EP141 | 3 U-Turn: Tol Diskaun/ Himpunan Benci Rasuah/ Batal WBB, Dasar Ekonomi Baru, Implikasi Trump

0:00 As a minister, the last thing you want is for the Prime Minister to basically change your decision. It looks bad, it looks like you didn't get it right. So, when that happens and perhaps in the current cabinet, the difference in stature and experience between Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the majority of the cabinet Assalamualaikum and welcome to Episode 141 of Keluar Sekejap. With me, KJ. I'm Shahril Hamdan.

0:46 This week, we'll be celebrating the Lunar New Year, or Chinese New Year. And this episode will likely be heard or watched while most of our listeners and viewers are traveling to their destinations. Whether they heading back for a big meal? A reunion dinner perhaps? A big feast. A big feast. With family. With their families. Or, for those who aren't celebrating Chinese New Year, they will also take advantage of this public holiday to head back to their hometowns or their respective destinations.

1:33 So, we hope you and your families travel safely and carefully. Always be careful on the road. Speaking of roads, Shahril, there's an issue that we touched on in the last episode that we want to revisit in this episode, and this relates not only to policy decisions, and those traveling to their destinations, but also to how decisions are made at the government or cabinet level.

2:20 There are three issues where we've seen U-turns, indicating that the decision-making process isn't very streamlined and has invited various negative and positive reactions, particularly regarding the populist nature of the decisions. The first is definitely the toll issue. In the last episode, we discussed why we thought Dato Seri Alex Nanta Linggi's announcement that there would be no more toll exemptions or free tolls

3:07 during the festive season was a good thing in terms of fiscal responsibility. But, Shahril, as we know, after PMX returned from abroad, he mentioned that there might be a way to provide free tolls specifically for the B40 and M40 groups, and that the government is looking into that mechanism, but not for wealthier groups. He gave examples of those who own a Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, Maserati, and so on. On January 24th, despite the original decision from the Minister of Works that there would be no more government-funded free tolls, the cabinet made a decision, likely due to

3:52 public criticism and the fact that people were used to free tolls during the festive season. The cabinet reversed the original decision or announcement from the Minister of Works and has agreed to and announced a discounted toll, a 50% discount, in conjunction with Chinese New Year, starting at 12:01 a.m. on January 27th and ending at 11:59 p.m. on January 28th. The government has stated that since 2023, a total of RM356 million has been spent as compensation to toll concession companies

4:39 for implementing toll assistance during festive seasons. So, what do you think of this U-turn? For me, there are two issues to unpack, KJ. One is that this government seems to have a tendency, when it comes to targeted subsidies, in matters that may draw criticism, to take the middle ground or not go the whole nine yards. Meaning, it will partially reverse course. I've seen a few examples like this. So, that's one. Second, there's PMX's tendency in his rhetoric to use terms synonymous with the ultra-rich.

5:27 "Super-rich" became one of the big terms last year. Now, he's giving examples of cars: Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, Maserati. All of this is to evoke an image or symbol of the ultra-wealthy. So, I think there's a trend or tendency for us to simply note this, rather than analyze it. Yes, but specifically regarding the decision to backtrack on the commitment Because we discussed last episode that this was a brave and good move.

6:13 If they had completely stopped either discounts or free tolls during festive seasons. Because we agreed last episode that this isn't very productive. And if there are savings from tax increases or from streamlining subsidies, they should be channeled into investments that provide greater returns for the people. For example, in the health sector, education, or constructing village roads. But the government, even in a year without a general election,

6:59 where they could clearly define fiscal responsibility, still backtracked after seeing the public reaction and gave this discount. Yes, that's what I called the first trend. I hope there will be more firmness on matters the government is certain are good for the country. And if there's a little negative criticism, there's no need to backtrack. Because I think we've explained several times why we support the original logic, and that logic still holds. And by partially reversing course, it seems to dilute what they're trying to achieve. This is about tolls. People might say it's not a big deal, relatively speaking. But it's the principle. What happens tomorrow when you want to address RON95?

7:48 I'm sure the criticism will be far greater if RON95 is targeted. Will there be another partial reversal, which we fear will lessen the real impact? And perhaps one last point regarding this issue. It seems, and Shahril's second point earlier concerns this, that this relates to the image PMX is trying to project. That of the ultra-rich, the group that owns cars like Rolls-Royces, Maseratis, and so on. It appears that, in January–and we understand the targeting of RON95 may happen mid-year–

8:34 But as of January this year, the system still doesn't exist. A system to differentiate the ultra-rich from the B40, M40, or whatever new term they want to use. Because if it did, it might have been implemented for these festive tolls. That's right. This means the definition and threshold haven't been agreed upon yet. Just to wrap up this discussion point, KJ, my question is, from your experience in government and politics, I'm sure when making fundamentally important decisions, there's firmness and commitment from those thinking about things from a policy perspective.

9:22 But there will be advisors, those surrounding PMX and this government, who will say, "We can't. We don't want to upset people so early in the year." So, the politics of it, right? How do you, KJ, as a former minister and politician, balance these two equally important considerations? That's a very difficult calculation and consideration for a minister and the cabinet as a whole. But I've noticed that when we have to make a difficult decision, when we get buy-in...

10:09 or agreement from colleagues in the cabinet, it gives the minister the courage to continue. Because there is backup, there is collective responsibility. And there is no one in the government who can throw the minister under the bus. Because he said this was all a joint decision and they stand by that decision. So in this case, I see, and we will discuss two more issues. It seems like there was an initial announcement, an initial statement. But after that, the cabinet made a different decision. It doesn't look very neat. Because this is a big decision, if the minister feels he can carry it out,

10:54 and he can convince the cabinet, then he can make an early statement. But if he makes a statement early, and at the end of the day when the public criticizes him, he feels anxious. And then when he enters the cabinet, the other ministers also shoot him down. This is what happens. So that's the point of, I think, the three issues. Because the second issue, maybe we want to move on to the second issue, is the People's Association Who Hates Corruption. Not sure if Shahril watched the news yesterday, we recorded this on Sunday, January 26. Yesterday, Saturday, January 25, there was an anti-corruption rally at the Sogo shopping mall.

