Why should MCA interfere with Utar?

by
NH Chan

Centre for Policy Initiatives

06 October 2010

Human nature is such that there are two kinds of human behaviour when it comes to charity – the pretentious and the altruistic donor. I have always doubted the sincerity of those who give to charity by proclaiming it under the flashbulbs of press photographers. In these amusing photo ops, you see the donors posing with an enormous mock cheque to emphasize the size of the donation. If you’re truly charitable, why not dispense with the fanfare and write the amount on a normal cheque?

Having said this, I can now tell you about the truly altruistic gesture of philanthropist Koon Yew Yin. He made an offer of RM30 million, quite gratuitously, for the building of hostels for University Tunku Abdul Raman (Utar) students in Kampar.

Ever since the university was founded, its students have had to find their own accommodation outside campus. In many cases, they have to pay exorbitant rents far beyond the means of poor or even middle- class students.

The generosity of Koon was brought to my attention by the unflattering headline ‘Tycoon wanted seat on council’ in theSun (Sept 3, 2010). The article’s sub-headline was ‘Koon also wanted Utar residential village named after him, says MCA division chief’.

The MCA division chief in question, Ipoh Timur’s Thong Fah Chong, had said Koon’s requests were not acceptable as they had “exceeded the university’s jurisdiction and [could be] deemed an interference in the management of the university”. Thong added that hostels could not be named at one’s whim and fancy.

In his immediate response, Koon countered that although it was correct that while the facility was to be named after him, what he had specified was that the hostel blocks should be named after the fundamental rights such as Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Freedom, or the qualities of integrity such as honesty, justice, etc.

Koon also categorically denied he had ever requested a seat on the Utar council, clarifying instead that he had agreed to Utar’s counter-proposal for a task force to oversee the construction of the hostels.

He said his requests, including for a seven-man task force (four from Utar and three to be nominated by him) to oversee the construction of the hostels, and for all construction contracts exceeding RM10,000 to be open to competitive tenders, were to ensure everything was done in the interest of the students. He said it was not meant to interfere with the management of the university.

It’s common practice

One may ask, why should the Ipoh Timur MCA division chief Thong Fah Chong (left) criticize the well-meaning and generous offer of RM30 million by a good Samaritan?

Thong even questioned the motive of Koon for his offer of substantial financial assistance to Utar. He accused Koon of wanting to sit on the council of the university. This is a false accusation. It is not true because Thong has admitted that “late last year he had … arranged for the philanthropist to meet the then president of the MCA … but he was not aware of what transpired at the meeting apart from the request”.

If he was unaware of what took place at the meeting, then how could he say that Koon wanted to sit on the university council?

Furthermore, why should a member of the MCA interfere with an offer of a donation to the university?

Should it not be left to the university to accept or not accept the offer without having to cast aspersions on the motive of the donor? If you must refuse the offer, surely it is polite to refuse it graciously? But the way it has been handled by Thong as the representative of the MCA has reflected badly on the upbringing of the man as well as on the sincerity of the association.

Not surprisingly, Koon has now withdrawn his offer? Can you blame him? Anyone in Koon’s shoes would have done the same thing.

A celebrated English lawyer of the 18th century, William Blackstone, was the first Vinerian Professor of Law in Oxford University, as was the renowned Geoffrey Cheshire later. The law professorship was named after a certain Mr Viner who had endowed on Oxford a large sum of money.

For his offered RM30 million, Koon did not even ask for a professorship to be named after him. All he asked was for any eventual profits from the hostel rental in future to be overseen by a foundation in his name, and for this foundation to disburse scholarships and other forms of assistance to Utar students.

And what is so wrong for the donor to establish a foundation in his name to oversee the utilization of his donation? Alfred Bernhard Nobel, 1833-96, Swedish chemist, engineer, and philanthropist – noted for his invention of dynamite (1866) – is a household name today for his bequest to the foundation awarding the Nobel prizes.

But in Malaysia, Utar and MCA vilified Koon for demanding accountability and transparency in how the university and its authorities from the political party would manage his RM30 million. Their action sinks my opinion of the MCA to an even lower level.

Students become innocent victims

After I retired from the bench in the year 2000, I returned to Ipoh. Here I met Thong who became a friend. Later I befriended Koon during the height of the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009.

Today I have lost respect for my erstwhile friend Thong because he tried to gain political mileage by vilifying poor Koon, an unpretentious retired engineer whose only sin – if you can call that a sin – is to offer RM30 million to build hostels for students.

Koon earned my respect and admiration because he was concerned with the plight of the thousands of students who face the uncertainty of not being able to find decent lodgings and having to pay extortionate rents to unscrupulous landlords besides. Since Utar students must seek accommodation outside campus, the private house owners in the vicinity have taken advantage of the situation.

If you’ve been reading the Ipoh Echo – a fortnightly free newspaper – you will have noticed that for several months now the paper carries an advertisement of Koon Yew Yin’s offer of scholarships to poor students.

Koon has given scholarships to about 70 deserving students for the last three-and-a-half years and most of them are studying in Utar. The only repayment required of the recipients is their word — a promise that when they’re financially secure after graduation, they will in turn help other poor students.

Just for this year alone, the Koon Yew Yin scholarships are worth a total RM1 million, of which some three-quarters of the sum has been approved to those applicants who passed their interviews. This itself is a large amount of money to be coming from a single Malaysian individual, and furthermore one who does not bond the students to work for him.

Yet there are some people in politics – in the MCA for instance – who are wary or envious of the unpretentious and well-meaning millionaire.

There is really more to why Utar and its political masters did not accept the donation of RM30 million from Koon, but I won’t dwell on the matter here.

But perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from the withdrawal of Koon’s offer more than one year after it was made.

With these dubious episodes occurring, you can understand why I choose to be apolitical. But for the young students who have nothing to do with politics and the parents who have to worry about their children’s living environment the first time away from home, it is a disappointing lesson learned with some sad poignancy.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 October 2010, 8:03 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
NH Chan
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #35

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 5:  Understanding Globalization

Foreign Investments in the Third World

 Countries like Malaysia that were once colonized are rightly sensitive about their independence.  Thus they tend to look upon foreigners, including investors, with suspicion.  The typical Third World initial experience with foreign investors had been with companies of imperial powers.  These companies were concerned primarily with plantations and extractive industries.  In Malaysia they were involved in rubber plantations and tin mining.  The exploitative nature of such investments was quite obvious.  Rubber, tin, and other precious commodities were exported to Britain where they were turned into high-value manufactured goods and then sold back in Malaysia and elsewhere at exorbitant prices.  Meanwhile the rubber tappers and tin miners were paid pittance for their efforts.  The bulk of the profits were kept in Britain with little if any repatriated to Malaysia.  No wonder such investments became easy targets for the nationalists.

             Even though those early investments were clearly lopsided and exploitative (asymmetric, to use a modern phrase), nonetheless Malaysia benefited immensely.  First, the country would never have known that it was capable of growing rubber had the British not started the plantations.  Rubber is not indigenous to the country; the British brought the seedlings from South America via London’s Kew Gardens.

             Second, such investments ushered the nation into the world economy.  Thus events in other parts of the world impacted Malaysia.  Conflicts in the Korean Peninsula in the 1950s resulted in a heightened demand for rubber and the consequent bonanza for Malaysian rubber producers.  But it was short lived.  With the discovery of synthetic rubber, the bloom was off.  Tin too enjoyed an unchallenged market for a while until the ready availability of aluminum brought on by cheap hydroelectric power adversely affected the industry.  Now “tin” cans are made of aluminum, and the market for tin collapsed.

             For Malaysia these new industries also added a new and volatile political dimension:  massive immigrations and the consequent race problems.  Pressed by the need for cheap labor, thousands of penniless foreign coolies from China and India were imported, saddling the country with ethnic problems that it is only now beginning to come to terms.

             As an aside, we should not blame the British in this regard; economic necessity dictated it.  Decades later, independent Malaysia too had to import literally millions of cheap foreign labor to man its industries.  Economic dynamics do not recognize race or ethnicity.  Employers, local or foreign, native or colonial, always look for lowering the costs of production, and if that involves cheap foreign labor, so be it.  In this regard present-day Malaysian political leaders are behaving very much like their earlier colonial masters whom they despised and severely criticized for making decisions based on short-term economic considerations and oblivious of the long-term social consequences.

             With the lopsided nature of these early investments, it did not take long for ambitious native politicians to exploit the issue.  These colonialists were now also hated as capitalists, out to exploit workers and natives (the two were often synonymous) all in the name of profits.  All the good that these companies had done for the host country were forgotten in the nationalists’ rhetoric.  The natives had conveniently forgotten that before those rubber plantations came into being, the landscape was nothing but impenetrable jungle.  As for the tin, it remained buried underground.

             Not surprisingly, with independence the first order of business for these new leaders was to nationalize these industries.  They were visible reminders of colonial power as well as symbols of the exploitation of workers (read:  natives).  Besides, many of these leaders, having been trained at such elite institutions as the London School of Economics, were enamored with central planning and state socialism.  They figured that they could run these industries better than the colonialists.  The results, as we can now see so readily in Zimbabwe and Zambia, are disastrous.  Once productive factories are now rusting under the tropical sun, and the ever-aggressive jungles now reclaim once thriving plantations.

             Malaysia took a slightly more sophisticated route but the end results were the same.  Instead of outright nationalization, it used its various state corporations to trigger corporate takeovers of these publicly listed colonial companies.  Seasoned foreign managers were replaced by less-than-competent but politically powerful local operatives.  To cite one particularly outrageous example, Ghaffar Baba, a top UMNO functionary but a man singularly lacking in experience or training in business or management, was made in charge of some of these blue-chip companies.  Today not only is he a discredited politician, but he had been named in at least two personal bankruptcy suits.  So much for his financial acumen!  Sadly there are many Ghaffar Babas out there.  Once great names in plantations (Guthrie, Socfin) and mining (Idris Hyraulic, Rahman) are today nothing but hollow corporations, more concerned with developing their real estate holdings than expanding their core expertise.

             The next experience with foreign investors was during the pioneer industrialization phase in the decade following independence.  These were aimed primarily at import substitution, to save foreign exchange.  These second wave of investors were greatly welcomed as they were readily seen as contributing directly to the nation’s well being, first by producing much-needed consumer goods locally, and second for their export earnings.  So enamored were Third World countries with these investments that they introduced various incentives to lure investors, including guarantees of a protected home market and generous tax incentives.

             This Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) mindset was popular in the 1950s and 60s in tandem with the dependencia thinking.  This mindset looked upon trade as a “zero-sum” exercise:  developed countries’ gain must of necessity be at the expense of developing countries.  These “infant” industries were thus protected by tariffs to prevent “unfair” competition from well-established foreign firms.  It did not take long for these protected industries to ante their demands, which were readily acceded to by a corrupt government.  Insulated from the rigors and discipline of the marketplace, these companies would soon become flabby and non-competitive, their products expensively priced but shoddy.

 Despite such outcomes, countries like Malaysia remain addicted to such protective instincts, inspired by the apparent successes of Japan and other East Asian countries that had instituted similar protective barriers.  I say apparent because today these countries have lost much of their luster.  The then prevailing view was that because of the protection afforded, their “infant” industries were able to develop gradually and learned from their mistakes.  From those tentative steps in an insulated environment, they were then able to grow and then take on the world.

             We all remember the crude jokes of the 1950s and 1960s on what “Made in Japan” implied!  Today nobody remembers those ugly jibes anymore.  If Japan had not protected those industries, so the argument went, they would not have had a chance to mature into their present highly competitive stature.

             Indeed Japan’s success spawned many imitators, especially Malaysia.  So impressed was Malaysia that Mahathir started a “Look East” policy in the early 1980’s to ape the Japanese.  Come the 1990s however, Japan was a bust, its industries moribund and economy sputtering.

             What gives?  I will pursue this analysis in the next section.

 Next:
Missing the Japanese Lesson

                This entry was posted on Friday, 8 October 2010, 11:28 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Notice for urgent parliamentary debate on racial slurs by school headmasters

I have given notice to Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin for an emergency debate in Parliament on Monday on the 57-day government inaction on racial slurs by two headmasters against students in school which make a mockery of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s international calls for moderates against extremists and his “zero tolerance for racism” and 1Malaysia policy.

The motion  I have sent to the Speaker under Dewan Rakyat Standing Orders 18(2) reads:

“Bahawa Dewan mengizinkan YB Lim Kit Siang, Ahli Parlimen Ipoh Timor untuk menangguhkan Dewan mengikut Peraturan Mesyuarat 18(1) untuk merundingkan perkara tertentu berkenaan kepentingan orang ramai yang berkehendaki disegerakan, iaitu dua orang guru besar dari Kulai, Johor dan Bukit Selambau, Kedah yang melafazkan kata-kata racis dan menghina terhadap pelajar-pelajar mereka di sekolah dalam bulan Ogos tahun ini, sehingga kini tidak dikutuk atau diambil tindakan displin sekeras-kerasnya oleh pihak yang berkenaan selaras dengan semangat 1Malaysia.

“Dua bulan selepas guru-guru besar dari Kulai dan Bukit Selambau berkenaan – yang antara lain, melabelkan pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu di sekolah mereka sebagai ‘pendatang’, menggesa pejalar-pelajar kaum Cina supaya ‘balik Cina’, serta membandingkan benang sembahyang yang dipakai oleh pelajar beragama Hindu sebagai pengikat anjing – menunjukkan sikap racis tidak sejajar dengan jawatan mereka sebagai pendidik yang berkredibel, Timbalan Perdana Menteri serta Menteri Pelajaran masih berkeras bahawa beliau tidak berdaya mengambil tindakan untuk memperbetulkan keadaan, sebaliknya mengizinkan kedua-dua guru besar yang berkenaan meneruskan tugas mereka seperti sediakala. Di samping itu, Ketua Pengarah Kementerian Pendidikan yang mengeluarkan pekeliling kepada semua guru-guru besar dan guru-guru dalam bulan Ogos untuk memberikan amaran bahawa ‘tindakan akan dikenakan ke atas mereka yang mengeluarkan kata-kata racis di sekolah’, tidak pula mengenakan tindakan displin ke atas kedua-dua guru besar yang berkenaan sehingga kini, menunjukkan tidak ujud iltizam politik atau falsafah pentadbiran yang betul dalam negara ini untuk membanteras ketaasuban perkauman.

“Semua ini merupakan sindiran langsung terhadap tema hari kebangsaan tahun ini iaitu ‘1 Malaysia Menjana Transformasi’ serta membelakangkan perisytiharan ‘toleransi sifar terhadap rasisma’ Perdana Menteri sendiri.

“Pada masa apabila Perdana Menteri cuba mengamalkan dasar ‘1Malaysia, Rakyat Didahulukan, Pencapaian Didahulukan’, seluruh pasukan pentadbiran beliau nampaknya tidak serius langsung terhadap dasar berkenaan, malah lebih cenderung untuk mendahulukan budaya rasis Biro Tata Negara – atau lebih tepat sekali, Biro Tentang Negara – yang meracuni generasi muda dan para pendidik kita selama ini dengan mesej rasis yang songsang dan lebih merupakan ‘Trojan Horse’ dalam usaha kita mencapai perpaduan negara.

“Perdana Menteri yang baru pulang dari Mesyuarat Asia-Eropak Ke-lapan di Brussels telah membangkitkan sekali lagi gesaan beliau di Perhimpunan Agong Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu baru-baru ini supaya diujudkan pergerakan sederhana global semua agama yang memainkan peranan penting di dunia yang kini menghadapi ancaman melampau. Gesaan ini sesuai sekali diulangi di negara kita sendiri yang kini semakin terancam oleh anasir-anasir ketaasuban rasis dan pelampau agama yang mengancam ketenteraman negara serta menggoncang semangat majmuk yang merupakan batu asas Malaysia.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 8 October 2010, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Ku Li’s words get in the way in Galas?

By
Yow Hong Chieh
The Malaysian Insider

ANALYSIS

Oct 9, 2010

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah will lead the Barisan Nasional (BN) bid to recapture the Galas state seat in the November 4 by-election, campaigning for a party that has sidelined him over the years.

The Kelantan prince has not minced his words with Umno, with his latest battle centred on oil royalty payments for his home state.

The PAS state government has taken the matter to court and Tengku Razaleigh said today it would be sub-judice to mention it, when he accepted the task of leading the BN election campaign.

He will finalise the campaign details on Monday with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, his opponent for the Umno presidency.

In campaigning for Umno, the politician popularly known as Ku Li will have to live down his various speeches and quotes on issues that are at odds with the party.

Among them:

On Umno’s failings and the need for party reform:

• “The rot in Umno is has gone so deep that it requires wholesale structural reform.” (Five proposals for Umno, razaleigh.com; February 1, 2009)

• “Corruption is the scourge of the country. Umno is a step away from being identified with that scourge.” (Better to lose the battle, razaleigh.com; October 11, 2009)

• “The nomination quota is an undemocratic and unconstitutional restriction. It is against the founding spirit of the party, which was open and grassroots driven.” (What is Umno changing?, The Nut Graph; October 13, 2009)

• “Today’s Umno, under its present leadership, is probably beyond reform. Our leaders are the problem, and they have structured the party, bullied and bought it, so that they cannot be replaced by those who would lead to serve.” (Umno then and now, razaleigh.com; February 13, 2009)

• “The party succession is now dominated by ethnic champions or party warlords with little else to qualify them to govern a plural society with a sophisticated, trade-oriented economy.” (On victory, consensual leadership and reversion to form, razaleigh.com; February 23, 2009)

• “Unable to respond to the reality that the BN formula is broken and the people want more than ethno-religious politics, the ruling party appears to be reacting by digging itself deeper into narrow racial causes with no future in them.” (Malaysia’s regime crisis, race politics and the kalimah Allah issue, ISEAS Regional Outlook Forum, Singapore; January 7, 2010)

• “Without Chinese support, Umno would be like PAS in the days when it seemed like a local party of Kelantan: an exclusively Malay party strong in some localities but irrelevant nationally.” (On the MCA EGM, razaleigh.com; October 11, 2009)

On government corruption and mismanagement:

• “Corruption has become institutionalized in our political system. It is ruining this country.”(Let ministers declare their assets, razaleigh.com; August 2, 2010)

• “We have a political class unwilling or unable to address the central issue of the day because they have grown fat and comfortable with a system built on lies and theft.” (Fourth Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit, Kuala Lumpur; July 31, 2010)

• “1 Malaysia is empty because it is propagated by a government supported by a racially-based party system that is the chief cause of our inability to grow up in our race relations.” (Fourth Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit, Kuala Lumpur; July 31, 2010)

On the Kelantan oil royalties issue:

• “The federal government’s refusal to pay Kelantan, and it’s arbitrary treatment of Terengganu’s oil money – on and off according to whether the state was in Opposition hands – is in violation of a solemn contract, sealed in an Act of Parliament, between the State governments  and Petronas… This is an attack on the right of the people to choose their own government within our system of parliamentary democracy.” (Conversations on the Constitution; March 11, 2010)

On the Perak constitutional crisis:

• “The BN’s takeover of Perak has set off a chain-reaction of illegality which has left Perak quite possibly without a legitimate government. One of our most prosperous states has been reduced to a failed state.” (Cascasing illegality, razaleigh.com; March 4, 2009)

• “The farcical circumstances of these defections, complete with mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and implausible explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.” (The longer term, razaleigh.com; February 5, 2009)

• “To remove and install governments in any other way is to violate the Constitution, erode the rule of law, and to run the risk of forming an illegal government… Legitimate authority can only be established through the democratic means spelled out in our constitution.” (The rule of law, razaleigh.com; February 5, 2009)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 9 October 2010, 9:16 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A plea for sanity over Perak DAP crisis

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

Perak DAP leaders must try, if they possibly can, to subordinate their personal ambitions and put the interests of the party above all else. The unseemly internal squabbling over local leadership is already causing considerable damage to the reputation of the DAP which has earned for itself, over the years in the face of great odds, enormous goodwill and credibility. Do you think it fair to put all the hard work and personal sacrifices of thousands of party members at risk to satisfy your craving for personal glory and power?

What has happened to the declaration of high-minded devotion to duty in the public interest? DAP does not exist in isolation. It is a vital part of the nation’s social, political and economic mosaic in a vibrant tangle of races, cultures and religions. We have as a party derived legitimacy from our consistency of purpose for the greatest good of the people of Malaysia. It is the height of lunacy to jeopardise what we have achieved so far and the party’s future prospects by greed-driven, irresponsible, behaviour.

While I concede that leadership infighting is the norm in politics, I suggest it is a luxury we can ill afford as we strive desperately to build a reputation for consistency, reliability and credibility. Our party must by our actions demonstrate that we put great store by principled leadership, and that individually as well as collectively, we are above pettiness of mind, deceit and greed. In other words we are a party motivated solely by considerations of service before self. We are different in the values we embrace; values that we believe can make a positive difference to the process of transformation so vitally important to ensure a sustainable future for ALL Malaysians.

Our most urgent task is to convince our fellow Malaysians that they can trust us to lead this country honestly, competently, and justly, without recourse to corruption. Why should they throw their support behind us if they could not distinguish us from the rest? We are under the minutest public scrutiny, and on the day of reckoning, they will deliver their verdict. That verdict will decide our political relevance.

While we would like to imagine that there would be overwhelming public support to propel us to Putrajaya, it would be a mistake to believe that this would be given on a silver platter. As Lim Kit Siang has said on several occasions, our success in the last general elections could well be a one term wonder unless we delivered on our promises, to the best of our ability. We have to earn public support not by intermittent rhetorical bombardment, but by remaining totally focused on issues that have continued to bedevil the nation with a view to excising them as we would cancerous cells so as to stop them dead in their tracks. We must curb our exuberance because “one sparrow does not a summer make.”

I fully acknowledge the very useful contributions of our younger members who are better educated than those in the past, but they must never fall into the temptation of supposing that because they have had the benefit of an overseas tertiary education, they have all the answers. They don’t. The confidence of youth is refreshing, but our younger members must realise that wisdom comes from wide experience and not from the confined cloisters and musty corridors of university life. No doubt they will learn from life’s harsh realities, sooner rather than later, for the sake of their party.

As a disciplined party, all in leadership positions must not expect special treatment if they go against party values and principles. Many believe that by virtue of their seemingly special relationships with those highly placed individuals in the party’s pecking order, they will receive special treatment of the sort we deplore in other parties. All levels of our leadership must discourage factionalism as this practice is guaranteed to divide loyalty and detract from the party’s main focus of bringing about changes to the governance of the country, through constitutional means. We profess to be a democratic party, and we should live up to our ideals. Anything less puts us in the same moral and ethical league of political parties we despair of and despise.

Doing what is ethically right by our party is no longer the luxury of the virtuous; it has become a political necessity for survival. Are we up to the challenge because otherwise Putrajaya could well turn into a grand mirage?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 10 October 2010, 2:26 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Perak
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Question related to Sosilawati mass murders placed fourth in tomorrow’s question time in Parliament

My question related to the Sosilawati mass murders in Banting has been placed as number four for tomorrow’s question time in Parliament.

The question I had submitted reads:

To ask Home Minister to list the date/nature of police reports lodged against the lawyer brothers in Banting suspected responsible for the Sosilawati mass murders, reasons for police inaction which have gravely undermined public confidence in police professionalism and latest actions on these police reports.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]  minta Menteri Dalam Negeri menyatakan tarikh/jenis laporan-laporan polis yang dibuat terhadao adik-beradik peguam yang disyaki terlibat dalam pembunuhan beramai-ramai Dato Sosilawati di Banting, serta tindakan terkini terhadap laporan-laporan polis berkenaan.

I find that two of my questions submitted for the budget parliamentary meeting had been rejected, viz:

(1) To ask the Prime Minister why the majority of Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants still do not accept the 1Malaysia concept of being Malaysian first and race second after 18 months, how he proposes to unite the entire administration under this concept.

(2) To ask the Prime Minister whether the government has authorized purchase of millions of rounds of ammunition and tens of thousands of pistols, submarine guns and stun-grenades from underground sources in overseas blackmarkets, giving full costs and details and its connection with Umno Youth paramilitary training.

Although these two questions have been rejected for question time, they will be raised during the course of the budget meeting of Parliament on other occasions.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 10 October 2010, 12:49 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


New mega project: Mega question mark over procurement

by
Koon Yew Yin

Centre for Policy Initiatives

Monday, 11 October 2010

I refer to the article ‘Transparency in MRT Planning’ by Risen Jayaseelan which appeared in a major newspaper recently on Oct 5. The purpose of my writing this piece is to forewarn the public and the government that the way this proposed project is being considered by the government is basically wrong and may well end up with taxpayers having to pay a much higher toll rate than justifiable.

This warning is not only for the MRT project but for all 131 projects that are being envisaged under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) which is supposed to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.

Basically I see no change at all in the current procurement procedure which has been used before in large concessions. The results of the evaluation and bidding procedure for mega projects such as the current MRT, the power provided by IPPs, toll roads, and the Selangor water supply have seen the consumers being forced to pay unreasonable rates because the bidding and tender process has been riddled with opportunities for rent-seeking, corruption and wastage.

Besides, cheaper and more efficient alternatives have not been fully considered by the Government.

I was shocked to read that the chairman of Land Public Transport Commission, Syed Hamid Albar, has said that the technical study of the proposal submitted by Gamuda and MMC would be completed by the end of the month and that following it, LPTC would submit their report to the government for approval.

I would like to ask how in the first place can the LPTC know that this proposal is the best in terms of technology and costing? It is impossible for LPTC to do an honest job if they have only one proposal to study and they do not have at least several other proposals to compare with.

As we know, the cost of this MRT project will be several billion ringgit. Negotiating with only one consortium, Gamuda and MMC, is likely to encourage corruption and waste, and is against all elementary principles of good economic governance. The price can be 10, 11 or 12 billion ringgit. Who is there to decide whether a costing of 10 billion ringgit is in the best public interest and will provide full value for Malaysians and not the project developers?

The sum provided by the only bidder is like taking a figure out of a hat. We are talking about billions of ringgit involved. Are there saints in the evaluation committee or project developers who do not like big money? The amount of money involved is so enormous that even saints will surely be tempted.

The public must demand that the government stops this method of award. It is the height of economic foolishness to award a concession or monopoly on a first-come first-served basis. Mega project awards should not be given out on the basis of service that is dished out in restaurants. If we do that, we will end up with a lethal case of economic poisoning of the Malaysian consumer.

Best way to evaluate tenders

The best way in terms of award of tenders is for the government to follow the guidelines as established by the World Bank. Incidentally these procurement guidelines are easily available over the website and are even applied in some of the most corrupt countries of the world in an effort to reduce corruption. It does not cost us even one sen to adopt them.

Firstly, the government must engage a reputable engineering consulting firm which has experience with similar projects to put up a proposal and to open the project bidding to all contractors to tender.

All the contractors must be prequalified based on both their technical and financial ability. All contractors must submit tenders confirming to the original design so that the cheapest tender can be selected. If all the contractors are prequalified, the government tender board has only to look at the tendered price.

Always award the contract to the contractor who submits the cheapest tender assuming that all the other criteria are met. It is important not to allow anybody from the government to negotiate with any contractor to avoid corruption.

Finally, transparency and accountability requires that all documents on the proposal and the other 131 projects in the ETP be placed in the public sphere – not just limited information but detailed and full breakdowns in accordance with international best practices.

If we want to reach the status of a highly developed nation, we must immediately implement the standards of economic good governance, accountability and transparency that come with it.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 October 2010, 4:17 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Opposition bench queries rejection of questions

by
Joseph Sipalan

Malaysiakini

Oct 11, 10

PARLIAMENT

Opposition MPs were up in arms today as the August House rejected 28 questions from 17 Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians, forcing speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia to promise he will look into their complaints as soon as possible.

Right after the end of question time, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) (right) cited the standing orders to ask why his question, asking Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak if he is a Malay or Malaysian first, was rejected.

Karpal said a letter he received from the speaker’s office which said his question was rejected on the grounds that he was asking for the premier’s opinion and was a hypothetical question.

“The deputy Prime Minister had said he was a Malay first and Malaysian second, and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri (Aziz) said he was a Malaysian first and Malay second.

“… I am not asking for his opinion. I am asking for him to state his stand as prime minister. Why this special protection for the prime minister?,” he said.

Floodgates opened

Karpal’s query opened the floodgates with a string of opposition MPs standing one after the other to register their dissatisfaction over the rejection of their questions.

A total of 17 MPs eventually spoke out in protest over the rejection, including Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur), Chong Cheng Jien (DAP-Bandar Kuching), Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong), Loh Gwo Burne (PKR-Kelana Jaya), Nasharudin Md Isa (PAS-Bachok) and Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS-Bukit Gantang).

The questions covered a broad range of issues, from the poor reception among senior civil servants of the 1Malaysia concept to the Home Ministry’s inaction over racist and false articles published by Utusan Malaysia, the national budget for military procurements and Perkasa.

Lim later proposed that a joint committee be formed with members from both sides of the House, to set clear guidelines on what kind of questions can be asked in Parliament.

Nasharudin (left) however disagreed to the formation of a committee, saying it is not necessary as the speaker holds exclusive powers to determine what can and cannot go on in the House.

Pandikar explained that the rejection of the questions was done according to parliamentary procedure, but promised to address the complaints raised by the MPs..

“I view this issue seriously, because it is related to the standing orders. But I ask for the good grace of the MPs here to give me time, and I will address each complaint,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 October 2010, 3:37 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Parliament rejects questions on Utusan, Sarawak

By
Adib Zalkapli

The Malaysian Insider

October 11, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 11 — Questions on Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud’s wealth and the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia were among 28 questions from 17 opposition MPs rejected today.

Two DAP MPs from Sarawak, Wong Ho Leng and Chong Chieng Jen, had earlier asked the government to explain if the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has started investigating allegations on Taib’s property ownership overseas, as published on an anonymous website.

“My question is valid. I want to know if an investigation has started because of the report on the website,” said Chong when protesting the Parliament’s decision to reject the question.

“Why was the question rejected? Are we afraid of the CM?” he added.

Chong was citing reports by the anti-Taib website, Sarawak Report, which had revealed Taib’s alleged ties with companies owning multi-billion dollar properties in Canada, the US and the UK.

The website also alleged that Taib accumulated his wealth by abusing his position as the chief minister, a post he has held since 1981.

Meanwhile, Wong said the question was rejected as it was deemed a trivial matter.

“I wanted the PM to explain if the MACC will investigate the enormous amount of wealth owned by the CM in America, Britain, Australia and Canada. If the answer is no, I want to know why,” said the Sarawak DAP chairman

“I think the question is relevant and important. Are we serious in dealing with corruption?” he added.

Another MP whose question was rejected, Serdang’s Teo Nie Ching, had questioned the home ministry’s inaction against Utusan Malaysia for allegedly fanning racial sentiments.

“I want the home ministry to explain why no action has been taken against Utusan for raising racial issues and publishing false news,” said Teo, who had been accused by the Malay daily of giving religious talk at a Muslim prayer hall in her constituency.

“They have been saying zero tolerance on racial issues, but Utusan continues to raise these issues, and until today, there has been no action by the home minister. I want an explanation,” she added.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo who asked if action would be taken against Malay rights group Perkasa also found his question rejected.

“It is public knowledge that they make racist remarks, insulting other races. Why can’t the Parliament accept the questions?” asked Gobind.

In his response to the MPs, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia said he would issue a guideline to assist the federal lawmakers in drafting questions.

“I look at this matter seriously and I see the questions sent by the opposition as coming from the people,” said Pandikar.

“Give me time to study the questions and I will offer tips and reasons for rejecting or accepting a question,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 October 2010, 4:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Questions thrown out, opposition MPs cry foul

By
Rahmah Ghazali

Free Malaysia Today

Mon, 11 Oct 2010

KUALA LUMPUR: Some issues are political potatoes too hot to handle or so it seems when the Dewan Rakyat got down to business today.

The wealth of Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, Perkasa, Biro Tata Negara (BTN) and 1Malaysia concept were all brought up but were never debated.

When the bell rang for the session to begin, 16 Opposition MPs, mostly from the DAP, and an Independent MP, stood up to protest that their questions were thrown out. They claimed the questions on these “hot” issues were rejected “without any apparent reason”.

The ball started rolling when outspoken veteran leader Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) said that his question, asking Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to state his stand whether he is a “Malaysian first or a Malay first” was rejected.

“Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin had once said he was a Malay first and Malaysian second, while Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said he is a Malaysian first and a Malay second.

“I don’t understand why my question was rejected. Why give special protection to the prime minister? Can I get an explanation from the Speaker?” he asked.

His colleague, Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor), also suffered the same fate when his question on “racist” BTN (National Civics Bureau) was not entertained by Najib.

“I asked the prime minister why, after 18 months since 1Malaysia was introduced, a senior civil servant has failed to embrace the unity concept?” he asked, apparently referring to BTN assistant director Hamim Husin.

(Hamim sparked a public outcry recently when he allegedly uttered racial slurs when he labelled the Chinese and Indians “mata sepet” (slitty eyes) and “kaki botol” (alcoholics) respectively in a closed-door meeting with Puteri Umno.)

‘Valid question’

Bandar Kuching MP Chong Chien Jen was also not spared when his question on the controversial wealth owned by Taib was rejected.

“I wanted to find out whether the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) will take any action (against Taib), based on a report by Sarawakreport.org which alleged that the chief minister owned hundred of millions of ringgit worth of property overseas.

“This is a valid question because the report has been reported… I just want to know whether an investigation has been initiated. But why was it rejected? Is the government too scared of Taib? Is the question taboo?” he asked.

Teo Nie Ching (DAP-Serdang) also got a “red card” when her question on Umno-linked Utusan Malaysia was rejected by the home ministry.

Teo, who was recently embroiled in the controversial surau visit, claimed that Utusan has ignited racial hatred over the incident.

“I asked the home ministry why no action has been taken against Utusan for fanning racial sentiment when it accused me of giving religious talk in a surau.

“The newspaper also published false news, claiming that the main suspects linked to the murder of cosmetics millionaire Sosilawati Lawiya were DAP life members. Until today, the ministry has not taken any action and I am only seeking an explanation from the minister,” she said.

Need for clear procedure

Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) also protested when his question on Malay right-wing NGO Perkasa was thrown out.

“I merely asked the home ministry whether it would take action against Perkasa and Utusan Malaysia for their racist and insulting statements towards other races. If it has not, I would like the ministry to give a reason. But this question was ignored,” he said.

According to Nasharuddin Mat Isa (PAS-Bachok), whose his question was also rejected on technical grounds, Parliament should make clear its procedure for answering questions.

“Who has the final say on these questions, the government or Parliament? If the House is influenced by the ministers’ decision not to answer any questions, what is our role here then? There should be check-and-balance in this institution,” he said.

Upon hearing the complaints, Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia said he would look into the matter and provide the answers.

“I am looking at this matter very seriously and will let you know the reasons… I will be the first person to support any good suggestions proposed by MPs,” he said. He, however, did not give a time frame.

Other MPs whose questions were also rejected include Sim Tong Him (DAP-Kota Melaka), P Ramasamy (DAP-Batu Kawan), Nga Kor Ming (DAP-Taiping), Ngeh Koo Ham (DAP-Beruas), Tan Seng Giaw (DAP-Kepong), Wong Ho Leng (DAP-Sibu), M Manogaran (DAP-Teluk Intan), Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS-Bukit Gantang), Loh Gwo Burne (PKR-Kelana Jaya) and Chua Soon Booi (Independent-Tawau).

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 October 2010, 5:00 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Racist slurs by two school principals – impotence/irrelevance of MCA/Gerakan/MIC Ministers highlighted

My urgent motion in Parliament to debate the controversy of the two racist school principals in Johore and Kedah who made racial slurs against students in schools was rejected by the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia on the ground that he had been informed that the Education Ministry and the Public Services Department had begun initiating  disciplinary action against the duo.

However, Pandikar Amin was unable to enlighten Parliament what form of disciplinary action was being initiated by the Education Ministry and the PSD.

The inability of the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to lay this issue to rest after nearly two months since its first occurrence  by convincing  Malaysians that proper and commensurate disciplinary actions had been taken against these two errant principals stands out as a sore point highlighting the lack of commitment and even loyalty of the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister to the Prime Minister’s “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” policy.

This has now become even more serious as Muhyiddin has been delegated the task by Najib to ensure the success of the Government Transformation Programme (GTP).  This was revealed by Muhyiddin himself when speaking in Melbourne yesterday –  disclosing that the Prime Minister had handed to him the responsibility to ensure the success of the GTP through various initiatives in the National Key Results Area (NKRA).

Who can believe that there is a future for the GTP based on the “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” policy when the man now  responsible for the success of GTP is so lukewarm towards the policy that he declares himself “Malay first, Malaysian second” and is unable to say what disciplinary action has been taken against the two errant school principals for making racist slurs against students after two long months?

MCA/Gerakan/MIC irrelevance and impotence have  also been  further highlighted by the episode when even their Ministers do not know what form of disciplinary action had been initiated against the two school principals guilty of racial slurs against students in school – which is why the MCA and MCA Youth delegates over the weekend had been making fierce denunciations over the issue, like minor officials of  MIC and Gerakan.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 11 October 2010, 2:41 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gerakan’s “Animal Farm”

By
Martin Jalleh

Gerakan’s president Koh Tsu Koon continues to preen and strut around on the political stage like a peacock, and ignores the protruding truth that he looks more like a turkey whom Umno will turn into a stew one day.

Tsu Koon, described by his critics, especially during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Penang, as Umno’s lap-dog with his tail between his legs, appeared recently at a Penang Gerakan extraordinary general meeting (EGM) which he initially insisted he would avoid.

The EGM was meant to push for a motion of no-confidence against Penang chief Teng Hock Nan, whom many members feel have been hibernating like a hedgehog since Gerakan lost all its seats in Penang in the last general elections.

Tsu Koon turned up to cast his vote for his close ally who had a close call, prompting many to wonder whether it was time to “close shop”!  The slim majority was a slap in the face for the more-mouse-than-man president, who naively expected everyone to “close ranks”.

Dead ducks

Ever since the rakyat rejected the Gerakan in the last elections, many of its members felt that they were like dead ducks led by both a “rotting fish head” so afraid to rock the boat,  and rudderless leaders who are like roosters striking at each other whilst crowing reforms!

This latest controversial EGM in Penang and the initial decision by Tsu Koon not to stop it nor attend it, resulted in former Gerakan president Lim Keng Yaik  resigning as party “advisor” whilst likening his former protégé to an ostrich.

The cunning old fox accused Tsu Koon of having a “see no evil” attitude and of constantly “burying his head in the sand” when faced with party problems and of “bringing the party to the dogs”.

Many Gerakan members are embarrassed by the memory of how Tsu Koon had shamelessly chickened out of his initial daring and dramatic promise of not accepting a Cabinet post if he were to lose in the 2008 general elections.

The man sheepishly entered the Cabinet by the backdoor and remains every day at Umno’s front door as a lame duck to quack at its behest! It appeared that he was more interested in his Cabinet post than saving his party.

Indeed, for Keng Yaik the straw that broke the camel’s back was Koh’s nonchalance over the EGM. The former party president of 27 years insisted his decision to resign was final for it was “pointless to stay on as advisor under its current leader”.

Koh was bird-brained to choose to attend MCA’s AGM instead of the Gerakan EGM on Oct 10 which was also the anniversary of the MCA’s EGM which saw its previous president losing a no-confidence vote! He would later declare that he would be attending a BN Youth meeting instead!

Keng Yaik said he would have “taken the bull by the horns” and “met with these fellows before the issue came out in the papers”. By allowing the EGM to take place Koh was opening the door to Gerakan committees in other states to parrot Penang.

Blind Bats

It is an open secret that the crisis in Gerakan Penang has its roots in events just before the 2008 general election when its leaders, like dogs, sunk their teeth into each other’s throats for the chief minister’s crown. Nothing has changed since then.

Anil Netto puts it so well: “Now, as vultures circle overhead the writhing carcass in its throes that is Gerakan today, the ludicrous fighting over positions continues…But what are they fighting for, when the party is about to vanish into the mists of history?”

The turn tail president who was initially speechless for his perceived spinelessness eventually decided to accept his mentor’s resignation but went on to make him the party’s sacred cow by appointing him the chairperson of the Gerakan Life Members Council (a move which Keng Yaik had predicted)!

 But Keng Yaik is no innocent lamb. If Tsu Koon is Umno’s lap dog, Keng Yaik is equally a lackey of Umno. They are both birds of a feather who have taken flight from the original vision and the high ideals of Gerakan and should share the blame for the party’s failure in the last general election.

Some went on to accuse Keng Yaik of crying wolf. Others said he was not a sly old fox but a senile old mule only interested in ensuring that his son will be president one day! Some felt it was his fault if the man he had groomed has turned into a goose.

Some said Keng Yaik was still hungry as a wolf and had a personal agenda. They welcomed his decision to resign. They added that many of his people including his brother still hold top posts in the party. So it really made no difference whether he resigned or not.

There were those who in blasting the old man came off as blind as a bat.  A leader asked Keng Yaik: “Why get so upset and behave as if the sky is falling down?”  This is a little tragic especially coming from a member of a party which was unable to see the earth opening up from under their feet.

Gone are the days when Gerakan had brave lions and wise leaders such as Syed Hussein Alatas, Tan Chee Khoon, V. David, and in recent times, former member Toh Kin Woon. Today the party looks like a dying horse or even a dead horse which its leaders enthusiastically whip from time to time.

There are very few eager beavers left in Gerakan. The party is made up largely of members who have been in the party for donkey’s years and who choose to remain in the doghouse, some are like squirrels running in circles, and still others who prefer to continue their monkey business there.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 October 2010, 10:03 am and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s GPS for General Election-13

By
Azly Rahman

Come Malaysia’s general election No 13, how lucky will we be to have the entire nation bold enough to experiment with radical changes, a mega-trend, a paradigm shift, and the will to even replace the blue ocean in which sharks and piranhas battle against each other in a seemingly calm sea of change?

So – are Malaysians ready with a global positioning system that will leave behind that ancient regime calloused with the will to use religion, ethnicity, and race to cling on to power fast waning? As the Malaysian election approaches, people are talking about ‘the new politics’, ‘sustainable capitalism’, ‘new economic model’, ‘radical multiculturalism’, ‘politics of moderation’.

What are these? Are they merely another set of rhetoric, or are they signifiers to a new world of Malaysian political-economic realism? After fifty years of a Rostowian and Friedmanian developmentalist agenda – that we adopt and have a difficult time understanding, and yet we imitate – we are faced with a brand new old question: where do we go from here?

The most enduring model of national development is one that returns power to the people; development of the people, by the people, for the people, that is participatory, transformative, inclusive of the alienated, marginalised, powerless, and peoples of diverse cultures, prioritises needs over greed and wants; one that will help develop the citizens into thinking, feeling, and visioning beings – as happy citizens of a just republic.

Maybe we need a radically new architecture of the Malaysian mind, of deconstructionism of politics entirely, of de-schooling society, demilitarisation of youth, diversification of public administration, redefinition of needs versus wants, destruction of the old order, rewriting of history, re-imagining of economics, reconstructing social philosophy, reinterpreting religion, etc.

What we have been seeing is a top-down developmental agenda sugar-coated with rhetoric of progress that is meaningless essentially, as development projects are created to satisfy the insatiable greed of robber barons who come in different colors and from different ethnic groups. That’s what we have as a gift of Independence. We are given bread and circuses to make us happy.

Damaged on the inside

The problem with Malaysia is that the regime has been obsessed with the one-dimensionality of the ideology of development, out of the lack of critical sensibility and other perspectives in development, who profit from the developmental agenda, who has adopted the model of unsustainable capitalism throughout the decades.

A regime that designs an educational system based on a narrow understanding of the philosophies of education and the idea of schooling as social reproduction, that lets culture-industry dominate and decimate the cultures of the indigenous people, that allows hypocrisy to reign the implementation of the rule of law, that silences dissenting views that speak for the poor and the marginalised, that pay lip service to the issue of ‘brain drain’, and many more. We have a system damaged on the inside.

While in many advanced countries politics is public service and the rich get into politics to help the poor, in Malaysia the poor get into politics to get rich and make the poor poorer, becoming a public disservice. This is the culture of pathetic politics.

We are in a ‘technopoly’, a polity or an imagined community governed by the determinism of technology and ideology.

Growing up in Johor in the sixties, I used to follow my mother to wash clothes at a one-pipe kampong washing area. I helped my grandmother keep the embers glowing when she cooked, used a charcoal-fuelled iron, kept warm with kerosene lamps, watched black-and-white TV, saw the first computer in 1974.

Now I am reading classified documents on wikileaks while on Facebook too. How right was Marx with regard to technological determinism and the surrender of human autonomy to technology!

We live in a cybernetic world and trying to understand ourselves as existentialists while those who own the means of production own and control. The control revolution in Malaysia favoured the old regime, that now controls materials, mind, machinery, and the media. Luddites are required to dismantle the system; a Rambo-styled rakyat who will show its rage against the machine.

Party without an ideology

Malaysia presents an example of an autocratic-technocratic system of control in which the social relations of production are altered through political control. All this talk about progress is quite meaningless without the understanding of the base and superstructure of society and the political economy of controlling interests.

The issue is about ideology and institutions that support it. It is about a race-based ideology that is no longer in sync with changing times, as if the cognitive capacity of the nation will never progress and surpass the ideology of the Malay Agenda.

The overplayed doctrine of Malay dictatorship/hegemony/false sense of superiority (Ketuanan Melayu), an arrogant sounding developmentalist agenda pillared upon arrogant and truncated theories of development that brush off new findings on the ownership of the NEP, continue to dominate the mind of campaign strategists.

The biggest issue before this election is the ideological shift. Because Umno as the dominant party actually does not have an ideology, except sentimentality and authority to deploy the ideological state apparatuses, and because the dissatisfaction of the masses/rakyat is growing in leaps and bounds and is tsunami-ing the streets, we have got a national problem.

What will the election bring us? It is you and I who will decide.

Did Marx the historian not say that we must become makers of our own history?

Or – if we are to become a superstitious nation who believes in numerology, we must also believe in a mandate of heaven, where it rains change predictably.

Malaysians, get your GPS out for GE-13. You don’t have anything to lose except a wrong semiotic turn in your ongoing history of materiality.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 October 2010, 10:00 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why after more than half a year, not a single Cabinet Minister dare to rebut the communal extremists and state that the New Economic Model is not against Article 153 of Constitution?

I walked out of Dewan Rakyat in disgust this morning.

I had stood up to ask a supplementary question for the first oral question which was on the New Economic Model, but the Deputy Speaker, Datuk Ronald Kiandee, who was in the chair, refused to call me.

The question on the New Economic Model was posed by the UMNO MP for Maran, Datuk Haji Ismail bin Hj Abdul Muttalib who asked the Prime Minister “to state the guarantee that in carrying out the New Economic Model it is effective and will achieve the objective set out to make Malaysia a high income nation and at the same time spur the economy and the programmes planned for implementation”.

The answer was given by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk S. K. Devamany.

If I had the opportunity to pose the supplementary question, I would have observed that on the second day of the 34-day of the budget Parliament, the absence of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  or anyone of the many Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department to answer this question shows that the Barisan Nasional government is neither  really seriously nor fully  committed whether to Najib’s 1Malaysia concept, New Economic Model or Parliament.

I would have asked in my supplementary question:

Whether the Najib administration has taken full ownership of the proposals in the New Economic Model for Malaysia to escape the two-decades long middle-income trap to achieve sustainable and inclusive high-income developed nation status by 2020 and no more regard the New Economic Model proposals as merely “trial balloons”  of a group of experts from the global market perspective as said by Najib in June;

The government stand in particular on New Economic Model Strategic Reform Initiative (SRI) 5 for “Transparent and market-friendly affirmative action” which will “consider all ethnic groups fairly and equally as long as they are in the low income 40% of households…..taking into consideration the needs and merits of the applicants”;

Why for more than six months, not a single Minister dare to state that the New Economic Model is not against Article 153 of the Constitution to check the rise of racism because of the rhetoric of communal extremists, although the Prime Minister has gone to the United Nations General Assembly and Asia-Europe Dialogue to call for a global movement of moderates against extremists.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 October 2010, 11:35 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
NEM
,
Parliament
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP wants chief secretary hauled up for inaction against ‘racist’ civil servants

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

October 13, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — The DAP demanded today that Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan be hauled up in Parliament for failing to take swift action against “racist” civil servants.

DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang said that the Chief Secretary’s silence on the matter was a mockery to the Najib administration’s reform plans.

“This is an utter mockery of the government transformation programme when two months have elapsed but nothing has been done with regards to the principals.

“Perhaps the chief secretary does not understand the meaning of people first, performance now,” said Lim.

The Chief Secretary said yesterday that the government will follow proper procedure in dealing with two school principals and a Biro Tata Negara (BTN) official for making racist remarks.

But the Chief Secretary did not say whether the three had been found guilty or whether they had already been disciplined.

Yesterday Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin refused to allow a debate in Parliament over the alleged racial slurs made by two school headmistresses, claiming that action had already been taken against them.

Pandikar did not, however, provide any details on the supposed action taken against the two.

“The Chief Secretary must be hauled up in Parliament for failing to take action…has the Dewan Rakyat speaker been informed (about whether the principals have been disciplined)?

“The government’s failure to take action against the principals is more eloquent than Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s speech at the MCA AGM,” the Ipoh Timur MP told reporters in Parliament.

BTN assistant director Hamim Husan, during a recent closed-door Puteri Umno function, referred to the Chinese and Indian communities as “Si Mata Sepet” and “Si Botol” respectively when asking Puteri Umno members to approach the non-Malays for votes.

“The ‘si mata sepet’ that has never gone to a mosque or surau only has one vote. The ‘si botol’ that only knows how to go up to Batu Caves up and down only has one vote,” Hamim told the closed-door gathering, as reported in The Malaysian Insider.

Siti Inshah Mansor, the principal of SMK Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, had allegedly told students during an assembly that the Chinese could return the China and likened Hindus to “dogs” because of their prayer strings.

“Pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan dan boleh balik ke China ataupun Sekolah Foon Yew. Bagi pelajar India, tali sembahyang yang diikat di pergelangan tangan dan leher pelajar nampak seakan anjing dan hanya anjing akan mengikat seperti itu,” she had allegedly said.

Following the public uproar over her controversial statement, about 20 police reports were lodged against the principal.

In the Kedah case, Ungku Aznan Ungku Ismail, the school principal for SMK Bukit Selambau in Sungai Petani, caused a national outcry when he allegedly uttered racial slurs to his non-Malay students.

Ungku Aznan had allegedly publicly told several Chinese students to go back to China for “behaving disrespectfully” when they were seen having breakfast in the school canteen during the Ramadan fasting month.

He later escaped stern punishment when he was reassigned to an office in the district education office at Kuala Muda in Sungai Petani, shortly after the incident, drawing flak from many political leaders.

Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin recently said he had no authority to take any action against the principals, and had allowed them to continue their duties.

Muhyiddin claimed that this was because disciplinary matters involving high-ranking civil servants come under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Department (PSD).

The deputy prime minister then said that only the PSD had the power to decide on the case.

Earlier this month, PSD director-general Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Abdullah told a press conference in Putrajaya that the department had already received a “six-inch thick” report from the Education Ministry on the matter.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 October 2010, 6:08 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Get a backbone, Kit Siang tells MCA

by
Joseph Sipalan

Malaysiakini

13.10.2010

DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang today challenged MCA’s ministers to take a clear stand and demand for action to be taken against two headmasters charged for racism and the closure of the National Civics Bureau (BTN).

He said Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had already given them the green light to make their position known, when the latter said that MCA should be given “space” within the BN coalition when officiating at their annual general meeting last weekend.

“Here you have the prime minister saying ‘give space to MCA’, and although he said that, you don’t see any MCA minister daring to stand up to make a clear stand to demand that action must be taken against the two headmasters,” Kit Siang (right) said at a press conference in the Parliament lobby.

“Even after Umno gave space to MCA, they don’t use the space. I call on MCA ministers to demand that action be taken against the headmasters and close down the BTN, which is a poisonous anti-Malaysia organisation.”

Lim also took a swipe at federal chief secretary Mohd Sidek Hassan, saying the top civil servant contradicted the statement by Parliament speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia, who when rejecting an emergency motion tabled by Lim on Monday, said he was informed by both the Education Ministry and Public Services Department that disciplinary action was on-going against the two headmasters.

Mohd Sidek (right) said yesterday that the government needs to follow proper procedure in dealing with the two headmasters and the BTN official, but would not say whether the trio had been found guilty or disciplined.

“This makes a mockery of the government transformation plan, when two months have elapsed and no action (has been taken) against the two headmasters. Two months and nothing has been done.

“Here the chief secretary declined to say whether they committed any breach of discipline. Has the speaker been misinformed?

“If the speaker is misinformed, then Parliament is misinformed and the chief secretary must be hauled up to Parliament to be disciplined himself,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 October 2010, 6:28 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Halal? Haram? Heck if I know…

By
Hafidz Baharom

It’s really surprising that people want to talk about halal and haram, but not just in Penang. It’s truly impressive, in Penang, how a bunch of geriatrics say that they don’t want money from any source that is considered haram.

It seems as if we are back to the same holier-than-thou mentality in politics that was visible in the 70s, where even graveyards and grieving for a dead relative were politically segregated. This was the age when Umno and PAS supporters were so passionate to the point that the arguments clearly extended after death.

There should be no paranoia when it comes to the question of halal and haram. Not in this nation where we are opening up to the rest of the world to prove that we are, in fact, truly a moderate Muslim majority nation that in all honesty respects the rest of the population as equals. That was the true Malaysian goal.

What we have now in the 1 Malaysia campaign, is a farce. A cover-up of gigantic proportions. All talk and no “meat”, per se.

The scary part of all this is that it is becoming more and more like 1 IslamicConservativeMalaysia, where everyone and everything is merely discarded as being non-Malaysian, plus the constant criticism and censorship.

Seriously, we can’t drink, we can’t eat, we can’t even talk without looking over our shoulders for fear of offending someone.

This is what makes me believe that we are now all truly non-Malaysian.

Past Malaysians were curious to seek out knowledge. They were confident. They were jovial with one another to the point where racist jokes were nothing more than a laughing matter.

Yes, they do sound like Russell Peters.

They were helpful and courteous with one another and everyone else. They were the kind of people who would never look at someone’s dress, or hair, or even contact lenses and think that the people were not proud to be Malaysian or Muslim or Malay even.

We have moved away from that.

The Malays are not to be trusted and lazy, the Chinese are too greedy, the Indians know nothing better than to get drunk and beat up women. And even worse, if you’re from Sabah and Sarawak, you’re not even Malaysian.

These are all the exemplary statements and notions that are flying all around the nation. I’ve heard of them and I am sure all of you have too throughout the days, months and years of your lives.

The very purpose of having the Sedition Act was to undo these perceptions that were being spread purely for political motives, dividing the people using a quote by Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Perhaps so many times that it becomes ingrained in your mindset.

With all that being set, what has been done by Umno in Penang is open a can of worms. The whole idea that welfare money comes from gambling, drinking or even the sale of cigarettes, which are also haram by fatwa, goes to show just how little Muslims truly know about halal and haram.

Honestly think about it, Muslims, devout or liberal alike.

What should you do should you gain haram money, in Islamic teachings?

You give it away to the poor and needy. All of it.

Be it orphans, widows, single mothers or the elderly.

So, for the state of Penang at least, who else would be more needy than paranoid geriatrics who obviously skipped a few lessons in Pendidikan Islam to allow themselves to be taken advantage of by opportunistic politicians?

People so desperate for salvation but who are miseducated to believe that gambling money would send them to Hell. This is what Umno in Penang has done.

They have somehow taken the idea to people who feel they are so close to death, so afraid to lose the promise of a better life after death, that by taking this money to help them live their lives with a little more comfort, will damn them for all eternity.

This, of course, coming from people who themselves gamble. Look at the elections. If you do not get a certain number of votes, you lose your deposit. Now isn’t that in itself a gamble?!

This just goes to show another Muslim teaching in parable. Knowledge is power. The faithful are those who not only seek knowledge, but propagate and question it in order to gain deeper knowledge, thus leading to piety and the honest fact that we, as mere humans, were never meant to understand everything thus leading to the belief in a higher power guiding us.

Call that power whatever you like, be it Allah, Jesus, God, Yahweh, Guan Yin, Shiva, Guan Yu, Kali et cetera.

And yes, that’s as spiritual as you will get me to ever admit in a column.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 October 2010, 5:30 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Islam
,
Penang
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mobilising moderate Malaysia

By
KJ John

PM Najib Abdul Razak argued at the UN that the mainstream moderate majority must be mobilised to reflect and protect universal values of common day civility. He repeated the same call at the Asem Meetings in Brussels.

Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) also made the same call in London at a Friends of Pakatan event; calling for the more significant role of the Third Force in Malaysian politics.

Actually these two leaders agree on the strategy forward for their nation. The only difference is that one is the leader of the formal system working within the UN system of nation-states and the other a civil society leader working via informal networks within his own country. One is elected, the other anointed by a specific calling.

It is good that they do actually agree on something. That allows and promotes a common ground for a virtuous dialogue on how to grow a 1Malaysia into a Bangsa Malaysia.

The current problem in Malaysia though, and actually anywhere in the world in the Global Village of McLuhan, is that the public interest does not seem to be the responsibility of anyone in particular any more.

Too many people and the large majority are only interested in their pet agendas and very few have interest in the common grounds of the public interest. These used to be called the commons. Today even the public service functions focus on rationalising their self-survival and existence rather than serving the public interest.

Let me quote a real-life example. This morning as I went walking I came across two young Malaysians on a motorbike at a traffic light. I stopped as I was crossing the lights and asked them their ages. One was ten and the other eight.

I asked who gave them permission to be on the road. The older one replied that he was only going to buy things for his mother from a grocery shop. I asked him if he knew the law. He simply looked down and pretended that “I should close one eye on the matter, presumably while waiting for the light to change.”

I instructed him to turn around and go home or I would report him to the police. He did turn around and I pray that he went home and never rides the motorbike illegally again. But, please do not hold your breath!

Whose responsibility is it?

Whose responsibility is it then to make sure that “our public space morality is not violated in casual ways?” Whose responsibility is it to make sure that “young boys like these do not become the Aminulrasyids of the world who consequently get killed after a police chase?” Is it then only the responsibility of the police to monitor and enforce such public space morality? What is the role and responsibility of the average Malaysian moderate mainstream human being?

The grand mufti of Syria who spoke on ‘The challenges of the 21st century Muslims’ at the Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies also had this reminder to all his listeners. By his definition and articulation, all Malaysians and all human beings, not just Muslims, faced the same set of challenges in the 21st century.

His talk was refreshing and very inclusive. I left encouraged that there are great Muslim leaders like him who are moderates and are speaking for the large majority. He also challenged me to review my rather limited views on some aspects of universality.

Furthermore, the PM at the launch of the Razak School of Government (RSOG) at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) recently while making the inaugural ‘Razak Perdana Lectures’ argued that there are four benchmarks for public service, if Malaysia does not want to become a failed state.

The Prime Minister argued that “world class leadership was not merely about leading but also about inspiring others to follow suit. It required the ability to make the right decision on informed reasoning and an outcome-driven mentality.” Such a mentality had four benchmarks. They are:

   1. Through ensuring transparency and accountability, such leadership must provide for the demands and expectations of the public but also include them in decision-making processes.

   2. Learning to be receptive to change such leadership must make competitiveness their second nature. Competition is the only way for self-improvement.

   3. Merit-based advancement within the civil service should be based on individual capacity and potential.

   4. Lifelong learning must become a way of life for our public service.

Again, the grand mufti and Najib said similar things although focused on different issues and concerns. Najib concluded with the statement that the nation needed to have a society-centric government, where the peoples’ voice is heard by the civil service and wherein listening is the most accurate assessor of the ability of the public services and her performance.

Role of third parties

RPK argued had that his ‘party in England’ was instrumental for insisting on public sector reforms through their moderated hung Parliament negotiations. RPK’s argument was also that it was civil society made up of NGOs, Bloggers United, ordinary citizens and academics with integrity that were the third force in the last general election of March 8.

