|
home Speechs in the year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 --> |
Oleh/By : DATO SERI DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
Tarikh/Date : 11-06-2002
Tajuk/Title : THE 90TH SESSION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
Versi : ENGLISH
Penyampai : PM
"SOCIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBALISATION"
Globalisation is on everyone's mind nowadays.
This concept of a world without borders, of a global
nation in all but name, promises a future so changed
that the social, political and economic order of things
as we know them will be radically different and
probably threatening in many ways. Certainly it will
have a tremendous impact on the life that we lead as
workers and as employers, and also as Governments.
2. Not so very long ago, in the years following World
War II, the peoples of the world were busy dismantling
empires and creating new independent nations out of the
colonies of the Europeans. That was the time when
much value was placed on freedom; freedom that is, from
the imperialists, from being the colonies of other
nations. It was felt that the subjection of a people
by another people was unjust and shameful and it must
be ended as soon as possible. The subject people must
be free, be allowed self-rule, be independent. Uhuru,
Merdeka - these were the cry from the heart of the
"natives", the black, brown and yellow people who had
been colonised by the white people.
3. There was resistance, much resistance. The
imperial colonial powers fought hard to retain their
colonies. The subject people who rose to fight for
their freedom were labelled terrorists and were
attacked by the vastly superior forces of the
imperialists. Many were the so-called terrorists who
were incarcerated, usually without trial; many were
killed, were tortured even and executed.
4. But the cry for independence could not be silenced
and gradually but with growing momentum the freedom
fighters gained ground and liberated their countries.
More and more of the so-called terrorists became
respectable, became honourable freedom fighters, became
leaders of independent nations.
5. What was the meaning of independence then?
Independence meant freedom from interference in the
affairs of the newly-independent nations, freedom to
associate or be allied to any nation or power bloc,
freedom to accept and practise any system of
Government. Non-interference was the key-word. To
interfere with an independent country was to deny
independence for that country. The newly-independent
countries and their leaders gloried in their freedom.
This was what they had fought for, this was what many
of them died for and they were not going to let it be
diminished in any way.
6. But they were wrong. Their independence was not
full. It was President Soekarno of Indonesia who first
realised it. He called it "neo-colonialism", a form of
colonial rule that required no physical occupation of
the land. The economic weaknesses of all the newly-
independent countries forced them to submit to the
influence and even hegemony of the economically
powerful former colonial masters. The newly-independent
countries had to seek aid and to borrow from the rich
countries and these were not given without strings
attached.
7. Every day the strings became more numerous and
stronger. But still much lip-service was paid to non-
interference in the affairs of independent countries.
For the rich ex-colonial masters even this need for lip-
service was frustrating. A way had to be found to
dominate the former colonies more directly once again.
8. International agencies were used. Then came the
idea of the Non-Government Organisations. Governments
may not interfere but Non-Government Organisations are
not subject to this dictum. And so the NGOs moved in,
financing and setting up local counterparts which
effectively promoted the interest of the rich. The
NGOs gained legitimacy and power by citing corruption,
abuses of power, abuses of human rights, degradation of
the environment, logging, hydro-electric projects, gas
pipe lines, industrialisation, anything and everything,
so as to keep the Government of the independent
countries feeling guilty and submissive. No
Government, however well intentioned, can be free from
all that can be thought up as misdemeanours by the
NGOs. It was considered not unfair for the NGOs to
deny the poor people of a poor country cheap
electricity or jobs or water supply in the interest of
any one of their many so-called "causes". The poor
countries must preserve the environment and become a
"carbon sink" for the rich polluting nations of the
world at whatever cost to their own people.
9. But as if the independence of the new nations was
not eroded enough, the Governments of the powerful
countries invented reasons for moving in directly.
They claim that they have responsibility for the well-
being of all the people in the world, even if they are
citizens of other countries. All the people in the
world must be freed of their Government's corruption,
abuses of power, lack of transparency etc, their
independence notwithstanding. After the end of the
Cold War the freedom to choose forms of Governments was
removed and only one choice was allowed - Liberal
Democracy. That the removal of the freedom of choice
is against the very principle of democracy was ignored.
Be democratic or all the people and not just the
Government will be punished, deprived of food and
medicine, impoverished through economic actions.
10. Is it really concern for the well-being of the
poor oppressed people of these newly-independent former
colonies or is it frustration at not being able to get
at the wealth these countries have, not being able to
exploit the potentials these countries posses? It
would seem that the latter is more likely to be the
objective.
11. Democracy, transparency, the rule of law, freedom
from corruption and from cronyism are good in
themselves. But is it necessary to make the people
suffer, to impoverish whole countries for the sins of
their Governments. Is it necessary to destroy thriving
economies in order to bring about democracy, and all
the good things, that was supposed to accompany it?
What happens when these democracies fail to work, when
anarchy reigns instead; when they become so emasculated
that they have to depend completely on foreign help and
accept foreign directives for their domestic and
foreign policies?
12. Should the new (relatively speaking) independent
countries object to effectively losing their
independence? Battered by the NGO's, made to feel
guilty over their record on human rights and allegedly
incompetent administrations and obliged to the powerful
because of aid and their unrepayable debt, they were in
no position to reject globalisation or even question
it. And so all and everyone welcome globalisation
without knowing really what they were letting
themselves in for.
13. The first danger sign came when the currency
traders devalued the currencies of the Asian tigers.
Suddenly these so-called economic miracles were
impoverished and found themselves spluttering and
breathless as their countries collapsed economically.
The media and an assortment of international experts
and agencies told them that they had been naughty, that
their growth and economic miracles were all fiction,
that all the time they were mismanaging their economy,
stealing money from their treasuries, and feeding their
cronies. That the peoples of these countries had
obviously prospered, that physically and infrastructure
wise they had grown and developed, that they had
managed to industrialise their agro-based countries -
all these proved nothing, all these did not prove that
they were governing their countries well. If their
currencies were devalued and their economy and finances
were in shambles, it was all their fault. The currency
traders and the stock market investors were merely
pulling out in order to save their precious capital.
14. But even if some of these allegations were true,
it cannot be denied that the growth and development of
these countries were real. They are not free of
corruption of course but which country, developed or
developing is free from corruption? But the reality
was that corruption, lack of transparency, cronyism
were not the cause of the currency depreciation. What
caused the currencies to devalue was the speculation,
or more accurately the manipulation by the currency
traders. They did not need to have a single cent of a
country's currency in order to sell it. They are adept
at short selling. A few zeros more on the computer,
ownership transfers and they become richer by a few
hundred million dollars.
15. But were they concerned about the effect of
devaluing a currency? No. They admit now that they
saw only those figures on a computer screen. They did
not see, or if they saw, they casually blame Government
incompetence and indiscipline for the social misery
that their avaricious currency trading had caused. In
one country 20 million people lost their jobs almost
overnight. There were riots, shops were ransacked and
burnt, women raped and people killed. Governments fall
and anarchy sets in. And the international agencies
which were supposed to help merely saw an opportunity
to impose their rules for opening markets etc. instead
of bringing relief to the people. Loans were withheld
in order to gain compliance. And with compliance the
whole country and all its businesses and banks had to
be sold at fire-sales prices. If the loans cannot be
repaid then the country will become debt slaves,
indefinitely.
16. No more independence. Everything will be decided
by foreigners whose only interest is to open markets
and to collect repayments on their loans. No subsidies
for food or fuel for the poor people. No restrictions
on foreign ownership. No national agenda.
17. And so not only will there be poverty and
unemployment but also prolonged riots, instability and
finally anarchy. But not to worry. The country is
democratic, practises market economy and accepts
globalisation in toto.
18. Well, after all these should we in the developing
countries be convinced that globalisation is the remedy
for the social ills of the world? Frankly I have
doubts. What we are seeing is the erosion of the
independence of countries and their further
impoverishment. What we are seeing is the feverish
acquisition and mergers of the banks and corporations
in the powerful economies so as to become even more
powerful. Already most of the banks and corporations
are bigger than most of the developing nations of the
world. Despite frequent exhortation to establish level
playing fields it is obvious that they believe size is
the determining factor. Big is beautiful. Big
certainly guarantees success. But big corporations
being powerful must suffer from the corruption of
power. And we are already seeing this happening as
auditors are told to cheat or lose their contracts. In
a world dominated by the big corporations and banks
will there be social justice or will there be massive
corruption?
19. Globalisation is presently interpreted simply and
exclusively as the freedom of capital to go anywhere to
cross and recross borders at will. The poor countries
are told that the inflows of capital will be good for
them. There will be growth and jobs and more wealth
for everyone. But they are not told what would happen
when capital is pulled out, pulled out suddenly. They
will not know it until it happens. And then it would
be too late as they find themselves suddenly poor,
suddenly full of jobless people. But still the free
flow of capital is touted as the sole essence of
globalisation.
20. We need to look at this gift horse in the mouth.
What would happen if the giant banks and corporations
move into a country? How will the small domestic banks
and companies fare? Obviously they are not going to be
able to compete with the giant non-nationals. The
giants can afford to lose in the country as they will
be making profits elsewhere. The locals cannot afford
to lose, at least not year in and year out. They will
go bust or they will have to accept being acquired.
Either way they lose out, becoming at most a minority
shareholder but most probably selling out and living on
the proceeds. There won't be too many businesses they
can go into as most would be non-viable as other giants
pose threats to their survival. And so in the whole
world there will be a limited number of giants in each
business, an oligopolic situation which will not be
healthy. And everyone who wishes to work will have to
work for these giants, to be one of the hundreds of
thousands of the minions of these globe straddling
giants. Perhaps there will be one giant multinational
union to represent all the workers of the corporations
around the globe - but I doubt it. It would be too
powerful and too dangerous to be allowed.
21. We have heard of the Banana Republics. It is
ridiculous to suggest that banana growers could
manipulate Governments but when a Government depends so
much on one source of fund and of bribes, then Banana
Republics become entirely possible. What will happen
when foreign banks and corporations, each many times
bigger and richer than the host country, decide that
the Government is not doing the right thing by them.
The urge to exert pressure on the Government by foreign
giants would be irresistible. Of course these great
corporations and banks will not resort to bribery and
pressure but can we be certain? Either way the
independence of nations will become non-sustainable.
The foreign corporations will take over.
22. Governments, at least those of democratic
countries, are elected by the people and owe their
legitimacy to the support of the people. The people
through the constitution and the legal processes can
discipline them, can dismiss them even. But banks and
corporations are not so democratic nor will they owe
allegiance to the people of a country. They are not
elected by the people and they cannot be dismissed or
voted out. Only the people who hold shares in them can
remove the directors but we have seen how difficult
this is. Besides powerful shareholders who wield
strong influence over the Governments of their
countries of origin will protect them against actions
by locals.
23. The free market can certainly discipline
Governments but not necessarily for the good of the
people. The market players are the most likely to
benefit when markets discipline Governments, probably
at the expense of the people. The main concern of the
free marketers will be profits for themselves, not
social justice. Paradoxically they will claim that
social justice is the concern of Governments,
Governments which they have emasculated.
24. After all that I have said I am sure you will
conclude that I am against globalisation. But I am
not. Globalistion is a great idea. Correctly
interpreted it can be a means of correcting the
inequities in human society worldwide.
25. Today some countries are filthy rich and some are
church-mouse poor. One sixth of the world's population
is living from hand to mouth, unsure of having food on
their table the next day. A substantial number earn 1
U.S. Dollar a day. Yet there are countries with per
capita income of 30,000 U.S. Dollar or 82 U.S. Dollar
a day.
26. Why is this so? Why is there such disparity in
incomes? In most countries those who make money in
business or through wages are required to give back
some through taxes. Yet the MNCs who make huge profits
operating throughout the world and are going to make
even more with globalisation contribute nothing to
alleviate the poverty of the world's poor. Yes they do
sometimes pay taxes to the countries in which they
operate, although many don't. But what about the very
poor in the poor countries where the MNCs have no
business? If in a country the poor gets some share of
Government revenue irrespective of which part of the
country they live in, why cannot the poor in the poor
countries unattractive to business be also given some
benefit?
27. Yes, aid and loan have been given but we have seen
how ineffective these have been. If on the other hand
the rich countries by universal convention were to
allocate a fraction of their revenue to actually build
needed infrastructure in the poor countries, then much
will accrue to the poor people, the workers, the small
contractors of these countries.
28. Experience have shown when infrastructure
constructions are undertaken no matter by whom, jobs
and contracts are generated for the locals and foreign
funds would flow in to enrich the country. In addition
the building of infrastructure serves as a catalyst for
development. All along the roads and railway lines,
near ports and airports, new settlements and towns and
businesses will grow. Electric power plants and water
supply projects also built by infrastructure funds will
provide basic necessities.
29. Globalisation would then be more meaningful for a
greater number of people. In addition globalisation
should be regulated so as to prevent monopolies,
oligopolies and the exploitation of the poor by the
rich. Rules and regulations are not incompatible with
globalisation as long as they are designed with the
protection of the poor countries from unscrupulous
manipulations by those with capital and influence.
30. Most importantly the globalised world must not be
for the capitalists only. The social needs of the
citizens and the workers in the poor countries must be
given equal consideration. Not only must the people be
fairly compensated but their pride must not be injured.
31. Globalisation must be for all. Capitalists,
workers and Government must benefit from globalisation.
If capital is to be allowed to cross borders freely
then workers too should be allowed to do the same. If
this cannot be accepted then free capital flows cannot
be accepted as well. If free flows of workers have to
be regulated in a world without borders, a globalised
world, then capital flows must be regulated also.
32. Globalisation must be planned and planned
carefully. The planning must involve everyone from
every part of the globe. It must be for the good of
everyone and it must be proven to be good for everyone.
It must be implemented slowly, with the biggest effort
directed at benefiting the least developed parts of the
world. Globalisation should not be about business only
but it should be about the well being of everyone in
human society worldwide. Then and then only will
globalisation be meaningful to the world at large.
Sumber : Pejabat Perdana Menteri
|