Censored In Singapore:Selling Out Principle

By CLARK HOYT

Published: April 3, 2010

LAST month, on the same day The New York Times praised Google for standing up to censorship in China, a sister newspaper, The International Herald Tribune, apologized to Singapore’s rulers and agreed to pay damages because it broke a 1994 legal agreement and referred to them in a way they did not like.

The rulers had sued for defamation 16 years ago, saying a Herald Tribune Op-Ed column had implied that they got their jobs through nepotism. The paper wound up paying $678,000 and promising not to do it again. But in February, it named Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister now, in an Op-Ed article about Asian political dynasties.

After the Lees objected, the paper said its language “may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended.” The Herald Tribune, wholly owned by The New York Times Company, apologized for “any distress or embarrassment” suffered by the Lees. The statement was published in the paper and on the Web site it shares with The Times.

Some readers were astonished that a news organization with a long history of standing up for First Amendment values would appear to bow obsequiously to an authoritarian regime that makes no secret of its determination to cow critics, including Western news organizations, through aggressive libel actions. Singapore’s leaders use a local court system in which, according to Stuart Karle, a former general counsel of The Wall Street Journal, they have never lost a libel suit.

The notion that it could be defamatory to call a political family a dynasty seems ludicrous in the United States, where The Times has routinely applied the label to the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons. But Singapore is a different story.

Lee Kuan Yew once testified, according to The Times, that he designed the draconian press laws to make sure that “journalists will not appear to be all-wise, all-powerful, omnipotent figures.” Four years ago, The Times quoted his son as saying, “If you don’t have the law of defamation, you would be like America, where people say terrible things about the president and it can’t be proved.”

Steven Brostoff of Arlington, Va., wondered whether The Times had other agreements like the one with the Lees, and asked, “What conclusions should we draw about how news coverage from these countries is slanted?” Zeb Raft of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, asked if The Times was admitting that certain world leaders “deserve to be treated with deference. This is the implication of the apology.”

George Freeman, a Times Company lawyer, said the 1994 agreement was the only one he knew about and that it applied only to The Herald Tribune. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said, “Nobody in this company has ever told me what our reporters can write — or not write — about Singapore.” He said the Times newsroom has no agreements with any government about what can be reported. “We don’t work that way.”

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page, said, “If we have something that needs to be said on the editorial or Op-Ed pages, on any subject, we will say it, clearly and honestly.”

That is what the late William Safire did on the Op-Ed page in 2002, when he criticized Bloomberg News for “kowtowing to the Lee family” by apologizing for an article about the elevation of the younger Lee’s wife to run a state-owned investment company. Bloomberg, he said, had “just demeaned itself and undermined the cause of a free online press.”

Safire wrote that he took “loud exception” in 1994 when The Herald Tribune, then owned jointly by the Times Company and The Washington Post Company, “cravenly caved” over an article by Philip Bowring — the same Hong Kong-based columnist who sparked last month’s dust-up. “I doubt such a sellout of principle will happen again.”

Richard Simmons was the president of The Herald Tribune in 1994 and authorized the agreement that was broken last month — an “undertaking” by the company’s lawyers to prevent a repetition of the language that offended the Lees. “We had, in my view, no choice,” he said. “What the American media absolutely refuse to recognize is Singapore operates on a different set of legal rules than does the United States.” He said Western news organizations can accept the legal system there or leave.

For The Herald Tribune and all the other news organizations that have paid damages to Singapore’s rulers (The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg) or had their circulation limited there (Time, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Economist), the choice has been to stay.Read more.

Run With The Hare And Hunt With The Hounds

Hantu Laut

I am not really sure what to make out of Razaleigh's campaign on the oil royalty issue.It was a Kelantan problem.Why come to Sabah telling Sabahans giving them false hope that they could get more oil royalty if they negotiate with the Federal government which I presumed Razaleigh knew fully well to be a lost cause, at this moment, at least.

Despite his untiring effort to get it for Kelantan, the Federal government refused to entertain his argument that Kelantan is legally entitled to such payment.What's the point of telling Sabahans that they can get more when he can't even convince his party cadres in the ruling party to agree with his interpretation of the law.

I also have great difficulty to decide whether the Tengku is still in UMNO or working for the oppositions.He seems to be using the opposition's platform to voice his disagreement and has turned it into a nation wide campaign.

If I remember well it was him that got the Berjaya government to sign the 5% royalty after the toppling of Mustapha regime who, steadfastly, refused to accept the meagre payment by the Federal government.The oil royalty was one of the thorny issues during Mustapha's time and the cause of his downfall.

Maybe, it's about time Razaleigh decide whether he wants to stay in UMNO and sing the same song or leave the party and continue with his crusade.

He certainly can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.


'Nothing to stop review'

Published on: Sunday, April 04, 2010

Email to a friend

Penampang: There is nothing stopping the people of Sabah from calling upon the State Government to seek a re-negotiation with the Federal Government and Petronas on the quantum of oil royalty.

"If Sabahans want to hold a fresh negotiation through the State Government there is no one that can stop them because what we have is based on the original agreement," said former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

"And if now they think they don't want the (current amount of 5pc) royalty then go ahead, ask the State Government to re-negotiate with Federal Government É I am not appointed as the State Government's advisor so its up to you," said Razaleigh, himself a former Petronas Chairman.

He said if the people and the State Government felt they have the capability to demand for a raise in the oil royalty then they should just go ahead.

Razaleigh, who was responsible for drawing up the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 that led to setting up the national petroleum company, Petronas, said this in response to questions after presenting a talk entitled "Sabah's Oil For Whom?" at the Hongkod Koisaan, KDCA, Friday night.

The event was organised by United Sabah Dusun Association (Usda) in collaboration with 14 other organisations. Some 1,000 people attended the talk that began at 8pm and lasted till nearly midnight.

On the question of how come Sabah and the other major oil producing states in the country continue to be lagging behind, the Gua Musang MP said poverty issues are not something that can be resolved immediately, even though the State has an abundance of oil resources.

He said the issues were inter-related with social, education and health, among others. However, it was also up to the people to ask the State Government on how the royalty was being spent (over the years), especially in the context of eradicating poverty.

"Ask the Government how the royalty had been spent.

As long as we continue to be mum we will not get the protection that we should get," he said.

To a question from Usda asking if there is a mechanism that can tell the volume of oil and gas taken out from Sabah, he said this was a matter of trust.

"If we want to measure it can be done. We can install meter gauge to measure how much oil and gas is taken out from Sabah. Now the question is whether this is necessary?" he said.

Such information, according to him, could be obtained from the Statistics Department and from the volume of Petronas exports.

On the issue of gas from Sabah to be channelled to Sarawak through pipelines, which should instead be used in Sabah by setting up a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Processing Plant in the State, he said it should be the way.

"I am also curious why gas obtained from Sabah has to be channelled to Sarawak although Sabah really needs its own LNG plant," he said.

To the question from Ikatan Anak Anak Semenanjung on whether the Kelantan case where its royalty cash payment was being paid as an ex-gratia payment by the Federal Government could be challenged in court, he said in the affirmative.

"Anything can be challenged in the court to get justice but whether this will bring benefit or not is a different issue (as) the Federal Government have the power so they can do whatever they like it seems," he said.

Razaleigh said since he was the one together with late second Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak responsible for drafting the PDA, he knew very well that there is no such provision in the Act on ex-gratia payment in place of the oil royalty.

"Our view and the Federal Government is different but I hope the Federal Government would be able to interpret the Act based on the real understanding," he said.

The PDA was drafted to utilise the oil from the waters of east coast in Semenanjung for developing the backward states there, he said.

Earlier, he said the total royalty paid to Sabah from 2004 to 2007 was RM1.23 billion, Sarawak (RM4.281 billion) and Terengganu (RM7.3 billion).Daily Express.

Razaleigh other story here.

Losing Faith: Khalid Ibrahim

Hantu Laut

The truth hurts.The response even more ridiculous.Khalid Ibrahim ran out of sensibility responding to Najib's remark that the people have lost faith in PKR.

