- www.freemalaysiatoday.comKUALA LUMPUR: There is no way that City Hall would allow anyone to set foot on Dataran Merdeka tomorrow, Kuala Lumpur Mayor Ahmad Fuad Ismail said today. H...
Friday, April 27, 2012
BAPAK DEWAN BANGSAT KUALA LUMPUR
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
吁杨紫琼支持428 发扬昂山素枝护民主精神
| ||
|
428黄绿大集会倒数5天，绿色盛会今日质疑，旅游部施压彭亨州的旅游巴士公司，拒绝出租巴士给绿色盛会，企图阻止这个反稀土组织联盟载送关丹人到吉隆坡出席黄绿大集会
旅巴公司突取消八辆巴士订单
绿色盛会质疑旅游部从中施压
绿色盛会质疑旅游部从中施压
即时新闻
428黄绿大集会倒数5天，绿色盛会今日质疑，旅游部施压彭亨州的旅游巴士公司，拒绝出租巴士给绿色盛会，企图阻止这个反稀土组织联盟载送关丹人到吉隆坡出席黄绿大集会。
绿色盛会本来打算租用20辆大巴士，载送支持者到吉隆坡。不过，由于关丹的巴士公司最近接获太多订单，绿色盛会只租到18辆巴士。
然而，令绿色盛会感到震惊的是，其中8辆旅游巴士却又临时改变主意，拒租给他们，导致他们现在只有10辆巴士载送支持者。
旅巴公司声称攸关饭碗
绿色盛会主席黄德接受《当今大马》访问时质疑，有关旅巴公司是因为旅游部从中施压，才临时取消绿色盛会的8辆巴士订单。
“我问他们为什么，他们也不愿意多谈，只是说这攸关他们的饭碗。”
无论如何，黄德表示，绿色盛会将会安排小型巴士及私家车，以载送那批无法登上大巴士的支持者，到吉隆坡出席黄绿大集会。
428黄绿大集会倒数5天，绿色盛会今日质疑，旅游部施压彭亨州的旅游巴士公司，拒绝出租巴士给绿色盛会，企图阻止这个反稀土组织联盟载送关丹人到吉隆坡出席黄绿大集会。
绿色盛会本来打算租用20辆大巴士，载送支持者到吉隆坡。不过，由于关丹的巴士公司最近接获太多订单，绿色盛会只租到18辆巴士。
然而，令绿色盛会感到震惊的是，其中8辆旅游巴士却又临时改变主意，拒租给他们，导致他们现在只有10辆巴士载送支持者。
旅巴公司声称攸关饭碗
绿色盛会主席黄德接受《当今大马》访问时质疑，有关旅巴公司是因为旅游部从中施压，才临时取消绿色盛会的8辆巴士订单。
“我问他们为什么，他们也不愿意多谈，只是说这攸关他们的饭碗。”
无论如何，黄德表示，绿色盛会将会安排小型巴士及私家车，以载送那批无法登上大巴士的支持者，到吉隆坡出席黄绿大集会。
订阅者发表评论（3）
Friday, April 20, 2012
白素的故事（八）
上期说道：
白素和大伙谈论维持长寿的看法。
转眼，清明节也刚过了。
她决定到马来西亚拜访好友。
VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
她刚走出沙巴亚庇机场内的CUSTOM 关税检查处， 见到了木兰花在向她招手。
她们一起走向停车场。
突然，一辆电单车缓慢经过她们身边， 坐在电单车后面的一个菲律宾族的青年快速地要拉白素的手提袋。
真的不识泰山OHYIOH..。。。。白素一个侧身，手刀砍下。
那个青年大喊一声，同伙的电单车骑士加速离开。
帮忙拿行李的木兰花问道：“白素姐， 没事吧。”
白素：“没事， 还好。其实， 在那辆电单车放慢速度时，我已经有了警觉。”
木兰花说：“没办法， 不要说沙巴， 马来西亚很多地方都有外来人。。。沙巴特别多， 而且很多已经成为马来西亚公民了。”
“马来西亚的PROJECT IC， 很出名， 全世界知道。”白素说道。
木兰花摇摇头：“那是国阵的PROJECT， 由马哈迪所主导。上GOOGLE ，打 PROJEK IC 就可以看到了，有很多资料。”
。。。。。。。。
木兰花开着跑车，驰骋在公路上。
一会就抵达她的住家。
白素问木兰花：“几年前来过你家， 还是没有什么变化？”
木兰花说：“很难， 能有什么变化？”
进入客厅， 高翔在看着新闻：
白素说：“高老大， 你好。”
高翔笑笑说道：“欢迎，欢迎。”
(待续）
白素和大伙谈论维持长寿的看法。
转眼，清明节也刚过了。
她决定到马来西亚拜访好友。
VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
她刚走出沙巴亚庇机场内的CUSTOM 关税检查处， 见到了木兰花在向她招手。
她们一起走向停车场。
突然，一辆电单车缓慢经过她们身边， 坐在电单车后面的一个菲律宾族的青年快速地要拉白素的手提袋。
真的不识泰山OHYIOH..。。。。白素一个侧身，手刀砍下。
那个青年大喊一声，同伙的电单车骑士加速离开。
帮忙拿行李的木兰花问道：“白素姐， 没事吧。”
白素：“没事， 还好。其实， 在那辆电单车放慢速度时，我已经有了警觉。”
木兰花说：“没办法， 不要说沙巴， 马来西亚很多地方都有外来人。。。沙巴特别多， 而且很多已经成为马来西亚公民了。”
“马来西亚的PROJECT IC， 很出名， 全世界知道。”白素说道。
木兰花摇摇头：“那是国阵的PROJECT， 由马哈迪所主导。上GOOGLE ，打 PROJEK IC 就可以看到了，有很多资料。”
。。。。。。。。
木兰花开着跑车，驰骋在公路上。
一会就抵达她的住家。
白素问木兰花：“几年前来过你家， 还是没有什么变化？”
木兰花说：“很难， 能有什么变化？”
进入客厅， 高翔在看着新闻：
Cikgu Jing 分享了 Denise Yee 的照片。
【安美嘉表示广场是属於人民的
Bersih 3.0 铁定地點独立广场】
无论如何，净选盟联合主席安美嘉在记者会上表示，净选盟不会改变
“市政厅的回复并没让我们觉得意外，但我们将继续在独立广场举行
“如果市政厅在当天阻扰我们的话，我们才会与他们洽谈。”
另一名净选盟联合主席沙末赛益表示，如果有关当局刻意为难集会者
“我肯定会在独立广场，就算有阻扰，我也会到那里，因为那是我们
Bersih 3.0 铁定地點独立广场】
无论如何，净选盟联合主席安美嘉在记者会上表示，净选盟不会改变
“市政厅的回复并没让我们觉得意外，但我们将继续在独立广场举行
“如果市政厅在当天阻扰我们的话，我们才会与他们洽谈。”
另一名净选盟联合主席沙末赛益表示，如果有关当局刻意为难集会者
“我肯定会在独立广场，就算有阻扰，我也会到那里，因为那是我们
《沙巴静坐抗议也受阻》
除了独立广场的静坐抗议受阻外，沙巴净选盟定于同一日，在沙巴亚
根据净选盟沙巴成员阿达马（Atama Andrew Ambrose），沙巴警方已经表明，将在428当天于沙巴独立
“我们是在4月17日通知警方和亚庇市政厅，将于28日在独立草
“因此，我们将在当天到草场静坐抗议，同时观看警方如何演习
除了独立广场的静坐抗议受阻外，沙巴净选盟定于同一日，在沙巴亚
根据净选盟沙巴成员阿达马（Atama Andrew Ambrose），沙巴警方已经表明，将在428当天于沙巴独立
“我们是在4月17日通知警方和亚庇市政厅，将于28日在独立草
“因此，我们将在当天到草场静坐抗议，同时观看警方如何演习
上传者： Denise Yee
白素说：“高老大， 你好。”
高翔笑笑说道：“欢迎，欢迎。”
(待续）
419独立广场袭击事件后记
419独立广场袭击事件后记
发生了什么事？
4月19日，是大专生在吉隆坡独立广场扎营的第六天。就在这一天的凌晨2时35分，有关大专生遭到一群来历不明的专业流氓，从四面八方突袭。
在这之前，所有大专生已经达成共识，将不会以暴力对付任何想要暴力驱逐他们的单位。于是当暴徒强行破坏我们的帐篷的时候，我们选择站在一旁冷静地观看，有者则选择继续坐在原地不动。
“不理”策略激怒流氓
我们采取这样的“不理”策略激怒了这一群流氓。他们继续使用言语来挑衅我们，展开言语上的攻击。他们甚至开始对集会者动粗。手握录影器材者，其录影器材则被强行掠夺，然后用力往地上摔，以图证据可以毁灭。坚持不愿交出相机的集会者则被施予暴力。
这场历时15分钟的冲突，造成了一人受伤入院，最少四人受轻伤。
警员赶到却袖手旁观
警察呢？离开事发地点30米的不远处，有一个流动警察行动室。在事发开始的前5分钟，我们完全不见警察的踪影。直到5分钟后，四名警察才姗姗来迟。虽然对方人数有60人，可是配枪的四名警察却无法有效停止暴力的继续。
吉隆坡总警察长声称在短短6分钟内，6辆警车随即赶到现场。这是完全正确的。可是据我在现场的观察，赶到场的警员下车后并没有走入事发地点，而是站在警车旁袖手旁观。
我们的警察不应该是阻止罪案的发生吗？为什么来到的警察看起来是那么的无助，这样的场面看了令人感到非常心寒。
还要继续占领独立广场吗？
遭到袭击后的我们变得更加坚定——我们当场即决定继续留守独立广场。我们不会离开，这是宪法赋予我们的权力。我的相机在这次的暴力事件中被暴徒夺取，可是那不会阻止我继续行使我的集会权和言论自由。相机可以再买，民主精神不能弄丢！
你们可以不认同我们的诉求，但请不要使用暴力来对待我们；你们可以使用暴力对待我们，可是那不会浇灭我们理念。
后记：419暴力事件后的晚上，前来支持我们的大专生和公众变得更加多了。这很令人欣慰和感动。新的帐篷来了一个又一个。
至少，我们不是在孤军作战。
注：作者部落格http://yileong.blogspot.com/
4月19日，是大专生在吉隆坡独立广场扎营的第六天。就在这一天的凌晨2时35分，有关大专生遭到一群来历不明的专业流氓，从四面八方突袭。
在这之前，所有大专生已经达成共识，将不会以暴力对付任何想要暴力驱逐他们的单位。于是当暴徒强行破坏我们的帐篷的时候，我们选择站在一旁冷静地观看，有者则选择继续坐在原地不动。
“不理”策略激怒流氓
我们采取这样的“不理”策略激怒了这一群流氓。他们继续使用言语来挑衅我们，展开言语上的攻击。他们甚至开始对集会者动粗。手握录影器材者，其录影器材则被强行掠夺，然后用力往地上摔，以图证据可以毁灭。坚持不愿交出相机的集会者则被施予暴力。
这场历时15分钟的冲突，造成了一人受伤入院，最少四人受轻伤。
警员赶到却袖手旁观
警察呢？离开事发地点30米的不远处，有一个流动警察行动室。在事发开始的前5分钟，我们完全不见警察的踪影。直到5分钟后，四名警察才姗姗来迟。虽然对方人数有60人，可是配枪的四名警察却无法有效停止暴力的继续。
吉隆坡总警察长声称在短短6分钟内，6辆警车随即赶到现场。这是完全正确的。可是据我在现场的观察，赶到场的警员下车后并没有走入事发地点，而是站在警车旁袖手旁观。
我们的警察不应该是阻止罪案的发生吗？为什么来到的警察看起来是那么的无助，这样的场面看了令人感到非常心寒。
还要继续占领独立广场吗？
遭到袭击后的我们变得更加坚定——我们当场即决定继续留守独立广场。我们不会离开，这是宪法赋予我们的权力。我的相机在这次的暴力事件中被暴徒夺取，可是那不会阻止我继续行使我的集会权和言论自由。相机可以再买，民主精神不能弄丢！
你们可以不认同我们的诉求，但请不要使用暴力来对待我们；你们可以使用暴力对待我们，可是那不会浇灭我们理念。
后记：419暴力事件后的晚上，前来支持我们的大专生和公众变得更加多了。这很令人欣慰和感动。新的帐篷来了一个又一个。
至少，我们不是在孤军作战。
注：作者部落格http://yileong.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
负债的威力
负债的威力
Posted by chengyk on Monday, 9 November 2009
一个刚踏入社会的年轻人会怎样?
先买一辆车，就算最便宜的 Viva 都需要 2 万到 3 万。现在，在马来西亚最普遍的汽车莫过于 Myvi，也要 4 万到 5 万之间。
一位还不是很赚钱的青年就背上了几万的负债。过了不久，当然是到了谈婚论嫁的时候，那一定也得拥有自己的产业，这是马来西亚的很优良的想法。
便宜的 condo 都要 10 万以上，不过论专业人士来说， 10 万的产业那里看得上眼。我认识的朋友中，很多在月入 2，3 千时，敢敢买入 25 万以上的房子。
如果计算供房供车的月供数目，当然能解决。可是往往我们就是看不到这个负债的威力，现在说的不是一年，两年，而是二十年，三十年的时间。
我们只是不断的计算能不能供得起，可是却看不到二三十年永无止境供期带来的危害。
大概做一个计算:
50 千的汽车需要月供 RM 700++ (维持 7 年)
200 千的房子需要月供 RM 1200++ (维持 30 年)
(这只是我随便举的例子，不代表全部家庭)
车子每 7 到 10 年需要换一辆，所以供车是永无止境的负债。
以上的例子就看到，我们一个月简简单单就不见了 RM 2k。以普通专业人士的家庭状况，月入应该都有 RM 4k 左右 (我说得是净收入 -- 扣除了 EPF, Socso 和 tax)。
那就不见了一半，还有生活费，儿女费等等的费用。如果某个月开销大了，那就真的不堪设想。
所以逼不得以唯有在开销方面好好控制，尽量省吃省用。最离谱的就是，省下来的钱不是用于投资，而是放在银行等待贬值。
钱因为贬值的关系越变越少，同时负债的压力还是不间断的攻击我们。
享受没有了，钱越来越少，换来的只是无情的压力。那还能谈论写意生活吗?
不要说做到，连想都很困难。
有没有人会认真停下来想想，问题在那里?
当然没有，人只会不断的要求高薪厚职，希望越赚越多，然后就能越买越贵。薪水多了，就不要 condo 了，换一间 semi-D，再不然换一间 bungalow。
人的欲望也是永无止境的。
追求物质，到头来只是留下了很多无形的压力，做不得。
那真正的源头在那里?
就是负债，想想，如果零负债。月入 RM 4k，你说你的生活是写意还是充满压力?
"生活逼人" 也是人们最喜欢用的借口，可以把自己追求物质化的思想推得一干二净。
负债固然是问题的源头，可是做决定背上这笔负债的人更是责无旁贷。
追根究底，还是我们自己逼自己进入永不翻身的地步。
生活需要的是一个规划，一个写意生活更需要一个好的规划。如果不明白这点，你永远不能过一个真正的 "生活"。
你看到了问题吗?
Labels: 乡下佬的金钱观念
12 comments:
Hareame said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
9 November 2009 21:09
Hareame said...
在前一陣子馬來西亞政府推出自動報廢國產車5000元補貼計畫的時候，我朋友的家人報廢一輛殘舊的車，然後去供一輛新的國產車來供。理由是：好不容易找到人願意付5000零吉去“買”那輛老爺車，所以是賺到了。可是我卻覺得代價要供一輛新車，最後的淨得是＝-40k+5k= -35k。唉，一負債又是幾年的事。
9 November 2009 21:10
yy said...
我有个朋友也是这样的情况.
早前驾驶老爷车,歪歪还以为他应该是个存钱能力很强的人.
最近看到他以旧车换新车,负担重了,还欠下卡债...
人的表面真的那么重要吗? 何必搞到自己负债累累呢?
10 November 2009 00:30
chengyk said...
在能够应付的范围下，奖励自己一番也不错，可是一定要有界限，不能太过离谱。
为了面子/表面的光鲜搞到自己负债累累，一点都不值得，而且还陪上了自己的生活。
10 November 2009 01:49
nsp said...
我家有两辆老爷车,哈哈. 爸叫我买新车,我打死都不买...哈哈.我不喜欢驾车!!!所以都在驾摩托!!
驾摩托真的省很多!! 很多人都说很很危险,哈哈.对我来讲无知才危险,当你有了经验和skill那就是可以处理风险!! :)
10 November 2009 19:44
jiannwei said...
我当初踏入社会时也是如此,一开始就买可车,然后就屋子,结果满身负债,很感谢你的分享
10 November 2009 20:08
chengyk said...
并不是说买车买家就是错，凡事应该量力而为，我个人觉得好的负债观念是 "月供不能超过 20% 月收入"。那样就可以做到很好的生活。
如果你收入 RM 5k，那月供不能超过 RM 1k。
当然，20% 对我来说还是很高，我希望两年后做到零负债。
我本身也有买车买家，可是我明白负债的威力，所以在 5 年前我不选择 2 万以上的排屋，反而取向去 1 万多的 condo。
今天我有的写意生活，一方面也因为我的负债超低。
11 November 2009 03:08
AnNelf Ooi said...
虽说我还只是个没收入的学生，不过我对理财也已产生了兴趣，有时会读读理财的书，也哥哥聊聊别人的生意打理方式或股市。我在未来几年（如果读大学）都不会买车子，因为车子是每年贬值的。我也早早计划好了，为了不让我年纪轻轻就负债累累，第一辆车子一定会是便宜国产二手货。对我来说，现在最重要的还是储蓄足够的学费上大学，就如你之前所说的，再穷不能穷教育，我爸妈不懂这道理，我原谅他们，我想这也是他们到现在还负债累累的原因，做儿女的，就是要发奋读书好让他们可以轻松享受晚年。。
11 November 2009 18:12
chengyk said...
很好，那么年轻就有了正确的理财概念，祝你成功。
12 November 2009 07:30
myfm81 said...
上报了~上报了，恭喜恭喜~
写文章分享你的投资理念
加油~
4 December 2010 10:59
AhTee said...
谢谢你的分享...现在的社会总是让人透不过气来..你说得对, 做到零负债才能让生活更轻松, 外表风光?? 就只能短暂的“看看"而已～
恭喜你上报噢!
http://success00001.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_09.html
Posted by chengyk on Monday, 9 November 2009
一个刚踏入社会的年轻人会怎样?
先买一辆车，就算最便宜的 Viva 都需要 2 万到 3 万。现在，在马来西亚最普遍的汽车莫过于 Myvi，也要 4 万到 5 万之间。
一位还不是很赚钱的青年就背上了几万的负债。过了不久，当然是到了谈婚论嫁的时候，那一定也得拥有自己的产业，这是马来西亚的很优良的想法。
便宜的 condo 都要 10 万以上，不过论专业人士来说， 10 万的产业那里看得上眼。我认识的朋友中，很多在月入 2，3 千时，敢敢买入 25 万以上的房子。
如果计算供房供车的月供数目，当然能解决。可是往往我们就是看不到这个负债的威力，现在说的不是一年，两年，而是二十年，三十年的时间。
我们只是不断的计算能不能供得起，可是却看不到二三十年永无止境供期带来的危害。
大概做一个计算:
50 千的汽车需要月供 RM 700++ (维持 7 年)
200 千的房子需要月供 RM 1200++ (维持 30 年)
(这只是我随便举的例子，不代表全部家庭)
车子每 7 到 10 年需要换一辆，所以供车是永无止境的负债。
以上的例子就看到，我们一个月简简单单就不见了 RM 2k。以普通专业人士的家庭状况，月入应该都有 RM 4k 左右 (我说得是净收入 -- 扣除了 EPF, Socso 和 tax)。
那就不见了一半，还有生活费，儿女费等等的费用。如果某个月开销大了，那就真的不堪设想。
所以逼不得以唯有在开销方面好好控制，尽量省吃省用。最离谱的就是，省下来的钱不是用于投资，而是放在银行等待贬值。
钱因为贬值的关系越变越少，同时负债的压力还是不间断的攻击我们。
享受没有了，钱越来越少，换来的只是无情的压力。那还能谈论写意生活吗?
不要说做到，连想都很困难。
有没有人会认真停下来想想，问题在那里?
当然没有，人只会不断的要求高薪厚职，希望越赚越多，然后就能越买越贵。薪水多了，就不要 condo 了，换一间 semi-D，再不然换一间 bungalow。
人的欲望也是永无止境的。
追求物质，到头来只是留下了很多无形的压力，做不得。
那真正的源头在那里?
就是负债，想想，如果零负债。月入 RM 4k，你说你的生活是写意还是充满压力?
"生活逼人" 也是人们最喜欢用的借口，可以把自己追求物质化的思想推得一干二净。
负债固然是问题的源头，可是做决定背上这笔负债的人更是责无旁贷。
追根究底，还是我们自己逼自己进入永不翻身的地步。
生活需要的是一个规划，一个写意生活更需要一个好的规划。如果不明白这点，你永远不能过一个真正的 "生活"。
你看到了问题吗?
Labels: 乡下佬的金钱观念
12 comments:
Hareame said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
9 November 2009 21:09
Hareame said...
在前一陣子馬來西亞政府推出自動報廢國產車5000元補貼計畫的時候，我朋友的家人報廢一輛殘舊的車，然後去供一輛新的國產車來供。理由是：好不容易找到人願意付5000零吉去“買”那輛老爺車，所以是賺到了。可是我卻覺得代價要供一輛新車，最後的淨得是＝-40k+5k= -35k。唉，一負債又是幾年的事。
9 November 2009 21:10
yy said...
我有个朋友也是这样的情况.
早前驾驶老爷车,歪歪还以为他应该是个存钱能力很强的人.
最近看到他以旧车换新车,负担重了,还欠下卡债...
人的表面真的那么重要吗? 何必搞到自己负债累累呢?
10 November 2009 00:30
chengyk said...
在能够应付的范围下，奖励自己一番也不错，可是一定要有界限，不能太过离谱。
为了面子/表面的光鲜搞到自己负债累累，一点都不值得，而且还陪上了自己的生活。
10 November 2009 01:49
nsp said...
我家有两辆老爷车,哈哈. 爸叫我买新车,我打死都不买...哈哈.我不喜欢驾车!!!所以都在驾摩托!!
驾摩托真的省很多!! 很多人都说很很危险,哈哈.对我来讲无知才危险,当你有了经验和skill那就是可以处理风险!! :)
10 November 2009 19:44
jiannwei said...
我当初踏入社会时也是如此,一开始就买可车,然后就屋子,结果满身负债,很感谢你的分享
10 November 2009 20:08
chengyk said...
并不是说买车买家就是错，凡事应该量力而为，我个人觉得好的负债观念是 "月供不能超过 20% 月收入"。那样就可以做到很好的生活。
如果你收入 RM 5k，那月供不能超过 RM 1k。
当然，20% 对我来说还是很高，我希望两年后做到零负债。
我本身也有买车买家，可是我明白负债的威力，所以在 5 年前我不选择 2 万以上的排屋，反而取向去 1 万多的 condo。
今天我有的写意生活，一方面也因为我的负债超低。
11 November 2009 03:08
AnNelf Ooi said...
虽说我还只是个没收入的学生，不过我对理财也已产生了兴趣，有时会读读理财的书，也哥哥聊聊别人的生意打理方式或股市。我在未来几年（如果读大学）都不会买车子，因为车子是每年贬值的。我也早早计划好了，为了不让我年纪轻轻就负债累累，第一辆车子一定会是便宜国产二手货。对我来说，现在最重要的还是储蓄足够的学费上大学，就如你之前所说的，再穷不能穷教育，我爸妈不懂这道理，我原谅他们，我想这也是他们到现在还负债累累的原因，做儿女的，就是要发奋读书好让他们可以轻松享受晚年。。
11 November 2009 18:12
chengyk said...
很好，那么年轻就有了正确的理财概念，祝你成功。
12 November 2009 07:30
myfm81 said...
上报了~上报了，恭喜恭喜~
写文章分享你的投资理念
加油~
4 December 2010 10:59
AhTee said...
谢谢你的分享...现在的社会总是让人透不过气来..你说得对, 做到零负债才能让生活更轻松, 外表风光?? 就只能短暂的“看看"而已～
恭喜你上报噢!
http://success00001.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_09.html
The greater the crime, the greater the sentence should be
The greater the crime, the greater the sentence should be
By Aliran, on 27 February 2012
Malaysians should begin to examine and question the way in which punishment is meted out, writes Justinian.
Khir Toyo: One year's jail for graft. Photograph: The Star
On 23 December 2011, former Selangor Menteri Besar Khir Toyo was sentenced to 12 months jail and forfeiture of his land and bungalow for “knowingly purchasing” these properties that costs about RM6.5m for less than the price of its original value. The sentence was suspended pending appeal (The Star Online, 23 December 2011, “Khir Toyo gets 1 year jail for graft”).
On 5 January 2012, a small report appeared in a side column of theSun news daily that three RapidKL bus drivers were each charged with theft of RM150 of “Touch n’ Go” reloads in August 2011. All three claimed trial i.e. pleaded not guilty. If convicted they could face a maximum of seven years in jail (theSun, 5 January 2012, “Bus drivers claim trial to T’NG reload theft”).
On 4 January 2012, BBC News website reported that a 15-year-old youth was sentenced to five years imprisonment for stealing a pair of sandals (slippers) in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Due to his being a minor, the court sent him home to his parents, instead of imposing the jail sentence (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012, “Indonesia outrage at boy’s conviction for sandal theft”).
Looking at these three cases side by side, one wonders if justice is truly served. The millionaire ex-MB gets away with a light ‘smack’ on the hand for cheating Ditamas of RM3m. Execution of the sentence, however, has been held back by the legal process. Some have expressed doubt that he will be languishing in prison for 12 months, either by winning his appeal or by being allowed out on parole in a few months for ‘good behaviour’. Embezzlers and cheats are not usually violent criminals but ‘white collar criminals’.
Where is the outrage?
White collar crime robs the general public of millions and encourages corruption in its various forms. Is this disease less harmful to the country and its citizens than petty theft? What this sentence appears to indicate to the public is that cheating another and the public in general of large sums of money is not as bad as common petty theft of smaller amounts.
A minority of Malaysians thought that the court had come to its senses and had done the right thing by finding this BN politician guilty. They praised the court for its verdict and sentence. This looks like a small step in the right direction to curb corruption or it may merely be an effort to give the impression that Malaysia still has an impartial and independent judiciary.
In contrast, the possible sentence faced by the three bus drivers in the second case above is a maximum of seven years imprisonment for theft of a paltry RM150 in Touch n’ Go reloads. Bus drivers are economically disadvantaged when it comes to the legal process as they are not paid millions for driving buses. Still, they have families to support with whatever salary they are currently pulling. All three accused drivers are in their 20s and early 30s, when most people are either newly married or have young families to support. This does not mean that they should escape paying for their alleged dishonesty if found guilty. But, in comparison to Khir Toyo’s case, does the punishment fit the crime?
Since the bus drivers case did not seem to warrant wide publicity, there has been no public comment over the prosecution of this petty theft and the possible maximum sentence it would attract should these accused be convicted. There will probably be no public outcry at all if these accused were convicted. Ordinary workers are seldom of any significance, having no prestige, financial or political influence and power. Even legal justice seems to be class sensitive. What then does equality before the law mean?
In contrast, the Indonesian public’s outrage at the conviction and sentence of five years imprisonment of the minor convicted of theft of a pair of sandals outside a police boarding house is something to be noted and lauded. A protest was staged by ordinary Indonesians placing thousands of pairs of used slippers outside police stations to signify their indignation against the leniency with which Indonesian courts seem to treat high-ranking officials convicted of corruption and the meting out of severe sentences for impoverished ordinary Indonesians convicted of petty theft (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012). In mitigating this punishment, the court is seen to have acted with justice and mercy; yet this is no cure or excuse for the double standards treatment of the judiciary.
The injustice is inexcusable as the prosecution was reportedly made about six months after the alleged theft was committed and the minor claimed to have been slapped and beaten by a policeman with a piece of wood till he bled (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012). No mention was made of any redress for this assault on the boy.
Saved by expediency?
On 9 January 2012, the High Court in Malaysia made the decision to acquit and discharge Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of his second sodomy charge in a protracted and controversial trial. This case drew wide public attention locally as well as overseas.
Despite the widespread criticism of the way in which the case was brought to trial on doubtful and ambiguous evidence, government leaders felt that this sudden acquittal showed that the judicial system in Malaysia was fair and independent (MySinchew.com, “Leaders praise independence of judiciary over court verdict”).
Malaysian NGOs including the Bar Council rightly hailed the High Court’s decision to acquit as a just verdict but did not go on to imply that this was an assurance that the judicial system as a whole would from now on wear the mantle of independence and impartiality.
Whether the current federal authorities will allow such reform, as the Barisan Nasional ministers boast, is doubted by many as the independence of the judiciary has been eroded to virtual nothingness for the past 54 years. Moreover, local and foreign observers and human rights organisations have consistently condemned this sodomy trial as politically motivated. Justice could have been done earlier if the case had been dismissed the moment it became obvious that the charge made was baseless and could not be logically proven. Instead, a long drawn “sandiwara” ensued with the judiciary allowing the prosecution to continue till this crucial point in time, when a decision either way would be politically favourable to Anwar and the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat, in anticipation of a general election.
Anwar has been saved by political expediency and public interest (as he is a public figure in whom the electorate have placed much hope for reform and change in the country). Nevertheless, Malaysians should also begin to examine and question the way in which punishment is meted out here, just as the Indonesian public have begun to do.
If Malaysians continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that those lacking the financial capacity to engage the best legal representation in the country must accept heavy sentences or plead guilty for petty crimes while rich millionaires like Khir Toyo, convicted of serious corruption or white-collar crime affecting the national economy can get off with light sentences or go scot-free, any hope of justice being done by an independent and impartial judiciary would be squashed.
If nothing is done, our justice system would retain its two-tier, class-biased, partial and compromised character, moulded by decades of politically motivated abuse and prejudice against the poorer sections of society struggling to survive economically. Like the Indonesian public, it is open to Malaysians to demand that justice be done and our constitutional right of equality before the law be honoured by our judiciary and the government of the day.
Justinian is the pseudonym of a concerned Malaysian.
By Aliran, on 27 February 2012
Malaysians should begin to examine and question the way in which punishment is meted out, writes Justinian.
Khir Toyo: One year's jail for graft. Photograph: The Star
On 23 December 2011, former Selangor Menteri Besar Khir Toyo was sentenced to 12 months jail and forfeiture of his land and bungalow for “knowingly purchasing” these properties that costs about RM6.5m for less than the price of its original value. The sentence was suspended pending appeal (The Star Online, 23 December 2011, “Khir Toyo gets 1 year jail for graft”).
On 5 January 2012, a small report appeared in a side column of theSun news daily that three RapidKL bus drivers were each charged with theft of RM150 of “Touch n’ Go” reloads in August 2011. All three claimed trial i.e. pleaded not guilty. If convicted they could face a maximum of seven years in jail (theSun, 5 January 2012, “Bus drivers claim trial to T’NG reload theft”).
On 4 January 2012, BBC News website reported that a 15-year-old youth was sentenced to five years imprisonment for stealing a pair of sandals (slippers) in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Due to his being a minor, the court sent him home to his parents, instead of imposing the jail sentence (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012, “Indonesia outrage at boy’s conviction for sandal theft”).
Looking at these three cases side by side, one wonders if justice is truly served. The millionaire ex-MB gets away with a light ‘smack’ on the hand for cheating Ditamas of RM3m. Execution of the sentence, however, has been held back by the legal process. Some have expressed doubt that he will be languishing in prison for 12 months, either by winning his appeal or by being allowed out on parole in a few months for ‘good behaviour’. Embezzlers and cheats are not usually violent criminals but ‘white collar criminals’.
Where is the outrage?
White collar crime robs the general public of millions and encourages corruption in its various forms. Is this disease less harmful to the country and its citizens than petty theft? What this sentence appears to indicate to the public is that cheating another and the public in general of large sums of money is not as bad as common petty theft of smaller amounts.
A minority of Malaysians thought that the court had come to its senses and had done the right thing by finding this BN politician guilty. They praised the court for its verdict and sentence. This looks like a small step in the right direction to curb corruption or it may merely be an effort to give the impression that Malaysia still has an impartial and independent judiciary.
In contrast, the possible sentence faced by the three bus drivers in the second case above is a maximum of seven years imprisonment for theft of a paltry RM150 in Touch n’ Go reloads. Bus drivers are economically disadvantaged when it comes to the legal process as they are not paid millions for driving buses. Still, they have families to support with whatever salary they are currently pulling. All three accused drivers are in their 20s and early 30s, when most people are either newly married or have young families to support. This does not mean that they should escape paying for their alleged dishonesty if found guilty. But, in comparison to Khir Toyo’s case, does the punishment fit the crime?
Since the bus drivers case did not seem to warrant wide publicity, there has been no public comment over the prosecution of this petty theft and the possible maximum sentence it would attract should these accused be convicted. There will probably be no public outcry at all if these accused were convicted. Ordinary workers are seldom of any significance, having no prestige, financial or political influence and power. Even legal justice seems to be class sensitive. What then does equality before the law mean?
In contrast, the Indonesian public’s outrage at the conviction and sentence of five years imprisonment of the minor convicted of theft of a pair of sandals outside a police boarding house is something to be noted and lauded. A protest was staged by ordinary Indonesians placing thousands of pairs of used slippers outside police stations to signify their indignation against the leniency with which Indonesian courts seem to treat high-ranking officials convicted of corruption and the meting out of severe sentences for impoverished ordinary Indonesians convicted of petty theft (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012). In mitigating this punishment, the court is seen to have acted with justice and mercy; yet this is no cure or excuse for the double standards treatment of the judiciary.
The injustice is inexcusable as the prosecution was reportedly made about six months after the alleged theft was committed and the minor claimed to have been slapped and beaten by a policeman with a piece of wood till he bled (BBC News Asia, 4 January 2012). No mention was made of any redress for this assault on the boy.
Saved by expediency?
On 9 January 2012, the High Court in Malaysia made the decision to acquit and discharge Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of his second sodomy charge in a protracted and controversial trial. This case drew wide public attention locally as well as overseas.
Despite the widespread criticism of the way in which the case was brought to trial on doubtful and ambiguous evidence, government leaders felt that this sudden acquittal showed that the judicial system in Malaysia was fair and independent (MySinchew.com, “Leaders praise independence of judiciary over court verdict”).
Malaysian NGOs including the Bar Council rightly hailed the High Court’s decision to acquit as a just verdict but did not go on to imply that this was an assurance that the judicial system as a whole would from now on wear the mantle of independence and impartiality.
Whether the current federal authorities will allow such reform, as the Barisan Nasional ministers boast, is doubted by many as the independence of the judiciary has been eroded to virtual nothingness for the past 54 years. Moreover, local and foreign observers and human rights organisations have consistently condemned this sodomy trial as politically motivated. Justice could have been done earlier if the case had been dismissed the moment it became obvious that the charge made was baseless and could not be logically proven. Instead, a long drawn “sandiwara” ensued with the judiciary allowing the prosecution to continue till this crucial point in time, when a decision either way would be politically favourable to Anwar and the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat, in anticipation of a general election.
Anwar has been saved by political expediency and public interest (as he is a public figure in whom the electorate have placed much hope for reform and change in the country). Nevertheless, Malaysians should also begin to examine and question the way in which punishment is meted out here, just as the Indonesian public have begun to do.
If Malaysians continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that those lacking the financial capacity to engage the best legal representation in the country must accept heavy sentences or plead guilty for petty crimes while rich millionaires like Khir Toyo, convicted of serious corruption or white-collar crime affecting the national economy can get off with light sentences or go scot-free, any hope of justice being done by an independent and impartial judiciary would be squashed.
If nothing is done, our justice system would retain its two-tier, class-biased, partial and compromised character, moulded by decades of politically motivated abuse and prejudice against the poorer sections of society struggling to survive economically. Like the Indonesian public, it is open to Malaysians to demand that justice be done and our constitutional right of equality before the law be honoured by our judiciary and the government of the day.
Justinian is the pseudonym of a concerned Malaysian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)