“Gag Order” for public discussion on equity ownership?
“Gag Order” for public discussion on equity ownership?
Lim Kit Siang wrote :
Is another “gag order” like the one imposed on public discussion on Article 11 and inter-faith issues in the works with regard to equity ownership if mounting pressures fail to get the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) to withdraw the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) study that bumiputra equity ownership is 45%?
This is the question uppermost in many minds at the latest turn of events after the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came out with the warning on Thursday that the “inaccurate” CPPS “ study could incite anger” – followed by the manifestation of such “anger” in the past few days.
An Umno heavyweight, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno Vice President and Minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industry) has dismissed the CPPS study as “rubbish”, issued an ultimatum that Asli admits its mistake together with a demand that the government take “firm action”.
Muhyiddin made these statements in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia yesterday headlined “Jangan cabar wibawa kerajaan” and which was also reported as its front-page headline story, “Kajian ASLI ‘sampah’ – Muhyiddin mahu dakwaan Melayu kuasai 45% di tarik balik”.
Another Umno Vice President, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam, who is Malacca Chief Minister, has weighed in to mount pressure for Asli to correct is error, accusing the think-tank of “fooling” the Malays.
Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Husin had also joined in the chorus of criticism against Asli, accusing it of having an ulterior motive and seeking to “sabotage” the government’s national agenda.
Ominously, Gerakan President and Minister for Energy, Water and Communications, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik seems to be supportive of such a “gag order” although publicly for very different reasons.
Speaking in Pantai Remis yesterday, Keng Yaik called for a halt to the argument over racial equity and wealth distribution and concentrate instead on wealth creation and transparency...(more)
More flak for study saying bumiputeras have 45% stake
Think-tank told to retract 'irresponsible' claim, accused of having secret motive
A THINK-TANK study which said bumiputeras own 45 per cent of the equity stake in Malaysia has caused an uproar among government officials and Malay merchants.
Umno's vice-president rejected as 'rubbish' the study by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Agriculture Minister, said the institute should retract its research claims.
The study contradicted government statistics which had put the bumiputera stake at 18.9 per cent for the past 20 years.
In a Mingguan Malaysia report, published yesterday, Tan Sri Muhyiddin said the research challenges the government's authority. He described it as irresponsible and urged the government to be strict if Asli fails to retract the research.
According to him, Asli should own up to its mistake to avoid jeopardising unity among different racial groups.
'The research is rubbish and cannot be used. As a Malay, I feel angry and I think it has ulterior motives,' he said.
'The research might have certain agendas aimed at sparking off a polemic, especially among those who think the research is true. That group will surely accuse the government of releasing false information.'
The research report, entitled Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends And Future Policy, claims that bumiputeras own 45 per cent of the business equity in Malaysia, above the New Economic Policy's (NEP) target of 30 per cent.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi rejected the study last Thursday, and said that Malays are still far behind economically.
The disparity in the figures arose because Asli had included government-linked companies in its survey. It also made its calculations based on the market value of shares, rather than the par or nominal value.
Economist professor Dr Ismail Md Salleh said the report was inaccurate because different measurements were used.
Some ministers have also accused those involved in the research of having a secret motive.
Deputy Finance Minister Awang Adek Hussin said they could be unhappy with the renewed NEP and the target of 30 per cent bumiputera equity ownership.
He noted that the government figures were accepted by international economists, and warned that if Asli's report was accepted, it could retard the government's effort to distribute the nation's wealth based on race equality.
The Malaysian Malay Entrepreneurs and Merchants Association has asked Asli to be more sensitive towards bumiputera issues.
The association's president, Datuk Moehamad Izat Emir, told Mingguan Malaysia that Asli should focus on matters which require their involvement rather than intervene in the bumiputera status in the country.
THE New Economic Policy was meant to attain national unity by eradicating poverty and restructuring the economy. The target was to raise the pre-1970 ratio of 2.4 per cent Bumiputera equity to 30 per cent by 1990.
By 1990, however, Bumiputeras owned only 19.3 per cent of the economic cake. A new policy to succeed the NEP was formulated. Fifteen years after the end of the actual NEP, the government last year revealed that Bumiputeras had only managed to achieve 18.9 per cent equity.
Plans were under way to address the problems for the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) last year, and the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute was among the many think tanks that came up with proposals to this end early this year.
Asli’s basic premise was that Bumiputera equity was actually more than 20 per cent, about 45 per cent by late last year, based on market capitalisation of companies, including government-linked companies.
The think tank believes market capitalisation is correct to explain wealth ownership by ethnic communities in Malaysia, but should not be taken as the key indicator of wealth distribution.
However, not much attention was given to Asli’s views until last month when a forum on the NEP brought up the Bumiputera equity issue, using the think tank’s report.
A debate ensued in some newspapers and cyberspace, prompting the Prime Minister to express his view that the government was right to state that the Bumiputeras still lagged behind other Malaysians.
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Thursday said Asli’s findings that contradicted the government’s Economic Planning Unit’s figure of 18.9 per cent was wrong in its methodology and could lead to anger among the people.
Asli does not want to appear confrontational with the government. The think tank believes it is merely trying to assist in providing a more effective way to help Bumiputera entrepreneurs.
"We are not in business to change government policies. We fully support the government. Our responsibility is to find better ways and means for the effective implementation of the NEP-type policies.
"What we did with the report was to find more available inputs, to help the Bumiputeras, to eradicate poverty and to fund for more development of human resources," says Asli Director Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.
He says Asli’s findings are based on the principle of revisiting theories formulated some 35 years ago, when GLCs were almost unheard of, in 1970.
"What we did was to respond to the Prime Minister’s call more than a year ago to give input to the 9MP. We believe the 18.9 per cent Bumiputera equity is undervalued," he adds.
The controversy centres on the report by Asli’s Centre for Public Policy Studies, titled "Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy", which claims Bumiputeras have 45 per cent ownership, which includes equity in GLCs.
Refuting Asli’s methodology, the Prime Minister said the think tank based its survey on 1,000 companies listed on Bursa Malaysia, unlike the EPU which studied 600,000 Malaysian companies and used government documents.
Abdullah also rejected Asli’s argument that GLCs were, in effect, Bumiputera companies as the government owned them. He believed such a view would create negative perception among non-Bumiputeras.
Navaratnam agrees that wrong perception could lead to negative reactions. However, he explains that Asli’s methodology was based on ownership of capital, insisting that it gives a truer picture of who owns what than a generalised view based on number of companies.
"For example, even if you survey 100,000 companies that own only fractions of the economic cake, it is the 100 big companies that own the mass of wealth that really reflect the true state of our economy.
"What we did was to help the government to review, or if necessary, to revise the methodology according to changes in trends and time."
The government should restore the confidence of the corporate world as some major players found that the 18.9 per cent figure was undervalued, says Navaratnam, Transparency International Malaysia president.
Economist Datuk Dr Zainal Aznam Yusof says Asli made a mistake by grouping GLCs as Bumiputera companies, adding that the government excluded GLCs from its figures. He also claimed that Asli’s use of market capitalisation was wrong.
He supported the government’s use of the par value or nominal value, and the number of units of shares a person held, to get the correct equity figures.
Economist Khoo Kay Peng, however, questions the use of par value as the basis of calculation, claiming that it does not reveal the real level of wealth ownership.
He also argues that Asli’s estimation that GLCs are 70 per cent owned by Bumiputera is sound enough for the GLCs to be considered Bumiputera companies.
"GLCs are also supporting Bumiputeras through public procuring policy. It has been announced in the Press that regional economic corridors both in the south and north of the peninsula would involve GLCs providing increased participation of Bumiputera companies. It is also known that GLCs deal mostly with Bumiputera-majority owned companies," says the Sedar Institute executive director.
Saying that confrontation will never resolve anything, Navaratnam hopes the experts from the EPU, Treasury and the Statistics Department will sit down with Asli experts to find ways to ensure successful implementation of government policies.
"I’m saddened by the view that Asli is not accurate in its findings. We have nothing but good intentions. Let us have a dialogue and find better ways," he adds.
Kit Siang questions PM's stand on 'marginalisation'
Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang today (Oct 6, 2006) questioned the position taken by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on marginalisation.
He said while Abdullah has said that Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comment about the "marginalisation" of the Chinese in Malaysia is hurtful and could have incited the people, but he has said nothing about Umno Youth vice-chief Khairy Jamaluddin's earlier statement about the "marginalisation" of the Malays in Penang and facing the "same fate of being marginalised" as the Malays in Singapore.
"If the Malays in Penang have been marginalised, who must bear the responsibility?" Lim asked in a ceramah in Bercham, Ipoh, last night (Oct 5, 2006).
Lim said for the past 13 years since 1993, the No. 1 or No. 2 in the Federal Government had come from Penang Umno, starting with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Deputy Prime Minister in 1993, then Abdullah as DPM after Anwar, and from Oct 31, 2003, with Abdullah as Prime Minister.
"If the Malays in Penang are marginalised after 13 years having the top Umno leader in Penang as Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister, shouldn't Umno bear the biggest responsibility?," he asked.
Lim said the question of marginalisation "appears to have not gone away and can be seen in the recent case of how BN Youth handled Khairy's comments".
He said Khairy emerged triumphant while MCA and Gerakan Youths had to admit that No.2 Umno youth leader had been "misinterpreted".
"They even have to go to the ground to explain and defend Khairy's statements," said Lim.
MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai tried to present a tougher line by publicly asking Khairy to prove he has no intention of hurting the feelings of the Chinese community.
"This was when he found himself the object of ridicule and derision not only among the general public, but also among MCA and MCA Youth members,," said Lim.
He said one Chinese newspaper commentator had said Khairy was destroying his political future in adopting his truculent, arrogant and communal stance.
"Khairy would not agree that he is destroying his own political future but sees himself as following notorious examples of carving out the well-trodden path to the political summit by assuming the mantle as the leading ultra in the country and shamelessly playing the race card to become the Malay communal hero," he added.
Lim said the more important and pertinent question is whether Khairy's stand would harm the multi-racial fabric of Malaysia.
He said when Abdullah declared he was in control in Havana, Cuba, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister should demonstrate so by exercising control on the Umno youth No.2 who is also his son-in-law.
"If the Prime Minister does not exercise check and discipline of Khairy, it will be the cause of the downfall of the Abdullah premiership," he added.
UKM should retain its top university status – but for the right reasons
So concerned is everyone with Universiti Malaya’s sliding position in the Times Higher Education Supplement’s “World University Ranking 2006” that not enough attention I feel is being given to UKM’s “achievement” of attaining the 185th position – a few good notches higher than UM.
Sylvia Hsu-Chen Yip, a graduate of UKM now pursuing her PhD at the Australian National University, wrote all the way from Canberra (The Star, October 7) to congratulate UKM for making it to the list this time – and doing it better than UM. She thinks UKM deserves the position, and that in her field (biochemistry), at least, she knew all along that UKM is superior to UM.
I am normally not too excited about the annual publication of the THES ranking list, and I do believe that the worth of a university cannot be measured by its position in the list alone – or any other list for that matter. To me, a university should be evaluated, and respected, for fulfilling some traditional criteria of a true academic institution.
To be placed on the THES list is at most a public relations victory for a university – and the reputation may or may not have anything to do with the real quality of the university as an academic institution. For the top universities of the list – Harvard, Cambridge, Yale or Oxford – being on the list is just a bonus; they already enjoy academic stature without even being there.
But for a young university like the UKM, and situated in a developing nation of the third world at that, being in the list – even at the 185th position – must have its own special significance.
Moreover, UKM have long “suffered” from the reputation of being the first university in this country to use Malay as its medium of instruction. Even during the early stages of the university’s development, when a crop of young and inexperienced academics were struggling to build a tradition for the university, it was almost never considered anywhere near UM which had already enjoyed the reputation of being the premier university of the country.
To find itself in the list, despite being a “non-English” university, must be considered an achievement in its own right. Even the Editor of THES accepted the fact that the predominance of “English” universities in the list would have to be explained in terms of the position of English in the world academic community.
Now that UKM has made it to the rank of “one of the top 200 universities in the world”, one hopes that the position was attained through the recognition of the “real” academic and intellectual worth of the university. One shudders to think that the former vice-chancellor of UKM, Prof. Mohd. Salleh Yassin, is correct in his observation that the university had made it to the list because of its captivating website and its successful re-branding exercise....(more)
Tony P wrote :" Zahid Higher Education Report - Cold Storaged?"
Husna Yusop of The Sun asked the minister - "What direction will the ministry take to achieve Vision 2020?" Part of Tok Pa's reply was as follows:
...there is a high level committee in the ministry which is looking at various issues and proposals, on how we can bring about radical changes. It started work more than three months ago and will be coming out with a draft report.
And when asked if this report was different from the Tan Sri Wan Zahid Higher Education Report, Tok Pa replied that "this report is more comprehensive and will address future challenges until 2015".
I'm more than a little concerned because it appears that a "change" of regime at the Ministry of Higher Education immediately meant dumping the work done, even if it was decent work, and starting with square one once again. I've read the entire Zahid report, and I must say, with the exception of 1-2 issues, there are plenty of issues which have been dealt with pretty well - particularly on issues of governance.
The Terms of Reference of the Zahid study focus on the achievement of excellence. The Committee was charged to formulate recommendations that would enable higher education in Malaysia to achieve world class status and establish the country as a regional centre of excellence in education. Feedback was obtained by the Committee through dialogue and discussion sessions as well as website commentaries.
The report also took the bold step of highlighting that "the country cannot wait for groups which are not yet ready before striving for excellence. If the nation ever takes this course, then this ‘levelling down’ can only result in loss and regressiveness."
