2018 from 2003: What is in store for Tun Dr. Mahathir as the 8th Prime Minister of Malaysia?

How much has Malaysia changed from October 2003, when Tun Dr. Mahathir retired from the position of the Prime Minister to today in 2018, after he resumed the position of the Prime Minister once again? 

Fifteen years is not a short time, many changes had occurred. Malaysia that Tun Dr. Mahathir see today, is far from what he saw fifteen to twenty years ago. The “bull” had grown to be of another creature, as some would say. Holding this “bull” by the horn is what’s required if any real changes to the country’s economic direction are to be altered. Change requires the understanding of the root causes and effects. We say that the lifestyles of Malaysian had changed to be consumer-based society, and yet to be highly dependent on subsidies and help from the government. On the other hand, consuming lifestyle changes should follow hand in hand with productivity growth. The imbalance between the two leads to higher needs of subsidies and handouts.

Could Tun Dr. Mahathir (and the PH government) change these trends?

General Demographics and Economic Indicators

Malaysian population had grown from 24.6 million (in 2003) to about 32 million, forecasted to grow to 38 million in ten years time. Largest growing ethnics is the Bumiputera, which now consist of about 70% of the population, and still growing. The urbanization of Malaysia continues from 65% (in 2003) to 76% and forecasted to grow up to about 85% in ten years time.

Household income per capita stood at about US5,100 today, as compared to US2,200 in 2003. GDP per capita had grown from US4,764 (in 2003) to US9,813. The inflation rate was averaging about 1.5% then, to about 3% these days. Ringgit exchange rates of 3.8 per US dollar plunged to 4.15.

By most accounts, generally one could say that Malaysia prospered reasonably well after the hiatus of 15 years by Tun Dr. Mahathir. For this reason, the reviews and ratings of the world community on his successors, Tun Abdullah Badawi and Dato’ Seri Najib Razak, had been fairly generous. And for that, Malaysia seemingly had prospered post-Tun Dr. Mahathir, so why there is a need for change?

What’s the Problem? 

If there are no problems emerged, and things are going well, then why there are calls and need for a change of government? Calling corrupt government and practices is one thing, but has the underlying had changed and requires massive redirection of the country’s economic and political landscapes? These are natural logical questions to be asked.

Is the direction of our economic growth faulty? There is no easy answer to this question since the foundations of growth were set early on in the 1990s (during Tun Dr. Mahathir’s era) and continued by the successors.

To delve further into this issue, we need to look at few examples of what had changed over the years: The total primary energy production of Malaysia increased from 2.03 quadrillion BTUs in 1990 up to 3.96 quadrillions BTUs today. The road density had increased from 20 km/100 sq. kilometer to 47 km/100 sq. Kilometer today. The number of registered vehicles per 1000 population increased from 456 (in 2000) to 843 today. The number of air transport passengers increased from 10 million/ year (in 1990) to about 60 million/year today. The percentage of the population which uses the Internet, was 21% (in 2000) and today, it stood at about 80%; and the number of mobile subscriptions grew from 5 million (in 2000) to 44 million today. On consumption level, we used to consume 46 billion heads of poultry per year (in 1990), and today it is about 350 billion heads per year (an increase of 8 times in about 30 years). Furthermore, out of the 32 million population, more than 50% are aged 40 and below. All of these examples pointing out to one key changes: the lifestyles of Malaysian had changed tremendously – we are a consuming society.

The share of education spending as a percentage of GDP had been consistent at about 5% over the years, and on the healthcare as a percentage of GDP, it grew from 2.4% (in 2000) to 4.0% today. Furthermore, total subsidies for food, petroleum products, and other basic items had been growing as well over the period. These figures pointing out to another issue – not only we are increasingly becoming a consumer society, the consumption is heavily subsidized.

If by consuming higher and more (which is important for the lifestyles), and yet we demand subsidies and giveaways – would it be something that is sustainable for the long haul? The only way for reverting to sustainable growth (and development) is to gradually balanced consumption with productivities, through jobs and income creations. But if, jobs are mainly coming from the government (for the Bumiputera in particular), how the productivity of the country be increased?

What’s new in Malaysia Baru?

The scenario explained, is the New Malaysia. First, we need to understand that as Malaysia, we had changed a lot in the last 30 years or so (the first 30 years after independence is the earlier phase). We had emerged as a country, mired with modern day living and lifestyles. We are urbanized and followed pretty much the path of other developing countries, at least in terms of lifestyles, but had we follow the same path when comes to productivities?

Let us first talk about lifestyles. Lifestyles, as explained, is becoming life’s necessities. For example, we can’t live without the Internet, the cars or private transport, we need water and electricity, we need homes to live in, of course, we need quality food, and we need to travel around. None of these items are dispensable. The costs of having these basic items would consume more than 70% of disposable income for any household. The balance is left for education and healthcare. As the costs of these items are on increasing trend, would the disposable income increase in tandem with them? Past indicators suggest that is not true; the only thing left to be studied is, by how far and how much?

Productivities is not an easy subject to be measured, as an increase in wages is not the indication of productivity increment. We need to get the proper measure of real wages, that is the net effect of the increase in wages against all other factors taken into account. Unfortunately, in my survey, to get hold of this number is hard. We do not have proper tracking and studies, to provide a reliable view of the subject matter.

Based on the above discussions – we want to ask, what’s new that the PH government, under Tun Dr. Mahathir want to offer (for this so-called Malaysia Baru)?

Popular policies would be to continue and further promotes the same lifestyle trends and subsidizing these trends even more. As an example, calls for Toll abolitions or reductions, is to encourage more travels on the roads (as the number of vehicles are large, and the road densities to match that). Abolition of GST (and replacement with SST) will not change the trends. Education and healthcare subsidies are critical to being continued, and possibly needed to be even further expanded (as part of the election promises). BRIM and support programs like MARA, TEKUN, entrepreneurship need to continue.

Unpopular policies are to take the bull by the horn and start to reverse the trends, by encouraging people to live within their means. To increase taxes, which could be done realistically by widening the tax base, hence would hit lower income people more than higher income people. To reduce subsidies and dependencies on the government budgets. To encourage economic growth driven by the markets and less by the government. The list could go on and on, and it points out only to one major theme – unpopular policy direction, by holding the bull by the horns.

The only question left is, does Tun Dr. Mahathir, after 15 years of hiatus, facing the current “bull” which is much larger than the one he left in 2003, is up to it? This remains to be seen and observed.

Malaysian Federal Government Budget – 28 years of misguided policies?

I would say that the 28 years (understudy) of policies made us be where we are today, as far as the Federal Government budget is concerned. Years of policies driven by purely economic growth (in GDP terms), produced massive build-ups of imbalances. Slowly, the budgets had been increasingly social and political driven (probably to increase the popularity of the ruling government), with insufficient measures to counter the surging increase in some areas of expenditures, in particular the Subsidies and Grants, as opposed to the increase in the economic-driven source of revenues (i.e. in form of increasing tax-base). This led to the introduction of wide-base taxes, such as GST to counter the deficits accumulated. Both practices further led to double-incidents of distortions, which aggravates the society’s economic conditions. And at the same time, funding developments by way of debts has its own natural limits. It seems that by now, the limits had been reached. Unless the society is willing to shoulder more debts, then development expenditures would stall.

Pakatan Harapan, which inherited the above-mentioned problems have very little room to wiggle. The only option is to be UNPOPULAR, which among others would include choices between massive cuts on Subsidies and Grants versus increasing the tax-base (such as SST), paring down debts versus increasing development expenditures, reducing the long-term budget commitments such as cutting down or freeze on government employment. Whichever way, only UNPOPULAR moves are the only way to correct what went wrong for the last 28 years.

Approach to Analysis

I wish to summarizes my analysis on the Malaysian Federal Government budgets, based on the trends over the last 28 years (since 1990 to 2018). By studying long-term trends we could see what went right or wrong over those years of BN/UMNO administrations. Note that this would include the period of Tun Dr. Mahathir (1990 to 2003), Tun Abdullah Badawi (2003 to 2008), and Dato’ Seri Najib (2008 to 2018). 

First of all, it is always easier to blame someone else for certain policies of the past, for things that we see now. But blame game will not take us far unless we could analyze and see what’s are the wrong thing of the past. For any systems to be wrong in the past, they do not happen overnight, instead, it accumulates over a very long period until it reaches a certain point of non-sustainability. Similarly, for any corrections to the wrongs of the past, couldn’t be corrected overnight as well. It may take as much time to undo something that had been accumulated over the years.

Based on this logic, let us try to summarize what went wrong (assuming that you agree that something had gone wrong, to begin with).

GDP Growth versus Revenue Growth

Facts: The GDP growth of Malaysia for the last 28 years averaged about 9.13% in Gross Ringgit values and yet, the growth of Federal Government Total Revenue grew at 7.77% (in Gross Ringgit values). Total Revenue was at 25% of GDP (in 1990), and now it stood at about 16% of GDP (in 2018).


  1. While the growths do not have to match perfectly, it led to few long-term problems, namely the ability of the Government to play the major role in the economic development is on an increasingly diminishing scale. This trend will not change much since it can’t be altered in a short time, and any alteration will produce massive distortions.
  2. More alarmingly is the wealth and income gaps, between the upper strata versus the lower strata of the society, must have widened by some great measures. The main growth factor for the Total Revenue is by growing the tax base. The trend indicates a clear indication of non-expanding tax-base.
  3. The pressure to increase the tax base produces the GST measure. The main effect of GST is to widen the tax base, which includes all lower income strata of the society.

Revenue Growth Factors

Facts: The Direct Taxes growth (at 9.50%) is almost comparable to GDP growth (at 9.13%), however, Indirect Taxes growth is lagging too far behind (at 5.60% without GST, 6.80% with GST). Furthermore, Returns from investments (at 6.90%) lags as well. The lags in these two factors produce lower Revenue growth rate (of 7.77%).


  1. The non-expanding tax-base as indicated earlier is due to low growth in the tax-base for Indirect Taxes.
  2. Furthermore, this is aggravated by slower growth in Returns from investments as compared to the GDP growth.
  3. Revenue could only grow further if these two factors could produce a higher growth rate. Any policies to increase these two factors are extremely costly (at least in terms of Indirect Taxes), and increasing revenues would mean higher tariffs by the GLCs on the public. Both are problematic and unpopular measures.

Controlling Long-term Operational Expenditures

Facts: Major long-term pre-committed Operational Expenditures are growing much faster (Emoluments at 9.60%, Pensions at 11.54%, Debt services at 9.91%) than Direct Taxes (at 9.50%).


  1. Prudent planning requires that long-term pre-committed operational expenditures must be matched with long-term steady income, which is represented by Direct Taxes.
  2. It is clear that growth in the three items must be curbed (i.e. in Emoluments, Pensions and Debt Services). However, curbing these items means massive layoffs in government employees and reduction in debts. Both are impossible within a short time. 
  3. The only possibility is by NOT increasing the government employees (no new hiring and freeze on increments), and NOT incurring new debts.

Controlling Subsidies, Grants and Other Expenditures

Facts: Subsidies, Grants, and Other Expenditures were growing out of control (Subsidies at 22.57%, Grants at 22.98%, Other Expenditures at 12.43%), against the growth of Indirect Taxes (of 6.80%, including GST).


  1. Prudent management is to match these temporal items (Subsidies, Grants and Other Expenditures) with Indirect Taxes.
  2. Over the years, the matching between the items and Indirect Taxes produces large deficits (of up to RM40 billion), which then calls for the sudden increase in Indirect Taxes in form of GST.
  3. The policies are clearly wrong on both counts: provisions of massive subsidies and grants, which are known to be distorted and imbalance, and yet at the same time, taxing the people in the form of GST, which is another source of distortion. Instead of having one type of distortions, we have both sides of distortions. What is wrong here is not only the GST itself was introduced at a wrong time, but it was used for wrong purposes (subsidies). Both distortions would largely affect the lower income group more than anyone else.
  4. Removing GST and replacing with SST, and yet while maintaining the Subsidies, Grants, and Other Expenditures at the current levels wouldn’t correct much of the wrong.
  5. However, removal of Subsidies, Grants, and Other Expenditures would also mean massive cut downs in educational services (since the IPTAs, MARA are among the major recipients), as well as healthcare services. This won’t be popular among the public, especially among the Malays.

How about Development Budgets?

Facts: Development budgets are driven by two factors: Non-tax Revenues and borrowings (i.e. debts). The Total Revenue minus Operational Expenditures have been consistently in deficit, and the deficit accumulated is rather large over the 28 years, since Total Revenue is growing at 7.77% whilst Operational Expenditure was growing at 8.31%, while Non-tax Revenues was growing at 6.90%. Development budget for the last 15 years (at least) was funded mainly on a 1-to-1 basis with the increase in the debts.


  1. Prudent management is to somehow match Development budget with Non-Tax Revenues receipts, and at the same time, to ensure that the federal government debts are within control. As the growth figures above indicate, the mismatch had been consistent for the last 28 years. And as a result, the federal government debts grew, to cover the cumulative deficits.
  2. As the total federal government debts grew, it did a few more things: i) it crowds out private sector debts; ii) the amount of debt services requirements increased. Today, the total federal government debt stood at circa between RM700 billion and RM1,000 billion.
  3. As the Development budget is fully funded only by increasing the debts, year-on-year, the cumulative development budget for the last 15 years, is almost equal to the total debts accumulated over the same period.
  4. Furthermore, the growth of the Development budget had been relatively flat over the last five years, indicating another serious issue, namely the Development budget had been squeezed out by the requirements of repayment of old debts versus issuance of new debts. The net debt increase had been somewhat curtailed. 
  5. This points out to another question: is the growth in the Development budget is stalled forever? If the answer is yes, then the country is facing another major problem: there will be not many new development projects. In fact, based on the current public information of over-commitment to projects such as ECRL, HSR, etc., it is very likely that development budgets for the next few years ahead had in fact been committed (and spent).
  6. What’s wrong is in the long-term planning of Development budgets and Debt management. We can’t grow debts forever, for the sake of development. We need higher income from Non-Tax Revenue to cover the services of the past debts taken so that we could gradually ease out the space for development budgets. Increasing Non-tax Revenue, however, could also mean increasing tariffs for the GLCs, which have almost the same effects with widening the tax-base as explained before. Almost any measures are unpopular.

Dr. Wan M. Hasni (*)

LeadUS (**)

(*) Dr. Wan M. Hasni is from LeadUS.

(**) LeadUS is a Think-Tank organization consists of Malaysian professionals which graduated from the universities in the United States and other overseas higher-learning institutions. As professionals, LeadUS promotes analysis, discussions, and opinions on the Malaysian Social, Economic, and Political issues, backed by scientific approach and methods. LeadUS seeks to define the New Malaysia within this context. 

What’s Best for Pakatan Harapan’s GE14 Manifesto

It had been more than four months after GE14 concludes. From the Pakatan Harapan’s election promises, only the main issues, such as the GST tax, 1MDB’s scandal, and the costs of living, are still in people’s mind, but the rest of the details, as they say, are already buried in the past. Society is myopic and people are mostly worried about what they are facing daily – their bread and butter. Politics is not their bread and butter.

Election promises are within the domain of politics, and Malaysia, like elsewhere in the world, the promises made during the campaign, is important to get parties to win an election. However, post winning is another subject and domain totally. Almost everywhere, what matters to people is what the parties do after winning. The people even forget and forgive if the promises are not entertained or fulfilled. But they would not forgive if the party failed to deliver their basic needs, even though it wasn’t part of what had been promised.

In the system of democracy that we adopt, we could term this phenomenon as the five-yearly social-political “contract” between the winning parties (which formed the government) and the electorate. As in any contract, what matters are not the details of the contract itself, but rather, the main intent and core deliverables.

Given that PH had won resoundingly, and people’s mandate to PH is clear, I would call for PH to review and restate its contract, vis-a-vis, promises to the electorate with the people, in clear and concise terms. They could call this “major policies undertakings”. Efforts must then be made to explain and communicate these major policies to the public, through government channels, media channels, as well as directly to the electorate.

There is nothing wrong, or even taboo for such a bold approach. In fact, it should be encouraged and lauded as appropriate and proper things to do, moving forward.

This is the better and much novel way rather than resorting to blame game and keep on harping on mistakes of the past administration. People care about what’s new, what improvements, not just rhetorics and replacement of guards at the helms.

So far, Tan Sri Rafidah sounded right (during Megatrends conference), for asking PH to admit that their GE14 manifesto was defective; just admit it and push the new agenda forward, without fear of being attacked by the opposition. The audience is not the political parties, but the people.

It is time for PH to take this bold move, for the sake of the people.






Dear All

The New Malaysia will see a new Budget to be tabled in the Parliament in early November. It will be an interesting event since it would be the beginning of a new era, where we should discuss, debate, and participate in providing our views and opinions for the benefit of our future.

Economics, in general, is quite a delicate subject, and the Budget process is even more so. There is no hard science in all, and most of the time, it is a subject that most would avoid delving deeper than the surface.

Through this Blog, and later on, under the banner of LeadUS, I am planning to deal with the subject matter of the Malaysian Economy, and this piece on Budget 2019 is my first attempt at it.

Please feel free to read and distribute.



Budget 2019 Final

Malaysia Baru

Syugia saya harapkan pembaca dan pengikut blog saya dapat menikmati penampilan baru (dan sudah tentu pendekatan baru) di dalam era Malaysia Baru ini.

Saya akan mengenegahkan isu-isu yang bertemakan apa yang dipanggil Malaysia Baru. Oleh kerana slogan “Malaysia Baru” digunakan secara meluas dewasakini, adalah penting untuk kita membina konsensus di kalangan rakyat Malaysia, tentang apa yang kita fahami bersama tentang maksud dan inti nya. Seperti yang saya perhatikan, sudah mula terdapat pelbagai kumpulan yang ingin menonjolkan makna Malaysia Baru dalam perspektif dan pandangan yang sempit.

Usaha saya disini adalah untuk kearah membina dan membentuk konsensus dikalangan kita, yang mana ianya adalah amat penting didalam aspek hala tuju bangsa dan negara. Saya berharap blog saya ini akan menjadi satu wadah yang utama untuk saya membawa pendekatan konsensus ini di kalangan rakyat ramai.

Secara inti nya, Malaysia Baru, mestilah disasarkan kepada rakyat jelata Malaysia. Oleh itu amatlah penting untuk kita terlebih dahulu mendefinisikan apakah kumpulan sasar utama rakyat Malaysia – yang dikatakan sebagai rakyat biasa (average Malaysian).

Rakyat Malaysia “biasa” (average) dengan takrifan statistik secara amnya dijelaskan seperti berikut: purata umur dalam kira-kira 27.7 tahun (umur median rakyat Malaysia tahun 2017), adalah 68.8% Bumiputera, 23.2% Cina, dan 7%  India (campuran etnik Malaysia sebagai banci 2017), tinggal di komuniti peri-urban, pendapatan purata bulanannya kurang daripada RM3,500 sebulan (dalam definisi pendapatan B40), tahap pendidikannya adalah dengan diploma (kira-kira 60%), status pemilikan aset: 15% daripada kereta (seperti jenis MyVee atau motosikal), tidak mempunyai rumah dan masih menyewa, memiliki telefon pintar dengan pelan data (prabayar dan pasca bayar), baru berkahwin atau sedang merancang untuk berkahwin dan mempunyai anak tidak lama lagi, secara asasnya beliau merupakan kombinasi unti famili yang baru di bentuk. (Sumber: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia).

Secara umum nya tingkah laku “average Malaysian” boleh digambarkan seperti berikut: beliau tidak menonton banyak televisyen, tapi menghabiskan masa kira-kira 8 jam sehari di internet, terutamanya applikasi media sosial dan pesanan ringkas, suka streaming dalam talian, mempunyai akaun Facebook, bekerja makan gaji , tidak berminat dengan ideologi politik, tidak begitu minat terhadap agama, walaupun mengambil berat terhadap terhadap amalan agama, prihatin tentang gaya hidup dan rakan sebaya (yang membuatnya prihatin terhadap tentang kos sara hidup), suka mendengar muzik dan menonton filem, suka membuat carian dalam talian untuk membeli-belah, walaupun tidak semestinya membuat pembelian dalam talian, mempunyai kemudahan perbankan dalam talian dan sering menggunakannya, mencari maklumat dalam talian dan mempercayai maklumat dalam talian lebih daripada yang lain, tidak memahami politik dan dasar-dasar kerajaan, dan yang penting adalah apa saja yang boleh menjejaskannya kehidupan sehariannya.

Sebenarnya apa yang saya gambarkan tadi tidaklah suatu yang mengejutkan kepada pembaca dari kalangan “average Malaysian”, cuma ianya mungkin agak janggal kepada kumpulan umur yang lebih dewasa (seperi saya). Yang jelas nya, rakyat Malaysia, secara purata nya adalah golongan muda, yang dikatakan sebagai Gen-X dan Gen-Y. Golongan ini lah merupakan paski baru dalam negara, yang bakal menjadi satu kuasa atau “force to be reckon with”, dalam jangka masa kedepan.

Sudah banyak bukti-bukti yang menunjukan bahawa anak-anak yang dilahirkan daripada ibu bapa pasca kemerdekaan adalah penentu utama masa depan bangsa dan negara. Pilhanraya PRU14 adalah satu “crowning event” kepada fenomena baru ini. Bagi kita semua, terutama golongan atasan, lebih-lebih lagi kepada pimpinan politik negara, kita harus akur dan terima hakikat yang baru ini, dan kita harus mengambil jalan untuk menjadi lebih relevan kepada mereka.

Saya membuat kesimpulan bahawa Malaysia Baru adalah realisasi kepada “average Malaysian” sebagai paksi baru masyarakat, dan mereka boleh menentukan perubahan dalam masyarakat sebagai satu kumpulan. Dalam jangka terdekat, adalah tidak mustahil bagi golongan ini untuk menyedari bahawa mereka adalah faktor penentu utama penentu perubahan dan kuasa untuk melakukannya adalah di tangan mereka.

Marilah kita mengalu-alukan kedatangan ini ke MALAYSIA BARU ini.

Malaysia Baru – New Malaysia

This is re-emergence of my blog postings, under a new look and banner – Malaysia Baru or New Malaysia.

Hope that readers and followers of my blog would enjoy the new looks (and of course new approach).

I will post issues that would relate mostly to the so-called New Malaysia (Malaysia Baru). As the tagline “Malaysia Baru” being used widely of late, it is important that defining this “Malaysia Baru” must take place in what I would call “consensus building” among Malaysians, as to what it could mean. As I observe, some would like to skew the “Malaysia Baru” meanings to their perspectives and views, which is normal under any emergence of new social changes, at the expense of consensus building, which should be the penultimate goal. I will try my best to push forward this agenda of consensus building among fellow Malaysians, using this blog as one of its main venues.

Malaysia Baru – must be targeted for the average Malaysian. First, we must define what would be the “proper and correct” description of “average” Malaysian?

An average Malaysian by statistical definition would generally be described as follows: he/she is on average about 27.7 years old (the median age of Malaysians as 2017), he/she is 68.8% Bumiputera, 23.2% Chinese, about 7% Indian & others (Malaysian ethnicity mix as 2017 census), he/she lives in peri-urban community, his/her average monthly income is less than RM3,500 per month (in the B40 income definition), his/her education level is with a diploma (about 60%), his/her properties would include: 15% of a car (which is about MyVee type or a motorbike), do not own a house yet and still renting them, own a smartphone with data plan in place (even though could be prepaid and not postpaid), he/she is just married with no kids yet and planning to have kids soon, and last but not least, he and she is combined as he and she (basic household definition of a family unit). (Source: Department of Statistics, Malaysia)

Let us further define his/her behaviors: he/she don’t watch much television, but spent about 8 hours a day on the internet, which dominated by gluing themselves to social media and online streaming, has facebook account, working as an employee, not interested in politics (general political apathy to any political ideology), not so religious (even though care about religious practices), is concerned about lifestyle and peers (which makes him/her to be concerned about costs of living), likes some type of music and movies, do search online for shopping, even though may not consummate the purchase online, do have online banking facilities and use them often, do search for information online and trust online information more than others, do not understand politics and policies save for what it affects him/her directly on his/her daily life, and so on.

If Malaysia Baru means the prominence of this “Average Malaysian” as I had described, as it’s main thrusts of consensus, then it would not be to any surprise for the Average Malaysian. It is only surprising to those (older generations) who do not see that Malaysians had shifted to these new Gen-X and Gen-Y, as it’s new polar. And if anyone could see that is the case, it would be futile to go against this grain and would risk themselves to be marginalized as well as facing the risk of being irrelevant.

For me, I would conclude that Malaysia Baru is the realization of the Average Malaysian (which is really Gen-X and Gen-Y) that they represent the polar of society, and could affect changes in society as a group. And soon, they may realize that they are the determinant factor to make these changes, and the power of doing so is in their hands.

Let us give a warm welcome to this NEW MALAYSIA (BARU).





Dark World Series

Dear readers

I am starting a new line of discussions, called the “Dark World Series”, which I had started earlier and with my e-book : THE DARK WORLD OF FINANCE.

My idea and objectives is to debunk and clarify lots of myths and fallacies in the World that we live in. Finance is one of the area. There are many other areas that I planned to worked on.

I would like to use my blog as the medium to engage and discuss, as well as to recieve feedback from readers.

Thank you


Wan M Hasni