Share This

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The world is run by Tiger Wives, Tiger Moms





The world is run by Tiger Wives

Wendi Deng is not alone in lashing out when her spouse is under fire.

Wendi Deng Murdoch, Cherie Blair and Melania Trump are formidable in defence of their husbands-The world is run by Tiger Wives
Wendi Deng Murdoch, Cherie Blair and Melania Trump are formidable in defence of their husbands Photo: REX FEATURES/GETTY,By Cristina Odone

The hearings were beginning to pall. What had started as the trial of the media’s biggest mogul was settling into the siesta of the patriarch: Rupert Murdoch seemed to be talking in his sleep, while James Murdoch fanned away the MPs’ annoying questions, lest they disturb Dad.

Viewers longing for drama felt short-changed. None of the lawmakers had laid a glove on the media mogul. And then – splat! – the (slapstick) comedian Jonathan May-Bowles threw a “pie” of shaving foam at Murdoch Senior and unleashed the Tiger Wife.

In an instant, Wendi Deng, Murdoch’s Chinese-American spouse, leapt to her feet and sprang past bystanders to pummel her husband’s assailant. MPs, Murdochs and media types could only gape, electrified as proceedings fast-forwarded from Perry Mason to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

By the time Rupert Murdoch’s bodyguard had reached his master, the 42-year-old Wendi had landed a sensational right-hook on her opponent.

She then gained her husband’s side, and gently cleaned his face of foam. Within minutes, Deng was the toast of Twitter: hailed as a “smack-down sister” in her native China, and as a heroine and stunning show-stopper everywhere else.

Those who know Wendi well (and they include Tony Blair, Mark Zuckerman and Bono) won’t have batted an eyelid at her jaw-dropping performance. Rupert Murdoch’s third wife has form.

A volleyball player from southern China doesn’t climb to the top (Murdoch’s personal fortune remains a healthy $340 million) without fierce determination. Other people on Wendi’s ascent have already experienced her fury.

The first victim was Joyce Cherry, a pleasant American who, together with husband Jake, befriended Wendi during their trip to China. Impressed by the teenager’s brilliance and thirst for self-improvement, Joyce and Jake sponsored Wendi’s application for a student visa to America. Alas, 19-year-old Wendi soon bewitched Jake, who left poor old Joyce to marry their young protégée.

Victim number two was Jake himself: his usefulness came to an end a few months later when Wendi, now armed with the right papers, won a place to study business at Yale University.



Days from graduation, Wendi had a job at the Murdoch-owned Star TV, where she quickly caught the Big Boss’s eye. Hence the third corpse in the trail to marry Murdoch: Rupert’s second wife, Anna.

Within 17 days of his divorce, Wendi wed Rupert. If the Wendi house conceals a few skeletons, it also offers glimpses of her protective instincts.

Conscious of the 38-year gap between them, Wendi has placed Rupert on a tough regime of 6am weightlifting, washed down by a fruit and soy protein cocktail. She wags her finger at his workaholic schedule and has hired a personal trainer to put him through his paces (even at the price of her husband turning up on front pages in baseball cap and tracksuit).

None of this marital nurturing distracts Wendi from pursuing her own agenda: she has just released a film, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, that aims to promote a more positive image of China.

She enjoys a glittering social life, attending film premieres and art gallery openings. And she remains her husband’s chief adviser on his business in China.

Yet Wendi the film producer, like Wendi the business consultant or Wendi the mother of Rupert’s young daughters Chloe and Grace, has failed to fire our imagination. But Wendi Deng, invincible Tiger Wife, has transformed Rupert Murdoch’s image around the globe – from dodderer in the dock to prized partner in his wife’s life.

In a culture that mourns marriage as a moribund institution, one spouse leaping passionately to the other’s defence fills us with admiration. Even the most hardened cynics couldn’t help thinking, as the warrior in a pink blazer bounced into the ring: “Wow, she really believes in this union!”

Wendi Deng’s slap didn’t just scotch rumours that hers was a sham marriage: a purely trophy wife would have winked at the assailant for giving the old man a heart-stopping scare. With a quick right hook, she jumped to the head of the queue of the defenders of matrimony. It is a short but colourful roll-call that stretches from Cherie Blair, to Anne Sinclair (aka Mme Strauss Khan), Melania Trump and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

From the moment she moved into No 10, Cherie Blair was under constant attack for her (supposed) greed, stinginess, and self-importance. She let the criticisms bounce off her like spring rain. But let anyone touch her Tony, and Mrs Blair roared. She hissed at the ungrateful electorate that did not deserve a paragon of virtue like her husband; she gnashed her teeth at the sleazy media that insinuated Tony was a disappointment.

