Malaysia: Pakatan’s First Budget will be a tough one


October 19, 2018

Malaysia: Pakatan’s First Budget will be a tough one

by P. Gunasegaram

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for Lim Guan eng

Malaysia’s Finance Minister Guan Eng

QUESTION TIME | Pakatan Harapan’s first budget to be announced on November 2 is going to be a terribly tough one because there are not going to be many sources of extra revenue nor many avenues for cost-cutting.

There is a reason why the Harapan government does not have enough money – and it isn’t debt that they claim they didn’t know about until they came to power. The real answer is the scrapping of the goods and services tax.

The cash crunch that resulted from the abolition of the GST in favour of the inferior sales and service tax will result in a yearly tax revenue loss of a massive RM22 billion initially, rising as the economy expands. Add to this the cost of fuel subsidies of RM3 billion, and the yearly shortfall is RM25 billion at least.

Image result for Lim Guan eng and dr mahathir

That is the kind of yearly gap in revenue that Putrajaya faces. Using projected 2018 figures, according to 2018 Economic Report, the RM25 billion loss of revenue represents 10.7 percent of the projected operating expenditure of RM234.3 billion for 2018.

No tax that the government imposes will come anywhere close to breaching the RM25 billion gap. If it were to impose substantial taxes to recover this money, it will result in hardship to the people along with rising prices – which Harapan said it intended to contain with the abolition of GST in the first place.

A wrong move

The truth is, the abolition  of the GST was a terribly wrong move, and has needlessly strait jacketed the Harapan government and led to a deterioration of its financial position.

As I have said before, it should not even have been a campaign promise as the consumption tax was no longer contributing to higher prices, having been implemented with considerable difficulty back in April 2015.

Also, the GST affected the poor very little because there was a very large list of exemptions which ensured that the prices of essentials would not rise as a result. It is a tax on consumption, and therefore those who consume more (the rich) will pay more, catching in the tax net those who evade income tax. Also, GST records can be used to investigate tax evasions.

If there was one manifesto promise that Harapan broke, it should have been the abolition of GST. That would have ensured that the government finances are in good shape as reforms are being implemented – which could even have included more targeted benefits for the low-income group.

The main reason for higher prices was currency depreciation, a problem that continues to plague us despite the removal of a kleptocratic government. In fact, abolishing the GST may have contributed to currency weakness because analysts and funds view the revenue shortfall as negative in terms of the financial condition of the country.

Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng actually said last month that the ringgit strengthened relative to most countries, despite the transfer of power and weak external demand, but the period he used was incorrect – beginning with end-2017. He should have used May 9, the date of the election.

The table below shows how the ringgit performed relative to the currencies of the Asean-5 from May 9 to yesterday.

The table clearly indicates that the Malaysian currency significantly under performed all the ASEAN-5 countries – barring Indonesia, which has considerable economic problems of its own.

Tightened belts?

Hopefully, the new government and Finance Minister can demonstrate through the budget that they have a proper grasp of the issues at hand and how to handle it to reverse the currency trend.

It won’t be easy. While Lim has argued that the national debt exceeds RM1 trillion – and this has become wrongly used as the debt figure now – it is not. The debt as revealed in the 2018 in Accountant General’s Report for 2017 is still RM687 billion, and increases to over RM1 trillion only if contingent liabilities and guarantees are included, as I have previously explained.

Even if some of the contingent liabilities and/or guarantees have materialised as debt and are not classified as such, the interest on them will still have to be paid. Therefore, there will be little material increase in the overall costs of interest, even if they are reclassified into debt. The problem remains the RM25 billion shortfall.

Some potential positives include increased oil prices and more dividends from government companies, but these are likely to be well under RM10 billion incrementally.

An examination of government costs shows that salaries, retirement benefits and debt service charges account for 57.6 percent of total operating costs of RM234.3 billion. These can’t be cut.

There is more room to cut ‘supplies and services’, and ‘subsidies and social assistance’ accounting for a total of RM60.2 billion, or 25.7 percent of total operating expenditure, but the cuts will have to be pretty sharp. Also, this will probably take away targeted aid to the poor if cash grants under the old BR1M are cancelled.

Harapan is finding out too late that they left themselves too little wriggle room when they abolished GST. Unless they reinstate it – and they aren’t likely to do that because it will be an admission of a major blunder – they have to find other ways to raise revenue or cut costs.

Since the best, broad-based, value-added tax which goes by the name of GST here and implemented in over 160 countries around the world seems no longer available to them, and revenue-raising measures are limited, tightening the belt and prudent cost-cutting may be the order of the day.

If they do a good job of it, and come with a plan of also stimulating the economy to put growth on an upward trajectory again, analysts, fund managers, and most of all Malaysians, will show more faith in them and start putting money into the country.

It would also help to put the ringgit back on an upward path and suppress rising prices, or even lower them over the longer term. That entails honesty, openness, consultation, competency and a willingness to put the country and people above all. Malaysians expect no less from the new government.


P GUNASEGARAM is disappointed that the new government has not always been honest and open. Email: t.p.guna@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Reform For New Malaysia


October 13, 2018

Image result for malaysia parliament

Malaysia:  Reform for Transparent Governance

Improving parliamentary scrutiny helps the new government meet its election promises.

http://www.newmandala.org/better-governance-better-parliament/

Strengthening the Parliament and making the budget process more transparent are two promises made by the new Pakatan Harapan (PH) government in the run up to Malaysia’s 14th general election (GE-14) in May. The former is listed in the manifesto as Promise 16, while the latter is Promise 29. Both reforms are interrelated and complementary to each other in ensuring a robust check-and-balance against the executive branch, which had been very dominant under the former Barisan Nasional (BN) government.

Image result for Malaysia's Speaker Ariff

Recently, the new Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (Lower House of Parliament) and former senior judge Mohamad Ariff Mohd Yusof (pic above) led a parliamentary delegation to Canberra to visit the Australian Parliament. By drawing from Australia’s experience in this area, the Malaysian Parliament can be strengthened through budget transparency reforms.

Parliaments play a key role in the budget process in many countries including Malaysia, with powers to approve or reject government budgets and oversee their implementation and outcomes. A robust parliament is essential in creating a robust budget process.

All government policies inevitably require some public resources for planning and implementation, and the budget process is an important medium for the Parliament to scrutinise policy decisions made by the Executive Branch and hold them accountable. It’s not unusual in Malaysia for opposition parliamentarians to use the budget debate to argue for a pay cut over ministers’ policy failures.

To make informed decisions, the Parliament also requires extensive information and it relies on government agencies with first-hand information. Without a transparent robust budget process supported by relevant budget information, parliaments cannot make informed decisions about budget allocations and uphold accountability effectively.

The Malaysian Parliament had been criticised as a rubber stamp for the executive branch in the previous government. While there are no global indicators on national legislative strength, indices on democracy can serve as a rough proxy, given that parliaments are central institutions in democracies. In the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Malaysia is a ‘flawed democracy’, which despite holding regular elections, has significant weaknesses in its democracy. BN (and its predecessor the Alliance) held a two-thirds majority in Malaysia’s Parliament for most of its rule since independence (except the last two terms), and it was rare for government bills to be amended never mind defeated.

In terms of budget transparency, Malaysia is also in a sorry state. According to the latest Open Budget Survey 2017, the Malaysian public has only limited access to budget information and the country ranked 54 out of 113 countries, with a score of 46 out of 100. Although the Survey did not ask specifically about the information accessible by parliamentarians, it was likely no better than the public they represent. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia is trailing behind the Philippines (67 points), Indonesia (64 points), and Thailand (56 points), and only ahead of Cambodia (20 points), Vietnam (15 points) and Myanmar (7 points). Singapore, Brunei and Laos did not participate in the Survey.

Malaysia’s performance in two other pillars of budget accountability is likewise bad: the country received a score of 22 out 100 in public participation, and a score of 35 in institutional oversight. In particular, the Survey finds parliament providing weak oversight throughout the budget process. There is no pre-budget debate in Parliament and there are also no parliamentary committees to examine budget proposals. Malaysia also does not have an independent fiscal institution like Australia’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), which is increasingly recognised as an important source of independent and nonpartisan information in the budget process.

With PH taking power in GE-14, many have seen this as an opportunity for remaking Malaysia, with reforming parliament frequently at the top of the agenda. While the issue of budget transparency isn’t prominently on the radar, we should appreciate its linkages with parliamentary reforms and promote it as an integral part of the movement to strengthen the Parliament.

Two particular reform directions stand out from the discussion above: more information should be made available, and the Parliament has to beef up its oversight capabilities. In this respect, there are things that Malaysia can learn from the Australian budget process. Both countries share the same institutional roots in the British Westminster system, but Australia is far ahead in terms of budget transparency. In the Open Budget Survey 2017, it ranked 12 and received a score of 72. Australia also has a vibrant budget oversight institutional setting, particularly the Senate Estimates, which examine the annual budget in detail.

Australia has been a pioneer in pursuing budget transparency reforms since the 1990s. There are two pillars of budget transparency in its modern budget process: the Charter of Budget Honesty and the PBO. Both level the information playing field between the Executive Branch and the Parliament.

Enacted in 1998 to improve fiscal policy outcomes, the Charter of Budget Honesty has been crucial in making more budget information is accessible by the public, and also parliamentarians who represent them. The Charter requires a number of documents to be published for ‘facilitating public scrutiny of fiscal policy and performance’. For example, the government js required to produce a Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) report, which provides an update to the annual budget halfway through the year, and reports any events or changes that may affect the budget’s trajectory. The government must also produce an Intergenerational Report every five years, which provides a long-term aspect to budget forecasting. Such documents are currently not available in Malaysia, thus limiting the information base its Parliament can use in scrutinizing the executive branch.

On the other hand, the PBO, established in 2012, plays an important role in breaking the government’s monopoly on having access to advice on the financial implications of proposed policies. The establishment of this institution allows parliamentarians to build their own policy proposals with proper costing, using the same rules and conventions as the government’s, thus allowing deliberations on a same footing. The PBO has proven to be a great resource for opposition parliamentarians. For example, in 2016-17, over 1,600 policy costings were prepared. This has contributed to improving the vibrancy of Australian parliamentary debate, with back benchers and opposition parliamentarians in a better position to carve out more solid policy alternatives to the government.

In Malaysia, this policy costing service is available only to the government. The lack of proper costings of policy proposals have been an excuse used by past governments to dismiss the opposition’s policy proposals without addressing their merits. Even the new Pakatan Harapan government has used this as a reason to justify their failure of delivering some of the election pledges. An independent fiscal institution like the PBO would rectify the problem.

The Senate Estimates process is another key feature of Australian budget scrutiny, which should be relevant to Malaysia. Established in 1970 to replace the ‘committee of the whole’ process, Senate Estimates have since become an annual ritual of the budget process, where ministers and officials are called to attend public hearings to assist Senate standing committees in considering departmental budgets. The Estimates inquiries are conducted twice a year, the first when the main supply bills are introduced into parliament, and the second when additional supply bills are tabled. They allow Senate standing committees to consider departments’ spending in a detailed manner, which would otherwise be cumbersome for the Senate to address as the committee of the whole.

 

The new government can and should take the opportunity to rehabilitate Malaysia’s battered While the purpose of the Estimates process is to help the Senate make informed decisions about the budget, its importance goes beyond that. Given that the Estimates are conducted in the form of public hearings, and officials, instead of just ministers, can be called to testify, they provide senators an unparalleled opportunity to seek information on the operations of government. They are also part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the performance of the executive branch, as ministers and officials are required to explain not only what had happened, but also why. This is where accountability is most directly manifested.

In its GE-14 manifesto, Pakatan Harapan pledged that parliamentary select committees will be established to monitor every ministry, with the power to call ministers and senior officials to testify. As illustrated by the Australian experience, the budget process serves as a good medium for these committees to hold the Executive Branch accountable for its policies, given that their funding is in play. And this is part of the recommendations by the Open Budget Survey 2017 Malaysia country report, in which it urges Malaysia to prioritize the establishment of parliamentary select committees that can examine the annual Budget.

The Malaysian Budget is where taxing and spending decisions are made, and Parliament plays a central role in the process. By improving the budget process, Parliament is also strengthened, and vice-versa.

CEP’s Dr. Jomo Kwame Sundaram–A Life of Public Service


September 24, 2018

CEP’s Dr. Jomo Kwame Sundaram–A Life of Public Service

Image result for jomo kwame sundaram

The Council of Eminent Persons (CEP), sometimes described as the Council of Elders, was set up to advice the Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s new Pakatan Harapan government.

However, the CEP has also attracted a fair amount of controversy, including criticisms from within Harapan about the council’s role and powers.

One of the council’s members, economist Jomo Kwame Sundaram, addresses those criticisms in a question-and-answer format.

Question: You have been quite quiet since you were appointed to the CEP.

Jomo: Yes. Given all the speculation and tendentious publicity, I did not feel it was helpful to provide more fuel to the fire. As you know, myths about the CEP thrived, and all manner of things were attributed to the CEP, often wrongly.

There were also things we did in our individual capacities, which were being attributed to the CEP. As a result, the initial goodwill, credibility and legitimacy the CEP enjoyed were undermined, and instead of being an asset to the government, especially the PM, we became the butt of many criticisms, including from within the Harapan coalition, largely due to misunderstandings and misperceptions.

I think I speak for all CEP members that if the PM needs our services, we will gladly serve in our individual capacities, and hopefully, become less of a liability to him.

Why are you reported to be against publication of the CEP report?

The issue is complex and nuanced. First, producing a single report for publication was not in the PM’s appointment letter or announcement.

Undoubtedly, some other bodies in the past, viewed by many as precedents, did produce reports after working for much longer periods, but some did not. For example, Tun Razak’s National Consultative Council after May 1969 did not do so.

Our brief was to help the PM, and the new government, with some immediate tasks at hand, especially the PH manifesto pledges for the first 100 days. To do that well, we tried to offer advice as soon as possible for him to consider and act upon, which is different from producing a report after 100 days.

But a report has been submitted to the PM?

While CEP members were agreed on most matters, there were also some disagreements, for example, on government-linked companies. As is known, some of us disagreed on privatisation policy decades ago, which has a bearing on contemporary debates.

It may be impossible to resolve some such differences, even after further discussion. In such situations, what does one do? Remain silent, or publish the chair’s view, as long as that is made clear.

The CEP chairperson has come under particular criticism from certain quarters.

Image result for daim zainuddin

Former CEP Chairman Tun Daim Zainuddin–The Silent Man of Action

I am not sure what you are referring to, but his longstanding relationship to the PM was undoubtedly crucial to the CEP’s establishment and functioning, and the object of criticism by his or the PM’s detractors.

There were also many criticisms of his trip to China, but again, such criticisms were undeserved, in my view. Governments dispatch special envoys all the time to deal with sensitive matters discreetly.

But you were a critic of the earlier Mahathir administration.

Indeed, I was critical of some aspects, but if you read what I wrote, my criticisms were always intended to improve government policy, and I also shared his aspirations for the country, especially development, industrialisation, Wawasan 2020, economic nationalism, nation-building, the so-called Asian financial crisis.

The CEP has not been meeting after the 100 days, but yet a report has just been submitted to the PM.

While we have not met or reviewed draft reports since, our chair has been helping the MACC on certain urban land abuses, as he should. Remember he has vast experience in such matters for half a century, even before he was involved with UDA, the Urban Development Authority.

Some CEP meetings were like master classes where I personally learnt more than I could ever hope to learn from reading.

So, are you for or against publication of the report?

It is really up to the PM. There are many options, including partial publication. Remember there are some highly sensitive matters, in terms of official secrecy as well as other matters which may be sensitive in terms of market behaviour, international diplomacy or even legal procedure.

As someone who has been critical of the abuse of secrecy in the past, I must also acknowledge that there are legitimately sensitive matters, and full transparency may not always be in the public interest.

If the CEP had a different proposal on some issue from the one eventually adopted by the Harapan government, what is the point of publicizing such differences with the government of the day after the fact? It is likely to be used by detractors for their own purposes rather than for better purposes.

Also, as you know, two committees were set up. The Institutional Reform Committee prepared a long report with a view to publication, and the PM may wish to publish it. The other one on 1MDB has contributed to expediting investigation and action, but I doubt their recommendations were intended for publication.

So, you will have nothing to show for your 100 CEP days?

Serving the national and public interest was our priority, not publicity or publications.

What are you doing a month after the CEP’s 100 days ended?

No longer an elder, I already feel younger.Many people expect me to write about the CEP, its work and its recommendations. I have no such plans, but am very busy with earlier unfinished and postponed work as well as new work to help the new administration, preferably under the radar.

Malaysia: The Economy is in bad shape. Thank you, UMNO


September 18, 2018

Malaysia: The Economy is in bad shape. Thank you, UMNO

by Phar Kim Beng@www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for Najib Razak is Malaysia's best economist

Former Prime Minister Najib Razak should be awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics for his management of the Malaysian Economy. He pioneered the 1MDB method of robbing the Malaysian Treasury.

COMMENT | The Malaysian economy is in bad shape. Very bad.

Revisiting the 2014 magnum opus of the Prime Minister’s new Economic Advisor Dr. Muhammed Abdul Khalid, The Colour of Inequality: Ethnicity, Class, Income and Wealth in Malaysia, we see that Malaysia’s income gap has not changed much from 1957 levels, when the country first gained independence.

Between 1990 and 2018, Malaysians on the whole gained little, except the very rich. Muhammed describes a small breakthrough in 2012, but there is no telling if this was due to fiscal spending to ward off the effects of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis.

Muhammed’s reliance on the Statistics Department’s Household Income Survey, while illuminating, is not entirely convincing, especially when paired with numbers or assertions culled from Pemandu, the now-defunct government-funded performance delivery unit.

Image result for The poor in kuala lumpur

 

In other words, the actual picture of the Malaysian economy could be worse than what Muhammed actually describes.

Income from the manufacturing sector, for example, has been on the decline, which may be due to the over-reliance on cheap foreign labour – with an estimated 5.5 million migrant workers in the country – which further depresses the cycle of Malaysian wages.

Indeed, Muhammed correctly notes that “90 percent of each ethnic group does not have any liquid savings, and would not be able to survive more than few months in case they lose their source of income or employment”.

Ticking time bomb

This is not a very pleasant picture, even if it is colour blind. Why? The danger lies in the ticking time bomb that cuts across all races and groups. When the income chasm widens, people tend to blame one another for their problems, which in turn accentuates social, political, religious and racial tensions.

While democracy can ameliorate the tensions, it cannot overcome them completely. What democracy cannot structurally and systematically solve, groups of all religious and ideological fancies might rise to plug the policy gaps. When they do so, inter- and intra-ideological or religious pressures will only become more acute.

When political parties refuse to have elections, or postpone them indefinitely, they become blindsided by what the people want, which in turn hastens their own demise, as witnessed with Umno and BN.

Knowingly or unknowingly, as the book was completed well before the May 9 polls in which a kleptocracy was defeated, the above was one of the key takeaways of Muhammed’s simple but sophisticated book.

A bad economy will skew a political party’s fate, even if it well-larded with cash, corruption and connections. Reading the book now, after the 14th general election, it almost seems like a eulogy to UMNO-BN.

Barely a trickle

But The Colour of Inequality is also a sad indictment of how politicians and corporate leaders have steered the mighty Malaysian ship aground.

Image result for the colour of inequality ethnicity class income and wealth in malaysia

As Muhammed (photo, below) notes, most companies simply refuse to pay their workers well. When they don’t, and with less than nine percent of workers unionised, the bargaining power of the workers is overwhelmingly diminished, leaving them to the mercy of their corporate masters.

 

If the book is anything go by, the whole of Malaysia is sputtering to a halt – despite a GDP that “grew from RM5.1 billion in 1957 to RM1 trillion in 2012”. With the national debt now standing at RM1.09 trillion, Malaysia is caught in the vice-like middle-income trap.

The infamous trickle-down economics, for the lack of a better term, is not just non-existent here; wealth seems to be flowing upwards. Given when it was written, The Colour of Inequality references the Occupy Wall Street, where the 99 percent were trying, seemingly in vain, to challenge the grip of the exalted one percent.

In any case, widespread disempowerment is a phenomenon that should not be happening if the state and the market, as is the case in Malaysia, have vouched to work in tandem to help the poor – as reflected in the National Economic Policy and its derivatives.

But although Malaysia as a whole was becoming richer, the income differentials of Malaysians is growing wider. The lethal brew of myriad income determinants and gangly systems of income distribution have conspired to render the middle and working classes disempowered.

As Muhammed puts it: “(As of 2012), the top 20 percent held more than 52.1 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 40 percent held less than eight percent. The distribution of liquid assets was very extreme – the top 20 percent had 95 percent of all financial wealth, while the bottom 80 percent had only five percent.”This shouldn’t be happening

This process of emasculation should not be happening. Especially not after 61 years of independence.

In 1958, there were only 3,000 Malay taxpayers out of the overall of 33,000 taxpayers. A decade later, of the 1,488 students in Universiti Malaya – the only university in the country at the time – who graduated with a BSc, only 69 were Malays. Only four of the 408 who graduated with an engineering degree were Malays.

“During the same period,” Muhammed adds, “only 12 Malays graduated from the medical faculty, representing less than 10 percent of the total medical faculty graduates.”

But while the number of Malay graduates, technocrats and universities between 1970-2018 have risen dramatically, the chasm between rich and poor continues to stay the same, if not widened.

Statistics from the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) show that 92 percent of the people are earning less than RM 6,000 a month; four out of 10 Malaysians have no pensions at all; close to 40 percent earn less than RM3,000 per month; 25 percent of Malaysians have no properties to their names; and the money that pilgrims save for the hajj is spent entirely on the hajj, leaving their children with nothing to draw on.

Muhammed adds that it is “estimated that there were only 150,000 inter (-racial) marriages in Malaysia, a small figure in a population of 28 million”. Wealth, or, the lack of it, tends to have the same clustering effects in one group and one race.

An epilogue

One thing that Muhammed does not address at length is the extent to which the state can compel GLCs and GLICs to remunerate their workers well, or at least put a cap on the salary differentials between those at the top and the workers at the bottom.

Additionally, in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street, the honeycomb, gig, platform and sharing economy has emerged. If more people put their minds together, more bottom-up solutions – as manifested by Uber, Grab, Air BnB and other forms of electronic commerce – can and will emerge.

But are Malaysians ready for this, beyond the template of the digital free trade zone offered by Alibaba? Or will the proverbial cheese of Malaysians once again be consumed wholesale by a flood of new migrants from China, India and the rest of the world?

Come what may, Malaysians have to work together and understand the structural and systemic reforms that are needed beyond the mere creation of a few digital unicorns.

They need to empower themselves through education, especially online education, even if this involves disciplining themselves to start taking self-enrichment courses – including learning management systems such as edX or Class Central.

If anyone is in need of more inspiration, Muhammed’s book is the best place to start.

The Colour of Inequality, if not redressed, will lead to the panic of inequality, in which only the paranoid will survive. Especially because it is only another 20 years or so before Malaysia starts greying, a process that took European societies a century to experience.


PHAR KIM BENG was a multiple award-winning Head Teaching Fellow on China and Cultural Revolution in Harvard University.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Congratulations. Dr Khalid


August 24, 2018

Congratulations. Dr Khalid

PM appoints Muhammed Abdul Khalid as economic advisor

   Dr Abdul Khalid and Hwok-Aun Lee

Economist Muhammed Abdul Khalid has been appointed as the economic advisor to Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

This follows Muhammed’s stint as the secretariat head for the Council of Eminent Persons (CEP), which has served past its 100-day tenure.

Muhammed is best known for his talk show appearances, where he explains economic issues in simple language.

In 2014, he authored the well-received “The Colour of Inequality: Ethnicity, Class, Income and Wealth in Malaysia” which illustrated how Malaysia’s wealth gap was widening in tandem with its economic success.

He was formerly a research head at the Khazanah Research Institute, chief economist with the Securities Commission and senior analyst with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

He has also held positions with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Unescap).

The Penang-born economist was awarded a PhD with highest honours from the Paris Institute of Political Studies, better known as Sciences Po, and is the founder of big data firm DM Analytics.

His appointment will take effect on August 27.

Judge Pakatan Harapan in 5 years, Dr. Rais Hussin


August 17, 2018

Judge Pakatan Harapan in 100 days, maybe too soon, but in 5 years definitely too late, Dr. Rais Hussin

Shocking  Admission

Image result for Pakatan Harapan Manifesto

 

The Pakatan Harapan Manifesto was launched in March 2018. It is now more than 100 days. How much more time do our new  Yang Berhormat Menteris and Timbalan Menteris need to read and understand their own pledges? What a shame.–Din Merican

Pakatan Harapan ministers and deputy ministers must take the time to read the coalition’s election manifesto, said Bersatu policy and strategy bureau chief Rais Hussin, who was part of the Harapan manifesto committee.

–www.malaysiakini.com

Interview with Dr. Rais Hussin, Pakatan Harapan’s Top  Spinner

by http://www.malaysiakini.com

100 DAYS | Pakatan Harapan ministers and deputy ministers must take the time to read the coalition’s election manifesto, said Bersatu policy and strategy bureau chief Rais Hussin, who was part of the Harapan manifesto committee.

“It is an observation but even ministers and deputy ministers have not read the manifesto.

“So, my first request is that the people, who are supposed to chaperone and deliver the promises, must read the manifesto,” he told Malaysiakini in an interview conducted in conjunction with Harapan’s 100 days in government.

Rais said this should also be expanded to chief secretaries and top civil servants.

“All those implementers, they also need to read this manifesto. It is important for them to read because this is the policy and main points of the Harapan administration – therefore they should be in the know,” he said.

Harapan had made 10 pledges for its first 100 days, but moving on, its longer-term promises will comprise 60 items.

However, Harapan was only able to fully fulfil two of the 10 promises within the first 100 days, namely the abolition of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the review of mega projects.

Rais stressed that this was not a case of promises being broken, pointing out that the ministers were hard at work to try to fulfil them, albeit with a delayed timeline.

He reiterated that Harapan’s manifesto was drafted based on public information and without details that have now become available after the coalition became the government, particularly on the debt level.

“But we believe that given some time and recalibration of our plans, all these promises can be fulfilled,” Rais said.

Instead of finding excuses to justify failing to deliver on promises, he added, he believed in looking for solutions.

Post-GE attention on manifesto ‘unprecedented’

He added that the fact that Harapan’s manifesto is being talked about on a daily basis after the 14th general election was an achievement in itself.

“In the last 13 general elections, manifestos were only discussed before a general election but not afterwards.But after the 14th general election, everyone is talking about the manifesto every day. There is a new intensity in participatory democracy… people have become more sensitive,” he said.

Rais was also asked about Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad downplaying the manifesto, such as his statement that it was “not a Bible” or that it was too “thick“.

“If someone comes and say that it is not a ‘kitab suci’ (holy scripture) and all that, I leave it up to that person. Maybe it is to build a narrative to soften the blow or pressure on the ministers.

“In managing the country, you can’t write a thin manifesto. You need a thick manifesto, especially when it covers all walks of society.

 

“What is important is that what is contained, regardless if the manifesto is thin or thick, is the deliverables. We should not focus on excuses but on how to deliver,” he said.

Rais, who had previously said on May 14 that a manifesto monitoring committee would be formed, said he did raise the subject with the government.

‘Judge us in five years’

However, he said the government decided to have the committee within the cabinet and that the committee is chaired by Mahathir himself.

“If I was the Prime Minister, I would have an external person to audit (the manifest) because there’ll be an independent perspective – you can’t audit your own work.

“But it is his wisdom to have it at the cabinet level – to show its significance,” he said.

He stressed the promises in the manifesto were not arbitrarily drafted, and had gone through a rigorous process.

He said the pledges were derived from public consultation, research firms and party consultation before being approved by the leadership of the respective parties as well as the Harapan presidential council.

“I think with the capable ministers that we have now, under the very capable stewardship of Mahathir and his Deputy Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, I think this is doable.

“If we set our mind and focus towards fulfilling the promises rather than being defensive, I think it’ll be better for us.“At the end of the day, end of the fifth year, assess us then. We should be able to fulfil most of it,” he said.

This interview was jointly conducted by NIGEL AW, NORMAN GOH and ZIKRI KAMARULZAMAN.

RELATED REPORTS

What’s the progress of Harapan’s 100-day pledges?

New M’sia, 100 days later: A look back at Harapan’s first 100 days in power

100 days under Harapan – whither the national economy?

10 promises in 100 days – monitoring Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto pledges

KJ: After 100 days, time for BN to stop harping on the manifesto

Mustafa defends Harapan ‘failure’ in fulfilling 100-day promises