PUTRAJAYA

Oleh Dr Mahathir Mohamad


1. Saya berterimakasih kerana interpretasi yang sering dibuat berkenaan pemikiran saya. Tetapi kadang-kadang interpretasi berbeza dari pemikiran saya yang sebenar.

2. Berkenaan dengan Putrajaya. Yang sebenarnya tujuannya ialah untuk mendiri sebuah Bandar pentadbiran. Kita mendapat ilham dari bandar-bandar dunia untuk tujuan ini.

3. Di antara yang mempengaruhi rekabentuk Putrajaya ialah ibu kota Perancis, iaitu Paris.

4. Yang kita pilih sebagai contoh ialah Champs Elysees, boulevard utama yang melintasi tengah Bandar Paris.

5. Boulevard ini mempunyai jalan tengah yang luas untuk lalu-lintas kereta dan dua buah jalan kecil antara jalan tengah dengan deretan bangunan di kiri kanan untuk pelawat ke kedai dan restoran.

6. Tingkat bawah bangunan-bangunan ini terdapat kedai-kedai makan dan barangan dan juga pusat hiburan seperti Lido. Memanglah restoran menjual barangan yang tidak halal.

7. Sesungguhnya Champs Elysees dipenuhi dengan pembeli-belah tempatan dan pelancong dalam dan luar negeri sepanjang masa. Ramainya mereka di sini kerana terdapat kedai dan restoran mewah. Lido mempunyai tarikan hiburan yang istimewa.

8. Kita tidak berhasrat meniru segala-galanya yang terdapat di Champs Elysees di Paris. Kita juga tidak ingin menjadi Putrajaya sebagai Bandar pentadbiran yang penuh dengan pejabat Kerajaan semata-mata.

9. Di Negara maju terdapat CBD – Central Business District yang penuh dengan pejabat-pejabat syarikat terkemuka di Bandar besar. Pada siang hari ramailah pekerja dan pelawat membanjiri CBD. Apabila pejabat tutup pada 5 petang, CBD menjadi senyap sunyi. CBD juga berbahaya pada waktu malam kerana ramai penjenayah merayau-rayau dan menyamun orang yang masuk kawasan ini.

10. Sudah tentu jika ramai orang terdapat di mana kawasan, kemungkinan penjenayah bermaharajalela akan berkurangan.

11. Saya cadang kepada pengurusan Putrajaya supaya diadakan kedai-kedai makanan dan barangan sepanjang jalan tengah Putrajaya. Dalam pada itu pusat hiburan ringan juga perlu diadakan.

12. Pada malam Sambutan Ambang Tahun Baru hampir 100,000 orang, kebanyakannya Melayu telah dihibur dengan lagu-lagu merdu dan tarian. Mereka tidak mungkin datang jika tidak ada hiburan.

13. Adanya hiburan ini tidak bercanggah dengan idea Putrajaya.

14. Saya tidak bersetuju jika diadakan kedai arak dan tarian bogel di Putrajaya. Tetapi jika diadakan sedikit hiburan tidak mengapa.

15. Saya tak pernah pergi ke Hard Rock Café. Mungkin ia tidak sesuai. Tetapi ia dan pusat hiburan lain boleh disesuaikan jika sanggup mengadakan hiburan yang tidak lucah. Kita perlu kepada hiburan. Jika ada acara persandingan di dewan-dewan di Putrajaya tidak ada larangan terhadap hiburan. Kenapa tidak pusat hiburan di restoran.

16. Perubahan sedang dilakukan oleh Tan Sri Aseh kepada Putrajaya. Saya lihat semakin ramai pelawat datang ke Putrajaya sebelah malam kerana perubahan-perubahan ini.

http://chedet.cc/

PART THREE: Ten Years' Retired And Still Working Hard For The Country

There have been two supplementary budgets tabled in Parliament. Are you worried about this?

We've had supplementary budgets before, but supplementary budgets must be due to needs. If you manage well the amount you'll get it much less, but if you don't manage to your finances well, you keep on having supplementary budget, it will decrease the deficit.

Does this show incompetence in managing government?