Her manner resembled the termagant’s fury rather than the bride’s solicitude, but no one could doubt Cherie’s heartfelt loyalty. It won her few fans: among the cheats and cuckolds of Westminster, the sight of a prime minister’s wife defending her husband was unusual; it also reassured voters that despite new Labour’s destruction of cherished institutions from the House of Lords to foxhunting, marriage would remain intact.

Far more testing has been Anne Sinclair’s lot. When her charismatic husband Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested on rape charges in New York, the French TV journalist sprang to his defence: “I do not believe for a single second the accusations levelled against my husband.” She flew to stand by her man and stumped up the $1 million bail to move him from prison to his plush Manhattan apartment.

Such wifely devotion may yet save the former IMF chief’s political career: his wife’s total support, as much as the derailing of the case against him, may prove a great boost to DSK’s credibility as a presidential candidate.

Her counterpart in the French presidential contest, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, also wants to show the world that she looks out for her husband’s interests. The First Lady of France, pregnant but still displaying every sign of focus and competitiveness, has imposed a culture vulture’s menu on her philistine hubby: he is to watch films by Alfred Hitchcock, as well as Russia’s Andrei Tarkovsky; and read the French classics, from Balzac to Hugo.

Driving this self-improvement, say insiders at the Elysée Palace, is Carla’s ambition: she wants her man to be re-elected, and fears his present lowbrow image won’t do.

Nor should we forget Melania Trump, fearlessly vocal in her millionaire husband’s defence: Donald Trump is “brilliant”, everyone is envious of his success, and America should be so lucky to have him as their Republican Party candidate.

But Mrs T also gives us a revealing insight into their marriage when she confides that she has two children: “I have a big boy, Donald, and a little boy, Barron. I take care of both very well.”

Tiger Wife often needs to play Tiger Mother, it would seem.

The Tiger Wives’ Club is small but perfectly informed: these women know that their husbands need their commitment and support. In her eagerness to make her man shine, the Tiger Wife will disarm any assailant. She knows that her spouse is less than he seems; and that she, in fact, is rather more. She’s plucky; he’s lucky.

Source: The Daily Telegraph

US Debt ceiling plan counts on war games savings






Budget games: Debt ceiling plan counts on war savings

@CNNMoney 
military-spending.gi.top.jpgWith the wars already winding down, should the savings count toward a debt deal?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Senate Democrats want to cut an eye-popping $1 trillion in war spending over the next 10 years.

The proposal is part of the plan Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday to raise the debt ceiling through 2013 and slash $2.7 trillion overall.

But many Republicans aren't likely to buy it.

The argument goes like this: Reid's proposed cuts for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't real because Democrats are working off an inflated number that assumes the wars will continue at full tilt for the next decade.

And since the Obama administration has already started to wind down the wars, the extra money was never going to be spent, and shouldn't count as a cut.

"That's going to be a tough sell in some circles," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and president of the conservative American Action Forum. "They're not going to be viewed as real spending cuts."

Indeed, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, called it "phony scoring."

No deal on debt ceiling

Claims of budget savings often center around which budget "baseline" lawmakers are using for comparison. And Reid is using the Congressional Budget Office baseline as his starting point.

Because of the rules Congress itself has set, the CBO is required to take current war funding levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and extend them far into the future. Plus inflation.

"The way the CBO baseline is calculated is real simple," said Holtz-Eakin. "You take what is on the books and extrapolate at the rate of inflation."

But that isn't the best reflection of reality. War spending is at elevated levels at the moment. And it should soon decline. A lot.

The Obama administration has already announced plans to bring a large number of troops home. That will save tons of money, and it will happen whether Reid's plan is approved, or not.

In its January fiscal outlook, the CBO itself laid out the difference.



Why you care about a debt downgrade

In 2010, there were an average of 215,000 U.S. troops deployed for war-related activities. If that number were to drop to 100,000 in 2013 and 45,000 in 2015 and beyond, the savings would be significant.

"Under that scenario, total discretionary outlays for the period from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.1 trillion less than the amount in CBO's current baseline," the report said.

Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said it is common for both parties to count savings this way.

"Both Democrats and Republicans tend to count cuts in planned future spending as real cuts," Sharp said. "And both parties tend to use the baseline that casts the best light on their policies."

