Oleh : SHAHRIR SAMAD

RAMADHAN 1422 HIJRAH

Ramadhan kali ini lebih lagi sepatunya di sambut dengan penuh keinsafan dan kesyukuran kerana sambil kita dapat berpuasa dengan mudah dan dalam keadaan yang sejahtera, aman dan tenang, berhadapan hanya dengan soal-soal remeh saperti apa yang hendak dimakan untuk berbuka puasa atau samada hendak bersembahyang terawih setakat 8 raka'at atau 20, maseh terdapat berjuta Muslim yang berhadapan dengan kesusahan, ancaman dan penderitaan. Sesungguhnya dunia Islam itu lemah. Sudahlah lemah, ia berpecah pula. Dan ia berpecah kerana sesama Muslim kita lebih suka mencari perbezaan dan mengada-adakan perbezaan, termasuklah dari segi ketakwaan kita kepada Allah S.W.T. Seolah-olah kita dan kelompok kita sahajalah yang sebenarnya takwa menyahut perintahNya, dan yang lain tidak, sedangkan hanya Allah S.W.T. sahaja yang lebih mengetahuinya.

Ramadhan kali ini Afghanistan sedang melalui peperangan; ada yang mati kerana serangan bom Amerika Syarikat, tetapi ramai juga kerana serangan dari pihak lawan yang seagama. Di Palestine, keadaannya juga tidak menentu bagi rakyatnya. Begitu jugalah bagi rakyat Muslim di selatan Filipina, dalam perkembangan terbaru disana. Tetapi agak yang lebih pilu ialah nasib berjuta rakyat Afghanistan yang terpaksa menjadi pelarian disebabkan kemarau pada peringkat awal dan, yang terbaru sekali, kerana peperangan diantara Amerika Syarikat dengan Taliban Afghanistan. Sesudah Amerika Syarikat melancarkan serangannya terhadap Afghanistan pada awal Oktober, berlakunya gesaan supaya serangan bom yang dilakukan itu harus dihentikan semasa bulan Ramadhan. Ramai negara-negara Islam yang membuat gesaan itu, tetapi yang jelas, peperangan di bumi Afghanistan tidak ditangguhkan samada oleh Amerika Syarikat atau Pakatan Utara Afghanistan mahu pun Taliban itu sendiri. Maka soal perang semasa Ramadhan bukan lagi soal kehendak ugama kerana puak Pakatan Utara dan Taliban yang berugama Islam pun tidak berpendapat bahawa peperangan harus berhenti semasa Ramadhan. Ia kesemuanya sudah menjadi soal politik. Malah, daripada awal lagi sebelum Amerika Syarikat menyerang Afghanistan pun, pihak Taliban telah membuat keputusan berasaskan politik dan bukan kerana Islam. Sememangnya pada peringkat awal pihak Taliban maseh kelihatan berpandu kepada prinsip dan amalan Islam. Umpamanya apabila Amerika Syarikat meminta supaya kerajaan Taliban menyerahkan Osama ben Laden kepada Amerika Syarikat, pihak Taliban meminta supaya alim-ulama Afghanistan bermusyawarah tentang tuntutan itu. Apabila hasil musyawarah itu pada 20hb September ialah untuk menasihatkan Osama meninggalkan Afghanistan secara sendiri dan sukarela, pihak Taliban sebaliknya menolak nasihat itu. Tentunya ini sudah merupakan keputusan politik untuk membelakangkan pandangan alim-ulama yang telah disuruh untuk bermesyuarah mengenai kedudukan Osama. Dan pada 7hb. Oktober, Amerika Syarikat mulakan serangannya. Ia berterusan sehinggalah ke hari ini, walaupun sudah bermula ibadah puasa dalam bulan Ramadhan.

Maka kerana perang di Afghanistan, Ramadhan 1422 akan tercatit dalam ingatan sebagai petanda bagaimana dunia Islam tidak mampu bersendirian kerana ianya lemah dan berpecah. Kalaupun satu dunia Islam membantah, bantahan itu tidak akan kemana kerana ianya bantahan yang tidak kuat dan berkesan. Pakatan negara Islam yang tunggal ialah O.I.C. atau Pertubuhan Negara-negara Islam tetapi ianya tidak sangat dinilai akan peranan dan kekesanannya sehinggakan apabila Taliban Afghanistan berhadapan dengan kata-dua dari Amerika Syarikat, pihak Taliban tidak merujuk kedudukannya kepada O.I.C. Apalah sangat kekuatan dunia Islam kalau adanya negara Islam yang lebih sanggup bersendirian. Kalaulah negara-negara Islam membuat bantahan terhadap ancaman serang Amerika Syarikat kepada Iraq, mungkinkah Amerika Syarikat menerima bantahan itu? Kalaupun bantahan itu berjaya, mungkinkah Iraq pula sanggup menghargai keahliannya dalam O.I.C ataupun akan terus saperti dahulu? Akhirnya, bantahan negara Eropah pula yang lebih mendapat perhatian Amerika Syarikat.

* * * * * *

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PRIVATISATION

It was good news when the LRT company announced that it is now making operational profits due to the increased use of the LRT by the public. The company's spokesman gleefully chided all those who have earlier predicted the LRT would never make money. While we should all be very happy for the LRT to turn in an operational profit, the LRT system still has not recovered its capital costs and it will be a long time before it does so. It was for this reason that, as Minister for the Federal Territory in 1985, I had advocated the separation of the ownership of the proposed LRT from its operation.

I used the bus companies as an analogy where they do not own the roads, and even the bus stops, which are fundamental to their operations. For the LRT system to be successfully privatised, I suggested that the government to be responsible for building the track and then leasing it to the private operator of the LRT system. By separating ownership of the track from the operations of the transport system, the private company would be like any other public transport operator in the city and, without the burden of huge capital costs, more likely to be profitable. Government, on the other hand, could afford to take a longer-term view in getting a return on its investment in the LRT track just as it does with roads and its other infrastructure projects. My proposal was at first accepted by the Cabinet, but subsequently reversed due to fears of rural political backlash as with the then just completed Penang Bridge project. However a decade later the LRT system was revived as a full-blown privatisation project and today, even though the LRT operationally makes money, it is still a long way from recovering its capital cost. Of course there is now talk that the outstanding debt of RM5 billion will be taken over by the government as part of the overall debt restructuring programme ongoing since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Thus essentially we have gone back to the basics of financing our country's infrastructural development. The private sector just cannot afford to finance projects with too long a payback period! In these cases it is the government which has to assume the responsibility, and the LRT is just another situation where a privatised project eventually reverts back to being public funded.

IWK, an even earlier privatised entity, was lately in the news with the Prime Minister admonishing its earlier private owners for being more interested in seeing share market play and making capital gains rather than actual investment in the necessary sewerage facilities and operations. In fact, what the Prime Minister complained about was nothing new because that was precisely what the public was upset about so much earlier. The privatisation 'fever' did indeed help fuel the then bullish stock market and at that time who in government was going to listen to all those 'wet blankets' when there was money to be made and spent all round? Those who were critical of IWK were considered as being envious of the success of the chosen businessmen who were given the opportunity to take over the moneymaking activities of government. And why should they not take over these public enterprises since, it was argued, they will still pay their taxes to government. Even privatised, the government has over 30% share in their profits, so it was argued in support of privatisation Unfortunately, the private sector allows for all sorts of profits other than that being taxed by government. Capital gains through the stock market is just one of them, and since they are tax-free, they are understandably the favourite way of getting your profits ahead of the taxman. Then, there are the over-inflated contracts preferably to be undertaken by your own personal and private companies. Indeed the private sector can see many ingenious and innovative ways to make personal and private profits especially when the enforcement agencies are lax, or at worse, cooperative. These private profits have their opportunity costs too because they are mutually exclusive. Capital gains from the stock market does not mean profits, or even income, for the company, just for the insider. And worse, over-inflated contract prices impose a greater burden on the company itself. While the stock market and the economy are both buoyant, the leakages experienced by the privatised entity are not yet apparent. The common statement had been that it is to be expected that when it is no longer high tide, one can see all the rubbish. But in the first place, why should there be any rubbish at all?

* * * * * *

RM6 BILLION vs RM1.7 BILLION

That is the bottom-line (in dollars and cents) comparison between what it will cost the Government to take over the two LRT systems in the capital city versus what it cost the Government in acquiring the controlling stake in our national airlines from Naluri Berhad. Of course, the final tally is not yet complete in the MAS takeover since we only know the amount paid to bail out Naluri, but to pay 3.5 times more for a intra-city transportation system than for an airlines seems like getting our perspectives all jumbled up! True, RM6 billion is for the one-hundred percent of the two LRT systems but it is still an extremely huge amount to borrow!

* * * * * *

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF POLITICAL DEBATE

The debate between Dato Annuar Musa and Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad was interesting for me because it reminded me of a time when I had publicly, in an UMNO Youth-organised meeting at UKM, opposed the then Minister of Education over his proposed totally new Education Act. The points I raised were very valid points and in fact Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, as the Minister of Education, had to concede to them in his reply. However, he could not allow me to enjoy even a hint of victory. And so, he proceeded to discredit me in his reply so that it may please the partisan UMNO Youth crowd, who will then hopefully forget the points I had scored over his proposed revamped Education Act.

It seems to be a political fundamental; if you cannot answer your critics, try to discredit them. The more personal your attacks against your critics, the better because it will teach them not to criticise you again. It is almost like the royal practice of killing the messenger because the message was not to one's liking! One word of caution though to those who wish to practise this fundamental of political debate. Please remember that there are others listening and watching us as we try our hardest to obliterate our critic's credibility. Should we cross that line of acceptable behaviour by humiliating our critics instead of just answering the issues, we may lose our own credibility in their eyes. It is better if the issues are addressed and answered without our getting too personal, no matter how much we dislike our critics!

In the Annuar Musa-Abdullah Ahmad debate in the media, neither's reputation was enhanced and, what was worse, neither did it seem to help UMNO Kelantan's. It, however, had the air of two wealthy men getting into an argument. Tan Sri Abdullah was prepared to put his money where his mouth is by promising to donate half of his wealth to Baitulmal Kelantan should UMNO retake the state. Poor people do not talk in those terms. In fact, most people seldom do. If only there had been a matching pledge for the reverse from Annuar, the people of Kelantan will be proud to have such well-to-do native sons regardless of how UMNO performs! It is not necessary to declare a winner of the debate, as debates are never clear-cut in their decisions. But Tan Sri Abdullah at over 60 is past his prime to have a real political future (but then who knows!). That is not the situation with Annuar. Perhaps if politicians are really guided by the same Quranic verses that they often and freely quote in their political speeches, they can avoid making the common human mistake of not taking their own advice. And that is a mistake that those who are silently watching the politicians see too much of!

* * * * * *

THE CORPORATISATION OF HEALTH CARE

Recently I ran into a young doctor friend who lives nearby my apartment and this time, both of us had the time to stop and chat. Our conversation naturally went on to cover his work as a doctor. Perhaps because he is young that he seemed surprised to discover that a heart patient of one of the corporatised teaching hospitals was carrying on with a pacemaker that has been defective for over two years. Apparently, the said patient's doctor was well aware of it and simply prescribed some medication in the interim. My doctor friend said that the heart patient was lucky to be alive, no thanks to his doctor!

If my young doctor friend was appalled, I have heard just too many ridiculous stories of the consequences of the corporatisation of teaching hospitals nationwide. One friend recalled how he would get a very perfunctory consultation with a doctor at one of these corporatised hospitals if he paid the regular government-fixed rate. On the other hand, he would have the same doctor's dedicated attention if he went a few floors up and paid the higher 'private consultancy' fees. So actually, it is all about money. Unfortunately, this is disguised as a progressive and positive move in trying to remove the subsidy mentality from amongst Malaysians.

According to some policy-makers, this subsidy mentality is one big hurdle that is holding back Malaysia from becoming a developed nation. It is said that subsidies hide the inefficiencies and true cost, and removing them will make Malaysia more efficient. If Malaysia is more efficient, the argument goes, the country will become more developed. But what are the inefficiencies in public health that are being hidden by the subsidies? Are the subsidies causing the hospitals to have too many doctors, nurses and other medical staff, far exceeding the normal measures and criteria of medical efficiency? Are the patients taking more medicine and staying in hospital beds longer than necessary for them to get well, and thus causing wastage and inefficiency? But the fact is that there is money in health care because there are enough prosperous Malaysians willing and able to pay for it. And even corporatised teaching hospitals want a piece of that lucrative pie.