What MAS first CEO says?

When Yg Bhg TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN retired as the CEO/Managing Director of MAS, he left MAS with RM5 billion cash reserve. During his tenure as CEO, MAS employees have been paid yearly bonuses.  He served MAS from its inception in 1971 as its company secretary and director of legal affairs.  He served as CEO/Managing Director from 1981 until his retirement in 1991.

Yg Bhg Tan Sri (Dato’) Dr Abdul Aziz is a Fellow of Chartered Institute of Transport, United Kingdom, Fellow of Institute of Management Malaysia, Fellow of Institute of Directors Malaysia, Fellow of Institute of Public Relations Malaysia and Fellow of Asian Institute of Management Science. At present he is an active advocate and solicitor. He has more than 35 years experience in managing public and private corporations. He started by serving the government for 15 years, the first 7 years as an administrative officer and for 8 years he was in the judicial and legal service of the Federal Government.

He served as Magistrate, President Sessions Court, Federal Counsel and Assistant Parliamentary Draftsman. His last government appointment was as Federal Counsel and Legal Officer of the National Operation Council (NOC) during the Emergency of 1969.  Of course, he is an “Anak Kelantan”.

Yg Bhg Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman is synonymous with MAS. That is why his heart strings are tugged whenever the word MAS is mentioned, MAS which was once the pride of the nation is gradually sliding into the deep end and will fade into oblivion if no efforts are made now to save it, wrote AINUL ASNIERA AHSAN, the reporter from malaysiagazette.com.

During this interview with a Malaysia Gazette reporter, Abdul Aziz who is known to be vocal and outspoken just couldn’t hide his  emotions anymore. As a Malaysian citizen who was responsible in building the national carrier from scratch to the pride of the nation, Abdul Aziz bristles whenever the option of MAS filing for bankruptcy is mentioned.

For Abdul Aziz, his heart is pierced deeply seeing MAS assets being disposed one after the other as well as its overseas assets which was the toil of his blood, sweat and tears, has now changed hands. He does not want MAS to be bankrupt but wants the national carrier to soar high again, workers morale reinvigorated and MAS image revived once again.

“I’d be honoured to help but not work for MAS. I just want to do national service and two years is enough to turn MAS around. With deep honestly, I really feel sorry for MAS,” he told AINUL ASNIERA AHSAN at his house recently.

MALAYSIAGAZETTE: In your view Tan Sri, should MAS file for bankruptcy?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: There is no need for MAS to file for bankruptcy. What is going on in MAS right now is that they are adopting the wrong business model for the past 15 years.

Management changes has taken place numerous times but the crux of the problems plaguing MAS has never been dealt with. Although MAS managed to make some profit at times, the problems were never solved. Will MAS really recover if all of its assets are sold to get cash?

What can MAS do to deal with its problems?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: Generally, MAS poor performance is due to its wrong business plan and the loss of flight MH370 demoralized the staff and MAS has to handle this. How to do it? MAS must change its business plan. What’s wrong with the plan? The thing that is wrong with the plan is the choice of its routes which it has been plying for the past 15 years.

Those routes are now overcrowded with all the low cost carriers. The market now wants to fly domestic and regional and 80 per cent of air travelers want to fly budget. Only the rich and the businessmen fly full service. So MAS has to do something to capture that 80 per cent market. It has to reshuffle and realign its aircraft fleet. Utilizing Firefly as the main carrier for domestic and regional. The rest, let MAS handle.

And take a second look on the use of the A380. Does MAS really need six of the super-huge aircraft. No need to file for bankruptcy. Don’t be ridiculous.

MAS – from premium to low cost?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: No. MAS has to branch out into two business divisions. First for domestic and regional it has to be budget while international and long haul it has to be full service. However, MAS also has to be wary of its competitors. What’s important is that it has to control cost effectively in both low cost and full service.

I am saying this because I read in the papers that the ASK cost is 22.05 cent  and revenue is 17.02 cent. So every ASK is already registering losses.  We have to analyze this because other wise it will be a perennial loss. Today MAS is bleeding RM4 million a day,  RM2 million pay the interests, total debts has already reached RM11 billion, operational cost RM2 million a day. If it were another business, they would have closed shop already.

The government and the private sector must help MAS, trim liability and devise a new business plan. If these two plans are implemented, insyaAllah (God willing) MAS will turn around.

So the government must not shirk away from its responsibility?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: No it cannot because MAS is the National Carrier. What does the National Carrier mean? National Carrier is the global representative of the country and the people both in the skies and on the ground. The government I believe is not letting go. Just fed up maybe. It has done so much but it has come to this.

If that is the case, then how can we overcome MAS problems?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: The Prime Minister has to take a look at this problem. Khazanah Nasional Berhad (Khazanah) is just the strategic equity holder. It is the government which is the policymaker. I am the one who started MAS under the directive of the government to ensure MAS is the flag carrier.

If the government wants to maintain as the national carrier, the government has to continue to invest in MAS. But if the government has no money or is fed up, the government can work with a local company on condition that the company preserve MAS with the national carrier status. The firm must work together with the government.

Are there any companies out there willing to develop the business model?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: There are companies but while it controls MAS it must also obey the government at the same time. Lets say the company wants to  revamp the sterwards and the stewardess attire, the government can intervene if it finds the attire not suitable as MAS represents Malaysia.

It is not easy to solve MAS problems but it can be done. MAS image must be defended and we have done it before. MAS biggest problem is its huge debt and it has to be restructured as no company would want to take over a company which registers losses of RM4 million a day. If MAS is restructured, even though it still has a lot of liabilities, it can still register profit.

What if MAS is declared bankrupt like Japan Airline?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: Japan carries a different set of laws and they carry it out drastically such as laying off thousands of workers. In MAS we have to be  careful as it is said that MAS is overstaffed. Is this so? I’m saying this because there are many who complaint that MAS has few cabin staffs, engineers to the extent it has to cancel flights.

Maybe in some departments there are a surplus of workers but we have to look at it in totality. We can’t lay off 5,000 workers out of the 20,000 employees which MAS has. It does not have to lay a single worker if it is restructured properly. But we have to take a look  at the salaries of some of the management team of which I was told touch more than RM100,000 a month.

Why must they be paid such a huge amount at a time when MAS is in the red and why do you axe workers with low salaries? I question how the board of directors can approve such a huge salary. How did it come to this?

Note:  In MAS 2011 Annual report, two executive directors salaries and benefits cost MAS RM3,775,000.00 a year.  This note is from yours truly Sir Wee Choo Keong.

Have you ever written to the Prime Minister to discuss over MAS?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I did write to the PM when MAS wanted to merge with AirAsia of which I was against. Other than that, I’ve never written to the PM on other issues. I don’t like to be a busybody but I’m telling you because you ask. I read in the papers that an individual suggested that MAS be shut down and start anew. To me that person knows nothing and is talking nonsense. I question why MAS use the A380 which is hardly utilised but cost millions to operate.

Why do we need the six air-crafts? That is one out of a thousand and one issues plaguing MAS. MAS also wants to sell the MRO and the person who proposed it does not know anything about the aviation industry. Engineering plays a huge part in the MAS makeup and plays a vital role in safety, efficiency, integrity and operations.

MAS has to fully control that business and if properly anaged can become an income earner. During my time, MAS maintains and services aircrafts from the US, Australia and Canada. MAS made money out of this division. So why do you want to hive off this division to another company and then buy back the service from the very same firm? MAS will bleed even more just like the catering business.  Although MAS has a 30 percent stake, it has to pay a high price for the food. MAS can sell a small stake but make sure it still controls MRO. Don’t sell the entire stake.

Note: When Tan Seri Md Nor Yusuf was the CEO of MAS, MAS sold 70% of its equity in MAS Catering Sdn Bhd to the company controlled by Datuk Hj Ibrahim Ahmad Badawi. On the same day, MAS sign a back to back catering agreement with MAS Catering Sdn Bhd for 25 years worth RM6.25 billion.  It was a lope sided agreement.  Subsequently, the name of MAS Catering Sdn Bhd was changed to LSG Skychef Brahim’s Sdn Bhd.  MAS catering bill comes to about RM250 million yearly.  

The sale of the equity MAS Catering Sdn Bhd was done during the famous “Widespread Assets Un-Bundling” a.k.a WAU, the brainchild of BinaFikir Sdn Bhd, whose founders were Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar, the Managing Director of Khaznah and En Mohamed Rashdan Yusuf aka Danny. By the way, En Mohamed Rashdan Yusuf was the Deputy Group CEO of MAS and one of the architects of the infamous MAS-AirAsia share swap, which was a case of “Bina” first and “Fikir” later.  This is from yours truly Sir Wee Choo Keong.

During your time, MAS had a lot of assets but after 15 years all of it has been disposed. What is your comment?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I am saddened when all of the assets were sold off jsut like that. Extremely sad. MAS assets were sold as it does not have enough  capital, weak cashflow to sustain operations. Why? Because MAS is registering losses. The sale of MAS building was the saddest moment of them all ex-employees were all saddened by it and I was against it. The MAS training building in Subang was also sold and then rented back to MAS.

Its buildings in Jakarta, Singapore, New York, London, were all sold. All these assets are not easy to get back. When we bought MAS, it was not rich but prudent. MAS was not big at the time and the government was not rich. Selling all the assets is not good for MAS image.

What are your comments on MAS turnaround plan which has entered its third year?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I really don’t know and I really don’t understand. I don’t see what MAS is doing. They made losses last year because they changed the business plan. MAS didnt reshuffle the routes but competed head on with  the low to even lower cost carriers. MAS forgets about its cost. MAS managed  to achieve 85 percent load factor but they made huge losses and didn’t get the yield.

During my time, 85 percent means huge profit. Previously, MAS still get profits at 70-75 percent load factor but now it still make losses at 85 percent load factor. The business model is wrong.

Even this business model is hard for MAS to implement?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: Maybe they were in a rush trying to prove something. Maybe they believed that that was the best approach and got a shock when they see the results. Maybe now they are devising a new business model. MAS has been in trial and error mode for so long. It has been in trouble since 1995 and the government started to intervene in 1998. Since then, management lineup changed six or seven times but still there is not turnaround but instead it is headed for destruction.

The MAS Employees Union wants MAS to be led by an insider and not an outsider. Do you agree Tan Sri?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I agree but the person has to have leadership skills. MAS has a lot of talent who have served tens of years and there must be a capable leader. If there is none, you can take outsider but he must be loyal and understand MAS. MAS is a business which is laden with legal issues and you have to understand the international environment and the routes inside out.

The aviation industry business is so complex and its not just about competition. As an example, MAS right to fly to London, you must have a prior agreement. Must understand fully negotiations with Britain and know what we want. At present, MAS A380 cannot fly to Australia but AirAsiaX can fly there. Is the government involved in negotiations? MAS should give advice to the government.

Note:  The government has reserved an additional KL/Sydney route for MAS to fly with its A380 but En Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, the Group CEO of MAS,  gave it to AirAsia X.  This note is from yours truly.

Is the government being fed with the wrong information on MAS routes?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I believe there is nobody at MAS giving advice to the government. Maybe when other airliners ask for the routes, the government gives the go ahead. Things have changed nowadays. Previously, the government would always refer to MAS for advice whenever they want to do anything in the aviation industry. When the government inquires, MAS has to back it up with facts if it does not agree.

If the government still wants to do it, there has to be discussions. For the past 10 years, MAS was never included in negotiations. When Malindo Airways was launched, MAS was in the dark until Malindo Airways started operations. MAS would have prepared itself if it was notified earlier. Its like in a war, MAS cannot just sit and watch. It has to get ready. MAS is a national carrier and uses the rakyat’s money so the government has to give MAS priority by informing the company.

Previously, MAS had tagged along and advised the government on traffic right negotiations and what inputs are needed in the agreement.

Why is MAS being sidelined now?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: Maybe the government has no confidence with MAS or its board of directors and the management do not dare to raise these sort of issues with the government. MAS was left own its own and the carrier in turn also kept quiet. When other people punch you, MAS just remained silent when it should have informed the government. I don’t discount the fact that the MAS management 15 years ago don’t understand the aviation industry. That is why it has come to this.

So how can MAS rise again?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: MAS has to find the right candidate to steer it ahead, focus on the liability and change the business model. That’s all.

Has the MAS management come to see you to discuss over MAS?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: No never. Maybe they know that I’m outspoken and I’m honest when it comes to MAS. If they come and see me I will tell them that they are useless. So why  would they come to see me and get scolded. I want to see MAS fly again and I’m angry with people who wants to declare MAS bankrupt.

They don’t know that MAS in the 1980s flew to San Francisco and Hawaii because the Americans thought that Malaysia is part of Congo. They don’t know that Malaysians can pilot planes and that was why I negotiated for the American traffic right which was not easy to get as we had to compete with Taiwan and Tokyo.

How do you feel seeing that the MAS you nurtured crumbling today?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I’m very sad especially for staffs who are still in contact with me. They always talk about MAS including the retirees.

If you were asked to help turnaround MAS, would you want to?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I’m honored to help but not work with MAS. I just want to do national service and two years is enough to turn it around. Honestly, I feel sad and sorry for MAS.

Why don’t you inform the Prime Minister directly?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I’m also busy as a practicing lawyer and am always at the courts but I always follow the developments at MAS but will allocate the time if the government wants me.

Given the chance to meet the Prime Minister, what would you tell him?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN:  I just want to ask that MAS be given the right in the aviation industry policy. MAS is the national carrier and should not be sidelined in favour of other airliners. When  AirAsia and AirAsiaX were formed, MAS was in the dark and its routes was taken away.

Note:  During the Badawi’s Administration, 96 profitable routes of MAS were taken from MAS and given on a silver platter to AirAsia. Further, at that material time MAS had to abandon its Super Saver Promotion because the Badawi’s Administration prohibited MAS from selling its fares below certain level.  It was a case of MAS was asked to go into the boxing ring to fight with with its hands and legs tied. This note is from yours truly Sir Wee Choo Keong.

Personally, do you think there are invisible hands at work behind the scenes plotting the downfall of MAS?

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN: I can’t say for sure but there is a possibility. I’m also puzzled because those days, MAS will always know every aviation policy.  Nowadays, nobody wants to hear MAS voice. Please don’t do that.

Malaysiagazette.com

Malaysiaairlinesfamilies added “The morale of the story is DO NOT TAKE BACK IDRIS JALA who sells ROTI JALA best!”  The second morale story is the Prime Minister of Malaysia must walk his talk putting his rakyat first by removing all the moles inside MAS in order to re-shape it or revamp the whole organization to prevent a second phase of sabotage by these trios – Ahmad Jauhari, Azhari Dahlan and Zahrah the fatty boom boom!

Why the rakyat in Selangor state are so angry with the Bee End Party?  It is because Tun Mahathir is the advisor for AirAsia and Rafidah the busuk is the shareholders of AirAsia and in collaboration with Tony the Pariah – the low caste seed; combined to destroy MAS from inside out with the help from Tun Bodowi.

How the Bee End can survive in the next election if these prominent figures keep playing politics manipulating MAS? Bee End members also now converting to End Bee newbies members because they hold grudge against Tun Maha-thir and his gang.

Friendly advice for Tun Mahathir that he should leave MAS alone by keeping his mouth restricted to his own personal favorite views.  Stop interfering in the business if you are not asked for.

Mr. Prime Minister must listen to Tan Sri Abdul Aziz’s statement if the Prime Minister of Malaysia has the heart to walk his talking prioritizing the people of Malaysia.  The Prime Minister must also let Tan Sri Abdul Aziz to lead MAS to a greater height and prohibit all the politicians from poking their noses into MAS’s pockets.  However, the Prime Minister could appoint Tan Sri Abdul Aziz as advisor to MAS and mandated only a couple of his ministers in the Prime Minister’s department to oversee the necessary arrangement assisting Tan Sri Abdul Aziz.

Whilst the government is contemplating the next move; we have resources confirming that Mr. Lipas man has initiated his attempt to meet with Tan Sri Abdul Aziz to garner his huge support for NUFAM to make ways into getting contracts with MAS under the pretext of representing MAS crew.

Well…well…well..Mr. Lipas man is such a desperado.  We’ll see if Mr. Lipas man could survive his next election in NUFAM.

The Con Jobs by AirAsia’s Tony Fernandez to steal MAS MRO!

AirAsia is not going to stop cheating its new customers because it has been the Low Cost Carrier’s policy aiming at cheating for surviving from the pugnacious competitions.  As times goes by; the policy became the concept for its natural survivability.

To survive in this challenging yet pugnacious transport industry; Tony Fernandez has resorted to stealing companies for expanding into his collapsing empires before his life ends after he contracted incurable diseases. For the public’s record; Tony’s life has been dependable on Ketamine pills and other supporting drugs to prolonging his livelihood.

Now that Everyone Knows Tony is dying with his empires being left without a caliber person managing it; who do we think the best suited candidate that will take over him? Ahhhh…perhaps Lim Guan Eng would do the honor!

Among all the politicians in Malaysia; only one stood up for Tony of AirAsia pushing the Government to sell MAS to AirAsia and here is the link of the clue – Seek help from AirAsia on saving MAS Dap tells Putrajaya.

Now we all know how did the share swap between MAS and AirAsia take place exactly on time in 2011 which was prepping for the lost of Bee End Party in PRU13. Unfortunately, the people of Malaysia ain’t that dumber than Lim Wants End.

So exactly how did Tony steal the company that is strengthening MAS in the past decades? For a start; he pays off the clueless CEO a lump sum of cash to recruit the CEO and his gang. The job function of that paid clueless CEO by AirAsia is to find way to get MAS MRO landed into AirAsia’s listing property before MAS CEO contract ends.

In the morning of 28th May 2012 as is in scheduled; the paid clueless CEO of MAS will propose to MAS board of directors to sell off its main core Engineering division to increase the profit for restructuring MAS from its recent first quarter losses. The CEO will make the recommendation and propose to the board to sell MAS MRO and the current CEO of MRO Azhari Dahlan as in package to a company that Tony Fernandez has 35% shares in it.

Before the board of directors make any further decisions; they should know that despite contract between MAS and AirAsia ended in February 2014; Azhari Dahlan has secretly allocated a hangar for discreetly repairing AirAsia’s aircrafts without billing AirAsia a cent.

During the secret repair of AirAsia’s aircrafts at MAS MRO area; these events were highlighted by the famous blogger “Sir” Wee Choo Keong which he wrote Mysterious Fire in MAS MRO workshop;  BMH192 turned back caused by Carbon Brakes and Firefly turned back.

For the public record; Carbon brakes offer a significant weight savings compared to steel brakes. This translates into a lighter airplane, which directly contributes to decreased fuel consumption and associated reductions in engine emissions.

These cost considerations often resulted in the use of steel brakes on smaller, short-haul commercial airplanes (B737-800) and carbon brakes on larger, long-haul (B777-200) commercial airplanes. In the past, the higher cost of carbon brakes could more easily be justified for larger airplanes because of the cost savings associated with reduced weight and longer service life.

So who asked Azhari Dahlan to change the steel brakes with carbon brakes suitable for a smaller short-haul aircraft that had caused the air turned back of MH192?

Is this not crystal clear of the surfacing evidence that sabotaging act carried out by Azhari Dahlan or AirAsia have become eminent?

A special message for MAS board of director; in the afternoon of 28th May 2014 or early; the clueless CEO will endorse officially and handle over MAS MRO to Tony Fernandez’s proxy as the buyer! If this transfer of ownership is validated; MAS will lose out in billion of revenues and cost for maintaining and repairing MAS aircraft will hike up instantly.

In planning a restructure for the National Carrier; there shall be a change of new Top Management urgently to eradicate the presence of sabotaging acts internally and removing the moles of AirAsia vizly Azahari Dahlan the average qualified CEO whose records showed lacks of aviation knowledge and imminent saboteurs complement AND most importantly that Zahrah Zaid the Tobacco Evil Madam who claims she is untouchable because she is protected by someone from the Ministry of Human Resource as the most certifiable Human Cruelty Director of the century”.

Next episode; we shall cover on the topic on how the clueless CEO crashed MAS into loss-making airline of the year! Stay tuned for eliciting yet-unreported news!

AirAsia not only the big conjob also a big bully to his passengers

Ever since AirAsia is in operation from 1997; Tony boy never stops cheating his passengers from buying the so-called “lowest airfares” which actually is the most expensive airfares if you added up the whole package; to buying fraud travel insurance that does not cover a delay of less than 6 hours’ waiting time.

In Malaysia; only AirAsia can cheats its customers with its creative promotional scheme to trap those who never learn about AirAsia’s scheming packages.

A passenger of AirAsia revealed his traveling experience with AirAsia who thought he could save a few bucks and transited in Bangkok; re-checked out and checked in at Bangkok Airport just to find out his next travel to Kuala Lumpur from Bangkok was suddenly cancelled without further information.  To get the refund from AirAsia for the untraveled ticket would be additional hassle – if you don’t press AirAsia for the refund; they will conveniently be forgetful to refund you those untraveled tickets.

This gentleman who wanted to save a few bucks via traveling with AirAsia ended with purchasing a one-way ticket with Air Thai to Kuala Lumpur that cost him an additional RM1,900 for a two hours flight time.  Months later; he has been informed by AirAsia staff that AirAsia would never pay the refund unless you chased Tony Fernandez (the black babi) like a crow chasing a butterfly and if you ever lost the refund ticket from AirAsia; it means you can never get your refund…GET IT?

Whilst this gentleman made his comparison between his traveling experience with MAS and AirAsia; he never finds any fuss to get his refund from MAS but only with AirAsia.  So the clue is….?  AirAsia is cheating!!!

In refunding any untraveled tickets; it should be included the airport tax and insurance fee that were never utilized but for AirAsia; it’s a no refund for airport tax and insurance fee you purchased once you filled in the refund tickets.  So the second clue is…?  AirAsia is always finding ways to cheat his customers!!!

Now KLIA2 is in progress for an opening on 9 May 2014; why does AirAsia say about their transfer to KLIA2?  In the beginning; Aireen Omar the ugly bitch says AirAsia will not transfer because they are arrogant and a biggest bully ever!  And there was no free tax for transferring to KLIA2.  Perhaps; at KLIA2 it is not possible for AirAsia or Aireen Omar the haggard bitch and Tony the pariah to suck the airport tax from their passengers; or perhaps in KLIA2; there will be too many low cost airliners competing to improving its low cost services and provide the convenient of air ticket refund for travelers!  This is telling AirAsia straight in their face; You Can’t Cheat Anymore You AirAsia Bitch; Babi and Pariah!

On our recent encounter; another AirAsia passenger disclosed of the cheating games behind AirAsia’s check-in counter that is the tempering of weighing scale at every AirAsia’s counter.  If you have bought 15kgs for your luggage; you will get the guaranteed weight in measure of above 15kgs.  For e.g. your luggage should be 15kgs but AirAsia will weigh it at 16.8kg where you will be charged an additional of RM70.  That’s AirAsia’s nature in doing business for survivability!

So the clue is always bring your own weighing scale or call the authority to have all AirAsia check-in counter randomly checked for tempering the scale machine.

Another AirAsia’s passenger revealed his refined experience traveling with AirAsia.  He booked 5 tickets last November 2013 and during the Yolanda typhoon that struck Philippines; they cancelled the flight to Tacloban (Philippines) and filled in the refund tickets.  Guess what was happening?  AirAsia never refunded them at all!  So do you still want to travel with AirAsia the cheating airlines?

Check out this article – https://malaysiaairlinesfamilies.wordpress.com/saving-airasia-with-airasia-becoming-a-scam-airlines-causing-many-stranded-and-no-more-refunds/

Other comments : You will find a load more of such comments from the experience passengers who traveled with AirAsia on this site.

Stay tuned – we are about to expose more of AirAsia scheming packages and promotions.

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…

And the hero comes along…

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.

Now 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…The 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.

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

Here’s the memoir of Nufam 2013…

Nufam’s memoir for 2014…

Digging a grave…

Building a tomb and finally…

Done 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.

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!

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.

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”.

The New World Order on Privatization – Part I

Today we’re gonna expose against the New World Order by the opposition party to promote the sensitivity of politically linked to Privatization on Malaysia Airlines and many other GLC sectors. In this Part I episode; we’re educating our readers of the negative impact of Privatization that may lead to a National Bankruptcy even before year 2020.

This urge to publish The Effects of Privatization on Human Capital was a called from our anonymous reader. So follow us to catch this most interesting story of the hidden agenda by the New World Order instructed upon the opposition party.

The effects on Privatization

Privatization will be the biggest dogfight of the next ten years. In mid-1980s, the governments and citizens recognized the drawbacks of government control of enterprises. Rather than focusing on the business aspects; many governments-controlled corporations had become grazing ground; for political appointees or vote winners through job allocations. As a result; many government-owned enterprises excelled in losing money and governments are increasingly recognizing that it is possible to reduce the cost of governing by changing their role and involvement in the economy.

Therefore; countries the world over; have launched a massive and ambitious privatization programs or process of productive and other activities previously considered state enterprises or public services to improve their efficiency; free up resources for social services and mobilize capital for expansion and modernization.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been pushing client countries toward privatization. Therefore in developing countries privatization has been spurred since the IMF and the World Bank started to make their assistance conditional on it (Kikeri, 1997; Perotti, 2004; Borner 2004).

Privatization is critical and politically sensitive government activity that has led to fundamental shifts in the relationship between the private and public sectors of the jurisdictions of many countries (Prizzia, 2005). A change in ownership changes the structure of information; incentives and control; affecting operating decisions and thus economic performance.

Privatization; by limiting the state’s ability to redirect the enterprises’ activities in ways that promote short-term political objectives; enhances economic efficiency. Within the basic welfare services; privatization has been used to refer to an increase in the individual’s responsibility for his or her own welfare. This arises from the state’s attempt to delineate more explicitly its commitment to citizens’ welfare and may also reflect citizens’ own demands for alternative services.

Privatization and transition are most likely to maximize social and employment benefits and minimize social and employment costs if those are explicit goals narrated that in terms of returns on assets; the main topic of analysis has been the effect of privatization on employment levels and returns to labor.

In this regard researchers have conducted several studies to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of privatization. Following are few researches wherein different aspects of privatization causing benefits and harms have been studied. This study is dedicated to find out the negative and positive aspects of privatization on employees.

Privatization encompasses the many ways in which the private sector assumes functions that were previously carried out by the government. According to Pamacheche et al. (2007), privatization is supposed to be undertaken to re-deploy assets from the public to the private sector, where the assets are expected to be used more efficiently. Pamacheche et al. expressed that depending on the form it takes privatization can be defined in several ways. They quoted a definition of privatization by the World Bank as;

“A transaction or transactions utilizing one or more of the methods resulting in either the sale to private parties of a controlling interest in the share capital of a public enterprise or of a substantial part of its assets” or “the transfer to private parties of operational control of a public enterprise or a substantial part of its assets”

According to ILO (2001); privatization is the transfer from the public to the private sector of assets in terms of ownership; management; finance or control. In its narrowest sense it is the sale of public assets to the private sector; but it has also been linked to a reduced regulatory role of government; linked to policies of liberalization and deregulation.

Materials and Methods research article has been developed on descriptive secondary information obtained from research literature about effects of privatization on employees.

By analyzing many research reports; it gave an opinion that privatization’s economy-wide effects on the government budget growth; employment and investment are less established. However, privatization caste negative impacts on public as revealed by some research studies.

Nancy and Nellis (2003) reported negative impacts of privatization by stating that at the heart of popular criticism is a perception that privatization is fundamentally unfair in both concept and implementation: it is seen as harming the poor; the disenfranchised; the workers and even the middle class; throwing people out of good jobs into unemployment; raising prices for essential services; giving away national treasures and all this to the benefit of the local elite, agile or corrupt politicians and foreign corporations and investors.

Prizzia, (2005), in a paper titled “An International Perspective of Privatization and Women Workers”; asserted negative impacts. According to his example, privatization of a water system in Bolivia and an energy system in Thailand increased unemployment and decreased consumer welfare in both countries; resulting in the sudden rise of prices that culminated in a series of mass protests.

About Japan Cato (2008) expressed that the studies on mixed oligopolies revealed that in an industry that is sufficiently competitive privatization improves welfare.

Effects on employees are insecurity or loss of jobs; changes in working environment, stress due to insecurity of job; wage cuts etc.

But Kikeri, (1997) is of the view that in contrary to popular belief; workers often have gained from privatization as new investments and dynamic expansion have resulted in new job creation at both the enterprise and sector levels and as productivity improvements have led to better terms and conditions of service. Martin (n.d.) concluded that countries with no recent experience of unemployment were suddenly exposed to the shock of redundancy and job insecurity.

The study on labor effects of privatization of public services in New York State found that local government privatization have some harmful effects on workers. Few local employers had adjustment policies to protect affected employees and disproportionate negative impacts were found on women and minorities.

It was stated that often protected from competition and subsidized by their public owners; public economic enterprises (state enterprises) in many developing countries employ too many people, so that cost of hidden unemployment is one of their most important problems; often they pay them wages and benefits that are higher than their private sector counterparts and are governed by rigid labor contracts and by privatization;  their cost can be eliminated. It was further narrated that in steel; railways; and energy enterprises; over-staffing often have led to employment reductions before privatization as governments prepare the companies for sale and after as privatized companies continue to shed labor.

Rozana (2000) studied Worker Redundancy (theoretically; a worker is redundant if his marginal productivity is below the received wage) and discussed handling the problem of surplus labor its extent; issues and preparation. Rozana expressed that worker redundancy has been common in Sri Lankan SOEs; which were largely overstaffed because employment had been given under political patronage to fulfilling the state’s objective of reducing unemployment. Recruitment was easiest in the semi-skilled and unskilled tiers and thus; not surprisingly; surplus labor was most common in the grades of laborers; minor staff; clerical and other allied grades rather than at the management and executive grades and grades requiring skilled labor.

Birdsall and Nellis (2002) asserted that public enterprises were overstaffed often severely so; that in preparing (or as a substitute) for privatization; public enterprise employment numbers have declined; sometimes greatly; and that these declines generally continued post-privatization though in a minority of the studied cases employment numbers improved post-sale. Situation was and still is same in other countries where state or public sector owns the organization and governance is not good.

This over-staffing is one of the reasons of failure of organizations in state ownership other reasons are lack of interest and selfishness as expressed by Rozana (2000) that profit motive was not the main drive in the public enterprise; implementing efficient corporate management and productivity enhancement techniques were not high on the SOE agenda.

On privatization extra workers are to be laid off so the greatest organized source of opposition to privatization comes from employee unions but that unions may not always oppose privatization; particularly in cases where public units are allowed to compete with private firms to provide services.

An Anonymous researcher asserted that 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.

On privatization; employees feel job insecurity and have fear losing their jobs. Fear can pass to other employees and trigger a chain reaction that ultimately leads to the widespread fear in employees; of losing their jobs which causes increased job stress.

Genuine researchers are of the view that at the heart of popular criticism is a perception that privatization is fundamentally unfair in both concept and implementation: it is seen as harming the poor; the disenfranchised; the workers and even the middle class; throwing people out of good jobs into poor ones or unemployment. It is clear that public enterprises were overstaffed often severely so; that in preparing for privatization; public enterprise employment numbers declined, sometimes greatly and that these declines generally continued post-privatization. Overall; the evidence indicates that more people have lost jobs than gained them through privatization.

Reading of the evidence spread on Privatization; it expressed that more people have lost jobs than gained them through privatization. Birdsall and Nellis commented complementing that now the important question of what kind of jobs people find after dismissal from public enterprises is just beginning to receive attention. The fear of job losses is the stumbling block to privatization. Where the government‘s power base is in urban centers, trade unions make employment the number one issue in the privatization deal.

The fear of job losses is also the stumbling block in the negotiation with workers’ union where the employer usually would re-strategies towards Union as Union Busters via a formation of another union to busting the workers’ union thus creating a hindrance in the process of negotiation as the case for “The International Brotherhood of Teamsters” that “refused” to negotiate in 2011 with a group of its own union organizers who voted to form a union called the Federation of Agents and International Representatives (FAIR); to negotiate with their employer – the Teamsters.

On 29 August 2012, after being found guilty of unlawfully union busting their own employees’ union, the Teamsters (IBT) posted a notice “pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by a regional director of the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board NLRB,” that they will stop union busting. The notice assures Teamster employees that they will no longer be prevented from exercising their rights. The furtherance deal of negotiation were successfully struck without further disruption.

Will be continued and please stayed tune to our next post. 🙂

US Prepares to Overthrow Malaysian Government

Key to encircling and containing China, US sets proxies in motion for color revolution in Malaysian streets

US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim leads a Bersih rally in Malaysia. While Bersih has attempted to claim it is “independent” and simply pursusing “fair and clean elections,” it is clearly a vehicle for returning Anwar Ibrahim back into power. Additionally, Bersih shares the same ties to the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as its crypto-leader Anwar Ibrahim – representing a dangerous and seditious conflict of interest.

May 15, 2013 (AltThaiNews) – US-funded opposition fronts have vowed to overthrow the Malaysian government via disruptive and potentially violent street protests in the wake of general elections that saw their leader Anwar Ibrahim soundly defeated despite massive support from Western media, NGOs, and direct government intervention. Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported in their article, “‘BN will be toppled this year’,” that:

Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally.

Speakers at a forum held yesterday unanimously agreed that waiting for five years until the next general election was too long, and vowed to overthrow BN this year through “force”.

FMT also added that:

Electoral watchdog group Bersih 2.0 steering committee member  Hishamuddin Rais pointed out that it was useless to take their unhappiness to the courts as he claimed the justice system was being controlled by the government.

“That is why we must take to the streets. We have to come out. What Najib likes is wrong, and what he doesn’t like is what we have to do,” he said.

“We will mobilise a big group and rally on the streets. This is not a threat, this is a promise,” he stressed.

Bersih, of course, is a US State Department-funded opposition front aimed to bolster US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim, formerly of the IMF and World Bank, and a frequent visitor to the insidious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington D.C. It is in fact, NED that funds Bersih through its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

“…admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.”

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.

Photo: NDI’s website before taking down any mention to Malaysia’s Bersih movement.

In addition to Bersih, other faux-electoral monitors are also directly funded by the US government. While the Western media attempts to portray such organizations as “independent,” the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, for example, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.

Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony – the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called “independent” election monitor Merdeka – paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy’s 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a “panelist.” It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia.

Without a doubt, this premeditated sedition aimed at Malaysia’s ruling government has been designed, funded, and directed from Washington on behalf of Wall Street and London, not by the Malaysian people on behalf of Malaysia’s best interests.

The street protests conducted by Bersih have all the hallmarks of US-backed “color revolutions,” and this recent attempt to overturn election results that do not favor an overt US-proxy, foreshadows the same destructive, divisive, violent, and regressive unrest that has plagued Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria after US-engineered uprisings have left each in turn destabilized, failed states overrun by extremists, dictators, and traitors many times worse than the governments activists sought to overthrow.

And with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria in hindsight, will Malaysians fall into this same familiar trap? Whatever discontent Malaysians may have with the current government, it is all but assured Bersih and US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim will compound perceived injustices while compromising Malaysia’s political, social, and economic stability, and begin channeling Malaysia’s resources and energy toward foreign interests and designs, particularly those involving the encirclement and containment of China.

An Alternative to the Tired Ploy of “Street Protests”

For the average Malaysian seeking progress, a better bet than joining US-funded sedition would be to turn their attention toward organizing locally and focusing on pragmatic, rather than political, goals. Education, local economic development, health, and local infrastructure are all areas Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, can work together on and improve regardless of who holds public office.

And while special interests, both foreign and domestic, can indeed hinder such progress, they do not make such progress impossible. What is certain, is that corruption amongst Malaysia’s ruling party pales in comparison to that of Wall Street and London – and Malaysians will place themselves in the path of guaranteed destruction by inviting in the very people who dominated them before achieving a hard-won independence.

Democracy, in reality, is supposed to be a bottom-up exercise drawn from the grassroots. Bersih is clearly a vehicle for Anwar Ibrahim and his political machine – one whose message is funded, crafted, and declared from Anwar’s political advisers and foreign backers, and disseminated across the movement – however cleverly “democratized” Bersih may attempt to appear.

Malaysians do not need a political party to improve education, to grow their own food, to develop business locally by leveraging technology, or to improve local infrastructure and strengthen local communities. The time being wasted to assist Anwar Ibrahim’s worming back into political power at the cost of peace, stability, and prosperity could be better spent developing truly grassroots pragmatic power.

Real revolutions do not happen out on the streets – they are manifested in our schools, across industry, and within our communities. They are marked by pragmatism and true, enduring technological and socioeconomic progress – none of which are even promised by Bersih and Anwar Ibrahim’s “People’s Alliance.”

If the people of Malaysia truly want “change,” they are going to have to do it themselves by building local institutions that technologically and pragmatically solve real problems rather than simply craft slogans and campaign promises that merely pander to the concerns of the people. Following the flags of Bersih into the streets will  undoubtedly begin instability and division across Malaysian society that will jeopardize, not spur, real and very necessary pragmatic progress.

US “Pivot” toward Asia trips in Malaysia

Failure of U.S. to subvert the Elections and Install a “Proxy Regime” reported by the Global Research

May 8, 2013 (LD) – Wall Street and London’s hegemonic ambitions in Asia, centered around installing proxy regimes across Southeast Asia and using the supranational ASEAN bloc to encircle and contain China, suffered a serious blow this week when Western-proxy and Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s party lost in Malaysia 13th General Elections.

Malaysia 13th General Election on May 5, 2013 results shown the present ruling coalition won with majority leading Barisan National as the Malaysian new Government for 2013-2018. Najib Razak sworn as Malaysia Prime Minister for second term.

Image : Despite the US mobilizing the summation of its media power and pouring millions of dollars into the opposition party, including the creation and perpetuation of fake-NGOs such as Bersih and the Merdeka Center, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak sailed to a comfortable victory in this year’s general elections. The cheap veneer has begun peeling away from America’s “democracy promotion” racket, leaving its proxies exposed and frantic, and America’s hegemonic ambitions across Asia in serious question.

While Anwar Ibrahim’s opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or “People’s Alliance”, attempted to run on an anti-corruption platform, its campaign instead resembled verbatim attempts by the West to subvert governments politically around the world, including most recently in Venezuela and in Russia in 2012.

Just as in Russia where so-called “independent” election monitor GOLOS turned out to be fully funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Malaysia’s so-called election monitor, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED. Despite this, Western media outlets, in pursuit of promoting the Western-backed People’s Alliance, has repeatedly referred to Merdeka as “independent.”

The BBC in its article, “Malaysia election sees record turnout,” lays out the well-rehearsed cries of “stolen elections” used by the West to undermine the legitimacy of polls it fears its proxy candidates may lose – with  the US-funded Merdeka Center cited in attempts to bolster these claims. Their foreign funding and compromised objectivity is never mentioned (emphasis added) :

Allegations of election fraud surfaced before the election. Some of those who voted in advance told BBC News that indelible ink – supposed to last for days – easily washed off.

“The indelible ink can be washed off easily, with just water, in a few seconds,” one voter, Lo, told BBC News from Skudai.

Another voter wrote: “Marked with “indelible ink” and voted at 10:00. Have already cleaned off the ink by 12:00. If I was also registered under a different name and ID number at a neighbouring constituency, I would be able to vote again before 17:00!”

The opposition has also accused the government of funding flights for supporters to key states, which the government denies.

Independent pollster Merdeka Center has received unconfirmed reports of foreign nationals being given IDs and allowed to vote.

However, an election monitoring organization funded by a foreign government which openly seeks to remove the current ruling party from Malaysia in favor of long-time Wall Street servant Anwar Ibrahim is most certainly not “independent.”

The ties between Anwar Ibrahim’s “People’s Alliance” and the US State Department don’t end with the Merdeka Center, but continue into the opposition’s street movement, “Bersih.” Claiming to fight for “clean and fair” elections, Bersih in reality is a vehicle designed to mobilize street protests on behalf of Anwar’s opposition party. Bersih’s alleged leader, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has admitted herself that her organization has received cash directly from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), and convicted criminal George Soros’ Open Society.

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.

Photo: NDI’s website before taking down any mention to Malaysia’s Bersih movement.

The mastermind behind NDI, the convicted criminal George Soros has planned for 30 years to invade Asia Pacific with his “DEMOCRACY” strategy. The move is to contain China in Asia Pacific using the homosexual leader Anwar Ibrahim – another ex-convict led his campaign in Malaysia under the DEMOCRACY pursuits following a closer monitoring on Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Afghanistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Nepal and Pakistan. To change Malaysian longest ruling coalition is to bring in George Soros and his proxies – this is further escalated by the principle of Malaysian government over the imports from Israel. 

Wake up Malaysians – read and remember this attempted invasion by George Soros!

The substantial, yet carefully obfuscated support the West has lent Anwar should be of no surprise to those familiar with Anwar’shistory. That Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony – the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called “independent” election monitor Merdeka – paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy’s 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a “panelist.” It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia.

In reality, Bersih’s leadership along with Anwar and their host of foreign sponsors are attempting to galvanize the very real grievances of the Malaysian people and exploit them to propel themselves into power. While many may be tempted to suggest that “clean and fair elections” truly are Bersih and Anwar’s goal, and that US funding via NED’s NDI and convicted criminal, billionaire bankster George Soros’ Open Society are entirely innocuous, a thorough examination of these organizations, how they operate, and their admitted agenda reveals the proverbial cliff Anwar and Bersih are leading their followers and the nation of Malaysia over.

As Bersih predictably mobilizes in the streets on behalf of Anwar’s opposition party in the wake of their collective failure during Malaysia’s 2013 general elections, it is important for Malaysians to understand the true nature of the Western organizations funding their attempts to politically undermine the ruling party and divide Malaysians against each other, and exactly why this is being done in the greater context of US hegemony in Asia.

Anwar & Bersih’s US State Department Backers

The US State Department’s NED and NDI are most certainly not benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom. Does Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, the SOPA, ACTA, CISPA-sponsoring US Chamber of Commerce, and America’s warmongering Neo-Con establishment care about promoting democracy in Malaysia? Or in expanding their corporate-financier interests in Asia under the guise of promoting democracy? Clearly the latter.

The NDI, which Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan herself admits funds her organization, is likewise chaired by an unsavory collection of corporate interests.

The average Malaysian, disenfranchised with the ruling government as they may be, cannot possibly believe these people are funding and propping up clearly disingenuous NGOs in direct support of a compromised Anwar Ibrahim, for the best interests of Malaysia.The end game for the US with an Anwar Ibrahim/People’s Alliance-led government, is a Malaysia that capitulates to both US free trade schemes and US foreign policy. In Malaysia’s case, this will leave the extensive economic independence achieved since escaping out from under British rule, gutted, while the nation’s resources are steered away from domestic development and toward a proxy confrontation with China, just as is already being done in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

A quick look at NED’s board of directors reveals a milieu of corporate-fascists and warmongers:

1. William Galston – Brookings Institution.
2. Moises Naim – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
3. Robert Miller – corporate lawyer.
4. Larry Liebenow – US Chamber of Commerce (a chief proponent of SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA), Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).
5. Anne-Marie Slaughter – US State Department, Council on Foreign Relations (corporate members here), director of Citigroup, McDonald’s Corporation, and Political Strategies Advisory Group.
6. Richard Gephardt – US Representative, Boeing lobbyist, Goldman Sachs, Visa, Ameren Corp, and Waste Management Inc lobbyist, corporate consultant, consultant & now director of Ford Motor Company, supporter of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
7. Marilyn Carlson Nelson – CEO of Carlson, director of Exxon Mobil.
8. Stephen Sestanovich – US State Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, CFR.
9. Judy Shelton – director of Hilton Hotels Corporation & Atlantic Coast Airlines.
10. Francis Fukuyama – Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
11. Zalmay Khalilzad – Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
12. Will Marshall – Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
13. Vin Weber – Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory

Before all of the names above are erased; here’s the evidence of proof;

Does Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, the SOPA, ACTA, CISPA-sponsoring US Chamber of Commerce, and America’s warmongering Neo-Con establishment care about promoting democracy in Malaysia? Or in expanding their corporate-financier interests in Asia under the guise of promoting democracy? Clearly the latter.

The NDI, which Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan herself admits funds her organization, is likewise chaired by an unsavory collection of corporate fascist interests.

Some select members include:

Robin Carnahan: Formally of the Export-Import Bank of the United States where she “explored innovative ways to help American companies increase their sale of goods and services abroad.” The NDI’s meddling in foreign nations, particularly in elections on behalf of pro-West candidates favoring free-trade, and Carnahan’s previous ties to a bank that sought to expand corporate interests overseas constitutes an alarming conflict of interests.

Richard Blum: An investment banker with Blum Capital, CB Richard Ellis. Engaged in war profiteering along side the Neo-Con infested Carlyle Group, when both acquired shares in EG&G which was then awarded a $600 million military contract during the opening phases of the Iraq invasion.

Bernard W. Aronson:  Founder of ACON Investments. Prior to that, he was an adviser to Goldman Sachs, and serves on the boards of directors of Fifth & Pacific Companies, Royal Caribbean International, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, and Chroma Oil & Gas, Northern Tier Energy. Aronson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which in turn represents the collective interests of some of the largest corporations on Earth.

Sam Gejdenson: NDI’s profile claims Gejdenson is “in charge of”  Sam Gejdenson International, which proclaims on its website “Commerce Without Borders,” or in other words, big-business monopolies via free-trade. In his autobiographical profile, he claims to have promoted US exports as a Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. Here is yet another case of conflicting interests between NDI’s meddling in foreign politics and board members previously involved in “promoting US exports.”

Nancy H. Rubin: CFR member.

Vali Nasr: CFR member and a senior fellow at the big-oil, big-banker Belfer Center at Harvard.

Rich Verma: A partner in the Washington office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP – an international corporate and governmental legal firm representing for Verma, a multitude of conflicting interests and potential improprieties. Setptoe & Johnson is active in many of the nations the NDI is operating in, opening the door for manipulation on both sides to favor the other.

Lynda Thomas: A private investor, formally a senior manager/CPA at Deloitte Haskins & Sells in New York, and Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte in London. Among her clients were international banks.

Maurice Tempelsman: Chairman of the board of directors of Lazare Kaplan International Inc., the largest cutter and polisher of “ideal cut” diamonds in the United States. Also senior partner at Leon Tempelsman & Son, involved in mining, investments and business development and minerals trading in Europe, Russia, Africa, Latin America, Canada and Asia. Yet another immense potential for conflicting interests, where Tempelsman stands to directly gain financially and politically by manipulating foreign governments via the NDI.

Elaine K. Shocas: President of Madeleine Albright, Inc., a private investment firm. She was chief of staff to the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations during Madeleine Albright’s tenure as Secretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nation, illustrating a particularly dizzying “revolving door” between big-government and big-business.

Madeleine K. Albright: Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group and Chair of Albright Capital Management LLC, an investment advisory firm – directly affiliated with fellow NDI board member Elaine Shocas, representing an incestuous business/government relationship with overt conflicts of interest. Albright infamously stated that sanctions against Iraq which directly led to the starvation and death of half a million children “was worth it.”

The average Malaysian, disenfranchised with the ruling government as they may be, cannot possibly believe these people are funding and propping up clearly disingenuous NGOs in direct support of a compromised Anwar Ibrahim, for the best interests of Malaysia.

The end game for the US with an Anwar Ibrahim/People’s Alliance-led government, is a Malaysia that capitulates to both US free trade schemes and US foreign policy. In Malaysia’s case, this will leave the extensive economic independence achieved since escaping out from under British rule, gutted, while the nation’s resources are steered away from domestic development and toward a proxy confrontation with China, just as is already being done in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

Stitching ASEAN Together with Proxy Regimes to Fight China

Image: Lemuel Gulliver on the island of Lilliput, having been overtaken while asleep by ropes and stakes by the diminutive but numerous Lilliputians. Western corporate-financier interests envision organizing Southeast Asia into a supranational bloc, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), to use the smaller nations as a combined front to “tie down” China in a similar manner. Unlike in the story “Gulliver’s Travels,” China may well break free of its binds and stomp the Lilliputian leaders flat for their belligerence.

That the US goal is to use Malaysia and other Southeast Asian nations against China is not merely speculation. It is the foundation of a long-documented conspiracy dating back as far as 1997, and reaffirmed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as recently as 2011.

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it – Robert Kagan, 1997

In 1997,  Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution policy scribe Robert Kagan penned, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” which spells out the policy Wall Street and London were already in the process of implementing even then, albeit in a somewhat more nebulous manner. In his essay, Kagan literally states (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

Here, Kagan openly admits that the “world order,” or the “international order,” is simply American-run global hegemony, dictated by US interests. These interests, it should be kept in mind, are not those of the American people, but of the immense corporate-financier interests of the Anglo-American establishment. Kagan continues (emphasis added):

In truth, the debate over whether we should or should not contain China is a bit silly. We are already containing China — not always consciously and not entirely successfully, but enough to annoy Chinese leaders and be an obstacle to their ambitions. When the Chinese used military maneuvers and ballistic-missile tests last March to intimidate Taiwanese voters, the United States responded by sending the Seventh Fleet. By this show of force, the U.S. demonstrated to Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of our Asian allies that our role as their defender in the region had not diminished as much as they might have feared. Thus, in response to a single Chinese exercise of muscle, the links of containment became visible and were tightened.

The new China hands insist that the United States needs to explain to the Chinese that its goal is merely, as [Robert] Zoellick writes, to avoid “the domination of East Asia by any power or group of powers hostile to the United States.” Our treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and our naval and military forces in the region, aim only at regional stability, not aggressive encirclement.

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will “play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes.”

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call “international norms” of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider “complaints about China’s violations of international norms” to be part of “an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.

What Kagan is talking about is maintaining American preeminence across all of Asia and producing a strategy of tension to divide and limit the power of any single player vis-a-vis Wall Street and London’s hegemony. Kagan would continue (emphasis added):
The changes in the external and internal behavior of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s resulted at least in part from an American strategy that might be called “integration through containment and pressure for change.”

Such a strategy needs to be applied to China today. As long as China maintains its present form of government, it cannot be peacefully integrated into the international order. For China’s current leaders, it is too risky to play by our rules — yet our unwillingness to force them to play by our rules is too risky for the health of the international order. The United States cannot and should not be willing to upset the international order in the mistaken belief that accommodation is the best way to avoid a confrontation with China.

We should hold the line instead and work for political change in Beijing. That means strengthening our military capabilities in the region, improving our security ties with friends and allies, and making clear that we will respond, with force if necessary, when China uses military intimidation or aggression to achieve its regional ambitions. It also means not trading with the Chinese military or doing business with firms the military owns or operates. And it means imposing stiff sanctions when we catch China engaging in nuclear proliferation.

A successful containment strategy will require increasing, not decreasing, our overall defense capabilities. Eyre Crowe warned in 1907 that “the more we talk of the necessity of economising on our armaments, the more firmly will the Germans believe that we are tiring of the struggle, and that they will win by going on.” Today, the perception of our military decline is already shaping Chinese calculations. In 1992, an internal Chinese government document said that America’s “strength is in relative decline and that there are limits to what it can do.” This perception needs to be dispelled as quickly as possible.

Kagan’s talk of “responding” to China’s expansion is clearly manifested today in a series of proxy conflicts growing between US-backed Japan, and the US-backed Philippines, and to a lesser extent between North and South Korea, and even beginning to show in Myanmar. The governments of these nations have capitulated to US interests and their eagerness to play the role of America’s proxies in the region, even at their own cost, is not a surprise. To expand this, however, the US fully plans on integrating Southeast Asia, installing proxy regimes, and likewise turning their resources and people against China.

In 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled the capstone to Kagan’s 1997 conspiracy. She published in Foreign Policy magazine, a piece titled, “America’s Pacific Century” where she explicitly states:

In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

To “sustain our leadership,” “secure our interests,” and “advance our values,” are clearly hegemonic statements, and indicates that the US’ goal for “substantially increased investment,” including buying off NGOs and opposition parties in Malaysia, seeks to directly serve US leadership, interests, and “values,”  not within US borders, but outside them, and specifically across all of Asia.

Clinton continues:

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so.

The “architecture” referred to is the supranational ASEAN bloc – and again Clinton confirms that the US’ commitment to this process is designed not to lift up Asia, but to maintain its own hegemony across the region, and around the world.

Clinton then openly admits that the US seeks to exploit Asia’s economic growth:

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.

Of course, the purpose of an economy is to meet the needs of those who live within it. The Asian economy therefore ought to serve the needs and interests of Asians – not a hegemonic empire on the other side of the Pacific. Clinton’s piece could easily double as a declaration by England’s King George and his intentions toward emptying out the New World.

And no empire is complete without establishing a permanent military garrison on newly claimed territory. Clinton explains (emphasis added):

With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

And of course, by “advancing democracy and human rights,” Clinton means the continuation of funding faux-NGOs that disingenuously leverage human rights and democracy promotion to politically undermine targeted governments in pursuit of installing more obedient proxy regimes.

The piece is lengthy, and while a lot of readers may be tempted to gloss over some of the uglier, overtly imperial aspects of Clinton’s statement, the proof of America’s true intentions in Asia can be seen clearly manifested today, with the intentional encouragement of provocations between North and South Korea, an expanding confrontation between China and US proxies, Japan and the Philippines, and with mobs taking to the streets in Malaysia in hopes of overturning an election US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim had no chance of winning.

Clean & Fair Elections?

While the battle cry for Anwar Ibrahim, his People’s Alliance, and Bersih have been “clean and fair elections,” in reality, allegations of fraud began long before the elections even started. This was not because Anwar’s opposition party had evidence of such fraud – instead, this was to implant the idea into people’s minds long before the elections, deeply enough to justify claims of stolen elections no matter how the polls eventually turned out.

At one point during the elections, before ballots were even counted, Anwar Ibrahim declared victory – a move that analysts across the region noted was provocative, dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. Again, there could not have been any evidence that Anwar won, because ballots had not yet been counted. It was again a move meant to manipulate the public and set the stage for contesting Anwar’s inevitable loss – in the streets with mobs and chaos in typical Western-backed color revolution style.

One must seriously ask themselves, considering Anwar’s foreign backers, those backers’ own stated intentions for Asia, and Anwar’s irresponsible, baseless claims before, during, and after the elections – what is “clean and fair” about any of this?

Anwar Ibrahim is a fraud, an overt proxy of foreign interests. His satellite NGOs, including the insidious Bersih movement openly funded by foreign corporate-financier interests, and the equally insidious polling NGO Merdeka who portrays itself as “independent” despite being funded directly by a foreign government, are likewise frauds – drawing in well-intentioned people through slick marketing, just as cigarette companies do.

And like cigarette companies who sell what is for millions essentially a slow, painful, humiliating death sentence that will leave one broken financially and spiritually before ultimately outright killing them, Anwar’s US-backed opposition is also selling Malaysia a slow, painful, humiliating death. Unfortunately, also like cigarettes, well-intentioned but impressionable people have not gathered all of the facts, and have instead have based their support on only the marketing, gimmicks, slogans, and tricks of a well-oiled, manipulative political machine.

For that folly, Malaysia may pay a heavy price one day – but for Anwar and his opposition party today, they have lost the elections, and the cheap veneer of America’s “democracy promotion” racket is quickly peeling away. For now, America has tripped in mid-pivot toward its hegemonic agenda in Asia, with Malaysia’s ruling government providing a model for other nations in the region to follow, should they be interested in sovereignty and independent progress – no matter how flawed or slow it may be.

Malaysia may not enjoying these prices (below) if George Soros and US won its mastery game conquering through Anwar Ibrahim and BERSIH campaign. It’s time to restore the peace in Malaysia. Those Malaysians who are still sleeping please adopt reality check!  Lesson to learn – George Soros thinks every Malaysians can be bought like Anwar Ibrahim and Ambiga; most Malaysians are stupid like the PKR supporters. 🙂