How should we judge a government?

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X

In Malaysia, if you don't watch television or read newspapers, you are uninformed; but if you do, you are misinformed!

Why we should be against censorship: Publicity is the very soul of justice … it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial. - Jeremy Bentham

"Our government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. " - Ronald Reagan

Government fed by the people

Government fed by the people

Career options

Career options

Prevent bullying now!

Prevent bullying now!
If you're not going to speak up, how is the world supposed to know you exist? “Orang boleh pandai setinggi langit, tapi selama ia tidak menulis, ia akan hilang di dalam masyarakat dan dari sejarah.” - Ananta Prameodya Toer (Your intellect may soar to the sky but if you do not write, you will be lost from society and to history.)

MyCen News

Thursday, February 26, 2015

How can there be a 'big and fat female pigeon strutting along Jobstreet' ?(Cantonese: 'tai chek kap nah chui kai thiu')?

Read a report somewhere about Jobstreet Corp Bhd's Rm1.961 billion pre-tax profits in their last FYE 31.12.14. Checked its share price and found it low and its shares turnover not high for that kind of profits.

Checked its share capital and other relevant info and found the following:

For both Last FYE 31/12/14 and Last 4Q 31/12/14:

Revenue: Rm186.251 million

Net Profit: Rm1.961 billion

EPS: 290.63 sen

P/E Ratio: 0.17

Dividend: 272 sen per share

Dividend Yield: 584.95%

NAB: 0.40

No. of shares: 707.953 million

Par Value: 0.10

Paid up capital: Rm70.795

Market Capitalization: Rm329.198 million

When I checked the price late this morning, the trading volume was way below 100,000 and the price moved up only 1.5 sen at 45.5 sen.

Then I suppose, rumours spread a bit (though the good things already happened) and at 3.20pm, the last done price was 47 sen and the volume was already 136,000!

I suppose, even with incorrect information, with enough people chasing the shares, its price can go up a bit.

Further information revealed the following events which explains why the price was unexciting:

The current Cum price refers to the 3rd Interim Single Tier Dividend of 1.75 sen per share;

A Special ST Dividend of Rm2.65 per share had gone Ex since 10/12/14! Lodgement date was 12/12/14 and payable on 24/12/14.

The market did react to the news (though I wasn't aware) because the highest price for the past year was Rm3.00 on 28/11/14 and the lowest was 25 sen on 15/12/14.

In other words, almost all the extraordinary earnings had been paid out to shareholders: each shareholder holding 1,000 shares would have received Rm2650 in Special Dividend.

Like the masked magician revealing the tricks, now we know why the price shot up and how it was done! It would be naive to think there were no insiders trading and made good gains from the information.


Egalitaria - How independent is the MACC?

'The MACC comes under the Prime Minister's Department, from which it also receives funding for its operations. This raises some serious questions as to its independence, especially if it were to receive reports on corruption stemming from this very department it would therefore be expected to investigate.

Despite the three independent panels, in addition to five oversight committees that the MACC has introduced in recent years, there is obviously a need for an all-encompassing solution. One problem is that the MACC's officers are drawn from the same pool of civil servants, as mandated by the Public Service Commission and run by the Public Service Department. This makes it inherently difficult for the MACC to employ independent officers who would be able to carry out investigations on other civil servants without fear or favour.

The MACC, in its present governance structure, would still remain tied to the government's executive influence, and any proposed reform would need to deal with institutional independence, both from the structural and practical standpoints.

To this end, IDEAS, together with the Malaysian Bar Council, has been working closely with other civil society organisations to propose several recommendations. These recommendations are aimed at making the MACC truly independent. The first of which would involve a constitutional amendment to form an independent Anti-Corruption Service Commission that would give the MACC hire-and-fire authority over its own officers. This would mean the MACC is no longer dependent on the Public Service Commission to supply their investigating and case officers.'
- See more at:

With reference to the 26 members of the three independent panels of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), 19 of whom are new appointees, will it be like ex-Transparency International Paul Low, being put in the PM's Department just to provide some show of credibility?


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Section 377: Everyone claims to be right... so who is?

I did a quick search for Bar Council President Christopher Leong's letter but could find a few responses to what he had stated but not his actual letter or statement.

I found one from a blogsite which posted a letter from an observer to TMI:

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Why Christopher Leong is right - An observer

I refer to Bar Council president must retract statement on Anwar verdict - Aidil Khalid and others.

I shall refer to this hereinafter as the "Aidil Letter".

It is not my intention to reply at great length to every point in a letter that attempts to castigate Bar Council president Christopher Leong, for his recent remarks on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's Federal Court case, popularly dubbed "Sodomy II".

I merely want to pick up on one point raised by Leong, viz, why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the alleged participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment.

This point sparked a great deal of sound and fury, signifying nothing, in the "Aidil Letter".

Leong concluded his remarks with these words: "It is a strange world that we live in".

One does not even need to venture beyond the four walls of the various Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials to see how right he was – at least where this particular point is concerned.

Some facts:

In "Sodomy I", both Dr Munawar Anees and Sukma Darmawan were charged, convicted and sentenced under S377D of the Penal Code, the essence of the charges being that they had "allowed Anwar to sodomise them".

The exact wording of the charge against Munawar was:

"That you in the month of March 1993, at night, at No.8, Jalan Setia Murni 1, Bukit Damansara, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, committed an act of gross indecency with one Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim by allowing him to introduce his penis into your anus and you had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 377D of the Penal Code".

(The charge against Sukma was identical, mutatis mutandis.)

This puts paid to any assertion that in S377 offences, it is only the "active" partner who can be liable, not the "passive" one.

In full, S377D provides:

"Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

Hence, Sukma and Munawar were treated, in effect, not as victims, but as accomplices.

That is wholly consistent with the long history of S377, a provision that exists throughout the Commonwealth.

It was as long ago as 1918 that India recognised that a passive consenting party to the offence of unnatural carnal intercourse, if a rational being of full age, should naturally be treated as an abettor (Ganpat v. Emperor [AIR 1918 Lah. 312 (2)], a contention supported by case law ever since.

The fact that S377B was invoked is critical. Abetment could not have applied, nor could S377D, if this had been a "sodomy rape" (to coin a phrase) charged under S377C.

In that case, there would be no question whatsoever of charging Saiful. But that was not the way the prosecutor's discretion was exercised.

They went under S377B, perhaps because proving all elements of S377C would have been harder on the facts. But it has to be one or the other – it is either consensual, or not. Suggesting coercion and then charging under S377B is trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

But the Aidil Letter meanders erratically past this point, without even seeing it:

"A plain reading of Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code must certainly lead a reader thereof to conclude that the statutory provisions do not criminalise homosexuality per se but sodomy, namely the act of insertion by a man of his penis into the anus of another person, be that a man, woman or child. Such an act is considered vile by the values held by the vast majority of Malaysians and rightly attracts sanction."

This betrays a lack of knowledge of the Labouchere Amendment and the history of S377, but more importantly is irrelevant, as it does not address Leong's question (clearly justified, as I have demonstrated) about why no charge was preferred against a (by definition) consenting party?

Why the difference between Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2? The anomalies are indeed "glaring".

It is then said, however, that by analogy to a corruption case (in which the receiver is charged while the giver is used as a witness) Saiful cannot be charged.

But this is both fallacious and begs the question. There is no presumption that an accomplice who "turns Queen's evidence" (as they used to say), thus becomes completely exempt from prosecution. If X and Y have a history of 7-8 corrupt past transactions, would X therefore completely escape punishment if he appeared as a prosecution witness against Y for the 9th transaction only?

It may result in a lighter sentence, or other mitigating benefits, but the fact is that sodomy offences (as the cases above show) are "absolute": once it's in, you're in.

If Saiful had been charged as an accomplice, this would raise very interesting further questions relating to corroboration. But that is another story.

I personally do not subscribe to the histrionic sentiments expressed in the Aidil Letter that "…(t)his is a direct attack on the Federal Court without any legal basis with the effect of bringing the Federal Court into disrepute and odium."


(The Aidil Letter seems not to know the difference between the Federal Court's eventual judgment and pre-trial prosecutorial discretion, which is the main point addressed by Leong.)

Temperate and measured analysis of a concluded case, with a legal basis, is not an attack on any court. Nor are fair questions.

But temperance, fairness and measured analysis seem sadly lacking in some responses to Leong's remarks. - TMI

Gani: Bar Council president wrong on section 377C
February 13, 2015

Shafee: Charge Leong, Ambiga with contempt of court

FMT Reporters | February 18, 2015

Comments meant that the government had influence over the judiciary, says prosecutor.

Bar president told to retract statement questioning Sodomy 2 verdict

Sections 377A, 377B - Bar Council misleading public

No wonder the public seem confused and none the wiser.


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A complete family reunion after more than 10 years

It was difficult to have everybody around during Chinese New Year Eve when children were either studying or working abroad.   

This year, Cheng could spare 4 days from Bangkok, to join us while CY could easily fit in when she is on 3-week vacation from Dubai.

This post is more about my experience dealing with various companies' customer service.

Having past experience and information on terrible traffic jams during Chinese New Year period, Cheng's expected arrival on CNY eve had to be planned well. It is better for her alone to be delayed than for us to be caught in jams as well. Weeks before, all train tickets from KL to Ipoh had been taken up. Managed to get a Yoyo coach ticket having taken into account her time of arrival. One good thing about Yoyo is the flexibility of choice for passenger to choose an earlier coach, if there was a last minute vacancy. I suppose they could sell the later one given up if someone happens to need a ticket. I can imagine, with the details of passenger available, the intended person could even board if he or she had lost the ticket. But this has yet to be tested.

Anyway, it was my first visit to Amanjaya Bus Terminal. I enquired at Yoyo's reception counter and was told the expected time of arrival 3.40pm. I was actually surprised it arrived on time despite the expected traffic jam. Anyway, the announcements over the PA system could hardly be heard, either because of poor voice control or unsuitable mic and/or speaker equipment. Having got a ticket upon entry to the carpark, I was looking for an auto payment machine but could not find one. I was told by a stallholder that it is free! The bus ticketing counters and the shouting by their agents were just like any old station despite the new premises.

I have a Digi number registered under Cheng's name which I ensured it is kept valid when she is abroad so that she can use it when she is back on holidays.

On her last visit, she returned to me her spare phone and I actually asked if she might need it on our way to the airport. She said no, and I remember I actually took it with me for just in case she needs it. That was all I could remember when I tried to find it a month later. With the phone battery flat, any attempt to call and hope to hear its ringing tone was of no use. As is usual with losing something, it is not so much the value of it (anyway it was a cheap phone which costed less than Rm100 and had about Rm80 in credit) but it was the idea that I could not find it which kept me thinking about it. I even sent a message to inform finder to contact me.

I asked at a local Digi dealer whether it is possible to find out the location of the phone eg. whether it is in PJ or BG. He said I must have seen too many films which showed capabilities beyond what are available.

So it was a relief when I enquired at the Digi Centre in Greentown Business Centre, Ipoh, that it is possible for registered owner to apply for a replacement sim card and that the other Digi Centre in D' Garden will be open from 10am to 10pm and closed only on Chinese New Year day. Cheng was due to be back on CNY eve for only 4 days.

When I fetched her at Amanjaya bus terminal, I told her we will be going to the Digi Centre because it has been bothering me. Each time I called that lost phone number, I got a recorded reply, 'The number you have called is unavailable.'

At the Digi Centre, next to the queue number machine, the guard was able to direct us to a special counter instead of taking a number. With the IC and phone number, the lady could easily access their system and supply us with a replacement card which costed Rm10 and that it will be activated within 15 minutes. I could not resist asking her whether the phone had been inactive for the last 2 months or so. I was surprised when she checked and replied, 'No, it had been used and the balance is now only Rm6.00'! She even mentioned it was used to call only 3 numbers late at night: 0126272367; 01132090892; and 0107641170.

I wonder how many people know that Maybank has a branch in KLCC which is open on Sunday? It was manned by 2 at the entrance to deal with credit card and ATM card matters, 4 persons at the counter, and 2 financial advisors.

It was during CNY period and on a Sunday morning, so KL was exceptionally light in terms of vehicle traffic. At the entrance of Jalan Sultan Ismail, there was an electronic message informing about 3,000 vacant parking lots at KLCC! It was a breeze, getting into the carpark and finding a space, and even though it was a tight one, we did not bother to find others. What Cheng needed to do at Maybank was done within minutes, so we were in good mood to look for brunch and then souvenirs. Leaving KLCC we even had time to look up one of my brothers for a chat before it was time for Cheng to leave for the airport.

Having experienced terrible traffic jams on our way from BG to PJ, we decided that Cheng should use the ERL at KL Sentral instead. CY actually checked the ERL times and frequency as well as how long it would take to reach KLIA2. Cheng had checked in online and had no luggage, so it should be rather straightforward, even though she had not used ERL from KL Sentral before.

But the smooth running of things had to be spoiled by a LRT ticketing woman. This was what I had posted on my FB page:

'Why some people shouldn't work at customer service and why they deserve not being promoted. Just imagine myself at Asia Jaya LRT station and asked for 1 normal ticket and 1 for Warga Mas. Was told WM could be bought from her but for the other ticket I must use the machine. 'Dia boleh baca kan?' (She can read, can't she?) There was no queue on a quiet Sunday at about 5 pm. Why do I get the impression she was either unhappy with my entitlement to half fare or jealous of the fact that the young lady shouldn't have it so easy? I'm sure a reminder that she should use the machine next time would not have spoiled my mood.'

It might be company's policy to encourage use of the machines, especially during peak hours, but chances are that now and again there will be some people who are foreign tourists or visitors from out of town, who do not know the rule nor how to use the machine.


Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Unprecedented road show to explain Anwar's case

As Umno Youth leader, Khairy thinks he needs to do something about the bad publicity created by Anwar's conviction and sentenced to five years in jail.

In my humble opinion, Shafee is well known as Umno's lawyer and he was appointed ad hoc lead prosecutor in Anwar's case, without regard to what the public think about it. I remember him as the one who boasted that he could 'nail Anwar within 2 to 3 hours'. He even sought to increase the jail sentence from 5 years. With so much hatred and vindictiveness in him, it is only natural that most members of the public hated him. Therefore, opportunistic Khairy might think he is going to gain from having a road show with Shafee, ostensibly to try and explain the case. I think it is going to backfire on Khairy instead. The more they try to explain, those who have already made up their minds will only be reminded of the cruelty in the persecution and hate them more.

In The Malaysian Insider:

Umno’s turn to go public on Anwar’s sodomy case, says Khairy

Barisan Nasional (BN) will be going on a nationwide road show, which will feature Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, to explain the Federal Court judgment on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case now that the judiciary process has ended.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said that the party has been accused and criticised for orchestrating a political conspiracy against Anwar since he was first charged in 2008, but it has kept silent all these years.

"We have kept silent for six years because the trial was in progress, fearing that we would be in contempt. We waited for the case to be over," he told some 300 people at a dialogue in Petaling Jaya tonight.

"Now that the case is over, do you expect us, as a political party, to keep quiet?" The dialogue tonight also featured Shafee, who was the deputy public prosecutor in the Anwar case, which ended last week after the Federal Court affirmed the appellate court's conviction.

- See more at: