WanSaiful.com

Went to the Natural History Museum. Very interesting. But I was a bit disappointed with the Darwin Centre. I thought it was going to be a whole centre dedicated to Darwin’s theory of evolution. I have been long fascinated by the way the earth evolved and the process of evolution itself. But the Darwin Centre was not at all like what I expected. It was just full with pickled animals.

Outside the museum stands a column of tree trunk that has turned into stone. The museum claimed that a very long period of mineralization turned the trunk into stone. But I bet you they were wrong. It was not that.

You can also see other things that have turned into stone at Mother Shipton’s Petrifying Well. Again, the scientists were wrong. How can they claim that petrification was responsible for turning things into stone.

Have they never heard about sang kelembai?

Anyway, I am no longer able to read abidin.co.uk. I don’t know where he lives.

Filed under: Misc

I have money in both Ko-Hilal and Kosis. When I was introduced to the two co-operatives, I was told that this was an attempt by PAS to get into the corporate world. Top PAS figures were put at the helm. Hence my trust to these two co-operatives. It was not just me. Several student organizations also put money into these co-operatives. They did so on the basis of trust. Many did not investigate thoroughly the risks involved. Myself included. Trust was the main factor, and the presence of PAS top-guns was the main reason behind that trust.

Then, suddenly I was told that both Ko-Hilal and Kosis are in deep trouble. Their investment projects flopped. Investors’ money have been lost. Possibility of getting the money back? Almost zilch.

What did I do? Nothing!

Why? Because I did not want to rock the boat. Logically if you lose money in any investment project, you would pursue the companies sampai ke lubang cacing. If it had been Barclays or HSBC, I would be writing to all sorts of enforcement agencies to ask for help in recouping my money. But because this was a PAS-linked project, I decided to do nothing. Some student organizations also did nothing even though they lost 5-figure amounts.

Then, the clarifications hand-washing started coming in. Ko-Hilal and Kosis are not owned by PAS. Their failures cannot be attributed to PAS. The collapse of Ko-Hilal and Kosis are not PAS’ doings. It is the faults of the co-operatives own management. Investors should not link PAS with these two collapsed co-operatives.

I now admit that I lost my money because of my own faults. It has nothing to do with PAS. I was silly for not investigating properly before parting with my money. I was silly for not asking about the risks involved. I was silly to believe in the campaigns by these two co-operatives. In short, I was silly to put my trust in those figure-heads. I now appreciate that the figure-heads were NOT put at the helm of both co-operatives in order to buy trust from PAS members like me (sic).

There is a bigger issue behind this debacle. I want PAS to improve and there is a much more significant managerial issue that needs to be addressed. I believe that it truly is not the faults of PAS as an organization. But I shall leave it at that for the time being. Let us see if self-criticism is too unpleasant.

Filed under: Misc

The British public is debating whether or not to have identity cards. I don’t see what the fuss is all about. So the government wants to create a database about its citizen. So what? They have a huge amount of info about everyone already anyway.

But, in the spirit of not wanting to take anything for granted, I think it is best if I dig a bit more into this to-ID-or-not-to-ID debate.

That is why I am attending this on 18 January 2005.

Filed under: Misc

Kohilal disiasat atas dakwaan penyelewengan pengurusan

Arfa’eza A AzizJan 12, 05 3:31pm

Koperasi Al-Hilal Bhd atau Kohilal yang mempunyai kaitan dengan parti PAS, sedang disiasat oleh Jabatan Pembangunan Koperasi (JPK) dan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti (SC) atas dakwaan berlakunya penyelewangan pengurusan. Bendahari Kohilal, Mohd Kusrin Rahmad berkata siasatanitu dimulakan selepas aduan ahli-ahli koperasi itu berhubung skim-skim pelaburan berjumlah berjuta-juta ringgit yang diperkenalkan di antara tahun 1996 dan 1999. “Siasatan bermula pada tahun 2001. Apabila saya dilantik menganggotai Lembaga Pengarah yang baru pada bulan Jun 2002, (pegawai penyiasat) meminta untuk melihat beberapa dokumen dan kami memberi kerjasama sepenuhnya, dan menunjukkan kepada mereaka semua dokumen-dokumen tersebut. “Saya difahamkan, kenyataan ahli-ahli lembaga pengarah terdahulu, telah diambil oleh pihak berkuasa, tetapi sehingga hari ini, kami tidak tahu kedudukan siasatan tersebut,” katanya ketika diwawancara di ibu pejabat Kohilal di Kuala Lumpur. Katanya, ahli Lembaga Pengarah sekarang – yang mengambil alih pengurusan selepas Lembaga Pengarah yang dipengerusikan oleh Hassan Shukri meletakkan jawatan – tidak terbabit dalam siasatan itu kerana mereka tidak tahu apa-apa mengenai skim pelaburan tersebut.

Hadir sama sewaktu wawancara tersebut ialah dua pengarah Kohilal – Razali Mohd Daud dan Md Shukor Aziz. Kusrin berkata, pihaknya menyedari ramai ahli yang tidak berpuashati dengan pengurusan skim-skim pelaburan tersebut tetapi katanya, tiada apa yang boleh dibuat sehinggalah pihak berkuasa menyiapkan siasatan mereka. “Perkara tersebut dibangkitkan dalam mesyuarat koperasi dan kami tahu ianya dibangkitkan juga dalam pelbagai mesyuarat dan persidangan parti. Kami tahu ramai ahli tidak puas hati, mereka mendakwa berlaku salah pengurusan, dan malah sesetengahnya mendakwa berlaku penyelewengan. Tetapi kita tidak boleh menuding jari pada siapa pun,” tambahnya. Md Shukor mencelah sambil berkata itulah sebabnya mengapa pihak berkuasa diharap dapat menyelesaikan siasatannya secepat mungkin.

“Jika ada keputusan siasatan tersebut, maka kami boleh mengambil tindakan selanjutnya. Sehingga itu, kami tidak boleh berbuat apa-apa, kecuali menunggu,” tambahnya. Wang tidak dipulangkanDitanya sama ada ahli-ahli yang tidak berpuas hati itu, boleh mendapatkan balik pelaburan mereka, Kusrin berkata ianya tidak mungkin kerana wang tersebut telahpun digunakan untuk melancarkan beberapa skim pelaburan yang tidak menguntungkan. Menjelaskan mengenai skim pelaburan yang gagal itu, Md Shukor berkata skim-skim tersebut tidak diuruskan secara langsung oleh pihak koperasi tetapi dikendalikan oleh anak syarikatnya yang kini sudah ditutup, Kohilal Holdings Sdn Bhd (KHSB) di antara tahun 1996 dan 1999. “Skim-skim Pelaburan Islam itu atau mudharabah diperkenalkan oleh KHSB. Oleh kerana anak syarikat tidak dibenarkan mengutip pelaburan dari ahli-ahli koperasi, maka lembaga pengarah telah mengadakan usaha niaga dengan KHSB dan seterusnya mempelawa ahli-ahl melabur melalui Kohilal. “Mereka (ahli lembaga pengarah lama) mengarahkan supaya dana tersebut dipindahkan kepada KHSB untuk mengendalikan pelaburan tersebut,” katanya.

Mengikutnya, ia membabitkan sejumlah RM46.5 juta. Daripada jumlah itu, RM8.9 juta dilaburkan dalam ladang burung unta, RM8.9 juta digunakan untuk membeli saham Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) manakala RM9 juta dan RM16.2 juta lagi masing-masing dilaburkan dalam sektor pertanian di Indonesia dan Perdana Teknologi Venture. “Bakinya dilaburkan dalam 24 anak syarikat KHSB, termasuk Ummah Asset Management yang disiasat oleh SC kerana mengumpul data secara tidak sah daripada ahli-ahli koperasi,” kata Md Shukor. Pada mulanya, kata beliau, koperasi itu mencatatkan kemajuan yang menggalakkan memandangkan dividen 10-15 peratus dibayar kepada ahli setiap tiga bulan, sehinggalah krisis kewangan melanda negara-negara Asean pada tahun 1997. “Selepas itu, para ahli mula bertanya di mana keuntungannya, apa yang telah terjadi kepada pelaburan tersebut….dan dari situlah mula timbulnya masalah. Mereka juga mula mempertikaikan proses membuat keputusan berhubung pelaburan tersebut,” tambahnya. Ditanya sama ada kajian dibuat mengenai daya untung projek-projek pelaburan oleh KHSB itu, Md Shukor berkata, beliau tidak tahu apa-apa mengenainya, tetapi menegaskan beliau tidak menemui apa-apa dokumen mengenainya.

Satu sumber Kohilal mendedahkan bahawa tiada sebarang kajian dibuat kerana KHSB juga diuruskan oleh orang yang sama, yang menganggotai lembaga pengarah Kohilal. “Tiada ‘semak dan imbang’ kerana ia membabitkan orang yang sama. Inilah yang membuat ahli-ahli menjadi marah. Pihak pengurusan tidak mengendahkan langsung etika kerana mahu mendapatkan berjuta-juta ringgit. “Mereka bertindak tanpa memikirkan bahawa sesetengah daripada kami telah mengeluarkan wang simpanan yang dikumpulkan begitu lama, untuk melabur dalam Kohilal. Kini semua wang kami sudah hilang,” katanya. Akui kesilapan Merujuk kapada Laporan Tahunan Kohilal bagi tahun 2003 yang diperolehi oleh malaysiakini, sumber itu berkata, ahli-ahli tahu bahawa pihak pengurusan sekarang tidak terbabit dalam perkara tersebut. Katanya, pihak pengurusan sebelum ini sepatutnya mengaku kesilapan mereka, tetapi mereka sebaliknya meletakkan jawatan dan enggan mengaku kesilapan mereka. “Ini bukanlah jenis pemimpin yang kita perlu hormati,” tambahnya.

Sementara itu, Kusrin, Md Shukor dan Razali melahirkan harapan agar kesemua 19,000 ahli-ahli akan membantu pihak pengurusan sekarang untuk memajukan lagi koperasi tersebut, dan tidak lagi ‘mengungkit perkara-perkara lalu”. “Bantulah kami meningkatkan lagi mutu atau produk kita, dan dalam melaksanakan rancangan-rancangan perniagaan kami. Kami juga sedang mengkaji projek lima tahun untuk mengumpul dana RM50 juta melalui pelbagai aktiviti perniagaan yang telah kami rancangkan, termasuk usahaniga dengan Maktab Kerjasama Malaysia. “Kami memahami kesukaran yang dihadapi oleh ahli-ahli. Kami tahu sesetengah daripada mereka kehilangan wang simpanan, tetapi jika kita lebih memfokuskan kepada masa depan, dan apa yang sudah berlalu, mungkin kita akan mendapat faedah yang lebih besar lagi,” kata mereka.

Filed under: Misc

Examining the situations using Utilitarian ethics.
Let us look at the imaginary situations in Part 1 using utilitarian ethics.

In situation 1, the only person that benefits from the lie is the student himself. He is the only person that gets the money resulting from the fraudulent claim. The vast majority of the British public is at loss because they have to subsidize this fraudster. Obviously, if he asks around, he would be able to find people to support his fraudulent doings, especially those who are embroiled in – or have attempted to commit – benefits frauds themselves. After all, birds of a feather flocks together. Still, according to utilitarianism, the action of claiming benefits when he is not entitled to is still morally wrong.

In situation 2, the only person to benefit is the student. She gets a cheaper car insurance resulting from his lie. If she takes other passengers in the car and gets into an accident, the insurance may not be valid (due to false information) and everyone would have to suffer the consequences of her lie. The action is therefore morally wrong.

Situations 3 and 4 are rather different because this time more than one person is gets the benefits of the lies. So the approach must be slightly different. Before delving further, I want to state that I cannot give a definitive answer because I am examining the situations from a very narrow perspective. There are more issues involved such as the validity of the contract between two parties, the necessity of the event (situation 3) and the necessity of travelling (situation 4). This part of the analysis is handicapped in the sense that it only looks at the act of lying and the bigger picture is ignored.

Let us look now at situation 4. The family wants to save money and therefore they chose to deliberately hide the presence of a third child. The room thus become overcrowded by one. If anything were to happen, say if the building caught fire, then perhaps this particular room occupied by the family would not be covered by insurance. Other than that, no real harm is caused. And a family of five benefits from the lie, while only one party (i.e. the hotel) is harmed. And even then, relatively speaking, the “harm” to the hotel is negligible. I cannot give an absolute opinion in this case but I am inclined to say that according to utilitarianism ethics, lying in this instance is morally justifiable provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. the children causing massive damage to the property) is manageable. The family must also be able to manage the risk of getting caught by hotel management because if they do get caught, then there is a possibility they will be left without accommodation. This is a greater harm to a greater number of people (i.e. the whole family of five). If the risk is not manageable (e.g. the children are too loud), and they know the risk of getting caught is too big, then the lying is not justifiable as it may bring a greater harm to a greater number of people.

In situation 3, if the presence of an additional 100 participants were not detected by the venue management, then the organization saves a huge amount of money. They have done it before. From their previous experience, they managed to “hide” 15 people from being caught. Subsequently, if the arguments used for situation 4 were to be applied, then it would be morally right to proceed provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. damage to the property) is manageable. Getting caught is also a risk that needs to be managed. If they do get caught, then the whole event is put at risk. If the organization is unable to manage the risk of getting caught, then the action is wrong because it would bring greater harm to a greater number of people (e.g. all 300 may get evicted). But if the organization is able to nullify the risk of getting caught, then the greater majority would benefit from the lie. Should the event go ahead with 300 participants, and they are not caught, then a greater number of people would benefit. Perhaps in this case utilitarians would say that lying is morally justifiable. But once again, I cannot supply an absolute answer as readers may have different interpretation of the situations.

There is one very important proviso when looking at situations 3 and 4. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that it is morally justifiable to lie in these circumstances, then there is a need to be able to manage risks. In situation 4, the family must be able to manage the risk of (1) the children causing damage to the property; and (2) getting caught. In situation 3 the organization must be able to manage the risk of (1) the participants causing damage to the venue; and (2) getting caught. If these provisos can be fulfilled, then, using utilitarian ethics, lying would bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. Thus lying is justifiable.

If one were to use utilitarianism to justify lying in situations like these, then the key therefore lies in risk management. Managing one extra child or fifteen extra participants is not the same as managing 100 extra participants. The possibility of getting caught, for example, is much bigger as the number increases. If the same “tool” were to be used to analyse different scenarios, then reaching the wrong decision is inevitable. The organization in situation 3 is facing a different magnitude of risk compared to their previous experience or compared to the family in situation 4. Thus, I would stipulate that in the cases of situations 3 and 4, risk management is just as important as ethics and morality. To simply look at them solely from the angle of previous experience or solely from the perspectives of right vs. wrong is wrong.

Assuming that lying is morally justifiable, and you can manage the risk, then it is also morally justifiable to lie for the greater good. However, assuming that lying is morally justifiable, but you cannot manage the risk, then lying becomes morally unjustifiable as you would ultimately cause a greater harm.

Having said all the above, I want to once again reiterate that there are more issues at stake. This analysis has been greatly over-simplified to allow examination of one issue only and from the perspective of philosophical ethics only. This issue also needs to be looked at from the religious perspectives since philosophical ethics is incapable of linking all actions to the command of the Supreme Being.

End.

Filed under: Misc

Readers are refered to the first part of this article in order to understand the situations.

I received several email replies to my previous posting. One particular email asked if the similarity is that they are all committed by Malaysians. Hmmmm….. a good point to ponder. Perhaps there are more than one point of similarities between the situations. But the similarity that I want to focus on is the fact that all four situations involve two elements – money and lies.

I have already touched on the power of money in a previous writing, in which I argued that money makes people change their attitude, and that even religion gets pushed aside when money comes into play. I will just discuss about lying in this piece. But I do not want to discuss lying by using religious arguments and perspectives. That can be better done by others. Instead, let us try to look at lying by using two of the most common philosophical ethics frameworks –Kantianism and utilitarianism.

Firstly, let us define a lie. A lie is defined as a fabrication, a deception or a falsification. To lie is to make a false statement to another person or another party with the intention of misleading that person or that party.

Kantianism
Using that definition, surely lying is always wrong. Full stop. Thou shalt not lie. No need to discuss anything anymore because everyone knows lying is wrong. This universalization of a principle pertaining to good or bad is perhaps the easiest way to describe the posture of a pure Kantian.

Immanuel Kant, the great Prussian philosopher, argued that there is a single, general law of morality that governs all other ethical laws. This is what he termed as the “Categorical Imperatives”. Without wanting to get too technical, Kantians believe that there is a universal law of right and wrong. Actions should be judged based on that universal law and what is morally right will always be morally right. What is morally wrong will always be morally wrong. If charity is good, it is always good. If lying is wrong, it is always wrong. Kantians do not look at the consequences of an action. Consequences of an action are not relevant to determining whether an action is morally right or morally wrong. The key is the principle behind those actions. Kantianism would not excuse lying for any purpose. Full stop.

Thus, from a Kantian perspective, in all the four imaginary situations described in Part 1, the decisions taken are all morally wrong. In situation 1, the student chose to hide the fact that he is not eligible for public funds. Hiding the truth (or even applying for public funds with full knowledge that he shouldn’t have applied in the first place) is wrong. In situation 2, the student blatantly lied and therefore this is clearly wrong. Situations 3 and 4 are similar to situation 1 in terms of hiding the truth. They are wrong too.

NB: Some people may say that this is the position of Islam – lying is not allowed in any circumstances. But the reality is different. The Prophet once said: “He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good”. Ibn Naqib al-Misri, in his Reliance of the Traveller, quoted that Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said “Speaking is a means to achieve an objective… When it is possible to achieve such an aim (i.e. a praiseworthy aim) by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. if the aim itself it permissible). Subsequently, this topic should be explored further since it is not as straight-forward as it may seem to be. At this point, I want to advice readers to read fully Al-Misri’s texts before clinging on to this thought so as to avoid false understanding.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism sees morality in a different way. When Jeremy Bentham formulated utilitarian ethics, he argued that the morality of an action depends on the value of its consequences. If the consequence of an action brings benefit to a greater number of people, than the action is morally justifiable. But if the consequence harm a greater number of people, then it is morally unacceptable. (NB: The fuller description of Benthamite utilitarianism is more complicated than this but I do not want to get too technical).

Utilitarianism is sometimes seen as the antithesis of Kantianism. While Kantians argue that such and such is categorically right or wrong, utilitarians may say “it depends”. In the contexts of lying, utilitarians do not say that lying is always wrong. If lying results in saving lives, lying is morally acceptable. For example, imagine yourself walking in town. Suddenly a man said to you that a madman is trying to kill him. He then runs away. A few minutes later, another man comes to you, with a bloody knife on his hand, and asks if you have seen so and so. In this case, utilitarian ethics would say that it is better to lie since by lying you may save someone’s life. You tell the (presumably) madman that the person he was looking for went a different way. Utilitarianism demands that you manage the situation such that the greatest benefit is brought to greatest number of people. By lying, you may have saved a life, and you did not cause any harm to the (presumably) madman. Thus lying is morally right. (This is a great over-simplification as you still do not know if the second person really is mad, or perhaps the one running away was a rapist who had raped the other person’s daughter).

Coming: Ethics in action – part 3

Filed under: Misc

Can anyone tell me what these situations have in common?

Situation 1: A student has the words “No recourse to public funds” stamped on his visa to enter the United Kingdom. He was later told that he is allowed to take up a part-time job for up to 20 hours per week under the student visa. So he does. He then applied for a type of benefit and his application was approved. He knows that the benefitshe applied for falls under the category of “public funds” but, obviously, he did not mention anything about this when making the benefit application. He then looks for justifications for his actions and surely he manages to do so – from those people who are doing the very thing that he does.

Situation 2: Another student wants to buy a car. She finds travelling by public transportation tedious and time consuming. If she owns a car, she can travel to where she wants, when she wants. It is also more cost effective. She bought her car insurance through a call-centre. When asked how long she has had a full UK driving license, she answered 6 years. The reality is, she does not have any UK driving license. Her driving license was issued in a different country six years ago. But had she said this when purchasing the insurance, the premium would almost certainly double, or she might even be refused the insurance. So, not wanting to go into the hassle of calling tens of other numbers, she decided to just say that her license is a full, valid UK driving license.

Situation 3: An organization wants to organize a very important training event for its members. The location has been chosen. The venue can take up to 200 people. But the organization needs to put 300 people in that training course. To opt for a different venue that can take all 300 would treble the cost. In order to save money, a decision was made to proceed with that venue despite the overcrowding. After all, this has been done before and there was never any problem. Just a couple months back, another event was held at a place that was supposed to take only up to 60 people, but they managed to fit in 75. In that instance, the organization saves money and everyone was happy. What could go wrong this time? What is the difference between over-crowding by fifteen (as was previously the case) and overcrowding by 100 (as will be this time)? The organization chose not to mention about the presence of an extra 100 people when making the booking. When asked, they stated that there were only 200 participants. On the day, they played hide-and seek with the venue manager in order not to get caught.

Situation 4: A family wants to go on a trip and they need accommodation. They usually stay at one of the Travelodge when on holiday. And indeed Travelodge is their choice this time. Rooms in a Travelodge can only take up to two adults and two children. But this is a family with three young children. Since Travelodge is the cheapest option, what they did was to book online and say that there are two adults and only two children. Do not mention about the third child. This will save them money and no harm is really done to the hotel itself.

Filed under: Misc

When I first arrived to London many years ago, I remember saying to a friend: “Tak de longkang ke kat London ni?” (“Is there no sewers in London?”).

I have been so used to seeing sewers around me. Sewers in my hometown in Malaysia are so big, a child could drown if he were to fall into one. Even an adult could get seriously hurt. The main danger is the fact that they are open sewer. The sewers are not covered up and some of them look like mini rivers of liquid (and solid) waste. There was one time – years ago – when both back tyres of my brother’s car were stuck in a sewer. I did not realize there was a massive longkang behind me, I reversed right into it. I blame DBKL. They should have put a cover on the sewer.

But you hardly see any sewers in London. With nearly 8 million people living in London, surely there must be a massive sewerage system somewhere.

And, rightly so, a massive sewerage system it is indeed. But they are underground. Apparently, each tunnel is almost the size of the tunnel for the London Underground. And the underground sewerage system stretches all around London. It has been there since 1865 thanks to Sir Joseph Bazalgette. He was commissioned by the British Parliament in the late 1850s to create an alternative sewerage system to replace River Thames, which was basically a very big open sewer during that time.

I hope engineers in my hometown would one day come out with a similar scheme to move the big longkangs underground, or at least to put a cover on them. My brother nearly killed me when he saw what I did to his car.

Filed under: Misc

I found out yesterday that Luxembourg has a Ministry that caters for the middle class. The Ministry of the Middle Class, Tourism and Housing is headed by Fernand Boden.

Imagine that! A ministry looking after the needs of the bourgeoisie, but none for the proletariat.

Marx and Engel would be infuriated if they knew!!!

Filed under: Misc

Ainum Mohd Said resigned as co-chief executive of Laura Ashley effective from 1 February 2005. She will be replaced by Lillian Tan, former CEO of Metrojaya Berhad.

Laura Ashley has been struggling for quite some time. Since the early 90s, if I remember correctly. They withdrew from the USA and Europe at a staggering cost.

Ainum was heavily criticised by some analysts. They pointed to her lack of significant retailing experience. Thus, it was unsurprising that Laura Ashley did not recover under her leadership.

Why is this of interest? Well, Ainum was the former attorney general of Malaysia. She replaced Mokhtar Abdullah in 2001 and was replaced by Gani Patail also in 2001. Malaysians put high hopes on her when she was first appointed as AG. But she resigned unceremoniously less than a year after taking up the post. The reason for her departure as AG remains a mystery.

And how a former Malaysian AG who has no significant retailing experience got to become a co-CEO of a problematic British-based retailer is also puzzling.

Filed under: Misc