Oleh/By : DATO SERI DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : SHANGHAI, CHINA
Tarikh/Date : 20-10-2001
Tajuk/Title : APEC CEO SUMMIT 2001 -
NEW CENTURY,
NEW ECONOMY: DEVELOPING IN
THE GLOBALISING WORLD
Versi : ENGLISH
Penyampai : PM
"GLOBALISATION WITH COMMON DEVELOPMENT"
There is no doubt that one of the great men of the
twentieth century was Deng Xsiao Ping, the father of
China's Four Modernisations. There is also no doubt
that two of his wise sayings should be in the forefront
of our mind when we talk about the great public issues
of our time, indeed when we talk of the great issues of
any time. They are an indispensable aid to analysis
and an invaluable guide to action. They are very
useful whether you are running a trade union, a
multinational corporation or a country.
Mr Deng Xsiao Ping said: deduce truth from facts.
2. In other words, do not deduce truth from our
hopes, however noble. Do not deduce truth from our
expectations, however certain. Do not deduce truth
from the conventional wisdoms of the day, however
widely-held. Do not deduce truth from the edicts of
theologians, however exalted. Do not deduce truth from
the simple ideology of the ideologues, however
persuasive. Deduce truth from facts.
Mr Deng Xsiao Ping also said: it does not matter
whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches
mice.
3. In simple words, we must be pragmatic. This does
not mean that the end justifies the means. But it does
mean that we must be focused on results, on the true
objectives that our societies must achieve. We must
not be overly enchanted and loyal to the means that we
have devised so much so that we forget the objectives.
There is little virtue in pursuing the seemingly
virtuous means if the results are perverse. We must be
very fast on our feet, able to quickly adjust to
changing circumstances. No single shoe can fit every
foot. We must do what works for us. And when they no
longer work for us, we must go to other strategies,
policies and measures -- quickly.
4. I stress the importance of the principle of
deducing truth from facts because when we come to the
subject of "globalisation" today, the world faces a
massive "truth deficit". There is simply too little
fact and too much self-serving fiction. There are too
many who are prepared to tell lies and to bend the
truth to push through their sacred cause.
5. I stress the need for pragmatism because when we
come to globalisation today, there is much too much
ideology. There is too little common sense and
straight thinking. The "pragmatism shortfall" is as
profound as the "truth deficit". Whether we are
Americans or Armenians, Swedes or Somalis, in or out of
Government, we all need less "group-think" and more
independent thinking. And we must make sure that we
are not being led by the nose, by well-meaning and not
so well-meaning missionaries, some of whom have
obviously gone through some of the world's best bible
schools.
6. This is why I must congratulate the organisers for
choosing the subject of my speech: "Globalisation with
Common Development".
7. Apparently, the organisers do not think that
globalisation (as it is being promoted, practised and
pressed today) is working hard enough for our common
good, for our common development. Not so long ago,
this attitude would have constituted an impertinence,
on the part of unrepentant, stubborn, ignorant
recalcitrants who simply will not see the sacred
truths.
8. The sacred truth that every globalisation
ideologue knew not so long ago was that globalisation
is always good -- always good for every one, at all
times, in every way. This is so contrary to the facts
as they have been experienced by the many countries of
East Asia, Africa and Latin America.
9. At the Davos World Economic Forum in February
1999, in the very heart of the heartland of today's
globalisation ideology, Nelson Mandela asked the
question: "Is globalisation only to benefit the
powerful and the financiers, speculators, investors and
traders? Does it offer nothing to men and women and
children ravaged by the violence of poverty?"
10. Let me quote Mr. Mike Moore, Director General of
the World Trade Organisation. In November last year,
the Economist, a committed ideologue on globalisation
quoted Mr. Moore as saying: "Sometimes I feel like
joining the kids outside. When they say the system's
unfair, they're not always wrong."
11. Not too long ago, the message from the principal
pulpits of capitalism and the free market, including
the WTO, was clear: there can only be winners. Just
endure the pain a little longer. And a little longer
and a little longer, and the gain must surely come. It
is now clear beyond any doubt that in the process of
globalisation, as it is now promoted, practised and
pressed on us, there are big winners and big losers and
the basic pattern of winners and losers is unchanging -
and unfair; for the winners are invariably the rich
countries and the losers the poor ones.
12. Among the sensible and responsible thinkers who
have a broad as opposed to a narrow perspective, there
is now a new global consensus that if globalisation is
to be sustainable, there must be many more winners and
many fewer losers, and they should both be a mixture of
the rich and the poor. There is a new emerging global
consensus that the winners must not win to an obscene
extent and the losers must not lose to an equally
obscene extent.
13. The title of my speech, given to me by the
somewhat agnostic organisers, suggests that we must
promote, practise and press an enlightened form of
globalisation that is caring and productive for all, an
enlightened globalisation that will ensure the common
development of all; the common development of all not
only across the world but also within our individual
countries.
14. If we leave too many of the disempowered and the
disadvantaged behind, globalisation cannot hold. It
cannot even be defended. It will become, as it has
already become in many circles, a swear word. Like so
many other great ideas, it too will end up in the
dustbin of history.
15. So far, there is no doubt who are the biggest
winners in the game of globalisation: the very rich and
the very empowered (and therefore the very immediately
competitive). There is also absolutely no doubt about
who are the biggest losers: the very poor and the very
disempowered (those who haven't a ghost of a chance of
competing right now with the best, the brightest, the
most powerful, the most endowed in the world).
16. The very rich today are called "HNWIs", high net
worth individuals.
17. Merril Lynch and CAP Gemini Ernst & Young have
issued, for several years now, a study they call "The
World Wealth Report". This year's World Wealth Report
2001, released in June, states that there were 7.2
million high net worth individuals last year, high net
worth individuals being defined as people with
investable assets of at least US$1 million, not
counting real estate. These are people who have US$1
million or more that they can quickly put into stocks
and shares, hedge funds, currency speculation, bonds
and other financial instruments. It does not refer to
the many more people who are less rich, who have
incomes or assets above US$1 million.
18. Let me make it perfectly clear. I have nothing
against rich people, against very rich people or
against people who used to be called "the filthy rich".
I hope that there are many in this audience who fall
into one of these categories. I hope that those of us
who are now not rich will one day be rich. I hope that
those who are only rich today will be even richer in
the days ahead. Mr. Deng Xsiao Ping was right in
stressing the virtue of legitimately making a profit.
Making money - without making misery - is indeed
virtuous.
19. But you might be interested to know that since
1986, the combined wealth of the world's high net worth
individuals have shot up three-fold, by more than 375
per cent.
20. In a "good" year like 1999, the total investable
funds of the high net worth individuals identified by
Merril Lynch and CAP Gemini Ernst & Young grew by 18
per cent. Their investable wealth grew by US$4,000
billion. In other words, their additional wealth rose
by four times the total GDP of China in 1999. In other
words, the investable funds of these 7 million high net
worth individuals grew by four times the good and
service produced by 1.2 billion Chinese in China in
1999.
21. In a relatively "bad" 2000, when equity markets
worldwide were subjected to high volatility, the
world's high net worth individuals increased their
additional investable wealth by only US$1,580 billion,
an increase of only six percent over the previous year.
This might seem to be somewhat modest. Almost a paltry
amount, in comparative terms, one might say, except
that US$1,580 billion is almost three and a half times
the total 2000 GDP of India, which has more than 1,000
million people.
22. After the events of September 11, I do not know
whether global capital will be able to flow so freely
across the globe, without national constraints or
boundary obstacles. But on the assumption of present
levels of globalisation of world financial markets, The
World Wealth Report 2001 forecasts that over the next
five years the world's high net worth individuals will
achieve an annual 8 per cent growth in their investable
wealth. The extra wealth they are forecast to
accumulate will bring the amount that they can put into
stock markets, hedge funds, currency speculation, bonds
and other financial instruments to US$39,000 billion in
2005.
23. God only knows how much their total assets are
worth. God only knows how much they can borrow. But
last year, the 7 milllion rich people in the world had
in their hands capital to invest amounting to 2.7 times
the total goods and services produced by the almost 280
milllion citizens of the United States. If The World
Wealth Report 2001 is correct in its predictions, by
2005 the amount that the world's high net worth
individuals have for quickly investing in stocks, in
the world's 6,000 hedge funds (which can in addition
borrow massive amounts), in currency speculation, in
bonds and other financial activities will be equivalent
to 4 times the present GDP of the United States, 36
times the present GDP of China and 82 times the present
GDP of India.
24. Imagine the enormous economic power of these high
net worth individuals on national governments and on
the international financial system. They are the
biggest beneficiaries of globalisation, with the
biggest vested interests in the freest flow and the
fullest free play of global capital. If I had a
billion US dollars, I suspect I too would be very
committed to a fully globalised world without any
barriers and without any constraints on what I can do
with my money and how I can make even more money.
25. Add to this the second biggest beneficiaries of
globalisation as it is promoted, practised and pressed
today: the global corporations who maximally seek
global dominance, who minimally seek the greatest
profitability and the maximisation of what they call
"shareholder value".
26. I will say little about the multinational
corporations, which we are all struggling to attract to
our economies. It is sufficient to note that of the
largest 100 economic entities in the world, 51 are
global corporations and 49 are countries. The combined
sales of the world's top 200 corporations exceed the
combined GDPs of 182 of the world's nation states.
(Incidentally, they employ a total of only 18.8 million
people, less than three-fourths of one percent of the
world's workers).
27. Given the mountain of money and the power that
comes out of the almighty dollar, is it any surprise
that global capitalism is in charge of "the Washington
Consensus", of the IMF, of the World Bank, of the WTO,
of the wealthiest and most powerful nations of the
world? Is it any surprise that global capitalism is in
charge of the evolution of globalisation as it is today
promoted, practised, and promoted? And can it be any
surprise that what we have seen are forms of
globalisation that work very hard for the very rich,
that don't work very hard for the interests of the poor
and the very poor, that work without any commitment or
enthusiasm for the common development of the global
community of mankind?
28. All thinkers of sense and sensibility must know
that the present situation cannot stand. The world
will simply no longer stand for it. But how do we get
better results for all?
29. I am afraid I see very little hope for an
effective global coalition that can work effectively
for a more productive, compassionate and caring
globalisation. There is very little hope for a global
concert working for the enlightened globalisation that
will, if I can paraphrase Nelson Mandela, offer much
"to men and women and children ravaged by the violence
of poverty."
30. We live in a world where the power of persuasion
has too small a punch and where the persuasion of power
packs too big a wallop. The rich and the powerful are
in full command. They will concede what they must to
get what they want. But they will yield little ground.
Too many believe that utter selfishness is a virtue,
that greed is great, that enlightened caring and
compassion is a weakness, that selflessness and
sacrifice for the common good is a mental illness.
31. Obviously, we have a much better chance of
evolving a more productive globalisation if Asia can
unite and if we in Asia can set the example of the
productive, caring and compassionate globalisation that
I have talked about. We must work hard to establish an
Asian Monetary System. We must work towards a stable
Asian currency. We must cast off the traditional
mindframe of "beggar thy neighbour" and put securely in
its place the ethic of "prosper thy neighbour".
32. If our friends elsewhere are not willing to help,
they should not seek to hinder. If they cannot be part
of the solution, they should get out of the way and not
be part of the problem.
33. Let me end by stressing a most obvious reality:
the progress that we need in the years ahead can only
come from national action and individual initiative.
34. We did not fight to be free in order to learn to
kowtow. We have a right, indeed we have a duty to work
for the benefit of our people and our future.
35. We must welcome advice. We must not tolerate
dictation.
36. We must seek truth from facts. We must do what
works and abandon what no longer does.
37. It is true that if you open the window, to let in
the fresh air, some flies will enter. We should leave
the windows open.
38. But if we open the window to let in the fresh air
and packs of tigers and bears enter, perhaps we should
open the windows on the second floor and keep those on
the ground floor securely closed. We should do this
even in the face of the most seductive assurances of
the bears and tigers. We should do this even in the
face of the strongest opposition from the bears and
tigers.
39. We must be prepared to quickly say yes to certain
forms of globalisation. And we must be prepared to
say, NO, NO and NO when we must say NO, NO and NO,
guided always by the dictates of pragmatism.
40. We in East Asia have benefited a great deal from
some aspects of globalisation and also suffered a great
deal from some aspects of globalisation (as it is
promoted, practised and pressed upon us today). We
must each work hard to improve the equation of costs
and benefits.
41. As societies, we know that education and knowledge
are essential for competitiveness in a globalising
world. We must make sure that we make the necessary
investment in the most important resource of our
nations: our people.
42. And in the final analysis, we must make sure our
people understand that the helping hand that every
human being needs is the one at the end of his own
right arm. God helps those who help themselves.
43. This was so before the age of globalisation. It
is so today. It will always be so in the days ahead.
44. May we all have the wisdom to find the facts and
to discover the truths. May we all have the strength
and the courage to do what is productive and good for
our people and for the global community of mankind.
Sumber : Pejabat Perdana Menteri
|
|