Taking action when needed

DIFFERENCE of opinion is something we all value. It is often the case when an opposing view is treasured for giving clarity to a situation many people cannot comprehend.

But when there is an attack on just how well Malaysia has done, people need to take a step back and assess just what the situation really is.

Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar ( pic) is the right person to rebut what the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) has said about the government-linked company (GLC) transformation and its impact on Malaysia.

Yes, there has been a cost to the public and taxpayers to the final bill on how much a bailout would have cost. Sometimes, the headline number seems large, but if nothing is done to rectify the situation, then the invoice to taxpayers can be larger than what has been published.

Look at the consequences of ignoring the need for a bailout in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The investment bank in the scheme of things was a small entity but the knock-on effect has been huge. Imagine if the US government had not wanted to bail out General Motors and let it collapse. That might have been financial Armageddon at that time.

Hindsight is often the reason of action. By sitting still, the US government and the world found out that the non-bailout of Lehman Brothers was a costly move.

In Malaysia’s case, it was imperative that the government take the action it did when it rescued Renong Bhd. The link it had to the financial sector and strategic assets was huge at the time, and after all these years, the public might have been better off handling a recovery of the indebted company.

One result of the financial problems of Renong is that it might have necessitated the GLC transformation.

There may have been a cost to taxpayers for doing so, but the longer-term effect of sitting still would have probably been far greater.