Lets Not End Up Riding In This Boat...

Our former DPM, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, (otherwise known as the 'KJ Idol' or the 'politician otherwise known as DSAI' on the net), admist his blatant attacks on the man he sees as his biggest obstacle to returning to UMNO, and power, the current DPM, has chosen to raise the anchor of another boat's issue to lend him 'credibility' by:

1. Giving the impression that Leaders of Muslim countries still have the time of day to spend with him. (http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/beritankom.php?itemid=1919)
2. Giving the impression that he's also anti Pak Lah... which actually may well be true, which would be really tricky of him! Ahah!

Well seeing DSAI's antics and with myself getting a little sick of the new ridiculous act of 'management' in Proton, akin to gorging on a sour Cherry in the hope of patching up large tracks of missing 'grey cells' involvement in past decisions, I thought I'd take a Tangent even from my last take on 'the boat': (http://thoughtsintangents.blogspot.com/2006/12/about-boat.html)

I say we Malaysian should all stay focussed to avoid us ending up in a boat like this:

















This is "The Raft Of The Medusa" by Theodore Gericault, by far my favourite of all the pieces of art on display at the Louvre in Paris.

Note that it does qualify as a 'boat' as it appears somewhat seaworthy enough to carry some people, though just barely.

It is of course nothing like the supposed "Yatch of Pak Lah" or the RM30 Million boat.

My attraction to this painting isn't just due to its apparent morbidity (which is kinda cool), the artists' wonderful use of colour and technique (which, being an engineering graduate, I don't really think I have the tools to comprehend) or because I could admire it in peace whilst every other tourist were scrambling over each other to glance a snapshot of the Mona Lisa (my wife's more of a babe anyway).

What attracted me also was the history underlying the painting, as it was actually a record of the last hours before the rescue of an incident involving the French vessel Medusa in the 1800's. Here's a Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raft_of_the_Medusa

The history behind The Raft Of The Medusa is actually that of management incompetence. The incompetence of the French Bourbon government in appointing the frigate Medusa's Captain. The Captain's inexperience and incompetence leading to the ship being grounded. Then the rather pathetic efforts to save the survivors of the wreck, leading to a disaster and scandal which deservedly rocked the French government of the time.

Read excerpts from wikipedia (with edits for clarity of my message):

"The French Ministry of the Marine made the mistake of appointing inexperienced Frigate-Captain ... to lead the fleet. He had mainly worked as a customs officer more than twenty years previously and had worked against Napoleon. His crew did not particularly appreciate him, because they had served with Napoleon during his reign...

The fleet left Port de Rochefort on June 17. Medusa sailed quickly away before the rest of the fleet. On July 17, the Captain... ran the ship aground.

At first the crew tried to release her by throwing heavy items overboard, but (the Captain) stopped the effort....

Eventually he decided to abandon ship. Because there were only six lifeboats, he made a raft out of masts and crossbeams to carry the rest of the crew. Dignitaries – 250 of them – took the lifeboats and attempted to tow the raft. The raft was too flimsy to keep all the rest (149 men and one woman) afloat. Seventeen men decided to stay on Medusa. The rest were left with no food and water to speak of.

Those in lifeboats soon noticed that the idea of towing the raft was impractical. (The Captain) decided to cut the rope and leave the rest of the crew to its fate, four miles (6 km) off shore.

On the raft, the situation deteriorated rapidly. Men began to throw wine and flour out of spite and fight among themselves. On the first night 20 men – whites and Africans, soldiers and officers – were killed or committed suicide. Rations dwindled ever more rapidly and on the fourth day some on the raft resorted to cannibalism. On the eighth day, the fittest began throwing the weak and wounded overboard.

Thirteen days later, when (the ship) Argus found the raft almost by accident, there were only 15 survivors remaining. Five of the survivors, including the last African crew member, died within days. Three of the seventeen men that had decided to stay on the Medusa were later recovered alive. British naval officers helped the survivors to return to France because aid from the French Minister of the Marine was not forthcoming."

A 'nice' metaphor and cautionary tale for our times in Malaysia no? What with the out of control increases in cost of living, the selling off of national assets, the instigation of racial tension and with the USFTA coming up to boot! Interpret the history behind The Raft Of The Medusa in the current Malaysian context as you wish... lets just not end up in THIS kind of boat...

The Proton Saga: An Ongoing Example Of Analysis Gone Bad - Part 2, The "Insider"

I was innocently sharing my last write-up on Proton on the promuda circle (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/promuda_circle/) when I was challenged by a chap claiming to be an 'Insider' of the workings of Proton under Mahaleel through to today. I'm grateful of the challenge really as it allowed me to then clarify some typical armchair-critic analysis which have long bugged me.

I actually first clarified that I had never worked in Proton. In fact, I've never worked for a car company. Nevertheless, the irony is that I am at least as qualified as the majority of "experts" commenting on the car industry today, with the advantage that I've been working in an integrated industry (oil) for more than 9 years now, covering production, R&D and now economic optimisation and tactical planning.

So, when I comment, it may not be as an 'insider' or expert as some claim to be, but I'd like to think it is based on more than just "pure assumptions, both fact and fiction".

I'll present my response almost verbatim, so I hope you'll be able to read the questions in the original challenge clearly.

The Insider wondered w.r.t. my insinuation that VW was less interested in being partners with Proton after the 'mega-insider' Azlan Hashim sold MV Agusta for a dollar,"They (VW) are focussed in what they do, i.e. a car manufacturer, so why would want to go into the motorcycle business?"

Response: Mr Insider. As an 'insider', you should know that there is a lot of cross-polination between all vehicular industries. Yamaha for instance was and continues to be a partner to Toyota in many technical developments, including the Toyota's vaunted Twin-Cam technology. BMW also owns a Motorbike unit, with the unique 'duck' engine design. Saab's original parent make aircraft, and Renault used to make tanks!

Presence of a high-tech motorbike arm as part of an auto company's design pool adds to the overall breadth and depth of a company's design make-up. As such, MV Agusta is not just of value for its brands, but also for its own set of and capacity to further develop Intellectual Property (IP), including a very well reputed design studio, CRC.

How is this transferable to cars? Lets try just one example. Headlights. As an insider, you'd know the sort of IP that goes into headlight design. The fusion of beautiful aesthetics with safe, effective light distribution, power efficiency and all in a compact package? Well,headlights are just one of the 'simpler' items MV Agusta's design and tech could bring to a car company like Proton.

The full list is long...Similar to say how Yamaha pianos contributed to the Lexus' woodfinish... no item and contribution is too small to be discounted.

The real technology jewel for Proton I had always felt though was the potential of MV Agusta's engine tech - small engines with power outputs that could drive a small car... like the Savvy! I understand Lotus doesn't have this technology, hence I had always believed access to this tech could be achieved from MV Agusta. Again, the Toyota-Yamaha relationship comes to mind.

You would know of course that some Korean cars have their bodyworkdesigns done in Italy? Proton used to OWN its own Italian design house through MV Agusta(!), something the present Proton management didn't understand.

When the current Proton management demonstrated this lack of understanding by selling MV Agusta on the cheap (to a company that seems to have been able to continue to keep MV Agusta floating!), VW execs probably realised they were negotiating with incompetents...and pulled out...helped along the way by another offer on the table...

The Insider actually also said prior to that that,"VW's technological capabilities are way more advanced than many other OEM's."

Response: True. But no car company I know has dominance in auto technology. The field is just too diverse. So an assumption that Proton, humble little Proton, of course with Lotus in its stable, had nothing to offer VW is arrogant in the extreme. Of course, Proton had more to offer when it owned MV Agusta... Lets continue...

On my questioning why Wira production was not stopped, the Insider said,"Although I agree with you that they should have stopped the production of Wira, but this issue was there even before Mahaleelleft. So I don't think this point of yours of blaming the currentmanagement for this is valid."

Response: I disagree with you, as Mahaleel publicly announced that Wira's production was to cease when the Gen2 production was to normalise and ramp up beyond the initial roll-out, hence Mahaleel was always planning to kill the Wira, ergo, the current management are fully responsible for keeping the Wira alive past its life-cycle!

In addition, I find the idea of scapegoating Mahaleel repugnant and irrelevant. The guy is gone. Excusing any incompetency of the current management on him, rightly and wrongly, is hence morally repugnant when the current management could and should take responsibility in the now!

The Insider also said on the Wira,"...Perodua are successfully doing what you(and me!) say shouldn't be done (killing Wira). They are still producing Kancils and Kelisas, two cars in the same segment, yetmaking a hefty profit from it..."

Response: I disagree. I think Kancil is and has always been a cheapo car.Kelisa is actually quite a bit better than Kancil.

The difference is not too subtle, like say between an Iswara and Gen2. These two cars both are also in about the same class in size and have close weight to power ratios, but they're for different markets.

The Insider said,"Again, poor quality vendor issue originated even during Mahaleel's era. He was the head honcho for about 8 years if I'm not mistaken, and it was during this time that it all went wrong. The new management took over about a year or so ago."

Response: As I said, I find excuses like this morally repugnant and excuses that 'the new guys need more time' smacks of the Lah-ism desease of procrastination. This is not the way to run a business.

I make no excuses for Mahaleel, and agreed, he could have tackled thequality problems sooner. However, I find it interesting that the government, Khazanah and Proton's board agreed he had to go at about the same time he began to negotiate and action the ranking of vendors, with the intention of dismissing poor quality vendors (many probably linked to the establishment) and replacing them even with foreign parts providers if needed to drive the car quality issue forward.

So, on the on-going poor Proton quality due to poor vendor quality, who's really to blame? Proton's current management holds the bag, though I suspect with Khazanah and the government sharing responsibility also for continuing to hamstring Proton.

The Insider suprisingly raised the standard song and dance questions why MVAgusta was bought. It was bought at a premium, it was making loses, it continued to make loses, yadayadayada...

Response: Well I believe I gave some good reasons above, and it is a reality in business that you buy above market price for control of a company, even unprofitable ones, as those may well still hold assets.

On MV Agusta continuing to make losses, this is where I can give you a lesson in one aspect of an integrated business. In major integrated business, there is such a concept as having aloss-leader. A loss-leader is there not to make money, but actually delivers value to the entire enterprise as a whole whilst it is making a loss. MV Agusta would have fit this role in Proton, given time, similar to say how Bugatti does for VW, or Xerox PARC does for Xerox in the imaging industry.

Interestingly, Lotus and MV Agusta was about to implement a branding and distribution cross-sharing plan which would have brought them closer to the black before MV Agusta was sold (the BBC reported this when the MV Agusta sale was announced).

Maybe the current Proton management wasn't interested? Maybe they didn't get it? Or maybe they just needed a scapegoat for incompetencies to that date?

The Insider said,"I personally know of and experienced an instance whereabout half a Billion ringgit was literally wiped out, due tounprofessional decission making by the previous management."

Sorry mate, but we're professionals. Please substantiate this,otherwise, even if you are an insider, this is hearsay.

Besides, didn't the SC declare once that losses of such a sizewas 'acceptable'? LOL

But seriously, even if this was true, management, even good ones,make mistakes all the time. Good management though on the balance make more good/excellent major decisions more times than poor/bad ones, with business growth an indicator of competency. Mahaleel consistently delivered growth. The current management doesn't seem to know the concept... we're lucky Proton's still in the black!

The Insider then said,"As far as I am aware of, the current management are really struggling to 'stablise the ship' due to the really low cashreserve of Proton."

Response: Sorry, but this is bull. Proton Group recorded a CASH balance of~RM1.6BILLION in 31 March 2006's and ~RM2.4BILLION in the year before's yearly audited accounts. If it no longer has this money (and the drop between the 2 end of years followed departure of Mahaleel in July 2006), the current management certainly can't blame the previous guy!

How can an 'insider' not know what is public knowledge? Here is the link to explore this public record:

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/website/bm/listed_companies/company_announcements/annual_audited_accounts/index.jsp

Proton also self financed the Tanjung Malim plant and the Shah Alam plant is fully paid-up and is a real-estate goldmine that has neverbeen re-valued since the 80's! If Proton was cash strapped, any bank would take the Shah Alam plant as security for a few hundred million revolving credit. It would appear you have been made wrongly aware.

The Insider also excused Proton's current poor performance by saying the scenario for Proton now is worse than in the 1999 crisis, when Proton was still able to make a profit.

Response: Hello, competent management is able to make money or make the most of even poor situations. We have car companies in Brazil, with double digit inflation for decades on end, making money for god sakes! If the current Proton management can't handle the current business environment, its not the fault of the environment, they just don't have the competency to handle it!

The Insider commented,"I don't know how much Proton was involved in the NAP,but I would think it would be quite a small input due to the lesserfavourability to Proton compared to the pre-NAP era."

Response: I don't really understand your comment. How can Malaysia's largest car producer not be engaged in developing the NAP? It doesn't make sense.

So, you say even after Mahaleel was dismissed, the new management, supposedly backed by Khazanah, was not 'favoured' to give input to the NAP, commissioned by the government that make up the board of Khazanah? No, this doesn't make sense.

As I said, Proton's management, if not engaged, then were weak by not forcing engagement, and if it was engaged, were idiots if the NAP as it stands was the result!

On my claim that the stretch Waja was a debacle falling squarely on the shoulders of Proton Chairman Dato' Azlan Hashim, the Insider said,"...if you are an insider, or even remotely connected to the automotive industry, you should know that to come up with a new car model (albeit by only modifying a previous model) takes quite a considerable amount of time. The conceptual design phase, by doing crash analysis, packaging, etc, then prototypetesting, mule cars and what have you, and then coming up with the final design and finding suppliers, creating tooling for themanfacturing process etc, there are many things that need to besorted out, and I'm not talking about days or weeks here. Were looking at a time frame of at least a year."

Response: As I admitted, I'm not an insider. Though I would like to correct you in that I recall the MIT Motor Vehicle Research Institute's study in the 80'son Japanese lean production actually figured that the Japanese could potentially build new designs through to production in 6 months...that was 2 decades ago, before multiple use of platforms became vogue and so refined.

Renault is planning to launch what, 20 models in 5years? Something like that.

I'm not an expert. However, I don't consider the stretch Waja a new car, or indeed even a challenge to design such as to take as long as you stipulate above. Most of the hard engineering was done with the original car. I'm not an insider here, but I would have thought all you needed to design a stretch of an existing car design was figure out how far you could stretch the car before the engineering failed - you know on the body, suspension stress, torque distribution along the axle, etc. I'm not an expert though ;-)...

The Insider then said,"Although I was never involved in the Waja stretch project, I would think that when Mahaleel left, the project was already on going, maybe nearing towards completion..."

Response: This scapegoating of Mahaleel (again) is tiring. As you say you weren't involved in the Waja stretch, so the question is open. However, Azlan took (misplaced) personal pride in unveiling it - if it was a bad choice to develop it, a competent manager would have killed it as the cost of marketing and plant re-config step etc could be saved.

And really, based on what I mentioned above about the stretch not being a new car, assuming you're an engineer (like I am - I don't make cars, but even designing Xylene splitters aren't trivial), you'd know that stretching the Waja doesn't take THAT much engineering work...

On the Insider's comment,"As an ex-insider to Proton, I would have to say that the best thing to happen to Proton was the departure of Mahaleel.Regarding the new management, it is never an overnight quick fix whenyou are already in deep shit."

Response: Again, I was never defending Mahaleel, but his performance vs the current management was just a useful counter-point.

I would have expected that the good Chairman Dato' Azlan Hashim knew how to be more competent when he chose Mahaleel to be dismissed, else, why dismiss him. Evidently, he is not, and in fact, is far worse!

I also disagree that Proton was all rot under Mahaleel, as ironically, it's the legacy he left behind that is keeping Proton afloat now! The Tanjung Malim plant, the stronger intergrated company from manufacturing to distribution to finance, the next generation cars (with Savvy being the current best-seller - timely for the times, but then as Mahaleel was an oil-man, he probably new about the coming oil crunch).

Towards the end, the Insider stated,"I would give them (Proton's current management) some time to try and use their best efforts to revive Proton. It's been about a year now, I'll probably wait another year before I start judging them"

Response: I refuse to give the current management another day, let alone another year! This statement of yours again smacks of Lah-ism! The current management is poor not just because it can't maintain Proton's profitability and growth as a business, but in fact because it has made matters worse!!!

How can you, a critic of Mahaleel,tolerate a management that is patently more incompetent than his! But then again I'm neither an expert nor an insider as you appear to be..

I would again like to thank the Insider and others who continue to miss-Analyse the Proton Saga for allowing me the opportunity to respond to their views... responding when I can as above is fun... and hopefully results in more materiel being put down for my book!

Permulaan Usaha Murni

Malaysia bakal tersungkur ke juram penguasaan asing, tetapi rakyatnya masih lena. Bangunlah rakyat Malaysia!

Menjelang pertengahan tahun 2007, kerajaan Malaysia bakal memetrai Perjanjian Perdagangan Bebas (Free Trade Agreement - FTA) dengan Amerika Syarikat(US). Perjanjian ini kini dan kelak juga pasti dikatakan berpotensi merealisasikan impian Wawasan 2020 oleh mereka yang menjaguhinya.

Namun rakyat Malaysia amnya, dan orang Melayu khususnya, mungkin kurang menyedari yang menjelang Malaysia menyambut 50 tahun Merdeka, perjanjian USFTA inilah sesuatu perjanjian yang bakal mengembalikan Malaysia ke belenggu penjajahan kuasa Barat, kali ini oleh Amerika Syarikat.

Kami sekumpulan profesional bertekad menyertai gerakan menentang USFTA, dengan menumpukan usaha terhadap mencelikan mata masyarakat majoriti Melayu Malaysia yang harus digembeling daya serta pengaruhnya bagi memastikan kejayaan pembentengan ini.

Usaha kami yang tidak seberapa ini kini bertumpu kepada pengumpulan maklumat kadalam blog kami, dengan niat mengumpul sumber berbahasa melayu atau mengalih-bahasakan yang berbahasa Inggeris kelak. Oleh itu, kami ingin menjemput mana-mana kumpulan atau individu untuk memberi sumbangan yang sesuai untuk disertakan ke dalam blog kami, dalam bahasa Melayu mahupun Inggeris sekalipun.

http://usftamalaysia.blogspot.com/

Adalah niat kami untuk kemudian mengagihkan maklumat ini dengan cara yang lebih sesuai kepada golongan yang lebih berpengaruh dengan harapan kedudukan rakyat Malaysia terpelihara dari belenggu USFTA yang sudah amnya terbukti durjana apabila dijangkiti oleh negara membangun lain sebelum ini.

