Resolving the LFO crisis

FOR a country that comes near the bottom in league tables of human development indicators, has a less than 50 per cent adult literacy rate, burgeoning problems of health, education and unemployment, and beset by ‘difficult’ neighbours (especially to the north and east), Pakistan’s leaders have a truly strange sense of priorities. Ignoring these pressing development and foreign policy issues, all their attention is focused on the Legal Framework Order.

Is the LFO legal? Does it need to be passed by the National Assembly? Can President Musharraf keep his military uniform? Should he have the power to dissolve the National Assembly? What role, if any, should the National Security Council have? These are the questions being debated in power circles. How to deal with Pakistan’s massive economic problems, or what the country’s response to the latest Indian peace initiative should be, hardly get any attention.

What’s the LFO debate about? One could spend hours working through its intricacies, but they all boil down to one simple issue: democracy. Should power in Pakistan be exercised by the representatives of the people or by the military? This deceptively simple question has preoccupied politicians and military leaders — and eluded solution — since long before the LFO.

The current protagonists are President Musharraf and his PML(Q) civilian allies, versus the combined opposition of the MMA, PML(N) and the PPP (plus assorted minor players). Formal negotiations (between the government and an 11-member opposition committee) and informal (between, among others, the ISI and Asif Zardari) have failed to find a way out of the impasse.

There is speculation that President Musharraf is willing to compromise on the power and status of the NSC and his own power to dissolve the National Assembly, but not on his military uniform. The opposition is adamant that he cannot wear two caps at the same time — the uniform must go. They also insist that the National Assembly must pass an amendment to the Constitution: only then will the LFO be legal. Until a way can be found to reconcile these two very divergent positions, governance will remain on hold.

Who, if anyone, is in the right? On the face of it, the answer would appear obvious: genuine democracy means rule by the elected representatives of the people, not by the military. President Musharraf’s insistence on a role for the army in government contradicts the basic premise of democratic rule. Add to this the dubious origins of the LFO — under a military regime and an obliging Supreme Court — and it is clear that the president (whose own presidency has even more dubious origins) is in the wrong.

However, when one considers the average Pakistani ‘elected representative’, the argument appears far less clear-cut. Civilian rule has an inglorious record in Pakistan. The decade between General Zia and General Musharraf was characterized by corruption, mismanagement and inept rule on quite an appalling scale. Nothing commendable or praiseworthy comes to mind of that period. The behaviour of the parties over the past three years of military rule has done little to redeem them.

Many would blame the pervasive hand of the military in Pakistani politics for this failure: political institutions and parties were never given the opportunity to evolve into mature, responsible bodies capable of running the country. This argument has merit, but does not completely explain or excuse the weaknesses of Pakistan’s political class. The military never, for example, impeded internal democracy, yet how many parties hold leadership elections on a regular basis? How many have bothered to produce a manifesto of their plans for governing the country — something that could at least begin to dispel the impression that the only reason they want power is to benefit themselves?

Given their undemocratic record in and out of office, the claim of the opposition to be ‘fighting for democracy’ reeks of hypocrisy. The deal that two of the main parties are rumoured to be holding out for — freedom and return from exile for their tainted leaders in exchange for Musharraf keeping his uniform — is a good indication of the real, selfish motives of Pakistan’s political class. It is not without reason that a cynical public has not thrown their weight behind them.

But there is hypocrisy on the khaki side too. Much as General Musharraf criticizes the record of civilian rulers and claims that military supervision is vital to safeguard ‘the national interest’, his words are belied by evidence. Start with the evidence of history. All Pakistan’s previous military rulers — and there have been quite a few — have sought a formula to erect the facade of civilian rule while keeping real power in their own hands. Musharraf is faithfully copying their example. Like them, he is finding that assuming power was a lot easier than relinquishing it. Like them, he is using ‘the national interest’ to disguise personal or group ambition. The military also has interests of its own to protect — interests quite divorced from ‘the national interest’. The current bloatest defence budget, and massive perks and privileges for service personnel, would, quite legitimately, come under review in a genuinely empowered civilian government. Preserving the former is a major reason to keep the latter out or on the leash.

The supposed debate about democracy, then, is better characterized by a clash between competing interests: political versus military. Neither side’s motives are pure, and therefore neither can be considered being in the right.

The next question is, what is at stake? The future form of government in this country, of course, but much more than that. The civil-military clash taking place in the corridors of power is having a detrimental impact on the everyday business of governance. Development is on hold. The fledgling local government system, which formed part of the LFO package, is struggling to survive. The budget, due to come up for parliamentary approval soon, will be delayed, setting development planning further back. And hovering just over the horizon is the danger of re-imposed military rule, which would mean greater instability.

Governance, stability, development — all are in jeopardy because of the LFO debate. Is it worth the risk? Not at all. Even if motives on both sides were pure (‘democracy’ versus ‘the national interest’), keeping the country in such jeopardy be folly. But in the current scenario, where motives are predominantly selfish (interests of politicians versus those of the army), it is totally unjustifiable. Stability, development and good governance are what the people of Pakistan need. If anyone bothered to ask them, they would answer that democracy can readily be sacrificed for these ends.

Which should not be taken as a prescription for compromise by the politicians. Given that neither side is in the right, there is no clear candidate for compromise. A solution could come through one or both sides backing down. Both would gain respect by doing so, both will lose if they stick to their guns.

Musharraf is the more obvious loser. The overwhelming lesson of history is that a civilian government facade is unsustainable. It either tries to become the real thing or it collapses (taking its creator with it) in the process of trying. What it never does is gain legitimacy. This lesson applies to the LFO as much as to other such rostrums in the past. Even if the National Assembly passes the LFO in its current form, that will not give it legitimacy or durability.

The LFO’s authority stems wholly from the military power of its creator. Given this fact and given the LFO’s inevitable collapse, why bother to erect such an elaborate structure? So long as the army is capable of staging a military coup, its hold on civilian governments is secure. Hence why not just keep real power and let civilians rule the roost in the National Assembly and the President House?

Musharraf has already — through his determination to keep his COAS cap — proved that the presidency is a ceremonial office. Why not give that hat up and take the army completely out of government? Such a course would not lessen the military’s grip on power but, ironically, would confer greater legitimacy than any number of constitutional amendments passed by a coerced parliament.

The other option is for politicians to back down. They too stand to lose from pushing this issue. The public will not thank them if they corner Musharraf into dissolving the assembly, and thereby plunge the country into another period of instability and economic impoverishment. After three years out in the cold, politicians themselves do not want to end up back there. But that is what will happen if they persist with their current stance: the limited, supervised power they can exercise now will be replaced by no power at all.

Just as a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly for the LFO will not make it legitimate, rejecting it will not alter the reality of military power either. With or without the LFO, civilian governments will be vulnerable to military intervention. Why not then — for the sake of the country as well as themselves — swallow their pride and pass the LFO?

Such a course would win the politicians far more respect than rigidity over the LFO. It would allow them to get on with what they were elected to do: govern Pakistan. Therein lies the real battle that Pakistan’s politicians have to win: bettering their previous record in government and using power (albeit limited) to do some good for their people.

There are problems far more immediate and pressing than the LFO facing the people of Pakistan. Its leaders - military and political would do well to spend more time on those real practical problems, and less on the LFO.

Talk about higher growth

PERSONS holding top offices in the country are singing their economic songs constantly prior to presenting the annual budget. And these are the songs of their own economic success or macro-economic feat. Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali, who joined the scene only recently, is singing the chorus with equal zest and has promised the maximum possible relief to the people which may not mean much, judging by finance minister Shaukat Aziz’s cautious utterances in this regard.

We have been told the provinces will now be free to frame their own budgets instead of being tutored by the central or federal finance ministers setting the parameters for the provincial fiscal targets and expenditure limits. The provinces do want to be free of excessive manipulation by the Centre and improve their own resources.

The prime minister wants the finance minister to announce the composition of the National Finance Commission early so that they can know how much of the federally collected revenues would they get before framing their own budget. And it appears that only name of the Balochistan member of the NFC is awaited for announcing the new NFC.

When President Musharraf constantly talks of the country having come to the take-off stage economically, that should apply not only to the Centre but also to the provinces which have the responsibility to promote education, public health, environmental safety etc. along with law and order which has become more of a federal object in practice with a strong army presence.

It is easy for the finance minister to be generous to the provinces this year because of the vastly improved tax revenue position, and generous external assistance and the tax revenue target of Rs 460 billion being even exceeded which has encouraged the government to propose a tax revenue target of Rs 505 to Rs 510 billion next year. If all goes well, next year too the provinces should be fiscally comfortable.

The finance minister now says the country should be prepared for the second generation economic reforms after the success of the first. And that, he cautions, is not easy-going as its success depends on a number or major factors. Meanwhile the question is: will the new reforms be directly more helpful to the people than the macro economic reforms? and quick enough? Will they raise the standard of living of the low income groups and not of the very poor alone?

Meanwhile we are old economic growth this years is not 4.5 per cent but, in fact 4.8 per cent and the highest for several years of low growth. On the basis of the higher growth recorded, the economic growth anticipated next year will be 5.3 per cent and not 5 per cent, as earlier projected. If these projections or estimates are real we have reasons to be happy as these show a positive growth trend.

And that possibly provides the answer to the academic economists who ask if the macro-economy has improved or macro-economic stability has been achieved why is economic growth not gaining momentum? The new figures show the growth is picking up momentum. Secondly, the macro economy has become stabilised only now and its positive results cannot become visible instantly. In fact, the finance minister has often been talking of economic revival instead of great economic progress, while some external indicators do speak of notable progress, thanks largely to external factors like the global effects of 9/11.

But for the scare generated among the Pakistanis abroad after 9/11 the home remittances might not have shot up to almost four billion dollars from less than one billion dollars nor the balance of payments improved to that incredible extent. Nor might the outflow of dollars stopped and the rupee becomes stronger against the dollar from around 68 to Rs 57.63 dollar.

When he addressed a crowded meeting of the Management Association of Pakistan in Karachi Shaukat Aziz came up with five pre-conditions for the success of his second generation reforms. And they begin with political stability which those in the government, beginning with the President alone can ensure. Seven months after the general elections, which followed three years of military rule we do not have a truly working government at ease with itself or the country.

The second pre-requisite is regional stability which depends on India wanting to work together with Pakistan. Regional peace is important to attract foreign investors and speed up the economic progress and attract larger foreign assistance as well. It is difficult to predict the pattern of Pak-India relations before even the first meeting at any level between the officials of the two countries.

Shaukat Aziz also wanted sound law and order, consistency in policies, and fiscal accountability of the government.

Positive initiatives for all such actions have to come from the government which has not only to announce their policies but also enforce them and monitor their implementation and punish the officials violating them or ignoring them. That has not been our history. Will we make a new beginning now after the prolonged political squabbling?

The Economic Adviser to the ministry of finance Dr Ashfaq Hasan Khan, too, has come up with five pre-requisites for a sustainable economy that helps the country stay out of the debt-trap. Among them are political stability, consistent economic growth, regional peace and stability, continuation of transparent economic policies, and Pakistan’s lasting image as fiscally responsible country. He said it would be ridiculous to expect economic growth from a debt trapped country.

But it is usually the government which follows erratic policies which need heavy borrowing and while it is not able to raise enough tax revenues, it borrows at any rate of interest, even from private banks. So the government or the leadership alone can find solutions for such problems and not the people who are the victims of the policies of the government, including heavy inflation and high interest rates as had prevailed in the past.

The chairman of the Central Board of Revenue Raaz Ahmed Malik says the fiscal problem in Pakistan has arisen due to the fact that for long now the average tax revenues was 13 per cent of the GDP. The recent elimination of the wealth tax and reduction in import and central excise duties have resulted in loss of revenues to the extent of 2.9 per cent.

He has been on a mission to rouse his tax collecting tribe and he addressed his 15th meeting of about 200 income tax commissioners and deputy commissioners in the city recently. He asked them to collect far more revenues but without violating the CBR laws and rules or offending the tax payers. But when he talked of the low tax collection what he did not say was that if the tax revenues from the petroleum and gas surcharges and some other taxes were treated as tax revenue the collection would go up by 2 per cent. But the government treats them simply as surcharges.

He has been on a kind of campaign trail to exhort his men to collect larger revenues and he has succeeded amply, judging by the fact that the tax targets have been met this year. So new tax survey is to be launched this year.

He is determined to make a success of the CBR reforms suggested by the Shahid Hussain Committee which contains no exceptional reforms but a good many common sense measures. The taxation commissioners were concerned about their own future. He said their emoluments could not be doubled overnight but would double by the end of next year.

He said Rs 120 million is to be spent on retaining them and in sending them to Ivy league business schools in Pakistan and abroad. But they would have to secure their admission on merit and there would be no reservation for them. Let us see how many of them make to Harvard, Yale and Stanford on merit and come back smarter.

Meanwhile it does not seem proper for Prime Minister Jamali to get too over-ecstatic about Gwadar and say it would soon be the most important port in the world. Are we to believe it would be more important than New York, or the ports of Japan and Europe?

Meanwhile, are we going to pay off the more costly debt of the IMF and not accept any more of its conditionalities? India can afford not to impose VAT, while most of the provinces have agreed at last it should be as the ruling BJP is facing elections in Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh which are strong supporters of BJP in November elections as India is not under the IMF regime.

But in Pakistan we are under the IMF regime and hence the new budget is to pass through the IMF scanner and IMF is insisting that the sales tax of 5 per cent should be extended to new areas making life more costly to more people. Now are we going to pay off the costly debt of the IMF quick, or wait?

And as we step up our cooperation with the US in fighting terrorism, is the US going to write-off more of our loans, at least to the extent of 1.2 billion dollars as reported, and reduce our debt servicing cost? And is it coming up with larger budgetary support to reduce our budgetary squeeze?

Meanwhile the Group of Seven has done well to advise its rich members to consider debt relief for other indebted developing countries than the Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

What ultimately matters is the welfare of the poor masses who have been suffering for long. In this regard, judging by a TV interview of Shaukat Aziz, no direct relief to the poor is conceived, except in terms of poverty reduction. Direct employment measures are not contemplated through vast infra-structure schemes. But they are to be provided employment through housing schemes and construction and through small and medium industries. If they can absorb sufficient number of workers through such means as well as agricultural expansion that is very welcome. But what the West sees now is economic revival without an increase in jobs. I hope that pattern is not repeated here as we have too many millions unemployed.

Secondly, such employment can take quite some time and the unemployed cannot wait that long. Hence the government has to come up with more direct employment schemes until the private sector takes over from it and reduces the fury of the unemployed.

White House and CIA

WHAT a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive. President George Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by claiming Baghdad was behind 9/11 and threatened America with weapons of mass destruction.

To Washington’s profound embarrassment, US forces in Iraq have so far failed to find any unconventional weapons or any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Most Americans don’t seem to care their government launched a war of unprovoked aggression based on fabricated ‘evidence’ and untruths, or that the president and secretary of state repeatedly misinformed and misled the nation.

But now Democrats are accusing Bush of trumping up a war against a nasty but unthreatening Iraq while failing to combat terrorism, evidenced by the recent bloody suicide bombings in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

The White House is trying to deflect rising criticism of its Iraq policy by blaming CIA for supplying erroneous information, a ploy originated by President John F. Kennedy after his Bay Pigs fiasco. But CIA was not wrong. The agency repeatedly warned the Bush administration, both privately, through leaks, and openly, that Iraq was not a threat, did not possess significant offensive weapons systems, and was unlikely to greet American and British invaders as ‘liberators.’

Where CIA went wrong was predicting heavy urban fighting in Iraq. In fact, most pre-war military estimates were mistaken. Most defence analysts, this writer included, foresaw heavy urban combat. But there was only limited city fighting. What happened to Iraq’s Republican Guards divisions around Baghdad remains a mystery: they simply vanished or were blown to bits by B-52s. Guard commanders may have been bought off or gave up when Saddam went into hiding or was allowed to flee the country — thanks, it is rumoured, to a Saudi-brokered deal.

But CIA was correct in warning the White House and Pentagon that Iraq would turn into a quagmire for the US. This is precisely what is now happening. Iraq is in chaos and near-anarchy. US occupation forces have so far been unable to form even a puppet regime, as was done in Afghanistan.

The initial American-appointed ruler of Iraq, Jay Garner, a retired general who looked more like a building contractor than an imperial viceroy, has been fired, along with a State Department lady who was bizarrely named mayor of Baghdad. A neo-conservative diplomat has been brought in to run Iraq. Meanwhile, US firms, led by Texas oil giant Halliburton, Vice-President Cheney’s old firm, are fighting like hungry vultures to get a slice of Iraq’s petro-wealth. But America now risks a potential colonial conflict in Iraq that may cost even more than the profits it may make from ‘liberating’ Iraq’s oil.

Most ominously, Iraq’s Shia majority, long repressed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, is flexing its political muscles, and calling for an Iranian-style Islamic state. Mass graves of Shias executed by Saddam’s regime in 1991 are now being cited by the Bush administration as an after-the-fact justification for invading Iraq.

But remember it was Bush’s father in 1991 who called on Iraq’s Shias and Kurds to revolt, then sat back, watching impassively, as Saddam’s forces slaughtered the rebels. Why? Because Bush senior and his advisers feared, with much reason, that if Saddam’s minority Sunni Muslim regime fell, Iraq’s Shias would take over and align with Iran. Ironically, this may now be happening.

Back to CIA. Before the war, the hawks and neo-conservative supporters of Israel’s hard right who are running US foreign policy became enraged at CIA for failing to back their claims that Iraq was a deadly threat to mankind that required urgent military action. So they created a special intelligence unit that cherry-picked reports suiting their views, and sent the biased info to the White House and Pentagon. Protests by CIA professionals that the national intelligence function was being politicized and corrupted were ignored.

The special intelligence unit relied on bogus reports from Iraqi exiles and carefully crafted disinformation from Kuwait and Israeli intelligence to provide ammunition for the pro-war party. Much of the data delivered to the White House by this intelligence unit was erroneous. Unconventional weapons were not found, and Iraqi’s failed to welcome invading US and British forces, as a well-known lady neo-conservative columnist had gushingly predicted, “like French in 1944, greeting their liberators with flowers.”

Contrary to Bush’s assurances that invading Iraq would end terrorism and make the Mideast a safer, quieter, more democratic place, the recent terror attacks in Casablanca, Riyadh, and Israel showed the invasion had sparked more, not less, terrorism and counteractive repression, and that anti-American militant groups were gaining, not losing, strength. Palestinian bombings and Israeli intransigence left Bush’s ‘road map’ for Arab-Israeli peace looking more like a dead end.

Early on, Bush vowed to avoid ‘nation building’ and avoid Mideast entanglements. But thanks to Bush’s clumsy war on terrorism, his unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and his relentless belligerency towards the Muslim world, the Mideast may come to be the nemesis of his administration, just as Iran undid that of President Jimmy Carter.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis, 2003.

Argentina’s new leader

NESTOR Kirchner, who is to be inaugurated Sunday as Argentina’s new president, has many of the hallmarks of the statist, populist leaders who have led Argentina from one catastrophe to the next during the past half-century.

As governor of a sparsely populated but resource-rich southern province, he bloated the state payroll with up to 40 per cent of the population, packed local courts with his allies, bullied the media and changed the local constitution to eliminate the term limit that applied to him.

During the campaign he positioned himself as a nationalist champion against the International Monetary Fund and said he would demand that creditors write off a large part of the country’s foreign debt. Last week he named a cabinet featuring a prominent leftist as foreign minister, as well as four of his provincial cronies, including his sister. Thanks to the abrupt withdrawal of his runoff opponent, former President Carlos Menem, Mr. Kirchner will enter office with the votes of only 22 percent of the electorate; most Argentines say they aren’t sure what he intends to do. They, and the Bush administration, can only hope he will surprise them.

—The Washington Post

Malaysia’s ethnic harmony

UNLESS he is physically eliminated, Malaysia’s Mahathir bin Mohammad is the man one should watch. In all possibility, he is going to be the future leader of the Muslim world.

At 77, he is already late for that role. Reason: he has so far done what any man with common sense and vision would do — he has spent the most productive years of his life in building his own country. Not for him empty “Islamic” rhetoric!

In October this year, Mahathir is to step down as Malaysia’s prime minister, and that could be the beginning of a new career for him devoted to a larger vision. In February this year, after Malaysia hosted the thirteenth summit conference of the Nonaligned Movement at Kuala Lumpur, Mahathir became its chairman. He will remain so for the next three years. Then later this year, Malaysia will host a summit meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference. He will be its chair, too, for the next three years. The combination of these two offices should help Mahathir achieve some goals that go beyond Malaysia, the country that he helped build, develop and grow into a position where it has already entered the ranks of the middle-income group of countries.

Mahathir became Malaysia’s prime minister in 1981, but not before he had some rough moments at the hands of Tunku Abdur Rahman, prime minister and leader of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). After the ethnic riots that rocked Malaysia in May 1969, Mahathir launched a series of public attacks on the Tunku. His book, The Malay Dilemma, won wide acclaim from the Malay majority but seriously annoyed the prime minister, who expelled him from the party. However, Mahathir bounced back to become the party leader and later prime minister to launch that extraordinary career which has turned Malaysia into what it is today.

What lessons does Malaysia hold for Pakistan? Economically, it is not the only Third World country that has left Pakistan behind — all Asian “Tigers” have. The special lesson that Malaysia holds for Pakistan concerns its adroit ethnic management.

There are, no doubt, undercurrents of ethnic tensions in Malaysia, for no system devised by man can be perfect. But, on the whole, Malaysia presents an excellent example of ethnic harmony and communal peace in a country that has a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic population.

Malay Muslims constitute nearly 60 per cent of the population, the Chinese 25 per cent and the indigenous people of Sarawak and Borneo and the Eurasians 3.2 per cent. The rest of the people are of South Asian origin, mostly Tamils, taken by the British to Malaya to work on rubber plantations in the early part of the twentieth century. (The Chinese were brought in to work the mines.)

Going by the South Asian experience, such an ethnic mix would hardly be considered ideal material for a viable constitutional scheme which would lead to the growth of a politically stable state in which all sections of its polyglot population would have equal economic and political opportunities and live in peace and harmony.

When Malaysia was established in 1963, the Chinese minority — industrious, cohesive and relatively advanced in the professions and business — dominated the economy. Indeed, there were many business sectors in which the Chinese had a virtual monopoly. At the bottom of the social rung were South Asians; in between were the Malays.

Two events occurred to alter the picture. In August 1965, Singapore seceded from Malaysia, and in May 1969 there was an ethnic riot in the country. The riot was a painful chapter in Malaysia’s political history and ethnic relationships, but unlike we South Asians, who never seem to learn from conflicts and tragedies, the Malaysians drew their lessons correctly.

The first of the lessons was that, while there would be equal opportunities for all, the boumiputras (sons of the soil) would have a special place in the scheme of things. The Chinese community, too, came to a correct conclusion: it gave up political ambitions.

Mahathir was not in power when he wrote his book, but the New Economic Policy framed by the UMNO in 971 borrowed many of his ideas. The book had pleaded the case of the Malay majority and demanded a special constitutional provision for the Malays’ social and economic progress. The constitution was amended, and article 153 provided for a special status for the Malay majority.

However, the special constitutional provision has not had the effect of blocking other communities’ progress. If the Malays had used the provision negatively — for instance, to monopolize government jobs — the result would have been disastrous. Such a myopic policy would not only have alienated the other ethnic groups; it would have also stunted Malaysia’s overall progress and possibly led to what Pakistan has witnessed — ethnic antagonism and strife.

Instead, under Mahathir’s leadership, the Malays set themselves seriously to the task of developing their country economically in cooperation with the other two communities. The results are spectacular. With a per capita GDP of $4,000, Malaysia has turned from a largely agricultural economy into an industrialized society, with a highly diversified and export-oriented economy. Today, there is an industrial and construction boom in Malaysia, which was the first to come out of the currency crisis that rocked Asia in 1997.

Malaysia today is not only the world’s largest producer of rubber and palm oil, it is also the world’s biggest exporter of microchips. Industry now accounts for one-third of the GDP, while manufactures constitute 90 per cent of its exports, which total $88 billion. Its external trade amounts to $158 billion, and this makes Malaysia the world’s 18th biggest exporting and 17th biggest importing nation. With a 38 per cent savings rate, Malaysia finances its development plans to the extent of 95 per cent.

Because of the boom in the economy, it needs more people. That accounts for the presence of two million immigrant workers, including nearly a million illegal ones from Indonesia. It also recently announced that it would take in 100,000 Pakistani guest workers.

Also, Malaysia is perhaps the only oil-less Asian country that wants more babies. Its population currently is 23.26 million, but Mahathir has set a target of 70 million people for his country.

The country’s official slogan — “Malaysia Truly Asia” — serves to emphasize its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic character and presents Malaysia as a confluence of religious and cultural strains originating in China, South Asia and the Malayan peninsula. A visitor to Malaysia today is struck by the high level of its economic infrastructure and communal harmony and peace that seems to reign. At public places, one finds all three groups — Malays, Chinese and South Asians — equally represented.

An extraordinary change seems to have occurred in the socio-economic conditions of the people of South Asian origin. During this writer’s visit to Malaysia about two decades back, few people of South Asian origin seemed to hold white collar jobs. Today, one finds them in the mainstream of public life. They occupy important positions in the public and private sectors and seem to have advanced rapidly in the professions and up the social ladder.

More important, they are proud of being Malaysians. Interacting with them gives one the distinct impression that they have those “developed-country attitudes” which the people of the subcontinent lack.

Observers of the Malaysian scene say that Mahathir’s greatest achievement has been his success in promoting a sense of Malaysian nationalism and in welding Malays, Chinese and Indians into one nation.

Michael Yeoh, of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, said it was ironic that under a Malay nationalist “Malaysians came to feel proud of being Malaysians.”

All this would not have been possible if Mahathir’s policies had not led to a high degree of affluence in the country, to an equal distribution of the national wealth among all sections of the community, to a general rise in living standards, and to a feeling among the Chinese and Indians that they are co-sharers in Malaysia’s prosperity.

In the long run, Islamic fundamentalists may create problems for Malaysia. They already control two of Malaysia’s 13 states. But Mahathir’s policy is clear: the fundamentalists are free to operate so long as they do not preach the overthrow of the existing order through violence.

The writer recently visited Malaysia