11:40 And also at Merdeka Square in Kuala Lumpur. Dataran Merdeka is the iconic place for any demonstration. And there were 200s maybe, 200-300, I don't know if you saw some of the photos. Everyone wore black clothes and basically, everyone was shot. The PM was shot, Najib was shot, DPM Zahid was also shot. So it seems like they have no party affiliation. Very much so, except for the socialist party. PSM is a big part of that. I think so, I think so. But anyway, what's interesting about this thing isn't really about the rally. This rally is usually something we have seen before, larger rallies, yellow ones, and so on.

12:28 But this issue is in terms of, again, decision-making. Because before the gathering took place, statements from the police, statements from the Ministry of Home Affairs, from Datuk Seri Saifuddin himself said that outside Sogo and Dataran Merdeka are areas that have owners, not public areas, so organizing there is not allowed because it is against the law. namely the Peaceful Assembly Act, requires the permission of the premises owner before any assembly is held. That's right, technically correct. But there is criticism from organizers that these additional conditions have no legal basis. Anyway, that was a back and forth. The police also said that the location must have the owner's permission.

13:19 Basically, what the government said before this gathering took place was more about not doing it, not being able to do it because you can't get permission from the owner, and so on. And it was mentioned that if it was made, it would be strictly controlled. This gathering is seen as something that will invite a reaction from the government and also from the security forces. But when the PM - the PM, of course - was not in Malaysia for 10 days, he just came back and said, he had already approved, official permission had been given by the government and also the Ministry of Home Affairs.

14:06 And the PM said that for me there is no problem, protest against corruption, if you want to gather, go ahead. So again, Shahril, I'm not sure why, saying this is a strategy to make the PM a savior and hero, probably not. It's as though this matter was not discussed and this matter has invited criticism not only from the organizers but from several members of parliament or former members of parliament from the Pakatan Harapan party itself who say that they should not be too authoritarian because in the past there was no problem with gatherings. And in the past, they used the same excuse to assemble, that the law allows this peaceful assembly to be held.

14:53 and can respond to the police saying you have no right to stop us from peacefully assembling. So any thoughts on this? One is in terms of the core substance of this demo and why those who are angry at the government's initial reaction question the consistency and hypocrisy in terms of the terminology they themselves use. So I think we don't need to elaborate on that, KJ has already given a clear picture so people understand what we mean in terms of consistency. But the second thing is that if you look a little deeper, the question is whether certain individuals in the government, and we have discussed this matter,

15:43 not all of them truly democratic or believe in freedom of speech and so on. So, this is now starting to become apparent in several sentences, actions and rhetoric of certain leaders without us having to name them. The third is the most important and perhaps relevant to our discussion here in terms of decision-making, KJ. Is there, if I may say so, a bit of a trend where many big decisions, or many decisions that are not necessarily big, seem to have to wait for the Prime Minister's final word? And this brings me to a more general question, which is,

16:33 whether PMX, as a leader who has an aura, has charisma, has respect from the cabinet and also other politicians in the Madani government, puts him in a position where we make decisions but in the end, let's wait for PMX. And that decision becomes a permanent thing. Is this a good way to govern and make decisions, or should there be more responsibility, accountability to the relevant ministers? And when they make that decision, they should consider it as the final decision that they have to uphold, and everyone has to uphold, and PMX will defend it because it is a government decision, not a PMX decision.

17:22 This goes back to the discussion of Shahril's question earlier regarding my experience of making decisions in the cabinet, in the council of ministers. There are ministers who they don't feel very confident to make decisions. So they will wait until the final word from the boss, the Prime Minister. Because he feels that the thing or the decision is too big for him to make on his own and he doesn't have the confidence or he doesn't have the political stature to make that decision, so he will do it that way.

18:10 And there are also those who feel unsure about making decisions because, perhaps their experience - and I have worked under three Prime Ministers - where they feel that if they make a decision, the Prime Minister will undermine them by changing the decision. As a minister, the last thing you want is for the Prime Minister to basically change your decision. It looks bad, it looks like you didn't get it right. So, when that happens and perhaps in the current cabinet, the difference in stature and experience between Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the majority of the cabinet

19:01 whose experience is not as extensive as his, some are first-term MPs. They're not peers. I mean I wasn't a peer either but the gap was smaller. But you know, through performance and relationships and so on, that gap can be reduced a little. At least by the time I got to Dato' Sri Ismail Sabri, I would say that it was more of a colleague. Even though I respect him as a boss, we went up through it together. But in the case of Dato' Seri Anwar, I mean the power distance with the other ministers is quite considerable. So, the ministers will feel like they don't want to be undermined.

19:50 So he will think twice or three times before. So, maybe they go by the book. So in this case, for example, maybe Datuk Seri Saifuddin, he just goes by the book. This is the Ministry of Home Affairs' playbook from before. Maybe he didn't think about the spirit of reform, democracy, giving permission for freedom of assembly and so on. It just goes based on the book. And then the boss can decide when he wants to return. But the trouble with that, KJ, is the power distance that you mentioned. If it continues like this, then it never really closes. So, that's one. Secondly, there are statements from cybertroopers and also supporters of the Madani government, especially PH, who seem to see this not as a problem, but as

20:38 a good thing. Showing that in the end, only PMX is performing. And he seemed to put everything on PMX's shoulders. And you can see how in the politics of this, maybe some people feel that it's okay. It's good that we're supporting the boss. It seems like the boss is the savior, like the boss is the real democrat. And the rest of us don't really have to do much or look good. But Shahril, if that's the case, there's a downside. Because you can't just take the upside. If everything is placed on PMX's shoulders, then if anything bad happens, it's on him also. He can't say, oh, it's because of the minister. That's true. You remember the case of the value of the ringgit?

21:26 So, people are smart. They'll say, you can't just take the upside and claim credit when something is good. But if something isn't good, you blame somebody else. So, that's a problem when there's a situation where the Prime Minister is highly exalted and the other ministers seem happy to play second, third, or fourth fiddle. Absolutely. And more broadly, KJ, it doesn't matter about individuals, that's not our system. We should be a Westminster system where there is collective responsibility, we are not a presidential system. We are not a president. In fact, you're right. In Westminster, it is primus inter pares. First among equals. The prime minister is first among equals in the Westminster system.

22:12 But, yes, when... Maybe this becomes apparent when there is a Prime Minister who has a large power distance, like Mahathir, and in this case, Anwar. So, maybe that is the cause of this problem. Bringing up this problem, this third U-turn issue. This one is probably the most substantive because the first one was just for the festive season. The second concerns only one gathering. But, the third one is quite a big U-turn and very unfortunate. It happened at my old ministry, the Ministry of Health Malaysia, where there were efforts to try to solve the

22:58 workload problem faced by doctors and medical staff. And this is starting from the middle of this month. The issue is the issue of different working hours (WBB), which is an option introduced by the Malaysian Ministry of Health. Now we have shift working hours, on-call working hours, and another one has been introduced called different working hours (WBB). An internal memo has already been leaked saying that this system will be introduced in several hospitals.

23:44 Starting from the 1st of February, but when negative reactions came from medical officers, the Minister of Health had already stated that he had not yet approved, a town hall was created, and that this was only a pilot project being carried out in a few hospitals. There was indeed a backlash because it seemed as if this proposal was not popular at all in the field. Even though the Minister at the town hall on the 17th of the month said this was in addition to the two existing systems, like I said about shifts and on-call, this is the third one, this is not replacing it,

24:31 and this is a game-changer, but that game-changer was roundly rejected on the ground and is not approved. In short, the objective of the WBB is to reduce the period of active duty from a maximum of 33 hours to 18 hours. It is an attempt to reduce working hours, but the problem is that the WBB system limits the working hours to only 18 consecutive hours compared to 24 to 33 hours before. But the bottom line is that this new system considers shifts after 5 pm on weekdays as part of a 45-hour work week without additional allowances.

25:21 So it reduces the income of medical officers compared to the existing on-call system. They want to reduce the burden in terms of hours but they take away the allowance. That's the bottom line of this WBB. I see in this case, Shahril, if it's in cabinet governance, this is embarrassing because this may not require a decision from the cabinet because this is your turf, your call. But when your turf, your call became a national issue, it was brought to the cabinet and the cabinet ordered that this matter be canceled and a committee was formed to conduct a study.

26:12 That's a safe-face committee. This is embarrassing. Because it's not even a cabinet decision, then the cabinet changes it. You make your own decision and then the cabinet knows about that decision and then basically dresses you down and says what's going on. So let's talk about inconsistency. I want to go back more to the substantive, KJ, so that I can try to understand and the listeners can understand. What was the practicality of this? Because when I asked my doctor friends, they said it wouldn't be practical if we started work at.. let's say you're a surgeon and you're halfway through surgery. Then what, you're supposed to stop? Exactly. So the complaint among doctors about the decision-making in this field is that these decisions are made

27:00 by those in Putrajaya who are divorced from reality. Either they PTDs (government administrators) who have never worked in a hospital because they are not doctors Or they are doctors but have been in administration too long and forgot what it's like to be doing rounds and things like that. So they only look at the clock on Excel sheets, bars, or columns and they forgot what it's like to actually be a doctor on the ground. You don't want to suddenly stop. So that's what... In this case, there should be a rollback, but the decision should never have been made like this. And I see that there are many times when the minister could have pulled the handbrake

27:48 because when the note leaked, they could have said okay we will consider, or at the town hall. Because it's not just one or two voices that say this WBB system is illogical, this WBB system doesn't help. The Malaysian Medical Association, various groups within the medical fraternity have already come forward over the past two weeks to protest this matter. So there is plenty of time for the minister to actually come down. But I see there is a bit of stubbornness which finally culminated in the cabinet saying don't go ahead. And in my experience, when that happens,

28:34 it's not good. It's not the best. Because as a manager who is in charge of your department, you have made a decision, you have convinced in the town hall, you have given all sorts of reasons, you said this is just a pilot project and so on. And your peers say that this is not good, well that's not great. So these three issues indicate that there is a need to look at a more streamlined decision-making system or procedure. Because if this continues, it seems as if confidence in the decision-making system is very, very doubtful. But unfortunately, there are a lot of criticism to the government, but now I want to turn to the opposition as well.

29:29 They were not over any of these. Once again, we have to do it because maybe they don't understand, don't care, I don't know. This is a classic example where you can actually say there is bad decision-making. I am a substantive opposition. Okay, let's take a break and come back later. Welcome back to episode 141 of Keluar Sekejap. Many of you may have listened to and watched these episodes while traveling back to your hometowns. Or going out due to the long Chinese New Year holiday. KJ, I forgot to wear clothes that reflect our festive season.

30:19 KJ, I'm half Chinese, so there's usually a big meal in my family for Chinese New Year's Eve. I can tell you a little bit about it later. But KJ, what was your Chinese New Year experience while you were in politics, and after politics? Now that you're outside of politics, do you attend events? Do you go for dinners? Yes. First of all, I want to acknowledge this shirt. This shirt is a gift from our friend, Ong Kian Ming. Oh, really? I'm going to text him and ask why I didn't get my version. Maybe it's because you're half Chinese. I already have my own. You're a good friend for covering his back immediately. When I was in the government, of course, we would go to open house celebrations.

31:14 Organized by political friends, political parties, especially MCA. Leaders from MCA, and I would also hold events or celebrations in the area. I still remember in Rembau Town, the Chinese New Year celebration. Was an event that was eagerly awaited, not only by the Chinese community but by all the communities in Rembau. Because I did it with the Chinese Chamber and also several associations, and we invited artists, singers. There was also a dance group among the aunties in Rembau, which was very much anticipated, so it was an annual affair.

32:07 But now that I'm out of politics, I have more time and more opportunities to attend friends' invitations. It used to be a little difficult to fit in with personal friends. Now I get to go to personal friends' houses and functions. KJ, in a city like Rembau, and we can say I suppose a second-tier town like that in terms of its size. Sometimes that's where we see the spirit of goodwill more clearly compared to big cities. Is that an accurate expectation in your experience? In the story that you mentioned in Rembau, there was an auntie dancing and so on.

32:54 Do you see Malays and Indians also coming to watch? Is it part of it? Yes, absolutely. We never know, maybe when we migrate to a big city. We don't know if we'll be trapped in our own silos or in housing areas that are more dominated by one group. I'm not saying that there aren't any in Rembau, because there are more areas, there is a Chinese New Village for example. There are estates, there are traditional Malay villages. But in town, in the town area, it's a bit more mixed. Not really, because maybe in terms of the cost of buying a house there, it isn't much of a difference.

33:48 If it's in a big city, maybe a high-cost area, more than one community and so on. That's the feeling I get. It is similar for me, especially when I was in Alor Gajah, where I contested in the last General Election. There was a big event called Mei Hua Walk in Machap Baru. And even now, I am still invited by friends there to go. And in my experience, the involvement of other races is quite clear there. And reflecting back to places like Rembau, like Alor Gajah, where, as you mentioned. The spatial difference or the spatial gap is not so obvious.

34:34 So not only during festivals but at night markets and places where communities gather. We will see that spirit of goodwill more evident, and that is something different from perhaps abstract assumptions. The Chinese school in Rembau town, SJK (C) in Rembau, at least when I was a member of parliament. Had more non-Chinese kids than Chinese kids, a lot of Malay kids. But anyway, just lastly, what do you do during the reunion dinner? Eat, yes. We eat. Maybe I could ask a question that for some viewers, listeners, might be sensitive.

35:24 Do your non-Muslim family members drink? Not at dinner. Oh, okay. So they won't drink because of you guys? Because of us, and they will choose a halal place. We need to find a hotel that... Do they wait until you leave, and then they drink? Probably. Maybe it happens. And sometimes, we eat... Now that my grandmother has passed away, the location might be more flexible. In the past, it had to be done in Jasin, Melaka. So, there. Maybe what they really want to do is go to places that are not halal. That's where everyone wants to go. But because of my family, we will choose

36:11 Halal restaurants and hotels. Even though the food might not be very tasty. Maybe they have two sessions. Wait until the Muslim guys are gone first, then they will have the real one. That was the night before, and when I was young, I would go on the first day. To exchange ang pow, with my uncles and aunties. But now, when they're not there, there are fewer activities on the first and second days. But it still exists. So, what is the rule of ang pow? Like this Raya money, as long as you're not married, you can give it away. Yes? Chinese who are not married. Is it? Oh, okay.

36:56 As long as you're not married, it doesn't matter if the person is 45 years old or 50 years old. If you're not married, you still have to give. And there's an auntie of mine who got married late. Until she was 40-50 years old, she got ang pow. We will laugh. It's part of the joke. Part of the humor. Okay. I guess this issue, I don't know. Change gears. Changing gears because I want to talk about this issue in conjunction with Chinese New Year. Yes, what's the issue? Yes, this is actually an issue that arose when Tun Mahathir recently made a statement.

37:41 It's been a few weeks, and we feel like there's a need or desire for us to briefly summarize. Tun Mahathir stated that affirmative action for Bumiputeras under the New Economic Policy, NEP. Cannot last forever and must be stopped one day. He acknowledged that the NEP had achieved several successes since its introduction in 1971. Including narrowing the economic gap between the Malays and non-Malays, which had the potential to prevent social tension. But basically, he said it cannot last or should not be maintained forever. So, we want to maybe break this down into a few angles. From several angles, one is that technically people will say that the NEP has long since ceased to exist.

38:29 From 1991, 20 years. From 1971 to 1991, NEP did not exist but was later replaced by other names. Other policies whose spirit still exists to this day. So, I think that's what Tun Mahathir meant. It is not the NEP in technical terms, but in spirit it still remains. Second is, I think this is a statement that keeps coming up every few years, KJ. If I look back to when I was a teenager, entering university, Same debate or discussion, the same issues still exist. And sometimes Malay political leaders will issue statements like this.

39:16 In fact, I remember Muhyiddin Yassin very well. Tan Sri Muhyiddin, when he was UMNO Vice President. When I was still at university, he said, he said the social contract could be reviewed. Or needed to be updated, needed to be updated. These are statements that occasionally come from Malay leaders who we consider. Tun Mahathir, Tan Sri Muhyiddin to be quite right-wing in terms of Malay economic thinking. So that's the second thing we might want to cover. Why does this thing keep repeating itself? This issue has been brought up over and over again but it hasn't changed, it's the same. Every 5 years, 10 years someone will say something but nothing really changes either. Thirdly, perhaps in terms of the substance itself, that's what we can discuss, KJ.

40:01 But before we get to the substance, so that I don't speak for too long, on these two things, KJ, in terms of the policies that have been renewed, but the spirit of the NEP (New Economic Policy) still remains, do you agree, or do we need to be more nuanced in the analysis, and secondly, which is more important, why this thing keeps coming up, but nothing really changes. This is a very difficult topic because it goes straight to a unique feature in Malaysia, which is a unique part of our constitution. It exists in several other countries, but not many countries have a system like this.

40:55 And this system is a system of special preference or privilege, a special position, given to a group defined based on race. So, there are perhaps countries like South Africa after apartheid, and they took their example from Malaysia. An ANC member came here to study what Malaysia has done for the indigenous people, namely the Malays, the indigenous people, and also the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak. So, this is embedded in our constitution. Yes, Article 153 is not the New Economic Policy because Article 153 was included in the Federal Constitution

41:50 when it was drafted and when we gained independence in 1957. But the NEP took its inspiration from Article 153. That's the reason or basis for holding these NEP programs. But the NEP expanded from what is in Article 153. And Article 153 doesn't mention a specific number? It didn't mention specific numbers, but the NEP mentioned specific numbers and added several other things because in Article 153, it specifically mentioned scholarships, government positions, and so on, and several business licenses.

42:39 So, the NEP expanded on that. But it took inspiration from Article 153. Article 153 is always the anchor when it comes to Bumiputera preferential policies. So, one, is to acknowledge that this is embedded in the constitution. So, when talking about whether it is necessary or not, we have to go back to why it is in our Constitution. And Article 153 is one of the provisions of the Constitution that I always mention, I use the term that it was soldered, it was locked in. To repeal Article 153, it needs approval from the Council of Rulers.

43:24 The same with the Malay language, the same with the Islamic religion, the same with the existence of the royals and kings themselves. So, it is almost impossible for it to be abolished in the Constitution. So, whether the programs that were brought in after that can be reduced, that's really the question. So, whether you scale back certain things. And why does this thing come up from time to time, Shahril, is, I think the thinking, whether it's Mahathir or anyone else who dares to touch on the NEP issue, is first, whether these programs are effective, are still effective. Secondly, whether the Malays have reached a point where you don't need too many supports.

44:13 So, it's not Article 153 but the expanded NEP, all the other things. Including house discounts, whatever. And third is whether the existence of these supports has ultimately backfired, meaning that we have become a nation that cannot compete because of all these supports. I'm trying to facilitate the discussion. Although it's quite complex, that is what it is. Would you agree that that's a fair description of why this issue arises from time to time? Yes, and I would add one more thing, maybe they also see that, they are not just questioning, but realizing that the effectiveness is limited, and they cannot run away from the facts.

45:06 And this is where I want to start giving my opinion. We never question that the base is Article 153; we just have to accept the fact that Article 153 can be interpreted in a thousand ways. And the New Economic Policy or some of the conditions and things that have been done in recent decades take the spirit of Article 153 as just one way of interpreting it. There could have been other numbers. It could be something else; it could be a bigger number; it could be a smaller number. So, even though there is a direct connection, it is not a one-to-one connection. But the most important thing I want to try to bring up is what KJ mentioned earlier about the effectiveness

45:53 and whether it has led to a mindset that backfires. Because for me there is a need to realize and accept the great possibility that if we make a policy like this, the spirit to compete can be affected. And have we reached a point where we dare to start really thinking about a different paradigm where we place competition and competitiveness as the most important thing and not protection as the most important thing? So, this is perhaps more sensitive and controversial, but I think there needs to be a debate like this,

46:44 and there has already been a debate like this. But the mindset is something that is difficult for us to measure. It is difficult for us to measure whether the Bumiputera mindset is smaller than the mindset of others, and if we say that, people will question whether it is true. But the truth is that to this day, the NEP targets and objectives have not been achieved. So, when the target is not achieved, the question is whether we should continue and make it bigger or maybe the paradigm itself is problematic. And if it's the paradigm that's problematic, there needs to be greatness of soul to admit that maybe the time is up, and we can do things that are more radical or bolder to open up competition. Yes, maybe before answering the protection framework with competitiveness, I agree with that.

47:39 It's just how do we design the program so that it's more about competition and not about protection? Does it open up? I still remember the term used by Dato' Seri Najib, "carve out and compete." This means that for large projects, for example, the MRT project, part of the project, 30%, is carved out of the project and dedicated to Bumiputera only. But compared to the old days, they were not given directly to one Bumiputera but competed within themselves.

48:28 So, engineering firms, construction firms, companies that are related to these rail systems, are Bumiputera but are forced to compete, compete within their own group, before they graduate to open competition. So that's an example. Maybe Shahril can respond to that approach. Because I saw at that time that it was "carve out and compete," I had heard that term. As a step that says, okay, we will have a bit of protection because we carve out, but you compete amongst yourselves. Because we want you to fight with the international boys, with the non-Bumi contractors after this. So, that's one. But back to the NEP, I heard Shahril say earlier, yes, that's right.

49:18 For some NEP measures, we did not achieve the target. Of course, the big target when we talk about the NEP is 30%. We are obsessed with this 30%. To the extent, if we ask ordinary Malays everywhere, if we go out on the street, we ask about 30%, what exactly is this 30%? I don't think they will be able to answer. What is this 30%? 30% wealth, 30% income, 30% quota? Actually, this 30% refers to 30% capital ownership. That's what the 30% is, capital ownership in companies. But I think if we obsess over capital ownership, we sometimes forget the successes of the NEP (New Economic Policy).

50:10 The biggest success of the NEP, for me, is human capital development. If there were no NEP, then we would not see the increasing number of Bumiputera Malays in the professions, among engineers, among accountants, in the world of finance, and in managerial positions. In fact, Bumiputera representation in managerial positions in 1970 was 24%. Now it is 49%, more than 50% in professions like accounting, engineering, and so on. It used to be less than 5%, now it is 66%.

50:56 That social mobility that we hear of, my father, my uncle, my brother, I myself have received MARA sponsorship, MARA loans, and so on, and went to MRSM, went to UiTM. That is the biggest success story of NEP that I think we should be proud of. But, of course, there are things that were not very successful. For example, I think one of the things that was not successful is entrepreneurial capacity, enterprise growth. For some reason, we were successful in increasing the number of Bumiputera Malay professionals and increasing managerial positions, especially in GLCs. But when it comes to penetration in business, this has always been the problem.

51:44 That's probably why, in terms of equity ownership or capital ownership, we are still lacking. But to say that the NEP has not been completely achieved and is not needed, I think I disagree. Because even now, with that social mobility, we can see how someone who was born in the village, can go to MRSM, can go to UiTM, or get MARA sponsorship, go overseas to become an accountant, that's still happening on a daily basis. And individual Malays are becoming that one generation in their family that is breaking the social or economic barrier. So, I agree a lot in terms of what the NEP has achieved, especially in maybe the first 20 years, the first 30 years.

52:31 But the question is two, one is, does it reach a point where it can only reach one level, then the policy needs to change to get into a higher league? So, that's one. The second is whether by achieving the things we mentioned earlier in terms of professional achievement, wealth, and so on. By achieving those things through a system like the NEP, can't the Malays also achieve other things? This means that the policy not only has an upside but also a slight downside. And the downside is, as we speculate, because this thing is difficult to measure, but we need to throw it out as just an intellectual debate, right? In terms of the mindset, when the mindset is,

53:16 "I have protection," am I really going to chase something? maybe that's why many are comfortable in professional positions and less so in entrepreneurship. Compared to other races, because entrepreneurship requires certain qualities that policies like the NEP and protections like the NEP are less encouraging of. Again, yes, this is not absolute, this is not absolute. Indeed, we can show examples that contradict what I said. But in terms of the whole, we need to study or entertain the possibility that this thing does exist. So, there are two things that I think need to be observed by anyone who makes real policies if they are sincere in looking at how to update the

54:04 policies based on Article 153 and based on the main objective, which is to advance the economic position of the Bumiputeras. I think you can sincerely look at these two critical views. And one more thing I want to add, KJ, is that what KJ said in terms of the target probably also needs to be updated. If the target is too obsessed with owning equity, I also agree that it does not reflect today's economic reality. Maybe back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, that was the main yardstick. But now, I look at some studies from past years, if I'm not mistaken, they showed Bumiputera equity ownership of 17-18%.

54:50 But when I checked, how do they calculate that 17-18%? It is share capital. Share capital, right, KJ, is how much capital we put into the company. But if the company makes a big profit, and the Malay company owner takes dividends, it does not include the share capital. So, it's as if cash is not an asset, or profit is not an asset, but capital itself is the yardstick. I think it needs to be more sophisticated. So, maybe what KJ said is true. Although the target of 30% equity has not been achieved to this day, other things in terms of profit, cash, and wealth are better or greater than the 17% figure. To be fair, Shahril, there have been several plans that have been formulated since 2012,

55:45 where there were efforts, even before that actually, that looked at more comprehensive targets or objectives, and not just share capital ownership. However, it has become an official document or target starting with BETR (Bumiputera Economic Transformation Roadmap). This BETR was introduced in 2012, the Bumiputera Economic Transformation Program, under Najib, which looks at not just share capital, but human capital, entrepreneurship, and ownership of non-financial assets also by Bumiputera.

56:31 After that came—this is Shahril's era as an economic advisor, if I'm not mistaken— TPB2030, Bumiputera Development Action 2030. This is in addition to what was put under BETR, the focus given to service delivery, the focus given to examples of making full use of reserve land, waqf land, and so on. But, unfortunately, TPB came during the Ismail Sabri era after BETR had officially ended. But today's government, the Madani government, is not waiting for the TPB to run out.

57:17 TPB actually ends in 2030, but they doesn't want to because maybe they want to win the hearts of Malay voters, so the Madani government created PuTERA, PuTERA 2024-2035, the Bumiputera Economic Transformation Plan. And below, they add a little; if there were already several targets, they add the targets of Bumiputera Participation and Control through GLC and GLIC Equity, the share of Bumiputera graduates in the labor force, and the contribution of Bumiputera enterprises to GDP. It seems like they also want to focus on the issue of Bumiputera entrepreneurship. So, I think, to be fair, the broad targets, which Shahril mentioned are not just an obsession with 30% equity ownership, are already there.

58:09 It's just how do you make sure that this is achieved? I think that's been the perennial, or rather a problem that will recur every year because we still can't crack it, especially in terms of enterprise. And in the enterprise, I want to ask Shahril a question. This is a question that is always raised by Bumiputera entrepreneurs. "We still need intervention from the government. We still need help from the government because the supply chain is dominated by non-Malays. I want to be a Malay contractor. I want to be a Malay entrepreneur. But there are many suppliers among non-Malays.

58:56 And they will give special prices to entrepreneurs from their community. They will give better credit terms to entrepreneurs from their own race." This is the reality we always hear. So, my first response is that we know in certain industries, we agree. It's true that things exist, and I hope that other races who are listening can be sincere. This is indeed the case in certain sectors of the industry. Not all, but some. Secondly, I am someone who always wants to ask myself what we can do. And if I ask the question again, are successful Malay entrepreneurs as committed as successful non-Malay entrepreneurs to helping the Malay value chain itself? Or is there a certain trait that is not very healthy in certain cases?

59:48 jealous, envious, or not really want to uplift other entrepreneurs? So that's two. Before we blame others, let's ask ourselves first. Thirdly, if it's true, and it is true that in certain industries there is a race-based value chain, then the government's intervention, for me, is to break that dominance and do something so that there is no discrimination. So the intervention should probably be corrected and not made into a reason or excuse to say, "Because that thing exists and it's hard for me to crack, please give me more preferential treatment because I need it, not to fix the problem, but so that I can get help in other ways."

1:00:33 So for me, it's a response to a problem that I admit exists. Yes, maybe just to close off the segment, because I think this is a topic that we will always discuss. Because as I mentioned, when we talk about the political economy of Malaysia, this is probably the biggest issue. Just to add, KJ, because you mentioned political economy, I think for anyone who wants to modernize the NEP and also the spirit of Article 153, perhaps they have to come from a Malay party. Of course. So that's the other, the weird part of this politics. An UMNO PM can do it, Tun Mahathir can do it, but if someone from Pakatan Harapan does it, he will look like...

1:01:19 And the NEP is indeed synonymous with UMNO. No matter how we try to explain it, the party that has always fought for the NEP is UMNO from the beginning. So if there is a change, it must come from UMNO too, because otherwise... There are a few licenses. There are licenses, there are big licenses. I just want to add one thing, Shahril, going back to the NEP, we always forget that the NEP actually has two main purposes. One is, in fact, the NEP was actually one, preferential for one race, we do admit that. But one major goal of the NEP is also needs-based, namely the eradication of poverty. And I see that this is still being practiced.

1:02:09 So when people say, oh, just like Shahril said earlier that UMNO is fighting for NEP, PKR might be fighting for needs-based, they always say that it's needs-based, right? That's what PKR always says. But we always turn around to say, well, actually the NEP was also needs-based. Because poverty eradication is done comprehensively, regardless of race. I think the pain point for non-Malays is not that they really see the NEP and the advantages given to the Bumiputera group or the Bumiputera race, but when their legitimate expectations seem unattainable, when they get straight A's but can't get a place in a public university, that is really a big pain point for a lot of non-Malays.

1:02:55 If you can crack that, then this feeling of dissatisfaction towards NEP, this misinterpretation of NEP can be reduced. And I want to add to Shahril's last point, whether we know it or not, because everyone says, "Oh, we can't have a system based on race, we need to have a needs-based system." But in fact, over the years, we have included many targeted programs for other races. For example, the Malaysian Indian Blueprint, that's big, which was started again, under Najib and continued. That was targeted. I think it was mentioned in the NEP as well. There isn't much, but the blueprint and the execution of the blueprint are indeed mentioned.

1:03:45 And many people don't realize that there are actually targeted programs for the Chinese community. You might think that's a community, from a business perspective, that's unnecessary, but I'll give you a concrete example. Bank Simpanan Nasional, which has special loans for Chinese micro and small enterprises, went up from 5 million in 2024 to 90 million this year. So we have to be honest, to say that yes, there is a big intervention for the Bumiputera group, some people say, "What is that for the Chinese community?" But that does not mean that successive governments have not also used preferential treatment for certain other communities. I completely agree that KJ brought this up, and it is more into economic intervention policies.

1:04:34 Overall, the way we make policies in this country does have a racial element. Even aid to Chinese schools is based on race. When the Chinese Chamber of Commerce meets with the PM, lobbies with the ministers, it's also race-based. So, this racial element should not only be directed at Bumiputera Malays. That's the point. So, I think we agree on this, and in our debate on the NEP, it is more about putting forward what modern methods we can use to achieve the goals we want, and not being too obsessed with symbolism, a policy that is indeed very sensitive, but actually, we can discuss the outcome, and we will continue. One of my favorite agencies to implement the Bumiputera agenda right now, because there are many agencies involved, is Yayasan Peneraju.

1:05:28 I think it has many programs that produce Bumiputeras, especially in new critical fields. It is now led by our friend, brother Ibrahim Sani. So, maybe it's worth having a chat with him? Yes, I had a program with him the other day, and he did tell me a little bit about the new things that the foundation is bringing, the YPP, that are not traditional things, about artificial intelligence, about programmers, things like that that he wants to focus on as expertise for Bumiputera. That's not equity ownership, that's just skills in a new economy. But with the hope that these guys can turn it into owning shares. Okay, let's take a break for a while and come back later.

1:06:17 Welcome back to episode 141 of Keluar Sekejap. And perhaps in this last segment, KJ, we want to go international, and specifically, what has happened in recent days after Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States, which we just briefly discussed in the previous episode. But since then, there have been several new things that might be appropriate for us to discuss, and we could perhaps discuss at length about the implications of what Trump will do, not only to Malaysia but to the world as a whole. If I may begin, KJ. I read a lot of analysis from the United States, from other places.

1:07:04 I think everyone is not in panic mode but is in alert mode because each one does not know what might happen. But everyone seems to agree that Trump is not an ordinary president, not a typical president. And all the traditions and conventions that have existed between their countries, whatever the country and the United States, it seems that those conventions and traditions cannot be expected to remain in the current period. So everybody is sort of trying to reposition themselves, whether that person is a tech bro like Mark Zuckerberg, or the person is the Prime Minister of Denmark because right now Greenland, which is under Danish administration, is wanted by Trump.

1:08:01 Everyone, all parties are wondering what they need to do under this new regime, and perhaps that's the most appropriate term, it's a regime change. That's one of the analyses I read in the United States, it's a regime change. It's not just a presidential change, it's a regime change. Because this regime under Donald Trump is very different from the normal American way of doing things before this. In terms of international relations, in terms of the way he created executive orders, the 26 that were signed, in terms of the way he interacted with the media, from the way he made the announcement of the meme coin, KJ, where he created a cryptocurrency that critics say is his way of committing corruption,

1:08:48 or he got rich through cryptocurrency. Maybe we can discuss it later. Everything is very different from what is usual. KJ, after a week or so, what are your thoughts? Can we get anything in-depth from this first week about what he's going to do? If this is the pace, is KJ as worried as I am? Much of the focus for this first week has been on Donald Trump's efforts to remake America. He doesn't spend much time on international or multilateral issues.

1:09:35 If there are any international issues, like the ones we discussed in the last episode, they are more about the interests of the United States alone. So, his current international considerations are only related to America's position, and not America's responsibilities as a great power in the world. I think it's important to distinguish this for our listeners. Of course, as a great power, it is motivated by self-interest. But in the past, the great power of the United States also had an altruistic spirit to ensure that the world was safe, even if it was a boss, even if it was a policeman. But the policeman keeps the world safe.

1:10:21 Compared to the position where he doesn't want to play the role of policeman anymore, he doesn't care much about international institutions, international organizations, or international obligations. He is more interested in his own interests and that is the main driver of the United States' involvement at the international level. So, for example, Shahril mentioned earlier, Greenland. Greenland is a region located in the North Atlantic Ocean. It is a landmass or a relatively large area. Like Shahril said earlier, it is under Danish custody based on the history of Greenland.

1:11:10 And no one looks at Greenland. Because Greenland doesn't have many people, it's an uninhabitable area. But Trump has already started, I understand there was a phone call with the Danish Prime Minister who said that outright he wanted to buy Greenland. As Shahril mentioned, Trump is unlike any other US President. He's unlike any other human being, actually. I mean, this isn't the Louisiana Purchase from centuries ago. We now live under a system of international law, sovereignty, and so forth. But some people, like him, still think this is the Wild West, where you can just buy territories. He just went ahead and said, "I want to buy this."

1:11:56 It's insane. "If you don't give it to me, I'll impose tariffs or whatever." He might be considered a bit more sophisticated than Putin. Putin still wants to seize power through war. But Trump is saying, "No, I don't have to go to war. I'm just going to buy you." "And I'm going to threaten you with tariffs. I don't have to fire a single shot. I'll just take Greenland." Why does he want Greenland? Because Greenland is rich in natural resources. It has all sorts of minerals, raw materials for green technologies, oil, gas, and so on. And it's strategically located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for military purposes. So, I'm not sure where we're going with this, Shahril,

1:12:42 because so far, he hasn't shown any interest in Southeast Asia. Malaysia is now the ASEAN chair, and we're proud of Malaysia's role as ASEAN chair, but our friend in the White House doesn't seem to care. I don't know if you saw it. I was playing it yesterday; maybe you overheard it. Every one of his cabinet appointees has to go through a Senate confirmation process. Pete Hegseth, his Secretary of Defense, was questioned in the Senate before being confirmed. His confirmation came down to a tie-breaking vote by JD Vance, the Vice President. (The President of the Senate is the Vice President.)

1:13:29 In a 50-50 tie, he casts the tie-breaking vote. So, he confirmed him. But a Senator asked this US Secretary of Defense—a graduate of Princeton and Harvard— "Can you name an ASEAN country?" And his answer was quite something. He said, "We have good relationships with Korea, with Japan, and with Australia." So, the Senator said, "None of those countries are in ASEAN." So, I'm worried. Does this lack of interest in ASEAN mean we'll be left alone? And if we're left alone, then, well, maybe we won't be hit with tariffs, maybe we won't face any action, because maybe Trump thinks ASEAN is too close to...

1:14:22 or that some ASEAN countries are too close to China, and so he'll hit us with secondary tariffs. So, do we just keep quiet and hope he doesn't take any interest in us? What's the strategy here? One of the things we've discussed is the individuals Trump has appointed to positions of power and influence, whose qualifications are highly questionable, as KJ mentioned. I think even the most establishment figure, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, isn't particularly impressive, but at least he has the usual qualifications typically expected in those positions. But the rest seem to have come from places like Fox News,

1:15:10 media personalities who just keep getting appointed. That's the guy Right, yes, like the Secretary of Defense. But it's the people around him. And we also know that Elon Musk has become incredibly influential and uses platforms like X to spread Trump's propaganda. We also talked about the shift in regimes, in terms of the isolationism adopted by the United States, which KJ has already touched upon. In my view, the big question is: if the United States loses interest in many parts of the world, and let's say Malaysia and ASEAN are among the places not high on their priority list,

1:16:00 does that create an opening for other powers to step in? And I think the answer is yes, of course. Other powers, especially China, will see this as an opportunity to assume global leadership. Because the world still operates within certain organizations, and Trump isn't going to single-handedly destroy the WHO, NATO, or anything else—the G7, the G20. Even if he and the United States show less interest, that vacuum will be filled. And this is where I think our foreign policy institutions, Wisma Putra and related agencies, also need a regime change in terms of...

1:16:47 if there used to be a standard way of doing things, now we're in a different world. I hope there's openness. You posted on Instagram yesterday about drones flying in KLCC airspace. This might be a trivial example, but it's a manifestation of Malaysia was chosen for the first global Chinese New Year launch outside of China. And those drones are Chinese drones, part of a Chinese initiative. Let's be frank, who can fill the vacuum left by the United States? Right now, it seems like only China. So they're going to start with soft power; they're going to start… Okay, if the United States isn't interested in the climate treaty, the WHO, or any of that,

1:17:37 guess who's going to step up their game? In terms of diplomacy, soft power, and global leadership, that's what's going to happen. So, I think Trump needs to consider this. Going back to an issue I find very disturbing, we previously discussed the role of Elon Musk. I don't know if you're aware, but yesterday, he addressed the AFD in Germany. The AFD is Alternative for Deutschland, a far-right party. Extremely right-wing. Extreme. They're not right-wing conservatives like the Republican or Tory parties, or UMNO. Completely extreme. Yes, racist, anti-immigration, revisionist, everything.

1:18:25 And he addressed their rally, a campaign event. It was virtual, but shown on a big screen. And you know what he said? "It's good to be proud of German culture, German values," "and not to lose that to some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything." On Saturday, Elon Musk said, "Children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents, let alone their great-grandparents." "There's too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that," in reference to Germany. This is not… And he's now, because he spent US$200 million on the Trump election, of course, Trump's right-hand man.

1:19:16 So, I'm worried. One, Trump's disinterest creates a vacuum, and two, Musk's interference, not only in United States politics, but elsewhere too. And he's openly endorsing very extreme parties. Yes, some might say that Musk and Trump will eventually part ways because of their massive egos. But as long as that doesn't happen, there seems to be a trend of unelected individuals, non-politicians who aren't accountable to any electorate, whose positions are vague, wielding enormous influence.

1:20:02 And that's what's becoming a problem for American democracy itself. The CIA and the State Department have, as we all know, been involved in regime change throughout history. But now it's not just them. It's the richest man in the world using his platform, X. Even more overt. While the CIA has historically been covert, they would eliminate people here and there, orchestrate coups, and so on. But this is even more overt and disruptive. The last thing I want to re-emphasize is how Trump has also changed...because KJ already mentioned the US$200 million from Musk.

1:20:48 How the fundraising practices of the Trump organization and the Trump family also seem to be something that will change the United States. Because, yes, it's true that as of now, he can't run for a third term. But his child... There's a resolution. There's a resolution. A congressman has introduced a resolution to change the 22nd Amendment so that Trump can run for a third term. If that happens, I think it's mayhem. Assuming that doesn't happen, there's still a desire for Trump's legacy to continue, whether through JD Vance or his son, Barron Trump. I see how they're trying to position him as a future president. He wants to be like the Kennedys, like the Clintons. So, the fundraising part, the way he's doing it... because I'm interested in crypto, KJ.

1:21:37 Maybe one day we'll discuss crypto as an asset or a currency. We might have a more critical perspective on that. But on this specific point, what I understand, KJ, is that he launched a meme coin. He basically launched a new cryptocurrency. And its value, its fully diluted market capitalization, when the entire cryptocurrency supply is available, will be worth tens of billions.

…