A few points here…
“The Pandan MP said returns from Petronas’ investments in Myanmar were insignificant and it could afford to quit the country without suffering a major impact.”
The actual extent of Petronas’ investment in Myanmar is not the real issue; Petronas’ presence in Myanmar, as a state-owned company, carries diplomatic implications that impact state-to-state relations which encompass not only Myanmar, but Thailand as well. Whether Petronas, and by extension, Malaysia, can AFFORD to quit Myanmar is not exclusively a matter of dollars and cents.
“’Petronas, as a flag carrier for the nation, should not do business with a country whose actions we detest,’ Rafizi said”
Does that also apply to diplomatic relations?
“Economist Hoo Ke Ping believes Rafizi was just using the issue for political gain”
This is accurate. Had the petition been aimed at any Western multinational corporation, not a single MP would have signed it, even though their investments outweigh those of Petronas, and even though they wield international influence far beyond the reach of Petronas. But there would have been no benefit to their own personal political ambitions by petitioning Western MNCs.
“Prominent Malaysian economist Ramon Navaratnam said it was not healthy to mix business with politics, adding it was a toxic mixture.”
Well this is just silly. Business and politics are nothing if not mixed, on every level, all the time. This is an absurdly weak argument against the demands of the IRC and the MPs supporting the petition.
“He said the government should take note of the opposition MPs’ petition and work through diplomatic channels to bring more pressure on the Myanmar government to be more fair to the persecuted Rohingya”
Certainly. But Petronas should also be expected to use its presence to influence the regime as well. It makes no sense to exempt Petronas from culpability when they HAVE influence and do not use it.
“‘Unless there are UN sanctions against Myanmar, there is little to be gained in taking any unilateral action on our part,’ he said”
This also makes no sense. On a moral level, unilateral action by the government or by Petronas, is obligatory and does not require approval or support by the UN or anyone else. But I suspect he is not talking about morality here. As a tool for changing policy, he is probably right, because Petronas quitting Myanmar would leave a very small, and very brief vacuum, that would be instantly filled by another company that would have no scruples about the Rohingya crisis.
IRC has initiated a move by shareholders to request Petronas use its influence to convince Myanmar to comply with the recommendations of the Kofi Annan report on Rakhine, and this is a very good initiative. I understand the theory behind the petition; that it can incentivise Petronas to listen to the more reasonable demands of these shareholders; but I fear that by roping in members of the political opposition, they may have created a scenario that will turn the issue into a domestic political football that will ultimately undermine their admirable aims..
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/11/09/academic-supports-move-by-mps-on-petronas-pullout-from-myanmar/
External Context سياق خارجي
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/11/09/academic-supports-move-by-mps-on-petronas-pullout-from-myanmar/