There has been no sign of the debt accumulation reducing or levelling out since the East Asian economic crisis of 1997 but it instead shifted into higher gear from 2008, the year BN lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Read more: Malaysian government's debt to approach RM1 trillion by 2020
Write comment (1 Comment) 
Internal debt is money borrowed domestically from the savings of citizens such as EPF, Tabung Haji and other schemes but at what rates of return are Malaysians being compensated for this borrowing? And will we be compensated with funds coming from the liquidation of oil and forest assets?
Read more: Investigate Malaysia's debts now
Write comment (5 Comments)
By Wan Fadzrul Wan Bahrum, YouthSpeak Coordinator
August 13, 2008
A “precursor to more freedom???. That is amongst dozens of quotes taken from daily pronouncements and comments on the expected amendment of the academically nefarious Universities and University Colleges Act of 1971 (UUCA). But will the replanted pastures be as green as expected?
The UUCA, in and of itself, is not as controversial by essence; it is comparable to any regulatory legislation that asserts the institutional, administrative and operational guidelines for tertiary-level educational establishments. What is deemed contentious would be the
limits the Act imposes on student life and its apathetic effect on the coming generations of citizenry. Sections 15 and 16 of the UUCA, the gist of the debate, deals with student involvement in non-academic assemblies, student body financing and the actions to be taken if such violations – as expressed in the Act – were committed. However, taking a less biased perspective on the case, it should be noted that the UUCA must be examined in the context and spirit of its enactment.
Student movements have had a long history as catalysts for reforms and shifts from orthodoxy. With the advent of counter-cultural radicalism and the Cold War reaching its apex in the 1960s and 70s, the social environment was volatile with new ideas clashing with traditional conservatism. Malaysia did not escape this excursion in ideas; student groups such as Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) and various leftist youth bodies amongst the educated were as much a part of the campuses as classes. It was not until the bloody events of May 13th 1969 did the youth movement become a substantial force, replacing the emasculated opposition, due to the suspension of Parliament following the declaration of an Emergency.
The primarily radical student movement reached its apex in 1974 with the Baling incident, making household names of Anwar Ibrahim, Syed Husin Ali and Adi Satria. With that, the formerly benign UUCA of 1971 was amended in 1975, pulling student movements by their roots: chiefly the campus-based organizations were targeted. What had happened were simply the consequences of the perceived socialist radicalism that was prevalent at the time. With recollections of the communist insurgency still fresh in the minds of the leadership, needless to say a “reactionary??? response was inevitable.
But with the current loosening of the noose, what will this change bring? Will student radicalism erupt again, or would the liberalised political environment allow their venting through more practical and effective channels?
In the proposed amendments to section 15 and 16 of the Act, students will be allowed to join any societies, groups or organizations – including NGOs – but the Act still holds the bar for political parties and organizations considered ‘unlawful’ (part III, section 15, subsections 1& 2) and will no longer be limited to those that were expressly identified by the vice-chancellor.
The stuents will be allowed freedom to speak on “academic matters??? without fear of repercussions (part III, section 15, subsections 3 & 4). However the definition of “academic matters??? could be arbitrarily interpreted into, for instance, statements in support or opposition of political, labour unions or illegal bodies.
Any charges under the Act will be decriminalised and henceforth taken as disciplinary offences (part III, section 15B), students who had been charged or detained under the Act would now have the option to continue their studies without the prior approval of the Minister of Higher Education (part III, section 15D). This of course would be a good news
to those who had been charged in the past including no less than the 34 cases between 2005 and 2006.
But one of the most significant changes would be on the all-powerful post of Vice-chancellor, which will no longer be a political appointee (schedule I, part II, section 9). Considering several controversies regarding previous occupiers of the post in various universities, it would indeed be a welcome change.
However, these amendments, while liberating, did not address other, far more pressing issues. No proposed changes were mentioned on schedule I, part VI, section 45 regarding the current requirements for the employment of teaching staff (read: the Akujanji contract), government ties would still exist through the universities’ board of directors (schedule I, part III, section 13) and senate membership will still be within the personal discretion of the Vice-chancellor (schedule I, part III, section 17).
As difficult as it is to accept this meagre attempt to reform our tertiary institutions, it should be noted that in previous administrations such motions would merely be a dream. These ‘baby steps’ could well lead to major leaps in paradigm shifts of accommodative pragmatism, rather than the radicalism of the past that had led to the formation of the Act itself. Nevertheless it would still be too early to tell if Malaysian youths had gained any significant amount of political maturity since. Which ever way the story turns out, it should be said that we are far from the ideal, both on the kind of administration and students we would want to inhabit our supposedly centres of learning excellence. The amendment of the UUCA may be that silver bullet, it may also be not; but what is important is that we aren’t rushing into things, even if we are heading in the right direction.
Sdr Wan Fadzrul is currently a Final Year student at the Monash University enrolled in the Bachelor of Business & Commerce (Finance, Economics) course, and shows a keen interest in Public Policies and Finance, and Developmental Economics. Fadzrul and Sdr John Lee will jointly coordinate the YouthSpeak section. Share your thoughts and ideas with him via: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Write comment (1 Comment) By John Lee and Wan Fadzrul Wan Bahrum, YouthSpeak Coordinators
September 7, 2008
With the changing political atmosphere in the country exciting Malaysians of all races and ages, the youth are fast becoming determinants of political success. We literally are the future of this country, but that means we are also the future of this country's politics and government. Ultimately, we will be responsible in some way for shaping Malaysia, whether through something as simple as casting our votes, or something as lofty as taking office as Prime Minister.
But if we want to exercise our responsibilities as citizens wisely, we have no choice but to inform ourselves about the issues of the day. It is ridiculous to expect ourselves to vote blindly; we might as well not vote at all. It is almost just as foolish to vote based on the empty rhetoric of politicians. Politicians are far more skilled at twisting emotions and swaying hearts than they are at informing the people and dealing in facts and figures. As boring as the plain facts may be, they are crucial. You would not steer a ship just because you feel you know how to go; you would demand charts and insist on plotting a course.
That is why the CPI's various efforts, most especially the website, are commendable resources for youth who seek to get involved in the future of our country. As a policy think tank, CPI does not deal in the hazy rhetoric of politicians, or the emotional fury of activists. It coolly and calmly dissects the effect of government policies on the future of our country, and examines proposed alternatives in the same light.
More importantly, CPI separates the wheat from the chaff; the power of the internet as a medium is clear to us all, but we worry about distinguishing fact from fiction. The commentaries published on the website are backed by a real organisation, which will suffer real consequences if it does not act responsibly. If you see a blog post carried on the website, you know it not only has relevance to the facts of politics and governance, but you also know it can be relied on.
Today is an exciting time to be a Malaysian. But it is even more exciting to be a young Malaysian. For the first time in a long while, the opportunities that stretch before us, in our future, the opportunities to change the fate of our nation, to make things in this country right, are innumerable. The generation that leads us today has kicked the door open; it is our job to guide our country through that door. I am very pleased to welcome CPI to that roster of civil society organisations which will help us in our responsibility.
By John Lee, YouthSpeak Coordinator
October 3, 2008
OCT 3 — With Sept 16 already nearly three weeks in the past, the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat is still dithering on whether it will be taking power any time soon. Many observers are pointing out, as has been done before, that Pakatan seems increasingly fragile, held together only by Anwar and the promise of power. This is not quite true, for we should not be comparing Pakatan to an ideal political coalition, but the coalition it is challenging — Barisan Nasional. And the fact is, Pakatan is far more united and far more principled than Barisan.
It's easy to see why you might think Pakatan is fracturing and fragmenting. Pas and the DAP can barely sit at the same table. DAP explicitly takes a more classical liberal approach to governance, promoting market-based solutions to poverty where possible, while Pas espouses a welfare state.
DAP demands greater personal freedom and a secular government, while Pas believes social cohesion and moral and religious concerns should take priority over individual liberties. These two parties can hardly sensibly sit down together and speak with one voice, can they?
It is also clear that the Anwar-led PKR is only able to glue these parties together because of its refusal to come down too hard on either side. Anwar in his public speeches has come out in support of both free markets and greater government intervention in the economy; the party economic manifesto reflects both positions.
Likewise, Anwar's and PKR's statements on religious issues and civil rights have been carefully worded to avoid offending either side while simply calling for greater dialogue between the two sides. How can Pakatan remain coherent without Anwar's incredible charisma and force of personality?
While there is no denying that Anwar is one of the strongest factors holding Pakatan together, I think we often underestimate the actual cohesion within Pakatan. The strongest and most important tie, I think, is a commitment to dialogue. Without willingness to sit down and hash out difficult issues, I don't see how a country can get anywhere.
Even if Pas and the DAP do not see eye to eye, it is important that they try to talk about it rather than try to silence the other. Say what you will about Pas, but it was the Pas Unit Amal which prevented the crowd of fundamentalist Muslim protesters from storming the Bar Council building at that infamous protest; they upheld the freedom of expression, the freedoms of both the protesters and the forum participants.
DAP has repeatedly shown a willingness to hear other views, even if some of its leaders are more stubborn than others. A coalition can work in spite of political differences; ask coalition governments in countries like New Zealand, Italy and Germany — and even big tent parties like the Democrats and Republicans in the United States, who have more than their fair share of internal dissenting subgroups.
Just as importantly, all Pakatan component parties agree that it is imperative to forge stronger bonds of nationality between us all, and endorse the repeal of discriminatory policies as a major step towards this goal.
You must be insane if you think it is easy to get a consensus on something as complicated as the issue of race and nationality. That all Pakatan parties endorse this principle is an amazing testament to their success in building a foundation for their coalition; this is more than a marriage of convenience.
The final issue I think all Pakatan parties can agree on is the important need to stamp out corruption, rehabilitate the justice system, and restore the rule of law. These might seem to be truisms which any politician will support, but surprisingly there are many politicians from the ruling party who see justice and fairness as things which stand in the way of their profits and interests. Pakatan has thus found a rough agreement on legal and economic issues, a consensus on ethnic and identity politics, and declared itself willing to talk openly about where to go on other issues.
Compared to where Barisan stands, this is really honestly amazing; Barisan could not agree on politics to save its life, quite literally. It has party leaders tearing up pictures of other party leaders. Virtually every move one party's leaders make is criticised by the leaders of the other parties.
They have attempted their own drive at fixing the country's institutions but that has completely stalled, with the minister leading the charge quitting halfway through. If we are completely objective, it is Barisan that is the marriage of convenience, not Pakatan.
And this is again, quite literally true: recall that this is how the Alliance was seen when it was first formed. Umno and MCA could not agree on anything then, and they still cannot agree on anything now. The difference is, back then they agreed to frankly discuss and negotiate important issues in private to work differences out. That is what made the Alliance viable; it is what has become the undoing of Barisan.
Today Barisan's failure is two-fold. First, this model of closed-door negotiations, with high-level ethnic community leaders feeding decisions down the hierarchy, cannot satisfy a mature democracy's need to discuss issues openly without having leaders talk down to the citizens. Second, today Barisan does not even adhere to this model of negotiating compromises in private; in reality, one party tells everyone else what they are supposed to do. Without an agreement to talk — with instead just an agreement to pretend to talk — is it any wonder that Barisan component parties cannot get along, cannot work together, cannot govern?
Pakatan may be a marriage of convenience, but such are all coalitions. The stark reality is, they are a far more solid coalition than Barisan was at its formation, because they are willing to support the right of all Malaysians to participate in a dialogue on important issues, and voice their own views; because they have an agreement on the need to fight corruption and restore the country's institutions, and are doing so slowly in the states they govern; and because they already have a plan for uniting the nation which the nation itself endorses. As loose as it may be, Pakatan is the stronger coalition, because without even a basic agreement on the right of everyone to have a say, Barisan will implode — as it already is in the process of doing.
____________________________
John Lee blogs at http://www.infernalramblings.com.
