Badawi, Dr M meet, finally
Badawi, Dr M meet, finally
Malaysia's former premier Mahathir Mohamad refused Sunday to end his attacks on the government, despite talks with his successor which had raised hopes for a resolution to the damaging feud.
Mahathir met with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for two hours Sunday to address the very public verbal brawling that has sent shockwaves through the ruling party and raised fears of government instability.
The feisty 82-year-old political veteran, who now publicly regrets handing the top job to Abdullah in 2003, described the atmosphere as "cordial" but indicated he was not pleased with the results.
"I can't say I am happy, I am satisfied I am able to say these things directly to him," Mahathir told reporters.
"I will continue to criticise if I feel something is done which is not beneficial to the country," he added.
Mahathir said he "stated all that was in my heart" during the meeting, and that Abdullah responded on most issues including allegations that his influential son-in-law is the power behind the throne.
He said Abdullah also addressed Mahathir's charges that his son had gained improperly from government contracts, and "my allegation that we have become a police state".
Mahathir said Abdullah told him that only opposition figures -- including ousted deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim who was sacked and jailed in 1998 and who is now making a political comeback -- benefited from the stream of criticisms.
"He said each time I do these things, I become more unpopular, and he also lost his popularity because of my criticism."
"But he recorded in his little book... all that I said, and it was quite thick. I hope that after this, there will be action that will be taken."
Abdullah and Mahathir last week agreed to the meeting at the urging of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) which has ruled Malaysia for the past four decades.
Mahathir, infuriated by the axing of projects conceived during his two decades in power, including an abandoned proposal to build a new bridge to Singapore, has accused Abdullah of incompetence, nepotism and corruption.
The peace talks came as a surprise following months of rhetoric from Mahathir, who has complained he is now a pariah in the party he once ruled with an iron fist.
The meeting was hailed as a valuable opportunity to thrash out their differences in private, but some political figures have said they fear the fractures are too deep to be quickly resolved.
After the 'peace talks':
Dr M states his stand
The protracted differences between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad have only served to benefit their political opponents.
Abdullah conveyed this point in his one-on-one meeting with his predecessor which took place for about two hours at his official residence in Putrajaya yesterday.
Dr Mahathir said at a Press conference after the highly-anticipated meeting that Abdullah spoke about how both of them had lost their popularity as a result of the spat.
Dr Mahathir’s sons Datuk Mukhriz and Datuk Mokhzani were also present at the Press conference at his house in Seri Kembangan, near here.
"He told me that since I have been criticising I have become very unpopular... that he too has lost popularity because of my criticisms and that the people that have benefited are (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim and (Datuk) Nik (Abdul) Aziz (Nik Mat) who have become more popular.
"There wasn’t much about anything else," he said.
Dr Mahathir said while he had conveyed to Abdullah his grouses, he would "wait and see if there were changes".
The former prime minister said he was satisfied that he had been able to say his piece directly to Abdullah, adding that he made it clear that he wanted to be free in making his criticisms.
The meeting, which became a talking point when it was first mentioned recently, was held under a cloak of secrecy and got nearly everyone guessing yesterday about the turn of events and the outcome.
Journalists particularly were on an endless stakeout at the possible venues but yet most of them missed it when Dr Mahathir entered the Prime Minister’s official residence through a private entrance.
Security guards said Dr Mahathir entered Seri Perdana at 3pm and left at 5.07pm.
He left in a heavily-tinted black Mercedes bearing the registration number JCJ 3 and on his way out, noticed reporters waiting and smiled.
Dr Mahathir, who was seated up front, then gestured to the person driving to stop the car. The car stopped for 10 seconds to allow photographers to take their shots.
The meeting was an initiative of Mubarak, the association of former elected representatives, who sought to see an end to the squabble between the two personalities.
Answering questions later, Dr Mahathir said Abdullah in reacting to the issue of the involvement of his son Kamaluddin and son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, denied the allegations Dr Mahathir had made against them.
"He said the accusation that they ring up people and all that is not true ... but he wants to find out from them whether they did or not."
At the meeting, Dr Mahathir also pointed out to Abdullah that it was not right to postpone the party elections even though he himself had done this before.
"The general election is not anytime soon, hence, there was no reason for the election of Umno’s office bearers to be delayed."
Dr Mahathir said he also expressed his displeasure at being prevented from speaking to Umno members.
He said Abdullah rebuffed his allegation that the country was a police state whereby each time he was invited to speak, the police would be called to question and instil fear in his audience.
The issue of the cancelled bridge project which was to replace the Causeway, he said, was also raised although Abdullah offered no comments.
Dr Mahathir said he also raised the issues of Proton, the AP and (International Trade and Industry Minister) Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz.
Asked on the tone of discussions, Dr Mahathir said it was "cordial", adding that there was not much about anything else.
"He (Abdullah) did not answer much, as there were two hours and I spoke for one and a half.
"There was half an hour left and he touched on several issues and then he stopped... so we went back."
On the possibility of another meeting, Dr Mahathir said it was not scheduled.
"I did not say anything about it but he said something that it would be good if I come and see him."
‘Intention was to convey my views’
THE following is the transcript of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Press conference at his residence in Seri Kembangan yesterday after his meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Dr Mahathir said: We met for two hours. It was to convey all my doubts. I managed to convey issues that had been bugging me — in 20 minutes. He touched a bit on a few things, including on his son (Kamaluddin) and son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin) and my allegation that we have a police state whereby I said each time I am invited, the police will be called to question and instil fear in the audience.
He said this was not true. He disagreed that we have a police state. He also told me that since I had done this, I had become very unpopular and that he had also lost popularity because of my criticisms. And that the people who have benefited from this are (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim and (Datuk) Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who have become more popular.
There wasn’t much about anything else. My intention was to convey my views and we will wait and see if there will be changes or not. I brought up and explained the bridge issue but there were no comments from him.
Many other issues I brought up were not touched on but he noted everything in his little black book, (like mine) all that I said. All the time I was talking he was jotting. (The notes) It was thick. I hope following this meeting there will be some kind of action taken. That’s all.
Q: Are you happy with the meeting?
A: I can’t say I’m happy. I am satisfied that I have been able to say these things directly to him. People say that I have been making comments from outside, but now I have seen him. But I also made it clear that I want to be free to make my criticisms. If I find that anything done is not good for the country, I will continue with my criticisms. I did explain that attempts to block me from speaking to Umno is not good, not right. I have lost my civic right. Also the idea of postponing the Umno elections is not right. Although I had done it before, it was because the election came one year before the general election. Now the general election is not even happening anytime soon, so there is no reason the election of Umno’s office bearers should not be held.
Q: Was it a fruitful discussion?
A: To me, it was worthwhile as I got to say it frankly, (it was also) the way I had said it to the public. But the idea that if I have a grouse I go and tell him, I think that it is not workable because people won’t know why I have a grouse, so I have to explain why something that is done is wrong.
Q: How did the PM react when you said you will continue criticising if need to?
A: He didn’t say anything.
Q: How do you read into that?
A: As far as I’m concerned if he doesn’t say anything, I will do it. But whether he says yes or no, I am going to continue. I am going to continue if I feel that if something is done is not beneficial to the country.
Q: Was it just the two of you?
A: Yes, just the two of us. Nobody else.
Q: Did you get the replies to the issues you raised?
A: Not all. He mentioned about his son and son-in-law’s involvement and he said it was not right, that this accusation that they ring up people and all that was not true. But he wants to find out from them whether they did or not.
Q: Are you expecting any feedback?
A: I didn’t ask for any.
Q: Did you ask for any form of assurance?
A: I didn’t ask for that. I was not there to argue. I just wanted explanations on the things that I am not happy about.
Q: What are you expecting after this?
A: We will see what happens.
Q: If they are not as you expect?
A: I reserve the right to comment. I explained why I was unhappy with several issues and I also pointed out that in Umno, there must be freedom for members to speak their minds. He is wrong not to allow Umno to speak their minds.
Q: Was there anything that you were unhappy about that was not raised?
A: I raised everything, including that his name appeared in the list of companies that dealt with the Oil-for-Food programme. He said he had nothing to do with that. That he simply wrote a letter to introduce this man who was married to his sister-in-law.
Q: Were a lot of the issues you raised answered?
A: No... he didn’t answer much as there were two hours and I spoke for one-and-a-half hours. There was half an hour left and he touched on several issues and then he stopped, you see, so we went back.
Q: How was the tone of the meeting?
A: It was very cordial... he listened.
Q: Were you able to put across your point to the PM?
A: Yes, I was able to explain why I am not happy with so many things, including Proton, the AP and Rafidah.
Q: Will there be a follow-up meeting?
A: It was not scheduled. I didn’t say anything about it but he said something that it’d be good if I come and see him.
The whole nation appeared to be waiting with bated breath yesterday over news that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad were meeting.
By afternoon, phone calls, emails and text messages concerning the peace talks reached a frenzied pace as many Malaysians wanted to find out the latest.
An aide close to Dr Mahathir said he received more SMS asking about the meeting than those extending him festive greetings.
Over the past several days, rumours had been rife that the meeting would take place yesterday but as the time and place could not be confirmed, it kept journalists fully occupied in verifying tip-offs and checking facts.
The strongest rumour was that the two men would meet at Seri Perdana, the Prime Minister’s official residence. About 30 journalists, from both local and foreign agencies, stationed themselves in front of the building, some as early as 8am.
At 3.30pm, reporters spotted Abdullah’s official car entering the compound of the official residence and sprung to their feet but it proved to be a false alarm.
But there was still no sign of either Dr Mahathir or Abdullah.
Some journalists shuttled between Abdullah’s official and private residence located in Precinct 10, about a kilometre away.
Some were even seen walking to and from the lake behind the house in case Abdullah or Dr Mahathir decided to travel by boat.
At 4.45pm, reporters at Putrajaya and their counterparts standing by at the Putra World Trade Centre and Menara Dato’ Onn in Kuala Lumpur heard the latest — that the meeting was taking place at Seri Perdana.
Meaningless Controversy Over ASLI’s Study
M. Bakri Musa and Din Merican
On reading ASLI’s report, “Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy,” we are struck by the familiar refrain of its findings and conclusions. We too have frequently expressed them in the past.
While our commentaries hardly caused ripples, ASLI was forced to withdraw the study. One reason to the different reaction could be that nobody reads our writings. Our egos however dissuade us from accepting such a pat explanation.
Judging from the ensuing shrill and polarizing comments, we reach another conclusion, one more sobering and discomfiting. That is, as Malays we can critique the NEP with relative impunity; non-Malays do so at their peril.
An equally distressing observation is that the report’s lead author is now a cause celébrè in the Chinese community. You guessed it; he is a Chinese! Likewise, Malay politicians and academics who condemned the report portray themselves as latter-day Hang Tuahs.
A few even dismiss it as “rubbish” or attribute sinister motives to its author. Such despicable performances reflect the sorry state of the nation’s leadership.
Fifty years after independence and Malaysians have yet to escape their tribalism trap. While we do not expect the average villager or hawker to be open minded and liberated from their clannish mentality, we do expect better from our intellectuals, pundits, and leaders.
There are exceptions, to be sure. Sociologist Rahman Embong rightly called for greater tolerance of dissent. Economist Ismail Salleh cautioned about being myopic, and advised us to look at the bigger picture. Shahrir Samad was sensibly more concerned with leakages in the NEP. Unfortunately such isolated sane voices are drowned by the cacophony from the ill informed and the intolerant.
ASLI’s Report
ASLI ambitiously seeks out to assess the NEP, its achievements and delivery mechanisms, in particular the equity ownership of GLCs. A tall order indeed, especially for a report that is only 40 pages long, and half of that is filled with references and useless lists of GLCs together with their elaborate interlinking ownership charts. Valuable space in the comment section is also wasted on serial raw data that could have been better presented though space-saving and readily comprehensible graphs.
The crux of its findings, and what triggered the raging controversy, is that GLCs’ and Bumiputras’ stake in the stock market is not 18 percent as claimed by the government, but closer to 45. The stir that these figures caused matches those referring to Dolly Parton’s bust measurements! Never have so many been so riled up and with so much emotion over such meaningless statistics.
The only reason for the controversy is that the two figures are on opposite sides of the magical 30 percent set by the government. Neither ASLI nor the government addresses the rationale or wisdom of that target. Why not 15 or 50 percent? If either had been chosen, there would not have been any controversy, with ASLI and the government both agreeing that the target had been achieved (with 15) or yet to be (with 50). The reality on the other hand would not have changed. Therein lies the fallacy of the obsession with such figures.
More significant is what the ASLI study reveals but does not address. If the government through its myriad GLCs has such a major presence in the KLSE, is it truly an open market? How fair would the regulatory agencies be, and how would minority shareholders’ rights be protected?
More Commentary Than Scholarly
In style and substance the report is more commentary than scholarly, despite the data, references, and appendices included. We agree with many of its observations, for example, corporate equity is not representative of the national wealth.
The stock market is for those who have money to invest. The economic problems of Bumiputras however, are far more basic, like having food on the table, or even having a table.
Stock market investors are financially sophisticated; they do need the government to hold their hands. Its role is to ensure that the market is orderly and transparent, with no collusion, insider trading, and other shady practices.
We heartily agree with the Report that the selective patronage afforded through NEP (in particular through the GLCs) resulted in serious intra-Malay cleavages while undermining interracial social cohesion and equitable economic development. We go further and assert that such intra-Malay divisions pose a far greater threat to social stability than the familiar interracial variety.
Like ASLI, we too note approvingly the promising development of genuine Sino-Malay ventures. Unlike the old Ali Baba arrangements, these new enterprises make full use of the talent of their participants, each bringing added value to their joint ventures. The government is better off in encouraging such ventures by preferentially awarding them contracts and public tenders.
We disagree with the Report’s recommendation that the NEP be need- rather than race-based. Yes, race is today no longer as valid a surrogate indicator of need as it was a generation ago. Then, the giving of a scholarship to any Malay would mean a greater than 90 percent probability that he or she would be someone poor, the first in the family to go to university, and would not have been able to do so without the extra help. Today that probability has dropped to below 50 percent.
That is the good news; the bad news is that we have not changed the ways we disburse these scholarships and other programs.
Extending the NEP to the poor of other races would not solve the poverty problem; it would only enlarge it. If NEP had been unsuccessful in ameliorating poverty among Bumiputras, there is little hope that it would be any more successful with non-Bumiputras. There is nothing inherently special about them that would insulate them from developing the same subsidy mentality. Worse, the program would suffer even greater leakages than it already now has.
NEP is meant to empower, not entrap Malays; to make them economically competitive, not turn them into permanent wards of the state.
We are for restricting the application of the NEP with a view of eventually getting rid of it. We can begin by “means testing” Bumiputras in order for them to qualify for affirmative action. That would greatly increase the program’s efficacy and reduce its leakages, while simultaneously minimizing non-Bumiputras’ resentments.
Competitiveness, Not Percentages
This obsession with percentages is misplaced; it is essentially a “zero-sum” exercise. Malays can increase their share only by others reducing theirs. If non-Bumiputra including foreign companies were to abandon KLSE and list elsewhere, the GLCs’ and Malays’ percentage would rise very quickly to 100 percent! That would be disastrous for the economy and a hollow victory for Malays.
Instead of being fixated on the capitalization percentages (whether at par or market value is irrelevant), the focus should be on enhancing the competitiveness of GLCs and Malay enterprises. Except for Petronas, Tabong Haji, and maybe MAS, the brand names of their products have no impact in the marketplace. The market share of companies like Tenaga and Telekom is purely a function of their effective monopolies.
As for return on equity (another measure of competitiveness), many are loss ridden. We would rather have fewer but more competitive Malay companies. ASLI, like the government, offers little on addressing this issue.
Regardless of which figures were used, the pattern is clear. There is no appreciable improvement, in fact a decline since 1990 and especially floowing the 1997 economic crisis.
In its estimations, ASLI uses the nominal (face value) ringgit. Obviously the 1996 ringgit is very different from the 1998 because of devaluation. Had ASLI adjusted for this and also for inflation, or better yet expressed the values in constant US dollar, the pattern over the years would be even more dramatic and stark, even if that does not change the percentage distribution.
When the NEP failed to reach its target in 1990, the immediate question should have been on how to enhance Malay competitiveness so we could participate effectively in the modern economy, including the stock market. Had that been asked, then we would have paid more attention to our schools and universities so they could produce trained, skilled, and employable graduates.
Instead, the government pumped more money into GLCs in an attempt to artificially inflate the figure. That would be akin to giving a patient aspirin to treat the fever. More important would be to address the underlying infection, then the fever would subside. If Malays were competitive that would translate into increased participation in the stock market as well as other sectors of the economy.
GLCs the Problem, not the Solution
The crucial but unasked question is what right has the government to squander precious public funds in the stock market? GLCs as instruments of the NEP are meant to facilitate Malay entry into the private sector. The aspiration was that they would be like McDonald’s Corporation; it creates more Black millionaires through its franchise system, or FedEx that spawned thousands of small entrepreneurs who own their trucks to service the company’s deliveries.
GLCs and set-aside shares for Bumiputras have degenerated into nothing more than “get rich quick” schemes for the privileged “UMNOPutras.” While there may have been some vicarious pride in the past on seeing Malays joining the millionaires’ club, hitherto the exclusive preserve of non-Malays, such reflected racial glories have long since vanished, speeded up by the obscenely ostentatious lifestyles of these newly rich Malays. Their flaunting their unearned wealth grates ordinary Malays (and Malaysians) raw.
Implicit in ASLI’s study is the assumption that GLCs are Bumiputra companies, meaning, owned by Bumiputras. That is certainly a surprise to us, as it would be to the poor Malay fishermen in Kelantan or Kadazan padi farmers in Sabah. Perhaps ASLI could use its good offices to ensure that those poor folks (and us) do get the dividend checks!
GLCs are more obstacles against than catalysts for Malay progress. They breed rent seekers and “ersatz capitalists.” GLCs, by using their size and might of the state, muscle out legitimate entrepreneurs – Malays and non-Malays.
These GLCs do not even serve as useful training grounds for would-be Malay executives and managers. The work culture is such that a stint with them is a stigma; it does not enhance your resume in the marketplace. It is instructive that one of the stated requirements when Abdullah Badawi was seeking new heads for these GLCs is that they have significant experience with multinational corporations.
Our solution to the mess is simple: get rid of the GLCs. Sell them to the highest bidders and use the proceeds to improve rural schools, build low cost housing for the poor, and erect vital infrastructures like roads and water treatment plants. That would do more good to more Malaysians, in particular poor Malays.
We could not care less who owns Malaysia Airlines. We care more that we train many Malays as pilots, managers, and mechanics so they could work not only locally but also at other airlines of the world.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of GLCs and crown corporations. America has its Fanny Mae, and Canada, its Petrocanada. Nearby, Singapore has plenty of ready examples of competitive GLCs. Competently managed and with clear missions, they would be wonderful. Otherwise get rid of them and use the funds for other useful pursuits.
Getting rid of GLCs would also remove a major source of corruption, money politics, and influence peddling. Those are good enough reasons to dump these companies, and at the same time spare the nation an unnecessary divisive controversy.
Singapore - Minister Mentor doesn't rule out further developments of IRs in Singapore
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew doesn't rule out further developments of Integrated Resorts in Singapore in the future.
Wrapping up his visit to the United States which included a stop in Las Vegas, Mr Lee said there is an "inevitable progression" towards more gaming revenues in most of Asia.
He told Singapore media that if there is a surge in the casino industry as well as the conventions, exhbitions and travel sector, there could be suggestions by the casino operators who didn't make it in their IR bids,to open further bids.
However Mr Lee added that it's too early to say whether Singapore would allow more resorts in the future. "Let's wait and see. Every move like this is a bet on the future. We decided to make the bet. We didn't expect the operators to make such large bets on us."
Three consortia, Kerzner-Capitaland, Eighth Wonder and Genting-Star Cruises, have put in bids to develop an Integrated Resort on Sentosa Island.
The successful bidder, which will be known at the end of the year, will join the Las Vegas Sands Corporation which won the earlier bid to develop Singapore's downtown Marina Bay Intergrated Resort.
While in Las Vegas Mr Lee met the top management of The Sands Corporation and learnt more about their plans for a five billion Singapore dollar development by 2009 which will be similar to the Venetian in Las Vegas.
The meetings also included Las Vegas Sands Corp owner Sheldon Adelson, who told Mr Lee that Sands expects most of the visitors to the Singapore IR to come from China, India and the rest of Asia.
Mr Adelson reportedly said there is a large existing demand that will take up the convention halls and entertainment offerings of Sands.
Currently, Las Vegas Sands sees most of its revenue coming from its hotel entertainment, conventions and exhibitions business with only 30 per cent of revenue coming from its casino.
Controversy Just 'Little Blip On The Horizon '
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has described the controversy over his recent "marginalised Chinese" remarks as just "little blip on the horizon" in Singapore-Malaysia relations, The Straits Times reported.
Lee told the Singapore media covering his visit to the United States that problems were bound to happen with Malaysia due to historical reasons and the different way both countries managed their multiracial societies.
"There are some basic and fundamental differences between the way they shape their society and the way we shape our society," he said in the report.
Lee said Kuala Lumpur's reaction over the controversy suggested that it was looking ahead to work with Singapore.
"I would say that there's a change for the better. It's measured, it's calm, and it has an eye to future cooperation, which we welcome," the newspaper quoted him as saying when asked about the way the administration of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reacted to the issue as compared to how it might have been handled by the previous government.
Lee, 83, irked his neighbours when he told a forum on good governance on Sept 15 that: "My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking, and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education."
"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese -- compliant," he said.
The remark drew protests among Malaysians and prompted Abdullah to write a letter, asking Lee to explain the remark.
In his reply, Lee said he was sorry for the "great deal of discomfort" his remark had caused to Abdullah but maintained that he had not said anything more than what he had said many times before.
Abdullah refused to say if he had accepted the expression of regret from Lee, only saying he had taken note of it.
The paper reported Lee as having noted that Abdullah had indicated that Singapore would play a role in the South Johor Economic Region.
"After all, we made a difference to Batam, Bintan and Karimun (in Indonesia). Surely we can make a difference to South Johor," he said in the report.
"That is if they want us to make a difference... It's a win-win solution," he added.
US diplomat retracts Iraq comments
A senior US diplomat has retracted comments he made in an interview with Aljazeera in which he said Washington had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in dealing with Iraq.
"This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologise," Alberto Fernandez, US state department director of public diplomacy in the Near Eastern Affairs bureau, said on Sunday.
Fernandez said he realised after reading the interview transcript that he "seriously misspoke" in using the phrase, "there has been arrogance and stupidity" by the United States in Iraq.
Fernandez, who gave an interview to Aljazeera Arabic television station in Arabic, said; "... there have been many mistakes in the [US] foreign policy in Iraq.
"We tried to do our best, but I believe that there is great room for strong criticism, because - undoubtedly - there was arrogance and stupidity in US [dealing] with Iraq."
Fernandez said in the interview that the United States was ready to talk with "those who care for Iraq" to end the civil strife raging there.
"We are open to dialogue. We all believe at the end of the day that the solution to the inferno in Iraq is completely linked to an effective national Iraqi reconciliation," Fernandez told Aljazeera Agencies.
Sudanese Government Gives UN Envoy 3 Days to Leave
The Sudanese government is expelling a top United Nations envoy from Sudan, the foreign ministry said on Sunday. The expulsion comes in the wake of comments U.N. envoy Jan Pronk made on his Web site indicating that the Sudanese Armed Forces are in a state of disarray in Darfur.
United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary General, Jan Pronk, has been given 72 hours to leave Sudan.
Pronk last week wrote on his Web site that the Sudanese army had lost two key battles against rebels in Darfur.
Pronk charged that some Sudanese troops are refusing to fight and he said some generals have been fired.
The Sudanese armed forces denied Pronk's claim and called for his expulsion from the country.
Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq, told VOA that Pronk is also at odds with the government over statements he made about the Darfur peace agreement.
"This decision has to do with the recent statements issued by Mr. Pronk on his private Web site, in which he said the government of Sudan did not implement the Darfur peace agreement and is deceiving those who signed the DPA," said Sadiq. "We consider these statements are unwarranted and affect the situation in Darfur."
The United Nations was not available for comment on Pronk's dismissal.
In August Sudan began a military offensive against rebels in northern Darfur who have refused to sign on to a peace agreement with the Sudanese government.
Only one faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement signed on to the deal.
Others refused, complaining that the peace agreement did not meet their demands of power-sharing and monetary compensation for some three million victims of the conflict.
Last week Darfuri rebels and Sudanese troops clashed along Sudan's porous border with Chad, sending hundreds of injured rebels and soldiers streaming into the Chadian town of Bahai.
The three-year Darfur conflict began when rebels attacked government positions in Darfur, complaining that the remote region remained undeveloped due to neglect by the central government.
Sudan is charged with arming militias to crush the rebellion.
Tens of thousands of people have died and more than two million have been displaced by the fighting.
Our most precious resource isn't oil
On elivedusty plains in northern Iraq lie remains of an ancient water-dry system. Predating Roman aqueducts by about 400 years, this open channel transferred water from the foothills of the Zagros Mountains to the Assyrian city of Nineveh, now in ruins near Mosul on the Tigris River. Like Los Angeles, Denver and Boise, Nineveh received marginal rainfall and depended on imported water to make the otherwise harsh landscape come alive.
However, unlike most water-delivery systems created to quench the thirst of city residents, this one began as part of an elaborate urban planning project to make the city more beautiful. When Assyrian king Sennacherib (who reigned from 705 to 681 B.C.) created a new capital in Nineveh, he found the barren surroundings along the upper Tigris too desolate. Wanting something more verdant, he began a number of ambitious water-transfer projects to satisfy his sense of aesthetics. His love of nature and delight in parks and gardens inspired efforts that brought water from the hills to provide trees and greenery for the city.
Beginning in 703, Sennecherib and his team of engineers tapped the Khosr River about 10 miles from his new city and channelized enough water to supply an abundance of orchards. In 694, when he wanted to expand the city and plant even more, he went into the hills east of the city and created another channel, adding its flow to the Khosr.
Four years later, he went farther afield, nearly 45 miles from the city, where he again directed workers to divert several more mountain streams. By cutting into solid rock and in at least one place tunneling under it, his team created a channel that followed the contours of the hills at a 1:80 incline. Along the way, the route had to cross a small valley, at the low point of which was a stream. Here his engineers met the topographic challenge by building a structure nearly three football fields in length and as wide as a four-lane highway to convey water across the depression. With a massive causeway of roughly 2 million carved limestone blocks, each weighing roughly a quarter of a ton, this bridge crossed the stream with a kind of sturdy elegance. We have no record of the volume of water delivered, but it was all built, Sennecherib tells us, in a year and three months.
"To open that canal I sent a priest and carnelian, lapis lazuli, fish, gold, herbs and choice oil. The sluice gate was forced open and let in the waters of abundance. Sennecheribs's Canal I call it."
Only the causeway and a few traces of the upper course remain. Elsewhere, 2,700 years of weathering and farming have obliterated further traces. A team of archaeologists pieced together the route in the early 1930s, translating inscriptions on the stones and bringing the world's attention to this treasure of engineering. Without their efforts, it would have been forgotten.
The water is gone now and so is the city -- the two go hand in hand. The remaining stones remind us of the vital importance of water. Turmoil over oil in the Middle East may someday resolve itself, but by then the real turmoil will have begun: over water. All of us must realize our most precious resource isn't oil.
---- Dian Steen
(Diane Steen of Seattle is a former environmental planner.)
Malaysia Mahathir Abdullah Ahamd Badawi Asli Equity share Bumiputras MM Lee Singapore Irao America Sudan
Malaysia's former premier Mahathir Mohamad refused Sunday to end his attacks on the government, despite talks with his successor which had raised hopes for a resolution to the damaging feud.
Mahathir met with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for two hours Sunday to address the very public verbal brawling that has sent shockwaves through the ruling party and raised fears of government instability.
The feisty 82-year-old political veteran, who now publicly regrets handing the top job to Abdullah in 2003, described the atmosphere as "cordial" but indicated he was not pleased with the results.
"I can't say I am happy, I am satisfied I am able to say these things directly to him," Mahathir told reporters.
"I will continue to criticise if I feel something is done which is not beneficial to the country," he added.
Mahathir said he "stated all that was in my heart" during the meeting, and that Abdullah responded on most issues including allegations that his influential son-in-law is the power behind the throne.
He said Abdullah also addressed Mahathir's charges that his son had gained improperly from government contracts, and "my allegation that we have become a police state".
Mahathir said Abdullah told him that only opposition figures -- including ousted deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim who was sacked and jailed in 1998 and who is now making a political comeback -- benefited from the stream of criticisms.
"He said each time I do these things, I become more unpopular, and he also lost his popularity because of my criticism."
"But he recorded in his little book... all that I said, and it was quite thick. I hope that after this, there will be action that will be taken."
Abdullah and Mahathir last week agreed to the meeting at the urging of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) which has ruled Malaysia for the past four decades.
Mahathir, infuriated by the axing of projects conceived during his two decades in power, including an abandoned proposal to build a new bridge to Singapore, has accused Abdullah of incompetence, nepotism and corruption.
The peace talks came as a surprise following months of rhetoric from Mahathir, who has complained he is now a pariah in the party he once ruled with an iron fist.
The meeting was hailed as a valuable opportunity to thrash out their differences in private, but some political figures have said they fear the fractures are too deep to be quickly resolved.
After the 'peace talks':
Dr M states his stand
The protracted differences between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad have only served to benefit their political opponents.
Abdullah conveyed this point in his one-on-one meeting with his predecessor which took place for about two hours at his official residence in Putrajaya yesterday.
Dr Mahathir said at a Press conference after the highly-anticipated meeting that Abdullah spoke about how both of them had lost their popularity as a result of the spat.
Dr Mahathir’s sons Datuk Mukhriz and Datuk Mokhzani were also present at the Press conference at his house in Seri Kembangan, near here.
"He told me that since I have been criticising I have become very unpopular... that he too has lost popularity because of my criticisms and that the people that have benefited are (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim and (Datuk) Nik (Abdul) Aziz (Nik Mat) who have become more popular.
"There wasn’t much about anything else," he said.
Dr Mahathir said while he had conveyed to Abdullah his grouses, he would "wait and see if there were changes".
The former prime minister said he was satisfied that he had been able to say his piece directly to Abdullah, adding that he made it clear that he wanted to be free in making his criticisms.
The meeting, which became a talking point when it was first mentioned recently, was held under a cloak of secrecy and got nearly everyone guessing yesterday about the turn of events and the outcome.
Journalists particularly were on an endless stakeout at the possible venues but yet most of them missed it when Dr Mahathir entered the Prime Minister’s official residence through a private entrance.
Security guards said Dr Mahathir entered Seri Perdana at 3pm and left at 5.07pm.
He left in a heavily-tinted black Mercedes bearing the registration number JCJ 3 and on his way out, noticed reporters waiting and smiled.
Dr Mahathir, who was seated up front, then gestured to the person driving to stop the car. The car stopped for 10 seconds to allow photographers to take their shots.
The meeting was an initiative of Mubarak, the association of former elected representatives, who sought to see an end to the squabble between the two personalities.
Answering questions later, Dr Mahathir said Abdullah in reacting to the issue of the involvement of his son Kamaluddin and son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, denied the allegations Dr Mahathir had made against them.
"He said the accusation that they ring up people and all that is not true ... but he wants to find out from them whether they did or not."
At the meeting, Dr Mahathir also pointed out to Abdullah that it was not right to postpone the party elections even though he himself had done this before.
"The general election is not anytime soon, hence, there was no reason for the election of Umno’s office bearers to be delayed."
Dr Mahathir said he also expressed his displeasure at being prevented from speaking to Umno members.
He said Abdullah rebuffed his allegation that the country was a police state whereby each time he was invited to speak, the police would be called to question and instil fear in his audience.
The issue of the cancelled bridge project which was to replace the Causeway, he said, was also raised although Abdullah offered no comments.
Dr Mahathir said he also raised the issues of Proton, the AP and (International Trade and Industry Minister) Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz.
Asked on the tone of discussions, Dr Mahathir said it was "cordial", adding that there was not much about anything else.
"He (Abdullah) did not answer much, as there were two hours and I spoke for one and a half.
"There was half an hour left and he touched on several issues and then he stopped... so we went back."
On the possibility of another meeting, Dr Mahathir said it was not scheduled.
"I did not say anything about it but he said something that it would be good if I come and see him."
‘Intention was to convey my views’
THE following is the transcript of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Press conference at his residence in Seri Kembangan yesterday after his meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Dr Mahathir said: We met for two hours. It was to convey all my doubts. I managed to convey issues that had been bugging me — in 20 minutes. He touched a bit on a few things, including on his son (Kamaluddin) and son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin) and my allegation that we have a police state whereby I said each time I am invited, the police will be called to question and instil fear in the audience.
He said this was not true. He disagreed that we have a police state. He also told me that since I had done this, I had become very unpopular and that he had also lost popularity because of my criticisms. And that the people who have benefited from this are (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim and (Datuk) Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who have become more popular.
There wasn’t much about anything else. My intention was to convey my views and we will wait and see if there will be changes or not. I brought up and explained the bridge issue but there were no comments from him.
Many other issues I brought up were not touched on but he noted everything in his little black book, (like mine) all that I said. All the time I was talking he was jotting. (The notes) It was thick. I hope following this meeting there will be some kind of action taken. That’s all.
Q: Are you happy with the meeting?
A: I can’t say I’m happy. I am satisfied that I have been able to say these things directly to him. People say that I have been making comments from outside, but now I have seen him. But I also made it clear that I want to be free to make my criticisms. If I find that anything done is not good for the country, I will continue with my criticisms. I did explain that attempts to block me from speaking to Umno is not good, not right. I have lost my civic right. Also the idea of postponing the Umno elections is not right. Although I had done it before, it was because the election came one year before the general election. Now the general election is not even happening anytime soon, so there is no reason the election of Umno’s office bearers should not be held.
Q: Was it a fruitful discussion?
A: To me, it was worthwhile as I got to say it frankly, (it was also) the way I had said it to the public. But the idea that if I have a grouse I go and tell him, I think that it is not workable because people won’t know why I have a grouse, so I have to explain why something that is done is wrong.
Q: How did the PM react when you said you will continue criticising if need to?
A: He didn’t say anything.
Q: How do you read into that?
A: As far as I’m concerned if he doesn’t say anything, I will do it. But whether he says yes or no, I am going to continue. I am going to continue if I feel that if something is done is not beneficial to the country.
Q: Was it just the two of you?
A: Yes, just the two of us. Nobody else.
Q: Did you get the replies to the issues you raised?
A: Not all. He mentioned about his son and son-in-law’s involvement and he said it was not right, that this accusation that they ring up people and all that was not true. But he wants to find out from them whether they did or not.
Q: Are you expecting any feedback?
A: I didn’t ask for any.
Q: Did you ask for any form of assurance?
A: I didn’t ask for that. I was not there to argue. I just wanted explanations on the things that I am not happy about.
Q: What are you expecting after this?
A: We will see what happens.
Q: If they are not as you expect?
A: I reserve the right to comment. I explained why I was unhappy with several issues and I also pointed out that in Umno, there must be freedom for members to speak their minds. He is wrong not to allow Umno to speak their minds.
Q: Was there anything that you were unhappy about that was not raised?
A: I raised everything, including that his name appeared in the list of companies that dealt with the Oil-for-Food programme. He said he had nothing to do with that. That he simply wrote a letter to introduce this man who was married to his sister-in-law.
Q: Were a lot of the issues you raised answered?
A: No... he didn’t answer much as there were two hours and I spoke for one-and-a-half hours. There was half an hour left and he touched on several issues and then he stopped, you see, so we went back.
Q: How was the tone of the meeting?
A: It was very cordial... he listened.
Q: Were you able to put across your point to the PM?
A: Yes, I was able to explain why I am not happy with so many things, including Proton, the AP and Rafidah.
Q: Will there be a follow-up meeting?
A: It was not scheduled. I didn’t say anything about it but he said something that it’d be good if I come and see him.
The whole nation appeared to be waiting with bated breath yesterday over news that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad were meeting.
By afternoon, phone calls, emails and text messages concerning the peace talks reached a frenzied pace as many Malaysians wanted to find out the latest.
An aide close to Dr Mahathir said he received more SMS asking about the meeting than those extending him festive greetings.
Over the past several days, rumours had been rife that the meeting would take place yesterday but as the time and place could not be confirmed, it kept journalists fully occupied in verifying tip-offs and checking facts.
The strongest rumour was that the two men would meet at Seri Perdana, the Prime Minister’s official residence. About 30 journalists, from both local and foreign agencies, stationed themselves in front of the building, some as early as 8am.
At 3.30pm, reporters spotted Abdullah’s official car entering the compound of the official residence and sprung to their feet but it proved to be a false alarm.
But there was still no sign of either Dr Mahathir or Abdullah.
Some journalists shuttled between Abdullah’s official and private residence located in Precinct 10, about a kilometre away.
Some were even seen walking to and from the lake behind the house in case Abdullah or Dr Mahathir decided to travel by boat.
At 4.45pm, reporters at Putrajaya and their counterparts standing by at the Putra World Trade Centre and Menara Dato’ Onn in Kuala Lumpur heard the latest — that the meeting was taking place at Seri Perdana.
Meaningless Controversy Over ASLI’s Study
M. Bakri Musa and Din Merican
On reading ASLI’s report, “Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy,” we are struck by the familiar refrain of its findings and conclusions. We too have frequently expressed them in the past.
While our commentaries hardly caused ripples, ASLI was forced to withdraw the study. One reason to the different reaction could be that nobody reads our writings. Our egos however dissuade us from accepting such a pat explanation.
Judging from the ensuing shrill and polarizing comments, we reach another conclusion, one more sobering and discomfiting. That is, as Malays we can critique the NEP with relative impunity; non-Malays do so at their peril.
An equally distressing observation is that the report’s lead author is now a cause celébrè in the Chinese community. You guessed it; he is a Chinese! Likewise, Malay politicians and academics who condemned the report portray themselves as latter-day Hang Tuahs.
A few even dismiss it as “rubbish” or attribute sinister motives to its author. Such despicable performances reflect the sorry state of the nation’s leadership.
Fifty years after independence and Malaysians have yet to escape their tribalism trap. While we do not expect the average villager or hawker to be open minded and liberated from their clannish mentality, we do expect better from our intellectuals, pundits, and leaders.
There are exceptions, to be sure. Sociologist Rahman Embong rightly called for greater tolerance of dissent. Economist Ismail Salleh cautioned about being myopic, and advised us to look at the bigger picture. Shahrir Samad was sensibly more concerned with leakages in the NEP. Unfortunately such isolated sane voices are drowned by the cacophony from the ill informed and the intolerant.
ASLI’s Report
ASLI ambitiously seeks out to assess the NEP, its achievements and delivery mechanisms, in particular the equity ownership of GLCs. A tall order indeed, especially for a report that is only 40 pages long, and half of that is filled with references and useless lists of GLCs together with their elaborate interlinking ownership charts. Valuable space in the comment section is also wasted on serial raw data that could have been better presented though space-saving and readily comprehensible graphs.
The crux of its findings, and what triggered the raging controversy, is that GLCs’ and Bumiputras’ stake in the stock market is not 18 percent as claimed by the government, but closer to 45. The stir that these figures caused matches those referring to Dolly Parton’s bust measurements! Never have so many been so riled up and with so much emotion over such meaningless statistics.
The only reason for the controversy is that the two figures are on opposite sides of the magical 30 percent set by the government. Neither ASLI nor the government addresses the rationale or wisdom of that target. Why not 15 or 50 percent? If either had been chosen, there would not have been any controversy, with ASLI and the government both agreeing that the target had been achieved (with 15) or yet to be (with 50). The reality on the other hand would not have changed. Therein lies the fallacy of the obsession with such figures.
More significant is what the ASLI study reveals but does not address. If the government through its myriad GLCs has such a major presence in the KLSE, is it truly an open market? How fair would the regulatory agencies be, and how would minority shareholders’ rights be protected?
More Commentary Than Scholarly
In style and substance the report is more commentary than scholarly, despite the data, references, and appendices included. We agree with many of its observations, for example, corporate equity is not representative of the national wealth.
The stock market is for those who have money to invest. The economic problems of Bumiputras however, are far more basic, like having food on the table, or even having a table.
Stock market investors are financially sophisticated; they do need the government to hold their hands. Its role is to ensure that the market is orderly and transparent, with no collusion, insider trading, and other shady practices.
We heartily agree with the Report that the selective patronage afforded through NEP (in particular through the GLCs) resulted in serious intra-Malay cleavages while undermining interracial social cohesion and equitable economic development. We go further and assert that such intra-Malay divisions pose a far greater threat to social stability than the familiar interracial variety.
Like ASLI, we too note approvingly the promising development of genuine Sino-Malay ventures. Unlike the old Ali Baba arrangements, these new enterprises make full use of the talent of their participants, each bringing added value to their joint ventures. The government is better off in encouraging such ventures by preferentially awarding them contracts and public tenders.
We disagree with the Report’s recommendation that the NEP be need- rather than race-based. Yes, race is today no longer as valid a surrogate indicator of need as it was a generation ago. Then, the giving of a scholarship to any Malay would mean a greater than 90 percent probability that he or she would be someone poor, the first in the family to go to university, and would not have been able to do so without the extra help. Today that probability has dropped to below 50 percent.
That is the good news; the bad news is that we have not changed the ways we disburse these scholarships and other programs.
Extending the NEP to the poor of other races would not solve the poverty problem; it would only enlarge it. If NEP had been unsuccessful in ameliorating poverty among Bumiputras, there is little hope that it would be any more successful with non-Bumiputras. There is nothing inherently special about them that would insulate them from developing the same subsidy mentality. Worse, the program would suffer even greater leakages than it already now has.
NEP is meant to empower, not entrap Malays; to make them economically competitive, not turn them into permanent wards of the state.
We are for restricting the application of the NEP with a view of eventually getting rid of it. We can begin by “means testing” Bumiputras in order for them to qualify for affirmative action. That would greatly increase the program’s efficacy and reduce its leakages, while simultaneously minimizing non-Bumiputras’ resentments.
Competitiveness, Not Percentages
This obsession with percentages is misplaced; it is essentially a “zero-sum” exercise. Malays can increase their share only by others reducing theirs. If non-Bumiputra including foreign companies were to abandon KLSE and list elsewhere, the GLCs’ and Malays’ percentage would rise very quickly to 100 percent! That would be disastrous for the economy and a hollow victory for Malays.
Instead of being fixated on the capitalization percentages (whether at par or market value is irrelevant), the focus should be on enhancing the competitiveness of GLCs and Malay enterprises. Except for Petronas, Tabong Haji, and maybe MAS, the brand names of their products have no impact in the marketplace. The market share of companies like Tenaga and Telekom is purely a function of their effective monopolies.
As for return on equity (another measure of competitiveness), many are loss ridden. We would rather have fewer but more competitive Malay companies. ASLI, like the government, offers little on addressing this issue.
Regardless of which figures were used, the pattern is clear. There is no appreciable improvement, in fact a decline since 1990 and especially floowing the 1997 economic crisis.
In its estimations, ASLI uses the nominal (face value) ringgit. Obviously the 1996 ringgit is very different from the 1998 because of devaluation. Had ASLI adjusted for this and also for inflation, or better yet expressed the values in constant US dollar, the pattern over the years would be even more dramatic and stark, even if that does not change the percentage distribution.
When the NEP failed to reach its target in 1990, the immediate question should have been on how to enhance Malay competitiveness so we could participate effectively in the modern economy, including the stock market. Had that been asked, then we would have paid more attention to our schools and universities so they could produce trained, skilled, and employable graduates.
Instead, the government pumped more money into GLCs in an attempt to artificially inflate the figure. That would be akin to giving a patient aspirin to treat the fever. More important would be to address the underlying infection, then the fever would subside. If Malays were competitive that would translate into increased participation in the stock market as well as other sectors of the economy.
GLCs the Problem, not the Solution
The crucial but unasked question is what right has the government to squander precious public funds in the stock market? GLCs as instruments of the NEP are meant to facilitate Malay entry into the private sector. The aspiration was that they would be like McDonald’s Corporation; it creates more Black millionaires through its franchise system, or FedEx that spawned thousands of small entrepreneurs who own their trucks to service the company’s deliveries.
GLCs and set-aside shares for Bumiputras have degenerated into nothing more than “get rich quick” schemes for the privileged “UMNOPutras.” While there may have been some vicarious pride in the past on seeing Malays joining the millionaires’ club, hitherto the exclusive preserve of non-Malays, such reflected racial glories have long since vanished, speeded up by the obscenely ostentatious lifestyles of these newly rich Malays. Their flaunting their unearned wealth grates ordinary Malays (and Malaysians) raw.
Implicit in ASLI’s study is the assumption that GLCs are Bumiputra companies, meaning, owned by Bumiputras. That is certainly a surprise to us, as it would be to the poor Malay fishermen in Kelantan or Kadazan padi farmers in Sabah. Perhaps ASLI could use its good offices to ensure that those poor folks (and us) do get the dividend checks!
GLCs are more obstacles against than catalysts for Malay progress. They breed rent seekers and “ersatz capitalists.” GLCs, by using their size and might of the state, muscle out legitimate entrepreneurs – Malays and non-Malays.
These GLCs do not even serve as useful training grounds for would-be Malay executives and managers. The work culture is such that a stint with them is a stigma; it does not enhance your resume in the marketplace. It is instructive that one of the stated requirements when Abdullah Badawi was seeking new heads for these GLCs is that they have significant experience with multinational corporations.
Our solution to the mess is simple: get rid of the GLCs. Sell them to the highest bidders and use the proceeds to improve rural schools, build low cost housing for the poor, and erect vital infrastructures like roads and water treatment plants. That would do more good to more Malaysians, in particular poor Malays.
We could not care less who owns Malaysia Airlines. We care more that we train many Malays as pilots, managers, and mechanics so they could work not only locally but also at other airlines of the world.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of GLCs and crown corporations. America has its Fanny Mae, and Canada, its Petrocanada. Nearby, Singapore has plenty of ready examples of competitive GLCs. Competently managed and with clear missions, they would be wonderful. Otherwise get rid of them and use the funds for other useful pursuits.
Getting rid of GLCs would also remove a major source of corruption, money politics, and influence peddling. Those are good enough reasons to dump these companies, and at the same time spare the nation an unnecessary divisive controversy.
Singapore - Minister Mentor doesn't rule out further developments of IRs in Singapore
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew doesn't rule out further developments of Integrated Resorts in Singapore in the future.
Wrapping up his visit to the United States which included a stop in Las Vegas, Mr Lee said there is an "inevitable progression" towards more gaming revenues in most of Asia.
He told Singapore media that if there is a surge in the casino industry as well as the conventions, exhbitions and travel sector, there could be suggestions by the casino operators who didn't make it in their IR bids,to open further bids.
However Mr Lee added that it's too early to say whether Singapore would allow more resorts in the future. "Let's wait and see. Every move like this is a bet on the future. We decided to make the bet. We didn't expect the operators to make such large bets on us."
Three consortia, Kerzner-Capitaland, Eighth Wonder and Genting-Star Cruises, have put in bids to develop an Integrated Resort on Sentosa Island.
The successful bidder, which will be known at the end of the year, will join the Las Vegas Sands Corporation which won the earlier bid to develop Singapore's downtown Marina Bay Intergrated Resort.
While in Las Vegas Mr Lee met the top management of The Sands Corporation and learnt more about their plans for a five billion Singapore dollar development by 2009 which will be similar to the Venetian in Las Vegas.
The meetings also included Las Vegas Sands Corp owner Sheldon Adelson, who told Mr Lee that Sands expects most of the visitors to the Singapore IR to come from China, India and the rest of Asia.
Mr Adelson reportedly said there is a large existing demand that will take up the convention halls and entertainment offerings of Sands.
Currently, Las Vegas Sands sees most of its revenue coming from its hotel entertainment, conventions and exhibitions business with only 30 per cent of revenue coming from its casino.
Controversy Just 'Little Blip On The Horizon '
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has described the controversy over his recent "marginalised Chinese" remarks as just "little blip on the horizon" in Singapore-Malaysia relations, The Straits Times reported.
Lee told the Singapore media covering his visit to the United States that problems were bound to happen with Malaysia due to historical reasons and the different way both countries managed their multiracial societies.
"There are some basic and fundamental differences between the way they shape their society and the way we shape our society," he said in the report.
Lee said Kuala Lumpur's reaction over the controversy suggested that it was looking ahead to work with Singapore.
"I would say that there's a change for the better. It's measured, it's calm, and it has an eye to future cooperation, which we welcome," the newspaper quoted him as saying when asked about the way the administration of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reacted to the issue as compared to how it might have been handled by the previous government.
Lee, 83, irked his neighbours when he told a forum on good governance on Sept 15 that: "My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking, and therefore they are systematically marginalised, even in education."
"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese -- compliant," he said.
The remark drew protests among Malaysians and prompted Abdullah to write a letter, asking Lee to explain the remark.
In his reply, Lee said he was sorry for the "great deal of discomfort" his remark had caused to Abdullah but maintained that he had not said anything more than what he had said many times before.
Abdullah refused to say if he had accepted the expression of regret from Lee, only saying he had taken note of it.
The paper reported Lee as having noted that Abdullah had indicated that Singapore would play a role in the South Johor Economic Region.
"After all, we made a difference to Batam, Bintan and Karimun (in Indonesia). Surely we can make a difference to South Johor," he said in the report.
"That is if they want us to make a difference... It's a win-win solution," he added.
**********
US diplomat retracts Iraq comments
A senior US diplomat has retracted comments he made in an interview with Aljazeera in which he said Washington had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in dealing with Iraq.
"This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologise," Alberto Fernandez, US state department director of public diplomacy in the Near Eastern Affairs bureau, said on Sunday.
Fernandez said he realised after reading the interview transcript that he "seriously misspoke" in using the phrase, "there has been arrogance and stupidity" by the United States in Iraq.
Fernandez, who gave an interview to Aljazeera Arabic television station in Arabic, said; "... there have been many mistakes in the [US] foreign policy in Iraq.
"We tried to do our best, but I believe that there is great room for strong criticism, because - undoubtedly - there was arrogance and stupidity in US [dealing] with Iraq."
Fernandez said in the interview that the United States was ready to talk with "those who care for Iraq" to end the civil strife raging there.
"We are open to dialogue. We all believe at the end of the day that the solution to the inferno in Iraq is completely linked to an effective national Iraqi reconciliation," Fernandez told Aljazeera Agencies.
Sudanese Government Gives UN Envoy 3 Days to Leave
The Sudanese government is expelling a top United Nations envoy from Sudan, the foreign ministry said on Sunday. The expulsion comes in the wake of comments U.N. envoy Jan Pronk made on his Web site indicating that the Sudanese Armed Forces are in a state of disarray in Darfur.
United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary General, Jan Pronk, has been given 72 hours to leave Sudan.
Pronk last week wrote on his Web site that the Sudanese army had lost two key battles against rebels in Darfur.
Pronk charged that some Sudanese troops are refusing to fight and he said some generals have been fired.
The Sudanese armed forces denied Pronk's claim and called for his expulsion from the country.
Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq, told VOA that Pronk is also at odds with the government over statements he made about the Darfur peace agreement.
"This decision has to do with the recent statements issued by Mr. Pronk on his private Web site, in which he said the government of Sudan did not implement the Darfur peace agreement and is deceiving those who signed the DPA," said Sadiq. "We consider these statements are unwarranted and affect the situation in Darfur."
The United Nations was not available for comment on Pronk's dismissal.
In August Sudan began a military offensive against rebels in northern Darfur who have refused to sign on to a peace agreement with the Sudanese government.
Only one faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement signed on to the deal.
Others refused, complaining that the peace agreement did not meet their demands of power-sharing and monetary compensation for some three million victims of the conflict.
Last week Darfuri rebels and Sudanese troops clashed along Sudan's porous border with Chad, sending hundreds of injured rebels and soldiers streaming into the Chadian town of Bahai.
The three-year Darfur conflict began when rebels attacked government positions in Darfur, complaining that the remote region remained undeveloped due to neglect by the central government.
Sudan is charged with arming militias to crush the rebellion.
Tens of thousands of people have died and more than two million have been displaced by the fighting.
Our most precious resource isn't oil
On elivedusty plains in northern Iraq lie remains of an ancient water-dry system. Predating Roman aqueducts by about 400 years, this open channel transferred water from the foothills of the Zagros Mountains to the Assyrian city of Nineveh, now in ruins near Mosul on the Tigris River. Like Los Angeles, Denver and Boise, Nineveh received marginal rainfall and depended on imported water to make the otherwise harsh landscape come alive.
However, unlike most water-delivery systems created to quench the thirst of city residents, this one began as part of an elaborate urban planning project to make the city more beautiful. When Assyrian king Sennacherib (who reigned from 705 to 681 B.C.) created a new capital in Nineveh, he found the barren surroundings along the upper Tigris too desolate. Wanting something more verdant, he began a number of ambitious water-transfer projects to satisfy his sense of aesthetics. His love of nature and delight in parks and gardens inspired efforts that brought water from the hills to provide trees and greenery for the city.
Beginning in 703, Sennecherib and his team of engineers tapped the Khosr River about 10 miles from his new city and channelized enough water to supply an abundance of orchards. In 694, when he wanted to expand the city and plant even more, he went into the hills east of the city and created another channel, adding its flow to the Khosr.
Four years later, he went farther afield, nearly 45 miles from the city, where he again directed workers to divert several more mountain streams. By cutting into solid rock and in at least one place tunneling under it, his team created a channel that followed the contours of the hills at a 1:80 incline. Along the way, the route had to cross a small valley, at the low point of which was a stream. Here his engineers met the topographic challenge by building a structure nearly three football fields in length and as wide as a four-lane highway to convey water across the depression. With a massive causeway of roughly 2 million carved limestone blocks, each weighing roughly a quarter of a ton, this bridge crossed the stream with a kind of sturdy elegance. We have no record of the volume of water delivered, but it was all built, Sennecherib tells us, in a year and three months.
"To open that canal I sent a priest and carnelian, lapis lazuli, fish, gold, herbs and choice oil. The sluice gate was forced open and let in the waters of abundance. Sennecheribs's Canal I call it."
Only the causeway and a few traces of the upper course remain. Elsewhere, 2,700 years of weathering and farming have obliterated further traces. A team of archaeologists pieced together the route in the early 1930s, translating inscriptions on the stones and bringing the world's attention to this treasure of engineering. Without their efforts, it would have been forgotten.
The water is gone now and so is the city -- the two go hand in hand. The remaining stones remind us of the vital importance of water. Turmoil over oil in the Middle East may someday resolve itself, but by then the real turmoil will have begun: over water. All of us must realize our most precious resource isn't oil.
---- Dian Steen
(Diane Steen of Seattle is a former environmental planner.)
Malaysia Mahathir Abdullah Ahamd Badawi Asli Equity share Bumiputras MM Lee Singapore Irao America Sudan
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home