Khalid Ibrahim couldn't find better words to express his annoyance with Najib, obtusely asking Najib not to come to Hulu Selangor.This is, probably, what the Malay called 'bodoh sombong'. I am not sure what 's the English equivalent, literally translated it could mean 'proudly stupid', but than in English the many words to describe the varying degree of stupidity can range from the very mild to the very extreme.Being called stupid is probably the mildest form and the most common.

Below are some of derogatory remarks you can use on people you don't like or those that offended you.A word of caution, though,don't overuse, you may end up a dead meat.

If you want to impugn someone's intelligence, the options are almost limitless.
You can call the person stupid, a term that implies a sluggish, slow-witted lack of intelligence.
Asinine is a harsher word, implying asslike or foolish behavior rather than slow-wittedness (: a woman her age looked asinine in a miniskirt).
Calling someone dumb is risky, because it is not only an informal word (: you dumb bunny!), but because it also means mute and is associated with the offensive expression “deaf and dumb,” used to describe people who cannot hear or speak.
Dense implies an inability to understand even simple facts or instructions (: too dense to get the joke), while dull suggests a sluggishness of mind unrelieved by any hint of quickness, brightness, or liveliness (: a dull stare).
Slow also implies a lack of quickness in comprehension or reaction and is often used as a euphemistic substitute for stupid (: he was a little slow intellectually).
Obtuse is a more formal word for slow-wittedness, but with a strong undercurrent of scorn (: it almost seemed as though he were being deliberately obtuse).
You can't go wrong with a word like unintelligent, which is probably the most objective term for low mental ability and the least likely to provoke an angry response (: unintelligent answers to the teacher's questions).E.Dictionary.

To be fair to Khalid, I should say he gave an unintelligent response to Najib's remarks.What Najib stated in his speech were facts.If Khalid feels the heat and felt slighted than he should go to the ground and find out the truth.Is PKR losing ground and why? The fact that some of its lawmakers left the party clearly indicates loss of confidence in the leadership.Bad leadership, would, sooner or later translates to bigger loss.

Khalid said “If they (the voters) are losing faith (in us), then why should he come here?

They are losing faith in Khalid, not Najib.

Najib was right.PKR, is suffering serious leadership and credibility crisis.As a citizen and apex leader of this nation Najib has every right to visit any place in this country.

Najib Stalls on his New Economic Policy

By whose count? The NEM hasn't started yet, how could it stalled?

ASIA SENTINEL

Written by Our Correspondent

Thursday, 01 April 2010

As expected, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak unveiled his New Economic Model in an 8,000 word speech on March 30 to a national investor conference in Kuala Lumpur. And, as expected, despite the hype and favorable news stories in the international press, it contained virtually nothing of substance. The speech can be found here.

Najib remains caught between the need to eliminate costly subsidies enshrined in 40 years of economic policy that benefit ethnic Malays and the fact that eliminating them would alienate a major part of his United Malays Political Organization political base.

His pledge in the speech to eliminate rent-seeking is fraught with political danger, since UMNO has largely been built on party cadres who have made fortunes on government contracts or other arrangements. As Lim Kit Siang, the leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party, pointed out to Asia Sentinel, Najib's promise to end rent-seeking was almost an exact echo of speeches by his predecessor, former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was unable to make any progress whatsoever in the face of implacable opposition from UMNO cronies.

The premier has been trying to walk the line between economic liberalization and enraging his base virtually since he took office a year ago, offering to unveil policies and then delaying. The details now have been delayed until the release of the 10th Malaysia plan, probably in June. Some, including veteran UMNO politician-turned-reformer Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, whose speech appeared on March 24 in Asia Sentinel, have questioned whether it is possible to split the difference.

Last year, Najib quickly stoked ethnic Malay anger by removing a long-standing requirement mandating ethnic Malay participation in 27 economic sub-sectors as well as removing a requirement that 30 percent of shares in IPOs go to ethnic Malays. That,along with rising irritation in other ethnic parties, led to rallies across the country put on by the Malay Consultative Council, an umbrella group of 50 ethnic Malay non-government organizations, and its most active voice, an NGO called Perkasa.

