And, judging by the developments last night, Muhyiddin has agreed to these terms and conditions. And that signal of his agreement was when Muhyiddin fired his first shot at Najib. So, over the next week or so, we should be seeing Dr Mahathir remove the suspense by openly endorsing Muhyiddin as Najib’s successor.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
It was not a matter of if but more a matter of when Muhyiddin would start shooting. If Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin wants to take over as Prime Minister when Najib Tun Razak is ousted — if he is successfully ousted, that is — then he has to earn that job. It is not going to be served to him on a silver platter.
That was basically the same term and condition that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad gave both Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Najib when the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics made his move to oust Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi nine years ago.
Dr Mahathir wanted Najib to make his move on Abdullah and openly challenge the Prime Minister. But Najib would not. Instead, Najib openly pledged his support for the Prime Minister and this pissed Dr Mahathir off big time.
Since Najib would not earn the job by taking on Abdullah, then he was not going to become Prime Minister. Dr Mahathir was not going to serve Najib the post of Prime Minister on a silver platter. Najib must work for it if he wanted that job.
So Dr Mahathir decided to by-pass Najib and talk to Tengku Razaleigh instead. But there was just too much history between Dr Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh that it was not easy to wash away all that bad blood. Hence Tengku Razaleigh, too, would have to earn that job.
And the way Tengku Razaleigh would have to earn the job of Prime Minister would be he would have to agree to the setting up of a presidential council that would ‘guide’ him on how the country would be run.
Tengku Razaleigh saw this as a move to make him a proxy prime minister with a de facto prime minister that would pull all the strings behind the scenes. In short, he would be a nominee or puppet of Dr Mahathir. So he said no. If he were to become the prime minister then he would call the shots and decide what to do. No one was going to make him a puppet prime minister.
With Tengku Razaleigh’s rejection, Dr Mahathir dumped him and went back to Najib. But Najib would have to agree to proceed with the Crooked Bridge to Singapore plus a few other terms and conditions that involved his son, Mukhriz, and Proton — making sure the government continues to support the ailing national car and not allow it to die.
But Najib did not do what Dr Mahathir made him promise to do. And, to add insult to injury, Najib went and appointed Khairy Jamaluddin a cabinet minister — instead of killing off his political career — thus putting an obstacle in Mukhriz’s way.
So, while everyone knows that Dr Mahathir wants Najib ousted — that is not a secret because Dr Mahathir has openly said so — he did not make it clear who is going to be the one who is going to take over as prime minister. He left the matter of the successor in suspense.
It could be Muhyiddin or it could be someone else. However, if Muhyiddin wants the job, then he has to earn it. It is not going to be given to him free-of-charge. And to earn it Muhyiddin must openly challenge Najib. And then he must agree to become a proxy prime minister with a de facto prime minister behind him running the country.
And, judging by the developments last night, Muhyiddin has agreed to these terms and conditions. And that signal of his agreement was when Muhyiddin fired his first shot at Najib. So, over the next week or so, we should be seeing Dr Mahathir remove the suspense by openly endorsing Muhyiddin as Najib’s successor.
Showing posts with label Raja Petra Kamarudin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Raja Petra Kamarudin. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2015
RPK's blocked article: Je suis Nazir
And is this what Nazir is suggesting? If so then je suis Nazir. Let us explain to those who believe in God that there is no evidence that God exists and the many religions that we fight and kill each other over are downright lies and did not come from a non-existent God.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
(Malay Mail Online, 26 July 2015) – Datuk Seri Nazir Razak said today that he was not standing up for The Edge in particular when he criticised the suspension of the business papers, but for freedom of expression.
“It’s not for those people,” said Nazir, who is CIMB Group chairman and brother of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, referring to The Edge.
“What am I standing for? Freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, that is all,” he told reporters after attending an Aidilfitri open house organised by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
*************************************************
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s brother, Nazir, supports freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. He has criticised the three-month suspension of The Edge, not so much because he agrees with what that newspaper wrote but more to defend its right to say what they said.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” said Voltaire, the 17th-18th century French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher who was famous for his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state.
I would say, “Je suis Nazir.” It is time that Malaysians understood and accept the meaning of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. In a civil society there should no longer be any sacred cows that are out of bounds from comment and criticism. We should be free to express our thoughts and views.
I find that Malays are not the only community that takes offense with views that run contra to their beliefs. Chinese, Indians and all the others are just the same. If you say something that contradicts their belief they would take it as a challenge and an insult. You are free to express your view as long as it is not seen as challenging their view.
Whenever I give my view on Christianity the Christians would accuse me of insulting Christianity and would demand to know why am I attacking their religion. Just like the Malays, any view that contradicts their own would be seen as an insult and an attack. And any contradicting view on Islam may even attract a violent and physical response in some countries.
I consider Christianity a lie and I have said so many times. And Christians do not like me saying this. I have explained in the past why I think Christianity is a lie so no need for me to repeat it here. Suffice to say that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed other than the so-called ‘evidence’ in the Gospels, and even then only in the New Testament.
There were scores of historians around that period who reported all sorts of events of that time but none reported the story of Jesus. And considering, according to the Bible, it was definitely an earth-shattering event, then surely at least one historian would have reported what can be considered a very important event in those days.
However, none of the famous historians mention Jesus although they mention so many other even lesser events of the day. And even those one or two historians who were alleged to have made a passing remark about Jesus have been debunked as fakes and forgeries.
So, if you go by historical records outside the Gospels, Jesus did not exist. And if Jesus did not exist then the Bible and Christianity could not exist as well. Christianity was a fabrication over hundreds of years, created as a political tool and a means to control the population. It did not come from God.
Freedom of opinion and expression means you must be allowed to say this without being threatened or accused of insulting Christianity or of attacking religion. Disagreeing is the very essence of freedom of opinion and expression. And if you have grounds for having the opposite view then you must be allowed to express them.
This principle does not only apply to Christianity. It applies to all religions, Islam included. Did the Qur’an really come from God or Allah? Was the Qur’an even Arabic in the first place or was it written in some other language that was ‘Arabised’ over the centuries?
Is the inscription in the Dome of the Rock really ‘Islamic’ or does it actually refer to Jesus? A reinterpretation of the inscription could point to Jesus rather than Muhammad because muhammad with a small ‘m’ would mean Jesus. Read that inscription again with muhammad as an adjective rather than a proper noun and see what you get.
These are views that some people hold. And these views suggest that not only Christianity does not exist but Islam does not as well. But because Islam and Muhammad are sacred cows that attract a violent and physical response, people do not want to bother talking about their views.
However, if we want a society where freedom of opinion and expression are paramount, then it has to be no holds barred. The principle should be, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
And is this what Nazir is suggesting? If so then je suis Nazir. Let us explain to those who believe in God that there is no evidence that God exists and the many religions that we fight and kill each other over are downright lies and did not come from a non-existent God.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
(Malay Mail Online, 26 July 2015) – Datuk Seri Nazir Razak said today that he was not standing up for The Edge in particular when he criticised the suspension of the business papers, but for freedom of expression.
“It’s not for those people,” said Nazir, who is CIMB Group chairman and brother of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, referring to The Edge.
“What am I standing for? Freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, that is all,” he told reporters after attending an Aidilfitri open house organised by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
*************************************************
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s brother, Nazir, supports freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. He has criticised the three-month suspension of The Edge, not so much because he agrees with what that newspaper wrote but more to defend its right to say what they said.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” said Voltaire, the 17th-18th century French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher who was famous for his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state.
I would say, “Je suis Nazir.” It is time that Malaysians understood and accept the meaning of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. In a civil society there should no longer be any sacred cows that are out of bounds from comment and criticism. We should be free to express our thoughts and views.
I find that Malays are not the only community that takes offense with views that run contra to their beliefs. Chinese, Indians and all the others are just the same. If you say something that contradicts their belief they would take it as a challenge and an insult. You are free to express your view as long as it is not seen as challenging their view.
Whenever I give my view on Christianity the Christians would accuse me of insulting Christianity and would demand to know why am I attacking their religion. Just like the Malays, any view that contradicts their own would be seen as an insult and an attack. And any contradicting view on Islam may even attract a violent and physical response in some countries.
I consider Christianity a lie and I have said so many times. And Christians do not like me saying this. I have explained in the past why I think Christianity is a lie so no need for me to repeat it here. Suffice to say that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed other than the so-called ‘evidence’ in the Gospels, and even then only in the New Testament.
There were scores of historians around that period who reported all sorts of events of that time but none reported the story of Jesus. And considering, according to the Bible, it was definitely an earth-shattering event, then surely at least one historian would have reported what can be considered a very important event in those days.
However, none of the famous historians mention Jesus although they mention so many other even lesser events of the day. And even those one or two historians who were alleged to have made a passing remark about Jesus have been debunked as fakes and forgeries.
So, if you go by historical records outside the Gospels, Jesus did not exist. And if Jesus did not exist then the Bible and Christianity could not exist as well. Christianity was a fabrication over hundreds of years, created as a political tool and a means to control the population. It did not come from God.
Freedom of opinion and expression means you must be allowed to say this without being threatened or accused of insulting Christianity or of attacking religion. Disagreeing is the very essence of freedom of opinion and expression. And if you have grounds for having the opposite view then you must be allowed to express them.
This principle does not only apply to Christianity. It applies to all religions, Islam included. Did the Qur’an really come from God or Allah? Was the Qur’an even Arabic in the first place or was it written in some other language that was ‘Arabised’ over the centuries?
Is the inscription in the Dome of the Rock really ‘Islamic’ or does it actually refer to Jesus? A reinterpretation of the inscription could point to Jesus rather than Muhammad because muhammad with a small ‘m’ would mean Jesus. Read that inscription again with muhammad as an adjective rather than a proper noun and see what you get.
These are views that some people hold. And these views suggest that not only Christianity does not exist but Islam does not as well. But because Islam and Muhammad are sacred cows that attract a violent and physical response, people do not want to bother talking about their views.
However, if we want a society where freedom of opinion and expression are paramount, then it has to be no holds barred. The principle should be, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
And is this what Nazir is suggesting? If so then je suis Nazir. Let us explain to those who believe in God that there is no evidence that God exists and the many religions that we fight and kill each other over are downright lies and did not come from a non-existent God.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Rosli Dahlan - what UMNO/BN wants to hide from you
Raja Petra is at it again, exposing hidden dirt. In this case, Rosli's Dahlan affidavit and court testimony. Read all about it at Why is the court trying to block Rosli from giving his statement?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Dr. Mahathir promised Chinese & Indians NEP to end in 1990
According to RPK (Raja Petra Kamarudin) who was then a member of the Malay Chamber of Commerce and thus should know what he is talking about, and later one of the Chamber’s central committee members, this was what Mahathir Mohamad said in 1982: “We promised the Chinese and Indians that the NEP would end in 1990. So we have to keep our promise and end it in 1990. So the Malays had better be ready to stand on their own feet without any government protection.”
Read rest of article:
Read rest of article:
Dear Khairy
NO HOLDS BARRED
We can stop questioning the Bumiputera equity target, as what you asked us to do. But how are we going to ensure that we reach that 30% target unless you can find a way to stop the Malays from selling what the government gives them and then secretly transferring the money overseas to buy property or to save in foreign bank accounts?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dear Khairy,
How are you? It’s been a long time since we last met and shared a cigar. I don’t know whether you ever make it to this part of the world but in the event you do please look me up and maybe we could shoot the breeze and have a drink or something like that. Smoking cigars is quite difficult here unless you do so outside because the UK no longer allows smoking inside the pubs or bars. However, unless we do that in summer we will find that extremely uncomfortable.
Anyway, what I want to talk to you about is your comment yesterday that no one should question the Bumiputera equity target. It is strange that you should say this because back in 1976 we too said the same. Oh, and was not 1976 the same year you were born? That means when you first emerged from your mother’s womb and first saw the light of day as a squealing newly-born baby we said exactly what, today, you are saying: don’t question the Bumiputera equity target.
I was then already 26 years old and a member of the Malay Chamber of Commerce. Later, I went on to become one of the Chamber’s central committee members. So, back when you first emerged into this world we were already fighting for what only today you are fighting for.
To be honest, however, we did question the Bumiputera equity target. You can, in fact, find my many kertas kerja (working papers) in the Malay Chamber library and archives, unless they have all been thrown away. Some of these kertas kerja were also compiled and published into books. Yes, while you were still in diapers and being breastfed (or maybe bottle-fed) by your mother we were already cracking our heads, pondering on how to help the Malays.
Now, when I say we did question the Bumiputera equity target, we did not question it from the point of view of whether it should be retained or removed. No, this would be a treacherous act because the Malays needed our help and even the Chinese and Indians agreed so. We questioned it from the point of view of it being 30%.
“Why 30%?” we asked. And may I remind you that we asked this question during the time you were born.
“Who set the figure at 30%?” we wanted to know -- although we suspected your father-in-law, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, may either know the answer or had a hand in it, seeing that he was the Secretary of the NOC at that time (so maybe the next time you have a family sit down you can pose this question and see what he says).
“Since Bumiputeras represent 60% of the country’s population why not the equity target be fixed at 60% instead of 30%?” we argued -- and no one could enlighten us and tell us why.
Finally, they admitted that 30% appeared to be a good figure and was sort of plucked from the top of the head. If it had been only 10% then the Malays would have complained that it is too low while if it had been 60% then the non-Malays would complain it is too high. So, 30% appeared to be a good and compromising figure, which both the Malays and non-Malays may not quarrel with.
In other words, we were told that there was no formula. No one sat down to work out the arithmetic and the end result of that calculation or formula revealed that 30% must be that target. It was just a convenient figure that some thought would be acceptable to all sides without a quarrel.
“But is 30% achievable?” we asked. Well, came the reply, it is just a target. It is not law. It is merely an aspiration (hasrat). We will try to work towards that figure but whether we achieve 30% or not is not as important as we have a target to aim for so that we know where we are heading.
Fair enough. We could accept that. So there is really no basis for it being 30%. It is just that 10% or 60% may upset one group or the other and that 30% is a middle-of-the-road or compromise that both sides can agree with without a quarrel. And while there is no formula for it being 30% or any guarantee that we can meet this 30% it at least allows us a target to aim for. And 30% is as good as any figure to aim for.
Another ten years passed. And by 1986 -- which by then you were ten years old and probably in standard three -- we again sat down to review the achievement (pancapaian) of this 30% and found that the target of 30% had not been met. We were told by the then Deputy Prime Minister that the pancapaian was only 19% or so.
This got us worried. We remembered the new Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (then Datuk Seri), warning us merely four years or so earlier that the NEP would not go on forever and that by 1990 the NEP would end. “We promised the Chinese and Indians that the NEP would end in 1990,” said Dr Mahathir. “So we have to keep our promise and end it in 1990. So the Malays had better be ready to stand on their own feet without any government protection.”
I must admit that I too panicked. We called for a meeting of all Malay businessmen to discuss this matter. 1990 was not that far away. If the pancapaian is only 19% and if the NEP is going to end in 1990, what are the Malays going to do?
As I said, you were then still only in primary school. At that age you probably did not worry about all this and for sure would not have panicked like we did.
We decided to hold a two-day seminar at the Shangrila Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where we invited both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to attend. We whacked Umno and the government. We whacked what we called the Umnoputeras (Umno people who kill other Bumiputeras). We whacked the trust agencies (such as Pernas, SEDC, etc.) that compete with Bumiputera businesses by using unfair and dirty tactics, and more.
I even whacked Bank Bumiputera Malaysia Berhad (BBMB) in my working paper and called BBMB ‘Bank Buat Melayu Bankrupt’. Basir was so angry he cancelled my RM5.7 million banking facilities and gave me 14 days to pay back all my outstanding balances in full -- plus I was blacklisted by the Ministry of Finance and barred from getting any further government contracts (you can talk to Idris Tulis about this because he and Izat Emir, etc., were two of the many victims of BBMB).
But nothing much happened after that because the entire world was in recession and the government could not help itself, let alone help the Bumiputeras. In fact, even the Chinese suffered and some such as Tan Koon Swan even went to jail.
This brought us to 1990 when the NEP was supposed to officially end. We were devastated. The 19% figure of 1986 was still 19% by 1990. This was mainly because of the long mid-1980s recession. So everything stagnated. What do we do?
We then decided to hold the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress and at the same time invite the government leaders to this congress so that the leaders and we can jointly ponder on this matter and consider how we could jointly solve the problems of the Malays. Of course, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and entire Cabinet would be invited.
We were then summoned by Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamid, the KSN, to attend a meeting in his office, which we did. Ahmad Sarji told us that Dr Mahathir had agreed to attend the congress but he insists that the government take over the organising of the congress instead of attending it as a mere guest. Furthermore, we were told, Dr Mahathir wants to invite the non-Malays to attend the congress.
We protested. How can non-Malays be invited to a Malay congress? There may be some very nasty things said during the congress and what would the non-Malays feel if they were present and heard all this?
Never mind, Ahmad Sarji said. It is good that the non-Malays attend so that they can hear what we say. This will give them an idea of how the Malays feel. This will also allow the non-Malays to participate in the debates so that they too can suggest how to assist the government in overcoming the problem of the Malays. Anyway, said Ahmad Sarji, the Prime Minister has made up his mind and this matter is not open for negotiations.
Reluctantly we had to agree because, as you know, once Dr Mahathir has made up his mind there is no turning back. And the congress was held with the participation of the non-Malays and with the government as co-organisers.
We lamented about the 19% pencapaian of the Bumiputeras and how, now that the NEP has ended, we will never see it touch 30%. The Minister of Trade, Rafidah Aziz, and Minister of Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, even argued on stage in front of the entire audience. It was actually quite embarrassing to see two senior ministers arguing on stage in front of all of us who sat there dumbfounded.
“The trouble with the Malays is that they are dayamaju (viable) but not dayatahan (resilient),” Rafidah chided us. “You can’t blame the government if the pancapaian is only 19% and not 30%,” screamed Rafidah. “It is the fault of the Malays and not the government,” Rafidah said.
Rafidah then explained that the government had given many Malays shares, permits, quotas, contracts, etc. The problem is, once the shares go up, the Malays sell them. If the Malays had retained or kept all the shares the government gave them, then it would be 30% instead of 19%. In fact, it may even be more than 30%.
We had no choice but to admit defeat. Rafidah was right. In fact, I too am guilty of exactly what Rafidah had said we Malays normally do. So how could we dispute what she said? Many Malays sell the shares the government gave them and secretly transfer the money overseas to buy property all over the world.
If you include all the overseas property and cash in foreign banks that the Malays own, and if you add this to their equity holdings, then we could probably see the figure touch more than 30%. But then if you ignore the overseas assets and cash of the Malays and just look at their shares in Malaysian companies, it would appear like the Malays own only 19% instead of 30%, or probably more.
There is hardly any successful or elite Malay who does not own property or cash outside Malaysia. And most of these are undeclared. So it does not reflect in the 19%. If it did then it would not be 19% but much more. It may even be more than 30%.
Realising that most of us are guilty of doing what Rafidah said we are doing, we decided to let the matter rest. The only way to establish whether the Bumiputera wealth is really 19%, or 30%, or maybe even 40%, we would need to declare all our hidden assets overseas, which no one was prepared to do.
Of course, there is one way we can solve this. And this would be whenever shares are issued to Malays you stamp it ‘non-transferable without government permission’. And even then if permission is granted the shares can only be sold to another Malay and not to a non-Malay.
In other words, these shares would be ‘Malay reservation shares’ just like how we have ‘Malay reservation land’. Therefore, just like in the case of Malay reservation land, shares allocated to Malays can only be sold to another Malay and to no one else.
But then the Malays do not want this. Malay reservation land is very much lower in value compared to freehold land because only Malays can buy Malay reservation land. If the land can be sold to non-Malays then the land value is so much higher. And this would be the same for ‘Malay reservation shares’ that can only be sold to Malays and not to non-Malays.
There would also be the problem of the stock exchange listing. There will be two sets of shares quoted on the stock exchange. The ‘freehold’ shares will be quoted at one price, which will be higher, and the ‘Malay reservation’ shares will be quoted at another price, which is lower.
Now, what happens when a RM1.00 share, which is 'freehold', is quoted at RM10.00 per share on the stock exchange while the ‘Malay reservation’ share is quoted at only RM0.80? The Chinese would make millions while the Malays would lose their pants. I, for one, would never buy a ‘Malay reservation’ share but would rather buy shares that can be sold freely on the market at a much higher price.
The important thing, however, is that once shares are issued to Malays they are 'frozen' and cannot be sold unless to another Malay. This would ensure that the 30% target can be achieved and Malays will forever own those shares. But the shares will hardly be worth more than the issue price and at times maybe even less than the issue price. But if the 30% target is the main issue then this would address the issue although in terms of real wealth there would not be much to shout about.
So you see, dear Khairy, at around the time you were born we already discussed this matter at great length. And the best brains in Malaysia at that time were not able to find a solution. We can stop questioning the Bumiputera equity target, as what you asked us to do. But how are we going to ensure that we reach that 30% target unless you can find a way to stop the Malays from selling what the government gives them and then secretly transferring the money overseas to buy property or to save in foreign bank accounts?
And please don’t say this is not happening. It is. In fact, your own family does it as well -- as do many of my Malay friends, most of whom you too personally know.
Dear Khairy, let me assure you that I will support any move of yours to address this Malay problem. But, as we discussed back in 1976 when you were first born, we need to find a solution on how to enlarge the cake so that there is more to go around and not on how to steal other people’s cake. And we also need to solve the problem of how the Malays can keep the cake and not eat it because once you eat the cake it will be gone. You just can’t eat your cake and have it as well.
I trust your Oxford education will not go to waste and that you can use the wisdom you have gained in Oxford to find a solution to a problem that many of the best brains in Malaysia were not able to solve since the day you were born back in 1976.
Yours truly,
Raja Petra Kamarudin
PS. I have some Cuban cigars in stock and will wait to meet you in London before I smoke them.
NO HOLDS BARRED
We can stop questioning the Bumiputera equity target, as what you asked us to do. But how are we going to ensure that we reach that 30% target unless you can find a way to stop the Malays from selling what the government gives them and then secretly transferring the money overseas to buy property or to save in foreign bank accounts?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dear Khairy,
How are you? It’s been a long time since we last met and shared a cigar. I don’t know whether you ever make it to this part of the world but in the event you do please look me up and maybe we could shoot the breeze and have a drink or something like that. Smoking cigars is quite difficult here unless you do so outside because the UK no longer allows smoking inside the pubs or bars. However, unless we do that in summer we will find that extremely uncomfortable.
Anyway, what I want to talk to you about is your comment yesterday that no one should question the Bumiputera equity target. It is strange that you should say this because back in 1976 we too said the same. Oh, and was not 1976 the same year you were born? That means when you first emerged from your mother’s womb and first saw the light of day as a squealing newly-born baby we said exactly what, today, you are saying: don’t question the Bumiputera equity target.
I was then already 26 years old and a member of the Malay Chamber of Commerce. Later, I went on to become one of the Chamber’s central committee members. So, back when you first emerged into this world we were already fighting for what only today you are fighting for.
To be honest, however, we did question the Bumiputera equity target. You can, in fact, find my many kertas kerja (working papers) in the Malay Chamber library and archives, unless they have all been thrown away. Some of these kertas kerja were also compiled and published into books. Yes, while you were still in diapers and being breastfed (or maybe bottle-fed) by your mother we were already cracking our heads, pondering on how to help the Malays.
Now, when I say we did question the Bumiputera equity target, we did not question it from the point of view of whether it should be retained or removed. No, this would be a treacherous act because the Malays needed our help and even the Chinese and Indians agreed so. We questioned it from the point of view of it being 30%.
“Why 30%?” we asked. And may I remind you that we asked this question during the time you were born.
“Who set the figure at 30%?” we wanted to know -- although we suspected your father-in-law, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, may either know the answer or had a hand in it, seeing that he was the Secretary of the NOC at that time (so maybe the next time you have a family sit down you can pose this question and see what he says).
“Since Bumiputeras represent 60% of the country’s population why not the equity target be fixed at 60% instead of 30%?” we argued -- and no one could enlighten us and tell us why.
Finally, they admitted that 30% appeared to be a good figure and was sort of plucked from the top of the head. If it had been only 10% then the Malays would have complained that it is too low while if it had been 60% then the non-Malays would complain it is too high. So, 30% appeared to be a good and compromising figure, which both the Malays and non-Malays may not quarrel with.
In other words, we were told that there was no formula. No one sat down to work out the arithmetic and the end result of that calculation or formula revealed that 30% must be that target. It was just a convenient figure that some thought would be acceptable to all sides without a quarrel.
“But is 30% achievable?” we asked. Well, came the reply, it is just a target. It is not law. It is merely an aspiration (hasrat). We will try to work towards that figure but whether we achieve 30% or not is not as important as we have a target to aim for so that we know where we are heading.
Fair enough. We could accept that. So there is really no basis for it being 30%. It is just that 10% or 60% may upset one group or the other and that 30% is a middle-of-the-road or compromise that both sides can agree with without a quarrel. And while there is no formula for it being 30% or any guarantee that we can meet this 30% it at least allows us a target to aim for. And 30% is as good as any figure to aim for.
Another ten years passed. And by 1986 -- which by then you were ten years old and probably in standard three -- we again sat down to review the achievement (pancapaian) of this 30% and found that the target of 30% had not been met. We were told by the then Deputy Prime Minister that the pancapaian was only 19% or so.
This got us worried. We remembered the new Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (then Datuk Seri), warning us merely four years or so earlier that the NEP would not go on forever and that by 1990 the NEP would end. “We promised the Chinese and Indians that the NEP would end in 1990,” said Dr Mahathir. “So we have to keep our promise and end it in 1990. So the Malays had better be ready to stand on their own feet without any government protection.”
I must admit that I too panicked. We called for a meeting of all Malay businessmen to discuss this matter. 1990 was not that far away. If the pancapaian is only 19% and if the NEP is going to end in 1990, what are the Malays going to do?
As I said, you were then still only in primary school. At that age you probably did not worry about all this and for sure would not have panicked like we did.
We decided to hold a two-day seminar at the Shangrila Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where we invited both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to attend. We whacked Umno and the government. We whacked what we called the Umnoputeras (Umno people who kill other Bumiputeras). We whacked the trust agencies (such as Pernas, SEDC, etc.) that compete with Bumiputera businesses by using unfair and dirty tactics, and more.
I even whacked Bank Bumiputera Malaysia Berhad (BBMB) in my working paper and called BBMB ‘Bank Buat Melayu Bankrupt’. Basir was so angry he cancelled my RM5.7 million banking facilities and gave me 14 days to pay back all my outstanding balances in full -- plus I was blacklisted by the Ministry of Finance and barred from getting any further government contracts (you can talk to Idris Tulis about this because he and Izat Emir, etc., were two of the many victims of BBMB).
But nothing much happened after that because the entire world was in recession and the government could not help itself, let alone help the Bumiputeras. In fact, even the Chinese suffered and some such as Tan Koon Swan even went to jail.
This brought us to 1990 when the NEP was supposed to officially end. We were devastated. The 19% figure of 1986 was still 19% by 1990. This was mainly because of the long mid-1980s recession. So everything stagnated. What do we do?
We then decided to hold the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress and at the same time invite the government leaders to this congress so that the leaders and we can jointly ponder on this matter and consider how we could jointly solve the problems of the Malays. Of course, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and entire Cabinet would be invited.
We were then summoned by Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamid, the KSN, to attend a meeting in his office, which we did. Ahmad Sarji told us that Dr Mahathir had agreed to attend the congress but he insists that the government take over the organising of the congress instead of attending it as a mere guest. Furthermore, we were told, Dr Mahathir wants to invite the non-Malays to attend the congress.
We protested. How can non-Malays be invited to a Malay congress? There may be some very nasty things said during the congress and what would the non-Malays feel if they were present and heard all this?
Never mind, Ahmad Sarji said. It is good that the non-Malays attend so that they can hear what we say. This will give them an idea of how the Malays feel. This will also allow the non-Malays to participate in the debates so that they too can suggest how to assist the government in overcoming the problem of the Malays. Anyway, said Ahmad Sarji, the Prime Minister has made up his mind and this matter is not open for negotiations.
Reluctantly we had to agree because, as you know, once Dr Mahathir has made up his mind there is no turning back. And the congress was held with the participation of the non-Malays and with the government as co-organisers.
We lamented about the 19% pencapaian of the Bumiputeras and how, now that the NEP has ended, we will never see it touch 30%. The Minister of Trade, Rafidah Aziz, and Minister of Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, even argued on stage in front of the entire audience. It was actually quite embarrassing to see two senior ministers arguing on stage in front of all of us who sat there dumbfounded.
“The trouble with the Malays is that they are dayamaju (viable) but not dayatahan (resilient),” Rafidah chided us. “You can’t blame the government if the pancapaian is only 19% and not 30%,” screamed Rafidah. “It is the fault of the Malays and not the government,” Rafidah said.
Rafidah then explained that the government had given many Malays shares, permits, quotas, contracts, etc. The problem is, once the shares go up, the Malays sell them. If the Malays had retained or kept all the shares the government gave them, then it would be 30% instead of 19%. In fact, it may even be more than 30%.
We had no choice but to admit defeat. Rafidah was right. In fact, I too am guilty of exactly what Rafidah had said we Malays normally do. So how could we dispute what she said? Many Malays sell the shares the government gave them and secretly transfer the money overseas to buy property all over the world.
If you include all the overseas property and cash in foreign banks that the Malays own, and if you add this to their equity holdings, then we could probably see the figure touch more than 30%. But then if you ignore the overseas assets and cash of the Malays and just look at their shares in Malaysian companies, it would appear like the Malays own only 19% instead of 30%, or probably more.
There is hardly any successful or elite Malay who does not own property or cash outside Malaysia. And most of these are undeclared. So it does not reflect in the 19%. If it did then it would not be 19% but much more. It may even be more than 30%.
Realising that most of us are guilty of doing what Rafidah said we are doing, we decided to let the matter rest. The only way to establish whether the Bumiputera wealth is really 19%, or 30%, or maybe even 40%, we would need to declare all our hidden assets overseas, which no one was prepared to do.
Of course, there is one way we can solve this. And this would be whenever shares are issued to Malays you stamp it ‘non-transferable without government permission’. And even then if permission is granted the shares can only be sold to another Malay and not to a non-Malay.
In other words, these shares would be ‘Malay reservation shares’ just like how we have ‘Malay reservation land’. Therefore, just like in the case of Malay reservation land, shares allocated to Malays can only be sold to another Malay and to no one else.
But then the Malays do not want this. Malay reservation land is very much lower in value compared to freehold land because only Malays can buy Malay reservation land. If the land can be sold to non-Malays then the land value is so much higher. And this would be the same for ‘Malay reservation shares’ that can only be sold to Malays and not to non-Malays.
There would also be the problem of the stock exchange listing. There will be two sets of shares quoted on the stock exchange. The ‘freehold’ shares will be quoted at one price, which will be higher, and the ‘Malay reservation’ shares will be quoted at another price, which is lower.
Now, what happens when a RM1.00 share, which is 'freehold', is quoted at RM10.00 per share on the stock exchange while the ‘Malay reservation’ share is quoted at only RM0.80? The Chinese would make millions while the Malays would lose their pants. I, for one, would never buy a ‘Malay reservation’ share but would rather buy shares that can be sold freely on the market at a much higher price.
The important thing, however, is that once shares are issued to Malays they are 'frozen' and cannot be sold unless to another Malay. This would ensure that the 30% target can be achieved and Malays will forever own those shares. But the shares will hardly be worth more than the issue price and at times maybe even less than the issue price. But if the 30% target is the main issue then this would address the issue although in terms of real wealth there would not be much to shout about.
So you see, dear Khairy, at around the time you were born we already discussed this matter at great length. And the best brains in Malaysia at that time were not able to find a solution. We can stop questioning the Bumiputera equity target, as what you asked us to do. But how are we going to ensure that we reach that 30% target unless you can find a way to stop the Malays from selling what the government gives them and then secretly transferring the money overseas to buy property or to save in foreign bank accounts?
And please don’t say this is not happening. It is. In fact, your own family does it as well -- as do many of my Malay friends, most of whom you too personally know.
