The 9th Malaysia Plan is now in the danger of becoming just a political wish list that is devoid of substantive strategic value to the country. In the first instance, there does not appear to be any serious 'visioning exercise' that has to be done to create a shared vision which could serve as a common reference point for the design and construction of a truly strategic macroeconomic plan.

As a consequence of this, strategic mission and direction of the 9th Malaysia Plan is vague. With a reduced budget (as compared to the 8th Malaysia Plan) by of at least RM20 billion and with more ministries to share the budget, prioritising the budget allocation for the 9th Malaysia Plan would be a nightmare.

This, coupled with the absence of a clear-minded and forceful initiative to referee the allocation, would turn this exercise into an almost free-for-all situation with ministries, state governments and other interested parties jostling fiercely for a share of the pie.

Due importance does not appear to have been given to this scenario analysis. We should have a shared vision of the Malaysian social-economic outlook that would be relevant to secure our competitiveness and survival by 2010 and beyond as part of the planning exercise. At the same time with this, much of the content of Vision 2020 needs to be revised and updated.

Thailand, under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, for instance, has resolved that it would be an industrialised country by 2010. In managing the country's resources towards this goal, he and his team have a very clear vision of the country's strategic mission, direction and priorities.

He certainly has his own problems but he has been addressing and coordinating the country's resources well towards realising its strategic objectives. Indeed, Thailand has performed better than Malaysia in many areas. The GDP of the country has been higher than Malaysia. The inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) has been higher and the performance of the Thai stock market has been far better than that of Malaysia's over the past three years.

Singapore is well-entrenched as the region's leading financial centre as well as a leader in high-end technology. It will further strengthen its position as an established center of excellence for applied sciences besides becoming a regional exhibition and seminar hub.

Its well-integrated macroeconomic planning process is the best in the region. With well-coordinated implementation, it is able to offer a clear and seamless package of value propositions to foreign investors and talents who have the desired expertise that could help the country realise its strategic objectives.

In our own country, much appears to be left to the individual ministry to decide .The main message that they have been given basically revolves around the fact that '... there should be no more mega-projects ... focus now on Information Communication Technology, Small-Medium Industries, agriculture and development of human capital'.

This is hardly enough to form a meaningful vision or to act as a reference for crafting a well-articulated statement on strategic mission and priorities. Malaysia's monetary, fiscal and immigration policies, the provisions for the relevant laws and their enforcement vis-a vis the overall macroeconomic plan are hardly harmonised and integrated as practiced by Singapore.

The result is perpetual conflict and hence our failure to deliver a meaningful package to our own private sector let alone to the foreign investors and foreign talents.

Some ministers appear to be interested only with the first four years of a Malaysia Plan. It is during this period that the next Umno triennial supreme council elections would be held. Similarly, the general election would also likely be held during that period. in the next four years.

The fifth or the last year of the plan is a no-event - just as it is now for the 8th Malaysia Plan. It is for this reason that we see only a display of interlude until the 9th Malaysia Pan is launched next year. Most of the money has already been spent anyway.

Notwithstanding this, I sincerely believe that there is still ample time to put the present planning exercise for the 9th Malaysia Plan on the right track. Due recognition, however, must be given to the role of the private sector and relevant NGOs in making the plan meaningful.

The success of this 9th Malaysia Plan is important in answering the question of whether Malaysia is better off under a benevolent dictator or under a more democratic personality. If we fail in this, we need to call the like of Dr Mahathir Mohamad back. This is my frank opinion.