COMMENT | British historian and economist John Maynard Keynes once said "when the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do sir?"

Forest City has an expensive price tag that would go well into US$100 billion by 2050, at which point, 700,000 Chinese nationals could be relocated to Malaysia, forming their own privileged suburbs.

If Bangsar South, Damansara Heights, Sri Hartamas, Kenny Hills and Bukit Tunku - where elite Malaysians seem to live in their silos - are hard enough to integrate, imagine what an exclusive abode in the heart of Johor would do.

In opposing Forest City, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not just challenging the idea of foreign direct investment from China, but the form and shape; indeed their very impact.

Secluded and secure in their own conclave, Forest City would basically become a citadel of collective self-entitlement; what Yoyogi Koen in the heart of Tokyo is to a group of normally white expatriates, in an elitist Japanese society that does not welcome Asian emigrants anyway.

Given the size of Forest City, which some estimates affirmed could be several times bigger than Singapore, the entire outlay of the landscape by 2050 would be an affront to Malays and Malaysians alike.

This includes the 92 percent of Malaysians who are now earning less than RM6,000 a month, according the statistics of the Employees Provident Fund. And, the four out of 10 Malaysians who are uninsured, invariably, exposing their whole families to the vagaries of lives too.

Both are serious, systemic and structural problems, which projects like Forest City cannot directly address. To add on to that, there are signs that in 20 years, Malaysians will begin to age five times faster than any European societies in general.

These are all impacts that can result in religious and racial tension among Malaysians.

Effects on nation building

The fact is, projects like Iskandar Water Front and Forest City, both of which are built to cater to niched clientele - either the Chinese or Korean, indeed, Singapore, middle class - are sheer property plays too.

They are meant to leverage on the consumers’ higher currency value or higher property values in their respective abodes in China, South Korea or Singapore.

If China itself has blocked more of their own people from buying their properties abroad, at a time when China is promoting Belt and Road Initiative, this policy incongruence is as stark in Beijing as it is in Kuala Lumpur. That President Xi Jinping prefers the Chinese nationals in China, rather than out of it.

This is why one does not see Beijing protesting on behalf of their Chinese citizens that the Malaysian government's attempted review of Forest City has been unfair.

When a policy that goes well into 2050 is being reviewed, it means that the federal government is trying to help correct the state course; without which an emulation effect in Malacca and Negeri Sembilan will make Malaysia practically unrecognisable from the south up.

As things stand, there are probably seven to eight million labourers in Malaysia that come from various locations in Southeast Asia and South Asia.

One is not even sure if all of them have access to decent healthcare and inoculation. If they don't, they are especially vulnerable to various forms of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue.

By not taking care of their welfare, their wages go south, and the minimum income of Malaysians are made even more depressed.

That's what happens when foreign population is absorbed into Malaysia to capitalise on their quick gains without understanding the dire implications.

The same logic holds in Forest City.

Better safe than sorry

Forest City looks all gleaming and glorious. But short of diplomatic protection, it could become a quasi-imperial legation of old, not unlike Shanghai, where areas are zoned according to different customs and authorities.

But that's precisely what fancy properties do. They try to lull you into a state of complacency. Yet, barely few years into the project, there have been 50 complaints, according to open sources, that the workmanship of the apartments has been frail and poor.

Country Gardens, which attempts to sell the properties in Johor, is listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange too. If the project, phase by phase, is supposed to capture an ever-escalating chain of values in Malaysia, shouldn't Country Gardens plant their roots in Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange?

Mahathir and Economic Affairs Minister Azmin Ali happen to be right on this one. Instead of being overly generous with Malaysian land, residential permits and rights to freehold titles, they decided to be tight-fisted.

At US$100 billion, these are certainly money we cannot do without; as it is almost one-third of the national debt that hovers ominously above Malaysia.

But the temptation to fall for the quick buck from China, Korea or any source, are seeds that can be permanently planted to their detriments.

If foreigners are so keen on moving to Malaysia anyway, why not go through the ‘Malaysia As a Second Home Programme’ which is totally fair and legitimate to boot.

There is no need to end all of Forest City too. But the plan to build and build well into 2050 must be counter-measured not merely against the Environmental Assessment Impact (EIA) but ‘social political impact too’ (SPIT).

Without EIA and SPIT going hand in hand, Malaysia will be split right through the middle, not unlike how certain pockets of Kuala Lumpur are already more affluent than other areas, causing the social fabric of the city to fray.

That is Kuala Lumpur alone. Just imagine the impact on Malaysia if Forest City is not subject to the same rigour. Malaysia will be halved and quartered like the proverbial watermelon.

PHAR KIM BENG was a multiple award-winning Head Teaching Fellow on China and Cultural Revolution in Harvard University.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.