EPHEMERALITY OF LIFE ?

 IT'S MY LIFE, I AIN'T GONNA LIVE FOREVER......

"My grandma and your grandma

Were sittin' by the fire

My grandma told your grandma

I''m gonna set your flag on fire"

One of the things I regret is the ephemerality of my life.

Barring the wonders of a very likely futuristic hybrid "memory chip" transplant/cryogenics (or a similar technology within the next, say, 30 years) technology, I will also have to sadly bid a final sayonara to humankind that I knew it to be. At 57, I've seen quite a bit but I'd like to see more. Don't we all wish that we had more time on this earth - if only to hug your great grandchildren once more? To tell them some more "grandmother" stories. Or to travel the journey that was last on your bucket list?

Or just to kiss your wife/lover one final kiss?

If you're a God fearing but unsaved Hindu or an unenlightened Buddhist, you may have another 1900+ lifetimes to enjoy (or endure) but, as a semi agnostic but universally receptive person, I'm not too sure of this reincarnation possibility. I've read enough to say that science is not always correct. So I will leave it to you to form your own opinion(s) on the finality of "life".

Now however, within our own abilities and present technological facilities, we are presented with this possible conundrum of "life" - see below:

When I was a young boy, I noticed that every Friday at about 2pm, my grandfather would leave the house, walk away somewhere, and come back after 4 hours. This happened regularly like clockwork for several years.

My curiosity was aroused so much so that I asked my daddy, "Papa, where does Grandpa go every Friday afternoon?"

To which my father replied, "He goes to the Mentakab central bus stop. He spends time with his friends drinking coffee and chit chatting."

This type of routine is very common among the elderly. A group of old friends would meet in some kopitiam/cafe, have coffee, and reminisce about the good old days. They would make sure they don't miss any session. Afterall, it is only to these guys they are able to say, "Do you remember...? There's nobody else alive to remember their life.

So please now document your life pictorially and when possible, with little notes, essays etc. One day, your (grand)son/daughter will be able to appreciate your life. Right now we are fortunate that we have tools like FB and Google album to do this. I always post my life stories although many of my friends and family will laugh and say "this Ram is a crazy fellow, he will post "everything" on FB for public consumption".

I always laugh back - It's ok. In about 50 year's time, my kids (all 3 of them) will find these pics /stories in the "cloud" (or whatever medium then) and say...."Ah, that's my (grand)Daddy....and we know how he lived, loved and died".

And you know how we (then looking down from heaven) will realize this ? When maybe, their friend in 2057 will also say, "hey, I also see my (grand)father there with your's!"

It's said, we survive by our children and grandchildren. So why not help them a little in their journey of discovery? I'd like to think my (grand)children will say, "daddy was a far sighted man. He kept great records".

Maybe, I'm not the only sentimental fool. How about you?

Valuation in M&A SCENARIOS: Whacked by WACC, Discounted by DCF, Bitten by EBITDA, PERsecuted by hoRatio…and many more

Often in the course of my official and non-official capacity, I am asked about the valuation of businesses and projects. Often, I am amused by the terms that we accountants use to calculate “Value” and consequently, determine “Valuation”. After almost 20 years, I must admit, at the risk of losing my clientele, that I too am completely bewildered by the myriad of methodologies and terms applied in calculating Value: WACC, DCF, EBITDA, PER, NBV, NTA, MV, PBV etc. Every now and then someone comes up with a new way ( or acronym ) of calculating Value but how many of us really understand these concepts ?

 

What is Value ? And how does one decide on Value ? Ludwig von Mises, one of the most influential capitalists of our times described it as: “Value is not intrinsic; it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science.”

 

If Mises could say that, then why do we, presumably lesser-enlightened beings, try to even put a scientific or mathematical formula to assess Value. But I guess, if we do not agree on a common method, then there is no end to determining Value as you and I know: A couple of years ago, a prospective client told me that based on his accountant’s calculations, applying the Discounted Cash Flow ( DCF ) method, the RM 20 mil he was considering paying ( borrowing partly ) for an acquisition would give him a payback period of about 6 years on his cost of investment, better than the industry’s average of 7 years: Prima facie, this appeared to be a good deal ? I told him to forget the deal if that was the expected returns…….I’ll tell you why later in this article.

 

Given that an accountant’s work is almost as glamorous as a pilot’s, especially in a single’s bar; in layman’s term, I shall now attempt to explain below the several easier common methods that are used to value companies and, highlight some personal observations in each of these methods. Because doubting these well-established methods will be considered sacrilegious, I’ll task you with the questions, you can be the judge?

 

1. Market Value ( MV )

 

Where the shares of the company are listed, in essence, the MV is simple to determine: Multiply the quoted share price of the company by the number of issued shares. This reflects the price that the “market” is prepared to pay for the shares of the company, at specific intervals in time.

 

This valuation is influenced by the condition of the share market, the industry-specific issues and opportunities that are seen for the company, and naturally, investor confidence in the market as a whole. In mature markets, the price should reflect the investors’ sentiment of the ability of management to deliver a decent return on the assets of the company. It is indeed arguably true that the share price may also reflect the synergies that an expansion ( acquisitions, new lines, personnel etc ) may bring – to an extent, forecasting up Madam Zorra’s alley.

 

However, in more versatile markets, the fact that the Chairman went to China to treat his inflamed piles may easily be spun by the doctors to give the supposition of the company obtaining a pharmaceutical concession in the land of the Billion ( = huge pharma-care market for the company ). The share price then shoots up from a mere 16 sen to RM 4 on an astronomical run – a market capitalization boost of 24 times.  Question 1: Fair MV ?

 

In most cases, the available ‘float’ ( i.e. the shares that are actually traded freely in the market as opposed to the amounts controlled, and hence not traded freely, by smaller groups of shareholders ) is usually in the region of 15% to 25% of the total issued shares of the company. This means that the “market value” of the company is, ironically, controlled by the market price of the smaller float rather than the larger untraded shares. In a hypothetical situation, someone gaining control of a third of the free float of, say, 15% of Company X and having the cooperation ( not to sell their shares when the price is trading up ) of the major shareholders of Company X, can actually determine the market value of Company X by chasing up the ‘market price’ of Company X’s shares. So a fairly dormant Company X, whose 40 million ( float of 6 million ) shares were quoted at RM 10 in day 1, would have had a market capitalization of RM 400 million. Then comes along Mr. P who buys up 2 million shares in Company X from the market – naturally because of the small free float, the share price will move up, possibly by at least 33% ( provided that the controlling shareholders do not sell ), and the price of Company X’s share closes at RM 13, an increase in Company X’s ‘market value’ from RM 400 million to RM 520 million in 8 trading hours ? And this phenomenal MV increase arose out of purchasing a mere 2 million shares ( 5% of the paid up capital ) – who then, one may ask, controls the MV ? Of course there are laws to prevent this… Question 2: Fair MV ?

 

No matter how sophisticated the markets are, never though, does the Market price ever reflect the ‘break-up value’ of the whole company: The sum of the units are almost always, smaller than the individual units, if separately listed; usually on the excuse that the yield potential and risk profile of the spun off entities are different etc. Really ? In a ‘spin off’ situation, the Board ( let’s face it, a few independents may be inducted to provide governance, and protection for the new minority ), Bankers and virtually all stakeholders would remain the same as the pre spin-off entity: Just look at the recent spin offs locally, what’s the real difference ? It is almost as if, by consolidating the group’s operations for better management of its resources, the market penalizes the company for the ‘consolidation’ efficiency ? Question 3: Fair MV ?

 

The ability to spin off mediocre units of a company in a bullish market has created false performance marks for many a CEO in the developed economies. It’s only a matter of time ( I am not saying that it hasn’t been done yet ) that such ‘wealth unlocking’ mechanisms are imported and rode on liberally, in our market: ENRON was a classic example where presumably under performing units were spun off into Special Purpose Vehicles ( SPV ) and traded in various forms.  Think about this: If pursued, a debt of RM 1 billion can be taken off the Balance Sheet, injected into an SPV and by way of legally crafted investment means, brought back into the Balance Sheet as an investment at, voila! Market Value ? For the accountant in you, it’s not hard to pass these net book entries:

 

On disposal of debt to the SPV:

Dr. Balance Sheet – Loan from Banks RM 1 billion

Cr. Balance Sheet – Due to Investment Banks ( IB ) RM 1 billion

 

The IB then flogs this quality debt at an equitized value of RM 2 billion. The company buys this debt paper, at the MV of RM 2 billion:

 

Dr. Balance Sheet – Investment in SPV RM 2 billion

Cr. Balance Sheet – Due to Investment Banks ( IB ) RM 2 billion

 

The IB passes back the ‘profits’ of equitizing to the company:

 

Dr. Balance Sheet – Due to Investment Banks ( IB ) RM 1 billion

Cr. Profit & Loss – Gain on ‘disposal’ RM 1 billion

 

The net effect: A ( paper ) gain of RM 1 billion due to spinning off the loan into an SPV. The higher the leverage out and circuitry of the SPV by the friendly IB, the higher the propensity for flogging the equitized price: a ‘win-win’ for both the company and the IB. When this scheme fails, as it inevitably would due to the gearing up effect in the Balance Sheet, the masterminds would have divvied up the ‘profits’ and long disappeared. Accounting policies as they stood then, would have allowed this. Question 4: Fair MV ?

 

2. Market Value Added ( MVA )

 

At this point, it is worth bringing to attention a related MV method of valuation - Market Value Added ( MVA ): MVA is a cumulative measure of wealth created by the company for its investors. It is calculated by comparing the market value of a company's total invested capital with its book value ( adjusted for equity equivalents ) and can be summarized as follows:

 

MVA = [(shares outstanding x share price) + (market value of debt)] - book value of total capital invested

 

In layman’s term, the MVA represents the difference between what investors could take out of a company and the total capital provided by shareholders and lenders, and it is thus a measure of management's success in “adding value” to the cash provided by the company's investors (Stern & Hahn said something similar in 1994).

 

However, this is where I have a problem with the practicality of the MVA concept. In substance, the theory states that companies ( whose EVA is regularly positive ) should see “a growing MVA, as investors' confidence grows in the company's ability to consistently deliver a return in excess of the required risk-adjusted rate.” Bull !

 

Question 5: Because book value is almost always equal to par value, have you EVA considered that poorly managed ( as a result, highly leveraged ) but artfully promoted companies would command a laughable premium if such a sophisticated business valuation theorem was applied to explain their rallying price ?

 

3. Net Book Value ( NBV )

 

Total assets minus total liabilities in the company: Simple enough, right ? Wrong – while ‘penalizing’ the business for all its’ known and estimated potential liabilities, this method blatantly ignores the future returns the assets can produce and is calculated using staid ( yes ) accounting practices that do not reflect the real worth of the business to someone who may buy it as a going concern. In a more drastic variation, the NBV could be further reduced by eliminating ‘intangible’ assets ( eg. licenses, brand names ) to arrive at the Net Tangible Asset ( NTA ) position of the business. Question 6: Will Coca Cola ever accept that the name ‘Coke’ isn’t it afterall ?

 

On the flip side, there is a need for pragmatism; if I paid RM 10 million for a business with an NBV of RM 10 million, what is the net benefit of my doing the deal ? Look, I might as well start from scratch to build such a business ( if practical ) – at a cost that I’d dare say, less. I would therefore expect to buy the business at a cost lower than RM 10 million, to cover at a minimum, my financing cost – versus his sweat equity. Of course, if I were to buy it from my brother, out of love, to continue the family tradition in a business that I have been involved in together with the rest of my family, then maybe I would not feel so bad because there is a non-commercial element in the valuation: The thinking behind the recent bank consolidation perhaps?

 

Over the years, I’ve noticed some interesting phenomena in NBV based deals where simply put, caveat emptor prevailed in favour of the Vendor, regardless of the pre-acquisition Financial, Legal, Commercial, Technical and Tax due diligences by the Buyer:

 

a) where the bulk of the assets sitting in the Target was originally purchased from the Vendor’s private companies ( especially in cases where a foreign parent sells machinery to its Malaysian subsidiary, the Target ) and in such situations, the Book Value to the Target was simply the acquisition cost of those asset. Naturally, if the parent had ‘passed on’ some costs ( known as transfer pricing ) by inflating the cost of the asset it sold to the Target, being in a position of control, the parent would have instructed the Target to account for the assets acquired at the ‘inflated’ cost. In the absence of a noticeably blatant inflation, the audited accounts would have treated the acquisition cost as Book Value. Question 7: Now would you consider this audited Book Value as a ‘fair’ Book Value, from the perspective of the Buyer ?

 

b) where the bulk of the specialized assets sitting in the Target was originally purchased from the Vendor’s private companies and in such situations, the Book Value to the Target was simply the acquisition cost of the assets ( see above ). Naturally, if the Vendor had under stated some costs ( again, transfer pricing ) by deflating the cost of the asset he sold to the Target, being in a position of control, the Vendor would have instructed the Target to account for the assets acquired at the ‘deflated’ cost. In the absence of a noticeable understatement, the audited accounts would have treated the acquired cost as Book Value. In the post disposal period, when the Buyer seeks to purchase the same specialized machinery from the Vendor ( because the Vendor is the sole supplier ), Buyer would have to pay, say 50% more than the ‘inherited’ Book Value. Consequently, his cost of production goes up by say, 20%, due to the revised direct manufacturing costs arising from the higher priced machinery’s depreciation. As a result, his business may become unprofitable or generate less cashflows than originally anticipated. Question 8: From the perspective of the Buyer, hasn’t he been whacked by the audited Book Value ?

 

c) Taxes ( both current and deferred ) can wreak havoc on Book Values in an M&A scenario, where the Vendor may enjoy certain tax benefits on specific assets while the Buyer may not, or, when the reorganization of the business for the purpose of the purchase by Buyer, results in the Buyer acquiring the same assets with a different tax base than that recorded, at Book Value, by the Vendor. In both scenarios, his business may become unprofitable or generate less cash flows than originally anticipated as a result of the loss ( or reduced ) tax benefits on the assets inherited. Question 9: Once again, while the audited ‘Book Value’ is the same, the real cash generation Value is different for the Buyer ?   

 

d) Fair value accounting – MASB 21 ( yes, another complex accounting standard that we bean-counters formulated so that we can create more work for ourselves….) requires the Buyer to account for all assets and liabilities acquired at ‘fair value’, even if the Vendor originally did not account for them as such in his audited accounts. Question10: Do you mean the Vendor was being ‘unfair to himself’ by not recording them fairly previously; hey, it isn’t fair to the Buyer now to have to take a write down on a previously audited number ?

 

4. DCF 

 

The fun begins now. DFC uses the future free cash flows of the company ( after all liabilities and estimated costs have been covered ) discounted by the company's weighted average cost of capital ( ‘WACC’ - the average cost of all the capital used in the business, including debt and equity), plus a risk factor measured by ‘Beta’. Beta is a moderation adjustment that uses historic data to measure the sensitivity of the company's cash flows, e.g. through cyclical routines. This means that companies in highly cyclical businesses or with fluctuating cash flows will have a high Beta ( hence, a higher risk weighted discount ) to reflect the volatility of their cash flow. The DCF method appears to be, on the face of it, a persuasive valuation tool because it focuses on the cash generation potential of the company. ( OK really, DCF: If you were to invest RM 2 million today, you would expect to get your original invested capital plus a premium back, by way of yields from your investment, within a reasonable period of time, taking into account inflation and interest rates ).

 

A fundamental assumption in the DCF formula is that the annual cash flows will be distributed to the shareholders in ‘weightage’ to their holdings. However, in the real world, in leveraged acquisitions ( i.e. when you buy a Target using your own money plus Other People’s Money ( OPM )) the Bank will definitely have priority over common shareholders, through what we call a process of subordination of debts. Interest ( or profit ) and principal will always be paid to the Banks before dividends are paid to the common shareholders. The banks may also insist on several other cash flow maintenance covenants that will defer dividend payments to the shareholders. Consequently, the common shareholders’ cash flow is actually delayed rather than annually distributed as the DCF formula presupposes: In reality, the actual return to the common shareholder is much lower than the one used in calculating WACC, solely due to the subordination of cash flow payments. Simply put, the traditional WACC formula overvalues an investment because the subordination impacts are not considered. Question 11:  And, the Beta – after 20 years, I can safely say that it is almost impossible to measure – to test, ask any senior accountant how to calculate Beta ? 

 

As for my then prospective client’s RM 20 million question at the start of this article: If the DCF based value was about market average, why bother. Surely he should expect to get at least 25% more than what the market average was given his sweat equity factor, and the fundamental error in the WACC formula as explained above? And yes, he is now my friend…and a very grateful client!

 

5. Price-earning ratio (PER)

 

PER is simply the number of times the share is priced at compared to the net earnings of the company; meaning that all things being equal, a company with a PER of 5 is, a better buy than one with a PER of 7 because it takes an investor 2 years less to recover her investment from the yields of the original buy.

 

Due to its simplicity, this is probably the most popular evaluation method in Malaysia (notwithstanding its’ many inherent weaknesses ). Listed companies are benchmarked against their peers’ PER to assess their attractiveness. For non-listed companies wishing to apply the PER method, a comparable quoted company / industry sector should be selected. The main difficulty lies in the assessment of  ‘comparable’ company data because differences in audit quality ( it happens ) and accounting policies ( eg. treatment of goodwill, deferred taxes etc ) tend to skewer the PER of the selected companies. Many professionals usually spend much time in streamlining the selected companies’ results to assess a reasonable PER and as a result, open their work to needless scrutiny, especially if the investment recommendation subsequently turned out to be bad….

 

6. Pay Per Page ( PPP )

 

Oh yes. It would be completely remiss if I did not mention one of the more novel methods of valuation: PPP. The PPP methodology seeks to determine the value of, usually, a dot-com portal / vortal by ascribing a $ value to the number of times a page from the website is viewed by normal mortals. The basic premise being that there is promotional value to be gained by the number of times the website is ‘hit’ by surfers. Don’t laugh but in the hey-days of the ‘dot.con’ era, some prominent investment houses in the US were not too averse to subscribing to this novel method of flogging the stock with their clients.

 

I do not wish to argue the (de)merits of the PPP but suffice it to say that based on my ( et tu ? ) net surfing activity ( or should I say, proclivity ), if the PPP theorem held, I  would have contributed substantially towards making billionaires out of many interesting website owners. Inevitably then, Question 12:  2B or not 2B ?

 

What then is a good valuation method ? Oh well, that’s a future article, I suppose. I will, however, leave you with the following thought:

 

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

- ( hey, I didn’t say this; Thomas Sowell did )

 

Note

 

Ramesh Rajaratnam is a Chartered Accountant and practices in a large multinational firm. The views expressed in this article are his own and need not necessarily represent the views of his organization or his clients’.

WHITE's ONLY ?

 I first saw this signage at the Royal Selangor Club in mid 1984 when I was a junior accountant accompanying my boss for his daily business "meetings" at the Long Bar. (I was the designated driver then).

Even then, still in my late teens, I could not understand how such an obnoxious policy could exist in these times. But those were the days when we did not question our bosses. But this sign left a BIG impression on me.

Of course, I've heard the many justifications (mostly anecdotal I suspect) such as from sparing the ladies the "spirited" words the men may use when in exuberant company at the Long Bar and so on. And of course the famous bartender on duty who bat a century for the menfolk when their wives called.

I also heard that in the 90's, some lady members of the Club did try to have this biased policy removed by taking it to the Courts but unfortunately, the sitting judge who was a member of the Club was not in favour of abandoning the much revered "tradition".....probably anecdotal again.

In any case, on 1 Jan 2022, I saw that this sign was still on the wall of the Long Bar but someone told me that it was a celebration because the new Committee (elected on 19 Dec 2021) had decided to cancel this policy and indeed, it was a great day for equality.

Personally I was happy that sanity finally prevailed. Any discriminatory policy is downright offensive to the concepts of freedom and justice. I also recall, about 5 years ago I was showing the wife of a very good friend from Australia around the Club and she asked me if the sign was for real and expressed disgust when I replied in the affirmative. I wasn't able to justify and did not wish to as I shared her view. In fact, whenever WL and I go to the Long Bar, we would BOTH sit in the verandah outside as a mark of respect for her, even when some friends are at the bar inside. I just cannot condone such a policy of exception when we are supposed to be "gentlemen".

To be sure of this new development, today I checked again with a member of the club's Committee and he replied that the policy (Article 32.1 - "men only") remains. So whoever that informed me otherwise, was,....spiritedly exuberant. So I am taken back to my thoughts in 1984 and now.

I do hope that a call for equality to all will prevail - even if it has taken some 138 years !

Just imagine if the signage read "Non Caucasians are not allowed". Afterall, this was the tradition at the Club till about 1920. Would we gentlemen remain silent?

HOW TO DETERMINE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE?

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2021/12/08/the-tragic-and-needless-destruction-of-raj-rajaratnam-price-giver-extraordinaire/?sh=14b93acb44b8)

I fully understand how Rajaratnam (coincidentally my namesake) feels although my personal circumstances are quite different, albeit once, I too was charged for Insider Trading.....with a view to losing money (and this is bizzare). 

Insider trading is almost impossible to define sanely. It's premised on the basis that an act that results in profits gained (usually in the stock market) that is based on superior (aka inside) knowledge, is, illegal. One has to ask if this concept sticks, then how about the term "business"...afterall one party gains because he/she knows more than the other. And this information that one party has, is not necessarily "publicly" available. Otherwise, there would be no "competitive" advantage in conducting "business". There are complex legal arguments in the meaning of each of these words but I won't bore you with them now.

The laws that we have on Insider Trading are so "loose" and textbook driven, the Prosecution is automatically allowed to interpret them to their convenience, of course, selectively. Worse, some judges are totally clueless (most haven't traded in the markets) in the rudiments of securities trading and the power of (mis)information, any novel trading initiative that is unfamiliar to them, is considered unsavoury and the accused frowned upon....and usually convicted. This happens in almost every jurisdiction. Ironically, just like in America, most defence attorneys here, are the very same over-zealous public prosecutors before. What they pursued with vigour (and perhaps vindictiveness) when wearing the prosecutor's hat, now that they understand better (after perhaps punishing innocent victims) and try to make peace with their own conscience for prior "wrongdoings". 

I'm not saying that all persons charged with insider trading are innocent. I've followed with interest most of the cases in Malaysia and can opine that many, should not even be called to trial. The lack of clarity in laws and the ambition/greed by prosecutors (as Rajaratnam correctly lamented, if one was a two bit fund manager, they will never even look at him. Only the successful ones are prosecuted) pretty much renders the "legal" pursuit just like when we were in school:  when the class monitor was eager to pick on the smart kids to boost his ego, especially when he didn't have much up there but wielded the whistle. 

Just contrast this situation with the cub reporter who gets an "inside scoop" ....he's always a star. Or the football coach from the opposite team who has "inside" information on those team(s). Or the victorious army generals who win because of their spies on the "inside". Society says these folks are heroes. But when a fund manager gets an "inside" scoop and makes money for his clients, he's the villain. This is Uneven Justice indeed. 

Having done my fair share of defending (a 7 year personal battle....and perhaps a Netflix in the waiting?) maybe I should practice defending those wrongly charged with insider trading. 

There seems to be a big opportunity here ? 😜

10 little Indians...

 The mainstream media is muted and generally extremely biased towards any Indian Malaysian based achievements because Indians here in general, outperform their quota (in good or bad deeds). There is an innate fear that highlighting these achievements will propel their abilities as a human in Malaysia. My words are chosen carefully.

The Chinese media, has a loud voice and highlights Chinese Malaysian achievements because it has the volume in following (I think the older Chinese still reads the MCA owned toilet papers) to support it, and of course, the financial clout to reward them. The Malay media only seeks to propagate the racial divide, probably due to "instructions" from it's political masters. Besides, highlighting the other races' achievements almost always reflects the abysmal performance of its own notwithstanding the crutches. The Tamil media has a small following (no urban Indian of self worth reads (if he can) it anyway)....only the "estate" folks do, if they can read) and cannot even make the "noise" the Chinese media can. A whimper at best.

It's pretty much the way our civil (and uncivil) society has been structured in the past 64 years. There is an analysis floating around that shows the comparative status of Indian Malaysians between 1950's and now - shocking to those who didn't know. I recall the Indian (then 10% of population) made up almost 40% of the (British controlled) civil service then. There are many "firsts" in Malaya like lawyers, QCs, doctors, electricity providers that were Indian Malayans. These have been buried by our education system that now recreates a Malay "first" history, to the point of corrupting truth to it's side.

The Indian now has to leap 3 times higher (maybe that's why only 2 Indians...oops "Muslim" now, reached Everest first) to be considered par with the Chinese (who now has to leap 2 times higher) and Malay (who is almost always artificially propelled with full societal aids). 

Don't even talk about appearing in TV/movie  Adverts......besides Deepavali (and maybe some stereotyping Shopee ads), you won't find a "brown" face in our ad media. There's extreme injustice against Indians in Malaysia (and the death toll in prison also reflects this). And one has to be an Indian here to understand (and feel) the "pain" of the systemic  sidelining. Maybe that's why the Indians here are over represented in the legal (and medical) system - simply because we need the numbers here to help "our" kind who is the most "tertindas" (sidelined). This is not a racist statement but a realistic (and uncowardly as many won't say it for fear of retribution) reflection of the real situation in Malaysia. This may apply somewhat to Singapore also where the roles of the Chinese and Malay are reversed....but the Indian nevertheless ends up getting the shortest ended stick. Lose-lose in both countries for the machan. 

Now you understand why many people of Indian origin from these 2 countries leave and find fame/glory/wealth in the US, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland and elsewhere. Look it up, in every country, they form the highest group (in comparison) of median income, professors, doctors etc in those countries. While there are racial prejudices, they are not necessarily directed against the Indians in general. The whites probably (I say probably) discriminate against anyone who's not white...like yellow, brown, red and black. But if you are "good", this inborn racism easily diminishes in their societies. They say education helps to bridge the gap - but it cannot correct stupidity in Malaysia. Just look at our "highly" educated cabinet/lebais for evidence of this maxim.

When I first penned the above, someone said that I was being negative and pointed out the successful Indian origin Singaporean ministers and GLC heads there. I asked him if he would rather be an Indian origin in Malaysia or Singapore. He didn't answer: He is Chinese. 

As I'd said earlier, you have to be an Indian here to understand the type of daily challenges we face in the system. Or you can pretend that there isn't an elephant in the room?

 

As many great people have opined before, "to look away from injustices, makes one complicit in the commission"...something  like that lah.

To the many who always tell me to keep quiet because we cannot change the system, paraphrasing Kennedy...."We must speak up not because it is easy but because it is HARD"

You get the drift.

GO WEST YOUNG MAN - THE DEATH OF HOPE IN MALAYSIA?

I know many will disagree with my view below and that's fine. Some may consider my call unpatriotic - pretending that the elephant is not in the room. We make our beds and sleep in it.

My mantra these days is opposite to my previous beliefs - that I'm forced to abandon most. I will say to young Malaysians today....LEAVE MALAYSIA if/while you can!

Till about 2018, I was one of the increasingly smaller minority that believed we could save Malaysia from the Malays. You read me right.

When PH came into power and made some efforts to change/amend the terribly rotten system (top to toe, as wide as one can cast the net), I thought there was a new (and better) future for our kids and theirs'. Naively I thought it was the dawn of a new beginning. But PH just didn't have the support nor the energy to implement good things....the very first thing it should have done was to put the court cluster in jail immediately. No need to worry about the social outcry (nobody would have minded anyway except the cronies and the greedy). These buggers plotted to bring PH down to save themselves: Looks like it is working too.

I no longer believe "we" want a change...I think the Malays (note, I did not say bumis) do not want structural changes for the betterment of the country. If they did, given the atrocious judicial, official and endemic misconduct seen in the past 20 months, regardless of Covid 19, we would have had street protests as a minimum. The "urban" Malay has also given up (and indeed, I know many who are planning to immigrate) because if they say something, their clansmen will turn on them as being a traitor etc. Religion is (mis)used as a weapon with stupid and opportunistic edicts. The Malays just want a Malay controlled everything (politics, economics and social structure) and for that, corruption, thievery, incompetence and even murder, is acceptable. As long as the Cina babi or India keling are not given any power in this administration, it's ok. They like the 3 mongrels from MIC and MCA, and the few rats from the useless "Borneo" parties who kowtow to the UMNO masters, kissing the boot of PN and ilks.

Let's face it: 35% of Malay Malaysians, 51% of Indian Malaysians, 90% of Chinese Malaysians and 99% of Others (already feeling as a "dll") will (or have already) plan to leave Malaysia if things continue as now. The exception to this hypothesis are those who are either too old, too poor, too sickly or benefitting from a lucrative position/business/legacy (ie those who could't give a damn about the social morass because they have a leg elsewhere). Basically, those who have "no choice" are the only ones who will stay. Everyone else will move to greener (or saner) pastures.

As the day goes by, the question of whether GE15 can change the future, becomes immaterial. Even if we as a nation voted to change, the corrupt and immoral politicians will jump ship and do the same traitorous stunts as done in the past 20 months. Whether Maju/Independents can be the game changer, I doubt....many may still be tempted to switch camps after winning. The proposed law to disbar these frogs is unlikely to be passed before GE15, mark my words (I'd like to be proven wrong). Everyone knows we are in a sinking ship and there is a lack of will by those in power to change it. Let's face it, everyone (well, almost) is in politics (and GLCs) to make money and at some point, may jump ship bound for New Zealand perhaps. Afterall, it's been done.

Worse, those caught with their hands (and legs) in the cookie jar are being let off with a rap (not even a slap) on their palms. It's almost like, as long as you can "repay" some of the stolen loot, you can keep the rest and stand/remain as an elected rep. Well, they are not MY rep!

My dad tells me that this is the land of "milk and honey" that his father left Jaffna for in 1899. Unfortunately, my dad is stuck in the 1930's...this land stopped being the so-called Nirvana sometime in the early 1970's when Razak and his gang hatched a plot to take over the wealth of the nation for the benefit and power of a few. Contrary to what we had been lied about, Razak, in my opinion, had less than altruistic motives for many of his policies. (For those well read in the May 13, 1969 incident - you know who the real culprits were....but not for this piece). He plotted to create a Malay "control" elitist group and he succeeded. He called it the NEP. Did NEP work? The bigger villain Mahathir, in the guise of "modernisation", enriched his cronies (and some say, his family) with blatant financial abuses, nepotism, corruption and everything bad that ends with an "ism". Each premier after that just made things worse without plugging the rot. Some, stole billions. Even the "Sleepy" one was not untainted...a story for another day perhaps.

So for those who can leave, please do. For those who cannot personally but can send your kids abroad, please do so. Let's leave the Malays (and inevitably their cronies of all races) to enjoy whatever the future Malaysia holds. When the "milk and honey" have been sucked dry, they will turn on each other. I suspect at some time in the future, maybe even as soon as in the next 20 years, Sabah and Sarawak would have seceded - being unable to take this "Malay first/only" policies being dished out daily. For those who cannot leave, perhaps entering politics now would be a good idea.....if you can't beat them, join them ? Or maybe by then, the newer immigrants like Indonesians, Bangladeshis and Rohingyas would be running this country: Don't scoff.

For now, I see NO HOPE for the future with the bunch of clowns in power currently.

Go WEST young man....or even "under".

THE REAL DANGER OF COVID 19

 Covid has actually become a disuniting virus more than anything else: While it may have caused a death of less than 0.1% and about 3% in infection globally, it's probably created a 50% "injury" to relationships.

The pro-vaxers will troll the net to find anything to support the need to vaccinate (and to a large extent, Big Pharma is funding efforts globally in spreading misinformation) while the anit-vaxers will do the reverse.

I'm quite wary of the pro-vaxers and have been researching this plandemic for more than a year. Unfortunately it looks like if we want to travel/integrate into society, most countries will require some form of vaccination - this is the establishments' position. The effects of these (medically unproven) vaxes will only be known in the future. By then, could we have been permanently injured? Walk like an Egyptian....or worse, be "controlled" by nefarious powers....just a though.

Think about it - if the Virus was natural, then the universe would likely have provided a natural antibody that is within our system and is just waiting for the "awakening" (there was movie like this before) incident like a mass infection. Just check this out...babies born to mothers in India who are Covid positive and not vaccinated.....have natural antibodies against it ! So where did these babies get the antibody from? Providence (call it whatever term as per your beliefs) has always provided humanity with natural protection one way or another. That's what the process of Evolution has shown us....survival of the fittest: It's us vs the Virus. Whether you agree or not, statistics everywhere now show that the "succumb rate" is higher for those who have been vaccinated rather than those who have not (see my earlier posts for empirical evidence). Well then, perhaps this is the REAL purpose for the vaccinations?

Now if the Virus is "man-made" as claimed by many conspiracy-theorists, then surely, "man" would have also made an (expensive) cure as his gambit? So ask ourselves, who is this "man" who designed this global scheme that has all of us living in fear of a minute creature? I'm waiting to see if this plandemic is eventually exposed.

However, as we humans are, there will be the usual support camp(s) fighting for their positions. Just remember, whether it's 2 or 3 or 15 boosters, or if we need to pop a pill (already being developed by "them") daily - there will be only ONE winner (and their cronies). You and me - we will surely lose.

Everybody is free to their opinions I suppose....as long as it doesn't lead to permanent disenfranchisements. I see far more injuries (to ego) caused by this Virus than actual deaths.

Like

Comment