Source: Utusan Malaysia, September, 1998
Australian newspaper, The
Age (September 9) published what Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim stated to it:
Anwar said that his
relationship with Dr. Mahathir was getting worse since bad things happened to
Indonesia.
"After Suharto's
fall. I think he was afraid by the incident. By objective, I can tell, the
situation of corruption in Indonesia is worse than in Malaysia, but we have the
same disease.'' But it is clear that Anwar believes what is happening in
Indonesia would happen in Malaysia. It also shows that Malaysia might take the
same step.
The belief that the
problem in Indonesia is similar to the problem in Malaysia is an intellectual
disease that often hit a few Malay political activists since before the time of
Independence. This is also a disease that was suffered by left-wing Malay
nationalists in the Malay Nationalist Party (PKMM) such as Burhanuddin
Al-Hilmi, Ahmad Boestamam and Pak Sako.
They thought that Malaya
should be following in the footsteps of Indonesia. With admiration for Sukarno,
they want to launch a revolution for independence in Malaya and implement a
political program (republican, anti-Western) and economy (socialist) following
the ways of Sukarno. In fact, they want to merge Malaya with Indonesia.
The fight among those left-wing
activists was not accepted and not suitable for the Malays. It would get more
dangerous when it is exposed with the invasion by Chinese communist into the
region.
UMNO and Datuk Onn were
the ones who managed rescue of Malaya from slipping into chaos. Datuk Onn,
Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak understood that Malaya is different than
Indonesia. Malay people were not like Indonesia. We want to retain the monarchy
and the free market system. Obviously this method has brought prosperity to
Malaya, later known as Malaysia.
Anwar and ABIM were
dazzled with measures taken by Indonesia.
Now in another age, there
are Malays who are still mesmerized by the measures took by Indonesia. They
seem to be trying to relate the problem of Indonesia with the problem in
Malaysia. They do not see significant differences between the two countries.
Back then, the
intellectual influence of the Malay left-wing and rhetoric Sukarno's Indonesian
Revolution, now Anwar, ABIM and his cronies influenced by the struggle of the
Reformation in Indonesia and was impressed with the success of the Reform
leaders, Amien Rais. But for sure, Amien had no personal problems.
It is known that ABIM
figures such as Siddiq Fadil and Sidek Baba has a tendency act and move like
Indonesia. In fact, they even spoke in Indonesian language in their speeches.
Reform may be appropriate
in Indonesia, but not in this country. Reforms there have their own idealism to
solve the problem of people there. Amien Rais may be the right person to be in
Indonesia. But student to join reform is not suitable to be used in Malaysia.
Malaysia does not have a problem the military involvement in politics.
Corruption, collusion and nepotism which trapped Suharto's regime is never
really part of Malaysia. Malaysia has the New Economic Policy that is admired
by Western intellectuals and analysts that they are asking Indonesia to copy
it.
However, Indonesia still
has different problems. Amien Rais is a good man and may he fit to lead
Indonesia in one day. Anwar is not as same as Amien. Amien, the leader of
Muhammadiyah, and now the head of the Partai Amanat Nasional (PAN) emerged from
the struggle of students and the people who demanded reform in Indonesia.
However, Abim is not
Muhammadiyah. Anwar even at 70 years-an has emerged from the student movement,
but was raised and absorbed into the government by Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir
Mohamad. Anwar, for 16 years is part of the Malaysian government.
ABIM, although there own
Islamic ideals but has supported UMNO and the government, because Anwar has
been there for 16 years as well. Anwar and ABIM are not eligible to launch
reforms.
Even if they kept it up,
they will pollute the ideals of reform itself. For Malaysia, so far, way to
solve the problem is the recovery plan outlined by the Prime Minister.
Malaysia had the
opportunity to succeed
Support for the way the
Prime Minister to address the growing economic crisis among international
observers. International Herald Tribune (September 9) published an article
written by Marshall Auerback, a global strategic consultant from Veneroso
Associates.
He said: "The world
did not really care about Mahathir Mohamad last December when he convened the
summit of Asian leaders in Kuala Lumpur. Most Western analysts portrayed
Mahathir as xenophobe and that his anti-West speeches were just to complete the
summit.
"That could be one
of the reasons, but more attention should be given to the Kuala Lumpur summit.
People of Southeast Asia since the only nodded to everything that the West say
but there are no serious intention to implement the IMF solution that would
potentially destroy the society.
"Some banks will be
closed and some corporations will merge; jobs will be lost and the loan will be
reorganized and sold. However, from Tokyo to Jakarta, the clear intent is to
promote an environment that region out of recession but avoid structural
changes that are considered by IMF as necessary. "
"I am a supporter
Keynes where it is conservative,'' said Kiichi Miyazawa on the day he was
appointed as Minister of Finance of Japan in July. He then stressed that he
supports" economic recovery, and not reform.''
"This is more than
the policy statement; it better reflects the strategy as well as tactics. Issue
is not only economic results for the quarter next year, but keeping an economic
model developed at the rate of the region and in the period unequaled in
history.
"In this context, we
need to note that Malaysia do imposed capital controls. Wall Street and the
U.S. State Department were reportedly to have been surprised that Mahathir took
this step. They deserve to be surprised. Now we have a case study of a
different model than the Anglo-American economic model. Anglo-American model
puts its main characteristics as capital flows are not disrupted.
"The new policy has
sparked protests Malaysia is not by reason of the Western financial centers.
Control said the currency would eliminate an important confidence and Western
capital in Malaysia will run.
"What happened to
history? With some minor exceptions, capital controls have been done in this
region during the Cold War - the era of Asia's economic miracle - never hinder
investment. China, South Korea and Taiwan still maintain control. On capital
flight, the figures Kuala Lumpur market shows that companies are supposed to
loyal and long-term investment has long left the country.
"We need to
understand that capital controls intended to limit inflows, not outflows.
Mahathir has concluded that short-term capital from abroad is a lot of damage
to the system based on high savings rates and high corporate borrowing.
"Despite of being
Condemned by the West, Malaysia's actions in did not receive any negative
responses from East Asia. If Malaysia has spurred growth, there is a chance to
succeed, it is an omen of the Anglo-American capitalism is just one model among
others. We finally will have the world divided to a few blocks as a result of
prolonged economic globalization,'' said Auerbeck.
Malaysia had brought a
new economic model
What Auerbeck meant in
his writing is that when Mahathir managed to overcome the economic crisis by
way of Malaysia's capital controls, it will create a Malaysia-style capitalist
economic model, different from the Anglo-American model.
If other countries,
particularly in Asia take the approach as an example, it should be considered as an East Asian model
that should be accepted by the West as something that can work.
Auerbeck also wrote:
"Many in the West
only see Asia and other regions as a market that is driven by market logic and
not as a complex society. Asian leaders in the appropriate position to rectify
the situation. They may not be implementing the principles of democracy , but
their economic success is closely related to the strength of the national
community that is challenged by globalization.
Prime Minister's
successor is not a problem
International Herald
Tribune published news entitled "Malaysia is concerned over the
replacement Mahathir'' (7 September).
The foreign media is
making the issue of the absence of the Prime Minister's successor as a problem
and would hinder investors' confidence.
The matter is not a big
problem. Prime Minister himself said that if anything happens to him, UMNO will
move quickly to choose between the two of the party's deputy presidents, Datuk
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Najib Abdul Razak. Procedures were already in place,
and there should not be any issue.
But the foreign media is
trying to exaggerate a problem that is not a major problem. First, when Suharto
ruled Indonesia, the issue was also raised. They illustrate that Indonesia will
become a problem because Suharto did not provide his successor.
According to the constitution
of Indonesia, it was already clear that the Vice President, B.J. Habibie was
already there. Obviously, when Suharto stepped down, Habibie easily accepted as
the President of Indonesia. Although there are objections and the reform
movement, but the trouble is not because the question of succession remains.
Actually, the big
question for them is not whether a replacement or not, but the question is
whether they could substitute for them or not.
So suppose that they are
not satisfied with Habibie, foreign media will stir again and called to be
substituted with others, perhaps in the name of reform. Such was their
intention.
In addition they want is
their people, they also want the financial policies that benefit those applied
in the country. Policies that benefit them and do not necessarily benefit the
people of this country.
So in Mahathir's monetary
policy, they would try to make threats out of it, and may even try bring it to
a failure because it does not meet the interests of Western speculators.
Freedom of the media for what they are serving the financial interests of the
West.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan