Posts
Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the 13th Malaysia Plan, tabled in this chamber yesterday. This marks the second time I have had the honour to share my views, thoughts, and suggestions on the direction of our country for the next five years.
The 12th Malaysia Plan was tabled in Parliament in September 2021—less than four years ago. Upon revisiting it, I find that many of the issues I raised remain relevant today. Some proposals remain unfulfilled. But I am pleased to note that one of the ideas I put forward—the Trans-Borneo Railway—has been taken up. The Minister of Transport has announced a RM7 million consultancy study for the project. I thank the Ministry and the Federal Government for this progress.
However, I have two follow-up questions:
1. How long will the study take, and will there be engagement sessions with relevant stakeholders on the ground?
2. Is there any allocation for this project under the 13th Malaysia Plan? Given its transformative potential, early funding for preliminary works should be considered.
Today, I will revisit a few key points from my speech four years ago—points that remain relevant—and share new thoughts, with many new colleagues present in this August House.
⸻
Reflecting on Our National Planning Journey
Each Malaysia Plan spans five years. With the 13th edition now tabled, we have had 60 years of structured development planning. But let us not forget the Malaya Plans, which preceded Malaysia’s formation. The 2nd Malaya Plan (1960–1965) was overtaken by the historic formation of Malaysia, and the 1st Malaysia Plan began in 1966.
Following the tragic events of 13 May 1969—a racial disturbance centred in Kuala Lumpur—a reset was triggered in our national planning. Notably, Sarawak and Sabah were not involved in that incident, yet the Emergency Orders No. 7 and 10 enabled the Federal Government to use executive powers to assume control over offshore resources from Sarawak and Sabah under the guise of national emergency. I shall talk on this point in more detail later.
This marked the beginning of the New Economic Policy (NEP)—a 20-year initiative comprising four Malaysia Plans. Its twin goals were:
1. Eradicating poverty for all Malaysians, regardless of race;
2. Restructuring society to correct racial economic imbalances.
Too often, only one half of this narrative is highlighted. I wish to quote from paragraph 3 of the NEP:
“The New Economic Policy is based upon a rapidly expanding economy which offers increasing opportunities for all Malaysians. Thus in the implementation of this policy, the Government will ensure that no particular group will experience any loss or feel any sense of deprivation.”
This statement embodies a powerful philosophy—expand the economic pie so no one is left behind. Unfortunately, in hindsight, many of the targets were missed. Sarawak’s vast oil and gas wealth drove infrastructure development in Malaya, yet Sarawak received only 5% in return.
⸻
Successive Policies and the Missing Vision
Following NEP, the New Development Policy (NDP) continued for another 10 years, with a focus on balanced growth. Then came Vision 2020, under the National Vision Policy (NVP)—a 20-year ambition to make Malaysia a fully developed nation by 2020.
We all grew up with Vision 2020. A vision is not a fantasy—it is a purpose, a goal, a dream. And yet, when 2020 arrived, it came and went quietly. There was no celebration, no sense of achievement—just another political slogan left behind.
This cycle repeated itself with the Shared Prosperity Vision (SPV) 2030, announced alongside the 12th Malaysia Plan. The first half of SPV2030 has now passed, and its name is hardly mentioned—even in the 13th Malaysia Plan.
We’ve had many lofty visions. Unfortunately, many have become hollow slogans.
Even the former Economy Minister, YB Rafizi Ramli, acknowledged during the Dewan Rakyat debate that the Malaysia Plan is not a catalogue of projects, but a policy framework.
Yet, for the rakyat and their elected representatives, these plans are judged by what they deliver—infrastructure, jobs, investments, and better quality of life. It’s not cynicism—it’s lived experience.
⸻
Malaysia Needs a Long-Term, Aligned Vision
Malaysia needs more than 5- or 10-year plans. We need a coherent national vision, pursued with unity and determination. Other nations show us what is possible:
• Singapore, since 1965, transformed itself from a third-world to a first-world country in 50 years.
• China, since Deng Xiaoping, pursued growth with relentless clarity—no slogans, just purpose.
In contrast, Malaysia’s vision is fractured. Competing visions—based on race, religion, and region—coexist uneasily. This stems from our unique colonial and demographic history.
When Sarawak and Sabah joined Singapore and Malaya in the formation of Malaysia 0n 16th September 1963, Malaysia’s physical size grew by 150%, population increased by several millions with people from different history, culture and tradition, the nation’s vision did not fully evolve to include the aspirations of these territories.
We cannot continue drifting. Until we align our national purpose and vision across all regions and peoples, we will remain stuck—relying on natural resources to survive instead of harnessing the strength of her people to improve and innovate.
⸻
Let us reflect on the goals of the 12th Malaysia Plan:
• GDP growth target: 4.5%–5.5%
• Household income increase: RM7,160 to RM10,065
• GNI increase: RM42,503 to RM57,882
• Labour productivity: Targeted at 3.6% growth
How much have these goals been achieved?
Labour productivity
Actual labour productivity grew only 2.0–2.4%, fell below the target. Why was that? And yet, the 13th Malaysia Plan the same target of 3.6% is set.
My question is how are we planning to achieve it this time? Are we going to so the same and expect a different result? We have to do things differently.
One critical path is technology adoption—especially Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is not a luxury; it’s a necessity. McKinsey predicts AI will boost global productivity by 1.5% annually, unlocking USD 2–4 trillion in value. Malaysia must act.
⸻
Fiscal Policy and the 65% Debt Ceiling
The government aims to reduce fiscal deficit to below 3% by 2030 while maintaining debt at under 65% of GDP. But we are already close to breaching that limit. Some investment banks project we’ve already exceeded RM1.33 trillion in debt.
Some question I wish to ask:
1. What is the projected federal debt by 2030?
2. What is the estimated GDP growth assumption used?
3. When will we finally balance the budget?
4. How much more borrowing will occur before we achieve that?
⸻
13th Malaysia Plan: Redesigning Development
The theme of the 13th Plan is “Melakar Semula Pembangunan” or Redesigning Development—focusing on sustainable, equitable, and inclusive growth under the MADANI Economy.
A World in Flux: Will Malaysia Seize the Moment?
Since 2020, the world has changed dramatically. COVID-19 rewrote the rules of governance, work, and resilience. Yet we seem to be reverting to pre-pandemic complacency.
Meanwhile, free trade is dead. Tariff walls are back. Bilateralism trumps multilateralism. Nationalism is on the rise. The rich are protecting their dominance, not lifting others. The era of Pax America since the end of Second World war in 1945 is giving way to Tax America. The world biggest economy and most power army is looking inwards, looking after itself where every decision she makes is what’s in it for me.
Why is that so? It is facing stiff competition, especially from China, and it is losing her competitiveness. This drives the country to reflect and act on the way things were done in the past. The world order is undergoing change.
We are paying 19% tariff to the world’s biggest economy, while charging 0% in return. In normal situation, this doesn’t make sense. It should be the other way round. Why are the small and less developed nations having to pay while the most powerful nation and biggest economy get to pay nothing?
This is the reality of geo politics. Its survival of the fittest, might over right. Universal value at international level take second place to self interest.
In this dangerous and fast-changing world, there is only one way forward for usnad other smaller nations: to find one’s own niche and build on it, improve competitive, adopt best practices to reduce waste and increase efficiency in all things. In other words we need transformative change.
⸻
Two golden geese
Malaysia’s fiscal reliance on two golden geese—oil and gas, and oil palm—is risky. The former is extractive and finite. The latter requires hard work and sustainability. Due. To time constraint, I will touch on the former and leave the latter for the debate on the Budget 2026
Sarawak’s Oil: The Misplaced perception of the Goose that lay the golden egg
From 1970 to 1985, petroleum exports surged by nearly 29% annually, largely from Sarawak. Meanwhile, Tin and rubber price collapsed. The country’s financial and economic conditions were in bad shape. Sarawak sacrificed its resources for national development. Yet today, it has the slowest GDP growth in the country—0.9% per annum (2016–2020).
More than RM1 trillion profit have been derived from this resources and went to the federal government revenue.
Petronas has long been portrayed as the “golden goose” that came to save the day. But that goose is Sarawak. Petronas merely collects the eggs.
Why are all Sarawak’s gas resources extracted by Petronas get exported while Malaya’s gas off the shore of Terengganu are retained for industrial growth?
Sarawak now demands the return of its golden goose—for use to develop the local economy, to build basic infrastructure and to help her people.
Royal Commission Proposal
I propose the establishment of a Royal Commission to:
1. Investigate how Petronas has spent its RM1 trillion in profits;
2. Recommend reforms to improve transparency, fairness, and accountability in profit-sharing with oil-producing states.
With the Government of Sarawak push for control over her own resources especially after the setting up of Petros and Petros being appointed as the sole aggregator, we see the rise in the voice on the threat this will bring to the country financial position through the weakening of Petronas. We heard from a former prime minister and several senior ministers, all of whom are from Malaya. To quote the former prime minister:
“If Sarawak continues its push to challenge control of oil and gas resources from Petronas via ongoing negotiations with the federal government, “the nation will lose”.
This is very sad for two reasons. First, this claim ignores the rights and sentiments of the people of Sarawak (and also Sabah). It goes against the reason for the formation of Malaysia in 1963 – which is to bring faster development and progress to the Territory of Borneo in the state of Sarawak and Sabah. Underhanded tactics were deployed to take the oil and gas wealth of the Borneo States by using the Emergency laws that were introduced to due with a problem in Kuala Lumpur, an incident that have nothing to do with Sarawak and Sabah.
Second, it is the clearest admission of failure these senior leaders and even of all those who still on the hope that Petronas will come to rescue the dire financial position of our country. It is an admission of failure to diversify the economy of the country away from heavily relying on natural resources. It showed that the country is not able to be productive and competitive if not for what nature endows on us. What had happened to the Malaya economy from more than a century ago until the 1980s when the economy was almost entirely relying on tin and rubber.
I refer to a book published first published in 1955 and republished by as second edition by Institute Analisa Sosial (INSAN) entitled, “British Malaya – An Economic Anaysis”.
I quote from therein:
“For its size, British Malaya remains one of the richest colonies of the British Empire.”
“Prosperous as it is, Malaya’s economy is not on a sound basis because of its entire dependence upon two major commodities: rubber and tin. Since these two products are produced wholly for export, fluctuations in world demand, over which Malaya has no control, affect her economic well-being tremendously. If such demand suddenly ceased, the consequences to Malaya would be nothing less than disastrous.”
With rubber and tin no longer delivering the golden eggs, it now went on to take the oil and gas from Sarawak as replacement.
The question is what will be the next goose that the country will rely on to deliver the golden eggs?
Rare Earth and the Lessons of Oil and Gas
We are now facing a familiar challenge with another of our valuable natural resources: rare earth elements. It is estimated that the country has close to RM1 trillion worth of rare earth deposits.
There were proposals calling for the formation of a national-level body—similar to Petronas—to regulate and manage the rare earth industry. While the intention may be to ensure national oversight, we must not repeat the missteps of the past.
The opaque and unilateral manner ( the use, or rather the abuse, of executive power granted under the emergency laws in 1969) in which the states natural resources were seized, the way Petronas is structured, and the difficult experiences endured by oil-producing states that followed, should not be replicated in the handling of rare earth. The governance of this resource must be transparent, inclusive, and just—particularly to the states where these resources are located
Lifting Livelihoods through agriculture.
Agriculture must be the cornerstone of our economy. It is not only about food security but also the big impact on the country’s fiscal and economic well-being.
In my speech during the 12th Malaysia Plan debate, I noted that 7.4% of Malaysia’s GDP in 2020 came from agriculture—a drop from 8.3% in 2015.
What is the percentage today?
I refer to the book, British Malaya again and to quote to sections that touched on the lack of attention being paid to food production:
“Malaya’s inability to achieve a balanced economy is well illustrated by the failure of much discussed plan to increase rice production.”
In the concluding chapter, the author wrote:
“ The British administration in Malaya cannot fail to understand that a most unhealthy state of affair arises from the lack of a balanced economy. Even before rubber trees were planted in any substantial numbers, British officials had suggested the encouragement of rice cultivation so as to meet the increasing demand that accompanied the increase in the alien populations, both the Chinese and the Indians being rice eaters. The tremendous profits brought by rubber doomed any attempt along this line. Planters, instead of raising more rice, frequently abandoned that old commitments so as to plant more rubber. This shift, it was noticed at the end of the first decade, caused “a remarkable elimination in the supply of vegetables, fruits, poultry, and even pigs.” This trend continued as long as rubber planting was more profitable than any other type of cultivation. In 1917, two years before people began to question seriously the future of the rubber industry, it was observed that the abandonment of food crops in favor of rubber was being practised not only among the alien population, but also among the indigenous populations that had hitherto been engaged in rice cultivation. Prosperous as Malaya’s economy seemed at that time, official opinion doubted the reality of this prosperity, when the country had to depend more and more for its food supply upon foreign countries.”
We must plan for far beyond five years. And more importantly, we must follow through with execution. Rhetoric without delivery will not improve lives.
Flood Mitigation in Sungai Bidut, Sibu Division
Today, I wish to raise just one specific issue, and make one specific request.
Over 120 years ago, under the rule of the Second White Rajah Charles Brooke, the government of Sarawak began developing the Rajang River Basin into a major food-producing region.The area between the Rajang, Igan, and Lebaan Rivers, centred around Sungai Bidut, was identified as a key agricultural zone. It soon became known as the food basket of Sarawak, covering several thousand acres.
But over the last 30 to 40 years, frequent and worsening flooding has plagued this area. Today, vegetable farms flood almost every time it rains heavily—especially during high tides.
The cause is clear:
• Bunds built in the 1970s have not been upgraded.
• Floodgates are in poor condition.
• Siltation at the mouths of small rivers and drains has not been addressed regularly.
The Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) has submitted a flood mitigation proposal for Sungai Bidut. The objective is to protect this are from flood by carrying our infrastructure works such as bunds around the area and installing flood gates at intervals. This project, if carried out successfully, will make this area agriculturally productive again. It will open up more land to agriculture.
The estimated cost of this project is RM58 million. It is a project that is worth every dollar. It will deliver returns manifold.
I seek from and ask the relevant Minister:
• Has this proposal reached the top decision-making levels?
• Will it be included and approved under the 13th Malaysia Plan?
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and to my fellow senators for listening and your valuable inputs. I support the 13th Malaysia Plan.
YB Senator Robert Lau
(26th August 2025)
(edited version of my debate on the13th Malaysia Plan)
