Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of American Media
Pak Alert Press
The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.
“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…” (How to Kill a Palestinian)
Facts of Jewish Media Control -Electronic News & Entertainment Media
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a “control freak”, includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew. This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group.
Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangsta rap.” Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing.
Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune). When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them.
Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews. To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a “friendly” takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals.
Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books.
It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies?
Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew.
Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as “the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States,” is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew.
The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music.
Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995.
The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert.
Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight).
CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline). The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day.
These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think. The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone.
Today, most “local” newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news.
The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue–not the small change collected from a newspaper’s readers–that largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers–primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Three Jewish Newspapers
The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others.
They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn’t, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews.
The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its “leaks” throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.
The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co.
The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things.
The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.
Other Mass Media
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a susidiary of Time Warner Communications.
The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish.
Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.
The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media
These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people.
By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.
6 February 2010
1 February 2010
POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO VIEWS OF NGOS - DR MAHATHIR
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 30 (Bernama) -- Leaders of political parties should pay attention to the views of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as they reflected the voices of the people.
Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said although the number of NGO's was small they played a large role in general elections that could make parties win.
"In elections we do not need to get hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of votes to win, just 102 will do to ensure victory or loss of a party," he said at a ceremony to launch 'Pertubuhan Perkasa Selangor' here on Saturday.
Dr Mahathir said he himself had lost in the 1969 general election when he failed to defend his Kota Setar Selatan parliamentary seat in Kedah as he was too confident that the Malay voters in the area would support him.
This was because in the 1964 general election he had won the seat by defeating the PIMP, now called Pas, candidate Mohd Shaari Abd Shukor by a majority of 4,210 votes.
"And this was a Malay area. Of the 35,000 voters, only 5,000 were Chinese, Indians and Thais. Because I tried to champion the fate of the Malays I was also of the opinion surely many of them will give me victory," said.
Dr Mahathir said due to thinking he will surely win, he did not pay attention if the Chinese in the constituency would vote for him or not.
As a result in that general Dr Mahathir was defeated by Yusof Rawa of Pas by a majority of 989.
As such, he said, that was why political parties must pay attention to the small groups as they can ensure a party's win in an election.
-- BERNAMA
Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said although the number of NGO's was small they played a large role in general elections that could make parties win.
"In elections we do not need to get hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of votes to win, just 102 will do to ensure victory or loss of a party," he said at a ceremony to launch 'Pertubuhan Perkasa Selangor' here on Saturday.
Dr Mahathir said he himself had lost in the 1969 general election when he failed to defend his Kota Setar Selatan parliamentary seat in Kedah as he was too confident that the Malay voters in the area would support him.
This was because in the 1964 general election he had won the seat by defeating the PIMP, now called Pas, candidate Mohd Shaari Abd Shukor by a majority of 4,210 votes.
"And this was a Malay area. Of the 35,000 voters, only 5,000 were Chinese, Indians and Thais. Because I tried to champion the fate of the Malays I was also of the opinion surely many of them will give me victory," said.
Dr Mahathir said due to thinking he will surely win, he did not pay attention if the Chinese in the constituency would vote for him or not.
As a result in that general Dr Mahathir was defeated by Yusof Rawa of Pas by a majority of 989.
As such, he said, that was why political parties must pay attention to the small groups as they can ensure a party's win in an election.
-- BERNAMA
13 January 2010
Pendirian Sultan Selangor Mengenai Kalimah Allah
>>Ketika isu pengunaan kalimah Allah oleh suratkhabar Herald terus menjadi
>> bualan sementara menunggu rayuan Kementerian Dalam Negeri di mahkamah
>> Sultan Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah telah mengeluarkan titah
>> perintah yang spesifik untuk negeri itu.
>>
>>
>>Baginda selaku Ketua Agama Negeritidak membenarkan pengunaan kalimah Allah
>> oleh agama lain di Selangor.
>>
>>Titah itu disampaikan kepada Pengerusi Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS),
>> Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd. Isa dalam pertemuan beliau serta Mufti Selangor
>> Datuk Mohd. Tamyes Abdul Wahid dan pegawai tinggi MAIS dengan baginda di
>> Istana Mestika pada 5 Januari lalu.
>>
>>Pendirian baginda itu bertujuan memelihara akidah umat Islam serta menjaga
>> keharmonian beragama setiap rakyat di Selangor.
>>
>>Mohamad Adzib memberitahu demikian kepada wartawan selepas majlis taklimat
>> dan perbincangan dengan 38 pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Islam di masjid
>> negeri di Shah Alam Isnin.
>>
>>Serentak dengan itu Mohamad Adzib memberitahu bahawa MAIS berpendirian
>> keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 31 Disember lalu membenarkan
>> Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah tidak selaras dengan
>> Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
>>
>>Menurutnya ini kerana Perlembagaan menetapkan Islam agama rasmi Persekutuan
>> dan keputusan itu juga bertentangan dengan Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam
>> (Kawalan dan Perkembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 yang digubal
>> berasaskan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Negara.
>>
>>Beliau berkata mahkamah bukan forum sesuai untuk membicarakan aoal
>> pengunaan kalimah Allah.
>>
>>Ini kerana ia perkara ‘non-justiciable’ di bawah bidang kuasa raja-raja
>> Melayu.
>>
>>Pengerusi MAIS itu memberitahu lagi bahawa turut meminta MAIS memaklumkan
>> kepada rakyat tentang wujudnya undang-undang menghalang pengunaan kalimah
>> Allah dalam agama bukan Islam.
>>
>>Larangan itu termaktub dalam Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Kawalan dan
>> Perkembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) yang diwartakan sejak 1988.
>>
>>Malah, jelas beliau, larangan juga diputuskan Jawatankuasa Fatwa negeri
>> pada 10 Jun 2008 yang memutuskan kalimah Allah khusus untuk umat Islam dan
>> tidak boleh digunakan atau dimasukkan dalam agama lain.
>>
>>Mohamed Adzib turut memohon campur tangan Majlis Raja-raja selaku Ketua
>> Agama Islam negeri-negeri selaras sumpah raja-raja Melayu untuk
>> mempertahankan Islam pada setiap masa.
>>
>>Beliau menegaskan Kerajaan Persekutuan perlu menetapkan kes-kes berkaitan
>> agama Islam tidak lagi dibicarakan di Mahkamah Sivil terutama melibatkan
>> Hakim bukan Islam,” katanya.- 11/1/2010
>>
>>
>> bualan sementara menunggu rayuan Kementerian Dalam Negeri di mahkamah
>> Sultan Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah telah mengeluarkan titah
>> perintah yang spesifik untuk negeri itu.
>>
>>
>>Baginda selaku Ketua Agama Negeritidak membenarkan pengunaan kalimah Allah
>> oleh agama lain di Selangor.
>>
>>Titah itu disampaikan kepada Pengerusi Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS),
>> Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd. Isa dalam pertemuan beliau serta Mufti Selangor
>> Datuk Mohd. Tamyes Abdul Wahid dan pegawai tinggi MAIS dengan baginda di
>> Istana Mestika pada 5 Januari lalu.
>>
>>Pendirian baginda itu bertujuan memelihara akidah umat Islam serta menjaga
>> keharmonian beragama setiap rakyat di Selangor.
>>
>>Mohamad Adzib memberitahu demikian kepada wartawan selepas majlis taklimat
>> dan perbincangan dengan 38 pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Islam di masjid
>> negeri di Shah Alam Isnin.
>>
>>Serentak dengan itu Mohamad Adzib memberitahu bahawa MAIS berpendirian
>> keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 31 Disember lalu membenarkan
>> Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah tidak selaras dengan
>> Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
>>
>>Menurutnya ini kerana Perlembagaan menetapkan Islam agama rasmi Persekutuan
>> dan keputusan itu juga bertentangan dengan Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam
>> (Kawalan dan Perkembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 yang digubal
>> berasaskan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Negara.
>>
>>Beliau berkata mahkamah bukan forum sesuai untuk membicarakan aoal
>> pengunaan kalimah Allah.
>>
>>Ini kerana ia perkara ‘non-justiciable’ di bawah bidang kuasa raja-raja
>> Melayu.
>>
>>Pengerusi MAIS itu memberitahu lagi bahawa turut meminta MAIS memaklumkan
>> kepada rakyat tentang wujudnya undang-undang menghalang pengunaan kalimah
>> Allah dalam agama bukan Islam.
>>
>>Larangan itu termaktub dalam Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Kawalan dan
>> Perkembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) yang diwartakan sejak 1988.
>>
>>Malah, jelas beliau, larangan juga diputuskan Jawatankuasa Fatwa negeri
>> pada 10 Jun 2008 yang memutuskan kalimah Allah khusus untuk umat Islam dan
>> tidak boleh digunakan atau dimasukkan dalam agama lain.
>>
>>Mohamed Adzib turut memohon campur tangan Majlis Raja-raja selaku Ketua
>> Agama Islam negeri-negeri selaras sumpah raja-raja Melayu untuk
>> mempertahankan Islam pada setiap masa.
>>
>>Beliau menegaskan Kerajaan Persekutuan perlu menetapkan kes-kes berkaitan
>> agama Islam tidak lagi dibicarakan di Mahkamah Sivil terutama melibatkan
>> Hakim bukan Islam,” katanya.- 11/1/2010
>>
>>
10 January 2010
Why Do The Selangor Government Need To Take Over Talam Bhd?
I still cannot find any logical reasons for the Selangor State government to buy over Talam Berhad from Tan Sri Chan Ah Chai. The company is not a blue chip company. It owes the various Selangor State Agencies debts to the tune of RM 391 millions.
Talam is known to give shoddy products and services. Many of its house buyers go to the Housing Tribunals because of the many defects in the houses built by the company.
Thus it is beyond logical thinking for the State government's action. Datuk Salehuddin Hashim called it the work of "crooks" and "dirty tricks" and was very much angered by the State's actions. Surely the PR State government's actions will be scrutinized come the next General Elections.
Salehuddin quits PKR
2010/01/08
By Syed Nadzri
KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Keadilan Rakyat secretary-general Datuk Salehuddin Hashim has quit the party, ending weeks of speculation about how unhappy he had become about its state of affairs. He said he handed in his resignation yesterday to party supremo Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali. Salehuddin, a lawyer, said he was leaving politics altogether and would now concentrate on corporate consultancy work at home and abroad. “I think I’ve had enough of all this.
It’s time to move on and I will do some travelling and focus on consultancy services,” he said.
“I am 58 years old. And I don’t think I have that many productive years left, so I had better make the most of it now.”
The resignation is another major blow to PKR which is already beset by internal bickering and the prospect of having Anwar go through another lengthy court process on a sodomy charge. Salehuddin, however, did not want to go into the issue of whether it was the internal problems in the party that drove him to resign.
“Frustrations, resentments, disappointments. I think it’s all part of life, part of political life. But I think that’s enough as I've given six fruitful years to the party — four as organising secretary and two as secretary-general,” he added.
Party insiders have long pointed out that the state of his relationships with several party officials have been a source of irritation. His run-ins with Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, an Anwar loyalist, were well known, with matters coming to a head with Khalid’s controversial plans to take over Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan, a poverty-eradication foundation.
Last month, it was reported how an irate Salehuddin had emailed party officials about what he described as the “crooks” and “dirty tricks” involved in the takeover by the Selangor government of debts owed by a private company to state agencies to the tune of RM391 million.
Talam is known to give shoddy products and services. Many of its house buyers go to the Housing Tribunals because of the many defects in the houses built by the company.
Thus it is beyond logical thinking for the State government's action. Datuk Salehuddin Hashim called it the work of "crooks" and "dirty tricks" and was very much angered by the State's actions. Surely the PR State government's actions will be scrutinized come the next General Elections.
Salehuddin quits PKR
By Syed Nadzri
KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Keadilan Rakyat secretary-general Datuk Salehuddin Hashim has quit the party, ending weeks of speculation about how unhappy he had become about its state of affairs.
It’s time to move on and I will do some travelling and focus on consultancy services,” he said.
“I am 58 years old. And I don’t think I have that many productive years left, so I had better make the most of it now.”
The resignation is another major blow to PKR which is already beset by internal bickering and the prospect of having Anwar go through another lengthy court process on a sodomy charge. Salehuddin, however, did not want to go into the issue of whether it was the internal problems in the party that drove him to resign.
“Frustrations, resentments, disappointments. I think it’s all part of life, part of political life. But I think that’s enough as I've given six fruitful years to the party — four as organising secretary and two as secretary-general,” he added.
Party insiders have long pointed out that the state of his relationships with several party officials have been a source of irritation. His run-ins with Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, an Anwar loyalist, were well known, with matters coming to a head with Khalid’s controversial plans to take over Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan, a poverty-eradication foundation.
Last month, it was reported how an irate Salehuddin had emailed party officials about what he described as the “crooks” and “dirty tricks” involved in the takeover by the Selangor government of debts owed by a private company to state agencies to the tune of RM391 million.
7 January 2010
Najib: We Can't Stop People From Protesting
Since when we have two standards. The Indian HINDRAF can have their protests. The Oppositions held their protests and candlelight virgils. The Bar Council also have had their protests.
And now when the Muslims want to protest against the High Court's ruling that the Catholic Herald magazine can use the name of 'Allah' the opposition portals like Malaysiakini are making a fuss.
Is Muslims now second class citizens in their country. This is a very undemocratic and intolerant attitude.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today said that the government cannot stop people from gathering at mosques tomorrow to protest against a court decision which had allowed the Christian publication Herald to use to term 'Allah'.
"We cannot stop them if they want to congregate in mosques," said Najib, when asked if the government was practising double standards in handling demonstrations.However, he stressed that the gatherings should be confined to the mosque compound and he hoped that it will not spill over to "something more serious".
Speaking to reporters after the national level launch of the 1Malaysia clinic in Kampung Kerinchi, Kuala Lumpur, Najib said the authorities are prepared and will take necessary action.
Najib said he hoped that there would be "minimal" protests tomorrow as to not cause tension in the country as he wanted the matter to be resolved through the courts.
"We should take the attitude that the matter should be resolved through the court in an amicable way. We should not raise the tension levels in this country," he said.
Dialogues planned
Najib also brushed off comments by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the controversy cannot be resolved through the courts, as it does not recognise religious sensitivities.
"There are all kinds of views. As I have said, the appeal has gone to the courts, but (the issue) requires us to have dialogue with various groups," he added.Yesterday Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said the government did not prohibit the people from expressing their views on the issue.
However he said that he will not hesitate to take action if the protests "affects security".
Several Muslim-based organisations plan to stage a demonstration tomorrow to protest against the use of the word "Allah" by other religions.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had yesterday granted the Home Ministry a stay of execution on the Dec 31 High Court ruling allowing the Herald to use the word 'Allah' in its Malay-language edition, pending the hearing of an appeal.
5 January 2010
Nik Aziz Tidak Setuju
Mula-mula pendirian Dato Nik Aziz mengenai hal ini adalah samar-samar. Sekarang dah bertambah , seperti orang Kedah, klearq (clear lah tu)
Nik Aziz tidak setuju
KOTA BHARU 3 Jan. – Penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama lain tidak boleh dibenarkan sama sekali kerana ia akan menyebabkan kekeliruan di kalangan umat Islam.
Mursyidul Am Pas, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata, biar pun dari segi hukum membenarkan agama ‘samawi’ seperti Kristian dan Yahudi menggunakan kalimah itu tetapi dibimbangi ia disalah gunakan pihak tertentu.
Beliau berkata, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian yang menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.
“Kita bimbang dan takut orang ini salah guna perkataan Allah iaitu salah guna dalam pengertian, sebab itu dalam fiqah kita boleh sekat orang bukan Islam guna perkataan Allah walaupun benda itu harus.
“Saya juga bimbang kalimah ini disalah guna sehingga menyebabkan orang Melayu beragama Islam keliru... dia kata sana Allah, sini pun Allah sehingga akhir-akhir ini dia minta gereja pun dipanggil masjid Kristian.
“Pengunaan Allah boleh tetapi dibimbang disalah guna, jadi lebih baik kita berhenti daripada membenarkan agama lain guna perkataan Allah,” katanya.
Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan pejabat baru Urus Setia Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Kesihatan negeri di Jalan Telipot di sini hari ini.
Turut hadir Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Pertanian, Industri Desa dan Bioteknologi negeri, Che Abdullah Mat Nawi dan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Kesihatan negeri, Wan Ubaidah Omar.
Khamis lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur membuat keputusan membenarkan Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitannya atas alasan ia ada hak dalam Perlembagaan.
Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan menegaskan, KDN telah bertindak secara salah ketika mengenakan larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan akhbar mingguan itu.
Pada 1 Mac 2009, Nik Abdul Aziz dalam sidang akhbar di sini menegaskan, tidak salah bagi orang bukan Islam menggunakan perkataan Allah bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan.
Ini kerana, kata beliau, dalam al-Quran sendiri ada menceritakan bahawa orang bukan Islam telah menggunakan perkataan Allah sejak zaman Nabi Muhammad lagi.
Sementara itu, Nik Aziz hari ini memberitahu, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian untuk menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.
Sehubungan itu, beliau mencadangkan supaya badan rundingan itu diwujudkan secepat mungkin.
“Majlis rundingan itu boleh dianjur NGO (pertubuhan bukan kerajaan) atau kerajaan sendiri secara terbuka atau tertutup.
“Kalau kita biar Kristian dengan Kristian dan Islam dengan Islam akan timbullah masalah seperti ini. Orang kita tidak suka berdepan begini,” katanya.
Menurut Nik Abdul Aziz, beliau tiada halangan jika dipanggil menjadi ahli panel dalam majlis rundingan tersebut bagi menjelaskan keadaan sebenar.
Nik Aziz tidak setuju
 |
| NIK Abdul Aziz Nik Mat pada sidang akhbar selepas merasmikan pejabat baru Urus Setia Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Kesihatan negeri di Kota Bharu, semalam. |
KOTA BHARU 3 Jan. – Penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama lain tidak boleh dibenarkan sama sekali kerana ia akan menyebabkan kekeliruan di kalangan umat Islam.
Mursyidul Am Pas, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata, biar pun dari segi hukum membenarkan agama ‘samawi’ seperti Kristian dan Yahudi menggunakan kalimah itu tetapi dibimbangi ia disalah gunakan pihak tertentu.
Beliau berkata, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian yang menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.
“Kita bimbang dan takut orang ini salah guna perkataan Allah iaitu salah guna dalam pengertian, sebab itu dalam fiqah kita boleh sekat orang bukan Islam guna perkataan Allah walaupun benda itu harus.
“Saya juga bimbang kalimah ini disalah guna sehingga menyebabkan orang Melayu beragama Islam keliru... dia kata sana Allah, sini pun Allah sehingga akhir-akhir ini dia minta gereja pun dipanggil masjid Kristian.
“Pengunaan Allah boleh tetapi dibimbang disalah guna, jadi lebih baik kita berhenti daripada membenarkan agama lain guna perkataan Allah,” katanya.
Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan pejabat baru Urus Setia Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Kesihatan negeri di Jalan Telipot di sini hari ini.
Turut hadir Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Pertanian, Industri Desa dan Bioteknologi negeri, Che Abdullah Mat Nawi dan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Kesihatan negeri, Wan Ubaidah Omar.
Khamis lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur membuat keputusan membenarkan Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitannya atas alasan ia ada hak dalam Perlembagaan.
Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan menegaskan, KDN telah bertindak secara salah ketika mengenakan larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan akhbar mingguan itu.
Pada 1 Mac 2009, Nik Abdul Aziz dalam sidang akhbar di sini menegaskan, tidak salah bagi orang bukan Islam menggunakan perkataan Allah bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan.
Ini kerana, kata beliau, dalam al-Quran sendiri ada menceritakan bahawa orang bukan Islam telah menggunakan perkataan Allah sejak zaman Nabi Muhammad lagi.
Sementara itu, Nik Aziz hari ini memberitahu, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian untuk menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.
Sehubungan itu, beliau mencadangkan supaya badan rundingan itu diwujudkan secepat mungkin.
“Majlis rundingan itu boleh dianjur NGO (pertubuhan bukan kerajaan) atau kerajaan sendiri secara terbuka atau tertutup.
“Kalau kita biar Kristian dengan Kristian dan Islam dengan Islam akan timbullah masalah seperti ini. Orang kita tidak suka berdepan begini,” katanya.
Menurut Nik Abdul Aziz, beliau tiada halangan jika dipanggil menjadi ahli panel dalam majlis rundingan tersebut bagi menjelaskan keadaan sebenar.
30 December 2009
The 2010 Politics: Who Will Fall? According To Awang Selamat.
The 2010 politics: Who will fall?
In just a few days the closing curtain will fall on 2009 and we will be stepping into the new year of 2010. During the whole of this year, there are many events both sad and happy, that give colour to the life of the nation.Awang is thankful that 2009 has seen the improvement in many fields especially under the administration of the Prime Minister, Mohd. Najib Tun Razak. The support to the government which was at one time considered as critical has changed for the better.
At the same time, the opposition is confronted with many internal problem and studies has shown that the support for the opposition including from youngsters has been dwindling. Political issues will continue to be the focus for next year.
Barisan Nasional (BN) is now facing accumulated issues that need to be overcome including the storm in MCA and PPP. The best formula for MCA is that its President, Ong Tee Keat should make an exit and there is a need a new lineup.
Awang also hopes that the stupor in Gerakan following the defeat of the party in the last general elections can be deal with. The sign for the party’s revival is not there yet. This brings the question, what has its President Koh Tsu Koon been doing? If he is not aggressive, it’s better for him to give way to the next echelon of leaders.
The most awaited event is the change in the MIC leadership from S. Samy Velly to his successor. Samy had helmed the MIC for far too long and there is no reason for BN to compromise in retaining him.
Awang believes that without Samy, the potential for MIC to attract the support of the Indian community is far more substantial. The party itself should feel embarrass if it failed to effect change as if they can’t do anything without Samy.
At a glance, UMNO seems to be strong but there is no guarantee that the party is in the comfort zone. This is because the effectiveness of many UMNO divisions in endearing themselves to the people is still questionable.
Speculations about minor cabinet reshuffle of ministerial and deputy ministerial posts involving some UMNO leadership is still creeping and might be a reality next year.
Among the name mention to be appointed is UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin. His current position outside the government is giving him the edge to push forward the party’s mission. But if appointed, Awang feels it is the right an appropriate move. Either we like it or not, Khairy has the capacity and can be relied on.
To the opposition, 2009 is actually a very challenging year. The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case on his former aide, Saiful Azlan Bukhari had made big headline.
Based on the latest indication, Anwar has not been receiving solid support from the opposition. Some of the Pas leaders are no longer keen in defending Anwar because it doesn’t want to be embroiled in his moral issue. His tactic in delaying the hearing of the court case has led many to ask, including the opposition – why is there a need to be afraid of?
Many have speculated that the disunity in Pas will “explode” next year. The position of Pas spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, is getting shaky. The issue of his son-in-law, the haj sponsorship and his stance on the pro-Erdogan group and the DAP, has dragged him down the ebb never experienced before.
PKR is struggling to protect the party from falling due to various damaging issues especially the weakness and shortcoming of the Selangor State government under the leadership of Khalid Ibrahim.
The suspicion against the Vice President, Azmin Ali has reached the top and the friction in PKR has weakened the party.
Besides that, the DAP is being push to the corner in the defending the momentum of support from the Chinese by playing a lot on racial issues and matters related to the Constitution.
To Awang,the DAP continue to hold the record as the most racialist party not only in Malaysia, but also in the world.
But the most destructive issue besieging the opposition is its failure to build a solid opposition pact because of their fight for dominance.
With the myriad of shortfalls, the opposition pact needs to devise a strategy by manipulating certain issues against the government including on the missing RMAF fighter jet engines.
Awang is relieved that the government is committed to a full investigation to determine the culprits behind the scam.
Whatever it is, next year seems to be dominated by many political issues. Will the opposition especially the PKR continue to make a deep political dive is a matter for everyone to see?
The main focus will be, which politician will make a fall? What is the prayer and hope of Awang for the year 2010? Hopefully the country will be spared from politicians behaving like a fox in chicken feathers – with ill-intention, a tool to foreign elements and intends on destroying the national Constitution.
28 December 2009
BAN PRESENTS. GIVE MONEY INSTEAD
Scroogenomics
Give gold, not myrrh
DECEMBER dismays Joel Waldfogel, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the author of a new book called “Scroogenomics”. Mr Waldfogel objects to the ritualised frenzy of shopping for gifts that precedes the enormous meals and awkward family reunions that are the other hallmarks of Christmas in the Western world.
Such complaints are hardly new. Harriet Beecher Stowe, an American abolitionist, grumbled in 1850 about “worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things that nobody wants and nobody cares for after they are got”. But unlike most criticisms of festive wastefulness, Mr Waldfogel’s objections are based on economic theory rather than morality or taste. When people buy something for themselves, they believe that their purchase is worth at least the price paid. But most gift-givers are only dimly aware of the desires and tastes of the beneficiaries of their largesse. As a result, they often give people presents that are worth far less to the person getting them than the gift-giver paid for them.
The result of all these inappropriate presents—ranging from the sweaters that people will never wear to games they will never play—is what Mr Waldfogel calls a “deadweight loss” from Yuletide generosity. This is the difference between the satisfaction a person gets when she spends a dollar on herself and when a well-meaning benefactor spends that dollar on a present for her. Over a period of time, a series of surveys have led him to conclude that the average deadweight loss from gift-giving is around 18%. Given his estimate that Americans spent $66 billion on Christmas presents in 2007, this amounts to a whopping $12 billion of lost value. Where others see generosity, Mr Waldfogel sees an orgy of value destruction.
Of course, not all presents are such bad value for money. What matters is how good people are at anticipating what others want. People who are in close contact with recipients usually do a very good job when it comes to choosing presents. Gifts from siblings, Mr Waldfogel’s research has found, create only a tiny deadweight loss, creating $0.99 in satisfaction for every dollar spent. Partners are excellent gift-givers; parents, reassuringly, do better than average. Unfortunately, aunts and uncles (like others who are only in occasional contact with the beneficiaries of their festive largesse) tend to give gifts that create only about 75-86 cents in satisfaction per dollar spent.
So what should people, especially those obliged to bestow holiday gifts on those whose tastes they do not know well, do? Since the best a gift-giver can do is give the recipient exactly what he wants, economic theory has a simple solution: give cold, hard cash. However, social norms make it a bit awkward to give money to all but a small subset of (usually much younger) relations in most societies.
But there may yet be hope. Gift vouchers are close to cash in that they leave the choice of exactly what to buy in the hands of the recipient, and have increased in popularity in recent years. Unfortunately (except for the retailer), human forgetfulness and the propensity to procrastinate mean that about 10% of such vouchers are never actually redeemed.
So is there no escape from the wanton wastefulness of Christmas spending? Mr Waldfogel offers a proposal of his own—gift vouchers that are designed to expire after a set period of time, with unused balances going to a charity of the giver’s choice. People would give more to charity if they could afford to and it were made easier, he argues. His proposal also chimes well with the spirit of Christmas. Whether Scrooge would have approved of it is less clear.
Give gold, not myrrh
Dec 21st 2009
From Economist.com
From Economist.com
DECEMBER dismays Joel Waldfogel, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the author of a new book called “Scroogenomics”. Mr Waldfogel objects to the ritualised frenzy of shopping for gifts that precedes the enormous meals and awkward family reunions that are the other hallmarks of Christmas in the Western world.
