The World Bank: Right Part of the Time and Wrong On Occasion on Malaysia

October 18, 2016

The World Bank: Right Part of the Time and Wrong On Occasion on Malaysia

by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

The World Bank’s occasional economic reports on Malaysia can generally be relied upon to offer sound analysis on the country’s economic development that is different from those emanating from our national sources. They provide a more critical perspective on entrenched policies or proposed new ones by stake players who should be independent and should not be beholden to the Malaysian government or any interest or lobby group.

Image result for The World  Bank on Malaysia

Two recent reports should be of interest to our policy makers. The first which came out in June this year affirmed the importance of leveraging on trade agreements and partnerships for the nation’s continuing economic prosperity.

The Economic Monitor report noted that

  • Malaysia is one of the most open economies in the world, with a trade to GDP ratio of 148% (from 2010 to 2014) compared to 58% in developing countries in East Asia and Pacific.
  • About 40% of jobs in Malaysia are linked with export activities.

Most Malaysians are aware of the importance of trade. But we have also seen the rise of uninformed and often xenophobic sentiments targeting the Trans-Pacific Partnership when it was being negotiated by the government. The Bank’s opinion on this and other similar agreements needs to be reflected upon.

In essence the Bank argues that implementation of new regional trade agreements can help Malaysia carry out key economic reforms and accelerate the country’s transition to high-income status. It notes that the new generation of regional trade agreements – including the Regional Cooperation Economic Partnership, Trans-Pacific Partnership and European Union Free Trade Agreement – will shape trade and investment over the next decade.

It also calls for commitment to these agreements which goes beyond tariff reduction This is because not only will they have a significant impact on attracting investment, and further open up market access for the country’s exports of goods and services; they can also be used to push for deeper reform in competition policy, services trade and support to SMEs that would otherwise be difficult to initiate.

The Bank rightly warns that the transition will not be easy and proactive measures will be needed to ensure wider benefits under the new regional trade agreements.

Image result for The World  Bank on Malaysia

Notwithstanding the problems and difficulties, it is important for our policy and decision makers to get the Bank’s message and stay the course of this road of reform if we want our economy to grow and become more resilient.

Reducing Vulnerabilities the Wrong Way

The latest Bank report – a newly released East Asia and Pacific Economic Update entitled “Reducing Vulnerabilities” – focuses on current global economic uncertainties; the risks that come from external developments as well as touches in its country chapter on Malaysia on our own home grown financial crisis arising from 1MDB which “could impact investors’ sentiments and divert the Government’s focus from needed reform, while an unanticipated sharp adjustment among households to a higher cost of living or a more pronounced softening in labour market conditions could also affect private consumption”.

Image result for The World  Bank Reducing Vulnerabilities

To alleviate the impact on the bottom 40% population, the Bank is recommending targeted measures “to support the most vulnerable households”. This, in its view, could include the introduction of “unemployment benefits [which] could help to improve matching in the labour market and provide support as the labour market softens” (; p.128).

Bank guidance on this issue is clearly off the mark if not plain wrong. Firstly, the nation’s finances are in no position to support a social welfare system providing benefits to the section of the population that is registered as unemployed or do not currently have a job. For now and the foreseeable future, the nation needs to exercise financial prudence and discipline in spending. In fact, the Bank itself has noted in the same report that recent increases in the minimum wage and public sector salaries would be difficult to sustain as the necessary fiscal consolidation continues.

Any social welfare or social protection system that is being proposed needs to be sustainable, financially viable and well targeted. In Malaysia it is especially important to ensure that the new proposed system does not become a political football and/or is open to wide scale fraud and abuse. Both negative possibilities are very likely given the present state of politics and governance in the nation.

A stronger and more rigorous defence of the proposal for the introduction of unemployment benefits by the World Bank with empirical data proving its case is necessary if it wants this policy recommendation to be taken seriously. For now, the advocates of this policy in the Bank may be comforted by the fact that a de facto unemployment benefits system already exists in Malaysia through the use of the civil service to employ hundreds of thousands of otherwise unemployed and unemployable school leavers, graduates and others primarily from the  Bumiputra community.  Poor Indians have been left out leaving them marginalized from the mainstream.

Such a system has been ongoing for at least the last 20 years and makes Malaysia a role model for countries in this field of racially targeted labour market intervention.


2016 US Presidential Elections: The Power Nativist Populism

October 17, 2016

2016 US Presidential Elections: The Power Nativist Populism

by Matthew J. Goodwin


Don’t underestimate the power of nativist populism. That’s the harsh lesson we in Britain learned less than four months ago, when Brexit blew up in our faces and confounded nearly every prediction. It’s one the Austrians and French are learning even now, as they keep counting out (then are forced to count back in) right-wing populist backlashes to the establishment. And it’s the lesson that American pundits who are already predicting a comfortable victory for Hillary Clinton over the embattled Donald Trump—if not a historic landslide—should take on board before they start relaxing too much in the next few weeks.

Of course, every election, and country, is unique. And with little more than 20 days left until America elects its next president, there is reason for the new sense of confidence in the Clinton camp. In recent weeks, Trump has been engulfed by scandal, and Clinton’s position has strengthened considerably in the polls.

But recent elections outside the United States should check too much complacency in the Clinton camp, especially when the side that is perceived to be losing is preaching nativist populism to voters who have been economically left behind and feel culturally under threat from ethnic change. Voters, in other words, who are especially motivated to vote for change. Less than four months ago the United Kingdom held a national referendum on whether it should exit the European Union, known as Brexit. Ahead of that contest, the betting markets, pundits and media were united in predicting a comfortable win for the pro-EU side, who wanted the U.K. to remain in the EU. Most of the polls, too, put “Remain” ahead (especially polls conducted by telephone), while the few online polls that suggested a Brexit victory were dismissed as rogue outliers riddled with sampling errors. Pundits pointed to the unfavorable ratings of leading Brexiteers like Nigel Farage who, they argued, were too divisive for Brexit to win. Others pointed to how even most voters accepted there did not seem to be much of a plan for life after Brexit. The Remain camp, we were also told, had the superior ground game—it seemed to be knocking on more doors, had more offices and had a developed strategy for targeting young university towns.

These assumptions continued to guide the national debate right up until the contest itself. In the prediction markets, throughout the final week of the campaign, the percentage chance that Remain would win did not fall below 75 percent. In the final days, seven polling companies issued their “final” polls, none of which forecast the eventual result. In three cases, the result was within the margin of error, though only one had put Brexit ahead, while the remaining four had overestimated support for Remain. Every single poll, noted the British Polling Council, even those within sampling error, had overstated support for Remain. Even on the day of the vote, three polls put Remain ahead, one by a striking 10 points.

The betting markets were just as confident; on the morning of the referendum, they put Remain’s chance of victory at 76 percent and, by the close of voting, at 86 percent. When you asked voters who they expected to win, it was the same story; in the final 24 hours of the campaign, only 27 percent expected Brexit to triumph. Those who sought to keep Britain in the EU, having recruited President Barack Obama to their cause, expressed relief. An anxious Prime Minister David Cameron was told to relax.

Almost everyone was proved wrong by the massive turnout of Brexit voters, who had been derided by established politicians as loons and racists and who were not expected to be organized, especially at the polling stations. “Leave” won 52 percent of the vote across the U.K., and nearly 54 percent in England. This figure rocketed higher in poorer industrial and rural communities that had been cut adrift by globalization and felt under threat from unprecedented levels of immigration—the analogue to many Trump voters today (as even Trump himself has suggested, tweeting that he would soon be known as “Mr. Brexit”). Support for Brexit reached striking levels among those same groups of voters who are now backing Trump—nearly 60 percent among voters on low incomes, over 70 percent among manual workers and 75 percent among people with no qualifications. In forgotten England, the anti-elite and anti-immigration message had spread like wildfire. The left behind mobilized in a big way.

Turnout rates among poorly educated white voters threw cold water on the earlier claim that the angry white man would not show up, that he would be pushed aside by young cosmopolitans and the big cities. Overall turnout was high, at 72 percent, the highest for any U.K.-wide vote since 1992. Subsequent analysis of how this affected the vote suggests that Brexit won by mobilizing people who never normally vote, something that Trump hopes to emulate. The unexpectedly high turnout, especially in blue-collar communities, is why turnout models in the polls that were based on turnout at previous elections performed poorly; they failed to account for the mobilization of unlikely voters. Turnout was much higher among the Brexit-voting over-55s and strikingly lower among young voters who had promised to vote. Some estimate that whereas 64 percent of young people who were registered to vote did vote, this figure was 74 percent among people ages 55 to 64 and 90 percent among those ages 65 and above. In the aftermath of the Brexit victory, a petition emerged to overhaul the result through a second referendum. The largest number of signatures were in young and trendy areas like the London districts of Camden and Hackney, where voters had failed to turn out when it mattered.

The Brexit vote is a powerful reminder not only of how identity can trump economics but also of how supporters of populist insurgents are often more loyal than many think. While the pro-EU side had focused relentlessly on dry arguments about jobs, wages and appeals to economic self-interest, Brexit was pushed over the line by a campaign that tapped into an intense cultural angst among blue-collar, left behind and older voters. The core message of “Take Back Control” had resonated strongly among these voters who had long felt cut adrift from mainstream politics and under threat from rapid ethnic change. That culture was as important as economics was reflected in the fact that it was in communities that had experienced the most rapid ethnic change over the past 10 years where support for Brexit was often strongest. Presented with an opportunity to reassert their conservative values and disdain for a liberal mainstream, they took it. The intense power of this identity angst should have been diagnosed given that ahead of the referendum most voters readily admitted to pollsters that they would be willing to suffer an economic hit if, in turn, it meant they had greater control over borders and immigration. Political and media elites failed to diagnose the simmering anger and mistakenly believed that it could be soothed with appeals to rational choice.

Image result for Trump's nativist power will beat Clinton

In the U.S. election, it is clear that the strategy of the Trump campaign is to rile up the passions of America’s disaffected in the same way—to the point where many people at his rallies are now saying they’re doubly motivated to go to the polls to ensure that the election isn’t “rigged,” as the candidate himself has been urging them to do.

Other experiences in Europe underline the durability of support for right-wing populists. Since the 1980s, the media and liberal progressives have written off anti-immigration and anti-elite populist parties, but they never go away and have only accumulated support. In Austria, since the mid-1980s, the populist xenophobic Freedom Party has sustained a strong following; today it is on the verge of possibly winning the presidential election in December. In France, Marine Le Pen is currently forecast to reach the final second-round of the presidential election next spring despite her party being widely written off after her father was defeated in the same contest in 2002 and then saw a drop-off in support in 2007. This durability flows from an economically disaffected, socially conservative, white, less educated and male electorate that has mobilized despite talk of its members’ alienation and apathy.

It is also worth noting another contest in Britain: In 2015, conventional wisdom had again mistakenly told us that the progressive, social democrat Labour Party would likely triumph. The polls and commentariat were united in claiming that no party would secure an overall majority, that Britain was thus headed for a hung parliament and that—most likely—there would be a coalition headed by the uninspiring but nonetheless competent Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Labour, we were told, also had a superior ground game (rooted in Labour’s promise to hold “four million conversations with voters in four months”). When some of the world’s most renowned political scientists gathered at a conference to share their increasingly sophisticated forecasts of the election, not a single one predicted the outcome—a majority Conservative government. The polls, too, had been wrong. A subsequent inquiry revealed they had consistently overestimated Labour support and were among the most inaccurate since election polling had begun in 1945. Their samples had too many “easier to reach” Labour voters and not enough harder-to-reach older and more socially conservative voters.

Donald Trump will most likely fail to win the presidency, not least because the mechanics of the race differ from those contests above in important ways. The electoral college stacks the deck against the Republicans; there is a sharp gender gap in current voting intention (which was not evident at Britain’s EU referendum); and the Trump candidacy is perhaps the most divisive in modern American history. But at the same time, recent history from across the Atlantic reveals why you should never dismiss the appeal of a populist insurgency, place blind faith in the polls and forecasts nor assume that populist voters will not mobilize when—in their eyes—it matters most. Anger goes a long way at the polls. Trump is still the underdog, but those who claim to be experts would still be foolish to completely write off the power of the revolt on the right.

Matthew J. Goodwin is Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent and Senior Visiting Fellow at Chatham House. He is author of Revolt on the Right: Explaining Public Support for the Radical Right in Britain.


Mahathir: Climate Change and The End of Man

August 27, 2016

Mahathir: Climate Change and The End of Man

Image result for Climate Change and End of Man

We now admit that the climate is changing. But we must also be aware that the so-called natural disasters are happening more frequently, and are more violent. And these cataclysms are happening in more places than before.

We see floods in New York, tsunamis in Sumatera and Fukushima, non-active volcanoes erupting, repeated volcanic eruptions in the same location, prolonged winters, high temperatures for months in many countries, tornadoes which wreck whole countries, typhoons of unprecedented strength and huge forest fires which consume parts of towns.

Is it just climate change which we hope will come to an end. Can we expect to go back to the years when the weather behaves in predictable cycles, i.e in the regularity of the seasons, the levels of the seas, the rise and fall of the tides, and the habitability of this planet we call Earth.

Image result for Climate Change and End of Man

We now accept that the Earth is much older than we use to think. We also know that it was not always like what it is now. We know that the human race appeared probably only a few hundred thousand years ago.

We know that there was a time when dinosaurs inhabited the earth. They disappeared but they left their skeletons so that we cannot deny that they existed even though they were strange creatures unlike the animals we see today. Perhaps the crocodile is the only surviving species from the age of the dinosaurs.

We know that there were at least two ice ages, when the whole world was covered with a thick layer of ice. Life as we know today could not have survived the cold. Nothing could grow on the ground covered with the thick layer of ice. Even dinosaurs could not have survived, as there was no vegetation for them to feed on.

Image result for The Oceans

The ice melted to form oceans. The oceans and the seas receded and land masses appeared. We know the land masses grow and sundered, drifting apart to form continents. We are told the Himalaya is still growing taller. The process is very slow, but it is growing if we compare heights over the years.

The land masses too change in shape so that the shorelines change even during our times. We have found sea-shells on land very far from the sea, on mountains even.

We know all these had happened in the past. It cannot be that all these changes and processes stopped because civilised man now occupy this earth.

Image result for The Oceans

The process of change on this earth must be continuous. It must be continuing.Men have always believed in the end of the world. Almost every religion talks of the Last Day of the earth. But we really do not know when it will happen. Could it be that we are progressing towards it even now.

It may take a hundred thousand years. But can we expect the changes to cease. Can we expect the volcanoes and the quakes, the violent storms, tsunamis and tornadoes, the floods and landslides etc to remain mild or benign as they used to be. I should think not.

Instead we must expect increasing frequency and violence of the natural cataclysms. The world may become so hot that living things cannot survive. The world may become so cold, the third Ice Age, that living things cannot thrive either.

For humanity it can mean the end of their world.So it is true, what the religions warn us about. For Muslims there has never been any doubt. There will be kiamat. Perhaps the scientists too will finally admit that for men the world has come to an end.But  whether they do or not the end will come.


Exit, now BNexit, Collapsit?

July 27, 2016

Exits, now BNexit, Collapsit?

by Dean Johns

Rogues Gallery

I’ve been enjoying lots of exciting times lately. First arriving in London in time to experience the immediate aftermath of Brexit, which for many people over there was a matter for bitter Regrexit, and now returning home to the welcome spectacle of 1MDB getting its long-overdue Wrexit.

And the even more entertaining sight of the culprits doing their damndest to Rejexit, in every way from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s urging for people not to ‘pre-judge’ the named alleged culprits to the ludicrous claim by BN mouthpiece the New Straits Times that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been swayed by anti-regime bloggers and others.

Of course, as a friend living in Malaysia has reminded me, I shouldn’t be celebrexing the downfall of the 1MDB-BN gang too enthusiastically at this early stage.

My friend’s BN-supporting relatives, he reports, are still determinedly denying the guilt of all the crooks currently being targeted by the US DOJ, and there must be countless more Malaysians that are similarly desperately striving to delude themselves.

After all, it is not just Najib allegedly aka ‘Malaysian Official 1’ who is responsible for the clearly evident fact that, as the DOJ has asserted, the Malaysian people have been ‘defrauded on an enormous scale’ by way of 1MDB.

Equally culpable are not only Najib’s partners-in-crime like accomplice Jho Low and stepson Riza Aziz, but also countless accessories allegedly including the entire BN cabinet, the Attorney-General and Inspector-General of Police, plus all of Najib’s apologists in the so-called mainstream media and those who have supported him and his regime in a series of fraudulent elections.

And let us not be blinded by the sheer scale of the 1MDB scam to the fact that BN members, cronies and supporters have been guilty of defrauding the Malaysian people on a massive scale for decades.

The entire regime apparatus supported that act of political, social and racial treachery, and has since been complicit in Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s allegedly repressive and rapacious 22-year premiership, and now Najib’s reprise of more of the same.

Compelling suspicions

Indeed, BN at large has been more than complicit in Najib’s case, as its members elevated him to the position of prime minister despite his being notoriously tainted by compelling suspicions of his involvement in the Scorpene submarines kickback scandal and the associated murder of Mongolian ‘model’ Altantuya Shaariibuu.

These suspicions were almost as international as those currently swirling around Najib’s involvement in the 1MDB fraud.

As Hamish Macdonald of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote when BN awarded Najib the top job back in 2009, “Malaysia (has sworn in) perhaps one of the most questionable current politicians in any of the world’s democracies as its new Prime Minister, in a triumph of party-machine politics over sound governance and morality.”

And as former BBC correspondent in Malaysia, Jonathan Kent, similarly commented on Najib at the time, “it is really rather unusual for a head of government to find himself linked to the brutal murder of an attractive young woman or to huge and questionable commission payments for the purchase of armaments.”

Undaunted, however, BN members saw fit to inflict Najib on Malaysia the better to serve his and their own alleged lusts for power and plunder, and seven years more of regime secrecy, lies, evasions and crimes against the people, culminating in 1MDB, have been the result.

So when the international pressure inspired by the 1MDB swindle finally grows too intense to bear, it is not just Najib who has to go, only to be substituted with some other BN crook that’s just as bad or even, if possible, worse.

Whether through the ballot, or massive public demonstrations of people-power, or rolling national strikes, or a class-action suit in the International Criminal Court, the entire gang of regime criminals has to be got rid of along with Najib, in one great and glorious BNexit.


A Toast to the Right to Development

New York

June 22, 2016

A Toast to the Right to Development

by Martin Khor

Many problems threatening the world can be addressed through the lens of the Right to Development – that should be celebrated on its 30th anniversary.

THE Declaration on the Right to Development is 30 years old. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1986, it has had an illustrious history, having great resonance among and giving a boost to people fighting for freedom and more participation in national affairs, as well as to developing nations striving for a fairer world economic order.

It has been invoked by the leaders and diplomats of developing countries on numerous occasions, when they try to convince their counterparts of the developed countries to show more empathy for the needs of the poorer countries.

It has a central place in the Rio Principles of the 1992 Earth Summit, and most recently it was mentioned in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

On this 30th anniversary, it is fitting to recall the important elements of this right to development. It is human and people-centred, an inalienable human right “to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”

Politicians and policy makers should take human beings as the central focus of their development policies, and ensure they can actively participate in the process of development and development policy, as well as benefit from the fruits of development. (Article 2.3).

But the Declaration also places great importance on the international arena. States have the duty to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development (Article 3.3).

And effective international cooperation is essential in providing developing countries with appropriate means and facilities to foster their comprehensive development (Article 4.2).

The right to development recognises that there are national and international obstacles to the realisation of the right to development, and it calls for states to take steps to eliminate these obstacles.

It is useful to identify some present global problems and how they affect the right to development.

First, the global economy in crisis. The economic sluggishness in developed countries has had adverse impact on developing economies.

They are facing low commodity prices, and reduced export earnings. They face great fluctuations in the inflow and outflow of funds, due to absence of controls over speculative capital flows and fluctuations in the value of their currencies due to lack of a global mechanism to stabilise currencies.

Some countries are on the brink of another debt crisis. There is for them no international sovereign debt restructuring mechanism and countries that do their own debt workout may well become victims of vulture funds.

Second, the challenges of implementing appropriate development strategies.

There are challenges in developing countries to have policies right in agricultural production, ensuring adequate incomes for small farmers, and national food security.

Industrialisation involves the challenges of climbing the ladder, moving from labour-intensive low-cost industries to higher technology industries and overcoming the middle-income trap.

There are the challenges to providing social services like health care and education and water supply, lighting and transport as well as developing financial services and commerce.

This policy-making is even more difficult due to premature liberalisation, some of which is due to loan conditionality and to trade and investment agreements which also constrain policy space.

In particular, many investment agreements enable foreign investors to take advantage of imbalanced provisions and shortcomings in the arbitration system that cause countries to lose a lot in compensation and also have a chill effect on their right to regulate and to formulate policies. A review is needed.

Third, climate change is an outstanding example of an environmental constraint to development and the right to development. There is an imperative to cut global emissions as sharply and quickly as possible. But which countries and which groups within countries should cut emissions, and by how much?

The danger is that the burden will mainly be passed on to developing and poorer countries and to the poor and vulnerable in each country.

The Paris Agreement of December 2015 was a success in terms of reaching a multilateral deal.

But it is not ambitious enough to save humanity, and it also failed to deliver confidence that the promised transfers of finance and technology will take place. Much more has to be done and within a few years.

Fourth, the crisis of anti-microbial resistance brings dangers of a post-antibiotic age. Many diseases are becoming increasingly difficult to treat because bacteria have become more and more resistant to anti-microbials.

The World Health Organisation Director General has warned that every antibiotic ever developed is at risk of becoming useless and that we are entering a post-antibiotic era.

The World Health Assembly in 2015 adopted a global plan of action to address anti-microbial resistance but the challenge is in the implementation.

Developing countries require funds and technology such as microscopes and diagnostic tools; they also need to have access to existing and new antibiotics at affordable prices.

Fifth, the challenges of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, which are closely linked to the right to development.

For example, Goal 3 is “to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. One of the targets is to achieve universal health coverage, that no one should be denied treatment because they cannot afford it. But unless there are sufficient funds, this will remain an unfulfilled noble target.

The treatment for HIV/AIDS became more widespread only when generics were made available at cheaper prices, and since then millions of lives have been saved.

Many of the new cancer drugs and the new “biologics” are priced above US$100,000 (RM408,850) for a year’s treatment. Unfortu­nately, due to global patent rules, most patients have no access to cheaper generics.

For the SDGs to succeed, finance and technology have to be transferred to developing countries and some international rules on trade and intellectual property have to be altered if they are found to be obstacles to the right to development.

All the above global challenges have to be diagnosed as to where they comprise obstacles to realising the right to development, and the obstacles should then be removed.

That is easier said than done. But the Declaration has thrown light on the way ahead.

Martin Khor ( is executive director of the South Centre. The views expressed here are entirely his own.




Jakarta Governor points the way for London Mayor Sadiq Khan

June 2, 2016

Jakarta  Governor points the way for London Mayor Sadiq Khan

by Kishore Mahbubani*


The election of Sadiq Khan, a practising Muslim, as Mayor of London was rightly celebrated across the world. It confirmed that openness and tolerance, hallmarks of western civilisation, are alive and well. More surprising, perhaps, is that this spirit can be found in parts of the Islamic world, too.

Indonesia is the country with the world’s largest Muslim population. Its capital city, Jakarta, is run by Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, a Chinese Christian popularly known as “Ahok”. This is highly significant. Why? As recently as 1998, Jakarta saw anti-Chinese riots in which more than a thousand people were killed. Mr Purnama and his family had to defend themselves with sticks, Molotov cocktails and machetes.

After 17 months as Governor of Jakarta, Mr Purnama remains immensely popular. He has made some bold changes: closing down trendy but disruptive nightclubs, cleaning up red-light districts, evicting people from slums (while providing them with better housing) and dredging clogged-up canals.

He has also demonstrated his willingness to make difficult policy choices, such as discontinuing a long-stalled monorail project in favour of a more cost-effective and efficient light rail system. Even more significantly, an underground railway, which had been held up by bureaucracy for more than 25 years, is going ahead.

Mr Purnama also believes in transparency. The entire budget of the city of Jakarta is online. Citizens can scrutinise all spending. Even his mobile phone number is public, meaning that he receives a large number of text messages, many of which he responds to personally. The city’s inhabitants feel that their lives are improving.


The City of Jakarta skyline

This is why the attacks on him by hardline Islamist groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front, also known as Front Pembela Islam, are not working. In theory, appeals to religious loyalties by such groups should work against Mr Purnama. In practice, however, they have failed — suggesting that in Jakarta, as in London, a corner has been turned. The big question is why.

One reason could be greater access to information. A little-known fact about Indonesia is that its social media penetration rates are among the highest in the world. There are more than 80m users of social networks in the country. In the new climate of transparency, there is increasing evidence for Mr Purnama’s claim that conditions in Jakarta are improving.

How to succeed politically? Be prepared to die. I am ready to die. Tweet this quote

Corruption is also declining in what was a notoriously corrupt city. Video clips of Mr Purnama berating officials of the city’s transport administration have gone viral. Despite the traditional Javanese preference for avoiding confrontation, he has adopted a brash, in-your-face style that has clearly angered many. He has acquired enemies.

When I met him earlier this year, I asked him for his views on how to succeed politically. He replied: “Be prepared to die. I am ready to die”.

His courage is obvious. And for a Chinese Christian in a largely Muslim society to have displayed such courage could have been politically suicidal. Instead, it has proved to be a vote-getter. A grass roots campaign to put him on the ballot as an independent candidate to run again as governor in 2017 has drawn wide support from the city’s predominantly Islamic population. He has received more than enough nominations.

Mr Purnama’s success in Jakarta is not just a local phenomenon. It demonstrates that we are moving into a new world in which people make more informed and rational decisions on the basis of greater access to information. The citizens of Jakarta are aware how backwards their city had become, even in relation to its Asian peers. So when a Chinese Christian promises that he will study best urban practices from Singapore and Taipei and bring them to Jakarta, they support him.

This is why I believe that we are witnessing globally a fusion of civilisations, not a clash of civilisations. Societies around the world are beginning to learn best urban practice from others.

The brash Chinese Christian Governor of Jakarta is popular among the Islamic population of Jakarta because he says to them, in effect: “You can see on your phones how the rest of the world has moved ahead. Follow me, and I will bring the world’s best practices to Jakarta.”

In theory, an Islamic population ought to have been reluctant to follow a Christian leader. In practice, they are embracing him. This is as significant as the election of Mr Khan.

Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani is Dean and Professor in the practice of public policy in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy NUS, Singapore.