KUALA LUMPUR: In a rebuttal stance, economists have rejected the claim by former Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) deputy governor, Sukhdave Singh, that the government is not efficient in demonstrating true international statesmanship qualities.
Malaysia University of Science and Technology (MUST) economic professor, Geoffrey Williams asserted that the present government effectively displays genuine international statesmanship, challenging the recent comments made by Sukhdave.
In a recent LinkedIn post, Sukhdave also stated the government's emotional reactions to global events and cautioned against actions that could upset crucial economic partners, stressing Malaysia's need to maintain good relations due to its smaller size.
Geoffrey strongly stated that Sukhdave's comments may have been accurate for past administrations, but they don't hold true for our present government led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, a prominent global figure.
The economist remarked that certain former prime ministers remained relatively obscure, whereas others gained widespread recognition, albeit for unfavourable reasons.
"Anwar presents as a new international leader for Malaysia and he has shown his success in recent international visits which have brought back large investors from China, United States (US) and Middle East.
"He has shown leadership in Asean and Apec and his idea of an Asian Monetary Fund has been well received. With the leaders of Indonesia and Singapore stepping down, Anwar will be the most senior and most experienced leader in Asia in the future.
At the same time, he mentioned that he did not observe any significant emotional response except the anger shown towards the genocide happening to Palestinians in Gaza and it was shared internationally in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike.
Geoffrey said Anwar has expressed widely held humanitarian concerns with objectivity and authority which improves Malaysia's standing around the world.
In terms of refraining from provoking specific nations to protect economic advancement, he clarified that the approach fundamentally relies on identifying which nations hold crucial economic importance.
"Malaysia's trade is mostly with Asia and the Middle East. Asia alone takes 50 per cent of Malaysian exports compared to 11 per cent to the US and only eight per cent to the European Union (EU).
"So if vital nations are the US and EU, then 80 per cent of exports are not affected by their views. Expressing views aligned to Asia and the Middle East makes sense for Malaysia.
"The Islamic market is worth US$4 trillion, for example. India, China and Asean have markets with 3.5 billion people. These are vital nations and recent policy is aligned to shared views in these countries," explained Geoffrey.
Challenging the notion of crucial economic partners as mentioned by Sukhdave, Geoffrey inquired, "Again, who are the crucial economic partners?
"Malaysia will not help itself by supporting Israel to please the US nor will Malaysia help itself by bending to the EU on palm oil standards.
"So navigating potential conflicts is not about capitulation but about being firm, balanced and principled even if this causes delays or costs.
Meanwhile, another expert, Putra Business School associate professor Dr. Ahmed Razman Abdul Latif believes that the extent of Malaysia's potential alienation of crucial economic partners, such as the US, is contingent upon the perception of different parties.
He suggested that leaders from both Malaysia and the US might not view their political stances or concerns about ongoing events as excessively extreme.
"Because of that, there is no action taken by the US on Malaysia in terms of economic sanction or strong reprimand.
"It's business as usual and there should be no concern or worries among the businesses and investors with regard to diplomatic and economic relationship between these two countries.
"Therefore I don't think Malaysia's stance on what's happening in the Middle East will damage our economic progress," explained the economist.