Archive for May, 2007
Something was bothering me about my post yesterday, and after thinking over it, I discovered what it was: I was blethering about bantai-ing other Malaysians. Amazing! There I was thinking that I’m a fairly race-agnostic kinda guy, and I go off about beating the shit out of my Chinese, Indian and Dan Lain-lain brothers and sisters. That I want to do it fairly and squarely was beside the point. The fact that I want to do it at all is really embarrassing.
It all goes to show that the way Malaysia has been set up is so divisive that without even realising it, we can find ourselves thinking along communal lines. Just about the only area in which I think Malaysians don’t think along communal lines is in sport. We are mainly united in supporting our sporting heroes — like Manchester United, Chelsea, Brazil, and the odd Malaysian doubles in badminton. Oh, and Nicol David (because she’s hot).
And in 1996 it was, I think, our local footballers were united in accepting bribes to fix games in the Malaysian League. I recall players from all races were banned for life. It warms the cockles of my heart when I think about that, and the fact that until today, Malaysian football is yet to recover. After all, if we still had an amazing local league like in the ’70s and ’80s, we could all have been in Stadium Merdeka watching Selangor beat Singapore in the final, instead of quaffing Tiger beer on Saturday nights watching the English Premier League, wearing pirated copies of English clubs’ jerseys.
Anyhow, I would like to sincerely apologise to all my Malaysian brothers and sisters for such a terrible post. Especially to the Indians, because they will become our new overlords according to Tengku Adnan. We should all unite, together, in body and spirit. We should band together as a single, unified front. So that we can then all go and bantai the Thais for beating us regularly in sepak takraw and the Singaporeans for … well … being Singaporeans.
Filed under: Lame Jokes, Rant | |No Comments
On Sunday, there was that report in the NST about the regulations imposed by a couple of banks, which required at least one bumiputra partner with at least a 50% stake in a firm before it can do any business with the banks. The relevant paragraphs are the first two in the article, as reproduced here (without permission, but under fair use — see Copyright Act 1987):
A new regulation by two major banks that requires Bumiputera legal firms’ involvement has irked the legal community.
The regulation requires law firms to have a minimum of three partners of which one must be Bumiputera with a minimum 50 per cent stake in the firm before they can do any business with the banks.
Now, the following day, there was this article in Berita Harian, quoting the Yang Dipertua Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia (DPMM) Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Syed Amin Al-Jeffri, saying:
“Dalam apa juga perniagaan yang kita lakukan, perlu ada usaha sama yang tulen antara kaum, itulah semangat Malaysia.
“Apa salahnya pembabitan semua kaum dalam apa juga perniagaan, pembabitan semua pihak dapat memenuhi kehendak rakyat Malaysia,� katanya ketika dihubungi Berita Harian, semalam.
The entire article was also reproduced (with permission) at the Bar Council website. Read the comments made in that site, while you’re at it, yah? The article’s title is: “Majlis Peguam tak patut persoal syarat baru bank”.
What’s wrong with the picture above?
On the one hand, we have a couple of banks enforcing a discriminatory rule, favouring one race over others. On the other hand, one person representing the interests of that favoured race says that the move is a laudatory one because it allows all races to be involved in business so that it would “memenuhi kehendak rakyat Malaysia”.
As one of those “rakyat” flers, I don’t recall being asked whether it’s my desire or not to have that ruling.
Ok, so it’s not that simple. The Datuk was saying that having bumiputra partnership in ALL the law firms wanting to do business with the two banks is a good thing. This is because it would help the bumiputras, being the backward, inbred tits that we are. But, the problem there is, the choice has been removed from the law firms who don’t actually have bumiputra partners owning at least half of the firm. In other words, if you’re non-bumis, the best you can do is just work half as hard while the Malay chap carries the rest. If the Malay chap is a lazy arse and only works a quarter as hard (that’s 25% for the hard of counting), then the non-bumis will have to work three-quarters as hard, but with still only half the returns.
The point is this: as a Malay, I would like to compete on an equal footing with my Chinese, Indian and Dan Lain-lain brothers and sisters so that when I beat the shit out of them, I can say that I did it fairly and squarely. Further, if they beat the shit out of me, at least I don’t get the feeling that I got the shitters beaten out of me by opponents that I’ve blindfolded, one arm tied behind their backs and with a leg chopped off.
It’s a matter of pride.
Filed under: Rant | |2 Comments
Courtesy of Suanie over at Monsterblog, we were alerted on the new requirements by a couple of banks in Malaysia that law firms must have at least three partners with one bumiPutera fler and with a minimum 50% stake in the firm. Obviously, mentera.org is not a law firm, but we’ve already got MILF-PRON and who knows, someday we might start a law firm, the Mentera Integrated Law Fim with Partners Representing Onerous Needs & Co. (MILF-PRON & Co.). Apart from doing litigation (translation: blethering in front of a guy wearing a wig), in order to pay the bills, MILF-PRON & Co. might possibly have to do conveyancing (translation: transferring paper from one place to another, e.g. loan applicant <--> runner i.e. lawyers <--> bank — ergo to convey). In order to do that, we would need to comply.
Ipso facto, in anticipation of the day that MILF-PRON & Co. are set up, we would like to invite any non-BumiPutra person to avail his, but preferably her (are you hot or not?), uh, availability to us. We don’t currently have a non-bumiputera person on mentera.org, which is why we have to look ab extra. Currently there’s only me (gier) and Mack — who plays the role of (mostly) silent partner. I tried to get Mack classified as a non-buMiputra in absentia by arguing that he spoke Tamil like a Siamese native, but that didn’t work.
It really is a good proposition for you non-bumiputeras out there because you get to hold 50% of the firm. To be honest, I don’t like that requirement, because why should I hand over 50% of the firm to some dude in order to be able to ferry documents around in flagrante delicto to and from the bank? After all, I’m the one who will be doing all the hard work, getting the business, buying cigars and drinks for the bank execs, changing the toner in the printer, etc. Why should some Non-bumiputra fler hold half of the firm simply because it’s some sort of ruling I have to comply with? Plus, it’s obviously some sort of retrograde step, because for nearly 38 years, we’ve never had such requirements. It’s always been the other way round, so I find it really strange that the banks would … do … this … hmm … let me read that article again.
Ah, right. The law firms need to have a Bumiputra partner and that bumiputera partner must hold at least a 50% stake in the firm. Right, right. So, that’s ok then. Sorry about all that. Really must learn to read things properly first.
So, *ahem*, any law firms out there needing a bumiputra partner … ? I haven’t a law degree but if you’re willing to give me a 50% stake of your firm, I can go get one. They probably sell it on eBay nowadays.
Filed under: Mentera Moden | |No Comments
||