Nothing But Common Thieves

UPDATE:

Just read what Nazir Tun Razak said yesterday, about the NEP; that it has been unfair to the majority of Malays. What irony. Specifically, the whole UMNO set-up feeds off the NEP and we expect UMNO to do without it? Commit seppuku!?! Does his big brother have the spunk to implement his NEM or is his finger still stuck in the wind? Is Nazir's statement and Nazri's latest on Perkasa part of some positive flipping from Najib's side after the Melayu Bangkit rally flopped. Read about what Nazir said, here...

*********************************

I chanced upon this article again which was in the Asia Sentinel (27th November, 2009) and it brought back some decades old memories and also points to current goings on. That it rekindles old memories shows how long the country has been pillaged in plain sight. How long more are we going to allow it to go on...how much more can the country afford? Ever noticed that everything seems to be in billions of ringgit these days?


Many snouts in the public trough

Mahathir also was behind an attempt by the then governor of Bank Negara, the central bank, to aggressively speculate in the global foreign exchange market. Bank Negara ended up losing an estimated RM20 billion. The governor, Jaffar Hussein, and the head of forex trading, Nor Mohamed Yakcop were forced to resign.
Asia Sentinel

The Port Klang Free Zone scandal may be big, but it is only the latest in a long line of Malaysian scandals going back to the early 1980s. Time Magazine quoted Daniel Lian, a Southeast Asia economist at Morgan Stanley in Singapore, saying that the country might have lost as much as U$100 billion since the early 1980s to corruption."

The scandals listed below are only a small sample of the looting of the country's coffers:

In July of 1983, what was then the biggest banking scandal in world history erupted in Hong Kong, when it was discovered that Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF), a unit of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd, had lost as much as US$1 billion which had been siphoned off by prominent public figures into private bank accounts. The story involved murder, suicide and the involvement of officials at the very top of the Malaysian government. Ultimately it involved a bailout by the Malaysian government amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mak Foon Tan, the murderer of Jalil Ibraim, a Bank Bumi assistant manager who was sent to Hong Kong to investigate the disappearance of the money, was given a death sentence, and Malaysian businessman George Tan who had participated in looting most of the funds, was jailed after his Carrian Group collapsed in what was then Hong Kong's biggest bankruptcy, and a handful of others were charged. No major politician was ever punished in Malaysia despite a white paper prepared by an independent commission that cited cabinet minutes of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad giving an okay to a request to throw more money into the scandal in an effort to contain it.

That was just the first Bank Bumi scandal. The government-owned bank had to be rescued twice more with additional losses of nearly US$600 million in today's dollars. Ultimately government officials gave up and the bank was absorbed into CIMB Group, currently headed by Nazir Razak, the prime minister's brother. That scandal, which stretched over several years before its denouement in 1985, set the tone for 24 years of similar scandals related to top Malaysian officials and was the first to prove that in Malaysia, you can not only get away with murder, you can get away with looting the treasury as well.

Perwaja Steel, for instance, lost US$800 million and its boss, Eric Chia, a crony of Mahathir's, was charged with looting the company. He stood trial, but was acquitted without having to put on a defense.

In the mid 1980s, the Co-operative Central Bank, a bank set up to aid the Indian smallholder community, had to be rescued by Bank Negara, the country's central bank, after hundreds of millions of ringgit in loans granted to a flock of United Malays National Organisation and Malaysian Indian Congress politicians became non-performing. Some had never been serviced at all. Although the chief executive and general manager were charged with criminal breach of trust, none of the politicians were ever charged.

Before that, the Malaysian government was believed to have lost US$500 million in an attempt at Mahathir's urging to corner the London tin market through a company called Maminco, driving the world price of tin from US$4.50 per tonne to US$7.50. It then sought to cover up the loss by establishing a US$2 company called Mukawasa from which allocations of new share issues to the government's Employees Provident Funds' were diverted. Mukawasa expected to sell the shares at a windfall profit to hide the tin speculation.

Mahathir also was behind an attempt by the then governor of Bank Negara, the central bank, to aggressively speculate in the global foreign exchange market. Bank Negara ended up losing an estimated RM20 billion. The governor, Jaffar Hussein, and the head of forex trading, Nor Mohamed Yakcop were forced to resign.

There have been many other political and financial scandals since. In 2005, Bank Islam Malaysia, the country's flagship Islamic bank, reported losses of RM457 million mainly due to provisioning totaling RM774 million as a result of bad loans and investments incurred by its Labuan branch. Cumulatively, Bank Islam ran up nonperforming loans of RM2.2 billion, partly from mismanagement and poor internal controls but also "years of regulatory indifference fueled by the misconceived notion of an untouchable Bank Islam because it was a favorite child of the Malaysian government, being the first and model Islamic bank in the country and region," according to a December 19, 2005 article in Arab News.

"Bank Islam had a reputation in the market for being the spoilt child of the Malaysian Ministry of Finance; and the perception of the bank was more of a Muslim financial fraternity or government development financial institution," the report said.

In 2007, in what was called Malaysia's Enron scandal, the publicly traded Transmile Group Bhd, whose chairman was former MCA President and Cabinet Minister Ling Liong Sik, was caught having overstated its revenue by RM530 million. A pretax profit from Rm207 million in 2006 was actually a loss of RM126 million, and a pretax profit of 120 million in 2005 was a loss of RM77 million, causing the government postal company Pos Malaysia & Services Holdings Bhd to warn that its earnings for the 2006 financial year might be affected by the reported overstatement, as the postal group owned 15.3 percent of Transmile.

Over the years 2001 to 2006, the government had to spend billions to rescue seven privatized projects including Kuala Lumpur's two public transport systems, the perennially ailing Malaysia Airlines, the national sewage system and a variety of others that, in the words of one study, "had been privatized prematurely." The government also repeatedly bailed out highway construction concessionaires, all of them closely connected to Umno, to the tune of another RM38.5 billion.

In 2008, it was revealed that Rafidah Aziz, who had served as trade and industry minister for 18 years, had been peddling approved permits for duty-free car sales and allegedly lining her pockets. Two companies which didn't even have showrooms – one of which belonged to the husband of Rafidah's niece – received scores of permits. Although Rafidah came in for heavy criticism from within Umno, she remained in office until she was defeated in party elections.

In the 1960s, federal prosecutors in the United States who were attempting to jail the late labor boss Jimmy Hoffa for looting the Teamsters Pension Fund of millions of dollars with his cronies were puzzled by the fact that their revelations appeared to have little effect on the union's rank and file. It was because no matter how much money Hoffa and his cronies stole, there was always money left because the fund was so rich. That appears to be the case with Malaysia.

Human Life Value

The economic value of a human life is the basis for the need for life insurance, and can help determine the amount of life insurance needed by an individual or a family. A human life has an economic value only if some person(s) or organization depends upon it or expects to receive some monetary benefit through that life. The following discussion explains how human life value is determined, and enumerates the specific needs for life insurance.

The Concept of Human Life Value

A human life possesses many values, most of them irreplaceable and not easily measured. These values are founded on religious, moral, and social relationships. From a religious standpoint, for example, human life is regarded as immortal and endowed with a value beyond the comprehension of mortal man. In a person’s relationship with other human beings, a set of emotional and sentimental attachments is created that cannot be measured in monetary terms or replaced by material things.

Such values, however, are not the foundation of life insurance. Although not oblivious to these values—in fact, the life insurance transaction has strong moral and social overtones—life insurance is concerned with the human life value, or the economic value of a human life, which is derived from its earning capacity and the financial dependence of other lives on that earning capacity.

The Economic Value of a Human Life

In terms of its physical composition, the human body has a limited dollar value. In terms of earning capacity, however, it may be worth millions of dollars. Yet, earning power alone does not create an economic value that can logically serve as the basis of life insurance. A human life has an economic value only if some other person or organization can expect to derive an economic advantage through its existence.

If an individual is without dependents and no other person or organization stands to profit through his or her living, either now or in the future, then that life, for all practical purposes, has no monetary value that needs to be perpetuated. Such an individual is rare. Most income producers either have dependents or can expect to acquire them in the normal course of events. Even those income earners with no family dependents often provide financial support to charitable organizations. In either case, a basis exists for life insurance.

Preservation of a Family’s Economic Security

In many cases, an income producer’s family is completely dependent on his or her personal earnings for subsistence and the amenities of life. In many cases, the “potential” estate, or the earnings and savings that may be received and accumulated in the future, is far more substantial than the existing estate—the savings that the family has been to date able to accumulate. The family’s economic security lies in the earning capacity of each income earner, which is represented by his or her “character and health, training and experience, personality and power of industry, judgment and power of initiative, and driving force to put across in tangible form the economic images of his mind,” said Solomon S. Huebner in 1950.

Over time, this economic potential are gradually converted into income, a portion devoted to self-maintenance, a portion to support of dependents, and if the income is large enough, a portion to savings to meet future needs and contingencies. If the individual lives and stays in good health, the total income potential will eventually be realized, for the benefit of the family and others who receive benefits from his or her efforts. If an income earner dies or becomes permanently and totally disabled, the unrealized portion of his or her total earnings potential will be lost, and in the absence of other measures, the family will soon find itself destitute or reduced to a lower income than it previously enjoyed.

This need not happen, however, since there are life insurance contracts that can create a fund at death to at least partially, and possibly fully, offset the lost income of the insured. By means of life insurance, an individual can ensure that the family will receive the monetary value of those income-producing qualities that lie within his or her physical being, regardless of when death occurs. By capitalizing this life value (creating a fund large enough to generate investment income approximating the salary or wages of the individual), an income earner can leave the family in more or less the same economic position they would have enjoyed had he or she lived.

The Moral Obligation to Provide Protection

Most people assume major responsibility for the support and maintenance of their dependent children during their lifetime. In fact, they consider it one of the rewarding experiences of life. In any case, the law attaches a legal obligation to the support of a spouse and children. Thus if there is a divorce or a legal separation, the court will normally decree support payments for dependent children and possibly alimony for the dependent spouse. In some cases such payments, including alimony, are to continue beyond the provider’s death if the children are still dependent or if the alimony recipient has not remarried. In such cases, the parent and ex-spouse are required to provide life insurance or to set funds aside in trust.

It takes a high order of responsibility for a parent to voluntarily provide for continuation of income to dependents after his or her own death. It virtually always involves a reduction in the individual’s own standard of living. Yet, few would deny that a person with a dependent spouse, children, or parents has a moral obligation to provide them with the protection afforded by life insurance, as far as his or her financial means permit.

In his book, Life Insurance, Dr. Solomon S. Huebner said the following concerning the obligation to insure:

From the family standpoint, life insurance is a necessary business proposition that may be expected of every person with dependents as a matter of course, just like any other necessary business transaction which ordinary decency requires him to meet. The care of his family is man’s first and most important business. The family should be established and run on a sound business basis. It should be protected against needless bankruptcy. The death or disability of the head of this business should not involve its impairment or dissolution any more than the death of the head of a bank, railroad, or store. Every corporation and firm represents capitalized earning capacity and goodwill. Why then, when men and women are about to organize the business called a family should there not be a capitalization in the form of a life insurance policy of the only real value and goodwill behind that business? Why is it not fully as reasonable to have a life insurance policy accompany a marriage certificate, as it is to have a marine insurance certificate invariably attached to a foreign bill of exchange? The voyage in the first instance is, on the average, much longer, subject to much greater risk, and in case of wreck, the loss is of infinitely greater consequence.

The growth of life insurance implies an increasing development of the sense of responsibility. The idea of providing only for the present must give way to recognition of the fact that a person’s responsibility to his family is not limited to the years of survival. Emphasis should be laid on the “crime of not insuring,” and the finger of scorn should be pointed at any man who, although he has provided well while he was alive, has not seen fit to discount the uncertain future for the benefit of a dependent household. . . . Life insurance is a sure means of changing uncertainty into certainty and is the opposite of gambling. He who does not insure gambles with the greatest of all chances and, if he loses, makes those dearest to him pay the forfeit.

Diminishing Nature of the Human Life Value

The economic value of an income earner tends to diminish with the passage of time. His or her earning level may continue to increase for a certain period or indefinitely, but with each passing year, the remaining period of productivity becomes shorter. Each year of income that is realized means that there is one year less that remains to be earned. Because an individual’s economic value is the unrealized earning capacity represented by his or her abilities and skills, his or her value must diminish as potential income is converted into actual income.

Life Cycle of Life Insurance Needs

There are three broad categories of the insurance life cycle. The first is childhood. During this period, an individual’s needs are met by their parents or other persons responsible for their welfare. If the child dies before becoming an income producer, the investment in nurturing, maintenance, and education is sacrificed. This can be a sizable sum, especially if the child has been educated at private schools. Various studies have shown that the cost of rearing a child to age 18 ranges from 1.5 times to 3.25 times the parents’ average annual income. At today’s prices, the costs are even higher. While most parents regard these expenditures as one of the duties and privileges of parenthood, and shrink from labeling them as an investment to be recovered in the event of the child’s death, such costs do create a substantial insurable value. This value can logically serve as one of the bases for juvenile insurance, or insurance on children.

