Bagaimana syarikat-syarikat menyalurkan wang kepada Umno

Translation

THURSDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2010 18:42

Share Link:            Terjemahan daripada bahasa Inggeris oleh CPI Halim Saad dan Tajudin Ramli adalah dua orang anak emas Melayu tahun 1980-an dan 1990-an yang khusus dipilih oleh mantan Perdana Menteri Mahathir Mohamad untuk memimpin bangsa Melayu supaya mengambil tempat di persada nasional. Kedua-duanya diangkat sebagai sebagai pembawa budaya perniagaan Bumiputera baru yang bakal setanding dengan kaum Cina yang sekian lama menguasai bidang perdagangan.  Mengikut bisik-bisik orang dalam, ketika Mahathir mula menerajui negara, beliau merencanakan untuk mewujudkan barisan 100 orang bumiputera kaya-raya. Mahathir berharap mereka-mereka itu akan memakmurkan kaum Melayu luar bandar. Kesemuanya ini dijangka akan disempurnakan atas 'konsep payung', yakni di bawah naungan Umno. Begitulah rancangan Mahathir, sebagaimana juga beliau bercita-cita menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara industri yang maju melalui projek-projek mega.  Akan tetapi naluri manusia itu disebut rakus. Setelah orang terpilih yang diberi hak-hak istimewa tadi menjadi kaya, mereka tidak pula terdorong untuk berkongsi kemakmuran yang dinikmati dengan penghuni kampung dan luar bandar. Banyak syarikat yang diterajui anak buah Mahathir akhirnya runtuh dan perlu dihulurkan 'talian hayat' oleh agensi kerajaan seperti Khazanah Nasional, dana pelaburan negara ataupun Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (KWSP). Selama 22 tahun pemerintahan Mahathir, menjadi tanggapan umum bahawa Umno mempunyai kaitan rapat dengan para ahli peniagaan bilioner Melayu. Namun begitu, andaian tersebut sekarang mampu terbukti kesahihannya lanjutan daripada dokumen-dokumen yang difailkan di mahkamah Kuala Lumpur baru-baru ini. Dokumen-dokumen pembongkar rahsia tersebut mengesahkan bahawa bahawa Tajudin, Halim dan lain-lainnya merupakan 'front men' ataupun wakil bagi kepentingan Umno, parti politik terbesar di Malaysia. Yang terlibat dengan saman-penyaman di mahkamah adalah golongan yang dikenali sebagai Umnoputra, satu kerat ahli peniagaan 'rentier, ataupun yang mendapat untung mudah daripada 'mengutip sewa' (maksudnya mendapat tender tertutup, lesen, permit dsb).  Akan tetapi bukan sekadar hanya Tajudin dan Halim yang bergelar Umnoputra. Di kalangan mereka termasuk Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary (kiri), salah seorang warga Malaysia terkaya, serta Yahaya Ahmad, yang mengepalai projek kereta nasional Mahathir (Yahaya terkorban dalam nahas helikopter bersama isterinya), serta Samsuddin Abu Hassan yang diperkenalkan oleh Mahathir kepada phak pentadbiran Nelson Mandela.  Samsuddin melarikan diri dari Afrika Selatan selepas dituduh menggelapkan berjuta-juta ringgit dan meninggalkan hutang berjumlah  sekitar rand 50 juta (US$7.2 juta pada kadar pertukaran matawang masa kini). Angkara salah laku Samsuddin, bank Durban gagal. Beliau pulang ke tanahair tanpa diiringi isteri glamornya Melleney Venessa Samsudin. Sekembalinya ke Malaysia, Samsudin (kanan) dilantik menjadi ahli lembaga pengarah Mitrajaya Holdings Bhd, sebuah syarikat yang dikaitkan dengan Umno yang telah memainkan peranan penting dalam projek-projek nasional termasuk Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA), KL Light Rail Transit System (LRT), Cyberjaya Flagship Zone serta lain-lain lagi. Sekurang-kurangnya 23 syarikat terbesar di Malaysia (lihat senarai di bawah) nampaknya telah ditunggang Umno bagi membolot kontrak kerajaan dan seterusnya menyedut wang. Tatkala itu, percaturan Mahathir sudahpun terlerai. Oleh kerana para pengurus tadbir syarikat-syarikat tersebut begitu sebati dengan Umno dan ranting-ranting pelaburannya, apa-apa percubaan untuk memisahkan mereka besar kemungkinan akan menghancurkan parti. Pada bulan Julai baru-baru ini, Perdana Menteri Najib Razak telah memberikan sebuah ucapan yang disebarkan secara meluas, di mana beliau berjanji untuk membasmi gejala rasuah dalam partinya. Sebahagian besar pemilikan harta yang disebut di atas nampaknya telah disalurkan melalui sebuah syarikat misteri yang muncul pada tahun 1993. Syarikat tersebut -- Realmild -- mengambil alih pengurusan (melalui 'management buyout') media termasuk New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd dan TV3, dan dengan pembelian bernilai RM800 juta itu berjaya menguasai sebahagian besar industri media.  