Showing posts with label Andrew Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Work. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

EFN Asia 58, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 3

Continuation of notes made by Karthik Chandra during Conference 2014. The full 25-pages notes are posted in http://efnasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EFN-Asia-2014-Conference-Report.pdf
----------

Day 1, November 6, 2014

(Photo, from left: Ken Scholand, moderator; Andrew Work, Barun Mitra, Thitinan Pongsudhirak)


Case Study of Hong Kong in IPRI
Michael Wong & Andrew Work
Lion Rock Institute (LRI)

• Hong Kong enjoys a special status and unique advantages. HK has legacy property rights regime rooted in the British colonial system and adds to it the economic dynamism from the Chinese.

• HK was a member of the British Commonwealth till 1997 and many HK laws are rooted in British laws. HK copyright law is one of the first in the world. After becoming the SAR under China, HK has a new IPR regime.

• HK has a mini-Constitution, which mandates that HK has to separately protect property rights in HK. This regime means that property rights recognized in HK are not automatically protected in mainland China.

• HK is also a signatory to various (international?) regimes/understandings. A comparison of HK with other countries in the IPRI rankings (and its individual subcomponents’ ranking) shows that HK is favourably ranked against several other countries like Singapore.

• One of the few countries HK is not exporting IP to is mainland China. This is because of the unfavourable IPR regime. Current developments related to new laws, etc. to PR laws – “secondary creations” issue? Issue of property rights protection versus right to freedom of speech. If done well, these IPR regime reforms can help bring in more foreign investments into HK, in the field of intellectual property.

• We also have to take note of the current developments, the “Occupy HK” Movement. This is taking place in the backdrop of certain inherent advantages and opportunities in HK. There are also definite and large threats and risks for HK – if China is not happy with the HK Movement’s demands they might deny easy access to Chinese markets.

China & Property Rights
Prof. Michael Feng, Institute for Public Affairs, China

• The Chinese Property Rights issue:

* There are certain misconceptions about the ‘Chinese Miracle’ especially that it is based on no human rights or poor human rights (for workers/labourers). But this is simply not true: the Chinese growth story includes in itself a major improvement in working conditions for the workers/labourers themselves.
* At the same time we have to take note of the other side of this story. For instance, the former World Bank Vice-President who happens to be from China had said that there is no need for property rights in China. The justification being that ownership is separate from management and good or successful companies now have different owners and managers. But this is a false argument as it does not realize that even in the example given (i.e. about well-run successful companies), the ownership is completely clear and well defined. Hence the benefits to owners too are well defined.

• The current Prime Minister Le Keqiang is an economist and has taken a six-fronted approach to economics:
* No stimulus (later modified to micro stimulus)
* No bail out, Structural reforms
* Opening up, Development economics
* (…sixth approach??)

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

EFN Asia 54, On Hong Kong and China, free trade and CEPA

I am reposting an interview by the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia of Andrew Work (AW). Andrew is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Harbour Times (HT), the flagship of New Work Media. Before creating the HT, he was the Exec. Director of The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong for a few years. And before that, he was a co-founder and founding Exec. Director of The Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first free market think tank, born in 2004.


Andrew holding a copy of the HT, thanks to Olaf K. for this photo. Andrew is a friend since 2004. Met him first time in Michigan for the Mackinac Leadership Conference, then at the Atlas Liberty Forum in Chicago, then in several meetings in Washington DC, then at the EFN Asia conference in Hong Kong, October 2004.

Here’s the interview. I omitted the first Q&A.
-----------

EFN: World War II put an end to the opium trade. How did that affect Hong Kong?

AW: At that point Hong Kong had already established itself as an important Asian trade center and the people of Hong Kong, their jobs, incomes and prosperity very much depended on the flow of goods through the harbour. And this meant that Hong Kong’s DNA remained free of policies that, for example, aim to protect local industries from foreign competition through taxation. Hong Kong was always wide-open for trade, only few goods were subject to import duties. And in some cases abolishing such import duties has even proved beneficial.

EFN: For example?

AW: Well, a recent example would be the de facto elimination in 2008 of the import duty on wine. The duty was actually not abolished, but reduced from 60% to 0%. This has had a tremendous effect: Within only one year the total value of wine traded in Hong Kong doubled. Practically overnight the city became Asia’s trade and auction hub for fine wine. This has turned out to be immensely profitable and has led to the creation of new infrastructure – such as special warehouses – and jobs. In effect an entirely new industry sector has emerged within the blink of an eye.

EFN: In Europe we are witnessing a rather emotional debate about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Here in Asia negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were concluded last year. In how far are free trade agreements relevant to Hong Kong?

AW:  FTAs mainly deal, and I am simplifying a bit here, with the mutual dismantling of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. There’s not much to dismantle in Hong Kong in that regard. But Hong Kong has negotiated a couple of FTAs during the past few years, for example the ones with EFTA and Chile, and the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with China. While, on the face of it, signing CEPA didn’t make that much difference at first, its later iterations tackled some issues of importance to Hong Kong. One example would be the mutual recognition of academic titles and professional qualifications.

The reduction of barriers within the framework of CEPA could be beneficial – both for foreign professionals who want to settle in Hong Kong and for Hong Kongers who wish to offer services in mainland China.

Many restrictions remain on offering services in Hong Kong. The Medical Council of Hong Kong makes it very hard for foreign physicians to settle in Hong Kong and offer medical services. The same applies to foreign lawyers. In my view these are unnecessary restrictions that reduce consumer options.

As far as TPP is concerned, I am convinced that Hong Kong will profit immensely, even though it is not a part of the treaty. Hong Kong very much depends on world trade. If trade is flourishing, Hong Kong prospers.

EFN: What are the long-term prospects of Hong Kong?

AW: That very much depends on how Hong Kong will elect its Chief Executive (CE). Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law, is in many regards a fantastic legal document. But unfortunately it vests the Chief Executive with a lot of power. Let me give you an example: Suppose you want to file a complaint against the police. You would then turn to the Independent Police Complaints Council. Its members are appointed by the Chief Executive. But he [the CE] also appoints the police chief and has the final say on nominations to the High Court. Furthermore, the Chief Executive appoints the head of Hong Kong’s anti-corruption commission. This goes to show that too many institutions depend on the CE, a person who in theory has two masters: The people of Hong Kong and Beijing. But ultimately all important decisions are made by Beijing.

EFN: So, in a manner of speaking, very much depends on whether China understands Hong Kong or not?

AW: Precisely; unfortunately right now it seems that the leadership in Beijing shows little understanding of Hong Kong. Beijing doesn’t appreciate that the more they meddle in Hong Kong’s affairs, the more opposition they will face. Some people might simply decide to pack their stuff and leave. And these are dire prospects. Hong Kong became rich because the city was always allowed to do what lay in its interest. Hong Kong experienced rapid economic growth and lifted millions out of poverty long before China started to catch up. But this is a view that is not shared on the mainland. In China, the perception prevails that Hong Kong owes its wealth to China alone. I have the feeling that, if in doubt, Beijing has more interest in exerting control over Hong Kong than seeing the city prosper. The thinking seems to be: If China isn’t perceived as being in full control of Hong Kong, other regions on the mainland might become restive as well.
------------- 

See also:
EFN Asia 50, New network member, Center for Indonesian Policy Studies, September 25, 2015 
EFN Asia 51, Draft program, Day 1 of Conference 2015, November 05, 2015 
EFN Asia 52, The 5 fishbowls of economic freedom in Asia, November 20, 2015 
EFN Asia 53, Successful Conference 2015 has ended, November 25, 2015

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

2004, MG and LRI Were Born

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI) held its 10th year anniversary Dinner Gala last November 06, 2014, at Harbour Grand Hong Kong, the same venue for the EFN Asia Conference 2014. Among the most memorable photos for me that night is this. From left: Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS) in India, Andrew Work, co-founder of LRI, HK, me, and Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute, India.


Parth, Andrew and me were batchmates at the "Mackinac Leadership Conference 2004", held in April 2004 at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midlands, Michigan, USA. More than ten years have passed and we are still around  fighting for free market, free trade, limited government, rule of law, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Minimal Government (MG) was only one month old and LRI was possibly two-three months old then. I and Ellen Cain of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Andrew and a few others, were granted an International Fellowships by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. So  it was my first exposure to the international free market movement. Thanks to Atlas and Priscilla Tacujan who recommended us to Atlas.

Our batch photo, 10 years and seven months ago at Mackinac Center. 


Mackinac President at that time was Larry Reed, VP was Joe Lehman. Around 2007, Larry became President of a bigger free market think tank in NY, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and Joe became Mackinac President. At one of our evening events at Mackinac. The "Asians table" plus our batchmate from Italy (to my left) and Larry Reed, beside Parth.


After Mackinac, we went to Chicago to attend the Atlas Liberty Forum, April 2004. I shared a room in the hotel and my roommate then was Barun Mitra! Barun is perhaps the most veteran (and most prominent) among all Asian free marketers, having been in the movement for about three decades now. When I was still a socialist and a great fan of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in the 80s, Barun was already spreading the ideas of Hayek, Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman, among others.


These are portions of the Atlas Year in Review, Fall 2004. Page 14.


And on page 15.

After the event in Chicago, we went to Virginia, stayed at the Atlas staff house in Fairfax and we started meeting various market-oriented think tanks and research institutes in Washington DC, Arlington, etc. I came back after a month, May 2004.

In October 2004, the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference was held in Hong Kong. LRI was part of the team who helped organized it of course. Out of the eight Asian participants who went to  Mackinac, six of us went to HK as well. From left: Cuoung, Joe Lehman, Ellen, Jargal, Parth and me. Andrew was there of course but we could not  find him as he was moving around when we assembled for this photo.


The group photo of the EFN 2004 conference. Taken from the Atlas 2004 report.


Thanks to Atlas, thanks to EFN and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), for their support to advocates and fighters for limited government and free market in Asia. 
------------

See also:

Friday, November 07, 2014

Lion Rock 16: 10th Anniversary of LRI

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI) held a great dinner gala last night here at Harbour Grand Hong Kong to celebrate its 10th anniversary. It was a fantastic event -- celebration of its 10 years existence, fellowship with LRI's major sponsors and donors, a fund-raising activity through the "Silent Auction", and networking with EFN 2014 conference participants. All in one night.

Below, the key personalities from left to right: Fred McMahon of Fraser Institute (Canada) who presented the result of the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2014 Report; John Tsang, HK's Finance Secretary who gave the Keynote Address; Bill Stacey, Chairman of LRI; Siggi Herzog, FNF Regional Director for East and Southeast Asia; and Andrew Work, LRI co-founder and MC for the night.


VIP table below, from left: Nick Salnow-Smith of LINK publications, and has been a friend for three years now, we participated in the LRI's Reading Club Salon 2012, 2013 and 2014. He looks like Tony Blair but unlike Mr. Blair, Nick is soft spoken and very liberal/libertarian. Beside Nick is the head of CLP, a big energy company in HK (power generation, distribution, Kowloon area), Bill, John and Siggi.

Fred presented the EFW 2014 Report where HK, for the nth time, remains in #1 spot, followed by Singapore #2 and New Zealand #3. With regards to the on-going protests in HK, Fred showed a chart where HK's economic freedom score is very high compared to its rule of law score. Nonetheless, HK's rule of law score is higher compared to world average, and much higher compared to China's rule of law score.


Andrew Work mentioned during the program that LRI was started by "three crazy guys", Andrew Pak Man Shuen (left), Simon Lee (middle) and himself, in early 2004. Yes, I met Andrew Work at Larry Reed's Mackinac Leadership Conference in Michigan, USA in April 2004. LRI could be 1-3 months old then while Minimal Government, informally organized then, was only one month old.


I have a photo with Andrew W, Parth Shah and Barun Mitra last night, waiting for that photo. Andrew, Parth and I were batchmates at the Mackinac Conference for three days. Our other Asian batchmates that time have dropped out from the free market movement one by one. After Michigan, we went to Chicago to attend the Atlas Liberty Forum and that's where I also met Barun for the first time.


Among the highlights of the night was the presentation of LRI's student interns. A youtube video clip was shown how the interns have argued at the HK Legislative Council (LEGCO) opposing certain proposals like more (and endless) subsidies to certain sectors, wage control, etc.

From left (?? means I don't know them): Simon Lee, Andrew Shuen, ??, ??, ??, Kellie Wong, Janice Fung, Jude Law, Bill Stacey, Peter Wong (LRI Exec. Dir.), Raymond Ho (Momentum 107 convenor and LRI friend), Andrew Work, and Wilson Li, LRI staff. Not in the photo is another intern, Laurence Milton Pak.


I met Janice and Jude during the 1st Reading Club Salon 2012, held at Harbour Plaza at the New Territories. They were the two interns who helped organized the event.


Salute to LRI and its founders and officers.  10 more years, and more.
All photos above from LRI guys' fb walls, including Jadranco Brkic. Thanks.
-----------

See also 

Monday, September 29, 2014

Hong Kong Democracy vs. China Dictatorship, Part 2

This is one of the scenes in Hong Kong last night. Photo from @PhelimKine, tweeted last night with this note,

"These images will haunt the #China & #HongKong govts for a very, very long time. #solidarityHK #OccupyCentral "


From the fb photos of the Harbour Times last September 22, 2014:

Student Strike starts. The university mall in the Chinese University of Hong Kong is full. Alex Chow, Hong Kong Federation of Students Secretary-General, urged "Democracy Now!" Lester Shum, the federation's deputy, said "we should be the one who decide the future of Hong Kong.


The Democracy Movement in HK just demands one thing: self determination from Beijing communist government. While Beijing agreed to have direct elections of the HK people by 2017, it vetted that only candidates that are approved by the Beijing-loyal administration can run.


A friend from HK, Andrew Work, posted this yesterday midnight,

Occupy Central becomes a reality. As police clear a way forward in one small area, scores, maybe hundreds of thousands more flow in to replace them. It is completely unmanageable and there will be only a tragic ending. HKFS and OCLP trying to call it off, but the crowd will have none of it. They feel history in the making. This is July 1 2003 times 10. CY cannot stay, and no one can replace him. An impasse....

Whew! Just took a major major gassing, but ok. Stings like a sommmmma thing!

Also last night, another friend in HK, Andrew Shuen, posted this in his fb wall. I added photos below from Harbour Times, not part of Andrew's original posting, The two Andrews are my friends at the Lion Rock Institute, HK's free market think tank, 

When I was a younger man, I remember watching an earlier episode of the West Wing where the President character asked, "what's the benefit of a proportional response?"

Well, I guess we have found out that in governance, what's the disadvantage of a a disproportional response. Where you use police in riot gear and pepper spray against unarmed 17 year olds that merely took over an outdoor area that was previously opened to the public anyways, and where these teenagers were simply sitting down.

Then not only to arrest the 17 year old, but to REFUSE him bail?
This is a monumental fuck up from the perspective of governance.


And that bullshit of the situation turning "violent" which the foreign media loves calling it now. Would you say Martin Luther King's march in Birmingham, Alabama a "violent protest"? Those people just got beaten the crap out of them by the police!

To prove my point, you look at Mongkok right now. The police is outnumbered by a ratio of hundreds, yet people are simply sitting down, no stores are burnt down AND THE POLICE THEMSELVES ARE STILL IN THE NORMAL UNIFORM THEY WEAR DAY IN DAY OUT and not some riot gear.

Now, with nearly every leader of the movement from Joshua Wong Ji Fung to Benny Tai Ting Yiu to Jimmy Lai asking people to disperse and failing, how is this going to end?

If it does involve the People's Liberation Army, it would spell the end of one country two systems. How the fuck could you trigger this level of a constitutional crisis let alone the potential bloodshed through such incompetence? This is monumental incompetence.


Now that the movement has spread to Kowloon, let me make one bold prediction.

CY Leung is finished. The phone call from Beijing asking for his resignation will be coming soon. If it doesn't come by tomorrow, expect to see senior members of government to start resigning soon, starting with members of the Executive Council.

Oh, and one last thing.

If Hong Kong is finished, see the end of the dream of turning the RMB into an interntional reserve currency. For which central bank with a sane mind is going to buy a financial instrument issued in Shanghai, adjudicated by their kangaroo judiciary system?

Trust me, they tried. They are called Panda Bonds, and because no one bought them, Hong Kong had to take over and issue Dim Sum Bonds and sent the RMB into international respectability.
----------

I was surprised to see this young boy, 17 years old Joshua Wong, would somehow scare Beijing and its administrators. This article from WSJ said,

Mr. Wong came to local fame in 2012 after his Scholarism group, made up of secondary school students, protested against a plan by the Hong Kong government to implement “patriotic education” classes in Hong Kong schools. The plan was later shelved. Now, the group is at the forefront of a student movement protesting against a decision by Beijing last month that said that future candidates for Hong Kong’s top post must be vetted by central authorities.

HK police has raided his house last Saturday, September 27.

Meanwhile, Beijing media says their dictatorship will continue, no matter what the HK demonstrators will do. Shameless commies, as always.

The way the current China communist leaders are behaving, they are creating more enemies than friends worldwide. Alienating the governments and people of Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan. And now the HK people.

To friends who are still enamored with socialism or communism, your "dictatorship of the proletariat" philosophy is notoriously wrong. Socialists and communists big bosses simply want dictatorship, period.
-----------

See Part 1, September 25, 2014

Thursday, January 23, 2014

John Cowperthwaite, Statistics and Central Planning

Interesting article here shared by a friend, Andrew Work, co-founder of Lion Rock Institute (LRI), a free market think tank in Hong Kong. He is also the CEO and Publisher of New Work Media, which publishes Harbour Times, among others.

When Andrew was Executive Director of LRI, he would often mention to us Mr. John Cowperthwaite, the main architect of Hong Kong's free trade, free market philosophy and public policy. Today, Andrew posted this article in his facebook page, No Statistics, No Mischief by Andrew Ferguson, about the man.

Reposting portions of it here, original article is 2,000+ words. I like this story, hope you will enjoy it too.
-----------

John Cowperthwaite...

... The name is familiar to economic historians, academics in postcolonial studies, specialists in the tax policy of the Far East, and avid libertarians, but less well known to normal people. Cowperthwaite was a lifelong government bureaucrat who should be lionized by anyone who loathes and fears bureaucracies. In 1945, as a member of His Majesty’s colonial administrative service, he was sent to Hong Kong, which was then (and remained until 1997) a British protectorate. Hong Kong was in bad shape at the end of the war. Things only got worse when hundreds of thousands of refugees streamed in as the Chinese Revolution raged next door. 

Cowperthwaite rose through the ranks and became financial secretary of the colony in 1961. For the next 10 years he had near-total control over the economic laws and regulations governing Hong Kong. By the time he left office, in 1971, the number of Hong Kongers in poverty had dropped by two-thirds, average wages had risen 50 percent, and Hong Kong had gone from one of the poorest places on earth to one of the richest.

Hong Kong’s rise seems almost miraculous today, and surely the envy of any maker of economic policy. (US Fed) Chairman Yellen, unlike Cowperthwaite, is a determined advocate of the redistribution of wealth and other governmental manipulations that are guaranteed to make us happier, healthier, and more wonderful generally….

Cowperthwaite took as financial secretary…. keeping a flat income tax rate of 15 percent, deregulating nearly every enterprise that caught his attention, nullifying labor laws, and dismantling barriers to imports and exports—are things that Yellen, as Fed chairman, couldn’t do even if she wanted to, which she wouldn’t.

Instead, Chairman Yellen should contemplate another of Cowperthwaite’s initiatives. Asked once what the greatest and farthest-reaching policy of his tenure was, he replied: “I abolished the collection of statistics.” If only in this regard, Chairman Yellen, who will sit atop a vast apparatus built primarily for the gathering of statistics, could do us all a favor by following the Cowperthwaite Way. It’s true that there will suddenly be many unemployed economists wandering around Washington, D.C. But this is only one of the potential benefits. 

Cowperthwaite wasn’t anti-intellectual; he did not scorn statistics. The figures gathered by the International Monetary Fund are the most eloquent testimony to Hong Kong’s achievement in the Cowperthwaite era. As far as he knew, in his day statistics were being compiled all over the colony. He just didn’t want to know what they were. More precisely, he didn’t want other economic policymakers to know he knew what they were. He refused to allow government money to be spent cooking them up. Otherwise, he reasoned, “I might be forced to do something about them.” 

The connection between statistics and mischief is indissoluble. He explained himself to a gathering of legislators who were pressing him for figures on the colony’s gross domestic product—a term of art that everyone uses but no one can usefully define…

At other times Cowperthwaite suggested the causality works the other way around: Statistics themselves are what create, or at least justify, high taxation and other interventions in the economy. In a way it’s a supply-side problem, if you’ll forgive the expression. Say’s law tells us that supply creates its own demand. A supply of statistics will spontaneously generate a flock of people who will want to study them, and who, having studied them, will reach conclusions about them, and then, still worse, will want to shape their conclusions into government policy that will tug the citizenry this way or that, distracting workers and businessmen alike from the important task of minding their own business. 

Cowperthwaite went on:

One of the honourable Members who spoke on this subject said outright, as a confirmed planner, that he thought that [economic statistics] were desirable for the planning of our future economic policy. But we are in the happy position, happier at least for the Financial Secretary, where the leverage exercised by Government on the economy is so small that it is not necessary, nor even of any particular value, to have these figures available for the formulation of policy. We might indeed be right to be apprehensive lest the availability of such figures might lead, by a reversal of cause and effect, to policies designed to have a direct effect on the economy. I would myself deplore this….

Stripped of his numbers an economist would have to resort to the old home truths about how the world works: If you tax something you get less of it; as a general rule an individual manages his own affairs better than his neighbor can; it’s rude to be bossy; the number of problems that resolve themselves if only you wait long enough is far larger than the number of problems solved by mucking around in them. And the cure is often worse than the disease:

In the long run, the aggregate of the decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is likely to do less harm than the centralized decisions of a Government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.
Somehow the most successful practical economist of the twentieth century knew this was true, and he didn’t have to work out a single equation. 

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
-------------

See also: 
Lion Rock 5: Free Will vs. Power Over Others, December 26, 2012 
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

Thursday, November 07, 2013

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement

* Note: this is a revised and expanded version of my posting last November 04. I added two photos, me and Barun, 2004 vs. 2013. Also expanded some stories.

During the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2013 conference in Bangkok last October 21-22, two friends from the Japanese for Tax Reforms (JTR) came, Marc Abela and Hiroshi Yoshida. A third and young participant from JTR joined them.

Hiroshi is a long time friend since 2005, during the Atlas-FNF round table discussion on Hayek's “The Constitution of Liberty”. Hiroshi came with Mr. You then, the President of JTR. After that one-day event, the EFN Asia 2005 conference started, same hotel in Phuket, Thailand.  

It was my first time to meet Marc, who has been a friend since several years ago in facebook and ARBM Phuket yahoogroups.  I had a debate with him before re anarchy vs monarchy, friendly debate. I didn’t know that he’s a cool, always smiling guy.

Marc is also the convenor of the Mises Study Group in Tokyo. He's Canadian but has been working in Japan for about two decades now. And good news, he's planning to help organize a regional or international forum of free marketers in Tokyo soon.

Our photo, with (from left) Yo Kwong, formerly VP for Institute Relations of Atlas, Mr. You and Hiroshi Yoshida of JTR. During the Atlas Liberty Forum in Atlanta, Georgia, May 2008.

I miss Jo, really cool, warm and friendly lady. Last time I saw her was in November 2009, during the Atlas celebration of 20 years collapse of the Berlin Wall. She raised the funds for my trips during Atlas events in the US. She has resigned from Atlas in 2010.

In China, I have several friends there, from the Unirule Institute of Economics and CIPA in Beijing. Like Feng Xingyuan, Mao Shoulong, Liu Junning, Zhao Xu, others.

In India, many friends there too but the more prominent ones are Barun Mitra and Mohit Satyanand of the Liberty Institute in Delhi. Then Parth Shah of the Center for Civil Society (CCS), Bibek Debroy.

From S. Korea, great and cool friend, Chung-ho Kim, of the newly-formed Freedom Factory Ltd., a new think tank, came. He teaches Economics at Yonsei Univ. in Seoul. He used to be the President of the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE).

Photo, LRI Reading Club Salon 2013, October 19, Hong Kong.

After the farewell dinner of the Reading Salon, I have a photo with Andrew Work, the first Exec Director of the  Lion Rock Institute. Andrew and I were friends way back in 2004, first met him at the Mackinac Center in Michigan, leadership conference with Larry Reed. I was sponsored by Atlas then, along with Ellen Cain of FEF. Parth Shah and his wife, Mana Shah was also in that Mackinac conference.

Then we went to Chicago for the Heritage conference, then the Atlas conference.

First time I met Barun Mitra, April 2004 -- in my hotel room. We were roommates then. I did not have any idea who Barun Mitra was, only at the Atlas conference did I realize that he was a giant in the Asian free market movement. He has been in the free market movement for 2+ decades already, while I was in the international movement for only 1 month then.

So Andrew and Barun were among my early friends in the free market movement. I met them again that year in Hong Kong during the EFN Asia 2004 Conference. We are still around until now. The way we manage our life, it seems we are stuck in this passion until we grow old, for the long haul :-)

Now compare our faces, October 2013, at the Hong Kong airport. I told Madhu, Barun's wife and my friend in facebook, that I saw him 3x in 3 countries this year, she laughed and said all she saw were photos.

Barun and Xingyuan also have their own photo. In Asia, perhaps the oldest or the pioneer in the movement is Barun Mitra. Followed perhaps by Xingyuan, who started working with FNF Beijing under Rainer Adam, for about 7 years in the 90s. So Barun has been around for 3+ decades, Xingyuan for 2+ decades, me and Andrew and Simon Lee, LRI co-founder, for almost 1 decade.

I know that Parth Shah, Bibek Debroy, have been around ahead of us, maybe contemporary with Xingyuan. I miss Mohit Satyanand, a tall guy, frank and no-nonsense speaker and moderator. He was a panel moderator of EFN conferences from 2004-2006. I also saw him in 2005 during the IPN’s “Global Development Network” conference in London.

I met Feng and Barun 3x this year in 3 countries. First in S. Korea last May, in Seoul then Jeju, for the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity where EFN Asia was a panel sponsor. Then I met them in Hong Kong last Oct 18-19, for the Reading Club Salon 2013 by the Lion Rock Institute. Then met them again in Bangkok, for the 3rd time this year.

Photo, Barun, me, Xingyuan, and Shoulong, inside the taxi from our hotel in HK to the HK Airport, to take our flight to Bangkok.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is "new" in the Asia free market movement because he just moved in about 3 or 4 years ago from London where he worked for almost 18 years and was involved with the Conservative movement there. But IDEAS is the biggest, most dynamic free market think tank in the whole ASEAN. Or perhaps comparable in size with Freedom Institute in Jakarta, though I think IDEAS is more known globally than Freedom Institute.

I saw Wan 3x this year too. First in Korea along with Barun and Xingyuan, then in Manila two months ago when he attended a conference at De La Salle University (DLSU) and I dragged him to give an evening talk at my rotary club, where 4 other free marketers here in Manila came. Then met him again in Bangkok.

I am glad that Tricia Yeoh has migrated to IDEAS too, from Rakyat Institut. Tricia is a very articulate and intelligent lady, so IDEAS is being packed with more brains. Young and dynamic brains.

Another good friend from Pakistan is Zubair Malik whom I met in Hong Kong during the EFN Asia 2004 Conference. I would see him in all EFN conferences that I have attended. Zubair is also the President of the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, elected last year. He travels a lot internationally, also within Pakistan, 

Another good friend from Pakistan is Khalil Ahmad of the Alternate Solutions Institute, a free market think tank based in Lahore. After the EFN 2006 conference in KL, I did not see him in other EFN conferences. Last time I saw him was in 2010 in Sydney, during the 4th Pacific Rim Policy Exchange sponsored by the Americans for Tax Reforms (ATR), PRA, IPA and IPN. 

There are many other friends from Asia that I did not mention above. I did mention about them in my previous articles on EFN Asia.

Meanwhile, I will see Rainer Adam and other key FNF officials next week here in Manila. FNF has lots of big, high profile events from November 7 to 11. I will join in some of these, including the Freedom Run on Nov. 10 morning, then the Freedom Awards that evening.

FNF has done a great job in spreading freedom in Asia. For many of us in the movement, if we look back a decade or so from now, FNF will appear as the great partner to many of us.  Also the LRI. Thanks again to Peter Wong, Exec. Director of LRI, for inviting me to the two Reading Club Salon of LRI, last year and this year.
-------------

See also:

Monday, October 28, 2013

Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013

I still have to write my reflection paper on the Reading Club Salon 2013 of the Lion Rock Institute (LRI) on "Democracy -- Past, Present and Future" held in Harbour Grand Hong Kong last October 19, 2013. It's good that good friend Barun Mitra, Founder and Director of Liberty Institute in India, sent us today his reflection paper about the event. Short and well-argued points by Barun, reposting it below. 

Our group photo after the whole day round table discussion. Barun is 4th from left standing. To his left is Peter Wong, Executive Director of LRI, and to Barun's right (3rd from left) is Simon Lee, LRI co-founder and moderator of the Reading Salon. To my left, 2nd from right sitting, is Andrew Work, co-founder and first Executive Director of LRI. 


--------

My take home points from the 2013 Salon.

The idea of democracy as the critical political institution has clearly been established. Just over two hundred years ago, the founding fathers of the United States of America, were concerned about the majoritarian aspects of democracy. The debate was encapsulated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. In the Federalist Papers, the authors underscore the need for a strong central government in order to hold the states together in a nascent country. In the Ant-Federalist paper, many leaders from the states argue the case for strengthening the lower tiers of government, so that a strong people would together strengthen the nation. Two hundred years later, James Buchanan, Nobel prize winning economist, wrote his classic text "Calculus of Consent", where he explored a whole range of ways to restrain the majoritarian threats on the one hand, and prevent capture of state agencies by vested interests on the other hand. These three books, were in the list of readings selected by for this year's salon on democracy.

A number of key points that emerged from the discussions at the salon, underscored the essential features of democratic politics.

Democracy is not about majority rule, but about recognition of and respect for minority opinions. So that the minority view of today, may enjoy the freedom to peacefully persuade others, and could become a majority opinion of tomorrow. This is why democracy requires consent of the governed, so that the diverse minorities do not feel so aggrieved as to try and revolt or secede from the rest.

For democracy to survive in large communities and countries, where only representative democracy is possible and practical, democracy has to be minimal, so that it does not offend or alienate too many people. Secondly, as societies become complex, there is a need to recognise the challenges of centralised government, and devolve greater political authority and autonomy to lower tiers of government and local communities. Because only at such community level, with shared values, can there be a realistic prospect for widest consensus on such complex issues.

Threats to democracy arise from the majoritarian perspective which is reflected in centralisation of decision making. This invariably leads to populism and patronage. Consequent spread of corruption, triggers cynicism, and undermines the legitimacy of democratic polity. Growing illegitimacy provides an incentive for demagogues and dictators to seize the levers of power by promising to solve all the ills of society. And democracy collapses in to despotism.

Democracy and markets are analogous. Democracy empowers the citizens with choices in the political domain. While markets empowers the consumers with choice in the economic domain. Adam Smith had warned about the tendency of businessmen and traders, to collude, seek special protection and privileges from the state, at the cost of the consumers. And others have warned about the special protection and privileges that many politicians seek, in the name of the public, but actually endangering the political freedoms of the citizens. This is why economic competition and open market are critical in keeping businesses focussed on delivering better goods and services in order to win the customers. So too does political competition in a vibrant democracy, ensures that politicians offer a diverse range of political options to the citizens to choose from.

In a competitive democratic environment, politicians could either be businessmen, offering the conventional political ideas and operate within the prevailing political paradigm, or they could be like entrepreneurs, offering radical ideas, in a manner that would be understood and accepted by the people, thereby shifting the centre of political discourse, itself.

Economic and political freedoms go together. All the developed and rich countries are democracies. Even the small principalities and city states, which are rich, people enjoy a very high degree of economic freedom, and share the basic elements of participatory politics, that is democracy.  On the other hand, poor and less developed countries, are much lower on the economic and political freedom scores.

Barun Mitra
Liberty Institute, New Delhi

www.InDefenceofLiberty.org 
www.EmpoweringIndia.org 

www.RighttoProperty.org  
----------

See also 
Lion Rock 7: Reading Club Salon 2013, Hong Kong, September 17, 2013 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

EFN Asia 13: Welfare Populism and Poverty

* This is my article yesterday in the online magazine,
http://thelobbyist.biz/index.php/perspectives/less-government/item/122-welfare-populism-and-poverty
-------

State-mandated welfare populism or universal welfare, is creating more dependency and mendicancy rather than independence and self reliance. It is encouraging more corruption rather than curing it, expanding the spend-tax-borrow policy, bloating the public debt and the economic uncertainty that comes with it. Therefore, politicians and the public should avoid welfarism trap and steer government to focus on promulgating the rule of law, protecting property rights, making social and economic rules apply equally to all and not making favoritism and cronyism.


This is the main message in the two-days Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2012 conference last November 6-7, 2012, here at Crowne Plaza East Kowloon, Hong Kong. The event that attracted more than a hundred international and local participants was sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) and co-sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first and only free market institute. 
Among the speakers in the two-days conference were Wolf Dieter Zumpfort, Deputy Chairman of the FNF Board of Directors in Germany;  Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Thai Prime Minister, Rainer Adam, Regional Director of the FNF Southeast and East Asia, Bill Stacey, Chairman of LRI, and John Tsang, Finance Secretary of Hong Kong.
The various speakers have reiterated the importance of setting markets free – rich and poor, men and women, young and old, to have access to various employers and consumers of their skills and talent, products and services, in a competitive and non-monopolistic or non-oligopolistic environment. The role of government is to protect the property rights of the people, that the fruits of their hard work and efficiency, are protected and not forcibly taken away from them by bullies and cheats. This necessitates upholding the rule of law, that regulatons apply to all, exempts no one and no one can grant exemption from the limitations made by the law.
Thus, the law against killing, stealing, kidnapping, land grabbing, extortion and other criminal activities should apply and be strictly implemented. This equality before the law will act as the main incentive for people to become more industrious, responsible and self reliant.
Forcing equality in society via populist and welfarist policies – like high food subsidy, fuel subsidy, housing subsidy, healthcare subsidy, cash transfers – would tend to encourage dependency and mendicancy. Forcing equality of social outcome among the people regardless of their work and efficiency or lack of them, will distort markets, wreak havoc on the fiscal condition of governments, as what is happening now in many welfare states in Europe like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
Even in Hong Kong, according to local speakers, the government is treading slowly on more welfarist policies that were absent when this free trade economy was developing and has attained a highly developed economic status.

The European speakers in the conference also recognized that Hong Kong's generally free market and globalized economy coupled with the rule of law, is mainly responsible for its economic prosperity while Germany and many European economies are struggling with welfarism trap, massive unemployment, and the need to cut the expensive, huge debt generator welfare programs to help stabilize their economy.

Welfarism is being introduced more liberally in many Asian governments and economies recently. In Thailand for instance, they have rice subsidy, free computer tablets for first graders, and subsidy for first time car buyers. The latter alone cost the government $1 billion and the traffic has worsened further.
In Indonesia, fuel subsidy has further bloated the public debt. In China, there are calls for school free lunch, free school bus.
In S. Korea, there are free child care and universal school meal policy. If these and other new welfare programs are adopted, public spending will rise by around $520 billion more, which will need either new taxes and/or more borrowings. Existing welfare programs alone is projected to contribute to government spending of 45 percent of GDP and the public debt is projected to reach 216 percent of GDP.
In the Philippines, there are various welfare programs supposedly to help “fight poverty”. These include education and books for the poor, healthcare and medicines for the poor, housing and relocation for the poor, credit and tractors for the poor, and many of these do not seem to work as high poverty still persists, so they invented new welfare programs like cash transfer for the poor, and soon, pills and condoms for the poor.
In his keynote address, HK’s Finance Secretary John Tsang said that they are conscious of observing fiscal prudence for three reasons: it is in their constitution, they are aware of the huge public debt problem of many welfare economies, and it is part of their value system of not spending more than one’s income.
Wall Street Journal editor for Asia business, Joseph Sternberg, observed that Mr. Tsang has several new taxes on residential real estate transactions, like a 15 percent tax on foreigners real estate buyers, an increase in “special stamp duty”, and the possibility of the HK government imposing a capital gains tax on property soon.
All new taxes or hike in the rates of existing taxes are meant to expand government revenue to finance in part new welfare spending or expand coverage of existing welfare programs. Politicians, legislators and other policymakers cannot bind themselves and their successors. The itch to intervene, to subsidize and over-spend, is there, resulting in distortion in many sectors of the economy, high public indebtedness that results in high interest payment and siphons resources away from otherwise productive spending.
Rule of law is undermined when government mixes with businesses. Cronyism and nepotism is not far off when government becomes the regulator and industry player at the same time, even in the guise of protecting the poor from “market manipulation by private enterprises” demagoguery.
There were many other important points discussed during the conference. As the Philippine elections is coming closer, just six months away, reminding both the politicians and the voters that welfare populism is a costly policy that can create more dependency rather than independence, is an important task for concerned individuals and civil society leaders.
-----------

Meanwhile, here are  more photos during the conference.
Below, the two guys whom I would consider as the "pillars" of the EFN Asia conference, Dr. Rainer Adam (left) and Dr. Wolf Dieter Zumpfort (right). Without their commitment to hold an annual EFN Asia conference, the network could have been more loose and have no regular regional and international networking.

Then my two photos from Xingyuan Feng's camera. Xingyuan has been a friend since 2004 and I see him every year in various regional and international conferences. Another friend in the picture is Shoulong Mao, another Chinese academic and free marketer, President of the Cathay Institute for Public Affairs (CIPA).


Wednesday, November 07, 2012

EFN Asia 12: Day 1 of Conference 2012


Day 1 yesterday of the 2012 Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference here at Crowne Plaza East Kowloon. It is sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) and co-sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first and only free market institute. 

There were 100+ participants, mostly international (Asia, US, Canada, Germany, Spain...). Many locals too, mostly friends of LRI.

Key speakers yesterday morning, from left: Wolf Zumpfort, Deputy Chairman, FNF Board of Directors, Germany;  Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Thai Prime Minister, Rainer Adam, Regional Director, FNF Southeast and East Asia, and Andrew Work, LRI co-founder. He took the place of  Bill Stacey, Chairman of LRI, who came late by a few minutes.


In his opening message, Bill reiterated the importance of free market, rule of law and property rights, in countering the mass appeal of populism which has long term negative impact on the economy. He said that the HK government is treading slowly on more welfarism.

Wolf cited HK's generally free market and globalized economy for its economic prosperity while Germany and many European economies are struggling with welfarism trap, massive unemployment, and the need to cut the expensive, huge debt generator welfare programs to help stabilize their economy.

Rainer reiterated a number of points made by Bill, and praised former Thai PM Abhisit for not bowing to heavy populism in Thailand during his term, that he cut certain subsidies and instill fiscal restraint and responsibility, only to be reversed by the succeeding populist administration in Thailand.

Abhisit discussed many points in his keynote speech. Among them:
* Populism has made the poor become even more dependent on the government.
* Populism breeds high opportunity for corruption, like the rice subsidy corruption.
* It can lead to more social conflict as a result of those continuing corruption.
* Decline of democracy as populism very often leads to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
* Foreign intervention becomes inevitable later, like the heavily indebted welfarist economies who must be bailed out by other countries and the multilaterals.
* Decline in competitiveness and possible collapse of the economy as free market competition is often shelved.
* But free market has problem with social and economic distribution, thus the need for government to provide some safety nets to those highly vulnerable sectors and households.
* Politicians should be responsible, balance populism with proper education of the voters, avoid quick fixes and welfarism trap.

3. Keynote Address, former Thailand PM , “How Welfare Populism Destroys Prosperity”


The next round of speakers were Sec. Neric Acosta, the Presidential Adviser for Environmental Protection, Philippines, and Sec.Gen. of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), and Bibek Debroy from India. Bibek was the sudden replacement of Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS), India, who failed to come due to  problem with his flight from Delhi. Below is part of Neric's presentation.


Neric emphasized the importance of the rule of law, avoid populism despite its temptation to politicians. Bibek said that contrary to many people's belief, politicians in general are not myopic as they balance populist demand by the voters and managing public expenditures.