PTMP: Losses making fashion company in Penang Undersea Tunnel Project

Filepic: PenangPropertyTalk

Did the Penang Govt do a "bait and switch" on the Penang people?

That was the question posed by MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong after it was revealed that a local fashion company has been identified as the shareholder of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) for the RM6.3bil Penang undersea tunnel project.

He questioned how the DAP-led Penang state government can claim that it is normal for a loss-making local fashion company to be suddenly involved in building a complicated multi-billion undersea tunnel as its first project as part of normal buisiness diversification process.

Shareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.my

Shareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.myShareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.my

"Taking aside the fact that the fashion company has reported losses in each of the past 3 financial quarters and their last financial statement submitted to Bursa Malaysia on 29 Nov 2017 showed that the company had cash balances of RM1,7 million and short-term loans of RM16.5 million, I believe the Penang Government is completely missing the point.

"The main point is that the Penang Govt had reassured and promised to the people of Penang in March 2013 when the project was awarded that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company had strong financial backing of RM4.6 billion and had deep experience in construction," Wee highlighted, in a statement posted on MCA's website.

He points out that five years later there was nothing to show except for the millions spent on uncompleted feasibility studies.

“Did the DAP government lie to the public and made a bait and switch?" he asked.

Meanwhile, political analyst Datuk Eric See-Toh has revealed that the project never awarded on open tender.

"This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

"It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing," he noted in a recent Facebook posting.

"The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected," he urged the DAP-led Penang government to give a proper explanation over how this could have happened.

This is important, he stressed as the result has clearly led to "such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang" which is the reason for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation now. "Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that," he added.

"Taking aside the fact that the fashion company has reported losses in each of the past 3 financial quarters and their last financial statement submitted to Bursa Malaysia on 29 Nov 2017 showed that the company had cash balances of RM1,7 million and short-term loans of RM16.5 million, I believe the Penang Government is completely missing the point.

"The main point is that the Penang Govt had reassured and promised to the people of Penang in March 2013 when the project was awarded that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company had strong financial backing of RM4.6 billion and had deep experience in construction," Wee highlighted, in a statement posted on MCA's website.

He points out that five years later there was nothing to show except for the millions spent on uncompleted feasibility studies.

“Did the DAP government lie to the public and made a bait and switch?" he asked.

Meanwhile, political analyst Datuk Eric See-Toh has revealed that the project never awarded on open tender.

"This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

"It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing," he noted in a recent Facebook posting.

"The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected," he urged the DAP-led Penang government to give a proper explanation over how this could have happened.

This is important, he stressed as the result has clearly led to "such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang" which is the reason for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation now.

"Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that," he added.

"According to a MACC source, the investigation was zeroing in on the tender process and appointment of the company to carry out the feasibility study for the (Penang Tunnel) project." said a report today.

This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing.

The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected as well as the minutes of the attendees and what was discussed during the negotiations with the winner prior to the final agreement that led to such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang.

Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that.

Eric See-To.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/…/undersea-tunnel-probe-m…/
Here's an explanation between RFP and Request for Tender/Quote and other methods:
http://thoughtbubble.com.au/…/whats-the-difference-between…/

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

Mak

Source: Malaysian Digest: http://www.malaysiandigest.com/


Related Links:

Politicians on MACC radar over tunnel payoffs - Nation

“There were politicians who received a few hundred thousand ringgit and those who took millions.
“Investigators are digging in on the extent of the misconduct and where the payments took place.

“It is believed that this is also related to the two land swaps done as payment for the feasibility study,” said a source, who declined to elaborate.

Feasibility study cost just doesn't add up, says Wee - Nation

Undersea project: Fashion apparel just an investor not contractor, says Lim

More arrests likely in undersea tunnel probe - Nation

Related posts:

Penang undersea tunnel project scrutinized by the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC)

In troubled waters: An artist’s impression showing where the tunnel project will start on the island.   Land swap under...

Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) - Tunnel project rocked, Directors arrested in graft probe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B9o1baUaP8 https://youtu.be/VL98vA4I2gE Stalled ambition: A view of the Gurney Drive s...

