Delegates attending the just concluded World Economic Forum's East Asia Economic Summit in Kuala Lumpur must have noted the contrast in leadership between Malaysia and Singapore.

While Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was merrily indulging in an orgy of West-bashing, his Singapore counterpart Goh Chok Thong was busy mending the struggling ship that is known as Asean.

In sweeping attacks replete with sensation-hogging rhetoric, Mahathir practically condemns globalisation and the World Trade Organisation as evil creations of the West, and ridicules the Western corporate world as plagued with crooks, abetted by government "cronies".

These uncalled-for and unjustified attacks are over-simplistic to the point of childishness and have contributed negatively to the confidence-building process that Malaysia and Asean need to step up so badly at this critical time.

In contrast, Goh Chok Thong focuses on the issues that really bug Asean: sagging investors' confidence and economic uncompetitiveness. He addresses the top concern of investors at this moment by assuring them that the regional co-operation to combat terrorism will ensure that these governments will continue to stay on top of the terrorists. He also appeals to Asean nations to quicken the pace of economic integration, as the key to upgrade competitiveness and enhance the region's attractiveness to investors.

The urgency to improve Asean's appeal to investors cannot be overemphasised, as Asean's share of the total foreign direct investment (FDI) in this region continues to slide to only 30 percent from its 70 percent levels prior to the recent Asian financial crisis, losing mainly to China.

Malaysia is among the worst hit in this respect, with its FDI dwindled to a dribble. Against this alarming scenario, Mahathir's response is to brush this issue aside nonchalantly as something due to "global economic downturn", saying that "I don't think there is much money going around".

If that is the case, how does he explain that for the year 2001, while Malaysia's FDI shrank to US$0.6 billion, Singapore's FDI ballooned to US$8.6 billion, and even Thailand's FDI increased to US$3.8 billion? (UNCTAD figures).

That Mahathir may be frustrated or even angered by this desertion by foreign investors is understandable, but to take it out by branding globalisation and WTO as "a recipe for the exploitation of the world by the few and the greedy" is the height of folly. Mahathir even predicts that the theory of globalisation will fail just like previous western ideologies that have been discredited.

Where will Malaysia be if not for the globalisation process which brought about a massive influx of FDI and foreign portfolio investment from the late 1980s to the start of the Asian financial crisis in 97/98? Would Malaysia have achieved half as much as it has done in its dramatic expansion in industrialisation and world trade, if there had been no such foreign participation in its economy?

It must also not be forgotten that, it was this same rapid FDI that also enabled Thailand and Indonesia to achieve the same high GDP growth rate of nearly 10 percent over the same decade. Without doubt, it was the influx of capital, technology and international market brought by FDI that transformed the economies of these countries.

That these economies have fallen during the recent financial crisis is not a manifestation that globalisation is evil, but an illustration of how governmental mismanagement can whip a catastrophe in the economies through corruption, cronyism and sheer incompetence. True, unbridled currency speculation and sudden massive withdrawal of capital played a direct role in the collapse of these

economies. But, without the aforementioned underlying weaknesses that accompanied these bubble economies, these countries would have scraped through just like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan have withstood the crisis.

Liberalisation of markets and investments has brought unprecedented prosperity to the world, which includes not only the developed but also the developing countries. Through this process, many once backward societies have succeeded to substantially reduce the size of their poverty sectors. And Malaysia, together with its neighbours, have certainly benefitted immensely from this economic order.

An eminent current example is China, where the fruits of liberalisation are laid out for the world to see. Following its recent admission to WTO, China is rapidly moving one big notch up in the modernisation of its economy, and in the process, has made itself a magnet to the world as a destination for investment and trade.

WTO is not a bed of roses for sure. While it may bring unprecedented opportunities, it often necessitates painful political and economic re-structuring within the participating country in order to successfully meet the new challenges arising from the free flow of goods and services across the borders.

In the case of China, where the economy is still largely a closed economy made up mainly of inefficient state-run enterprises, the transition to WTO standards will entail enormous hardships and sacrifices, in the form of massive retrenchment, re-education of its productive forces, and major upgrading of its administrative and financial institutions. In the course of doing so, China may yet face the risk of major political and social upheavals.

In full view of these challenges, China has embraced WTO, as it is determined to reap the rewards that come with these painful reforms.

Does Malaysia have the same courage to face the challenges that come with WTO and globalisation? In theory, it should be easier for Malaysia to blend into WTO, as it has been practising capitalism with an administrative and legal system well attuned to international practices. Then why is Mahathir so nervous that he has chosen to attack WTO instead of making internal adjustments to reap the benefits from it?

The truth is that Malaysia's is ill equipped to face the anticipated intense competition in an unprotected market as dictated by WTO. This is very sad, as Malaysia has inherited from its colonial master an excellent democratic constitution and an administrative and legal system that was second to none. Coupled with its rich natural resources, it should have developed into a prosperous and progressive nation after four decades of independence, well

geared to enjoy the benefits of globalisation.

Alas, this is not to be. Two decades of Mahathir rule has transformed this nation from an exemplary democracy to a virtual one-man dictatorship, where major policies and mega projects are decided at the whims and fancy of one man, by-passing the process of rational analysis.

And four decades of political hegemony by the ruling Umno has ravaged this country into a land of rampant racism, corruption and cronyism, practised in favour of the political cronies under the guise of the affirmative policy to assist the bumiputra. This misrule has devastated the nation, and thwarted its natural growth of entrepreneurship and productiveness.

The practice of heavy racism in all facets of national life in favour of the bumiputra which form 65 percent of the population has weakened instead of strengthened the economic competitiveness of the bumiputra, while at the same time it causes brain drain and discourages entrepreneur development among the non-Malay Malaysians. The result is a nation divided and a population weakened with low competitiveness.

As an indication of how much Umno's misrule has retarded the progress of this nation, we need to look no further than Singapore. At the time when Singapore broke away from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore's per capita income was not dissimilar to other Malaysian urban centers like Penang or Kuala Lumpur.

Three decades later, Singapore's per capita GDP is eight times that of Malaysia. Considering the fact that Singapore has no natural resources whatsoever, as compared with Malaysia's rich endowment in petroleum, natural gasses, minerals, rainforests, agricultural produce and expansive lands and coastlines, shouldn't Malaysia's per capita income be double that of Singapore, instead of being one-eighth of it?

Another glaring example of the failure of Mahathir's crony-capitalism is seen in the contrast of fortune that befalls MAS and SIA. In the 1960s, there was only one airline serving both Malaysia and Singapore. Then in 1972, this airline was split into the present MAS and SIA.

Three decades later, SIA bloomed into one of the most profitable and prestigious airlines in the world, while MAS is mired in scandals on the verge of bankruptcy, necessitating a bailout of RM7.9 billion public funds, part of which went to the personal pocket of a crony individual through a scandalous purchase of the latter's MAS shares at more than double the market price.

This is but one of many of Malaysia's fallen crony enterprises, all mired in financial scandals of a criminal nature, and all ending up with massive infusion of public funds in billions of ringgit under dubious circumstances. Strangely, none of the culprits has been identified, not to mention

punished.

In this respect, it is ironical to hear Mahathir lecturing and belittling the Western world for the recent spate of scandals involving false accounting among certain corporate giants, as he is the least qualified to do so, having such a galore of spectacular financial scandals of a criminal

nature in his backyard.

It is noteworthy that while all the mega crony failures in Malaysia ended up with massive government bailout, none of the recent corporate giants in difficulties in US received any assistance from the government as wrongly alleged by Mahathir.

Contrary to Mahathir's assertion that these corporate giants are either bailed out by their "cronies" in government or spared from punishment by the application of lengthy legal processes, which he describes as "slow asses", all these scandals are promptly investigated and the culprits brought to book.

As a matter of fact, when the first scandal (Enron) broke out, President George W Bush

immediately and repeatedly vowed that he would spare no effort to ensure that the culprits were punished and effective remedial steps be taken to protect public interests. Simultaneously, half a dozen investigating committees sprang up including those from the Congress, the government and the trade regulating bodies, to probe into the whys and hows of this failure.

Apart from meting out due punishment to the responsible executives in both Enron and the auditing firm, new regulations were swiftly drawn up to compel all CEOs to append their signatures and to take personal responsibilities against pains of heavy punishment, on the truthfulness of future financial reports of their companies.

Equally prompt and stringent treatments were applied to the subsequent scandals, resulting in various prosecution and remedial measures taken to restore investors' confidence on the stock market.

The above treatment of financial scandals stands in stark contrast to that in Malaysia. In fact, what takes place in Malaysia is the exact opposite of the US scenario.

Instead of a congressional committee, we have a speaker of Parliament who unfailingly bars all debate of such issues in the House.

Instead of a president vowing to punish the culprits and take remedial steps, we have a prime minister or finance minister denying any wrongdoing and protecting the culprits.

Instead of a justice department investigating and prosecuting the offending parties, we have an ACA, police and attorney-general sitting on public complaints doing nothing.

Instead of a securities and exchange commission investigating, prosecuting and drawing remedies to prevent future abuses, we have a securities commission keeping its silence.

Finally, instead of a vibrant mass media of TV and press unrelentingly highlighting public complaints, and continuously reporting on the progress of investigations and persecution and remedies, we have all TV stations and newspapers studiously practising the motto of "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil".

Considering all the above, one must admire Mahathir's courage and ability to put up a straight face lecturing and ridiculing the West on their 'poor' corporate and public governance.

If the above scenario is representative of the evils of Western capitalism and the virtues of 'Asian values' so often referred to in Mahathir's speeches, then we say to him: We prefer the Western evils.