Hands Dirtying Act

And here we thought that Najib is on swell terms with Goldman Sachs.

Maybe there is a pouting moment here, what’s with the whole controversy swirling around 1MDB and Goldman Sachs' role.

Anyway, I digress.

This is in relation to the supposed reactivation of govt equity investment firm , Valuecap, “to shore up the country's stock market”.

The amount – while certainly more than, urm, RM2.6 b – is pretty small when compared to the money pumped by the Chinese government to “prop up (its) plunging stock market.”

Of, course China’s equity market have tumbled like an unstable pack of cards line atop each other to start with.

Didn’t do much help and the bigger fear would then what if the government then decides to stop hoarding and pull out.

Our stock market have seen better days, but as is forever the economic cycle, there will be bulls and there will be bears.

So why the RM20b injection?

And where is this fund coming from?

Why the selected stocks and who decides?

At what point which Valuecap stop, urm, propping and starts selling again to recoup?

Or is there going to be no recoup?

Can Najib simply, simply take RM20b from the national coffers to pump into the share market which is supposed to be market driven without the Parliament's okay?

RM20b is not exactly peanuts and last generations.

Why is the govt getting its hand dirty again with such a commercialized move? Doesn’t 1MDB provide any experience on the folly of doing so?

Or are we missing a bigger picture here?

Not us, of course.

Treasonous Ingrates

During the course of an FB chat, a friend asks for my comments on a former reporter colleague’s posting of choosing between peace and prosperity, or freedom, rights, integrity and transparency.

In the Malaysian context, this is supposedly a Hobson’s choice.

As it was close to midnight, I yammered some incomprehensible reply before logging off but an article on the massacre of 57 people, including 31 journalists, on a November morningthree years ago in Maguindanao got me thinking again on the question.

Yes, we have been blessed with relative – the main blemish being the May 13, 1969 riots - peace and prosperity throughout the 54 years of the nation’s existence.

Why couldn’t we, then, put in place principles that upholds one's freedom and rights, governing integrity and transparency – and if I may add – moral and ethics into the way we administer the country?

Can’t we have both? What is it about the latter that is so threatening to the former that co-existence is supposedly impossible?

We are not talking about unbridled freedom and rights but in the context of the proper adherence to the Rule of Law; i.e. where EVERYONE knows exactly where the boundary lies and the penalties for transgressing this line.

Realistically, it is here that we have been found wanting for quite a while now with seemingly two sets of rules being in play: one for the politically favoured and, another, for the rest of us.

That, and the seeming politically-expedient way of our execution of some laws: the most recent being the charging of a Border’s bookstore staff over the banned Irshad Manji’s book.

At least, there is a Judicial Review on the matter.

The retroactive nature of the alleged offence and the seriousness of its outcome (for the staff’s livelihood and freedom) means that there shouldn’t be any other way forward than to contest the charge brought against her under the Syariah Enactment.

So, can it be argued that the Rule of Law is alive and well as such?

Before we come to the said conclusion, do remember that Borders is owned by Berjaya Books and in Malaysia, Berjaya is a biggie.

There shouldn’t have been a charging in the first place had the Rule of Law really been adhered to.

All things said, I have to admit that the country is a relatively peaceful place to live and work in.

Not necessarily play, though, (pun intended) – what with the, ahem, increased perception of lawlessness apparent amongst some of the populace.

What is also true, however, is that some of the natives are restless; a sentiment simmering just below the all-glossy,shiny surface of the nation’s peace and prosperity facade.

Restless over perceived and actual bias in the implementation of national policies, over the seemingly accepted culture of rent seeking as a valid method of earning a living, over a more apparent division of class on top of the already well entrenched polarization of race, over the increasingly burdensome chase of economic over social well being…

Perhaps these are just the middle class / urban suburban / Gen X manic responses to the crushing economic malaise of late.

Or mere ravings of the disgruntled, treasonous ingrates as purported by some of our politicians.

Sadly, the peace we’ve held for so long did not see the putting into place a system of governance where such grievances could have been amicably tackled.

I’ve often asked this question: how and when did the country go off tangent in its nation-building to come to this sad state?

When did we make peace and prosperity, and governance, rights, integrity and transparency a Hobson’s Choice?

To some, this was when the Doctor was in the house.

Was it? Why did we let it be so?

Did we want our people to be forever in hand outstretched for crumbs mode?

The Tyranny of Thanos the Titan

Parliamentarians FB'ing

“I have just got some information on my FB (Facebook). This is from a student in the Edinburgh University itself who said she has never failed her studies.

“In fact, she is one of the best students doing Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacology with Industrial Experience. Hope this could be clarified so that there are no more rumours on Nur Amalina,” said Zulkifli Noordin (PKR-Kulim Bandar Baru), reading from a posting on his FB."

Nur Amalina is, of course, our 2004 SPM 17A1s scorer.

The “ clarification” was made following the MP’s own question in Parliament on her status following unsubstantiated rumors that she had failed her studies.

Weird that the Q&A and the clarification occurred within “several minutes”, though.

It was as if Zulkifli had intended to put the matter to rest in one swift moved especially since he had no help from Higher Education Deputy Minister, Saifuddin Abdullah.

If I am not mistaken, Saifuddin himself is also on FB.

This posting is not going to be about Nur Amalina, who I believe will do whatever it takes to succeed in her studies.

It’s more about taking postings in the social networks (or any other "facts" in the Internet) as Gospel (no offence intended) Truths.

FB, Blogs, etc usually represent the sides the respective posters want to portray themselves.

Of course, they will be a smattering on facts in between, but fleshing these out would be bits and pieces of opinionated offerings.

Take for example the recent Arsenal – Liverpool game in the English Premier League.

Fact: Arsenal won 2 – 1. Another fact: Two of the three goals were scored by Liverpool players.

So if I were to post on my FB that the game ended with Liverpool players scoring two goals and Arsenal one without letting on who won, I would categorically NOT be fibbing.

And unless someone comes out and say that one of the two was an own goal, somebody reading my post would think that Liverpool had won the match.

(I know it’s a lame example, but then again….)

Back to YBs Zulkifli and Saifuddin on Nur Amalina.

The news brief reported Zulkifli as saying that “he has to correct his statement as he has raised the issue in his debate and has now found out that Nur Amalina was still continuing with her studies.”

Saifuddin, meanwhile, was quoted verbatim as having said: “That’s why I said as far as we are concerned; we don’t have any information on the failure. Thank you for retracting it immediately and correcting the statement.”

So there you go.

FB postings in our Parliamentary proceedings.

I bet rumors of Nur Amalina’s supposed failure also originated from the Net.

Maybe even from a friend of a friend of a friend's Internet posting.

Sneak Taxation

The tax men taketh and taketh.

Consultants and business would have probably realize by now a particularly sneaky extra cost in doing business in Malaysia courtesy of the Finance Act 2008.

The provision concern is Section 65 which says the following:

The First Schedule to the principal Act (being the Stamp Act 1949) is amended by substituting for item 22(1) the following item:

"Section 22. Covenant, Loan,Services, Equipment Lease Agreement or Instruments of any kind whatsoever.."

and its goes on to state Ad Valorem tax of 0.5% is imposed on these agreements and instruments.

In other words, if you intend to stamp a service agreement - basically a promise to do something for another party for a certain sum of money - you are slapped with this added cost.

It used to be a flat rate of RM10, but now it's RM5 for every RM1,000.

A RM1m service AGREEMENT will set the parties back by RM5,000 never mind that there is still nothing exchanged between the parties as yet.

I.e. A tax on promise.

In the construction sector where there are easily three, four layers of contractors, tradesmen and consultants, each and every one of the agreements will kena the Ad Valorem.

And these contracts are almost never measly RM1m agreements and the Stamp Act 1949 states the Ad Valorem is payable on the whole contract sum, even if the works are in phases.

Go to any Stamping Office and you are liable to see despatches being turned away without their documents being stamped as the stamping fee is no longer the RM10 that it was before.

Red faced consultants suddenly find themselves having to explain to their clients that they need to fork out some extra money in an environment already fraught with uncertainties.

The amendments supposedly takes effect from Jan 1.

I do not know whether it was case of bad drafting, or an intentional one, but coming at a time of Great Depression (gasp!!), the only party being stimulated here would be the Taxmen.

What is our representatives at the Parliament doing in missing such a blatant tax on business?

Whose interests are they looking out for?

Do note that businesses create employment for the Rakyat before you start yammering about social responsibilities bla bla.

Don't demean yourself that this was the right move to be made.