We all know the history of Kg Baru, how it was designated as Malay reserve land for agricultural purposes. We know too how in its century old history, urbanization and the so-called 'development' had enveloped Kg Baru, making it indeed a very valuable piece of real estate, I understand 222 hectares of it with individual owners, while about 80 hectares more owned by the goverment. There's a move now to 'develop' Kg Baru, part of which is to convert its agricultural status to 'commercial' one. The goverment, through the Federal Territory and Urban Well Being Ministry has broached its ideas and suggestions to We know of the history and background of Kg Baru. It was originally designated as spearhead this process.
I find some of the ideas thrown up by the goverment, mainly through the minister concerned, Raja Nong Chik, puzzling and not very assuring it terms of the future of Kg Baru, be it in economic or 'developmental' sense, as well in preserving its valuable historical heritage and tradition. Allow me to jot down some of my reservations. Initially in the earlier phase of the move, the Minister seemed bent upon the following plan,its main aspects being: the magic formula was to be a division of Malay and non-Malay ownership on the basis of 60%-40% respectively. The reasons given for the arrangement were that it is necessary to make it possible for non-Malays to own properties in Kg Baru. This is to assure the ‘viability’ of the idea of developing and commercialising Kg Baru. It was also emphasised that the involvement of the non-Malays and the private sector is important since the government ‘does not have the expertise’or to this effect. The minister also opined that without non-Malay ownership and involvement, the development of Kg Baru would not be feasible. The minister underscored that the value of Kg Baru would not be high if ownership is confined only to the Malays.
In my opinion, the governments thinking and approach to the ‘development’ of Kg Baru is erroneous on the following grounds. Firstly, the government has overlooked the fact that Kg Baru has become valuable today despite its agricultural and Malay reservation status precisely because the spontaneous and ‘natural’ course of development had enveloped it. What had protected and insulated it from becoming part and parcel of ‘main stream’ capitalism or laissez affair sector sector is its agricultural and reservation status. Hence, it is clear that Kg Baru can be ‘developed’ and ‘commercialised’ without tampering with Malay ownership or reservation status. What is required is simply some imagination and creativity. There is really no magic in non-Malay ownership, or vice-versa there is no jinx or natural curse to be stigmatised on Malay ownership. The prospects and escalating value of Kg Baru derived from the spontaneous and natural dynamics of development and commercialisation of the surrounding area, and not to some immature ‘intervention’ or ill-conceived machination of government agencies arrogating itself the role ‘reformer’, ‘transformer’ or ‘developer’, ‘moderniser’, what have you.
In this respect, the development status of Kg Baru should not be conceived as a kind of ‘ghetto’, a pocket of ‘underdevelopment’, a resistant spot to development and commercialisation due to the ‘curse’ of Malay ownership. Instead of being credulous to this old obsolete idea which is tinted with racial stereotyping, the government should use its imagination to realise the great prospects of Kg Baru and its owners, conferred by a century of the nation’s ‘development’ and ‘commercialisation. In short focus on its prospects and strategic location, rather than entertain its grossly distorted image of a ‘ghetto’ to be ‘rescued’ or ‘salvaged’.
The least acceptable reason given by the minister of Federal Territory for its formula of 60%-40% is that ‘we don’t have the expertise’! Now to me this is something we should not hear from government leaders within the context of the issue. We are not talking of highly sophisticated technology like nuclear power or mega world class projects, but simply developing Kg Baru. To me it sounds like a pathetic admission of impotency. Of course we don’t expect our leaders or the public sector to know everything, but they have all the resources and expertise at their command. It is only leadership that is required of them to avail of these massive resources at their disposal and harness them well, managing and overseeing them rationall of course This is the path taken by all other progressive nations, instead of abrogating their role of leadership by simply pledging ‘we don’t have the expertise’. I am commenting on this because I sense that the motifs of ‘60%-40%’ and ‘we don’t have the expertise’ is becoming stock in the thinking of leaders, as evident in the Railway Land Deal with Singapore, and other projects.
Several days ago, there is another phase to the Kg Baru puzzle. Amid protests from land owners, Malay interests groups, NGO’s, meeting leaders apology of ‘nothing is cast in stone’, the Ministry concerned had made some statements. Now the formula 60%-40% formula is to be applied only by the government in handling its 80 hectares of land in Kg Baru. In this connection, all my comments in the above should apply. As for the land with individual owners, the Ministry said it is entirely up to them. There is also the ambivalent and unclear statement that the ‘tradition and heritage’ of Kg Baru would be maintained by the Ministry and those concerned. I think this can be problematic in the long run as we know once ‘development’ and ‘commercialisation’ has made inroads, it is a pledge that could prove to be elusive.
Has there been some back-pedalling or rethinking on its ideas as far as the Ministry is concerned? In the case of which, I hope the government would think through its ideas well before embarking on controversial pronouncements and campaign. It will save the nation much unnecessary conflicts and agitations, as we know issues of ethnic significance will invariably generate much ill will and misunderstanding. I might add too, I hope the whole idea of ‘commercialising’ or ‘developing’ Kg Baru has not been motivated or inspired by the vested interests of Malay corporate sector, oblivious to the wider interests of the Malay community. I must admit there is a familiar ring to the ‘60%-40%’ quota centric formula, as well as the pledge of ‘we don’t have the expertise’. It is reminiscence of the old Ali-Baba ethos of ill fated NEP, except the magic chant of ‘30%-70%’has now evolved into ’60%-40%’. I really hope it is not the old syndrome of taking the easy way out of passing the work to others, in the hope of making quick easy money, on the ground of being ‘owners but alas with no expertise’.
Concerning Kg Baru, considering its rich history and cultural heritage, we should move creatively and rationally. There is no need to tamper with variables unconnected with developmental pre-requisites, such as ownership etc Many of the problems being raised by leaders and planners seemed to be only their head.Focus on its prospects and great promises, rather than misconceived ‘problems’. Never give in to the short term interests of individuals, while sacrificing long term interests of the Malays at large and that of the nation. The pioneers and early settlers had steadfastly resisted the temptations and allurements of 'development', and maintained their rich heritage.It would be sad indeed to see the their later descendants succumbing,'selling out' for great, albeit short term gains.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Parrot, Barisan Nasional and Sibu by-election
The contest for Sibu has been decided in favour of the DAP prevailing over the BN.The response of the BN leaders as represented by the PM and the DPM was that of acceptance and self-introspection. Both the PM and the DPM in their capacity as Barisan's leaders had instructed the coalition to undertake a study of its defeat and probable causes, amid insinuation that the wrong choice of candidate could be an important factor, while criticisms are also levelled at the 'racial' and 'seditious' campaigning of the DAP.There is mounting unhappiness on the Malay ground against alleged communalism or even racism in the voting pattern at the by-election.
In its postmortem of the Sibu defeat, the BN would have to be very objective in identifying the problems for what they are. Self-denial and ideological blinkers should be set aside. A wrong diagnosis could set them astray in terms of strategising for future by-elections or even the next General Election.The distortive effects of self-denial and apology could obscure even the most glaring and obvious problems staring right in the eyes.The way politicians delude themselves sometimes remind me of a most instructive parable by Jalaluddin Rumi,the great Muslim mystic.
This is the story of the oil trader who had a parrot in his shop,where he stored many rare,exquisite and expensive oil. One day a stray cat wandered into the shop and broke many jars of very fine and valuable oil. On seeing the calamity, the oil trader was furious and besides himself.Thinking that the parrot was responsible, the oil trader gave the parrot such a pounding that it shed its feathers and became bald.One day a bald man came to the shop looking for some fine oil.On seeing the bald man, the parrot could not contain its curiousity. The parrot asked the man emphatically, 'pray tell me whose oil did you spill?'
Some statements by BN leaders in relation to the BN defeat in Sibu would impair the effectiveness of their proposed by-election postmortem.Take for instance how they had formulated the inquiry.The discussion seemed to have been framed whether the by-election was decided on 'local' or ' national' issues.It would appear to many objective observers and analists that we cannot dichotomise electoral issues in contemporary Malaysia in those terms.What seems to be more accurate is that both the national and local issues have had their impact on the poll.The nature of politic is more complex than a simple 'local' versus 'national'category. For instance the 'Allah' controversy raised by the DAP would be more correctly defined as a national issue albeit with local manifestation and dimension.The same thing goes for the hotly debated issue of national type Chinese schools.The many issues concerning development would similary reflect the concern of Malaysians at the national level.In addition to these, we have the whole gamut of issues like corruption,inaptitude in leadership, and of course that of pluralism, multiracialism and nation building.
And yet I have heard it said several times that the Sibu by-election was mainly decided by 'local' issues and not 'national', and therefore does not reflect on the PM's leadership or other national leaders.In my opinion such a stance is indeed a serious error, and a dangerous one for the BN. While it is erroneous in the sense of sidestepping and trivialising the issues in Sibu, it would appear to be contradictory too. While the BN's leadership seems eager to define the decisive issues in Sibu as 'local politics',it also faulted the DAP for bringing 'national' or 'national style' issues to Sibu.So in the BN perspective, what is the case in Sibu, , 'national' or ' local'? The view that the Sibu by-election was determined mainly by local politics is also contradicted by the DPM's statement that there is similarity or common pattern between the Sibu outcome with 'urban politics' or 'politik bandar' elsewhere in Malaysia.
Responding like Jalaluddin Rumi's parrot, confusing between cause and effect,seeing only form but not essence, would certainly cloud BN's understanding of its threats and challenges,and consequentially its political calculations and strategies.I hope the Barisan's study on the Sibu outcome would yield clear diagnosis, and hence more effective strategies for the future.
In its postmortem of the Sibu defeat, the BN would have to be very objective in identifying the problems for what they are. Self-denial and ideological blinkers should be set aside. A wrong diagnosis could set them astray in terms of strategising for future by-elections or even the next General Election.The distortive effects of self-denial and apology could obscure even the most glaring and obvious problems staring right in the eyes.The way politicians delude themselves sometimes remind me of a most instructive parable by Jalaluddin Rumi,the great Muslim mystic.
This is the story of the oil trader who had a parrot in his shop,where he stored many rare,exquisite and expensive oil. One day a stray cat wandered into the shop and broke many jars of very fine and valuable oil. On seeing the calamity, the oil trader was furious and besides himself.Thinking that the parrot was responsible, the oil trader gave the parrot such a pounding that it shed its feathers and became bald.One day a bald man came to the shop looking for some fine oil.On seeing the bald man, the parrot could not contain its curiousity. The parrot asked the man emphatically, 'pray tell me whose oil did you spill?'
Some statements by BN leaders in relation to the BN defeat in Sibu would impair the effectiveness of their proposed by-election postmortem.Take for instance how they had formulated the inquiry.The discussion seemed to have been framed whether the by-election was decided on 'local' or ' national' issues.It would appear to many objective observers and analists that we cannot dichotomise electoral issues in contemporary Malaysia in those terms.What seems to be more accurate is that both the national and local issues have had their impact on the poll.The nature of politic is more complex than a simple 'local' versus 'national'category. For instance the 'Allah' controversy raised by the DAP would be more correctly defined as a national issue albeit with local manifestation and dimension.The same thing goes for the hotly debated issue of national type Chinese schools.The many issues concerning development would similary reflect the concern of Malaysians at the national level.In addition to these, we have the whole gamut of issues like corruption,inaptitude in leadership, and of course that of pluralism, multiracialism and nation building.
And yet I have heard it said several times that the Sibu by-election was mainly decided by 'local' issues and not 'national', and therefore does not reflect on the PM's leadership or other national leaders.In my opinion such a stance is indeed a serious error, and a dangerous one for the BN. While it is erroneous in the sense of sidestepping and trivialising the issues in Sibu, it would appear to be contradictory too. While the BN's leadership seems eager to define the decisive issues in Sibu as 'local politics',it also faulted the DAP for bringing 'national' or 'national style' issues to Sibu.So in the BN perspective, what is the case in Sibu, , 'national' or ' local'? The view that the Sibu by-election was determined mainly by local politics is also contradicted by the DPM's statement that there is similarity or common pattern between the Sibu outcome with 'urban politics' or 'politik bandar' elsewhere in Malaysia.
Responding like Jalaluddin Rumi's parrot, confusing between cause and effect,seeing only form but not essence, would certainly cloud BN's understanding of its threats and challenges,and consequentially its political calculations and strategies.I hope the Barisan's study on the Sibu outcome would yield clear diagnosis, and hence more effective strategies for the future.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Of great man and liliputan
It has been weeks since I last update my blog.I remember my last posting was on the New Economic Model. I must confess I felt the announcement of the NEM was somewhat an anti climax. After much posturing and hype, the announcement came finally as a non-descript statement of economic philosophy and planning. Frankly speaking I don’t think it can be considered as a significant turning point in our economic or developmental approach. I base my evaluation mainly on substance and creativity of development principles and approach, as well as innovativeness in tackling the nation’s basic problems and needs. We may have other more opportune times to go into this in greater details.
Since the promulgation of the NEM sometime at the end of March, I had contented myself with just watching events, trends and styles in our national life. In doing so, I am reminded of the Malay saying ‘hujan emas di negeri orang, hujan batu di negeri sendiri, baik lagi negeri sendiri’. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the Malay language, roughly translated it would be something like ‘it may rain gold in foreign lands, it may rain stone in your own homeland, still your homeland is better’. I am sure this is the sentiment of all patriotic Malaysians. No matter how envious we are of the more progressive nations, east or west, we still love our homeland the greater. But at the same time, I am sure too many patriotic Malaysians would sigh, must it be ‘raining stone’ in our nation ? Must our patriotism be eternally put to the test? Are citizens of the more progressive nations less patriotic than we are, on account of their more developed status? Are we being less patriotic, loving our nation less, if we acknowledge the progress of other nations, while acknowledging our weaknesses and wrongs? Is out patriotism the greater if we deny the progress of other nations and exaggerate their defects, while exaggerating our accomplishments, simultaneously indulging in self-denial over our numerous problems?
Now back to our own backyard. There had been disturbing revelations in the last few weeks. While we laud the action taken to curb the wrongdoings, the facts of the cases are most disturbing. The police had cracked down a major car syndicate which had operated for more than a decade, with the complicity of corrupt officials in the transport departments of several states in the country. Basically the syndicate operated thus: steal luxury cars, have them ‘sanatized’( say wiping or changing the serial number of relevant parts of the car), re-register them ‘officially’ with the ‘help’ of corrupt officials, and put them back in the car market, raking millions. The massive network of corrupt government officials spreading over several states, and the fact that it had been going on for more than a decade,clearly suggests the depth, extent and resilience (perhaps ‘normalization’?) of corruption in our nation.
And then we have this exposure of illegal export of sand, which had been most damaging from the security point of view, as well as environmentally. This scam too had been going on for many years. I understand the export of sand had been done under the pretext of exporting silica and not sand. Doesn’t such scheme border on mockery, flying right in the face of the law? We learn to our dismay that such operation had raked in billions, while inflicting irreversible damage on our environment. Again, this evokes a grim picture of massive, resilient and blatant corruption. I am sure we still remember previous exposure on illegal logging going on for decades in the country. Couple this with the various court cases involving corrupt officials, with some being indicted while others acquitted. The overall picture conjured is not very reassuring of our national integrity, and therefore of leadership in general.
The saga of senseless loss of life continues among us. I note these two rather tragic or sad cases. One fifteen year old girl died when she failed to free her computer bag snagged to the bus door. She was dragged under and run over by the bus. I find the response of both the public and the authority rather regrettable. Although the tragedy was greeted with some public expression of sadness, there was also a sense of ‘normalcy’ though tinge with regret, about it. As if the response was ‘well that's part and parcel of KL and its transport system’. I admit there is a certain crudity or coarseness( kasar) in the services of the public transport system in our cities, but we don’t have to accept it as a ‘given’, normal or in the nature of things. I think her death was absolutely unnecessary and most regrettable, and similar cases should be avoided in the future. More stringent rules and procedures could and should be instituted by transport companies and the authorities. The tragedy certainly suggests we need more gracious and caring public services. At a more general level, we are certainly in need of leadership in developing a more gracious and caring Malaysian nation and society. It was rather ironic that news of her computer bag and her death was carried in the same radio broadcast on the distribution of 100 free computers to students in Selangor by the Barisan National.
In another case, a fifteen year boy was shot by the police. In a most contrasting picture, this case attracted much public attention and heated discussion. Leaders and police chiefs had been vocal in their comments or responses. A high profile board of inquiry had been commissioned to investigate and inquire into the case. Official media had been commenting actively too, understandably a certain bias in defense of the police can be detected. Much play had been made of the circumstances of the tragedy, linking the tragedy with the general issue of ‘delinquent youths’ of today, posing ‘what’s the victim doing out at 3 am, driving his sister's car and without a valid driving license at that?’, or ‘why did the sister allow the illegal use of her car?’ and so forth. Another line is ‘the police has the right to self-defense’ or ‘the police can't be too cautious these days with heavily armed criminals of today about’ and so forth. While all these views have their validity to an extent, the fact remains that it was a rather tragic ‘accident’ which ought to be avoided in the future. Better procedures, safeguards, or even training should be instituted towards this end. Again leadership is much needws here.
On a different note, there is the case of Limbang settlement with Brunei, costing Malaysia a rich oil field with a capacity of billion barrels. Apparently it was deemed a fair exchange during the premiership of Datuk Abdullah Badawi. Under the settlement, Malaysia handed over its ownership of the oil field. In return Brunei agreed to relinquish its claim to Limbang. Now, without going into the ‘fair value’ of the exchange or otherwise, it seems that the Malaysian decision and assent could have been an ill-informed one, without proper consultation and advice, neither with proper disclosure to Parliament or the public. I think the very idea that part of our Malaysian nation can be signed over to other nations without proper consultation, advice and public disclosure or accountability is most shocking and frightening.
Our nation is in dire need of leadership,that is leadership of great man. By ‘great man’ we mean statesman with vision and compassion , enough to identify his personal mission with the interests of our nation. By ‘great man’ of course we do not mean small man, a liliputan, occupying a big post. Too often we confuse between great man and high position. We are prone to think that the two are necessarily the same. In reality,a great man is great even without high position, while a small man remains such even with a big post. . A great leader has the interests of his nation and people at heart,is capable of looking above his narrow self-interests, while a liliputan of a leader can only think of how to use his high position for personal aggrandizement. As often emphasized in Chinese philosophy, a great man emphasized lofty ideals and mission as part of his self-esteem, while the small man cannot see beyond his self-interests and baser desires. Needless to say, this is one observation of all the major religions and great philosophies of mankind.
Since the promulgation of the NEM sometime at the end of March, I had contented myself with just watching events, trends and styles in our national life. In doing so, I am reminded of the Malay saying ‘hujan emas di negeri orang, hujan batu di negeri sendiri, baik lagi negeri sendiri’. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the Malay language, roughly translated it would be something like ‘it may rain gold in foreign lands, it may rain stone in your own homeland, still your homeland is better’. I am sure this is the sentiment of all patriotic Malaysians. No matter how envious we are of the more progressive nations, east or west, we still love our homeland the greater. But at the same time, I am sure too many patriotic Malaysians would sigh, must it be ‘raining stone’ in our nation ? Must our patriotism be eternally put to the test? Are citizens of the more progressive nations less patriotic than we are, on account of their more developed status? Are we being less patriotic, loving our nation less, if we acknowledge the progress of other nations, while acknowledging our weaknesses and wrongs? Is out patriotism the greater if we deny the progress of other nations and exaggerate their defects, while exaggerating our accomplishments, simultaneously indulging in self-denial over our numerous problems?
Now back to our own backyard. There had been disturbing revelations in the last few weeks. While we laud the action taken to curb the wrongdoings, the facts of the cases are most disturbing. The police had cracked down a major car syndicate which had operated for more than a decade, with the complicity of corrupt officials in the transport departments of several states in the country. Basically the syndicate operated thus: steal luxury cars, have them ‘sanatized’( say wiping or changing the serial number of relevant parts of the car), re-register them ‘officially’ with the ‘help’ of corrupt officials, and put them back in the car market, raking millions. The massive network of corrupt government officials spreading over several states, and the fact that it had been going on for more than a decade,clearly suggests the depth, extent and resilience (perhaps ‘normalization’?) of corruption in our nation.
And then we have this exposure of illegal export of sand, which had been most damaging from the security point of view, as well as environmentally. This scam too had been going on for many years. I understand the export of sand had been done under the pretext of exporting silica and not sand. Doesn’t such scheme border on mockery, flying right in the face of the law? We learn to our dismay that such operation had raked in billions, while inflicting irreversible damage on our environment. Again, this evokes a grim picture of massive, resilient and blatant corruption. I am sure we still remember previous exposure on illegal logging going on for decades in the country. Couple this with the various court cases involving corrupt officials, with some being indicted while others acquitted. The overall picture conjured is not very reassuring of our national integrity, and therefore of leadership in general.
The saga of senseless loss of life continues among us. I note these two rather tragic or sad cases. One fifteen year old girl died when she failed to free her computer bag snagged to the bus door. She was dragged under and run over by the bus. I find the response of both the public and the authority rather regrettable. Although the tragedy was greeted with some public expression of sadness, there was also a sense of ‘normalcy’ though tinge with regret, about it. As if the response was ‘well that's part and parcel of KL and its transport system’. I admit there is a certain crudity or coarseness( kasar) in the services of the public transport system in our cities, but we don’t have to accept it as a ‘given’, normal or in the nature of things. I think her death was absolutely unnecessary and most regrettable, and similar cases should be avoided in the future. More stringent rules and procedures could and should be instituted by transport companies and the authorities. The tragedy certainly suggests we need more gracious and caring public services. At a more general level, we are certainly in need of leadership in developing a more gracious and caring Malaysian nation and society. It was rather ironic that news of her computer bag and her death was carried in the same radio broadcast on the distribution of 100 free computers to students in Selangor by the Barisan National.
In another case, a fifteen year boy was shot by the police. In a most contrasting picture, this case attracted much public attention and heated discussion. Leaders and police chiefs had been vocal in their comments or responses. A high profile board of inquiry had been commissioned to investigate and inquire into the case. Official media had been commenting actively too, understandably a certain bias in defense of the police can be detected. Much play had been made of the circumstances of the tragedy, linking the tragedy with the general issue of ‘delinquent youths’ of today, posing ‘what’s the victim doing out at 3 am, driving his sister's car and without a valid driving license at that?’, or ‘why did the sister allow the illegal use of her car?’ and so forth. Another line is ‘the police has the right to self-defense’ or ‘the police can't be too cautious these days with heavily armed criminals of today about’ and so forth. While all these views have their validity to an extent, the fact remains that it was a rather tragic ‘accident’ which ought to be avoided in the future. Better procedures, safeguards, or even training should be instituted towards this end. Again leadership is much needws here.
On a different note, there is the case of Limbang settlement with Brunei, costing Malaysia a rich oil field with a capacity of billion barrels. Apparently it was deemed a fair exchange during the premiership of Datuk Abdullah Badawi. Under the settlement, Malaysia handed over its ownership of the oil field. In return Brunei agreed to relinquish its claim to Limbang. Now, without going into the ‘fair value’ of the exchange or otherwise, it seems that the Malaysian decision and assent could have been an ill-informed one, without proper consultation and advice, neither with proper disclosure to Parliament or the public. I think the very idea that part of our Malaysian nation can be signed over to other nations without proper consultation, advice and public disclosure or accountability is most shocking and frightening.
Our nation is in dire need of leadership,that is leadership of great man. By ‘great man’ we mean statesman with vision and compassion , enough to identify his personal mission with the interests of our nation. By ‘great man’ of course we do not mean small man, a liliputan, occupying a big post. Too often we confuse between great man and high position. We are prone to think that the two are necessarily the same. In reality,a great man is great even without high position, while a small man remains such even with a big post. . A great leader has the interests of his nation and people at heart,is capable of looking above his narrow self-interests, while a liliputan of a leader can only think of how to use his high position for personal aggrandizement. As often emphasized in Chinese philosophy, a great man emphasized lofty ideals and mission as part of his self-esteem, while the small man cannot see beyond his self-interests and baser desires. Needless to say, this is one observation of all the major religions and great philosophies of mankind.
Friday, April 2, 2010
New Economic Model, Meddle, or Muddle?
So the New Economic Model or Model Ekonomi Baru had been announced in installment by the PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak. It was announced at an investment seminar held in a hotel organized by the private sector. The PM promised more details on the NEM would be forthcoming. I am given to understand a copy of the plan, 200 pages thick had been released to the public. I have not had the good fortune of laying my hand on a copy, so the privilege of digging through this document eludes me for the moment. In the following, I thought I would respond to the PM's speech in announcing and outlining the MEP.
The NEM seems to be more of a statement of good intentions, almost bordering on a wish list of what could be nice to have for our economy. Take for instance the reference to the 6 key transformation index, coupled with the goals of high income, sustainability, and inclusiveness with no groups being left out in partaking the fruits of development. There is not much to discuss, to disagree on all these tempting prospects. All sound minded citizens would like to have a higher income, what more doubling it in say ten years. All of us would love a good public transport system, the check of corruption, more vibrant private and public sector, better education system, work force training and upgrading, fair competition and equal opportunities for all, a better balance between good economy and good life for all, In short, the NEM promises everything to everybody.
Another notable feature of the NEM, at least as expounded by the PM in his speech, is the profusion of generalities, precepts and rather vague pronouncements, at least in the context of an economic model which ought to be clear, rational and pragmatic in terms of means and ends. I admit there are parts of the speech which are clear, but where the speech is clear, it merely touches on basic precepts or fundamentals of nation building which should be part and parcel of the nation's build up, regardless of ‘model’. Some examples should include higher income, better education, better quality workforce, national resilience and less ‘dependence’ on foreigners, transparency in economic development, people’s involvement in development process, equal opportunity for all, the need to be bold and courageous in adjusting to the contemporary challenges, and many more really! Again, of course we agree to all these, and yet we are left wondering as to the real import of these pronouncements, what are their contextual operational meaning, how would they be implemented and what form would it take when finally translated into reality.
Apart from the mere statement of good intention and generalities in many places, there are few aspects of the NEM I should like to highlight and comment on. Obviously the NEM sets a high priority on attracting foreign investments into the Malaysian economy. Many of the main features of the NEM had been put in place precisely to appease the demands of foreign capital. The liquid and free nature of foreign capital is of course part of the reality of the global economy. Foreign capital can be one of the major factor is spurring the economy of a developing nation. However, we need to be mindful that it is not the panacea to all economic ills, and history had shown that clearly.
There are nations and economies in which foreign capital had been a major contributor to development, while there are just as many where foreign capital merely led to parasitic relationships that simply drains and sapped the host nations or economies dry. There are many examples from the experience of South American nations and other parts of the world, constituting the developing nations. Ultimately, it is not the presence or absence of foreign capital that is crucial but the management of the relationship and the dynamics between host nation and foreign capitals. This would be the final determinant. Study the cases of successful Southeast Asian and Asian nations in this regards.
The NEM also places much faith and reliance on the private sector in spurring the Malaysian economy. I take it that the NEM proposed to corporatize MIDA in line with this spirit. Again it is a fact that in all capitalistic or liberal economy, it is the private sector which functions as one of the main engines of economic development and growth. Again it must be said that corporatizing public institutions is not by itself a panacea to all our problems. What is crucial in public agencies or corporations is good leadership and good management. Without this, all institutions, public or corporate, cannot function as effectively or dynamically as we hope. More importantly, public or corporate, all institutions would be crippled and paralyzed by corruption and vested interests. This is where the government should be more mindful of in overseeing its institutions and agencies, public and private. If at all, without this all important pre-requisite, corruption would even be more rampant in corporatized institutions, where there are greater opportunities for corruption and abuses with less public scrutiny and control.
Under the NEM, the EPF would be allowed to invest abroad or globally. I admit that many opportunities abroad beckon our investment, but so are the great risks associated with them. What with all the memories of the mega scandals that had sparked the present financial crisis globally. Are our fund managers and captain of industries, capable enough to overcome the hazards of a global player? Please don't misconstrue my point as lacking confidence in our financial experts and captain of industries. But we know how many Gulf States economies are in hot soup today due to inexperience and uninformed ‘ aggression’ in investment. I have not even discussed the scruple factor in ensuring good and profitable investment of our hard earned workers fund. Aren't there enough opportunities for local investment, ensuring save returns for our EPF? Are the current investments of the EPF proving to be profitable in all areas that we need to expand abroad and not consolidate locally? I would urge caution here because this idea does not involve just any fund but the hard-earned money of our workers and citizens.If the limitation is a question of law and enactment, these can be amended on good grounds.
Listening to the speech, there is the nagging feeling of irreconcilable principles and precepts. In the PMs speech inaugurating the NEM, there is the pledge of affirmative action, of ‘welfarism’ , in the same vein as meritocracy and corporate adventurism. There is admission on the part of the PM that the NEP had served the nation well, but he feels the need now to give it a new context. What could the new contextualisation of the NEP within the NEM? There are not many specifics and explanation. I tend to deduce the following from the whole spirit and tenor of the text of the speech. Can it be that the NEM is opting for something we might term as ‘ selective affirmative action’? In the past the NEP was inaugurated with objectives of eradicating poverty and restructuring the economy, but ended in the end as the ideology of Malay capitalists or corporate interests. Patronage of Malay businesses was a deviant and a departure from the original intent and goals of the NEP then. Has the NEM decided to legitimize and ‘formalise’ these departures and deviance of the NEP and make them integral part of its vision and mission? Putting it differently, the ‘contextualization’ of the NEP enunciated by the NEM could be the withdrawal of affirmative action for Malays in general and reaffirming it only for Malay capitalism and corporate interests. We got a hint of this scenario when it had been said in earlier speeches and announcements on 'liberalisation'of the economy that government help and fund would be available only for ‘capable Malays’, which would invariably mean Malays who had made it ‘big’ in the Malaysian corporate scene. Is this a fair assumption and inference on my part?
In the end, what matters for our economic growth is good leadership, good intention, good plan to realize it; honest management and implementation, the indomitable will to translate vision into reality, lots of scruples and compassion for national interests, of all citizens regardless of race and religion. Without these vital ingredients, any plan whatsoever is doomed to failure, in the end accumulating a host of bitter baggage, far from achieving better economy and better life for all.Without clear vision and principles, backed by resolve and scruples to see them through,any 'plan' would degenerate into just a question of medling and tinkering around with existing institutions, and mudling through under the guise of 'consulting and listening' to the people. It is clear goal,solid planning, political will and moral integrity that determine in the end whether the NEM is a good model, meddle or muddle. Shortcomings notwithstanding, I wish the NEM every success in realizing its various noble intentions enunciated therein.
The NEM seems to be more of a statement of good intentions, almost bordering on a wish list of what could be nice to have for our economy. Take for instance the reference to the 6 key transformation index, coupled with the goals of high income, sustainability, and inclusiveness with no groups being left out in partaking the fruits of development. There is not much to discuss, to disagree on all these tempting prospects. All sound minded citizens would like to have a higher income, what more doubling it in say ten years. All of us would love a good public transport system, the check of corruption, more vibrant private and public sector, better education system, work force training and upgrading, fair competition and equal opportunities for all, a better balance between good economy and good life for all, In short, the NEM promises everything to everybody.
Another notable feature of the NEM, at least as expounded by the PM in his speech, is the profusion of generalities, precepts and rather vague pronouncements, at least in the context of an economic model which ought to be clear, rational and pragmatic in terms of means and ends. I admit there are parts of the speech which are clear, but where the speech is clear, it merely touches on basic precepts or fundamentals of nation building which should be part and parcel of the nation's build up, regardless of ‘model’. Some examples should include higher income, better education, better quality workforce, national resilience and less ‘dependence’ on foreigners, transparency in economic development, people’s involvement in development process, equal opportunity for all, the need to be bold and courageous in adjusting to the contemporary challenges, and many more really! Again, of course we agree to all these, and yet we are left wondering as to the real import of these pronouncements, what are their contextual operational meaning, how would they be implemented and what form would it take when finally translated into reality.
Apart from the mere statement of good intention and generalities in many places, there are few aspects of the NEM I should like to highlight and comment on. Obviously the NEM sets a high priority on attracting foreign investments into the Malaysian economy. Many of the main features of the NEM had been put in place precisely to appease the demands of foreign capital. The liquid and free nature of foreign capital is of course part of the reality of the global economy. Foreign capital can be one of the major factor is spurring the economy of a developing nation. However, we need to be mindful that it is not the panacea to all economic ills, and history had shown that clearly.
There are nations and economies in which foreign capital had been a major contributor to development, while there are just as many where foreign capital merely led to parasitic relationships that simply drains and sapped the host nations or economies dry. There are many examples from the experience of South American nations and other parts of the world, constituting the developing nations. Ultimately, it is not the presence or absence of foreign capital that is crucial but the management of the relationship and the dynamics between host nation and foreign capitals. This would be the final determinant. Study the cases of successful Southeast Asian and Asian nations in this regards.
The NEM also places much faith and reliance on the private sector in spurring the Malaysian economy. I take it that the NEM proposed to corporatize MIDA in line with this spirit. Again it is a fact that in all capitalistic or liberal economy, it is the private sector which functions as one of the main engines of economic development and growth. Again it must be said that corporatizing public institutions is not by itself a panacea to all our problems. What is crucial in public agencies or corporations is good leadership and good management. Without this, all institutions, public or corporate, cannot function as effectively or dynamically as we hope. More importantly, public or corporate, all institutions would be crippled and paralyzed by corruption and vested interests. This is where the government should be more mindful of in overseeing its institutions and agencies, public and private. If at all, without this all important pre-requisite, corruption would even be more rampant in corporatized institutions, where there are greater opportunities for corruption and abuses with less public scrutiny and control.
Under the NEM, the EPF would be allowed to invest abroad or globally. I admit that many opportunities abroad beckon our investment, but so are the great risks associated with them. What with all the memories of the mega scandals that had sparked the present financial crisis globally. Are our fund managers and captain of industries, capable enough to overcome the hazards of a global player? Please don't misconstrue my point as lacking confidence in our financial experts and captain of industries. But we know how many Gulf States economies are in hot soup today due to inexperience and uninformed ‘ aggression’ in investment. I have not even discussed the scruple factor in ensuring good and profitable investment of our hard earned workers fund. Aren't there enough opportunities for local investment, ensuring save returns for our EPF? Are the current investments of the EPF proving to be profitable in all areas that we need to expand abroad and not consolidate locally? I would urge caution here because this idea does not involve just any fund but the hard-earned money of our workers and citizens.If the limitation is a question of law and enactment, these can be amended on good grounds.
Listening to the speech, there is the nagging feeling of irreconcilable principles and precepts. In the PMs speech inaugurating the NEM, there is the pledge of affirmative action, of ‘welfarism’ , in the same vein as meritocracy and corporate adventurism. There is admission on the part of the PM that the NEP had served the nation well, but he feels the need now to give it a new context. What could the new contextualisation of the NEP within the NEM? There are not many specifics and explanation. I tend to deduce the following from the whole spirit and tenor of the text of the speech. Can it be that the NEM is opting for something we might term as ‘ selective affirmative action’? In the past the NEP was inaugurated with objectives of eradicating poverty and restructuring the economy, but ended in the end as the ideology of Malay capitalists or corporate interests. Patronage of Malay businesses was a deviant and a departure from the original intent and goals of the NEP then. Has the NEM decided to legitimize and ‘formalise’ these departures and deviance of the NEP and make them integral part of its vision and mission? Putting it differently, the ‘contextualization’ of the NEP enunciated by the NEM could be the withdrawal of affirmative action for Malays in general and reaffirming it only for Malay capitalism and corporate interests. We got a hint of this scenario when it had been said in earlier speeches and announcements on 'liberalisation'of the economy that government help and fund would be available only for ‘capable Malays’, which would invariably mean Malays who had made it ‘big’ in the Malaysian corporate scene. Is this a fair assumption and inference on my part?
In the end, what matters for our economic growth is good leadership, good intention, good plan to realize it; honest management and implementation, the indomitable will to translate vision into reality, lots of scruples and compassion for national interests, of all citizens regardless of race and religion. Without these vital ingredients, any plan whatsoever is doomed to failure, in the end accumulating a host of bitter baggage, far from achieving better economy and better life for all.Without clear vision and principles, backed by resolve and scruples to see them through,any 'plan' would degenerate into just a question of medling and tinkering around with existing institutions, and mudling through under the guise of 'consulting and listening' to the people. It is clear goal,solid planning, political will and moral integrity that determine in the end whether the NEM is a good model, meddle or muddle. Shortcomings notwithstanding, I wish the NEM every success in realizing its various noble intentions enunciated therein.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fool's guide to political economy and economic model-(post 2)
In the previous posting, we had seen how an otherwise historically sound and necessary policy degenerated into a racial policy, which in turn generated great racial or communal tension in the nation. Malay elite with vested interests justified them in the name of all Malays along communal line, while non-Malay elite with vested interests denounced all legitimate Malay interests in the name of their community along communal line too. The sum total of it all is that the DEB or NEP emerged as one of the most contentious single issue in Malaysian history. It became so contentious that we Malaysians forgot some basic truths or our nation, namely: a) there are many fair and broadminded Malays arguing for legitimate Malay interests, b) there are many fair and broadminded non-Malays arguing for legitimate non-Malay interests, c) there are many Malay chauvinists seeing everything in racial terms, d) there are many non-Malay chauvinists seeing everything in racial terms. The sad thing is that we had closed our mind to category a) and b), while surrendering it to the conditioning and manipulation of category c) and d), with the dire consequence of surrendering our civic life to chauvinism.
We would soon witness the dawning of another ‘era’, the much anticipated and speculated New Economic Model or NEM. I should like to jot down some comments and response to the idea, as mental notes more for my own understanding.
The timing and circumstances of its introduction is unfortunate. It comes in the aftermath of an electoral debacle and with a strange ‘airing’. There was an announcement of a ‘ big thing ‘ coming, with scanty details, and definitely with little or no public involvement in its genesis. The general public mood created can be reasonably summed up as cynical and skeptical ‘what now?’
The choice of the name ‘New Economic Model’ too invites some reflection. I know many might justifiably argue what’s in a name. On my part I wonder. Is it a reflection of how it sees itself in relation to its predecessor the NEP? It merely changes a word, from ‘policy’ to ‘model’. Is it a case of mere dislike of the word ‘policy’ because of its bureaucratic tenor, while the word ‘model’ is more ‘management-like’, ‘academic’ or ‘sophisticated’?. In other words, is it simply a case of sophistries or an indication of commitment and continuities with the past in the NEP? Is it an indication of ambivalence or ‘dualism’ for the future, for easy and convenient maneuver between the ethos of the NEP and the NEM, depending on occasions and audiences?
The choice of name apart, there is the more substantive issue of principles and development philosophy. To begin with, the New Economic Model should indicate clearly how it sees itself in relation to the New Economic Policy. In some aspects, indeed not wholly, the New Economic Model seems antagonistic to its past. Its closely associated concept of ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ connote this. Liberalism suggests a freeing of from past constraints or ‘shackle’. Does this mean that the NEM does not feel a commitment to the issues and concerns of the NEP? If indeed, the NEM dissociates itself completely from past issues and principles, what would these be? ‘Eradication of poverty’ and ‘restructuring the economy, these being the main objectives of the NEP? The new slogan of ‘meritocracy’, interlaced with condescending rhetoric on the Malay lack of competitive spirit, certainly doesn’t help in projecting the NEM as a multiracial policy. It is the old argument of Malay elite with vested interests under the NEP, as well as the all time favourite of non-Malay chauvinists.
The simple truth is that, while there is a self-serving elite that waxed riches from corruption and cronyism, most Malaysians of all races, Malays and non-Malays, have to and do ‘compete’ to earn a decent leaving. Sloganeering under ‘liberalisation’ and ‘meritocracy’ without genuine understanding and commitment to the principles will merely lends itself readily the wild swinging of the pendulum between ‘ pro-Malay’ NEP and the ‘pro-non-Malay NEM’. Before we know it, we are back to the basic discourse of chauvinism that continually haunts our nation.
We would soon witness the dawning of another ‘era’, the much anticipated and speculated New Economic Model or NEM. I should like to jot down some comments and response to the idea, as mental notes more for my own understanding.
The timing and circumstances of its introduction is unfortunate. It comes in the aftermath of an electoral debacle and with a strange ‘airing’. There was an announcement of a ‘ big thing ‘ coming, with scanty details, and definitely with little or no public involvement in its genesis. The general public mood created can be reasonably summed up as cynical and skeptical ‘what now?’
The choice of the name ‘New Economic Model’ too invites some reflection. I know many might justifiably argue what’s in a name. On my part I wonder. Is it a reflection of how it sees itself in relation to its predecessor the NEP? It merely changes a word, from ‘policy’ to ‘model’. Is it a case of mere dislike of the word ‘policy’ because of its bureaucratic tenor, while the word ‘model’ is more ‘management-like’, ‘academic’ or ‘sophisticated’?. In other words, is it simply a case of sophistries or an indication of commitment and continuities with the past in the NEP? Is it an indication of ambivalence or ‘dualism’ for the future, for easy and convenient maneuver between the ethos of the NEP and the NEM, depending on occasions and audiences?
The choice of name apart, there is the more substantive issue of principles and development philosophy. To begin with, the New Economic Model should indicate clearly how it sees itself in relation to the New Economic Policy. In some aspects, indeed not wholly, the New Economic Model seems antagonistic to its past. Its closely associated concept of ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ connote this. Liberalism suggests a freeing of from past constraints or ‘shackle’. Does this mean that the NEM does not feel a commitment to the issues and concerns of the NEP? If indeed, the NEM dissociates itself completely from past issues and principles, what would these be? ‘Eradication of poverty’ and ‘restructuring the economy, these being the main objectives of the NEP? The new slogan of ‘meritocracy’, interlaced with condescending rhetoric on the Malay lack of competitive spirit, certainly doesn’t help in projecting the NEM as a multiracial policy. It is the old argument of Malay elite with vested interests under the NEP, as well as the all time favourite of non-Malay chauvinists.
The simple truth is that, while there is a self-serving elite that waxed riches from corruption and cronyism, most Malaysians of all races, Malays and non-Malays, have to and do ‘compete’ to earn a decent leaving. Sloganeering under ‘liberalisation’ and ‘meritocracy’ without genuine understanding and commitment to the principles will merely lends itself readily the wild swinging of the pendulum between ‘ pro-Malay’ NEP and the ‘pro-non-Malay NEM’. Before we know it, we are back to the basic discourse of chauvinism that continually haunts our nation.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The fool's guide to our political economy and economic model-(post 1)
Today we are earnestly searching for an economic model. I presume then the existing model is deemed unsuitable and unacceptable by the people, or simply no longer relevant to our nation’s needs (depending on who define what these needs are).I have to presume this because the desire to change economic models can be due to many other considerations, such as political expedience, both internally (electoral votes?) and externally (foreign investments?), which does not necessarily mean the economic wellbeing of the citizens at large.
Before we discuss the new model, let us understand the old hag of an economic model, ordinarily referred to as the NEP( New Economic Policy). The best way to achieve this is to see the background and the rationale of it.
Once upon a time, before the dawning of the NEP, the economic model was ironically more ‘liberal’ in the sense ‘the market’ was given a free reign, without much state intervention in the present sense. The catch phrase or principle then was ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’. Check all the major writings and documents of the era and you will see the great influence of this formula on the thinking of the time. This principle of course had its origins in colonial times, when it was assumed that Malays are inherently rural folks, peasants, country bumpkins, who could not be otherwise. They are at best suitable as fishermen, padi planters, as food producers for the city, while the better off aspired only to be civil servants or penghulus. The pre-NEP era after independence continued this planning principle of ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’. Racial stereotypes reinforced this principle and vice-versa the principle engendered and reinforced the stereotypes that Malays ‘cannot compete’, while the Chinese are ‘money grabbers’ who are natural businessmen as fish in water, on whom the destiny of the nation’s economy should and must depend.
The inevitable consequence of this principle was an economic pattern and development along ethnic lines, which conformed to the lopsidedness that attends the gap between rural peasant economy and modern industrial, capitalistic sector, a notable feature of which is the glaring gap in income and economic standing, with all its social and political implications.
The 1969 General Election shocked the nation into realization that the social, political and economic gap among ethnic groups was unhealthy for nation building. The naivety of the principle ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’ was generally felt and understood. The reality was that the Malays wanted to be rich and have a piece of the pie in the industrial corporate sector, while the Chinese and non-Malays did not content themselves only with economic power. As citizens they had political power and understandably wanted a say in the running of the nation. There was introspection among Malaysians, Malay and non-Malays, that an imbalance economic development along racial or ethnic lines was a serious obstacle to nation building . The gap had to be corrected or redressed. Hence we had the declared objectives of the NEP, namely to eradicate poverty and restructure the economy so as to prevent the identification of economic activities along ethnic lines.
Few important points need to be highlighted here. The NEP then was really meant to be a plan for social and economic reconstruction to redress specific problems. It set out to correct colonial legacy and the economic imbalance it bequeathed. Some would correctly see it as a plan of social justice, to redress economic and social imbalance. In this respect the NEP did not have a racial or ethnic basis, its main concern being social justice and economic reform. It had racial or ethnic reference only by virtue of the nature of the problems it set out to redress, since economic disparity was in fact closely along ethnic lines. In spirit and principle, however, the NEP should and could have been implemented to eradicate poverty and stimulate economic growth regardless of race or ethnicity by a principled, enlightened and just elite.
The evolution of the NEP however took a sad turn. In the hand of an opportunistic and greedy elite, it quickly turned into a racket of sort, camouflaging and justifying itself in the name of the Malay masses. I do not have to dwell too much on this episode in this fool’s guide, for it is by now a common knowledge, even for a fool. It suffices for me to say that in the end, the 'metamorphosis' of NEP led to the following situations: a) The aim of eradicating poverty had been marginalised and not been significantly achieved, b) the target of restructuring the economy likewise had not been realised in a meaningful way, c) the Malay masses had not benefited much by the policy, while being stigmatized as being over dependent and ‘spoilt’ ( in countless versions and renderings like ‘subsidy mentality’, ‘ crutch mentality’, etc), d) due to the abuses in its name, the NEP developed a negative image and assumed a racial character, with its own unique ethos, in the name of which influential, rich and middle-class Malays justify their vested interests, e) the NEP engendered much resentment among the non-Malays, and understandably, as they see only the exploitative and acquisitive side of the NEP, most remote from its original aims and spirit, f) far from improving ethnic relations, the racketing image of NEP in fact deepened it.
The 2008 General Election, the result of which almost mirrored the results of 1969, spurred another bout of this ‘electoral conscience’ and introspection amongst our elite, just as it did in 1969. Once again the elite undertake a frantic hasty search for a new economic model purportedly to redress some ‘imbalance’.
This raises many pertinent questions. I should like to touch on these in my next posting as I think my posting shouldn’t be too long and imposing on reader’s time or attention. I leave you with one question for now: Shouldn’t we distinguish the NEP, the policy and its spirit, from the abuses of it? In this respect, do we change the policy or check the abuses of it and the vested interests therein? Is the goal of alleviating poverty, rural and urban, no longer relevant? Has the problem of economic imbalance along racial or ethnic line been resolved and no longer a concern? More importantly we should be mindful that with or without a new model, the same opportunism and greed that hijacked and derailed the NEP could only promise failure and disaster for the future. There is no model capable of weathering the rot and decline inflicted by corruption and vested interests. If I may put it in a different way, had the NEP been implemented in a scrupulous, just and enlightened way, regardless of race or ethnicity, we could be in a better stead today, be it economically or as a nation.
The fool’s guide is to be continued…
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
I never cease to wonder ...
There had been many noteworthy news and events over the last one month or so in our public life. My own personal circumstances however do not permit me to respond to each of them separately, yet I feel compelled to respond in one form or another. So I figure some brief notes may suffice, lest these news and events pass me by without recording some response in my blog
Of course the public is following the case of Anwar Ibrahim on the sodomy charge with much interest, only to have their enthusiasm dampened somewhat by the technicalities raised by the defense over the judge’s impartiality or the lack of it. When the judge refused to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt of court over its reporting of the case, the defense contended that was a measure of bias against the defense, rendering the judge unsuitable to preside over the case. The defense filed that the judge concerned should recuse himself. This stratagem seems to be very much favored by the defense, who had extended its application to the RM100m defamation suit brought by Anwar Ibrahim against Dr Mahathir Muhammad.
For my own mental note, I call this stratagem ‘judging the judge’. Law students and aspiring lawyers should note some of the possible effects of ‘judging the judge’. It is very effective as delaying tactics as it compels the court to sidetrack to other issues besides the main case. As a stratagem, ‘judging the judge’ is very effective also in bridging the gap between the legal and the political. Where political groups had alleged that a particular case is politically motivated, ‘judging the judge’ serves to reinforce the aspersions cast against the authority and the judiciary outside the court, within the framework of legality and the trial process itself. Another possible advantage of ‘judging the judge’ would be to exercise some degree of influence in the selection of a judge more favorable to its advocate.
Which reminds me of another issue generating much news and responses. 50 members of the Australian parliament had demanded that the sodomy case against Anwar Ibrahim be dropped. There are many other news in the opposition run media that certain groups and personalities the world over had made similar demands. While opposition affiliated groups are hyper sensitive to alleged interferences of the government in the case, they seemed to invite and welcome such ‘intervention’ by foreigners. Such intervention of foreigners had been publicized by them as being loft y and concern for justice. Clearly this is all orchestrated and is part of the move to politicize the sodomy case against Anwar. On my part, I see the contradiction on the part of the opposition. While ever picky on alleged government interferences, they don’t seem to feel the indignity of being patronized by foreigners in our own internal affairs. In fact such foreign meddling has gone much well beyond ‘interfering ‘to the point of demanding the case be dropped altogether!
Lately the management and administrative tool of ranking had been utilized in a rather bizarre way in politics. Opposition news work was in euphoria over a ranking which placed Nik Aziz of PAS in the top 500 Muslim thinkers in the world, while Anwar Ibrahim even higher up within the top 40. The opposition had been careful to point out, obviously tongue in cheek, that no BN leaders had been placed anywhere worthy of note. I think we should know better than to fall for this, hook and sinker. We know ranking is often abused as a tool to influence or condition public evaluation in a manipulative way. Just fix the questionnaires or the basis of evaluation in a way that gets you the result you want. Having achieved this, use the result itself to condition (or con) the public towards your own evaluation or conclusion. The term or appellate ‘thinker’ is by convention best reserved for great scholars or intellectuals who had bequeathed some great tradition or heritage to their society or humanity. Their works are generally acknowledged for their great depth or wisdom, capable standing the test of time. Normally the ‘greatness’of such thinkers are not amenable to ‘ranking’ in a mechanical and superficial manner, as in the case referred to above. The naivety of such ranking makes one wonder, is it a case of ‘thinker’ or ‘tinker’ that is being dished out to the public!
About a week ago, the Sun dated 23 February 2010 published an interesting case in the headline. This involved the case of Mr Lye Piang Yin, 71, a retiree who had been given back the title to his land in Hulu Langat, which was stolen from him in the words of the Sun ‘ through the hidden hands of government officers and individuals’. Here, I am not so much concerned with the legal aspects and the details of the case. For these, I refer readers to the copy of the Sun. But in other respects, the case should send shivers down our spine. Judging by this case, all property owners could very easily lose their properties.
This is how, in parallel to the shocking case of Mr Lye Piang Yin. Without your knowledge, some crooks register you as the director of Company X. Then by forgery of documents and signature, the fictitious director transfer the land to the company in exchange for the company shares. After that the fictitious director is ‘arranged’ to resign from the company ( of course leaving all his stakes and land in the company) , being replaced by some dishonest element as director. The new replacement director then sells the land to another party outside the Company X. The buyer or the new owner of the land is then quickly appointed as director in Company X. Hence, to cut a long story short, in this manner you can simply wake up one morning to discover that you are simply no longer the owner of your property! Mr. Lye Piang Yin was fortunate there had been a recent court decision which made the return of his land possible. Can you believe that until recently the position of the law actually favored the frauds. Before the legal loophole was plugged, had the buyer bought the land in good faith from the frauds with no inkling of the illegality, good title would have passed on to the buyer, depriving the original owner of his title. In this respect, to a certain extent, it can be said that a ‘good’ fraud who can convince his client that ‘ all is well’ would have been rewarded by the law and stood to gain by his crooked ways.
This reminds me of an interesting posting by Che Det. I read it as ‘how to pilfer a government linked company’. The details run as follows. Proton bought a motorcycle company for more than RM500m. Then somehow the company ‘became’ unprofitable and a huge liability. In response Proton sold it to a mysterious Italian for US1. The new owner sold the company to Harley Davidson for about RM628m. Hence from Proton’s point of view, theRM500m, the initial cost of buying the motorcycle company , simply vanished, evaporated, but somehow reappeared in somebody else’s coffer, with a further RM128m profit to boot! I am at a loss for words…
Of course the public is following the case of Anwar Ibrahim on the sodomy charge with much interest, only to have their enthusiasm dampened somewhat by the technicalities raised by the defense over the judge’s impartiality or the lack of it. When the judge refused to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt of court over its reporting of the case, the defense contended that was a measure of bias against the defense, rendering the judge unsuitable to preside over the case. The defense filed that the judge concerned should recuse himself. This stratagem seems to be very much favored by the defense, who had extended its application to the RM100m defamation suit brought by Anwar Ibrahim against Dr Mahathir Muhammad.
For my own mental note, I call this stratagem ‘judging the judge’. Law students and aspiring lawyers should note some of the possible effects of ‘judging the judge’. It is very effective as delaying tactics as it compels the court to sidetrack to other issues besides the main case. As a stratagem, ‘judging the judge’ is very effective also in bridging the gap between the legal and the political. Where political groups had alleged that a particular case is politically motivated, ‘judging the judge’ serves to reinforce the aspersions cast against the authority and the judiciary outside the court, within the framework of legality and the trial process itself. Another possible advantage of ‘judging the judge’ would be to exercise some degree of influence in the selection of a judge more favorable to its advocate.
Which reminds me of another issue generating much news and responses. 50 members of the Australian parliament had demanded that the sodomy case against Anwar Ibrahim be dropped. There are many other news in the opposition run media that certain groups and personalities the world over had made similar demands. While opposition affiliated groups are hyper sensitive to alleged interferences of the government in the case, they seemed to invite and welcome such ‘intervention’ by foreigners. Such intervention of foreigners had been publicized by them as being loft y and concern for justice. Clearly this is all orchestrated and is part of the move to politicize the sodomy case against Anwar. On my part, I see the contradiction on the part of the opposition. While ever picky on alleged government interferences, they don’t seem to feel the indignity of being patronized by foreigners in our own internal affairs. In fact such foreign meddling has gone much well beyond ‘interfering ‘to the point of demanding the case be dropped altogether!
Lately the management and administrative tool of ranking had been utilized in a rather bizarre way in politics. Opposition news work was in euphoria over a ranking which placed Nik Aziz of PAS in the top 500 Muslim thinkers in the world, while Anwar Ibrahim even higher up within the top 40. The opposition had been careful to point out, obviously tongue in cheek, that no BN leaders had been placed anywhere worthy of note. I think we should know better than to fall for this, hook and sinker. We know ranking is often abused as a tool to influence or condition public evaluation in a manipulative way. Just fix the questionnaires or the basis of evaluation in a way that gets you the result you want. Having achieved this, use the result itself to condition (or con) the public towards your own evaluation or conclusion. The term or appellate ‘thinker’ is by convention best reserved for great scholars or intellectuals who had bequeathed some great tradition or heritage to their society or humanity. Their works are generally acknowledged for their great depth or wisdom, capable standing the test of time. Normally the ‘greatness’of such thinkers are not amenable to ‘ranking’ in a mechanical and superficial manner, as in the case referred to above. The naivety of such ranking makes one wonder, is it a case of ‘thinker’ or ‘tinker’ that is being dished out to the public!
About a week ago, the Sun dated 23 February 2010 published an interesting case in the headline. This involved the case of Mr Lye Piang Yin, 71, a retiree who had been given back the title to his land in Hulu Langat, which was stolen from him in the words of the Sun ‘ through the hidden hands of government officers and individuals’. Here, I am not so much concerned with the legal aspects and the details of the case. For these, I refer readers to the copy of the Sun. But in other respects, the case should send shivers down our spine. Judging by this case, all property owners could very easily lose their properties.
This is how, in parallel to the shocking case of Mr Lye Piang Yin. Without your knowledge, some crooks register you as the director of Company X. Then by forgery of documents and signature, the fictitious director transfer the land to the company in exchange for the company shares. After that the fictitious director is ‘arranged’ to resign from the company ( of course leaving all his stakes and land in the company) , being replaced by some dishonest element as director. The new replacement director then sells the land to another party outside the Company X. The buyer or the new owner of the land is then quickly appointed as director in Company X. Hence, to cut a long story short, in this manner you can simply wake up one morning to discover that you are simply no longer the owner of your property! Mr. Lye Piang Yin was fortunate there had been a recent court decision which made the return of his land possible. Can you believe that until recently the position of the law actually favored the frauds. Before the legal loophole was plugged, had the buyer bought the land in good faith from the frauds with no inkling of the illegality, good title would have passed on to the buyer, depriving the original owner of his title. In this respect, to a certain extent, it can be said that a ‘good’ fraud who can convince his client that ‘ all is well’ would have been rewarded by the law and stood to gain by his crooked ways.
This reminds me of an interesting posting by Che Det. I read it as ‘how to pilfer a government linked company’. The details run as follows. Proton bought a motorcycle company for more than RM500m. Then somehow the company ‘became’ unprofitable and a huge liability. In response Proton sold it to a mysterious Italian for US1. The new owner sold the company to Harley Davidson for about RM628m. Hence from Proton’s point of view, theRM500m, the initial cost of buying the motorcycle company , simply vanished, evaporated, but somehow reappeared in somebody else’s coffer, with a further RM128m profit to boot! I am at a loss for words…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