Such complaints are hardly new. Harriet Beecher Stowe, an American abolitionist, grumbled in 1850 about “worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things that nobody wants and nobody cares for after they are got”. But unlike most criticisms of festive wastefulness, Mr Waldfogel’s objections are based on economic theory rather than morality or taste. When people buy something for themselves, they believe that their purchase is worth at least the price paid. But most gift-givers are only dimly aware of the desires and tastes of the beneficiaries of their largesse. As a result, they often give people presents that are worth far less to the person getting them than the gift-giver paid for them.
 | |
| Presents? Humbug! |
Of course, not all presents are such bad value for money. What matters is how good people are at anticipating what others want. People who are in close contact with recipients usually do a very good job when it comes to choosing presents. Gifts from siblings, Mr Waldfogel’s research has found, create only a tiny deadweight loss, creating $0.99 in satisfaction for every dollar spent. Partners are excellent gift-givers; parents, reassuringly, do better than average. Unfortunately, aunts and uncles (like others who are only in occasional contact with the beneficiaries of their festive largesse) tend to give gifts that create only about 75-86 cents in satisfaction per dollar spent.
So what should people, especially those obliged to bestow holiday gifts on those whose tastes they do not know well, do? Since the best a gift-giver can do is give the recipient exactly what he wants, economic theory has a simple solution: give cold, hard cash. However, social norms make it a bit awkward to give money to all but a small subset of (usually much younger) relations in most societies.
But there may yet be hope. Gift vouchers are close to cash in that they leave the choice of exactly what to buy in the hands of the recipient, and have increased in popularity in recent years. Unfortunately (except for the retailer), human forgetfulness and the propensity to procrastinate mean that about 10% of such vouchers are never actually redeemed.
So is there no escape from the wanton wastefulness of Christmas spending? Mr Waldfogel offers a proposal of his own—gift vouchers that are designed to expire after a set period of time, with unused balances going to a charity of the giver’s choice. People would give more to charity if they could afford to and it were made easier, he argues. His proposal also chimes well with the spirit of Christmas. Whether Scrooge would have approved of it is less clear.
17 December 2009
SEA Games - Malaysia Won Football Gold After 20 years - Congratulations Malaysia!!!
The taste of success is sweet indeed. Congratulations to the Malaysian team for a job well done!!! 1Malaysia!!!
Latest
Malaysia Won SEA Fooball Gold
17/12/09
VIENTIANE: Malaysia wins the SEA Games football final after an own-goal by Vietnam in the 84th minute. It is the first gold in 20 years.
1 December 2009
After Dubai : A Financial Sandstorm
The global consequences of Dubai's debt problems-ECONOMIST 30.11.2009
FOR years, Dubai strove to capture the imagination of the financial world, projecting its young financial centre as a “global gateway” for capital. Last week it succeeded in grabbing attention. Its announcement that it would delay repayment of the debts of Dubai World, a vast government-owned conglomerate, swept through global markets like one of the blinding sandstorms that occasionally afflict the emirate, obscuring the gleam of its skyscrapers.
Like those storms, Dubai’s announcement was so damaging because it reduced visibility. Investors had assumed that the Dubai government was willing to rescue the indebted conglomerates it sponsors, and that Abu Dhabi, its well-heeled neighbouring emirate, was willing, in turn, to rescue Dubai. In particular, they had looked forward to the full and timely repayment of a $3.5 billion Islamic bond issued by Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, on December 14th.
More fundamentally, Dubai’s wobble raised the spectre of a sovereign default. Dubai’s government is not technically on the hook for Nakheel’s debts. But the government’s hesitation in saving its national champions nonetheless demonstrates its fiscal limits.
Elsewhere, governments have emerged from the crisis burdened by debt. Both Greece and Ireland are carrying heavy public liabilities denominated in a currency (the euro) that they cannot print. Doomsayers worry that the world has escaped from the financial frying pan into a fiscal fire.
These wider fears are easy to exaggerate. Despite its self-aggrandisement, Dubai is not yet important enough to bring down the global financial system. Its troubles moved markets last week partly because so many traders were on holiday. Other investors were looking for cues to sell after the long rally in markets since the spring. By Monday November 30th, the principal stock indices were shaking off the dust and venturing upwards again.
But the damage Dubai has done to itself is no passing storm. An emirate that has spent so much money and hired so many flaks to cultivate its image and inspire confidence saw much of that work undone in a single 200-word statement announcing the debt standstill.
Had it announced the restructuring a few months earlier, with the ground properly laid, investors might have taken it in their stride. Those who lent to Dubai World at a premium can have no complaints if the risks for which they were compensated turn out to be real. And a standstill may buy time for the deeper restructuring that Dubai World undoubtedly needs. It is better to weed out the bad businesses within the group rather than cross-subsidise them to save face.
But Dubai had led investors to expect that publicly traded instruments, such as sukuk, or Islamic bonds, would be honoured. And the government offered no satisfactory explanation for its sudden change of stance. Thus even as markets slumped, political speculation mounted. A week earlier, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, had sidelined three of the men who ran “Dubai Inc” in the boom years. Perhaps, then, the standstill was the result either of a power struggle within the ruling circles of Dubai, or between Dubai and its neighbour, Abu Dhabi.
Abu Dhabi’s conservative rulers have mixed feelings about their brash, go-getting neighbour. They may have asked why they should rescue Dubai from the consequences of its own prodigality. Or why they should resuscitate bankrupt Dubai firms that will compete with Abu Dhabi’s own national champions? At the weekend, a senior Abu Dhabi official told Reuters that it would “pick and choose” which of Dubai’s entities to help.
But many investors in Abu Dhabi bought into the Dubai boom. They will lose money if the bust turns into a protracted slump. And of the banks most exposed to Dubai, several have headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Thus the central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made it clear that it will provide liquidity to any bank, foreign or domestic, operating in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is not yet a gateway to the financial world. But it can open the door to all sorts of trouble in its neighbourhood.
| |
 | |
FOR years, Dubai strove to capture the imagination of the financial world, projecting its young financial centre as a “global gateway” for capital. Last week it succeeded in grabbing attention. Its announcement that it would delay repayment of the debts of Dubai World, a vast government-owned conglomerate, swept through global markets like one of the blinding sandstorms that occasionally afflict the emirate, obscuring the gleam of its skyscrapers.
Like those storms, Dubai’s announcement was so damaging because it reduced visibility. Investors had assumed that the Dubai government was willing to rescue the indebted conglomerates it sponsors, and that Abu Dhabi, its well-heeled neighbouring emirate, was willing, in turn, to rescue Dubai. In particular, they had looked forward to the full and timely repayment of a $3.5 billion Islamic bond issued by Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, on December 14th.
More fundamentally, Dubai’s wobble raised the spectre of a sovereign default. Dubai’s government is not technically on the hook for Nakheel’s debts. But the government’s hesitation in saving its national champions nonetheless demonstrates its fiscal limits.
Elsewhere, governments have emerged from the crisis burdened by debt. Both Greece and Ireland are carrying heavy public liabilities denominated in a currency (the euro) that they cannot print. Doomsayers worry that the world has escaped from the financial frying pan into a fiscal fire.
These wider fears are easy to exaggerate. Despite its self-aggrandisement, Dubai is not yet important enough to bring down the global financial system. Its troubles moved markets last week partly because so many traders were on holiday. Other investors were looking for cues to sell after the long rally in markets since the spring. By Monday November 30th, the principal stock indices were shaking off the dust and venturing upwards again.
But the damage Dubai has done to itself is no passing storm. An emirate that has spent so much money and hired so many flaks to cultivate its image and inspire confidence saw much of that work undone in a single 200-word statement announcing the debt standstill.
Had it announced the restructuring a few months earlier, with the ground properly laid, investors might have taken it in their stride. Those who lent to Dubai World at a premium can have no complaints if the risks for which they were compensated turn out to be real. And a standstill may buy time for the deeper restructuring that Dubai World undoubtedly needs. It is better to weed out the bad businesses within the group rather than cross-subsidise them to save face.
But Dubai had led investors to expect that publicly traded instruments, such as sukuk, or Islamic bonds, would be honoured. And the government offered no satisfactory explanation for its sudden change of stance. Thus even as markets slumped, political speculation mounted. A week earlier, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, had sidelined three of the men who ran “Dubai Inc” in the boom years. Perhaps, then, the standstill was the result either of a power struggle within the ruling circles of Dubai, or between Dubai and its neighbour, Abu Dhabi.
Abu Dhabi’s conservative rulers have mixed feelings about their brash, go-getting neighbour. They may have asked why they should rescue Dubai from the consequences of its own prodigality. Or why they should resuscitate bankrupt Dubai firms that will compete with Abu Dhabi’s own national champions? At the weekend, a senior Abu Dhabi official told Reuters that it would “pick and choose” which of Dubai’s entities to help.
But many investors in Abu Dhabi bought into the Dubai boom. They will lose money if the bust turns into a protracted slump. And of the banks most exposed to Dubai, several have headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Thus the central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made it clear that it will provide liquidity to any bank, foreign or domestic, operating in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is not yet a gateway to the financial world. But it can open the door to all sorts of trouble in its neighbourhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)