What does Najib mean by 'liberalisation'?

by Dr Syed Husin Ali (Apr 27, 09)

I refer to the Malaysiakini report 30% bumi equity lifted for 27 service sectors.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's announcement on the move to liberalise the 27 services sub-sectors raises a number of basic questions.

Firstly, what does he really mean by ‘liberalisation'? Is it merely confined to the lifting of the 30% bumiputera equity? What are the efforts for socio-economic upliftment of the poor and marginalised from all ethnic groups? 

In this connection, what does liberalisation of the health and social services imply? Najib needs to explain this very clearly because liberalisation is closely related to privatisation. 

Health is one of the key social services that can be used by a responsible government to promote and preserve the welfare of the people at large. It should never be privatised. 

Secondly, in the context of globalisation - which is often seen as a new form of neo-colonialism underpinned by the free market system - the processes of liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation are closely interlinked. 

Does this mean the denial of the role of the state? With the serious recessions now being experienced in the West, aren't free market and neo-liberalism already found wanting? 

Can these processes guarantee greater welfare for the ordinary people? Or will they only further the interests of big businesses from the global capitalist centres and the local counterparts that collaborate with them? 

Thirdly, Najib hopes that his liberalisation move will improve Malaysia's international economic competitiveness which has been sliding over the past few years. But is competitiveness the only thing or main thing? 

Is it useful to have improved competitiveness if it does not guarantee greater benefits for the workers, farmers and other lower-income groups, but instead creates a concentration of wealth, wider socio-economic gaps and a worsening of comparative poverty? 

Finally, Najib seems to assume that with his liberalisation move there will be more inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI). This need not necessarily happen. 

Isn't the prime minister aware that many negative factors, such as chronic corruption and absence of an independent judiciary, together with constant violations of basic human rights can drive away potential investors? 

Furthermore, why should there be such obsession on FDI for growth and development? 

Why don't we draw lessons from those developing and developed countries that have managed to industrialise and develop by depending more on the mobilisation of domestic capital? 

The writer is deputy president, PKR.