When the wife is boss

Hubbies fall victim to abuse of high-earning, dominant spouses

PETALING JAYA: Earning less than your wife can be hazardous to your wellbeing as quite a number of men have discovered.

Although incidents of wives abusing husbands rarely appear in the media, the Welfare Department has been receiving cases of men being mistreated by dominant women every year.

Many of the culprits are women who earn more than their spouses.

The Welfare Department received 25 reports from men who were abused by their wives or girlfriends last year, 32 in 2010 and 14 in 2009.

Most cases were reported in Selangor, followed by the Federal Territory, and the offences included threatening injury, causing physical harm, emotional abuse and locking up the men.

The Department of Women Development received four cases of abused men last year, with financial disagreement being the root of all cases.

In each case, “the wife is more dominant in the family and earns a higher income than the husband,” it said in an e-mail.

Women, on the other hand, reported 117 cases of domestic abuse up to June this year, compared to 649 last year and 663 in 2010.

Neuro-psychologist Dr Nivashinie Mohan said that financial stress was the major cause of domestic violence against men.

“Studies have shown that women assault men about as often as men assault women,” she said.

“While men tend to cause more damage because they are usually stronger, women can even the odds with weapons such as knives, high heels and sharp nails.”

Dr Nivashinie said abused men were reluctant to turn to the authorities for fear of appearing “unmanly”.
“Society also teaches men that it's wrong to hit women, so they don't retaliate,” she added.

Many of the women who abused men were alcoholic while some could be suffering from certain personality disorders that cause them to be violent towards their partners.

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Seri Michael Chong said that some women were breadwinners and abused their husbands for “reckless spending”.

He also encountered four cases of wives becoming violent after learning that their spouses had affairs.

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Ting Joe Hang said women might look on spouses who earn less as “useless” and as a result, would abuse them.

He said there may be reasons other than money problems.

Deputy Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Heng Seai Kie said there was no excuse for domestic violence and advised the victims both women and men to contact the Welfare Department or its 104 district offices nationwide or Talian Nur at 15999

By P. ARUNA and YUEN MEIKENG The Star/Asia News Network

US threat: superpower gun barrels pivot east

As US election fever sizzles, pressure mounts to spread the militarist mindset deeper and wider.

African agenda: Clinton (right) visiting a clinic in a suburb of Cape Town. — Reuters

THE heavy-duty globetrotting of Hillary Clinton as US Secretary of State was bound to take in Africa sooner or later. Now it has done so with as much gusto and relish as a new colonial carve-up of the continent.

This was the “dark continent” before it was “discovered” by the white man, before the African could succumb to Western maladies from various illnesses to the “structural adjustments” imposed by Western-controlled multilateral lending agencies.

And Africa today is the continent that Washington sees China moving into. How could the world’s sole superpower let that go unchallenged, particularly when the moves come from the world’s fastest rising power?

China is seeking natural resources for its growth, scouring the earth from South America to Africa and anywhere else with potential. The US, coming from behind in Africa, wants to get even and then pip China at the post.

Just what that means in real policy terms, or how that can benefit US interests, would have to be determined later.

So Clinton goes to nine countries in 11 days, posing with Nelson Mandela in South Africa and holding hands around campfires and singing Kumbaya from Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi to Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan and Uganda.

All of it made for good diplomacy and even better feel-good US news copy. However, some analysts observe that the US just does not have the funds to fulfil its African pledges.

Predictably, Washington denied this was in competition with China over Africa. And like all such official denials, it was as good an unofficial confirmation as any.

Clinton’s African agenda was formally based on the White House white paper “US Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa” produced just weeks before. This policy document aims to strengthen democracy, boost growth, promote peace and security, and encourage development.

Clinton asserted that the US had had a long history in Africa (before China), and it had been there for all the right and good reasons. But whether China is in the picture or not, US policymakers have a problem in credibly claiming both altruism and a long history in Africa.

Such claims of early US engagements typically neglect mentioning the slave trade from the late 15th century. This notorious denial of human rights through massive human trafficking involved the kidnap of countless African men in their prime over centuries by Europeans who sold them to Americans, setting back African development for generations.

Abraham Lincoln reputedly fought a civil war to end slavery only in the 19th century. That showed how embedded slavery had become in the New World, requiring a civil war to abolish.

Yet even this stain on Western history was predated by several decades by Admiral Zheng He’s three voyages to Africa in the early 15th century. These were Chinese trading missions that came to barter goods, not to extract vital human resources in a criminal fashion.

Later, Ronald Reagan’s administration infamously did business with the international pariah state of apartheid South Africa, while branding Mandela a terrorist leader. When questioned, Reagan called it “constructive engagement” to excuse his collaboration with a racist Pretoria.

Other US experiences elsewhere in Africa resulted in gross corruption and denial of human rights. From Rwanda and Somalia through Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo), Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia to Egypt and Libya today, the positive gains are not as rosy as they have been advertised.

More lately, the Obama administration overturned 10 years of hard work internationally by abruptly dumping a global arms trade treaty at the United Nations. Both legal and illegal arms and munitions supplies have devastated the developing world, notably Africa, which continues to lose thousands of lives and more than US$18bil (RM56bil) a year through armed conflict.

Clinton’s asides on China’s African presence come amid general criticism of Beijing’s modus operandi when doing business in Africa. China stands accused of not placing conditions on its African hosts before proceeding to deal with them.

To those intent on demonising China, however, Beijing can never win: it will be condemned whatever it does or does not do. If China were to impose political conditions on business deals, those who now complain it is not doing so will again be the first to complain.

There is a historical record for reference: once, an ideologically rampant China offered inducements to factions in developing countries to support their domestic communist movements.

Beijing has wisely refrained from such preconditions. Should China still offer such inducements, if only to make its own Communist Party or government look good?

Would it really be better if China exerted pressure on its trading partners or investment destinations to do what it considers important for its own values and objectives? To do so would be China’s equivalent of imposing US conditions on the developing world.

Some countries have also been guilty of offering “aid programmes” that hire their nationals as expatriates in the country supposedly aided. In contrast, China is said to hire African nationals for work on infrastructure projects it builds in Africa.

This provides local employment, while the infrastructure once built will remain in those countries to produce a multiplier effect for development through improved transportation for trade, investment, tourism and the distribution of educational opportunities and healthcare facilities.

Unlike the US variety, Chinese aid, trade and investment come with no strings attached, no crippling IMF or World Bank conditions, no military industrial complex supplying weapons to one side or the other, and no promises or threats of destabilisation, subversion, invasion, occupation, war or “regime change”. And Western critics pick on Beijing for that.

African analysts cite these as reasons why Africans will welcome China’s presence more than a competing US presence. China’s business deals come without the extra baggage of self-righteous preachiness and ideologically loaded value judgments.

Like the rest of the Third World, Africa may want to get as much as possible from both China and the US. So, in practice, it will not be a question of one suitor or the other.

But if Africa on its own is such a compelling case for renewed US interest, with China not a factor at all as officially claimed, why did Washington take so long to get interested? US policymakers must know that the official narrative of a rising Africa is not quite accurate.

To a degree, the Obama-Clinton act over Africa has also resulted from Mitt Romney’s presidential challenge. A leading US specialist on China, Prof David Shambaugh, finds that the Romney campaign is building a foreign policy team based largely on George W. Bush advisers.

This team sees China as a “global competitor” over Africa, and which despite some diplomatic platitudes in the preface, is relying heavily on greater military power. Lethal fallout may yet land in other regions from a superpower tottering in West Asia through teetering in South Asia on the way to Obama’s “pivot” in East Asia.

US presidential campaigns traditionally focus on domestic issues, but China and Africa are now generating a buzz among Americans online. Obama may also win a second term, but Romney’s influence on the campaign trail and Republican pressure in Congress may yet set the tone for US-China relations to come, to impact inevitably on East Asia as a whole.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara The Star

Related posts/Articles:

Global arms market hits post-Cold War high point Aug 09, 2012

U.S. intervention not conducive to Asia-Pacific stability Jul 15, 2012

US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China's Eye Jan 22, 2012

New US defense policy challenges trust; China in US ...Jan 07, 2012

The role that the US plays in Asia: Containment of China! Nov 27, 2011

US naval fleet to shift towards Pacific by 2020 Jun 03, 2012

China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea Apr 23, 2012

Pentagon planning Cold War against China - AirSea Battle concept! Nov 22, 2011

Land sold for a song?

Taman Manggis land sold at half the market price

GEORGE TOWN: A company owned by a businessman from Kuala Lumpur bought the 0.4ha state land in Taman Manggis here for RM11mil although the market price is RM22mil.

Contentious issue: The 0.4ha plot of land in Taman Manggis at the junction of Jalan Zainal Abidin-Lorong Selamat in Penang.

State Barisan Nasional information chief H'ng Khoon Leng, who revealed this, questioned why the land was sold so cheaply.

He said only two bids were received and both bids were from companies owned by the businessman, who is a Datuk.

He said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should explain if he knew the businessman personally.

“I challenge Lim to declassify the open tender documents, including minutes of the exco meeting which approved the sale of the land,” he told a press conference here.

H'ng said information obtained from the land office showed that Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre Sdn Bhd and Victoria International Medical Centre submitted bids for the land.

Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre Sdn Bhd emerged successful when it submitted a bid of RM232 per sq ft or RM11mil.

H'ng said the businessman owned more than 20 companies, including several medical specialists centres, tour agencies and foreign workers' agencies.

It was reported that the land at the Jalan Zainal Abidin-Lorong Selamat-Jalan Burma junction had been sold to a company which plans to set up a private medical specialist centre.

The land was earlier reserved for a People's Housing Project.

By KOW KWAN YEE kowky@thestar.com.my

Mom: 'I didn't know my son was in NFC' Cowgate scandal

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 10 (Bernama) -- Former Women, Family and Community Development minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil told the High Court here that she did not know her second son was involved in the National Feedlot Centre project until informed about it in 2007.

In today's hearing of a defamation suit against Parti Keadilan Rakyat Wanita chief Zuraida Kamaruddin and the party's strategic director, Mohd Rafizi Ramli, Shahrizat said she had been unaware of Wan Shahinur Izran Mohd Salleh's appointment as a director of National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd in December 2006.

"I didn't know about the bidding of the project. I only knew around 2007 after my husband (Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Salleh Ismail) said he intended to have our children return from abroad to help with it.
"It was after he had won the project," she said during cross-examination by Ranjit Singh who represented both the defendants.

To a contention that Wan Shahinur Izran was too young to be a director of the company as he was only 22 years old at the time, Shahrizat said it was not wrong as her son had graduated when he was 19 in the United States and was a top student.

She said Wan Shahinur Izran lived with her since 2004 and the other two children, Wan Shahinur Izmir, 32, and Wan Izzana Fatimah Zabedah, 26, returned home from abroad to join NFC in 2007.

Saying that the family lived together but did not concern themselves with each other's work, she added that she only paid attention to the matter after it was reported in the media and asked her husband for an explanation.

Questioned as to which parts of the defendants' statements during the press conference damaged her reputation, Shahrizat responded, "Their words made the public blame me."

Earlier in the proceedings, the court was shown a video recording of the press conference at Parliament building.

Zuraida and Mohd Rafizi were seen uttering the allegedly defamatory statements before several reporters and photographers.

On Jan 19, Shahrizat filed a defamation suit against Zuraida and Mohd Rafizi claiming they made defamatory statements about her in relation to the NFC issue.

She sought RM50 million in general damages and an additional RM50 million in exemplary and aggravated damages.

She also applied for an injunction to prevent the defendants from making the same statements, either written or verbal, on the matter.

The hearing resumes on Sept 18 before Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

Related posts:

NFCorp Boss Charged With CBT in 'Cowgate' scandal!
NFCorp loses mall lease in 'Cowgate' scandal! "COW ... 

Will Malaysian audit have its day in court?

Silver Bird may well be the first local listed company to sue its internal and external auditors.

IF ever there were Malaysian parents who had hoped that their kids would go into audit, there's probably quite a bit of serious rethinking going on right now. It looks like the audit profession is in for some harsh scrutiny and painful soul-searching.

On Aug 1, Silver Bird Group Bhd and two wholly-owned subsidiaries filed an action in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in relation to financial irregularities at the three companies. One of the 10 defendants named in the suit was Crowe Horwath, Silver Bird's longtime external auditors.