Realmild tatkala itu sudah memiliki saham majoriti dalam Malaysia Resources Corporation Bhd (MRCB) yang diberikan kontrak untuk membangunkan projek raksasa KL Sentral, iaitu kompleks yang dijadikan pusat pengangkutan [nota pengarang CPI: Pusat yang menemukan LRT, monorail, KTM, komuter, ERL, dsb). Realmild juga membeli syarikat Labuan dan Sabah Shipyards yang membekalkan Tentera Laut Malaysia, serta Redicare dan Medivest, yang diberikan kontrak lumayan untuk menyediakan bekalan perubatan untuk hospital kerajaan. Pada bulan September, Syed Anwar Jamalullail, seorang adik-beradik kepada Sultan Perlis, dan saksi-saksi lain telah memberi keterangan di mahkamah. Di dalam kes rumit yang sedang berlangsung di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, saksi-saksi tersebut berkata Daim Zainuddin, orang kanan perdana menteri, sering meminta para pengusaha Melayu supaya menjadi 'nominee' (orang yang dicalonkan) untuk mengurus syarikat-syarikat tersebut. Salah seorang bekas pengarah Realmild Khalid Ahmad telah memfailkan saman pada 2005 dengan mendakwa beliau ditipu sebanyak RM10 juta. Jumlah tersebut adalah seharusnya bayaran untuk lima peratus saham Realmild yang dituntutnya daripada Abdul Rahman -- yang disebut sebagai tuanpunya ('beneficial owner') Realmild. Menurut keterangan yang diberikan di mahkamah, Abdul Rahman bersetuju membayar RM10 juta tetapi kemudian mengingkari janjinya setelah beliau diberitahu oleh Mahathir bahawa saham tersebut sebenarnya milik Umno [dan bukan milik peribadi perseorangan]. Paratrustee (yang memegang amanah) untuk Realmild sebenarnya adalah Mahathir sendiri serta bekas pengarang kumpulan Berita Harian Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, bekas pengarang kumpulan New Straits Times Group Abdul Kadir Jasin dan Mohd Noor Mutalib. Ahmad Nazri mengatakan dalam pernyataannya kepada mahkamah ('deposition') bahawa walaupun beliau memegang saham majoriti Realmild sebanyak 80 peratus, namun 70 peratus saham itu sebenarnya dipegang olehnya untuk Mahathir. Syarikat-syarikat lain dalam jaringan Umnoputra termasuk Faber Group Bhd, sebuah anak syarikat Kumpulan UEM, yang kini terlibat dalam sektor pengurusan hartanah dan kemudahan-kemudahan ('integrated facilities management and property solutions'); dan KUB Malaysia Bhd -- sebuah syarikat induk yang berkecimpung dalam bidang maklumat, komunikasi dan teknologi, hartanah, kejuruteraan & pembinaan serta industri makanan. Syarikat-syarikat tersebut terlibat juga dalam pelbagai kegiatan termasuk media, pembangunan, pembinaan, jalan tol, peralatan hospital, logistik dan pengedaran, perkhidmatan jaringan telefon bimbit dan lain-lain. Barisan Nasional yang berkuasa sejak Merdeka telah memanfaatkan Umnoputra dengan mengagihkan kontrak-kontrak kerajaan kepada syarikat-syarikat di bawah penyeliaan mereka. Seperkara lain tentang syarikat-syarikat ini ialah kebanyakan mereka disalah urus dan akhirnya gagal kerana masalah kewangan atau kerumitan lain. Angkara itu, syarikat-syarikat tersebut terpaksa diberi pertolongan ataupun ditebus oleh kerajaan. Realmild 'diselamatkan' apabila ianya menjual MRCB yang dimiliknya kepada KWSP sebagai sebahagian daripada penyelesaian hutang bagi pinjaman RM500 juta pada lewat 2005. [Perihal syarikat-syarikat lain] Putera Capital Bhd, yang sebelum ini memiliki Putra World Trade Center -- PWTC yang merupakan ibu pejabat Umno, yang juga menyewakan ruang pejabat kepada bisnes-bisnes -- sekarang dekat muflis. Manakala UEM Builders Bhd, suatu cabang dari United Engineers Malaysia (UEM), bersama dengan UEM World Bhd, dibeli oleh Khazanah Nasional, jentera pelaburan strategik kerajaan yang serentak memiliki pelaburan kerajaan. Khazanah Nasional kini juga menjadi pemilik PLUS, yang memegang kontrak tol untuk Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan, serta Pharmaniaga -- dulunya sebuah anak syarikat UEM yang terlibat dalam urusan pembekalan hospital dan perkhidmatan yang lain. Dokumen-dokumen mahkamah menunjukkan bahawa MAS, pada waktu itu syarikat penerbangan nasional, diambil alih oleh Tajudin Ramli. Proses penswataaan yang memindahkan hak milik MAS kepada Tajudin akhirnya mengakibatkan kerugian sebanyak RM8 bilion. Sebahagian utama jumlah wang tersebut disalurkan kepada sebuah syarikat logistik kargo bertapak di Frankfurt, negara Jerman, yang mana pengarah syarikat tersebut mempunyai hubungan erat dengan Tajudin. Menurut laman Malaysia Today, peguam yang mewakili Tajudin mendedahkan bahawa Tajudin hanya berupa wakil ('front man') untuk Umno dan bahawa Umno "tidak hanya terpaksa melindungi beliau daripada pendakwaan tetapi mereka juga harus memastikan bahawa kerajaan membeli kembali saham-saham MAS pada harga yang sama saham-saham dijual kepadanya meskipun nilai saham yang sebenarnya tidak setinggi harga yang dibayar." Sejak beberapa minggu kebelakangan ini, pernyataan-pernyataan lain kepada mahkamah menyenaraikan perihal salahlaku di UEM/Renong, syarikat yang pernah dikepalai Halim Saad. Syarikat tersebut dikatakan menerima kontrak pembinaan yang terlalu mahal, yang kosnya dibayar oleh perbendaharaan kerajaan. Bulan lepas (September), Halim memberitahu media yang beliau tidak lagi menjadi ahli lembaga UEM/Renong sejak tahun 2001. Menurutnya, pihak berkuasa inginkan Khazanah mengambil alih UEM/Renong "untuk mengelakkan risiko 'systemic' (sistemik ataupun perkara berhubungan dengan suatu sistem atau susunan yang teratur) terhadap sistem perbankan di Malaysia dan untuk membolehkan kumpulan tersebut distrukturkan semula.  UEM masih pada masa ini diberikan kelebihan oleh kerajaan. GLC ini diberi kontrak untuk membina jambatan kedua negeri Pulau Pinang dari Seberang Perai ke [Batu Maung] di sebelah utara pulau. Pada tahun 2007, kos projek dianggarkan RM2.7 bilion . Sekarang kosnya sudahpun melambung naik sampai RM4.3 bilion dan inipun belum lagi mengambil kira pelbagai kos tambahan termasuk pampasan bagi nelayan dan kos pembangunan projek sebanyak RM285 juta. Jumlah mutlak kos projek jambatan kedua Pulau Pinang mencecah hampir RM5 bilion. Dokumen-dokumen lain menunjukkan bagaimana media di tangan Umno sepenuhnya. Media Prima Bhd, sebuah syarikat tersenarai awam [di Bursa Malaysia], mengambil alih TV3, 8TV ntv7 dan TV9 yang sebelum itu dimiliki Realmild, serta 90 peratus ekuiti di New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd, yang menerbitkan tiga buah suratkhabar nasional -- The New Straits Times, Berita Harian dan Harian Metro. Media Prima juga mempunyai tiga rangkaian radio -- Fly FM, Hot FM dan Satu FM. Lain-lain bisnes Media Prima meliputi peniagaan menyediakan kandungan, pengurusan acara dan pengurusan bakat (para artis). Media Prima juga mempunyai syarikat iklan Big Tree Outdoor Sdn Bhd, UPD Sdn Bhd, Kanan Channel Sdn Bhd, Kurnia Outdoor Sdn Bhd dan Jupiter Rangkaian Outdoor Sdn Bhd. Alt Media adalah anak syarikat Media Prima dalam bidang penyiaran dan komunikasi digital. Anak syarikatnya yang lain adalah Portal Lifestyle gua.com.my dan Tonton yang baru dilancarkan. Tonton merupakan portal video serta berciri media sosial. The companies: Faber Group Bhd KUB Malaysia Bhd Malaysian Resources Corp. Bhd Media Prima Bhd New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd Putera Capital Bhd UEM Builders Bhd UEM World Bhd PLUS Pharmaniaga Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd (partly owned by Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another Mahathir crony and one of Malaysia's 10 richest men according to the Forbes List Renong Bhd Realmild Sdn Bhd Mahkota Technologies (Also a partnership with Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary Malaysian Airlines Celcom Malaysian Helicopter Service Temasek Padu Sdh Bhd Sabah Shipyard Labuan Shipyard Redicare Medivest

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization

Understanding Globalization

Trading in Money


by Bakri Musa

Malaysia cannot modernize its financial sector and capital markets in part because its leaders are stuck in the pre-globalization mindset, especially in their attitude towards money and capital. While to consumers everywhere money is now simply a convenient medium of commercial transaction, to Mahathir and other Third World nationalists it assumes a more important symbolic function. Currency represents the nation’s sovereignty. It is instructive that one of the first orders of business for many newly independent nations is to declare a new currency or to rename its old one. Malaysia has theringgit, and to symbolize its new beginning, prints a portrait of its king on the paper notes. Money is no longer simply money, rather a powerful symbol of the nation’s sovereignty.

It is this symbolic attachment to the currency that irrationally dictates many economic policies. Governments often go to extreme lengths to defend the value of their currency when market conditions dictate otherwise, as happened in Thailand and Malaysia during the 1997 crisis. They forget that the value of a currency is a reflection of consumers’ and investors’ confidence in the underlying economy. A weak economy will have a weak currency, regardless of the nationalistic frenzy used to whip support for it. Malaysia lost billions and nearly exhausted its foreign exchange reserves in the early part of the 1997 economic crisis trying to defend the value of the ringgit, only to admit finally that the market was correct.

Even as a medium of commercial transaction, money or more accurately cash, has been supplanted by other instruments. The most widespread is the credit card. Even when I travel abroad I carry very little cash, only a pair of credit cards with the second as insurance in case the first is stolen or lost. With that I could purchase anything and execute any transaction. It is also safer and more convenient; if stolen all I have to do is notify my bank and the card would be rendered useless and a new one reissued. In practical terms my credit card with my picture on it is as good as the paper money with the King’s portrait on it!

To an increasing number of people today money is just a commodity, like rubber and sugar. And like those commodities there is a market in money futures, that is, in predicting or anticipating its future values. Just as sugar “futures” traders take the risks from the producers and consumers of sugar, so do currency traders take the risk from lenders and borrowers.

In its simplified form a commodity futures trader works thus. Imagine I am a beverage manufacturer and use tons of sugar every day for my product. I cannot afford to have the price of sugar, my prime ingredient, fluctuate wildly. I need it to be relatively stable so I can budget appropriately. But the price of sugar, like other commodities, will vary depending on weather, political upheavals, world markets, and labor disputes, among others. As a wholesale consumer, I do not have the time or expertise to monitor the various market conditions affecting the price of sugar, otherwise I cannot devote my full energy towards producing my primary product. All I need is a steady supply of sugar at a reasonable and predictable price. Enter the futures trader. For a fee he will guarantee for me my supply of sugar for the next few months (or years) at an agreed upon price. If the price of sugar drops he will reap his profit, but if Castro throws his usual political antics and the price of sugar suddenly jumps, then I will be protected but the trader will lose in the deal.

And if that sugar commodity trader were prudent, he would spread his risks by diversifying. That is, he would also invest in other commodity futures so that if he were to lost money in sugar, he would be able to recoup in soya beans, for example.

Traders in currency futures too serve a similar function. Assume MAS were to borrow US $100 million to buy a 747 jet and have to repay the loan in US dollars. MAS’s revenue however, is in ringgit (at least the bulk of it). If the ringgit appreciates in value with respect to the US dollar, then MAS will need fewer ringgit to service the loan. That would be a bonanza to the company. However if the ringgit were to depreciate, then MAS would have to spend more to service the same loan. Small variations in the exchange rate would not be disruptive, but wild fluctuations could put the company under by making the amount of loan payments unpredictable.

Competent financial managers guard against such unanticipated changes by “hedging,” that is, for a small down payment (“options”) he would be guaranteed a certain amount of dollars at a preset conversion rate. As with the sugars options discussed earlier, if the dollar appreciates then the currency trader would absorb the loss and spare MAS the added costs. By securing such options, MAS would be acquiring an insurance policy against the potential weakening of theringgit. The debacle that snared MAS and many other Malaysian companies during the 1997 economic crisis was in part because they borrowed huge sums of dollars that were “unhedged.” When theringgit depreciated, the costs of those loans effectively went up.

Thirty years ago almost all cross-border transfers of currencies were for payments of goods and services, that is, for payments of actual trading. Today the overwhelming bulk of cross-border movements of funds are by currency traders using money as a commodity, trying to exploit changes and small differentials in exchange and interest rates in the different markets. Every day over trillion dollars are sloshing around the world’s money markets, and only a very tiny fraction of that is being used to pay for actual physical trade in goods and services.

Money is now a commodity, to be traded across borders just like sugar and rubber futures, and with as much sentiment as for those products. Just as traders at the Chicago Commodity Board earn more than the farmers who produce those commodities, so do currency traders make more money that those whose hard work generated those cash in the first place. Mahathir may rail against these speculators but they are not likely to disappear. I have always regarded futures trading as nothing more than 90 percent gambling and 10 percent useful economic activities (protecting producers and consumers from the risk of price volatility), but as long as it serves even that small an economic function, it will remain. No government can outlaw it; doing so would only drive them underground. Then they would become 99 percent gambling.

Left wing social science professors may condemn these commodity traders. Why should these young hustlers in their bowties and red suspenders working in the comfort of their air-conditioned trading pits, and who cannot tell apart the wheat from the shaft, be earning more than the hard working wheat farmers? It is sinful and unjust. If anyone should benefit from any increase in the price of grain, it should be the farmers, not those speculators. This was the theory behind the Soviet collective farms, with the farmers (with the help of the state) controlling not only the production but also the distribution and marketing of their products.

The collapse of the Soviet farms proved the fallacy of such a system.Farmers should stick to farming, marketers to marketing, and risk takers (commodity traders) to managing financial risks.

Currency traders like George Soros indeed make a killing – when they guess or gamble right. But when they are wrong, they eat more than humble pie. They could be wiped out. The near collapse of the billion-dollar hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1999 is a grim reminder of the stakes in this new form of “trading.”

Economists and others who have long tried to grapple with how to control or tame currency trading have been humbled by their attempts. Many a conference and seminar have been devoted to rebuilding the “architecture of international finance.” The fact that there is no solution as yet points to the difficulty of getting unanimity on the issue.

Chile once charged a premium for short-term capital (“hot” money) by requiring a portion to be deposited in a non-interest bearing account with the central bank. That was then. Now with the intense competition for foreign funds, Chile has done away with that novel scheme.

The Yale Nobel economist James Tobin suggested a similar concept, the so-called Tobin Tax, to damper speculative activities of currency traders. The fact that such schemes have not been adopted suggests that there are associated costs. Ultimately it is borrowers, not lenders, who would end up bearing the added cost. Thus instead of ranting and raving against currency traders, we would be wiser to accept them and to learn their ways in order to protect ourselves. Countries should concentrate on producing goods and services efficiently, and let the currency traders assume the foreign exchange risks.

While Mahathir may now righteously condemn currency traders, specifically George Soros, his own central bank was actively involved in the foreign exchange market. Indeed Bank Negara’s excessive speculative activities in the early 1990s prompted the United States Federal Reserve Bank to issue a stern warning. As it turned out, that was unnecessary as Bank Negara was later humbled by the loss of billions on a wrong gamble on the dollar. The difference between Soros’s and Bank Negara’s loss is that with the latter, it is the Malaysian taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill while Soro’s loss was borne entirely by his affluent clients and investors.

Thirty years ago there was no currency trade. For one, there were only a few major currencies in the world so there was not much room to speculate. Today, every tiny little independent country wants its own currency; thus opportunities for speculators are wide open. The other reason is that currencies then were tied to the value of gold. Money then held its value. The US dollar was the last major currency to “de-link” itself from gold. Without an underlying precious metal to support it, the value of paper money is based largely on the confidence people (the market) have on the underlying supporting economy. Of course if the world were to have a single currency then those speculators would be out of business.

In this Internet age, money is nothing more than blips of positive and negative charges (digitization) spinning around the globe at the speed of light seeking the highest returns commensurate with the risks.Once we consider money as a commodity in addition to its traditional functions, we will then better understand and come to terms with the currency market, which is now so much an integral feature of globalization.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Budget 2011: A budget for the big boys and civil servants

Commentary

WRITTEN BY DR. LIM TECK GHEE

MONDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2010 00:00

Share Link:            There are several ways to analyze the budget. One is to take at face value what the Prime Minister has written in his blog just before his budget speech where he promised that it is “a budget by the rakyat”. By it, he explained that he had read through the more than 1,000 comments and suggestions from his readers and forwarded them to the Ministry of Finance to incorporate.  According to the PM, there were three key issues raised – employment, taxes and subsidies, and education. In his words, “employment was the most frequently discussed with some of you calling for the implementation of a minimum wage policy”. Also, he noted that “comments from the youth requested for increased tax rebates for young families or ways to provide financial assistance in managing the rising cost of living”. As for education, the feedback on his blog related to concerns with education quality and the rising cost of education. Now that the budget has been unveiled, it is clear that the civil servants preparing the budget have completely ignored the Prime Minister. Firstly, the implementation of the minimum wage policy has been further deferred for the umpteenth time. The only beneficiaries of wage reform appear to be security guards who deservedly see their minimum wages raised and female civil servants who will now have longer maternity leave. As for education, whilst there is a substantial allocation to cater for recurring operational expenditure and some new infrastructural spending, there is nothing new in the budget that can allay the number one concern of middle-class Malaysians. Especially disappointing is the failure to grant relief for private higher education costs which are rising steeply. Given the trend, it looks like higher education will soon be affordable only to those that can get into the public universities or those who have wealthy parents -- and also perhaps those that can draw on financing from family members and Ah Longs. Affordable housing has been very much in the news even if there have been few letters to the Prime Minister on the topic. It is now beyond the reach of many in the younger age group living in the larger towns and especially in the Klang Valley. There is no evidence in the budget of any official concern to tackle the problem.  There are also no measures aimed at curbing the rising cost of living. Why is there a lack of attention to addressing the rising costs of housing, transport and health as well as food? Part of the reason is the government’s Alice in Wonderland estimate of inflation – it has projected a figure of 2-3 percent for the year. Further, according to the government’s estimate, Malaysians will be quite a bit wealthier in 2011 compared with 2010. Per capita income is expected to go up by 6.1% to RM28,000, and income in terms of purchasing power parity will hit US$16,000. This is of course data which does not reflect real life -- just a hypothetical average. The majority of Malaysians will, in fact, not only feel but will indeed be poorer rather than richer in 2011 given the relentless rise in cost of living that is not reflected in the inflation data.  One group though that will not be poorer will be the big guns benefiting from the slew of mega projects contained in the budget. They include the planned erection of a RM5 billion tower. This is a potential monstrosity which will serve little purpose except bring to a standstill traffic in that congested part of the city. It is obscene that this is being done in the name of honouring the country's heritage.  Hopefully citizen groups, residents in the area and heritage organizations can organize and bring pressure to bear on the government to stop this project before it gets off the ground. As evidence of how poorly conceived the budget planning process has been, it should be noted that the budgeted amount for the year for all the corridor projects -- which is supposed to help decentralize development and increase rural incomes and well-being in the other parts of the country -- is only one-third of that allocated for this massive planned erection. Other big ticket items such as the MRT may be economically more justifiable but they have to be closely monitored for the way in which project design, contractors and partners are selected. Already, there is talk of pre-determined winners even before the process of proper technical studies, evaluation and selection has commenced.  It is disappointing that the budget does not deal at all with the procurement issue which has resulted in wastage, inefficiency and higher costs to the average Malaysian in the last 30 years. Presumably we are going to see business as usual in the tenders for Private-Public Partnership projects and the continuation of 'privatized gain and socialized losses'.   Another concern is that much of the budget continues to go into operating a bloated civil service. As much as three quarters of the national budget is spent on paying salaries and other benefits to over 1.3 million civil servants.   This means that of every dollar spent in the budget, 75 sen goes towards manning the civil service, leaving little left to carry out development work that can benefit the country's population. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong in the way the country's budget is being spent when so much of the allocation goes to paying for a sector that is generally regarded as unproductive and standing in the way of efficiency.  Finally, this is a budget that is touted as being friendly to business. The question is not only which and what businesses will benefit but also whether the projects undertaken will benefit the country.   From the listed projects, it appears that we are returning to the era of mega high-status, expensive projects which will provide little value-added to the Malaysian economy. Projects such as the proposed RM5 billion tower should be scrapped, and the resources spent instead on the expansion of public housing, transport, health and other badly needed amenities and services that can truly benefit the ordinary people.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: