MCA is an ineffective political force in part because it has long played only a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans — implemented by the Umno-aligned, Malay dominated civil service — that have shaped socio-economic development in the country.
The Malaysian public, especially the Chinese, must be wondering if MCA can ever get its house in order so that it can attend to the important affairs of state, especially the economy.
Besides the economy which affects the wellbeing of all households in one way or another, there are many other issues that should occupy the time and attention of the party.
Rising religious tensions; increasing intolerance of Islamic zealots; growth of rightwing Malay NGOs and extremism; lack of education opportunities for young Chinese and other Malaysians – the list is formidable. Many of these issues have implications not only for the Chinese but for the whole country.
The Najib administration’s New Economic Model (NEM) is being touted as the way forward. Do the MCA leaders know or even care what is in the model?
Should the New Economic Policy (NEP) be a key part of the NEM as suggested by some Umno leaders? NEP was a policy that was supposed to have ended in 1990 but has in fact been continued with new labels during the past 20 years.
Is there a danger that NEM will in fact be a retreat to the obsolete NEP strategy as demanded by Perkasa? Will there be a continuation of the crony capitalism that has blighted the earlier economic model? The Deputy Prime Minister has said that no Malaysian will be sidelined by the NEM and that “every Malaysian will be given the opportunity to look at what is being proposed and can provide their input”.
Can the MCA vouch that the interests of all the communities will be safeguarded in the NEM?
Can MCA assure the party members and public that they have not only closely monitored the drafting of the soon to be unveiled NEM but also contributed to its final form? If so, what are the inputs the party has provided or has this crucial strategy been left to others to formulate while the party has been twiddling its thumbs in between the preoccupation with party games.
It will be interesting to know not only the party’s inputs but also the specific suggestions for the economic transformation of the country provided by the contenders jostling for party leadership.
Input to economic planning
There has been absolutely no word on NEM from MCA’s rival factions, so the public can be forgiven if they assume that these factions are either clueless or couldn’t give a damn as to what is in the new model.
The concern is not only with regard to NEM but more immediately, the 10th Malaysia Plan, which will decide on how public expenditure is to be spent during the next five years. What is the specific input of the MCA to this national blueprint?
For example, has the party consulted the best experts as well as the affected businesses on how to get the small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) out from their low-value-added, low-wage and low-productivity structure?
And again, what inputs (assuming that the party leadership has been furnished with early drafts of the 10th Malaysia Plan by the Economic Planning Unit) have MCA provided on the plan? Presumably MCA has access to a wide range of expertise available from the Chinese business community and intelligentsia. This feedback if collated should be useful in providing pragmatic guidance on how to achieve a breakthrough in the many challenges we face.
For the coming MCA elections on March 28, the party members should insist that each of the candidates contesting key positions provide a full report card on their views on the NEM and 10th Malaysia Plan and how they intend to ensure that their policy proposals are taken up by the party and government.
This report card, including their record of service and accomplishments at the community and national level – rather than the dinners and other perks aimed at wooing supporters –should be the main focus of their campaign.
A disclosure of the candidate’s policy position on the major economic, social and political challenges that the country faces is the first step to realizing the party’s aspiration to be a credible political force.
Marginalizing itself or being marginalized?
The consensus of analysts is that the MCA has been an ineffective political force in part because it has only played a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans that have shaped socio-economic development in the country.
Because of Malay dominance of the civil service and the close relationship between Umno and the civil service, past development plans, for example, have been skewed against vernacular schools and education for the children of minority communities. At the same time, billions of dollars have been disproportionately spent on Mara junior science colleges and other Bumiputra elitist educational institutions.
Some of the outcomes of the earlier economic model and past development expenditure have been the failure of the country to grow to its full potential; the economic dominance of Umno- and MCA-affiliated tycoons and business interests; the widening income inequalities within all communities; and the extraordinary growth of a super rich and wealthy class.
The resulting inequalities and persistence of Bumiputra poverty is now unfairly blamed on the ‘greed’ of the ‘pendatang’ community by extremist Malay and Umno quarters seeking a continuation of NEP and Malay-oriented development policies.
Quite apart from concern over how the national economic cake is being shared, surely the party must be fully aware that among our neighbours such as China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, Malaysia’s real GDP growth in the last three years was the second lowest at 5.5 percent. Or that private sector investment has stagnated and in some cases even regressed.
If the party is aware of the bleak economic scenario facing Malaysians, what key proposals has it formulated to reenergize the swooning Malaysian economy and how have these been incorporated into the 10th Plan?
The ongoing power struggle
Junfa, or its English equivalents ‘warlords’ and ‘warlordism’, when used in the context of Chinese polity and society during the first part of the twentieth century, are pejorative expressions….The warlord era was marked by constant warfare, thrusting China into perpetual economic and political instability…. Official history …denounces warlords and characterizes the era as reactionary to China’s endeavour toward national unity and progress. Both Chinese and English scholarship describe the warlords as regional militarists, possessing personal armies that they constantly strove to expand and heavily relied on to advance their own interests in power and money.
— Excerpt on Chinese ‘warlordism’ which is found in the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (2005) by Yu Shen
Over the last 18 months, we have seen the leaders of this communal component of the BN coalition engage in bitter and open conflict, mainly due to personality clashes and craze for power that has made the party a laughing stock. MCA has become a subject of derision to non-members and a cause for heartburn among the party supporters.
We are all aware that most politics in Malaysia begins and ends with personal interests, especially for those individuals who belong to the top echelons of the ruling parties. There are of course the ethical few who see political power as a moral calling to serve the nation and who dedicate their life to doing the best for their constituents and the nation.
The endless squabbling for positions in the MCA has led to the perception that the party has very few leaders of integrity and more than its fair share of opportunists. Even the top man, Ong Tee Keat has gone on record in his presidential speech at the previous annual general meeting to state that his attempt at party reformation had caused discomfort to some people, especially opportunists.
The MCA’s lowered standing after 56 years of existence is not only a view held by the general public or the opposition parties. Its partners in BN are shaking their heads in despair or privately crowing with glee as the spectacle of infighting and backstabbing intensifies.
As for the future, it is the ultimate indictment of MCA that its President has had to publicly apologize several times for the so-called aggressive investigation of the Port Klang Free Trade scandal, in which various leaders and associates of the party have been implicated.
The question that comes to mind is why should Ong apologize for seeking the truth on the scandal and in the process stirring a hornet’s nest? Is this apology a result of pressure from party leaders and members that the MCA should see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?
Is the President sending out a message that the party should condone what has taken place? Or that he should hide from the public the truth on cronyism, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and abuse of power? If this is the logical conclusion, then the sooner the party is consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.
A big portion of of the CDs is being moulded over the past 25 years, nowhere can OTK change them overnight; hence he had to stoop a little to bring them back to their senses. If the majority of the members still believe the younger generation can be conned,then MCA can close its door for good. It is against the grain of the community to support a party that has condoned all those acts of the past quarter of a century. If the CDs think business as usual, then the curtain will be closed. And today with all the exposures of the band of cheats and shysters, they think the only man worth standing should also be pushed aside; forgetting that the Community too has its voice when the GE comes around!
the days when tun tan siew sin and tun h.s. lee were finance minister were long gone. today’s mca may be losing minister of transport and other cabinet posts too.
exit is right in front, mca. but wait a minute, we would need mca to be the opposition when pr takes putrajaya.
NEM is nothing else but a mutation of the NEP. It is aimed at providing “full assistance” to the Malays to make them JELLYFISHES!
MCA is a party that has lost the support of the community it seeks to represent.Today most chinese will just laugh off when the party is mentioned.Today it may still be useful to some chinese tycoons and businessmen to court influence from BN/Umno governments.
The future of the party lies more in the youth. Judging by the fact that MCA youth central delegates chose to obey a wrong decision which worked against party interest, it is clear that MCA has no hope of playing its rightful role. MCA leaders , now and in the future, are there to exploit the position for self interest.
NEM is no different from NEP. Instead of changing the word economic to national after 1990, Najib chose to change the word policy to model while pursuing ketuanan Melayu more than NEP was origiannly planned for.
MCA deputy minister was not even allowed to talk about corruption across ministry, MCA’s suggestion on economic policies can never be accepted by UMNO. It is true that MCA might not have good input now, for record purposes only, for the new NEM. if it had, UMNO would have told them to be a team player, meaning to hold their silence.
Chinese want MCA to be strong so that it can pull out of the government if their views are not respected. Until that time, they are in BN for window dressing only. That was the reason why Najib chose not to attend the recent AGM. It is not true that Najib was afraid of being embarrassed with empty seats; he knows that CSL and LTL and all other delegates would be there to kiss his hands, and make it a full house. But Najib obviously do not want PKFZ to be pursued further. By staying away from the MCA AGM Najib hoped that OTK would be out of running.
Mca? Wot the heck is that? Some kind of record company? No? Huh? Err. Nope. Never heard of it before.
Ketuanan? Yeah. Wot about ketuanan? Dont know wot it is do you? Tell you wot. Look down. Between your legs. Yeah hanging there. Your ketuanan. I heard umnoputras’ ketuanans are really special. They are all crooked. Yeah to the right. Something like dat. Dats why they always talk about their ketuanans and the special rights.
i wish and i hope one day during our lifetime we will find them and their goons in dug-out holes with their millions like saddam hussein.
Do we need to waste valuable space talking about UMNO hired eunuchs. Eunuchs are of no value to anybody. And why do Chinese need them anyway.
They exist for themselves and give UMNO the numbers in its window dressing.
Can they care for the Chinese when they themselves have no ba**s.
Will there be a new economic model; alternatively, do we really need a new economic model? Why must economic policies be formulated and implemented in “either or” paradigm? If we look at the present economic policies in terms of their objectives and aspiration, I don’t think there is much to disagree about. It is the skewing and hijacking of policies for crony and selfish gains that cause the derailment of existing policies.
So now we want new polices? How new can they be and how sure are we that these new policies will not be subverted by the same reactionary and right wing racist forces.
Ask ourselves whether we had been an economy that rewards people for doing nothing. Ask ourselves whether we had been an economy that rewards rent seekers and commission agents (yes including private sector monopolies) who grow filthy rich without doing much. Ask ourselves whether we have too many incompetent and stupid people manning our GLCs, civil service and statutory bodies – people who can’t create value but instead destroy value due to their gross incompetence, corruption and stupidity. Seriously look at the competency of our lecturers and teachers – are they really capable of producing productive workers? I know first hand, we produce half baked professional – doctors who do not know medicine, lawyers do not know laws, accountants do not how to count and IT graduates do not even know how to use Microsoft Office. In Malaysia, even our hawkers also want to leverage on foreign workers. We are a nation where everybody wants to grow rich without working and saving.
When has MCA ever been part of the process of formulating the country’s National Policies?
Name me a National policy that MCA has had an active role in? Name me a National policy that MCA can say that it was their idea and something they had formulated and worked hard on?
NEP? NAP? SPAN? PPSMI? NBP? SCORE?
Anything?
MCA for all Malaysian not a chauvinist and racist party like Dap. Anwar need a horse to ride to PJ . Dap just perfect for Anwar agenda.
We know from history that ChengHo was a eunuch.
Are MCA leaders descendants of this eunuch ?
Otherwise, how do you explain their behaviour in front of UmnoUtusans ?
UmnoUtusans is the root of all the failures in Malaysia.
Anyone disagrees ? eunuchs or otherwise.
YB Sdr LKS,
This the truth sad affairs of the component parties of BN. The rot in MCA, MIC, PPP, Gerakan began soon after the chief henchmen Mahatir took over as PM, UMNO & BN president. Ling Leong Sik, Samy Vellu, Kayveas and KSK precedesessor all failed all the communities.
Instead of fightong for justice for all, they fought to enrich themselves and thier families, friends and cronies.
The rakyat was left to rot. MCA today is nothing but a Pekinese dog of the UMNO Emperor and the MIC president his chief bodyguard. Kayveas the chief eunuch. All became yes men.
When good men do nothing, Evil rises. Today we need to destroy that evil. Its getting very desperate. It knows its end is near & nigh.
I hope PR especially DAP will continue its effort to champion Malaysia. This EVIL must go.
In reference to posting #9 by limkamput:
So by telling us all all about rent seekers and commission agents and “we are a nation where everybody wants to grow rich without working and saving” (as if we did not already know that) and thereby concluding that the New Economic Model will likely (in your opinion) not work or change attitudes (nurtured by NEP), are you not defeatist in attitude to ask “do we really need a new economic model?” If we don’t have a new economic model (at least as a benchmark or aspiration then), will attitudes get better? If you do not expect attitudes to get better (because of this prevailing Ketuanan attitude or entrenched NEP/rent-seeking attitudes), are you then implying that Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s criticisms of MCA and its members – that the MCA leaders neither know or care what is in the New Economic Model – are redundant criticisms, a waste of time – since, if it were, as you say, a foregone conclusion that “we are a nation where everybody wants to grow rich without working and saving” it would also surely explain why MCA leaders neither know or care what is in the NEM (as Dr Lim Teck Ghee criticises!)
If whatever else others like Dr Lim Teck Ghee say or criticise appears to be a waste of time, changing nothing, then what are you saying, when you open your mouth (besides reiterating entrenched rent seeking attitudes that we’re all aware), that will, for a change, constructively add to the sum total of our collective knowledge of what could be done to address this national problem of what you call sub-par/standard people and their attitudes in the country?
Chengho is far more than eunuch! He is a damn mama topper & kock su*ker!!! Also, he is a disgraceful Chinese Hanjin who sold out all Chinese souls and hopes to UMNO! MCA and Gerakan are Hanjin parties that contain whole lot of eunuchs, kock su*kers and porn celebrities. Chengho, OTK and Dr Chua are the champions in acting in those mama topping stuffs with doggy styles!!!!
MCA leaders should pay attention to what the NEM is all about but they are busy fighting for their self-interests. MCA is finished. The Chinese must vote DAP, it is as simple as that.
Owah Jeffery, I love it man; it makes me sharp and focused. But if you can, please write short simple English lah, everybody knows your English is excellent, so if you can, just write short sentences so that they are less ambiguous and confusing.
Oh, I said more than rent seeking culture that has permeated into every facet of our society. It is also monopolies and gross inefficiency that we have nurtured over the years.
So you are right in interpreting what I said: that the problem we face in this country is not wrong economic policies per se. There is nothing very wrong with our policies, so it is really a waste of time and effort; in fact it is a red herring, to attribute the malaise in this country to policy issues. We are in fact trying to hide our corruption, gross incompetency and efficiency on “wrong” policies.
We failed because well articulated policies have be subverted, hijacked, twisted, contaminated and disguised for personal and selfish gains during the implementation stage. And all these are possible because we have inculcated cronies and racism over the years that make twisting and bending of policies easy. For example, if the original NEP were implemented faithfully, I think by now we would have helped almost all deserving bumiputra and we would have eradicated poverty irrespective of race. We would not have created a new under class the Indian and Kadazan Malaysians. The whole NEP had been twisted to become a “ketuanan” entitlement perpetuated by well-connected bumiputra (and non bumiputra) with corrupted politicians.
I know you will say we all know this already, or what else is new. But my contention is what new ideas or new paradigm the new economic model is going to bring us. Let me guess: the new policies will probably seek to operate the economy based on more market-based principles (but don’t be too hopeful, soon and after further consultation with all the racist NGOs, all the “buts” and “exceptions” will start to come in), allowing more competition, will continue to alleviate poverty and help the marginalised, will allow more tender-based government procurement, more commercial and need-based privatisation programmes, a more competitive school and university system, a more effective government spending aiming at building capacity rather than just boosting aggregate demand, promoting science and technologies and oh yes, setting up more incubators and labs for “transformation” (I think someday this nation will die in the incubator).
Now this is the beauty part: we have actually pronounced all these before. But the reasons why have not been able to achieve anything worthwhile is simply this: the implementation from day one has never intended that way. Now, why have we become a nation where we don’t intent to do what we planned or envisaged? Lim Teck Ghee should spend more time thinking and writing about this. I have some ideas, but probably I should leave it for other occasions.
third para last line should be “inefficiency”
Is a waste of resource in totality to expect something really ‘new’ from Umno.
NEM, NEP, or what-ever they named it, when it was formulated by Umno, the substance will be racist, politically bias. Even with fair policy statement, the implementation will still skewed more to Umno’s interest instead of nation. 50 over years of experience proof the point, past record does guarantee the future performance!.
Whether MCA/MIC/Gerakan participated in the drafting is irrelevant! How to formulate a fair policy without racial element, when the BN structure and policies are racial in nature?
A real NEM can be only happened without Umno, therefore Umno has to go. No other way around.
If there is no reform or change to the 53 year old regime,the days of treading the trail of Zimbawe will not be far from us.
I happened to see on Astro last night a pictorial news item depicting the horrendous sight of hungry and desperate villagers in Zimbawe scavenging an elephant carcass to mere skeleton.Do we want that to happen here one day?
///….it makes me sharp and focused…/// – Lim Kam Put
Is that your skewed perception of comments as sharp as that of a bowling ball?
New economic model should be evaluated on its merits/demerits on standalone basis – just like the NEP.
The fact that any policy perspective becomes not effecive and achieving of their professed objectives by virtue of racist implementers, influenced by racist under culture of Ketuanan, is a separate matter – nothing to do with the inherent merits/demerits of the Policy in relation to its objectives. The latter (racist implementers/implementation) is a known factor and separate issue.
The former – as regards NEM in particular – is up for public debate which properly is focused on its meits/demerits. And Dr Lim Teck Ghee is questioning MCA and its members why they neither know or care what is in the NEM or giving any input. Is it because they are ignorant, indifferent or subservient?
What relevance then do your comments (on racists/ultras’ hijacking implementation and negating well meaning objectives of such a policy like NEM) bear to the focus of what Dr Lim Teck Ghee said relating to MCA’s indifferent attitude and its repercussions on the Chinese?
///Do we really need a new economic model?///
If the NEM is not worth considering (in terms of having more liberalised & pro market orientation) why does Perkasa deem it necessary to run to Muhyiddin to ameliorate its effects; or why is The Selangor Malay Chambers of Commerce (DPMMS), which has the biggest number of Malay entrepreneurs in Malaysia, speaking through its chairman Tan Sri Rozali Ismail, lobbying loudly now for the preservation of deserving non Ali baba Malay preferential treatment to be factored in?
Hmmm, I can easily counter the argument, no problem. It is true that implementation and policies are two separate issues. But in Malaysia, the problem was not on policies because if we care to observe closely, most economic policies are inclusive, egalitarian and supposedly market and competition friendly. It is during the implementation that these policies are hijacked and rendered useless or meaningless. So the focus and effort should really be on making the implementation right rather than wasting more time formulating and debating “meaningless” policies (meaningless because there is no intent or motivation to implement the new policies in the first place). I am prepared to wager with you on this so long as the same group of incompetent, stupid, and corrupted people are still in power.
I maintain that to consider merits and demerits of the new economic model is a waste of time. That is my position. As I have already highlighted, what else will be “new” – I have already effortlessly summarised in one paragraph the new economic model (and I suspected you have copied my ideas your response). I am prepared to wager with you again: 90% of what I said will be in the new economic model when it is announced. You see, when a government has lost its way in handling an issue, what it needs to do is just to go on talking about it. The new economic model is one such example.
Your argument about Perkasa’s lobbying DPM and The Selangor Malay Chambers of Commerce’s (DPMMS’) unhappiness is really naïve and stupid. If they have their way, they want the skewed implantation of existing policies to be further skewed, got it sage? Of course from the political standpoint, they must make noise so that if ever changes (I am talking about fairly implementation here) come about, those changes will be minimal.
Jeffrey, if you can name me one existing economic policy that is not acceptable, then perhaps I will go along to consider that a new economic model is in order. Otherwise, it is a red herring.
If MCA want to be concerned with the effectiveness of economic policies, the party should right focus on implementation to ensure no deviation and hijacking. Of course MCA now has very little input on policies. But to me, the party has even lesser input on policy implementation, or close both eyes to blatant abuse of policies. It is the later that has done the damage.
I hope it sounds familiar to you. Each time other communities made noise about unfairness, discrimination and not benefiting from government’s programmes, the standard response from the government is that the government will incorporate the requests of other communities in the next Malaysia Plan or as they are now doing in the new economic model. Mamathir promised that to the Indians many times. Now DPM is doing the same to the Kadazan Dusun. May be “next Malaysia Plan” excuse has become too familiar. The new economic model sounds better. But I can tell you this, Jeffrey, it is going to be a misplaced aspiration, a futile hope.
I think MCA delegates should elect to close shop.The party has broken into three ugly factions and I think it’s pretty unlikely the delegates would be able to paste the broken pieces together again. The MCA has been clued together several times and this time I think it’s too fragile to do it. I think it’s best for the members to either joining DAP/PR or forming a chinese NGO similar to Umno’s Perkasa to defend the non malay’s rights in accordance with the constitution. If Ibraham Ali and Perkasa could defend malay’s right,why not others ?
Frankly speaking gentlemen,the NEP and now the NEM or under whatever name it’s call,the wine in the new jar is the same. You see gentlemen,the bottle is not the problem,it’s the wine. Umnoputras love this sweet wine,despite this,they are demanding more better taste wine .Now gentlemen,any sensible person would come to conclusion that Umnoputras would not compromise with others for anything less,right.You know what’s sweetness to Umnoputras is not necessarily good for non-umnoputras. I think non-malays must not be naive or too naive to believe that Umno/Bn’s new NEP’s trade mark,the NEM would change the taste of the old wine to suit everyone’s taste. Umnoputras as the holder of the brewery would never allow it.
///If you can name me one existing economic policy that is not acceptable, then perhaps I will go along to consider that a new economic model is in order. Otherwise, it is a red herring…/// – Lim Kam Put
You’re talking rubbish. I will name you not one but two changes in economic policy.
The first: According to initial reports, 30 per cent Bumiputera equity requirement for Malaysian firms seeking public listing, the cornerstone of the New Economic Policy (NEP), is dropped in lieu of 50 per cent of the public shareholding spread to Bumiputera investors. The public shareholding spread is currently 25 per cent which using it vas benchmark effectively sets the minimum allocation for bumiputeras at 12.5 per cent (as compared to 30%) in the past.
There is also another indirect effect : promoters/original shareholders of IPO under NEP’s 30% regime have often to price their public offerings at lower (say at PE of 8) than what they would have wished (say at PE of 10) that their merchant bank advisers advise is justifiable – just to make sure bumi subscribers could afford. There’s also attendant abuse of them quickly disposing their allocated/subscribed shares. Of course detractors can always find a reason to criticise – that dropping 30% is no big deal since equity market is sluggish anyway just like the criticisms of 27 sectors liberalised which are argued as non-core, and therefore not giveaway. However how does it contradict the assertion that dropping of 30% of equity requirement in IPO does represent on standalone basis tentative steps to improve the situation even if one thinks it marginal?
The second: another cornerstone of NEP done away with is requirement of Foreign Investments Committee (FIC) approval covering the acquisition of equity stakes, mergers and takeovers – and also landed property transaction especially when foreigners buy from Non Malay locals (only cases involving dilution of Bumiputera or government interest for properties valued at RM20 million and above being excepted).
In the past it makes no sense why FIC should stop foreigners investing and bringing their monies in to buy landed properties that they cannot physically cart away. In what way this substantial relaxation of FIC regulatory control on both equity and property transactions and especially the latter not represent an improvement?
Are the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity requirement for Malaysian firms seeking public listing and requirement of FIC approval not generally accepted cornerstones of existing NEP policy, which are not acceptable but which are now dropped, marking on srtandalone basis, an improvement?
I think the govt track record of the last 30 years is very plain for all to see. Is there accountability, fairplay, trustworthiness, sincerity to do good by all citizens, etc. No! only the well connected are plundering the wealth of the country and corruption is rampant. All policies and models start off with good intentions and objectives, but along the way during implementation they are side-tracked, sabotaged, interpreted as they wish, you name it they know how to play the dirty game. I have lost faith in the political system and am not sure if you feel the same too.
chengho: “MCA for all Malaysian not a chauvinist and racist party like Dap. Anwar need a horse to ride to PJ . Dap just perfect for Anwar agenda.”
Unlike MCA, DAP does not have a word that indicates race on its full name…
Why does Anwar need ride a horse to PJ?
Did his car break down, sabotaged by his political foes?
It’s not only just DAP; it should be the collective effort of Pakatan Rakyat to help realise Anwar’s agenda to beat Umno-BN at the polls…
The bottom line is decades of bad leadership and management of our country, everyone is for himself/herself.
You are the one who got it all wrong and you are in fact the one who is talking rubbish. Even if the existing 30% is maintained, but if implemented prudently and carefully, (i.e. benefiting the genuine bumi institutions), it is still a good policy. At least ordinary bumi who subscribe, for example to, ASN, ASB etc could benefit if shares are allocated to bumi institutions like PNB. If shares are allocated to well connected cronies who then make quite profits, it does not matter it is 30% or 12.5%, the implementation has been skewed to undeserving individuals, in addition probability of corruption.
With regard to FIC’s rule, there is a policy objective why foreign monies at times need control and regulation. Foreign monies could lead to excessive speculation and pushing prices beyond the means of locals. Again, it is the implementation; FIC must do the job properly, not unduly delay genuine transactions, and should impose control base on the need of the economy from time to time. If there is a need, the policy stance should be changed from time to time. What is good for business/profits/speculation is not necessary good for the economy. What is good for short term businesses is not necessary good for the country in the medium and long term. The most important thing to consider here is not once we have done away with FIC control, the economy will perform better or Malaysia will be a better investment destination. The most important thing to consider is whether FIC has served the long term need of the economy.
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing : a total loser. No wonder with a proviso/qualification like “if implemented prudently and carefully” everything and every wrong policy is argued right without any regard it is bad policy like that which encourages at first instances abuses and excesses. Don’t argue further to waste others time not to mention it may sprain your brain.
For a man who maintains on one hand that nation has too many rent seekers relying on clutches/subsidies and on the other 30% bumiputra equity for IPOs is “good policy” (if maintained & implemented prudently and carefully) (because it’ll benefit genuine bumi institutions), you are a living contradiction, heedless of internal consistency just for the sake of trying to argue you are right on a point. Who does not know excessive speculation and pushing prices beyond the means of locals is bad? When one talks of FIC regulation one has to take all aspects of that FIC regulation into purview and see on the balance of our experience what that regulation has resulted in.To follow your argument, one would have to have bipolar mindset.
A seemingly intellect is actually an ass, period. Just let others read your postings and mine, and I am sure they know who is the loser. I wonder who has started arguing just for the sake arguing. Look, you are just not smart enough to handle me, too bad.
///you are just not smart enough to handle me, too bad/// – Of course not, I am a clinical psychologist.
Wjhat i meant was – Of course not, I am NOT a clinical psychologist.
When one talks of FIC regulation one has to take all aspects of that FIC regulation into purview and see on the balance of our experience what that regulation has resulted in.// Jeffrey
Just to take your point above. If you have lousy experience with FIC or any other organisation, please check, it is usually due to abuse of authority or policy. Tell me which country has no control, regulations, and rules. The success or failure usually depend on whether those rules, regulations and controls are properly and transparently exercised. In Malaysia, because of our frustration and bad experiences with authorities, we summarily conclude that it was polices, rules or regulations that cause all the problems. My contention is: you can change all the policies you want, but if implementation stays the same, the problem will remain. The problem with FIC was due to corruption, moving away from its original objectives and jingoism. Check it out, loser.
By blaming bad implementation one can excuse all kinds of policies causing bad results – thus even a race based 30% bumi equity requirement for IPO could be argued “good” when severed from its implementation without regard of the obvious nexus that must subsist between bad policies and their propensity to cause/encourage bad implementation.
Please look at the original intent of NEP – 30% corporate equity participation was supposed to be a global figure, not necessary every company must have it. Over the years, hijacking of NEP started coming in. First companies going listing must have 30% bumi equity. Then the selling price must be at discount. And after the initial offer, if the bumi shareholders sell the shares, the company must issue more shares for bumi at the discount again if bumi equity fall below 30%. All these are not the original intent of the NEP. They represented abuse and hijacking of NEP. I think we are at different wave length here. I think we can never argue properly because you are being vindictive. You just want to get even with me after I have pointed out your stupid arguments in other threads. Come on lah, you are not infallible. Sometimes you make sense, sometimes you talk nonsense.
//I think we are at different wave length// On that I agree and would be distressed if otherwise. When everyone speaks of NEP policy no one speaks of 1970’s first pronouncement of twin objectives of “poverty eradication regardless of race” and “restructuring society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function”. We speak of every other policy/implementation in its name thereafter. So we’re obviously not on the same wave length.
The NEP, when discussed, is how it is implemented by the government. It is unrealistic to keep harping on what it OUGHT to be as originally professed and says its a good policy but bad implementation when how it is implemented (badly) makes it become what it is, with all its manifestations, corresponding with felt experience. Felt experience provides the common understanding relating to what the NEP is. there’s nothing meaningful to talk when saying the NEM rolls back some of the iniquities of NEP, if NEP is a reference to what was originally stated in 1970. Get real.
When Dr Teck Ghee asked “is there a danger that NEM will in fact be a retreat to the obsolete NEP strategy as demanded by Perkasa?” you think his reference to “NEP” in context of the question is a reference to the NERP in purist 1970 form of “poverty eradication regardless of race” and “restructuring society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function”?
Thats why you are talking rubbish and arguing for the sake of arguing.
When Dr Teck Ghee commented, “the resulting inequalities and persistence of Bumiputra poverty is now unfairly blamed on the ‘greed’ of the ‘pendatang’ community by extremist Malay and Umno quarters seeking a continuation of ‘NEP’ and Malay-oriented development policies”, you think his reference to “NEP” in the context of his commentary/discussion (which people here respond) means and is intended to mean, the NEP, in the sense of “poverty eradication regardless of race” and “restructuring society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function” in its pristine stated policy form and not in the form as implemented to which everyone else here has come to know it by common experience?
That’s why you, Lim Kam Put are so obviously talking rubbish and arguing for the sake of arguing.
Eunuchs are not only BALLLESS, they are also BATANGLESS! Castration carried out on eunuchs require the total removal of the male sex organs!
How many Model do we have to face until when….can anyone answer.
but GE 13 comes , we will know…..
what
education policy, economic policy, licensing policy, admission policy, promotion policy, grading policy, marriage policy, burial policy, dressing policy, eating policy, citizenship policy, immigrant policy, food policy