THE NEW ECONOMIC MODEL – WHY MPM CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTS?

1. As one of the panellists of Kongres Ekonomi Bumiputera organized by Majlis Perundingan Melayu (MPM) on 29 May 2010, I wish to share my thoughts with those who did not have the benefit of participating in the deliberation, especially with those who do not share our wisdom and vision. In particular, I wish to share some salient points on why, unanimously, we conditionally accepted, or alternatively rejected in principle, the New Economic Model (NEM). The exact wording is as follows (page 7):

“Kongress…telah bermuafakat untuk menzahirkan pendirian bahawa penerimaan MBE ini oleh Kongres tertakluk kepada kesediaan kerajaan untuk;”

We are willing to buy-in the proposed Model if the government is willing to consider and incorporate our 31-point resolution adopted by the 126 MPM affiliates. Hence, outright rejection of NEM is a non-issue.

Preambles

2. Before I proceeded further, it is useful to restate my preambles. They will provide some useful pointers and parameters.

3. First, NEM is an NEAC document circulated to solicit feedback; it is YET to be finalised and accepted by the government. Since we are in the engagement mode, therefore, it is more productive to channel our ideas, aspirations, concerns and misgivings to the NEAC rather than resort to attacking and name-calling each other.

4. Being an integral part of the civil society, holding the Kongres is a clear manifestation of MPM’s positive, pragmatic and matured response as a responsible body.

5. Second, we appreciate and recognize that all rakyat of Malaysia have a stake in this NEM and, therefore, they have an unalienable right to voice their concerns, register their future needs and submit their recommendations to NEAC. Accordingly, no one has the right to question or belittle the MPM on this engagement since we do not question or stop anyone / any group like Dong Jiao Zong, Hindraf, Suiqui, FMM and FOMCA from doing the same.

6. MPM never expected to be attacked by its own race. Its core business is to unite the Malays because MPM has long realised that our people have been fighting with each other far too long until we are decomposed and weak. In actual fact, we are digging our own graves. The non-Malays are laughing at us. Don’t blame them if they are urinating at us; blame ourselves.

7. We should learn from the Chinese. They are united when facing a common enemy, in advancing a common Chinese interest or when a common Chinese interest is under attacked. Issues on ‘immigrant race’ and Chinese education are classical examples. Logically, therefore we should be united in engaging the NEM for a common goal / vision – betterment of the Malays (it can be further refined). Differences in ideas, strategies and approaches should be discussed and harmoniously iron out.

8. Third, we were willing to participate in this engagement because we were encouraged by our PM’s willingness to listen and to respond. He is not like Obama, conducting a one-way traffic like a diode; only listened but did not respond. Najib is even much better than Sarkozy and Brown!

9. Fourth, NEM was touted as something new and we would like to embrace new things IF they are better for us since we also believe that “doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different result is lunatic”.

10. Fifth, since we are yet out of the woods (great economic crisis / recession), we do share the two Chinese characters embodied in the word ‘Crisis’ – danger and opportunity. Therefore, we view NEM as an opportunity to improve the Malays’ well-being, as encouraged by the DPM (Malays must see the NEM as an opportunity and not a threat) but, at the same time, mindful of its possible threat in destroying the Malays, if any.

11. Sixth, we agreed with Najib that this is the right time to change. And since we also shared Paul Otellini’s view that “It’s a lot easier to change when YOU can than when YOU have to. The cost is less. You have more time” therefore we do not belong to the so-called group who wants “to do business as usual”. Combined with the fourth point, it is therefore dead wrong for anyone to think that we are having that kind of mindset. If they still wish to be obsessed with that ancient thought, then they are still behind the curve and trapped in that stereo-typed primitive mentality.

12. Seventh, we fully supported the NEM’s target of increasing the country’s income as measured by the GNI per capita, from US$7,250 (2008) to US$15,000 by 2020 as it is consistent with the Islamic principle of Zakat. We must share wealth (enlarging economic cake), not poverty (shrinking economic cake)!

13. Lastly but most importantly, MPM participated in this engagement because we fully subscribe to Najib’s commitment that NEM must be NEP-compliant. He had unambiguously expressed that “THE NEP OBJECTIVES ARE RELEVANT…WE WILL CHASE THE SAME GOALS, BUT TRANSFORM THE WAY WE DO THINGS”. So no one should conveniently over look this critical statement by our PM.

Why reject?

14. In principle, MPM unanimously rejected NEM because of its severe weaknesses and flaws. It is accepted if they are rectified.

15. First, it insubordinates PM’s directive of ensuring NEM as NEP-compliant. As rightly pointed out by Datuk Halipah, another panellist, Bumiputera economic agenda was not conspicuously outlined in NEM, albeit the word ‘Bumiputera’ was only mentioned twice in the Executive Summary! Prof. Dato’ Normah, the speaker representing the NEAC and Secretary of the Council, belatedly admitted this naked fact. In actual fact, this single reason is justified to reject totally NEM. Nonetheless, PM tried to save the NEM when he singularly assured the MPM audience that Saturday night that the New Model will explicitly incorporate the Malay Agenda.

16. Does anyone still have digestion problem with Normah’s said admission and PM’s said directive?

17. Second, in trying to project and sell NEM and current administration, the entire tone of the document was hostile towards NEP and past administration inclusive. Using unfriendly (caustic?) language, NEM unfairly criticized and condemned NEP as well as putting all the blames on the said policy for all the alleged government weaknesses and failures. This excerpt, as an example, attributed to the NEAC Chairman, may enlighten us about this soulless Malay:

“IN ONE PRIVATE ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN TAN SRI AMIRSHAM AZIZ – THE SO-CALLED MALAY CHAIRMAN OF THE NEAC BUT ALLOWED MINORITY AND FOREIGNERS TO OVERWHELM THE NEAC MEMBERSHIP, HE SAID THAT NEW ECONOMIC POLICY (NEP) WAS THE REASON THAT MALAYSIA LOST ITS COMPETITIVENESS.
AMIRSHAM WAS NOT THINKING INDEPENDENTLY AND ANALYTICAL IN HIS CHAIRMANSHIP OF NEAC FOR HIS IS REGURGITATING THE VIEWS OF OTHERS. USING THAT STAND ON NEP, NEAC PROPOSED THE NEW ECONOMIC MODEL TO THE GOVERNMENT.” – ANOTHERBRICKONTHEWALL.

[Tan Sri, one small question. Our ranking in the IMD Competitiveness Index has leaped from no. 18 to no. 10. Is it due to your NEM?]

18. As such, one cannot help but to have this naughty feeling that the actual intention of the drafters, by way of extension, was to attack and to belittle renowned and highly respectable Malay leaders like Tun Razak (the architect of NEP) and Tun Dr Mahathir (the engineer of NEP).

19. Allow me to pick up a few examples to demonstrate my point.

20. Firstly, it accused NEP “has engendered pervasive corruption”. I don’t condone corruption and do admit that corruption in Malaysia was higher than in certain countries. However what I don’t agree with is its unbalanced statement. Which country that has zero corruption and zero patronage?

21. I wish to point it out that some of those countries that the drafters were proud of, in actual fact, were worse than Malaysia, including the darling BRIC countries. Corruption Perception Index of 180 countries provided the relevant evidence:

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX (CPI) [180 COUNTRIES] – Malaysia is better than these countries:

• MALAYSIA – 56 (4.5)
• BRAZIL – 75 (3.7)
• CHINA – 79 (3.6)
• INDIA – 84 (3.4)
• INDONESIA – 111 (2.8)
• RUSSIA – 146 (2.2)
• THAILAND – 84 (3.4)
• VIETNAM – 130 (2.5)

22. Secondly, NEAC did not fairly acknowledge the achievements of previous leaders in building the country’s economy, despite its multifarious challenges. It accused the past leaders of failure to get the country out of the income trap; implying the economic growth had plateaued for many years. However this graph shows that our GDP per capita was continuously on an uptrend, not flattening. Doesn’t it mean NEAC has a bad intention (mala fide) in condemning the government by hiding behind a new terminology “middle income trap”?

Carta 1: GDP Per Kapita Malaysia,
1970 – 2009 – TERUS MENINGKAT, TIDAK TERPERANGKAP

23. Thirdly, it accused “our economic growth has come at a considerable environmental cost…” We do not know what evidence the NEAC used. However, based on CO2 emission per capita and endangered species, Malaysia has a much better record than many developed countries:

CO2 EMISSION PER CAPITA (TONNE):

– MALAYSIA = 7.7
– LUXEMBURG = 22.4
– OECD (AV.) = 9.5

ENDANGERED SPECIES:

– MALAYSIA = 631
– ITALI = 2
– OECD (AV) = 166

24. Worst still, it condemns that the growth “has not benefitted all segments of the population”. What a blatant statement! There could be pockets of the population who are yet to get the trickling effects of development but which country that does not have the same problem?

25. The following information shows that average monthly household income of all races and strata (urban / rural) had increased many folds over the years; concomitantly, poverty had significantly declined. Who benefitted from this continual economic growth and distributive policy?

Carta 2: Pendapatan Purata Bulanan Isi Rumah,
Malaysia, 1970 – 2008 – TERUS MENINGKAT


Carta 3 : % Kemiskinan Isi Rumah,
Malaysia, 1970 – 2008 – HAMPIR SIFAR

26. Additionally aren’t the Malaysian populace benefitted from the relatively long period of low inflation and full employment regimes?

Carta 4 : Kadar Inflasi, Malaysia
1970 – 2009 – PURATA RENDAH


Carta 5: Kadar Pengangguran Malaysia, 1982 – 2009 – PURATA RENDAH

27. Fourthly, it crudely accused “the gap between the rich and the poor is widening”. Inequality has 2 aspects – (a) within races / strata (intra) and (b) between races (inter). Regarding the former, it can be measured by using the Gini Coefficient – ‘0’ is perfect equality and ‘1’ is perfect inequality. Over the years, the data indicated that income gap within races and strata had indeed narrowed. For example, in 1970, the overall inequality was 0.443. However in 2008, it had reduced to 0.439.

Carta 6: Jurang Pendapatan Isi Rumah Intra Kaum &
Bandar / Luar Bandar (Gini Coefficient),
Malaysia, 1970 – 2009 – SEMAKIN RAPAT

28. Regarding the latter, it can be gauged by using income ratios. Again, it is very glaring that the government has succeeded in bridging the inequality gap between races / strata. As an example, in 1990, for every RM1 each Malay household had, the Chinese household had RM1.74 (1:1.74). In 2008, the ratio has improved to 1:1.41.

Carta 7: Jurang Pendapatan Antara Kaum & Strata
(Nisbah Pendapatan), Malaysia, 1970 – 2008
– SEMAKIN RAPAT

29. There are a few more unfair attacks by the NEAC. However I wish to make one last comment on its claim of mediocre economic growth rate. The Chart below, on the contrary, proved that our past leaders had generated respectable growth rates. In fact during the 20-year NEP period, the average growth rate was almost 7% per year. It proved that the Policy did not inhibit growth. More importantly, it simultaneously spread distributive justice as exhibited by increasing average monthly household income, decreasing poverty, narrowing income gap, low inflation and full employment.

Carta 8: % Pertumbuhan GDP Per Capita,
Malaysia 1970 – 2009 – PURATA TINGGI

30. Can the NEAC and its supporters show to us which country had achieved such an excellent output mix during a given period? Based on these extraordinary achievements, I wish to repeat that Tun Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir more deserve to be given the Nobel Prize on Empirical Economic Management as compared to those academicians and technocrats who may not be able to run even a small company profitably. Some did try the easiest way to show profit by quietly selling the company’s asset.

31. The resultant conclusion is that one cannot but agree with us that it is WE who are genuinely supporting and defending the government while NEAC and those who embraced NEM blindly are in fact brutally condemning and attacking the government. Implicitly, it looks as if they want the BN government to stand down and be accountable for those purported wrong doings, weaknesses and failures. Hence, NEM becomes a weapon that kills the master (Malay proverb – senjata makan tuan).

