Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality & English standard not up to par!

Tweet

Give everyone a choice in education

ANALYSIS by BADARAN KUPPUSAMY

Our education system is heavily politicised and needs to be de-politicised to offer good, simple and advancing education for all citizens – one they can be proud of.

SCIENCE and Mathematics were taught in English until all subjects switched to Bahasa Malaysia in 1970 under the national education policy.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, worried over the decline of English and the poor employability of graduates who had been taught in Bahasa Malaysia, then decided to revert to teaching the two subjects in English, beginning in 2003.

Now, the Education Ministry, under persistent pressure from Bahasa Malaysia advocates, has decided to go back to teaching Science and Mathematics in the national language.

From English to Bahasa Malaysia, then back to English and again to Bahasa Malaysia.

We should not be playing kick-ball with the lives of young students who are subjected to enormous stress by such policy changes called by special interest groups.

Parents too are subjected to horrendous pressure as policy shifts come and go at the drop of a coin.

Parents want the best for their children; they want a good, simple and advancing education that arms the children with knowledge to compete in the world and succeed.

They want their children to be on par with other societies, like in Singapore or Hong Kong, which had inherited a colonial education system but decided to build on it, rather than pull it down.

Malaysians from Johor travel by bus in the early hours of the day to study in Singapore, while their parents take courses to keep up, communicate with and help in their children’s studies.

The world has become that competitive.

There was a referendum in Hong Kong after the former British colony was handed back to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997, whether to continue in English or switch to Mandarin.

Parents wanted to maintain English overwhelmingly.

In Hong Kong today, there is a system of dual languages, where Mandarin is taught along with English, attracting an international student clientele to Hong Kong.

Parents are important stakeholders in the field of education and know better what their children should get by way of a modern education.

Democracy offers alternatives and choices. You do not shut the door on any stakeholder.

The Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), which is fighting to retain the learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) policy, is spot on in pursuing its goal.

While the group is strongly supported by the MCA, MIC and Gerakan – all component parties of the Barisan Nasional – many in Umno also see the promise that an education in English holds for the children.

PAGE has submitted another memorandum to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, asking for special schools to teach the subjects in English. Najib will have to decide on the request because it is becoming a political hot potato.

Najib had said the era of “the Government knows best” had been long over. He has emphasised this several times to indicate that policymakers have to listen to all stakeholders and not go on a tangent of their own.

But his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Education Minister, has said the situation would be “chaotic” if the ministry were to provide facilities for the teaching of Science and Mathematics in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.

But there are practical solutions, such as hiring Indian teachers from overseas. They have a good proficiency in English and can teach well.

Our education system is heavily politicised and needs to be de-politicised to offer a good and simple education for all citizens – one they can be proud of.

Given the chance to decide, even parents in rural areas would vote for PPSMI as it gives their children a leg up in today’s competitive world.

Our society has developed many alternatives to the Bahasa Malaysia-only policy – private education, home schooling and international schools – which the Government throws open to all.

These centres of excellence in education come at a price. They are expensive and the poor cannot afford it.

So, the rich – of all races – escape our Bahasa Malaysia-only policy, study in alternative schools and eventually move overseas to continue their education and then stay back to work and live there.

There are, ironically, Africans, South Americans and other Asians enjoying a multi-cultural education in English in Malaysia.

If we insist on teaching only in Bahasa Malaysia, we will eventually have just Bahasa Malaysia-speaking students in a society that privately offers English-language education for anyone who wants it.

An estimated one million Malaysians have left for greener pastures abroad and we are now wooing them back through Talent Corp and also offering incentives to bring them back.

Never mind if things are initially “chaotic” – it is the Government’s responsibility to provide for all its citizens.
Eventually, we should aim to democratise the cluttered and over-burdened education system that is pulling various ethnic groups asunder. We need to provide choices for all – rich and poor.

English standard of undergrads still not up to par

M. Saraswathi

 Pix courtesy of sxc.hu

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 6, 2011): Malaysia is on par or ahead of some of the regional countries in terms of investment in education. However, the quality of its undergraduates' command of English still remains an issue.

Dr Marie Aimee Tourres, a senior research fellow at the Department of Development Studies, Universiti Malaya, said it was crucial for graduates to have a good command of English to ensure they would be able to compete effectively, in the global job market.

Nevertheless, “in terms of education spending, Malaysia is comparable to some countries in the region based on the percentage spent over its gross domestic product (GDP) growth,” she told Bernama in an interview here.

She said Malaysia was actually spending more vis-a-vis other countries.

In Budget 2012, RM13.6 billion was allocated to the social sector, including education and training, health, welfare, housing and community development.

Dr Tourres said there was also a lot of focus given for training and re-training for graduates, which was important to continuously upgrade skilled and knowledge workers in the country.

However, the quality of undergraduates remains an issue in Malaysia, since the students find it difficult to grasp the English language.

"Language is definitely an issue,” she said, citing a recent publication by the World Bank entitled The Road to Academic Excellence, which was a study on what contributes to a world-class research university.

The study compared Universiti Malaya (UM) and National University of Singapore (NUS) in a chapter entitled The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths.

In the report, it was stated that as NUS kept pace with the demands of a growing economy that sought to become competitive internationally, with English continuing as the language of instruction and research, UM began to focus inward as proficiency in English declined in favour of the national language.

The publication, which is based on a study conducted by two scholars, Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi, also stated that because UM taught courses predominantly in the national language, it had much more limited internationalisation of programme, academic staff and student body.

"This generation will have to face international standard and competition in terms of job market, as part of globalisation," said Dr Tourres.

She cited Pakistan as an example, where she gives lectures.

"In Pakistan, although the people speak different dialects, next to the Urdu language, their English is better than our graduates,” she pointed out.

It made them more marketable in the competitive global environment, she noted.

"The immediate result of their English capacity is that you can find many Pakistanis who work for international organisations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,” noted Dr Tourres.

She believed that even if Malaysia gave more focus in English, the national language and culture could still prosper, provided that teaching was made interesting.

"More English in school will not deter Malay, Indian and Chinese culture per se. We should not mix the issue of a command of good language and the preservation of national heritage," she said.

As for the distribution of the book voucher worth RM200 to all Malaysian students in public and private local institutions of higher learning, matriculation as well as Form 6 students nationwide, she believed that it should be monitored to ensure that it served the purpose.

This assistance is expected to benefit 1.3 million students with an allocation of RM260 million.

“That is a lot of money. Probably, it could have been done based on meritocracy to ensure that it is properly utilised,” said Dr Tourres, pointing out that there were risks of students re-selling the voucher, especially when the new targeted generation lacked the reading habit and prefered to go online to search for their study materials. -- Bernama

Importance of being earnest

ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI

The DPM has said it would not be possible to use English in teaching Science and Mathematics. Let’s look at other options to improve proficiency in English.

WE all know and acknowledge that our standard of English has taken a beating. We all know that many of our teachers cannot even construct a sentence in English without grammatical errors, and many of them are teaching our kids the language.

We all know that many of our university lecturers are in the same boat too, as well as some of our politicians and senior government servants. For them, it is a struggle to speak in English.

A letter, presumably written by an examiner or a parent, that appeared in this newspaper’s education section last Sunday startled me. The writer made a comparison between our 2011 Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) English paper and the 2011 International Competitions and Assessments for Schools (ICAS) English Reading Paper.

The latter is used to test students’ English proficiency in private and international schools, which have increasingly become the choice of urban Malaysian parents who can afford to send their children there.

Giving detailed comparisons, the writer claimed that the PMR English paper taken by our 15-year-olds is much easier than those taken by Year Four Malaysian students in private and international schools and Year Three Singaporean pupils in similar schools.

“How can we expect our local students to compete with students from other countries if the standard of English in our PMR exam is even lower than the standard of English required for Year Four pupils in private and international schools?” he asked.

In short, the PMR English paper is too easy. We have long cast doubts on the quality of our students who earn a string of distinctions. We hear grumbles that in some papers such as Physics, the grading is so ridiculously low you just need to answer a few questions to get the A, but that’s another story.

Older Malaysians – those who sat for Senior Cambridge (Form 5), Lower Certificate of Education (LCE) for Form Three, Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) for Fifth Formers and the Higher School Certificate (HSC) for Form Six – will vouch that the standard of English was much higher then.

The Prime Minister and his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin are products of the early education system which has enabled them to speak and write well in English. It is such a joy, for example, to listen to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak delivering a speech in crisp English.

We know that much of the Cabinet deliberations are conducted in English. So are the Cabinet committee meetings, where most ministers find it more comfortable to express themselves in English.

When they attend international conferences, one or two ministers whose command of English is described as atrocious still have to use the language, but they would just read from a prepared text.

In a tweet last week, prominent human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz lamented the poor English in the written judgment of a Judicial Commissioner. The legal reasoning was equally bad. This is sad because the Malaysian legal system is primarily based on English common law and most students have to use English textbooks.

I have just returned from India where I attended an international conference on the advertising industry. It was a joy to listen to people there – from the emcee, former Miss World Diana Hayden, to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan to leaders of the industry – speak in English with confidence, eloquence and wit and without referring to a prepared text.

These people are able to speak so well because India has not allowed its nationalists to tear down the legacy of the British education system in the name of nationalism and race. Yes, there are millions in India who can only speak Hindi or other dialects but English remains in a dominant position.

In Singapore, the medium of instruction in schools is English and to ensure that the young get the best education, teachers are among the best paid in the island republic’s civil service.

Certainly, those given the responsibility to nurture, teach and inspire young minds deserve the best, but let the best join the profession and keep out the mediocre.

The DPM has said it would not be possible to use English in teaching Science and Mathematics (PPSMI), citing possible chaotic situations if parents were given the option to decide if they wished to use English or Bahasa Malaysia.

He said some teachers were not efficient in teaching English and that it would also be hard for the Education Ministry to plan.

I think these are sound and valid reasons but we must also look for other options. It is not a zero sum game. We should not see the controversy from a “them and us” situation. Neither do we want politicians and groups to cloud the issue further by using race to silence proponents of the PPSMI.

We can introduce English Literature in schools and also increase the teaching hours in English as the next step. Even Physical Education, Art and Moral Studies classes can be taught in English.

We will go nowhere if we continue to cite lack of English teachers as the reason why we cannot move forward. The situation we are in is a reflection of the failure of our education system as far as English is concerned. It is a statement of our lack of commitment.

Let’s hire teachers and trainers from India and other Commonwealth countries, compile a data bank of retired teachers who still want to contribute, and even graduates who are keen to teach English in schools.

For urban parents, the option should not be the private and international schools. Haven’t our children been divided by the different schools they go to already? The last thing we want to do is to create a class system where the better-off go to private schools while the less privileged have to settle for national schools.

Chua: Make pass in SPM English compulsory; Malaysians should be multi-lingual by being well-versed in Bahasa, English and Mandarin

By KAREN CHAPMAN, TAN EE LOO, FLORENCE A. SAMY, CHRISTINA CHIN, HAMDAN RAJA ABDULLAH, DESIREE TRESA GASPER and REGINA LEE

PETALING JAYA: While the MCA welcomes the decision made on the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) policy, it is now calling for the language to be made a compulsory pass subject for SPM.

“We should work towards making English a compulsory pass subject in the SPM examination and also make English Literature a compulsory subject,” said party president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

On the policy, he said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had paved the way for clear guidelines on the matter and put an end to any confusion.

In a statement yesterday, Dr Chua said the Government had listened to the voices of the rakyat in coming up with a win-win situation for all.

It was also the party’s fervent hope for the Education Ministry to emphasise the usage of English to equip Malaysians with the universal language to keep up with the rest of the world, he added.

“The MCA would like to re-affirm its stand that all Malaysians should be multi-lingual by being well-versed in Bahasa Malaysia, English and Mandarin to ensure we are more competitive in the globalised world,” said Dr Chua.

In Friday’s announcement, Muh­yiddin – also Education Minister – said the current batch of Year Two to Form Four students would continue under the policy until they complete their secondary education.

Year One pupils this year are already learning the two subjects in Bahasa Malaysia.

Speaking to reporters after attending the SJK (C) Mun Yee fundraising dinner here last night, Dr Chua hit out at the Opposition, saying it should make up their mind on the PPSMI policy and not make “flip-flop” statements.

Responding to a suggestion by PKR’s Selayang MP William Leong that there should be English- medium schools in the country, Dr Chua said DAP and PKR had previously expressed their support towards using Bahasa Malaysia to teach the two subjects.

“In Pakatan Rakyat, they have different stands. Now that the Govern­ment has allowed English to be continued to be used until 2020, they again switch.

“The rakyat has the right to know what is PKR’s policy and stand,” he said, adding that DAP’s stand was also inconsistent.

MIC president Datuk G. Palanivel said the PPSMI decision was a step in the right direction for the future of affected students.  

Taking a page from history

by Dr Kua Kia Soong www.thesundaily.com.my

IN THE raging controversy over the continuance of the PPSMI option, there seem to be at least two main arguments put forward for not allowing it – that it is too troublesome to have two options in the same school, and that English is not the mother tongue of Malaysians.

I believe that choice and flexibility must be a fundamental principle in education policy and that we should take a historical perspective of the development of our present situation.

Mother tongue as a right and facility

First, we should be thankful that the right to mother tongue education and the fact that every child learns best in the mother tongue is a principle that has been established in Unesco and is now widely accepted in our country.

Mother tongue education in Malay, Chinese and Tamil in Malaysia has seen staggered progress. Chinese-language schools have existed in this country for more than 200 years, the first set up in 1819!

Tamil schools have also had a long history and developed mainly through community support during the colonial period. Thus, at Independence there were already 1,350 Chinese primary schools and 78 Chinese secondary schools, while Tamil primary schools numbered more than 800 in 1957.

Malay vernacular schools were built under colonial rule, but they were certainly insufficient. Then, Lim Lian Geok, the “Soul of the Malaysian Chinese”, never failed to encourage the Malay community to call for development of Malay mother-tongue education, including to secondary level. That was why Utusan Melayu would ask Lim to write a column in the newspaper during Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

English-language schools were of course the preferred system of the colonial power and the elite and middle class were enrolled in them, although theoretically they were open to all. Certainly there were also children from poorer classes in the English-medium government schools I studied at in the 50s and 60s.

As a result of this history, English language can now be considered the mother tongue of these middle-class Malaysians, where English is the “family language” with which children communicate with their parents. We should appreciate that colonial societies like ours (including India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya and other British colonies) have this peculiarity, acknowledge and respect this reality, and move on.

Right up to the establishment of the 1961 Education Act, the school leaving certificate for Chinese-language secondary schools was a government administered examination. Our education system managed well and you did not hear grumbles about how “troublesome” it was to have that provision. We inherited that system from our specific history and it served the purpose of providing mother-tongue education.

The 1961 Act did away with Chinese-language secondary schools, and they were then forced to become “independent”, which meant they had to be supported by the community. After that, the government provided only teachers and some financial support for Chinese-language primary schools.

Is it “troublesome” to ask for the reinstatement of Chinese-language secondary schools in the national system? Ever since 1975, the Chinese community has administered the Unified Examination Certificate of the 60 independent Chinese secondary schools which have a total enrolment of some 60,000 students. Tuition fees are a burden to the many parents who choose this educational route for their children and the Chinese have subsidised these schools since 1961. It is like paying double taxation!

National language policy

The former “Government English Schools” had to convert to teaching in Bahasa Malaysia (BM) when the national language policy was implemented after 1969. Any protests were muted in the aftermath of “May 13” and under the assertive Malay-centric ideology of the new ruling class.

And so this system of BM as the medium of instruction has been implemented with no leeway for dissent for at least three decades. Then nine years ago, Dr Mahathir decided to implement the PPSMI, or the teaching of Maths and Science in English.

PPSMI has provided the precedent for this breach in the national language policy. The justification was that it was the only way to master the international language, English. If we bear in mind all the arguments used by the Mahathir administration to justify PPSMI, we really cannot fault the parents organisation PAGE for asking for the choice of keeping PPSMI, using the same arguments. Sorry, the government cannot have its cake and eat it!

Choice of PPSMI “troublesome”?

Some opponents of PAGE’s demand have said that having two media for teaching Maths and Science in the same school is too “troublesome” and unreasonable to impose on the government. I beg to differ.

Education is about having a choice. I remember when my eldest brother was in secondary school in the 60s and was focused about choosing Arts subjects even though he was in the top class made up of mainly Science students. He stood his ground against the school administration. My parents did not even come into the picture. Then, my second brother refused to study Additional Maths even though he was in the top Science class because he was focused on doing Medicine later. Again, he was adamant about his choice and the school had to give in. I made the same choice and did not choose Add. Maths even though the school wanted uniformity.

The principle we were fighting for was choice and flexibility. At the time, we simply could not see why it should be “troublesome” to have that choice.

If it is troublesome to have the choice of Maths and Science in English, what about the choice of having “Pupils’ own Language” in Chinese or Tamil or Kadazan or Bidayuh, etc?

Although I do not agree with the pedagogical wisdom of this, some students of Independent Chinese Secondary Schools even have the choice of doing the SPM in Malay during their fifth year, the UEC in Chinese and A levels in English in their final year! It is not considered “troublesome” for these schools.

It is not as if Malaysians are asking for something so difficult to implement. Our national education system has had a long history of English-language teaching and we have just had nine fresh years of PPSMI; so teachers and resources are not a problem.

Our education system should be looking at broadening the choices to cope with mother-tongue instruction for our indigenous people; and special education to cope with slow learners, autistic and disabled children. I remember when my wife had to write the answers for a child with muscular problems who was sitting for his O Levels at the British Council. Another sightless friend of ours told us about how computer programmes were being developed to enable people in her situation to follow lectures online.

“Troublesome” seems to be the hardest word in the education vocabulary.

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a director of human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram).

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!

Tweet

Of history and semantics

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER By M.VEERA PANDIYAN
veera@thestar.com.my

According to the country’s history buffs, we were not legally a colony of Britain, but only in effect.
Image via Wikipedia
IT was meant to be good break in Thailand, especially after weeks of scouring stories from dusty, bound copies of The Star for the paper’s 40th anniversary.

The mood in the kingdom, however, has been somewhat sombre, no thanks to the exceptionally bad weather this rainy season.

Floods and landslides have swept across 16 provinces in the country, killing more than 80 people and the death toll is set to rise further.

Even the resort town of Pattaya, which is usually spared from heavy torrents, was flooded over the weekend, along with Krabi, another tourist destination.

The rising waters have also set free potentially man-eating salt water crocodiles from a popular reptile farm, adding to the fears of locals and tourists.

So, there was little choice but to bum it out in Bangkok and keep abreast of the news, especially from back home.

And like always, the wonders never cease.

There was no escape from history and bizarre opinions from people who really should know better.

It was certainly news to read that Malaysia, or to be more precise, Malaya, was never a British colony but only a “protectorate”, as declared by Prof Dr Zainal Kling, a member of the 1,500-strong National Professors’ Council.



He argued that Britain held administrative powers, controlled the money and exploited the country’s natural resources but did not infringe Malay sovereignty in the states – except in the Straits Settlements of Malacca, Penang and Singapore.

Since then, there has been a deluge of comments against his views, along with the usual gnawing doubts about the state of our education system and more so the people who are supposed to be leading it.

But even the country’s most notable historian, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Khim supported Dr Zainal, stressing that from a legal point of view, Malaya was never colonised.

The British, he said, took part in the administration of the Malay states as a result of treaties with the Rulers.
Dr Khoo said only those born in the Straits Settlements – yours truly from Malacca included – were considered British subjects, while those born in the Malay states were not. (Take note, Hindraf).

So, according to our presumably sage professors, it seems that in the legal sense we were not colonised but, sadly, in effect we were.

As former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohmad said sarcastically:
“The British did not advise, they gave orders.

“The English language is such that the advisers rule and rulers advise.”

Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, a research fellow at the Islamic Renaissance Front explained it vividly in his article in Harakah last week.

“Colonialism involves the exploitation of wealth of a nation – where one country becomes subjugated by the power and authority of another.

“If a country is browbeaten in such a manner, its sovereignty is already violated in effect, no matter what the legal documents say.

“So, Malay sovereignty was not protected under the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 because it gave the British a legal mandate to advise and interfere in local matters.”

As Ahmad Fuad rightly pointed out, sovereignty basically means power; and before independence, it was the British who held absolute power and control of the country.

The debate over the semantics of “colonisation” is of course, a spin-off from the controversy sparked by PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu.

The Pokok Sena MP was reported to have said during a ceramah in Penang recently that a group of guerillas led by Mat Indera, who killed 25 policemen and their families in the Bukit Kepong tragedy in 1950, were the real heroes because they were fighting against the British.

He was also alleged to have said that Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar and the country’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman do not deserve to be called independence leaders because they were British officers.
In Thailand, colonisation, or rather the absence of it, is indeed a big deal.

Among the things that the Thais are very proud of is that they have never been a colony of any Western power.

I suppose one should ignore the fact that Thailand did not exist until 1939. Before that it was Siam, which in its long history, was sacked by the Burmese and Khmers.

But as for recent times past, its kings are credited as being smart – by being neutral instead of taking sides with any European colonial power.

King Chulalongkorn, for example, offered the country as a geographical buffer for the competing colonial interests and, through this, effectively protected the kingdom from foreign meddling.

Earlier this year, the Thai government planned to make English the country’s second language.

But the plan was stymied midway by former education minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat.

The committee reviewing the education system shot down the proposal for a peculiar reason: Making English a second official language might lead to misunderstanding that Thailand had been colonised in the past.

The minister justified his decision by saying that all countries in the region where English is the second language were viewed as former colonies.
While making comparisons between silly news makers in both countries, a Malaysian friend who is a long-time Bangkok resident summed it up with a common phrase:

“Same, same but different.”

Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this Mark Twain quote: The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

Sovereignty of Malay Rulers a legal fiction

IN the midst of the controversy over Mat Sabu and Bukit Kepong certain views have been expressed about British rule which may have the unintended effect of confusing rather than enlightening.

It is true that the Malay states – unlike Penang, Malacca and Singapore – were not British colonies in the formal sense. Nonetheless, they were under British rule. The sovereignty of the Malay Rulers was a legal fiction.

The Ruler was required in both the Federated and Unfederated Malay States to seek, and act upon, the advice of the British Resident or Adviser “on all questions other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom”.

In other words, decision-making powers were effectively in the hands of the British.

Apart from laws and treaties which established the actual locus of authority with the British, every important dimension of the economy was under their control. Issues pertaining to land, resources, labour, capital and market in the Malay states were all determined by British policy and British interests.

This made the situation in the Malay states no different from the three British colonies in their vicinity. Indeed, it was British control over both the internal and external economy of the Malay states that rendered them de facto colonies.

Economic control led to the exploitation of Chinese and Indian workers in the tin mining and plantation sectors and the marginalisation of the Malay masses in the peasant sector.

The creation of a dual economy with the commodity based, exported oriented sector directed towards the colonial metropolis was a common characteristic of most colonial economies. In reality, the Malay states bore all the iniquities and injustices associated with colonial rule.

It is mainly because there was de facto colonialism that Umno in the 50s and Parti Kebangsaan Melayu in the 40s championed the cause of merdeka (independence) from the British.

They were focussed upon the substance – rather than the form – of British rule.

DR CHANDRA MUZAFFAR,Kuala Lumpur.

We need a truly national history

the Sun Says

WHAT was Malaysia when imperial Britain was lording it over us, a colony or a protectorate? This seems to be the title of the public debate that is raging in the media and elsewhere ever since someone declared that the country was not a colony of Britain before 1957 and 1963.

It may perhaps help the debaters to be reminded that before the Japanese occupation Malaya was made up of a colony known as Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore, the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan and the Unfederated Malay States of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor.

In 1946, Sabah (then British North Borneo) and Sarawak became colonies. Whatever their legal status – colony or protectorate, Britain was the de facto ruling power over them. In 1957, the states of Malaya became independent of that power, free finally to decide their own destiny. Sabah and Sarawak followed six years later.

Because it is not an academic debate some are clearly being emotional about it while others try, with whatever facts they have at their command, to claim that they are being objective. There is no doubt some valid points are being made but in the heat of the debate few seem to notice them.

It all arose as a result of a claim that someone is a hero because he was fighting his countrymen who were part of the colonial police force.

While it may not be easy to come out with a clear-cut answer and explanation acceptable to all as to whether the person is a hero or a terrorist, the debate has generated a lot of interest in the history of the country especially at a time when the contents of secondary school history textbooks are being scrutinised for errors and inaccuracies.

The special committee that is going through the history books and the complaints of one-sidedness regarding them is expected to come up with a report by the end of the year.

Local historians have been known to complain that the history books written by western writers or those influenced by them tended to play up the role of the British while ignoring or down playing the roles of local personalities.

To "correct" the situation local historians in their books tended to down play the roles of Britain and British officials in the history of the country. Some other local historians also tended to highlight the role of one community while down playing the roles and contributions of the other communities.

A common complaint of Sabahans and Sarawakians is that the history of the formation of Malaysia gives more prominence to the roles of West Malaysians in the effort while the natives seem to be mere passive assenters to the fait accompli.

Thus the report is eagerly awaited and if universally accepted it may be a guide or template for the writing of a history that is truly national.

Capital controls: From heresy to orthodoxy

Tweet

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

 Principles for formulating capital control policies must take local conditions into account.

ON Sept 1, 2011, it would be 13 years to the day when Malaysia first introduced capital controls to stem the effects of the Asian financial crisis on the domestic economy. In 1998, it was heresy to introduce capital controls on capital flows, since it was the International Monetary Fund (IMF) orthodoxy to liberalise the capital account.

From the perspective of history, one tends to forget that in 1945, when the IMF was first established, the consensus opinion among bankers and academics alike was for hot money to be controlled. Indeed, the intellectual father of the IMF, John Maynard Keynes, remarked that “what used to be heresy is now endorsed as orthodoxy.”

In the old days, courtesy to living persons and the statute of limitations would allow history to be written only after 60 years when official archives are opened to the public.

Today, we live in an age of unfettered information, when oral and documented history can be published rapidly, from authorised biographies issued shortly after a leader leaves office to unauthorised leakages from Wikileaks.

The publication of a new book by Datuk Wong Sulong, former group chief editor of The Star, called Notes to the Prime Minister: the Untold Story of How Malaysia Beat the Currency Speculators, only two months after the IMF announced in April 2011 new thinking on capital inflows, is a remarkable achievement.

Sixty-six years after the IMF was formed, capital controls have moved full circle from orthodoxy to heresy and back again to (qualified) orthodoxy.

The book comprises 45 Notes written by Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, between Oct 3, 1997 and Aug 21, 1998 to then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
In short, they were the key briefs that helped Dr Mahathir make up his mind on the key economic policies to help combat the Asian financial crisis.



Book offers deep insights

For both historians and practicing policymakers, this new book offers deep insights into the serendipity and the practice of successful policy decision-making. There is an element of serendipity, because Dr Mahathir recalled that he spotted Nor Mohamed walking down a street in Kuala Lumpur just before he left for Buenos Aires in September 1997 via Hong Kong, where he attended the World Bank Annual Meetings and clashed publicly with George Soros on currency trading.

On Sept 29, 1997, he summoned Nor Mohamed to meet him in Buenos Aires, because he needed someone who understood currency trading. It is a tribute to a politician trained as a doctor that he was willing to spend repeated sessions with an experienced currency trader to understand the intricacies of modern financial markets.

Reading the 45 Notes in historical sequence, one gets a far better appreciation of how the decision to impose capital controls was arrived at. The Notes not only have historical value, but also current-day applicability, as they explain not only offshore currency, the psychology of fear and greed that drive markets, but also market manipulation in thinly traded emerging market currencies.

The major problem of the proponents of the Washington Consensus in 1997 was that most of them were macro-economists who had little understanding or experience of how the markets actually worked. Free markets became a dogma and objective in their own right, rather than the means to an end for better livelihood for all.

The Notes also revealed that in complex decisions under uncertainty, it was vital to understand clearly the key parameters for action. Note 7 clearly pointed out that Malaysia was different from other countries under currency attack because it did not have large short-term external debt. Note 11, dated Oct 21, 1997, spelt out the factors that determined exchange rates, with a particularly illuminating explanation of market manipulation.

Market manipulation was seen as due to concerted effort by hedge funds, using large gearing and available tools and then triggering the element of fear among the long-term investors who have legitimate currency risk.

In other words, if the wolves can trigger the herd to move, then the fundamentals can move. The perception of fear changes the whole game.

Effect of CLOB

Note 39 dated July 9, 1998 is an important study of the effect on Malaysia of the central limit order book (CLOB) for trading of Malaysian shares in Singapore. The Note identified that the CLOB was a convenient way for capital outflows.

Hence, one of the most effective ways for exchange control was to impose the condition that Malaysian shares could only be traded on a Malaysian exchange, which came on Aug 31, 1998, with exchange controls imposed on the following day.

In Dr Mahathir's words, “during the financial crisis, we faced two parallel situations; the ringgit was falling rapidly and Malaysian shares were also falling rapidly. So we had to put an end to both.”
Image via Wikipedi
The IMF has come out with six key principles for formulating capital control policies.

The first is that there is no “one-size-fits-all” policy mix. The second is that capital controls should fit long-term structural reforms. Third, capital controls are only one tool and not a substitute for the right macro policies. Fourth, capital controls can be used on a case-by-case basis, in appropriate circumstances. Fifth, the medicine should treat the ailment, and finally, the policy must consider its effect on other market participants.

It is hard to argue against these common sense “motherhood” principles. The trick in real life policy-making is how to apply them to local conditions.

On of the features of the current Chinese capital controls is that China also has a large amount of Chinese shares listed outside capital controls, such as Chinese shares listed in Hong Kong, Singapore and New York.

This is a book that is a must read for all emerging market policymakers interested in liberalising their capital accounts and for IMF experts to ponder emerging market experience.

I recommend that this new book be translated into Chinese, so that Chinese policymakers interested in internationalising the renminbi can look at the Malaysian experience.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is author of the book, From Asian to Global Financial Crisis.

Related Post:

The untold story of Malaysia foreign exchange controls 

How many Malaysians is enough?

Tweet

WHY NOT? By WONG SAI WAN

Planners need to study our population trends and make sure policies are in place to meet future needs – from jobs to food.

IN the 1980s, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad shocked everyone by stating a 70 million population policy so that Malaysia will be a self-sustaining market, and announced various tax incentives to encourage us to have more children.

Many snide remarks were made about the target the then prime minister set. The population then was just under 20 million.

More than 20 years on, the population has indeed grown, but not to the extent that Dr Mahathir had envisioned.

According to the 2010 Population and Housing Census final report, Malaysia’s population stood at 28.3 million at the end of 2010.

This means we have grown by five million since the last census in 2000 when there were just 23.3 million of us.

This may seem to be a lot of people, but when one looks at the statistics more deeply, it becomes obvious that while our population has increased, the growth rate has slowed.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, in releasing the final report, pointed out that the average annual population growth rate between the two censuses was just 2% .

“The rate from 1991 to 2000 was 2.6% ,” he said, adding that the country’s fertility rate dropped to 2.3% from 3% in 2000.

To achieve Dr Mahathir’s 70 million target by 2050 would mean we have to double our rate of “making children” – but I doubt if any of us would be keen to go for that no matter how pleasurable it is supposed to be.



The truth is, more and more Malaysians, regardless of ethnic group, are settling for smaller families. This is happening all over the world, especially in countries where urbanisation is the trend.

The latest census report states that the proportion of urban population increased to 71% in 2010 from 62% in 2000.

“Apart from the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya, which are 100% urban, other states with a high urban population are Selangor and Penang, at 91.4% and 90.8%, respectively.”

On the opposite end of the scale are Kelantan (42.4%), Pahang (50.5%) and Perlis (51.4%).

The census also found Selangor to be the most populated state, with 5.4 million residents or 19.3% of the country’s population, followed by Johor with 3.3 million and Sabah with 3.2 million.

Under the Greater Kuala Lumpur or Klang Valley plan, it is estimated that there will be eight million people by 2020.

Housing and public transport have been identified as the most urgent issues to be resolved before that date.

This is why the affordable housing scheme and MRT project have gotten top priority from the Federal Government. But obviously that will not be enough as more and more people come to the Klang Valley to seek their fortune.

It’s not just infrastructure that needs to be improved but other soft policies – like working hours and minimum wage – also need to be in place to ensure the growing population would be able to cope with the pressures of living in a metropolis.

Of course, the most important policy that needs to be tackled is the cost of living.

Any country or city that wants to be known as friendly and liveable must be affordable, too.

It is pointless having 100-storey buildings and six-star restaurants if the majority of the citizens do not get to enjoy such plush facilities because they cannot afford to.

It is great that the New Economic Model as proposed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak calls for “breaking out of the middle-income trap and turning Malaysia into a high-income nation”.

Parliament has already passed the first law required to make a minimum wage law but more needs to be done before we are a high-income nation.

The Government needs to push this agenda and spend time explaining it to the people.

The people do not seem to understand the concept because, not seeing any real increase in their pay packet, the perception they get is that only lip service is being paid to the policy.

What is made worse is that while global factors are driving up prices of daily items like food and fuel, the Government is talking about cutting back on subsidies.

The authorities need to come out with a comprehensive explanation programme so that there will be no misunderstanding of its policies, and these clarifications must be simple enough so that every person, regardless of educational background, can understand.

Another worrying point that the 2010 census has thrown up is that there are 14,562,638 males and 13,771,497 females in the country.

Many parents are worried over future partners for their children, especially since many of them place low priority on marriage to concentrate on career.

Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall president Tan Yew Sing pointed to career-minded women being among the major factors contributing to the shrinking Chinese population, which now only accounts for 24.6%, a drop of 2% from a decade ago (bumiputras account for 67.4%, Indians 7.3% and others 0.7% in the latest report).

When the census was carried out in 1991, the Chinese community made up 28.1% of the country’s 18.38 million population then.

Tan also noted that more Chinese were moving to the urban areas, where they preferred to raise smaller families, and also that “a significant portion of the Chinese community was also known to have migrated”.
I am sure that such changes are also affecting the Malay, Indian, Iban, Kadazan and other communities in Malaysia.

The shrinking population growth rates, downsized families and deferring marriages are issues that will change the characteristics of the country.

We will never make the 70 million population target even in 40 years’ time and the Government must take into account such societal changes and draft new policies to ensure our country remains affordable, liveable and friendly to all.

Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan has settled for a son and a daughter but wonders what are their targets.

Changes & Reforms - a case of two opposing sides in Malaysia

Tweet

A case of two opposing sides

CERITALAH By KARIM RASLAN

We’ve reached a point where it doesn’t matter who brings the change – BN or PR, conservative or liberal, socialist or right-wing. Malaysians will get behind whoever is the most sincere in taking us out of this mess. 

Voices from Malaysian: 

 Patrick Teoh

Teoh has come a very long way from his days as an announcer on the Rediffusion private radio station before establishing himself as one of the pioneers in mobile discos. In fact, till today people still associate Teoh with his voice though he is also into the arts and theatre.

Watch and listen his Video:

LAST weekend’s thwarted march wasn’t an ordinary incident – it reveals two radically different world views.

While the march was nominally non-political, the chasm between the two forces – the Government and the demonstrators – clearly mirrors the increasingly acrimonious split between Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Of course, a deeply divided political terrain is always troubling, however, it is at least proof of a dynamic and thriving public discourse.

Ironically, the opposition, despite being excluded from the mainstream media, is clearly setting the terms of this debate.

It also shows that Malaysia remains a democracy – albeit a flawed one.

Indeed, I’d argue that the intensity of the discourse over the past few weeks highlights quite how much we Malaysians care about the state of our nation.

We can see and feel that the state is becoming more polarised – and in such a situation, we are being forced to choose sides.



Sitting on the fence is no longer a viable option – especially when the fence is been shaken so hard by the two opposing sides. However, there are some positives. Most notably the fact that the divide is not racial despite what some politicians are alleging.

In fact there are Malays, Indians, Chinese, Iban, Kadazan, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Hindu on both sides of the debate. Indeed, the struggle has gone way beyond racial and religious lines.

Instead we are tussling over political philosophies and principles.

While the differences are certainly stark, their mere existence indicates a certain maturing of our political system presenting us with the alluring prospect of a two-party system.

I must stress that the racial diversity on both sides represents a steadying force – anchoring us together as a nation.

And yes, you could say, it underlines the fact that we are debating a truly Malaysian set of issues.

So what are these substantive political differences? Well, for a start, they transcend mere personality.

On one hand, we have a strident Umno-led Government demanding the continuation of the status quo.

In this respect, Umno is very definitely a conservative (small “c”) force – defending and promoting the interests of the influence-bearing classes.

It’s arguable that Umno’s small businessmen/contractors have adopted the mindset and behaviour of the many minor aristocrats and noblemen that once surrounded Malaysia’s many istana (or palaces) jockeying for favours and/or contracts.

The current Umno vision is retrogressive – it looks back to the party’s heyday under Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It is not a dynamic, expansive vision – witness the primordial and unavoidable cry for Malay unity interspersed with Malay rights.

As with those enamoured and indeed obsessed by the past there is a paranoia and fear of change. Understandably then, any concession or reform is seen of as an affront to Umno’s domination, dignity and integrity.

On the other, you have what is essentially a socialist front in Pakatan Rakyat.

They claim to represent the interest of the rakyat – the ordinary people, taking a moral high-ground on issues such as corruption, mismanagement and civil liberties.

They know the language of the people – focusing on day-to-day issues from rising food prices to the quality of education.

Obviously my formulation ignores the inconsistencies, but there’s no denying the socio-economic and “class” basis to this struggle.

At the same time the respective leaders play up these associations because politics – let’s face it – is also theatre and understatement doesn’t play to the gallery.

Returning to Pakatan, I must point out that the coalition’s very new-ness means they are much more flexible, less rigid and accepting.

Indeed, Hadi Awang’s courageous stance on Negara Kebajikan is an indication of the extent to which Pakatan is exploring new paradigms.

Of course, PAS carry a certain baggage themselves. For example, will the gentle and considerate PAS of today be replaced by a morally sanctimonious force once in power?

At a time when technology is changing so rapidly, (iPad succeeded by iPad2, just when you’ve begun to understand it), we’ve got to accept political systems have to change as well.

But will the face-off between the two opposing forces benefit us – the rakyat?

Well, I for one am confident that there will be change and that we as a nation desperately need that change.

Indeed, we’ve reached a point where it doesn’t actually matter who brings the change – BN or PR, conservative or liberal, socialist or right-wing.

Malaysians will rally behind whoever is the most sincere in taking us out of this mess, just as Ronnie Reagan and later Obama inspired their respective voters.

Ironically, after all this talk of substantive politics we’re back where we started with character and personality.

So, we have to batten down, wait, watch and judge because at the end of the day we, the people are sovereign and through the ballot box, we can kick out those who’ve let us down.

So carry on ladies and gentlemen of the political world, we’re watching and evaluating your performance.

It’s all about politics, in the end

Tweet

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

The competing forces have little choice but to bring in the numbers, and every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us.

THERE isn’t much time left, really. Those of us who live in Klang Valley can only brace ourselves for the numerous police road blocks that would be set up ahead of this Saturday’s illegal Bersih 2.0 rally.

The city will be locked down for sure, even as early as Wednesday, and we can expect a lot of inconvenience. But the police have a job to do.

It does not look like there is going to be a compromise or a middle ground solution between the organisers of the rally and the police. The organisers want to proceed and have no intention of applying for a permit.

The police, meanwhile, have said there will be no more talk with the organisers and stressed that it is time now for action and the full force of the police would be applied.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar did not rule out the possibility of the police invoking the Internal Security Act to nab participants of the illegal rallies.

What is different from the first Bersih protest held in 2007 and other past massive protests is that this time, two other parties have warned that they would proceed with counter demonstrations if the Bersih 2.0 rally went ahead.



This time, the police fear a clash and their concerns are justified, given the emotions that have built up. From the information the police have gathered, there are good reasons why police are talking about taking tough preventive measures.

In 1997, supporters of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim staged a huge protest after the court sentenced him to six years’ jail for sodomy. A passing TV3 vehicle was attacked in front of Masjid Jamek by an angry mob in full view of the public and many shops were looted. And it was a one-sided affair then.

Anwar’s conviction, the protests and the backdrop of the 1997 financial crisis in Asia certainly had an impact as (then Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had a tough election in 1999.

In the case of the Bersih protest in 2007, which also called for electoral reforms, about 250 demonstrators were arrested as they clashed with the police. When elections were called the following year, Pakatan Rakyat won five states, despite claiming the electoral rolls were “unclean”, and that cheating and dirty tactics were used. And for the record, PAS has ruled Kelantan for 21 years.

But it’s hard to argue against a case for a clean electoral system. It’s a clever political package. Seriously, who can argue against such a clarion call and who can say “no” to freedom of expression and the right to protest, which are all basic principles of demo­cracy?

It’s understandably attractive for many and, undoubtedly, a matter of choice if people wish to take part in the rally. But again, those who organise the rally and those who wish to take part should also know the legal and political consequences of their decisions.

Any gathering of five, without a permit, is illegal and even if we feel that it is an archaic law, it remains a law until it is changed.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 should give a convincing answer to whether their campaign is initiated by Paka­tan Rakyat, which has given the whole show a political dimension, or it has been hijacked by them.

It doesn’t help that Anwar has said he could just call organiser Datuk S. Ambiga to call off the rally. Of course, like many politicians, he claimed he was misquoted.

PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu has also said on record that the Bersih 2.0 rally would help Pakatan in the elections.

On the surface, it looks simple but it’s all politics in the end and not quite as innocuous as it seems. The reaction has been political, and likewise the counter protests.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 cannot expect their rivals to join them on the argument of a clean electoral system when the latter feels that the system is sufficient, admittedly it can still be improved, as the opposition has gained so much.

Against the rising political temperature, the issue has become more explosive when elements of religion and sedition come into play.

Some have said the authorities over-reacted and the communist revival claim is a little scratched, given the fact that almost all the commie icons are long dead. Even China and Vietnam are communist in name only these days.

Still, the July 9 rally won’t be a stroll in the park. It is a political event. So, let’s not bluff ourselves that it is a non-governmental organisation affair as they wouldn’t be able to marshal the numbers, if it is indeed an NGO show. The organisers need PAS particularly to bring in the crowd.

It is essentially a show of strength ahead of the polls. The competing forces too have little choice but to bring in the numbers. Every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us, not because the rallies and counter-rallies will help their political ambitions.

There will be enough people who believe in them. Just as enough people climbed trees to put up PAS flags and quarrelled with their families and friends for Datuk Ibrahim Ali, until he called himself an independent.

There will also be people who still believe in him now that he is representing an NGO and he is doing all these for Malay rights.

There will also be people who believe politics can be clean and there are wannabe politicians with noble intentions.

The Datuk Trio, meanwhile, must be upset at the seeming obsession of the authorities over the Bersih 2.0 rally as the sex video issue has been forgotten overnight, which is what Anwar probably wants.

All these groups could hold their gatherings in stadiums, with even a short march thrown in, if they want to. They could shout and make speeches for 24 hours if they want, but as Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was quoted in Sinar Harian as saying, it would have lacked the “oomph”.

Without the chaos, the anger, the water cannon, the arrests, it would not be a success. So it all comes down to that.

The untold story of Malaysia foreign exchange controls

Tweet



Book reveals how Malaysia beat currency speculators in 1997/98 crisis
By Thean Lee Cheng, Starbiz

 
Nor Mohamed (left) and Wong at the book launch

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad toyed with the idea of exchange controls as early as May 1998 but was met with resistance from within the National Economic Advisory Council, the Cabinet and the central bank.

This was revealed in Notes to the Prime Minister, a new book that chronicles one of the biggest challenges and triumphs in Dr Mahathir's 22 years as Malaysia's Prime Minister.

Notes to the Prime Minister: The Untold Story of How Malaysia Beat the Currency Speculators was launched yesterday in Kuala Lumpur by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop. Tun Dr Mahathir was not present as he was advised by doctors to rest at home.

The book, published by MPH Publishing, is based on 45 sets of notes written between Oct 3, 1997 and Aug 21, 1998 by Nor Mohamed when he became Dr Mahathir's unofficial and unpaid economic adviser.

The Asian financial crisis, which first engulfed Thailand in the middle of 1997, hit Malaysia soon after. Selective capital controls were imposed on Sept 1.

The book is written by veteran journalist Datuk Wong Sulong, the former business editor and group chief editor of The Star.

In an excerpt from the book, Dr Mahathir told Wong that he decided on foreign exchange controls “after Nor Mohamed explained to me how currency trading works ... millions and millions of ringgit can be transferred from a domestic account to a foreign account by a stroke of a pen ... I realised that foreign currency trading can be stopped by stopping this balance transfer.



“But I must say it was not as easy as that. We needed to do a lot of background work and monitoring and Bank Negara (needed to) set up many committees to do that to ensure that the controls were effectively implemented. (Tan Sri) Dr Zeti (Akhtar Aziz, then deputy governor of Bank Negara) did a lot in that respect and also in the economic recovery.”

Notes to the Prime Minister is not only a valuable lesson on how Malaysia took unorthodox steps to solve the Asian financial crisis but it is also a story of how two Malaysians met halfway around the world and came up with the Malaysian solution to the Asian financial crisis.

It is an intriguing story of how Nor Mohamed, then chief executive officer of Mun Loong Bhd, was summoned by Dr Mahathir to meet him in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Oct 2, 1997. The first set of those notes was written a day later, on Oct 3.

Prior to this unique flow of notes, Nor Mohamed was a Bank Negara adviser.

His expertise in foreign exchange landed him and then Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Jaafar Hussein in trouble. Both of them resigned to take responsibility for Bank Negara's speculation on foreign exchange losses that went into billions of ringgit in the early 1990s. Nor Mohamed joined the private sector after that.

Said Nor Mohamed at the launch: “We learn in history that sometimes the lives of individuals and the fate of nations hinge on a millimetre's difference in the trajectory of a bullet, a road not taken on a whim, or the random stray of a shrapnel.

“In my case, my fate was sealed ... by the turn of a head Tun Dr Mahathir's ... It was a sunny afternoon in September 1997, when the PM's motorcade was speeding along the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

“At one junction, as the motorcade slowed, Tun Dr Mahathir turned his head to look out. And he saw a forlorn-looking man walking towards a row of shops for lunch. That forlorn-looking man was me!”

Nor Mohamed was summoned a few days later to go to Argentina. In April 1998, Nor Mohamed resigned from Mun Loong to concentrate on being Dr Mahathir's unofficial adviser.

During that period of assessement, Nor Mohamed went to Singapore to observe the operations of Central Limit Order Book (CLOB), a board on the Singapore Stock Exchange which dealt with a great number of Malaysian shares. Dr Mahathir felt that Malaysia's currency crisis could not be solved as long as CLOB exists.

Dr Mahathir, aware that his adviser was unemployed, asked: “Do you have money to go down to Singapore?” Nor Mohamed laughed and assured him that the trip would not cost a lot of money. The rest, as they say, is history.

As for Wong, who shares a deep liking for Nor Mohamed, he was asked by his friend to write the book.

“I felt a sense of excitement and a heavy responsibility. These notes had never seen daylight and it shed a new light (on more than just the economic and political aspects of this country). You have to tell a story as honestly as possibile, but not technically, because it has to appeal to the average reader. So that was my dual challenge.”

Related post:

Capital controls: From heresy to orthodoxy  

Malaysian gutter politics: sex video, like a blast from the past to end up as Three Stooges?

It's like a blast from the past
On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

Tweet

There is a sense of déjà vu in the sex video case but this time, public expectations seem to have changed.

IT’S now called a sex video and the footage is probably only contained in a thumb drive. But 22 years ago, during the analogue days, they came in the form of the bulky VHS (video home system) tapes.

The visual on tape was often poor and grainy, especially if taken with a hidden camera and in bad lighting. But if they involved political figures, the intrigue and curiosity created would have been no less strong.

There would be the typical open declaration of disgust and anger over such intrusion of privacy but most would want to know more, especially the identities of the people involved.

The controversy over the sex video involving a man resembling Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is like a replay of an old video, or “rewind” as it used to be called.


Twenty-two years ago, DAP’s Karpal Singh walked into the Dewan Rakyat with an expose of a sex video implicating then Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker D.P. Vijandran. The press was tipped off earlier about this tape, which purportedly featured the bachelor politician and a woman in a yellow saree.

Karpal told Parliament then that he was exposing the MIC leader in “public interest” while then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad expressed regret that the issue had been exploited so much that those allegedly involved were being “persecuted”.

At the height of the issue, this writer received a call from Vijandran who pleaded for the story not to be reported. He also called reporter K.P. Waran at the New Straits Times, hoping for the same thing. But we both told him that it would not be possible.

He then issued a statement criticising the Opposition’s call for the setting up of a Special Tribunal or Royal Commission of Inquiry.

There is certainly a sense of déjà vu among veteran journalists today.

Karpal Singh was regarded as quite a hero for his expose then, and even MIC boss S. Samy Vellu was asked by DAP to resign because of the controversy.

Vijandran, who was then the MIC secretary-general, denied he was the man in the video. In fact, when the issue went to court, he maintained that it was not him.

Political enemies would be blamed but, like most sex videos, they are often the work of people closest to the politician. Blaming the former is often a political reaction.

In Vijandran’s case, he blamed his nephew, S. Ravindran, for using a hidden camera to film him in a compromising situation. In his affidavit, he accused Ravindran of “splicing and superimposing his (Vijandran) image onto the pornographic tape portraying him as an actor”. In short, the tape was doctored. It wasn’t him, he maintained.

Fast forward to the present. No one would claim credit for such gutter politics but the Datuk Trio of Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Datuk Shuaib Lazim have unprecedentedly taken responsibility for their action. They are also claiming “public interest” as grounds for doing what they did.

Eskay, a former physiotherapist to Anwar and who is said to be the closest to the Opposition Leader, even signed off a press release as “the insider” and dropped hints that he knew more.

Rahim has rebutted allegations that he had an old political score to settle with Anwar. Not many political analysts, however, are convinced.

Umno leaders have said Rahim has not done the party a favour and they are privately saying he lacks credibility. Many have said they are being blamed for something they had no hand in and that they are nervous over how the drama would end.

In 1998, Umno Youth leader Ruslan Kassim, who was aligned to Anwar, alleged that Rahim was the publisher of the book 50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be PM.

Rahim retaliated by suing him for RM15mil. The case only ended in 2004 with Ruslan, who had by then joined PKR, making an open apology to the former Malacca Chief Minister.

Old soldiers may fade away but in Malaysia it would appear that old political enemies will stay on to renew their fights. Anwar certainly has plenty of old enemies both inside and outside his party.

The trio has called for foreign experts to verify the identity of the man in the video.

Interestingly, during Vijandran’s trial, Dr Alfred David Linney, a University College of London specialist in planning and assessment of facial reconstruction, said the actor in the tape was a different person.

In fact, the defence witness testified that “if both the men were the same person, then their facial angles will not differ very much”.

Another defence witness, Japanese forensic anthropologist Masatsugu Hashimoto, testified: “It is wrong to state that the two earlobes of the man are the same because at least 14 points of similarities should have been found. In this case, not even a single point of similarity was found.”

Another defence witness, a lawyer, said he viewed the tape for 75 minutes and did not recognise the actor. When asked if he was sure, he replied: “I am positively sure it wasn’t Vijandran.”

The point is: in a court case, the prosecution and defence can always get witnesses, even so-called experts, to testify in support of their case.

In that instance, with the tapes freely available, the public had formed their own conclusion. In the People’s Court, Vijandran was the actor. Forget about the foreign experts.

In 1994, the Sessions Court sentenced him to a month’s jail and a fine of RM2,000 for fabricating evidence and making a false declaration. He took his appeals to the various upper courts and finally in 1998, he was acquitted by the Court of Appeal, which also set aside his conviction and sentence. But his political career was dead and public opinion of him and the tape remains unchanged.

This time around, however, public expectations seemed to have changed. Most Malay­sians do not believe Anwar is the man in the video even though they haven’t seen it. And even if they did, the die-hard Anwar supporters would regard the use of the video as gutter politics.

If the Datuk Trio had thought they could play heroes, they have found out that the psychological battle has become more complicated. Un­like Vijandran’s tape, only 10-odd journalists, some policemen and a few local film experts have seen the video, not 20 million people. The police have said the video is genuine, so the three Datuks had better plan their next steps carefully if they do not want to end up as the Three Stooges.