I think it may be useful for blogo-Singaporeans to cast our minds for a moment at what is happening in Malaysia, and ask ourselves how we feel seeing what is happening there. Do we still think that no controls is best?

* * * * *

While the government-controlled newspapers such as the New Straits Times (no connection with Singapore's Straits Times) have largely been moderating or even blacking out Mahathir's broadsides, he has nonetheless received wide publicity in other media, including on the web. This shows the limits of editorial control.

Former PM Mahathir Mohamad

Current PM Abdullah Badawi

I think we can sense that Mahathir's persistent criticisms since the "approved permits" controversy broke out in 2005 have been distracting to the Badawi government. Every now and then, they've been thrown onto the defensive. Malaysian commentators have noted that the "stay calm and react minimally" response of the Badawi administration can only go so far; sooner or later, people will want to hear a more detailed and energetic answer to Mahathir's tirades, or else the credibility of the government may suffer.

In that sense, Mahathir is setting the agenda, not the government.

Mostly, Singaporeans can watch the Mahathir-Badawi tussle with bemused detachment. Except for the trading of accusations over the causeway issue [2], little of the contest concerns us directly.

* * * * *

 
Other issues thrown up recently by the Malaysian media, however, may be worth noting.

On 6 July, Utusan Malaysia, a Malay-language newspaper, carried an article about Singapore gobbling up Malaysia's strategic assets. (See an English commentary that explains it better at Jeff Ooi's Screenshots.)

The story led with speculation that Temasek Holdings, the Singapore government company that buys strategic stakes locally and abroad, was buying into Air Asia, which Malaysians consider a national icon. An unnamed party was said to have bought as much as 6% of Air Asia's shares on behalf of Temasek.

The newspaper reported that industry insiders were seriously concerned that over the last 2 years, strategically important Malaysian companies were coming under foreign control, especially Singapore's. There were calls for the Malaysian government to intervene to protect Malaysia's national interests.

Westport, one of Malaysia's shipping gateways, was said to be under threat. PSA, Singapore's port operator was reported to have bought 20% of Hongkong-based Hutchison. Hutchison, in turn has long had a 30% stake in Westport, Utusan said.

Other examples of Singapore acquisitions were said to include the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation's 5% equity in Proton, Temasek Holdings' 5% stake in Telekom Malaysia as well as a 15% stake in Malaysian Plantations, a company that owns Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad, said to be a "Malaysian anchor bank". In reality, Alliance Bank ranks way down, at 9th place among Malaysian banks.

Meanwhile, the former Executive Editor of the Malay Mail writes in his blog Rocky's Bru: "let's get emotional over Parkway Holdings takeover of Paitai Hospital [sic]".

Parkway Holdings, a Singapore-listed company that focuses on hospitals and medical services, bought 31.3% of Malaysian-listed Pantai Holdings in 2005 (subsequently diluted to 28.5% by 31 December 2005). Pantai operates, and has equity stakes in, 7 hospitals in Malaysia.

Rocky's Bru noted that Parkway Holdings, in its Annual Report, treated Pantai as a subsidiary. The reason for this was to comply with a rule of the Stock Exchange of Singapore.

Notwithstanding that the equity interest is not more than 50%, for the purpose of the financial statements, the Company has accounted for Pantai Holdings Berhad as a subsidiary in accordance with FRS 27, on the basis that, inter alia, the Company has board control of the latter.

-- Parkway Holdings' Annual Report, page 73, 
31 December 2005.

However, Rocky's Bru wrote, "Since the acquisition, none of Pantai quarterly results announcement to Bursa Malaysia [3] disclosed that it is a subsidiary of Parwkay [sic] Holdings."

The implication is that an acquisition of a major hospital chain is being hidden from Malaysians' eyes, especially as Pantai's dividends have improved since the take-over.

"They are milking us!" said Rocky's Bru.

While I am not familiar with Bursa Malaysia's listing regulations, I think most likely the rules are different in Malaysia. Being still short of 50%, there is probably no basis for declaring Pantai as a subsidiary of Parkway under Malaysian rules.

It's a technical matter of compliance with differing listing and disclosure rules rather than an attempt to mislead.

The very first comment under Rochy's Bru's blogpost made a similar point:

Your Malay mail expose spoke about the clandestine takeover of Malaysian companies by Singapore. The way most of you (and I mean Jeff Ooi and yourself) have characterized it as though there is a conspiracy of sorts. Certainly, if one use the example of real national assets like MAS or Telekom Malaysia, then, we would be wary if a foreigner wish to acquire control but Pantai as an example? Where's the national interest? So what if its not consolidated, if a subsidiary is 100% owned by the parent, it is allowed under the Co's Act not to publish the accounts. So, can someone [explain] why we keep on harping on Pantai?

-- bezuhov73

 
Coming back to Air Asia, Temasek Holdings issued a categorical denial that it owned any shares in Air Asia, or that it was interested in buying into the airline. This statement was reported in the Straits Times on 11 July 2006. There was no basis for the alarmist speculation in Utusan Malaysia.

It may be interesting to note that Utusan is closely linked to UMNO, one of the ruling parties of Malaysia. If I may be allowed to speculate a little myself, this kind of news story may be an attempt to seize the nationalist rhetoric the same way that Mahathir has, over the Proton, Augusta and bridge issues. But if so, on whose behalf would Utusan be working -- Mahathir's or Badawi's?

And at whose expense? If you're Singaporean, do you feel somewhat outraged at the slant of such writing, portraying Singapore companies as avaricious, sneaky and a threat to Malaysia?

* * * * *

 
Just after Singapore announced the winning casino bid, a Malaysian conglomerate UEM World announced that Disneyland was coming to Malaysia. A site in Johor state had been earmarked, it said, next to a proposed new town called Bandar Nusajaya with a target population of 600,000, and that discussions with Disney were in progress. Even the national news agency Bernama reported that "government officials" were in contact with the US-based company about a theme park.

The children's Bounce House at Tokyo Disneyland

It didn't take long for skeptics to point out that the only discussions that had been held were with Oriental Land, the Japanese company with the licence for Tokyo Disneyland. US-based Disney itself issued a press statement saying "there are no existing discussions in Malaysia and we currently have no plans for a Disney-branded resort development in that country. Oriental Land Co, which owns and operates Tokyo Disney Resort as our licensee, is a valued partner; however, they have no role in evaluating or negotiating other opportunities for Disney outside of Japan."

Despite that, talk about Disneyland in Malaysia continued for a week more at least, partly fuelled by UEM insisting that it was in talks with "more than four parties, including the big one." Why? Perhaps people just want to believe? At the same time, it struck some that such persistent talk helps boost market demand for the properties that UEM is selling in Bandar Nusajaya.

Who pays for such loose talk? The wage earner eager to buy a house in a new town falsely thinking that its value will appreciate when Disney comes?

Despite the fact that the mainstream media in Malaysia is almost as controlled as Singapore's when it comes to criticism of the government, there is nonetheless a rambunctiousness in their media scene, as you can see from the above. The question we may wish to ask ourselves is: Does it make us firmer in our free speech convictions, or less?

© Yawning Bread