Share This

Tuesday 19 February 2013

Robert Kuok is still top among 40 richest Malaysians


Robert Kuok, the Hong Kong-based Malaysian tycoon, is still the richest man in Malaysia with a wealth of RM46.1 billion, up 0.88 per cent from last year’s RM45.7 billion, followed by businessman Ananda Krishnan and Public Bank’s Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow.

Ananda, in second position since 2004, suffered the biggest wealth decline, falling by 23.5 per cent from last year, with his assets held via Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd worth RM32.90 billion as at the tabulation date of January 18, 2013.

Teh, kept his place for the third year running with assets worth RM13.73 billion, business magazine Malaysian Business said in its February 16 issue.

It said that the combined wealth of Malaysia’s 40 richest individuals rose slightly this year despite the volatile and choppy capital markets.

They were collectively worth RM194.86 billion as at January 18, a slight increase of 0.86 per cent compared to RM193.2 billion a year ago.

When Malaysian Business first started counting the wealth of Malaysia’s 40 richest individuals in 2002, their combined assets stood at RM41.7 billion and Kuok came out on top.

The magazine said that fourth on the list is Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan, who jumped from sixth position last year, replacing Tan Sri Lee Shin Cheng of IOI Group, who slid to sixth.

Quek’s wealth, through his flagship Hong Leong Group and Guoco Group, is valued at RM11.09 billion this year.

Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary keeps his fifth position this year with a wealth level of RM10.60 billion, up from RM9.53 billion last year.

Lee slips from fourth position in 2012 to sixth with assets of RM10.56 billion.

Genting Group’s chief, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, and his mother, Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua, maintain their seventh and eighth positions respectively. Lim’s wealth rose 7.06 per cent to RM8.12 billion while Lee Kim Hua’s increased 9.82 per cent to RM7.23 billion.

Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King, through his vehicle Rimbunan Hijau Sdn Bhd, is at ninth place this year with assets worth RM6.35 billion, a slight fall of 1.01 per cent from that of last year.

Rounding up the Top 10 list is Singapore-based property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, via Hotel Properties Ltd, with a wealth level of RM4.02 billion, a decline of 18.36 per cent from last year.

Malaysian Business said that one interesting fact was that since 2002, 81 tycoons have joined the 40 Richest Malaysians list and of that, 15 have managed to remain on the list continuously.

Overall, the steady increase of these tycoons’ wealth can be attributed to share market performance and price inflation, given that their wealth is largely based on their shareholdings.

It is also reflective of the performance of their companies and Malaysia’s positive economic growth over the past 12 years.

As for this year, there were 31 billionaires — one more than last year — and 23 of the 40 in the list saw their assets increasing from last year. Of these, 14 registered growth of more than 10 per cent.

There were three newcomers to the list. Datuk Desmond Lim of Pavilion REIT made his debut at number 15, with a wealth worth RM1.869 billion. The other two, Datuk Tan Heng Chew of Tan Chong Motors Holding and Tan Sri Kua Sian Kooi of KSK Group, returned at number 37 and 40 respectively.

The full list of the 40 tycoons and details of their wealth appear in the magazine. It also presents a list of the 10 richest tycoons on the ACE Market.

As in previous years, the wealth of the Top 40 was assessed based on the value of their stake in listed companies as at January 18. — Bernama

Related posts:
Succession issue: give children a message,not money 

Monday 18 February 2013

Who is Nick Zenophon, biased, unwelcome,stupid and impractical?

Biased and unwelcome

Australian senator Nick Xenophon has been accused of tarnishing Malaysia’s image by questioning our electoral process and smearing the palm oil industry.

http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2335953528/Xenophon-awaits-deportation

A LOT of heat is being generated both here and in Australia following the Govern-ment’s decision to deport independent Australian senator Nick Xenophon who arrived at the LCCT in Sepang on Saturday.

He was detained as an undesirable person and deported on the first available flight back the next day.

There is considerable support as well as condemnation for Xenophon’s deportation, with many individuals and NGOs questioning his independence and accusing him of coming here to interfere in our election system.

Those who condemn the deportation say it is authoritarian and reflects the Government’s paranoia of foreign observers.

Just who is Xenophon and what is the Australian’s relationship with Malaysia?

The outspoken senator is a personal friend of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and one of his many sympathisers in Australia.

He often speaks up on various Malaysian issues and has travelled here several times, the last in April, at Anwar’s invitation to ostensibly study the polling system.

But his critics charged that he is heavily involved in supporting the Opposition and had even participated in the Bersih 3.0 rally in April last year that ended in violence.

Xenophon’s latest trip here was as part of a four-member Australian delegation after the Australian government rejected Anwar’s request for independent observers for the upcoming general election.

