Wednesday, June 8, 2011

马来西亚汽车业: 负担抑或催化剂 ?

冯镇安博士

汽车的费用一直是社会人士热烈讨论的课题。国际贸易及工业部长穆斯达法上个月再次公开重申,政府发出的进口汽车准证数额将保持在汽车销量的百分之10, 其中特许经营权持有者占百分之4。

为什么政府还要维持这种进口汽车准证的制度呢?为什么我国仍然需要保护过去40年来已经享有很多好处、而且还从这个制度中受惠的汽车业者呢?这些各种问题令我不得不提起笔来写下这篇文章。

回顾上个世纪70年代,许多试图迈向工业化的国家视汽车业为先驱工业。汽车是由数以百计的部件和零件组装,被视为可以刺激制造业活动,生产本地部件来取代进口部件(如轮胎、活塞等)的理想工业。

难怪马来西亚、印尼、菲律宾和泰国在看到日本和韩国的汽车制造业取得成功后,就积极推动和发展国内的汽车领域。从此,本田、万事达、纪亚的汽车牌子成为了我国仿效的汽车品牌。

1983年,当时的首相敦马哈迪设立了普腾国产车公司,与三菱公司合作制造国产车。1986年,我国第一个款型国产车普腾赛加(Proton Saga) 在市场上推出。1993年,第二国产车Perodua公司宣告成立,并且与日本大发公司合作生产了第二款国产车1300cc的灵鹿( Perodua Kancil)

我国落实的汽车计划的主要目的是促进本地(尤其是土著)供应商的业务、制造工作机会、提升劳动力的专门知识,以及最终塑造具有本地特点的马来西亚汽车业。

关于普腾和第二国产车公司历史的文章已经不少,我不再多加探究其事。我要采取更全面的方法,去谈论这个受到诸多保护的行业。

1. 过去的挑战与愿望

马来西亚在制造国产车所面对的主要挑战是市场的问题。在上个世纪80年代初期,我国汽车市场每年销售的汽车是大约8万辆,比我国每年的最低有效产量10万辆稍微少。

不幸的是,80年代中期,全球陷入了严重的经济不景气。我国的汽车市场基于大量汽车款型和组装厂商受到打击而进一步恶化。

政府因而采取管制措施,以及提高对非国产汽车征收的税务,去纠正一切对国产车不利之处。

当然,这肯定造成了普腾赛加汽车和其他非国产车之间的价格出现很大的差距,普腾赛加因此在当时攫取了80% 以上的市场比重。其他的汽车厂商(例如代理日产的陈唱和代理本田的Oriental )由于获得献议与普腾建立合伙关系,为普腾汽车制造部件和零件而得到补偿。

在1994年推出的第二国产车灵鹿也攫取了1300cc汽车市场相当大的比重,并且迅速崛起,在国产车领域扮演一个角色。

虽然国产车已经崛起,但是却产生了一个问题,马来西亚的汽车买主对汽车的选择限制因而被切断。

由于非国产车和进口部件的关税高昂,消费人如果选择购买本地组装的非国产汽车,就必须付出昂贵的费用;在实施准证制度后,各种进口款型的汽车价格更加昂贵。

表一是马来西亚和世界一些受欢迎的款型汽车的价格比较。

表 1:世界汽车价格比较

来源: 各厂商和汽车网站。
上述展示的价格根据2011年1月3日汇率和零售价格。
注:
1) 在中国销售的普腾 Gen 2 称为 Europestar L3。
2) 在马来西亚、泰国和台湾的本田 Jazz 装有 1.5 引擎。
3) 在新加坡、台湾和印度的福特 Fiesta 装有自动变速器。

表一显示了一些要点。在马来西亚市场销售的非国产品牌的汽车价格,自然比普腾或第二国产汽车昂贵很多。例如本田城市(1.5cc)的价格为85,480 令吉,比普腾 Gen2(1.6cc) 的价格高了 41%。

这些非国产品牌 (例如本田和福特) 的汽车在我国出售的价格当然也免不了比世界其他国家昂贵很多,反映出我国对这些汽车征收高昂税务,造成这些汽车在马来西亚市场的销售受到不利影响。

在这里,新加坡是一个例外。由于新加坡政府对每一辆汽车实施“拥车证”措施而导致该国汽车比其他国家的汽车价格昂贵很多。

令人感兴趣的另一个要点是,普腾和第二国产车公司却以比国内低的价格出口它们制造的汽车到其他国家。例如第二国产车Myvi 在英国的售价是36,792令吉,而在我国市场的售价是46,400令吉。这是否反映出,政府为普腾和第二国产车提供部分补贴的情况是我们必须说明的一个问题。

尽管非国产汽车的价格显著提高,为什么马来西亚汽车买主还是选择购买非国产品牌的汽车呢?他们会告诉你,这是因为国产品牌的汽车没有提供先进的安全功能。对于这个问题,我会在文章后面有更多的说明。

2.汽车 准证是在怎样的情况下出现,以及为什么出现

对于像汽车准证这样的制度,我国并没有一项明文规定的政策;不过,这项制度在70年代开始是鼓励土著参与二手车行业。这个举措和大部分人民的想法相违,因为这项措施的实施不只是保护普腾。今日,即使进口混合动力汽车或替代燃料汽车都需要准证,因为马来西亚目前没有混合动力汽车或替代燃料汽车的制造商。

汽车准证是一种发给销售完全不含本地部件的外国汽车供应商的执照。

汽车准证分为两种:开放式准证和特许经营准证。开放式准证允许持有人进口任何品牌的汽车,而特许经营准证规定持有人只能进口某个品牌汽车。

我国目前总共有76名开放式准证和37名特许经营准证的持有人。政府在2004年发出了51,559 张准证,而在2007年发出的准证总数则减少到 27,838 张。不过,在 2008 年,准证总数激增到 40,886 张,而在2009年再次减少到大约 20,000 张。

汽车准证制度在选择持有人方面并没有透明度的指南(按照定义,到底谁能够在牺牲消费人下,享有大量垄断经济利益的权利)。这项制度明显的引起了各方面的诸多批评。例如,在几个月前,联昌国际公司首席执行员拿督斯里纳兹在一项华人经济大会的午餐会上发表讲词时重申,汽车准证制度已经严重被滥用,应该立刻废除。

此外,由于这项准证制度完全没有竞争性,因此,它不符合世界贸易组织的规定。这项制度因而在许多国际贸易论坛上受到了激烈的批评。世界贸易组织三番四次呼吁政府废除这项制度,以便马来西亚出现一个更具竞争性和有效的汽车市场。

在这种情况下,政府于2006年誓言,在国家汽车政策下,汽车准证制度将在2010年12月31日之前逐步废除。

令人遗憾的是,后来在准证持有人不断及积极的游说下,国际贸工部在2009年提出了有关汽车准证的检讨报告。在检讨报告中,政府展延废除这项制度的期限;结果,开放式准证展延在2015年才终止,而特许经营准证在2020年才会逐步废除。

3. 马来西亚消费人的工业成本

马来西亚在过去5年的汽车销售量已经增加(参阅表二);从2006年的490,768 辆增加到2010 年的605,156 辆。汽车销量大增,主要原因是我国具有低利息、条件宽大的贷款便利,而且政府为汽油价格提供大量的补贴。

表二:马来西亚汽车销售量 (以辆计算).

来源: 马来西亚汽车公会

表二显示普腾和第二国产车是主要的业者。两者总共占据市场大约 55% 的比重。

不过,表二也清楚说明:虽然国产车和非国产车品牌的价格有很大的差距,但是,非国产车品牌(尤其是丰田和本田)依然能够取得大量的市场比重(45%)。

这是什么原因呢?

总的来说,马来西亚的汽车买主愿意付出较高的价格购买非国产车品牌,因为这类汽车有更先进的功能,与普腾及第二国产车相比,它们更加可靠,而且维修费较低。

表三:拥有和使用汽车的每年费用

来源: 维基百科
上述展示价格根据2011年1月3日汇率和本地燃料价格。

另外,由于政府为汽油价格提供大量补贴,在马来西亚道路上使用汽车还是相当实惠的。表三显示,马来西亚的RON95汽油每公升1令吉90仙,而印度和英国分别是3令吉05仙和5令吉32仙。

假设一辆汽车有5年的寿命,平均每个月消耗400公升汽油,拥有和使用一辆福特Fiesta每年的费用是23,098令吉,而普腾 Gen2 的费用是21,218令吉。以费用差异幅度不大来看,非国产车品牌能够攫取本地汽车市场相当大的比重,并不令人感到意外。

表三也说明,以全球为基础,在马来西亚拥有和使用非国产车品牌(例如本田或福特)的费用,和泰国、中国或印度的费用差不多一样。例如,在马来西亚拥有和使用一辆本田西域,每年的费用是32,116 令吉,而在印度的费用是33,705 令吉,在泰国是30,224 令吉。这是因为马来西亚对这些品牌汽车征收高昂的税务,已经被我国汽车使用者享有的更大汽油补贴所抵消。

4. 不能与世界趋势接轨

虽然政府多次进行探究,以便和一家世界汽车公司建立策略合伙关系,但是,国产车公司拒绝对进口汽车实施 10% 关税最高额,说明我国的汽车业和世界其他国家是多么的不接轨。

在国内长期实施高度保护措施下,我国的国产车厂商没有得到奖励,同时也没有要迫切进行革新,以便成为汽车工业的领跑者。

普腾成立至今已经25年,它仍然生产主要仿效其他厂商制造的款型的传统汽车。

即使是传统汽车,普腾制造的车辆在质量和安全方面,都不符合世界的标准。例如,很多人没有察觉到,内阁部长目前所使用的普腾制造的官方汽车,都没有装上气囊;幸好,这些官方车至少装上了安全带。

更重要的是,随着石油价格的暴涨,世界现在趋向于迅速发展和采用具备先进科技的电气化、混合动力以及替代燃料的车辆。

2010年,全世界总共售卖了超过4千万辆混合动力以及燃料替代的车辆。

在生产使用灵活燃料的车辆方面,巴西是领跑国。2010年,巴西售出了1千零60万辆这类的车辆,接着是美国,售卖了930万辆。在生产混合动力汽车方面,美国是世界的领跑国,它在2010年总共生产1千8百多万辆混合动力汽车,而日本排第二位,总共生产110万辆。

在发展天然石油气汽车方面,巴基斯坦领先世界所有的国家。2009年,巴基斯坦生产了240万辆这类汽车,接着是伊朗,共生产170万辆。

泰国和中国目前正在积极制造混合动力汽车。

在这方面,马来西亚完全不能和世界同步平行。

由于我国还没有组装或制造混合动力汽车,我国人民如果要购买这种汽车,就必须先获取准证才能进口。然而,政府实际上已经废除对所有 2,000cc 以下的混合动力汽车征收进口税。

此外,为了支持使用替代燃料的汽车,我国必须制定一项国家制度,以便供应充足的替代燃料(例如天然石油气)。对于电气化或混合动力汽车,我国就得制定一项制度,以方便这类汽车在大道上充电,而且让这些具备先进科技的电池得以进行维修。

新汽车准证并没有说明,为发展辅助基本部件的厂商制定策略或奖励。

总之,目前实施的准证制度不但成为了我国汽车车主的负担,而且也妨碍我国汽车业,和全球迈向发展和使用环保汽车的趋势接轨。

5. 向前迈进

经过实施30多年的保护措施之后,马来西亚政府现在必须采取果敢的步骤,对汽车工业进行改革;使这个行业转型为一个催化性工业,以促进国家的发展,就好像我国的电气与电子领域在上个世纪70年代所取得的进展一样。

政府已经宣布有意在2015年废除开放式准证,而在2020年废除特许经营准证。不过,正如我之前所说的一样,设定2015年和2020年为废除准证的期限,比原定的2010年,已经展期了。

让我国的汽车买主等到2015年和2020年才享有汽车市场完全开放的好处,对他们来说是一个巨大的负担,尤其是对找到第一份工作而需要购买第一辆汽车的年轻人而言。

也许,政府应该考虑提早在2015年撤销准证制度。此外,我国必须考虑到,全球制造的2千万辆传统汽车 的产量已经过剩,因此,政府也应该使它对汽车业的雄心降温。

汽车工业需要付出昂贵的研发开销,而很多国家在迈向新的汽车趋势方面,已经远远超越我国。如果没有进行革新以及同新趋势接轨,即使是巨大的汽车公司,例如福特和通用汽车公司都会失败。

毫无疑问的,政府为普腾和第二国产车公司制造的传统汽车提供20多年的保护后,我国如今不能够再为它们提供另外20年的保护,以期望它们生产具备先进科技的环保汽车。

我国应该以中国和泰国的成功作为借鉴,制定一项为外来直接投资商提供开放汽车工业的策略,并且鼓励世界最好的汽车厂商与本地厂商合作,进而使本地伙伴成为汽车市场的领跑者。

我国制定全球销售策略后,将能够崛起为新的主要供应链,尤其是为中国的庞大市场供应拥有先进科技的汽车部件。

我促请政府迅速废除进口混合动力汽车和替代燃料汽车所需要的准证,作为即刻进行的步骤。政府也应该为买主提供税务奖励(例如削减双重税务),鼓励他们使用这类汽车。

与此同时,政府应该逐步撤销对汽油价格提供的补贴,迫使传统汽车使用者面对燃料价格高涨的事实。

由于我国拥有庞大的天然气蕴藏量,政府也应该采取立即的步骤,为使用天然石油气的汽车制定一项国家天然石油气供应制度。这对促进燃料替代车辆的使用,是非常重要的。

推动马来西亚汽车行业转型,使它从依赖传统汽车转为生产环保汽车,以及撤销继续保护普腾和第二国产车的措施,而使我国拥有一个开放的汽车市场。这些举措才是首相为我国汽车车主以及广大民众提供的最受欢迎的礼物。

(完)

More...

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Malaysian Automobile Industry: Burden or Catalyst?

by Dr Fong Chan Onn

The cost of cars is always a hot topic of social discussions. Just last month, the International Trade and Industry (MITI) Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed had again to publicly reiterate that the number of Approved Permits (AP) for imported cars was still being kept at 10% of car sales, with 4% for franchise holders.

Why is the Government still maintaining the AP System? Why is there still a need to protect the industry players who have benefitted so much over the last 4 decades or so that the system has been in place? These and other issues have spurred me to pen this article.

Back in the 70’s, the automotive industry was seen as the forerunner industry for countries attempting to industrialize. The automobile contains hundreds of components, and was considered the ideal industry that can stimulate manufacturing activities based on the substitution of imported components (tires, pistons etc) with local parts.

Thus, it is no wonder that Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand pushed to develop this sector after seeing the successes it had in Japan and Korea. Honda, Mazda, Kia became brand names longed to be emulated by us.

In 1983 Tun Dr Mathathir Mohamad, the then Prime Minister, established Proton to build the national car in collaboration with Mitsubishi. And the legendary Proton Saga was rolled out in 1986 as the first model of our national car (NC). In 1993 Perodua was established and, in collaboration with Daihatsu, launched the Perodua Kancil as the second NC serving the 1300cc car segment.

The main objective of the automotive vision was to spin off local (particularly Bumiputra) suppliers, create job opportunities, upgrade the know-how of our workforce, and ultimately to create a local identity for the Malaysian automobile sector.

As there have been numerous articles written on the history of Proton and Perodua, I will not dwell into the subject. Rather I would like to take a more holistic approach to discuss this much-protected sector.

1. Past Challenges and Aspirations

The main challenge for Malaysia to build the national car was market size. In the early 1980s, the Malaysian market for passenger vehicles was about 80,000 units per year – slightly less than the minimum efficient size for automobile manufacture of 100,000 units per year.

Unfortunately, the mid-1980s also saw the world going into a deep recession. And the Malaysian automobile market was further worsened by the fragmentation of a large number of auto models and assemblers.

The Government remedied the shortfalls by using licensing procedures together with high tariffs for non-national car (NNC) models.

This, of course, resulted in substantial price differences between Proton Saga and other NNC models, enabling the Saga to capture over 80% of the market share then. The other car manufacturers (eg Tan Chong for Nissan and Oriental for Honda) were compensated by being offered partnerships with Proton for the manufacture of Proton components and parts.

The Perodua Kencil, launched in 1994, also captured a large share of the 1300cc car market, and quickly emerged to be part of the national automobile scene.

Notwithstanding the emergence of the NCs, the main issue, ironically, was a sever constraint on choices for Malaysian car buyers.

With high tariffs on NNC CKDs and imported components, consumers are penalized heavily if they choose to buy these (locally-assembled) NNC models; and with the AP system in place, the prices for the imported models are even higher.


Table 1 compares the prices of several popular brands of cars in Malaysia and the world.

Table 1: Comparison of Car Prices in the World
Source: Various manufacturers and automotive portal websites.
The above displayed values are based on the 3nd Jan 2011 exchange rate and retail prices.
Notes:
1) Proton Gen 2 is marketed as Europestar L3 in China.
2) Honda Jazz is fitted with 1.5-engine in Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan.
3) Ford Fiesta is fitted with automatic transmission in Singapore, Taiwan, and India.

Several important points emerged from Table 1. The prices of NNC brands, naturally, are substantially higher than that of Proton or Perodua in the Malaysian market. For example, the Honda City(1.5cc) priced at RM85,480 is 41% higher than Proton Gen2(1.6cc).

The prices of these NNC brands (such as Honda and Ford), of course, are also substantially higher in Malaysia than the rest of the world, reflecting the adverse impact of our high duties on these cars in the Malaysian market.

Singapore is the exception here. Its car prices are far higher than other countries due to the cost of the “quota permit” being imposed on each car.

Another interesting point is that Proton and Perodua are being exported to other countries at prices even lower that the home market. For example, the Perodua Myvi is being market in UK for RM36,792 compared to the home price of RM46,400. Whether this reflects export subsidy on the part of Proton and Perodua is an issue for us to reflect on.

Why would Malaysian car buyers choose NNC brands inspite of their substantially higher prices? They will tell you that it is because of the advanced safety features not available in NC brands. I will elaborate more on this issue later.

2. How APs Came About and Why

There is no written policy as such on the AP system; but it evolved in the 1970s initially to encourage Bumiputra participation in the used-car industry. Contrary to what most people think, it was not introduced merely to protect Proton. Today, even the imports of hybrid or alternative-fuel cars require APs as there are no hybrid or alternative-fuel car manufacturers in Malaysia.

An AP is a license issued to a vendor to sell foreign cars with no local content.

There are two categories namely, Open APs and Franchise APs. An Open AP allows the holder to import a car of any brand, whilst a Franchise AP ties the holder to a particular brand.

There are currently 76 Open APs and 37 Franchise AP holders. The total number of APs issued was 51,559 in 2004, decreasing to 27,838 in 2007. But in 2008 it spiked to 40,886 before being reduced again to about 20,000 in 2009.

The AP System, with no transparent guidelines on the selection of holders (who, by definition, enjoy substantial monopolistic economic gains at the expense of consumers), has obviously aroused a lot of criticisms. For example, several months ago, Dato Seri Nazir Razak (the CEO of CIMB) in his luncheon address to the Chinese Economic Congress, reiterated that the AP system has been severely abused and should be abolished immediately.

Further, because of the anti-competitive nature of the AP System it is deemed to be non-WTO compliance. Hence the AP System has also been severely criticized at many international trade forums. WTO has repeatedly urged the Government to abolish the system so that so that a more competitive and efficient automobile market can emerge in Malaysia.

It is under such a scenario that the Government pledged in 2006, under the National Automobile Policy (NAP), that the AP System will be phased out by 31 Dec 2010.

Unfortunately, subsequent intense lobbying by the AP holders resulted in a Review of the NAP in 2009 by MITI. Under the Review the Government postponed the phasing out datelines; the Open APs will now be terminated by 2015 and franchise APs will only be phased out by 2020.

3. Cost of Industry to Malaysian Consumer

Cars sales in Malaysia over the last 5 years have surged (see Table 2); increasing from 490,768 units in 2006 to 605,156 units in 2010. This surge has largely being facilitated by easy availability of credit at low interest rates, and a high level of subsidy on petrol prices.

Table 2. Malaysian Car Sales (in units).

Table 2 shows that Proton and Perodua are the main players. Together they command about 55% of the market share.

But the Table also shows the obvious; and that is despite the big price differences between NC and NNC brands, NNC brands (especially Toyota and Honda) have still managed to acquire a substantial share (at 45%) of the market.

Why is this so?

Generally, Malaysian car buyers are prepared to pay the initial higher prices for the NNC brands because of their more advanced features, resulting in better reliability and lower maintenance costs compared to Proton or Perodua.

Table 3: Annual Cost of Owning and Running a Car
Source: Wikipedia

The above displayed values are based on the 3nd Jan 2011 exchange rates and local fuel prices.

Further, because of the large subsidy on petrol prices, the cost of running a car on the road in Malaysia is relatively affordable. As Table 3 shows the price of one liter of RON95 is RM1.90 in Malaysia, compared to RM3.05 in India and RM5.32 in UK.

Assuming a 5-year life span for a car, and an average consumption of 400 liters per month, the cost of owning and running a Ford Fiesta is RM23,098/year compared to Proton Gen2’s RM21,218/year. At this range of minimal cost differences, it is not surprising that NNC brands can still command a sizeable share of the local automobile market.

Table 3 also shows that, on a global basis, the cost of owning and running a NNC (such as Honda or Ford) is about the same in Malaysia as in Thailand, China or India. For example, the cost of owning and running a Honda Civic for a year is RM32,116 in Malaysia compared to RM33,705 in India and RM30,224 in Thailand. This is because the higher taxes levied on these brands in Malaysia have been offset by the greater subsidies Malaysian car users enjoy at the pumps.

4. Disconnect with World Trends

The 10% ceiling on imported cars, and the fact that Proton has refused, despite repeated probing by the Government, to conclude a strategic partnership with a world automobile company demonstrate just how disconnected our car industry is with the rest of the world.

Under a regime of prolonged high domestic protection, our national car manufacturers have neither the incentives nor the urgency to innovate and be front-runners of the automobile industry.

After over 25 years since its formation, Proton is still manufacturing conventional cars based largely on replications of other manufacturers’ models.

Even in conventional cars, its makes are not up to world benchmarks in terms of quality and safety. For example, not many people realize that the official Proton cars currently used by Cabinet Ministers are not even equipped with air bags; mercifully, these official cars at least have safety belts!

More importantly, with surging oil prices, the world trend now is rapid development and utilization of advanced technology electric, hybrid or alternative-fuel vehicles.

In 2010, more than 40 million hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles have been sold worldwide.

Brazil is the leading nation in the production of flexible-fuel vehicles. In 2010 it sold 10.6 million units of such vehicles, followed by US with 9.3 million units. The U.S. is the world’s leader in term of hybrid cars; producing more than 1.8 million units of such cars in 2010, followed by Japan with 1.1 million units.

In the development of natural-gas cars Pakistan is a world leader. In 2009 it produced 2.4 million of such cars, followed by Iran with 1.7 million units.

Thailand and China are now aggressively manufacturing hybrid cars.

In Malaysia we are totally out-out-sync.

Because hybrid cars are still not been assembled or manufactured locally, a Malaysian consumer wanting to buy a hybrid will have to get an AP first before he can import the car. This is despite the fact that the Government has already abolish all levies on the import of these models below 2,000cc.

Further, to support the utilization of alternative-furl cars we need to develop a national system for the supply of such fuel (eg natural gas). For electric or hybrid cars we need to develop a system for the convenient electrical charging of the batteries on the highways, as well as repairs and maintenance of these advanced technology batteries.

The NAP has not specified strategies or incentives for the development of these supporting infrastructures.

In summary, the current protective AP System is not only a burden to Malaysian car owners. It also hinders the Malaysia automobile industry from being connected with the global trend towards the development and utilization of green cars

5. Moving Forward

After over three decades of protection, the Malaysian government must take bold steps to reform the automotive industry; to transform it into an open catalytic industry enhancing the development of the country, just like what the electrical and electronics (E&E) sector has done since the 1970s.

The Government has declared its intention to abolished Open AP by 2015 and Franchise AP by 2020. However, as pointed out earlier, even the 2015 and 2020 targets are already a postponement of the original target of 2010.

The argument for postponing the abolishment of AP was again to give the relevant automobile players time to adjust to the new reality.

I personally feel that Malaysian consumers have been paying far too much for the sustenance of the livelihood of these key players; including their recent outrageously lavish wedding banquets!

Requiring the Malaysian car buyers to wait until 2015 and 2020 for the sector to be completely open up is a huge burden for them, particularly for the youths with their first jobs and seeking to buy their first cars.

The Government should consider phasing out the entire AP System earlier say by 2015.

Further, considering that there is now a global excess manufacturing capacity of 20 million units of conventional cars, we should also be less ambitious with our automotive industry.

The sector requires huge expenditure on R&D, and many countries are already far ahead of us in the new automotive trends. Without innovation and connection to the new trends even giants like Fords and General Motors have failed.

Needless to say, after over 20 years of protection being accorded to Proton and Perodua in conventional cars, we cannot afford giving them another 20 years of further protection hoping that they will come up with advanced technology green cars.

Following upon the successful experience of China and Thailand, our strategy should be to open up the sector to FDIs, and encourage the best global automobile manufactures, in collaboration with local partners, to be the leaders in the market.

With their global marketing strategies, Malaysia can emerge to be a focal point of their new supply-chains particularly for the supply of components for advanced technology cars for the huge China market.

As immediate steps, I urge the Government to quickly abolish the AP requirement for the import of hybrid and alternative fuel cars. It should also accord tax incentives (such as double tax deduction) to buyers to utilize such vehicles.

At the same time subsidies on the petrol prices should be gradually removed, to compel conventional car users to adapt to the reality of high fuel prices.

Given our large reserves of natural gas, we should also take immediate steps to establish a national natural-gas supply system for natural-gas cars. This infrastructure is crucial for the mass utilization of this alternative fuel vehicle.

Transforming the Malaysian automobile industry away from our dependence on conventional cars towards green vehicles, as well as steering away from our continued protection of Proton and Perodua to an open automobile market, would be the most welcomed gifts that our much-cherished Prime Minister can bestow to Malaysian car users and the Malaysian public at large.

End//

More...

Sunday, July 25, 2010

The Electronics Industry: Can We Resuscitate the Golden Goose?

Dr Fong Chan Onn

Malaysia’s Link with Electronics


The uproar over the dramatic decline in Malaysian FDI for 2009 over the last few days has prompted me to pen this article to explain a major reason behind the fall in our 2009 FDI, and what we can do to reposition ourselves for rapid recovery.

Our love affair with electronics began in the early 1970s when Craig Barrett of Intel, who was scouting for a suitable location for his factory outside of US, landed in Penang. Dr (Tun) Lim Chong Eu, then Chief Minister of Penang, heard that he was coming and gave immediate instructions that the roads from Georgetown to Bayan Lepas be tarred by the following day, ahead of Barrett’s site visit.

Sure enough, the very next day the roads were all ready, as workers toiled all night for the site inspection. So impressed was the CEO of Intel to the responsiveness of the government, that he agreed without hesitation that Penang would be his first factory outside of US.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Very quickly, American electronics companies like Texas Instruments, Motorola, Seagate, Western Digital followed suit. The Germans like Osram and Siemens joined the fray, followed later by other Japanese giants like Panasonic and Matsushita.

The presence of these MNCs boosted jobs in Penang as well as the rest of the country, which was having very high unemployment rates of about 30% at that time. Malaysia was just recovering from the racial riots 1969; thus job creation was the top priority.

Regionally, Asia was also poor and unstable.

Thailand was encountering military coups. China was still recovering from the abuses of the Cultural Revolution. Vietnam was at war. Burma, Laos, and Cambodia were all nations plagued with internal conflicts. Both Indonesia and Philippines were still under dictatorships. The region was in a delicate situation.

Intel Penang remained its sole factory outside of US for nearly 30 years until the emergence of China and Eastern Europe. Malaysian electronics companies, like Unisem, LKT and MPI, supporting the MNCs also flourished.


Hundreds of other SMEs supplying uniforms, catering, packaging, logistics, transport, as well as numerous other professional engineering, financial and computing services have also benefitted from the billions spent in the economy.

Very soon, Malaysia became the number one semiconductor outsourcing and manufacturing hub in the world.

So successful was Malaysia that even Singapore initially trailed the Penang model.

Being a foot-loose industry, the electronics sector could be built up anywhere in the world with the necessary infrastructure.

But Malaysia, beginning with its initial lucky start in 1972, continued to remain the first choice of the electronics players (until late 1990s), because we remained hungry, tuned in to the needs of the industry, adjusted to the changing electronics waves’ needs and provided the needed incentives to attract them.



As shown in Diagram 1, in the 1970s with the lucky break of Intel coming to Penang, we became known and soon became the ideal base for electronics labour-intensive assembly activities because of our then comparatively good infrastructure.

In the 1980s, we attracted the Japanese and Korean MNCs (Matsushita at one time had more than ten plants) in a big way, and Malaysia became the major exporter of E&E equipment (e.g. air-conditioners, fans, and TVs). This was achieved through our very successful export-orientation drive, under which we provided generous tax incentives to the FDIs (which were soon replicated by other nations).

The 1990s was a period of electronics boom. Personal Computers (PC) and first generation hand-phones became the fads, generating a huge demand for PC products such as disc drives, hard discs, computer ROMs and RAMs and hand-phone circuit boards.

Because we remained hungry and kept our ears to the ground we anticipated the beginning of this new wave. In 1988, (Tun) Dr Mahathir, then Prime Minister, announced the removal of all Bumiputera and local equity conditions for FDI coming in (for export operations) in New York. Companies such as Dell, Motorola, and the Taiwanese Acer invested in us in a big way, and soon we became a major exporter of PC components and Motorola hand-phones.



By 2000 as shown in Diagram 2, the country’s total export value expanded to RM337 billion with Electrical and Electronics (E&E) products contributing up to RM 230 billion, or 68.2% of total exports!

Missing the Electronics Linkage since 2000

In late 1990s, we anticipated and even prepared for the next new wave of boom through the creation of the Multi-Media Super Corridor (MSC) in 1996 and later Cyberjaya.

However the 1997 financial crisis required Malaysia to impose capital controls. This protected the survival of the existing electronics firms in the country through the fixed low exchange rate that kept our E&E products competitive, however this discouraged the inflow of FDIs in the new wave electronics activities.

Further the MSC also imposed many locational requirements on potential investors, which further hindered their coming in.

Inadvertently, we let success got into us, became overconfident, and did not follow up on the many suggestions and requests of the world’s electronics leaders such as Bill Gates and Stan Shih who attended our International Advisor’s Conferences at Cyberjaya hosted by the government.

In the meantime, countries such as China, Singapore, Taiwan and Korea (which recovered faster than Malaysia from the crisis) replicated our plans and became the main beneficiaries of the internet and smart-phone booms over the first decade of the new century.

As shown in Diagram 1, over the period 2000-2010, Malaysia was essentially de-linked from the new wave of electronics boom as the E&E companies in Malaysia did not established significant linkages to new technological products such as iPod, iPhone and Blackberry. By 2009, although the country’s total export increased to RM 553 billion, that of E&E products remained essentially stagnant at RM 246 billion, forming only 44.5% of total exports (see Diagram 2).



In particular, as shown in Diagram 3, the years 2008 and 2009 were actually the end of the last electronics cycle down-turn, with an over 30% reduction in the spending of all major semiconductor sub-sectors in 2008 and an over 40% decline in 2009.

This huge reductions in semiconductor spending over 2008-09 severely affected FDI inflow into Malaysia in 2009 (since our industrial base is still electronics-dominated), and is a major reason accounting for the low inflow of only US$ 1.381 billion in FDI into the country for the year.

China, in particular, since 2000 introduced new incentives in the form of grants and cheap land and quickly emerged as the base for the design and manufacture of the Apple iPods, iPhones, and now the iPads; and is also rapidly emerging as the major centre of photovoltaics manufacture. Taiwan, of course, became a major exporter of laptops and accessories, while Korea emerged to be the world’s top player in LCDs and flat-screen TVs. Singapore also participated actively in and benefitted from the new bio-medical technology wave with many new FDIs in the area of electronics bio-medical technology.

What can we do to Recover?


It has been widely forecasted (see Diagram 3) that 2010 will be the beginning of a new up-turn in the electronics cycle. Gartner Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut has estimated that spending in all the major semiconductor sub-sectors will increase by over 70% in 2010 alone! This uptrend will continue beyond 2012, with annual increases in spending of about 20%.

Interview with many of the electronics firms operating in Malaysia indicate that they are also experiencing significant improvements in theirs’ export orders for 2010.

Many of them are planning to open new operating lines, and are urgently seeking approvals from the relevant agencies to bring in thousands of required skilled workers and hundreds of skilled engineers. Their applications have so far been met with slow response from the immigration department.

The government should intervene urgently and allowed these firms to bring in the necessary workers (skilled and unskilled) for a limited time frame so that we can immediately ride on the new up-turn in the electronics cycle. This will help to improve our investment environment and generate new FDIs.

Besides capturing on the up-turn in the electronics cycle, we should also quickly steer our policies and incentives towards attracting more electronics investment in the new growth areas of solar energy, tablet computers, smart-phones, iPads, as well as solid state lighting (LEDs) and medical bio-technologies.

MIDA should engage the major players in this area (especially the Cupertino-based Apple) and convince them that what China can offer we can do better.

In a nutshell, we have to recapture the spirits of our pioneering hungry days of the early 1970s. We have to go the extra mile to offer investors terms better than our competitors so that they can set up bases here.

SunPower of San Jose is already building a US$ 700 million solar panel manufacturing plant in Malacca in my constituency of Alor Gajah, and B. Braun Melsungen from Germany is planning a US$ 600 million medical manufacturing plant in Penang.



But these are only small catches in the wide spectrum of new wave electronics investment.

As shown in Diagram 4, the iPhone global market will expand from 33.8 million units in 2010 to 80 million units by 2012, a more than two-fold increase over the next two years. Similarly the global tablet computer market will grow from 12.9 million units in 2010 to 50.4 million units by 2012, an almost four-fold increase over the next two years!

We have to offer incentives (in the form of grants and venture capital, as well as allowing the unlimited inflow of skilled workers, engineers, and scientists) so that we can integrate Malaysia into the supply-chain of Apple, Google, Microsoft, as well as the major solar energy (SunPower and Pasadena’s eSolar) and bio-technology (such as San Diego’s Scripps Research Institute and the Salk Institute) manufacturers; just like the days of the early 1990s when Motorola was world’s dominant hand-phone supplier and their phones were designed and manufactured in Malaysia.

Going forward, MIDA will have to remain alert; alert to the next waves of emerging industries in electronics, bio and nano-technology.

While we try to diversify away from electronics to other areas such as oil and gas, petro-chemicals and new materials, we must not forget that our industrial root is in electronics.

We have spent the last 40 years building up a large electronics base, with many local semiconductor manufacturers, as well as numerous SMEs which have achieved world recognition.

The sector has become our golden goose. The goose is now breathing slowing. We have to resuscitate it so that Malaysia can continue to progress rapidly.

We should send special teams of Malaysian scientists and engineers out to the South California Oakland-San Diego axis along Route 101, as well as to the Boston and Seattle areas to act as our early informants on the new emerging electronics trends. Nano, electronics, solar and bio-tech products that will come out in the market 3 years from now are already being tested and discussed in the R&D centers in these areas. By being familiar with them we can then design incentives to attract these relevant manufacturers to Malaysia.

By keeping our ears to the ground, by being open and liberal to the needs of the new-wave entrepreneurs, and by not forgetting our electronics roots (but instead foster and encourage the growth of these roots), we would be able to reconnect ourselves to the new trends in the electronics industry and ride the new up-turn of the coming wave.

Then we could see a new revival in our FDI figures, hopefully in the not too distant future.


//End.

More...

电子业:我们可以使下蛋的金鹅起死回生吗?

冯镇安博士

大马与电子业的链接

过去几天来,有人在怒吼,指大马于2009年的外来直接投资显著下滑。这促使我提起笔写下了这篇文章,以解释我国在2009年的外来直接投资下降的主要原因,以及我们应该如何重新定位,以迅速恢复原有的情况。

我国和电子业发生链接,是始于上个世纪的70年代初期,当时英特尔公司的贝瑞尔要在美国以外的地区为这家公司物色理想的地点,以便设厂而抵达槟城。当时的首席部长敦林苍佑医生听到他要来实地考察的消息,立刻训令有关当局,隔天就在乔治市到峇六拜之间的所有公路铺上泊油。

果然,在工人通宵达旦的工作下,所有的公路在第二天都铺上了泊油。因此,英特尔公司的首席执行员对政府的反应,留下了深刻的印象,并毫不犹疑的同意,在槟城设立该公司在美国以外的第一座工厂。

其余的,正如人们所说,都成为历史了。

迅速的,美国的许多电子公司,好比得克萨斯仪器公司(Texas Instruments)、摩多罗拉(Motorola)、美国希捷硬件生产公司(Seagate)和西部数据硬盘厂商(Western Digital)先后前来设厂。此外,德国公司,例如欧司朗公司(Osram)和西门子公司(Siemens)也纷纷前来设厂。过后,日本的巨大电器公司松下(Panasonic and Matsushita)更不落人后前来设厂。

由于这些跨国公司在槟城设厂,无形中为该州以及我国其他地区的人民提供了许多的就业机会。当年,我国的失业率非常严重,高达大约 30% ,因为我国当时才经历1969年种族骚乱事件,而正在力求复苏,因此,政府的当前急务是制造工作机会。

在地区方面,当时的整个亚洲也贫穷和不稳定。

泰国不时面对军事政变的问题。中国当时仍然在致力于摆脱文化大革命的滥权。越南战争还在持续着。缅甸、寮国和柬埔寨都陷入内部冲突中。印尼和菲律宾当时仍然由独裁者统治。整个地区 处于了微妙的局势。

槟城英特尔公司是英特尔在美国以外的唯一工厂,这种情况持续了将近30年,直到中国和东欧崛起为止。辅助这些跨国公司的大马电子公司,例如Unisem, LKT 和 MPI 也蓬勃成长。

其他数以百计的中小型企业,也由于供应 制服、膳食、包装、物流、运输以及其他一些专业工程、金融和计算服务,而从经济所消费的数以亿计元中获得利益。

很快的,大马崛起成为了世界首要的半导体外包以及制造中心。

大马的成功,甚至使得在初期比较落后的新加坡也以槟城作为典范。

由于电子业是一种没有导向的工业,只要拥有必要的基本设施,它可以在世界任何地区设立。

不过,幸运的是,大马在1972年就开始设立电子业,而且一直维持为首要电子业业者的地位(直到90年代末期),因为我国继续有所需要,不时调整应对这个行业的需求,适应电子业变化浪潮的需要,以及提供必要的奖掖去吸引这个行业。



图一显示,在上个世纪70年代,幸运的是,英特尔在槟城取得突破,使我国闻名于世,而且很快的成为电子业劳工密集装配活动的理想基地,因为我国当时拥有具有竞争力和良好的基本建设。

在上个世纪80年代,我国吸引了日本和韩国的跨国公司前来我国进行大规模投资(松下公司曾经有一个时期在我国拥有10座工厂),而马来西亚成为了主要的电子与电气设备(例如冷气机、电风扇和电视机)出口国。这是我国致力于推动以出口为导向的成果,此外,我国为外来直接投资公司提供慷慨的税务奖掖(其他国家很快的也仿效我国的做法)。

上个世纪90年代是电子业的蓬勃时期。那个时候,个人电脑和第一代的手机成为了时尚,造成个人电脑的产品,例如光盘驱动器、硬件、电脑的ROM和存储器,以及手机电路板都有庞大的需求。

由于我国一直保持警惕,所以期待着新浪潮的开始。1988 年,当时的首相马哈迪在纽约宣布,对前来我国开展出口业务的外来直接投资公司,撤销一切有关土著和本地股权的条件。许多公司,好比戴尔(Dell)、摩多罗拉 和台湾的宏基纷纷前来我国进行大量的投资,而且它们很快地成为了个人电脑部件和摩多罗拉手机的主要出口商。



图2指出,到了2000 年,我国的出口总值增加到3千370亿令吉,其中电子和电气产品的出口总值达到2千3百亿令吉,占出口总额的 68.2% !

从2000年起就失去电子业的链接

90年代末期,我国还是有所期待,甚至准备迎接下一个蓬勃的新浪潮,因此,我国在1996年设立了多媒体超级走廊,紧接着,再建立塞伯再也电子城。

然而,1997年的金融风暴迫使马来西亚采取资金管制措施。我国通过实行偏低的汇率固定措施,得以使现有的电子公司继续生存,同时电子与电气产品也保住竞争力。不过,这却阻碍了外来投资的流入,而无法制造新的电子活动浪潮。

与此同时,多媒体超级走廊也对具有潜力的投资者,实施许多区位条件和要求,进一步造成投资者对我国裹足不前,不愿意前来投资。

后来,我国因电子业的成功而变得傲慢,因此,我国信心满满,而没有听取世界电子业领袖,例如 贝尔盖茨和施振荣在我国政府于赛城主办的国际咨询会议上所提出的建议和要求。

另一方面,从金融风暴中复苏得比我国还快的中国、新加坡、台湾以及韩国等国家和地区,仿效我国落实的计划,而成为了在新世纪首10年互联网和精明电话蓬勃成长的主要受益国。

图1显示,在 2000年到2010年期间, 马来西亚根本上已经和电子业的蓬勃新浪潮脱离了链接,因为设在我国的电子和电气公司,并没有和新的科技产品,如iPod, iPhone 和黑莓(Blackberry)手机建立显著的链接。 到了2009年,虽然马来西亚的出口总值增加到5千530亿令吉,但是,电子与电气产品的生产基本上已经停滞,出口总值缩减到2千460亿令吉,只占出口总值的44.5%(见图2)。



图3 特别显示出,2008 和2009 年实际上是最后电子产品周期向下转的结束,在2008年,所有主要半导体次领域的资本开销过度缩减30%,而2009年过度减少40%。

半导体在2008和2009年的开销大幅削减,在2009年严重影响了我国外来直接投资的流入(因为我国的工业基础依然是受到电子业支配),而且也是造成在这一年只有13亿8千1百万美元的偏低外来直接投资流入我国的主要原因。

自2000年以来,由于一些国家,尤其是中国提供补助金和廉宜土地等新的奖掖,因此,中国迅速崛起为苹果的产品iPods, iPhones,以及现在推出的 iPads 的设计和制造基地,同时也迅速崛起为主要的光伏制造中心。当然,台湾也成为了手提电脑和电脑附件的主要出口地区,而韩国崛起为世界首要的液晶显示器和纯平电视机行业的业者。此外,新加坡也积极参与,并且从新的生物医药科技浪潮中受惠,因为它在电子生物医药科技领域中吸引了许多的新外来直接投资。

我国应该怎样做才能复苏?

有关方面广泛预测(见图3), 2010 年将是电子产品周期好转的开始。康涅狄格州斯坦福的高德纳咨询公司估计,光是在2010年,所有主要的半导体次领域的开销,将增加超过70%! 这种好转的趋势将持续到2012年以后,而且开销平均每年增加大约20%。

一项对我国经营的许多电子公司进行的访问结果显示,它们在2010年获得的出口订单有了显著的改善。其中许多电子公司正在计划开设新的生产线,同时迫切寻求相关机构的批准,以便把数以千计的熟练工人和数以百计工程师带进我国。到目前为止,他们的申请还在面对移民局的缓慢回应。

政府的当前急务是进行介入,允许这些公司在有限度的框架内带进必要的工人(熟练和非熟练),以便我国可以立刻抓紧电子产品周期好转的新浪潮。这将有助于改善我国的投资环境,进而吸引新的外来直接投资。

我国除了攫取电子产品周期好转的机会之外,也应该迅速调整我国的政策和奖掖,以吸引更多电子投资者在我国的新成长领域,包括太阳能、平板电脑、精明电话、, iPads ,固态照明(LEDs) 以及医药生物科技领域进行投资。

马来西亚工业发展局应该接触这个领域的主要业者(尤其是总部设在加利福尼亚州库比提诺的苹果公司),令他们相信,中国可以为他们提供优惠,马来西亚也可以为他们提供更好的优待。

总而言之,马来西亚必须重夺我国在上个世纪70年代有的创业饥饿与精神。在这方面,我国必须作出更大的努力,为投资者提供比我国的竞争者给以的更好的条件,以便他们可以在我国设立基地。

总部设在美国圣何塞的太阳能公司,已经在我的国会选区,也就是马六甲亚罗牙也建立了一座耗资7亿美元的太阳能电池板制造厂,而德国的贝朗梅桑根公司正计划在槟城建立一座耗资6亿美元的医药制造厂。



不过,在广泛的电子业投资中,这只不过是小收获。

图4显示, iPhone 在全球市场的销量,将从2010 年的3千380万台,增加到2012年的8千万台,在今后2年内增加两倍多。同样的,全球平板电脑的市场将从2010年的1千290万台,增长到2012年的5千零40万台,在今后两年内增加将近4倍!

我国必须提供奖掖(以补助金和企业资金,以及无限制允许熟练劳工,工程师和科学工作者进入我国的方式),这样,大马才能加入苹果、谷歌、微软和主要的太阳能公司(圣何塞太阳能公司和地处加州帕萨迪纳的太阳能电力公司),以及生物科技(例如圣地亚哥的斯克里普斯研究所和索尔克研究所)厂商的供应链,就好像在90年代初期,世界著名手机供应商 - 摩多罗拉的手机在我国设计和生产的年代一样。

放眼未来,马来西亚工业发展局必须保持警惕;也就是对电子业今后崛起的行业、生物和纳米科技的浪潮提高警惕。

虽然我国想方设法使工业多元化,要摒弃电子业,而改为发展其他领域,例如石油与天然气工业、石油化学和新原料,但是,我们必须记得,我国的工业根源来自电子业。

我国在过去40年来建立了庞大的电子基地,使得许多本地半导体制造商,以及一些中小型企业受到了世界的承认。电子业成为了我国的会下蛋金鹅。这只金鹅的呼吸现在逐渐缓慢下来,我们必须使它振作起来,这样,我国才能继续取得迅速的进展。

我国应该派遣大马科学工作者和工程师组成的队伍,前往美国南加里福尼亚州101号公路沿途的奥克兰-圣地亚哥轴心,同时也到波士顿和西雅图地区,向当地的业者传达有关我国崛起的电子业的趋势和资讯。

将在3年内推出市场的纳米、电子、太阳能和生物科技产品,已经在这些地区的科研中心进行了试验和广泛讨论。有鉴于此,我国现在就可以着手设计足以吸引相关厂商前来我国进行投资的奖掖。

只要我国继续保持警惕,采取开放和自由的政策,应付新一波企业人士的需求,以及不要忘记我国电子业的根 (反而必须促进和推动这些根的成长),我国将能够和电子业的新趋势重新链接,进而攫取新浪潮的好转的契机。

这样一来,我国要看到外来直接投资数据的回升,相信是指日可待的。

More...

Monday, June 21, 2010

Is Petronas on The Right Track?

By Dr Fong Chan Onn

Many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. So what is Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations, and how well are we managing our oil revenue?

In 1973, OPEC unexpectedly imposed a six month embargo on oil supplies, inducing the first global oil shock. Malaysia’s response to that was the incorporation of Petronas as the Malaysian oil corporation. The timing seemed right given that in 1971, the price of oil was just US$ 1.50 but by 1974, it was already averaging US$ 12 per barrel making it viable for Petronas to extract oil from our off-shore reserves.

From 1974 till 2000, oil prices hovered between USD$ 20 to USD$ 30 per barrel. At these price levels, government subsidies for oil then was not an issue; nor was there much of a debate regarding Petronas and the management of Malaysia’s oil reserves until 1997, when Petronas money was used to build the Twin Towers and Putrajaya in-spite of the onset of Asian Financial Crisis.

Petronas came under scrutiny again in the 2007 when oil prices ballooned to USD$ 140 per barrel. In parliamentary debates questions were being asked about the windfall profits that were being made, and how these profits were being managed and spent. At the same time there was also public demand for transparency and accountability of Petronas.

Once again the recent change in the leadership of Petronas has sparked off debates on the company’s operations and reporting; additionally the question of sustainability of its contributions to government revenues was also widely discussed.

True, many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. Perhaps, now is a good time to explore Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil producing nations, as well as the road ahead of us in the management of our oil revenue.

1. Did we suffer Dutch Disease?

Some nations upon the discovery of a rich natural resource such as petroleum have experienced the Dutch Disease that is their economy shrinking instead of expanding. This is because the discovery has led to an automatic boom in the export revenue and consequent appreciation of its exchange rate; which then caused the subsequent non-competitiveness of its non-oil sector, particularly its manufacturing sector. The experience of Netherlands in 1959 after the discovery of large natural gas fields only to see the rest of its economy shrinking has led to the term “Dutch Disease”.

I will argue that Malaysia did not experience Dutch Disease since 1974, for reasons that:

a) A single-minded pursuit of an export-oriented industrialization policy since the 1970s, have seen the manufacturing sector grew from RM36.5 billion in 1987 to RM 491.9 billion by 2008. In fact, it was during this period that Malaysia emerged to be the world largest exporter of Electrical and Electronics (E&E) appliances with its export value growing from RM 11 billion in 1987 to RM 277.3 billion in 2008. Similarly, the service sector was not impinged by the presence of oil reserves, growing from RM36.7 billion in 1987 to RM334.6 billion by 2008.

b) And as a consequences of a deliberate drive to push exports up, the Ringgit was maintained at about RM2.20 to RM 2.70 to the US$ since the1970s, until Malaysia was hit by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 when the currency was then pegged at RM 3.80 per US$. In fact the Ringgit exchange rate has also declined since 1974 vis-à-vis other currencies; Japanese Yen from RM 0.80 per 100 Yen in 1974 to RM 3.77 per 100 Yen, Singapore Dollar from parity in 1980 to now RM 2.43 per S$.

c) In addition, recognizing the limits of Malaysia’s petroleum reserves, there was the deliberate national policy of curtailing our oil output to about 600,000 barrels per day, in order to extend the lifespan of our oil production. The policy has been strictly adhered to by Petronas even during period of peak oil prices in 2007 and 2008.

2. Petronas’s Report Card

Notwithstanding the absence of Dutch Disease symptoms, have we really made optimum use of our oil revenue? To answer this question let us examines the record of Petronas’s contribution to the nation.

3. Role in National Development

Over the period 1974-1990, Petronas was focused on building up the company. It expanded into downstream activities firstly with a urea plant in Sarawak in 1976. Next it ventured into direct exploration and production in 1978. Then it went on to build the Kerteh and Malacca refineries in 1983 signaling its foray into refining and distribution.

As Malaysia was also keen to be involved in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), Petronas bought up five tankers through its subsidiary, MISC. And as part of the gasification policy of the Peninsular, the Peninsular Gas Utilization Pipeline (PGU) was built with its first phase completed by 1985 at an estimated cost of RM 720 million. The PGU now runs from Terengganu to Songhkla, Thailand. The PGU was not only crucial to the development of a domestic gas industry but it helped transformed Malaysia to become the 3rd largest LNG producer in the world.

An International Corporation

Given Malaysia’s limited oil reserves, Petronas knew that for its long term survival requires it has to extend beyond the shores of Malaysia. It made crucial discovery in Vietnam in 1994, and later in Cambodia, China, and Algeria. Today, Petronas operates in at least 30 different countries; has more than 100 subsidiaries and owns a fleet of more than 100 tankers and ships through MISC. Its production from its oversea ventures now makes up almost half of it total overall oil and gas production.

Further, because of Petronas’s large financial reserves and sound independent management, it is well respected internationally. In 2008 it ranked as the 8th best profits making company, and the 5th in the Petroleum industry. Its bond issues are always eagerly subscribed at A1 levels; thus acting as a surrogate Malaysia Sovereign Bond. This thus enables the nation to borrow at low interest rates from the financial global market for its development progress. For comparison, Thailand’s sovereign rating is at BBB, Indonesia at BB+ and Singapore AAA.

As a Contributor to Government Expenditure

Petronas started contributing to the government revenue in 1976 with a sum of RM 300 million rising to RM 2 billion by 1981. Due to increasing oil prices, by 2005 it was able to provide RM 32.1 billion (56.5% of net profits) to government revenue, increasing to RM 74 billion (78.9% of net profits) in 2009, which formed about 45% of government revenue for the year. Since its incorporation, Petronas has paid RM 471 billion to government, in addition to bearing a cumulative subsidy of RM 97 billion under the national gas utilization plan.

As the Controversial White Knight

The Petronas as an off-budget agency directly under the Prime Minister is not without controversy. Its large reserves made it a tempting target for bail-outs. It was asked to bail out Bank Bumiputera in 1985 with an injection of RM 2.5 billion, when the Bank collapsed under the weight of loans to the Hong Kong Carrion Property Group. And again it was directed to bail out the same bank at RM 1 billion in 1991. When Bank Bumiputera collapsed for the third time in 1997, was Petronas again asked to rescue? Only the fly at Tan Sri Merican’s (then CEO) office at that time would know. Suffice to say Bank Bumiputera now is part of CIMB. Petronas also bailed out Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (KPB), through MISC, which suffered RM 2 billion losses during the 1997 Financial Crisis. This, of course, was a subject of much political debate then.

Petronas’s Mega Projects

At the peak of Asian Financial Crisis, Petronas went ahead and completed the Petronas Twin Tower (RM6 billion) and Putrajaya (RM22 billion). At that time it was subjected to much ridicules. There were jokes that “we could sell off one tower to Brunei to get some cash…” etc.

With the benefit of hindsight, however, are these decisions wrong?

The presence of the Twin Tower has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city; and KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city. Similarly, although Putrajaya is still a quiet place, but its completion contributed to the rise of prosperous townships stretching from Kajang, Puchong, and Subang to Petaling Jaya.

Nevertheless, one may still ask – is it really Petronas’s core business to undertake mega infrastructure projects on its own? Is it not going beyond its mission (as the agency in charge of the nation’s petroleum reserves) to venture into activities that it is not an expert in? By spending RM544 million in building the six-star Prince Court Medical Centre, is it not really stretching itself way beyond its border?

Absence of a Vibrant Oil and Gas Sub-sector.

With Petronas’s emergence as an international oil company, there seem to be a glaring missing link; and that is its failure to nurture a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector in the country. The oil and gas sub-sector is barely a key driver of the Malaysian economy. In fact, the key leading sector that has primarily driven the Malaysian economy over the last three decades has been the E&E industries, which now contribute to over 30% of our exports in the country.

Malaysia is known for being a premier E&E hub for Asia but, not as an oil and gas hub. There are only about 60 companies listed on Bursa that is related to oil and gas activities, which is equivalent to the number listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. And Singapore is not even an oil producing nation!

The wealth of our national oil resource has not filtered down to the economy, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sub-sector that should be the backbone of any growing economy. No doubt the development of downstream activities such as polypropylene, fertilizers and other chemicals are present and substantial. However, an absence of a significant value chain of oil and gas suppliers, including supporting industries like catering, basic raw materials, tooling and equipment, uniforms, packaging and so forth.

As an oil producing nation, there is no significant Malaysian oil and gas talent pool. There are only a handful of Malaysians involved in technical support in the oil and gas sector such as welders, toolers, and riggers.

The bidding process by Petronas has been structured in a way that stifles local SME growth in this sector. The Bumiputra requirements, depending on the size and nature of the contract, can vary from 30 percent to as high as 70 percent. Oil and gas license are excruciatingly difficult to acquire and the requirements are stringent to a point of exclusion. It has also been long felt that the bidding process is not transparent and favored the foreign players more than the non-Bumiputra players. Petronas contracts signed with the foreign players far outnumber those with local companies.

4. A Comparison with Some Other Oil Producing Nations

How does Petronas’s record and our management of the oil revenue compare with other countries?

I have chosen five other models namely Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Alaska and Norway; looking at how each country has scored in the management of their oil reserves. While it may be arbitrary but it helps give us some indication beyond our own parochial, sometimes prejudiced view of ourselves.

Nigeria

Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa and the tenth largest producer of crude oil in the world. In 2005, total Nigerian oil production averaged 2.6 million barrel per day. The Nigerian economy is almost totally dependent on the oil sector; it makes up 95 percent of export revenues, 76 percent of government revenues, and accounts for about 30 percent of GDP. Nigeria was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s. But the blatant abuse of petrol power (coupled with its record of ethnic conflicts) has pitifully regressed Nigeria to the rank of the 25 poorest countries by 2000. Although the situation in Nigeria has improved over the last few years, the amount of human suffering that has beseeched the men, women and children due to mismanagement, and greed leading to violence against its own people, is unspeakable.

Venezuela

The oil and gas sector constitutes a third of the nation’s GDP, around 80% of the nation’s export and more than half of government's revenue. It is the ninth largest oil producer in the world. Oil revenue is central to Venezuelan politics, giving rise to a rent-seeking culture and an entrenched patronage system. Due to the volatility of oil prices, the Venezuelan economy goes through boom and bust cycles, along with it a “yo-yo” cycle of government spending. Despite Venezuela’s estimated $600 billion in oil exports since the early 1970s, real per capita income fell by 15 percent between 1973 and 1998. Its GDP has been declining on an average of 2.2% from 1985 to 2000. Due to its huge production value, Venezuelans have no incentive to look elsewhere for diversification. Today, the Venezuelan economy continues to be plagued with structural problems, and is ever more dependent on its oil reserves.

Indonesia

Pertamina was set up in 1968, during a time when foreign companies mostly dominated the oil industry. Its oil output then increased from 500,000 barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day in 1974, contributing up to 15% of Indonesia's GDP then. By 1974, it a huge company to be reckoned with, with its own drilling equipment, a chain of gasoline filling stations, and a fleet of about fifty five tankers. It had non–oil assets as well; with ownership of hotels, tourism complex, automobile distributorship, first class hospitals, television studios, insurance companies, and the US$ 2.5 billion Krakatau Steel mill.

Unfortunately Pertamina fell into mismanagement and abuse and collapsed as an oil company in 1975.

In the early 1980s the Indonesian oil and gas industry underwent extensive reforms. One key aspect of the reforms is the revamp of Pertamina through the establishment of independence; with authorities remove from regulators to agencies. The oil and gas industry was also liberalized, which resulted in the ending of oil and gas monopolies, and this improved production efficiency and profits. Through these reforms the Indonesian government managed to revitalize not only the oil sector but also the non-oil sectors, such as manufacturing, and improved the livelihood of its people with aggressive rates of economic growth.

Alaska

Petroleum extraction constitutes more than 80% of the state’s revenue. Alaska is very concerned about government expenditures being overly dependent on oil, as well as the impact of price volatility on the state economy. In 1976, an Act was passed requiring 25% of the government's oil royalty to be deposited into Alaskan Permanent Fund.

As at 2007, the fund stood at US$ 33 billion and about half of the year’s dividend income was distributed to all Alaskans as cash payouts.

The net effect of the Alaska Permanent Fund is that it helps to stabilize the cash flow for the state, and also improve the income of its people, especially those in the rural areas. The argument being that since Alaska is a poor state, the annual cash payments, given out equally to all residents (rich and poor), would be re-circulated into the economy spurring trade and creating job

Norway

In the 1960s, Norway’s gross domestic product per capita was lower than that of Sweden and Denmark. By the year 2000, the situation has reversed with Norway in the lead, due to the discovery of oil off the Norwegian coast and the establishment of the national oil company, Statoil. Currently, oil and gas industry is a very important component of the Norwegian economy, producing 3 million barrels of oil per day. With a population of 4.8 million, this works out to be 0.63 barrels of oil per day per Norwegian!

Norwegians were quick to learn from the Dutch that its resources had to be managed in a sustainable manner. In 1990, A Norwegian Petroleum fund was established with the main aim of acting as a buffer to smoothen oil price fluctuations, and stabilizing the exchange rate to avoid the dreaded Dutch Disease. As Norway has an aging population, the purpose of the Fund is also meant to help address the future needs of the country.

As at the end of 2001, the size of the fund (at US$ 400 billion) was equivalent to 45% of its GDP; and this fund is invested abroad to avoid overheating the Norwegian economy. Its success is due to the strict guidelines for the Fund's operations for which the authority goes back to the Parliament. Any transfer to and from the funds needs Parliamentary approval. The government is also required to report to Parliament on the Fund's status - three times a year.

More...

Time to Safeguard Oil Revenue

By Dr Fong Chan Onn

Malaysia is at a critical crossroads – we could plunge into an economic trench or succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labour. In part two this week, Sunday Star looks at a new model of management of our oil revenue which should be implemented.

How do we compare with the above five oil producing countries, in terms and management of the oil revenue and its spending? I venture to argue while we certainly have not done too badly, we can still do better, in fact much better.

On the macro policy side it is clear that, instead of using our oil revenue to encourage high income generation activities in the last 1990s, we have continued to rely on labor-intensive manufacturing. Instead of restructuring wage policies, price controls, and subsidies (which cause distortions to the economy) we have continued to rely on these traditional policies resulting in oil subsidies constituting 30% of government operating expenses in 2008.

With as much as 45% of the government revenue coming from oil, and knowing that Petronas has cash reserves of RM 121.2 billion in 2009, government policy makers find it difficult to breakout from this easy source of income. We become too comfortable to think of innovative ways of finding new sources of growth compared with countries with no natural resources. We have also refrained from making bullet-biting policies, and stick to implementing the tough decisions that are needed to restructure the economy.

This dependency syndrome on easy oil revenue cannot be allowed to continue.

This is because, due our failure to reform the economy and the growing competitiveness of other Asian countries, our manufacturing sector growth rates have been falling since 2004, from 17% to 8% in 2008 (see Chart 1). The service sector similarly has also experienced falling growth rates, from 14% in 2004 to 11% in 2008 (see Chart 2).


FDI has also fallen 72.9% from US$ 12.9 billion in 2008 to US$ 3.6 billion in 2009. Declining manufacturing and services sector growth rates, coupled with falling FDIs, are strong symptoms of the on-set of delayed Dutch Disease and our depleting global competitiveness.

Our country now lies on a critical crossroads on which we could plunge into an economic trench or, we could succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Clearly, a new model of management of our oil revenue has to be implemented.

To suggest a new model for oil revenue management, I need to estimate the proportion of annual net profits made by Petronas that is retained as cash reserves for its future use (or for the needs of our future generations).

Petronas has publicly stated that its cash reserves at 2009 stood at RM 121.2 billion. But its cash reserves for other years have not been publicly reported. Further net profits figures of Petronas have been publicly reported only since 1992.

But assuming a conservative cash reserves of RM10 billion (accumulated over the 17-year period of 1974-1991) at 1992, and calculating from the net profits of the company reported (publicly) from 1992 to 2009 while assuming a conservative 5% annual rate of return and ignoring foreign exchange losses or gains, Petronas’s cash reserves of RM121.2 billion at 2009 implies a reserves retention rate from net profits of only about 21% (see Chart 3), with 79% of net profits being paid to government for its operating expenditure, or Petronas itself investing on mega projects.

Given our depleting oil reserves (we could become an net importer of oil within a decade) is this low retention rate fair to our future generations?

Chart 3 also shows that had Petronas’s reserves retention rate been set at 33% its cash reserves could be at RM 177.7 billion at 2009; had its retention rate been at 50%, its reserves would have been at RM 256.9 billion in 2009 - more than double of the present RM 121.2 billion.

The Alaskan Model of a Citizen Fund indicates that 25% of oil revenue is set aside every year for the direct needs of its people; profits from the fund are then paid as cash dividends equally to all Alaskans. In a poor egalitarian society like Alaska, this may be fair, but in Malaysia we have always advocated the policy “it is always better to teach a man how to fish, then to give the man the fish”.

A State Fund (Future Malaysian Fund) could be set up; requiring Petronas to deposit say 25% of its annual net profits into this fund, to be managed by Bank Negara for the needs of our future generations. For the remaining 75% of its net profits, the government could decide the proportion that could be allocated as government revenue, and the proportion to be held as retained revenue by Petronas. A suggested formula could be 25% of net profits to be used by government as revenue, with Petronas retaining the remaining 50% for reinvestment purposes. For the year 2009, for example, this formula would imply that out of the RM52.5 billion net profits, the Future Malaysia Fund and the government would receive RM13.1 billion each, and Petronas could set aside RM26.2 for reinvestment purposes. For comparison, Petronas paid a dividend of RM30 billion to federal government in 2009, and retained RM 21.9 billion for reinvestment.

More importantly, this formula would enable Petronas to channel a quarter of its annual net profits to meet the needs of the future generations, when our oil reserves have dried up. Also with a smaller allocation from oil revenue as government revenue, we would be forced to implement bullet-biting reform policies to strengthen our economy with an improved competitiveness and new innovations.

The implementations of the Future Malaysian Fund Model notwithstanding, Petronas should not be denied of its present independence, given its own track record of par excellence; growing from anonymity in 1974 to being listed on Fortune 500 today. It should not be subjected to the wimps and fancies of the government of the day, nor should it be concerned about the nuts and bolts of running huge non-oil infrastructural projects.

My key concern is related to how the government chooses to utilize the earning streams as the reserves for meeting the needs of our future generations.

It is sufficed to say that the current scenario of wage restraints, price controls and subsidies is untenable. Given the global fluctuations and political volatility, it is only fair to the people of Malaysia that we revisit the Petroleum Development Act to seek more stable and transparent policy in the long term management of our oil reserves, for the sake of our future generations.


More...

Tracing the Brain Drain Trend

By Fong Chan Onn

Between 1960 and 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.

The recent report by the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) on the New Economic Model (NEM) laments “we are not developing talent and what we do have are leaving”. The report says that currently, some 350,000 Malaysians working abroad with over half of them having tertiary education. This leaves us with over 80% of our workforce with SPM-level qualification, and their wages are being continually suppressed by the easy availability of foreign workers and other barriers like subsidies and price controls.

The focus of my article is to trace some of the worrying brain-drain trends which I believe underlie the severity of our setbacks to move up to a high income economy, and the steps we should immediately undertake to overcome these challenges.

1. Beginning of Brain Drain

Out-flow of talents is not a new phenomenon, but globalization and rapid IT global communications have just speeded the process. Malayans (and since 1963 Malaysians) began to seek overseas tertiary education soon after independence in 1957 when it became part of the British Commonwealth. University education at home then was elitist, being confined to University of Malaya at Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Many bright young Malaysians, aided by their fluency in English, had to seek tertiary education aboard (with or even without their parents’ financial support) in UK, Australia and other English-speaking societies. This trend was further accentuated by the various aid schemes, such as the Colombo Plan and Commonwealth Scholarships and later our own MARA, JPA, TNB and Petronas scholarships, through which tens of thousands of bright Malaysian students have been sponsored for overseas tertiary studies since the early 1960s.

After completion of their education, some choose to remain because of better job opportunities, some also choose to stay because they prefer the new life-style and social environment compared to that at home, while others such as the Malaysian women who married locally had to stay behind because their children, under Malaysian law, are not entitled to become Malaysian citizens or even permanent residents (PR).

2. Brain Drain more Serious than We Think

According to the World Bank, Malaysians residing overseas was only 9,576 in 1960 while the world’s total registered migration was 382,912 per nation. By 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.

In 1981, the number of Malaysians residing in Australia was 31,589 and this increased to 92,337 in 2007 (see Table 1). Those that resided in the U.K. in 1981 numbered 45,430 and this went up to 61,000 in 2007. United States was a laggard with only 11,001 in 1981 but due to the country’s very aggressive move to attract top talents, the number of Malaysians who took up residence in the U.S. shot up to 54,321 by 2007. Similarly our Singapore neighbour has also been absorbing large numbers of Malaysians, from 120,104 in 1981 to 303,828 in year 2000.

Table 1: Malaysian Residents Abroad


While the total figure is concerning, further analysis of the migration numbers is even more worrisome.

The World Bank’s report indicates that in 1990, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries totalled about 72,649 with a majority of them in Australia (34,716), followed by the U.S. (12,315) and the U.K. (9,812) (see Table 2). The latest available data shows that in 2000, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in OECD countries went up by 40.84%. The 102,321 Malaysian graduates that stayed in OECD countries in year 2000 make up 77.2% of the total Malaysians (132,468) that decided to domicile in these countries (See table 3).

Table 2: Number of Malaysian Migrants with Tertiary Education in OECD Countries



Table 3: Migrants with Tertiary Education in OECD Countries in Year 2000


And who are these graduates that we are losing out?

An example is given by the data on foreign-born medical personnel in OECD countries. While our local hospitals are experiencing shortages of nurses and doctors, we have 7,431 Malaysian nurses, 4,129 doctors, 652 dentists and 798 pharmacists working in the OECD countries (see Table 4) in 2000.


Table 4: Foreign-born Medical Personnel in OECD Countries in Year 2000



Further, the current global high-tech consumer boom has created a huge demand for science and technology (S&T) researchers in US, accentuating the migration of talents from the developing world (including Malaysia) to U.S. Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 7,955 Malaysian S&T researchers working in US compared to 10,419 such researchers working at home.


Table 5: Researchers Employed in S & T in the United States in Year 2003



3. Not Alone in Losing Talents

However, in this highly competitive global environment, it must be pointed out that Malaysia is not alone in losing the best talents to the OECD countries.

As Table 3 shows, South Korea, a member of OECD, has 885,885 of its citizens residing in other OECD countries, with 652,894 (73.7%) of them being graduates, and this constituted to about 1.39% of total South Korean population! India has 1.5 millions of its citizens domicile in OECD with 69.0% of them being graduates.

Even Singapore, a richer but much smaller country than Malaysia, saw 67,560 Singaporeans taking residence in OECD countries in 2000 with 50,019 of them being university-educated. It is only slightly behind Malaysia with 74% of its emigrants into the OECD countries having tertiary education. On the proportion of graduate migrants to total population, Singapore appears to be losing out more than us, with the number of Singaporean graduates in OECD countries standing at 1.24% compared to our 0.44%. Little wonder the city-state is working its hardest to attract bright Malaysians over the Causeway!

Further Table 3 shows that though Thailand and Indonesia may ‘export’ a much higher number of their workforce to the OECD countries, only about 40% of their own nationalities have tertiary education. This is mainly due to a lower proportion of their tertiary-educated workforce having a good command of English, and hence may have greater difficulty to fit into the high-level jobs there.

Table 4 also shows that we are not alone in losing medical talents. Philippines have 110,577 of its nurses and 15,859 of its doctors residing in the OECD countries! There are also 5,332 doctors from Taiwan, 2,798 doctors from Hong Kong, and even 1,356 Singaporean doctors working in OECD countries.

In terms of S&T researchers, Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 158,524 Chinese researchers (17.5% compared to such researchers at home), 44,236 Vietnamese researchers (4.5 times the number of S&T researchers at home) and 26,602 Hong Kong researchers (2.1 times of such scientists at home) working in the U.S. The 7 thousand-odd Malaysian scientists amongst these hundreds of thousands foreign scientists is actually a small figure; but that is, of course, no consolation in our losing them in the first place.

What Tables 3, 4 and 5 have highlighted is that in the 21st Century global environment, OECD countries with their advanced infrastructures, robust social institutions, numerous world-famous universities and R & D institutions as well as booming markets, are powerful natural magnets for the developing world’s professionals.

4. What are We Gaining Instead?

We have about 2.5 million unskilled legal (and illegal) foreign workers in the country. Some 650,000 of them work in the manufacturing sector, followed by about 300,000 in construction. Domestic workers make up another 220,000. The balance is in the services, plantation and agriculture sectors. The services sector alone hires about 400,000 foreign workers mostly as waiters, security guards, general workers and cleaners.

Our addiction and dependence on these unskilled foreign workers has deepened to the extent that many of our manufacturing plants and the main-stays of our palm oil exports (plantations such as Sime Darby, IOI and KLK) will have to stop operation in their absence. According to a One Utama executive, as high as 90% of workers in the Food and Beverage sector are now made up of foreigners. Therefore, we should no longer be surprised by not being able to order our meals in Malay, Mandarin, English or any other commonly spoken language known to Malaysians anymore!

And who are we gaining instead?


Table 6: Origin of Immigrants in Malaysia



As Table 6 shows, in year 2000, we have 627,700 Indonesians working in Malaysia, followed by 124,600 Philippines, 55,200 Bangladeshis, 53,500 Chinese, and 48,000 Indians. Though the skill level of these workers is not stated in the database it will be naive to assume that many of them are graduate professionals.

Table 6 also shows that in 2000 there were only 5,750 US citizens, 8,800 Japanese, 3,100 Australians and 1,250 New Zealanders (all members of OECD) residing in Malaysia. Again though not stated in the database it can be assumed most of them would be expatriates or professionals working in the manufacturing or services sectors.

This is consistent with the recent NEAC report on the NEM which says that the numbers of expatriates have fallen from nearly 90,000 in 2000 to nearly half of that by 2008. The net result is a “shortage of dynamic talent to push Malaysia into higher added value activities”.

The trends illustrated in Tables 3 to 5 are indicative that our brain drain is serious, while Table 6 shows that the brains we are trying to attract are not coming in. Of course, Tables 3 to 5 also show that we are not alone in losing out.

But is that a sufficient consolation? I think not. It will be shown later that while other countries have taken steps to remedy the problem, we are still far behind in trying to resolve the challenges we are facing.

5. Why are We Losing Talents?

This issue has been discussed extensively, but let me try to summarize why we have been losing our talents.

Legislative Issues

As I have elaborated at the beginning of this article, under Malaysian law a child born overseas to a Malaysian mother, whose husband is a non-Malaysian, is not entitled to Malaysian citizenship or even permanent resident (PR) status. This large pool of talents is just kept out of our shores.

I vividly remember Dato’ Syed Norulzaman (a retired Malaysian Ambassador) lamenting to me last month over dinner on how his daughter, a JPA medical scholar at Dublin, worked hard over the years to qualify as a medical specialist. She unfortunately could not return to serve Malaysia because she married her Norwegian class-mate, and their children are classified as non-Malaysians. With tears in his eyes, he said he has never felt so helpless as an Ambassador because he could not explain to her daughter why Malaysia does not accept her children….

And of the thousands of talented foreign spouses who have returned to Malaysia with their Malaysian husbands, what is happening to them? Medical experts, top-notch scientists, or experienced teachers they may be, but they are not even accorded PR status and are disallowed to work here, their adopted home.

Educational Opportunities

Up to the late 1990s, a large number of Malaysians migrated for their children’s education. University education opportunities for Malaysians (particularly the non-Malays) were limited by the quota system and financial aids. However, the implementation of the 1996 Private University Act saw rapid expansion of opportunities for tertiary education in the country. And with the establishment of the Government University Loan Scheme (PTPTN) providing financial aids to all students including those from Independent Chinese Schools, as well as the opening up of JPA scholarships to all excellent students, all Malaysians who aspire for tertiary education can now pursue their dreams within our shores.

Although many Malaysians still go overseas for their education, they now go by choice and not out of necessity.

Domestic Social-political Issues

In this global-village world, Malaysians are being continuously exposed to the world environment. We see, feel and hear first-world life-styles, first-world civil society structures, and first-world social institutions over TV and the Media all the time. Many Malaysians felt disillusioned, or even short-changed, by the non-optimal functioning of our social-political institutions which seem always constrained by the many sensitivities of our multi-religious and multi-ethnic background.

Beyonce was approved for performance in KL; then when there was some protests she was disallowed to come in. Of course she then went on to perform to record crowds in Jakarta. Many of us cannot accept examples of these unwarranted constraints on our social lives, and feel that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence (or Causeway?).

Of course, the fact that Malaysia has never taken public relations with the rest of the world seriously and consequently is always reported negatively in the world media, does us even greater damage especially in the eyes of the Malaysian professionals abroad.

Our Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Najib Razak, fortunately understands these concerns clearly. The radical reforms he is currently pushing through under the NEM (including emphasising needs-based policies over race-based policies), the Key Performance Indices, and the all-inclusive 1Malaysia Program will hopefully bear fruits in the next one year, and will result in a significant raise of the “feel-good” factor with a corresponding reduction in our social-political environment being a push factor for Malaysians to migrate.

First-world Pull Policies

With the current high-tech boom, many first-world nations realize that to capture the global markets with new innovative products and services (iPads, smartphones, nano-products, etc) they have to take aggressive steps to build their talent pool “by instant” rather than through natural organic growth. These advanced nations (I am including Singapore and Hong Kong in this category) have introduced talented-immigrant attraction policies as follows:

US: Employer-sponsored visas (H-1B) given liberally to immigrants who have at least a Bachelor’s degree in arts, science, education, and other disciplines.

UK: Tier-1 Point-based migration under which immigrants have to score at least 75 points based on age, experience and qualification.

Australia: Skilled Migration Program, under which applicants are assessed on a point system again based on age, experience and qualification.

Singapore: Employer-sponsored (Scheme 1) working visas are issued within 3 working days of receipt of application. And under its Scheme 4, top-notch professionals are “purposely” sought out from all over the world to be attracted to reside in Singapore.

Hong Kong: Working visas are readily given out on a points system; the points are again assessed based on age, experience and qualification.

Many Malaysians have gone to these countries on these programs, and in the process contributed to these societies’ development.

6. How to Retain and Recruit Talents?

What can we do to retain the talents we have in the country, as well as to attract the return of our talents from overseas; besides trying to recruit non-Malaysian experts to enrich the pool of our expertise? This is obviously a tall-order question which I will attempt to answer.

Firstly, besides pushing on with the reforms needed under the NEM and the 1Malaysia Program, we need to immediately abolish all the gender-biased legislative impediments preventing the husbands and children of our female talents, who have married non-Malaysians, from becoming citizens or even PRs. Unless this is done, and done retroactively, the thousands of these Malaysian talents will be forever lost from our shores.

Further, the thousands of wives of Malaysians who have returned should be immediately given PR or even citizenship so that their expertise can be harnessed by the nation.

By one stroke of the pen we can immediately enlarge significantly our talent pool.

Secondly, we need to negotiate more country-to-country Youth Exchange Programs with OECD nations, like the Malaysia-New Zealand Youth Exchange Program. Our youths have been going over to their shores for decades, now with these exchange programs we can at least begin to attract some of their youths to our shores; first as guests, and later maybe as experts.

Thirdly, we should get away from our cold-war siege mentality mind-set, bite the bullet and immediately reform our working permit, PR and citizenship policies. Working permits for expatriates should be quickly approved for applications from employers for bringing in the expertise that they need to run their businesses or factories. PR status should be accorded to the top experts that we want to recruit. Their coming into our midst will result in new innovations and thousands of new high-paying jobs for our people.

If we can approve the hundreds of thousands of unskilled labour, why can’t we allow the engineers, scientists, and other experts required by the Multi-National Corporations to enter?

Fourthly, we need to relook at our own incentive schemes implemented to attract the return of our professionals. Under the Human Resources Ministry’s “Return of Experts Program”, an approved returnee is entitled to bring back two cars tax-free (as well as the applicant’s accumulated income also tax-free). This is hardly an incentive as in OECD countries there is no such thing as Approved Permits or prohibitive taxes on imported cars.

We need to follow on the successful examples of other countries, such as the Taiwanese Hinshu Science Park established in the 1980s for returning scientists from US, under which returnees are given R&D grants for start-ups and educational assistance for their children. Out of this Taiwan emerged to be a major exporter of IT appliances. Or the Korean Institute for Science and Technology (KIST) set up to provide research grants and managerial autonomy for talented returnees, mimicking the US research environment; and now South Korea has 96% broad-band penetration rate. Even China has established its “Freedom to Come and Go” Policy and Special Development Zones for its talented returnees.

Through our embassies, we need to identify and directly engage our professionals world-wide and make them part of our global ambassory network. With their support and good-will, we can greatly improve the image of our country. Some of them can even be persuaded to set up base at home. If they have good ideas, venture capital and R&D grants should be provided so that they can be assisted to transform these ideas into products and services.

It is already quite late in the day for us to start these policies to attract talents.

My meetings with many of our professionals aboard indicate that they are still very much Malaysians at heart. They miss the Nasi Lemaks, our colourful multi-ethnic life-styles, and the relatively stress-free nature of our work environment. Similarly, many Japanese, US and Korean expatriates will prefer to work in KL compared to other Asian cities.

Though late in the day to attract and recruit them back to Malaysia, at least we know we are starting on a reservoir of good-will. But let us implement these Attract and Recruit Programs with the fullest commitments now, so that our plan to emerge as a high-income economy can become reality in the not too distant tomorrow.

End/

More...