Dr. Francis H.H. Ngu, M.B., B.S. (Mal.), M.H.P. (UNSW)
Sarawak.
(This is written in the personal capacity of author, not necessarily reflective of the views of any organization or political party.
Writer has tried to balance, however imperfectly, public, political, health services planning and medical professional perspectives and interests, which are not always consonant with each other
.
Declaration of personal interests and possible bias : writer is the Head of the Health and Welfare Services Bureau, of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat in Sarawak.)
The recent announcement by the Minister of Health of a far-reaching reform for the nation, as the Health Care Financing System, is likely going to provoke a vigorous public policy debate, for which the following is an early warming up. This is a debate long overdue, a debate that should cut across all sections of Malaysian society.
THE CONTEXT :
The proposed healthcare reform takes place with the following being some of the major contexts relevant to the debate:
1. Historically, whether viewed from Malayan independence in 1957, or Malaysian Federation of 1963, the major structural Public Health Care Sector changes were the full federalisation of the Health Services of the States of Sabah and Sarawak within Malaysian Federal Health Ministry around 1970, proceeding into the 1980s, and, secondly, the general Privatisation Policy of the 1980s and 90s.
A major reform proposal by the Malaysian Medical Association for a National Health Commission since the 1970s, had been rejected repeatedly.
2. Malaysian government is constitutionally bound to shoulder the major part of providing health care for its citizens and funding thereof. Of further note, is the WHO Alma Mata Declaration which pledges Health Care for All by the Year 2000; Malaysia is a signatory nation.
3. The nation’s finances are under critical stress following the Asian Financial Crises of 1997 and the World Economic crises of 2008/9, other highly significant issues of National and State governance aside. The national debt is just above 50% of GDP, and the widening budget deficit of over 7%, of GDP which led to a Federal Government Minister warning that the nation may face Bankruptcy by 2019. Foreign Direct Investment has dropped to a historic low of below US $ 2 billion, with investment outflow more than twice the FDI inflow.
4. IN 2008, Malaysia spent about RM35 billion on healthcare, more than half of it in the private sector. The national healthcare expenditure represents slightly more than 4.7% of our GDP, with 2.2% coming from the public purse.
5. A dichotomy of Health Care, both in access and quality, has arisen and intensified, following Privatisation Policy, between those with access to high quality private care and those with full, partial or minimal access to public sector health care. This is reflective of the wider social dichotomy arising from income inequality that has increased steadily in Malaysian national life. The Gini co-efficient has risen over the years from around 0.40 to around 0.47.
6. The upper and middle middle classes are facing rising health care costs through expected higher private health insurance premiums and other own-pocket expenses, while the lower income groups and the poor face increasing rationing from congestion of and queuing for public sector service (this in spite of decanting to the private sector).
7. A serious dichotomy has arisen and intensified in the public sector health service
as well, with a much better developed tertiary and specialized services in the Klang Valley and a couple of other cities, and the laggard states of East Malaysia and elsewhere.
8. Malaysia remains a relatively low-wage, low-income economy wherein general world inflation and national inflationary factors impact on the expendable incomes of individuals and families. Public sector health care is thus an important part of what is a rather inadequate social safety net.
9. A Federal Coalition presiding over a highly centralized and long-lasting government, is fighting for electoral survival, in the face of mounting issues of governance, financial accountability and lagging economic growth.
10. An opportunity to learn from the cumulative experience of developed countries in health care over the decades, including a major over-haul in the British NHS currently; they provide an options looking glass for our own debate.
DESIRED PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE REFORMS:
In principle, any major healthcare reforms for the nation should be supported if they are based on all or most of the following, not necessarily ranked in order of importance:
1. Restating the core responsibility and major role of government in providing health care, or financing thereof; this holds for all responsible governments of developing and developed nations; a cardinal principle of governance should be the use of national wealth and income for material and social progress of citizens, including the appropriate provision of social welfare, of which health care is a major component.
2. The statement that a major goal of reforms is the universal, just and equitable access to health care, both across social (income) classes and diverse geographic regions ;
Health planning should be needs-based, to a large extent rational, and not overwhelmingly driven by political expediency.
3. A long term government pledge to steadily raise the government budgetary contribution from the current 2.2 % to around 4.5-5 % of GDP staggered over 10 years ; if the private sector expenditure were expected to rise to 2.5-3 % of GDP, it would increase national health care expenditure to around 7-8 % in 2021, from the current 4.7 %.
A budgetary commitment by government to healthcare is the essential measure of good and caring government, under-writing its constitutional role and ensuring progress in health care and social justice.
4. A firm government pledge to vastly improve both the scope and quality of service in the public sector as well as its geographical spread and rural reach; thus steadily reducing the dichotomy in quality of services provided by private and public sectors, and largely correcting the current imbalance of health care personnel vs. patients/population ratio;
5. Any new co-contribution by citizens should be take into account wages, real incomes, general inflation and poverty; the household threshold income defining poverty should be revised by cost of living realities, adjusted yearly or biannually
for inflation.
6. Establishment of a sound means-testing mechanism of eligibility of working age individuals and families for both free non-contributary health care and pharmaceutical benefits, as well as other social welfare benefits and subsidies;
7. A commitment to set up a comprehensive Pharmaceutical and Medical Supplies Benefits Scheme in around 2-3 years, so that medical practice which is evidenced based is better promoted;
8. Consolidating the unwieldy private health insurance sector, so that the number of insurance providers are reduced to 2 or 3 for efficiency, maintaining competitiveness and providing significantly better coverage for all age groups and all citizens, presence of morbidity irrespective;
9. Recognition that a sound public sector health care is the foundation of a progressive private health sector; health care tourism must compromise neither citizens’ health care needs, nor medical professionalism and ethics through over-zealous commercialization;
10. Appropriate integration of public and private care sectors, for fuller utilization of all resources of both sectors for better health outcomes of the public;
11. Consolidating the veritable achievements of Public Health (in relation to communicable diseases, maternal and child health, etc.), and emphasizing lifestyle health promotion through intensified inter-sectoral collaboration involving medical, educational, sports, media, legislative strategies, etc.
