Malaysian tsunami aid badly managed
Malaysian tsunami aid badly managed: report
Millions of ringgit in aid money for Malaysian victims of the deadly 2004 tsunami was badly managed, while reconstruction efforts have been shoddy, a report said Saturday.
Malaysia's auditor-general Ambrin Buang said the money, handled by the treasury's National Disaster Relief Fund, was passed on to victims too slowly.
"There was a delay of between 24 and 527 days in disbursing 12.06 million (3.29 million dollars) in aid simply because there was a staff shortage," Ambrin was quoted by the New Straits Times as saying in his report.
"A lack of guidelines on how to disburse the money also contributed to the delay," he said, adding that aid agencies had yet to return 6.7 million ringgit in excess funds to the treasury.
Ambrin also outlined poor construction standards in the repair or building of houses in the tsunami-affected states of northern Penang and Kedah, which cost 9.83 million ringgit.
"Contracts were not signed, projects completed late and the quality of the work shoddy," he said.
"There are houses which still have defects despite work done to rectify them."
Separately, 9.84 million ringgit in aid for fishermen to repair and purchase nets, boats and motors had been mismanaged, said Ambrin.
"The equipment to repair outboard motors was not to specifications," he said.
"The equipment could not be used as the fishermen did not have the skills. Its purchase did not come with supporting documents either," he added.
Ambrin said 32,180 ringgit had been spent to build a boat repair workshop -- but that the workshop was never actually constructed. New boats leaked and were of poor quality, he added.
"In the end, the fishermen rejected the boats," he said in the report.
Ambrin was not immediately available for comment.
Sixty-eight people were killed in Malaysia by the December 26, 2004 tsunami, most of them on the northern island of Penang.
Malaysians donated over 80 million ringgit
to the National Disaster Relief Fund, which saw hundreds of people whose houses or fishing boats were destroyed or damaged eligible for compensation.
(Channelnewsasia)
Malaysia on Path of Progress
Rodolfo C. Estimo Jr., Arab News
The visit of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah to Malaysia early this year was a high point in Malaysian-Saudi bilateral relations, according to Malaysian Ambassador Dr. Ismail Haji Ibrahim.
“The visit strengthened the relationship which has steadily grown in depth and dimension over the years. We are keen to further develop it for the mutual benefits of both Saudis and Malaysians,” Dr. Ismail said as the embassy celebrates Malaysia’s 49th Independence Day anniversary today.
He added that the event also marks the success in which Malaysia’s truly multiracial and multicultural populations have lived and prevailed in harmony despite their diversity.
“Under the leadership of Dato’ Seri Abdullah ibn Haji Ahmad, Malaysian prime minister, Malaysia continues to gain a commendable and outstanding overall progress and developments. Malaysia has proven to the world that it it’s politically stable and prosperous,” the envoy said.
He called on all Malaysian working in Saudi Arabia to redouble their efforts to project the good image of, and promote, Malaysia.
“Your contribution is invaluable in our nation-building efforts. Let me once again take this opportunity to convey the very best wishes to all Malaysians and to each and everyone throughout the Kingdom on this memorable day. May Allah (SWT) bless us all,” he said.
Dr. Ismail also extended his cordial greetings to the Kingdom’s leadership and the “Saudi people for their courtesy, cooperation and good will toward the Malaysian Embassy and Malaysian nationals working in Saudi Arabia.”
Highlighting the excellent bilateral relations, Dr. Ismail said that the two brotherly countries still have to exploit the “vast opportunities available to the two countries in trade and investment.” Bilateral trade grew 30.4 percent during the first five months of this year (valued at $1.1 billion), up 30.4 percent from the same period last year. Bilateral trade volume last year crossed $2 billion, up 37.5 percent from 2004.
The trade growth was largely due to the growing imports of crude and refined petroleum products from the Kingdom. Malaysia, on the other hand, exported palm oil, TV receivers and furniture to the Kingdom. The exports value touched $195.6 million.
Dr. Ismail added that Malaysia continues its support to other countries, including the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in capacity building in several strategic sectors.
“In November this year, for example, Malaysia, through its national trade promotion agency MATRADE, will organize a program called ‘Sharing of Malaysia’s Experience in Trade Promotion’ under the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Program (MTCP),” he said.
Malaysia has also received local and foreign investments from various countries including Saudi Arabia which pumped $41.6 million in various sectors such as food manufacturing, electrical and electronic products, plastic products and textile products.
“Saudi investors find Malaysia as a liberal, open and friendly trade and investment regime with sound macroeconomic management, attractive fiscal incentives and pro-business government policies which is conducive to investment,” the envoy said. He added that he’s optimistic about the growing interaction between the private sectors of both countries and hopes that more businessmen from Saudi Arabia will invest in his country.
In the global framework, Malaysia is the chairman of the OIC, Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and ASEAN Standing Committee; and under the aegis of the United Nations it has been playing an active and moderating role in strengthening the process of multilateralism, regional and global peace and security through greater dialogue and consensus building.
“The Malaysian government is deeply concerned about the numerous pressing questions of peace and stability, poverty and hunger and environmental issues as well as other common issues of interests to mankind,” Dr. Ismail said.
Testing the limits in Singapore
SINGAPORE - When the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) open their week-long annual conferences in Singapore on September 12, the events will not be attended by the usual anti-globalization street protests, burning effigies or other anti-establishment antics. Singapore's authoritarian government guarantees that.
Police chief of staff Soh Wai Wah announced late last month that "outdoor demonstrations and processions will not be allowed, in keeping with current rules" and that "a private secured area will be set up at the lobby of the conference venue" for "accredited" persons and groups to conduct their activities.
The Straits Times, Singapore's government-influenced main English-language newspaper, obediently reported the following day that this decision was "in keeping with the tradition of these meetings". However, "they must stick to the police rules, which include bans on wooden or metal poles to hold up placards".
With the streets around the convention area forcibly closed and accreditation nearly impossible to obtain for activists and advocates, allowing for a select few state-sanctioned civil-society folks to conduct indoor activities will, to the government's approval, ensure a polite and peaceful event.
To justify the restrictions, Singaporean police officials have repeatedly invoked the fear of international terrorism and the domestic need not to "disrupt our compact, multi-ethnic and multi-religious community". At the same time, by agreeing to hold their meetings under such severe restrictions, the World Bank and IMF are granting a de facto endorsement of Singapore's mix of capitalism, authoritarian governance and limited civil liberties.
Peter Stephens, the World Bank's representative to Singapore, has publicly voiced his alleged disappointment with the ban. He recently told local reporters, "The bank's preference is that civil-society groups should be able to peacefully express their views outside of the conference facility in a way that doesn't cause disruption."
The conflicting positions of the World Bank and Singapore on freedom of assembly have led to some speculation about what implicit or explicit promises Singapore may have offered when pitching to serve as the event's host, which the government later possibly reneged upon after securing the contract. Singapore's business-minded government is now bidding to win a larger share of the lucrative global conventions and conference market - though notably without compromising on its laws restricting freedom of association and assembly.
The World Bank/IMF meeting is bringing those seemingly contradictory perceptions into sharp view - though neither of the multilateral institutions, which are currently promoting greater transparency and inclusiveness as part of their new vision, has threatened to pull out of the event over the restrictions.
In June, Stephens wrote a public reply to a broad coalition of activists that the World Bank was "working closely with the IMF and with the Singapore government - and [has] been for many months - to ensure that diverse civil-society voices are very much heard before, during and after the annual meetings'.' Singaporean leaders have so far remained tight-lipped about the controversy.
The World Bank and IMF annual conferences - along with meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Group of Eight summit - have in recent years presented a useful venue for global activists and non-governmental organizations to express their gripes about the inequities perpetuated by the prevailing neo-liberal global order. With the rising cost of living here, many lower-income Singaporean citizens would likely find common cause with international protest groups.
Therein, perhaps, is the rub. Some of the past anti-globalization protests have escalated to violence, where security forces clashed with and arrested protesters, including the WTO's meetings in Seattle in 1999 and in Hong Kong in 2005, as well as the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. Singapore's government is under unprecedented political pressure to justify that its strict adherence to neo-liberal economic prescriptions are benefiting the majority of the island state's 4.4 million people and not just the elite.
Earlier, there had been speculation that the government might lift the ban on outdoor demonstrations temporarily during the conference week, but this spawned torrents of criticism over Singapore's feisty blogosphere, including numerous online jabs at the government's perceived double standards in dealing liberally with well-heeled foreigners and harshly with its own citizens.
Harsh interpretations
Singapore's laws and regulations are often interpreted in anti-democratic fashion, even as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tries to promote a racier national profile to foreign audiences and investors. Local police claim that there are explicit laws on the books that ban outdoor demonstrations, though the actual text of the law is more nuanced.
Outdoor protests and marches involving more than five persons are required to obtain a permit under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. However, for decades the authorities have regularly refused to grant such permits - despite the fact that the intent of the law is to regulate public assemblies, not ban them.
Oddly, perhaps, Singapore's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression and assembly, though the national charter also says parliament may impose "restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof" as well as to uphold "friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality".
In a recent attempt to test the limits of this constitutional guarantee, four people tried to mount a silent demonstration in front of the headquarters of the government-run Central Provident Fund (CPF) in August 2005. They wore T-shirts emblazoned with slogans calling on the CPF to be more transparent with pensioners' funds while standing in complete silence. Soon thereafter, 40 or so police officers in anti-riot gear confiscated their T-shirts and demanded that they disperse because they were a "public nuisance".
Three of the four silent protesters mounted a court challenge against the government for denying them the freedom of assembly. However, Justice V K Rajah dismissed the suit, ruling that the police could reasonably have deemed the words on the T-shirts and placards as "insulting and/or abusive apropos those responsible" for managing the CPF, a public institution, and that their being stationary in front of the building represented harassment. "A persistent course of conduct for a sustained period of time can constitute harassment," the judge ruled.
Another closely watched case testing the bounds of freedom of expression and assembly is now being heard in Singapore's Subordinate Court system. Two Singaporean citizens, Erh Boon Tiong and Ng Chye Huay, are being tried for standing across the road from the Chinese Embassy on July 20 holding a banner with the words, "Stop persecution of Falungong in China." The local media reported police saying that the banner's message was likely "to cause harassment to Chinese Embassy staff, visitors and passers-by".
These cases indicate clearly that the police, government and courts in effect ban most sorts of public assembly, particularly meetings with a political flavor. Institutionalized curbs on civil liberties continue to earn criticism from Singapore's most important global allies, including senior US officials.
Outgoing US ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin said in his farewell speech in October, "It is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens."
Lavin later made reference to a small group of protesters against the Iraq war who tried to demonstrate outside the US Embassy but were immediately dispersed by police, who later asked him if he wished to press charges against the demonstrators. Lavin said he told police that he was embarrassed by such a proposal, adding: "I said 'No.' I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if you want to."
Neither the World Bank nor IMF has so far taken a similar tough stand against their Singaporean hosts. Still, there are indications that Singapore's police may be put to the test during the September meetings. INQ7, a Manila-based news site, recently reported that 200 activists from around the region plan to visit Singapore during the meetings.
That's assuming, of course, that they can get past the intrusive airport screening, on-the-ground surveillance of their movements, and ban on entry to the meetings' venue that they are certain to encounter upon their arrival.
By Alex Au, Singapore
Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator and freelance writer based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums.(Asean News Net)
Malaysia Ahmad Badawi Merdaka tsunami aid Malaysia Economy IMF Singapore
Millions of ringgit in aid money for Malaysian victims of the deadly 2004 tsunami was badly managed, while reconstruction efforts have been shoddy, a report said Saturday.
Malaysia's auditor-general Ambrin Buang said the money, handled by the treasury's National Disaster Relief Fund, was passed on to victims too slowly.
"There was a delay of between 24 and 527 days in disbursing 12.06 million (3.29 million dollars) in aid simply because there was a staff shortage," Ambrin was quoted by the New Straits Times as saying in his report.
"A lack of guidelines on how to disburse the money also contributed to the delay," he said, adding that aid agencies had yet to return 6.7 million ringgit in excess funds to the treasury.
Ambrin also outlined poor construction standards in the repair or building of houses in the tsunami-affected states of northern Penang and Kedah, which cost 9.83 million ringgit.
"Contracts were not signed, projects completed late and the quality of the work shoddy," he said.
"There are houses which still have defects despite work done to rectify them."
Separately, 9.84 million ringgit in aid for fishermen to repair and purchase nets, boats and motors had been mismanaged, said Ambrin.
"The equipment to repair outboard motors was not to specifications," he said.
"The equipment could not be used as the fishermen did not have the skills. Its purchase did not come with supporting documents either," he added.
Ambrin said 32,180 ringgit had been spent to build a boat repair workshop -- but that the workshop was never actually constructed. New boats leaked and were of poor quality, he added.
"In the end, the fishermen rejected the boats," he said in the report.
Ambrin was not immediately available for comment.
Sixty-eight people were killed in Malaysia by the December 26, 2004 tsunami, most of them on the northern island of Penang.
Malaysians donated over 80 million ringgit
to the National Disaster Relief Fund, which saw hundreds of people whose houses or fishing boats were destroyed or damaged eligible for compensation.
(Channelnewsasia)
**********
Malaysia on Path of Progress
Rodolfo C. Estimo Jr., Arab News
The visit of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah to Malaysia early this year was a high point in Malaysian-Saudi bilateral relations, according to Malaysian Ambassador Dr. Ismail Haji Ibrahim.
“The visit strengthened the relationship which has steadily grown in depth and dimension over the years. We are keen to further develop it for the mutual benefits of both Saudis and Malaysians,” Dr. Ismail said as the embassy celebrates Malaysia’s 49th Independence Day anniversary today.
He added that the event also marks the success in which Malaysia’s truly multiracial and multicultural populations have lived and prevailed in harmony despite their diversity.
“Under the leadership of Dato’ Seri Abdullah ibn Haji Ahmad, Malaysian prime minister, Malaysia continues to gain a commendable and outstanding overall progress and developments. Malaysia has proven to the world that it it’s politically stable and prosperous,” the envoy said.
He called on all Malaysian working in Saudi Arabia to redouble their efforts to project the good image of, and promote, Malaysia.
“Your contribution is invaluable in our nation-building efforts. Let me once again take this opportunity to convey the very best wishes to all Malaysians and to each and everyone throughout the Kingdom on this memorable day. May Allah (SWT) bless us all,” he said.
Dr. Ismail also extended his cordial greetings to the Kingdom’s leadership and the “Saudi people for their courtesy, cooperation and good will toward the Malaysian Embassy and Malaysian nationals working in Saudi Arabia.”
Highlighting the excellent bilateral relations, Dr. Ismail said that the two brotherly countries still have to exploit the “vast opportunities available to the two countries in trade and investment.” Bilateral trade grew 30.4 percent during the first five months of this year (valued at $1.1 billion), up 30.4 percent from the same period last year. Bilateral trade volume last year crossed $2 billion, up 37.5 percent from 2004.
The trade growth was largely due to the growing imports of crude and refined petroleum products from the Kingdom. Malaysia, on the other hand, exported palm oil, TV receivers and furniture to the Kingdom. The exports value touched $195.6 million.
Dr. Ismail added that Malaysia continues its support to other countries, including the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in capacity building in several strategic sectors.
“In November this year, for example, Malaysia, through its national trade promotion agency MATRADE, will organize a program called ‘Sharing of Malaysia’s Experience in Trade Promotion’ under the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Program (MTCP),” he said.
Malaysia has also received local and foreign investments from various countries including Saudi Arabia which pumped $41.6 million in various sectors such as food manufacturing, electrical and electronic products, plastic products and textile products.
“Saudi investors find Malaysia as a liberal, open and friendly trade and investment regime with sound macroeconomic management, attractive fiscal incentives and pro-business government policies which is conducive to investment,” the envoy said. He added that he’s optimistic about the growing interaction between the private sectors of both countries and hopes that more businessmen from Saudi Arabia will invest in his country.
In the global framework, Malaysia is the chairman of the OIC, Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and ASEAN Standing Committee; and under the aegis of the United Nations it has been playing an active and moderating role in strengthening the process of multilateralism, regional and global peace and security through greater dialogue and consensus building.
“The Malaysian government is deeply concerned about the numerous pressing questions of peace and stability, poverty and hunger and environmental issues as well as other common issues of interests to mankind,” Dr. Ismail said.
**********
Testing the limits in Singapore
SINGAPORE - When the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) open their week-long annual conferences in Singapore on September 12, the events will not be attended by the usual anti-globalization street protests, burning effigies or other anti-establishment antics. Singapore's authoritarian government guarantees that.
Police chief of staff Soh Wai Wah announced late last month that "outdoor demonstrations and processions will not be allowed, in keeping with current rules" and that "a private secured area will be set up at the lobby of the conference venue" for "accredited" persons and groups to conduct their activities.
The Straits Times, Singapore's government-influenced main English-language newspaper, obediently reported the following day that this decision was "in keeping with the tradition of these meetings". However, "they must stick to the police rules, which include bans on wooden or metal poles to hold up placards".
With the streets around the convention area forcibly closed and accreditation nearly impossible to obtain for activists and advocates, allowing for a select few state-sanctioned civil-society folks to conduct indoor activities will, to the government's approval, ensure a polite and peaceful event.
To justify the restrictions, Singaporean police officials have repeatedly invoked the fear of international terrorism and the domestic need not to "disrupt our compact, multi-ethnic and multi-religious community". At the same time, by agreeing to hold their meetings under such severe restrictions, the World Bank and IMF are granting a de facto endorsement of Singapore's mix of capitalism, authoritarian governance and limited civil liberties.
Peter Stephens, the World Bank's representative to Singapore, has publicly voiced his alleged disappointment with the ban. He recently told local reporters, "The bank's preference is that civil-society groups should be able to peacefully express their views outside of the conference facility in a way that doesn't cause disruption."
The conflicting positions of the World Bank and Singapore on freedom of assembly have led to some speculation about what implicit or explicit promises Singapore may have offered when pitching to serve as the event's host, which the government later possibly reneged upon after securing the contract. Singapore's business-minded government is now bidding to win a larger share of the lucrative global conventions and conference market - though notably without compromising on its laws restricting freedom of association and assembly.
The World Bank/IMF meeting is bringing those seemingly contradictory perceptions into sharp view - though neither of the multilateral institutions, which are currently promoting greater transparency and inclusiveness as part of their new vision, has threatened to pull out of the event over the restrictions.
In June, Stephens wrote a public reply to a broad coalition of activists that the World Bank was "working closely with the IMF and with the Singapore government - and [has] been for many months - to ensure that diverse civil-society voices are very much heard before, during and after the annual meetings'.' Singaporean leaders have so far remained tight-lipped about the controversy.
The World Bank and IMF annual conferences - along with meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Group of Eight summit - have in recent years presented a useful venue for global activists and non-governmental organizations to express their gripes about the inequities perpetuated by the prevailing neo-liberal global order. With the rising cost of living here, many lower-income Singaporean citizens would likely find common cause with international protest groups.
Therein, perhaps, is the rub. Some of the past anti-globalization protests have escalated to violence, where security forces clashed with and arrested protesters, including the WTO's meetings in Seattle in 1999 and in Hong Kong in 2005, as well as the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. Singapore's government is under unprecedented political pressure to justify that its strict adherence to neo-liberal economic prescriptions are benefiting the majority of the island state's 4.4 million people and not just the elite.
Earlier, there had been speculation that the government might lift the ban on outdoor demonstrations temporarily during the conference week, but this spawned torrents of criticism over Singapore's feisty blogosphere, including numerous online jabs at the government's perceived double standards in dealing liberally with well-heeled foreigners and harshly with its own citizens.
Harsh interpretations
Singapore's laws and regulations are often interpreted in anti-democratic fashion, even as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tries to promote a racier national profile to foreign audiences and investors. Local police claim that there are explicit laws on the books that ban outdoor demonstrations, though the actual text of the law is more nuanced.
Outdoor protests and marches involving more than five persons are required to obtain a permit under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. However, for decades the authorities have regularly refused to grant such permits - despite the fact that the intent of the law is to regulate public assemblies, not ban them.
Oddly, perhaps, Singapore's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression and assembly, though the national charter also says parliament may impose "restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof" as well as to uphold "friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality".
In a recent attempt to test the limits of this constitutional guarantee, four people tried to mount a silent demonstration in front of the headquarters of the government-run Central Provident Fund (CPF) in August 2005. They wore T-shirts emblazoned with slogans calling on the CPF to be more transparent with pensioners' funds while standing in complete silence. Soon thereafter, 40 or so police officers in anti-riot gear confiscated their T-shirts and demanded that they disperse because they were a "public nuisance".
Three of the four silent protesters mounted a court challenge against the government for denying them the freedom of assembly. However, Justice V K Rajah dismissed the suit, ruling that the police could reasonably have deemed the words on the T-shirts and placards as "insulting and/or abusive apropos those responsible" for managing the CPF, a public institution, and that their being stationary in front of the building represented harassment. "A persistent course of conduct for a sustained period of time can constitute harassment," the judge ruled.
Another closely watched case testing the bounds of freedom of expression and assembly is now being heard in Singapore's Subordinate Court system. Two Singaporean citizens, Erh Boon Tiong and Ng Chye Huay, are being tried for standing across the road from the Chinese Embassy on July 20 holding a banner with the words, "Stop persecution of Falungong in China." The local media reported police saying that the banner's message was likely "to cause harassment to Chinese Embassy staff, visitors and passers-by".
These cases indicate clearly that the police, government and courts in effect ban most sorts of public assembly, particularly meetings with a political flavor. Institutionalized curbs on civil liberties continue to earn criticism from Singapore's most important global allies, including senior US officials.
Outgoing US ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin said in his farewell speech in October, "It is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens."
Lavin later made reference to a small group of protesters against the Iraq war who tried to demonstrate outside the US Embassy but were immediately dispersed by police, who later asked him if he wished to press charges against the demonstrators. Lavin said he told police that he was embarrassed by such a proposal, adding: "I said 'No.' I mean, go ahead, hold the signs and say something if you want to."
Neither the World Bank nor IMF has so far taken a similar tough stand against their Singaporean hosts. Still, there are indications that Singapore's police may be put to the test during the September meetings. INQ7, a Manila-based news site, recently reported that 200 activists from around the region plan to visit Singapore during the meetings.
That's assuming, of course, that they can get past the intrusive airport screening, on-the-ground surveillance of their movements, and ban on entry to the meetings' venue that they are certain to encounter upon their arrival.
By Alex Au, Singapore
Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator and freelance writer based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums.(Asean News Net)
Malaysia Ahmad Badawi Merdaka tsunami aid Malaysia Economy IMF Singapore
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
1:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home