PAS earlier said that it wanted to turn Malaysia into a welfare state:
On Saturday, PAS said that it turn the country into a welfare state should it win the coming general election. [PAS Should Explain Welfare State – Muhyiddin. Bernama. January 23 2008]
But our favorite minister said that Malaysia is already a welfare state.
SUNGAI PETANI, Jan 23 (Bernama) — The Barisan Nasional (BN) government has already made Malaysia a welfare state, Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said Wednesday. [Malaysia Already A Welfare State, Says Zam. Bernama. January 23 2008]
Sadly, I agree.
PAS or BN, either way, we are already screwed. In fact, it is hard to find a local political party that would move away from the idea of welfare state, which usually comes together in a package with central planning policies. But if PAS does not think that Malaysia is already a welfare state, I could only shudder at its definition of the concept, which would probably sit far farther to the left.
5 replies on “[1522] Of PAS wants a welfare state but we already are one”
[…] level some weeks back, discussion on welfare state never actually took off in a satisfying way. PAS suggested it but apart from rhetoric and how Islam advocates a welfare state, detail on implementation of […]
What is a true definition of welfare state, then?
To me, it’s clear that Malaysia does practice welfare state policies. The NEP is one. You may argue that it is benefiting the few but in principle the heart of NEP is wealth redistribution or wealth equity.
We also have the government constructing low-cost housing, regardless of monetary returns on investment of doing so. And then the EPF which is on top of SOCSO. This is practically the “safety net” that is usually associated with welfare state.
Don’t forget, the Muslims also have tithe to attend to and the institution that manages the tithe is clear a welfare institution run by the state.
Minimum wages? Already there in several industries.
Free/cheap public healthcare? We have it.
Free education? We have it (At least, insisted by the government, the flip-flopping notwithstanding haha!)
Unconvinced.? Then a scan of the Malaysian cabinet should give the impression that Malaysia runs welfare state policies. For instance, Ministry of Housing and Local Government; Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development; Ministry of Youth and Sports. What are the purposes of these ministries if not welfare?
The NEP largely favours the Malays who can take advantage of it – the poor Malay is unlikely to know what to do about the quota of shares allocated to him, for instance. The NEP works to the benefit of the existing wealthy and the politically connected, so it’s not a welfare system in the traditional sense. (At the very least, it’s an extremely distorted version of a welfare system.)
Subsidies and price controls are not exactly what come to mind when you (at least, me) think of a welfare state – a socialist state, yes, but not a welfare state. Even the US has crazy agricultural subsidies (which apparently ironically contribute to health problems because they subsidise beef so much – not that I, carnivorous me, am complaining).
Cheap healthcare and government attempts to control unemployment by hiring more people are probably where you have a point, but I mainly think of Malaysia as a corporate/oligarchic welfare state because most of its economic policies benefit a select elite.
A true welfare state, after all, would not intentionally provide the insane amounts of corporate welfare that the BN government does.
We already have active wealth redistribution system online. Remember the NEP?
Add subsidy on a number of items such as sugar, fuel, cooking oil, etc, on top of that as well as to some extent free or cheap public health care. Education at public colleges is cheap because it is subsidized. Even jobs are being provided by the government. Remember that one time when one senior cabinet members directed the Public Service Department to increase intake to reduce unemployment?
We already have the characteristics of a welfare state.
Seriously? I would call us a corporate welfare state, or an oligarchic welfare state – we’re not a welfare state in the traditional sense of the term.