Malaysians are fooled; Economically

In the recent UMNO General Assembly, Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin proposed a new National Economy Policy (not to be confused with New Economy Policy 1970) to catalyse the realisation of the success of the Bumiputera Agenda. In his speech, he stressed that the Bumiputeras are still left out in getting a bigger share of the economy. As a remedy, he spoke about the dire need of this new policy to achieve the Bumiputera Agenda. He, however, missed the entire point or perhaps, did so deliberately.

The policy that he suggests seems to have the same,old aspirations of the NEP of 1970. NEP was crafted after the 1969 racial riot with two prongs; alleviate poverty and redistribute wealth among the diverse races of Malaysia. Whilst poverty reduction has seen the success desired although the figures could be disputed, wealth re-distribution is never so. Under NEP, the Bumiputeras were expected to hold 30% of the corporate equity by 1990 as it was only at 1.9% in 1970. The sad news is, to date, this 30% benchmark is yet to be achieved. However, non-governmental researches have indicated that this 30% corporate equity share have long been achieved; it is only understated by the BN government through its disputable methodology. Examples of questionable way of calculating the corporate equity holding include the use of par value instead of the commonly acceptable market value to quantify market capitalization and the refusal of the government to divide the government’s equity in corporate companies according to the proportion of the racial composition in Malaysia. The latter is important as the Malaysian government owns huge shares in the top companies in Malaysia in terms of market capitalisation.

Currently, the Bumiputeras’ corporate equity stands at approximately 24%. But even if the status quo is 30%, it does not necessarily means that the Bumiputeras are better off compared to other races in Malaysia. Why is it so?

Bumiputeras real economic condition

In terms of Gini coefficient which measures income inequality, the Bumiputera group has inequality of 0.421 in 2012. A Gini coefficient of 0 shows income inequality spread equally in a community, with 1 showing an unequal distribution of income. While in 2012, the Gini coefficient of the Bumiputeras were the lowest in comparison to the Malaysian Chinese’s and Indians’, in 2009, the Bumiputeras had the highest. Not only that, merely 1.3% of eligible Bumiputeras hold 75% of the shares of Amanah Saham Bumiputera and the vast majority own around RM500 worth shares, according to a research by KS Jomo, a famous Malaysian economist. Besides that, within the Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB) which is the largest unit trust fund in Malaysia and serves only for the Bumiputeras (hence the name), the Gini inequality is 0.836 and this shows that the 83.6% of the invested amount of ASB is concentrated in the hands of few.

Taking a bigger macroeconomic picture, the bottom 40% of the Malaysian population’s monthly mean household income is merely RM1,847. In contrast, the top 20% has monthly mean household income of RM12,159. This is the state of Malaysia’s inequality. If we focus on the Bumiputera group, 75.5% of them are located within this bottom 40%. In the Malaysian workforce, 64.3% Bumiputera have only SPM qualification.

It is mind boggling that after all the efforts taken to improve the economic conditions of the Bumiputeras, the inequality within the community has remained the same, if not worsen. This is where the BN government has gone wrong.

New Economic Model; same old mantra

Now, that Najib Razak has gone back on his promise to repeal the Sedition Act, it is worth to note that this is not the first time he had done so. When the New Economic Model (NEM) was introduced in March 2010, only Part 1 was tabled in the august Parliament and Part 2 is to be introduced together with the 10^th Malaysia Plan. NEM is supposed to be the country’s long-run framework for economic and social development from 2011 till 2020. NEM was promised to re-create Malaysian public policy on the basis of meritocracy and no longer race-based. Whilst this created overwhelming response from all fraternities, the introduction of NEM’s Part 2 brought back only disappointments.

The Part 2 was not released together with the 10^th Malaysia Plan, instead only on December 2010. Interestingly, merely 10 days before 10^th Malaysia Plan and Part 2 of NEM were supposed to be revealed, at the Malay Consultative Council Congress, Perkasa head, the Malay supremacist, Ibrahim Ali has said that the “Malays have rejected the NEM”. And in the 10^th Malaysia Plan, key race-based policies were retained and as expected, in the Part 2 of NEM, race-based policies in support of the Bumiputeras were mentioned and highlighted. This is clear showing of lack of political will and Mr. Najib dancing to the tunes of Malay supremacists.

Malaysians are fooled

Malays have been constantly fed with the idea that the non-Malays, in particular the Malaysian Chinese, have been stealing “their” economy. This story has been around since even before the 1969 incident until now. But, the bare fact is, before the introduction of NEP, the economy was “stolen” from the Malays by the foreigners who own vast Malaysian wealth and corporate shares. And now after NEP, it is the Malays whom “stole” the economy from the other Malays. Confused? The figures aforementioned are the proofs. Policies under the NEP have created a new layer of Malay elites that controls the Malays’ wealth. While individuals like Mirzan Mahathir, Mokhzani Mahathir, Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhari are feverishly increasing the wealth annually, the ordinary Abu, Ali and Ahmad are still in deplorable economic conditions.

It is true that race-based policies will only create an elite line within a society and will never reach effectives. In Thomas Sowell’s “Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study” which focuses on Nigeria, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India and the US, it is deduced that

·         Affirmative actions encourage non-preferred groups to re-designate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;

·         They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. Black millionaires), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor Whites);

·         They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole.

