Get set for Malaysian politics of the young!

Get set for a generational political shift

CERITALAH By KARIM RASLAN

The UKEC’s Projek Amanat Negara (PAN) shows how much young people can achieve without the straitjacket of thought control. Open debate events like the PAN will do Malaysia a world of good.



I’M in London and it’s late at night. Having arrived from Davos only yesterday I’m also exhausted but I can’t sleep. I’m too excited.

In fact, I’ve just returned to my hotel from the United Kingdom & Eire Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC) Projek Amanat Negara (PAN) conference and I feel as if I’ve seen – if not participated – in the future.

Whilst the World Economic Forum was an overwhelming event, the PAN conference was altogether more enthralling and meaningful for me - as a Malaysian.

What can I say? A small if well-organised group of Malaysian students in Britain – full of enthusiasm and determination – has set out to bring the best Malaysian minds and voices together.

In short, they succeeded and in doing so have shamed their nervous, narrow-minded elders back home in Kuala Lumpur – those who mumble that Malaysians aren’t ready for or need democracy and/or debate.

Instead, and with great confidence, they have proved that Malaysians are ready for change and that dialogue – open, frank and at times, heated – is well within our capacity.



Whilst I wasn’t much of an expert in the topic of my session (religion, of all things), I was glad and grateful to have contributed to the PAN along with my fellow panellists: Dr Carool Kersten, Zainah Anwar and PAS’ Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Nonetheless, the highlight of the conference was undoubtedly the debate on public policy between PKR’s Rafizi Ramli and Umno’s Khairy Jamaluddin.

The anticipation in the lead-up was almost unbearable.

Taking a front row seat and sitting alongside fellow columnist Marina Mahathir, I prepared myself for the encounter. Behind me, the room was seething with activity.

Would the session degenerate into a nasty, partisan session between the two prominent young lions? Both men are renowned as passionate voices for their party’s causes and Rafizi has recently assumed a very high national profile with his attacks on Government mismanagement (especially the NFC).

What we got, however, was a total surprise. The session was gracious and very statesman-like as two very smart young men squared off.

Both of them explained their respective political positions. Rafizi argued for political change whilst Khairy called for the status quo (plus reform).

When I thought about their responses later, I had to acknowledge that they held remarkably similar positions.

Calm and reasonable, the two men discussed a wide range of issues: from media access to freedom of assembly, race relations and Government tax policy.

Throughout the hour-and-half debate, the two men eschewed personal attacks. Neither was crude or vulgar: their points were well-argued and professional.

Moreover, instead of trying to score personal political points, they remained above the mere partisan.

The organisers had obviously spent time thinking through the format of the session to achieve the maximum impact and I congratulate them on the dramatic US Presidential-style format.

As I looked on, it struck me that I was a witness to a critical generational shift in Malaysian politics – as leaders stepped forward to discuss their differences openly in a manner that rose above mere political pettiness.

Glancing at my Twitter feed throughout the conference, another thing I noted was how many people shared my contention – which was published a few weeks ago – that it was a real tragedy that such an event like the PAN could not take place in Malaysia.

Many people have claimed that such debates are not part of the “Malaysian culture”.

Well, the historic exchange between Rafizi and Khairy showed how wrong they are.

The UKEC shows how much our young people can achieve without the straightjacket of thought control.

Open debate events like the PAN will do Malaysia a world of good and I call on all Malaysians to go online and watch the debate.

As Rafizi so pointedly said in his debate: “It doesn’t matter which side you get involved with. The important thing is that you go home – go home and make a difference.” One can only hope that they take his advice.

Western war on Iran soon?

Rising risk of Western war on Iran

GLOBAL TRENDS BY MARTIN KHOR

The new year is witnessing an escalation of a Western economic blockade against Iran while it has been claimed that Israel is preparing for a military strike. Can a war against Iran be avoided? 



THE risk of the world being engulfed in a new and dangerous war is increasing. In recent weeks, Iran has come under greater pressure over its nuclear programme, and the chances of this leading to military conflict have escalated.

A recent article in New York Times magazine revealed that senior Israeli leaders were preparing for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012.

The United States has intensified its initiative on trade and financial sanctions on Iran.

Republican candidates for the Presidency have been using high anti-Iran rhetoric.

And there is the possibility in a Presidential election year that the incumbent President may start a war to gain popularity.



In his State of the Union speech last week, President Barack Obama said he would take no option off the table to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Europe recently announced an embargo on Iranian oil. The European Union foreign ministers decided there would be no further oil contracts between its member states and Iran, and that existing oil delivery deals would be allowed to run only until July.

These actions are purportedly aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Iran has insisted its research programme is for developing nuclear power, not weapons.

And there is no evidence that it is in fact developing, or intending to develop, weapons.



There is a danger of dramatic escalation of the present conflict through one of various scenarios, such as an Israeli attack on Iran (with or without United States assistance or approval) or an incident in the Persian Gulf involving Western and Iranian ships.

The US has doubled the number of aircraft carriers near the Persian Gulf, while French and British warships recently accompanied the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln into the Gulf.

These developments are creating the conditions for a slide into a catastrophic war.

On Jan 25, the New York Times carried an article – “Will Israel attack Iran?”– by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, an analyst who interviewed Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak, vice-premier Moshe Ya’alon and others.

“After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012,” wrote Bergman.

This determination to strike comes despite many difficulties, listed by Bergman.

Iran has dispersed its nuclear installations throughout its vast territory, and Israel has limited air power and no aircraft carrier.

Even if an attack were successful, Iran would be able to rebuild the damaged or wrecked sites. And Iran had declared that it would strike back if attacked.

There is of course irony and double standards in this situation.

While Israel and the West decry the consequences if Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability, it is well known that Israel itself owns many nuclear weapons.

And while Iran is often accused by the same countries of sponsoring terrorism, Iran itself has been the victim of terrorist attacks and economic and technological sabotage.

Bergman’s article provides many details of many of the covert actions taken by Israel against Iran.

The Israeli secret service Mossad was given “virtually unlimited funds and powers” to stop the Iranian bomb through a five-front strategy that involved “political pressure, covert measures, counter-proliferation, sanctions and re­­gime change”.



The moves against Iran include boycotting of financial institutions, the use of computer viruses to disrupt the operations of the nuclear project, tampering with components and the supply of faulty parts and raw materials, explosions at various facilities, and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists.

The article implies that Israel has been involved in, or approves of, these actions, although it does not explicitly admit to them.

Meanwhile, Iran insists it is not intending to develop nuclear weapons, and there has been no evidence that it is doing so.

Iran’s enemies are fearful it will develop a technical capability for developing weapons as it pursues its nuclear energy programme.

Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt, a former Fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the US National Academy of Sciences, and scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, has said Iran was not doing anything that violated its legal right to develop nuclear technology.

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability or option.



If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector, it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability, and several countries that do not have weapons, do have this capability.

Meanwhile, Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service reported that several influential foreign policy figures in the US (who used to be Iraq war hawks) were speaking up against military action on Iran.

“We’re doing this terrible thing all over again,” wrote Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and previously a Iraq-war hawk.

Kenneth Pollack, whose 2002 book on Iraq was cited frequently by hawks before the Iraq invasion, argued not only against any further escalation, but also suggested that the US-EU sanctions were proving counterproductive.

Princeton University professor Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that the West and Iran were playing a “dangerous game of chicken” and that the West’s current course “leaves Iran’s government no alternative between publicly backing down, which it will not do, and escalating its provocations”.

“The more publicly the West threatens Iran, the more easily Iranian leaders can portray America as the Great Satan,” wrote Slaughter, formerly director of policy planning under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It remains to be seen if cooler heads will indeed prevail so that a new war against Iran is avoided.

Corporate Malaysia history needs Muck

OPTIMISTICALLY CAUTIOUS By ERROL OH

Here are some important reminders of our business history

IT'S clear of late that Malaysia has an awkward relationship with its past. Controversy after controversy have shown that it's hard for us to agree on the facts and interpretation that form a widely accepted version of our history, or indeed, on what separates historical facts from mere stories.

This is troubling. George Santayana was a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist, but if he is to be universally noted for just one thing, it should perhaps be for the fact that he wrote this: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Try arguing against that.

What's more worrying is that there's no collective effort by corporate Malaysia to enrich what we know about the pivotal developments in the country's business landscape. Key documents, publications and other forms of information from companies should be aggregated, organised and presented to a broad audience.

In other words, we should have a Museum of Corporate Knowledge. As a bonus, it has an easy-to-remember acronym Muck.

Of course, it ought to have features you would find in any other top-notch museum, such as objects of great significance, dioramas, interactive displays, and narratives.

Considering that corporate Malaysia is well over a century old the Companies Commission of Malaysia's origins go back to the late 19th century a major challenge is to select the people and events that deserve to be showcased in Muck.

And after that task has been completed, there's the equally difficult job of designing exhibits that best tell the story behind each choice. Some suggestions:

The power of no power

The story: Lightning struck a transmission facility on Sept 29, 1992, causing a blackout throughout Peninsular Malaysia. It took 48 hours to fully restore electricity supply. The incident prompted the Government to allow others to enter the business of generating power, until then the monopoly of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB).

This paved the way for the birth of the independent power producers (IPPs).

Six months after the blackout, TNB signed a 21-year power purchase agreement (PPAs) with YTL Corp Bhd. Four more PPAs were inked in 1993. These early PPAs are highly lucrative, to the point that they were regarded as lopsided in favour of the IPPs.

The terms of subsequent PPAs were less generous, but the structure of the IPP programme has proven to be less than ideal because of the strain on TNB. Attempts to renegotiate the first-generation PPAs have failed.

The exhibit: The TNB equipment damaged by the September 1992 lightning strike. This serves to remind us of how an act of God can have far-reaching consequences.



AirAsia's transformation

The story: On Sept 5, 2001, DRB-Hicom Bhd agreed to sell its 99.25% stake in AirAsia Sdn Bhd to Tune Air Sdn Bhd for RM1 cash and the assumption of half of AirAsia's liabilities. Back then, AirAsia was making losses and was weighed downs by debts. The transaction was completed three months later.

Founded by Tan Sri Tony Fernandes, Datuk Kamarudin Meranun, Datuk Aziz Bakar and Datuk Pahamin Ab Rajab, Tune Air relaunched AirAsia as a low-fare carrier. Now listed on Bursa Malaysia, the airline has famously changed the region's aviation and travel industries.

The exhibit: If Tune Air had paid for the acquisition with a RM1 banknote, let's hope somebody has kept it as a souvenir and is willing to donate it to Muck. Framed and displayed prominently, it makes a great symbol of entrepreneurial vision and drive.

Kenmark scandal

The story: Furniture manufacturer Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd announced on May 31, 2010, that its quarterly results were delayed because, among other things, managing director James Hwang had gone missing. At the same time, the company was classified a PN17 stock because of loan default by a subsidiary.

The next day, businessman Datuk Ishak Ismail emerged as a substantial shareholder, and new directors of Kenmark were appointed. It was also around that time that the company released a letter and a press statement purportedly from Hwang, explaining his absence (supposedly due to illness) and promising that he would return to Malaysia. The share price rebounded strongly.

A week later, Ishak started selling his shares and soon ceased to be a substantial shareholder. The stock plunged again and this time, there was no reversal.

Kenmark was delisted on Dec 31, 2010. It appears that Hwang has not come back to Malaysia until today. The Securities Commission (SC) has initiated civil action against Ishak for insider trading and for making false or misleading statements.

The exhibit: Hwang's letter and press statement dated June 2, 2010, that were emailed to Kenmark's independent directors. These were instrumental in convincing people that it wouldn't be long before the company's woes were over.

Transmile fraud

The story: When Transmile Group Bhd was delisted in May last year, it marked the conclusion to a spectacular corporate flop. The air cargo company was once considered a top stock pick, mainly because it was part of Robert Kuok's empire and was poised to grow rapidly in tandem with Asia's trade boom.

The first sign of trouble surfaced in April 2007, when it missed the deadline for submitting its audited 2006 accounts. A special audit commissioned by the board of directors uncovered shocking irregularities. The company's revenue from 2004 to 2006 was overstated by hundreds of millions of ringgit. The audited shareholders' fund as at December 2006 was 55% less than the unaudited figure announced earlier.

Transmile took too long to get out of PN17 status and was booted out by the stock exchange.

In July 2007, the SC charged three Transmile senior executives, including CEO Gan Boon Aun, for abetting the company in making misleading statements. I

n November the same year, two former independent directors and audit committee members were charged for authorising the furnishing of a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia.

The two ex-independent directors were found guilty in October last year and were jailed and fined. Gan's trial is ongoing.

The exhibit: Altimeter from one of the Transmile planes. The instrument for measuring altitude is a great representation of the ups and downs in the stock market. At its height, the Transmile share price reached RM14.40. It had been trading at less than 10 sen before its suspension and subsequent delisting.

Executive editor Errol Oh believes that when we know our follies may be put on public display, we're likely to be more careful and responsible.

Related post:
Malaysian History & Legend; facts & fallacies; myths, heroes or zeroes?