Smirk faces and snide remarks?

Letters

by
Uwe Dippel

Senior Lecturer

Department of Systems and Networking

College of Information Technology

Universiti Tenaga Nasional

My comment on the University Rankings

That is what I tend to see and hear around me in these days, after the annual world rankings of universities have been published.

As a reminder: the rankings published by QS saw UM rising to place 167, while all other Malaysian universities went down by around 20-30 each, with UTM falling out of the top 400 completely.

Then, on October 7th, another ranking provider, Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) saw

all Malaysian universities falling straight out of the top 400, including Universiti Malaya.

No wonder about those faces looking at me and those remarks. So, have we university lecturers just been in a state of tidur, fast asleep, and lazying about during the last years? I can’t blame the public for their initial feelings. Though the matter is not quite that straightforward and simple.

Allow me to add some insight into this topic.

For this purpose we have to go back some years into the past. To eventually everyone’s astonishment, probably Universiti Malaya herself, UM happened to be ranked 89 globally in 2004.

This was the first year that Times Higher Education Supplement published rankings based on results from work outsourced to QS. The fact remains, that it was kind of an unexpected success, and when one achieves such a type of unexpected laurels, one ought to be cautious, very cautious. When such an unexpected – and yet welcome – recognition rolls in, one needs to ask if one can uphold the status in future and under close scrutiny.

We in the academic community were quite adamant then, that Universiti Malaya was a good university, though not that good. There were three problems with this ranking as offered by QS; firstly there

was an objective mistake in the calculation, pointed out to QS by me (though I don’t know if I was the first one) and subsequently acknowledged by QS.

Secondly, there was a miscommunication between UM and QS. Additionally, some methodological problems were prevailing in the setup of the exercise. On the other hand one has to accept that it was a first-time exercise for QS and THES, and future corrections and improvements were offered.

As an after-effect of this unexpected result, suddenly half of the Malaysian academic community as well as the Ministry of (Higher) Education became busy with the topic of rankings. Nobody wanted to listen to the cautious remarks that 89 was just not realistic. On the contrary, it was thought that some extra, concerted effort would catapult UM even higher. This didn’t actually work out, for neither of the Malaysian universities.

And here is why: The principal reason for this non-achievement is not found inside Malaysia and her universities, rather outside. The authorities failed to properly analyse the competition closely. Therefore they failed to understand that the field of competitors was largely incomplete in 2004 and still is. The playing field was all but static during the last few years.

As someone with quite a number of contacts with European universities, I can vouch for the fact that some years ago almost none of these universities was even thinking in terms of ranking, while as of 2011 it still is a minority.

Germany for example has meanwhile identified 9 universities out of her more than 200 to join the race for excellence. Likewise in the other countries of continental Europe, most universities are still focused on societal, local or subject-related objectives. In a nutshell, the large amount of universities had/has yet to actively enter the race.

The consequences are glaring: When a specific institution was ranked highly with little effort, with many more competitors joining and many of these competitors starting to become really serious, this

institution will fall in the ranking despite of objective improvements.

And this is what we are currently experiencing here in Malaysia. There are serious efforts ongoing in the universities as well as in the Ministry of Higher Education to increase the standing of the Malaysian universities; with respect to publication, academic visibility, peer-to-peer perception, etc. Without these efforts, the Malaysian universities would surely have fallen even further behind.

In my humble opinion, it was and is a mistake to have many Malaysian universities trying to enter this (rat-)race; for most the mere thought about it is a waste of time.

Looking at the larger part of the Malaysian universities, they are significantly young, at the building-up phase and trying to establish themselves. Making it into the globally recognised set of universities requires a long-lasting effort, most of the highly ranked universities have a long tradition, and maybe more than one generation of dedicated academicians’ work, based on generous and long-term funding.

For the average Malaysian university there are many more pressing things to look into than global ranking. It is remarkable that seemingly only one university, USM, perceived and publicly stated that it had other priorities.

There is a good news in this and a bad news. The good one is, that when we manage to keep our rankings, it is a sign of actual improvement.

When our rankings are increasing, the improvements are significant. The bad news is that we are actually just not there yet.

We might not have reached the bottom of the valley. There are obviously many universities that have yet to enter the competition, and others in the range of our rankings who have yet to seriously

start competing, while we already have.

That puts us in the Malaysian universities in a not too favourable position: as much as we struggle

in these days, and objectively improve along the way, we can not yet expect to reap the results in an ever growing field of also competent competitors.

We have to work harder and we might as well need to ponder on our current strategies to further improve the standing of the Malaysian universities. But that’s a different topic altogether.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 4:33 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


University ranking and intellectual honesty

By
AB Sulaiman
 | Oct 10, 2011

Malaysiakini

The Times Higher Education World University Ranking has recently announced the results of its survey and the ranking of universities from all over the world for 2011-2012.

In the past, some of our universities have done modestly well, slotted in the low 200 -300 positions.

But for the first time, none did any better than 400 this year. We Malaysians have every right to be stumped. What has gone miserably, pathetically, pitifully wrong?

We all know that in this country, education as an institution has broken down, but surely not this badly!

Many concerned citizens like (DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang, usually the first to highlight the issue to the public domain) have voiced their opinions.

They cite the application of the quota system, Malay-only vice-chancellors policy or practice, poor funding for research, etc.

But here I am not about to collate or reiterate and summarise these reasons, plausible as they might be.

Rather, I wish to present another and more fundamental explanation that might have escaped the attention of commentators.

The reason to me is that our collective approach to higher learning is off tangent from universal practice in that it encourages and nurtures close-mindedness and not open-minded thinking.

A quick check with the visions and missions of three top ranking universities namely Harvard, Cambridge and the National University of Singapore, would amply substantiate this point.

Harvard and Cambridge are consistently among the top ten, while the NUS hovers at around the forties or higher. They are among the crème de la crème of world universities.

First, Harvard. Its webpage says:

‘Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities. To these ends, the college encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions. Harvard seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students’ full participation, so that individuals may explore their capabilities and interests and may develop their full intellectual and human potential.’

Note some key governing phrases, namely ‘to respect ideas and their free expression’, ‘to rejoice in discovery and critical thought’, and ‘to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions’.

Cambridge University has its own mission statement as well:

‘The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.’

This university’s core values are as follows: Freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.

NUS in its turn aspires to be ‘a bold and dynamic community, with a “no walls” culture and a spirit of enterprise that strives for positive influence and impact through our education, research and service’.

All three universities seem to have virtually the same vision and mission namely to make their students to think openly and even courageously.

These august institutions are aware that the human mind works best when it is free from encumbrances and pre-determined parameters, or the ‘walls’ of NUS. They know that only with this complete and total freedom can the mind explore the smallest atoms and the farthest reaches of the universe.

Their approach to learning thereby is to develop and encourage original cutting edge thinking, of daring to explore, of initiative and creativity, of developing an open mind free from conservatism, conformity, prejudice, myth and dogma.

Wrong vision

I believe our universities are not looking into education in this time-tested way.

For this I’d highlight the vision and mission statement of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Its charter says it seeks to protect the sanctity and supremacy of God, and to put theory into practice.

It also strives to promote the Malay language. I remember reading about this some time ago. A quick check on its webpage indicates this vision is basically unchanged.

A closer examination of this vision indicates that this university does not teach its students to ‘respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought’ as articulated by high achieving universities like Harvard.

Instead it stresses its students to protect the sanctity of Islam, and to champion the rebirth or strengthening of the Malay language and culture.

Now, I have nothing against the protection of Islam or any religion. Nor do I have any aversion to the vision of nurturing the health of the Malay language and culture.

Only that they are far and away from open, objective and critical thinking.

Instead, this thinking puts encumbrances and limitations to the pursuit of ‘excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.’ They are in fact the symptoms of the closed or ethnocentric mind.

In a nutshell UKM does not go for truth, but instead for what the authorities want the truth to be. It does not go for intellectual honesty.

No analysis is encouraged, but what is encouraged is the passive acceptance of past wisdom and prejudices.

All these do not promote proper thinking, but they propagate value judgments: prejudices, doctrines and dogmas, speculations. They are discriminatory.

History written by the victors

The present issue of history text books would amply illustrate this government-sponsored ‘truth’ and its agenda of pushing for this truth to the minds of the younger generation.

To the authorities, history is to be written by the victors and they have rewritten school texts to suit the government’s ‘victorious’ views.

History is to be made a compulsory subject in schools thus forcing the young to absorb and internalise these doctored views.

To reiterate I have no qualms about any person championing the welfare and well-being of his race or religion, for I suppose any reasonable person would have an affinity and love for his race and religion.

But this should remain as a personal trait and remain there. To make it into an overt university vision and mission statement is too much. Why? Because by doing so the university is consciously and deliberately propagating racial and religious preferences.

Race and religion are emotive and subjective and are far and away from objective principles.

It becomes understandable to state that UKM does not educate its students in intellectual honesty, but instead its antithesis i.e. intellectual deviousness and dishonesty.

It is for this that I feel no Malaysian universities are ranked among the top in the world, but instead will slide down further and further as the years go by. I think they deserve this.

I might be accused of being anti-Malay and anti-Islam for saying the above. My detractors and critics might counter by saying that surely Malaysian university education is not all that bad?

For this I refer to two articles written by Susan Loone in Malaysiakini on Oct 6. The first is her report on a presentation made by Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin, former mufti of Perlis and an outspoken critic of conservative and conformist Islam.

“Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin has attributed the lack of intellectual development in the Malay community to the ‘restrictions imposed by the authorities’ on their freedom of thought and expression”, writes Loone.

She continued by quoting Mohd Asri (left) as saying that “Knowledge should not be dependent on political power as control of people’s thoughts can ‘kill’ intellectual discourse.”

Mohd Asri said if the authorities continue to “control and direct” intellectual content, the rakyat would never be able to obtain the right facts.

Loone’s second article carries the headline ‘Historian: We are trapped in an intellectual coffin’.

This time according to her, a Malaysian historian (Ariffin Omar, a lecturer) bemoaned the disappearance of cultural and political freedom as reasons for the stagnation of the nation’s intellectual development.

Omar said (Loone writes further) that a nation needs a healthy dose of culture, politics and knowledge if it wants a steady growth of intellectual discourse from issues ranging from mainstream to ones considered ‘sensitive’.

“But what happens here is that when you speak your mind, you are persecuted as a traitor of the nation. Why is there no maturity in politics?” he queried.

The two thinkers have bravely and frankly voiced out this glaring weakness and we owe them a vote of thanks for speaking out.

In addition we should thank Loone for her part in sharing and spreading their views to the public domain. For my part I am assuming she ‘allows’ me to virtually reproduce her work here and to thank her for it.

Decay of intellectualism

The country is suffering from the stagnation and decay of intellectualism which in turn is reflected in the poor showing of Malaysian universities in the THE survey.

We see the products and symptoms of this stagnation and decay every day, as highlighted by the following short list:

Incompetence instead of professionalism in the public workplace. The ratio of civil servants to the population is among the highest in the world.

Intellectual dishonesty instead of personal integrity. A Judge for example is under public suspicion for plagiarising a judgment. The breaking down of the rule of law and the rise in corruption are other illustrations.

Fracture and cleavage in between different ethnic groups. The Malays are asserting their ‘Malayness’ at the expense of the other ethnic groups.

Religious intolerance. The leaders are determined to implement hudud law despite the constitutional objections to such a ruling.

It’s painful to add more into this list although it’s too easy to do so.

To conclude, a friend, Paul Laine, from Finland, imparted to me a saying from his country: ‘The rotting of a fish starts from the head’.

I remember this now as I see the rot in the university education producing mediocre leaders who then drag the country intellectually downhill. Thanks Paul, for your wisdom.

____

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 10:57 am and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Old Economic Model

The government still offers handouts instead of reforms to woo voters.

Wall Street Journal

12th Oct 2011

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has unveiled a budget full of freebies designed to win over voters in the next general election, expected in the next six months. In the process, he is dashing expectations of economic reforms needed to promote growth.

This contrasts with the political reforms Mr. Najib announced last month. A promised overhaul of the country’s colonial-era legal code would guarantee political and civil freedoms long denied to Malaysians.

Mr. Najib seems to have thought of a handout for nearly everyone in 2012. The country’s 1.3 million civil servants will see salaries and pensions rise, in many cases by as much as 30%; households earning less than 3,000 ringgit ($960) a month will receive one-off payments of 500 ringgit; parents will find many school fees abolished or reduced. Then there are the taxi drivers who get fat tax exemptions.

Worse, the government has not taken the necessary steps to wean Malaysia off food and fuel subsidies. Mr. Najib earlier pledged to phase them out, since they have skewed consumption patterns and strained public finances for many years. He even likened subsidies to “opium” and made small but noteworthy cuts last year. He could have continued that rehab this year by incrementally raising regulated prices to bring them closer to market levels.

This combination of temporary handouts and tax breaks on one hand and welfare spending on the other doesn’t help Malaysia’s competitiveness. The export-dependent economy is already hurting from weak markets abroad and a rising cost of living at home—GDP growth fell below 5% in year-on-year terms for the last two quarters—and needs long-term incentives to invest and build a stronger domestic consumer market.

Yet Mr. Najib offered no permanent changes to the tax structure and no guide to reducing regulation and spending. The 2012 budget proposes a 9.4% hike in expenditure from the 2011 budget. And considering the government spent 13 billion ringgit ($4.16 billion) more than it budgeted in the past year, it could well prove more profligate.

To its credit, one small of area of reform the government has kept pushing is liberalization of foreign investment in services. In 2009, Mr. Najib dismantled a long-time restriction that benefited “sons of the soil.” Foreigners were earlier forced to jointly venture with Malays, the country’s ethnic majority, but they can now own 100% stakes in businesses in 27 sub-sectors. Friday’s budget extends that reform to 17 more sub-sectors such as medical and education services.

However, these are small industries that don’t hire many Malays. The government needs to tackle bigger reforms in industries like manufacturing, where regulations still give Malays dominance. In the same vein, the labor market suffers from entrenched affirmative-action policies. Mr. Najib has spoken of enacting radical changes when he presented a “New Economic Model” last year, but he keeps disappointing voters by failing to follow through.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 11:46 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Recession risk high and rising, says RHB

By
Lee Wei Lian

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 12, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 12 — Malaysia’s economic growth could slow to just 3.6 per cent next year from a projected 4.3 per cent this year due to the increasing risk of a double dip global recession, said the RHB Research Institute.

The RHB unit’s growth projection issued yesterday is significantly lower than Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s forecast of five to six per cent growth for 2012 in his proposed RM232 billion Budget 2012 tabled last Friday.

The research house said that the risk of a double-dip global recession is high and rising as both the US and Europe cannot withstand another shock although a recession could be averted if leaders in both continents act fast enough to contain the debt crises and avert a contagion that could lead to a complete meltdown in confidence.

It also expected businesses to cut spending in view of rising uncertainties although some growth will come from the implementation of the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

Private investment growth is projected to soften further to 4.6 per cent in 2012, after slowing to an estimated 5.7 per cent for 2011, the report added.

Exports, meanwhile, are expected to grow at just 1.1 per cent compared to 3.4 per cent this year due to dampened foreign demand for electronics and electrical items.

Domestic demand is projected to grow at a slower pace of 5.1 per cent in 2012, compared with an estimated 5.8 per cent for 2011.

RHB said, however, that consumer spending is expected to remain “reasonably resilient” and grow at around 5.3 per cent in 2012, compared with 6.0 per cent for 2011, given high savings, rising consumerism and an increase in salary.

Most research houses have lowered their 2012 growth projections for Malaysia despite Najib’s optimism in the Budget proposals, which critics have say is primed for the next general election that must be called by early 2013.

Bank of America Global Research estimated Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP) to grow at 4.2 per cent in 2012 while Maybank Investment Bank said it expected Malaysia’s GDP to expand at between 3.5-4 per cent. CIMB Investment Bank forecast a GDP growth of 3.8 per cent next year.

In his Budget 2012 proposals, Najib promised cash handouts, more money for civil servants, schools and a fund for “high-impact development” projects as part of measures to put money in the pockets of the majority of Malaysians who live in the lower income group.

The government will offer a one-off RM500 cash handout to households with a monthly income of less than RM3,000, a RM100 cash aid and RM200 book vouchers for students from the Budget, which is forecast to only have a 4.7 per cent fiscal deficit, down from the projected 5.4 per cent this year.

Authorities will trim development spending and maintain subsidies to keep prices down, while banking on low borrowing costs and a healthy job market to keep economic growth on an even keel next year.

The 2012 Budget funds for subsidies is expected to total RM33.2 billion.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 9:39 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


IMF trims Asian growth forecasts as risks grow

By KELVIN CHAN

AP Business Writer – 3 hours ago

HONG KONG (AP) — The International Monetary Fund trimmed its economic growth forecasts for Asia on Thursday because of financial turbulence in Europe and a possible slowdown in the U.S.

The risks to Asia’s growth are “decidedly tilted to the downside” reflecting the negative outlooks for Europe and the U.S., which are the major markets for the region’s exports, the IMF said in a twice-yearly report.

Asia’s economic growth is forecast to average 6.3 percent in 2011, rising to 6.7 percent in 2012. That’s lower than the IMF’s April forecast of nearly 7 percent in both years.

The report covers 20 economies in a vast region stretching from India to Japan to New Zealand.

IMF officials warned that an escalation of the debt crisis affecting nations that use the euro, and a more severe slowdown in the United States, would hit Asia too.

“Although domestic demand remains strong, we cannot assume Asia will be immune from the risks if they materialize in the rest of the world,” said IMF Asia-Pacific Director Anoop Singh.

Any worsening of Europe’s debt crisis, in particular, “poses an extreme downside risk for Asia,” the report said. The panic-driven selling in stock markets across Asia in August and September amid Europe’s intensifying financial woes showed there’s “no place to hide” when advanced economies come under pressure, it said.

After a strong start in the first quarter, Asian economic growth slowed because of sluggish demand from advanced economies and a devastating tsunami in Japan in March that disrupted industrial production and export growth across the region. Economic indicators suggest the slowdown continued into the third quarter, the report said.

Despite lowered forecasts, Asian growth will still be strong compared with U.S. and Europe thanks to strong domestic consumption and investment spending in many of the region’s economies, Singh said.

The IMF raised its forecast for Japanese economic growth to 2.3 percent in 2012 after an expected 0.5 percent contraction in 2011 as the country’s industrial production returned to normal over the summer. The fund had predicted in April that Japan would shrink 1.9 percent this year and eke out 0.2 percent growth next year.

Inflation is still strong in a number of Asian countries but the report said consumer prices are expected to peak in the second half of 2011 before easing as food and energy prices “gradually moderate.”

However, inflation will still be higher than average, partly because China’s strong demand for metals, food and other commodities will spill over to the rest of the region.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 October 2011, 5:09 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MIER trims GDP estimates as global economic slump bites

By Lee Wei Lian

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 13, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) cut to 4.6 per cent, from 5.2 per cent, its projection for the country’s economic growth this year, citing a sliding global economy that it said could hurt exports.

The government-funded MIER also downgraded its estimates for 2012 to 5.5 per cent, which is within the Najib administration’s projected growth range of between five and six per cent.

Some market and bank analysts have described next year’s projections as too rosy, with RHB Research Institute saying this week that Malaysia’s economic growth could slow to just 3.6 per cent next year, from a projected 4.3 per cent, this year due to the increasing risk of a double dip global recession.

MIER executive director Zakariah Abdul Rashid said today that while the 2012 Budget unveiled last Friday will help boost private consumption, it will not be able to offset a slump in external demand.

“The 2012 Budget is insufficient to overcome external weakness,” he said in a briefing today.

Zakariah said that MIER’s tentative forecast for next year was five per cent, pending the collection of more data at the upcoming National Economic Outlook Conference meeting next month.

“We will not be able to say confidently it is five per cent,” he added.

Most research houses have estimated growth at less than five per cent for next year, with Bank of America Global Research predicting Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP) to grow at 4.2 per cent in 2012.

Maybank Investment Bank said it expected Malaysia’s GDP to expand at between 3.5 and four per cent, and CIMB Investment Bank forecast a GDP growth of 3.8 per cent next year.

MIER’s Business Conditions Index, which tracks domestic manufacturing, dropped by 9.6 points to 104.5 in the third quarter from the second quarter.

The CEO Confidence Index, meanwhile, also fell from 111.9 to and 93.3 points.

The Consumer Sentiment Index rose slightly, however, to 108.7 points but remained below the 115.8 point level seen during the same period last year.

In his Budget 2012 proposals, Datuk Seri Najib Razak promised cash handouts, more money for civil servants, schools and a fund for “high-impact development” projects as part of measures to put money in the pockets of the majority of Malaysians who live in the lower income group.

The government will offer a one-off RM500 cash handout to households with a monthly income of less than RM3,000, a RM100 cash aid and RM200 book vouchers for students from the Budget, which is forecast to only have a 4.7 per cent fiscal deficit, down from the projected 5.4 per cent this year.

Authorities will trim development spending and maintain subsidies to keep prices down, while banking on low borrowing costs and a healthy job market to keep economic growth on an even keel next year.

The 2012 Budget funds for subsidies is expected to total RM33.2 billion.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 October 2011, 12:35 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MRT Co backs down from land row

By
Melissa Chi
 | October 13, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — MRT Corporation CEO Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid pledged today Jalan Sultan properties will not be acquired for the Klang Valley Mass Rapit Transit project, as long as businesses and landowners vacate their premises temporarily during tunnel construction.

“We are not touching your property, we are not going to take over your property, I don’t understand why realignment becomes an issue.

“I would acknowledge to you today that the biggest challenge would be in Bukit Bintang area because the area is so tight that we cannot get to the underground tunnel done without demolishing buildings at the top,” he said today.

The newly appointed chief of the MRT project owner said Jalan Sultan traders would be compensated for six months loss of income, of which the value would be determined by an independent third party firm, and to put them up at another location if necessary.

He also promised to put construction on hold during the Chinese New Year celebration, and guaranteed that the traders could resume business as usual at the end of the six month period.

Azhar said the Jalan Sultan and Jalan Bukit Bintang traders and shop owners were supposed get back to him on whether they had reached a mutual decision yesterday, but they had decided to have a press conference Instead.

The traders — backed by former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and DAP’s Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun — threatened to raise their grouses directly with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak if their demands are not met.

The ad hoc committees encompassing traders from both streets have also banded together to form the “Committee of preserving Jalan Sultan and Jalan Bukit Bintang”, a special joint taskforce aimed at pressuring the government into considering a realignment to the MRT’s Sungai Buloh-Kajang line.

MORE TO COME

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 October 2011, 7:13 pm and is filed under
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stemming the Malaysian exodus

— Douglas Tan

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 12, 2011

OCT 12 — Recently, YB Teresa Kok asked me, “Why are Malaysians so keen to leave this country? Life overseas is not necessarily easier!” I agree that life overseas is not necessarily so. In fact, my cousins living in Hong Kong, Singapore and London tell me regularly that they miss the food and that everything is much cheaper at home (except cars). They complain about the weather, high cost of living and their long working hours. Despite this, when the possibility of coming back home is raised, they give me a smile and a shake of their head.

Is living in Malaysia really so bad? What is it that other countries have that we don’t? YB Lim Kit Siang posted on his blog in December 2009 that more than 630 Malaysians migrate overseas everyday, and that number is increasing year on year.

This is a worrying statistic and the brain drain issue is one that the current government acknowledges is a problem. However, the best they can come up with to make Malaysians come back are tax breaks, and tax-free vehicles. From day one, it has become apparent these ‘perks’ would simply not work.

This government has a habit of tackling problems by providing quick fixes. The 2012 Budget should really be called the ‘quick-fix’ budget as RM232 billion is mindlessly spent, with unrealistic economic growth forecasts to back it up.

Yes, 60 per cent of households would receive a RM500 relief and we thank the government for it. What then? RM500 does not combat rising costs, or inflation. How far can RM500 bring us nowadays? Not very far. In no time at all, that RM500 has become a distant memory and we are back to square one.

The Kedai 1 Malaysia initiative was put in place by the government to sell cheap products subsidised by the government, and more are to be opened across the nation. Shop owners are now screaming in displeasure as they cannot possibly compete. If the government is intent on handing out subsidies, subsidise the shops which are already operating! Another poorly planned quick fix that provides no long-term solution.

Where is the long-term economic plan? Where is the investment in our children’s future? Fixing school buildings is an excellent initiative, but the real problem lies in the fabric of the education system.

Our children are taught to be robots, to regurgitate material and not to question their teachers. Many scoff at the lowering of standards in the ongoing PMR exams, and an Additional Mathematics SPM paper was allegedly leaked to tuition centres. Is all this in the name of grades, just to make the Education Ministry look good? How can this system prepare our children to be competent, effective members of society? The biggest losers in all of this are our nation’s children.

A friend over dinner told me earnestly that he was preparing to leave the country for the sake of his children. As disheartening as it was to hear, he proceeded to tell me why.

His vision for his children was for them to grow up in a society in which they would not be discriminated against. Although racism is also prevalent in other countries, in Malaysia, racism is institutionalised and sanctioned by the Barisan Nasional government.

Furthermore, corruption is rampant throughout all levels of government. The payment of corruption money in cases of obtaining building or business licenses is so prevalent, that many businesses have included such a payment in their expense budgets. How can this continue be the case?

These issues are all correlated, and opportunities continue to be stifled. Talented people leave because Malaysia appears to have no appreciation for their abilities. Nepotism and favouritism are practised on the basis of the “Lu tolong gua, Gua tolong lu” principle rather than getting the best person for the job.

Our English standards have been lowered in order to record more exam passes, but quality is sacrificed as a result. If even masters degree holders from local universities are unable to speak proper English, how can we then become a globally competitive nation?

After this Budget, more and more people are convinced that this BN government cares only about staying in power and not for the long-term development of the nation. The exodus of talented individuals will continue unless necessary reforms are put in place.

On a recent trip to the United States, on our stopover in Hong Kong, a fellow passenger remarked that they could finally talk about issues of Malaysia as they dared not voice out their displeasures at home. Recalling so many holding up their fingers to their lips to shush their friends from bringing up national issues, it is obvious that many feel we are living under oppression.

Finally, one of my old schoolmates residing in Australia told me that he wanted to come home to take care of his parents. “But the biggest thing stopping me from coming home now is the government”. A change in government may not automatically bring Malaysians home, but what it would do is provide hope for the future of our nation, and hope for our future generations.

Change is needed, and change has to happen now.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 October 2011, 8:25 am and is filed under
Brain drain
,
Elections
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A Step Forward, On a Long Path

AIPMC Press statement

13 October 2011

As part of the government of Myanmar’s earlier announcement of a general amnesty to release 6,359 prisoners starting from yesterday, at least 200 political prisoners have since been released. However, many more political prisoners, prisoners of conscience remain in indefinite detention. Thus, the AIPMC today reiterates its call for the release of all political prisoners.

While we welcome this news, AIPMC notes that the international community, especially ASEAN, must remain wary of suggestions that equate genuine democratic reform and political reform with this long over-due release. With each passing year, the international community has come to expect that the regime will concede a number of prisoners. Yet, we fear that this approach does little to counteract the grievous lack of substantive democratic reform.

Given ASEAN’s ongoing engagement with its fellow member state, Myanmar, we ask that ASEAN utilize this opportunity to join with the international community in strongly urging the junta to ensure that this amnesty extends to all political prisoners.

Only in tandem with genuine constitutional and political reform, might this amnesty be seen to resolve key human rights issues in Myanmar. ASEAN states have a particular role to play, and can assist this process in urging the junta to hold reconciliatory, participatory dialogue with non-state actors, including opposition and minority groups. Only then might a key tenet of democracy – that is, the engagement of all – be met.

Following this, we ask that the whereabouts of many other political prisoners, who have not been released, be made known to the public and international community at large, given long-standing concerns regarding the conditions under which they are kept.

Prison conditions in Myanmar, as Amnesty noted, “fall far short of many international standards. Food, water and medical care are insufficient; many political prisoners are held far away from their families; and most have been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement.” Such conditions continue to deny political prisoners their inherent dignity, as enshrined in all forms of international law and practice.

This includes both an end to arbitrary arrests of political figures, and a guarantee of rights to freedom of expression upon which a transition to democratic reform rests.

Finally, we reiterate calls that the regime to close Myanmar’s numerous, notoriously isolated prisons, such as the Insein. Such detainments are routinely described, as with Myanmar’s many illegal internment camps, as “hell”, “tantamount to a death sentence” for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience alike.

It is clear that the regime seeks to impress upon the international community its capacity for genuine democratic reform.

Should the military junta make known the whereabouts and actively improve the conditions under which its political prisoners are being detained, so too close its internment camps; then, and only then, will the junta move to restore democracy. Indeed, in Myanmar, such a move is merely one step in a democratic process long since overdue.

Eva Sundari , MP (Indonesia) President

Charles Chong, MP (Singapore) Vice-President

Dadoes Soemarwanto, MP (Indonesia) Member

Kraisak Choonhavan (Thailand) Vice President

Lorenzo Tanada, MP (The Philippines) Vice President

Son Chhay, MP (Cambodia) Vice-President

Lim Kit Siang, MP (Malaysia) Vice-President

Teresa Kok, MP (Malaysia) Secretary

The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) is a network formed in an inaugural meeting in Kuala Lumpur, on 26-28 November 2004 by and for Parliamentarians from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. The aim is advocating for human rights and democratic reform in Myanmar/Burma.  Its members represent both the ruling and non-ruling political parties of countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines and Cambodia.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 1:01 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


At variance with the Constitution

REFLECTING ON THE LAW

By
SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Star

October 5, 2011

The clear intention of the 1957 Constitution was to allocate penal powers to the Federal Government and to confer on the states residual powers over minor syariah offences.

WHENEVER a general election appears to be around the corner, some people find it politically profitable to stoke the embers of controversy about the need for an Islamic state and its accompanying requisite – hudud laws – ie, laws relating to crimes, punishments and rights and duties that are mentioned in the Holy Quran.

Such a season of polemic is with us again and a few observations are in order.

First, it is a fact that since the 80s, many Muslims have been aspiring to give centrality to the Syariah in our legal system.

While this religious quest is understandable, its realisation requires massive legal reconstruction of the basic legal edifice.

We must be open-eyed about these changes and must accomplish them in accordance with, and not in disregard of, the constitutional charter.

Second, respecting the sensitivities and rights of other religious communities and living in peace and harmony with them under a system of just, fair and compassionate governance is also an important requirement of the Syariah.

Example of other Muslim countries where the hudud has been enforced and how hudud’s implementation has impacted on war, peace or social harmony needs to be thoroughly studied.

Third, most acts deemed criminal under the hudud are also prohibited under our penal laws.

Whether it is murder, rape, theft, robbery, unnatural sex or incest, the prohibitions of the Syariah are replicated in our law. Supporters of the hudud should note that the major difference is in the severity of punishments, the rules of evidence and of proof.

In some cases, Syariah penalties are less severe. For example, drug offences under the Syariah do not attract mandatory death sentences. The life of a murderer can be spared if the victim’s family accepts blood money in compensation.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the law of evidence, the right of the accused to retract a confession and the inadmissibility of the evidence of an agent provocateur grant better protection to the accused than under ordinary law.

On the other side, the severe Syariah punishments of severing of limbs and stoning to death are practised neither in our legal system nor in the vast majority of Muslim-majority nations.

Fourth, the religious and political debate about the hudud in this country seems to be proceeding in blissful disregard of the constitutional scheme of things.

Actually, the Federal Constitution has provided clear guidance about who may legislate for crimes, who may prosecute criminal offences, which courts may try offenders, who is the subject of the law and what penalties may be imposed.

The Constitution is supreme and its imperatives cannot be lightly disregarded.

Who may legislate crimes?

In Schedule 9 List I Paragraph 4, criminal law and procedure, the administration of justice, official secrets, corrupt practices, creation of offences in respect of any of the matters included in the federal list or dealt with by federal law are in the hands of Parliament.

Under Schedule 9, List II, Para 1 the states have a power to create and punish Islamic offences subject to a number of significant limitations.

First, State legislative authority in respect of “creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion” is limited by the words “except in regard to matters included in the Federal List”. Among matters included in the federal list are civil and criminal law and procedure.

Second, State authority to legislate on Islamic crimes is further qualified by the words “or dealt with by federal law” in Schedule 9 List I Paragraph 4(h).

Betting and lotteries, murder, theft, robbery, rape, incest and unnatural sex are all offences in Islamic law but they are clearly in federal hands because of Schedule 9 List I Item 4(l) and 4(h) and the federal Penal Code.

The clear intention of the 1957 Constitution was to allocate almost all penal powers to the federation and to confer on the states only residual powers over Syariah offences like khalwat, zina, skipping of Friday prayers and failure to observe the compulsory fasts during Ramadan.

Who may be tried before Syariah Courts?

Under Schedule 9 List II Paragraph 1, Syariah Courts are permitted to exercise jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam.

A non-Muslim cannot be subjected to the Syariah or compelled to appear before the Syariah Courts. Even if he consents, the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over him because jurisdiction is a matter of law, not of consent or acquiescence.

If my understanding is correct, in an Islamic state, Islamic criminal laws including hudud apply to all citizens. That would pose a great challenge to our existing constitutional jurisprudence and our provisions on freedom of religion.

Is Islam in the State List? Islamic law covers the whole range of civil, criminal, personal and commercial matters.

Islamic law encompasses environmental and international matters. A popular legal myth in Malaysia is that all Islamic matters are within state jurisdiction!

If this were so, then why the explicit limitations on the penal powers of the State Assemblies?

Why the need for detailed exposition in Schedule 9, List II Para 1 (the State List) of family and personal law matters? Why not just have the generic words “All matters covered by the Syariah” in the State List?

If all matters of Islam are in State hands, as some experts are arguing, then whether it is crime, tort, contract, banking, or commercial law, if it involves Muslims, the matter should be in State Assembly hands and triable by the Syariah Courts.

Malaysia would then become “one country, with two systems” – one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. This is not what the forefathers envisioned.

To underline the point that in the original scheme of things, Islamic law was shared between federal and state jurisdictions and not everything connected with Islam is in the hands of State Assemblies, one can note Paragraph 4(k) of the Federal List which specifically mentions that “ascertainment of Islamic law and other personal laws for purposes of federal law” are in federal hands.

What punishments may be imposed?

Schedule 9 List II Paragraph 1 states that Syariah Courts “shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law”.

The relevant federal law is the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965. It confines Syariah Court jurisdiction to such offences as are punishable with maximum three years’ jail, RM5,000 fine and six lashes. Any state law, including a hudud law, imposing larger penalties would be ultra vires the Act of 1965 and unconstitutional.

In sum, attempts by some States to legislate hudud laws and to impose hudud penalties will bring forth embarrassing constitutional law issues pitting the Constitution against religion.

Two prominent arguments in favour of the implementation of hudud need to be scrutinised.

First, the assertion that application of hudud in Malaya is not new because the Syariah was applied in Malaya in pre-British days.

With all due respect, “syariah” and “hudud” are not interchangeable.

In Malay history, there is centuries of tradition of Muslim personal law but I have difficulty documenting widespread application of hudud in Malaya.

Likewise the assertion is not convincing that because of the vox populi in some parts of the country, we must accept the change.

The Constitution cannot be overthrown by disputed historical assertions or by popular opinion.

Its procedures for amendments are elaborate and must be invoked.

Law must grow and change in accordance with the law and not by the opinion of the people or of self-anointed elites.

> Shad Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 11:56 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Copycat judge in a copyright case!

By
Martin Jalleh

14 Oct 2011

When the respected retired judge N H Chan called certain judges in the appellate courts “imposters”, “intellectual and legal frauds”, “incompetent”, “inane”, “ignoramuses”, “inconsistent” and even an “idiotic” bunch, little did he realise that he was being very mild.

Now it has come to the public’s notice that crouching amongst the growing company of judicial clowns and court jesters in the Palace of Justice is a copycat judge who allegedly plagiarised chunks of a judgment of another judge – in a copyright infringement case!

Former Law Minister Rais Yatim has confirmed that the government had known about the plagiarising judge, but Rais tries to take the rakyat for a ride by blaming it all on the then Chief Justice (CJ), and that it was left to the latter to investigate and to take appropriate action.

Copycat out of the bag

Recently, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, with the support of close to 60 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, submitted a motion to the office of the Parliament speaker against Justice Abdul Malik Ishak, to have him placed before a tribunal and be removed.

While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement.

Malaysiakini highlighted two news reports in Singapore’s Straits Times — 8 March and 13 April, 2000 which were referred to by Karpal Singh. The newspaper quoted then CJ Eusoff Chin as having written to his Singapore counterpart, Justice Yong Pung How, asking for more information on the allegation of plagiarism.

A month later, Eusoff told journalists that the matter was resolved and that it had arisen out of a “misunderstanding”. He however did not elaborate. (By the way, this is the same CJ, whom a former CJ Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had described as one who “kept lying to him” when the latter was a Federal Court judge and Eusoff was his boss! (Star, 30 Jan. 2008).

The Straits Times also reported that Rais Yatim had promised an investigation. Rais was ridiculous enough as to add that it was not easy to establish plagiarism because it was normal for judges to quote one another extensively and that: “Quoting another judge is not plagiarism.”

The Straits Times report of 8 March, 2000 reduced Rais’ “rescue bid” of the judge to pure rubbish when it quoted the former Singapore judge (Selvam) accusing the Malaysian judge of having obtained a copy of his (Selvam’s) judgment through a lawyer and “having copied chunks from me without acknowledging”. (Rais sat on the case for four long years and did nothing about it!)

Selvam was also quoted to have said the Malaysian judge backdated his judgment so that people “will think I copied from him!” The naked truth appears each time Rais speaks through his rear end.

After the Singapore judiciary got the cat out of the bag, the copycat was transferred out of Johor Baru and kept in cold-storage for a while. Seven years later the plagiariser would be promoted to the Court of Appeal (16 July, 2007)! This can only happen in Bolehland!

Karpal Singh has described (on several online news portals) Malik’s alleged plagiarising as a “judicial scandal”, “misconduct of a very serious nature”, “a source of embarrassment for our judiciary” and one that warrants “stern disciplinary action” by a Royal Tribunal.

Will Justice Abdul Malik Ishak have enough honour left to resign on his own accord? Is there any remaining sense of decency and self-respect in him to acknowledge and accept the fact that his position as a judge has become clearly untenable?

Will the Chief Justice save the judiciary and the country from further embarrassment or has the judiciary entirely lost its sense of shame and the CJ prefers to continue in his elegant silence?

Meanwhile, taking the easy way out like Rais,  Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government could not take action against Abdul Malik as it was a matter for the current judiciary to settle.

Asked why the judiciary had not censured Abdul Malik until now, he said: “I don’t know, you have to ask them.” Strange, coming from a man who had once proudly and loudly declared himself as the “Minister for the Chief Justice”!

Malik’s other “achievements”

On 10 Oct. 2009, the Court of Appeal, with Malik as the presiding judge, struck out Anwar Ibrahim’s RM100 million defamation suit against Dr Mahathir on the technicality that the memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia. Malik stressed the supremacy of the national language as he delivered his 31-page written judgment in English!

On 5 Oct. 2011, the Federal Court allowed Anwar Ibrahim’s application to expunge portions of a  written judgment made by Malik on 6 July in the Court of Appeal  related to the Sodomy II trial, that were deemed disparaging of the politician and his lawyers.

Karpal Singh (Anwar’s lawyer) complained to the judges that Malik had “without jurisdiction and for an apparent purpose invoked a non-existent jurisdiction to maliciously and scurrilously (go into the merits and) embark on a relentless attack on Anwar and the lawyers (in the written judgment)”.

“This amounts to judicial assassination of the worst kind … (and) to make matters worse, the appellant and the lawyers were not given an opportunity to defend ourselves… as the appellate court had allowed the preliminary objection.

“The remarks were uncalled for and put the Judiciary in bad light. If the case was allowed to be heard on its merits, we (would have been) prepared to defend ourselves. However, we were not allowed to do so as the court allowed the preliminary objection.”

Karpal also questioned as to how Malik produced the written 40-page judgment on the day the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal. Various law journals had reported that the judgment was produced on 6 July, but lawyers for Anwar only received it on 15 Aug.

Malik had also scurrilously written: “This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.”

Very ironically, it is the case of Abdul Malik which will fall in history and be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the one found guilty of plagiarising in a copyright infringement case was the judge himself!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 9:28 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Promise no surface land grabbed for MRT, Pua tells MRT Co

By
Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 14, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 14 — DAP MP Tony Pua today demanded that MRT Co issue a blanket decision for all land acquisition matters involving the Klang Valley MRT project, apart from its pledge to leave Jalan Sultan properties untouched.

The Petaling Jaya Utara MP said no surface land should be grabbed to make way for tunnelling work for the multibillion ringgit rail project while underground land should only be acquired strictly to construct MRT stations or its ancillary facilities like air vents and access points.

“No parcel of land should be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of profit generation by the government,” Pua said in a statement here.

After months of controversy, new MRT project owner MRT Co promised Jalan Sultan traders yesterday their properties would remain untouched and would not be acquired if they agreed to vacate their premises for six months during construction on the railway line.

Transport regulators, the government and former project owner Prasarana had previously stopped short of issuing such a guarantee to the traders, who have now started a large movement comprising all affected stakeholders to protest the acquisition threat.

But in a separate statement yesterday, MRT Co appeared to offer no such guarantee to Bukit Bintang traders, who have also taken their fight to the fore.

The corporation said while it would not take away the traders’ land rights, it would have to clear the surface area and dig down in order to build the proposed underground MRT station.

“We will compensate for any loss of business in the interim and for any demolished buildings. Further, we are open to an agreement where we will re-build shops for the owners to return to in return for acquisition,” the corporation promised.

The Malaysian Insider understands, however, that the traders are strongly opposed to any destruction of properties above ground and still prefer a realignment of the MRT’s Sungai Buloh-Kajang line.

Pua said the about-turn for Jalan Sultan properties was tantamount to a concession from the government that it was possible for underground stratum land to be acquired for tunnelling purposes under the National Land Code without affecting ownership and surface land use.

“As highlighted many times during the controversy, the National Land Code 1965 had been specifically amended in 1990 to allow for the acquisition of underground land without affecting surface property by inserting Part Five (A) (section 92A to 92G) under Clause 3.

“The amendment enables the disposal of ‘underground land’, which can then either be alienated or leased for the use to construct tunnels, car parks and to lay pipes,” he said.

Pua added that civil society should bask in the victory of yesterday’s announcement for Jalan Sultan traders, saying this was yet another proof that public pressure could affect major changes in government policy decisions.

He cited the formation of the parliamentary select committee for electoral reforms and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s recent promise to reform press and security laws as examples of the government pandering to the wishes of civil society groups.

“The above actions also prove that civil and political pressure works to correct the wrongs and abuses, and hence more Malaysians must speak up and take part in activities to defend their basic rights and entitlements,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 11:38 am and is filed under
MRT
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Rich world economic malaise to endure into 2012: Reuters poll

By
Andy Bruce

Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) – Stagnation is probably the best many of the world’s biggest developed economies can hope for over the next year, with several facing a significant chance of recession, Reuters polls of around 350 economists showed on Thursday.

After a promising start, 2011 has turned into an enormous disappointment for major rich world economies, which have been hobbled by a noxious combination of austerity, debt crises, natural disaster and political impasse.

Backed up by Thursday’s weak trade figures from China, which pointed to profound global economic weakness, the October quarterly survey suggested a bout of weak growth in many G7 economies could extend deep into next year and beyond.

The world economy will grow 3.8 percent in 2011, the poll showed, and just 3.6 percent next year — a stark contrast to the 4.1 percent and 4.3 percent forecasts from the last quarterly survey in July.

But even these tepid growth rates could depend on progress in clearing some of the world’s biggest economic hurdles, like the euro zone sovereign debt crisis and finding ways to boost growth in the United States.

“Rarely has the economic outlook been so sensitive to the decisions of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic,” said Peter Hooper, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities, in a research note.

“Whether it is the complexities of reaching unanimous agreement among 17 euro area members regarding the resolution of the sovereign debt crisis, or the increasingly polarized U.S. political scene, political risk may be the greatest source of shocks to the global economy today.”

Euro zone officials on Wednesday indicated they were willing to take at least a small step forward in plans to avert a potentially catastrophic Greek sovereign debt default, by asking banks to accept losses of up to 50 percent on Greek debt holdings.

In the United States, the Senate defeated President Barack Obama’s job creation package in a sign that Washington may be too paralyzed to take major steps to spur the labor market before the 2012 elections.

CANADA BLOOMS, ITALY WILTS

Canada should see some of the strongest rates of growth compared with its G7 peers this year and next.

Although the outlook for growth has darkened in common with other major markets, its healthy banking sector and commodity-driven economy should give it an edge, with growth of around 2.2 percent seen this year and 2.4 percent in 2012.

But Italy, racked by political fighting, austerity measures and market fears about its ability to finance its debt, looks set to linger in recession well into next year, and will miss government fiscal targets.

U.S. economic growth looks likely to pick up slightly by year-end, although analysts also reined in their expectations and there is a one-in-three chance the world’s biggest economy will enter recession.

“We’ve stepped back from the abyss, the data that we’re getting suggests certainly the economy isn’t in freefall as yet,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James.

The euro zone faces a 40 percent chance of another recession as fears mount that the debt crisis will escalate further.

Analysts expect the 17-nation currency bloc to post economic growth of just 0.9 percent next year, after 1.6 percent in 2011.

“Leading indicators point to weaker economic conditions. Sentiment surveys have deteriorated across key sectors of the euro zone economy, against a backdrop of unusually high uncertainty and financial market tensions,” said Ken Wattret at BNP Paribas.

Japan, forced into recession by the March earthquake and tsunami, saw its economic outlook downgraded for a fourth consecutive month thanks partly to the escalating euro zone debt crisis.

“Japan’s exports are seen weakening in October-December due to the economic slowdown in Europe and the U.S., which would affect corporations’ capital spending,” said Yuichi Kodama, chief economist at Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance.

Still, poll respondents predicted growth will pick up to 2.2 percent over the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

(Polling by Reuters Polls Bangalore, Additional reporting and polling by reporters in bureaux in London, New York, Toronto, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Berlin; Editing by Catherine Evans)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 12:35 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Understanding anti-Malaysianism in Indonesia

— Farish A. Noor

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 14, 2011

OCT 14 — And so, as it happens time and again, there appears to be yet another diplomatic spat looming over the horizon between Malaysia and Indonesia. The cause of it, this time round, is a dispute over border-land markers somewhere in East Malaysia/Kalimantan that appear to have been moved by persons yet unknown and unidentified. Some Indonesian legislators have called for an investigation, while others have tried to ease tension by saying that spurious accusations without proof are useless at this stage.

I will not comment on the exact circumstances and details of this dispute, for I am frankly in the dark about what really happened — along with millions of other Malaysians and Indonesians. Thus far according to some accounts it has been suggested that some of the border-markers may even have been moved by Indonesians themselves, who seem to think it would be better to live in Malaysia. Should that be the case, however odd and unlikely, it would still be a legal matter that has to be investigated before any resolution can come.

My concern here has less to do with this singular issue, but rather the wider picture of Malaysia-Indonesia relations and the internal politics of both countries.

The Malaysian press has highlighted that the Malaysian embassy in Jakarta has once again been surrounded by angry members of the infamous Laskar Merah-Putih, right wing preman (gangster) types who seem to have nothing better to do than to threaten to ‘sweep’ the streets of Malaysians. These are the same Laskars who, last year, threatened to seek out and sweep Malaysian tourists in Jakarta, and whose exploits include throwing rubbish and even faeces at the Malaysian embassy compound. Needless to say such pyrotechnics do little to cool tempers, and we will recall that during a similar dispute last year the Malaysian flag was also trampled upon, spat on, torn and burned. The result was as expected, with Malaysians suddenly becoming united in a show of trumpeted patriotism and jingoism, befitting a bad slapstick comedy.

So while this latest episode meanders on at its own slow pace (to be forgotten, for sure, like all other episodes in the past), allow me to interject with some points that I think need to be borne in mind by my fellow Malaysians and Indonesians alike:

Firstly, let us remind ourselves that this is yet another political event, and like all political events it is hostage to realpolitik and political calculations and interests. It is almost a truism by now that whenever the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia are at some crisis point, they seek out external bogeymen — real and imagined — to project their own insecurities. Yes, Indonesian politicians seem to use Malaysia as a punching bag all the time, but should Malaysians be surprised by this? How many times have Malaysian politicians done the same, hitting out at the so-called ‘evil West’ (America, Australia, UK and the rest of Europe minus Monaco)? We should all be familiar with this by now, and realise that much of this is just chest-thumping and grandstanding, nothing more. Malaysian leaders have also condemned the West tirelessly, but aren’t America, UK, Australia and Europe among our most important trading allies?

Secondly, the fact that a few Indonesian politicians seem to be in a Malaysia-hating mood at the moment does not mean that all Indonesian politicians agree with them. Credit must be given to level-headed Indonesian statesmen like Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa who has called upon other politicians to get to the facts of the matter, and not play to the gallery or their rowdy followers. In the same way that one Abu Bakar Ba’asyir does not and should not be equated with the entire Muslim community, likewise a handful of hoodlums under the banner of the Laskar Merah Putih must not be seen as the public face of all Indonesia and Indonesians.

Thirdly, let us look at some real facts and figures: Malaysians and Indonesians remain the closest relatives in the wider Asean family till today. For a start millions of Malaysians (this writer included) happen to be of Indonesian origin; and we have never abandoned our friends in Indonesia next door. Look at the number of Malaysian tourists going to Indonesia and spending money there: At the peak of religious violence in 2001-2004, in the wake of the Tsunami of 2004, and even at times when Indonesia was put on ‘terror alert’ by Western agencies, Malaysian tourists and students continue to go to Indonesia because we love the country as much as our own. Others may have abandoned Indonesia when it was deemed unsafe for foreigners, but never Malaysians. The Malaysian ringgit has been instrumental in keeping up Indonesia’s tourist industry, and Malaysians in turn bring back with them happy memories, friendships and learning experiences that have enriched them too.

Fourthly, lets look at some more figures: Despite the threats of ‘sweeping Malaysians’, beating up Malaysian students, burning the Malaysian flag, etc., exactly how many Malaysians have been attacked, beaten up, abused by these right-wing groups? The figure, I believe, is zero. There are tens of thousands of Malaysians who live, work, do business and study in Indonesia. There are also thousands of Indonesians and Malaysians who happen to be married and who have mixed Indonesian-Malaysian families where the children enjoy the best of both worlds. Yet not a single Malaysian student or tourist in Indonesia has been violently attacked or killed by any of these so-called nationalist ‘mobs’. No Malaysians have been bombed or murdered. Which underscores my point that one must see beyond the rhetoric of a small number of vocal nationalists and understand the complexity of Indonesian society.

In the final analysis, Indonesia and Malaysia have a unique relationship that neither country has with any other country in Asean: We joke together, laugh together and at times even insult and abuse each other.

But consider this: How many Malaysians joke about Thailand? Or Cambodia?

And how many Indonesians joke about Laos? Or Burma?

We don’t, for the simple reason that in the subjective and relative gradations of familiarity and difference, we — Malaysians and Indonesians — know that we are infinitely much closer to each other than the rest. And talk about who is the ‘elder brother’ and the ‘younger brother’ in this relationship is equally silly and non-productive. The fact is that Indonesia and Malaysia are twins, separated at birth perhaps.

So back to the current brouhaha over the border markers in East Malaysia and Kalimantan. One hopes that in the days and weeks ahead cooler tempers on both sides will prevail and that the issue will not be played up by either side just as an expedient means to exteriorise local, domestic problems that need to be addressed anyway. I personally have little faith in some of our politicians (on both sides), for we have seen how some of them are prone to hysterics and hyperbole when they think that it might win them a vote or two.

But my faith lies elsewhere, and it is in the peoples of Malaysia and Indonesia themselves, who have shown time and again that despite the cupidity and unscrupulousness of some of our politicians, we are still more level-headed, human and humane, then those whom we have elected to high office.

As a Malaysian of distant Indonesian origins myself, I long instead to see the day when the political and ideological boundaries between the two countries will be overcome by a higher humane spirit that transcends the narrow parochialism of cheap, crass politics. May that day come sooner than later, and in the meantime, let us keep visiting, joking, shopping, loving and courting one another!

* Dr Farish Noor is a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 11:43 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why the hudud controversy will not die

by
Pak Sako

CPI

14 October 2011

PAS and DAP’s decision to ‘agree to disagree’ on hudud must be taken for what it really is: a politically-motivated temporary ceasefire.

It does not resolve the hudud controversy.

The controversy can never be resolved as long as the fundamental questions of the hudud debate continue to be avoided. The questions are:

1. What goals are hudud meant to achieve?

2. What are the pluses and minuses of hudud?

3. Do all Malaysian Muslims as well as non-Muslims want hudud?

A national dialogue on implementing hudud must exhaustively probe these questions before anything else.

An open and critical exploration of these questions will help the public learn and decide about whether hudud is necessary, worthwhile, appropriate or out-of-date. It will enable policymakers to discover whether the informed public desires hudud or not.

Without full public discussion and public consent, it is immoral for policymakers to presuppose the value of hudud and speak about its implementation. It is also wrong to assume that a simple parliamentary majority (which is all that is needed) is an automatic mandate to incrementally amend the Constitution to accommodate hudud.

The public on their part should not leave it the politicians, the religious scholars or the royalty to decide matters for them. The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what’s best for society; they have a personal or biased interest in the matter; and it is undemocratic to allow the preferences of these vested interest groups to influence a decision that should be in the hands of the people.

The politician’s role should be confined to satisfying the independently determined wish of the people. If after careful deliberation the people choose to reject hudud, this decision must be respectfully accepted. The Islamic theologians are useful insofar as they can provide the evaluating public with technical input, such as the scope, workings and other details of hudud. Likewise with the political scientists and other relevant experts.

All members of the public including interest groups and civil society organisations should thrash out the questions about the purposes and worth of hudud. The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious ‘bad Muslim’ stigma that could prevent them from saying ‘no’ to hudud when ‘no’ is what they truly desire. As for the non-Muslims, they are not free to wash their hands of the issue; they are responsible parties to any law that the politicians they had elected might enact and administer upon their fellow citizens.

PAS and all other proponents of hudud have a special obligation to explain the explicit and implicit aims they believe hudud is to serve and the rationales for these. They must engage in discussions about the value of hudud and the problems and concerns associated with it. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proposers of the law.

What is unacceptable is for hudud advocates to justify hudud purely on grounds of religious faith and conviction. Statements such as ‘hudud is ordained by Allah’, ‘it is our duty as Muslims to implement hudud no matter what’ and ‘nobody on Earth can be fair, only Allah knows best’ are useless for assessing the strengths, weaknesses, impact and relevance of a law with far-reaching consequences for the lives of both Muslims and non-Muslims. If hudud is God’s gift, let it stand on its own merit. A thorough assessment of the desirability (or undesirability) of hudud should be welcomed, not feared.

Issuing gag orders on hudud, sidestepping core hudud issues and whitewashing hudud-related statements — these are the behaviours of political plotters and ideologues for whom having things their way is more important than doing things right.

If PAS and DAP — and the Barisan Nasional too — truly hold the interest of the Malaysian people at heart, they should push for a national conversation that focuses on the core of the matter, that is, the pros and cons of hudud and whether the people want it or not. To refuse to talk it out is to leave the door open to tyranny.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 October 2011, 11:29 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
Islamic state
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s Muhyiddin who should be grateful

— Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 16, 2011

OCT 16 — You know elections are around the corner when the politicians start telling the electorate that we should be grateful for all the development around us. It is incredible that these Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians still make all these patronising noises, knowing full well how tired we are of listening to their rubbish.

But since we are on the subject of gratitude, let me offer a number of reasons why Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (yesterday for the umpteenth time he advised Malaysians to be grateful) and friends should be grateful to us.

1. BN should be grateful that they are still occupying Putrajaya despite clear evidence of corruption, nepotism and cronyism at the highest levels of government, including members of the Cabinet.

So tolerant are Malaysians that we have put up with leakages, inflated contracts and ostentatious displays of wealth by members of the Mahathir administration, the Abdullah team and the Najib government. We have put up with all this corruption in the name of development. So Muhyiddin and friends should be grateful to us for our blind loyalty and apathy.

2. BN should be grateful to us for tolerating and even embracing mediocrity. Malaysia’s best and brightest are deserting the land of their birth as evidenced by a World Bank study which showed that more skilled Malaysians are working and living abroad.

And this brain drain has affected every level of society. Not surprising that we have the likes of Hishammuddin Hussein, Noh Omar, Kong Chong Ha as “our leaders” and continue accepting mediocrity as a fait accompli.

3. BN should be grateful to us for accepting stock and hollow answers to some serious questions such as who exactly ordered the RM24 million ring; how a lowly corporal was able to order riot police to fire tear gas and chemical-laced water into Tung Shin Hospital and how did we pluck out the figure of six per cent growth next year with the whole world preparing for economic Armageddon.

4. We should be grateful to Muhyiddin and friends for introducing race politics and playing the race and religious card at every turn and making Malaysia more divisive than ever. Thank you guys from the bottom of our hearts. We are grateful.

5. We are grateful to Muhyiddin and gang for flooding this land of ours with illegals and then giving them legitimacy for political purposes. The people of Sabah especially say a big thank you to you for completely swamping the state with foreigners.

6. We are grateful to BN for nurturing and developing individuals like Ibrahim Ali and Nazri Aziz. We would be a much poorer country without them.

In conclusion, we have much to be thankful to BN for. So let’s show them our gratitude soon.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 October 2011, 2:31 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Political ploy or genuine democratisation?

2. The undemocratic clampdown on July 9 peaceful Bersih 2.0 rally for fair, free and clean elections.

Democratic and political transformation must be furthest from the mind of a government which could mount the undemocratic  clampdown on the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally for free, fair and clean elections, launching mass arrests, locking down the Federal Capital and irresponsibly, indiscriminately and recklessly firing tear gas and chemically-laced water cannon at peaceful and patriotic demonstrators, including Pakatan Rakyat and Bersih 2.0 leaders.

The weeks before and after the historic Bersih 2.0 rally were undoubtedly the worst period for Datuk Seri Najib Razak since becoming the sixth Malaysian Prime Minister 27 months ago in April 2009 – his greatest failure of leadership which made him the object of ridicule and scorn not only in the country but also internationally, and forcing him to cut short his overseas trip.

Are Malaysians to believe that it was during this period that Najib had a sudden change of heart as to be converted to the agenda to democratisation and political transformation resulting in the establishment of the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms and the announcements on the repeal or amendment of repressive undemocratic laws like the Internal Security Act?

Or are these political ploys to recover lost political and electoral ground as a result of the gross misjudgement and mishandling of the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally – without any real political intention or will to set in motion a full democratisation process in the country?

Time will soon tell. If the next general elections is held without far-reaching changes to the electoral laws and system in the country by ensuring that there would be a clean and comprehensive electoral roll where every eligible voter whether inside or outside country is able to vote on polling day, an end to phantom and illegal voters, eradication of electoral frauds and abuses especially postal ballots and money politics, the acceptance of the concept of a caretaker government between dissolution of Parliament and Polling Day and end to misuse of government funds, resources and personnel for electioneering purposes, fair access to media by contesting candidates and parties, the Barisan Nasional government will stand exposed as being insincere and dishonest in wanting a free, fair and free elections system for the 13th General Elections.

This applies also to the removal of the arsenal of arbitrary and repressive laws which deny Malaysians their fundamental liberties and human rights – not just repeal of the Internal Security Act, but also  draconian legislation or provisions whether  Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Police Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, the Universities and University Colleges Act, etc.

Speech (3) in Parliament on the 2012 Budget on Monday 17th October 2011

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 October 2011, 3:33 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Budget Debate
,
Elections
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Judicial tribunal for AG and Ct of Appeal judge

b) Judicial tribunal into serious allegations of graft and abuse of power against Attorney-General Abdul Ghani Patail

In the past few months, many serious allegations of graft and abuse of power had been made against the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail notably by the former Kuala Lumpur CID Chief Mat Zain Ibrahim in a series of open letters, former MACC panel member Tan Sri Robert Phang and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

These allegations included falsifying facts and evidence in Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s infamous “black eye” incident in 1998, the graft case against Shahidan Shafie and the judicial abuses in the Altantunya Shaaribuu murder trial.

Unless Gani Patail take legal action against these allegations, the Prime Minister should set up a tribunal to clear the name of the Attorney-General as these are very serious allegations which if unrebutted can only undermine public confidence in the professionalism, independence and integrity of the Attorney-General but also key national institutions, including the judiciary, the police and the MACC.

© Substantive motion to set up tribunal to investigate judicial misconduct of Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abdul Malik bin  Ishak on plagiarism should be given priority for debate and decision

For the first time, there is a substantive motion in Parliament  as required under Article 127 of the Federal Constitution stipulating support by not less than the total number of MPs in Parliament as a precondition for parliamentary discussion of conduct of judge.

In this case, the motion by the DAP MP for Bukit Glugor Karpal Singh to refer  Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Abdul Malik bin Ishak to a tribunal to investigate serious charges of plagiarism against Abdul Malik  and to suspend him for three months while awaiting the outcome of the tribunal has met the requisite notice of having the support of 59 MPs.

I call on the Prime Minister to give top priority for this substantive motion on a Court of Apeal Judge to be debated and decided and not left to “die” on the House Order Paper which will lapse and be ignored if the government does not agree to allocate parliamentary time for debate.

Najib talks about wanting to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world”. He should start by respecting the most elementary practices in established Parliaments in developed democracies – in this case, accept that there are parliamentary business like the motion for a tribunal to investigate into the Court of Appeal judge -which are given parliamentary priority regardless of who is the government of the day as they impinge directly on doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.

Can the Prime Minister state when he would agree to allow MPs to debate and  decide on the judicial substantive motion for a tribunal on the serious charge of plagiarism against Justice Abdul  Malik – or whether he would be using the subterfuge of the government deciding on allocation and use of parliamentary time by killing the motion by denying time to debate the substantive motion?

d.Government withholding of Auditor-General’s Reports in time for budget debate latest proof that Najib’s government is not walking the talk of government and economic transformations.

The Government withholding of the Auditor-General’s Reports in time for budget debate is the latest proof that the Najib government is not walking the talk of government and economic transformations.

The promise in the  various transformation programmes that “well-governed and leaner government institutions will be held accountable to performance-based outcomes in line with the GTP.” were all broken in one blow when the Auditor-General’s Reports were not made available to MPs for the budget debate.

The only reason why the Auditor-General’s Reports are not ready to be tabled in time for the budget debate, although the Auditor-General’s Reports for this year had been completed earlier than last year’s reports, is clearly to deny MPs the opportunity to highlight government and budgetary weaknesses, failings, abuses of power and misappropriations.

It is proof that the government is regressing instead of progressing despite all the talk of GTP, ETP and now PTP!

Speech (5) in Parliament on the 2012 Budget on Monday 17th October 2011

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 October 2011, 4:04 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Budget Debate
,
Constitution
,
Good Governance
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


5 transformation measures for Malaysia

Proposals which would have given meaning to 2012 Budget as a National Transformation Policy

The theme of of the 2012 Budget is: “National Transformation Policy: Welfare for the Rakyat, Wellbeing of the Nation.”

It is supposed to be a very important budget as it is open up a new decade of National Transformation Policy or DTN effective from 2011 to 2020 when Malaysia is to become developed and high-income nation.

The National Transformation Policy is the final lap of development policies starting with the New Economic Policy 1971-1990, National Development Policy 1991-2000 and the national Vision Policy 2001-2010.

But is there “transformational” in the 2012 Budget which is to usher in a decade of transformation in Malaysia? I can’t find anything transformational or even visionary at all.

If the 2012 Budget is a transformational one ushering a decade of transformations to make Malaysia increasingly  competitive, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous, then it would have contained all or most of the following policies and programmes:

1. Affirmative policies based on meritocracy and need.

2. Open Tenders for all government contracts.

3. No Tolerance for Corruption with ll-out war against corruption, without  or favour – starting with Sarawak and Sabah with establishment of special anti-corruption task force in each state.

4. Taking immediate steps to restore public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of the key national institution s – esp. Judiciary, AG’s office, Police, MACC and Election Commission.

5. Increase of oil royalties from 5% to 20% for the oil royalties – with the 20% oil royalty for Sabah and Sarawak devoted  to the welfare and wellbeing of the ordinary Sabahans and Sarawakians and not for he benefit of a handful  of powerful people in the two states.

Speech (6) in Parliament on the 2012 Budget on Monday 17th October 2011

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 October 2011, 4:11 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Oil
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysian confidence dives as global recovery ends, says survey

By Lee Wei Lian

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 — The largest-ever global survey of finance professionals by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) shows that all signs of the global economic recovery have disappeared.

The confidence level in Malaysia also deteriorated markedly in the survey as out of 222 finance professionals who responded in Malaysia, only eight per cent reported confidence gains, down from 20 per cent in the last quarter, and 77 per cent believe the global economy is either stagnating or deteriorating compared with 54 per cent.

In terms of the global outlook, three-quarters of the 2,873 professionals who took part in the Global Economic Conditions Survey between August 19 and September 7, 2011 thought global economic conditions were deteriorating or stagnating.

The ACCA’s global business confidence index returned a reading of -34 for the third quarter of 2011, down from -8 in the previous quarter.

It said that based on past observations, a reading lower than -14 should indicate that the developed world is slipping into negative growth.

Nearly half or 49 per cent of respondents meanwhile had lost confidence in the economic prospects of their own organisations, while 45 per cent thought their governments were not dealing correctly with current economic challenges.

ACCA country head Jennifer Lopez said the pessimistic outlook on the future was understandable given how inter-connected the current world economy is and the persistence of the economic crises in the Eurozone and the US.

“Having led the global recovery in 2010, there are high expectations that Asia will continue to do so,” she said in a press release today. “Unfortunately, a lot about the economy is psychological and the gloom and doom sentiment in the West has clearly made an impact in Malaysia.”

The ACCA said however that much of the drop in confidence, especially in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, is down to a flow of bad news rather than the economic fundamentals, which have deteriorated only slightly in the past three months.

Manos Schizas, senior policy adviser with the ACCA and survey editor, said that the weakening in demand and deteriorating access to finance reported by accountants were not sharp enough to justify the strong negative sentiment which they expressed.

He added however that after taking into account the effects that fear for the future will have on their views, the evidence still points to falling economic activity in the developed nations and a sharp slowdown in emerging economies.

“Now more than ever, it is important to look beyond the extreme sentiments and focus on the economic fundamentals,” said Lopez.

Malaysia was in the middle of the pack when it came to the ACCA’s confidence index at 47.7 per cent, which was better than Singapore and Hong Kong at -55.6 and -50.4 per cent respectively but worse than Australia and the UK at -34.9 and 40.8 per cent respectively.

The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) last week cut to 4.6 per cent, from 5.2 per cent, its projection for the country’s economic growth this year, citing a sliding global economy that it said could hurt exports.

While the Najib administration has projected a growth rate of 5-6 per cent for 2012, many research houses have downgraded their growth outlook to between 3-5 per cent.

RHB Research Institute said last week that Malaysia’s economic growth could slow to just 3.6 per cent next year, from a projected 4.3 per cent this year due to the increasing risk of a double dip global recession.

Bank of America Global Research predicted Malaysia’s GDP to grow at 4.2 per cent in 2012 while Maybank Investment Bank said it expected Malaysia’s GDP to expand at between 3.5 and four per cent, and CIMB Investment Bank forecast a GDP growth of 3.8 per cent next year.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 October 2011, 7:18 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s many firsts in 2012 Budget

Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 2012 Budget achieved many “firsts” in Malaysian parliamentary and budgetary history.

First, it beat all the other 53 budgets since 1957 in being the greatest cornucopia of goodies for votes in the forthcoming 13th general elections to reach out for voter support from a whole swathe of targetted groups comprising important vote-banks.

Second,  it ranks at the most brazen and cynical budget exercise chalking up the highest Federal Government debt in history – set to break the  RM500 billion mark next year, when for 2011, the Federal government debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio of 53.8% has increased by 12% from RM 407 billion 2010 (i.e. 53.1% of  GDP) to RM456 billion in 2011.

After 13 consecutive years of budget deficit, the Federal Government debt has increased by leaps and bounds – more than quadrupling from RM103 billion in 1998 when it was 38.3% to GDP to RM455.7 billion in 2011 or 53.8% to GDP.

Thirdly, in painting an overly-rosy picture of the economic future without taking into realistic account  the grim international picture.

Never before has any budget met with so many “nay sayers” among economists, market analysts and even banks with regard to its projections of economic growth, dismissing Najib’s growth figures as too high.

The leading “nay sayer” is the RHB Research Institute whose growth projection is significantly lower than Najib’s forecast of five to six per cent for 2012 – warning that Malaysia’s economic growth could slow to just 3.6 per cent next year from a projected 4.3 per cent this year due to the increasing risk of a double dip global recession.

The research house said that the risk of a double-dip global recession is high and rising as both the US and Europe cannot withstand another shock although a recession could be averted if leaders in both continents act fast enough to contain the debt crises and avert a contagion that could lead to a complete meltdown in confidence.

Bank of America Global Research estimated Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP) to grow at 4.2 per cent in 2012 while Maybank Investment Bank said it expected Malaysia’s GDP to expand at between 3.5-4 per cent. CIMB Investment Bank forecast a GDP growth of 3.8 per cent next year.

Writing on Najib’s  “rosy growth projections” in his 2012 Budget, commentator Ong Kian Ming warned:

“If nominal GDP growth rates for 2011 and 2012 were cut by between 1% to 2%, the projected government deficit to nominal GDP would increase to 5.3% to 5.6% from the 4.7% announced. This can easily increase to beyond 6.0% if a supplementary budget of RM10b is passed after the 2012 Budget, especially if another ‘stimulus’ package is seen to be needed.”

Fourthly, another “first” for the 2012 Budget is that it is probably the most misleading and deceptive when compared to all the previous  budgets.  Its theme is “National Transformation Policy: Welfare for the Rakyat, Well-being for the Nation” but it has failed in effecting any national  transformation to pave the way for Malaysia to become a developed and high-income nation by 2020.

This is because the inequitable and corrupt system which bred decades of injustice, inequality and exploitation remains completely untouched.

The 2012 Budget is designed to win the next general elections for Najib and not to reform and transform the country’s system, structures and institutions to end the rot which has seen Malaysia losing out in international competitiveness and being overtaken by more and more countries in national, economic and human resource development including in South East Asia.

Speech (1) in Parliament on the 2012 Budget on Monday 17th October 2011

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 October 2011, 3:15 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.