Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
(Asia Sentinel) Malaysia’s post-colonial history began with optimism and a grand hope in
1957. When Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first prime minister of Malaysia,
proclaimed Independence at the Merdeka Stadium in Kuala Lumpur in the
unforgettable words that “Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy with an
independent judiciary,” he had a vision of a happy people in spite of
the formidable economic problems we needed to solve.
After that dawn of independence, there was a search of how we could
achieve this happy society, fulfilling the needs and aspirations of all
Malaysians which was to continue for the generations to come. He
symbolized the concept and conviction of generational responsibility in
his vision.
Tunku Abdul Rahman and his generation were dedicated leaders, not for
power but a sense of duty to the present and the future. They were not
in politics for the money or for themselves. Indeed, even after they had
assumed power, they never used their position to benefit themselves or
their families, nor did they build loyal cronies who would act as their
financiers or hold any wealth unlawfully earned at the expense of the
people.
The guiding philosophy was responsibility of public office, seen as a
duty, not as an opportunity. Public office was also part of their sense
of political commitment to create a Malaysia that was fair, just,
cohesive, and balanced. This was combined by a deep conviction of
generational responsibility for those who would come after them.
Our three lost decades
One of the greatest losses in public life and in politics today in
Malaysia is that loss of generational responsibility. Everything seems
to be surrounded by greed and the desire to be billionaires.
This has led to a pyramid of cronies within the incumbent political
parties and their associates in business. It is this combination of the
hierarchy of political cronies and business cronies that led to the
centralization of power in the incumbent political leadership and in the
Office of the Prime Minister.
This power in one individual allowed the manipulation of the political
system; I mean by this the institutions of power including the media. In
exchange for the centralization of power, greed and self-interest were
encouraged by example and in the guise of racial loyalty deserving
rewards.
This is the case in all the parties within the power structure. This
state of affairs is one of the most dangerous and difficult to dismantle
because there has been three decades of centralised power.
The political style that has dominated in these lost three decades has
been “double-think” and “double-talk”. One of the features which is
alarming in this plan to maintain status quo is the encouragement
covertly of racial and religious obscurantism.
The underlying theme was a policy of using a balance of racialism and
religion on the one hand and talks of unity on the other hand in order
to make the people hostage to the status quo of power.
As a result, racialism and racial concerns seem to have a grip on all
aspects of our lives, in politics, economics, education and employment,
irrespective of the present reality which has got nothing to do with
race or religion. We are deliberately made to feel that we are hostage
to these forces.
Freedom of speech and expression of our political concerns to change the
atmosphere are restrained by how it will be interpreted by those who
want to deny us the right to differ.
Article 10 of the Constitution which guarantees this freedom is almost
non-existent or subject to fear of retaliation or defamation. Legal
suits intended to silence legitimate concerns of public responsibility
are increasingly used.
Unfortunately, our judicial system has forgotten the fundamental
importance of Article 10 to the democratic life of Malaysia. Common
sense seems to have been taken out of the law.
Obscene income inequality gap
On the economic front, income inequality in Malaysia has widened. Some
studies suggest that Malaysia’s inequality is wider than Thailand’s or
Indonesia’s. Historically, the concern was about ownership and control
of the economy. It was the view of some that if ownership was
de-racialised or balanced at the top, economic justice would follow. It
is no longer a valid premise for the future.
Income inequality is no longer a problem between races; it crosses the
racial divide and it is a problem of the majority of Malaysians who feel
the pressure of inflation in almost every essential aspect of their
lives, challenging their well-being of themselves, their families, and
their future.
Today and in the near future, this is the most serious challenge we
face. It is not an easy challenge to overcome. It is a time when
Malaysia needs leadership of the highest quality and of those who have
the moral courage to change and re-think our economic policies.
It is in these circumstances that we face the serious problem of rising
food prices, inflation in price of houses compounded by shortage in
housing for the vast majority of young Malaysians.
Lack of economic expansion is the threat of the future to give all
levels an opportunity to use their talents to seek work that is
commensurate with their contribution, their needs of daily life, and to
narrow the inequality gap. Therefore, we should be concerned about the
justification of the removal of subsidies that affect the low income
because that will further widen the inequality and open the society to
social disorder and disintegration, and increase social incohesion.
It is in this context that I raise the issue about independent power
production companies (IPPs). The privatization contracts are today
protected by the Official Secrets Act, and therefore we are unable to
really know whether or not the public and Petronas, as trustees of the
public, are directly or indirectly subsidizing these companies and the
tycoons who are benefitting at the expense of the public.
Related to the question of the withdrawal of subsidies is the deficit
that the government suffers from in managing the economy. This question
cannot be separated from the way that the government has managed the
nation’s finances.
If the deficit is as a result of wastage, corruption and extravagance in
the use of public funds, then the solution to the problem should not be
passed on to the public. What is needed is a reexamination of the
management of the country’s finances before taking any drastic steps
that would affect the well-being of the people.
We need to know the reality behind the apparent subsidies that are given
to the public and its relationship in the totality of the management of
the public finance. Only after we know the truth – and the whole truth –
should any change in the policy of subsidies be implemented, as the
consequences would have life-changing impact on the livelihood of the
people.
In the circumstances of rising food inflation, stagnation of the economy
and income, we should not do anything that would widen the disparity of
income which would cause social instability.
Rule of law, not of men
The challenge today is for the return to generational responsibility in
politics and public office. This can only be achieved if we have
democracy and parliamentary power which is responsible.
Democracy was the basis of the founding of the state of Malaysia by the
Constitution in 1957. When it was briefly suspended in 1969, the leaders
of that generation were uneasy, and they restored democracy as soon as
possible.
That is because they realized that democracy has an intrinsic value in
creating a citizenship that is not made up of sheep but of responsible
citizens. Only responsible citizenship that understands democracy can
bring about stability, cohesion and economic prosperity.
During those days, it was ingrained in that generation of leaders that
democracy was not only a form but a value system that respected the
essential institutions of democracy like the independence of judiciary,
the supremacy of parliament subject to the Constitution, the respect for
fundamental rights, and free speech.
They also understood the meaning and primacy of the rule of law and not
of men. They also knew that democracy is the common heritage of humanity
that we inherited and have a duty to continue. The law that they
understood was also from the common heritage of all civilized nations.
And one of our inheritances is the common law system of the rule of law
which is enshrined in our constitution. They knew that the phrase
“common law” meant the wisdom that is passed to us in the progress of
law and the values that are encapsulated in the law governing public
office and responsibility to society. That laws are meant to enhance
democracy and freedom but not to maintain and continue political power
that is inconsistent with the rule of law and the constitution.
Independence did not come with peace but with very difficult problems,
particularly the management of the economy and transforming it to bring
about a balance between all the racial groups.
They realize that some of their problems had roots in the history of
Malaysia. There was a serious imbalance between the countryside and the
urban sector with racial dimensions which were too sharp. Indeed,
poverty was also quite prevalent. There were open discussions and
experiments.
Some of you may remember that one of the highlights of public debate was
organized at the University of Malaya under the title, ‘The Great
Economic Debate’ every year. That disappeared with the changes in the
Universities and University Colleges Act and the decline of
universities’ autonomy.
The search was to eradicate a sense of inequality between the various
peoples of Malaysia, whether because of one’s identity and social
origins, or for other reasons. It was as part of this search that during
Tun Abdul Razak’s time, the Second Malaysia Plan was launched in 1971.
We need to be reminded of the objective of that plan:
“National unity is the over-riding objective of the country. A stage has
been reached in the nation’s economic and social development where
greater emphasis must be placed on social integration and more equitable
distribution of income and opportunities for national unity.”
Erosion of the Malaysian Dream
That dream was slowly eroded from the mid-1980. The hope that we had at that time is now challenged in the most serious way.
Recently, Petronas announced that it had made a RM90.5 billion pre-tax
profit. If we accumulate the profit of Petronas over the years, it would
come to a mind-boggling figure of billions and billions.
Yet, the greatest poverty is found in the petroleum producing states of
Kelantan, Terengganu, Sarawak and Sabah. This moral inconsistency in a
way exemplifies how the nation’s economy is mismanaged and how the
institutions set up in the 1970s have lost their objective and
commitment to solving the immediate and pressing problems of the nation.
Petronas was set up with the objective of serving the nation’s interest
as a priority. It was never intended to give Petronas a life of its own
as an incorporated company for selected individuals to profit at the
expense of the national interest, nor was it the objective to allow
Petronas a cooperate existence independent of the national interest.
What is needed is for institutions like Petronas is to have a national
focus rather than maintain a multinational status. The aim of making
Petronas a multinational cooperation at the expense of national interest
is contrary to the Petroleum Development Act.
Petronas should have a Petroleum Advisory Council to advise the prime
minister on the operation of the law as well as the management and
utilization of its resources as spelt out in the Petroleum Development
Act.
Another example of the abuse of power is the privatization of certain
government institutions which were set up as a public service to serve
the people.
Bernas, the rice monopoly, is one example of a privatization of an
essential commodity as a monopoly for a group of people and owned
partially by two companies in Hong Kong. An essential commodity such as
rice should not have been privatized for business purposes. We are the
only rice producing country that has privatized and given as a monopoly
to one company the importation and distribution of all rice products.
The reality today is Thailand and Indonesia are self-sufficient in rice
and we are dependent on 30 percent of imported rice. But because it is a
monopoly, imported rice is cheaper in Singapore than Malaysia.
Privatization for the benefit of private individuals to profit from such
an essential commodity is a clear abuse of power. It would not have
happened in those days. But with the centralization of power in the
office of the prime minister who had the party under his absolute
control, anything was possible.
I will suggest to you that there was a deliberate plan to centralize
power in the leadership in a surreptitious manner. Unfortunately the
nature of racial politics blinded us of the reality behind certain
policies and conduct of leaders at that time.
RM880 billion in capital flight
The decline of democracy, the abuse of power, and the mismanagement of
our economy and the nation’s finances, the economic waste, the lack of
national cohesion in our economic policies led to the flight of capital
in the region of RM880 billion over the years from the 1980s.
That was the beginning the lost decades and the full impact of the
consequences of the economic policies which has continued since then, is
yet to have its full impact on our national lives. And when it does the
consequences are unpredictable.
The centralization of power in the Office of the Prime Minister and the
attorney-general had a major role in this state of affairs. The
challenge today is to reverse the centralization of power and restore
the checks and balances of a genuine democracy.
We need to reclaim as citizens of Malaysia our rights in a democracy;
that power and authority are positions of trust and responsibility, not
to serve personal interest or as an opportunity for personal enrichment.
We need to reassert as politically active and responsible citizens the
concept of social obligation and public service in those who seek
political office. Power is duty, not a prize.
We need to rethink our economic policies. Particularly in the focusing
on the national objectives that are urgent; economic policies are not
only about wealth creation but need to have a moral dimension which
takes into account the well-being of all citizens as the ultimate
priority over profits.
I have given you a broad sweep of the past and a bird’s eye view of the
looming problems of managing our economy as it is today. I hope this
will open a dialogue which benefits all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment