Daim: Malays don’t know how to do business anymore

KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 — The Malays have been stripped of their business sense by centuries of colonisation, said Tun Daim Zainuddin who also blamed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for his policies when the latter was finance minister.



In an interview with Malay daily Berita Harian, Daim, who was Anwar’s predecessor in the Finance Ministry, accused the latter of using the approach of giving away company shares, which he said had enriched the former deputy prime minister’s allies.

“So Malays at that time thought it was easy to get rich and that they didn’t have to get into business,” Daim was quoted as saying in the interview published today.

“You support Anwar, you support the finance minister, you get shares. Then you sell them and you become rich. The Malays no longer had business management skills. That mentality came about then and it still exists till today,” added the former finance minister.

Daim also blamed historical events for the inability of Malays to become businessmen, noting that the East India Company had first colonised the region four centuries ago in the 17th century, and that the British discouraged the Malays from engaging in business and told them to remain farmers and fishermen.

“After a long time of being uneducated, then only the Rural Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) came about in 1951, but even then, it only managed businesses in the rural areas. How many people actually become rich as a result of running businesses in rural areas? The wealthy live in Kuala Lumpur, and that’s the same in other big cities around the world,” said the 76-year-old.



RIDA has since been replaced by the Indigenous People's Trust Council (MARA).

The then senior minister in the Mahathir administration pointed out that all of Malaysia’s 10 billionaires live in the city, while the Malays still generally reside in the countryside.

“Only one per cent of Malays have commercial land in the city,” said Daim.

“This is very worrying. In fact, Malays now can’t afford to buy land in the city. We give it to UDA, and they sell it to Chinese businessmen. Under MRCB, which is developing KL Sentral, almost no Malays have bought property there,” he added.

Daim then said Malaysia would eventually become like Singapore.

“Look at the Iskandar development, Penang and a few other places. Don’t talk about the Chinese, even Malaysians as a whole can’t afford to buy property because they cost millions of ringgit,” he said.

The former finance minister also said there were now too many government agencies pushing the interests of pro-Bumiputera businesses.

“The government is not good at doing business. The government just knows how to rule. So why are they giving money for this and that? What does the government know about business?” Daim questioned.

“To me, we should be taking Malay businessmen who are successful in the private sector and asking them for ideas on how to create more successful Malay entrepreneurs,” he added.

Malaysia practises a pro-Bumiputera affirmative action policy that began with the now-defunct New Economic Policy (NEP) that critics say has harmed the country and the Malay community’s competitiveness through a culture of rent seeking.

Daim also said the prime minister should not hold the finance portfolio because running the country’s economy was a complex and time-consuming job.

“The prime minister should be ruling the country and giving a vision, while the finance minister does the work. If there are lots of problems and if we slip up even just a little, the country will be ruined. Look at Argentina. It used to be rich, but look at it now,” he said.

Historically, the Malaysian prime minister did not used to hold the finance portfolio, but Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took up the post in 1998 after sacking Anwar, after which his successors Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the current prime minister, continued the trend of being finance minister.

The Malay Mail

Let Anwar Syiok Sendiri

'OBSESSION': Former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin has been 'appearing' in the Kajang by-election, courtesy of his successor as finance minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Daim, who will be 76 next month, was asked in a written interview with the New Straits Times to explain Anwar's fascination with him as a political topic.

Question: Why is Anwar attacking you in  his ceramah?

Answer: I don't know, I'm not obsessed with him, I have no interest in what he's up to, but the media, every time you see me, you will always ask about him. He is obsessed with me. Maybe he thinks I know too much about him. He finds me a convenient target as I'm not on the ceramah circuit to rebut his nonsense. I'm told he says that Dr M (former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) and I are scared of PKR winning in Kajang. That's his platform? Let's frighten a few old retirees and vote for PKR because that's going to scare these two old folks? Think about it, what is their platform?

First, because Anwar is Churchill to stop the Barisan Nasional onslaught. Then, Anwar is needed to save Selangor from what happened in Perak (with 12 seats in a 50-plus-seat assembly?). Then BN is scared of the cooperation between Pakatan parties if Anwar wins. Then Kajang is necessary for the road to Putrajaya. Then the court found him guilty because he would have won in Kajang, and then etc, etc, etc.
Every day is another justification for an unnecessary and pointless by-election.

Question: PKR had also alleged that you and Khalid (Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim) had made a deal concerning Khalid's out-of-court settlement with regards to the latter's case with Bank Islam.

Answer: Let's put this in context. No adun (state assemblyman) is ill, dead or convicted. This Kajang move is to solve an internal party problem. (PKR deputy president Azmin Ali) Azmin wants to be menteri besar, Khalid does not want to go, so Anwar steps in and offers himself -- shows the shallowness of his leadership, not to resolve the issue internally but to take an egoistical solution that involves the public and public funds. The biggest loser here is Azmin. If Anwar had won, it was either Anwar or Khalid who would have been menteri besar, not Azmin. Now that it's (Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail) Wan Azizah, it still will not be Azmin. Poor Azmin, all those years of loyalty... but it's typical Anwar -- all solutions lead to him. And if it's not him, then his proxy Wan Azizah steps in.

In attacking Khalid, they found that it has backfired, so the only thing left is to discredit Khalid's integrity. So they bring in Anwar's favourite bogeyman -- me.

I have not seen or spoken to either Khalid or (Tan Sri) Rashid Manaf (an ex-lawyer and corporate personality) for over 20 years nor do I know anyone in Bank Islam. This was totally orchestrated by Pakatan. They can spin it any which way but, in the end, it is still about PKR's internal problems, whether about the menteri besar's post or Anwar's impending court case at the time of the move.

Question: What do you think of this by-election?

Answer: Every reason given for the Kajang move has been debunked, so now they are going on the Court of Appeal's verdict. But the case was much earlier than the "move" and it seems quite a coincidence to hold the Kajang move during the dates that were set earlier. It's to distract people from the case, obviously. In this by-election, the circus has come to town. It's a party issue and if it's me, I would not participate in this circus and dance to every tune that he plays. If he wants to syok sendiri (self-glorification), let him lah, but that is just my own opinion.

Question: So you think it's a mistake for BN to stand?

Answer: Before this, Pas did not agree and DAP has been silent on this issue. With BN's participation, they have no choice but to support Anwar, and now Wan Azizah, and bring unity to Pakatan.
The irony here is that DAP has always accused MCA and Gerakan of dancing to Umno's tune. And here, what are they doing? When Anwar makes a decision, they fall in line.

Question: Will Wan Azizah win? Will Anwar's guilty verdict make a difference?

Answer: Let me put it this way, Anwar would never have stood in any place unless he was sure that he would win and win big. Now Wan Azizah is going for the sympathy vote, and I don't see anything much has changed since the last election to make Kajang voters change their mind. It's only a question of the majority.

As for Anwar, those who believe in him, believe he can do no wrong and that he can walk on water, and those who don't, won't.

But there is another group of people, the liberal middle class, who are not blind to Anwar's faults and weaknesses, but still think that regardless, they need to have him there because of their dislike for this government.

They want change and if he is the one to do it, so be it. They use him; he uses them -- a real symbiotic relationship. Morality does not matter to them.
But morality is important in a leader. Tell me, was (former US president) Bill Clinton the only man in America who committed adultery? Was Elliot, what's his name, the US A-G (Elliot Spitzer, the former New York governor and attorney-general) the only man in America who visited prostitutes? So why were they taken to account? Because we demand more from our leaders. That is why it is said that if you want to be a leader, there must be sacrifices.

You are not the man in the street. You are a leader and you have to lead by a strong moral code of conduct. Look at Italy under (former prime minister Silvio) Berlusconi; it was a joke.

Question: What do you think of the MoU on Langat 2 (water treatment plant)?

Answer: I think it's good and good for the people of Selangor. It was the right thing to do and the MB was brave to do it. PKR wanted to haul him up to explain to Anwar. I don't think I have heard that when (Penang Chief Minister Lim) Guan Eng does something in Penang, he has to go explain to (DAP chairman Karpal Singh) Karpal or (DAP supremo Lim) Kit Siang, nor does the Kelantan MB have to seek (Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang) Hadi's approval.

Question: You have recently been critical of Najib's administration.

Answer: Let me set the record straight here. Najib is a decent man who is trying his best under the most trying of circumstances. I think it was easier during my time to implement policies; now with a strong opposition and social media, everyone is an expert. One football team and 20 million coaches, me included.

If we are critical, it is because we want him to succeed. If he is to succeed, he needs a good team of advisers and I'm not sure he has that. The policies and statements that come out do not seem to be well thought out. If I were him, I'd bring in fresh, intelligent, well-educated but politically-savvy advisers.

He should clear his plate, so that he has thinking time, no need to hold on to so many portfolios and be bogged down by details.

He must have the big picture but details are worked out by others. I think also, that there are many policies that are not well explained and the PR (public relations) has been disastrous, but there is still time to do it right. He has the experience and intelligence to make things right.

Source: NST

Salleh Said Keruak's Response to Daim

Here's an excellent article by Salleh Said Keruak, Deputy UMNO Chief of Sabah.

Tun Daim Zainuddin’s interview as reported by Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider makes interesting reading. I would like to touch on just two issues mentioned in that interview. The first is Tun Daim’s comment regarding inflation.

In 1981, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister, Malaysia’s inflation rate was more than 10%.

In 1984, when Tun Daim became the Finance Minister, the inflation rate was 4%. It dropped to 1% during the 1985 recession but then so did the economy, the stock market, property prices, and so on. In fact, Malaysia actually saw deflation for a short period, which triggered many bankruptcies.

Hence zero inflation or deflation may not actually be good for the people, especially for investors.<br />

In 1991, when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim took over as the Finance Minister, the inflation rate went up to 5%

In 1998, when Anwar was sacked and Tun Daim took over again, the inflation rate went up to 6%.

When Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister, the inflation rate was almost 9%. Today, the inflation rate is 3%.

The voters complain about increasing prices. And this is the bone of contention for Tun Daim as well. There are, of course, remedies to this. Price control would be one. Subsidies would be another. However, in the effort to keep prices low, someone would have to pay. And if the consumer does not pay then the taxpayers, who are also the consumers, would still have to pay although indirectly.

Take one example, toll prices. The government will have to pay hundreds of millions every year to compensate the toll concessionaires if we want to keep the prices down. Hence people from East Malaysia who do not drive on the highways would be contributing a lot of money for the benefit of people in the Kelang Valley. While this may make the people in the big cities happy, is this fair to those who live in places that do not even have proper roads let alone super-highways?

Tun Daim’s second bone of contention was about the worrying race and religion politics perpetuated by both sides of the political divide. Yes, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are guilty of this and Tun Daim puts the blame squarely on Najib.

What is happening in Malaysia today is reminiscent of what happened in 1987 during the time when Tun Dr Mahathir was the Prime Minister. And the government took strong and decisive action and nipped it in the bud by detaining all the troublemakers under the Internal Security Act (Operasi Lalang).

On the one hand the people are crying out for more liberalism, democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and so on. On the other hand they are accusing Najib of not being tough enough.

No doubt things appear to be out of control and people are abusing these new freedoms that they have won. And that was why Tun Dr Mahathir said Malaysia must not be allowed too much democracy, as people tend to abuse freedom if too much freedom is given.

The people want detention without trial removed. Then the same people scream that Najib is not tough enough. The people need to decide what type of country they would like to live in because they cannot have it both ways.

The people are not happy when they are not allowed free speech. But when the speech is too free and out of control to the point of racism and religious extremism, the people are also not happy.

Are the people saying we should return to the days of Dr Mahathir when peace and stability were maintained through an iron fist?

References

1. Leadership and policies matter, not strong mandate, says Daim

2. Daim: Najib is too soft