Khairy can’t shed his neo-liberal self

Neoliberalism is the new colonisation

These days, neo-liberal is the often used term to generally condemn proponents of economic liberalisation policies.

They believe that the way to progress forward is unhindered free trade and open market, belief in economic efficiency through market economy, no government involvement in economy, absolutely no subsidy, no such thing as affirmative action or any form of socio-economic assistance, etc.

To understand all this, spell N E O – C O L O N I S A T I O N .

And it is unbridled capitalism without any sense of morality but the greed of owners of capital.

Reading The Star report today of Khairy’s latest infrequent public appearance, it seems Khairy had not learn anything during his sabatical from public life and ‘public office.’

Khairy: Govt must start planning to do away with subsidies

By JOSEPH KAOS Jr

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia must start planning to do away with subsidies, said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

Khairy, who is also Rembau MP, said the current subsidy system implemented by the Government was unsustainable and the funds spent could be better used.

"The Prime Minister has mentioned it very clearly when he unveiled the Budget, that the current subsidy system is not sustainable and cannot be continued.

"We could use the savings for education and to build schools, hospitals or universities.

"The system is also not progressive because rich people or big companies also get subsidies that are meant to help those who actually need it, particularly those from the lower income group," said Khairy at a press conference, after opening the International Conference of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP) youth consultation meeting here Friday.

"I urge the Government to conduct a thorough study on what kind of subsidy system can replace the current one. We cannot stop giving subsidies immediately, though, as it will be too sudden for the people. Hence, a proper study is needed," he said.

To reach people who actually needed subsidies, Khairy said the Government could use its database of lower income households gathered during the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) aid scheme.

"That would be a start. It may take one or two years to study, but we need to begin moving away from this system. Subsidies should only go to people who really need them," said Khairy.

Read on here. 

Good supporter The Malaysian Insiders gave him a good coverage here.

He still has not loss his leaning for neo-liberalism:

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. It supports the privatisation of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.

We’ve written criticisms of neo-liberals and neo-liberalism before and there is no need to repeat it again. [Search in this blog].

However, read this articles from www.corpwatch.org here on the Latin American experience to understand Khairy's leaning:

What is Neoliberalism?

A Brief Definition for Activists

by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. 

Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? 

The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. 

He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. 

Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. 

Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. 

He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. 

These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

• THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

• CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

• DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

• PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

• ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. 


It is raging all over Latin America. 

The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973.

Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. 

As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In red: Enough of Repression and Neoliberalism!

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. 

The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." 

The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs."

In the like of SUARAM's involvement with foreign espionage, republishing a civil rights activist's article from abroad may not be fashionable. What more quoting the millitant Subcomandante Marcos.

However, these people are not carrying the agenda of another colonial master but fighting the repression of neo-colonisation or re-colonisation

The important point is to realise Khairy's leaning.

Can we see how foreign friendly, 'open', and destabilising on the Government the thinking of Khairy's network of Gen Ys neo-liberal in the then Tingkat 4 of the Prime Minister's Department, Khazanah Nasional, Government Linked Companies, Ministers' and Menteri Besar's offices, Authorities, PLCs, Consulting Firms, NGOs, etc.?

And, there is not need to raise issues on corruption, power abuse, and cronyism.

At the same time, take note of recent Pakatan Rakyat's budget advocate privatising GLCs,  establish state level mini Petronas-es, cutting excise tax on car imports, etc.

Isn't Khairy's argument similar to their debate against Government's well contained debt if not to pressure the Government to remove subsidies, such as BR1M and KR1M?

Unlike BN's wide ranging programs for all rakyat, Pakatan's proposals on elevating people's living condition from consumer price rise was mere token and focused on certain segment of voters.

DAP and PKR's widespread developer friendly privatising programs and unraveling of social and affirmative program like Yayasan Selangor and no DEB remark after taking over Penang was stark clear in their direction.

We are quite aware that Khairy is tightening his grasp on the Ketua Pemuda position and contrary to what he has said before, he will still seek for re-election.

It does not matter that Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO Malaysia is seen as weak and the most unlikely word to describe the movement is vibrant. And it does not matter that Pemuda UMNO is not seen as a valuable asset to the party.

Khairy is going for re-election after the general election. But what is the point if he still has a colonised mind and pushing for a neo-liberal agenda. Isn’t he taking his agenda on the wrong platform?

The left and commies can claim themselves as independent fighter and first to call for independence. That is because they do not know history better.

Khairy must understand that UMNO is the party that unite the Malays to fight against formalised colonisation through Malayan Unions and later seek for Independent from British rule. 

After independent, UMNO led the country to turn it into a progressive, developed and independent sovereign state.

The concept of independent sovereign state was something the Sang Saka Malaya flag bearers do not understand and are lost in their this romanticism of PKMM, API, AWAS, Putera-AMCJA, MPAJA, Ibrahim Yaacob, Dr Burhanuddin Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, and Chin Peng,

Yes, UMNO was the British-preferred choice. If that is only way to be independent and sovereign, so be it. But, their gamble paid off. 

A Pakatan Rakyat member aspire to bring back and honour Chin Peng with Tunship 

Do the PKR, DAP and PAS not realised that their historical roots collude and succumbed to one colonial master after another, including the British's Malayan Union? Do not be surprised that there are among them aspiring to bring back the anti-royal murderous Chin Peng and award him with Tunship. 
  
In Malaysia, we are neither liberal nor conservative; neither socialist nor capitalist, and basically neither this ideology nor that ideology. We do things the unique Malaysian way that is best for Malaysia. 

Malaysia adopt public enterprise from the the West and Malaysia adopt 5-year plan from the Soviet Union. Tun Dr Mahathir looked east to Japan and Korea for values of a developed nation. Dato Najib see in Islam's moderate Wasatiyyah for nation building.

When there is no model to adopt, Malaysia develop it's own like NEP and Selective Currency Control policies. 

Please understand that, Khairy. Don't just copy but think!

As a nationalist party, UMNO placed the utmost consideration on patriotism. It means placing the interest of alif, ba, ta first before everything else, and ideology .... perhaps last.