Malaysia elections, Mahathir back in power but my friend Wan Saiful lost

Last Wednesday, May 09, Malaysia held its 14th General Elections (GE14). My good friend Wan Saiful Wan Jan, co-founder and former CEO of Malaysia's first free market think tank IDEAS, resigned from the institute in February and became a politician by March to help challenge the political hegemony of Najib and BN Party, the ruling party for six decades.

Of course I hoped that Najib and party would lose because of his known big time populist and corrupt ways. His world-known corruption in the 1MDB scandal should have brought him down but because they seemed like a one-party state, his politician supporters bailed him out.

I found the Malaysia election a bit weird, at least compared to the PH. They hold it midweek, Wednesday. When people have work? I don't know if it was a holiday. In the PH, all local and national elections are held on a Monday, usually 2nd Monday of May. People can have an extended vacation when they go home to their province on a weekend then cast their votes Monday morning, then go back to Manila or other big cities in the afternoon.

I think Najib and party did it in order to disenfranchise many white collar workers -- who tend to vote for the opposition -- they will have difficulty going to their province to vote then come back the same day. 

Anyway, my friend lost. But given the fact that he campaigned for only 2 months and 1 week, he did well. 

Wan posted this in his fb wall, in Bahasa, I just copy-paste here a portion of it from fb translation. I think incoming PM Mahathir will invite him to serve in some govt agencies. Good luck, Wan.

---------=

What a beautiful night for us!

May 9th 2018 is a historic date for Malaysia. All of us are among the people who have played a very important role in this change. Let us welcome a brilliant decision achieved by pakatan harapan.

I thank all of the friends who helped me in this election. This is my first election, and the trust that is given to compete in pendang is a heavy trust. But with the help given, we managed to run a healthy campaign….

We fought very well and very healthy. The country figures came to pendang to help us. The media also gave us good coverage. Even if we don't succeed in pendang this time, we need to arrange a step and arrange an organization to allow us to get up again to prepare ourselves for the next fight. I want to be together in the struggle for pendang future, with friends in pendang. I hope we'll all be together in that renewed agenda.

I wrote this message when I was in the same council with tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and tun asked me to say hello to all in pendang. The formation of the new empire is very close. It's a happy day for us and the whole country. The changes that we dream about are getting closer. Let's both celebrate this happy day!

Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Petaling Jaya

May 10, 2.14 in the morning

BWorld 206, Intellectual property rights in East Asia

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last April 19, 2018.

The degree of wealth and economic size of East Asian economies generally correlate with their degree of private property rights protection, both physical and non-physical or intellectual property. While protection of physical properties like houses, cars, and land are easier to see and measure, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) like patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are not so tangible.

IPRs are important because they represent the “heart and soul” of private enterprises and the goods and services that they produce.

For instance, people differentiate and choose shoes made by companies as represented by their logos such as a big check, three striped leaves, or letter F. These same people also choose products from food companies with logos of a double arch, a happy insect, or a smiling young female.

Here are some numbers showing the degree of IPR protection of selected East Asian economies. (Data and report sources are (1) Property Rights Alliance (PRA)- International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2017 Report, (2) US Chamber of Commerce (USCC)- Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), International IP Index (IIPI) 2018, and (3) World Economic Forum (WEF), Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2017-2018. The numbers in parenthesis beside each report represent the number of countries or economies covered. The WEF’s GCR is composed of 12 pillars and pillar #1 is about Institutions; among the sub-pillars there is IPR protection).

These numbers show that East Asian tiger economies also rank high in IPR protection. Conversely, emerging economies aspiring to join the club of tiger and developed countries tend to have medium to low ranking in IPR protection. The exception is Brunei, a developed economy in terms of per capita income (thanks to its high gas exports and small population) but it is low in IPR protection.

The issue of IPR protection in the region was tackled by a symposium early this week entitled “Intellectual Property Rights in the ASEAN Economic Community: Challenges and Potentials” at Intercontinental Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The event was organized by the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia’s first and most dynamic free market think tank.

There are moves to abolish the trademark, corporate logos and branding of products deemed “unhealthy” in many countries.

For instance, plain packaging of tobacco products has been legislated in Australia and France, and is currently considered to be legislated in Singapore too. Such trademark busting policies are also considered as extended to other “unhealthy” products like alcohol, sugary food like chocolates, confectionery and candies.

IDEAS commissioned a study that was presented in the symposium entitled “Challenges in Improving Intellectual Property Rights in ASEAN: Case study of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines” by Adidarmawan, S.H. and Marolita Setiati.

In the paper, the two authors noted that:

“Trademark promotes freedom of choice and enable consumers to make quick, confident and safe purchasing decisions. Standardizing… packaging for tobacco products that would restrict the use of brands, trademarks and trade… concern is if brand marks are eroded, then consumers are not able to differentiate between inferior products and those with a reputation for reliability that may create an environment in which companies may end up competing on price instead of quality. In addition, plain packaging is easier for counterfeiters to copy and could result in an increase in inferior — and more dangerous — imitations. The counterfeiters will have an easier time duping the consumer into buying products that are sub-standard. Brand restriction sets an unfortunate precedent, opening the door for IP rights to be weakened in other industries.”

A BusinessWorld report early this week entitled “Excise tax increase triggers widespread cigarette smuggling” also underscores these concerns.

High taxes, rising regulations and plain packaging have similar effects — they make the consumption of legal and branded products like tobacco and alcohol more restricted and more costly, which open up more space and markets for illicit, illegal, smuggled, and cheaper products. This results in more smoking, more drinking, more consumption of the restricted products.

Governments should focus on protecting private property rights, both physical and intellectual. Weakening such property rights will also lead to a weakened state and strengthen the powers of smugglers and criminal syndicates who do not pay taxes and do not respect brands and intellectual property.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

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

See also:
BWorld 203, TRAIN, inflation and PPP, April 10, 2018
BWorld 204, Mining attractiveness index and the Philippines, April 30, 2018 

BWorld 205, Energy mix and wishful thinking, April 30, 2018

IPR and Innovation 30, More on IPRI 2015 launching in KL last year

I am reposting this article from the Property Rights Index (PRA, Washington DC) last year, about the launching of IPRI 2015 in Kuala Lumpur that I attended. The photos I added and not part of the original PRA article.
-----------

2015 International Property Rights Index

Monday, November 16, 2015 | By Dennis Cakert

The 2015 International Property Rights Index (IPRI) was officially launched this morning in Kuala Lampur, hosted by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Director of Southeast Asia Network for Development (SEANET). Today featured an introduction to the IPRI given by the Executive Director of the Property Rights Alliance, Lorenzo Montanari, followed by a presentation on this year’s findings by the 2014-2015 Hernando De Soto Fellow, Prof. Sary Levy Carciente….

Lorenzo Montanari released this statement earlier this morning:

“The 2015 IPRI emphasizes the necessity of property rights for creating a free market and driving economic growth” said Lorenzo Montanari, Executive Director of the Property Rights Alliance, “but we also recognize that property rights are first of all a matter of human rights. Property rights are directly related to the values and principles of individual liberty. The special case studies in this year’s edition demonstrate the importance of property rights for women and the poor in developing countries. This year data was available in countries where it was previously not, which is a good sign for future improvement. There are now 129 countries included in the analysis, up from 97 countries in last year’s edition. Countries that had strong property rights systems experienced significantly higher GDP per capita. In the EU, for example, IP accounts for 26 percent of employment and 39 percent of GDP. Societies undoubtedly achieve greater societal development by protecting property rights of authors, entrepreneurs, artists, innovators and inventors.”

There was also a presentation from Ganesh Muren, founder of Saora Industries, a Malaysian Innovative Social Enterprise that specializes in delivering safe and clean drinking water to rural and marginalised communities. Saora has innovated a proprietary solar powered water purification system that is able to purify any surface water (e.g. river water, rain water, pond) to safe clean drinking water through nanotechnology. The competitive advantage of Saora is their intellectual property. They have developed proprietary nanotechnology that replaces the usage of UV light to kill and eliminate bacteria and viruses. The affordability of this new technology developed by Saora makes it appealing and reachable to the poor, those at the “bottom of the pyramid”.

Mr. Burhan Irwan Cheong, Malaysia’s Lead Negotiator for the IP Chapter, Ministry for Domestic Trade, Cooperatices, and Consumerism, presented on the Intellectual Property Chapter in the TPPA and how it will implement a fair and transparent patent system in member countries. Young entrepreneurs like Ganesh Muren is a perfect example about how the TPPA will contribute to protecting the patent on his water purification system. Without the certainty of the rule of law, innovation does not exist.

Lastly, Bienvenido Oplas Jr., President of Minimal Government Thinkers in the Philippines and a SEANET Senior Fellow, presented his economic analysis on the benefits of the TPP for trade. His extensive research showed that if the Philippines joins the TPP, exports are expected to rise 48 percent and real GDP will increase 61 percent. He also spoke regarding the importance of property rights to maintain order in society, while debunking the myth that IP hurts public health, proving instead that government taxation of medicine is the real problem.

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

Afternoon of that day, Dr. Sary Levy was interviewed in Bloomberg TV Malaysia, live. The place is outside KL proper.

The interviewer was a pretty and very articulate lady.

Among the footages shown while Prof. Levy was speaking. It's Wan, the CEO of IDEAS and Director of SEANET.

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

See also:

IPR and Innovation 26, Countries with most patent applications, most innovative universities, September 19, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 27, India strengthening its IP protection, September 30, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 28, Recent IP development in Singapore, October 10, 2015

IPR and Innovation 29, Civil society enforcement of patents, copyrights, January 18, 2016

BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015

Free Trade 57, Growth, IPRI 2015 and the TPP, November 28, 2015

Free Trade 62, IDEAS supports TPP Agreement for Malaysia

The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) released a new 12-pages report urging the Malaysian Parliament and the public to support and sign the Trans­ Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). Good call. Why? Economic and governance considerations.

1. The TPPA will bring economic benefits and serve Malaysia’s best interests as shown by the two studies commissioned by MITI, one of which estimates Malaysian gross domestic product (GDP) gains of USD23­27 billion in 2027 in a baseline scenario, an increase in economic activity which will sustain 1­2 million new jobs by 2027. Most recently, a World Bank study predicted that Malaysia’s economy would swell by 8% and exports would rise by 20% as a result of the agreement, with Malaysian exporters having an advantage over regional competitors not part of the bloc.

2. The TPPA will improve governance problems, in particular:

1. strengthen Malaysia’s anti­corruption measures

2. help improve the governance of Government Linked Companies (GLCs)

3. encourage the government to be more accountable and predictable

4. help make the procurement system more transparent and accountable.

The paper starts with explaining the importance of economic freedom and how the TPPA will help improve it. Then it discussed those four points above to improve governance system of MY. The conclusion is pragmatic in saying that

While the TPPA may not be an ideal agreement, the socio­political benefits outweigh the shortcomings. The agreement is a step in the right direction in terms of economic and socio­political reform and to jump­start the currently stalled reform in the country.

It is in Malaysia’s best interest to sign and ratify the TPPA. If it fails to do so, we will miss a valuable opportunity to incorporate greater transparency and good governance measures into our political and economic systems.

Good job, Wan and team.

-----------

See also:

Free Trade 58, TPP and its rabid critics, December 10, 2015

Free Trade 59, TPP membership expansion in SE Asia, January 16, 2016

Free Trade 60, PH Constitution vs. services liberalization, Malaysia in TPP, January 23, 2016 

Free Trade 61, Unilateral liberalization in Pakistan, January 29, 2016

ALF 4, Conference 2016 in Kuala Lumpur

Aside from the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia annual conferences, the second biggest annual event for free market leaders, scholars and advocates in the region is the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF). Good opportunity to meet many like-minded people in the region plus friends from the US and Europe.

Main sponsors this year are the Institute for Democracy and Econ. Affairs (IDEAS) in Kuala Lumpur, Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Washington DC, and Center for Civil Society (CCS) in Delhi.

The 1st and 2nd ALF in 2013 and 2014 were held in Delhi, India. The 3rd ALF in 2015 was held in Kathmandu, Nepal. This is the 4th ALF2016 and first time it will be held in South East Asia.

Good lineup of speakers, including Parth J Shah and Baishali Bomjan of CCS, Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Tricia Yeoh of IDEAS, Razeen Sally of NUS, Singapore, Ali Salman of PRIME, Pakistan, Tom G. Palmer of Atlas, Eamonn Butler of Adam Smith Institute in UK, and Leon Louw of Free Market Foundation, S. Africa.

Also Rainer Heufers of the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS), Andrew Shuen of Lion Rock Institute in HK, Arpita Nepal and Robin Sitoula of Samriddhi Prosperity Foundation in Kathmandu.

I suggested a panel discussion about labor migration in Asia.  CIPS is producing a long paper on labor migration, although the focus is on the experience of the Philippines and Indonesia, the panel can be broadened to other countries, include also a discussion on refugees in Europe. So 4 possible speakers, one each from CIPS-Indonesia, from China, India and Germany.

China and India are the biggest recipients of overseas remittances annually, they also have the biggest number of overseas workers and professionals worldwide. The speaker from Germany can talk about the impact of huge number of refugees on the labor market there and the rest of Europe.

Congrats to the three think tanks -- IDEAS, CCS and Atlas -- for this great initiative.

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

See also:

Asian Liberty Forum 2015, Kathmandu, January 07, 2014 
ALF 2: Opening Dinner Program, January 09, 2015 

ALF 3: Photos with Friends, Kathmandu Conference, January 20, 2015

Free Trade 58, TPP and its rabid critics

I am reposting these two papers below, published this week in Kuala Lumpur. The first is a well-written piece (as usual) by a good friend, the second is a press statement by IDEAS. The image I got from the web and just added here.

(1) Be wary of anti-TPP ideologues

by Wan Saiful Wan Jan 

(CEO, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia)

I am usually very keen to take part in discussions about the benefits and challenges of trade liberalisation.

The Trans-Pacific Partner­­ship (TPP) agreement is one of the steps towards further li­­beralisation and I have been taking part in many events with those who oppose it lately.

But I am losing steam very fast and I have been asking myself many times if it is actual­ly worth the effort to debate the TPP cri­tics.

The anti-TPP activists have been campaigning for many years. I remember reading some material from them back in mid-2013.

The text of the TPP was released on Oct 5, 2015, but they have been opposing since mid-2013.

That means, at the very least, they have been opposing the TPP more than two years before they even knew what the TPP is.

In other words, when they started campaigning against it, they did not even know what it is.

To make it easier to understand, let’s turn that into a political analogy. If someone comes to you and says that Party A is bad news, a rational person would react by asking for the evidence.

If the only evidence is based on hearsay and assumptions, it is very likely that the person is talking from ideology and sentiment instead of rational thinking. It is also likely that he is a supporter of Party B trying to badmouth Party A.

That is exactly what has happened to the TPP. If anyone pretended to know the content of the TPP before Oct 5, he was either a bomoh or an ideological activist.

There is no other way to explain the pretentious behaviour of claiming to know something that was not even released yet at that time.

The reality is, those who have been campaigning against the TPP are mostly ideolo­gical anti-liberalisation activists. They be­­lieve that a paternalistic government must protect us forever because we will never grow up as strong adults.

Their opposition to liberalisation is driven by the ideological belief that Malaysians are too weak and too stupid, and therefore, they as the clever ones, must protect us from competition.

Over the last few months I did try to engage with some of them. But I found them impossible to engage with because they jump from one point to another without any desire to take in answers to the issues they complain about.

And they will dismiss any answer you provide, accusing you of not knowing enough because only they have the superior ability to grasp complex issues.

They usually start by saying the TPP was negotiated in secret and therefore it must be bad. It does not matter how many times you explain to them that it is normal practice to negotiate the final deal before making it public.

They are not interested in the answer and before you know it, they would jump to a dozen more complaints, all of which are plucked from the Internet way before the true text is released.

If you tell them that the complaints are not in the actual text, they will say it may not be in now, but there is no guarantee it cannot be inserted in the future.

How do you talk to someone who refuses to accept the fact but is very quick at bringing into the conversation all future possibilities? Since there is no guarantee that driving a car is safe, should we ban all cars?

The main point here is that their opposition is driven by blind anti-liberalisation ideology. It does not matter that two cost benefit analyses have been released to say that the TPP would bring many benefits to the rakyat.

They would scramble to find faults with the studies, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they will soon accuse the two studies as biased just so that they can ignore the data and stick to their own opinions.

When it comes to ideology, data and facts are irrelevant.

Having said that, some of the complaints against the TPP deserve to be analysed further.

There are concerns about the potential impact of the extended copyright and patent protection on pricing of the protected items. Many parties have expressed concern about the potential risks behind the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), the government’s ability to conduct public health measures, impact on labour rights, domination of big powers especially the United States, and so on.

The concerns should indeed be addressed by our Government. The rakyat deserves to be told the real picture.

Unfortunately, and I choose my words carefully here, the Government has been very lousy at providing explanations on these issues.

After five years of negotiation, we see today a Government that seems to be clueless how to conduct the necessary public education exercise.

All the burden seems to be placed on Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed and his Ministry of International Trade and Industry. This is wrong because the TPP was negotia­ted by the Government as a whole, involving 16 agencies.

By right they should work together and pool resources to educate the public.

But we only see silence from almost all the other agencies. In fact some, including go­vernment-linked companies that were represented in the negotiation, are publicly hinting that the TPP should be rejected even though they were involved at the negotiation stage.

If this is not incoherence, should we call it irresponsibility?

--------- 

(2) Results of TPP cost benefit analyses validate need to liberalise Malaysia’s economy

PRESS STATEMENT

Kuala Lumpur, 7 December 2015 – The results of the two cost benefit analyses on Malaysia’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership conducted by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were released last week.

“Making an informed decision about Malaysia’s participation in the TPP requires a systematic and rational approach utilising the best possible evidence and analyses,” stated Wan Saiful Wan Jan, IDEAS Chief Executive Officer. “These two reports allow our parliamentarians, decision makers and civil society stakeholders to get answers on their concerns and then to make informed decisions.”

Wan Saiful added that: “I am glad that both reports did not play down the many concerns raised by various parties about the TPP. The fact that the two studies concluded that Malaysia would, overall, benefit from joining the TPP validate what we have been saying all along that liberalisation is good for the rakyat.”

“I want to emphasise that the government needs to get their act together to inform the public about the benefits of this trade agreement. So far it has done a lousy job at explaining the TPP despite having five years of negotiating it. It is unacceptable that the burden is piled on MITI alone, while other ministers behave as if they are unconnected to the process. All the ministries involved need to speak up as one government and there must be a coherent strategy to communicate with the public.”

“At the same time, I am worried about those who oppose the TPP because they have been unduly influenced by anti-liberalisation activists. These activists will oppose the TPP even when studies say it is good. They have been opposing it for years, before reading the actual text of the agreement or digesting the conclusions from the two studies. Even now, they will continue to oppose it regardless of these recent developments.”

“It is shocking how much coverage these anti-liberalisation activists have received and how many people have been influenced by their scare tactics. I expect that they will now be scrambling to find faults and attempt to discredit the two studies in order to save the little credibility that they have left. We must not be fooled and allow ourselves to be terrified. I urge everyone to read the two studies and decide based on the facts. We must ignore made-up accusations thrown by those who are driven by ideology rather than facts.”

“On the other hand, the two cost benefit analyses documented that Malaysia has obtained various exemptions and carve outs from the TPP, such as in the areas of Bumiputera policies and GLCs. I understand the short term political needs for these exemptions. But from the perspective of the longer term welfare of the rakyat, these exemptions will blunt the full benefits of the TPP. It would mean that Malaysia will not gain the maximum benefit from this round of liberalisation,” said Wan Saiful.

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

See also:

Free Trade 54, Eco-protectionism at APEC 2015 meeting, September 28, 2015 

Free Trade 55, TPP Agreement, finally, October 06, 2015

Free Trade 56, Trade, investments and taxes in APEC countries, November 08, 2015 

Free Trade 57, Growth, IPRI 2015 and the TPP, November 28, 2015

BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last Monday, November 16, 2015.

KUALA LUMPUR -- The protection of property rights and promulgation of the rule of law are the cornerstones of peace and order in society. When such property rights are removed and unprotected, society can quickly degenerate into chaos and disorder. For instance, your house or car is also somebody else’s house and car, and he/she can take and occupy it anytime, anywhere.

Measuring property rights protection across many countries has been done by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA), a network of 74 independent, nongovernment, and market-oriented think tanks from 57 countries around the world and is based in Washington, D.C.

PRA produces the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) annual reports, which is a measurement of how governments in the countries covered promulgate the rule of law and protect property rights, public and private, physical and non-physical or intellectual.

The IPRI 2015 Report is launched today here at Park Royal Hotel in the capital city of Malaysia. The event is jointly sponsored by the PRA and the South East Asia Network for Development, which is a regional project of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs in Malaysia.

The event’s theme is “Protection of Property Rights, Economic Growth, and the TPP.” The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is included in the theme because of its recent approval by the original 12 member-countries including Malaysia. TPP of course will not be implemented unless each member-country ratifies the agreement.

IPRI is derived by getting the score (one to 10, 10 being the highest) of each country covered in three major areas:

1 Legal and Political Environment (LP), which includes judicial independence, rule of law, control of corruption and political stability;

2 Physical Property Rights (PPR), which includes registration and protection of physical properties, and access to loans; and

3 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), which includes protection of IPRs, in particular patents and copyrights.

As a result, countries with high scores in two or all three of these areas will have a high IPRI score and global rank.

In the 2015 Report, the top 10 from 1st to 10th places are: Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Canada, and Netherlands.

For this piece, the focus will be on Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member-countries that are covered in the IPRI annual reports. Only 19 countries are in this table because Brunei was not included in the IPRI 2014 and 2015 Reports while Papua New Guinea was never included in all IPRI reports, past and present. (See Table)

APEC countries that were not included in the 2014 Report because of some incomplete data were given this observation in that report:

1 Philippines: Between 2010 and 2014, the Philippines IPRI score increased by +2.9%. In 2014 IPRI increased by +0.2 due to slight increases in all components. LP increased by +0.2 points due to all four of its items increasing in 2014. In particular, item Political Stability improved by +22.7% between 2013 and 2014.

2 South Korea: Over the 2010-2014 period of analysis, the South Korea IPRI score fluctuated around the value of 6.3. PPR data is missing from the analysis completely and IPR is missing for 2010 and 2011... In general, the overall IPRI value for South Korea is good and stable.

The Philippines’ jump in global rank from 77th in 2013 to 65th in 2015 is somehow impressive despite the flat score of 5.1 and 5.0, respectively. The reason for the big jump is because many countries have suffered significant decline in their scores from 2014 to 2015.

Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-6 that are also APEC members and covered in this annual report, there is a mixture of results over the years. The bad news is that (a) the gap in overall score between high-ranked Singapore and low-ranked Vietnam was very wide, with the average score of the former almost twice that of the latter; (b) Thailand and Vietnam suffered significant declines in scores and global rank, both falling by at least 19 notches in ranking from 2014 to 2015; and (c) Indonesia global rank also fell significantly from 59th in 2014 to 70th in 2015.

The good news is that Singapore and Malaysia have managed to retain their high scores and global ranking.

The results of this annual study should prod the governments of the Philippines and other East Asian economies to remember the main function, the raison d’être or reason for existence, of governments: to enforce the rule of law, the protection of the citizens’ right to life (against aggressors), right to private property (against thieves and destroyers of properties), and right to liberty (against bullies and despots).

