Yesterday (26 July 2007) I had a fruitful meeting with Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, PAS’ President.
We discussed various issues, mainly focussing on Malaysian politics.
In particular, I raised the issue of the FTA and asked why PAS is opposed to it. The worry is understandable. If our markets are opened up, those in the farming and fishing industries would probably lose out – we cannot compete yet. But I can at least be happy that the rejection is not absolute. While PAS believes that at the moment total market liberalization is not yet suitable, there is nothing preventing it in the future, when hopefully situations change.
Of course, I disagree. I think unilateral liberalization is better provided that we put in place stronger institutions to guard property rights and ensure rule of law. But for now, at least it is clear that the rejection is not absolute or permanent. I gave him a copy of a report produced by Malaysia Think Tank London on the issue.
I also raised the needs for more policy-oriented politics among Malaysian opposition parties. PAS must start developing and presenting solid policy proposals to the Malaysian public. Obviously no opposition party can implement their proposals unless they get into power. But it is not a waste to develop policies even if there is no chance to implement it. To get into power, the party must firstly convince voters that they have a plan on how to govern. It is not enough to say “We will govern by Islam”. That means nothing. There must be specific policy ideas to show how PAS interpret Islam.
We also discussed at length my experience in the Conservative Party and how the internal policy research units of the party work, especially under David Cameron. We also touched briefly on my experience running in the English local election in May this year, and how we developed our manifesto for that election.
To me, Ustaz Hadi’s response was positive – both on the issue of trade liberalization as well as on the needs for more policy oriented politics. He looked keen to talk more about my experience with the Conservatives. But it was unfortunate that we both had to rush to other meetings, leaving the discussion rather unfinished.
The fear of many Malaysians, as with many developing countries, with globalisation is that it opens up the whole country to the scrutiny of strong and powerful nations, particularly when the former’s policies do not agree with the latter’s, more so in this age when economic determinism seems to hold sway, so much so that all socio-cultural fabric of that society is made to correspond with its economic functions. At stake is not only the sovereignty and independence of the nation-state but also past traditions and heritage handed down for generations. This is social engineering writ large which ironically, seems to be the all-consuming passion of the socialists. The government, previously accountable to the people alone, now is at a crossroads between meeting the demands of the electorate and pandering to the dictates of its trade partners.
The question of free trade and globalisation is not a matter of choice. Hadi Awang may not reject free trade outright, but exactly why this is his position is more questionable. For my part, I do believe that free trade and globalisation are inevitable, the only question remaining is when do we embrace it. At present, our social institutions and civil society are relatively weak, and anti-competitive practices remain rampant such that if we open up our market now, we are doomed to disaster, which is precisely why I don’t think we should agree to the FTA with the US yet, though by the hints of Rafidah Aziz chances are we will proceed with it anyway. Moreover, an FTA should be a symbiotic process : if the we are willing to allow American corporations to penetrate our economy, is the US wiling to allow free flow of Malaysian labour into the US labour market?
The Free Trade Agreement is just what it says on the tin – an agreement between different nations to trade freely. Just like any other agreements, all parties arefree to negotiate.
The key therefore is for Malaysia to negotiate so that we too get the most out of the agreement.
Whether we should liberalise first, or strengthen the institutions first is a chicken and egg situation. Do we wait until our institutions and civil society are strengthened, or do we liberalise first? I think they should go together, and that means we must embrace both – the strengthening of institutions AND liberalisation.
We should not be afraid of creative destruction. It is obvious that some industry will go bust and some people will become redundant. If England were to resist liberalisation to protect their farmers and manufacturers centuries / decades ago, like what we in Malaysia are demanding now, we would not have the England that we have today.
But, evidence shows that unilateral liberalisation is still best. China, India, and Hong Kong are just some of the examples of what happen when a country unilaterally liberalise their economy.