Mirzan Mahathir appointed director on San Miguel Corp board

喝啤酒的要被鞭，卖啤酒的要斩手吗？

敦马哈迪医生的长子米占马哈迪最近被委任为生力集团董事。这家啤酒厂是菲律宾最大的食物与饮品集团，由生力啤酒厂有限公司所持有。在消息曝光后，一些时事部落格开始利用它抨击马哈迪医生的穆斯林身份。

【吉隆坡10月10日大马局内人讯】敦马哈迪医生的长子米占马哈迪（Mirzan Mahathir）最近被委任为生力集团（San Miguel Corp）董事。这家啤酒厂是菲律宾最大的食物与饮品集团，由生力啤酒厂有限公司（San Miguel Brewery Inc）所持有。

生力集团在上周通知了菲律宾证券交易所有关米占被委任一事，他在主董事局中代表了Q-Tech Alliance控股公司。

Q-Tech是一家位于马尼拉的投资公司，米占持有这家公司的股权。他最近收购了生力集团的19.9%股权，总值达396亿3千万比索（29亿令吉）。

这批股票收购自日本麒麟控股公司（Kirin Holdings），这家公司曾经在财务上协助生力，并收购了生力集团的43%股权。

在这次的收购行动后，生力集团仍旧维持了51%的股权。

生力啤酒厂控制了菲律宾啤酒市场的95%份额，这家公司生产生力啤酒已经超过一个世纪，这些啤酒酿造厂坐落在菲律宾、中国、印尼、越南、泰国和马来西亚。根据这家公司的网站介绍，他们的啤酒在全球有六十个市场。

生力集团主要是以售卖食物和饮品为主，在2007年，该公司开始进军矿业、基建和产业市场。

在米占做出这项投资决定后，引起了马来西亚国内的保守穆斯林社会的注意。

在Q-Tech收购生力集团股份的消息曝光后，一些时事部落格开始利用它抨击马哈迪医生的穆斯林身份。

米占的公司进行的收购计划一直以来都引起争议。

他曾经在马哈迪担任首相期间控制了船务集团有限公司（Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad），可是后来被迫把这家船务公司出售给马来西亚国际船运集团（Malaysia International Shipping Corporation，MISC），有评论指出这项出售行动是一项企业援救计划。


原文出处：Mirzan Mahathir appointed director on San Miguel Corp board
原文日期：10.09.09
原文作者：
翻译　　：西西留

http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_4792.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mirzan Mahathir appointed director on San Miguel Corp board

Fireworks are seen beside a giant San Miguel beer bottle. Mirzan Mahathir has just been appointed a director of San Miguel Corp. — Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 10 — Mirzan Mahathir, the eldest son of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was recently appointed to the board of San Miguel Corp, the biggest food and beverage conglomerate in the Philippines and the owner of San Miguel Brewery Inc.

San Miguel Corp told the Philippines stock exchange last week about Mirzan’s appointment which is to represent the interests of Q-Tech Alliance Holdings Inc on the board.

Q-Tech, a Manila-based investment company in which Mirzan has a stake in, recently acquired a 19.9 per cent share in San Miguel Corp for 39.61 billion pesos (RM2.9 billion).

It bought the stake from Japan’s Kirin Holdings, which used the funds to help finance the acquisition of a 43 per cent stake in San Miguel Brewery Inc.

With this latest corporate exercise, San Miguel Corp still maintains a 51 per cent stake in San Miguel Brewery Inc.

San Miguel Brewery controls 95 per cent of the Philippine beer market. The company has made San Miguel Beer for more than a century. The beer is brewed in the Philippines, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, and is sold in 60 markets worldwide, according to the company’s Web site.

San Miguel Corp has been selling its food and beverage assets since 2007 to expand into the mining, infrastructure and property industries.

Mirzan’s involvement in the deal, while a sound investment decision, has raised some eyebrows among Malaysia’s conservative Muslim community.

Since news of Q-Tech’s acquisition of San Miguel Corp shares began circulating here, a number of news blogs have used it to attack Dr Mahathir’s Muslim credentials.

Mirzan’s corporate forays have not been without controversy.

He once controlled Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd when Dr Mahathir was prime minister, but was forced to sell its shipping assets to Malaysia International Shipping Corporation (MISC), in what critics said then was a bailout.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/business/37377-mirzan-mahathir-appointed-director-on-san-miguel-corp-board

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

土著联昌并购南方终成事实

土著联昌并购南方终成事实

政治势力干预妥协成交？土著联昌并购南方终成事实
【独 立新闻在线苏爱萍撰述】南方银行和土著联昌银行之间纷扰数月的并购纠纷，出乎意料之外的，终于将在两造各退一步的情况下成交。南方银行今日发表文告宣布， 董事局将在明日“针对业务方向的重大转变”发表声明，因此，它要求马上暂停股票交易。与此同时，土著联昌银行集团也向交易所提出暂停交易的要求，原因是公 司将在明天宣布修改收购南方银行所有业务的代价。

早在上个星期，来自南方银行和土著联昌银行的知情人士已陆续对国内各媒体发放消息，指出 土著联昌银行和南方银行在各退一步的情况下，谈判僵局有望突破。今日也有媒体引述接近南方银行的消息来源，指南方银行董事局在上周六举行的会议上，已同意 接受土著联昌银行开出的新价码。土著联昌银行集团行政总裁纳西尔拉萨（Nazir Razak，左图）早前曾铁齿咬定该公司不会再提高收购南方银行所有业务的收购代价。上个月，土著联昌银行召开记者会单方面宣布“迎娶”南方银行的条件， 纳西尔开出马币63亿元或相等于每股马币4.08元的收购价码。当时，南方银行董事局以收购价格严重低估南方银行的价值为由，拒绝这门“亲事”。

尔 后甚至爆发了大股东基林霍有限公司意欲罢黜南方银行董事和陈仲宪夫人林秀蕾（译音）入秉法院起诉基林霍董事局等事件，让这起纠纷进一步升温。不过，事隔数 个星期，这起纠纷在双方各自放低身段、软化立场后有了新进展，并且很快将告一段落。据今日各媒体引述的消息来源指出，土著联昌银行已同意把收购价格提高至 每股马币4.30元，加每股5仙股息。

一名银行领域分析师指出，若传言不虚，意味着南方银行的总价值相等于马币66亿元，比之前土著联昌 银行开出的价格略高6.6%，或相等于南方银行2005财政年的净有形资产值的2.26倍。英文财经周刊《the Edge》一则报道指，南方银行行政总裁陈仲宪的任期即将在今年六月份届满。所有银行集团的首脑任务的委任皆需得到国家银行的首肯，然而，经过这场并购纠 纷以后，国家银行会批准陈仲宪连任的机会渺茫，这是促使陈仲宪态度软化的因素之一。经过数个月的挣扎，陈仲宪在不情愿的情况下终于无奈放手。陈仲宪接受英文日报《星报》专访时发表了关于南方银行的“美丽与哀愁”的言论，他说：“若你长的很丑，这有问题。但是，若你长得漂亮，这也会引来很多的问题。作为银行的行政总裁，我宁可长得漂亮并面对这些问题。”

益 资利证券（ECM Libra）是主张卖掉南方银行的大股东基林霍有限公司（Killinghall Bhd）和雪州苏丹的顾问。首相女婿凯利嘉马鲁丁（Khairy Jamaludin）是益资利证券的股东兼董事。市场倾向于相信，南方银行最终“难逃虎口”，其实是在政治势力介入下的无奈结局。事实上，马来西亚原本就 是一个让政商挂钩的利益凌驾于市场原则的公平之上的国家，差别只是这一回主角换了新人当而已。

http://tengkhang.blogspot.com/2006/03/blog-post_16.html


---------------------------------


南方银行困境考验自由市场原则
本刊苏爱萍 2006年2月24日 19时41分
【本刊苏爱萍撰述】在自由市场里，勉强毕竟难有幸福，一旦买卖双方谈不拢价钱，交易已算破局，各造应无怨尤的回到原点重新开始；不过，南方银行和土著联昌银行的并购纠纷却越演越烈。


如今，南方银行四名董事也遭遇被罢黜的厄运，但他们表示，不排除诉诸公堂以还公道的可能性。他们对媒体指出，在这纷纷扰扰的乱局中，南方银行董事局只求能有选择其他合并方案的机会。

南方银行早在两个星期前，单方面宣布中止与土著联昌银行的合并洽商，也向国家银行提出与另一家金融集团展开合并洽商的要求，但国行至今仍无回音。

董事局角力战

基林霍有限公司（Killinghall Bhd）是南方银行大股东，陈仲宪、雪州苏丹沙拉弗丁（Sharafuddin Idris Shah）、与雪州苏丹同一阵线的赛尤索夫（Syed Yusof Syed Nasir）等人，透过基林霍持有南方银行的股权。

因此，当立场倾向支持陈仲宪的南方银行董事局坚持挡驾对方的收购意图时，藏在基林霍董事局里、意欲促成土著联昌银行吞并南方银行的另一股力量，开始透过基林霍向南方银行董事局和陈仲宪施加压力。

一开始，基林霍董事局以较友善的方式向南方银行下达最后通牒，要求南方银行董事局在2月21日下午五时前，同意召开股东特别大会，以表决土著联昌银行的收购献议。

最后通牒的期限已过，南方银行董事局仍不肯就范，基林霍董事局于是采取更激烈的手段。这一回，它以持股超过10%的大股东身份，宣布将召开股东特别大会，寻求罢黜南方银行的四名董事，并委任四名新董事取代被罢黜者。

基林霍董事局寻求罢黜四名董事的举动，被视为赞成收购的派系要控制南方银行董事局，以深入腹地，为土著联昌银行吞并南方银行的计划开路。

目前，南方银行董事局由七人组成，四名董事相等于60%的表决权；一旦被罢黜，董事局对南方银行的收购与合并事务之立场，势将乾坤大挪啤?

南方银行董事局成员认为，若董事局变天，小股东将暴露在不利处境，因为一旦召开股东特别大会，即使大多数小股东不认同收购建议，把收购建议放在股东会表决的机制底下，小股东将无法左右收购建议的结局。

若被逼召开股东大会，情势将对与陈仲宪同一阵线的董事及股东不利。除了股东大会，迄今尚未做出指示的国行，同样对南方银行的命运扮演关键角色。国行会同意让南方银行有更多的“婚配”选择吗？或者，当局认为成就一家具备区域竞争实力的大规模银行集团为更优先事项？

土著联昌银行集团并购换成长

过去三年来，土著联昌银行集团积极在国内和本区域探索并购契机，先后展开多项备受瞩目的并购计划，但不乏趁兴而来、败兴而归的例子。


在向外寻觅猎物的同时，土著联昌银行集团也着手改组内部以自强的策略；例如2005年宣布的集团大重组计划中，包括联昌国际证券银行（CIMB）和土著联 昌银行（Bumi-Commerce Bank）的业务被注入、合并在一家新公司伞下。联昌资产控股有限公司（CAHB）已通过收购这家新公司，把这两项业务收纳旗下。

最终，联昌资产控股有限公司也易名为“土著联昌银行有限公司”（Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd-BCB）。

在这场重组计划中，原任联昌国际证券银行行政总裁的纳西尔拉萨（Nazir Razak）跃上个人事业的顶峰，他被委任负责领导这家集商业银行与投资银行业务于一身的金融集团。目前，联昌国际证券银行和土著联昌银行的业务合并正如火如荼进行。

在土著联昌银行集团大重组以前，这家金融机构已多番参与并购其他银行集团的合并洽商。不过，它当年姿态远不及今天在纳西尔拉萨麾下那样跋扈。

2003年7月，控制大马银行（AMBANK）的大马证券银行（AMMB）结束了国贸银行（Eon Bank）的合并洽商后，旋即被土著联昌银行看中，两造得到国家银行批准后展开合并洽商。

当时，市场也曾为大马证券银行集团创办人阿兹曼哈欣（Azman Hashim）捏一把冷汗，以为他在马来西亚金融领域驰骋纵横的岁月将就此终结。阿兹曼曾经历过安华、达因、马哈迪，乃至于阿都拉担任财政部长的时代，是 马来西亚银行业的其中一号代表人物。这项合并洽谈也深受市场瞩目，当时两造的谈判姿态明显较温和而低调。合并洽商最后因价格谈不拢而破局。

纳西尔上位土联更积极


值得一提的是，三年前纳西尔拉萨还没有坐上土著联昌银行集团的总座位子。当时，纳西尔是联昌资产控股有限公司旗下投资银行业务的负责人；而土著联昌银行当时的行政总裁，是态度温厚的罗查里（Rozali Mohamed Ali，右图）。

2004年，纳西尔拉萨掌帅的联昌国际证券银行相中了达企业（TA Enterprise）的股票行业务，并以高姿态和达企业展开收购洽商。

当时，这项收购献议同样引起全城瞩目，达企业被视为收购洽商中的弱势者。这个由华裔富商程铁建及妻子苏玉坤一手打造的证券王国——达企业旗下的股票经纪业务，掌握了最大块的散户市场，旗下有550名抽佣经纪。这是让纳西尔对这块肥肉垂涎不已的主因。

联昌国际证券银行的业务以大户为主，在散户投资者这块业务上，其实力并不强。纳西尔的如意算盘，是完成收购后，他手下的股票行业务将成为大户与散户市场兼备的黄金组合。不过，这项收购洽商同样因价格谈不拢而失败收场。

今天，纳西尔统领的土著联昌银行要吞并南方银行，其目的和两年前联昌国际证券银行意欲收购达证券的股票行业务如出一辙。土著联昌银行的企业贷款与 库务（Treasury）等业务较强劲，反之其消费性贷款（Consumer Banking）和信用卡业务就相对孱弱得多。一旦吞并南方银行，就能非常针对性的补强这两方面业务的表现及实力。


纳西尔（左图）多番表达了土著联昌银行集团的业务策略，包括透过合并与收购，快速壮大集团规模，以便早日能与本区域其他大规模银行，如星展银行（DBS Bank）、汇丰银行（HSBC）等一争长短。

回顾2003年及2004年的收购谈判，土著联昌银行集团对收购价顶限都看得很紧，往往宁愿鸣金收兵，也不贸然付出昂贵代价。

尽管他急于要把南方银行并入版图，纳西尔也已一再重申，他不会提高对南方银行的建议收购价。南方银行董事局也屡次强调，土著联昌银行开出的价钱太低，严重低估了南方银行的价值。买卖双方僵持不下，谁有能耐打破僵局，把双方逼回谈判桌？

政府栽培求银行快高长大

银行业分析师相信，若无政府背后扶持，亚洲尤其是东南亚地区的银行集团，在全球化市场会面对非常严峻的挑战。一旦市场开放，本土银行集团将沦落至任由大银行宰割的境地。

于是，各国政府透过各种条例的鞭策，催促本土银行透过合并与收购，以求在市场开放以前“快高长大”。有一些政府则采取重点栽培的路线，专注培养一家能在开放市场里与跨国银行集团一争长短的银行集团。

新加坡星展银行就是典型的例子，它得到新加坡政府全力支持，以期在亚洲银行领域开疆拓土、建立更大的规模。尽管有政府为其后盾，星展银行的“成长道路”也走来不易。

2004年数据显示，这家银行集团的资产规模达1755亿5300万新元，净盈利为20亿1800万新元。花旗集团、汇丰银行、渣打银行集团等比较起来，仍有巨人与小孩的距离。

马来亚银行（Maybank Bhd）是本地资产规模最大的银行集团，总资产共达马币1918亿9500万元，净盈利为马币25亿200万元。

土著联昌银行若能成功吞并南方银行，其总资产将达到马币1500亿元，跃升为本地规模第二大的银行。

国行回应方式：自由市场原则指标

或许，马来西亚政府现在也打算依循“重点栽培”的策略，打造一家能让马来西亚人在区域舞台上也“走路有风”的银行集团。

不过，仅为了使“一将功成”而牺牲企业治理及自由竞争市场原则，这也许能造就某些银行集团鲤跃龙门，但马来西亚的金融业却可能因此再倒退20年。

为了造就一家具备区域规模的银行集团，是否就能让我国的企业治理和自由市场原则再次破产？这一切的问题，国行对这起纠纷的回应方式将告诉我们答案。

http://newkopitiam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3340&sid=58f98883f8132d6ec7e2eadc31804d15


--------------------------------------------

第三角度看土联南方合并
	作者／本刊特约郑丽萍 Mar 18, 2006 02:34:20 pm 【本刊特约郑丽萍撰述】经过一番戏剧化的演变，土著联昌银行（Bumi-Commerce Bank）于2006年3月15日宣布收购南方银行（Southern Bank）。这项收购也让土著联昌崛起成为国内第二大银行集团。 土著联昌银行近年来动作频频，也公开表态有意和国内银行展开并购洽商，显然土著联昌扮演着庄家的角色，《星洲日报》的标题甚至用上“并吞”这两个字来形容这场交易。 近年，土著联昌银行曾先后与大马银行（AmBank）和国贸银行（Eon Bank）传出合并的可能性，再到现在的南方银行，土著联昌银行可说是屡战屡败，屡败屡战，某程度上，这是令人佩服的，难得它就有这些筹码和勇气。 有财经评论人认为，南方银行最终难逃被吞并的命运，关键是因为这家公司的内部先出现分歧，大股东对卖或不卖各持己见，这是土著联昌银行能成功收购南方银行的关键，因为内部分歧，别人最容易趁虚而入。被买，有人欢喜有人忧。 为什么土著联昌银行瞄准南方不放？这是可以理解的，看看其他银行集团，老大马银行从来就是高高在上，谁敢在太岁头上动土？接下来老三大众银行，财宏势大，内部基层巩固，股价平均6.50元，谁有能力收购？ 接下来，拉昔胡申集团旗下的兴业银行（RHB Bank），这家银行的资产规模是业内第三大的银行，规模太大难以下咽的同时，它的获利状况和资产素质也无法和银行业资优生南方银行相提并论。再说，本是同根生，土著联昌没有必要把矛头指向拉昔胡申。 还有丰隆银行，这家银行的表现一直都不被银行股分析员看好，甚至有些选择不看这家银行。但是，丰隆银行顶头毕竟有丰隆集团罩着，是东南亚首富之一郭令灿的企业王国旗下的一颗棋子，哪管丰隆银行的表现如何，如果郭老不卖的话，别人要“霸王硬上弓”也不容易。 土 著联昌银行曾于年前和大马银行集团（AmBank）洽商合并，最终因价格谈不拢而告吹。这项并购洽商和南方银行的差别在于，大马银行集团大部分股权仍牢牢 控制在创办人兼主席阿兹曼哈欣（Azman Hashim）手上，不似南方银行的其中一名大股东已倒戈相向，使纳西尔突袭成功。 当南方银行大股东雪州苏丹沙拉弗丁和赛莫哈末尤索夫悄然和土著联昌银行接触，商洽卖掉南方银行的交易时，他们并未征求另一大股东陈仲宪的意思。 当时，陈仲宪还在忙着处理新加坡亚洲普险公司的收购专案。曾经一度，南方银行试图耗资20亿元收购新加坡亚洲普险公司的做法，被一些财经评论人视为“毒药计划”（Poison Bill），以使欲吞并者无法把它吞下，或者即使吞下也也要对方不好过。 然而，当国家银行不准南方银行执行这项收购专案时，厄运开始降临在陈仲宪的头顶上。 从人的角度来看，南方银行的大股东雪兰莪苏丹最先表示有意脱售南方股权，燃着了整个火头。所以，市场也有人说，陈忠宪面对的问题不是南方的营运出现问题，也不是因为南方银行特别吸引人，而是在于“人”。 由 于陈忠宪已经摆明不卖，大股东基林霍有限公司（Killinghall Bhd）的董事局有人要保住南方，但是也有人要卖，两者的“话事权”旗鼓相当。所以从外人的角度来看，南方似乎是内部先出现分歧，才让人有机可乘。非常熟 悉的道理，一根筷子很容易折断，一把筷子就不容易了。而南方银行的这把筷子已经散开，要折断不难。 雪州苏丹和赛莫哈末尤索夫是于2002 年收购Ramuda私人有限公司的45%股权，得以透过上市公司基林霍而成为南方银行的大股东。南方银行当时刚摆脱了另一家公司的敌意收购，雪州苏丹和赛 尤索夫的出现顿时如天降甘霖。谁料得到，当时的救星，事隔两年竟成了南方银行的“出卖者”？ 雪州苏丹和赛莫哈末尤索夫作为纯粹的投资者，会选择成为土著联昌银行的同路人，力主卖掉南方银行也不是无迹可循的发展。 为了使南方银行的股权结构符合30%土著持股的规定，南方银行曾于2004年以显著低于市价、每股仅1.74元的价格，配售一批总额2亿8020万股南方银行股票予土著投资者。一般相信，雪州苏丹和赛莫哈末尤索夫是这批土著配股的最大受益者。 以1.74元代价买进，再以4.35元（土著联昌付出的收购代价）卖出，净赚2.61元，这样的诱惑，确实难以抵挡。 土 著联昌银行行政总裁纳西尔（Nazir Razak，左图）好不容易得到大股东雪州苏丹和赛尤索夫深入南方银行腹地的加以配合，自然舍不得放掉这个能一举擒下南方银行的千载难逢机会。诚如纳西尔 在记者会上的表白，先到者有更多选择，若等到人人都抢购的时候，选择自然会减少。价格，不用说也更高。 在整个并购过程中，陈忠宪的脸部表 情是一个花絮。一直以来，财经记者都熟悉，南方银行行政总裁陈忠宪是个低调的人物；但是这次的事件使他不得不高调，接受媒体专访、记者会的强颜欢笑，禁不 住流露掩不住的悲伤。《东方财经》就用“被逼婚”来形容他，试问有谁能够在自己一手打下的江山即将拱手让出时笑脸迎人？ 但是，3月15日，陈忠宪和纳西尔在记者会上开怀大笑，看起来似乎是心情大好。纳西尔笑是正常的，因为成功收购，进一步加强了自己的势力。但是陈仲宪也来个开怀大笑，就令人费解。无论如何，强烈对比下隐隐然的那股伤感之情，还是掩盖不住的。 媒体是现实的，哪怕过程有多么转折，只要结果一出，就等于是事件的完结，焦点自然会模糊。所以，陈忠宪在并购后的后续发展如何，似乎没人关注。就好像很多离开企业界的企业人物，现在已经成了没有人认识的路人。 有 一个非常深刻的印象，去年一次的采访，遇到马电讯前行政总裁莫哈末基尔（Mohd Khir）。自他离开马电讯后，他的动态再没有人关心，即使他出席公开场合或记者会，也没有人留意，甚至没有人认得他。想当年，莫哈末基尔代表马电讯召开 的记者会，国内记者挤满会议室、他被记者们簇拥追问的盛况，再看今日的只影孤单，让人倍感唏嘘。 陈忠宪在位的时候维持低调形象，鲜少公开对媒体发表谈话，即使被记者追着跑仍不改口风密实的作风。如今，南方银行被卖掉了，将并入土著联昌银行集团内。尽管收购事件曾沸沸扬扬、轰动一时，从今以后，还有多少人会记得南方银行、还会记得陈仲宪这号人物呢？ 作者曾是《东方日报》财经组记者、寰宇电视（Astro）AEC华语频道财经新闻记者，现于本地一家上市公司任职。

http://www.merdekareview.com/pnews/1374.html

Why Najib’s 1Malaysia will fail – Part 1

Why Najib’s 1Malaysia will fail – Part 1

June 23, 2009

Let’s try to put a context to where Najib is coming from and headed to with his 1Malaysia.

What is Najib’s grand design that he now calls 1Malaysia?

Is his 1Malaysia novel and innovative, or re-hashed from a model that we’ve seen before?

Two days ago, Malaysianinsider reported Mukhriz as saying that it would be difficult to realise the “1Malaysia” concept if the Malays are not united, as the the Malays are the pillar in making 1 Malaysia a reality and played an important role in ensuring the country’s progress as they are the majority in the country.

I quote Mukhriz from that report :

“If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1 Malaysia concept? This will not only be detrimental to the Malays but also to other races…When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking from the racism point of view. We have accepted the fact that there cannot be a government which is led 100 per cent by Malay leaders … we have been practising power sharing for so long”

What do you discern from this?

One, ‘Malay unity talk’ ala UMNO-style is not racism.

Two, power sharing in the governance of this country is set, not on the premise of having the best men and women in place to get the job done, but along racial lines, with a predominance of Malays at the helm of government because they are the majority, because this is how power has been shared thus far.

If you want to know where Mukhriz is coming from, you don’t have to go far.

Just read his father’s ‘The Malay Dilemma’.

I’ve just finished re-reading that book.

If you’ve never read this book, you should make the effort to.

It’ll give you an idea of how this country found itself on that slippery slope into the cesspool we now are in when Mahathir took over the PMship.

It will reveal how this man, in the late 60’s / early 70’s, conveniently distorted a prevailing ‘have versus have-nots’ class issue into a racial one, portrayed as being that of the ‘marginalised Malays versus the non-Malay community’ and, through his years of rule as PM, perpetuated this thinking, with the acquiescence of the other BN component party leaders, of course.

In a speech that he was supposed to have delivered at the Harvard Club of Malaysia on 29th July 2002, this is what Mahathir is reported to have said :

“When I wrote The Malay Dilemma in the late 60s, I had assumed that all the Malays lacked the opportunities to develop and become successful. They lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises. If these opportunities could be made available to them, then they would succeed. …… So what is the new Malay dilemma? Their old dilemma was whether they should distort the picture a little in order to help themselves. The new dilemma is whether they should or should not do away with the crutches that they have got used to, which in fact they have become proud of. There is a minority of Malays who are confident enough to think of doing away with the crutches, albeit gradually. But they are a very small minority. Their numbers are not going to increase any time soon. They are generally regarded as traitors to the Malay race. ….”

There you have it!

Distort the picture in order to help themselves!

That the truth then was that every marginalised Malaysian, regardless of race,“lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises”, was buried in the distorted picture that was presented, so that certain quarters could help themselves.

11 years before that reported speech to the Havard Club, in 1991, Mahathir launched his Vision 2020 where he also spoke of establishing a united Malaysian nation; a Bangsa Malaysia, as he put it. I have alluded to this in a previous post last year. This is what Mahathir had said in 1991 of that Bangsa Malaysia :

“By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable,progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation…The first of these is the challenges ofestablishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation…The eighth is the challenge of ensuring an economically just society. This is a society in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress. Such a society cannot be in place so long as there is the identification of race with economic function, and the identification of economic backwardness with race.”

18 years on from that inspirational speech of his, why is it that we do not appear to be anywhere near establishing that one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation ?

Was Mahathir’s Vision 2020 no different from his ‘Look East’ policy that he innovated soon after taking office, in that both were made up of inspiring rhetoric with little political will to carry through and which got us all sufficiently distracted so that the privileged hands that were raiding the national coffers could work at will and unnoticed?

What is the difference between Mahathir’s Vision 2020 and Najib’s 1Malaysia?

Is there such a difference between Mahathir and Najib that we should be encouraged to believe that, whilst Mahathiir had little impact in taking us anywhere near the Bangsa Malaysia he spoke of, with Najib, it will be otherwise ?

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/why-najibs-1malaysia-will-fail-part-1/

Watching Malaysia change

Watching Malaysia change

Thursday, 18 June 2009 02:26pm

©The Nut Graph (Used by permission) By Zedeck Siew DATUK Ambiga Sreenevasan's reference point for how aware Malaysians are about issues is the taxi driver. The respected lawyer and former Malaysian Bar president is no stranger to being scolded by taxi drivers while she is dressed up in her courtroom garb. "'Aiya, this judiciary, can buy,' one told me," Ambiga says. "They are very critical, and are very clear on what is right and wrong." The Malaysian taxi driver is one of her gauges of public awareness, and the senior lawyer is convinced that nobody should underestimate the Malaysian public's understanding of issues. Indeed, Ambiga's seen quite a lot in her own life. The Nut Graph talked to her on 26 May 2009 at her office in Kuala Lumpur about growing up through 13 May 1969, watching the 1988 judicial crisis unfold, and the changing attitudes of Malaysians. We are all pendatangs. Where are you from? My father was born and bred in Malaysia. My mother was from South India, and my father married her and brought her to Malaysia. My paternal grandfather was also from South India. I think it was a question of looking for opportunities, for him. He was an assistant commissioner for labour. My parents have three children. I was born in Seremban, on 13 November 1956; my father, who was a doctor, was posted there. My father, Datuk Dr G Sreenevasan, was one of our pioneer urologists. He was the main person behind the Institute of Urology and Nephrology in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. I remember him spending longs days and nights planning this. Growing up, I remember that my father was very inspired by Tunku Abdul Rahman, and his call for all races to unite. My father had many opportunities abroad, but he decided to stay here; he wanted to build something up in Malaysia. And he did. All my father's friends and colleagues were like that. Those people who lived through independence really had the spirit of nationalism in them. The drive that they had — unfortunately we've lost that now. Comparing them with Malaysians today, I understand when people of that generation tell me: you don't know what it is to want to build up our country. What was school like? I went to Convent Bukit Nenas from Form One to Upper Six. I remember that my friends and I had a strong sense of "Malaysianism". This was after 1969. It's true that 13 May destroyed a lot of trust. But then there was the Rukunegara, which we all had to learn — seemingly real attempts to bring people together. We were happy to strengthen our command of Bahasa (Malaysia), for example. It felt as if — in my school, at least, where the student body was mixed — there was a coming together of the races. It was a healing period. Let's backtrack. What was 13 May like? I was 13 at the time. On the day it happened, we got a message from the school authorities: Go home early. My mother came to pick me up. Well, we lived in Kampung Baru, at the time. On Jalan Putra — now Jalan Raja Muda 1. This was not far from the then-Selangor menteri besar's home. We were there because it was close to the General Hospital, so it was easy for my father to get to work. Ours was the last house on the row. My father was overseas at the time, so it was just mother and us children, my uncle and aunt, and the household cook. At 6pm we saw people running past, wearing headbands. Soon after, we heard screams. Later, there were cars being burnt in the field. The house behind us was burnt. We were always safe, though. I don't know why. Maybe it was because we had lived there so long, so everyone knew us. Or maybe it was because we were Indian [Malaysian]. When my father got back, about a week after 13 May, he helped out at the hospital, treating people with injuries. He said: "I read about the riots, but I never imagined it would be this bad." It was bad. We had never before seen anything like that. For a long time after, whenever I heard fireworks going off, I would feel nervous. What was university like? When I went to university in the UK, my horizons expanded and I learnt about freedom of thought and speech — and what these concepts meant in real terms. When I visited the Bar there, I saw how a functioning democracy operated. This time was a very important part in moulding my views on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I came back and joined the Malaysian Bar in 1982. It was a wonderful organisation, even then. Being a young lawyer, I remember being petrified to appear before people like Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader — he would chew you up if you didn't know your brief. He was so respected because he knew your brief, and the law, and was of the highest integrity and intellect. In fact, I'd appeared before all the judges who were later suspended in the judicial crisis. What was it like, being a young lawyer during the 1988 judicial crisis? It was a real shock to the system. Our first three prime ministers never touched the judiciary; probably this was because they were lawyers themselves. Our judiciary was a very respected institution. I remember, as the tribunals were in progress, a group of us lawyers sitting at the back of the courtroom and watching. To see these men, who had so much self-respect, to be treated in that shabby way — we couldn't believe it. I remember going home and bursting into tears. It was like someone demolishing your house while you're standing in it. Things are getting better since those dark times. But, ultimately, when it comes to the judiciary, it is up to the judges themselves to act courageously, now. When did you become aware about race? Race was always there. We were always aware of it, but it wasn't as divisive as it is today. The New Economic Policy worked quite well, initially. Then the abuses started: the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many who actually needed it. And these few became arrogant. Playing the race card suited them, because it solidified their positions. I think, very frankly, that politicians are responsible for bringing so much racism into our society. I think it suited the politicians to play on our differences instead of what unites us. But the arrogance that grew with this has been rejected by the people. I'm talking about the March 2008 elections. What we saw was a rejection of racist rhetoric. People were fed up. Previously, the 13 May bogey used to work — but that's not working any more. Where do you think we are going, now? I like to think of Malaysian history as being divided into three phases. The initial years, during my father's time, when there was this nationalistic feeling, this drive to show the world that we could be an independent and united nation. Then a long period, during which things became more divisive. A time when we appeared to have economic prosperity, but also had so much corruption and racism. And now, a third phase: the push for change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of young Malaysians now feel no connection with 13 May. They don't come from that past. There is a disconnect between the youth, and old politics. My father's generation adored Tunku. I don't know whether we will get that feeling again. But you need this generation saying: the world has moved on, so let me move on, too. http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_opinions/comments/watching_malaysia_change.html

Press Release: Protect and uphold solicitor-client privilege

Press Release: Protect and uphold solicitor-client privilege

Tuesday, 16 June 2009 03:50pm

The Malaysian Bar is alarmed and perturbed that the police continue to harass and intimidate lawyers by calling them in for questioning on matters relating to the execution of their professional duties.

Most recently, lawyer Chan Kok Keong was served a Section 111 notice that was silent as to the subject he would be questioned about. At the interview, he was asked regarding an affidavit that had been affirmed by his client, former Perak assembly speaker V. Sivakumar, in a suit where Chan is representing the said client. Lawyers representing Chan in this matter were themselves informed that they would be required to give statements if they wished to accompany Chan at the interview.

Such questioning makes a complete mockery of the fundamental principle of solicitor-client confidentiality by which lawyers are bound. It shows a grave lack of respect for the criminal justice system, as the solicitor-client privilege lies at the core of this system.

This harassment must stop if we are indeed committed to the principle of access to justice and to the Rule of Law. It is internationally recognised that lawyers perform a vital function when they act for their clients in the pursuit of justice, and that they must be permitted to carry out these functions freely.

We urge the police to immediately stop such unwarranted action whereby officers continue to call in lawyers representing clients, to have their statements recorded. Further, we call on the police to respect the Rule of Law, which includes the right to legal access and the substantially unfettered right, recognised in law, to legal representation without the undue harassment and intimidation of lawyers carrying out their duties as officers of the court.

Ragunath Kesavan

President

Malaysian Bar

16 June 2009

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_protect_and_uphold_solicitor_client_privilege.html