1 Malaysia – Najib’s I had a dream…

It is interesting to see the amount of money being pumped in by the GLC’s to advertise the 1 Malaysia slogan. Its been in the papers everyday. Maybank certainy has been leading the charge.  The saying is, if you say  it enough times, people will believe it. So i guess that is exactly what Najib is trying to do, say it enough times so people will believe it.

Unfortunately, the ability to realize 1 Malaysia is not an issue with the rakaayat (citizens). Most of us life fairly interactive lives – at work, at home. After all your neighbor, is your neighbor. The kids certainly don’t have an issue with mixing, in fact for most of them it is not even mixing, its just having fun with friends.

The real problem of 1 Malaysia is really in the politics and at the policy level.  The entire system is designed not for integration but for tolerance.  UMNO – MCA – MIC  have over the years nurtured a balance of tolerance to co-exist and act as united front for all to identify with. But the reality is a malay cannot be an MCA member, a chinese cannot be an MIC member and an indian cannot be an UMNO member. However the rules for chinese and indians or for any race  changes if they are Muslim – as a muslim you can be in UMNO.

The role of UMNO is to champion the rights of the Malays, MIC the rights of the Indians and MCA that of the Chinese. And over the years the three have learnt how to tolerate each other in a manner that was acceptable by all.  As times passed things changed and certainly through the nineties and into the 2000’s somehow that perception of balance has shifted and is now obviously fairly off balance.

To the chinese possibly  it has shifted too far towards the Malays. To the Indians possibly it has shifted too little in their direction. To the Malays possibly not enough.

Pre 1997 the country was in growth mode. The economy was expanding – salaries were rising – stock market was booming (remember “politically linked counters ”  So in that period there was enough to go around and keep everyone happy. Tun M was a master at ensuring everyone was sufficiently  happy that he managed through 2 great UMNO upheavals.  Its not that the seeds of discontent were not there, they were, but the general population was happy enough to keep things in check.

Since the Asian Financial crisis – we have never really recovered. The crisis taught businesses that they has to diversify out of Malaysia, it created new competitive grounds for FDI – such as in Vietnam and Cambodia and of course China came out full steam.  While all of this was happening,  the Malaysian PIE was no more growing, at least not at the rates before.

Suddenly  what was tolerable started to look intolerable.  People started to see and feel the effects of Corruption, Lack of enforcement, Crime , red tape, little napoleons etc. When the pie is not growing, even the smallest grievances become big. And progressively it has become bigger and bigger.

We now are on a downward spiral that, if we are not careful, is going to get stronger and stronger. Not because people don’t love the country, not because we are racially intolerant of each other but because the political representation doesn’t appear to be representing what the people want and wish for.

As a simple example – everyone hates corruption.  We would therefore expect the whole nation to solidify behind Ong Tee Kiat  with his stand on exposing PKFZ. Yet that is not the case.  UMNO, MIC, PKR, PAS, DAP GERAKAN, you name it,  have been tepid on the issue. In fact in MCA they want to remove OTK.  What gives?

The balance of power is now morphing into a balance of ideology that is being slowly defined.  Its the  polarity between the current form of government that seeks to protect its interest versus a government of the people, by the people for the people; in short a government that can be held accountable for its actions or lack of it.

When there was no real alternative to the BN juggernaut – accountability didn’t quite matter and  matters were easily swept under the carpet.  After all, what was important was the balance of power between the big three.

Today there is a credible alternative to BN, and the alternative is getting stronger and stronger.  For BN It is an unfortunate situation of “having to oversteer to get to center.”  Events like what happend  in Perak, the rumblings in Kedah, Selangor, Teoh Bang Hock, no matter what the real reason is, people will believe that it is BN trying to “fix” the opposition. The harder BN tries, the worse it will get. After all BN has lost 5 by elections on the trot.  I wonder when in history has this happened before?

And the reason for this is that people do not see in any visible way – UMNO in the first instance or BN trying to change. What people see is a continuance of trying to preserve the status quo but masking it with makeup. Instead of focusing on the badly needed internal reforms, it is focusing on pushing out the opposition.  At least this is the perception.

For me personally this perception is reality. I live in an area where almost every night we endure extremely bad air pollution.  The chinese new village surrounding these factories have suffered for years. Yet no one seems able to stop the pollution.  Why? because the business is “protected.”  DOE have done everything in their powers but to no avail as there are higher powers that be that allow the factory to go on.  Every high court slaps the factory with a paltry fine.

And for every night every resident  in this area of maybe 50+ thousand people (Malays, Chinese, Indians, etc) have to breath and live in this pollution. We  are UNITED as I Malaysia fighting for the right to clean air. Unfortunately our government is not on our side. So to us, the problem is not our ability to unite, our problem is our government that ignores us and our plight.

So  Prime Minister Najib, you can go on sloganeering 1 MALAYSIA for all you like, but for as long as your policies and inaction force us to breath in BAD air,  we know we are not the problem – you are. You are now the third PM to preside over our problem. Show us you care. Solve it for us. Show us that we matter.

PM Sir – people unite for common causes and against common enemies.  In the 50’s it was the colonial masters, today it is the political masters!

HAPPY MERDEKA.

Minister Idris Jala – step 1 to privatizing the government?

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)
• To pressure  Koh Tsu Koon to step down (read here)
• A wake up call for sleeping cabinet members (read here)
• Failure at MAS (read here, here, here)
• and many more

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.

(click here to read full article)

Only time will tell.

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).

p/p/s watch Naomi Klien here:

PAS wins Permatang Pasir hands down and UMNO is in trouble

BN has lost every singly by-election since the last GE. The latest is the loss in Permatang Pasir.  This is not good news for NAJIB or UMNO or BN for that matter.

If they thought a change in PM would see change in electorate mood, they have been sadly mistaken.

Between the miserable showing in By elctions, the Teoh MACC death and Ong Tee Kiat going full steam on PKFZ, UMNO is truly in a very bad spiral. All that is left is a free fall in the stock market and the economy and BN can literally kiss the next elections good by.

Najib’s 1 Malaysia sloganeering is certainly not going to help at all. He needs real reform, but how does one reform a team of clueless heads?

Now calling them clueless is a bit unkind, but if you were to read the interview with JJ, our soon to be ambassador to the US, you will see what I mean.

I reproduce the entire interview at the bottom for you to read but here are some key pointers to clueless:

1. Why he is qualified to be a diplomat?

He holds a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and PhD in Electrical Engineering (Power Systems) – both qualifications obtained from Canadian universities

2. His resume:

“JJ”, as he is popularly known, started out as a lecturer at Universiti Teknoloji Malaysia. First elected MP for Rompin in 1990 (a seat he has retained with thumping majorities up to the last general election in 2008), Jamaluddin has also held three key Cabinet portfolios – Second Finance Minister (2002-04); Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (January 2004-March 2004); and Science, Technology and Innovation (2004-2008).

And the car his drives: “Please come in my car. We’ll talk as I drive,’’ he says, offering this writer a spin in his gleaming sports car.

3. Why  is he qualified to be the ambassador to the US?

“I lived in North America (Canada) for six years and I know the American thinking. I understand their psyche. They see things in their strategic interest,’’ he tells Sunday Star in an interview.

I never have known canadians to be the same or in anyway similar to the americans. BTW I spent 7 years in the real USA, so maybe I should be considered for the job.

4. His concept of Strategic Interest:

We will have to differentiate ourselves from say, Myanmar. I’m not going to say, “Hey, please come to Malaysia, our cost of labour is as good as Myanmar’s.” Nope. I will be preaching strategic partnerships with America. America may have a new product but building a prototype is very expensive there. We can do the prototyping here.

all he is saying is that we are a cheap place to prototype…. so what’s different?

5. On Angkasawan (JJ should be bapa Angkasawan)

> The Angkasawan programme you spearheaded to send the first Malaysian into space is another criticism against you, i.e the RM100mil spent was a waste of funds. How do you respond?

Why did America send man to the moon? Did they create a P&L (Profit & Loss) for it? Why did Russia send man into space, and China? Were they looking for a (monetary) return of these investments? It was because of some return to their nations.

I did a study on it. I found that the Russians did so to create a thrust among the people to develop new technology; to drive them beyond the borders of knowledge.

So what technology spin-off have we got in return for our angkasawan? The Americans, Russians, Japaneese, Chinese all build their own rockets, control systems, infrastructure etc. Thats where the spin-off is.  We bought a RM100 million ticket for a ride into space.

So you see, this is why I say we are clueless.  It like watch Anipah Aman siting with Hillary Clinton and doing a tirade on Anuar Ibrahim. As if the americans care?  You are with the most powerful woman and instead of building bridges you talk of how DSAI tried to bribe you? Definitely clueless.

IT is a sunny weekday morning in Kuala Lumpur and Datuk Seri Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis, who takes up his posting next week as Ambassador-designate to the United States, is working up a sweat.

A polo enthusiast, he is at the Royal Selangor Polo Club in Ampang, riding one of his favourite Argentinian horses, Obeda. Stable boys help him alight from the white stallion when the session ends.

All eyes are on the flamboyant Jamaluddin, 58, as he enters the clubhouse, politely asking for fresh orange juice.

Since his nomination as Malaysia’s chief diplomat in Washington was approved in extra quick time by the US State Department last month, it has not been uncommon for people to walk up to the five-term Rompin MP and say: “You are the right man to take on America.”

Still, his nomination is not without controversy. There are those who say Jamaluddin is too “extravagant” in his ways, citing past controversies.

On paper, however, there is no doubting the Pekan-born politician’s credentials for the all-important posting which has been vacant for more than a year.

He holds a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and PhD in Electrical Engineering (Power Systems) – both qualifications obtained from Canadian universities.

“JJ”, as he is popularly known, started out as a lecturer at Universiti Teknoloji Malaysia. First elected MP for Rompin in 1990 (a seat he has retained with thumping majorities up to the last general election in 2008), Jamaluddin has also held three key Cabinet portfolios – Second Finance Minister (2002-04); Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (January 2004-March 2004); and Science, Technology and Innovation (2004-2008).

“Power” being his forte, the father of four was chairman of Tenaga Nasional Bhd, and also chaired the Public Accounts Committee and the influential Backbenchers’ Club.

“I lived in North America (Canada) for six years and I know the American thinking. I understand their psyche. They see things in their strategic interest,’’ he tells Sunday Star in an interview.

Responding to critics who say he should be focusing on his rural constituency instead of dabbling in the corridors of Washington, the cigar-chomping, bearded politician asks: “There is Skype, e-mail and SMS, and Facebook. What difference does it make if I Skype my constituents from Kuala Lumpur or Washington?”

Time is running short with a business meeting scheduled next. But Jamaluddin, who also spearheaded Malaysia’s Angkasawan project culminating in our exploration into space in 2007, has not had his full say.

“Please come in my car. We’ll talk as I drive,’’ he says, offering this writer a spin in his gleaming sports car.

The rest of the interview in his private office is peppered with terms such as “risk capital”, “venture capital” and “innovation economy” as Jamaluddin tries to explain his thinking and the realities of his American posting.

“I leave it to the people and Government to judge my KPI (Key Performance Indicators),” he adds.

> After much speculation, you are indeed our new envoy to the US. What does your posting mean for Malaysia-US relations?

I thank the Prime Minister for his confidence in me to help drive his important agenda, and I welcome the support and help from all for me to get the job done. I see the economy and security as the top two issues as we fight for economic growth. We are going to have up to 500,000 young ones leaving school each year and they will need jobs. We are too small an economy to stand on our own so we have to network with the world to seek markets, get funding and technology. I see my posting as paving the way for this connectivity of economic play with the US.