The second category of insurance is the adult productive years. The surplus earnings are the source of support for an individual’s dependents and a broad measure of the economic loss to the family if the producer(s) should die. A portion of these earnings will go toward insurance premiums, and another portion should be set aside for both spouses’ retirement needs, but the share that is needed for the care and maintenance of the family should be capitalized and preserved for the family through life insurance.

Finally, the individual’s retirement needs. Although the income loss may be partially filled by federal benefits, pension plans and other tax-qualified plans (such as profit sharing, income deferral, and thrift or savings), and individual investments, the most realistic source of funds to cover any income shortage is investment income, life insurance and annuities. This remaining need can be satisfied with group life insurance through employment and/or a personal insurance program. For long-term planning purposes, however, individuals should not rely on group life insurance for any more than the funds that can—and will—be kept in force after an unforeseen job loss. Individuals should check their employer’s plan to find out how much of the group life insurance they can convert to individual insurance after termination of employment.

When is a person not a prospect for life insurance?

When is a person NOT a prospect for life insurance? When he asks himself two questions; will anyone experience an economic loss if he dies and if yes, does he care? The answer is obvious.

Sticking A Finger In The Wind...

Self-conclusion...?

Finance Ministry denies giving betting licence to Ascot

KUALA LUMPUR, June 7 — The Finance Ministry today denied awarding a sports betting licence to tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan's Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd despite earlier reports that the company will accept wagers for next season's English Premier League.

In a written reply in Parliament by Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is also Prime Minister, to questions from four MPs, the ministry said the government has not yet concluded its discussions and terms regarding the legalisation of sports betting.

“The government has yet to issue a licence to Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd for bookie operations in Malaysia.

“The government has also not concluded discussions on the terms and conditions for licensing to Ascot Sports for bookie operations in Malaysia,” the statement said.

The ministry also said it was still open to feedback from various parties.

PKR Batu MP PKR Chua Tian Chang asked if it was the government or Tan (picture) who has been misleading the public.

“This reply is very shocking because for the past one week, Vincent speaks as if he has the licence. So who is misleading the public?” he told reporters during a press conference in Parliament.

In a bid to quell a growing uproar over the sports betting licence, Tan said over the weekend that he will donate the entire RM525 million from the sale of the stake to charity.

The money is proceeds from the 70 per cent stake in Ascot Sports that is being sold to his listed Berjaya Corp Berhad.

However, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders have scoffed at Tan’s gesture to donate the RM525 million profit from selling part of his sports betting company and justification for legalising that business.

Berjaya Corp reported that the government had last month re-issued the licence to Tan after the original licence was cancelled by the previous Abdullah administration. The tycoon’s son — Datuk Robin Tan Yeong Ching — will retain his 30 per cent stake in the company.

Vincent Tan had first obtained the licence in 1987 but had “asked the government to take it back” when the venture was unsuccessful. But he has now obtained the right to get the licence back and was exercising it.

Berjaya Corp, a gaming, property and hospitality group, told Bursa Malaysia on May 12 that it plans to purchase a controlling stake in Ascot Sports, which has been re-issued a conditional sports betting licence by the Finance Ministry.

It said Tan has also agreed to guarantee that the company will make a cumulative net profit of at least RM375 million for the first three years of operation and had backed it by offering to deposit RM81.25 million worth of listed securities while Berjaya Corp will withhold RM125 million cash from the total purchase price.

Berjaya Corp said it will finance the initial consideration of RM400 million by undertaking a renounceable rights issue of up to RM614.46 million nominal value of 10-year eight per cent irredeemable convertible unsecured loan stocks (Iculs), done on the basis of one RM1 nominal value of Iculs for every eight Berjaya Corp shares owned.

“A portion of the funds raised will be used to pay the initial consideration of RM400 million with the remaining to be deployed for working capital of the group,” said the Berjaya Corp statement to Bursa Malaysia.

It added that Tan has undertaken to subscribe to his and his private companies’ entitlements in full, which would amount to at least RM400 million.

Ascot Sports, which is currently a dormant company, recorded net liabilities and net loss of RM11.2 million and RM4.6 million respectively for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2008.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussein told reporters on May 6 that the government was considering issuing the licence to curb illegal gambling.

“There is some interest for us to examine otherwise there will be lots of bookies betting for the World Cup.

“So, whether this is necessarily a good thing for the government or whether we should try to regulate it so that we know how much is received from illegal betting, the government is looking into that,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby.

What Truly Happened With MV Mavi Marmara? Is The Truth With Our Own Witnesses? Is It Out There?

I have seen some horrendous Middle East war footages where civilians are the main victims and do not condone atrocities by both sides. Perhaps the hate is so deep the fine line between right and wrong is forever blurred in the region. There is no longer a who is right and who is wrong. In fact, I am as confused as Anwar and Najib which side of the Israeli/Jew/Zionist line I want to stand with.

With the attack of the Gaza Aid Flotilla, my initial reaction was that whoever the Israeli military hawk who ordered the attack, he should be brought to trial. I thought it was some trigger-happy Israeli commander who caused it but at the back of my mind I knew this was unlikely for the well drilled Israeli armed forces.

Then I read this report in the Malaysian Mirror which quoted a Malaysian witness as saying they had initially captured three Israeli soldiers. Hellloooo...who attacked first ar? Now, somebody better tell the truth before we have to send our "best Oxford brains" to take on Israel and save the world!

My curiosity coupled with some e-mails that began to show up made me do a web search. These are some of the things that are glaring:

This first video tries to show the situation in Gaza. Can someone verify what exactly is going down in Gaza? Are the Palestinians really suffering of hunger, medically, etc., etc?



This next video tries to explain what happened on MV Mavi Marmara that fateful day:



Then there is this little musical clip that is a refreshing new propaganda tool. If only conflicts can be settled not through war but through musicals!

What A Contrast...One Outrightly Rejects The Tag And The Other...

This was in the Malaysian Mirror:

Straight-talking PM's wife rejects First Lady tag
Friday, 04 June 2010 17:32

TOKYO - Japan's new Prime Minister Naoto Kan has called his wife Nobuko (right) his political "opposition in the home", and when he took office Friday she immediately rejected the title of first lady.

"I always thought the term 'first lady' isn't suitable in Japan," the well-known straight talker said in a phone interview with TV Asahi after Kan became the new leader of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan.

"It refers to the wife of a US president," she said. "I will do what I can as his wife, but I'd also like to keep my own freedom."

Despite her rare public appearances compared to her outgoing predecessor Miyuki Hatoyama, the 64-year-old housewife, a skilled speaker on the campaign trail, was once likened to Hillary Clinton, now the US secretary of state.

Nobuko has been with Kan since he was a leftist civic activist in the 1970s and gained his first parliamentary seat in 1980 after three failed attempts. Over the years she is known to have pulled strings in his political career.

In a well-known anecdote, she convinced him to reveal government culpability in a scandal over HIV-tainted blood products when he was health minister in the mid-1990s, a public revelation which earned him much kudos with voters.

"If you cannot do anything about this... you'd better quit as a parliamentarian," she had told Kan as she later recalled in a dialogue published on the website of fellow DPJ member Kazunori Yamanoi.

Occasional domestic tirades
She has also admitted that her own occasional domestic tirades may have inspired some of the parliamentary outbursts of her husband, who has been nicknamed "Ira-Kan" or "Irritable Kan" for his quick temper.

"When Kan was still opposition, he would often blast away at ruling party politicians during parliament sessions," she said. "Watching those scenes on television, I'd think to myself: 'that's what I do to him at home'."

Their marriage went through a rough patch when a gossip magazine revealed he had spent a night in a hotel room with a television presenter.

She harshly criticised her husband, mostly for dropping his guard and imperilling his political career, but eventually let the matter go.

Kan later told the media: "My wife scolded me: 'You idiot!'"

The couple have two adult sons and live with their cats in western Tokyo.

"My only condition for marrying him was to let me have the cats," she said. "Kan, who was born in the Chinese Year of the Dog, likes dogs more than cats. And the cats aren't very attached to Kan either."— AFP

...and this was in the New York Times:

"You Give Me First La! Then I Give You Back!". People First, Performance Now?

This is your 1Malaysia Prime Minister. Watch it and you decide what you decide. I think Patrick Teoh got the nail on its head with this.

I have never met him personally but I keep hearing from my friends in BN that the PM is a sincere, polished, and intelligent guy. If so then the guy in the video must be an imposter.

Apart from the excreta that spews from his mouth, the continuous wiping of his lips indicates nervousness unbecoming of a nation's top leader. Also, the smug, condescending attitude and words are certainly not the mark of a sincere and intelligent guy. He seems to be saying to the predominantly Chinese audience, "...you cheapskate a**holes; you are all about money and therefore will sell your soul". Well Jibby, I think this time Sibu showed you where to stick the middle finger. 

Watch this video; imagine it is say, Lim Kit Siang talking instead of Najib. If it was so, you can bet the MACC will drag LKS's ass in for corruption and money politics or the EC will charge him for violating election law! 

The Postman Rang Twice? Ask The "Former Minister Of Post".

In the 1999 General Elections, Najib almost lost in his hometown, Pekan. He had won by a wafer thin margin of just 241 votes and speculation was rife at the time that the controversial postal votes got him through. The standing joke then was; although he was subsequently appointed Minister of Defense elections many (including those in BN) referred to him as Minister of Post.

Those tracking results of the Sibu by-elections today would have felt a sense of deja vu if they remembered Pekan 1999 and especially after Najib's last-minute, last-ditch, 3 hour whirlwind 3rd campaign visit to Sibu yesterday.

Official results were expected at 9.00 pm latest and by 8.14 pm, with 103 out of 110 voting streams counted, DAP was said to be ahead by 3,944 votes. By 9.00 pm the unofficial margin stood at 2,590 with 109 streams counted but the Election Commission had delayed the announcement of results pending the postal votes! The EC also stated that it was revising the voter turnout figure which for the whole evening was said to be 59.86%. The stench of a rat was beginning to permeate.

Finally, at about 11.00 pm (2 hours delay) the EC announced that DAP had won by a margin of a mere 398 votes. The turnout had been revised to 70% and of the declared 2429 postal votes; 70 went to DAP, a whopping 2,323 to BN, 36 to the Independent, and 208 were Rejected. What did the "postman" try to do? Was an attempted "fix" averted because of too many watching eyes? Or was there actually a "fix" to avoid showing a defeat of landslide proportions? You decide! Whatever it is, the easily abused postal voting must be removed from our elections process.

Read the Malaysiakini report on the Sibu by-election day before watching this must-view video, "Selepas Tsunami" (I understand it is deemed not seditious) that tells you why the Rakyat is still pissed off after 8th March 2008:


Selepas Tsunami (After the Tsunami) from Pusat KOMAS on Vimeo.

Dr Michael Newton: Spirit Realm Trailblazer Or Fraud?

People who know me well or who read this blog know I am a great advocate of the work and findings of Dr Michael Newton (MN).

Recently, there have been an increasing number of signs around me that seems to validate what MN postulates in his books yet, the skeptic within compels me to scour the www to seek any articles that refutes MN convincingly.

Well, not only has Google not  found any "convincing" counters to MN, I do not remember seeing a single article that refutes him. To me, this is pretty amazing considering the power of Google. I am now more convinced that more people must read his two books, "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls". The books are available free online too but I would suggest getting and keeping personal copies from the bookshop.     

The interesting article below is extracted (without permission) from the website of someone named Larry Carter...another skeptic. I found it when Googling for "Michael Newton and fraud". Please read:


The Spirit World

OK, this is something I've never done before. I don't put bumper stickers on my car - I don't even wear t-shirts with messages on them - so this is as close as I've ever come to proselytizing. However, after 50 years of exploring the great and not-so-great religions of the world, I finally found something regarding the afterlife that makes sense to me. (If an afterlife where some souls play harp all day while others are poked by demons with pitchforks sounds to you like a "Saturday Night Live" skit, you know what I mean.) So, I'm taking a chance and sharing what I've learned in hopes that it might be important to someone else as well.

The basics
Michael Newton is a hypnotherapist, meaning his expertise as a therapist is hypnotizing people to help them recall and resolve hidden memories (childhood abuse, for instance) that are resurfacing as adult problems. As he developed a technique for leading people into deeper and deeper trance states, he discovered that with some particularly sensitive people he was able to get beyond their ego bodies and converse with their immortal souls through past life regression. (If you don't think you have an immortal soul that has reincarnated in numerous bodies, you might as well stop reading right now. If, however, you think you do have an immortal soul, why shouldn't it be able to speak for itself when your physical body is placed in a deep enough trance?) As he developed his technique further, instead of focusing on just past lives he began asking them to describe the time between lives - after death but before incarnating in a new body. Through thousands of such sessions over 30 years of work, he pieced together a view of the spirit world that is very specific and revealing.

New Age mumbo-jumbo
I don't generally pay much attention to people who relate near-death or past-life experiences because, frankly, it all sounds like New Age mumbo-jumbo to me. Near-death experiences (lights at the end of tunnels and such) are by definition NEAR death rather than the real thing, so any observations from someone who "came back" might be based on their physical body reacting to trauma. Past-life memories make a certain amount of sense to me since I believe in reincarnation, but they are also susceptible to current-life egos - like all those people who insist they were someone famous like Cleopatra.

This, however, is something different. If Newton is telling the truth, thousands of people from very different spiritual backgrounds - from atheists to religious zealots - all give about the SAME DETAILS under deep hypnosis of what it is like in the spirit world. These details are far, far too specific to be explained as mere ego fantasies or coincidences, and since he claims to ask non-directive open-ended questions during hypnosis, the consistency of what he claims they report is startling. It is the CONSISTENCY OF DETAILS reported by thousands of very different clients that is most persuasive for me.

Fact or fraud?
Since his books include actual transcripts of hypnotherapy sessions where clients are reporting details regarding the spirit world, what it comes down to is that either these transcripts are real or he's just making the whole thing up. If this is all a hoax, it is an extremely elaborate one that he has somehow managed to carry on for decades. His books have sold around half a million copies over the last 13 years, so critics have had plenty of time and reason to expose any fraud. Given the thousands of people he claims to have personally had sessions with since the 1970s, and given that he has trained other hypnotherapists who have used his technique on countless more people, it seems unlikely to me that he would be able to maintain such an elaborate hoax over such a long period of time without someone, somewhere exposing any fraud. Although he certainly has his critics, I haven't been able to find anything that actually debunks his research claims. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Until that point, I'm inclined to put my SKEPTICISM (see below) aside and assume that the session transcripts he includes in his books really happened.

It - like - resonates with me, man!
There is an important qualifier: I suspect the spirit world is actually beyond human comprehension (why should the way it REALLY is be limited to what we can comprehend with human brains?), so I suspect any discussion of life after death relates to what REALLY happens in the same way that a kindergarten class in learning to count relates to advanced algebra. Given this limitation, however, this explanation is the first one I've heard that (as they say in California) resonates with me. Further, it seems quite compatible with what I consider to be the underlying assumptions of all peaceful world religions - being kind to others, practicing forgiveness, living a life of service, accepting consequences for decisions that hurt others, requesting spiritual guidance, believing the soul outlives the body, seeing spirit in all matter, striving toward the One, etc.

Leap of faith
Therefore, I'm willing to take the leap of faith and say that, despite some unanswered questions, this is what I believe. If you are interested in knowing what he has to say, a good place to start might be a 30-minute interview with him that someone posted on YouTube.Com. Click HERE or, if that doesn't work, go to www.YouTube.Com and search for "Michael Newton between lives." If the interview appeals to you, you might want to read one of his books - particularly Journey of Souls or Destiny of Souls. They basically amount to transcripts from his hypno-therapy sessions, plus commentary by him. His third book is an instruction handbook for other hypnotherapists interested in learning his technique. Used copies of his books are readily available from places like www.Amazon.Com for under $10.

And there you have it.

Larry, November 2007

***********************************
 
Postcript #1: My SKEPTICISM is based on the following:

1) As a PhD, Newton is very familiar with the rigors of academic research, so what's with the total lack of substantiation for his claims? If this isn't a hoax, his findings are monumental and deserve academic validation - independent reviews of session tapes, for example. If he can include transcripts in his books, he should be able to make the original tapes available for peer review. Anecdotal evidence is interesting for the casual reader, but doesn't really validate his claims. On the other hand - perhaps he just isn't interested in convincing skeptical academics.

2) As a playwright myself who has struggled with writing dialogue, his transcripts don't sound very real. Perhaps that's because the subjects are in deep hypnosis, or because at the soul-level we all sound alike, or because he has edited the transcripts to make them more readable without altering the actual content - or perhaps it's because he's making the transcripts up as he goes.

3) Hypnotism is hardly new - some say it has been commonly practiced by Shamans and healers for thousands of years - so why is he the first person to tell us this specific information? Granted, he claims to have developed hypnosis techniques that allow him to go deeper into the trance state than normal, but even this doesn't sound all that unique. Given how exacting his information is, why haven't these very specific details found their way into numerous tribal mythologies? On the other hand, New Age enthusiasts insist that THIS is the most critical time in human history, and that we should expect spiritual messengers to be among us to lead us into the "new age" of our development.

4) Despite the above reservations, the way he describes the spirit world sounds very convincing to me. Ironically, it is SO convincing that it makes me suspicious. If I were to create a hoax regarding the spirit world, his multi-tiered system of non-judgmental educational development is about how I would have designed it myself. In other words, I am suspicious of being seduced by a vision that is so similar to what I would have created if I had been writing fiction. I realize this is a double-bind, but so be it.

***********************************

Postscript #2 - Here are a couple of interesting REVIEWS I found on Amazon.Com from people who claim to have undergone hypnotherapy from either Newton or someone trained by him. Although plenty of reviewers disagreed with him, I didn't find any that disputed the integrity of his claims.

Review #1 - It is the truth and he is legitimate, January 2, 2002

By Reviewer "draiguisge" (Seattle, WA)

I first read Journey of Souls a few years ago, and had the same feeling of resonance that many reviewers did. But I wasn't convinced and still wanted to know more. I wrote to a reviewer on this site who had visited him, and following her suggestion, wrote to Dr. Newton for an appointment. At the time, he had a three-year waiting list, and was seeing about 2-3 clients a week. I saw him just before Destiny of Souls was completed, and while I did not experience my memories with the same clarity the subjects in his book did, I can say with utter certainty that Dr. Newton is not making it up, and is not manipulating his readers.

From my conversations with him, I have found him to be very intelligent, caring, funny, and honest. My experience in hypnosis was a bit unsettling for me, as much as the skeptic in me wanted to dismiss the truths I had learned about myself, I could not attribute my memories to anything that I had seen in his books or elsewhere. Nor did he plant the ideas in my head. He is absolutely the stubborn investigator he describes in his books and challenged the things I said, questioned me during the session, compared to things I had said earlier to make sure I was still saying the same things. Then, at the end of the session told me where I had said something similar to his other clients that had not been in Journey of Souls (but is now in Destiny), such as my detailed explanation of the medallion worn by one of the "Council" members.

In retrospect, I think the most amazing thing about my session was my casual attitude - as I talked about "unbelievable" things like hybrid souls I might as well have been telling him "the sky is blue" with the nonchalant way I felt. In fact, a few times I did get frustrated with his questioning, the same way someone would if challenged with "No, the sky is GREEN". What I was saying felt then, as it does now, to be nothing but pure and simple truth.

