Today, it is freight forwarders, what will be next?

THEFT by whatever politically correct name is still theft. It is the taking away of something that belongs to someone else without the voluntary consent of that someone.

Theft can be “legalised” by a stroke of the pen through a written document, be it a law, regulation, order and so on, compelling the owner to give up the whole or a certain portion of his property to somebody else.

Even if that someone else to whom the lawful owner has to surrender a part or lion’s share of his property is required to pay for it by the law, regulation or order, it does not change the fact that the owner had to part with his possession without his free will.

Theft by the man in the street is carried out stealthily. If caught and brought before the law, the thief has to pay a price, either a fine or prison term, or both.

Theft by people in the corridors of power is done “legally” by using their status and power to make a law, regulation or order compelling the rightful owner to give up something that he owns, in whatever quantity, upon pain of losing everything if that law, regulation or order, however unjust, is not complied with.

This is the scenario that freight forwarding companies are facing today – give up 51% of what you own or lose everything as licences will not be approved or renewed.

They are thus being held to ransom, a criminal offence in other cases, for example, holding a person for ransom, but here, justified by a piece of paper bearing some powerful person’s signature.

Calling this theft that is in the works “Bumiputera equity” does not make it any less a theft.

Where is the moral standing or “maruah” of the engineers of this theft?

The theft is so serious as it is not theft of a small portion, but of the lion’s share that will make the privileged Bumiputera overnight owners of the companies, being holders of 51% of the firms.  

Yes, the new owners will be from the small group of highly privileged Bumiputera as it will cost millions or even hundreds of millions to pay for the 51% equity and the vast majority of Bumiputera in the street simply cannot come up with that kind of money.

So, for whom is Bumiputra equity if not for the rich and very rich with the objective of making them even richer! How does this benefit the Bumiputera in the kampungs?

The rich and the very rich rub shoulders with those who hold the pens of authority and they can easily “kow tim” to get the pens to sign documents legalising plans to rob the non-Bumiputera by designing robbery schemes and giving them nice sounding names to justify the thefts.

Questioning such devious schemes is easily turned into political hot potatoes by labelling the questioners as anti-Bumiputras, anti-nationals, anti-development, racists and so on. So, race and religion are always there as bulwarks against the voices of disagreement to such unjust schemes.

So, which Bumiputera is the government referring to when it talks of bringing up the Bumiputera?

There is a small very, very rich class of Bumiputera at the pinnacle, a larger middle class and an even larger class of low income Bumiputera?

Today, it is the freight forwarders, what will be target tomorrow?

Is any flourishing business safe from the hands of the plunderers using formal methods of doing their immoral work by instigating that laws, regulations or orders be made to legalise the unethical?

Commenting on the Bumiputra Malaysia Finance Limited (BMF) scandal that cost the country billions in the 1980s, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then prime minister, has cynically remarked “it may be morally wrong, but it is legally right”.

What is morally wrong must be legally wrong as well. If rape is morally wrong, why is it not legally right?

Theft is morally and legally wrong, so why is a certain kind of theft being legalised by calling it Bumiputera equity or by any other politically correct name?

Bumiputera privileges must not be extended to legalised thievery of what rightfully belongs to the non-Bumiputera, acquired by the latter through their own hard work.


No comments: