Saturday, February 17, 2024

Former Finance Chief Plays Key Role as Mahathir's Adviser : Malaysia's No-Nonsense Reformer

Malaysians could be excused for feeling like they had already heard of some of the austerity measures announced Friday.

A decade ago, Daim Zainuddin, the architect of modern corporate Malaysia and the finance minister at the time, slashed government spending and grappled with the issue of corporate bailouts, the same issues facing Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim today.

In 1985, a year after Mr. Daim took control at the Finance Ministry, the economy shrank. But Mr. Daim's tough and initially unpopular measures led to a decade of record growth. The stock market swelled to become the third-largest in Asia, behind Japan's and Hong Kong's.

In an interview this week, Mr. Daim said that fixing the economy would be more difficult this time.

"In 1985 and 1986, things were different, and the economy was much smaller," he said. "Looking back, it was much easier to handle that."


The possibility of a turnaround, he said, depends on what the government does now. "Are we going to face the problem head on — which I would recommend," he asked, "or do we want to delay things like Japan, thinking that time will cure things?"

His advice: "Cut expenditure and no bailouts for any companies. This is business. If the markets decide it should be that way, they have to face the consequences."

The comments are strikingly similar to those Mr. Anwar made Friday. "We are not here to protect or bail out," Mr. Anwar said, outlining a package he called "market-driven."

Mr. Daim, 59, currently holds the title of economic adviser to Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. He and Mr. Mahathir are credited with transforming a country that had relied on tin, rubber and palm oil into a diversified high-end manufacturing center.

"Daim's role has been providing access to the prime minister," said Jomo K.S., a professor of economics at the University of Malaya. "In a country where executive support has been crucial for business success, this has been important."

Mr. Daim has also provided a practical, no-nonsense voice on economic policy, in contrast to the fiery rhetoric of Mr. Mahathir. This is his nuts-and-bolts view of the current crisis: "If you want to run a marathon, you need a breather. You have to consolidate your position for the next stage. You can't continue expanding and expanding. There would be bottlenecks, shortage of manpower and, when you become too big, bureaucracy."

Events this week provide a good example of the contrast between the prime minister and Mr. Daim. Mr. Mahathir said early in the week that banks had been instructed not to make too many margin calls — demands that a client make up the difference between loan and the price of the shares pledged as collateral. The prime minister also called traders who recently increased the price of cooking oil "economic saboteurs." Mr. Daim, by contrast, sends a message of sink or swim. On the issue of margin calls, he said: "The banks must be left to decide. They know who their clients are."

Investors have in the past taken comfort from the notion that behind the rhetoric of Mr. Mahathir, they could divine hard government policy through Mr. Daim.

Mr. Daim, who is treasurer of Mr. Mahathir's party, the United Malays National Organization, said he and Mr. Mahathir consulted regularly. "That doesn't mean that we always share the same views," he said, "but Dr. Mahathir is big enough to know that differences of opinion are part of democracy. "

Last week, in a sign of their continued cooperation, he and Mr. Mahathir traveled to Tokyo, where they met with Japanese businessmen and government officials.

It was Japanese investment that played an important role in helping Malaysia emerge from its recession in 1985. This time, however, Mr. Daim said he was not counting on Tokyo.

"The good thing about them is that they understand us," Mr. Daim said, referring to Japan's wartime occupation of much of Southeast Asia. "They have been here a long time; they ruled us."

However, he added, "If they want to lead, they can, but they are not interested, and nobody can force them. So, I do not look to Japan." More than the United States, which he said was is due for an economic correction, Mr. Daim said he was counting on Europe, but he is not counting on outside investment alone.

"Nobody owes us a living," he says. "If you want to survive in this world, there's no other way: hard work, efficiency."

Sunday, January 8, 2023

Ilustrasi Hikmat Sdn Bhd Vs. Syed Mokhtar Court Transcript

 

  • 1

    DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA (APPEAL JURISDICTION)

    RAYUAN SIVIL/RAYUAN NO W-02(IM)(NCC)-2748-12/2013

    BETWEEN

    ILUSTRASI HIKMAT SDN BHD PERAYU

    AND

    TAN SRI DATO SERI SYED MOKHTAR SHAH BIN SYED NOR .RESPONDEN

    DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA (APPEAL JURISDICTION)

    RAYUAN SIVIL/RAYUAN NO W-02(IM)(NCC)-2749-12/2013

    BETWEEN

    ILUSTRASI HIKMAT SDN BHD PERAYU

    AND

    TRADEWINDS (M) BHD .RESPONDEN

    DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA (APPEAL JURISDICTION)

    RAYUAN SIVIL/RAYUAN NO W-02(IM)(NCC)-2750-12/2013

    BETWEEN

    ILUSTRASI HIKMAT SDN BHD PERAYU

    AND

    PADIBERAS NASIONAL BERHAD .RESPONDEN

  • 2

    (DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR) GUAMAN NO: 22NCC-331-04/2013

    ANTARA

    ILUSTRASI HIKMAT SDN BHD PLAINTIF

    DAN

    TAN SRI DATO SERI SYED MOKHTAR SHAH BIN SYED NOR

    TRADEWINDS (M) BHD PADIBERAS NATIONAL BERHAD BUDAYA GENERASI SDN BHD .. DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

    CORAM:

    Y.A DATO ALIZATUL KHAIR BINTI OSMAN KHAIRUDDIN, HMR Y.A. DATO ABDUL AZIZ BIN ABD. RAHIM, HMR

    Y.A DATUK DAVID WONG DAK WAH, HMR

    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

    Introduction:

    1. Before us are three appeals against the decision of the High Court in

    which the learned Judge allowed an application by the

    Respondents/1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to strike out the statement of

    claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff premised on Order 18 rule 19 of the

    2012 Rules.

  • 3

    2. We heard the appeals and after due consideration to respective

    submissions of counsel, we allowed the appeals and now give our

    reasons.

    3. For the purpose of this Judgment, the parties shall be referred as

    Plaintiff and Defendants as in the High Court.

    Striking out principles:

    4. The legal principles relating to striking out pleadings are settled and

    there are numerous Judgments setting out those principles.

    5. The Plaintiff has a right to access to Court and with it the right to have

    his day in Court. Hence case laws dictate that Court should only

    exercise its power to strike out only in exceptional circumstances. One

    such circumstance is that on the pleadings themselves and assuming

    that they are true, they do not disclose any cause of action. The Court

    will also strike out an action which is clearly time-barred even if parties

    do not dispute the existence of a cause of action and the date the

    cause of action accrued. In both circumstances, there is no dispute as

    to the factual matrix of the statement of claim. Hence when there is a

    dispute as to the factual matrix of the case, the Court would not strike

  • 4

    out the statement of claim and the Plaintiff is entitled to have his day

    in Court to prove its claim.

    6. Further it has also been held by the apex Court of the land that so long

    as the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action,

    however weak the claim is, that claim cannot be struck off summarily

    (see Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v Unites Malayan Banking Corp,

    Bhd (1993) 4 CLJ 7). The burden is on the Defendants here to show

    to the Court that the claim is so plain and obviously unsustainable or

    in other words, the Plaintiffs claim is bound to fail at trial. It is with the

    above principles at the forefront of our minds that we considered this

    appeal.

    Background:

    7. According to the Plaintiff, the circumstances leading to his legal action

    are these. Bernas (the 3rd Defendant) was incorporated on 14 April

    1994 by the Federal Government for the purpose of dealing with the

    distribution of rice in the country.

    8. On 11 July 1995, seven parties entered into a Shareholder Agreement

    to form a joint venture company called Budaya Generasi Sdn Bhd (4th

  • 5

    Defendant) to purchase the shares from the Federal Government in

    the 3rd Defendant. This transaction was for the purpose of allowing the

    4th Defendant to take over the liabilities and rights of the 3rd Defendant.

    The seven shareholders and their shareholdings were as follows:

    (a) Permatang Jaya Sdn Bhd (PJSB).. 38.89%

    (b) Pertubuhan Peladang Kebangsaan (NAFAS).. 11.111%

    (c) Persatuan Nelayan Kebangsaan (NEKMAT) 11.111%

    (d) ZAW Ventures Sdn Bhd (ZAW) ..11.111%

    (e) Simpletech Sdn Bhd (Simpletech) 11.111%

    (f) Syarikat Perniagaan Peladang (MADA) Sdn Bhd (SPPM).

    11.111 %

    (g) Syarikat Perniagaan Peladang (KADA) Sdn Bhd

    (SPPK)..5.555 %.

    9. On 2 January 1996, a supplementary shareholders agreement was

    entered into between the Plaintiff and the aforesaid 7 shareholders and

    one Sebiro Holdings Sdn Bhd (Sebiro) in which both the Plaintiff and

    Sebiro became 5% shareholders in the 4th Defendant, resulting in a

    reduction of the shareholdings of ZAW and SSB.

    10. It is not in dispute that the 3rd Defendant held a monopoly as the sole

    importer of rice in Malaysia. And hence according to the Plaintiff, the

    5% shareholding in the 4th Defendant was a valuable investment.

  • 6

    11. However according to the Plaintiff, the worth of the Plaintiffs

    shareholding in the 4th Defendant was rendered valueless when

    through a series of corporate exercises involving the 1st Defendant,

    the 2nd Defendant (Tradewinds (M) Bhd) and the 3rd Defendant in

    2003, 2009 and 2013, the 4th Defendant ceased to hold any shares

    in the 3rd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant became a shareholder in

    the 3rd Defendant to the extent of 83% by 2013. By a novation

    agreement in December 2009, the rice import business of the 4th

    Defendant contained in the Privatisation Agreement with the

    Government was novated to the 2nd Defendant. Through these series

    of exercises, the Plaintiffs interest in the 4th Defendant according to

    the Plaintiff became virtually valueless.

    12. According to the Plaintiff, they were assured by the 1st Defendant in

    2003 that when the corporate exercises first began that their value in

    the 4th Defendant would not be rendered valueless. This is how the

    Plaintiff said in paragraphs 21-22 of the statement of claim:

    (a) SM had been instructed by the then Prime Minister of

    Malaysia to assume control of Bernas to provide better

    efficiency to its affairs and the entry of SM through the SM

  • 7

    2003 Nominee would advance the commercial interest of all

    shareholders of the Original Private Promoter (including the

    Plaintiff).

    (b) SM intended the investment in Bernas to be a long term

    investment (which he desired to pursue with the Plaintiff) and

    his plans would ensure significant benefit to the Plaintiff and

    the adherence of the underlying objective of Bernas in terms

    of the Privatization Agreement and Bernas Agreement.

    (c) SM will conduct himself in a transparent manner in his future

    dealings within the Original Private Promoter and Bernas so

    as to allay concerns of the Plaintiff that there would be any

    further activities undertaken in stealth.

    (d) The shareholders agreement and the Supplemental

    Shareholders Agreement will be honoured in its original form

    and spirit.

    13. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant breached the

    above assurances which the Plaintiff in his statement of claim

    describes as follows:

    (a) The spirit of the pre-emption under the Shareholder

    Agreement was again being breached by SM and SM 2003

    nominee by essentially allowing control of Bernas to be again

  • 8

    hived off to another remote nominee of SM namely

    Tradewinds.

    (b) The objective of the dividend in specie exercise that was

    being formulated on a parallel basis with the 2009 General

    Offer was such that the premium that was had by the Original

    Private Promoter in Bernas was removed away from each of

    the minority shareholders of the Original Private Promoter and

    housed entirely with SM.

    (c) The dividend in specie exercise was effected on or about

    5.11.2009 through a positive controlling vote of

    representatives of SM on the Board of the Original Private

    Promoter without declaring their ultimate interest in the

    exercise.

    (d) The said dividend in specie exercise undermine the very

    purpose and existence of the Original Private Promoter which

    was then rendered dormant with no further business activity.

    (e) The Bernas Agreement was subsequently novated to

    Tradewinds without any formal; meeting of the Board or

    shareholder of the Original Private Promoter.

    Our grounds of decision:

    14. In dealing with an application to strike out a statement of claim, the

    Courts in our view must first assume the allegations of the Plaintiff

  • 9

    to be true and then ask the question whether the allegations

    disclose a reasonable cause of action. To recapitulate, the Plaintiff,

    according to the submission of their counsel had pleaded two

    causes of action:

    (a) Oral assurances from the 1st Defendant that the Shareholders

    Agreement and Supplemental Agreement thereto would be

    honoured and that his entry into the 3rd Defendant would be

    for the benefit of the Plaintiff.

    (b) The 2009 2nd Defendants takeover of the 4th Defendant,

    apart from being a breach of the assurances was unlawful in

    the following respect:

    (i) The dividend-in-specie exercise for the 2nd

    Defendants takeover was undertaken in the Board

    of the 4th Defendant without Gandingan Bersepadus

    directors (5 out of 8) declaring their interest in the

    exercise.

    (ii) The 3rd Defendants Privatisation Agreement was

    novated without formal approval of the Board and or

    shareholders of the 4th Defendant.

  • 10

    15. From a cursory look at the contents of the statement of claim, we

    have no hesitation in concluding that they disclose a reasonable

    cause or causes of action.

    16. Having found that, we must then determine whether the aforesaid

    causes of action can exist in light of the affidavit evidence before the

    Court. The learned Judge premised her decision, in our view, mainly

    on the following:

    (a) That the Plaintiffs locus in filing this suit is suspect in

    that the 1st Defendant, 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant were

    not parties to the Shareholders Agreement and the

    Supplementary Agreement.

    (b) That the Plaintiff had surrendered its right to

    challenge the privatization in view of the Deed of Waiver.

    (c) That the Plaintiff had received a large dividend of

    RM15 million pursuant to the privatization exercise.

    (d) That to sustain the Plaintiffs claim would create

    commercial chaos.

    17. Reading the statement of claim and the affidavit evidence, one can

    safely say that the Plaintiffs main complaint is simply the breach of

    the oral assurances given by the 1st Defendant which is linked to

  • 11

    the signing of the Deed of Waiver, a fact relied on by the learned

    Judge. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that they only signed the

    Deed of Waiver premised on the 1st Defendants oral assurances.

    Now whether that is true or not, cannot, in our view be determined

    by affidavit evidence. Oral evidence must be called and be

    subjected to cross examination. Only in this manner can the Court

    determine whether the allegations by the Plaintiff is true or not.

    18. Further there appears to be some dispute as to whether the Plaintiff

    did suffer any loss from the privatization exercise. The learned

    Judge found that the Plaintiff had received RM15 million in cash

    dividend which the Plaintiff denied receiving and referred the Court

    to Tab 7 of the Core Bundle page 1870. This document shows that

    the Plaintiff had only received a sum of RM252,775.00. This is a

    major dispute of fact which again can only be resolved in a full trial.

    19. It is also our view that the learned Judge may have misconstrued the

    Plaintiffs locus to sue. The learned Judge questioned the Plaintiffs

    right to sue under the Shareholders agreement and Supplementary

    Shareholders Agreement when the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are

    not party to those agreements. It is of course the Plaintiffs

  • 12

    contention that it is not suing pursuant to those two agreements. Its

    cause of action is premised on the oral assurances given by the 1st

    Defendant. In our view this is an issue which should also be resolved

    at the trial.

    20. The Plaintiff needs only to show that there is a triable issue to the

    Court and when shown the Court is duty bound to order a full trial.

    From our analysis above, we have shown that there are disputes as

    to the factual matrix leading to the privatization exercise. The

    question of commercial chaos, with respect, cannot be a ground to

    rely on to strike out a claim.

    Conclusion:

    21. The whole foundation of the Plaintiffs claim is the oral assurance of

    the 1st Defendant. And when on the face of the evidence, it shows

    that the Plaintiff did suffer substantial loss by the implementation of

    the privatization exercise, can we say that there is no reasonable

    cause of action? The answer for reasons stated above is in the

    negative. It is not the duty of the Court at this stage of the

    proceedings to delve into an arduous exercise of determining what

    is alleged by the Plaintiff is true or not. That would be at the trial

    stage.

  • 13

    22. Accordingly we allowed the appeal with costs in the cause. We also

    ordered that the deposit be refunded to the Appellant.

    t.t Dated : 8th July 2015 (DAVID WONG DAK WAH)

    Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia

    For the Appellant : Cyrus Das with him Mohd Rizal Bahari Tetuan Bahari & Bahari

    For the 1st Respondent : M. Pathmanathan with him Shanti Pathmanathan Tetuan M. Pathmanathan & Co. For the 2nd Respondent : Kalearasu Veloo Messrs SF Chan & Co.

    For the 2nd Respondent : Eric Clement Messrs Abdul Halim Ushah & Associates

    Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to

    formal revision.

How Tong Kooi Ong is attempting to break Bank Negara and crash the RM

 

How Tong Kooi Ong is attempting to break Bank Negara and crash the RM

TKO header

An owner of a prominent news media empire is casting undue influence on the financial and political state of Malaysia for his own personal monetary gain.

Sources within Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) revealed that Tong Kooi Ong, the owner of the Edge Group and The Malaysian Insider has taken a USD1.4 billion short position on the Ringgit through a proxy. The first transaction took place in August 2014 and subsequent short positions have been taken leading up to January 2015.

Tong Kooi Ong is no stranger to investments, notably during the last financial crisis, Tong took a similar short position with Rashid Hussein which resulted in a significant gain.

He is a former stockbroker, financial analyst and banker who founded and built Phileo Allied Berhad, one of the most successful and innovative financial banking groups in Malaysia in the 1990s. Phileo Allied Bank was subsequently taken over and merged with Maybank in 2000.

According to the source, Bank Negara Malaysia and the securities commission are monitoring Tong closely.

How shorting a currency works:

A short position on the ringgit is essentially a bet that the ringgit will fall. The Malaysian ringgit will be traded for USD and if the ringgit reduces in value, the investor will make money when they buy back the ringgit at its lower value to cover the short position.

When a currency is being devalued, the central bank will step in to release reserves to balance the value of their currency against the currency that it is being most actively traded against.

In the Malaysian scenario as the RM drops, BNM will step in to buy RM in exchange for their USD reserves.

Speculators who short the currency will exploit this by taking a loan in Malaysia or using their own funds in RM to trade for the USD. The goal of which is to trade the RM for USD until the central bank is out of reserves so effectively the currency will crash.

The investor will then go back to the Bank that they initially borrowed money from and will convert it into RM to pay back the loan. The profit would be made off the gain that the USD receives against the RM. As the loan was made in RM and the currency has crashed the investor would have to trade less USD to pay back that initial RM loan.

Media and Mass propagation

With access to his media empire that spans from radio to print and online, Tong Kooi Tong is able change public sentiment through the mass distribution of articles that create doubt amongst the general public about the state of the Malaysian ringgit.
Insider newsAfter reading headlines that spell doom and gloom above, what would you do if you were holding Malaysian ringgit?

Take into consideration that in order for the currency to crash, it is crucial that Bank Negara reserves are pushed to their limit. A media empire would be the perfect channel to damage the perception of the RM effectively facilitating the devaluation of the RM.

The unpatriotic acts of short selling coupled with media propagation will lead Malaysia into a recession causing untold suffering for the average man on the street whilst lining the pockets of a few individuals.

To give readers a better understanding of how investors make money by shorting a currency let’s look at 2 case studies followed by a comparison of how the same could happen in Malaysia.

Soros Breaks the Bank of England and earns $1 Billion in a day

Soros

This is certainly the most notorious forex market event which took place on September 16, 1992 which is called “Black Wednesday” and Soros got his nickname “the man who broke the bank of England” from transactions he performed together with other traders. They didn’t break it directly, but they devalued it so badly that Britain had to take it out from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

Fig.1. How Soros Broke the Bank of England in 1992.
Fig.1. How Soros Broke the Bank of England in 1992.

Britain was in a recession from 1990 but despite this the pound (also known as Sterling) joined the ERM thus fixing the pound’s rate to deutschmark in order to make the investments more predictable and stable among Britain and Europe. But as the political and financial situation in Germany changed during the unification of Germany many ERM currencies were under big pressure to keep their currencies within the agreed limits. Britain had the most problems – its inflation rate was very high and the USD rate (many British exporters were being paid in USD) was also falling. So more and more speculators began circling and making plans on how to profit from this situation as it became clear that the pound was not able to artificially stand against the natural market forces. Speculators waited until the financial situation got as bad as it could naturally get and then created extra pressure on the pound by selling it in huge amounts. The most aggressive of them was G. Soros who performed this transaction every 5 minutes profiting each time as the GBP fell by minutes.

The money that I made on this particular transaction would be estimated at about $1 Billion dollars. We very simply used the forward market – you borrow sterling and you sell the sterling that you’ve borrowed. And then you buy back the sterling when the loan expires.”

– G. Soros.

How Soros earns $790 Million, crashes the Thai Baht and triggers the Asian crisis.

The second most notorious trade of Soros came in 1997 as he saw a possibility that the Thai Baht could go down so he went short on the baht (by going long on USD/THB) using forward contracts. His actions are often considered to be a triggering factor which sparked the big Asian financial crisis, affecting not only Thailand but also South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Honk Kong and others.

Fig.2. How Soros gained $790 Million and destabilized Thailand’s and Asian economies in 1997 – 1998.
Fig.2. How Soros gained $790 Million and destabilized Thailand’s and Asian economies in 1997 – 1998.
  1. Soros goes short on the baht.
  2. Thailand spends almost $7 Billion to protect the Baht against speculations.
  3. Soros sells all his baht resources and keeps telling everyone to do the same by publicly scaring people with the fall of the baht and crisis. It works.
  4. On July 2, Thailand is forced to give up the fixed rate of the Baht and it starts to float freely. Thailand asks for help from the International Monetary fund (IMF).
  5. Thailand takes on hard austerity measures to secure the loan from the IMF.
  6. Baht has fallen from 1$ for 25 baht to 56 baht thus Soros had gained more than 790 million USD.

10952334_1594888534064803_1464366867_n

How Tong Kooi Ong would break Bank Negara Malaysia

Fig.3. How Soros gained $790 Million and destabilized Thailand’s and Asian economies in 1997 – 1998.
Fig.3. How Soros gained $790 Million and destabilized Thailand’s and Asian economies in 1997 – 1998.
  1. Tong Kooi Ong goes short on the RM
  2. . Malaysia spends reserves to protect the RM against speculators
  3. Media empire is used to spread doubt to drive the RM down further
  4. Tong Kooi Ong closes his trade after the RM has devalued enough for a significant profit
  5. USD position of estimated USD1.4 billion is converted to devalued RM for huge profit. Bank is paid back initial loan of now devalued RM. The difference between the initial cost of the RM and the devalued cost of the RM is pure profit.

We urge members of the public to share this article with their friends and family Reports have been lodged with Bank Negara Malaysia and the securities commission but we urge the public to lend their support by lodging their own reports.

Revisiting the 1997 financial crisis.

During the 1997 financial crisis, the greed of a few unpatriotic speculators caused Malaysia to enter into a recession. Greed led speculators to make millions, if not billions, at the expense of the country.

Malaysian bankers then were hard at work unethically betting against the ringgit. Currency speculators borrowed ringgit from offshore forex markets and sold it. They proceeded to dump the money into the market – pushing the exchange rate down even further.

Once the ringgit was devalued sufficiently from all the selling down, these ruthless traders bought back the currency at a much lower price, paid back their borrowings and made a handsome profit, whilst millions of people in the country suffered and continued to suffer as Malaysia entered a recession.

Dangerous rumours were circulated about the deterioration of the economy, as it would aid the profitability of their short selling.

In response to the currency crisis in 1997, Malaysia banned short selling. However, once the economy recovered sufficiently, the ban was lifted in March 2006.

Why should a weakened currency matter to you?

During the 1997 crisis retrenchments soared by 444%. 83,865 people lost their jobs in the first 3 months of the crisis. The per capita income dropped drastically by half from USD5,000 to USD2,500. The ringgit drooped from RM2.50 per USD to, at one point, RM4.80 per USD. The KLCI fell from approximately 1300 points to nearly as low as 400 points in a few short weeks.

When a currency is heavily devalued unemployment rises and household incomes drop. Households change their spending habits to only purchase needs, this affects the entire economy as less people eat out or go shopping. A downward spiral begins as people lose their jobs, businesses have less customers resulting in the need to cut costs further which results in the lost of more jobs.

10937527_1594888527398137_1082551600_n

10947851_1594888537398136_1995500952_n

During the 1997 crisis despite strict counter measures from BNM, the country’s GDP suffered a sharp contraction of 7.5% in 1998, and the country went into recession.

During a recession people go out of business resulting in loss of jobs, projects get abandoned and local banks get huge withdrawals from customers.

As jobs become scarce people put up with lower pay with higher workloads and harsh working conditions. The number of bankrupts in the country increases as loans are defaulted on. People lose their houses, as they are unable to service their mortgage.

In the aftermath of the assault on the ringgit in 1997, Dr Mahathir said in reference to currency traders “There is absolutely no consideration given to the sufferings and miseries on the suddenly impoverished people and their countries. Going beyond the economic field, the threat of losing confidence was extended into the social and political fields. In one instance, the currency of the country was devalued by 600%”

“Currency war can achieve political objectives just as well as a military war.”

-Tun Mahathir wrote on his blog 29 March 2012 in reference to the 1997 currency crisis.