While there has been no open break between Najib and the splenetic former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Mahathir has appeared several times at rallies to defend so-called ketuanan Melayu, or Malay superiority. Some of the rallies have turned into near riots and have been likened to the Tea Party rallies in the United States that have roiled American politics. Mahathir is also close to Ibrahim Ali, a former UMNO wheel-horse who is a major force in Perkasa, leading some to believe Ibrahim is Mahathir's spear-carrier.
As Asia Sentinel reported on March 8, the widening gap between what Najib wants to do and what a major portion of his United Malays National Organization constituency wants is putting in jeopardy his so-called RM20 million 1Malaysia campaign, designed to bring the country's alienated and fractious ethnic groups together, and torebuild the Barisan Nasional, the ruling national coalition of ethnic political parties.

In his speech, Najib said the country could no longer rely on a few sectors like oil palm plantations and crude oil sales to drive growth. He called for the country to diversify and provide incentives in new strategic industries. The education system – which critics say now gives ethnic Malays virtually blanket passes with little academic rigor -- must be revaluated and improved, he said, to reward excellence and nurture talented graduates who excel in strategic and creative thinking, and entrepreneurial and leadership skills that will drive success in the decades ahead.

On Tuesday, the Malaysian Insider, an increasingly influential website, reported that the Malay Consultative Council is split over Najib's plans, with the council taking an unofficial stand to support them on condition that affirmative action features contained in the New Economic Policy, put in place after bloody ethnic riots in 1969, remain in place. Given that Najib's economic plans would remove many of those perks, it remains to be seen how he can convince the rank and file of their value.

Najib does have an improving economy working in his behalf. As he told the Invest Malaysia conference Monday, fourth-quarter 2009 Gross domestic product grew by a higher-than-expected 4.5 percent, that exports have rebounded, and foreign direct investment is picking up. The Industrial Production Index, he said, rebounded to 12.7 percent growth in January with exports, which traditionally have comprised more than 100 percent of GDP, exports rose 37 percent to RM52 billion and imports increased by 31 percent to RM40 billion. His decision last year to inject RM67 billion of stimulus funding provided a much-needed boost to the economy.

The government, he said, "can no longer tolerate practices that support the behavior of rent-seeking and patronage, which have long tarnished the altruistic aims of the New Economic Policy. Inclusiveness, where all Malaysians contribute and benefit from economic growth - must be a fundamental element of any new economic approach."

However, there is no better example of how closely tied to Najib's own coat-tails are to rent-seekng than a contract to provide services and coordination for two Amaris submarines purchased for US$1 billion from DCNS, a French defense contractor, when Najib was defense minister. Najib and one of his closest friends, Abdul Razak Baginda, were intimately involved with the purchase of the submarines. Although many critics characterized the €114.96 million payment to a company called Perimekar, partly owned by Razak Baginda, as a bribe, Malaysia's defense ministry defended it in Parliament as a support services contract.
Perimekar was partly owned by the Armed Forces Superannuation Fund Board (the military retirement fund), Boustead Holdings Bhd, and KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd. Ombak Laut was in turn owned by Razak Baginda, who was tried for the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu and found not guilty in a controversial trial that saw two of Najib's own bodyguards convicted of the crime. Altantuya had served as a translator in France on part of the submarine transaction and was demanding US$500,000 from Razak, her former lover in what she herself called blackmail in a letter found after her death.

Yet there is another service contract as well. The submarines became controversial again in February when it was reported that the first one to be delivered had problems with its ballast system and couldn't submerge. Although that turned out to be a relatively minor problem, it brought to light questions over an additional service agreement between the government and a well-connected firm called Boustead DCNS, a joint venture between BHIC Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of publicly-listed Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd, and the France-based DCNS SA, which built the subs. Originally Boustead told the Malaysian Stock Exchange that the service contract was for RM600 million (US$184.1 million) for six years, or US$30.68 million annually. However, the contract later ballooned to RM270 million per year. Boustead Holdings is partly owned by the government and has close connections with UMNO.Read more.