Primary and secondary prevention is where national health care cost containment would be truly achievable by government and the nation; it is at the same time beneficial to individuals and families;
12. Decentralising public sector health decision making to States and Health Care Regions, in particular the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which are sometimes not on the federal ministry radar screen sited at PutraJaya.
13. Increasing the pool of Health Services Planning and Management professionals in Malaysia, to provide a professional planning perspectives to future health care discourse which will feature more and more in Malaysia.
14. Urgent study on the optimal mix of health care personnel in view of a sudden enormous increase of trainee doctors, and the implications on training needs and standards as well as service hardware infrastructure.
15. Legislative, structural and educative response to develop a partnership of health care decision-making by government, professional providers and community (unions, employer bodies, health and welfare NGOs, health care clients). A participative structural framework must be the natural and just corollary to a co-contributary principle.
Indeed most of the above would need timely attention by any Malaysian government of the day, whether or not a co-contributary Health Care Financing System is put in place.
The above list is put forth as the core list of major policy considerations, though it is surely not exhaustive. There could be other large issues, especially about quality assurance for effectiveness and efficiency, practice safety, health information systems/IT, workforce issues/professional accreditation, traditional and complimentary health care, research and evaluation, etc.
These are subsets getting more and more technical, but will need exploration as well.
More instalments to come :
--
THE CASE FOR INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE..
INCOME THRESHOLD FOR CO-PAYMENT, QUANTUM, IMPACT.
INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SECTORS
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE FUND (S)
THE PAUPER RESOURCE-RICH STATES OF SABAH AND SARAWAK
DEBATE ARISING ?
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
MALAYSIANS, LOOK EAST THIS AUGUST 31ST. !
Francis H. H. Ngu , Kuching, 31st August, 2009.
It has been some two decades since Malaysia under Mahathir adopted a Look East Policy, using Japan as the model for the development of Malaysia. On a historic day of political change in Japan, the Look East Policy is revisited for its broader ramifications to Malaysia.
The diligence of Japanese workers, work ethics and the team spirit are indeed worth emulating, but then these are the product of hundreds of years of culture. The backdrop of that culture includes hardships resulting from natural calamities, and sparse natural resources, against which Malaya and Borneo were and still are in sharp advantage as compared to Japan. The Japanese is also a culture where the prominent influence of Chinese civilization stares in your eyes. From tea-drinking and Buddhism, to chinaware and painting, and to lexicon and calligraphy, the creative Japanese have brought the Chinese influences into their unique own.
On to their own rich culture too, were grafted the science and technology of the Western industrial revolution through the process of the Meiji Renewal, and western concepts of democracy and Human Rights, particularly after WW II.
From the start, Malaysia looks a vastly different substrate from Japan. It has a culture on which Indian, Arabic, Chinese and later Western colonial cultures were preeminently grafted on to the indigenous cultures of the Malay archipelago. The foreign input into Malaysian culture may thus be said to be more sustained, direct and diverse than is the case of Japan. The strong infusion of the English language through colonial government and the growth of Chinese language education through sheer commitment of the sizable Chinese ethnic minority are also distinguishing features. The legacy of the British judicial system and the structured civil service, also puts Malaya and former British Borneo in comparative advantage. The Constitution and Westminister styled parliamentary were to be the basis of the healthy growth of a young nation.
Why then did Japan rise as Pheonix from the atomic holocaust of WWII to become the second largest economy in the World, and Malaysia rose to the Second World, but is now under threat to slip towards the Third World again ?
At first glance, Malaysia appeared open to positive foreign influences, from including its once aggressor, Japan; and Malaysia even promised to take a lead in the ICT age through the Multi-Media Supercorridor. But did it even ever Looked East to Japan ?
Japan was and is not shy of foreign influences, East or West, while Malaysia in great but unintelligent nationalist zest, jettisoned the English language from the education system, thus shut itself from an invaluable comparative advantage asset of learning and communication. The Chinese language education was softly suppressed, thus depriving Malaysia leverage of what is emerging as an increasingly important international language.
Japan kept corruption and crony-capitalism at bay through a robust criminal justice system; from the 1989 Judicial Crises, the Malaysian executive branch has controlled the Judicial branch, subverting the separation of Powers so essential to the healthy functioning of democracy. What is a great strength of Japan was not taken on board, but what functioning judicial infrastructure Malaysia had was slaughtered.
Japanese enjoy civil and political rights little different from any liberal western country; Malaysians are to be cowered by repressive legislation governing behaviour of academics and higher education students, the print media and rights of assembly and expression. Is it so difficult to understand that the free intellect and the free individual is the basis of a creative community and nation?
Malaysians are not allowed to learn the art of accountable local government from Japan or anywhere else. Grass-roots democracy or participatory democracy are remote concepts in Malaysian lexicon. Why deprive the Malaysians a vital instrument of social commitment and engagement? Are these latter not the accompaniments of the Japanese work culture about which Malaysians were exhorted to emulate ?
Look East or even look anywhere, has thus been mere rhetoric mired in the broader Malaysian ruling National Front agenda of the political and economic supremacy of a monoculture; as incitefully coined Ketuanan Melayu, this a mere pretence for the political survival of an unpopular ruling elite class.
The rejection of English may have had the effect of shutting out western ideas of civil and political rights, egalitarianism, feminist ideas and possibly religions deemed Western. Thus English language was temporarily brought back for Science and Mathematics education, but not for the liberal Arts subjects, if there is anything Liberal in Malaysian education. The refusal to promote the Chinese language education is to be understood from the ruling perspective and priority about monocultural hegemony over broader national competitiveness issues.
The Malaysian crony-capitalism, corruption, and political hegemony founded on race rhetorics meant that the worst aspects of the free market far supercede the its better strengths in its impacts on Malaysian economy. Distortion to labour, prices and incomes becomes further bugbear to progress and social stability. Investors leave Malaysian shores.
The political change of the largest world economy, USA, and now the second largest, Japan, puts Malaysia and the world on notice. On the heels of China, the new Democratic Party government of Japan will be using social welfare spending as one of the tools of stimulating its long ailing economy. Will both China and Japan be building a social security system to match those of western social democratic systems?
One can look East, South, North and West, the message is unmistakenly clear every where; CHANGE WE MUST ! Look to Japan for a smooth transition of power in a mature democratic Land of the Rising Sun. Looking East this season for Malaysians is as good as looking anywhere else, and look East really hard this time round.
It has been some two decades since Malaysia under Mahathir adopted a Look East Policy, using Japan as the model for the development of Malaysia. On a historic day of political change in Japan, the Look East Policy is revisited for its broader ramifications to Malaysia.
The diligence of Japanese workers, work ethics and the team spirit are indeed worth emulating, but then these are the product of hundreds of years of culture. The backdrop of that culture includes hardships resulting from natural calamities, and sparse natural resources, against which Malaya and Borneo were and still are in sharp advantage as compared to Japan. The Japanese is also a culture where the prominent influence of Chinese civilization stares in your eyes. From tea-drinking and Buddhism, to chinaware and painting, and to lexicon and calligraphy, the creative Japanese have brought the Chinese influences into their unique own.
On to their own rich culture too, were grafted the science and technology of the Western industrial revolution through the process of the Meiji Renewal, and western concepts of democracy and Human Rights, particularly after WW II.
From the start, Malaysia looks a vastly different substrate from Japan. It has a culture on which Indian, Arabic, Chinese and later Western colonial cultures were preeminently grafted on to the indigenous cultures of the Malay archipelago. The foreign input into Malaysian culture may thus be said to be more sustained, direct and diverse than is the case of Japan. The strong infusion of the English language through colonial government and the growth of Chinese language education through sheer commitment of the sizable Chinese ethnic minority are also distinguishing features. The legacy of the British judicial system and the structured civil service, also puts Malaya and former British Borneo in comparative advantage. The Constitution and Westminister styled parliamentary were to be the basis of the healthy growth of a young nation.
Why then did Japan rise as Pheonix from the atomic holocaust of WWII to become the second largest economy in the World, and Malaysia rose to the Second World, but is now under threat to slip towards the Third World again ?
At first glance, Malaysia appeared open to positive foreign influences, from including its once aggressor, Japan; and Malaysia even promised to take a lead in the ICT age through the Multi-Media Supercorridor. But did it even ever Looked East to Japan ?
Japan was and is not shy of foreign influences, East or West, while Malaysia in great but unintelligent nationalist zest, jettisoned the English language from the education system, thus shut itself from an invaluable comparative advantage asset of learning and communication. The Chinese language education was softly suppressed, thus depriving Malaysia leverage of what is emerging as an increasingly important international language.
Japan kept corruption and crony-capitalism at bay through a robust criminal justice system; from the 1989 Judicial Crises, the Malaysian executive branch has controlled the Judicial branch, subverting the separation of Powers so essential to the healthy functioning of democracy. What is a great strength of Japan was not taken on board, but what functioning judicial infrastructure Malaysia had was slaughtered.
Japanese enjoy civil and political rights little different from any liberal western country; Malaysians are to be cowered by repressive legislation governing behaviour of academics and higher education students, the print media and rights of assembly and expression. Is it so difficult to understand that the free intellect and the free individual is the basis of a creative community and nation?
Malaysians are not allowed to learn the art of accountable local government from Japan or anywhere else. Grass-roots democracy or participatory democracy are remote concepts in Malaysian lexicon. Why deprive the Malaysians a vital instrument of social commitment and engagement? Are these latter not the accompaniments of the Japanese work culture about which Malaysians were exhorted to emulate ?
Look East or even look anywhere, has thus been mere rhetoric mired in the broader Malaysian ruling National Front agenda of the political and economic supremacy of a monoculture; as incitefully coined Ketuanan Melayu, this a mere pretence for the political survival of an unpopular ruling elite class.
The rejection of English may have had the effect of shutting out western ideas of civil and political rights, egalitarianism, feminist ideas and possibly religions deemed Western. Thus English language was temporarily brought back for Science and Mathematics education, but not for the liberal Arts subjects, if there is anything Liberal in Malaysian education. The refusal to promote the Chinese language education is to be understood from the ruling perspective and priority about monocultural hegemony over broader national competitiveness issues.
The Malaysian crony-capitalism, corruption, and political hegemony founded on race rhetorics meant that the worst aspects of the free market far supercede the its better strengths in its impacts on Malaysian economy. Distortion to labour, prices and incomes becomes further bugbear to progress and social stability. Investors leave Malaysian shores.
The political change of the largest world economy, USA, and now the second largest, Japan, puts Malaysia and the world on notice. On the heels of China, the new Democratic Party government of Japan will be using social welfare spending as one of the tools of stimulating its long ailing economy. Will both China and Japan be building a social security system to match those of western social democratic systems?
One can look East, South, North and West, the message is unmistakenly clear every where; CHANGE WE MUST ! Look to Japan for a smooth transition of power in a mature democratic Land of the Rising Sun. Looking East this season for Malaysians is as good as looking anywhere else, and look East really hard this time round.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Reproduction: Social Welfare Article
A plea was made at the peak of the Oil Crises in 2008 for a new Social Welfare Policy for Malaysia primarily to mitigate the hardship of Malaysians in the lower socio-economic groups from the oil price shock, though other macroeconomic considerations feature prominently as well.
While a few of the assumptions of the writer have clearly changed due to circumstances brought on by the subsequent global economic crises and the collapse of commodity prices, the central plank of social welfare as good public policy holds. If anything, the economic downturn makes such policy rethink all the more pressing. Nations in the Asian region, Singapore, China and Taiwan(China)have all beefed up welfare aid to the economically depressed. Australia on top of its institutionalised super-generous social security , was the first to give out handouts as a driving component of its stimulus package. A second handout is being given out around Easter, benefiting those with incomes of AU$100k per annum and below.
A fresh boost to social welfare in Malaysia, however weak comparative to neighbours, should be on the agenda.
Indeed a measure of the quality of public policy of any nation is the quality of its safety net provisions for the vulnerably disadvantaged. Social security would present a humanising side to mitigate the avariciousness of the unfettered free market.
In today's Malaysian Insider blog comment to an article "Malaysia to push economic reform", Professor Chan Chee Khoon of the Science University of Malaysia has timely called on government to address the wages and incomes issue, and institute minimum wage to spur aggregate demand.
This writer believes that social security is an essential policy tool to boost domestic demand, reduce petty crime, building of truly caring society and other desirable social objectives.
In the "Islamic Welfare State" of PAS, and Khalid Ibrahim's "Merakyatkan Ekonomi", one hopes the first seeds are now been sown which will in time bloom into a decent
Social Security system for Malaysia.
Francis Ngu
TEXT OF REPRODUCED ARTICLE
DR. FRANCIS NGU CALLS FOR MAJOR SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY INITIATIVE.
SUMMARY:
The abandonment of subsidy for fuel and even other subsidies will lead to severe and multi-sectoral repercussions yet to be fully realized, including stagflation, increased unemployment, social unrest, manifold increase in poverty and poverty related crime. At this crucial juncture, a long term social welfare policy programme should be put up, even belatedly, to mitigate quite disastrous spin-offs from the controversial policy of abandoning fuel and other subsidies. The implemention of a social welfare policy is proposed here as a major prong of a social justice reform programme, and to mitigate the effects of local and international economic slow down.
FULL TEXT:
In the midst of social anger and large and small protest actions of various groups, it is incumbent upon social welfare NGOs, political workers, scholars, professionals, leaders in the business and civil service, and legislators to begin an urgent debate and discussion on the medium and long-term socio-economic impact of a possible doubling of petrol price in the near term to around RM4 per litre.
Considering that fuel price would have risen 3-4 fold over a medium length period of 5-10 years, if the pump price approaches RM 4, and all the other essential goods see price rises to compound, the purchasing power of the Malaysian consumer will fast evaporate.
This is well understood and painfully felt by the public at large. The anticipated dive in consumer and investment confidence, and the drop in GDP is reflected in the opening bells of the KLSE on the morning of June 5th.
The concurrent effort in wages reform in the private sector, even though feeble, and the need to scale down foreign labour, add to the difficulties of various business sectors. Job creation will slow down, unemployment will worsen.
All taken together, a stark scenario of rapid inflation and slowed growth, in Malaysia and overseas, sets the ground for the worsening of poverty and increase in the poverty rate towards levels of 1970s, if not earlier. In its wake, social unrest and poverty related crimes. Without political will for reform, poverty eradication will be thrown into the ever distant future.
There is no doubt that Malaysia is facing a severe crisis, which, to the lower socio-economic groups, is far more severe than the 1997, Asian Financial Crisis.
Yet, ironically, the crisis to the average consumer, may not have to be so severe, or there need not even have to be a crisis at all ! This is because we are also in an unprecedented commodities boom! The export price of petrol has increased 10 fold from under US $20 to US $ 140 ! CPO is the mother of all golden crops now at some RM 3500 per tonne.
It only points to the fact that the nation’s wealth distributive mechanisms have failed miserably. The GINI index has risen steadily to 0.47.
For some 2 decades, government has resisted any notion of meaningful wage reform, including a minimum wage as a start. A systematic social welfare net has been denied to the lower socio-economic groups, even during the 1997 Asian Financial Crises. Such an institutionalised social safety net is not mentioned even as we face paying the full price of fuel on world markets.
The promoters of the denial mentality paint a glowing picture of pristine economic health against a fictitiously low unemployment and poverty rate.
The most prosperous nations of the world have poverty rates of 10-12 % against Malaysia’s poverty rates of 2-3 %. Unemployment rates of 4-5 % only occur in intolerably booming western economies. The claim that Malaysia has one of the lowest prices for fuel and essential goods should at least be balanced by the fact that wages in those other high cost countries are 5-15 times Malaysian wages. Again, in those high cost countries, annual income of RM 150K and below is considered low income in public policy debates; an annual income of RM 50K may already entitle a family to receive welfare assistance. The monthly social welfare payment to a poor family overseas may be 4-5 times the starting wage of a professional in us “lucky” Malaysia!
When we face the reality of prices in a globalised world, when subsidies are being dismantled, it is hoped that the denial and feel-good mentality will fade away. Otherwise, there can be no meaningful debate on public policy.
It is hoped that meaningful public policy debate will lead to meaningful public policy within the short term. We are now moving painfully away from a distorted market economy with multiple subsidies, but we are faced with a market economy where eventual removal of price controls is leading to inflation at a pace threatening the livelihood of many. Nearly all the first world free-market economies have solid social welfare systems put in place 50-100 years ago, both as a principal of social justice and also as an essential policy to safeguard social stability.
A Malaysian Social Welfare System must be set up soonest, and should be running before any further price rises in fuel and further removal of other subsidies. The compensation to vehicle owners is a queer cabinate invention, which does not address the rising cost of living for all consumers, especially the poorest who obviously may not even own a motor vehicle. A long-term social welfare programme must proceed alongside a more vigorous wage reform drive in the private sector and regulation of foreign labour. Personal tax cuts and refunds by significant elevation of the lower thresholds should also be considered.
Welfare as a social policy principle.
When the livelihood of a large segment of society is threatened to a level affecting social stability, the arguement for and against individual charity vs institutionalized charity becomes academic and should be put aside. The basic dignity of living is too serious a matter to be left to charitable whims of individuals, but must be effectively addressed by institutionalized welfare. Individual and community charity initiatives continue to grow ever stronger in countries with matured social welfare protection.
In these countries too, there is no proof of generalized economic malaise as a result. Fine tuned welfare programmes are nowadays tied together with skills re-training and with employment search for the healthy unemployed.
Social welfare recognizes the right of citizen to have a basic dignity of living and belonging to society, something so important to social peace and cohesiveness. It is further an instrument for providing a level playing field for all, and for individuals and families to realize their full potential. Human creativity and initiative may be suppressed and trapped by grinding poverty.
Last but not least, social welfare is an integral part of the programme of major political parties promoting people’s welfare using different terms such as social justice, democratic socialism, welfare state and others. It is now more apparent than ever before that a dose of welfarism is needed to survive the disaster caused in part by the globalised and ailing free market.
Social welfare is affordable. Although Malaysia is a mid-range developing country, the present commodities prices boom alone enables Malaysia to put in place a robust social welfare programme soonest. The present petrol price rise is saving the nation of a massive “subsidy”, which is really increased profit to Petronas. When the pump price is floated at international market prices, the profit increase to Petronas is RM 50 billion, more if world crude rises further. All other subsidies, if finally withdrawn, is estimated to save government another RM 50-80 billion. All leakages of subsidies, and to undeserving sectors, would have been plugged.
Certainly, much of the RM 50 billion or RM 100 billion earned by Petronas or saved by government, should be set aside for economic investment, especially public transport infrastructure. It is immediately obvious that even 10% of either sum is sufficient to launch the programme, 25 % of either will establish a good programme and 50% will send all the street protestors praising the government. Thus welfare aid is institutionalized at a level consistent with the economic strength of the nation.
Social welfare payments may be implemented within months.
Emergency Implementation.
Should it be necessary to reduce public panic, emergency implementation may be necessary, with all the pitfalls fully realized.
With the progress in electronic banking, there should not be difficulty to effect payment to all IC card holders with a bank account. Payment to minors should be through parents.
Payments to the poorest of the poor without bank accounts, may have to be separately dealt with, as well with some Sarawakians with no IC cards. Without means testing, this may mean a significant leakage to the small wealthy segment of society; however it should be a tolerable price to pay for staving off social unrest.
Long term Implementation.
Fine tuned long term programs will have to be based on Legislative Framework, Means Testing, Welfare Fraud Detection and Judicial Sanctions. If we can embark on space age ambitions and mega-projects, can we not establish an efficient and effective implementation network nation wide for social welfare within 1-2 years?
Social welfare to mitigate economic slow-down.
Malaysia is said to have negotiated its way out of the 1997 crisis by pump-priming the economy by spending on infrastructure, among other measures. The economic slow down this time round is dictated by rising cost of production and severely damaged consumer and investor confidence and anticipated dipping of export demand for manufactured goods. Tourism and related services may also be affected. A social welfare system spending of RM 20-30 billion alongside infrastructure spending will help maintain domestic retail and services demand and restore part of the business confidence.
Thus a social welfare system is justifiable in terms of public policy, affordable , technically feasible and even economically sound.
While a few of the assumptions of the writer have clearly changed due to circumstances brought on by the subsequent global economic crises and the collapse of commodity prices, the central plank of social welfare as good public policy holds. If anything, the economic downturn makes such policy rethink all the more pressing. Nations in the Asian region, Singapore, China and Taiwan(China)have all beefed up welfare aid to the economically depressed. Australia on top of its institutionalised super-generous social security , was the first to give out handouts as a driving component of its stimulus package. A second handout is being given out around Easter, benefiting those with incomes of AU$100k per annum and below.
A fresh boost to social welfare in Malaysia, however weak comparative to neighbours, should be on the agenda.
Indeed a measure of the quality of public policy of any nation is the quality of its safety net provisions for the vulnerably disadvantaged. Social security would present a humanising side to mitigate the avariciousness of the unfettered free market.
In today's Malaysian Insider blog comment to an article "Malaysia to push economic reform", Professor Chan Chee Khoon of the Science University of Malaysia has timely called on government to address the wages and incomes issue, and institute minimum wage to spur aggregate demand.
This writer believes that social security is an essential policy tool to boost domestic demand, reduce petty crime, building of truly caring society and other desirable social objectives.
In the "Islamic Welfare State" of PAS, and Khalid Ibrahim's "Merakyatkan Ekonomi", one hopes the first seeds are now been sown which will in time bloom into a decent
Social Security system for Malaysia.
Francis Ngu
TEXT OF REPRODUCED ARTICLE
DR. FRANCIS NGU CALLS FOR MAJOR SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY INITIATIVE.
SUMMARY:
The abandonment of subsidy for fuel and even other subsidies will lead to severe and multi-sectoral repercussions yet to be fully realized, including stagflation, increased unemployment, social unrest, manifold increase in poverty and poverty related crime. At this crucial juncture, a long term social welfare policy programme should be put up, even belatedly, to mitigate quite disastrous spin-offs from the controversial policy of abandoning fuel and other subsidies. The implemention of a social welfare policy is proposed here as a major prong of a social justice reform programme, and to mitigate the effects of local and international economic slow down.
FULL TEXT:
In the midst of social anger and large and small protest actions of various groups, it is incumbent upon social welfare NGOs, political workers, scholars, professionals, leaders in the business and civil service, and legislators to begin an urgent debate and discussion on the medium and long-term socio-economic impact of a possible doubling of petrol price in the near term to around RM4 per litre.
Considering that fuel price would have risen 3-4 fold over a medium length period of 5-10 years, if the pump price approaches RM 4, and all the other essential goods see price rises to compound, the purchasing power of the Malaysian consumer will fast evaporate.
This is well understood and painfully felt by the public at large. The anticipated dive in consumer and investment confidence, and the drop in GDP is reflected in the opening bells of the KLSE on the morning of June 5th.
The concurrent effort in wages reform in the private sector, even though feeble, and the need to scale down foreign labour, add to the difficulties of various business sectors. Job creation will slow down, unemployment will worsen.
All taken together, a stark scenario of rapid inflation and slowed growth, in Malaysia and overseas, sets the ground for the worsening of poverty and increase in the poverty rate towards levels of 1970s, if not earlier. In its wake, social unrest and poverty related crimes. Without political will for reform, poverty eradication will be thrown into the ever distant future.
There is no doubt that Malaysia is facing a severe crisis, which, to the lower socio-economic groups, is far more severe than the 1997, Asian Financial Crisis.
Yet, ironically, the crisis to the average consumer, may not have to be so severe, or there need not even have to be a crisis at all ! This is because we are also in an unprecedented commodities boom! The export price of petrol has increased 10 fold from under US $20 to US $ 140 ! CPO is the mother of all golden crops now at some RM 3500 per tonne.
It only points to the fact that the nation’s wealth distributive mechanisms have failed miserably. The GINI index has risen steadily to 0.47.
For some 2 decades, government has resisted any notion of meaningful wage reform, including a minimum wage as a start. A systematic social welfare net has been denied to the lower socio-economic groups, even during the 1997 Asian Financial Crises. Such an institutionalised social safety net is not mentioned even as we face paying the full price of fuel on world markets.
The promoters of the denial mentality paint a glowing picture of pristine economic health against a fictitiously low unemployment and poverty rate.
The most prosperous nations of the world have poverty rates of 10-12 % against Malaysia’s poverty rates of 2-3 %. Unemployment rates of 4-5 % only occur in intolerably booming western economies. The claim that Malaysia has one of the lowest prices for fuel and essential goods should at least be balanced by the fact that wages in those other high cost countries are 5-15 times Malaysian wages. Again, in those high cost countries, annual income of RM 150K and below is considered low income in public policy debates; an annual income of RM 50K may already entitle a family to receive welfare assistance. The monthly social welfare payment to a poor family overseas may be 4-5 times the starting wage of a professional in us “lucky” Malaysia!
When we face the reality of prices in a globalised world, when subsidies are being dismantled, it is hoped that the denial and feel-good mentality will fade away. Otherwise, there can be no meaningful debate on public policy.
It is hoped that meaningful public policy debate will lead to meaningful public policy within the short term. We are now moving painfully away from a distorted market economy with multiple subsidies, but we are faced with a market economy where eventual removal of price controls is leading to inflation at a pace threatening the livelihood of many. Nearly all the first world free-market economies have solid social welfare systems put in place 50-100 years ago, both as a principal of social justice and also as an essential policy to safeguard social stability.
A Malaysian Social Welfare System must be set up soonest, and should be running before any further price rises in fuel and further removal of other subsidies. The compensation to vehicle owners is a queer cabinate invention, which does not address the rising cost of living for all consumers, especially the poorest who obviously may not even own a motor vehicle. A long-term social welfare programme must proceed alongside a more vigorous wage reform drive in the private sector and regulation of foreign labour. Personal tax cuts and refunds by significant elevation of the lower thresholds should also be considered.
Welfare as a social policy principle.
When the livelihood of a large segment of society is threatened to a level affecting social stability, the arguement for and against individual charity vs institutionalized charity becomes academic and should be put aside. The basic dignity of living is too serious a matter to be left to charitable whims of individuals, but must be effectively addressed by institutionalized welfare. Individual and community charity initiatives continue to grow ever stronger in countries with matured social welfare protection.
In these countries too, there is no proof of generalized economic malaise as a result. Fine tuned welfare programmes are nowadays tied together with skills re-training and with employment search for the healthy unemployed.
Social welfare recognizes the right of citizen to have a basic dignity of living and belonging to society, something so important to social peace and cohesiveness. It is further an instrument for providing a level playing field for all, and for individuals and families to realize their full potential. Human creativity and initiative may be suppressed and trapped by grinding poverty.
Last but not least, social welfare is an integral part of the programme of major political parties promoting people’s welfare using different terms such as social justice, democratic socialism, welfare state and others. It is now more apparent than ever before that a dose of welfarism is needed to survive the disaster caused in part by the globalised and ailing free market.
Social welfare is affordable. Although Malaysia is a mid-range developing country, the present commodities prices boom alone enables Malaysia to put in place a robust social welfare programme soonest. The present petrol price rise is saving the nation of a massive “subsidy”, which is really increased profit to Petronas. When the pump price is floated at international market prices, the profit increase to Petronas is RM 50 billion, more if world crude rises further. All other subsidies, if finally withdrawn, is estimated to save government another RM 50-80 billion. All leakages of subsidies, and to undeserving sectors, would have been plugged.
Certainly, much of the RM 50 billion or RM 100 billion earned by Petronas or saved by government, should be set aside for economic investment, especially public transport infrastructure. It is immediately obvious that even 10% of either sum is sufficient to launch the programme, 25 % of either will establish a good programme and 50% will send all the street protestors praising the government. Thus welfare aid is institutionalized at a level consistent with the economic strength of the nation.
Social welfare payments may be implemented within months.
Emergency Implementation.
Should it be necessary to reduce public panic, emergency implementation may be necessary, with all the pitfalls fully realized.
With the progress in electronic banking, there should not be difficulty to effect payment to all IC card holders with a bank account. Payment to minors should be through parents.
Payments to the poorest of the poor without bank accounts, may have to be separately dealt with, as well with some Sarawakians with no IC cards. Without means testing, this may mean a significant leakage to the small wealthy segment of society; however it should be a tolerable price to pay for staving off social unrest.
Long term Implementation.
Fine tuned long term programs will have to be based on Legislative Framework, Means Testing, Welfare Fraud Detection and Judicial Sanctions. If we can embark on space age ambitions and mega-projects, can we not establish an efficient and effective implementation network nation wide for social welfare within 1-2 years?
Social welfare to mitigate economic slow-down.
Malaysia is said to have negotiated its way out of the 1997 crisis by pump-priming the economy by spending on infrastructure, among other measures. The economic slow down this time round is dictated by rising cost of production and severely damaged consumer and investor confidence and anticipated dipping of export demand for manufactured goods. Tourism and related services may also be affected. A social welfare system spending of RM 20-30 billion alongside infrastructure spending will help maintain domestic retail and services demand and restore part of the business confidence.
Thus a social welfare system is justifiable in terms of public policy, affordable , technically feasible and even economically sound.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
SUNGGUH BESAR ALLAHKU
An attendance at an Indonesian language Christian Easter service today has provided the substance for this post; it throws some reflection for me a Malaysian, in the face of the gazetted ban in Malaysia for Christians to use the word Allah.
The main explicit reason for the ban was that shared usage of the word ALLAH would cause confusion to the majority Muslim population of Malaysia, but this has been firmly refuted by a most respected Malaysian Muslim cleric, Tok Guru Nik Aziz.
During a recent short husting during the Batang Ai by-election campaign in
Sarawak, an Iban (Dayak) showed me the the first lines of the Genesis in the Iban bible where clearly the word Allah was used from the very beginning that the Iban Bible was published. Anyone can figure out the implications of such a legal ban on the word Allah, for Christians in Malaysia using the local language Bible. Enormous distress, to say the least.
Since then I have come down to Melbourne meet my children here.
There is this suburban Uniting Church of Australia (amalgamation of Methodist and Presbyterian churches), which hosts an Indonesian language service for Indonesian Methodists resident in Melbourne. Many of those at the service are of ethnic Chinese origin, but there is also a sprinkling of the Indonesian ethnic diaspora and just a couple of fairer skin Australians among the small congregation. Thus I was able to speak with a Sumatran Batak, who number only 2 million back in Indonesia and of whom 5% are Christians.
Although not a Methodist myself, I nevertheless feel brotherliness with a congregation celebrating in Bahasa Indonesia of which my national language in Malaysia is so similar. There was for me a certain "at home in Malaysia" feeling.
Throughout the service, the mainly ethnic Chinese congregation used the words "Tuhan" and "Allah" in reference to GOD repeatedly. The above caption " Great is the Lord God" was flashed on the projection screen as the hymn to the same title was solemnly sung. Thus in Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population among nations in the world, there is acceptance for Christians to refer to God as Allah.
With the gazetted ban on Christians in Malaysia using the the word Allah, would it follow that an Indonesian Christian would be banned from bringing the Indonesian
language Bible into Malaysia?
Had Malaysian authorities foreseen that the gazetted ban may have extended repercussions beyond its own Christian citizenry ?
Blog master
The main explicit reason for the ban was that shared usage of the word ALLAH would cause confusion to the majority Muslim population of Malaysia, but this has been firmly refuted by a most respected Malaysian Muslim cleric, Tok Guru Nik Aziz.
During a recent short husting during the Batang Ai by-election campaign in
Sarawak, an Iban (Dayak) showed me the the first lines of the Genesis in the Iban bible where clearly the word Allah was used from the very beginning that the Iban Bible was published. Anyone can figure out the implications of such a legal ban on the word Allah, for Christians in Malaysia using the local language Bible. Enormous distress, to say the least.
Since then I have come down to Melbourne meet my children here.
There is this suburban Uniting Church of Australia (amalgamation of Methodist and Presbyterian churches), which hosts an Indonesian language service for Indonesian Methodists resident in Melbourne. Many of those at the service are of ethnic Chinese origin, but there is also a sprinkling of the Indonesian ethnic diaspora and just a couple of fairer skin Australians among the small congregation. Thus I was able to speak with a Sumatran Batak, who number only 2 million back in Indonesia and of whom 5% are Christians.
Although not a Methodist myself, I nevertheless feel brotherliness with a congregation celebrating in Bahasa Indonesia of which my national language in Malaysia is so similar. There was for me a certain "at home in Malaysia" feeling.
Throughout the service, the mainly ethnic Chinese congregation used the words "Tuhan" and "Allah" in reference to GOD repeatedly. The above caption " Great is the Lord God" was flashed on the projection screen as the hymn to the same title was solemnly sung. Thus in Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population among nations in the world, there is acceptance for Christians to refer to God as Allah.
With the gazetted ban on Christians in Malaysia using the the word Allah, would it follow that an Indonesian Christian would be banned from bringing the Indonesian
language Bible into Malaysia?
Had Malaysian authorities foreseen that the gazetted ban may have extended repercussions beyond its own Christian citizenry ?
Blog master
Friday, April 10, 2009
Harnessing the talent in Pakatan
A statement of concern for the "Dearth of talent in PKR--" by Muaz Omar has appeared 0n the Malaysian Insider blog today. PKR may count itself lucky to be singled out among Pakatan parties, or for that matter all other parties for criticism; it challenges PKR national leadership to conduct its own assessment of the truth or otherwise of the writer's assertion.
While one can fairly easily dispute Omar's contention, one may more critically question Keadilan if it has adequately and optimally harnessed available talent in the party. I think there are qualified people in numerous professional fields, business people and experienced NGOs among its membership nationwide, many of them, thuough second to Khalid Ibrahim's profile, have not emerged to the front at this stage of the struggle. Nor should all of them be in the frontline in future; it is however of critical importance for them to begin playing co-ordinated supportive roles to Pakatan/Keadilan legislators, even in the backrooms.
Even in the late- on- board East Malaysia, among its indigenous leadership there are a couple of PhDs., MBAs, lawyers and medical doctors, and numerous other graduates. A few newly retired civil servants of profile may also be in the pipeline. These would be readily overwhelmed by highly qualified professionals among the membership in Peninsular Malaysia, though some more would be undoubtedly welcome.
It has to be appreciated that many young professionals with high "market worth" would hardly think it a wise choice career-wise to join a movement which in its heydays was lambasted by some for its determined presence on the streets. To most of the middle and upper middle class,an association with the "Reformasi " mould was just not "in". Even if they did come in, professionals may not generally be the ones most effective in mobilising the masses in the all important electoral battles past, present and to come.
Going forward it may be time for the party to start co-ordinating its intellectual base and harnessing their full potential for the better governance of future federal and state governments.
And here it is for management consultants, such as Muaz, to contribute. Correct me, if with my meagre experience in human resource management, if I were to recommend the following basic measures to the party for a start:
1. Start a HR electronic databank for the party, separate registers for Diploma, degree, masters and PhD; electronic sorting by public-sector or business and industry experience or both should be possible, among other characteristics ;
2. An HRM national team of the party to identify key people for designated public policy areas;
3. Assigning public policy teams to State Excos, related shadow cabinet, and other state and federal YBs;
4. Public policy ad-hoc briefings, seminars, work camps for shadow cabinet and Pakatan legislators (could BN legislators be invited too?);
5. Public forums on public policy for confidence building by Pakatan parties
A voluntary contribution from Muaz and others would be undoubtedly welcome by the party.
Francis Ngu,
MBBS (Mal.), MHP(UNSW)
While one can fairly easily dispute Omar's contention, one may more critically question Keadilan if it has adequately and optimally harnessed available talent in the party. I think there are qualified people in numerous professional fields, business people and experienced NGOs among its membership nationwide, many of them, thuough second to Khalid Ibrahim's profile, have not emerged to the front at this stage of the struggle. Nor should all of them be in the frontline in future; it is however of critical importance for them to begin playing co-ordinated supportive roles to Pakatan/Keadilan legislators, even in the backrooms.
Even in the late- on- board East Malaysia, among its indigenous leadership there are a couple of PhDs., MBAs, lawyers and medical doctors, and numerous other graduates. A few newly retired civil servants of profile may also be in the pipeline. These would be readily overwhelmed by highly qualified professionals among the membership in Peninsular Malaysia, though some more would be undoubtedly welcome.
It has to be appreciated that many young professionals with high "market worth" would hardly think it a wise choice career-wise to join a movement which in its heydays was lambasted by some for its determined presence on the streets. To most of the middle and upper middle class,an association with the "Reformasi " mould was just not "in". Even if they did come in, professionals may not generally be the ones most effective in mobilising the masses in the all important electoral battles past, present and to come.
Going forward it may be time for the party to start co-ordinating its intellectual base and harnessing their full potential for the better governance of future federal and state governments.
And here it is for management consultants, such as Muaz, to contribute. Correct me, if with my meagre experience in human resource management, if I were to recommend the following basic measures to the party for a start:
1. Start a HR electronic databank for the party, separate registers for Diploma, degree, masters and PhD; electronic sorting by public-sector or business and industry experience or both should be possible, among other characteristics ;
2. An HRM national team of the party to identify key people for designated public policy areas;
3. Assigning public policy teams to State Excos, related shadow cabinet, and other state and federal YBs;
4. Public policy ad-hoc briefings, seminars, work camps for shadow cabinet and Pakatan legislators (could BN legislators be invited too?);
5. Public forums on public policy for confidence building by Pakatan parties
A voluntary contribution from Muaz and others would be undoubtedly welcome by the party.
Francis Ngu,
MBBS (Mal.), MHP(UNSW)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
