PULAU BATU PUTIH AND TERRITORIAL WATERS

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
(Versi Bahasa Malaysia di akhir artikel ini)

1. We had expected the International Court of Justice to declare that Pulau Batu Putih is ours, together with South Ledge and Middle Rocks. 

2. But the decision of the Court left me flabbergasted. On the one hand Pulau Batu Putih which is nearer Malaysia and very much farther from Singapore is awarded to Singapore while the two rocks which are part of the same shoal and further away from Malaysia than Pulau Batu Putih are awarded to Malaysia. 

3. No decision was made as to the marine boundary. It must be assumed that the shoals are in Malaysian territorial waters, since the decision to give Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore is based on some obscure letter written by a minor Johor official while under British rule to a British official in Singapore. Rightly it should have been sanctioned and written under the authority of the Sultan in Council. 

4. In any case the sea between Pulau Batu Putih and the two rocks had not been raised by Singapore at the International Court. Its claim was only on Pulau Batu Putih and the Court had awarded the “Pulau” to Singapore. The sea is a different matter. 

5. The claim by Singapore that the sea belongs to Singapore is simply because the present Malaysian Government has always been ready to entertain any claim by Singapore no matter how ridiculous it may be. Thus the Malaysian Government has agreed that it has no right to touch the Causeway even on its side of the Strait of Tebrau unless it obtains the permission of the Singapore Government. 

6. The first reaction against Singapore’s new claim came from the Malaysian Foreign Minister. There is no certainty that the Prime Minister might not reverse the stand taken by his Foreign Minister. 

7. We have seen this before. When the Deputy Prime Minister said publicly that we would go ahead with the scenic bridge, he was made to look silly a few days later when the Prime Minister said we will not build the bridge at all, neither straight nor crooked. 

8. To emphasise his ever-willing submission to Singapore, the Prime Minister ordered the Foreign Minister to inform the Minister Mentor of Singapore that Malaysia will not build any bridge. Why we have to inform Singapore about our decision is something I just cannot understand. 

9. In the South China Sea we built an island out of Terumbu (reef) Layang Layang. From the picture I see of the two rocks retained by us, it is entirely possible for them to be reclaimed and joined together. We could then have a proper island there just as Singapore had built up Pulau Batu Putih to accommodate security personnel. 

10. There is nothing in any agreement with Singapore or in the decision of the International Court to prevent us from doing this. The decision is entirely ours to make. 

11. I will not make a guess as to what will happen. 

***** 

PULAU BATU PUTIH DAN KAWASAN PERAIRAN 

1. Kita menjangkakan yang Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa akan mengisytiharkan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai hak kita, termasuk South Ledge dan Middle Rocks. 

2. Tetapi keputusan Mahkamah tersebut mengejutkan saya. Pulau Batu Putih yang lebih hampir pada Malaysia tetapi amat jauh dari Singapura diserahkan kepada Singapura manakala dua tunggul batu yang merupakan sebahagian daripada terumbu yang sama tetapi lebih jauh daripada Malaysia jika dibandingkan Pulau Batu Putih diserahkan kepada Malaysia. 

3. Tiada keputusan dibuat tentang persempadanan perairan. Tetapi kita boleh anggap yang terumbu tersebut berada di dalam perairan Malaysia kerana keputusan untuk serahkan Pulau Batu Putih kepada Singapura didasarkan kepada satu surat yang ditulis pegawai rendah Johor semasa di bawah jajahan British kepada pegawai British di Singapura. Sepatutnya ianya hendaklah dititah dan ditulis di bawah kuasa Sultan. 

4. Apa pun soal perairan di antara Pulau Batu Putih dan batu-batu tersebut tidak dibangkitkan Singapura di Mahkamah Antarabangsa. Tuntutannya hanyalah ke atas Pulau Batu Putih dan Mahkamah telahpun menyerahkan “Pulau” ini kepada Singapura. Perairan merupakan hal lain sama sekali. 

5. Dakwaan Singapura bahawa perairan sekeliling adalah haknya ialah kerana Kerajaan Malaysia sekarang sentiasa bersedia untuk melayan apa sahaja tuntutan Singapura walaupun ianya tidak masuk akal sama sekali. Demikian Kerajaan Malaysia telah putuskan yang ianya tidak mempunyai hak untuk menyentuh tambak Johor walaupun di kawasan sebelahnya di Selat Tebrau kecuali terlebih dahulu mendapat kelulusan Kerajaan Singapura. 

6. Reaksi pertama berkenaan tuntutan Singapura yang baru ini datang daripada Menteri Luar Malaysia. Tidak ada kepastian yang Perdana Menteri tidak akan mematah balik pendirian yang telah diambil Menteri Luarnya. 

7. Ini pernah berlaku. Apabila Timbalan Perdana Menteri umum kita akan teruskan pembinaan jambatan indah (bengkok), beliau telah diperbodohkan bila selang beberapa hari Perdana Menteri berkata yang kita tidak akan bina langsung jambatan samada bengkok mahupun lurus. 

8. Untuk menekankan lagi kesediaannya untuk tunduk kepada Singapura, Perdana Menteri telah arahkan Menteri Luar untuk memaklumkan Menteri Mentor Singapura bahawa Malaysia tidak akan bina apa-apa jambatan. Kenapa kita harus maklumkan kepada Singapura tentang keputusan kita dalam Negara kita adalah sesuatu yang saya tidak dapat faham. 

9. Di Laut China Selatan kita telah bina sebuah pulau daripada bahan Terumbu Layang-Layang. Apa yang saya lihat daripada gambar batu-batu yang diserah kepada kita, ianya boleh ditambak dan disatukan. Kita boleh adakan sebuah pulau yang sempurna sebagaimana Singapura membina Pulau Batu Putih untuk menempatkan pasukan keselamatan. 

10. Tidak ada apa-apa di dalam perjanjian dengan Singapura mahupun di dalam keputusan Mahkamah Antarabangsa yang menghindarkan kita daripada membuat tebusguna ini. Keputusan terletak atas bahu kita semata-mata. 

11. Saya tak akan cuba meneka apa yang akan diputuskan (oleh Kerajaan kita).

ANTI-CORRUPTION

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. ACA, or Anti-Corruption Agency is now willing to investigate possible corruption based on newspaper reports.

2. It is now doing just that with regard to the huge bill for maintenance of Proton Perdana official cars used by the Terengganu Government.

3. This has prompted the Terengganu Menteri Besar to question why the very costly Monsoon Cup and the Islamic Theme Park have not been investigated.

4. Promptly the Trengganu ACA has decided to do just that.

5. I must congratulate the ACA for its seemingly independent response to complaints of corruption.

6. But I am a little bit disappointed when very quickly the Terengganu ACA stated that preliminary investigations have shown no element of bribery involved.

7. I do not think the ACA should be looking for evidence of bribery. As with the servicing charges for Proton Perdana, ACA should be looking for the cost of the projects, whether reasonable or not. It should also look into how the contracts were awarded and to whom.

8. I know a lot of Terengganu people have complained about the projects. Seems that almost all the contractors and sub-contractors were from outside Terengganu. Could it be that there are no capable contractors in Terengganu.

9. I was on the verge of asking the ACA to investigate Proton's sale of M.V. Agusta, which it bought for 72 million Euro but sold for just 1 Euro. We all know that the unknown buyer who paid 1 Euro then sold M.V. Agusta for a total of 160 million Euro.

10. Proton then claimed that by selling M.V. Agusta at 1 Euro it made 107 million Euro (M.V. Agusta's debts).

11. As one of the commentators on my blog says, he smells fish, a dead one.

12. But I hesitate to ask the ACA to investigate in case preliminary investigation shows no wrong doing.

THE COUNTRY WE LOVE

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
1. When we became independent in 1957 nobody gave us much of a chance to make any progress beyond what had been achieved under the British.

2. I myself at that time thought that the only difference independence would make would be Malaysians would take over the administration of the country from the British. Nothing much more than that.

3. The other day I was given a copy of a news sheet called "Opinion" of November 1968, which I remember was edited and produced by Sulaiman Alias, one of the young political activist in UMNO.

4. It was quite a liberal paper and contained articles by such well-known personalities as Dr Lim Chong Eu (Gerakan), Dr R Kumar (Labour Party), Lim Kit Siang (DAP), Syed Hussain Ali (Parti Rakyat), Tengku Zaid (PMIP), Goh Cheng Teik, Ismail Ghani and several others.

5. I was also a contributor writing "In Defense of Feudalism". I was a Member of Parliament then.

6. The article that most interested me was one by Dr Lim Chong Yah, an economist, entitled "The Future of Malaysian Economy".

7. In it he gave a picture of the Malaysian Economy in 1967, 10 years after Merdeka.

8. The population was a mere 10 million and we were reproducing at 3.7% per annum. Our death rate had decreased from 12% to 7% which resulted in a natural increase of 3% p.a., a high rate, he noted.

9. Assuming decreasing death rate and also decreasing birth rate, the 3% population growth would likely continue over the next 10 years bringing the population to 13 million in 1977.

10. Dr Lim thought that national income should increase at 3% p.a. over the 1967 per capital (sic) income of USD940 p.a. But at 3% rate of growth the gap between us and the rich countries would widen.

11. Still the other developing countries would be behind us. However at 3% growth we would not be able to create jobs at 100,000 p.a. The rate of growth of national income should be 5%.

12. Investment growth (domestic) would not be able to do this.

13. If foreign investment makes up 4% of growth then it may be possible to achieve the necessary rate of investment for creating 100,000 jobs per annum.

14. It was a time when the rubber estates and tin mines were still owned by foreigners. Bringing in foreign capital sounded like increasing overdependence on foreign enterprise. We did not quite relish the idea of more foreign involvement in our newly independent country.

15. But without capital inflow unemployment would be 200,000 by 1977. Together with 160,000 unemployed in 1967, the rate would go up to 360,000, a horrendous figure.

16. The 360,000 did not include a large number of under-employed workers.

17. In the second five-year plan the public section was to spend 4,500 million Ringgit of which 1,900 million Ringgit was to come from foreign sources (borrowing).

18. Malaysia would have to depend on foreign capital inflow. Dr Lim remarked that political independence had not freed us from dependence on foreign capital. Still, he said, it was consistent with political independence. He named several developed countries which depended on foreign capital inflows.

19. He then turned to the rubber industry which was undergoing great difficulties because of the increasing usage of synthetics. He concluded that the difficulties of the rubber industry was also the difficulty of the nation in view of the strategic and preeminent role the industry occupied in the Malaysian economy.

20. The United States was making things more difficult through the release of their rubber stockpile. I remember being invited by Mr Bell, the American Ambassador to tea and I raised this matter. I was shocked when the Ambassador said that it was important for the US economy to keep rubber prices low. I told him that rubber prices were more critical to a small country like Malaysia than to a huge diversified economic power like America. But he did not care what happened to Malaysia. Yet at that time we looked up to America as a friend and liberator.

21. Rubber prices went down from 108.00 cents per pound to 68.14 cents. At the time Dr Lim wrote his article it was 50 cent per pound. The kampong people suffered grievously.

22. The other major source of income for Malaysia was tin. Already the production was decreasing.

23. We may be surprised but after tin came iron ore. We produced 7.3 million tons in 1963 but the production was going down. We produce no iron ore for export today.

24. Dr Lim predicted that income from rubber, tin and iron ore would decrease by 1977.

25. But the picture was bright for palm oil. In 1957 we exported 58.5 thousand tons of palm oil. By 1966 we exported 178.0 thousand tons.

26. Imagine how small we were then. Today if I am not mistaken we export more than 12 million tons at RM 3,000 plus per ton = 36,000,000,000 i.e. 36 billion Ringgit per year - well over the total public development estimate of 4,000 million Ringgit for the second five year plan (of course the Ringgit bought more than it does now).

27. Other than these we expected to earn something from timber, canned pineapple and pepper.

28. Dr Lim believed that growth would be from the domestic sector, with public sector contributing much towards it.

29. From Dr Lim's paper, presented at a forum organised by the National Union of Malayan Students at the University of Malaya, it did not seem likely that Malaysia would grow to what it is today. Yet Dr Lim was optimistic. He expected political stability to contribute towards Malaysia's development.

30. I write this in order to remind ourselves as to what we were like before. In 1967 no one thought of a Malaysia like what it is today. We did not think of industrialisation. We saw ourselves as a producer of raw materials.

31. Foreign Direct Investment was an unknown term when Dr Lim Chong Eu invited foreign industrialists in the early 70s to invest in the electronic industry on liberal terms. Prior to that we had insisted that all foreign industries must accept Malaysian Equity Participation (before NEP).

32. Only National or Matsushita came. But later we gave priority to job creation to benefit not those with money to invest but the unemployed workers. That was the best decision the Malaysian Government ever made.

33. Today Malaysia is more prosperous than the other countries which attained independence together with us. There is not a single race, not a single person, whatever may be his or her station in life who can honestly say that he or she has gained nothing from the independent Governments of Malaysia.

34. We are all the beneficiaries of the policies of those early people who lead this country. The systems and policies they initiated were excellent. If they seem not to work today it is not because they were bad but it is because we do not have their caliber. We have become very selfish and too materialistic. This country has given us much. Is it still the country we love? I wonder!

SIAPA LANTIK ABDULLAH

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
Tiap kali saya kritik Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebagai Perdana Menteri ada sahaja orang yang secara sinis berkata, "Awak yang lantik dia".

Ya, saya mengaku salah. Saya mengaku yang saya lantik Dato Seri Abdullah sebagai pengganti saya.

Tetapi ahli UMNO juga pilih Dato Seri Abdullah.

Dato Seri Abdullah memihak kepada Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah dan Musa Hitam dalam usaha untuk menjatuhkan saya pada tahun 1986-1987. Apabila Team B kalah dan UMNO diharamkan, Dato Seri Abdullah tidak menyertai Semangat 46 tajaan Tengku Razaleigh. Sebaliknya dia pilih untuk menjadi ahli UMNO Baru yang saya pimpin.

Saya tidak berhak menolaknya sebagai ahli UMNO Baru. Tetapi saya gugurkannya daripada Jemaah Menteri.

Dalam pemilihan Majlis Tertinggi yang menyusul Dato Seri Abdullah bertanding untuk ahli Majlis Tertinggi. Mesyuarat Agong UMNO memilih Dato Seri Abdullah sebagai ahli Majlis Tertinggi.

Saya masih tidak terima dia balik jadi Menteri.

Di Mesyuarat Agong selepas itu dia bertanding untuk jawatan Naib Presiden. Dia menang dengan undi kedua terbesar jumlahnya berbanding Dato Seri Najib.

Saya berpendapat UMNO hendakkan kepimpinan Dato Seri Abdullah. Walau apa pun perasaan saya terhadap orang yang bersubahat untuk jatuhkan saya, saya tidak berhak untuk menolak kehendak UMNO.

Justeru itu saya kembalikan Dato Seri Abdullah sebagai Menteri dalam Kabinet.

Puji-pujian didengar merata-rata yang Dato Seri Abdullah adalah "Bersih", "Mr Clean". Oleh itu apabila saya terpaksa gugurkan Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebagai Timbalan Perdana Menteri, saya pilih Dato Seri Abdullah untuk mengisi jawatan itu walaupun Dato Seri Najib adalah Naib Presiden yang mendapat undi tertinggi.

Kenapa tidak dipilih Dato Seri Najib?

Sebabnya ialah dia lebih muda dan harapan saya selepas satu, dua penggal sebagai Perdana Menteri, Dato Seri Abdullah akan serahkan jawatan itu kepada Dato Seri Najib. Sebab itu saya berusaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk menentukan Dato Seri Abdullah pilih Dato Seri Najib sebagai timbalannya.

Pemilihan Naib Presiden bukan yang pertama sebagai timbalan pernah berlaku. Saya Naib Presiden yang ke-tiga tetapi Tun Hussein Onn pilih saya jadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

Seperti juga dengan diri saya, Mesyuarat Agong UMNO mengesahkan pemilihan Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebagai Timbalan Presiden parti dalam pemilihan yang berikut.

Selepas itu saya anggap penyerahan kuasa kepada Dato Seri Abdullah bukanlah sesuatu yang tidak dikehendaki oleh UMNO. Tidak ada sesiapa yang membantah.

Saya jelaskan latarbelakang pemilihan Dato Seri Abdullah sebagai Perdana Menteri bukan kerana hendak bersihkan diri saya. Saya rela dihukum jika saya salah.

Yang penting bagi saya ialah apabila kita lakukan sesuatu yang salah, menuding jari tidak mendatangkan apa-apa faedah.

Yang penting ialah kita cuba betulkan keadaan. Dalam perkara ini pendapat saya ialah Dato Seri Abdullah perlu letak jawatan dengan sendirinya atau dia disingkir.

Kenyataan olehnya yang dia akan serahkan jawatan dalam parti dan Kerajaan pada bulan Jun 2010 disambut baik bahkan dengan gembira oleh hadirin serta orang ramai, Melayu dan bukan Melayu. Tiada siapa yang merayu supaya dia teruskan pimpinannya.

Dari ini agak jelas yang semua pihak hendak Dato Seri Abdullah letak jawatan. Tetapi meletak jawatan dua tahun dari sekarang bermakna penggantinya hanya mempunyai dua setengah tahun untuk pulihkan parti untuk hadapi Pilihanraya Umum ke-13. Masa ini terlalu singkat kerana kerosakan yang dibuat oleh Dato Seri Abdullah kepada UMNO, Barisan Nasional dan parti-parti komponennya amat teruk. Masa yang lebih panjang diperlukan.

Jika Dato Seri Abdullah benar-benar sayang kepada UMNO, dia harus rela korban dirinya untuk penggantinya berpeluang memulihkan UMNO. Alasannya yang dia ingin awasi pelaksanaan Rancangan Malaysia ke-9 tidak boleh diterima kerana sesungguhnya kehadirannya adalah sebab UMNO dan Barisan Nasional jadi lemah.

Saya terima saya bersalah kerana memilih Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebagai pengganti saya. Sekarang saya menyesal kerana saya tidak sangka "Mr Clean" tidak begitu clean.

Saya percaya ahli UMNO dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO di semua peringkat yang marah saya tentu tidak ingin membuat kesalahan yang sama.

Hari ini yang berkuasa menggantikan Dato Seri Abdullah hanyalah ahli dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO.

Janganlah tunggu Pilihanraya Umum ke-13 untuk kalahkan BN dan UMNO supaya Dato Seri Abdullah jatuh. Yang salah bukan BN atau UMNO. Yang salah ialah Dato Seri Abdullah.

Jika ahli UMNO hendak melihat UMNO dan BN dipulih semula, paksalah Dato Seri Abdullah letak jawatan sekarang. Jangan calon Dato Seri Abdullah di peringkat cawangan atau bahagian.

Jika kerana cawangan dan bahagian mengizinkan Dato Seri Abdullah terus menjadi Presiden UMNO, yang salah ialah ahli UMNO sendiri.

Ahli UMNO akan bertanggungjawab terhadap kehancuran UMNO dan malapetaka yang akan timpa orang Melayu dan negara Malaysia. Yang akan hancur bersama ialah parti-parti komponen BN.

Setelah mengetahui kekalahan teruk yang menimpa UMNO dan BN di bawah kepimpinan Dato Seri Abdullah, UMNO masih kekalkan kepimpinannya, yang bertanggungjawab dan salah ialah ahli dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO sendiri.

MONEY - MORE WASTE AND LOSSES

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
The Government of Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi has lost billions of Ringgit by cancelling the bridge project to replace the causeway, postponing the double-tracking and electrification of the North-South railway and the sale of M.V. Agusta by Proton.

The Government had also wasted money - RM2 billion in Terengganu.

Thinking that he had the right to use Wang Ehsan, the royalty from Petronas to the State of Terengganu totalling more than five billion Ringgit over several years Dato Seri Abdullah together with Dato Seri Idris Jusoh, the former Menteri Besar of Terengganu went on a spending spree.

Without any proper study and planning, without bothering about the rules and regulations about how Government money should be allocated and used, Dato Seri Abdullah and Dato Seri Idris and their cronies spent huge sums of the "Wang Ehsan" on a theme park (Crystal Mosque), Monsoon Cup, development of Setiu etc etc. More than two billion Ringgit were poured into Terengganu.

Then in 2008, Barisan Nasional won and Abdullah happily decided to spend more of the Wang Ehsan on fancy projects.

Unfortunately the Sultan of Terengganu refused to have Idris Jusoh as Menteri Besar. It was a slap in the face fo Abdullah when he was forced to accept the Sultan's nominee as Menteri Besar.

This new Menteri Besar insisted that the royalty due to Terengganu should be paid to the State and the State should manage the fund.

This was as it should be. But the Menteri Besar insisted that what was spent before this in building the theme park, organising the Monsoon Cup etc worth about RM 2 billion was not from the royalty due to Terengganu. It was from Federal fund.

He demanded that the full amount of royalty over the years should be paid to Terengganu.

So RM2 billion of Federal funds have been expended on Terengganu, the richest State in Malaysia.

Failing this Terengganu has a court case initiated by the PAS Government which the BN State Government has not withdrawn.

The Federal Government will now have to find some RM5 billion to give to Terengganu. Where is this money going to come from? Obviously from the Federal Consolidated Fund.

Basically the Federal Government will lose RM5 billion because it had assumed that a tame Terengganu Menteri Besar would collaborate in some of the most wasteful projects for the State and the country.

I am told that a Disneyland designer was engaged to design the "Crystal Mosque" and theme park. Must cost a lot.

Some contractors made tons of money getting projects without proper processes.

Snippets - Reducing the burden

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
Recently the Star reported "Budget to help reduce burden".

The burden is of course the high cost (40 per cent increase) of oil which has triggered off an inflationary process with increases in the cost of everything.

Since the withdrawal of Government subsidy for oil and the resultant "burden" on the people the Government has been announcing numerous measures to lighten the burden. Mostly they take the form of rebates, reduced taxes and cutbacks.

The idea to withdraw the subsidy is of course to save Government money. But giving money back in one form or another would reduce the savings. If it is really substantial then would it not be better if the Government simply reduce the price increase of oil from 40 per cent to 30 per cent?

Better still, since Petronas' contribution to Government revenue is so big, why not reduce the price of oil further maybe to a 10 per cent increase and then gradually increase it. This would give people time to make adjustments. And maybe the wages and salaries can be adjusted upwards stage by stage.

If the Government really wants to reduce the burden of the people caused by the price of oil, it should really look at the whole economy and seek ways and means to reduce the burden, not piecemeal but in a comprehensive way.

Sorry. I know I am not in the Government, not even in UMNO.

SALE OF AGUSTA BY PROTON

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
(versi Bahasa Malaysia di akhir artikel ini)

1. I must admit I have only a minute knowledge of company accounting. But I do know that creative accounting can make losses appear in the books as profit.

2. Whether the cost is sunk or not it still involves a cost in terms of real money (not figures in accounting books).

3. When the previous management of Proton bought 57 per cent of M.V.Agusta, they were fully aware of the financial problems of the company. Who would sell a company making tons of profit? If they would, the price would be beyond our reach.

4. The debts of M.V.Agusta were reduced after negotiation with the banks. The payment would be staggered.

5. The cost of the purchase of 57% was therefore 76 million Euro + 57 per cent of 107 million euro (of M.V. Agusta's debts).

6. Against this, Agusta had assets in land, building and stock worth 120 million Euro, of which 57 per cent or 68 million Euro would be Proton's share if they were to be disposed at that time.

7. Taking just the tangible value of M.V.Agusta, Proton owned 144 million Euros worth.

8. This is what Proton sold to Gevi SpA for 1 Euro, even if the loans are taken into account.

9. Writing down 107 million Euros of debt (of which Proton share would be 60 million Euros) and then making out that the 107 million Euros obligation would turn to extraordinary income simply by disposing M.V.Agusta for 1 Euro sounds like accounting shenanigan, something to hoodwink the minority shareholders with.

10. Even assuming that this accounting profit is real, Proton would still lose 144 million Euro - 107 Million Euro (as mentioned by a chedet.com respondent) = 37 million Euro (about RM190 million).

11. Whichever way you spin it, Proton lost money selling something it bought for 72 million Euro, for 1 Euro.

12. Why buy M.V.Agusta? Ask BMW and Harley-Davidson. They apparently believe Agusta is worth more than what Proton paid.

13. Buying technology is not the same as buying a whole manufacturing company inclusive of the people, the manufacturing capability, the design and research capability and the quality of the experience of one of the most modern motorcycle manufacturing company. M.V.Agusta is to motorcycles what Ferrari is to racing cars and sports cars. The brand name itself commands very high value.

14. Technology is not static. It has to be improved all the time. We need to keep up if we are to stay in the market. We need to develop and to learn how to continuously develop technology into the future. India bought Morris Oxford technology in 1956 and that car has not changed or improved till now, 2008. Only lately has India teamed up with Japanese industry to learn how modern cars are made.

15. Where the Italian failed was in management. Proton had experience in management. At that time Proton was a very successful and profitable company accumulating cash of RM4 billion. It built the most up-to-date plant in Tanjong Malim for RM1.8 billion without borrowing or injection of funds by the Government. It had more than RM2 billion cash in hand.

16. The Proton management was reasonably convinced it could turn around the company. It was prepared to inject working capital. I had faith in Proton under Tengku Mahaleel.

17. As for me, I was interested in bringing small engine technology into Malaysia. There was also the possibility of designing and producing a really cheap car, costing about 10 to 15 thousand ringgit, using motorcycle engines and composites. We could also possibly produce engines for generator sets, outboard engines and engines for grass cutters. But because the new management had no idea about utilising Agusta's expertise, the Indians are the people to produce the really cheap car.

18. Today Proton is but a shadow of its former self. It is not that it cannot compete but the importers of foreign cars are still not declaring their true value.

19. They set up companies in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, buy the cars and register them there and then re-export them as second hand cars to Malaysia. Naturally, the price is very low and the taxes paid are also low.

20. Proton should be able to compete if the competition is fair. But it is not.

21. I am told many of the experienced engineers of Proton have left.

22. Maybe Malaysians are proud to see Malaysia's fledging automotive industry go down. I don't know. I don't.

*****

PENJUALAN AGUSTA OLEH PROTON

1. Saya mengaku saya cuma mempunyai pengetahuan yang sedikit mengenai perakaunan syarikat. Tetapi saya tahu bahawa perakaunan kreatif boleh membuat kerugian diperlihatkan sebagai keuntungan didalam buku-buku akaun.

2. Samada kos itu tenggelam atau tidak ia masih melibatkan kos didalam bentuk wang yang nyata (bukan nombor-nombor yang terdapat didalam buku-buku akaun).

3. Apabila pentadbiran Proton yang lalu membeli 57% saham M.V. Agusta, mereka menyedari masalah kewangan yang dihadapi oleh syarikat tersebut. Siapakah yang akan menjual sebuah syarikat yang membuat keuntungan berlipat ganda? Jika mereka mahupun, harganya sudah pasti tidak dapat kita penuhi.

4. Hutang M.V. Agusta telah dikurangkan hasil perundingan dengan bank-bank. Pembayaran akan dibuat secara berkala.

5. Kos pembelian saham sebanyak 57% adalah 76 juta Euro + 57% dari 107 juta Euro (hutang M.V. Agusta).

6. Disamping itu, M.V. Agusta mempunyai aset didalam bentuk bangunan dan stok bernilai 120 juta Euro dan 57% dari itu adalah 68 juta Euro dan ini akan menjadi kepunyaan Proton jika dijual pada ketika itu.

7. Jika diambil nilai bolehkira M.V. Agusta sahaja, Proton memiliki 144 juta Euro.

8. Inilah apa yang telah dijual oleh Proton kepada Gevi SpA dengan harga 1 Euro, walaupun hutang-hutang itu diambilkira.

9. Menimbulkan mengenai hutang 107 juta Euro (dimana bahagian Proton adalah 60 juta Euro) dan kemudiannya memperlihatkan bahawa bebanan 107 juta Euro itu boleh berubah menjadi keuntungan yang luarbiasa cuma dengan menjual M.V.Agusta dengan harga 1 Euro kelihatan sebagai satu muslihat perakaunan, digunakan untuk menipu pemegang saham minoriti.

10. Katakanlah keuntungan yang diperlihatkan oleh cara perakaunan ini adalah benar, Proton masih lagi kerugian 144 juta Euro - 107 juta Euro (seperti yang disebutkan oleh pengulas chedet.com) = 37 juta Euro (kira-kira RM 190 juta).

11. Cara mana sekalipun diputar, Proton mengalami kerugian apabila menjual dengan 1 Euro sesuatu yang dibelinya dengan harga 76 juta Euro.

12. Mengapa beli M.V.Agusta? Tanyalah BMW dan Harley-Davidson. Mereka kelihatannya percaya nilai M.V.Agusta itu lebih tinggi daripada apa yang dibayar oleh Proton.

13. Pembelian teknologi tidak sama dengan pembelian keseluruhan syarikat pengeluaran termasuk pekerjanya, keupayaan pengeluaran, keupayaan rekabentuk dan penyelidikan dan kualiti daripada pengalaman salah satu syarikat pengeluaran motorsikal yang paling moden. M.V.Agusta untuk motorsikal adalah seumpama Ferrari untuk kereta lumba dan kereta sport. Namanya (brand) sahaja pun mempunyai nilai yang amat tinggi.

14. Teknologi bukanlah sesuatu yang statik. Ianya perlu ditingkatkan sepanjang masa. Kita perlu mempunyai keupayaan menaikkan teknologi sepanjang masa. jika kita mahu terus berada didalam pasaran. Kita perlu berkembang dan belajar bagaimana mahu berkembang di masa akan datang. India membeli teknologi Morris Oxford pada tahun 1956 dan kereta itu tidak berubah mahupun ditingkatkan sehingga kini, tahun 2008. Cuma mutakhir ini India bekerjasama dengan industri Jepun untuk belajar bagaimana kereta moden dibuat.

15. Orang Itali telah gagal didalam pengurusannya. Proton mempunyai pengalaman di dalam pengurusan. Pada ketika itu Proton adalah sebuah syarikat yang amat berjaya dan mempunyai keuntungan yang banyak dengan wang tunai terkumpul sebanyak 4 billion ringgit. Ia telah membina di Tanjong Malim sebuah kilang yang paling canggih bernilai 1.8 billion ringgit yang dibina tanpa meminjam mahupun mendapat suntikan dana daripada Kerajaan. Tunai di tangan melebihi RM2bilion.

16. Pengurusan Proton agak berkeyakinan yang ia boleh memulihkan syarikat tersebut. Ia bersedia untuk menyuntik modal pusingan. Saya mempunyai keyakinan terhadap Proton dibawah Tengku Mahaleel.

17. Bagi pihak saya, saya berminat untuk membawa teknologi enjin berkuasa kecil ke Malaysia. Terdapat kemungkinan merekabentuk serta mengeluarkan kereta yang benar-benar murah, berharga sekitar RM10 ribu hingga RM15 ribu dengan menggunakan enjin motorsikal dan komposit. Kita juga mungkin dapat mengeluarkan enjin untuk generator set, outboard dan mesin potong rumput. Tetapi, pengurusan yang baru tidak ada dayafikir untuk menggunakan kepakaran M.V. Agusta, akibatnya India yang berjaya mengeluarkan kereta yang murah.

18. Hari ini Proton tidak lagi gah seperti dahulu. Ini bukan kerana ianya tidak berkeupayaan untuk bersaing dengan kereta luar yang diimport tetapi kerana pengimport kereta asing masih tidak isytihar nilai sebenar.

19. Mereka menubuhkan syarikat di United Kingdom dan tempat lain, membeli kereta-kereta dan mendaftar kereta-kereta disana dan kemudiannya mengeksport semula kereta-kereta itu sebagai kereta terpakai ke Malaysia. Sudah pasti harganya rendah dan cukai yang dibayar turut rendah.

20. Proton sepatutnya boleh bersaing jika persaingan itu adil. Tetapi keadaannya tidak sedemikian.

21. Saya diberitahu ramai jurutera-jurutera yang berpengalaman telah meninggalkan Proton.

22. Mungkin ramai rakyat Malaysia merasa bangga melihat industri otomotif negara yang masih muda ini hancur. Saya tidak tahu. Tetapi saya tidak.

THE ANWAR DEBATE

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
(versi Bahasa Malaysia di akhir artikel ini)

1. I must congratulate the Government of Dato' Seri Abdullah Badawi for allowing the debate between the Opposition and the Government, specifically between Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Dato Shabery Cheek.

2. It was not an even match. Shabery is far too inexperienced in a field that Anwar excels i.e. talking. The subject naturally puts the Government on the defensive.

3. Shabery's reference to what Anwar said about me in the past undermined Anwar's credibility somewhat. But it was obvious that Shabery was nervous.

4. As I said, Anwar can be convincing in his arguments especially with those who want to believe in him. The Western Press has already concluded that this accusation against Anwar is the same old political plot to prevent him from becoming the Prime Minister on Sept 16th (Malaysia Day).

5. The last time it was I who was the prime mover. Dato' Seri Abdullah has denied he is involved this time, but the Western Press and the American friends of Anwar will not be convinced and will not let him get off the hook.

6. Yet can it be that the present Government is so stupid and unimaginative as to use the same "ploy", especially after it was so happy over the release of Anwar? Surely it could come up with another story which would be more credible if it is deliberately plotting or conspiring against Anwar. The probability is that the story is the same because it is genuine.

7. Is the present complainant a copycat? Hardly likely. Few would care to make public such a very shameful thing as being sodomised. In fact, the last time at least two people came to see me claiming they were sodomised by Anwar. But they were unwilling to make a report or be witnesses in court. One of them, however, did see the imam of Masjid Negara (now Member of Parliament for PAS), to seek advise on the religious angle.

8. There are certain habits which are not easy to be rid off. Habitual smokers will tell you that. So will drug addicts.

9. It is of course up to the courts to decide i.e. if this case finally reaches the court. The court may find Anwar guilty. In which case he would appeal to even higher courts and even to special courts, which can be set up for him.

10. If he could make out that Saiful is a willing partner, then as in the case of Azizan, Saiful's claims would not be regarded as proof beyond doubt. Anwar would be let off.

11. Anwar has practically refused to swear on the Quran on his claim to be innocent. But Saiful is quite willing to do so in a mosque witnessed by religious people.

12. But a certain Mufti is opposed to this. If a person is innocent why shouldn't he swear and clear his name.

13. The reference made to "qazaf" or malediction is a red herring. It is a threat levelled at the accuser that if he cannot provide the necessary witnesses then he can be accused of "fitnah" and punished by whipping.

14. There is in the Quran a lot of stress on justice. Repeatedly (at least 43 verses), the Quran enjoins that "when ye judge, judge with justice".

15. The syariah is not just about the procedures when making judgement and the punishment that is to be meted out. The syariah laws are meant to ensure that justice is done. It would be invidious if the victim is punished (because he cannot find four witnesses to the act) while the assailant is let off scott-free. It would be a gross injustice. It cannot be that Islamic Law disregards justice and is only concerned with trial and punishment.

16. In the Quran it is related that Zulaikha who was infatuated with the Prophet Yusof was considered to be chasing after Yusof because Yusof's shirt was torn at the back.

17. Clearly the Quran accepts circumstantial evidence even if unverified by witnesses. This is because Islam places a high value on justice. The processes involved in making a judgement is in order to achieve justice. The processes cannot be invoked in order to spike justice.

18. So Anwar should not try to escape justice by involving qazaf. He may try to do it with man made laws but he should not use the laws of Allah to achieve injustice. It is not Islamic and it is sinful.

*****

DEBAT ANWAR

1. Saya harus mengucapkan tahniah kepada Kerajaan pimpinan Dato' Seri Abdullah Badawi kerana membenarkan debat antara Pembangkang dan Kerajaan, khususnya antara Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Dato' Shabery Cheek.

2. Ia bukanlah satu pertandingan yang adil. Shabery sangat kurang pengalaman didalam bidang yang mana Anwar adalah jaguh iaitu bercakap. Perkara yang didebatkan pula sudah pasti meletakkan Kerajaan didalam keadaan tertekan.

3. Apabila Shabery menimbulkan apa yang telah dikatakan oleh Anwar mengenai saya pada masa lampau, ianya telah sedikit sebanyak menjejaskan kredibiliti Anwar. Tetapi adalah jelas bahawa Shabery gementar.

4. Sebagaimana yang saya katakan, Anwar boleh meyakinkan terutama kepada mereka yang mahu mempercayainya. Media Barat telah membuat kesimpulan bahawa tuduhan terhadap Anwar kali ini adalah sama dengan agenda politik yang lama yang dibuat untuk menghalangnya menjadi Perdana Menteri.

5. Pada masa lalu saya adalah sasaran utama. Dato' Seri Abdullah telah menafikan pembabitannya kali ini tetapi media Barat dan teman-teman Anwar dari Amerika tidak dapat diyakinkan dan akan terus mengaitkan Abdullah.

6. Tetapi, adakah Kerajaan sekarang sebegitu bodoh dan tidak mempunyai daya imaginasi untuk menggunakan "taktik" yang sama terutamanya memandang kepada sikapnya yang kritikal terhadap Kerajaan dahulu? Pastinya ia mampu untuk menggunakan cerita lain yang lebih meyakinkan jika ia memang merancang ataupun berkonspirasi terhadap Anwar. Ada kebarangkalian bahawa ceritanya sama kerana ianya benar.

7. Mungkinkah pihak yang membuat lapuran kali ini seorang yang cuba meniru? Agak mustahil. Tidak ramai yang sanggup kehadapan dan mengumumkan sesuatu yang amat mengaibkan seperti kena liwat. Sebenarnya, dalam peristiwa yang lalu, sekurang-kurangnya dua orang menemui saya dan membuat pengakuan mereka telah diliwat oleh Anwar. Tetapi mereka tidak sanggup membuat lapuran ataupun menjadi saksi dimahkamah. Bagaimanapun, seorang dari mereka telah pergi menemui Imam Masjid Negara (sekarang ini ahli parliamen PAS) untuk mendapatkan nasihat dari sudut agama.

8. Ada beberapa tabiat yang sukar untuk dibuang. Perokok tegar akan menyatakan sedemikian. Begitu juga penagih dadah.

9. Sudah pasti ini tergantung kepada mahkamah untuk menentukan dan inipun jika kes ini akhirnya sampa kemahkamah. Mahkamah mungkin mendapati Anwar bersalah. Dia kemudiannya boleh merayu kepada mahkamah yang lebih tinggi malahan kemahkamah-mahkamah khas yang diadakan untuknya.

10. Jika dia berjaya membuat Saiful kelihatan sebagai pasangan yang rela seperti didalam kes Azizan, maka kenyataan Saiful tidak boleh dianggap sebagai bukti yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan. Anwar akan dibebaskan.

11. Anwar telah menolak untuk bersumpah diatas Quran untuk membuktikan dirinya tidak bersalah. Tetapi Saiful sanggup untuk melakukannya didalam masjid dan disaksikan oleh alim ulamak.

12. Tetapi ada seorang Mufti yang menentang cadangan ini. Jika seseorang itu tidak bersalah mengapa dia tidak boleh bersumpah untuk membersihkan namanya.

13. Menimbulkan isu "qazaf" hanyalah bertujuan untuk megalihkan tumpuan. Ianya satu ugutan terhadap sipenuduh iaitu jika dia tidak dapat mengemukakan saksi-saksi dianya akan dituduh melakukan fitnah dan akan dihukum sebat.

14. Didalam Quran terdapat banyak penekanan terhadap keadilan. Berulangkali (sekurang-kurangnya 43 ayat) didalam Quran menyeru "bila kamu menghukum, hukumlah dengan adil."

15. Syariah itu bukanlah sekadar proses membuat penghakiman dan menjatuhkan hukuman. Undang-undang syariah bertujuan untuk memastikan keadilan dilaksanakan. Akan menjadi satu ketidakadilan jika orang yang menjadi mangsa dihukum (kerana gagal mengemukakan empat orang saksi) manakala orang yang melakukan penganiayaan lepas bebas. Ini adalah satu ketidakadilan yang ketara. Pastinya tidak mungkin undang-undang Islam mengabaikan keadilan dan cuma tumpu kepada perbicaraan dan hukuman.

16. Diriwayatkan didalam Quran mengenai Zulaikha yang cintanya kepada Nabi Yusof dan dianya dipercayai mengejar Yusof kerana baju Yusof koyak dibahagian belakang.

17. Amat jelas Quran menerima bukti-bukti bersandarkan kepada keadaan (circumstantial evidence) walaupun tidak disokong oleh saksi-saksi. Ini kerana Islam meletakkan nilai yang tinggi kepada keadilan. Proses yang diambil didalam membuat sesuatu penghakiman adalah untuk memastikan keadilan tercapai. Proses itu tidak boleh disalahgunakan dan diperalatkan untuk menyekat keadilan.

18. Kerana itu Anwar tidak harus mengelakkan diri dari diadili dengan menimbulkan soal qazaf. Dia mungkin boleh mencuba melakukannya dengan undang-undang buatan manusia tetapi dia tidak harus menggunakan hukum Allah untuk mencapai ketidakadilan. Ianya melanggar lunas Islam dan ini adalah berdosa.