Thursday, May 20, 2010

Without NEM, M'sia already 10th most competitive nation

In one private engagement between Tan Sri Amirsham Aziz - the so-called Malay Chairman of the NEAC but allowed minority and foreigners to overwhelmed the NEAC membership, he said that New Economic Policy (NEP) was the reason that Malaysia lost it's competitiveness.

This is the same position taken by all Chinese based political party and think tank, IMF/World Bank inclined opinion makers, and Anwar Ibrahim in his "Harapan Baru Untuk Malaysia" Economic Manifesto produced before 2008 General Election.

Amirsham was not thinking independently and analytical in his Chairmanship of NEAC for his is regurgitating the views of others. Using that stand on NEP, NEAC proposed the New Economic Model to the Government.

All form of affirmative actions and Article 153 based NEP like assistance was removed. There was initially no mention of Bumiputera and affirmative action in the whole NEM document until Perkasa call pressured the Government to "reinstitute a market based and transparent affirmative action" back into the model.

The NEM has yet to start and the economy is still running from the remnants of NEP and NDP but Malaysia was reported to have jumped up 8 notches in terms of competitiveness to emerge in the world's top 10 competitive nation.

The Bernama report today, May 19, 2010:

Malaysia Jumps Eight Notches To Emerge World's 10th Most Competitive Nation

KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 (Bernama) -- Malaysia has emerged the world's 10th most competitive nation from 18th previously, a remarkable jump brought on by significant improvements in economic performance due to a host of factors such as influx of quality investments, pragmatic government policies and low risk political instability.

In giving Malaysia high marks and propelling its position by eight notches, the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in its World Competitiveness Yearbook 2010, said other telling factors were its effective implementation of government decisions, mainly attributable to the able stewardship of the economy by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Also commendable was the adaptability of government policies to economic changes, it said in apparent reference to the RM67 billion stimulus package unveiled by Najib, who is also Finance Minister, to mitigate the economy from the global slowdown due to the fallout from the US subprime credit crisis.

Najib's unveiling of the New Economic Model (NEM) aimed at transforming the nation into a high-income economy has been able to sustain and position Malaysia on the right path towards attaining developed nation status by 2020 also was a strong feature of the adaptability of government policies to changes in the economy.

The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) is the world's most renowned and comprehensive annual report on the competitiveness of nations, ranking and analysing how a nation's environment creates and sustains the competitiveness of enterprises.

It also said in the first 10 places, Australia was at fifth spot, Taiwan at eighth and Malaysia at 10th placing, benefited from strong demand in Asia and implementation of efficient policies.

"The three nations rank very well in government efficiency," the IMD said.

Malaysia was also ranked highly, thanks to what IMD said was the strong resilience of the economy to (down) cycles, sufficient transparency among financial institutions and government bureaucracy not being a hindrance to business activity as evident from the rapid expansion in the economy over the past year.

After languishing from the global economic crisis, the economy recovered in fourth quarter of last year by 4.4 per cent and even more remarkable by a 10.1 per cent in the first quarter of this year.

Among Malaysia's strength which ranked it to the top was its economic diversification and exchange rate while for current account balance it was ranked second and third for exports of goods.

The competitive cost of capital, which encourages business development, the ageing society not being a burden for economic development and unemployment legislation providing an incentive to look for work were also strong points of the econony.

The good news for corporate employers in Malaysia was that competent senior managers were readily available in the country, corporate boards supervise the management of companies effectively while entrepreneurship of managers was widespread in business.

Malaysia also continued to intensify life-long learning and nurture a talented workforce while it also drove productivity and competitiveness through creative and innovative mindsets.

The IMD also said the transparency of government policies was satisfactory, having improved from 3.94 per cent to 5.98 per cent, while protectionism was not a factor in Malaysia's economy as it did not impair the conduct of business.

It said the high rating was also due to quality investments which strengthened the economy and action to groom the small-and medium-sized enterprises for global competition.

Improvements were made in other areas including corruption, bureaucracy, transparency, political stability, long-term unemployment, corporate debt and consumer price index.

In sub-sector rankings, Malaysia topped in financial institutions transparency and low risk factor in financial institutions.

Malaysia's financial sector remained resilient despite the meltdown in the US and Europe financial sectors, having managed to strengthen further its presence in the financial landscape especially in Islamic finance and banking.

Malaysia is now a world leader in Islamic finance, capital market and takaful industries and there is huge potential to become a hub for integrated Islamic financial services.

For instance, Bank Negara Malaysia was currently finalising the establishment of a physical Islamic financial centre and the imminent approval of two mega Islamic bank licences.

The ringgit, at a high of 3.1 to a US dollar, has been the strongest performing emerging Asian currency against the greenback so far this year, gaining more than seven per cent on the country's strong growth prospects.

It also appreciated against the euro by 19 per cent against the euro and 16 per cent compared with the pound.

For public and private sector ventures, funding for technologies, science in schools and high technology exports, the country was ranked fourth best, the IMD said.

The IMD said science in school was sufficiently emphasised.

Under the government efficiency sub-ranking, Malaysia was ranked second for capital cost as there was support for business development.

It was also ranked second for adapting government policies to changes in the economy.

The IMD however did point out some weaknesses in its ranking for Malaysia, including high government subsidies to private and public companies as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, redundancy costs, government's budget deficit and high number of procedures to start a business.
One wonders whether NEAC got their analysis right or is influence by personal prejudice of its members?

Malaysian economic was robust during the NEP days. Stock market was booming. Investment was abundant. Business ideas was flourishing.

The notion that NEP was the reason Malaysia lost its competitiveness was absurd. It was during the NEP era that all Malaysian enjoyed peace and prosperity. Although NEP was meant to revive the economic sector of the Bumiputera, the non Bumiputera benefited along from the growth driven NEP.

Unlike the NEM, which is too focus on business sector needs, the NEP was a more wholesome economic policy that meets and covers the social, political and security aspect of the nation.

Did Amirsham tried to coverup Abdullah's economic fallacies by blaming it to NEP?

It was during Abdullah's era that he clamped down on spending and personally halted economic growth. His policy and inability was reasons investment fell sharply. There was sufficient money but he refused to spend on strategic projects already planned.

He claimed there was no money and blamed on dr Mahathir's administration but it turned out RM290 billion spending of Petronas money could not be answered. Abdullah diverted money into the unproductive economic corridors.

And, Amirsham wasted billions of Maybank money into the overly priced BII. He didn't even dare answer to Lim Guan Eng's question in Parliament on Maybank when he was Minister.

Thus, it is really not about NEP but more of incompetence, isn't it? The Cabinet should seriously restudy NEAC's proposal.


Anonymous said...

"Without NEM, M'sia already 10th most competitive nation"


ALSO, LIKE DR. MAHATHIR JUST RECENTLY SAID " The government must facilitate and foster homegrown entrepreneurship. Malaysia has a vast talent bank of business and managerial talent. Many may have left our fair shores. But, many more remain. These are the talent pool that needs to be encouraged and given the opportunities.

Dependence on FDIs will only make us a nation of employees."


Anonymous said...

what you want our good for nothing cabinet members to discuss about this???do you think they have the brain power or even a will to discuss intellectually???i have doubts with this peoples...

kay rule

Wake UP! said...

Tan Sri Amirsham Aziz - the so-called Malay Chairman of the NEAC but allowed minority and foreigners to overwhelmed the NEAC membership.

Therefore, can we trust NEAC's statement? The majority in Malaysia that needs help economic wise are the Malays.

Hooliganism of DAP supporters

Anonymous said...



Tun Faisal Ismail bin Aziz said...

This is when you put some1 who doesnt hv full understanding of gov policy in such post. sttment tht NEP is a failure, has made our economy less competitive are very misleading. hv we forgotten how we were regard as 1 of the upcoming tiger nations of asia during tun M's time? if we hv a person like ths to advice n design NEM, can we trust him?

paktam said...

Since we are talking about economy, I would like to share my worries the way things are going.
1-Sovereign International Sukuk: All this while the government borrowed money, lots of them internally, thus only the local rating agencies are involved. Hopefully these agencies are not run by foreigners. Recently upon suggestion from poeple in the US the PM announced that Malaysia should borrow internationally, to guage it rating. Now these sukuk will be rated by international agencies, who in turn make money from their bankers employers in the form of fees. In other words, these agencies earnings depend on the subscribing banks, thus the banks interest will be their main concern! No matter they claim otherwise. What happened if the bank wants Malaysias sukuks rating dropped, in order to earn more money, and the rating agencies complied. Then the cost of borrowing of these sukuk will go up, making the government lose a lot of money to service them. Is this the price to pay just for having 'good feeling'? ( On other aspect this is masturbation) What if more borrowing are made externally? Then Malaysias economy will become like Greeces economy!
2-Malaysias shares index and its vitality: Malaysia has not catch up with its Asian neighbours in terms of security market advancement. Recently after visiting the US PM announced that GLC should sell more of its share to the market to make the share market having greater vitality. Then, Petronas announced that its subsidaries are going to issue IPO with JP Morgan (the blood sucker) as one of its advisers. Share are sold to gain access to capital so that a company can expand. Shareholders in turn are rewarded in terms of bonus for their participation. Two questions begs answers. a-Why choose JP Morgan when Malaysias Commercial banks are able to do the job? This entails out flow of fund. Whose interest will JP Morgan cares for? The US banks? b-Does Petronas needs money to expand in the country, to the point that it has to raise capital?. Why not borrow money from the bank in the country in which it operate? Many good economic practitioners adviced that a country cannot privatise its resources, mainly because the government has to have control over it, so that the countries wealth can be used for the good of it citizens, not profit per se, as what a private sector will do. So to manage countrys resources efficiently, comparable to its private sector counter part, khazanah is formed. Tun Mahathir has place a lot of good tools in the market, for the good of Malaysians. Why change status quo? Have PM and its advisers look at its long term implication? Will country resources eventually be in private sectors hands, and then fully in foreigners control? Singapores Government Investment Agency will love it. Why bother about share index when we have good liquidity. Is this another feeling good project?

A Voice said...


It go nothing to do with truth or falsehood.

You are just not welcome here.

Business Out of The Mind said...

On the fair thought, Malaysia did have introduced some good policy and strategy during Tun Mahathir or Tun Abdullah time, though may not be perfect answers to some pertaining problems.

Unfortunately, the key factor which lead to pertaining issue and weak-link of Malaysia today is the damned poor execution wills and knowledge of government ministers and officers, and over-sized highly inefficient government organization.

Non-partisan said...

This WJK is just a nincompoop of the highest degree. Even without reading his unpublished response, I can more or less make a conjecture as to what he has to say on TDM and his policies.

Tq for making him unwelcome to your blog. His mind, heart and eyes have been totally blinded by his hatred and strong anti-TDM sentiment for reasons best known only to a stupid and unrepented fool like him.

My Say