Dialog berikut dipetik daripada Rancangan Dialog @ 1 dan juga daripada Bahagian Penerbitan Dasar Negara, Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia. Saya telah membuat sedikit pindaan kerana terdapat sedikit kesilapan dari teks asal.

RANCANGAN DIALOG @ 1

TETAMU
Y.B. TAN SRI NOR MOHAMED YAKCOP
MENTERI KEWANGAN (II)

07 JANUARI 2009, 9:30 MALAM (TV 1)

PERANTARA
SABARUDDIN AHMAD SABRI


1. Dalam usaha menyelamatkan ekonomi negara, kerajaan telah memperkenalkan Pelan Rangsangan Ekonomi yang telah dibentangkan di Dewan Rakyat pada persidangan Dewan Rakyat yang lepas. Peruntukan sebanyak RM 7 bilion telah diluluskan untuk menjana ekonomi Negara dengan pelbagai insentif dan subsidi telah diperkenalkan bagi membantu rakyat terutamanya golongan berpendapatan rendah.

2. Krisis ekonomi yang melanda dunia kini bermula daripada kejatuhan ekonomi Amerika Syarikat yang selama ini mengamalkan sistem kapitalis yang amat terbuka dengan memberi kebebasan yang besar kepada syarikat-syarikat yang bukan dimiliki oleh kerajaan. Kerajaan Amerika tidak mengawal langsung dasar dan operasi syarikat-syarikat kapitalis yang beroperasi.

3. Dasar atau sistem ekonomi kapitalis yang diamalkan di Amerika Syarikat, United Kingdom dan Eropah telah mencetuskan sifat tamak serta ingin menguasai keseluruhan kepentingan telah menyebabkan hilang perasaan ingin menolong syarikat-syarikat kecil yang sering ketinggalan dalam pasaran ekonomi terbuka. Di sinilah peranan spekulator yang sering mencetuskan spekulasi ekonomi bertujuan mencari keuntungan di sebalik kegelisahan pemegang-pemegang saham.

4. Ekonomi dunia termasuk Malaysia pada tahun 2009 diramal akan penuh dengan pelbagai cabaran. Walaupun negara telah bersedia lebih awal lagi melalui Pelan Rangsangan Ekonomi, namun dalam pasaran ekonomi yang terbuka serta urusan eksport yang menjadi sebahagian daripada kegiatan ekonomi negara, sedikit sebanyak tempias kegawatan ekonomi dunia akan tetap dirasai.

5. Peruntukan sebanyak RM 7 bilion yang diperuntukkan telah pun diagih-agihkan kepada semua kementerian yang bertanggungjawab bagi melaksanakan penjanaan ekonomi negara. Melalui penambahan pelbagai projek-projek kerajaan serta menambahkan peruntukan, kerajaan berharap keyakinan swasta kepada ekonomi negara akan meningkat. Pihak-pihak Bank juga digalakkan memberi pinjaman kepada pengusaha dan peniaga kecil bertujuan membolehkan mereka bergerak serta menjana kegiatan ekonomi. Kerajaan sentiasa memastikan dan memberi nasihat kepada setiap institusi kewangan untuk sentiasa membantu mengerakkan kegiatan ekonomi.

6. Kerajaan akan sentiasa menaruh keyakinan kepada perkembangan ekonomi Negara bertumbuh dengan kadar yang perlahan tanpa penguncupan. Melalui pelbagai dasar dan insentif, kerajaan akan memperbanyakkan peruntukan bagi memastikan projek-projek kerajaan akan sentiasa berjalan.

7. Malaysia adalah sebuah negara yang mempunyai simpanan daripada setiap ringgit yang dikeluarkan. Melalui simpanan ini, negara akan sentiasa mempunyai rizab simpanan yang boleh dikeluarkan sekiranya diperlukan. Negara lain termasuk Amerika Syarikat, tidak mempunyai simpanan daripada setiap nilai mata wangnya.

8. Sejak tahun 1983, Malaysia telah memperkenalkan Dasar Perbankan Islam yang telah terbukti berjaya dan mempunyai nilai keselamatan yang tinggi. Kini kebanyakan bank di Malaysia telah mengamalkan sistem Perbankan Islam.

9. Kegawatan serta kejatuhan ekonomi dunia kini, tetap akan dirasai di seluruh dunia termasuk Malaysia. Namun begitu, negara telah belajar melalui pengalaman tahun 1987, 1997 dan kini muncul semula suasana kegawatan ekonomi dunia, cuma cara dan pengendaliannya agak berbeza.

10. Dalam usaha menjana ekonomi negara secara berterusan, kerajaan akan sentiasa memastikan kredit dan pinjaman bank kepada pengusaha dan peniaga diteruskan bagi menjana kegiatan ekonomi. Selain itu, pengangguran pula perlu dikurangkan secara berterusan sehingga mencapai sasaran sifar. Melalui penambahan projek-projek kerajaan yang dapat dilaksanakan oleh swasta mahupun kerajaan, akan mewujudkan peluang-peluang pekerjaan kepada rakyat. Kerajaan juga akan memastikan syarikat-syarikat swasta tidak akan memberhentikan pekerja dengan alas an kemelesetan ekonomi.

11. Ekonomi negara kini dijana sebanyak 70 peratus oleh pihak swasta. Melalui kerjasama dan persefahaman yang jitu, kerajaan sentiasa memberi peluang kepada pihak swasta melaksanakan pelbagai projek kerajaan. Dasar Penswastaan yang telah diamalkan oleh kerajaan sejak tahun 1982 telah berjaya membina ekonomi negara dengan berkesan. Melalui Dasar Penswastaan, setiap syarikat swasta akan menganggap mereka, rakyat dan kerajaan di dalam satu syarikat dan berusaha untuk memajukan secara bersama. Kejayaan dasar ini telah menyebabkan kerajaan dan swasta sama=sama memastikan kejayaan negara dikongsi bersama.

12. Kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai kemampuan yang lebih untuk meminjam daripada mana-mana negara dan tabung atau dana wang di peringkat antarabangsa, namun kerajaan masih mampu melaksanakan dasar dan membelanjakan peruntukan yang ada melalui pelbagai aset dan dana kerajaan. Malaysia mempunyai acuan sendiri dalam menguruskan ekonomi negara tanpa bergantung kepada negara luar atau pun dana asing yang akan menjerumuskan negara kepada sifat kebergantungan kepada negara asing. Ternyata dasar dan pelan ekonomi negara telah berjaya meletakkan negara di landasan yang betul dalam menguruskan ekonomi.

PERANTARA : Assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera saudara, bertemu dalam Rancangan Dialog@1 dan pada malam ini kita akan mengutarakan rancangan pertama kita, Dialog@1 dan Dialog@1 pada malam ini akan membincangkan satu tajuk yang saya rasa rata-rata ramai orang akan menunggu kerana ianya melibatkan semua pihak iaitu Ekonomi 2009, yang mana seperti yang saya nyatakan tadi di awal rancangan, ialah apakah perancangan kita menghadapi masalah ini ataupun ekonomi akan berkembang terus ataupun bagaimana mengatasi masalah ini, dan bagi para penonton kita, untuk Dialog@1 ini kita juga membuka talian kita ataupun kita membuka tajuk SMS di komen, soalan ke 32776.

Hantarkan komen anda, jarak dan soalan, ataupun untuk menghantar komen sila taip komen, nama, lokasi dan nama, soalan atau komen anda dan hantarkan SMS anda ke 32776. Bagi para pemanggil kita, kita juga buka talian kita di 03-22828578/8579. Dan bersama kita pada malam ini untuk membincangkan tajuk yang saya rasa agak penting untuk semua orang ialah Y.B. Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Menteri Kewangan II. Selamat datang Tan Sri. Masih tak terlewat saya mengucapkan Selamat Tahun Baru kepada Tan Sri. Kalau kita perhatikan, Tan Sri, sekarang ini tahun 2008 merupakan satu tahun yang penuh dengan cabaran yang mana pada awal dan pertengahan kita dapati terdapat peningkatan mendadak kepada harga minyak, komoditi dan sebagainya. Dan ada juga pihak bergembira pada masa tersebut kerana harga itu naik, dan harga minyak yang menyebabkan inflasi meningkat.

Untuk pengetahuan, kita dapati satu lagi bencana di dunia ini apabila krisis kewangan yang begitu saya ingat sangat hebat sejak mungkin berpuluh tahun kita tidak mengalaminya di dunia ini. Dan kita telah menyebabkan rakyat di negara kita tertanya-tanya, apakah yang sebenarnya berlaku pada 2008 dan apakah harapan kita, ekonomi khususnya pada 2009. Bagaimana Tan Sri boleh melihat perkembangan ini kerana Tan Sri juga kita faham pernah terlibat dalam 1997 di mana Tan Sri, terima kasih Tan Sri telah berjaya dapat membantu negara keluar daripada masalah kewangan. Dan ini sebenarnya kita ingin ketahui apakah sebenarnya yang berlaku pada 2008 dan dari segi ekonomi dunia mungkin kita boleh bincang di Dialog @1, Tan Sri.

MENTERI : Terima kasih saudara Sabaruddin. Untuk kita mengatasi sesuatu masalah, kita harus faham apa dia itu masalah. Itu satu pengajaran kita sejak tahun 1997. Kita dapat mengatasi kemelut tahun 1997 sebab kita tau selok-belok tentang masalah yang kita hadapi pada masa itu. Jadi, soalannya apakah masalah dunia pada masa ini. Daripada mana puncanya? Selalu disebut, oleh para analyst bahawa ia berpunca dari Amerika Syarikat dan yang bermula dengan kerapuhan sistem kredit yang berpunca dari krisis sub-prima. Tapi saya berpendapat kita perlu lihat lebih jauh lagi. Dan saya berpendapat, bahawa kita kini melihat kehancuran sistem kapitalisme Anglo-Saxon. Sebenarnya sejak tahun 1980an, sistem kapitalisme Anglo-Saxon ini telah menjadi sistem utama di Amerika Syarikat, United Kingdom dan juga negara-negara lain, mula terikut-ikut sistem kapitalisme Anglo-Saxon. Sistem kapitalisme Anglo-Saxon ini percaya sangat kepada sistem swasta dan mengikut sistem ini dan kerajaan tidak perlu memainkan peranan untuk mengawal sistem swasta. Sistem swasta itu dengan sendirinya akan menjanakan ekonomi dan kerajaan perlu mengambil tindakan yang sedikit bila perlu sahaja. Dan juga dalam sistem Anglo-Saxon ini, di berikan kebebasan yang terlalu sangat banyak kepada pihak-pihak di sistem itu.

Dan akhirnya sistem ini melibatkan dua unsur. Unsur pertama ialah ketamakan yang tidak berketepian. Dan kedua ialah ketakutan yang tidak berasas. Dan kita lihat bahawa begitu banyak spekulasi yang telah wujud dalam sistem ini. Sejak tahun 1997 dan kini dan yang saudara Sabaruddin sebut tadi. Harga komoditi telah naik, harga pasaran telah naik, harga minyak telah naik dari USD80 pada tahun 2007 kepada USD147 pada pertengahan 2008. Sebab apa dia naik begitu mendadak? Sebab spekulasi. Dan spekulasi itu berasaskan kepada ketamakan. Dan macam-macam alat, macam-macam produk diwujudkan yang begitu kompleks yang tidak masuk akal, tapi diwujudkan dan begitu banyak pinjaman dibuat. Dan bila ekonomi dah turun, unsur yang jadi unsur penting ialah ketakutan. Begitu takut sehingga bank-bank yang terkemuka tidak berani meminjam kepada bank-bank terkemuka yang lain. Memanglah untuk pelanggan. Mereka tidak pinjam. Tapi untuk bank-bank lain pun mereka tak pinjam. Jadi ini telah mengakibatkan satu kerapuhan dalam sistem kewangan. Sistem kredit Amerika Syarikat.

Dan ini telah juga memberi tempias kepada sistem ekonomi benar Amerika Syarikat. Dan sebagai sebuah negara kecil, dan terbuka, yang juga eksport kepada Negara-negara maju tempias itu kita akan terima jugalah dalam tahun 2009. Saya sendiri menganggap tahun 2009 dan saya sendiri menganggap tahun 2009 sebagai satu tahun yang sungguh mencabar untuk kita.

PERANTARA : Tan Sri, saya ingin menarik perhatian kerana ramai juga tertanya-tanya kalau sebelum ini kita ada sambutan sebelum ini Krismas dan akan datang adalah Tahun Baru Cina, dan mereka meramalkan bahawa keadaan ekonomi akan bertambah buruk katanya selepas bulan dua atau bulan tiga. Adakah itu benar Tan Sri dan bagaimana persediaan yang perlu kita hadapi.

MENTERI : Yang jadi masalah sekarang yang jadi isu sekarang ialah tentang cabaran yang dihadapi oleh industri-industri, syarikat-syarikat yang mengeksport kepada luar negara khasnya kepada Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah. Banyak juga syarikat terutamanya syarikat-syarikat dalam bidang electrical dan electronic yang bergantung kepada eksport telah mula merasa tempias di kemelut ekonomi di luar negara. Dan bidang eksport telah menyaksikan satu penguncupan yang signifikan juga. Dan inilah merisaukan banyak pihak. Sama ada industri-industri di negara ini akan memberhentikan pekerja-pekerja dan tidak mengambil pekerja-pekerja baru. Kerajaan memang sedar dengan kerisauan ini dan kemungkinan ini berlaku. Iltizam kerajaan, matlamat kerajaan, objektif kerajaan yang paling utama dalam tahun 2009 ialah untuk mengambil tindakan dari segala aspek dan untuk memberi peruntukan yang mencukupi untuk memastikan bahawa setiap rakyat yang mampu bekerja dapat bekerja. Itu iltizam kita. Dan kita akan berbincang dengan pihak-pihak industri, syarikat-syarikat, persatuan-persatuan untuk mencari kaedah, untuk mencari mekanisme untuk kerajaan membantu dalam perkara ini. Supaya tidak diberhentikan pekerja.

PERANTARA : Kalau kita perhatikan Tan Sri, memang usaha kerajaan memang telah nampak sebelum ini. YAB Timbalan Perdana Menteri sebagai Menteri Kewangan juga telah mengumumkan pakej rangsangan sebanyak 7 bilion, tapi ada pihak mengatakan pakej rangsangan mereka semacam katakan tidak turun. Apa yang dinyatakan oleh pihak kerajaan semacam tidak sampai ke peringkat bawah lagi. Apakah sebenarnya Tan Sri? Adakah bila akan dapat dilihat kesan ini? Atau bagaimana Tan Sri?

MENTERI: Tujuh bilion jumlah ini telah pun dibahagi-bahagikan kepada semua kementerian yang terlibat. Dan semua kementerian itu kini sudah ada peruntukan dan Y.A.B Timbalan Perdana Menteri sendiri telah mengarahkan semua kementerian untuk melaksanakan projek-projek dengan cepat. Saya yakin sebelum hujung suku pertama tahun ini, kita akan lihat impak rancangan rangsangan 7 bilion ini. Saya juga mungkin perlu memberi sedikit penjelasan tentang projek rangsangan ini yang dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan sebab dalam keadaan yang begitu mencabar ini, yang penting sekali adalah keyakinan. Kita harus memastikan bahawa keyakinan ada di tahap yang tinggi. Dan kita tahu bahawa di dalam keadaan yang begitu mencabar ini, pihak swasta mungkin tidak begitu berani untuk meminjam bagi memperkembangkan perniagaan mereka. Kita faham dan sungguhpun sistem kita begitu mempunyai kecairan, mempunyai liquidity dan mempunyai simpanan yang begitu banyak tetapi mungkin syarikat-syarikat tak berani untuk mengambil pinjaman yang banyak. Di masa seperti inilah Kerajaan,
sebab kita telah melaksanakan polisi begitu berhemah, tidak meminjam banyak pada masa yang senang, kita sekarang mampu membuat dan mengambil pinjaman dari sistem kewangan kita dan kita akan menggunakan pinjaman ini untuk projek-projek yang dapat mempertingkatkan penggunaan aggregate demand supaya dapat mewujudkan lebih banyak peluang-peluang pekerjaan.

Dan selepas satu masa yang singkat, saya yakin bahawa langkah-langkah ini dan projek-projek yang dilaksanakan ini akan mengembalikan keyakinan pihak swasta dan pihak swasta sendiri akan mula buat pelaburan dan mengambil langkah untuk mengembangkan perusahaan mereka. Dan 7 bilion yang saudara Sabaruddin sebutkan tadi akan kita lihat akan turun ke bawah. Dan ini termasuk 300 juta untuk memberi skills training supaya kita dapat memberi latihan kepada rakyat kita supaya mereka dapat pengetahuan yang baru dan latihan dalam segala bidang supaya kualiti manpower atau human capital kita lebih tinggi.

PERANTARA: Ya, Tan Sri kalau kita lihat memang kegawatan kita dulu, Tan Sri telah merangka satu program untuk melatih semula graduan-graduan yang menganggur dan memberikan mereka pengetahuan dalam bidang ICT dan juga bahasa Inggeris. Dan kalau kita perhatikan baru-baru ini, terdapat laporan menyatakan kita pun terpaksa menanggung 555 ribu lebih orang pekerja yang telah pencen dan jumlah yang sejumlah 10 bilion dalam masa dua tahun. Tan Sri, dari segi produktiviti mereka, ada juga orang mempertikaikan kenapa kita perlu membelanjakan 10 bilion. Tanpa produktiviti yang mungkin saya ingat banyak mereka ini mempunyai pengalaman? Di manakah mungkin dari segi penempatan mungkin diletakkan kerana kita terdapat masalah untuk mengisi ruangan-ruangan atau kerja-kerja kosong di sana dengan kekurangan jawatan di pihak swasta. Bagaimana Tan Sri melihat isu ini?

MENTERI: Ini memang satu aspek yang begitu menarik sebab kita mempunyai banyak juga rakyat kita yang mempunyai pengalaman dan pengetahuan dalam pelbagai bidang. Dan mereka dulu terpaksa pencen dalam umur 56 tahun dan Kerajaan telah meningkatkan umur pencen kepada 58 tahun. Kerajaan juga telah membuat satu sistem di mana mereka yang pencen boleh berkhidmat balik melalui satu konsep yang dipanggil Contract For Service. Sungguhpun sistem kerajaan mempunyai jawatan-jawatan tertentu dan jawatan-jawatan hanya boleh diisi melalui peraturan tertentu tetapi untuk jawatan-jawatan lain semua kementerian telah diberi kuasa untuk melantik termasuk mereka yang pencen sebab tak hilang pengetahuan mereka dan tak hilang pengalaman mereka. Mereka boleh lantik dan diberi kebebasan serta kelulusan untuk
mereka melantik pegawai ini untuk berkhidmat kembali dalam mana-mana jawatan dan juga dalam jawatan-jawatan sebagai guru dan tenaga pengajar kepada staf-staf lain.

PERANTARA: Itulah dia. Kita boleh gunakan kepakaran mereka selain kita biarkan. Kita harus, Tan Sri, berada di talian adalah dua orang tetamu yang kita telah undang iaitu Y. Bhg Datuk Salleh Majid, Penganalisis Ekonomi dan juga Y.Bhg Datuk David Chua, Timbalan Setiausaha Agung Gabungan Dewan Perniagaan Perindustrian Cina Malaysia, yang bersama kita dalam Dialog di Tv1 untuk berinteraksi bersama Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop. Keduanya telah berada di talian. Hello….Hello Datuk Salleh dan Datuk David? (Kedua-dua Datuk menjawab salam) Ok, Datuk, saya ingat saya tanyakan soalan kepada Datuk Salleh dulu. Datuk, mungkin ada pertanyaan kepada tetamu kita iaitu Y..B. Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Menteri Kewangan II kita?

DATUK SALLEH: Terima kasih. Yang Berhormat.....(Menteri memberi salam)

MENTERI: Assalamualaikum..

DATUK SALLEH: Waalaikumusalam. Di dalam akhbar hari ini kita ada terbaca berita tentang sesetengah bank telah mula enggan untuk memberikan pinjaman ataupun mengkaji semula pinjaman yang telah diberi dan ada juga pinjaman-pinjaman yang telah diluluskan malahan dikurangkan jumlah dan sebagainya. Perkara ini pada pandangan sesetengah orang agak bertentangan dengan dasar Bank Negara yang mengatakan kecairan mencukupi di dalam perbankan. Bagaimana pandangan Y.B tentang ini?

PERANTARA: Kita terima satu lagi pertanyaan Tan Sri. Kita terima daripada Datuk David iaitu pandangan Datuk mengenai ekonomi 2009. Mungkin ada spesifik yang Datuk ingin tanyakan kepada Menteri kita. Silakan Datuk.

DATUK DAVID: Saya telah mengikuti keterangan yang telah diberikan Tan Sri tadi. Satu perkara yang paling penting walaupun dalam sistem perbankan kita kecairan ada dan dikatakan bahawa para usahawan mestilah bersedia dan berani meminjam supaya dapat memperkembangkan perniagaan tetapi dari sektor perniagaan, selalu kita menghadapi masalah mendapatkan kemudahan pinjaman kerana rata-rata institusi perbankan lebih-lebih lagi mengenakan syarat- syarat yang lebih ketat lagi. Jadi ini tidak menggalakkan para peniaga untuk meminjam. Itu satu. Yang keduanya, dari segi pembekalan atau supply, usahawan mampu berbuat demikian tetapi kalau dalam satu keadaan di mana kita belum mempunyai keyakinan yang tinggi maka sukar kita menunjukkan permintaan pasaran. Perniagaan memerlukan permintaan untuk mendokong segala kegiatan yang dijalankan oleh para peniaga. Jadi saya berharap Tan Sri dapat menjelaskan kedua-dua perkara ini.

PERANTARA: Terima kasih Datuk. Kita dengar pandangan Tan Sri untuk kedua-dua soalan tadi.

MENTERI: Kedua soalan itu, soalan yang baik. Yang penting sekali adalah keyakinan dalam sistem ekonomi. Bila kita kekurangan keyakinan, bank memang tidak akan begitu berani meminjam. Pengusaha-pengusaha pun mungkin tak berani untuk membuat pinjaman untuk meminjam. Jadi itulah peranan Kerajaan dalam masa yang begitu sengit ini ialah untuk mengembalikan keyakinan dan kita mengembalikan keyakinan melalui sistem dasar fiskal kita. Kita belanja 7 bilion dengan cepat mungkin kalau boleh dalam tempoh 3-4 bulan. Dan saya yakin bahawa dengan perbelanjaan yang begitu banyak, perwujudan jawatan-jawatan yang begitu banyak serta demand untuk produk-produk melalui perbelanjaan kajiannya yang begitu tinggi, pihak bank-bank itu sendiri akan mula yakin untuk memberikan pinjaman dan pihak pengusaha dan peniaga-peniaga juga akan mula berani untuk meminta pinjaman untuk memperkembangkan perusahaan.

Saya faham dan tahu mungkin ada satu dua bank yang tidak memberi pinjaman kepada peniaga sungguhpun projek mereka variable. Kerajaan telah beberapa kali mengingatkan bank-bank bahawa pada masa inilah mereka harus memberi fokus kepada kepentingan Negara dan membantu Kerajaan dalam memulihkan ekonomi dengan memberikan pinjaman kepada mereka yang layak diberi pinjaman. Ada satu pepatah bahasa Inggeris yang menyatakan bahawa sikap bank selalu ialah untuk memberi payung kepada pelanggan bila iklim suasana elok tetapi bila mula hujan dia tarik balik payung. Tetapi kita tidak mahu bank-bank kita mengamalkan budaya yang tidak elok itu.

PERANTARA: Tan Sri, kalau kita perhatikan soalan kedua tadi tentang peniaga, supply and demand. Ini macam membuka satu lagi macam telur dan ayam. Di mana dua-duanya? Kalau mereka menunggu juga kerana permintaan tiada kerana mungkin pengeluaran dari segi pengeluaran barang-barang dan ini akan terjejas. Bagaimana Tan Sri melihat ini? Bagaimana kita nak menggalakkan lagi?

MENTERI: Dan meminjam dan belanja ini secara langsung akan meningkatkan demand. Akan meningkatkan penggunaan dan dengan peningkatan penggunaan ini isu demand bagi pihak swasta tidak akan timbul lagi.

PERANTARA : Dan Tan Sri ya, kalau kita boleh kongsi bersama pengalaman Tan Sri, apabila ketakutan bank di sini pun sama apabila melihat kemusnahan yang berlaku pada sektor kewangan di Amerika Syarikat. Bagaimana Tan Sri boleh menilaikan kemusnahan yang berlaku di sana dengan nilai yang berlaku.

MENTERI : Amerika Syarikat sistem Amerika Syarikat ini dia tidak mempunyai simpanan. Macam di Malaysia kekuatan kita ialah kadar kesimpanan kita 37 peratus iaitu daripada dari setiap ringgit kita simpan untuk masa depan. 37 sen sebagai negara. Di Amerika Syarikat kadar simpanan dia kosong. Dia tidak simpan dan 80 peratus daripada simpanan dunia dipinjam oleh satu negara, Amerika Syarikat. 80 peratus dan tiap-tiap hari kerja hari Isnin sehingga hari Jumaat tiap-tiap hari, tiap-tiap minggu. Tiap-tiap hari dia pinjam 4 bilion dollar.

Jadi dalam sistem dunia sekarang memang tak adil tak saksama. Sebab negara-negara membangun kita kerja kuat, kita menjana ekonomi, kita mengeksport ke Amerika Syarikat kita dapat UD dollar kita simpan di Amerika Syarikat. Kita tak dapat apa. Jadi sejak tahun 1997 kita telah meminta supaya diwujudkan satu sistem architecture kewangan yang baru dan di dalam sistem ini reserve simpanan kita ini dapat di gunakan dalam kawasan kita sendiri. Tidak perlu disimpan di Amerika Syarikat. Dan juga dalam sistem yang wujud sekarang terdapat double standard sebab hatch fund misalan menjalankan urusan tanpa transparency. Meminjam begitu banyak buat macam-macam spekulasi dan rating agency mereka pun macam Standard and Poor
dan Moody’s tidak dikawal langsung dan produk-produk yang begitu kompleks diberi taraf triple A dan kini trillion dollar lebih dari satu trilion dollar kehilangan dari produk-produk yang diberi taraf triple A.

Jadi ini satu sistem yang tak memanglah tak adil, tak saksama dan memang tidak akan tahan lama. Jadi kita juga dari segi jangka panjang, kita harus memberi pendapat kita dan juga cuba dengan negara-negara lain mewujudkan satu sistem yang lebih adil, satu sistem yang lebih saksama. Dan di sini saya nampak kelebihan Malaysia sebab sejak tahun 1983 kita telah mewujudkan sistem perbankan Islam dan kita kini memang merupakan negara yang terdepan sekali dalam sistem perbankan Islam dan Negara-negara lain pun dah mula datang ke Malaysia untuk mempelajari selok-belok tentang sistem perbankan Islam. Dan kalau kita membandingkan sistem perbankan Islam dengan sistem kapitalisme ala Anglo-saxon kita lihat dengan begitu jelas sekali kelebihan sistem perbankan Islam. Dan dalam sistem perbankan Islam pinjaman yang berlipat ganda tidak boleh berlaku sebab sistem perbankan Islam itu berasaskan kepada aset. Dan kalau sistem perbankan Islam dilaksanakan di seluruh dunia pada
tahun 2008 atau tahun 2007 perkara ini, kehancuran ini tidak akan berlaku. Tidak boleh berlaku di bawah sistem perbankan Islam. Jadi satu hikmah mungkin dari segi jangka panjang untuk kita cuba memperluaskan sistem perbankan Islam kepada negara-negara lain bermula dengan negara-negara Islam yang lain.

PERANTARA: Tak apa Tan Sri. Kita akan kupas lagi tentang isu perbankan Islam ini. Apakala kita berhenti seketika dan kita beri laluan kepada iklan dan sambung semula selepas itu.

PERANTARA : Ya bertemu lagi saudara rancangan Dialog @ 1 di saluran TV 1 rancangan sumber info maklumat anda. Dan Tan Sri ye, berbalik kepada Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Menteri Kewangan kita. Tadi Tan Sri menyatakan tentang sistem kemusnahan. Saya difahamkan kemusnahan kekayaan akibat krisis yang dianggarkan berjumlah dollar Amerika 30 trilion. Itu jumlah yang amat besar dan sebagai kayu ukur ya jumlah ini merupakan 150 kali KDNK Malaysia. Tan Sri, ini satu musibah yang paling hebat telah dikenakan ataupun berlaku di negara itu. Bagaimana Tan Sri harapan kita untuk sistem perbankan Islam ini untuk kita ketahui dan juga kita menjadikannya sebagai satu sistem yang saya ingat akan menjadi sistem dunia satu masa nanti Tan Sri.

MENTERI : Yang 30 trilion yang saudara Sabarudin sebut tadi tiba-tiba hilang ialah satu kekayaan yang diwujudkan di atas angin. Sebab dalam sistem capitalisme Anglosaxon ini oleh sebab ketamakan banyak pihak di bank-bank yang tidak dikawal selia oleh mana-mana pihak dengan rapi. Mereka mewujudkan macam-macam produk dan tiap-tiap kali mereka mewujudkan produk mereka jual kepada orang lain. Orang lain juga akan jual kepada pihak ketiga, pihak keempat. Dan tiap-tiap orang dapat untung. Dan semua ini berasaskan kepada pinjaman dan dalam keadaan kegawatan pihak yang memberi pinjam akan tarik balik pinjaman jadi banyak liberal edging yang telah dibuat kena deliberate edging dan sebab itulah harga bursa di Amerika Syarikat di tempat-tempat lain merudum dan banyak pihak bank-bank telah jadi muflis dan yang menjadi cabaran untuk kita ialah deliberate edging ini belum habis.

Banyak lagi deliberate edging ini akan berlaku pada tahun 2009. Jadi sebab itulah di Amerika Syarikat dan di United Kingdom, di Eropah mereka beranggapan tahun 2009 akan merupakan tahun yang lebih mencabar lebih getir berbanding dengan tahun 2008 dan kadar pengangguran di Amerika Syarikat akan melebihi 800 hampir 3 juta orang akan menganggur. Dan inilah jadi satu cabaran untuk kita untuk menguruskan ekonomi kita dalam konteks kegawatan ekonomi yang begitu serius di antarabangsa. Dan tetapi kita mempunyai kekuatan kita sendiri. Sebab kita mempunyai pengalaman dalam 1986 dalam tahun 1997 dan kita boleh menggunakan pengetahuan kita, pengalaman kita pengajaran yang telah kita pelajari untuk mengatasi kemelut yang kita hadapi sekarang. Tapi yang penting sekali ialah dua perkara yang disebut oleh Datuk Salleh tadi tentang pinjaman. Kredit mesti wujud. Tanpa kredit susah untuk kita memulihkan ekonomi. Jadi kita akan meminta bank untuk terus memberi pinjaman. Yang kedua adalah pengangguran Kita mesti mengelakkan keadaan pengangguran. Dan untuk mengelakkan keadaan pengangguran kerajaan akan mewujudkan aggregate demand penggunaan aggregate melalui projek-projek yang dapat diwujudkan, dilaksanakan dengan cepat. 7 bilion itu yang kita ada beri peruntukan kepada kementerian-kementerian. Kita pilih projek-projek yang dapat dilaksanakan dengan cepat dalam 3 hingga 4, 5 bulan. Dalam 7 bilion ini kita termasuk projek-projek yang akan makan masa. Kena simpan dulu. Kita memberi penumpuan, kita fokus kepada projek-projek yang dapat mewujudkan pekerjaan, yang dapat mewujudkan aggregate demand dengan cepat. Dan saya yakin 7 bilion ini akan memberi impak yang positif dari segi keyakinan dari segi aggregate demand kepada ekonomi dan pada masa yang sama pihak-pihak lain juga harus bekerjasama pihak-pihak swasta harus mencuba sedaya-upaya untuk mengelakkan pemberhentian pekerja dan pihak-pihak bank harus memberi pinjaman dan kerajaan akan berbincang dengan pihak bank-bank dan juga dengan syarikat-syarikat dengan juga industri-industri dan gabungan-gabungan industri untuk mencari kaedah dan mekanisme untuk memberi bantuan yang lebih kalau perlu.

PERANTARA: Dan Tan Sri, kita telah menerima panggilan di talian. Kita terima dulu pemanggil. Hello siapa di sana?

PEMANGGIL : Assalamualaikum.

MENTERI : Waalaikummussalam.

PEMANGGIL: YB saya Haji Abdul Kadir bin Mat.

PERANTARA : Ok. Teruskan soalan tuan haji.

PEMANGGIL: Ini soalan saya. Saya ini dengan anak saya nak pinjam dengan bank. Saya ini orang mengempen satu Malaysia saya pergi mengempen. Jadi apakala anak saya ada mintak pinjaman dengan bank cagar sebuah rumah kedai sebanyak 150 ribu jadi sampai ke hari ini tak boleh selesai lagi. Bank Maybank Kuantan ini. Saya pun tak boleh nak pinjam dengan bank pun. Jadi apakala anak saya beritahu saya malulah. Saya terkejutlah. Pinjam 150 sampai sekarang dekat nak sebulan lebih dah tak boleh lulus. Saya mintak YB nasihatlah kepada pegawai-pegawai bank ini jangan buat naya kepada orang nak meminjam. Kalu orang nak meminjam tu tak kisahlah. Kalau orang meminjam tu besok tak bayar apa macam mana ke barulah kita ambil tindakan. Jadi saya nak cakap dengan YB ni, YB kenal saya.

PERANTARA : Kita faham tuan haji. Kita terima pemanggil kedua di talian kita.

Hello.

PEMANGGIL : Hello. Assalamualaikum. Saya Nik Zafri. Saya penganalisis bebaslah.

PERANTARA : Waalaikummussalam. Ok teruskan.

PEMANGGIL : Saya nak memberi pendapat jelah. Sebab saya sangat bersetuju dengan YB dan YB pun dah banyak cover point-point yang saya nak beritahu tadi.
Kita dah ada experience kita dan pernah outperform US dan Europe di masa-masa yang lepas dan kita buktikan, kita pernah rebound dan kita sentiasa immune kepada apa-apa saja credit impact daripada Barat. Jadi saya rasa kalau kita kekalkan rancangan yang pernah kita buat dan kembali kepada sejarah, kita pasti berjaya. Banyak negara Asia pun tidak pernah bergantung pada IMF atau World Bank dan sebagainya even China pun banyak juga kena underestimate tapi mereka menolak decoupling theory dan sebagainya. Semangat Asia kita ini sangat kuat dan kita boleh buat sendiri. We don’t need anyone to tell us what to do.

Saya rasa kita tidak boleh sangat bergantung pada forecast daripada penganalisa-penganalisa barat yang mana macam YB beritahu tadi bahawasanya ini adalah untuk tujuan spekulasi. Dan juga kita tengok dari belakang tirai banyak yang melakukan heavy hedging, forex dan sebagainya. Jadi saya memang tidak bersetuju sangatlah jika kita menerima analisa itu bulat-bulat daripada barat kerana saya lihat kita Malaysia ada kekuatan kita sendiri macam YB beritahu tadi.

Saya mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza di mana dengan yakin saya rasa Malaysia dan mungkin Singapore akan rebound lebih awal. Kita dah ada trend yang kita ini menawarkan new package kepada GLC dan MMC ini pun pun contribute kepada ekonomi on the recovery.

Dan kita boleh lihat sekarang trend spending menggunakan Euro dan USD ini akan menyebabkan higher demand for export untuk Malaysia dan Singapura. So I think it is a very-very orang kata healthy dan situation is still under control and I don’t see what's the big fuss is all about?

Cuma banking and financial institution sector ini saya tengok mereka ada wait and see what going to happen. Itu saja pendapat saya.

PERANTARA : Itu saja ya Encik Nik. Terima kasih atas pandangan tersebut. Kita bagi peluang pada pemanggil yang lain pula ya. Hah, ini ada dua ya Tan Sri. Masih lagi berbalik kepada soal pinjaman. Mungkin Tan Sri di sini boleh menjanjikan bahawa kita akan memastikan bahawa bank akan memberi. Tapi di
bawah sana pula Tan Sri lain pula ceritanya dan inilah mungkin dua perkara yang berbeza Tan Sri mungkin.

