September 03, 2013
Latest Update: September 03, 2013 04:44 pm
| Datuk Zaid Ibrahim founded Malaysia's largest law partnership before focusing on politics. He was a minister in the Abdullah administration, was in Umno, PKR and last in KITA as its president. |
The Deputy Prime Minister has called on UDA Holdings Berhad to return to its original aim of helping urban Bumiputera households and traders acquire properties.
Good, but unfortunately we have heard such exhortations and reminders countless times before.
UDA was established in 1971. According to its charter, it had the noble aim of promoting and carrying out urban development projects including improvements to the environment, services, amenities, traffic, parking, recreational and community facilities as well as "other public improvements for the promotion of national unity, health, safety, convenience and welfare".
The immediate policy goal of urban development was to achieve "the distribution of opportunities among the various races in the field of commerce and industries, housing and other activities".
We must remember that all this took place in the aftermath of 13 May 1969 and UDA's mandate was a very important part of the New Economic Policy to address the socioeconomic imbalances that had put the nation in jeopardy.
UDA had several excellent successes. Many of us know Bukit Bintang Plaza and Dayabumi, of course, but how many are aware that UDA was also instrumental in the development of Taman Tun Dr Ismail (including its iconic market), Bandar Subang Jaya, Bangsar Utama and Dataran Maybank, Puduraya (now Pudu Sentral) and Sinar Kota, Plaza Angsana in Johor and the Kuala Terengganu Golf Resort, to name a few.
And lest we get too chauvinistic, let us remember that UDA was a multiracial firm that worked with other multiracial firms.
So what went wrong? How was it that, in December 2011, then-Chairman of UDA Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed told Bernama that UDA was "facing problems implementing the Bumiputera Agenda"?
Why did UDA cave in so quickly to the demands of the MRT Corporation on its home ground in Bukit Bintang? Why were there problems with the balance sheet (so said the UDA managing director in June last year)?
As it turns out, UDA no longer builds any urban public housing today. That responsibility-a major part of the company's social responsibility-is now in the hands of Projek Perumahan Rakyat 1 Malaysia (PR1MA).
Nur Jazlan went so far as to say that UDA needed "a new direction" to stay in business but here we have the call from the Deputy Prime Minister to go back to the original mission.
Why hasn't UDA succeeded in the 21st century in the area of providing the Malays the same access to urban residential property ownership? This was one of its main strengths just a few decades ago. And what about commercial property?
I have alluded to some of these problems in a previous article. In the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur, I wrote, one can't help but notice the glaring disparity in commercial property ownership among the races.
Even in smaller townships, the Chinese presence is clearly more dominant. UDA will have a lot to do to restore some balance to this, if it wants to remain true to its aims.
To make UDA really effective, however, the Deputy Prime Minister must be willing to try new- and maybe even radical-ways to get things done. Serving "reminders" to UDA will be futile even if they are repeated every week.
I have three solutions for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider. These measures haven't been tried and I think that this is probably why they are worth considering.
Winston Churchill remarked that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the mark of insanity. My solutions might not necessarily work but no one can call such an effort insane.
The first step is to appoint a Chairman who is (preferably) Chinese and politically independent. I don't mean to denigrate the Malays, many of whom are competent and can do the job equally well. The advantage of having an independent Chinese head of UDA, however, is that he (or, indeed, she) will not therefore be a high-ranking Umno politician as has been the case with UDA chiefs recently.
Such a person will have no duty or obligation to help fellow Umno-members and comrades and will not be afraid to upset other "pressure groups" who will always use the Malay cause to get things for themselves.
This new Chairman will not be bound by pre-existing "deals" to enrich his own coffers. True, any other non-Malay can do just as good a job, but a Chinese will also have good contacts with other property developers (most of whom are Chinese), and with sufficient funds from the Government, he should be able to get optimum results for UDA.
He or she will of course have to be an honest person whose sole responsibility and duty is to implement UDA's aims and objectives. It goes without saying that, if this approach is to be adopted, the current war between Utusan Malaysia and the Chinese community must cease. Cooperation and the spirit of helping one another must be restored.
The second step is to make UDA answerable to Parliament not to a Minister, as is the current practice. UDA is an important agency of the government and its success is critical to the continued business presence of Malays in the cities, as well as to the overall health of the economy.
Special effort is needed if UDA is to transform and elevate itself to national prominence (as has been achieved by Felda). As such, what UDA needs most today is professional-not political-management. Indeed, it must be insulated completely from political operatives looking for business opportunities to feed the party machinery.
One way will be to form a Parliamentary Select Committee to oversee the management and operation of UDA. Most of the Members of Parliament are Bumiputera anyway and so they should be able to take a special interest in how UDA is managed.
When UDA is free from political interference, it will once again be a successful organisation and no longer a vehicle for some politicians or their supporters to make money. In time, it will be able to shed its ethnic approach and become a truly effective, world-class urban development authority comparable to many successful housing boards around the world.
Indeed, the final and most difficult step for the Deputy Prime Minister is to abandon the idea that UDA must give "special favours" to the Malays. UDA will not be viable if Malays get their properties cheaper than the market price or if they are allowed to pay lower rent than everybody else.
It is one thing to help Malays get shoplots and commercial units; it is quite another to "subsidise" their purchases.
The simple truth is that when you "subsidise" a property, someone else pays for it and the scheme will not last. It is also true that when you get things cheaply, you will be tempted to sell it for a fast buck. If this mindset is permitted to fester, the Malays will never ever form a business community that takes a long-term view to holding commercial properties as core assets.
There is no easy way out. Leaders must abandon the tactic of preaching special prices for special people. They must cease dishing out false hope, causing Malay traders to expect lower rents and purchase prices. This is pure fantasy.
Leaders should tell Malays that more loans can be made available or that repayment periods can be longer, and so the solution for them is to engage in businesses where the returns are higher. Rents and property prices are always expensive in big cities and Malays (particularly their leaders) must accept this reality.
The solution is for Malays to adopt the Chinese mindset when it comes to trade and commerce. As such, the government will be doing the Malays a terrible disservice if it prevents them from doing business on religious or moral grounds.
So, for example, don't condemn Malays perpetually to the ubiquitous tom yam or laksa Johor shops. Let them become four-digit franchisees if they wish.
UDA and DBKL should not prohibit a Malay-Muslim entrepreneur if he chooses to enter the gaming business. Similarly, if an upmarket restaurateur wants to rent a property belonging to a Malay in order to open a French bistro, then he should be given the permission to do so even if wine is on the menu. The rent for this kind of establishment can be astronomical.
At the moment, the permitted business activities for Malays are more restrictive compared with the Chinese. The Malay businessman will not be given a licence to operate a bar or nightclub, or to import many kinds of foodstuff not certified as halal.
Even operating a snooker centre might be construed as "having a gambling element". Indeed, Malays can't go into joint ventures in which there is even a faint suspicion of the non-halal.
This is the kind of restriction the government imposes on Malays. How then should we expect them to be competitive and acquire urban properties and excel in business like everybody else?
The unfortunate thing about this is the obvious hypocrisy of it all. Malaysia Airlines can do a non-halal business - but only in the air. Even the investments of Lembaga Tabung Haji in properties overseas are not subject to the strict restrictions we impose on local Malay property owners.
The government must decide what it can do for the Malays and then leave the rest of the decision-making to them. UDA exists to help Malays acquire properties; so, for now, it should just do that and nothing else.
But if the government insists on deciding for the Malays what businesses they can engage in, what sins are big or small, and what moral observation is mandatory, then the Government will end up failing in its own observation of the rules and the Malays will end up with nothing.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
The Malaysian Insider :: Food
