夏伟文 & 陈薛卉 (1 Aug 2016)
Milton
Friedman, an Economic Nobel Prize winner believed that the problem is this
world is concentration of power under a big government. Malaysia government’s
heavily involves (mostly indirectly through agencies or politically linked
figure) in ownership and/or control of major businesses. Huge public sector and
heavily regulated mass media, social media and freedom of speech through
variety of acts enable concentration of power to Malaysia ruling government.
Use (or misused) of Official Secret Act top up the possibility of conflict of
interest between public welfare and personal benefit.
Government in business
Table
2 shows that Malaysia government (through government-linked agencies) owned
more than 50% of shares in seven out of top 10 largest capitalization companies
listed in Bursa Malaysia. Public Bank, Maxis and Digi are the exceptions. These
heavily government-related companies are like indirect state-owned-enterprises
(SOE) and they are against free market and free competition.
Heavily
government involvement in business together with heavy regulation through
various acts and big public sectors bring two negative consequences to politic,
economic and social system. First is this type of big government may threaten
separation of power between legislative, executive and juridical which violated
the Westminster parliamentary system and results in holistic inefficiency to
almost everything. Second, we may have a system which in government is in a
position to give large favour.
Table 2:
Government-linked ownership in Top 10 Listed Companies
Top 10 largest
|
Market
capitalization
(‘000)
|
Government-linked
holding (%)
|
Maybank
|
80,338,725
|
68.84
|
Tenaga
Nasional Berhad
|
79,010,554
|
62.56
|
Public
Bank
|
74,295,145
|
20.63
|
Petronas
Chemicals Group
|
51,520,000
|
83.66
|
Axiata
|
48,349,728
|
72.99
|
Sime
Darby
|
47,579,899
|
74.21
|
Maxis
|
43,484,394
|
21.28
|
Petronas
Gas
|
43,017,634
|
83.38
|
CIMB
|
37,534,100
|
59.31
|
Digi
|
36,387,000
|
27.10
|
[Data source
from Equitiestracker.com]
[Note: Only top
30 major shareholders are counted. Government-linked entities includes Employee
Provident Fund (EPF), Permodalan Nasional, Khazanah, Kumpulan Wang Persaraan,
FELDA, Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Lembaga Tabung Haji & Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Social]
According
to Friedman, it’s human nature to try to get this favour whether those people
are large enterprises, or whether they're small businesses like farmers, or
whether they're representatives of any other special group. The only way to
prevent that is to force them to engage in competition one with the other. To
have fair competition, government should not heavily owned businesses or
interfere unnecessarily.
Why
big government and big business co-exist may endanger fair competition? Friedman
believed that no business can get money from us unless we voluntarily pay it
off and think we are getting every dollar worth in return. In fair competition,
business can only earn your money if they can produce a product you think worth
buying. However, a business may indirectly get money from you by operating on
government to impose tariffs on foreign or domestic competitors’ products. Sound
familiar to the protected automobile industry? How about the way government
awarding operating licences and contracts? How about the government trying to impose
restrictive regulations or even ban competitors -- like possible request from
taxi drivers to government to ban Uber and GrabCar? Is there any benefit having
politically-linked figure in company’s directorship?
Some
historical lessons
Political interference
into business is against laissez faire system, which the government advocate
but not practice. As results, cronyism, nepotism and corruption became
omnipresent flavours in Malaysia’s political economics. Some historical lessons
we should not repeat.
(a) Anchor banks or political bank?
In mid-1999 post Asian
financial crisis, Daim Zainuddin (then Finance Minister) proposed merger of 58
financial institutions into six “anchor banks”, which later controversially expend
to ten. At that time, few big banks that their main shareholders were believed
to have close associate with Anwar Ibrahim (who was being sacked by Mahathir
around that time) were surprisingly not selected. If the selection of anchor
banks based on political alliances rather than performance and ability, how can
our banks be strong and efficient? Far Eastern Economic Review (5 July 2001) and
Professor Terence Gomez of Universiti Malaya also questioned the corporate and
public governance in Malaysia, particularly on these cases: Pos Malaysia sudden
privatization and sale to PhileoAllied Bank; shareholdings by politically
linked persons in banking sectors; fall-out between Mahathir and Daim that may
impact on decisions in banking reform; and the UMBC scandals. All those are the
past. Yet, are Malaysian economy now free from rent-seeking and cronyism?
(b)
Not enough check-and-balance since previously
until now
Professor Terence Gomez
is a hard critic of political interference and patronage in Malaysia business.
Among some issues he highlighted is then Prime Minister Mahathir
self-appointment to hold the portfolio of Finance Minister. This Mahathir’s
move has since become like a “tradition” where Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak
also holding the Finance Minister portfolio. With substantial government-linked
holdings in major companies in Malaysia, is there a healthy check-and-balance
to ensure fair competition and efficiency? Have we forgotten Operasi lalang and judiciary system
turmoil in 1987? If businesses in Malaysia remain in the power of private-and-non-political
entities, at least business and civil society still can give constructive pressure
to the government and act as healthy check-and-balance.
(c)
Failed privatization to be repeated?
Two of the objectives
of privatization policy in 1983 are
(a) to relieve the government’s financial burden by reducing the size and
presence of the public sector in the economy; and (b) to improve work
efficiency and productivity, thus facilitate economic growth. Continuously
heavy government ownership or indirect control in private business until
nowadays is a big slap to the privatization policy.
Malaysian
businesses should not operate based on “human-lead” basis like having a
political-linked figure as directorship or solely relying on the
entrepreneurship of its founder or a particular key-personal. The whole economy
should not be dominated by government’s investment and control. The healthy and
more sustainable way should be developing a system leadership, which is
efficient, strong, fair and free from (or minimize) personal conflict-of-interest and unnecessary
greed.
Human
versus System leadership
A
good leader can bring success to a team, a company or a country. However, this
leader is a human, which has its own weakness of greed when bestow upon power
and seduce by luxury. The human leader may be dampened by fear when facing
challenges and threat beyond his ability. This human leader is also a mortal
and will retired and die one day. The replacement may not be that good.
All
these will be different if the human leadership is replaced by system
leadership. Anyone follow European football can use Manchester United and
Barcelona as examples. Manchester United flourishes due to Sir Alex Ferguson’s
leadership. His retirement is greatly felt and hardly replaceable. During Sir
Alex’s tenure at Manchester United (1986 – 2013), Barcelona football team has 15
managers yet they still as strong as ever. This is a good example of human
leadership for Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) against system
leadership of Barcelona.
Conclusion
It
is good IF Malaysia has a Prime Minister of Alex Ferguson’s leadership ability
and enjoys the success like Manchester United. However, it is better to develop
a Barcelona’s system leadership for sustainable success. The utmost important
fundamental for a system leadership is strong and efficient. For economics
efficiency, Malaysia needs to create a system leadership based on (i) fair and
quality competition environment and (ii) small but efficient government. These
involves amending the affirmative policy, reducing the current size of public
sector, reducing government involvement in domestic businesses and abolishing
any unfair or suppressive laws and regulation. As for strength of the system, a
neo-legalism (fa jia) is proposed and shall be discussed in another article.
[Chinese version published at 南洋商报经济周刊 Nanyang Press – Business News, page A9 on 1st August 2016. Available online at www.enanyang.my/news/20160801/损企业竞争力-整体效率低下br-政府参商适得其反. This English version may be slightly different from the Chinese online/printed newspaper version]