Malaysia

Mr. President, allow me first to congratulate you on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. It gives me great pleasure to see the international community honour both you and your country through your election to this high office. I am confident that, given your vast experience and diplomatic skills, you will be able to steer the proceedings of the Assembly to a successful conclusion. I join other speakers in expressing our gratitude to your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Didier Opertti, for the dedicated and effective manner in which he had guided the work of the General Assembly at the last session. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the Secretary-General for his great dedication to the Organization and the many contributions he has made in the service of the international community. Malaysia would also like to join other Member States in welcoming, most warmly, the Republics of Kiribati and Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga as new Members of the United Nations. We look forward to working closely with them, particularly on issues of common interest to the Asia- Pacific region whence we come. The twentieth century is coming to an end. Before we enter the twenty-first it is useful to review the events of this century so that we may learn from our experience and hopefully we will know how to conduct the affairs of the twenty-first. This century saw the most destructive wars which destroyed billions of dollars of property and killed millions of people. It saw the most inhuman dictatorship in Germany where six million Jews were tortured and killed. It witnessed the first nuclear bombs that killed hundreds of thousands instantly and many more due to the after-effects. When the greatest war in human history ended, this body, the United Nations, was founded. We thought there would be peace as the great Powers worked together in the United Nations. But that was not the case. Immediately the victors divided themselves into two camps and initiated the cold war. However, it was the threat of a hot war that kept the war cold. Each side built huge arsenals of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and glared at the other across deep chasms of misunderstanding as they threateningly fingered their nuclear triggers. For the colonies of European nations there was an up side. Fear of defections to the other side forced the two camps to relax their grips on their colonial territories. Countries gained independence, but their survival depended on their skills in playing the Western bloc against the Eastern bloc. Unfortunately this choice to defect to the other side did not last. Suddenly the Communist side collapsed. Lured by the apparent wealth of the Western free-market liberal democracies, the Eastern bloc jettisoned their authoritarian centrally planned economies and adopted the liberal democratic free market overnight. They thought that since they would now have a system similar to that of the Western bloc they would get the friendship, cooperation and help from the Western countries. They were naive enough to think that after 70 years of command economy and dictatorship they could overnight switch to the free market economy under the liberal democratic system. They soon found out that they knew nothing about how to make the system work and that they would get no help from the Western nations. Instead the Western nations saw in their incompetent floundering an opportunity to destroy the Eastern bloc, in particular the principal flag-bearer, forever. Even as the inability to manage a free market resulted in galloping inflation, destruction of State enterprises and massive unemployment, the hedge funds and the Western financial institutions moved in to devalue the currencies and make debt defaulters of this once powerful enemy. Despite knowing that these people could not manage a free market liberal democracy at all, they were nevertheless urged and threatened into continuing anyhow. There was no going back for the Eastern bloc countries. The destruction of the Eastern bloc was complete. It could never again militarily challenge the Western liberal democratic free marketeers. Now there would be only one choice for the world, and no defection would be possible for the countries of the world, big or small. With this the liberal democratic free market capitalists saw no more need to be gentle in spreading their systems or in profiting from them. No one would be allowed any other political or economic system except what was prescribed by the sole dominant bloc. The true ugliness of Western capitalism revealed itself, backed by the military might of capitalism's greatest proponent. 4 For the small countries, the demise of the Eastern bloc is a major disaster. Now they are exposed to pressures which they cannot resist, and very quickly they learned that the free marketeers intend to milk them dry. As for their politics, the instability of the liberal democratic system, which comes with a lack of understanding of its intricacies by the leaders as well as the people, meant that they would stay in a state of continuous turmoil, verging on anarchy. A few countries apparently managed to grow and prosper, but not for long. The currency manipulators and short-term investors of the rich soon impoverished these countries through devaluing their currencies and share prices. Impoverished and politically unstable, they were forced to borrow from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Whether by design or through sheer lack of understanding, the economic regime imposed by the IMF further destroyed their economies. Soon their political freedom was also subverted, and many had to accept political direction by the IMF, or the loans would not be made available. For practical purposes, there was no more independence. So for the small independent countries of the world, the future looks bleak. They are now being told that the world should be borderless, that capital, goods and services should flow freely between countries. There should be no discriminatory taxes to protect local industries or products. Local banks, industries and products must compete on the same footing as imported products, and their banks and industries must compete with foreign banks and industries set up in their countries. No conditions must be attached to foreign banks and businesses which want to set up operations in their countries. They must have national status like those given to local businesses. This way, it is said, a level playing field will be created and competition will be fair. But can competition between giants and dwarfs be fair even if the playing field is level? The giant banks, corporations and industries from the rich countries, with huge local markets, can afford to lose money in a small foreign country when they make huge profits at home and elsewhere. The small businesses in the small countries will go bankrupt if they lose money repeatedly. In the end they will have to sell to the giant foreign companies or close down altogether. There will be no more big local companies; there will be only branches of large foreign companies who will indulge in transfer pricing and will repatriate most of their profit. The efficient may produce better and cheaper goods, but if a country does not export its own products to earn foreign exchange it will not be able to pay for imports. Cheap high-quality goods mean nothing if you have no money to pay for them. The markets of the poor countries may not be big, but impoverishing them would result in lost sales for the rich. That was what happened when the currency traders impoverished the countries they attacked. These countries could not buy the products of the rich; that is, the rich lost their markets, and world trade contracted. Free, unrestricted flow of goods and services across borders may be good for a while, but eventually it will destroy markets and result in contraction of world trade. The world would actually become poorer because of free trade. After the last war, the confrontation between East and West led to most of the colonies being liberated and becoming independent countries. Being independent meant the right to govern their countries themselves. Unaccustomed to wielding so much power, many of these Governments failed. They became hopelessly indebted to the banks of the rich countries. Their people suffered from incompetent and frequently oppressive rule. But the principle that prevailed in the third quarter of the twentieth century was that no one should interfere in the internal affairs of a nation. That, in fact, was the essence of independence. As long as the world was divided into Eastern and Western blocs, this principle was respected. But then a president decided that his country had a right and a duty to see that human rights were not abused anywhere in the world, irrespective of borders and the independence of nations. No one conferred this right on this crusading president. But small things like that were not going to stop him. The claim to victory of the West in the Gulf War was regarded as a moral endorsement of the right of the powerful to interfere in any country’s internal affairs. Soon, it was not just human rights. Systems of government and of the administration of justice and the financial and commercial systems came under scrutiny of the powerful countries. They insist that there must be only one way of administering a country, and that is the liberal democratic way. They insist that there can be only one economic system for the whole world, and that is the free market system. They insist that there must be openness in everything, transparency, separation of the 5 private from the public sectors, non-discrimination between ethnic groups, and no discrimination against foreigners in favour of nationals. All these and more sound very good. They have apparently worked for the developed countries of the West, making them rich and powerful, giving their people high standards of living. But will they work for everyone? They seem to have forgotten that they took centuries to make their system work. Their transition from feudal oppressive rule was based in copious blood. Both rich and poor were massacred as reforms were forced by a succession of uncaring tyrants, many elected by the people. Even today their system has not brought freedom and equity to large segments of their people, yet they insist that all the countries of the world, new or old, must immediately adopt the only system of government — their system, their liberal democratic system. The newly independent countries, which knew only the authoritarian system of government, cannot but fail. The former Communist countries in particular found themselves unable to cope with the destabilizing challenges directed at government authority in a liberal democracy. But the new countries are not going to be allowed time to learn and operate the system. They must change now, immediately. If their countries are destabilized, if their people suffer, if they regress economically, that is irrelevant. The important thing is that they must democratize and liberalize. If they fail to do so, they will be forced to do so through arm-twisting, trade sanctions and military action, if necessary. That these measures are more oppressive than those of the disapproved regimes and systems does not matter. The adoption of the approved system would destabilize the countries further and cause further suffering. All this does not matter, because the most important thing is the adoption of the system, not the benefit to be derived from it. It is the same with economic management. There must be liberalization and deregulation. The Government should not help the business sector, should not give it any protection. If businesses are attacked by outside forces, fairly or unfairly, and they lose, then let them die. They must be inefficient if they lose, and the world has no time or sympathy for inefficient losers. And so giant currency traders, their funds leveraged one hundred times or more, are pitted against central banks with limited reserves and without leveraging rights. The economies of whole countries and regions are destroyed, but the cries for protection by these countries are ignored. The fields are level, and the free movement of capital is a part of the secret free trade. Everyone must accept whatever happens because it is free trade. All the currency traders are doing is to discipline Governments so that they conform to the system and do away with their bad old system. In the financial crisis, Governments may not help businesses to recover. To do that means a bail-out of cronies. Let them die; let there be blood. Only then will Governments be considered serious in wanting to reform their systems, to adopt best practices, world standards and the only proper way to administer the economy. If the Government becomes bankrupt in trying to do this, that is all right. The important thing is to do things correctly, even if the country is destroyed, the people starve to death, anarchy reigns and the Government overthrown. There is a touching concern on the part of the West over human rights. But the definition of human rights seems limited to an individual’s right of dissent against the Government. Millions of people in a country will be made to suffer through sanctions and even bombings in order that a few dissenters may enjoy their rights of dissent. Apparently the rest of the population, hundreds of millions of them sometimes, have no rights. Their rights are not considered human rights. Thus depriving millions of the right to work as a result of currency trading is not considered as a violation of human rights. In the Western perception only individuals have rights; the masses do not. The concern over child labour and sweatshop factories is expressive of a sense of caring. Unfortunately the concern is shown only when the products of child labour and sweatshops compete successfully with the products of highly paid, high-living four-day-a-week workers in the developed countries. Child labour and sweatshops are not something which anyone would defend, but consider the extreme poverty of the people in some countries. They have no capital, no technology or expertise, no markets at home, no Harvard-trained managers. All they have is low-cost labour. For the workers, the tiny wages that they earn are far better than starvation and death. If we really care, then invest and pay high wages. The sweatshops will disappear and adults will earn enough to feed their children. Forcing them to stop child labour and sweatshops will only cause more suffering for their people. Telling them to stop 6 producing children is not a solution either. We know that the poor have a higher birth rate than the rich. To stop the population explosion which the West is worried about, enrich these people. Closing their sweatshops and stopping their children from working will only impoverish them further and cause them to have more children. With the end of the East-West confrontation, conflicts have increased instead of decreased. The Palestinian problem is still not resolved, but the sanctions against and the bombing of Iraq, the sanctions against Libya, the conflicts resulting from the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the stirring up of unrest and rebellions, or near- rebellions, by open support for insurrection go on. Before, it was the Communists who stirred up rebellion everywhere, including in Malaysia. Now we have the liberal democrats doing exactly the same in the same manner, complete with supply of arms. Whether it is a communist or a liberal democratic insurrection, the people suffer not one bit less. The United Nations seems helpless. Indeed, it is often bypassed by the big and the powerful. Now groupings of powerful nations or even one nation by itself seem to decide when to step in and when to step out. While they like to wield power, they are inordinately unwilling to pay the price. “Tele-wars” are conducted using high technology, such as the so-called pinpoint bombings, in order to avoid body bags coming home. This unwillingness to face the enemy often results in the unnecessary killing of innocent people and the destruction of the wrong targets. Unfortunately, no one should expect any change for as long as the United Nations belongs to the permanent five. The structure of the United Nations will continue to reflect the glorious victory of these nations 50 years ago. For the small countries, yearly speeches and various anniversary speeches will be allowed. Occasionally there will be membership in the Security Council. But despite the fact that at least three of the permanent five are vociferous advocates of democracy, there will be no democracy in the United Nations. The only saving grace is the agencies and their good work. Unfortunately, some in the United Nations have rather unusual principles. Normally a neutral or unbiased person would be chosen to study, report on and give an opinion or pass judgment on something. But the United Nations chose a person well-known for his virulent attacks against the Malaysian judiciary to report on that institution. The United Nations then conferred on him total immunity with respect to the laws of his country without reference to or consent by the country. This immunity apparently extends beyond his task of reporting his findings to the United Nations. He may publish his opinions and defame people and the subject of his study anywhere and everywhere. Is there no limit to a United Nations Commissioner’s or Rapporteur’s immunity? We are told that Governments must not interfere with the judiciary. Yet in this case the Government is expected to instruct the judiciary not to act against this United Nations Commissioner for breaking the laws of the country. I am not blaming the Secretary-General for this. It is the peculiar system and principles which guide the choice of the United Nations Commissioner or Rapporteur that I find unacceptable. Nor do I think it proper to hint at dire consequences for the Malaysian nation if this man is not freed from court action for open contempt and defamation. There is something not right here which the United Nations needs to look into. But small countries lack a public forum to air their views freely. The Western media distorts everything that they say or do. Again we are expected to give immunity to western journalists; they may break our laws, but no legal action may be taken against them. I would like to point out that in Malaysia not even the King and the hereditary Sultans are above the law. This then is the scenario in the last quarter of the twentieth century. We will carry this baggage into the twenty-first century and the new millennium. For the poor and the weak, for the aspiring tigers and dragons of Asia, the twenty-first century does not look very promising. Everything will continue to be cooked in the West. Just as communism and socialism came from the West, liberal democracy, globalization, a borderless world, deregulation, unfettered free flows of capital and their flights to quality, the disciplining of Governments by the market and by currency traders, and a host of other ideas all come from the West. And what is from the West is universal. Other values and cultures are superfluous and unnecessary. If they remain, there will be a clash of civilizations. To avoid this clash there should be only one civilization in the world. Everything should be standardized according to Western best practices. They may change only if the West changes. Thus the globalized world will be totally uniform. Variety is equal to intransigence and must therefore be eliminated. Malaysia has just gone through a very traumatic experience. In a matter of weeks, 42 years of hard work to develop the country was destroyed, in particular the 7 affirmative action to reduce the enmity between races in Malaysia. We have devised our own formula for recovery. With the blessings of Allah, we have turned around and are on the road to recovery. But we are being pressured to abandon our currency control. We do not understand why. It has done us a lot of good. It has done no harm to anybody except a few thousand rich currency manipulators. Foreigners doing real business in our country have profited from the so-called controls. But we are still being urged to conform to an international financial system which has enabled the unscrupulous to destroy the wealth of many nations. No serious attempt is being made to change the international financial system. So far there is only talk about intentions. But the threat of financial, economic and political destabilization remains. Malaysia wishes only to be allowed to manage things in its own way, in the interests of its own people. We will not harm others. We are not turning our backs on the world. We have always cooperated with the rest of the world, in particular with the United Nations. We will continue to do our bit for world peace. Just as we accept criticism, warranted and unwarranted, we hope others will also tolerate our criticism of them. Free speech would be meaningless if criticism could be directed only at the poor and the weak and never at the rich and powerful. In criticizing others, we are only exercising our right to freedom of expression. We are not too enchanted by the prospects we foresee for the next century. But I can assure the Assembly that we will be a responsible nation, friendly towards all who are friendly towards us and harbouring no bad intentions towards anyone.