Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Bersih 2.0: Dirty War of the “clean” crusaders

August 10, 2011

FMT LETTER: From Calvin Sankaran, via e-mail

In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle.

They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.

Thus was the advice from one of the Founding Fathers and the 3rd President of the US, Thomas Jefferson.

It is indeed surprising that more than 200 years on, we still find such advice is to be incredibly germane especially so in view of the prevailing poisonous political zeitgeist in the country.

Whether it is the American Tea-Party politico-terrorists or our homegrown pseudo reformers of Bersih 2.0, the ability of unruly mobs of angry zealots to be weapons of political and economic mass destruction and holding a nation hostage remains undiminished.

Bersih, like so many other groups subscribing to political extremism, has a noble aim and helmed by charismatic, internationally respected figurehead in Ambiga Sreenevasan. Bersih’s manifest demand is the amendment of the electoral laws to provide a level playing field to all political parties thus advancing the process of democratisation in Malaysia.

But beyond this wafer thin veneer of credibility everything else about Bersih reeks of political gamesmanship. It is a bitter irony that a coalition which strives for clean politics employs chicanery, deceit, hate mongering propaganda, half truths and lies to mislead people and demonise their opponents.

However, to be fair it must be said that the charge that Pakatan Rakyat leaders had hijacked Bersih to further their political ambitions is wildly inaccurate and completely baseless. For there is hardly a need do so since Pakatan and Ambiga’s Bersih are joined at the hip in an unholy, incestuous relationship.

Surely the former Bar Council president isn’t that naïve to assume that the PR parties are sincerely committed to clean and transparent election process when they themselves don’t practice the said principles for their own party elections.

Unless Ambiga has been a part of NASA’s space mission to Mars over the last few years, she would surely have witnessed the shambolic, scandal-ridden, violence-marred joke that passed for PKR’s version of democratic election.

It is worth noting here that Ambiga had declared the street rally was off and Bersih will be accepting the government’s offer of stadium after her audience with the King. However, Bersih’s real aim was exposed when Ambiga later spurned the offer of Shah Alam Stadium for the rally and stubbornly insisted upon Merdeka Stadium, citing ease of access and convenience.

It wasn’t long, however, when her concerns were proved to be as bogus as Hannah Yeoh’s Anak Malaysia comedy skit. This Lady of Liberty put lives and limbs of supporters in grave danger by urging them to defy the law, the riot police, tear gas and water cannons to march illegally in downtown KL. As such Ambiga and Bersih organisers must be accountable and responsible for the death of one of the participants instead of trying to pin the blame on the police.

That the Emperor Bersih wore no clothes was obvious to everyone except the blinkered legion of PR supporters; the shouts of “Reformasi” and “Takbir” far outnumbering cries for reform during the rally made that abundantly clear.

Within hours of the rally Pakatan cyber army was busy working overtime at their fiction factories and churning out highly edited, emotion-laden (if not terribly clever) videos on YouTube.

Using video imageries from past protests and even including foreign footages, these crusaders of clean elections played dirty by trying to elevate the illegal demonstrators as heroes while depicting the police as brutal thugs.

Even when these videos were exposed as fakes, no Bersih leader came forward to accept the responsibility or apologise for their deceitful, deplorable actions.

One of the Bersih videos that stood out for all the wrong reasons was the over-long clip titled, rather melodramatically as “The Truth That Cannot Be Covered”. Obviously produced by your average DAP cyber troopers next door (the atrocious English subtitles alone a dead giveaway) it was widely circulated via the social network among the Pakatan Kool-Aid drinkers.

This clip was the gold standard in exemplifying and showcasing the PR spinmasters’ level of intelligence and depths of delusion.

Unintentionally funny and laden with more tear-jerking sentimentalism than a dozen Kollywood movies put together, it scored several own goals by exposing the Pakatan supporters’ violent, rowdy behavior during the “peaceful” rally.

The maturity of the Bersih / Pakatan crowd was again amply demonstrated during a debate organised by the Sinar Harian newspaper between Ambiga and a representative from the EC. The debate almost violent when the some of them, unable to accept criticism or satisfied by answers given, had to be physically restrained from assaulting the EC rep. Read more.


Anarchy In The UK:Between a Rock and A Hard Place

Hantu Laut

The rioting is no more confined to London it has spread to other cities.Manchester, Salford, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Leicester and Birmingham with shops being looted and set alight.

A separate crowd in Manchester's Market Street has set fire to a Miss Selfridge shop. They then moved on to damage and loot other stores.

Is David Cameron "between a rock and a hard place" that till now he has not been able to make a sensible decision how to put out this flame of outrage.

If the UK government do not impose curfew in the trouble spots and order the police to shoot (with live ammo) on sight those who broke the law there will be complete anarchy in the UK as seen in Paris some 6 years ago.The one in Paris was better contained as it was only confined to the suburbs and did not touch the city proper.

The Sex Pistol's "Anarchy in the UK"



This the country that want to export and impose its brand of freedom and democracy to the third and developing world.

They prefer to let freedom prevails at the cost of massive destruction to properties and lives of innocent people rather than taking tough measures to protect lives and properties from hordes of scumbags rampaging the streets, looting, burning buildings and cars at will.

Najib did the right thing to take preemptive action against Bersih.

It is a breath of fresh air looking at what is happening in the UK right now.The sight of burning buildings and cars are just too much to ingest.People's homes and businesses being burn down all for the sake of mindless violence.


Malaysians should be relieved the government did right to stop the massive rally from taking place.

Of course, the antagonists and potential troublemakers would not agree.

The Riots Of Paris and London: A Tale Of Two Cities

Posted by



With the violence that broke out in London Saturday having spread to other English cities during a third straight night of rioting Monday, it's tempting (and probably portentous) from the comfort of Paris to offer up lessons learned from the nearly three weeks of upheaval that rocked French towns in 2005. Yet while there seem to be certain details common to both those explosions of urban fury, significant differences not only complicate directly comparing events in the U.K. to those that occurred in France nearly six years ago—but also leave the current unrest looking more serious in terms of destruction and consequence. As shocking as the images of burning cars, vandalism, and clashes with police were in 2005, the scenes today from across London inspire an even stronger, awesome fear. Here's why.

The detonators of both uprisings appear to have been similar: first, police involvement in the deaths of local youths in neighborhoods with large populations of visible minorities, followed by the fury — nourished with wider frustrations of discrimination and alienation — that those killings unleashed. And as happened in 2005 France, the initial unrest that broke out Saturday in Tottenham has gradually spread to other areas of London and to two other British cities as young people have embraced the underlying message of social protest and rage—or used them as convenient excuses for running amok. Not insignificantly, the spread of violence in both cases also provoked laments-cum-accusation that over-dramatization and voyeuristic media coverage early on led to “copy-cat” replication of the urban outrage.

From there, however, things seem to get different in important ways--starting with urban geography. The Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois that initially erupted in unrest in Oct. 2005 is just that: one of the many towns hosting huge but decrepit housing projects for increasingly disenfranchised segments of French society. Those large clusters of projects are almost invariably located in relatively remote suburbs ringing most major French cities, sparing France the kinds of intra muros ghetto areas that cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles have—or neighborhoods with very large non-white, often economically disadvantaged populations as London does.

(SEE: Pictures of the riots in London.)

In stark contrast to the districts in London now suffering violence, therefore, virtually all unrest that rocked France in 2005 occurred in these project-heavy outlying suburbs. And for all intents and purposes, the nightly clashes in 2005 France were never exported anywhere near the businesses, shops, and primarily white, affluent residents of French city centers. The recurring destruction that stunned wider French society in 2005 essentially involved its most disadvantaged and alienated members wrecking havoc in their own, very remote backyards.

As anyone watching the images of destruction knows, the rioting in the English capital and other cities is now surging right up to the doors of comfortable, middle and upper-middle class homes. The reasons: the sprawling nature of London makes it a much geographically larger and a far more populated city than intramuros Paris. Meanwhile, like France's blighted banlieues, the London neighborhoods now suffering turmoil have heavy immigrant and visible minority populations airing complaints of discrimination, endemic unemployment, and tense relations with police. Yet these populations are part of a wider, mixed residential pool. Indeed, unlike France 2005, the Watts or South Central riots in Los Angeles, or instances of arson and looting in New York's Harlem, objectives of “containment” by officials in reacting to violence those cities are non-starters in London—whose mixed socio-economic-ethnic demographics make the current violence an equal opportunity threat. It numbs the mind to contemplate what kinds of new attacks on multi-culturalism will surge in Britain once the waves of nightly violence subside.


Related article:

The Great Riot of London: The Stakes for David Cameron


Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Is Tony Fernandez Buying Trouble?

Hantu Laut

What would be the strike price in the share swap between MAS and AirAsia ? Is the strike price going to be higher or lower than the market price?

The exercise would call for at least 1 Air Asia share for 2 MAS shares but the valuation could be more because Air Asia market share price is more than twice that of MAS. However, it is up to MAS and Air Asia, they can ignore the market price and set a strike price they both agree on.

It was initially rumoured that the cross holding would give Tony Fernandez's Air Asia majority share in MAS which was later refuted by MAS biggest shareholder Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Malaysia's Sovereign wealth fund. Khazanah has 14.06% direct holding and 52.29% indirect holding through wholly owned Penerbangan Malaysia.It appears that even after the exercise Khazanah would still be a majority shareholder in MAS.

The share swap is between MAS and Air Asia not with Tune Air as reported by the Editor of Malaysian Insider here. Tune air would have indirect interest in MAS through Air Asia.If such holdings were of significant size this would make it difficult for either company's shareholders to displace the existing management; if both were majority holdings it would be impossible to vote out either set of directors.

Unless he has control over the policies and major decisions in MAS I can't see the rational of Fernandez buying into MAS if Khazanah still call the shot.The swap, if successful, would also give Khazanah significant share in Air Asia if they have not already own some shares in Air Asia through nominees.It would also give Khazanah significant role in policy matters. However, if two firms cross hold each other, it is difficult to displace the management in one without the consent of the other corporation.Being a shrewd businessman I am sure Fernandez has something under his sleeve that we have yet to see.

MAS string of failures was not due solely to the CEO, the board of directors should take the bigger blame for the mess the airline is in. One should envisage the problem of working with a bunch of bureaucratic civil servants to appreciate the difficult working environment one can be subjected to.Remember the days when nasi lemak cost the airline RM70.00 a plate.Nasi lemak is certainly not gourmet food, you can get better nasi lemak from street vendors for as little as RM2.50.

Political interference has also contributed to some of MAS losses.The few years that MAS made money under Idris Jala was made more out of assets stripping rather than profits from its operations.Even if they did, the profits were insignificant.

Below Singapore Airlines group financial highlights.

Year ended↓ Revenue
(S$m)↓
Expenditure
(S$m)↓
Operating profit
(S$m)↓
Profit before
taxation (S$m)↓


31 March 1999 7,795.9 6,941.5 854.4 1,116.8

31 March 2000 9,018.8 7,850.0 1,168.8 1,463.9

31 March 2001 9,951.3 8,604.6 1,346.7 1,904.7

31 March 2002 9,382.8 8,458.2 924.6 925.6

31 March 2003 10,515.0 9,797.9 717.1 976.8

31 March 2004 9,761.9 9,081.5 680.4 820.9

31 March 2005 12,012.9 10,657.4 1,355.5 1,829.4

31 March 2006 13,341.1 12,127.8 1,213.3 1,662.1

31 March 2007 14,494.4 13,180.0 1,314.4 2,284.6

31 March 2008 15,972.5 13,848.0 2,124.5 2,547.2

31 March 2009 15,996.3 15,092.7 903.6 1,198.6

31 March 2010 12,707.3 12,644.1 63.2 285.5


All those years Singapore Airline were making profits MAS was losing substantially or profited under extraordinary gains while under Jala's management.It's a 5 star airline with 5 star losses.

Jala left in the nick of time when Najib pulled him out of MAS to join his cabinet.Soon after he left, the airline started showing losses again.Obviously, they have no more assets to strip or major asset unbundling, the formula used in the financial restructuring in 2002 after suffering huge losses.The Binafikir formula have a short shelf life, the airline is back in the red.

Would Tony insists to absorb Firefly into Air Asia and MAS to cease selling low fares to its passengers and stay as a full-fledged carrier? I expect these would be some of the conditions thrown at Khazanah if they were to bring Tony to the board of MAS.

Since the deal between MAS and Air Asia is not yet set in concrete anything can happen, negotiation can still break down if Tony doesn't get what he wants.