Giving a choice of education to our students in Malaysian school systems

Malaysian school systems: http://www.globalchildhoods.net/index.php?page=malaysia

We can have many different school systems, as long as they all teach ways to acquire relevant skills and knowledge.

"Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity."

THE Johor Sultan’s recent proposal for there to be a single school system for the country became the latest talking point amongst teachers last week. The Sultan’s proposal, among other things, entails the use of English as a medium of instruction.

In the public space, the discussion went off tangent straight away. Some were quick to defend the present system because they said we need to preserve the vernacular schools, which in turn are meant to ensure the preservation of Chinese and Indian culture and their respective mother tongues.

These supporters seemed to suggest that without vernacular schools, the people of these respective ethnic groups would lose their cultures and languages altogether.

There are some primary-level vernacular schools in rural parts of India that are intended for the continued use of their mother tongue. However, students have the flexibility of transferring to English-medium schools at the secondary level. This flexibility enables Indian education to be largely singular in its system, with a wide use of English as medium of instruction.

Unfortunately, our view of vernacular schools is tied to a political idea: that politicians of a particular ethnic group are required to defend these vernacular schools – regardless of their actual usefulness and value to their communities – as an indicator of their care and concern for the welfare of their communities. Education becomes a political tool.

Middle-class parents want the present system to be retained because the approach taken by successive Ministers of Education has essentially been to privatise education. Hundreds of licences for private schools have been issued, and even international schools are now open to locals with the means to afford them for their children.

So this wealthy group does not mind the present system because for them at least, education is now isolated from the mainstream ; and they are thus able to have what some of them believe to be a superior method of teaching children, and imparting the right kind of education.

Others who want a single system insist on vernacular schools being abolished, and in their place “a Malay (national) centric system” where schools can impart lessons on loyalty and patriotism with more vigour. They argue that we still need to instil patriotism, unity and racial harmony in our pupils and students.

They believe that a sufficient amount of indoctrination is necessary to turn our young into “true Malaysians”, while religious classes and adequate prayer halls will shape Malay children into good Muslims (since we now seek to be Syariah-compliant in everything we do).

We can safely say that under the present political setup, no government will dare abolish vernacular schools. So if national schools become more “Malay” and more Islamic, we can expect more vernacular schools to mushroom all over the country, keeping pace with private schools (local and international ) as they seek to attract ever-larger numbers of students whose parents have “no confidence” in the national school system.

We can have as many systems in our schools as we like, as long as the “one” overriding component in any system that matters is the idea that schools are for teaching students to acquire deep knowledge and skills relevant to the present world.

Schools of the 21st century do not exist primarily to build national unity, to foster narrow nationalism, or to protect any mother tongue. They are not designed to make you “a better person” or religious and sin-free, for that matter.

Today’s education is primarily about having the right skills to get jobs, as the effect of globalisation and new artificial intelligence will be taking a lot of our work away, and may ultimately make us all redundant if we are not prepared. In that context, education must be about giving our children relevant, useful and productive skills.

If the characteristics of the national school were to be modelled on those found in Switzerland, Finland or Singapore, for example, (with some modifications, of course), that would be acceptable because their focus is on producing students with skills that are useful in this present environment.

The diversity of available subjects, with options given to parents to decide on issues such as language, can accommodate different aspirations without compromising on quality or the schools’ central mission.

I recently met a Finnish teacher in Helsinki who was proud to tell me that almost all Finnish students speak three European languages, although there is no compulsion to do so in their school system.

According to this teacher, they have to be multilingual because then their job opportunities become much wider. Necessity always produces better education systems and methods.

Mother tongues can be kept alive through their regular use in a modern education system, without having vernacular schools. Let’s face it: having a poor and mediocre Tamil school system with low enrolment will not do much to help preserve the language and culture of the Tamil community. The only people who benefit are Tamil politicians.

Today’s education produces well-rounded children who will get jobs. It’s when they have no jobs that we worry, no matter how well they can speak their mother tongue.

Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.

By Zaid Ibrahim All kinds of everything

Former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (carbofree@gmail.com) is now a legal consultant. The views expressed here are entirely his own.


Related posts:

Malaysia's vernacular schools not the problem

Those who oppose vernacular schools ... are driven by their desire to produce a society moulded in a way that they desire. Please keep e...

