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