Categories
Economics History & heritage Politics & government

[2835] The economy Mahathir created

New York has the Empire State Building. Think of Paris and the Eiffel Tower comes to mind. Cairo is inseparable from the Pyramids. Singapore has the smaller but not less iconic Merlion. George Town has the Penang Bridge, if you take a liberal view of the city’s boundary and ignore the unpleasant monolith towering over the island.

The Sultan Abdul Samad Building stood as Kuala Lumpur’s chief landmark for almost a hundred years. But on one fine morning in the late 1990s, two bluish skyscrapers dethroned the onion coppered-domes structure as the new symbol of Kuala Lumpur. The Petronas Towers emerged as the world’s tallest building.

This was possible due to one man. He is Mahathir Mohamad, the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The man did more than merely changed the landmark of the city. The symbolism — the switch from a building of colonial origin to one of contemporary Malaysia — reaches out with a far greater nuance. It represents the Malaysian industrial revolution that happened under his watch.

The reality of Malay feudalism

Before modern Malaysia, the society within the land we live in now was condemned to social immobility. Rarely would a person living at the bottom of the pyramid graduate upwards. If you were born to a common family, then you would be trapped in that world. You would have to be content with little reward for toiling under the unforgiving tropical sun. Only those belonging to the upper echelon had a realistic shot at material success.

Munshi Abdullah in the early 1800s criticized Malay rulers on the east coast for killing a person’s motivation to work. Far too frequently, those in power would confiscate wealth from the common folks, making the reward for work nonexistent for the majority. Capital accumulation for the masses — the recipe for modern capitalism — was impossible for the ruled.

Things improved when the British arrived, especially in the 19th century. Armed with advancement of the European Industrial Revolution, colonial technology increased productivity and brought material progress to Malaya and other parts of the region. Yet, the improvement was largely limited to the crown colonies and the colonial capitalists monopolized the most productive economic sectors, with most of the profits repatriated abroad instead of being reinvested locally. Penang, Malacca, Singapore and other smaller settlements like Kuching and Taiping were of their time, glittering cities benefiting from electricity, street lights, paved roads, schools and clinics, standing apart from the underdeveloped interior where many lived.

From our vantage point today, the situation had barely improved by the middle of the 20th century. Even as Malaya and later Malaysia emerged out of the Second World War, it was unclear if the welfare of the majority had risen meaningfully. Kua Kia Soong is convinced the May 13 race riots in 1969 was a coup by Tun Razak Hussein who rode on Malay peasant discontent against Tunku Abdul Rahman’s overly hands-off policy, as the glow of 1957 Merdeka and the 1963 Malaysia gave way to economic woes.

Mahathir’s industrial revolution

Mahathir’s industrial revolution of the 1980s and the 1990s overturned the highly inflexible calcified society. Fewer sons and daughters of fishermen and farmers took up their parents’ low-paying professions. Capital accumulation became possible for more and more people, freeing them from suffocating unjust feudalism.

They participated in the cogs of modern economy and migrated to the cities at an unprecedented rate. The rapid urbanization created or expanded towns like Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya — a manifestation of the industrial revolution — to cater to the housing needs of the new urban middle class.

It was not just wealth that began to build up outside of the feudalist circle. Political power did too. Mahathir is the first prime minister who has no blood ties to the royal court. The other Prime Ministers were or are all blue-blooded, with the exception of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Mahathir’s immediate successor.

Malaysia experienced its fastest economic expansion in the 1970s — growth in the decade averaged 7.9% yearly — but it was during the 1980s that growth really took off in a manner the man on the street could feel the rising tides. The expansion of the 1990s would have been far greater if it was not for the devastating Asian Financial Crisis. The 1998 recession remains Malaysia’s worst yet.

Malaysian RGDP 1963-2015

Causes of the 1980s-1990s growth

The success of Mahathir’s Malaysia of the 1980s and the 1990s did not come out of vacuum.

The controversial affirmative action New Economic Policy (NEP) formulated in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots permeated the air. An activist government redistributed wealth across the society especially among the Malay populace in the 1970s to appease the peasant discontent, and to create a new and larger urban middle class. But the policy took time to mature and it ripened during Mahathir’s premiership. This was particularly true on the education front. The rapid expansion of formal education up to the tertiary level created enough talents to sustain an industrialization drive.

Equally important in industrializing Malaysia was the role played by Japan. Lee Kuan Yew engineered Singapore’s fantastic rise by capturing capital fleeing communist China’s disastrous 1960s-1970s Cultural Revolution (Chinese capital also fled to Hong Kong and Taiwan even earlier in the 1940s-1950s during the Chinese Civil War that the communists eventually won). Malaysia engineered ours by welcoming Japanese money and technology in the 1980s-1990s.

