Trillion dollars questions to the U.S. of MH370


Let me state from the outset that I totally agree with the press statements by Malaysia’s Defence Minister and Acting Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that “we have conducted ourselves fairly, responsibly and history will judge us for that.”

And to a mischievous and presumptuous question from a correspondent of the Financial Times, Datuk Seri with confidence and integrity rightly said without any fear of contradiction that, “I don’t think we could have done anything different from what we have already done.” Well done! The Financial Times, CNN and other foreign media ought to pose similar questions to the US and its intelligence services and stop insinuating that Malaysia has not been transparent and/or engaged in a cover-up. Foreign media should stop engaging in dirty politics!

It is my hope that following the publication of this article, Malaysian mass media will focus on questioning the integrity of the US’s assistance to Malaysia in the first three weeks of the SAR mission, notwithstanding its recent offer of more assistance. I take comfort that my reservations about the US and its intelligence services as well as other intelligence services closely linked to the US, especially British secret service, have been more than vindicated by Reuters in its news report on 28th March, 2014 entitled Geopolitical games handicap hunt for flight MH370.

The search for flight MH370, the Malaysian Airlines jetliner that vanished over the South China Sea on March 8, has involved more than two dozen countries and 60 aircraft and ships but has been bedevilled by regional rivalries. …

With the United States playing a relatively muted role in the sort of exercise that until recently it would have dominated, experts and officials say there was no real central coordination until the search for the plane was confined to the southern Indian Ocean, when Australia largely took charge.

Part of the problem is that Asia has no NATO-style regional defence structure, though several countries have formal alliances with the United States. Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia also have an arrangement with Britain to discuss defense matters in times of crisis. As mystery deepened over the fate of the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew, most of them Chinese, it became clear that highly classified military technology might hold the key. But the investigation became deadlocked over the reluctance of others to share sensitive data, a reticence that appeared to harden as the search area widened.

“This is turning into a spy novel,” said an envoy from a Southeast Asian country, noting it was turning attention to areas and techniques few countries liked to publicly discuss. Ultimately, the only country with the technical resources to recover the plane – or at least its black box recorder, which could lie in water several miles deep – may be the United States. Its deep-sea vehicles ultimately hauled up the wreckage of Air France 447 after its 2009 crash into a remote region of the South Atlantic. While Putrajaya has been forced to reveal some of the limits and ranges of its air defenses, the reluctance of Malaysia’s neighbours to release sensitive radar data may have obstructed the investigation for days.

At an ambassadorial meeting in the ad-hoc crisis centre at an airport hotel on March 16, Malaysia formally appealed to countries on the jet’s possible path for help, but in part met with polite stonewalling, two people close to the talks said. Some countries asked Malaysia to put its request in writing, triggering a flurry of diplomatic notes and high-level contacts.

‘It became a game of poker in which Malaysia handed out the cards at the table but couldn’t force others to show their hand,“ a person from another country involved in the talks said. As in the northern Indian Ocean, where Chinese forces operate alongside other nations to combat Somali piracy, current and former officials say all sides are almost certainly quietly spying on and monitoring each other at the same time. (emphasis added) WantChinaTimes, Taiwan reported: The United States has taken advantage of the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight to test the capabilities of China’s satellites and judge the threat of Chinese missiles against its aircraft carriers, reports our sister paper Want Daily. Erich Shih, chief reporter at Chinese-language military news monthly Defense International, said the US has more and better satellites but has not taken part in the search for flight MH370, which disappeared about an hour into its flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in the early hours of March 8 with 239 people on board. Shih claimed that the US held back because it wanted to see what information China’s satellites would provide. The above is the reality which we have to confront.

Therefore, desist any attempt to label the above mainstream media articles as a “conspiracy theory”. Reuters has let the Genie out of the bottle! Malaysia’s Minister of Transport Datuk Seri Hishammuddin gave hints of Malaysia’s difficulties (as his hands were tied by intelligence protocols and or refusal by the relevant foreign intelligence services and diplomatic reluctance) but our local media failed to appreciate the nuances of his statements by not directing their questions at those parties that have failed Malaysia as their neighbour and in their duties under various defence treaties and arrangements.

Malaysian media, please read at the minimum three times, the sentences in bold AND WAKE UP TO THE REALITY that our country has been badly treated even though our country put all its national security cards on the table so that countries whose nationals are passengers on flight MH 370 could come forward with sincerity to assist in resolving this unfortunate tragedy which is not Malaysia’s making. Malaysia is but a victim of this tragedy whose plane, MH 370 was used for a hidden agenda for which only time will reveal.

In my previous article posted to the website on the 27th March, 2014, I exposed how Israel is exploiting the tragedy to create public opinion for a war against Iran, a Muslim country that has close ties with Malaysia. At the outset of the SAR Mission, all concerned stated categorically that every scenario, no matter how unlikely would be examined critically with no stones left unturned – terrorist hijacking, suicide mission, technical failures, inadequate security, criminal actions of the pilot and or co-pilot etc. Given the above premise, families of the passengers and the crew of MH 370 have every right to ask the following questions of the US and other countries that have sophisticated technologies to track and monitor airplanes and ships in all circumstances. Such questions should not be shot down by those who have a hidden agenda that such queries amount to “conspiracy theories”.

Far from being conspiracy theories, we assert that the questions tabled below and the rationale for asking them are well founded and must be addressed by the relevant parties, failing which an inference ought to be drawn that they are complicit in the disappearance of MH 370. Lets us begin.

1) Was the plane ordered to turn back, if so who gave the order?

2) Was the plane turned back manually or by remote control?

3) If the latter, which country or countries have the technologies to execute such an operation?

4) Was MH 370 weaponised before its flight to Beijing?

5) If so, what are the likely methods for such a mission – Biological weapons, dirty bombs?

6) Was Beijing / China the target and if so why?

7) Qui Bono?

8) The time sequence of countries identifying the alleged MH 370 debris in the Indian ocean was first made by Australia followed by France, Thailand, Japan, and Britain via Immarsat. Why did US not offer any satellite intelligence till today?

9) Prior to the switch of focus to the Indian ocean, was the SAR mission in the South China seas, used as a cover for the deployment of undersea equipment to track and monitor naval capabilities of all the nations’ navies competing for ownership of disputed territorial waters? Reuters as quoted above seems to have suggested such an outcome.

10) Why was there been no focus, especially by foreign mass media, on the intelligence and surveillance capabilities of Diego Garcia, the strategic naval and air base of the US?

11) Why no questions were asked whether the flight path of MH 370 (if as alleged it crashed in the Indian Ocean), was within the geographical parameters of the Intelligence capabilities of Diego Garcia? Why were no planes deployed from Diego Garcia to intercept the “Unidentified” plane which obviously would pose a threat to the Diego Gracia military base?

12) The outdated capabilities of the Hexagon satellite system deployed by the US in the 1970s has a ground resolution of 0.6 meters; what’s more, the present and latest technologies boast the ability to identify objects much smaller in size. Why have such satellites not provided any images of the alleged debris in the Indian Ocean? Were they deliberately withheld?

13) On April 6th, 2012, the US launched a mission dubbed “NROL-25” (consisting of a spy satellite) from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The NROL-25 satellite was likely rigged with “synthetic aperture radar” a system capable of observing targets around the globe in daylight and darkness, able to penetrate clouds and identify underground structures such as military bunkers. Though the true capabilities of the satellites are not publicly known due to their top-secret classification, some analysts have claimed that the technology allows the authorities to zoom in on items as small as a human fist from hundreds of miles away.

How is it that no imagery of MH370 debris was forwarded to Malaysia, as this capability is not classified though other technologies might well remain classified? (Source: Slate.com)

14) Could it be that the above capabilities were not as touted?

15) However, in December, 2013, the USAtlas V rocket was launched carrying the spy satellite NROL-39 for the National Reconnaissance Office, an intelligence agency which is often overshadowed by the notorious National Security Agency (NSA), only it scoops data via spy satellites in outer space.

The “NROL-39 emblem” is represented by the Octopus a versatile, adaptive, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide.

The emblem boldly states “Nothing is beyond our reach”. This virtually means that the tentacles of America’s World Octopus are spreading across the globe to coil around everything within their grasp, which is, well, everything (Source: Voice of Moscow). Yet, the US with such capabilities remained silent. Why? It cannot be said that it is not within the realm of probabilities that the US may not want the plane MH 370 to be recovered if rogue intelligence operators were responsible for the disappearance of MH 370.

If the above questions have been posed to the US and other intelligence agencies and answers are not forthcoming, I take the view that the Malaysian government ought to declare publicly that our national sovereignty and security have been jeopardized by the disappearance of MH 370 and that the relevant intelligence agencies have been tacitly complicit in the disappearance of MH370.

By coming out openly to explain the predicament faced by our country, Malaysia may prevent a hostile act against a third country.

I therefore call upon Malaysian mass media to be courageous and initiate such queries as only the US and other intelligence agencies can give definitive answers to the above 15 questions.

It is futile to demand answers from Malaysia as we are not in any position to supply the information as we do not have the capabilities of the global and regional military powers. Malaysians must unite behind the government so that our leaders need not feel that they are alone shouldering this enormous burden.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Read more at: http://english.astroawani.com/budget/news/show/the-trillion-dollar-question-to-the-u-s-and-its-intelligence-services-32873?cp

Matthias Chang

Is Maureen Baginsky behind MH flight 370?


Enormous speculations on what might have gone on behind closed doors during the disappearance of MH370; which have gone viral across the globe raising so many questions on which one is it the truth?

When UK experts said they believe Malaysia Airlines MH370 was hijacked using cellphone; it is so true!

Continues praying for those innocent people (we meant only the innocent people) on that plane be returned home soonest and safely.

A Flash Override invented by Maureen Baginski for Serco may have cyber-jacked MH370 during its demonstration on March 8.

Read here on Maureen Baginski.

United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Serco director Maureen Baginski’s air traffic controllers to an apparent Free Flight hijack of MH Flight 370 and the MI-3 Innholders Livery Company guests’ use of a Hotel Red Switch Autopilot network during phony continuity of regional government exercises on March 8, 2014.

Findings by McConnell’s research team suggest that the former U.K. Minister of Defence Nicholas “Cock O’Till” Soames hired Baginski to create a Serco ATC story board exercise in which MI-3 guests used a Starwood Sheraton red switch autopilot to hijack MH 370 for a Free Flight crash into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.

McConnell believes the Petronas Towers Free Flight attack was thwarted when erstwhile colleagues at the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Command re-overrode the MI-3 Hotel Red Switch Autopilot and flew MH Flight 370 to the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia.

Who is this United States Marine Field McConnell?

On December 10, 2006, an ex-Delta Pilot; Captain Field McConnell reported the illegal modification on Boeing aircraft to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Northwest Airlines, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), NORAD and the USNA Superintendent. Shortly thereafter, Northwest Airlines, compelled by the United States Department of Justice (USDoJ), silenced Captain Field McConnell, due to his inadvertent reopening of a safety issue closed in the June, 2006 settlement of a $615 million settlement paid by Boeing to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ).

Field McConnell filed Civil Case 3:07-cv-24 at the District Court, District of North Dakota on the 27th of February, 2007. The case is titled ‘FIELD MCCONNELL v. ALPA and BOEING’. Boeing admitted on March 3, 2007 the existence of the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. To date, 9 February, 2012, Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) has suppressed this information.

Field McConnell retired March 13, 2007 to preserve his EXPERT WITNESS VALUE in US District Courts. Civil Case 3:07-cv-49 HAWKS CAFE v. GLOBAL GUARDIANS was filed on May Day, May 1, 2007 in District Court, District of North Dakota.

McConnell was recruited by Air Astana to fly Airbus A320 as Captain at Almaty and Astana, Kazakhstan serving there from February 6, 2008 until August 6, 2009. Captain Field McConnell flew with Muslim copilots around tall buildings. On December 13, 2008, an aircraft Captain Field McConnell was the captain of was electronically ‘tampered with’ having no effect on Field McConnell’s performance as a highly experienced pilot.

While serving as Airbus Captain in Kazakhstan, Captain Field McConnell filed Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC) (Pro Se) September, 2008, MCCONNELL v. ALPA. Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC) (Pro Se) was dismissed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in January, 2011

During pendency of my warning to the FAA, ALPA, FBI, DoD and NoRAD, the following flights have been lost consistent with Field McConnell’s warnings:

  • Adam Air 574 – 1 January, 2007 Indonesia
  • Kenya Airways 507 – 5 May, 2007 Kenya
  • Colgan Air 3407 – 12 February, 2009 Buffalo, New York
  • Air France 447 – 1 June, 2009 enroute from Rio to Paris

Four other flights were “electronically tampered” with including the following flights:

  • British Airways 38 London Heathrow
  • Turkish Airlines 1951 Amsterdam Holland
  • Northwest 188 Minneapolis
  • Northwest 253 Detroit

Fargo Forum, called Field McConnell at home early in the after noon of September 11, 2001, the very same day of the attack on New York and the Pentagon in Washington. The reporter from the Fargo Forum talked about forty minutes, then asked if Field McConnell could be photographed for a front page story. The Fargo Forum, a Pullitzer Prize winning daily in Fargo North Dakota, sent a photographer out to McConnell’s farm which was near Glyndon Minnesota, thirteen miles east of Fargo North Dakota.

Field McConnell still retains that front page of that newspaper; and on page A5 dated September 12, 2001, the headline read: “Our Nation Saw Evil”, with a photograph of the rubble at the WTC complex, President George Bush, Osama bin Laden and Field McConnell.

This demonstrated clearly that McConnell was sought out as an “expert” on 9-11. The newspaper knew that McConnell had flown with and retired from the North Dakota Air National Guard as a Lieutenant Colonel after having flown sixteen years with them in the F4 Phantom and F16 Falcon fighters.

McConnell’s interest has remained very high as his college classmate (USNA ’71) was the Captain on American Airlines Flight 77, which was vaporized over the Atlantic forty-five minutes prior to the unmanned aerial vehicle that killed another United States Naval Academy alumni, Captain Gerald ‘Fish’ DeConto, whose window in Wedge One of the Pentagon the object flew into. McConnell felt strongly that the attack on September 11, 2001 was an inside job; and by September 12, 2001, he knew with a moderate degree of certainty that it, in fact, was precisely that.

How? The Fargo Forum reported three F16s had scrambled off of Langley Air Force Base. Bingo, end of charade, now it was time for Field McConnell to do some research.

Field McConnell knew from his years of fighter pilot experience, the only way three fighters would have scrambled was if it was known they would be needed. Otherwise, never in history, to his knowledge would have three pilots ever been sitting alert. There usually are three jets (one a maintenance spare) but no spare pilot.

On December 4, 2006, Field McConnell called a medically retired United Airlines captain and chatted with him regarding the fraudulent bankruptcy involving United Airlines. Field McConnell called him again December 5, 2006 and again on December 6 2006. With three days of trust, he offered to join his cause as an expert witness for the events of September 11, 2001, and bring that issue into court so when the UAL BR is reviewed, there would have been corroborating testimony from another angle. Dan H, the United Airlines captain, said that the attorney on the case wanted to stay focused, but that if Field McConnell was seriously working on September 11, he should call David Hawkins, so on December 6, 2006, David Hawkins and Field McConnell were introduced to each other via email through the United Airlines captain, Dan H.

David Hawkins is a Cambridge alumni with impeccable academic credentials. David Hawkins, too, had been studying the events of September 11, 2001 from the perspective of a forensic economist. David Hawkins’ mind and mastery of details makes his delivery “similar to a fire hose”, in the words of Field McConnell. However, Field McConnell can process information rather quickly, so it was possible, though tiring, for Field McConnell and David Hawkins to converse. Field McConnell has the ability to absorb ninety percent of what David Hawkins delivers and the other ten percent, as a fight pilot, are “details”. However, Field McConnell has developed the equivalent of a twelve year intellectual partnership with David Hawkins in that Field McConnell can keep up with David Hawkins’ equivalent of a “fire hose.”

Both Field McConnell and David Hawkins, have “learning abilities” in that they can process information differently than most people. Even though David Hawkins was a brilliant scholar and Field McConnell was a “lackluster student”, they have complementary skill sets including:

David Hawkins: economics, physics, AI, applied math, explosives, thermodynamics, engineering
Field McConnell: economics, transport flying 19,000+ hours, fighter flying 3700+ hours, total flying 23000+ hours, Marine, Navy AF experience

When Field McConnell and David Hawkins’ paths crossed on December 6, 2006, David Hawkins said something to the effect of “finally”. Field McConnell asked David Hawkins what he was referring to, and David Hawkins said that he had been looking for an airline pilot or a fighter pilot from the US who had knowledge of the true Hollywood production of 9-11 for distribution by the mainline media, and was open to working together at Hawks CAFE. David Hawkins said he “felt like it was his birthday.” Field McConnell told David Hawkins to think of it more like Christmas; because Field McConnell wasn’t an “either/or pilot”, Field McConnell was both: an airline pilot and a fighter pilot.

Field McConnell and David Hawkins’ synergy and trust grew swiftly and strongly, and on December 8, 2006, Field McConnell warned the Northcommand (NORAD) of a threat; December 9, 2006, Field McConnell warned on a threat of the top five airlines in the US; December 10, 2006, Field McConnell warned the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA Union); on December 11, 2006, Field McConnell warned a fourth entity who is not germane to the this story any longer.

In the warnings, Field McConnell alleged that his study of September 11, 2001 lead him to believe that at least 108 Boeing airliners were in service that had been modified with QRS11 GyroChips (electronic hijack) and “something more sinister”. There was no interest from any quarter. On January 1, 2007, Adam Air 574 was vaporized in Indonesia in a manner exactly like Field McConnell had relayed as a threat.

In discussing this investigation with Field McConnell’s sister, who served as number three to Janet Reno’s number one at the Department of Justice (DOJ), when she knew she couldn’t get Field McConnell off the trail, she suggested Field McConnell contact FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. Field McConnell then requested a face-to-face ASAP meeting in the interest of preventing a second 9-11. There was no reply.

Friday, February 23, 2007, Field McConnell emailed the CEO of Boeing demanding that he send Field McConnell a letter, notarized, and signed with his hand to Field McConnell telling him all QRS11 GyroChips and “other illegal modifications” had been removed from the 108+ Boeings, the same Boeings, Field McConnell alleged, triggered the $615 million payment from Boeing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to abort a DOJ investigation into the illegal modifications allegedly performed in 2000 to 2003. Field McConnell gave Boeing four days, and when there was no response by February 2, 2007, Field McConnell filed a civil case for $1.5 million in lost income since Field McConnell could not legally fly a Boeing product. It violated Field McConnell’s company regulations and it would have violated Federal Aviation Regulations.

Boeing and ALPA have been invited to come to US District Court and Field McConnell, Boeing and ALPA will determine who is informed and misinformed.

Field McConnell’s trust level of and working his relationship with David Hawkins is so mature that four days after “joint research” began, Field McConnell put a mark on his forehead as anyone who knows who is at the top of this evidence trail would clearly understand who Field McConnell and David Hawkins are indicting. Further, when Field McConnell filed the civil RICO suit, he put a more powerful target on his life because, among others, he alleges that the 50 member board of directors of Boeing, as well as 50 more “household names” will be called in this trial. One of the big names ran for president, and “She’s In to Win”; and another household name won an Oscar for “A Convenient Lie”.

David Hawkins and Field McConnell have worked every day since December 6, 2006 and as of December 23, 2007, they both agree that their information is sufficient to prove “Wrongful Death” (6000+ cases) that allowed Field McConnell to file the suit as soon as his twenty-four year-old old son arrived safely in Iraq, ironically on a Boeing.

Sadly, Field McConnell’s son is tracked and targeted by more cowards, including RADSAT, Iridium, Tomoye, and Boeing corporations, in Quebec and Chicago; and one more, McConnell International LLC. There is no relation, but Field’s sister is a principal at McConnell International.

If David Hawkins and Field McConnell can solve 9-11 in five and a half years, what have the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency and the national Security Agency been doing with tax dollars?

The US Intelligence community has been totally inerted by Tomoye in Quebec and McConnell in Washington DC. Interestingly enough, their Washington offices are within one block of each other on same street. Perhaps their cells will be on the same cellblock soon.

- See more at: http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/01/field-mcconnell-bio.html#sthash.4UHtpaIh.dpuf

Field McConnell’s revelation of Boeing Uninterrupted AutoPilot

Nufam’s Stupidity – Episode 3


The journey of the National Union for Flight Attendant Malaysia in typical circumstances is a shortest stint ever recorded in the history of trade unionism as assisted by the Director General of Trade Union – the Cleverest Young Bastard (YB) Mustafa Bin Ali and his collaborators that included AirAsia’s CEO Tony Pariah Fernandez working hand in glove with another born-to-be-bastard “Roslee Sabaruddin” who works discreetly with MAS imported spy – Mohammad Fauzi Mahayahuddin to destroy the National Carrier from the inside.

This is how the department of Trade Union collaborates with Nufam…

buildingtomb20132buildingtomb2013And the hero comes along…

dgtu2014

Let us take a closer look at NUFAM chronologically…it was registered in 2012 by Ismail Nasaruddin the Lipas Man who recently was fired from Malaysia Airlines for public defamation against the National Carrier and six other MAS cabin crew. Nufam was approved by Roslee Sabaruddin (Assistant of DGTU) who then was believed to have received a sum of RM50,000 (under table) from AirAsia for assisting in the formation of Nufam to stir trouble inside MAS.

numb20131Now Every Crew Can Vote!

The slogan Nufam uses are in conjunction with AirAsia’s advertisement clearly revealing such slogan was authorised by AirAsia’s Tony Pariah Fernandez. The mission is to poison MAS cabin crew so to join AirAsiaX with those unfurled lies about how wonderful and fabulous that AirAsiaX is than any other local airlines.

This is how AirAsia get to recruit the experienced cabin crew from another local airlines for its quick expansion avoiding payable inland and airport taxes. The profit AirAsia makes are generated from all taxes specifically the airport taxes and the pre-paid airfares collected in advance from its customers.

Nufam is tasked by AirAsia’s CEO Tony Pariah Fernandez to pressure MAS CEO Ahmad Jauhari to fully committ to his promises that he made with Tony Pariah on signing away MAS quota for Los Angeles route paving way for AirAsia to fly into Los Angeles by the end of 2014.  When a CEO fails delivering it on time…Nufam strikes…nufam2014The fact remains that Nufam was truly formed by Tony Pariah Fernandez working hand in glove with the cougar bitch – Maznah Mazlan whose collaboration included those resentful ex-MAS workers in her attempt to avenge MAS for terminating her nephew who was once also a cabin crew of Malaysia Airlines under 5 years of contract service.

sackedLast year was the most memorable year for Nufam President who then finally joined the resentful clowns.

Here’s the memoir of Nufam 2013…

numb20132numb20137Nufam’s memoir for 2014…

tomb2013Digging a grave…

tomb2014Building a tomb and finally…

tomb20142Done Yet? or Well Done? Looks like the steak is sizzled and well done.

Congrats Nufam for being so D.U.M.B – Don’t Use Many Brains! Stay tuned to us for our next episode 4 – Against all odds – Ex-executive councils of AEU strikes back against MAS!

AirAsia – The failing Low Cost Airline


The first failing airline of a low-cost concept in Asia-Pacific region is AirAsia – TheConAirliner (TCA). The master planning by Tony Fernandez for AirAsia has failed unexpectedly from his organizational infrastructure that fully support unsuccessful execution in view of now that Tony Fernandez is indeed a creative WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction). His fine creativity of WMD is a reflection of his gradual slope in his management.

AirAsia never stops cheating its customers and it continues to promote its misleading and fraud deals to the public. But for how long is this going to be? For Tony Fernandez; cheating is a new trend of business ideology which he learned from his late mother who sold tupperware for a living.

Tony Fernandez is the first idiot who adopted the modern psychological warfare in airlines industry; slacken his management via his hunger for suicidal decision. Tony Fernandez is a greedy famish pig who wanted every airlines deal for himself thinking he’s a genius aviation man.

Until he fell from the ladder he was trying to climb through his underground fast-track lane; he still is the same “never learned” pig-asshole fat boy.

Tony Fernandez’s failure in its collaboration with the Malaysian National Airlines – MAS and his most recent failure in securing his board of directorship with Japanese National Airlines predicted his next failure to secure the India’s most popular cities – Mumbai and Delhi.

Mumbai and Delhi do not welcome Tony Fernandez. Tony thought his smart ideas penetrating airlines business into India market will secure him another hub-based in India. His con-job on IPO had the India’s investors fooled. AirAsia’s share prices changed for “before and after” signing of agreement with Indian investors. Before signing – AirAsia’s shares were at RM3.50 but after having closed a deal with the Indian investors – AirAsia’s shares dropped dead to RM2.20.

AAshare

There’s one principle that Tony fails to adopt is the discipline of the Japanese that would never try telling lies to the shareholders. The Japanese counterpart will not follow Tony’s sly way bullshitting for AirAsia Japan by falsely declaring the airline was making profit when it was actually making a huge losses amounted to RM113 million.

Unlike AirAsia Malaysia; it’s still making losses in its balance sheet and it declared profits from AirAsia’s credits combined with the 6 months pre-paid sales of airfares. In reality; Tony uses his credits that he owes to MAS for aircraft’s maintenance as top-up profits for AirAsia’s account. Until todate; AirAsia’s shareholders still received zero dividend for falsifying accounts.

AirAsia parted ways with Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) when it sold its 49% stake in AirAsia Japan to ANA in June this year. Both airlines had clashed over management and operational differences followed by losses amounting to ¥3.5 billion (RM113 million).

Fernandes, 49, has publicly said that he wants AirAsia to re-enter the Japanese market and is on the lookout for Japanese-Indian financial partners.

“We’ve just got to look for the right one this time because we screwed up the last time,” he added.

When Tony said “Japan was a disaster. Our partner didn’t understand what we wanted,” he actually meant that the Japanese counterpart didn’t want to lie for him.

Tony’s next con-job really had the Thailand’s Prime Minister accepted his idea to fly long haul via Bangkok to Los Angeles using  AirAsia X’s new Airbus jet order – A330-300.

25th September 2013 – AirAsia X has revealed it is getting closer to launching its new long-haul division in Thailand after confirming in a filing to the Malaysian stock exchange last week that it had reached agreement with Thai AirAsia chief Tassapon Bijleveld and Julpas Kruesopon, a businessman and advisor to Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, to formally incorporate the business.

The joint venture, called Thai AirAsia X, marks the first overseas foray by AirAsia X, the long-haul arm of Asia’s largest low-cost airline by passengers.  Although not formally part of the AirAsia Group the business has common shareholding with the other airline interests.  In the statement Thai AirAsia X said it submitted an application for an air operator’s license on June 20, 2013 and expects approval to be granted by end of this month when it will then apply for an air operator’s certificate.

As predicted; Tony Fernandez isn’t as smart as he thinks he is as an aviation man. Thai Airways fly from Bangkok to Los Angeles using B777-200/300 long-range aircraft for a flight time of more than 14 hours up to 18 hours. His latest order for 25 A330-300 airbus jet could fly a longer range where he also leases 6 A340 jets from airbus to deliver a one-two punch by 2015 to MAS and Malindo Airways especially after the Malaysian National Airlines rejected Tony’s initiative and collaboration to penetrate Los Angeles whilst Malindo Airways is busy attractting millions of AirAsia’s regular FED-UP flyers.

Whilst Tony Fernandez is planning his next route penetrating Los Angeles; his collaborative double agent CEO of MAS Ahmad Jauhari is tasked to end MAS oldest route KL – TYO – LAX by 2014 before he leaves MAS paving ways for AirAsia X to launch its first long haul route into United States of America via Kuala Lumpur. This will be Tony’s hardest punches for Malaysia Airlines after CEO Ahmad Jauhari contract ends.

Ironically, soon after Tony had the under-tabled discussion with the Thailand Prime Minister to accept his landing rights for Los Angeles to Bangkok; Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck initiated for amnesty bill passed for her cloned brother Thaksin to return home from exile. Consequently Yingluck faces street violent protest and fled from being captured by her protestors. The latter is calling for new election to calm the protestors.

Tony has his right hand wing flown to Los Angeles to discuss the landing rights for both routes i.e. LA – Bangkok and LA – KL (via Taipei). If FAA approved AirAsia X to fly directly from KL; Tony Fernandez will firmly deliver his punches to MAS workers who got his ass kicked out of Malaysia Airlines.

AirAsia has a bad record of its safety performance over the last one decade as compared to Thai Airways;

  • 8 November 2004 – On AirAsia Flight 104, the Boeing 737 plane carrying 111 passengers and five crew skidded while landing. Three passengers – a five-year-old girl and two women – were injured while evacuating from the plane and received outpatient treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
  • 14 December 2005 – The Kota Kinabalu International Airport was closed for a few hours after an AirAsia plane burst a tire on landing. There were no injuries in the 10.30pm incident.
  • On 10 January 2011, AirAsia Flight 5218 skidded on the runway whilst landing. The incident occurred around 10:15pm during a heavy downpour. Four passengers were rushed to Sarawak General Hospital, believed to have suffered from health complications.
  • 3 August 2012 – On AirAsia Flight 5187 from Miri to Kuala Lumpur was scheduled to take off at 7.40pm. Furious passengers had their journey delayed for over an hour as a result of a man’s emphatic decision not to remain on the plane until take off. A witness said that as the plane was about to take off, the man suddenly opened the emergency doors and leapt out. On-duty flight attendants reportedly said they were powerless to stop him from opening the emergency exit and jumping out once the plane had started to move on the runway.

For Yingluck to have approved AirAsia X – a subsidiary of AirAsia to take long haul flight away from Thai Airways that basing on AirAsia’s bad safety record; is a bad luck for the Ying-luck. Ying-luck now turns Bad-Luck! Corruption does not choose its gender and Yingluck is a fool to have fallen into her bad-luck at this stage.

For public knowledge on Tony The Scumbag’s strategy; he always applies espionage as his gateway to heaven! Tony Fernandez will do anything to survive from the fierce competition including bribing the middle management of  MAS to screw up the operations and paying top-dollars to Ahmad Jauhari; Azhari Dahlan; Zaharah Zaid and remain as the champion eventhough his AirAsia’s debts-growth rose and tripled to maximum.  Tony’s next con-job is to shake those who rejected his proposal and initiatives – Revenge will rise!

Stay tuned to us for more updates on this scumbag – Tony Fernandez the pig asshole fat boy!

The New World Order on Privatization – Part 3


Previously published for Part I and Part II, here is the Part III on The Effect on Employment.

Many observers fear that privatization and the associated efficiency improvements will require large labor force reductions both before privatization as governments cut the workforce and after as privatized firms continue to restructure; also narrated that large-scale job losses have been associated with privatization in most transition countries, and new private sector growth had not been sufficient to absorb labor retrenched by formerly state-owned enterprises.

The following is the examples of some countries that give a flavor of the employment challenge associated with privatization:

  1. Bulgaria:, Industrial employment in Bulgaria fell by 31.3 per cent; employment in privatized firms fell from 4 million to 1 million people, between December 1989 and December 1991.
  2. Czech Republic: A government survey of 572 companies — 101 in food, 159 in engineering, 184 in manufacturing and 128 in construction — revealed a “significant decline in employment”, with engineering (12 per cent) showing the sharpest drop, manufacturing and construction each cutting jobs by 10 per cent, and the food sector by 4 per cent.
  3. Hungary: Employment in engineering dropped by 12 per cent, in manufacturing by 10 per cent, in construction by 10 per cent and in food processing by 4 per cent during 1992 and 1993. Before privatization the lighting company Tungsram employed 35,000 people which were left 9,500 after privatization by 1993. This was done mainly through early retirement and voluntary redundancy, alongside a freeze on recruitment. Many of the jobs were redundant as a result of administrative functions being centralized with the new owner’s offices outside Hungary. As a result, non-manual grades were affected disproportionately by the Tungsram job losses.
  4. East Germany: The numbers in employment fell from 9 million before transition to 6.3 million by the end of 1992; the numbers employed in enterprises under the privatization agency, the Treuhandanstalt, fell from 4.1 million to 1.2 million during that period.
  5. Poland: Government research into 130 companies (24 per cent in manufacturing, 45 per cent in construction and 31 per cent in trade and services), employing 285 each on average, showed that employment fell by 15 per cent in the first year and by 25 per cent over the first two years after privatization, leveling-off in the third year with a drop of a further approximately 2 per cent. A study of ten privatized Polish industrial and trade companies indicated decreases in employment averaging around 12.5 per cent. In the Bialystok Municipal Refuse Collection Enterprises, privatized with a large employee stake, employment halved over the first year, and, as a result of being shareholders, the workers received no severance pay.
  6. Russian Federation: At the Shatura Furniture Company, introduction of an electronic data management system enabled nearly half the 3,700 jobs to be cut while Uralmash, the heavy machinery manufacturer in the Urals, reduced employment from 70,000 people to 20,000.
  7. Viet Nam: Between 1988 and 1992, 1.5 million workers, equivalent to 20 per cent of the urban labor force, were retrenched from state enterprises and the civil service.

Despite the concern about possible job losses, studies undertaken by World Bank showed that “African government have done very little to track the effects of privatization on employment.”

Not only that privatization is causing unemployment in Tanzania, most of workers lost their jobs before Privatization started, because more than 70 enterprises were closed and workers lost their jobs.

It concluded that despite all these successes the government goal to employment rate has not been met since most of workers lost their job at aftermath of privatization. It also concluded that privatization has a significantly negative impact on total and workers’ employment.

In the light of evidences, Pamacheche and Koma (2007) suggested that privatization is in the interest of employees, although there are a few exceptions to this.

Such benefits take three forms:

  1. employment levels tended to increase after privatization;
  2. remuneration packages tended to improve after privatization and;
  3. many employees bought shares at discounted prices in the privatized firms and these benefited when share prices eventually rose.

In cases where employees lost their jobs as a result of privatization, such employees tended to receive generous severance packages. Severance and retirement incentives buy labor support and allow privatization and its benefits to happen and, where unemployment insurance systems are not in place, mitigate the social impact of layoffs.

