Bumpy road to Bangsa Malaysia
Bumpy road to Bangsa Malaysia
Ethnic-based economic policies will undermine the objective of promoting national unity, warns Terence Gomez.The problem of growing intra-ethnic inequalities is evidence enough that government policies should be aimed at helping all groups in need, regardless of race.
In his appointment as prime minister, Abdullah Badawi declared his intent to promote a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and to reform the economy. Few Malaysians doubted his sincerity, as was evident in the Barisan Nasional’s subsequent resounding victory during the 2004 general elections. But the much-anticipated Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), Abdullah’s first blueprint for moulding a new Malaysia, characterised by a ‘developed and united nation…confident in its own capabilities’, has been widely acknowledged as a disappointment.
A number of grounds have been cited for this disappointment. But the primary flaw with the 9MP is that it appears to be inspired by a Malay – or an UMNO – agenda, rather than a vision that would serve ultimately to unify a country that, if recent polls are correct, is still deeply divided along racial lines.
There are other criticisms that can be made about the 9MP. The first problem is that Abdullah remains convinced by two ideas that have long characterised policy planning of an UMNO-led government. First, that sustained economic growth is fundamental to resolving social inequities in Malaysia. And second, that through its policies, the government can achieve its different goals, with few trade-offs. For example, the government believes that it can simultaneously promote social cohesion and Bumiputera capital without jeopardising either endeavour.
The second major problem with the 9MP is that, while former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was obviously fixated with the idea that the solution to sustained economic growth was private sector liberalisation and privatisation, Abdullah’s major policy recommendations also conform with this idea - although he originally appeared to be somewhat of a different bent. The 9MP does include the reforms proposed by Abdullah when he rose to the premiership. But the Plan’s economic recommendations remain largely couched within the framework of previous policies that have resoundingly failed to achieve their objectives.
Growth and equity
The major economic policies proposed by the Mahathir administration included privatisation, the promotion of Bumiputera capitalists, and the creation of Malaysian conglomerates. With the exception of the need to support the rise of conglomerates, the 9MP persists with the other two policies.
The failure of privatisation, which was closely linked to the promotion of Bumiputera capitalists, is now well recorded. The re-nationalisation of major projects - such as the Bakun Dam and the national sewerage project, and the government’s decision to acquire control of major privatised enterprises such as Malaysia Airlines, Celcom, and United Engineers (M) (UEM), which operates the North-South Highway - are outstanding examples of such costly mistakes. There is little evidence to suggest that privatisation has improved efficiency, nor has the private sector shown the capacity to finance projects involving a high capital outlay. Furthermore, implementation of privatisation has been replete with allegations of favouritism, nepotism, and patronage involving business people closely aligned to UMNO leaders.
One of UMNO’s major objectives has long been the creation of a new breed of dynamic Bumiputera entrepreneurs, known in policy terms as the ‘Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community’ (BCIC). The BCIC continues to be promoted in its original form with only one substantial change: there is now a new emphasis on small - and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs), a sector largely ignored by Mahathir. The 9MP insists that the BCIC will serve as the primary mechanism for ensuring greater Bumiputera participation in the economy, though it is also supposed to aid the government’s endeavour to restructure society and eradicate poverty.
To achieve these goals, the government’s methods include the promotion of Malaysian-type industries, such as the production of batik and songket. This is an innovative idea as it helps draw attention to potentially lucrative cottage industries, dominated by poor and rural Bumiputeras. Similarly, the 9MP will attempt to encourage focus on Islamic-type products, for example, by developing a niche market in halal food. Enterprises in this sector, the government believes, will be able to create export capacity if well developed.
These new industries promoted by the government to encourage Malay capital and eradicate poverty are novel. But the BCIC, now nearly two decades into its implementation, has failed to advance the rise of an independent Bumiputera business community. This is evident in the government’s own figures on the number of businesses in key sectors of the economy owned by Bumiputeras.
Entrepreneurship
One solution to this problem has been the establishment of the Institut Keusahawanan Negara (National Entrepreneurship Institute) as a means to help train the young and to cultivate entrepreneurs. It is extremely doubtful, however, if entrepreneurship can be nurtured through the sort of training provided by such institutes. More importantly, the poor state of Malay capital in the country reflects the inability of government institutions such as the Entrepreneur Development Ministry to cultivate new entrepreneurs - a lesson that has not yet dawned on the government.
By continuing to focus primarily on the promotion of Bumiputera capital and the creation of a new breed of competent Malay business people, the 9MP has missed the opportunity to create alternative mechanisms for promoting domestic capital and entrepreneurship in Malaysia. By persisting with the BCIC, the government is reinforcing an old problem – the bypassing of potentially lucrative entrepreneurial ventures, merely because these do not involve Bumiputeras. Moreover, if the government hopes to build domestic entrepreneurial capacity, it cannot afford to continue to marginalise the most dynamic businesses. The government is also now probably well aware - based on the experience of having implemented the New Economic Policy (NEP) and witnessing the rise of Ali-Baba firms - that inter-ethnic business partnerships, forced or coerced into being by the dictates of policy, are simply not going to be sustainable.
To help nurture and develop small firms, the only new major recommendation in the 9MP is the establishment and active promotion of the SME Bank. The reason SMEs have not been able to develop in a manner that equips them with export capacity and the ability to develop brand products is not their inadequate access to loans. These deficiencies prevail among SMEs primarily because they have not invested adequately in research and development (R&D). It is also well known that many SMEs owned by the Chinese are reluctant to approach banks for loans for fear of the need to divulge information that they feel can be used to their detriment. Cash flow-based funding by the SME Bank, as is being recommended by the government, is in itself an inadequate measure to help promote the rapid development of a vibrant SME sector.
Vendor system
Another policy mechanism that has long been implemented with little success and now repeated in the 9MP is the use of the vendor system. In this case, however, the government plans to tie SMEs to large-scale enterprises and government-linked companies (GLCs), to help small firms gain greater access to the market. The government has also encouraged companies which produce disposable goods to market them through hypermarkets, most of which are controlled by foreign firms. One drawback to this recommendation is that it could stifle foreign investment.
The vendor system was a core component of Malaysia’s car project, Proton. To promote Bumiputera enterprises, firms owned by members of this community were chosen to supply Proton with locally produced goods for the national car. This vendor system was not, however, successful in developing the rise of Bumiputera firms in the car industry. Neither did it help ensure that Proton model cars were equipped with quality material produced at affordable rates, ultimately undermining the national car project. The Proton vendor system suggests that an attempt to anchor fledgling firms on to established enterprises may end up only weakening the prospects of the latter.
Reforming GLCs
Apart from the promotion of SMEs, the 9MP’s other major departure from the Mahathir administration’s approach is Abdullah’s attempt to utilise the GLCs more efficiently to generate economic growth. Reform of the GLCs is imperative as one outcome of the failure of privatisation was the use of government-owned entities to acquire failed privatised enterprises. The GLCs are currently among the major shareholders of a number of Malaysia’s leading listed firms, including utilities such as TM (Telekom Malaysia) and power supplier Tenaga Nasional; the country’s leading banks, Malayan Banking and Bumiputra Commerce Bank; the national oil corporation Petronas’ gas producer, Petronas Gas; the national shipping line Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC); and well-diversified Sime Darby.
Reform of the GLCs through the mere introduction of key performance indexes (KPIs) is, however, not sufficient to get them to perform efficiently and resourcefully in the economy. The question of the pattern of control of the GLCs is one that is crucial. One persistent criticism of the GLCs is that the professionals appointed by the government to manage these firms have reputedly little autonomy when it comes to decision-making on major matters. This issue of control is also significant as there have been persistent allegations of interference by senior or influential politicians in the running of the GLCs. Since the government owns and controls the GLCs that have an enormous interest in companies quoted on the Bursa Malaysia, an independent watchdog would need to be established to ensure that these firms are independently and professionally managed. This would also help the government counter allegations of abuse of the GLCs for the vested interests of influential politicians.
Ethnic relations and wealth inequities
While the 9MP espouses the goal of unifying the nation, it continues to perpetuate a discourse on equitable wealth distribution along racial lines. For example, on the issue of wealth disparities, the 9MP expresses concern that the Chinese have twice the volume of equity owned by Bumiputeras. The Plan does not, however, go on to explain why this is the case even though affirmative action has long been instituted to achieve wealth parity among all ethnic groups.
A number of reasons can be cited for this disparity in wealth between these two communities. These include the decline of Bumiputera capital following the 1997 currency crisis because of their over-dependence on loans to finance growth, the failure of privatisation to promote Malay-owned enterprises, and the re-nationalisation of conglomerates controlled by Bumiputeras. The government also fails to note a point that Mahathir recognised and acknowledged rather belatedly during his long tenure: that the Chinese have continued to thrive in business in spite of the NEP because they have persistently been exposed to the rigours of competition. The emphasis of the 9MP should have been on exposing Bumiputera-owned firms to competition, to enable them to hone and secure the skills they need to survive independently.
Although the 9MP maintains that the Bumiputeras are still a long way off from attaining the NEP goal of owning 30 per cent of Malaysia’s corporate equity, the government’s figures on wealth distribution can be disputed. For example, individual Bumiputeras and the government were said to own 51.7 per cent and 31.2 per cent respectively of privatised entities, which would presumably include firms like TM, Tenaga Nasional, and MISC, at the end of 2005. Non-Bumiputeras, on the other hand, owned only 8.9 per cent of such equity. Since the government holds this equity on behalf of Bumiputeras, the total volume of privatised firms attributable to this community would amount to a colossal 82.9 per cent. Yet, the Plan also insists that the volume of corporate assets owned by Bumiputeras has not increased from 19 per cent between 2000 and 2004.
It is also odd that even though the GLCs are majority shareholders of the largest companies quoted on the Bursa Malaysia, it is the non-Bumiputeras who are listed as owning more equity than the Bumiputeras. The 9MP also states that nominee companies own a massive 8 per cent of corporate equity, even more than that owned by Bumiputera institutions, which hold only 2.2 per cent of such wealth. Numerous studies have noted that well-connected business people, politicians, and political parties use nominee companies to shield their ownership of corporate equity from the public view. If the government now claims to advocate a more open and transparent corporate system, it tarnishes this assertion by continuing to retain and permit the practice of using nominee companies.
While the government maintains that non-Bumiputeras, in particular the Chinese, own more than double the equity attributed to Bumiputeras, the perception among non-Malays is that they have little control over the economy. Non-Bumiputeras also harbour insecurities about property rights over their assets. This is a serious problem because such perceptions and insecurities will ultimately lead to lost opportunities for the government to promote the rise of dynamic domestic entrepreneurs who can drive economic growth.
As for the ethnic Indian community, the government has noted that its ownership of equity has not increased in any appreciable manner since 1970. The 9MP now proposes to ensure that this community will come to own 3 per cent of total national wealth within the next decade. The government’s continuing fixation with figures like 3 per cent for Indians and 30 per cent for Bumiputeras is baffling. Even if the government achieves its target of Indian ownership of 3 per cent of corporate wealth, it is highly unlikely that this equity will be evenly distributed among all members of this community. In the case of the Bumiputeras, one outcome of their increased ownership of corporate wealth, from 2.4 per cent in 1970 to 18.9 per cent in 2004, has been the creation of a serious intra-ethnic class difference. The government appears unaware or unwilling to accede that ethnically based corporate ownership figures such as 3 per cent or 30 per cent mean little or nothing in terms of ensuring equitable wealth distribution for Malaysians.
These figures in the 9MP also reveal that the government remains convinced that it can develop Malay capital, eradicate poverty, and achieve national unity simultaneously. It is highly unlikely that these objectives can be achieved concurrently, especially if there are policies favouring one community over the other.
Good governance and 'Bangsa Malaysia'
The issues raised here, such as the manner of privatisation, the limited independence of the GLCs’ executives, and the use of nominee companies indicate that one issue that needs serious consideration is form of governance. According to the 9MP, ‘good governance’ will be encouraged through a review of legislation and by establishing new institutions. Abdullah’s administration has shown a proclivity for establishing institutions to deal with a whole gamut of issues, including promoting entrepreneurship, improving quality of education, and instilling integrity in governance.
These institutions are, however, an inadequate – even unnecessary – response to the problems that the government faces in dealing with the poor quality of entrepreneurship, declining education standards, and rampant corruption in the country. If the government hopes to create a more open and accountable government, there must be devolution of power to agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the Securities Commission (SC) to allow them to act autonomously. The media must be liberalised and oppressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Act (OSA) must be repealed. Malaysians cannot be expected to take seriously the government’s pledge to enforce transparent and accountable governance when power remains concentrated in the office of the executive arm of government.
The 9MP devotes one chapter to creating an ‘efficient public service delivery system’, a clear acknowledgement of the decline in the quality of the civil service. While the government acknowledges the difficulty it faces in terms of institutional capacity to enforce policies, it appears that the mechanism to deal with this problem is greater oversight over the performance of public servants. But the pledge that the ‘big stick’ will be wielded if the civil service does not perform cannot be the solution. The reasons for the noticeable drop in the quality of public service over the past two decades need to be honestly assessed if the government hopes to improve its delivery system.
Towards Bangsa Malaysia?
As for ethnic relations, the 9MP reveals little about how the government hopes to create a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’, one of its key missions. Neither does the Plan appear to create a sense of opportunity for all even though the government claims otherwise. The primary assumption appears to be that if wealth and income are more equitably distributed between all communities, it will then not be difficult to foster national unity. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in the Plan, the government believes that until economic parity between communities is attained, affirmative action will remain a major prerequisite in the implementation of its policies.
For this reason, the 9MP comes across as a Plan that has been framed along racial lines, reinforcing the point that policies are largely conceived and implemented based on (political) consideration of the needs of particular ethnic groups. This ultimately undermines the professed objective of creating a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. The government should be reminded that the issues of nation building and sustainable economic development are closely inter-related and remain inter-dependent on each other. The ‘brain drain’ problem and the limited capacity of domestic enterprises to compete internationally are some of the repercussions of the long-standing implementation of policies that favour one ethnic community over others.
The problem of growing intra-ethnic inequalities, especially serious among Bumiputeras, is evidence enough that government policies should be universal in orientation, developed to help groups in need, regardless of race. Universal-type policies, rather than those that target specific ethnic groups, are also necessary if the government hopes to inspire confidence in all Malaysians that they belong to this nation. Affirmative action, while important and justified when introduced in 1970 to rectify social injustices, can no longer play a vital role along racial lines in helping to promote national unity and identity. The government’s promotion of a unified ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ will only succeed if all Malaysians truly and genuinely believe that they are equal members of their nation.
( Terence Gomez, formerly at the Faculty of Economics, University of Malaya, is now on secondment as Research Coordinator with the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in Geneva.)
Haze from Indonesia fires chokes region, spreads across Pacific
A worsening acrid haze from land-clearing fires in Indonesia on Thursday shut more schools here, disrupted travel in Malaysia and drifted thousands of kilometres across the Pacific, officials said.
The annual illegal burn-off in Indonesia, which officials have been accused of doing little to stop, sees choking smoke billow across the region, with Malaysia, Singapore and southern Thailand usually worst affected.
But on Thursday, the haze had spread 3,600 kilometres (2,250 miles) to smother islands in the western Pacific, authorities there said.
In the US-administered Northern Mariana Islands, the Emergency Management Office said the Indonesian fires were the source of haze over the islands.
In Guam, near to the Northern Marianas, acting governor Tim Villagomez said the haze was likely to persist for several days. Motorists were warned to take extra care because of the poor visibility.
The fires have been raging on jungle-clad Kalimantan, the Indonesian portion of Borneo island, and Sumatra, closing schools in Indonesia, delaying flights and forcing residents to don face masks as they cope with the bad air.
Satellite images taken over Borneo on Wednesday showed that although the number of hotspots -- large areas with high temperatures indicating fires --
had dropped in West and Central Kalimantan to 395, the number in South Kalimantan had more than quadrupled from a day earlier to 561.
"The governor has ordered all schools, from kindergarten to high school, to close as of today (Thursday) and only reopen Monday," said West Kalimantan local official Emmy Putrimas, from the provincial capital Pontianak.
Putrimas said people were wearing masks that were being distributed on the streets to try to cope with the deterioration in air quality.
Schools in Palangkaraya, the capital of neighbouring Central Kalimantan, were closed for three days on Tuesday and an aide to the head of the local education office said that it was likely this would be extended.
In Pontianak, visibility was less than 300 metres (yards) while in Palangkaraya, it was just 200 metres, meteorological officials there said.
Health officials in both provinces have said that more people have been seeking medical help for respiratory ailments in recent weeks.
Flights in Indonesia's affected region have been delayed until midday each day for the past week.
In neighbouring Malaysia's Sarawak state, air quality remained unhealthy in most areas, with Air Pollutant Index readings of between 106 and 188. The index considers haze levels of 100-200 to be unhealthy.
Travel was also affected.
"The helicopter service, a key mode of transport in Sarawak, has been stopped due to poor visibility," an official with the Department of Civil Aviation in Sarawak's capital Kuching told AFP.
Three scheduled flights operated by Malaysia Airlines were also diverted on Wednesday due to poor visibility, he said.
In peninsular Malaysia, locations in five states, including the tourist destination of Malacca, posted unhealthy air quality between 101 and 116, up from two states on Wednesday.
The grey haze also enveloped Singapore on Tuesday.
In 1997-98, the haze cost the Southeast Asian region an estimated 9.0 billion dollars by disrupting air travel and other business activities.
Lee Kuan Yew stirs it up again - 'The “Minister Mentor” ruffles his neighbors’ feathers'
The octogenarian former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew Monday may have issued a grudging but almost unprecedented personal apology for what have been perceived as intemperate remarks about the treatment of the prosperous Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Indonesia.
But for better or worse, Lee has reminded the world again that the island republic, population 4.4 million, is not only a Chinese island in a Malay sea. It is banker, realtor, tinker, tailor and perhaps spy to both as well. Its tentacles run deeply into both countries, integral as they are to Singapore as its hinterland. The Chinese are burrowed into their economies, both to the countries’ vexation and their advantage.
Lee kicked off an ethnic storm in mid-September at the sidelines of International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Singapore when he told a reporter that “our neighbors both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful. They are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalized."
That prompted Malaysia and Indonesia to summon the city-state's ambassadors for an explanation, which in turn led to a climb-down that would have been unthinkable during Lee’s reign as Prime Minister. Lee, now Singapore’s “minister mentor,” apologized in a letter to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, saying, “I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort." ....(more)
Lee Kuan Yew and Pope Benedict XVI - '2 Sides of the Same Coin'
Two major recent events, seemingly quite unrelated in many ways, strikingly bore peculiar similarities in International Diplomacy i.e that of the Pontiff of the Vatican and Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (LKY).
What do the now infamous statements of Pope Benedict XVI and Minister Mentor LKY have in common? Hardly any commonality by way of subject matter, but both equally emotive and divisive, as to be capable of inciting tragic human fallout.
While that may be saying the obvious, another peculiar similarity needs particular attention and emphasis.
Both promptly followed up by offering their open apology and regretted the consequences sparked by their unsolicited remarks.
Equally strikingly similar, both did not actually retract their disparaging remarks. They were only sorry for its consequences but remain stoutly remorseless for saying it.
These are surely amusing phenomena in current International Diplomacy. Being a novice that discipline, I am quite encouraged to naively conclude that it is always a lot easier to just simply blurt out your piece at your target and later apologise, pretentiously regretting of how much your words have caused much discomfort or outrage to those on the receiving end.
Better still if you could deflect actual blame or appease them, by saying that you 'were just quoting or citing an old text' or 'you have not said anything more than what you have said many times before' or 'what you have written in your memoir', which presumably were more venomous, but have failed to elicit similar response.
Having apologized, you finally rest your case to the international community to judge your position. Best if you could finally invoke God - 'to err is human and to forgive Divine'.
Be that as it may, quite frankly, I don’t think we should go to 'war' by statements of this nature. I would even be more daring to say that now that such unsolicited critique have been unfortunately made, this should provide for a real platform for a healthy intellectual discourse or debate to follow suit, so as to critically analyse the proposition or treatise made.
Perchance, by the grace of the Almighty, the outcome of the discourse may be better than its alleged original sinister motive.
The Pontiff provides the platform for international Islamic scholars to engage with the Vatican on any issues pertaining to mutual inter-religious understanding.
To the least, LKY provides me the opportunity to say my piece now and here. As he is entitled to say his without constraint, I should also be allowed to exercise mine without duress. As usual, I will say it without fear or favour.
For both LKY and the leaders of this nation, I would have thought that, within reasonable bound ie barring preemptive attack or regime change, the sooner we debunk the idea of a 'non-interventionist policy' or meddling with other nation's affairs policy, the better it is for all. I may sound simplistic but it is already in vogue globally. Why?
For better or for worse, given the pervasive globalization powered by the menacing ICT, the impact on the global community has not only been on the domain on economy, commercial or cultural but more importantly political.
With democratization happening on a global scale, no nation-states could persist in perpetuating violation of human rights either on her people, let alone on others, without being sanctioned by international or regional bodies.
It goes without saying though, that there exists still one solitary exception. Its usage of both fire-power and overt political intrusion is beyond description.
By the same token, albeit on a lower scale, you simply could not be cobbling your wife or husband or children to death in a domestic violence, yet insisting your neighbour to just mind their own business.
It is no longer tenable. It wasn’t possible before, much less now! It is a social or moral obligation to intervene. With us in PAS, it is first a religious obligation, mandatory by God - enjoining virtues and forbidding vices!.
Having premised my thought, let us critically analyse LKY's remarks. There are arguably many facets to this discussion. I must be selective. The selection is purely mine and surely in keeping with my intention.
Now that the letter of LKY is out in the mainstream media, it is for everyone to examine. The context and audience of his speech has also been explained.
In all fairness, the context of the speech was indeed to convince the audience ie former US Secretary of Treasury and foreign delegates in the IMF/WB meeting, of why Singapore needs a strong government.
Admittedly, despite my respect for his intellectual eloquence and statesmanship, with a few bizarre exceptions, I found that LKY's argument to be rather incoherent insofar as the need to have a strong government ie so as not to be compliant as the compliant-Chinese in both their countries.
What is most perplexing is his need to resort to the notion of the marginalization of the Chinese, presumably both in Indonesia and Malaysia, "caused by them being successful, hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalized, even in education".
I thought that was shrewdly insinuative and 'mischievous' as its causal relation is even more precarious to be established or verified.
It would have made more political sense for LKY to remain focus on his difficult bilateral relationship all these years, be it with the present Premier or his predecessor, in his free-flowing dialogue.
Criticisms across the Causeway, have been exchanged both ways, at times more intense and blistering.
However, it would have been more enlightening to have heard from a Senior Minister about the need and how governments of the South East Asian nations could be equally economically strong and viable, morally credible and free from corrupt and crony practices while remaining socially friendly.
It would surely have served the geo-political and geo-strategic interest of the region better. Who am I to be telling him what to say?
Perhaps it would be necessary to remind LKY that in Malaysia, marginalization cuts across ethnic, culture and religion.
A thorough scrutiny of the Geni-Coefficient of both inter and intra-race will give us a clearer scenario.
The Malays suffer the worst inter and intra-ethnic disparity. That’s a matter of fact.
However, I hasten to add that Positive or Affirmative action should be justly based on needs and merits rather than race or ethnic. Ethnic-based policies are both flawed and are susceptible to gross abuses.
It feeds on narrow partisan interest of the well-connected-politically, be they Malay, Chinese or Indian. I do not need to enumerate their names. It is quite a long list of Malays, Chinese and Indians.
It would be unnecessary to remind LKY that marginalization happens to all ethnic groupings to varying degree. It’s the anti-thesis of Justice and Good Governance. It is powered by corrupt practices, crony capitalism and nepotism.
The fact that the Mentor Minister chose to invoke the much abhorred racial overtone, didn't augur well with many, unless he is a great believer of John Naisbitt’s Global Paradox of the Chinese Commonwealth. That will both presumptuous and unnecessary on my part to presume.
Would it be asking too much from leaders of international standing to wisely use their grey matters in between their ears, before they say their piece please?
The Pope's remarks and LKY's insinuation is now an epitome of sort in current International Diplomacy- a kind of "2 sides of the same coin" or should it be the "Same Side of 2 Coins"?
It would do a lot more good for the Mentor Minister to think outside the racial paradigm and begin to advocate a new polity of Justice and timeless Principles - both Universal and Religious. That will surely change the political landscape of the Asian region, nay the entire world.
Will that not be befitting of a statesman?
Malaysians, Singaporeans have no time for race row
Singapore and Malaysia are once again bickering over race relations, raising the political heat in a region scarred by ethnic conflict, but the mood on the street is strangely indifferent.
The island of Singapore is home to mostly ethnic Chinese, while the population of its big neighbor to the north is mainly ethnic Malay. The two races have a long history of tension and sometimes violence.
The latest row was sparked by Singapore's patriarch, Lee Kuan Yew, who accused Malaysia and Indonesia at a public forum of "systematically marginalizing" their Chinese minorities.
Malaysia, which has a large Chinese minority, is especially angry and demanded an apology from former premier Lee, 83. Former Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamad also joined in, accusing Singapore of marginalizing minority Malays.
Lee did apologize to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for the "discomfort" caused by his remarks. But he did not retract the comments, prompting an icy response from Kuala Lumpur to the apology.
While their leaders bicker, reaction from people on the streets of the two countries is muted.
Both minorities -- Chinese in Malaysia and Malays in Singapore -- appear tired of racial politics and deny they are being held back by their respective governments.
"It's not true that we are sidelined. The Chinese can live comfortably in this country," said a 65-year-old fabric-seller in Kuala Lumpur's Chinatown. He would only give his name as Lee.
"We can earn a decent living here," added Goh Mia Lee, 46, as he tended the counter of a small grocery store.
The official Malaysian figures support him.
Chinese make up 25 percent of the Malaysian population but own about 40 percent of the stock market. Chinese households earn an income almost twice that of the average Malay household.
Malaysia's Chinese may be at the margins of political power -- the Malay ruling party bars Chinese from joining and there is virtually no prospect of a Malaysian Chinese becoming premier -- but they are at the center of business and the economy.
It is this very success at creating wealth that is at the source of racial tensions and has been since Chinese came to work in colonial-era Malaya's tin mines more than a century ago.
The same is also true of racial tensions in Indonesia, where Chinese merchants were the target of racial violence in 1998.
'Sons of the soil'
Malaysia and Singapore came together as one in 1963 but the troubled union lasted just two years before Singapore's Lee walked out of the Malaysian Federation after squabbling between his Chinese-dominated party and the main Malay party.
In 1969, economic disparities between Malays and Chinese were blamed for race riots that killed hundreds in Malaysia.
Malays still refer to Chinese at times as outsiders and to themselves as "sons of the soil". In Malaysia, they remain wary of the Chinese making political advances and have kept a stranglehold on power since independence from Britain in 1957.
Malaysia has pursued pro-Malay affirmative action for three decades, but they still lag behind the Chinese in terms of wealth.
"In certain areas, the Malay situation needs more attention," said political analyst Chandra Muzaffar. "In the corporate sector, the Malay and Indian participation are quite small."
He said Malaysia on the whole had done quite well in managing race relations, though tensions were inevitable. "In a multi-racial society, you can't run away from it. It's a very, very complex issue if you look at the ethnic mix," he said.
In Singapore, Malays also rate poorly on important measures.
Malays there make up 13 percent of the population but represent barely three percent of university graduates. Malay household income lags both the Chinese and Indian communities.
Mahathir has accused Singapore of sidelining its Malay minority, noting the city state prevents Malays from serving in sensitive military posts. Ordinary Malays in Singapore do grumble about some policies but many don't see themselves as victims.
"I definitely think Singapore's better than Malaysia in terms of racial equality, but mindsets here have to be improved," said 20-year-old Malay student Hana Suri, when stopped on Singapore's Arab Street and asked about Mahathir's criticisms.
Arab Street is at the center of Singapore's Malay community, which is predominantly Muslim. It is overlooked by a mosque and its shops sell Muslim head-scarves, robes and prayer mats. The area was once the home of Malay royalty.
Another Malay student, Rabiatul Adawiya, 22, also felt Mahathir was wrong: "I have had equal opportunities in education, the meritocratic system here definitely works."
Lee and Mahathir, old sparring political partners, have retired as leaders, but the two nations continue to bicker over issues dating back four decades.
"I hope for the leaders to say something smarter," said Muhammad Hafez, as he walked along Arab Street. "How would ageing politicians who are not on the streets know what's going on?"
Bangsa Malaysia Haze Indonesia Malaysia MM LKY Singapore Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Ethnic-based economic policies will undermine the objective of promoting national unity, warns Terence Gomez.The problem of growing intra-ethnic inequalities is evidence enough that government policies should be aimed at helping all groups in need, regardless of race.
In his appointment as prime minister, Abdullah Badawi declared his intent to promote a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and to reform the economy. Few Malaysians doubted his sincerity, as was evident in the Barisan Nasional’s subsequent resounding victory during the 2004 general elections. But the much-anticipated Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), Abdullah’s first blueprint for moulding a new Malaysia, characterised by a ‘developed and united nation…confident in its own capabilities’, has been widely acknowledged as a disappointment.
A number of grounds have been cited for this disappointment. But the primary flaw with the 9MP is that it appears to be inspired by a Malay – or an UMNO – agenda, rather than a vision that would serve ultimately to unify a country that, if recent polls are correct, is still deeply divided along racial lines.
There are other criticisms that can be made about the 9MP. The first problem is that Abdullah remains convinced by two ideas that have long characterised policy planning of an UMNO-led government. First, that sustained economic growth is fundamental to resolving social inequities in Malaysia. And second, that through its policies, the government can achieve its different goals, with few trade-offs. For example, the government believes that it can simultaneously promote social cohesion and Bumiputera capital without jeopardising either endeavour.
The second major problem with the 9MP is that, while former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was obviously fixated with the idea that the solution to sustained economic growth was private sector liberalisation and privatisation, Abdullah’s major policy recommendations also conform with this idea - although he originally appeared to be somewhat of a different bent. The 9MP does include the reforms proposed by Abdullah when he rose to the premiership. But the Plan’s economic recommendations remain largely couched within the framework of previous policies that have resoundingly failed to achieve their objectives.
Growth and equity
The major economic policies proposed by the Mahathir administration included privatisation, the promotion of Bumiputera capitalists, and the creation of Malaysian conglomerates. With the exception of the need to support the rise of conglomerates, the 9MP persists with the other two policies.
The failure of privatisation, which was closely linked to the promotion of Bumiputera capitalists, is now well recorded. The re-nationalisation of major projects - such as the Bakun Dam and the national sewerage project, and the government’s decision to acquire control of major privatised enterprises such as Malaysia Airlines, Celcom, and United Engineers (M) (UEM), which operates the North-South Highway - are outstanding examples of such costly mistakes. There is little evidence to suggest that privatisation has improved efficiency, nor has the private sector shown the capacity to finance projects involving a high capital outlay. Furthermore, implementation of privatisation has been replete with allegations of favouritism, nepotism, and patronage involving business people closely aligned to UMNO leaders.
One of UMNO’s major objectives has long been the creation of a new breed of dynamic Bumiputera entrepreneurs, known in policy terms as the ‘Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community’ (BCIC). The BCIC continues to be promoted in its original form with only one substantial change: there is now a new emphasis on small - and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs), a sector largely ignored by Mahathir. The 9MP insists that the BCIC will serve as the primary mechanism for ensuring greater Bumiputera participation in the economy, though it is also supposed to aid the government’s endeavour to restructure society and eradicate poverty.
To achieve these goals, the government’s methods include the promotion of Malaysian-type industries, such as the production of batik and songket. This is an innovative idea as it helps draw attention to potentially lucrative cottage industries, dominated by poor and rural Bumiputeras. Similarly, the 9MP will attempt to encourage focus on Islamic-type products, for example, by developing a niche market in halal food. Enterprises in this sector, the government believes, will be able to create export capacity if well developed.
These new industries promoted by the government to encourage Malay capital and eradicate poverty are novel. But the BCIC, now nearly two decades into its implementation, has failed to advance the rise of an independent Bumiputera business community. This is evident in the government’s own figures on the number of businesses in key sectors of the economy owned by Bumiputeras.
Entrepreneurship
One solution to this problem has been the establishment of the Institut Keusahawanan Negara (National Entrepreneurship Institute) as a means to help train the young and to cultivate entrepreneurs. It is extremely doubtful, however, if entrepreneurship can be nurtured through the sort of training provided by such institutes. More importantly, the poor state of Malay capital in the country reflects the inability of government institutions such as the Entrepreneur Development Ministry to cultivate new entrepreneurs - a lesson that has not yet dawned on the government.
By continuing to focus primarily on the promotion of Bumiputera capital and the creation of a new breed of competent Malay business people, the 9MP has missed the opportunity to create alternative mechanisms for promoting domestic capital and entrepreneurship in Malaysia. By persisting with the BCIC, the government is reinforcing an old problem – the bypassing of potentially lucrative entrepreneurial ventures, merely because these do not involve Bumiputeras. Moreover, if the government hopes to build domestic entrepreneurial capacity, it cannot afford to continue to marginalise the most dynamic businesses. The government is also now probably well aware - based on the experience of having implemented the New Economic Policy (NEP) and witnessing the rise of Ali-Baba firms - that inter-ethnic business partnerships, forced or coerced into being by the dictates of policy, are simply not going to be sustainable.
To help nurture and develop small firms, the only new major recommendation in the 9MP is the establishment and active promotion of the SME Bank. The reason SMEs have not been able to develop in a manner that equips them with export capacity and the ability to develop brand products is not their inadequate access to loans. These deficiencies prevail among SMEs primarily because they have not invested adequately in research and development (R&D). It is also well known that many SMEs owned by the Chinese are reluctant to approach banks for loans for fear of the need to divulge information that they feel can be used to their detriment. Cash flow-based funding by the SME Bank, as is being recommended by the government, is in itself an inadequate measure to help promote the rapid development of a vibrant SME sector.
Vendor system
Another policy mechanism that has long been implemented with little success and now repeated in the 9MP is the use of the vendor system. In this case, however, the government plans to tie SMEs to large-scale enterprises and government-linked companies (GLCs), to help small firms gain greater access to the market. The government has also encouraged companies which produce disposable goods to market them through hypermarkets, most of which are controlled by foreign firms. One drawback to this recommendation is that it could stifle foreign investment.
The vendor system was a core component of Malaysia’s car project, Proton. To promote Bumiputera enterprises, firms owned by members of this community were chosen to supply Proton with locally produced goods for the national car. This vendor system was not, however, successful in developing the rise of Bumiputera firms in the car industry. Neither did it help ensure that Proton model cars were equipped with quality material produced at affordable rates, ultimately undermining the national car project. The Proton vendor system suggests that an attempt to anchor fledgling firms on to established enterprises may end up only weakening the prospects of the latter.
Reforming GLCs
Apart from the promotion of SMEs, the 9MP’s other major departure from the Mahathir administration’s approach is Abdullah’s attempt to utilise the GLCs more efficiently to generate economic growth. Reform of the GLCs is imperative as one outcome of the failure of privatisation was the use of government-owned entities to acquire failed privatised enterprises. The GLCs are currently among the major shareholders of a number of Malaysia’s leading listed firms, including utilities such as TM (Telekom Malaysia) and power supplier Tenaga Nasional; the country’s leading banks, Malayan Banking and Bumiputra Commerce Bank; the national oil corporation Petronas’ gas producer, Petronas Gas; the national shipping line Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC); and well-diversified Sime Darby.
Reform of the GLCs through the mere introduction of key performance indexes (KPIs) is, however, not sufficient to get them to perform efficiently and resourcefully in the economy. The question of the pattern of control of the GLCs is one that is crucial. One persistent criticism of the GLCs is that the professionals appointed by the government to manage these firms have reputedly little autonomy when it comes to decision-making on major matters. This issue of control is also significant as there have been persistent allegations of interference by senior or influential politicians in the running of the GLCs. Since the government owns and controls the GLCs that have an enormous interest in companies quoted on the Bursa Malaysia, an independent watchdog would need to be established to ensure that these firms are independently and professionally managed. This would also help the government counter allegations of abuse of the GLCs for the vested interests of influential politicians.
Ethnic relations and wealth inequities
While the 9MP espouses the goal of unifying the nation, it continues to perpetuate a discourse on equitable wealth distribution along racial lines. For example, on the issue of wealth disparities, the 9MP expresses concern that the Chinese have twice the volume of equity owned by Bumiputeras. The Plan does not, however, go on to explain why this is the case even though affirmative action has long been instituted to achieve wealth parity among all ethnic groups.
A number of reasons can be cited for this disparity in wealth between these two communities. These include the decline of Bumiputera capital following the 1997 currency crisis because of their over-dependence on loans to finance growth, the failure of privatisation to promote Malay-owned enterprises, and the re-nationalisation of conglomerates controlled by Bumiputeras. The government also fails to note a point that Mahathir recognised and acknowledged rather belatedly during his long tenure: that the Chinese have continued to thrive in business in spite of the NEP because they have persistently been exposed to the rigours of competition. The emphasis of the 9MP should have been on exposing Bumiputera-owned firms to competition, to enable them to hone and secure the skills they need to survive independently.
Although the 9MP maintains that the Bumiputeras are still a long way off from attaining the NEP goal of owning 30 per cent of Malaysia’s corporate equity, the government’s figures on wealth distribution can be disputed. For example, individual Bumiputeras and the government were said to own 51.7 per cent and 31.2 per cent respectively of privatised entities, which would presumably include firms like TM, Tenaga Nasional, and MISC, at the end of 2005. Non-Bumiputeras, on the other hand, owned only 8.9 per cent of such equity. Since the government holds this equity on behalf of Bumiputeras, the total volume of privatised firms attributable to this community would amount to a colossal 82.9 per cent. Yet, the Plan also insists that the volume of corporate assets owned by Bumiputeras has not increased from 19 per cent between 2000 and 2004.
It is also odd that even though the GLCs are majority shareholders of the largest companies quoted on the Bursa Malaysia, it is the non-Bumiputeras who are listed as owning more equity than the Bumiputeras. The 9MP also states that nominee companies own a massive 8 per cent of corporate equity, even more than that owned by Bumiputera institutions, which hold only 2.2 per cent of such wealth. Numerous studies have noted that well-connected business people, politicians, and political parties use nominee companies to shield their ownership of corporate equity from the public view. If the government now claims to advocate a more open and transparent corporate system, it tarnishes this assertion by continuing to retain and permit the practice of using nominee companies.
While the government maintains that non-Bumiputeras, in particular the Chinese, own more than double the equity attributed to Bumiputeras, the perception among non-Malays is that they have little control over the economy. Non-Bumiputeras also harbour insecurities about property rights over their assets. This is a serious problem because such perceptions and insecurities will ultimately lead to lost opportunities for the government to promote the rise of dynamic domestic entrepreneurs who can drive economic growth.
As for the ethnic Indian community, the government has noted that its ownership of equity has not increased in any appreciable manner since 1970. The 9MP now proposes to ensure that this community will come to own 3 per cent of total national wealth within the next decade. The government’s continuing fixation with figures like 3 per cent for Indians and 30 per cent for Bumiputeras is baffling. Even if the government achieves its target of Indian ownership of 3 per cent of corporate wealth, it is highly unlikely that this equity will be evenly distributed among all members of this community. In the case of the Bumiputeras, one outcome of their increased ownership of corporate wealth, from 2.4 per cent in 1970 to 18.9 per cent in 2004, has been the creation of a serious intra-ethnic class difference. The government appears unaware or unwilling to accede that ethnically based corporate ownership figures such as 3 per cent or 30 per cent mean little or nothing in terms of ensuring equitable wealth distribution for Malaysians.
These figures in the 9MP also reveal that the government remains convinced that it can develop Malay capital, eradicate poverty, and achieve national unity simultaneously. It is highly unlikely that these objectives can be achieved concurrently, especially if there are policies favouring one community over the other.
Good governance and 'Bangsa Malaysia'
The issues raised here, such as the manner of privatisation, the limited independence of the GLCs’ executives, and the use of nominee companies indicate that one issue that needs serious consideration is form of governance. According to the 9MP, ‘good governance’ will be encouraged through a review of legislation and by establishing new institutions. Abdullah’s administration has shown a proclivity for establishing institutions to deal with a whole gamut of issues, including promoting entrepreneurship, improving quality of education, and instilling integrity in governance.
These institutions are, however, an inadequate – even unnecessary – response to the problems that the government faces in dealing with the poor quality of entrepreneurship, declining education standards, and rampant corruption in the country. If the government hopes to create a more open and accountable government, there must be devolution of power to agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the Securities Commission (SC) to allow them to act autonomously. The media must be liberalised and oppressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Act (OSA) must be repealed. Malaysians cannot be expected to take seriously the government’s pledge to enforce transparent and accountable governance when power remains concentrated in the office of the executive arm of government.
The 9MP devotes one chapter to creating an ‘efficient public service delivery system’, a clear acknowledgement of the decline in the quality of the civil service. While the government acknowledges the difficulty it faces in terms of institutional capacity to enforce policies, it appears that the mechanism to deal with this problem is greater oversight over the performance of public servants. But the pledge that the ‘big stick’ will be wielded if the civil service does not perform cannot be the solution. The reasons for the noticeable drop in the quality of public service over the past two decades need to be honestly assessed if the government hopes to improve its delivery system.
Towards Bangsa Malaysia?
As for ethnic relations, the 9MP reveals little about how the government hopes to create a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’, one of its key missions. Neither does the Plan appear to create a sense of opportunity for all even though the government claims otherwise. The primary assumption appears to be that if wealth and income are more equitably distributed between all communities, it will then not be difficult to foster national unity. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in the Plan, the government believes that until economic parity between communities is attained, affirmative action will remain a major prerequisite in the implementation of its policies.
For this reason, the 9MP comes across as a Plan that has been framed along racial lines, reinforcing the point that policies are largely conceived and implemented based on (political) consideration of the needs of particular ethnic groups. This ultimately undermines the professed objective of creating a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. The government should be reminded that the issues of nation building and sustainable economic development are closely inter-related and remain inter-dependent on each other. The ‘brain drain’ problem and the limited capacity of domestic enterprises to compete internationally are some of the repercussions of the long-standing implementation of policies that favour one ethnic community over others.
The problem of growing intra-ethnic inequalities, especially serious among Bumiputeras, is evidence enough that government policies should be universal in orientation, developed to help groups in need, regardless of race. Universal-type policies, rather than those that target specific ethnic groups, are also necessary if the government hopes to inspire confidence in all Malaysians that they belong to this nation. Affirmative action, while important and justified when introduced in 1970 to rectify social injustices, can no longer play a vital role along racial lines in helping to promote national unity and identity. The government’s promotion of a unified ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ will only succeed if all Malaysians truly and genuinely believe that they are equal members of their nation.
( Terence Gomez, formerly at the Faculty of Economics, University of Malaya, is now on secondment as Research Coordinator with the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in Geneva.)
Haze from Indonesia fires chokes region, spreads across Pacific
A worsening acrid haze from land-clearing fires in Indonesia on Thursday shut more schools here, disrupted travel in Malaysia and drifted thousands of kilometres across the Pacific, officials said.
The annual illegal burn-off in Indonesia, which officials have been accused of doing little to stop, sees choking smoke billow across the region, with Malaysia, Singapore and southern Thailand usually worst affected.
But on Thursday, the haze had spread 3,600 kilometres (2,250 miles) to smother islands in the western Pacific, authorities there said.
In the US-administered Northern Mariana Islands, the Emergency Management Office said the Indonesian fires were the source of haze over the islands.
In Guam, near to the Northern Marianas, acting governor Tim Villagomez said the haze was likely to persist for several days. Motorists were warned to take extra care because of the poor visibility.
The fires have been raging on jungle-clad Kalimantan, the Indonesian portion of Borneo island, and Sumatra, closing schools in Indonesia, delaying flights and forcing residents to don face masks as they cope with the bad air.
Satellite images taken over Borneo on Wednesday showed that although the number of hotspots -- large areas with high temperatures indicating fires --
had dropped in West and Central Kalimantan to 395, the number in South Kalimantan had more than quadrupled from a day earlier to 561.
"The governor has ordered all schools, from kindergarten to high school, to close as of today (Thursday) and only reopen Monday," said West Kalimantan local official Emmy Putrimas, from the provincial capital Pontianak.
Putrimas said people were wearing masks that were being distributed on the streets to try to cope with the deterioration in air quality.
Schools in Palangkaraya, the capital of neighbouring Central Kalimantan, were closed for three days on Tuesday and an aide to the head of the local education office said that it was likely this would be extended.
In Pontianak, visibility was less than 300 metres (yards) while in Palangkaraya, it was just 200 metres, meteorological officials there said.
Health officials in both provinces have said that more people have been seeking medical help for respiratory ailments in recent weeks.
Flights in Indonesia's affected region have been delayed until midday each day for the past week.
In neighbouring Malaysia's Sarawak state, air quality remained unhealthy in most areas, with Air Pollutant Index readings of between 106 and 188. The index considers haze levels of 100-200 to be unhealthy.
Travel was also affected.
"The helicopter service, a key mode of transport in Sarawak, has been stopped due to poor visibility," an official with the Department of Civil Aviation in Sarawak's capital Kuching told AFP.
Three scheduled flights operated by Malaysia Airlines were also diverted on Wednesday due to poor visibility, he said.
In peninsular Malaysia, locations in five states, including the tourist destination of Malacca, posted unhealthy air quality between 101 and 116, up from two states on Wednesday.
The grey haze also enveloped Singapore on Tuesday.
In 1997-98, the haze cost the Southeast Asian region an estimated 9.0 billion dollars by disrupting air travel and other business activities.
Lee Kuan Yew stirs it up again - 'The “Minister Mentor” ruffles his neighbors’ feathers'
The octogenarian former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew Monday may have issued a grudging but almost unprecedented personal apology for what have been perceived as intemperate remarks about the treatment of the prosperous Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Indonesia.
But for better or worse, Lee has reminded the world again that the island republic, population 4.4 million, is not only a Chinese island in a Malay sea. It is banker, realtor, tinker, tailor and perhaps spy to both as well. Its tentacles run deeply into both countries, integral as they are to Singapore as its hinterland. The Chinese are burrowed into their economies, both to the countries’ vexation and their advantage.
Lee kicked off an ethnic storm in mid-September at the sidelines of International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Singapore when he told a reporter that “our neighbors both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful. They are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalized."
That prompted Malaysia and Indonesia to summon the city-state's ambassadors for an explanation, which in turn led to a climb-down that would have been unthinkable during Lee’s reign as Prime Minister. Lee, now Singapore’s “minister mentor,” apologized in a letter to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, saying, “I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort." ....(more)
Lee Kuan Yew and Pope Benedict XVI - '2 Sides of the Same Coin'
Two major recent events, seemingly quite unrelated in many ways, strikingly bore peculiar similarities in International Diplomacy i.e that of the Pontiff of the Vatican and Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (LKY).
What do the now infamous statements of Pope Benedict XVI and Minister Mentor LKY have in common? Hardly any commonality by way of subject matter, but both equally emotive and divisive, as to be capable of inciting tragic human fallout.
While that may be saying the obvious, another peculiar similarity needs particular attention and emphasis.
Both promptly followed up by offering their open apology and regretted the consequences sparked by their unsolicited remarks.
Equally strikingly similar, both did not actually retract their disparaging remarks. They were only sorry for its consequences but remain stoutly remorseless for saying it.
These are surely amusing phenomena in current International Diplomacy. Being a novice that discipline, I am quite encouraged to naively conclude that it is always a lot easier to just simply blurt out your piece at your target and later apologise, pretentiously regretting of how much your words have caused much discomfort or outrage to those on the receiving end.
Better still if you could deflect actual blame or appease them, by saying that you 'were just quoting or citing an old text' or 'you have not said anything more than what you have said many times before' or 'what you have written in your memoir', which presumably were more venomous, but have failed to elicit similar response.
Having apologized, you finally rest your case to the international community to judge your position. Best if you could finally invoke God - 'to err is human and to forgive Divine'.
Be that as it may, quite frankly, I don’t think we should go to 'war' by statements of this nature. I would even be more daring to say that now that such unsolicited critique have been unfortunately made, this should provide for a real platform for a healthy intellectual discourse or debate to follow suit, so as to critically analyse the proposition or treatise made.
Perchance, by the grace of the Almighty, the outcome of the discourse may be better than its alleged original sinister motive.
The Pontiff provides the platform for international Islamic scholars to engage with the Vatican on any issues pertaining to mutual inter-religious understanding.
To the least, LKY provides me the opportunity to say my piece now and here. As he is entitled to say his without constraint, I should also be allowed to exercise mine without duress. As usual, I will say it without fear or favour.
For both LKY and the leaders of this nation, I would have thought that, within reasonable bound ie barring preemptive attack or regime change, the sooner we debunk the idea of a 'non-interventionist policy' or meddling with other nation's affairs policy, the better it is for all. I may sound simplistic but it is already in vogue globally. Why?
For better or for worse, given the pervasive globalization powered by the menacing ICT, the impact on the global community has not only been on the domain on economy, commercial or cultural but more importantly political.
With democratization happening on a global scale, no nation-states could persist in perpetuating violation of human rights either on her people, let alone on others, without being sanctioned by international or regional bodies.
It goes without saying though, that there exists still one solitary exception. Its usage of both fire-power and overt political intrusion is beyond description.
By the same token, albeit on a lower scale, you simply could not be cobbling your wife or husband or children to death in a domestic violence, yet insisting your neighbour to just mind their own business.
It is no longer tenable. It wasn’t possible before, much less now! It is a social or moral obligation to intervene. With us in PAS, it is first a religious obligation, mandatory by God - enjoining virtues and forbidding vices!.
Having premised my thought, let us critically analyse LKY's remarks. There are arguably many facets to this discussion. I must be selective. The selection is purely mine and surely in keeping with my intention.
Now that the letter of LKY is out in the mainstream media, it is for everyone to examine. The context and audience of his speech has also been explained.
In all fairness, the context of the speech was indeed to convince the audience ie former US Secretary of Treasury and foreign delegates in the IMF/WB meeting, of why Singapore needs a strong government.
Admittedly, despite my respect for his intellectual eloquence and statesmanship, with a few bizarre exceptions, I found that LKY's argument to be rather incoherent insofar as the need to have a strong government ie so as not to be compliant as the compliant-Chinese in both their countries.
What is most perplexing is his need to resort to the notion of the marginalization of the Chinese, presumably both in Indonesia and Malaysia, "caused by them being successful, hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalized, even in education".
I thought that was shrewdly insinuative and 'mischievous' as its causal relation is even more precarious to be established or verified.
It would have made more political sense for LKY to remain focus on his difficult bilateral relationship all these years, be it with the present Premier or his predecessor, in his free-flowing dialogue.
Criticisms across the Causeway, have been exchanged both ways, at times more intense and blistering.
However, it would have been more enlightening to have heard from a Senior Minister about the need and how governments of the South East Asian nations could be equally economically strong and viable, morally credible and free from corrupt and crony practices while remaining socially friendly.
It would surely have served the geo-political and geo-strategic interest of the region better. Who am I to be telling him what to say?
Perhaps it would be necessary to remind LKY that in Malaysia, marginalization cuts across ethnic, culture and religion.
A thorough scrutiny of the Geni-Coefficient of both inter and intra-race will give us a clearer scenario.
The Malays suffer the worst inter and intra-ethnic disparity. That’s a matter of fact.
However, I hasten to add that Positive or Affirmative action should be justly based on needs and merits rather than race or ethnic. Ethnic-based policies are both flawed and are susceptible to gross abuses.
It feeds on narrow partisan interest of the well-connected-politically, be they Malay, Chinese or Indian. I do not need to enumerate their names. It is quite a long list of Malays, Chinese and Indians.
It would be unnecessary to remind LKY that marginalization happens to all ethnic groupings to varying degree. It’s the anti-thesis of Justice and Good Governance. It is powered by corrupt practices, crony capitalism and nepotism.
The fact that the Mentor Minister chose to invoke the much abhorred racial overtone, didn't augur well with many, unless he is a great believer of John Naisbitt’s Global Paradox of the Chinese Commonwealth. That will both presumptuous and unnecessary on my part to presume.
Would it be asking too much from leaders of international standing to wisely use their grey matters in between their ears, before they say their piece please?
The Pope's remarks and LKY's insinuation is now an epitome of sort in current International Diplomacy- a kind of "2 sides of the same coin" or should it be the "Same Side of 2 Coins"?
It would do a lot more good for the Mentor Minister to think outside the racial paradigm and begin to advocate a new polity of Justice and timeless Principles - both Universal and Religious. That will surely change the political landscape of the Asian region, nay the entire world.
Will that not be befitting of a statesman?
Malaysians, Singaporeans have no time for race row
Singapore and Malaysia are once again bickering over race relations, raising the political heat in a region scarred by ethnic conflict, but the mood on the street is strangely indifferent.
The island of Singapore is home to mostly ethnic Chinese, while the population of its big neighbor to the north is mainly ethnic Malay. The two races have a long history of tension and sometimes violence.
The latest row was sparked by Singapore's patriarch, Lee Kuan Yew, who accused Malaysia and Indonesia at a public forum of "systematically marginalizing" their Chinese minorities.
Malaysia, which has a large Chinese minority, is especially angry and demanded an apology from former premier Lee, 83. Former Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamad also joined in, accusing Singapore of marginalizing minority Malays.
Lee did apologize to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for the "discomfort" caused by his remarks. But he did not retract the comments, prompting an icy response from Kuala Lumpur to the apology.
While their leaders bicker, reaction from people on the streets of the two countries is muted.
Both minorities -- Chinese in Malaysia and Malays in Singapore -- appear tired of racial politics and deny they are being held back by their respective governments.
"It's not true that we are sidelined. The Chinese can live comfortably in this country," said a 65-year-old fabric-seller in Kuala Lumpur's Chinatown. He would only give his name as Lee.
"We can earn a decent living here," added Goh Mia Lee, 46, as he tended the counter of a small grocery store.
The official Malaysian figures support him.
Chinese make up 25 percent of the Malaysian population but own about 40 percent of the stock market. Chinese households earn an income almost twice that of the average Malay household.
Malaysia's Chinese may be at the margins of political power -- the Malay ruling party bars Chinese from joining and there is virtually no prospect of a Malaysian Chinese becoming premier -- but they are at the center of business and the economy.
It is this very success at creating wealth that is at the source of racial tensions and has been since Chinese came to work in colonial-era Malaya's tin mines more than a century ago.
The same is also true of racial tensions in Indonesia, where Chinese merchants were the target of racial violence in 1998.
'Sons of the soil'
Malaysia and Singapore came together as one in 1963 but the troubled union lasted just two years before Singapore's Lee walked out of the Malaysian Federation after squabbling between his Chinese-dominated party and the main Malay party.
In 1969, economic disparities between Malays and Chinese were blamed for race riots that killed hundreds in Malaysia.
Malays still refer to Chinese at times as outsiders and to themselves as "sons of the soil". In Malaysia, they remain wary of the Chinese making political advances and have kept a stranglehold on power since independence from Britain in 1957.
Malaysia has pursued pro-Malay affirmative action for three decades, but they still lag behind the Chinese in terms of wealth.
"In certain areas, the Malay situation needs more attention," said political analyst Chandra Muzaffar. "In the corporate sector, the Malay and Indian participation are quite small."
He said Malaysia on the whole had done quite well in managing race relations, though tensions were inevitable. "In a multi-racial society, you can't run away from it. It's a very, very complex issue if you look at the ethnic mix," he said.
In Singapore, Malays also rate poorly on important measures.
Malays there make up 13 percent of the population but represent barely three percent of university graduates. Malay household income lags both the Chinese and Indian communities.
Mahathir has accused Singapore of sidelining its Malay minority, noting the city state prevents Malays from serving in sensitive military posts. Ordinary Malays in Singapore do grumble about some policies but many don't see themselves as victims.
"I definitely think Singapore's better than Malaysia in terms of racial equality, but mindsets here have to be improved," said 20-year-old Malay student Hana Suri, when stopped on Singapore's Arab Street and asked about Mahathir's criticisms.
Arab Street is at the center of Singapore's Malay community, which is predominantly Muslim. It is overlooked by a mosque and its shops sell Muslim head-scarves, robes and prayer mats. The area was once the home of Malay royalty.
Another Malay student, Rabiatul Adawiya, 22, also felt Mahathir was wrong: "I have had equal opportunities in education, the meritocratic system here definitely works."
Lee and Mahathir, old sparring political partners, have retired as leaders, but the two nations continue to bicker over issues dating back four decades.
"I hope for the leaders to say something smarter," said Muhammad Hafez, as he walked along Arab Street. "How would ageing politicians who are not on the streets know what's going on?"
Bangsa Malaysia Haze Indonesia Malaysia MM LKY Singapore Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Labels: Politic - Local
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home