Goodbye, Silicon Valley

Greener pastures: Wang at his company’s headquarters in Shanghai. The successful Silicon Valley alumni was lured back to China by the promise of a brighter future.

Chinese-born talents are abandoning California for riches back home with the rise of China's new titans.

A FEW years ago, Wang Yi was living the American dream. He had graduated from Princeton, landed a job at Google and bought a spacious condo in Silicon Valley.

But one day in 2011, he sat his wife down at the kitchen table and told her he wanted to move back to China. He was bored working as a product manager for the search giant and felt the pull of starting his own company in their homeland.

It wasn’t easy persuading her to abandon balmy California for smog-choked Shanghai.

“We’d just discovered she was pregnant,” said Wang, now 37, recalling hours spent pacing their apartment. “It was a very uneasy few weeks before we made our decision, but in the end she came around.”

His bet paid off: his popular English teaching app Liulishuo or LingoChamp raised US$100mil (RM397mil) in July, putting him in the growing ranks of successful Silicon Valley alumni lured back to China by the promise of a brighter future. His decision is emblematic of an unprecedented trend with disquieting implications for Valley stalwarts from Facebook Inc to Alphabet Inc’s Google.

US-trained Chinese-born talent is becoming a key force in driving Chinese companies’ global expansion and the country’s efforts to dominate next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning. Where college graduates once coveted a prestigious overseas job and foreign citizenship, many today gravitate towards career opportunities at home, where venture capital is now plentiful and the government dangles financial incentives for cutting-edge research.

“More and more talent is moving over because China is really getting momentum in the innovation area,” said Ken Qi, a headhunter for Spencer Stuart and leader of its technology practice.

“This is only the beginning.” Chinese have worked or studied abroad and then returned home long enough that there’s a term for them – “sea turtles”. But while a job at a US tech giant once conferred near-unparalleled status, homegrown companies – from giants like Tencent Holdings Ltd to up-and-comers like news giant Toutiao – are now often just as prestigious. Baidu Inc – a search giant little-known outside of China – convinced ex-Microsoft standout Qi Lu to helm its efforts in AI, making him one of the highest-profile returnees of recent years.

Alibaba Group Holding Ltd’s coming-out party was a catalyst. The e-commerce giant pulled off the world’s largest initial public offering in 2014 – a record that stands – to drive home the scale and inventiveness of the country’s corporations.

Alibaba and Tencent now count among the 10 most valuable companies in the world, in the ranks of Amazon.com Inc and Facebook.

Chinese venture capital rivals the United States: three of the world’s five most valuable startups are based in Beijing, not California.

Tech has supplanted finance as the biggest draw for overseas Chinese returnees, accounting for 15.5% of all who go home, according to a 2017 survey of 1,821 people conducted by think-tank Centre for China & Globalisation and jobs site Zhaopin.com. That’s up 10% from their last poll, in 2015.

Not all choose to abandon the Valley. Of the more than 850,000 AI engineers across America, 7.9% are Chinese, according to a 2017 report from LinkedIn.

That naturally includes plenty of ethnic Chinese without strong ties to the mainland or any interest in working there. However, there are more AI engineers of Chinese descent in the United States than there are in China, even though they make up less than 1.6% of the American population.

Yet the search for returnees has spurred a thriving cottage industry.

In WeChat and Facebook cliques, headhunters and engineers from the diaspora exchange banter and animated gifs. Qi watches for certain markers: if you’ve scored permanent residency, are childless or the kids are prepping for college, expect a knock on your digital door.

Jay Wu has poached over 100 engineers for Chinese companies over the past three years. The co-founder of Global Career Path ran online communities for students before turning it into a career. The San Francisco resident now trawls more than a dozen WeChat groups for leads.

“WeChat is a good channel to keep tabs on what’s going on in the circle and also broadcast our offline events,” he said.

Ditching Cupertino or Mountain View for Beijing can be a tough sell when China’s undergoing its harshest Internet crackdown in history. But its tech giants hold three drawcards: faster growth in salaries, opportunity and a sense of home.

China’s Internet space is enjoying bubbly times, with compensation sometimes exceeding American peers’. One startup was said to have hired an AI engineer for cash and shares worth as much as US$30mil (RM119mil) over four years.

For engineers reluctant to relinquish American comforts, Chinese companies are going to them. Alibaba, Tencent, Uber-slayer Didi Chuxing and Baidu are among those who have built or are expanding labs in Silicon Valley.

Career opportunities, however, are regarded as more abundant back home. While Chinese engi-

neers are well represented in the Valley, the perception is that comparatively fewer advance to the top rungs, a phenomenon labelled the “Bamboo Ceiling”.

“More and more Chinese engineers who have worked in Silicon Valley for an extended period of time end up finding it’s much more lucrative for them career-wise to join a fast-rising Chinese company,”

says Hans Tung, a managing partner at venture firm GGV who’s organised events to poach talent.

“At Google, at LinkedIn, at Uber, at AirBnB, they all have Chinese engineers who are trying to figure out ‘should I stay, or should I go back’.”

More interesting than prospects for some may be the sheer volume of intimate data available and leeway to experiment in China.

Tencent’s WeChat, built by a small team in months, has become a poster-child for in-house creative licence.

Modern computing is driven by crunching enormous amounts of data, and generations of state surveillance has conditioned the public to be less concerned about sharing information than Westerners.

Local startup SenseTime for instance has teamed with dozens of police departments to track everything from visages to races, helping the country develop one of the world’s most sophisticated surveillance machines.

China’s 751 million Internet users have thus become a massive petri dish.

Big money and bigger data can be irresistible to those itching to turn theory into reality.

Xu Wanhong left Carnegie Mellon University’s computer science PhD programme in 2010 to work on Facebook’s news feed.

A chance meeting with a visiting team from Chinese startup UCAR Technology led to online friendships and in 2015, an offer to jump ship. Today he works at Kuaishou, a video service said to be valued at more than US$3bil (RM12bil), and commutes from 20km outside Beijing. It’s a far cry from the breakfast bar and lush spaces of Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters.

“I didn’t go to the US for a big house. I went for the interesting problems,” he said.

Then there are those for whom it’s about human connection: no amount of tech can erase the fact that Shanghai and San Francisco are separated by an 11-hour flight and an even wider cultural chasm.

Chongqing native Yang Shuishi grew up deifying the West, adopting the name Seth and landing a dream job as a software engineer on Microsoft’s Redmond campus.

But suburban America didn’t suit a single man whose hometown has about 40 times Seattle’s population.

While he climbed the ranks during subsequent stints at Google and Facebook, life in America remained a lonely experience and he landed back in China.

“You’re just working as a cog in the huge machine and you never get to see the big picture.

“My friends back in China were thinking about the economy and vast social trends,” he said.

“Even if I get killed by the air and live shorter for 10 years, it’ll still be better.” - Bloomberg

Related Link:

Next Crisis Will Start in Silicon Valley - Bloomberg

Chinese workers abandon Silicon Valley for riches back home ...

Only the brave teach

Show of solidarity: Fellow teachers and unionists gathering at the Seremban magistrate court last month in support of Cikgu Azizan (centre in white).

ONE tight slap – I still vividly remember that hard, stinging smack across my cheek as my teacher flew into a fit of rage after I did something naughty as a primary school pupil at St Xavier’s Institution in Penang.

I can’t recall which teacher hit me, but there must have been more than one. They pinched my stomach and even my nipples. Many of my classmates can attest to that, even 40 years on.

There was also the occasional caning, which I felt was an act of gross injustice and, perhaps, even one of perversion on the part of our disciplinary teacher. To me, back then, he was an unfair individual, and my opinion still stands. To this day, I have no idea why I was caned and not given the chance to defend myself.

But, bless his soul, because he has passed on. Most students from back then would have forgiven him by now, for he probably knew not what he was doing.

However, one thing is certain – as far as I know, none of us returned home and complained about this disciplinary action to our parents.

Comedian Harith Iskandar always reminds his audience that if one complained to their parents, they can expect to get another tight slap that “would burn your face and send an electrifying chilling effect to all parts of your body,” and consequently, leave a lifetime’s reminder.

So, the smartest thing to do, as most older Malaysians can testify, was to keep quiet. Of course, we also warned our classmates, some of whom were our neighbors, to swear to keep things under wraps and not tell their parents about the drama at school.

The caning and slaps, by disciplinary standards, were the “final” punishments. We surely remember the use of rulers, feather dusters, belts, black board dusters and in my case, even a shoe that flew in my direction.

And I wasn’t even in the naughty boys’ category. I didn’t get into fights or was caught loitering with the bad hats after school.

As one writer, Adrian Lee Yuen Beng, wrote in Aliran: “The teachers were our ad hoc parents who taught with joy and passion, and like their predecessors, never demanded any recognition. They customarily stood at the back of the class, silently rejoicing as the students celebrated their exam success.

“We received an education steeped in tradition as mission schoolteachers took teaching seriously; it was not a mere job, but a vocation, nay, a calling.

“Our teachers were proud of their lessons and believed in their form of education. They shaped us into intellectuals, sportspersons, politicians, educators, religionists, physicians and other important societal figures.”

Fast forward to today – and it’s the total reverse. The guilty party – the student – runs home to complain to his parents.

Now, the father and mother fly into a rage and decide to confront the teacher at school the following day. What unnecessary drama!

Adding insult to injury, the parents then seek the help of a politician, who has likely been deprived of the media’s glare for a while. Then, all three confront the teacher.

Lodging a police report is, of course, the next thing they do, and to embarrass the teacher and school further, they call for a press conference.

This is modern Malaysia. Perhaps, today’s family is smaller. There are only one or two children in a family, and they are, invariably, pampered.

During my time, there were at least four or five siblings and even so, we were still regarded a small family. Dad was always too busy earning a living, trying to put food on the table, so, he was thankful that the teacher played surrogate father, at least during school hours. The lesser-educated father would have been equally respectful of teachers. After all, it’s accepted that teachers mould the character, calibre and prospects of their students.

However, the modern-day father thinks he’s smarter and earns more than the teacher, his condescending and confrontational attitude not boding well for the situation.

He probably thinks the teacher has a dead-end job or is too busy distributing business cards to pupils for after-school tuition.

But, for an old-school type like me, I find it difficult to accept news of teachers being hauled to court for purportedly hurting their students.

Honestly, don’t the police and prosecutors have better things to do than to charge these teachers who were merely trying to discipline the children – responsibilities which may have been neglected by their caregivers?

In December, a teacher facing the charge of hurting his student, was given a discharge not amounting to acquittal by the magistrate’s court.

Magistrate Mohd Zaki Abdul Rahim delivered judgement after the prosecution told the court that they wished to withdraw the case.

Azizan Manap, also known as Cikgu Azizan, claimed trial to the charge of slapping an 11-year-old male student on the left cheek in April for indiscipline, the misdemeanour including sniffing glue, bullying and playing truant.

He was charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt and was left facing a jail term of up to a year, a fine of RM,2000, or both, upon conviction.

Leading up to his discharge, several hundred people, including fellow teachers, gathered at the court in a show of solidarity for Cikgu Azizan.

By all means, go ahead and Google it: there are numerous reports of teachers threatened or roughed up in schools, and surprisingly, we seldom hear of offensive parents charged in court for criminal intimidation or causing bodily harm.

We have now been made to understand that the old ways don’t work anymore. The children need counselling and their hair needs to be stroked to motivate them. Have these methods worked better? That remains to be conclusively proven.

One thing’s for sure, though, the tight slap was unbeatable in my time in instilling discipline. Now, when I enter a lift, the millennials are too busy looking at their handphones, so don’t expect them to address you as “sir” or even greet you.

You’d be lucky if they called you “bro” and gave you an enthusiastic high-five, instead.

Would the proverbial one tight slap work today in curing disciplinary ills? Hardly likely.

By Wong Chun Wai

Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 27 years in various capacities and roles. He is now the group's managing director/chief executive officer and formerly the group chief editor.

On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.

Moving forward with affordable housing

One way to solve housing shortage problem is to build more houses.