As part of the detailed study for the report, the Committee therefore formed study groups from within the members of the Main Committee and the Ministry of Higher Education officers to study best practices in selected institutions globally, as a guide to formulate recommendations to the Government. The various sub-committees visited 17 different countries from China to Egypt covering some 78 institutions and government agencies.
The report itself produced 138 recommendations and is almost 300 pages long. Hence, I'm struggling to comprehend why a separate "more comprehensive" study is actually required. I also do not understand how the Zahid report doesn't actually "address the challenges til 2015". Yes, it's not the perfect report, and it probably did not cover certain issues in sufficient detail such as academic freedom and the University and University Colleges Act. But that doesn't justify an entirely new report!
Unlike his predecessor as well as most of the other ministers, Tok Pa demonstrated great openness by releasing the Zahid Higher Education Report to the Parliament in March. On hindsight, was it released because it has become an irrelevant document due to the fact that a different and new study was about to commence? Was it the reason why despite multiple queries by parliamentarians, the Ministry of Higher Education has not made any announcement or commitment to implement any of the recommendations made in the Zahid Report?
The Zahid report took all of 6 months to complete. Tok Pa indicated that the new report in its draft form will be out soon after having commenced 3 months ago. By the time the formal new report is completed, it'll probably be early next year, at best. It will then be almost 2 years after the Zahid Report has been released to the Ministry. Are these 2 wasted years where no major reforms are implemented? With the urgency around the need to arrest the decline of our universities, can we afford to dally that long?
I also can't see how a report that takes approximately the same time to complete will be better by any significant extent than the previous one. Especially when the previous report was not just done by the ministry officials but by prominent academics like Prof Emeritus Dato' Dr Khoo Kay Kim, and Prof Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia).
Tok Pa, will you please clarify the reasons for do this? I'm a little disappointed, to say the least.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) says has conducted nuclear test
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) said on Monday that it has conducted a successful nuclear test, according to the official Korean Central News Agency(KCNA).
"The test is 100 percent safe," said the KCNA, adding that there was "no radioactive leak."
The move came about a week after the country announced it would undertake an unprecedented nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed.
In a statement issued last Tuesday, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said it "will never use nuclear weapons first."
The Oct. 3 announcement drew deep concerns of the international community.
The United Nations Security Council on Friday unanimously adopted a presidential statement, urging the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks.
"The Security Council urges the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition and to work toward the expeditious implementation of the Sept. 19,2005, Joint Statement, and in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," the statement said.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday that a nuclear test by the DPRK would be a "very provocative" act.
Washington on Friday warned that it would be the "most incendiary" event if the DPRK undertakes a nuclear test.
"It would be destabilizing to the region and could lead to further escalation of tensions," White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
China urged for calm and restraint on the nuclear test issue.
"We... hope that all relevant parties must address their concerns through dialogues and consultations instead of taking actions that may intensify the situation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement on Wednesday.
Pyongyang declared in February 2005 it had nuclear weapons.
China resolutely opposes DPRK's nuclear test
The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to the nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday.
According to a report by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the DPRK has conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday.
"The DPRK ignored universal opposition of the international community and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test on Oct. 9. The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to it," the statement said.
It said China strongly demands the DPRK live up to its commitment to non-nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks.
It has been the firm, unshakable and consistent stance of the Chinese government to realize non-nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and oppose proliferation of nuclear weapons, the statement said.
The Chinese government calls for calm response from all parties concerned and urges them to stick to peaceful resolution of the issue through consultations and dialogues, the statement said.
It said that maintaining peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region conforms to the common interests of all parties concerned, and China will continue to make unremitting efforts to this end.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing talked over telephone with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday afternoon, exchanging views on the latest development of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Li reiterated China's solemn and just position on the issue as announced in the Foreign Ministry's statement.
The nuclear test, the first of such conducted by the DPRK, came about a week after the country announced it would undertake an unprecedented atomic test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed.
KCNA reported that there was no such danger as radioactive emission in the test as it was carried out under a scientific consideration and with careful calculation.
In a statement issued last Tuesday, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said the country "will never use nuclear weapons first."
The test drew immediate reaction from the international community.
The United Nations Security Council is to hold an emergency meeting in a closed session Monday to discuss the issue.
A spokesman of President Roh Moo Hyun of the Republic of Korea (ROK) said Monday that ROK would sternly respond to the DPRK's nuclear test.
It is reported that Japan and the United States are preparing to submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council if the DPRK's nuclear test is confirmed.
Japan said last Friday that it would seek a Security Council resolution on sanctions against the DPRK if it carried out a nuclear test.
Malaysia UKM World University Ranking 2006 marginalisation North Korea nuclear test
Lim Kit Siang wrote :
Is another “gag order” like the one imposed on public discussion on Article 11 and inter-faith issues in the works with regard to equity ownership if mounting pressures fail to get the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) to withdraw the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) study that bumiputra equity ownership is 45%?
This is the question uppermost in many minds at the latest turn of events after the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came out with the warning on Thursday that the “inaccurate” CPPS “ study could incite anger” – followed by the manifestation of such “anger” in the past few days.
An Umno heavyweight, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno Vice President and Minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industry) has dismissed the CPPS study as “rubbish”, issued an ultimatum that Asli admits its mistake together with a demand that the government take “firm action”.
Muhyiddin made these statements in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia yesterday headlined “Jangan cabar wibawa kerajaan” and which was also reported as its front-page headline story, “Kajian ASLI ‘sampah’ – Muhyiddin mahu dakwaan Melayu kuasai 45% di tarik balik”.
Another Umno Vice President, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam, who is Malacca Chief Minister, has weighed in to mount pressure for Asli to correct is error, accusing the think-tank of “fooling” the Malays.
Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Husin had also joined in the chorus of criticism against Asli, accusing it of having an ulterior motive and seeking to “sabotage” the government’s national agenda.
Ominously, Gerakan President and Minister for Energy, Water and Communications, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik seems to be supportive of such a “gag order” although publicly for very different reasons.
Speaking in Pantai Remis yesterday, Keng Yaik called for a halt to the argument over racial equity and wealth distribution and concentrate instead on wealth creation and transparency...(more)
More flak for study saying bumiputeras have 45% stake
Think-tank told to retract 'irresponsible' claim, accused of having secret motive
A THINK-TANK study which said bumiputeras own 45 per cent of the equity stake in Malaysia has caused an uproar among government officials and Malay merchants.
Umno's vice-president rejected as 'rubbish' the study by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Agriculture Minister, said the institute should retract its research claims.
The study contradicted government statistics which had put the bumiputera stake at 18.9 per cent for the past 20 years.
In a Mingguan Malaysia report, published yesterday, Tan Sri Muhyiddin said the research challenges the government's authority. He described it as irresponsible and urged the government to be strict if Asli fails to retract the research.
According to him, Asli should own up to its mistake to avoid jeopardising unity among different racial groups.
'The research is rubbish and cannot be used. As a Malay, I feel angry and I think it has ulterior motives,' he said.
'The research might have certain agendas aimed at sparking off a polemic, especially among those who think the research is true. That group will surely accuse the government of releasing false information.'
The research report, entitled Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends And Future Policy, claims that bumiputeras own 45 per cent of the business equity in Malaysia, above the New Economic Policy's (NEP) target of 30 per cent.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi rejected the study last Thursday, and said that Malays are still far behind economically.
The disparity in the figures arose because Asli had included government-linked companies in its survey. It also made its calculations based on the market value of shares, rather than the par or nominal value.
Economist professor Dr Ismail Md Salleh said the report was inaccurate because different measurements were used.
Some ministers have also accused those involved in the research of having a secret motive.
Deputy Finance Minister Awang Adek Hussin said they could be unhappy with the renewed NEP and the target of 30 per cent bumiputera equity ownership.
He noted that the government figures were accepted by international economists, and warned that if Asli's report was accepted, it could retard the government's effort to distribute the nation's wealth based on race equality.
The Malaysian Malay Entrepreneurs and Merchants Association has asked Asli to be more sensitive towards bumiputera issues.
The association's president, Datuk Moehamad Izat Emir, told Mingguan Malaysia that Asli should focus on matters which require their involvement rather than intervene in the bumiputera status in the country.
THE New Economic Policy was meant to attain national unity by eradicating poverty and restructuring the economy. The target was to raise the pre-1970 ratio of 2.4 per cent Bumiputera equity to 30 per cent by 1990.
By 1990, however, Bumiputeras owned only 19.3 per cent of the economic cake. A new policy to succeed the NEP was formulated. Fifteen years after the end of the actual NEP, the government last year revealed that Bumiputeras had only managed to achieve 18.9 per cent equity.
Plans were under way to address the problems for the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) last year, and the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute was among the many think tanks that came up with proposals to this end early this year.
Asli’s basic premise was that Bumiputera equity was actually more than 20 per cent, about 45 per cent by late last year, based on market capitalisation of companies, including government-linked companies.
The think tank believes market capitalisation is correct to explain wealth ownership by ethnic communities in Malaysia, but should not be taken as the key indicator of wealth distribution.
However, not much attention was given to Asli’s views until last month when a forum on the NEP brought up the Bumiputera equity issue, using the think tank’s report.
