Old is Bold!

Keep the mind and body going after retirement

Stories by Revathi Murugappan

Tweet

Retirement doesn’t have to be a time to let your mind and body go idle. Did you know there are actually people who move on to a second career after or near retirement and find it even more fulfilling?

You’ve reached a major milestone in life — retirement. That’s when reality hits. What are you going to do in your “golden years” now that you are no longer employed and no longer draw an income?

Yes, you have tons of reading material to plough through, friends to catch up with, hobbies to start, places to explore, but what else? Retirement might sound like a great idea when you’re in the 40s, but once people approach 55, they usually find they aren’t ready to call it quits yet.

While there is growing awareness about the need to plan, less than 5% of Malaysians are prepared for retirement and fail to take into consideration inflation rates and rising medical costs. Moreover, according to a study in the October 2009 issue of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology published by the American Psychological Association, older people who continue to hold a job after retirement enjoy better health than their non-working peers.

The retirees who continue to work in temporary or part-time jobs, called bridge employment, suffer 17% fewer major diseases than those who stopped working completely. People whose post-retirement jobs are related to their previous careers also reported better mental health than those who retired completely.
However, people who worked in jobs outside their field after retirement did not show the same mental health benefits, the study reported.

“If you are doing something that is similar to what you were doing in your career, it’s easier for you to adjust. If you’re working on something you are totally not familiar with, or if you’re working on something just for the money, then you have to readjust to the job, and for older adults, it’s usually pretty challenging,” says the study’s co-author Mo Wang, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland.

The most popular retiree jobs include being a consultant, cashier, caterer, security officer, usher, baker, floral assistant, tour guide, temp worker, retail worker and store greeter. Yep, these may seem a little stereotypical, but they are popular with retirees. Not only is greeting a low-stress way to earn some extra income, it’s also the perfect prescription for bored retirees who want to get out and socialise.

Plus, store greeter positions aren’t just limited to hypermarkets and supermarkets anymore. These days, businesses from car dealerships to electronics stores in the United States are hiring happy, smiley greeters to welcome customers.

While most seniors might be content with part-time jobs, there are others who embark on a new career or switch jobs just before retirement so that they can stay in the workforce longer. Usually, they set up their own business and dictate their own hours. Often, the second career proves to be more rewarding.

The following are three people who made a new beginning near retirement.

Well, I’ll be farmed!

Another person who made a career switch rather late in life is Low Yeng Teck, 52. Low had put in 28 years in his job when he started getting restless. He was in a sales and marketing job at a multinational company and desperately wanted a change — something fun, more challenging and which did not involve technology.

“Most of us in the corporate sector have this nagging feeling that we won’t be here working forever and wonder what will happen beyond that. An ordinary person has three to five job changes in his life but I did different things in the same organisation,” he shares.

The opportunity to embark on a different career came up five years earlier for Low, then 44, when an acquaintance asked if he would like to dabble in agriculture.

Low Yeng Teck quit his job at 49 and purchased an oil palm estate. Its success allows him to pursue his hobbies like hiking and fishing. — LOW YENG TECK

 

“I thought about it but I didn’t have the expertise, although my family was supportive of the idea. I was interested in nature but didn’t know anything about planting crops,” he says.

With three teenage sons to raise, Low took time to think things through carefully. Then at 49, he decided to take the plunge. He quit his job and bought a neglected oil palm estate in east Malaysia with a few friends. Since he had access to professional help, he hoped he would be able to develop the land.

However, it was tough-going initially. Low had to sleep on wooden floors, learn how to harvest the fruit, apply fertiliser, drive a tractor, handle equipment breakdowns and deal with lack of workers. For his trouble, he got thorns in his fingers, crashed his tractor, rolled down a hill and sustained injuries.

“It was a surreal feeling. Many times, I wondered what the heck I was doing leaving my cushy job behind. Maybe I was going through a mid-life crisis!” he chuckles.

But, Low persevered and the estate is now up and running with 15 workers on his payroll. These days, Low only heads there when there is an emergency.

With the oil palm business in full swing and time on his hands, Low is now helping a friend in the security business dealing with CCTVs and video surveillance.

“It gives me a reason to wake up every morning. I go to the office daily but the surprising fact is that I’m back to dabbling with technology. When I left the industry, it was a strange feeling. I felt something was missing because I had been conditioned to ‘do battle’. Now I set my own agenda and work at my own pace,” says Low.

He admits that had he continued working with the multinational firm, he would be more comfortable financially.

“Looking back, I have no regrets. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I wouldn’t have changed anything. Money is always important but it is not a determining factor for me.”

With more time on his hands, Low often goes fishing and golfing, and is hoping to compete in a 10km run soon. The missus and him also go hiking whenever possible.

“Retirement? What’s that?” he asks. “You don’t really retire in the private sector. You work till you die! Today, we keep ourselves fit and the concept of retirement doesn’t exist. I still feel as if I’m in my 30s. I don’t feel old. I’m plugged into what’s happening in the world,” he says.

Related Stories:
“Senior” lawyer

My own boss

The Western Machiavellian Economics?

 by Harold James

Tweet

PRINCETON – When is it legitimate to lie? Can lying ever be virtuous? In the Machiavellian tradition, lying is sometimes justified by reference to the higher needs of political statecraft, and sometimes by the claim that the state, as an embodiment of the public good, represents a higher level of morality. That tradition is once again in the spotlight, as the question of political untruth has recently resurfaced in many bitter disputes.



Did German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg have to tell the truth about the massive plagiarism that pervaded his doctoral thesis, or could a lie be justified because he was performing an important government job? Was the 2003 United States-led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq illegitimate because it was predicated on a falsehood about the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Or were conservative US anti-abortionists justified in sending actors with a false story into the offices of Planned Parenthood in order to discredit their opponents?

The economic variant of Machiavellianism is as powerful as the claim that political untruth can be virtuous. Lying or hiding the truth in some circumstances can, it appears, make people better off. Deception might be a source of comfort. We might find ourselves warm and contented in a cocoon of untruth.

One of the most famous examples concerns the Great Depression – an epoch that policymakers frequently drew upon in trying to come to terms with the post-2007 financial crisis. Many countries in the early 1930’s had terrible bank runs, which inflicted immense and immediate damage, decimating employment by bringing down businesses that were fundamentally creditworthy.

There was one exception to the general story of Depression-era bank runs: Italy, where Mussolini’s fascist government controlled the press, including the financial press. Although the major Italian banks were constructed on the same model as the German and Austrian banks whose collapse had ignited the global conflagration, and although the Italian banks were just as insolvent, the press never discussed these unpleasant problems. Financial journalism was soothing. There were no bank panics, and the depression was milder.

Since confidence plays a large part in financial crises, Mussolini’s example immediately took hold. States could apparently almost magically create security and trust simply by imposing it. Adolf Hitler liked to say that the ultimate cause of the Reichsmark’s stability was the concentration camp.

Deception is instantly appealing to many individual businesses. Would it not be desirable just to hide losses until uncertainty passed and confidence returned? In that case, new profits could quickly be used to plug the gaps, and no one would ever know about an apparently successful deception.

Massaging the truth is eternally appealing to modern governments as well. They anticipate revenue in order to appear creditworthy. They reclassify foreign borrowing as domestic debt in order to look better in the International Monetary Fund’s statistics.]

For individual businesses, financial misrepresentation is illegal. Most people can easily see why. The legal enforcement of honesty in keeping and reporting financial records is an indispensable feature of a well-functioning market economy. Without some degree of certainty that financial statements are meaningful, there would be a complete loss of confidence.

But government dishonesty is not that different. Deceptions, when they are revealed and the untruths unravel, are deeply disturbing. Indeed, misrepresentation by governments – driven by the belief that political ingenuity can stabilize expectations – is actually at the root of many financial crises.

In 1994, Mexico shook the global economy when the extent of its domestic (but dollar-denominated) debt in the so-called tessobonos became apparent. The Greek government’s misstatement of its fiscal position, coupled with the realization that the European Commission had overlooked or tolerated the Greeks’ accounting legerdemain, triggered the euro crisis in 2010.

The revelation of deception makes it impossible to believe that governments are really enforcing rules adequately and fairly.

But misrepresentation is not just at the heart of financial and economic crises; it is also the stuff that drives revolutions. The immediate cause of the protests against President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia was WikiLeaks’ revelations of US diplomatic cables detailing the regime’s corruption. The domino effect from the Tunisian revolution has produced further vivid accounts of corruption and deception, from Egypt and Libya to the Gulf, in each case stoking even greater anger and making more regimes vulnerable.

There is a powerful pragmatic argument against Machiavellianism, as well as a principled one. Given modern communications, a cover-up of the kind engineered by Mussolini in 1931 would most likely be unsustainable today. Moreover, any attempt to misrepresent requires further and more complex misrepresentations, which have serious consequences as subsequent decisions come to be based on erroneous assumptions.

To revert to the example of Depression-era Italy: the state holding-company edifice created to save the banks and maintain confidence proved to be an increasingly bureaucratic and costly burden on the Italian economy. A nearly indestructible behemoth outlasted Mussolini’s regime and survived for 50 years.

Markets work by a process of continuous discovery of information. Choking off the flow of information leads to distortion, not confidence. And, as we are now witnessing in the Middle East, the same is true of political systems. Still, no economic crisis or political revolution is likely to change governments’ inherent proclivity to think that they can know better.

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence. His most recent book is The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle.

Social capital and the Middle East

THINK ASIAN  by ANDREW SHENG

Tweet

WHAT has the problems in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt in common with the Oscars? The answer is Facebook and the Social Network. The latter is the name of the film about the founders of Facebook that won three Oscars. The Egyptian protestors learnt how to socially connect through Facebook, having learnt the techniques of social organisation and use of mobile communication technology from a bunch of Serbs who succeeded in overturning Milosevic in the late-1990s. Foreign Policy magazine calls this Revolution U.

What the problems in the Middle East show is really the breakdown of social capital, as against economic capital and cultural capital. In his 1995 book, Bowling Alone, Harvard Professor Robert Putnam first identified the decline of social capital in the United States which he defined as “connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trust-worthiness that arise from them.”

Modern urban living, when many of us spend time watching TV and doing things alone, reduce the time for social connectivity. Throughout Asia, rural folk lament the loneliness of cities, where there is little friendship and all human transactions are commercial.

An anti-government demonstration in Benghazi, Libya. The problems in the Middle East show a breakdown in social capital. — Reuters

 

The mobile phone, Facebook, Twitter and the like have transformed the mode of communication between friends, family and even business acquaintances, especially among the young. The Web, as marketing and media people discovered quickly, is the new wonder of social communication, but as people in Egypt and the Middle East also discovered, a power for social mobilisation.

What Putnam lamented was the breakdown of local neighbourhood clubs and societies, where people met to share common hobbies and interests and learn to generate trust and reciprocity with other people. These would include religious societies, bridge clubs or even weekend BBQs. These social capital were mostly voluntary organisations for mutual welfare and support.

As modern life made demands for higher consumption, families had to have dual-incomes in order to afford a higher standard of living, there was less and less time for voluntary social work and more and more time devoted to full-time employment.

Similarly, as government got bigger, the state took care of the functions that civil society used to do, like supervision of hospitals, schools and even cultural affairs. The result was alienation and distance between the individual and others, eroding social capital and trust within society and between individuals and government. This void is not filled by political activity alone.

In Hong Kong, there is emerging a growing sense of resentment against the rich that was not obvious before. Hong Kong has always been a city of contrasting incomes and wealth, but until recently, few envied the rich, because there was a sense that everyone had the same opportunities to become rich. The Hong Kong government has always provided for the basic needs of the poor, with large doses of public housing and one of the finest public health systems in the world.

But as the population ages, even as modern life speeds up, many urban poor feel increasingly alienated and a sense of loss of control over their own lives. This explains the willingness to express their protests either through marches or through anger in the blogs.

In the Middle East, the breakdown of social capital exploded as the connectivity between the masses and the ruling elite has been broken. The three most basic issues are rising population, youth unemployment and corruption of the ruling elite.

In 1990, the population of Egypt was only 58 million and by 2009, the population had risen to 83 million, more than a million a year. Not surprising that youth unemployment was quoted as high as 40%. In Tunisia, the unemployment rate is 14%, but youth unemployment probably double that. With the elites concentrated on building their own nests, it was not surprising that the masses rose up in protest when food prices rose. All these add to social frustration.

