Share This

Monday, 14 November 2011

The right to disagree


Ceritalah by KARIM RASLAN

Societies need to be constantly reminded of the need to take stock of where they are headed and whether theirs is indeed the right path – thus the need for alternative views.

MARINA Mahathir and I are old friends.Marina Mahathir; Potraiture.Image by MkML// via Flickr

Nonetheless, there have been times when I’ve totally disagreed with her, like all friends do.

However, even when we’ve held opposing views, I’ve always respected her straight-forwardness, courage and willingness to take a stand on matters of principle.

Whatever you think of her father (and I’m definitely not a fan) or indeed her own views on social and cultural matters, she remains unwavering in a country where the “lalang bending in the wind” is the best symbol to describe our political elite.

Marina’s confidence and determination are all the more important right now.

Why? Well, Malaysian Muslims are entering into what I’d term a series of “Cultural Wars” over matters once thought too “sensitive” for open discussion, including race, religion and even sexuality.



Conservatives insist that all Malays and Muslims ought to subscribe to a single set of views on these issues.

This goes against contemporary realities.

Social media and widespread prosperity have made all Malaysians more self-aware.

There are now many competing Malay identities floating through our nation and Marina is the voice and public face of the most plural of these amorphous groups.

They play an important role via their advocacy for Malaysians who are too poor, disadvantaged and marginalised to defend themselves.

Indeed, unlike so many children of our elite, Marina has chosen to dedicate her life to public service.
Her work with the Malaysian AIDS Council and advocacy for women’s rights both in and outside the Muslim world speak for themselves.

What differentiates her from many Malay public figures is the fact that Marina has never shied away from the causes she believes in, even those that may be neither popular nor profitable in the country.

Her stubborn steadfastness represents the best tradition of public service and advocacy – a Malay who realises that “ketuanan Melayu” also carries responsibilities that transcends ethnicity or faith.

She deserves credit for taking on these challenges and remaining unflinching when under attack.

Indeed, she is truly her father’s daughter in this respect.

Still, she knows that the future will not be any easier for those on the “edges” of polite society (especially the GLBT – gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender – community) and her stance here is especially important.

Moreover, in an increasingly open Malaysia, anyone who wants a slice of public space has to fight for a hearing because there are many competing identities.

What’s disheartening is when people in power or shapers of public opinion choose to vilify or attempt to silence dissenting voices like Marina.

As I’ve said earlier, it’s impossible for any society to be completely united on anything, be it politics or religion.

Read history and you’ll understand that such societies have never lasted for very long.

Uniformity breeds mediocrity, stagnancy and failure.

Dissent is not disloyalty and anyone who says so is merely trying to shore up their power.

We need alternative views because societies need to be constantly reminded of the need to take stock of where they are headed and whether this is indeed the right path.

Democracy isn’t the tyranny of the majority but the protection of the rights and interests of all groups, no matter how distasteful they may seem to the other.

Indeed, all labels, whether “liberal”, “moderate”, “conservative”, “religious” and “secular” are legitimate and deserve protection as well as respect as long as they likewise respect the rights of others.

All our platitudes about moderation or national transformation will be pointless if we cannot extend this very basic courtesy to each other.

This is what voices like Marina are advocating, not the overthrow of our social norms or faith.

They’re also reminding us that the world is changing politically, socially and economically.

Malaysia will be left behind if we keep insisting on remaining in a time warp in any of these categories.

It’s very sad that this simple fact has escaped many people, but one must be hopeful that good sense will prevail in the end.

In 1997, Marina published a compilation of her writings, entitled In Liberal Doses.

Besides her lively and engaging prose, what I found striking was the foreword that her father, then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wrote for it.

Let me end by offering a quote from this piece, for what it’s worth:

“One is tempted to ask from where she acquired this sense of independence, this urge not to conform, to be critical and not just to cheer on those in power … I do not always agree with her views and vice-versa.
“But it would be a dull world if we always agreed with each other.”

So, Marina, I may well disagree with you but I’ll certainly be there to defend you despite, and indeed because of, our disagreements.

Is the U.S. Worsening as a Place to Start a Business?



By Scott Shane, Contributor from Forbes

While the United States remains a great place to do business, it’s been slipping as a place to start a business, according to the World Bank’s annual “Doing Business” publication.

In 2012, the U.S. was the fourth best country in the world to do business in, coming in behind Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand.  That’s only slightly worse than we were five years ago before the Great Recession hit.

As a place to start a business, things aren’t as good.  It now costs twice as much to start a company as five years ago – 1.4 percent of per capita income versus 0.7 percent.

We are also slipping in how easy it is to start a business as compared to other nations.  As the chart below shows, we were fourth in this category in 2007.  This year we were number 13.

Source: Created from Data from the World Bank’s “Doing Business” reports, various



The World Bank measures 184 countries, so we don’t need to get out the worry beads yet.  Scoring worse than Macedonia, Georgia, Rwanda, Belarus, Saudi Arabia and Armenia might be embarrassing, but few entrepreneurs will choose those countries over the United States. And few American entrepreneurs are moving elsewhere to start companies.

But remaining behind New Zealand, Australia, and Canada year after year should cause those in Washington to take notice.  Policies to bring more foreign entrepreneurs to the United States won’t work very well if those entrepreneurs find it easier and cheaper to start their businesses in countries like Australia and Canada.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Lakshmi Mittal, the King of Steel, Trips Up


ArcelorMittal, his steel colossus, is burdened by overcapacity and debt

A distress signal erected by workers protesting the closure of an ArcelorMittal blast furnace in northern France
A distress signal erected by workers protesting the closure of an ArcelorMittal blast furnace in northern France Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/AFP/Getty ImagesBy and Thomas Biesheuvel

In 2006, Lakshmi Mittal became the King of Steel, though it wasn’t long before the crown grew heavy. Just two years after Mittal created the world’s largest steel company with his $41 billion takeover of Arcelor, the global financial crisis hit, dramatically curbing demand for the metal. Now, with operations concentrated in slow-growth Europe and the U.S., the future for his giant looks increasingly problematic. The latest sign of trouble: At the end of October, ArcelorMittal (MT) pulled out of a venture to buy Australia’s Macarthur Coal (MCC:AU), leaving its partner in the takeover, Peabody Energy (BTU), to pursue the $5.1 billion deal on its own.Lakshmi Niwas Mittal

Buying all sorts of steel-related assets, including coal mines, was until recently part of Mittal’s strategy to build a globe-straddling steel company. And for a while the strategy was working. The Arcelor acquisition was to have been the achievement of Mittal’s career. The new company, combining Mittal’s proven ability to wring efficiencies from aging steelworks with Arcelor’s state-of-the-art European technology, seemed poised to profit handsomely from a booming world economy.

Three years of weak steel demand have put downward pressure on earnings and profits at ArcelorMittal, which is heavily indebted after years of dealmaking. The company also has to contend with a steel glut: Chinese mills have more than doubled production since 2005 to a projected 733 million metric tons this year, according to U.K. steel consultant MEPS. ArcelorMittal has trimmed back output some 20 percent from the 116 million metric tons it produced in 2007. Its share of the global market has fallen from 9.5 percent in 2006 to 6.4 percent in 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The stock is down some 50 percent from its 52-week high in February. And Mittal’s 40.9 percent stake in the company is now worth about $12 billion, down from $55 billion in 2008. Says Rochus Brauneiser, an analyst at Frankfurt brokerage Kepler Capital Markets: “We’re in a very dark market environment right now.”



Mittal, 61, one of the globe’s most prolific dealmakers over the past three decades, seems ever the cool hand. Wearing a blue suit with no tie at his office on London’s tree-filled Berkeley Square, Mittal shrugs off any notion that the marriage with Luxembourg-based Arcelor has been anything less than a success. “There has been no surprise or disappointment in the merger,” he says. “It has been a very positive experience.”

ArcelorMittal is forecast to report a profit of $3.7 billion this year, the highest in three years. Still, that’s far less than the company’s $10.4 billion profit in 2007. Analysts wonder if that record can ever be reprised. “Those days may be gone forever,” says Tony Taccone, a co-founder of First River Consulting in Pittsburgh. “The only way we return is if the economies of all major countries and regions fire on all cylinders at the same time.”

Just about everyone, including Chief Financial Officer Aditya Mittal, agrees with that assessment. “Prices have moved down in the fourth quarter,” Mittal’s 35 year-old son told reporters on Nov. 3. “Customers are not keen to build inventories.”

An anemic economy is exposing the weak links in Mittal’s empire. The plants acquired through the merger with Arcelor are concentrated in Western Europe, where operating costs are high. To keep steel prices from collapsing, Mittal is putting some of those plants on ice. Rather than cutting production across the board, the goal is to keep the best facilities such as those at Ghent in Belgium and at Dunkirk in France running at near full capacity while closing less competitive mills, reducing costs by $1 billion.

In the last two months, ArcelorMittal has announced it is idling plants in France, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, and Spain. On Oct. 14 the company said it would permanently shut down its blast furnaces in Liège, Belgium, which employs 581 workers. Employees responded by barricading six Arcelor managers in their offices for 24 hours. The company says it will try to find new jobs for them. “What is happening now is not a surprise,” says former Arcelor Chief Executive Officer Guy Dollé. “Continental Europe plants have no future.”

ArcelorMittal has also cut back production sharply in the U.S., which accounts for 24 percent of overall output and a slightly smaller share of sales. Mittal can’t count on demand from the so-called BRIC countries to offset weakness in Europe and North America. A planned $500 million plant expansion in Brazil has been put on hold, and progress on moving into India, Mittal says, “has not been what we expected.” Nor does he see an opportunity to expand in China, where the company has two joint ventures. Chinese producers, he warns, which make about half the world’s steel, can “export what they don’t sell [at home] at any price. They will always be a threat.”

For now the emphasis is on conserving cash and trimming debt. Mittal said he is even considering selling some $10 billion in noncore assets. Balking on the Macarthur Coal takeover is just more evidence that Mittal is hunkering down. He says the company shied away from the purchase when it became too expensive. Still, analysts see a shift in Mittal’s take-no-prisoners style of dealmaking. “They’ve always been acquirers of assets, and they’ve always held on,” says Anindya Mohinta, an analyst at Citigroup (C) in London.

Mittal insists his company is becoming stronger year by year, and he may be right. If the world economy does bounce back, Mittal will be better positioned than most to profit because he could quickly bring back idled capacity. “The direction is right,” he insists, “but it is being overshadowed by the bad economy.”

With Sonja Elmquist
Reed is a reporter-at-large for Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek. Biesheuvel is a reporter for Bloomberg News in London.