GTP 2.0 - Prime Minister's Office of Malaysia

alex mourmouras
Chief, D5 Division, Asia and Pacific Department
International monetary Fund
Dr Alex Mourmouras has served in four IMF
departments for over 19 years, in operational
positions and as a leader of IMF training
programs. As chief of the D5 division in the Asia
and Pacific Department, he leads the work of the
ASEAN division responsible for Brunei, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore. He is also
the mission chief for Malaysia. Previously, he
served as division chief in the European and
Middle Eastern Division of the IMF Institute
for Capacity Development, and as chief of the
European Division in the IMF Institute.
In 2007, Dr Mourmouras served as Acting
Director and Chief Training Economist of the
Joint Africa Institute. From 1999 to 2003, he was
economist and senior economist in the IMF’s
Policy Development and Review Department
(PDR), contributing to a comprehensive review
of IMF conditionality, the revamping of the
IMF’s debt sustainability framework, and the
formulation of policies to prevent and deal with
misreporting of information to the IMF.
Prior to joining the IMF, Dr Mourmouras
held the position of Associate Professor of
Economics and Director of Graduate Studies
at the University of Cincinnati. He has also
held academic positions at other universities.
He obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Applied
Mathematics from Harvard College and a PhD in
Economics from the University of Minnesota.
Dr Ravi balakrishnan
Resident Representative
International monetary Fund
Dr. Ravi Balakrishnan is currently the IMF
Resident Representative with regional
responsibilities based in Singapore. He started
his career at the Bank of England and Bank of
Spain before joining the IMF in 2001. Since
then, he has worked on various countries across
regions and income thresholds including Bolivia
and the United States, and was also part of the
team that produced the IMF’s World Economic
Outlook before taking up his current position. As
Resident Representative, he has been actively
involved in the Fund’s work on Malaysia and
Singapore, on capital flows to the region, and on
inclusive growth. Dr. Balakrishnan has published
various research papers (related to labour
markets, inflation dynamics, exchange rates and
capital flows) in well-known journals. He holds
a PhD and MSc in Economics from the London
School of Economics (LSE) and a BA Honours
from Churchill College, Cambridge University.
FINdINGS OF THE 2012
IPR PaNEl ON THE GTP
On the basis of the information provided by PEMANDU and
PWC’s review of the data, the Panel noted that the GTP was
“still very relevant and still very vibrant”. The Panel agreed
that the results achieved by the GTP have been impressive, but
suggested that it may be time for the Government to re-evaluate
the goals of the programme.
“After three years of work, it may be time to
take a step back and review the objectives (of
the transformation programme),” said Michael
Hershman, who has been an IPR Panel member
since the start of the GTP.
“It may be time to ask yourselves whether
your final objectives are too modest. For
example, should you still be looking at raising
GNI per capita to US$15,000 by 2020, or
should it be done sooner than that?
“We are urging PEMANDU to take a broader
look at what the Government can really
accomplish over the course of the next seven
years.” In particular, the Panel has in mind taking
stock of the experience of the first three years
and identifying which programs are cost effective
and which ones need to be reshaped.
Specifically, it would be desirable in the next
round to look at the entire package of measures
in the GTP and ETP in terms of effectiveness
and efficiency in addressing poverty and equity.
This would include examining the various
subsidy programs, the cost of living NKRA, rural
development and the special programs under
the SRI inequity objectives. The cost of living
program is one that should be looked at closely
as the Panel retains the concerns voiced last year
regarding its contribution to a transformation
program given that it seems aimed at dealing
with short-term pressures.
Other suggestions from the Panel looked at
addressing qualitative issues, namely:
embedding the GTP culture into the civil
service so that responsibility can be
progressively transferred from PEMANDU,
hence helping ensure that the GTP
achievements and processes are made
sustainable;
increasing the emphasis on underlying
structural reforms, qualitative assessments
and perceptions feedback from the public
of the GTP rather than simply focus on
196 Government transformation Programme—Annual Report 2012 IPR 197
Government transformation Programme—Annual Report 2012 IPR
NKPIs; and
reducing the complexity of reporting results,
focusing on the main KPIs which illustrate
transformation progress (e.g. reductions
in reported crime, increases in the modal
share of public transportation), and to better
align reported numbers with the national
accounts data.
Malaysia’s GTP, Hershman added, had
distinguished itself from other transformation
programmes the Panel had observed elsewhere
in the world, particularly through its use modern
technology throughout its initiatives.
“The focus of our inquiries and our sessions
the last few days in part was to see if the best
of government practices and private industry
practices were applied to the GTP (and) we
found not only the use of data and technology
combined with an ethical base, conduct and
values approach has allowed it to distinguish
it from other government transformation
programmes we have observed around the
world in recent memory,” Hershman said.
The Panel also credited the Government
for its strong political backing of the GTP as
well as its commitment to making data publicly
available. The Panel also made the following
specific recommendations for select NKRAs in
the delivery of their report to the Cabinet.