MENTERI : Ya. Satu lagi isu saya akan berbincang dengan bank untuk mengingatkan mereka tentang pentingnya mereka memberi pinjaman. Satu lagi isu yang dibangkitkan oleh saudara Nik Zafri tadi ialah tentang Cina dan India. Satu kelebihan Malaysia ialah kita dalam tahun-tahun lepas kita sudah menguruskan ekonomi kita dengan sedemikian supaya kita tidak bergantung dengan eksport. Sungguh pun eksport itu prima penting tapi hampir 70 peratus dari ekonomi kita dijana oleh penggunaan dan juga pelaburan. Penggunaan swasta sebenarnya dan pelaburan. Dan kita lihat bahawa negara-negara lain termasuk China, termasuk India yang pada tahun-tahun lepas kadar pertumbuhan melebihi 10 peratus. Tiba-tiba kita nampak sekarang kadar pertumbuhan mungkin 5, 6, 7 peratus. Dan satu pengajaran dari pengalaman dari China, India dan negara-negara lain ialah mungkin pada tahun-tahun lepas mereka bergantung sangat kepada eksport. Jadi dalam tahun-tahun mendatang negara-negara lain seharusnya mengambil tindakan seperti yang kita telah kita mengambil tindakan untuk mengurangkan kebergantungan kita kepada eksport. Khasnya eksport kepada negara-negara barat dan juga simpanan yang kita mempunyai begitu banyak China mempunyai 2 trilion US dolar simpanan, Jepun 1 trilion dan negara-negara Arab banyak simpanan. Kini simpanan itu disimpan di kebanyakan di Amerika Syarikat dalam bentuk bond dan dengan pulangan 2-3 peratus dan kita sejak tahun 1997 telah membuat satu cadangan supaya simpanan ini dilaburkan di negara-negara rantau ini dalam infrastruktur dalam
prasarana. Dan kita akan dapat pulangan yang lebih dan dalam masa yang sama kita dapat bersama-sama menjana ekonomi rantau ini pada had yang lebih dan mungkin dalam hikmat dari kemelut sekarang ialah mungkin negara-negara lain nampak kelebihan rancangan kita dulu untuk melaburkan reserve kita dalam bidang infrastruktur dalam rantau ini berbanding dengan simpan saja dalam bon di Amerika Syarikat.

PERANTARA: Itu sahaja telah jelas bahawa kita dapat menggunakan dengan sepenuhnya. Masalah sekarang ini Tan Sri bagaimana kita dapat memulihkan keyakinan khususnya bank juga tentang attitude wait and see iaitu tunggu dan lihat. Kadang-kadang sekarang ini juga terdapat bank-bank yang besar terutama di Europe telah membuang pekerja mereka dan ini membimbangkan terutamanya
di sini pun, mungkin di Asia akan mengurangkan jumlah pekerja mereka, bagaimana Tan Sri melihat isu ini untuk meyakinkan orang ramai dan gambaran
sebenar ekonomi kita tahun 2009 ini.

MENTERI : Dalam keadaan kemelut kegawatan ekonomi perkara yang menjadi sensitif sangat ialah wait and see. Setiap kali pihak swasta atau sektor-sektor tertentu mengambil pendirian wait and see, ekonomi akan turun. Inilah lumrah dalam sistem ekonomi, bila kurang keyakinan falsafahnya ialah wait and see. Jadi sebab itulah begitu pentingnya peranan kerajaan untuk memecahkan kitaran ini supaya keyakinan dapat dipulihkan melalui perbelanjaan kerajaan dan juga bantuan kerajaan kepada sector- sector tertentu supaya mereka juga dapat memperkembangkan perniagaan mereka dan yang penting sekali terus mengambil kakitangan baru dan dan tidak memberhentikan kakitangan yang wujud.

PERANTARA: Tan Sri , satu lagi ialah baru-baru ini YAB Timbalan Perdana Menteri menyatakan kemungkinan akan diperkenalkan rangsangan lagi mungkin bertambah, apakah rasionalnya Tan Sri dan adakah kemungkinan tersebut berlaku.

MENTERI : Ini sebab kerajaan mempunyai kemampuan untuk meminjam lebih dalam keadaan sekarang. Dalam tahun-tahun kebelakangan ini kita telah menguruskan kewangan kita dengan begitu rupa supaya dapat mengurangkan defisit dari 5.5 peratus pada tahun 2000 kepada 3.2 peratus tahun 2007. Jadi kita mempunyai kemampuan lebih kalau perlu. Kita tahu keadaan ekonomi begitu meruncing dan mungkin cabaran-cabaran akan bertambah dalam bulan-bulan yang akan datang. YAB Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Kewangan mengarahkan pegawai-pegawai di Kementerian Kewangan supaya berfikir dan membentuk satu lagi pakej yang dapat dilaksanakan sekiranya perlu dengan cepat. Pegawai-pegawai sedang membentuk satu lagi pakej dan sedang prepared. Kita akan melakukan apa yang perlu dan kita mempunyai kemampuan untuk melaksanakan pakej rangsangan yang satu lagi. Kita memang mampu dan dalam pakej itu pun kita akan mencari projek-projek yang satu dapat dilaksanakan dengan cepat dan satu lagi akan meningkatkan kualiti pekerja kita kepada satu tahap yang lebih tinggi supaya apabila ekonomi sudah pulih kita mempunyai pekerja kualiti yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan sekarang.

PERANTARA: Kita baca soalan sms kita yang telah dihantar oleh Mohd Rais dari Melaka minta Tan Sri pantau pegawai di Bahagian Perolehan kerajaan dari Kementerian Kewangan yang tidak faham hendak kuatkuasakan AP, PP dan ACP ini dalam Bahasa Melayu. Banyak pembaziran berlaku akibat tidak patuh peraturan kewangan, mungkin ini salah satu daripada masalah dan bagaimana Tan Sri melihatnya.

MENTERI : Yang melaksanakan projek-projek ini bukan Kementerian Kewangan. Kita memberi peruntukan dan kementerian-kementerian seperti JKR, Kementerian Pelajaran dan kementerian lain akan melaksanakan projek-projek ini.

PERANTARA: Tan Sri, bagaimana yang Tan Sri nyatakan lebih awal antara keruntuhan ekonomi di Amerika ini adalah disebabkan oleh penswastaan. Bagaimana Tan Sri melihat penswastaan di Malaysia ini, adakah kita akan terus juga mengamalkan dan penswastaan yang sebagaimana Tan Sri lihat.

MENTERI : Penswastaan itu tidak ada masalah, yang di Amerika Syarikat falsafah kapitalisme ala Anglo-Saxion ialah untuk memberi kebebasan yang terlalu tinggi kepada pihak swasta, dan kerajaan tidak diberi peranan langsung dalam sistem ekonomi, itu modal yang akan hancur dan saya yakin akan hancur. Penswastaan itu adalah elok sebab banyak peranan dan tugas kerajaan mungkin dapat dimainkan dengan lebih efisien oleh pihak swasta. Dalam falsafah kita kerajaan mempunyai peranan dalam ekonomi, dalam sistem ala Anglo-Saxion itu kerajaan tidak mempunyai peranan, tetapi yang anehnya apabila sistem sudah hancur, kerajaan memberi duit kepada bank-bank, memberi peruntukan kepada bank-bank, membeli share bank-bank dan memberi peruntukan kepada syarikat-syarikat kereta automobil, membeli share mereka. Ini tidak masuk dalam kapitalisme Anglo-Saxion kerajaan tidak boleh melibatkan diri. Semasa kita mengalami kegawatan 1997, kita diajar oleh Amerika Syarikat jangan tolong syarikat-syarikat, jangan bail out tapi apa yang berlaku sekarang bail out. Sekarang kerajaan nampaknya sudah ada peranan. Jadi kita sejak dulu kena memperingatkan negara-negara barat bahawa sistem kapitalisme Anglo- Saxion ini tidak boleh dipertahankan sebab falsafahnya salah kerana kerajaan tidak diberi peranan, tetapi di sini kerajaan masih ada peranan. Sungguh pun penswastaan itu akan terus dilakukan dan saya tidak nampak keburukan tentang penswastaan, janji kita melakukan penswastaan itu dengan saksama, adil supaya kerajaan tidak rugi dan sektor swasta tidak rugi, dua-dua untung dengan syarat kita membuat perjanjian bahawa penswastaan itu adalah kaedah yang baik.

PERANTARA : Kita dapat ikuti baru-baru ini juga kajian akan dilakukan terhadap perjanjian konsesi lebuh raya. Ini satu langkah yang begitu penting, kalau di sana mungkin tidak dibenarkan kerajaan campur tangan. Apakah lagi inisiatif mungkin dari segi penyertaan yang mana kita akan memberi tumpuan khususnya yang melibatkan orang ramai.

MENTERI : Saya berpendapat kekuatan satu bangsa itu ialah kita sedar tentang kekuatan kita dan pada masa yang sama kita menyedari kelemahan kita. Kita mengambil tindakan untuk mengatasi kelemahan kita. Jadi dalam aspek penswastaan mungkin ada kelemahan yang dilakukan pada masa-masa lampau tetapi kelebihan kita adalah kita mempelajari dan menginsafi. Kita mempelajari tentang cara penswastaan yang lebih optimum dan pada tahun-tahun akan datang dari pengajaran kita dan dari kelemahan pada tahun dulu kita akan melaksanakan sistem penswastaan dengan lebih baik dan lebih adil.

PERANTARA: Itulah harapan kita untuk dapat memastikan bahawa kita akan terus mengikut model kita dan acuan kita. Jadi apa yang penting kita perlu yakin kepada diri dan negara kita.

MENTERI: Ini ada pengajaran kita sejak tahun 1997 sebab di antara negara-negara yang mengalami kemelut kegawatan 1997 hanya Malaysia sahaja negara terulung yang dapat memulihkan ekonomi dengan menggunakan acuan kita sendiri dan dengan tidak mendapat satu sen pun pinjaman atau gran dari IMF, World Bank atau dari negara lain, satu sen pun kita tidak dapat. Kita memulihkan ekonomi dengan acuan sendiri dan dengan langkah-langkah kita sendiri yang mulanya tidak dipersetujui oleh mereka tapi akhirnya mereka menyedari dan mengakui bahawa langkah-langkah kita adalah langkah-langkah yang baik. Jadi perkara ini saya sebut sebab kalau kita dapat memulihkan ekonomi pada tahun 1997, ini memberi kita keyakinan bahawa dalam kesusahan dan cabaran yang kita akan hadapi pada tahun 2009, InsyaAllah kita dengan kerjasama rakyat dan semua pihak, kerajaan akan memastikan bahawa kita juga akan dapat mengatasi dan muncul dengan lebih kuat lagi.

PERANTARA: Saya mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada YB Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Menteri Kewangan Kedua dan merupakan seorang yang terlibat dalam dua krisis dan ini merupakan kali yang ketiga. InsyaAllah dengan pengalaman Tan Sri dan pengalaman yang diperoleh oleh semua orang semasa mengalami kegawatan, kita perlu memberi semangat dan dorongan terutamanya para bank-bank . Ini satu lagi ingatan kita dan ingatan Tan Sri tadi supaya kita terus mengaktifkan lagi ekonomi kita. Kalau kita perhatikan tadi banyak yang kita nyatakan tentang kegagalan yang dinyatakan oleh Tan Sri tadi, itu menjadi satu iktibar kepada kita, dan InsyaAllah kita akan dapat lalui dengan doa dan kerjasama rakyat kita. Kita akan dapat atasi krisis yang melanda ini. Terima kasih kepada pemanggil kita dan kedua-dua tetamu tadi Datuk Salleh Majid dan Datuk David Chua yang bersama kita bertanya soalan dengan YB Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop. InsyaAllah kita akan bertemu lagi dalam Rancangan Dialog @ 1 di minggu depan di waktu yang sama dan dengan ini saya bagi pihak penerbit mengucapkan assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera.

NIK ZAFRI'S (HUMBLE) ASIA/SEA ECONOMICAL FORECAST 2009

Many have forecasted that SEA will be the first to rebound from the current economic crisis by September, 2009.

On the other hand, what saddens me most is that some even forecasted that Asian economy will fall badly in 2009 - such a pathetic statement meant to discourage us.
In the past, we have been known for the reputation of outperforming the US and Europe due to the right planning and eventually become very immune to any credit crunch from the West.

Some countries are not even depending on IMF or World Bank in 1997-1998-remember? Even China has been too much underestimated (not that I disagree but too much 'smart' speculations..come on) by these 'so-called' economic forecasters.

I have always been known as a 'reverse psychological' person. I don't believe in 'too obvious bad news' being reported meant to lure the small investors away but giving great monetary advantages to speculators.

Based on these 'unfounded fears', I feel strongly that the Asian will be one of the key players in the world economy commencing from 2009.

But of course, I have a different theory (especially for Malaysia) - I think it's earlier than that...say April, 2009?

But, I share the agreement that it is likely going to be Singapore then probably followed by Malaysia. There have been a trend of banking and financial institutions in these two neighbouring countries offering new packages to GLCs and MNCs. These efforts would probably contribute to economy recovery in 2009. There has also been a higher demand for exports from Malaysia and Singapore based on the increased spending in the Euro and US.

The banking sectors in Japan are planning to buy securities, stocks and bonds (corporate) etc - and if these plan works, it will help stabilise their financial market. The Government has announce Japan's biggest ever annual budget Y12,000bn.

China however would still have to be put under alert - to grow or not to grow. Since China are trading with other SEA countries, their ability to export surplus stocks financed on credit should be monitored. New policies to boost consumption need to be drawn up to counter this possibility. I do know that China works very-very hard lately not to be bound to 'intelligent economic comments' e.g. decoupling - and I have every confident that they will succeed.

In Indonesia, the President announce the budget of USD200 billion ++ and a 6.2% growth is expected. However, they are not too sure about the outcome of issuance of Government bonds and probably there will be a budget deficit of nearly 2% GDP. Mainly taxes will play a role for the main revenue followed by non-tax sectors. There will also be about 102 trillion rupiah for fuel subsidy.

The only biggest dillema in Indonesia is corruption - if this is not being minimized, I do not think that they can reach the target that they are hoping for. While for the good part that Indonesia has done right is their achievement of regaining self-sufficiency in rice where the production has surpassed the country's rice consumption. This has made them better in terms of food situation and probably would take them out of the current global food crisis.

For Korea, they are not too ambitious; which I find a good thing to do - be cautious. While everyone is hoping and praying for a 2009 turnaround, Korea predicted a 3% growth and the focus is mainly creating new job opportunity. They have also cut taxes here and there.

Korean consumer price is estimated to stabilize to less than 4% and there may also be decreasing service deficitit and rising goods surplus - thus making 2009 account surplus to exceed USD10 billion. I personally think that Korea should now put an effort to minimize their dependency on IMF as what they have done before in 1997.

I will keep you all updated.

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

This year’s Global Competitiveness Report is being released at a time of multiple shocks to the global economy. The subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing credit crunch, combined with rising inflation worldwide and the consequent slowdown in demand in many advanced economies, has engendered significant uncertainty about the short-term outlook for the world economy. Global growth is slowing, and it is not yet clear when the effects of the present crisis will subside.

The financial market crisis that began in early 2007 is almost unprecedented in its impact, having resulted not only in losses in markets and for financial institutions, but also in an erosion of public confidence in the financial sector and among the institutions themselves across the industrialized world. In the meantime, rising energy and commodity prices are having a dual effect on emerging and developing economies: on the one hand, boosting growth; on the other hand creating inflationary pressures that raise the basic cost of living, thus increasing poverty levels. More generally, although the present slowdown was originally expected to be confined mainly to the United States, it is now spreading to other industrialized economies and it is not yet clear what the future will bring for emerging markets.

Policymakers are presently struggling with ways of managing these multiple shocks intelligently while preparing their economies to perform well in an economic landscape characterized by growing volatility. In an unstable global financial environment, it is more important than ever for countries to put into place the fundamentals underpinning economic growth and development.The World Economic Forum has for the past 30 years played a facilitating role in this process, by providing detailed assessments of the productive potential of nations worldwide.The Report is a contribution to enhancing our understanding of the key factors determining economic growth, and explaining why some countries are much more successful than others in raising income levels and opportunities for their respectivepopulations, offering policymakers and business leaders an important tool in the formulation of improved economic policies and institutional reforms.

MORE

Reasons for Economical Disturbances :

a. Crude oil price volatility

b. Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis

c. The Fall of Share Market

d. The Fall of global corporate guns/bluechips

e. Anything else?

Chain-Reaction

a. USD exchange badly affected,
b. Price of Food going up?
c. Refinancing and repackaging of assets/properties, loans even credit cards to a longer repayment but with higher interest?
d. Heavy Hedging and Sell-Offs
e. Bad Fall in Motor & Transportation Industries – closed down – Lehman Brothers, GM etc.

MORE HERE :

As you all have already known that the financial experts (or so called) have commenced their efforts to charter the implications of this year's credit crisis (esp. in the US) as a result of financial market turbulence. Not too long ago, everyone is aiming at the renaissance of China but with the current condition they are facing, it may potentially be a little while before their internal problems can be stabilized if not solved fully.

So, what can our world governments do? I humbly think that the financial market should be slowly integrated to become a global network or hub. Except for US, I've seen efforts via conferences and seminars towards implementing such plans. I'm also shocked to know the rate of countries retreating from Euro these days.

US on the other hand; if not properly controlled; may affect even to the security matters - just wait if New York started to feel the pinch and everything will start to lead to one problem to another. (esp. security matters) I do not know if US need to cut down on foreign assistance at the moment - but if this is the case, then the fiscal pinch may affect the amount of such aid. If I may say, I hope that New York can start efforts of working together with other financial hubs to become a network of global capitals. The only setback is the global political stability as whenever there are plans of more effective and beneficial integration, the political element has to be part and parcel of financial market. Of course, I don't need to tell how much US can save by less interfering in other countries internal affairs as what have been done in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. US Bush Administration has tried their best to save their economy but it is too sluggish - I hope they can crush their ego and restrategize - try to create a better relationships with other countries - they have tried too many models and these models just don't work...

We can no longer depend on IMF, World Bank (now almost irrelevant) and even the UN (they themselves are now in hot soup despite funded the US) but we have to do something NOW to create a healthier market - e.g. making more rooms for reserves. We know that UN's stand on Darfur, Georgia & Pakistan - total silence for unknown reason.

When I talk about integration or interdepence, I'm not really pointing towards globalization as it is still a concept of uncertainty that may become a friend or a foe. That is too much for a small guy like me to anticipate. Just referring to the good ol' concept working together as a team. This 'teamwork' may lead to good global financial governance will create better monetary policies, securities regulations and even signifcant changes can be made to auditing and accounting standards.

Where would be the ideal starting point? The answer is the first tier - Banking and Financial Institutions. I would like to open this suggestion to Asia (or SEA) as Asia is a very unique continent that has always found a way towards survival. (perhaps some democratization of financial policies should be in place) Most important is TRUST and coordinated efforts one another - as every bankers and financiers have all the knowledge. (Don't wait for someone else to start first) There should be no more too much dependency on certain elite groups or industries that are 'controlling the financial world' and we have seen the impact when these 'big mega industries' started to fall. (NASTY!)

Again, my 2 sens worth!

WASHINGTON POST


No Depression
This Time, Uncle Sam Has Got Our Back

By Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Perry MehrlingThursday, October 9, 2008; Page A21

Global markets have not been reassured by the coordinated interest rate cuts of several central banks or by recent congressional action, but they should be. Our bet is that financial markets will return to normal in short order and that the U.S. economy will squeak by with a moderate recession. Recapitalizing the banks and working out mortgages will take time, but the financial system will not collapse -- the government won't let it.

The markets, of course, seem to be factoring in some probability of collapse. Why is this wrong?
For starters, the biggest subprime mortgage gamblers have already failed, been nationalized or been married off, shotgun-style, to banks run by grown-ups. Yes, lots of small shoes may still drop, but the Paulson "buy-up" bill, and, ultimately, the Fed's ability to print money, provides the Treasury and Federal Reserve all the tools they need. The media don't seem to have noticed, but Section 113 of the bill authorizes government capital infusions into the banking system as necessary -- something the British government is now doing and the Swedish government successfully did in the recent past. That means any bank with a viable business will not be allowed to fail simply because it is temporarily undercapitalized.

Second, Uncle Sam (a.k.a. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke) is doing precisely what's needed to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s. With credit markets drying up, he's turning on the faucet by recycling our panic dollars back into the financial market.

The government is taking in our money (in exchange for Treasury bills) and using it to make mortgages and buy up the assets we're too scared to hold. It's doing this via the Treasury, the Fed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Home Loan Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other appendages. It's starting to lend directly to large and small businesses whose usual sources of credit have become unavailable.

In short, Uncle Sam is becoming our new bank. He has also become our new insurance company with his effective purchase of the world's largest insurer -- AIG.

In the 1930s, nobody in the private sector could borrow, raise equity or sell insurance because everyone lost trust in everyone else. Uncle Sam stood on the sidelines and marveled at the chaos. But today Uncle Sam is saying, "Listen, if you households and firms are too scared to invest in each other or sell each other insurance, give us your money, and we'll do it for you. We'll pay you a sure return on the Treasuries and, if our investments and insurance sales do well, you'll benefit by paying lower taxes."

This may sound like socialism or state capitalism, but it's simply rearranging the financial furniture. As Americans have freaked out, Uncle Sam has stepped up. He'll continue doing so until we realize the sky is not falling. The $700 billion rescue authorizes the federal government to keep doing what it has been doing for the past year to the tune of $400 billion -- buying distressed assets at bargain-basement prices and selling insurance at high premiums. If all works out, Uncle Sam will make a killing. This would be great, given our government's real problem -- paying the long-term Social Security and medical costs of retiring baby boomers.

Point three is clear: This financial chaos has ruined our sleep but left our physical and human capital unscathed. We have the same productive capacity today we had a year ago. And if our capital hasn't changed, we've suffered no overall capital loss.

This means that our accounting, which has focused on financial losses, is missing lots of offsetting financial gains. The offsetting gains are accruing to current or prospective purchasers of the assets whose market values have dropped. Asset buyers, whether they are young people buying their first homes, middle-aged workers contributing to their 401(k)s or billionaires such as Warren Buffett buying financial firms, can now acquire homes and stocks (claims to the same capital inside the companies) at a roughly one-third discount from a year ago. That's great for them, and lousy for the rest of us, but not a net economic tragedy.

The economic tragedy comes if we get hypnotized by the bad news, ignore the good news, fight about things we're already doing (e.g., having Uncle Sam buy and insure troubled assets) and pull our economic heads inside our shells. We Americans have lots of moxie. What we need is a strong pep talk and absolute assurance that credit will continue to flow, that insurance policies will continue to be honored, and that Uncle Sam is willing and able to invest directly in the private economy on our behalf.

So after scaring us half to death, this would be a good time for our other uncles -- Hank and Ben -- to make clear that we're heading for a safe landing and that there is no way in hell they will let this economy go down the tubes.

Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University, is co-author of "Spend 'Til the End." Perry Mehrling is a professor of economics at Columbia University's Barnard College and author of "Fischer Black and the Revolutionary Idea of Finance."

Financial Times

Some of the fault lies closer to home - By John Gapper
Published: October 8 2008 19:06 Last updated: October 8 2008 22:37

"Small island, big problem” was the headline in some editions of the Financial Times on Wednesday. It referred to Iceland, which has almost gone bust and had to seek a €4bn loan from Russia. But it could have been about the UK, which has pumped £50bn of equity into its biggest banks.

The previous moment of maximum danger for British banks in my lifetime came in 1973 when, during the secondary banking crisis, National Westminster Bank needed to assure investors that it was solvent. Words would not do this week: public money was required to prop up NatWest’s parent bank RBS.

When in trouble, humans tend to blame others and many British people have blamed Americans for the subprime mortgage mess, which started the global financial crisis. If only the Wall Street banks had not cooked up loans for people who could not afford to repay them, things would have been all right.

The British, Irish, Spanish and others could have carried on enjoying sharply rising property prices and cheap mortgages. European governments would not have spent the week gazumping each other with ever higher guarantees of assistance to their own country's banks.

Americans, meanwhile, are taking it out on Wall Street financiers. Dick Fuld, chairman of Lehman Brothers, and Martin Sullivan, former chief executive of American International Group, were hauled in front of a congressional committee to account for their blunders.

Both were excoriated by politicians for the millions they received in the good times. They looked, as Samuel Pepys wrote in October 1660 of a Puritan soldier who was hanged, drawn and quartered, “as cheerful as any man could do in that condition”.

There is no question that professionals of many nationalities – bankers, financiers, estate agents and regulators – behaved badly. They got paid a lot of money and wilfully loosened credit restrictions to keep house prices rising and bonuses flowing. Many of them, although far from all, were American.

But I would like to propose another culprit for the difficulty that many economies are in: you and I. We home buyers and mortgage borrowers share the blame, whether we are American, British or Icelandic.

Take nationality first. A year ago, when the US subprime mortgage debacle was evident but the British housing market was still doing well, I took a trip to London from my home in New York. On a visit to friends in west London, I was struck by the number of houses in their street with “To Let” boards outside.

At the time, there was a lot of talk about how the UK housing market differed from that of the US because it was a small island with a limited housing stock, there was no equivalent of subprime lending and so on. But those “To Let” boards said something different to me.

They showed that cheap debt and rising asset prices had led to housing speculation all over the world; it just took different forms. In wide, flat Florida it created sprawls of condominium apartments; in densely packed UK cities it generated a rush into buy-to-let properties. For subprime mortgages in the US, read “self-certified” UK loans.

The US housing market had unique flaws: the outsized role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the home loan agencies; low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve after September 11, 2001; high fees that gave estate agents and loan appraisers incentives to pump out mortgages.

But the housing bubble was global. It was financed by securities that were constructed and sold as much in London as New York and people from many nations borrowed to buy homes. Wednesday’s co-ordinated interest rate cuts, and part-nationalisation of UK banks, illustrate that.

Then there is our tendency to blame everything on bankers and other financial professionals. Here too, we are kidding ourselves. Bankers did many foolish – and, in some cases, unethical – things during the boom. But they did not force people to buy houses or take out mortgages; they mostly provided enough rope for borrowers to hang themselves.

In the past, people used to rely on bankers to guard themselves from their own worst financial instincts. They might have wanted to borrow 100 per cent (or 125 per cent) of the value of a home without the need to demonstrate thrift and reliability by making a down-payment. But they were shown the door.

Without bankers saying “no”, many people borrowed to the hilt, assuming that rising asset prices had eliminated all risk. Some confined themselves to buying bigger houses for themselves, while others bought second and third homes to rent them out while their capital appreciated.

We know why this occurred because we all lived through it, and financial bubbles are peculiarly intoxicating. When you are surrounded by people constantly talking about how much money they have made (on paper) by buying a house, you end up wanting to get a piece of the action and fearing being left behind.

It was the madness of crowds and, unlike some bouts, it crossed borders. Even countries with comparatively low rates of home ownership, such as Germany and Belgium, were caught up in the speculative rush.

Human nature is not going to change so public policy cannot focus – beyond the need for more financial education – on eliminating our urge to get rich quick. It is more practical to sharpen up regulation and reduce the incentives for bankers to finance our foolishness in future.

But, if for no other reason than to increase our chances of doing better next time, we must beware of blaming bankers and foreigners for everything. The fault lies closer to home.

http://www.ft.com/comment/columnists/johngapper
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

From : CFR ORG

Mortgage Takeover

Yesterday the United States Treasury Department announced it would move to take over control of the massive U.S. lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an attempt to ease the U.S. mortgage crisis and its global ripple effects. The move is the largest such nationalization in decades and is intended to prevent a collapse at either of the institutions, the combined net value of which exceeds $5 trillion. The takeover could remove a major source of economic insecurity for financial markets, which had long feared a collapse at one of the major mortgage lenders would trigger a wave of housing mortgage defaults and, in turn, prompt bank failures. Global stocks rallied on the news, with major indices in Europe and Asia jumping over 3 percent (BBC)

Questions linger, however, about how the takeover will shake out economically. The Wall Street Journal reports that it marks a new, "uncharted phase" of the U.S. mortgage crisis in which U.S. taxpayers could be liable for billions of dollars of write downs at Fannie and Freddie.

Fannie and Freddie were essentially already on the U.S. balance sheet, Wolf says, in the sense that the risks associated with their collapse were intricately wound up in U.S. economic prospects.

Still, the New York Times reports many individuals stand to suffer large-scale losses following the takeover. Shareholders of the lending giants are likely to get largely wiped out, analysts say, as their money will be among the first to go toward writeoffs.

From : mbsbstaff-by-email, also posted on The Star Global Malaysian Forum - Topic : Business and Professional Networking - Thread : Architectural and Sustainable Design.

From : mbsbstaff-by-email - "Encik Nik Zafri, are you the same person who sent an invitation card for the officiation ceremony of the Fibreglass Water Tank in Puchong recently? Can I have more info?"

--------------------------------------------

Hi back, are you from Malaysian Building Society Berhad (I notice the mbsbstaff)? Yes it's the very same Nik Zafri, I assure you.

But I'm very curious of where did you see that invitation? For whom it was meant to originally - if I may know? As a matter of fact, I don't recall sending the invitation to MBSB...(unless this MBSB means something else)

Can I make a small correction? It's not Fibreglass Water Tank, it's Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic (or Polymer) Hot Pressed Moulded Water Storage Tank.

I'm actually one of the consulting panel and not in any way have shares/interest in the company. The company's market is mainly UAE with one of the subsidiaries of the reputable Bin-Zayed Group.

My job over there is to help out the company's long term business plans focussing (for the time being) the possibility of exploring local market - specifically on the issues of :

a) Vendor Development Program
b) Capital Financing possibilities via avenues of grants and perhaps SME
c) Business Diversification (as composite materials can be applied to construction industry (e.g. Fibreglass Reinforced Concrete), Aerospace and even military applications)

That's all for now..I don't want readers to think that I'm a salesman or something. :-)

Anyway, if you have any business interest, you can call 03-8060-4040 and talk to Encik Azman or Encik Zahari. I rarely go there except when required - so I won't be there all the time - so don't put your hopes to speak to me - I'm just a 'small guy' over there.

ISSUANCE OF 'GDP-LINKED' BONDS

There has been some interesting stories I heard in the market about the intention of the Government to issue bonds to stabilize the economy. When plan of economic stabilization involves, these bonds are known as "GDP-linked"

Just a short comment (I hope)

There are a number of things to talk about whenever anybody touched about GDP and linking it to bonds.

But one of the most popular reactions would be the increasing interest in creating bonds.

1. Bond servicing is higher during rapid growth but lower if the growth is slow.

2. For borrowers - issuance may stabilize public spending as Government can service more debt during affordable times and less during difficulties. It is also said to lower down crisis of debts and defaults. When you reduce the service of country's debt during recession, it may help in the recovery process.

3. For investors - losses may happen due to defaults. Thus, comapred to the conventional bond, this kind of bond (GDP-linked) can ensure higher total payment hence reducing default probability (what am I saying? )

4. The Government can help in financing some potential sectors if GDP-linked bonds are issued. In theory, some emerging or new sectors (any industry esp. manufacturing) can target to be listed in the Bursa Malaysia if they wish as bond issuance can help correction in the stock market.

5. It also helps in improving capital market as well (esp. corporate bonds - in Malaysia's case - the bonds issued by GLC). The corporate sector can reduce cost and improve capital efficience once bonds are integrated into the financial stucture.

Having said the above, there are disadvantages as well...I'll save the 'bad news' for another day.

Hi everyone!!

It's been a while...dropping by to share a very good article which has caused me some delay in submitting a very important document to the client.

Luckily my client called me up to remind me...

---------------------------------------
Speeches, Testimony, Papers
Global Economic Prospects 2008/2009: Hoping for a Global Slowdown and a US Recession
by Michael Mussa, Peterson Institute

Paper presented at the thirteenth semiannual meeting on Global Economic Prospects
April 3, 2008

© Peterson institute for International Economics. All rights reserved.

Overview

After four years of average annual global real GDP growth of better than 4 1/2 percent, recent data indicate that the pace of advance is slowing in the major industrial countries, with the US economy on the verge of, and perhaps already in, outright recession. So far, the evidence points to less of a slowdown in other industrial countries, while most emerging-market economies appear likely to maintain quite strong, albeit somewhat slower, growth.

Meanwhile, world consumer price inflation (on a 12-month basis) is up from barely 2 percent seven years ago to nearly 5 percent as of February 2008. Among both industrial (except for Japan) and major emerging-market countries, inflation is now running at, or in most cases somewhat above, rates consistent with policy objectives. Driven by persistently rising global demand, commodity prices continue to surge upward across the board, especially measured in US dollars but also in terms of the rapidly appreciating euro.

In this situation, the world economy really needs what is now forecast for 2008/2009: a significant slowing of economic growth, down to 3.8 percent (year over year) in 2008 from 4.7 percent in 2007.1 This slowdown will be led by a decline of demand growth in the US economy, which is both pronounced and extends over a considerable period. Indeed, in view of the exceptionally aggressive easing of macroeconomic policies already in place in the United States and the likelihood of monetary policy remaining highly accommodative so long as US financial markets remain under stress, it is now desirable that real GDP growth for 2008 fall to a forecasted rate of barely more than 1 percent (year over year)—an outcome consistent with a very mild and brief recession. Reflecting some risk of a somewhat deeper and more prolonged recession in the United States, the growth forecast for 2009 (year over year) is set at 2 percent.

For the rest of the world, a mild US recession in 2008 will have a modest negative effect on real GDP growth, with more significant impacts in Mexico and Canada. In countries where the slowdown threatens to become excessive and inflation is under control, some easing of monetary and perhaps fiscal policy is both likely and appropriate. More generally, however, it is too soon to call for a general and significant easing of macroeconomic policies. A general slowdown in global economic growth is needed to cool the clearly apparent upsurge in worldwide inflation.

Some countries, including Australia, China, and Sweden, have recently tightened monetary policies in efforts to forestall inflation. Other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, have eased monetary policies modestly in response to weakening economic growth. Quite appropriately, however, no country has so far followed the lead of the Federal Reserve in aggressive monetary easing.

As the custodian of the world's second most important currency, the policy of the European Central Bank (ECB) is particularly noteworthy. Inflation in the euro area is running more than a percentage point above the ECB's announced objective. The euro area economy has recently been growing significantly more rapidly than its potential rate of about 1 1/2 percent. The unemployment rate has fallen half a percentage point below the minimum reached in the last expansion. Key monetary aggregates are surging at rates well above their desired target ranges. In this situation, one would normally have expected the ECB to have raised its key policy interest rate a further 100 basis points since last summer.

Instead, with financial turbulence spreading to some extent from the United States to euro area financial markets and institutions, with evidence that euro area economies are beginning to slow, and with a sharp appreciation of the euro against the dollar, which is likely to slow growth and impede inflation, the ECB has wisely held back from further interest rate increases. With the euro area economy now expected to expand by about 1 1/2 percent this year (in line with potential), the timing and direction of future adjustments in ECB interest rates remain—appropriately—dependent upon the evolving balance of risks for inflation and economic growth.

For Japan, the strengthening of the yen against the dollar in recent months and weakening of exports to the United States, together with likely weakness in domestic demand growth, suggest a further write-down in the forecast for real GDP growth for 2008 to 1.2 percent (from 1¾ percent forecast last October). This reflects the assumption that the surprising upsurge of GDP growth in the final quarter of 2007 will be partly offset in the first half of this year.

For the industrial countries as a group, real GDP growth this year is now forecast to be 1.5 percent, and growth for 2009 is projected to be moderately stronger at about 1.9 percent.

In emerging-market economies, circumstances vary and so do appropriate policies, but the general prospect is for continued quite strong economic growth, despite the slowdown in the industrial countries.

Is this "decoupling?" Not really. Mexico, Caribbean and Central American countries, and Asian economies that are particularly dependent on exports to the United States are already feeling and will continue to feel the effects of the US economic slowdown. More broadly, however, strong growth of domestic demand in many emerging-market economies will sustain reasonably strong GDP growth, and rising demand for raw materials by key emerging-market economies, most importantly China, will help keep commodity prices strong and aid growth in other emerging-market economies.

Overall, I forecast that growth for developing and emerging-market economies as a group this year will be about 6 1/2 percent, down from almost a 7 1/2 percent advance in 2007. For 2009, I now project slightly slower growth. The slowdown will be more severe, however, if growth in the industrial countries, especially the United States, turns out to be meaningfully below the present forecast. Exports from emerging-market countries would then be hit in volume terms, and prices of commodity exports could take a serious tumble. Some developing countries, especially among the primary commodity exporters, could face serious economic challenges and potential crises.

On this occasion, Arvind Subramanian is available to share his expertise on emerging-market economies, particularly in Asia and especially India. Accordingly, I will limit my remarks on these economies to selected observations on some key emerging-market countries. Then, in view of the departure from the Institute of my colleague Martin Baily and the (at least) temporary absence of Douglas Holtz-Eakin, I will turn to discuss growth prospects in the industrial countries, especially the United States. This should provide background for Morris Goldstein's more in-depth observations on the present financial crisis and proposals for reform.

Sustained Growth in Emerging Markets

China's economy continues to surge forward, so much so that the authorities are tightening policies to cool down inflation. Growth will likely slow from 11 1/2 percent last year to about 10 percent this year and next. On the policy front, the key action that should be taken—but that the Chinese authorities have so far refused—is a significant step appreciation of the renminbi against the dollar and in real effective terms, combined with policies to stimulate domestic demand.

In the rest of emerging Asia, growth will likely moderate somewhat in 2008 and 2009 but stay above 6 percent, with India continuing to grow at nearly 8 percent.

In Latin America, Mexico will suffer spillover effects from the slowing US economy, and growth this year is likely to fall to about 2 1/2 percent before recovering modestly in 2009. In contrast, Brazil should be able to sustain growth of nearly 5 percent, despite the strong appreciation of the real against the dollar. Growth in Argentina and Venezuela is expected to slow from the high rates of recent years, bringing down the growth rate for all of Latin America to about 4 1/2 percent this year and slightly less in 2009.

For Central and Eastern Europe, weak growth in Hungary and Turkey hurt regional performance in 2007 and partly offset strong results in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. For 2008 and 2009, regional growth will likely run about 4 percent, reflecting partly the impact of slower growth in Western Europe.

In the Commonwealth of Independent States, the dominant Russian economy should continue to grow at about 7 percent, and growth rates will likely remain somewhat higher (on average) in the smaller economies.

For the Middle East, high oil prices will help keep growth strong in the energy-exporting countries. The larger and more diversified economies of Egypt and Israel should also maintain growth rates in the 5 percent range.

High commodity prices will continue to benefit many African countries, and growth in the region appears likely to continue at least at a 5 percent rate.

Slowing in Other Industrial Countries

Among the industrial countries other than the United States, growth will slow significantly from the 2 3/4 percent advance of 2007 to barely more than 1 1/2 percent this year. However, aside from the United States, I see significant risk of recession this year only in Japan and possibly Italy. The impact of the yen's recent appreciation and weakening of exports to the United States, together with deteriorating sentiment among Japanese businesses and consumers, could push GDP into a couple of quarters of negative growth, even if year-over-year growth remains slightly positive. And the Japanese policy authorities have little room to provide offsetting stimulus.

In Canada, growth this year will likely fall a little below 2 percent, under the impact of slowing US growth and a strong Canadian dollar. However, solid income growth from strong export revenues should keep domestic demand relatively robust, and the Canadian authorities have considerable room to ease policy should that appear needed to forestall very weak growth or recession.

In the United Kingdom, growth this year is also likely to slow to slightly less than 2 percent. But this is not entirely unwelcome in view of the need to curb inflationary pressures, and the Bank of England has plenty of room to ease further should that appear warranted. The Reserve Bank of Australia has continued to tighten in recent months and would surely welcome the forecasted slowing of growth to 3 percent this year.

In the euro area, as previously noted, the projected slowing of growth this year to 1.6 percent from 2.6 percent last year involves nothing more than slowing to the potential growth rate. The slowdown will affect all countries in the area. The Italian economy looks likely to be extremely sluggish and is at some risk of falling into recession. Growth should remain stronger in Germany, sustained by good export performance in the face of weaker consumer demand. France will lag slightly behind Germany, while Spain will slow considerably due to a sharp downturn in home building. The slowdown will probably be reflected in a small uptick in unemployment and will be unpopular with most politicians. However, with inflation running well above the ECB's tolerance rate of 2 percent, the central bank is likely to see the slowing of growth more as a solution than as a problem.

A Mild US Recession

Despite signs of increasing financial strains, the US economy achieved almost 5 percent annualized growth in the third quarter of last year. Economic data that became available through Christmas indicated that the economy was still expanding through November. The data since late December, however, suggest that economic activity has been no better than flat and probably modestly declining since very late last year. The economic data do not indicate an economy that is crashing into steep recession.

The three most recent monthly employment reports have shown small declines in private-sector jobs. Weekly initial unemployment claims have risen from around 300,000 to slightly over 350,000. Residential investment continues to decline. The boom in nonresidential construction appears to have peaked. Data on durable goods orders and shipments suggest weak or even declining business equipment investment. As should be expected in the face of falling home prices and household wealth, sharp increases in energy and food prices, and stagnating employment, real consumer spending has not increased since November—but it has not declined.

Net exports are probably continuing to improve, but this will not be enough to offset weakness in the other components of final demand. Annualized real GDP growth in the first quarter will likely be modestly negative—probably between minus one-half and minus one percent in the first quarter. (And, if there is a modestly positive result, it will probably reflect an upsurge in inventory investment, which is not a positive sign for future growth.)

The second quarter may see moderation in the pace of decline of residential investment, but the other elements of domestic demand are likely to remain weak. Another quarter of modestly negative real GDP growth now seems to be the most likely outcome. Whether this will be enough to persuade the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) to proclaim an official recession is not clear, but I would now put the likelihood of such a recession at over 50 percent.

By June, the tax cuts from the recently passed fiscal package will be flowing into consumers pockets, bumping up consumer spending mainly in the third quarter. Some, not unreasonable, forecasts suggest that the stimulus could induce as much as a 5 percent annualized gain of real consumer spending in the third quarter, implying a considerable temporary boost to GDP growth. My view is more restrained, partly because I expect that businesses will absorb some of any surge in consumption spending (particularly for durables) into reductions in inventories.

On the other hand, businesses have kept inventories quite lean for the past three years, and there is no indication of a general inventory overhang (aside from the stockpile of unsold homes, which is not counted in business inventories). Sharp declines of inventory investment into negative territory have been a feature of all ten postwar recessions. It is a positive sign that the magnitude of any inventory correction in the present episode appears likely to be limited.

In sum, the prospect is that with the benefit of the fiscal stimulus, the US economy will bounce back to moderately positive growth this summer. By then the massive contraction of residential investment, which began two years ago, should be complete—with new home building running just below one million units, less than half of its recent peak level. Growth of consumer spending is likely to be weak after the effects of the stimulus are spent, but inventory investment should bounce back, and net exports may be expected to continue to make positive contributions to GDP growth. During the second half of 2008, it is reasonable to expect growth to rebound to 2 to 3 percent.

The suggested pattern of modestly falling GDP in the first half and moderate rebound in the second half implies that real GDP will show a very meager advance of about one-half percent on a fourth-quarter-to-fourth-quarter basis. Year-over-year real GDP growth would be barely more than 1 percent. In comparison, in the 2001 recession—the mildest of the postwar era—fourth-quarter-to-fourth-quarter growth was 0.4 percent and year-over-year growth was 0.8 percent.

The 2001 recession was followed by an initially weak recovery, with real GDP growing at only a 1.7 percent rate during the six quarters after the official end of recession, and with the unemployment rate continuing to rise to a peak of 6.3 percent in May 2003. On this occasion, I expect that the economy will remain quite sluggish through 2009, with growth proceeding at about a 2 percent annual rate. Weak growth of consumer spending in the face of significant losses of household net worth associated with lower real home values will be the key reason for this sluggishness.

Partly offsetting weak consumer spending growth will be continued improvement in US net exports, reflecting both slow import growth and continued rapid export growth. With the usual lag, the substantial depreciation of the dollar over the past year will contribute to the improvement in US net exports in 2009 and beyond.

We see here what I earlier called "reverse coupling." From 1995 through 2004, relatively strong growth of domestic demand in the United States and the effects of a strong dollar (with lags extending this effect) led to persistent deterioration in US real net exports. Thus, the United States was exporting demand to the rest of the world at a time when domestic demand growth in the rest of the world was relatively sluggish.

This process has been operating in reverse since the summer of 2006. Slower domestic demand growth in the United States, combined with stronger demand growth abroad and the effects of a significantly weaker dollar, have begun to significantly improve US real net exports. Thus, during the past year and a half, the rest of the world economy has been helping to pull the US economy along. This process may continue for several years as consumer spending growth in the United States remains restrained by the effects of lower household wealth, making room for expanding the supply of US net exports without contributing to inflationary pressures in the United States. For this process to continue relatively smoothly, however, the rest of the world needs to sustain reasonably robust demand growth and the United States needs to avoid too sharp a decline in domestic demand. The adjustment of the foreign exchange value of the dollar, which is essential for this process, is now largely complete, except for the needed appreciations of some Asian currencies, most notably the Chinese renminbi.

Turmoil in Global Financial Markets

A key feature and source of uncertainty in the present economic situation is the continuing turmoil in financial markets, especially in the United States but with spillovers to Europe and to a limited extent (so far) to Japan and emerging markets. Global equity markets have sold off amidst the turmoil, but markets for credit instruments and financial institutions dealing in such instruments have been most affected.

Three issues concerning this financial-market turmoil deserve special attention:

(1) What has caused this financial turmoil, notwithstanding strenuous efforts by the Federal Reserve and other central banks to contain it?

(2) What risks does it pose to the global economy?

(3) Have the policy responses been adequate and appropriate?

Regarding the causes of the turmoil, it is noteworthy that it has been most severe in US financial markets and institutions. Europe and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Japan have also been affected. In these other countries, a few institutions (such as the mortgage lender Northern Rock in the United Kingdom) have gotten into trouble on their own, related to their domestic activities. But most of the problems faced by non-US institutions have arisen because of their involvement with financial instruments originating in the United States.

In the United States, the initial underlying difficulties arose from subprime mortgages and financial instruments involving such mortgages. However, the crisis is much broader and deeper and has gone on longer than can plausibly be explained by this underlying cause. Across quite a broad spectrum, credit markets have become illiquid and dysfunctional. Interest rate spreads relative to US Treasury obligations have shot up and remained high and volatile even for higher-quality credits. Markets for important classes of bundled instruments have frozen up, and values for some of these instruments—to the extent that they can be determined—have plummeted. All this turmoil, well beyond what can plausibly be explained by developments in the real economy, indicates that financial markets and institutions themselves are mainly responsible for the crisis.

The extent of this crisis in credit markets is even more remarkable in view of the exceedingly aggressive actions taken by the Federal Reserve and the important but less aggressive actions of other leading central banks. Contrary to the nonsense spoken by many financial-market commentators, the Federal Reserve has not been "behind the curve" in its policy response. In fact, the easing of US monetary policy in the present possible recession has far outstripped the pace of easing in past actual recessions. On top of this, the Federal Reserve has recently taken truly extraordinary actions to extend specific liquidity support to a wide range of US financial institutions.

The official explanation for these extraordinary actions is not that they are motivated primarily by the desire to protect financial institutions from losses but rather to head off the risk of major damage to the general economy spreading from difficulties in the financial sector. So far, however, there is little indication that the general economy is suffering much damage from the credit market turmoil—beyond some deepening of the downturn in US residential investment. In particular, the present slowdown in the US economy and around the world is not much more than what we would normally have expected in view of falling home values, higher food and energy prices, and other developments aside from the turmoil in credit markets.

Does this imply that the Federal Reserve, in its efforts to protect the financial sector, has overreacted to the credit market turmoil? Has it eased too aggressively, unduly raising the risk of inflation down the road? Has its rescue of the financial sector by cutting massively the cost of funds and the provision of specific liquidity support generated far too much moral hazard relative to the value of the protective effect of these actions against real hazards faced by the general economy?

At this point, the answers to these questions are not entirely clear, but two conclusions can be reached with high confidence. First, given the massive easing already undertaken by the Federal Reserve and the likelihood of some modest further easing, the US economy now needs to undergo at least a near recession if the Federal Reserve's easing is not to be excessive. Second, if the Federal Reserve's highly aggressive actions have really been warranted to protect the economy from substantial harm, then deep reforms of the financial system, including the Federal Reserve's policies and practices, are clearly needed to reduce the likelihood of such problems in the future. The Federal Reserve cannot pose only as the hero riding to the rescue of the economy and the financial system. Its role as one of the villains whose earlier actions and inactions contributed to the present crisis needs to be fully and carefully assessed.


Table 1 Real GDP growth projections as of April 3, 2008 (percent change, year over year)




Note

1. The figures for global GDP growth are aggregated from the growth rates for individual countries using purchasing power parity (PPP)–based measures of exchange rates employed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its World Economic Outlook (WEO). Based on a major study supported by the World Bank, estimates of PPP exchange rates have recently been substantially revised, with the general result that the weights in world GDP of the industrial countries have been somewhat increased while those of emerging-market economies have been correspondingly reduced. Because emerging-market economies, most notably China and India, have been growing far more rapidly than most industrial countries in recent years, the effect of the revision in PPP exchange rates is to lower the figure for global growth (without changing growth rates for individual countries) by about 1/2 percentage point. Thus the present estimate for global growth of 4 3/4 percent in 2007 under the new PPP-based exchange rates corresponds to an estimate of 5 1/4 percent growth under the old weights. The weights used in table 1 are estimates of the weights that the IMF will use for the forecast to be reported in the current WEO.
---------------------------------------
RESPONSE FROM MELBOURNIAN AND COUNTER-RESPONSE FROM NIK ZAFRI - IN GLOBAL MALAYSIAN FORUM

Melbournian : A very lengthy analysis that echos familiar cliche from "soft-landers". My only comment is that there are two important factors that seems to be absent from his presentation: ie the component of human emotion and the lack of accountability in the derivative instruments that are prevalent in recent years. The health of credit market depends un-surprisingly on market "credibility". Quite akin to the railroad stock bubble and the (in)famous tulip futures fiascos in the past , the total sum of global derivatives todays seems to have exceeded the true intrinsic values of the actual goods and services that these instruments are supposed to underpin. Laws of conservation and Newton's principle of inertia are no longer relevant. No longer can one confidently say for sure that one man's gains equal in exactitude to another's losses. Containment ? Lets hope and pray.

Nik Zafri :

Hi Melbournian, I must say that I'm impressed!

This research seem to miss out "CCI" (Consumer Confidence Index) which I think suitably describes what you meant by 'human emotion' in the context of economics. (it's obvious isn't it....the article is touching on 'purchasing power', 'manpower', business surroundings - which are all linked to the CCI)

Surprisingly I have also discovered that the Global CCI have always been missing (in fact seldom being measured) But; in US; it will suddenly 'appear' during proposal to hike interest rates by the Feds - hence one of the main indicators to the performance of the stock market worldwide.

I can understand why the CCI is sometimes there and sometimes not there...it's because of the big variance between one country to another. CCI is suppose to be the consumption indicator for GDP.

Lack of accountability on derivative instruments

What you have said - coincidentally reminding me of the core of Management - it is said that :

"Responsibility is a derivative of authority and accountability is a derivative of responsibility"

It's a paradox - I do not know if there is any connection.

Anyway, in this case, the derivative instrument (to the accounting standards esp. balance sheet) becomes a concern when it involve hedging and embedded derivatives (contract) - to determine of whether they (derivatives) are liabilities or asset. Otherwise positioning of finance and determining the derivatives value cannot be accurately achieved.

I'm not a qualified accountant but I do know the affects of hedging either the normal fair value, cashflow or currency. Now? As you said and I would to agree to it that most accounting (and auditing) bodies (even in Malaysia) are 'shouting' demanding accountability but again, it is easier said than done unless further education to include hedging activities and the volatility behind them in the context of derivatives are developed further.

Yes, breaking every rule in the book is now trendy!! It is also the reason why I am really interested in the concept of Knowledge-Based Economy and Knowledge Management but of course these two terms are moulded according to my style of intepretation - in short my experience. At times, I never trust figures, data and statistics but I use my instincts to make decisions.

Finally quoting you : "Let's Pray and Hope"

The Star Global Malaysians Forum - Posted: 10 July 2005 at 6:07pm

(In response to another e-mail)

Dear friend

I do hope that the next time, you will try to post your question 'in the open'. You can use pseudonym if you want to. I adopt a 'transparent' concept in networking so that all forum members may benefit from it - it's a learning and teaching environment.

Here's the information that you've asked and lucky you - it's in BM as you wanted. Judging by the your 'questioning techniques', I'm pretty sure that you are from Civil and Building/Structural Engineering Works.

Please be reminded that this model may subject to (generic) minor/major changes if you are involved in highway construction (civil)

There's a lot more where that came from.

I do not have the full answer to your question on 'aggregate and concerete' but I do have something that may help you out. (the following is ONLY a preliminary research (literature review) and not the thesis itself)

Besides British Standards 812, you should also cross reference to BS 882 as well. Please contact BSI or SIRIM Library (I am unsure if they have an equivalent MS Standard..perhaps you can enquire - but I do also know that some BS standards are also available over there)

On your other query of how or where to start, try to make your own assumption first by creating your own target on the interelationship between the following values with the concrete strength and the targetted ages typically 7, 14 & 28 days:

* Aggregate Impact/Crush Values (please specify grade), x% fine values, water absorption Value, LA Abrasion Value, Polished Stone Value

The usual testings are Crush Cube and Flexural tests with respective dimensions of x X y X z mm (e.g. 150 X 150 X 150mm).

Sungai Long Industries (Bina Puri Group - Tan Sri Tee Hock Seng) was one of the quarry (in Hulu Langat) used to be under my direct ISO 9001:2000 consulting supervision. (now certified) Perhaps you can also contact them and refer to my name (find a guy called Baljit - if he's still there) I'm also unsure if they would allow you to take samples from them.

On your question about engaging quality management consultant, I must advise you not to engage QM Consultant having inferior or no knowledge at all in the construction industry - otherwise you'll end up in chaos! I've seen a small number of quality consultants (with the necessary professional affiliations) have spoiled their clients (main contractors) by giving a 'xerox QMS documentation' from a manufacturing industry. A client of mine was very lucky to catch hold of me when THEIR clients are 'shouting' to get the earthworks & piling method statements but instead were being given some work instructions that has no absolute relation to the client's specification, drawing, design brief and even contractual requirements. Even the procedures are text based and NONE of them are flow-chart/process-flow based. Although I have managed to pacify the Client (who was about to terminate the contract of the main contractor), I must admit that I was 'a bit dissapointed' to see this is happening as the scenario may have somehow (to a certain degree) 'spoiled' the reputation of genuine/experienced consultants.

You appear to have the necessary qualifications and experience in Construction both QA/QC, I think with proper guide, you can do it!

Many years ago, somewhere between 1995-1997 when I was the weekly columnist for Utusan Malaysia talking about ISO 9000, TQM, OSH & EMS, there was another columnist for The Star talking about ISO 9000 in the Construction Industry. His name is Tim D. Alcock and we kinda know each other. At that time Tim was working with a consulting firm known as QMI. I will e-mail you his latest e-mail address in UK. Another 'senior' company that has been doing ISO 9000 in the construction industry - LONG before construction ISO became a trend in Malaysia (that time, it was known as BS 5750) is a company called Balfour Beatty (also involved in the country's double track project) where I was in the Engineering Department in one of their projects many years back. You may also wanted to get in touch with them as well if you're in UK.

CONQUAS telah dibangunkan oleh Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan - (CIDB) Singapura selaras dengan kehendak agensi sektor awam dan badan-badan professional untuk mengukur tahap kualiti yang dicapai bagi sesuatu projek.


Objektif CONQUAS


Untuk menyelaraskan standard penilaian kualiti bagi projek pembinaan.

Untuk menjalankan objektif penilaian kualiti dengan :-

mengukur kerja-kerja yang telah dibina berbanding dengan standard dan spesifikasi tenaga kerja (workmanship)

menggunakan pendekatan secara persampelan mengikut kesesuaian projek.

Untuk memudahkan penilaian kualiti dijalankan secara sistematik dengan kos
dan masa yang berpatutan.


CONQUAS meletakkan standard keatas aspek-aspek pembinaan pelbagai serta menganugerahkan poin/markah bagi mana-mana kerja yang memenuhi kehendak standard. Markah-markah ini akan dicampur bagi mendapatkan skor/markah kualiti secara menyeluruh yang digelar CONQUAS Score bagi projek bangunan/pembinan.


CONQUAS 21 (Edisi ke-5 CONQUAS) merangkumi kebanyakan aspek dalam kerja-kerja am bangunan. Penilaian ini terdiri daripada 3 komponen utama:


Kerja-Kerja Struktur.
Kerja-Kerja Arkitektur (termasuk kerja-kerja luaran untuk kondominium dan taman perumahan)
Kerja-Kerja Mekanikal & Elektrikal (M&E).

Setiap komponen diperincikan pula kepada sab-komponen untuk penilaian. Contohnya, Komponen Struktur biasanya mempunyai sab-komponen seperti konkrit (tetulang), dll.


Walaubagaimanapun, penilaian ini tidak memasukkan kerja-kerja yang melibatkan kenderaan/loji berat seperti piling, heavy foundation dan kerja-kerja sab-struktur


Bangunan biasanya dinilai dari segi standard workmanship yang dicapai menerusi pemeriksaan. Penilaian Struktur dan M&E dilakukan sepanjang proses pembinaan manakalah Penilaian Arkitektur dijalankan keatas bangunan yang telah siap.


Selain daripada pemeriksaan tapak, penilaian ini juga mengambilkira ujian bahan dan prestasi funsi bagi khidmat dan pemasangan. Ujian ini akan menambahkan pengetahuan, kesedaran keselamatan dan kesihatan pekerjaan dll.


Standard minima telah dihasilkan oleh perbincangan dengan sesetengah sektor , pembangunan hartanah dan kontraktor berdasarkan spesifikasi am yang terbabit dalam projek masing-masing.


Dalam membangunkan CONQUAS 21, banyak pembelajaran dan ujian telah dijalankan bagi mengemaskinikan teknik ujian dan standard penilaian. Sistem Pemarkahan yang dijalankan bersama-sama dengan ujian akan memastikan ketepatan dan keselarasan.


Disesuaikan kembali daripada : CONQUAS 21

The Star Global Malaysians Forum - Posted: 01 August 2005 at 8:47pm

Q

Dear Nik, how do you define 'Customer Communication' in the Construction Industry'? (Civil and Building)

A

It is unfair for me to say that what I am about to say here suffice! I'll try to make it brief (as usual) Basically 'customer communication' is EVERYWHERE in the core processes of the construction industry be it civil and building or mechanical/electrical. Customer communication is not limited to how you contact your client but vice versa

During the Tendering Stage - initial site visit (Q & A), pre-q, review/request for justification of certain tender requirements or conceptual drawings/schematics, initial review/or rather dipute on contractual requirements prior to award or prior to acceptance, tender adjudication and negotiations, finalizing Bill of Quantities etc.

In the contract commencement stage, usually prior to site mobilization, there will be a need for you to prepare a Project Quality Plan together with the lists of Method Statements, ITP, master schedule, drawings/proposals etc. You will definitely need transmittal notes to send all these (or to communicate) to your client

Pre-Construction Stage - Immediately after site office setup/mobilization, you will be doing some sort of a 'kick-off meeting' - usually attended by the client where probably they tend to do some induction and briefing.

Construction Process

During ops, when the client started to get 'a lil bit more serious', they will start issuing 'non-conformances' (also known as customer complaint) followed by your ascertaining of root-causes and correction/corrective actions also constitute customer communication. Same goes to when the customer send in specifications, it is not only limited to 'customer property' that you have to look after but also generically related to customer communication.

When there are some 'deviation in construction works', 'architect/engineer instructions', 'variation orders', 'Project Progress Meeting' (with the client) etc.

Post Construction Stage

CPC and CMGD are at your Client's 'mercy'. For you, during this stage,usually you will start sending/conducting 'Customer Satisfaction Survey'. Thus, CPC, CMGD and your CSS form - constitute 'customer communication'. The complaints/comments issued by the client after CPC and during DLP (defects liability period) prior to CMGD also constitute the same thing - customer communication.

In General - 'Confirmation of Verbal/Telephone Instruction' by the Client, all types of correspondences including telephone/handphone calls, faxes, internet enquiry, e-mails, Intranet etc. are the general elements of customer communication.

so much for the 'brief explanation'.