Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
The works of Angus Maddison on world economic history identifies that economic growth only took off after the British Industrial Revolution. Maddison notes that from the year 1000 – 1820, advance in per capita income was a slow crawl with per capita income rising by about 50 per cent but population increased fourfold. Since 1820 however, per capita income exceeded population growth with per capita income rising by more than eightfold and population more than fivefold. Maddison also notes that these growth rates were concentrated in Western Europe.
Michael Spence, in a lecture based on his latest book, The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multi-Speed World quotes the works of Maddison and points out that the higher growth rates since the British Industrial Revolution benefited approximately only 15 per cent of world population, namely the elites in Western Europe and its European offshoots. However, since World War II (WWII), far more people in far more geographical regions have benefited from this open international economic order created after WWII.
Why is this so?
Elhanan Helpman captures the above the phenomenon brilliantly with this quote in his book The Mystery of Economic Growth.
“…What makes some countries rich and others poor? Economists have asked this question since the days of Adam Smith. Yet after more than two hundred years the mystery of economic growth has not been solved…”
The growth mystery has yet to be solved but economists have after two hundred years, isolated what are the determinants of long term sustainable economic growth. Economists divide these determinants into two categories: deep and proximate determinants. In general the deep determinants are institutions, geography and trade while the proximate determinants are capital in all its forms (resources, finance, knowledge, ideas, and technology). The combination of the deep determinants when done correctly facilitates the proximate determinants which lead to productivity rising faster than wages. This leads to welfare gains to all stakeholders in the economy. However, more often than not, countries get this wrong, hence the disparity in economic performance.
The role of institutions in explaining the difference in economic performance was not always explicit. It was Douglass North who first forcefully and successfully advocated the primacy of institutions in explaining the difference in cross – country performance. In summary, the ability to combine the various determinants of growth and the factors of production optimally relies on the proper institutional set-up. Institutions function as the meta-structure within which other determinants are able to function properly. Challenges and opportunities related to trade, geography, human capital accumulation (entrepreneurship, ideas, knowledge and innovation) and investment in factors of production – physical and technological – can be mitigated, overcome, synergised and optimised through the correct institutional structures and arrangements.
In post WWII, East Asian economies, including Malaysia, appears to have got this right, notwithstanding the dissenting views. In 1993, the World Bank in its publication, The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, identified eight miracle East Asian economies – including Malaysia – that had real GDP growth of around or above four per cent from 1960 to 1990, which was far better than the rates achieved since the Industrial Revolution. More importantly, these economic growth benefited the poorest in society.
Malaysia was also one of thirteen countries identified by the Growth Report to have recorded average growth rates of more than 7 per cent per year for twenty five years or more. Malaysia achieved this spectacular performance from 1967 to 1997.
Since the East Asian Financial Crisis (EAFC) of 1997/1998, Malaysia’s economic performances when compared to previous decades are lacklustre and most macroeconomic indicators are trending downwards (declining rates of growth). This was confirmed by Prime Minister Najib Razak himself in the publication of the New Economic Model – Part 1 (NEM – 1). This was a very brave move but a necessary one by the Prime Minister as he acknowledged publicly the failures of Malaysia’s current economic model in order to demonstrate urgency for reforms.
There are other studies that have come to the same conclusion. Among the more prominent ones are Tiger Economies Under Threat by Yusuf and Nabeshima (2009) and Malaysia’s Development Challenges – From Middle Income to Advance Economy by Hill, Mat Zin and Tham (2011). The World Bank through its Malaysia Economic Monitor has also produced a series of reports identifying the same key problems that are effecting Malaysia’s growth.
The NEM – 1 identifies domestic factors such as weak investor confidence, capability constraints (weak human capital, entrepreneurial base and innovative capacity) , productivity ceilings and institutional degradation and external factors such as a sluggish global economy caused by the global financial crisis (GFC) and the rise of neighbours in the region in contributing to the declining growth trajectory.
Now IF we revisit the determinants of growth and agree with the view that proper institutions are the meta-structure that determines long term sustainable growth, then the logical response is to reform Malaysia’s institutional set-up as it must be the deepest determinant of what is hindering economic growth.
This view is further strengthened as the other deep determinants, geography and trade, are favourable in the case of Malaysia. Malaysia has abundant natural resources, is shielded from natural hazards and is located strategically both geopolitically and economically. Malaysia has also benefitted tremendously from being an open economy especially in the merchandise sector.
The NEM – 1 also reports that regional challenges (e.g. China, India and Vietnam) are a cause for Malaysia’s declining economic performance. What has changed about these countries? They have all undertaken institutional reforms: China since 1978, India since 1992 and Vietnam since 1986 and are reaping the benefits while Malaysia has stalled in its institutional reforms since the 1990s, regressed in some ways and is suffering from the consequences.
The above points stress the importance of institutional reforms in Malaysia, something that Mr. Najib Razak has ironically neglected in his signature policies – 1Malaysia, Government Transformation Programme and Economic Transformation Programme.
What are institutions and how do we go about analysing them?
There is no consensus of what is meant by institutions or institutional analysis. I use the most widely quoted definition on institutions. North defines institutions and its impact on economic performance as:
…Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction. They are made up of formal constraints (rules, laws, constitutions), informal constraints (norms of behaviour, conventions, and self imposed codes of conduct), and their enforcement characteristics. Together they define the incentive structure of societies and specifically economies. Institutions and the technology employed determine the transaction and transformation costs that add up to the costs of production…
Geoffrey Hodgson simplifies this to:
…systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions. Language, money, law, systems of weight and measures, table manners, and firms (and other organisations) are thus all institutions…
The key terminology here are norms and incentives. I add ideology to these key terminologies. Incentives (and disincentives) I define to include psychological and material benefits and penalties. Therefore, institutions provide the incentives that structure human behaviour in a society.
Thus far, we’ve established that institutions play an important role in driving growth. We’ve also established what constitutes institutions broadly. Analysing institutions and the role it plays in economic growth is a challenge when there is no consensus on what are institutions and its definition is very broad. However, Hollingsworth provides an approach which is meaningful for our purpose. Hollingsworth suggests that institutions are best compartmentalised by the strength of their resistance to change and by extension, the ability to exert influence. Once compartmentalised, they can each be analysed.
Hollingsworth notes that:
The five components (levels) are arranged in descending order of permanence and stability with Level 1 being the most enduring and persistent compared to all other components. Each component is interrelated with every other component, and changes in one are highly likely to have some effect in bringing about change in each of the other components.
Level 1: Institutions – ideology; norms; rules; conventions; habits and values
Level 2: Institutional arrangements – markets; states; corporate hierarchies; networks; associations; communities
Level 3: Institutional sectors – financial system; systems of education; business system; system of research
Level 4: Organisations
Level 5: Outputs and performance – statues; administrative decisions; the nature, quantity and quality of industrial products.
According to the Growth Commission:
“…fast sustained growth is not a miracle; it is attainable for developing countries with the “right mix of ingredients.” Countries need leaders who are committed to achieving growth and who can take advantage of opportunities from the global economy. They also need to know about the levels of incentives and public investments that are necessary for private investment to take off and ensure the long-term diversification of the economy and its integration in the global economy…”
Michael Spence, the Chair of the Growth Commission, reflected and elaborated further on his extensive experience working with developing countries on growth issues in his latest book by affirming the findings of the Growth Report and emphasising two important characteristics for developing countries to ensure long term sustainable growth – the role of political leadership and democratic norms. He suggests four characteristics for governments that are necessary requirements to underpin long term growth:
1. The government takes economic performance and growth seriously.
2. The governing group has values that cause it to try to act in the interest of the vast majority of the people (as opposed to themselves or some subgroup, however defined)
3. The government is competent and effective and selects a viable sustained-growth strategy that includes openness to the global economy, high levels of investment, and a strong future orientation.
4. Economic freedom is present and is supported by the legal system and regulatory policy
Manifestations of Malay/Muslim Supremacy
Malaysia is classified as a non – democratic state by all international index measuring quality of democracies. This is also affirmed in academic circles. During the boom years, Malaysians accepted this trade-off – restricted freedom for economic growth. Since 1997/98, this has changed as expected. The government has not delivered on growth, therefore the natural demand for reforms and by extension freedom.
There is consensus that Malaysia needs extensive economic, political and social reforms. This is all the more evident IF we agree that institutions are key to long term growth. Also, IF we agree with Spence, these reforms must come from a government with the four characteristics identified above.
Astute observers of Malaysia know the reasons why the present administration and the ones before were unable to make fundamental reforms in Malaysia. This has much to do with the ideology of Malay/Muslim Supremacy as defined by United Malays National Organisation’s (UMNO) and accepted by large swaths of Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
From the literature we can infer that the ideology of Malay/Muslim supremacy has provided the perverse incentives that has manifested itself in many ways. The more critical ones are:
– Institutional degradation: The deterioration in the quality of Malaysia’s institutions, particularly during Mahathir’s years such as the lack of independence between the branches of government; the politicisation of the civil service, producing a culture of risk aversion and a lack of creativity; and the expansion of the non-transparent Government Linked Corporations (GLCs);
– Crony capitalism: Affirmative action in the name of Malays have become a smokescreen for crony capitalism. Affirmative action is the instrument for rampant elite-based (elites from all races, not only Malays) corruption. High levels of income inequality in Malaysia in general but more so within the Malay community proves this.
– Race based affirmative action: Race-based affirmative action in itself is recognised as one of the important reasons for Malaysia’s declining economic performance. Malaysia’s focus on the ex-post equalisation of outcomes across ethnicities rather than ensuring effective ex-ante equalisation of access to opportunities has had important direct efficiency implications, affecting growth by distorting incentives and thereby the competitive process.
– Excessive centralisation: An interesting institutional feature is the lack of decentralisation in the country which is nominally a Federation and the top-down approach in public policymaking. This is a key disconnect in the reform rethoric in the ETP and GTP. To strengthen public service delivery, local communities need to be empowered. Fiscal relationships between federal-state-local also demonstrates institutional failure.
– Feedback mechanisms: Related to Malaysia’s top-down approaches is an almost complete disregard of the monitoring and evaluation function. As a result there is little feedback from outcomes into policy design. The obsession with centralising policy making is also evident in lack of information sharing both within government and with the public.
The need to remove UMNO to create a new “people based ideology”
First let me put forward what I think are the two most critical issue affecting Malaysia: competency and competition.
In relation to competency, the quality of the human capital base in Malaysia is suspect. This is due to the quality of education from pre-school through tertiary and on-the-job. It is linked with ethnicity issues and is exacerbated by the outflow of high-skilled individuals and affected by the inflow of low-skilled labour. There are not only problems on the supply side of the market for skills, but also on the demand side, where firms may not be competitive enough to offer higher wages. The market for skills itself is also problematic in that the price mechanism does not work adequately and this is were wage setting issues play a role.
A bigger and more important challenge than competency is internal competition. This is quite distinct from external competitiveness, on which front Malaysia has scored relatively well in the merchandise sector given its stage of development and the nature of its manufacturing processes which is still dominated by competitiveness identified by low cost rather than high value.
Internal competition refers to the process of allocation in factor (labour, capital, land) and product markets. Internal competition works well when there is good governance, openness and transparency. It relates to the need for deregulation, liberalisation and competition policies especially in key areas such as government procurement and the activities of GLCs in the domestic economy.
All of these are also needed to produce effective competition for good ideas and good policies as well as competition in the political arena. This of course challenges the basic idea of meritocracy and affirmative action in Malaysia.
To reform these will ostensibly mean changing the embedded incentives and thereby institutions in Malaysia. This definitely means undoing the manifestations of Malay/Muslim supremacy as discussed earlier.
Can UMNO implement these reforms?
My hypothesis is that the present leadership in Malaysia within the Barisan Nasional framework is incapable of institutionalising reforms as the present leadership does not meet the criteria set out by Spence. More importantly, it is unable to meet these four criteria for a simple reason – its “ideology” . This ideology that overrides and at the same time influences all other norms, rules, conventions, habits and values is the “ideology” of Malay/Muslim Supremacy. Hence this ideology resides in Level 1 and is more important than all other elements of Level 1.
As the Prime Minister of Malaysia always comes from UMNO it will be impossible for him/her to undo the cornerstone ‘ideology’ of his/her political party and its adherents in Barisan Nasional (which includes Malays and non – Malays.)
The logic above is discussed extensively in the political science literature. To summarise, the Malay/Muslim ideology provides psychological and material benefits to its adherents. This makes its a potent force for groups that rely on this ideology. However, since it is deeply embedded, it is also extremely difficult to counter when needed. Malaysia’s present institutional equilibrium is a reflection of the strength of the adherents of Malay/Muslim supremacy.
I use the institutional analysis tool as suggested by Hollingsworth to provide a different method to demonstrate this point.
There are many examples to illustrate Malay/Muslim Supremacy but I use one that is cited most often as holding back Malaysia’s economic reforms – affirmative action. Affirmative action in Malaysia is the most comprehensive in the world. It has by inference been touted as the one of the key reasons for Malaysia’s declining economic performance although causality has not been explicitly demonstrated.
Utilising Hollingsworth multi-level institutional analysis, theoretically, these reforms should be the least problematic among the five. What operationalise affirmative action is categorised as Level 5 as it constitutes statues; administrative decisions; the nature, quantity and quality of support for the Bumiputera community.
Supporters of affirmative action argue that Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provides the Bumiputeras the right to this extensive affirmative action and thus makes it a Level 1 category and therefore most difficult. However this is factually incorrect.
Article 153 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution states that:
153. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitutions and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or license for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licenses.
In more simple words, the Federal Constitution limits affirmative action to placement in the civil service at the Federal level, scholarships and permits and licences for Bumiputras and only if necessary and in a reasonable manner by the Prime Minister who advises the Yang diPertuan Agung.
Does the Prime Minister have the power to revoke or reform affirmative action policies?
Yes, he does. Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy where the monarch reigns but do not rule. Article 153 is subject to Article 40 and Article 40 states that the Yang diPertuan Agung must act on the advice of the Cabinet.
40. (1) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.
The decision to continue or reform affirmative action policies and the attendant institutions in Malaysia lies solely at the prerogative of the Prime Minister along with his colleagues in Cabinet as stated in Article 40.
With power centralised in the Executive (Cabinet), and with the Prime Minister already having six Ministers out of 31 from the Prime Minister’s Department – which the Prime Minister heads – in the Cabinet, and with the Prime Minister himself holding two portfolios (Prime Minister and Finance Minister I), and legitimised by the Constitution (Article 40), the Prime Minister should on all counts, be able to implement these Level 5 reforms without much difficulty.
Yet, he has been unable to implement these reforms for the simple reason that the Federal Constitution may be the law of the land but it is clearly not the supreme power/ideology in Malaysia. The supreme power/ideology is the primacy of Malays/Muslims as defined by UMNO – at the pinnacle of Level 1.
Hence the Prime Minister may have de jure power to reform, but he does not have de facto power to reform. This power resides among the Malays and non – Malays who support Malay/Muslim Supremacy and the current institutional set-up.
Until and unless this supreme ideology of Malay/Muslim supremacy is removed, Malaysian politicians will be constrained in making the necessary institutional reforms to move Malaysia towards long term sustainable growth.
This piece of article shows that BN have lying to the world that Malaysia is a democratic country. This is not surprising given that they are a bunch of thieves.
0
0
While your analysis of Malaysia’s paralysis in institutional reforms seems reasonable and sound, it however misses out on a more fundamental underlying reasons as to why a nation can eventually crumble and collapse even if its competitive advantage or competency level is successfully achieved. We ponder on what Gandhi said:
“The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.”
In our rush to become a higher income nation, the human face and universal values are somehow drowned in a sea of politics, economic figures, social indicators, and moral decay. In short, we have become a materialistic animal in a material world.
Is that what institutional reforms are all about? I wonder.
0
0
aborium #2
You have raised a very fundamental question about human nature – one that has plagued humankind since the beginning of time. Are human beings by nature “good” or “bad”. I do not know
However, the emotions/characteristics you noted – greed, pride, laziness, selfishness, etc – can be regulated by institutions.
Institutions provide the right incentives so that humans behave “good” rather than “bad” . When everyone obeys traffic laws, cost to the individual and society is reduced. If an individual decides to break the law out of self-interest, he/she is penalised.
However, to build these institutions require individuals who are “good” as the foundation of institutions are still the individuals.
Douglass North has this schema:
“Reality” — Beliefs — Institutions — Specific policies — Outcomes (and thus altered reality)
Therefore, first and foremost, the “reality” of the individual needs to be altered. This of course involves a cognitive process.
And this is where Pakatan Rakyat (PR) plays a role (no doubt they do it not for altruistic but political purpose).
The language that PR uses – Ketuanan Rakyat (Supremacy of the People), Welfare State and PAS for all (by PAS), Middle Malaysia (by DAP) , rule of law, human rights, environmental rights, a Malaysia for all Malaysians – challenges the current ideology of Malay/Islamic Supremacy or power sharing concept that is promoted by the ruling regime.
Civil society actors are utilising PR to embed “good” values into Malaysia’s system of government because the ruling regime cannot reform.
Individuals are autonomous and have the right to determine their behaviour but society can develop institutions that reward universally accepted “good” behaviour.
What is this good behaviour. Well, I have ideas of what it is but its best decided collectively through a democratic process.
That is the crux of my argument – that institutions in Malaysia be restructured away from rewarding bad behaviour towards good.
0
0
Greg
Again, your analysis reinforces what I had been saying all along. You don’t analyse economics issues and offer economic solutions but merely look for issues that offer your an avenue to attack the present Malaysian government.
Your analysis is completely wrong that I am wondering if this can even be called as an academic work. Perhaps it is more appropriate to publish such article in Malaysia Today or Sarawak Report for it is 100% politics.
Issue # 1:
That Malaysia needs reforms is not an issue that I would argue with, since it is self evident. But your fatal mistake is providing a political solution to this economic problem (ie, replacing UMNO).
You seems to automatically assume that merely replacing UMNO will bring forth the policy changes. Things are not as simple as you would like your readers (at least the naive and uninformed ones) to believe.
There is no political party in Malaysia supports the removal of NEP, not even the Chinese based DAP would dare to declare it openly. As such your analysis is basically dead on water and a non starter.
The problem is the same. The bumis (not Malays as you has wongly stated here) have been weaned on the NEP and now have because attached to it and reluctant to let it go. This is no different from the Western nations where the public still adamantly opposes the hefty welfare subsidies despite the grave effect on the govt finances and the macro economic health.
Issue # 2
Excessive centralisation: Your argument here is fallacious. At one end you complaint there is too much centralisation (ETP,etc) and at the other point you accuse the govt for not carrying out reforms. ETP & GTP are some of the most ambitious reform programs in the world today. The scale, scope and the depth of these programs are just breathtaking and far reaching. Yet you did not even attempt to examine them. An uninformed reader would have been completely misled by your analysis thinking Najib had done nothing. No Malaysia PM has gone this far and this fast, not even Mahatir.
As for reforms, there is no other way that being driven by the govt and your accusations of centralisation is certainly and completely wrong.
And there is nothing wrong in governments driving the economic programs except in the confused minds of the discredited free market evangelists. The success of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Ireland and to certain extent Malaysia and China all can be attributed to top-down, centralised approach than the traditional free market method.
Issue # 3
The other issues that you had cited, for example institutional degradation is also off the mark. As you are aware (but unwilling to disclose here), there has been a significant changes in the way Malaysian institutions being run. This started with Badawi and Najib has kicked these reforms a notch higher. The MACC and the judiciary are far more independent and stronger. The police and the civil service, the universities, etc has gone through much changes and the improvement can be seen and felt by most neutrals. ETP/GTP have specific targets and programs. These improvements are also reflected in most neutral surveys and international rankings.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism
You fail to highlight specific issues in which such practices are rife. Such practices, present in bad old days, have been reduced and eliminated with more transparent tendering processes. The way GLCs are managed has seen a huge change as well. Again, you fail to acknowledge these changes.
BTW, perhaps you would have noted the RCI Report on TBH had highlighted shaddy dealings involving DAP, member of Anwar’s PR coalition. This is, as we Malaysians know, just a tip of the ice berg. PKR, DAP and even PAS are involved in crony capitalism and corruptions.
Issue # 5
Various commentators have highlighted issues that stopping Malaysia from achieving the same growth as in the 90s. But none had quoted the political reasons or offered the political solutions as you do here.
The reason why Malaysia can’t achieve the same growth rates are well known but you did not even attempt to examine any of these but instead trying to focus on politics even though you are an economist.
I wonder why…
Issue # 6
It is common sense that no country can keep up the high growth rate once it reaches a certain stage of development. That’s not due to its weaknesses but only shows that different strategies are needed to propel to the next level.
For example China has far acute level of corruption and ills but still growing super hot.
Issue # 7
The real reason why Najib can’t go full speed on all reforms is not very difficult but pro-Anwar commentators like you conveniently ignore it.
Due to the race politics tactics by Pakatan, BN lost much of the non bumi support. The current BN govt’s base now rests on the bumi support. This includes the more right wing elements like Perkasa. Najib can’t reign in these elements as he needs the full support of the bumi community as the Chinese support is still low due to DAP’s racist tactics. However if he enjoys the Chinese support, he can afford to lose the more extreme elements of the bumis.
So in a nut-shell, it is the lack of support of the non bumi community due to the extreme racist strategies adopted by PR parties like DAP is causing Najib from moving faster and further.
0
0
Killer # 4,
Let’s look at the issues you have highlighted and examine them in the context of Malaysia and the BN (UMNO) govt.
Issue # 1. Replacing BN (UMNO) govt with PR (PAS /DAP /PKR).
The NEP complexity is created by UMNO (ala Mahathir) and is corrupted beyond recognition. The NEP seeks to redress the balance of economy amongst the races of Malaysia. To this end, Bumiputrs are given preferential treatment in govt “projects” and other public activities. However, the NEP does no dictates the creation of a “handout” bumiputra economy. In the last 20 odd years, this is exactly the case. Eg: APs for car imports, “pink forms” for Bumis without any sale restrictions, monopoly supply contracts to govt agencies, without a need for performance measurements. etc etc
The NEP need not be remove, but the “handout” parts must be removed. BN (UMNO) is not capable of doing this as, most of the beneficiary are from that camp. PR especially PAS and DAP are not handicapped by this. They can maintain the NEP in a clearer more defined way.
Issue # 2
ETP etc transformation and centralised policy implementation?
The concept of GTP, ETP etc are fundamentally good ideas, however the political will and the sincerity of the programs are suspect. Any informed reader will realise that everything with a big budget is now under the Prime Minister’s dept. Divisions in the Prime Minister’s dept has usurp the roles of Ministries, as programs etc cut the entire spectrum of development in Malaysia.
The various Ministries are now reduced to facilitators for programs initiated by the PM’s DEPT. Ministries endorses and legitimise the programs and offer their resources… that is all.
We can only guess at the reason behind this “change”. It is Najib’s way of taking control away from Mahathir’s cronies, who still populate many Ministries. Since Najib is beholden to many people, he neither can fire nor have the political will to fire a whole bunch of people in case he has a rebellion on his hand.
As for “transformation success and transparency? How about rejection of a recent land deal by UDA due the the purchaser “Not Bumi enough”? Well, I guess that’s transparent. The reason is now clear.
Issue # 3,
Your claims of major changes and independence of Police, Macc and judiciary almost made me choke. (sorry for the personal reaction, but jeezz, please pull the other leg!)
All one has to do is to catalog all the so call cases involving people associated with PR or BN, and it would be very obvious that the three “institution” has become another tool of the BN govt. The list is too long to publish here, perhaps “killer” can cmpile his own.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism – In the past 20 years, this practise by BN has led to massive losses that repeats itself. I can’t see how it can be defended. To quote TBH case is an insult to his memory and show a callousness in the class of Mahathir.
For the uninformed, TBH case only involve a claim of RM$5000/- or something like that. YET “killer” wants to use this as an example to compare with millions, if not billions, in cases invlving BN’s politicians and cronies. This simple fact (the need to use a small case like TBH) shows that PR can’t hold a torch against BN, when it comes to crony capitalism.
issue # 5,6,7.
Someone please take over, I am so tire with the spin and charade of BN cyber troopers.
0
0
Dear Neptunian
Thanks for the response though I hope you can dispense with the name callings.
1. NEP : I think you have a very shallow understanding of NEP, which is common among PR supporters. The impact of NEP is very far reaching and I have seen it with my own eyes. But I have admitted that it has been abused and I support NEP needs to be fine-tuned to only help the needy. But it is wrong to assume the NEP only helps those who are connected. Anwar Ibrahim, Khalid Ibrahim and many of the PR leaders have benefited through the NEP and they are as guilty as some UMNO leaders in corrupting and abusing the NEP.
Najib is aware of this and already making efforts in preventing leakages and abuses via many of his reforms. This can be seen on the ground.
However to say PKR and DAP will stop these abuses are amusing. What is happening in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan clearly shows PR is happy to use NEP to enrich their cronies. Despite Penang’s so-called open tender, only small contracts are handed out transparently while the big deals are going to DAP-linked companies without tenders. In Selangor the abuses are so open though the PR friendly alternative media won’t report them. The KKSB case, Ronnie Lau, TBH cases are merely tip of the gigantic iceberg. The top leaders in PKNS are all PKR cronies. In Penang it is all DAP guys.
2. ETP / GTP
You have very little knowledge of the ETP/GTP so perhaps it is time for you to widen your reading outside MKini, MI,etc.
The PM’s dept budget is large as it contains many sub-ministries. If you care to look at the budget details, you can easily see that.
Even if Najib consolidates his power, there is nothing wrong as long as it produces result. I think the issue here is reforms so let’s not get sidetracked to discuss irrelevant and minor issues.
3. Please stick to the subject and discuss if there has been significant change or otherwise. That Khir Toyo, Ling, etc have been charged are unprecedented. The crime rate has been brought down. Judiciary is no longer under the thump of the executive and the court cases are being more speedily dealt with. In fact ETP has even KPIs for improvement. Survey after survey note the changes.
4. What happened under Mahatir is not something I am defending for he’s not the PM now. Perhaps you have forgotten that Anwar was in BN and he was also guilty of many wrongdoings you had listed.
As for TBH, the RCI clearly found that it was a suicide and only PR supporters refuse to buy it since they want to believe that he was murdered, despite a complete lack of evidence. Actually if not for DAP’s corruption, he would still be alive. So in fact if anyone responsible for his death, then it must be DAP.
Please don’t try to justify “small” bribes by PR. Bribery is bribery, a small thief will graduate into a mega thief given time and opportunity. In fact there is a wholesale corruption under PR that has been exposed. I find it perplexing that you claim to be anti corruption yet willing to defend PR’s corruption saying these are “small amounts”.
I find this to be the mindset of a typical PR supporters who will forgive any crimes committed by PR leaders as long as they can remove BN from power. They tend to denounce bribery, abuse of power, human rights violation,etc,etc but will defend PR when it does the same.
Most of these people only want one thing, that is regime change. All the talk about democratization is merely an excuse to attack BN for PR never demonstrated a real desire for change. We don’t have to go far, the state of affair in Penang, Kelantan, Kedah & Selangor is ample evidence.
0
0
Killer #4.
Your missing out on the key points I’m making.
My conclusion was, if you had read my essay carefully, is that until Malay Supremacy is replaced, no political coalition – whether BN or PR or any other coalition – can make the reforms that Malaysia has to make i.e. to overcome the middle income trap we have to make structural changes to the economy which requires institutional reforms.
I also know why we have such differing views.
(1) My analysis are at issues on level 1 while your looking at outcomes in level five.
(2) We also have different points of departure or different “realities”.
My reality begins with the fact that Malaysia has institutionalised racism which provides a cover for systemic corruption and abuse of power.
Your reality is that the BN government is doing a great job and the fault lies with the opposition coalition and Malaysians who support the opposition.
So, it is unlikely that we can agree.
0
0
Hai Greg,
You are definitely right on one thing – can’t agree with killer. As long as one insist on ignoring the elephant in the room, then it is not possible to have an agreement. Unless we all ignore the elephant and treat it as SEP (Someone Else’s Problem)
Just a point – Claims of lower crime rate etc are just that – “claims”
The perception of crime risk is obvious for all to see especially in Klang Valley. “Gated community”? mushrooming. We are not even talking about special built “gated communities”. We are talking about old housing areas where residence put up barricades and hire guards?
If crime rates have dropped as much as the police stats or killer wants us to believe, then these barrricades should be coming down, not more going up. Maybe this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but, for once I would like to see the stats published by the govt reflected in something we can see on the ground!
0
0
Dear Greg
I am sorry, again your key points are off the mark.
1. All the points I have raised are from your article so there so you can’t say we are talking about different issues. BTW some of my points are also about Level 1 as well.
2. Your fundamental point that Malay/Muslim supremacy is the reason for Malaysia’s failure to get out of its middle-income trap is also completely flawed and unsupported by empirical data or research findings. This is merely hot air and empty talk. In fact your point is easy to disapprove Malaysia has been growing fast even with NEP before the Asian economic crisis. So how can Malaysia grow among the fastest in the world despite the NEP and the so-called Malay/Muslim supremacy policies ? Any neutral academic (which I hesitate to include you) will tell you that Malaysia has made tremendous strides in governance, war against corruption, human rights. transparency,etc since the late 90s.
3. Your argument that the Malay/Muslim supremacy has manifested in 4 critical areas also wrong for 2 points (institutional degradation and excessive centralization). How can these relate to each other ? I am perplexed that an academic can make such fantastical leaps of logic. These are sort of mistakes that I won’t even tolerate from 1st year undergraduate, much less a PhD student.
4. I think you are guilty of misleading uninformed readers with this so-called concept of Malay/Muslim supremacy. UMNO does not subscribe to this ideology and neither this is a formal concept. This is a loose terms that do not translate into the sinister meaning that you trying to pin on. While there are some right wing elements would like to abuse this term, it is nowhere accepted as the official ideology of the ruling coalition or Malaysians in general. What is more accurate is the notion of “Malays special rights” that is specified in the Malaysian Constitution. What you are trying to do, as many Pakatan politicians often do, is to portray the actions of few extremists as the official position of UMNO.
5. I also think you are completely wrong in stating that Malaysia has
institutionalised racism. It is one thing to allocate quotas for the bumis and another thing of being racist. It is a very serious accusations that the Malaysian govt is racist. Racism conveys a meaning that the govt is actively pursuing policies that discriminates other races. This is not true as can be seen from basis economic data where the non bumis are doing far better than the bumis. Helping the bumi community doesn’t equate to hurting the others.
6. I also disagree with your comment “Your reality is that the BN government is doing a great job and the fault lies with the opposition coalition and Malaysians who support the opposition.” When did I state so and even implied it ? My position is simple. At the present moment, compared to Pakatan, BN offers a better choice for Malaysians. Nothing more, nothing less. GE2008 is a blessing for Malaysians since they are able to compare the policies and administrative capabilities of Pakatan vs BN. My own observation is that Pakatan is a dysfunctional coalition without any common stand or policies. Even at state level their performance is abysmal.
Their leaders play a double game. At the Federal level, they criticise BN and like to float fantastical policies and dangle all kinds of reforms and progressive policies. But at the state level, they couldn’t even solve simple problems. Look at Kelantan. PAS been ruling the state for decades but their much touted “Negara Kebajikan” nowhere to be seen. Look at Penang, DAP speaks proudly of socialist policies, meritocracy and Malaysian Malaysia. But make Chinese CM as their key campaign agenda to fish for votes and cosy up with big business to over develop the state with super condos and luxury houses.
I hope you take up my challenge and reply my points and not take the easy way and end the debate by saying we are talking about different topics.
I am 100% certain that I can out-debate you on this topic any time, any place.
0
0
Are you serious. Have you seen any international indicators – Transparency International, World Bank Governance Indicators, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc?
Is this a deliberate strategy to confuse and mislead?
Listen, your entitled to your own realities. Greg Sheridan, Barak Obama and Julia Gillard have all affirmed that Najib is great Malaysian leader and so do you, for reasons best known to all of you based on values that you all have.
I have my own values which inform my analysis and it is clear that I differ fundamentally from all of you.
So, keep reading New Mandala for my anecdotes, views and analysis on Malaysia (please also inform your friends) and I’m sure all of us at New Mandala would be always happy to hear of realities from your side of the prism.
0
0
So Greg
Does this means you are running away from debating with me ?
BTW, no sane person would say Najib’s reign is less democratic or more corrupted than Dr M’s. Malaysia definitely made tremendous progress though it is no Australia for sure.
If you disagree with this statement, please be an academic and show me the empirical data to show Malaysia has indeed declined in these aspects based on data published by reputable international bodies. Otherwise your argument is no better than that being churned out by Pakatan cyber troopers – baseless and mindless politically motivated accusations.
I wonder what would your professors think seeing your running away from “vigorous debate” after getting caught for making politically loaded and totally unacademic conclusions.
0
0
Killer, I admire your persistent attacks on me but also wonder why.
Other New Mandala readers have never attacked me so viciously. Also, other New Mandala readers comment on a variety of issues but you seem to be very particular in your defence of UMNO/BN.
This must mean that New Mandala has been recognised by UMNO/Barisan Nasional as an influential source of information. I personally am very honoured (RPK watch out, NM is going to be more popular than MT).
Of course, your exhausting me by making false claims or deliberately misinterpreting facts or ignoring key issues I’m addressing and this is diverting my precious time away from my research (hmmm… isn’t this the same strategy taken by BN on Anwar …piling charges, after charges on him or as Abdul Razak Baginda says “to file charges against him for the next 100 years” ).
You must understand that unlike you, I’m not paid to blog or to attack particular views. I need to do a Phd too and doing a Phd here is pretty tough.
Be patient, all will be put into perspective in good time.
Happy hunting Killer.
0
0
Malaysian govt (BN ) is not racist, it just so happens that;
1. 90+% of govt servants are bumiputras
2. 90+% of Govt agencies employees are bumiputras
3. 90+ percent of GLCs employees are bumiputras
4. To register for dealings wit the govt, a company must be “bumiputra”, pseudo or otherwise
That my “killer” friend is NOT affirmative action, it is racism.
Please do not talk about “Chinese” companies hiring mainly chinese etc. A private company is a private choice. A government is a public or national institution for ALL Malaysians. Unless you subscribe to the “unofficial” notion that the country is owned by “Tuan Melayu”, then “racism” in govt is wrong.
One does not have to be a Malaysian (non bumi) to know about and have felt racism in the govt. Just ask any expatriate with more than a couple of years in Malaysia. Actions on the ground speaks louder than all the PR spin the govt can pay for. (BTW, that’s paid for by public’s money… a fact that has been forgotten by the current govt)
0
0
@ Killer. It’s not that anyone is afraid to debate you on your so call “Points” and you just want to debate for the sack of debating. There are more than one legitimate international media or bodies that has concurred w/ Greg including the New York Times, WSJ, Economist, etc. Most so-called numbers as reported by government are not validated in everyday life from crime to “growth”, etc Growth, what growth? Is it showing up in the Rakyat’s pocket or in cronies’ pocket. Any sensible person will know better than to debate w/ a person like you. Whenever an international bodies or newspaper or news journal say anything negative about Malaysia, the government and/or the ministers’ response are just like yours. These so-call foreigners do not know anything about Malaysia. Most international experts go with facts and numbers in comparison w/ other nations. Not like comparing that we are not bad if we are not worse.
0
0
Greg
Any one with a balanced mind can see that I am not “attacking” you “viciously”. Why is that a level-headed and civilised debate being construed as malicious attempt to attack you ? Is it because you know you can’t beat me in an open debate ? Perhaps you have realised that you have no way of winning so you have accusing me of being a BN agent to avoid having to debate with me .
I don’t think your PhD supervisors will view your tactics to avoid debate and your politically loaded, biased articles very positively.
I think it is highly unbecoming of an academic to run away from a debate after your articles being seriously challenged and exposed as lacking in substance, credibility and depth.
0
0
Neptunian
I don’t think anyone can disagree with the fact that most of govt servants and GLC employees are bumis. I don’t think this is a healthy situation and I concur that this situation requires rectification.
However, it is also a known fact that most non-bumis do not want to work for the govt sector because of the vast discrepancy in the pay between govt and private sectors. That’s why numerous campaigns to entice non bumis for critical jobs as police and army have failed time and time again. At most, the non bumis are only interested in top mgmt level jobs while shunning entry level posts. FYI I am a non bumi too.
As for the contracts, only certain jobs are reserved for bumi companies and not all jobs. That many non bumi companies have obtained govt contracts is on public records but some people just refuse to see it.
However I agree that such arrangements leads to abuses and I think you can already see that Najib is moving to curb these abuses and Ali baba companies. In fact Badawi had already started to put a stop to these abuses.
But I disagree with your assertion that this affirmative action is racist in nature. Racism means active discrimination and I don’t think reserving govt jobs and contracts for bumis qualifies as racism as this has a noble objective to help the economically and socially disadvantaged.
Let’s talk about Chinese companies. It is also a fact of life that more than 90% of the employees of Chinese owned business are of the same ethnicity. While I agree that these companies have no obligations to hire non Chinese, such actions deemed as racist in nature. Unlike the govt which introduced affirmative actions to support the economically weak, these Chinese businesses do not have the same noble excuse for their actions. As such,their actions certainly deserve the label “racism”.
Not only this is an act of racism but by this these companies are making the situation worse by forcing the govt to hire more bumis. This is as without govt jobs these bumis will have no jobs since the Chinese firms’ racist hiring practices.
Well, not every expatriate thinks the same way as you do or as dumb or uninformed as you think they are. Only those people who exclusively read PR on-line media propaganda machines like Sarawak Report, MKini, MI,etc will have the such opinion.
BTW, as for the PR efforts, I don’t see anything wrong with the govt spending money to create a positive picture. After all it is for the benefit of the nation. Certainly Najib did not spend these funds to raise his and his wife’s profiles but for the country’s.
Don’t you know that the state govts of Penang and Selangor spend millions for PR efforts? Do you know Selangor publishes numerous magazines and even websites and TV stations to promote the state govt ? Do you know that LGE has a large team of ex-reporters and media advisers to boost up his image and profile (note, his personal and not the state’s image) ?
0
0
Dear K.Chow
Certainly the Economist, the NYT and other media have reported very favourably of Najib’s leadership. Just Google it. The only media that has nothing good to say about Najib is the WSJ, which for your info is run by Anwar’s friends. That’s why it frequently publishes articles critical of Najib especially from people like Anwar and John Maggot…oops Mallott.
So you are saying that just because I oppose what Greg says then I am unworthy of debating with?
I think this is exactly what a typical Pakatan supporter in Malaysia behaves and thinks. They use First World benchmark in terms of governance and democratic rights in gauging BN. But when it comes to those who disagree with them and Pakatan, all these idealistic notions are abandoned. They attack their critics mercilessly using undemocratic and underhand tactics without any evidence or basis. They defend Pakatan’s corrupt practices and abuse of power as “small amounts” and “minor abuses”….
In a nutshell, ” Do as I say, not as I do”….such hypocrisy…don’t you think ??
0
0
A shorter version of this article appeared on Asia Times Online. I found one of the comments quite interesting;
I ask the question then – if Malaysia has elections (no matter how imperfect it is), why does one say, they have no choice.
0
0
I believe we still have a choice. I’m a bit opportunistic in nature that Malaysia still has a good future if the Malaysian government puts more emphasis in combating rampart corruption. In my opinion, corruption is the biggest problem, not the institution.
Malays are the majority but they also consist of the poorest in the nation. The NEP introduced to overcome this problem was the catalyst that created so many middle class malays in the first place however it did come with a price, the help introduced created people with mediocre performance in the top management. Hence in very oversimplified conclusion, results in very mediocre results. This system was also open to abuse by the power that be, still it’s a corruption problem more that an institution problem.
I also don’t believe race affirmative actions equates to race discrimination. For a layman like me, I just look at the top 10 richest people in Malaysia. Only 1 is Malay. The rest are non-Malay. Again I’m just speaking in very layman terms. What the people on the street understands.
The struggles in Malaysia comes down to the people at the middle class level. Who knows the virtues of human rights, transparency and fair governance but sees the corruption perpetrated by the powers that be but can’t quite pin point which ones thus easily blaming the ruling government. Why? Because it’s easy to put a face to blame. Which by the way BN is comprise by a coalition of many political parties (Malay and non Malay parties) that rules Malaysia. This coalition parties does soften down in what you believe the sole Malay supremacy in action.
0
0
But you failed to see the majority 75% are only holds 10% of the countries wealth where else dispropotionate wealth distribution for 50 years of NEP had raised more questions then solutions.
The NEP is a facade for pilferage by the cronies.
Felda buying the Grand Plaza Service Apartments in Bayswater, London for RM495 million when the London Real Estate Agents Savills and Knight Frank has only valued the property at RM408 million.
The cow gate condo etc, the list is exhaustive but any of these fellows sentenced for pilfering money made for overall bumiputra- NON. ZIP, ZERO.
In the old days the media is controlled by the gomen so are today, so why can’t opposition have their own group of neutral news ?
We can be stupid for 50 years without information and knowledge, but to render us to be BLIND and use RELIGION as a scapegoat for crony enrichment, cmon dont use emotions to defy logic.
0
0
Thank you Styxx for these views.
Your views do not contradict what I am putting forward.
The fact that a small group of people are able to monopolise wealth is precisely because they are able to use emotional arguments based on race and religion to render the Malays blind and disempower them from addressing the real issues that contribute to their poverty.
Watch this excellent clip supporting what you have put forward.
http://youtu.be/Fzp_lJTu2V0?list=PL31g49xDYYxYx-2W08FRaFbuYDm7j1W7X
0
0
Fadhli #19,
Thank you for sharing your views. I’m an optimist too (but not an opportunist).
On corruption – its a Catch 22 situation. There are two ways to reduce corruption (difficult to eliminate) in my view.
(1) Strengthen institutions and the rule of law. The government through its institutions (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission, Royal Malaysian Police, The Attorney General’s Chambers, The Judiciary) arrest, charge, put on trial and sentence offenders to jail.
But does any Malaysian trust any of these institutions. I’m sure you’ve read about Nazri Aziz (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and de facto Law Minister) instructing Government Linked Companies to “settle” their cases with Tajuddin Ramli (Responsible for looting billions of dollars in state assets. His defence – listen to this – He was doing this for UMNO) or the many high profile cases of corruption involving judges, the AG, Malaysia’s top cops, top politicians, etc.
(2) The people rise up and kick out this corrupt government (and any future corrupt government) through the ballot box.
Your point about Malay poverty.
I agree with you that there are poor Malays but the poorest are the Orang Asals of Peninsular and Sabah and Sarawak. And we often forget that poverty affects all Malaysians. However, the non – Muslims receive very little or no support compared to the Malay Muslims.
Rich Chinese
You point out that Chinese are the richest in Malaysia as a defence that there is no Malay Supremacy. I argue the reverse. That “disproportionate” success by non – Malays as interpreted by Malays are the very reason for Malay Supremacy (read analysis of UMNO demands and Hansard of UMNO MPs debates in the 60s). Hence the determined efforts to ensure ex-post equalisation of performance between Malays and non – Malays.
This is the wrong logic which has seriously undermined Malaysia’s national competitiveness and one of the key reason of all the problems that we see in Malaysia (as I have pointed out in the essay).
A concrete example: Look at our public sector or look at our universities – are the best academicians and administrators heading our public sector and universities. Are they heading these departments or universities because they are respected by their peers, with an excellent track record, or simply that they are the correct type of Malay (an UMNO supporter)?
As Neptunian pointed out – now it is understood that all heads of public service, statutory bodies, government linked corporations, etc are all headed by Malays (who support UMNO ofcourse). No questions asked. And look at the outcome to all Malaysians.
So the correct question should be, “Why are they (some Chinese Malaysians) rich”
If they are rich because they are capable (innovative, industrious, etc), then the correct response should be – let’s learn from them. The engine of growth is human capital and especially human capital embedded in the private sector. These entrepreneurs are critical to driving the private sector.
However, if they are rich because they are “cronies” or “proxies” to BN and in turn prop up BN – then we better punish them. But to punish them, we must first punish the government that made them rich.
To determine this, we should ask the correct economic (not race based)questions such as how were these government contracts/licenses given out – was it through open tender, following proper government procedures, and subject to public scrutiny? Were they evaluated properly? Are there independent regulators to monitor these government created monopolies? Are these entrepreneurs being taxed optimally? All of these I raise in my essay.
But we should not associate rich non – Malays with other Malaysians of non – Muslim heritage, who suffer disproportionately because of Malay Supremacy.
More importantly, Malaysia needs a serious restructuring of its economy to move to higher levels of growth and income. As I have argued in my article, this requires reforming affirmative action, subsidies, taxation, business laws, etc. Some of these administrative reforms have been addressed through the GTP and ETP but they are piecemeal and of marginal significance because the overriding institutional arrangement reflect the prevailing ideology. To address these issues in a rational manner with the national interest in mind, the Malay Supremacy ideology must be replaced.
I also humbly believe that Malay Muslims will find their dignity and capacity to excel under a government/leadership that liberates them and not make them dependent in a master-slave relationship by promising them Supremacy.
0
0
I was a bit perplexed by the Tajuddin Ramli case and also the involvement of Nazri Aziz issuing such order. The stance in corruption cases is not consistent. I can’t help to feel that the SPRM are catching the big fishes often enough. But I understand that these cases are very hard to prove and its very hard to find people brave enough to be whistle blowers. Thus making its a bit difficult for these hardy folks to catch bad guys.
On your argument regarding the top post in public sectors, I genuinely believe that they’re occupated people with the right qualification. But there are a few bad apples. I won’t paint a bad picture to all public post. There are some that needs reforms and improvement, but I disagree that every top post you see is filled with people just because they’re aligning themselves with the current ruling party. To paint everything so black and white or in your case everything wrong in this country is UMNO is the err that I see in your logic.
Replacing UMNO is not the solution, as I’ve said before, UMNO does not rule this country alone. Barisan Nasional is – The coalition of UMNO, MCA, MIC and a dozen of other parties are ruling the country. Everyone is responsible for everything that has become of this country. They’re responsible by voting them in power.
Pakatan Rakyat(PR) came quite close during the last election and it’s a very good indicator of our political climate. But what’s a shame is PR themselves seem flaky at times. Internal power struggle and sometimes inconsistent policy undermined what ever they have achived so far in their political milestone. I for one like to see a prominent leader from PR that everyone could see and trust to lead this country. But all I see are politicians being very good at their game.
I also would like to see that the ruling government address all the issues you’ve raised. Greater economic progress, transparency in government awards, subsidies, etc. And I also agree with you that the Malays will be much more respected if the policy is more geared towards merit rather than favor.
I don’t believe that this current administration of the ruling government is pro Malay. Rather it is really trying to gradually be less of pro Malay in government policy. Evident in this case is the rise of Perkasa headed by the infamous Ibrahim Ali (this guy was and still is a hard case since his ITM days alongside with Anwar Ibrahim in ABIM). Perkasa sees UMNO not upholding the Malay supremacy ideology thus filling the void left by Najib on this part.
Thus in saying that we’ve reached an impasse. I don’t see that the problem will solve itself by replacing UMNO. BN is and still remain in power because the people chose them to be. It’s just the question that PR must present themselves as viable and trusted alternatives as a ruling government. Come forth the next general election, we’ll see how the people will decide.
0
0
Greg
I see you are not responding to my challenge to debate, which is a clear indication that you are unable to defend your own unacademic and politically biased article.
Your response to Fadhli is also flawed. Opinion surveys locally and by TI are showing that public now have better confidence in agencies such as MACC. The sheer number of people charged, the major changes in the law to empower MACC, the seniority of people charged (Ling, Khir,etc) are indication that fight against corruption is being given much more serious thought. This is something that can’t be denied unless you are completely blinkered by politics.
Tajuddin : Please expand your reading to materials beyond MI, Mkini. Tajuddin’s case is not a case of corruption but mismanagement. FYI he’s suing these portals for portraying his as such. As an academic one expects you to be more familiar with his case before commenting and not taking easy way out by throwing silly accusations.
GTP/ETP is not addressing issues in piecemeal basis. This clearly shows that your understanding of these reforms comes not from research but political web sites like MI, Mkini,etc. Please tell me which key areas / reforms are not covered by ETP/GTP ? Don’t just be generic, please be specific. In my view GTP/ETP one of the most ambitious transformation plan I have seen in last few decades anywhere in the world.
0
0
Fadhli
I am in broad agreement with you.
Unlike Greg is saying, Malaysia is far from poorly governed banana state. We are no First World country but we are not hopeless, failed state either.
I am optimistic that Najib is given the opportunity, will take Malaysia to the next level.
I am unconvinced that PR can do better, based on their track record and dynamics of their relationships. They are only held together by their hatred for BN and a desire for power, They are dysfunctional.
They like to subscribe for idealistic policies and First World democratic principles at the national level (where they don’t have the power). But at the state level, these policies are missing. Just look at Kelantan. Where the policies that PAS is touting like welfare state? Look at Penang. Where is meritocracy and full democratic rights that DAP is fighting for? DAP still insists for a Chinese CM and rules in a dictatorial fashion.
0
0
Serious flaws in the arguements of Killer and Fadhli. A simple statement like “the govt is not pro malays” exposes those flaws despite all the political sloganing (albeit well writen, but without real substance)
When pointed out, it is always a fall back to “actually it is only affirmative action – which we admit can be better implemented”
If one wants to be specific,;
1. How about explaining the APs for cars etc.
2. How about explaining the registration requirements for “kewangan” license for govt supplies and contracts.
3. How about registration requirements to be a supplier of goods and services to Petronas (Oh, so many “chinese” companies are supplying Petronas – Ali Baba lah, as Malaysians will say. Just check the registration papers)
I can fill up several pages with examples of “pro malays”, but it would be redundant. There is simply no point in trying to convince anyone who can ignore such blatant practices and say “oh nothing wrong”
As for Greg “not debating”? There are many “flat earthers” around who would love to argue that the Earth is flat. I am quite sure Greg would not debate them either.
0
0
Neptunian
I do think that you need to understand issues better before even attempting to debate.
For example AP. Do you really understand what is AP really is ? Do you know that AP is meant to help to develop bumi businessmen in the automotive industry ? Like the NEP, it has noble aim but been abused. In any case, it is also given to genuine manufacturers and not just bumis to import cars.
Registration requirements are only certain, small contracts are reserved for bumis and not all contracts.
As I had argued before, the policies are never “pro-Malay” but affirmative actions for bumis. The reason for this is also clear as the bumis are the poorest. And this not only includes Malays but also other natives. As I had said earlier, you do need to understand the issues before debating. Otherwise, you will end up sounding like Malaysian Insider / Malaysia Kini /etc.
BTW you did not answer my previous argument where I stated the Chinese business being racist by employing only Chinese. Unlike the NEP which means to help the economically needy, the practices of the Chinese business discriminates the Malays, Indians, etc. That they are private business, does not absolve them.
As for Greg, he’s an academic and not an anonymous commentator. He has the responsibility to defend his work and cannot shrink away by labeling me as a paid UMNO agent. For the beginning I had been arguing and debating in a factual and civilised manner. My questions been based purely on his articles. But by refusing to engage in a debate, he’s only admitting that he got it wrong.
0
0
0
0
Hai Fadhli,
I said – Explain the registration requirements – The need to register is obvious, that goes for doing business with all corps, public and private. It is the qualification criteria I am talking about.
If you do not know, then perhaps “Killer” can elaborate. Better still, just get a set of forms from Petronas or the govt to register as a supplier. It will be all clear to you – I am out on a limb here to assume that you do not know!
BTW, for “killer” Non govt companies are commercial enterprise, out to make a profit. They hire anyone who can work efficiently for the company. That is just commerce, not racial!
Anyway, a govt is suppose to be for the citizens – If the citizenry is made up of multiple races, so be it. A govt cannot be racist, otherwise aparteid is fine. Not for me, is it for you?
As for Greg’ debate – please refer to the flat earthers
0
0
Dear neptunian,
Then please pray tell what is written in the requirements that you object to. Please enlighten all the readers here what you think is so wrong. Maybe we can discuss the facts first. Examine the evidence and then make a conclusion base on the facts presented.
Lets assume that we don’t know what you’re talking about because so far you have not presented any facts. You’re just making assumption base on what you perceive everyone knows. Please enlighten this subject matter further by presenting data, or any sort of link that all the readers may know what you are referring to.
Salam Hari Raya Aidilfitri.
0
0
Hi Greg (responding to #18)
Malaysia has a “pseudo-democratic political system. The Malaysian Government is an example of what political scientist William Case describes as a “hybrid regime”. The regime seeks to perpetuate its power by manipulating key institutions and undermining civil liberties while holding regular elections. The Barisan Nasional has, as Case calls it, a “menu of manipulation” from which to choose to legitimate and sustain its position as the single dominant party. Barisan Nasional’s ability to use the police and judiciary for partisan political purposes has been critical in its attempt to discredit the Opposition and retain power. ” (http://thesydneyglobalist.org/archives/427)
Government/UMNO control on the media and the not-so-veiled-threat of the Internal Security Act (for Thought Crimes) are part and parcel of an intimidation regime.
Additionally, members of the MCA and MIC are held virtual hostage within Barisan; they fear being completely left out if not in the Ruling Coalition & being starved for federal funding. This is currently happening with oil royalties in Kelanatan, which voted in PAS, the Islamic party.
So choices are there, perhaps, but the corrupt winner-take-all system in Malaysia militates against gradual changes, which implies that any change will be seismic instead of evolutionary.
Personally, I find Malaysian political parties based on race or religion to be part of the divisiveness of Malaysia. I’m not sure why any sane citizen would want to view his country through that prism.
To Killer – you’re not adding to the debate. You’re trying to drown it. Please seek professional help.
0
0
Dear Angmoh Antarabangsa
Thanks for your comments. I guess our academic friend has left the debate. A very unacademic gesture I must say.
Coming back to the debate, perhaps you did not catch the points that I was making. I certainly did not claim that Malaysia is on par with Australia, the UK, the US,etc in terms of democratic freedoms and human rights. In fact we are not even at the level of our Asia peers such as Indonesia, India or even the Philippines when it comes to democracy.
But what I am saying is that in the last several years we have made some key progress, starting with Badawi and continuing with Najib. No one in their right mind would say that Malaysia has regressed democratically. Unless of course the person has a hidden political agenda like a certain “academic” whom we are familiar with.
I agree some of those things happened during the Mahatir era hardly shinning moments for Malaysian democracy. But then before we jump and beat Mahatir’s legacy senseless and accuse him to be an iron-fisted and cruel dictator, we need to look at things in perspective.
One, it is unfair to judge at things happened during that era (70s and 80s) with current standards of human rights and democracy. I don’t think even countries like Australia, the US and the UK would be proud of some of the things done in those decades.
Second, some of the incidents such as Operasi Lallang, Memali,etc are now have been distorted some much in the pro-Opposition alternative media that some people have a very wrong idea what had really happened. As someone lived through these events, I can tell that the reality is very different. In any case, this is a subject beyond the scope of our debate.
Let’s come back to the points that you are making. I can say comprehensively that you are wrong, completely wrong. Let’s examine one by one. Reading your comments making me think that you are totally off the mark on what’s happening in the country, perhaps you had been staying away for years and depending entirely on a diet of anti-BN, pro-PR web portals for news.
1. “Barisan Nasional’s ability to use the police and judiciary for partisan political purposes has been critical in its attempt to discredit the Opposition and retain power. ”
– Can you please provide example for this ? And please do not go back to history books and dig up examples from 10,20 years ago.
2. “Government/UMNO control on the media and the not-so-veiled-threat of the Internal Security Act (for Thought Crimes) are part and parcel of an intimidation regime.”
– Control of the media ? Do you really think UMNO controls MalaysiaKini, Malaysian Insider, Harakah, the Rocket, all the Tamil and Chinese media, etc etc ???
– ISA is used to control thought crimes ? Please give examples when people are jailed under ISA for thought crimes. And please give breakdown of ISA detainees by their “crimes” and state how many are for political “crimes”.
3. “Additionally, members of the MCA and MIC are held virtual hostage within Barisan; they fear being completely left out if not in the Ruling Coalition & being starved for federal funding. This is currently happening with oil royalties in Kelanatan, which voted in PAS, the Islamic party.”
– Are you really being serious here ? MCA and MIC are free to leave the BN and some BN component parties actually did (SUPP). No state has been starved of Federal funding, including those under the Opposition rule.
– Kelantan oil royalties : I think you don’t seems to understand that under the law the state does not have a claim for oil royalties if the oil fields are situated beyond a certain distance off shore. Sabah and Sarawak are getting it because they do fulfill this requirements and it is also covered under the agreement they signed when they joined the Malaysian Federation. There is nothing in the law that compels the Feds to give oil royalties to Kelantan. And since this did not happen even when Kelantan was under BN, so you point is completely wrong.
4. “Personally, I find Malaysian political parties based on race or religion to be part of the divisiveness of Malaysia. I’m not sure why any sane citizen would want to view his country through that prism.”
– This is yet another oft-repeated accusations by the pro-Opposition circles. Unlike your other points, this at least has some credibility to it. While, this has a nice, feel-good, righteous ring to it but again it is not entirely accurate.
– Unlike some countries (Indonesia, Thailand, etc) the Malaysian model is not based on assimilation of races. It is based on embracing multi-ethnicity. This means there are Chinese, Tamil Punjabi schools, national radios,TVs & newspapers in various languages. Cultural and ethnic identities are allowed.
The proponents of “Bangsa Malaysia” speak about a single race, yet they still want to retain their cultural and religious identities, newspapers, schools, etc etc. How can these two vastly different concepts can be reconciled ?
The simple truth is that many Malaysians still want to retain their cultural and religious identities. The Chinese for example, will never allow the Chinese schools, radio /TV stations, temples, cultural associations, etc etc to be closed. But many of them support “bangsa Malaysia” not because they see race as unimportant but see that as a route to the elimination of the bumi affirmative action policies.
A true Malaysian who supports Bangsa Malaysia should be willing to forego all ethnic and religious identities. At the same token help must be rendered to all Malaysians irrespective of their race. How many Malaysians do you think would support such stance ? While many minorities would support the 2nd but very few if any would support the first point.
BTW do you really think PR parties support such policies ? PAS is modeled on Wahabbi Islam. DAP is a Chinese majority party that even refuses to don Malay constume even for formal events while mouthing “Malaysian Malaysia”. At least BN is not as hypocritical.
0
0
Tiresome and obtuse arguements from killer, but I will respond just once more…
No 1 & 2 – arrest and detention of chinese journalist for her “protection” If this is not an abuse of police powers, I do not know what it is.. Please do not ask for an encyclopedic list of examples. I do believe the average readers at NM (mostly unpaid, interested readers,if killer must know) can tell the difference between “spin” assertation and reality
N0 3 – The politics and economics of MIC and MCA is so intertwined and dependent on BN, that it would take a “Gandhi” to change that allegiance. Furthermore UMNO is actually “NEW UMNO” How did the assets of “Old” UMNO get transfered to NEW UMNO? I would like to see the accounts and the legality of that.
NO 4 – “A true Malaysian should forego all race and religious identities” ??? What century are you from”Killer”. No you do not have to answer that. It is a rhetorical question.
0
0
Killer,
“- Unlike some countries (Indonesia, Thailand, etc) the Malaysian model is not based on assimilation of races. It is based on embracing multi-ethnicity. This means there are Chinese, Tamil Punjabi schools, national radios,TVs & newspapers in various languages. Cultural and ethnic identities are allowed. ”
“A true Malaysian who supports Bangsa Malaysia should be willing to forego all ethnic and religious identities.”
On one hand you said Malaysia embracing multi-ethnicity, but then you want all to forego all ethnic and religious identities. Would like you to elaborate this contradiction.
Also, do you mean there is no way to achieve Bangsa Malaysia as long as there are still poeple in Malaysia believing in other religions (other than Islam), speaking other languages (even if they can speak BM), and practicing customs other than the Malay custom?
0
0
An interesting paper, “Governing by Bumiputera Ideology” discussing the influence of Malay supremacy on corporate governance and accounting standards. I reproduce the conclusion:
0
0
You know, it’s too bad that you had blocked me on Facebook before I could answer your comments, and say that I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that Malaysia needs to discard its race-based perspective on everything, particularly Malay/Muslim supremacy if we are to truly transform into an actual nation. In fact, and if you hadn’t assumed that no one but you thinks the same way, I’d have said that some of us are working towards that end, but in our own ways – no one is more frustrated than people who work close to the corridors of power who are trying to both change the country as well as prevent more damage.
0
0
Haha, you didn’t block me. Facebook was being naughty. My apologies.
0
0