Malaysia may lose RM5 billion from the TPPA – S.M. Mohamed Idris

Published: 24 October 2014

A new paper by a senior economist working in a United Nations agency has shown that Malaysia will not enjoy a net gain in terms of its trade balance as a result of joining the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).  Instead, Malaysia will suffer a decline in its trade balance with the other eleven TPPA countries by nearly RM5 billion.

This finding provides another major reason why Malaysia should not join the TPPA.

From arguments put forward by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia will gain from the TPPA by being able to sell more exports to the 11 other TPPA countries.

Even if this were true, analysts and critics, including CAP, have argued that it is dangerous to join the TPPA because of the economic and social harm to our country and our people caused by other aspects of the TPPA.

This includes the TPPA chapters on intellectual property, investment, government procurement, competition and state owned enterprises.

These chapters will result in Malaysia having to change many of our policies and laws, causing harm to the public interest, including in areas of health, environment, distributional issues and political economy.

Even if the country enjoys a big gain in trade, it is not worthwhile sacrificing our loss of freedom and space to formulate our own policies, and not worthwhile to suffer so much damage to our economy and to our social fabric.

However, the new study shows that Malaysia will not even gain from trade if it signs the TPPA. Instead, Malaysia will lose by at least RM4.77 billion in trade terms, as our imports will increase by more than our exports.

According to the paper, if Malaysia joins the TPPA, its exports will increase to the other TPPA countries, but its imports from them will increase by even more, and thus the country will have a net loss in its trade balance.  The trade balance is the difference between the value of export and import of goods.

In 2013, Malaysia exported US$93.7 billion (RM307.3 billion) of goods to the other 11 TPPA countries, and imported US$73.9 billion (RM242.4 billion) of goods.  Malaysia thus enjoyed a surplus of US$19.8 billion (RM64.9 billion) in its trade balance with the 11 countries.

The new paper shows that after the TPPA is implemented, Malaysia’s exports to the 11 countries will increase by US$1.5 billion (from US$93.7 billion to US$95.2 billion).  But its imports will rise by more than that, i.e. by US$2.9 billion (from US$73.9 billion to US$76.8 billion).

Therefore, the balance of trade for Malaysia with its 11 TPPA partner countries will worsen by US$1.465 billion (RM4.8 billion). Its trade surplus will fall from US$19.84 billion to US$18.37 billion.

The meaning of this is that Malaysia will not gain in net terms from the increased trade as a result of the TPPA. As imports will rise faster than exports, Malaysia will suffer a net loss in its trade balance. The loss is significant, i.e. US$1.465 billion or RM4.8 billion.

This worsening of Malaysia’s balance of trade may even be more than the paper’s conclusion. This is because the paper assumes that Malaysia will be able to export more textiles and clothing to the United States, at zero tariffs and without any other impediment.

In actual fact, the US is imposing a 'yarn forward rule', where TPPA countries like Malaysia can only use yarn from other TTPA countries when producing textiles and apparel items. Thus, the cost of production of some of Malaysia’s textiles and clothing will be more costly as it will not be able to use yarn from more and lower cost countries like China.

Thus, the estimated increase in Malaysian exports of textiles and apparel items to the United States by about RM490 million (US$150 million) may exaggerate the gains for Malaysia.  If the increase of textiles exports is less than this RM490 million, then the loss in trade balance for Malaysia will be more than RM4.79 billion.  The loss could be more than RM5 billion.

The new paper, “Trans Pacific partnership Agreement (TPPA): Implications for Malaysia’s Domestic Value Added Trade”, is written by Dr Rashmi Banga, a senior economist working in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). It is published by the Centre for WTO Studies as a working paper.

In estimating the effects of the TPPA on Malaysia’s trade in goods, the paper assumes that the TPPA results in zero import duties in the products of the 12 TPPA countries.  (This is a reasonable assumption as the aim of the TPPA countries is to eliminate tariffs on all or almost all products).

The paper can be downloaded here.

Other findings of the paper

The paper also has other interesting findings. These findings, and some implications of these findings are as follows:

* Due to the TPPA, many domestic companies and industries will face increased competition from imports. There is thus a danger that the market share and sales of local companies and industries will decline, and that there will be a loss of jobs for Malaysian workers.

* The paper shows that imports will increase by more than US$100million (or RM327 million) a year in a number of  products,  including  vehicles, iron and steel, plastics, boilers, rubber products, and tobacco.  For these products, 36%-85% of these imports will be new net imports, not just a change of the source of imports from non TPPA countries to TPPA countries.

* An example of the higher imports due to the TPPA is an increase in imports of cars and trucks from Japan by US$534 million (or RM 1.75 billion). This may have an adverse effect on the sales of vehicles that are produced in Malaysia.

* A large part of the increase in Malaysian exports will be to Vietnam.  However, even if Malaysia does not join the TPPA, it would eventually enjoy this increase in exports to Vietnam when the full ASEAN free trade agreement is implemented. According to the paper, 57% of Malaysia’s increased exports resulting from the TPPA are to Vietnam  (US$843 million out of a total US$1,486 million). This suggests that most of the export increase would in any case take place even if Malaysia does not join the TPPA. Thus Malaysia could enjoy the main gain that would have resulted from the TPPA without suffering the adverse effects of the TPPA, if it does not join the TPPA.

* Due to the TPPA, Malaysia’s trade balance with the US will probably decline by at least RM1 billion.  Malaysia’s exports to the USA will increase by only US$378 million but imports from the USA will rise by US$679 million.  Thus, in terms of trade balance there will be a loss of US$301 million (RM984 million). In fact the gain for exports for Malaysia will be less, because of the “yarn forward rule” which will reduce the increase in Malaysian textiles exports because that rule will increase the cost of production. Thus the trade surplus that Malaysia enjoys with the USA may decline by more than RM1 billion due to the TPPA.

* Although Malaysia’s gross export earnings will rise by US$1.5 billion, in fact there will not be gains in net terms or value added terms. This is because the TPPA will also increase the imports of components that are used as inputs into the exports, and these imports will displace some of the locally produced inputs. In terms of “value added” (what is produced and earned in Malaysia),  the TPPA will result in less value added of Malaysian export earnings. The loss in value added of Malaysia’s exports to TPPA countries can be as much as US$17.6 billion, according to the paper. Value added of exports is more important to the economy, as compared to gross exports, as it is a much better measure of the income (and also local employment) of the country.

The new paper seems to contradict the results from an earlier study published by the Peterson Institute which had predicted that Malaysia would enjoy large gains by joining the TPPA. One reason for the different results from these two papers is that the Peterson Institute’s study was based on different assumptions.

The previous study was on estimates based on Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. The new paper by Dr Rashmi Banga gives a critique of the assumptions of these CGE models which overstate the gains because of unrealistic assumptions, including that there is full employment that is maintained (and  thus no effect  of the TPPA on employment) and that there would be a constant trade balance before and after the trade agreement. The models are thus designed in a manner that the liberalisation resulting from the FTA will always lead to an overall gain.

Conclusion

The new paper has several conclusions which are very significant. One of these is that Malaysia will not enjoy net gains but will instead suffer net losses in trade in goods as a result of joining the TPPA.

This is a very disturbing result, with major implications.

It is clear that Malaysia will suffer very significant losses in other areas of the TPPA, including intellectual property, investment, government procurement, state-owned enterprises and ban or restrictions on export taxes.

It is the assumption that all these losses and damage to the Malaysian economy and society and to our system of political economy may be worthwhile because of the assumed enormous benefits for Malaysia from expanded trade in goods.

However, if there is also a net loss to the country’s trade balance due to the TPPA, then there is really no rationale at all to want to join the TPPA.

Given the new information, CAP calls on the Government not to join the TPPA and instead to exit from the negotiations. There is no reason to continue using the country’s scarce resources in taking part in negotiations that are expensive and that carries the high risk that the country will sign on to an agreement that is very damaging to the country’s interests. – October 24, 2014.

* S.M. Mohamed Idris is the president, Consumers Association of Penang.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

.... the right of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, being an accused, to make a statement from the dock is not provided in anywhere in our Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. Rather, this is a common law right which originates from the English criminal law in the late 19th century, and which is now integrated as part of our criminal law.

As I stand to be corrected, this right is rarely exercised by any accused and thus there are few case law I can refer to. One of the earliest cases in Malaysia where an accused exercised his right to make an unsworn statement from the dock is that of Ip Ying Wah v Public Prosecutor [1958] MLJ 34. In the Ip Ying Wah case, Buhagiar J who heard the case held that when an accused makes a statement from the dock, he is not liable to any cross-examination by the prosecution team. Therefore, when an accused exercise this right, not only that he need not swear and give evidence under oath, he too will not be subjected to any cross-examination by the prosecution; a stage at which usually the credibility of any witness and/ or any contradiction in the testimony of the witness will be revealed.

Given the fact that the accused need not testify under oath and will not be cross-examined, should the statement of the accused then be admitted as evidence by the courts of justice?

Again, from my quick research, it appears that there are conflicting decisions on this issue. It is important to assess from two cases for the purpose of this article, namely the High Court cases of Wong Heng Fatt v Public Prosecutor [1959] MLJ 20 and Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53.

In the case of Wong Heng Fatt, at p. 21, Smith J who heard the case held as follows:

“I do not consider that a statement by an accused from the dock is evidence in view of the provision of s4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 the essential part of which reads “… oaths shall be taken by witnesses, that is to say, all persons who… give evidence… before the court…”. Since the appellant was not sworn or affirmed he did not give evidence.” (my emphasis added)

Section 4(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance 1949 is now replaced by Section 6(1)(a) of the Oaths and Affirmations Act 1949, which reads:

“(1) Subject to section 7, oaths shall be taken by the following persons –

 (a) witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may be lawfully examined, or give or be required to give evidence, by or before any court or person having, as mentioned in section 4, authority to examine such person or to receive evidence.”

Then in the case of Ng Hoi Cheu & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 53, Chang Min Tat J (as his Lordship then was) disagreed with the view of Smith J relying on Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1950 which defines “evidence” as, inter alia, “all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry: such statements are called oral evidence…”.

It also pertinent to note at this point that the English Court of Appeal had in the case of Shankley v Hodgson [1962] Crim. LR 248 held that an unsworn statement from the dock is NOT evidence and the view of the English Court of Appeal and Smith J has been followed in Malaysia by Hishamudin Yunus J (now JCA) in the case of Public Prosecutor v Shariff Kadir [1997] 5 CLJ 463.

On the basis that an unsworn statement by an accused from the dock is not evidence, what weight should a trial judge attach to such statement?

In the Shariff Kadir case, at pp. 469-470, Hismamuddin Yunus J (as his Lordship then was) held as follows:

“since, as a matter of law, an accused cannot be cross-examined on his unsworn statement made from the dock, such a statement cannot carry the same weight as evidence given in the witness-box under oath…

[T]he weight that should be given to such a statement must be such weight as the judge thinks fit.”

Given the little weight to be attached to an unsworn statement by the accused from the dock, if any, vis-à-vis a statement from a witness under oath, it is no surprise why the English Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that “nowadays the accused, if he gives evidence, should do so in the same way as other witnesses and be subject to cross-examination”. As such, the Westminster Parliament has abolished the right of an accused to make unsworn statement from the dock vide Section 72 of the English Criminal Justice Act 1982.

Following from that, judges in Malaysia too have called for the abolition of this archaic right (since the right has been in existence in England since late 19th century) including Hishamudin Yunus JCA in the Shariff Kadir case.

As a senior politician with a defence team comprising of the best and experienced criminal lawyers like Karpal Singh, I am surprised why Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim chose to exercise his right to make unsworn statement from the dock where such statement should not (NOT that it will not) carry as much weight as, amongst others, Saiful’s (the alleged victim) statement. In order to persuade and convince the Learned Trial Judge to hold in his favour and acquit him, in particular in a trial which is deemed by the Opposition leaders to be a persecution rather than a prosecution,  why didn’t Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim make a sworn statement which will, at least theoretically, carry more weight?

In the alternative, is this yet another move on the political chessboard? Is this a politically motivated move that will leave an avenue for the Opposition Leader to attack the judiciary as being biased should he be convicted? I do not know and I cannot say for certain. But one has to look at his statement from the dock.

And let us not kid ourselves, whilst our judicial system and us do not judge by oaths or swearing, any faithful follower of any religion will fear to swear in the name of God unless he/ she is telling the truth. The man has previously refused to swear in a mosque and the same man is now refusing to swear in the Courts of Justice. Are we not going to ask ourselves why? Perhaps, the fear of God?

"Usually, for items on transit, the baggage will be transferred into the aircraft directly without the need to bring them into the main terminal.

"In this regard, a detention letter to review the consignment was issued to the carrier to ascertain if the publications were actually being brought to Sabah."

The seized books, CDs and DVDs were handed over to the ministry on Oct 27 and the letter of detention to review the consignment was dated Oct 27, 2014, it added.

The statement said a review found the publications seized at klia2 containing the word “Allah.”

“On Friday (Oct 31), the ministry checked the consignment with the bearer and it was explained that the materials were brought to the main terminal as the carrier needed to check-in the baggage and flight to Sabah.

“Initially, the bearer said the materials were for his personal use but he later said they were for use in a church in Sabah,” it said.

10.10pm: Shafee spells out Saiful's duty as Anwar's aide.

"Saiful (left) goes everywhere to the accused, Singapore and Hong Kong and was given an allowance, where he followed the accused," he says.

All this, Shafee says, despite Saiful being a university dropout.

"Anwar also gives him a Brioni suit, which I do not have. Why should Anwar maintain such a relationship (with Saiful)," he asks.

10.15am: Shafee says after trying to arrange the day's schedule, Anwar asked Saiful, "Can I f**k you today?"

This showed their intimate relationship, argues the prosecutor.

"Saiful was reluctant and Anwar got angry and they went to the master bedroom and it was there where they did it," he says.

10.25am: Shafee says Saiful demonstrated (the physical act) at the scene when the trial judge visited the condominium.

He further relates the sodomy incident, detailing how Saiful was asked to hold Anwar's penis and put it into his anus where he had apply some lubricant.

"Anwar was very rough and he sprayed his (air mani) semen into me," says the prosecutor, quoting Saiful.

10.28am:Shafee says Saiful complained of pain in his anus and stomach.

Although Karpal put to Saiful that the incident did not happened, the prosecution star witness maintained it did.

10.33am: Shafee argues that Anwar is not an ordinary appellant as he is charismatic and capable of influencing a young boy.

He says that after the sexual act, Anwar advises Saiful to also not to ignore his prayers.

"This shows they were cordial and this shows the ring of truth. Saiful admitted he was afraid of Anwar," he says, adding that the conversation happened when they were having coffee and curry puffs.

11.45am: Reading from Saiful's testimony, Shafee says the alleged victim could not stand it anymore.

He repeats the portion of Anwar ejaculating inside Saiful as before and that the latter felt pain every time the sexual act happened.

The prosecutor says to understand the context of the KY jelly being used, all this has to be taken into context.

"Why shower him with gifts like expensive suits, as this was given as he (Saiful) was dominated by the appellant.

"These gifts are necessary and the court should see Saiful's testimony on the context (of past incidents)."

 11.55am: Shafee notes that when Saiful says he ‘tak rela’ (unwilling), what he means is that he could not stand it anymore.

"Saiful says it was done without his (kerelaan) (involuntary). Saiful lodged the report after two days as a result of him being in a predicament," he says.

Saiful, he adds, could explain the way he was sodomised.

"It is not the first time it happened. It could have been ‘rehearsed’ before," he says.

Saiful could be suffering Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm Syndrome (or capture bonding) is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them.

“377A. Carnal intercourse against the order of nature - Any person who has a sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”

“377B. Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature - Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.”

Understanding liberalism, religious pluralism

By Dr Chandra Muzaffar - 6 November 2014 @ 8:13 AM

THE fatwa issued by the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and gazetted on July 31 declaring any person or group “professing liberalism or religious pluralism” as “deviants”, raises some troubling questions. The group, Sisters in Islam, was specifically named in the fatwa.

To establish that one has become a deviant through alleged adherence to “liberalism” or “religious pluralism”, the authority concerned has to show convincingly how these two ideas contravene the essence of Islam. To start with, Mais must be aware that the term “liberal” appears in the fourth goal of the Rukun Negara, our National Charter. It says that the goal is to ensure “a liberal approach to her (Malaysia’s) rich and diverse cultural traditions”. In its description of this goal, the Rukunegara speaks of a society that is “free to choose religion, custom and culture of their own in line with the interests of national unity”.

It is obvious from the Rukun Negara that it regards “freedom” and the “right to choose” as essential to a liberal approach.  Freedom and the right to choose as values are in line with Islam as long as their exercise does not contravene the essence of faith. Indeed, the Rukunegara as a whole, both its goals and its principles — as pointed by the late Islamic scholar, Ustaz Abu Bakar Hamzah — reflects the spirit of Islam.

There are other values associated with “liberalism”, such as freedom of expression, free and fair elections and the right to private property, which are also integral to Islam. True, extreme individualism and the untrammelled accumulation of wealth, which are also sometimes defended in the name of liberalism, have no place in Islamic thought. If these aspects of liberalism are the reasons for Mais’ unhappiness with certain groups and individuals, it should say so and provide evidence to show that they have been propagating such ideas. Mais should enter into a dialogue with them and convince such advocates of liberalism that their views create more harm than good to society. That is the solution, not branding them as “deviants” and banning their writings and activities.

Turning to religious pluralism, the concept has different meanings. Many Islamic scholars equate religious pluralism with religious diversity. For them the harmonious coexistence of the followers of different religions within a specific setting would be an example of religious pluralism at work. They also recognise that while conceptions of the Transcendent or God differ from religion to religion and are unique and distinctive practices associated with the various faith communities, there are also certain values and principles that they share in common. Living in harmony with nature and the environment, protecting the integrity of the family as the basic unit of society, respecting one’s elders, ensuring that leadership is virtuous and adhering to moral precepts in economic activities would be some of the values and principles that are embodied in all religious philosophies. Accepting similarities at one level while acknowledging differences in other spheres is what defines religious pluralism.

These notions of religious pluralism are more than compatible with Islamic teachings. That there are different religions and moral codes is a reality that the Quran accepts (109:6). Knowing one another in the midst of this diversity is also a Quranic principle (49:13). Indeed, Allah had deliberately created such a diverse human family to see how we would treat one another, which the Quran regards as a test of our spirituality (5:48).

Why then is Mais uneasy about religious pluralism? Perhaps Mais does not view religious pluralism through the same lens as many of us. From past pronouncements, Mais, like a number of other Islamic groups and individuals in Malaysia, tends to highlight a particular interpretation of religious pluralism that regards mutually exclusive ultimate truth claims in different religions as equally valid. Of course, for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, this is not acceptable.

Tawhid (The Oneness of God) in Islam and the Trinity in Christianity cannot both be “equally valid”. Likewise, reward and punishment on the Day of Judgment in Christianity and Karma in Hinduism cannot both be equally valid.  If religious pluralism means accepting the exclusive truth claim contained in each and every religion as valid, most people would reject religious pluralism.

There is no reason why Mais should equate religious pluralism with an interpretation that has so little support among religious adherents of whatever hue. Mais should not use this minority interpretation of religious pluralism to label any group or individual as “deviant”.

It is not just Mais. Some of the highest officeholders in Malaysia have also been equating religious pluralism with this interpretation, forgetting that there are other more popularly accepted interpretations of religious pluralism compatible with Islam and all other religions. By rejecting religious pluralism because of this interpretation, they have unwittingly given the impression to people everywhere that Malaysia does not accept religious diversity. This has tarnished our image and sullied our reputation as a nation when in reality, Malaysia celebrates religious diversity as few other nations do. This is why it is imperative that religious authorities and political personalities cease to interpret religious pluralism as the acceptance of the truth claim in every religion and instead view it as the acknowledgement of religious diversity — which is what Malaysia is all about.

I know a foreigner who converted to Islam and when I asked him the reasons for doing so, he told me that he was inspired after reading an English version of the Quran, which in a nutshell, he described as promising man that whatever nonsense happened, something good would emerge in the end.

I was reminded of this conversation after reading about the objection by a Muslim consumer association over the placement of an image of the Batu Caves temple with its immense statue of Hindu deity Lord Muruga on mineral water bottles next to the “halal” logo.

The company had done this as part of a tourism drive featuring significant and iconic destinations in Malaysia.

I find the objection to be utter nonsense. And for the “something good” which emerged from this is that Hindus have been alerted about the issue.

Being a Hindu myself, I am outraged over the placement of the image of Lord Muruga on the bottles which will end up in the rubbish bin after the contents are consumed.

I would be similarly upset to find the images of other iconic places of worship in rubbish bins.

However, I do understand that the company embarked on the campaign with the good intention of promoting Malaysia's tourism spots.

Perhaps the Muslim consumer group should also file a police report against the Tourism Ministry for citing Batu Caves as among the locations to visit or perhaps even exclude non-Muslims from tourism paraphernalia.

As for the argument that putting the image of Lord Muruga next to the halal logo might “confuse” Muslims, it clearly shows how “confused” this consumer group is about the faith of Muslims.

Its argument only serves to belittle Muslims by giving the impression that after drinking from the particular mineral water bottle, a Muslim might resort to carrying the kavadi during Thaipusam in a state of “confusion”.

I strongly believe that the time has come for the government to repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with a Stupidity Act to rescue our beloved nation from being ruined by ignorant imbeciles.

I was also deeply disturbed to read about the recent protest over the construction of a church in Sunway.

I view these recent incidents as a sign of desperation among those who realise that race and religion can no longer be used as tools of control.

It is said that when a creature is under attack, that is when it is most ferocious. Similarly with moderate voices seemingly gaining ground, the conservative and narrow-minded forces are clawing for survival.

On the posters to encourage foreigners to visit Malaysia, our nation is portrayed as a land rich in diversity where people of all races and religions live in harmony.

But unfortunately, Malaysia is now making international news for being a land rich in intolerance with the constant playing up of an "us versus them" agenda between the Muslims and non-Muslims as well as Malays and non-Malays.

