Malaysia's `Riot' Bogey Quells Economic Debate
Malaysian ministers defend PM after Mahathir criticisms
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Tuesday set aside a feud with ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad to enjoy Eid al-Fitr celebrations as ministers lined up to defend their leader.
Abdullah, who spent Tuesday afternoon shaking hands with thousands of Malaysians at a public Eid celebration, refused to answer questions about a foiled attempt to make peace with Mahathir.
"Not on that subject please. There's another time for that," Abdullah told reporters, adding he was enjoying messages of support from the crowd.
"(People say) you are doing well, keep on, keep on. Some say, 'We support you, go ahead Pak Lah, don't worry. Just be what you are,'" he said, referring to himself by his popular name.
Despite hopes of a rapprochement between the two men during the two-hour Sunday meeting, Mahathir issued stinging attacks on Abdullah after the talks, accusing the premier of economic mismanagement and nepotism.
He also accused Abdullah of running a "police state" and curbing his right to talk to members of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).
"I will continue until there is some change, until I achieve some results," Mahathir said Monday.
Ministers on Tuesday lambasted Mahathir for his attacks, accusing him of worsening the situation, while Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said UMNO was taken aback by Mahathir's response to the meeting.
"I was surprised. Most people thought that could be a beginning of trying to work things out between PM and Tun Mahathir," he told reporters, referring to Mahathir by his honorific.
"We had hoped for something that would benefit the party and the nation arising from the talks," said Najib. "So we were taken aback by his ... immediate response to it."
The deputy premier said Abdullah was prepared to issue a detailed response to Mahathir's criticisms, including his involvement in a 2004 Iraq oil-for-food scandal, but that the elder statesman's outburst had thrown the plan into disarray.
"We'll have to think once again," he said, when asked when the response would be sent.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid said Mahathir -- who Monday unabashedly admitted he was telling Abdullah how to run the country -- was unfairly trying to influence the government.
"He's saying that he wants to see that whatever he thinks, whatever he likes to see is being implemented. In other words, he sounds as if he should be consulted for major decisions," Azmi said.
"It is not fair for the present administration," he added.
Influential cabinet minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said Mahathir was trying to unseat the government, and criticised his fresh assaults during the Muslim Eid al-Fitr or Hari Raya festival.
"We all know that he wants to bring down the government, bring down Pak Lah," he was quoted as saying by the state Bernama news agency.
"I don't know what's wrong with him. It is Hari Raya and we should be coming together, asking for forgiveness."
The dispute has sent shockwaves through the ruling party and raised the spectre of divided loyalties, while ordinary Malaysians have been dismayed by the public display of bitterness.
An editor for the government-linked New Straits Times newspaper, Brendan Pereira, said some Malaysians had experienced a "colossal letdown" after the talks.
"For many Malaysians, this has been an uneasy few months -- watching two respected leaders slugging it out in public," he said in a column Tuesday.
"For many Malaysians, it has been a difficult time -- having to choose sides."
Johor Sultan Tells Dr Mahathir To Act Like A Pensioner
The Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar al-Marhum Sultan Ismail, was Tuesday reported to have publicly said that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad should start acting like a pensioner and stop criticising the government.
The sultan was said to have make the remarks to about a hundred people at the Sultan Abdul Bakar Mosque here after performing the Aidilfitri prayers.
"If one has already been pensioned, just behave like a pensioner, what is the use of making more noise?," said a source who repeated the quote to Bernama.
During Umno's 60th anniversary celebrations at Istana Johor in May this year, the sultan had even tried to patch things up between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Dr Mahathir by asking them to be photographed together in a group picture with him and other Umno leaders.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Talkasia Transcript
AR: Anjali Rao
AB: Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Hello Im Anjali Rao in Putrajaya Malaysia, this is Talk Asia!
My guest today is the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
As leader of this multi-racial state, he's seen as fostering a free-er Malaysia and is something of an ambassador for Islamic understanding.
AB SOT UN Speech
"I am afraid the schism between the west and the muslim world will grow even deeper unless the international community is prepared to accept certain facts as the truth!"
Prime Minister Abdullah also has a fight on his hands -- a bitter dispute with his country's most famous political force, Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
AB SOT:
He has been saying a lot of things, I have decided to keep quiet and go on to do what I what to do. I still command majority support today.
AR: Prime Minister Abdullah welcome to Talk Asia. (Thank you)
The first thing that I'd like to discuss with you is the role of Islam in the world at the moment. You've spoken recently about a schism between Islam and the west. You said that you think it will grow even deeper unless the international community accepts certain things as true. What is it that you think the non-Muslim world is missing?
AB: What they are missing is that Muslims have not been really able to portray faithfully in their country's development, and the development of Muslim xxxx (???) that reflect the true teaching of Islam. Through the activities of so-called Muslim terrorists, they have created bad name for Islam, and the Muslim. And it so happened that the September 11 incident, has caused, since then, has caused a lot of unhappiness, sadness. And even the view of the non-Muslim towards Islam has changed dramatically since then.
And today, there doesn't seem to be any kind of understanding, enough understanding, to create a better rapport, better relations between the two. And that to me, is the cause of what we are seeing today.
There's always been a lot of suggestion that there should be more and more and more, inter dialogue, inter-faith dialogue. There should be more discussions of how to bring together, than talking about terrorism.
AR: But when we see things like September 11, and you know, the Bali bombings perpetrated by these Islamic extremists, it must of course be even more difficult to try and persuade the rest of the world that your faith is one of peace and unity despite a small minority of Muslims carrying out these atrocities. But certainly when the bombs go off their voices are the loudest?
AB: Of course when an incident like that has happened, it is going to be very, very difficult for us to explain. And especially if those who are involved are saying that "we have done it in the name of Islam." That becomes a real problem.
AR: What is it that you think that extremists that, you know, perhaps look at the holy book or study the holy scriptures and this is what they take away from the holy scriptures. Is there something within these teachings that says that violence against non-Muslims is ok?
AB: No. Violence, in the Koran, there are very specific, very specific commandment by God, that one should not create violence, one should not cause violence. One should not cause violence, especially when that leads to destruction of what you've already achieved. You've done, you've brought about development, you've brought about progress, and you should not be destroying all these.
AR: Something else that you've also said recently is that, you've spoken of the humiliation that Muslims feel. Why is that an overriding emotion among the Islamic community and is it something that you yourself, as a Muslim feel?
AB: I do feel that way too. There's one thing that the west has failed to understand. That, to a Muslim, religion is very important. Religion to the Muslim is not kept at home. It is not a matter for the relatives. For the Muslim, religion is important. In the corporate sector, in his business, in the government, in whatever he does, he is very much dictated by the teachings of Islam.
So really it is the interpretation of the Koran. Some people said if you have to defend yourself, you have to use all sorts of weapons, you have to make sure that if you have a right for self defense. And you have to act even if it appears that your action appears to be violent. But that will be done. Everybody does it , right? When there is an aggression against their country, or against their people, they tend to react in ways that could be regarded as violent. But what do we see? Do we see violence here that one has to resort to that kind of role, that kind of action? I don't know!
AR: Speaking of violent reactions, there was, recently such a response to the comments made by the Pope in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor who had referred to the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as evil. The Pope did follow that up by saying that the comment was rather marginal to religious dialogue itself. Why didn't Islamic people around the world hear that last bit of the sentence? Why did they only listen to the first part and react to that? Are Muslims being over sensitive?
AB: Well when it comes to religion we are always very sensitive. Many people, when it comes to race, we are always very sensitive. Not just us, anybody else become very, very sensitive.
The Pope need not bring it up! Why did he have to say it considering the present situation? Considering that between the Muslim group and non-Muslim group there is a state of tension, there's a state of perhaps, not perhaps, a state of unhappiness, a lack of trust and confidence. That's very important. So don't bring it up!
AR: One group that has shown itself to be a threat to this region is Jemaah Islamiah. It wants to create a pan-Islamic state, encompassing Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore as well. With the level of resentment at the moment that exists among Islamic communities towards the west, in what they perceive to be western aggression, do you see JI's vision of this ever coming to fruition?
AB: No, I don't see it ever coming to fruition in our region. In fact we've been able to contain their activities. Not that we don't have JI people. We do have the people who believe in JI philosophy, or JI ideology, whatever you may call them. But they are not getting any following. But we have to be very careful. We cannot allow them to just be going on, and campaigning and promoting their ideas, because their ideas, as far as Malaysia is concerned, are not acceptable. And Indonesia is also finding it unacceptable. And Brunei doesn't accept that sort of ideas.
AR: Prime Minister we're just going to take a short break at this point. But when Talk Asia returns, we'll discuss Prime Minister Abdullah's relationship with George W Bush -- though here's a clue, it's a lot friendlier than his relationship with his own predecessor, Mahathir Mohammad!
AR: Welcome back. We're speaking with the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Prime Minister you recently met with George W Bush. Remind us of your conversation with him.
AB: Well we talked about many things. International issues, issues of the Middle East of course, Middle East, of Iran, of Asia, of terrorism, of democracy. Many things, many issues!
AR: One of the things I know you were also talking with him about was the desire to really create global peace. But you said that your approaches to it differed. How important is it for heads of state to really be in step in order to achieve that?
AB: Well I think it's important. I would put it this way that if we want global peace, then it must be all of us, must more or less have the same ideas of how to do it. If it's not exactly the same, the ideas must be compatible. And that also applies to the strategies and approaches.
AR: How well do you get along with President Bush on a personal level?
AB: Well by the conversation we had, nothing confrontational. He was willing to be frank, I was willing to be very frank about a lot of things that we say. And I didn't hide anything that I want to tell him. When I was with him, I spoke as a Muslim, as a man from the East, a Malay, as a leader of a Muslim country, as the chairman of OIC. And I would like to reflect our feelings, our concerns and views on many things. Because President of the United States, whoever he is, is a big man. He decides a lot of things and we all suffer because of that. Or sometimes, we benefit!
AR: Another of your relationships which is getting a lot of press at the moment is your relationship with Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, your predecessor. Things look extremely testy at the moment. What's it all about?
AB: What's it all about? Well he doesn't, he has not, he didn't agree with some of the things that I'm doing. Some of it has to do with some of the projects that he decided that he should, we should implement. And that's all there is to it, nothing more. That's how it all started.
AR: Still though he was the Prime Minister for this country for 22 years, he's still got a lot of people who respect him and hold him in the highest regard (Yes, that's true.). Do you worry that by taking him on in this fashion, that you might be committing political suicide yourself?
AB: No, no no I don't think it's political suicide. He has been saying a lot of things, I have decided to keep quiet and to go on doing what I want to do. And people want me to do what I want to do. And I have, I still command majority support today.
AR: Do you ignore what he says and his criticism of you?
AB: Well of course I can hear! If he comes to the press, I read. If there's something that I am doing, I continue to do what I want to do. And then some of his criticism, a relevant criticism, I'll make whatever adjustments I need to make. And some, I can't accept.
AR: One of the things that he said against you is that you've turned Malaysia into a gutless nation. Not least because you've pulled out of this plan of the construction of a bridge linking Malaysia and Singapore. Do you think he's got a fair point there when you know, he might see you as rolling back everything that he put into place?
AB: Not everything he put into place. No! Vision 2020, his biggest achievement, that's my target too! That we share, I share the vision. I have developed what I call a national mission. The mission is very big, in order to achieve that vision. My plan is not just for the ninth Malaysia Plan, my plan is for the ninth Malaysia Plan, the tenth Malaysia Plan, for the eleventh Malaysia Plan.
AR: But huge construction projects, like the bridge for example, you know, that was one of his babies, it was something that he worked for many years on. Now he's seeing you ditch it.
AB: Well I have decided that I'm not going to continue with the bridge. We discussed in the cabinet, we feel that no, we'll not do it. We're very practical about our approach, and the bridge has nothing to do with the life and death of Malaysia. It has nothing to do with the issue of integrity, it's a very practical issue. And for that reason we feel that we won't have the bridge. We can do other things to develop Malaysia.
AR: If he had not been in power, if he hadn't ruled the country the way he did, do you accept that Malaysia might have been less of a success than it is today.
AB: We wouldn't know, we wouldn't know, we wouldn't know. How can we...I think this is a theoretical question. He was our Prime Minister, he was our leader, he ruled for 22 years, was a leader for 22 years. He has done, achieved considerable success for Malaysia. We are proud of his achievement. That's a fact, that's a fact. But today, when he begins his criticism, not everybody appreciates it, not everybody.
AR: Prime Minister we're going to take another short break at this point. Stay with us though, on Talk Asia. When we come back, we'll talk about the prickly issue of racism in Malaysia. For instance, the ethnic Chinese population here says that they feel like they are treated like second class citizens. We'll find out what the Prime Minister has to say about it, after this.
AR: We're back on Talk Asia with the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Prime Minister, Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew says that the Chinese population here is systematically marginalized. He's now sent you a letter explaining his comments. What do you want to hear from him?
AB: I will know what I can hear when I read his letter. But certainly I wouldn't want him to raise an issue like that. No, he doesn't have to.
AR: Are you saying that his accusations are groundless?
AB: Yes, it's groundless. And it is an issue that can cause unhappiness to many people. Why? Some may even regard it as tantamount to interfering with what we are doing. The Chinese in Malaysia are doing well. They are better off than the indigenous people, than the Malays.
AR: That's what he was saying though wasn't it, that because they're so successful that's why they're marginalized.
AB: No, they have been so successful because we give them opportunities to be successful. We allow their people, we allow their children to go to Chinese school, vocational school, to learn Mandarin.
And they practice their cultures. Their Chinese New Year is celebrated not only by them, but also by the Malays, the Indians who are...the Malays the Muslims, the Hindus. We have respect, mutual respect. That is growing in Malaysia, that's true.
AR: Still though the last time that we saw you on Talk Asia, you said that, I'm quoting back at you here, your government is making every effort to make sure that Malaysians are united, that there will be no racial prejudices among them. Yet in that time there has been a survey which was released saying that many Malaysians of all ethnic background actually buy into the stereotypes that are leveled against them. With that in mind, do you think that you might have underestimated the situation here of the differences that do exist amongst the various communities.
AB: The differences do exist, that's a fact because of the cultural diversity. In a situation where there is cultural diversity there'll be differences. But we celebrate these differences. But what we would like to see, that we all desire to be together, to live a life that is peaceful. We want to respect someone who doesn't belong to our own ethnic group, who's not of the same religious faith. A desire to be friendly, and to do things together. And most importantly that all of us love this one country that belong to all of us, that's Malaysia!
AR: Malaysia is thriving on so many fronts. It's successful socially and economically across the board. But one of the accusations that continues to be thrown up against it as a democratic state is that the free press here is not actually free. Reporters San Frontiers has last year put your country 113 out of 167 on the number of countries who have a free press. 167 being the least free press. Why does it need to be so tightly controlled if it's truly a democracy here.
AB: It is not very, it is not tightly controlled. The Malaysian press have freedom, but they are very responsible press. They understand the situation in which they operate. That is Malaysia. They also have a role to what I call self censorship. But there are other press. The main press self-censor but there are other little ones, who exercise I don't know what kind of freedom they have, to print all sorts of things and to say all sorts of things. And I think it's wrong to say that we are right down there. I have not known of any country where the press is truly free.
AR: You yourself have said that freedom of press has its boundaries and that unbridled freedom could also lead to the chaos and suffering for everybody. (Yes it's true I still hold to that view.) In what sense? Why would there be such chaos and suffering?
AB: Because press can be irresponsible, can incite feelings, can also create mistrust, can also create a state of tension. What happens is, for example, you remember the caricature of Prophet Muhammad? Yes, nobody forgets about it, you see how the muslims feel about it. If I have the same thing here in Malaysia, my god, you know what is going to happen!
AR: But then where are you going to draw the line between freedom of expression and clamping down?
AB: The drawing of the line comes from an understanding of those people who are in the press, understanding of our society, of our sensitivities. That is very important, they understand the society, our cultures, our values, our sensitivities and political sensitivities. That's very, very important. If they understand, they'll know what to say and what not to say.
And there are occasions when the press did something which many of us thought, oh my god what has happened? We have to deal with it. We have to deal with it, we have to cope with it, we have to understand but they cannot be doing that all the time. We can't, because I want to say there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The degree of freedom that one exercises varies from one country to another. This is the truth.
AR: Prime Minister it's been fantastic having you on Talk Asia. We thank you very much indeed for your time today.
Malaysia's `Riot' Bogey Quells Economic Debate
By Andy Mukherjee
Here is a touristy Malaysia, which beckons visitors to ``come experience the unique potpourri of Asia's great cultures -- Malay, Chinese, Indian and the many ethnic groups of Sabah and Sarawak.''
And then, there is the other Malaysia, the one that investors deal with, where cultural harmony is just a veneer; scratch it off and you are left with a tightly packed powder keg of racial politics and politicking.
In this Malaysia, it is somehow immoral to question a longstanding policy favoring the economic advancement of ``Bumiputeras,'' mostly Malays and some indigenous tribal peoples.
That's because politicians such as Musa Hitam, a former deputy prime minister, believe that debates, even academic ones, can turn emotional and degenerate into race riots, like the ones that took place between the Malays and the Chinese in 1969 and became the justification for subsequent affirmative action.
And that really was Malaysian economist Lim Teck Ghee's crime -- to dispute the government's claim that Bumiputeras, literally ``princes of the earth,'' own less than 19 percent of Malaysia's corporate equity, far short of the 30 percent target set for them by the New Economic Policy of 1970.
The rationale for the 30 percent target was to remove a root cause of social strife by ending the concentration of wealth in the hands of non-Malays -- especially, the ethnic Chinese -- who in 1970 owned 96 percent of the Southeast Asian nation's economy.
The Centre for Public Policy Studies, the Kuala Lumpur-based think tank that Lim headed before his resignation this month, argued in the study that corporate equity controlled by Malays may be as high as 45 percent.
Bouquets and Brickbats
The political significance of this finding is simple: If the policy for redistribution of wealth has more than met its target, raising Bumiputera economic ownership to 45 percent from a meager 2.4 percent in 1970, then let's discontinue it.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denounced the study as ``irresponsible.'' Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister and Abdullah's most bitter critic, said a sudden end to affirmative action could cause political instability.
Mahathir's businessman son, Mirzan Mahathir, who indirectly controls the Centre for Public Policy Studies, apologized for the report and retracted it on Oct. 10.
Lim quit the next day, saying he stood by his study.
He now says he may not get another job in Malaysia, in which case, he will have no option except to leave the country.
And that would be a pity, not only because a good academic can't freely air views he believes to be true but also because the brouhaha about whether Bumiputera corporate equity is 19 percent or 45 percent -- or somewhere in between -- is irrelevant to the more pertinent issue raised by the study.
The Right Debate
``Economic policies based on race do not serve as an incentive to disadvantaged segments of society to participate in the economy,'' the study said. ``Equitable wealth distribution can only be achieved if the recipients are subjected to income and asset tests, regardless of race, a mechanism employed in countries that have adopted affirmative action.''
To me, this is really the crux of the report.
Publicly traded companies in Malaysia are required to have at least 30 percent Bumiputera holding.
Hypermarkets must allocate 30 percent of their shelf space to products made by Bumiputera companies.
Many government contracts require companies to have a Bumiputera partner owning at least 30 percent of the business.
Foreign-owned companies are nudged to hire more Bumiputera staff whether qualified candidates are available or not.
All of these are rather clumsy attempts at social justice. A dogmatic pursuit of the 30 percent rule creates entitlements for the rich and the middle classes, who then trade them away.
Government Wealth
If Malay investors use the equity acquired by them at initial share sales to buy real estate, does that mean there's no increase in Bumiputera wealth?
What mechanism is there to ensure that within the Bumiputera, the less privileged also benefit?
Lim's study also raises an important question about the government's wealth.
The four largest companies by market value in Malaysia are Malayan Banking Bhd., power producer Tenaga Nasional Bhd., ship owner MISC Bhd. and phone company Telekom Malaysia Bhd. In all four, the biggest shareholder is the Malaysian government, acting through investment holding companies and funds.
To which race should this wealth be attributable? Malays make up 60 percent of the country's population of 26 million; the Chinese account for a quarter.
Who's Right?
To be sure, the 45 percent figure arrived at by Lim's researchers can at best be called a guesstimate. It counts 70 percent of the market value of publicly traded government-owned companies as Malay corporate wealth and adds it to the official estimate of Bumiputera equity, valuing the latter as a fifth of the combined capitalization of all shares listed on Bursa Malaysia, the stock exchange.
Prime Minister Abdullah says he doesn't mind divulging how the 19 percent figure is calculated, but the opposition has to stop insinuating that the government's number is fudged.
Then again, it doesn't really matter whose estimate is right. The competitive landscape in Asia has changed a lot since 1970; Malaysia's appeal to investors has been dimmed by the emergence of China and India.
Malaysia must acknowledge the altered reality. Its focus on redistributing wealth may now be coming in the way of creating it. Taking on a Bumiputera partner or sub-contractor who brings nothing else to the table is a cost to a foreign investor.
Rather than shouting ``riot'' to quell discourse, politicians should encourage a debate.
(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Saying no to corruption
Business needs to be held accountable in developing economies.
Fortune's Marc Gunther spoke with Anwar Ibrahim recently in his office on the Georgetown campus.
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
Anwar Ibrahim was a rising star in Asian politics during the 1990s as Finance Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister under Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. But in 1998, after leading a campaign against government corruption, Ibrahim was thrown in jail on trumped-up charges and held in solitary confinement for six years.
He has since become an advocate for democracy, a teacher at Georgetown University, and honorary president of AccountAbility. Fortune's Marc Gunther spoke with him recently in his office on the Georgetown campus.
What did you learn from your experiences in Malaysia about the role of business in development?
Business has to be part of the development process, so we made intense efforts to promote the private sector. I strongly support market reforms, deregulation, privatization, all the mantras of today's global economy.
But for this to work, we need business to be accountable, and we observed serious flaws in this regard. In my experience, business can tend toward cronyism, corruption and other poor practices in the absence of a free press, a vibrant civil society and effective law enforcement.
Was the corruption driven by local businesses, or were global companies involved as well?
It was primarily local, but the multinationals cannot be absolved. Often it's not a question of blatant, outright corruption. It's the subtle endorsement of unsatisfactory practices - for example, when it comes to labor standards or the exploitation of natural resources. Some international corporations become involved in inappropriate practices when meeting their financial bottom-line goals requires working with repressive governments.
Some say that it's wrong to apply Western ideals on issues like the environment, labor rights, and democracy to the developing world. What's your view?
Many use the notion of Asian values to make excuses for governments that do not support democracy, accountability, the need for a free press and an active civil society. Others say security and development take precedence over freedom and democracy.
I don't accept any of this. Certainly there may be regional variations in how business is done, but accountability, universal human rights, an independent judiciary and a free press are not Western or Eastern values. They are universal values that we should all embrace.
Still, there are those who say it is wrong for Western governments or NGOs to force the developing world to adopt the labor or environmental standards of highly mature industrial societies while they are still developing.
Emerging economies should not be dictated to by European or North American lobbies. In Malaysia we have in the area of Sarawak about two million acres of timber. More extreme environmental groups would deny us the right to any extraction. This position is as misguided as the equally extreme position by the Sarawak state government to allow for the indiscriminate rape of these jungles. Sustainable forestry is the right balance, accountable to those communities that need a livelihood with the need to protect the environment.
Did any companies you dealt with in Malaysia impress you with their commitment to accountability and social responsibility?
Intel and Motorola come to mind as two that made major investments, shared technology, invested in training locals and were more honest and transparent than others.
Any that disappointed you?
Many, sadly, but this is not the place to name names. I recall one occasion when a major multinational hosted me for a dinner shortly after I came into office. They proposed an "arrangement" to facilitate their interests, pointing out that this was merely a continuation of their ongoing practice in Malaysia. They were astonished and distressed when I referred them to the official ministry channels rather than to an intermediary through whom they could funnel funds on my behalf. These occasions convinced me of the need to introduce stronger measures against corruption when I was acting Prime Minister in 1997, a decision that ultimately landed me in jail.
Did any of the Western companies you had done business with come to your aid?
None that I'm aware of. Many individuals and human rights organizations took up my case, but it was only after I came out of prison that some businesspeople expressed sympathy.
Would you have known if any businesses had lobbied on your behalf?
Oh, yes, they could have contacted my wife, my family, my lawyers.
Did they?
No.
Humans Living Far Beyond Planet's Means: WWF
by Ben Blanchard
Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.
The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.
"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.
Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.
"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.
The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
RISING POPULATION
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.
In final UN Day message, Annan warns that much still needs to be done
In his final message for United Nations Day as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan warned today that much still needs to be done in the common struggle for development, security and human rights, and he urged world leaders to work with his successor, Ban Ki-moon, to make the world body ever stronger and more effective.
No North Korean apology, China says
Kim Jong Il of North Korea did not apologize for his regime's nuclear test, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, and added that there was no guarantee the reclusive state would not detonate another weapon.
South Korean media reported last week that Kim had expressed regret for the Oct. 9 test during a visit last week by Tang Jiaxuan, a Chinese special envoy who was carrying a message from President Hu Jintao.
But a ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said at a news briefing Tuesday: "These reports are certainly not accurate. We haven't heard any information that Kim Jong Il apologized for the test." He also said the North Koreans told Tang's delegation that "it did not have a plan to carry out a second test."
But Liu added that Tang had reported the North had signaled that, "if it faces pressure," it reserved the "right to take further actions." Liu did not say whether Kim or other North Korean officials had made that comment.
Also Tuesday, Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean foreign minister who will take over as secretary general of the United Nations in January, said Seoul fully backed the sanctions that have been agreed upon by the Security Council.
South Korea has not specified what it plans to do to be in accord with the resolution, which calls on the world to prevent Pyongyang from continuing its weapons trade. Washington has urged Seoul to join an anti-proliferation initiative and to take steps to make its projects with the North more transparent.
Ban said Seoul was still reviewing its policies "to bring them closer in line" with the UN resolution. He was scheduled to go to Beijing on Friday for meetings with Hu, Tang and Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing.
While the North has continued to rail against the United States, a South Korean lawmaker said Tuesday that the regime was amenable to returning to international nuclear talks if Washington showed a willingness to resolve a dispute over the North's alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
Washington is trying to cut off the North's access to international banking as punishment for alleged counterfeiting of U.S. dollars and other illegal activity. Pyongyang has denied the charges and boycotted six-nation talks on its nuclear program until the crackdown is ended.
Representative Choi Sung of South Korea's governing Uri Party said he met with a "key North Korean official" in Beijing on Sunday. He declined to identify him. After the meeting, Choi suggested that the United States present the North with evidence of its alleged financial activities so it can punish those responsible. He said the North Korean official had said his country could then return to the talks "even if the issue is not completely resolved." $@
Defense chief offers to quit
The South Korean defense minister, Yoon Kwang Ung, has offered to resign, Agence France-Presse reported from Seoul on Tuesday, citing the Yonhap news agency. The Defense Ministry declined to discuss the report, which came just two weeks after North Korea conducted a nuclear weapons test.
Malaysia Abdullah Mahathir Anwar Ibrahim North Korea China Tibetan teenager Johor Sultan WWF
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Tuesday set aside a feud with ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad to enjoy Eid al-Fitr celebrations as ministers lined up to defend their leader.
Abdullah, who spent Tuesday afternoon shaking hands with thousands of Malaysians at a public Eid celebration, refused to answer questions about a foiled attempt to make peace with Mahathir.
"Not on that subject please. There's another time for that," Abdullah told reporters, adding he was enjoying messages of support from the crowd.
"(People say) you are doing well, keep on, keep on. Some say, 'We support you, go ahead Pak Lah, don't worry. Just be what you are,'" he said, referring to himself by his popular name.
Despite hopes of a rapprochement between the two men during the two-hour Sunday meeting, Mahathir issued stinging attacks on Abdullah after the talks, accusing the premier of economic mismanagement and nepotism.
He also accused Abdullah of running a "police state" and curbing his right to talk to members of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).
"I will continue until there is some change, until I achieve some results," Mahathir said Monday.
Ministers on Tuesday lambasted Mahathir for his attacks, accusing him of worsening the situation, while Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said UMNO was taken aback by Mahathir's response to the meeting.
"I was surprised. Most people thought that could be a beginning of trying to work things out between PM and Tun Mahathir," he told reporters, referring to Mahathir by his honorific.
"We had hoped for something that would benefit the party and the nation arising from the talks," said Najib. "So we were taken aback by his ... immediate response to it."
The deputy premier said Abdullah was prepared to issue a detailed response to Mahathir's criticisms, including his involvement in a 2004 Iraq oil-for-food scandal, but that the elder statesman's outburst had thrown the plan into disarray.
"We'll have to think once again," he said, when asked when the response would be sent.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid said Mahathir -- who Monday unabashedly admitted he was telling Abdullah how to run the country -- was unfairly trying to influence the government.
"He's saying that he wants to see that whatever he thinks, whatever he likes to see is being implemented. In other words, he sounds as if he should be consulted for major decisions," Azmi said.
"It is not fair for the present administration," he added.
Influential cabinet minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said Mahathir was trying to unseat the government, and criticised his fresh assaults during the Muslim Eid al-Fitr or Hari Raya festival.
"We all know that he wants to bring down the government, bring down Pak Lah," he was quoted as saying by the state Bernama news agency.
"I don't know what's wrong with him. It is Hari Raya and we should be coming together, asking for forgiveness."
The dispute has sent shockwaves through the ruling party and raised the spectre of divided loyalties, while ordinary Malaysians have been dismayed by the public display of bitterness.
An editor for the government-linked New Straits Times newspaper, Brendan Pereira, said some Malaysians had experienced a "colossal letdown" after the talks.
"For many Malaysians, this has been an uneasy few months -- watching two respected leaders slugging it out in public," he said in a column Tuesday.
"For many Malaysians, it has been a difficult time -- having to choose sides."
Johor Sultan Tells Dr Mahathir To Act Like A Pensioner
The Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar al-Marhum Sultan Ismail, was Tuesday reported to have publicly said that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad should start acting like a pensioner and stop criticising the government.
The sultan was said to have make the remarks to about a hundred people at the Sultan Abdul Bakar Mosque here after performing the Aidilfitri prayers.
"If one has already been pensioned, just behave like a pensioner, what is the use of making more noise?," said a source who repeated the quote to Bernama.
During Umno's 60th anniversary celebrations at Istana Johor in May this year, the sultan had even tried to patch things up between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Dr Mahathir by asking them to be photographed together in a group picture with him and other Umno leaders.
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Talkasia Transcript
AR: Anjali Rao
AB: Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Hello Im Anjali Rao in Putrajaya Malaysia, this is Talk Asia!
My guest today is the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
As leader of this multi-racial state, he's seen as fostering a free-er Malaysia and is something of an ambassador for Islamic understanding.
AB SOT UN Speech
"I am afraid the schism between the west and the muslim world will grow even deeper unless the international community is prepared to accept certain facts as the truth!"
Prime Minister Abdullah also has a fight on his hands -- a bitter dispute with his country's most famous political force, Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
AB SOT:
He has been saying a lot of things, I have decided to keep quiet and go on to do what I what to do. I still command majority support today.
AR: Prime Minister Abdullah welcome to Talk Asia. (Thank you)
The first thing that I'd like to discuss with you is the role of Islam in the world at the moment. You've spoken recently about a schism between Islam and the west. You said that you think it will grow even deeper unless the international community accepts certain things as true. What is it that you think the non-Muslim world is missing?
AB: What they are missing is that Muslims have not been really able to portray faithfully in their country's development, and the development of Muslim xxxx (???) that reflect the true teaching of Islam. Through the activities of so-called Muslim terrorists, they have created bad name for Islam, and the Muslim. And it so happened that the September 11 incident, has caused, since then, has caused a lot of unhappiness, sadness. And even the view of the non-Muslim towards Islam has changed dramatically since then.
And today, there doesn't seem to be any kind of understanding, enough understanding, to create a better rapport, better relations between the two. And that to me, is the cause of what we are seeing today.
There's always been a lot of suggestion that there should be more and more and more, inter dialogue, inter-faith dialogue. There should be more discussions of how to bring together, than talking about terrorism.
AR: But when we see things like September 11, and you know, the Bali bombings perpetrated by these Islamic extremists, it must of course be even more difficult to try and persuade the rest of the world that your faith is one of peace and unity despite a small minority of Muslims carrying out these atrocities. But certainly when the bombs go off their voices are the loudest?
AB: Of course when an incident like that has happened, it is going to be very, very difficult for us to explain. And especially if those who are involved are saying that "we have done it in the name of Islam." That becomes a real problem.
AR: What is it that you think that extremists that, you know, perhaps look at the holy book or study the holy scriptures and this is what they take away from the holy scriptures. Is there something within these teachings that says that violence against non-Muslims is ok?
AB: No. Violence, in the Koran, there are very specific, very specific commandment by God, that one should not create violence, one should not cause violence. One should not cause violence, especially when that leads to destruction of what you've already achieved. You've done, you've brought about development, you've brought about progress, and you should not be destroying all these.
AR: Something else that you've also said recently is that, you've spoken of the humiliation that Muslims feel. Why is that an overriding emotion among the Islamic community and is it something that you yourself, as a Muslim feel?
AB: I do feel that way too. There's one thing that the west has failed to understand. That, to a Muslim, religion is very important. Religion to the Muslim is not kept at home. It is not a matter for the relatives. For the Muslim, religion is important. In the corporate sector, in his business, in the government, in whatever he does, he is very much dictated by the teachings of Islam.
So really it is the interpretation of the Koran. Some people said if you have to defend yourself, you have to use all sorts of weapons, you have to make sure that if you have a right for self defense. And you have to act even if it appears that your action appears to be violent. But that will be done. Everybody does it , right? When there is an aggression against their country, or against their people, they tend to react in ways that could be regarded as violent. But what do we see? Do we see violence here that one has to resort to that kind of role, that kind of action? I don't know!
AR: Speaking of violent reactions, there was, recently such a response to the comments made by the Pope in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor who had referred to the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as evil. The Pope did follow that up by saying that the comment was rather marginal to religious dialogue itself. Why didn't Islamic people around the world hear that last bit of the sentence? Why did they only listen to the first part and react to that? Are Muslims being over sensitive?
AB: Well when it comes to religion we are always very sensitive. Many people, when it comes to race, we are always very sensitive. Not just us, anybody else become very, very sensitive.
The Pope need not bring it up! Why did he have to say it considering the present situation? Considering that between the Muslim group and non-Muslim group there is a state of tension, there's a state of perhaps, not perhaps, a state of unhappiness, a lack of trust and confidence. That's very important. So don't bring it up!
AR: One group that has shown itself to be a threat to this region is Jemaah Islamiah. It wants to create a pan-Islamic state, encompassing Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore as well. With the level of resentment at the moment that exists among Islamic communities towards the west, in what they perceive to be western aggression, do you see JI's vision of this ever coming to fruition?
AB: No, I don't see it ever coming to fruition in our region. In fact we've been able to contain their activities. Not that we don't have JI people. We do have the people who believe in JI philosophy, or JI ideology, whatever you may call them. But they are not getting any following. But we have to be very careful. We cannot allow them to just be going on, and campaigning and promoting their ideas, because their ideas, as far as Malaysia is concerned, are not acceptable. And Indonesia is also finding it unacceptable. And Brunei doesn't accept that sort of ideas.
AR: Prime Minister we're just going to take a short break at this point. But when Talk Asia returns, we'll discuss Prime Minister Abdullah's relationship with George W Bush -- though here's a clue, it's a lot friendlier than his relationship with his own predecessor, Mahathir Mohammad!
AR: Welcome back. We're speaking with the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Prime Minister you recently met with George W Bush. Remind us of your conversation with him.
AB: Well we talked about many things. International issues, issues of the Middle East of course, Middle East, of Iran, of Asia, of terrorism, of democracy. Many things, many issues!
AR: One of the things I know you were also talking with him about was the desire to really create global peace. But you said that your approaches to it differed. How important is it for heads of state to really be in step in order to achieve that?
AB: Well I think it's important. I would put it this way that if we want global peace, then it must be all of us, must more or less have the same ideas of how to do it. If it's not exactly the same, the ideas must be compatible. And that also applies to the strategies and approaches.
AR: How well do you get along with President Bush on a personal level?
AB: Well by the conversation we had, nothing confrontational. He was willing to be frank, I was willing to be very frank about a lot of things that we say. And I didn't hide anything that I want to tell him. When I was with him, I spoke as a Muslim, as a man from the East, a Malay, as a leader of a Muslim country, as the chairman of OIC. And I would like to reflect our feelings, our concerns and views on many things. Because President of the United States, whoever he is, is a big man. He decides a lot of things and we all suffer because of that. Or sometimes, we benefit!
AR: Another of your relationships which is getting a lot of press at the moment is your relationship with Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, your predecessor. Things look extremely testy at the moment. What's it all about?
AB: What's it all about? Well he doesn't, he has not, he didn't agree with some of the things that I'm doing. Some of it has to do with some of the projects that he decided that he should, we should implement. And that's all there is to it, nothing more. That's how it all started.
AR: Still though he was the Prime Minister for this country for 22 years, he's still got a lot of people who respect him and hold him in the highest regard (Yes, that's true.). Do you worry that by taking him on in this fashion, that you might be committing political suicide yourself?
AB: No, no no I don't think it's political suicide. He has been saying a lot of things, I have decided to keep quiet and to go on doing what I want to do. And people want me to do what I want to do. And I have, I still command majority support today.
AR: Do you ignore what he says and his criticism of you?
AB: Well of course I can hear! If he comes to the press, I read. If there's something that I am doing, I continue to do what I want to do. And then some of his criticism, a relevant criticism, I'll make whatever adjustments I need to make. And some, I can't accept.
AR: One of the things that he said against you is that you've turned Malaysia into a gutless nation. Not least because you've pulled out of this plan of the construction of a bridge linking Malaysia and Singapore. Do you think he's got a fair point there when you know, he might see you as rolling back everything that he put into place?
AB: Not everything he put into place. No! Vision 2020, his biggest achievement, that's my target too! That we share, I share the vision. I have developed what I call a national mission. The mission is very big, in order to achieve that vision. My plan is not just for the ninth Malaysia Plan, my plan is for the ninth Malaysia Plan, the tenth Malaysia Plan, for the eleventh Malaysia Plan.
AR: But huge construction projects, like the bridge for example, you know, that was one of his babies, it was something that he worked for many years on. Now he's seeing you ditch it.
AB: Well I have decided that I'm not going to continue with the bridge. We discussed in the cabinet, we feel that no, we'll not do it. We're very practical about our approach, and the bridge has nothing to do with the life and death of Malaysia. It has nothing to do with the issue of integrity, it's a very practical issue. And for that reason we feel that we won't have the bridge. We can do other things to develop Malaysia.
AR: If he had not been in power, if he hadn't ruled the country the way he did, do you accept that Malaysia might have been less of a success than it is today.
AB: We wouldn't know, we wouldn't know, we wouldn't know. How can we...I think this is a theoretical question. He was our Prime Minister, he was our leader, he ruled for 22 years, was a leader for 22 years. He has done, achieved considerable success for Malaysia. We are proud of his achievement. That's a fact, that's a fact. But today, when he begins his criticism, not everybody appreciates it, not everybody.
AR: Prime Minister we're going to take another short break at this point. Stay with us though, on Talk Asia. When we come back, we'll talk about the prickly issue of racism in Malaysia. For instance, the ethnic Chinese population here says that they feel like they are treated like second class citizens. We'll find out what the Prime Minister has to say about it, after this.
AR: We're back on Talk Asia with the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Prime Minister, Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew says that the Chinese population here is systematically marginalized. He's now sent you a letter explaining his comments. What do you want to hear from him?
AB: I will know what I can hear when I read his letter. But certainly I wouldn't want him to raise an issue like that. No, he doesn't have to.
AR: Are you saying that his accusations are groundless?
AB: Yes, it's groundless. And it is an issue that can cause unhappiness to many people. Why? Some may even regard it as tantamount to interfering with what we are doing. The Chinese in Malaysia are doing well. They are better off than the indigenous people, than the Malays.
AR: That's what he was saying though wasn't it, that because they're so successful that's why they're marginalized.
AB: No, they have been so successful because we give them opportunities to be successful. We allow their people, we allow their children to go to Chinese school, vocational school, to learn Mandarin.
And they practice their cultures. Their Chinese New Year is celebrated not only by them, but also by the Malays, the Indians who are...the Malays the Muslims, the Hindus. We have respect, mutual respect. That is growing in Malaysia, that's true.
AR: Still though the last time that we saw you on Talk Asia, you said that, I'm quoting back at you here, your government is making every effort to make sure that Malaysians are united, that there will be no racial prejudices among them. Yet in that time there has been a survey which was released saying that many Malaysians of all ethnic background actually buy into the stereotypes that are leveled against them. With that in mind, do you think that you might have underestimated the situation here of the differences that do exist amongst the various communities.
AB: The differences do exist, that's a fact because of the cultural diversity. In a situation where there is cultural diversity there'll be differences. But we celebrate these differences. But what we would like to see, that we all desire to be together, to live a life that is peaceful. We want to respect someone who doesn't belong to our own ethnic group, who's not of the same religious faith. A desire to be friendly, and to do things together. And most importantly that all of us love this one country that belong to all of us, that's Malaysia!
AR: Malaysia is thriving on so many fronts. It's successful socially and economically across the board. But one of the accusations that continues to be thrown up against it as a democratic state is that the free press here is not actually free. Reporters San Frontiers has last year put your country 113 out of 167 on the number of countries who have a free press. 167 being the least free press. Why does it need to be so tightly controlled if it's truly a democracy here.
AB: It is not very, it is not tightly controlled. The Malaysian press have freedom, but they are very responsible press. They understand the situation in which they operate. That is Malaysia. They also have a role to what I call self censorship. But there are other press. The main press self-censor but there are other little ones, who exercise I don't know what kind of freedom they have, to print all sorts of things and to say all sorts of things. And I think it's wrong to say that we are right down there. I have not known of any country where the press is truly free.
AR: You yourself have said that freedom of press has its boundaries and that unbridled freedom could also lead to the chaos and suffering for everybody. (Yes it's true I still hold to that view.) In what sense? Why would there be such chaos and suffering?
AB: Because press can be irresponsible, can incite feelings, can also create mistrust, can also create a state of tension. What happens is, for example, you remember the caricature of Prophet Muhammad? Yes, nobody forgets about it, you see how the muslims feel about it. If I have the same thing here in Malaysia, my god, you know what is going to happen!
AR: But then where are you going to draw the line between freedom of expression and clamping down?
AB: The drawing of the line comes from an understanding of those people who are in the press, understanding of our society, of our sensitivities. That is very important, they understand the society, our cultures, our values, our sensitivities and political sensitivities. That's very, very important. If they understand, they'll know what to say and what not to say.
And there are occasions when the press did something which many of us thought, oh my god what has happened? We have to deal with it. We have to deal with it, we have to cope with it, we have to understand but they cannot be doing that all the time. We can't, because I want to say there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The degree of freedom that one exercises varies from one country to another. This is the truth.
AR: Prime Minister it's been fantastic having you on Talk Asia. We thank you very much indeed for your time today.
Malaysia's `Riot' Bogey Quells Economic Debate
By Andy Mukherjee
Here is a touristy Malaysia, which beckons visitors to ``come experience the unique potpourri of Asia's great cultures -- Malay, Chinese, Indian and the many ethnic groups of Sabah and Sarawak.''
And then, there is the other Malaysia, the one that investors deal with, where cultural harmony is just a veneer; scratch it off and you are left with a tightly packed powder keg of racial politics and politicking.
In this Malaysia, it is somehow immoral to question a longstanding policy favoring the economic advancement of ``Bumiputeras,'' mostly Malays and some indigenous tribal peoples.
That's because politicians such as Musa Hitam, a former deputy prime minister, believe that debates, even academic ones, can turn emotional and degenerate into race riots, like the ones that took place between the Malays and the Chinese in 1969 and became the justification for subsequent affirmative action.
And that really was Malaysian economist Lim Teck Ghee's crime -- to dispute the government's claim that Bumiputeras, literally ``princes of the earth,'' own less than 19 percent of Malaysia's corporate equity, far short of the 30 percent target set for them by the New Economic Policy of 1970.
The rationale for the 30 percent target was to remove a root cause of social strife by ending the concentration of wealth in the hands of non-Malays -- especially, the ethnic Chinese -- who in 1970 owned 96 percent of the Southeast Asian nation's economy.
The Centre for Public Policy Studies, the Kuala Lumpur-based think tank that Lim headed before his resignation this month, argued in the study that corporate equity controlled by Malays may be as high as 45 percent.
Bouquets and Brickbats
The political significance of this finding is simple: If the policy for redistribution of wealth has more than met its target, raising Bumiputera economic ownership to 45 percent from a meager 2.4 percent in 1970, then let's discontinue it.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denounced the study as ``irresponsible.'' Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister and Abdullah's most bitter critic, said a sudden end to affirmative action could cause political instability.
Mahathir's businessman son, Mirzan Mahathir, who indirectly controls the Centre for Public Policy Studies, apologized for the report and retracted it on Oct. 10.
Lim quit the next day, saying he stood by his study.
He now says he may not get another job in Malaysia, in which case, he will have no option except to leave the country.
And that would be a pity, not only because a good academic can't freely air views he believes to be true but also because the brouhaha about whether Bumiputera corporate equity is 19 percent or 45 percent -- or somewhere in between -- is irrelevant to the more pertinent issue raised by the study.
The Right Debate
``Economic policies based on race do not serve as an incentive to disadvantaged segments of society to participate in the economy,'' the study said. ``Equitable wealth distribution can only be achieved if the recipients are subjected to income and asset tests, regardless of race, a mechanism employed in countries that have adopted affirmative action.''
To me, this is really the crux of the report.
Publicly traded companies in Malaysia are required to have at least 30 percent Bumiputera holding.
Hypermarkets must allocate 30 percent of their shelf space to products made by Bumiputera companies.
Many government contracts require companies to have a Bumiputera partner owning at least 30 percent of the business.
Foreign-owned companies are nudged to hire more Bumiputera staff whether qualified candidates are available or not.
All of these are rather clumsy attempts at social justice. A dogmatic pursuit of the 30 percent rule creates entitlements for the rich and the middle classes, who then trade them away.
Government Wealth
If Malay investors use the equity acquired by them at initial share sales to buy real estate, does that mean there's no increase in Bumiputera wealth?
What mechanism is there to ensure that within the Bumiputera, the less privileged also benefit?
Lim's study also raises an important question about the government's wealth.
The four largest companies by market value in Malaysia are Malayan Banking Bhd., power producer Tenaga Nasional Bhd., ship owner MISC Bhd. and phone company Telekom Malaysia Bhd. In all four, the biggest shareholder is the Malaysian government, acting through investment holding companies and funds.
To which race should this wealth be attributable? Malays make up 60 percent of the country's population of 26 million; the Chinese account for a quarter.
Who's Right?
To be sure, the 45 percent figure arrived at by Lim's researchers can at best be called a guesstimate. It counts 70 percent of the market value of publicly traded government-owned companies as Malay corporate wealth and adds it to the official estimate of Bumiputera equity, valuing the latter as a fifth of the combined capitalization of all shares listed on Bursa Malaysia, the stock exchange.
Prime Minister Abdullah says he doesn't mind divulging how the 19 percent figure is calculated, but the opposition has to stop insinuating that the government's number is fudged.
Then again, it doesn't really matter whose estimate is right. The competitive landscape in Asia has changed a lot since 1970; Malaysia's appeal to investors has been dimmed by the emergence of China and India.
Malaysia must acknowledge the altered reality. Its focus on redistributing wealth may now be coming in the way of creating it. Taking on a Bumiputera partner or sub-contractor who brings nothing else to the table is a cost to a foreign investor.
Rather than shouting ``riot'' to quell discourse, politicians should encourage a debate.
(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Saying no to corruption
Business needs to be held accountable in developing economies.
Fortune's Marc Gunther spoke with Anwar Ibrahim recently in his office on the Georgetown campus.
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
Anwar Ibrahim was a rising star in Asian politics during the 1990s as Finance Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister under Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. But in 1998, after leading a campaign against government corruption, Ibrahim was thrown in jail on trumped-up charges and held in solitary confinement for six years.
He has since become an advocate for democracy, a teacher at Georgetown University, and honorary president of AccountAbility. Fortune's Marc Gunther spoke with him recently in his office on the Georgetown campus.
What did you learn from your experiences in Malaysia about the role of business in development?
Business has to be part of the development process, so we made intense efforts to promote the private sector. I strongly support market reforms, deregulation, privatization, all the mantras of today's global economy.
But for this to work, we need business to be accountable, and we observed serious flaws in this regard. In my experience, business can tend toward cronyism, corruption and other poor practices in the absence of a free press, a vibrant civil society and effective law enforcement.
Was the corruption driven by local businesses, or were global companies involved as well?
It was primarily local, but the multinationals cannot be absolved. Often it's not a question of blatant, outright corruption. It's the subtle endorsement of unsatisfactory practices - for example, when it comes to labor standards or the exploitation of natural resources. Some international corporations become involved in inappropriate practices when meeting their financial bottom-line goals requires working with repressive governments.
Some say that it's wrong to apply Western ideals on issues like the environment, labor rights, and democracy to the developing world. What's your view?
Many use the notion of Asian values to make excuses for governments that do not support democracy, accountability, the need for a free press and an active civil society. Others say security and development take precedence over freedom and democracy.
I don't accept any of this. Certainly there may be regional variations in how business is done, but accountability, universal human rights, an independent judiciary and a free press are not Western or Eastern values. They are universal values that we should all embrace.
Still, there are those who say it is wrong for Western governments or NGOs to force the developing world to adopt the labor or environmental standards of highly mature industrial societies while they are still developing.
Emerging economies should not be dictated to by European or North American lobbies. In Malaysia we have in the area of Sarawak about two million acres of timber. More extreme environmental groups would deny us the right to any extraction. This position is as misguided as the equally extreme position by the Sarawak state government to allow for the indiscriminate rape of these jungles. Sustainable forestry is the right balance, accountable to those communities that need a livelihood with the need to protect the environment.
Did any companies you dealt with in Malaysia impress you with their commitment to accountability and social responsibility?
Intel and Motorola come to mind as two that made major investments, shared technology, invested in training locals and were more honest and transparent than others.
Any that disappointed you?
Many, sadly, but this is not the place to name names. I recall one occasion when a major multinational hosted me for a dinner shortly after I came into office. They proposed an "arrangement" to facilitate their interests, pointing out that this was merely a continuation of their ongoing practice in Malaysia. They were astonished and distressed when I referred them to the official ministry channels rather than to an intermediary through whom they could funnel funds on my behalf. These occasions convinced me of the need to introduce stronger measures against corruption when I was acting Prime Minister in 1997, a decision that ultimately landed me in jail.
Did any of the Western companies you had done business with come to your aid?
None that I'm aware of. Many individuals and human rights organizations took up my case, but it was only after I came out of prison that some businesspeople expressed sympathy.
Would you have known if any businesses had lobbied on your behalf?
Oh, yes, they could have contacted my wife, my family, my lawyers.
Did they?
No.
**********
Humans Living Far Beyond Planet's Means: WWF
by Ben Blanchard
Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.
The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.
"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.
Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.
"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.
The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
RISING POPULATION
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.
In final UN Day message, Annan warns that much still needs to be done
In his final message for United Nations Day as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan warned today that much still needs to be done in the common struggle for development, security and human rights, and he urged world leaders to work with his successor, Ban Ki-moon, to make the world body ever stronger and more effective.
“I have spent almost my whole professional life working for the United Nations – so this day, and the values that it stands for, will always be special for me,” Mr. Annan said in a message released ahead of the Day, celebrated on 24 October – a UN holiday this year celebrating the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan.
Citing progress made since he assumed office 10 years ago, Mr. Annan noted that aid and debt relief has increased, the world is scaling up its response to HIV/AIDS, there are fewer wars between States than there used to be, many civil wars have ended, and more Governments are elected by, and accountable to, the people whom they govern.
“And all States have acknowledged, at least in words, their responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,” he said. “But there is so much that still needs doing,” he added, citing the growing gap between rich and poor.
He stressed that very few countries are on track to reach all eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which seek to slash a host of social ills such as extreme poverty, hunger, maternal and infant mortality, and a lack of access to education by 2015.
Many people still face atrocities, repression, and brutal conflicts, the nuclear non-proliferation regime requires urgent attention, and terrorism and the reaction to it are spreading fear and suspicion, he added.
“It seems we don’t even agree which threats are most important,” Mr. Annan declared. “Those who live in small islands may see global warming as the biggest danger. Those who live in a city that has suffered terrorist attacks – like New York, or Mumbai, or Istanbul – may feel that confronting terrorism is more urgent. Others again may cite poverty, disease, or genocide.
“The truth is, these are all global threats. All of us should be concerned about all of them. Otherwise, we may not succeed in dealing with any of them.”
Mr. Annan, who steps down on 31 December at the end of two five-year terms, called on the peoples of the world to urge their leaders to work with Mr. Ban for the betterment of the UN.
“Long live our planet, and its peoples. Long live the United Nations!” he concluded.
No North Korean apology, China says
Kim Jong Il of North Korea did not apologize for his regime's nuclear test, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, and added that there was no guarantee the reclusive state would not detonate another weapon.
South Korean media reported last week that Kim had expressed regret for the Oct. 9 test during a visit last week by Tang Jiaxuan, a Chinese special envoy who was carrying a message from President Hu Jintao.
But a ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said at a news briefing Tuesday: "These reports are certainly not accurate. We haven't heard any information that Kim Jong Il apologized for the test." He also said the North Koreans told Tang's delegation that "it did not have a plan to carry out a second test."
But Liu added that Tang had reported the North had signaled that, "if it faces pressure," it reserved the "right to take further actions." Liu did not say whether Kim or other North Korean officials had made that comment.
Also Tuesday, Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean foreign minister who will take over as secretary general of the United Nations in January, said Seoul fully backed the sanctions that have been agreed upon by the Security Council.
South Korea has not specified what it plans to do to be in accord with the resolution, which calls on the world to prevent Pyongyang from continuing its weapons trade. Washington has urged Seoul to join an anti-proliferation initiative and to take steps to make its projects with the North more transparent.
Ban said Seoul was still reviewing its policies "to bring them closer in line" with the UN resolution. He was scheduled to go to Beijing on Friday for meetings with Hu, Tang and Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing.
While the North has continued to rail against the United States, a South Korean lawmaker said Tuesday that the regime was amenable to returning to international nuclear talks if Washington showed a willingness to resolve a dispute over the North's alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
Washington is trying to cut off the North's access to international banking as punishment for alleged counterfeiting of U.S. dollars and other illegal activity. Pyongyang has denied the charges and boycotted six-nation talks on its nuclear program until the crackdown is ended.
Representative Choi Sung of South Korea's governing Uri Party said he met with a "key North Korean official" in Beijing on Sunday. He declined to identify him. After the meeting, Choi suggested that the United States present the North with evidence of its alleged financial activities so it can punish those responsible. He said the North Korean official had said his country could then return to the talks "even if the issue is not completely resolved." $@
Defense chief offers to quit
The South Korean defense minister, Yoon Kwang Ung, has offered to resign, Agence France-Presse reported from Seoul on Tuesday, citing the Yonhap news agency. The Defense Ministry declined to discuss the report, which came just two weeks after North Korea conducted a nuclear weapons test.
Malaysia Abdullah Mahathir Anwar Ibrahim North Korea China Tibetan teenager Johor Sultan WWF
Labels: Politic- Local and International
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
10:49 AM
1 Comments:
Tun Dr Mahathir is currently being criticised, disgrace, and discredited for voicing the people’s unhappiness and the country’s sovereignty. Yet, the issue raised has not been answered satisfactorily by the Prime Minister.
In facing this “onslaught”, Tun has written an open letter to all Malaysians dated 27th October, 2006 to explain why he is questioning the Government. Those wishing to read the letter and other open letters from Tun and his office can download from the following address:
http://www.savefile.com/projects/1034826
Since the mainstream media have stopped giving Tun opportunity to response, we hope you could help spread this letter to the people. The least would be to spread the web address to enable the people to download and read it.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home