The British High Commissioner to Malaysia believes that for its economic development, Sarawak must return to its core strengths such as commodities and its wonderful environment.
IPOH-born Victoria Marguerite Treadell has returned to the capital of Perak – only now, she has become the British High Commissioner to Malaysia.
As Ipoh has been touted as a place that produces pretty girls with brains, it is not surprising that although in her 50s, the woman – who prefers to be known as Vicki Treadell – is still pleasantly attractive with her pointed chin, intense black eyes and silvery hair.
Of course, flattery does not move her at all – it only manages to bring about a rather uncommitted smile that obviously sends the message that she would like to be praised for her brains rather than her looks. And she deserves that.
Treadell has shown herself to be more than diplomatic. She maintains that alertness and cautiousness even after a long day of meeting some of the most prominent local politicians from both political divides. At the same time, she remains very open about her views on all issues put forth to her, and has the guts to express her stand without the fear of offending.
Question: You have visited Sarawak and met some very important people today (Aug 24, 2015). What have you come across that impressed you?
Treadell: I think my first impression of Sarawak is how much more social cohesion you have here. And that came about after briefly sitting on the (Kuching) Waterfront yesterday, watching people walk by. There is an ambience you have here which reminds me of the old Malaysia. I was born here (Malaysia) and I can remember my early childhood, me visiting Malaysia during the holidays as a teenager. I remember the old Malaysia, of people coming together where race was not an issue. I still see this in Sarawak and I think it is very precious.
Could it be that you have come to the conclusion because of the preconception that there is always this comparison between East Malaysia and Peninsular Malaysia, in that area?
Not really. I think you can see it and feel it without any preconception. People did say to me that Sarawak and Sabah were different. Yes, the thoughts are always there. But I have been back in Malaysia on regular basis whether for work or holidays. From my own experience and this time returning after 26 years, I can actually see the huge difference in terms of that environmental factor that I have touched on. And this is something which I have been quite public about in Peninsular Malaysia.
May we know the circumstances why you were born in Ipoh?
My family on both sides has been here for a long time. My mother’s family migrated to Singapore around early 1820s from Guangdong province. Although with European ancestry, not being the eldest son, my grandfather left Ceylon to strike out on his own. He ended up in Singapore where he met a slightly older gentleman. They agreed to start a publishing business where they established Charles Grenier Sdn Bhd in late 1800, or early 1900. That older gentleman had a daughter. In those days, if you had a business deal, you’d marry off your daughter or son to clinch the deal. So the younger man and the daughter of the older gentleman got married in 1957 – the year of Merdeka – after courting for eight years. My father was actually born in Kuala Lumpur and my mother, in Singapore. They met in Ipoh, which was where their respected families had ended up.
I was born in 1959. I left Malaysia when I was eight.
How important do you think the role of Malaysia is in Asean?
Malaysia is the chair of Asean. It is also one of the non-permanent members in the UN (United Nations) Security Council. In terms of a global and a regional stage, Malaysia has a very important role to play in representing this region at the UN, and chairing Asean. And as one of the output of its chairmanship this year, Malaysia is transitioning Asean into the ‘Asean Economic Community’. Malaysia has defined a people-centric theme of ‘Our People, Our Community, Our Vision’ where the challenge would be fortifying an ‘Asean’ identity, such as that of the European identity where there is a binding broad cultural sense of being European as well as being a citizen of a nation state.
For Asean, you are a very diverse region with three levels of development across the region. To forge an Asean cultural identity accepted by all countries within Asean by creating a sense of cohesion and a sense of belonging within such a diverse group will be a challenge. With the existence of different tariff barriers, protectionism and the three different levels of development across the Asean nations, there is also the bigger challenge of becoming a single market as mentioned by International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed. I think he’s very honest to admit that whilst announcing the arrival of Asean community, full integration could only be achieved in slower time as each country is moving at different speed.
But what is important for Malaysia is to put those foundations in place.
For countries like Great Britain and most part of the EU (European Union), because we are free traders believing in open market, we will encourage ASEAN-EU FTA (Free Trade Agreement).
Of course, what Malaysia does with TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), and how other countries within Asean view it, will be a game changer. It will certainly influence trade policies and environment. Malaysia has just witnessed Vietnam and EU reaching FTA. If Vietnam within EU FTA has an advantage, then it is in Malaysia’s interest to equalise the playing field with its own EU FTA.
Our partnership and interest in Malaysia is within that global and regional trade contexts.
Malaysia used to be the leading economy in South East Asia but over the years, it is slowly losing out to its neighbouring competitors. What is your take on this?
Singapore only has its human capital but it has reinvented itself. Countries like Malaysia, which is rich in commodities, tend to depend on its commodities. Even Australia is not spared where it relies heavily on the export of its minerals.
We are all guilty of complacency. Malaysia is aware of it and has been working on the diversification of economy. You also have to look at what your competitors are doing. There are also the issues of protectionism. For example, in Malaysia, foreign hypermarkets coming in are restricted on the number of licences and operating hours to protect little ‘Mom-and-Pop’ corner stores in villages, township, or suburbs of cities. But the restrictions do not apply to local hypermarkets – these hypermarkets can do whatever they like to all the small stores.
I think the issue is about protectionism and preferences. To be truly competitive, you have to open up your market where foreign investors are allowed to own 100-per cent of their investment. Britain is now the strongest economy in Europe because we have got rid of our protectionism. Any foreign investor can own 100 per cent of any British brand or business. There are objections that we will be owned by foreigners but I tell you, Britain would not have a car manufacturing industry if we had not opened up.
Nissan (of Japan) made more cars in England than the entire car output of Italy, which is still largely state-subsidised. In return, Nissan invested in R&D (research and development) of new Nissan models which are wholly designed, engineered and made in Britain.
Ford sold Jaguar Land Rover to Tata Motors (of India). Before this, Jaguar Land Rover employed over 12,000 people. After the investment of Tata, its R&D budget alone, which exceeds one billion pounds a year, has seen Jaguar Land Rover’s workforce increased up to 30,000-40,000. The whole supply chain industry that feeds Jaguar Land Rover means tens of thousands more jobs.
We have opened to foreign investment 100-per cent ownership and it has revolutionised our car industry. That is what opening to liberalisation or removing of protectionism can do. Rather than killing what we might call ‘indigenous car industry’ in Britain, it has rejuvenated and reinvented it.
Does that apply to Sarawak?
I would say so. For Sarawak’s economic development, you must return to your core strengths such as commodities and your wonderful environment. I once saw a satellite photograph of Sarawak some time between 1963 and 1964, when 85 per cent of your land mass was still covered with primary rainforests. I am not saying that the balance was right but today, it is less than 20 per cent.
What you have here is actually something precious to the world as a whole, not just Sarawak. Legal logging is of short-term gain but in historical context, it is just a blink of the eyes. Money made in a few decades is a loss of species, whether flora or fauna. It is a loss forever, in millennium terms – you can’t reinvent it.
So what about considering eco-tourism where you can come back to your precious asset of primary rain forests? And if logging is still important, how do you manage that in a sustainable way? What is the alternative to palm oil, or existing palm oil? Where are the value-added industries that can be derived from palm oil? Are there properties from palm oil waste that could be developed towards creating a wholly indigenous new industry?
Ask these questions, you may even have a start of a new industry.
Do you think Malaysia, as a Muslim majority country, plays a role in countering Islamic terrorism?
Two weeks ago, our Prime Minister David Cameron was here and there was a bilateral meeting on countering violent extremism and its causes. It is an issue that Malaysia and Britain have agreed to work on because Britain too has a problem. Unlike Malaysia, we have had acts of violence / terrorism. Perpetrators are on our streets, our people killed even though Britain is a country of open democracy with freedom of expression and respect for human rights.
And the perpetrators are second- and third-generation young British who were born into this inclusive environment – how come they are radicalised? How can they attach greater importance to an imported doctrine and attack the country of their birth in which they carry a citizenship? We are facing such challenges and we can’t pretend it is an issue for countries with majority Muslim population, or those that are regarded as Muslim countries.
We are very clear that true Islam has nothing to do with extremism that we have been witnessing. It is a distortion of Islam and a deviant strength of Islam. And I use the phrase ‘Islamic extremism’ with caution. We did not label these terrorists as Islamist. It was their choice.
Look at ISIL – they define themselves as the Islamic State. They choose the words and the label of the religion, which must be a huge insult to true Muslims for whom Islam is a tolerant, peaceful and respectful religion.
Malaysia, which historically has a reputation of (being) a moderate Muslim country, has managed to stamp out that kind of violent extremism that we have seen in the UK. We should promote the brand of moderate Islam that has traditionally been at play. Of course, Malaysia itself knows it is not immune as the present deviancy has a corrupting ability to radicalise the young people.
Why do young Malaysians – like young British, Australians and Americans – choose to go to Syria and Iraq? For those who have returned, how do you de-radicalise them? How do we understand what motivates them? For those who realise that they have been sold to falsehood, how can we get their stories out to be part of the narrative to steer young people away from making bad choices in life? How do you persuade a father who decides that he would like nothing better than for his teenage daughter – a child of 13 or 14 – to become a jihadist bride? What has corrupted that father’s mind that he would send an innocent young girl into that environment?
We need to understand these. We need to get the ‘imams’ to compare notes and look more closely into the works of our communities.
So there are huge chances between our two countries to address the issues, to understand the psychology of things, and to develop our own counter narratives. It has to be our combined efforts. This is serious work at UN-level where Malaysia, as a non-permanent member and its credential as a moderate Muslim-majority country, has a significant role to play.
We need courageous voices from Malaysia to stand up and say: “Not in our name.”
UK has set a good example in holding multiple referendums. For example, the Scottish Independence Referendum, and another one before 2017 to decide on UK being in or out of the EU. Do you think referendum could be carried out in
Treadell says there is an ambience Sarawak has which reminds her of the old Malaysia.
Malaysia to solve impasse or longstanding issues?
Look at the Commonwealth Charter and the Commonwealth Principles – all the fundamentals that we have subscribed to in Britain is the same one that Malaysia has signed up to. For it to be held, there must be a sense of maturity as a nation where the government trusts the people to make the right choice.
With that maturity and after you have an open and informed debate where you allow robust challenges and alternative views, when people walk to that booth for a referendum, or an election, they will make an informed choice.
And you have to trust the people. After all, all governments are put in place by the people, for the people and to be accountable to the people. For any government which has been keeping to those basic and democratic principles, and delivering what the people want, there should never be any fear about the choice that the people make.
As an open democracy, we subscribe to that. If Scotland wanted to make a choice, let them have an opportunity at the referendum. Scotland chose to stay in the union. It was tight. It was close. There was a moment when we thought they might leave.
But if we believe in people exercising a right of self-determination, as a principle of the fundamental human rights, then we would have to stand by the result – whichever way it goes. The alternative is to suppress and clamp it down; and what we end up having is people try to get freedom in a different way and that is going to be worst.
In a year or two, there will be a referendum on EU, where again there is a choice of stay in or out. Our government is very clear that they want to stay, but they will negotiate for a better position for UK.
At an appropriate point, the government will put that to the people and let the people make the choice.
Should the majority of Scotland decide to pull out, do you think Britain would have allowed it?
Yes, we are absolutely clear. And it was the consensual position of a mature politics of a bipartisan or tripartisan government where the three main political parties – the liberal democrats, labour and conservative – agreed on. So had Scotland voted out, as part of the plan, there would have been a transition where you negotiated on some of the details. That is what fair democracy is about.
Sometimes people would make a choice that you don’t like, but if you believe in self-determination as a principle of human rights, you will have to respect their choice. We defended the Falkland Islands to defend its rights of self-determination. They chose to be British, they remain as British. If they chose independence, they could become independent.
The investment (that) we put into Falkland Islands is to make them more economically self-sufficient.
Yet the same choice was not offered to Hong Kong?
That is true, but the history of Hong Kong is different. It was a lease that we had with China, so there was a contractual agreement which we had to abide by. Falkland Islands is not of the same case. We are very clear about defending Falkland Islands of its rights. We do not accept the position of Argentina that Falkland Islands was theirs and the views of the people didn’t matter.