In some cases, the reduction in the level of employment took place prior to privatization and as such, could be attributed to the need for greater efficiency, and not just privatization. In cases where shut down enterprises were re-opened by private investors, employees benefited directly.

Evidence argued that many enterprises have been privatized with their labor force intact, either because increasing competition led to labor force adjustments under public ownership or because new private investors were willing to take on modest levels of over staffing that could be absorbed by new investments and dynamic expansion.

More important, particularly in sectors with large investment backlogs, privatization and the investments that accompany it have created new jobs at both the enterprise and sector levels. Workers remaining with privatized firms have often benefited by obtaining better-paying jobs, company shares, and improved training and career development prospects.

In general, privatization has had a minimal effect on employment in countries that carried out labor reforms well before privatization.

Chile, for example, began extensive labor market reforms in the early 1970s by rationalizing state enterprise employment and wages and changing labor market regulations regarding the hiring and firing workers. These reforms led to significant employment reductions by the early 1980s in both public and private firms.

As a result the second round of privatization that began in 1985 and involved larger firms in sectors such as telecommunications and electricity resulted in no layoffs.

In fact, employment in these firms increased by 10 percent as a result of overall improvements in the economy but also of the new investments that accompanied privatization.

Privatization has also had a minimal effect on workers in competitive enterprises. Ghana, Mexico, Morocco, and Tunisia are among many countries that have been able to sell such enterprises with their labor force more or less intact. However large employment reductions have often accompanied the privatization of state enterprises that were, in the past, heavily subsidized and protected from competition.

As reported from some studies in 1994 that in Mexico Employment in four steel plants was cut from 35,578 in 1985 to 17,485 in 1994, with the largest declines occurring just before privatization in 1991.

The privatization in the early 1990s of the two heavily overstaffed and highly unionized state airlines also involved major downsizing before privatization. In the case of Aero-Mexico a massive strike led the government to declare the company bankrupt.

The company went into liquidation and its assets were sold; new owner rehired only a fraction of the workforce. In the case of the second airline, Mexicana, the prospective buyers insisted that the lab or force be cut before privatization, and the government reduced it by more than 40 percent.

What’s next?  The Effect on Employees’ Income

In a research about Tanzania, it was reported that salaries and other incentives for workers have been increased and improved, for example before privatization the lowest salary plus other incentives at Tanga Cement Company was 120 USD per month, now after privatization the salary is more than 360 USD.

Tanzania Breweries Limited for lowest salary was 72 USD per month before privatization and after raised to 96 USD per month. Earle (2006) is of the view that the implications of privatization for wages are also ambiguous. New owners may reduce wages as part of a general cost-cutting policy, but if the firm expands, it may have to offer higher wages to attract new workers.

New private owners may also be more likely to adopt skill-biased technologies, resulting in a compositional shift toward higher-paid workers. Depending on the relative strength of such factors, wages may either rise or fall as a result of privatization.

The Upjohn Institute, in collaboration with partners from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and the Central European University Labor Project in Budapest, has recently undertaken an empirical analysis of the effects of privatization on the wage bill, employment, and wage rates of firms in Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine—countries where thousands of businesses were privatized in a relatively short period of time during the 1990s.

These four countries had varied success with privatization reforms.

Hungary was considered one of the most successful, Russia and Ukraine were less successful, and Romania was somewhere in the middle. The new research in this project, however, finds no evidence of large systematic negative consequences of privatization for employment and wages.

Privatization is in the interest of employees and when the industries are given in the private hands their performance is increased manifold; remuneration packages tended to improve because employees are given better wages and salaries in order to improve their productivity and retention in the business. Privatization can be followed immediately by worse terms and conditions, but such an initial impact can be reversed later when a restructured company is able to reward employees for their contribution to its success with improvements in pay and conditions.

However, the converse initial improvement followed by later deterioration has also occurred. The examples of decline of salaries due to privatization of many countries as mentioned in following lines.

In post-reform Viet Nam, the wages of civil servants and state enterprise employees declined by 60 per cent from 1985 to 1991, followed by partial reversal of that trend in 1993. In 1989, a Vietnamese civil servant’s salary could buy 2.3 kg of rice a day and that of a state enterprise worker 3.3 kg, so that, at most, only one person apart from the principal breadwinner could be supported by the wage, compared to four people in 1985. In addition, health and education subsidies declined.

In Poland, average wages and salaries fell by 27 per cent between 1989 and 1992, opening up inequalities in income. A study of ten privatized Polish companies revealed a tendency for wages to increase sharply immediately after privatization but to stop doing so soon afterwards in favor of performance-related pay incentives.

In Estonia, foreign owners have blocked pay increases. A law on collective bargaining, which took effect in 1993, forbids new private owners from unilaterally scrapping collective agreements; it does, however, allow them to be renegotiated.

In Kazakhstan, according to a labor ministry official at an ILO seminar, while the ministry has aimed to ensure that the principles of the ILO on fair wages are followed, external pressures have pushed policy in another direction.

It is believe the consultants of the World Bank and IMF are the people dictating such policies the Governments, including of minimum wages, so that the real wages are falling. So the cheap labor of the Soviet Union, which was criticized for being cheap, remains cheap and gets cheaper. The experts of the IMF calmly ignore these principles and as there are more of these experts in our country, so the politics of ILO in this field has a rather small impact and low profile.

It had been reported that non-payment of wages (after privatization), sometimes for months at a time, has also caused great hardship on employees.

Sometimes this has been caused by government subsidies being cut or simply not paid as failure to restructure has become unsustainable. But there is also anecdotal evidence that, in some cases, managers have deliberately withheld wages due to employees in the hope of financially forcing them to sell (to the managers) their privatization vouchers at knock down prices.

How about the Effects on Working Conditions?

Sri Lanka, analyzing effect of privatization on workers who opted to remain with the privatized firm, expressed that overall the working conditions of workers who remained in the privatized enterprises seem to be at least as favorable as they were when the firms were SOEs.

In several instances there have been wage rises and better working conditions. For example, some firms now offer workers transport (Kabool Lanka Ltd), wage rises (Telecom) and better housing and sanitation facilities. In SOEs, the workers were entitled to take 42 days leave annually, absenteeism was not heavily penalized and public holidays were high. They also enjoyed a high sense of security and treated the public sector job as their entitlement rather than a position that had to be secured by efficient performance. Another reported that in Hungary, while some privatization contracts have committed foreign companies to retaining staff levels for a set period of time, there have been other adverse effects, such as cuts in staff training.

The same country has also had the opposite experience, however. In the General Electric takeover of Tungsram, for example, although jobs and pay were cut, the company quickly put in place a number of environmental and health and safety measures.

These included monitoring factory air and noise pollution levels, fixing the worst problems immediately and adopting plans to make further gradual improvements.

New safety devices were installed and comprehensive worker training programs introduced. As a result, the number of serious work-related injuries has been substantially reduced.

The changes or new privatization structure have big effects on Employees’ Health And Performance.