All three scenarios are evident in Malaysia through the implementation of race-based policies. Many individuals want to be recognised as Bumiputeras such as certain Indian-Muslim groups, wanting them to be labelled as Bumiputeras to enjoy the policies helping the Bumiputeras. The second scenario is, only small fractions of Bumiputera individuals are receiving the positive impacts of NEP and they form the elite group of Bumiputeras. And lastly, race-based policies have restricted non-Bumis growth, both socially and economically (Industrial Coordination Act 1975 required firms with annual turnover of RM2.5 million and 75 workers to allocate 30% ownership to Bumiputeras, scholarships preference for the Bumis, etc). This has also created negative impacts within the Bumiputera community as many individuals have resorted to become “Ali-Babas” to earn instant profit. Race-based affirmative actions have created rent-seeking Bumiputera community, Tun Abdullah Badawi has even stated that 85.37% of projects dished out to the Bumiputeras end up being sub-contracted to non-Bumis.

 It is said that after dismantling the Apartheid Law in South Africa and the enfranchisement of the blacks, late Nelson Mandela introduced race-based affirmative actions to empower the blacks by emulating Malaysia’s model. While this sounds positive, it is most disheartening to see most blacks are struggling from economic inequality. A group of black elites have formed within the larger society and is reaping the most benefits from the affirmative actions, while the poorer sections are left unattended.

Orang Asli

Tracing back to the early history of Malaya, the indigenous groups of the Peninsular are the earliest settlers of Malaya. Currently, there are 18 ethnic groups within the Orang Asli’s larger grouping, with three main classifications; Senoi, Negrito and Proto-Malay. These indigenous people are not recognised in the Federal Constitution to receive the special positions as per Article 153, albeit the fact that they are the rightfully indigenous human beings in Malaya.

As Malaysia’s economic policies are skewed towards the empowerment of Bumiputeras (read: Malays), the Orang Asli groups are severely left out. The fact is, despite the government proudly claiming that abject poverty has been reduced to 0.2%, 50% of the Orang Asli households or half of the 30,000 households is living under the poverty line. While it is true that some members of Orang Asli have become important figures of the Malaysian community, the truth remains that most of them are still living under deplorable means.

Malaysian Indians

The Malaysian Indians are also left out in Malaysia’s economic planning, despite several attempts to “help” this community. The major drawback of this community is, they are clumped together with the Malaysian Chinese in the form of non-Bumiputeras. Thus, very often than not, Malaysian Indians are seen well off than the Bumiputeras or precisely, the Malays.

Even before NEP was formulated, Malaysian Indians’ equity share was only 0.9% when the Malays’ was 1.9%. At that moment, the Malaysian Indians’ share in professional and management group was merely 4.3% whereas the Malays are at 12%. Similarly, the percentage of lndians in the technical and supervisory category was only 6.1 percent compared to 20 percent of Malays. Taking a second look, it seems like the Malaysian Indians needed affirmative actions more than the Malays. Fewer actions have been taken to increase their corporate equity share.

MIC’s first economic seminar in 1974 projected for ambitious 10% share of corporate equity by 1990. By 1980, this was again revised to 6%. But, MIC’s plans and projections for the community were never listened by the UMNO-led government. Now, after 44 years of NEP introduction, the Malaysian Indians’ corporate equity stands at dismal 1.6%. Not only that, their Gini coefficient in 2012 has increased to 0.443 compared to 0.424 in 2009. Now, that’s an achievement.

Malaysian Chinese

It is a pity that this community has always been viewed with negative perceptions. They are often labelled pejoratively as capitalists and controllers of the domestic economy. However, government regulations that were introduced under the pretext of helping the Bumiputeras, have restricted their capacity to grow economically and socially. This has indeed been proven by many studies.

Special Positions

Malay supremacists have often claimed that their special rights cannot be questioned by any other non-Malays. But the very fact shows us that as enshrined in Article 153, it is not “rights” but rather, “special positions”. In the deliberation process of drafting our Federal Constitution, it was earlier suggested that these special positions are to be reviewed after 15 years of independence. However, with the recommendations from Tun Dr.Ismail in the Tripartite Working Group, this 15 years requirement was removed, however, it is accepted that the special positions will be removed once the Malays are capable “to stand by themselves without crutches”. Tun Dr Ismail has noted this in his writings that the special positions are not meant to be forever.

Conclusion

Malaysia has to move away from race-based economic policies to put ourselves on the right track and compete internationally. The government needs to help individuals without preference to race and importance should be given to meritocracy. Remember, race-based policies do not only affect the non-Bumis, but also the intended group, Bumiputeras themselves. It’s now or never.

Mr.Najib, Is My Money Well Spent?

The Budget 2015 announced by Dato' Seri Najib recently, has received mixed reactions from the Malaysians. In fact, the recent budget also received criticism from the Malaysian economic experts such as Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam. The most important question is, whether the budget is really people-friendly?

The 2015 Budget amounts to RM273.94 billion, an increase of RM9.74 billion compared to the previous year. And as in previous years, emolument or the civil servants' salaries, is the largest component of the budget in 2015 in which next year, the emolument is estimated at RM65.6 billion. This is a big increment, especially when compared to the year 2013 which only reached RM61 billion.

Does the increase in emoluments relevant, when in reality, the government is actively trying to control the government deficit?

Eliminate the post of the Special Envoy

If anyone asks me about a field that promises money for life, I will definitely recommend the person to join politics (related to the ruling party). Within last few years, Dato' Seri Najib has introduced the positions of "special envoy". Datuk Seri Samy Velu (former MIC president and “famed” for his eloquence in Malay language) has been made Special Envoy to South India for infrastructure. Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting (former MCA president) as the Special Envoy to China and Datuk Seri Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis is the Special Envoy to the United States. Not forgetting, Dato' Seri Tiong King Sin has been appointed as Special Envoy to the East Asia. The Special Envoy post is an addition to the existing ambassador posts.

It is worth to be noted here that countries like India, China, United States and Japan have long had ambassadors and other diplomats from Malaysia's representing our country there.

Thus, the establishment of the office of the Special Envoy is seen as unimportant and just a waste of public money. However, Dato' Seri Najib is likely to deny this statement by saying the Special Envoys are appointed to bring in investment opportunities and other benefits. For example, Samy Velu has good relations with India since he brought many Malaysian companies to invest in India’s infrastructure-building during his tenure as the Minister of Public Works. In that sense, Samy Vellu is the perfect candidate to bring Malaysian capitalists to invest in the emerging India or that’s what Mr. Najib thinks.

For me, this idea is unreasonable. Yes, the success of Samy Velu helping Malaysian companies to venture in India must be taken into concern, but what is the current Minister of Works, Dato Fadhillah Yusuf doing? Could he not continue to bring Malaysian businesses to invest in infrastructure developments in foreign soil? If not, why should he be retained?

Likewise are with all the other Special Envoys. If the existing Ministers and the current ambassadors are doing what their tasked for properly, the office of the Special Envoy should by any sense, be irrelevant.

Many may be wondering why I am pushing for this position to be abolished. Before you call me an opposition “cyber trooper”, I should duly explain. This is due to the fact that a Special Envoy is paid up to RM27,000 as monthly salary. This is greater than the net salary of the Prime Minister! And perhaps, there may also be other benefits. Assuming the position of Special Envoy eliminated, the amount of civil service’s emoluments can definitely be reduced.

Eliminate the posts of Special Advisor to the Prime Minister's

Currently, there are four positions of Special Advisors; Datuk Seri Dr Abdullah Md Zin (Religious Advisor to the PM), Datuk Wira Mohd Johari Baharum (Special Advisor on Northern Corridor Economic Region), Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim (Advisor on Social Affairs and Culture) and Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil (Advisor on Women’s Development and Entrepreneurship). They are also expected to be paid with a hefty sum monthly, which eventually will result in soaring final figure of emolument.

It is never my intention to question the credibility of these four individuals and spread fallacies, but is Datuk Seri Dr Abdullah Md Zin’s post really necessary since Dato 'Seri Jamil Khir is the minister responsible for Islamic affairs? Should Rais Yatim be appointed when Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is in charge of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture? And most important of all, should Shahrizat Abdul Jalil be appointed as Advisor on the women’s development when the Dato Rohani Abdul Karim is responsible for the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development? Was she appointed to the post just because  Dato Shahrizat is Wanita Umno chief, despite the fact that she has lost the election and was linked with the “Cow-gate” scandal?

Should civil servants' salaries be raised?

Yes, the government officials also need a pay raise, but any increment must be followed by improved quality and workmanship. But, is it happening in Malaysia’s public administration?

Public employees whom are not productive and are of poor quality are maintained in the government for fear of "losing votes". Several years ago, the Civil Service New Scheme (SBPA) was introduced and contained "Exit Policy", in which public employees will be evaluated every year and to those who scored less than 70% mark, will be sacked from the public service. However, the objection from CEUPACS (which later agreed with lower scores) and various other parties, SBPA has been replaced with the Transformative Remuneration Scheme which comes with no “exit policy”.

Malaysia currently has 1.4 million civil servants. For me, this is not so bloated compared to other countries because in Malaysia, army and police officials are also counted as public employees, unlike in other countries. However, we cannot and should not compromise with lacklustre performance of some civil servants and they need to be removed. Official statement shows that only 1.1% of civil servants scored less than 70% appraisal marks each year. If so, the "Exit Policy" should be re-introduced in a new form after discussion and explanation of all the parties involved. For this time, it is appropriate if a higher threshold mark of 75% -80% is set.

Conclusion

I personally agree with the rationalization of subsidies, but such attempt alone will not help the government to achieve or a balanced budget. My recommendation is Malaysia needs to reduce expenses in the payment of emoluments by putting the welfare of the people as the main intent, rather than to meet the "passions" of politics.

List PTPTN defaulters in CCRIS

Last year, many newspapers’ headlines revolved regarding Second Education Minister’s statement that errant PTPTN defaulters will be listed under Central Credit Reference Information System (CCRIS). This particular statement drew unexpected backlash from the masses and even from vocal ministers like YB Khairy Jamaluddin.

 

Yesterday, Education Minister II Idris Jusoh said Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN) loan defaulters from 1998 to 2010 recipients will be given three months to start repayment before being blacklisted in the Central Credit Reference Information System (CCRIS).Notwithstanding the fact that the idea of CCRIS listing does not bode well with the people, a bigger question arises. Is it a bad idea?

