So! Who Is Going To Bankrupt Malaysia?

Hantu Laut

There are dime a dozen of them out there, churning out the crudest and most ill-conceived writing against the government and its leaders.

Malaysia Chronicle, Malaysian Insider and the mother of all gutters Malaysiakini have plenty of these fierce moles crawling out of the molehills and for the first time see the light of day.

Some sould have been taken to the cleaners for libel but Malaysian politicians either have too many skeletons in the closet or think it's just not worth the effort.For some it's money matters.

If pro-government bloggers are paid than the same must be said of bloggers and writers supporting the opposition.

As Ahiruddin says which I agree "It's a total crap"

We don't need to be paid for our political beliefs.We don't need to be paid for our conscience.

How to support a group of political misfits that are full of contradictions?

Their latest contradiction is the unsound opposition to the government proposal to use RM1.5 billion of EPF funds to provide housing loans to the low income earners that do not qualify for bank financing.

All over the world in developed and developing countries the government are obligated to help the low income and the needy by providing such facilities as cheap loans or cheap home rentals.

In Britain, if you are less fortunate you are entitled to stay in a council house.In 1979 Britain introduced a right to buy legislation which allow the tenant to purchase the property.In Singapore, the HDB has been the most successful in housing its low income citizens.The government later introduced the HUDC for the middle income.Today, these properties have appreciated 5 to 10 folds its original prices.

The EPF has over RM400 billion investment portfolio and any of these investments can go wrong.

Making a mountain out of a molehill. RM1.5 billion is much less than 1% of the total portfolio.A drop in the ocean to help the poor to put roofs over their heads, a place they proudly can call home.

To this, the Oxford moron in the opposition, a lad called Tony Pua, one that is too smart for his own good, indignantly objected and sent wrong messages to the people to oppose the scheme.He said the scheme is against the EPF Act but failed to mention the particular act. Having read the Act myself it is clear what he claimed is untrue, there was no such contravention.The BOD of EPF has wide ranging powers to decide on any type of investments.This scheme is probably a much safer investment for EPF than shares and stocks as the amount is guaranteed by DBKL. Stocks can appreciate and depreciate in value.

There is no substance in his claim, it's pure political propaganda and a crock of shit.

EPF would not be giving direct loan to individuals.I presumed it would be through a new entity set up for this purpose, either own by EPF or DBKL.

On one hand he pretends to fight for the poor and on the other hand whack the poor and deny them of their rightful place in society.

Those of you, who want to vote for these kind of political misfits, better think twice.

They (Pakatan) have promised:

1.To lower the price of fuel by giving greater subsidies.

2.Bring down the price of foods and other essentials by giving greater subsidies.

3.To increase oil loyalty to 20% to Sabah and Sarawak.

4.To abolish highway tolls.........not sure how they are going to do it.They, either have to pay billion of ringgits to the toll concessionaires or just nationalise the whole damn thing without any payment of compensation.

There are many more on record that I need not mention here.

So! Now you tell me who is going to bankrupt Malaysia?

Malaysia's Anti-Opposition Bloggers

Does Kuala Lumpur have a home-grown version of China’s ’50-centers?’

Is Malaysia getting its own version of China’s so-called 50-centers, the legions of Chinese bloggers who monitor websites and reply to criticism of the government for money?

Ahiruddin Attan, the Kuala Lumpur-based pro-government blogger who writes under the name “Rocky’s Bru” says last September he pulled together friends to set up what he calls a small news portal called The Mole with the idea “to give certain balance to the reports of Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider, Malaysia Today.”

In Ahiruddin’s view, “there are too many anti-establishment, anti-government sites in Malaysia.”

The Malaysian Insider reported last year that the government had provided US$10 million for the project. Other reports circulating in Malaysian political circles say the bloggers have been provided with US$10 million by the United Malaysia National Organization, the country’s biggest political party, and another US$10 million from the Malaysian billionaire Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary to follow the proliferating anti-establishment news organizations that are thronging Malaysia and state the government’s viewpoint.

But, Ahiruddin said in a telephone interview: “That US$10 million is totally crap. There is no truth at all in it. We are really small.” A former editor of a variety of UMNO publications including the Business Times, The Malay Mail and The Sunday Mail, he says he derives his current income from his continuing directorship at the Mail, a Kuala Lumpur-based daily tabloid. To reports that he had bought a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with his new-found wealth, he snorted. The Harley, he said, is 12 years old.

Despite Ahiruddin’s denials, other sources insist that at least 10 to 15 people are involved in the effort, with government support.

Because all of Malaysia’s mainstream media, including newspapers and television, are owned by its ruling political parties the country has generated perhaps the most vociferous opposition Internet news portals in the region, with some, including Malaysiakini and the Malaysian Insider, providing professional coverage of the government.

