Malaysia’s economic performance has never averaged 9 per cent over the course of a decade, even in the best of times, and has been on the downtrend since the East Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/98. Average growth was around 6.7 per cent in the 60s; 7.7 per cent in the 70s; 5.9 per cent in the 80s; 7.3 per cent in 90s and 5.2 per cent for the period 2000 – 2006 (Yusuf & Nabeshima, 2009). It is therefore unrealistic given the current global economic situation and, more importantly, Malaysia’s weakening economic fundamentals that it would achieve even 5 per cent GDP growth. The Economist Intelligence Unit (Sept 15, 2009) projects that Malaysia’s GDP is expected to grow at an annual average of 4.6 per cent in 2011-2020. The World Bank’s most recent assessment for Malaysia, which was more hopeful, notes that the Malaysian economy is projected to grow at 4.1 per cent in 2010. In the medium term (2011-2012) growth is projected at around 6 per cent conditional on the country undertaking structural reforms. Herein lies Malaysia’s challenge.

Since 1991, Vision 2020 – Mahathir’s vision to transform Malaysia into a developed economy – has been Malaysia’s long term objective. There is consensus that his target will not be met as the required structural reforms were not taken. Malaysia is still a highly protected economy – especially in the services and resources sectors with a perverse economic model that benefits a particular class of people within the ruling political party. This has severely curtailed efficiency and dampened economic growth.

Najib Razak was forced to introduce a new vision – to move Malaysia into the category of high income economies – to maintain political legitimacy for the ruling party.  To achieve this target, Malaysia would need to double its current per capita income of US7, 990 to US15, 000 by 2020. This would require restructuring the Malaysian economy; a job that would naturally impact on the Malaysian political and social situation. Najib himself has admitted that this is a Herculean task. This may explain why his administration has not been able to provide a policy document or a coherent argument on what the required structural adjustments are and how they will be implemented. Najib has so far made ad hoc announcements of liberalisation measures: some genuine, others smoke-screens and some even overturned in the face of political pressure.

Structural adjustments will involve the dislocation of certain groups, industries or sectors. The welfare of some people will definitely be affected. However, if the nation benefits as a whole, the groups that are dislocated will be compensated and the nation will be better off as a whole.  This is the central problem in Najib’s efforts to secure its economic future by improving competitiveness through liberalisation – an inability to define the “national interest”. Over the years, the increasing strength of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) had defined the “national interest” as ensuring the welfare of the community aligned to the ruling party. They are predominantly but not exclusively Malay elites (UMNOputras) who have benefited tremendously from affirmative action policies. While the policy has been applauded in general for maintaining stability, it has clearly come at the expense of the nation as a whole.

For Malaysia to become a high income economy, the World Bank’s recommendations were that the Malaysian economy specialise further, improve workforce skills, make growth more inclusive, and bolster public finance. This obviously requires that “national interest” be defined broadly – to include all Malaysians and reverse policies that benefit a select few. Therefore, Malaysia’s economic future ultimately lies in Najib’s ability to put the interest of Malaysians ahead of the supporters of his political party or for Malaysians to vote in an alternative Prime Minister who would do just that.

Greg Lopez is a postgraduate student at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University.

Leading the way is Malaysiakini – Malaysia’s pioneer online news portal. It states that its editorial position, “…is consistently supportive of justice, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and good governance.”

Malaysiakini’s pioneering efforts have encouraged other like minded citizens to set-up online media as a medium to allow Malaysians to discuss Malaysia’s future. Here is a list of some of them:

The Nutgraph with the tag line “Making sense of politics and pop culture” has a wider scope, addressing issues beyond politics. It provides an avenue to highlight the positive aspects of Malaysian society including arts and culture. Columns such as “Found in Malaysia” focus on Malaysians who exemplify the best in Malaysian society.

The Malaysian Mirror introduces itself as “…founded by a group of veteran journalists from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Our investors comprise entrepreneurs, professionals from various disciplines, including journalists and politicians from both sides of the political divide. We are an independent entity and shall endeavour to report without fear or favour because the citizenry deserves to know the truth…”

The Malaysian Insider is another online news portal fast gaining popularity. Operated by individuals with corporate background, their objective is to “…create an Internet newspaper which offers an unvarnished take on events and personalities in Malaysia.” The online media also hopes “…that in time more Malaysians who crave for balanced and serious reporting on issues will contribute their news and views to us. We believe that with transparency, promotion of good character and professionalism, we will contribute towards building a country that has the USP (U-unity, S-security and P-prosperity) to be transformed into a great nation…”

It is hoped that this and many other attempts to reverse institutionalized racism by civil society in Malaysia will ultimately bear fruits. Preferably sooner rather than later.

There have long been members of civil society who have tried to remove this wedge. This is a list (not exhaustive) of current peoples’ initiatives to bring Malaysians together.

• Project Malaysia

Project Malaysia was created by a group of Malaysians (representing different races, genders, ages, professions, etc) to respond to “a need for solution – driven, informed opinions on issues affecting Malaysian society as a whole.”

• The Other Malaysia

This is a blog by Farish Noor who is a well known scholar of Islam in Southeast Asia. The blog states that among its missions is an “…attempt to highlight aspects of Malaysia’s past and present that have been systematically downplayed or relegated to the background of the national imaginary. We cherish the nation’s multifaceted past, our long historical legacy that dates back to the Hindu-Buddhist and animist era; the rich and diverse contributions made by the coming of Modernity, Islam and other Asian and Western civilisational influences. We hold that ‘Malaysia’ as a concept is too complex to be quarantined within neat ideological or epistemic boundaries, and that we as a nation should celebrate our diversity rather than deny it…”

• The Centre for Public Policy Studies

The CPPS analyses policies in a race-blind manner – i.e. analysing the benefits to Malaysians in general. It aims “…at fostering open-minded dialogue, enlightened leadership and better governance. The belief underpinning the establishment of the CPPS is that the challenge of building a cohesive, competitive and successful multi-racial Malaysian society can best be met by open discussion buttressed by rigorous analytical work and a spirit of tolerance and respect for the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders in the country…”

• The People’s Parliament

An initiative of Haris Ibrahim, to make Malaysians responsible for the legislators that they send to Parliament or state legislative assemblies by actively holding them accountable.

More to come…

This is a question most people in Malaysia don’t really contemplate. The recent by-election saw a disgraced former Chief Minister from Barisan Nasional win with a thumping majority (he was suspended from UMNO for corruption, but in true Malaysian style no charges were brought against him). Voters in the constituency credited Isa for doing a “good job” when he was Chief Minister of the state and therefore felt obliged to vote for him.

What then does one do, if the majority seems to be in favour of a wrong direction for a country? It was a highly civilised Germany that elected Adolf Hitler. How is it that the well educated citizens of Zimbabwe did not foresee what Mugabe would do? Or closer to home – how is it that intelligent Burmans allowed a military junta to destroy such a prosperous country?

Who do we hold responsible when this occurs? Is UMNO responsible for the state that Malaysia is in now? Or are the citizens of Malaysia collectively responsible? After all, have not Malaysians continued to support this party, directly or indirectly. Are we prepared to sacrifice for our country, like Stauffenberg did?

It may be the nature of humans to be selfish in order to survive. However, history tells us, that this selfishness ultimately destroys the very things we hold dear. Malaysians will soon face this reality, if they have not already.

[T]hese guides to longevity of the monarchies in Southeast Asia do not automatically offer a rosy picture for their future. New factors emerge periodically to challenge the integrity of their rule. Using illegitimate weapons, such as manipulating the legal system to fight against such challenges, may prove counterproductive.

The monarchical system has been around for thousands of years. The ultimate key to the survival of the monarchical institution, therefore, rests on the way in which it acts and reacts in a complementary manner to the rising desire of the people for democracy.

But there needs to be a reality check on their real and perceived political strength. Currently, it appears that they still hold much clout because they represent a visible pillar that makes Barisan Nasional (BN) such a formidable political force. The cry that BN represents the interest of all the major races has reverberated since Independence and has effectively drowned the combined cacophony of the opposition.  And BN is desperate the keep that arrangement going. However, the results of last year’s general elections indicated that the Malaysian Indians have abandoned the ruling coalition en masse.

This has resulted in a power vacuum and surely enough, since the last general elections, various Indian groupings have emerged to vie for the Malaysian Indian vote. Top of the list is the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), which is the pro-Government political party and wishes to retain its previously unassailable hold on the Malaysian Indian constituency.

But the emergence of the anti-BN Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) in the last two years has provided an effective counter-balance to MIC. HINDRAF’s influence was instrumental in influencing the Malaysian Indians’ voting pattern in the last general elections in March 2008, resulting in a major loss of support for the ruling government.

Realising, this, UMNO, which is the largest party in the ruling coalition, has plotted and prodded to initiate change within MIC. But MIC’s President Dato Seri Samy Vellu who has kept an iron grip on the party since coming to helm in 1979 has been difficult in his dealings with UMNO and has refused to be browbeaten. The recent speech by Dato Seri Najib UMNO’s president and current Malaysian Prime Minister during the opening ceremony of the MIC’s AGM, which was seen by many as a frontal attack on Samy Vellu’s political style backfired and resulting in the president’s men sweeping the party polls. The positions that were up for grabs included that of a deputy president, three vice-presidents and 23 central working committee positions.

It appears that Samy Vellu’s acrimonious and very public verbal jousting with one time ally Dato Seri Mahathir Mohammed, Malaysia’s ex-Prime Minister and much respected UMNO statesman has given further ammunition for UMNO to push for Samy’s ouster. To UMNO, the arithmetic is simple; a Samy Vellu-led MIC has lost the capability and capacity to deliver the votes as it has been able to do consistently since 1957.

In the meantime another political party called Makkal Sakthi (”People’s Power” in the Tamil language) has mushroomed under suspicious circumstances as it clearly had the backing of the BN and enjoyed fast-track approval from the registrar. Makkal Sakhti,  which is due to be registered on October 10 is positioned as a party representing the anti-government Malaysian Indians who took to the streets in a massive demonstration in the heart of Malaysia’s capital city in November 2007.

Perhaps UMNO feels that as with the Malays and the Chinese politicians, the Malaysian Indian politicians also need some degree of competition to perform effectively. The BN also has the backing of the Indian Progressive Party (IPF) which remains staunchly pro-BN as well as other parties which have had some influence in the Malaysian Indian support such as the multi-racial GERAKAN and People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma), which claims to represent Malaysian Indian Muslims.

On the side of Opposition, there are various parties wooing the Malaysian Indian votes. This includes two of the three largest political parties in the opposition coalition namely Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Democratic Action Party as well as to a lesser extent Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) and even Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS), the overtly Islamic party.

The consequence is that the Malaysian Indian votes are much diluted.  A mix of unique circumstances allowed the Malaysian Indians to vote almost en bloc in the last general elections. However, the dynamics have changed since then. The refusal of the main HINDRAF leaders to organize themselves on a formal political platform or at least take a non-racial/religious approach has broken the momentum. HINDRAF’s neutrality which has seen it going against both the pro-Government and opposition parties on certain cases has isolated its leaders and magnified its race (and religious)-based ideology.

This has resulted in a situation where the Malaysian Indians could be back to square one, with limited political clout and diffused political base. Now the question is — who is going the break this news to the chap on the fence?

The scandal centres on the sale of land from Kuala Dimensi to the government’s Port Klang Authority. The land was sold in 2002 for the creation of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) at a cost of RM1.8 billion. However, Kuala Dimensi had acquired the same land from a local fishing cooperative in 1999 for RM95 million. The sale prices therefore imply that the land appreciated more than nineteen times in three years. More mysteriously, the Port Klang Authority then awarded Kuala Dimensi sole rights to develop the free trade zone without an open tender. After ‘winning’ the contract, Kuala Dimensi raised funds for the development through bonds backed by letters of support from Malaysia’s Transport Ministry.

The scandal hit the press in mid-2007, at which time the Port Klang Authority commissioned a PricewaterhouseCoopers audit report into the matter. Released in May 2009, the report highlighted the involvement of several politicians and identified some conflict of interest. Preliminary findings in a follow up investigation by the Public Accounts Committee found the project was managed by “a very incompetent group of people”.

Earlier this month, political activist Raja Petra Kamarudin (and editor of the independent news website Malaysia Today) published a leaked Treasury memorandum asking the Cabinet to retrospectively approve an increase in the cost of the PKFZ project from RM10.88 billion to RM4.6 billion. The memorandum was signed by the then Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop.

Transparency International has highlighted the complex network of Malaysian elites involved in this scandal. For example, Kuala Dimensi’s chairman is the treasurer of Malaysia’s ruling political party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), and the legal firm that drafted the agreement between the Port Klang Authority and Kuala Dimensi is headed by the local UMNO branch vice-chief. Other links involve the local UMNO youth chief (also the deputy CEO of the firm behind the sale and development of the PKFZ), and the local UMNO branch permanent chairman (former chairperson of the fishermen’s cooperative that sold the land to Kuala Dimensi).

Corruption scandals feature regularly in Malaysian politics and Prime Minister Najib has declared “I will reform and I will make changes.”  However, rather than living up to his promises, the government continues to deal with corruption by blame shifting and paper shuffling. In response to the PKFZ corruption allegations, the government has made no formal statement nor taken any formal action. Instead individual officials are ‘buck passing’, with almost every party threatening legal action against another party involved in the scandal. In terms of paper shuffling, the government has established three committees and a special task force to “turn around” the matter. Importantly, these actions do not contribute to prosecuting the corrupt officials in a court of law. This is the course of action that the government should be pursuing. Moreover, the government has shown now signs of reforming procurement legislation or government practice.

Malaysians describe themselves as “one screwed up nation” and the cycle of corrupt and crony politics appears to be embedded. Blame shifting and paper shuffling are not synonymous with political reform, and without reform corruption and cronyism will certainly continue. Transparency International-Malaysia has suggested that the PKFZ scandal is “a black mark on the country’s history” but one which delivers Malaysians a “positive challenge to revamp ourselves”. To meet this challenge the Malaysian government must be willing to put away the paper and to put down the pointed finger.

Siaan Ansori is a postgraduate student in the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University.

Of course, the countries have long-standing conflicts related to disputed borders (read here and here). Furthermore, abuses of migrant labour in Malaysia (with Indonesians making up the majority of the foreign labour force) are a major problem with the Malaysian government a willing accomplice. Several terrible cases of abuse of Indonesians in Malaysia and also an abused princess (highlighted in the media) have raised the temperature in Indonesia.

But it seems that many (I’m not sure how many) Indonesians are now really “pissed-off” with Malaysians for allegedly stealing Indonesian culture.

Now, there are many reasons to be “pissed-off” with the Malaysian government and some Malaysians (e.g. the governments contempt for human rights and democracy, the way Malaysians in general treat labourers, and in particular migrant labourers) but to say that Malaysia has stolen Indonesian culture – that is a little far-fetched.

My understanding (and I hope the readers can assist me) is that the archipelago was influenced mainly by Hindu and Islamic culture, and to a certain extent by Chinese traders, with the locals (and their kingdoms) building on these cultures. There were fluid borders that only became permanent after the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in 1824 that divided Peninsular Malaysia from the Islands of Sumatera – one part under English rule and the other under the Dutch. With all of this considered — plus trade, conquest, inter-marriages, the spread of Islam, etc — it is only natural that the most of the archipelago has a similar base for their cultures. Furthermore, the British invited people from the archipelago to populate Peninsular Malaya. This would only mean further transfusion of cultures. Hence, I find it hard to see how Malaysia could have stolen “Indonesian Culture.”

However, what is more bewildering is the suddenness of the surge of hatred. It was a long held view, since Konfrontasi, that Indonesia and Malaysia had patched up their differences, and it has seemed that the Government-to-Government relationship is now excellent. But signs of unhappiness have been building, manifested through popular culture, demonstrations by Indonesians against attempted purchase of strategic industries (e.g. banking) in Indonesia by Malaysians, etc. But the recent fall-out was still unimaginable.

It is unclear to me (a Malaysian) what are the actual causes for this anger. I am unable to comprehend how the issue of culture is paramount to the anger.

As just one example of how globalised our cultures are.:Malaysians have been accused of stealing a popular folk song “Rasa Sayang” from the Indonesians —but this song clearly belongs to everyone. 

And can we focus on issues that benefit all of us? Issues like ensuring human rights are respected by all ASEAN governments, and the introduction of proper labour laws both in Indonesia and Malaysia to regulate and protect labour, should matter a great deal. I think moves in those directions would be far more worthwhile.

With this in mind, I was pleased to see that there has been a recent spurt of eye-opening coverage that puts the web censorship that occurs in countries like Thailand and Burma in a wider context.

The Wall Street Journal has produced an interactive map of the Asian region (all the way across to the Middle East) that  gives a clear indication of the countries that have made the most substantial efforts to censor online content.  The map is best examined in conjunction with an article by James Hookway that describes attempts to circumscribe access to certain kinds of Internet material in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.  A recent article by Geoffrey Cain picks up similar themes and discusses the future of “Asia’s fragile cyber-democracies”.  That piece has already been translated into Thai.

From where I sit, real-world politics are increasingly taking root in the fertile (but muddy) soil of the online world.  This is happening almost everywhere.  Repressive governments, of whatever stripe, will continue to fear the subversive potential of online content. In response, their filtering, censorship and intimidation will probably only become more sophisticated as they meet new and unforeseen online challenges.

For those of us who embrace the potential (and the pitfalls) of web-based analysis, debate and discussion these are issues that will need to be constantly reassessed.  The future battlegrounds for politics, but also for academia and journalism, are fast taking shape online.  These recent articles provide some helpful pointers about issues to keep in mind.

However, this day was never given prominence and the Federation of Malaya’s independence day, the  31st Aug is always celebrated as the main national day celebration, demonstrating to a certain extent, the lack of inclusiveness by the government. In fact, after Bangladesh claimed  independence  from Pakistan, East Malaysia was formally dropped from official use – fearing that Sabah and Sarawak would follow East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Nevertheless, there is still no official reason why the 31st of August is celebrated as the national day instead of the 16th of September.

The opposition coalition and several people’s movement (e.g. Fast for Malaysia and Peoples Parliament) are calling for September 16 to be made the main national holiday and has given it more prominence. This was the date given by Anwar Ibrahim last year, for the opposition alliance to form a new federal government (although it never materialised). This is of course in part a signal to move Malaysia to a new identity that is inclusive and away from the race-based national characteristics that has coloured Malaysia’s past. 

Will this come to pass?