He cautioned and warned that if the PKR leadership refused to keep the Barisan Rakyat manifesto (the words are a coinage by the combination of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat) this would be the last GE wherein the Third Force would support Pakatan.

During my last Intan course for promotions, I wrote a paper on the need for a Citizen-led Action Movement or CLAM in 1999. In fact, I even took a half-day off to present the paper to the then Deputy IGP, a very good friend from Sarawak and former First College mate in UM. He commented that I sounded like an NGO; although while still in the public service of the government. I retorted that was why I had taken a half-day off just to meet up with him.

As argued by the grand mufti of Syria, Najib and RPK (left in pic) the modern world needs a third force of influence which will articulate moderate and good civic values of a universal nature to collaborate and work for the common ground issues and concerns.

Unlike with the “use of force” this movement must be a knowledge-based civil society engagement with values of a universal nature and agreed to by all faith systems in the world. The world has no other real choice. May God bless Malaysia to choose this path of righteousness and the way of a virtuous cycle of prosperity; without beggaring our neighbour.

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed above are truths that matter to him as an individual citizen wearing private and civil society hats and therefore are not opinions of the university or faculty. Do send feedback to him at
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 October 2010, 5:31 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #36

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 5:  Understanding Globalization (Cont’d)

 Missing the Japanese Lesson

 In truth many misread the Japanese success story.  As Harvard’s Michael Porter observes in his book, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, the successful Japanese companies that now dominate global markets – the Sonys, Olympus, and Toyotas – had survived rigorous competition at home.  They competed aggressively among themselves and only the most vigorous, those who have mastered the art of satisfying their customers and reducing the costs, go on to conquer the world.  Meanwhile their “protected” industries – their banks and other financial institutions – are wallowing in misery, unable to compete beyond their shores.

             As a result of its commitment to foreign trade, Malaysia enjoyed a boom in direct foreign investments in the 1980s and 90s.  These later investors were chiefly in manufacturing, especially semiconductors.  They were welcomed because, quite apart from the employment opportunities provided and foreign exchange earned, they spread the “Made in Malaysia” brand names worldwide.  Malaysians also discovered that being a factory worker, even a foreign-owned one, was much more agreeable to working the land under the blistering sun.  Indeed those foreign employers, yes even those companies owned by our former colonizers, were much more enlightened and generous with their benefits than native ones!

             Thus it was a no-brainer for Malaysian policymakers to welcome foreign investors even if it that meant abandoning long accepted dogmas.  For example, during the recession of the mid 1980’s, the government saw fit to relax the stringent rules on Bumiputra ownership and employment in order to attract foreign investors.  Foreign investors were now no longer derisively labeled as capitalists or exploiters of workers; rather they were much-welcomed employers and contributors to the nation’s well being.

             Having seen the tangible benefits of direct foreign investments and trade, Malaysia felt encouraged to liberalize further its markets.  The initial steps were tentative and tepid, and consisted of mainly dismantling the massive barriers and tariffs.  Later, foreigners were allowed total ownership of enterprises that catered exclusively for exports.

            Remarkable things happened.  For one, local industries forced to compete with imports were now producing better quality products.  For another these investors, especially the Americans, transferred their superior technology and expertise onto local hands.  These early successes emboldened the government to free up other sectors like financial and capital markets.  Local companies could now tap foreign capital and likewise, foreign funds could flow easily into Malaysia.  These liberalization steps notwithstanding, the government still controlled the financial sector and other “commanding heights” of the economy.

             With the subsequent free flow of capital, Malaysia took off.  With foreign portfolio managers now tracking the local stock market, the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE) index zoomed; so too the local economy, especially real estate, fueled by the easy availability of foreign loans.  The skyline of Kuala Lumpur was reshaped almost daily with the sprouting of new skyscrapers.  Foreign lenders, smitten by their earlier successes, were rushing to lend lest they would be left out of this latest El Dorado.  The herd mentality took hold, with money managers compelled to seek borrowers in Malaysia.  Every little project could now get funded regardless of its economic sense.

             Alas, all that came to a crushing halt with the economic crisis of 1997.  The bubble burst.

             For Malaysia the end results were essentially these:  its currency devalued by about 40%; economic growth sputtered; and its high-flying corporate players grounded.  But the most significant casualty was that the tentative liberalization steps came not only to a crashing halt but were reversed.  Malaysia instituted strict capital controls and declared its currency illegal abroad.  The economic consequences were severe enough, but the more significant impact was on the collective Malaysian psyche.  Foreigners are now looked upon again with deep suspicion; viewed as the new colonizers and as the cause of the crisis.

             There is no shortage of analyses on this crisis.  But economic post-mortem lacks the certitude and finality of the medical variety.  The debate continues.  One feature is not disputed – the distrust of foreigners resurfaced.

             The seeds of such suspicions however, had been sown much earlier, during the liberalization phase and the coming of the third wave of foreign investors.  This third wave, symbolic of globalization, was made up not of planters, miners, or manufacturers as with the first two waves, rather of “knowledge workers.”  To use the phrase of President Clinton’s Labor Secretary Robert Reich, they are the highly valued “symbolic analytic” workers: consultants, professionals, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and others.  Their services were already highly developed and efficient in the West; thus they targeted the vast virgin territories of the Third World for their next conquest.

             What galls Malaysia and other developing countries is that unlike earlier investors who seemed to bring tangible beneficial results to the host nation, these later investors appear to just rake in the profits.  Western bankers and portfolio managers would invest in Malaysian companies, reap the profits, and then move on.  To the uninitiated, they appeared to come into the market, speculated on some shares, and then walked off with their bounty.  What Malaysians did not realize was that these foreign funds buoyed the KLSE index and the shares of many local companies.  With the increased value of those shares these companies could leverage their equities to get even more loans.  But when the crisis hit, foreign investors fled, chased away by among other things, capital control.

            The KLSE tanked, losing nearly 80% of its value in dollar terms.  Companies that had leveraged themselves precariously had to unload their shares.  That in turn created a downward pressure on stock prices.  Nearly five years later the KLSE index is just barely halfway up to its highest point just before the crash.  It will remain sluggish until foreign money returns.

             This third wave of investors brought with them only their superior skills, symbolized by their ever-present laptops.  Although their services were needed badly, they also ended up exposing the inadequacies of local talent and institutions.  Thus when these new foreign enterprises easily captured local markets with their innovative products and superior services, their local competitors were reeling.  When Citibank issued credit cards and consumer loans to civil servants based solely on the security of their job (a niche hitherto ignored by local banks), not only was it a huge success but it also irritated local banks.  As the government and members of the ruling elite own these local banks, it did not take long before Citibank would be accused of unfair competition, and legislations introduced to curb its expansion.

             This scene would be repeated with other financial institutions like brokerage and insurance companies, as well as other sectors.  The professions too were quick to jump in to curb the inflow of foreign experts, under the pretext of maintaining “local standards.”  The Bar Association was making threatening noises when the government was planning to open up the legal service to foreign competition.  When the prestigious multinational law firm Baker & McKenzie was contemplating a branch in Kuala Lumpur, there was a huge outcry from local lawyers.  Never mind that the vast majority of local firms are nothing more than one-lawyer operations and thus cannot even begin to comprehend the needs of modern multinational corporations.  Nor are local lawyers trained in the intricacies of international law, or familiar with the new financial products and services that are being hawked by these new companies of the K economy.  Fields like cyber laws, patent laws, and intellectual property rights that are the concerns of the new economy are not even taught in local law schools.

             Instead of looking at these foreigners to upgrade local services and skills, Malaysians (agitated and aided by their leaders) view them instead as rapacious predators.  There is mortal fear that the likes of Citibank and Bank of America if left unchecked would devour local banks.  Similarly, the Merrill Lynches and Charles Schwabs would wipe out the country’s creaky and inefficient securities industry.  Money managers like Fidelity and Templeton Funds, with their aggressive marketing and efficient services, would crush local competitors.  The fact that local consumers prefer these companies with their more superior services and products is completely ignored by the authorities.

             Malaysians, like consumers everywhere, look for the best value for their hard-earned cash.  They could not care less who provide the services.  But the authorities, stuck in the old school of economics and unable to unshackle themselves from their nationalistic mentality, insist that banks, insurance, brokerage firms, and other commanding heights of the economy remain under local control.

             Like their manufacturing counterpart earlier, the local financial sector was protected from aggressive foreign competition.  And just like the earlier manufacturers, the finance sector remains flabby, inefficient, and poorly managed, unable to graduate to the next level that increasingly sophisticated Malaysians have come to expect.  Thus while international banks could clear foreign money drafts almost immediately, local banks would take weeks, all the while profiting from the free “float” at the expense of customers.

 Next:   Trading in Money

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 October 2010, 9:37 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.