An Open Letter to Dato’ Seri Najib Razak

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Tricia

First published on the IDEAS website on 4 August 2017 here.

Dear Sir,

Last week you gave an outstanding speech to international investors at the Invest Malaysia 2017 conference. I am sure many were impressed with the economic achievements that have been accomplished to date under your leadership. However, I do believe that some of the facts that you quoted would require some further elaboration. Please allow me to do so, especially since one would not want to provide misleading information to foreigners who may not know any better about this beloved country of ours.

You started your speech saying that you introduced the New Economic Model (NEM) seven years ago at the very same conference, with a plan that has worked and is continuing to work. Perhaps I may remind you that one of the key approaches of the NEM’s economic development plan was to move away from “dominant state participation in the economy” towards “private sector-led growth”. An IDEAS policy paper published last year examined GLC disposal and investment exercises from 2011 to 2014 (after the NEM was published, by the way) and found that the total acquisition value of RM51.7 billion dwarfs the total disposal value of RM29.5 billion – in simple language, GLICs and GLCs combined have acquired far more than they have sold.

Second, you quoted a Bloomberg article which stated that the ringgit is “easily the strongest major Asian currency this quarter”. What you failed to note was that this is considered a remarkable improvement only because the ringgit had recently rebounded from a 19-year low. Anyone who has children studying overseas would know that as recently as January this year, the ringgit had lost about 22% since the start of 2015 and was at that point the worst-performing currency in emerging Asia. In fact, an analyst in the very same article you quote from seems to imply that the recent growth momentum is strongly related to the impending election, and asks “but what happens after it?”

Third, you said that your government is one that is committed to transparency, accountability and good regulation. I, for one, am particularly pleased that you place public importance on the need for these values in your administration. Having integrity and governance units at all GLCs – at both federal and state levels – should certainly be applauded. However, these units are monitored by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, which reports to the Prime Minister’s Department. It is difficult to see how any conflict of interest involving your administration could be avoided if the integrity and governance officers were to uncover a certain wrongdoing within their GLCs placements.

Fourth, you referred to international bodies such as the OECD, IMF and World Bank, all of whom apparently heaped praises onto Malaysia’s glowing economic performance. While the summaries of these reports may have been relatively positive, for which one can certainly be proud of, you failed to mention numerous other instances which are basically big, red flags. These warning signs are indicators that not all is perfect. I say this not with the intention of disparaging my own country – far be it that I would discourage investors from coming in to provide valuable capital for future long-term growth – but to be frank about what it will really take to move our economy forward. Unless we face the honest truth squarely in its face, we will never institute meaningful reforms and merely chug along.

On this note, you quoted IMF as saying that Malaysia is amongst the fastest growing economies among peers. The very same report also highlights that our country’s “federal debt and contingent liabilities are relatively high, limiting policy space to respond to shocks”. Second, it also says that our “household debt remains high, with debt servicing capacity growing only moderately”. These are only two points that I am lifting from the report – if one looks closer, there are serious challenges that may implode over time if left uncorrected.

Similarly, you quoted the World Bank report that states our economy is progressing from a position of strength, but failed to mention that the same report says that risks in the economy “arise from growing threats of protectionism” and that there is a need to “accelerate structural reforms in the economy”. I would advise you to personally read these documents from cover to cover to really understand the conditions of the economy today. In short, there is a need to examine the details and not just gloss over the summaries of these reports, advice I would provide to any investor looking into Malaysia.

Fifth, you deftly talked about how your administration is cracking down on “crony capitalism”, “sweetheart deals” and that there would be no more “national follies kept going to stroke the ego of one man”. I especially like this one, where you say “No more treating national companies as though they were personal property” – brilliant. Let us hope then that the national agencies such as the Attorney General’s Chambers will lend its co-operation to any and all investigations including those from international bodies to assure us that 1MDB will not fall into such a category.

Sixth, you hailed SMEs as the “hallmarks” of your administration as they are the backbone of the economy. You also said that government policies are therefore meant to be business-friendly and pro small and medium enterprises (SMEs). However, the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act (PCAPA) is one such policy that is adversely affecting SMEs. The mechanism poses price ceilings on food and household goods sold at mamak and even small sundry shops. The mechanism to calculate the “right” price is so complicated that some shops have just shut down altogether because they could not afford to pay the fine. There are numerous other examples of regulations that are in fact making it very difficult for the business community to operate, which have been raised regularly at public forums but seemingly in vain.

Finally, Sir, with all due respect, your speech was peppered with many political references, many of which were obviously targeted at a specific individual. I am sure you made your point loud and clear. However, with all due respect, this may have been better said at a platform hosted by your political party – or perhaps out on the road when speaking to your electorate. To have these words uttered at a formal international investment conference may have been considered out of place. Perhaps your speech at the next Invest Malaysia conference could be more carefully worded – for the sake of future investment into this country we both call home.

Posted in Economics, General Politics, Public Administration | Leave a comment

The next govt’s reform agenda

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 20 July 2017, here.

SUDDENLY it is election season again, with political parties optimising on the month-long Raya celebrations to test the waters of which leaders attend whose open houses. Of course, the most significant development of the month has been Pakatan Harapan’s unveiling of its logo – finally – and subsequent events at which its leaders have shown a common front to what seems to be enthralled crowds of all races.

It is indeed positive that Malaysia’s competitive politics continues to display its vibrancy in its many shades. Whether this is sustainable or not is another matter, since the 14th general election does not need to be held until August 2018 at the very latest. The electorate may tire, even if the politicians do not.

But it is important that voters are steadfast in their demands and expectations of political leaders. And there are many, many areas that will require reform – an uphill task for the next government administration.
Some of the main issues that will require immediate attention within the first 100 days of the next government – new or incumbent – are as follows.

First, the government will need to examine its priorities on economics and business. At a recent IDEAS event, the business community stated explicitly that it is because the government coffers are running dry that they are getting squeezed.

New taxes and policies are being introduced with no consultation, with the expectation that they should be implemented immediately. Several examples like the withholding tax (where companies must pay a tax on services rendered by foreign consultants even if the persons in question did not set foot on Malaysian ground) and foreign exchange controls (where Malaysian exporters are required to convert at least 75% of their export earnings into ringgit) were cited as causing them to lose competitiveness. Many feel that these decisions are being made with very little reasonable basis. Perhaps more worryingly, they share the perception that politics dictates policy.

