Why 1997 Asian Crisis Lessons Lost


December 7, 2017

Why 1997 Asian Crisis Lessons Lost

by Jomo Kwame Sundaran

Image result for jomo kwame sundaram

Various different, and sometimes contradictory lessons have been drawn from the 1997-1998 East Asian crises. Rapid or V-shaped recoveries and renewed growth in most developing countries in the new century also served to postpone the urgency of far-reaching reforms. The crises’ complex ideological, political and policy implications have also made it difficult to draw lessons from the crises.

Conventional wisdom

The conventional wisdom was to blame the crisis on bad economic policies pursued by the governments concerned. Of course, the vested interests favouring the international financial status quo or further liberalization also impede implementing needed reforms. Such interests continue to be supported by the media.

Citing currency crisis theory, the initial response to the crises was to blame poor macroeconomic, especially fiscal policies, although most East Asian economies had been maintaining budgetary surpluses for some years. Nevertheless, the IMF and others, including the international business media, urged spending cuts and other pro-cyclical policies (e.g., raising interest rates) which worsened the downturns.

Such policies were adopted in much of the region from late 1997, precipitating sharper economic collapses. By the second quarter of 1998, however, it was increasingly recognized that these policies had worsened, rather than reversed the economic deterioration, transforming currency and financial crises into crises of the real economy.

By early 1998, however, as macroeconomic orthodoxy lost credibility, the blame shifted to political economy, condemning ‘cronyism’ as the cause. US Federal Reserve Bank chair Alan Greenspan, US Treasury Deputy Secretary Lawrence Summers and IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus formed a chorus criticizing Asian corporate governance in quick sequence over a month from late January.

Image result for Stiglitz, Sachs and Krugman

Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffery Sachs supported Keynesian counter-cyclical policies.

The dubious conventional explanations of the Asian crises were not shared by more independently minded mainstream economists with less ideological prejudices. The World Bank’s chief economist Joseph Stiglitz and other prominent Western economists such as Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs supported Keynesian counter-cyclical policies.

Regional contagion and response

The transformation of the region’s financial systems from the late 1980s had made their economies much more vulnerable and fragile. Rapid economic growth and financial liberalization attracted massive, but easily reversible, footloose capital inflows.

New regulations encouraged short-term lending, typically ‘rolled over’ in good times. Much of these came from Japanese and continental European banks as UK and US banks continued to recover from the 1980s’ sovereign debt crises. But these gradual inflows suddenly became massive outflows when the crisis began.

Significant inflows were also attracted by stock market and other asset price bubbles. The herd behaviour characteristic of capital markets exacerbated pro-cyclical market behaviour, heightening panic during downturns. Fickle market behaviour also exacerbated contagion, worsening regional neighbourhood effects.

Japan’s offer of US$100 billion to manage the crisis in the third quarter of 1997 was quickly stymied by the US and the IMF. Instead, a more modest amount was made available under the Miyazawa Plan to finance more modest facilities, institutions and instruments.

Image result for ASEAN Chengmai Initiative

Much later, in Chiang Mai, Thailand, the region’s Finance Ministers approved a series of bilateral credit lines or swap facilities, conditional on IMF approval. Many years later, the finance ministers of Japan, China and South Korea ensured that these arrangements were regionalized, and no longer simply the aggregation of bilateral commitments, while increasing the size of the credit facility.

New International Financial Architecture

A year after the crisis began in July 1997, US President Bill Clinton called for a new international financial architecture. The apparent spread of the Asian crisis to Brazil and Russia underscored that contagion could be more than regional.

The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) following the Russian crisis led the US Federal Reserve to intervene in the market to coordinate a private sector bailout. This legitimized government interventions to ensure functioning financial systems and sufficient liquidity to finance economic recovery.

After the US Fed lowered interest rates, capital flowed to East Asia once again. The Malaysian government’s establishment of bailout institutions and mechanisms in mid-1998 and its capital controls on outflows from September 1998 also warned that other countries might go their own way.

Ironically, the economic recoveries in the region from late 1998 weakened the resolve to reform the international financial system. Talk of a new international financial architecture began to fade as recovery was presented as proof of international financial system resilience.

Beware Public Private Partnerships


November 29, 2017

Beware Public Private Partnerships

Image result for jomo kwame sundaram
Prof. Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are essentially long-term contracts, underwritten by government guarantees, with which the private sector builds (and sometimes runs) major infrastructure projects or services traditionally provided by the state, such as hospitals, schools, roads, railways, water, sanitation and energy.

Embracing PPPs

PPPs are promoted by many OECD governments, and some multilateral development banks – especially the World Bank – as the solution to the shortfall in financing needed to achieve development including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Since the late 1990s, many countries have embraced PPPs for areas ranging from healthcare and education to transport and infrastructure with problematic consequences. They were less common in developing countries, but that is changing rapidly, with many countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa now passing enabling legislation and initiating PPP projects.

Image result for crony capitalism

Nevertheless, experiences with PPPs have been largely, although not exclusively negative, and very few PPPs have delivered results in the public interest. However, the recent period has seen tremendous enthusiasm for PPPs.

Financing PPPs

Undoubtedly, there has been some success with infrastructure PPPs, but these appear to have been due to the financing arrangements. Generally, PPPs for social services, e.g., for hospitals and schools, have much poorer records compared to some infrastructure projects.

One can have good financing arrangements, e.g., due to low interest rates, for a bad PPP project. All over the world, private finance still accounts for a small share of infrastructure financing. However, concessional financing arrangements cannot save a poor project although they may reduce its financial burden.

PPPs often involve public financing for developing countries to ‘sweeten’ the bid from an influential private company from the country concerned. ‘Blended finance’, export financing, and new aid arrangements have become means for governments to support their corporations’ bids for PPP contracts abroad, especially in developing countries. Such business support arrangements are increasingly passed off and counted as overseas development assistance (ODA).

Undermining rights

PPPs often increase fees or charges for users of services. PPP contracts often undermine consumer, citizen and human rights, and the state’s obligation to regulate in the public interest. PPPs can limit government capacity to enact new policies – e.g., strengthened environmental or social regulations – that might affect certain projects.

PPPs are now an increasingly popular way to finance ‘mega-infrastructure projects’, but dams, highways, large-scale plantations, pipelines, and energy or transport infrastructure can ruin habitats, displace communities and devastate natural resources. PPPs have also led to forced displacement, repression and other abuses of local communities and indigenous peoples.

There are also growing numbers of ‘dirty’ energy PPPs, exacerbating environmental destruction, undermining progressive environmental conservation efforts and worsening climate change. Typically, social and environmental legislation is weakened to create attractive business environments for PPPs.

PPPs often expensive, risky

Image result for PPPs often expensive, risky

Since the late 1990s, many countries have embraced Public-Private Partnerships for areas ranging from healthcare and education to transport and infrastructure as a solution to persistent underdevelopment. Credit: IPS

 

In many cases, PPPs are the most expensive financing option, and hardly cost-effective compared to good government procurement. They cost governments – and citizens – significantly more in the long run than if the projects had been directly financed with government borrowing.

It is important to establish the circumstances required to make efficiency gains, and to recognize the longer term fiscal implications due to PPP-related ‘contingent liabilities’. Shifting public debt to government guaranteed debt does not really reduce government debt liabilities, but obscures accountability as it is taken ‘off-budget’ and no longer subject to parliamentary, let alone public scrutiny.

Hence, PPPs are attractive because they can be hidden ‘off balance sheet’ so they do not show up in budget and government debt figures, giving the illusion of ‘free money’. Hence, despite claims to the contrary, PPPs are often riskier for governments than for the private companies involved, as the government may be required to step in to assume costs if things go wrong.

Marginalizing public interest

Image result for Najib Razak the corrupter

Malaysia’s Corrupter-in-Chief Najib Razak

Undoubtedly, PPP contracts are typically complex. Negotiations are subject to commercial confidentiality, making it hard for parliamentarians, let alone civil society, to scrutinize them. This lack of transparency significantly increases the likelihood of corruption and undermines democratic accountability.

PPPs also undermine democracy and national sovereignty as contracts tend to be opaque and subject to unaccountable international adjudication due to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) commitments rather than national or international courts. Under World Bank-proposed PPP contracts, national governments can even be liable for losses due to strikes by workers.

Thus, PPPs tend to exacerbate inequality by enriching the wealthy who invest in and profit from PPP projects, thus accumulating even more wealth at the expense of others, especially the poor and the vulnerable. The more governments pay to private firms, the less they can spend on essential social services, such as universal social protection and healthcare. Hence, PPP experiences suggest not only higher financial costs, but also modest efficiency gains.

Government procurement viable

One alternative, of course, is government or public procurement. Generally, PPPs are much more expensive than government procurement despite government subsidized credit. With a competent government doing good work, government procurement can be efficient and low cost.

Yet, international trade and investment agreements are eroding the rights of governments to pursue such alternatives in the national interest. With a competent government and an incorruptible civil service or competent accountable consultants doing good work, efficient government procurement has generally proved far more cost-effective than PPP alternatives. It is therefore important to establish under what circumstances one can achieve gains and when these are unlikely.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/11/beware-public-private-partnerships/

The enigma of Malaysia’s high household income growth


November 6, 2017

The enigma of Malaysia’s high household income growth

 

Image result for Enigma of Income Growth in Malaysia
 Who is fudging the household income figures, if not this Prime Minister cum Finance Minister? Malaysians are a whiney lot.

 

Why does the official report of rising household income seem incredible and implausible? Is Income really stagnating, or is it flourishing but Malaysians are a whiney lot?

 

By Dr. Lee Hwok Aun@www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Statistics are meant to inform, but sometimes they confuse. Take Malaysia’s household income figures. We keep hearing complaints of stagnant incomes and difficulties coping with the rising cost of living. But since the release of the Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report 2016 last month, an official success story is making the rounds – all the way to the 2018 Federal Budget speech.

The speech celebrates the rise in median household income, calculated from the Household Income Survey (HIS), from RM4,585 in 2014 to RM5,288 in 2016. Simultaneously, average household income rose from RM6,141to RM6,958, or at an annual growth rate of 6.4%. In real terms – that is, accounting for inflation – income grew 4.3% per year. The rest of this article refers to growth rates in real terms, which more accurately reflect purchasing power.

By the government’s account, household incomes have been growing quite substantially. Yet the budget is stacked with lavish handouts and financial relief, as though income growth has been sluggish, insufficient. Granted, this is an election budget, but a clearly the proliferation of social assistance is also addressing areal groundswell of economic discontent.

Statistics should be validated by the reality they intend to measure. If the government reports that the Malaysian economy has grown by 10% this year, most of us would disbelieve that outright. It can’t be that high; the economy is not ballooning like the early- to mid-1990s! But looking at Malaysia’s steady international trade, investment and domestic consumption, visible construction projects, low unemployment, and economic conditions as a whole, the actual figure of about 5% GDP growth seems credible and plausible.

So why does the official report of rising household income seem incredible and implausible? Is Income really stagnating, or is it flourishing but Malaysians are a whiney lot?

An examination of empirical evidence exposes three enigmas in the official household income statistics, raising questions about the reliability of the government’s high growth report.

First, income gains of the past half-decade are driven by inexplicably rapid growth in the 2012-2014 period, during which real household incomes expanded8.2% per year – faster than in the booming 1990s (Figure 1). Furthermore, households in the bottom 40% (B40)enjoyed stupefying 14.6% income growth per year. Suchhyperrates are usually the exception but were supposedly the norm – during a time of modest 5.4% economic growth.

Image result for Hwok-Aun Lee Enigma of Income Growth

Two years ago, when the 2014 Household Income Survey Report documented a spectacular fall in inequality from 2012 to 2014, I raised concerns that those results departed too far from reality (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/malaysias-spectacular-drop-in-inequality…-for-real-lee-hwok-aun, https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/315933). This phenomenal success bypassed attention. It was not mentioned in the 2016 Budget speech; the government was apparently not taking its own statistics seriously.

In releasing the 2016 income statistics, the government reaffirms the questionable 2014 calculations – without explanation. Of course, we might point to two outstanding policy shifts as income boosters: minimum wage, which came into full effect in 2014, and BR1M, introduced in 2012. Their possible effects cannot be ignored.

But upon examination, these turn out to be the second and third enigmas in the income statistics.Minimum wage and BR1M fail to explain the rise in household income.

The official household income statistics aggregate various income components (the proper term is gross household income):

  1.  Income from wages and salaries, also including allowances, bonuses
  2.  Self-employment: income through selling goods and services
  3. Property and investment income: land and property rent (including imputed rent of owner-occupied homes), interest, dividends
  4. Transfers received from public sources (BR1M, etc) or family members

A breakdown of these sources shows that the share of wages and salaries in gross household income has declined, while the share of property and investment income and transfers have increased (Figure 2). Therefore, it is most unlikely that minimum wage contributed to high overall income growth.

Image result for Hwok-Aun Lee Enigma of Income Growth

 

Furthermore, when we compute growth rates household wages and salaries, we find modest numbers for 2012-2014 and 2014-2016 (Figure 3). Happily, we can compare this particular finding with calculations from another data source. The growth of individual wages and salaries, based on the Wages and Salaries Survey data, registered similar rates. Minimum wage surely boosted wage growth to some extent, as indicated by the higher rate in 2014 when it took effect. But it fails to account for rapid household income expansion.

Image result for Hwok-Aun Lee Enigma of Income Growth

BR1Mis the last big factor standing. The share of transfers in household income increased – so far so good.

Figure 3

Image result for Hwok-Aun Lee Enigma of Income Growth

 

But the case for BR1M as an explanation for income growth soon crumbles. First, the BR1M payments are popularly known by the annual amounts paid, whereas household income is handled on a monthly basis. When investigating BR1M’s impact on household income, we must convert into their monthly amount. The problem with the BR1M explanation is that the quantum per month is so minuscule relative to household income per month. In 2012 and 2016, B40 household’s income averaged RM1,847 and RM2,848, while BR1M payments for households earning below RM3,000 per month, were RM42 and RM83 (RM500 and RM1000 divided by 12). BR1M accounted for only 2.3% and 2.9% of the household income of the B40, its principal recipients.

The second pertains to timing. BR1M was introduced in 2012 at RM500 per year, increased to RM650 in 2014, then RM1,000 in 2016. The big differences took place in 2012 and 2016, not in 2014. However, the huge leap in household income occurred between 2012 and 2014!

In light of these enigmas, discrepancies and gaps, the government’s household income calculations for 2014 and 2016 remain implausible and demand a fuller accounting, particularly to provide reasons for the unfathomably high growth in property and investment income and transfers received.

There are empirical grounds, not just anecdote or intuition, to question the veracity of the official statistics, and to restrain celebration of Malaysia’s purported achievements in raising household income.One can speculate some possibilities. Perhaps transfers have been over-counted, or imputed rent over-estimated. For those living in houses they own, the gross household income numbers include an imputed amount of rent – that is, an amount they would receive if they rented out the house. Imputed rent, although it is not actual income received, is a useful piece of information. But it is misleading to include imputed rent in household income and report the sum as an indication of purchasing power and material well-being.

The Department of Statistics must be commended for publishing increasingly detailed reports on the 2014 and 2016 Household Income and Basic Amenities Surveys, but the disclosures are still inadequate. In line with the government’s commitment to Open Data, the natural next step should be to make the raw datasets accessible, to facilitate collaborative and constructive work and arrive at a fuller comprehension and credible measure of this vital issue of household income.

Dr. Lee Hwok Aun, Senior Fellow,  Yusof Ishak Institute– ISEAS, Singapore

Here’s Fareed Zakaria–Wither Trump’s America


November 2, 2017

Here’s Fareed Zakaria–Wither Trump’s America

Engage the World says Thinker Fareed Zakaria, not retreat into your shell, my American friends. Embrace globalisation and open rule-based trading environment, and together, we can prosper.  Your economy and what you do matters to us in Asia and the rest of the world.–Din Merican

Lim Kit Siang’s Take on Najib Razak’s So-Called Mother of All Budgets 2018


November 2, 2017

Lim Kit Siang’s Take on Najib Razak’s 2018 BudgetThe So-Called Mother of All Budgets

The Budget is a tool or instrument for presenting a statement about the state of the economy, its prospects, and policy announcements for improving governance. A well-crafted budget statement should be an objective and honest presentation meeting the goal of accountability.

Sadly, the budget he (Najib Razak) presented fails these basic tests. His speech of almost 12,000 words was more akin to a laundry list of giveaways, expenditure allocations both real and imagined, and vague statements about the economic consequences that would result.–Lim Kit Siang

http://www.malaysiakini.com

MP SPEAKS | Prime Minister Najib Razak described Budget 2018 being about “gifts, rewards and incentives.” It is a most mistaken view.

The Budget is a tool or instrument for presenting a statement about the state of the economy, its prospects, and policy announcements for improving governance. A well-crafted budget statement should be an objective and honest presentation meeting the goal of accountability.

Sadly, the budget he presented fails these basic tests. His speech of almost 12,000 words was more akin to a laundry list of giveaways, expenditure allocations both real and imagined, and vague statements about the economic consequences that would result.

The speech omitted any reference to urgently needed policy changes to restore the competitiveness of the economy that would enable the nation to escape the middle-income trap it finds itself in. The speech was silent about measures to correct the stagnation in real income, and address the looming danger associated with the mountain of debt – public, corporate and household.

The budget has been turned into an unabashed and irresponsible first salvo in the campaign for the 14th General Election. Page after page of the speech detailed expenditures and proposed allocations; no group was ignored in the largesse being extended.

Najib’s laundry list of giveaways, expenditure allocations both real and imagined, and vague statements.-2018 BUDGET

Little was said about how the proposed expenditures were designed to advance the overarching economic goals; no reference was made to how the addiction to deficit spending was to be overcome.

The projected deficit was itself a meaningless figure as the profligate spending in some measure would be financed outside of the budget, and nor did the PM in his speech or in the economic report provide details about the level of contingent liabilities or the new liabilities being assumed.

Electioneering

The PM chose to describe the budget as the “mother of all budgets”. Ironically, he was on target as this budget was an exercise in deception and was an unvarnished sales pitch seeking votes in the upcoming election.

Najib’s claim about “good news” needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. The reality is that the news as reported in the budget statement is more in the nature of “fake news”. The budget framework is built upon dubious interpretation of statistical data in a highly selective manner.

The PM gloated over the growth numbers but was being selective. He failed to make any reference to issues of a structural nature raised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in particular in the latter’s Annual Article IV Consultations and reported on its website.

Economic growth rates

Najib also made much about the revised growth rates issued by the International Financial Institutions and attempted to claim credit. He omitted to indicate that the revisions pertained to almost all countries – Malaysia being one in the group.

The revised growth rates should not therefore be interpreted as an approval of the competence of the government in managing the economy. Growth rates are revised to be higher because of global economic developments, primarily resulting from changes in monetary policies by the US Federal Reserve Bank and its counterpart the European Central Bank, and the partial recovery in prices for oil and gas.

The PM has been selective in the use of data. This is best illustrated by his use of the year 2009 as the base for measuring change. There is no rational reason for this choice other than an attempt to glorify his own tenure of office. It is also pertinent to note that 2009 marked a global recession. The choice of this low base amplifies the recovery in the years since.

Najib, however, chooses to remain silent about the negative developments, for instance, in the losses in the country’s external reserves (from a peak of US$ 140.0 billion in 2012 to US$101.2 billion in Sept 2017; total reserves as a percentage of external debt fell from a high of 121.1 percent in 2007 to 47.2 percent in 2016 or the decline in the value of the ringgit from US$1 = RM 3.34 in 2007 to US$1= RM4.20 in September 2017. These are not indicative of “efficient governance and prudent discipline” as he claimed.

Putrajaya’s fiscal situation

For two decades the government has operated with a deficit; the reported federal government debt now approximates 55 percent. Additionally, the Putrajaya has concealed its borrowings and the true size of its debt by making government-linked companies and other quasi-government entities undertake borrowings to finance public sector projects under the guise of so-called public-private projects.

The government has, at the same time, accumulated large hidden contingent liabilities by extending guarantees for borrowings by GLCs and other entities.

The fiscal situation has been worsened by corruption, mismanagement and other abuses including non-competitive acquisition of goods and services. The absence of competitive bidding results in price distorted costs. Tax revenues have been eroded by way of so-called “incentives” extended to government cronies without resulting in any discernable rise in private investment.

NEM goals

The reference in the speech to the New Economic Model (NEM) is more in the nature of a throwaway remark.

Certain clear-cut goals and policies adopted at the launch of the NEM have fallen by the way side. It should be recalled that there was a commitment to pursue further privatisation of the government’s non-financial public enterprises and reduce the government’s holdings in the GLCs which in reality function as state-owned enterprises.

It is significant that the speech contained no reference to the pursuit of these stated goals.

The findings from a recent highly professional study led by Terence Gomez has highlighted the dominant role played by GLCs in almost all sectors of the Malaysian economy, from aviation, banking, manufacturing, plantations to various modes of transportation.

In 2013, a total of 455 companies (including subsidiaries) were classified as government-linked investment companies (GLICs). There were 35 publicly listed companies which were among the top 100 companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia. The latter account for an overwhelming percentage of the capitalisation of the exchange.

Without a doubt, the government’s footprint is large in the business and commercial sectors. The entities in question act as monopolies or privileged entities, thus stifling private enterprise. This has led to flagging private investment despite tax and other incentives.

Of late several entities (e.g., Mara, Felda, Tabung Haji) have become mired in financial scandals. There is little or no accountability by such entities.

Furthermore, it is strange indeed that while Malaysia as a upper middle income country seeks to attract FDI flows, yet government linked agencies are currently exporting capital. These endeavors taken represent contradictions. But, more troubling is the fact that they give rise to abuses and corrupt practices.

The claims of successes in employment creation merit comment. While indeed some 2.3 million jobs have been created in the past eight years, most of these have been low paying jobs with many filled by migrant workers.

Serious shortages of skilled workers exist; paradoxically the brain drain continues unabated. These labor market developments along with the stagnation in wages are indicative of a failed set of policies that are contributing to the loss of competitiveness and entrapment as a middle-income country.

The self-congratulatory remarks about export growth are yet another example of delusion. While the current level of exports are expressed in ringgit terms, the PM has chosen to ignore the fact that he is comparing values based on different exchange rates.

The comparison of international reserve levels is rather devious – this is the only comparison linked to 1997!

The reporting of an increase in income per capita from RM27,819 in 2010 to RM49,713 in 2017. This trend is contradicted by the World Bank as the following numbers show:

The significance of these numbers points the extent to which Malaysia is lagging in terms of achieving “high income” status which in 2016 was set as income levels in excess of US$12,235.

Indeed, taking account of the current level of GNI per capita, projected exchange and growth rates, it is patently clear that the much-touted goal of achieving “high income” status by 2020 is a fading dream.

Budget allocations

The budget allocations for 2018 are projected at RM280.25 billion, an increase of RM20 billion, with RM234.25 billion for operating expenditure and some RM46 billion for development.

While further details are highlighted, Najib chose to be silent about a large item, namely debt service which amounts to 11 percent of the operating expenditure. The increased allocations are largely to restore cuts that were imposed earlier in the year.

Revenue collection in 2018 is projected at RM240 billion, an increase of approximately nine percent from RM220 billion in 2017.

No details are given either about the sources of revenue, or the amounts reduced by way of tax cuts and exemptions. The projected growth lacks credibility given GDP growth rate, reductions in revenue attributable to the exemptions from GST granted for big ticket items alongside the reductions in income tax rates.

In brief, the rosy estimates of modest growth in expenditure coupled with unrealistic levels of revenue receipts follow a pattern. Revenue projections are pitched high whilst expenditures are restrained in the budget.

Thus, there are inevitable supplementary expenditure requests later in the year. These approaches in budgeting enable the government to put out massaged numbers for the deficit. These practices appear to be sharpened in the preparation of the 2018 Budget.

Lip service was paid about fiscal consolidation without mention of how the PM proposes to reduce debt levels. While he was upbeat about all manner of “progress”, no mention was made about the record concerning deficits. It is noteworthy that it is now more than 20 years since Malaysia enjoyed a budget in surplus.

Once again total debt along with contingent liabilities will rise in the year ahead. These will represent burdens passed on to future generations. With an ageing population, the burden will be all the greater. The nation’s long-term interests are being sacrificed for short term political gains.

The claim that this budget will chart the course for building the nation for the next 30 years is a farfetched assertion. This is all the more questionable considering the fact that the Budget hardly lays out any long- term policies and goals but is only concerned with the “here and now” issues assumed to be of interest to a highly jaded electorate.

Rewriting history

Most remarkable, however, is the PM’s assertion: “Since we declared Independence, we have been fortunate as our forefathers have governed and administered this country embedded with shariah requirements”. Najib appears to be rewriting history by ignoring the fact that the country adopted a secular constitution and up until recently shariah played no major role in administration.

To claim that for six decades a shariah framework has operated with the federal constitution playing a secondary role is an outright distortion of the facts. The formulation used by the PM ought to raise a red flag about his coalition’s intentions regarding the status of the Constitution.

While acknowledging that “the framework has not been written in any government documents, but its practices are reflected in all inter-related national philosophies and policies” Najib appears to be outlining a position that the government will adopt in the event it is returned to power. It is thus a signal of how the secular federal constitution will be further sidelined.

Trends in investment

The PM set out several targets dealing with investment and trade. The statistics about trends in investment were selective.

Once again by choosing a low bench mark year (2009), a year that recorded a global recession, and inflated targets for 2018, he attempted to project progress.

These statistics appear impressive in attributing performance of private investment. A closer review, however, paints a different picture.

Given that the GLCs dominate the private sector, and that they largely operate as SOEs, much of the “improvement” can be attributed to government initiatives handled by these entities.

The process permits the government to by-pass concerns about the debt ceiling and at the same time permit nefarious projects as evidenced by the 1MDB saga.

The trends in private investment are erratic as inappropriate policies and political uncertainties have impacted on private investment, both domestic and foreign. The failure to announce corrective policy measures will result in sluggish investment patterns along with continuing outward capital flows

Passing reference is made in the 2018 Budget to accelerating exports. However, no indication is given as to what policies will be introduced to develop capacities in new products and promoting industries involving new technologies for instance the use of artificial intelligence.

No mention is made about how the government proposes to deal with the withdrawal of the US government from the TPPA; the PM was silent about what posture it intends to take viz. other trading arrangements within ASEAN or with the EU and the China-led proposals for a regional trade arrangement.

The claim that “…for the first time in the history of the nation’s budget…” a large allocation “is provided to assist farmers, fishermen smallholders and rubber tappers” appears to be a most strange claim. Every Five-Year Plan, every budget over the past six decades has contained allocations for these groups; it is disingenuous indeed to make claims that are short on a factual base.

 

The mega rail transportation projects that have been announced raise multiple concerns. For a start, cost benefit and feasibility studies have not been disclosed, assuming these have been done.

It is worthy of note that the projects will be financed by loans from China; the terms of these loans have yet to be announced. Reports in the media appear to suggest that major parts of these projects will be assigned to China’s enterprises who will invite some Malaysian entities to collaborate.

Najib evaded the entire issue of port expansion using loan funds in the face of overcapacity in the nation’s major port, Port Klang, following the departure of a major user. Many of the other transportation projects highlighted in the speech will not be financed from the Federal budget.

The following quote from his speech is most remarkable – it projects self-glorification and is somewhat insulting of past holders of the office of Finance Minister:

“This Budget that has never been crafted so well, even during the last 22 years or the past 60 years of our own nation, and marked in history, making this Budget the Mother of All Budgets.”

Ironically, this Budget may indeed qualify as the “mother of all budgets” for reasons other than those offered by the PM. The speech represents an open attempt to create fake news in pursuit of gaining credibility with an electorate that is largely disenchanted by the workings of a government tarred by endless scandals, led by someone viewed as a kleptomaniac.

The current budget also qualifies as such for its extensive giveaways, without a realistic vision or any demand for sacrifices. It provides no coherent strategies to permit the nation to escape the middle-income trap.

Malaysia urgently needs a course correction if it is to regain dynamism to enable it to move forward on the road to greater prosperity.


LIM KIT SIANG is DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Gelang Patah.

 

GE-14: Whither Pakatan Harapan


October 25, 2017

GE-14: Whither Pakatan Harapan–In Disarray

by S. Thayaparan

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for pakatan harapan leadership

After GE-14, No Harapan–Masuk Angin, Keluar Asap

Government was rarely more than a choice between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” ― Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam

 

PKR Vice-President Nurul Izzah Anwar said that Pakatan Harapan needs a clear narrative but I would argue that the problems of Harapan go far beyond needing a clear narrative, which it does by the way. The months of internal squabbling within the party and the collateral damage of dealing and negotiating with PAS have diminished the credibility of the party. Meanwhile, DAP as the Harapan anchor has had to fend off numerous controversies of its own.

Image result for pakatan harapan leadership

How can Pakatan Harapan win GE-14–Leadership in Disarray

To claim that the opposition is in disarray is an understatement and to most people, it seems that this close to the election – whenever it is – the opposition looks to be a coalition of petty fiefdoms existing in an alternate universe where merely belonging in the opposition washes away the sins of the past.

When Nurul says that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak does not talk about his scandals, what this really means is that the UMNO Grand Poobah is not playing defence. UMNO is on the offence when it comes to the corruption scandals that plague this administration. He does not need to talk about them because he understands that these scandals are complicated and that the opposition’s rhetoric that he is an international outcast does not jive with the photo ops that “world leaders” provide for future services rendered.

 

With loads of money and lots of goodies from 2018 Budget UMNO Grand Poobah is expected to retain Putrajaya

When this issue of holding this anti-kleptocracy was gaining momentum, I said it was a bad idea – “As it is, this rally will only benefit the UMNO regime because it affords them numerous opportunities to point to the dysfunction of the opposition, which means very little in echo chambers online, but is of great influence for people who are sitting on the fence or disillusioned with the opposition and finally, supporters who may not even turn up to vote, much less march on the streets.”

Sure enough, what this rally demonstrated to fence-sitters was that the opposition, even with their “Big Guns”, was in disarray and UMNO had a field day, shooting fish in a barrel when it came to the rhetoric emanating from this rally.

Furthermore, when you talk about the opposition being oppressed and the need for people to sympathise with the opposition, and the path to this “empathy” is a clear narrative, you are on the wrong path.  Here’s the thing. People want to believe that politicians empathise with them even if politicians clearly demonstrate that they do not. Therefore, when the people see all the infighting that goes on in the opposition, they translate that to the opposition only being concerned about themselves and political power.

Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia central committee member Tariq Ismail Mustafa said that rural folks needed to be convinced that “change” can happen, but what exactly does change mean? What are they changing to? Whenever I talk to PSM people, I know exactly what message they are sending to people. A grassroots message that involves how the system oppresses the average citizen, which is linked to the local affairs of the community they are contesting in.

This is why I have always said that Harapan is stupid not to involve a grassroots movements like PSM in their strategy, even if it means giving up seats to them and supporting them because imagine what could be achieved if PSM’s DNA was injected into the opposition body politics. Maybe some people do not want that, which again points to why convincing people that they need to change merely with rhetoric and not action is problematic.

Take this talk of election rigging. Our system has some very serious issues. There is enough literature out there to support the proposition that our election system is compromised. However, when the average citizen sees that the opposition has denied UMNO its two third’s majority and won the popular vote, they believe the system works. If the flawed system works, then the opposition must be doing something wrong which is what most people would think when they hear opposition types talking about a rigged game.

As someone who believes that the opposition winning the next general election – even this opposition – would be a turning point for Malaysian politics because average citizens would come to understand they have a choice, even if it means not exactly appealing choices at this time, in the people they want to lead this country. In other words, Umno does not have to rule in perpetuity.

But how do we get there? DAP election strategist Ong Kian Ming says that people have to be given two clear choices, the status quo or change. The problem with this is thinking is what happens if people think that the status quo is acceptable?

You know what one UMNO strategist is doing. When he talks to rural constituents, he says (and I am paraphrasing here);

“Yes, there is corruption, and UMNO is working on it like they are doing with all the arrests the MACC is making. We are addressing the problem but more importantly, when former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was in power, there was corruption too, and the country did not become a failed state like what the opposition claims now, and the opposition is trying to damage the economy and your livelihood.”

When it comes to the Malay demographic, perhaps it is time to seriously consider what someone like Rafizi Ramli flirted with, in the beginning of the year – Indeed, when Rafizi says that “We (the opposition) must honestly accept failings and offer solutions that may be controversial”, it becomes clear that for some Malay politicians, mainstream Malay political dogma is failing the opposition but not UMNO. What does putting forth controversial solutions mean?”

When opposition people talk to me, the discussion usually involves, in one form or another, the ways and means to propagate a clear message. I always refer to the opposition winning big when they won the popular vote as the perfect storm of political personalities, issues, and plain luck.

People wanted to change and they voted opposition because they were fed up with the establishment. Therefore, I keep telling people that it is possible but sometimes people need to see radical departures from the “business as usual” politics. Anyway, it is much too late for that now.

I tell people it is a numbers game. Get more people to vote and overwhelm the establishment with numbers. It would take a smarter man than me to come up with a clear narrative for the opposition.

Continue reading