Not incompetence. I think the government liked being very good in planning. Malaysian government has always been good in planning, in financial planning, but nowadays we have outside advice, consultants, and they of course have got different backgrounds. They don't understand the nature of this country.

Touching on the recent Umno elections, particularly the introduction of the Electoral College system, do you think it is a well-thought out system to prevent money politics?

Well, if it was to prevent money politics, it didn’t succeed.

I know from people who receive money that they said they were paid so much. If you ask them, can you give evidence? (They’ll reply) ‘Oh, no, no, no, I will not give evidence’.

So, I know lots of money change hands; (they) were given to voters, to division leaders, etc, lots of money. If it is to prevent money politics, it is a failure.

But does the new voting system deter people wanting to engage in money politics?

There is no deterrence. No deterrence. Because nobody will come forward and say 'he has bribed me'. No, nobody. And the person can deny, because he has done (it) indirectly.

From the money giver's point of view, he will have to fork out more money.

More money is not a problem. People are very rich now. In my days, they allocated only a few thousand Ringgit. When I first contested in 1964, headquarters gave me RM10,000. RM6,000 for parliament, RM2,000 each for ministry, that's all. And we won elections, you see, and the money was used in order to pay for fuel and some minor things.

They don't go into anybody's pocket. But nowadays, you need money. Is the money used for the elections? We don't know. They (may) go into the pockets of people.

The recent Umno election, I've seen some personality that won, which they were expected to win but not by a margin that they did. For example, Umno Youth, it is surprising to see that some of the challengers did not even get one vote. Do you think is this setting an unhealthy trend for the so-called and open election process?

Well, this is a mystery. When you are 'open', lots of people will participate and lots of people will give their votes. But somehow or rather, despite being open and having candidates and all that, the votes will do not go to so many candidate, so this is a mystery.

 Were you disappointed?

Well, it's great to have a leader who is so strongly supported.

If you look at it that way, don’t you think you would have hoped bigger names to step up to the challenge?

No. Bigger names will not challenge because bigger names do not want to displease, to be a pain in the neck to some people because their future would be at stake.

Is this a trend that began during your time? That there is an implicit understanding that competition is not encouraged; you learn to voluntarily make way for ‘the chosen personality’. Is that a trend during your time?

During my time, people challenge me. And I almost lost, you see. So, if I want to have the same people re-elected, there'll be no challenge. But as you know, I was challenged. I almost lost. My choice of deputy prime minister also almost lost.

So, in those days, we don’t tell people ‘you must vote for so and so'. I mean, people want to challenge, they (can) challenge. They want to campaign, they want to use money, they did.

And as result, of course, the vote was split between me and my challenger, and of course my challenger having lost, decided to go to the courts and as a result of going to court, Umno was declared illegal.

That is the kind of thing that happened to you at that time, so if I were to say, that ‘we should return all the (members of the Supreme Council) because I like them, then there would be no change. During my time there were lots of changes.

Even people I don't like – (Tun) Abdullah Badawi for example - worked hard against me supporting Tengku Razaleigh. But then he stood for (the Supreme Council) . He won.

And then he stood for vice-president. He won. See, if I don't like him - and of course I didn't quite like him because he went against me - however, I cannot stop him from contesting, nor could I stop him from getting support. So, he won and naturally became vice president.

As a vice president, I guess that he is somebody who the members want. So I brought him back into the Cabinet. And of course (he became deputy minister) and then prime minister.

Was that your biggest bad decision?

I made a lot of mistakes making decisions.

Looking at Datuk Seri Najib, Dato' Hishammuddin, Datuk Mukhriz. They're all sons of our ex-prime ministers. Najib was the Umno Youth Chief, so was Hishammuddin. Do you think your son Mukhriz should have contested and challenge KJ instead of going for VP that he would have had better chance at winning?

I don't know, but that is his choice. I'm not concerned about what he wants to do; I'm concerned to see people who are qualified, people who can contribute towards the party and the nation, become elected.

Whether he is my son or not my son is irrelevant. As you know, I could have promoted him when I was Prime Minister. I not only did not promote him, I even told him ‘no, you are not going to do politics, (not) during my time".

Of course after I stepped down I can't tell him not to be involved in politics.

What is the reason why you said this?

Because I don't like to see (accusations of) nepotism.

But even when he's a capable politician? Suitably qualified?

But the accusation will still be about nepotism, even if he's brilliant, people will say, I'm choosing my son, and I'm trying to set up a (political) dynasty. That I will not do, so I told him, I told Mokhzani ‘No, you do not contest,’ although Mokhzani was chosen by Hishammuddin, I believe, to become treasurer of (Umno Youth).

When Mukhriz came into the picture it surprised a few people and also probably made a few people uncomfortable within the Umno leadership. Why do you think they felt that way?

It may make some people uncomfortable but the (Umno) leadership often says they want change, they want to transform. If it is the same people there is no change. I mean no matter how much they try, (they must realise that) the same people do not change very much.

If you have a change in leadership, for example when I stepped down, Pak Lah took over. There was definite change. You change people, things change. But if you don't change people, things do not change.

So, I suppose when the leader wants transformation, people thought that they should have new leaders. Is that wrong? I don’t think it is wrong. If you say ‘we want transformation but no change please’ then I think people would not believe that you are going to transform anything.

Does the fault also lie on Umno delegates?

Umno delegates are, if I might say so, quite feudalistic. They support their leader. During my time they supported me. Not because they like me but they supported me because I was Prime Minister.

If I decided to remain prime minister I think they would still support me. So I could stay on to become Prime Minister my whole life. But I decided on my own that I should give chance to other people.

This talk about transformation obviously is not happening in the last election. If the younger generation were to ask you, what would be the measures that you think will return the younger generation’s support to Umno?

If you want the younger people to come back, to come into Umno, you must open Umno, Firstly (the problem why younger generation’s support to Umno is not forthcoming is) because Umno is not open. People cannot join Umno, especially those who have potential; who are well educated, have leadership qualities, people are not allowed into Umno, instead they join Pas.

Surely there's no black and white that say they can't join?

But you see, I know, because (there were some young) people who told me they wanted to join Umno, made an application but their application was rejected 5 times or were told that their application got lost.

Even Mukhriz couldn't join then. Mukhriz wanted to join in my own constituency. He was rejected many times, until he get to go to Umno headquarters and they allowed him to join. But if he were to leave it to my own division, of which I was the head of division, he (would not have been accepted to join), I didn’t interfere.

I think I was at that time head of division, Prime Minister, president of the party, but I did not interfere to let him join my division. And as a result he couldn't join. He had to go to headquarters to ask for some help and eventually he managed to join.

If they don't open doors, they will die. Umno will lose. The consequence is, in the next election Umno will lose, simply because young people who are now able to vote, they are disgusted. They are disgusted with Umno because they think it a very corrupt institution.

I can't blame them because we all know that certain people were found to be corrupt by Umno disciplinary committee. But of course, some of us ‘choose to forget’ about their corruption because we want to be ‘nice’ to them.

Is there a way that you somehow bring fresh faces into Umno post-election, to change the old guard?

The only one who can do that is the leader. The leader wishes to do that, I think we can do that. But if the leader doesn't want to do that, we cannot do that. Nobody below the leader can do anything in Umno.

 http://malaysiandigest.com

PART FOUR: Ten Years' Retired And Still Working Hard For The Country

How strong do you feel is Najib's hold on the rakyat’s trust in his leadership?

For as long as he is the Prime Minister and President of Umno, I think he will have the support, at least at Umno. But, we are seeing today, some changes in the Barisan Nasional. For example, it’s possible for the component parties not to support the leader.

And if this goes on, if there is - in the Opposition - a good leader, I think people will change (sides), people will cease to support (BN).

Do you see this happening in the near future?

I don't see it happening in the near future because the Opposition has a candidate who is worse than the leader of the government.

You only have to campaign by saying “You want this man or that man?” and the answer is “No, no, no, I want this man'. It's winning by default, not because you are supporting him but because you don't support (the other guy).

So, that is the determining factor, in the last election. But the non-Malays don't mind. They voted for the Opposition. Because they really believe that in GE13 the Opposition will win and they want to be on the winning side.

In our political history, was there a General Election similar to the previous one when the Opposition was ever so confident of taking over?

No, never.

Before, people show respect for Umno and they remember that it was Umno which had fought for the country’s independence. (They acknowledge that) Umno saved this country from the (establishment of the) Malayan Union. People were still grateful.

The voters (then) were people who knew (how difficult it was for Umno to fight for independence), (because they) had (lived) through this period. They know. Today’s voters, however, do not (acknowledge) the past at all.

Some of the Pas leaders, they don't even know. You see, they are saying, “why should we be grateful forever?” “We don't have to be grateful to them”.

So, the loyalty (to Umno) based on past achievements is now diminishing and will (probably) disappear in the next election.

In the next election the voters will be people who were born long after the independence. They do not feel the struggle for independence; they do not know the (significance) of Umno’s (political) achievements. All they (want to believe) is that Umno is a corrupt party.

But some voters might come back and say “Why should I be grateful forever when ensuring the well-being of the people is a tacit duty of every government?”

(Voters must realise that) not every government performs. There are many countries which became independent, but as you know, (their governments) didn't perform. (In those countries) there is nothing to be grateful about.

So we need to be able to make the comparison between Malaysia and (the performance of governments) in other countries and (only then will they) find that (the government) have done well.

Yes, we have done well. But (voters) are saying, “It's not done by you, it's done by somebody else before (the current government).

(The current government) are grateful to those people before but you are not following, so the attitude is different (with voters today). (They are telling the government) “We are not grateful to you, but we are grateful to those people before.”

How did you see Datuk Seri Najib's handling of the Lahad Datu incursion? Do you think the government tackled it appropriately?

Actually it was as appropriate as can be because we had (little) experience of people invading our country.

(They were) a small group of 200 people wanting to conquer Malaysia. Does it make sense? They must be idiots.

And the Malaysian army - at least 100,000 strong, maybe much bigger than that – (is well equipped with) all the (modern) weapons. What makes they think they can conquer (us without being met with unrelenting and impenetrable force)?

(The invaders of Lahad Datu) have fought in the Philippines for the past 60 years, (and) what have they achieve, other than killing people?

I mean it was very stupid of them to try and do these things, and as usual they believe the people will rise and go against the government.

This was (an attempt similar to the undeclared war waged against Malaysia) during the Konfrantasi (the political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia by Indonesia in the 1960s).

It is a very stupid move and in the end, most of them are killed, and they deserve to be killed, because you don't invade other countries with the idea that (you can forcefully take over and) establish your own country there.

In the Budget 2014 suggestions website, there were many people who want the ISA to be reinstated. How do you feel when the law was removed? Do you think it was more of a way for the government to become popular with the people?

During my time there was a move to do away with the ISA. (My government) consulted a lot of people, discussed with the police and all that, and asked, “What would happen if we remove the ISA?” And the advice that I received was that if we remove the ISA then there’ll be a lot of (disturbance in civilised society). (More) people will commit crime.

So, I didn't (remove the ISA). Even (suggestions to) reduce the detention period to one year was also not agreed.

Of course, the Opposition started crying about the issue, saying, “This is not democratic” and all that. And then (what follows is) you start to respond to the Opposition.

When you respond to the Opposition, it doesn't mean the Opposition will support you. The Opposition want this as an issue to bring down the government.

If they lose that issue, they'll find some other issue. Because all they are interested is to bring down the government. If you think that by acceding to the Opposition's views, therefore they will support you - you are wrong. Their supporters will not support you; they want to bring you down.

So, when you do away with the ISA, the net result was something I anticipated, that there will be more crimes, although the level of crimes is far more than what I had anticipated. I didn't expect so many cases of killing, rape and all that. All kinds of things are happening now, which never happened before.

As you know, the internet media, particularly those in the blog sphere, have a kind of love-hate relationship with you. But even they would agree that all Malaysians sorely miss your leadership as Prime Minister. That said, everyone wonders whether there'll be another politician of your calibre, perhaps being groomed today. Can you see Mukhriz as your “successor”?

Anybody can do what I did. I didn't do anything very special. (As PM), you’re given the authority to develop the country and there are ways to develop the country.

