Murray Hunter
Guest Editorial: Once premier Think Tank now headed by a Keropok Seller?
By Ismail Mohamed Ali
Sep 21, 2024
You know something has gone terribly wrong when a once-premier think tank is headed by a Keropok (deep fried crackers) seller. The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER), once the go-to institution for economic insights, is teetering on the brink. Sources close to the Prime Minister whisper that he’s trying to distance himself from MIER, an institute that has failed to live up to its former glory. Those on MIER's Board, once friendly with the PM, are now seen as opportunists by him.
In a twist that would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic, MIER now operates with just two research staff and seven support staff. It boasts a bizarre distinction: a 2:6 ratio of researchers to Board members—a world first for any think tank. And who’s running the show? A little-known economist, Dr. Anthony Das, whose name hardly echoes in academic halls or policy circles. A retired director from the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) noted that Dr. Das was merely a part of the secretariat, taking notes and making calls, certainly not the advisor he claims to be. The civil servant was quick to add, “He got the CEO job because of his closeness to the Bersatu elites—Muhyiddin, Tok Pah, and Azmin Ali.”
He quipped, “That is how he got the CEO job at MIER. MIER’s Board has some people who used to hang on to the Bersatu strong men.”
A professor from USM weighed in, astonished at how someone with no research credentials, no academic publications, no books, no book chapters, in other words — no scholarly footprint could helm a national think tank. Meanwhile, a bank economist pointed out that the current CEO even has a sausage business on the side. “Can someone running a factory also run MIER? Well, you can if you’re part of the right political circle,” the economist quipped.
You know something has gone terribly wrong when a once-premier think tank is headed by a Keropok (deep fried crackers) seller. The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER), once the go-to institution for economic insights, is teetering on the brink. Sources close to the Prime Minister whisper that he’s trying to distance himself from MIER, an institute that has failed to live up to its former glory. Those on MIER's Board, once friendly with the PM, are now seen as opportunists by him.
In a twist that would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic, MIER now operates with just two research staff and seven support staff. It boasts a bizarre distinction: a 2:6 ratio of researchers to Board members—a world first for any think tank. And who’s running the show? A little-known economist, Dr. Anthony Das, whose name hardly echoes in academic halls or policy circles. A retired director from the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) noted that Dr. Das was merely a part of the secretariat, taking notes and making calls, certainly not the advisor he claims to be. The civil servant was quick to add, “He got the CEO job because of his closeness to the Bersatu elites—Muhyiddin, Tok Pah, and Azmin Ali.”
He quipped, “That is how he got the CEO job at MIER. MIER’s Board has some people who used to hang on to the Bersatu strong men.”
A professor from USM weighed in, astonished at how someone with no research credentials, no academic publications, no books, no book chapters, in other words — no scholarly footprint could helm a national think tank. Meanwhile, a bank economist pointed out that the current CEO even has a sausage business on the side. “Can someone running a factory also run MIER? Well, you can if you’re part of the right political circle,” the economist quipped.
In just four years, MIER has cycled through four CEOs, none lasting long enough to leave a mark. One prominent intellectual lamented, “This man is no economic thinker, not even a notable economist —how did he get the top job?” The real issue, critics say, lies with the Board of Trustees, who seem to have handed the reins to an unqualified, unknown figure, tarnishing MIER's legacy.
Something is terribly amiss if the Board of Trustees is putting an “unheard, incompetent man with no credentials as a scholar for the top job,” he emphasized.
Adding insult to injury, MIER’s Board is largely composed of individuals nearing 80, seemingly out of touch with the institute's mission. Sources from within the Establishment suggest that there’s a growing effort to distance MIER from its status as a national think tank, fearing it’s doing more harm than good to Malaysia's image.
And in the midst of this downfall, both the Ministry of Economics and Ministry of Finance have no representation on MIER's Board, completely in the dark about the mess unraveling at the once-revered institution. As for whether the Prime Minister’s office is considering removing “Malaysian” from MIER’s name? The silence from the Companies Commission of Malaysia speaks volumes.
Ismail Mohamed Ali is a Scholar Of Southeast Asian Studies
***
MIER Is No More?
*Wan Sulaiman Wan Ismail is a Scholar Of Southeast Asian Studies.*
By Wan Sulaiman Wan Ismail
Sep 14, 2024
With the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) no longer publishing critical reports like the Consumer Sentiments Index (CSI) and Business Conditions Index (BCI), along with its quarterly economic updates and outlooks, one has to ask: What is MIER’s raison d'être? The institute appears to be in a state of atrophy, its website revealing just one remaining research officer.
This situation suggests that MIER is no longer capable of conducting rigorous, in-house research. Instead, any new projects would likely be outsourced—an approach that undermines the very purpose of having a dedicated research institution. In a world where institutions live or die by their relevance and utility, the MIER stands at a crossroads.
Some argue that MIER has simply outlived its purpose, eclipsed by a growing array of other institutions and think tanks that have emerged across Malaysia. In an era where governments, private organizations, and international agencies are stepping up with cutting-edge research and fresh insights, MIER is seen by many as duplicative at best, redundant at worst.
If Malaysia is to focus its resources wisely, why not reallocate what’s currently spent on MIER toward entities that are truly making an impact?
There’s also a broader question of policy relevance. For an organization like MIER to survive, its work needs to shape the nation’s economic planning and governance. But if its reports aren’t influencing policymakers, what’s the point? If MIER’s findings are gathering dust rather than driving decisions, then perhaps the funding could be redirected to research institutions that actually move the needle on policy.
And then there’s the question of bias and independence. Once hailed as a trusted source of analysis, MIER risks being perceived as a relic of an older era, out of touch with modern economic realities and, worse, disconnected from the socioeconomic concerns of everyday Malaysians. If its work feels irrelevant or is marred by accusations of bias, the very legitimacy of the institution comes under fire.
Financial mismanagement is another potent argument for defunding. Allegations of inefficiency, opaque governance, or misuse of funds can erode trust quickly. If money isn’t being spent effectively, why continue to invest in the status quo?
Beyond that, the private sector and international expertise are knocking on the door. With global think tanks, consultants, and universities providing fresh perspectives and more competitive insights, why stick with an old horse when there are faster, more innovative ones to ride? The argument here is simple: Malaysia could lean into more globally attuned expertise.
MIER’s lack of innovation may well be its Achilles heel. As digital economies rise, artificial intelligence reshapes industries, and sustainability becomes the new economic imperative, MIER risks falling behind. If it can’t innovate, especially in forward-looking fields like green economics or the digital economy, critics are likely to push for its dissolution, arguing that Malaysia’s future demands think tanks more focused on the challenges of tomorrow.
Compelling arguments, significant concerns about the direction and governance of
MIER since 2019. A summary of some key arguments:
Point 1: Deviation from Core Mission
Involvement in Non-Core Projects: Since 2019, MIER has engaged in projects like the Hydrogen Bus and the 3rd National Car, which are outside its traditional focus on economic research. These activities may indicate a shift away from MIER's intended purpose, leading to questions about the appropriateness of its current project portfolio.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: The Ministry of Finance (MOF) should investigate by requesting a list of projects undertaken by MIER between 2019 and 2023, including details of the contracts and those responsible. This transparency could reveal if certain individuals or entities have inappropriately benefited, suggesting possible conflicts of interest.
Point 2: Governance and Board Composition Concerns
Irregularities in the Board of Trustees: MOF is suggested to request MIER’s meeting minutes from 2019-2023 to identify any irregularities in the Board’s appointments and amendments (illegal) to MIER’s memorandum of association, which could point to governance issues.
Lack of Academic and Distinguished Representation: The current Board’s composition, which allegedly lacks academics or distinguished individuals and is instead dominated by businesspeople with political connections, raises concerns about the integrity and direction of MIER. This situation could undermine MIER’s credibility and objectivity in its research and recommendations.
Point 3: Potential Government Intervention
Request for Board Resignation: It is proposed that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has the authority to request the Board of Trustees at MIER to step down, especially since MIER is funded by the MOF and operates on government property. This reflects the government's leverage over MIER due to its financial and logistical support.
Precedent from ISIS: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) pressed the reset button for the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), leading to the entire Board of Trustees being replaced. This sets a precedent for similar action at MIER, reinforcing the argument that the government could, and perhaps should, intervene to reform or reset MIER's governance.
These points strengthen the case for a significant overhaul or even the potential closure of MIER, particularly if the institute's current operations and governance are found to be misaligned with its intended purpose or compromised by conflicts of interest.
Implications for Defunding or Shutting Down MIER
If these concerns are substantiated, they could justify arguments for defunding or shutting down MIER. The perceived deviation from its mission, potential conflicts of interest, and governance issues could be strong grounds for questioning the institute’s continued relevance and effectiveness.
Given these realities, it raises a fundamental question: Why does MIER still exist in its current form?
Sep 14, 2024
With the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) no longer publishing critical reports like the Consumer Sentiments Index (CSI) and Business Conditions Index (BCI), along with its quarterly economic updates and outlooks, one has to ask: What is MIER’s raison d'être? The institute appears to be in a state of atrophy, its website revealing just one remaining research officer.
This situation suggests that MIER is no longer capable of conducting rigorous, in-house research. Instead, any new projects would likely be outsourced—an approach that undermines the very purpose of having a dedicated research institution. In a world where institutions live or die by their relevance and utility, the MIER stands at a crossroads.
Some argue that MIER has simply outlived its purpose, eclipsed by a growing array of other institutions and think tanks that have emerged across Malaysia. In an era where governments, private organizations, and international agencies are stepping up with cutting-edge research and fresh insights, MIER is seen by many as duplicative at best, redundant at worst.
If Malaysia is to focus its resources wisely, why not reallocate what’s currently spent on MIER toward entities that are truly making an impact?
There’s also a broader question of policy relevance. For an organization like MIER to survive, its work needs to shape the nation’s economic planning and governance. But if its reports aren’t influencing policymakers, what’s the point? If MIER’s findings are gathering dust rather than driving decisions, then perhaps the funding could be redirected to research institutions that actually move the needle on policy.
And then there’s the question of bias and independence. Once hailed as a trusted source of analysis, MIER risks being perceived as a relic of an older era, out of touch with modern economic realities and, worse, disconnected from the socioeconomic concerns of everyday Malaysians. If its work feels irrelevant or is marred by accusations of bias, the very legitimacy of the institution comes under fire.
Financial mismanagement is another potent argument for defunding. Allegations of inefficiency, opaque governance, or misuse of funds can erode trust quickly. If money isn’t being spent effectively, why continue to invest in the status quo?
Beyond that, the private sector and international expertise are knocking on the door. With global think tanks, consultants, and universities providing fresh perspectives and more competitive insights, why stick with an old horse when there are faster, more innovative ones to ride? The argument here is simple: Malaysia could lean into more globally attuned expertise.
MIER’s lack of innovation may well be its Achilles heel. As digital economies rise, artificial intelligence reshapes industries, and sustainability becomes the new economic imperative, MIER risks falling behind. If it can’t innovate, especially in forward-looking fields like green economics or the digital economy, critics are likely to push for its dissolution, arguing that Malaysia’s future demands think tanks more focused on the challenges of tomorrow.
Compelling arguments, significant concerns about the direction and governance of
MIER since 2019. A summary of some key arguments:
Point 1: Deviation from Core Mission
Involvement in Non-Core Projects: Since 2019, MIER has engaged in projects like the Hydrogen Bus and the 3rd National Car, which are outside its traditional focus on economic research. These activities may indicate a shift away from MIER's intended purpose, leading to questions about the appropriateness of its current project portfolio.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: The Ministry of Finance (MOF) should investigate by requesting a list of projects undertaken by MIER between 2019 and 2023, including details of the contracts and those responsible. This transparency could reveal if certain individuals or entities have inappropriately benefited, suggesting possible conflicts of interest.
Point 2: Governance and Board Composition Concerns
Irregularities in the Board of Trustees: MOF is suggested to request MIER’s meeting minutes from 2019-2023 to identify any irregularities in the Board’s appointments and amendments (illegal) to MIER’s memorandum of association, which could point to governance issues.
Lack of Academic and Distinguished Representation: The current Board’s composition, which allegedly lacks academics or distinguished individuals and is instead dominated by businesspeople with political connections, raises concerns about the integrity and direction of MIER. This situation could undermine MIER’s credibility and objectivity in its research and recommendations.
Point 3: Potential Government Intervention
Request for Board Resignation: It is proposed that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has the authority to request the Board of Trustees at MIER to step down, especially since MIER is funded by the MOF and operates on government property. This reflects the government's leverage over MIER due to its financial and logistical support.
Precedent from ISIS: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) pressed the reset button for the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), leading to the entire Board of Trustees being replaced. This sets a precedent for similar action at MIER, reinforcing the argument that the government could, and perhaps should, intervene to reform or reset MIER's governance.
These points strengthen the case for a significant overhaul or even the potential closure of MIER, particularly if the institute's current operations and governance are found to be misaligned with its intended purpose or compromised by conflicts of interest.
Implications for Defunding or Shutting Down MIER
If these concerns are substantiated, they could justify arguments for defunding or shutting down MIER. The perceived deviation from its mission, potential conflicts of interest, and governance issues could be strong grounds for questioning the institute’s continued relevance and effectiveness.
Given these realities, it raises a fundamental question: Why does MIER still exist in its current form?
*Wan Sulaiman Wan Ismail is a Scholar Of Southeast Asian Studies.*
No comments:
Post a Comment