32. Accordingly, will PM and his cabinet agree with MPM or throw their supports to the NEAC / NEM?

33. Now led us concentrate on the third reason why we vehemently rejected NEM. It is because it took away our unalienable rights as enshrined under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution in the dubious names of economic efficiency, meritocracy, free competition, market-led, market-friendly, etc. We DON’T disagree with those jargons but not at the expanse of our rights.

34. Admittedly, it does mention, albeit, superficially about the special position of bumiputera (please note its usage of small ‘b’; shall we spell the word ‘chinese’ and ‘indian’ using small ‘c’ and small ‘i’ respectively?) and does try, albeit, only implicitly to help them by designing market-friendly affirmative action programmes for those in the bottom 40% of the households – 77.2% are bumiputera (again please note the small ‘b’).

35. First, the NEAC must be told in no uncertain terms that it has no power to take away anyone’s right as enshrined in the Constitution. If no one can take away unconstitutionally the citizenship of non-malays (rich and poor), the same goes for Article 153 (quotas on scholarships, permits, licences, etc for the Malays, Orang Asli and Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak) and other related Articles. If non-malays are not willing to surrender their citizenship rights and rightly do not expect others to trample on that rights, so also the Bumis (rich and poor) pertaining to their rights as stipulated under the said Articles. Therefore the Bumiputera Economic Agenda, consistent with those Articles, must be clearly outlined in detail in the NEM.

36. Second, the Bumi’s rights are not meant for the bottom 40% of the households only; the top 20% and middle 40% have the same constitutional rights. However, as a departure from previous practices, meritocracy and free competition should be practised among the Bumis within EACH stratum. By implementing this paradigm, the Bumis, across the social stratification, will get a fair share of the nation’s wealth based on economic efficiency; not through rent-seeking, patronage, etc.

37. If NEM’s approach is adopted (affirmative action only for the bottom 40% of the households), the paradigm of confidence mechanism as postulated by C. Elliot will be set in motion. The big fish in the smaller bowl at the top layer will expropriate most of the nutrients; leaving some to filter down into the bigger bowl at the middle layer and very little left to trickle down into the largest bowl at the bottom layer.

38. In one sentence, one may describe the paradigm as elastic to the extent of giving ‘cosmetic concessions’ to the poor (Malays). Proverbially speaking, the rich (non-Malays) get the meat; the poor (mostly Malays) only get the gravy. Hence, not only the bottom 40% will largely remain poor but the inequality will further widen as in the case of Singapore and the USA. We must avoid this socio-economic landscape.

39. Allow me to drive home the point by demonstrating a probable case. NEM, for example, has proposed precious plots of government land in Kuala Lumpur to be sold on an open tender basis. Who will be the successful bidder? One who quoted the highest price! Who? The richest man among the rich. Who? The Chinese!

40. The same goes with the proposed sale of GLCs, procuring big contracts, accruing long term concessions, etc. These are the nation’s wealth which NEAC is strategically and systematically scheming to be expropriated by the rich. And the rich is largely from one race. If this worry does become a scary reality, isn’t it fair to conclude that NEM will become a deadly tool to colonise the Malays until kiamat (end of the world)?

41. In the meantime, what happen to the middle and bottom 40%? Their standard of living could have improved through increase in wages as a result of capacity building, empowerment, etc. However this increment is hugely small relative to the wealth expropriated by the top 20%. Hence, the resultant widening gap between the Bumis and non-Bumis. Because of this highly probable socio-economic landscape that we proposed Article 153 be implemented across social stratification since the playing field between Bumis and non-Bumis is not level even at the top 20% . Appling meritocracy and free completion under this hostile environment is in actual fact revisiting the law of the jungle – survival of the fittest.

42. Now lets us go to the fourth reason why we have to reject NEM in principle. It is rejected because it does not guarantee outcomes. As declared by Datuk Dr Mahani, a member of the NEAC “THE EMPHASIS SHOULD BE ON OPPORTUNITIES AND PROCESSES BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO GUARANTEE OUTCOMES”.

