May 11, 2013, 6:22 pm


by K Godage


The ruling coalition the Barison Nationale won the 13th general election after Malaysia’s (then Malaya’s) Independence from Britain and the second under the leadership of Prime Minister Nguib whose father, Tun Razak, was also Prime Minister. PM Naguib’s first statement after his victory echoed sentiments familiar to us; it was on the need to heal the racial divisions and control the extremist elements in the country and embark of a program for national reconciliation to heal the wounds that have resurfaced particularly after this hard fought election.


"We (BN) will be looking forward to reject political and racial extremism, and work towards a more moderate and accommodating environment," said Prime Minister Naguib.


Prime Mnister Najib Razak’s National Front coalition captured 133 of Malaysia’s 222 legislative seats while 89 went to the opposition’s three-party alliance. The final results from Sunday’s election show a decrease of several seats for the ruling coalition from the last election. They had a two third majority in the last Parliament.


Although the ruling bloc was able to win the most seats and extend its 56-year rule, it lost the popular vote. It was also the coalition’s poorest electoral performance since independence from Britain in 1957.


More than 10 million people cast ballots for a record turnout of about 80 percent. We are fortunate that Anwer Ibrahim did not make it because the pro LTTE Tamil organization supported him and he in turn promised to support their cause and turn on the heat on us.


The opposition campaign centered on allegations of ruling party arrogance, abuse of public funds and racial discrimination by the government against the country’s sizeable ethnic Chinese population. The polarization and the anger of the Chinese community does not auger well for the country.


The opposition retained control of northern Penang state, one of Malaysia’s wealthiest territories, and it remained strong in Kuala Lumpur.


Numerous rumors of cheating plagued the polls, including the use of ink to mark voters that critics said could be easily washed off. There also were complaints of foreigners being flown into the country to cast ballots. Opposition leader Anwer Ibrahim has alleged criminal malpractice and stated that he would place facts before court to have the election annulled.


Sri Lanka’s relations with Malaysia are especially valued, for they stretch back a thousand years and more, and Sri Lanka is today particularly interested in promoting investment in infrastructure development, tourism and information technology from Malaysia, which is currently the biggest investor in Sri Lanka. We have a Co-operation Agreement signed in 2005 under which our two countries have agreed to co-operate in the fields of Agriculture, HR, International Relations and Diplomatic studies, Trade and Investment and in Development Administration. We have much to learn from Malaysia which is today a developed country focussing on the Knowledge Industry.


In this regard I wish to recall that in 1981 the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (the GCEC which was the predecessor to today’s Board of Investment) signed four agreements with established US computer semi-conductor component companies including Motorola and Harris to establish facilities in Sri Lanka. They pulled out after the horrific happening in 1983 July and relocated in Malaysia where they employ thousands.


In 2012 Malaysia abstained on the US Resolution against Sri Lanka in Geneva despite demands from the pro LTTE Tamil diaspora backed by threats and demonstrations demanding a pro US vote. In this regard it should be mentioned that Prime Minister Naguib agreed to and spoke to President Rajapaksa to assure him that Malaysia would abstain which they did. This involved a strenuous lobbying effort; this year too they abstained as they realize the value of the relationship between the two countries.


When one compares the Malaysian development experience with that of Sri Lanka we see where Sri Lanka went wrong. The two countries had broadly similar economic and socio-political conditions after gaining independence. Both had roughly similar per capita income at one time; both consisted of multi-ethnic communities; and both experienced conflicts that had strong ethnic dimensions. In addition to this, Malaysia and Sri Lanka were exporters of primary commodities in the early stages of post-colonial development. These seemingly similar aspects between the two countries are why many people find it suitable to compare their development experiences. Although the conflicts experienced by both countries are often posed as a similarity between them, there are also noteworthy differences related to them. The conflicts in Malaysia were mostly in two periods – 1948 and 1969 – while in Sri Lanka, the conflict lasted from 1983-2009 – nearly three decades.


It is true that the conflict is sometimes used as a ‘scapegoat’ by those who lament Sri Lanka’s economic ills. Yet, the impact of a 30 year war and the impact of its conclusion on the prospects of the economy cannot be overlooked. Economic growth and national development, in the minds of many Sri Lankan citizens, took a secondary place. Sri Lanka cannot make this as an excuse to not take advantage of the rapid growth of India and some other neighbours.


The economy of Malaysia is a growing and relatively open state-oriented and newly industrialized market economy.The state plays a significant but declining role in guiding economic activity through macroeconomic plans. In 2009, the economy of Malaysia was the third largest economy in South East Asia and 28th largest economy in the world and the per capita GDP was US$8,100 against our USD 3,200. The core ideas in some Malaysian policies have lasted beyond the political regime of the Prime Minister who initially introduced the policies. For example, most of Dr. Mahathir Mohammed’s policy prescriptions continued to be carried out even after he left office. In Sri Lanka however, the ad-hoc changes in industrial policies have, more often than not, been a result of changes in government that swing between the two main political parties with two different political ideologies. This has made it difficult for the country to maintain any form of consistency in economic policy over the past few decades. As a result of these differences, and indeed many others, Malaysia has experienced significant economic growth while Sri Lanka lags behind. Comparing development processes and looking into strategies by which other countries achieved rapid growth is undoubtedly a good start. There are many lessons to be learnt from their experiences and many ideas that Sri Lanka could take from them.