Barking up the wrong tree !!

Chinese language advantage and education in M'sia; Don’t turn it into a political tool!

A new status for Chinese

I often take a long pause when I am asked about what I do in Beijing, especially if the person is from Malaysia. For the last two decades, more than 90% of Chinese Malaysian families send their children to vernacular primary schools. Those who do not read and write some…

Why the US dollar will remain strong despite cheap money at near zero interest rates?

Relative strength: So far, the US dollar has been strong against emerging market currencies, flat against the euro and weakened relative to the yen. – AFP

THE Fed failed to raise interest rates on Sept 21, giving many markets and fund managers a sigh of relief.

Fed chairman Janet Yellen said the case for an increase has strengthened, but decided for the time being to wait for further evidence of continued progress toward the Fed objectives of maximum employment and price stability. Some analysts felt that any Fed rate increases would be seen as favouring one party in the US Presidential elections.

Caution having over-ridden valour, overall stock markets rallied somewhat, while currency markets moved sideways. Going forward, the futures market think that there is a 60% chance of the Fed raising interest rates in December, after the November Presidential elections.

The key question is whether the dollar will strengthen. So far, the US dollar has been strong against emerging market currencies, flat against the euro and weakened relative to the yen.

There are hoards of analysts trying to forecast short-term and long-term exchange rate movements. Exchange rates are determined by the supply and demand in currency pairs, usually between the dollar and the most traded currencies, such as euro, sterling, yen and other liquid currencies (Australian dollar etc). In turn, the supply and demand for foreign exchange would depend on the current account (trade flows) and capital account (financial flows) of the balance of payments.

If one only looked at trade flows, then exchange rate expectations would depend on whether countries are running large current account surpluses or not, on the basis that a surplus country’s currency would strength. On that basis, one would expect that the Euro should strengthen, because the eurozone is now overall running a current surplus of roughly 3% of GDP. Germany alone is runnng a current account surplus equivalent to 8% of German GDP. However, investor nervousness about the sluggish outlook for the eurozone has keep the euro on the weak side.

One reason is that capital flows are now driving the exchange rate, due to large portfolio flows in search of yield and total returns, as financial assets become more globalised. Theoretically, portfolio flows should be driven by covered interest rate parity, meaning that foreign exchange traders arbitrage in spot, forward and futures markets to equalise risk-adjusted interest rates between countries. Hence, expectations of interest rate differentials between countries matter in shaping exchange rate behaviour.

Interest rate behaviour is determined today largely by monetary policy, which is why global markets are particularly nervous about US Fed interest rate adjustments. Since the US dollar is the world’s benchmark currency, with roughly two thirds of global financial assets measured against the dollar, global financial markets move in expectations of future Fed interest rate increases.

The US remains the dominant military and economic power and is consequently the safe-haven currency. Whenever geo-politics become tense, as is the situation currently, the flight is always towards the dollar.

Furthermore, all signs point towards the US economy performing best amongst the advanced economies, despite overall slower growth post-crisis.

There is enough evidence that the US is already reaching full employment levels at 4.9% unemployment rate, with anecdotal evidence that companies are hiring in anticipation of growing consumer confidence.

There is however a disconnect between US recovery and trade growth. The US consumption pattern has changed from consuming durables towards spending on services, such as new apps and digital entertainment. A partial shift towards manufacturing at home also explains why exports to the US have not increased substantially. With global trade growing slower than GDP, emerging markets are not growing due to the traditional cyclical uptick in exports.

The bad news is that historically, a strong dollar has been associated with slower global growth and vice versa. The explanation is that when the dollar is weak, capital flows out to the emerging markets, stimulating trade and investments. When the dollar is strong, capital flows back to the US and if the US is unable to recycle these flows, global growth weakens.

As the taper tantrum in 2013 showed, when the Fed signalled an increase in interest rates, emerging markets suffered huge turmoil of capital outflows, leading to either interest rate increases or sharp devaluations.

The power of the US to recycle global capital flows is critical to global recovery. Unconventional monetary policy in the US, in the form of near zero interest rates, is not working because the transmission mechanism of cheap money to the real economy is not working. Liquidity remains within the central bank-financial market nexus, with relatively slow lending to finance private sector long-term investments. The private sector is also not confident about the future until there are stronger signs of sustained consumer spending. Furthermore, much-needed public sector investments in infrastructure are being constrained by the large debt overhang and toxic politics.

In short, global capital flight to the dollar, with near zero interest rates, will mean global secular deflation. The reason is that zero interest rate dollar holdings have the same deflationary role as gold in the 1930s. Holding gold was deflationary because spending stops as more and more gold hoarding drained liquidity from the market.

Wait a minute. If the Chinese economy is still growing three times faster than the US in GDP terms (6.7% versus 1.8%), shouldn’t the yuan appreciate? Yes, China is running a current account surplus, but capital outflows are currently running about the same level as trade surpluses, so foreign exchange reserves are flat. Many people think that capital outflows indicate that the yuan will remain weak against the dollar until private sector confidence recovers.

The European and Japanese central banks are running negative interest rate policies precisely because with interest rates relatively lower than the dollar, capital flows will induce lower exchange rates, which will hopefully reflate their economies. The Fed has exactly the same fear as the People’s Bank of China in 2009 when China was growing at more than 10% per year.

Higher Fed interest rates would attract higher capital inflows, pushing up the dollar and inducing even higher asset bubbles, with no inflation in sight.

In sum, much will depend whether the US will use more fiscal stimulative policies and less of unconventional monetary policy to revive productivity growth. It looks as if we will have to wait for a new President to make that strategic call. We will know by November,

By Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is Distinguished Fellow, Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong.

Related posts:

Global economic order under threat

Coming global economic crash, threat of WWIII, petitioned 2030 Agenda for a One World Global Government under a New World Order...

 
 Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme!

Mar 5, 2016 ... Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme! Economic Collapse soon? Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew...

 The Age of Uncertainty

Jul 24, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

Dealing with the new abnormal negative ...

Jun 15, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

Asians can and must think strategically, not to be dominated by the West 

 

Remembering the legacy of Bandung, Sandakan death and Hiroshima bombing 

 

Can Asia escape global secular stagnation? 

 

Currency Wars: the Unloved Dollar Standard from Bretton Woods to the Rise of China 

 

The Bandung Spirit: strengthering Asian African economic cooperation & legal consultation

Chinese President Xi Jinping has delivered a speech, with the aim of carrying on the Bandung Spirit and promoting the common development ... 

Why not abolishing wars, seeking peace in the 70 years after WW2 & inception of the UN?

Why should an organisation devoted to saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war” make it its business to authorise war? 

Global economic order under threat

Coming global economic crash, threat of WWIII, petitioned 2030 Agenda for a One World Global Government under a New World Order.

 http://jimdukeperspective.com/1526-globalagend/

Need to ‘civilise’ capitalism

THE world economy is in a much worse-off shape than even many who know had expected, or what central bankers have come to understand.

Whatever growth there is remains paltry and uneven. Deflation was viewed as a strictly Japanese phenomenon. Now it’s a global threat, being revived and updated by Harvard’s Lawrence Summers as “secular stagnation.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says 2016 will be the fifth straight year of global growth below 3.7%, its average for nearly two decades before the recent great recession.

G-20 economies (representing 85% of the world economy, comprising most rich nations and major emerging economies) are expected to again downgrade their forecast to below 3% global expansion this year. They are likely to miss the target they had set for themselves in 2014 to lift their combined output by 2% over the IMF’s then forecast for 2018.

In early September, G-20 leaders met in Hangzhou, China, in the wake of Brexit and the rise of populist politics on both sides of the Atlantic with a strong sense of urgency to placate public discontent. Indeed, they have to “civilise’’ capitalism (Australian Prime Minister) as they seek to revive economic growth and address growing public scepticism about the benefits of free trade and growing backlash against globalisation. “Growth has been too low, for too long, for too few” (IMF chief Christine Lagarde).

Hangzhou consensus

This time G-20 leaders were on the defensive, amid a welter of familiar complaints back home on frustratingly slow growth, rising social inequalities and the surge of corporate tax avoidance. Looking back, the summer of 2016 is viewed not as a period of respite but as the moment it became clear that policy solutions from G-20, IMF and major central banks aren’t working well.

They have proved woefully inadequate. As a result, businesses are pessimistic about growth prospects, as reflected in low expectations for long-term interest rates. Yield on German 10-year notes is negative 0.116% p.a. What’s needed is a new approach. There has to be more growth and growth must be more inclusive.

At Hangzhou, the G-20 list of remedies rivals the world economy in its complexities, running beyond 7,000 words (excluding several lengthy appendices) addressing many issues, including immigration, terrorism, energy and Zika virus. Indeed, it risks looking “like an X’mas tree”. It was preceded by a surprising display of co-operation between China and US, who together ratified the Paris climate change agreement.

A long list of problems was on the table: including overstretched central banks, trade disputes, corporate tax avoidance, inequality and the populist backlash against globalisation and free trade. In the end, the Hangzhou consensus reflected an “innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive” approach towards its main goals. It adopted a wide-ranging package of policies based on “Vision” (of innovative, new drivers of growth); “Integration” (forge synergy among fiscal, monetary and structural reform policies); “Openness” (build an open world economy, rejecting protectionism); and “Inclusiveness” (ensure growth promotes the role of women and youth, and generates quality jobs, addresses inequality and eradicates poverty).

All these won’t be enough to get us out of the rut. The real setback remains one of credibility. G-20’s sprawling agenda is filled with items that have little chance of success. Many stakeholders and opinion-makers are unlikely to take them really seriously. Experience shows that G-20 is better off when it focuses. Better stick with a limited agenda that has a high chance of achieving an outcome. Sometimes, more is done by doing less.

As host, China promoted innovation as the core of the G-20 agenda. This is sensible because: (i) the use of monetary and fiscal policies can only achieve so much. In the longer-run, real progress has to depend on improved productivity – getting more out of existing resources; and (ii) overcoming anxiety arising from the use of technologies and artificial intelligence that threaten jobs. Getting G-20 to think collectively about the downside of innovation and fintech can only help. There is then the endorsement of a set of non-binding principles designed to guide governments in devising cross-border investment policies in an effort to revive cross-border investment, which is sagging along with global growth and trade. The intention is good – there is a need to foster a more open, transparent global environment for investment, and ensure national and international rules remain clear, coherent and consistent. No investment, no trade, no growth.

Globalisation

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), i.e. the rich nations’ club, warned last week that growth in world trade is set to lag global growth in 2016, i.e. globalisation as measured by trade intensity has stalled. Other signs are just as worrisome: (i) ratio of world trade to output has been flat since 2008; (ii) volume of world trade stagnated between January 2015 and March 2016; (iii) stock of cross-border financial assets peaked at 57% global GDP in 2007, down by 36% over 2015; and (iv) inflows of foreign direct investment remained well below 3.3% of world GDP reached in 2007.

Indeed, the growing backlash against trade liberalisation as well as recessions in some big commodity producers are adding to the slackening of trade flows and is likely to erode already flagging productivity and ultimately global living standards. All this, at a time of poor economic performance in the rich nations, rising inequality and big shifts in the balance of global power.

So much so, failure to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation has surged into the political agenda of several large nations (including the US) facing forthcoming elections. Worse still, growth is too meagre to generate the jobs that youths expect and to fulfil pension promises for the elderly. Indeed, globalisation has stalled. Does it matter?

Yes it does. Recent history witnessed the first fall in global inequality of household incomes since the early 19th century. Average world real income rose by 120% between 1980 and 2015. The opportunities accorded by global integration should not be dismissed. No man is an island. Globalisation’s failure, however, lies in (a) not ensuring that its gains are not better shared, and (b) just as dismal is failure to assist those adversely affected. But, the net impact on jobs and wages from rising productivity and new technologies has far exceeded rising imports.

Globalisation shouldn’t be made the scapegoat. What’s really needed is better management. I recall Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s main message in his 2002 book Globalisation and its Discontents: the problem is not globalisation but how the process is being managed. The rules of the game has to include measures to “tame globalisation.” Unfortunately, global management didn’t change. Today, the new discontents are bringing home the same message – only more intensely.

Inequality

G-20 leaders in Hangzhou were preoccupied with the need to placate public discontent about the unequal distribution of the benefits of free trade and globalisation. Hence, a lot of talk about people. China’s President Xi Jinping set the tone: “Development is for the people. It should be pursued by the people and its outcome should be shared by the people. This is not just a moral responsibility. It also helps unleash immeasurable effective demand.”

In China, Xi said: “We will make the pie bigger and make sure people get a fairer share of it.” The global Gini coefficient – the economist’s measure of inequality, has raced passed (Xi’s) “alarm level of 0.6, and now stood at 0.7” (the closer it approaches 1, the greater the inequality in income distribution). “We need to build a more inclusive world economy.”

Unfortunately, globalisation is today seen naively as a zero-sum-game (I win, you lose), with a US presidential hopeful arguing that China’s rise has come at the expense of US manufacturing heartlands – reflecting a rising disenchantment with the global economic order. It’s spreading. Last week, France publicly called on Brussels to end trade deal talks between US and Europe, citing a globalisation “without rules, where social models are pit against each other and dragged downward, where inequalities grow.”

This “docile of discontent” is best illustrated by Branko Milanovic’s controversial “elephant chart,” which was created (from 196 household surveys worldwide) by ranking world population (from the poorest 10% to the richest 1%) showing growth in income between 1988 and 2008, i.e. from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of Lehman Brothers.

His global chart traced the distribution of growth in real income as first sloping right up, then down sharply and up again steeply, like an elephant raising its trunk: it shows big income gains at the high middle and very top, with the era of globalisation offering very little or nothing for those in between (at the bottom and in the middle and working classes in the rich nations who are poorer than the top 15% but richer than everyone else; this group seemed scarcely better off in 2008 than they were 20 years before).

The stagnant fortunes of these Trumpian and Brexiteer discontents in advanced economies are squeezed between their own countries’ plutocrats and Asia’s rapidly rising middle-class. It is this dangerous sharp dip in the chart to near zero which reflects those who occupy this dangerous docile. Milanovic’s study showed that (a) Chinese middle-class and the world’s 1% rich have gained handsomely in the era of globalisation; (b) lower middle-class in rich countries have fared poorly; and (c) rising income inequality remains a serious problem.

What then, are we to do

Global growth are revised downwards yet again as its traditional engines of trade and investment sputter. OECD now estimates the world economy would muster growth of only 2.9% this year. I consider this to be optimistic. Worse, potential growth has fallen in both advanced and emerging economies. The rise in income and wealth inequalities exacerbates the glut in global savings (reflecting the global investment slump). This can only lead to lower trend growth. Economists call this “hysteresis”: long-term unemployment erodes workers’ skills and human capital; and because innovation is embedded in new capital goods, low investment leads to permanently lower productivity growth. That’s why structural and market reforms are vital to boost potential growth. This has become critical in Asean, especially Malaysia.

There are no politically easy solutions. I know fiscal policy (especially productive public investment that boosts both supply and demand) remains hostage of high debts and misguided austerity. For now, the world is likely to remain as IMF’s new mediocre, or in Summer’s secular stagnation, or China’s new normal.

Make no mistake. There is nothing healthy or normal about rising inequality in the face of continuing slow economic growth. Worse, it leads to rising populist backlash against trade, migration, globalisation, even technological innovation. Following the old road of relying purely on cheap and plentiful money leads to a dead end eventually.

Policymakers’ renewed focus on the need to make capitalism more inclusive is welcome. But rich nations need to ditch austerity in favour of purposeful fiscal support – emphasising structural supply side reforms. There is no other way to unleash effective demand. The tools are already available. Finally, of course, there is innovation.


By Lin See-Yan

Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist, Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of “The Global Economy in Turbulent Times” (Wiley, 2015). Feedback is most welcome; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.


Related posts

Action, not words or empty talk, needed to cure global economy, China tells G20 summit 

 

G20 summit recognizes China's success, a historic starting point for the world, expert said

All in a day’s work: Chinese President Xi Jinping attending the opening ceremony of the B20 Summit ahead of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou. ...

When will the property market pick up?

Affordable living: The history of Stuyvesant Town, Manhattan New York dates back to 1943. In October 2015, Blackstone Group LP led a deal to buy New York’s Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, a transaction that would put Manhattan’s biggest apartment complex in the hands of the world’s largest private equity firm and maintain some affordable housing at the property.

Experts predict between 2018 and 2019

AT a recent property seminar organised by Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute, several developers and property consultants had a debate predicting when the property market will pick up.

Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (Rehda) patron Datuk Jeffrey Ng Tiong Lip reckoned the residential sector should recover next year or in 2018.

Ng was the moderator for the session on The Future Outlook and Challenges of the Housing and Property Sector.

Property consultants Savills Malaysia managing director Allan Soo, who specialises in the retail malls, expects a 2019 recovery.

Office market specialist Jones Lang Wootton executive director Malathi Thevendre declined to make any predictions. “It all depends ...,” she says.

Ng says the current slow housing market is actually good over the long term, although it is painful in the short term. It all depends on how we manage “the noise”, he says.

There are lots of noises at present, both on the national and international level.

“If next year is election year, the recovery – if there is one – will be after that because between now and then, there are so many uncertainties.

“There is a lack of clarity at the moment,” says Ng.

His reading of the property crystal ball of a 2017/2018 turnaround is by far the most positive and contrasts with Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd equity research head Sarah Lim Fern Chieh.

Lim expects house prices to be flattish or slightly weak depending on locations “over the next four to five years, if there are no major policy changes”.

Her rationale for a longer down-cycle is simple. If your destination is Genting Highlands, but you are driving in the opposite direction, you will need a longer time to arrive there when you finally realise you are driving in the wrong direction.

Although it is widely accepted that the property cycle is between eight to 10 years, within this cycle are “mini two-year cycles. There were two-year up-cycle in 1999-2000 after the Asian Financial Crisis, and another in 2003-2004 and 2007/2007.

But after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, Malaysia had an extended five-year up-cycle between 2010 and 2014 with prices peaking in 2013, and this was largely due to quantitative easing (QE).

She is, therefore, expecting a longer consolidation period of between four and five years, starting from 2015, before the next up-cycle, barring any policy changes and the global economic climate.

She is also expecting the property market to experience structural changes due to affordability and liquidity factors, among others.

More realistic pricing

Notwithstanding the fuzzy horizon, there are nevertheless a few certainties which may well put the sector on a better footing.

First, home ownership has become a national issue.

Second, the government, at both federal and state levels being landowners, are stepping up on affordable housing.

Third, prices are expected to be more realistic going forward.

Rehda president Datuk Seri FD Iskandar Mohamed Mansor is seeking government cooperation to reduce or waive development charges and other charges, collectively known as compliance costs, in order to bring down prices as this is “too challenging” for private developers to go it alone, considering today’s high land prices.

“If the Government wants developers to build more affordable housing, give us cheaper premiums or don’t charge at all.

“We will then see more stability in prices, or even a reduction, if development charges and all sorts of other charges imposed on developers come down,” said FD Iskandar at a Rehda first half-year review recently.

He says property development and land matters have been the biggest revenue earner for every state. Both federal and state governments own large tracts of land. Although FD Iskandar had made this call before, he was very passionate and firm this time around. Other developers, previously silent, are also quite vocal about the various land and development charges they have to fork out.

This is probably the first time developers are coming together to make a collective public call to seek a waiver or reduction of development and other aspects of compliance cost. The effectiveness of that call depends on the Government’s will to act.

While developers can clamour for such waivers, what is facing the market today is weak sales and this in turn is forcing developers to tweak pricing and strategy a bit, hence the drop in the number of launches as they try push unsold stock.

Andaman group managing director Datuk Seri Vincent Tiew says developers will be offering “more realistic pricing” from now onwards with location being a paramount factor.

There will be more affordable housing and this can be seen from the various affordable housing projects being planned by both the federal and state government although the end-products are slow in coming.

This, says Tiew, can be seen in the various agencies under the federal and state governments, among them being PR1MA Corp mandated to build 500,000 units of affordable housing units by 2018, as outlined in Budget 2013.

A total of 240,000 houses were due by end-2015, with an annual mandate for 80,000 between 2013 and 2015. The number of completed units was 883 at the end of 2015, says Tiew. By the end of this year, 10,000 units are scheduled to be completed. The number of units approved to date are 232,807 against 1.24 million PR1MA registrants as of February 2016. All eyes will be on the affordable segment in the coming Budget 2017.

Healthy demand

The demand for housing has always been there. The issue is affordability, says Kenanga’s Sarah Lim.

“Of late, developers are beginning to price units at RM500,000 and below,” she says.

The current change in direction is attributed to societal and government pressure. Unsold stock and government pressure forced developers to relook their pricing strategy.If developers keep building RM1mil homes, when the threshold is RM500,000 and less, they will be left holding unsold stock. In order to move stocks, creative marketing/financing strategies are employed to move these stocks.

Lim says if developers were unable to meet at least 40% of their sales target by mid-year, they would be unable to meet this year’s targets.

More than two-thirds missed their sales targets last year.

“Prior to this, what was booked was considered sold. Now, this is no longer true,” Lim says.

Lim says there are two issues here, the pressure on the sector as the rate of aborted sales crept up and the people’s demand for realistic prices.

“What we are seeing today is the government’s influence. It is actually steering the market in the right direction,” she says.

Renting the way forward

The other certainty is observed in the rental market, which is expected to continue to be soft next year.

There will be “low occupancy rate” for projects completed last year (2015) and this year, with rental yield at less than 3% a year, says Andaman group’s Tiew.

It is cheaper to rent than to buy. There is so much supply going around and the purchasing power of the ringgit is shrinking.

Selangor State Development Corp (PKNS) senior manager (corporate planning and transformation) Norita Mohd Sidek advocates renting.

She says if there is a 50% loan rejection rate for affordable housing, and considering the limited supply by private developers, renting may be the only option.

She suggests building affordable housing cities the likes of Stuyvesant Town’s Peter Copper Village, Manhattan New York and counters the argument that there is no money to be made from affordable housing.

In October 2015, Blackstone led a deal that put Manhattan’s biggest apartment complex in the hands of the world’s largest private equity firm and maintain some affordable housing at the property.

Blackstone and Canada’s real estate company Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc acquired the 80-acre enclave for about US$5.3bil. Rent is kept below market rates for some 5,000 units. Public transport and other amenities must be part of the development for it to succeed. “Government grants and resources are needed to identify the right location to built more council homes,” she says in her paper.

In today’s low yield environment, pension funds around the world are looking at other ways to generate dividends besides equities and fixed income securities. They are buying into infrastructures and large township developments where there are economies of scale for maintenance.

Malaysia’s national housing dilemma cannot be solved by profit-oriented private developers alone. The golden property years between 2010 and 2014 have been intoxicating, having resulted in expectations of 20% to 30% rise in sales year-on-year, like the manufacturing sector. But the property sector is quite unlike manufacturing. The reflection point was seen in 2014 after the government introduced certain cooling measures and anti-speculation sales gimmick.

Going forward, the emphasis on housing priced RM500,000 and below means developers have to sell more units to make the same sales value as previous years.

“They have to sacrifice some of their margins. Higher profit margins can be had from the mid- to high-end segments,” says Lim. They will have to work harder to help buyers secure loans.

This search for some form of cohesion in the national housing arena has taken a bit of time. Hopefully, the coming Budget 2017 will pave the way for more positive action.

By Thean Lee Cheng The Star/Asia News Network

The Related posts:



 Malaysian property market correction to continue in 2016 ... May 7, 2016 ... Lim expected property prices to plateau for the next few years before the next upcycle. ... Labels: 25 years economic cycles , investments , Malaysia .....

An outlook on Malaysia's property market May 26, 2016 According to PropertyGuru’s Malaysia Property Market Sentiment Survey Report H1 2016, things are expected to improve in 2016 as people are warming up to the idea of purchasing properties.   Read full story

Penang property market to be resilient on sustained demand

Nov 14, 2015 ... PETALING JAYA: Penang's property market is expected to stay resilient on the back of sustained demand, especially from Penangites working ...

 

Penang is best for property investment in Malaysia

Penang has dislodged Kuala Lumpur's Golden Tringle as the top investment choice GEORGE TOWN: Penang has now overtaken the Klang

Malaysia's property market seen next high in 2018

May 18, 2015 ... Property market is 10 years, boom and burst cycle: 1998, 2008 and ..... Ma: 20 more years of enviable growth for China In an interview with the...

 Experts share insights on  property market in  Malaysia

May 10, 2016 ... Malaysia's Q3 Property Market Update Check your risk appetite and start ... correction to continue in 2016, its economic cycles the past 25 years

Young adults in developed countries rent, we buy houses for good

US presidential hopefuls show a country lacking in leadership, debate falls into trite format

Monday's first presidential debate between Democratic and Republican nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was the most-watched in the US since the 1980 match-up between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. It attracted some 84 million viewers on 13 television networks, not including online watchers, National Public Radio reported.

It is widely held that in the showdown, politician Clinton, who did her homework, crushed seemingly unprepared and ill-informed Trump who often ranted, though the polls afterward showed a different picture. The CNN/ORC poll immediately after the debate found 62 percent of respondents thought Clinton won the debate, while just 27 percent felt Trump triumphed. Yet online polls with wider coverage of respondents overwhelmingly showed Trump was the winner.

However, no matter who won, it won't make the debate as significant as it is supposed to be. The two debaters deviated from substantive statements on the real problems that matter to the country, becoming embroiled in personal attacks against the bad records of each other. They did not appear statesmanlike, but rather like TV stars competing to amuse the audience for approval. Neither seriously mapped out a trustworthy blueprint for the country. In this sense, whoever eventually wins won't quell the public doubts about their capacity to steer the US out of its plight of worsening domestic and external situations.

It is widely recognized that the US, baffled by the quagmire in the Middle East and rampant terrorism, has seen its leadership decline and is unable to lead the world to squarely face up to a slew of challenges. The latest debate gives ammunition to the judgment.

The US president is in many cases the best proof of US leadership. But neither of the candidates looks capable of helping the superpower regain its global leadership in a multipolar world. Clinton, a smart politician that looks so presidential in comparison with Trump, doesn't seem able to inject anything new to the US given her poor performance as secretary of state, let alone her credibility issues. Meanwhile, caustic Trump has risen by giving voice to the anger of conservative Americans, but that's all he can offer in front of the severe tests facing the country. His ridiculous policies that woo US voters will be disastrous for US clout and raise so many uncertainties about the direction of the US.

In the final analysis, the presidential election has become a game to choose who is the least unfit to rule the superpower. As the influence of its leadership slides, the world needs to be ready for it. - Global Times

Clinton-Trump debate falls into trite format

First round debate By Wang Xiaoying

The first US presidential debate between the Democratic and Republican candidates concluded Monday night, drawing unprecedented attention from around the world. No previous two contenders have displayed more differences in personality, vision and background than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, making this year's race to the White House all the more enthralling.

Many commentators thought Clinton's versed performance well-demonstrated her background as a veteran politician. Trump, a bit inexperienced, didn't display many faults and restrained his flamboyant style. In general, it was a trite debate.

As Clinton has been exposed to various scandals during the campaign, she tried to highlight her honesty and prudence. Many people have doubts about her integrity, however they are also accustomed to candidates' empty promises.

Trump wasn't faking. But the problem is that Trump does not make many Americans feel secure, and they worry he might be capricious if he is elected. This debate did not reassure people.

Clinton and Trump are perhaps the most controversial candidates in the history of US presidential elections. American society has different concerns about the two candidates, as neither is a role model for the country. With only less than two months before the election, voters have no better alternative than choosing the least worst candidate.

Be it in Europe or Asia, Western countries or emerging economies, few people look forward to the result of the US election or believe the leadership transition will promote global harmony. The two candidates are publicly making their calculations and revealing their selfishness to the world. For them, it seems the whole world owes the US.

Both candidates mentioned China several times in their first debate. Trump was particularly arrogant, and has spread the mentality that the US has suffered losses from its relations with China, and is also taken advantage of by its allies. This mentality, together with Washington's powerful strategic tools, poses potential threats to global stability.

The US will not stop pursuing its privilege as a superpower, and this will for sure challenge the status of China and Russia. While Clinton tends to make the current system more favorable to the US, Trump is more straightforward in maximizing benefits. The China-US relationship will witness more difficulties in the future. The US will also weigh benefits from its ties with China with those from a tougher China policy, and evaluate whether it could afford the price of jeopardizing its relationship with Beijing.

Chinese do not want to see China pressured by Clinton, and meanwhile are uncertain of Trump's presidency. Let Americans worry about who will end up in the White House. Chinese should be ready for the change in the US presidency. We have many tools to respond, enough for the future US president to feel the dread if it makes trouble with China. Such tools matter more than the goodwill of American presidents. - Global Times

Related posts:

 US threat: superpower gun barrels pivot east

Aug 12, 2012 ... As US election fever sizzles, pressure mounts to spread the militarist ... But whether China is in the picture or not, US policymakers have a ...

US politicians bash China for gains in elections

Oct 15, 2010 ... "In an election, it is always useful to accuse an opponent of being disloyal to his nation. Since some Americans believe that China is more ...