MORAL policing related to dress codes at government offices has to stop, says a senior government backbencher.
The Chief Secretary to the Government should also issue civil servants updated instructions on the dress code at government offices, police station and hospitals, said M. Kulasegaran (PH-Ipoh Barat).
“There have been cases where people were stopped from lodging a report at the police station or even from getting (medical) treatment because of what they wore.
“I feel this is unacceptable in any multiracial country,” Kulasegaran told the Dewan Rakyat during committee stage debate of Budget 2023.
On March 10, The Star reported that a woman known as Khor Hooi Chin, 41, whose hemline was slightly above her knees, was denied entry into a government building by a staff member who told her that her attire did not comply with the dress code.
There have also been several other recent cases of women being denied entry to hospitals, police stations and government offices due to their attire.
“I hope a guideline will be issued to all to put an end to this moral policing,” Kulasegaran said.
Silicon Valley Bank was shut down on Friday morning by California regulators and was put in control of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp..
In this photo illustration, Silvergate Capital Corporation
NEW YORK: Last Monday, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) warned a gathering of bankers in Washington about a US$620bil (RM2.8 trillion) risk lurking in the US financial system.
Last Friday, two banks had succumbed to it. Whether US regulators saw the dangers brewing early enough and took enough action before this week’s collapse of Silvergate Capital Corp and much larger SVB Financial Group is now teed up for a national debate.
SVB’s abrupt demise – the biggest in more than a decade – has left legions of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs in the lurch and livid.
In Washington, politicians are drawing up sides, with Biden administration officials expressing “full confidence” in regulators, even as some watchdogs race to review blueprints for handling past crises.
To his credit, FDIC chair Martin Gruenberg’s speech this week wasn’t the first time he expressed concern that banks’ balance sheets were freighted with low-interest bonds that had lost hundreds of billions of dollars in value amid the Federal Reserve’s rapid rate hikes.
That heightens the risk a bank might fail if withdrawals force it to sell those assets and realise losses.
But despite his concern, the toppling of two California lenders in the midst of a single workweek marked a stark contrast with the years after the 2008 financial crisis, when regulators including the FDIC tidily seized hundreds of failing banks, typically rolling up to their headquarters just after US trading closed on Fridays.
Even in the darkest moments of that era, authorities managed to intervene at Bear Stearns Cos and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. while markets were shut for the weekend.
In this case, watchdogs let cryptocurrency-friendly Silvergate limp into another workweek after it warned March 1 that mounting losses may undermine its viability. The bank ultimately said Wednesday it would shut down.
That same day, SVB signalled it needed to shore up its balance sheet, throwing fuel onto fears of a broader crisis.
A deposit run and the bank’s seizure followed. The KBW Bank Index of 24 big lenders suffered its worst week in three years, tumbling 16%.
“With Silvergate there was a little bit of a regulatory blind spot,” said Keith Noreika, who served as acting comptroller of the currency in 2017.
“Because they wound it down mid-week, everyone got a little spooked, thinking this is going to happen to others with similar funding mismatches.”
Representatives for the FDIC and Fed declined to comment.
The drama is already spurring arguments in Washington over the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul enacted after the 2008 crisis – as well as its partial rollback under President Donald Trump.
Trump eased oversight of small and regional lenders when he signed a far-reaching measure designed to lower their costs of complying with regulations.
A measure in May 2018 lifted the threshold for being considered systemically important – a label imposing requirements including annual stress testing – to US$250bil (RM1.1 trillion) in assets, up from US$50bil (RM226bil).
SVB had just crested US$50bi (RM226bil) at the time. By early 2022, it swelled to US$220bil (RM994.3bil), ultimately ranking as the 16th-largest US bank.
The lender achieved much of that meteoric growth by mopping up deposits from red-hot tech startups during the pandemic and plowing the money into debt securities in what turned out to be final stretch of rock-bottom rates.
As those ventures later burned through funding and drained their accounts, SVB racked up a US$1.8bil (RM8.1bil) after-tax loss for the first quarter, setting off panic.
“This is a real stress test for Dodd-Frank,” said Betsy Duke, a former Fed governor who later chaired Wells Fargo & Co’s board.
“How will the FDIC resolve the bank under Dodd-Frank requirements? Investors and depositors will be watching everything they do carefully and assessing their own risk of losing access to their funds.”
One thing that might help: SVB was required to have a “living will,” offering regulators a map for winding down operations.
“The confidential resolution plan is going to describe the potential buyers for the bank, the franchise components, the parts of the bank that are important to continue,” said Alexandra Barrage, a former senior FDIC official now at law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.
“Hopefully that resolution plan will aid the FDIC.”
The issues that upended both Silvergate and SVB, including their unusual concentration of deposits from certain types of clients, were “a perfect storm,” she said. That may limit how many other firms face trouble.
One complication is that the Fed has less room to help banks with liquidity, because it’s in the midst of trying to suck cash out of the financial system to fight inflation.
Another is that a generation of bankers and regulators at the helm weren’t in charge during the last period of steep interest-rate increases, raising the prospect they won’t anticipate developments as easily as their predecessors.
Indeed, even bank failures have been rare for a time. SVB’s was the first since 2020.
“We’re seeing the effects of decades of cheap money. Now we have rapidly rising rates,” said Noreika. “Banks haven’t had to worry about that in a long time.” — Bloomberg
It all seemed legitimate, she said, adding that all she wanted was to have a comfortable life in her twilight years.
But now, she wonders if she would ever see her money again.
“The company I invested in cited the pandemic as the reason for not paying dividends to investors.”
Lee was among 105 victims who lodged police reports against the company at the Sentul district police headquarters here yesterday.
Another victim, Siti, said she had invested RM300,000 in 2019 after she was promised 30% returns in one year.
She said that she felt assured when the agent cited names of VVIPs and prominent politicians.
“I did not know it was a scam because they showed me approval letters from government agencies.”By 2020, Siti still had not received any dividends.
“When I tried to follow up on this, the company did not even respond to my queries,” she added.
In view of the silence, Siti said she approached the Malaysia International Humanitarian Organisation (MHO) where she discovered others in the same situation.
Another victim, a Yemeni national, said he was approached by a “relationship manager” of a supposed bank.
“The relationship manager convinced me that it was a good and safe investment with 10% guaranteed returns,” he said, adding that he invested RM330,000 in the scheme which involved sukuk and seafood.
MHO secretary-general Datuk Hishamuddin Hashim said the victims were involved in five types of investments offered by a marketing management company.
He said they were lured into putting their money into supposed trust funds, shares, and sukuk, among others.
These investors were promised that they would get profits ranging from 15% to 24%, depending on their capital and investment period, he told reporters yesterday.
MHO advisor Tan Sri Musa Hassan suggested the government draft a law to deal with fraud including stock investments to prevent more people from becoming victims.
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is the second former prime minister after Datuk Seri Najib Razak was charged in court.
Focus on your court cases, Anwar advises Muhyiddin
Muhyiddin, who is Bersatu president and Perikatan Nasional chairman, was charged at the Sessions Court yesterday with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in gratification and two counts of money laundering involving Rm195mil.
Muhyiddin, who is Bersatu president and Perikatan Nasional chairman, was charged at the Sessions Court yesterday with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in gratification and two counts of money laundering involving Rm195mil.
Najib was sentenced by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 28, 2020 to 12 years’ jail and a Rm210mil fine after he was found guilty of seven charges of criminal breach of trust, money laundering and abuse of position in the Rm42mil SRC International case in connection with the sovereign fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
RM300mil kickback claims that led to charges being filed
PETALING JAYA: The charging of Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in court is linked to allegations that contractors had deposited RM300mil into the party’s accounts in return for projects.
The projects were part of the Jana Wibawa programme, which was set in November 2020 by Muhyiddin when he was the prime minister, to empower bumiputra contractors struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under the scheme, bumiputra contractors rated three to five stars were given contracts through direct negotiation.
They had to be approved by the Finance Ministry and Muhyiddin has pointed the finger at his finance minister then, Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz, as the one who had approved the companies getting the projects.
Muhyiddin has also called the allegations “political slander” to smear his reputation as the eighth prime minister.
In February, the MACC froze Bersatu’s accounts and has since charged several individuals in court.
They included former Bersatu information chief Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Segambut Bersatu division deputy chief Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad.
They were alleged to have collected funds from the award of the projects.
On March 2, Bersatu treasurer Datuk Mohd Salleh Bajuri was remanded by the graft busters to assist investigations into the party’s expenditure.
Mohd Salleh was instructed to go to the MACC headquarters on March 1 to give a statement on payments by Bersatu to suppliers and vendors.
INTRODUCED in November 2020 during the administration of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the Jana Wibawa programme was meant wholly for bumiputra contractors to help them cope with the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission’s (MACC) probe into Jana Wibawa has revealed the shenanigans of the persons allegedly involved. According to Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, there were 56 projects valued at Rm6.3bil under the programme. But that’s another matter.
It must not be overlooked that non-malay contractors were also affected by the Covid-19 maelstrom. Some were on the verge of bankruptcy too.
It is therefore regretted that the government of the day chose to implement a politically popular policy instead of one that promoted inclusivity and would have enhanced racial unity.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in enunciating the principles of Malaysia Madani, emphasised that the direction of the country must be guided by significant priorities that require an approach cutting across political, social, economic, environmental and technological aspects.
Good governance entails a more inclusive culture in promoting unity in diversity. It is hoped that the future will not look anything like the past.
I REFER to the report “Eliminating single-use plastics by 2030 seen as an uphill battle” (The Star, March 6; online at https://bit.ly/3f5ppoo - see links below).
I am concerned about this repeated call for banning plastics because, whether we like it or not, humans now and in the future cannot live without it.
Single-use plastic materials are important in many human industries, including food, medicines, clothing, and cosmetics.
The root cause of plastic pollution is not the single-use plastics but human behaviour. Humans are throwing away plastic waste indiscriminately due to lack of education and conscience. They do not see that what they are throwing away will flow through the drains and rivers into the sea, where they can be consumed by marine life and then enter the human body as microplastics.
The plastic soups floating on the surface of oceans these days were generated by humans. They are destroying the marine ecosystem and will impact on humanity in the not too distant future.
The correct way to manage plastics use is to establish a holistic control mechanism in a circular economy.
Countries that have successfully managed the use of plastics did it by educating their young from kindergarten to primary school to use these products responsibly. Their children grew up with a strong sense of responsibility and conscience to save planet Earth.
Children must be educated with a well-designed curriculum to understand what plastics can do to destroy their environment and life.
At present, our anti-litter law is quite broad, hence legislation that specifically covers use of plastics is needed. This new law should include provisions requiring shopkeepers to place signs to notify all customers of the consequence of disposing plastics irresponsibly and also provide instructions on proper disposal of plastics.
Enacting a new law on extended producer responsibility (EPR), as proposed by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), should also be seriously considered. Among the provisions of this law should be the collection of a levy from plastics producers and retailers. This levy could be parked under an environmental agency such as the Department of Environment, which should be adequately staffed with well-trained environmental ambassadors and enforcers who are deployed nationwide.
The department could use the levy to fund its operations, including installation of CCTVS at strategic locations such as back lanes of shops, known dump sites in industrial areas and construction sites.
The levy can also be used to finance or subsidise local councils to change from manual to robotic systems of waste management. Compared to manual systems, robotic systems can be mobilised 24/7.
The levy can also be used to subsidise the setting-up of plastics recycling facilities to separate the plastic waste according to their generic types (e.g. polyethylene, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polypropylene, and polyacrylates) and perform mechanical and/or chemical treatments to recover the plastics. Many existing plastics recycling facilities are conducting waste treatment using conventional methods that may be environmentally hazardous or generate more untreatable waste.
The levy can be used to assist such industries to upgrade to newer technologies such as robotic systems and mechanical recycling systems that are more environmentally-friendly.
It is important that a circular economy is enabled to benefit all parties– from plastics manufacturers to consumers, and recycling operators to the government. More new jobs could also be created.
My views may not be acceptable to the many who want to ban plastics, but I hope those who want a good quality of life without damaging the environment may benefit from them.
By IR MAX ONG Selangor
(The writer is a Society for the Environment UK chartered environmentalist, and Institute of Materials, Minerals & Mining, UK chartered materials engineer.)
The Star Why Halle Berry presenting Michelle Yeoh with Oscar is such a big dea
.jpg)