The government certainly has an important role to play when it comes to raising taxes for public benefit and fiscal sustainability. However, to do so at the cost of the business sector – both small to medium and large multinationals are facing these challenges – will be foolish. It is possible to increase government revenues but it must be evidence-based policy-making. Increasing the pressure on businesses might instead have reverse effects.

Another important area is for the government to decide once and for all whether it wants to remain active within the economy or not. In the New Economic Model, the prime minister announced the desire to divest its shares within the private sector. However, the government continues to occupy a large share of the economy.

Government-linked companies employ about 5% of the national workforce while controlling about 36% and 54% of the domestic equity market and market capitalisation of the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index respectively. The bigger the government share is of the economy, the less likely it is that the private sector can compete and be the so-called “engine of growth” that the government continues to say it is.

Second, the next government needs to seriously focus on good governance reforms for institutional independence and creating an environment in which its citizens can truly be free to express themselves and take part in a more democratic process of policy-making. In a recent GIAT (coalition on governance, integrity, accountability and transparency) event in which a Good Governance Agenda was launched, civil society organisations called on political parties to take this up ahead of the next general election.

Five key areas were laid out, namely that parties should reform key institutions such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to make it more independent, reporting to Parliament instead of to the prime minister; as well as to reform the Attorney-General’s Chambers to ensure the separation between the role of the public prosecutor and that of the attorney-general where at present the two roles are fused into one person which presents obvious conflict of interest.

There should be a national-level freedom of information (FOI) law, similar to the existing FOI enactments that the two state governments of Selangor and Penang have. On that note, the Official Secrets Act 1972 would need to be reviewed and certainly amended to ensure that information on corruption can be declassified.

Principles of open data should also be adhered to, especially the Department of Statistics, Economic Planning Unit and in fact, all government agencies and ministries that deal with data.

This means that all information put out on websites should be accessible in raw format and usable by anyone who downloads them, especially for the purposes of improved governance, citizen engagement and inclusive development.

Other areas of governance reforms that are sorely needed include the practice of budget and expenditure transparency – to be done at all levels of government including local council. Public participation should also be included where citizens’ feedback is consulted and considered.

Finally, all political parties ought to publicly declare all forms of income and expenditure. All elected representatives at all levels of government, as well as senior public officials, should also declare their assets, as practised by law in many countries.

There are numerous challenges ahead of the new government. As the country enters the final phase before we arrive at 2020, Malaysians will inevitably ask ourselves whether we are any closer to achieving the elusive developed nation status that we so long aspired towards.

However, perhaps the most difficult to battle will be the need for the government to reform the way we treat each other. At a time when ethnic and religious tensions are on the rise, the true test is whether the leadership endorses or puts to shame organisations that harm inter-ethnic harmony. As long as there remain policies that discriminate on the basis of race, the vision of a united Malaysia will remain beyond reach.

Posted in Economics, Ethno-Religious Politics, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

The untold story of the Teoh Beng Hock case – Final Part

Posted on July 19, 2017 by Tricia

First published on The Malaysian Insight here, on Tuesday 18 July 2017.

THE taxi feels like it is about to fall apart, as Beng Hock’s father takes me for a spin around the neighbourhood in the car that has been his livelihood for most of his life. It is creaky and shabby, as haggard as he and his wife have become in recent years, under the weight of their son’s death.

Inside the home, plain wooden furniture and an ironing board line the hallway. Old photographs of Beng Hock on the wall show him keen and earnest, a young man waiting to take on the world.

I interview the parents Teoh Leong Hwee and Teng Shuw Hoi in 2012, three years after the incident. I spend countless hours going through every report again, trying to pick out inconsistencies the way the lawyers did before. I am haunted by dreams at night – scenes from the funeral displayed on a large screen, a melancholic tune playing in the background.

You feel powerless when you have all of the state’s institutions operating against you.

On January 2, 2010, the MACC lodged a police report against Dr Porntip for allegedly leaking the post mortem report to unauthorised persons. This was following an interview she had given to Suara Keadilan, although the article actually cites sources from within the Ministry of Health.

This was obviously an attempt to further intimidate her and interfere with the due administration of justice, as she was to come one final time to give her testimony at the inquest following the second autopsy.

And it worked: Dr Porntip was reluctant to come to Malaysia. She was upset that she had helped willingly but instead had a report lodged against her. More importantly, she feared getting arrested upon landing on Malaysian soil. I wrote to her many times to persuade her to change her mind. The entire exercise of the second autopsy would come to naught if she did not submit the final report. It would be a walkover.

It was only when the Malaysian Attorney-General cleared Dr Porntip of any wrongdoing that she changed her mind.

But another obstacle came up. The Thai Ministry of Justice would not give her the permission to come. Dr Porntip was actively doing forensic work in the south of Thailand, which included transit to the border of Malaysia. Certain government officials from Malaysia had placed political pressure on the Thai government to block her from entering these areas. Suddenly this became a transboundary issue between two nations, a delicate situation I would be partially responsible for treading on.

We had hit a dead end. For four months, we had tried to negotiate with Dr Porntip but to no avail.

To our surprise, the Malaysian government suddenly became friendly – Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein even offered police protection for her safety. We tried another tactic: how about a video conference where Dr Porntip could be projected over the screen? Possible, but the court kept postponing the dates and there was no further word.

Finally, in July 2010, I received an email from Praew saying the Thai Ministry of Justice had a change of heart, and gave Dr Porntip the approval to attend the inquest in person. My heart leapt for joy – we were reaching the end and there would finally be some answers.

Since the government had offered police protection, we weighed the matter and decided it would be best to take them up on this offer. It was a double-edged sword – there would be protection but equally we could not tell to what extent the police would be cooperative with the state government, given they report back to Putrajaya.

I summoned my courage to meet with the police at the Selangor police headquarters in Shah Alam. The man in charge was large and gruff, grunting his way through the meeting – luckily, I had the foresight of bringing a male colleague with me because this top cop obviously had better things to do than acknowledge my presence. In any case, he agreed. Three policemen would accompany me throughout Dr Porntip’s visit: a special branch officer and two others from the criminal investigation division.

Organising this final visit was like conducting a live performance with multiple stage actors; lawyers, forensic pathology team from Thailand, the national police, our private bodyguard, backup security car from the state government, the Teoh family, and the politicians.

On August 18, 2010, Dr Porntip attended the inquest and gave her final testimony before the judge; that Beng Hock had bruises on the neck, where blood from these contusions extended deep into the muscle beneath the skin. This injury, she said, could have been caused by a blunt object prior to the fall. She said this based on her experience of examining more than 70 cases of a fall from height by suicide, none of which had injuries on their necks.

There were numerous other inconsistencies that were raised during the inquest, which this article was not meant to delve into. But recall that this was the main point of contention: if he had been struck unconscious before he fell, then there was no way it could have been suicide. If he was unconscious as a result of his injuries, then perhaps he was assisted out of that window in an unconscious state. There are some things I cannot say bluntly. But the implication here is clear.

Everything else that happened after that was a blur for me. The police became good buddies of ours and they all wanted photographs with Dr Porntip as we bid the Thai team farewell at KLIA. I remember being overcome by immense relief. For more than a year I had pushed as hard as I could to get a second expert opinion. And at least this, I thought, would turn the tide.

When the coroner, Azmil Muntapha Abas, delivered an open verdict in the inquest on January 5, 2011, I was devastated. I felt emotionally spent – all those months of trying, pushing the boulder up the hill, all gone in an instant.

It was not long after that that I decided to leave the Selangor MB’s office. At that time, I did not know the events were connected but looking back, handling this case might have taken more of a toll on me than I knew.

That was the last of the duties that I performed on behalf of the state government with regards to the case. What followed next is well recorded.

The government-formed Royal Commission of Inquiry conducted hearings for six months before concluding on July 21, 2011 that Beng Hock was driven to suicide due to the aggressive interrogation methods deployed by MACC officers, which caused public uproar.

The state government and Beng Hock’s family had both long withdrawn from the RCI citing inconsistencies in the manner of conducting the RCI (the RCI had independently requested for Dr Porntip to give her testimony, which she did).

But what gave a glimmer of hope was the Court of Appeal’s unanimous ruling on 5 September 2014 that Beng Hock’s death was caused by an unlawful act by a person or persons unknown, including MACC officers who were involved in his arrest and investigation. It ruled that this was a custodial death while under MACC detention. This ruling was a vindication for the entire team that had worked tirelessly on behalf of the family and state government. It was a bittersweet moment.

The ruling also instructed the police to reopen the investigation. But on May 19, 2015, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri said in parliament that the Attorney General found no criminal element involved in the death of Beng Hock after examining the report of the police’s special taskforce.

It was a death that catalysed the MACC to professionalise itself by introducing new standard operating procedures for its interrogations and investigations. And all this should certainly be commended, so that a senseless death like this never again takes place.

However, Hishamuddin Hashim, the person who led the interrogation of Teoh Beng Hock back in 2009, is today the Director of the Special Operations Division at the MACC. I have come to respect many officers of the MACC as most are simply doing their jobs. But I cannot and will not dismiss the wrongdoing of the one or ones responsible for the death of Teoh Beng Hock. Eight years on, we are no closer to finding the truth of what may remain an unsolved case. – July 18, 2017.

* Tricia Yeoh was Research Officer to the Selangor Menteri Besar from January 2009 to March 2011 and represented the Selangor state government in managing the Teoh Beng Hock case.

Posted in Corruption, Personal, Selangor, The Cause | 2 Comments

The untold story of the Teoh Beng Hock case – Part 2

Posted on July 19, 2017 by Tricia

First published on The Malaysian Insight here, on Monday 17 July 2017.

THE air was thick with the smell of incense, grey smoke rising against the green, hilly backdrop of the Nirvana Memorial Park in Semenyih. It was a particularly hot, sticky and sweltering Monday afternoon on July 20, 2009 when Beng Hock’s body was laid to rest, more than 2000 bodies crammed into a large hall as the family prepared its religious rites to say goodbye. Political bigwigs made their presence felt at the funeral, including Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim, and the MB, whom I was accompanying.

Beng Hock was political secretary to the Selangor executive council (exco) member YB Ean Yong from the Democratic Action Party (DAP), so technically we were colleagues in the same state administration. I would see him regularly at the weekly exco press conferences – a tall, fair and lanky fellow with a serious look on his face and documents in his hands.

It was an exciting time for young ones enthusiastic about national reform. The political tsunami of 2008 had taken place just the year before, and suddenly there were numerous job vacancies ideal for politically conscious Malaysians in their twenties.

Selangor was a natural target for Barisan Nasional who had never before lost its prized state. The MACC investigated seven Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen in relation to their use of development funds in their respective constituencies, Ean Yong being one of them. The accusation was that he had paid RM2,400 for 1,500 Malaysian flags used in the Merdeka Day celebrations in 2008, without actually receiving them from the suppliers. Bear in mind that Beng Hock was only the witness and not the suspect when he died in custody.

After the funeral, the real work began of investigating the case. The federal government agreed to conduct an inquest into his death, and announced that a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the interrogation and probing methods used would also be set up.

The first autopsy was conducted by Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar, which concluded that the injuries on the body were “consistent with those that occur due to fall from height”.  Because of the context and nature of Beng Hock’s death, this seemed altogether too simple an explanation and we needed more answers. The report was general and vague, with no elaboration on the wounds found on his body.

The Selangor government appointed Malik Imtiaz Sarwar as its lawyer to represent the state’s interests. In my discussions with him, we decided we should take advantage of Dr Porntip’s previous willingness to help. The inquest began on July 29 at the Shah Alam High Court, and I wrote once again to Dr Porntip to seek her expert opinion and advice based on the evidence we were beginning to gather, which she agreed to provide.

Thus began a flurry of email exchanges between Dr Porntip and myself, her trying to make sense of the case as best as possible from a distance. For the first time in my life I saw photographs taken by the criminal investigation unit of a dead body – graphic, gruesome and bloodied. I was forced to study the basics of forensic pathology and human anatomy, in order to summarise DNA, autopsy and toxicology reports.

The team and I – by this time, the legal team had expanded to include criminal lawyers Sreekant Pillai and Ashok Kandiah – wanted to get Dr Porntip to be present during Dr Khairul and Dr Prashant’s testimony at the inquest, so the right questions could be asked. Her preliminary view as sent to us over email was that there was an area of haemorrhage under the chin that was not compatible with a fall from height, but without seeing the body it was impossible to draw a firm conclusion.

On August 9, 2009, she sent her forensic medicine specialist Dr Triyarith Tehamivong and chief crime scene investigator Pol. Lt. Col. Somchai Chalermsooksant to Selangor, where they conducted a site visit of the crime scene, and observed while tests were being conducted. But by that time so many people had walked in the area that it was difficult to identify anything unusual. They could not add significant value given the constraints.

Back at the inquest, which seemed intentionally draggy, the government pathologist, Dr Khairul, testified that he was certain Beng Hock committed suicide, ruling out homicide, saying that all wounds on his body were consistent with a fall and there were no signs of pre-fall struggle whatsoever. In short, no pre-fall injury indicated that he committed suicide.

This was a direct discrepancy with what Dr Porntip had observed based on the photos. It was time to arrange for her to come personally and attend the inquest, where previously she was preoccupied with work. Finally the stars aligned: on Monday September 14, 2009, Dr Porntip arrived at the Shah Alam court and declared that marks on Beng Hock’s body suggested he had been tortured and strangled. A month later, she came back again on October 21, 2009, for another testimony at the inquest, where she announced that there was an 80% possibility of homicide and 20% chance of suicide, because his injuries were inconsistent with a fall.

Foolishly in my haste, I had not considered any security for Dr Porntip for the first two visits despite how high-profile and politically charged the case was. Travelling to and from locations were just her, her assistant Praew, and myself. On the day of the inquest, we just drove to McDonald’s in Shah Alam and had a simple lunch there. Dr Porntip ate very little, and never touched meat because she said it reminded her of human flesh being dissected.

After sending her and her assistant off at KLIA in October, I was walking back across the hall when suddenly a man took a photo of me with his handphone from a distance. I immediately tried to follow him to do the same to him, but he quickly scurried away.

And then again: as I was moving towards the doorway of Exit 4 of the departure hall a few minutes later, the same man walked by me on the right side in the opposite direction, and muttered under his breath, but clearly enough for me to hear, “Nanti kamu tahu”. I knew this was a veiled threat and hurried to the car waiting for me outside.

I thought little of it and returned to the case.

After Dr Porntip’s revelation in court, the family contacted me via Kerk and indicated that they would be willing to have Beng Hock’s body exhumed for a second autopsy. I felt a rush of relief, but also anxious that the body would not be sufficiently intact for a proper examination after more than three months.

Another rush of activity, this time to arrange the exhumation, second autopsy and reburial: I spoke to Datuk Freddy of Nirvana, who proudly assured me that they had embalmed Beng Hock’s body particularly well because he suspected that the body would need to be seen again.

So it was settled: Dr Porntip would fly in with her assistant, the exhumation would take place on Sunday November 21, 2009, and the body would be transported to Sungai Buloh hospital and kept overnight. The autopsy would be conducted the following day.

It was a bright cool morning when Beng Hock’s body was exhumed. A 30-foot area around the lot was cordoned off by the police. At least ten Chinese Special Branch officers were present, several of whom struck up a conversation with me while waiting under the canopy.

The Fengshui master had advised that nobody should be in bright clothing at the exhumation ceremony. Those born in the years 1924 and 1984 (year of the rat) and 1935 and 1995 (year of the pig) should not be present. For those born in other years of the rat and pig, they would be allowed to attend but not look when the coffin was lifted from the grave and to the vehicle.

There was concern that the body might get conveniently lost while being stored at the hospital, so the family decided to take turns sleeping in front of the mortuary’s door. Everyone was exhausted with little sleep. The autopsy was conducted smoothly, also in the presence of another foreign pathologist, Dr Peter Vanezis, MACC’s appointment. The body was reburied at 10am on November 24.

Having learnt my lesson, this time I had secured a private bodyguard for Dr Porntip. Sure enough, another car followed our car everywhere we went. We had no idea who they were.

It was late at night after a long day of the autopsy. After dinner with the lawyers and dropping Dr Porntip back at One World Hotel in Bandar Utama, the driver was about to send me back to my house. We noticed a man trying to hide from us, ducking behind a van – not a very good spy, I thought.

He got into his car and started following us. I told the driver not to bring me back home yet, since I didn’t want this stranger knowing where I lived. And so we drove on. And on. Up and down highways, speeding round corners, trying to get rid of this nuisance of attempted intimidation. He had halogen headlights on, so we could see his car from miles behind us. 1am, 2am.

Finally, my driver devised a plan. He drove into the Shell station in Shah Alam through its back access road. His “members” were already there, several cars blocking the entrance so the other car would be trapped after following us in. In the meantime, I had arranged for my friend to be there. When my driver said the word “go”, I leapt from the Selangor car to that of my friend’s. The plan worked – we sped off through the back of the station and I was delivered safely home at 3am. – July 17, 2017.

* Tricia Yeoh was Research Officer to the Selangor Menteri Besar from January 2009 to March 2011 and represented the Selangor state government in managing the Teoh Beng Hock case.

Posted in Corruption, Personal, Selangor, The Cause | Leave a comment

The untold story of the Teoh Beng Hock case – Part 1

Posted on July 19, 2017 by Tricia

First published on The Malaysian Insight here on Sunday, 16 July 2017.

“WHAT would you say to Beng Hock if he was alive today?”

Up till this question, Soh Cher Wei, the wife of Teoh Beng Hock, had maintained a chatty and unflappable demeanour. But now there was a pause. A very long pause.

Her eyes averted my gaze. Her expression, seemingly placid moments ago, turned sombre. She tried to smile, but her face quickly sagged. She appeared to be trying so hard to hold it together, not to break the veil of composure.

“If he was still alive, I think we’d be a simple family,” she finally replied, her voice choked with emotion. “I don’t know how to answer. I don’t know what I’d say to him… I don’t know.” She wiped her eyes. “Can we skip to the next question.”

Crickets hummed in the soporific suburbia of Batu Pahat whilst her three-year old son Teoh Er Jia cycled around us in circles, oblivious to our conversation.

This was the only public account that Soh ever gave when asked about her late husband Teoh Beng Hock. I interviewed her as part of “The Rights of The Dead”, a documentary I directed under the Freedom Film Festival 2012, and produced by Pusat Komas. It was an opportunity to tell the story of my ex-colleague from the Selangor state government.

I was the Research Officer for the then Menteri Besar of Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, when I learned the news about Beng Hock’s death on Thursday, 16 July 2009. I was in a daze. My colleagues, press secretary Arfa and communications officer Ginie were in tears at the Menteri Besar’s office. We had just seen Beng Hock the day before at the Selangor state assembly hall.

We were all aides. Beng Hock’s interrogation and consequent death could have happened to any one of us. An impromptu candlelight vigil took place at Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam that evening, where the MACC was then located.

The next morning on 17 July 2009, about 500 people showed up to protest at Plaza Masalam; several people were arrested by riot police. The general consensus was that the MACC was responsible, given that Beng Hock was last known to be at their office – his car keys and handphone taken away from him.

The police had also blocked off the building entrance, allowing only Arfa and myself to enter the building and go to the MACC office. Upstairs, it was equally chaotic. There were unidentified men standing around the hallway, and we could not access any of the officers to speak with to find out more. The MACC doors were locked and nobody was allowed in or out. Frustrated, we went back downstairs to join the crowd.

By this time, I had a growing sense of unease. There were serious questions that needed answers to clear the shroud forming around the way that Beng Hock died.

As the suspicions grew, I felt it was imperative for Beng Hock’s body to have an autopsy conducted by an independent forensic pathologist. (The first autopsy would be conducted that same day by police appointees, which is the standard procedure). I had to speak with the Teoh family directly on this matter.

But I couldn’t speak Chinese. So I reached out to Kerk Kim Hock who was acting as the intermediary between the family and external parties. Kerk was former DAP Secretary-General and former MP of Kota Melaka who also happened to be a relative of theirs.

Kerk told me that he would try to convince the family of the need for an independent autopsy. It was already late morning on Friday 17 July and the body was going to be passed to the family for burial at 5pm the same day. I did not have much time.

I then set off on a frantic hunt for any forensic pathologist who would be willing to do a second autopsy on behalf of the state government. I contacted two local doctors, but although they were personally willing, they said I would need to obtain the approval of their heads of department and Vice-Chancellors first. And since they were both attached to public universities, chances were very slim. Time didn’t permit me to chase after slim chances.

In desperation, I thought perhaps someone from a different country would have a freer hand. I contacted a forensic pathologist from Singapore who declined, worried about negative implications on the relationship between the two countries.

A relative of mine then mentioned that he had watched a National Geographic documentary on a “flamboyant Thai pathologist with funny hair”, but whose name he could not recall. I Googled that exact phrase, and there it was: images of Dr Porntip Rojanasunan with streaks of blonde and red in a punk-rock hairstyle. She became famous after identifying bodies during the 2004 tsunami, and has given controversial conclusions in the past, earning her the nickname of Dr Death. She was also once listed as the most trusted person in Thailand.

Within minutes, through a contact at the Thai Foreign Ministry, I called Dr Porntip, Director-General of the Central Institute of Forensic Science at the Ministry of Justice. I breathlessly explained everything to her. She said yes. She agreed to fly to Malaysia to assist us without any fee necessary (Selangor state covered her flight and lodging). The phone conversation took all of two minutes.

I whooped for joy! Here was someone with the peerless reputation to provide the independent expert view for the second autopsy, and the courage to take on this job out of nowhere.

Things escalated quickly after that. The secretary at the MB’s office signed an official letter inviting Dr. Porntip as representative of the Thai Ministry of Justice to conduct a second autopsy on behalf of the state of Selangor. She would arrive the very next day on 18 July and go directly from KLIA to the mortuary.

But this would not come to pass. At about 7pm, I received a phone call from Kerk. He informed me that it was a no-go. The family did not agree to a second autopsy and Beng Hock’s body would be buried immediately. I was in complete shock. I told him this was a very bad idea. He was truly apologetic but could not change the family’s mind.

I was apoplectic. I understood that this was already a very traumatic time for the family. I understood that Chinese custom dictated the need to show respect to the dead, and let him rest in peace.

But the extremely dubious circumstances of his death demanded that the most grievous suspicions be put to rest. An independent autopsy would do that. And Beng Hock deserved that. I was determined not to let this go.

I called up everyone I thought could help convince the parents: Tan Sri Khalid, Ean Yong, Gobind Singh (the family’s appointed lawyer) and finally, Lim Guan Eng, the head honcho of DAP himself. They emphathised with me, but respecting the wishes of the parents was paramount for them.

I had to accept that.

Upset, I dejectedly left the office drained of all energy. As if on cue, it started to rain heavily. I remember crying all the way whilst driving home. It was an accident waiting to happen. And so it did. Someone from the media called, I looked down at my phone lost in thought and bam – I caused a three-car line-up, a horrid end to the most horrid of days. – July 16, 2017.

* Tricia Yeoh was Research Officer to the Selangor Menteri Besar from January 2009 to March 2011 and represented the Selangor state government in managing the Teoh Beng Hock case.

Posted in Corruption, Human Rights, Personal, Selangor, The Cause | 1 Comment

Reviewing Malaysia’s Corruption Record

Posted on July 10, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 6 July 2017.

NOT many Malaysians are aware that we are a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the first globally binding international anti-corruption instrument. The treaty requires its member countries to implement anti-corruption measures which may affect their laws, institutions and practices, based on a set of international standards.

These measures aim generally at preventing corruption, facilitating international cooperation including asset recovery and promoting accountability and proper management of public property, including domestic and foreign bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence and money laundering.

Malaysia signed the UNCAC in December 2003 during former Prime Minister Ahmad Abdullah Badawi’s tenure, but only ratified the agreement in September 2008.

I recall attending the civil society meetings on the sidelines of the UNCAC conference taking place in Bali in 2007, where Malaysia was only given observer status at the time – there was a sense of anticipation among the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officials that we would be a full member state soon and therefore commit to all the international obligations under the treaty.

Nine years in, how is our performance today?

As far as corruption perception is concerned, not very well. Malaysia fell yet again in the most recent Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2016, dropping in rank from 54 out of 168 countries (scoring 50 out of 100) in 2015 to now ranking 55 out of 176 countries (scoring 49 out of 100). Transparency International’s other survey, the Global Corruption Barometer, saw 60% of Malaysian respondents saying that the level of corruption had increased, while 53% felt the government was ineffective in handling the fight against corruption.

But surveys are surveys – a perception measurement tool. A more accurate representation of whether a country’s laws and policies are up to par, including in its application of them in reality, may be to compare against an international instrument such as the UNCAC.

This year, Malaysia is being reviewed by international experts appointed by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC, under which the UNCAC is administered) on how far it complies with two particular sections under the treaty, namely the chapters on prevention and asset recovery.

The process review can be rather complicated, but in short: MACC being the appointed agency by the government conducts a self-review, and also compiles feedback from relevant third parties (like government agencies, statutory bodies or external entities) depending on the nature of the article that is under review. The feedback is then submitted to the international reviewers, who provide their own comments, questions and remarks. More comments are given by the stakeholders. Finally, a panel of international reviewers conducts a series of consultations through country visits.

This time, the MACC invited several civil society organisations that work on governance and anti-corruption issues to provide responses on one of the UNCAC articles, namely that on how society participates in the efforts to combat corruption in Malaysia.

It is a positive sign that external stakeholders are being brought in to provide honest feedback and it is hoped that this partnership can be a continued one, since combating corruption does require concerted effort from all parts of society.

While a review process is important, what is even more imperative is for the host country to be open in receiving these comments – with the ultimate goal of improving the anti-corruption institutions, laws and policies that govern us. In fact, it is hoped that MACC and the government will receive the final review report and its accompanying recommendations, and make it available for public viewing.

For instance, as stated above, one of the chapters under review is “asset recovery”, which is aimed at returning assets to their rightful owners, including countries from which they had been taken illicitly.

This is an interesting coincidence, given that the US Department of Justice is actively seeking at present to recover more than US$1 billion in assets, which it says are associated “with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated” from a strategic development company.

The response from the Malaysian authorities has been unsurprising, but nevertheless thoroughly disappointing. Despite MACC’s best efforts at fighting corruption, this will be undermined by a lacklustre and regressive mindset from among their government department counterparts.

What this means is simple: even with the best laws and policies set up, this matters little if the implementation is left severely wanting.

Although many do criticise the UN and its various agencies and treaties as moving much, much too slowly for significant progress to be made, there is certainly some value to be had. In our country’s case, for instance, this year’s country review report and recommendations will be extremely useful for civil society and independent academics to see how far Malaysia falls short by international standards.

Civil society can also learn from the successes of other countries’ civil society organisations in how they placed pressure on their governments when it came to corruption at the highest levels. For example, one strategic partnership that would be most useful to Malaysia would be the joint World Bank and UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative. Apart from these, there are numerous manuals, tools and training materials available on the website, freely accessible for anyone interested in training younger Malaysians on the importance – and the how-to – of fighting corruption.

This column has stated, and I now reiterate, that public administration corruption ultimately leads to a reduction in the amount of public funds available for developing the country (think: better quality education and healthcare). That should be the real reason anyone cares.

Anti-corruption work is long and laborious, but it deserves better attention – and perhaps learning how Malaysia’s record stands based on this year’s UNCAC review is another step in the right direction.

Posted in Corruption, Outside Malaysia, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Taxing federal-state relations

Posted on June 28, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun here, on 22 June 2017.

Earlier this month, the Sarawak state government decided to quit the Malaysian Tourism Board, following the federal government’s introduction of a new tourism tax that would affect all hotels across the country, stating it already had its own Sarawak Tourism Promotion Board. The Sarawak tourism minister claimed that the tourism tax introduced at the federal level was done without prior consultation with the state government. The Sabah tourism minister responded similarly, saying they did not agree with the proposal.

These reactions initially seemed ridiculous to those who were following the passage of the Tourism Tax Act 2017 in Parliament in April this year, since most Sabah and Sarawak parliamentarians did not register their objections at the time. Parliament is the most appropriate avenue for elected representatives to air their disagreements with a certain piece of legislation, and they should have surely blocked it there and then instead of allowing it to pass and much later be disgruntled about it.

It is certainly the responsibility of parliamentarians to represent their constituents’ views in the august house, but according to the Sarawak tourism minister, the Bill was brought up hastily and it was the last of eight bills debated in Parliament at 5am. If this is true, it does beg the question of whether parliamentary procedures should be refined and hence, whether the Speaker ought to consider a more reasonable time and manner in which new bills are brought up for debate and passage.

That said, this incident is the latest in characterising what has become a rather strained relationship between East and West Malaysia, or perhaps more accurately between the Sabah and Sarawak state governments, and the federal government. In this particular case, it also presented a potential legislative conflict.

Although tourism falls under the “Federal List” in the ninth schedule of the federal constitution which sets out the different jurisdictions of each level of government, meaning that the federal government has complete say in anything related to tourism, at the same time ‘lodging houses and hotels’ come under the purview of the Sarawak and Sabah Local Government Ordinance 1961 Section 49(46)(i) that will be subject to the taxes imposed by the federal government.

To reiterate what has already been widely discussed in public, this new tourism tax will take effect on 1 July, and all forms of hotel accommodation nationwide will charge between RM2.50 and RM20 daily. Both Sabah and Sarawak are popular tourist destinations for both local and foreign visitors and would naturally feel that the tax would affect their competitiveness vis-à-vis neighbouring cities. The tourism sector plays a major role in the economies of both states, contributing an estimated 9 to 10% to their state GDPs separately, and this has been expected to grow further.

In fact, some argue that this would be a duplication of tourism taxes imposed on industry players. The Sabah government, for example, already collects a similar tax – all municipal councils in the state including the Kota Kinabalu City Hall impose between RM40 and RM140 per month per room for hotels based on their occupancy. This is also the case in other state authorities like Penang, Langkawi  and Malacca, all of which also have levies for tourist accommodation.

The tax will likely affect the tourism sector of Malaysia as a whole, which economists and policymakers should take seriously. Tourists are sensitive to changes in price, and they would invariably look to other destinations if costs increase too rapidly. For the hotel and lodging industry, this is an additional unnecessary cost to business, which they would find increasingly difficult to manage in an already tough economic climate.

In the case of East Malaysia, this incident has given cause to the Sarawak tourism minister to urge the federal government to respect the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the document that outlines the rights to be accorded to both states at the time of Malaysia’s formation. Although nothing in the agreement explicitly mentions tourism, the 18-point agreement (for Sarawak) and 20-point agreement (for Sabah) spell out the rights to safeguard the autonomy and special interest of the two states.

In his personal correspondence to the British Prime Minister, Lord Cobbold,  who led the committee mandated by Malaya and Britain to explore the possibility of merging North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore with Malaya, expressed concerns that “Kuala Lumpur might make a mess of the Borneo territories in the early years” (9 March 1962). To the East Malaysians, Lord Cobbold may have suspected right, and not just in the early years.

Although the spat over the tourism tax has apparently been resolved at the Cabinet level, the recent incident opens a very public window into the sometimes uncomfortable relationship between East and West Malaysia. More urgent and immediate to address, however, is the duplication at federal and state levels. Some questions that the federal government will need to address for the sake of the hotel industry’s business competitiveness and survival in the immediate future are: Are visitors to hotels going to be taxed twice for the same room on a single night? Have forecasts been done on how this will affect the tourism industry and tourist arrivals into the country, and what do the numbers say? Finally, how will this affect Sabah and Sarawak specifically, whose local economies depend heavily on tourism?

Posted in Economics, Federalism, Public Administration | Leave a comment

Long road to university autonomy

Posted on June 10, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 8 June 2017 here.

LAST week, the minister of higher education said that Malaysia’s public universities are expected to record a rise in the QS World University Rankings this year. If this is true, then congratulations are due to the public universities concerned.

However, at an IDEAS National Higher Education conference last month, it was raised that international rankings alone may not be a fully comprehensive methodology of evaluating universities. International rankings do add value, and are an excellent tool in guiding students who are searching for potential universities for their subjects of interest, but one must admit they have limitations as well.

The QS World University Rankings, for instance, takes into consideration six factors: academic reputation, student-to-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, employer reputation, international faculty ratio and international student ratio. However, this might put undue pressure on universities to increase the international faculty staff members or international student intake regardless of the individuals’ quality – bumping up the scores and “gaming” the system, so to speak.

More important for the Malaysian context, nowhere does the methodology state that it takes into consideration the level of autonomy that universities exercise vis-à-vis the governments of their respective countries. This also applies to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (which measures teaching, research, citations, international outlook and industry income).

This means that even if Malaysian public universities score well on all of these counts, in both rankings, it may still not address the elephant in the room, which is namely: the fact that our public universities still do not enjoy a level of real autonomy in both academia and administration. It is understood that the Ministry of Higher Education is attempting to gradually change this, which must be supported, but one hopes these will truly bear fruit in the long run.

An IDEAS report distributed at the conference quoted from an older report produced by a committee set up in 2005 to examine the direction of higher education in Malaysia, then chaired by Tan Sri Wan Zahid, which had among its many recommendations for the universities’ constitutions to enable professors to choose their own staff to join the universities’ Senate; to delegate all decision-making on university and management policy to the university’s board; and to ensure the appointment of all vice-chancellors is done openly and competitively to select the best candidate. The three that I quote here have yet to be implemented.

The lack of university autonomy is not new, and can be traced back to the passing of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) in 1971 and its more damaging amendments subsequently in 1975. Since then, the autonomy and independence universities once enjoyed pre-1971 have never been fully restored. Dr Wan Chang Da writes in his paper that a circular in 2016 from the Ministry of Finance stated that the vice-chancellor would have to seek permission from the board of directors, secretary-general of the Ministry of Higher Education and the chief secretary to the government to travel abroad for official duties. All other university staff would have to seek the permission of the vice-chancellor, board of directors and the secretary-general to travel.

Some public universities have been granted “autonomous” status, but they are still subject to the same governance framework as the civil service in salary, promotion criteria and procedures. As Wan writes, universities are not allowed to decide how to allocate funds and research grants and need to adhere to the procurement and financial procedures laid out by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury. Perhaps most importantly, the appointment of vice-chancellors is still not based on merit and lies at the discretion of the minister of higher education.

What is essential ultimately is that any attempt to make universities more autonomous needs to be accompanied by the necessary amendments to legislative and policy frameworks of higher education. This means that the UUCA would need to be amended to state clearly what kind of autonomy it is that is being granted to public universities. Spelling it out would make the governance structure and systems for public universities very clear, which we all know bureaucrats need to execute any policy.

Closely linked to the lack of university autonomy is that of academic freedom. Without the independence of a university’s leadership, how likely is it that they would stand by its academic staff when they pursue research projects, teach or publish papers that are considered “sensitive” to the government? Do academics in our universities have the freedom of inquiry to pursue scholarly work regardless of whose toes it steps on?

Most recently, Michael Ignatieff, rector and president of Hungary’s Central European University, wrote a long and powerful piece about what academic freedom means – especially now that his university is under attack and fighting to remain a free institution (a new piece of legislation has just passed that would require it to close). He says that those who believe in universities must proudly affirm that our freedom is not a privilege but a right that has been earned, “when we serve truth and knowledge on behalf of societies we serve”.

However, he admits that academic freedom depends on the health of democratic institutions. The question for Malaysia would be precisely this: do we have strong institutions such as free media, independent judiciary and enforcement agencies that protect the country’s citizens above all? Without the right political culture, it would be a tremendous challenge to pursue university autonomy and academic freedom.

Ignatieff hit the nail on its head when he said that “those who do not fight for their freedom will lose it”, which he admits is a cliché about freedom, but nevertheless true. Malaysia’s public universities lost their autonomy 46 years ago. Will freedom be regained?

Posted in Education | Leave a comment

A tougher business environment

Posted on May 30, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 25 May 2017, here.

THIS time of the year is when the Treasury begins its consultation process, collating feedback to prepare the annual budget to be tabled in October, for the following year. Over the next few months, industry representatives will submit their views and recommendations to the Ministry of Finance and then wait till the parliamentary announcement by the prime minister.

Those who have made these submissions over the years will often wonder whether these proposals are taken seriously or not, as there is no mechanism by which the government provides a response on whether they would be included. While it is true that there are consultations by the government, it often feels like these are done for perfunctory reasons and that the ministry already has its new policies ready to be implemented regardless of the feedback.

This year, those drafting budget policies ought to take a closer look at the business environment.

In the World Bank Doing Business Report 2017, Malaysia’s rank fell by one notch to 23rd place out of 190 economies. This was due primarily to two indicators, namely “Starting a Business” and “Paying Taxes”. Last year when the report was newly launched, Pemudah (a taskforce to facilitate business) announced that it was setting up a focus group on paying taxes to identify and adopt best practices to improve Malaysia’s performance in this specific area, where we rank 61st, much lower than our overall rank. Perhaps this group may want to expand its scope and look at other areas of taxation policy, especially as this seems to be creating new challenges for businesses.

An English daily reported that more manufacturers are moving out of the country citing the different operating environment, chief of which was the rising cost of doing business due to the implementation of government policies and a lack of regulation on certain fees. This is a worrying trend, especially if other multinationals begin to feel the pinch as well.

An Ideas policy paper gave an example of how governments that tax too highly tend to lose out because eventually consumers switch to illegal products and this results in a loss of revenue. A good example is the cigarette market in Malaysia where one out of every two packs smoked today is illegal, which has in turn put pressure on the legitimate businesses.

When this occurs, the government would not be able to achieve its policy objectives on two counts: first, it does not satisfy its health objective (since people turn to the unregulated, illicit and cheaper cigarette) and second, it does not even fulfil the fiscal objective (since revenue collection falls instead of increasing). But this can apply to other sectors too if they were to be so highly taxed that it reaches the revenue maximising point in what is called the Laffer Curve. This is the point at which government is able to collect the modest amount of money necessary to fund its legitimate functions.

But governments have a role to play in managing the country’s finances. However, the challenge always lies in finding the right balance; that sweet spot that allows an ideal ratio, to opt between collecting higher revenues to provide better public infrastructure versus not chasing away businesses and potential investors. Even the classic “Sim City” online game’s planning guide suggests an ideal tax rate that will “not make Sims happy or sad, but will generate the most revenue with the least impact”.

More specifically, taxing a company highly essentially punishes it for the investment and production that it undertakes. In the paper, economist Dan Mitchell states that “high tax rates on multinational companies … are ill-advised since such firms have considerable discretion over where to conduct their operations”. He argues that a country with “a burdensome tax regime is less likely to enjoy strong economic performance”, and cites the economic stagnation in many European countries as grim evidence that “excessive taxation imposes a very heavy cost”.

As the Treasury prepares the national budget, it is hoped that policymakers take cognisance of the potential impact of its proposed tax rates and other rules imposed on businesses. If the multinationals are not able to cope, one wonders how the small and medium enterprises are managing. What is the business environment like for any business owner? Have government rules served to ease and smoothen operations to promote growth and competitiveness, or have they become more stifling?

If the latter is true – and a larger, more extensive survey of businesses would be needed to qualify this – then it is time for a review of the rules that hamper businesses from flourishing. It is not merely about the survival of businesses in Malaysia. Essentially, it is about freeing the enterprising, entrepreneurial spirit that lies at the heart of our economy. It is about promoting investment, innovation and creativity, not punishing these traits – above and beyond grand motherhood statements spouted by politicians.

If the Malaysian business spirit falters as a result of relentless bureaucratic rules, and with it the economy, this will come to the detriment of our collective future and that of future generations. For the next budget cycle, one hopes that wisdom prevails.

Posted in Economics, Liberalism | Leave a comment

Reviewing Malaysia in Troubled Times

Posted on May 16, 2017 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 11 May 2017, under the title of “Let’s start with income distribution”, here.

“THE absence of good institutions and transparency in public undertakings, government procurement, and … the design of public policy has the potential to shake investor confidence” is how economist Shankaran Nambiar sums up the macroeconomic conditions of Malaysia.

In his latest book, Malaysia in Troubled Times, which compiles Nambiar’s articles in newspapers between 2014 and 2016, he deftly articulates his positions on issues. He grapples mainly with the question of “where is the economy headed towards”, which he asks numerous times across his pieces, an evident sign of his deep concern over the trends taking place in the country.

Nambiar articulates what many observers of Malaysian issues have struggled with: despite our economy not hitting negative growth, not being in danger of defaulting on sovereign debt and the fact that the central bank having adequate reserves to cover shortfalls, he states clearly that yes, indeed, we should still exercise great caution with respect to the Malaysian economy.

And why so? Various pieces indicate why observers should be worried – an outflow of foreign funds, the sharp decline of oil prices, which has in turn led to a growing federal fiscal deficit, and … “doubts on the efficacy of government linked companies”.

The challenges facing Malaysia stretch beyond our borders, and here Nambiar wades through regional waters to help readers understand the dynamics behind the now-dead Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Regional Cooperation Economic Partnership, and the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, which he highlights is indicative of China flexing its muscles in the region.

Malaysia, he says, “has a special, valuable relationship with China, which places it in an excellent position to help establish a stable security landscape in the region”. Of course, the “special relationship” we have with China would now be interpreted in a very different light today, given the many bilateral deals Malaysia has now signed with China. Apart from arguing for how Asean can build itself up as a stronger regional pact, it is also refreshing that he brings in Asean-India economic ties and goes on to push for greater Malaysia-India improvements in trade and investment, which apparently our neighbours Singapore and South Korea have put a lot more effort in than we have.

Above all, Nambiar is a faithful believer of Keynes, whom he quotes several times in the book, saying that “positive expectations and ‘animal spirits’ spur aggregate demand and economic growth”, and that “at the moment it seems that the animal within the economy is wounded”. He cleverly works his critique of the economy through metaphors such as these, but stops short of blatantly dismissing any efforts being made by policymakers to improve the economic conditions of the country. He could also have done more in providing solutions to what he considers to be ailing our economy.

Despite the nuanced tone of his writings, it is clear that he harbours silent frustration with public policies and their implementation in Malaysia. Although the book focuses mainly on technical economic matters, Nambiar also ventures into “getting the big picture right”. He questions Malaysia’s dismal performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). He emphasises the importance of good public transport, education, human resource development and healthcare. And perhaps most importantly, he questions whether our politicians and policymakers are truly connected with the economy “as experienced by traders, technicians, taxi driver and executives”.

It is now almost two years after one of Nambiar’s pieces titled “Do we need to create scenarios for a future Malaysia?” and yet it seems even more imperative to do so today. With the elections near, this is what policymakers ought to do. And if they are not, then citizens ought to instead, and demand that their representatives pave the way for the right future to actuate.

An imagined future has to be one that, Nambiar argues, goes beyond motherhood statements like “being united in diversity and sharing a common set of values and aspirations” that he considers merely “dreamy visions of the future”. One has to concretely build scenarios based on concrete issues such as income distribution, incorporating input from a “constraint approach” (what are the stumbling blocks?) as well as a “global basis approach” (how does Malaysia fit into this matrix based on global trends?).
It is on this note that the book hits the nail hard on its head. Nambiar’s voice that constantly urges and pushes for the creation of the “spirit of this big picture” reminds us that simply, there is none of this presently that so inspires. His is a thoughtful, objective and incisive perspective of a nation that could be much more – and his desires for a better, more productive, wealthy Malaysia are evident.

Policymakers and politicians serious about addressing challenges to the Malaysian economy would benefit from a thorough reading of Nambiar’s book. They should also take heed of his advice that in thinking of the long-term, they must be “realistic about the present state of affairs”. This would be a good first starting point.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration | Leave a comment