VISION 2020 OF MALAYSIA ECONOMY, HAS IT BEEN ACHIEVED?

AMIR MA’RUF
Faculty of Economics, Cordova University
Pondok Pesantren 112 Taliwang Sumbawa Barat NTB
amirmaruf@undova.ac.id

ABSTRACT

An ambitious vision was conveyed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia in 1991 under the name Vision
2020 when Malaysia was still a developing country based on its nominal value of GNI per capita and
HDI level. This paper wants to track Malaysia's achievements in achieving its vision using the
Susamto Four Fields and utilizing secondary data from international institutions that are concerned
with the development achievements of countries in the world. The results of the study show that by
2020 Malaysia has achieved its vision even though there are several indicators that are still not
satisfactory. However, seeing the achievements it has, Malaysia has the potential to go further to
become a more developed country.

Keywords: Vision 2020, Malaysia, developed country, Susamto’s Four Fields, economic development.
INTRODUCTION
Malaysia's Vision 2020, which was proclaimed in 1991 by Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad, attracted the attention of many observers, at home and abroad of
Malaysia, during the early days of the vision declaration, throughout the decades of its
achievements, moreover during the times when the dateline for achieving the vision
approaches its finish. Among them are Sarji (1993); Sulaiman (1993); Sundaram et al. (1995);
Mustapha & Abdullah (2004); Islam (2010a, 2010b); Baharuddin (2012); Sanusi & Ghazali
(2014); Haron et al. (2015); Mohamed & Xavier (2015); Hann (2016); Pennington (2017); and
Fleming & Søborg (2019).
Vision is a lofty goal to be achieved in the future. A future ideal can be said to be a
vision - and not a dream or delusion - if it is a goal that can be concretely understood;
arranged in short, clear and focused expressions; based on existing competencies and
potentials; has a rational measure of achievement, its path of achievement can be traced,
can inspire so that it becomes a common goal that can be achieved jointly by all parties
concerned; and have a clear target time (Allison & Kaye, 2005; Kuncoro, 2006; Wibisono,
2006).
Wibisono (2006) recommends that the formulated vision must have Big, Hairy,
Audacious Goal (BHAG) criteria, so that a vision must contain a goal that has the impression
of being set ambitiously, designed to be achieved in the long term, and challenging. BHAG is
the idea of Collins & Porras (2001) which states that a BHAG vision must be firm and have
the driving force to take action; departing from a critical condition to achieve a big goal that
gives confidence to all parties to move; is an ambitious and challenging goal; should be
updated when there is a "we did it" syndrome; and consistent with the ideology and identity
of the organization.
The Vision 2020 for Malaysia is considered as an ambitious vision by some observers
such as Sundaram et Al. (1993) and Pennington (2017). This assessment arose because the
main goal set was to become a developed country within 30 years when in 1991 Malaysia
was still a emerging country. GNI per capita based on PPP is US $ 6,530 (World Bank,
2020b), Human Development Index (HDI) is 64.40 (UNDP, 2020). When compared with
several countries using the World Bank standards which set GNI per capita (PPP) for
developing countries in the range of US $ 1,006 and US $ 12,235 (Audia Junita, 2020), and
UNDP standards that set HDI for developing countries at between 55 and 70 (UNDP, 2018),
the position of Malaysia can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Position of Malaysia according to GNI per Capita and HDI in 1990.
 3 4

1 H
DI
(%
2 )

GNI per Capita (PPP) (US$)

Source: World Bank, (2020b) and UNDP (2020) processed.
1. Threshold between high and medium HDI at point 70.
2. Threshold between medium and low HDI at point 55.
3. Threshold between low and medium GNI per capita (PPP) at point US $ 1,006.
4. Threshold between medium and high GNI per capita (PPP) at point US $ 12,235.
 Malaysia with a GNI per capita of US $ 6,530 and HDI 64.40.
Entering the third decade of the Vision 2020 achievement, observers are divided into
two side-by-side: the optimistic side that Malaysia will succeed in achieving this vision such
as Islam (2010a), Sanusi and Ghazali (2014), Mohamed and Xavier (2015), and the
pessimistic side as indicated by Hann (2016), Pennington (2017), Ipsos (2019). However,
when the achievement period of the Vision 2020 actually ends, I have not found any papers
that assess whether Malaysia has succeeded or not.
This paper aims to assess whether the Malaysian economy is on track to achieve the
Vision 2020 as targeted or not, and provides suggestions for Malaysia to continue its work
regardless of its current achievements.
This paper aims to assess whether Malaysia has achieved the Vision 2020 as targeted
or not. Given the broad spectrum contained in the Vision 2020, the assessment to be carried
out is limited to the economic dimension. Apart from the fact that economic achievements
have measurable limits, economic achievements can represent the achievements of other
dimensions contained in the vision2020. Furthermore, this paper will provide suggestions
for Malaysia to continue its work regardless of the current conditions of achievement.
The assessment that I will do uses the Susamto Four Fields analysis (Susamto, 2020).
In field 1 (Ideality) several main indicators that are ideal for achieving the Vision 2020 in the
economic sector will be placed. In field 2 (Actuality) all Malaysian economic achievements in
2019 will be placed as T-1 for the 2020 Vision target year. In field 3 (Comparison) an
assessment of Malaysia's economic achievements will be carried out accompanied by an
analysis of the factors causing gaps - if any - between ideal indicators and achievements. In
field 4 (Formulation) suggestions will be formulated for Malaysia to continue its work in
economic development based on the results of the analysis in the comparison field.
Figure 2. The Susamto Four Fields
 1. Ideality Field

3. Comparison Field 4. Fomulation Field

2. Actuality Field

 Normative Element  Positive Element

Source: Susamto (2020)

VISION 2020 OF MALAYSIA ECONOMY

Visi 2020 or in Malaysia popularly known as Wawasan 2020 is the speech of the
Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Mahathir Mohamad with the title "Malaysian: The Way
Forward (Vision2020)" which was delivered at the Malaysian Business Council Conference
on February 28, 1991. A speech which was later accepted by conference participants and
finally approved by the parliament as the Malaysia National Vision (Islam, 2010a, 2010b;
Mohamad, 1991; Sanusi & Ghazali, 2014).
The main objective of the Vision 2020 is the formation of a fully developed country.
In defining the phrase "fully developed country" Mahathir Mohamad in his speech stated
that Malaysia would not duplicate the development forms that were owned by several
developed countries at that time such as 19 countries, including Britain, Canada,
Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Japan. Malaysia will become a developed country with its
own style and characteristics. Mahathir Mohamad stated (Mohamad, 1991; Rahman, 1993):
By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident
Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that
is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable,
progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is
competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient.

This main goal can only be achieved if the nation and state of Malaysia are able to
overcome the following nine challenges (Islam, 2010b; Mohamad, 1991; Sanusi & Ghazali,
2014):
1. Establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. It
must be a nation at a peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated.
2. Creating a society that is psychologically liberated, secure, and developed with faith and
confidence, and robust enough to face all forms of adversity.
3. Building a mature democratic society practising a mature and community-oriented
consensual democracy.
4. Establishing a community that has high moral, ethical, and religious standards.
5. Establishing a mature, liberal and tolerant society where all people regardless of colors
and creeds are free to practice and show their customs, culture and religious beliefs, yet
they still feel as one nation.
6. Establishing a scientific and progressive society, a society that is innovative and has a
future view. Not only as a consumer of technology but also as a contributor to future
scientific and technological civilizations.
7. Establishing a fully caring society and a caring culture, a social system in which people
do not prioritize themselves and the people's welfare will not revolve around the state
or individuals but around a strong and resilient family system.
8. Ensuring a just society economically, namely a society in which there is a fair and
equitable distribution of the nation's wealth.
9. Establishing a prosperous society, with an economy that is completely competitive,
dynamic, strong and resilient.
The nine challenges in achieving the Vision 2020 are derivatives of what Mahathir
Mohamad stated that Malaysia as fully doveloped country in 2020, not only in the economic
aspects, but also in social, cultural, political, educational, technological, security, and so on. .
Mahathir Mohamad stated (Mohamad, 1991):
Malaysia should not be developed only in the economic sense. It must be a
nation that is fully developed along all the dimensions: economically, politically,
socially, spiritually, psychologically and culturally. We must be fully developed in
terms of national unity and social-cohesion, in terms of our economy, in terms of
social justice, political stability, system of government, quality of life, social and
spiritual values, national pride and confidence.

From the excerpt of the speech delivered by Mahathir Mohamad above, it is implied
that this Vision 2020 is a continuation of the Malaysia New Economic Plan (NEP) that has
been and is being implemented. Beside the brilliant achievements through the NEP, there
have also been many bad records that have been in the national and international attention
(Hann, 2016; Sundaram et al., 1995).
Sundaram et al., (1995) explain that the main issue highlighted in the NEP which
began in 1970 was racial issues, when the government gave privileges to Bumiputera
economic development and placed ‘large’ economic limitation on the Chinese and Indian
races.
In the early days of Malaysia's independence, the economic condition of the
Bumiputera was very bad. Economic inequality between Bumiputeras on the one hand and
the Chinese and Indians on the other was severe. Elhadary & Samat, (2016) noted that in
1970 the poverty of Bumiputera reached 64.8%, while the poverty of Indians was 39.2% and
the Chinese 26%. Each percentage of the total population of Malaysia at that time consisted
of Bumiputeras of 5,782,337 (55.4%), Chinese of 3,564,502 (34.14%), and India of 936,341
(8.97%) (Nor & Yaakob, 2014). Thanks to NEP, the composition shifted. Bumiputera poverty
declined in 1990 to 17.5% (down 47.3%), India to 4.5% (down 34.7%), and China to 3.2%
(down 22.8%) as the population Bumiputeras as many as 10,056,724 people (61.55%),
Chinese as many as 4,773,514 people (29.22%), and Indians as many as 1,336,559 people
(8.18%). Although the Bumiputera poverty rate is still higher than the Chinese and Indian
poverty levels, the gap is narrowing.
In relation to the reduction in the poverty rate, data on economic inequality
between ethnic groups in 1970 were also recorded, which shifted to a better composition as
a result of the NEP. Mohamed & Xavier (2015) noted that in 1970 the level of shareholding
in companies by Bumiputera was only around 2.3%, while by Chinese and Indians it reached
34.3%. In 1990, ownership by Bumiputera reached 19.3% (up 17%) and ownership by
Chinese and Indians also increased to 46.8% (up 12.5%). The ratio of gross household
income between Bumiputera and India in 1970 was 1: 1.77 and it was 1: 2.29 with China. In
1990 the ratio changed, Bumiputera to India became 1: 1.29 and with China it became 1:
1.74.
There is an implicit belief in the NEP that economic stability and development in a
country of various ethnicities, tribes, and creeds can only be achieved if there is economic
justice and equality between all groups (Hann, 2016). This may be confirmed by the
evidence that the general poverty rate in Malaysia decreased from 49.3% (of 10.439 million
people) in 1970 to 17.1% (of 18.102 million people) in 1990. GDP per capita in 1970
amounting to US $ 900 increased to US $ 6,818 in 1990 (Mohamed & Xavier, 2015).
Behind all these glorious achievements, it turns out that there is a fire in the husks of
the NEP, the fire is racial jealousy related to economic policies. Although the fire has been
held for 20 years so as not to grow, it is feared that the political dynamics, both at home and
abroad, will blow and inflame the fire of racial jealousy. Moreover, in the three years before
1990 there had been a political crisis which could become sparks which, if not immediately
extinguished, would be a threat to Malaysia's development journey. That is why the Vision
2020 was raised. (Sundaram et al., 1995)
According to Sundaram et al. (1995) The public's response to the 2020 Vision is
different from the response to other government policies which are always followed by
rejection, criticism, and even challenges for open debate. For Vision 2020 that is not the
case. This is because the Vision 2020 appears at the right time, when society is fed up with
racial policies, when economic indicators in general are showing encouraging numbers, and
when pride as a Malaysian nation has taken shape.
Even though it was said that the Vision 2020 is not limited to the economic aspects
alone, the achievements in the economic dimension are still the main benchmarks for the
success of achievement (Pennington, 2017), while the achievements in other dimensions are
only supporting benchmarks. This can be easily recognized because when Mahathir
Mohamad discussed challenges in the economic dimension, it was always accompanied by
several targets that must be achieved, whereas when discussed challenges in the non-
economic dimension, it was not accompanied by explicit targets.
Some of the targets on the economic dimension that Mahathir Mohamad explicitly
mentioned are as follows (Mohamad, 1991):
1. Doubling real GDP every ten years. If the real GDP in 1990 was US $ 115 billion, the
indicative achievement is the real GDP in 2020 of US $ 920 billion.
2. Maintain economic growth of 7% or an average of 7% between 1990 and 2020.
3. Maintain the population growth rate until 2020 at 2.5% level. This is intended so that the
wealth of Malaysians in 2020 will increase four times compared to 1990 as measured by
GNI per capita.
4. Maintain a low inflation rate for 30 years.
5. Realizing a just economy in the form of economic equality for all Malaysians regardless of
race and religion.
6. Achieve equitable economic growth in all sectors: agriculture, manufacturing, services,
and others.
FULLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY, A DEFINITION
The categorization of countries in the world has long been carried out by
international institutions, both within the scope of the United Nations (UN) and
independent institutions. The categorization that became popular and was widely used as a
reference was the categorization set by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF),
and United Nation Development Programme (UNDP).
The basis for the categorization of the three institutions is different and always
changes due to the different missions and tasks of each institution. Nielsen (2011)
summarizes the differences in categorization between the three institutions in Table 1:
Table 1. Country Categorization System in Several International Institutions
CATEGORY IMF UNDP World Bank
The term used for Advance countries Developed countries High Income countries
developed country
Threshold Not explicit 75th percentile on the GNI per capita US $
HDI distribution 6,000 based on 1987
prices
Threshold Type Almost absolut Relative Absolut
The term used for Emerging and Developing countries Low – and middle –
developing country developing countries income countries
Subcategory for (1) Low-income (1) Low human (1) Low-income
developing country developing development countries,
countries, countries, (2) Middle-income
(2) Emerging and (2) Medium human countries.
other developing development
countries countries,
(3) High human
development
countries
Source: Nielsen (2011)
The IMF uses the term "advance country" for developed countries, a term that has
only been used since 1997 replacing the term "industrial country" which it has used since
the first time the IMF conducted categorization (Nielsen, 2011). This implies that the IMF
has focused on the economic sector which is the mainstay of a country in its development.
For this reason, there is no explicit finding of the threshold set by the IMF as the boundary
between developed and developing countries. Developed countries are countries with a
larger share of the industrial sector than those directly based on natural resources, such as
large-scale agriculture and mining. However, if these natural resources are processed in the
industrial sector so that the products are no longer raw or undercooked products, then the
country can be categorized as a developed country.
The threshold is neither explicit, nor absolute, because there is no set figure, but also
not relative because there are provisions that outline a larger share of the industrial sector
than other sectors.
The World Bank has focused its categorization on income. The threshold used as the
benchmark is gross national income per capita (GNI per capita). The implication is that the
share of high-income countries has increased because in general the economic performance
of countries in the world has also increased. Based on income, the World Bank classifies
countries in the world into four groups (Junita, 2020):
1. High income countries, if the GNI per capita is at least US $ 12,235.
2. Upper–middle income countries, if the GNI per capita is between US $ 3,956 - US $
12,235.
3. Lower – middle income countries, if the GNI per capta is between US $ 1,006 - US $
3,956.
4. Low income countries, if the GNI per capita is less than US $ 1,006.
A high income country is a term used by the World Bank to describe developed
countries.
UNDP includes elements of welfare in assessing the level of development of a
country which is known as the Human Development Index (HDI). There are three
dimensions that make up HDI: (1) life expectancy at birth in the health dimension, (2) years
of schooling in the education dimension, and (3) purchasing power in the economic
dimension. From the HDI ranking of all countries in the world, UNDP classifies the countries
as follows (UNDP, 2018):
1. Very high human development countries, if the HDI is at least 0.800.
2. High human development countries, if the HDI is between 0.700 - 0.799.
3. Medium human development countries, if the HDI is between 0.550 - 0.699.
4. Low human development countries, if the HDI is less than 0.550.
Developed countries according to UNDP are countries with very high HDI.
In addition to the criteria for developed countries as set out above, the three
international institutions also set several other criteria such as low poverty rates, low
unemployment rates, low population growth rates, high economic growth rates, low
inflation rates, low economic inequality rates, high levels of productivity, and low levels of
dependence. However, there is no clear threshold.
 The term Fully Developed Country, which is the main objective of Malaysia's Vision
2020, has never been used by the three international agencies that have been used as
references or by other institutions. The term was purely born from the idea of Mahathir
Mohamad as the Prime Minister of Malaysia when the Vision 2020 was launched and was
later accepted as the national vision of the Malaysian state. When the term was disclosed,
the different terms used by international institutions and changes in their indicators had
already occurred and were widely known. On that basis, it is presumed that the use of the
term “fully developed country” is an attempt to declare a truly developed country that
meets all the criteria set by all international institutions for the top category in the
categorization of countries in the world.
If this is the case, then the indicators of achievement that Malaysia must achieve as a
fully developed country in 2020 are a combination of the targets mentioned by Mahathir
Mohamad in his speech on Vision 2020, the threshold for upper-class countries in country
categorization by the World Bank, UNDP, and the IMF, as well as other criteria from the
economic dimension in developed countries as follows:
1. GDP of US $ 920 billion (1990 base price).
2. The minimum per capita GNI is US $ 12,235.
3. The maximum population is 34,271,772 people based on the population in 1990 as
many as 16,338,817 people (Nor & Yaakob, 2014).
4. Minimum IPM of 0.800
5. Minimum average economic growth is 7%.
6. Maximum inflation rate of 3.01% benchmark: Iceland in 2019 1.
7. The maximum Gini ratio is 0.31, benchmark: Cyprus 2017.
8. The share of the industrial sector (manufacturing and services) is greater than the share
of the primary economic sector. The share of the industrial sector is at least 51%.
9. The maximum total poverty rate is 12.4%, benchmark: United States in 2017.
10. The maximum unemployment rate is 17.24%, benchmark: Greece in 2019.
11. Maximum dependency rate of 5.60, benchmark: Singapore 2020.
Several indicators that do not have clear thresholds from the World Bank, UNDP, and
IMF, use the achievements of developed countries as the maximum threshold.
The eleven targets mentioned above are the ideal achievements of Vision 2020 and
are included in Field I: The Ideality Fiels of 4 Susamto Fields.

HOW FAR MALAYSIA HAS GONE?

Malaysia's long journey since 1991 to achieve Vision 2020 is almost over, with 1
month left. The long journey was not smooth because it was punctuated by several events
that disrupted target achievement. 1997 saw the Asian financial crisis that shook the
1
Each figure based on a particular country is the country's achievement on the related indicator. The countries
referred to are countries with the highest achievement of the 35 developed countries (according to the IMF,
World Bank and UNDP, including OECD members) as listed in Annex 1.
economies of all countries in Asia. The global financial crisis in 2008, although the shocks
were not as severe as the 1997 crisis, it still had an impact on economic growth in several
countries in Asia including Malaysia (Raz et al., 2012). Finally, it is precisely in a critical year
in achieving Vision 2020, the year 2020 was shocked by the global pandemic Covid-19 which
turned out to have a worse impact than the 1997 crisis.
To find out Malaysia's position on its journey to become a fully developed country, it
is necessary to know first the data on Malaysia's achievements on 11 economic indicators in
2019 as the year for which data is officially available in international institutions: World
Bank, UNDP, and IMF, including OECD, CIA, and data from DOSM. If the 2019 data is not yet
available, then data is taken from the closest year from 2020. Meanwhile, the 2020 data is
the estimated data obtained with the trend formula in Microsoft Excel using 10 years (2000–
2019) data as the base data. These data are presented in Table 2. The estimated data on
Malaysia's economic performance in 2020 that will be contained in Field II: Actuality Field of
4 Susamto Fields are as follows:
Table 2.Malaysia's Achievements in 11 Economic Indicators in 2019 and 2020.
NO INDICATOR 2019 SOURCE 2020 SOURCE
1 GDP (PPP) 943.335.612.542 World Bank, 914.092.208.553 World Bank,
2020b 2020b
2 GNI per capita 28.680 World Bank, 27.444 -3,1% GNI
2020b
3 Total population 31.949.777 World Bank, 32.348.695 Trend
2020b
4 HDI 8,04 (2018) UNDP, 2019 8,04 No data
available
5 Average rate of economic 5,68 World Bank, 5,38 Trend
growth 2020b
6 Inflation rate 0,66 World Bank, 1,64 Trend
2020b
7 Gini Ratio 0,407 DOSM, 2020 0,407 (2019) No data
available
8 Industry sector 75.64 IMF, 2020 7572 Trend
9 Total poberty (PLI, %) 5,6 DOSM, 2020 5,6 (2019) Not enough
data
10 Unemployment Rate 3,32 World Bank, 3,39 Trend
2020b
11 Dependency Level No data available – 9,7 CIA, 2020

In field III: Comparison Field of 4 Susamto Fields, a comparison will be made between
Malaysia's achievements and the targets that must be achieved in achieving the Vision 2020
in the economic field.
Mahathir Mohamad explicitly stated that Malaysia's real GDP in 1990 was US $ 115
billion. The target is that every 10 years the real GDP will double, meaning that in 2000 it
was US $ 230 billion, 2010 was US $ 460, and in 2020 it was US $ 920 billion, meaning that
GDP in 2020 is 8 times the GDP in 1990. That is based on 1990 prices. Meanwhile, data on
the World Bank for GDP (PPP) based on prevailing prices recorded Malaysia's GDP in 1990 of
US $ 122,934,587,704. If it is multiplied by 8 as Mahathir Mohamad wanted, then Malaysia's
GDP in 2020 should be US $ 983,476,701,633. In fact, in 2019 Malaysia's GDP was US $
943,335,612,542 and in 2020 it contracted by 3.1% to US $ 914,092,208,553.
Figure 3. Chart of Malaysian GDP 1990 - 2020.

Source: World Bank (2020b) processed.

Overall, Malaysia's achievements in shaping GDP over 30 years have met
expectations. The actual line in Figure 3, which is the line of achievement, is always very
close to the ideal line which was the target set when the Vision 2020 was declared. If in the
end the actual line decreases and the amount of GDP becomes smaller than the target, this
is understandable because it is disrupted by the global pandemic Covid-19 which has indeed
disrupted the economies of all countries globally (ASEAN, 2020; PNB, 2020; World Bank,
2020a, 2020c).
Mahathir Mohamad also explicitly expressed his hope that population growth would
be controlled at a rate of 2.5% as long as the Vision 2020 was achieved with the aim that
with the growth of state income, the people of Malaysia in 2020 will be 4 times richer than
in 1990. In fact, the average population growth of Malaysia throughout the 30 years as high
as 1.9%. In addition, GNI per capita (PPP) in 2020 is estimated at US $ 27,444 or 4.2 times
higher than in 1990 which was US $ 6,530. This means that the achievement in controlling
population growth has exceeded the target.
Last Malaysia's HDI recorded by UNDP is 80.4 in 2018. Data for 2019 and 2020 are
not yet available. It is estimated that the score in 2020 will not be much different from the
achievement in 2018. This score places Malaysia in the group of highly developed countries
according to UNDP version which terms it as very high human development countries. For
the HDI indicator, Malaysia has realized what is referred to in the Vision 2020 as a fully
developed country.
Malaysia's economic growth for 30 years has fluctuated with an average growth of
5.38%. Achievements that are below the expectations of Vision 2020.
Figure 4. Chart of Malaysian Economic Growth 1990 - 2020.

Source: World Bank (2020b) processed.

If observed, the actual growth line for 30 years has always been close to below the
ideal line set at 7% as the expectation of the Vision2020. A sharp decline line occurs in years
of economic crisis which affect the regional or global economy, namely in 1997, 2000, 2008,
and 2020. The rest are more often in the position between 4% - 6%, except in the first half
of the first decade of the Vision 2020 journey where the growth is between 8% - 10%.
One of the indicators that characterizes developed countries is that the share of the
industrial sector in GDP is far greater than that of the primary sector. Minimum share of the
industrial sector consisting of the manufacturing sector and the service sector, if
accumulated, reaches a minimum of 51%. In 2019, it was 75.72% consisting of the
manufacturing sector 21.12% and the service sector 54.60%.
Other economic indicators measurements are based on the achievements of
developed countries can be seen in the following figure.
Figure 5. Comparison of Malaysian Economic Indicators with Developed Countries.

Source: World Bank (2020b) processed.

Dari 5 indikator, Malaysia masih bermasalah pada rasio Gini yang masih cukup tinggi
dibandingkan dengan rasio Gini Cyprus yang tertinggi di antara 35 negara maju menurut
IMF, UNDP, dan Bank Dunia, juga sebagai anggota OECD) dan tingkat ketergantungan yang
lebih tinggi dari Singapura yang memiliki tingkat ketergantungan tertiggi di antara 35 negara
maju. Namun pada tiga indikator lain: Tingkat Inflasi, Tingkat Kemiskinan, dan Tingkat
Pengangguran, Malaysia lebih rendah dari negara-negara maju pembandingnya.
Of the 5 indicators, Malaysia still has problems with the Gini ratio which is still quite high
compared to the Cyprus Gini ratio which is the highest among 35 developed countries
according to the IMF, UNDP, and the World Bank, also as a member of the OECD) and a
higher level of dependence than Singapore which has highest level of dependency among 35
developed countries. However, on three other indicators: Inflation Rate, Poverty Rate, and
Unemployment Rate, Malaysia is lower than the developed countries in comparison.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Malaysia has achieved almost all indicators of Vision 2020. Almost all minimum thresholds
of economic indicators for developed countries, even those that are highly developed, have
been exceeded. Thus, the dream of making Malaysia a fully developed country in an
economic dimension has been realized.
It is important to remember that Malaysia is not progressing alone. Many countries in the
world which in 1990 were in close proximity to Malaysia have also progressed at about the
same distance, more or less.
Figure 6. Comparison of Malaysia and 40 Countries in 1990 and 2019.
SIMPULAN DAN SARAN
Malaysia sudah meraih hampir semua indikator dari Visi 2020. Hampir semua
ambang batas minimal indikator-indikator ekonomi negara maju, bahkan yang sangat maju,
sudah dilampaui. Dengan demikian, cita-cita menjadikan Malaysia sebagai fully developed
country pada dimensi ekonomi sudah terwujud.
Yang perlu diingat, bahwa Malaysia tidak maju sendirian. Banyak negara di dunia
yang pada tahun 1990 berada di posisi yang berdekatan dengan Malaysia juga mencapai
kemajuan pada jarak yang hampir sama, kurang atau lebih.
Gambar 6. Perbandingan Malaysia dengan 40 Negara Tahun 1990 dan 2019.