Monday, October 09, 2006

Focus on wealth creation, not equity dispute

This is going to be another protracted thesis for public debate.


Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi recently dismissed Asli’s claim that Bumiputra equity ownership had reached 45% based on a survey involving 1,000 companies listed on Bursa Malaysia, while the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) had surveyed 600,000 companies to come up with its 18.9% figure for the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

According to Lim Keng Yaik, public perception is that: "Malays always felt they did not have enough, the Chinese felt they had sacrificed too much, while the Indians felt that they did not have anything at all."

Is the perception real or surreal? I suppose Keng Yaik must have chosen his words carefully when he used the word perception.

Meanwhile, The Star report: Mingguan Malaysia reported that Umno vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin wanted the Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (Asli) to retract its 45% bumiputra equity ownership estimation. Muhyiddin said the report was a challenge to the Government’s integrity and described the report as irresponsible and “rubbish”. He said the Government should take action against Asli if it failed to retract the report. He said Asli should also admit that the report was wrong to prevent a polemic that would affect racial unity. “The report is rubbish and cannot be used. As a Malay, I am angry and I think it was done with malice. “The report may have an agenda that aims at forming a polemic among those who believe the report to be true. They will definitely blame the Government for revealing the wrong facts,” he said.

What if the facts are right, En Muhyiddin? In fact ASLI had stated that they are receptive and open to any observers to provide statistics to disproved their survey results. The survey had been conducted by professionals and based on all the listed companies databases as published. If they are wrong than Bursa Saham Malaysia is wrong and the stock exchange had been idiotic. If we are to consider another hypothesis that assumes that some of the owners are proxies, you might want to add another to consider the fact that there are many UMNO politicians owners who used proxies too and what about the report years back of some politicians who sent their monies to Israel bank? Why not consider the fact that Tan Sri Yahaya who owns DRB-Hicom and was quoted to be worth some RM2 billion before he died and the factual situation that his children inherited something less than $20 million (after paying back Tabung Haji approx RM450 million? and claims by some person that 60% of what he owns was the share of others but debts all his?) He was proxy too? Did Mahathir and Pak Lah had proxies too? Did Ling Liong Sik had proxies? Soh Chee Wen, was he a proxy? George Tan of Carrian, was he a proxy? Was Syed Mokhtar a proxy? Wow... this is far more complex than Da Vinci Code and The Rule of Four.

2 comments:

Helen said...

I sincerely think the garmen has nothing to fear about admitting their mistakes (assuming there is lar). Their reputation is not at stake.

They are not well known for their facts nor efficiency. ;-(

mmudahlupa said...

AP fat lady warmed LKY not ot repeat the mistakes on marginalisation in malaysia!
Malaysian gov't can do no wrong b'cos they always did the right things & benefit the rakyat! It's the principle over facts!So, in principle the 18 high profile cases did actually exist BUT unfortunately not the FACTS therefore lack of evidence. Even if they are charges brought before the court, it will be thrown out b'cos of TECHNICALITIES!see what i mean.Again, they're right.