The Lee Kah Choon saga is an opportunity lost for Malaysian leaders to emulate the Malaysian voters in the March 8 “political tsunami” to rise above race, religion and political differences to work single-mindedly for the good of the people, state and country.
In the last Parliament, in keeping with the perverse notion of “Support Barisan Nasional, right or wrong”, a new rule was formulated for all Barisan Nasional MPs that they cannot support Opposition motions whether right or wrong and cannot vote according to their conscience but must toe the party line.
As a result, the then Chairman of the Barisan Nasional BackBenchers Club, Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad (now Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister) was forced in May 2006 to resign from his post to avoid disciplinary action against him for speaking up in favour of my privilege motion in Parliament to refer the then MP for Jasin, Mohd Said Yusuf to the Committee of Privileges over the impropriety of an MP asking the Customs and Excise Department to “close one eye” in a case involving the import of sawn timber in Malacca.
It was in disgust at such obtuse and petty-minded mentality where individual and party interests were placed above parliamentary, public and national interests that the Malaysian voters rose as one to teach the Barisan Nasional a salutary lesson in the March 8 “political tsunami”, depriving the BN of its hitherto unbroken two-thirds majority in Parliament and power in five states.
In the March 8, 2008 general election, Malaysian voters crossed ethnic, religious and even party lines to vote for change and the Lee Kah Choon saga would have been one opportunity for Barisan Nasional leaders to demonstrate that they have heard the voices of the people and are prepared to emulate the voters’ example to put aside personal and party differences for the betterment of the people, state and nation.
Initially the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sent out the right signals in his first public reaction on Tuesday on Lee’s appointment and acceptance of the posts of Penang Development Corporation (PDC) director and InvestPenang executive committee chairman – that for him, “it’s okay as long as there is no clash in policy”.
However, in a matter of a few hours on the same day, Abdullah was prevailed upon to ignore the voices of the people in the March 8 “political tsunami” and to come out with a hardline stand declaring that Lee’s decision was “against the spirit of BN” and requiring action from the Acting Gerakan President, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon.
The latest pronouncement on the matter came from Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Barisan Nasional Chairman Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday that Lee’s acceptance of the two Penang state government positions was against the “clearly stated policy of BN” – making it the most unknown “clearly stated” BN policy as the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and BN leaders had not known about it for 48 hours!
One important reason why Malaysia had lagged behind other countries in economic development and international competitiveness in the past four decades is because of the country’s failure to give top priority to meritocracy and excellence in nation-building.
The Lee Kah Choon saga shows that the Barisan Nasional government and leaders have yet to hear the voices of the March 8 “political tsunami” who want Malaysian leaders to emulate the voters in transcending ethnic, religious and political differences to work for the betterment of the people, state and nation by creating a new culture of talent and merit unsullied by partisan considerations.
#1 by undergrad2 on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 1:51 am
“..what I have heard (from S’pore bankers) is that some Singapore companies are beginning to invest in Penang precisely because of the change of State government to Opposition.” Jeffrey
They must have known that you are a DAP supporter, and told you what you needed to hear.
In truth potential foreign investors are not interested in local politics and avoid them like they would avoid the plague. They are not about to drag the government to courts, for say, changing the rules mid-stream. They are not in the business to sue anybody – certainly not the host government! They are in the business to make returns to investment which would make their shareholders happy.
What are transparency, good governance and accountability if not empty words to foreign investors. Political stability is the word. The fact that the Penang has fallen into the hands of a party which has no control in Kuala Lumpur should be a cause for concern to me as a foreign investor. As a foreign investor I could be caught in the cross fire so to speak. Project approvals would be slow to come. Guidelines may be harder to meet. Rules may change mid-stream.
#2 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 2:37 am
“Confronting” the federal government when the federal government has control over your purse strings??
Precisely for someone who can’t think outside the box; for someone who can’t see cooperation is two ways street; for someone who will docilely accept dominant and subservient relationship. This is the type of personality who should rightly be engaging in gossip blogs than a serious blog like this.
#3 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 2:47 am
In truth potential foreign investors are not interested in local politics and avoid them like they would avoid the plague.
In truth, what truth? Who got the truth, you?
If the arguments of undergrad2 hold, I think there is no need for state election or state governments. Or may be he moronically assumes that the state governments will always be within BN family. Bunkum again.
#4 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 3:01 am
“Again I’ll have to agree with you!”
Agree based on what? What Killer told you? You think what Killer said was nothing but truth? You think others are all idiots? Before election, both of you probably were supportive of what was disclosed by Jeff.
#5 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 3:03 am
It has nothing to do with telling me what I liked to hear. One of the reasons FDIs all along have given Malaysia a pass for other countries is not just corruption of bureaucracy and delays in issuance of licenses – because these are something that these other countries too have in varying degrees – but much of it is the unfair policy of 30 per cent Bumiputera equity required by the Foreign Investment Committee in giving approval to foreign acquisitions. Which is why the government, acknowledging this, decides to ease enforcement of NEP in its favoured Iskandar Development Region. It has been said that Kuwait Finance House and other Middle East companies agreed to invest in a property project that includes homes, a medical center and a financial district in the Iskandar Development Region in part obecuase of this easing of NEP. In Penang’s case some Singaporean investors are probably thinking that LGE’s state government would ease the NEP restrictions as touted in the Opposition’s electoral campaign. Apart from that whilst political stability is important, so are transparency, good governance and accountability in governance to many FDIs, which BN’s administration is not exactly renowned for. In his first meeting with Business Council’s members, it was reported by those attending that Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim got the business executives tickled – and charmed – by his opening remarks that “from now onwards, no more bribes”. :)
Although many investors would take wait-and-see attitude on how BN federal government would work with Opposition state govt, many would not just dismiss that confrontation is inevitable. Selangor, Perak and Penang are economically important states contributing substantially to the country’s Gross Domestic Product which the Federal Government is not expected to just simply shut off the funding to these states without jeopardizing ongoing infrastructure projects or those in pipelines, and compromising official projections on national growth.
#6 by undergrad2 on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 4:19 am
“…but much of it is the unfair policy of 30 per cent Bumiputera equity required by the Foreign Investment Committee in giving approval to foreign acquisitions.” Jeffrey
When I was liaising with MIDA on behalf of some of the foreign investors (which was one life time ago) I believe the 30% foreign equity participation was for those relying on the domestic market. Something like up to 100% foreign equity was allowed for those 100% export oriented. You find most of these located in the FTZ in Penang and Malacca and Johor.
“In Penang’s case some Singaporean investors are probably thinking that LGE’s state government would ease the NEP restrictions as touted in the Opposition’s electoral campaign.” Jeffrey
MIDA a statutory body under federal government control, deals with this issue of equity participation allowed to foreign investors, and project approvals will have to come from them. I believe the state government has minimal input on the matter. MIDA conducts the feasibility studies needed, and in many cases try to match the local partners to the foreign partners with the foreign partners, of course, having the final say. It is after all their capital and their risk to take.
I believe conditions have since changed and MIDA has loosened some of its requirements including the strict requirement of 30% foreign equity participation in their guidelines. The restriction to the 30% of foreign equity participation was meant for those using depleting natural resources and those which depended 100% on the local market. The foreign investors that I had the opportunity to deal with had no strong opinions about the 30% guideline. They understood where it was coming from and were too happy just to be allowed to operate locally.
However, it is very much a different story it comes to the local Chinese investors or the local partners of a joint venture company whenever there is a bumiputra requirement. Privately they would resent the restriction when they cannot identify the kind of bumiputra partners they want. But the more innovative ones would always find a way out. I don’t want to go into this because it is an entirely different ball game. Suffice it for me to say here that invariably you find family members of politicians and members of the royalty taking up the bumiputra portion but with the equity provided by the foreign partner! How about that for NEP, huh?
No more bribes? Bribery takes many forms and rears its ugly head where you least expect! We can never get rid of corruption entirely but we can control it. A corruption free environment only exists in the minds of those with an attap type education.
“Although many investors would take wait-and-see attitude on how BN federal government would work with Opposition state govt, many would not just dismiss that confrontation is inevitable.”
Yes, “cooperation” is the key word and not “confrontation”. Whoever suggests that the state governments under opposition control “confront” the federal government must have his head checked. What is there to confront the federal government with?? Potential foreign investors choosing say Indonesia over Penang, or Thailand over Penang or Philippines over Penang, is a loss to the country as much as it is a loss to the state of Penang. It is still a major loss in foreign exchange. Not to mention import and export duties and taxes which are all revenue, and of course employment.
The state governments are in no position to demand. Nothing much to negotiate either. Not when investment guidelines are under MIDA, licensing under the Ministry of Trade and financing by banks under the control of Bank Negara. – not to mention immigration and customs and of course the ubiquitous Prime Minister’s Department.
For someone who has been in government service for 20 years, he should know better.
#7 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:06 am
You are right that Federal MIDA is in charge of issuance of many sorts of licences – manuficaturing, pioneer status, import and export of controled comercial products etc and FIC (Federal) under EPU sets/changes guidelines on bumi equity, relaxing on those exporting and earning foreign exchange and higher value goods. However states too play a significant role, for example how Tsu Koon & Penang state govt then, for example, used PenangIndustrial Council and the Human Resource
Development Council to bring together members from the public sector, the private sector and the academia to explore ways and means to assist economic development; and used InvestPenang to set up a Penang Pavilion to provide opportunities for Penang-based technology companies to showcase their products and services, and working closely with the Penang Tourism Action Council to market Penang as a tourist destination. Land is under state per our constitution and state investment corporations play a role to provide available land. Besides under our National Land Code, besides FIC approval, foreign acquisition of land would additionally require state authority approval. The state government could give cheap land. Queensbay mall in Penang for example was originally joint venture between Penang State Development corporation and private sector. It is probably true that the promotion of FDI(s) and economic development is a function of efforts of both Federal and state governments acting in coordination without one frustrating the other, the former’s policies are something that investors know from advices of consultants whereas the state policies (besides resources and infrastructure) too play a part, for example FDIs are keener on (say) Penang and Selangor than Kelantan. As regards bribery, it is true only the naive believes that corruption can be curbed substantially but say what you like, whatever Khalid said – and the Opposition’s platform of reform to bring more transparency and acountability (& open tenders) as compared to BN’s existing record – do, like a breath of fresh wind, revive hopes that the problem of corruption and its more blatant manifestation will be confronted in ways better than just lip service, not to mention that they may also believe or at least perceive that the state governments (at least those not run by PAS) may recruit more capable administrators based on ability than just kulitfication or religiosity. Take for example and comparison peresent Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim and his predecessor Toyo, the former evinces more promise in both busines sense and experience considering his resume, experience and record in running a conglomerate like (then) Guthrie Berhad.
#8 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:16 am
Undergrad2
I am relatively new to this blog and one thing that struck me the most is the propensity for people to offer their opinions on matters that they have zero knowledge on. Their complete lack of knowledge but a high proclivity to shoot from hip never failed to amuse me. Perhaps these guys are from the new generation of DAP supporters are in their twenties but even then it is still no excuse…
As such I am pleasantly surprised to see your comment, which for clearly showed that you know exactly what you are talking about in regards to investment /FDI.
There have been much said about how the 30% bumi requirement scaring the investors away. Of course this is complete rubbish but unfortunately many people actually believe this. Foreign investors are exempted from many of the regulations that govern the local businesses if they are export-orientated they are allowed to have 100% ownership. Of course if they are targeting the local markets, different rules apply.
To say that the NEP and the bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption had made Malaysia less attractive is another myth without a factual basis. Today China remains one of the top destinations for FDI despite horrendously inefficient bureaucracy, lack of transparency, poor human rights records, endemic corruption and complex ownership rules. India embracing the western style democracy is far behind in terms of attracting FDI. Countries like Vietnam and Myanmar continued to be attractive to investors despite their poor human rights and administrative inefficiencies.
That the Singaporean investors that Jeffrey is talking about, it could be true but perhaps he has confused investment in manufacturing with those buying properties. The Penang property market has been red hot in the last year or two mainly driven by the new infrastructure projects (Penang 2nd bridge and the monorail). The areas in both mainland and the island where the new bridge connects have been the hot spots for property developments. The industry has been given a major impetus due to the arrival of blue chip Klang Valley developers. Many Singaporean are keen to jump on the bandwagon, in fact some of my personal friends even asked me for recommendations.
However, the market has cooled down significantly since the 12GE with many players are taking a cautious stance, not helped by some populist garbage that being mouthed by LGE and his team. In fact some people are already bracing for a crash in the Penang property market.
As for administrative efficiency and corruption free rule, well LGE’s actions unfortunately have not kept up with his talk. Like his father he is still in “Opposition” mode, merely contend to bash BN and go around on a witch-hunt. While he is spinning stories about clean governance, it is amusing to see that PR folks already embarking on a vicious fights among themselves to get state contracts by dislodging the previous ones.
LGE is in a very precarious position. Since he has no power base in Penang, he will be undermined by the Penang DAP leadership if he fails to “reward” them through plum governmental positions or lucrative contracts. Already his decision to give LKC this senior position has infuriated many Penang DAP leaders.
Watch closely if LGE keeps his promise of open tenders, for I believe he will not. It is amusing to see that the very same DAP supporters who accused the previous BN state government of cronyism are now demanding that they are rewarded with state contracts for their loyalty to the party.
#9 by lchk on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:51 am
Killer posted:
“I am relatively new to this blog and one thing that struck me the most is the propensity for people to offer their opinions on matters that they have zero knowledge on. Their complete lack of knowledge but a high proclivity to shoot from hip never failed to amuse me. Perhaps these guys are from the new generation of DAP supporters are in their twenties but even then it is still no excuse…”
I am not sure if they are DAP supporters but I do know UMNO supporters such as yourself do exactly that – spout opinions based on thin air.
An excellent example would be you stating that Malaysians standard of living is almost as good as Singapore’s.
DUH!
#10 by lchk on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:53 am
Killer posted:
“It is amusing to see that the very same DAP supporters who accused the previous BN state government of cronyism are now demanding that they are rewarded with state contracts for their loyalty to the party.”
Where is the evidence? Kindly state them here or did you pull that out from your rear orrifice?
#11 by cheng on soo on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:58 am
Truth is, in Msia, Fed govt had much bigger power/ authority than state govt, Fed govt can “bully” state govt.
Only a change a Fed govt policies (by same BN Or New Govt) can really improved FDI in Msia.
Soneone quoted Myanmar is attractive to investors, Had to disagree with this statement, maybe only to investors from China?
#12 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 9:59 am
Ichk, yes i agree with you completely. Like his opinion on Hindraf detainees. Killer, I hope whatever you said was based on facts, which will make you a very knowledgeable insider. Otherwise, please have some respect for those whose freedom has been deprived. Please don’t think you have lots of supporters here. They are nothing but gullible fools consumed by big fat ego!
#13 by lchk on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 10:15 am
limkamput posted:
Killer posts personal opinions which he claims are facts.
I have challenged him repeatedly to provide evidence to back his so-called claims and he has NEVER once did that.
Which goes to show the type of slimeball we are dealing with here.
#14 by cheng on soo on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 10:20 am
Someone said, “There have been much said about how the 30% bumi requirement scaring the investors away. Of course this is complete rubbish”
So, he is saying that Mr Rommel from E.U is talking rubbish?
If this “30%” thing do not apply to certain F. Investor, than, why should local investors (even if the product is for export) be required to comply with this??
Some local investors in fact went over to Thailand to set up factories (which could hv been set up in Msia, like rubber based etc). Why? U guess lah!
#15 by undergrad2 on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 10:49 am
Jeffrey,
You are right about states having a role.
But seen within the context of worsening federal and state relations, and looking from the perspective of prospective foreign investors rather than local investors, it is a cause for concern. And for someone to be calling for opposition controlled states to “confront” the federal government without so much as an indication on what it is they need to confront the federal government with is to engage in useless rhetoric when time could be better spent calling for both federal and state governments not to let bipartisan politics dictate their every move.
#16 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:11 am
Land is a state matter. Like it or not foreign investors setting up business need to get approvals for land/properties, whether for factories, offices or even residence of their expatriate staff. And we should not selectively talk only of high end value added export manufacturing entities the likes of Motorola, which I assume will easily get a Manufacturing licence from MIDA exempting it from NEP’s equity specifications. FDI(s) comprise a whole range of other activities : Eg Singaporean investor wanting to invest in a chain of retail malls in KL, Penang and Ipoh. The foreign investor will need to comply with NEP requirements of Bumi equity ownership. To say that 30% bumi requirement scaring the investors away is rubbish not only implies Mr Rommel from E.U is talking rubbish but also the NEP government does not know what it is doing in trying to promote Iskandar Development Region by (in principle) easing of NEP’s application at political costs. To say it is all a myth that the NEP and the bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption had made Malaysia less attractive by comparing China misses the entire point. China remains one of the top destinations for FDI despite horrendously inefficient bureaucracy, corruption and poor regulatory and legal system because of over compensating factors of huge market and cheap labour, something that either countries like Singapore or Malaysia have – so this is poor comparison – and if one looks at bureaucracy in terms of efficiency or inefficiency, corruption or accountability and transparency or consistency of application of laws and regulations, Singapore wins hands down, no prize for the best guess why.
#17 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:12 am
“….something that Neither countries like Singapore or Malaysia have”
#18 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:33 am
This is for Cheng On Soo…
From the US State Dept’s 2007 Report…Data for the FY 2007 is not yet out…may be by mid-2008…
“According to government figures, at the end of October 2006 cumulative foreign investment approved by the MIC totaled 401 projects, valued at $13.9 billion. This is 79 percent higher than the cumulative total listed at the end of March 2005.
Extrapolating from the latest government statistics on FDI flow for Burmese FY 2005-06 (April-March), the U.S. Embassy estimates a 2832 percent year-on-year increase in the value of new FDI approvals ($6.066.billion) in three leading sectors compared with total new investment approvals in FY 2004-05 ($158.28 million). Potential investments from Thailand ($6.034 billion in power and oil and gas), India ($30.58 million in oil and gas) and China ($0.70 million in mining) received approvals. The amount of FDI investments approved in FY 2005-06 were the highest-ever reported. The approved FDI amount significantly rose in the end of the fiscal year in March with Thailand’s planned investment of $6 billion in the Ta Sang hydropower project.
The vast majority of approved new investment since 1997 has come from Asian countries. Western countries have largely stayed away from the Burma market, largely due to the abysmal investment climate, including an absence of rule of law, economic mismanagement and endemic corruption. New U.S. investment ceased in 1997 when the U.S. government imposed an investment ban.”
#19 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:36 am
In Penang and other state govt’s contexts, discussion is a bit hay wired here because of the need but failure to distinguish between two things : (1) Opposition avowed policies to infuse meritocracy and to mitigate corruption by more transparent and accountable policies (say) of open tender and at the same time investment friendly and (2) experience or inexperience of novice Opposition MBs or state councilors running the state governments.
In long run, and also in principle, as far as (1) goes, the investment climate should be more positive than under BN’s.
The problem is (2). If Penang state government and state exco make immediate policies like for examples:-
o immediate declaration of abolishment of NEP giving occasion for opportunist and trouble makers to take to street demonstrations;
o adopt too idealistic a position of catering for the agenda of every NGO in town
o seek to disrupt status quo and change main contractors or turnkey contractors of existing Federal projects – second link or monorail – on grounds of idealistic principles striking down any outfit tainted with cronyism or nepotism, of course the Federal government would strike back either by way of cutting funding or aborting the whole project to detriment of Penangnites.
In respect of (2), as I said, the Opposition boys are new kids on the block and there’s a learning curve of how to balance idealism as against pragmatism; how and where to overlook certain things and where to take the stand against…..It is a maturing process. I mean to tell Federal government that it should not award to Scomi when it was already legally awarded before 8th March, what do you expect Federal to do – be led by the principles of LGE’s State government??? If Federal pulls back projects in what way Penangnites benefited? Running a state government is a different mode from being in Opposition just opposing! Can Jeff Ooi afford keep hammering at Motorola in same vein he did before 8th March???
When we discuss the issue we must keep (1) and (2) separate. (1) is compass good investment-wise for the long haul; (2) is a separate problem, it needs time, learning, experience to form sound judgment of how to balance competing imperatives. Investment decision as Life’s decisions are never clear-cut. It is always balancing competing and conflicting imperatives and how to weigh, balance and choose one for a time over the other is a lesson from experience and maturity.
#20 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:41 am
….”when time could be better spent calling for both federal and state governments not to let bipartisan politics dictate their every move”.
That is gullible wishful thinking. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”, who said that, certainly not Confucius.
There is a time for everything. No body here calls for cooperation and bipartisanism to be ignored. Only self indulged ego who wish to put words into others will say such a thing.
BN did not have a history of cooperation and bipartisanism with any state government pre March 8. What make you think they will do anything different now? Cooperate the PK states must with the Federal Government. But it is also time to chart new course and new paradigm. Seeking cooperation with a group of tribal leaders without alternative course of action will only lead to protracted quagmire. NO time to waste, PK.
#21 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:42 am
Jeffrey
Perhaps you are unfamiliar on the background of Mr Rommel. If you had followed his interviews in the newspapers and magazines prior to that infamous incident you would have realised that he had more than business reasons as motivator for his outburst. When I first read his interview (I think it was the Edge), I was shocked by his commentary which completely betrayed his lack of knowledge on the local investment rules.
At that time I believe he was not pleased with the decisions that went against EU companies, notably Digi and the ban on the expansions of hypermarts. But rulings affecting these two companies are very different issues altogether and nothing to do with bumi shares requirements.
The ironic thing about his comments was that EU is no better than Malaysia in protecting their market by erecting barriers. While they promoted integration within EU they are less kind to non-EU members.
#22 by undergrad2 on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 12:19 pm
“….as I said, the Opposition boys are new kids on the block and there’s a learning curve of how to balance idealism as against pragmatism; how and where to overlook certain things and where to take the stand against. It is a maturing process. ….Running a state government is a different mode from being in Opposition just opposing! Can Jeff Ooi afford to keep hammering Motorola in same vein he did before 8th March???” Jeffrey
A realistic assessment of the situation facing the Penang state government.
#23 by cheng on soo on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 1:23 pm
In this IT (fast bulk, data communication) era, this 30% requirement for local investors to comply had NO meaning, if they can exempt foreign investor, local investor can always bypass this requirement by having their fund from oversea, or set up a branch / subsidiary Co. in oversea, and use this oversea branch / subsid Co. to invest in Msia to bypass this “30%” thing.
Come on, Nobody (esp New breed of businessmen) is going to give 30% for nothing!
#24 by Jeffrey on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 2:15 pm
///If this “30%” thing do not apply to certain F. Investor, than, why should local investors (even if the product is for export) be required to comply with this??/// – cheng on soo
The FIC guidelines don’t just bifurcate between foreigners and locals only : it is also based on financial threshold of value transaction applicable to locals. Acquisition of property by non bumi of property belonging to Bumi would require approval if valued between RM10 and 20 million (rule 4.1) and in the case of non bumi from another non bumi party of property for (say) car assembly/manufacturing would also require FIC’s approval if transaction value is more than more than RM20 million (rule 4.2). Any foreigners acquiring property for their businesses from local interest or for development would, of whatever threshold, still have to acquire it via a locally incorporated company subject to NEP equity and employment requirements (rules 4.3 & 4.4) – unless it falls under specified exemptions such as MSC status, operating within approved corridors, manufacturing with MIDA/MITI’s licence (ie those who export high value goods, help in technology transfer etc and enjoy pioneer status), those endorsed by Secretariat of Malaysian International Islamic Financial Centre (sub paras of rule 9). Even leasing property for a term longer than 10 years (rule 4.16) or disposal of property of any value by foreign interest to another foreign interest or of value of more than RM20 million if disposed to local interests (Rules 4.17 and 4.18). The labyrinth of overlapping guidelines are subject to changes from time to time according to variations to government’ public policies. Many investors are not happy with this kind of regulation. Even if they, by virtue of the nature of their investments, are entitled to certain exemptions, the fact is that they still have to separate wheat from chaff amongst the many rules, apply for approval (even if entitled to approval as of right per rules) and subject themselves to government’s discretionary changes in policies impacting on such rules from time to time. Ask yourself are foreign investors coming in droves to invest in our various development corridors? You will observe that the rules are not just to control foreigners. Handed down during TDM’s time, they are to keep the PM’s dept informed as to who is doing what of any significance – ie economic pulse – of the country. Rules are cited from FIC guidelines issued by FIC, Economic Unit of PM’s Department. Mr Rommel. If you had followed his interviews in the newspapers and magazines prior to that infamous incident you would have realised that he had more than business reasons as motivator for his outburst.
Whatever may be said of Mr Rommel’s lack of knowledge on the local investment rules and bias from being not pleased with the decisions that went against EU companies, notably Digi and the ban on the expansions of hypermarts, it is fact that the NEP requirements reflected in FIC rules, the complex and changing regulatory framework of these rules are generally a put off as far as foreign investors are concerned (though it may not be so in cases of those specific ones who enjoy exemptions).
#25 by cheng on soo on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 5:16 pm
So, FIC rules are complicated, so “30%” thing is a “put off” or not??
Thanks for giving figure on FDI to Myanmar, but $6 bil a year cannot qualify Myanmar as an attractive place for Foreign Investment. This $6 bil, come from practically (>99%) Thailand only.
#26 by lextcs on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 5:45 pm
please lah yb kit, kah choon got no principles…besides he cant wait for another 5 yrs otherwise his political career is gone kaput….there are plenty of politicians out there crossing over for the sake of their security. Take for example ‘tua pek kong’ from klang who openly crossed over to PKR. This guy has been a two faced snake and when the results of the election seen obvious he immediately jumped ship. Are these the people we want in your coalition? I think other than the lack of talent amongst PR coalition there is no other reason to accept these bunck of ‘advantage’ taking morons.
#27 by ktteokt on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 5:46 pm
So tell me which idiot foreign investor would want to bring in RM1 into Malaysia just to lose RM0.30 the minute he sets up business here?
#28 by ktteokt on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 5:46 pm
THIS AMOUNTS TO DAYLIGHT ROBBERY BY OUR FAMOUS BN GOVERNMENT (WORLD RENOWNED).
#29 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 8:41 pm
Folks
Before some of you go off the tangent completely, rules requiring local partnership / restrictions in a business venture is not unique to Malaysia. Almost every country countries, including the US has various rules that prevents a foreign investor from acquiring or setting up a business venture. We have seen how the US has blocked foreign investors from China / Middle East / Europe from acquiring local companies or even from owning some stakes in them.
In some countries it is a blanket requirement while some only impose the condition for certain strategic industries. Bodies such as FIC is common in many countries.
For example, in China the only way you can start a business venture (other than export-based), you have to do it as a joint-venture. Well, this hasn’t prevented Mr Rommel’s countrymen from rushing headlong into the Middle Kingdom. The rules for the joint venture not only unclear but also changes with the whims and fancies of the officials you are dealing with. I recall Sime Darby losing a quite a significant amount of money in China due to this “phantom joint venture” partner.
But such written rules are just part of the regulations one faces in China, the unwritten ones are far worse.
Here’s a useful link for people to read, taken from the US Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement 2007.
I have taken a key phrase for people to read before they post further rambling statements not grounded on reality.
http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/ifd/2007/82336.htm
“Corporate Equity
One of the government’s racial preference policies is a requirement that foreign and domestic non-manufacturing firms take on bumiputera partners (with a minimum of 30% of share capital). If a company seeks public listing on the Bursa Malaysia (formerly Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange), it is required to reserve at least 30% of its initial public offering (IPO) for purchase by bumiputera. In 2003 the GOM ended a formal requirement that corporations issue additional stock to bring bumiputera equity back up to 30% if those shareholders had sold their stock. However, bumiputera equity remains a consideration when companies apply for an array of required permits and licenses — many of which must be renewed either annually or biennially.
The government caps foreign investment shares in most sectors. To alleviate the effects of the regional economic crisis, in 1998, Malaysia temporarily relaxed foreign-ownership and export requirements in the manufacturing sector for companies that did not compete directly with local producers. In June 2003, the government extended this policy indefinitely, permitting expansion of existing investments in manufacturing concerns to be foreign-owned. Manufacturing investments approved under the liberalized measures are not subject to racial preference requirements for divestment or dilution. Those with prior investments must honor the initial conditions to which they agreed but may request that they be changed. Malaysia’s 2003 liberalization of foreign equity ceilings in manufacturing led to a spike in both foreign and domestic investment in the sector.
In September 2004, the government announced that venture capital firms could be 100 percent foreign-owned, in addition to manufacturing and information technology firms, subject to government approval for each investment project. Approvals are handled by the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) for most manufacturing projects and the Multimedia Development Corporation (MDC) for Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) status companies (see below). Especially in the case of investments focused toward the domestic market and those in sectors other than manufacturing, the GOM has used this authority to restrict foreign equity (normally to 30 percent) and to require foreign firms to enter into joint ventures with local partners. The GOM often approves investments in high-tech industries, but is becoming less inclined to approve lower-wage manufacturing and in some cases will not renew tax abatement agreements to existing manufacturers not perceived as sufficiently high-tech.”
#30 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 8:51 pm
This is from the same report for Singapore…though they are more open but restrictions are still in place.
So my advice is that please do not post comments without first understanding the issue.
Limits on National Treatment and Other Restrictions
Exceptions to Singapore?s general openness to foreign investment exist in telecommunications, broadcasting, the domestic news media, financial services, legal and other professional services, and property ownership. Under Singapore law, Articles of Incorporation may include shareholding limits that restrict ownership in corporations by foreign persons.
Some observers have criticized the dominant role of GLCs in the domestic economy, arguing that it has displaced or suppressed private sector entrepreneurship and investment.
#31 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 8:56 pm
This is for China….from the same source.
Investment Requirements
Although China has revised many laws and regulations to conform to WTO investment requirements, in practice, Chinese industrial planners “encourage” investments that meet economic development goals. U.S. companies are concerned that “encouragement” may amount, in many cases, to WTO-prohibited requirements, particularly in light of the high degree of discretion provided to the Chinese officials who review investment applications. For example, according to U.S. firms, some Chinese officials still consider export performance and local content when deciding whether to recommend approval of a Chinese bank loan, which is often essential to a foreign direct invested (FDI) project’s success.
Investment Guidelines
China defines its foreign investment objectives primarily through its Foreign Investment Catalogue. The most recent version went into effect January 1, 2005. The catalogue is revised every few years and supplemented by directives from various government agencies. Contradictions between the catalogue and other measures, some of which are outlined below, have confused investors and added to the perception that investment guidelines do not provide a stable basis for business planning. Uncertainty as to which industries are being promoted and how long such designations will be valid undermines confidence in the stability and predictability of the investment climate. Of note, in December 2006, China opened the renminbi market to foreign banks, subject to the requirement that banks incorporate, in China, local subsidiaries of their overseas parents.
#32 by Killer on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 10:28 pm
Refering to the point Jeffrey raised about giving the LGE’s exco a chance, well, in this flat-world, you don’t expect the earth to stop its rotation just because you are brand new CM. You just have to adjust yourselves to the realities of the world and hit the ground running.
To someone is smart and experienced enough, it doesn’t take too long to make an accurate judgement. Personally, the regime of LGE had left me massively unwhelmed.
Let me tell you why. First like his father, he is stuck in his “retro” mode where he is still acting and talking like an Opposition leader.
Sometimes I wish you could show more humility and diplomatic manner in the way he makes his speeches.
Secondly, he has antogonised the Federal government by going on a witch-hunt and making highly confrontational statements. If I were him, I would stop talking to the Federal govt through the media add reach out to Pak Lah. Instead he has taken a populist and heroic but kamikaze way of doing things.
Thirdly, he has make several controversial decisions in selecting the exco and key posts (like LKC) that is going to undermine his position in Penang. Being an outsider he is already on a shaky ground and by sidelining the local DAP leaders he has antogonised some key personalities. Already his DCM2′s (Dr Ramasamy’s)
political career has stalled before it started. Dr Ramasamy not only has no support among the Penang DAP leaders but he also completely alienated the DAP Indian members as well.
Lastly and most importantly, LGE’s team has offended the powerful investors group. This is not only the foreign ones but also the local investors. I can’t be very specific on details at this point of time, but in matter of months there will be announcement of pull-outs and lays-off of key foreign investors. I was informed by my industry sources that this will involve around 7 to 8 big names.
It is not difficult to predict how this story going to end by looking at the beginning – in tears….
#33 by limkamput on Monday, 28 April 2008 - 11:24 pm
Killer, rules and restrictions exist everywhere. So what is your point? Malaysia therefore should have more unreasonable rules since others are also having it?
Please don’t talk like a hero here. Malaysia should have fewer rules because other countries are gaining competitiveness in other factors. Besides, just to illustrate: Singapore can have 20 rules and Malaysia 10 rules. But to resolve 10 rules in Malaysia probably take twice the length of time and money than solving 20 rules in Singapore. Got it, my friend? What more the Federal Government may now want to make the rules even more difficult for state like Penang.
#34 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:10 am
limkamput
I have no problem debating with you are long as they are objective and about issues on hand rather than getting personal.
Perhaps you are missing the points I am making here. As illustrated in the case of China, it is not the number of rules or good governance or even the indices published by the various global bodies, which determines the FDI a country receives.
The factors are highly complex and many MNCs have sophisticated methodologies and criteria for selecting the location for FDI. I should know since I am involved in such decisions myself. What we should do is to view the issue of competitiveness in a broader perspective.
I think it is stupid to say that Malaysia has too many rules or accuse the bumi requirements to be a barrier for FDIs. Many countries are in awe of our success in attracting FDIs. In fact Malaysia is one of the most successful countries in the world in terms of FDI. This is despite our small market, unlike the natural advantage enjoyed by China, India, Brazil, Russia, Vietnam and other nations with large populations.
It is also idiocy to compare Malaysia with Singapore. Firstly due to their small market they are not attractive for foreign investors aiming domestic market. The sectors that matter like telecom, retail banking, transport, broadcast, property, media, etc are all strictly controlled. And the stifling influence of GLCs is everywhere.
While attracting FDIs is very tough, losing them is ridiculously easy as demonstrated by LGE. I am sorry to say this but the result of 12GE has been highly detrimental for the FDIs and expect the 2008 numbers to be rather low. As I had said, not only that the incoming FDIs has dried up but MNCs are actually planning to leave. Singapore’s EDB is watching the developments like an eagle and ready to exploit the situation. Our local newspapers unwisely have named some of the companies that are in the pipeline (perhaps leaked by LGE as a damage control) as Singapore will try to “potong trip” (such cases have happened many times in the past).
#35 by procol on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 1:12 am
If I were him, I would stop talking to the Federal govt through the media add reach out to Pak Lah
What if he did? And I doubt Pak Lah or UMNO gave him full benefit of the doubt. Many times the “reaching out” as demonstrated by previous administration ended up in a cupboard full of skeletons filling it up over time until the door gave way. The media will only give a glimpse and scarce updates of what really transpired. Of course the well connected ones whether politically or among influential business networks (perhaps includes u?) will know ahead of the rest of the nation as to what will happen next. So extensive media coverage will be good for us,mere commoners who do not want to be at the bottom of the pile of skeletons.
U also pointed out that there are many factors n complex methodologies used by MNCs to determine where to invest. I have to say Jeffrey has a point there when he said one of the factors China has been the top destination for FDIs despite the high level of corruption, inefficiency in the bureacracy, etc, the overcompensating factors of, inter alia, huge market and cheap labour are just too attractive to be given the pass. I think this has been admitted even by MNCs themselves. I remember there’s a documentary in either Discovery or NGC where the GM of Mercedes in China admitted that even though China govt takes huge percentage of the profit due to similar equity requirements, loads of their competitors and MNCs fr oth industries jump on the band wagon because even with the equity requirement, Mercedes and those other MNCs which invested still reaped huge profits. This is because of the huge market and they concluded in the long run, even if they keep only 50% of the profit, it’s still good and big money for them. Conversely, Malaysia has neither huge market or cheap labour, thus when taken in combination with the 30% equity requirement, Malaysia is a less attractive choice. What’s ur opinion on this?
Maybe ur in the know but I tend to think that people have different opinions n methodologies on investments and nobody can claim that they are absolutely right. With all investments, there will always be an element of risk because it’s based on expectation that the future will hold,conditions will continue to be favourable,etc. However, we can only do so much as predict and nothing more. Stan O’neal of Merril Lynch, Chuck Prince of Citigroup,etc also insisted that based on some calculations of some risk wizard, junk bonds masked as AAAgrade bonds are good investments. Now everyone knows that their methodologies n hell bent opinions didn’t hold water. What do u think?
#36 by procol on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 1:18 am
erm the opening line of my previous post is quoted from Killer’s post. N is intended for his response. tq
#37 by limkamput on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 3:11 am
Killer,
I know factors attracting FDI is complex and multi-facets. If we know Malaysia is disadvantaged in some areas, there is no harm to make ourselves more attractive in other areas. That is how the game is played by most countries.
I don’t have much quarrel with your observations on attracting FDI except one point – your observation that the new administration (DAP and LGE) may have caused the FDI to decline. Yes, Malaysia used to attract large FDI flows when compared with other countries of similar size and stage of development. But that is history now, since the Asian Financial crisis of 1997. Factors governing FDI flows have changed and more countries and regions are now playing the FDI game. In fact Malaysia has been out of the FDI radar for a long time way before March 8 election. To attribute the lack of investment (in Penang or other PK states) to political uncertainty after the March 8 election is, to me, grossly unfair. As far as I am concerned, the Federal Government is doing a lousy job in making Malaysia a destination of choice for businesses and investment due to its many poorly conceived policies, corruption, bureaucracy, rent seeking complexes, and cost of doing business.
I am not being personal. It is the way you write – I know this, I know that, I am involved in this and I am involved in that. Please, we all know something. Otherwise we would not want to come here.
#38 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 11:20 am
procol
Let me answer your question in this way.
What many people don’t understand is that FDI can be in two different forms. One is the export-based FDI where the investors will take advantage of a country’s comparative advantages to produce goods/services for the export market. The 2nd is the FDI that is meant for domestic market. This can take the form of investment in new companies to sell locally, buy local companies/ their equities or purchase properties.
Usually every country will compete fiercely for the 1st type of FDI. But for the 2nd type, many countries are highly protective or cautious. This is because they are afraid their local companies will be forced out of business by the giant foreign MNCs and their economy controlled by the foreigners.
In my view, we should encourage both types of FDIs but be cautious in allowing the 2nd one. There are certain industries we need to protect from foreign competition due to their strategic nature. But at the same time, such protection can bring about much inefficiency and breed corruptions and other negative practices. Of course a classic example is Proton and the local steel industry.
However, the 2nd type of FDIs sometimes can be detrimental to the long term benefit of the country’s economy especially when the inflow is for unproductive sectors such the property market and equity. Since the funds can also leave as quickly, these outflows can result in an economic catastrophe as was evident in the 1997/8 Asian Economic Crisis.
If we look at the FDI trend over the past several years, Malaysia has been lagging but many of our competition has been attracting short-term FDIs that mainly used up in buying up local companies or for the stock market. For example, Singapore has seen an over-investment in the property sector (including for the IR project) and seen a lot of funds flowing in from sources of dubious nature (mainly illegally gotten monies from Indonesia and Myanmar). Singapore government used the data to tout its attractiveness as a location for FDI without revealing the true nature of these investments.
It is the same for China. It is estimated that around 60% of their FDIs are actually what is termed as “round-tripping”, ie, the fund that originating from China but routed through foreign tax-haven in order to gain preferential treatments given to FDIs. Many people would be surprised to find that the top FDI contributors in 2006 were from nations like Hong Kong (No 1), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Western Samoa.
Secondly, most of these FDIs are for unproductive sectors such as the property, stock market and the purchase of equity. Only a fraction went into manufacturing and other productive sectors.
Having said that it is also true that we are no longer a low-cost producer and many foreign investors are looking at cheaper locations such as China and Vietnam.
The competition for FDI is also much fiercer now with new players and countries offering excellent incentives to lure FDI.
As such we need to re-invent ourselves and look for ways to grow using radical new strategies. My view is that it is foolish to depend too much on FDIs. Though we should continue to look out for FDIs but for the right reasons and for the right sectors.
As we have seen even China now lost their ability to attract export-based FDIs and the investors are abandoning them for Vietnam and other newer locations. The real impact for China will be felt after the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
That’s why I had mentioned in another thread sometimes back that these economic Corridors that AAB had been launching is an excellent idea. However, the political situation we have now is highly detrimental for a major transformation of the nation or attracting the right kind of FDIs. In the current situation, we need long term solutions and not instant populist garbage. Without the requisite political alignment, I think the transformation that Malaysia must undergo is impossible.
#39 by procol on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:04 pm
Thanks for d info.
“Since the funds can also leave as quickly, these outflows can result in an economic catastrophe as was evident in the 1997/8 Asian Economic Crisis.”
I agree wif u on this point. In fact, as stated by numerous analyst on the so called 10th Anniversary of 97 financial crisis, Asia is in a better position now after learning fr the mistake of not depending too much on FDI in case foreign investors “pull the plug”. It could be agreed that cautious must b practised encouraging the 2nd type of FDI because Msia don’t want to end up in a position where foreigners have huge claims over our assets.
Am I correct to say that u seem to suggest that d previous administration presents a more favourable condition for attracting FDIs,investments,etc? I think it may be accepted as a general truth that as with all kinds of changes,its a temporary destabilization of d equilibrium while still in transition period to adapt and find the new equilibrium hence establishing stability once again. What about the fact that the people actually welcome the change and applaud the aggressive stance of DAP in exposing scams, pressuring for transparency,etc? though it may be interpreted as potential instability or bad conditions for business by investors, biz community(presuming i read ur opinions correctly). Would it not be the case that the fed govt would bow to the pressure for change in the near future and find that it’s too much a cost to abandon or punish the PR controlled states since these very states, when combined contributes a huge portion to the GDP? If that’s the case then we might after all be pushing in the right direction for better conditions for biz or for a nation as a whole.
#40 by lchk on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:08 pm
Killer posted:
“It is also idiocy to compare Malaysia with Singapore. Firstly due to their small market they are not attractive for foreign investors aiming domestic market. The sectors that matter like telecom, retail banking, transport, broadcast, property, media, etc are all strictly controlled.”
Check your facts first before you mouth off here, otherwise you end up looking like the village idiot of the LKS blogsphere.
Singapore has one of the most liberalized investment banking environments in Asia.
There are more than 40 foreign bank offices in Singapore and six foreign banks have licenses to operate stand-alone ATM machines in places like MRT stations and shopping malls. Contrast that with Malaysia and see what sort of restraints foreign banks operate under Bank Negara rules and regulations.
#41 by lchk on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:10 pm
Killer posted:
“That’s why I had mentioned in another thread sometimes back that these economic Corridors that AAB had been launching is an excellent idea.”
Again, you never bothered to explain how exactly these economic corridors are excellent ideas.
#42 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:26 pm
lchk
Perhaps you should check before shooting from the hips. It is not a smart idea to buy the propaganda that being sold by the Singaporean govt. Leave that to Singaporeans and naive foreigners.
Of course they can afford to be more liberal than us because they want all the dirty monies that the cruel dictators, corrupt Indonesian politicians and tycoons and power-mad Myanmar Generals have.
This is from the US Dept of State…read and weep..
“In June 2004, the Government announced further liberalization measures in the domestic retail banking sector. Effective January 1, 2005, QFBs are permitted to have a maximum of 25 service locations (up from 15). In addition, they can now negotiate with local banks to allow their credit card holders to obtain cash advances through the local banks’ ATM networks.
Despite liberalization, foreign banks in the domestic retail banking sector still face significant restrictions and are not accorded national treatment. Aside from the limit on the number of foreign QFBs and their customer service locations, foreign QFBs are not allowed to access the local banks’ ATM networks, a major competitive disadvantage, although they can share ATMs among themselves and (as noted above) can now negotiate with the local banks to allow their card holders to obtain cash advances. Customers of foreign banks are also unable to access their accounts for transfers or bill payments at ATMs operated by banks other than their own. Local retail banks do not face similar constraints. Nevertheless, QFBs have made significant inroads in retail banking, with substantial market share in products like credit cards, personal and housing loans. “
#43 by lchk on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 12:49 pm
Killer,
Obviously you know zilch about the banking environment in Singapore.
Stop believing in your own UMNO spin and start reading facts.
Witness the abundance of foreign bank standalone ATM machines at publicly accessible places such as MRT stations and shopping malls.
Do you find any foreign bank standalone machine in Malaysia? ZILCH!
Your article is dated at 2005 which is years ago – take a look at the banking centres at SMRT stations that Citibank has in Singapore today.
#44 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 1:54 pm
Obviously the fact that the US state dept being controlled by UMNO is news to me….
Well, both personal experience and the US govt State dept’s report contradict with your arguments. The only foreign bank that has any significant presence there is our own Maybank even though it faces significant restrictions.
If you want to convince me perhaps you could quote a reliable and independent source for your claim (please stay clear of Singaporean agencies, they are all propaganda machines of PAP).
And btw, I also had explained why SG allowed foreign bank to operate in a limited way (excluding the retail banking that is). They just wanted to be the center for the ill-gotten gains of the Asian Gallery of Rogues and Dictators.
FYI, 1/3 of millionaires in SG are Indonesians and a significant % of the rest are foreigners of dubious reputation. It has been estimated that almost US $ 1 trillion has been taken out of Indonesia alone by the corrupt politicians and tycoons to be deposited in the Singaporean banking system.
#45 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 1:56 pm
lchk
Perhaps you could explain why these corridors aren’t such good ideas in the first place ?
#46 by cheng on soo on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 3:00 pm
Fact: Spore had many big ticket investment (each cost >US$ 1 bil )now. many of this in Jurong Island, in petrol chemical, pharmaceutical, biodiesel plant, commercial bldg. etc Their FDI is easily > 2.5 times as compare with Msia.
Their construction activities is booming, huge factories, big offices, resort complexes etc, I am in buidling construction. This is a fact, Ask anybody dealing with building product / equipment in Msia / Spore, compare the sales, then you know.
#47 by cheng on soo on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 3:16 pm
“FDI contributors in 2006 were from nations like Hong Kong (No 1), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Western Samoa.”
Pardon me, I heard of Hong Kong, BVI, Cayman Isl. as financial Island, but anyone heard of Western Samoa as a financial Isl.??
#48 by lakilompat on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 4:36 pm
I might be going Singapore to work for 2 or 3 yrs, i will be filthy rich when i retired in Singapore. So, why do i need to stay in Malaysia.
There already huge migration of Johorean to Singapore.
So, whoever still remain in Malaysia will have to beg the govt. to provide the bridge & monorails, even state funds.
The Federal govt. is having severe constipation to drop funds for state improvement & requirement.
In Canada we have the Provincial Tax, and Federal Tax. Soon, all the opposition should have State Tax so that these state can develop themselves with the amount of funds they earned.
#49 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 5:00 pm
Dear Cheng on soo
I have…
Bro, do some research,check it out in wiki under IFC.
#50 by Killer on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 - 5:06 pm
lakilompat
You have a good sense of humour….more likely you will end up working in hawker center or Changi airport even after you retire.
In Malaysia, may be you have to beg for projects but in Singapore you don’t even have it bother…… because the government’s stated policy of denying aid to Opposition-held area.
Good luck on PR state govts if they want to start a state tax, that is the surest way of getting booted out of power in the 13E.