Pilihanraya di Malaysia: BN pernah kalah — Loyar Muda

Pilihanraya di Malaysia: BN pernah kalah — Loyar Muda
October 31, 2010

31 OKT — Dua pilihanraya kecil akan berlangsung tidak lama lagi. Suara-suara biasa kedengaran lagi dengan janji yang bernilai jutaan ringgit.Kadang-kadang kita naik hairan kenapa baru sekarang baru ‘terfikir’ nak buat itu ini sedangkan ketika jadi wakil rakyat dulu tak pernah pula nak merancang buat pelbagai projek. Berbillion ringgit bakal ditaburkan, duit akan mempengaruhi fikiran dan kepercayaan rakyat.
Tetapi dunia sentiasa berubah. Pilihanraya kecil di Sibu telah membuktikan bahawa tidak semua boleh dibeli dengan duit. Malangnya, siasatan berkaitan wujudnya rasuah sewaktu kempen pilihanraya tersebut hanya tinggal bahan bacaan semata-mata.

Sistem pilihanraya di Malaysia mengamalkan single plurality system atau bahasa mudahnya ‘yang menang ambil semua’. Calon yang menang tidak perlu mendapatkan majority undi 51 peratus, cukup apabila beliau mendapat undian tertinggi maka beliau layak untuk menjadi wakil rakyat. Justeru system ini telah mengakibatkan ketirisan antara jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi serta jumlah undi yang diperolehi sewaktu pilihanraya berlangsung.

Sebagai contoh, dalam pertandingan tiga penjuru calon A barangkali mendapat undian 40 peratus manakala 30 peratus diberikan kepada calon B dan 30 peratus kepada calon C. Calon A diisytiharkan menang. Jika diperhatikan balik calon A sebenarnya mendapat undian minoriti yakni sebanyak 40 peratus sementara undi yang tidak menyokong beliau sebanyak 60 peratus, Justeru yang kedengaran di Dewan Rakyat adalah suara yang mewakili 40 peratus sahaja, sementara baki 60 peratus tidak kedengaran.
Kita hanya mengetahui akan jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi oleh parti-parti yang bertanding dalam pilihanraya tetapi saya bertuah kerana melalui proses pembelajaran undang-undang, saya dapat mengetahui bahawa jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi bukanlah bererti jumlah sokongan yang diperolehi oleh parti tersebut.

Ambil contoh pilihanraya umum 2008. Barisan Nasional memperolehi 140 kerusi sementara Pakatan Rakyat memperolehi 82 kerusi. Tetapi jumlah undi keseluruhan yang diterima oleh Barisan Nasional ialah sebanyak 4,082,411 sementara Pakatan memperolehi 3,796,464. Jika ditukar kepada peratusan, maka BN hanya mendapat 50.6 peratus undian sementara 49.4 peratus dimenangi oleh PKR. Hal begini adalah biasa berlaku di negara yang mengamalkan sistem pilihanraya sebegini.
Satu lagi contoh menarik ialah sewaktu pilihanraya 2004 apabila media begitu ‘teruja’ mewar-warkan BN memenangi kerusi di Parlimen sebanyak 90.41 peratus tetapi apabila dinilai jumlah undian, BN mendapat 63.9 peratus.

Namun, yang pasti mengejutkan ialah pada tahun 1969 di mana Parti Perikatan memenangi kerusi di Dewan Rakyat sebanyak 66 peratus tetapi hanya mendapat 49.3 peratus jumlah undian keseluruhan. Ini bererti pada tahun 1969 Parti Pembangkang sebenarnya secara ‘teknikal’ telah memenangi jumlah peratusan undi keseluruhan dengan peratusan sebanyak 50.7 peratus, rujuk: http://www.iseas.edu.sg/trends120.pdf

Apabila diteliti kembali, pada tahun 2008 BN hanya menang 1.2 peratus jumlah undian berbanding Pakatan Rakyat. Sekiranya fakta ini tidak diambil peduli oleh kerajaan maka tidak mustahil pada pilihanraya akan datang BN akan mengalami kekalahan dari segi jumlah undian apatah lagi melihat kepada faktor-faktor semasa termasuklah kedudukan Malaysia dalam indeks rasuah, dasar ETP yang bertentangan dengan moral masyarakat serta jumlah pengundi muda yang akan membentuk hampir 49 peratus pengundi dalam pilihanraya akan datang, pastinya ini juga satu petanda bahawa PR boleh memenangi jumlah undian dalam pilihanraya akan datang.

Atau mungkin PR juga boleh memenangi kerusi di Dewan Rakyat? Kuasa di tangan rakyat. Rakyat yang menentukan siapa yang akan memegang tampuk kuasa kerajaan. Gunakan hak anda sebagai rakyat Malaysia untuk mengundi. Perubahan hanya boleh dilakukan oleh rakyat yang sedar akan pentingnya integriti, ‘kebersihan’ dan kejujuran dalam berpolitik serta berkempen. Sepertimana yang ditekankan sebelum ini,
Tidak semua boleh dibeli dengan duit!

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

The Utusan Malaysia article: Orang Cina Malaysia , apa lagi yang anda mahu?

The Utusan Malaysia article: Orang Cina Malaysia , apa lagi yang anda mahu?

September 7, 2010

Thuan Chye Responds to “Orang Cina Malaysia , apa lagi yang anda mahu?”(Utusan Malaysia article)

a damn good article with many truths in it that i just have to share here.
the article is written by Mr. Kee Thuan Chye, and i am merely sharing it.

Thuan Chye Responds to “Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?”(Utusan Malaysia article)


By Kee Thuan Chye


Every time the Barisan National gets less than the expected support from Chinese voters at an election, the question invariably pops up among the petty-minded: Why are the Chinese ungrateful?


So now, after the Hulu Selangor by-election, it’s not surprising to read in Utusan Malaysia a piece that asks: “Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?” (Trans. Chinese of Malaysia, what more do you want?) Normally, something intentionally provocative and propagandistic as this doesn’t deserve to be honored with a reply. But even though I’m fed up with such disruptive and ethnocentric polemics, this time I feel obliged to reply – partly because the article has also been published, in an English translation, in the Straits Times of Singapore. I wish to emphasize here that I am replying not as a Chinese Malaysian but, simply, as a Malaysian. Let me say at the outset that the Chinese have got nothing more than what any citizen should get. So to ask “what more” it is they want, is misguided. A correct question would be, “What do the Chinese want?”


All our lives, we Chinese have held to the belief that no one owes us a living. We have to work for it. Most of us have got where we are by the sweat of our brow, not by handouts or the policies of the government. We have come to expect nothing – not awards, not accolades, not gifts from official sources. (Let’s not lump in Datukships, that’s a different ball game.) We know that no Chinese who writes in the Chinese language will ever be bestowed the title of Sasterawan Negara, unlike in Singapore where the literatures of all the main language streams are recognized and honored with the Cultural Medallion, etc.


We have learned we can’t expect the government to grant us scholarships. Some will get those, but countless others won’t. We’ve learned to live with that and to work extra hard in order to support our children to attain higher education – because education is very important to us. We experience a lot of daily pressure to achieve that. Unfortunately, not many non-Chinese realise or understand that. In fact, many Chinese had no choice but to emigrate for the sake of their children’s further education. Or to accept scholarships from abroad, many from Singapore, which has inevitably led to a brain drain.






The writer of the Utusan article says the Chinese “account for most of the students” enrolled in “the best private colleges in Malaysia”. Even so, the Chinese still have to pay a lot of money to have their children study in these colleges. And to earn that money, the parents have to work very hard. The money does not fall from the sky.


The writer goes on to add: “The Malays can gain admission into only government-owned colleges of ordinary reputation.” That is utter nonsense. Some of these colleges are meant for the cream of the Malay crop of students and are endowed with the best facilities. They are given elite treatment.


The writer also fails to acknowledge that the Chinese are barred from being admitted to some of these colleges. As a result, the Chinese are forced to pay more money to go to private colleges. Furthermore, the Malays are also welcome to enroll in the private colleges, and many of them do. It’s, after all, a free enterprise.






Plain and simple reason


The writer claims that the Chinese live “in the lap of luxury” and lead lives that are “more than ordinary” whereas the Malays in Singapore , their minority-race counterparts there, lead “ordinary lives”. Such sweeping statements sound inane especially when they are not backed up by definitions of “lap of luxury” and “ordinary lives”. They sound hysterical, if not hilarious as well, when they are not backed up by evidence. It’s surprising that a national daily like Utusan Malaysia would publish something as idiosyncratic as that. And the Straits Times too.


The writer quotes from a survey that said eight of the 10 richest people in Malaysia are Chinese. Well, if these people are where they are, it must have also come from hard work and prudent business sense. Is that something to be faulted?


If the writer had said that some of them achieved greater wealth through being given crony privileges and lucrative contracts by the government, there might be a point, but even then, it would still take hard work and business acumen to secure success. Certainly, Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, who is one of the 10, would take exception if it were said that he has not worked hard and lacks business savvy. Most important, it should be noted that the eight Chinese tycoons mentioned in the survey represent but a minuscule percentage of the wider Chinese Malaysian population. To extrapolate that because eight Chinese are filthy rich, the rest of the Chinese must therefore live in the lap of luxury and lead more than ordinary lives would be a mockery of the truth. The writer has obviously not met the vast numbers of very poor Chinese.

The crux of the writer’s article is that the Chinese are not grateful to the government by not voting for Barisan National at the Hulu Selangor by-election. But this demonstrates the thinking of either a simple mind or a closed one.


Why did the Chinese by and large not vote for BN? Because it’s corrupt. Plain and simple. Let’s call a spade a spade. And BN showed how corrupt it was during the campaign by throwing bribes to the electorate, including baiting a Chinese school in Rasa by promising RM3 million should it wins the by-election.


The Chinese were not alone in seeing this corruption. The figures are unofficial but one could assume that at least 40 per cent of Malays and 45 per cent of Indians who voted against BN in that by-election also had their eyes open. So, what’s wrong with not supporting a government that is corrupt? If the government is corrupt, do we continue to support it?


To answer the question then, what do the Chinese want?


They want a government…


a. that is not corrupt;


b. that can govern well and proves to have done so;


c. that tells the truth rather than lies;


d. that follows the rule of law;


e. that upholds rather than abuses the country’s sacred institutions.


Because BN does not fit that description, the Chinese have learned not to vote for it. This is not what only the Chinese want. It is something every sensible Malaysian, regardless of race, wants. Is that something that is too difficult to understand?


Some people think that the government is to be equated with the country, and therefore if someone does not support the government, they are being disloyal to the country. This is a complete fallacy. BN is not Malaysia . It is merely a political coalition that is the government of the day. Rejecting BN is not rejecting the country.

A sense of belonging


Let’s be clear about this important distinction. In America, the people sometimes vote for the Democrats and sometimes for the Republicans. Voting against the one that is in government at the time is not considered disloyalty to the country.


By the same token, voting against UMNO is also voting against a party, not against a race. And if the Chinese or whoever criticize UMNO, they are criticizing the party; they are not criticizing Malays. It just happens that UMNO’s leaders are Malay.


It is time all Malaysians realized this so that we can once and for all dispel the confusion. Let us no longer confuse country with government. We can love our country and at the same time hate the government. It is perfectly all right.


I should add here what the Chinese don’t want:


a. We don’t want to be insulted,


b. We don’t want to be called pendatang


c. We don’t want to be told to be grateful for our citizenship.


We have been loyal citizens; we duly and dutifully pay taxes; we respect the country’s constitution and its institutions. Our forefathers came to this country many generations ago and helped it to prosper. We are continuing to contribute to the country’s growth and development.



Would anyone like to be disparaged, made to feel unwelcome or unwanted? For the benefit of the writer of the Utusan article, what MCA president Chua Soi Lek means when he says the MCA needs to be more vocal is that it needs to speak up whenever the Chinese community is disparaged? For too long, the MCA has not spoken up strongly enough when UMNO politicians and associates like Ahmad Ismail, Nasir Safar, Ahmad Noh and others before them insulted the Chinese and made them feel like they don’t belong. That’s why the Chinese have largely rejected the MCA. You see, the Chinese, like all human beings, want self-respect. And a sense of belonging in this country they call home. That is all the Chinese want, and has always wanted. Nothing more.

http://www.vingie.com/2010/09/thuan-chye-responds-to-orang-cina.html

Farewell Dr Lim Chong Eu!

Dr Lim Chong Eu was probably one of the best political strategists and a chief architect of Penang in the last century. Penang CM Lim Guan Eng paid tribute to a "giant of a politician who ushered in a new age for Penang."


The founder of Parti Gerakan first came into prominence in national politics when he won the MCA presidency by defeating its founder president the late Tan Cheng Lock. However, he was outmanoeuvred after being at the helm for only two years due to factionalism. He told me the opposite faction in MCA had taken an opportunity in his fall out with UMNO president Tunku Abdul Rahman over seats allocation issue and blamed him for souring the party's relationship with UMNO.


Lim had asked for MCA to be allowed to contest at least a third of seats in the parliament. He had wanted to deter any unscrupulous and careless attempt to amend the federal constitution. The constitution has been amended at least 700 times since the premiership of Tunku!


I had asked him about his decision to join the Barisan Nasional in 1973 which had caused a split in the party. He told me that it was a practical decision which left him without much option after the racial riots broke up in Klang Valley, Penang, Malacca and several parts of the country. Penang was suffering from a massive unemployment of almost 15%. He had mooted the idea of Barisan Nasional to Tun Razak, his closest ally in UMNO when he was serving in the National Emergency Council.


As a leader, he had to support national reconciliation (the original purpose of Barisan) and ensure that the promises to the voters of Penang were met and jobs were created. The federal government under the premiership of Tun Razak was supportive to Dr Lim's plans and proposals to help create a new frontier for the city state. As a result, the Free Trade Zones were created after the MCA minister of transport had taken away Penang's free port status. It was Dr Lim who brought Intel to Penang in the early 70's. He had created the Penang Development Corporation to help him to implement his vision.


I had also asked him about the NEP. He did support the original intent of the NEP which he was sure that it will be repealed and liberalised in 20 years (1990). Unfortunately, Dr Lim was defeated in the 1990 GE by Lim Kit Siang and subsequently retired from politics. He had remained to his non-interference stance since then and dabbled in business instead. We did not get to find out if he would have objected to the perpetuation of NEP and Malay supremacy.


His stand on Islamic state was clear. He was unhappy that Gerakan did not do anything to stop or rebut the announcement of Dr Mahathir at the party's annual conference that Malaysia is an Islamic country. Consistent with his stand on the federal constitution just before the 1959 GE, Dr Lim was probably worried about such politicking which may hijack and alter the spirit of the secular federal constitution.


Dr Lim was a political giant and a very intimidating intellectual who would pit his wisdom against anyone trying to discuss politics and philosophy with him. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend two days with him in 2007 to interview him for a book. I visited him again at his Tanjung Bungah home after the political tsunami in 2008 to ask for his well-being and discuss his views on the GE outcome.


Dr Lim was not a pioneer of non-racial political ideology unlike Syed Hussein Alatas or Tan Chee Khoon. He was a MCA president and founder of Chinese based United Democratic Party but he was quick to see a need to support multiracial politics in his later years of political life.


However, like other politicians, he was not without his weakness and criticism. But Dr Lim's imprint on the Penang socio-economic landscape has survived until today and will continue to do so in the future. Many Penangites working in factories in Bayan Lepas FTZ or using the Penang Bridge should pay tribute to his contribution. His other project, KOMTAR, was very ambitious. It was the highest building in Southeast Asia in the 80's but has became an eye sore since the era of Koh Tsu Koon's administration.


I was honoured to be able to pit my limited wisdom with his during those visits.
http://khookaypeng.blogspot.com/2010/11/farewell-dr-lim-chong-eu.html

Dr M says debating racial issues will cost BN votes

Dr M says debating racial issues will cost BN votes
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
December 11, 2010

Tun Dr Mahathir stresses that BN represents all races. - file picture
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 11 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed issued a warning today to Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties against bringing up racial issues, saying that such a move will cost the ruling coalition to lose votes at the ballot box.

The former prime minister gave a stern reminder to BN component parties like MCA, MIC and Gerakan, stressing that BN was a party for all races, and its coalition members needed to stop playing up to each other’s race gallery.

“The problem with some component parties of BN is that in their desire to be popular, they like to bring up racial issues. And that will be negative because you only promote your particular race and others will get annoyed.

“When this happens, they will not support you,” the 85-year old politician bluntly said.

“They (BN component parties) need to know this...BN represents all races, not just one race,” Dr Mahathir told reporters today.

Dr Mahathir’s response today comes shortly after BN concluded its annual convention last weekend, where MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek had shocked his BN colleagues with calling for a ban on the term “ketuanan Melayu.”

In his speech at the BN convention, Dr Chua had made direct references to Umno as he reminded the ruling party that the MCA, and all other component parties, deserved to receive equal recognition as coalition partners.

Dr Chua had told his Umno allies that there should not be a “big brother, small brother” system in the ruling pact.

The veteran politician even took a direct swipe at Umno by pointing out that the MCA was not in agreement with how important government policy decisions were made during Umno supreme council meetings instead in the Cabinet.

The MCA president’s remarks were not well received by many Umno leaders, with Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein saying this week that Dr Chua had upset a number of leaders last weekend with his remarks.

Hishammuddin had said that many had expressed their dissatisfaction that the straight-talking MCA president had used the Barisan Nasional convention over the weekend as a platform to air his grouses against Umno.

Dr Mahathir has also attacked Dr Chua for his firebrand remarks earlier this week, calling it “illogical and baseless.”

“I don’t have to make any reference to which party I am referring to, you know it better than me,” said Dr Mahathir today when asked whether his remarks today were directed towards the MCA.

The former PM also remained unconvinced that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak would call for snap elections by the first quarter of next year.

“I can’t read the PM’s mind, but in my opinion I think we should give ourselves time. We see that people are still not yet settled. I think that the PM would want to make sure that the BN will win with a good majority,” said Dr Mahathir.

Speculation is rife that Najib would call for snap polls by March next year.

He however noted that it was “good” that leaders within BN who had outlived their “usefulness” left the party, in a reference to former MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

“I think that we all have our useful lives, but there comes a time where we are no longer useful.

“Like me when I am no longer useful I step down,” said Dr Mahathir.

Samy, the longest-serving MIC president, stepped down on Monday, handing over his post to Datuk G. Palanivel.


http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-says-debating-racial-issues-will-cost-bn-votes/

SAY NO TO KITOL!

SAY NO TO KITOL!

Koon's RM30mil offer: MCA protecting rental income of cronies?

Koon's RM30mil offer: MCA protecting rental income of cronies?
Saturday, September 25, 2010

Report by Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

The ongoing saga about the MCA and Utar shocking decision to reject a RM30 million donation to build hostels that provide students with affordable accommodation took a fresh twist with revelations of a real estate scam by investors alleged to have links to MCA leaders including Kampar MP Lee Chee Leong and his predecessor Hew See Tong.

It is an open secret that almost all the terrace houses, the semi-Ds, bungalows and shop-houses around the Utar campus were developed by towkays with connections to MCA strongmen. Apparently, MCA wants to brand Kampar as an MCA township,former mentri besar Nizar Jamaluddin told Malaysia Chronicle.

No-entry

Malaysia Chronicle was not able to contact either Lee or Hew for their comments. But a check with people familiar with the area revealed that rentals are going for between RM2,000 and RM4,000 per month, which are exorbitant given that Kampar is a small town and the consumers are students, and whose parents are mostly from the middle to lower income groups.

Amid such roaring business, it is unsurprisingly that MCA – which controls Utar – has hung up a no-entry sign to investors such as philanthropist Koon Yew Yin. In August 2009, Koon had offered a RM30 million donation to build proper hostels with recreational facilities.

In December that same year, Utar rejected his offer. Shocked at the way the university had failed to take into consideration the advantages of such an offer to the students and their parents, Koon gave it another go in March 2010.

Not only was it rejected again, Ipoh MCA politician Thong Fah Chong earlier this month alleged that Koon wanted a seat on the Utar council for his philantrophy. On September 13, Utar followed up with a press statement that Koon had imposed “many conditions such as the setting-up of a foundation where he will be the Chairman and be in full control†.

Koon has denied the allegations from both Thong and Utar. He has also provided copies of letters detailing his proposal dated November 18, 2009 and March 1, 2010 for public scrutiny.

Utar's refusal to accept my RM30 million donation for building hostels within the University campus is ridiculous. As a result, thousands of students and parents will suffer and they will not forget that the MCA controls Utar, Koon told a press conference last week.

The Perak Government gave 1,300 acres of land to develop Utar in Kampar and up till now only about 200 acres have been used. The public must ask for Utar development plan and ask to know when they will begin their hostel construction.

Betrayal

There is also speculation that Utar staff had suggested that instead of spending the RM30 million on building new hostels, the money should go towards paying student's rentals over the next 10 to 15 years. This would protect the rental income of the owners of the real estate surrounding Utar that the students currently have no choice but to rent.

This is a sheer betrayal by the MCA of the students and their parents who are already stretching their ringgit to the maximum to get their children the best education they can afford. The MCA has turned down a very generous offer to build conducive and cheap accommodation. And for no apparent reason other than to protect their cronies it appears,said Nizar.

We urge the BN government and the Education ministry to do a though investigation and come down hard on wrongdoers. For the sake of selfish, vested interests MCA is not only betraying the Chinese community, it is betraying our national agenda to give the best educational opportunities and facilities that we can to our young.

Ong Ka Ting background

Ong Ka Ting background

==================

Ong Ka Ting, the MCA President married Esther Low Ah Eng on 11 July, 1982.

Esther was actively involved in MCA politics in Wilayah Persekutuan then. They were both financially poor.

Ka Ting asked Esther then to go into business to help him build up his financial status.

Together with siblings from both family, they started a company. Esther was made the Managing Director & Ka Ting as one of the signatory of the company bank account No: 1403911166-1 in Malayan Banking Bhd. Jln Sultan K.L. and Public Bank Bhd. Damansara Utama PJ, as Ka Ting was the chairman of the company at all material time( he is the key person behind the company) even he was still a government servant.

Esther's brother was asked later to charge his bungalow house for overdraft facilities.

During their marriage, Esther even bought a car WV1127 for Ka Ting*s usage. After they divorced in October 1985, Esther was asked to transfer the car to him. However, the car was later sold by Ong Ka Ting and he did not give the proceeds of sale to her despite her difficulty financially.Esther & the brothers were also sued by Maybank being the guarantors for the company in the sum of RM65,000.00.

Even though they approached Ka Ting for help since he was the one who initiated and responsible for the setting up and the business of the company, he not only refused to help but threaten to put the ex-wife to jail if she were expose/reveal this matter.

Today, Esther's brother (Liew Ah Kow @ Lau Choon Bok, Law Choo Heng) are still under bankruptcy charges by bank.

Despite his irresponsibility, heartless and ungrateful attitude in handling this matter, who apparently made use of his ex-wife to establish his career and finance , then dumped her and remarried, he managed to mask himself and deceive the public as morally upright man.

A hypocrite like him has streered the public into wrong perception of moral standing, assuming by irresponsibility, ungrateful and heartless attitude are not important in a leadership's quality.

Beware that such leader like Ka Ting will only deceive the public / organisation in many issues by disguising / masking himself with many faces and lead the organisation to disaster one day... He then would certainly shed away the responsibilities and point fingers to others.

Statement by Ms.Esther Low Ah Eng

On 26th September, 1981, I and Mr.Ong Ka Ting was registered as husband and wife, Our wedding dinner was held on 11th July, 1982.

Both of us are very active in MCA politic in Wilayah Persekutuan and nationally. Immediately after we got married, Mr.Ong Ka Ting asked me not to be too active in MCA politic and asked me to concentrate in business and to support him financially.

When we got married, Mr.Ong Ka Ting was a teacher in a secondary school in Kuala Selangor, In 1983 Mr.Ong Ka Ting was transferred to Catholic High School in Petaling Jaya.

In 1986 Mr.Ong Ka Ting resigned as a teacher and became Datuk Ling Liong Sik's Personal Assistant.On 2nd August, 1982, Mr.Ong Ka Ting and my brother set up a Direct selling company called B.B.W (M) Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as the company). At that time, I held $1 share in trust for Mr.Ong Ka Ting.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting was poor at that time and I had to support him.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting tried to raise fund from members of his family and friend to join the company in order to make up the company capital.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting managed to get $100,000-00 from members of his family and friends. As at 9th August, 1982, the share holdings of the company were as follows:-
Ong Kah Ming (brother of Ong Ka Ting) 36,000 shares
Ong Kim Seng (brother of Ong Ka Ting) 3,000 shares
Eng Watt Lian (sister of Ong Ka Ting) 3,000 shares
Ong Wai Kwai (sister of Ong Ka Ting) 20,000 shares
Ong Ka Ting 18,000 shares
Ng Chee Chuan (Ong Ka Ting's friend) 10,000 shares
Shum Seng Kam (Ong Ka Ting's friend) 5,000 shares
Low Ah Eng 1 shares
Lau Choon Bok 1 shares
Teng Gaik Kwan 5,000 shares

During the first meeting of the company's Board of Director, Mr.Ong Ka Ting insisted that he should be present by invitation as he was the key person behind the company. During the said meeting Mr.Ong Ka Ting insisted that I am to be the managing Director of the company. It was resolved at the said meeting that I am the Managing Director.

At the said meeting a resolution was passed to make Mr. Ong Ka Ting as one of the signatory of the company bank account No: 1403911166-1 in Malayan Banking Bhd at Jalan Sultan, KL, and Public Bank Bhd at Damansara Utama, Petaling Jaya.

At the said meeting it was also resolved that the bungalow house of my brother, Mr. Low Kim Hoo, to be charged to the bank to get overdraft facilities. This was subsequently carried out.I was asked by Mr. Ong Ka Ting to be a guarantor for the banking facilities.

I signed as a guarantor with Malayan Baking Bhd. for the sum of $80,000-00 overdraft, $40,000-00 Trust Receipt and $165,000-00 Letter of Credit. All the other four directors also signed as guarantor.On 16th August, 1982, Mr. Ong Ka Ting and my brother represented the company to execute an Agency Agreement with Bayerische Stahl Geschirr Werke GmbH in Germany.

Mr. Ong Ka Ting was the Chairman of the company at all material time when he was still a government servant.

On 28th April, 1983, Mr. Ong Ka Ting's brother, Mr. Ong Kim Seng, confirmed in writing that Mr. Ong Ka Ting was an active principal of the company.

During and after our marriage, I was supporting Mr. Ong Ka Ting financially including accommodation, meals, road tax, insurance, marriage expenses and etc.

I even bought a car bearing registration WV1127 for Mr.Ong Ka Ting's used. Mr.Ong Ka Ting asked me to buy a new motor bike and tender a registration number WAL 1000, which I duly did. This was done because he wanted to change the car registration number to WAL1000.

Sometime in December 1983, Mr.Ong Ka Ting came back to the company office with $18,000-00 cash monies with him and he told me that Mr.Tan Koon Swan gave him the said monies at his office, Mr.Ong Ka Ting also told me that Mr.Tan Koon Swan has a lot of cash in his office cabinet.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting gave the said $18,000-00 in order to pay for the purchase of all the company shares of Mr.Ng Chee Chuan and Ms.Teng Gaik Kwan. At that material time Mr.Ong Ka Ting has not got the monies to pay for the said shares.

After we got divorce in October 1985, (early 1986) Mr.Ong Ka Ting asked me to transfer the said car to his name in order to get a loan from JKR. At this time Mr.Ong Ka Ting was the Personal Assistant to Datuk Ling Liong Sik.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting told me that be needed funds to survive. For old time sake I sympathised with him and signed the MV3 Vehicle Transfer Form to him. I even gave 2000 Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd share to him in order to help him.

I Know for a fact that the said car has been sold by him but he did not give the proceeds of sale to me.

Now I have been sued by Malayan Banking Bhd as guarantor for the company in the sum of $65,0000-00, I asked a friend to ask Mr.Ong Ka Ting to settle this $65,000 as he was the person behind it and I became a guarantor at his request.

Mr.Ong refused to settle and threatened to put me into jail if I reveal this matter to anyone.

Mr.Ong Ka Ting also said that he is in a powerful position to do that and therefore, I should refrain from asking him to settle or put pressure on him to settle or to reveal this whole matter.

I want the people to know the real Mr.Ong Ka Ting.

Dated 22nd October, 1992

Ms.Esther Low Ah Eng

witnessed by:Encik Ahmad Maarip Bin A RaniI/C No: 290****