MCA President Wee Ka Siong has continued venting his political frustrations at me, particularly singling out the DAP, and indirectly against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the unity government. His latest tirade on the depreciation of the ringgit vis a vis the US dollar is directed against Deputy Finance Minister Lim Hui Ying and me.
This does not make sense when it is Anwar who is in charge of the Finance Ministry. Further why hold me responsible when I currently do not hold any government position. So, can Wee tell us when Lim Hui Ying or myself has claimed credit for Finance Ministry’s decisions under the unity government when the law provides the Minister with the sole statutory authority to decide on policy?
Clearly Wee is using me as the “bridge” to hit out at Anwar for not explaining the sudden fall in the value of the ringgit by criticising my call for Bank Negara to explain. I had asked Bank Negara to aggressively explain to the public that the latest drop in the value of the ringgit vis-à-vis the US dollar is not due to issues or problems with the Malaysian economy but due to rising tensions in the Middle East, especially the growing prospect of a regional war between Iran and Israel.
I am bemused that Wee can question DAP’s logic behind holding Bank Negara responsible for explaining the depreciation of the ringgit. After so many years in government including being a Cabinet Minister under BN, PN.,UMNO and PAS, Wee still does not realise that currency and foreign exchange markets lie within the exclusive purview of the independent Bank Negara.
Wee can be forgiven for his ignorance when he has never had the opportunity to assume the post of Finance Minister. But such shocking display of lack of a simple basic knowledge obviously disqualifies him from the post of such an important Finance Ministry.
When DAP was the Opposition and Wee was a Cabinet Minister under the PN/PAS government, DAP had placed the onus on the ruling government to be responsible for a depreciating ringgit. The ringgit then had depreciated even though there was no war in the Middle East. In the absence of war, the higher interest rate differential of 2.25% to 2.5% in the US compared to Malaysia, and the poor performance of the Malaysian economy would be key factors in undermining the value of the ringgit. As the manager and custodian the nation’s economy, the then PN government have a public duty to explain the nexus between the poor performance of the economy and the declining value ot the ringgit.
The current situation of declining value of the ringgit is triggered by escalating Middle East tensions brought about by Israel’s attack on the Iran consulate in Syria and murder of an Iranian general. This is evident when the ringgit hovered around the range of RM4.70 to 4.74 to the US dollar in the 16 days before 1 April. On 1 April when Israel attacked, the ringgit was at RM 4.72 to the US dollar. Since then, in the 16 days after 1 April, the ringgit has depreciated rapidly to nearly 4.80.
Should war break out between both countries, the ringgit will decline even higher. So far, the ringgit’s weakness is only limited to the US dollar, with the ringgit holding up well or even slightly strengthening against regional currencies, as well as the sterling, euro, South Korean won, and Taiwan dollar.
This proves that the weakening ringgit against the US dollar is due to geo-political tensions in the Middle-East and not due to the worsening performance of the Malaysian economy. IF Wee disagrees with my reasoning, then he should state his opinion of the real cause for the decline in the value of the ringgit. There is no need for Wee to attack or sabotage his own unity government, which MCA is a member of.
As a reputable financial institution, Bank Negara can put forward a more persuasive defence of our ringgit that can allay the concerns and fears of both the rakyat and investors. Why then is Wee against my suggestion of Bank Negara making the explanation?