You have your civil servants who have the experience to administer the country. All you need is maybe some idea, and the idea can come from anybody.

But I must admit that I plagiarised a lot of ideas, you know. A lot of ideas come from people. Talking with people about Japan and all that, got me thinking about the Look East Policy (a foreign policy under Mahathir’s administration to promote bilateral relations between Malaysia and Japan in 1982).

It comes from people. If you are a leader you must listen to the people. Lots of people have got lots of ideas. You cannot monopolise all the ideas in the country. The ideas come from people. (As a leader), we have to listen to them. Read, listen, and watch what's happening in other countries. Anybody can do that.

Do you think maybe Malaysia needs another doctor-statesman as a PM?

Not necessarily to be a doctor. Anybody can do. Of course, I have some advantage as a doctor because a doctor approaches diseases in a systematic way, so I apply that method, but anybody can learn - nothing remarkable.

Do you see your son becoming PM? Do you want him to be PM?

He's like anybody else. If he qualifies, why not? But if people want other people and they think that these people can deliver, go ahead. But it is quite obvious that if you choose the wrong leader, then you have to pay the price.

During your time, you didn’t have to grapple with irresponsible and disruptive news reporting from the internet media and blog sites? Would you say that you had an easier time with the media during your time than Najib has to deal with today?

Slightly easier.

But one forgets that in this country, despite the fact that we have some kind of censorship, the Opposition and many others can write anything they like. Lots of things were said against me. I didn't stop them.

Harakah, Roket, all that other media, sometimes they says nasty things about me and I allowed foreign media to say anything they like about me.

Of course, if they say something, I have the right to reply. That is my right. As much as they have the freedom of speech, I (too) have the freedom of speech.

But I didn't ban them. The only time when something was done was during the Ops Lalang in 1987 (The operation saw the arrest of 106 persons under the Internal Security Act and the revoking of the publishing licenses of two dailies, The Star and Sin Chew Jit Poh and two weeklies, The Sunday Star and Watan).

But that (ban was absolutely necessary because) the country cannot afford to have racial clashes. We had already told people, “If you stir up racist beliefs, we'll act against you”.

So we did that. And then once they learned it’s not wise to do that, then (we said) ok, they can go ahead (and publish). So I had a difficult time, too. The foreign press were mad against me, but now the foreign press are quite nice to the present government.

I never had any good word said about me by the foreign press and the foreign press is very influential. So to say I had an easy time is not true.

So Tun, when are you really going to (step out of the country’s politics) and retire?

I used to advise people, that when they retire, when they are pensioned off, please do something, be active, because then they can keep life going.

So I cannot really retire, I come to my office every day. I meet people, I talk to people, I have ideas, I plagiarise other people's ideas, and that is my life. I don't understand about people who would want to retire and then go to sleep.

Some people are asking, “Will you ever cease offering your opinions about the country?”

A lot of things interest me. It’s not just about this country. A lot of things which go wrong on internationally, I comment. For example, the action against Iraq, and all that.

I keep an interest on what's going on around me. If I start losing interest of what’s going on around me, I'll probably be a dead man next year.

 http://malaysiandigest.com

Friday weekend

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Prime Minister, said, it was not against Islamic teachings to work on a Friday, as Muslims were given extra time during lunch break to enable them to perform Friday prayers.

 

Mahathir was quoted saying; "It is easier to perform Friday prayers as a congregation and return to work afterwards. We have seen some Muslims who used the rest day (then Friday) to take their families out and miss Friday prayers."

PART TWO: Ten Years' Retired And Still Working Hard For The Country

Touching on the budget, how do you feel about it? Would you have done anything differently?

No. Before the budget (tabling), The Star (newspaper) gathered the feelings of the people regarding the budget that they want and among the things (the people) said is that we should do away with BR1M but apparently the government still believes that they should give money to the people. 

It is quite a lot of money, comes to almost RM4 billion, so it may contribute towards the deficit. I'm not so sure, because I don't  have the figures. But on the other hand of course when you give money it contributes towards the GDP growth.

So, I'm disappointed that the views of the people appear to have been ignored by the government. Then of course I was expecting that we would build the bridge etc but somehow or rather Singapore doesn't agree, or something like that, and we cannot build anything that Singapore doesn't want. And we seem to be subservient to Singapore.

During your time, what was the closest form of 'handout' that the government had given compared to BR1M?

We do have very very poor people. We have to give them some allowance because they are very poor and jobless. But mainly we believe in training people so that they can do jobs which can give them an income. Provide opportunities for them to do small businesses, give them training, provide some capital for them to use, but not just giving anybody. They must qualify for the government help.

I think some people appreciate that because if you gauge by the support (that people had then) for the government, it was quite clear that the support for the government then was very strong despite the fact that the government does not give handouts.

You've given your views on the implementation of minimum wage, you think its not time yet. When do you think we will be  ready for that?

Everything has got to be done step by step. You know when you have a sudden jump, it disrupt things. Now, if a person is receiving RM700, suddenly you give him RM900 minimum salary or wage, what happens to the people who are already receiving 900?

Obviously they are not going to be happy, so you have to give them, too. And when they move up, the others also must move up.

So, actually the cost to business is much higher than the mere determination that the minimum wage should be 900. Because those who are above the minimum wage would also get pay rises otherwise, they will not be happy.

We are already, among Asian countries, next to Singapore, we are the highest (in terms of) cost. Our productivity does not go up, in fact it goes down because we have more holidays now than ever before.

Before, we used to work Saturdays. When we don't work Saturdays we lose 52 working days in a year. But Saturdays we work half days so we can see not 52 but 26 working days are lost. Then we have a lot of festivals of course with this country, we had to show our appreciation for these festivals.

But then a small group has a festival, why should the whole country come to a stop? I don't think that is the right thing. We are a developing country. We cannot afford the luxuries of a developed country.

In developed countries, they can work less and pay more. But even they, as you know, are suffering today. Europe is no longer competitive, simply because they work less and get higher pay, their cost goes up and they cannot sell their products.

If we behave as if we are already developed, we work less, we pay more, and I think we will lose competitiveness. Already we have lost competitiveness, but we will lose more later on and I think that will not be good for the country.

But why do you think this idea is being put forth, knowing that this is not a good idea right now?

Well, that is not a good idea from my point of view, but maybe others have got different ideas - maybe it will make people popular. I did not always do things to make myself popular. I do things which I think will contribute.

That said, we still think Deepavali break needs an extra day off.

There are ten percent Indians. If you look at the government's staff of 1.4 million, the number of Indians is not even ten percent of that 1.4 million. And yet when ten percent has a holiday, all the rest of the staff must stop work, because we are not a single ethnic single religious country, we are multi-ethnic multi-religious country.

If they have the holiday, they need a holiday, then by all means, let them go off because the government can still work, and even if in the industries, they can still go on working.

You see, when they go for holiday, the cost for businesses is very high. If you have to make them work you pay twice. If they work after working hours you pay four times. So it contributes towards cost.

Why should 90 percent of the workforce go on holiday when only the ten percent needs the holiday? Yes we have respect; I think one day is good respect, because it is ten percent of the population. Having a holiday is not a mark of your status. To me, people who do not work don't deserve to be paid.

   

http://malaysiandigest.com

Dr M Blames Pak Lah For Proton Losing Money

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad blamed his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for the shrinking Proton car market.

“Unfortunately for political reasons, the successful management was removed and then changed twice and the company lost money.

“At the same time the government decided to allow almost unlimited import of foreign cars which affected Proton,” he said.

Abdullah sacked well-known Mahathir associate Tengku Mahaleel Tengku Ariff who was Proton chief executive officer in 2005. Mahathir had publicly condemned the decision.

“All these resulted in a shrinkage of the domestic market share of Proton until today it makes up only 27% of the much enlarged domestic market.

“With almost half the domestic market now taken up by imports, there is a huge outflow of Malaysian money,” he said in his a speech at the Kuala Lumpur International Automotive Conference on Nov 13 and carried in his blog chedet.cc.

Mahathir, who is also Proton advisor, said buying things from foreign countries would result in an outflow of funds and lead to trade deficits.

“To prevent this, we can either limit imports or increase exports. Proton may not be earning much money through exports. But it is doing the next best thing by preventing money from flowing out to buy foreign cars,” he said.

He added that Malaysia sold about 600,000 cars a year and half the number would be local-made cars.

“Assuming an average car price is RM40,000, RM12 billion can be saved if the country does not import all its cars.

High tax

He also explained why the government had to impose a high tax on imported cars.

Although admitting that this was not welcomed by Malaysian consumers, Mahathir said all countries wanted to promote their local automotive industry and had no choice but to make imported cars costly.

“Japan and Korea had done this and we all know how much the Japanese and Korean cars have improved,” he said.

Mahathir said the quality of locally-manufactured goods must improve to match imported ones.

“To have an industry, especially automotive, time is required to achieve world standards and to be competitive,” he said.

He stressed that Malaysia should preserve its automotive industry because it created thousands of jobs.

“If the country is to become industrialised, it must acquire engineering skills,” he added.

Free Malaysia Today

Mahathir: Auto Industry Must Be Protected

The national automotive industry must be sustained with high taxes on imported cars and limited entry of foreign makes to help stem the outflow of money overseas, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.

"Proton Holdings Bhd may not be earning much money through exports. But it does the next best thing, that is, preventing money from flowing out to buy foreign cars," he said in his special luncheon address on "Shaping a National Auto Industry: How National Cars can contribute towards Economic Development" at the Fourth Kuala Lumpur International Motor Show 2013 here yesterday.

"We sell roughly 600,000 cars a year. Half the number would be locally-made cars.

"Assuming an average price (for a national car) of RM40,000, the total sales value would be about RM12 billion. That would be the additional amount that will flow out if all cars are imported. It would certainly increase the country's budget deficit," Mahathir, who is adviser to Proton, said.

He was commenting on why the government should continue its protective stance for local auto manufacturers.

Mahathir said buying things from foreign countries results in an outflow of funds and this would be bad on the balance of payment and trade deficit.

"To prevent this, we can do two things. We can limit imports or we can increase exports. Among the items which absorb funds in large amounts is the import of cars. The purchase of cars involves large sums of money. When we buy foreign cars there would be a big outflow of funds," he said.

Mahathir added that the imposition of high taxes on imported cars as well as periodic changes to standards set for foreign makes' entry into the country would enable Proton cars to sustain its share in the domestic market, which currently stood at 27%.

"Can Malaysian-made cars compete in the domestic market against foreign imports? They could if the price is right. To ensure the prices are right the government has to tax imports at a higher rate," he said.

"All countries wishing to promote their local auto industry have no choice but to make imported cars costly. Japan and South Korea had done so. Other countries simply make it bureaucratically difficult for cars to be imported.

"Apart from taxes on foreign cars, the standards were raised in foreign countries so that imports find difficult to qualify. The standards were raised periodically so that foreign cars wishing to enter the market have to be upgraded continuously," he added.

Mahathir said Proton cars have a 90% localisation content and its sale is largely in the local market where it has to compete with imports.

"Even with reduced taxes, it cannot sell well in free trade agreement (FTA) countries. The volume is just not big enough and it takes time to amortise the cost of development. In other words, Proton is at a disadvantage in Malaysia and in the Asean Free Trade Area (Afta) countries," he said

On another note, Mahathir said Malaysia should embrace a higher level of sophistication in terms of industry and production of manufactured goods, acquiring a high level of know-how such as engineering capability to become a developed nation by 2020.

"We (Malaysia) have a very big ambition to become a developed nation by 2020. To achieve that goal, it is not just a question of per capita income. To be a developed country, we need other things as well. Among which is the level of industrialisation, sophistication of the economy and of course per capita income," he said.

Mahathir also pointed that the country could expand its expertise in the aviation industry, especially in the production of composite parts for aircraft.

"We can do that at a lower cost. At the moment, we have contracts with Boeing and Airbus to produce composite parts. We see more and more people using composite than metal. We can do it cheaper than doing it in Europe.

"There is a future for Malaysia if we train our people well," he said.

-The Sun Daily