A debate ensued in some newspapers and cyberspace, prompting the Prime Minister to express his view that the government was right to state that the Bumiputeras still lagged behind other Malaysians.
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Thursday said Asli’s findings that contradicted the government’s Economic Planning Unit’s figure of 18.9 per cent was wrong in its methodology and could lead to anger among the people.
Asli does not want to appear confrontational with the government. The think tank believes it is merely trying to assist in providing a more effective way to help Bumiputera entrepreneurs.
"We are not in business to change government policies. We fully support the government. Our responsibility is to find better ways and means for the effective implementation of the NEP-type policies.
"What we did with the report was to find more available inputs, to help the Bumiputeras, to eradicate poverty and to fund for more development of human resources," says Asli Director Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.
He says Asli’s findings are based on the principle of revisiting theories formulated some 35 years ago, when GLCs were almost unheard of, in 1970.
"What we did was to respond to the Prime Minister’s call more than a year ago to give input to the 9MP. We believe the 18.9 per cent Bumiputera equity is undervalued," he adds.
The controversy centres on the report by Asli’s Centre for Public Policy Studies, titled "Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy", which claims Bumiputeras have 45 per cent ownership, which includes equity in GLCs.
Refuting Asli’s methodology, the Prime Minister said the think tank based its survey on 1,000 companies listed on Bursa Malaysia, unlike the EPU which studied 600,000 Malaysian companies and used government documents.
Abdullah also rejected Asli’s argument that GLCs were, in effect, Bumiputera companies as the government owned them. He believed such a view would create negative perception among non-Bumiputeras.
Navaratnam agrees that wrong perception could lead to negative reactions. However, he explains that Asli’s methodology was based on ownership of capital, insisting that it gives a truer picture of who owns what than a generalised view based on number of companies.
"For example, even if you survey 100,000 companies that own only fractions of the economic cake, it is the 100 big companies that own the mass of wealth that really reflect the true state of our economy.
"What we did was to help the government to review, or if necessary, to revise the methodology according to changes in trends and time."
The government should restore the confidence of the corporate world as some major players found that the 18.9 per cent figure was undervalued, says Navaratnam, Transparency International Malaysia president.
Economist Datuk Dr Zainal Aznam Yusof says Asli made a mistake by grouping GLCs as Bumiputera companies, adding that the government excluded GLCs from its figures. He also claimed that Asli’s use of market capitalisation was wrong.
He supported the government’s use of the par value or nominal value, and the number of units of shares a person held, to get the correct equity figures.
Economist Khoo Kay Peng, however, questions the use of par value as the basis of calculation, claiming that it does not reveal the real level of wealth ownership.
He also argues that Asli’s estimation that GLCs are 70 per cent owned by Bumiputera is sound enough for the GLCs to be considered Bumiputera companies.
"GLCs are also supporting Bumiputeras through public procuring policy. It has been announced in the Press that regional economic corridors both in the south and north of the peninsula would involve GLCs providing increased participation of Bumiputera companies. It is also known that GLCs deal mostly with Bumiputera-majority owned companies," says the Sedar Institute executive director.
Saying that confrontation will never resolve anything, Navaratnam hopes the experts from the EPU, Treasury and the Statistics Department will sit down with Asli experts to find ways to ensure successful implementation of government policies.
"I’m saddened by the view that Asli is not accurate in its findings. We have nothing but good intentions. Let us have a dialogue and find better ways," he adds.
Kit Siang questions PM's stand on 'marginalisation'
Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang today (Oct 6, 2006) questioned the position taken by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on marginalisation.
He said while Abdullah has said that Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comment about the "marginalisation" of the Chinese in Malaysia is hurtful and could have incited the people, but he has said nothing about Umno Youth vice-chief Khairy Jamaluddin's earlier statement about the "marginalisation" of the Malays in Penang and facing the "same fate of being marginalised" as the Malays in Singapore.
"If the Malays in Penang have been marginalised, who must bear the responsibility?" Lim asked in a ceramah in Bercham, Ipoh, last night (Oct 5, 2006).
Lim said for the past 13 years since 1993, the No. 1 or No. 2 in the Federal Government had come from Penang Umno, starting with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Deputy Prime Minister in 1993, then Abdullah as DPM after Anwar, and from Oct 31, 2003, with Abdullah as Prime Minister.
"If the Malays in Penang are marginalised after 13 years having the top Umno leader in Penang as Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister, shouldn't Umno bear the biggest responsibility?," he asked.
Lim said the question of marginalisation "appears to have not gone away and can be seen in the recent case of how BN Youth handled Khairy's comments".
He said Khairy emerged triumphant while MCA and Gerakan Youths had to admit that No.2 Umno youth leader had been "misinterpreted".
"They even have to go to the ground to explain and defend Khairy's statements," said Lim.
MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai tried to present a tougher line by publicly asking Khairy to prove he has no intention of hurting the feelings of the Chinese community.
"This was when he found himself the object of ridicule and derision not only among the general public, but also among MCA and MCA Youth members,," said Lim.
He said one Chinese newspaper commentator had said Khairy was destroying his political future in adopting his truculent, arrogant and communal stance.
"Khairy would not agree that he is destroying his own political future but sees himself as following notorious examples of carving out the well-trodden path to the political summit by assuming the mantle as the leading ultra in the country and shamelessly playing the race card to become the Malay communal hero," he added.
Lim said the more important and pertinent question is whether Khairy's stand would harm the multi-racial fabric of Malaysia.
He said when Abdullah declared he was in control in Havana, Cuba, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister should demonstrate so by exercising control on the Umno youth No.2 who is also his son-in-law.
"If the Prime Minister does not exercise check and discipline of Khairy, it will be the cause of the downfall of the Abdullah premiership," he added.
**********
UKM should retain its top university status – but for the right reasons
So concerned is everyone with Universiti Malaya’s sliding position in the Times Higher Education Supplement’s “World University Ranking 2006” that not enough attention I feel is being given to UKM’s “achievement” of attaining the 185th position – a few good notches higher than UM.
Sylvia Hsu-Chen Yip, a graduate of UKM now pursuing her PhD at the Australian National University, wrote all the way from Canberra (The Star, October 7) to congratulate UKM for making it to the list this time – and doing it better than UM. She thinks UKM deserves the position, and that in her field (biochemistry), at least, she knew all along that UKM is superior to UM.
I am normally not too excited about the annual publication of the THES ranking list, and I do believe that the worth of a university cannot be measured by its position in the list alone – or any other list for that matter. To me, a university should be evaluated, and respected, for fulfilling some traditional criteria of a true academic institution.
To be placed on the THES list is at most a public relations victory for a university – and the reputation may or may not have anything to do with the real quality of the university as an academic institution. For the top universities of the list – Harvard, Cambridge, Yale or Oxford – being on the list is just a bonus; they already enjoy academic stature without even being there.
But for a young university like the UKM, and situated in a developing nation of the third world at that, being in the list – even at the 185th position – must have its own special significance.
Moreover, UKM have long “suffered” from the reputation of being the first university in this country to use Malay as its medium of instruction. Even during the early stages of the university’s development, when a crop of young and inexperienced academics were struggling to build a tradition for the university, it was almost never considered anywhere near UM which had already enjoyed the reputation of being the premier university of the country.
To find itself in the list, despite being a “non-English” university, must be considered an achievement in its own right. Even the Editor of THES accepted the fact that the predominance of “English” universities in the list would have to be explained in terms of the position of English in the world academic community.
Now that UKM has made it to the rank of “one of the top 200 universities in the world”, one hopes that the position was attained through the recognition of the “real” academic and intellectual worth of the university. One shudders to think that the former vice-chancellor of UKM, Prof. Mohd. Salleh Yassin, is correct in his observation that the university had made it to the list because of its captivating website and its successful re-branding exercise....(more)
Tony P wrote :" Zahid Higher Education Report - Cold Storaged?"
Husna Yusop of The Sun asked the minister - "What direction will the ministry take to achieve Vision 2020?" Part of Tok Pa's reply was as follows:
...there is a high level committee in the ministry which is looking at various issues and proposals, on how we can bring about radical changes. It started work more than three months ago and will be coming out with a draft report.
And when asked if this report was different from the Tan Sri Wan Zahid Higher Education Report, Tok Pa replied that "this report is more comprehensive and will address future challenges until 2015".
I'm more than a little concerned because it appears that a "change" of regime at the Ministry of Higher Education immediately meant dumping the work done, even if it was decent work, and starting with square one once again. I've read the entire Zahid report, and I must say, with the exception of 1-2 issues, there are plenty of issues which have been dealt with pretty well - particularly on issues of governance.
The Terms of Reference of the Zahid study focus on the achievement of excellence. The Committee was charged to formulate recommendations that would enable higher education in Malaysia to achieve world class status and establish the country as a regional centre of excellence in education. Feedback was obtained by the Committee through dialogue and discussion sessions as well as website commentaries.
The report also took the bold step of highlighting that "the country cannot wait for groups which are not yet ready before striving for excellence. If the nation ever takes this course, then this ‘levelling down’ can only result in loss and regressiveness."
As part of the detailed study for the report, the Committee therefore formed study groups from within the members of the Main Committee and the Ministry of Higher Education officers to study best practices in selected institutions globally, as a guide to formulate recommendations to the Government. The various sub-committees visited 17 different countries from China to Egypt covering some 78 institutions and government agencies.
The report itself produced 138 recommendations and is almost 300 pages long. Hence, I'm struggling to comprehend why a separate "more comprehensive" study is actually required. I also do not understand how the Zahid report doesn't actually "address the challenges til 2015". Yes, it's not the perfect report, and it probably did not cover certain issues in sufficient detail such as academic freedom and the University and University Colleges Act. But that doesn't justify an entirely new report!
Unlike his predecessor as well as most of the other ministers, Tok Pa demonstrated great openness by releasing the Zahid Higher Education Report to the Parliament in March. On hindsight, was it released because it has become an irrelevant document due to the fact that a different and new study was about to commence? Was it the reason why despite multiple queries by parliamentarians, the Ministry of Higher Education has not made any announcement or commitment to implement any of the recommendations made in the Zahid Report?
The Zahid report took all of 6 months to complete. Tok Pa indicated that the new report in its draft form will be out soon after having commenced 3 months ago. By the time the formal new report is completed, it'll probably be early next year, at best. It will then be almost 2 years after the Zahid Report has been released to the Ministry. Are these 2 wasted years where no major reforms are implemented? With the urgency around the need to arrest the decline of our universities, can we afford to dally that long?
I also can't see how a report that takes approximately the same time to complete will be better by any significant extent than the previous one. Especially when the previous report was not just done by the ministry officials but by prominent academics like Prof Emeritus Dato' Dr Khoo Kay Kim, and Prof Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia).
Tok Pa, will you please clarify the reasons for do this? I'm a little disappointed, to say the least.
**********
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) says has conducted nuclear test
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) said on Monday that it has conducted a successful nuclear test, according to the official Korean Central News Agency(KCNA).
"The test is 100 percent safe," said the KCNA, adding that there was "no radioactive leak."
The move came about a week after the country announced it would undertake an unprecedented nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed.
In a statement issued last Tuesday, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said it "will never use nuclear weapons first."
The Oct. 3 announcement drew deep concerns of the international community.
The United Nations Security Council on Friday unanimously adopted a presidential statement, urging the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks.
"The Security Council urges the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition and to work toward the expeditious implementation of the Sept. 19,2005, Joint Statement, and in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," the statement said.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday that a nuclear test by the DPRK would be a "very provocative" act.
Washington on Friday warned that it would be the "most incendiary" event if the DPRK undertakes a nuclear test.
"It would be destabilizing to the region and could lead to further escalation of tensions," White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
China urged for calm and restraint on the nuclear test issue.
"We... hope that all relevant parties must address their concerns through dialogues and consultations instead of taking actions that may intensify the situation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement on Wednesday.
Pyongyang declared in February 2005 it had nuclear weapons.
China resolutely opposes DPRK's nuclear test
The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to the nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday.
According to a report by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the DPRK has conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday.
"The DPRK ignored universal opposition of the international community and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test on Oct. 9. The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to it," the statement said.
It said China strongly demands the DPRK live up to its commitment to non-nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks.
It has been the firm, unshakable and consistent stance of the Chinese government to realize non-nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and oppose proliferation of nuclear weapons, the statement said.
The Chinese government calls for calm response from all parties concerned and urges them to stick to peaceful resolution of the issue through consultations and dialogues, the statement said.
It said that maintaining peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region conforms to the common interests of all parties concerned, and China will continue to make unremitting efforts to this end.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing talked over telephone with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday afternoon, exchanging views on the latest development of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Li reiterated China's solemn and just position on the issue as announced in the Foreign Ministry's statement.
The nuclear test, the first of such conducted by the DPRK, came about a week after the country announced it would undertake an unprecedented atomic test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed.
KCNA reported that there was no such danger as radioactive emission in the test as it was carried out under a scientific consideration and with careful calculation.
In a statement issued last Tuesday, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said the country "will never use nuclear weapons first."
The test drew immediate reaction from the international community.
The United Nations Security Council is to hold an emergency meeting in a closed session Monday to discuss the issue.
A spokesman of President Roh Moo Hyun of the Republic of Korea (ROK) said Monday that ROK would sternly respond to the DPRK's nuclear test.
It is reported that Japan and the United States are preparing to submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council if the DPRK's nuclear test is confirmed.
Japan said last Friday that it would seek a Security Council resolution on sanctions against the DPRK if it carried out a nuclear test.
Malaysia UKM World University Ranking 2006 marginalisation North Korea nuclear test
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
6:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home