Sunday, July 31, 2022

AiFM 《名師早點》- 6月其中一天 - 糖頂價調整?

 名師早點,多知一點。大家好,我是志翰,群議社政策研究員。今天要和大家談,調高糖的頂價這事宜。


首先,要知道糖是我國的管制品,在1961年供應控制法令下設有頂價。目前的批發和零售的白糖頂價分別是每公斤2令吉69仙和2令吉85仙。糖的批發價從2011年至今實際上僅微漲了每公斤1仙而已。自從2013年,政府也不再津貼糖價,但在2019年7月開始執行和征收含糖飲料稅每公升40仙。


那麼,應該調高糖價嗎?今年適合嗎?這要看你問誰。


若你問全國最大的糖廠MSM大馬控股有限公司,他們早在5月就向政府提出要求調高糖的頂價。該公司總裁就指出成本壓力是主因,這些壓力源自貨運、天然氣能源和貨幣兌換的趨勢。當然,他們是利益相關者,所以他們提出這樣的要求完全可以明白。


你問檳城消費者協會,他們要政府確保價錢調整幅度合理避免某方出現暴利,提醒政府千萬不可提出糖津貼,但可以考慮提高糖稅,鼓勵人民減少糖分的攝取。經濟學家姚金龙教授則擔憂糖價調高後引發的通貨膨脹效應。畢竟糖是一個基本食材,在飲食方面應用廣泛。根據大馬統計局的5月數據,飲食通膨已是個事實,接近93%的食品起價,比起去年同期平均漲幅達5.2%,是11年來的新高。姚教授也呼籲要擴張糖稅征收層面,除了為了公眾健康著想,還可增加政府稅收。


平民百姓會怎麼看?相信此刻沒有人會想在這個到處出現通澎,各種物價飆漲的時候,還要面對糖價上漲後觸發的新一波飲食價漲潮。糖廠說頂價調整不應造成很大的家庭財務負擔。我認為表面上或許如此,畢竟一般人每一天不可能攝入太多的糖分,而市面上售賣的食品的含糖量也有個限度,即使是比較甜的蛋糕糕餅糖果之類。


可是我們都知道現實會變成怎樣...飲食業和製造商都會趁機用這個藉口來調高價錢,即使他們也沒有真正顯著的糖成本壓力。


國內貿消部的價錢管制機制和政府(目前僅有的食用油和麵粉)的食品津貼,是目前這個非常時期相當重要的政府介入市場機制,協助B40低收入家庭度過通澎的經濟負擔和難關。財政部長扎夫魯才在不久前宣佈,若物價維持在今天的水平,預計我國政府將在今年注入510億令吉在各種物價津貼,這是歷史新高數目。


即使政府不再重新津貼糖價,在目前的經濟環境下若依舊允許糖價上漲,肯定會招致民怨,儘管這政策對糖廠製造商是多麼地合理。


因此我個人不讚同目前在這個時間點提出調高糖價是明智的政策,而我讚同有關調整和擴大糖稅的建議,並積極肯定2019年糖稅帶來公共健康的正面效果。糖稅本身短期內有效地把各種包裝飲料的含糖成分降低至免糖稅的水平。這或許才是政府應該要考慮的政策,而不是讓潘朵拉盒子打開,直接讓糖價上漲。後果不堪設想,請政府三思。


Wednesday, July 27, 2022

終結煙民,打造無菸世代

 筆者認為政府有必要為公共利益采取行動,當一個理性且負責任的政府,立法制定更完善的煙草產品及吸煙管制措施,方能多管齊下,抑制煙草公司持續創造新煙民,同時避免人民,尤其是新世代受到煙癮禍害一生。


【文/林志翰】

《煙草產品及吸煙管制法案》於二〇二二年七月中旬獲得內閣批準,準備提呈至本期國會。此法案最受矚目的是禁止向二〇〇七年以後出生者銷售香煙和電子煙產品,並且將煙草產品獨立於《一九八三年食品法令》(Akta Makanan 1983)以專法管制之。若此法案在國會闖關成功,我國將成為全球首個以專法管制煙草產品,並且執行「世代終結者」(Generational End Game,簡稱GEG)禁煙政策的國家。

目前,此法案全文尚未公佈,但衛生部長凱里(Khairy Jamaluddin)已經在多個場合透露相關的內容和方向。各個利益相關者亦針對此法案表態。大部分公眾誤解政府將全面推行禁煙政策。但是,GEG禁煙政策實際上將無損現有煙民權益和吸煙自由。其主要目標在於終結新煙民的根源,並且放眼於二〇四〇年達到少過5%煙民人口的目標。屆時,人民將免受煙癮所禍害,最終促使煙草業步入夕陽行業。

GEG禁煙政策不同於現有的十八歲禁煙政策。十八歲禁煙政策經常令民眾混淆,似乎只要年滿十八歲者吸煙即是合法且被接受的。GEG禁煙政策則與之不同,其視現有煙民為煙癮患者,並且同時禁止和避免新世代吸煙,一舉否定此行為。GEG禁煙政策作為一項軟著陸政策,政府一方面避免立刻禁止煙民吸煙,進而刺激黑市香煙流入市場,也給予煙癮患者戒菸的緩衝時間,以在年輕一代面前樹立榜樣。另一方面,政府希望通過此政策保護新世代,避免其染上煙癮,進而成為煙草公司的新顧客。在煙草公司眼中,這些年輕的煙民皆被視為「替代煙民」(replacement smoker),以接替因戒煙或病逝而流失的顧客群。

此外,研究表明香煙里含有的尼古丁極度容易上癮,其上癮程度不亞於可卡因和海洛因。煙癮患者亦深知其禍害,一旦染上煙癮就身不由己,抽煙與否的自由選擇權皆被煙癮所剝奪。根據兩份本地調查報告顯示,分別有89.5%90.3%的煙民也支持這項政策,以避免年輕一代步其後塵。

降低煙民人口是關鍵

紐西蘭是最早推行GEG禁煙政策的國家。依據該國衛生部推算,若無推動此政策,其全國吸煙率不可能在二〇四〇年前降至5%以下。而我國亦有類似的傾向,應該儘早推行此政策。這十年以來,我國的吸煙率只緩慢下降1.8%。二〇一九年估計仍有21.3%吸煙率,或等於四百八十八萬煙民。但是,這數字僅僅是低於一九八六年的21.5%吸煙率,但總的來說,我國只成功降低吸煙率,而非抑制煙民總人數上升。儘管數據顯示,有接近一半的煙民於過去一年嘗試戒煙。但是,二〇一八年僅有兩萬人前往登記衛生部的戒煙計劃。當中,成功戒煙者僅有大約四千五百人,即22%的成功率,其未來亦有可能煙癮復發。依據馬來亞大學於二〇一二年的研究顯示,80%的戒煙者在兩個月內復發。因此,單靠宣導和戒煙計劃,我國要在二〇二五年將吸煙率降低至15%幾乎是不可能的。

另一方面,根據我國二〇二一年的人口統計估算,十八歲以下的孩童有大約九百二十萬人。倘若當中仍有21.3%的煙民,不久的將來就有大約一百九十五萬位替代煙民。即使GEG禁煙政策百密必有一疏,仍不足以完全阻止這些孩童染上煙癮,政府也只需要面對少於數十倍的新煙民。因此,筆者認為,政府需要先斬斷或減少新煙民的來源,方能專注協助現有的煙民戒煙。同時,面對大幅度縮小的新煙民人口,走私煙草產品也會因需求降低而導致市場萎縮。所以,降低吸煙人口才是此政策的關鍵,亦突顯出其前瞻性思考與重要。

眾所周知,售賣煙草產品是一門好生意,煙草公司的財力雄厚,單是二〇二〇年就有大約四十二億五千萬令吉的稅前入賬。面對GEG禁煙政策,他們絕不會坐以待斃,並且嘗試以國家稅收及私煙問題等的論述抵抗之。然而,已有不少報告揭露,私煙是煙草公司嘗試侵占市場和慫恿年輕人試煙的策略。試想想,為何那些煙民吸食的私煙大多數都不是冒牌貨或仿製品,而是逃稅的原廠品呢?這些煙草公司怎麼會「走漏」自己的商品呢?

應提高吸煙門檻

此外,我國政府從煙草產品銷售中獲得的稅收僅二十七億五千萬令吉,治療吸煙相關疾病的公共醫療費用卻高達六十二億一千萬令吉。每年政府的稅收根本遠遠不足以支付煙民的公共醫療開銷,而數額不足之處卻需要以人民的納稅錢補貼。據估計,相關的醫療費用到了二〇三〇年會飆升至八十億令吉。除了醫療費用,吸煙也有其他負外部效應(negative externalities)。例如,煙民因早逝或生病,從而導致國家的生產力下降,並且連帶影響家庭收入,造成家庭成員的心理及社會等諸多問題。

而煙草產品也增加低收入家庭的經濟負擔,據統計,有50%至60%月入少於兩千令吉的低收入家庭,每天或每兩天購買一包(二十支)香煙。 如此一來,煙民的家庭每个月就得多付出250至500令吉的費用購買香煙。其所帶來的二手煙也是禍害之一。我國有31%和27.2%的人表示在家或辦公地點受到二手煙影響。至於電子煙,科學研究目前還未定論其傷害程度少於香煙,但其對人體確實有害。數據顯示,74%的電子煙民曾吸食香煙,40%則是香煙和電子煙雙煙民。誠然,電子煙已是煙草公司開拓新煙民的市場策略。電子煙讓不少年輕人趨之若鶩,也是最先讓他們對尼古丁上癮的入門產品,並且將之當成「更安全 」的香煙替代品。由此可見,立法管制電子煙將至關重要,有著治標和治本的意義。

當然,政府除了推行GEG禁煙政策,亦必須擴大禁煙區和提高香煙價格。這是世界衛生組織《菸草控制框架公約》(Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)所鑒定有效和值得鼓勵的公共政策,我國亦為簽署國之一。其中,提高香煙價格和繼續禁止零售散煙政策都或多或少幫助更多煙民 ,尤其是低收入者下定決心戒煙。有論者提出滑坡論,認為政府如今管制和禁止煙草產品,未來也會針對酒精、賭博及糖分施行管制措施。但是,其或許不明白理性政策必須立基於證據,每項個案也有其獨特之處。本次法案主要針對的是尼古丁上癮問題,不應把其他無關的物品混為一談。這些政策不應該被詮釋為政府侵害自由,相反地,這是政府有責任保護人民的安全和健康。因此,筆者認為政府有必要為公共利益采取行動,當一個理性且負責任的政府,立法制定更完善的煙草產品及吸煙管制措施,方能多管齊下,抑制煙草公司持續創造新煙民,同時避免人民,尤其是新世代受到煙癮禍害一生。

刊登于《當代評論》2022年7月26日
原文鏈接:http://contemporary-review.com.my/2022/07/26/1-466/


面向年轻人的无烟世代政策 (原文)

面向年轻人的无烟世代政策

烟草和吸烟管制法案已获内阁批准,准备在本期国会提呈议案寻求立法通过。这法案最受瞩目的是禁止向2007年以后出生的新世代销售香烟和电子烟产品,让他们成为无烟世代,但允许目前的烟民继续买烟吸烟。顾名思义,这项创新政策名为世代终结者(Generational End Game, GEG),早在2010就有学者率先提出这概念。去年12月纽西兰政府主张和落实GEG政策,以期在2025年达到无烟世代。

烟草和吸烟管制法案将独立于过去在1983食物法令下列明的烟草控制条例,也将涵盖过去没受到管制的电子烟。若成功通过,我国将成为全球首个有专案法律立法执行GEG的国家。即将提呈的法案全文至今还未公布,但具体内容和方向早已通过卫生部长凯里在多个场合透露和宣布了。

GEG政策其实无损现有烟民的权益和自由(他们仍可照常抽烟),这是绝大部分公众目前误解GEG政策所在,以为是无差别全面禁烟政策。这个误解可大了,这个政策主要针对未来年轻人不再成为烟民,断了未来新烟民根源,我国才能放眼在2040年达到少过5%烟民人口目标,进一步在未来让国民免于烟瘾烟害,让烟草业在我国逐渐步入夕阳行业。

这是禁烟政策的软着陆政策,一方面承认目前已是烟瘾受害者仍有继续抽烟的权利,因为要已上瘾的他们立刻停止抽烟非常困难,类似的政策在短期内会怂恿黑市香烟。另一方面政府需要释放讯息,通过法律和执法避免新一代染上烟瘾,成为烟草公司未来市场供应的长期顾客对象。这些新烟民也被视为替代烟民(replacement smoker)来顶替烟草公司因戒烟或病逝而流失的顾客群。不少研究已发现香烟里含有的尼古丁极度容易上瘾,程度上不亚于可卡因和海洛因。因此一旦染上了烟瘾就身不由己,抽烟或不抽烟的自由选择权被烟瘾剥夺了。而已是烟民的长辈们其实也明白烟瘾的健康祸害。根据两个本地调查报告,89.5%90.3%烟民也支持这项政策杜绝新一代步向后尘。

为何目前18岁以下禁烟政策或最低吸烟年龄限制,即使有必要,其实也会带来反效果鼓励一些人吸烟?因为这政策释放出好几个讯号:i) 年轻人还不能合法吸烟是因为他们还不足岁,足岁后吸烟是迈向成年人的自由象征。 ii) 过了一定年龄后吸烟合法,况且很多长辈也在吸烟,代表吸烟是非常正常且合理的生活行为选择。 iii) ‘阿当夏娃苹果诱惑效应 - 足岁后就应该跃跃一试。

GEG禁烟政策面向未来新一代,传达的讯息截然不同:i) 吸烟对健康的祸害是已知的事实,政府采取行动制定政策保护新生代,并获得各界绝大部分支持,ii) 吸烟不ok,连烟民都不希望新生代步他们后尘,iii) 目前仍被允许抽烟的长辈是受害者,他们因为上瘾了,即使要戒烟也需要时间,iv) 这政策也间接鼓励更多目前的烟民下定决心要戒烟,成为年轻一代的好榜样。

纽西兰是推行这政策的先驱,该国卫生部也做过推演分析,若没有GEG政策的协助,全国吸烟率,特别是毛里族的,不可能在2040年前达标降至5%人口以下。我国的抽烟人口亦是如此,十年只见缓慢下降率(仅1.8%),2019年估计仍有21.3%人口抽烟(或488万烟民人口)。但这吸烟率数字仅是1986年的底线21.5% ,换句话说,33年以后我国仅成功抑制烟民人口比率上升但不是烟民总数。尽管数据显示有接近一半的烟民过去一年尝试戒烟,但登记在卫生部的戒烟计划的人数在2018年仅有2万人。即使在专业协助下,真正能成功戒烟的仅有大约4500人或成功率22%,当中不排除这些人有可能在未来还会复发烟瘾。2012年马大研究显示,80%戒烟者在两个月内就复发了。所以,单靠宣导和戒烟计划,在没有GEG政策的推动下,我国要在2025年达至烟民人口比率15%的目标几乎不可能实现。

根据2021年我国人口统计估算,18岁以下的孩童有大约920万人。倘若以后当中仍有21.3%会吸烟,那么在不久的未来就有大约195万个替代烟民。即使GEG禁烟政策仍不足以阻止目前这些孩童吸烟染瘾,假设只有10%的疏漏,那么未来政府仅需要面对大约20万新烟民,而不是多出10倍的数目。

政府需要先断了或减少未来新烟民的持续来源,才更能专注协助目前的烟民戒烟;面对大幅度缩小的新烟民人口,所谓走私黑市烟草市场就会更小,因为届时需求已显著下降了。要知道,有需求才会有供应。所以,降低吸烟率是关键所在,这突显出GEG政策和其论述的前瞻性和重要性。

已有不少报告揭露,私烟是烟草公司尝试侵占市场,和怂恿年轻人试烟的策略。试想想,为何那些烟民抽的私烟其实不是冒牌货或仿制品,而是逃税的原厂货?这些烟草公司怎么会走漏自己的商品呢?到底谁能办到,有没有出现贪污和勾结?再说,在还没有GEG政策之前,关税局和执法单位的问题已存在,这方面确实还可再加强,但这不是不落实GEG政策的借口。倘若要确保能完全有效执法才可立法,那么岂不是不用立法了?试问哪项法律能符合那个高标准?

要知道烟草公司的财力雄厚,2020年通过售卖烟草产品就有大约42.5亿令吉的税前入账,他们绝不会坐以待毙。他们采取笼络策略让其他似是而非的声音出现在媒体或公共论述场合,比如说他们知道拗不过吸烟对健康影响,他们就突出走私活动造成的税收和经济影响、谈执法落实政策的难处、提出电子烟少伤害(或可协助戒烟)、烟民的自由选择权利、不要保姆或大兄长政府等论述。

就拿烟草产品对国家税收和经济的影响。确实,2020年我国政府从烟草产品销售中获得27.5亿令吉的税收,但卫生部统计同年因为治疗吸烟相关疾病的公共医疗费用就达62.1亿令吉。实际上,每年政府的税收远远不足以支付烟民的公共医疗开销,因此更多的人民纳税钱用来贴补吸烟带来的额外成本。医疗费用估计预算到了2030年会飙高至80亿令吉。