For our people, it is about the pocket economy. And for us to have a close working relationship with America economically, first we have to have good diplomatic relations with them. We are doing quite well already. Washington is not just a gateway to America, it is a gateway to the world.

> Your nomination was not without controversy. There were several talking points, one being that you’re MP of a rural consti­tuency that needs you.

I know what they’re saying. Due to demographic changes, many of my voters have moved to urban areas in search of jobs. In a town of about 50,000 people (in Rompin), the majority of Malays are residing in urban areas. About 30% of my voters do not live in Rompin. Every general election, the figure is rising. I have been thinking about how to resolve this. It is by embracing new media technology.

I just attended a funeral in my constituency. I visited the family and went to the grave. But this was only known to those who live in the village, not others who have moved to Malacca and Johor Baru. I’ve downloaded the visual so all can follow my work.

There is always the technology of the new media to be used to access all of my constituents. There is Skype, e-mail and SMS, and Facebook. What difference does it make if I Skype my consti tuents from Kuala Lumpur or Washington? You know, broadband is equivalent to electri city supply these days. If power was the lifeline of the old economy, broadband is the lifeline of the new one.

> What about the farmers and tappers in Rompin who will prefer to meet you in person?

I plan to come back every quarter. I will return to attend parliamentary sessions. That is the directive of the PM. When I come back on my own, I will pay my own way. My constituents are not against my appointment. They see it as recognition of their MP. They know I will be in touch with them. Our communication will remain – it’s just that I may see them a month later, instead of more regularly. Take the case of a CEO of a multinational in New York. He would probably be travelling three-quarters of the year. Running an organisation doesn’t mean you must stay put. It is how you communicate with your customers.

> There were at least three others tipped for the post. Did you see yourself as the ideal candidate?

I leave that for others to judge. I have been in the academic world, had corporate exposure and moved into politics. Now I’m entering the diplomatic world. All this has helped shape me. The Government has given me another opportunity to serve the country. It is up to me how to market myself. In the US, it is all about marketing. You can buy a car and even choose the colour online. If you have a good product, market it well otherwise people will only hear what is negative.

I’m going to counter whatever (negative) is being said about me. I used to run a public-listed company, so I know what it is all about. I’m looking forward to increasing my market share (laughs).

> As a serving MP, it is interesting that you say you’re going to the US as the people’s representative.

As an MP, I have to bear in mind the people’s interest. When I fight for the country’s interest, it is for the people. That is what 1Malaysia is all about, creating job opportunities for our people through the work I do. Our jobs now evolve around raw material and cheap labour with very minimal technology value-added. The new emphasis is more technology-driven. It is technology as the driver of product value. Over the past 50 years, we have made furniture, fans, refrigerators and were successful in doing that. Our people got jobs and we were thankful.

But that era has passed. Our success story has been replicated by others. And because they have just started, their labour is cheaper than ours. We have to move upwards.

> You often talk about America’s strategic interests. Can you explain your thinking?

I lived in North America (Canada) for six years and I know the American thinking. I understand their psyche. They see things in their strategic interest. They went to the moon in their strategic interest, spending billions of dollars to get there first. If they think they need to come to Malaysia for their strategic interest, they would. So we have to find out what are America’s strategic interests that coincide with our own interest. For us, it is all about the economy, and jobs, jobs, jobs!

If we want to keep exporting our existing products such as oil palm, commodities and manufactured products, America is still the largest market. Of course, we must diversify to China and India but the base, and most important market, is still America.

On the new innovation-led economy, where is the funding and risk capital coming from? Which country has lots of experience in risk capital? The new so-called risk capital, to drive our innovation economy, is still in America. So we must not give up our one anchor linkage to the world while we look at other anchors such as China and India.

> As Science, Technology and Innovation Minister in 2007, you applied for and were granted a two-month sabbatical break by the Cabinet to study innovation in Harvard University. How did that benefit you?

I am now in the midst of writing a book about what I learned. As far as I know, it was the first time a Cabinet minister went on a sabbatical. The PM at that time (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) approved. I wanted to get away and take a look at innovation. In my ministry then, we looked after science, technology and innovation. I know what science is all about … from science to technology.

But how do you convert technology into jobs, and what is innovation? Again, innovation is about jobs, jobs, jobs! I found out that the journey from science into jobs was very treacherous. In an innovation economy, it is not just technology that matters. It is driven by needs. A lot of people think that innovation is driven by technology but I beg to differ. Sometimes the innovation product is driven by consumer needs.

> And what are those?

The next successful product is not from the dreams of the scientist; it is from the dreams of the consumer. It is all about the needs of the consumer. Venture capitalists are not technology guys. They are those who have money and who understand the market and know what the consumers’ demands are. Technology does not have to be super-duper to them. In the US, the venture capitalists gather every now and then to find out what the consumer wants. So, in Malaysia, we need to fast-track. While we develop our local technology, we also need to develop our scientists. We must be self-sufficient in knowledge-creation. What happens if suddenly they stop exporting their knowledge to us? Today, the PM is not just talking about value-added but also of high value-added. Because high-value added gets you high-value jobs.

> How will you turn whatever you have said into something tangible to benefit Malaysians while you are in the US?

We will have to differentiate ourselves from say, Myanmar. I’m not going to say, “Hey, please come to Malaysia, our cost of labour is as good as Myanmar’s.” Nope. I will be preaching strategic partnerships with America. America may have a new product but building a prototype is very expensive there. We can do the prototyping here. You can’t do prototyping in Vietnam as they don’t have the people for it. So we want to have more strategic alliances with the US to jointly create, develop and manufacture products in Malaysia.

We should not just be assembling mobile phones; we should be manufacturing them here. We should be making bio-tech products. To move into the knowledge-based and innovation economy, the biggest component is technology. I’ve already met a few companies here that are interested in venture capital and acquiring new products. The people I met are property and plantation players, but I can’t name them.

> You are making it clear that your sales pitch in the US about Malaysia is no longer going to be about labour costs?

That’s right. At the lower end we are already losing out. So to attract more industries here, we still have to be competitive with low labour costs. But is it fair that we control labour cost and keep it low because we want industries to come here? That our labour cost is not too different compared to Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Myanmar? Or do we try to develop industries so that our people’s income increases, towards first-world standards? Of course, we want to aim for the First World (standards). But we cannot do this when the cost of components is labour and raw-material based. For salaries to go up, we have no choice but to scale up our industries. We have to move into knowledge-based industries where the component of the product is more technology-based.

> American diplomacy has been on a surge with former President Bill Clinton seeking the release of two jailed American journalists in Pyongyang and a US Senator meeting Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon. What’s your idea of diplomacy?

Those things may play well in America but for me, I see diplomacy as primarily economic play. In Malaysia, diplomacy is the beginning of economic and security play. It is not just about shaking hands and sipping drinks. Creating the ambience of a good relationship with a country is through diplomacy but that is only the start of things, not the end.

It is to create good relations between two countries so that economic play can take place. It is not just about being nice to the (US) Congress and Senators.

For instance, when I bring a US Senator to Malaysia, I would ask him to bring along some important people, not just his political assistants. I’m sure there are investors from the state he represents who see Malaysia as a platform to the Asian market.

We shouldn’t sell Malaysia as it is but as a gateway to the East. Malaysia is also a gateway to the New World, so to speak: the Middle East, ex-Soviet republics and Africa, these are some of the countries that Malaysia has a close rapport with that Washington does not.

> The Angkasawan programme you spearheaded to send the first Malaysian into space is another criticism against you, i.e the RM100mil spent was a waste of funds. How do you respond?

Why did America send man to the moon? Did they create a P&L (Profit & Loss) for it? Why did Russia send man into space, and China? Were they looking for a (monetary) return of these investments? It was because of some return to their nations.

I did a study on it. I found that the Russians did so to create a thrust among the people to develop new technology; to drive them beyond the borders of knowledge. The Russians wanted to develop radar to look towards space, not just at each other on the ground. They needed to develop a host of new technology. Their space mission galvanised the entire nation. It was then that American scientific advisers told President Kennedy that there was a risk of the capitalists losing out to the communists. It was a question of the survival of America and the capitalist system, and that they should seek knowledge.

In order to galvanise the Americans, Kennedy announced the mission to the moon. It was not a gold-digging exercise or to look for diamonds. (It was) not to look for wealth. In the US now, basically all new technology is government-funded. That is how the US has galvanised itself. That is how we should see it here – to galvanise the young to embrace science and knowledge. And I don’t think this can be measured.

> Finally, the remarks you made to a Malaysian Indian student during a visit to Los Angeles in 2007 resulted in you being labelled a racist. Does that still haunt you?

I have already apologised and I repeated that in Parliament. I met with a group of 30 Malaysian students who were promised scholarships to study in the US after completing a bio-tech diploma (here). At that time, I didn’t realise that they were promised scholarships. They were 27 Malay, one Chinese and two Indian students. I told the Malays if I found out that their father was very rich, I won’t help them. They laughed. I told the Chinese student if she was needy, I would help. To the Indian students, I said the same – that if they were rich and upper class, I wouldn’t help. I put it to them in jest. The Malay students were okay with what I told them. But I learnt that what is right for one community is not necessarily so for the other. A politician has got to be careful with his choice of words.

:

Looks like Teoh Beng Hock was dead before he fell..

I have picked this up from Malaysia Today and I think it is important enough to be shared.

The current story is Tan Beng Hock committed suicide by jumping out of a window and falling to his death.

Well RPK show a picture of what a body will look like it if has indeed fallen from a height. This is the picture of  Student Tan Kian Chong who was found dead at the bottom of Apartmen Vista Angkasa in Kampung Kerinchi yesterday, suspected of falling down 16 floors. See the ‘mess’. And eyewitnesses said they heard an ‘explosion’ when his body hit the ground while his blood was splattered right up to the second floor of the building.

Now compare this to the picture (below) of Teoh Beng Hocks body:

Is Najib’s 100 days is pure bullshit?

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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 21^st 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.”
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.

Take the poll:

Teaching of Math and Science in English or Malay?

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’s The 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?

Here is a previous post I wrote titled: Why we should teach math in Chinese to all students.

Did Pak Lah drain Petronas?

Well if you read Mahathir’s post titled Where has the money gone to he makes a pretty compelling case that a lot of Petronas money did flow out during Pak Lah’s tenure.

Anyway a sumarry of the math is as follows.

Between 1976 and 2009 (current year) Petronas paid to the Government of Malaysia a total of RM426 billion. On  a simple average basis that works out to  RM 12.5 billion a year.

BUT, if we take 1976 – 2002 as Mahathir’s period, in that time Petronas paid out a total of Rm157.4 billion or  37% of the total payout, averaging RM5.8 billion a year.

In contrast, if we take 2003 – 2009 as Pak Lah’s period, Petronas paid out a total of RM 269.2 billion or 63% of Petronas total payout, averaging RM34.86 billion a year.

For Tun M, mentally I can account for where the money went – KLCC, Putrajaya, PKFZ, MAS (Tajuddin) etc. but for Pak Lah its quite hard to see where the money has gone asides form his brand new AIRBUS.  Surely we should be putting pressure on the PAC to see where all the money has gone.

Remember the oil spike last year and how the government pushed pump prices up.  Well I guess with all the money taken out from Petronas, there was none left to subsidize the petrol.

The next is to see what happened to Felda’s money….another super cash rich company that is now negative cash.

The difference between Najib and Pak Lak

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.

Pas Fallout, ambition overtakes principles

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.

Zaid joins PKR – why the surprise?

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.