Dear Khairy, let me assure you that I will support any move of yours to address this Malay problem. But, as we discussed back in 1976 when you were first born, we need to find a solution on how to enlarge the cake so that there is more to go around and not on how to steal other people’s cake. And we also need to solve the problem of how the Malays can keep the cake and not eat it because once you eat the cake it will be gone. You just can’t eat your cake and have it as well.
I trust your Oxford education will not go to waste and that you can use the wisdom you have gained in Oxford to find a solution to a problem that many of the best brains in Malaysia were not able to solve since the day you were born back in 1976.
Yours truly,
Raja Petra Kamarudin
PS. I have some Cuban cigars in stock and will wait to meet you in London before I smoke them.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Protest BBC Hardtalk canning RPK Interview
All of us had been looking forward to viewing the much anticipated interview of RPK (Raja Petra Kamaruddin) on BBC News Hardtalk but the interview had been cancelled seemingly for being potentially defamatory because issues to be discussed impact ongoing court cases in Malaysia. If that is true, the issue should not be defamation but more accurately being subjudice. The fact that BBC News got it wrong probably point to their excuse being not very credible.
If you feel strongly about this cancellation, do make a complaint over at BBC Complaints form
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
RPK interview at BBC Hardtalk September 1 2010
Raja Petra Kamarudin interview with BBC Hardtalk will be aired on 1st September 2010 at 3pm UK time which is 10pm Malaysia time.
PLEASE TUNE IN TO BBC HARDTALK SEPT 1ST.
YOUR FAVOURITE BOY RPK WILL BE INTERVIEWED AT 3PM UK TIME - MALAYSIAN TIME 10 PM.
HOPE HE WILL BE IN CHARACTER AND GOOD FORM, TO LET RIP.
PLEASE TUNE IN TO BBC HARDTALK SEPT 1ST.
YOUR FAVOURITE BOY RPK WILL BE INTERVIEWED AT 3PM UK TIME - MALAYSIAN TIME 10 PM.
HOPE HE WILL BE IN CHARACTER AND GOOD FORM, TO LET RIP.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
God's retribution: Reap what you sow - RPK
RPK's (Raja Petra Kamaruddin) latest post: In case you doubt the existence of God:
M. Mohan - assistant superintendent with the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC): Arrested lawyer Rosli Dahlan roughly just before Hari Raya to humiliate him plus handcuffed him roughly. See what happened to him: charged in the Sessions Court with bribery involving RM250,000.
RPK said (5th February 2008): "The police officer who was trying to fix me up is now in trouble himself. ASP Sydney Clyde Jeremiah has subpoenaed my lawyer, J. Chandra, to act as the prosecution’s witness, which means Chandra can no longer appear in court during my trial. At the last hearing, the prosecution, in fact, objected to Chandra’s presence in court and asked that he be removed. Well, my hunter is now the hunted, courtesy of divine intervention."
Ummi Hafilda Ali: Ummi’s father disowns her and dies of a broken heart (Ummi still alive to suffer the humiliation)
Azizan Abu Bakar, 39, who has accused Anwar of sodomising him, caught public attention again when he immediately married the partner he was caught with (khalwat), Norhayati Saad, three days later.
Former Deputy Home Minister Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayub passed away at 5.25am Thursday at the Pantai Medical Centre in Kuala Lumpur. He was 65.
Federal Court judge Datuk Seri S. Augustine Paul who shot to prominence for presiding over Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s 1998 corruption case, died of an undisclosed ailment (I believe it was cancer). He was 64.
M. Mohan - assistant superintendent with the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC): Arrested lawyer Rosli Dahlan roughly just before Hari Raya to humiliate him plus handcuffed him roughly. See what happened to him: charged in the Sessions Court with bribery involving RM250,000.
RPK said (5th February 2008): "The police officer who was trying to fix me up is now in trouble himself. ASP Sydney Clyde Jeremiah has subpoenaed my lawyer, J. Chandra, to act as the prosecution’s witness, which means Chandra can no longer appear in court during my trial. At the last hearing, the prosecution, in fact, objected to Chandra’s presence in court and asked that he be removed. Well, my hunter is now the hunted, courtesy of divine intervention."
Ummi Hafilda Ali: Ummi’s father disowns her and dies of a broken heart (Ummi still alive to suffer the humiliation)
Azizan Abu Bakar, 39, who has accused Anwar of sodomising him, caught public attention again when he immediately married the partner he was caught with (khalwat), Norhayati Saad, three days later.
Former Deputy Home Minister Tan Sri Megat Junid Megat Ayub passed away at 5.25am Thursday at the Pantai Medical Centre in Kuala Lumpur. He was 65.
Federal Court judge Datuk Seri S. Augustine Paul who shot to prominence for presiding over Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s 1998 corruption case, died of an undisclosed ailment (I believe it was cancer). He was 64.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)