says it has 1,000 members across Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, the Middle East and Europe. It recently started a branch in Bandung, Indonesia, and plans to open another one in Jakarta. Most of the members are employees of Global Ikwan or former members of Al-Arqam.
Members get together regularly for meetings and relationship counselling, which is given by senior members of the group.
Under Malaysian law, it is legal for Muslim men to marry as many as four wives, although they must obtain permission from an Islamic, or syariah, court to marry more than one. Women’s groups say it has become easier for men to obtain permission to take multiple wives in recent years, a development they say coincides with a rise in Islamic conservatism in Malaysia.
While some states require men to obtain the consent of their existing wives before seeking court permission to marry another wife, Sa’adiah Din, a family lawyer who practises in the syariah courts, said other states no longer required the wives’ consent.
In 2008, 1,791 men applied to the syariah courts, which apply only to the country’s Muslim population, for permission to take another wife, up from 1,694 in 2007. The government could not provide figures on the total number of polygamous marriages, but researchers including Norani Othman, a sociologist at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said the number could be as high as five per cent of all marriages.
Despite the growing number of polygamous marriages, the club’s effort to promote the practice has put it in the sights of the authorities.
The Department of Islamic Development Malaysia, a government department that is responsible for the promotion and administration of Islam, is investigating the activities of the Ikhwan Polygamy Club and says it believes Ashaari and his family may be promoting teachings contrary to Islam. A spokeswoman would not provide further details, saying the investigation was continuing.
Al-Arqam had asserted that Ashaari had the power to forgive the sins of Muslims, an act Muslims believe can be done only by God. Some reports have suggested that the movement had as many as 10,000 members when it was banned.
A leading religious official, Harussani Zakaria, the mufti of Perak, said followers of Al-Arqam had claimed that Ashaari had the power to send people to heaven or hell.
Harussani said he believed the polygamy club could be a front to resurrect Al-Arqam. “I think because they have been banned they want to attract people to come to him again,” he said, referring to Ashaari.
The club has also been criticised by women’s groups like Sisters in Islam, a non-governmental organisation.
Norani, the sociologist, who is the lead researcher in a Sisters in Islam project investigating polygamy, said the practice could be harmful to women and children, particularly those born to first wives.
She and her fellow researchers have interviewed 2,000 men, women and adult children who have experienced polygamous marriage.
Although she stressed that her comments were based on preliminary observations, Norani said many of the first wives interviewed reported feelings of resentment and depression after their husbands took a second wife, and “a significant number” had considered divorce.
She said she knew some well-educated, financially independent women in Kuala Lumpur, including business executives and lawyers, who had chosen to become second or third wives.
“Usually they marry late, they do a second or third degree, they put off marriage until later and they find it difficult to find an unmarried man,” she said. “One of them said ‘all the good men are either married or gay’.’
With 17 children among them, ages 6 to 21, Ikram’s four wives all have their own homes near their workplaces, but on weekends they gather at the family’s five-bedroom house on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.
Most of the older children are at boarding school or university, but the children of primary-school age stay at the family house, where they are usually cared for by the first wife, Juhaidah, during the week.
Ikram takes turns spending nights with each of his four wives. “It’s like one, two, three, four,” said Rohaya, pointing to each of the wives.
The wives usually meet Ikram at the family house but they say there is no strict arrangement, and Ikram sometimes comes to their individual homes during the week.
On weekends, at the family house, the women take turns doing the cooking.
“We share clothes,” Rohaya said. “We’re like sisters, really.”
None of the women grew up in polygamous families, and although they admit to having had some initial reservations, they all said they were happy and would recommend polygamous marriage to their daughters.
Ikram rejected suggestions from the women’s groups that polygamous marriages may benefit men while causing hardship for women.
“Actually, in a polygamous marriage it’s more of a burden to a man than to a woman because the husband has to face four different women, and that’s not easy,” he said, prompting laughter from his wives. — NYT
The lives of these four women are closely entwined — they take care of each others’ children, cook for each other and share a home on weekends.
They also share a husband.
The man at the centre of this matrimonial arrangement is Mohamad Ikram Ashaari, the 43-year-old stepson of Hatijah Aam, 54, a woman who in August established a club to promote polygamy.
“Men are by nature polygamous,” said Rohaya, Ikram’s third wife, flanked by the other three women and Ikram for an interview on a recent morning. The women were dressed in ankle-length skirts, their hair covered by tudungs. “We hear of many men having the ‘other woman,’ affairs and prostitution because for men, one woman is not enough. Polygamy is a way to overcome social ills such as this.”
The Ikhwan Polygamy Club is managed by Global Ikhwan, a company whose businesses include bread and noodle factories, a chicken-processing plant, pharmacies, cafes and supermarkets. Ikram is a director of the company.
While polygamy is legal here, the club has come under fire from the government and religious leaders, who suspect it may be an attempt to revive Al-Arqam, a defunct Islamic movement headed by Hatijah’s husband, Ashaari Mohamad, who is the founder and owner of Global Ikhwan. Al-Arqam was banned in 1994 for “deviant” religious teachings.
The club denies allegations that it is trying to revive Al-Arqam, and says that the aim of the club is to help single mothers and women past “marrying age” find husbands.
The Ikhwan Polygamy Club says it has 1,000 members across Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, the Middle East and Europe. It recently started a branch in Bandung, Indonesia, and plans to open another one in Jakarta. Most of the members are employees of Global Ikwan or former members of Al-Arqam.
Members get together regularly for meetings and relationship counselling, which is given by senior members of the group.
Under Malaysian law, it is legal for Muslim men to marry as many as four wives, although they must obtain permission from an Islamic, or syariah, court to marry more than one. Women’s groups say it has become easier for men to obtain permission to take multiple wives in recent years, a development they say coincides with a rise in Islamic conservatism in Malaysia.
While some states require men to obtain the consent of their existing wives before seeking court permission to marry another wife, Sa’adiah Din, a family lawyer who practises in the syariah courts, said other states no longer required the wives’ consent.
In 2008, 1,791 men applied to the syariah courts, which apply only to the country’s Muslim population, for permission to take another wife, up from 1,694 in 2007. The government could not provide figures on the total number of polygamous marriages, but researchers including Norani Othman, a sociologist at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said the number could be as high as five per cent of all marriages.
Despite the growing number of polygamous marriages, the club’s effort to promote the practice has put it in the sights of the authorities.
The Department of Islamic Development Malaysia, a government department that is responsible for the promotion and administration of Islam, is investigating the activities of the Ikhwan Polygamy Club and says it believes Ashaari and his family may be promoting teachings contrary to Islam. A spokeswoman would not provide further details, saying the investigation was continuing.
Al-Arqam had asserted that Ashaari had the power to forgive the sins of Muslims, an act Muslims believe can be done only by God. Some reports have suggested that the movement had as many as 10,000 members when it was banned.
A leading religious official, Harussani Zakaria, the mufti of Perak, said followers of Al-Arqam had claimed that Ashaari had the power to send people to heaven or hell.
Harussani said he believed the polygamy club could be a front to resurrect Al-Arqam. “I think because they have been banned they want to attract people to come to him again,” he said, referring to Ashaari.
The club has also been criticised by women’s groups like Sisters in Islam, a non-governmental organisation.
Norani, the sociologist, who is the lead researcher in a Sisters in Islam project investigating polygamy, said the practice could be harmful to women and children, particularly those born to first wives.
She and her fellow researchers have interviewed 2,000 men, women and adult children who have experienced polygamous marriage.
Although she stressed that her comments were based on preliminary observations, Norani said many of the first wives interviewed reported feelings of resentment and depression after their husbands took a second wife, and “a significant number” had considered divorce.
She said she knew some well-educated, financially independent women in Kuala Lumpur, including business executives and lawyers, who had chosen to become second or third wives.
“Usually they marry late, they do a second or third degree, they put off marriage until later and they find it difficult to find an unmarried man,” she said. “One of them said ‘all the good men are either married or gay’.’
With 17 children among them, ages 6 to 21, Ikram’s four wives all have their own homes near their workplaces, but on weekends they gather at the family’s five-bedroom house on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.
Most of the older children are at boarding school or university, but the children of primary-school age stay at the family house, where they are usually cared for by the first wife, Juhaidah, during the week.
Ikram takes turns spending nights with each of his four wives. “It’s like one, two, three, four,” said Rohaya, pointing to each of the wives.
The wives usually meet Ikram at the family house but they say there is no strict arrangement, and Ikram sometimes comes to their individual homes during the week.
On weekends, at the family house, the women take turns doing the cooking.
“We share clothes,” Rohaya said. “We’re like sisters, really.”
None of the women grew up in polygamous families, and although they admit to having had some initial reservations, they all said they were happy and would recommend polygamous marriage to their daughters.
Ikram rejected suggestions from the women’s groups that polygamous marriages may benefit men while causing hardship for women.
“Actually, in a polygamous marriage it’s more of a burden to a man than to a woman because the husband has to face four different women, and that’s not easy,” he said, prompting laughter from his wives. — NYT
Friday, January 1, 2010
Life after Madoff
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Jeannene Langford is ready to move on, eager to mark the end of a year of misery that Bernard Madoff brought her.
That's one reason why the 55-year-old product-design specialist traveled to Washington earlier this month from her home in San Rafael, Calif., carrying a blunt message for Congress about the handling of Madoff victims' claims.
"The money I had invested with Madoff represented my life savings," Langford told House Financial Services subcommittee members. "This was my retirement, a down payment for a house, investment for the business I was starting, and it was money for my daughter's education. In short, it was the foundation for my future."
Langford is one of some 11,000 investors who became mired in the Madoff mess through investment pools known as "feeder" funds. These family-run funds, hedge funds and other entities were conduits to Madoff, funneling billions of dollars into his brokerage firm. The feeder funds are distinct from the 4,600 or so people who invested directly with Madoff. Account holders like Langford had no idea that Madoff, the perpetrator of the most staggering financial scam ever, controlled their money.
The Securities Investor Protection Corp. provides up to $500,000 per investor in cases where brokerages fail. But in the long line of almost 16,000 claimants hoping to recover at least something from Madoff's elaborate Ponzi scheme, Langford can't even take a number. Unlike individuals with accounts at Madoff's firm, Langford and others whose money came to Madoff indirectly are not entitled to SIPC compensation for their loss.
"This financially devastating scandal destroyed my life," Langford testified. "It has shattered my trust in my government's ability to serve and protect us. My hope is that Congress will choose to recognize and protect all indirect investors such as myself who were victimized by this scandal. We need your help now." See related story on how regulators missed Madoff's con.
Fateful phone call
Going public with her financial situation and pleading with politicians isn't in Langford's nature. But little in her life has been natural since that day in December 2008 when the telephone rang at the small one-bedroom apartment she rents in San Rafael.
Jeannene Langford lost most of her savings in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
It was her money manager. Two years before, Langford was looking for a place to park the several hundred thousand dollars she'd made from selling a house in nearby Sebastopol. A friend recommended a local investor who was doing well for himself and his family and friends. Langford spoke with him and came away convinced that his strategy was stable and suitable.
"I had just sold my house at the top of the market," Langford said in a recent interview with MarketWatch. "It was not a great time to buy so I wanted to invest the money and had three sets of criteria: Safe, liquid, and diversified. My friend said hands down this was the safest place I could put my money."
Now the manager was calling with news about Langford's account, and it wasn't good.
"Our money was with Madoff," he told her. "It's all gone."
"I pretty much fell apart," Langford said. "I remember sitting down and crying on the phone to him. But there was not much to say, other than to explain that it was all a fraud."
Many people believe that Madoff's victims got what they deserved. They say Madoff's investors were rich and greedy and should have known better -- should have known that pocketing positive returns month after month is simply too good to be true.
Countless times over the past 12 months, Langford has asked herself whether she could have seen through the façade. Her portfolio delivered about 7% a year over the two years she was invested, she said; by comparison U.S. government bonds averaged 3% in the same period, while the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index /quotes/comstock/21z!i1:in\x (SPX 1,115, -11.32, -1.00%) registered an 18% annualized loss.
That's one reason why the 55-year-old product-design specialist traveled to Washington earlier this month from her home in San Rafael, Calif., carrying a blunt message for Congress about the handling of Madoff victims' claims.
"The money I had invested with Madoff represented my life savings," Langford told House Financial Services subcommittee members. "This was my retirement, a down payment for a house, investment for the business I was starting, and it was money for my daughter's education. In short, it was the foundation for my future."
Langford is one of some 11,000 investors who became mired in the Madoff mess through investment pools known as "feeder" funds. These family-run funds, hedge funds and other entities were conduits to Madoff, funneling billions of dollars into his brokerage firm. The feeder funds are distinct from the 4,600 or so people who invested directly with Madoff. Account holders like Langford had no idea that Madoff, the perpetrator of the most staggering financial scam ever, controlled their money.
The Securities Investor Protection Corp. provides up to $500,000 per investor in cases where brokerages fail. But in the long line of almost 16,000 claimants hoping to recover at least something from Madoff's elaborate Ponzi scheme, Langford can't even take a number. Unlike individuals with accounts at Madoff's firm, Langford and others whose money came to Madoff indirectly are not entitled to SIPC compensation for their loss.
"This financially devastating scandal destroyed my life," Langford testified. "It has shattered my trust in my government's ability to serve and protect us. My hope is that Congress will choose to recognize and protect all indirect investors such as myself who were victimized by this scandal. We need your help now." See related story on how regulators missed Madoff's con.
Fateful phone call
Going public with her financial situation and pleading with politicians isn't in Langford's nature. But little in her life has been natural since that day in December 2008 when the telephone rang at the small one-bedroom apartment she rents in San Rafael.
Jeannene Langford lost most of her savings in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
It was her money manager. Two years before, Langford was looking for a place to park the several hundred thousand dollars she'd made from selling a house in nearby Sebastopol. A friend recommended a local investor who was doing well for himself and his family and friends. Langford spoke with him and came away convinced that his strategy was stable and suitable.
"I had just sold my house at the top of the market," Langford said in a recent interview with MarketWatch. "It was not a great time to buy so I wanted to invest the money and had three sets of criteria: Safe, liquid, and diversified. My friend said hands down this was the safest place I could put my money."
Now the manager was calling with news about Langford's account, and it wasn't good.
"Our money was with Madoff," he told her. "It's all gone."
"I pretty much fell apart," Langford said. "I remember sitting down and crying on the phone to him. But there was not much to say, other than to explain that it was all a fraud."
Many people believe that Madoff's victims got what they deserved. They say Madoff's investors were rich and greedy and should have known better -- should have known that pocketing positive returns month after month is simply too good to be true.
Countless times over the past 12 months, Langford has asked herself whether she could have seen through the façade. Her portfolio delivered about 7% a year over the two years she was invested, she said; by comparison U.S. government bonds averaged 3% in the same period, while the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index /quotes/comstock/21z!i1:in\x (SPX 1,115, -11.32, -1.00%) registered an 18% annualized loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
