Najib New Cabinet will be named on May 15

May 15, 2013

by Jahabar Sadiq (05-14-13)
Editor, The Malaysian Insider

The new Cabinet to be announced tomorrow (May 15) will have a familiar look and loaded with UMNO lawmakers, with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak having one eye on this year’s party polls.

One likely to make a comeback is Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor, the Barisan Nasional (BN) and UMNO Secretary-General who gained notoriety several years ago for allegedly fixing judicial appointments during the Mahathir era.

Also on the shortlist is Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh (left), the former Terengganu Mentri Besar who together with Tengku Adnan is a member of the BN war room that planned the coalition’s Election 2013 campaign.

Another member of the war room, Rompin MP Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis, could also be rewarded with a Cabinet post, sources said today. But they said that no losers in the general election will be appointed to the Cabinet through appointments as a federal senator.

The Cabinet list is being scrutinised with interest on expectations that they have to be in line with Najib’s drive for reforms after getting his own mandate in the May 5 general elections.

There has been speculation that he would also opt for newer and younger faces to push his reform agenda outlined under the BN manifesto and various socio-economic initiatives since he took power in 2009.

The names of two state companies chiefs, Malayan Banking Bhd Chief Executive Officer Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar and Khazanah Nasional Berhad’s Managing Director Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar (right) have also been bandied about but there is strong sentiment in Putrajaya that by virtue of winning 88 federal seats, UMNO must be rewarded.

One polarising figure in the discussion for a Cabinet position is UMNO Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin with strong push back from the Mahathir camp, arguing that his baggage from the Abdullah years will be a liability.

In his corner is Najib who believes that Khairy, who tripled his majority from 5,746 votes in Election 2008 to 18,357 in this year’s polls, will be important in tackling social media and coming up with strategies to win the young.

One tricky move is whether to remove Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein as the Home Minister or retain the UMNO Vice-President in that post. An online poll by The Malaysian Insider today showed that out of nearly 18,000 respondents, 97 per cent were against him to remain as Home Minister.

The other two UMNO Vice Presidents, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datu kSeri Shafie Apdal, are expected to keep their Cabinet posts as Defence and Rural Development ministers respectively.

It is also understood that Kelantan UMNO chief Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed is expected to keep his post as International Trade and Industry Minister.

State news agency Bernama reported today that Najib is scheduled to have an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah at Istana Negara at noon tomorrow to get approval for his new Cabinet line-up.

According to the statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Department today, the King has agreed that ceremony to present letters of appointment, as well as for the appointed ministers and deputy ministers to take the oath of office, loyalty and secrecy be held at the palace at 9.30am on Thursday.

The Malaysian Insider also learnt that Sungai Besar MP Datuk Noriah Kasnon is expected to fill the post of women, family and community development minister after her stint there as the deputy minister since last year.

Bernama had earlier reported that several new faces from Sabah and Sarawak could fill vacancies caused by MCA and Gerakan’s decision not to accept any Cabinet posts following their drubbing in the May 5 general elections.

Among the names mentioned are Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP) Deputy President Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, 52, who is Bintulu MP and ex-chairman of the BN Backbenchers Club.

Other than Tiong, two MPs from Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), namely Datin Linda Tsen Thau Lin, 57, (Batu Sapi) and Datuk Mary Yap Kain Ching @ Mary Yap Ken Jin, 62, (Tawau), are also speculated will be new faces in the Cabinet.

GE-13: Najib needs to confront the challenge of reform from within UMNO

May 6, 2013

by Peter Drysdale, Editor, East Asia Forum

Yesterday, after a hotly contested general election, a record electoral turnout and over half a century of essentially one-party rule, the Malaysian people edged towards change, but chose not to make the leap.

The campaign saw the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN or National Front) emphasise stability, continuity and economic growth, and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR or People’s Alliance) urge the end of corruption, the institution of minority rights and dealing with issues over the cost of living. In a contest that always seemed too close to call, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has held on to power taking the prize from the indefatigable Anwar Ibrahim and his PR.

The election confronted Malaysia with big choices. While the Najib government led a tactical retreat on some elements of the old order, Anwar called for its sweeping rejection.

Malaysia struggles with breaking through the ‘middle-income trap’. Wages have climbed to the point where the country can no longer compete internationally in labour-intensive manufacturing. But skills and systems haven’t improved so that Malaysia can compete effectively in the same product lines as more advanced countries.

Without further reforms, it is difficult to see how Malaysia can escape from this middle-income trap. Much of the struggle to find a way through has to do with escaping the legacy from the old order: a ‘New Economic Policy’ framed over 40 years ago, that entrenched discrimination against minorities (including the significant entrepreneurial classes) and ‘affirmative action’ through government-linked corporations (and systemic entrenchment of political patronage and corruption).

The Najib administration did a creditable job (?) in implementing Malaysia’s so called ‘New Economic Model’ — a shift away from the old New Economic Policy — that aims to double the country’s per capita income by 2020 via a raft of reforms across key economic sectors and in government. While targets have been met or exceeded and economic growth has picked up despite the unfavourable international circumstances (the World Economic Forum now ranks Malaysia 21st out of 142 economies in its world competitiveness ranking, up from 26th in 2010), the implementation of these programs is still to address the core problem of the long-standing bumiputra (sons of the soil) affirmative action policy.

Najib, to give him his due, tried hard to reform bumiputra policy, but failed in the face of pressure from within his own party, as well as from powerful ethnic Malay interest groups. The Malay elite have reaped enormous benefits from the policy and were unlikely to surrender their privileges easily. Nonetheless, Najib entered the election with a standing that far exceeded that of his ruling coalition — commanding an enviable approval of 61 per cent — paradoxically because of the support of those Malay elites at the same time as his progressivist inclinations.

The election was clearly about alternative visions of Malaysian society and democracy. But it was also a deeply personal contest on epical scale between two charismatic political leaders.

As Meredith Weiss observed in the lead-up to Sunday’s vote, ‘this election is a two-party election (the BN is registered as a single party; the PR functions as one)… Both coalitions have been forced to articulate clear policy agendas, and even if the usual communal and monetary inducements still have a large bearing on results neither side (took) victory for granted’.

Najib sought a mandate for his leadership after being appointed to the prime ministership by the ruling coalition in 2009. Anwar had dealt an historic electoral blow to Najib’s predecessor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in the 2008 elections from outside Parliament, for the first time denting BN’s super two-thirds majority.

By one account, Najib played a sophisticated double game against his experienced and wily opponent. He tried to outflank the reformist opposition by repealing security laws and introducing his comprehensive economic transformation program that sought to catapult Malaysia into the ranks of the high-income countries. He appealed for a harmonious society through his ‘One Malaysia’ slogan at the same time as placating his party’s ethnic Malay base by protecting pro-Malay affirmative action in government, business and education.

Najib adopted the outward trappings of a dynamic, youth-courting reformer, a strategy that got him over the line. Malaysia’s economic performance, while solid, has yet to deliver the shine promised by ambitious but tailored reform. And the distaste for privilege, corruption and discrimination in the law attracted a wide if fractious coalition for reform and political change that presented the government with a real challenge.

In reality, Najib and Anwar have more perhaps in common than either might care to concede. Both cut their teeth in the cauldron of youth politics and graduated with distinction. Both are charismatic and commanding personalities. Both claim the mantle of reformer, one from within government and the other having been a former Deputy Prime Minister. Both are comfortable with the ambiguities of Malaysian politics. Both have been haunted by controversy: Anwar in the form of repeated allegations of sexual misconduct, and Najib by his aide’s conviction for murder in the case of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu. It is said that this is why their personal rivalry is so deep and so bitter.

With so many obstacles placed in his way to political comeback, an Anwar victory would have been a remarkable triumph. After rising to the deputy prime ministership, he was sacked by former prime minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, during the Asian financial crisis, endured political persecution, imprisonment on charges of sodomy, release and political rehabilitation in 2008. His charisma, ambition, political skill and deep inside knowledge of the weaknesses in the ranks of the BN kept together the broad and unlikely coalition — Islamists, ethno-nationalists, non-Muslim ethnic minorities, socialist democrats and economic liberals — that delivered his parliamentary gains on Sunday.

But not enough, and Prime Minister Najib will now continue to confront the challenge of reform from within.

Peter Drysdale is Editor of the East Asia Forum.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/06/malaysia-edges-towards-change-but-not-yet/

Malaysian government-linked corporations crowd out private investment

May 1, 2013

April 25, 2013

by Jayant Menon, ADB and ANU, and Thiam Hee Ng, ADB

Private investment in Malaysia never fully recovered from the impact of the Asian financial crisis.

Foreigners have continued to shun Malaysia, but it now seems that even domestic investors are fleeing, with Malaysia becoming a net exporter of capital since 2005. One explanation for the sluggish performance of domestic private investment relates to the crowding-out effect of the growing dominance of government-linked corporations (GLCs) in many sectors. The influence of GLCs, however measured, is both widespread and pervasive.

The GLC share of operating revenue is approximately one-third in the aggregate, and they control more than half the industry share in utilities, transportation, warehousing, agriculture, banking, information communications and retail trade. GLCs employ around 5 per cent of the national workforce and account for approximately 36 per cent and 54 per cent, respectively, of the market capitalisation of Bursa Malaysia and the benchmark Kuala Lumpur Composite Index.

The pervasiveness of GLCs suggests they may present a formidable barrier to both competition and the entry of new private firms. This is also evident in their ability to exercise significant market power and use their special access to government and regulatory agencies to their advantage. Provisions in the government’s affirmative action program, the New Economic Policy (NEP) and its more recent incarnations also tend to favour GLCs, such as through government procurement restrictions.

