Right to assemble is no blank cheque

In the light of His Majesty the Seri Paduka Yang Dipertuan Agong's official statement to avoid unstability dan disharmony in the country that is the headline news for today, it is timely to discuss about the right to assemble under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

The opposition, left wing activists and twisted anti-establishment lawyers claimed that the right to assemble as guaranteed under the Federal Constituition and United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights is a blank cheque that the law to empower police cannot be applied.

It is quite typical of them to be selective and hid the comprehensive and true interpretation of the Federal Constitution. They will never admit that our Federal Constitution is a document that balances and provide exception to every rights and previlages given to anyone and any groups for various reasons. One reason is to maintain peace and harmony in the country.

Article 10 reads as follows:

I am no lawyer but the English is crystal clear.

The right to assemble in article 10 clause 1(b) was not mentioned independently but with the condition of peace and without arms. If an assembly is deemed as a threat to peace and/or armed, then the right to assemble is denied.

Before we go any further, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble, and/or form association is conditional on Clause 2, 3 and 4 which is for Parliament to pass law to govern those rights.

Clause 2 emphasis further that peace i.e. security of the federation and public order determines the right to assemble which requires a permit.

Who determine whether a particular assembly is peacebly and without arms and permit can be issued? Is is the organiser of bersih 2.0, Dato Ambiga, Mat Sabu, the organising Committee and/or 400 Bar Coouncil members? Is it the twisted Professor of Law from UIA, Prof Aziz Bari?

No sirreee ... It is the police and only to the police is empowered to determine and issue the permit under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

Before anyone start to any excuse or blame, the Prime Minister is not Tun Dr Mahathir, someone seldom being accused of being responsible for the decay in public institution.

That so-called repressive law was enacted, passed and commence use under the premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who is revered and used by opposition and Chinese liberal and left wing NGOs for justification.

Police is in the business of maintaining law and order and it is with them that power and ability to determine if any assembly will be peaceful. They have the intelligence information and records of past assembly.

Seldom opposition sympathisers and supporters claim police as bias for the ruling party or pro Government NGOs.

Whether they admit it or not, the reality is the ruling party and pro-Government NGOs are more cooperative, respectable and do not resist the police. They are more law abiding than oppositions and left wing.

Police are human too. Every action only invite an equal and opposite reaction.

Given that they are involved in significantly more demonstrations and no permit assemblies, there is far to few arrest on them. Why would they demand a stern action against Perkasa?

If it means demanding police to be uncompromising in enforcing the law, the Parliament would be empty of opposition and Pakatan Rakyat states have empty MB's office.

The opposition and NGOs seldom claimed that their rights to assemble was being denied and it is in contravention against the United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights. Is it really so?

Former backbencher's chief, Dato Ruhanie Ahmad wrote a similar article and highlighted several important clauses in the Declaration that does not give a blank cheque to such freedom.

While Article 19 of the Declaration ascribed the basic rights and freedom, Article 29(2) stipulate that individuals are subject to certain limitation under specific law. The restriction is to ensure fair demand on morality, public order, and general safety of a democratic community.

Clause 29(3) emphasis the rights and freedom should not be in conflict with the purpose and principle of the United Nations.

The Agong has expressed his reservation. Read the Bernama report below as taken from Rocky Bru's here:

To-date, the police have spoken, explained, offered an alternative and pleaded the organiser to can called the march but to no avail.

Bersih 2.0 is neither a serious attempt to seek electoral reform nor proved conclusively and logically the existence of widespread fraud. It is a democratic hoax, as we described it in a two part series here and here, which is of political intention to create a tsunami wave and Egypt like power seizure.

As it is police had found existence of subversive materials and caught foreign parties linked to Communist and CIA together with Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists.

Much as this blogger hates it's usage, police have every excuse to apply ISA if Ambiga and Mat Sabu remains recalcitrant and defiant of police. Make no bone, ISA is within the power of police and not politician Minister.

Hear the video of Tun Hanif Omar's explanation on use of ISA below:

Don't be fooled by opposition, left wing NGOs and anti-establishment lawyers. They never tell the whole story but selective to meet they selfish purpose.

MUSICO-POLITICAL INTERLUDE: Don't get fooled again

Appropriate title for the times but not necessary the lyrics. There is no need for a new constitution or new contract because we will not be fooled. Those seeking are the ones fooling everyone.

Me saw The Who's last tour in early 80s. Pete Townshend smashed his guitar on stage. That was cool for me then young blood.

Read on for a cooler video version of the song with an important message too ...

So ... Don't get fooled again.

Leaked PKR meeting revealed Bersih 2.0 to revive Anwar's sagging urban rating

There are quite a few dedicated anti-Anwar blogs in the blogosphere. The most famous would be AIDC and their well researched pieces and ability to unravel facts unknown to the common folks.

Other than that, there are few that this blogger will never miss like X-PKR, Gelagat Anwar and Malaysian Story. They usually present a unique and unheard of information and angle to an issue. Their information is quite reliable and seldom ahead of the pack of bloggers.

Another reason is this blogger knows the writers and their credibility. But we can’t share and reveal it. Just trust us.

ABITW normally post our own material. But, sometimes we do publish material from elsewhere. This posting is another exception and we intend to pick one story from Gelagat Anwar. It is related to Bersih 2.0.

Dato Ahmad Maslan has been travelling and speaking around the country telling his audience that Bersih 2.0 has nothing to do with the demand for a clean and fair election but about Anwar and his personal problems.

He is not wrong. It’s just that his version is meant for the rural folks. Furthermore, that same line have been played before over and over again. It is not sensational and exciting enough to convince the urban and Internet savvy crowd or to attract media publicity.

Allow me to give him a hand with a sensational tilt from the latest information in Gelagat Anwar.

According to the blog's latest posting here, there was a PKR strategic meeting held recently and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the Ketua Umum or General Leader was present.

One of the hotly discussed topic was Anwar’s popular rating, be it with regard to his sodomy case or sex video with a prostitute.

Unlike in UMNO, PKR’s closed meetings are conducted openly with no holds barred. The Ketua Umum can be criticized without being labeled as traitor or not being thankful. Such honesty should be emulated in UMNO, which usually dedicate much time bodek-ing the bosses.

In that meeting, one member asked the Secretary-General, YB Saifuddin Nasution of Anwar’s current rating. PKR employ Merdeka Centre to conduct bimonthly survey on public trust towards Anwar. The respondent number is about 3,000 and conducted at different areas, according to the observation and data requirement.

Saifuddin tried to deflect the question and mumbled about the survey is not reflective of the true level of rakyat’s trust towards Anwar. He gave excuses of good coverage of political rally and the good and solid grip on the new media. He goes further to say that there is still time to bring back the public’s trust.

The member repeated the question, “Mr Secretary-General, I asked about percentage. Please answer that!”

With a reluctant sad tone, Saifuddin revealed the last survey conducted:

• 37% for rural area covering Sabak Bernam, Sekinchan, Sungai Besar dan Jeram. From the same respondent, the trust level to PAS rose by 57%.
• 31% for urban/town and city area covering Shah Alam, Kota Damansara, PJ Selatan and PJ Utara. From the same respondent, the trust level to PAS reached 61%.
• 27% for Selangor Chinese voters while for PAS is 46%.
• 18 % for Selangor Indians, while for PAS is 23%.

Upon hearing the numbers, a chorus of silence filled the room till few members asked on the course of action required to ensure Anwar’s rating remain at it’s best.

Saifuddin ensured the members that the fall in the rural area is not worrisome because Anwar’s “cells” in PAS will ensure support for Pakatan Rakyat remained unchallenged. He was also not worried with the fall in the urban area because the trust of Chinese in Selangor for DAP is at it’s highest of 67.8%.

On the urban rating, Saifuddin said it will return with the success of Bersih 2.0. Opps … did he say that?

However, the PKR leaders in the meeting were restless and worried. It means PKR is dependent on the strength of PAS and DAP. They have lost their bargaining chip.

Not realising that before 2008, PKR had only one seat in Parliament, they were pondering as to what happened to PKR’s strength?

Can Anwar remain an effective leader if the rating described the true situation of PKR? Didn’t Dato Zaid Ibrahim raised this but to Anwar chagrin, he was ousted out of PKR in favour of his "sweetheart", Azmin Ali?

Before the meeting ended, Saifuddin reminded everyone present that the data revealed must remain confidential. It is important to preserve the morale of the whole PKR machinery. Knowledge of such information would weakened their confidence.

Throughout the meeting, Anwar looked disturbed and weak. Does Anwar still have the command and aura?

They will never believe if we are to tell them. It will be the same response as what this blogger got when telling a group of high ranking PAS leader two years ago that Anwar has no chance of saving his arse from the crime of bashing Saiful’s.

The important point from this inside story is as we had reiterated before, Bersih or Bersih 2.0 was never about electoral reforms. From this piece of information, it looks like Bersih 2.0 is really about Anwar trying to save his arse.

Ahmad Maslan is right.

The democratic hoax of Bersih 2.0 (Part 2)

If we had exposed the democratic hoax behind Bersih 2007 yesterday here, which is really to revert to ancient feudal system of Government from the present system of Constitutional Monarchy, the second Part is to expose the hoax behind Bersih 2.0's claim of seeking electoral reform.

This blogger could have taken other angles to proof Bersih 2.0 have no democratic intention but decided to lay the facts that their demand for electoral reform were fake.

For one, we could have highlight Dato Ambiga's acknowledgement Bersih 2.0 received money from CIA organisation, National Democratic Initiative to debunk her claim of championing democrasy through electoral reforms. Words are an NDI operative was caught in Johor together with the Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists.

In these You Tube here and here, Phil Agee, a former CIA agents revealed an old CIA trick using MAFREL-like organisation seeking electoral reform but was merely intended to plant their people in Government.

This blogger can focus on highlighting that only 2 or 3 of the 14 organising members of Bersih 2.0 are not politicians to prove that Bersih 2.0 is partisan politics motivated.

It is not difficult to prove that almost all the personalities and organisation linked to Bersih 2.0 have mentioned publicly in political rallies of re-creating ala Egypt's Tahrir Square revolution to bring down Government. They have got the structure, foreign connection and funding to do it.

But no, we will just focus on debunking their claims of seeking electoral reforms.

Ambiga told the crowd at the rally that Bersih 2.0 had met the Election Commission already and refuse to accept EC's offer to continue talking. She said to the effect that the buck stops here.

She claimed the Sarawak Election was so tainted that they must act with a major rally.

The truth is she lied.

If the Sarawak election was tainted and dirty, why was there only two protests. One in Senadin and second in Pelagus.

Syed Akbar Ali discussed and explained the Senadin incident in his Part 2 on Bersih here. Read also his Part 1 here.

The Pelagus complain was by Barisan Nasional. They accused the victor, independent candidate George Lagong of money politics. It is no secret that George was financed by Anwar Ibrahim's supporter and long time financier, Dato Sng Chee Hwa but the claim had no proofs.

On Ambiga's claim that they had enough discussion with EC, how many times did they meet?

Once!

Bersih 2.0 or they claim themselves as Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, did meet with the EC Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Mohd Yusof on November 9th, 2010.

In that meeting, the Bersih people raised some 17 issues and submitted it in a memorandum. See below:

In that long meeting, in which EC even served lunch, they went over thoroughly the problems, issues, and arguments on all the 17 requests of Bersih 2.0. The exchanges were healthy and honest.

One major weakness of Bersih 2.0 was that they themselves weren't conversant and up-to-date with development in electoral law and rules, and also they didn't substantiate their claims with evidence and proofs. In cases they had evidences and proves, they did not understand the procedures involved to substantiate their conclusion.

Basically, they didn't do they homework and all their requests were embarassingly shot down. But being a diplomatic, patient and open person, Aziz did not shame them. They left with the agreement to meet again and discuss again.

Since Tan Sri Aziz took over as Chairman, by God's will, many of our elected representatives were dying and the country was having by-elections after by-elections.

Sometime in March this year, some blogs were beginning to talk of Mat Sabu leading another bersih-like rally. It was sometime in April in the midst of EC's busy schedule with Kerdau and Merlimau, Tenang and Sarawak state elections that Bersih approach EC for another meeting.

Tan Sri Aziz did not refuse them but merely seeking a more appropriate time. EC have respected Bersih 2.0 as serious people and would rather give them the proper attention. It is only fair he request from them a time later.

Unfortunately, that fair request was used as an excuse that EC had refuse to talk to them. Ambiga manipulated it to push away EC's offer to continue discussion.

But this should be interesting.

When Bersih 2.0 announced their demands in the memo they intend to give to Agong, only 5 of the original demand remains. That means either the 12 other requests have been shelved or they realised it is not justified.

The eight requests are below:

The list were:

1. Clean the electoral roll
2. Reform postal ballot
3. Use of indelible ink
4. Minimum 21 days campaign Period
5. Free and fair access to media
6. Strengthen public institutions
7. Stop corruption
8. Stop dirty politics

Only 1 to 5 remains from the original list. The demands 5 to 8 had ridiculously nothing to do with the power of the EC.

In fact, who took dirty politics to new heights of accusing the Prime Minister and hisweife of murder, fabricated a doctor's notes from Pusrawi in the case of Saiful Bahri, and many more?

We are not saying out electoral system is perfect and without flaws. There is room for improvement and there have been many changes made through the years. But are the demands made that important and significant to warrant for disturbing peace.

Let's discuss the issues related to item 1 to item 4.

On the frst request to clean and up-date the electoral roll, that is a continuing administrative process. Off course, it has its limitation and problems. What matters most is that no one not on the electoral rolls is voting.

No one can vote unless their names is on the electoral rolls and they brought along a valid IC with them.

The Bersih 2.0 people demanded that phantom voters be wiped out. This is an administrative problem arising before the changes on July 2002. Anyone can register and put in any address they want to. Only after that date do the rule require that voting address is in accordance to the IC.

As for those like Azmin Ali, whose address seems to have five non family member, which include 5 Chinese, EC is not empowered to remove those names out unless they correct the mistake themselves.

Another point as part of their request on electoral roll is for automatic registration. That requires database of addresses of everyone at the National Registeration Department is updated. That is not the case.

Furthermore, there is no law to impose on anyone to register to be voters.

Bersih 2.0 demanded a reform of postal votes to allow for anyone locally and abroad to vote via posts. The Constuition defines those living abroad as absentees voters and the electoral rules that other than those stipulated; namely police and spouse, army, and election workers, absentees voters do not qualify for postal vote.

As far as the procedures and presence of party agents, it has been changed to be more transparent. So why the beef?

To meet their request, it means going through the process of changing the electoral rules. If the opposition feel strongly for electoral reform, why was there no private bill from any opposition members of Parliament on electoral rule since March 2008?

Bersih 2.0 demanded use of indelible ink to avoid duplication. Although there were plans to introduce it for the 2008 GE, but it was held back.

The reason cited then was security but in essence the Constitution only mentioned those of unsound mind, criminals, underage and non citizen can be disallowed to vote. Introducing use of indelible ink would only invites lawsuits!

Indelible inks used to and are still in use in such third world country such as Africa, India, and Indonesia. India has changed to biometrics, and our immigration have begin to use biometric, thus shouldn't we be looking at biometrics?

Bersih 2.0 demanded a minimum 21 days campaign period. In 2008, campaign period was 14 days. That was too long, costly and tiring.

The constitution only require more than 7 days.

EC considers all factors such as political climate, security and public order including getting consensus of all political parties. The periods most acceptable to all parties were 7-9 days.

How would Bersih 2.0 know it is not aceptable? There are, after all, only "NGOs."

Nevertheless, EC have the discretion to lengthened the campaign period. That is not a problem. But does it warrant a large demonstration with hundreds of thousands mobilise.

You see the electoral demands of Bersih 2.0 has no major significant. It is merely an excuse to their true intention to stir trouble and help Anwar Ibrahim out of his legal and sexual mess. If you wish to know who are the "troublemaker organisations" behind Bersih 2.0 making all these "stupid demands", see below:





The most rude act done by Bersih organisers and followers is their total disregard for palace protocols.

To submit anything to the Agong, one has to get an appointment for an audience. Then one come at the set time in the proper attire and learn the proper mannerism to address his Highness. The memorandum can then be presented and explained to him.

Bersih 2.0 can meet up with the Agong in accordance with the procedures. Why the need to bring in such large, loud and rowdy accompanying crowd to just hand in a memo over the fense when they can get to meet and hand in the memo themselves to the Agong?

In the first Bersih, the Agong was away and there is doubt that a memo sent in the most improper manner will be accepted by his Highness. Words are Agong will be away for Bersih 2.0.

Bersih's reason is only to create a scene to make Malaysia look bad in the international media or create wave of public disturbance or uproar to bring down the democratically elected Government.

And just like the first one, Bersih 2.0 and their electoral demands are but a democratic hoax.

Tomorrow we will show that Ambiga herself as a lawyer is neither a law abiding citizen nor respect democrasy.

The democratic hoax of Bersih (Part 1)

Back on the day of Bersih 1.0 on November 10, 2007, this blog wrote a Malay pantun series entitled Dilemma November Sepuloh Haribulan. The pantun series was republished on Malaysia Today.

Raja Petra then had a sense of fairplay to publish the other side of a view. It is hardly the case today. He declared that MT is a propaganda machine with no intention to seek the truth and righteous ways.

Prior to the first Bersih in 2007, Raja Petra had approach this blogger and mooted the idea of peoples' rally to seek support. However, there was suspiciously something conniving and deceitful in the intention and manner the peoples' rally was organised. This blogger couldn't come to agree.

The pantun series encapsulate this blogger's argument against Raja Petra on that year's malam raya (the eve of hari raya) at our mutual friend's place, Kamal Amir in Taman Tun Dr Ismail. The essence of the disagreement was in these phrases:

Ribuan mahu bersuara berkata
Amalan demokrasi dikata agenda
Dalam perlembagaan hak tersedia
Aman dan damai sebaik cara

Tujuan dan cara mungkin berbeza
Fikiran dan sikap ku terbuka
Itu hak mu untuk bersuara
Tersurat dan tersirat mesti sama

Terbuka mendengar dan berbicara
Bagi ku jalanan bukan cara
Mahu berkumpul untuk apa?
Cara feudal silam erti tiada

To begin with, Bersih's stated and unstated objectives differ.

In the light of another Bersih 2.0, let me declare that Bersih 1.0 was a democratic hoax intended to deceit the public into thinking it was a worthy cause but had the intention to initiate public disorder with the hope to attain power through unconstitutional means.

If this blogger can't agree with Bersih 1.0, like hell will this blogger agree with Bersih 2.0 with it's clearly stated intention to replicate the Tahrir Square revolution of Egypt in Kuala Lumpur.

Be it for 2007 or 2011, the Bersih people are anarchist masquerading as democratic reformist. It was and still is about seizing power through undemocratic means.

The first Bersih was originally drummed up as Yellow March. The concept was mooted largely by former Semangat 46 activists aligned with Tengku Razaleigh, whom can be considered as royalist faction within UMNO. They claimed that Dr Mahathir had eroded the power of the monarchy during the constitutional crisises of the 1980s.

Raja Petra wrote at large about the constitutional power of the monarchy and the erosion of power arising from constitutional amendments. Until the Perak crisis came about, Raja Petra had given much publicity and accolades to the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah.

The logic behind their idea was that since it was impossible to remove Tun Abdullah Badawi from his Prime Minister seat through the normal democratic process through general elections or party elections, the only way possible was to revive the royal power or royal discretionary power.

It is as though by re-empowering the Agong or Sultan to the days of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat, executive abuse and the concern of the time, i.e. infiltration of foreign interest in Government policies and GLCs, could be addressed.

That was the simple idea promoted which they thought would appeal to everyone. But the problem was it was too simplistic. It was also replaying the politics of the past whose train has left the station.

The idea of giving Sultans discretionary power, in which few Sultans are not sufficiently educated and experienced in administration, does not appeal to this blogger. Neither do feudalism like that read in old hikayat.

That is where Dr Mahathir appeal to this blogger. He is against feudalism.

Before slogans using the word rakyat became plenty, this blogger have long had the rakyat in his heart. This blogger do not envy the bourgeuise life.

This explains the line "Cara feudal silam erti tiada." It expressed this bloggers' disagreement to return to the feudel past described as meaningless tradition.

In our argument that malam raya, this blogger expressed without inhibition to Raja Petra who was a member of the Selangor royal family that the idea of feudalism and royal discretion is out-dated in the light of existing constitutional monarchy.

While acknowledging the sovereign status of the Sultan, this blogger vehemently disagree to any idea of giving re-empowering the Sultan beyond their present power. To set the point home, this blogger blamed the royal and ruling elite for several centuries of indiscretion that led to colonisation and the malaise of the Malays today.

In another set of pantun phrases, this blogger expressed below:

Apa yang disuarakan tidak diyakini
Tidak berapa jelas dan pasti
Jalanan Putrajaya menyorok intipati
Siasah dan agenda "keadilan" mengaburi

Kerana bukan suara rakyat hakiki
Ku tidak sama ikut menyertai
Hanya menghulur solidariti bereksperasi
Hak ku juga tidak menyetujui

Ku akui "Raja" yang ada lemah dan cuai
Masih boleh dikejut dan disedari
Struktur demokrasi masih bersemai
Titah dan perintah sudah tidak sesuai

Rasa hati sentiasa gundah
Mengenang masa depan bercelarah
Undang-undang dan aturan perlu gagah
Suasana anarki lebih susah

When the idea of a mass peoples' rally was mooted, there was supposed to be no politicians and no partisan elements. There was not supposed to have Anwar Ibrahim or Lim Kit Siang or Haji Hadi at the Istana gates.


That is the reason why some demonstrators were not wearing Bersih's T shirt but with writings Daulat Tuanku and on foreign infiltration. There are also those that wore white.

It was only near the November 10 date that Raja Petra and the "real" organiser of Bersih told us that PAS was rolled in to make up the numbers.

During the negotiation with Mat Sabu, PAS did not want it to be called Yellow March but will walk together but under a different banner of Bersih to call for electoral reform. That was how Bersih came about.

With the Yellow March people outnumbered, Bersih stole the show. Till today, that march was called Bersih demonstration and the Yellow March is forgoten. Raja Petra kept that information to himself. When asked during his T shirt delivery to the National Press Club, he still said there will be no politicians.

But this blogger knew that the agenda of peoples' march was hijacked and decided to stay out. This blogger knew of politicians waiting near the finish line at the gate. The plan for Anwar Ibrahim was a last minute thing. He was brought in on a big bike from Pertama Kompleks to hand the memorandum across the gate.

That could have been the very reason Raja Petra wrote "How politicians hijack revolutions?"

However, Malaysia Today's promotion of Bersih 2.0 does not indicate he is really bothered for lying because he wants Pakatan politicians to hijack any form of peoples' revolution. He thinks Pakatan is the people and will true to their words.

This blogger does not think so. That will be where we differ although we respect each other as friends.

In Bersih 1.0 or the Yellow March, the people were duped into supporting the idea that empowering a just and wise rulers as the solution to the malaise of the time. The people were duped to think that the army and police was on their side.

There were no such thing. Instead, the people were used by opposition politicians to build up sentiment against a Government, despite it's weakness, it was a democratically elected Government.

In Bersih 2.0, the people are being led to think that the electoral process is filled with fraud and it justify doing a massive demonstration. Again the people is being duped. The next part will show that their electoral claims are as much a hoax as the idea of re-empowering the rulers.

If election is an exercise in democrasy, the Bersih people and their so-called call for electoral reform have no such democratic intentions. It is an excercise to grab power through undemocratic process through public disorder.

As it is, Bersih is already reported in the blogs and media to be infiltrated with subversive elements such as communist ideology, CIA-backed institutions, and millitant sectarian Islam. If the power grab succeed, it will bring the country into chaos.

If the power grab failed, their Plan B is about creating a wave of public sentiment against the Government and/or instilling public defiance and provocation against the authorities. Legally speaking, the authorities does not equate with the ruling politicians but the system of Government and public institutions that carry out responsibilities empowered on them by the law or on certain specific matters, policies set by the Cabinet.

Bersih has all the ingredients to create problem of security and public disorder. This is not about democrasy but anarchy.

MUSICAL INTERLUDE: On the road again

Not by Willie Nelson but by Canned Heat

Out of town for few days. Ada kerja ....

Concluding what "the untold MAS story" did not tell

Since Wednesday, this blogger was out of town to give an unscheduled talk. Thus we couldn't post the final two part of the series. Apologise for the delay.

Malaysia Airlines Berhad reported a loss of RM267 million for the first quarter of 2011. There was an operating loss of RM242 as compared to RM310 million profit for 1st quarter 2010. The reason cited was the high oil prices and higher ringgit. Read The Malaysian Insiders here.

It is funny that the reason for the losses were reported in such manner. Back in 1998-2001, a sharp decline in ringgit had resulted in massive operating losses for MAS. The higher oil should have been profitable for the arbitrage placed by Idris Jala.

When MAS suffered the massive losses towards the end of Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli's tenure as Chairman, the Group undertook a massive financial restructuring exercise to do a massive "sell and leaseback exercise" called Wide Unbundling of Assets. From thereon, MAS did not have to be burdened with acquiring asset and leverage.

Domestic operations, which were a burden to MAS, were taken out and given to Air Asia and other MAS own dedicated domestic subsidiaries.

There is no major financial crisis like what happened in 1997/98. During those tumultous time, ringgit weakened from the high of 2.47 in the first quarter of 1997 to just short of "see you at 5" at a low of RM4.88 on January 7th 1998.

Why is MAS still making occasional quarterly losses?

After Tajuddin left, everyone wanted to blame him for the problems in MAS. The opposition backed attempt with some member of MAS management concocted an RM8 billion loss but still no proof is coming.

They tried to pin a conflict of interest issue on him for the losses from the Hahn Airport but it did not hold up at the International Court of Arbitration (ICC). Should Rosli Dahlan and Dr Wafi decided to not wait for MACC and Police and go for civil court, it will not likely to hold up.

MAS is not going to be stupid enough to pick on petty contracts to Edaran Digital

There was talk that Tajuddin had "sebat" money through an insurance broker, Cendanasari Insurance Broker Sdn Bhd and MAS could save millions by going direct to Lloyd's. Since when do Lloyd deals direct with end customers? They do not even deal direct with Insurance Companies.

Check the rates given by Cendanasari. Why didn't anyone mention that it is lower than market? Otherwise, Puan Marni would have alerted Puan Nik Nadeemah and asked Rosli Dahalan to make a case out of it. With competitive rates and no margin, how is Tajuddin to take make a cut out Cendanasari?

In our first posting on December 16th, 2010 here, Tajuddin's tenure at MAS ended with total losses before tax was RM750 million and total losses after tax was RM908 million. That is far cry from the alleged RM8 billion.

When sales of aircraft and spares, sales of foreign quoted shares for RM100.4 million for March 2000 and sales of properties for RM83.4 million and RM104.9 million for 2006 and 2007, respectively are accounted for, the following was MAS historical profit and loss:


Notice Tajuddin's total losses before tax was RM365 million and total losses after tax was less than RM500 million. And notice too that post-Tajuddin MAS was still making losses and still erratic in their performance despite being relieved of several burdens.

Johari Yusof, an MBA student at the Islamic International University made a turnaround thesis of MAS. It is available here.

He provided a good background of Tajuddin's turnaround plan. That way no one should be taken in by oversimplified comments that Tajuddin's outsourcing plans resulted in higher cost.

Johari did commented that Tajuddin was expanding too fast.

Everyone is an expert on the hindsight. The truth to the matter was no one could survive a drop in currency like what happened. See another chart below to understand how it affected MAS instantaneously:


Tajuddin was picking up in profitability if not for the unexpected currency attack by Anwar Ibrahim's political financier, George Soros. No one could have survived in such a market.

Why was post-Tajuddin's profitability still erratic despite stable ringgit, no asset to deal and no domestic route to bring down profitability? Why is MAS with subsidise fuel is still making losses as compared to other regional Airlines?

Puzzling isn't it.

Those are questions for MAS to ponder and do an introspective of themselves. Everyone in MAS need to be honest and truthful. Instead of that, MAS was only blaming others like Tajuddin.

MAS had identified Tengku Dato Seri Azmil Zaharuddin from Price Waterhouse London to lead. He was groomed at Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad, then understudy Dato Idris Jala, and finally took the mantle of MAS.

He was under no heavy pressurre from the media, mainstream or alternatives. But he still did not meet expectations. Far from making any stamp in the airline industry, Tengku Azmil is only known for bringing in royals from Terengganu to fill in high positions. Talk is he is about to leave soon.

Before that MAS staff got what they had always wanted i.e. someone from within to helm the airlines. He was Dato Fuaad Dahalan. Read market's expectation in this report here. He failed miserably and could be solely responsible for the 2005 massive loss.

That brought in the Butcher from Shell, Dato Idris Jala. It is also time to review the CEO great at making powerpoint presentation. His textbook turnaround plan is available here.

He ended up making 141 MAS staff into instant half-a-millionaire.

Did he think properly and listen to those who understand airline? He was using novices and newbies to the industry as advisers. There were amaterish mistakes made.

MAS share price vis-a-vis Airasia is low. Could Airasia be a possible predator? Frankly, no. The reason in another posting.

Before we give our view in the next and final posting, read The Star's coverage of MAS last Saturday below:

Tough times for MAS
MAS: On a wing and prayer
Making the necessary changes to ensure sustainable profit
MAS needs the ‘wow’ factor again
Grappling with fuel costs