According to Silver Bird's announcement through Bursa Malaysia, the suit against the accounting firm is premised on alleged negligence and breach of duty of care and/or its duties and responsibilities to the plaintiffs as external auditors.

The bread and confectionery maker links this to Crowe Horwath's “failure to discover and/or detect the financial irregularities”.

It is believed to be the first such legal action by a listed company in Malaysia against its external auditors.

In recent years, it's increasingly common to hear of auditors in the United States, Britain and elsewhere (Japan, India and Hong Kong, for example) being sued for professional negligence because they had failed to spot fraud and warning signs of business collapses.

It's perhaps an indication of the current thinking that when companies go under, certain parties should be held accountable for the huge losses and suffering, and these include the auditors, whose opinion on the companies' financial statements are widely relied upon.

The day after Silver Bird initiated the civil suit, Crowe Horwath issued a press release to deny the allegations in the suit, as laid out in the Silver Bird announcement. The auditors pointed out that they had, in fact, discovered the irregularities and immediately reported these to Silver Bird's audit committee and board of directors.

“We believe that the suit by Silver Bird is frivolous in nature and without basis. We strongly believe that we have fully discharged our duties professionally and will vigorously defend our position in court,” added the firm.

Indeed, as that last line in the press release indicates, right or wrong will be decided before the judge, unless the case doesn't go to trial.

However, there were no such statements from Audex Governance Sdn Bhd and Focus Internal Audit Solutions (FIAS), who are also among the defendants. Both are on the list because they have done internal audit work for Silver Bird, which had outsourced its internal audit function to Audex Governance before switching to FIAS.

Suits against internal auditors appear to be rare overseas and it's almost certain that Silver Bird's civil action against Audex Governance and FIAS is a first for Malaysia.

The Silver Bird case has thrown the spotlight on the roles and responsibilities of internal auditors.

Internal audit became a more visible component of corporate governance in Malaysia when it was made mandatory beginning Jan 31, 2009, for a listed company to have an internal audit function.

Bursa Malaysia's listing rules require that the internal audit function be independent of the activities it audits and that it reports directly to the audit committee.

In addition, the listed company's annual report have to include a statement relating to the internal audit function, informing whether the function is performed in-house or is outsourced, and the costs incurred for the function in respect of the financial year.

Despite these rules, most people tend to underestimate the importance of internal auditors, probably because few people really appreciate what internal auditors do.

In a brochure, The International Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) reports this lament: “There is a universal lack of understanding of the internal audit profession, how it makes a difference in regard to organisational governance, risk, and internal control; and its value to stakeholders.”

In addition, there's more emphasis on the audit opinion of the external auditors as it's a tangible product of their work.

Also, the external auditors are seen as independent of the management, whereas an in-house internal audit function is undertaken by those on the company's payroll.

The IIA defines internal audit activity as a “department, division, team of consultants, or other practitioner(s) that provides independent, objective assurance and consulting services designed to add value and improve an organisation's operations”.

It adds: “The internal audit activity helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of governance, risk management and control processes.”

On the other hand, as Crowe Horwath puts it in Silver Bird's financial statements for the year ended October 2011, the external auditors are called in primarily to express an opinion on the financial statements “based on our audit in accordance with approved standards on auditing in Malaysia”.

Silver Bird's move to sue the internal auditors tells us that it's time to take a closer look at the internal audit function, whether in-house or outsourced. The regulators and the internal audit profession should be asking some tough questions.

Would it be possible for companies to sue internal auditors for professional negligence if they are employees? Who watches over the outsourcing of the internal audit function and the firms that take on such jobs? What more can be done to ensure the independence and quality of the internal audit function?

When financial irregularities are not picked up by the internal and external auditors, is it possible for one of the auditors to be exonerated while the other is found to be at fault?

The Silver Bird case may or may not lead to answers to these questions, but if the audit profession is truly proactive and dynamic, it wouldn't wait for the case to be resolved before responding to the reality that in Malaysia, resistance to the idea of suing auditors is waning.

> Executive editor Errol Oh hopes he will have the stamina and patience to follow closely the developments in the Silver Bird lawsuit.