Indeed, many GLCs were spawned as vehicles to achieve the redistributive objectives of the NEP. Since a key target was to increase the Bumiputera (Malay and indigenous peoples) share of wealth, rather than income, to 30 per cent, GLCs seemed the perfect instrument. While this target has yet to be met, the wealth share of Malays has increased at the same time that income inequality within the Malay community has worsened considerably. Many point to the rise of GLC-centred crony capitalism and a culture of corruption and patronage as contributing to this rise in inequality.

Recognising the problems with GLCs, and in a bid to improve the investment climate, the government launched its 10-year Transformation Programme in May 2004, with divestment of GLCs a key objective. With the deadline looming, progress has been lacklustre — of the 33 GLCs up for divestment, only 15 had been completed as of February 2013. Worse still, this limited divestment has been offset by new investments, with a spate of acquisitions by GLCs in private sector finance and property development for instance, making it more of a diversification than a divestment program.

So, are GLCs really crowding out private investment? For the first time, we provide empirical evidence on this relationship using a detailed dataset of 443 publicly listed firms covering the period 2007 to 2011 from Oriana. After accounting for the other determinants of investment, it is clear that a stronger GLC presence generally has a discernible negative impact on private investment. Also in question is whether there is a threshold effect when it comes to the share of GLC presence in an industry; that is, whether private firms tend to invest less to begin with if the share of GLC revenue in an industry is particularly large.

It would seem that when GLCs account for a dominant share of revenues in an industry, investment by private firms in that industry is significantly negatively impacted. Conversely, when GLCs do not dominate an industry, the impact on private investment is not significant. Even by varying the threshold by 10 percentage points in both directions, this change does not affect the original finding of a significant negative relationship between GLC share and private investment.

To revive private investment in Malaysia, the government must not only redress its growing fiscal deficit, but also expedite its program of divestment. While a growing fiscal deficit and the rising dominance of GLCs may both be crowding out private investment, a genuine privatisation program designed to reduce the role of GLCs would also address the fiscal constraint, providing a further boost to the investment climate. An improvement in overall governance and transparency would be an important, indirect, plus.

Jayant Menon is Lead Economist at the Office of Regional Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank, and Adjunct Fellow at the Arndt-Corden Department of Economics, the Australian National University.

Thiam Hee Ng is Senior Economist at the Office of Regional Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/25/malaysian-government-linked-corporations-crowd-out-private-investment/

GE-13: A Hung Parliament Is Not Necessarily Bad

April 29, 2013

GE-13: A Hung Parliament Is Not Necessarily Bad (Last of Four Parts)

 by Dr.M.Bakri Musa, Morgan-Hill, California

Many fear a hung parliament as they think that would lead to chaos and uncertainty. Yes, there may be both but neither is inevitable. On the contrary I see many potentially redeeming aspects that could benefit citizens, the permanent establishment, and yes, even those politicians.

For citizens, seeing these freshly-victorious politicians brazenly jockeying for positions would be both instructive and revealing. It would be quite a sight to watch them behave worse than hookers. At least hookers are consumed with satisfying their present customers first, and would solicit new ones only after they have done that. More importantly, they do both discreetly.

Those politicians on the other hand would be openly and lustily auctioning themselves to the highest bidder without even a promise of satisfactory performance to their current customers – citizens who had only recently voted for them. Those politicians would whore themselves brazenly. What matters to them would only be the price their new customers would be willing to pay, regardless how filthy and disease-ridden they are. Damn the consequences, for them or the nation

The jockeying would be intense, shameless and endlessly shifting, threatening both Barisan and Pakatan. It would not be below MCA for example, to align itself with DAP and throw their weight behind Pakatan, demanding an outrageous price in return. Or MCA could demand a stiff price for remaining in Barisan. Not to be outdone, as alluded earlier, PAS could bolt Pakatan and align itself with UMNO in an ugly chauvinistic attempt at reviving Ketuanan Melayu.

UMNO would sell its soul to get PAS support, and PAS in turn would readily sign a pact with the devil given the right price. There would be only one certainty; our politicians would finally be exposed for all their corruptness and hideousness. In the end unfortunately, citizens and Malaysia would be paying the terrible price.

Perhaps the nation needs such a sordid spectacle to jolt it into realizing that elections have consequences, and that the politicians and leaders we have today are far different from the earlier generation that brought us merdeka.On the other hand, our politicians may well surprise us.

Without being unnecessarily Pollyannaish, a few might discover that politics is after all a noble profession, and at its best and essence, a fine exercise in the art of compromise in order to get things done for the good of all.

At the very least a hung parliament would prompt us to be more prudent on our voting and not be so casual with this important exercise of democracy. If that would also encourage otherwise thoughtful Malaysians to offer themselves as candidates, then the whole exercise would not have been futile.

A hung parliament would also have a salutary effect on the permanent establishment.The last time there was a similar debacle, in Perak following the 2008 elections, the permanent establishment including the sultan, did not acquit themselves well.

Who could forget the spectacle of the Speaker being hauled out of the Assembly desperately clinging on to his chair, or the Raja Muda, the Sultan’s representative, being forced to cool his heels in an adjacent room while waiting out the mayhem? It was not pretty. The stench stained all, and stayed to this day.

You can be certain that this time, with the real possibility of Barisan being toppled, members of the permanent establishment would be more circumspect for their own selfish reasons. Thus I do not expect blatant displays of partisanship as we saw in Perak. To add flavor to that, the King today, DYMM Sultan Abdul Halim, was the Sultan of Kedah when PAS took over from UMNO. Thus working with a non-UMNO chief executive would not be a novelty for him.

Once we have established this fact at the Federal level, all the other Sultans at the state level would follow suit. They would, out of concern for their own survival, no longer be so blatantly partisan. That can only be good for them and the country.

A hung parliament is nothing to fear; it is just another though less clear-cut expression of a Barisan defeat. Stated differently, a hung parliament is a not-so-pretty Pakatan victory.

Malaysia’s fiscal future and the general election

April 28, 2013

Author: Liam Hanlon, Cascade Asia Advisors (04-23-13)

Malaysia’s 13th general election, scheduled for 5 May, is shaping up to be the tightest in the country’s near 60-year history.

The ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), should slightly edge out the opposition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR), but will probably fail to reclaim the coveted two-thirds majority necessary to amend the constitution. Behind the divisive rhetoric of this unofficial campaign season, however, neither camp has formulated a viable, long-term solution to one of Malaysia’s most insidious problems: fiscal imprudence.

Malaysia’s struggles with public finances are nothing new. With the exception of a brief period in the mid-1990s, Malaysia has long maintained a fiscal deficit, and in 2012 its budget deficit was one of the region’s largest, at 4.5 per cent. It has also done little to reign in public debt, which at 53.7 per cent of GDP in 2012 sits right under the debt-ceiling threshold of 55 per cent of GDP.

Although Malaysia’s deficits aren’t inherently irresponsible, they do reflect a concerning trend of ‘hidden’ public debt. This includes contingent liabilities, such as government guarantees on debt and ‘off balance sheet’ borrowings, which have more than doubled since Najib Razak took office in 2009. This debt surge comes from government entities that fund massive transportation and infrastructure projects.

It is not inconceivable that these liabilities may eventually find their way onto the federal balance sheet. Additionally, the government’s revenue stream, which has remained unimpressively low, is too heavily reliant on the state oil company PETRONAS, responsible for almost 35 per cent of federal revenues.

Underpinning many of these structural issues is a proclivity for subsidies and cash handouts, particularly when an election is on the line. As BN recovered from the political shock of the 2008 election that saw PR erase its parliamentary majority, Najib unleashed budgets saturated with voter-friendly measures.

The 2013 budget provided bonuses to over 1.3 million civil servants, cash for low-income families, smart phone rebates and a cut in the income tax rate. These additions reflect the political reality that prudent fiscal management does not carry votes in Malaysia. Malaysians frequently lament the rising cost of living, making subsidies politically expedient for anyone running for office.

Malaysia’s 13th general election is no different. PR’s leader, Anwar Ibrahim, and Najib are competing for the hearts and minds of Malaysia’s electorate, promising to deepen their pockets, shower them with gifts and reduce their taxes. Anwar unveiled his election manifesto 25 February, outlining an agenda replete with election sweeteners. He promised free secondary education, lower car prices, an increased minimum wage, and greater oil revenues for Sabah and Sarawak.

Najib revealed his electoral platform on 6 April, proffering his own brand of populist pledges. He promised to raise the annual cash handout for poor households from US$165 to almost US$400, build one million new affordable homes and similarly subsidise car prices. Najib also delayed the implementation of a goods and services tax (GST), which would expand the tax base and ease the government’s dependency on oil revenues. The electoral payoffs for these political ploys make it risky for any leader to advocate for long-term fiscal management.

However unpromising this election cycle has been, one policy prescription has emerged that could drastically alter Malaysia’s financial future. PR has advocated reforming the country’s longstanding quota system favouring Malays, opting instead for a system based on socioeconomic status. Eliminating racial preferences in public contracts could conceivably yield more efficient and useful government investments, and free up revenue for the high subsidies PR wants to dole out.

More importantly, this reform will reinvigorate Malaysia’s domestic competitiveness and empower truly disadvantaged segments of society. If implemented correctly, it would signal to the international investment community that business in Malaysia no longer runs on cronyism and race-based politics. Touting an improved investment environment could position Malaysia to better compete for much-needed foreign investment in the region, easing pressure on the government to drive investment.

To be fair, Najib has taken strides to roll back some of the archaic policies benefiting Malays. In 2009, he overturned a longstanding requirement for certain companies to sell at least 30 per cent of their shares to Malays. But the prime minister stopped short of addressing the bulk of preferential racial policies that infuriate ethnic Chinese and Indian Malaysians, particularly those in education and government contracts.

The United Malays National Organisation is still the most influential party component in BN, essentially guaranteeing that Malay interests will continue to guide the coalition’s policies. Regardless of Najib’s own ambitions, institutional impediments to achieving reform in this area may be too powerful to overcome.

Indeed, the policies of neither BN nor PR instil much confidence in the country’s medium-term fiscal future. Malaysia’s electoral politics fail to reward fiscal prudence and instead encourage shortsighted economic measures. But if the government cannot extract racial considerations from the economy, Malaysia risks falling deeper into financial mismanagement.

Liam Hanlon is a political analyst at Cascade Asia Advisors, a research and strategic advisory firm focused on Southeast Asia.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/22/malaysias-fiscal-future-and-the-general-election/

Why we are lagging behind!

April 14, 2013

by Koon Yew Yin@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

My objective in writing this is to support Professor Datuk Dr Woo Wing Thye’s lecture on April 12 at the Syuen Hotel, Ipoh. In his lecture he listed 5 root causes for our poor performance in comparison with South Korea and Taiwan.

Woo (left), possibly because of the election fever, tried to be politically correct and made little mention of the New Economic Policy in our failure to keep up with our neighbours. In fact, it is not only Woo who is silent on the NEP; most analysts appear to have sidelined this policy in the election debate to date.

This is a mistake as the real policy culprit explaining our failure to develop as quickly as our neighbours is the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the abuse of power in the BN government’s implementation. As a result, our neighbours are doing much better than us in spite of the fact that they all did not have the natural resources such as oil and gas.

The culture of corruption in this country is systemic and built into the policy framework of the NEP. Over the years, this ethnic-based policy has been abused to benefit only a select group of Bumiputera, although the policy was originally targeted at helping the larger community of poorer Bumiputera.

Despite the government’s strong defence of the NEP and its attempt to demonise those who are critical of it, no less an authoritative source than the government appointed National Economic Advisory Council has admitted that although ethnic-based economic policies have worked by reducing poverty and addressing interethnic economic imbalances, its “implementation has also increasingly and inadvertently raised the cost of doing business due to rent-seeking, patronage and often opaque government procurement,” which “has engendered corruption.”

This analysis is the same as the one that I have been making in my public writings and speeches. In the profession in which I have worked for many years, a system where contractors get jobs because of their ethnicity will invariably breed a culture of ethnic-based cronyism and inefficiency.

For example, IJM Corporation Bhd, of which I was a founder, did most of their highway contracts as sub-contractors to some Bumiputera Concessionaires. Yet IJM could win a few highways toll concessions on open competitive tenders in India. It is ironic for IJM, with a market capitalisation of more than RM7 billion, to work primarily as a sub-contractor in our own country.

The same applies in the procurement policies of PETRONAS. Because of this race-based requirement, contracts and concessions were awarded to Bumiputeras who do not have the expertise to carry out and complete the projects. As a result project costs balloon due to the number of layers of sub-contractors required to complete the job.

The percentage of mark-ups imposed by each layer is, in essence, a leakage in itself. This has created an underground economy of rent-seekers, which the government has finally acknowledged. However, it still refuses to discuss this matter in an open and transparent manner or seek solutions to it.

Hence, it is not surprising that the culture of corruption has become the norm rather than the exception. Malaysians are accustomed to the culture of having to pay a sum of money (or in kind) to complete a certain transaction, whether in business or in other sectors.

Large-scale corruption as mentioned above is rarely caught by the authorities. The Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission (MACC) prefers to target lower-level corruption and harass opposition members instead of going after the big fishes who enjoy immunity because of their political affiliation with the ruling elite.

It is frustrating for many Malaysians that the BN government has not learnt from the past mistakes and persist in making decisions that bleed the nation of increasingly scarce resources.

Hopefully the Pakatan Rakyat will do better. For them to get the country out if its deep hole, they must recognise that the NEP is a crucial road block in our road map to development that must be redressed immediately.

We cannot become a fully developed nation by even the 22nd century let alone 2020 if the NEP remains the main policy framework , corruption continues on the same scale and if corrupt leaders keep abusing their powers for self-gain.

Malaysia’s Najib Unveils Poll Manifesto Similar to Anwar’s

April 8, 2013

By Barry Porter & Manirajan Ramasamy – Apr 8, 2013 10:22 AM GMT+0800

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak pledged to fight corruption, bring down living costs and build a pan-Borneo expressway if his coalition retains power in elections due in a matter of weeks.

These were all policies mooted by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in his manifesto released six weeks earlier than the one Najib’s governing National Front unveiled at a weekend rally in Kuala Lumpur. The Election Commission meets this week to set a date for polls after the Prime Minister dissolved parliament on April 3.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak promised more specialist graft courts and greater public disclosure of government contracts if the National Front is allowed to extend its 55 years of unbroken rule.

“They had the benefit of time to study our manifesto over the past month and incorporate some elements,” Ong Kian Ming, a political analyst at Kuala Lumpur’s UCSI University and an Opposition election strategist, said by phone. “Unlike us, there’s nothing in there about electoral reform. That’s something a lot of people are concerned about.”

In the lead-up to the polls, Najib has boosted government spending, distributed a second round of cash handouts to the poor, and raised salaries of civil servants, police and the military. He also delayed implementing a goods-and-services tax and froze plans to wind back state subsidies on essential items. The manifesto offers increased handouts for the poor, and lowered car costs and broadband fees.

“My sincere apologies to all Malaysians if we have done anything wrong,” the Prime Minister said in a speech at the rally, broadcast live on national television. “At the end of the day, we are ordinary humans. If we are given a strong mandate, I can assure you that we will do better in the next five years.”

Housing, Health

Najib promised more specialist graft courts and greater public disclosure of government contracts if the National Front is allowed to extend its 55 years of unbroken rule. Among the pledges are more affordable housing, and improved health care and transportation, including a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

“A lot of the ideas have already been mooted by the opposition, like lowering car prices, cheaper Internet and a pan-Borneo highway,” James Chin, professor of political science at the Malaysian campus of Australia’s Monash University, said by phone yesterday. “Najib talked mostly about things that are popular with the people. He didn’t give details on macro- economic issues like implementing GST and cutting state subsidies.”

Worst Performer

To stay in power, Najib, 59, must see off a resurgent opposition led by Anwar, a former Deputy Prime Minister. Brokerages including Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Citigroup Inc. expect an even closer election result than in 2008, when the National Front retained power by its narrowest margin since Malaysia’s independence from Britain in 1957.

The risk of the ruling coalition losing seats in the election has helped make the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index Southeast Asia’s worst-performing benchmark in 2013. The stock gauge is down 0.3 percent this year, compared with a 14 percent gain in the leading index in Indonesia and a 7 percent increase in Thailand’s benchmark gauge.

The KLCI was trading 0.2 percent lower as of 9:58 a.m. in Kuala Lumpur today, while the ringgit was little changed to the dollar at 3.0564.

Najib, who inherited a country in recession when he replaced Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as leader mid-term in 2009, wants a mandate to complete his economic and government reforms started less than three years ago. He’s focusing on his track record in boosting investment and improving incomes as he seeks a popular mandate for the first time.

Fighting Corruption

Malaysia’s economy has shown resilience in the face of the global slowdown, expanding by more than 4 percent for each of the 13 quarters to the end of 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Private investment has tripled since Najib began his economic-transformation program in September 2010, rising 25 percent last year to 139.5 billion ringgit ($46 billion), according to government data.

Almost half of the voters surveyed in a poll by the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research said fighting graft is a more pressing issue for the next government than taming inflation or boosting foreign investment. The survey of 1,021 voters was conducted from January 23 to February 6 on the country’s peninsula and had a margin of error of 3.07 percent.

While Malaysia moved to 54th from 60th place among 176 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index last year, it was ranked last for bribery among 30 nations surveyed. About 3,000 executives from 30 countries were asked whether they’d lost a contract in the past year because competitors had paid a bribe. In Malaysia, 50 percent said yes, the Berlin-based advocacy group said.

Anwar’s Allies

The National Front is “committed to doing much more to combat the scourge” of corruption, according to its manifesto, which emphasized its experience in government and urged voters not to “gamble away” the future.

Anwar’s three-party People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) Opposition coalition comprises his own multiethnic People’s Justice Party, the Chinese-majority Democratic Action Party, and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, which wants to expand Shariah law.

The People’s Alliance won control of five of Malaysia’s 13 states in the 2008 election. The National front later won back Perak state when several lawmakers defected.

The opposition currently holds 75 of 222 parliamentary seats, while Najib’s alliance has 137, according to the Malaysian Parliament website. Anwar predicted a minimum 10-seat majority for his alliance in a March 8 interview.

Najib’s manifesto said Malaysia would seek a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council to play a greater role in regional peace, promoting moderate Islam and inter-faith harmony. A National Front government would support the establishment of a Palestinian state, and humanitarian efforts in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Thailand and Mindanao in the Philippines, it said.

_____________

To contact the reporter on this story: Manirajan Ramasamy in Kuala Lumpur at rmanirajan@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Stan James in Hong Kong at sjames8@bloomberg.net; Rosalind Mathieson in Singapore at rmathieson3@bloomberg.net

State Your Policies On National Finances UMNO-BN and Pakatan Rakyat told

April 8, 2013

Malaysia’s Prominent Economists and Political Scientists to UMNO-BN and Pakatan Rakyat: State Your Policies On National Finances

Recent financial crises have visited economic calamity upon ordinary citizens in the countries of the East and West alike. Experience tells us that there can be no complacency about a nation’s financial state.

Concerns voiced in various reports and the media call for special attention to Malaysia’s finances and their management. These concerns are:

A record-breaking capital flight out of Malaysia.

Financial watchdog Global Financial Integrity (GFI) reported that a total of RM880 billion of funds were illegally transferred out of the country between 2001 and 2010.

A sharply rising trend in government debt.

This debt almost doubled from RM274 billion at the beginning of 2008 to RM502 billion at the end of 2012. International Monetary Fund (IMF) statistics expect it to grow by RM277 billion to RM779 billion in 2017.

Incomplete information about the Malaysian government’s full exposure to debt.

The official figures for government debt exclude debts that are called contingent liabilities. These include off-balance-sheet borrowings and the debts of banks, government-linked companies and other private-sector enterprises that the government has guaranteed to pay off in the event that these entities default. One estimate of these hidden debts in 2011 placed it at RM117 billion.

Rapid growth of the share of total government debt owed to foreign holders. This has soared from 0.1% in 2003 to 6.7% in 2006, 11.8% in 2009, and 26.8% in 2012. Although 97% of this debt remains Ringgit-denominated, this trend is a cause for concern, and compromises future policy autonomy as well as heightens exposure to capital flight in the event of financial panic.

Possible massive losses by 1Malaysia Development Bhd.

Recent revelations indicate that this strategic company, wholly owned by the government of Malaysia and tasked to lead in market driven initiatives to help transform the Malaysian economy, may have incurred losses of as much as RM4 billion through mispricing of its bond issue.

Inconsistencies in Bank Negara reports regarding Malaysia’s total debt.

While one portion of Bank Negara’s statistics tallies with the official total debt of RM695.4 billion for 2011 and RM737.6 billion for 2012, elsewhere in its reports it is implied that Malaysia’s total debt is more than twice larger, at about RM2.025 trillion for 2011 and RM1.743 trillion for 2012. The latter would ordinarily be considered crisis-level figures.

Fears of an imminent credit bubble in Malaysia and other East Asian countries.

Households in Malaysia have amassed a consumer debt in excess of RM600 billion according to an IMF country report. Various financial analyses claim that Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan are at risk of a household debt crisis.

The lack of sustainability of Malaysia’s GDP growth.

Rapid liquidations of natural capital such as petroleum and forests to finance deficit spending or to fulfill debt obligations have adverse economic and ecological implications for present and future generations. Moreover, unproductive investments and expenditures are recorded as positive GDP in the national accounts even if they yield returns that do not cover borrowing costs.

A lack of discipline in adhering to Malaysia’s statutory ceiling for debt. The ceiling has been raised on the debt limit from 40% of GDP set in 2003 to 45% in 2008 and subsequently to the present 55% in 2009.

The above details signal an alarming trend. Decisive action is required to safeguard Malaysia’s development potential and forestall a crisis situation such as in Greece.

In line with public interest, therefore, and as a first step towards democratising the management of government finances, we, the undersigned, call upon Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, the main contenders for government in the 13th Malaysian general elections, to openly lay out detailed policy positions on how they intend to manage the nation’s finances.

In their policy briefs on national finance and debt, the two political coalitions must provide the following minimum feedback:

1. Justify the projections for the borrowings that they anticipate making in the coming five years under their respective watch;

2. Spell out plans for tackling fiscal deficits and ballooning government and household debts;

3. Explain how their election manifesto promises on government spending will be consistent with sustainable debt and resource management;

4. Declare their commitment to investigating illegal financial outflows and repatriating these monies as prescribed by the United Nations Convention against Corruption;

5. State explicitly whether they will support the foundations of public transparency and accountability in our national finances by

(i) establishing a continuously updated ‘debt register’ that will be publicly available on the Internet, which records the stock of debts, the sources of these debts, interest/dividend payments made on these and details of the uses made of these borrowings;

(ii) establishing a multi-partisan parliamentary committee for debt oversight and approval;

(iii) holding public fora and referenda on spending or debt decisions of great import; and

(iv) other possible measures.

We urge the two major political coalitions to produce their national finance and debt policy briefs focusing on the proposals set out above as soon as possible.

The voters of this country deserve to go to the voting booths with better knowledge of what to expect in the management of Malaysia’s finance and debts from the new government in power.

Signatories

Dr Cheong Kee Cheok

Dr Fatimah Kari

Dr Terence Gomez

Dr KJ John

Dr Cassey Lee

Dr Lee Hwok Aun

Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Dr Rajah Rasiah

Pak Sako

Dr. Rozilini M Fernandez- Chung

Dr. Yew Siew Yong

Barisan Nasional GE-13 Manifesto: More Goodies for Malaysians

April 7, 2013

by Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR: Transformation of the entire nation for the better, reaching out to all levels of society – this is what the Barisan Nasional manifesto for the 13th general election really amounts to.

From drawing a massive RM1.3 trillion worth of investments and creating 3.3 million new jobs with better incomes to harnessing the full potential and capacity of people with special needs and taking proactive steps to better care for the environment, the pledges in the document stand out in one major aspect.

And what’s that?

All the promises are realistic and can indeed be fulfilled by a government led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak that over the last four years has shown its capability and capacity to deliver on all the commitments it had made earlier.

In introducing the government and economic transformation programmes (GTP and ETP) during his term in office, he has ensured that these produce the desired results, and this is the foundation on which he can readily assert that all the 2013 election promises can be fulfilled.

This is a first-ever for an election manifesto in this country – chockfull of specific projects, programmes and actions that encompass every aspect of the people’s lives. The 32-page manifesto contains more than 150 commitments, most of them with specific projects and programmes.

This is in sharp contrast to the opposition manifesto released recently, with DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng conceding that it only comprises general policies, directions and targets.

Lim papered over the lack of details by saying the Opposition “can’t put every detail in the manifesto, otherwise it will be too thick and people will not be interested in reading it.”

The BN, however, has managed to present a comprehensive manifesto that has all the particulars that the electorate would really want to know; in other words, commitments are spelt out in terms of specific projects and programmes that are realistic because the BN has been delivering on similar commitments over the past four years.

What stands out in particular in the BN manifesto is Najib’s insistence that “we must never leave anyone behind” in the national discourse and in pursuing the national agenda.

He urges Malaysians to judge the BN on its merits, saying: “Please join my colleagues and me in fulfilling our potential towards developing a country that we can be truly proud of.

“A country where the weak are protected, those in want assisted, the strongest protect, the young are loved, the elderly valued, those in need are attended to, and those with potential given opportunities to bloom.”

Some of the headline commitments to be realised over the next five years should the BN be returned to power:

* Increasing the value of BR1M to RM1,200 per household, book vouchers and schooling aid payments.

* An automotive policy that will gradually reduce car prices by 20 per cent to 30 per cent and make the national cars more competitive.

* Lowering broadband charges by at least 20 per cent with guaranteed bandwidth.

* A host of consumer-oriented measures to help ease the cost of living.

* Greater focus on dealing with the pronounced urban shift, including creating a new ministry and providing quality public housing.

* Building a million affordable homes and assisting the poor and lower income group in rehabilitating their homes.

* Quality healthcare for every Malaysian, discounted prices for specific medication for Malaysians with special needs, and palliative home care for the aged and terminally ill.

* Bus, rail and taxi terminals in all towns and cities as well as ensuring more efficient bus services.

* Expansion of the highway network, constructing the Pan-Borneo Highway.

* Compelling service providers to ensure quality mobile phone service and reliable wireless access.

* Implementing the 21st Century Village concept to spur rural transformation and bring the rural community into the mainstream of development

* Create 3.3 million new jobs, of which two million will be in high-income sectors.

* Work towards achieving a per capita income of RM45,000 by 2020.

* Implement a transformation programme for small and medium enterprises.

* Reform the tax structure that is more broad-based and gradually cut personal and corporate tax.

* Enhance the effectiveness of the bumiputera agenda by having a stronger support system and creating more business opportunities.

* Having policies that are fair and equitable to all races.

* Improving the education system so that it is among the best globally.

* Developing further the thinking skills of students, enhancing performance in mathematics and science studies and making English a compulsory pass for SPM.

* Bring about a Police omnipresence so that people feel safer and more secure.

* Have greater women participation in the national decision-making process

* Programmes to nurture quality leadership and creativity among youths.

* Gazetting all native customary land and provide more income-generating opportunities for the indigenous communities.

* Appoint a Minister to deal with non-Muslim matters.

* Public disclosure of contracts to enhance transparency in government procurement.

* Compelling MPs and state assemblymen to sign the integrity pact.

* Ensuring a fair mix of all races in the civil service and government-linked companies.

* Improve the quality of the civil service through, among others, talent development.

* Expand the urban transformation centres to all major cities and towns.

* Seek a seat on the UN Security Council so that Malaysia can play a prominent role in regional peace and international security through the government’s policy of moderation.

* Allocate space for green lungs within major cities, revitalise rivers and streams, further promote renewable green energy resources, and modernise waste disposal and management.  - BERNAMA

Politicians among 1,500 who own offshore companies

Politicians among 1,500 who own offshore companies – Malaysiakini

EXCLUSIVE: Top Malaysian politicians, their family members and well-heeled associates are among those owning secretive offshore companies in Singapore and the British Virgin Islands, according to an explosive cache of leaked documents.

They include former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s son Mirzan, Federal Territories and Urban Well-being Minister Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin and Michael Chia, the alleged ‘bagman’ for Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman.

The files, which were obtained by Washington-based International Confederation of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and examined by Malaysiakini,show more than 1,500 Malaysians owning offshore companies in Singapore – dubbed as the new Switzerland – as well as the British Virgin Islands (BVI), an international tax haven.

The ICIJ list comprises a curious mix of Forbes-listed tycoons, parliamentarians, retired politicians, civil servants and their spouses, members of royal families, famous and infamous businesspeople, underworld kingpins and even former beauty queens.

While some of the offshore companies carry out legitimate transactions, others are likely to be part of the RM871.4 billion estimated by Washington-based financial watchdog Global Financial Integrity (GFI) to have been lost through illicit outflows over a 10-year period.

In 2010 alone, GFI reported that close to RM200 billion of dirty money was siphoned out of Malaysia, putting the country second only to Asian economic powerhouse China in global capital flight.

The leaked ICIJ files provide secret records of offshore holdings of people and companies in more than 170 countries and territories.

