Is Sime Scrapping Bottom Of The Barrel?

Hantu Laut

I am not sure whether we should laud the action taken by Sime Darby against its executives and some of its former executives for its unprecedented whopping losses incurred the last year.

Is Sime looking for scapegoats? If it is than it may have looked in the wrong place.

What is the likelihood of recovering the money as the claim put forth is a pittance compared to the total loss and absurdly on the basis of accusation of mismanagement and incompetence and not misappropriation or corruption.

There is a clear distinction between the two.Mismanagement and incompetence are not criminal acts, misappropriation and corruption are.Sure, you can sue them for negligence which will be so tedious to prove.Was this action taken due to political pressure to appease the opposition?

The company also alleged that the five accused acted as a "decision-making unit" in the energy and utilities division and were responsible for the division's actions and omissions.

The question is what happened to Sime's Board of Directors, had they become redundant so much so that huge investments of capital nature are made by its executives and who select and approve the appointment of this bunch of incompetents?

Have the board not been negligent of its fiduciary duties to the shareholders. They are the trustees and the link between the shareholders and the executives.A company failure should be attributed more to the CEO and members of the board rather than its employees, putting asides wrongdoings of which the board should also take full responsibility.

A responsible board would have regular meetings to keep checks and balances.If such meetings are conducted regularly and board members are alert and responsible most problems could have been detected much earlier before they get out of hand.Obviously, the board is very much asleep leaving everything to the executives.

Why is it that every time a case like this came up the plaintiff or in the case of big corruption case the prosecutor always walk on weak ground?

Sime sued the five for breach of duties and asked for restitution of MR177 million.Why, only that amount when the total loss was MR2.1 million?Who is responsible for the bigger balance of losses?

The question again do the five have that kind of money considering how much Sime pay them every year?

Are there more cases in the pipeline or this will suffice to appease the public that the government is taking action.

We all know most GLCs are run by incompetents and they survived only when they have monopoly of the business, the moment the monopoly is removed and they have to compete on level playing field.....you know what follows.

Read the full story here.

If God Forbids Let Him Punish Them

Hantu Laut

This guy must be either too brave or too stupid to underestimate the environment he lives in.If your are not straight and live in a hypocritical world it would be safer to stay in the closet like most gays do.

Where I came from, homophobia or the pretext of homophobia citing religious values as the excuse for hostility is less pervasive or does not exist at all. Those who are aghast or repulsive at the thought of same sex cohabitation just frown, ignored and merrily stayed away from the anomaly.What they do with their bodies is their business.

I have gay friends, my wife has gay friends and my children have gay friends and not for one moment we felt our worlds are being threatened by our association with them particularly those that we grew up with from childhood.Whatever their sexual orientation is it's their business, they are still our friends and have not made us less secure in our own sexuality.If God forbids homosexuality than let God punish them.

It's true, all three Abrahamic religions were against homosexuality.The story of Sodom and Gomorrah revealed that Christianity was even more explicit in its prohibition against homosexuality but has come a long way to fast forward itself, denouncing it, without hostility or threat of bodily harm.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

In the U.S many states still outlawed sodomy and is seen as a criminal act but the law has become purely academic. No one has been dragged to the court of law for being a homosexual. Surely, two consenting adults would not report their sexual acts to the law.As long as no aggrieved party made a report no law has been broken.The act can only be enforced in the case of sodomite rape.

I believe it is the same in Malaysia, the law against sodomy can only be used against a person if there was an aggrieved party that lodged a police report, as in the case of Anwar Ibrahim.

Are there no homosexuality in Islam? Muslims in this country need to travel to places like Afghanistan and the Middle East and if they open their eyes wide enough they be appalled and how good Malaysia is.In these places young boys literally become sexual slaves to their masters who are above the law.Some of these countries have the severest form of hudud law yet most of the forbidden acts and criminality escaped the attention of the law.

I, may be not comfortable with homosexuality, but I do, not in nihilism, believe in freedom of choice and if we do believe in God than we must believe he does not create all of us the same.

Wikileaks Has The Pandora's Box On Bank Of America

Hantu Laut

If you have dealt with BOA (Bank Of America) you get an inkling of what they are capable of doing.

They are so big even the U.S. government wouldn't dare to touch them or if they did, an imminent disaster, another financial meltdown which the U.S can't afford right now.

Read what I wrote here a few days ago and read this published today.

Another big embarrassment for the Obama's administration should Wikileaks decides to release the documents.

Wikileaks:Britain, Another Big Bully

Hantu Laut

Just like they created Israel out of Palestine, partitioned India into East and West Pakistan and made Sabah,Sarawak and Singapore to join Malaya to form a new nation, they are prepared to deny sovereignty of a nation if it serves its own interests or the interests of any of its allies.

Britain colluded with the U.S. to take the Chagos islands which include Diego Gracia away from Mauritius long before it gave independence.

See the photo why the U.S wants it as their naval base.

When Mauritius gained independence, Britain severed the island from Mauritius, evicted the settlers and gave it to the U.S as naval base.

The American spent zero sum to develop the harbour, it's a natural sheltered harbour, isolated and away from any immediate military threat.

If you want to know how Britain (formerly Great Britain) made and lost its empire read Niall Ferguson's "Empire" (How Britain Made The Modern World).Read it some 5 years ago and it's a book I would recommend all Federal leaders to read.

They can't call themselves 'great' anymore, having only scattered atolls all over the world as its colonies.

WikiLeaks cables: Mauritius sues UK for control of Chagos islands

Leaked document shows Foreign Office official told US that marine reserve would end evicted islanders' claims

Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago and the site of a US military base. Photograph: Reuters

The prime minister of Mauritius has accused Britain of pursuing a "policy of deceit" over the Chagos islands, its Indian Ocean colony from where islanders were evicted to make way for a US military base. He spoke to the Guardian as his government launched the first step in a process that could end UK control over the territory.

Navinchandra Ramgoolam spoke out after the Labour government's decision to establish a marine reserve around Diego Garcia and surrounding islands was exposed earlier this month as the latest ruse to prevent the islanders from ever returning to their homeland.

A US diplomatic cable dated May 2009, disclosed by WikiLeaks, revealed that a Foreign Office official had told the Americans that a decision to set up a "marine protected area" would "effectively end the islanders' resettlement claims". The official, identified as Colin Roberts, is quoted as saying that "according to the HMG's [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on the reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays'" on the British Indian Ocean Territory uninhabited islands."

A US state department official commented: "Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO's Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT."

Nearly a year later, in April this year, David Miliband, then foreign secretary, described the marine reserve as a "major step forward for protecting the oceans". He added that the reserve "will not change the UK's commitment to cede the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes".

"I feel strongly about a policy of deceit," Ramgoolam said , adding that he had already suspected Britain had a "hidden agenda".

Asked if he believed Miliband had acted in good faith, he said: "Certainly not. Nick Clegg said before the general election that Britain had a "moral responsibility to allow these people to at last return home". William Hague, now foreign secretary, said that if elected he would "work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute".

Ramgoolam said he believed the government was adopting the same attitude as its predecessor. Mauritius has lodged a document with an international tribunal accusing Britain of breaching the UN convention on the law of the sea. It says Britain has no right to establish the marine zone since it was not a "coastal state" in the region, adding that Mauritius has the sole right to declare an "exclusive zone" around the British colony.

A legal document seen by the Guardian and submitted to an international tribunal says that in 1965 Britain "dismembered Mauritius by purporting to establish a so-called 'British Indian Ocean Territory'". Eight years later, it "forcibly removed the entire indigenous population of the Chagos archipelago, comprising a community of approximately 2,000 persons calling themselves Ilois or Chagossians", the document says.

Referring to the leaked US cable, it adds that the UK has "violated the 1982 [UN] convention and rules of general international law …" It says Mauritius is basing its claims on additional international rules including "the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources".

Ramgoolam said: "We have a strong case". Asked if the move paves the way to the end of the British Indian Ocean colony, he replied: "We have a broad strategy." Mauritius would adopt a "step by step" approach. He added that the Americans at present needed the Diego Garcia base for reasons of "international security".Read more.