We have to understand the Japan of that time to understand its role in shaping Mahathir’s Malaysia. The Japanese post-war economic miracle created demand that far exceeded whatever input — labor, land, raw material — that existed domestically. The same problem had brought the Japanese Imperial Amry out to mainland Asia and to the archipelagos down south. The rapid reindustrialization out of the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki used up all the workers the Japanese society could provide. Wages rose precipitously and so did cost of doing business. This was coupled with the 1985 Plaza Accord where major powers of the world agreed to the devaluation of the US dollar relative to the yen. The result: Japanese exports became increasingly expensive and uncompetitive in the US and in other countries where the local currency was linked to the dollar. In those days, the dollar was the effective gold standard.

Rising cost, severe labor shortage and strengthening yen threatened the profitability of exporting Japanese firms like Hitachi, Mitsui and Toyota. In order to remain competitive, they needed cheaper production bases outside of Japan.

Mahathir understood this perfectly and he cajoled Japan to invest in Malaysia in a big way. He succeeded.

Turning east from west

The Look East Policy should be read together with Mahathir’s Buy British Last. Unlike the earlier three Prime Ministers, Mahathir does not remember British rule as fondly. His family was far from the feudalist elites whom maintained close ties with the British. He did not spend his youth in England unlike the previous three prime ministers.

Even in a pro-British environment of the 1970s, Malaysia frequently clashed with British companies over the NEP. British investors then still owned a large chunk of Malaysian industries, especially in the plantation sector. Guthrie alone owned 17% of Malaysian land during the decade. British or European firms controlled 1.2 million out of 1.4 million acres of Malayan rubber plantation in the post-war period. James Puthucheary in his 1960 classic Ownership and Control in the Malayan Economy describes how strongly the British controlled the local economy in all sectors at that time.

Quoting a 1948 report, Puthucheary wrote “the control of Malaya’s most important industry by a ‘handful of large firms’ is the basis of the great political power wielded by them.” Indeed, the 1948 Emergency was declared only after the High Commissioner Edward Gent was pressured by British planters to do so, as recounted in Noel Barber’s The War of the Running Dogs. Gent was even removed from office because the planters did not like him. And the armed contest was called an emergency instead of a war only because the planters were worried insurers would refuse to cover losses arising from the conflict. But the Emergency was, in every respect, a civil war.

The Malaysianization of the domestic economy that began under the NEP — financed by oil windfall of the 1970s oil crisis — reached its climax under Mahathir when he sanctioned a 1981 dawn raid of Guthrie at the London Stock Exchange that ended with Malaysia owning the plantation major. Today, Guthrie is part of Sime Darby, which itself was acquired by the Malaysian government in 1977.

The hostile corporate maneuver of 1981 broke the Malaysia-Britain ties. So, Mahathir needed a new friend. Japan was looking for one too.

The two industrialization policies

Japan supplied the money and the technology but the inspiration for industrialization came from the four original Asian tigers. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan all became rich by exporting manufactured goods to the world. Malaysia and Thailand — perhaps less successfully, Indonesia and the Philippines — adopted the export-led industrialization with vigor beginning in the 1980s.

Singapore in particular has a special love-hate tie with Malaysia. After two years as part of the Malaysian federation — and for a longer time part of Malaya — Singapore was booted out in 1965. For some in Malaysia, seeing Singapore thriving instead of suffering since then must have been vexing. Mahathir could never have a sustained friendly tie with Singapore or with Lee Kuan Yew, a British-educated lawyer who had labelled the Singaporean-educated medical doctor from Kedah as a Malay ultra. The Mahathir-Lee rivalry must have inspired the former to play the catch-up game with Singapore, out of honor and ego.

Industrialization happened and Malaysia radically shifted its emphasis to exporting manufactured goods such as air-conditioners, refrigerators, televisions and computers from merely selling raw material like tin and rubber. The policy shift created jobs just decades ago did not exist.

Mahathir was not the first Malaysian leader who saw manufacturing and exports as the new growth engines. Penang under Lim Chong Eu figured it out first in the 1970s by inviting American corporations to invest there and subsequently turned Penang into the Southeast Asian hub for electronics manufacturing. But it was Mahathir who scaled the model up at the national level.

He did not just press for export-led industrialization. He also pursued import substitution industrialization by establishing heavy industries like steel-making and automotive. Perhaps he was unsure if he could succeed with pro-export bias only and as a precaution, he bet on two competing horses. Mahathir had a good role model to follow. South Korea believed in import substitution too and achieved great success with it.

Unfortunately for him, only one of the horses finished the race in good health. His export policy worked marvelously but the import substitution lost steam along the way.

The easiest example of the failed import substitution policy is Perwaja, which made billion of ringgit of losses due to mismanagement, corruption and bad business model. Malaysia still has a steel industry despite the failure of Perwaja — a hung up from the Mahathir days — and it remains uncompetitive till this day. Domestic steel producers regularly lobby the government for protection from steel imports, unashamedly asking the public to pay for their losses.

The more interesting case is Proton. The whole enterprise got off to a good start in the 1980s with the help of Mitsubishi. The biggest factor contributing to Proton’s early success was the government support it received. Mahathir restricted competition by imposing astronomical tariffs on imported cars while refusing foreign car manufacturers the licenses they needed to produce in Malaysia. In a car-oriented society, a car was a necessity and most could afford Proton only.

But the success did not last for long.

Instead of following the Malaysian path, Thailand invited the likes of Toyota, Honda, Ford and General Motors to manufacture and assemble vehicles in Rayong. A great automotive city came to being south of Bangkok and turned Thailand into the largest vehicle manufacturer in Asean.

The implementation of the Asean Free Trade Area abolished import tariffs on all Asean cars. Proton too long addicted to protectionism, now had to compete with the automotive giants located up north.

The Malaysian carmaker competed badly. The Thai production was set up with the regional market in mind unlike Proton, which was and still is focused on the far smaller domestic market. That means Rayong manufacturers have the economies of scale Proton does not. It cost Thailand less to build a car than Malaysia could.

Proton lost the race by the 2000s. In 2016, it begged the Malaysian government for MYR1.5 billion just to survive. The Najib government bailed it out and it unlikely to be the last. The establishment of Proton has led to the creation of a long and complex supply chain which the government just cannot let fail out of political considerations, a legacy issue from the NEP as well as from Mahathir’s policy.

Foreign technology, foreign money and foreign labor

Regardless of import substitution failures, Malaysia industrialized.

Just like Japan, the 1980s-1990s Malaysian industrialization led to labor shortage. Export-oriented industrialization made the world the market. Yet, the 1981 Malaysian population of 14 million could not provide enough local hands to man the factories and build new office towers. The population size grew to 19 million by 1991 but still it was not enough. The economy was simply growing much faster than Malaysians could make babies.

Mahathir imported the workers Malaysia needed. The Petronas Towers were built by Japanese and Korean engineers, Malaysian oil money and Indonesian sweat. Without these foreign workers, the twin towers would not have been built and Malaysia would have unlikely to develop as fast.

This is an obvious historical parallel to the immigration of the late 20th century. When the British first introduced agricultural plantations and large-scaled mining, they quickly discovered the Malayan labor pool was too small to support their new economic endeavors. Syed Hussein Alatas in The Myth of the Lazy Native believed the Malay commoners refused to participate in these enterprises after witnessing how badly workers were treated on the plantations and in the mines. Life in the peaceful kampongs felt like paradise versus the hell within the mines. Yet, industrial production was the future, not subsistence activities. The British solved the problem by bringing in foreign workers from China, India and Java, who later became citizens of Malaysia.

Mahathir wanted Malaysia to have 70 million people by 2100. But rising prosperity is a potent birth control device. The average nuclear family size by early 2000s fell to about 4 persons a family from roughly 5 in the 1980s. It probably averaged 6 earlier. The United Nations projects by the end of this century, the Malaysian population will stabilize at around 41 million people from the current size of 31 million people. Immigration is likely the only way to achieve 70 million people target, if it is still a goal of the current government.

Some of these new immigrants will join us as citizens of this country if we intend to sustain our economic growth, changing the demographics of this land yet again. The alternative is Japan, a rich and advanced society, but with a shrinking population and a bleak future.

Loosening up of the NEP

One thing that stood in the way of export-led industrialization was the NEP as it imposed a 30% Bumiputra equity requirement on various sectors. Foreign investors did not like surrendering control of their investment to somebody else and they could simply go somewhere else — Thailand and Indonesia were the obvious alternatives — if they could not get their way. Despite being the author of The Malay Dilemma and an earlier proponent for the NEP, Mahathir was pragmatic. He abolished the requirement for foreign manufacturing as an expanded manufacturing would lift all boats up.

In 1986, foreign investors were allowed to hold 100% equity if at least half of their output were exported. By 1998, they were permitted to have 100% equity regardless of export level as the government tried to stimulate an economy battered by the Asian Financial Crisis.

Coupled with various tax incentives, the abolition spurred investment into manufacturing. Industrial free zones with minimal customs supervision popped up like mushrooms after the rain in Selangor, Penang and Johor. Non-Japanese companies like Intel, Dell and Texas Instruments set up plants in these zones. By the 1990s, manufacturing made up a quarter of the country’s economic output in contrast to 1965 when it was only a tenth and when agriculture dominated the economy. Malaysia was transformed radically then well before Najib Razak’s transformation programs.

Source: EPU

From industry captains…

Mahathir was still obsessed with hitting the 30% Bumiputra equity target despite abolishing that quota requirement for foreign manufacturers. With the NEP ending in 1990, he was at risk of coming short. He addressed that by picking and nurturing a cohort of Malay industrialists to help him achieve that goal.

Privatization was the favorite means by which the Mahathir government used to create the Malay industrialist class. It also killed two birds with one stone, as privatization tackled the problem of bloated inefficient government by cutting public expenditure.

Mahathir had inherited a monster of a government when he first came to power. Public spending had expanded greatly in the 1970s as the government sought to fulfil its NEP redistributive objectives. Public agencies and enterprises employed more and more people while disregarding the negative effects that had on efficiency.

The government would have been able to sustain the whole NEP spending if it was not for the mid-1980s recession. Oil, tin and rubber prices collapsed. Government revenue was depressed. Deficit widened. The government’s own import substitution initiatives cost money. One could not have one’s cake and eat it too.

A choice had to be made and Mahathir pushed the privatization drive through. Among the beneficiaries of the action were Tajuddin Ramli, Yahya Ahmad and Halim Saad. Malaysia Airlines, Celcom, Hicom and many others were privatized to the new Malay industrialists. Funnily enough despite not attending the school, Mahathir’s policy gave rise to the so-called ”MCKK mafia” — a circle of Malay College men whom dominated the Malaysian corporate scene prior to the 1998 recession. Beyond the elite circle, the floating of government enterprises on the stock exchange gave a wider segment of the Malaysian population a chance to participate in the equity market.

There were Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs who enjoyed government support too. They went on to build companies like YTL, Genting, Berjaya and Maxis. One must not forget YTL was one of several companies that benefited massively from the first generation independent power producer (IPP) policy, arguably at the expense of Tenaga Nasional and the public. The IPP saga is a reminder that while the 1980s-1990s privatizations bore dividend, it also had its cost. The cost manifested itself spectacularly during the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis.

…to crony capitalism

These individuals and companies were linked to the government, and Umno, through privatization of government enterprises, the award of government contracts or the granting of monopoly over a particular good or service. Edmund Terence Gomez and Jomo Kwame Sundaram wrote a 1997 book detailing the extensive links these businesses had with Umno and Barisan Nasional. There is no doubt that they financed Umno while industrializing Malaysia.

As the 1990s boom peaked, these celebrated companies making up Malaysia Inc. were slowly perceived as corrupt villains. The term cronyism entered the Malaysian vocabulary. The NEP, which was meant to help the masses, was now criticized as an excuse to fatten the selected few. Many laypersons believed the NEP had been corrupted.

The accusation of cronyism and corruption was not far from the truth. During the Asian Financial Crisis, many of these privatized companies were bailed out by the government. In 1998, state-controlled MISC bought the heavily indebted and financially stressed Konsortium Perkapalan for $220 million. The latter was controlled by Mahathir’s son, Mirzan. Many other industry captains nurtured by Mahathir had to be bailed out too.

The economic stress led to differences between Mahathir and his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar, unceremoniously fired from office by Mahathir, later mounted a massive opposition against the government, demanded reformasi and opened a new contested chapter of Malaysian politics.

The Asian Financial Crisis

Mahathir liberalized the economy after a decade or two of NEP. The Asian Financial Crisis forced him to reverse the course.

Firms across Asia had borrowed heavily in foreign currencies during the 1990s economic expansion. In good times, servicing the debt was easy. But by mid-1997, local Southeast Asian currencies crashed and it increased these companies’ debt burden by multiple folds, automatically rendering them beyond sustainability. It began with the collapse of the baht and it developed into a full-blown regional contagion. The ringgit was not spared. Bankruptcy was inevitable for many across multiple countries.

NPL during 1997 AFC

The International Monetary Fund had proposed Malaysia let these businesses — including those helmed by Mahathir-linked industry captains — fail. In return for an emergency fund, the IMF also proposed the adoption of an austere fiscal policy to strengthen the ringgit. The idea was that if the ringgit recovered, it would reduce the debt burden.

Mahathir would have none of that, in contrast to Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea. He famously stood up, turned his back and did the opposite of IMF recommendations. Malaysia imposed capital controls and pegged the ringgit at MYR3.80 to a dollar. His Keynesian economic prescription shook the realm of orthodox macroeconomics, just as he shocked the world by coming down on Anwar Ibrahim in the most disagreeable manner.

Malaysian ringgit VS US dollar, 1970-2015

Malaysia Airlines and Renong were saved. Danaharta bought bad loans in the domestic system. Danamodal recapitalized domestic banks straddled with bad debt. Megaprojects like Bakun ran aground and needed public money to go on. Companies managing the light rail transit and the monorail systems were acquired by the government too; they were later restructured into Prasarana Negara and RapidKL.

These companies — the success story of Mahathir’s privatization effort — failed and were renationalized. They would later come primarily under the control of Khazanah Nasional, Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund.

With mandate from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi — Mahathir’s successor — Azman Mokhtar working from Khazanah’s office on level 33 of the Petronas Towers transformed these so-called government-linked companies into the biggest corporations in the region. Corporate governance was improved and so did profitability. The turnaround has been so successful that these GLCs are often accused of crowding out the private sector out of the market.

The current success of these GLCs is a happy outcome of the 1990s bailout. But some things never change. Malaysia Airlines and Proton are still in trouble after all these years.

It would take the IMF more than ten years later to write a mea culpa — admitting austerity did not work — as the organization grappled with the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent European sovereign debt crisis.

But even as Mahathir’s supporters cheered the apology, lingering in the background are questions of what if. Would Malaysia have rid itself of cronyism if things had been left burned to the ground in 1997 and 1998? Would there have been a substantial structural reform if Malaysia had listened to the IMF? Would Malaysia get a better democracy if the Umno network was left to fail? Would 1MDB exist in that alternative history?

What if, what if. We can only speculate as we live our life today.

Are we there yet?

But even as projects abandoned, industrialists bankrupted, debt restructured and companies bailed out, by the late 1990s Malaysia was no longer a third world country. New terms were used to describe us: ”newly industrialized economy” and ”upper middle income country” were two among several. That is Mahathir’s achievement for us.

But despite resigning in 2003, the Mahathir project is still unfinished. It is a country on the cusp of something great, but it is not quite there yet. For all the material advancement we have achieved, something intangible is missing. Mahathir dug a deep hole to build those tall Malaysian towers. He ravaged Malaysian institutions to stay in power, and killed off political rivals that could bring Malaysia to greater heights.

Prime Minister Najib Razak vows to complete the task of turning Malaysia into a developed country by 2020. He thinks he can fill the hollow cavity inside us all by building a bigger economy, by pouring in more money and dig other holes elsewhere.

That is folly. Money can buy you only so much.

Mahathir realizes this only belatedly. That is his, and our, failure.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
Sources:

  • real GDP chart: World Bank, my calculation
  • GDP composition chart: Economic Planning Unit
  • debt obligation chart: World Bank
  • ringgit chart: Bank Negara Malaysia

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published for the Era Mahathir exhibition at the Ilham Gallery in July. The exhibition runs from July to November 20 2016.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
p/s — I have been criticized for ignoring Sabah and Sarawak. Perhaps I should have mentioned how the Malaysian industrialization was really a West Coast industrialization. I should have highlighted the geographical disparity of the 1980s and the 1990s industrialization as I highlighted the economic disparity between the cities and the interior during colonial times. For better or for worse, such focus is usually due to the logic of agglomeration. There is also the curse of history: it is easier to develop a place that has the basic infrastructure in place.

But perhaps that is a work for another person. It would be interesting to see what Sabah and Sarawak-specific industrialization was like during Mahathir’s time, though I would imagine, it would mostly be about oil and gas. For Sarawak in particular, perhaps an investigation in the roles of Cahya Mata Sarawak in the state’s industrialization drive.

Categories
Education Liberty Personal Society

[1783] Of breaking free from a cursed shackle

I experienced a tremendous surge of security today and I have not felt such feeling in such a long time. The only regret I have is that I did not set a higher target for myself. I might have set a goal too low for myself. Ever since graduation a few years ago from Ann Arbor, life has consistently tried to bring me down and the toll it took on my confidence was breaking me. My self-esteem suffered but after a few rallying personal events, I am on my way back up.

I am happy because I am overcoming the shadow of my former self. I am winning against myself.

I have secured my path into the future. That path was in the state of flux previously and I really did not know what I wanted in life. There were too many unknowns to think of, too many factors to consider, too many calculations required. Too many a time, I found myself staring blankly outside to see everything but see nothing.

Now, however, now, the path forward is as clear as daylight and all I need to do now is walk down the lane and never to look back. I have earned a place for a post-graduate work abroad.

If everything goes well for the next few months, I should be out of this country again. The only issue that may pull me back is matter of finance. A back-of-the-envelope suggests I need to raise approximately RM100,000 in the next few months to live comfortably, on top of whatever savings that I have at the moment. Despite the my training, I was surprised of the requirement for additional fund. I had budgeted that I would be able to fund myself through this journey. As it turned out, I have not considered my whole expected expenses in a comprehensive manner. That is my only fear.

Despite concerning regarding the additional money which I need to raise, the fact that I am able to depend on my ability through and through thrills me. It thrills me because this is the chance for me to escape from one criticism which I think is unfair and I extremely deplore.

In A Malaysian Journey, Rehman Rashid writes something to the effect that the Malays are cursed of not knowing whether he had succeed because of his ability or because of affirmative action. My personal experience has taught me the truth of those words. Given my unfriendly position with respect to the flawed affirmative action in Malaysia, my critics have used that very same idea raised by Rehman Rashid against me.

I went to the Malay College and I attended the University of Michigan. While Michigan accepted me based on merit, it is really hard to say if the government scholarship which I received to go to Michigan as well as the somewhat subsidized education which I was obtained at the Malay College was on merit or simply because of the affirmative action. I therefore grappled to answer criticism against my position to the affirmative action.

I cannot live with that. Only the stars know how much I want to silent my critics and a spot in a post-graduate program gives me the chance to do everything on my own, the personal responsibility which I am undertaking, provides everything that I need.  It provides me the hammer for me to use to break free from that curse, once and for all, and more.

I earned my time to bask in the sun and nobody, nobody, can rob me of this. I am now free in one more aspect of my life.

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[1595] Of flawed policy, not flawed implementation

While I am happy with a new path made possible by the recent general election, I am slightly disappointed at the way DAP and PKR are dismissing the outmoded New Economic Policy. Prior to the election and the campaigning period, I was impressed at how the two parties leaders were rejecting the NEP at the policy level. During the campaigning period however, there was a subtle change in reasoning. Suddenly, the NEP is being rejected because of its flawed implementation.[1] While obviously annoyed at the change of approach, I kept mum throughout the contest; there is time for a debate and there is time to bite one’s tongue. When there is an enemy in front of oneself and the situation is pressing, one does not conduct a debate with one’s compatriots on how to outmaneuver the enemy. Instead, one pulls his knife out and march forth. But now with the enemy vanquished, the time for the debate has arisen yet again.

The NEP is an outdated policy because it fails to adapt itself to new reality of freer global market. At one time given the landscape of the 1970s, it was a suitable policy but now, it is clear that the NEP is one barrier the Malaysia must overcome to realize a freer market and achieve greater prosperity. Another reason is that there are better policies out there that seek to eradicate of poverty or more realistically, provide social mobility compared to the NEP. The NEP assumes that only the Malays are poor whereas in fact, the Malays are not economically homogeneous and neither are other ethnic groups in this country. In other words, the NEP is a blunt policy. A better policy with the intention of providing social mobility and equality of opportunities are the ones that are conscious of socio-economic indicators — meritocracy.

The NEP is being exploited exactly because it is a blunt policy. With its flawed or outdated assumption that all Malays are economically backward, the well-off Malays are undeservedly receiving aid despite the fact that they can effort to live comfortably without any kind of affirmative action. Due to the way the policy is designed, benefits meant for the poor are now enjoyed by others. This rationale parallels the thinking that fuels the awfully badly designed fuel subsidy policy in Malaysia.

Observe how the flaw is at the policy level and not at the implementation stage. When the policy is flawed, its innate handicap is merely being executed at the implementation stage.

Rejecting the NEP because of its flawed implementation is a flawed thinking. Economist Mahani Zainal Abidin said several days ago something to the effect that if the implementation of the NEP is flawed, then policy should be retained with only its implementation processes modified to make it more effective. She is absolutely right.

If the NEP is to be rejected, its rationale has to be deeper than mere flawed implementation.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Demikian penegasan Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim mengenai pendiriannya mengenai pelaksanaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru yang dikatakan akan dihapuskan di bawah pentadbiran DAP di Pulau Pinang.

“Apabila tahun 1990-an, kita dapati DEB telah disalahgunakan yang hanya mementingkan segelintir masyarakat Melayu dan segelintir masyarakat Cina dan India yang mempunyai hubungan dengan Umno,” katanya dalam sidang akhbar yang diadakan di Kediaman Rasmi Menteri Besar, di sini, hari ini. [“DEB disalahguna, diselewengkan” – Tan Sri Khalid. HarakahDaily. March 17 2008]

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[1588] Mengenai tanah yang lebih subur

Walaupun bertahun sudah berlalu, teringat lagi bagaimana rasanya pertama kali melangkah ke dalam Kolej Melayu. Institusi itu menjanjikan satu masa hadapan yang cerah kepada mereka berpeluang menjejakkan kaki di situ. Peluang bagaimanapun memerlukan satu perubahan pahit yang perlu ditelan. Untuk mencapai bintang-bintang di langit, segala kebebasan dan kemewahan yang dinikmati sebelum ini harus dilupakan. Masalah untuk menyesuaikan diri timbul; perasaan gementar menguasai jasad. Setiap hari baru dimaki hamun, hari yang dahulu dikenang. Apabila tibanya masa untuk meninggalkan Kuala Kangsar, tanpa disedari air mata berlinang di pipi.

Perkara yang sama berlaku apabila diri ini pertama kalinya merentasi Lautan Pasifik yang luas. Sekali lagi perubahan berlaku dan rutin kehidupan dimusnahkan tanpa belas kasihan. Ketakutan menyelubungi tubuh memikirkan apa yang bakal didepani. Amat berbeza daripada Kuala Kangsar, di Amerika adalah satu masyarakat asing tetapi jauh lebih matang dan moden, tatkala dahulu terbiasa dengan satu dunia di bawah tempurung, di mana kita kononnya tuan. Terkeluar dari tempurung, langit biru dan sinaran matahari mencabar pemahaman sempit dan seterusnya memaksa pengarangan falsafah baru untuk menyelesaikan masalah baru. Tetapi diketahui, di sebalik perubahan itu wujud satu peluang tidak terhingga untuk dikecapi. Perubahan itu harus ditempuhi demi kejayaan.

Lebih 50 tahun selepas Tanah Melayu bebas daripada tangan penjajah, Malaysia sekarang melalui satu perubahan yang layak dicatat di dalam buku sejarah. Kawan dan lawan semuanya terkejut akan terbukanya satu laluan baru ke arah matlamat agung.

Untuk mencapai kegemilangan, pengorbanan diperlukan. Pintu terbuka dan kelihatan satu denai ke tanah yang jauh lebih subur; kekabut dibersihkan oleh sang angin dan hala tuju kini jelas. Akan tetapi, denai itu mendaki gunung-ganang dan merentasi hutan belukar; usaha dan kecekalan diperlukan.

Untuk yang bercita-cita tinggi dan yang berkeyakinan, halangan itu bukanlah satu masalah. Kepada yang lain, mereka takut untuk mencuba walaupun satu takdir yang jauh lebih hebat daripada apa yang berada di sini menanti di sebalik banjaran. Bagai dipukau dengan dongengan, denai dijauhi. Bukan sahaja mereka takut, malah mereka menghalang yang lain daripada meniti denai itu. Mereka takut jika yang lain berjaya, dongengan itu akan musnah. Bagi mereka, dongengan itu terlampau suci untuk dicabar. Bagi mereka, jika dongengan itu dikapankan, mereka terpaksa mendaki gunung itu. Mereka risau mereka perlu mendaki gunung-ganang itu jika mereka tidak mahu ditinggalkan.

Ribuan tahun menetap di kampung, realiti dunia juga mula dilupakan. Dunia berubah tetapi dia tetap dengan caranya yang kolot dan tegar. Dia tidak mampu memahami perubahan lalu dia menolak realiti baru sebagai tidak relevan. Dengan dunia sebagai tidak relevan, dia meneriak di dalam tempurungnya tentang betapa hebat dia di dalam alam kecilnya. Kesian tetapi yang sedar tidak mampu untuk menunggu mereka yang tidur.

Dunia sekarang jauh berbeza dari dunia 1970-an. Jika dulu kita memperkatakan tentang Vietnam, sekarang kita berbincang tentang Iraq. Jika dahulu kita masih lagi berdebat tentang jenis hak pemilikan harta, kini pasaran bebas telah membuktikan kegagahannya. Pada masa yang sama, telegram memberi laluan kepada internet. Dan jika dahulu rakyat masih mempunyai prasangka buruk terhadap mereka yang berlainan warna kulit, sekarang satu idea mula didokong untuk menyatukan semua tanpa mengira agama dan kaum.

Dasar Ekonomi Baru dibentuk berlatarkan satu suasana yang asing kepada generasi baru. Suasana itu adalah satu situasi di mana ekonomi-ekonomi masih berdiri secara berasingan. Modal dan buruh terkongkong lalu kekayaan dan kesejahteraan boleh dibina di atas sebidang tanah yang dikelilingi tembok tinggi. Apabila Tembok Berlin tersungkur, arus globalisasi mula terpasang. Pasaran mula menjadi bebas, modal dan pakar-pakar mula mencari pulangan terbaik tanpa mengira sempadan.

DEB gagal mengambil kira akan perubahan ini. Tembok yang membolehkan DEB berjaya telah dilanggar dan kemudian diranapkan oleh gelombang globalisasi. Tanpa tembok ini, kaedah DEB tidak berkesan. Sekatan dan diskriminasi yang dikenakan oleh dasar lapuk itu hanya menghalaukan modal dan pakar keluar dari negara kita; DEB adalah antara sebab mengapa Malaysia mengalami kehilangan kepakaran secara berterusan. Jika dasar ini berterusan, Malaysia akan tertinggal berbanding negara-negara yang mengamalkan polisi yang lebih bebas yang mengambil kira keadaan semasa. Kita perlu menarik yang terbaik ke negara kita, bukan menghalau mereka dan kebebasan adalah satu faktor yang berkesan untuk menarik pelbagai sumber yang produktif.

Tambahan lagi, DEB gagal kerana dasar itu tidak mengajar kumpulan yang ingin dibantunya tentang cara untuk bersaing dengan sihat. Apa yang pada mulanya satu usaha untuk mempercepatkan kematangan kini menjadi dadah yang menguatkan ketagihan.

Setelah sekian lama berada bersama DEB, ramai yang sudah ketagih dengannya. Ramai lagi yang bersedia untuk mempertahankan dasar lapuk itu walaupun rekahan mula muncul dan mengacam untuk merobohkan menara yang terbina, seolah-olah DEB itulah segala-gala. Seolah-olah, DEB itulah kebenaran untuk sepanjang zaman seperti konsep kewujudan ketuhanan tanpa permulaan dan pengakhiran.

Kita sebagai masyarakat perlu prihatin terhadap perubahan. Tanda-tanda di sekitar kita perlu diambil kira; tumbuhan yang dulu menghijau kini layu dan kuning; bumi yang kaya dahulu kini kering kontang. Untuk mengelakkan kejatuhan tamadun, satu penghijrahan diperlukan. Kita perlu mengatasi ketagihan kerana ketagihan membawa kepada kejatuhan. Ayuh kita bergegas ke tanah yang lebih subur sebelum terlambat.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — satu versi tulisan ini telah diterbitkan di Bolehland.

Categories
Society

[1477] Of an inclusive NEP

There are many kinds of bias but one of the most common comes in kind of loss aversion through endowment effect. The bias describes a tendency to avoid any kind of loss even when the final outcome is a net gain. The endowment effect is a specific form of loss aversion which an individual values a good in possession more than the exactly similar good that he does not own. I do suffer from this bias from time to time and I have observed how others exhibit the same idiosyncrasy as well. Lately, within the context of loss aversion and Malaysian society, I have been thinking that, perhaps, an appeal to the bias may help turn our society into one of egalitarian in nature.

The Bumiputras form a majority of the Malaysian society. The group exerts strong influence over Malaysian politics and under majoritarian democratic means, anyone that wishes to mold the Malaysian society as a whole would have to consider the Bumiputras into his equations. With the absence of liberal democratic tradition, one ignores or insults the Bumiputras at his own perils. This is especially so if one’s goal is a creation of an egalitarian society, where all are equal before the law; no favoritism. What could be viewed as traditional Bumiputra — or really, Malay — interest is affected by any move to create a fairer society.

Our society is anything but egalitarian. Through the path that our predecessors have taken, the Bumiputras enjoy unrivaled benefits compared to other groups with all else being equal. Cover it with a blanket of roses and it is called affirmative action. Unvarnished it and it becomes outright apartheid.

The Bumiputra group, which is mainly comprised of the Malays, enjoys affirmative action which is actively supported by the state. It has been so for decades now and it has been as good as since the beginning of Malaysia. A person with an advantage would not be willing to relinquish the advantage to another person. He would defend it instead. That may be the case how certain Bumiputras felt about the affirmative action introduced by the New Economic Policy. Those discriminative policies however are outdated in the face of closer global integration and to some extent, freer market. Those policies are unable to attract talent that Malaysia needs to develop its economy further.

Yes, there are various other factors that may have stronger claim to the clinging to the outdated policies but regardless, the affirmative action now signifies substance abuse. The Bumiputras are addicted to it even when the NEP-related policies have outgrown its usefulness. A majority of the Bumiputras refuses to place the policy into a trash can for something better that would stand the onslaught of globalization. The majority is afraid of losing something in return for something far greater promised by free trade. Thus, the cognitive bias of loss aversion; thus, the endowment effect.

If the loss aversion through the endowment effect is the main reason why so many Bumiputras are reluctant to let the NEP die as it was supposed to years ago, perhaps it would be wise for opponents of the NEP — and egalitarians in a wider scope — to not seek the abolition of the NEP and its related policies. Strategically, the better maneuver is to expand it instead.

By expansion, I mean to make the philosophy that drives the NEP to be more inclusive as opposed to being an exclusive policy as it is now. An inclusive NEP would recognize more groups as Bumiputras. As with all things thing of concern to any society, the modification has to be done diplomatically as to not unnecessarily agitate fractions within the Malays that might actually support an inclusive policy.

To the skeptics, the expansion is not impossible. There are many Bumiputras that have ancestors whom were of recent migrants. For instance, Bumiputras of Indian, Arab, or even Chinese origin are not a rare sight. The expansion could eventually cover all Malaysians and in the end, turning the definition of Bumiputras almost synonymous to citizenship. In one way or another, the expansion appeals to the concept of Malays as citizenship instead of ethnicity as once presented in the 1940s.

The greatest obstacle to the expansion is religion. All other prerequisites — Malay language and culture — are easily digested without coercion. It is because of this, I think, for such expansion to be successful, secularism must prevail so that the issue of religion could be overlooked and overridden. Else, such expansion would suffer the flaws worse that what had been done in Indonesia in the past, when forced assimilation was the order of the day.

Through expansion, one would circumvent loss aversion bias to reach an egalitarian society. The mean may be superficial, meandering and possibly appeal to irrational fear but if it leads the egalitarian end, so be it.

The issue with the expansion of NEP is that it may turn Malaysia into a welfare state.