除了医疗费,吸烟有其他负外部性(negative externalities):因早逝或生病导致的经济生产力影响,对家庭收入的影响,痛失亲人的心理影响和家庭规划等的社会问题。别忘了二手烟也是一个祸害。31%27.2%人口声称在家或办公地点受到二手烟影响。此外,50-60%来自少于2000令吉低收入家庭的烟民每天或每两天需要花费购买一包(20支)香烟解决烟瘾,每个月就得多付出250500令吉的烟草花费,占据家庭收入的相当大比重。与其政府无差别发放援助金,如果这些吸烟钱可以省下来,对该家庭来说相当可观和有帮助。

至于电子烟是否真的带来少伤害,目前科学研究还未有定论,但可以确定的是电子烟依然对人体有害。电子烟可真能替代香烟或协助戒烟吗?数据显示,74%的电子烟民曾抽香烟,40%是目前的香烟和电子烟双烟民。由此可见,电子烟已是烟草公司开拓新烟民的市场策略,因为有相当多数的电子烟烟民不止没有成功放下吸烟习惯,反而还可能演变成双烟民。电子烟目前是最让年轻人趋之若鹜的潮流,是首先让他们对尼古丁上瘾的门槛烟品。同时烟草公司也要他们相信这是更安全的香烟替代品。可见管制电子烟对GEG禁烟政策有着治标和治本的重要性,不能让这些似是而非的论述正常化,导致更多年轻人因电子烟而尼古丁上瘾。

因此政府有必要为公共利益采取行动,让人民(特別是年轻人)远离烟草毒害,就如政府控制毒品、确保食品、药品和交通安全,而制定法律限制公害威胁。这些行为不应该被诠释为政府侵害自由,而是政府有责任保护人民的安全和健康。

当然,政府绝不能只有GEG政策。扩大禁烟区和提高香烟价格是世卫香烟控制框架公约FCTC(我国是签署国)里被鉴定有效和值得鼓励的公共政策。这或多或少帮助更多人戒烟,尤其是提高香烟价格和继续禁止零售散烟政策,让更多低收入家庭烟民被迫下定决心戒烟。

有者提出滑坡论,说管制和禁止了烟草产品,担心下一个会是酒精、赌博或糖分。他们或许不明白理性政策必须基于证据,每个个案有其独特之处和差异:不同的问题,使用方式和程度差别。而这次的法案要管制和未来逐步去除的化学物是尼古丁,任何分量的尼古丁都可让人上瘾。酒精可以同日而语吗?糖分存在于很多食品,也有健康摄取量,能禁止吗?因此各界应该专注于讨论烟草和吸烟管制法案,别让有心人分散注意力。

如今政府要立法制定更完善的烟草和吸烟管控措施多管齐下,避免未来年轻人受到烟瘾祸害,以及抑制烟草公司的销售策略制造新烟民,这才是关心公共利益、理性且负责任政府所为。

反跳槽法最新进展

短评意见传达给《你怎么说》节目(24/7)和AiFM的《名师早点》(25/7)



自從反跳槽法列入首相依斯邁沙比里和希盟領袖的諒解備忘錄,朝野政黨也成立了一個跨黨派的國會特委會來討論這個法案的細節和解決其中的爭議,我可以說,基本上朝野政黨應該有個意願和共識要支持這個法案。不然,如果朝野不作出努力,那麼下屆大選就會看到選民對選舉政治冷感,覺得投票沒有用因為有議員會跳槽不算數,這樣投票率就會被拉低了,哪個政黨即使勝選了組政府也不一定會穩定,公信力或也會被質疑。

要知道朝野政黨自上屆大選,經歷了眾多議員跳槽或換邊站,導致國家政治不穩定,政治人物不能專心施政和討論政策。朝野各自有贏家和輸家,跳槽文化最後對誰都沒有好處。最大的導火線就是喜來登政變,目前一些既得利益政黨和跳槽者要設立防火墻,確保新法令不會追溯他們的責任。其中他們要確保政黨依然保留協商組政府的空間和自由,所以政黨換聯盟陣營,議員們不算跳槽。這留下了伏筆給未來類似喜來登政變發生,比如說土團黨換聯盟,該黨籍議員們都可保住議席。但這個情況無可避免,因為在自由民主國家,政黨本來就應該有自主權決定聯盟對象。那些受牽涉的議員若不同意該黨做法而選擇留在原本的聯盟,新法案說這不算跳槽。這個我覺得合理、可以接受。

還有一些政治人物曾吃過被黨開除的苦頭,明白黨領袖坐大的政治文化生態,所以堅持被開除的議員不算跳槽。這次的修訂法案也反映了這點,妥協了反跳槽法案的嚴格力度和有效程度。為何說是妥協呢?因為這無形中讓有離心的議員選擇留在原本政黨繼續唱反調和作亂,迫使黨開除他,他就可以保留議員身份。這樣的政策其實也間接鼓勵類似的黨內政治亂象,對議員和原屬政黨的名聲雙雙都沒好處。但我明白這是目前的政治妥協以換取一些議員的支持,我ok。

通過反跳槽法案之前,確實需要先修改聯邦憲法,不然反跳槽法就極有可能會被司法挑戰違憲,特別是在結社自由這一方面。這已有先例了。同時也要修改憲法裡闡明議員辭職後不得在5年內重選的這個條文,不然沒有人要真正為原則而退黨重選來證明自己的民意和政治理念。

另外,至於修憲和反跳槽法案應不應該也顧及州議會的情況,我認為這是有必要的,要為州議會掃除反跳槽的法律障礙,但最好也留下一定的空間讓州能夠制定與聯邦稍微不同的反跳槽法,甚至同時允許罷免法的操作。

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

How to build economic resilience (part 2)


Policy matters. One is tempted to plan for the short-time for quick results but that could leave a huge hole in the future.

One example of a short-term measure is the police to allow early EPF withdrawals during the pandemic. This has a significant impact on the people’s economic resilience.

The statistics are shocking: about 6.1 million, or half of EPF members under the age of 55 now have less than RM10,000 in savings in their retirement funds.
 
Based on the trends analysis I shared in my last article, what must be done to achieve economic resilience?

One should not get too carried away by current problems such as high inflation and rising living costs. Policymakers are urged not to introduce knee-jerk policies which will cost the people and the country in the future.

One cannot afford be populist. One has to go back to the basics, which are actually not very economic centric.

Sustainable development and democratic participation

The government has a responsibility to manage our wealth prudently. We must have safeguards to prevent our money from being plundered for short-term gains.

These resources we are blessed with are shared among past, current and future generations.
They are not for the current generation to squander.

Extractive economy has to stop. Every tree has a value much greater than the current timber price.

The government has to consider social equity in development. The benefits of development projects have to be clearly demonstrated, more so for the affected communities.

“Leave no one behind” cannot be just a slogan. The government needs to adopt a more democratic  development model in which the locals have a say on what happens in their neighbourhood.

Fair and equitable social policies

Malaysian politics is divisive. People are differentiated by their skin colour and religion. 

It is definitely unsustainable and toxic for the multi-ethnic and multicultural social fabric.

It will also not help to persuade the Malaysian diaspora to return to contribute to the economy.

Can the old and new political parties rise to the challenge to promote diversity and social inclusion as the main narrative?

Right-wing politics is surely destabilising the fundamentals for economic resilience. It simply does not help to stem the brain drain.

Here I would recommend reading the Manifesto Rakyat chapter on Economic Justice, especially the article within by Dr Lee Hwok Aun on “a cohesive Malaysian society based on equality and fairness”.

About one-third of women stay out of the labour force once they reach 30-34, presumably to spend more time with the family.

If we could maximise women’s participation in the labour force to be on par with the men’s, we can expect to have 3.5 million more people contributing directly to the economy.

If the political parties are serious about wooing half of the voter base who are women, they should compete to come up with supportive and enabling policies to empower women to go to work, such as by setting up more affordable childcare centres.

Malaysia’s female labour force is among the lowest in the region at 55.5%. Perhaps we should learn from regional champion Vietnam (70%).

Progressive taxes, prudent investment

To build economic resilience for the changing demography, one has to invest in education, urban design and preventive healthcare. Preserve our natural resources. Build critical thinking and nurture creative minds. Promote a self-reliant and sustainable agriculture. Design supportive social protection programmes for social harmony.

The government has to reverse the debt-driven economy as it is unsustainable.

However, raising revenue for the government to do all this is a big challenge.

We should realise there is great wealth inequality in Malaysia and our taxation policy is not progressive enough to maximise the opportunities to collect significantly more revenue.

This has resulting in the government constantly looking for indirect tax income (such as consumption-based tax like GST) to expand the revenue base.

Even if we were to re-introduce the GST, one has to recognise that it is regressive in nature.

Though the tax can be better designed to make it more progressive, it may not be welcomed by the general population who are struggling with low wages and high living expenses.

However, a government that has public confidence and trust will be able to introduce higher taxes without incurring the resentment of the voters.

Our society has to change the “smaller government” narrative, and make democratic governance useful to solve the people’s daily life problems.

109th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 18 July 2022 

Wednesday, July 13, 2022

How to build economic resilience? (Original)

How to build economic resilience

Contemporary politics has a tendency to be short-termist and populist, narrative-setting is often aiming at the next general election (and gaining power) talking about mostly current issues.  However, many fundamental policy concerns cannot have a quick fix without understanding the complexity of the issues and the underlying causes. Patchwork, disjointed and inconsistent policies are not helpful instead it could have unintended consequences and create new issues.

Voters should expect and challenge the political parties to come up with long term policies focussing on next generations. Political parties should be competing based on policies and visions which could be the source of aspiration appealing to the voters. Why blame the voters for not turning up to vote if they have lost faith in party politics and they don’t see a point that would make any difference?

Talking about economic policy, surely politicians cannot avoid mentioning current affairs such as high inflation and household expenditure on food items like chicken and eggs. Few political parties are offering sound solutions and vision to build economic resilience for generations to come. These cannot be done without first understanding the trends and factors at play.

Economic resilience should mean a futureproof and sustainable development of the economy, where future generations are living in a healthy economic state which is productive, adaptive, reasonably self-reliant and satisfied, while economic resources could be still abundant and managed well. To showcase futureproof, one should at least look into the next generation, say by 2040 or 2050, or beyond.

We have to first recognise that the resources on this planet are finite. Keep emphasising on GDP growth is simply unsustainable. It is easy to jack up the current GDP, if the governments just want it for the short term gain and need: just extract more from nature and sell them, be it oil and gas, or chop down more trees in the forest for timber logging or cash crop plantation or the so-called development projects. These are some state governments’ favourite means for revenue generation. Besides, GDP also conceals the equity issue of economic benefits distributed to all layers of society (ie. wealth inequality), and the negative externalities some projects would bring.

If we are serious about building economic resilience, we need a non-extractive economic model. Tim Jackson’s ‘Prosperity without growth’ published 13 years ago is still largely relevant to advise the governments today about sustainable development.

However, there are still some useful components in the GDP from the 3 measurement approaches:

i) Value-added economic activities

ii) compensation of employees (the labour income component)

iii) Consumption and Investment

 

So, to build economic resilience, the government has to determine and ensure:

i) Labour force and participation rate, as well as productivity stay at reasonable level

ii) Retain best human resources and talents. Skills and knowledge are vital to value-added economic activities where innovation offers a premium

iii) Proper and prudent investment from public and private sectors, including how to manage resources


What are the basic assumptions and challenges from the current standpoints?

i) Changing demography

Falling birth rates and total fertility rates in Malaysia is a given fact, that means the country is on the path to an aging society. This would have a big impact on the labour force and social care.

By 2040, population age 65 and above would triple to that of 2010, at 14.5%; median age in population increases to 38.3 years old (12 years older than that of 2010); dependency ratio becomes 49.5 per 100 working population, that means almost 2 working adults have to take care of 1 dependent (child or senior citizen), physically and financially.

By then we might face the problems of Japan today: aging society means more resources for healthcare and social welfare as well as urban (re-)design. The burden of the shrinking working population is higher, given the dependency ratio. Without prudent planning to adapt to the new realities, there won’t be a happy and harmonious society.

 

ii) Abundance of our natural resources would be depleted by the rate of extractive economy today.

Simply put, what do we leave for future generations, if we kill most of the geese that lay eggs today? Some said it is a ‘resource curse’ for Malaysia but it doesn’t have to be that way - Look at how Norway manages their resources and invests for the future, even UAE has diversified their economy.

More often than not, when some governments talk about balancing economic development needs and environmental protection, they tend to overlook the importance of the environment for the local and wider affected communities, and do not consider the externalities such as health and social costs.

If public interest is not put in the heart of planning but just looking at what the developers want and can provide, there would produce many bad plannings that reduce the economic resilience and liveability of the local community. Does one still wonder why urbanisation is gaining pace in Malaysia and people are migrating to Klang Valley and major cities for living?

Even our abundance in natural resources and biodiversity has a limit for human greed in the extractive economy model. Some ecological damages done in the name of economic development today will have a huge price to pay in terms of climate change and natural disaster. Referring to the most recent Baling flood, forest land clearing for Musang King durian plantation just some years ago is alleged to be the main culprit. Now some Penangites and Kedahans do not even have tap water access, who pays for this?

Some economic activities such as land reclamation and highway construction projects in the states like Penang and Selangor would have equity issues too, the so-called gain in economic benefits is at the expense of fishermen, farmers and local residents. What would be the economic resilience for the local communities, if that means they lost their livelihood or job security, clean water and air and subsequently compromise their health and safety?

If we go on with the current rates of extractive economic activities for the short term gains today, this would be the recipe for more disasters in the foreseeable  future.

 

iii) Continuous brain drain of best local talents, unable to attract global talents and Malaysian diaspora to return

If politics and socioeconomics go business-as-usual, the current young and future generations of Malaysians might lose faith in the country, and decide to leave for greener pastures.

First, unequal opportunities, non-supportive and non-enabling environments for the career growth of some local talents. In the era of global movement of talent and capital, patriotism or loyalty to one’s country holds little currency, hardly being the deciding factor to hold back one’s ambition and aspiration for better life and personal fulfillment.

Why then unequal opportunities? This has to go back to the policies, or more aptly, the politics of race and religion. Just look at the academics in the public education institutions, can we blame someone who decided to leave due to the career ceiling determined by skin colour and political inclination?

Some opportunities simply do not exist here, due to limited or insufficient amount of skilled talents in Malaysia. The situation does not encourage some high value-added and innovative economic activities coming to or created in Malaysia.

If we do not address the issues of social equity and fairness at the overarching policy level and political narrative, if we do not stem the trends of the declining standards or failure in education systems at producing skilled and creative talents, if we do not take care of our environment and make the cities and country a better place to live - without the fear of man-made natural disaster backlashes, with good public infrastructure such as public transport and housing support - why do we think we can hold these talents in this country and expect them contributing to our economy?

In short, losing a significant number of human talents in the form of brain-drain is no-brainer to building economic resilience in Malaysia.

In addition, the current education policies seem focussing too much on tertiary education and academic credentials, while many economic activities actually need more skilled labour. There is a great mismatch here, quite some evidence, analysis reports and articles are out there to show this is right now the case in Malaysia, and so for the past decade. If our education system still does not put enough attention and emphasis on technical and soft skills training, this will continue to bite us.

In fact, this could be one principal reason why we are still reliant heavily on foreign labour. Paradoxically, some Malaysians are willing to do the same hard labour works in Singapore, but not happy to do this here in Malaysia. Why? The pay has been effectively suppressed by the foreign labour policy. Also, Malaysia has one of the lowest compensation of employees proportion in the GDP in the region, only 35.9% of the national GDP went to labour income in 2019, which is seriously low. Something is wrong with the capitalist system here in Malaysia, because even Singapore can do 5% better in GDP for the workers’ share.

***

Policy matters. One might be tempted to do things for short term needs, but could leave a huge hole for the future. One such example is the EPF withdrawal policy during the pandemic period, where the government seemed to indirectly encourage the persons in need to withdraw their hard earned savings from their EPF account, this action has a significant impact on their own economic resilience. The statistics are shocking: about half of EPF members under the age of 55 (6.1 million) now had less than RM10,000 in savings in their retirement funds, among them 2.6 million had even less than RM1,000! Great concern now is for the government to improve the social protection system.

So, based on the trends analysis I shared above, what could be the forward thinking and futureproof policies for economic resilience?

Given the lesson learnt in the case of EPF withdrawal, one should not get too carried away by the current problems such as high inflation rate, high living cost and household expenses. Policymakers are urged not to trigger any knee-jerk policy which adds on greater future cost.

In fact, the current economic issues are not unique to Malaysia but a global phenomenon due to several external factors resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the economic sanctions. However, the people in the street feel the pinch and pain, the political parties cannot ignore these voices and not talk about these issues. But to get it right for future long term policies, one cannot be populist. One has to go back to the basics which are actually not very economic centric.

 

i) Sustainable development and democratic participation

The governments the voters elected have the greater responsibility to manage our wealth properly and prudently. We need to have some safeguards to prevent the wealth being plundered for short term gains.

The governments have to be reminded that the natural resources are our assets as well as our future wealth we need to invest in and keep hold of. These resources which we are blessed to have, are shared between the past, current and future generations. We should make them work for us in the long term, and not squander them in the current generation. Extractive economy has to stop, and the planners have to carefully consider many future costs of extraction. Every tree especially in the ecological sensitive areas has a value much greater than just the current timber price.

The government has to consider social equity in development too, not hoodwinked by the developers' proposed huge potential economic benefit numbers which may not be realised. The benefits of the development project have to be clearly demonstrated passing down to the local people, more so for the affected communities.

‘Leave no one behind’ cannot be just a slogan. Thus, the government needs to adopt a more democratic community-based development model, where the locals have a say to determine what goes in their community.

 

ii)  Fair and equitable social policies & social-inclusive politics

The old politics are a divisive one - they differentiate people by skin colour and creed - they do that for their own self-political interest to retain or regain power. This kind of communal politics in Malaysia is well-trodden, it works time and time again. It does not need much policy research or thinking, politicians know just how to appeal and fan sentiments for their ‘own kind’.

It is definitely unsustainable and toxic for the social fabric of multiethnic and multicultural society like in Malaysia. The more social-destructive consequence is driving out those who feel unfairly discriminated against. This may leave some with a deep lasting impression. Whenever a Malaysian diaspora has a grudge on that perception, they will not return for a long stay contributing to the economy. No matter what amount of good food or beautiful sightseeing places they can get on their summer vacation when they are back home, this would not change their mind.

Can the current new and established political parties rise to the challenge and break the mould of racial and religious politics, promote diversity and social inclusion as the main narrative?

It may be true that the current prevalent social outlook and values among the majority average population have been increasingly tilted towards a more conservative political view. The right wing politics and their narratives are surely destabilising the fundamentals for economic resilience in terms of the concern on human talents. It simply does not help with stemming the brain-drain. Thus there is an urgent need to reverse the trends and build a more inclusive political narrative.

Here I would recommend reading the Manifesto Rakyat chapter on Economic Justice, especially the proposal coming from Dr. Lee Hwok Aun on ‘a cohesive Malaysian society based on equality and fairness’.

Besides that, if the country could harness and maximise the women’s participation in the labour force on par with the men’s counterpart, we should expect an addition of about 3.5 million women contributing directly to the economy. The current situation is, about one third of women stay out of the labour force once they step into the age group 30-34, mostly presumed due to family duty or responsibility. So, if the political parties are serious about wooing half of the voter base who are women, they should compete with supportive and enabling policies to empower women going back to the workplace, such as setting up more affordable childcare centres. This would mean significantly and resonate with many working women. Malaysia’s female participation rate of labour force is one of the lowest in the region in 2021 (55.5%), perhaps we should look up and learn from our regional champion Vietnam (70%).

iii) Increase government revenue by progressive taxes, invest in future and manage prudently

The government has to prepare for the long term future, which many political parties in the contemporary world seem to forget, because short-term populist policies seem always rewarding.

To build economic resilience for the changing demography, one has to think about investment in urban design of the cities, preventive health and future healthcare, preserving and managing the natural resources, building critical thinking, creative minds and skills in education, ensuring self-reliant and sustainable agriculture, as well as designing meaningful and supportive social protection programmes for social harmony.

The government has to reverse the debt-driven economy as this is unsustainable. However, raising revenue for the government so that they could have more financial power on social programme interventions and creating the impacts, is always a big challenge.

We should realise that the wealth inequality in Malaysia is not small, and our taxation policy is not progressive enough to maximise the opportunity to collect significantly more revenue. The global trend of red-sea competition driving down the corporate tax and neoliberal narrative in reducing government taxes especially the direct taxes such as income tax, these are not helpful. They also have become a populist stance, hurting the government revenue, resulting in the government constantly looking for indirect tax income (such as consumption-based tax like GST) to expand the revenue base. Even if re-introduce the GST, one has to recognise it is regressive in nature. Though the tax can still be designed better to make it more progressive, it is probably just one way to increase the tax revenue, and it may not be welcomed by the general population now who are still struggling with low wages and high living expenses.

However, if the government enjoys social trust and public confidence in managing the economy and social programmes, it is actually not uncommon in many countries to have higher taxation but also higher social solidarity and equality. It is not impossible, but for a start, our society has to reverse the ‘smaller government’ narrative, make democratic governance useful to address or solve people’s daily life problems. If the governments could be proven relevant in improving people’s lives, this builds the case for them needing more resources for social purposes and socioeconomic justice for all.


Lim Chee Han

19.7.2022


P/s: Received feedback from my good friend Shaua Fui, it is a good discussion. She asked if 'corruption' has been missing from the list of policy recommendations. She certainly has a good point, pointing at the elephant in the room. To me, corruption is definitely, always one of the top reform agendas on many fronts, surely that could reduce economic resilience of the country, especially the ordinary citizens and residents. 

Why? Corruption would only benefit the parties which are involved, and the bigger cases would exacerbate the wealth inequality of the country due to the benefits going to the well-connected capitalists (businessmen) and politicians at the top tier of power. They are usually somebody at the top 0.1% of the population. Those big development projects which went through corruption, would probably pass on more externality costs to the general public, it might compromise on quality, health and safety measures too. 

Similarly, tax evasion would also have the effect of reducing government revenue. While the general public would expect the wealthier class shouldering more financial responsibility for public expenses (as what we call 'progressive taxation'), instead they have actually more options for tax exemption and/or found other loopholes so that they can  avoid tax.

Shaua Fui also correctly pointed out about the prevalent narrative for the global economy, and the interconnectedness of the local economy, if our country can find our ways of doing or organising our economy better suited to the local needs and culture? I would agree with her that the kind of neoliberal values and beliefs which are based on the free market, free trade, more de-regulations and free flow of capital, labour and even data, are fundamentally flawed and may not be beneficial to our own people and country. Without recognising that global (corporate) economic power is unequal, neoliberal practices would make those global giant corporations even extract more wealth from the local population without the latter realising it. So, civil society has to play a part in safeguarding the national interest, not letting any government ‘sell’ us out to (big) corporations no matter local or MNC.

That's why I am annoyed by MITI always want to showoff FDI numbers if it is in favour, no one talk/scrutinise about what kind of FDIs are brought in, if these are good things for the local people. also, big global corporations when they come in, will reduce (not increase) the competition among our local companies (they may not survive), thus they could become more anti-competition, opposite to what the neoliberals preach for.



How to build economic resilience (part 1)

             

CONTEMPORARY politics has a tendency to be short-termist and populist, often aimed at gaining power in the next general election.

However, many fundamental policy concerns cannot have a quick fix without understanding the complexity of the issues. Patchwork, disjointed and inconsistent policies could have unintended consequences and create new issues.

Voters should challenge the political parties to come up with long-term policies focusing on the future.

One cannot blame the people, who have lost faith in politics, or not turning up to vote. 

Few political parties offer sound solutions to build economic resilience for generations to come. 

Economic resilience should mean sustainable development of the economy and future generations who are productive, adaptive, reasonably self-reliant and satisfied, while economic resources remain abundant and are well managed.

We have to recognise that the resources on this planet are finite. Continued emphasis on GDP growth is simply unsustainable.

Oil and gas and timber mining are some governments’ favourite means of revenue generation. 

Besides, GDP also conceals the equity issue of economic benefits distributed to all layers of society (i.e. wealth inequality), and the negative externalities some projects would bring.

If we are serious about building economic resilience, we need a non-extractive economic model.

Tim Jackson’s “Prosperity without growth” that was published 13 years ago is still relevant to advise the governments today about sustainable development.

However, there are still some useful components in the GDP from the three measurement approaches:

i) Value-added economic activities

ii) Compensation of employees (the labour income component)

iii) Consumption and investment

To build economic resilience, the government has to determine and ensure:

i) Labour force and participation rate, reasonable rates of productivity;

ii) Retain best human resources and talents; and

iii) Proper and prudent investment from public and private sectors, including how to manage resources.

What are the basic assumptions and challenges from the current standpoints?

i) Changing demography

Falling birth and fertility rates mean the country is becoming an ageing one. This will have a big impact on the labour force and social care.

By 2040, the number of people aged 65 and above will triple compared to in 2010; the median age will increase 14.5% to 38.3; and the dependency ratio to 49.5 per 100 working population, which means almost two working adults will have one dependent (child or senior citizen) to care for.

By then we could face the problems Japan faces today: an ageing society means a need for more resources for healthcare and social welfare as well as urban design.

The burden of the shrinking working population is higher, given the dependency ratio. Without prudent planning to adapt to the new realities, there won’t be a happy and harmonious society.

ii) Abundance of our natural resources would be depleted at today’s rate of extraction.

Simply put, what will we leave for future generations if we kill most of the geese that lay the eggs today?

Some said it is a “resource curse” for Malaysia but it doesn’t have to be that way. Look at how Norway manages its resources and invests for the future. Even the UAE has diversified its economy.

More often than not, when governments talk about balancing economic development needs and environmental protection, they tend to overlook the importance of the latter for the people and do not consider the externalities, such as health and social costs.

If developers’ interest are placed ahead of public interest, it will produce many bad plans that reduce economic resilience and liveability.

Is it a wonder that urbanisation is gaining pace in Malaysia and people are migrating to Klang Valley and major cities in search of a living?

Even our abundance of natural resources and biodiversity is no match for greed in the extractive economy model.

Ecological damage done in the name of economic development today will have a huge impact in terms of climate change and natural disasters.

Deforestation to make way for durian plantation has been blamed for causing the recent floods in Baling. 

Land reclamation and highway construction in Penang and Selangor would have equity issues too; the so-called gain in economic benefits is at the expense of fishermen, farmers and local residents.

What is economic resilience to the local communities if it means losing their livelihoods, health, and safety?

iii) Continuous brain-drain of best local talents, inability to to attract global talents
 
If the current state of politics and socio-economics persists, young and future generations of Malaysians could lose faith in the country and leave for greener pastures.

Career seekers are facing unequal opportunities and a non-supportive environment. In the era of global movement of talent and capital, patriotism or loyalty to one’s country holds little currency and takes a backseat to aspirations for a better life and personal fulfilment.

Why are there unequal opportunities? To answer that, we have to go back to the policies driven by the politics of race and religion.

Just look at the academics in the public education institutions; can we blame people for leaving when their career ceilings are determined by their skin colour and political leanings?

Some opportunities simply do not exist here due to the limited or insufficient number of skilled workers in Malaysia. The situation does not encourage high value-added and innovative economic activities in Malaysia.

If we do not address the issues of social equity and fairness at the overarching policy level; if we do not stem the trends of the declining standards or failure in education systems at producing skilled and creative talents; if we do not take care of our environment and the country a better place to live – without the fear of natural disaster backlashes, with good public infrastructure such as public transport and housing support; how do we expect to hold on to our talents and expect them to contribute to our economy?

In short, losing a significant number of human talents in the form of brain-drain is no-brainer to building economic resilience in Malaysia.

In addition, the current education policies seem to focus too much on tertiary education and academic credentials, while many economic activities actually need more skilled labour.

There is a great mismatch here, as manifested in some evidence, analysis reports and articles are out that indicate that this is the situation in Malaysia now, and so for the past decade.

If our education system still does not put enough attention and emphasis on technical and soft skills training, this will continue to bite us.

In fact, this could be one principal reason why we are still reliant heavily on foreign labour.

Paradoxically, some Malaysians are willing to do the same hard labour work in Singapore, but are not happy to do this here in Malaysia. Why? The pay has been effectively suppressed by the foreign labour policy.

Also, Malaysia has one of the lowest compensation of employees’ proportion in the GDP in the region, with only 35.9% of the national GDP went to labour income in 2019, which is seriously low.

Something is wrong with the capitalist system here in Malaysia, because even Singapore can do 5% better in GDP for the workers’ share.

In my next article, I will propose policy suggestions for building economic resilience in Malaysia, and deal with the issues discussed above. 

108th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 11 July 2022