FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS

By

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

on September 21, 2010 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (71) | TrackBacks (0)

1. How much is 4 trillion dollars? Star Business picking a report from foreign source says it is the value of Germany's total output for one year.

2. I try to imagine the figure 4 trillion and wrote it down. It is 4,000,000,000,000. It is a lot, a great lot of money. But it is just the amount of dollars traded by the currency traders in just one day.

3. Yes, the currency traders are still at it, worldwide financial crisis notwithstanding.

4. Four trillion dollars worth of business in Germany in one year creates millions of jobs; spawns businesses big, medium and small; move millions of vehicles and trains, support a rich and highly developed Germany and the people of the country and much more.

5. But what does 4 trillion dollars in currency trade do? Apart from enriching a few players, nothing. No jobs are created, no businesses, big, medium or small spin off; no enhancement of international trade, no movements of goods or people, no sailing of ships or flights of aircraft, nothing.

6. 4 trillion a day and there are 365 days a year giving a total of 1,460 trillion or 1,460,000,000,000,000 in a year. So much money. But can we estimate how many of the earth's 6.5 billion people benefit?

7. But currency trading can also do damage to millions and millions of people, destroy whole countries, bankrupt businesses and banks and cause recessions. We know because it happened to us in 1997-98. We know because currency trading is one of the causes of the current crisis.

8. What kind of system is this that permits and protects a few people at the expense of millions of helpless people, their countries, their businesses, their societies and their well-being. Is this what capitalism and free trade is all about?

9. I saw Mike Moore's latest film, "Capitalism - A Love Story", and was appalled by the crudeness of people playing with money.

10. People free from financial problems are persuaded by banks to mortgage their fully paid up homes so that they can have money to invest and make more money. The investments fail and there was no money to redeem the mortgaged home. The banks took posession of the homes and the previous owners were forced to move out. But they had no money left and could not even rent a house, Thus a house-owner is rendered homeless.

11. This did not happen to one person. It happened to millions, The banks now own millions of houses. But nobody has enough money to buy them, nor can they borrow money to buy. Simply put the banks cannot get back the money they had lent and the banks fail. That is part of the story of the subprime loan failure which triggered the current crisis.

12. It is now nearly three years since the current crisis began. Every now and again the experts will claim that the crisis has bottomed out. But then news came that the crisis is still on.

13. Now there is talk of a double-dip, of the recession going on to another recession. This is very likely simply because nothing is being done to stop the activities which led to the crisis. As we can see currency trading is still going on, if anything, on a larger scale. Much of the bailout money, billions of dollars worth, has produced nothing worthwhile. The bankers and their people have used a goodly sum of the bailout money for hefty bonuses, the hedge funds are still active and so is presumably the "leveraging" and many of the gambling that lead to the crisis are still in place.

14. The leaders and their financial advisers in the great capitalist countries have learnt nothing. They continue to support the gambling and the manipulation. They are still influenced by their uncontrolled greed.

15. The worldwide recession will not end until Wall Street ceases to control whatever Government the United States and the United Kingdom may have.

Kesan Perjanjian Tanah KTM Di Singapura
A Kadir Jasin


[Komen menggunakan pengenalan anonymous TIDAK AKAN DILAYAN. Sila gunakan nama sebenar atau nama samaran. Jikalau menggunakan anonymous, sila nyatakan nama di penghujung komen. Ulasan yang mengandungi unsur fitnah, hasutan, perkauman dan bahasa kesat tidak akan disiarkan. Ulasan yang terkeluar daripada tajuk tidak akan diberi keutamaan.]

PADA 20 September lalu, Malaysia dan Singapura menandatangani perjanjian pertukaran tanah membabitkan tanah Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd’s di republik itu.

Ia dimeterai oleh Perdana Menteri Malaysia, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak dan Perdana Menteri Singapura, Lee Hsien Loong, di kota singa.

Kedua-dua pemuka menguar-uarkan (bukan war-war) perjanjian itu sebagai kejayaan besar dan pembaikan ke atas “Point of Agreement (POA)” yang menjadi asas rundingan antara dua negara.

Saya tidak mahu berselisih faham, menyangkal atau menyangkal laporan dan ulasan media massa yang menghebahkan perjanjian itu sebagai “win-win” (menang-menang).

Saya sekadar ingin berkongsi maklumat dan interpretasi peribadi saya untuk kita dalami, fahami dan bahaskan. Berikut adalah antara inti pati, ciri dan implikasi perjanjian berkenaan:-

1. Dulu tanah KTM di Singapura adalah milik penuh dan mutlak Malaysia, walaupun kegunaannya terhad kepada operasi kereta api dan kekal hak Malaysia selagi operasi kereta api berjalan;

2. Sekarang tiga keping tanah KTM telah ditukarkan dengan sembilan keping tanah lain dan operasi kereta api akhirnya akan ditamatkan;

3. Menurut kenyataan bersama Mohd Najib-Lee Hsien Loong yang saya baca dari laman web kerajaan Singapura, bidang-bidang tanah gantian serta deskripsinya adalah seperti berikut:-

(A) Empat bidang tanah di Marina South dikenali sebagai TS30-361T, TS30-362A, TS30-363K dan TS30-364N serta dua bidang di Ophir-Rochor dicamkan sebagai TS13-1115N dan TS13- 1116X sebagai ganti kepada tiga keping tanah KTM di bawah Point of Agreement (POA) di Tanjong Pagar, Kranji dan Woodlands serta tiga keping tanah di Bukit Timah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 76-2 Mk 16, Lot 249pt Mk 4 dan Lot 32-10 Mk 16);

(B) Empat keping tanah di Marina South itu terletak di tengah-tengah gugusan (cluster) kewangan dan perniagaan bagi Marina Bay manakala dua di Ophir-Rochor terletak di kawasan bersejarah Kampong Glam (Kampong Glam Historic District) yang berupa koridor baru pembangunan yang sedang dimajukan sebagai sambungan kepada Daerah Perdagangan Pusat (Central Business District); dan

(C) (Sembilan) Keping tanah di Marina South dan Ophir-Rochor (itu) akan diamanahkan kepada M-S Pte Ltd untuk dibangunkan secara usaha sama apabila Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) mengosongkan Stesen Tanjong Pagar. Stesen KTMB akan dipindahkan dari Tanjong Pagar ke tempat pemeriksaan kereta api Woodlands (“WTCP”) menjelang 1 Julai 2011 bilamana Malaysia akan memindahkan kemudahan kastam, imigresen dan kuarantinnya (“CIQ”) di WTCP.

4. Tanah gantian itu akan dimajukan oleh syarikat usaha sama Malaysia-Singapura M-S Private Limited yang dimiliki 60 peratus oleh syarikat pelaburan milik kerajaan Malaysia, Khazanah Nasional Berhad (Khazanah) dan firma pelaburan kerajaan Singapura, Temasek Holdings.

5. Kalau dulu tanah KTMB dimiliki penuh dan mutlak Malaysia, kini tanah gantian kepada tanah KTMB itu dikongsi dengan Singapura melalui M-L Pte Ltd di mana Temasek memegang 40 peratus saham. Dalam bahasa yang mudah, Singapura dapat “percuma” 40 peratus daripada aset gantian itu.

6. Walaupun isu tanah KTMB ini dikatakan selesai, tetapi isu-isu tertangguh yang lain seperti pembekuan simpanan rakyat Malaysia dalam CPF, Perjanjian Bekalan Air serta penentangan Singapura terhadap projek Jabatan Bengkok masih berterusan.

7. Malaysia dan Singapura gagal bersetuju mengenai cukai pembangunan (development charges) yang dikenakan oleh kerajaan Singapura ke atas tanah gantian itu sehingga memaksa perbalahan itu dirujukkan kepada Mahkamah Timbang Tara Tetap (Permanent Court of Arbitration – PCA) di The Hague, Balanda.

8. Kenyataan bersama Mohd Najib-Hsien Loong mengenai hal itu berbunyi: “Both countries have different views relating to the development charges payable on the three parcels of POA land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands. Both Leaders have agreed to settle this issue amicably through arbitration under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. They have further agreed to accept the arbitration award as final and binding.”

[Kedua-dua negara mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza mengenai cukai pembangunan ke atas tiga keping tanah POA di Tanjong Pagar, Kranji dan Woodlands. Kedua-dua pemimpin bersetuju menyelesaikan isu ini secara aman melalui timbang tara di bawah naungan Mahkamah Timbang Tara Tetap. Mereka seterusnya bersetuju menerima keputusan timbang tara itu sebagai muktamad dan terikat.]

9. Sengaja diingatkan yang kali terakhir Malaysia dan Singapura membawa perbezaan mereka ke muka pengadilan antarabangsa, ia berakhir dengan Malaysia kehilangan pemilikan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Branca) kepada Singapura.

10. Melalui kolum “Other Thots” dalam majalah Malaysian Business keluaran 16-31 Julai lalu, saya telah memberi amaran kepada perunding Malaysia agar berhati-hati mengenai kemungkinan pemerintah Singapure mengenakan cukai pembangunan atau premium tanah yang melangit.

Saya memetik sumber-sumber yang arif mengenai POA sebagai berkata kerajaan Singapura mungkin mengenakan cukai pembangunan sekitar S$1.5 bilion (kira-kira RM3.05 bilion) selain premium tanah. Saya tidak tahu sama ada premium dikenakan atau tidak.

Tetapi sumber-sumber yang sama kini mengatakan cukai pembangunan mungkin mencecah S$2 bilion (RM4.6 bilion).

11. Andainya anggaran ini tepat dan keputusan PCA memihak kepada Singapura, maka Khazanah terpaksa menyeluk poket untuk mengeluarkan S$1.2 bilion (RM2.76 bilion) dan jumlah ini akan mengalir dari Malaysia ke Singapura.

12. Temasek perlu membayar S$800 juta tetapi tidak ada pengaliran keluar modal. Ia sekadar pemindahan dana dari poket Temasek ka poket perbendaharaan Singapura.

13. Seperkara lagi yang perlu penjelasan ialah taraf pemilikan tanah gantian itu -- adakah ia pegangan kekal atau pajakan 99 tahun? Tanah KTMB di Singapura adalah pegangan tetap selagi operasi kereta api berjalan.

14. Kalau saya faham kenyataan Mohd Najib dan Pengarah Urusan Khazanah, Azman Mokhtar, projek itu tetap dilaksanakan tidak kira kita kalah atau menanang dalam timbang tara oleh PCA. Malah kata mereka, projek ini akan dimulakan tanpa menunggu keputusan PCA. Jadi timbang tara oleh PCA adalah “akademik” atau sekadar melepas batuk di tangga.

15. Dalam konteks ini kita wajib meletakkan sepenuh tanggungjawab kepada Mohd Najib dan Azman. Azman memberi jaminan bahawa projek ini “masih berdaya maju dan menguntungkan” walaupun cukai pembangunannya tinggi.

16. Kita tidak mahu Mohd Najib mengisytiharkan perjanjian ini sebagai menang-menang dan dia berjaya di mana Perdana Menteri-Perdana Menteri yang lalu gagal, tetapi akhirnya yang dikejar tak dapat yang dikendong berciciran.

17. Akhir sekali kita tidak mahu pelaburan Khazanah di Singapura menjadi seperti pelaburan Sime Darby di Qatar yang menghasilkan kerugian hampir RM1 bilion.

18. Berhati-hatilah, Singapura bukan sebarang jiran. Fahamilah istilah “kiasu” dan impaknya kepada “psyche” (cara berfikir) negara Singapura.
Posted by A KADIR JASIN at 6:43 AM 74 comments

Friday, September 17, 2010
Pertahan Bangsa Bukan Perkauman Atau Ekstrem
A Kadir Jasin

[Komen menggunakan pengenalan anonymous TIDAK AKAN DILAYAN. Sila gunakan nama sebenar atau nama samaran. Jikalau menggunakan anonymous, sila nyatakan nama di penghujung komen. Ulasan yang mengandungi unsur fitnah, hasutan, perkauman dan bahasa kesat tidak akan disiarkan. Ulasan yang terkeluar daripada tajuk tidak akan diberi keutamaan.]

APAKAH benar ada pelampau kaum di negara kita Malaysia ini yang menolak kepelbagaian bangsa?

Saya rasa tidak ada pelampau seperti itu. Tetapi jika saya faham amaran Perdana Menteri, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, baru-baru ini, beliau seolah-olah berkata ada ekstremis seperti itu.

Boleh jadi betul kerana sebagai Perdana Menteri, tentu beliau mempunyai maklumat perisikan yang kita, sebagai rakyat biasa, tidak tahu.

Saya katakan begitu kerana laporan media memetik Mohd Najib sebagai menyatakan bangkangan keras terhadap “tindakan kumpulan dan individu ekstremis” yang didakwanya “masih tidak toleransi, apatah lagi mengakui faedah masyarakat majmuk.”

Sejak saya tahu membezakan antara Melayu, Cina, India dan Siam di kampung pinggiran sungai bernama Tanah Merah dalam mukim Guar Kepayang dalam daerah Pendang di negeri Kedah, sampailah sekarang, saya belum berjumpa seorang Melayu, Cina, India, Iban, Kadazan atau mana-mana bangsa, kaum dan suku kaum yang menolak kepelbagaian.

Baru-baru ini saya melawat anak saudara sakit di Pontian. Dia dan keluarganya tinggal dalam kebun kelapa sawit. Di sebelah pagarnya sebuah bengkel kereta milik seorang Cina.

Di tengah-tengah kampung Melayu ada sebuah dua rumah orang Cina. Di merata tempat, termasuk dalam perkampungan Melayu, ada tokong Cina.

Kalau dibuat bancian, saya rasa paling banyak tokong Cina per kapita mungkin di negeri Johor.

Kalau bangsa-bangsa dan kaum-kaum di Malaysia tidak mengamalkan toleransi, apatah lagi bersikap ekstrem, saya rasa kita bukan sahaja ada satu 13 Mei (1969), tetapi banyak 13 Mei sebelum dan selepas itu.

Hatta kempen Pas pada pilihan raya umum 1969 yang mahu “menghambat” orang Cina dan India ke dalam laut itu pun bukan berpunca daripada perasaan perkauman yang mendalam, tetapi sekadar sedap cakap dan political posturing.

Bukan apa, pada masa yang sama orang Pas berniaga dan berhutang dengan orang Cina. Orang Cina jadi Along dan Ceti melalui sistem padi kunca.

Sebaliknya, di kampung saya yang terletak dalam kawasan parlimen Kota Setar Selatan (sekarang Pendang), orang Cina undi Pas dan tolak Perikatan sehingga menyebabkan kekalahan (Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad pada pilihan raya umum itu.

Mungkin saya kurang cerdik dan kefahaman bahasa saya lemah. Bagi saya, orang Melayu tuntut hak dan pertahan hak bukan perkauman atau ekstrem.

Kalau orang Melayu tuntut hak dan pertahan hak dituduh perkauman dan ekstrem, maka orang Iban, Kadazan, Orang Asli, Cina dan India yang tuntut hak dan pertahan hak juga perkauman dan ekstrem.

Tetapi itulah ciri kita di Malaysia. Semua bangsa tuntut hak, semua bangsa ada hak dan semua bangsa tidak puas hati dengan hak yang mereka ada.

Kalau orang Melayu tidak bersikap toleransi, kenapa pula mereka tidak memberontak dan membuat kacau apabila kuota mereka dalam pemilikan kekayaan korporat hanya 30 peratus sedangkan bilangan mereka lebih 50 peratus? Sebetulnya bukan hanya 30 peratus, tetapi sekurang-kurangnya 30 peratus.

Zaman saya kanak-kanak dulu, jiran-jiran Cina kami memelihara, menyembelih dan menjual daging babi dalam kampung Melayu. Nenek saya membenarkan jiran Cinanya mengambil keladi dan batang pisang untuk makanan babi. Sebagai ganti, mereka memberikannya gula, kopi, kuih bulan, cerut cap ikan emas dan kepada tok wan saya rokok Rough Rider.

