TUNKU MUKHRIZ NEW NEGERI 9 RULER
December 29, 2008 16:23 PM
KUALA PILAH, Dec 29 (Bernama) -- Tunku Mukhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir is the new ruler (Yang DiPertuan Besar) of Negeri Sembilan.
-- BERNAMA
Tunku Muhriz
From TheBestLinks.com
Tunku Muhriz (1945-) is the only son of Tuanku Munawir ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (hereditary ruler) of the Malaysian state of Negeri Sembilan from 1960 to 1967, and of his consort, Tunku Ampuan Durah binti Almarhum Tunku Besar Burhanuddin.
Created Tunku Besar, or heir presumptive, in 1960, Tunku Muhriz was by-passed by the Council of Undang upon his father's death. Instead, the council chose his half-uncle Tuanku Jaafar ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman, a diplomat. It has been suggested that the then-Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, instructed the council not to choose Tunku Muhriz on account of his youth (he was then eighteen).
Currently still Tunku Besar, Tunku Muhriz is more involved in the business world. It is expected that Tuanku Jaafar has arranged for the succession of his own son Tunku Naquiyuddin, currently Tunku Laxamana, having effectively sidelined his popular nephew.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Initiators, Inheritors, Innovators
Ooi Kee Beng
THERE are leaders who are followed for their agenda or vision, and who succeed in creating an institution that outlasts them.
These are the initiators.
And thirdly, there are leaders who manage to alter — even radically — the agenda and vision of the institution that they lead.
These are the innovators.
In the case of Malaysia’s United Malays National Organisation (Umno), one may say that the first president of the party, Mr Onn Ja’afar, falls in the first category.
He founded the party in May 1946. However, in August 1951, when he tried to open the party to non-Malays — his reasons for wanting this are still hotly-contested — party members wouldnot go along with it, and he had to resign.
His attempt at reforming the institution he founded five years earlier — in other words, at being the third type of leader — failed.
We see him moving on to becoming an initiator again. He immediately founded the multiracial Independence of Malaya Party (IMP). But after losing elections to the Umno-led Alliance coalition, he dissolved the party in 1953 and created a third party, Parti Negara. This third party fell apart following his death in 1962.
The second Umno president, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, was a much more flexible character
who, despite becoming the leader of a Malay ethnocentric party in 1951, ended up heading a multiracial coalition of race-based parties. As an innovator, he seemed a success in many ways.
However, the riots of May 13, 1969 caught him by surprise. Having lost credibility as a result, he played a minor role until his retirement in September 1970, and the leadership of the country was inherited by his deputy,Mr Abdul Razak Hussein.
We now know that by the end of 1969, the Premier-in-waiting had already learned that he was terminally ill. This knowledge could not but have influenced many of his policies in the early ’70s.
His time in power, a time of considerable innovation, is best understood if divided into two parts. From May 1969 until August 1973, he received invaluable help and support from his deputy, Home Affairs Minister Ismail Abdul Rahman. Indeed, that regime is often referred to as the Razak-Ismail administration.
Mr Ismail would jump in as Acting Prime Minister whenever Mr Razak was out of
the country, something he had done in the ’60s when the Tunku and Mr Razak were not around.
The trusted Mr Ismail, who was suffering from ill health as well, was the only person in the government who knew of Mr Razak’s illness. Together, the two men forged many policies between 1969 and 1973 in great haste. They feared they would not get to finish what they had set out to do, which was to return Malaysia to parliamentary rule as soon as possible, and to remedy socio-economic conditions so that racial riots would not occur again.
However, it was Mr Ismail, the supposed successor, and not Mr Razak, who died first, falling victim to a heart attack on Aug 2, 1973. Mr Razak stayed alive for another two-and-a-half years, with his brother-in-law, Hussein, the son of Mr Onn Ja’afar, as his deputy.
The difference in quality of the innovations carried out by the robust and visionary Razak-Ismail administration on the one hand, and its inheritor, the Razak-Hussein administration on the other, is still in need of proper study.
Mr Hussein Onn was a well-trained lawyer but whose position within Umno was not very well-grounded. On taking over from Mr Razak in January 1976, he tried to govern as systematically as possible, keeping to due process as much as he could. He was in many ways more an inheritor than an innovator.
Next, we have Mr Mahathir Mohamed. After becoming Prime Minister in 1981, this inheritor
quickly set about changing the modernisation direction of the country in radical ways.
He was without question an innovator par excellence. This was shown to good effect when Umno was declared illegal in 1988 following internal struggles. Former Premiers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn came forth and initiated a new party, Umno Malaysia. In response, Mr Mahathir initiated the Umno Baru. His party won in the competition between the two, no doubt aided by the fact that he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
After 22 years of more innovation than the country could take, Mr Mahathir resigned in October 2003. Mr Abdullah Badawi was chosen ahead of Najib, son of former Premier Razak, to inherit the party presidency.
Much hope was placed by voters in the new Premier being as much of an innovator as he claimed he was. However, most of his intended reforms were not carried out, and he paid badly for it at the polls earlier this year. Mr Abdullah is now scheduled to hand over power in March next year to Mr Najib.
What is of interest to Malaysians during this transitional period is what type of leader the Premier-in-waiting will be. Will he act as a mere inheritor and preserve whatever he can of his inheritance, or will he be the radical innovator that Mr Abdullah failed to be?
No doubt, Malaysia’s newly-empowered voters will give us the answer sooner or later.
The writer is a fellow at the Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies. His latest bookis March 8: Eclipsing May 13 (with JohanSaravanamuttu and Lee Hock Guan, Iseas).
Ooi Kee Beng
THERE are leaders who are followed for their agenda or vision, and who succeed in creating an institution that outlasts them.
These are the initiators. Then there are leaders who follow and propound the agenda or vision of the institution whose top position they have occupied.
These are the inheritors.
These are the inheritors.
And thirdly, there are leaders who manage to alter — even radically — the agenda and vision of the institution that they lead.
These are the innovators.
In the case of Malaysia’s United Malays National Organisation (Umno), one may say that the first president of the party, Mr Onn Ja’afar, falls in the first category.
He founded the party in May 1946. However, in August 1951, when he tried to open the party to non-Malays — his reasons for wanting this are still hotly-contested — party members wouldnot go along with it, and he had to resign.
His attempt at reforming the institution he founded five years earlier — in other words, at being the third type of leader — failed.
We see him moving on to becoming an initiator again. He immediately founded the multiracial Independence of Malaya Party (IMP). But after losing elections to the Umno-led Alliance coalition, he dissolved the party in 1953 and created a third party, Parti Negara. This third party fell apart following his death in 1962.
The second Umno president, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, was a much more flexible character
who, despite becoming the leader of a Malay ethnocentric party in 1951, ended up heading a multiracial coalition of race-based parties. As an innovator, he seemed a success in many ways.However, the riots of May 13, 1969 caught him by surprise. Having lost credibility as a result, he played a minor role until his retirement in September 1970, and the leadership of the country was inherited by his deputy,Mr Abdul Razak Hussein.
We now know that by the end of 1969, the Premier-in-waiting had already learned that he was terminally ill. This knowledge could not but have influenced many of his policies in the early ’70s.
His time in power, a time of considerable innovation, is best understood if divided into two parts. From May 1969 until August 1973, he received invaluable help and support from his deputy, Home Affairs Minister Ismail Abdul Rahman. Indeed, that regime is often referred to as the Razak-Ismail administration.
Mr Ismail would jump in as Acting Prime Minister whenever Mr Razak was out of
the country, something he had done in the ’60s when the Tunku and Mr Razak were not around. The trusted Mr Ismail, who was suffering from ill health as well, was the only person in the government who knew of Mr Razak’s illness. Together, the two men forged many policies between 1969 and 1973 in great haste. They feared they would not get to finish what they had set out to do, which was to return Malaysia to parliamentary rule as soon as possible, and to remedy socio-economic conditions so that racial riots would not occur again.
However, it was Mr Ismail, the supposed successor, and not Mr Razak, who died first, falling victim to a heart attack on Aug 2, 1973. Mr Razak stayed alive for another two-and-a-half years, with his brother-in-law, Hussein, the son of Mr Onn Ja’afar, as his deputy.
The difference in quality of the innovations carried out by the robust and visionary Razak-Ismail administration on the one hand, and its inheritor, the Razak-Hussein administration on the other, is still in need of proper study.
Mr Hussein Onn was a well-trained lawyer but whose position within Umno was not very well-grounded. On taking over from Mr Razak in January 1976, he tried to govern as systematically as possible, keeping to due process as much as he could. He was in many ways more an inheritor than an innovator.
Next, we have Mr Mahathir Mohamed. After becoming Prime Minister in 1981, this inheritor
quickly set about changing the modernisation direction of the country in radical ways.He was without question an innovator par excellence. This was shown to good effect when Umno was declared illegal in 1988 following internal struggles. Former Premiers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn came forth and initiated a new party, Umno Malaysia. In response, Mr Mahathir initiated the Umno Baru. His party won in the competition between the two, no doubt aided by the fact that he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
After 22 years of more innovation than the country could take, Mr Mahathir resigned in October 2003. Mr Abdullah Badawi was chosen ahead of Najib, son of former Premier Razak, to inherit the party presidency.
Much hope was placed by voters in the new Premier being as much of an innovator as he claimed he was. However, most of his intended reforms were not carried out, and he paid badly for it at the polls earlier this year. Mr Abdullah is now scheduled to hand over power in March next year to Mr Najib.
What is of interest to Malaysians during this transitional period is what type of leader the Premier-in-waiting will be. Will he act as a mere inheritor and preserve whatever he can of his inheritance, or will he be the radical innovator that Mr Abdullah failed to be?No doubt, Malaysia’s newly-empowered voters will give us the answer sooner or later.
The writer is a fellow at the Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies. His latest bookis March 8: Eclipsing May 13 (with JohanSaravanamuttu and Lee Hock Guan, Iseas).
Thursday, December 18, 2008
ANTARA PAK MAN TELO, CHARLES PONZI DAN BERNARD MADOFF
The Original Ponzi Scheme
Charles Ponzi's Name Means Investment Fraud Today
© Jill Browne
How the Ponzi Scheme got its name - a short version of Charles Ponzi's story.
Charles Ponzi Was A Real Person
In the field of investment or securities fraud, the phrase "Ponzi scheme" is often heard.
According to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Charles Ponzi raised over a million dollars in three hours in 1921. People thought he was selling them an investment that would give a 50 percent return in 90 days. It sounds too good to be true today, and it was too good to be true then.
By the time the court caught up with him, Ponzi admitted to taking $10 million from investors, many of whom were neither wealthy nor sophisticated. The actual amount could have been $15 million or more. He returned $8 million before his trial.
The Promotion Behind the Original Ponzi Scheme
Ponzi was a convicted criminal before he concocted his most famous scheme. Many would say he had no intention of ever making an effort to actually run the supposedly honest business that he was promoting. Writer Mark C. Knutson, in "The Ponzi Scheme" (1996), has taken a close look at the scheme and concluded it would be impossible to run it at any scale, and certainly not at the scale Ponzi proposed.
What Charles Ponzi told investors was this. He could buy International Postal Reply Coupons cheaply abroad and then turn them into American postage stamps. Then he would sell the postage stamps and get lots more money than what they had cost him to buy. This was because of an apparent arbitrage opportunity arising from foreign exchange rates. An American dollar could buy more coupons in Bulgaria (for example) than in the U.S., because the value of the coupon was set in local currency, regardless of the prevailing exchange rate. However, no matter where the coupons were purchased, they could be exchanged in the U.S. for the same thing, a U.S. postage stamp.
What Mark C. Knutson points out is that Ponzi would have needed armies of wheelbarrow-pushers just to carry the tens of millions of coupons he pretended to have bought. Turning the coupons into cash would also have been problematic, but not for Ponzi. He may have begun with the intention of working the arbitrage as described, but those intentions seem to have quickly evaporated. No matter what Ponzi told investors, he did not use their money to buy coupons.
What is a Ponzi Scheme?
Charles Ponzi's modus operandi was not new, but now bears his name as some kind of tribute to the vast scale with which he performed it.
Very simply, a Ponzi scheme is one where the promoter "robs Peter to pay Paul". The actual venture, whether it's postal coupons, real estate, racehorses, or anything else, does not make enough money to pay back the investors and give them the big profits they are expecting. The promoter, desperate to keep the scheme going, uses the money from new investors to pay the old ones. The most successful schemes go on for a long time by keeping investors just happy enough not to complain, and to never ask for their money back. When the investment comes due, a Ponzi scheme promoter will try very hard to get the investor to reinvest their money.
Even if the promoter of a Ponzi scheme doesn't keep any money for himself (and that would be unheard of), the scheme will collapse as soon as the payments going out exceed the money coming in. Since the whole point of the Ponzi scheme is to make money for the promoter, typically a large portion is spent or hidden early on. Charles Ponzi lived a lavish life for a little while, enjoying the fruits of his criminal ingenuity.
People were more than eager to give him their money.
A Ponzi Scheme is Not an Investment
Arguably, a payment to someone running a Ponzi scheme is not an investment at all. It's a gift. The money will not be paid back, and the promoter will disappear like Santa Claus on Boxing Day.
Charles Ponzi's End
Ponzi himself was found out by the investigative journalism of the Boston Post, and the whole scheme quickly tumbled down. He was convicted of mail fraud, sentenced to jail for five years, and eventually deported from the United States. He died alone and apparently poor in Brazil in 1949. His name lives on infamously.
Seorang Melayu, seorang Itali dan seorang Amerika. Tiga manusia yang berbeza kulit, bahasa, budaya dan agama, dan dari pelusuk dunia yang berbeza. Tetapi tiga manusia ini mempunyai persamaan dalam cita-cita, citarasa dan matlamat iaitu mengadakan sekim cepat kaya atau skim piramid dengan memperdaya mereka yang hendak cepat kaya dan haloba tanpa berusaha.
Osman Hamzah (tiada gambar), orang Taiping, Perak atau lebih dikenali sebagai Pak Man Telo telah mewujudkan satu skim cepat kaya yang paling terkenal di Malaysia. Ramailah rakyat terutamanya, atau memang semuanya, Melayu terpedaya dengannya. Pak Man Telo dikatakan telah menipu kira-kira 50,000 pelabur dengan dana sebanyak RM99 Juta. Yang hebatnya pada asalnya beliau hanyalah seorang penduduk kampung biasa yang bekerja sebagai wartawan sambilan. Beliau telah ditahan pada 1990 dan dibuang daerah dan meninggal dunia di Terengganu pada 1997. Selepas kes beliau, banyak lagi skim-skim cepat kaya atau piramid wujud kemudiannya. Tetapi manusia yang tidak pernah belajar atau kerana haloba terus tertipu.....
Bernard Madoff, 
70 tahun, dari New York, Amerika Syarikat baru sahaja ditangkap oleh polis kerana disyakki memperdaya pelabur-pelabur besar dunia (tidak pasti lagi samada pelabur Melaysia juga terkena) sejumlah AS$50 billion. Beliau berjaya menipu para pelabur dan pihak berkuasa kewangan Amerika Syarikat selama 40 tahun!! Beliau akan dibicarakan tidak lama lagi.
70 tahun, dari New York, Amerika Syarikat baru sahaja ditangkap oleh polis kerana disyakki memperdaya pelabur-pelabur besar dunia (tidak pasti lagi samada pelabur Melaysia juga terkena) sejumlah AS$50 billion. Beliau berjaya menipu para pelabur dan pihak berkuasa kewangan Amerika Syarikat selama 40 tahun!! Beliau akan dibicarakan tidak lama lagi.Charles Ponzi 
juga beroperasi di Amerika, berjaya memperdayakan pelabur-pelaburnya sejumlah AS$10 juta pada awal tahun 1920-han. Beliau telah menjadi buah mulut ramai pada waktu itu hingga nama beliau Ponzi telah dijadikan istilah dalam kamus yang membawa maksud skim cepat kaya atau inggerisnya "Ponzi scheme".Beginilah hebatnya manusia apabila masuk bab hendak menipu orang. Tidak kira bangsa, kalau sudah hendak menipu dia akan menipu. Yang malangnya yang ditipu ialah mereka yang mudah terpedaya atau cepat percaya kalau bab-bab hendak dapat wang cepat melalui jalan pintas! Wallahualam.
juga beroperasi di Amerika, berjaya memperdayakan pelabur-pelaburnya sejumlah AS$10 juta pada awal tahun 1920-han. Beliau telah menjadi buah mulut ramai pada waktu itu hingga nama beliau Ponzi telah dijadikan istilah dalam kamus yang membawa maksud skim cepat kaya atau inggerisnya "Ponzi scheme".Beginilah hebatnya manusia apabila masuk bab hendak menipu orang. Tidak kira bangsa, kalau sudah hendak menipu dia akan menipu. Yang malangnya yang ditipu ialah mereka yang mudah terpedaya atau cepat percaya kalau bab-bab hendak dapat wang cepat melalui jalan pintas! Wallahualam.The Original Ponzi Scheme
Charles Ponzi's Name Means Investment Fraud Today
© Jill Browne
How the Ponzi Scheme got its name - a short version of Charles Ponzi's story.
Charles Ponzi Was A Real Person
In the field of investment or securities fraud, the phrase "Ponzi scheme" is often heard.
According to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Charles Ponzi raised over a million dollars in three hours in 1921. People thought he was selling them an investment that would give a 50 percent return in 90 days. It sounds too good to be true today, and it was too good to be true then.
By the time the court caught up with him, Ponzi admitted to taking $10 million from investors, many of whom were neither wealthy nor sophisticated. The actual amount could have been $15 million or more. He returned $8 million before his trial.
The Promotion Behind the Original Ponzi Scheme
Ponzi was a convicted criminal before he concocted his most famous scheme. Many would say he had no intention of ever making an effort to actually run the supposedly honest business that he was promoting. Writer Mark C. Knutson, in "The Ponzi Scheme" (1996), has taken a close look at the scheme and concluded it would be impossible to run it at any scale, and certainly not at the scale Ponzi proposed.
What Charles Ponzi told investors was this. He could buy International Postal Reply Coupons cheaply abroad and then turn them into American postage stamps. Then he would sell the postage stamps and get lots more money than what they had cost him to buy. This was because of an apparent arbitrage opportunity arising from foreign exchange rates. An American dollar could buy more coupons in Bulgaria (for example) than in the U.S., because the value of the coupon was set in local currency, regardless of the prevailing exchange rate. However, no matter where the coupons were purchased, they could be exchanged in the U.S. for the same thing, a U.S. postage stamp.
What Mark C. Knutson points out is that Ponzi would have needed armies of wheelbarrow-pushers just to carry the tens of millions of coupons he pretended to have bought. Turning the coupons into cash would also have been problematic, but not for Ponzi. He may have begun with the intention of working the arbitrage as described, but those intentions seem to have quickly evaporated. No matter what Ponzi told investors, he did not use their money to buy coupons.
What is a Ponzi Scheme?
Charles Ponzi's modus operandi was not new, but now bears his name as some kind of tribute to the vast scale with which he performed it.
Very simply, a Ponzi scheme is one where the promoter "robs Peter to pay Paul". The actual venture, whether it's postal coupons, real estate, racehorses, or anything else, does not make enough money to pay back the investors and give them the big profits they are expecting. The promoter, desperate to keep the scheme going, uses the money from new investors to pay the old ones. The most successful schemes go on for a long time by keeping investors just happy enough not to complain, and to never ask for their money back. When the investment comes due, a Ponzi scheme promoter will try very hard to get the investor to reinvest their money.
Even if the promoter of a Ponzi scheme doesn't keep any money for himself (and that would be unheard of), the scheme will collapse as soon as the payments going out exceed the money coming in. Since the whole point of the Ponzi scheme is to make money for the promoter, typically a large portion is spent or hidden early on. Charles Ponzi lived a lavish life for a little while, enjoying the fruits of his criminal ingenuity.
People were more than eager to give him their money.
A Ponzi Scheme is Not an Investment
Arguably, a payment to someone running a Ponzi scheme is not an investment at all. It's a gift. The money will not be paid back, and the promoter will disappear like Santa Claus on Boxing Day.
Charles Ponzi's End
Ponzi himself was found out by the investigative journalism of the Boston Post, and the whole scheme quickly tumbled down. He was convicted of mail fraud, sentenced to jail for five years, and eventually deported from the United States. He died alone and apparently poor in Brazil in 1949. His name lives on infamously.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Tragedi Tanah Runtuh Bukit Antarabangsa
Tragedi ini membuktikan betapa manusia tidak pernah mahu belajar dari sejarah. Kejadian tanah runtuh yang berlaku sebelum ini di Malaysia dan di tempat lain di serata dunia menunjukkan samada manusia ini mudah lupa atau sengaja lupa kerana kerakusan kepada keuntungan dan wang ringgit.
Tragedi terbaru ini harus dipersalahkan kepada badan penguatkuasa iaitu Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya. Tidak boleh ditolak bulat-bulat jika ada dakwaan yang menyatakan tragedi ini berlaku akibat tamak haloba atau rasuah di kalangan pegawai dan kakitangan MPAJ yang mudah meluluskan projek-projek yang diketahui boleh membawa malapetaka seperti memberi kelulusan membina rumah atau bangunan dilereng atau atas bukit.
Walau diketahui ia membahaya, rakyat diyakini oleh pemaju dan MPAJ bahawa ciri-ciri keselamatan dipatuhi maka projek perumahan itu diluluskan. Kalau benar MPAJ mematuhi 100 peratus peraturan dan undang-undang serta arahan Kerajaan Persekutuan mengenai bahaya dan larangan mendirikan binaan di lereng-lereng atau atas bukit, pastinya tidak akan ada projek binaan di kawasan seperti Bukit Antarabangsa.
Yang nyata disebaliknya ialah projek-projek tumbuh melata seperti cendawan di segenap pelusuk bukit hinggalah berlaku dengan mudahnya tragedi seperti ini apabila alam dirosakkan oleh manusia yang rakus akan wang ringgit dan mengutamakan habuan untuk diri sendiri. Dalam tragedi seperti ini, MPAJ bersalah! Pemaju bersalah! Pembeli pun bersalah. Eloklah masing-masing menerima padahnya daripada malapetaka ini atas atas perlakuan sendiri.
Tragedi ini membuktikan betapa manusia tidak pernah mahu belajar dari sejarah. Kejadian tanah runtuh yang berlaku sebelum ini di Malaysia dan di tempat lain di serata dunia menunjukkan samada manusia ini mudah lupa atau sengaja lupa kerana kerakusan kepada keuntungan dan wang ringgit.
Tragedi terbaru ini harus dipersalahkan kepada badan penguatkuasa iaitu Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya. Tidak boleh ditolak bulat-bulat jika ada dakwaan yang menyatakan tragedi ini berlaku akibat tamak haloba atau rasuah di kalangan pegawai dan kakitangan MPAJ yang mudah meluluskan projek-projek yang diketahui boleh membawa malapetaka seperti memberi kelulusan membina rumah atau bangunan dilereng atau atas bukit.
Walau diketahui ia membahaya, rakyat diyakini oleh pemaju dan MPAJ bahawa ciri-ciri keselamatan dipatuhi maka projek perumahan itu diluluskan. Kalau benar MPAJ mematuhi 100 peratus peraturan dan undang-undang serta arahan Kerajaan Persekutuan mengenai bahaya dan larangan mendirikan binaan di lereng-lereng atau atas bukit, pastinya tidak akan ada projek binaan di kawasan seperti Bukit Antarabangsa.
Yang nyata disebaliknya ialah projek-projek tumbuh melata seperti cendawan di segenap pelusuk bukit hinggalah berlaku dengan mudahnya tragedi seperti ini apabila alam dirosakkan oleh manusia yang rakus akan wang ringgit dan mengutamakan habuan untuk diri sendiri. Dalam tragedi seperti ini, MPAJ bersalah! Pemaju bersalah! Pembeli pun bersalah. Eloklah masing-masing menerima padahnya daripada malapetaka ini atas atas perlakuan sendiri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