The Proton Saga: An Ongoing Example Of Analysis Gone Bad

I was reading an article (link below) in the Edge Financial Daily (effectively the Sun's business section) by Thomas Soon & Surin Murugiah entitled "Khazanah's Proton dilemma" and was attracted to the comment made that,"...no local player could offer any real value to Proton, with or without any foreign strategic partner...", based on their polling of a small group of "automotive" analysts.

http://203.115.192.58/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e2b05589-cb73c03a-88b1e600-4db7a3e8

It would appear that these writers may have forgotten to sample a sufficiently large pool before penning a conclusion as, if I may myself analyse (being probably as qualified as those polled), there is one thing that the local players mentioned can bring that adds value to Proton, proper MANAGEMENT.

Proton currently doesn't have proper management, hence, even a profitable local Cokodok producing company can 'add value' to Proton. The Proof? Consider this...

1. Malaysia has the largest Passenger Car market in South East Asia, with the no 2 and 3 largest markets being its neighbours Thailand and Indonesia respectively.
2. Proton's home market is protected, pretty much guaranteeing a good margin for local car manufacturers, especially before the disaster that is the National Automotive Policy. And even with the disaster, other local manufacturers are making some money.
3. Proton has cost superiority over all its competitors, having the largest and most modern production facility in ASEAN at Proton City, able to produce a car in less than 1 minute, 365/24/7! Its cost superiority is especially true for its newer models where own design IP is as high as 90% by some accounts.
4. Globally and historically, all types of car companies have been shown to have the resilience to maintain control of at least 20% of its home market, whether they be Volvos, GMs, Tatas or indeed Protons, relying on strength of locality... unless they do something really stupid...

However, despite all these natural advantages, Proton is still not able to make a buck? Come on, something doesn't make sense here! When you consider the many errors committed by the current management of Proton, such as:

1. Letting the original VW negotiations collapse (and not even wondering why this happened the day after they sold MV Agusta, when VW clearly wanted a hand on Proton's technology arm... which included MV Agusta...)
2. Not stopping Wira production when the Gen-2, the Wira replacement model, rolled out. What, did they forget? Did they think that the Wira was such a great car - a car that even taxi drivers shunned in favor of the old warhorse Iswara?! This messed up their marketing, production, product portfolio balance, stocks management, what have you!
3. Not addressing the poor quality vendor issue till now! We know la some of these vendors have political links, but come on la, where is your so called integrity Mr. Chairman of Proton? I thought you were going to usher in a new era of the defect free Proton?
4. Record losses, the first conviniently hidden by the MV Agusta sale for a Euro, but many others not so convinient! Apa ni, masa krisis ekonomi dulu pun Proton untung! La masa Pak Lah kata ekonomi baguih Proton apa boleh rugi!
5. Failing to drive the formulation of a National Automotive Policy that would really benefit the national car industry, when Proton is the standard bearer of the national car industry! And even if they did give input, then it was pretty shoddy input considering how bad the NAP turned out to be!
6. And not to mention wierd distractions, like Dato' Azlan Hashim's first act of 'inspiration', unveiling that awful 'stretch' Waja... eeeuwww!

The situation at Proton these days are so deplorable that one wonders how the organisation even functions. It simply has no Management leadership to speak of. The competent people in its Management structure began their exodus following Tunku Mahaleel's dismissal, with the last competent and highly respected leader, then executive director of engineering and manufacturing, Dato Kisai Rahmat, resigning (many say in disgust) in July 2006.

The truth is that Proton has been suffering from a lack of and indeed deteriorating Management competence in the post-Mahaleel era, made worse by a Chairman who continues to undermine the efforts of senior execs. Everyone knows this. Even Khazanah VPs know this (though many won't openly admit it). This despite the fact that many of Khazanah's current VPs don't have real operational experience of managing a company, as the KPI's they worship are evidence of something undeniably wrong.

I said management incompetence began in the post-Mahaleel era. What, was Mahaleel so great?

No. Mahaleel isn't what I'd call "great". He isn't a Ghosn, an Iacocca or a Toyoda, but at least during his time Proton made money! Proton actually produced new models then and even had a 5-year vehicle program! In fact, the only new model unveiled by the current management, Satria Neo, was part of Mahaleel's program. If Mahaleel's plan had continued, we'd have a Proton MPV now!

If Mahaleel and his team were able to add better value as a manager than the current Proton 'Management', certainly the 'local players' that Thomas and Surin referred to would be able to, them being DRB-HICOM, Naza, Mofaz and Sime Darby.

I'd put DRB-HICOM as a firm favourite though. Not because I'm getting anything from it besides a huge ego boost from showing I can analyse better than the Edge, but because:

1. Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary who controls DRB-HICOM has had a successful track record in turning around former government/GLC lagards. The best example is the Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP), which he took over and transformed into 2006's Lloyd's List Maritime Asia Container Terminal Of The Year. The man just knows how to build good management teams!
2. DRB-HICOM is strongly intergrated with Proton's Manufacturing, Marketing and Finance base, what with it owning many of Proton's vendors (some needing improvements themselves, but probably easier to fix with Proton becoming a principle entity within DRB-HICOM) as well as controlling EON Capital. So, in Khazanah speak, the acqusition of Proton by DRB-HICOM has many 'synergies'!
3. I kinda like TS Syed Mokhtar's charitable works... makes me feel his undertaking of Proton would be as it was always intended, as a grand effort to build Malaysia as a nation, rather than just building another business.

The other firms are good contenders, but each have flaws. I list them here in order of priority to me if DRB-HICOM isn't meant to get Proton, with their flaws:

2nd Choice: Sime-Darby. It has some similar, but not as strong synergy elements DRB-HICOM has, but it has a major flaw... its engaged in another 'synergy' at the moment, so may be a little distracted!

3rd Choice: Mofaz. Ala, they're a little small la bub.

Last Choice: Naza. Wow, I put Naza last (even after Mofaz!), when the Edge puts Naza head-to-head with DRB-HICOM. Well, Naza may be favoured by the 'I have no links to Naza' minister Dato' Rafidah Aziz, but there is good reason why Naza should not get Proton, or at least be considered as the last choice. Justice.

Naza is a company constructed on massive AP over-allocation's (with SM Nasimuddin being the original AP King), over-allocation of taxi licenses and some suspect the 'forgiven' under-declaration of taxes on their imported cars. It would hence be unjust for Naza to be 'rewarded' with control of Proton despite their dastardly, some would say criminal, past. Besides, if the Sutera is any indication, Naza probably doesn't really have a clue how to do more than re-badge anyway!

I hope the above Tangent addresses this idiotic commentary from the Edge on how local players can't add value to Proton. I hope its evident that where value is concerned, our local players have management competence to contribute to Proton to save it from its current state whilst avoiding it from being a complete sell-out to foreigners. In fact, better we have these local players involved when dealing with potential foreign partners, at least to save the country from more embarassment...

Actually, I should have expected the Edge's incapacity to analyse the problems at Proton to continue as the Edge has always had a mantra of,"Proton needs foreign assistance", from at least 2004 when I started to read the weekly rag.

We have of course the ever famous Gunasegaram, who after being told by Mahaleel during an interview in 2004 that Proton only needs a foreign partner that can add value(!), seems to forget this altogether, then publishes an 'editorial comment' on the interview that Proton pretty much needs any Tom, Dick and Harry foreign partner it can get. Strange commentary coming from a business rag's Chief Editor.

And then there is the ever restless Ms Leela Barrock, who after failing to convince many of her view, that Malaysia 'Tak Boleh' w.r.t. making cars (implied in her article on the 27 Dec 2004 Edge Weekly), she took a 'gloves-off' approach, volunteering herself as representing Malaysians who want Proton to begone so she can buy cheaper foreign cars! Critical business analysis it appears is not a prerequisite at the Edge when it comes to Proton bashing!

May Allah save us from such high quality analysis as the Edge's efforts on Proton, for the sake of our nation's and our own socio-economic health...

About A Boat...

Let me be clear about the intention of this blog. It is not just meant to espouse my musings as a Malay Muslim Professional, but intends to take a Tangent on things, with the hope it will engender thinking. With this in mind, let me begin this posting, which is all about how Pak Lah can afford a RM30 Million dollar Turkish built Yatch (~US$8.5 Mill at current exchange rate).

Much has been said about this boat, or yatch, but the key issue here is not whether or not Pak Lah as the PM of Malaysia should or should not buy a yatch, but whether or not he can afford to buy one on his salary. (Side-step: for the life of me, I have no idea what nuances separate a yatch from a sailboat, i.e. boat, so my apologies if in my haste, I trivialise the description)

Someone has bandied about a figure of RM30k per month as the salary of the PM, saying this is too low a salary to support a purchase of a RM30 Million boat. Actually, this is irrelevant. Pak Lah is at the time of writing ~67 years of age. I know of no bank that will give a loan for a period of more than say 5 years to someone of Pak Lah's age, if at all, especially with rumours of his medical procedure recently, even if it was for a nasal condition. No offence, but he's just too old to be bankable.

So, the salary is actually out as a method of payment for him, but for more reasons than one. However, he may well have other means.

Means 1: Civil Service Perks = Past Investments

Let's consider a few things here. The first is that Pak Lah has been a civil servant since 1964, for >40 years; man, he's been a civil servant for longer than most Malaysians have been alive! What does this mean?

No, it does not just mean that he has suffered too poor a salary for >40 years to afford a RM30 Million boat, but it does mean that he has had access to civil service perks for that long! Haaa... no, it doesn't mean he has been able to get corruption and kickbacks for that long... haiya!

What I am getting at is that he has had the opportunity to buy real estate under the government's schemes under SPPK, UDA, etc, when they were still worth something. Lets consider these facts:

1. A bungalow in Damansara Heights bought for ~RM80k in the 1970's is now worth ~RM3.5 Million
2. A bungalow in Bangsar bought for ~RM200k in the late 70's is now worth ~RM3 Million
3. For context, a terrace house bought for ~RM45k in TTDI in the late 70's is now worth ~RM500k

The above is typically how honest Malay civil servants of modest means invested in the 70's and 80's to be able to send their children privately for overseas education in the 90's and this century. Even a low to mid-level civil servant's family, especially if both adults are working, could secure a couple of terrace houses in the 70's and be sitting on ~RM1 Million of real-estate today!

So Pak Lah could well have made money from such investments to buy his boat. One expects with his stature as Finance Minister and his numerous expositions against corruption, he must have had some inkling of the oppotunities to invest and grow his assets in the above honest way.

Means 2: The Traditional Way Of Making Money = Inheritance!

Pak Lah comes from a line of noble UMNO leaders. His grandfather was a leading ulama and I understand both his grandfather and father were founders of UMNO. I can imagine these men would have left him some decent inheritance in the form of land at the very least when they passed on.

And land has appreciated rather dramatically everywhere in Malaysia. And where is Pak Lah from? Penang! Hurrah! Imagine the land prices there now, especially around the new 2nd link!

One must also not discount the fact that Pak Lah has recently lost his wife. It is believed that Pak Lah's late wife's family is quite well to do, being a prestigious civil servant family with links to successful business clans too! Pak Lah's marriage to the late Datin Seri Endon was seen to have set him up for a successful civil service career. It is hence also likely that Pak Lah inherited some from his wife's passing.

Small compensation though I am sure from the loss of such a pillar of strength by his side.

Means 3: The Filial Way Of Making Money - His Rich Kid(s?)!

Pak Lah had admitted in the Bangkok Post that his son Kamaluddin is rich! Surely here is a way for Pak Lah to get a decent loan to buy a boat, not by getting Kamaludding to buy it, but by having his son guarantee the loan for the boat for him, so that it is within his limits to pay with his salary.

Besides, Pak Lah is PM, so his housing, transport, medical bills, food and drink, even his holidays are at public expense! So with a guarantor, all RM30K or whatever pay could go to paying for the boat for an extended loan period of say 50 years?

I say kids as I understand Nori is doing some business as well. However, we should probably exclude Khairy here as his rice bowl has been broken by some old man.

I suppose Pak Lah also has siblings and siblings-in-laws that can afford to help him with collateral for the boat, if not secure all of the loan as his far richer son can.

Conclusion - enuff said on the matter!

So, to conclude, lets not waste any more of our time talking about this boat, yatch or whatever. A physicist is said to be able to prove an elephant can be balanced off the side of a cliff with a daisy. In Malaysia, our politicians and their cohorts have been seen to prove even more amazing feats, like how selling a valuable world-renown motorcycle company for a dollar is 'good business'...

... whilst recording the resultant few hundred Million RM loss as 'acceptable', endorsed by the Securities Commission no less!

Lets focus on more important things than the rumoured opaque private financial dealings of a man who just happens to be the PM... like his running(?) of the country for instance... now that's an issue!

What Could A Real More Islamic Policy Revamp Look Like: Ideas On Taxes

We have been a little trapped I feel by the trend of having the powers that be in Malaysia, or those linked to them, establishing the agenda for debate on policies to be implemented in the country. I suppose in some ways this is the fault of our earlier leaders who for the most part, either had good ideas, or had ideas of such grand scheme, not too many of us had the capacity to suitably react!

Unfortunately, the ideas being kicked around these days are pretty run-of-the-mill, or a little too obvious. On top of that, their implementation appear to be a little unsuccessful.

e.g. We will Eliminate Corruption! Really... what a novel idea! I would ever thought of that (LOL). By the way, I thought we were eliminating this corruption thing since 3 years ago now, but why do international monitors now see the country as suffering more corruption?

Well, if we are not happy with this state of affairs, we would be at fault if we didn't try to put some of our own ideas across. If anything, this may lead to gaining credence and refinement for the better of our ideas, with the hope of implementation of the deserving perhaps?

I'm keen on giving this a whirl. Lets begin with something like say... taxes! What changes to the tax code may be interesting to explore in Malaysia? And to add some dimension to it, let's link this policy revamp to a moral code, which to me would be Islam.

OK, in the early days of Islam, 'tax' took very specific forms. One form of tax, called 'Jizyah', began as a tax applied to non-Muslims to provide them parity of treatment as citizens whilst they were exempt of duties defending the nation, which is an obligation according to Islam. In fact, some non-Muslims were exempt from Jizyah due to their taking up the duties of defending the nation side-by-side with Muslims.

So, if this was the case, shouldn't we move to have the salaries of our armed forces as well as probably our civil defence personnel tax exempt? One may even be able to make the argument for civil servant salaries to be tax exempt, but lets start with the armed forces, the police and the fire department, as I doubt there would be much argument that this is in line the principles of Jizyah and its exemption in the past.

(Besides, I've always found it a silly exercise to have our civil servants' pay, which comes from our taxes, being taxed themselves! Seems easier to make the recipient of tax monies as pay to have a reduced pay that's tax free in the first place.)

This may not be earth-shatering as ideas go, but can you imagine the power of extending the theory behind Jizyah. So, what constitutes a warrior in the current world? Would a trade negotiator for FTA's etc. for instance be a warrior worthy of tax exemption? What about athletes at international meets? Do their efforts as warriors for the pride of the nation make them deserving of tax exemptions?

We can even ask what dimensions tax exemption can take. For instance, rather than have all civil servants salary tax exempt, can we consider the idea of having civil servants exempted from any property related taxes other than capital gains? This may not be as lucrative as an annual tax exemption, but it would help remove a hurdle to home-ownership.

Note that civil servants are typically not paid so high as to have much cash in hand for the ancillary cost of purchasing new homes, costs which are normally not covered by a bank loan. Tax exemptions such as this one will help reward their daily warrior-like sacrifice for the nation in the spirit of Jizyah.

We can extend this everywhere, from direct taxes for civil servants being at a lower rate geared to criticality of service to the nation - like a big exemption to teachers say, through to the indirect by say making gains from insurance payouts AND INVESTMENTS, tax-exempt for civil servants, encouraging them to take up private insurance to allow then some access to private hospitals, rather than having to rely on public hospitals and clinics only.

Please note that I'm not a tax-cut advocate by any means. However, I tend to think there are a mechanisms to make such mechanisms tax-revenue neutral to the government. OK, the tax exemptions linked to industries like that on home purchases or insurance benefits may be neutral from engendering greater economic activity anyway, but additionally, the government can consider applying taxes to those committed to avoiding public service? I'll leave this open...

Maybe the over-reaching idea here is for some tax experts in government to sit down and study the Islamic morals driven tax laws of old to discover some underlying logic, hence seeing its applicability for the current world. Any finance guys and gals out there even thinking of a Masters or PhD study on these matters perhaps? Would be cool if TAXES of all things could be made so interesting a matter of study given the right dimensions... and ideas...

Singapore's Johor Economic Rape

I was shocked to notice that I hadn't posted in this blog for almost 1.5 months, but maybe it was because I wanted to 'give peace a chance', what with Pak Lah and Dr M meeting and then the UMNO AGM. I should have known better... anyway, let's start again with a bang!

I actually believe SJER stands for Singapore's Johor Economic Rape. Unfortunately, I think Pak Lah was fooled by someone into believing this was a 'quick-win' he could claim to be his own when:

1. Danga Bay was practically built before his announcement of the SJER. Was it to be enhanced?
2. Nusajaya was more a mimic of Putrajaya from Dr M's time which had ground to a halt due to Pak Lah's earlier austerity measures. Rumours abound that the main companies (GLC's?) involved in building Nusajaya sold the SJER as a gimic to get Pak Lah to complete it!
3. This whole integration plan between the 2 ports in Johor and Senai began some time ago, with TS Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary taking controlling of all 3 over the years. In fact, the 'crooked bridge' was supposedly to open a new artery IN ADDITION to the so called 'new' land-bridge.

So, so much for 'My Idea'. The question is, besides the rumoured tricksters behind point 2, could Pak Lah be additionally fooled by the oft-mentioned Singapore-philes influencing or infesting the '4th floor'? My feeling is that the real risk of Singapore's Johor Economic Rape lies in its open borders concept giving birth to such undesirable offspring as:

1. Allowing Singapore to channel the more negative elements of their 2 Casino projects (otherwise known as IR's), like prostitution and drugs, away from Singapore into Johor. (Imagine Nusajaya turning not simply into a satellite, but more a trans-national slum of Singapore! Sort of like Batam now!)
2. Allowing Singapore access to resources that are restricting its already un-natural growth (un-natural as built on cheap Malaysian water, gas and labour, etc.); as it gives access to land of which Singapore is in severely short supply, especially after efforts to sell them sand for reclamation by individuals 'cabled' to the present Malaysian government failed.
3. Giving Singapore unfettered access (and the excuse) to participate in projects which Malaysian businesses could do just as well, at lower cost, and retaining the wealth in country, in an area that is naturally growing into a rival to Singapore, even without the so called SJER (remember, its Singapore's Johor Economic Rape).

The sad thing is, Singapore's Johor Economic Rape may not even be Singapore's fault at all at this stage. We may just have some clever people advising and in Pak Lah's circle that are going around asking Singapore to Rape Johor Economically!!

Btw, I do not dare refer to Singapore's Johor Economic Rape by its new 'formal' name as I understood HRH Sultan Iskandar of Johor did not give his approval to what I assume was the 4th Floor's 'clever surprise' idea and HRH would certainly be 'murka' at being associated to any kind of Rape of his own state!

Sorry if the above seems a little aggressive. Just following Pak Lah's example in his interview with the Bangkok Post - gloves off and 'old men' are fair game in the new Islam Hadhari culture eh?

Bahaya Di Sebalik Usaha Pemecatan Tun Dr M Dari 3 GLC, Terutama Sekali Petronas

Apakah di sebalik usaha memecat Tun Dr M dari 3 berkait syarikat kerajaan (GLC), LADA, Proton dan Petronas. Dalam kesibukan hidup kita semua, rasanya ada pentingnya kebenaran tentang perkara ini diutarakan.

Kemungkinan sekali, niat di sebalik usaha pemecatan Tun Dr M dari menasihati Petronas adalah yang paling parah. Sejak awal tahun ini, anasir anasir rakus yang mempengaruhi The Edge dan NST telah mengutarakan ide-ide penswastaan Petronas. Di ambang perjanjian perdagangan bebas dengan US (FTA), usaha ini ternyata untuk membuang Tun Dr M dari pengaruhnya untuk menghalang pengelelongan khazanah negara yang paling lumayan ini, hasil bumi kita dan syarikat terbesar negara, Petronas.

Dalam masa Tun Dr M memerintah dan menasihati Petronas, kalaupun ada salah guna pengagihan wang Petronas, setidak-tidaknya, banyak juga wang Petronas yang memanfaatkan segenap lapis rakyat Malaysia, paling kurang dalam pengurangan kadar cukai dan harga Petrol dan Disel. Tetapi dengan pembuangan Tun Dr M dari Petronas, ia bakal mempermudahkan jalan untuk Petronas dilelong selesai penyokong-penyokong Tun Dr M yang berkesan dan Nasionalis separti Tan Sri Hassan Merican di buang juga.

Cerita Proton cerita lama. Selesai usaha dalang Tingkat 4 si Azlan Hashim menghancurkan syarikat tersebut, niat yang tersirat adalah untuk melelong Proton juga, tetapi lebih sebagai mercu tanda 'kegagalan' usaha Tun Dr M memajukan Malaysia oleh pendukung Lah-isma.

Hal pemecatan dari LADA sebenarnya kecil sedikit. Ia sekadar memberi helah untuk MB Kedah digunakan untuk mengutarakan cadangan pemecatan tersebut.

Saudara-saudari sekelian. Pendek-kata, Lah-isma semakin menular mengganggu-gugat kesejahteraan dan kemerdekaan ekonomi negara. Kini kemungkinan besar Petronas ingin dilelong pula.

Pada Pak Lah, mungkin alasan yang diberi oleh Kali dan sekutunya adalah ia kerana kejayaan Petronas masih terlalu berhubung-kait dengan hadirnya Tun Dr M sebagai penasihat. (Memang betul pun... enjin yang jual kat negara China pun sebab program F1 ilham Dr M, dan Pak Lah masa Petronas bermasalah di Chad, tak nak tolong pun!).

Namun sedarlah bahawa pertelingkahan dengan Pak Lah cuma sekadar helah pemecatan Tun Dr M. Sebenarnya, pemecatan Tun Dr M membuka jalan untuk Petronas dilelong hasil usaha sang-sang rakus yang bertenggek di bahu Pak Lah didalangi anasir luar negara.

Apabila Putar-Belit Media Tidak Ke Mana Melainkan Mengancam Kedudukan Kerajaan UMNO (When Spinning Leads To No-Where - Part III)

Putaran berita sekitar laporan penyelidikan Dr TG Lim dan Dr ET Gomez di bawah naungan ASLI-CPPS mengenai peratusan pegangan ekuiti Melayu yang mempertikaikan pencapaian Dasar Ekonomi Baru dan penyambungnya, Dasar Ekonomi Nasional (DEB/DEN) sudah dibiar membara-semarak terlalu lama. Soalnya, kenapakah persoalan isu ini dibiarkan, malah pada awalnya diapi-apikan oleh media kawalan Tingkat 4 dan sekutu mereka?

Mungkinkah ini juga sebahagian usaha memperburukan nama Tun Dr M melalui keluarganya, memandangkan ASLI telah dibangunkan dan diketuai oleh anak beliau, Dato' Mirzan Mahathir? Persoalan ini timbul kerana tindakan Khairy Jamaluddin yang mengherdik penarikan balik hasil penyelidikan dan pohonan maaf Dato' Mirzan terhadap laporan ASLI-CPPS tersebut yang diakuinya kurang wajar.

Persoalan yang lebih merunsingkan adalah, kenapakah intipati laporan tersebut yang menimbulkan kontroversi tidak dibangkitkan apabila ia mula-mula dikemukakan kepada Unit Dasar Jabatan Perdana Menteri dan EPU sebagai bahan asas penggubalan RMK-9? Adakah ini kerana Unit Dasar JPM (sebahagian dari 'Tingkat 4') bersetuju dengan intipati laporan tersebut? Adalah harapan ramai yang ini bukanlah unsur 'Lah-isma' yang baru menjelma.

Ramai di kalangan profesional Melayu yang kononnya diwakili oleh anak-anak muda 'Tingkat 4' agak kecewa dengan kepincangan usaha kerajaan Pak Lah dalam mematikan isu ini. Kenapakah kenyataan Pak Lah dan pentadbirannya dalam menyangkal laporan tersebut tidak disertai hujah-hujah yang lebih tegar seperti:

1. Pernilaian ASLI-CPPS yang ekuiti syarikat milik kerajaan (GLC) seperti TNB, Telekom dan MAS dinilai seolah-olah 70% dimilik Bumiputra (berdasarkan penguasaan GLC oleh kerajaan berkepimpinan UMNO) memanfaatkan Melayu lebih dari bangsa lain mempunyai beberapa kelemahan:
   
   
• Ia tidak berdasarkan kepada pengagihan ekuiti sebenar, iaitu setara dengan demografi rakyat Malaysia yang merupakan pemilik sebenar saham kerajaan dalam GLC-GLC tersebut.
  
• Tidak banyak syarikat Melayu atau Bumiputra yang 100% Bumiputra miliknya di kalangan pembekal dan pemegang kontrek GLC. Tambahan pula, banyak pemegang kontrek GLC bergantung kepada pelbagai syarikat lain yang lazimnya milik bukan Melayu ataupun asing.
  
• Ia memberi tanggapan yang GLC-GLC pada zaman Pak Lah masih memberi keutamaan kepada syarikat pembekal Melayu, apabila sebenarnya, kebanyakan GLC di bawah naungan Khazanah kini mengutamakan syarikat pembekal milik asing yang memberi 'kos rendah' lebih dari syarikat Malaysia, tak kira milik Melayu atau bukan Melayu.
  
  Ini kerana, sesuai dengan prinsip 'Lah-isma', GLC-GLC Khazanah kini menumpukan perhatian kepada KPI, bukan lagi kepada usaha membangunkan industri tempatan melalui 'trickle-down effect'. Ajukan sahaja pertanyaan kepada MAS bagaimana pembekal-pembekal mereka kini dipilih dengan sistem yang tidak langsung memberi kepentingan kepada pembekal Melayu, mahupun syarikat Malaysia milik bukan-Melayu.
  
2. Sebenarnya tatacara pengiraan peratusan milik Bumiputra yang begitu diperdebatan ini tidaklah begitu penting. Ini adalah Malaysia sebuah negara demokrasi. Oleh itu, apa-apa hak yang wujud bagi mana-mana golongan masyarakat Malaysia, sama ada menerusi pembahagian agama, bangsa, umur, jantina, dsb, hanya boleh dihapuskan atau dipinda dengan persetujuan majoriti rakyat Malaysia.
   
   Fikirlah sejenak, memandangkan DEB/DEN memberi kelebihan kepada majoriti rakyat Malaysia yang kiat berkembang % penduduknya (hampir 60% berbangsa Melayu dan Bumiputra), tiada kerajaan di Malaysia yang boleh kekal di tampuk pemerintahan atas agenda menghapuskan hak-hak yang kini dinikmati golongan majoriti ini menerusi DEB/DEN.
   
   
3. Terlalu mudah DEB/DEN dituduh hanya memberi kepentingan kepada segelintir orang atasan UMNO dan komponen BN lain. Sebenarnya, DEB dinikmati oleh anak tani yang bermimpi ke Universiti dengan biasiswa, pengusaha kecil yang mengharapkan kontrek kecil untuk memulakan perniagaannya, kontraktor-kontraktor Kelas D, E dan F yang sedia menerima usaha membaiki dinding sekolah atau mencat bangunan sekalipun.
   
   Inilah golongan yang harus diyakinkan bahawa DEB/DEN tidak diperlukan lagi. Selagi ada golongan yang benar-benar percaya mereka memerlukannya, ia akan terus wujud kerana ia didukung oleh hak demokrasi majoriti negara ini yang merasakan keperluannya.
   
   
4. Ke'tidak-adil'an DEB/DEN sebenarnya ditanggung oleh masyarakat Melayu dan Bumiputra juga. Mereka harus menerima yang dasar ini hanya mendukung setakat 30% pemilikan ekonomi negara oleh masyarakat pribumi, padahal masyarakat ini merupakan majoriti rakyat yang juga kian meningkat.
   
   Kenapakah pindaan DEB kearah pengagihan kemewahan negara menepati demografi negara tidak dicadangkan? Kenapakah usaha kearah menyama-ratakan pendapatan masyarakat Malaysia tidak diajukan, apabila statistik terkini menunjukan purata berpendapatan bulanan masyarakat Cina sehingga 2 kali ganda pendapatan masyarakat-masyarakat lain?
   
   Ini kerana berdasarkan prinsip muhibah, masyarakat majoriti Bumiputra Malaysia tidak rakus dan meredhai yang masyarakat Cina atau masyarakat serta golongan manapun berhak memegang kuasa ekonomi yang lebih berdasarkan usaha, ilham dan titik-peluh mereka. Kenapakah sifat toleransi masyarakat Melayu dalam hal ini tidak pernah diketengahkan?

Maka, tuduhan, sangkalan dan tikam-tepis di sekitar paparan pendapat penyelidik pimpinan ahli-ahli pemikir Malaysia yang kebetulan berbangsa bukan Bumiputra sebenarnya tidak membawa banyak makna selagi pengundi majoriti Bumiputra berpendapatan kecil atau kecil-sederhana menerimanya. Jadi kenapakah isu ini tetap dibiar membara?

Ada yang mengesyaki bahawa pendapat yang diajukan Dr Lim dan Dr Gomez ini dipegang juga oleh segolongan ahli Khazanah dan 'Tingkat 4'. Inikah sebabnya pendapat ini tidak disankal apabila dikemukakan ke 'Tingkat 4' dalam penggubalan RMK9? Mungkinkah isu ini belum lagi dimatikan oleh kerajaan kerana penasihat terdekat Pak Lah bersetuju dengan pendapat tersebut? Adakah ini suatu unsur baru 'Lah-isma' yang mula terserlah?

Namun kerana golongan Tingkat 4 tersebut tidak mewakili majoriti profesional muda segenerasi dengan mereka, apatah lagi penduduk Bumiputra majoriti yang disebut di atas, pendapat mereka juga seharusnya tidak relevan dalam konteks usaha mengekalkan, membaik-pulih atau meminda DEB/DEN. Oleh itu, bukankah lebih baik isu ini dimatikan langsung dengan segera oleh pentadbiran Pak Lah?

Melainkan Pak Lah sedia untuk UMNO menerima pukulan maut menjelang pilihanraya kelak....

When Spinning Leads To No-Where (Why Pak Lah's Administration Should Listen and Do, Not Excuse Themselves and Blame the Past) - Part II

Usually I don't post something new until the last post has 'run its course'. However, as I am still annoyed by the attempt of 'someone' to muzzle me by attacking me at work, and have my first nice chunk of free time since then, I thought I'd open my mouth wider.

A typical defence of "Lah-ism" by the 4th Floor and co. is that the corruption currently rife in Pak Lah's era is due to the legacy of corruption over the years of the Dr M era. The further spin around the ineffectiveness of "Lah-ism" to quickly eliminate this corruption is that "changes takes time, in fact many years" and that "instant changes are not possible as it would result in chaos" and further still that "patience is a virtue" that "Lah-ism" holds strongly too.

Let me respond in 2 ways.

Firstly, I quote historical evidence that it is possible to fix many years, decades of corruption even, in a matter of a few years. I present to you the example of former Korean President Kim Young Sam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Young_Sam

Kim Young Sam took less than 1 term to clean up much of the corruption in Korea, even driving the successful conviction of his 2 predecessors as Korean President in the process! This resulted in Korea's ability to quickly re-emerge from the Asian Crisis supported by an already clean beauracracy.

However, as Wiki notes, his anti-corruption drive resulted in himself being implicated in a corruption scandal! What Wiki doesn't note was that prior to than, Kim Young Sam also had to stand aside and watch as his own son was convicted through his anti-corruption drive.

I doubt Malaysia's corruption when Pak Lah took over was any worse than post-dictatorship Korea's, so I reject the idea that Pak Lah's administration can't get something TANGIBLE going at least just because of history. He's had 3 years after all! Over the same period, Kim Young Sam, whilst leading a larger economy and population, was >60% done with his clean-up!

So, is Pak Lah not moving forward in his anti-corruption drive because the problem has become so much bigger since he came to power, or because he doesn't know how to deal with it and neither do his advisers, or because he and his followers are afraid an anti-corruption drive would convict his son/son-in-law/ friends/whatever?

Secondly, if the 4th Floor does not want Dr M to take credit for the bulk of Malaysia's current and coming successes, like our 'first Malaysian in space' for instance, then they cannot expect him to take all the blame for corruption today. Such a thing only creates a convenient scapegoat of all of Pak Lah's failings whilst he rides the remnants of the wavecrest of success created by his predecessor.

We citizens should always maintain that the government of the day has to be held accountable for the problems of the day. And sure, the past government may not have left things easy to handle, but then the measure on the present government should also be on how well it remediates any past mistakes.

However much Dr M may have benefited or damaged the country, his time is over. When we criticise the current government, we should do so with the hope for change for the present and future, not as a throwback to past events. And this includes criticism of Pak Lah's administration for not getting even an inch of real progress righting past wrongs and continuing to drag its feet on implementing its own publicly expressed priority of reigning in corruption!

Lah-ism's proponents should stop apologising for Pak Lah's shortcomings and indeed themselves embark on constructive criticism of him. Criticism of Dr M and his time as a method of apologising for the weakness of the Pak Lah's administration just puts a needless finger of blame to history and is pointless, unproductive, and truly not in the spirit of Vision 2020.

When Spinning Leads To No-Where (Why Pak Lah's Administration Should Listen and Do, Not Excuse Themselves and Blame the Past)

I had a bad experience of having 'someone' who didn't like my writing on "Lah-ism" trying to silence me by sabotaging me at work. Fortunately, the higher-ups at my company are quite enlightened and just request I don't start dragging them into it, seeing as to them these 'someone' appear quite malicious by their attack on me.

Since then, I've been too busy to really write, but I did get some notes of support and advise by those I vented my spleen to (which amounts to a few thousand people in the NGOs I post messages to). Though I am grateful for much of the suppport, I am not agreeable to some advice that I should calm down as such a thing is normal when one embarks on discourses such as I have.

(I call my discourses 'the truth', but others may not agree.)

Anyway, I do not accept that just because something is the norm that it is necessarily right. So, I persist, only now, with some vengeance...

So on the topic above, the NST tried to spin Pak Lah's admin out of trouble again recently. This time it was on the Geneva-based World Economic Forum's "World Competitive Index" that showed Malaysia under Pak Lah has become less competitive in ranking against other nations, dropping 1 spot to 26th out of 125 nations from 25th last year.

The 'spin' was that we're one of the Top 10 most competitive in Asia and No 2 in ASEAN; we're 6th in Asia below Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the "Pretending Lion".

Funny that Pak Lah's media guardians bothered to spin this, Dr M would have just ignored such a thing, but I'm looking for the URL for your viewing pleasure.

In the meantime, my comments are:

What other country is there for us to be better than in Asia than the ones we're already above? Thailand was the biggest threat but is now in trouble. The problem is whether we can stay up and improve against others especially as we seem to be slipping against the rest of the world!

Let's put aside Dr M here and focus solely on Pak Lah's performance here. So, what has Pak Lah done to help us improve our competitiveness globally which has resulted in us dropping a spot from last year when I believe we already were supposed to be improving?

The report said Malaysia's competitiveness would be improved: "if the (Pak Lah) government was more successful in reducing the public sector deficit. Improving the health of the workforce and access to education would also do much to enhance the country's competitiveness"

Comment: Hold on, I thought Pak Lah was doing nothing but reducing public sector deficit, so much so that we are suffering record inflation. And after all the hype that Pak Lah's 'new' focus is education, what's up with this criticism?

The report also said:"The "notable competitive disadvantage" and the "most problematic factors for doing business" in Malaysia include inefficient government bureaucracy, corruption, crime and theft, restrictive labour requirements and inadequately educated workforce."

Comment: Hmmm... I thought these were also the focus areas of Pak lah's admin. So, despite all the hype of 'had work' in these areas, why is the criticism still strong against our bereaucracy, corruption and rising crime? Already commentted on the education focus hype.

So based on all the hard work and focus by Pak Lah's admin on the quoted problem areas, Malaysia has GONE DOWN in global competitiveness, specifically because we are WEAK in PAK LAH'S ADMIN'S supposed AREAS OF FOCUS!

So forget about Dr M. Why is Pak Lah's team not reaching his own established and much hyped targets for the nation? That's the real question Pak Lah's apologists should be answering from reading this report.

Analisa Politik Semasa Sekitar Pendukung Kepimpinan Pak Lah (atau Kenapa Sambutan Dingin Terhadap Cadangan Tun Salleh Abbas)

Agak terdesak sedikit masa dan tenaga saya untuk mengembangkan lagi penulisan dalam hal bahaya inflasi yang menghantui ekonomi negara serta perbezaan falsafah ekonomi Pak Lah dan Tun Dr M. Maka, saya memilih untuk rilek sejenak sambil meransangkan perbincangan tentang tunjang kepimpinan Pak Lah.

Pak Lah seorang ahli politik yang berpengalaman dan didukung oleh ramai pengikut yang setia. Walaupun kesetiaan oleh golongan pro-Pak Lah tradisional mungkin digugat tempohari akibat tuduhan 'pelelong negara' yang dilemparkan terhadapnya secara langsung dan tidak langsung oleh Tun Dr M, namun sokongan Pak Lah masih kental dikalangan penyokong profesional beliau.

Ini termasuk bukan sahaja golongan yang sudah dilabel 'Tingkat 4', iaitu golongan muda, kebanyakannya anak-anak kakitangan kerajaan yang baru menceburi bidang politik dan perasan mereka 'mewakili generasi profesional muda'; ia juga termasuk segolongan ahli politik yang sudah lama menjadikan alam politik alam kerjaya mereka sambil mengekalkan imej profesional mereka.

Golongan veteran politik profesional yang pro-Pak Lah ini amnya merupakan pengikut-pengikut Tun Musa Hitam, bersama-sama dengan Pak Lah dalam 'Team B', yang pernah menentang Tun Dr M pada pemilihan UMNO tahun 1987, dibawah kepimpinan Tunku Razaleigh Hamzah (KuLi).

Perlu dijelaskan di sini yang golongan penyokong Pak Lah ini bukanlah kumpulan Team B yang merupakan penyokong-penyokong KuLi yang, selain dari Dato' Ibrahim Ali, amnya mengambil kedudukan berkecuali dalam sengketa Pak Lah <-> Tun Dr M. Ia juga tidak termasuk pemimpin-pemimpin utama Team B atau kemudian Semangat 46 yang jelas bermaafan dengan Tun Dr M seperti Dato' Rais Yatim dan Dato' Kadir Sheikh Fadzir.

Golongan veteran ini termasuk Setiusaha Agung UMNO sekarang, Dato' Radzi Sheikh Ahmad dan bekas pemimpin BBC, Dato' Shahrir Samad.

Saya ingin memberi perhatian lebih kepada Dato' Radzi dalam penulisan saya pada hari ini, bukan sahaja kerana Dato' Shahrir amnya lebih dikenali, tetapi juga kerana sebagai Setiuasaha Agung UMNO pimpinan Pak Lah, Dato' Radzi merupakan general rasmi utama Pak Lah dalam pertempurannya dengan Tun Dr M.

Siapakah Dato' Radzi Sheikh Ahmad ini yang begitu tekun melawat itik dan dusunnya di Kubang Pasu dua kali dalam minggu sebelum pemilihan UMNO Bahagian tersebut yang beliau sendiri akui sudah lama tidak dijenguknya?

Penting bagi rakyat Malaysia mengetahui bahawa, Dato' Radzilah pemimpin UMNO yang secara tidak langsung mengakibatkan krisis kehakiman berlaku pada tahun 1988. Kerana itulah beliau kini disyaki berusaha mendalangi penutupan usaha meninjau kembali krisis tersebut secara mendalam yang diusulkan oleh Tun Salleh Abbas.

Tiadakah yang hairan bahawa pada masa segala jenis tohmahan dan tuduhan dilontarkan ke arah Tun Dr M dalam usaha pincang untuk menidakkan persoalan yang dibangkitkan beliau tentang kelemahan kepimpinan Pak Lah, kenapakah kerajaan tidak terus sahaja mengorek kudis sejarah krisis kehakiman pada zaman Tun Dr M. Kalau benar Tun Dr M bersalah dalam hal tersebut, kenapa tidak dedahkan sahaja segalanya.

Sebabnya jelas, walaupun Tun Dr M bertindak keras terhadap Hakim-Hakim utama negara pada masa itu, tetapi sebelah mata rakyat sering tertutup dari fakta sejarah di mana badan kehakimanlah yang sebenarnya mula bertindak keras dan menyerang kerajaan Tun Dr M dengan mengharamkan UMNO tanpa mendapatkan dahulu kata putus ketentuan dari Pendaftar Pertubuhan.

Kenapakah Allahyarham Tan Sri Harun Hashim, seorang hakim yang berwibawa, bertindak demikian? Kerana beliau termakan hasutan serta dusta beberapa ahli Team B yang diketuai olah Dato' Radzi Sheikh Ahmad.

Dato' Radzi seorang peguam yang pintar. Beliaulah yang mengusulkan dan mendorong usaha 11 orang ahli UMNO untuk mencabar kesahihan pemilihan UMNO 1987 yang berakhir dengan kemenangan Tun Dr M sebagai Presiden dengan majoriti yang tipis. Dato' Radzilah yang menggunakan hubungan guaman, politik dan peribadi untuk mengatur supaya Hakim-Hakim yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut ada hubungan keluarga atau peribadi dengan KuLi dan Tun Musa.

Para hakim mahkamah kita pada masa itu mungkin berwibawa, tetapi mereka juga manusia biasa. Dan apabila berdepan dengan tuduhan yang membuktikan saudara dan teman mereka mungkin berpeluang merampas kepimpinan negara menerusi keputusan kehakiman mereka, naluri setiakawan dan persaudaraan mendorong mereka kearah pengharaman UMNO.

Dato' Radzilah pencanang di sebalik pengharaman UMNO tersebut.

Tetapi Dato' Radzi dalam canangannya terlupa yang para kakitangan awam yang berwibawa juga wujud di pejabat Pendaftar Pertubuhan (ROS). Kerana mereka tidak setuju dengan keputusan berat sebelah Hakim-Hakim tersebut, mereka memberi keutamaan kepada Tun Dr M dan para pengikutnya untuk mewujudkan UMNO Baru.

Tersalah langkah Dato' Radzi, dan apabila ini berlaku, beliau mendapati dirinya bukan sahaja pada pihak yang kalah pemilihan, tetapi terkandas sebagai penderhaka di luar UMNO Baru. Pada masa inilah Dato' Radzi membuat kesilapan yang parah buat badan-badan kehakiman negara. Dato' Radzi terus mencanang dalam usaha melagakan lagi para Hakim dengan UMNO Baru dan kerajaan pimpinan Tun Dr M. Perlagaan inilah yang menyebablan krisis kehakiman 1988.

Semua ini angkara Dato' Radzi. Kini beliau tergesa-gesa berusaha menutup segala usaha mengkaji semula apa yang berlaku pada tahun-tahun gelap 1987-88, sewaktu beliau memporak-perandakan alam politik, kerajaan dan kehakiman negara Malaysia.

Dato' Radzi tahu yang kalau beliau benarkan kajian semula dilakukan, ada risiko tinggi yang para penyokong Tun Dr M, malah ahli Semangat 46 sendiri yang masih ingat dan tidak dapat memaafkan Dato' Radzi, akan mendedahkan segala pekung yang sekian lama tersembunyi mengenai jenayah penderhakaan terhadap bangsa dan negara yang dilakukannya.

Inilah juga sebab kenapa Dato' Radzi dengan begitu tekun cuba menjahit-tutup mulut lantang Tun Dr M tentang kelemahan Pak Lah. Beliau takut yang dalam kelantangan Tun Dr M, mungkin ada tersasul-sebut antara bukti kelemahan Pak Lah adalah yang Dato' Radzi, orang yang paling bertanggungjawab dalam pengharaman UMNO, telah dilantiknya sebagai Setiausaha Agung UMNO pimpinannya.

Dato' Radzi ada menyatakan dalam temuramah dengan akhbar Star awal tahun ini yang beliau tidak bercadang bertanding lagi dalam pilihanraya akan datang. Alhamdulillah. Tetapi mungkin ada baiknya Dato' Radzi pergi lebih dahulu dari itu. Ternyata UMNO sekarang dan UMNO yang diderhakainya dahulu tidak memerlukannya kasih sayang sama seperti itik dan dusunnya di Kubang Pasu.

The Pantai "Political-Economic Bail-Out"

It would seem the Pak Lah administration is now responsible for a new political phenomena in Malaysia, the "Cross-Border Politico-Economic Bail-Out".

For the first time in history, a financial arm of the Malaysian Government (Khazanah) is BAILING-OUT a FOREIGN ENTITY (Parkway) for the sake of saving the POLITICAL Miss-Step of the Finance Ministry.

Khazanah has now come in to save Parkway's and Pak Lah's bacon by forming a 'JV' with Parkway, supposedly in the works for the 'past year':

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/29/business/15270310&sec=business

Questions that remain include ...

1 - How much is this due to Pak Lah's admin suddenly realising the extent of betrayal to national interest his Finance Ministry has committed in allowing the Parkway deal to go through in the first place?

2 - Why has Parkway been allowed to profit from this deal after only 10 months when Parkway is in reality in a very difficult position with Malaysian regulations allowing Parkway to be forced to dispose of FOMEMA and Pantai Medivest, its two most profitable subsidiaries, at low prices to Malaysian/Bumiputra investors; 2 of whom were recently rejected!

Note that Pantai accounts for ~50% of Parkway's EBITDA growth over the past year, and the FOMEMA and Pantai Medivest portions of Pantai in turn accounts for ~50% of Pantai's profitability.

3 - Why is Pak Lah allowing Khazanah to bail-out Parkway, a foreign entitiy owned and controlled by Singaporean and US interests, when he has the day before refused to assist Petronas in sorting out Petronas' problems in Chad? Are Singaporean and US companies now a bigger priority to Pak Lah's admin than Malaysian companies?

4 - With Khazanah in a position of such strength, why is Dato' Azman Mokhtar's Khazanah so generous towards Parkway, 'buying' Pantai shares at a 5% PREMIUM to Market Value (Khazanah's JV is 'buying' the Pantai shares from Parkmay @ RM2.65/share whilst 26 August 06 Market Closing Price is @ RM2.51/share)!

5 - Khazanah is also being doubly generous, by endorsing and facilitating Parkway's INCREASE in ownership and allowing Parkway to continue to CONTROL Pantai whilst it is now a clear Minority Shareholder. Why not commit to Pantai being Malaysian run, as it had been for many years of growth prior to Parkway's acquisition of it?

It is unbelievable Dato' Azman has not gone for Parkway's jugular in this - or has he been stopped from doing so by the "4th Floor"?

Some open discourse also on the web:

http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/08/its_khazanah.php#more

Update:

It would appear questions remain of the legality of the original purchase of the controlling share of Pantai in the first place by Parkway. With the Proton-MV Agusta and ECM Libra-Avenue scandals, are we seeing yet another symptom of an Enron-like desease spreading across the Economic Management of our country? See details here...

http://rockybru.blogspot.com/

It would seem that the government continues to guide Malaysia down a meandering course towards political and economic oblivion...

Pertempuran Mahathir <-> Pak Lah Juga Merupakan Pertempuran Ideologi Ekonomi Dan Pembangunan (Bahagian 1)

Tun Dr Mahathir pada zaman pentadbirannya telah menggerak pembangunan negara bedasarkan prinsip "Economic Nationalism" atau Ekonomi Nasionalis. Prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis bukanlah prinsip baru yang dibawa oleh Mahathir, malah ia juga didukung oleh Perdana-Perdana Menteri sebelumnya. Tetapi yang berbeza adalah pendekatan lebih aktif dan mendorong yang diambil oleh Mahathir.

Prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis merupakan prinsip yang mementingkan kepentingan dan hala-tuju negara secara menyeluruh, termasuk dari segi politik, keadilan sosial, kebudayaan, keselamatan dan lain-lain dalam menggubal rancangan dan menggerakkan pembangunan ekonomi negara. Antara ciri-cirinya prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis Mahathir ini termasuk:

1. Aktiviti-aktiviti ekonomi utama atau strategik di Malaysia haruslah dimiliki, dikuasai atau sekurang-kurangnya melibatkan syarikat atau rakyat Malaysia sebagai penggerak utama.
2. Pembangunan negara tidak boleh mengancam, malah harus terus menjamin kemerdekaan Malaysia dari segi fizikal, mahupun ekonomi, kebudayaan, pemikiran dan sebagainya
3. Pembangunan haruslah seiring dengan pengagihkan kekayaan ke segenap masyarakat secara aktif untuk memperbesarkan kelas pertengahan ("middle-class") supaya ini semakin menjadi kelas majoriti rakyat Malaysia. Pengembangan kelas pertengahan ini juga mengutuhkan lagi ekonomi dalaman negara dengan membangunkan aktiviti ekonomi dalam negara.
4. Pembangunan haruslah meningkatkan daya-saing dan kedudukan Malaysia di mata dunia.
5. Dengan adanya 4 ciri-ciri yang awal, kerajaan Malaysia juga harus melibatkan diri dalam projek-projek penjanaan ekonomi tersebut secara langsung.

Pendek kata, Ekonomi Nasionalis mementingkan rakyat, badan atau syarikat Malaysia sebelum yang asing. Ekonomi Nasionalis mementingkan rakyat yang ramai sebelum yang sedikit dan mementingkan manfaat untuk semua sebelum manfaat untuk individu. Ekonomi Nasionalis juga pada lahirnya agak "populist"; contohnya ia mementingkan pengurangan pengangguran sebelum pembangunan ekonomi yang menyebabkan penganguran.

Kerana itu, kerajaan Malaysia di zaman Tun Dr Mahathir terlihat jelas dengan aktif menjanakan ekonomi negara dengan projek-projek Mega seperti jambatan Pulau Pinang, Lebuhraya Utara Selatan (PLUS atau nama tidak rasminya, Lebuhraya Mahathir Mohamad), Koridor Raya Multimedia, KLCC, Proton, dsb. Namun, hasil lebih penting dari projek-projek ini bukanlah bangunan, jambatan, kereta, kilang atau lebuhraya yang dibina sahaja.

Ekonomi Nasionalis memberi kepentingan kepada projek yang memberi lebih manfaat kepada kumpulan rakyat yang terbesar. Inilah sebab kenapa PLUS diutamakan dahulu dari projek-projek Mega yang lain. PLUS dibina sebagai projek yang boleh memanfaatkan rakyat di sepanjang pantai barat Semenanjung Malaysia, jalinan kawasan kepadatan penduduk paling tinggi dan perkumpulan penduduk paling ramai di Malaysia.

Falsafah ini juga terlihat dalam perjalanan sesuatu projek Mega. Contohnya, dalam pembinaan LRT di Kuala Lumpur, penempatan stesen dan landasan adalah berdasarkan kepadatan penduduk yang terbesar dan penduduk yang paling mundur ekonominya. Makanya, kawasan kepadatan tinggi berpendapatan rendah seperti Gombak diberi keutamaan berbanding kawasan kepadatan rendah berpendapatan tinggi seperti Bukit Damansara.

Dari segi ekonomi, pra-syarat kerajaan Mahathir yang pembangunan projek-projek Mega wajib melibatkan syarikat Malaysia, juga telah membangunkan pelbagai syarikat tempatan yang kini berupaya merentap dengan syarikat-syarikat dari negara yang lebih maju untuk p elbagai projek di seluruh dunia. Syarikat-syarikat seperti UEM, MMC-Gamuda dan YTL inilah yang bakal terus menjana pembangunan Malaysia di masa hadapan.

Dari segi sosio-budaya pula, laungan "Malaysia Boleh" tidak mungkin sebati dalam pemikiran masyarakat Malaysia di penghujung era Mahathir sekiranya kejayaan pelbagai projek dan inisiatif ekonomi yang lepas tidak terlihat keberkesanannya. Rakyat Malaysia melihat jelas yang kita sendiri berupaya membangunkan negara sendiri tanpa perlu berpaut kepada mana-mana pihak atau negara luar.

Dalam politik antarabangsa, pembangunan ekonomi Malaysia pada era Tun Dr Mahathir membolehkan Malaysia bertegas dalam pelbagai isu namun kekal pada kedudukan berkecualinya. Ketegasan kerajaan Mahathir dalam mendukung kebenaran yang membayangi kehendak rakyat Malaysia, seperti dalam isu Palestin, mendorong negara-negara lain untuk mengagap Malaysia pimpinan Mahathir sebagai pemimpin negara-negara seumpamanya.

Ekonomi Nasionalis juga memberi rakyat banyak kelebihan secara tidak langsung. Contohnya, prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalislah yang mendorong kerajaan Mahathir mengekalkan subsidi petrol dan diesel serta harga elektrik yang lebih murah di Malaysia selama yang boleh dan hanya merubah atau menaikkan harga sekiranya terdesak dan juga secara beransur.

Walaupun tindakan ini berhasrat meningkatkan daya saing industri kecil dan berat negara dengan mengurangkan bebanan kos, ia juga membolehkan rakyat menikmati harga keperluan tenaga yang murah. Mahathir dengan prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis sedia melihat kerugian ditampung oleh TNB dan pemegang-pemegang sahamnya yang lebih mampu asalkan tindakan dalam mengekalkan harga rendah memanfaatkan negara secara keseluruhan.

Dasar-dasar Ekonomi Nasionalis Mahathir juga jauh pandangannya. Selain dari Wawasan 2020 yang hingga kini kerap diwar-warkan, dasar-dasar khusus kerajaan Mahathir dari awal pentadbirannya juga bersifat begini. Contohnya Dasar Kependudukan Negara untuk mencapai 70 Juta penduduk menjelang 2100 berhasrat memantapkan kemerdekaan ekonomi negara dengan meramaikan rakyat yang bakal menjana ekonomi tempatan.

Kita akui bahawa walaupun banyak usaha yang berjaya membangunkan ekonomi pada era Mahathir, tidak kurang juga kegagalan yang menimpa usaha kerajaannya. Contohnya, isu Perwaja, isu kronisma dan kelumpuhan ekonomi negara setelah diserang spekulator asing pada tahun 1997-98 terus menghantui beliau. Namun, secara keseluruhan, Tun Dr Mahathir telah membuktikan model Ekonomi Nasionalis Malaysia boleh membawa jaya.

Namun prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis tidaklah begitu popular di alam kapitalisma Barat yang mementingkan kepada pembangunan yang dijana oleh sektor koprat atau individu hampir secara eksklusif. Lazimnya, di Barat, kedudukan kerajaan dalam ekonomi hanyalah dalam hal pembentukan dasar fiskal atau pencukaian untuk menggalakkan pembangunan ekonomi dan menarik pelabur mahupun usahawan.

Dikalangan negara Barat, hanya negara Perancis yang jelas mengamalkan prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis.

Sejak tampuk kepimpinan negara beralih kepada Pak Lah, ternyata prinsip Ekonomi Nasionalis semakin terkubur. Pak Lah bukanlah seorang ahli ekonomi dan beliau sendiri mengakuinya dengan penubuhan pelbagai badan tambahan untuk menasihati beliau dan kerajaan di dalam bidang ekonomi. Malangnya, hampir kesemua badan penasihat yang menasihati Pak Lah sekarang dipelopori oleh ahli ekonomi berpendidikan atau berideologi Barat yang anti-Ekonomi Nasionalis.