|
home Speechs in the year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 --> |
Oleh/By : DATO SERI DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : LANGKAWI, KEDAH
Tarikh/Date : 01/08/2002
Tajuk/Title : THE LANGKAWI INTERNATIONAL
DIALOGUE 2002
Versi : ENGLISH
Penyampai : PM
"SOCIAL COHESION IN FIGHTING ECONOMIC TERRORISM"
I wish to welcome all delegates to this Sixth
Langkawi International Dialogue 2002. Since 1995
Langkawi has played host to government and business
leaders in their quest for robust socio-economic growth
for their countries. The Langkawi International
Dialogue has been and will continue to be a platform
where information on development is exchanged and
shared, and ideas are voiced and evaluated among
members. Today as we continue to grapple with current
issues, new challenges continue to emerge and to occupy
our attention, challenges which can have serious
consequence for us if we are unable to handle them.
2. In the world of today nothing happens in one part
of it which does not have repercussions in the rest.
Whether we legislate into being globalisation or not,
the interconnectivity of the world's economy is already
a fact of life. Never was the interconnectivity of the
world's economy better demonstrated than in the
aftermath of the September 11th incident. The reaction
of the international financial community and national
economies was immediate. Bourses across Europe
plummeted - the Paris exchange fell 7.4 percent, the
Frankfurt exchange seven percent and the London
exchange 5.7 percent. Speculations over retaliatory
possibilities pushed crude oil prices up to a nine-
month high. The economic effects were real and painful.
The already shaky American economy began a steep
downward slide. East Asian electronics industry,
already grappling with the problems of global over-
production began to slide further and faster. And we
have still not recovered.
3. The September 11th attack has shocked the world.
Many who thought terrorism was a problem of other
countries now realise that no country is immune from
terror attacks. Everyone now finds a need to cooperate
to tackle this problem. Unfortunately we cannot agree
on how to deal with terrorists and terrorism. Some
think that all that is needed is to declare war on
terrorism and to mount a full military operation. Like
fighting conventional war they see the terrorists being
defeated and laying down their arms. There would be a
victory parade and we would all go to bed feeling
secure.
4. Unfortunately fighting terrorists is not like
fighting a conventional war or a civil war. In a
conventional war the enemy is a country or an alliance
of countries or a definable group. The object is to
defeat the enemy by the ability to kill more people and
do more damage. With terrorism there is no country
which can be truly identified as the enemy. In fact
the terrorists may be hiding anywhere, or even be among
the people of the country which is fighting against
terrorism. Many of the terrorists may be killed or
arrested but there is no guarantee there will be no
more still around or new recruits deterred. And when
the terrorists are prepared to kill themselves in
carrying out their act of terror, there is no way we
can prevent them from doing that with any certainty.
5. If we really want to fight terrorism we must
realise all these and we must have a strategy that
takes into consideration the causes of terrorism. We
must eliminate the causes even if they are silly and
unreasonable if we want to win the hearts and minds of
the supporters and sympathisers and to prevail upon
would-be terrorists to cease and desist. I am afraid
this is not being done. In fact the opposite is
happening as terror attacks which are totally
indiscriminate are being used to counter terrorism
which have caused even more anger and desperation and
more willingness on the part of the terrorists to reply
in kind.
6. The whole world, especially the world most likely
to be attacked by terrorists is living in a state of
fear, expending hundreds of billions of dollars in
futile defence and in the process preventing economic
recovery.
7. While the rich fear the terrorists, the poor too
are living in fear. They live in fear of the predatory
rich bent upon taking over their economies and their
countries. They fear their ultimate recolonisation.
8. What I say is not an exaggeration or alarmist;
Globalisation and free trade along with democracy are
being touted as the saviours of the world and in
particular the poor. But our experience up till now is
that we are being destabilised and robbed.
9 The poor countries have always relied on the
natural commodities they produce in order to export and
earn foreign exchange with which to buy needed
industrial goods. But we have seen how every year we
have to sell more and more of our largely depleting
resources in order to buy less and less of the goods we
need. We are being held to ransom because the rich
countries are not entirely dependent on us for the raw
materials for their industry. They have a choice of
sources and they control the market and the prices.
They do not really care whether we buy their products
or not because their markets are mainly they
themselves, the rich countries.
10. Besides they invent and produce their own raw
materials in order to compete with our natural
products. Rubber is displaced by synthetics, tin by
plastics, glass, paper, aluminium and numerous other
packaging materials and now they have genetically
modified products such as soya bean oil to oust palm
oil from the market.
11. Genetic Modification is going to impoverish
further the agro-wealth based poor countries. Soya
bean is the perfect example. By modifying the soya so
as to produce more oil per hectare they are able to
reduce their price to the same level as palm oil and
other vegetable oils. While they themselves reject GM
for health reasons they have no compunction about
selling GM food to developing countries.
12. As if that is not enough they subsidise directly
and indirectly all their farm products. While the
World Bank and the IMF force many poor countries to
stop subsidies, these agencies never stopped the rich
from unfair and massive subsidies.
13. We are told to open up our economy to foreign
participation. There is no doubt that FDI in
industrial production create jobs and increase the
wealth of the poor. Malaysia has greatly benefited
from FDI.
14. But now the rich are competing with the poor to
attract FDI. They are providing land and capital free
to foreign firms including those from the nearly
developing countries, to site their plants in the rich
countries. And failure to set up plants in their
countries can mean all kinds of non-tariff barriers and
discrimination. The result is not an inflow of capital
into the poor countries but starvation of FDI and even
outflow of capital.
15. One rich country was able to attract a major
investment away from Malaysia by offering 200 million
dollars to the corporation apart from other perks.
There is no way Malaysia can offer anything like this.
16. The Asian financial crisis is another example of
economic terrorism. The countries of East Asia were
growing fast and were known as economic tigers prior to
the crisis. Korea was apparently going to become
another Japan. The controlled Western media began to
call Korea a newly industrialising country or NIC for
short. Korea was very proud for this recognition. But
it soon learnt that it was to justify all kinds of
restrictions on the export of its products.
17. Korea's labour practices and wages were
scrutinised and condemned. The quality of its products
was questioned and declared to be below the standards
set up by the rich countries. Charges of dumping were
levelled at Korea and countervailing duties were
applied to ensure Korean goods become uncompetitive.
Still the Korean growth continued and so did the other
East Asian countries.
18. Timber products from Southeast Asia are boycotted
because we are said to be destroying our forests. That
Malaysia for example is 50 percent covered by natural
tropical forests, with 20 percent more covered by tree
estates is ignored. They insist that we are destroying
our forests.
19. Then the currency traders moved in loudly
proclaiming that the economies of the East Asian
countries were over-heated and that their currencies
were over-valued. The currency traders then sold these
currencies in the market. It was a classic example of
short selling. They claimed they sold the currencies
to avoid losses when the currencies devalued. But in
fact they held none of the currencies. They merely
sold short knowing that by doing so the currencies
would be devalued. Then they expected to buy at the
lower value to deliver the currency to the people who
had bought earlier from them at a higher price. And
they netted millions of dollars from this short selling
operation. And still they continued to sell and to
devalue the currencies.
20. What happens when the currencies are devalued
against the US Dollars? All trade is conducted in US
Dollars. With devaluation more local currency is needed
to pay for imported goods. Suddenly the rich East
Asian countries became poor. Malaysia needed twice the
amount of ringgit in order to pay for imports.
Indonesia had to pay six times the number of rupiahs
for their imports. It was the same with Thailand, the
Philippines, South Korea and even Taiwan. And because
we could not find this much money we were not able to
import and enjoy the same standard of living. In other
words we became poor.
21. At the same time our economies collapsed.
Millions were thrown out of work. People rioted,
robbing and burning shophouses, blaming other citizens,
killing them and raping the women. Politically and
socially the countries became destabilised and law and
order were unenforceable. Rebellion broke out.
Attempts by law-enforcement authorities to restore
respect for the law resulted in accusations of police
brutality. The international electronic media covered
the riots and showed repeatedly only police action and
not the violence of the crowds.
22. The fall in the value of the currency undermined
the stock markets. The dollar value of the shares
plummeted. To save their investment, foreign investors
began to sell and pull out their money. The market
plunged further. Soon the banks accumulated huge non-
performing loans and companies became insolvent. They
could get no credit to finance their operation. Many
closed down and threw millions of employees on the
streets.
23. And what did the currency traders and their media
say? They claimed they were trying to discipline the
governments. They claimed these Asian governments were
all corrupt; they practise cronyism; they were not
transparent; did not have good corporate governance.
They, the currency traders want to bring about more
honesty in the governments and better practices in the
economies of these Asian countries. They, the currency
traders are not to be blamed in any way for they merely
wanted to see a better world. If they made money in
the process it was incidental. Look aren't they giving
away their money to the poor? Aren't they great
philantrophists?
24. They are in fact philanderers. They steal from
the poor in order to give a minute fraction to the
poor. They were trying to play Robin Hood but that
hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. These
modern hoods stole from the poor. And they have become
billionaires. It is no big deal to give a minute
amount of their ill-gotten gains to the poor. But
their media made heroes of these daylight robbers whose
depradations have resulted in the countries of East
Asia remaining unable to recover to this day. Had
there been no financial crisis the East Asian
countries would become developed by now, able to match
the economies of the Western nations.
25. Now we are being pressed to swallow globalisation
and the free market. Globalisation we are told will
bring prosperity to the poor. This prosperity would
come from allowing the big corporations of the world to
invade our countries and do what they like. In the
free market the most efficient corporations would win
because they would have the ability to produce the best
products and sell at the lowest prices. Free
competition is what the free market is about.
Obviously the biggest corporations would win hands
down. A level playing field is useless for the midgets
and the weak. It will be the law of the jungle, the
survival of the strongest. Might is going to be right
even more than before.
26. And in confirmation of this the giant corporations
are busy merging and acquiring each other in order to
become even bigger. There is near monopoly and
certainly oligopoly in all the industries. With these
hypergiants entering a small country there is no way
that the little indigenous companies can survive.
There will be no room for them. They will be rubbed
out, stamped underfoot like so many insects.
27. Governments will not be able to do anything as the
free market is based on non-interference by the
authorities. The market is supposed to regulate
itself. In fact these corporations will be so
powerful that they will control not only the economy
but also the politics of a country. We have seen how
the countries of Central America have been controlled
by the owners and managers of the foreign owned great
banana plantations, to the point where they were
described derisively as the Banana Republics. The poor
countries which become dependent on these huge foreign
corporations upon globalisation will be controlled in
the same way. There will be no choice for the people.
There will be no democracy, despite all the talk about
wanting us to be democratic.
28. We are told that these great corporations are so
well administered that they will not just bring wealth
to the poor but also ensure high standards of morality,
of transparency by the native governments. Today we
know that this is a joke. Look at the behavior of some
of the biggest corporations which were already well on
the way to becoming world monopolies. They have no
morality whatsoever. They cheat, they lie, they fiddle
with their accounts and they are protected by their
Government cronies. A few have been exposed. We don't
know how many more have been fiddling while the world's
economy burns. Every week there is a new exposure.
29. And these are the people who are supposed to bring
us prosperity, who are going to discipline us and
ensure that we have high moral standards. It is a big
laugh.
30. Unfortunately for us it is not a laughing matter.
Economic pressure is very real. The promotion of
democracy may not be because democracy is good. It may
be because democracy can destabilise us. I am all for
democracy. It is the best system of governance ever
devised by Man. But it does not always work. People
must be sophisticated and must know the limits if
democracy is not to end up in anarchy. The great
liberal democracies of the west have had some two
hundred years of experience, of trials and errors and
frequent abandonment of the system before it developed
to the present state. In most of these countries there
are only two effective political parties and one or the
other can achieve majority and set up a government.
31. But the people in the new developing democracies
only understand their rights and their freedom. For
them democracy means setting up political parties, any
number of them in order to vie for political position.
For them freedom means saying anything against each
other without regard to the sensitivities and
consequences. For them freedom means taking to the
streets and rioting. For them freedom means breaking
up the country to set up their own little states.
32. Where there are numerous parties, most of which
are regional and not national, or they are extremely
racial or tribal, majorities cannot be achieved in
elections. Either minority governments or shaky
coalitions have to be set up which are so preoccupied
with trying to remain in power that the running of the
country, the development of the country is neglected.
Corruption must of necessity be a feature as
politicians try to make the most of their temporary
power. Every time a new government is set up the
previous government leaders are accused of corruption,
are hunted and jailed or deprived of their political
rights. And the accusers become the accused when they
in turn fall.
33. When governments are stable or remain in power for
long, even if they are democratically elected and above
board they are accused of being undemocratic. The
international media and the governments of the liberal
countries will all work hard to undermine these
countries. They cannot bring themselves to believe
that the people want it this way. They cannot believe
that the natives they had ruled before understand
democracy or the rule of law. If they are stable and
doing well then they must be dictators. They fabricate
stories that although the people support the leaders of
these countries enthusiastically, actually they are
forced to do so, to shake the hands of these leaders,
forced to smile and shout their support. Or they would
report despite evidence to the contrary that these
leaders were ignored by the people, that the people
fear them. For the media and the Western Governments
there is nothing right that these governments of the
natives can do. And because they have convinced
themselves through their own lies that these
governments are bad, they would do their best do
destabilise these countries. They would support and
encourage anyone, NGOs in particular to overthrow the
government.
34. Some 50 years ago many of the colonies of the
Western countries gained independence. But very
quickly they realised that they had gained nothing of
the sort. Economic pressure was used to deny
independence for these countries. It was President
Sukarno of Indonesia who first recognised this and
called it Neo-Colonialism. He was laughed at by the
world. But today economic pressure has replaced the
gunboat to threaten independent countries. Just as in
the colonial era the regions of Asia, Africa and Latin
America were unable to defend themselves, today the
newly independent countries are unable to defend
themselves.
35. They are terrified of being colonised once again
through economic pressure coupled with the propaganda
of the media. They are being terrorised; terrorised in
the same way that the terrorists are threatening the
world. Only economic terrorism is made out to be
legitimate and to be deserving of support by everyone,
including us in the developing countries.
36. If we are going to fend off this economic
terrorism, we must first understand what is hitting us.
Then we must work together within our own borders and
between our countries. We are weak and we are client
states, dependent on aid and loans. But still it is
possible to take a common stand to fight off the
threat. In this we will not be alone. There are
forces within the rich countries themselves which are
with us and we can enlist their help.
37. It is not that globalisation and the free market
are bad. It is merely the interpretations of these
ideas which are bad. If we come up with a proper
interpretation, with proper safeguards for us, which
recognise our weakness and our need for time, then
globalisation and the free market can help us achieve
economic growth and maintain our independence. It is
entirely possible to do this. The debate must go on,
and, God willing we will create a better world for
ourselves and for the rich as well.
38. Economic terrorism must be defeated. The war
against terrorism must be total and the end results
must benefit everyone.
Sumber : Pejabat Perdana Menteri
|