43. Hence, it is beyond reasonable doubt that, from the outset, NEAC had in fact conceded defeat and, therefore, who is going to naively believe in the final delivery of its promises which could be construed as rhetoric:

• FAIR DISTRIBUTION?

• RAISING THE INCOME LEVEL OF BUMIS?

• INCOME PARITY WITH OTHER ECONOMIC GROUPS?

• NARROWING INCOME INEQUALITY?

• EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE NATION’S WEALTH?

• MONITORING PROGRESS?

44. At the same time, it seems as if NEAC is arrogantly not paying attention to DPM’s exhortation that “MALAYS MUST BE LESS OBSESSED WITH PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES COMPARED WITH OUTPUT”. Will then NEAC focus more on outputs and bravely guarantee the outcomes after this?

45. There are a few more weaknesses inherent in the NEAC, including its theoretical framework. Those who are interested to know more may visit my blog here.

Conclusion

46. If NEM is retained in its present spirit, form and substance, one cannot escape from concluding that it is camouflaged behind a smokescreen of excessive sophistication and esoteric concepts with the attendant policies which will subjugate the Malays. The highly probable outcome is analogous to the result of a surgical operation: the operation (NEM) succeeded but the patient (Malays) died! QED.

• Senator Datuk Akbar Ali was formerly Deputy Chief Statistician, Statistics Department Malaysia and Executive Director, MTEN Melaka.

  1. #1 by sputjam on June 11, 2010 - 6:12 pm

    !) I do not expect a retired civil servant to understand anything about how the economy and business really work in practice, although they may be good theoretically.
    2) special position of malays are also enshrined in the constitution of singapore.
    Singapore Constitution, Part XIII, General Provisions, Minorities and special position of Malays, section 152:

    The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
    But their implementation is vastly different from the ULTRAS in Malaysia.

    3) although the graphs and statisitcs look good, in reality, you can see the failure of malay in the education system everywhere. even the ones with degrees. The ones making inroads are those who basically comes from malay family who speaks english as the main language.

    4) The high divorce rate amongst malays reinforce the fact that these are due to economic, moral and educational failures during the period where NEP was implemented. Need I remind you about HIV epidemic? Also the highest amongst all the races.

    5) economic acheivement of the malays can only be acheived by giving a very good pre-school education all the way to form 5, prefferably in english, the international language. But our malay leaders decided to send the malays back to the cave by teaching science and maths in malay. citing that rural students are losing out. But worldwide, rural students normally do not do as well as those from urban areas.

    6) NEP under mahathir prevented many non-bumi students from furthering their studies, blocked employment of non-bumis into academia.Although the wealth gap amongst the races narrowed, it could only be due to the loss of many who has deicded to move overseas, and not due to malays making huge gain in wealth.

    7) The aim of the NEM is to raise the economic competitiveness even further, so that government can collect more revenues and hopefully, use it wisely to assist the less fortunate. But if there are those who are abled and metally sound still insist on welfare aid, there is no cure except maybe, if we were during the time of Stalin, he would have exterminated people whom he considered, useless.

    • #2 by darahtuah on June 15, 2010 - 6:20 pm

      sputjam,

      1st para – man has 3 selfs – (a) what he is?, (b) what he thinks he is? and (c) what others think he is? Re self (b), u think u’re even better than the distinguished riterees like Royal Prof. Ungku Aziz, Andrew Shang, Dr Lin, Dr Tillinathan, etc.?

      If (ex)civil servants (were) / are theoriticians, who were / are the implementors of government policies / directives?

      2nd para – u’ve rightly quoted article 152 of Singapore Constitution. Is it implemenetd? Everybody knows, except certain people, the inhumane discrimation inflicted on the S’pore Malays. Inequality gap between the Malays and Chinese widens every year. The Lees don’t care a dime.

      It is expected that U won’t be able to compare fairly the minority Malays in singapore with the minority Chinese and Indians in Malaysia despite the glaring evidences as I’ve quoted in my article.

      The rest – not worth to comment.

      I wish that we can sit down and discuss face to face. It should be interesting to engage people like u.

      Tk.

      Darahtuah.

  2. #3 by Wake UP! on June 12, 2010 - 1:13 am

    An in-depth insight into NEM is exactly what is needed so that we can see the male-fide of it.

    Treason law.

  3. #4 by Wenger J Khairy on June 13, 2010 - 7:21 pm

    Datuk,

    “An enemy of my enemy is my friend, a friend of my enemy is my enemy.”M.

    As such you are my enemy because your friends with my enemies. And I respond to your challenge on the following

    30. Can the NEAC and its supporters show to us which country had achieved such an excellent output mix during a given period? Based on these extraordinary achievements, I wish to repeat that Tun Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir more deserve to be given the Nobel Prize on Empirical Economic Management as compared to those academicians and technocrats who may not be able to run even a small company profitably. Some did try the easiest way to show profit by quietly selling the company’s asset.

    I am not a supporter of NEAC nor the NEM. but you have quoted my enemies comments extensively in your posting and presentation and I, Wenger J Khairy accept your challenge.

    My data is from the United Nations : http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=gdp&d=SNAAMA&f=grID:102;currID:NCU;pcFlag:0

    My calculation of average uses the Geometric Mean

    Between 1970-1990 i.e 20 periods.

    Malaysia growth (your value) = 6.82%
    My calculation Malaysia Growth = 7.66%

    Countries with higher GDP growth

    1970-1990
    Myanmar
    UAE
    Botswana
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Aruba
    Cayman Islands
    Oman
    Maldives
    Swaziland
    Sinagapore
    Republic of Korea
    Hong Kong
    China
    Macao
    –>Malaysia

    1991-2008 (UN data does not have 2009)
    Your calculation for 1999-2009: 5.84%
    My calculation for 1999-2008 : 5.99%

    Equatorial Guinea 22.74%
    British Virgin Islands 11.71%
    China, People’s Republic of 10.39%
    Turks and Caicos Islands 9.87%
    Kuwait 9.54%
    Qatar 9.25%
    Sudan 8.10%
    China: Macao SAR 8.01%
    Anguilla 7.99%
    Cambodia 7.88%
    Viet Nam 7.66%
    Bosnia and Herzegovina 7.50%
    Mozambique 7.36%
    Maldives 7.36%
    Bhutan 7.29%
    Uganda 7.18%
    Myanmar 6.93%
    Cape Verde 6.92%
    India 6.78%
    Lao People’s Democratic Republic 6.72%
    Angola 6.69%
    Singapore 6.40%
    United Arab Emirates 6.31%
    Ireland 6.22%
    Trinidad and Tobago 6.06%
    Afghanistan 6.05%
    Jordan 6.00%
    Malaysia 5.99%

    I will not compare 1970 – 1979. Tun Abdul Razak is a great leader. My issue is with Tun Mahathir and his supporters. If you say TAR was the greatest and deserves Nobel Prize, I accept.

    1980-1989
    Your calculation: 5.87%
    My calculation : 5.54%

    Countries with higher GDP growth than Nobel Prize Winning Prime Minister Who Had His Deputy Arrested and Tortured
    Myanmar 42.58%
    Botswana 11.52%
    Aruba 11.21%
    Maldives 10.99%
    Turks and Caicos Islands 10.69%
    Bhutan 10.06%
    Cook Islands 10.03%
    China, People’s Republic of 9.90%
    Cayman Islands 9.29%
    Republic of Korea 8.68%
    Oman 8.31%
    Egypt 7.66%
    Thailand 7.49%
    Anguilla 7.48%
    China: Macao SAR 7.47%
    Saint Lucia 7.30%
    Swaziland 7.22%
    Singapore 7.10%
    China: Hong Kong SAR 7.03%
    Marshall Islands 6.82%
    Antigua and Barbuda 6.40%
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 6.33%
    Chad 6.25%
    Mongolia 6.24%
    French Polynesia 6.15%
    Cyprus 6.14%
    Pakistan 6.10%
    Mauritius 6.04%
    Indonesia 5.98%
    Vanuatu 5.94%
    British Virgin Islands 5.92%
    India 5.88%
    Lao People’s Democratic Republic 5.85%
    Cambodia 5.85%
    Cape Verde 5.76%
    Saint Kitts and Nevis 5.72%
    Viet Nam 5.62%
    Grenada 5.57%
    Malaysia 5.54%

    1990-1999
    Your calculation : 7.23%
    My calculation : 6.91%

    Countries with higher GDP growth than Nobel Prize Winning Prime Minister Whose Son is Major Shareholder of San Miguel Beer Company

    British Virgin Islands 23.87%
    Equatorial Guinea 21.56%
    Bosnia and Herzegovina 12.46%
    China, People’s Republic of 10.65%
    Turks and Caicos Islands 9.87%
    Occupied Palestinian Territory 9.59%
    Eritrea 8.32%
    Lebanon 8.01%
    Maldives 7.90%
    Viet Nam 7.66%
    Singapore 7.43%
    Uganda 7.22%
    Sudan 7.13%
    Malaysia 6.91%

    2000-2009
    Your calculation: 4.76%
    My calculation 2000-2008 (No 2009 data): 5.04%

    Countries with higher GDP growth than Nobel Prize Winning Prime Minister Whose Bailouts Has Bankrupted The Country

    Country
    Equatorial Guinea 22.25%
    Azerbaijan 16.98%
    Afghanistan 16.28%
    Montenegro 14.92%
    China: Macao SAR 14.49%
    Angola 13.11%
    Armenia 11.89%
    Anguilla 11.05%
    Qatar 10.78%
    Turks and Caicos Islands 10.56%
    Sierra Leone 10.35%
    Nigeria 10.19%
    China, People’s Republic of 10.19%
    Kazakhstan 9.28%
    Cambodia 9.21%
    Chad 9.11%
    Sudan 9.09%
    Bhutan 8.95%
    Mozambique 8.40%
    Belarus 8.25%
    Ethiopia 8.16%
    Trinidad and Tobago 7.70%
    India 7.61%
    Viet Nam 7.55%
    Georgia 7.52%
    Mongolia 7.50%
    United Arab Emirates 7.34%
    Lithuania 7.33%
    Uganda 7.27%
    Turkmenistan 7.25%
    Latvia 7.21%
    Maldives 7.16%
    Kuwait 7.09%
    Jordan 7.08%
    United Republic of Tanzania: Mainland 7.07%
    Ukraine 6.99%
    Lao People’s Democratic Republic 6.91%
    United Republic of Tanzania: Zanzibar 6.90%
    Rwanda 6.86%
    Myanmar 6.74%
    Uzbekistan 6.56%
    Russian Federation 6.49%
    Mauritania 6.48%
    Estonia 6.47%
    Bahrain 6.42%
    Romania 6.41%
    Cape Verde 6.40%
    Sao Tome and Principe 6.33%
    Panama 6.31%
    Moldova 6.29%
    Slovakia 6.22%
    Cuba 6.07%
    Andorra 6.04%
    Albania 5.98%
    Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 5.94%
    Tajikistan 5.91%
    Pakistan 5.89%
    Peru 5.89%
    Antigua and Barbuda 5.81%
    Bangladesh 5.80%
    Mali 5.77%
    Bulgaria 5.72%
    Burkina Faso 5.63%
    Ghana 5.58%
    Iran, Islamic Republic of 5.54%
    Serbia 5.41%
    Niger 5.34%
    Suriname 5.31%
    Dominican Republic 5.22%
    Syrian Arab Republic 5.18%
    Indonesia 5.18%
    Botswana 5.16%
    Morocco 5.09%
    Costa Rica 5.09%
    Egypt 5.06%
    Thailand 5.05%
    Sri Lanka 5.05%
    Malaysia 5.04%

    • #5 by OnDaStreet on June 15, 2010 - 3:38 pm

      Dear Datuk and Wenger,
      I can see that Mr Wenger here has been providing his excellent review on GDP. Surely what is expected from my dear old blog friend who loves economics and love to compare GDPs among countries in the world.

      However, it is also noted in the RMK10 on the poverty, inflation rate etc..

      Perhaps, can Mr Wenger provide similar analysis on the said matters.. because, GDP is not the only measurement of economic performance.. (the same with NEAC is doing.. too much concerntrate on GDP, but not try to mention on how poverty rate and inflation rate will be and expected to Malaysia)

      Sorry Mr Wenger if you feel that I’m trying to pick a fight with you.. because I don’t.. I know you know where I come from when giving such comments.🙂

      Have a nice day!

      ~ OnDaStreet

    • #6 by darahtuah on June 15, 2010 - 5:57 pm

      Dear Wenger J Khairy,

      1st. – If I were u, I would make a serious effort to win over my enemy’s friend as my friend. Anyway, I don’t treat u as my enemy, especially I don’t even know u.

      2nd. – U just show only one economic variable; not an output mix. Pls read again the said para (& the previuos realted paras).

      3rd. – re the former DPM; the court had proven him guilty – QED. Re sodomy – he was aquitted on technical ground; the judges believed he did commit that heinous act.

      4th. – Tun M’son business. It’s his business to do whatever legitimate business. So do u. Should anyone interfere in your right to do legitimate business?

      5th. – Tun M was praised by world leaders, including IMF & Soros (belatedly), for what he had done to fight the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis; M’sia did NOT go bankrupt. The bailouts, which were condemned before, were in fact imitated by the same countries / institutions in solving the great recession impacting their countries (USA, UK, France, IMF, World Bank, etc) and the Greek Crisis. also remember Argentina & Iceland.

      Tk.

      Darahtuah

    • #7 by sputjam on June 16, 2010 - 11:58 am

      @ wenger
      The whole region experienced phenomenal growth between 1990-1997, so Dr M was not a contributory factor. It was a period of low inflation and hgh growth, maybe never to be experienced again. Our axchange rate was 2.4 to USD and about 1.2 to S$. Today, with volatile and high price of energy and commodity, our exchange rate aggravate this further by having a low value of 3.4 and 2.4 respectively with US and singapore/brunei. And despite this(high monetary value), being an expensive city (in terms of property prices) and not a drop of mineral and oil, Singapore attracts all the major oil company to invest by building refineries and petrochemical complex over there, and having the lowest cost of energy in asia, lower even than that produce by Malaysian refineries. Cost of refined oil is dtermined from where it is refined, and not where it is extracted, and cost escalate teh further away from the refinery. Hence this advantage was used to maximum by changi airport/SIA and PSA.

      The idea of High speed broadband was brilliant, and Malaysia laid down the cables (I believe Mahathir’s son owns the factory in Senawang) well ahead of South Korea and Japan. unfortunately, cyberjaya was populated by monkeys and the billions spent is only bearing fruits as companies moved in. south korea and japan laid the cables where human resides, and now they lead in bradband development.

      • #8 by darahtuah on June 16, 2010 - 3:18 pm

        sputjam,

        1. re growth – yr answer seems to show that u don’t understand the subject of an output mix that I enumerated.

        2. development philosophy – u don’t seem to appreciate there could be more than one for different objectives / missions. Do u know / remember what/how was Jengka, Sintok and Puterajaya originally?

        Tk.

        Darahtuah.

    • #9 by OnDaStreet on June 17, 2010 - 10:15 am

      Dear Darahtuah and Wenger,
      Just a refreseher for Wenger.. because I can still see Bostwana is mentioned in your case study..

      Perhaps a refreseher on history of economic performace you made just to suit your best interest without really expanding it wider…

      with permission:

      http://ondastreet.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/22-years-of-bull/

      ~ OnDaStreet

  1. Ular Makan Gajah « Hidup Tuah!
  2. Bumiputera tertinggal bas lagi « Hidup Tuah!
  3. Questioning the NEP? «
  4. Questioning the NEP? | peraktoday.com
  5. The Quintuplets in Umno |
  6. NEM – SYSTEMATIC DESTRUCTION OF THE BUMIS? (Part 2) « Hidup Tuah!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: