The MCA, on Saturday, convened an EGM to vote on 4 key resolutions. The real surprise was to see Ong Tee Kiat being handed a motion of no confidence.
Resolution 1: That the members of the general assembly have no confidence in the leadership of president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat.
Adopt: 1155
Reject: 1141
Margin: 14
To me Ong Tee Kiat was the most serious of the 3 component party leaders to try and institute reforms both internal ad external. I thought his courage to push on the PKFZ issue was fantastic, yet MCA – a key member of Barisan has rejected OTK’s leadership and by inference rejected the drive for reform.
On Sunday was the by election in Bagan Pinang, Port Dickson where TanSri Isa Samad, the former Menteri Besar who was removed because of “money politics” won the election on a huge majority.
I guess Tun Mahathir sums it up when he said:
PUTRAJAYA, Sept 18 (Bernama) — Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samad should not be nominated as candidate for the Bagan Pinang state by-election.
He said UMNO’s image would be affected because it would be regarded as not being serious in fighting money politics if it chose as candidate those who were already found guilty of political corruption.
“Tan Sri Isa has already been found guilty. If UMNO fields him, it means that UMNO is not serious about such cases.
“Even if he can win there, (we) have to consider what the whole of Malaysia thinks of UMNO,” he said in an interview with Bernama Thursday.
Well Isa Samad did win and again by inference it shows the mindset of UMNO and by extension BN.
As it goes now, it looks like corruption is here to stay. Maybe what 1 Malaysia really means is hat everyone should have equally access to corruption and that will keep the harmony.
I dont know but seeing OTK loose and ISA win just sends out such a horrible signal of what lies ahead for this country.
I certainly was shocked to read the BERNAMA ticker stating that Idris Jala is to be appointed Minister. An sms to Idris and I got confirmation back from the horses mouth.
With the appointment comes all the cloak and dagger stories; among them are:
To neutralise Anwar Ibrahim in Sarawak – given that Idris truly represents the local boy who has done good. (read here)
The reality is that Idris is a good person who will always try his best.He is honest and most importantly he is CLEAN. Idris is a sucker for challenge. He takes on these jobs purely as a test of himself. If you thing about it, what bigger challenge can there be after turning around MAS than to turnaround a government.
As much as there are critics of what Idris accomplished in MAS, there probably isn’t any CEO in Malaysia who is as Headhunted as Idris Jala is globally. And to be sought after globally is true recognition (read here).
The only concern I would have is that in all of Idris’s turnarounds – Shell Sri Lanka, SMDS in Bintulu and in MAS – there is a constant pattern – that he increases prices to the highest point the market is prepared to bear and takes out cost of operations to the barest. This are classic steps in any turnaround as follows:
Here is the step by step guide to turning around companies:
Step 1: Apply massive shock (consultants say “the case for change”) which essentially puts fear of inaction into people. (e.g. we have enough cash to survive 3 months..)
Step 2: Increase prices to that highest point that the market can bear.(e.g. excess baggage charges, administrative charges, ticket prices etc.)
Step 3: Cut out all cost that is non essential to the doing of the businesses. (Employee separation scheme, outsourcing, cutting out middle men etc.)
Step 4: “Anchor everything into the P&L” meaning that the only and true measure of performance is in the profit and loss. (e.g. route profitability…)
These are perfectly fine steps for private enterprises where the goal is to maximize shareholder returns – which means profits and cash flow. But in the context of a government, it means something very different.
The same steps applied to Government means Massive Privatization
This philosophy expressed in the context of government means privatize everything . And to do that you need to shock the system. Recall our government petrol price hike shock? (remind yourself here) This is a very Milton Friedman approach.
Idris is a true capitalist – which is why is so performance oriented. From a capitalist point of view, I can see the electricity between Idris, Azman Mokhtar, Nazir Razak pushing the government into a pure capitalist society . That would be an absolute dream for businesses and a nightmare for society. (Read Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism)
To really understand how misguided this thinking is, one needs to look at Chilie and what Milton Friedman’s economics did to it.
The Chilean experiment
After his disciples were done with it, Chile was indeed radically transformed…for the worse.
