Categories
Economics

[2431] Two cheers to San Miguel

The sale of Esso Malaysia by ExxonMobil to San Miguel of the Philippines is a done deal. But it was not completed before economic nationalists sounded the alarm. They feared foreigners would seize control of strategic assets within the country while seemingly ignorant of the fact that ExxonMobil is a US-based multinational corporation in the first place.

The more discerning economic nationalists hoped, demanded and appealed to ExxonMobil to sell all of its shares to the locally-based Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT).

Luckily, the jockeying was to no avail. Why luckily? Here is a question for consideration: Were these economic nationalists interested in the welfare of Malaysians?

I would say no.

This is a pertinent question given that LTAT already owns Boustead, which in turn operates petrol retailer BHPetrol. To have LTAT controlling Esso Malaysia would likely reduce considerable competitive force within the industry, if there were any to start with. More importantly, it would turn back the clock on any effort at introducing competition in an industry already stifled by government regulation and effective monopoly.

The LTAT path advocated by economic nationalists in Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat and whoever else would reduce competitive pressure in the area, and it would also exacerbate the already adverse relationship that exists between the government and businesses.

With the government already involved in various industries, what ensures that the government has the interest of actual individual Malaysians in mind instead of the profits of various government-linked companies — or in the latest case of the economic nationalists’ wet dream, the profits of LTAT and its companies?

This is an organization that is already mired in a controversy revolving around opaque military procurement which is closely related to yet another case of conflict of interest. How is it not a conflict of interest when LTAT is the major beneficiary of various military contracts while at the same time being a retirement fund for armed forces of Malaysia? And let us pretend that unlike the experience of Indonesia and Egypt, a military with direct or indirect business interest is an ingredient for the creation of a healthy civilian government.

Real business concerns run mostly on a profit motive. It cannot afford to entertain nationalistic sentiment. If it does entertain nationalism, then it typically seeks to manipulate such sentiment to its own advantage. Proton is one such case: save Proton, buy Malaysia. Or Malaysian Airlines: save MAS, fly Malaysia.

It is not a phenomenon unique to Malaysia of course. In the United States, General Motors and Ford have from time to time brandished their American credentials to American consumers. Many businesses in the past have also employed economic nationalism to justify protectionism in these business favors.

Zooming back to Malaysia, economic nationalism takes the extra step of merging business interest with government interest, thus making the issue of conflict of interest two-fold: government protecting its profits rather the interest of its citizens, and businesses manipulating government powers to advance business interests at the expense of citizens. It is a symbiotic relationship between government and business that turns the very components of a free society into parasites, living on taxpayers’ sweat.

Such perverse incentives cannot be good for the welfare of Malaysians in general.

For these two reasons, the sale of Esso Malaysia to San Miguel should be celebrated.

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 September 18 2011.

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[2192] Of embrace a more holistic view on development

There is much stress on economic freedom these days. This is clear by the fact that the New Economic Model is advocating less government in various aspects. So excited are the document authors about the idea of free market that at its rhetorical climax, they highlight the phrase ”market-friendly affirmative action”, never mind the apparent contradiction that the phrase invites. That phrase is perhaps the hallmark of contradiction of the document in terms of economic freedom. The latter part of the document suggests various government interventions that do not tally with its rhetoric. Yet, the document does begin from a liberal point and that is a good starting line. It has to begin somewhere after all.

Truthfully, the goal of the document is development and not the creation of freer market. Without strong conviction to the idea of free market in pursuing its main goal, contradiction is only natural. To criticize the authors of such contradiction is an effort unlikely to impress them and others who share the same view on development vis-à-vis free market.

They primarily believe that the government has a role in development. Such idea is hardly a controversial one. The government can indeed play a role in development even while adhering to the concepts of limited government and free market.

The issue is that the goal of development set by the New Economic Model is unsatisfactorily limited in its scope. The document limits the idea of development to merely economic progress. It ignores the larger meaning of development, just as freedom takes a larger meaning well beyond the realm of business and economics.

Development is not merely about better infrastructures or higher income levels for us all. While income levels do indicate general well-being in many ways, it is not the only factor in development that needs to be taken into account.

Development must empower individuals in a comprehensive manner. More often than not, this means enhancing economic progress as well promoting individual liberty. Indeed, economic progress and individual freedom work hand in hand. Without the other, each feels empty even if each lifts one up from the gutter by a tiny margin. Both are required to catalyze the jump out of the gutter.

Without development as confined within self-limiting definition of economic progress, individual freedom itself is redundant. Individuals living in dire economic condition will be unable to reap the dividend of liberty for they are incapable of understanding virtues of freedom. Without such comprehension, they are unable to make full use of it for their benefits. As the Malay idiom goes, what is a flower to a monkey?

There are so many elementary concerns need to tend to that whatever freedom they have is meaningless. It is the excess capacity that will never be used up. For instance, what is free speech when the stomach growls endlessly? In fact, free speech with an empty stomach can easily descend into anarchy as the hungry and famished knock rule of law essential to the preservation of liberty down to the ground to satisfy their very basic desire while robbing somebody else’s rights and liberty.

Similarly, where there is economic progress without individual liberty, what use of those shinny sedans or overly big four-wheel drives, clean and smooth roads together with tall and richly decorated towers when they are merely a posh prison to keep the prisoners happy? After all, what is economic wealth while one is repressed, living in fear?

They have the all the means but if the means are prevented from reaching the ends by traditions or prejudices, economic progress become meaningless. Life must be one cruel joke if economic progress in the end only comes to naught.

Individuals have to become richer not only in monetary terms but also in terms of themselves. The set of what can be done must be enlarged and the set of what cannot be done must shrink for development to take its holistic meaning. Choices have to expand.

Their choices have to be well informed. That is only possible through the tradition of free enquiry that embedded in it the concept of free speech and free press, among others. They must be able to express themselves and to do so is to practice freedom of expression. We talk about how young graduates lack communication and social skills in general: can we blame them when the avenues for practice are limited and guided paternalistically?

This idea is not new. Nobel Prize Laureate economist Amartya Sen is the vanguard of the idea. Although it must be said that he goes farther than a classical liberal would, he articulated similar view much earlier and wrote Development as Freedom for wider consumption.

Development must focus on both fronts for it to be meaningful. It is in this sense that the New Economic Model is insufficient. Malaysia needs more than economic freedom.

This is not to say that the authors of the document are not doing their jobs. Their terms of reference are clear: focus on the economic front. And they are doing just that. They cannot be blamed for that.

The other focus on the social front where it involves individual freedom is the job of ordinary citizens.

And the government is in the way. Hopefully, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet embraces the wider meaning of development to enable Malaysia to progress at all fronts. Hopefully, they will realize that only a liberal democratic system can bring Malaysia forward in a convincing style.

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 April 12 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2076] Of anti-trust laws can defeat protectionism

Opponents of economic liberalization fear, among many other things, the possibility of giant foreign companies dominating the local market at the expense of local businesses. For those who are simply interested in better quality goods and services, market liberalization introduces competition in the market to improve quality, much to the benefits of consumers. While the war between the two camps is much relished, there is a middle ground for both to tread on and it involves anti-trust laws.

Increasingly in Malaysia, protectionist argument is becoming less and less relevant each time the sun rises and sets to rise again. Intellectually, it is bankrupt. Empirically, it has resulted in missed opportunities and needless sufferings. Examples of protectionist failures and its subsequent ejection are aplenty for all to observe.

Proton, for instance, is still unable to compete fairly despite years of protection granted by the government to the national enterprise. It has also cost Malaysia an opportunity to become a regional center of vehicle manufacturing that Thailand has become. Thankfully, such government protection that once resulted in effective Proton’s monopoly of the local car market will end by 2010, in line with the ASEAN Free Trade Area Agreement.

Another example relates to the imposition of cabotage between Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia. With intention of nurturing local shipping companies, it has caused unnecessary increase in cost of living of Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak by hiking up transportation cost. Tradable goods became more expensive than it would have been under free trade environment. Again, thankfully, despite protest from local ship owners, the removal of the protectionist policy has been successful. Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak can expect their real wages, ceteris paribus, to go up, thanks to liberalization.

Even as the roles of government see expansion all over the world in the aftermath of the global recession through massive fiscal policy and more, the rationale of liberalization in Malaysia continues to take root. While guarded optimism is called for, recent liberalization of multiple service subsectors as announced by the Najib administration is a proof that — to paraphrase slightly the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher — liberalization is on the move.

The liberals are winning the intellectual jousting. Yet, this is no time for liberals to rest. This excellent opportunity to push for greater freedom — either economic or individual freedom, although the two should be inseparable — does not come as frequently as it should. With a government seemingly friendly to liberalization policy, there is no better time to push for greater liberalization.

Greater liberalization is required because illiberal market structure like price and supply control mechanism on essential goods such as sugar and flour are still imposed by the government. Just weeks ago, shortage occurred to rudely disrupt routine to remind all of inefficient market.

With momentum on the side of the liberals, they can afford to push liberalization forward. Shoving the agenda is especially easy when discredited protectionist ideas are demonstrable as actual and not merely as theoretical failures.

In spite of cache available for liberals to rely on, continuous shoving of liberal economic agenda does not create ally and it only alienates losers of liberalization.

As a sidetrack, liberalization does create losers but the rationale of liberalization, or actually, free trade, is not that it does not create losers, but rather, on average, it lifts all boats up. This should be juxtaposed harshly with the effects of protectionist policy, which may or may not create winners but guarantees everybody, on average, worse off.

Liberalization exercises are definitely colliding with the New Economic Policy, or whatever is left of it. While it is unclear if there is a majority who supports the policy any longer, there is no doubt that there exists a large segment within Malaysian society who do support it and see liberalization exercises as threats.

On top of that, local business owners, Malay or non-Malay alike, are likely to be hugely unexcited with liberalization effort that inevitably invites large multinational corporations with enjoy economies of scale that these locals could only imagine.

Together, these groups have the political power to derail liberalization exercise in the future.
In order to reduce that possibility, it is imperative for liberals to reach out to the potential losers and their sympathizers to partly, wherever reasonable, alleviate their fear. And their fear of monopoly is reasonable.

Perhaps, the act of reaching out should be an afterthought. The fear of monopoly, after all, should not exclusively belong to only protectionists and their cohorts.

Economic liberals celebrate competitive market. Purely competitive market is of course unachievable due to a myriad of factors but that does not prevent liberals for achieving second best solutions that approximate idealized environment.

The practice of anti-competitive behavior especially by colluding companies with excessive market power hurts the prospect of superior competitive outcomes associated with the ideas of free market.

Anti-trust laws may be able to curb anti-competitive practice. It has the ability to reduce the entry cost for newcomers, which can realize the spirit of creative destruction that every incumbent and even more so, monopolies, fear, despite its positive effect on society at large. Through this, protectionists’ fear should be somewhat addressed. And when it is addressed, liberalization can continue with its forward march to actualize the idea of liberty.

For liberals, the law has to be applied in equal weight. All monopolies, either local or foreign, should be subjected to the same law. If it is unclear, this means it must include government-linked companies as well as local cartels formed by private firms.

This cannot be stressed enough. Anti-trust laws directed at only foreign companies is only a protectionist’s tool and not an enabler of competitive market. Worse, without covering government linked-companies, such imperfect anti-trust laws would only open the path towards greater government intervention in the market.

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 September 7 2009.

Categories
Economics

[1976] Of it is just as crowded over there

Read the mainstream press and it is hard to miss that the Economic Planning Unit and the Ministry of Finance are trying to market a new economic model to replace old ones. I fear that this new model is misguided and will lead Malaysia down the wrong path.

Read the mainstream press and one will find that it is popular these days to state that Malaysia needs to go up the economic value chain. Almost always accompanying that is rhetoric calling for Malaysia to graduate from its addiction to low-wage, low-skilled workers which, by and large, refers to dependency on cheap foreign labor.

Policy-wise, this has been translated into restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor. As proof, an astronomical levy on recruitment of foreign workers was imposed as part of the second stimulus package.

In time of economic slowdown, that particular action does not make sense and luckily, the Najib administration understands this and has decided to postpone it indefinitely. But even without a slowdown, that is no way to move forward due to uncertainty of any country’s development path.

Nonetheless, it is true that Malaysia needs to move up the value chain. We have been benefiting massively from early adoption of a liberal economy but other recently liberalized economies like India and China are finally catching up with Malaysia, and at an amazing pace.

Rapid reduction of poverty and continuous registration of high economic growth are testaments of how fast these countries are catching up after abandoning flawed economic models that ignore the importance of private property as a basis of a society.

Not only are they catching up rapidly thanks to liberalization, with their overwhelmingly larger and cheaper supply of labor, they are crowding out Malaysia and its peers like Thailand and the Philippines from the low-wage, low-skilled and labor-intensive niche. Penang, for instance, is already seeing multinational corporations migrating out from the state to Vietnam and China. This trend occurs because, among other reasons, of the availability of cheaper and larger supply of labor.

From this perspective, Malaysia is indeed losing its competitiveness; Malaysia is unable to compete in a low-wage model. If Malaysia fails to react, challenges from these low-cost countries have the potential to wreak havoc on the Malaysian economy. Fearing being pushed to the margin in the global market, Malaysia seems to be left with nowhere to go but up in the value chain.

Going up does not automatically mean actively restricting recruitment of cheap foreign labor, though. Cheap foreign labor still has roles in the Malaysian economy, even as its importance continue to diminish and even as other countries are able to excel at low-wage, low-skilled industry better than Malaysia.

This point is all the more tenable since in the long run, price equalization will happen to bring some kind of equilibrium between Malaysia and other competing countries.

The new equilibrium for low-wage, low skilled industry — perhaps especially for manufacturing — for Malaysia may be below its current level but the requirement for such industry will still exist since it provides goods or services which are hard if not impossible to trade. Somebody will have to do it.

Restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor is doubly unhelpful if the locals themselves refuse to take up low-wage low-skilled jobs. The restriction will create upward pressure on prices which include wages, pushing up the cost of living unnecessarily high when access to a large source of cheap labor to stabilize prices is available in the region.

In an open economy, that pressure will attract cheap supply of labor to act as a counterbalance. If that source is unavailable locally at the right prices, it will come from abroad.

That is already happening in Malaysia and the same trend is observable in the United Kingdom, where Eastern Europeans are taking up low paying jobs which the locals are reluctant to do as cheaply as the immigrants are willing. The same is true in the United States but instead of Eastern Europeans, they are from Mexico or other parts of Latin America.

A restriction on foreign labor will prevent that from happening, forcing prices and wages to go up. I feel this point must be stressed and hence, I repeat, that will inevitably cause the cost of doing business to increase.

The upward pressure on wages has been suggested as a tool to attract talents into Malaysia as an effort to take Malaysia forward beyond low-wage low-skilled economy into the realm of new economy.

This, however, confuses an increase in nominal wealth with an increase in real wealth. What is the point of being paid higher wages when the cost of living goes up accordingly, or higher?

In other words, the restriction which drives nominal wages up really makes no difference in real terms.

It must be noted that any increase in real wealth is largely due to productivity. This is not a mere opinion. Rather, it is an economic fact.

If one is less willing to believe mainstream economic theory due to the unfavorable popular reputation that economists currently suffer, then do refer to any econometric model on the matter; the correlation is strong and the causal relationship is enticing. Any effort at moving up the value chain must take this into account.

By moving up the value chain, it inevitably means greater application of science and innovation to increase productivity. A highly educated workforce will be required if the economy is to enjoy higher productivity.

In light of this, the question is not whether our addiction to cheap labor is a barrier to take the economy to a higher plane.

Instead, the questions that demand answers are: does Malaysia have a highly educated workforce; does Malaysia have the talents to fulfill the prerequisite of a high-value economy?

With a minority of its population holding a graduate degree and with an education system that seeks to brainwash its students rather than encourage critical thinking, it is a stretch to answer the questions in the positive.

That, by no means, is a reason to throw in the towel but it can help to refocus our energy from wrongfully vilifying low-skilled foreign labor to educating Malaysians better.

What is needed is an education system that demands the biggest effort from all. Schools, colleges and universities need to be liberalized to encourage development of competitive, thinking and open minded workforce, not yet more groups to be goaded for political purposes.

While these workforce is being developed, foreign talents should be welcomed and even offered citizenship.

Furthermore, just as the argument that low-cost giants are crowding Malaysia out from the low-wage, low-skilled niche, what actually guarantees that Malaysia can break into the high-value, high-skilled niche already filled with countries that with highly educated workforce?

Somehow, the rhetoric and the central planning action by the government which lead to curbs on foreign labor seems to suggest there is heavy competition in low-skilled industry but not in high-skilled industry.

”It’s crowded here, let’s move over there. Simple.” Well, it is not. While the pay off from a high-value economy is huge, it is naïve to think that there will be no competition.

Just imagine how much resources will be required to reverse the serious brain drain Malaysia has been experiencing for so long. Malaysia is way behind the curve in competition for talents. Compounding the issue is unfair practices by the government that make certain groups of Malaysia unappreciated.

If restriction of employment of cheap foreign labor is used as a stick to force Malaysia up the value chain, the danger is that Malaysia might fail to break into the high-skill niche and then finding itself with a largely dismantled low-skill industry.

With a serious lack of talent in the local economy, Malaysia might not only find itself entrenched in the middle-income trap, it might fall behind in comparison with its peers.

Unnecessary hostile position against cheap foreign labor might cause Malaysia to not have a fallback position if there is an error of judgment.

It is therefore, in my humble opinion, imperative that we ensure the ledge on the other side of the gully is properly secured before we make the jump across rather than chipping off the ledge we are still on. If we find ourselves in mid air only to realize that the ledge on the other side cannot support us, the next place we will be is at the bottom of the gully.

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 May 4 2009.

Categories
Politics & government

[1859] Of Wan Hamidi Hamid the economic liberal in DAP

It is so refreshing to discover that Wan Hamidi Hamid embraces the idea of economic liberalism so passionately. For a person working so deeply in the DAP, I had expected him to stand on the other side of the divide. My expectation missed its target slightly less by a mile.

I learned of his philosophical position during a small discussion at the Middle Eastern Graduate Centre on Jalan Telawi on a Friday’s evening. It was an unscheduled attendance for me because I had not planned to visit Bangsar on that day. The discussion was about attacks on the idea of economic liberty by the left movement in Malaysia. Wan Hamidi wrote an essay a couple of pages long refuting the attack. A good part of the essay could be succinctly summarized by the very idiom he used in the final paragraph of his essay: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In my mind, Madonna burst out to sing the song 4 Minutes. That probably helped digressing the discussion from focusing on the attack to describe economic liberty at large.

I wrote slightly less by a mile because he is a convert from socialism to liberalism. Pardon the pigoenhole but those labels are convenient to use. Regardless of convenience, as he admitted during he discussion, he used to sympathize with the left movement. As a young journalist, he did substantial reporting on the local labor movement.

How did he finally, as he said cheekily, “bertaubat” (repent) is unknown to me but he is undoubtedly a liberal in the classical sense now. Actually, he is down the road farther than me. If anybody out there was to describe me as an extremist, he would ran out of superlative to describe Wan Hamidi.

That conversion made me thinking. A person jumping off the left boat to board the liberal one is not an unusual news to hear. How about a person doing the reverse?

The latter is something I have yet to stumble upon.

This also made me thinking about how left the DAP is these days on the political spectrum. Increasingly, DAP may look like PKR in its political diversity, as far as the red-blue spectrum is concerned. Tony Pua seems like more like a liberal than a left sympathizer. Wan Hamidi Hamid is unambiguously a liberal. I also know several more individuals in their 20s within DAP holding liberal ideas.

It would be interesting to know how big the divide is in DAP.

Big or small, all this makes Wan Hamidi Hamid an amusing rare instance of stark contrast. Here is a Malay with economic liberal ideas in a political party dominated by the Chinese which traditionally sides itself with the left. He just stands out from the crowd.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
nota bene — a certain blog claims I followed “enlightenment” discussions organized by Middle Eastern Graduate Centre. In its exact words, “Hafiz Noor Shams turut mendedahkan bahawa beliau pernah mengikuti perbincangan-perbincangan pencerahan di MEGC (Middle Eastern Graduate Centre), Jalan Telawi, iaitu anak syarikat kepada IKD.” The wordings are disingenuous. I attended only one discussion and that was unplanned. I did not attend any other event organized by that organization. Yet, with that chanced attendance, the website makes it as if I was a supporter or a follower of MEGC, which I am not. Furthermore, that website took a religious context in describing me, while that particular discussion that I attended was purely about the economy. I will not take this matter further other than to say the accusatory blog entry was written in bad faith.