For the further skeptical, my small claim to fame is that one of his "One of my clients said.." comments to illustrate a point about soul names was something I told him after my session. So I know that whenever he says a client said something, they did.
________________________________________

Review #2 - My Experience of Life Between Life, May 26, 2007

By Reviewer "miteyoak" (Sacramento, CA)

I read this book almost 10 years ago, and it totally made sense with the way that I had always believed. I signed up to be on the waiting list for a regression, and I received a letter stating there was an 18 month or so waiting list. I only lived about an hour away from Grass Valley. I never heard anything. Then, about 5 years ago, I had a life between life regression from somebody who was trained by Newton. I had always wondered if I would lose my will and hypnosis would make me cluck like a chicken or if they would plant suggestions, but it isn't like that at all. First, they relax you and then they will ask you a question about what you see. I really saw things -- not always as clear as if I was watching TV -- but, I was able to get images and information and feel real feelings -- it was a very real experience. And, there isn't any way that my conscious mind could have fabricated what I saw. The whole process was mind blowing, and yet it eased my mind. I really went before a council of elders, and the some of the issues I had then are still issues in this life. I wouldn't have been able to make the link at the time -- and even during the process. It is only now -- several years later -- that I can see the pattern and see its relevance. It is hard to process everything all at once.

***********************************
Postscript #3 - Having recently read Newton's 3rd book (basically an instruction manual for how experts already trained in hypnosis and therapy can use his technique) I am even more convinced that he is telling the truth as he sees it. After all, if he had made up all of these session dialogues up as a hoax, it seems highly unlikely that he would start a school to train other hypnotherapists on how to use his technique.
________________________________________

Postscript #4 - I find Newton's research to be compatible with the wide variety of spiritual practices I enjoy exploring. Below are links to some of my personal favorites.

Tiger E-List Gathering At "Chill Out" and At "Skewers": 30th April 2010 Subang Jaya

Highlight of the evening (well, apart from Co-Moderator, Nic Ong who was visiting from Singapore) was the Hoegaarden Beer at cost price the whole night long, thanks to Tiger Liz Tan.

Next "Tiger Tani Session" will be at "Ole Skool" Jalan Gasing, Petaling Jaya on the 14th of May.

Sabah & Sarawak. Beginning Of The End-Game?

UPDATE: "A tale of two oil blocks", The STAR 9th May 2010

I suppose this settles it but the question that remains is; what's up Mahathir? Please read:

A tale of two oil blocks

By LEONG SHEN-LI
newsdesk@thestar.com.my

The 2009 agreement between Malaysia and Brunei over territorial dispute has come under intense criticism for supposedly putting the former at a disadvantage. But is the picture being painted the correct one?

THE historic Exchange of Letters between Brunei and Malaysia, which ended two decades of territorial dispute between the two countries, was controversial from the day one.

Reporters who covered the March 16 event in Brunei last year and had filed their stories with their respective papers were stumped on their flight home – headlines like “Brunei denies Malaysia’s Limbang story” and “Limbang issue never discussed” were splashed across Bruneian newspapers available on the plane.

Just two days before, then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had signed the Exchange of Letters (essentially an agreement between countries) and had proudly told newsmen that Brunei had dropped its claim over Limbang in Sarawak as a result of the agreement.

But the Bruneian newspapers, quoting Brunei’s Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister II Pehin Lim Jock Seng, effectively denied Abdullah’s version of the agreement.

A little more than a year later, the agreement is still creating controversy.

This time, not only is the status of Limbang being questioned. The other major point of the agreement, that concerning the dispute over maritime territories, beneath which could lie billions of ringgit worth of oil and gas, is also being scrutinised.

The severe lack of information concerning the agreement has created opportunities to fan confusion and emotions among Malaysians. But thanks to the recent prodding by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the Government has been forced to let more details out into the public domain.

With the information now available, it may be possible to see if Malaysia has benefited from the deal, or otherwise.

Let’s deal with the Limbang issue first. Brunei’s Lim was right to say that nowhere in the 2009 agreement was the word “Limbang” mentioned.

Reacting to Brunei’s denial, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, who was then Foreign Minister, confirmed that Limbang was not mentioned in the agreement.

“But what was agreed to was for five historical border treaties between Brunei and Sarawak to be adhered to. This effectively makes the Limbang issue no more,” he said.

Two of the five treaties – one signed in 1920 and the other in 1933 – directly concerned Limbang. They established the border between Limbang and Brunei where it is today. As the border now places Limbang inside Malaysia, Brunei’s act of agreeing to follow the two agreements effectively means it agreed to let Limbang remain Malaysian. Once the demarcation of the border is completed, Limbang would be without question part of Sarawak.

So why the initial uproar by Brunei? One view is that it was not too happy with Malaysia quickly saying that it had got Limbang. It is extremely sensitive to the Bruneians as its loss in 1890 resulted in the Sultanate being split into two parts.

“Furthermore, they did not go around thumping their chests saying that they now got the oil that we wanted,” one commentator said. Nevertheless, he pointed out that Brunei’s Lim did not actually deny the statement that the Sultanate had dropped its claim over Limbang, indicating that there is no doubt that the claim had been dropped.

One of the points raised recently was whether Limbang was worth trading for the two oil-rich blocks. While the suggestion of such an exchange is wrong to begin with, the importance of Malaysia getting the isolated Limbang district should still not be downplayed.

A rather interesting but possibly exaggerated scenario was given by a historian. Brunei’s claim over Limbang, he pointed out, is based on the “unfair treaty” of 1890 between its Sultan and the White Rajahs of Sarawak.

“Brunei lost Limbang in an unfair treaty. But there is a school of thought that all treaties between the White Rajahs of Sarawak and Brunei, which resulted in Brunei losing the whole of Sarawak and the west coast of Sabah, were also unfair.

“After Limbang, could Kuching – or Kota Kinabalu for that matter – be claimed?” he queried.

Maritime territorial claims

Let’s move on to the maritime territorial claims and the two oil blocks.

Malaysia’s claim over the stretch of South China Sea where the two oil-rich exploitation blocks – named Blocks L and M by Malaysia (but were named as Blocks J and K by Brunei) – are located, and which Brunei claims to be its exclusive economic zone, has been described as akin to a person claiming ownership of the front yard of his neighbour’s house.

In 1979, Malaysia published a map showing its maritime territories. Whether rightly or wrongly, the map denied Brunei most of its territorial waters.

The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (Unclos), of which both Brunei and Malaysia are signatories, gives all countries with coastlines the right to claim territorial waters up to a certain distance from the coastline. Malaysia’s 1979 map clearly did not conform to that provision as far as Brunei’s right to territorial waters was concerned.

It took four long days after the controversy blew up – after Abdullah and Petronas had issued statements – for Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry to state unequivocally that Malaysia’s dropping of its claim over the two oil blocks and the rest of Brunei’s territorial waters was based on sound international law.

There was no “signing away” of the two blocks because Malaysia could never have owned them in the first place. It would now seem unlikely that the two blocks could have been a major bargaining chip for Malaysia to get Limbang.

Malaysia awarded a concession over the two blocks to Petronas Carigali and Murphy Oil in 2003 as an assertion of its claim over the area, just as Brunei awarded concessions to six international companies to assert its claim over the same area.

But because of the dispute over sovereignty, none of the companies could start drilling for anything.

In March 2003, Murphy’s boat was chased away by a Bruneian gunboat and the following month, the Malaysian navy sent several gunboats into the area to block the arrival of a ship owned by Total, one of the companies awarded the concession by Brunei.

It was clear that not a drop of oil or a whiff of gas could be extracted from the area without the deadlock being resolved.

For more than half of the duration of the dispute, Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister. Going by what he has been saying recently, it is no surprise that there was no breakthrough in negotiations during that time.

However, as the realisation that no one would gain if the deadlock continued, pressure to move on started mounting.

A senior diplomat familiar with the negotiations said one of the things which broke the deadlock was when Malaysia indicated that it was willing to “discuss” its claim over the disputed waters.

Compromises were made by both sides and, because of the spirit of neighbourliness and close cultural ties, the matter was finally settled in late 2008. Malaysia recognised Brunei’s ownership of the disputed waters while the legality of the land border between Sarawak and Brunei – with Limbang remaining in Malaysia – would no longer be raised again by Brunei.

Despite Brunei becoming the owner of the oil and gas from the two blocks, the 2009 agreement allowed Malaysia to jointly exploit the resources of the area for 40 years. Petronas has confirmed that it has been invited by Brunei to take part in the development of the area.

Unlike two other existing “sharing agreements” – that between Malaysia and Thailand, and Malaysia and Vietnam – the one with Brunei is unique. In the two earlier cases, sovereignty of the overlapping area is still in dispute but with Brunei, this issue has been settled.

The cake is Brunei’s but Malaysia’s got a significant slice of it. More importantly, after waiting for 20 years, the two countries no longer need to wait further to start eating it.

Leong Shen-li, the senior news editor in The Star, is one of the reporters who covered the signing of the Exchange of Letters. He also has a big fascination for border disputes.

1890: Brunei gives up Limbang to Sarawak’s second White Rajah Charles Brooke, splitting the Sultanate into two parts.

1979: Malaysia publishes map of its territorial waters. Map denies Brunei of any territorial waters in the South China Sea beyond the depth of 100 fathoms (182m), leaving Brunei with just a narrow strip of territorial waters, and claims the entire area beyond 100 fathoms as belonging to it.

1984: Brunei gains independence from Britain. It claims a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone which overlaps with the territorial waters claimed by Malaysia as shown in the 1979 map.

2003: Malaysia awards Petronas Carigali and Muphy Oil production contracts for the disputed Blocks L and M which lie within areas claimed by Brunei. Brunei also awards production contracts to Total, BHP Biliton and Hess for one block, and to Shell, ConocoPhilips and Mitsubishi for the other block.

March 2003: Brunei gunboats chase away Murphy Oil’s boat. One month later, Malaysian Navy gunboats prevent a Total boat from entering disputed area. All exploration work is suspended by both sides.

2009: Brunei and Malaysia sign Exchange of Letters to settle their land and maritime territorial disputes after more than 30 sessions of negotiations.

With the 2009 Exchange of Letters, Brunei and Malaysia agreed to establish their common border in two ways:

> By following five border treaties which were signed between 1920 and 1939.

> By filling the gaps not covered by the five treaties by following the “watershed” principle. This effectively means that there would not be any major deviation from the current border between Malaysia and Brunei. As Limbang is currently in Malaysian hands, there would be no change in its status once the demarcation process is completed.

1. The 1920 treaty establishes the eastern boundary of Limbang with Brunei along the entire length of the Pandaruan River.

2. The 1933 treaty establishes part of Limbang’s western boundary with Brunei along the watershed of the Brunei and Limbang Rivers “until a point west of Gadong Hill”.

3. The 2009 Exchange of Letters will fill in the gaps in the border according to the watershed principle.


******************************************
Out-Moded

Any decent chess player will tell you that in chess the end-game refers to the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board.

The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick exchange of a few pairs of pieces.

The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. In particular, pawns become more important; endgames often revolve around attempting to promote a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank.

The king, which has to be protected in the middlegame owing to the threat of checkmate, becomes a strong piece in the endgame. It can be brought to the center of the board and be a useful attacking piece.

BN seemed in a comfortable middle-game position in the political chess game of Sabah and Sarawak just a week ago and it was "safe" for Najib to be in Sibu bringing Christmas early, continuing from where he left off in Hulu Selangor. Then the Limbang debacle breaks. Suddenly BN may be staring at a sudden end-game; will the Limbang Limbo bring BN down in East Malaysia? Can the  Sabahans and Sarawakians unite behind Blocks L & M? What can be more sensitive and close to the East Malaysians' soul than sovereignty? Has the last straw landed on the camel's back? Giving away State land without consulting the State governments?

Well, East Malaysian newspapers are not as easy to muzzle compared to their West Malaysian counterparts so it is interesting to watch attempted spin result in another tsunami in the opposite direction. Suddenly it may not seem so cushy sitting in the Federal Government chair.

The secondary question is; if Blocks L & M were given away to Brunei in exchange for ownership of Limbang yet Brunei has disputed dropping its claim, then WTF? Maybe the Sultan of Brunei paid cash for Blocks L & M? Under-table money ar?  Though it was Bodohwi who did it, Najib was DPM then, so how?

Read this from Malaysiakini:

Sabahans livid over loss of oil blocks

Joe Fernandez
May 4, 10
2:52pm

The chickens have come home to roost in the growing controversy over Malaysia's 'secret' handover of offshore oil blocks L and M to Brunei last March, during the tenure of premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The opposition in Sabah has charged that the handover was done without complying with Article 2 of the federal constitution, and wants it to be scrapped immediately.

PKR vice-president Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan pointed out that, under Article 2, no alterations can be made to the borders of a state without the express approval of the state assembly concerned by appropriate legislation, and without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

“There is no record that the Sabah state assembly passed any law giving its seal of approval to the handover. Any such law would also need the consent of the governor,” he said.

Moreover, the 1976 oil agreement between Sabah and Petronas does not give the latter the authority via the Malaysian government to cede Sabah territory to a foreign country.

“Land remains a state matter under the federal constitution notwithstanding the 1976 oil agreement,” said Jeffrey.

The handover became public knowledge after an oil company announced that Petronas had terminated its oil contract involving the two blocks.

Abdullah had not publicly disclosed the handover in March last year, but had only claimed then that Brunei had dropped its claim to Limbang in Sarawak. The Brunei government had immediately disputed this.

Jeffrey castigated the government for being a willing party to the handover at a time when it was not willing to consider even a modest increase in the “measly 5 percent oil royalty to (Sabah)”.

He said he sees no reason why the government could not have surrendered the oil blocks back to Sabah by an amendment to the oil agreement.

Instead, noted Jeffrey, Putrajaya was more willing to hand over the oil blocks - even illegally under “suspicions circumstances” - to Brunei, while Abdullah had engineered the handover just three weeks before he stepped down as prime minister.

“He should not have been a party to the handover since he was in the process of stepping down. He should have left it to his successor, Najib (Abdul Razak), to sort out the border disagreements with Brunei so that suspicions would not be aroused. Why the great hurry?”

While stressing that he did not want to cast aspersions on Abdullah's character, Jeffrey demanded that the former premier should disclose any interest he may have had in the handover.

“It is not enough that we be asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on the handover - this is not a question of trust but of procedure.”

Abdullah (left) has claimed that the oil blocks are now shared by Malaysia and Brunei under a territorial and commercial deal inked on March 16 last year, but Wisma Putra has since acknowledged that Brunei has sovereignty over the two areas.

'Abrogate handover'

Since Brunei and Malaysia had been bogged down in border disagreements for decades, Jeffrey said “there is no reason why they could not have waited a little while longer while everything was done properly and legally in accordance with the federal constitution”.

He urged a halt to oil exploration and production activities in blocks L and M, now re-designated CA1 and CA2, pending resolution of the final status.

An emergency meeting of PKR's Sabah-Sarawak Consultative Committee will be called to determine a response, he said, hinting that a royal commission of inquiry on the handover may be a first step, followed by a referendum.

“Petronas, other oil companies and Brunei can't hang on to any proceeds and revenue from oil blocks L and M. The Sabah government has an equal claim to any revenue. Even royalties alone work out to nearly RM20 billion by conservative estimates at today's prices.”

He said the government cannot claim that the Sabah and Sarawak governments had been briefed on the handover and consulted accordingly.

“Even if the respective chief ministers were indeed briefed and consulted, it's not up to them to do what they like on the handover. There is still the need to comply with the federal constitution on the matter.”

Asked how he sees the way forward, since the deed is done, Jeffrey reiterated that the handover must be abrogated, and both the Sabah and Sarawak governments should be brought into renewed negotiations with the Brunei government.

He favours Petronas handing back the two oil blocks to Sabah for the state to consider “joint sovereignty” with Brunei, adding that this can be done if the Sarawak government can be persuaded to consider “joint sovereignty” over Limbang Division with Brunei.

'High treason'

Jeffrey's remarks have struck a chord with other opposition leaders including Sabah Progressive Party president Yong Teck Lee and Common Interest Group Malaysia deputy chair Daniel John Jambun.

Daniel said he is not surprised by the handover of the two oil blocks by Malaysia, and pledged to pursue the issue until justice is done to Sabah.

“This not the first time that the government has run foul of the federal constitution. The issuance of MyKad to illegal immigrants, refugees and other foreigners in Sabah is also being done without the approval of the state government,” he claimed.

He sees parallels, up to a point, between the handover of the oil blocks and the conversion of Labuan to a federal territory in 1984. In the case of Labuan, he said everything was done legally except that the people were not consulted.

“Even then it led to the downfall of the Berjaya government under Harris Salleh,” he said, predicting a similar fate for the current Umno-led Sabah government.

Yong, in dramatic vein, said Abdullah has committed “high treason” by handing over the oil blocks to Brunei without Sabah's approval.

“The government should make public the handover agreement. It should also publish the map of Sabah showing its land and maritime boundaries,” he told a press conference yesterday.

He insisted that the government must make good the loss that Sabah has suffered by the handover, and that the losses should be properly quantified and recorded.

“If we don't take action on the handover, a dangerous precedent would have been established. What is there to prevent the federal government from selling chunks of Sabah in future to foreigners?” he asked rhetorically.

What Drives The Tun?

The following post was extracted from Tun Mahathir's "Che Det" blog. Personally, I have wondered about Tun's state of mind recently and his latest blog post adds to the doubts.

In it, he not only shows the continued seething disdain for his appointed successor (that Sleepy Head Bodowi) but also points obliquely at the BN culture and lack of transparency/accountability which has cost the nation billions in leakages.

Is his mind still sound? Does he realize he could well be sounding the death knell for his own beloved UMNO especially when he ended the blogpost with the words, "Wither Malaysia?"? His colleagues in UMNO may be more comfortable if he shuts up about Block L & Block M and the Limbang Limbo lest the Rakyat shout TREASON!

What more, he has added the earlier alleged RM270 billion to the Limbang tab to make it half a trillion ringgit.

Please read for yourself:


NOT SO GENEROUS?

1. I am glad that Petronas is going to take part in the exploration and production of the two blocks we surrendered to Brunei. That still does not mean we will get much out of the deal.

2. Wisma Putra should make public the full contents of the agreement signed last year. When we give up what belongs to the people really, the people have a right to know. After all, Abdullah's Government made a point about being transparent, implying of course that the previous Government was not transparent. So let us see transparency in this decision to surrender the peoples' heritage. If as it is claimed we have not lost much, let us know how much is not much.

3. At the present price of USD83 per barrel (RM249.00), one billion barrels would yield USD 83 billion or RM249 billion. Forget the likelihood that the oil price would increase in future, how much would we get from Petronas' involvement in the production.

4. The question as to what happened to the RM270 billion that Petronas paid to Abdullah's Government has not been answered.

5. His apologists will say that I am being petty, that I lost billions too. But concern over a total of over RM500 billion not accounted for or lost cannot be considered petty.

6. The Malaysian public is very forgiving. When my questions are met with "elegant silence", that is the end of the story.

7. Whither Malaysia?

CK Has Gone Home...

My friend Loh Cheng Kiat (CK) passed away at 3.00 am this morning. CK had been battling pancreatic cancer for about two years.

When I last met him in February this year, he had returned from cryo-surgery in China and just discharged from Pantai Medical Center after a bout of dehydration. 

The CK I met then had been physically ravaged by the cancer but mentally he was still the giant of a man that we know. He told me his body system had all but shut down when he was in Pantai but the doctors somehow managed to "re-boot" his system. CK the IT man had not lost his sense of humor!

The CK I know was a generous man whose charity often extended to things more than the pecuniary. He seemed to have a compunction to want to give back more than what life had bestowed on him.

The CK I spoke to in February was a man at peace with life. He mentioned he had had an up-lifting spiritual experience in the hospital and his departed mother had appeared to comfort him. I somehow felt it would be the last time I would see my friend CK but I felt glad to have met CK in the spirits that he was then. He had reconciled himself to himself.    

To Irene, Ivan and Jacy, there are no words I can offer that can console you at this time as nothing can fill that void in your hearts. I can only say time is a great healer. 

CK, you have left the pain behind and I am glad you are once again... Home.