Malaysia must have super-Ministers that the Cabinet could get 90 pct score from the Prime Minister for their 100 Day performance but this is the mystery – the 31 Ministers are not known for their super-intelligence and even two of them could not count 100 Days as they boasted they had passed the 100 days in flying colours in November itself

Malaysia must have super-Ministers that the Cabinet could get 90 pct score from the Prime Minister Ismail Sabri for their 100-day performance, but this is the mystery: the 31 Ministers are not known for their super-intelligence and even two of them could not count 100 Days as they boasted they had passed the 100 Days in flying colours in November itself.

This is why I demand that Ismail Sabri reveal the score for each of the 31 Ministers and whether and how many scored the perfect 100% mark.

Does it mean all the 31 Ministers scored 90 points each?

If 15 of the Ministers scored at least 80 points, it would mean that the at least 15 of the Ministers must score the full point of 100%. Is this human possible?

Before Prime Minister Ismail Sabri reduces himself and the country into a laughing stock, I would ask him to release the individual score of each of his Ministers, and how to arrive at the 90 pct score for his entire Cabinet.

The onus of proof is on Ismail Sabri to prove that he does not simply use an arbitrary figure which has no basis whatsoever.

I said just now that two Ministers could not count when their Hundred Days began and ended – they were Minister for Envronment Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and the Ministers for Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Alexander Nanta Linggi who told Bernama last month that they had achieved their 100-Day targets, when the 100 Days had not ended.

The Defence Minister. Hishamuddin Hussein, also said two days ago that the Defence Ministry had successful achieved its 100-Day targets.

I need only to refer to the Transparency International Government Defence Integrity Index Report on Malaysia, which reported:

“Malaysia faces high corruption risk in its defence sector. Parliamentary oversight is nascent and weak, financial scrutiny is limited by excessive secrecy, while procurement is vulnerable to powerful interests both foreign and domestic that diminish institutional resilience to corruption. Finally, risks are critical in terms of military operations.’

In these circumstances, how did the Defence Ministry achieve its 100-Day targets?