Free market policies subjected the country to two major depressions twice in one decade, first in 1974-75, when GDP fell by 12 per cent, then again in 1982-83, when it dropped by 15 per cent.
Contrary to ideological expectations about free markets and robust growth, average GDP growth in the period 1974-89 — the radical Jacobin phase of the Friedman-Pinochet revolution — was only 2.6 per cent, compared to over four per cent a year in the period 1951-71, when there was a much greater role of the state in the economy.
By the end of the radical free-market period, both poverty and inequality had increased significantly. The proportion of families living below the “line of destitution” had risen from 12 to 15 per cent between 1980 and 1990, and the percentage living below the poverty line, but above the line of destitution, had increased from 24 to 26 per cent. This meant that at the end of the Pinochet regime, some 40 per cent of Chile’s population, or 5.2 million of a population of 13 million, were poor.
In terms of income distribution, the share of the national income going to the poorest 50 per cent of the population declined from 20.4 per cent to 16.8 per cent, while the share going to the richest ten per cent rose dramatically from 36.5 per cent to 46.8 per cent.
Having said all of the above, I have enough trust in Idris that he will create a new model of how to make the government “performance oriented. Good examples around are like the work Dato Azlan Zainol has done in EPF, and certainly Income Tax Department has come a long way. So its not like it has never been done before.
For Idris – there is a fine line between becoming Luke Skywalker (a jedi knight) and Darth Vader (the dark forces of evil.) Both were taught by the same guru – Yoda but each choose to apply the learnings differently. I trust you will choose wisely.
p/s Meanwhile Tony Fernandez can now look forward to realizing his dream of buying over MAS (remember its an airline with routes but no airplanes).
By now the whole world (as suggested by the Malaysian Press) is abuzz with the Kartika Story. read here, here, here.
Here are my 2 sen worth and depending on you belief system I openly would like to hear your comments on this issues. This is what I call “Rosa Parks” type issues that tend to create defining moments.
Let me start with what is said in the Quran:
Surah 2:Albakarah:219
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: “In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: “What is beyond your needs.” Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider- PICKTHAL: They question thee about strong drink and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and (some) utility for men; but the sin of them is greater than their usefulness. And they ask thee what they ought to spend. Say: that which is superfluous. Thus Allah maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that haply ye may reflect. SHAKIR: They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder
Surah 4: AnNisa, verse 43:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again. PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath– unless (you are) travelling on the road– until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.
Surah 5: AlMaidah;90-91
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed. SHAKIR: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan’s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.
YUSUFALI: Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? PICKTHAL: Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done? SHAKIR: The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you then desist?
The above give a view of what GOD’s view of drinking and drunkenness is but there is no punishment ascribed. For this we have to look into the hadith and this is what I found:
Chapter# 8, Book 17, Number 4226:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person who had drink wine was brought to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him). He gave him forty stripes with two lashes. Abu Bakr also did that, but when Umar (assumed the responsibilities) of the Caliphate, he consulted people and Abd al-Rahman said: The mildest punishment (for drinking) is eighty (stripes) and ‘Umar their prescribed this punishment.
Book 17, Number 4227:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Anas through another chain of transmitters.
Book 17, Number 4228:
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave a beating with palm branches and shoes, and that Abu Bakr gave forty lashes. When Umar (became the Commander of the Faithful) and the people went near to pastures and towns, he said (to the Companions of the Holy Prophet). What is your opinion about lashing for drinking? Thereupon Abd al-Rahman b. Auf said: My opinion is that you fix it as the mildest punishment. Then ‘Umar inflicted eighty stripes.
Book 17, Number 4229:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters.
Book 17, Number 4230:
Anas reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) used to strike forty times with shoes and palm branches (in case of drinking of) wine. The rest of the hadith is the same and there is no mention of pastures and towns.
Book 17, Number 4231:
Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported: I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its coolness. (’Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now, and then said: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these fall under the category of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.
Book 17, Number 4232:
Ali reported: If I impose Hadd on anyone, and he (in course of punish ment) dies, I would not mind except in case of a drunkard. If he dies. I would pay indemnity for him because the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) has laid down no rule for it.
Book 17, Number 4223:
This hadith is narrated on the authority of Sufyan.
And finally this is what Kartika has to say:
“I will accept this punishment, let Allah decide my punishment in the hereafter,” said Kartika, who has been residing in Singapore for the last 15 years. (read full text here)
She added that she respected the views of the Prime Minister and was grateful to him for being concerned but added that she would not change her mind on her previous decision to accept the punishment.
“I respect the law and Islam. Even before the sentence was passed in court, I had already made up my mind to accept the punishment and go through the ordeal,” she said. (read full text here)
According to Tengku Razaleigh, it is, and I have to agree with TR whole heartedly. Here is a speech delivered by TR on the matter and I think it is a powerful and insightful speech that sets the stage for us to think about what real democracy and progress is.
TR states that the present government was elected on March 8 2008. For all intents and purposes the rakyaat must and will measure the performance of this government based on their election manifesto of March 8 2008. Najib came into power through a “smooth transition in power” that took a year to complete. And as soon as he took over – he has come up with a new manifesto – 1 Malaysia that in reality has no mandate to it. At the same time he has completely ignored the 2008 manifesto of Security, Peace and Prosperity. Please read on the whole article, then take the poll at the end:
Speech by
Y.B.M. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
On “Najib’s 100 Days”
at the Public Relations Consultants’ Association of Malaysia StraightTalk
On Friday, 10.7.2009 at 8.00 p.m.
at HELP University College, Pusat Bandar Damansara, K.L.
Thank you for inviting me to address you. It’s a pleasure to be here, and to learn from you. You have asked me to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days, and this lecture is in a series called Straight Talk. I shall indeed speak plainly and directly.
Let me begin by disappointing you. I am not going to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days because it makes little sense to do so.
Our governments are brought to power for five year terms through general elections. The present government was constituted after March 8, 2008 and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s tenure as Prime Minister resulted from a so-called “smooth transfer of power” between the previous Prime Minister and himself that took a somewhat unsmooth twelve months to carry out. During those months, Najib took on the de facto leadership role domestically while Abdullah warmed our international ties. The first 100 days of this government went by unremarked sometime in June last year.
Not only is it a little meaningless to talk about Najib’s First 100 days, such talk buys us into a kind of political silliness that we are already too prone to. It makes us imagine that the present government started work on April 2 and forget that it commenced work on March 8 last year and must be accountable for all that has been done or not done since then. It makes us forget that in our system of parliamentary, constitutional democracy, governments are brought to power at general elections and must be held accountable for promises made at these elections. It leads us to forget that these promises, set out in election manifestos, are undertaken by political parties, not individuals, and are not trifles to be forgotten when there is a change of individual.
It is important that we remember these things, cultivate a longer more critical recollection of them, and learn to hold our leaders accountable to them, so that we are not perpetually chasing the slogan of the day, whether this be Vision 2020, Islam Hadhari or 1Malaysia. As PR Professionals, you would see my point immediately. Slogans without substance undermine trust. That substance is made up of policies that have been thought through and are followed through. That substance is concrete and provided by results we can measure.
Whether or not some of our leaders are ready for it, we are maturing as a democracy. We are beginning to evaluate our governments more by the results they deliver over time than by their rhetoric moment by moment. As our increasingly well-educated and well-travelled citizens apply this standard, they force our politicians to think before they speak, and deliver before they speak again. As thinking Malaysians we should look for the policies, if any, behind the slogans. What policies are still in place and which have we abandoned? What counts as policy and who is consulted when it is made? How is a proposal formulated and specified and approved before it becomes policy, and by whom? Must we know what it means before it is instituted or do we have to piece it together with guesswork? Do we even have a policy process?
The mandate Najib has taken up is the one given to Barisan Nasional under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. BN was returned to power in the 12th General Elections on a manifesto of Security, Peace and Prosperity. It is this manifesto against which the present administration promised to be judged. The present government inherits projects and policies such as Islam Hadhari and Vision 2020. If these are still in place, how do they relate to each other and to 1 Malaysia? How do we evaluate the latest slogan against the fact of constitutional failure in Perak, the stench of corruption in the PKFZ project and reports of declining media freedom? What do we make of cynical political plays on racial unity against assurances that national unity is the priority?
We are not amiss in asking about continuity. We were told that the reason why we had to have a year-long ‘transfer of power’ to replace the previous Prime Minster was so that we could have policy continuity. The issues before the present BN government are not transformed overnight with a change of the man at the top.
Let me touch on one issue every Malaysian is concerned with: security. The present government made the right move in supporting the establishment of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Police in 2004. Responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government allocated PDRM RM8 billion to upgrade itself under the 9th Malaysia Plan, a tripling from the 8th Malaysia Plan.
Despite the huge extra amounts we are spending on policing, there has been no dent on our crime problem, especially in the Johor Bahru area, where it continues to make a mockery of our attempts to develop Iskandar as a destination for talent and investment. Despite the huge amounts spent, we have just been identified as a major destination for human trafficking by the US State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Watch. We are now in the peer group of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea for human trafficking. All over the world the organised cross-border activity of human trafficking feeds on the collusion of crime syndicates and corrupt law enforcement and border security officials. Security is about more than just catching the criminals out there. It is also about the integrity of our own people and processes. It is above all about uprooting corruption and malpractice in government agencies, especially in law enforcement agencies. I wish the government were as eager to face the painful challenge of reform as to spend money. The key recommendation of the Royal Commission was the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. That has been shelved.
Royal Commissions and their findings are not to be trifled with and applied selectively. Their findings and recommendations are conveyed in a report submitted to the King, who then transmits them to the Government. Their recommendations have the status of instructions from the King. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police have not been properly implemented. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Videoclip might as well not have been conducted, because its findings have been completely ignored. Both Commissions investigated matters fundamental to law and order in this country: the capability and integrity of the police and of the judiciary. No amount of money thrown at the PDRM or on installing CCTV’s can make up for what happens to our security when our law enforcers and our judges are compromised.
Two Royal Commissions undertaken under the present government unearthed deep issues in the police and the judiciary and made recommendations with the King’s authority behind them, and they have been ignored. The public may wonder if the government is committed to peace and security if it cannot or will not address institutional rot in law enforcement and the rule of law.
The reform of the police and the judiciary has been on the present government’s To Do list for more than five years. I leave you to go over what the government of the day has said it stands for and what it has delivered.
I want to reflect upon where we stand today and how we might move forward. We are truly at a turning point in our history. Our political landscape is marked with unprecedented uncertainty. Nobody knows what the immediate future holds for us politically. This is something very new for Malaysians. The inevitability of a strong BN government figured into all political and economic calculations and provided a kind of stability to our expectations. Now that this is gone, and perhaps gone for good, we need a new basis for long term confidence. No matter who wins the next General Election, it is likely to be with a slim majority. Whatever uncertainty we now face is likely to persist unless some sort of tie-breaker is found which gathers the overwhelming support of the people.
We need to trust less in personalities and more in policies, look less to politics and more to principle, less to rhetoric and more to tangible outcomes, less to the government of the day and more to enduring institutions, first among which must be the Federal Constitution.
We need an unprecedented degree of openness and honesty about what our issues are and what can be done; about who we are, and where we want to go. We need straight talk rather than slogans. We need to be looking at our long horizon rather than occupying ourselves with media-generated milestones.
Those of us who think about the future of Malaysia have never been so restless. The mould of our past is broken, and there is no putting it back together again, but a new mould into which to pour our efforts is not yet cast. This is a time to think new thoughts, and to be courageous in articulating them.
Such is the case not just in politics but also in how the government manages the economy. In a previous speech I have said that for our economy to escape the middle income trap we need to make a developmental leap involving transformative improvements in governance and a successful reform of our political system. I said the world recession is a critical opportunity for us to re-gear and re-tool the Malaysian economy because it is a challenge to take bold, imaginative measures. We must make that leap or remain stuck as low achievers who were once promising.