“The hoard of documents represents the biggest stockpile of inside information about the offshore system ever obtained by a media organisation. The total size of the files, measured in gigabytes, is more than 160 times larger than the leak of US State Department documents by Wikileaks in 2010,” says ICIJ.

However, despite the extensive data, this is not the complete list of all off-shore companies around the world. Indeed, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Nevertheless, it allows members of the public, for the very first time, to sneak a peak into the secretive world of anonymous wealth.

Raja Nong Chik

According to the leaked documents, Raja Nong Chik, who is Lembah Pantai UMNO chief, is a prominent shareholder and director of RZA International Corporation, a British Virgin Islands entity incorporated on Aug 21, 2007, through Singapore.

The company is a mirror of Malaysian entity Kumpulan RZA Sdn Bhd, a 1997-founded company dealing in real estate and equities investment.

Raja Nong Chik set up the offshore entity with his father, Raja Zainal Abidin Raja Tachik, a number of his sisters and brothers as well as other family members. Most of them are also shareholders and directors of Kumpulan RZA Sdn Bhd.

Prior to his senatorship, Raja Nong Chik was a corporate figure who founded and managed an engineering firm for 20 years.

Contacted by Malaysiakini, the minister confirmed that RZA International was set up by his father, who will turn 96 this year, “for the purpose of holding legitimate offshore investments for the family”.

However, the minister did not elaborate on the offshore investments made by his family through the company. He added that RZA International was de-registered in 2009.

“The company was not used to obscure activities of Kumpulan RZA Sdn Bhd, and neither was it used to circumvent taxes or hide transactions overseas,” Raja Nong Chik said in an email to Malaysiakini.

Mirzan Mahathir

Mirzan Mahathir, the eldest son of Mahathir, is also among those the ICIJ list as director and shareholder of three off-shore companies.

Mirzan’s major commercial vehicle in Malaysia is Crescent Capital Sdn Bhd, an investment holding and independent strategic and financial advisory firm. He is the company’s chairperson and chief executive officer.

A Forbes-listed entrepreneur, Mirzan holds a non-executive director position in Philippines-based San Miguel group, which has raised eyebrows in Muslim-majority Malaysia, as beer brewery is a core businesses of San Miguel.

One of Mirzan’s offshore entities is called Crescent Energy Ltd, a Labuan offshore company incorporated on Dec 16, 2003, originally named Mainline Ltd and with an authorised share capital of US$12,000 (RM37,000).

Mirzan became a director and main shareholder six days later and the company was renamed Crescent Energy on May 16, 2008.

Another Labuan offshore company, Utara Capital Ltd, in which Mirzan is named as sole shareholder and director, was incorporated on Aug 19, 1997, with an authorised share capital of US$15,000.

The third company, Al Sadd Investments Pte Ltd. was also a Labuan offshore company. It was established on May 14, 2009, with an authorised share capital of US$12,000. Mirzan is listed as the sole shareholder and director of Al Sadd Investments.

Malaysiakini has approached Mirzan’s office for his comments on these offshore companies, but his aide said he was unable to respond on the matter as he was out of town.

Michael Chia

Another prominent personality on the list is Chia Tien Foh, who is better known as Michael Chia – the shadowy business tycoon allegedly linked to Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman.

Chia, too, has three offshore companies in which he is listed as either as director or shareholder. One of them was CTF International Ltd , with ‘CTF’ seen as the initials of Chia’s full name. It was incorporated on April 18, 2007, in the British Virgin Islands.

CTF International gained notoriety when it was named by whistleblower website Sarawak Report of being a conduit in channelling millions of ringgit to a Hong Kong account allegedly linked to Musa.

However, Musa (left), has denied any business ties with Chia (right).

CTF was de-registered in 2008. The other two offshore companies owned by Chia are Ravenswood Development Ltd and Ark Capital Technologies Ltd.

In addition, Chia’s wife Yap Loo Mien and another woman, who is alleged to be his mistress, Yap Siaw Lin, also appear on the list as key shareholders in three separate British Virgin Islands entities.

Loo Mien owned two companies – Perfect Minds Incorporated and StarWater Corporation – while Siaw Lin owned Splendor Success Worldwide Ltd.

Malaysiakini contacted Chia through the address stated in his company registration documents for comments, but there has been no response.

Iron-clad secrecy

According to a former officer with of the Inland Revenue Board (IRB), crooked Malaysians parked their money offshore to enjoy either significantly lower or even no taxes, and where the income is illegal, they are protected by a wall of secrecy.

Such ploys, said the officer who was a tax investigator, may not always succeed as Malaysia has a double taxation agreement, with close to 80 countries, that provides for the exchange of information on investigations involving the prevention or detection of tax evasion or fraud.

This includes Singapore, where some of the offshore companies are based.

The island republic has been labelled by Sarawak corporate lawyer Alvin Chong (right) as the “new Switzerland” in a recent video clandestinely filmed by London-based NGO Global Witness.

The retired officer, who worked with the IRB for more than 20 years, added that while the setting up of offshore companies was, in itself not illegal, such companies could be used to evade taxes.

“For example, a payment can be made for a seemingly legitimate service, like consultancy for the procurement of submarines, but it is paid to a company set up overseas, where the recipient pays a lower tax.

“Singapore and Hong Kong, with corporate tax rates of about 17 percent compared with Malaysia’s 25 percent, are popular parking lots,” he said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Tax evasion

One of the methods of tax evasion was explained by Chong in the Global Witness video – on how to avoid paying capital gains tax relating to Sarawak’s doggy land deals.

According to the former tax officer, offshore companies often include many layers of ownership through nominees to camouflage and “water down the link” to the original owner.

As such, he said the act of setting up offshore companies in tax havens often raises red flags.

“Someone can say that their company is set up at the British Virgin Islands, for example, but the money they use to set up the BVI company, or more importantly, the operations channeled through these tax havens could raise suspicion as being not genuine and invite an IRB probe,” he said.

“If the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission), IRB or the police want information from their Singapore counterparts, for example, the latter are obliged to give, at least under the Malaysia-Singapore DTA (double taxation agreement),” he said.

But most tax havens are not signatories to DTA agreements and they operate outside international law.

Moreover, it is also up to the Malaysian authorities to decide whether to pursue the case and seek the necessary information from their counterparts abroad.

---

Aidila Razak, Kuek Ser Kuang Keng, Wong Teck Chi and Steven Gan contributed to this report.

 

Pakatan ‘will probe 1990s forex scandal’ if it wins GE13

April 3, 2013

by Susan Loone@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) disastrous foreign exchange foray in the early 1990s will be a prime target for investigation, if Pakatan Rakyat succeeds in forming the next federal government.

In this regard, it will zoom in on the alleged role of Nor Mohamed Yakcop (left), now the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said Nor Mohamed will be called in to account for the loss of RM5.7 billion.The sum was  derived from the 1993 BNM Annual Report, and was revealed last September in Parliament by Deputy Finance Minister Donald Lim.

“If he fails to break his silence after 20 years, and if there is a change of government in Putrajaya, Nor Mohamed will be hauled up for questioning,” Lim told a press conference yesterday.

“The Pakatan government will launch into a full-blown investigation to find out where all that money has gone.If he does not explain where the money has gone, people will ask if he is keeping the money. People are bound to ask how the loss happened.”

Lim, who is also Penang Chief Minister, said the people of Tasek Gelugor – where Nor Mohamed is the MP – are demanding the truth and that they want a parliamentary representative who is accountable and has integrity.

He was speaking yesterday after handing over a mock cheque for RM100,000 to Penang-based squash superstar Nicol David as a gesture of appreciation after she won her seventh world title.

Nor Mohamed had said on Sunday that the BN is capable of regaining most of the Pakatan-administered states, including Penang, in GE13. According to a Bernama report, he attributed this confidence to the people’s positive response towards the federal government’s transformation programmes and their realisation of the government’s determination to improve the standard of living

Pakatan leaders have hounded Nor Mohamed – who joined Bank Negara in 1968, heading the foreign exchange unit – over his alleged involvement in the financial scandal but the minister has declined to comment on this.

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has defended him by dismissing calls for a probe into what he claimed to be “an old story”. Nor Mohamed has enjoyed a string of promotions despite the allegations against him. He left BNM in 1994 but returned in 1998 after a stint in the corporate world, staying for another two years.

He was appointed Finance Minister II in 2004 after winning the Tasek Gelugor seat in the general election that year. Currently, he is in charge of the Economic Planning Unit and is also a member of the National Economic Advisory Council.

Conviction Politics is required for change

April 2, 2013

by Karim Raslan@http://www.thestar.com.my

From Asia to South America, strong political parties have known to have fallen. But some like India’s Congress Party or Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party have reinvented themselves and risen to the fore again.

THAT’S the question many Malaysians are asking themselves as we anxiously await elections and ponder who to support. My answer is: yes, of course they can. But sometimes, they need to lose and spend time in the wilderness before renewal kicks in.

Look at how India’s Congress Party, having lost power to the BJP in 1996 was able to make a stunning comeback in 2004.True, Congress may lose power again in the next elections (expected in 2014) but they would reinvent themselves (if not under Rahul Gandhi then certainly his sister, Priyanka) and remain a force in Indian politics.

A more recent example is Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).Most analysts consigned Shinzo Abe and the LDP to oblivion after their 2009 defeat.

Fast-forward to today and both are back in office, determined to remake Japan’s economy and defence as they see fit.

The most remarkable example of a ruling party losing power and then reviving themselves has taken place in Mexico.Last December, around the time Abe was staging his comeback, Enrique Pena Nieto (right), the 46-year-old former governor of Mexico State  was sworn in as President.

He’s a member of the Institutional Revo­lutionary Party (PRI), which ruled Mexico for 71 years before losing the presidency to Vicente Fox of the National Action Party in 2000.

PRI maintained power through massive corruption and fraud, leading the Peruvian Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa to label its regime a “perfect dictatorship”.

Indeed, PRI was more opportunistic rather than ideological even though its cadres claimed to be leftist. Certainly, deep (almost symbiotic) relations with the labour unions helped secure continuing electoral support.Conversely, the PRI also spawned a host of multi-billionaires, most notably Carlos Slim (below left) when they initiated a slew of privatisations, including the country’s telephone operator, Telmex in 1990.

Telecommunications was the foundation of Slim’s fabulous fortune, currently estimated at over US$73bil (RM226bil). However, telephony costs in Mexico are amongst the highest in the world as two groups – Slim’s Telmex and América Móvil control 80% and 70% of Mexico’s fixed lines and mobile telephone markets, respectively.

At the same time, another plutocrat, media mogul Emilio Azcarraga Vidaurreta’s Televisa media company controls 60% of Mexico’s commercial television.

Some Mexicans therefore greeted Pena Nieto’s victory with trepidation: would they experience a return to the abuses of the past? The personable new President, however, has sprung many surprises.

One of his first acts was to persuade Mexico’s other political parties to sign a “Pact for Mexico”, a 95-point document that pledges sweeping reforms, such as making it easier to fire underperforming teachers, imposing a value-added tax (VAT) on food and medicine to boost revenue, as well as greater transparency over local government finances.

Rhetoric aside, Pena Nieto has shown that he has the courage to push his reforms th­­rough.

The President won plaudits for jailing the head of Mexico’s all-powerful teacher’s union, Elba Esther Gordillo, over an alleged US$160mil (RM496mil) embezzlement. Gordillo, dubbed “The Teacher”, was once seen as untouchable and had stood in the way of educational reform.

Pena Nieto is also expected to open up Mexico’s promising but stagnant and under-performing oil industry, which is currently dominated by state producer Petroleos Mexi­canos (Pemex).

Details are sketchy but it may include allowing for greater foreign participation. Pena Nieto has also announced plans to break the monopolies of Slim and Azcarraga by limiting telecommunication companies to a 50% market share and creating two new TV network concessions which Televisa will be banned from bidding for.

The President has also badgered his PRI cadres to give him more power to tweak party policies on energy reform and introducing the VAT. PRI’s shift on VAT represents an especially dramatic reversal as the party had been dead-set against such measures when they were in opposition.

Realising the President’s determination, members of the establishment, including the head of Pemex’s union Carlos Romero Deschamps (who interestingly has also been accused of impropriety) and Carlos Slim himself, have lined up to endorse Pena Nieto’s reforms.

His brand of conviction politics proves that it’s possible to resist pressure from vested interests, whether on the left, right or from within and outside a party.

Indeed, Pena Nieto has shown a laudable willingness to put the national interests first: Azcarraga’s Televisa, which would be hurt by his reforms, is ironically an ally of PRI which always gave the party favourable coverage.

The President has also shown unusual courage in striking out so early into his term in office, proving the importance of acting immediately if a leader is serious about any kind of reform agenda.

True, it remains to be seen if the reforms can be enacted in totality. Nevertheless, it’s not impossible that Mexico can reach its full potential under Pena Nieto’s leadership.

BRICS challenge the World Bank and the IMF in Development Finance

April 2, 2013

by Bunn Nagara (03-31-13)@http://www.thestar.com.my

A prospective new financial architecture promises to reform and improve development finance for the world.

FIVE countries came together during the week to grab international headlines over how they might, as a group, change the world: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS).

And they would do so in the most tried-and-tested way imaginable: financially, as a single economic entity. As a bloc BRICS may effect change on a global scale, but the grouping would still do so in the traditional way of flexing economic muscle.

The annual BRICS summit held during the week in Durban, South Africa, focused on what that muscle can do – challenge the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the way development finance is conducted, as well as the Western dominance that has prevailed in both Bretton Woods institutions.

Those institutions were never meant to be that way, of course, as a reading of their founding texts would show. But any initial magnanimity soon gave way to self-interest: US and European dominance of the World Bank and the IMF respectively was to be a Western “consensus” imposed on the world like a global neo-colonial regime.

Interestingly, the original BRIC as both a term and a grouping originated not in any of the initial four countries or the developing world, but in the US itself.

None other than Goldman Sachs’ Asset Management Chairman Jim O’Neill coined the term in 2001 for those countries he believed would outpace the US in total GDP by 2020.

At the turn of the century Brazil, Russia, India and China were merely regarded by some as emerging economies developing under their own steam.

After O’Neill’s coinage they held their first summit in 2009 and invited South Africa to join them a year later, and BRICS was born.

Since then, BRICS as both concept and entity has had vigorous growth and a vibrant youth. It compares favourably with the IMF and the World Bank, both pushing 70 years and weighed down by limiting conditionalities and outmoded economic ideology.

Both institutions typically adopt a cold, mechanistic approach to development that prioritises market interests over human needs. Their Western bias is also a throwback in a 21st-century world of shared global interests and aspirations, and a world in which Western economies themselves are in trouble.

In contrast, BRICS as a bloc of emerging economies serves as a bridge between the developing Third World and the developed First World. It seeks to narrow that yawning chasm by focusing on reviving global growth and ensuring macroeconomic stability.

Those virtues that had once been the preserve of the West have become its elusive goals. The “developed” and the “emerging” (mostly, once “developing”) economies have traded places.

The new global bank that BFICS wants to establish is expected to emphasise infrastructure development and trade. The first represents solid investment in development for the future, and the second works as an economic multiplier for further growth.

On paper, BRICS countries account for almost half the world’s population and just over a quarter of world trade. But more important than these bare figures is how Brics economies have been driving global growth for years, as acknowledged by the World Bank itself.

The idea for a new global bank arose only last year. So how the measured progress at the Durban summit is perceived depends at least as much on the observer: is the glass half-full or half-empty?

Some of the most difficult decisions, such as financing modes, remain unresolved. Its primary purposes like the operation of funds in project financing and a contingency fund as crisis buffer will take more time to work out.

Pessimists may cite how the absence of agreement on even the quantum of fund contribution from each country bodes ill for BRICS. Basing the contribution on economic capacity makes sense, but concerns were expressed over how that would inevitably make a hulking China dominant.

A standard sum of US$10bil (RM31bil) from each country as seed capital was then considered, following a Russian proposal, but the final decision was left until later.

Optimists would say that far from weak indecision, this showed an openness about not wanting any country to dominate, with agreement on equality with a fair and manageable quantum for all.

However, realists may say that in such financial matters China would still eventually dominate. To that, it can be said that dominance by a single country was never a problem before, given the prominent US role and influence in the World Bank and the IMF.

At this point some may say it was precisely because of single-power dominance that had compromised the work of the Bretton Woods institutions. It might then be observed that a new global bank dominated by China would only balance the World Bank (and the IMF), which it would complement rather than replace.

Some observers may see crippling incompatibility in the different political systems within BRICS.But such diversity need not be an obstacle, particularly when all countries now work within a global capitalist system.

President Vladimir Putin, often cited in Western circles as a modern incarnation of the Soviet bear, even insisted that a new global bank “must work on market principles only.” And “communist” China is not only a major and enthusiastic player in global markets, but – to former British foreign minister David Miliband – has even acted as a saviour of Western capitalism.

What worries fans of the IMF and World Bank is not how a new global bank as competitor will “steal their business,” but how it may force both to be more democratic and more sympathetic to the developing world. Who else but those currently dominating them in Washington and Brussels would object?

Japan as an emerging economy itself decades ago had its chance to forge a new alternative in international finance with the Asian Development Bank, but blew it.

The former coloniser in Asia seeking to make good in its post-war period, with US partnership, soon settled into establishment mode alongside its Bretton Woods equivalents. A new global bank established by BRICS will be a welcome addition to the existing financial institutions.

Its continental and political diversity would also make a slide into betraying its noble purpose more difficult.

Late last year, Brazil suggested that the proposed bank should be modelled on ASEAN’s Chiang Mai initiative.This is a time for a sharing of experiences when each can learn from the rest, not of jealous exclusion and unfounded fears of rivalry.

In time, perhaps even the World Bank and the IMF can find it in themselves to accommodate and welcome new financial institutions operating on their “turf”.At least that would help them return to their initial noble calling.

Who is the Enemy?: Certainly not us Malaysians

March 28, 2013

by Dr. Kua Kia Soong@http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: As the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, GDAMS 3.0 (April 15, 2013) approaches, it is time for Malaysians to ask: Who are Malaysia’s enemies and what appropriate weaponry do we need?

One would think this is the first question the Ministry of Defence should ask in the multi-billion decisions to procure armaments now that the arms merchants are here again for LIMA 2013. Yet our National Defence Policy has never even been properly debated in Parliament.

Just a few months ago, the Ministry of Defence would not have said that Malaysia’s enemies were among the Suluks who have been coming back and forth between Southern Philippines and Sabah all these years.

After all, hadn’t we helped to train MNLF fighters there against Marcos in the seventies? Wasn’t this the reason why the Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein(right) said that the invaders at Lahad Datu were “neither militants nor terrorists” during the two or three weeks that they were already there?

And haven’t we got a “Rapid Deployment Force” (10 Paratrooper Brigade) ready to be dispatched to any flashpoint? One wonders what flashpoint scenarios they are trained for?  Are they ready to be deployed only when there are secessionists fighting to take East Malaysia out of the federation? They certainly hadn’t been prepared for the Sulu Sultan’s army to “turn”.

Don’t be surprised if the “defence analysts” in the Ministry have now shredded all their previous analyses about Malaysia’s perceived “enemies”. With the new-found enemies of the Malaysian state, the arms lobby has at last found a raison detre for their fabulous arms procurements.

Heck, didn’t we finally get the chance to use our F18 fighter bombers and Hawk 208 fighter jets against this so-called “rag-tag army”? Wouldn’t armoured cars and tanks and mortars have sufficed in that four square kilometer area of land against that motley crew? In the end, were Malaysians given a clear picture of the efficacy of those fighter jet sorties?

Whatever the reasons for sending in the fighter bombers and jets, the international arms merchants have now come to town to peddle their wares. The French have started advertising their ‘Rafale’ fighter jets in our mainstream newspapers, alongside bargains by ‘Giant’ and ‘Tesco’ for the attention of Malaysians.

BAE are also desperately trying to flog their ‘Typhoon’ jet fighters in a RM10 billion deal they hope to clinch with a “Buy 1 – Get 1 free” gambit. They lost out recently to the French when the Indian government opted to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets instead, and are still fuming.

But do we need any fighter jets at all, considering their cost is spiraling way out of control and they so quickly become obsolete? They will be even more obsolete when future air wars are fought using drones (Unarmed Aerial Vehicles)!

Malaysians should be aware that the latest (US) F35 fighter jets cost at least half a billion ringgit a piece? Can we keep up with the race? What race? Who are we racing against? Who are our enemies?

Appropriate vessels for RMN

When the bombardment finally began at Lahad Datu, it was mentioned that the navy had formed a cordon to prevent the intruders from getting away. It became clear that there has never been a cordon to prevent any intruders from getting INTO Sabah all these years.

Looking at the geography of the area, it is evident that our two submarines (costing more than RM7 billion) sitting pretty in Sepanggar Bay and our six New Generation Patrol Vessels (costing RM9 billion) were not the most suitable vessels in such circumstances.

This mismatch raises the question of the need for our navy to prioritise the deployment of appropriate alternative vessels.  As part of the RM5 billion arms deal signed between Dr Mahathir and Margaret Thatcher in 1989, we procured two corvettes built by the Yarrow shipbuilders costing RM2.2 billion. (NST, Novembe 11, 1991).

At the time, the Royal Malaysian Navy said they required sixteen offshore patrol vessels but due to financial constraints, the RMN could only afford four or five of these locally-built OPVs. Mindef had budgeted RM85 million per OPV. (NST, November 25,1991).

Now, in the light of the latest incident at Lahad Datu, Malaysians will be in a better position to see the appropriate vessels that would be more suitable to secure the Sabah coastline.

Before the Lahad Datu incident, the main “enemies” testing the capacity of our armed forces were the pirates in the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.

There were no bigger “enemies” than those seafaring marauders. Are state-of-the-art fighter jets and submarines the appropriate defence equipment against pirates? These would likewise be inappropriate if “international terrorists” and suicide bombers choose to target Malaysia.

So, exactly how are decisions made in the Ministry of Defence to purchase the submarines, the corvettes, the frigates (costing billions) instead of more effective patrol boats to guard our coastlines?

ASEAN needs to take ZOPFAN more seriously

There is no end if we choose to embark on an arms race with our neighbouring countries. We simply cannot afford such an arms race and it is time ASEAN countries seriously talk about disarmament and joint defence agreements instead of an arms race within ASEAN.

Our economic priorities need to be diverted away from military production toward production for human needs, and public expenditure diverted to more and better social services throughout ASEAN.

Any disputes over territories should be settled through international arbitration as was done over Pulau Batu Putih with Singapore. The dispute of the Spratly Islands should be resolved the same way.

M’sian people not the enemy

The Lahad Datu incident should act as a wake-up call for the Malaysian government that seems preoccupied with treating its own people as the enemy. When we bear in mind that throughout the tenure of the Internal Security Act since 1960, more than 10,000 people had been incarcerated for being “threats to national security”.

But hardly any have been charged for any crimes involving violence against the state. Then again, there have been at least two cases of Malaysians who have been killed in neighbouring countries for alleged terrorist activities. Yet, none of them were ever arrested under the ISA!

This goes to show that our intelligence service has been focusing on the wrong suspects. As a former ISA detainee who was incarcerated for being a “threat to national security”, I can vouch for the wanton wastage of security personnel on Malaysians who are simply not “enemies of the state”.

When I think of the number of state operatives who had been spying on me, arresting me, guarding me, interrogating me, accompanying me on family and hospital visits, I immediately wonder how they could be better deployed to prevent crimes being committed and watching out for the real enemies of the state.  And when we multiply the cost 10,000 times since 1960, we will realize the enormous waste of human resources that could be better put to use!

It was recently reported in the New York Times (March 13, 2013) that Malaysia is among 25 countries using off-the-shelf spyware to keep tabs on citizens by secretly grabbing images off computer screens, recording video chats, turning on cameras and microphones, and logging keystrokes:

“Rather than catching kidnappers and drug dealers, it looks more likely that it is being used for politically motivated surveillance,” security researcher Morgan Marquis-Boire was quoted by NYT as saying.  This is what I mean when I say our intelligence service is not focused on the job but wasting valuable resources spying on and apprehending the good guys!

Indeed, if the Malaysian state had only focused on the job of catching the real criminals, Malaysia would be a much safer place instead of being the “nation of guarded communities” it has become today.

Militarism serves ruling class

Apart from the huge commissions that can be creamed from multibillion ringgit arms contracts, the ruling class requires militarism to contain the oppressed and disgruntled sections of the population.

A strong military is necessary to prop up the ruling class. At the same time, the military-industrial complex promotes the development of a specially favoured group of companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of munitions and military equipment for personal gain and profit. These armaments companies have a direct interest in the maximum expansion of military production.

Arms production is a green issue

Military spending and arms production are very much green issues. The military- industrial complex not only produces toxic products, they produce weapons that kill indiscriminately. LIMA and other defence fairs are certainly not congruent with Malaysian leaders’ stated commitment to peace and spiritual values.

The green movement has a responsibility to work toward an end to the culture of war. This involves re-ordering our financial priorities away from wasteful and destructive arms production and procurement to the social well-being of the people.

Ultimately, working towards a culture of peace is a vision that is only attainable in a society that respects human dignity, social justice, democracy and human rights.

Anwar Ibrahim responds to Tun Daim Zainuddin and UMNO-BNO

March 27, 2013

Anwar Ibrahim responds to Tun Daim Zainuddin and UMNO-BN

GE13: What’s at stake for Malaysia?

March 27 2013

Mr Bowie thinks Najib is doing a Good Job, Do You?

GE13: What’s at stake for Malaysia?

by Nile Bowie@http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Malaysians of all walks of life will soon go to the polls to take part in an election, the outcome of which will have long-ranging implications that could see significant changes in how the country is governed.

The incumbent leader, Najib Tun Razak, is campaigning for his first mandate at the polls, and his government has legitimised itself through its growth-promoting management of the economy and a series of populist measures aimed at lifting the burden on the poor.

The Opposition coalition, which has vowed to eliminate authoritarianism and elite graft, has released a manifesto that some have lauded, while others have been more skeptical of by questioning how the coalition plans on executing many of their programs.

The dissolution of Parliament is just around the corner and it cannot be denied that many are dissatisfied with the status quo, and there is a large demographic of young voters who want to challenge the ruling coalition’s infallibility at the polls.

The surfacing of contentious issues close to election-time has created a notable climate of disillusion in Malaysia’s critical blogosphere. Among those are concerns that immigrants in Sabah were given citizenship and voting rights during Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s era on the condition that they vote in favor of the ruling party.

The recent exposé documenting members of Taib Mahmud’s family openly talking of skirting Malaysian tax law has gone viral, putting enormous pressure on Najib’s administration to take action.

Many, especially among the young, feel animosity toward the government for the way in which the BERSIH demonstrations were dispersed.

These factors do not bode well for the ruling party, but despite the shortcomings that should rightfully be addressed, it should be acknowledged that from a developmental point of view, Malaysia has historically been among the top-tier of well-governed countries in the region and the ruling coalition has been very successful in numerous areas.

The Naijb government has undeniably had success in delivering high-economic growth to Malaysia.

People-friendly policies

This should not be easily shrugged off by the frustrated voter, especially considering the lackluster state of the global economy.

In recent times, economic turmoil has ensued throughout the European Union as a result of negligent mismanagement and the primacy of finance capital. Cyprus has been in uproar over a bill that would make citizens have their personal savings taxed when their government and affiliated bondholders took careless risks.

In the United States, the Obama administration has found itself so indebted, that it was forced to pass the Sequester Bill, cutting $85 million from the federal budget, primarily targeting social programs that the downtrodden and the elderly depend on.

In both cases, the most vulnerable members of society have been forced to pick up the tab for governments and investors that have recklessly managed their economies and instituted punishing belt-tightening austerity measures.

In stark contrast, the Najib administration has extended its hand to the poor – be it single mothers, taxi drivers, low-earning families or young entrepreneurs – by introducing a wide range of credit schemes, vouchers, and subsidies that have helped the pace of development.

Malaysians often overlook the fact that Malaysia has one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, the Najib government has made it a priority to implement people-friendly policies and programs of social uplift, exactly what the people of Greece, Spain, and Portugal have been asking their bureaucratic leaders for.

Najib’s 1Malaysia program, the central backbone of his populist policies, has been criticised for lacking substance. One should note that the current leadership is trying to deemphasise ethnicity, and in a country where complaints of race-politics are commonplace, this should be rightfully seen as a welcoming development.

There is no doubt that the current leadership is well aware of the criticisms and the short-comings, hence the emphasis being placed on economic and governmental transformation programs that have the potential to deliver increased stability and bring about an economic climate where more bold reforms are possible in the near-future.

The fervor and passions of the Arab Spring revolts are something that, for better or for worse, inspired many throughout the world to take a bold position against the status quo in their countries in a series of solidarity protests that emerged everywhere from Manhattan to Khartoum.

Malaysia’s opposition leader has also attempted to invoke the passions of the Arab Spring, and as a result of that, it is the opinion of this observer that a great deal of Malaysia’s political discourse downplays or tarnishes the achievements of the country – things are too often presented simplistically and painted black and white.

Still, bloggers and dissidents have harnessed the web and it cannot be denied that Malaysia enjoys a high degree of expression related to political pluralism.

The toppling of regimes during the Arab Spring revolts in countries like Egypt and Tunisia through non-insurgent means were possible primarily for two reasons.

Discontent was driven by people in those countries because they lived under a far more pronounced model of political subjugation; they lacked freedoms of political association and the economies of those countries failed to deliver meaningful opportunities to the masses.

The PAS factor

In the Malaysian context, even with elite corruption and cronyism, there is still a sufficient amount of political breathing space and more prominently, the Malaysian economy is among the most energetic in the region – the optimism that comes with exploring unchartered economic terrain, the prospects of entrepreneurship, and competition can be felt among the people.

For these reasons, Malaysia is not suited for a change in government by means of street action and the like – far too many Malaysians still see themselves being more economically stable and materially advantaged by the status quo.

The Opposition coalition does promote some laudable promises in their approach, such as delivering free education, the proliferation of open-tenders, and the pledge to bite down on graft – whether or not this can be achieved is difficult to say.

What should be more immediately concerning is that the most prominent element within the Opposition coalition, the PAS, has historically held steadfast to its goal of transforming Malaysia into a Islamic state, one that would adhere to syariah law and Islamic penal code.

Given the complex multi-ethnic and multi-religious makeup of Malaysian society, the empowering of a party that promotes such a political program has the potential to deepen social divisions and strain race-relations, and thus, a Malaysian federal government with such a party at its helm could pose serious challenges to the maintenance of racial harmony.

This observer has witnessed many Malaysians (especially among Opposition supporters) express their nostalgia for days past, when races more liberally interacted with each other and identity was less of an issue.

Those who hold such sentiments should reflect on the Islamic resurgence that has swept Malaysia throughout the 1980s, the impact of which gave rise to the more pronounced adherence to Islamic fashion, lifestyles and diet.

The issuance of hudud-policies that would follow the empowering of an Islamist party in Malaysia would unequivocally deepen inter-ethnic friction.

The aftermath of the Arab Spring in Egypt provides an example that could resemble the Malaysian context, whereby enormous social unrest emerged between secular and Islamist forces after an Islamist party took the helm, followed by severe inflation and economic stagnation in which Egypt remains mired in today.

PAS’s management record in Kelantan and Kedah shows that the party places less emphasis on economic development, focusing more on penal code and the suppression of life style choices that do not adhere to their interpretation of Islam – this is not the kind of change that progressive-minded Malaysians have been calling for and they should not be fooled into giving this party a mandate to lead.

One could predict the short-term scenarios of a victory for the Opposition, such as short-term market instability and a possible power struggle among the strange bedfellows that make up the opposition coalition, but long-term scenarios are uncertain.

The most pressing concern is that the upward momentum of Malaysia’s growth could be held back as opposition parties embark on their own political and economic programs, effectively derailing the economic transformation agenda to obtain high-income status by 2020, the policy-brainchild of Mahathir that is still being carried out today with creditable progress.

This kind of analysis is not fear mongering of any sort, but rather a reflection of the unfamiliar terrain Malaysia would embark on if Najib were unable to obtain his mandate.

Najib’s own mandate

It should be remembered that Najib was not previously elected, and he has had to work within the confines of an administration setup by his predecessor.

If Najib were given the mandate to form his own administration, he would have to take a bold and meaningful stance on elite corruption and opulent lifestyles by necessity in addition to passing more popular reforms.

Najib’s primary problem is that his reforms are perceived as cosmetic by a significant portion of commentators, although it is the personal opinion of this observer that the incumbent has undoubtedly moved in the right direction by deconstructing draconian legislation of days past.

Najib’s commitment to addressing the grievances of racial minorities is often intertwined with Malaysia’s longstanding New Economic Policy (NEP), which many Chinese and Indian communities feel economically alienates them as they struggle to penetrate into circles of higher education and high-income employment.

It should be noted that minority communities have been able to practice their culture and religion without hindrance, and pursue their business interests with minimum intervention from the state.

On that note, more should be done to reform the NEP by making the elements of the program available to recipients on a needs-basis, and populist schemes associated with 1Malaysia have already began to move in that direction.

Najib’s formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) tasked at getting a clearer picture of Project IC is brave, and that is not often acknowledged. It would be very well received if the incumbent appointed similar investigations into figures like Taib Mahmud, which would help build confidence in institutions that are popularly accused of being toothless in the face of power and wealth.

Sound management of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the masses is the most immediate concern of Najib’s administration, and in that department, he is succeeding.

Among other primary concerns are stringently improving transparency and accountability, institutionalising firm anti-corruption measures, and the pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

Members of the Opposition and senior officials like Mahathir alike are concerned with Malaysia’s participation in the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) talks, a largely undisclosed US-led free trade agreement.

Malaysia’s political independence and sovereignty comes first and foremost, and whoever takes Putrajaya must defend the interests of the people and enhance their happiness and economic well being.

Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He covers a wide range of international issues and is not affiliated with any political party. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com

Terrence Netto responds to Tun Daim’s Interview in the NST

March 26, 2013

by Terence Netto@www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT Because he was uncannily accurate on the results of the March 2008 general election, former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin enjoys a reputation as a prognosticator of sorts.

His visage in the last week or so has been all over the Chinese press which, understandably, had sought him out on how GE13 would go. In the immediate prelude to GE12, it was the Chinese press that first carried Daim’s prescient predictions – that Penang, Selangor and Kedah would fall to the Opposition – before the other language streams picked them up for their readerships.

No surprise, then, the Chinese press, in the final lap to GE13, has again interviewed Daim for his take. Having accurately called one throw of the general election dice, they think he would be useful at reading the tea leaves on the next.

Daim (right) loves this sort of thing. Long an inhabitant of the shadowy corners where politics intersects with business, he guards his privacy from which he departs from time to time to emerge, gnome-like, into the limelight with premonitions on matters that turn out to have tidal impact.

One such prediction, in 1994, shook the stock market following his “sell” prognosis. Another, in 2008, resulted in a shakedown of UMNO-BN.Clearly, to many in the media, the man has what in the industry is called star quality: the ability to generate the illusion that the enterprise in which he appears is better than it actually is.

But it appears that Daim, in his pre-GE13 interview phase, was not as keen on polls predictions as he was on party and personality assessments, and a rebuttal of charges that he had been the chief cause of Anwar Ibrahim’s tribulations of 1998 which saw him expelled from government and UMNO.

In the latter regard, it seemed that Daim was more interested in tendering what looked like a preemptive defence against the accusations that he was the “chief conspirator” behind Anwar’s travails at that time.

The non-Mandarin reading public cannot help but gain this impression from the substance of the two-part interview Daim gave to the New Straits Times which appeared in last Sunday’s edition of the paper and in yesterday’s daily version.

There Daim displays his scant regard for the training he has had as a lawyer by opining that “I want Najib to win because I don’t think that Anwar is the right candidate to be Prime Minister because he will mess up the country…”

It is as if Daim’s immersion in his zealously guarded privacy has insulated him from the more recent revelations – one set concerning the second sodomy case against Anwar, and another set having to do with statutory declarations made in respect of the Altantuya murder case – that pertain to the PM and, because the latter has not denied them, affect his worthiness to hold office.

It must take a bold man indeed – and that too one from a legal background – to hold forth magisterially on a pair of individuals’ worthiness to hold high office and prefer for the role of PM the one who is seen in grave danger of being a felon to the other who has had all manner of accusations hurled against him that have yet to be proven and from a few of which has been exonerated.

It is a piece with the vast devastation of values that has occurred in this country that a former Finance Minister can presently engage in this travesty with a straight face.

Downfall of Salleh Abas

But this former economic czar, who came loaded with wealth to high ministerial office in 1984 and left after two stints in 2000 even richer than when he arrived, is not only saddled with the accusation that he was “chief conspirator” behind Anwar’s fall in 1998, it is also bruited about that he was behind the impeachment of then Lord President Salleh Abas in 1988.

If there was a pivotal cause behind the moral turpitude in which the country is presently immersed, it was that impeachment event of 1988.

Word has it that Salleh came back from a judicial seminar he attended earlier that year in New Delhi and spoke to fellow judge, the late Hashim Yeop Sani, of being impressed with the way seminar participants had spoken of the need for jurists to be imbued with the “rights” of supplicants when deciding cases.

Hashim, a government-favouring flunkey, hurried to inform Daim of the Chief Justice’s newfangled interest in a jurisprudence of “rights.”

When Salleh (left) convened the full nine-member bench of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal of the case in which High Court judge, the late Harun Hashim, had ruled UMNO an illegal body for having 13 deregistered branches participate in their presidential election of April 1987, Daim carried his misgivings about Salleh’s “rights” inclinations to then-Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who proceeded to advise the King on the Lord President’s liability to impeachment.

Salleh was duly impeached by an international tribunal of judges and with that development, the debasement of our Judiciary began with assorted other deteriorations to the civic values of the country following in its train.

Salleh was not the only judge impeached. In the ensuing conflagration that engulfed the judiciary and shocked the nation, other senior and respected judges were impugned and sacked for their “misdeeds.”

Mahathir was in the imperial phase of his long premiership, with dire consequences to anyone who made bold to step into his crosshairs, Anwar included.

Daim, with his skill at gliding in and out of the dark corners of Malaysian politics, likes to think that he can evade the zone of culpability for the misdeeds of the Mahathir era, just like the period’s author.

The trend of recent developments and their likely electoral impact are running counter to that expectation. His views on the parties and central personalities involved in GE13 are deeply coloured by the resultant anxiety.