Xenophon was deported, said our immigration authorities, because he had tarnished the image of the country. He had been classified as a “prohibited immigrant”.

The fact is immigration had blacklisted Xenophon because he had attended the Bersih protest last year and for allegedly making “baseless” allegations about Malaysia.

“He can’t pretend to be an independent observer as he is very biased,” said political analyst Dr Chandra Muzaffar.

“It does not make sense trying to be an independent observer when he is not. He is a very partial observer and was ready to denounce our electoral process,” Dr Chandra said.

Xenophon had given a press conference in Parliament last year in which he lambasted the Government’s “electoral shortcomings”.

Among the issues he raised was the short campaign period.

He also vocally objected to the fact that rural constituencies had a smaller number of voters compared with urban ones which had many more.

He compared Malaysia’s electoral system, which he faulted, with other countries including Australia’s which he painted favourably.

But it is through his virulent anti-palm oil campaign that Xenophon first came to the attention of our Government.

As Australia’s Green Party senator, Xenophon strongly supported and promoted legislation requiring labelling of palm oil in food products.

Labelling has threatened big plantations and thousands of smallholders equally.

Xenophon promoted the “Truth in Labelling – Palm Oil Bill” which was proposed by environmental NGOs and supported by Xenophon because oil palm plantations, it was said, contributed to deforestation and threatened the orang utan.

The palm oil industry earned the country RM80bil in 2012 and provided hundreds of thousands of Malaysians employment and income.

But Xenophon couldn’t care less.

Eventually the Bill was defeated by an extensive information campaign mounted by Malaysia.

Lately, Xenophon has emerged again on the Malaysian political landscape as a human rights advocate who is concerned with our election laws and practices.

He has allied himself with Anwar and with the Opposition who now decry the fact that he had been deported rather unceremoniously by an exasperated government that at one time had tolerated him and allowed Xenophon free access.

The reality is that many of these battles are actually trade wars waged in various shapes and forms and which are heavily financed by our economic rivals.

The economic stakes are indeed high.

In his own Australia, Xenophon is viewed as a maverick and attention grabber who is into self-promotion.

Australian commentator Greg Sheridan, writing in The Australian, has this to say about Xenophon – he only campaigns for one side of Malaysian politics, the Opposition.

Sheridan also wrote it was “stupid and impractical” for Australia to send election monitors, citing Vietnam and Cambodia, and Malaysia “on any measure is one of the most democratic and freewheeling nations in South-East Asia”.

Indeed, Xenophon has come here on a number of occasions, taken advantage of our openness and had even engaged in grandstanding – not just in Parliament but also on the streets.

He has lost our goodwill and made himself persona non grata.

COMMENT By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY, The Star/Asia News Network

Related Stories:
Xenophon's 'foolish' episode slammed
Guan Eng: Deportation disgraceful and unacceptable
Xenophon not on list of Aussie delegation 

Sunday 17 February 2013

Distinguishing research authorship and ownership rights

 

Distinguishing authorship


I REFER to the letter “Quality time supervising post-graduates” (The Star, Feb 16 - attached below) where the writer said: “The supervisor obtains grants for his research and allows you to use the money to do your research. There is no reason why he should not claim first authorship”.

This was one of the responses to the letter “Stop practice of ‘free riders” (The Star, Feb 7- also attached below) which criticised the alleged practice of supervisors claiming authorship for students’ works.

It appears that there is a failure to appreciate the difference between authorship and ownership.

“Author”, as defined under section 3 of Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987, means “the writer or the maker of the works”. It does not refer to a person who pays for the work.

In our present context, authorship can only be acquired through some scholarly input into the work. Money cannot buy authorship.

Authorship must not be confused with ownership.

The latter refers to one’s property right in the work, which includes the right to exploit it for profit.

For example, an author and a publisher may co-own a work. But the publisher is not the author.

Likewise, the supervisor who has provided the funding may acquire ownership, but not authorship.

Being an author attracts certain rights.

No person may, without his/her consent, present the work without identifying the author or under a name other than the author’s.

This is one of the author’s “moral rights” recognised by the law (section 25), which cannot be overridden without the author’s consent even if the work is subsequently sold.

Of course, where the supervisor constructs the framework for the research (more common for sciences than for social sciences) and divides its components to be researched by her students, the supervisor may appropriately be regarded as an author. There is scholarly input on his/her part.

What about the credit due for supervision given?

This will depend on the common understanding between the supervisor and the student.

In normal circumstances, the supervisor’s comments on a student’s work does not give him authorship since it is either given gratuitously or in pursuant to the supervisor’s obligation as a supervisor.

As the legal holder of moral rights, the student may as a matter of courtesy offer to include the supervisor’s name. But this is a matter of discretion rather than obligation.

Supervision is a selfless task. In my subject area, at least, supervisors conventionally disclaim authorship (or rather, they do not assert).

To acknowledge their generosity and sacrifice, it is common to explicitly express our gratitude to them in our work.

A close and personal relationship, which will last for many years (or decades) to come, arises from such mutual respect.

ALVIN SEE Assistant Professor of Law  Singapore Management University
  • B.C.L., University of Oxford, 2010
  • C.L.P., Malaysia, 2009
  • LL.B. (First Class Honours), University of Leeds, 2008


Quality time supervising post-graduates

I REFER to the letter “Stop practice of free riders” (The Star, Feb 7 - attached below) by Pola Singh.

The writer has missed the point by many miles. He has called supervisors by many idioms! One of which is “lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama”.

He has misunderstood the whole process of postgraduate education. I don’t think there are any supervisors who will force a student to work under him like a “slave”. It is the student who chooses to work with a particular supervisor.

The graduate student–supervisor relationship is very personal and close. Yes, the student has to do all the work under the close supervision of the supervisor. The supervisor obtains grants for his research and allows you to use the money to do your research. There is no reason why he should not claim first authorship.

Of course in any publication there is no need for the supervisor to put his name first, but the corresponding author must be your supervisor. You cannot be the corresponding author simply because you will not be able to answer the reviewers’ queries as well as he.

If you can, then you don’t need the postgraduate degree and you don’t need the supervisor.

Many professors and supervisors spend hours discussing, correcting and guiding many students to their postgraduate degrees.


PROF FAROOK ADAM School of Chemical Sciences 
Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang

B. Sc. (with Education) (USM) 1981) M.Sc. (USM) 1992 D.Phil. ( Sussex ) 1998   



Stop practice of ‘free riders’
 
I FEEL compelled to write after hearing the tales of graduate
students pursuing their doctorate degrees at local universities who are exasperated with their professors for making use of them for their own ends.

Graduate students, particularly those doing their doctorate degrees, are at the mercy of their professors who demand this and that.

Topping the list of unreasonable demands is the co-authorship of papers based on the research done by the student for his PhD dissertation.

It is the student who painstakingly prepares the literature review, formulates the hypothesis, collects and analyses the data, draws up conclusions and makes recommendations.

Yes, the conscientious professor guides the student all the way (which in any case is part and parcel of his work) but when it comes to the publication of a manuscript based on the research findings, guess who gets all the credit?

Professors take for granted that in an unequal relationship, they will get credit for the hard work put in by the student and this is manifested by putting their name as the first author of the research paper.

No straight-thinking student would challenge this. In the worst case scenario, the student’s name does not even appear on the manuscript.

It’s akin to the saying “Lembu punyi susu, sapi dapat nama”.

Call this a form of exploitation but it is taking place all the time.

This imbalance of power leads some to label the students as “slaves”.

No matter how friendly and accommodating professors are, they still hold considerable power in deciding when the student will graduate.

Some nasty professors demand that the thesis be rewritten again and again and this frustrates the student who will do everything and anything to complete his doctoral degree as soon as possible.

We can understand why students are so afraid to bring such matters up to the higher authorities. In the process, they suffer in silence and the problem remains buried deep in the ground.

And it’s hard to say “no” to a professor’s unreasonable demands because grad students need the support of faculty members, who may happen to be members of their dissertation committee, to pass and approve their thesis.

Many of the department heads are so busy and sometimes overburdened with their administrative duties that they have hardly any time to do serious substantive research.

But as they aspire to go higher they need to beef up their resume by coming up with more publications. This will also increase their prospect of promotion and getting the elusive JUSA (super scale) post.

Guess who does all the “donkey work” for them? And yet some of these selfish professors do not even acknowledge the contribution of the student, although their contribution in the preparation of the paper has been minimal.

It’s easy to know who the culprits are.

Just ask the academicians to submit a list of their publications and notice the number of times the name of the professor is listed as the first author followed by the students.

Sometimes, the subject matter or topic of a paper is the same but the student’s name is left out entirely.
This practice of “free riders” in the academic circle has to stop.

Graduate students cannot be forever exploited. Vice-chancellors should not condone such practices which are regarded as a norm not only in Malaysia but also in developed countries.

A system has to developed by the Higher Education Ministry to ensure students get due credit for the work they have done.

What can be immediately done is to send a circular that a professor cannot take ownership of an article or paper that has been prepared entirely by the graduate student based on his dissertation work.

If it is warranted, the professor’s name can be listed not as the first author but as co-author.

POLA SINGH  Kuala Lumpur