 

To the uninitiated, CCRIS is a Bank Negara-database system that stores financial records of Malaysians digitally for references by financial intermediaries in prospect of a new loan issuance. Each and every individual’s financial track that has taken a loan from any financial institution will be listed under CCRIS. And so far, it has become a “custom” for any finance provider to refer to the CCRIS system before sanctioning a new loan application. It has to be made clear that CCRIS is NOT a bankruptcy listing system. Only the Department of Insolvency can declare a person as a bankrupt.

So, will an individual with a bad financial track in CCRIS be given a loan in future? That depends on the financial providers’ discretion.

The insinuation of errant PTPTN loan takers to be listed under CCRIS is a good idea and should be welcomed. Such move will hopefully create awareness amongst the loan takers to repay their debt as per the contract. Commonly, these errant PTPTN defaulters will be warned by three (3) notices before any further actions are taken. Thus, defaulting in loan repayment should never be an option.

But, it has to be reminded that only CCRIS listing will not do much good. Why, it could even lead to more problems if appropriate reforms in PTPTN do not precede it. And here are my proposed reforms for a better PTPTN scheme.

11. Payment starts six (6) months after getting a job

Firstly, PTPTN which aims to be a helpful medium for higher education dreams of younger Malaysians should never be a “stumbling block” in crashing their future. For a better service, PTPTN should come up with a better repayment schedule. Currently, PTPTN loan takers are required to repay six months after graduation. Looking at the current pace of Malaysia’s higher education institutions churning out more graduates, more are likely to be unemployed for the first six months or even one year after graduation in some extreme cases. Hence, if current system resumes, more defaulters will emerge and more will be financially-hurt. Thus, in my opinion, it is best if the graduates are only required to repay their debt six months after landing in a job.

  2.Abolish the current 1% administrative cost under Ujrah scheme

Next, as PTPTN is a government-formed body for a special purpose. Thus, it is best that interest rates are done away with for the PTPTN loans. Although only 1% flat rate is imposed under a new plan, it can still be considered as an extra-burden for the loan-takers. It is understandable that PTPTN has management and operational costs but it is best for the government to absorb the costs to allow no-interest to be given for the loan takers. This is much better than providing free education and more future graduates will be financially stable in future, unperturbed by a huge debt.

It is my sincere opinion that the Government and PTPTN can look into this and hopefully, a better system in PTPTN is born for common good. Graduates are the national assets and let’s not destabilize by our own ineffective moves.

  3.Set a common threshold for loan conversion into scholarship

PTPTN has introduced a commendable plan prior to this, by allowing students achieving First Class degrees to convert their loans into scholarship. However, this has failed to be fully effective as in the current practice, the tertiary higher institutions have different threshold Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) to indicate first class degree i.e UM – 3.75, UiTM – 3.50, it is discriminative in nature for the students in institutions with higher threshold.

Thus, taking that into concern, CGPA threshold for converting loan to scholarship should be standardised at 3.50 (for Arts stream subjects) and 3.30 (for Science stream subjects). If such move is to be introduced, a level-playing field can be better fostered.

  4. Mandatory payment only after a certain salary limit

Whilst it is commonly understood that one is bound to repay his or her loan as promised, the struggle of the current and upcoming graduates should be focused. With sky-rocketing cost of living coupled with slow increase in salary, the financial burden of a new graduate is of grave concern. It is noted that many, if not most graduates, can only expect starting salary of only around RM 2,000.

Thus it is proposed that PTPTN should allow the borrowers to repay only after their monthly salary hit RM 2,500. This is to ensure that the loan takers do not default and are in financially stable situation. The RM 2,500 threshold that I have proposed is created after taking into concern the examples I know. However, PTPTN is free to set other threshold ONLY after proper discussions with the stakeholders which MUST include the university students.

  5. Top-up PTPTN fund annually.

PTPTN’s highest-level administration often voice out that due to actions of defaulters, the fund amount is quickly shrinking and affecting future borrowers. This should have never happened. The unethical actions of defaulters (although some are financially troubled) should not be allowed at the expense of others.

Thus it is recommended that the Government should top-up the PTPTN fund every year to make sure all financially-vulnerable varsity students’ loan application be sanctioned. Critics may claim that such approach is counter-productive to the fiscal consolidation measures of the Government because it increases spending. However, all quarters should understand the importance of higher education and provide access to financially-struggling students through such approach. This is apparently better that providing universal free education which serves as blanket subsidy.

66. Scholarship recipients should not receive PTPTN loans.

PTPTN ought to make sure that any recipient of scholarship, particularly from JPA should not be entitled to PTPTN loans. Certain cases have been noted that those receiving JPA’s PIDN scholarship are also receiving PTPTN loans. The worst part is where the loans are invested in higher interest-yielding trust funds to earn money. This is how some students are becoming “financially-creative”.

This could be remote examples but should not be taken with ease. There could be more cases in Malaysia and these unscrupulous students are “stealing” the opportunity for education financing from those whom are more in need.

Conclusion

PTPTN needs reform and it’s crystal-clear. Pursue all these reforms and other appropriate measure before listing the defaulters in CCRIS. This will ensure the sustainability of PTPTN fund.

UM Ranking; Rebuttals to Lim Kit Siang and Critics

Following the recent debate over University of Malaya’s non-participation in the famed Times Higher Education Ranking (THES), I as the coordinator of UM Economics Students’ Secretariat (UMESS) would like to offer my opinion to refute the statements by Mr. Lim Kit Siang of DAP and student groups such as Mahasiswa Keadilan Malaysia and Progressive University of Malaya.

Mr.Lim has criticised UM for “chickening out” of the Times ranking but instead choose to partake in the QS ranking which is often regarded as “less demanding” compared to the former. What Mr. Lim failed to understand is UM has never walked away from the THES ranking, but rather chose to defer the participation to 2017. This might, in turn create another question. Why must wait until 2017? Why not now?

This decision of non-participation was taken during the leadership of the former Vice Chancellor, Tan Sri Ghauth Jasmon. To the students of University of Malaya and those who know him in person, Tan Sri Ghauth is known for his concern and emphasis on international university ranking. However, he made the controversial decision of non-participation in the Times ranking because of several reasons. Participation in the QS ranking is continued as usual.

The History

Times Higher Education and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) used to jointly produce the rankings known then as Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings from 2004 until 2009. However, the collaboration was ended in 2010 with QS retaining the intellectual property and the methodology used to evaluate the varsities’ performances. The Times, on the other hand, collaborated with Thomson Reuters, with a different set of methodology.

The Times’ new methodology evaluates certain elements such as research citations in a different approach compared to the QS. Several changes in the methodology are seen as more-inclined to the Western varsities and less considerate on the upcoming universities in the developing countries. For instance, QS looks at the research citations done in the past five years while the Times ranking looks at the past 10 years. So, how does this pose problems to UM?

UM has been receiving research grants from the Federal Government for years, albeit in small amounts. Significant research grants only came in the last 6 to 7 years, after the Research University concept was introduced by the Government. With research grants growing many folds, ISI-indexed citations have also increased along the years. If UM is to participate now, the ranking would be badly affected as the Times looks at the past 10 years and our citations have been minimal before the significant increase in research grants.  To the uninitiated, under the Times ranking, citation (research impact) amounts to 32.5% of the total score and this can cause severe upset to UM’s performance.

Many proponents of the Times ranking cite UM’s “extraordinary” achievement in 2004 when it was ranked 89^th. This is often used as a reason to reinforce their stand that UM should participate in the Times ranking. What these people fail to understand is that, it is wrong to equate the ranking in 2004 with the Times ranking now as the 89^th rank is prior to the split and the current Times ranking is using a different methodology. QS, however, is using the same methodology as in 2004.

UM was ranked 89^th in 2004, 169^th in 2005, 192^nd in 2006 and 180^th in 2009. UM was not even listed in the top 200 for the years 2007 and 2008. Looking at these figures, one could easily feel curious at the 89^th ranking in 2004. Actually, UM “managed” to attain the best ranking thus far in 2004 because of technical errors in the submission of data. To clarify, in the QS-THES ranking of 2004, ethnic minorities (local citizens) in University of Malaya were mistakenly counted as international students, thus pushing the score higher and giving UM an incredible ranking. This however, was later rectified in 2005 and this explains the sudden fall to 169^th rank in 2005.

To all the critics and student leaders out there, UM has been doing a gradual improvement to its performance with the latest 151^st rank as the best so far, apart from the 89^th position in 2004. Hopefully, with continuous monitoring and improvements, by 2017, UM can and will take part in the Times ranking for the first time. With the transformation plan envisaged by the former VC ongoing, hopefully University of Malaya can yield a good ranking in the Times Higher Education ranking in 2017. 

To the current Vice Chancellor, from my observation, critical thinking and general knowledge amongst the students have been deteriorating for quite some time. Hopefully, something can be done quickly, as I believe there is no point in the University churning out “4 flat zombies” with no critical thinking capabilities. 

Open Letter To Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

Dear Tun Dr.Mahathir Mohamad,

Happy 57th Independence Day. Recently, Malaysia was shaken with your open criticism towards the Malaysian Premier, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak. Following this, some “political pundits” have even prophesised the downfall of Najib, after all that’s what Tun Abdullah experienced after your criticism and “out of UMNO” drama. 

To make the record straight, I am neither UMNO’s nor “the other side’s” supporter. Nevertheless, being a civic-minded citizen of Malaysia, I would like to request your explanations pertaining to various issues, spanning throughout your 22 years of Prime Minister journey. Although I duly recognise your contributions to Malaysia, any flaw and mistakes happening under your long premiership should be taken as your mishandling. This is what real leaders do. Hopefully, this letter is not to be seen as seditious.

1. University and University Colleges Act 1971

- I, as a current undergraduate in a public university have seen how this UUCA has actually encroached the freedom of the university students to express themselves and engage in political activities. The students have been barred from partaking in politics (until in 2012, when the Court declares Section 15 of UUCA as unconstitutional), but even until this very moment, the students are not allowed to engage in political activities within the campus.

Being an alumnus of University of Malaya, you should know that the Student Union in the past had better opportunity to represent the students. Nowadays, the grandeur is just in the name. 

The real impact of UUCA came when the then Education Minister in 1975, brought amendments by inserting new sections to the act especially the Section 15, which prohibits the students from politicking. The Minister is none other than you, yourself. Tun, incidents such as the Tasik Utara and Baling Demonstration by your former “favourite”, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim have caused you to stifle the freedom of the students. Ever since 1975 up to now, the students are facing the brunt of your actions. What is your explanation?

2. Malaysian Judiciary

- Following the crisis between your administration and the judiciary in 1988, you brought “many interesting ways to solve it”. I guess, you had enough when the High Court in 1988 declared that late Karpal Singh should be released from extrajudicial detention and the Supreme Court revoked the work permit of two foreign journalists that your administration froze. Maybe if you still remember, they are both from Asian Wall Street Journal and they wrote about suspicious financial transactions of some civil servants, before you started to take actions against them.

Seeing the meddling of the judiciary in your path, the Constitution was amended and since Barisan Nasional had two-thirds majority then, everything was a smooth ride. Article 121, which used to say "the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in" the High Court. However after the amendment, Article 121(1) mentions "the High Court shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law".  The power of judiciary has been significantly reduced and amplified the parliamentary supremacy. The courts are now reduced to adjudicate under the laws as approved by the government. What is your explanation?

3. Virgin Forests of Sarawak

- Tun, after you becoming the Prime Minister, the record shows rampant deforestation in the forests of Sarawak. However, the loggings have been long on-going for years. Tun Taib Mahmud himself has made allegations that his uncle,Abdul Rahman Yakub (the previous Chief Minister before you become the Prime Minister) has dished out numerous logging concessions to his family members and cronies. But, as far as I know, no action has been taken, what more to investigate against him. 

Taib Mahmud, himself has been constantly linked with allegations of dishing out logging concessions to his cronies, squandering millions of dollars. Many Orang Asal lost their “Native Customary Rights” land due to irresponsible actions of many. Still, no action has been taken.

Perhaps, you would still remember Bruno Manser. The guy from Switzerland whom fought for the Penan tribe’s rights in Sarawak. He pressured the Malaysian Government to preserve the greeneries in the Penan settlement areas without being sacrificed to unwarranted development (like the “Monument of Corruption” Bakun Dam ) and unstoppable deforestations. Your administration took strict actions against the activists and caused more miseries to the ethnic groups. Tun, I don’t know how true this is, but you are even said to have sent a letter warning Manser saying “it is about time that you stop your arrogance and your intolerable European superiority. You are no better than the Penan”. If the words did come from you, is not this insulting the Penans, and even the other Orang Asal? What is your explanation?

4. Kota Setar Selatan 1969 Election

- Just a few days before the racial riot of 1969, in your election campaign vying for the Kota Setar Selatan seat, you are reported to say that “I don’t need the Chinese votes to win”, only to end up losing to a PAS candidate. Isn’t your statement seditious and racist in nature? Should it be even uttered by a leader? Have you ever apologised to the Chinese community, if you have really said so? What is your explanation?

5. Crony Capitalism

- Your administration was often linked to the debate of “cronies”. Why, even Tunku Abdul Rahman alleged in his book in the aftermath of the 1969 riot that “Saya yakin bahawa kiranya Dr. Mahathir menumpukan masa yang lebih kepada kerja-kerja parti dan tidak menghabiskan masanya di dalam perniagaan membuat rumah di Kedah bersama-sama dengan syarikat yang bernama Federal Construction Company, sebuah syarikat yang dipunyai oleh orang-orang Cina dan dalam perniagaan-perniagaan yang lain, maka kemungkinannya untuk menang dalam pilihan raya itu adalah lebih besar.”

“Menurut maklumat yang diterima, beliaulah yang telah mengambil peranan yang penting untuk menolong mendapatkan kelulusan Kerajaan supaya tidak kurang daripada 238 lot tanah Simpanan Melayu dikeluarkan dari simpanan itu bagi maksud projek perumahan yang tersebut”. To translate, he alleged that you had relations with Federal Construction Company owned by the Chinese and you had used your “connections” to convert 238 Malay Reserve Lands for the commercial use of the construction company. This allegation was made even before you assuming premiership. What is you explanation?

6. Suqiu 1999

- Before the General Election of 1999, several Chinese associations under the alliance called “Suqiu” produced a memorandum to push for a more equitable and just social and economic policies in Malaysia. Your administration, facing severe backlash after the expelling of Anwar Ibrahim used this memorandum as a springboard for future electoral victory by winning the votes of Chinese and others. 

Although your Cabinet agreed and accepted the Suqiu memorandum, as soon as emerging victorious from the election, you rejected it by stating the memorandum questions the Malay rights and supremacy. What boggles me is that, did you not foresee the impacts of the memorandum before accepting it? You are also reported to have said that "we were threatened then as elections were just round the corner. That’s why they came up with the memorandum, as a threat to the Barisan Nasional, and that if we didn’t entertain their request they would tell the Chinese not to support us.This was deliberate and the timing was well-planned. What could we do then?" Isn’t this a betrayal of trust and a Machiavellian tactic? What is your explanation?

7. Others.

- After BN losing the states of Terengganu and Kelantan in 1999 GE, the petroleum royalty payments used to be paid to the respective states were channelled into Jabatan Pembangunan Persekutuan. This has caused the states to face lack of financial source and seen by the rakyat as incapable of building and developing the states. Perhaps this is what you wanted.

- When the Court declared that the election in Likas,Sabah 1999 as null and void due to existence of phantom voters in the electoral roll, the 1958 Elections Act was amended to not allow the judiciary to scrutinise the voters’ list after it has been certified and re-certified. Is this a way to allow the elections tainted with unscrupulous tactics?  

- After the 1988 UMNO crisis, after which UMNO’s registration was annulled, the Parliament has decided not to allow the courts to challenge a political party’s decision. I do know that the Parliament and your administration (the Cabinet) are two distinct entities, but bearing into mind that amendments are proposed by the ministries and BN having two-thirds control in Parliament, your influence in such a decision can never be denied. Through such amendment, the rights of the members and the power of the courts have been significantly reduced.

What are your explanations?

I believe that all Malaysians would want to listen to your explanations and even better, a statement of apology if the fault lies in your side. Nevertheless, I would like to thank you for the changes you have brought to Malaysia. Your effort of opening up Maktab Rendah Sains Mara, albeit only 10% for the non-Bumiputera, had enabled me to study in the institution. Tun, several policies under your administration have also reduced the abject and relative poverty in Malaysia, although there are still some debates on the precise poverty rate. Thank you once again and God bless you.

Is Boycotting Israeli Products Really A Good Idea?

The conflict between Israel and State of Palestine is a never ending case. Numerous cease-fires were agreed, after much struggle only to be reneged not long after. Israel and the Arab countries have fought four major wars ever since the formal creation of Israel through the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Palestinians had two Intifadas (uprisings) in 1987 and in 2000-2005 to fight the oppressing power of the Zionist regime. More and more people have died throughout the conflict, with the most coming from the occupied Palestinian regions, West bank and Gaza Strip (not under complete occupation).

So, before heading into the debate of boycotting, why are these two countries fighting against each other?

To cut it short, taking a retrospective view, in the past one millennium, the Jews have been persecuted ever since the First Crusade up to the Nazi-led Holocaust in Europe. Jews have been seen as unnationalistic minorities in Europe and as “enemy of the state”. As the nationalistic spirit of Zionism started to expand in late 19^th century, the modern day Aliyah (emigration) into The Promised Land happened. And coupled with the help the Sharif of Mecca, Sheikh Hussein (although he was tricked by the British Empire), Israel was successfully formed in 1948. Hussein’s son, Prince Feisal also agreed to the Jewish immigration into the former Ottoman Syria region, thinking the Arabs and the Jews will actually live in peace. Despite that, he never agreed for a separate country for the Jews. Again, he too, was tricked by the cunning British Empire.

So now, history’s aside. Should or should we not boycott the products of Israel?

We Malaysians have seen in recent times the act of boycotting products from Israel by many of us. This is actually part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign initiated in 2005. The coordinating group of BDS has actually listed several products and companies of Israel and its allies which contribute financially to the Zionist regime.

The question is, why stop at Israeli companies? Whilst many might think that these companies are the main donors to the regime, actually they have missed the biggest contributor to Israel. It’s no other than the United States of America. The United States contributes USD3 to 4 billion on average, every year to Israel. Believe it or not, the US has given Israel a total of USD 121 billion since World War 2 and a huge chunk of this financial aid is funnelled towards military technology improvements. Recently, President Obama even announced an additional funding of $ 225 million to improve the home-grown Iron Dome missile interceptor. Other than that, US is the biggest exporter of military supplies to Israel despite its legislation, Arms Export Control Act which prohibits the US from exporting arms to countries with possibilities of conflict escalation. But alas, apparently the United States might hit back by saying Israel has the right to defend itself.

If you really think boycotting is an effective way to stop the carnage in Palestine, start with the United States. No more technological gadgets originating from Silicon Valley. That essentially means no more Facebook, Google and i-Phones. Xiaomi, Samsung and Lenovo should do fine. No more Intel computer processors, no more Philips fluorescent lights and no more sending your kids to the Ivy League universities.  And yeah, no more watching the superhero movies of Marvel Comics.

It’s not that I want to offend the ones wanting to boycott and end the aggression and brutal massacre in Palestine, but if we want to do something, shouldn’t we do it completely?

Israel gets its power from the support of its greatest ally, the United States. But can we really engage in the BDS campaign against the United States? It is very much implausible. To sanction America economically and to impose an embargo on trade with the US, will cost us fatally more than what America will feel in return. Simply because Malaysia’s economy is export-reliant and any disruption in trade deals will cause the economy to face lack of growth. Recently, when Bank Negara announced that Malaysia’s second quarter economy growth of the year is 6.2%, the mood was jubilant amongst the industry players. However it was also noted that such increase in economic performance was due to more export while the domestic consumption has actually fallen.

Thus, bearing this into mind, is it feasible to boycott the US? Of course not, since America is our biggest investor and one of our top five trade partners.

I personally am against any acts of economic sanction on any country. Conventionally, it is believed that economic sanctions can compel a regime or a government to comply with international pressures or even to stop engaging in inhumanely activities. Supporters of sanctions often cite the Lockerbie case, where after immense economic sanctions from the world, Libya’s former dictator, Muammar Gaddafi actually handed over two suspects of the plane crash.

For me, economic sanctions will only create more harm than good. Regime at the top hierarchy may feel less agony, but it is the common civilians who would struggle due to the sanctions. Islamic Republic of Iran for example, has long been under economic sanctions of the West due to its clandestine nuclear programme. However due to the sanctions, Iran has seen insufficiencies of medical equipment and drugs for the ill. Recently, when a plane IrAn-140 crashed in Iran, lack of replacement parts due to the sanctions were cited as the reasons.

In the aftermath of the First Gulf War, the Saddam regime was subjected to heavy sanctions for the attack over Kuwait and this has caused 5000 starvation deaths a month, one of the reasons the UN started the Oil for Food Programme.

When Cuba came under the communist rule after the revolution led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, the capitalist (well, not entirely) United States imposed embargo on the Cuban goods and halted trade relations with Cuba. This however, never caused the communist rule to collapse. It is still standing strong till now. But the embargoes have caused deficiencies of clean water and spreading of diseases with lack of drugs to control them. Increased food prices have also caused malnutrition amongst many.

Why, one of the main reasons that compelled Japan to wage Pacific War against the United States was due to the embargoes on Japan after it invaded French Indochina. As US was Japan’s main supplier of oil at that moment, Japan advanced in South-east Asia to gain influence over the resource rich region and to offset the impact caused by the embargo. Pearl Harbour was destroyed also because of the same embargo.

These are the impacts that can be caused from economic sanctions and boycotts. When you are boycotting McDonald’s and Starbucks’ due to their alleged link to the Zionist regime, you are actually hurting their business. This will in turn, open the way for retrenchment of the workers and for less compensation. And no thanks to some hard-core boycotters, the employees of the franchises have faced humiliation and distress. In McDonald’s case, the chief of Malaysian outlets, Mr.Stephen has clarified that the contribution by McDonald’s to Israel was due to a programme called Matching Grant. The employees will contribute financially to charity of their choice and the employers will then match it. It is how McDonald’s actually gave to Israel, as its few employees have chosen the Jewish United Fund to receive their contribution. But as he stressed, the contributions to JUF is very trivial compared to the other charities. Why, he says, even Islamic charities receive the financial contributions.

To add, even the head of McDonald’s Israel, Mr. Omri Padan has made it a point that outlets will not be opened beyond the Green Line (1967 borders). The fast-food entity is totally against setting up of any outlets within the occupied region of Palestine. This decision has actually caused the wrath of many Israelis in the illegal settlement areas, but this has never caused Mr Omri to budge.

What Israel is doing is totally inhumane and cruel. It was never acceptable. Yet at the same time, the radical actions of Hamas of shooting missiles into Israel are actually worsening the situation. In the war between Hamas and Israel, it is the Palestinians who are at the losing end. Israel, with its immense military spending, is left unscathed whilst Gaza is destructed to the core.

While I mentioned that BDS may not be a good option, I respect the opinion of its supporters. But that alone will never suffice. Malaysian Muslims engaged in serious boycott act in 2008 when Gaza was in turmoil, but the spirit barely lasted for two weeks. What we actually need is the intervention from the international community. The United Nations’ Charter’s Chapter VII actually allows for international military intervention after trying bringing both sides of war-waging parties to mediation. We need just that. First, Israel needs to stop further encroachment into Palestinian region. Hamas, at the same time, needs to be forced to accept the two-state solution which is the most feasible and plausible solution. Hamas which is categorically against two-state solution in its charter should be requested to accept the idea. Any aggression from any sides, be it Hamas or Israel should be counter-attacked using international community’s sanctioned military. Only such stern actions can stop the conflict for good.

But then again, all these are easier to be said than to be done. Why? Any action against Israel by United Nations’ will most probably be vetoed by its greatest ally, the United States. Perhaps United Kingdom and France will also follow suit to support their ally, the US. These countries being permanent members of the Security Council are given the privilege of veto power. A veto from any one of the five permanent members can annul a resolution approved by the General Assembly, comprising of all the member states. UN is incapable of approving a resolution of military action against al-Assad regime in Syria, also due to the veto by Russia and China, another two permanent members.

With such veto power in place, not only the Palestinian conflict, but also others in the world may never be solved by the international community. The doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” which complements Chapter VII will remain as a doctrine of no use. The governments all over the world, despite opposing the veto powers, are hesitant to take any solid action. Perhaps the fear of any trade sanctions by these five major economies is more inundating. Or maybe, they succumb to the fact that if a resolution is passed in the General Assembly to annul the veto power for good, the permanent five can still veto the resolution.

So, don’t we all have hope?  Yes we do! We need international uprisings, not to topple the government but to force the end of veto powers. People’s voices should be heard. Some might claim that the “Occupy” movements may have failed in their objective, but these worldwide protests have caused the governments to reconsider social and economic inequalities. The attention has been shifted to national discussions on huge disparities in wealth distribution and flaw in democracy, to name a few.

We need such uprisings again, this time to reform the United Nations. If the permanent five are unwilling to cause a change, perhaps a new international organisation should be introduced to replace the United Nations. After all, even the UN is a replacement to the failed League of Nations. This however should be the last resort as creating a new international organisation is not that easy.

I’m sick of this never-ending peace talk between Israel and Palestine. We need to stop it once and for all. Palestinians have the right to live and Israelis have the right to defend themselves. And above all, this is a conflict of humanity, not a conflict of Islam-Judaism.