The recent expose of MAS' lavish spendings is indicative of the rot that Malaysia is facing. Its continuing losses is testament to poor managerial skills and smells of corruption. Despite commanding a RM$2.7 million annual salary, its senior manager Chris Andrews has failed to deliver. There is also little justification for such a stratospheric renumeration for a tiny nation like Malaysia. MAS has become a laughing stock and has put the country to shame.

The latest confirmation by the minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Dato Mustapa that the NEP will be continued till the 30% equity for bumiputeras is achieved only confirms the aim of this nation to slide further into obscurity. Holding on to a 30 year old plan that has failed miserably is foolish. A new strategy should be drawn by identifying the weaknesses of the previous system. Bull dozing a policy that has failed despite 30 years of practice is suicide. It is like building a castle on shifting sand. Even if the 30% equity is achieved, it will not withstand the eventual onslaught from the pressures of globalisation and stiff competition. Are we then to continue this protectionist policy for eternity?

The MAS saga is testament to the lack of quality in the management of MAS. Its promotional policies and executive appointments should be questioned. Are we putting the best people in the job or are we putting people with connections in these jobs? Ultimately, the taxpayers are to pay the price for this carelessness.

Perhaps it is the NEP that is to be blamed for this trend in mismanagement of government controlled corporations. Even hospitals are not spared from such lack of foresight in management and unscrutinised spendings.

It has now been clearly established that the woman in the nude-squat controversy is indeed a Malaysian. It has also been clearly stated that such practices are allowed as part of a routine search procedure.

Since the discovery that the victim was in fact Malaysian, the urgency to investigate and act has since dampened. There is no longer any external pressure to get to the bottom of the issue. In fact, there is little need to produce an acceptable answer as it no longer affects individuals of another country.

Instead, the attention is now turned to the parliamentarian that exposed the issue calling her irresponsible and that she lacked foresight. The threat of damaging relations with China was real and the act of exposing a possible profiling of visitors to Malaysia could dissuade much needed Chinese tourists and investment in this country.

Even the police officer that videotaped the scene surreptitiously, will surely not be spared from diciplinary action.

However, the main issue at heart should be the violation of a basic human right. This issue should be at the center of debate. The independant commision should indeed be concentrating on how methods of search can be improved without the need to humiliate and degrade another human being. The government should grant immunity to whistleblowers lest they be silently chastised and tortured.

I have a feeling that there will be widespread disappointment when the report of the independant commission is published. It appears that Malaysians still lack the bravery to contradict the suppressive Malaysian authorities. Sadly, now many detainees will suffer in silence under the brutal force of the police.

Another conspiracy is brewing. I have identified several inconsistencies in the trial involving this nude squat incident. It is sad when the courts have barred the media from revealing her true identity. Why should they? The clip is easily available and displays her face prominently which brings me to my first point.

The face certainly does not appear to be Malay. I may be wrong but her features are not those of a typical Malay. She could have been easily mistaken as a Chinese.

This secret witness also mentioned that she recognised herself by the hair clasp she wore on that day. Hair clasp? The video clearly shows that the victim was wearing a hairband not a hair clasp.

She also mentioned that she did not notice any windows in the lockup.

She said that while putting on her clothes, she faced away from the policewoman and was not aware if there was a window nearby.

How can that be true when she was clearly looking directly into the direction of the camera twice in that clip. Once when she was turning around before putting on ther clothes and the other time was after she had her blouse on.

“I did less than 10 squats. I felt shamed and angry. Then I was told to put on my clothes. My hair was tied up in a ponytail,” she said.

The number of squats performed was exactly 10, a nice round number that can easily be remembered. After she did her squats, the video clearly showed the woman removing her hairband which remains off during the time she was putting on her clothes. Her hair was only tied during the squats.

THE SURPRISE: The woman who appeared in court was a bit pudgy, not like the slim woman in the video clip. But she had an explanation — she was now a few months pregnant.

She mentioned 3 months pregnant from another source. 3 months? That would not turn her into a "pudgy" lady. Pudgy meaning short and fat. That is only 12 weeks when the stomach is hardly visible and many women remain their usual sizes until much later on. What's happening here?

Petite or pudgy?? Judging from the video, she was about the same height as the policewomen.

There is strong evidence to suggest that this secret witness may not be the women portrayed in the video. The government is certainly attempting to pull a fast one on the general public and at the same time, repairing possible strained relations with China. I think that the courts have to first verify concretely and incontrovertibly that this woman is indeed the one in the video. This is easy to do when her face was clearly visible in the original clip. We need a independant jury to verify that this woman is the person we are looking for.

Right now, there is no one to verify that. The description of the events from this secret witness is suspect in addition to the points above. Someone should take this issue up.

ps quotes are from The Star and malaysiakini

Should someone be denied much needed surgery because one is Hepatitis B positive?


It is happening in our hospitals. Much needed surgery was denied to a patient all because he was Hep B positive. The only reason for this refusal to operate was to protect the interest of the surgeon. Is this ethically right??


Personally, I think such surgeons should not be allowed to operate further if such a blatant discrimination is allowed. Such individuals should be brought to the Ethics Committee for further actions. Such things should not be allowed to further erode the integrity of the medical profession.


I am saddened by this episode as I know such surgeons will remain 'untouchable' .

posted with PocketBlogger

Reported in The Star,

Chinese tourists stand to win RM3.8m

KUALA LUMPUR: Chinese tourists visiting Malaysia next month will receive ang pows containing shopping vouchers and also be able to participate in a “millionaire” contest with lucky draw prizes totalling US$1mil (RM3.78mil). cont...

I just do not believe that the Government is willing to spend so foolishly in promoting tourism in China. Despite tourism being an important source of revenue for our country, I fail to see the logic of allocating so much money in such an exercise. One million to the winner. My goodness! Have they gone insane?

How can this happen when there is a lack of allocations given to social welfare officers to fund operations for our citizens? Being in Cardiology now, it has been a daily struggle for our cardiologists to find sufficient funds to enable poor individuals to undergo much needed interventional procedures. Funds are always in short supply and many patients have to live with a less optimal option as a result. I am sure, such cases are not isolated.

Now the Government is willing to give one million US dollars mind you, to a foreigner just so that they can attract more tourists! Tell me another country stupid enough to do that! This is not the way to promote a country. I am absolutely flabbergasted!

This calls for the resignation of our Tourism MInister. The paucity of sound ideas under his leadership is evident. I certainly hope our PM will take concrete actions and avoid such stupidity from ravaging our politicians.

The recent story of an unfortunate death of a student(pic) being refused treatment at a private hospital has certainly stirred a debate. Was the private hospital right in refusing treatment when its rules of a deposit was not complied with? Or should it have put conscience above profit in this situation?

The Government is currently losing millions of ringgit in unpaid debts from hospital fees over the years. Despite the fact that many treatments are heavily subsidised, patients are, for unknown reasons, not paying up. Such costs are fortunately being absorbed on many occasions by the generosity of our government and indirectly the taxpayers.

Private hospitals are not immune to such recalcitrant patients. Therefore one method of avoiding patients from defaulting payment is to require an upfront deposit. It acts as an insurance for these private health ventures. Afterall, private hospitals are business ventures and have not been set up to fulfill social obligations. They are there to make a profit and will do all it can to ensure that it stays afloat. It is no different from other business ventures. The public should know that private hospitals require these payments before stepping through their doors. The alternative are the ever available government hospitals.

So was the private hospital right in refusing treatment to this critically ill patient?

For a patient with severe injuries, I would say that the hospital has erred. Knowing very well that the failure to institute prompt treatment will certainly result in death in this case where a student had been stabbed. Turning him away was not the right thing to do. He should have been treated and stabilised before being transferred to another facility. The staff on duty will forever have blood on his/her hands.

However, more stable cases should be made to pay the deposit to safeguard the interest of the hospital. For example, a patient with a minor viral ailment, should know the rules very well when he/she decided to present him/herself to a private center. Triaging patients is therefore important before payment is requested. Emergency and life-threatening conditions should be seen immediately before any talk of money is made.

Emotions will inevitable run high when an avoidable death occurs. Ultimately, the difference between what the right thing to do is and what constitutes the rights of these private hospitals can sometimes be blurred and highly contentious.

Links
Treat of lose licence (The Star)