However, it would be foolish to think that change can be stopped. – November 6, 2014.

‘Don’t repeal Sedition Act’

By HANA NAZ HARUN - 10 November 2014 @ 8:14 AM

KUALA LUMPUR: THE government should not go ahead with the plan to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 until it holds more discussions with all concerned parties, including Wanita Umno.

The wing’s chief, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, said the party would send a memorandum to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to ask for a deferment in repealing the act.

“Many have come to us raising their concerns and anxiety regarding the situation in the country.

“The act must not be repealed to protect the people for the sake of national security and harmony and I believe the issue of peace and safety goes across all religions and races,” she said, adding that the memorandum would be handed to Najib after he returned from China.

She said it was important that the government took into account the views of everyone.

“They (the government) must listen to the rakyat who fear for their safety and peace in the country.

“The women in the country must also be consulted and our voice cannot be ignored in this,” Shahrizat said here, yesterday.

Read on here.

Video ‘samseng Sabah’ ugut Fahmi Zainol

Adam Abu Bakar | November 11, 2014

Apa motif kau datang ke sini? Mahu hancurkan sesama Islam di sini? Kau datang sini menghasut bikin apa? Bikin malu sahaja.

VIDEO INSIDE

PETALING JAYA: Selepas dibebaskan daripada ditahan di Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, tersebar pula video di laman sosial ‘disebalik tabir’ mengenai situasi yang berlaku sewaktu kedatangan Presiden Persatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya (PMUM) Fahmi Zainol dan rombongannya sewaktu memasuki Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).

Video yang berdurasi selama 4:02 minit itu telah dimuat naik oleh seorang pengguna Youtube yang menggunakan ID Buaya Biawak.

Di dalam video tersebut, telah dipaparkan Fahmi dan rakan-rakannya diugut oleh ‘samseng-samseng’ dengan menyatakan “Universiti Malaya (UM) kau boleh buat itu macam, ini Sabah kau mahu buat ini macam? Saya bagi ‘bet’ sama kau, kau ‘try’. Tiada kepala kau di Semenanjung,” kata seorang individu yang tidak dapat dikenal pasti.

Di dalam video itu juga dipaparkan beberapa orang anggota keselamatan berada di lokasi kejadian bagi mengawal keadaan.

Individu tersebut juga mencabar Fahmi bersama 7 lagi rakannya, dengan mengatakan “Kau keluar, kalau kau berani, kau ‘try’ diluar”.

Bukan itu sahaja, terdapat juga individu lain yang mempersoalkan kedatangan Fahmi ke UMS.

“Apa motif kau datang ke sini? Mahu hancurkan sesama Islam di sini? Kau datang sini menghasut bikin apa? Bikin malu sahaja,” soal individu tersebut.

Tidak terhenti di situ, Fahmi dan rakan-rakan terus dikecam, “Kasi habis kau punya belajar dahulu, ini bukan semenanjung yang kau boleh bikin macam-macam. Ini orang Sabah”.

Lelaki tersebut turut mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat, dituruti teriakkan, “Kami orang Sabah, jangan kau ingat bukan-bukan, ini anak Sabah. Kau ‘try’ lah orang Sabah. Perpaduan kami tinggi di sini,”

Teriakkan individu tersebut disambut dengan tepukan oleh beberapa ‘penyokong’ individu tersebut yang menyokongnya.

Perkataan-perkataan seperti anjing dan syaitan turut dilemparkan kepada Fahmi dan rombongannya dalam siri ‘Jelajah Reformasi’ ke UMS itu.

Individu dan beberapa orang ‘penyokong’ itu juga dilihat cuba menyembunyikan adegan ‘disebalik tabir’ itu dengan tidak membenarkan rakaman dan gambar diambil.

Ini dapat dilihat apabila individu tersebut mempersoalkan individu-individu lain yang cuba mengambil gambar ‘bukti’ kejadian.

Di dalam video tersebut juga dapat dilihat, telefon bimbit individu yang mengambil gambar dirampas kerana tindakannya yang mengambil gambar.

Fahmi di dalam Twitter miliknya turut memberitahu bahawa akaun Facebooknya telah disekat dan sebarang maklumat hanya boleh didapati di Twitter @fahmizainol_.

Sebelum ini, Fahmi dan 7 lagi rakannya telah dibebaskan setelah ditahan 2 kali di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (IPD) Kota Kinabalu. Difahamkan, Fahmi bersama rakannya turut diarahkan menjalani ujian air kencing.

Fahmi mencetuskan kontroversi akibat tindakan beraninya meneruskan program “40 Tahun: Dari Universiti Malaysia ke Penjara” meskipun mendapat bantahan daripada pengurusan universiti UM.

Beliau bersama 7 lagi rakannya sedang menghadapi tindakan tatatertib daripada UM selain turut dikenakan pendakwaan mengikut Akta Hasutan 1948.

Jumaat lepas, Fahmi dan rakan-rakannya telah berkumpul di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia di Gombak bagi menyertai ‘Jelajah Mahasiswa’ di kampus itu.

Renminbi initiative

By RUPA - 11 November 2014 @ 12:16 AM

THE renminbi clearing bank to be set up in Malaysia is a recognition of the country’s role as a key renminbi offshore centre among emerging economies in Asia.

Local banks welcomed the initiative, saying it would boost trade finance and remittance businesses between Malaysia and China.

Financial cooperation between the two countries has accelerated on the back of growing bilateral trade, which has expanded by more than tenfold since 2000.

Malaysia is China’s largest trading partner in Asean and trade between both countries exceeded US$100 billion (RM333 billion) last year.

Bank Negara Malaysia deputy governor Datuk Muhammad Ibrahim said the central banks of both countries had engaged in a multitude of financial cooperation for nearly a decade, ranging from the exchange rate float in 2005 to currency swap, Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor licence, direct currency trading and cross-border collateral arrangement.

Renminbi usage has been expanded from trade and investment settlement to include sukuk bonds.

“With this latest memorandum of understanding (MoU), which is yet another milestone, we are confident our continued joint efforts will strengthen Malaysian financial institutions’ capabilities in facilitating businesses in renminbi, not only in Malaysia but also Asean, given their extensive regional networks.”

Although there has been no news from the People’s Bank of China (PBC) on the bank that will act as the clearing house, a Reuters report said it would likely be Bank of China, China’s fourth biggest lender.

Meanwhile, Maybank, Malaysia’s biggest lender, said the clearing house would facilitate client transactions more efficiently.

“It will not only enhance convenience for renminbi trade settlement but also enable the financial system in Malaysia to play a greater role in connecting trade and investment flows between China and Malaysia,” said group president and chief executive officer Datuk Abdul Farid Alias.

Maybank is the only Malaysian bank appointed by PBC as a market maker for the ringgit-renminbi trade.

Since 2012, Chinese customers have been allowed to maintain ringgit accounts at the Maybank Shanghai branch.

HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd deputy chairman and CEO Mukhtar Hussain described the MoU, which was signed in Beijing yesterday, as a positive initiative.

“The MoU will enable our clients to save cost through direct currency conversion, hedging on forex risks while facilitating more efficient cross-border settlements.”

HSBC is one of the first market makers for direct onshore trading and the bank said there would be more opportunities now following the internationalisation of the renminbi.

Two weeks ago, China and Singapore announced direct trading of renminbi and the Singapore dollar.

The move was to lower currency conversion cost for economic entities and encourage the use of the two currencies in bilateral trade and investment activities.

APEC roadmap on FTAAP a historic decision: Xi

Xinhua 08:29, November 12, 2014

BEIJING, Nov. 11 -- The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members' endorsement of a roadmap for promoting the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) process was "a decision to be written into history books", Chinese President Xi Jinping said here Tuesday.

The move was "a historic step we took in the direction towards realizing the FTAAP," marking the official launch of the FTAAP process and demonstrating the confidence and determination of the APEC in advancing regional economic integration, he said at a press conference after the conclusion of the 22nd APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.

The decision will bring the integration to a new and higher level, benefit economies at various development stages across the Pacific Ocean and inject new energy into the growth of the region and APEC members, the president said.

"We have reached consensus that regional economic integration is the driving force behind sustained strong growth in the Asia-Pacific, and APEC should continue to play a leading and coordinating role in pushing forward this process," he noted.

The final approval of the roadmap came days after APEC ministers reached consensus on it on Nov. 8.

A declaration released after the economic leaders' meeting said APEC members have decided to kick off and advance the FTAAP process "in a comprehensive and systematic manner".

The members have agreed to launch "a collective strategic study" on the FTAAP and instruct officials to undertake the study, consult stakeholders and report the result by the end of 2016, according to the declaration.

It also noted the FTAAP will be realized on the basis of the conclusion of the ongoing pathways, which include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Both TPP and RCEP are regional free trade arrangements under negotiation but each of them involves only some of the region's economies, while talks on both arrangements have been stalled by divisions among the negotiators.

