exclusive Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad has revived the war against
his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, after keeping a low profile following
a mild heart attack last November.
In an interview with malaysiakini editors at his Perdana Leadership
Foundation office in Putrajaya last Friday, he expressed strong
disagreement with Abdullah's way of managing the country, especially in
terms of the economic policy.
He had initially wanted the interview, the second with malaysiakini, to be
solely on his campaign against war crimes and the three-day conference
which draws to a close today in Kuala Lumpur.
However, during the second half of the hour-long meeting, Mahathir - who
appears to have fully recovered from the minor heart attack - could not
resist giving his views on current affairs when prodded to do so.
It began when he was asked to comment on the call by US Senator Tom Lantos
for the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks between Malaysia and the US to be
halted over a Malaysian company's deal with an Iranian company.
Known to be vocal critic of the US, Mahathir said that Malaysia would only
expose itself to pressure if it inks the FTA with the US. He also
suggested that the government is more interested in "kowtowing" to the
superpower.
"I don't think there is any need for this FTA... In fact there is no need
for a FTA with Japan even, because we are doing quite well. Without the
FTA, Malaysia is growing at 7, 8 percent (annually). Our trade has
reached US$100 billion, no FTA," he said.
"The US needs us as much as we need the US. You apply sanctions against
us, the US companies will suffer (too), not only others."
While Malaysia has signed a FTA with Japan in 2005, the government is
currently in its fifth round of negotiations for a trade deal with the
US.
Proton in 'bad shape'
Mahathir cited the example of the protection given to national car maker
Proton, of which he is advisor.
"The US protects its agriculture, why are we so ashamed of protecting
Proton for example? We will have to learn to live without having to
depend on other people," he said. However, he conceded that Proton is in
"very bad shape".
His solution to resuscitating the company? Remove its chairperson Mohamed
Azlan Hashim, with whom Mahathir cannot see eye to eye.
"I don't meet him because it is no good. He comes here not to hear my
advice, he comes here to advise me on what he has done, that is the
reversal of an advisor's role," said Mahathir.
He also said Langkawi's growth has been neglected ever since he stepped
down in 2003, causing him to spend his money on developing the island.
Similarly, he expressed unhappiness over maintenance of his other pet
project, Putrajaya. However, he would not reveal the cost of constructing
the new federal administrative capital - shrouded in secrecy thus far -
apart from describing it "very competitive".
On public resentment over the recent toll hike, Mahathir suggested that
the government should have earlier re-pegged the ringgit from 3.8 to 3.5
(exchange rate of ringgit to US dollar) as it would have helped
strengthen the ringgit and pressured traders to lower the price of
imported goods.
"If you do a check on the prices of the imported goods and strengthen
the ringgit by 10 percent, you can go and tell them, 'look, now the
ringgit is stronger, I know you are paying less for your imports, so
lower your price'.
"Then people will get money in their pocket just by doing a very simple
thing; but they want to go along the lines of international practice,
they want to allow the money to float."
He said that while the ringgit has strengthened to RM3.50, prices of goods
have not fallen.
Ananda 'bothered' me
Mahathir, 81, who was dressed in his favourite bush jacket with a campaign
button 'In search of peace', appeared relaxed throughout the interview.
His responses were punctuated with jokes and his trademark sarcasm.
He was quick to dismiss a claim that his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim had
informed him of corruption involving two government leaders while he was
in power.
"Nonsense, he didn't give any evidence. Anwar cakap bohong (is telling
lies)... He never can tell (the) truth, he tells lies."
Elaborating on the government's recent acquisition of an executive jet
worth millions of ringgit, Mahathir reiterated that it is "very
important" to purchase the jet.
"Some people may have heard the Agong say 'please buy me another plane, I
need another plane', that's why they bought (it)," he said.
Abdullah, earlier said to have been behind the purchase, has clarified
that the government bought the jet through one of its companies for the
use of top officials, including the King.
On the alleged purchase of a super yacht in Turkey that Abdullah has also
denied, Mahathir said he was told billionaire Ananda Krishan was the one
who wanted to build it.
"He (Ananda) keeps on bothering me, asking me about the design, I don't
care, I gave my opinion," he said, adding that he persuaded the
billionaire to bring the yacht to the Telaga Harbour in Langkawi but the
former has declined to do so.
Asked about the progress of his bakery business in Langkawi called 'The
Loaf' - a joint project with a Japanese company - Mahathir grinned and
replied: "Bakery is okay-lah".
When pressed as to whether he is making any profit out of it, he laughed
and said: "So far, they are eating the bread."
The interview could have gone on except for urgent signals from Mahathir's
aide that his boss was scheduled to attend Friday prayers at the mosque he
built in Putrajaya.
Q&A: More potshots from ex–premier
Outspoken former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad tells malaysiakini about
his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's leadership and economic management,
the sidelining of national car maker Proton, development in Langkawi and
the lack of maintenance in Putrajaya.
He also took offence over criticism by his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim,
saying the latter "never can tell (the) truth".
Malaysiakini: Recently US Senator Tom Lantos said the US should not
proceed with negotiating the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Malaysia,
because of a business deal between a Malaysian company and an Iranian oil
company.
Mahathir: That is the problem with the US. If you have any deal with them,
they will use that as leverage to get more power. For example, they sold
us airplanes without the source code. Without the source code, we can't
use the plane.
We spent huge sum of money buying airplanes that cannot be used because
when you want to use it, you have to ask the Americans. They want to
control us, how we use the plane; and even when we have finish using the
plane, you cannot sell (it) unless they approve (the sale first). They
are always putting in extra conditions even though there was no condition
before.
If you are going enter into the FTA, you are exposing yourself to a lot of
pressures. Every now and again, they will say 'if you do this, then we
will apply sanction against you, we will not import your goods'. That is
the US - always the big stick, very few carrots.
How do you view Malaysia's negotiations of the FTA with the US? There have
been many protests, for instance, by trade unions.
I have always been against it. I don't think there is any need for this
FTA with the US. In fact there is no need for a FTA with Japan even,
because we are doing quite well. Without the FTA, Malaysia is growing at
7, 8 percent (annually). Our trade has reached US$100 billion, no FTA. So
why do we want the FTA?
So why do you think the government has to start negotiating with the US?
I think the government shouldn't. I proposed the EAEC (East Asian Economic
Caucus) so that they would have sufficient strength to counter the
European Union and Nafta (North American Free Trade Agreement), but they
are more interested in kowtowing to Australia and New Zealand. I am sorry
to say (this), but I disagree with the government.
The government is saying that, without the FTA, it will be very hard for
us to continue the growth that we have.
No, I don't think so. The US needs us as much as we need the US. You apply
sanctions against us, the US companies will suffer (too), not only others.
Other countries are signing the FTA, Singapore has signed and Thailand is
negotiating one. If Malaysia decides against signing the FTA, wouldn't
the investors prefer to go to Singapore and Thailand instead?
There is a risk to be taken. When we make decisions in our interest, of
course there are plus and minus (points). Singapore can sign a FTA,
Singapore is a free port, they don't tax people anyway, what do they give
away? Nothing. We are not a free port, we apply import duty in order to
protect our industry. Without the import duty, we can't protect our
industry. The US protects its agriculture, why are we so ashamed of
protecting (national carmaker) Proton for example? We will have to learn
to live without having to depend on other people.
Yes, there will be trouble for some time, but if you going into FTA, you
expose yourself to a kind of threat that they will always be wielding
against you. You cannot threaten them because you need their market.
That's why I spent a lot of time trying to develop other markets. I went
to many countries, to South America, elsewhere (to) develop other markets
- not to reduce the trade with the US but to reduce the percentage of
trade. So when our trade grows bigger, the trade with US will be smaller.
Now that our trade concentration is with China, we should think about
China as the principal market. US is bankrupt anyway. I would think the
best bet is for us to develop intra-Asian trade, trade with China and
trade with other countries. We will suffer for some time, but you know,
in these kind of things, don't expect to have something for nothing.
It is said that the US has spent a few billion dollars to subsidise 10,000
farmers.
Yes and they are not ashamed of it, but we are ashamed because we
supported Proton. The total tax paid to the government over a period of
10 years was RM18 billion, out of Proton. The volume is big, people who
buy Proton have to pay tax, a lot of other people have to pay tax and the
government collected a lot of money - RM18 billion for a RM480 million
investment (in Proton), don't you think that is good business?
Well, not according to some who have to pay RM10,000-20,000 extra to buy a
Proton car.
All right, you pay to other countries, you buy foreign cars. You buy
foreign cars, then the money goes out, (so) let's stop all our industry
because foreign imports are cheaper, okay? No industry in Malaysia, what
happens? Think about that, think for the longer term, don't think only
just because you pay this much and therefore the whole thing is bad. I
have been in the government, that's the reason why I want things to grow
- the government is not like a company. Companies depend upon profit,
(but) we can collect taxes.
Even when I spent money to build all these mega projects, you know where
the money came from? Every time somebody get a contract, he made profit
and I got the money from him; when he buys something from somebody else,
somebody else makes a profit, (and) I collect taxes from him; when he
buys from the importer, I still collect for the government - the
government never loses money. We make money from taxes.
Do you think you are misunderstood by a lot of people?
People don't understand government, they think government... (laughs) You
know, I have been in this government for 22 years, I know something about
it. The reason why money should be spent is that when government money is
expanded, (it) comes back to the government all the way. One ringgit that
you spend will move from A to B, to C, to D and all the way, somebody
makes a profit and government gets a cut.
But then there is also quite a bit of wastage, there would be money being
spent not for this particular purpose but corruption for instance.
Corruption is regrettable but just saying I want to get rid of corruption
doesn't get rid of corruption. During my time, I was very careful, if you
can find any evidence that I am corrupt, by all means, expose me.
But some of your ministers were (allegedly corrupt).
Give me the evidence, it is not easy. People keep on saying he is corrupt,
he is corrupt...
What about Rafidah Aziz (International Trade and Industry Minister)?
Well, (she was) not during my time.
It was during your time.
During my time, she was very careful, didn't give APs (approved permits)
by the thousands, (but) after my time, my goodness...
Your former deputy Anwar Ibrahim claimed he had given you evidence of
corruption (involving high profile figures)...
Nonsense, he didn't give any evidence. Anwar cakap bohong (is telling
lies). For example, he started talking about currency trading and (he
said) he doesn't know anything about it, you can go and see the Hansard,
he answered all the questions (in Parliament), I never answered the
questions. He never can tell (the) truth, he tells lies.
You have buried the hatchet with (American philanthropist George) Soros,
what about Anwar?
No, no, I don't see any point in burying the hatchet with him. He has sued
me because I said something that he doesn't like. I've said let's go to
court and let the court decide.
The cost of building Putrajaya is such a mystery, no one seems to know the
real cost of it. If we can hear it from you, how much is the cost of
building Putrajaya and are you happy with the way it is being maintained?
Maintain? No, I am not happy (laughs), but the cost is very competitive.
What happened is this - the government has no money, (state-owned oil
company) Petronas has money, so we told Petronas to (undertake) a private
finance initiative.
However, Petronas is a 100-percent government-owned company, so any
profit made by Petronas comes back to the government. We told Petronas to
build and lease to us. Petronas, of course, is quite sure of making profit
but certainly Petronas doesn't want to charge the government too much
because in the end, it goes back to the government.
When you have private finance initiative, it goes to a private company,
they will cost it so they make a profit. The government is actually
financing that because when they go to the bank and say government is
going to lease whatever they build and they are going to make so much
profit, 'can you give me some money?' They will get at least a few
billion ringgit.
Actually it is the government which is spending, it is not the private
sector, and the longer that you take to pay, the more you have to pay by
way of interest. Private sectors work out all these things.
MRCB (Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd, a property developer) or
whatever GLCs (government-linked companies) - they like somebody behind
(the company so they) can make some money. They price it in order to be
able to make a certain profit, (it is) called definite profit. If they
build a bridge, they will make a profit because government will lease it.
If they say you build the bridge and you operate it, then it is not
private finance initiative.
Just like the private jet (leased by the government)...
During my time, it was privatised. I admit I helped to reduce the cost of
privatisation in order to lower the cost of toll roads for example. If
you ask them to pay everything for the toll road, you have to pay through
your...
But of course, the private jet is very important because we have only one
Boeing business jet for the Agong. I think the Agong must have asked
'please buy me another plane', that's why they bought the plane. But I
didn't hear the Agong (say it) because I wasn't near (him). Some people
may have heard the Agong said 'please buy me another plane, I need
another plane', that's why they bought.
A plane that is on the ground loses money. If you are operating an
airline, you use the plane practically every day. You buy a plane for
private use, you don't use it for all the time but you still have to pay.
Tun Hussein (Onn, former prime minister) bought the (Boeing) 737 before
he retired, but unfortunately for him, he retired before the plane was
ready, so I got to use the plane. I used it for two years and I asked
them what would happen if I don't use the plane, how much do we have to
pay? US$2 million, whether you use it or not, every year.
I said no, give it back. We sold the plane because I don't need a big
plane, I need a small plane, it is enough for me to go around. I don't
carry around too many people, only security people and my staff, that's
all, six or seven people. I don't need a big plane.
But this 737 which we gave to the Agong is a fantastic plane, and now
must be more fantastic. I hear that the people who order the plane were
also involved in the interior design (contract).
Something like the super yacht they bought in Turkey?
I don't know about the super yacht (smiles) because they accused me (of
buying one). I will tell you that Ananda (Krishnan, Malaysian
billionaire) wants to build a yacht and in fact he has built a yacht. He
keeps on bothering me, asking me about the design, I don't care, I gave
my opinion.
So it was Ananda who bought the yacht for (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad)
Badawi?
I don't know. But as far as I know, Ananda built this yacht, a 40m yacht,
a gullet, it is very beautiful. It is completed already and I told him
'why don't you bring it here, you built and put it at the Mediterranean,
I want my Telaga Harbour (in Langkawi) to have this yacht. He said 'no,
this thing will eat into the wood, our water is no good'. I said why
don't you build one that has a steel haul then you can bring it here.
That is as far as I went.
Of course, if you want to build a big yacht, you keep it here, I am happy,
you can build 10 yachts. I am quite happy if you put it in Telaga Harbour
then I can have a nice marina for that. Of course, they have to pay.
Do you think the government has abandoned all hopes on Proton?
I am sorry (that) a company that was making money is now a company that is
losing money. Why? Because of interference in Proton and lack of
consideration in giving the APs.
Of course it enriches a few Malays, that is the NEP (New Economic
Policy), a NEP for two Malays, but others get nothing.
Proton is in a very bad shape and mismanagement is still going on.
People are leaving the company because they don't see any hope. It can be
resuscitated but it needs good management. The first thing to do of course
it to remove the chairperson (Mohammed Azlan Hashim) who actually behaves
like a CEO (chief executive officer), he makes all the decisions, nobody
(else) can make decisions, that's what I was told.
Are you still meeting him?
I don't meet him because it is no good. He comes here not to hear my
advice, he comes here to advise me on what he has done, that is the
reversal of an advisor's role.
What about the progress in Langkawi, is it going as you had wished?
I go to Langkawi quite often. Apart from setting up my bakery there, I
have to spend my own money in order to develop some of the things that
are needed in Langkawi. I spent my money building a horse track, a
stable. They are leasing the horses to tourists, quite good business for
them (but) I don't make money. I have two boats there which I built, they
use the boats to ferry tourists. Okay, I don't ask for money.
How is the bakery business going?
Bakery is okay-lah (grins). I want to learn about business, I have been
telling people to go into business, and people have been telling me 'you
don't understand business'. Okay, I've started my own business (but
whether I) can make it or not, I don't know.
How is it going so far? Is it making money?
So far, they are eating the bread (laughs).
Going back to Langkawi, are you saying that the government is not actually
following what you wanted Langkawi to be?
During my time of course there was a lot of concentration in Langkawi.
From a place that was not known at all, it has become a worldwide name -
anywhere you go, they know Langkawi. We have done quite well by Langkawi,
there are lots of things that can be done, to make it a real tourist
product.
They stopped the flight into Langkawi from London, in fact (national
carrier Malaysian Airlines) MAS is now stopping flights to everywhere
because AirAsia can do a better job, AirAsia should take over.
On the toll hike, there are a lot of complaints that the toll agreement
wasn't very fair. How do you respond to that because a lot of agreements
were signed during your time?
Yes, a lot of agreements were signed during my time (but) we didn't
actually scrutinise these things, I didn't anyway. This was done by civil
servants which is their right. They see only in terms of return of
investments and things like that, they don't see the political side.
They agreed to things which we later found out cannot be implemented
because the toll is too high. So what they did was (to decide that) the
government will pay the company. When you say 'don't increase the toll
rate', then it is the government that has to pay because the agreement
has to be honoured.
During my time, what I tried to do was to help the company to lower their
capital cost by giving them whole chunk of roads that have been built,
free of charge. We gave them free land and a lot of loans at low cost,
all this (was done) in order to lower the toll rate. But the toll of
course has to increase, the quantum of increase is what is felt by the
people.
I suggested to the government if you strengthen the ringgit, you will put
money into people's pocket without having to spend one sen. From 3.8, I
said go to 3.5 (exchange rate of ringgit to US dollar), that means almost
10 percent increase and that means you are putting 10 percent more money
into the pockets of people if they buy foreign goods.
We talk about toll and oil prices, oil is something that you buy from
others, if you have a stronger ringgit, then the oil price becomes
cheaper. But if you allow the ringgit to float, you don't get advantage.
If it has now strengthened, how much have you gained? Nothing. But if you
do a check on the prices of the imported goods and strengthen the ringgit
by 10 percent, you can go and tell them, 'look, now the ringgit is
stronger, I know you are paying less for your imports, so lower your
price'. Then people will get money in their pocket just by doing a very
simple thing but they want to go along the lines of international
practice, they want to allow the money to float...
You are arguing for a re-peg of the ringgit?
Yes, why not? What's wrong?
To re-peg it to?
RM3.50 for example.
It is already at RM3.50.
I know, but we don't get any advantage from the RM3.50, you have a
stronger ringgit but you don't feel it. The price of things in the shop
hasn't gone down, the imported things. You go to buy computer, the price
hasn't gone down by 10 percent.
You have to understand the mechanism of this - why do you peg? It is
because you have control. If you want to strengthen the ringgit by 10
percent, you can tell the shop 'look, you are paying for this before at
that price in ringgit, now in strong ringgit, you are paying less, so
sell it at the lower price'.
That means (you are) literally putting money into the pocket of people. By
strengthening ringgit by 10 percent, you actually put money into people's
pocket without having spent one sen.
Given the current situation, what would be the fair...
We are not getting any lowering of the price, you notice any lowering? No,
they haven't because they say 'we don't know, this thing might go up and
down... it might be US$3 or $4 or something like that'. If you fix (the
rate), nobody can say because this is the only price.
When Malaysia fixed the ringgit, people said we cannot do it but we have
proven we can do it because we have a lot of money. We have billions of
dollars, EPF (Employee Provident Fund) alone is (worth) RM300 billion and
US$82 billion in the Central Bank, what for? You only need to keep five
percent... You can reduce that and use the money.
Are you suggesting the government's economic policy is actually imbalanced
or they don't know what they are doing?
It is up to you to decide, whether they do or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment