EFN Asia 67, Program of Conf 2006, KL

I rediscovered this while cleaning my inbox of old emails. I remember very well that conference because (a) it was my first time to go to Malaysia, (b) a day before there was a one-day forum by Atlas also on trade and I was one of the presenters, and (c) the subject of unilateral liberalization was articulated by several speakers like Aco Patunru (Indonesia) and Barun Mitra (India).

Here's the program 12 years ago.
-----------

Economic Freedom Network Asia Conference 2006

Preferential Trade Agreements

Local solutions for global free trade?

12th - 13th September 2006

Corus Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Welcoming address

Mohamed Ariff

Executive Director, Malaysian Institute of Economic Research

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Wolf-Dieter Zumpfort 

Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors

Friedrich Naumann Foundation

Berlin, Germany

Mark Mullins

Executive Director, Fraser Institute

Vancouver, Canada

Opening address

YBhg Tan Sri Dato’ Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim

Chairman, Board of Trustees

Malaysian Institute of Economic Research

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Introduction of Conference procedure

Mohit Satyanand

Moderator

Session 1: Models of Preferential Trade Agreements

“The European Union’s Strategies and Priorities”

Thierry Rommel

Ambassador and Head of Delegation

Delegation of the European Commission to Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

“US Strategies and Priorities”

Colin Helmer

Counselor of Economic Affairs

Embassy of the United States of America

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

“International Models of Bilateral Free Trade Agreements”

Christopher Dent

Senior Lecturer

Department of East Asian Studies, University of Leeds

Leeds, United Kingdom

Session 2: Impacts of Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia

“The Impact of Bilateral Free Trade Agreements on Human Development in Asia”

Swarnim Wagle

Programme Specialist, UNDP Regional Centre

Colombo, Sri Lanka

“Malaysia and Bilateral Free Trade Agreements”

Mohamed Ariff

Executive Director, Malaysian Institute of Economic Research

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Session 3: Economic Freedom Indicators

“Indicators for Free Trade in Asia. The Economic Freedom of the World Index”

Robert Lawson

Professor, Capital University

Columbus, Ohio, USA.

“Chinese Marketisation Index”

Wang Xiaolu

Deputy Director, National Economic Research Institute

Beijing, China

“Capital Freedom Index”

Feng Xingyuan

Cathay Institute of Public Affairs

Beijing, China

“Chinese Public Governance Indicator”

Mao Yushi

Unirule Institute of Economics

Beijing, China

Session 4: Regional Trade Agreements in Asia

Panel Discussion on the South Asian Free Trade Agreement

Ugen Tschup Dorji

President, SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Bhutan

Rajesh Mehta

Senior Fellow, Research and Information System for Developing Countries

New Delhi, India

Dushni Weerakoon

Deputy Director, Institute of Policy Studies

Colombo, Sri Lanka

Panel Discussion on East Asia Free Trade Area

Kriengsak Chareonwongsak

Member of Parliament and Executive Board Member, Democrat Party

Bangkok, Thailand

Arianto Patunru

Deputy Director, Institute for Economic and Social Research, University of Indonesia

Jakarta, Indonesia

Young-Han Kim

Professor, Sungkyunkwan University

Seoul, Korea

Session 5: International Perspectives on Regional Trade Blocs

Ricardo Lopez Murphy

Chairman, Cívico-Republicana Foundation

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Andrej Illarionov (requested)

Director, Institute of Economic Analysis

Moscow, Russian Federation
---------------

See also:
EFN Asia 64, Day 2 of Conference 2016, February 16, 2017 
EFN Asia 65, EFN panel at Jeju Forum 2017, June 20, 2017 
EFN Asia 66, Meeting 2017 in Kuala Lumpur, September 22, 2018

BWorld 187, Asians’ freedom from high inflation and regulations

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on February 12, 2018.

“Bad times make good policy and good times make bad policy. If you want to introduce important reforms, wait for bad times and the politicians will listen to you.”

— Chatib Basri, former Indonesia Minister of Finance

That was among the important advice and reflections based on experience given by one of the keynote speakers in the recent Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) 2018 held in Mandarin Oriental Jakarta, Indonesia last Feb. 10-11. Dr. Basri spoke on “How to do Reform in an ‘Imperfect World’: The Case of Indonesia.”

The ALF is an annual liberty conference sponsored by the Atlas Foundation (US) and co-sponsored by other organizations and independent think tanks. In this year’s event, the local host and co-sponsor is the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS), a great and dynamic free market think tank.

Dr. Basri is a friend since 2004 when I first attended the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia Conference in Hong Kong in October 2004, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) and co-sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute. I was impressed by his silent, cool, and reflective composure.

He became Finance Minister from May 2013 to October 2014 when the term of former Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was completed. Upon his appointment, at least one Indonesian newspaper headlined “Free marketer becomes Finance Minister.”

He started his presentation with this quote from Jean Claude-Juncker, EU President:

“We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”

Other statements he made in the ALF2018 were:

“One reason Indonesians are religious is because of the Government. You submit your business application to the Government, then pray to God.”

“We failed to explain the benefits of free trade to the people. The success of Asia was the success story of globalization.”

“When political power is not favorable and limited, create a success story which enables the people to see and experience positive changes, pick one that is easy to implement but the marginal gain is high, then move to more complex reforms.”

“To help the poor, Indonesia liberalised rice imports. Prices fell.”

Another keynote speaker in day 1 was Suraj Vaidya, Chairman of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Chamber of Commerce, also Chairman of the Samriddhi Prosperity Foundation in Nepal.

Mr. Vaidja quoted Frederic Bastiat’s famous line, “If goods cannot cross borders, soldiers will.”

That statement was true in the past, remains true in the present, and will be true in the future. Trade is the best global peace maker since people and goods crossing borders create goodwill among societies, discouraging criminals, terrorists, and prohibited substances.

Both Dr. Basri (introduced and interviewed by Rainer Heufers, CIPS executive director) and Mr. Vaidja (introduced and interviewed by Ronald Meinardus, FNF Regional director for South Asia) mentioned the role of free trade and free markets in fighting high inflation many goods and services that are unaffordable to the poor.

And this brings us to the issue of controlling high inflation in the continent.

Data from the last 12 years show that average inflation rate has been declining.

For the ASEAN 8 for instance, it went down from 7% in 2006-2010 average to 4% in 2011-2015 average, and only 2.4% in 2016 but slightly went up to 2.9% in 2017 (see table).

The rise in average prices in 2017 was partly due to the rise in world oil prices.

For instance, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI), a grade of crude oil used as a benchmark for pricing, went up from $43/barrel in 2016 to $51/barrel in 2017.

For the Philippines however, there was a spike in consumer prices in January 2018. From 3.3% in both November and December 2017, it went up to 4%.

Other countries with available data showed a decline in prices by January 2018 except in India (was already 5.2% in December 2017), Pakistan (4.6% in December 2017) and Taiwan (1.2% in December 2017).

So the Philippines is the “outlier” here, experiencing higher inflation when most neighbors have declining prices. Why?

The most proximate explanation is the TRAIN law signed in December 2017. While there is a decline in personal income tax rates, there are tax hikes in oil products, sugar tax, among others.

The Philippines is entering a period of increasing government intervention, taxation, and regulation. This is not good for the people and private enterprises.

 -------------

See also:

BWorld 184, ERC paralysis and implications for consumers, February 11, 2018 

BWorld 185, Lower taxes via more mineral exports, February 06, 2018 

BWorld 186, Land use bill and Asian urbanization, February 23, 2018

BWorld 182, Asia Liberty Forum 2018 in Jakarta

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last January 22, 2018.

“There is no evidence that fuel and electricity subsidies benefited the poor. There is no evidence that trade protection benefited the poor. Elimination of subsidies if compensated by reduction of cost doing business (corruption) will help the poor.”

— Muhamad Chatib Basri,

presentation about Indonesia energy and food subsidies,

EFN Asia conference September 2004, Hong Kong

Those conclusions were made by Dr. Chatib “Dede” Basri in his presentation, “Can subsidy and protection do any good for the poor?” at the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference in 2004. At that time, he was a faculty member of the University of Indonesia and individual member of EFN. He used an econometric model and the Grosman and Helpman (G-H) model (trade protection is the result of bargaining between government and various lobby groups). The inevitable conclusion of his paper was that market reforms and the reduction, if not removal of dependence by the poor on the state will actually help them and taxpayers over the long term.

Dr. Basri later became Minister of Finance from May 2013 to October 2014 when the administration of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ended. Dr. Basri will be among the keynote speakers in the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) this coming Feb. 10-11 at Mandarin Hotel Jakarta, Indonesia. The event is sponsored by the Atlas Foundation and co-hosted by the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS).

Aside from Dr. Basri, other important speakers in this year’s conference will be the following:

1. Saidah Sakwan, chairwoman, CIPS; also a commissioner of the Indonesian Business Competition Commission (KPPU).

2. Brad Lips, CEO of Atlas Network, Washington DC, USA.

3. KH Yahya Cholil Staquf, general secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Supreme Council, world’s largest Muslim organization with 50+ million members.

4. Siegfried Herzog, Regional director for Southeast and East Asia, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), Thailand.

5. Suraj Vaidya, chairman of SAARC Chamber of Commerce and also chairman of Samriddhi Foundation, Nepal.

6. Rainer Heufers, executive director of CIPS.

7. Razeen Sally, Prof. at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

8. Ronald Meinardus, Regional director, FNF South Asia, India.

9. Parth Shah, president of the Centre for Civil Society, India.

10. Lorenzo Montanari, exec. director of Property Rights Alliance (PRA), Washington DC, USA.

11. Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute, India.

12. Junjie Ma of Unirule Institute, Beijing, China.

There are many other interesting speakers to talk on many topics — policy reforms to broaden support for classical liberal principles, education policy, Ease of Doing Business Index, Protection of private property rights, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), micro-enterprises, entrepreneurship in e-commerce, state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Are Asian economies getting more market-oriented or state-distorted? Is there greater rule of law now or greater rule of men? Are public institutions more protective or more confiscatory of private property rights?

There are many studies and annual reports that track and monitor various indicators and parameters to help answer these and related questions. Among the important annual reports are Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) reports, Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index (EFI), PRA’s International Property Rights Index (IPRI), World Bank’s Doing Business, and World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI).

The GCI is composed of 12 pillars and the first pillar are Institutions. These are composed of 21 sub-pillars like property rights, IPR protection, diversion of public funds, public trust in politicians, irregular payments and bribes, judicial independence, favoritism in decisions of government officials, burden of government regulation, efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes and challenging regulations, transparency of government policy making, and reliability of police services.

I checked the latest WEF 2017-2018 report for East Asian economies and compared with the report two years ago for pillar #1, Institutions (see table).

So for Institutions, the numbers above show three important results: One, out of the 144 countries and economies covered, many East Asian nations land in the first half (i.e., 1st to 72nd), 11 of the 15 economies mentioned above. Singapore and Hong Kong are in the top 10.

Two, the biggest gainers in global ranking are India (+21!), South Korea, China, and Laos. And three, the biggest loser in ranking is the Philippines, dropping 17 places or notches.

In the WEF Executive Opinion Survey 2017, the most problematic factors for doing business in the Philippines were: (1) inefficient government bureaucracy, (2) inadequate supply of infrastructure, (3) corruption, (4) tax regulations, and (5) tax rates.

For Asian countries outside the first half like Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Cambodia, there is an immediate need to improve the rule of law and further debureaucratize, deregulate and depoliticize the economy.

-------------

See also:

BWorld 179, Federalism dream vs centralized government, January 15, 2018 

BWorld 180, Has East Asia liberalized its trade enough? January 19, 2018 

BWorld 181, Effects of Supreme Court TRO on RCOA, January 22, 2018

BWorld 150, Rising state-inspired murders and budget 2018

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last August 25, 2017.

The second week of August 2017 would possibly be the bloodiest in the drugs war of the Duterte administration. More than 80 people were murdered mostly by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in various drugs-raid and victims were described as “nanlaban eh (they fought the police).”

Perhaps 99% of all countries and governments in the world have their own “drugs war,” like the Philippines. Punishment range from imprisonment to death penalty. Many of our neighbors in the ASEAN have death penalty for drug crimes like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

The “war on drugs” therefore is not a unique program or policy of the Philippine government, the Duterte administration especially.

What makes the Duterte drugs war unique is the absence of due process for poor victims.

True, there is due process for very rich drug suspects like those implicated in the P6.4-billion drugs smuggled from China and passed through the Bureau of Customs. Not one of the personalities implicated including the President’s son, Davao City Vice-Mayor Paulo Duterte, were shot or murdered. They enjoyed due process of investigations, filing of affidavits, dismissal of allegations, if proof is weak.

It is the poor or several middle class or rich but not-politically connected people who get murdered on mere suspicions of being drug users or pushers. Of the roughly 9,000 estimated casualties in the Duterte drugs war, majority are labeled by the PNP as death under investigation (DUIs). However, for those who were killed outright by the PNP because they supposedly resisted arrest, no police investigation is expected.

These are state-inspired murders. The President himself is urging the police to have more deaths for drug suspects, warning the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and other human rights advocates that he will order the police to shoot them.

The continuing murders from mid-2016 — when the Duterte administration was inaugurated — to the present has coincided with the big increase in the government budget, P667 billion in 2017 and P417 billion in 2018. I checked the PNP’s budget and I wondered why its allotment for this year fell by P17B despite the increase in personnel from 184,000 to 194,000 during the same period. What explains this discrepancy?

In interviews by various media (local and foreign) and human rights groups of self-confessed but anonymous murderers, the murderers claimed that they get cash from the PNP for each murdered victim, usually previous or current drug users or pushers but people who are generally poor. Remember also the testimonies at the Senate of several ex-Davao policemen (Lascañas, et al.) who claimed they got paid by then Davao City Mayor Duterte for the murders they made.

If this claim is true — and I hope it is not — where would the government get extra resources given the decline in the PNP budget?

I checked the other items of the proposed 2018 budget and there were five big items that stand out. They get P566B of the P667B total increase in 2017 budget, and P260B of the P417B increase in 2018 budget (see table).

If the claims of the anonymous hired murderers, of Lascañas et al. are true, then the extra resources may be sourced from “Miscellaneous personnel benefits fund” and from “Gratuity fund.” But since this is only surface data, this is hard to prove.

On another note, the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia will hold its annual meeting and conference this coming Sept. 11-12 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. While the focus is on economic freedom and trade, political freedom will also be tackled among network members because there are instances of decreasing political freedom and rising dictatorial trends in the region. These include the continued rule of military junta in Thailand and the rise of murders in the Duterte government.

Economic freedom cannot prosper well in an environment of threatened political freedom and decline in the rule of law. Rise in public health care spending to save the lives of sick and weak people becomes a farce when the same government is engaged in state-inspired murders by the thousands.

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member of EFN Asia.
----------------

See also:

BWorld 147, Sugar tax and health alarmism, August 15, 2017
BWorld 148, Energy Trilemma Index 2016, September 16, 2017 

BWorld 149, Free tuition and irresponsibility, September 17, 2017

BWorld 112, Asia Liberty Forum 2017 in Mumbai

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last February 15, 2017.

Mumbai, India -- The title of this piece is from JP Narayan of the Lok Satta Party in India, who made that comment during the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) that was held from Feb. 10 to 11, 2017 in Mumbai.

That remark seems to apply in many countries where the rule of law is weaker and the rule of men -- especially those in charge of several forms of regulations -- are stronger. These are the types of people who also impose restrictions and prohibitions on their political enemies and ordinary folk but exempt themselves, their friends, supporters, and families.

Below are other insightful quotes and comments from other speakers during the ALF. The conference was jointly sponsored by the Center for Civil Society (India), Atlas Network, John Templeton Foundation, Smith Family Foundation (USA), and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (Germany).

1. “The word ‘Freedom’ has been lost because we mean ‘freedom from’ while an enormous number of people mean ‘freedom to.’” -- Linda Whetstone, Network for a Free Society (UK).

That quote is correct and the confusion may be rooted from the common definition of freedom as “freedom from coercion” (by the State or government, clan, church, gang, etc.) and is similar to Friedrich Hayek’s definition of liberty as “absence of coercion.” Linda also added that “Trade and exchange is not a zero sum game... both sides can be better off.”

2. “Inequality is not the issue; what bothers people is the ‘psychological threat to my perceived status.’” -- Tom Palmer, Atlas Network.

Again, I agree.

Take note that free people are not equal and equal people are not free. Freedom allows people to be super-efficient or be super-mediocre or absolutely irresponsible in their own lives. This personal decision automatically results in material inequality among people. The only equality that matters is equality before the law, or the equal application of the law on unequal people. Thus, the law against robbery should apply to all, from the President to the richest people to middle class, down to the poorest people.

3. “What we have in India is a PPP -- Perpetually Planned Poverty” -- Rajesh Jain, Free a Billion (FAB).

This is a funny but brutal parody and satire of an otherwise famous catchword in the Philippines and other countries of PPP (Public-Private Partnership) for big infrastructure projects. Rajesh was referring to various laws and restrictions by the government of India that he also called as “like air, it is all around you in India.”

4. “Top communist individuals in this country come from the upper class of society... Capitalism and Caste cannot coexist.” -- Chandra Bhan Prasad, a public intellectual and commentator, India.

He is referring to the various privileges and perks that cronies and state-protected corporate interests enjoy but are withheld from the rest of society. This is true because competitive capitalism is driven only by endless innovation and is anathema to state protectionism.

5. “Demonetization is the biggest assault on property rights in India... Nehru nationalized industries, Indira nationalized banks, and Narendra Modi nationalized private cash holdings.” -- Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India.

In November 2016, the Modi government pursued demonetization, a policy to remove all 500 and 1,000 (about $15) rupees from circulation to supposedly curtail the huge black market economy and counterfeit currency that funds illegal activities. These are exactly the currencies that hundreds of millions of poor Indians hold because of their low income and government has disallowed use of these. Very autocratic indeed.

6. “Globalization of capital is the most liberating force particularly for the poor.” -- Christopher Lingle, Universidad Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala

Contrary to common belief that globalization only favored big capitalists and businesses, globalization has benefitted the poor more in the form of (a) being employed locally by foreign investors that were otherwise prevented from coming in, (b) being employed abroad as they were assigned by their multinational firms or being hired by competing foreign firms, (c) being stockholders through time of both local or foreign firms as enterprise competition intensifies.

7. “Regulatory focus is to tap down on innovation because nobody understands something new. Lack of rule of law leads to adverse selection. Legitimate firms exit, leaving only bad actors.” -- Susan Thomas, Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, India.

This is true. The implicit or explicit purpose of regulation is to limit and restrict innovation that can lead to business disruption and more income inequality. Some regulations simply kill innovation and we do not see or realize it because it was not initiated in the first place. Lack of rule of law means high rule of men; only friends and cronies of rulers will prosper while the non-cronies will remain small or exit the market.

8. “There is a messianic belief among regulators that if there is any money made in India it must be taxed. Also underlying core belief among regulators that India is the fastest growing economy so the world owes us investments.” -- Sudeepto Deb, Minerva Consulting, India.

This attitude by regulators of tax-tax-tax whenever there is perceived new income seems to apply in many other countries too. Former US President Ronald Reagan has a good summary of this when he said: “If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

9. “There are only two political philosophies: liberty and power.” -- Simon Lee, cofounder of Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong.

Ultimately, yes. It is a battle between state-worshippers and regulators and the public or regulated parties who want more economic freedom. There are in-betweens of course, like people who move from the regulated to becoming regulators and vice versa.

There were many other useful comments and ideas during the conference but there is not enough space for this column. I am simply thankful to the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia for giving me the travel grant to attend the event.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of EFN Asia.

----------------

See also:

BWorld 109, Asians' march to liberty and progress, February 16, 2017 

BWorld 110, Should we go federal or not? February 19, 2017 

BWorld 111, Electric cooperatives and unstable power supply, March 01, 2017

ALF 9, Conference 2017 in Mumbai, India

The Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) is an annual 2-days conference jointly sponsored by the Atlas Network (US), Center for Civil Society (CCS, India) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF, Germany). Five ALF events so far from 2013-2017 and I have attended the last 3 -- 2015 in Kathmandu, Nepal; 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and 2017 in Mumbai, India.

Some photos of the ALF 2017 last week, February 10-11 held at The Leela Mumbai Hotel. Below, Baishali Bomjan, a superwoman at the CCS, formally opening the conference on Day 1.

 

Speed networking, a traditional Atlas conference activity where participants introduce to each other one on one for 2 minutes, then move to the next person in front. Notice the background, "Freedom" translated in various Asian languages.

About 250 people registered, some they come and go. About 200 max at any one time.

Among the tweets on Day 1 under the hashtag #AsiaLF17:

"Trade and exchange is not a zero sum game ... both sides can be better off"…

"When you have free markets & property rights, you open up lot of opportunities" - Linda Whetstone

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were intoxicated, thinking that our ideas had won...

I am a free market fundamentalist, I am also a democratic fundamentalist....

Populist trends did not happen on their own, they have been rising over the last ten years.... 

There is a huge political convergence that has taken placeThe traditional left and right agree on one point- use the state." -- Barun Mitra

Why #property rights matter for #India's poor: Give them rights and they turn rocks into a garden. -- #liberal activist Ambrish Mehta

One more #liberal bonmot: "Government is like air, it is all around you in #India." -- Rajesh Jain @freeabillion 

"Technology equalises power of communication and lowers role of money ... there would be no Tea Party without Facebook... "Every human being is fundamentaly a #liberal at heart. #Freedom is built into our DNA." -- Matt Kibbe @mkibbe

"why do we still turn our backs to private schools despite data that these schools are preferred choice for many?" -- Brajesh Mehra

Our panel on Deregulation, 4pm of Day 1.

From left: Vivek, Syed Mizanur, Seetha, Alex, me.

"Incentives for politicians have to be changed; data doesn't support reelection for good eco stewardship" --  Vivek Dehejia

"Standardised containers did more to reduce trade costs than lowering trade tariffs…  Exits are important for Liberty because it disciplines firms." Alex Tabarrok

My 19-slides presentation, Electricity deregulation and re-regulations in Asia, Philippines in particular.

My article in BusinessWorld last February 15 about the ALF17, The public sector is the private sector of those in public offices. It is reposted at the EFN Asia website.

A good keynote speech during the farewell dinner, Day 2 of ALF given by Amit Varma, The landscape of freedom in India.

Thanks to Simon Lee for this photo, with Parth Shah, President of CCS. I met Parth for the 1st time in April 2004 during the Mackinac Leadership Conference in Michigan conducted by Lawrence Reed, Joe Lehman, other great Mackinac guys. Andrew Work, Ellen Sandig Cain, Manali Shah were also our batchmates in that great conference. Andrew is represented in this photo by Simon who was 1 of 3 co-founders of the The Lion Rock Institute in HK.

Below: standing are me and Barun Mitra. Seated are Mohit Satyanand and Julian Morris. In June 2005, the International Policy Network (IPN, UK) organized the Global Development Forum in London, a conference in support of more free trade, less aid. It was held 2 weeks before the G8 summit in Scotland where the main agenda was more foreign aid (or simply more govt to govt aid) to "make poverty history". IPN Exec Dir then was Julian, I and Mohit Satyanand were 2 of about 6 speakers.

Flashback 2014, EFN Asia Conference in HK. Parth, Andrew and me, batchmates in Mackinac Conference 2004. Barun joined us.

I am very thankful to EFN Asia for providing me the travel grant to attend ALF 2016 (KL) and ALF 2017. Thank you Pett, Siggi. My attendance of ALF 2015 (Kathmandu) was courtesy of Media 9/Business 360, thank you Charu; and partly by Samriddhi, thank you Robin.
-----------

See also:

ALF 6, Panel discussion on property rights, February 23, 2016 

ALF 7, Panel on TPP, RCEP and other RTAs, March 18, 2016

ALF 8, Toast to Douglas North, March 19, 2016

EFN Asia 64, Day 2 of Conference 2016

Sorry readers, delayed posting of Day 2, EFN Asia Conference 2016 in Manila last November....

New FNF-PH Country Director Wolfgang Heinze delivering the welcome remarks for Day 2.

Below are some tweets under #efnasia2016

(1) From ruben dieckhoff ‏@rdieckhoff, 22-23 Nov 2016

"All politics is local." To save free trade/globalization you have to win the battles at home first says @barunsmitra 

@razeensally wonders whether you can keep up economic growth while trampling on human rights of the citizens

When political families move from controlling to owning companies this is neo-cronyism and eventually fails. See: Arab Spring

.@laveeshbhandari: how you can be free without education? Highlights susceptibility to populism for people who feel left behind

First protect dignity and rights of all individuals. Then start talking about economic liberty. Strong stance by @LoeningMarkus

(2) from FNF Philippines ‏@FNFPhilippines, 22 Nov 2016

Peter Perfecto: There is a tendency to rely heavily on the business sector, but there is only so much that business can do.

Dr. Laveesh Bhandari: There are enough laws that try to inhibit crony capitalism, but they very rarely get implemented.

Fred McMahon: The real driver of poverty reduction is not CSR, but economic freedom.

Fred McMahon: You cannot find a stable democracy that does not have a high level of economic freedom.

(3) Barun Mitra ‏@barunsmitra  22 Nov 2016

The discussion over basic rights and freedoms, have got confused by including entitlements and aspirations: Nick Sallnow-Smith

#EFNAsia2016 Rich & poor nations, high & low growth ones, democracies or not, across the world are experiencing populist nationalist upsurge

(4) Others: 

Akash Shrestha ‏@aaktung  22 Nov 2016

"In an economically free society, you only get ahead by making other people better off" - Fred McMahon.

PichuLo ‏@pichuuu  22 Nov 2016

Random thought:How can local small and medium enterprises compete if we're pushing for the free market to gain economic freedom? 

----------

FNF Philippines ‏@FNFPhilippines  21 Nov 2016

Wan Saiful Wan Jan: Definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can be another's sole income source. #efnasia2016

Armin Reinartz ‏@Armin_Rz  21 Nov 2016

#TPP is dead. Trade agreements fail because of protectionist attitude, not #HumanRights provisions, Dr. LEE Taekyu,KERI Korea #EFNAsia2016

Siegfried Herzog ‏@biberacher  21 Nov 2016

Free Marketeers keep having to play catch-up to Human Rights concerns that are framed in a way hostile to markets #efnasia2016

My own tweets:

Economic #freedom means freedom of individuals to acquire, own, control, sell, donate private #property

Rising #inequality per se not prob but poverty. If poverty declined but inequal increased, fine. It's not good to stop excellence.

Some consider child labor as HR violation but some households, it is necessary. If sole breadwinner is gone, young need to work.

Corporate branding will help global firms stay the course in #HumanRights and econ freedom protection, respecting #ruleOfLaw. 

VP @lenirobredo was here day 2 #efnasia2016 conf. She talked abt rising inequality. Actually poverty declined, many poor became middle class.

No planner would know every indiv preference... Invasion of others’ freedoms, Liberal people end up illiberal - Nick Smith, LRI

------------

See also:
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016
EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila, November 20, 2016 
EFN Asia 63, Day 1 of Conference 2016, November 26, 2016

BWorld 94, Economic freedom, taxes and tariffs in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 01, 2016.

Human prosperity is not possible if there is no economic freedom, if people do not have the freedom to own private property and have freedom to trade. Misery is the result if people live under political dictatorships and bear the effects of the state’s economic central planning.

These, among others, were the topics discussed in the two-day Economic Freedom Network Asia (EFN Asia) Conference 2016 last Nov. 22-23, 2016 at Dusit Hotel, Makati City. The event’s theme was “Economic freedom and human rights in business,” primarily sponsored by EFN Asia and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF).

The event also launched the results of the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2016 Report by Fraser Institute in Canada. The EFW index is measured by getting the scores (0 to 10, zero is totally unfree and 10 is full economic freedom) of countries covering five criteria: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulation.

Countries with big governments and high taxes get low scores in the first measure while nations with highly corrupt legal systems and unstable property rights protection will receive low ratings in the second, and so on. The composite score of the five criteria covered is generated and countries are ranked from highest to lowest (see table).

The numbers on the right show the following.

One, for many years now, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as the two freest economies in the world. Their governments are strong in enforcing the rule of law and protecting property rights, have low income tax rates, zero or near-zero tariff rates. They may have many non-tariff barriers (NTBs) but that is for another paper.

Two, many ASEAN countries are in the middle tier in global ranks out of 157 countries covered. Outliers are Singapore which is high up there, and Vietnam and Myanmar which are among the bottom-ranking countries.

Three, the Philippines and other ASEAN countries’ score and global ranking do not significantly move up or down and I think there are flaws in the scoring made by Fraser. Here’s why.

In sub-area “Freedom to own foreign currency bank accounts,” the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam got 0 (out of 10). Similarly, these four countries also posted low scores in criteria 3, Sound Money. I think foreigners and foreign corporations can own forex bank accounts here in the Philippines, also in Malaysia, so why did Fraser give a score of 0?

In sub-area “Capital controls,” the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam scored only 0.77 while Indonesia and Thailand scored 1.54 (again, out of 10) such that their scores under Area 4, Freedom to Trade Internationally, are again low.

Perhaps the capital control that Fraser refers here is the maximum amount of Pesos (about P10,000) and dollars ($10,000) that Filipinos and foreigners can bring in or out when they travel abroad. But many travelers hardly use big cash for their transactions, they use credit and debit cards. People can also send huge amounts of money anytime via banks or money couriers from abroad to the Philippines and vice versa, without capital control limits.

Since countries’ global ranks are separated only by one or two decimal places, significant low score in Areas 3 and 4 in this case would mean overall low score. As a result, the Philippines’ overall score of 7.01 made it rank 80th while Taiwan’s score of 7.65 made it ranked 23rd. A difference in score of 0.64 already spells a huge difference of 67 places in global ranking.

Fraser should either check its data properly or adjust the scoring.

Instead of 0 or 10 for “freedom to own forex account,” “capital control” and other sub-areas, it may adjust the score to 0 or 4 or 5. This will reduce the distortion in overall score and hence, in global ranking.

Nonetheless, Fraser is doing a good job in promoting the philosophy of economic freedom, free trade, rule of law, low taxes and limited government. Its annual EFW report is being cited in various international studies and helps guide civil society and corporate leaders, government and public policy makers in instituting reforms towards a freer, more prosperous world.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of EFN Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 91, Free trade means faster growth in manufacturing, November 14, 2016

BWorld 92, Climate action and Asian energy realities, November 19, 2016 

BWorld 93, ASEAN multinationals, December 02, 2016

EFN Asia 63, Day 1 of Conference 2016

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference 2016 at Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati ended last Wednesday. Thanks again FNF and EFN for another wonderful conference.

Here are some tweets from #efnasia2016 and my own thoughts about the event.

Protection of human rights is part and parcel of EU policy – Walter van Hattum, EU Delegation to the Philippines.

It's a responsibilty of businesses to respect human rights... It is state duty to protect and defend human rights in its territory.

Nobody can seriously suggest that businesses can opt in and out of respecting human rights as they wish... There is legal obligation for businesses to respect HR.

Businesses should be as transparent as possible so they will be less likely to be attacked by false news. Business leaders are often uncomfortable explaining to the public how they work. It's understandable but unwise. -- Markus Leöning, former Himan Rights Commissioner in Germany.

Increasingly populist goverments a threat to human rights and economic freedom. The pendulum has swung as globalization has failed in its promises to those who have lost out in its benefits. Food for thought. -- Frank Largo

For me, among the important human rights of the people is freedom to choose in the market place, freedom to sell or not sell, freedom to buy or not buy. Political human rights like the right or freedom from theft (especially organized criminals), murders, prosecution and harassment, that is where the state should come in.

A minimal government focused on enforcing the rule of law, enforcing contracts between and among people, is consistent with economic freedom and human rights protection. That minimal govt should have no business creating and expanding lots of endless welfarist programs. Prosperity is not an entitlement or privilege. Lazy and irresponsible have no right to a prosperous life, they deserve poverty. Politically incorrect statement, as usual.

Rule of law means the law applies equally to unequal people. So the law should apply to both rich and poor people, to big/giant and small firms. A law or contract can be written, verbal, done by govt or private entities. Basic human rights then means that people have access to such equality before the law.

Below, Rainer Heufers moderating, with Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Peter Kompalla, Rishi Sher Singh, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad in the new panel.

People's definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can also be another's sole income source... Definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can be another's sole income source. -- Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Good point. Some westerners may consider temporary child labor as HR violation already but for some households, it is ok and necessary. If a sole family breadwinner is gone for instance, the young need to work to help sustain the family. Harsh but necessary.

Stakeholder values, not just shareholder values. -- Rishi Sher Singh

Barun Mitra tweets:

Business of business is indeed business! Inclusive of profitability for investors, benefit to consumers, add values to society.

Better protection of human rights, improved environmental quality, higher sense of justice, necessary social value additions.

Value added products, economic and social, become affordable with prosperity, and necessity in a free competitive market.

Implentating Rule of law carries cost, level of effective enforcement has to be affordable, economically socially politically. #EFNAsia2016

I think corporate branding will help global firms stay the course in HR and econ freedom protection, respecting #ruleOfLaw. Firms would dislike to be associated with bad products, bad services, bad corporate image. So they will try to be as transparent as possible, to be accountable to their products and practices. Transparency is good protection vs negative image/attacks.

Session 2 Panel speakers: H.E. Franz Jessen of EU, Dr. Lee Taekyu of KERI, and Atty. Arpee Santiago of Ateneo Human rights Center.

Govt and countries don't trade, individuals and businesses do. Govt negotiating trade treaties leading to anti-trade backlash.

Free trade is voluntary, so win win. Govt negotiations may liberalise trade, but legitimises govt in trade n economy, corruption.

Environment, labour or human rights standards in national trade treaties, focus on outcomes, give advantage to large, richer cos!

Society / govt benefit most if they adopt unilateral free trade. All politics is local, a local decision will minimise backlash. 

Govt negotiating trade, inevitably adopt export is good, import is bad outlook. Free trade is beneficial when govt has no role.

Access to internet can't be a "Right". Political rights are negative rights. Any +ive right paid for by others can't be a RIGHT.

TPP may be good agreement, but has lost legitimacy because govts. no longer carry credibility among large sections of people. -- Barun Mitra

As usual, I agree with Barun's ideas and observations: unilateral trade liberalization; countries and governments do not trade with each other, people do; so governments, national and multilateral, should step back from trade negotiations as much as possible. Let companies and people organizations negotiate with their suppliers and consumers abroad and keep prices low via low or zero tariff, minimal non-tariff barriers.

-------------

See also: EFN Asia 60, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 5, April 03, 2016
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016
EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila, November 20, 2016

EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference 2016 will start in two days, November 22-23, 2016 at Dusit Thani Hotel, Makati. It is organised by EFN Asia and Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), with support from four organizations: the Philippine Economic Society (PES), EU Delegation to the Philippines, Ateneo Human Rights Center, and Bloomberg TV Philippines.

The program is here, http://efnasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EFN-Asia-Conf-2016-Full-program-as-of-17.11.pdf. Below, I just copy-pasted the program minus the time and some space.

MC for Day 1 will be Minnie Salao, Program Manager, FNF - Philippines, and Pett Jarupaiboon, Regional Program Manager (Economic Freedom and Human Rights), FNF Southeast and East Asia (based in Bangkok).

Good line up of speakers from many countries on Day 1. 

I think President Duterte's admin might raise their eyebrows on the subject of "human rights". But the conference will talk less, if ever, of murders and large deaths in the on-going "drugs war" of the government, more on the conduct of business in the age of expanding trade and business globalization.

Day 2 of EFN conferences are always devoted to the launching and discussion of the annual EFW reports by Fraser Institute, based in Vancouver, Canada. Fraser is almost always represented by Fred McMahon for several years now.

Session 9 will be a more political discourse of human rights but not necessarily mentioning the Philippines. This is because the three speakers -- Tom (US), Razeen (Sri Lanka) and Barun (India) -- are long-time fighters of individual freedom, dating back to 3 decades ago or more.

Economic freedom, not economic central planning. Rule of law, not rule of men and dictators. Looking to another exciting conference next week.
--------------

See also: 
EFN Asia 59, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 4, April 01, 2016EFN Asia 60, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 5, April 03, 2016
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016