Why I ask?
FOR a long time Barisan Nasional’s communal approach has been translated into policies that have guided the nation’s governance and economic management. As a result, we are now laden with a hotchpotch of economic policies which are obviously in conflict.
We have in existence an old system from a socialist ideology of using price controls and subsidies to ”deliver to the poor”. We take a neo-liberalist stand to government-linked companies (GLCs) by providing them with immense and expansive immunity to regulations and real market competition, while the rest of the business community struggles in an unlevel playing field. As a country, we are not sure if we are for ”free trade” or ”fair trade”. For the man on the street, we have not even decided if the world is flat or not (economically speaking). In essence, we seem to adopt economic models that sound good at that time. [MCA must regain its vision. Fui K. Soong. The Sun. April 30 2008]
I repeat, “We take a neo-liberalist stand to government-linked companies (GLCs) by providing them with immense and expansive immunity to regulations and real market competition, while the rest of the business community struggles in an unlevel playing field.” That comes from Fui K. Soong, the chief executive officer of an MCA think tank known as Insap.
Question: since when neo-liberalism supports government intervention in the market, much less shielding government-link companies from competition?
No wonder MCA lost badly. If the think tank could not differentiate neo-liberal from statist policy or at best, misusing the term, I wonder what kind of advices it dispensed to MCA before the election. I think, if MCA wants to regain its vision, it could start by kicking Insap out.
9 replies on “[1636] Of is MCA think tank drunk?”
Dear Jed,
It is clear that author is referring the current status of GLC. She is simply misusing the term to describe the flexibility given to GLC at this current setup. A neo-liberal policy encourages free market outlook for the whole market, not to just GLC. In fact, a neo-liberal policy does not support the existence of GLC. GLCs are practically state enterprises and the government does practice (at least aspire to practice) central planning through this GLCs. The Malaysia Plan is a perfect example. Being part of the “enemy”, I can vouch for this.
But I do agree that as a country, we do pursue some liberal economic policies at the moment, such as reduction of subsidy and trade liberalization (though I think the trade liberalization is going too slowly).
Finally, neo-liberalism was a reaction to Keynesian (which may fall into your term “fiscal interference). Neo-liberalism is based on neo-classical economics. I must point out however that classical and neo-classical economics are more related to advances in economic thoughts rather than different ideological schools.
Classical economics describes a stage in economics when supply and demand (as well as rationality, marginalism, etc) had yet to make an appearance back in the 15th and 16th century. Back then, factors of production were the determinants of price. Today, we know that is not true (the paradox of water and diamond might be something you want to read if you want to know more about classical economics) and the economics we know today, at least mainstream economics, is neo-classical. Because of this, I doubt any of us could find a living classical economists.
sorry. i think neo-liberal also really describes a period after lots of fiscal interference…
classical > liberal > neo-classical (same ideas as classical) > neo-liberal (in reaction to neo-classical)
pls correct me if i’m wrong.
YEah. SOmetimes reading these MCA type things make me wonder if my economics is rusty or they are talking c***. Tk GOD for the handy WiKi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
But perhaps she was referring to the privatisation of our state apparatus — LLN > Tenaga, KTM > KTM, etc? Khazanah? BCBB? I dunno.
But Fui is very qualified and has extensive experience as a fund manager in Hong Kong. She is an economics graduate from UM, I believe. She knows her econs. Maybe she just doesn’t communicate it well?
From Wiki, I gather we can kind label our policies now as neo-liberal — abolishing subsidies, privatisation of state enterprises
Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from the public to private sector.[3] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson’s[4] “Washington Consensus”, a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). Williamson’s list included ten points:
* Fiscal policy discipline;
* Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
* Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
* Privatization of state enterprises;
* Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
* Legal security for property rights.
BUT you are right we are definitely more welfare state than laissez faire….
Agree with Mat Merah. But even then MCA was mistaken when it referred to giving GLCs immunity to regulations. Hello? There are heaps of regulatons (mostly NEP-inspired) attached to them. But they are immune to market forces though, which actually invalidates their claims that those GLCs are run neo-liberally.
So yeah in conclusion, wtf are they trying to say??
Make sure MCA doesn’t go anywhere near Malaysia’s economic levers.
Mate, its all about language. Possibly he equates neo liberalism with freedom or flexibility.
Not quite the economist type dude that you are.
As for the name calling, most unfortunate and rude but that’s the unsavoury part of the Malaysian blogosphere-type whatever.
Peace and green.
just because I spotted a mistake by MCA, I’m racist and all that? amusing.
the most boring stupid blog ive ever read.
dumb head malay = lazy monkey low class citizens
fuck malay racist, baboon species , eat shit,
malay cant do anything even writing simple blog, they can only blame others, racist, talk rubbish like owner of this blog , i bet you come from low class malay kampung eat shit that proud of rempit, shame on you, fuck malay taliban terrorist
shit name = shams noor
I think what they really meant was a pro-big-business policy, which is what the common man’s perception of neo-liberalism is.
The simplest way to summarise our economic policy is simply interventionist, IMHO.
cheers
No, MCA are not drunk, they just having another spin session.