Xi has said the FTAAP can be the "aggregation" of existing free trade arrangements.

"The FTAAP does not go against existing free trade arrangements, which are the potential pathways to realize the FTAAP goals," Xi said when speaking at the dialogue between APEC leaders and representatives of the APEC Business Advisory Council on Monday.

The FTAAP should aim to minimize any negative effects resulting from the proliferation of regional and bilateral trade arrangements and will be pursued by building on current and developing regional architectures, according to the APEC's roadmap on the FTAAP.

"Greater efforts should be made to concluding the possible pathways to the FTAAP, including the TPP and RCEP," the document said.

It noted APEC members will increase the transparency of existing and recently concluded trade arrangements by advancing work under an information sharing mechanism.

In addition, efforts will be made to build up economies' capacity to participate in ongoing regional trade arrangements and realize the FTAAP, it said.

In sharp contrast to the bandying of the "China threat" theory by some countries, China is willing to help expedite the building of the FTAAP. Because of territorial disputes and the resulting tensions in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, China has had to face severe criticism. Some countries and observers even said that like all economic powers in the past China too will boost its military might and try to change the existing world order.

The TPP negotiations are close to being finalized, but recent deadlocks have stalled progress. Under these circumstances, the Obama administration likely feels that introducing a new, even larger trade proposal would sap what little momentum remains for the TPP. .....

Plus, the Obama administration wants to use TPP to ensure that other countries meet the United States’ “high standards” in defining free markets and ensuring intellectual property rights. A parallel agreement that is both more inclusive and less stringent in its requirements would kill any impetus for regional governments to strive to meet those standards.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has shown that the agenda of liberalising trade in the Asia-Pacific region cannot but take China into account; indeed, this agenda will be dictated by China from now on. To show how serious it is, the Beijing APEC Declaration came complete with a road map towards the realisation of the FTAAP, though a clear deadline was shelved for now.

A two year study of the FTAAP also allows China to continue to delay U.S. calls for it to open up its long delayed Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), under which China would allow foreign companies to bid for Chinese government contracts. Originally part of China’s WTO accession agreements, the GPA is now as far away as ever – and remains a problem in terms of promoting a more level playing field in China when one considers the huge involvement of the Chinese government in commerce.

From Beijing’s perspective, the FTAAP means an interconnected Asia-Pacific region – with China, as the region’s (and soon to be the world’s) largest economy, naturally at the center. China’s other high-profile plans for economic integration, the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road, echo the idea that the region’s economies should be more integrated. Both those initiatives also focus on literal connectivity – transportation and infrastructure to connect Asia-Pacific states. China also intends to emphasize this at APEC by pushing for a “blueprint” for interconnectivity in the Asia-Pacific in both transportation (highways, railways, air traffic) and regulations.

... Xinhua, the state-run Chinese news agency, amplifying in its report on Sunday that the economic potential of the FTAPP is far greater, when compared with the TPP and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—a grouping led by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The write-up quoting a report from the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) pointed out that FTAAP is estimated to add $ 2.4 trillion to the global economy. The figure stands out in comparison with TPP’s estimated contribution of the $223 billion and the RCEP’s $644 billion.

Prostasco Board of Directors in good times

Protasco boardroom tussle continues

Monday, 03 November 2014 12:37
Azli Jamil

Protasco Bhd’s non-executive director Tey Por Yee claims the company’s Board is protecting MD Datuk Seri Chong Ket Pen by not calling him to defend himself against allegations of RM10 million personal financial gain.

In addition, the resolution to suspend Chong until disciplinary action can be taken was also not allowed to be tabled.

Tey, who has made public accusations against Chong in connection with a failed deal in Indonesia, is seeking to remove the managing director via an EGM later this month.

However, last week, major shareholders of Protasco countered by calling for an EGM to remove Tey and another director Ooi Kock Aun scheduled for an earlier date.

“This Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) that they have called is deliberately scheduled ahead of ours and will be paid by Protasco. They are trying to prevent shareholders from knowing the truth,” said Tey in a statement on Friday.

Tey claimed that Protasco brought in lawyers who made objections against the tabling of a resolution to suspend Chong. He also alleged that the board then called for an EGM to remove him and Ooi two days ahead of the one sponsored by him to remove Chong.

Tey has called for an EGM on Nov 29, 2014 which he is funding himself with the purpose of presenting the facts and evidence of Chong’s wrongdoing directly to the shareholders and to ask for the removal of Chong.

Tey said Protasco is holding a pre-emptive EGM as indicated from UOBM Nominees (Tempatan) Sdn Bhd and Tan Heng Kui.