There is a positive relationship between economic development and economic freedom, and the strength of property rights protection. Civil society leaders should keep reminding governments of this reality, and dissuade the latter from enacting and implementing various programs that directly or indirectly erode the respect of private property. 

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the President of Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., which is one of the 74 think tank-members of PRA. He is also a SEANET Fellow.

-----------

See also:
BWorld 22, WESM, PEMC and search for competitive electricity prices, November 05, 2015 
BWorld 23, ASEAN trade bureaucracies and Doing Business 2016 Report, November 07, 2015 
BWorld 24, Traffic and Newton's 3 laws of motion, November 12, 2015 
BWorld 25, Feed in tariff means expensive electricity, November 14, 2015

Inequality 26, Pew survey result on support for free market, July 27, 2015 
Inequality 27, ADR Institute forum on poverty and growth, August 18, 2015

Asian free market websites, Part 4

(I originally posted this early morning July 12. My updates for today, below)

How popular are the free market think tanks and institutes in Asia, at least online?

I checked alexa.com four years ago to answer that question. Today, out of curiosity, I checked again alexa.com and here is what I discovered. Shown are their global ranking -- out of several hundred million sites and blogs in the planet.

1. Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI), Seoul, headed by Dr. Tae-shin Kwon, represented by Dr. Choi Byung Il in various EFN Asia conferences.
2. Unirule Institute of Economics, Beijing, headed by Dr. Mao Yushi; often represented by Dr. Feng Xingyuan in various EFN Asia conferences.
3. Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME) Institute, Islamabad, headed by Ali Salman
4. Freedom Institute , Jakarta, headed by Dr. Luthfi Assyaukanie, among others.
5. Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), headed by Wan Saiful Wan Jan.
6. Suara Kebebasan, Jakarta. Not exactly a think tank but a website for freedom, headed by Adinda Tenriangke Muchtar.
7. Samriddhi The Prosperity Foundation, Kathmandu, headed by Robin Sitoula.
8. Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc./Funwithgovernment blog, Manila, headed by yours truly.
9. Liberty Institute, Delhi, headed by Barun Mitra.

The numbers in green are the increase in global rank over the past three months. In red are decrease in global rank over the same period. Notice the huge jump of these think tanks below in a short period of time.

10. Doimoi.org, Hanoi, is a think tank that translates some important classical liberal books and literatures into Vietnamese, headed by Cong Minh Nguyen.
11. In defence of liberty is another project of Liberty Institute, Delhi, headed by Barun Mitra.
12. Japanese for Tax Reforms (JTR), Tokyo, headed by Masaru Uchiyama or Mr. You.
13. Center for Civil Society (CCS) Delhi, headed by Dr. Parth Shah.
14. Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Manila, headed by Calixto "Toti" Chikiamco.
15. Alternate Solutions (AS) Institute, Lahore, headed by Dr. Khalil Ahmad.
16. Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong, headed by Bill Stacey.
17. Akademi Merdeka, Jakarta, is another project I think, of Freedom Institute.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) is not a think tank, it is a German political foundation, that supports many Asian free market think tanks, mainly through the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia, based in Bangkok. I just added here the website of FNF Philippine Office, headed by Jules Maaten.

Compared to US free market think tanks, institutes and foundations -- like Cato, ATR, Atlas, Heritage, AEI, Reason, etc. -- we from Asia have a lot more to learn and expand.

UPDATE, July 19:

I am expanding the list of Asian free market think tanks and institutes from 17 to 23 and checked their global ranking via alexa.com today. The six institutes added are:

1. IPencil Economic Research Institute, Beijing,
2. India Institute, Delhi,
3. Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law (SIFL), Shanghai, headed by Fu Weigang,
4. Open Radio for North Korea, Seoul,
5. Asia Center for Enterprise (ACE), Delhi, headed by Baishali Bomjan,
6. Teach North Korean Refugees, Seoul, headed by Casey Lartigue.

In terms of online popularity, here's the ranking as of today.

1. keri.org, Seoul

2. impencil.org, Beijing

3. unirule.org.cn, Beijing

4. primeinstitute.org, Islamabad
5. indiai.org, Delhi
6. suarakebebasan.org, Jakarta

7. ideas.org.my, Kuala Lumpur

8. freedom-institute.org, Jakarta

9. funwithgovernment.blogspot.com, Manila

10. samriddhi.org, Kathmandu

11. nkradio.org, Seoul
12. sifl.org.cn, Shanghai
13. acenetwork.asia, Delhi

14. libertyindia.org, Delhi

15. ccsindia.org, Delhi

16. indefenceofliberty.org, Delhi

17. doimoi.org, Hanoi
18. jtr.gr.jp, Tokyo

19. fef.org.ph, Manila
20. lionrockinstitute.org, HK

21. asinstitute.org, Lahore

22. akademimerdeka.org, Jakarta

23. teachnorthkoreanrefugees.org, Seoul.