There are important lessons for Asia as we embark on faster and faster urbanisation. In the next 30 years, the proportion of Asians in cities will rise from the current 40% to an estimated 53% by 2030 and 65% by 2050.
The urban drift will stress social capital even more, as large populations are moving into cities with infrastructure already creaking at the seams.

But what consolidates social trust and stability is less physical capital (hardware) and more social capital (the software) of how to make cities more liveable and where jobs and job satisfaction are attainable and sustainable. It has become urgent for Asian planners to look into not just hard infrastructure, but also social engineering on a scale never attempted in history.

So far, the faster growth through in East Asia has meant that unemployment levels have been kept at reasonable levels. Most business people see the rising urbanisation as opportunities from investments in real estate and infrastructure, higher middle-class spending and more growing sophisticated cities.

But in reality, the harder stuff is all in creating what Putnam calls bonding social capital and bridging social capital that mutually reinforce each other. Bonding social capital is uniting people who are alike, either on a religious, ethnic or cultural basis.

Bridging social capital is about linking people who are not alike, such as rural-urban differences, religious and ethnic differences. In this global, multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural environment, it is vital that bridging social capital is constantly fostered, nurtured and strengthened.

It is not surprising that Indonesia has been offered as example to North Africa and Egypt as a model of how to deal with such complex social capital. Although Indonesia has had its share of problems in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis and the fall of the Suharto regime, the vigour of social narrative between the different ethnic races and different religions, in a country where 88% are Muslims, is very impressive indeed.

Time for civil society to wake up and for greater efforts to rebuild social capital.

Andrew Sheng is author of the book “From Asian to Global Financial Crisis” and adjunct professor at the Tsinghua University and University of Malaya.

Rich Malaysians get richer!

Kuok and Ananda continue to be cream of Malaysia’s wealthiest

Tweet

KUALA LUMPUR: The 40 wealthiest Malaysians are worth US$62.1bil (RM188.32bil), up by US$11.1bil (RM33.7bil) compared with last year, according to the latest rich list published by Forbes Asia.
In a statement yesterday, Forbes Asia said the combined wealth was almost 22% more than the list in 2010.

“The better coffers come on the back of the country’s healthy economy which grew 7.2% last year, the highest rate since 2000,” it said.

The first two spots were still occupied by Tan Sri Robert Kuok Hock Nien and Tan Sri T. Ananda Krishnan, respectively.

Kuok, 87, has held pole position since 2006 when Forbes Asia began ranking the 40 richest Malaysians.
He was worth US$12.5bil (RM38bil), up by half a billion from last year.

His biggest source of wealth was his stake in Wilmar International, the world’s largest listed palm oil company.

Ananda, 72, was at No 2 with US$9.5bil (RM28.83bil), up from US$8.1bil (RM24.6bil) last year.
His Maxis Communications Bhd is Malaysia’s biggest cellphone service provider.

At No 3 is this year’s biggest gainer in dollar terms, Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua. The 81-year-old, widow of casino magnate Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong, was one of three women on the list this year.

Her Genting shares took off when the company’s Singapore operations on Sentosa Island opened, boosting the family’s net worth by US$2.7bil (RM8.2bil) to US$6.6bil (RM20.03bil) from a year ago.

Tan Sri Lee Shin Cheng, who built IOI Group into one of the world’s biggest palm oil producers, fell down a spot at No 4 with a net worth of $5bil (RM15.2bil), up by US$400mil (RM1.21bil) from last year.

AirAsia Bhd’s Datuk Seri Tony Fernandes, budget airline pioneer and Forbes Asia’s 2010 Businessman of the Year, was ranked No 20 this year, down one spot from last year despite his wealth increasing to US$470mil (RM1.43bil) from US$330mil (RM1bil) last year.

The only newcomer this year was Chia Song Kun at No 24 with US$400mil (RM1.21bil).  The share price of his QL Resources Bhd, the seafood, egg production and palm oil company, has doubled since last year.

Datuk Tony Tiah Thee Kian at No 35 was the only returnee to the list after a year’s absence as stocks in his TA Enterprise Bhd have recovered. He was worth US$170mil (RM516mil).

Not all did well, however, as there were three this year who saw their wealth reduced, led by Tan Sri Vincent Tan at No 9.

The self-made entrepreneur, who runs Berjaya Group, saw his wealth decline to US$1.25bil (RM3.8bil) from US$1.6bil (RM4.9bil) last year.

Timber tycoon Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King was the only person who did not see any changes to his wealth. He was still worth US$1.2bil (RM3.64bil) and ranked No 10.

The rich get richer 

Five more billionaires

This year’s list contains 27 billionaires, five more than the previous list. As for newcomers, there are three, with two making their debut.

While last year, a tycoon on the Main Market had to have at least RM386 million to make the rich list, this year the figure has shot up to RM524 million. Comparatively, the richest tycoon on the ACE Market is valued at RM103 million.

Interestingly, the bulk of the fortune of this year’s list lies in the Top 10, whose collective wealth of RM168.01 billion alone surpasses that of the whole of last year’s list totaling RM156.7 billion! Six out of these 10 registered increases of close to 50% and more in their wealth.

Thus it would appear that these individuals were able to return stronger in 2011 through the increase in the share prices of their companies. Even so, people close to these tycoons will attest that the road to riches is hardly a smooth one, needing guts, an astute business sense, and smart corporate maneuvering to win the confidence of investors.

Singapore-domiciled Ong Beng Seng makes his entry to the Top 10 ranks thanks to the surging valuation of his British-listed Mulberry Group Plc. His wealth doubled to RM3.98 billion from a year ago, taking him past Berjaya Group’s Tan Sri Vincent Tan who drops two rungs to 12.

Telecommunications tycoon closes in

T Ananda Krishnan, who for most years had to play second fiddle to first-placed Robert Kuok, closes the gap considerably this year. With a fortune estimated at RM45.78 billion, the telecommunications magnate is now only some RM5 billion away from Kuok’s RM50.04 billion.

The upturn in Ananda’s fortune comes following his move last year to take private three of his companies – incidentally at prices substantially more than what they were trading at in January 2010. This buyout hat trick involving Tanjong Plc, Astro All Asia Networks Plc and Meast Global Bhd had shocked the market, fuelling speculation that the tycoon was looking to exit the local scene.

However, this was not the case. Going by his track record, these companies will likely be relisted some day in the future and come back stronger, as in the case of his Maxis Bhd.

Last year, Ananda also sold his interest in Singapore-listed Overseas Union Enterprise (OUE) to Indonesian conglomerate Lippo Group.

In the case of Kuok, he could be worth more if not for China’s aggressive policy measures to cool its overheating economy, which weighed down on the billionaire’s Chinese property investment values, spearheaded through companies like Kerry Properties Ltd and Shangri-La Asia Ltd.

That aside, last year was a memorable one for the Hong Kong-based tycoon who made a quick and dramatic return to the sugar business via Singapore-listed Wilmar International Ltd’s takeover of Australian-based CSR Ltd’s sugar unit, Sucrogen.

As for banker Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow of Public Bank Bhd, a close to 20% rise in his personal value sees him displacing IOI Corporation Bhd’s Tan Sri Lee Sing Cheng from his third-placed perch.

Standing firm in their places

There were no changes in the fifth to ninth rankings. Genting Bhd’s Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay’s wealth growth may appear paltry this year but this was because of the assumption we made previously that he was the major beneficiary of the two family trust funds he created after the demise of his father and Genting founder, Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong.

Recent annual reports now reveal that he owns only one-third of one of the trusts, Parkview Management Sdn Bhd, which wholly owns Kien Huat Realty Sdn Bhd, which in turns owns 39.52% of Genting.

But even with the less than 5% rise at RM10.89 billion, Lim still retains his fifth spot.

His mum, Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua, is richer by 69% and, at RM7.42 billion, is the country’s wealthiest woman.

Hong Leong Group’s Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan and MMC Corporation Bhd’s Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary saw almost a 50% growth in their financial worth in tandem with increases in their stockholding values. Quek is estimated to be worth RM10.75 billion while Syed Mokhtar is valued at RM8.84 billion.

Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King, who derives the bulk of his wealth from his vast timber assets, remains at number nine and is estimated to be worth 40% more following improved timber prices. The Rimbunan Hijau Group founder is worth RM4.77 billion.

Enjoying substantial gains

Back to the overall list, other tycoons who registered substantial gains in their wealth are Tan Sri Lau Cho Kun of Hap Seng Consolidated Bhd and AirAsia Bhd duo Datuk Seri Tony Fernandes and Datuk Kamarudin Meranun.

Sabah-based Lau’s wealth soared more than 200% on the back of richer valuations of his Hap Seng to propel him to number 18 from 31 previously. He is valued at RM1.77 billion, making him one of the five new billionaires on the list.

AirAsia’s chief executive officer Fernandes also strengthens his position, gaining him entry into the billionaires’ club with a fortune of RM1.043 billion, up 80% from previously. His business partner Kamarudin is valued at RM856.02 million, which moves him up nine rungs.

The bullish market sentiment over the past year also sees the five sons of Tan Sri Yeoh Tiong Lay joining the billionaires’ league. Together with the senior Yeoh, the family is worth a cool RM6.7 billion.

Declining wealth

This year we have five tycoons recording a decline in their financial worth as opposed to 2010, when everyone had registered an increase.

Berjaya Group’s Vincent Tan, whose wealth is down by some 30%, registered the biggest drop that saw him exiting the Top 10. Other tycoons with declining wealth numbers were Top Glove Corporation Bhd’s Tan Sri Dr Lim Wee-Chai, Samling Group’s Datuk Yaw Teck Seng, KNM Group’s Lee Swee Eng and TA Enterprise Bhd’s Datuk Tony Tiah.

Two tycoons were forced off the list – Tan Sri Kua Sia Kooi of Kurnia Asia Bhd and Tan Sri Rozali Ismail of Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd. Kua’s wealth halved to RM291 million following the decline in the market capitalization of his flagship. Rozali saw his wealth drop about 20% to RM395.66 million as the impasse in the consolidation of water assets took a toll on the company’s share valuations.

Despite his wealth growing by more than 25%, CIMB Group’s chief executive, Datuk Seri Nazir Razak, does not make the cut this time around as other newcomers propelled in at a higher worth. As at Jan 21, his 0.78% stake in the banking giant is valued at RM483.52 million as opposed to RM386 million previously, and this puts him just past our cut-off point at number 41.

Welcome, the new and not so new

Of the newcomers to the list, Tan Sri Leong Hoy Kum earns his wealth from property via his flagship Mah Sing Group Bhd, while Datuk Seri Stanley Thai rides on the glove-making company he founded, Supermax Corporation Bhd.

Leong enters at 35th spot with a wealth level of RM618.40 million and Stanley Thai at 39 with a fortune estimated at RM538.73 million.

The third newcomer, Datuk Tan Heng Chew of Tan Chong Motors Holdings Bhd, is not entirely a new face, as he makes a comeback after an absence of two years. At 38th spot, he is valued at RM556.82 million.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, RPK

Tweet

PETALING JAYA: Fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has hit out at the Opposition for condemning those who criticise them as traitors.

He said criticism in the name of freedom of speech should work both ways, and not just targeted at the Government. He said many within the Opposition did not seem to understand this.

“To them, freedom of speech or to express their opinions merely means freedom to criticise the Government,” Raja Petra wrote in his latest blog posting “The Opposition’s Understanding of Freedom of Speech”.





He said those who disagreed with the Opposition were accused of “treachery” or being “a traitor to the cause”.

Elaborating, the blogger popularly known as RPK said those who expressed unfavourable opinions about the Opposition were regarded as a “trojan horse”, Government agent or somebody who was paid to sabotage them.

“The Opposition supporters have to grow up. They have to be mature and understand that freedom cuts both ways,” he said.

He questioned the Opposition’s thinking that any criticism directed at them was based on ulterior motives and not freedom of speech.

“This is a very primitive and immature thinking of many within the Opposition – some leaders included.
“You cannot ask for freedom to criticise the Government but do not wish anyone to criticise you. This is not what freedom of speech is all about,” he said.

Raja Petra said he had criticised not just the Government but the Opposition, too. “Because of that, I’m seen as a traitor and not a friend of the Opposition.”