"If we take a look at countries with commendable housing policies such as Singapore and Hong Kong, we notice that the government plays a very important role in building and ensuring a sufficient supply of housing for their people."

THE issue of affordable housing has been a hot potato for many countries, especially for a nation with a growing population and urbanisation like ours.

In my previous article, I mentioned that there was a growing shortage of affordable housing in our country according to Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim. The shortage is expected to reach one million units by 2020.

According to Bank of England governor Mark Carney, one of the most effective ways to address the issue is to build more houses. There are good examples in countries like United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore, which have 2.4, 2.6 and 3.35 persons per household respectively.

In comparison, the average persons per household in our country is 4.06 person, a ratio which Australia had already achieved in 1933! To improve the current ratio, we need to put more effort into building houses to bring prices down.

If we take a look at countries with commendable housing policies such as Singapore and Hong Kong, we notice that the government plays a very important role in building and ensuring a sufficient supply of housing for their people.

For example in Singapore, their Housing and Development Board (HDB) has built over one million flats and houses since 1960, to house 90% of Singaporeans in their properties. In Hong Kong, the government provides affordable housing for lower-income residents, with nearly half of the population residing in some form of public housing nowadays. The rents and prices of public housing are subsidised by the government and are significantly lower than for private housing.

To be on par with Australia (2.6 persons per household), our country needs a total of 8.6 million homes to house our urban population of 22.4 million people. In other words, we need an additional 3.3 million houses on top of our existing 5.3 million residential houses.

However, with our current total national housing production of about 80,000 units a year, it will take us more than 40 years to build 3.3 million houses! With household formation growing at a faster rate than housing production, we will still be faced with a housing shortage 40 years from now.

Therefore, even if the private sector dedicated all its current output to build affordable housing, it will still be a long journey ahead to produce sufficient houses for the nation. It is of course impossible for the private sector to do so as it will be running at a loss due to rising costs of land and construction.

In view of the above, the government has to shoulder the responsibility of building more houses for the rakyat due to the availability of resources owned by the government. Land, for example, is the most crucial element in housing development. As a lot of land resources are owned by government, they must offer these lands to relevant agencies or authorities to develop affordable housing.

I recall when I was one of the founding directors of the Selangor State Development Corp in 1970s, its main objectives was to build public housing for the rakyat.

However, today the corporation has also ventured into high end developments in order to subsidise its affordable housing initiatives. This will somehow distract them from focusing on the affordable housing sector.

Although government has rolled out various initiatives in encouraging affordable houses, it is also important for the authorities to constantly review the original objectives of the relevant housing agencies, such as the various State Economic Development Corporations, Syarikat Perumahan Negara Bhd, and 1 Malaysia People’s Housing Scheme, to ensure they have ample resources especially land and funding to continue their mission in building affordable housing.

A successful housing policy and easy access to affordable housing have a huge impact on the rakyat. It is hoped that our government escalates its effort in building affordable housing, which will enhance the happiness and well-being of the people, and the advancement of our nation.


 Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

By Alan Tong

‘Pakatan taking a step backwards’

PETALING JAYA: Pakatan Harap­an’s choice of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as its candidate for prime minister is a step backwards for the Opposition grouping, said Institute of Strategic and Inter­national Studies Malaysia Senior Fellow Sholto Byrnes.

In an opinion piece yesterday in The National, a newspaper published in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Byrnes wrote that Pakatan’s choice of Dr Mahathir showed it did not have confidence in its own leaders.

He said it also reflected badly on Opposition supporters who were strongly against the Government, which Dr Mahathir led for 22 years.

“The notion that this represents change, let alone fresh blood, is laughable and reflects very poorly on the Opposition’s confidence not only in its younger cadres, but also in those who have always opposed the Barisan Nasional governing coalition,” said Byrnes.

He said many Opposition supporters and leaders were imprisoned by Dr Mahathir, who is currently Pakatan Harapan chairman, for no good reason other than that their vehement opposition inconvenienced him.

“They are entitled to feel bitter at having to kowtow to their former jailer,” he added.

Byrnes noted that Dr Mahathir, who is now 92, would become the world’s oldest leader if elected in the event that Pakatan Harapan wrests power from Barisan.

This, he said, would open Malay­sia to international ridicule.

“Any who doubt that should imagine the incredulous laughter if either George H.W. Bush, aged 93, or Valery Giscard d’Estaing, a sprightly 91, were to seek to return to the presidencies of the United States and France respectively,” he said.

Commenting on Dr Mahathir’s Dec 30 apology for his past mistakes when he was prime minister, Byrnes pointed out that the former leader said sorry for nothing specific.

Dr Mahathir later suggested that it was Malay custom to apologise for possible past mistakes.

“Whatever charges might be laid against him over possible wrongdoing during the course of his premiership – and Opposition activists have in the past called for him to be put on trial for them – he is essentially unrepentant,” Byrnes wrote.

He said Dr Mahathir would never have switched to the Opposition if Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had been prepared to act as Dr Mahathir’s tame supplicant and do everything his former boss wanted.

“For ever since he stood down from the premiership, Dr Mahathir has not been able to let go,” he said.

Recognising that it was Chinese faces who had the track record and visibility in the Opposition after Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s jailing, Byrnes said Pakatan was trying to hide them behind a facade of Malay politicians to win the crucial votes of the majority Malays.

“There are decent people in the Opposition, whom I have come to know personally. But this new top ticket drives a coach and horses through the Opposition’s old principles and thus through whatever moral authority it had,” he said.

Choosing a nonagenerian former PM to head Malaysia's opposition is a regressive move

- REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin/File Photo

THE announcement last weekend that Malaysia's opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), had chosen Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as its candidate for prime minister made international headlines for two reasons. Firstly, Dr Mahathir has been the country's head of government before, for a record-breaking 22 years from 1981 to 2003, during which (and afterwards) his governing style was described as "authoritarian". With trademark sarcasm, the good doctor now one-ups that by conceding that in office he was nothing less than a "dictator". He is not renowned as an advocate for reformist democracy, which is what PH claims to stand for.

Secondly, he is now 92, which would make him the world's oldest leader if elected. Opposition columnists have ludicrously compared Malaysia, much praised by the World Bank, the IMF and other international bodies for its current government's reforms, prudent economic stewardship and excellent growth, with Zimbabwe. In fact, it is the latter's former president Robert Mugabe, a 93-year-old gerontocrat deposed ignominiously last year, who was so close to Dr Mahathir that the BBC's John Simpson once paid him the backhanded compliment of calling him "a kind of successful, Asian Robert Mugabe."

Malaysia's opposition is now effectively helmed by two leaders from 20 years ago: Dr Mahathir and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the deputy he sacked in 1998 and humiliated after the latter was charged and then jailed for sodomy and corruption. Anwar is currently in prison on a second sodomy charge. His wife, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, is nominally PH's candidate for deputy prime minister but should the opposition win, its plan is for Anwar to be given a royal pardon, enter parliament via a by-election and then take over from his former nemesis as prime minister.

The notion that this represents change, let alone fresh blood, is laughable and reflects very poorly on the opposition's confidence not only in its younger cadres (and by younger, that means 50 and 60-year-olds) but also in those who have always opposed the Barisan Nasional (BN) governing coalition, which has never lost power since independence.

Theirs has not been an easy road. Many were imprisoned by Dr Mahathir for no good reason other than that their vehement opposition inconvenienced him. They are entitled to feel bitter at having to kowtow to their former jailer. And while Dr Mahathir might still be very sharp – his tongue has lost none of its spikiness – they cannot be oblivious to the fact that proposing a man who could be 93 by the time he became prime minister again opens the country to international ridicule. (Any who doubt that should imagine the incredulous laughter if either George HW Bush, currently aged 93, or Valery Giscard d'Estaing, a sprightly 91, were to seek to return to the presidencies of the US and France, respectively.)

So why has Malaysia's opposition proposed him as their leader? Ah, but Dr Mahathir has changed his tune, some will say and has even recently apologised. Firstly, he said sorry for nothing specific and secondly, he then suggested it was Malay custom to apologise for possible past mistakes. However, whatever charges might be laid against him over possible wrongdoing during the course of his premiership – and opposition activists have in the past called for him to be put on trial for them – he is essentially unrepentant.

The late Karpal Singh, the formidable Indian national chairman of the mainly Chinese Democratic Action Party (DAP), would never have stood for it. His daughter and others with a long record in the opposition cannot stomach Dr Mahathir at the top and have said so vocally, as have some significant members of Anwar's People's Justice Party (PKR).

No wonder, for this is no alliance of principle. It is one of convenience. And if the current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, had been prepared to act as Dr Mahathir's tame supplicant and do everything his former boss wanted, this would never have happened. For ever since he stood down from the premiership, Dr Mahathir has not been able to let go. First he undermined his handpicked successor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and then Najib – not for any malfeasance on their parts but for the crimes of not taking his "advice" as orders and for not indulging his dynastic ambitions.

Paradoxically, Dr Mahathir's appearance at the head of the opposition pact is actually a testament to how strong a position Najib has built over the last two and a half years. Recognising that it was Chinese faces who had the track record and the visibility in the opposition after Anwar's jailing, PH is now trying to hide them behind a facade of Malay politicians to win the crucial votes of the majority Malays.

But their new alliance is incoherent, with politicians having entirely contradictory records on matters of civil liberties and free speech, for instance – and, worse, deceitful ones, claiming that the goods and services tax that the current government has introduced could be removed, with no real plans for how they would replace the vital revenue.

There are decent people in the opposition, whom I have come to know personally. But this new top ticket drives a coach-and-horses through the opposition's old principles and thus through whatever moral authority they had.

Malaysia has a good government that has won accolades for its determined fight against violent extremism and its successful economic transformation programme. It deserves a better opposition. And there's a certain 92-year-old who deserves the gratitude of his people for services past – but also a retirement he has put off for far too long.

Source: by Sholto Byrnes, The Star

> Sholto Byrnes is a senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysia

PKR gives up 14 seats to Pribumi for GE14

PETALING JAYA: PKR has given up 14 constituencies it contested in the last general election to Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Pribumi) for the upcoming 14th General Election (GE14).

Pakatan Harapan’s approved distribution of parliamentary seats for GE14 shows PKR giving up seats in Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Johor, Perak, Kelantan and Pahang to Pribumi.

Notably, it has surrendered the Pekan seat – currently held by Umno president and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak – to Pribumi.

Notably, PKR has given up its Lumut parliamentary seat, currently held by Mohamad Imran Abd Hamid, to Amanah.

Since the departure of PAS from the now-defunct Pakatan Rakyat coalition, many of that party’s previously-contested seats were distributed evenly among Pribumi and Amanah, a PAS breakaway party.

Interestingly, Pribumi is the Pakatan Harapan party contesting seven seats in Kelantan, against five by Amanah and two by PKR.

Pribumi will have a strong presence in the Umno stronghold of Johor, fielding candidates in 10 seats.

Four of those seats (Sri Gading, Pengerang, Pontian and Muar) were previously contested by PKR, while Tanjung Piai was previously contested by DAP.

Johor’s Ayer Hitam seat, which was previously under DAP’s quota, will be contested by Amanah.

Pribumi is set to contest eight seats in Perak, after PKR gave up four seats there – Tambun, Bagan Serai, Tapah and Pasir Salak.

PKR is also slated to contest the Sungei Siput seat now held by PSM’s Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj. Dr Jeyakumar won the seat under the PKR banner in the last election.

Apart from Johor, Pribumi also has strong representation in Perak (eight seats), Kelantan (seven), Pahang (six) and Kedah (six).

It is believed that Pribumi is thought to have a better chance against Umno in those seats, compared to Amanah.

Some instances of give and take were seen in the planned parliamentary seat distribution.

Amanah in turn has given up the prized Titiwangsa seat to Pribumi, leaving it with no potential representation in Kuala Lumpur.

Related Link:

Dr Mahathir has hijacked Pakatan, says Liow

Pribumi dominates Pakatan Harapan, says Liow

Rocky road ahead for Anwar - Nation