Atau apakah seseorang itu dianggap perkauman dan ekstrem kerana tidak memeluk erat segala bentuk mantera dan slogan pemerintah seperti 1Malaysia?

Dalam blognya (http://www.1malaysia.com.my/) pada 15 September, Perdana Menteri, antara lain mengulas: “Saya menentang perlakuan seperti ini sekeras-kerasnya. Saya berasa sungguh sedih apabila di sebalik tinggal dalam sebuah negara yang berbilang kaum dan merdeka lebih dari 50 tahun, masih ada di kalangan kita ini yang tidak boleh bertoleransi, apatah lagi menerima kebaikan masyarakat yang berbeza-beza ini. Kesedihan yang saya rasakan ini adalah disebabkan dengan menolak cara hidup kita yang berbeza-beza ini, mereka juga menolak 1Malaysia.”

(I am strongly opposed to these types of behaviour. It saddens me that despite living in an independent multi-cultural nation for over 50 years, there are still those among us who cannot tolerate, much less accept the benefits of a perse (?) society. It saddens me because by rejecting our perse (?) way of life, they reject 1Malaysia.)

Kalau penolakan terhadap mantera dan slogan pemerintah boleh ditakrifkan sebagai “puak-puak dan individu-individu pelampau”, maka ramailah yang tergolong dalam kategori ini.

Mohd Najib berkata lagi: “Puak-puak pelampau ini terdiri daripada kumpulan atau inpidu-inpidu (sic) yang mempercayai pada pandangan dan tindakan radikal terhadap pihak lain. Mereka menganggap pihak yang bertentangan fahaman dengan mereka sebagai musuh dan berusaha menakut-nakutkan pihak yang tidak menerima pemikiran atau ideologi mereka dan dalam keadaan tertentu pada orang-orang yang hanya kelihatan berbeza daripada mereka.”

Apa pun diagnosis dan prognosis Perdana Menteri, saya berpendapat bahawa kita yang berbeza pendapat dengan pemerintah dan tidak memeluk erat mantera dan slogannya, bukanlah pertubuhan atau individu ekstrem, apatah lagi perkauman.

Kalau kita keras, tegas, ekstrem dan perkauman, kita tentu mengutuk dan mahu tindakan dikenakan ke atas ratusan ribu rakyat negara ini yang tidak pun boleh berbahasa Melayu dengan secukupnya, termasuklah yang memegang jawatan penting dalam politik dan pentadbiran.

Kita tentulah menuduh pertubuhan dan individu yang menolak sekolah wawasan sebagai tidak bertoleransi dan ekstrem.

Tetapi bukan sahaja konsep sekolah wawasan gagal dimartabatkan, sebaliknya ramai orang Melayu menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina.

Apa yang sebenarnya berlaku pada akhir-akhir ini adalah bangsa-bangsa di Malaysia cuba menelah, memahami dan mencari tempat bagi anggota bangsa mereka dalam landskap politik yang cair dan dalam kerangka pemikiran serta tindakan baru yang berkisar di sekitar perisytiharan dan bahasa berkod (coded language) seperti meritokrasi, persamaan, Model Baru Ekonomi, 1Malaysia, keterangkuman, globalisasi dan keterbukaan.

Samalah dengan sebahagian umat Islam berbahas dan berpolemik mengenai Islam Hadhari dan akhirnya ramai menolak konsep itu kerana mereka tidak setuju Islam dilabelkan.

Bahas dan polemik yang mengutarakan isu-isu dan ciri-ciri kaum yang sedang berlangsung sekarang tidak bermakna masyarakat berbilang kaum kita semakin ekstrem dan perkauman.

Jika ada kenyataan dan pernyataan yang berbau perkauman atau ekstrem, ia mungkin tercetus akibat kebimbangan atau tanggapan bahawa struktur agung politik (political superstructure) negara tidak lagi mampu atau mirip kepada mempertahankan status quo dan kontrak sosial yang selama ini menjadi teras kestabilan dan keyakinan.

Justeru itu, kemunculan badan-badan bukan kerajaan dan individu yang berani bersuara serta bercanggah pendapat dengan pemerintah, khasnya dalam masyarakat Melayu, bukanlah satu tindakan perkauman atau ekstrem.

Malah menerima dan menghormati kepelbagaian suara serta pendapat, khasnya di kalangan kaum majoriti, adalah sesuatu yang sihat dan selaras dengan sikap toleransi dan kesederhanaan yang hendak ditegakkan itu.
Posted by A KADIR JASIN at 11:24 PM 9 comments

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on September 17, 2010 9:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Bookmark and Share
1. One reason advanced by the advocates of letting the Ringgit to be traded abroad is that it will encourage foreign direct investment.

2. There was a time when Malaysia practically pioneered encouragement for foreign direct investment. It was even before FDI became popular with many developing countries as a shortcut to economic growth. Malaysia wanted FDI for job-creating labour intensive industries because of the need to create employment opportunities for its workforce at that time. It was really not about growing the economy.

3. For Malaysia at that time, foregoing taxes and even local participation were not important. The Government did not rely on FDI to fill its treasury.

4. The policy of attracting FDI was so successful that it resolved the problem of unemployment until it created a problem of labour shortage. This led to an inflow of foreign workers and the expatriation of billions of Ringgit back to their countries. FDI no longer helped Malaysia's growth.

5. But being used to this easy approach we keep on inviting FDI believing that it would still help with our economy. But let us look at what really happens when there is foreign direct investment.

6. Most people think that there would be an inflow of capital. But actually only about 10 per cent of the capital needed was brought in. The rest is borrowed from local banks, preferably foreign owned banks. It is therefore Malaysian money that is invested.

7. Apart from tax exemption Malaysia also subsidised the operations of foreign owned companies through subsidised electricity, fuel and domestic transportation. Of course the Malaysian workers contribute through their cheap labour.

8. There is another type of FDI which is even less beneficial. This take the form of investments in the stock market. Usually the objective is not to benefit from profits and dividends but from capital gains.

9. When foreign investors buy Malaysian shares, the prices are likely to appreciate. Foreign institutional investors, especially pension funds can easily push up share prices with their repeated purchases.

10. When the prices are high enough the investors would dump the shares and collect capital gains. The local investors would lose money as prices depreciated.

11. During the financial cirisis of 1997-98, foreign investors dumped their shares so as to quickly change the Ringgit into foreign (US) currency before further falls in the Ringgit would give them less foreign currency in exchange. This invariably caused a steep fall in the share prices and Stock Market Index with consequent losses by local investors.

12. The Malaysian Stock Exchange makes money from commissions or the sales and purchase of shares. Consequently they are happy with more selling and buying on the Exchange. They therefore welcome foreign investors in the market. In fact they believe that if short selling is allowed they will make even more money.But these kinds of market activities do not benefit the nation.

13. FDI is double-edged and caution is needed when deciding on encouraging it. Today FDI is not coming into Malaysia because countries such as China, Vietnam, even Thailand and Indonesia offer lower cost of labour. Besides the economic recession in America and Europe mean less capital is available.

14. But what about the Ringgit? How will it affect the FDI? We need to know whether there was a lowering of FDI due to fixing the Ringgit exchange rate in 1998. If there was, was it directly due to the exchange control or other factors like increase in the cost of labour and competition with the above-mentioned low cost countries?

15. Actually when the Ringgit was fixed at RM3.80 to 1 US Dollar, the cost of investing in Malaysia was lower in terms of foreign currency. Now that the Ringgit has appreciated to RM3.20, the cost has appreciated. If we allow free trading of Ringgit abroad, two things can happen.

16. If the Ringgit strengthens then the cost of investment in Malaysia would increase, This would not facilitate foreign investments.

17. On the other hand the currency traders may once again cause the Ringgit to depreciate. This may result in increased FDI. But remember how we went into recession when our ringgit was devalued by foreign currency traders? Do we want to have that crisis again?

18. The present financial crisis in the world is due to the abuse of regulations in the financial market. No positive steps have been taken so far to regulate it. Certainly currency trading remains unregulated and selective.

19. The latest report says that every day currency trading is valued at four trillion dollars, equal to the total output of Germany in one year.

20. Whereas Germany's 4 trillion dollars yearly output creates millions of jobs, businesses big and small and much trade, the 4 trillion a day currency trade creates practically no jobs, businesses or trade. Of course the currency traders make tons of money. In the process we know that they can cause a repeat of the crisis faced by the world when they lose. Why should the world allow such greedy people to put the world at risk.

21. If we fully free our Ringgit the risk of being attacked by currency traders will once again be faced by us. Do we really want to have the financial crisis once again?

22. So I hope the Government will explain why it wants the Ringgit to be traded again. I hope it is not because we want to be good boys who will always do what we are told to do.

MALAYSIA ACCORDING TO LKY
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on September 14, 2010 6:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (102) | TrackBacks (0)
Bookmark and Share
1. Mr Lee Kwan Yew, the Minister Mentor of Singapore is three years my senior. That means he and I practically grew up in the same period of time. That also means that I have been able to watch the progress of Mr Lee, and in fact to interact with him on various occasions.

2. His assertion in his interview with the New York Times that "Race relations (would be) better if Singapore (had) not (been) "turfed out" (of Malaysia) is worth studying. Is it true or is it fantasy?

3. Before Singapore joined the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia, there was less racial politics in the Federation of Malaysia. In 1955 the Malays who made up 80 per cent of the citizens gave a large number of their constituencies to the few Chinese and Indian citizens and ensured they won with strong Malay support. As a result the Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats contested.

4. The Tunku then rewarded this willingness of the Chinese and Indian citizens to support the coalition concept by giving them one million unconditional citizenship. This reduced Malay majority to 60 per cent.

5. In the 1959 elections the Alliance of UMNO, MCA and MIC won easily though Kelantan was lost. PAS with only Malays as members was rejected. Racialism even when implied failed.

6. In 1963 Singapore became a part of Malaysia. Despite having promised that the PAP will not participate in Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak politics, Kwan Yew reneged and the PAP tried to displace the MCA in the Alliance by appealing to Chinese sentiments in the Peninsular. Of course the slogan was "Malaysian Malaysia" which implied that the Chinese were not having equal rights with the Malays. If this appeal to Chinese sentiments against the Malays was not racial, I do not know what is racial.

7. But the Peninsular Chinese favoured working with the Malays in UMNO. They totally rejected PAP in 1964.

8. Following the Malaysian Malaysia campaign a few UMNO leaders tried to rouse Singapore Malay sentiments. There were demonstrations in Singapore where before there were none. Kwan Yew accused Jaafar Albar for instigating the Singapore Malays. Although I never went to Singapore, nor met the Malays there, I was labelled a Malay-ultra by Kwan Yew himself.

9. By 1965 racism had taken hold and the Tunku was forced to end Singapore's membership of Malaysia. But the seed of Chinese racialism had been sown, so that even after the PAP left, the "Malaysian Malaysia" war cry was picked up by the DAP, an offspring of the PAP.

10. With the background of Singapore's activities in Malaysia in the short three years of its membership, can we really believe that if it had not been "turfed out" race relations would be better in Malaysia?

11. But proof of what would have happened was shown by the politics leading up to the 1969 Election. The MCA began to criticise the Sino/Malay cooperation especially on so-called special rights and demanded for a Chinese University. UMNO then began to clamour for a greater share of the economy of the country. The UMNO/MCA conflict resulted in the Alliance faring very badly in the 1969 Elections.

12. DAP and Gerakan, a new party largely made up of MCA dissidents made gains. The Alliance were shocked and rattled.

13. Then the Gerakan and DAP held their victory parade near the Malay settlement of Kampung Baru, hurling racist insults at the Malays. The result was the 13th May race riots.

14. Till today the racist slogan "Malaysian Malaysia" is the war-cry of the DAP. Racism in Malaysia is clearly the result of Singapore's membership of the country for just three years. Can we really believe that if Singapore had not been "turfed out" Malaysia would have no racial problem.

15. While Kwan Yew talks about his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races, he also said that "once we are by ourselves (out of Malaysia) the Chinese become the majority".

16. Singapore's population is made up of 75 per cent Chinese and they own 95 per cent of the economy. It is therefore not a truly multi-racial country but a Chinese country with minority racial groups who are additionally much poorer.

17. In Singapore dissent is not allowed, People who contest against the PAP would be hauled up in court for libel and if they win elections would not be allowed to take their places in Parliament. Whereas in Malaysia opposition parties invariably win seats in Parliament and even set up State Governments (today five out of the 13 States are ruled by the opposition parties) the PAP in Singapore has to appoint PAP members to represent the opposition.

18. Whether the PAP admits it or not, the party has always been led and dominated by ethnic Chinese and have won elections principally because of Chinese votes. The others are not even icing on the cake.

19. If Singapore is a part of Malaysia the PAP can certainly reproduce the Singapore kind of non-racial politics because together with the Malaysian Chinese, the PAP will ethnically dominate and control Malaysian politics. No dissent would be allowed and certainly no one would dare say anything about who really runs the country.

20. Amnesia is permissible but trying to claim that it is because Singapore had been "turfed out" for the present racist politics in Malaysia is simply not supported by facts of history.

21. Lee Kwan Yew and I saw the same things and know the reasons why.

MERITOCRACY
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on August 30, 2010 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (78) | TrackBacks (0)
Bookmark and Share
*SAYA UCAPKAN SELAMAT MENYAMBUT HARI MERDEKA KE-53 KEPADA SEMUA RAKYAT MALAYSIA KHUSUSNYA KEPADA PEMBACA BLOG INI*

1. I dislike to return to this subject but I need to explain myself.

2. I was prompted to write about the racism in meritocracy because of the reaction to Malay criticisms against the ideas coming out of the Chinese Economic Congress.

3. The leader who made the statement on doing away with quotas etc said that cannot we discuss anything without (the Malays) raising racial issues. He apparently considers his call for meritocracy was not racial.

4. It is racial beause he was advocating taking away the protection afforded by the NEP and quotas from the bumiputras and not from any other race. Obviously he believes that without these protections the bumiputera would lose against the non-bumiputera.

5. As much as giving protection to one race is racial, taking it away from that race so as to benefit another race must also be racial. The suggestion coming as it did from a racially exclusive economic congress must be because it is in the interest of that race. That must be racial even though the demand is for meritocracy.

6. I am not proud of the protection afforded the bumiputera. It implies weakness. I don't think Malays and other bumiputera like to think that they are inferior in any way.

7. But the reality is that in Malaysia the bumiputeras need new skills and a new culture even. These cannot be had by them in a mere 20 years. The original planners of the NEP were too optimistic.

8. I had suggested merit for university entrance in order to shock the bumiputera into getting serious about their education and their own future. However it did not work.

9. In education whereas there is about 60% bumiputera in the Government universities, there are less than 10% in the private universities. And there are more private universities, university colleges and colleges than there are public (Government) universities. Even the 10% bumiputera are there because of scholarships by MARA. Take the scholarships away and there would be practically none.

10. Why is it that the focus is only on what is done by the Government? If the bumiputera in Government universities should be reduced, then the bumiputera in the private universities should be increased. Or else meritocracy would reduce the number of bumiputeras getting university education. Or is it the intention to deny bumiputeras higher education? They are not the best but they are qualified.

11. It is the same with foreign universities. Because they can afford it there are more non-bumiputera than bumiputera in foreign universities. This must increase the disparities in higher education between different races.

12. Lest I be accused of making unfounded assumption, a proper audit should be done by an impartial team.

13. When I was still PM, the Government decided to allow for private colleges and universities to be set up. They can twin with recognised foreign universities and should issue their diplomas and degrees. The reason for allowing private institutions of higher learning is to reduce cost of tertiary education so that the parents who could not afford to send their children abroad can have access to foreign qualification from local private institutions. You can guess who are the beneficiaries of this Government policy.

14. As for contracts even with the 5% advantage given to bumiputera contractors, many of the Government contracts do not go to them because of their lack of capacity. Even if they do get, non-bumiputera contractors get most of the sub-contracts etc.

15. Actually construction by the private sector is bigger than the public sector. In the private sector the bumiputera contractors get next to nothing. I suppose this is because the private contracts are given based on merit. Or maybe it is not. I don't know.

16. Take away the minor protection afforded by the NEP and the bumiputera will lose whatever that they may have. Then racial division will be deepened by wealth division. I don't think this would be good for the country. Remember it was the disparity between rich and poor in Europe which led to the violence of the Communist revolution.

17. I may be labelled a racist but fear of the label will not stop me from working for what I think is the good of the country. Nothing will be gained by dividing the people of Malaysia into poor bumiputera and rich non-bumiputera. The time is not right for disregarding the disparities between the races in the interest of equity and merit.

18. For 46 years this country enjoyed relative stability and consequently good growth. But today the races are more divided than ever. Everyone has become racist, talks about meritocracy notwithstanding. Everyone is thinking about his own race. If I am included it is because I think it is dangerous for the rich to take away what little the poor has.

IS MERITOCRACY RACIST?
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on August 24, 2010 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (265) | TrackBacks (0)
Bookmark and Share
1. In 1964 Malaysia held its first elections. The Tunku had an understanding with the Chief Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kwan Yew that the PAP (People Action Party) would contest only in Singapore and would stay out of the rest of Malaysia. It was really not a smart kind of agreement. It was not put on paper at all. Only an understanding between two leaders.

2. It was not surprising that the PAP decided to contest in the peninsular. Lee had expected the Malaysian Chinese who had been represented in the Government only by the MCA could be persuaded to support him. If he defeated the MCA then the Tunku would replace the MCA with the PAP in the Alliance.

3. The PAP is a Chinese party largely. But it had always projected itself as non-racial. To win in Malaysia he had to appeal to Chinese chauvinism. However he could not do this openly.

4. Being the astute politician that he is, Lee came up with a slogan which did not sound chauvinistic but which played up Chinese sentiments to the core. The slogan was "Malaysian Malaysia".

5. While appearing to be appealing for all Malaysians the slogan was clearly suggesting that there was no equality between the Chinese and the Malays. He and his party was made out to be fighting for equality between the Chinese and the Malays, whereas the MCA represented only the Chinese towkays.

6. The Malays were alarmed at the prospect of the Peninsular Chinese combining with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak Chinese to outnumber them. Split as they were between PAS and UMNO, their chances of continuing to dominate Malaysian politics was at risk.

7. Strangely the PAP bid failed against the MCA. But the Tunku was shocked and decided that Singapore's inclusion in Malaysia posed great danger. One year after the election Singapore was expelled. But the PAP chauvinistic legacy was taken up by the DAP. And the slogan "Malaysian Malaysia" continued to figure in Malaysian politics, evolving into a new catchword, "Meritocracy". If "Malaysian Malaysia" conjures equality between races, "Meritocracy" implies something stronger. It implies dominance by the race with the greatest merit in every field; in education, in business and in all fields of human endeavour.

8. When the Malays, understanding the implications, protest against meritocracy, they were condemned as racists. Faced with being labelled as such, most Malays dared not support even the NEP. Some, perhaps due to mistaken pride have begun to support meritocracy, undermining the Malay position further.

9. Today we see a lot of Malay NGOs trying to defend the Malay position. Invariably they have been labelled racists. The unfortunate truth is that those who labelled them are equally racists because of their advocacy of meritocracy.

10. It is the same with political party which appeal on the basis of the religion of Islam. In Malaysia the Malays are all Muslims. There are quite a large number of Indian Muslims in Malaysia but they do not figure in the political party said to be Islamic. The party, by using Islam, knows full well they are appealing to Malays almost exclusively. But the intention is not to defend the Malays but merely to gain their support. One can say they are not Malay racists. Rather they are Malay political opportunists.

11. That is why they find no difficulty in switching tactics in order to win the support of the non-Malays. Where before they condemn UMNO for working with non-Muslims, today their co-operation with non-Muslims knows no bounds.

12. The difference between UMNO and the other parties is that UMNO is openly partisan, not hiding its concern for the well-being of the Malays. Unfortunately because of mismanagement it has become weak. That is why today we have Perkasa and other Malay NGOs who are as openly concerned about the Malays as the UMNO once was. The condemnation by those said to be advocating meritocracy is because they see the racism of the meritocrats, just as the Malays of 1964 saw the racism of "Malaysian Malaysia".

13. What we are seeing today is not a campaign against racism but a campaign by racists against racists. The meritocrats are as much racists as the Malay NGOs, and Perkasa.

14. Incidentally by writing this I know the meritocrat racists will condemn me as racist. So be it.

****

ADAKAH MERITOKRASI BERSIFAT PERKAUMAN?

1. Pada tahun 1964, Malaysia telah mengadakan pilihanraya umum yang pertama. Tunku dan Ketua Menteri Singapura Lee Kwan Yew bersetuju supaya PAP (Parti Tindakan Rakyat - People's Action Party pimpinan Kwan Yew) hanya bertanding di Singapura dan tidak di mana-mana kawasan di Semenanjung Malaysia. Ianya bukanlah satu perjanjian yang bijak. Tidak pun dimeterai secara rasmi. Hanya persefahaman di antara dua orang pemimpin.

2. Tidak mengejutkan PAP kemudiannya memutus untuk bertanding di Semenanjung. Lee menjangkakan yang kaum Cina Malaysia yang diwakili di dalam Kerajaan oleh parti MCA dapat di galakkan untuk menyokong beliau. Jika MCA Berjaya dikalahkan, Lee percaya Tunku akan gantikan MCA dengan PAP di dalam Perikatan.

3. PAP ialah sebuah parti yang didominasi kaum Cina. Tetapi ia sentiasa mengetengahkan ianya sebagai parti yang tidak berlandaskan kaum. Untuk menang di Malaysia dianya mesti menarik sokongan chauvinis Cina. Ini tidak dapat dilakukan secara terbuka.

4. Sebagai ahli politik yang cekap, Lee memperkenalkan slogan yang tidak terlalu berbaur chauvinis tetapi tetap menyemarakkan sentimen Cina. Slogan tersebut ialah "Malaysian Malaysia".

5. Sementara ianya ternampak menarik bagi semua rakyat Malaysia, slogan tersebut sebenarnya menarik perhatian kepada tidak adanya kesamarataan antara kaum Cina dan kaum Melayu. Dia dan partinya diketengahkan sebagai memperjuangkan kesamarataan antara Cina dan Melayu, manakala MCA hanya mewakili golongan towkay Cina.

6. Orang Melayu berasa cemas akan kemungkinan penyatuan kaum Cina di Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak akan menyebabkan orang Melayu menjadi kaum minoriti. Perpecahan di antara PAS dan UMNO menyebabkan peluang orang Melayu untuk terus mendominasi politik di Malaysia menghadapi risiko.

7. Yang anehnya PAP gagal dalam cubaannya menentang MCA. Tetapi Tunku amat terkejut dan memutuskan yang penyertaan Singapura di dalam Malaysia membawa bahaya. Setahun selepas pilihanraya, Singapura disingkir. Tetapi legasi chauvinis PAP ini diteruskan oleh DAP. Slogan "Malaysian Malaysia" terus dimainkan di dalam politik Malaysia, dan berubah menjadi satu perkataan yang baru, "Meritokrasi". Jika "Malaysian Malaysia" membawa makna kesamarataan antara kaum, "Meritokrasi" membawa maksud yang lebih keras. Ianya bererti dominasi oleh sesuatu kaum yang mempunyai merit di dalam setiap lapangan; di dalam pendidikan, perniagaan dan semua lapangan yang diceburi manusia.

8. Apabila orang Melayu, memahami akan akibatnya, mula menentang meritokrasi, mereka dicerca sebagai bersifat perkauman. Kerana tidak mahu dilabel sedemikian, ramai orang Melayu tidak berani menyokong Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Ada sesetengah, mungkin kerana sikap bodoh sombong, mula menyokong meritokrasi dan menekan lagi kedudukan orang Melayu.

9. Hari ini kita lihat banyak NGO Melayu bangkit mempertahankan kedudukan orang Melayu. Dan semestinya mereka ini dilabel sebagai bersifat perkauman. Malang sekali, sebenarnya yang melabel mereka ini juga bersifat perkauman kerana sokongan mereka terhadap meritokrasi.

10. Sama juga dengan parti politik yang meraih sokongan menggunakan agama Islam. Di Malaysia, orang Melayu kesemuanya beragama Islam. Terdapat juga sebilangan besar kaum India Muslim di Malaysia tetapi mereka ini tidak berperanan dalam parti politik yang dikatakan parti Islam ini. Dengan mengguna Islam, parti ini sedar yang ianya hanya untuk menarik secara eksklusif sokongan orang Melayu. Niat mereka hanya untuk meraih sokongan orang Melayu dan bukan untuk mempertahan kedudukan orang Melayu. Mereka ini boleh dikatakan bukan bersifat perkauman pro-Melayu. Tetapi mereka mengambil kesempatan politik ke atas orang Melayu.

11. Itulah juga sebab kenapa mereka tidak punyai masalah menukar taktik untuk menarik sokongan bukan Melayu. Jika dulu mereka mencerca UMNO berkerjasama dengan bukan Islam, hari ini kerjasama mereka dengan bukan Islam tiada batasan.

12. Perbezaan di antara UMNO dan lain-lain parti ialah UMNO secara terang menyebelahi sesuatu pihak, tidak menyembunyi akan perjuangannya untuk kebajikan orang Melayu. Malangnya kerana kelemahan urusan pentadbiran ianya menjadi lemah. Sebab itulah hari ini ada Perkasa dan lain-lain NGO Melayu yang secara terbuka memperjuangkan nasib Melayu sebagaimana UMNO terdahulu. Pencercaan oleh golongan menyokong meritokrasi ialah kerana mereka melihat NGO Melayu bersifat perkauman, sebagaimana orang Melayu pada tahun 1964 melihat sifat perkauman dalam "Malaysian Malaysia".

13. Yang kita lihat hari ini bukanlah kempen menentang sifat perkauman tetapi kempen oleh pejuang perkauman menentang pejuang perkauman yang lain. Penyokong meritokrasi juga bersifat perkauman sebagaimana NGO Melayu dan Perkasa.

14. Sehubungan itu saya juga akan dicerca sebagai bersifat perkauman oleh pejuang meritokrasi yang bersifat perkauman. Biarkan.