We are in a foundational crisis both of our politics and of our economy. In both dimensions, the set plays of the past have taken us as far as they can, and can take us no further. Politically and economically, we have arrived at the end of the road for an old way of managing things. The next step facing us is not a step but a leap, not an addition to what we have but a shift that changes the very ground we play on.
This is not the first time in our brief history as an independent nation that we have found ourselves at an impasse and come up with a ground-setting policy, a new framework, a leap into the future. The race riots of 1969 ended the political accommodation and style of the first era of our independence. Parliament was suspended and a National Operations Council put in place under the leadership of the late Tun Razak. He formed a National Consultative Council to study what needed to be done. The NCC was a non-partisan body which included everyone. It was the NCC which drafted and recommended the New Economic Policy. This was approved and implemented by the Government. The NEP was a twenty year programme to redress the socio-economic tensions that exploded in 1969.
The NEP had a national, and not a racial agenda to eradicate poverty and address structural inequality in the form of the identification of race with occupation. It aimed to remove a colonial era distribution of economic roles in our economy. Nowhere in its terms is any race specified, nor does it privilege one race over another.
The NEP was devised to address a problem of social equity which had boiled over into a pressing political problem. Its redistributive measures were justified by principles of social justice, not claims of racial privilege. This is an important point. The NEP was acceptable to all Malaysians because its justification was universal rather than sectarian, ethical rather than opportunistic. It appealed to Malaysians’ sense of social justice and not to any notion of racial privilege.
We were devising a time-limited policy for the day, in pursuit of a set of measurable outcomes. We were not devising a doctrine for an eternal socio-economic arrangement. Like all policies, it was formulated to solve a finite set of problems through an enduring concern with equity and justice. I happen to think it was the right thing for the time, and it worked in large measure.
Curiously, although the policy was formulated within the broad consensus of the NCC for a finite period, in our political consciousness it has grown into an all-encompassing and permanent framework that defines who we are. We continue to act and talk as if it is still in place. The NEP ended in 1991 when it was terminated and replaced by the New Development Policy, but eighteen years on, we are still in its hangover and speak confusingly about liberalising it. The NEP was necessary and even visionary in 1971, but it is a crushing indictment of our lack of imagination, of the mediocrity of our leadership, that two decades after its expiry, we talk as if it is the sacrosanct centre of our socio-political arrangement, and that departures from it are big strides. The NEP is over, and we have not had the courage to tell people this. The real issue is not whether the NEP is to be continued or not, but whether we have the imagination to come up with something which better serves our values and objectives, for our own time.
Policies are limited mechanisms for solving problems. They become vehicles for abuse when they stay on past their useful life. Like political or corporate leaders that have stayed too long, policies that overrun their scope or time become entrenched in abuse, and confuse the means that they are with the ends that they were meant to serve. The NEP was formulated to serve the objective of unity. That objective is enduring, but the instrument can come up for renewal or replacement. Any organisation, let alone a country, that fails to renew a key policy over forty years in a fast-moving world is out of touch and in trouble.
There is a broad consensus in our society that while the NEP has had important successes, it has now degenerated into a vehicle for abuse and inefficiency. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays approve of the way it now works, although there would be multiracial support for the objectives of the NEP, properly understood. The enthusiasm with which recent reforms have been greeted in the business and international communities suggests that the NEP is viewed as an obstacle to growth. This was not what it was meant to be.
It was designed to promote a more just and equitable society. Far from obstructing growth, the stability and harmony envisaged by the NEP would be the basis for long term prosperity.
Over the years, however, and alongside its successes, the NEP has been systematically appropriated by a small political and business class to enrich itself and perpetuate its power. This process has corrupted our society and our politics. It has corrupted our political parties. Rent-seeking practices have choked the NEP’s original intention of seeking a more just and equitable society, and have discredited the broad nation-building enterprise which this policy was meant to serve.
Thus, while the NEP itself has expired, we live under the hangover of a policy which has been skewed from its intent. Instead of coming up with better policy tools in pursuit of the aims behind the NEP, a set of vested interests rallies to defend the mere form of the NEP and to extend its bureaucratic sway through a huge apparatus of commissions, agencies, licenses and permits while its spirit has been evacuated. In doing so they have clouded the noble aims of the NEP and racialised its originally national and universal concerns.
We must break the stranglehold of communal politics and racial policy if we want to be a place where an economy driven by ideas and skills can flourish. This is where our daunting economic and political challenges can be addressed in one stroke. We can do much better than cling to the bright ideas of forty years ago as if they were dogma, and forget our duty to come up with the bright ideas for our own time. The NEP, together with the Barisan coalition, was a workable solution for Malaysia forty years ago. But forty years ago, our population was about a third of what it is today, our economy was a fraction the size and complexity that it is now, and structured around the export of tin and rubber rather than around manufacturing, services and oil and gas. Forty years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War raged to the north. Need I say we live in a very different world today. We need to talk to the facebook generation of young Malaysians connected to global styles and currents of thought. We face global epidemics, economic downturns and planetary climate change.
We can do much better than to cling to the outer form of an old policy. Thinking in these terms only gives us the negative policy lever of “relaxing” certain rules, when what we need is a new policy framework, with 21st century policy instruments. We have relaxed some quotas. We have left Approved Permits and our taxi licensing system intact. We have left the apparatus of the NEP, and a divisive mindset that has grown up around it, in place. Wary of well-intentioned statements with no follow-through, the business community has greeted these reforms cautiously, noting that a mountain of other reforms are needed. One banker was quoted as saying: “All the reforms need to go hand in hand. Why is there an exodus of talent and wealth? It is because people do not feel confident with the investment climate, security conditions and the government in Malaysia. Right now, many have lost faith in the system.”
The issues are intertwined. Our problems are systemic and rooted in the capability of the government to deliver, and the integrity of our institutions. It is clear that piecemeal “liberalisation” and measure by measure reform on a politicised timetable is not going to do the job.
What we need is a whole new policy framework, based on a comprehensive vision that addresses root problems in security, institutional integrity, education and government capability. What we need to do is address our crisis with the bold statecraft from which the NEP itself originated, not cling to a problematic framework that does little justice to our high aspirations. The challenge of leadership is to tell the truth about our situation, no matter how unpalatable, to bring people together around that solution, and to move them to act together on that solution.
If the problem is really that we face a foundational crisis, then it is not liberalisation of the NEP, or even liberalisation per se that we need. From the depths of the global economic slowdown it is abundantly clear that the mythical autonomous free market is neither equitable nor even sustainable. There is no substitute for putting our heads together and coming up with wise policy. We need a Malaysian New Deal based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for a new era: we must continue to eradicate poverty without regard for race or religion, and ensure that markets serve the people rather than the other way around.
Building on the desire for unity-based social justice that motivated the NEP in 1971, let us assist 100% of Malaysians who need help in improving their livelihoods and educating their children. We want the full participation of all stakeholders in our economy. A fair and equitable political and economic order, founded on equal citizenship as guaranteed in our Constitution, is the only possible basis for a united Malaysia and a prerequisite of the competitive, talent-driven economy we must create if we are to make our economic leap.
If we could do this, we would have a tremendous boost in national confidence, we would bring Malaysians together in common cause to build a country that all feel a deep sense of belonging to. We would unleash the kind of investment we need, not just of foreign capital but of the loyalty, effort and commitment of all Malaysians.
I don’t know about you. I am embarrassed that after fifty years of independence we are still talking about bringing Malaysians together. I would have wished that by now, and here tonight, we could be talking about how we can conquer new challenges together.
There is a SMS going around asking people to go to Che Det.com and vote on Tun M’s blog (click here) if math and science should be thought in English or Malay.
I think that the language of instruction is absolutely not the problem at all. If we taught everything in English I will bet you that we still won’t be a first world nation. After all, most of our MP’s are english educated and just look at how they behave. So much so the Speaker wishers for our MP’s to behvae like the British:
DEWAN Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has expressed his wish that Malaysian MPs will debate and behave like British MPs at the House of Commons one day.
Click on image to see full view:
Lets think about this for a moment on the basis of FACTS. Is English a differentiator when it comes to the Economic and Social well being of a Nation? Here is a list of the top 23 GDP countries in the world. Look at the list and see how many of the are a: native english speakers and b: how many teach match and science in english?
Click on image to see full view:
Now you would think that the English speaking countries dominate – but they dont. So what drives prosperity? For this we have to turn to Adam Smith and he said:
Adam Smith’sThe Wealth of Nations that “basic institutions that protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests result in greater prosperity for the larger society.”
I am an absolute proponent that the 3 fundamental drivers of harmony, growth and prosperity are:
a. Freedom to think
b. Freedom to express
c. Freedom to question
Unfortunately, these 3 freedoms go against the ability for the state to exercise political control, cronyism and corruption. Likewise teachers and parents rarely have the patience to nurture these attributes.
What we need is continued political reform to free our education system and pretty much everything else from the tyranny of politics and political dogma.
Why don’t you take a vote here and let me know what you think?
‘UMNO leaders should not be overly worried about how the MALAYs feel about their policies.’
He goes on to say that
‘There is little point in winning the party election as communal champions but then be wiped out at the General Elections.’
This is probably the boldest statement to be made to date on the future direction of UMNO, that is forget the MALAY’S, just focus on the middle ground. This is exactly BN’s problem.
BN was built on the basis of UMNO,MCA,MIC each representing their respective races and through some process at the top ‘policies acceptable to all’ get produced. This was the concept but certainly not reality. BN was never about integration, instead it was about divide and rule. Divide and rule was used for political gain mainly throught a system of economic reward and punishment.
If a Malay or Chinese constituency voted for the opposition, it was starved off economic development but if it voted BN it would be looked after. Unfortunately this model doesn’t work and will never work.
One must ask, how come Datuk Wong Chun Wai does not also say the MCA should ignore the Chinese and MIC the Indians? Why only ask UMNO to ignore the Malays? Well, he says in this article
‘we can no longer TOLERATE policies and and practices to be discriminating to non-Malays. They (the non malays) choose to punish Barisan, particularly UMNO.’
So clearly the problem is UMNO, and his solution is effectivly ask UMNO to ignore the Malays. He supports this by stating how bold and coregeous Najib is with his reforms simply because ‘the bumiputera equity has become irrelevant.’
So, what Wong Chun Wai is saying, the path forward which is in the best interest for all, is for UMNO to forget the sentiments of the Malays and pursure reform policies that benefit all. What he doesnt say is that the end effect of this is the Malay political voice will also be silenced in BN. If this is the way Najib is going to take 1Malaysia forward, I wish him good luck.
We are already starting to see how different the two PM’s are. I am less concerned on the personality difference but more on the policy and implementation side of it.
Pak Lah entered office with a BIG BANG. After 22 years of Mahathir, Pak Lah was a welcome relief. So strong was this feeling that at 11th General Elections, Pak Lah and BN made a clean sweep literally. Therefore his mindset was one of optimism and nothing can go wrong. As a result of it there was no sense of urgency for anything to happened. At the same time he took a path of openness and moderation in the hope of improving democracy. Little did he realize that it was all going to back fire on him, especially with the people closet to him all being accused of abusing their privilege access to him and his office. Whatever it is, like the titanic, he and his team believed that they were unsinkable. Well we all know what happened….
Najib on the other hand comes into office with a whole host of problems, least of it is his absolute lack of popular support and skeleton in his closets. Then there is a sinking BN, a global financial crisis and now the row with Indonesia. Najib is running short of time as he is a PM without a mandate and will have to go to polls fairly soon to get mandate. Unless he is blind, deaf and / or dumb, he knows that the next election results will not be any better that the last elections as BN and UMNO have been mired internal politics. In fact, the next elections may very well see BN lose its 2/3rds and certainly at the sate level a few more stated will go.
All this means is that Najib for now has to start focussing on building up his war chest to take the battle to the people. As a result of this we are going to see a much strong reemergence of political interference in the corporate world. Certainly the GLC’s and those other companies that service the government are going to see much more directives from the top to support his cause. As a result, I think we will see a rise in corruption, conflict of interest dealing, a more draconian approach to alternative opinions etc.
Just look at Khairy (KJ), as the head of UMNO youth, he is struggling to make his presence felt as I am sure he is not Najib’s play list. KJ now looks like a bit player trying to make his voice heard and that probably is the last thing that Najib needs.
The current effort to liberate the markets – e.g. removal of quotas on bumi ownership , abolishing of the FIC etc are all helpful but in the long run. In the short term this will not make a difference.
So my guess is the days are going to get darker. In true Mahathir style, Najib will resort to making the ends justify the means and some people are going to get very very rich. For you and me, we just have to hunker down and ride out the times.
The recent crossing of sword in PAS is a great example of what happens when people take on a belief of infaliability. Since the last generaal elections PAS has gone from back water to play maker. That has probably inflated the ego and ambitions of some leaders. Instead of consolidating and reinforcing their position, they think that they can push on. The fastest way to power is to go to bed with your enemy which in this case is UMNO. Tok Guru Nik Aziz remains the voice of reason, a man who is ruled and who has ruled by principle not power. He is absolutley correct in his position that there is no room fo a Unity government. In crisis there is opportunity and this crisis will hopefull give much better clarity on what PAS’s principles are all about.
Wong Sai Wan published this artice in the STAR which essentially laments the poor state of our internet infrastructure. The thing about Malaysia is we have been conditioned over time that it is good to pay a lot of money for mediocre quality/service. We see it in our internet, cars, insurance, you name it. But of all, the lack of internet speed is what will send us back to the dark ages and I have to blame the government and regulators for this sorry state of affairs.
The fastest growing area in technology is SAAS or software as a service. It is esitmated to be growing by 25% a year. Examples of SaaS companies are like salesforce.com, basecamp, wufoo, kashflow and even internet banking. The proposition is that with fast internet, software can be delivered like any other utility. But key to this growth is SPEED.
As a Malaysian based businees, we are unable to capitalize on the benefits of Saas as our speeds are too slow. Thus we have to invest in overpriced hardware, have IT people on our payroll to manage all this hardware etc while our competitors are just paying for usage. The cost and speed advantage they have over us is phenomenal.
We are currently working on a SaaS project www.QuickSchools.com which is a fresh approach to school management. While we have been trailblazing in the US market , it is simply too painful and slow to be working in KL. What we can do in under a minute in the US takes us 5 minutes here. That is a huge competitive disadvantage to have.
The governemnt needs to wake up from dreamland and embrace the 21st century. Our brain drain is not simply a matter of better pay. Productivity and competitive advantage also counts. If left as it is, our company of 20 will soon end up in Singapore and if not, then the US simply because of internet speed. And when that happens we will be ‘branded’ by the government as unpatriotic instead of frustrated. Thus the real problem never gets solved. So MCMC and the Governement, please listen to Mr Wong Sai Wan and do something about our internet speeds.
I applaud Zaid Ibrahim for joining PKR. What it shows is that our concept of democracy has matured another level. Before, the choice was BN or the wilderness. As a result no matter how good a leader you were, if your opinion was not aligned to that of UMNO/BN you either shut up or get out. And we have seen this play out over the years.
What Pakatan have effectively done is create a real alternative and Zaid’s moving over send a powerful message that to be heard you now have an alternative channel with equal impact.
The real issue is not Zaid Ibrahim or PKR. The real issue is UMNO not changing fast enough to make the internal reforms to allow capable leaders to flourish. On the 4th Nov 2008 I wrote a post- Will UMNO learn? and said:
UMNO is on a very dangerous trajectory by playing up fear to gain compliance. There reality is that there are superb Malay leaders out there – both in politics and in the corporate world. – Zaid Ibrahim, to name one. But they are not in UMNO and unless UMNO learns to change its thinking and its politics, these superb leaders are the one UMNO will have to do battle with at the next GE.
PKR is gaining not because they are brilliant, but because UMNO is stuck, cant go left, cant go right. Rigor Mortis is what they call it. UMNO knows what it has to do but it simply lacks the courage, desire an will to do what it needs to do.
It is the month of August, on the shores of the Black Sea. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 Euro note on [...]
