Posts Tagged ‘MCA’

Spiritual talk by expert on meditation

May 24th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Spiritual talk by expert on meditation

A WORLD-RENOWNED authority on meditation, Raja Yogini Dadi Gulzar, will be giving a talk on Inner Harmony through Soul Power next month in conjunction with the country's celebration of 50 years of nationhood. 

Sharing the stage with Dadi Gulzar will be National Service Training Council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and Defence Ministry personnel who will speak on Unity ? The Soul of the Nation.  » Read more: Spiritual talk by expert on meditation

What actually happened during the 1969 tragedy

May 14th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


May 11, 07 1:11pm
The series of events surrounding the ‘May 13′ riot has been documented by Dr Kua Kia Soong in his latest book May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969 which will be launched on Sunday in conjunction with the 38th anniversary of the tragedy.
This compilation, based on various sets of foreign dispatches and confidential reports at the time – which were declassified recently and made available at the Public Records Office in London – has been dubbed as the first credible account on the incident.
“The real circumstances surrounding the worst racial riot in the history of Malaysia have so far not been made available to the Malaysian public. The official version is fraught with contradictions and inadequacies to which few pay credence,” Kua wrote in the book.
Below are excerpts and summary of the chronology of events based on the declassified documents taken from Kua’s book:
May 10:
The ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback in the general election although it had managed to retain a simple parliamentary majority. They had lost Penang to the Gerakan Party; Kelantan to the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party while Perak and Selangor were at the brink of falling into the opposition’s hands.
May 11 and May 12:
On both nights, the opposition celebrated their victory. A large Gerakan procession was held to welcome the left-wing Gerakan leader V David back from winning the federal seat in Penang.
May 13:
The MCA which had suffered badly at the polls, announced that it would withdraw from the cabinet while remaining within the Alliance.
A dispatch from a foreign correspondent showed it is evident that there was a plan for youths mobilised by Umno elements to assemble at then Selangor menteri besar Harun Idris’ residence in the late afternoon. A retaliatory march had been planned although police permission was withheld.
When people were still assembling for the parade, trouble broke out in the nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were burnt. The ensuing carnage at Kampung Baru and Batu Road quickly spread elsewhere in Kuala Lumpur.
The foreign correspondent noted the curfew that was imposed was not fairly applied to all.
“In the side streets off Jalan Hale, I could see bands of Malay youths armed with parangs and sharpened bamboo spears assembled in full view of troops posted at road junctions. Meanwhile, at Batu Road, a number of foreign correspondents saw members of the Royal Malay Regiment firing into Chinese shophouses for no apparent reason.”
Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman immediately attributed the violence as triggered off by the behaviour of opposition supporters after the election result announcement while his deputy Tun Abdul Razak pinned the blame on the communists.
May 14:
The riots continued but on a smaller scale. The curfew was only lifted in staggered hours in various districts to allow people to buy food. The police called out all possible reserves and handed over the northern part of the city to the army.
Police put casualties for the previous night incident at 44 killed and about 150 injured. Another dispatch showed the casualties were mainly Chinese as it stated that out of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on May 14, at least 60 were Chinese.
The government’s attempts to blame the communists for the riots were however not taken seriously by the officials at the British High Commission (BHC) who could see that the Tunku was not prepared to blame his own people for the riots, nor was he going to blame it on the Chinese “as a whole”.
May 15:
The King proclaimed a state of emergency. The National Operations Council headed by Tun Razak was formed. Tun Razak was still responsible to the Tunku, but all the powers under Emergency Regulations were vested in him.
The curfew had been lifted temporarily in Kuala Lumpur that morning but the situation had rapidly worsened and more sporadic fighting had broken out. Curfews were re-imposed but food was very short.
The local press was suspended until censorship regulations could be drawn up but no attempt was made to supervise reports sent out by foreign correspondents.
May 16:
The situation was still tense in Selangor with cars and houses being burned and fatalities rising. Death tolls had risen to 89 with over 300 injured. 24 hour curfew remained in force in Selangor and had also been imposed in Malacca. In Penang and Perak, the situation had improved although the curfew remained in force.
Tunku made a broadcast in which he announced the setting up of a National Defence Force to be manned by volunteers. The new information minister Hamzah Abu Samah and Tun Razak gave a press conference pinning the blame for the riots on communist infiltration of the opposition parties.
There were reports of looting by the largely Malay military and their bias against the Chinese Malaysians. Number of refugees were increasing.
May 17:
From a BHC telegram, it showed there were skepticism among British officers toward the official figures for fatalities and the preponderance of Chinese casualties among the dead. The police estimated the deaths at about 100 now while British officers estimated the proportion of Chinese to Malay casualties is about 85:15.
The press censorship invited criticism not only from the local press but also in diplomatic circles especially when official statements lacked clarity and credibility.
In a confidential BHC memorandum to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the coup d’etat has been acknowledged and it has effected the transfer of power not only to “Malay hands” but also to the security forces. The latter’s professionalism is questioned.
The BHC also noted the Federal Reserve Unit, which at the time was multiracial in composition, was the more impartial of the security forces while the Malay troops were discriminatory in enforcing the curfew.
“Discriminatory takes the form, for example, of not, repeat not, enforcing the curfew in one of the most violently disposed of the Malay areas in Kuala Lumpur (Kampung Baru) where Malays armed with parangs, etc continue to circulate freely; with the inevitable result that gangs slip through the cordon round the area and attack Chinese outside it. In Chinese areas, the curfew is strictly enforced.”
May 18:
The Tunku qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”. He also announced the deferment of the Sarawak elections and the continuance of the restrictions on the movement of foreign journalists.
The situation was still unsettled in some parts of the capital city.
May 19:
Less than a week after the riots, the reins of power had effectively passed to Tun Razak, indicating that there had been a plot to bring about the coup d’etat.
“The exact relationship between Tun Razak and the Tunku is not clear. In public Tun Razak says he is directly responsible to the Tunku but he has made it clear privately that he is completely in charge of the country. This could mean the beginning of a process of withdrawal by the Tunku as an effective PM”.
There are some 10,000 reported refugees. The local press was allowed to publish under censorship while foreign journalists had their curfew passes withdrawn. Some opposition politicians were arrested.
May 20:
In a meeting, an Australian High Commissioner had suggested the opposition leaders should be given a role as peace maker but Tun Razak and Ghazali Shafie were firmly against this. “They considered opposition leaders would simply use such an opportunity to promote their own political views.”
The Malaysian Red Cross Society is continuing its daily feeding programme for refugees in various places and over 5,000 had received food supplies.
May 21:
The official statistics of casualties at this juncture were 137 killed (18 Malays), 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed and 2,912 persons arrested who were mostly curfew breakers.
May 23:
The declassified documents reveal that Malay troops were not only fraternising with the Malay thugs but were discharging their firearms indiscriminately at Chinese shophouses as they went through the city.
“When confronted by foreign correspondents with reports of racial discrimination, Tun Razak flatly denied them. Following this, curfew passes issued to foreign journalists were withdrawn and reporters were ordered to remain indoors ‘for their own safety’.”
A foreign correspondent’s report showed the Malay hooligans were detested by the law-abiding Malays of Kampung Baru.
Internal security and home minister Tun Dr Ismail indicated that the Internal Security Act would be in future amended to “counter changing communist tactics”. It was disclosed that of the 3,699 arrested during the crisis, 952 were members of secret societies.
May 24:
Law and order has been re-established in Kuala Lumpur and the atmosphere in the town had improved. People were going back to work (in non- curfew hours) and the government offices were limbering into action. The curfew remained in force (from 3pm to 6.30am of the following day). The government was not ready to admit that it was armed Malay youth who had caused the disturbances.
May 27:
The Tunku was under pressure to resign as he was clearly incensed by foreign journalists’ speculations about his weakening position and got his private secretary to write a protest note to the BHC.
May 28:
A confidential report by the BHC to the FCO on this day observed the government’s attempts to blame the communists for the disturbances were an attempt to justify their new authoritarian powers.
June:
The riots had been under control but they were still sporadic outbreaks of civil disturbances. A BHC report noted violence erupted again in one part of Kuala Lumpur on the night of June 28 and 29, a number of houses were burnt and the casualties were officially given as five killed and 25 injured. Some disturbances toward the end of June also involved ethnic Indians.
July:
Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped from spreading in Kuala Lumpur by positive police action.
Tun Ismail’s firm stand in ordering the security forces to act firmly ‘without favour or discrimination’ to any communal group and the Tunku’s announcement of a National Goodwill Committee made up of politicians of all parties went some way toward allaying the fears of the people.
Tun Ismail also revealed the total arrests since May now stood at 8,114, comprising people “from all the major racial groups”. Of these, 4,192 had been charged in court, 675 released on bail, 1,552 unconditionally released and 1,695 preventively detained.
Situation in the Peninsula had improved substantially but tension remains high in sensitive areas of Malacca, Perak and Selangor.
Tension had begun to ease until Malay agitation connected with Tunku’s return to a position of influence and the removal of Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno’s general committee on July 12 had heightened it again. Malay university students petitioned for Tunku’s resignation and demonstrated on the campus.
*** TAKEN FROM A FWD MAIL***

Maybank should always be fair and just to all

May 12th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


“Fair and Just” as in universal type or slanted type? So what will cabinet do?
UMNO and those sticking to prevent equal opportunity are asking Maybank to enforce equity which will benefit Malays (well, no proof all bumis benefit, the original bumis are still deprived of development) and for all those with mixed parentage who cling on to the bumi status as a means of unfair competitive advantage. A blatant misuse of the status, i would say. And what equity? any tom dick and harry can calculate as he/she likes and say equity is 5%, 10%, 20%, 42%, or even 100%. Can we just believe it?
The rest of malaysia says Maybank’s action is wrong.
Cabinet can:
1. continue its stand – and suffer from selfish Malays’ condemnation 2. Revoke and allow maybank to do as it like – which is slap in the face and insult to all right thinking and mature malaysians. 3. maintain status quo, but maybank will enforce the ruling silently with support from UMNO and others.
Why this equity anyway? So that the chinese/indian/others can work hard and the selected few get free money? If you are good, business will come to you. if you are not, well… you need a tongkat, of course…to hide the weakness and inability.
Better if Maybank just say that will allow only 100% Malay law firms. Let’s see how many firms will get selected. You want to select your cronies, “give chance”, “share the economic pie”, and suffer possible loss due to legal incompetence? What would the shareholders say? We as shareholders only want the highest returns and not some flimsy rules which hinder from hiring the best.
From all the replies in the malay dailies, not a single comment touched on the excellent capabilities of their lawyers. Why? Maybe such things don’t exist? So, you want companies to pay for substandard service?


PM: Maybank must be fair to all
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/12/nation/17708737&sec=nation
KUALA LUMPUR: Maybank should always be “fair and just” to all, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The Prime Minister said the bank’s requirement that legal firms dealing with them must have a bumiputra partner with at least a 50% stake was never a government directive.
“It was their own internal administrative policy,” he said.
Following criticisms, the country’s biggest bank reversed this internal guideline and said it would elect its panel of lawyers based on efficiency, performance and merit, and not ethnic composition.
However, a Malay newspaper reported yesterday that Malay intellectuals were asking for Maybank to retain the 50% bumiputra stake requirement.
Asked about this, Abdullah, who is also Finance Minister, said there was “no need to ask Maybank to do this and that.”
“They know what is needed,” he added.
On Wednesday, the Cabinet directed Maybank, which is the country’s largest financial group, to withdraw its requirement following criticism from various groups including the MCA, Bar Council and the Associated Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The groups had said the guidelines were discriminatory and that selection of law firms should be on merit and not ethnic composition.
MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said the Cabinet discussed the issue and considered the matter resolved.
On Thursday, Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein Onn said the Maybank issue should be a lesson to all Malaysians as the country was a multiracial one where a small thing could become sensitive.
Meanwhile, AmBank Group announced that all letters sent out to legal firms that stipulated the requirement of bumiputra equity participation had been withdrawn.
“We would also like to apologise for any misunderstanding caused by the letters which were issued over the last few days,” it said.
AmBank was also criticised for sending out letters to law firms requiring them to have a bumiputra partner.
Yesterday, Perak Malay Chamber of Commerce youth chairman Saiful Adli Mohd Arshad said the chamber fully supported Maybank’s requirement because it would help increase bumiputra equity, especially among professionals.
Catrade Sdn Bhd chief executive officer Datuk IIyas Mohamed said the Cabinet directive appeared to be inconsistent with its own policy of assisting Malays in getting their share in the distribution of the nation’s wealth.

Maybank debate a good lesson

May 11th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


NST:Maybank debate ‘a good lesson’

Farrah Naz Karim
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/20070511090100/Article/index_html
PUTRAJAYA: A good lesson to be learnt by all, is how Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein described the controversy involving Maybank’s equity requirement for its panel of lawyers.
Hishammuddin said the requirement that law firms needed at least 50 per cent Bumiputera equity before they could do business with the bank was not just an internal matter.
The education minister said the bank’s approach was wrong as such issues could create misperception and anxiety about government policies.
“We are in our 50th year of of independence and people want to learn from our system, and here we are bickering about a matter that shouldn’t have surfaced at all. This is a lesson to us as a multi-racial nation, that a small matter like this can be sensitive.
“It is not a huge issue and could have been resolved between the parties involved. For this issue to be brought up in cabinet was unnecessary,” he said after a meeting with his Thai counterpart Prof Dr Wichit Srisa-an and Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamad. Maybank had come under criticism by lawyers and some political groups which insisted that firms should be judged on their merit and not ethnic composition or equity. » Read more: Maybank debate a good lesson

Cabinet orders Maybank to stop

May 10th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Written no less than Datuk Wong Chun Wai himself…
A mini victory for MCA, Gerakan. As usual, the educated leadership of MIC choose to remain silent and focus on more important things.

Maybank adheres to Cabinet order
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/10/nation/17681264&sec=nation
By WONG CHUN WAI
KUALA LUMPUR: The Cabinet has ordered the country’s largest bank, Maybank, to withdraw its requirement that law firms must have a bumiputra partner with at least a 50% stake before they could do any business with the bank.
The move, which generated controversy and criticism that it was discriminatory, was discussed at the weekly Cabinet meeting yesterday.
Highly-placed sources said the Cabinet took the stand because it felt it was not a government policy and that the Finance Ministry had also not issued any such directive to banks.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also Finance Minister, chaired the Cabinet meeting.
The sources said that while the bank’s decision was an internal directive, the Cabinet felt it was not a proper decision.
MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting, when contacted, said the Cabinet discussed the issue, and felt that Maybank’s decision was inappropriate and not in line with government policy.
The Housing and Local Government Minister considered the matter settled and resolved.
The Maybank decision had been criticised by various groups including the MCA, Bar Council and the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, which said firms should be judged on their merit and not ethnic composition.
In Boston, FOO YEE PING reports that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as saying the government’s policy is to help both bumiputras and non-bumiputras.
He said Maybank should understand that the government policy was to encourage government-linked companies (GLC) to provide work for both bumiputras and non-bumiputras.
On Tuesday, MCA vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek questioned the ruling, asking how Malaysia could compete globally if a government-linked company like Maybank still adopted such a position.
Wanita MCA chief Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, who is Deputy Finance Minister, expressed regret with Maybank, saying the condition had no legal basis and was certainly not in line with the spirit of the Federal Constitution.
Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan had earlier described the requirement as discriminatory and said that all lawyers should be judged on merit.
Yesterday, Maybank issued a statement that the bank wanted to emphasise that selection of solicitor firms would continue to be based primarily on performance, efficiency and merit.
“Moving forward and with immediate effect, all solicitor firms, whether with bumiputra or non-bumiputra equity ownership, are eligible for consideration,” it said.
It said all other revised criteria for emplacement of solicitor firms pursuant to its annual review remain unchanged.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, meanwhile, said that Bank Negara should have ordered Maybank to revoke its decision instead of waiting for the Cabinet to act.
“If Bank Negara can order banks to merge, we cannot accept that Bank Negara could not intervene earlier because it was a Maybank internal matter,” he said.
Lim said similar requirements were set out by Ambank Bhd, claiming there had been tacit discrimination by other banks in refusing to parcel out work to those without the 50% bumiputra equity requirement.
However, a statement from the AmBank Group said no restrictions or quota of shares were imposed.
“The group does appoint legal firms that do not have bumiputra partners. This policy has been in place for more than two decades,” it said.
However, to encourage bumiputra participation in the financial services industry, the AmBank Group had always encouraged legal firms to have bumiputra partners, it added.