If Republicans don't buy that the cuts are real -- they will have yet another reason to reject Reid's deal. One of their most steadfast demands has been a debt ceiling hike that is matched dollar for dollar by spending cuts.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that Republicans have to accept the savings as legitimate. But clearly, he anticipated the objections from the other side of the aisle.

"We know that some Republicans will quibble over these savings, but they have no leg to stand on," Schumer said. "If conducting the wars adds to our debt, it's undeniable that winding down the wars delivers savings."

Schumer's argument rests in part on the fact that Republicans counted the same savings as part of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget that was approved by the House earlier this year.

"They never criticized such accounting then," Schumer said. "It's hard to see how they could do so now." 

Monday, July 25, 2011

Australia and Malaysia sign 'refugee' deal






Human Rights Watch slams agreement to send 800 asylum seekers in Australia to Malaysia in exchange for 4,000 refugees. 
Demonstratrs protest against Malaysia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers [Reuters]

Australia and Malaysia have signed a deal to send 800 asylum seekers in Australia to Malaysia in exchange for the resettlement of 4,000 refugees.

The 4,000 refugees are to be resettled in Australia over a four year period, with that country bearing the cost of their tranfer and settlement.

Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysia's interior minister, and Chris Bowen, Australia's immigration minister, formally signed the deal at a Kuala Lumpur hotel on Monday.

The 800 asylum seekers sent to Malaysia will be placed in a "holding centre" for six week before being allowed into the community, Hussein said.

From midnight on Monday, the next 800 asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat will not be processed there, but will be transferred to Malaysia, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said.

The government said they will receive no preferential treatment in the processing of their claims or arrangements for resettlement.



'Dumping ground'

Ahead of the signing, Brendan O'Connor, Australian's interior minister, said the deal represents "an historic and innovative approach" to undermining the people-smugglers' business model.

"We want to treat people fairly," he told ABC Television, but refused to confirm a report that those shipped to Malaysia would be allowed to work.

However, the deal has drawn criticism because Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees.

"Australia is using Malaysia as a dumping ground for boat people it does not want and in the process walking away from its commitments to follow the 1951 Refugees Convention," Phil Robertson, the deputy director at the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, said.

"Human Rights Watch has publicly called on UNHCR to not endorse this agreement because this is a deal that would allow Australia, a country that has signed the Refugee Convention, to devolve its obligations to another country that has not signed the Refugee Convention.

"This would set the worst type of precedent and we’re concerned it could start a wider erosion of protection for refugees throughout the Asia-Pacific region."

The UNHCR is not a signatory to the agreement, however appreciates that both governments consulted with the agency.

"The UNHCR’s preference has always been an Arrangement which would enable all asylum-seekers arriving by boat into Australian territory to be processed in Australia. This would be consistent with general practice," the agency said in a statement.

"The critical test of this Arrangement will now be in its implementation both in Australia and Malaysia, particularly the protection and vulnerability assessment procedures under which asylum seekers will be assessed in Australia prior to any transfer taking place."

Protests against agreement

In Malaysia, demonstrators gather outside the signing ceremony to protest against the country's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

One demonstrator holds up a placard that reads, "Malaysia's immigration laws still don't recognise 'refugees' and 'asylum seekers' - where's the guarantee for protection?"

The Australian government, which has a policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers until their claim for refugee status is resolved, is facing rising tensions in some of its detention centres over the processing of claims.

The migrants are held for months at Christmas Island detention centre, about 1,500 miles from the Australian mainland, and in other detention facilities.

About 200 people protested against the impending agreement outside Sydney's Villawood immigration detention centre on Sunday.

The immigration department said about 60 inmates were taking part in a peaceful protest at the Scherger detention centre in Queensland, with about 50 of these engaged in voluntary starvation.

 Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Talents on the move





Local accountants attracted by foreign greener pastures

By LIZ LEE lizlee@thestar.com.my 

 KUALA LUMPUR: Despite unwavering interest in accountancy courses at universities and colleges, mid-tier accounting and auditing firms are finding it difficult to hire and retain their accountants.

The problem: the outflow of local talents to foreign “greener pastures”.

Baker Tilly International chief executive officer and president Geoff Barnes told StarBiz that something needs to be done about this, as “a strong audit profession underpins an economy with good corporate governance, a strong capital market and an economic environment that can cross borders.”

Barnes said the accounting profession has always demanded the brightest of people globally and that good firms have always had this “war for talent, because we are all looking for the best people”.

Barnes (left) and Heng stressing on the importance of retaining accounting talents.
 
Local member firm, Baker Tilly Monteiro Heng (BTMH) chief executive partner Heng Ji Keng said many Malaysian accounting graduates see better opportunities in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Singapore and Australia.

Heng added that many graduates left mainly due to the salary disparity. To counter this, he said firms needed assistance from the Government as “a word from the Government is better than a thousand words from practitioners”.

“We need to slowly bridge the gap between the salary we pay here and that offered in the countries attracting our talents. We need assistance from the regulators to impress upon clients that low fees also affect the quality of an auditing job,” Heng said.

A fresh graduate can earn up to RM100,000 per annum in China, around RM85,000 per annum in Singapore while Australian firms pay about RM160,000 per annum. Locally, they would earn about RM30,000 only.



SJ Grant Thornton (SJGT) managing partner Datuk Narendra Jasani said an estimated 500 accounting graduates out of 1,500 from local universities leave the country every year.

Both firms, BTMH and SJGT, said the Government could further benefit the country's accounting profession by liberalising immigration policies.

Heng said the many foreign students studying here could be a good source of accountants for local firms, provided the Government revises the related immigration restrictions.

“We must acknowledge their potential and train them to become qualified professional accountants,” he said.

Both Heng and Jasani suggested that the Government could look into giving foreign students a work permit of three to four years after their studies.

“To avoid disheartening our Malaysian accountants, a quota could be set for firms to employ no more than 20% foreign accountants,” Jasani further suggested.

Heng pointed out that another turn-off for young accountants to begin their career here is the difficulty in getting a licence to practise.

“The accountants have to go through about a decade of university education and training, topped off with a scrutinising interview that tests them on the technicalities of the industry before the Finance Ministry issues a licence,” Heng said.

Specifically, Malaysian accountants need three years for a university degree, three years of working experience, another three years of post-Malaysian Institute of Accountants membership and an interview to determine whether they would qualify for a licence. The tedious process and no guarantee of getting a licence to practise has become a deterrent to young accountants when embarking on their careers.

“We also have to change work procedures. One aspect is to change the audit methodolgy no more ticking and checking all the time but more thought-processing, overviews and comparative analysis which is more suited to the younger generation,” SGJT's Jasani said.

Grant Thorton International chief executive officer Ed Nusbaum said the rapid economic growth and expansion in the entire Asia-Pacific region has caused the shortage of talent.

“The demand is greater than the number of students graduating from universities and qualified experienced talent within the region. Whether you are talking about Malaysia, China or India, we need to attract people to the accounting profession,” he said, adding that dynamic firms also contributed to attracting young accountants.

“Being part of a growing organisation makes (one's career) interesting and employee retention is better because people see opportunities,” Nusbaum concluded.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Don’t Get Caught Holding Dollars When The U.S. Default Arrives!






Addison Wiggin

WASHINGTON - APRIL 17:  Federal Reserve Chairm...Image by Getty Images via @daylife Greece can’t solve a problem of too much debt by taking on even more. We will note, however, that by some measures, the United States is even more deeply in hock than Greece.

Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 143%. America’s is officially 97%. But the $14.3 trillion national debt, stacked up against a $14.7 trillion economy, doesn’t tell the whole story. Look at these numbers:

• $14.3 trillion: “official” national debt
• $5 trillion: Amount Uncle Sam is on the hook for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• $62 trillion: Total liabilities and unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare

That doesn’t count the black box of bailouts.

We know how much the Federal Reserve doled out in emergency loans: $16.1 trillion between Dec. 1, 2007, and July 21, 2010. We know that because yesterday the Government Accountability Office completed its first-ever audit of the Fed, made possible largely through the persistence of Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.) making that audit, however incomplete, the law.

What we don’t know is how much of that has been paid back.  “We have literally injected about $5.3 trillion,” said Dr. Paul earlier this month during his questioning of Fed chief Ben Bernanke, “and I don’t think we got very much for it. The national debt went up $5.1 trillion.”

Bernanke did not challenge those figures.

“To get our overall fiscal gap under control,” writes Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff in Bloomberg, “the U.S. must cut spending or raise tax revenue by $20 trillion over the next decade, far more than either the president wants or the House Republicans seek.”



Yep: The latest number we see bruited in Washington is $3 trillion. Whatever the final number — and there will be a last-minute deal; there always is — it will be substantially less than $20 trillion over 10 years. The can will be kicked as it keeps getting kicked in Greece.

We note here that the total of outstanding credit default swaps on U.S. Treasuries crested $4.8 billion this week. Uncle Sam has now surpassed Greece in this category.

Measured in year-over-year change, America is number one: Net notional CDS outstanding grew 109%. That means there’s double the bets out there on a U.S. default compared with a year ago.

“You may not know this, but the U.S. has actually defaulted a number of times already,” writes Chris Mayer this morning. He cites five instances:

• 1779: The government was unable to redeem the continental currency issued during the Revolutionary War
• 1782: The colonies defaulted on the debt they took out to pay for the war
• 1862: During the Civil War, the Union failed to redeem dollars for gold at terms stated by the debt contracts
• 1934: FDR defaults on the debt issued to finance World War I, refusing to redeem it in gold. The dollar is devalued 40% against gold
• 1979: A bureaucratic snafu results in interest going unpaid on some small bills.

“With the exception of 1979,” Chris says, “which was mostly due to administrative confusion — the U.S. simply ran out of money each time. The end result was the dollar had to be devalued. Meaning it lost significant purchasing power.

“My guess is that the U.S. will default again. It may not technically be called that, but the only way for the U.S. to meet its financial obligations is to print a lot of money.”

What does that mean in practical terms?  In Greece, professor Savas Robolis at Panteion University in Athens reckons that by 2015, the average Greek employee and pensioner’s standard of living will have fallen 40% compared with 2008.

Even now, Americans are turning to their credit cards to pay for groceries and gas. According to First Data Corp., the volume of gasoline purchases put on credit cards jumped 39% over the last 12 months.
You don’t want to be the average American in a default scenario, whenever it arrives. Ray Dalio, the head of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s biggest hedge fund, puts that day in “late 2012 or early 2013.”

The Path to Debt in America by Addison Wiggin originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Saturday, July 23, 2011

US debt ceiling: Senate rejects Republican 'cut, cap and balance' bill





Senate rejects Republican 'cut, cap and balance' bill

US President Barack Obama speaking in Maryland 

 "If we don't solve it, every American will suffer," Mr Obama said of the debt ceiling debate

The Democratic-led US Senate has rejected a "cut, cap and balance" bill passed by the Republican-led House.
The bill would have severely cut public spending and forced the government to balance its budget.

 The move highlights divisions within Congress as a deadline nears to raise the US debt limit, analysts say.

On Friday, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said a deal to avoid a possible default on 2 August was "not close".

'No agreement'

Republicans and Democrats appeared on Friday to harden their respective positions over the debt issue.

Mr Boehner was quick to quash reports that he was close to hammering out a deal with President Barack Obama.

What happens if US defaults?

Uncharted territory but two scenarios emerge
Worst case:
  • Higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards and loans
  • Government unable to pay wages to staff, including military
  • Social security cheques stopped
  • Turmoil on international markets
Better case:
  • Default could be avoided by paying creditors, at expense of slashing spending
Sources: Associated Press, CBS, ABC


"There was no agreement, publicly [or] privately, never an agreement and frankly not close to an agreement," Mr Boehner, a Republican, told reporters following a private meeting with House Republicans.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats complained they had been left out of negotiations, with some warning the president against an agreement that would disproportionately burden the poor by exacting big cuts to social programmes.

In a town hall-style meeting with voters in Maryland on Friday, President Obama warned that every American would feel the economic pain if Congress failed to reach an agreement to raise the US debt limit.

"If we don't solve it, every American will suffer," he said. "Businesses will be less likely to invest and hire in America. Interest rates will rise for people who need money to buy a home or a car, or go to college."

BBC News graphic

The US national debt is currently about $14.3tn (£8.8tr), fed by an annual government budget deficit that reached $1.5tr this year.

The US government's authority to borrow money is limited by statute.

Historically, Congress has raised that debt limit as a matter of routine, but this year, the Republican party - buoyed by a group of newly elected hardline fiscal conservatives in the House of Representatives - has demanded steep cuts to the US budget as the price of an increase.

Who owns the $14.3tn debt?

  • US government owes itself $4.6tn
  • Remaining $9.7tn owed to investors
  • They include banks, pension funds, individual investors, and state/local/foreign governments
  • China: $1.16tn, Japan: $0.91tn, UK: $0.35tn
  • Deficit is annual difference between spending and revenue, $1.29tn in 2010
  • Congress has voted to raise the US debt limit 10 times since 2001
Source: US Treasury, May 2011, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office

The Obama administration has warned the US risks defaulting on its debt if Congress does not raise the limit by 2 August.

In recent weeks, Republican and Democratic congressional leaders have worked with the White House to devise an agreement that would raise the limit while trimming the budget deficit, but the talks have collapsed several times.

Republicans have fiercely resisted Democratic proposals to raise additional tax revenue by closing tax loopholes that Democrats say primarily benefit the wealthy, while Democrats have vowed to protect social programmes for the elderly and poor from Republican-proposed cut backs.

In recent weeks, the White House and a bipartisan "gang of six" senators have floated proposals to trim trillions of dollars over the next decade.

The plans would cut the deficit through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, but hardline conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives have urged Republican leaders to reject those.

Meanwhile, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders are crafting a fall-back plan that would enable Mr Obama to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.

The Republican-led House of Representatives approved the "cut, cap and balance" plan on Tuesday of this week.

It would have reduced government spending by cut spending by $5.8tr over 10 years, capped future government spending at a certain percentage of the US economy, and amended the US constitution to require a balanced budget.

Mr Obama vowed to veto the bill, and the Democratic-led Senate on Friday rejected it, saying it would bring about steep cuts in social programmes.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Friday, July 22, 2011

Malaysia should do away with outdated laws to meet human needs




Malaysia should do away with outdated laws

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

The phrase "the law is an ass" is attributed to Charles Dickens.

It originates from Oliver Twist after the character Mr Bumble is told: "The law supposes that your wife acts under your direction".

What one of the foremost classical writers of English literature actually wrote was: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass, an idiot."

No, he wasn't using grammar akin to the Manglish being taught in our schools today. It was just that the rules of the language were not quite defined during his era.

But as then as in now, many laws can be described as asinine. They have become meaningless through the passage of time but are still in force and have become subjects of ridicule.

In the United States for example, incestuous marriages are not deemed illegitimate in the southern state of Alabama.

Another law in Mississippi states that if one is a parent to two illegitimate children, he or she can be jailed for at least a month.

In New York, adultery is still a crime and one can be fined US$25 for flirting.

It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing body-hugging clothes but she can go topless in public, provided she is not doing it for any business.

In Denver, Colorado, the law states that dog catchers must notify dogs of impounding by posting for three consecutive days, a notice on a tree in the city park.

Apparently it is also unlawful to lend one's vacuum cleaner to a next-door neighbour.

More than eight women are not allowed to live in the same house in the state of Tennessee because that would constitute a brothel, while Encyclopaedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

In President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois, it is now illegal to wear sagging pants. A new law requires pants to be "secured at the waist to prevent the pants from falling below the hips, causing exposure to the person or the person's undergarments."

And there are many comical laws still in force in the United Kingdom.

For example, it is illegal to die in Britain's Houses of Parliament and sticking a postage stamp bearing the Queen upside down is deemed an act of treason.

In Liverpool, where footballers and fans tend to strip off their shirts in celebration of goals, it is illegal for a woman to be topless -- unless she is a clerk in a shop selling tropical fish.

As for the outdated legislation in Malaysia, they are anything but funny.

We still have too many laws that allow for detention without trial, contravening the fundamental principles of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and other international conventions.

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

For the record, the ISA has not been used against political opponents since Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister on April 3, 2009.

But it remains in force, despite calls for its repeal by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), the Association for the Pro-motion of Human Rights (Proham), the Bar Council, politicians and civil society organisations.

So do other equally outmoded and detestable edicts such as the Emer-gency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Re-stricted Residence Act 1933, Pre-vention of Crime Act 1959 and the Banishment Act 1959.

Under the EO, detainees can be held for 60 days with a possible extension of two years or more without trial.

In 2005, the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police affirmed that the EO violates international human rights and called for its repeal, saying that it had "outlived its purpose and facilitated the abuse of fundamental liberties".

The detention of six Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) leaders, including Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar under the EO since July 2 for "allegedly being involved with foreign and subversive elements", has again fuelled suspicions of such misuse.

The six were among 30 arrested on June 25 for allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 and possessing T-shirts with faces of communist leaders on them.

At a time when public confidence in the police and credibility in the rule of law are being questioned, the continued detention of Dr Jeyaku-mar under the EO can only result in more rancour against the Government.

Dr Jeyakumar, the giant killer who thrashed Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) supremo S. Samy Vellu in 2008, may be an unwavering socialist committed to his cause, but he certainly does not fit the image of a dangerous or subversive element.

Enough Malaysians, including his colleagues in the medical fraternity have vouched for his humility and integrity, his selfless passion to help the poor and his peaceful approach to politics.

It's really a bit of a stretch to associate Dr Jeyakumar with intending to "wage war against the King" and instigating the overthrow of the Government.

But if the authorities indeed have any such proof, they should charge him and the others using existing criminal laws.

In the bigger picture, Malaysia as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, is not only expected to meet the principles of human rights but also be seen to be respecting and upholding the rights of its people.

Malaysians deserve to be free from laws that breach basic standards.


Law to meet human needs

Putik Lada By Genevieve Tan

We sometimes forget a simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

WHY do we have the law? In other words, what is the law essentially about?

The law is about our needs. Where there is a need, whether it is to eat or to be protected from harm, the law is created to address those needs.

When you want to understand the law, you need to first understand what is the need behind that law.

For example, Article 9 of the Federal Constitution sets out our right to move and live in any part of Malaysia. Why? Because we need to move and settle wherever we want in our country.

When we needed to protect ourselves from being robbed, the law addressed that need by creating section 390 of the Penal Code setting out the offence of robbery.

Simply put, the law accommodates human needs. With that logic, how can we say that we cannot be protected and loved by the law? How can we also say that the law does not serve us?

We sometimes tend to forget. We also sometimes forget another simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

For example, in response to the public’s need to counter corruption, parliament passed the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and subsequently replaced it with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.

To combat money laundering and terrorism financing, the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 was passed.

Mind you, these laws were passed less than ten years ago. Hence, whether or not these laws are effective, the point remains: the law continues to change as it follows our needs.

What does this say? Like us, our Government realises that they have to respond to our needs to curb corruption or to deal with the problem of money laundering.

After all, our Government, like many other governments, serves us, the people, as we serve them. Without each other, our Government cannot work and we cannot live in this country at all.

The law creates regulations. Without the law, we are without order, stability, regulation and consequently, we would be without peace.

Every piece of legal document that you see came from a source. In Malaysia, we wrote these basic laws into a document called the Federal Constitution.

In Britain, the place from where we derived a lot of our laws, it has no written constitution.

So, if we think of this logically, there was no natural source for laws that outlawed one kind of human or another. There simply was the love to protect and support our needs.

And what was the fifth basic law that was passed by Malaysia?

This is set out in Article 5 of our Federal Constitution which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, save in accordance with law.”

What was the source before that fifth basic law?

“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

This is my third article on the law and if you noticed, I repeat certain themes. Without any disguise, I see the law as a very simple thing. It even protects companies.

For example, section 222 of the Companies Act, 1965 allows a company to be protected from court proceedings if it makes such an application to the court.

Allow me to show you how much more simple and powerful it can get.

The law creates protection, officers of protection and leaders to protect the law. The law was created to love us.

Take another example, the issue of teenage pregnancy. Teenage mothers and their babies are protected by the usual criminal laws and the Child Act 2001.

However, the current laws on unwed teenage mothers do not provide adequate support systems for these mothers who are abandoned by the fathers of the babies and their own families.

As a result, many of these mothers are forced out into the streets or into shelters.

If we want to change the current laws to address the needs of unwed teenage mothers and their babies, we actually can!

Just like with the Anti-Corruption Act, we can act on our need to punish unwed fathers who have abandoned their pregnant teenage partners and update our laws to give better support to these mothers.

Let’s not forget that blame and causation is not the issue here. The issue here is that we have the power to change the law if we love our needs enough.

As public citizens, we are the reason why there are laws in the first place. As public citizens, we outnumber lawyers, ministers, doctors and accountants put together. So by numbers alone, we as public citizens have more power with the law than our professional colleagues do.

Each and every one of us is more powerful than we think. After all, we have the law that was created to love us and to address our needs.

Like in my last article Mirror, mirror on the wall, let’s just keep things simple.

Let’s use the law and ourselves to treat everyone with courtesy, morality and love.

> Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

When great nations go broke !





Why Not? By Wong Sai Wan

Populist decisions and fear of election backlash are the surest way a country would go bankrupt.

TAXI drivers went on strike against the issuing of more licences as part of austerity measures adopted by the government by parking their vehicles on the highway leading to the airport.

Another government had to sell off its embassies in 11 countries to raise RM300mil because it could no longer afford to keep them.

And in a third country, the government is in a tussle with its elected representatives as the country (USA) hurdles towards defaulting on its US$14.5tril (RM43.4tril) debt.

No, none of the countries referred to is Malaysia. Instead, the striking taxi drivers were in Greece, the embassy selling country is Britain and of course with such a huge debt, the third is the United States. It’s frightening to think how these three countries – at one time or another was the greatest country of a certain generation.



In ancient time, Greece was the centre of the universe for everything ranging from democracy to sciences to world conquering feats by its leaders like Alexander the Great.

But it can no longer live on its past glories as it wallows in its own Greek tragedy.

Its economy, the 27th largest in the world, is in ruins just like the things that Greece is most famous for.

Britain – once called by everyone as the United Kingdom or Great Britain – had the largest empire in the world just a century ago with colonies in every continent. Malaysia was once its colony.

The British claimed the industrial revolution as its own and is rightly credited for turning manufacturing into becoming the mainstay of the global economy.

It is now a shadow of its glory days and at best is the rabble rousers in the European Union (EU) zone. Gone are its colonies in every far-flung corner of the world that kept its super economy running.

Now the British have even got to putting for sale its huge Chancery in Kuala Lumpur because it would be cheaper for the High Commission to operate out of a commercial building.

As for the United States, wasn’t it the leader of the free world and the fatherland of industrialisation where hardwork is always rewarded with ample financial gain?

But now the country is bogged down with wars on various fronts from Libya to Afghanistan.

Yes, the United States is still the No 1 country in the world as far as the economy size is concerned but for the first time in the past century, everyone else – especially China – is catching up quickly.

The Americans owe more money to everyone than anyone has in the past.

Go to the website http://www.usdebtclock.org/ and you will get the real time feeling of how much the land of the brave and free owe the rest of the world.

It will probably take hundreds of PhD thesis to explain what went wrong for these three nations but suffice to say that successive governments did not do enough to prevent their economies from falling into such a dark hole.

On top of that politics has played a strong role in pushing these economies into even darker places.

Political opponents in these countries, especially in the United States and Greece, have been playing a game of one-upmanship on every issue.

Even now on the brink of economic ruin, these politicians continue to play the game.

As for Greece, there are enough MPs there who want to play the popular game of not going ahead with the agreed austerity drive because it is supposedly too painful for its people.

But wasn’t it their foolhardiness that brought Greece to this position in the first place.

What was the hurry for Greece to join the single Euro monetary system? It was obvious that it was not ready to meet the standards set by the technocrats in Brussels (where the EU is headquartered). The same can be said of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and many of the old eastern block countries.

It is hoped that the Greek government will stand firm against pressures from the likes of the taxi drivers and proceed with the unpopular austerity measures.

As for the United States, the rivalry of Republicans and Demo-crats is threatening to send the world into possibly the biggest depression ever as there is less than 10 days left before America defaults on that huge debt.

The Republicans, who control the House of Representatives are refusing to approve President Barack Obama’s proposed budget on the debt ceiling because they claim it would hurt the American economy (read the rich).

If they default, the entire world can look forward to decades of depression as lenders will panic and demand all nations to repay their debts immediately.

Our national debt stood at RM233.92bil last year or 34.3% to the Growth Domestic Product.

It used to be worse but some of the debts were repaid in the last decade when the ringgit gained in strength.

Yes, surprisingly our country’s debt is not a huge mountain as some people would like us to believe, but what is worrying is the lack of support for efforts to reduce it further.

A sure way of doing it is by reducing subsidies.

In 2009, it was reported that the Government spent RM74bil in subsidies ranging from social projects to energy and food. This translates to an annual subsidy of about RM12,900 per household.

Cutting back on subsidies would be unpopular with the people. The negative reaction to the floating of the premium petrol prices and the allowing of energy prices to rise are examples of the backlash the Government has gotten from its efforts to reduce its subsidy spending.

The most popular comments against Malaysia’s spending cuts has been to ask the Government to reduce the leakages before even thinking of cutting back on subsidies.

Of course, it does not help the Government’s plans that in the past there has been ample evidence of such leakages.

Something must be done to convince the people there is a total war against wastage including using unpopular means. Why not?

After all, the most important lesson from the Greece, Britain and United States stories is that being popular will only guarantee election victories that will eventually lead to financial disasters.

> Executive editor Wong Sai Wan has been through three recessions and fears the fourth the most.