Laman Webantu KM2A1: 5192 File Size: 9.2 Kb * |
Daim Zainuddin: The man and his times By Analysis Malaysia 10/8/2001 3:59 am Fri |
[Ada beberapa fakta yang tidak tepat dalam rencana dari
laman baru ini. Daim pergi bersembunyi di luar negara bila
Datuk Harun dibicarakan. Dia mendapat tanah daripada Datuk
Harun kerana dia menyogok imbuhan (rasuah).
Ekonomi Malaysia tidak pulih semula kerana polisi kawalan
modal dan matawang Daim atau Mahathir. Malaysia selamat
kerana harga minyak naik mendadak dan ekspot elektronik
meningkat kerana permintaaan IT teramat tinggi akibat
kebimbangan Y2K dan IT bubble burst. AWSJ tidakpun disaman dalam kes UMBC itu. Menurut Marina
Yusof, chek urusniaga tersebut telah dibelakangkan tarikhnya
(backdated). Sampai kini AWSJ tidak menarik balik lapurannya
itu. Apa yang menarik Mahathir asyik membela Daim dari dulu
sampai sekarang. Daim kini diundurkan dalam diam dan tidak
dibawapun kemuka pengadilan kerana dia masih disayang dan
diperlukan oleh Mahathir. Jika tidak kerusi Merbuk sudah
lama melayang. Analysis Malaysia Daim Zainuddin Together they have much to tell us about why Malaysia has been so
successful a model for the Islamic world. But at some point, even
the closest of friends will not get along with each other and that
time has clearly come for Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Daim
Zainuddin. Their personal relationship was so close that on many
occasions they acted as one. They were born in same village in Kedah, but unlike Mahathir, Daim
studied law in London, joined the government legal service, and
then worked for a private law firm. In the early 1970s he specialised
in property development, and built his own fortune on the basis of
a gift of land in Selangor from the then Menteri Besar, Harun Idris.
After studying urban planning at Berkeley, he entered politics, and
in 1984 accepted Mahathir's invitation to become finance minister.
His power has been based on his competence in finance, and on his
close relationship with the prime minister. He lacks a secure base
inside Umno and is not a credible successor to Mahathir.
Daim and Mahathir have been so close that they exchanged
telephone calls every day. They have worked well together, not only
because of their long association, but also because Mahathir is
convinced that, unlike any of his other colleagues, Daim could never
be his political rival. Daim, apparently, was less tolerant of inefficient
management. For instance, it is also said that he, rather than
Mahathir, was mainly responsible for firing some unsuccessful senior
executives in government heavy industry projects.
Journalists, in search of words to characterise Daim, have used
terms such as "quiet", "shy", "reluctant" and the like.
But we suspect that even Malaysians were a bit taken aback when
the latest news about the alleged strain in relations between
Mahathir and Daim after the latter resigned on June 2 this year as
finance minister. Stories of rifts or imagined rifts between Daim and
Mahathir became common towards the end of the 1990s. For those
who read between the lines, the polite exchanges showed that
Mahathir and Daim were no longer united in sanguine optimism
about the country's economic future. The recent 'turbulent' political climate has shaken up the business
community; many of them said they now have less confidence in the
country's future. But commerce is still booming in Malaysia. Business
people can find reasons to cheer in the surging number of property
transactions, the rekindled stock market and the swelling inflow of
expatriates. At the same time, however, some business leaders fear that Daim's
resignation will be accompanied by rough weather. The political
uncertainties have compounded fears that the situation will be far
from smooth. The most worrying prospects are of financial
instability. While in government, Daim has been linked to several financial
disasters which involved politicians or government officials in the
main during Mahathir's tenure. The outstanding Malaysian financial
disaster of the 1980s occurred when the Bumiputera Malaysia
Finance (BMF), a subsidiary of Bank Bumiputera, which operated in
Hong Kong, collapsed with losses of about US$1 billion in 1983.
The majority of Malay politicians were not just defending
themselves. They wished to preserve the reputations of the New
Economic Policy and those, including employees of BMF, who were
occupied in helping to implement it. They did not want further
enquiries into the matter. That was the position of Finance Minister
Daim in 1984. The unpleasant episode of the BMF scandal is now a
thing of the past. Other controversies during the period involved the use of
government funds in the stock market, which is said to involved
Daim. A minor, and not very widely publicised, alleged breach of
propriety concerned the government's handling of funds in the
EPF (Employees Provident Fund). It was alleged it used some of
the EPF money to make investments designed to stimulate the
economy. However, the government did not explain the issue
clearly enough to prevent DAP charges of "share speculation" seem
plausible. The other two incidents were more serious. The first concerned a
risky and unsuccessful government policy. The second had to do
with Daim's private fortunes. As regards to the former, the
government decided to try to establish a tin cartel through a
company, Maminco. However, despite the government's support
for tin, prices collapsed and the Treasury suffered a loss of about
US$200 million. It is hard to say who was responsible for the failed
policy - Mahathir, the Prime Minister, or Daim, the finance minister.
Daim, was also the leading figure in another major scandal, which
was unraveled by professional journalism at its most persistent. In
September 1986, the Asian Wall Street Journal suggested that Daim
had benefitted from the sale of shares in the United Malayan
Banking Corporation (UMBC) to Pernas, the state trading
organisation, and he allegedly had acquired the shares shortly
before becoming finance minister.
The key issue concerning Daim's transactions was whether he
transferred his shares before or after he joined the cabinet.
Mahathir declared that the transfer came first, but the Asian Wall
Street Journal maintained the contrary. The conflict of views
provoked fierce reactions from the government, leading to
temporary bans on the Journal.
In spite of his association with some of the scandals and 'incidents'
referred to above, his performance as finance minister was
favourably judged. He was well suited to be in the post at the time
of the mid-1980s recession, and was adept at implementing the
downsizing that it entailed. When Mahathir was outside Malaysia for two months in 1997,
Daim's opinions on economic issues were widely quoted, though not
as much as Anwar's. In the economic crisis of 1997, he helped to
moderate Mahathir's inappropriate initial reaction. During the recent
economic slowdown, instead of opting for International Monetary
Fund (IMF) help, Daim was also responsible for the introduction of
the Malaysian currency controls which no doubt help the recovery
of the country's economy. Stories of rifts between Anwar and Daim gained prominence
toward the end of the 1990s. Daim was no longer a minister
seeking to win a seat in Parliament. But he exercised power by
being closed to Mahathir, being his financial adviser, and Umno
treasurer. He had numerous business connections, some of which
cooperated with Anwar's corporate links. At other times, a
competitive relationship existed. Clashes were reported concerning the Bakun Dam project, where
Daim's associates were included, while Anwar's were not and a
competition over some privatisation projects. By extension, the
Anwar-Daim rift could be construed as part of the
Anwar-Mahathir rift. Daim retained his economic power, and, through Mahathir, much of
his political clout. And his latest resignation from the government
has been linked to the bailing out of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and
Time dotCom, both owned by his 'boys' - Tajudin Ramli and Halim
Saad respectively. A closed friend of his, when asked on his opinion on Daim, says: "If
we had saints looking over our markets, we might not have these
problems. But as long as regulation is done by fallible men and
women, the best hope for reducing corruption is to reduce the
all-too-human temptations. The sin may be of the individual. But
the real scandal is the system."
|