Experts have expressed results of their study that majority of respondents reported deterioration in conditions of employment and operational participation since privatization. It concluded that once an organization begins changing, its employees might face threats to their jobs, roles, positions, and resources. These threats can lower the employees’ trust in their organization as a whole which can be negatively reflected in employees’ attitudes toward their work. They found that stress is a general and global phenomenon encompassing man’s psychological, physical, familial, and social dimensions.

Researchers have made great efforts studying the effects of this stress on mental and physical health of employees to better understand its nature. When individuals contemplate the stress of organizational change, their perceptions, choice of reactions, and working attitudes all strongly influence whether the change will be successful and if the newly reconstituted organization will function efficiently or not.

Researchers have also concluded that after privatization, the job stress of employees increased significantly. This increase was associated with a decrease in mental health. They illustrated a recent study conducted in Thailand, which concluded that the organizational change has a significant association with more psychological stress, which in turn, resulted in poor job performance.

In Canada after privatization employees of a large healthcare provider surviving from downsizing had a higher degree of delay and also a higher degree of stress due to less control exercised over their jobs.

Consequently, they enjoyed less job satisfaction and living standards and worse general health. In this respect, International Labor Organization in 2001 discussing safety and job health, reported that privatization, organizational restructuring and increasing the number of small business units increase unemployment, stress, alcoholism, job insecurity and prolongation of work hours, all of which lead to psychic trauma at work and private life.

Moreover, it has been shown that stress and its related diseases lead to an increase in the incidence rate of indigestion, heart disease and mental disorders.

Reports shown that in the Russian Federation, conditions of labor have been affected by the “marginal” state of the economy, in transition from a planned economy to a market system. Eighty- eight per cent of equipment in Russian factories is obsolete, 400,000 work in unhealthy conditions, 8,000 every year (more than died in Afghanistan) die because of working conditions, and 14,000 become handicapped we made an inspection in newly privatized companies about how conventions on labor were being respected — these were conditions of real slavery, no human conditions. A slave owner says you must work from morning to evening, no choice, no trade unions.

Privatization also contributes to the Effects on Social Welfare of Workers

Consultants have expressed that in some cases, the true scale of unemployment has been concealed by the practice of state-owned enterprises keeping workers at home on some proportion of their pay.

Workers have also been badly affected as, many of them lost and entitlement and the social impact was worse. It was further argued that even where unemployment levels have remained relatively low, a new phenomenon has emerged — that of long-term unemployment.

In the Czech Republic, for example, despite low levels of unemployment, by the end of 1994 over a third of all job applicants had been without work for more than one year. Only those firms, which have managed to gain access to resources and modern technology, have been surviving. However, the foreign investment that can play the key part in resolving those challenges can also bring other problems.

As privatization enables formerly closed economies to join the globalization trend, employment opportunities can erode, as the Tungsram example in Hungary demonstrates.

Next episode will explain the effects on the share of ownership!

About Nufam’s stupidity – Episode 2


What does NUFAM stand for? Literally; it is an acronym for Nuclear Fire Planning and Assessment Model. However; NUFAM is also known as THE trade fair for commercial vehicles in southern Germany.

In Malaysia; NUFAM is a Flight Attendant Union for rude; disrespectful; frustrated and disgruntled workers and to be exact it is a National Union for Frustrated Attendant Malaysia. It’s website at http://www.nufam.net cannot be found – When a registered trade union’s website has gone kaput – it’s a sign that it has lost its interest in what it really stand in for.

In the last few days; the Malaysian local dailies were busy issuing statements produced by a registered trade union for the disgruntled employees of Malaysia Airlines on threatening to stage a walk-out protest – read here – Nufam threatens to walk out next month.

An employee’s threatening behavior can be no more than a way for an employee to blow off steam or it can lead to violent episodes. MAS management should evaluate an employee who threatens the airline’s CEO and take action based on the seriousness of the situation. Employees who make detailed and specific threats may be closer to violent action than those who make vague threats.

The Union for frustrated flight attendants in that statement against Malaysia Airlines had threatened to stage a massive staff walk out if Malaysia Airlines failed to withdraw the suspension from flying duty on its President – Ismail a.k.a. Mr. Lipas Man and accord immediate recognition to Nufam as the bargaining body for its cabin crew.

AshMaxwell3

This crazy yet stupid Nufam Union also claimed there will be approximately 1000 cabin crew currently working for Malaysia Airlines will stage the walk-out by next month if the suspension of Nufam President – Mr. Lipas Man is not withdrawn.

This public humiliation against MAS management by MAS disgruntled employees leaves a lasting impression on MAS customers and can really kill workplace morale.

Malaysia Airlines has 3,800 strength for cabin crew of which 90% of the strength will always be away for flying duties leaving the remaining 10% will be on the ground for days off as scheduled. Contrary to Nufam’s threat against Malaysia Airlines; there can only be a total of 380 cabin crew on the ground to fully backed Nufam President on the day for walk-out.

Given the fact that Malaysia Airlines employed 95% locals where almost 100% of locals are committed to paying monthly subscription credit card bills; hire-purchase scheme and mortgages; we doubt these cabin crew will take the risk to stage a walk-out for Mr. Lipas Man.

We believe those cabin crew will not stage a walk-out for Nufam President after he humiliated a reputable airline’s CEO. We figure the number as predicted by Nufam could be wrong. Perhaps Nufam meant 1000 cabin crew minus last two digit of zeros which is only 10 cabin crew as in the picture above.

Out of 10 cabin crew; we figure probably only 5 stupid cabin crew would stage the walk-out with Mr. Lipas Man if only Tony Fernandez in AirAsia is willing to take them all. Walking out of a secured employment or opting an instant resignation is truly impulsive for youngsters.

However, if applying with logic we believe no one would ever risk a decent job to strike against the employer for others. Nufam must stop bull-shitting to the public and making threats against your own employer.

Read our first episode – here! Do stay tuned to our next episode 3!

The New World Order on Privatization – Part 2


The term “privatization” describes a shift in the ownership of assets or the provision of services from the government or public sector to the private sector. The scope of privatization, however, varies greatly in different parts of the world. In the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe, privatization means changing the ownership and control of all major industries and utilities from the national government to the private sector.

As the privatization trend gains momentum in the new world; has come to encompass a variety of economic and political changes including the transfer of assets, services, and responsibilities from the state to the private sector; a lessening in the regulatory powers of government; and an increase in the individual’s responsibility in meeting his or her own needs. Regardless of definition, privatization is driven by both specific public policy decisions and general socioeconomic trends.

Forms of Privatization

  • Contracting Out or Outsourcing is the first and probably the most prevalent which can be described as public sector choice and public sector financing, with private sector production of the selected service. Under contracting out, the citizenry makes elected officials aware of a collective needs. The government is also responsible for financing these respective services—generally through its taxing powers. Hence, the government finances the service while the private sector provides it. The government determines the service level and pays the amount specified in the contract, but leaves production decisions to the private contractor. However, if this does happens to the National Carrier; Malaysia Airlines – The government workers who previously performed the job may undergo “employee dislocation”—a polite term for layoffs, transfers to less desirable positions, etc.
  • Franchising is another form of privatization similar to a monopoly privilege awarded to a private firm that provides the service but with the price of the service being regulated and determined by the state. Most utilities, such as gas, electricity, and telephone service, are provided under the franchise form of privatization. A relatively recent service, cable TV, is also generally awarded as a monopoly privilege. Another important distinction of monopoly franchising is that the consumer makes direct payments to the provider for the service.
  • User Fees is a variation on franchising and contracting out fees. Under this system of privatization, the consumer pays a set fee to cover all or part of the service costs. A municipality may, for instance, charge a set fee per household for trash collection rather than pay for that service out of a general tax pool.
  • Load-shedding is the last form of privatization whereby the government steps aside entirely. The consumer is responsible for deciding whether or not to make use of the service, the selection of the provider, and all payments for the service.

The effects on Privatization will lead to Employee Layoffs and Retrenchment

Arguments for Privatization – the proponents of privatization argue that government providers have no real incentive to hold down costs or to provide quality service.

Private firms, on the other hand, are motivated by a profit motive that depends on holding costs down. The lower the cost incurred by the firm in satisfying the contract, the greater the realized profit.

Private providers are also motivated by competition from other potential service providers. Competition between potential private suppliers to win a contract generally results in the lowest cost to the government and the taxpayer for the specified level of service.

It was well-argued that the “Competitive markets are rooted in private property, and there is no way to stimulate competitive conditions under conditions of government financing or government production”.

However, politically the most difficult and feared impact of privatization is employee layoffs. The fear is justified because many public enterprises are greatly overstaffed, as they are often used as instruments of job creation.

Privatization typically is associated with reduction and reorganization of the labor force, either in preparation for privatization or soon afterwards. It had been revealed that a universal concern in privatization process is the effect it has on labor.

Many observers fear that privatization will cause major job losses as new owners of privatized firms shed excess labor to improve efficiency and as divesting governments cut the workforce to prepare for privatization.

Fearing unemployment and the loss of benefits, labor unions and state enterprise workers are often among the most vocal and organized opponents of privatization, taking actions to deal or block reform. It was reported that in most Eastern European countries privatization accompanied by redundancies and the introduction of hard budget constraints on enterprises has resulted in large-scale job losses. This has created a pool of unemployed workers, which often cannot be absorbed by other privatized firms or new firms.

The expressed by quoting empirical examples, that depending on the results of the voluntary departure program, redundant staff may still need to be involuntarily laid off. Though, politically the most difficult of all restructuring options, retrenchment of workers who did not accept the voluntary program have been sometimes necessary in the last phase of the restructuring.

In Argentina railways the last 5,000-6,000 workers who did not accept voluntary retirement were declared redundant on the basis of performance and laid off. About 3,000 additional workers were sent home with 50 percent of their salaries.

In Brazil more than 14,500 of the 18,000 redundant railway employees were terminated by December 1996 with a large number opting for early retirement benefits. Private operators of three recently introduced systems have further deepened the staff retrenchment program initiated by the railways company, cutting as much as half the labor force they received with the concession.

In Brazil railways, redundant staff was given the choice of voluntary separation. On average, the scheme, however, are laid off with legal entitlements plus a separation package equivalent to 80 percent of the incentive offered under the voluntary program. The railway also agreed to pay an involuntary separation grant to remaining redundant staff that was not hired by the concessionaire, up to a maximum number of staff specified in the bidding documents.

Compensation packages for layoffs beyond the specified number were the concessionaire’s responsibility. As a result of this approach most of the 16,000 or so redundant workers took up the incentives and left through the voluntary program.

In Bangladesh more than 22,000 workers in the state’s jute corporation were retrenched between 1990 and 1993 as part of the restructuring and privatization program; further reductions are required for the privatization or closure of the remaining mills.

In Mexico a recent study of 218 privatized firms across a range of sectors found that the firms had reduced the number of white- and blue-collar employees by nearly half in the four years before sale. In some companies the reductions were significantly higher.

Many asserted that commonly accepted trade-offs that occur throughout the privatization process typically create an imbalance of accrued benefits to various segments of the workforce and members of the community in general.

There is concern that privatization negatively impacts the most vulnerable segments of the workforce. As illustrated; the privatization of a water system in Bolivia and an energy system in Thailand increased unemployment and decreased consumer welfare in both countries.

Therefore it was asserted that the greatest opposition to privatizing a firm usually comes from the firm’s own employees, who are fearful of wage cuts and job losses.

The other argument - Private firms may also be more innovative, using different approaches to providing a service. Government, by contrast, tends to stick with known approaches since changes often create problems, especially with an entrenched bureaucracy or a strident municipal bond.

Private firms may also use earnings to finance research or to purchase capital equipment relating directly to the service, while governments may not be able or willing to allocate revenue in the same manner given the many competing demands for tax dollars.

Another contributing factor to this cost disparity is the general overall efficiency of the private sector. The private sector has a strong incentive to operate efficiently.

Private firms that spending more money and employing more people to do the same amount of work will have lower profit margins and decreased profits. In the long run they will no longer be able to compete in a market economy.

The disciplining effect of competition, however, does not affect the public sector. Government agencies generally operate in a non-competitive environment and therefore can charge more for their services and be less concerned with consumer satisfaction.

Government services that are provided in a non-competitive market also deny the consumer comparability. The consumer or taxpayer has no real way of evaluating the price of a government service. This tends to make government less responsive to consumer needs.

The private sector generally offers the consumer a higher quality of service while keeping costs under control.

Malaysiaairlinesfamilies commented the above privatization argument does not prove the trend of privatization will guarantee an increase in efficiency and productivity as the case proven by AirAsia – the first private-owned airlines in Malaysia by Tony Fernandez.

In fact, Tony Fernandez proves that privatization on airlines business is provided with more rooms for exploiting the labor force. It is well-known that AirAsia; a private-owned airlines is forever struggling to uphold its safety performance and barely surviving from the market competition.

Malaysia Airlines; however is state-government owned airlines has established a proven record of its safety performance as compared to a private-owned airlines – AirAsia.

Simply put; privatization is politically a game-changer  and it has been advancing by the political party to restructure a monopoly system for a new regime to rule over. Ultimately, privatization is a political process.

Because the burden of privatization will fall most heavily on the public workforce and their jobs and income are at risk. Public employees and their unions are strongly opposing privatization.

It is because the government almost always operates as a monopoly provider, the decision to privatize usually means de-monopolization, even if not always robust, free-market competition.

Regardless of the mode of privatization, the government could have improvised the common motivation for engaging in all four types of privatization to substitute more efficient business operations for what are seen as less efficient, bureaucratic and often politicized operations in the public sector. Such way, the fear of massive job losses could be lessening and monitored.

The key difference of Privatization is the substitution of COMPETITION for MONOPOLY.

The Effect on Privatization – The New World Order on Privatization Part 1

To be continued – next episode 3 will cover “The Effect on Employment”.