Unlimited TYT term is questionable

Unlimited TYT term is questionable

According to the Chief Minister of Sabah Datuk Sri Mohd Shafie Apdal the “ no limit to TYT’s term” in the Sabah Constitution was just to restore to the original constitution as set out in the Malaysia Agreement 1963. (DE 14/12/2018)

So the amendment does look good when the present TYT’s term is due to expire this month.

Does it really look good after what happened in the alleged drama in the Istana over the appointment of Chief Minister soon after the latest GE 14 held on 9^th May, 2018.  The case over who is the rightful CM is still in Court pending appeal.

With the latest term to be unlimited, how would TYT deal with that Court case should Tan Sri Musa Aman is returned to be the rightful CM?  Anything can happen thereafter.

What if Musa decide to remove the incumbent TYT, how would he do it ?  Before Musa could do that he needs to be sworn in first by the TYT and so what could happen?  Not another drama in the Istana possibly in contempt of Court?  Whatever happen Sabah is always the loser in many circumstances as in the past in several disputes of CM started in 1965 and in 1967.

Looking at the amendment from another angle, I hope Shafie would also revert several amendments of the Sabah Constitution by the USNO Government especially on religion and English so as to restore them like what is to the TYT’s term.  Were the amendments in USNO tenure really above board?  The USNO era had been described as the “dark ages”.

The said amendments on those two items are still very much regretted and challenged by certain quarters.  Even the oath stone is given much prominence.

Coming back to the appointment of present TYT based on the amended constitution in 1987, is it not normal that every appointment be it whatever position and more so official ones be stipulated in the instrument of appointment of the length of appointment? So can anyone imagine an open appointment without limit for bad governance? The higher we go it is imperative that good governance should be emphasised.

Is it a bad omen of sort that in Daily Express on December 15, 2018 ( the next day after TYT term as unlimited) and from the archive page 13 that Tun Mustapha was appointed Governor or TYT for two years beginning from Malaysia Day September16, 1963?  So even the first Governor has his term stipulated despite the Sabah constitution in article 2.

So now why the special treatment for the present TYT?  Do we smell a dead rat? 

With the “ no limit to TYT’ term”, it can present constitutional crisis as to how to remove or terminate the service of any TYT in an questionable scenario? Can any TYT stay for life or as long as such holder insist even committing certain undesirable acts? 

You mean TYT is an angel good fellow forever and unlikely to be tainted in any way?

Take the glaring example of Musa Aman as the longest sitting CM since 2003 to 2018 despite an earlier questioned rotating two years term for several CMs with one only for nine months from 1994. Nobody even dare to curtail the 15 years term of Musa Aman despite several major corruption reports against him while in office. Musa now out of office had been charged many counts of undesirable acts committed while in office.

In good faith and in good governance, how can a legal stipulation in an appointment of two terms of 4 years be removed at the end of that period by back dating such ceremonial office making it in disrepute of the highest office?

Should not the present TYT now resign with good standing?

The amended clause can only apply to future or incoming TYT but how to remove any if found to be incapable? The Mustapha case should remain the guideline.

Joshua Y C Kong.  18/12/2018

Stunnng incident of faded Ringgit notes not fake

Stunning incident of faded Ringgit notes not fake
It is indeed a stunning incident of faded notes not fake according to Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) (DE 5th December, 2018).
I believe most of Ringgit notes in circulation have been fake or legally fake for decades as I have lodged Police Reports and writing about that in several letters in Daily Express in recent decades.
But nothing has come forth from the BN Government and BNM despite billions or even trillions had been in circulation for decades.
Are we living in a fake nation when Malaysia has been very much challenged under MA63 ?
About the Ringgit notes, how come they are not fake when such notes of same denomination has different sizes and variances of position in the features of such notes? You can check it yourselves with the notes in your pockets.
In today’s great precision technology especially in printing, how can we tolerate such massive errors in the high tech printing of notes?
Can different printers by different printing or minting companies with different plates be used for such printing giving the impression of fakeness which should give rise to no legal tender in the value of such notes?
If most Ringgit Notes be in such disappointing scenario, how do we know which notes are genuine as issued by BNM or even BNM has been issuing fake notes officially in legal terms resulting in fraudulent practices?
Again today with top quality printers, how come the faded Ringgit notes are still not fake? Has BNM done its job well or it is aware of such “fraudulent” practices in the award of printing works to dubious printers or the main contractor sub-contracted it to others of lesser quality for the motivation of profit ?
There are reports in Australia of Malaysian Government involved with dubious and corrupted printing deals. What happen to such reports ? I hope MACC would look into them in the prevalent corrupted climate in the BN Government of 6 decades.
I am attaching some of the noted discrepancies in Ringgit Malaysia notes for greater and wilder appreciation as the notes in our pockets are indeed fake.
I had seen a video clip of Chinese tourists in a coach with bulky stakes of Ringgit notes of RM50 and RM100 denominations and how come most Chinese tourists pay by online pay schemes such as Alipay, weechat, etc and yet they carry so much notes without worry of security?
It is timely that a Royal Commission of Inquiry on BNM be conducted on a wide range of pressing issues including all those questioned Governmental guarantees by BNM urgently to give genuine value to our Ringgit notes and our economy be in better position and not fake impression. Can we accept the foreign debts of more than RM1 trillions and still rising..?
Joshua Y C Kong 13/12/2018

Online banking can be headache too.

Online banking can be headache too.

This is the second time I want to raise alarm over the recent new banking processes.  Last time it was about the very slow delivery at the ATM for a withdrawal and cash money did not come out after I cancelled the transaction after requesting the amount. The said bank later refunded me the cash amount. 

Now it is again on the new banking online transactions.

After obtaining my requested bank statement for the month ( bank does not post statement now) where the allegation of transfers had gone missing, I can confirm that I  had transferred online two sets of money to another bank account but the receiving bank did not record such transactions.

The two banks accounts are under my control and so I could view the statements.  My personal account can be accessed online but the other account has no online access hence I could not check it except when the said bank statements are obtained.

I am also told by an associate that someone had the transferred money denied by the receiving party but how to confirm with ease when both statements are private to the holders.  This can present long drawn affairs as banks are concerned while the clients do encounter financial difficulties.  Is there any easy solution there?

In my case, it is a total sum of RM1,900 and the receiving party is not an active concern and without the transactions recorded, the bank of the receiving party would not send out any bank statements of the months concerned.  I had to go to the bank to obtain the statements for the period for the purpose of updating the annual accounts.

So there are many questions as which bank is to be held responsible for such missed transactions?

The receipt alone of the paying bank would not be conclusive of such transactions when the receiving bank does not record such transactions.

So there lies the big questions of online transactions when they go haywire.

Would it be a case of Police report for further investigations?

Would both banks concerned resolve the case with compensation on tow for the alleged failures?

The banks concerned would be arguing themselves over such failed transactions to identify the wrong party between them.  Hopefully the banks concerned can come up with the solutions with their own records held by them.

It may be argued that millions of such online transactions occur daily and why these two items?

Maybe many do not check their accounts as I have seen in my accounting works except now it is handled by software. My case is simply manual for the few transactions annually.

I also append the statements with this letter.

Can it be a banking fraud and hopefully not detected?  Or the paying/receiving banks failed in communication.

I will be writing to the banks concerned with documentary evidence hoping for an early answer. But the process can take months. Maybe, it is still safer using the cheques except for the transaction float.

Joshua Y C Kong 7/12/2018