Will update in the coming days.
-------------

See also: 
Asian free market websites, part 2, April 25, 2011 
Asian free market websites, part 3, May 10, 2011 
EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

AEC 14, SEANET-ABAC Meeting, IDEAS-OBG Partnership

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) will materialize in just six months, at end-December 2015. Many people both within and outside the region are excited about this common market project, composed of some 630 million people. Free movement of people and commodities, free mobility of goods and services within the 10 member-countries. That is economic freedom. 

But not full mobility yet, there are still pockets of protectionism especially in services, in almost all member countries. But the trend is towards gradual phase out of those non-tariff barriers (NTBs) in  goods and protectionism in services.

Yesterday, the team of South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET)  met with Tuan Syed Nabil Aljeffri, the Secretary General of the ASEAN Business Advisory Council (ABAC). Photo below, from  left:  Mr. Yohannan "Yogi" Nair of SEANET, Mr. Aljeffri, and Ms. Fareeza Ibrahim, also of SEANET.

In its facebook page, SEANET reported that the discussion focused on the various challenges and prospects that ASEAN and regional small and medium enterprises (SME's) face, and the necessary steps that must be taken to ensure that economic integration is equitable and sustainable in the long run.

See also the network's first newsletter, http://seanetwork.asia/index.php/seanet-newsletter-2/

On a related note, our ally and fellow free market think tank based in Kuala Lumpur, the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), has partnered with the global publishing and consultancy firm Oxford Business Group (OBG). The two think tanks will produce a report about Malaysia and the ASEAN economic integration.

IDEAS is the "mother entity" of SEANET. It is also a member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. Photo below, IDEAS CEO Wan Saiful Wan Jan and OBG’s Regional Manager for Asia Lauren Denny.

From IDEAS Press Release today,

The Report: Malaysia 2016 will provide detailed analysis of what the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community at the end of 2015 signals for both the regional and global economy. The publication will chart ASEAN’s drive to ensure people and their needs remain the top priority in the nations’ efforts to promote regional cooperation and solidarity.

Other issues set for coverage include ASEAN’s push to boost the part played by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in regional economic development and its efforts to promote more public-private sector partnerships (PPPs).

In other analysis, The Report: Malaysia 2016 will explore the achievements of the 10th Malaysia Plan, as well as the launch and goals of the new 11th Malaysia Plan which will lead the country to Developed Nation status by 2020.The publication will also shine the spotlight on the Malaysian states of Sabah and Penang, where there is evidence of significant economic potential; as well as the opportunities for foreign direct investment (FDI) emerging across many of the sectors of the country’s economy.

The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on research with OBG for its forthcoming report on the country’s economy. Under the first-time MOU, OBG will work with the leading think-tank, which promotes market-based solutions to public policy challenges, to compile and produce The Report: Malaysia 2016.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Founding Chief Executive of IDEAS said he is excited to contribute to The Report especially this year as IDEAS has just started their project on ASEAN.

"This is an exciting time for Malaysia and for the region. The birth of the ASEAN Community and the ongoing negotiations around the TPP hold huge potential for growth in this region and if done correctly Malaysia will certainly benefit from them. The government too has introduced some important structural changes in our economy which shows their commitment to improve the investment climate. My team has been looking into these issues and we are very keen help OBG capture these important developments in The Report."

OBG’s Regional Manager for Asia Lauren Denny said she was delighted that the Group’s team in Malaysia would benefit from IDEAS’ local knowledge in what marks its ten-year anniversary of analysing the country’s economy.

“Oxford Business Group has long recognised the importance of working closely with local partners who bring on-the-ground insight and expertise to the table,” she said. “The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs and Oxford Business Ground share plenty of common ground when it comes to areas of research, especially in the fields of economics and education. I am thrilled that our team will benefit from the institute’s contribution to our forthcoming report, which we’re sure will be a valuable tool for investors.”

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

See also:
AEC 10: Indigenous Rights, Labor and Human Rights in the ASEAN, April 21, 2015 
AEC 11: Trade and Economic Development is Social Development, April 25, 2015 
AEC 12: Workshop on Trade Liberalization at the APF 2015, Kuala Lumpur, April 27, 2015 
AEC 13, SEANET Website, AFAS in Financial Services, June 18, 2015

IPR and Medicines 33, Geneva Network's Forum in Singapore

Our friends and allies, Geneva Network (UK-based) and Southeast Asia Network for Development (SEANET, Malaysia-based) held a forum yesterday morning in Singapore on the TPP, Health and IPR. 

Background of  the forum:

This week, trade negotiators from some of the world’s most powerful economies are meeting in Guam to thrash out the final stages of the Trans Pacific Partnership.  This free trade agreement – which in Asia includes Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam and Brunei – stands to become a significant milestone in the deeper integration of the global economy.

Despite the economic potential of the TPP, one of its cornerstones – stronger intellectual property rights – remains controversial, with health NGOs claiming it will impact public health by raising the price of medicines.

To what extent are such fears justified? Why is intellectual property in this trade agreement important for the future of medical innovation? And what does the TPP mean for health in the Asia region?

The speakers yesterday were:

(1) Prof Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng, Faculty of Law, National Univ. of Singapore (NUS)

(2) Philip Stevens, Director, Geneva Network, UK

(3) Bill Claxton, Carcinoid & NeuroEndocrine Tumour Society

(4) Andrew Spiegel, Global Colon Cancer Association, and 

(5) Mo Mayrides, Associate VP, PhRMA, USA. 

Moderator was Dr. Debora Elms, Executive Director, Asian Trade Centre, Singapore.

I am reposting below tweets by  @SEANET_asia yesterday. All photos here are also from SEANET. Come, follow SEANET on  twitter and facebook, thanks.

(1) Prof Elizabeth Ng begins by introducing the countries involved in #TPP and how negotiation will impact the countries.

No one should begrudge that patent owners deserve adequate protection of returns from investment of considerable resources.

TPP Provision : Patent term extension, data exclusivity, including biologics and patent linkage.

It's often argued that stronger IP foster econ growth, but counter agreement is flow of FDIs is not solely on property rights.

What are challenges to incorporate in regional system?

1. Restriction on trips flexibilities eg: data exclusivity

2 : Lack of skilled patent examiners and other skilled workforce.

3. Access to medicine for the poor : price increases and lack of access to affordable generics.

#ASEAN #TPP countries - how do you further enhance corporation with AEC happening when only 4 ASEAN countries are involved?

The tension between patent protection and access for public health is unlikely to abate.

it is understandable the pharma industry feels justified to seek stronger patent protection

Protection and access must be appropriately calibrated in order to achieve balance between public interest and private interest.

(2) Philip Stevens from @genevanetwork : It's unlikely that there will be changes to the provisions on data inclusivity for chemical drugs.

If #IP protection increases in Malaysia, companies will set up R&D facilities.

No one has done cost benefit analysis on the impact heightened #IP provisions on the availability of medicines in developing countries.

There is a positive relationship between trade liberalisation and better health outcomes.

How? Economic liberalisation increases incomes - allows people to get better nutrition and sanitation.

(3) Bill Claxton of Carcinoid & NeuroEndocrine Tumour Society discusses how innovative medical care has improved his life.

As a patient advocate, I have become increasingly impressed with how pharmaceutical companies support patient groups.

#TPP we need to protect innovators and incentivise their efforts.

Clinical trial can't work for rare diseases. Many trial fails because of trial designs.

If you look at the debate of 5/7/12 yrs for data protection - it won't make a huge difference in rare disease community.

We are looking for a balance between protection and access between public interest and private interest.

(4) Mo Mayrides, Assoc VP of PhRMA representing industry views on #IP in the #TPP

I don't see how the #TPP would deny governments the right to public health access.

(5) Andrew Spiegel from Global Cancer Association who traveled from Philadelphia to attend the panel this morning

Patients that are diagnosed with colon cancer are living longer and more comfortably as a result of innovative biological drugs

Biologics have had tremendous impact on medicine, but there is still a long way to go

Investments will not occur in medical technology if there is no #IP protection

The scary part is if innovation stops, we would rather medicine get delayed into market than not being made all.

Open Forum, questions:

(a) Biggest barrier to #TPP is American public opinion. Do all patient advocacy groups align w your perspectives?

Andrew : Declaration of support among patient advocacy groups on #IP protection, 100 groups signed and delivered to President Obama

Bill Claxton:Patient groups are not well informed on this issue. It is possible to get a consensus view.Patient advocacy is an emerging area.

Dr Elms : Hypothetically, there is some time for patient groups to get mobilised by end of the year.

(b) Question ; How long does it take for medicine to be made and the cost?

Mo : Study from Tufts University - Cost is 2.6 USD Billion and takes 2-6 years to develop. Takes 7- 8 years before any return on investment.

Critics will say the cost is overblown. But costs have gone up in recent years.

I was supposed to attend that forum yesterday. Geneva Network's Director Philip Stevens invited me. But before I purchased my plane ticket last Saturday, an invite came from T/A Trade Advisory and the DFA, WTO chief in Manila, a "by invitation only" roundtable discussion, updates about the multilateral trading system, same day. I chose the later, no cost to me and the SG organizers.

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

See also:
IPR and Medicines 29: Parallel Importation and Patent Linkage, August 19, 2014
IPR and Medicines 30: R&D and Innovator Companies, November 03, 2014 
IPR and Medicines 31: Trademark Stealing and Counterfeit Medicines, November 17, 2014 

IPR and Medicines 32: The Policy Workshop's Hong Kong Dialogue, November 28, 2015