Although government officials grit their teeth over what the news portals publish, they have adhered to a pledge made by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to leave the Internet censorship-free. Mahathir made the pledge in 1995 to promote the international development of his multi-media Super Corridor, which was designed to attract high-tech industry across the globe. In 1998, the government allowed Malaysiakini to begin operations.

The result, along with the proliferation of news sites, most of them anti-government, has been an explosion of readers who gather their news from the Internet. According to Freedom House, a whopping 55 percent of Malaysians had access to the Internet in 2011. And, the NGO said: “In the watershed elections of March 2008, the ruling National Front coalition lost its two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969. In addition, opposition parties won control of five of the country’s 13 states, including those with relatively high Internet penetration rates…Together with the growing popularity of independent online news outlets, the use of the Internet for political mobilization was widely perceived as contributing to the opposition’s electoral gains.” Read more.

NFC Directors Laughing All The Way To The Bank

Hantu Laut





No personal guarantee!

The giver of the loan should now carry the burden of responsibility to the taxpayers.If this isn't abuse of the first order what would you call it? It's not the recipient fault if the government acted so stupidly.Those involved in giving out the loan should also be investigated.

It is now clear why the money was used for what it is not intended for.This soft loan is softer than soft, abnormally low interest rate, no collateral, no director's personal guarantee, it is as good as giving the money away for free.

"The loan agreement has been signed. If we don’t pay back, we will be declared bankrupt or locked up in jail. We will pay every sen plus interest. The question of misappropriation does not arise,” said Wan Shahinur Izmir, who is minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s son.

Come on man! Who are you kidding? How is the government going to sue you personally for recovery of the loan if you did not sign personal guarantee?

My company had borrowed tens of millions before from banks and all directors were made to sign "Joint and Several Guarantee" in spite of more than sufficient securities given to the banks.

If the company folded and can't pay up the loans and there happen to be diminution in the value of the securities, the directors are fully liable for the amount including all interests and if they failed to make good the banks would declare every director a bankrupt.

The government, probably, can charge the directors for CBT (Criminal Breach of Trust), which, sometimes, is difficult to prove in a mismanagement.

Misappropriation is a crime, mismanagement is not.Buying properties under the company's name for investment or even to house working directors is also not a crime, it becomes a crime only if they are in your personal name using company's fund to purchase.It would also not be a crime if the company gave you a housing loan duly approved by the BOD (Board of Directors).

You see, whichever way the government is going to be the biggest loser if the project failed.

Read the full story here.

Declaration Of Assets:Keeping The Lid On The Pandora's Box

Hantu Laut

The Prime Minister should not buckle to some of the opposition's ridiculous demands.

Ministers should only declare their assets to the PM and no one else.To declare assets to MACC is ridiculous and dangerous, particularly, to those who has substantial liquid assets.Should there be a leak of confidentiality it would be more difficult to trace from which source the leak came from.

If the state of Penang wanted to implement this stupid idea to show off, let them be.It is just a political ploy to hoodwink the people that they would be better government.

I have seen what happened in the Philippines and Indonesia.Every succeeding government that promised to end corruption helped themselves to the same thing.Malaysia, believe me, is not going be different, it's likely to be even worse, we'll have a whole new collection of hungry crocodiles.

I have not heard of any country demanding minister's family and relatives to declare their assets. This is another absurd and stupid idea. Some ministers may already have some substantially rich family members that would make it very uncomfortable and unsafe to disclose their wealth to others.Kidnapping for ransom is still a lucrative trade in this country.Junior civil servants have been know to sell information for money.Do not rule out the probability of this happening.

There are many ways one can hide one's ill gotten gains and the crooks would know how to work the system to their advantage.It would be pointless to legislate law that would soon be redundant.

It falls on the MACC to investigate any minister or civil servant suspected of corruptions, on a case to case basis.The MACC argument is deeply flawed and an attempt to make live easier for them.If such proposal is put into practice than the MACC would have no investigative work to do. They would just have to compare notes without any serious effort to investigate the case thoroughly.

MACC can always request copy of asset's declaration from the PM's office on any minister suspected of corrupt practices.Declaration of assets by cabinet ministers to the prime minister has always been in practice.

I do not agree with former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir, Chua Soi Lek and Mukhriz Mahathir on their support of the proposal.

Only office holder should declare assets. The practice of requiring minister's family to declare assets would seal the Pandora's box even more tightly.Crooked ministers would find other avenues to stash their ill gotten gains making investigation even more difficult.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice/Racism

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.Read more.

Do you believe in the finding.Let's hear from you.