Sunday, October 14, 2012

Is Kit Siang senile too, Tony Pua? (Part 3 - Final)

Silence or senile? 

One would have thought senility creeps in slowly into someone at old age. It doesn't happen suddenly. They can't turn from proficient to senile silence in 3-4 months.

Raja Petra wrote an article "When the shoe fits" dated June 4th with regard to a forum in Penang the day before discussing about Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) foreign exchange losses. Lim Kit Siang was there and he spoke. He can't be senile yet, can he?

The star of the forum, one former Deputy Governor of BNM, so claimed RPK, said the loss was RM30 billion. [Read it here.]

RPK questioned why they were not transparent to the audience to declare the star, Dr Rosli Yaacob is a PAS leader from Negeri Sembilan. By holding that information, it create a false impression that he is an independent expert.

On the same note, RPK should correct himself too. Dr Rosli is not a Deputy Governor but only a Deputy or perhaps was then called Assistant Manager. With that title, it doesn't make him an expert.

Dr Rosli (left) conveniently left out Anwar (right)

By that, it means also that Dr Rosli has a political agenda when he attributed the loss only to former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, ex-finance minister Daim Zainuddin, ex-Bank Negara Governor, the late Jaffar Hussein and current Minister in Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Economic Planning Unit Government Nor Mohamed Yakcop.

Despite the presence of Kit Siang, one name was missing; Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He was Finance Minister from 1991 to 1998 and Deputy Prime Minister from 1994 to 1998. Then, he was in prison from 1999 to 2004. [Read more in Wikipedia here.]

Apart from the fact Kit Siang raised the issue in Parliament and sandbag Anwar on his statements made, Dr Rosli was silence on Anwar's responsibility.

Nor Mohamed and Jaffar Hussein took responsibility and resigned.

But was it fair to accuse Tun Daim, who was not Finance Minister then?

In the case of Dr Mahathir, Finance was not directly under him. However, he can't avoid being ultimately accountable as Prime Minister if none take responsibility.

But why was Anwar's name missing from Dr Rosli's list and Kit Siang only kept silence? Never mind, leave it at that for the time being but rest assure, we will return to it later.

Let us refer to this well researched article by AIDC entitled "Lim Kit Siang – ‘Anwar Ibrahim Punca Kerugian Bank Negara 1993." [Read it here.]


Just like Kit Siang's words and writing were used to show Anwar's involvement, this article refered to a book written by an opposition.

The book is PAS zaman Anwar: Memo untuk bakal PM”, Penerbitan Pemuda, 1993 by Harakah reporter, Ahmad Lutfi Othman.

It is another exercise to show it is the opposition that is saying Anwar was responsible for the losses but did not own up.

We start with an excerpt in the book that reads:
Then opposition MP
Kenyataan Shabery dengan tajuk “Wang Rakyat Diperjudikan” saya pilih tajuk utama Harakah, 23 April. 
Shabery mengakui bahawa kenaikan nilai ringgit boleh menjejaskan jumlah rizab negara tetapi sukar diterima akal kalau hanya beberapa peratus kenaikan ringgit berbanding dolar Amerika boleh mengeringkan langsung rizab negara. Serentak dengan itu, Shabery mengingatkan Menteri Kewangan, Anwar Ibrahim supaya “jangan berselindung di sebalik istilah-istilah ekonomi yang mengelirukan.” 
“Anwar mesti mengakui punca terbesar kerugian adalah akibat permainan spekulasi mata wang asing yang gagal. Jelas, kerugian ini bukanlah atas kertas sahaja tetapi kerugian nyata yang ditanggung oleh rakyat jelata. Umat Islam terperanjat bagaimana Menteri Kewangan yang banyak bercakap tentang Islam boleh merestui permainan spekulasi seperti ini. Sedangkan secara jelas ia memperjudikan wang rakyat sebegitu banyak. Bahkan kami hairan kenapa beliau boleh merestui pendekatan Bank Negara yang amat merbahaya ini dan tidak mahu berterus-terang apabila ia menemui kegagalan,” tegas Shabery. 
Shabery juga mempersoalkan alasan Gabenor Bank Negara : “Apakah semakin kukuh ekonomi bermakna semakin kering rizab kita. Kenapa pula Singapura dan Brunei yang berkembang ekonominya dan kukuh mata wangnya tidak mengalami kerugian teruk sepertimana yang dialami oleh Bank Negara. Apakah Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia ingin memperkenalkan teori baru ekonomi, iaitu semakin berkembang ekonomi bertambah susutlah rizab, dan tidak mustahil ia terus bankrap. Apakah ini juga bermakna semasa ringgit kita jatuh dahulu, rizab kita melambung naik lebih seratus peratus?”
Dato Ahmad Shabery Cheek was then with opposition Parti Melayu Semangat 46, a Member of Parliament and Political Secretary to party chief and then Opposition Leader, Tengku Razaleigh.

For the subsequent Harakah April 26, 1993 issue, Lutfi wrote in the following except:
Then PRSM President
Dr. Syed Hussin berpendapat Bank Negara, yang di bawah kawalan Kementerian Kewangan, sepatutnya mengawasi semua kegiatan bank dalam negeri supaya tidak terlibat dalam spekulasi / perjudian secara besar-besaran. Malangnya Bank Negara yang bertindak sebagai pengawas itu sendiri terlibat dalam spekulasi / perjudian: 
“Jadi, siapakah pula yang akan mengawasi pengawas. Kami harapkan pagar yang menyelamatkan padi, rupanya pagar yang makan padi. Aneh sekali bagaimana Anwar yang dahulunya terkenal sebagai pejuang Islam melibatkan dirinya dengan judi besar-besaran seumpama ini”. 
“Kami mempunyai maklumat bahawa pada tahun 1991 Bank Negara menugaskan seorang pegawainya menjalankan kegiatan spekulasi dengan menggunakan simpanan luar. Khabarnya keuntungan kira-kira satu bilion diperolehi. Digalakkan oleh kejayaan ini, pegawai tersebut diberikan kebebasan untuk meneruskan kegiatan judi ini dalam tahun 1992. Kami percaya banyak simpanan luar digunakan untuk membeli wang paun. Dalam tahun 1992 nilai paun turun dengan teruk sekali. Ini sebabnya kerugian yang kita tanggung begitu besar. Sekiranya yang dibeli ialah wang Amerika, kerugian mungkin tidak sebesar itu, sebab dalam tahun 1992 nilai wang Amerika turun kira-kira lima peratus saja, berbanding wang Malaysia. Kami mendapat tahu bahawa akibat kerugian ini pegawai berkenaan telah dipindahkan jawatan serta tugasnya. Ini tidak memadai. Sepatutnya kerajaan hendaklah mengambil tanggungjawab penuh dan meminta supaya Menteri Kewangan meletakkan jawatan, sekiranya beliau sendiri tidak hendak berbuat demikian secara sukarela. Bukankah Menteri Kewangan memperlihatkan kecuaian dan ketidakcekapannya?” tegas Dr. Syed Hussin.
Anwar begin his position as Finance Minister from 1991.

Perhaps, Anwar can be given the benefit of the doubt for the early part of BNM's speculative activities due to the following excerpt:
Pada April 1991, Reuter menyifatkan Bank Negara sebagai “suatu kuasa dominasi di kancah pertukaran asing untuk beberapa tahun” dan malah menuduh beberapa pengendali pertukaran asing sebagai “penjahat pasaran”. 
Laporan tersebut memetik kenyataan peniaga di London sebagai berkata, “Bank Negara selama ini adalah pemain pasaran yang terbesar, meniagakan jumlah pertukaran asing yang jauh melebihi mana-mana pemain dalam pasaran”.
It means BNM had started such activities earlier than that and Anwar was merely inheriting an existing operation.

Our market and hands on knowledge will not give him that benefit because the speculative activities then was merely in spot trading where the exposure is limited to day trading. It is not structural and of longer time frame trading than was practised later.

Can't say he does not know
Since many do not have hands on knowledge, let's give Anwar that benefit of the doubt and past some buck to Tun Daim Zainuddin. However, Daim is no more around from 1991 and it is Anwar that is in charge.

Never mind that the 1991 forex trading operations was merely experimental and small. If those activities were inappropriate, wrong and illegal, why didn't Anwar stopped it from 1991?

Why didn't he made it illegal for even yours truly to trade currency and review the Foreign Exchange Act?

With those questions, it brings back the subject of Anwar. Kit Siang's accusation is right. Anwar is responsible for BNM's forex losses under his watch. He can't say he does not know! 

PAS's economic expert?


On the credibility of Dr Rosli as the star and so-called expert that derived the loss number of RM30 billion, Lutfi's book claimed in the following excerpt:
Bank Negara mengalami kerugian pertukaran asing yang besar semasa krisis mata wang dalam mekanisme kadar pertukaran Eropah susulan penolakan Masstricht Treaty on European Monetary Union dalam pungutan suara Denmark pada 2 Jun 1992, yang memaksa penggantungan pound sterling dari Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System (EMS).
That explain Dr Rosli's claim that BNM lost from trading pound sterling in the tune of USD5.5 billion. Taken from Freddie Kelvin here is the following excerpt:
"In 1992, he said Bank Negara gambled on the British Pound. It bought the Pound long and George Soros, major player in forex market, short." 
"When the Pound was devalued, Bank Negara lost USD5.5 billion and George Soros gained USD1.7 billion." 
"Rosli said experts estimated Bank Negara’s exposure for having lost that much was USD27 to USD33 billion, which was five times more than its foreign reserves and its entire assets of USD20.7 billion in 1992." 
"Rosli said that reasonable profits made before 1992 – 93 was the impetus incentive for Bank Negara to gamble in forex in a major way."
Omigod ... does this PAS politician know what he is talking?
The USD5.5 billion is not trading loss but if it is true, it is revaluation loss from the impact of devaluation in the sterling pounds holdings in the reserve that was passively kept as reserve!  
In 1991, it was just after the 1987 stock market crash. BNM was only building a name as market mover. The sterling devaluation and market volatility then not only raised the conscience in BNM to actively manage reserves as a way to limit risk from foreign exchange devaluation.  
All central banks, Banks and MNCs were in it. There were MNCs having a Treasury Management operations in room resembling Bank's trading room and come complete with professional traders, chart machines, communication system and monitors!
With that alone, one can say with confidence that this Dr Rosli may have miscalculated his trading losses calculation.

Having seen him talk in some seminars, this guy can be ridiculously petty and insignificant in the issues he raised. No wonder he was not picked into the Pakatan Rakyat's committee to prepare their recent ludicrous budget.

Lucky him ...

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anwar's story line was that when he came in, he was not given those information and to get it he has to get it from the PM himself.

Does it make sense?

Anonymous said...

One thing i know in malaysia is everybody is an expert after the event.

When it comes to blaming, everyone is good at it. But not when it comes to doing and taking charge.

If you are a central banker facing a highly volatile market in which leaving your reserve passively and not moving it will cause serious devaluation of the national reserve, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Dont tell us now when something bad happened. At that moment, and no one in the world can guide you on what to do. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

Ask Lim Kit Siand, anwar, dr rosli, etc. See them evade the answeror talk in general term.

My Say