Why media freedom matters

Posted on August 3, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 30 July here.

THE three-month suspension of The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge Weekly newspapers by the Home Ministry is a chilling reminder of a government that silences any form of critical questioning. The obvious intention is to strike fear into our hearts, demonstrating they are the source of all control – with them lies the power to grant a printing permit, just as the power to revoke it.

This comes on the back of the Sarawak Report portal being barred in Malaysia, a blatant act of internet censorship despite the government committing to open online access. Journalist groups have been especially angered at recent developments. Rightly so, given it is their profession – and everything they stand for – being challenged. Without the freedom to report independently on issues regardless of the powers that be, what credibility have they?

But it is not just the media fraternity that needs to pay careful attention to media freedom. How freely and openly journalists are to write their stories has a much deeper impact on the nation as a whole in a host of other areas like the economy, democracy and ultimately, our very own pockets.

For instance, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index uses media freedom as an indicator of civil liberties that measures, among others, how free print media is, the level of openness and free discussion of public issues, and political restrictions to the internet. A robust, independent media is a fundamental pillar in a “mature democratic society”, the third strategic challenge outlined by Vision 2020, a vision fast fading away.

In such an environment, a dynamic and symbiotic relationship between journalists, citizens, government officers, the private sector and even columnists like myself are free to agree or disagree with each other, correcting our opinions through each iteration of written material, thereby fine-tuning and sharpening the presentation and consumption of news in this organic fashion.

Business people rely on an environment in which journalists are able to fairly, critically and accurately report on the conditions of the economy in which they operate. Although many of the indices do not directly measure media freedom, reports like the Economic Freedom of the World Index by Fraser Institute do value the rule of law, impartial courts, and the integrity of the legal system in protecting property rights in a free economy. It will be interesting to see the court’s reaction in the judicial review filed by The Edge contesting its three-month suspension. True enough, a study of 115 countries around the world by academics Alam and Shah (The Role of Press Freedom in Economic Development: A Global Perspective, February 2013) found a bidirectional relationship between press freedom and economic growth. This means that press freedom contributed to greater economic growth in the countries studied, and vice versa. These results coincide with similar indices produced by Reporters Sans Frontières and Freedom House.

Higher economic growth leads to better job opportunities, more value for the ringgit in our bank accounts, higher purchasing power for housing and our children’s education (present and future), and a better quality of life. This may be a long trajectory, but it can certainly be shown that the flourishing of civil rights produces better conditions for citizens and our families.

Many of these international indices show consistent findings, that countries with better protection of civil liberties such as media freedom also enjoy better economic rights and economic growth. This is not too surprising, since investors would be much more at ease entering a market in which information is abundant and not scarce, where news is readily available and not shrouded under a blanket of secrecy.

A source of steady, reliable and independent information about matters related to the local economy is highly valued by any private businessperson. News about, for instance, the stock market, the state of the domestic currency, sovereign wealth funds, the banking sector, government bonds and yes, even the strength of state-owned enterprises or government-linked companies (since government is present in such a large percentage of business in Malaysia), are of interest and concern.

Suffice to say that The Edge has built its credibility and reputation over the years in covering these subjects.

Does media freedom matter? Yes, and not just to journalists, and businesspeople seeking accurate reporting from various sources, but also to citizens who desire a plethora of media choice, better economic conditions and an improved quality of life.

In fact, one may go a step further to question the need for a printing permit at all. It is such archaic practice that lends itself to self-censorship, a practice all Malaysian media is familiar with. The government has in the past held that print media restrictions are necessary to safeguard against ethnic tension, an argument that does not hold water and is a convenient excuse.

The internet will soon render these discussions moot. A more tech-savvy population will be able to circumvent website bans, and portals can be hosted anywhere in the world. The Malaysian government is living in the past if it thinks it can continue to stifle the flow of information and news. It should grow up and realise that guaranteeing such freedoms would be a net positive for all of us in the long run.

Posted in Media, Culture, Literature, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Taking back liberal

Posted on July 10, 2015 by Tricia

(first published in theSun on Thursday, 9 July 2015, here)

AT an IDEAS public forum last weekend on whether or not Malaysia is ready for a liberal political party, it was evident that all three of the panel speakers acknowledged the term “liberal” as being controversial in this country.

Sure enough, in July 2014, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) issued a fatwa against any individuals professing liberalism, and deemed any publications with elements of liberalism (and religious pluralism) as haram or prohibited, and liable for seizure by religious authorities. In May this year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said that liberalism is a threat to Islam, and that it would ruin Muslim identity. Is this really the case?

This is surely ironic, given that liberalism is fundamentally embedded into the core of our nation’s being. That is, if our leaders bothered to recall their history lessons. Audience at the event on Saturday were reminded that our very own Rukunegara, crafted by the late Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, contains as one of its goals to “ensure a liberal approach towards our rich and diverse cultural traditions”.

In fact, one of the speakers, Dr Juli Minoves, representing Liberal International (a global network of more than 100 liberal political parties around the world), shared the fundamental principles of liberalism, which may in fact be better accepted by a bigger majority than what people may think.

The Oxford Manifesto 1947 has as amongst its principles the belief in a person’s independent thought and action, respect for the human person and family, freedom of worship and liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to associate or not to associate, free choice of occupation, access to full and varied education, the right to private ownership of property, gender equality and consumers’ free choice.

According to this manifesto, these rights can be conferred only by true democracy, and that “true democracy … is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through free and secret ballot”. These seem to be central tenets of any democracy, and far be it to decry any of these fundamental forms that essentially make up our own constitutional democracy in Malaysia.

The critique of liberalism in Malaysia has stemmed mainly from its perceived incongruity with religion, as if liberalism is the very antithesis of religion, or is essentially anti-religion (as one of the audience members so eagerly pointed out). If anything, liberalism is silent on religion, and is neutral on matters of faith and the afterlife.

Speaker Khalid Jaafar from Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD) reminded as such, that religion speaks primarily of salvation and spiritual matters, saying little of affairs of the world. Both he and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, former CEO of the PAS Research Centre, quoted from the Islamic hadith, which states that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whilst giving advice, said, “You know best the affairs of your worldly life” (from the Sahih Muslim hadith).

That is to say that religious texts provide us guiding principles on morality, but are short on the state of our existence. Human beings are bestowed the gift of intellect and reason, and equipped with these tools, we determine for ourselves the shape and form of democracy we want to have.

What society do we want for here and now? What type and quality of education do we want for our children? Liberalism is an ideology (with socialism or communism as opposing ideologies) that does not detract from, but rather adds to, a person’s faith and experience of the present world.

In fact, religion can only truly flourish in a liberal society.

What the forum was disappointingly thin on, however, was the position that liberals take with regard to the role of the state. By strict definition, classical liberals would prefer to adopt an approach in which the state has a much smaller role over the lives of its citizens. When government is given a greater say over how our lives are governed (through economic and education policies, to name a few), this reduces our individual right to self-determination.

Perhaps the question for Malaysians today is not whether the time is ripe for a liberal political party, but whether liberalism can flourish the way it did in the past.

IDEAS president Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin Tuanku Muhriz reminded that the Umno of the past in fact believed in all the fundamental principles of liberalism, when working towards the nation’s independence, in its stance for free enterprise and against communism, and led by Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman, and therefore asked if they were not already liberal? Undoubtedly the party of 1946 is a different species from what it is in 2015.

Both Parti Gerakan and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), which have observer status respectively with Liberal International, are parties that believe in liberal principles. Gerakan is in dismal shape today, if any shape at all, whilst PKR is faced with coalition problems of its own. It remains to be seen if these self-avowed liberal parties are able to take mainstage at any point in the country’s future.

That said, public fora such as these are imperative – if anything, they exemplify and manifest into being the belief in freedom of speech. Liberals are by definition liberal in their approach to others (or ought to be), taking into serious consideration the views of all even if disagreeing with them. Is liberalism really a threat to society or religion? If the belief in the very fundamentals of democracy forms the mould of liberalism – the same democracy that our founding fathers worked towards and that which we espouse today – then the answer is a firm resounding no. It is time to take back the term liberal.

Posted in Liberalism, Philosophy, Religion | Leave a comment

Nothing to hide

Posted on June 19, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 11 June 2015, here).

IN our A-Level English literature classes, we used to describe Shakespearean comedy as “someone else’s tragedy”. Such is the case of the most recent public relations disaster to have befallen our prime minister – the #Nothing2Hide forum a week ago that turned disastrous after he failed to show up as scheduled. It could have been a prime opportunity for him to explain his side of the story of what is now an ever-growing 1MDB monster.

Why 1MDB has captured the imagination of at least middle-class Malaysia is not surprising: it has an impact on country ratings, foreign investment and ultimately our domestic economy.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Abdul Wahid Omar may be right in saying “there is no systemic risk to the financial system”, but this is because even if 1MDB fails to pay back its owed debt to local and international banks from whom they have borrowed, it is the Malaysian government (i.e. government coffers and taxpayers’ money) that will have to cough up these sums as the final guarantor. Sure, the financial system is protected, but government funds would be depleted, funds that otherwise would have been spent on public goods like education and health services.

But the second and probably more powerful reason it frustrates and angers Malaysians is because the “lost” funds (and as mentioned in a previous column, money is never “lost”, it is just always “somewhere else”) are speculated to have enriched certain pockets.

It was the New York Times that highlighted the wealth of businessman Jho Low, his connection with 1MDB and raised questions of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s family members’ wealth. The Prime Minister’s Office has previously said, “neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewellery purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets” (New York Times, Feb 8, 2015).

Now, it would be almost impossible to verify the veracity of any statements made by any leader, embattled or otherwise, without the necessary system to capture such information with.

Civil society has long called for a mandatory asset declaration system, compulsory for those holding public office. As civil servants or elected representatives, they have immediate control over public assets and funds, manage the award of government contracts, and are at the highest risk of enriching themselves at the cost of public benefit.

IDEAS released a policy brief last week that details what Malaysia should do in adopting an asset declaration system, which can be found on our website. Fundamentally, our senior researcher Shaza Onn states that: “Ministers and their aides, top government officials, civil servants, members of Parliament, and state governments’ (executive councillors)” ought to declare their assets. The only two state governments to have implemented asset declaration for their exco members (without necessarily having a law to instruct as such) are Selangor and Penang.

And although there is no one set of best practices that can be equally applied around the world, there are certainly some features that must be included (if the government decides it wants to be a truly transparent administration): First, an asset declaration system should be able to detect both conflict of interest and illicit enrichment. Second, there should be a legal framework to back the system up. Third, the declaration should apply to all branches of government annually and to a large scope of assets. Fourth, the system must have an effective monitoring and verification mechanism. Fifth, its sanctions mechanism should be equally effective and enforced, so those failing to do so would be charged as criminals or given disciplinary sanctions. Finally, the system should allow for such assets to be publicly available.

Critics of asset declaration have pointed to the need to protect privacy. But the rule is to ask which is more important: whether officials’ right to privacy outweighs public interest resulting from disclosure, or vice versa. And to that, one could say that individuals are free to choose whether to enter public service or not. If you choose to be a politician or civil servant, you essentially give up your right to privacy, as a custodian of public assets.

In Malaysia, ministers do declare their assets at present, but only to the prime minister. It is unclear if there is any requirement for the prime minister to declare his assets, or to whom, if any. Civil servants also do declare their assets, but this is just internally verified.

Our paper proposes that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is brought in to verify declarations made by politicians to a Parliamentary Committee, and by civil servants to their respective ministries. One could argue that politicians would circumvent such a system by appointing proxies. But an effective system is a starting point in getting the basics right, which could later be improved to detect other anomalies.

In short, an effective asset declaration system, if enforced properly, would prevent conflict of interest amongst ministers and public officials – and can be used to detect abuse. Governments can use asset declaration to build trust with citizens since they have the opportunity to clarify the origins of their personal wealth. And goodness knows the trust gap is huge right now.

In the case of Slovenia, both the prime minister and Opposition leader were demanded to resign after they hid high-value assets and did not declare conflicts of interest in business deals (Transparency International, 2013). Back home, our own leaders can pre-empt this happening to them by having their (and their family members’) assets publicly declared.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, General Politics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Waking up to an old, brewing crisis

Posted on May 31, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 28 May 2015, here).

MALAYSIANS have finally woken up to the cruel plight faced by refugees and migrant workers following the consecutive events of the last few weeks. The most disconcerting has been the discovery of 139 grave sites earlier this week in Padang Besar, Perlis, where not only were detention camps found, there was also evidence of torture – bullets and metal chains near the grave sites.

Although this has set off international alarm bells of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in our own backyard, Malaysians should also realise that such events are nothing new. Refugees and migrant workers have arrived by the thousands over the last decade, most of them under similarly arduous conditions. Tenaganita, an NGO that deals with migrant workers’ rights, claims that the Malaysian authorities knew of the mass graves for years, but little had been done. The bulk of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) caseload is made up of refugees from Myanmar, a large percentage of which are Rohingyas, most of whom have arrived by boat, and they have been processing these cases for years.

What then, accounts for the limelight that is being cast on them this time? Why is there such intense scrutiny only now, and never before? One possible reason is that for the first time, hard evidence has been found in the form of actual corpses buried in the ground, numbering in the hundreds (starting out with the mass graves found in southern Thailand in early May). Prior to this, humanitarian aid workers and NGOs have known of the complex network between traffickers, local villagers and even officials, but no proof was available.

And it is possibly also because the Thai authorities started cracking down on this web that traffickers are said to have abandoned their boat-loads of people coming from Myanmar and Bangladesh, leaving them stranded at sea with no food or water. The silver lining in this dark, dark cloud is perhaps only that with public pressure and attention, the governments involved have no choice but to finally get their act together.

Some of them have come together to work out a temporary solution, where Indonesia and Malaysia are to offer shelter for up to 7,000 refugees (those coming from sea) for a one-year period, while Thailand will provide humanitarian aid to those on the boats. This is good, but not nearly good enough. In dealing with asylum seekers, there are only three possible solutions: first, voluntary repatriation; second, national integration; and third, relocation to other countries.

Given the positions of both the Malaysian and Myanmar governments, the first two have not been workable, although they are preferred options that will only be feasible with political will. Myanmar is hardly going to accept the Rohingyas since their citizenship is not recognised in their constitution, and Malaysia, not being signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, is not willing to cover the costs needed for the refugees’ basic health and educational needs, much less integrate them into Malaysian society. As at the end of April 2015, there are more than 150,000 refugees registered with the UNHCR and there are still others who are undocumented.

Europe is dealing with a similar crisis, where boatloads of West Africans take dangerous journeys to reach the shores of Greece, Italy and Spain. This year alone, 954 lives of migrants have been lost as a result of boats that have sunk. The difference between Europe and Asean is that they have funds to finance whole operations and have a European Asylum Support Office, which deploys teams to process asylum applications. Second, they have laws that recognise refugee protection; the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2012 that “boat people must be given a fair chance to apply for asylum and may not automatically be sent back even if rescued in international waters” (The Economist, April 2015).

Working out a longer-term solution will be the challenge. Countries in Asean have only ever practised the principle of non-interference, preferring instead to focus on economic integration. But brushing under the carpet what can only grow as a deepening crisis will not work any longer. Malaysia, as Chair of Asean this year, has the moral obligation to take leadership and challenge other member countries to share in this responsibility.

In fact, the primary challenge will lie in convincing governments (ours included) that there are in fact socioeconomic benefits to the freer movement of people across the region, both for source and destination countries. Annual remittances make up three times the amount of foreign aid, and movement of people help meet the demand for skills and services in destination countries.

A resolution I helped draft, emerging from an Economic Freedom Network conference on migration put it succinctly, stating that “the freedom to move voluntarily needs to be protected and facilitated”, where amongst other recommendations, “rules and regulations should be simplified and made transparent, reduction in transaction costs will switch migration from illegal to legal channels” and “recruitment agencies should operate in a free, competitive and transparent environment, with proper disclosure and accountability.” The Malaysian legal and regulatory framework needs some severe overhauling in this regard, in order to facilitate migration. Not doing so means people go through shadowy illegal channels, resulting in the crisis we have today.

It was heartwarming to know many Malaysians were concerned about the refugees out at sea, where many are contributing funds and clothes to help those already landed in Langkawi. But to see them as humans with dignity also means acknowledging that such asylum seekers and other migrant workers are peaceful and not out to create sociocultural problems here, as many Malaysians tend to believe. They move in search of better lives and prosperity for themselves and their families. Destination countries like ours should accord such basic access to services including civil and legal rights, and they should not be discriminated against.

Our prime minister has called this an international problem, inviting Japan to provide any assistance it can. An international meeting today will also have international presence, including that of the United States. Certainly, more collaborative help is welcome, especially advice from others who may have previously dealt with this problem. But primary responsibility and leadership need to emerge from our own region. Signing the United Nations Convention would be a first step of many bigger steps to take. We owe it to the hundreds and possibly thousands who, silenced in life, are now also silenced in death.

Posted in Corruption, Human Rights, Public Administration | Leave a comment

On the 11th Malaysia Plan

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

Bloomberg Malaysia interviewed me today on the 11th Malaysia Plan that is due to be tabled in Parliament on Thursday, 21st May 2015. This is the final 5-year plan before Malaysia is due to achieve Vision 2020 five years from now. Here’s what I think.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Debate on the TPPA

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

IDEAS organised a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on 28 March at the Kuala Lumpur Teaching Centre, Nottingham University. It was a rich debate by two gentlemen, both whose views I respect very much. We got the audience to vote both before and after, whether or not they were pro or against economic liberalisation and the TPPA. Members of the audience were asked to vote on whether they supported the TPPA and economic liberalisation. Before the debate, 53% voted yes, 19% voted no and 28% said they were unsure. After the debate, the numbers changed dramatically: 68% voted yes, 26% voted no and only 6% unsure – an increase of 15% for those supportive. Below are some welcoming remarks I gave as an introduction before the session began.

**

Good morning to YB Charles Santiago (MP of Klang) and debater today, together with Dr. Razeen Sally (Chair of Political Economy and Governance at IDEAS, also Associate Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy), Dr. Trevor Parfait, from Nottingham University, Friends from SEANET, Members of the media, friends, ladies & gentlemen.

A very warm welcome to all of you to the TPPA Debate. Thank you for giving up your Saturday morning to be with us.

For those who don’t already know us, IDEAS is an independent, not-for-profit, classical liberal think tank that seeks to promote better public policy solutions in the country, especially in the areas of political economy and governance, and education. We believe in 4 principles and all our work is grounded on these: the rule of law (where all citizens are treated equally before the law), individual liberty (basic civil liberties), free markets (the free movement of goods and services), and limited government (where government should have limited involvement in the people’s daily lives).

We’re also very proud of the two special projects that have emerged, namely our IDEAS Autism Centre for low-income autistic children, and an IDEAS Academy, a secondary-level learning centre for refugees and stateless children.

And SEANET, that you see here today, is the Southeast Asian Network for Development, which is our initiative to spread the same principles that IDEAS believes in to ASEAN countries. And there will be many other activities being organised by SEANET in the future.

I’d like to especially thank Nottingham University, our co-organiser, for the generous use of this hall today. You are fast gaining a reputation for facilitating open dialogue in a country that increasingly represses free speech.

We’re really excited about today’s event, not just because of the nature of the event – Malaysians very rarely like to debate. We don’t like confrontation.

We’re excited because it’s a rare opportunity to bring together people of different opinions when it comes to solving the economic problems of the country.

Malaysia was once known in the region as a “tiger cub economy”, almost but not quite reaching the level of a tiger economy, following its export-driven model of economic development. But after the financial crisis of 1997 growth rates were nowhere close to what we experienced prior to that.

Yes, we were still able to register a 6% growth rate in 2014. Yes, we had a 7.1% growth of private consumption. Yes, we have a RM9 billion trade surplus.

But yet we are riddled with many other problems: a household debt of 86.6%, oil and gas contributes an unsustainable one third to our national revenues, a bloated civil service, weak public procurement practices, all of which are of great concern. Bank Negara recently defended the country’s investment numbers, saying private sector investment accounted for 64% of total investment in 2014.

This may be true, but the 36% of public investment is also a whopping amount. GLCs control more than half the industry share in utilities, transportation, warehousing, agriculture, banking, ICT and retail trade. GLCs account for 36% and 54% of the Bursa Malaysia market capitalisation and the KLCI. This means small traders and companies are being crowded out of the market.

Which brings us to the theme being debated today. The TPPA has been an extremely controversial agreement, namely because there is disagreement on what impacts it will have on the economy. Essentially, will it help or harm our Malaysian economy and its people?

MITI has been accused of being secretive about the agreement’s contents, whilst the most controversial chapters on intellectual property, government procurement and ISDS (inter-state dispute settlements) are still being negotiated, the results of which are rarely discussed in public.

IDEAS and SEANET believe that a market-based economy is better in catalysing growth. But we don’t necessarily have a corporate view on how to do it.

Some of us think that the most ideal agreement would be a unilateral agreement, in which no countries are excluded from the “all boys’ club”, so to speak. Others feel that bilateral arrangements are actually better and a more efficient arrangement between two mutually agreeing nations. In the absence of unilateral trade, some believe the next best bet are multilateral agreements like the TPPA because although it excludes many, those it does include would greatly benefit, from the consumers’ point of view.

Others, like me, feel there are costs and benefits (many of which haven’t actually been measured yet, nor put out transparently in the open for the rest of the Malaysian public) but on the whole, the TPPA would be an opportunity to reform many archaic practices within government that make us sluggish and uncompetitive. But without saying too much more, I am proud that IDEAS and SEANET are able to provide an opportunity and platform for open, rational and most importantly, informed debate.Such space is rare in Malaysia and

I am honoured to have with us renowned individuals to speak both for and against the TPPA.
I have had the privilege of knowing both of them even before I joined IDEAS – Dr. Razeen and I have shared several conversations on the commonalities between Malaysia and Sri Lanka, where he is from. Charles Santiago worked closely with me on the Selangor water negotiations (though I must say cheekily that YB, your constituents are in a port area that depends on trade, no?)

With that, Ladies & Gentlemen. Once again, I warmly welcome you to our first Doha-style debate. If we aren’t able to convince you, let us at least agree to disagree.

Enjoy the show!

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

I had the privilege of giving some introductory remarks recently on 14 May 2015 at the Australian High Commission, with whom IDEAS jointly organised an Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015. 

**

Good morning to HE Rod Smith, PSM, Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia, Participants at the Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015, Friends and Colleagues. IDEAS is very pleased and honoured to be jointly organising today’s forum to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Australia’s diplomatic presence in Malaysia.

We are also honoured to have in our presence today some of the brightest young leaders in various different fields, some students, working professionals, activists, academics and intellectuals.

When I asked around the office what was the first thing people thought of when it comes to Malaysia-Australia relations, the 3 things they immediately said were: Education, Migration and Trade. And how true this is.

If you were to throw a stone anywhere in the Klang Valley, chances are you would hit an Australian graduate. In 2012, an estimated 22,000 Malaysians were enrolled in Australian education institutions onshore, with approximately 21,000 Malaysian and international students studying for Australian qualifications in Malaysia. I, too, happen to be an alumni of Monash University myself (and continue to be involved through the Monash Business School’s Advisory Council).

And of course in the area of Migration: The reality is many of us have relatives and friends who now live in Australia. As at 2011, 116,196 Malaysian-born people live in Australia, an increase of 25.8% from 2006. Family visits, gatherings, reunions, and therefore our shared stories and histories now extend far beyond the borders of Malaysia and into Australian land.

And in trade: Malaysia and Australia signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2012, which came into effect in 2013, which has and will facilitate even greater trade between our two countries, especially in the areas of agriculture, tourism, education, telecommunication and finances. Australia and Malaysia are each other’s 9th largest trading partners, having traded RM31.57 billion worth of goods and services in 2014. 

There are things that we share in common, and just to name a few:

We are both Commonwealth countries with a system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. We both have extremely young populations, where more than 40% of our populations are under the age of 25. We are both negotiating a highly controversial multi-nation trade agreement, the TPPA, with 10 other countries. And finally, our countries are heterogeneous in our ethnicity, religion and cultures, sharing similar challenges

All of these provide us the opportunity to explore how we have each dealt with issues like extremism and intolerance, human rights, freedom of expression, social cohesion, economic empowerment, minority rights and learn lessons from the other.  Some interesting questions I personally would have when thinking of these issues in the context of Malaysia-Australia bilateral relationship are as follows: First, to what extent can Malaysia and Australia together counter regional challenges (trade, security, migration, human rights)? Does each country have respective national interests that may affect the impact of this? Second, how can a deeper relationship be explored between both countries on a range of fronts at varying levels and tracks i.e. not just diplomatic, but on civil society, business and other fronts? Third, what lessons can be learnt from each other, which can be applied in our respective countries? Are there xenophobic realities within each country’s communities that would make it difficult for this to happen?

Today we will be exploring all of these issues in three high-level panels, which I look forward to.

  1. First, on rising extremism: Challenges for Australia and Malaysia where we will discuss how each country approaches the threat of terrorism and how we counter the narrative of extremist groups.
  2. Second, on economic integration and liberalisation. Both Australia and Malaysia are in the final stages of negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (the controversial TPPA). We will discuss the benefits and costs of opening up our trade barriers even further, as a result of the TPPA and other economic integration activities.
  3. Finally, we will talk about how to balance social cohesion with free speech. With Malaysia’s recent controversial amendments to the Sedition Act, how does this bode for freedom of expression? What are the implications of this on national unity?

Thank you once again to the Australian High Commission, participants and friends for being here this morning. I wish us all a stimulating morning, learning from each other towards greater things. Thank you.

Posted in Civil Society, Economics, Outside Malaysia | Leave a comment

The rise of regional politics

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

(First appeared in theSun on 14 May 2015, here).

THE second biggest piece of news emerging from the UK in the last two weeks (the first being the arrival of Princess Charlotte, according to some social media feeds) was not just that the Conservatives were returned to 10 Downing Street in the British elections, but that for the first time, Labour was unceremoniously all but wiped out in Scotland.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) won 56 out of 59 parliamentary seats in Scotland, in a surprise election result defying most pollsters’ predictions. Post-election analysis has varied, but one thing is clear: the face of national politics will rapidly change in the need to accommodate ever-increasing regional demands. The SNP supports and campaigns for Scottish independence, and although the “No” vote prevailed in the 2014 referendum, this is a sign Scotland will now seek even more autonomy than it presently has.

Closer to home, the issues seem to mirror those of Sabah and Sarawak that I encountered during my continuing journey across the country under our IDEAS National Unity Youth Fellowship Programme. During the visits, local community and political leaders we met shared their frustrations with the federal government for being too caught up with issues in Putrajaya and the Klang Valley. In fact, there is a growing sentiment of mistrust among locals against leaders from Peninsular Malaysia, whom they suspect of eroding the constitutional rights of Sarawak and Sabah.

First, both Sabah and Sarawak, despite being two of the richest states resource-wise in Malaysia, have rural pockets that suffer from poor access to basic amenities like water, electricity, and infrastructure. It does not help that in Sarawak, natives are said to have their customary land taken from them and resettled outside of their ancestral riverine areas in unsustainable environments, without appropriate compensation (there are many ongoing court cases), and timber companies responsible for large tracts of virgin rainforest deforestation, allegedly work closely with the political powers that be.

State developmentalism, with its focus on the national industrial vision and cold black and white economic figures and statistics, is seen as disconnected from the aspirations, needs and concerns of the indigenous people, and detrimental to their way of life and cultural identity.

In this regard, the Sarawak state assembly passed a resolution last year to increase the oil royalties paid to Sarawak from 5% to 20% in a bid to increase state wealth. This emerges out of a deep dissatisfaction that the federal government has deprived the state of its rightful access to resources obtained off its shores. Neighbouring Sabahan leaders have also begun to demand the same.

Of course, it is equally important to question both Sabah and Sarawak state governments as to their governance systems and management of internal fund distribution itself. For instance, one academic we spoke to said local Sabahans and Sarawakians, while criticising the federal government, should also not absolve themselves from the responsibility of developing their own states. In addition, allegations of conflict of interest of the previous leadership in Sarawak, raise questions about the propriety of decision-making, in the implementation of the industrialisation aspirations of Vision 2020.

Second, a bigger problem seems to be the exporting of peninsular-style racial and religious politics into Sabah and Sarawak. Many cited religious controversies in Selangor, for example, as having an impact locally, especially cases related to the Malay Bible confiscations, the dispute over the term “Allah” and others.

Communities in Sabah and Sarawak are heterogeneous, and it is not unusual to have an extended family with both Muslim and Christian members. This causes some tension during family gatherings, which would not have arisen otherwise. This is especially the case in Sabah. In February this year, a Christian rubber tapper made news when he was reportedly about to sue his 16-year-old daughter’s secondary school for converting her into Islam without her parents’ knowledge.

In short, any misgivings Sabahans and Sarawakians have towards the Peninsular stem from feeling like they have not been treated as equal partners. Sabah and Sarawak were nation states and therefore separate political entities before they formed Malaysia with Malaya in 1963. Local leaders often quote the 20-point and 18-point agreements (for Sabah and Sarawak respectively) that set out terms for their agreeing to come together, when demanding their rights are restored. In Sabah, these demands are literally carved in stone, in the Keningau Oath Stone.

The irony is that Sabah and Sarawak could provide valuable lessons on unity and social cohesion to us on this side of the South China Sea. They are a patchwork of cultures and ethnic backgrounds, people groups that are extremely comfortable with diversity. Sarawak has more than 40 sub-ethnic groups, while Sabah has more than 30. More importantly, the identities are mixed, where bumiputra are both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Umno Sabah has bumiputra members who are non-Malay, non-Muslim and both. Perhaps someone should remind some Umno leaders that these members do in fact exist.

The relationship between Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak has not always been smooth, but when asked what they think about the future, most leaders replied to say they still believe in a united Malaysia but would like greater autonomy. Yet others are urging for more drastic measures like secession. There are problems that obviously need to be ironed out urgently, in economics (providing jobs, access to education, basic infrastructure), social issues (undocumented migrants particularly in Sabah, native customary land rights, the environment) and politics (building local capacity, fighting corruption and stopping Peninsular-style racial and religious politics from seeping in).

But in the long run, if there were concerted effort from all stakeholders, communities in Sabah and Sarawak would be better empowered, with more developed economic sectors of their own without having to depend on the government. Whether or not a version of the SNP that argues for independence would take off in these states, however, remains to be seen.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Federalism, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Seeking religious shelter

Posted on May 2, 2015 by Tricia

Seeking religious shelter

This was first published in theSun here, on 30 April 2015.

OVER the weekend, I travelled to Kuala Krai in Kelantan, one of the worst hit areas during the December floods. Five months later, many families are still left in limbo as to their future.

Kuala Krai, a two-hour drive from Kota Baru, is the scene of a town recuperating after the devastation. The outer walls of the market were freshly painted a bright yellow, and had just opened a week before we visited. This means that for almost five months, locals would have had to buy their goods from small shops or travel to larger towns for supplies.

One of the families we met at Kampung Embon shared how the only official help they received was a one-off payment of RM500. Apart from this, no other aid was forthcoming from either state or federal government, or NGOs, for the simple reason their village was slightly off the main road. Bulk supply of water was not systematically distributed to all households. In fact, it was individual support from Kuala Lumpur that helped in terms of providing food and basic supplies during the initial crisis period.

Wanting to hear about experiences of those living across the river, we crossed the Kelantan River in small boats and trekked up the slope in search of Pakcik Ahmad. Kampung Keluat is a village of more than a hundred people, accessible only to the mainland of Kuala Krai by boat. There has been a vague promise of a bridge, but to no avail. Schoolchildren and those in need of medical care need to take boats to reach the nearest school or hospital; the only other alternative is to travel two hours to get to the other closest town by land, Tanah Merah.

Several houses by the riverside were swept away. The buildings were especially vulnerable since they were on the riverbanks where the earth had fallen in.

The aftermath is still in plain sight – brick balconies, remnants of what was once a flight of steps, large concrete debris; makeshift toilets that used to be cow sheds; a dangerously precarious kampung house by the ledge being supported by a mere rambutan tree trunk. Makcik Siti had saved up and bought a television set just three weeks before the floods, only to have it destroyed, along with her entire kitchen that was swept away.

It is NGOs that have come to help rebuild some of their homes, but even then these are basic plywood boxes and any extensions or additional roofing would need to be built on their own. Here there is no need for disgruntled disputes as to sources of funding – two organisations separately contribute to temporary housing, Muslim Care and foreign NGOs.

But perhaps the most interesting is that the 100-odd villagers sought refuge at a Hindu temple in a nearby rubber estate, which was on more elevated ground. They stayed there for a full three days without food, and with only rainwater to drink (after which it was safe enough to venture out by boat to look for food). As Muslims, it didn’t seem to matter to them that the shelter keeping them safe was a place of worship of another religion. Entering the temple and sleeping there while the waters receded surely did not shake their akidah (faith).

This is the attitude Malaysians could take when interacting with a different faith. Behaving like selfish children in demanding another place of worship’s religious symbol to be removed is not only an infringement of Article 11 of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and the freedom to practise that religion, but is also a display of insecurity in one’s own faith.

The trip was part of IDEAS’ National Unity Youth Fellowship programme, during which 21 bright young Fellows are taken to visit different states, speaking to local leaders and communities to find out challenges and concerns. Although conversations with the villagers in Kuala Krai hardly broached the subject of national unity, this trip reflected on what was truly important.

It is socio-economic welfare that is of primary concern to those affected by the floods. Getting their lives and homes back in order, better access to schools and hospitals, and having jobs and stable incomes were things I heard from those on the ground most often during the trip (and not once about the importance of implementing hudud law).

And where faith is concerned, places of worship should not only be treated with mutual respect; their diversity ought to be celebrated as part and parcel of what informs Malaysia’s multiple identities. The villagers of Kampung Keluat sought shelter in another’s place of worship because they had no choice. For the rest of us, we have the choice of finding out about other faiths of our own free will, and in so doing learn from other religious teachings or values that would in fact eventually strengthen, and not weaken one’s belief system.

Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

In pursuit of freer trade

Posted on April 10, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 9 April 2015, here.

IT IS significant that Malaysia is chair of Asean this year, at the end of which the Asean Economic Community is to be fully implemented, at least according to the blueprint. The community is premised on the principles of economic inclusion, freer movement and exchange of goods and services among member countries, in the hope it will increase trade and prosperity across the region.

It is upon these same principles that a much more hotly contested agreement is being negotiated by Malaysia, namely the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), together with 11 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

On the one hand, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti), whose officers are negotiating on behalf of the Malaysian government – and who believe in the TPPA – say it is an opportunity to increase national wealth. On the other hand, the TPPA has been labelled as treacherous, in its selling out of national sovereignty in one fell swoop.

In order to shed some light on both sides of the divide, IDEAS held a Doha-style debate. Although we believe that a market-based economy is better in catalysing growth, there is no corporate view on the best way to approach it. For instance, some believe a unilateral agreement would be ideal, in which no countries are excluded from the “all-boys’ club”, so to speak. Others feel bilateral agreements are a more efficient arrangement between two mutually agreeing nations. Yet others believe that the next best bet in the absence of unilateral agreements would be multilateral agreements like the TPPA.

Members of the audience were asked to vote on whether they supported the TPPA and economic liberalisation. Before the debate, 53% voted yes, 19% voted no and 28% said they were unsure. After the debate, the numbers changed dramatically: 68% voted yes, 26% voted no and only 6% unsure – an increase of 15% for those supportive.

Dr Razeen Sally, IDEAS’ chair of Political Economy and Governance (who also hails from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore), spoke in favour of the TPPA and economic liberalisation, while Charles Santiago, the Klang MP from DAP, spoke against it in a series of what became an intense exchange between the two gentlemen.

First, there was concern among the detractors of economic liberalisation that the TPPA would allow corporations to contest national sovereignty. Charles, for instance cited the case in which tobacco company Philip Morris sued Uruguay for compensation, claiming the country’s anti-smoking legislation devalued its cigarette trademarks and investments in the country. Razeen agreed there could be cause for concern, but these are isolated cases and there are ways to include clauses so national policy is not overturned.

In fact, the argument seems to stem from whether or not one believes that nations should be given such all-encompassing sovereignty as opposed to corporations. The question is, which is the more likely to be tyrannical, governments or companies?

Razeen put it succinctly when he said that in such a multilateral trade agreement, countries agree to come together to a common platform to mutually agree that they will follow the same rules, and to limit discretion on what they would normally do on home ground. Nations are saying to investors that “we mean what we say” when it comes to transparency, good governance and the rule of law. If there was indeed a dispute, either party could seek international arbitration as recourse.

This leads to the second point on using the TPPA as an opportunity to reform archaic practices and crony capitalism at home, such as opening up the Malaysian government procurement market, where local suppliers have been protected for decades. Public procurement would once and for all be forced to engage in competitive tenders, transparent procedures and protection of confidential information. Without such reform, public funds would not be used efficiently or effectively.

An important point was raised, that it is not necessarily the multi-national companies that are the bad boys, but government-linked companies that dominate our domestic market. On this note, Bank Negara Malaysia recently defended our country’s investment numbers, saying that private sector investment accounted for 64% of total investment in 2014. While this is true, 36% of public investment is also a large amount.

GLCs control more than half the industry share in utilities, transport, warehousing, agriculture, banking, ICT and retail trade. They also account for 36% and 54% of the Bursa Malaysia market capitalisation and the KLCI respectively. This is likely the reason certain GLCs are adamantly pushing for their businesses to be excluded from the TPPA – asking for special privileges all over again. This, despite already competing internationally with other foreign companies.

Finally, the discussion moved to the issue of healthcare, and whether medicines would become more expensive after the TPPA is signed. The answer itself was unclear, with Charles saying this would be the case, while Razeen stating that the problems stem from domestic issues of healthcare management. He maintained the position that having more competition in the healthcare market and other sectors would ultimately ensure more consumer choice.

In this highly complex agreement that would impact directly upon people’s lives and livelihoods, perhaps what is most crucial is for there to be even more transparency surrounding the documents and negotiating terms. It does not help that we only have access to the papers and its detailed contents via Wikileaks.

The TPPA is so controversial because it strikes at the core of our belief systems: Should the nation-state be all-powerful? Should government procurement be reserved for local suppliers? Would the TPPA destabilise the country’s ethnic balance? Can we really compete if we were to open up to the world? Would the TPPA help us to transform ourselves once and for all into becoming a high-income nation? Would a liberalised, competitive economy make us richer as a nation?

Posted in Economics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment