Categories
Economics

[2026] Of a step forward with thousands to go

Liberalization is on the move. Yet, the move hardly deserves to be called a liberalization effort.

Notwithstanding how truly free the local economy is, the federal government led by Barisan Nasional is finally addressing the shortcomings of affirmative action as practiced in the country. The past few weeks have seen the kind of market liberalization that one cannot imagine to be even possible before 2008. The much debated equity ownership quota imposed on public companies is now finished.

It is likely that the BN federal government was forced to address the issue. More than anything else, the Najib administration is a pragmatist concerned with its survival. One cannot be deluded into believing that the administration is doing this out of conviction to the idea of liberty.

Affirmative action was one of several major contentious issues in the 2008 general election. Both its basis and implementation suffered from relentless heavy attacks during the election campaign.

The result of the last general election suggests that the attacks were successful. Those attacks eroded popular support for the policy, even among the groups that it was supposed to benefit.

That and coupled with existing market forces that are always ready to rebel against top-down approaches, liberalization seems inevitable in retrospect. The unpopular centrally planned policy based on ethno-nationalism is now indefensible in a concrete sense. The anti-affirmative action movement has done a remarkably good job at demonstrating why it is indefensible.

As a result, no longer are the weaknesses of the affirmative action an abstraction appreciated by the critical-minded and the well-read individuals only. Many among the masses are convinced that the policy is morally and economically unacceptable. So strong is the anti-affirmative action current that BN cannot support the policy, or at least in its present form, any longer if it is concerned with its chances in the next general election, which must  be held before 2013.

Individuals belonging to the tradition of classical liberalism are generally hostile to the policy. Malaysian affirmative action is a case of government intervention. The policy spreads the tentacles of the government across the landscape to limit essential freedom that individuals and firms require to maximize their welfare. It is one more constraint to adhere to, increasing the cost of doing business.

The quota-based policy worked in the past because other factors outside of Malaysia compensated for its cost. Not too many countries had a good transportation and communication system along with a sufficiently educated workforce previously, especially before the 1990s. Some others like China meanwhile were excessively hostile to the concept of private property despite the fact that right to private property is the non-negotiable basis for a prosperous society. Options for investment in an increasingly globalizing world were limited.

That is no longer true today. Factors that made others unattractive for investment purpose are largely gone. This reduces, if not eliminates, many advantages that Malaysia had over others in the past. With a more competitive environment, the policy of affirmative action stands out as one of several major structural barriers that are handicapping Malaysia vis-à-vis other economies.

For Malaysia to move forward, it is exactly the kind of structural reforms like the recent liberalization on equity that is required.

Classical liberals — libertarians — are savoring this moment after years of living through suffocating government intervention. In times when many governments all around the world are enforcing their influence in the market, it is refreshing to see the government in Malaysia retreating.

Still, one has to be mindful that the recent effort at liberalization is largely confined to restrictions traditionally associated with Bumiputra policy. The government has its hands in too many aspects not just in the market but also in the lives of private citizens.

The recent fiscal stimuli based on government spending are proof that the dream for a free market is still far in the distance.

Even as the 30 per cent Bumiputra quota is liberalized, another quota, albeit less restrictive, is set in place.

In the background, the availability of government-linked companies continues to crowd the market. These entities utilize unfair advantages that no true private businesses can have. These GLCs are monopolies. With excessive market power, it kills entrepreneurship, one of the factors that keep the free market as a system superior to any other.

Meanwhile, prices and supply control regimes are still in place to distort signals in the market in the name of welfare, discouraging the development of an adaptive culture in favor of a static one.

There are other examples that affirm the illiberalness of the Malaysian market.

Hence, there is no time to rest. The pressure for greater freedom has to be applied continually. The Najib administration is one point up but it will have to suffer more criticism.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on July 3 2009.

Categories
Liberty

[2025] Of happy birthday to the world’s first liberal state

Happy Fourth of July.

Categories
Liberty

[2016] Of salutary effect on the calmer and more disinterested bystander…

I do not pretend that the most unlimited use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of religous or philosophical sectarianism. Every truth which men of narrow capacity are in earnest about, is sure to be asserted, inculcated, and in many ways even acted on, as if no other truth existed in the world, or at all events none that could limit or qualify the first. I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby; the truth which ought to have been, but was not, seen, being rejected all the more violently because proclaimed by persons regarded as opponents. But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. And since there are few mental attributes more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgment between two sides of a question, of which only one is represented by an advocate before it, truth has no chance but in proportion as every side of it, every opinion which embodies any fraction of the truth, not only finds advocates, but is so advocated as to be listened to. [On Liberty. Chapter 2. John Stuart Mill. 1859]

Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[1999] Of I am endorsing Husam Musa

Why?

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – An influential opposition leader running for a key post in Malaysia’s Islamist party has “guaranteed” a commitment to a free market economy and protecting the rights of the country’s multi-racial communities.

Husam Musa, vice-president of the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), the country’s second largest party in mass membership, is vying to be PAS deputy leader at its five-day annual conference which starts on Wednesday. [Malaysia Islamist to protect free market, minorities. Razak Ahmad. Reuters. June 2 2009]

Right on!

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1998] Mengenai apakah definisi liberalisme yang Zulkiflee Bakar gunakan?

Terlampau ramai telah menulis tentang cadangan membenarkan bekas pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya pulang ke kampung halamannya. Utusan Malaysia merupakan antara satu akhbar yang kuat menentang cadangan itu dan tentangannya kebanyakan berunsurkan emosi dan bukan berunsurkan ideologi.

Ini jelas apabila banyak esei dan artikel memanggil semula pembunuhan yang lalu tanpa menyentuh tentang hak peribadi terhadap harta ataupun pembentukan masyarakat tidak berkelas.

Disebabkan ini, walaupun isu ini jelas menjadi isu perdana, saya kurang gemar menyentuh akan isu ini dan oleh itu, tidak mahu terlibat secara langsung di dalam perdebatan tersebut.

Ini berubah apabila saya terbaca satu perenggan hasil penulisan Zulkiflee Bakar yang diterbitkan oleh Mingguan Malaysia hari ini:

Percayalah, mungkin ada segelintir sahaja yang menyokong gesaan untuk membenarkan Chin Peng kembali tetapi terdapat jutaan lagi rakyat Malaysia menentang keras langkah tersebut. Puak yang menyokong itu adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang bukan sahaja buta sejarah tetapi berfahaman liberalisme, mereka tidak tahu apa itu komunis. [Jangan buta sejarah kerana kepentingan politik. Zulkiflee Bakar. Mingguan Malaysia. Mei 31 2009]

Saya berminat akan definisi liberalisme yang Encik Zulkiflee Bakar gunakan. Saya hairan siapakah yang “berfahaman liberalisme”“tidak tahu apa itu komunis”?

Tiada penjelasan diberikan di dalam penulisannya. Dia bagai menulis sesedap hati, berseloroh untuk menembak sesiapa sahaja yang tidak bersehaluan dengan fahaman rasisnya yang menuntut kesetiaan tidak berbelah bagi yang wujud di dalam fasisme.

Encik Zulkiflee perlu memahami yang liberalisme beraliran klasik dan komunisme mengimpikan kebebasan walaupun haluan ke arah kebebasan berbeza. Berbanding dengan liberalisme dan komunisme, konsep kebebasan tidak wujud di dalam fasisme.

Jangan lupa, semasa Perang Dunia II, liberalisme dan komunisme bersatu memerangi fasisme yang dimajukan oleh Jerman Nazi. Kenapa itu berlaku perlu difahami oleh Encik Zulkiflee.