|
Statement by Honourable Mr. Loh Seng
Kok (MP Kelana Jaya, Selangor),
Member of Parliament & Representative of Malaysia
on “Agenda Item 56: Globalisation and Interdependence”,
at the Second Committee (Economic & Financial Committee)
of the 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
at UN HQ, New York, USA, on
Thursday, 1st November 2007.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Malaysia aligns itself with Pakistan’s
statement made on behalf of G77 and China. We would like to thank the
Secretary General for his reports.
Madam Chair,
2.
It was fitting that the
Secretary General’s report on this subject addressed the theme of
`Impact that, inter-alia, international commitments, policies and
processes can have on the implementation of national development
strategies’. We took away from the report the following points:
Firstly,
developing countries face many challenges as they endeavour to balance
their international obligations with their national priorities;
Secondly,
these international obligations sometimes conflict with national
policies and priorities established through legitimate democratic
processes;
Thirdly,
international disciplines, rules, policies and processes are often not
flexible enough to respond to fast-changing domestic and external
circumstances; and
Fourthly, owing to their inherent weaknesses, developing countries in
particular, face greater difficulty not only in managing the negative
implications, but also of managing globalization as a whole.
3.
By all accounts,
globalisation will in the future, permeate more fully into every single
aspect of a nation’s policy-making process - be it in the field of
trade, or investment, or even in the prioritising of a country’s
expenditure. Time will only make it more powerful as a concept and as a
movement.
4.
I would hasten to add
that Malaysia, which has gained so much from globalization, would be the
last to deny its benefits. We cannot deny however, that its
mismanagement is the cause of so much misery today. The sharing of the
benefits of today’s brand of globalisation is uneven at the extreme, and
governance of it is shoddy at best. Market liberalisation, a major
thrust of the globalisation process, has been applied selectively with
the rules changed periodically, often at the behest of the powerful to
suit their particular interest in a certain point in time. This inhibits
developing countries’ ability to penetrate a particular market, and
thereby impacts upon our ability to generate income and hence improve
our economic wellbeing and social welfare.
5.
Such protectionist
tactics are particularly reprehensible in light of the fact, as noted in
the Secretary General’s report, that the economies of developing
countries have become increasingly dependent on the export markets of
the developed countries. Changing the rules mid-game cannot be anything
but protectionism in a different guise. If anything, if market
liberalisation is to be fair and just, the greater burden of its
application must fall on the more lucrative markets of the world, not
imposed upon the world’s poorest to squeeze them below the poverty line.
Madam Chair,
6.
It is clear that
globalisation is here, is here to stay and will not go away. At the
same time, it is also clear that economic growth in the future will be
framed by the following main trends:
Globally, financial speculation will continue to be a significant
creator of individual wealth. Some have estimated that 90 percent of
financial flows are unrelated to the real economy;
Continued increases in the price of oil; and
Higher
costs related to climate change, which will increasingly be borne by the
poor.
7.
As matters stand, all of
these factors will widen rather than reduce the gap between the rich and
the poor. It is therefore imperative that the international community
find ways of managing globalisation better, so that its benefits accrue
most to the poorest and most marginalised, and in doing so make it more
humane.
8.
To achieve a more humane
form of globalisation, we need to firstly reassess the basis of
relations between the rich and the poorer countries. At present,
relations are characterised by asymmetries of power between the rich and
the poor, resulting in perpetual antagonism. While interdependent, we
still view gains as mutually exclusive events, in which one wins only at
the expense of another. This results in the weakening of the whole. We
need to recognize that the deepening process of globalisation should not
only result in interdependence, but in inter-reliance. The notion of
inter-reliance, rather than interdependence, will bring more sharply
into focus the importance of the human chain only being as strong as our
weakest link. As humanity increasingly faces collective challenges
requiring collective action, our only hope for continued prosperity is
to strengthen our weakest links.
9.
Secondly, we must
recognise that equal treatment is not just treatment. If justice is to
be the main organisational principle of a humane form of globalisation,
the international economic system must be tilted in favour of the poor.
A level playing field assumes that all countries are in the same stage
of development. We are not. This is where the principle of special and
differential treatment and other special safeguard mechanisms come into
play. Without such a handicap, the poor and the disadvantaged will only
get poorer and more disadvantaged
10.
Thirdly, we must
recognize that we must recast the international economic structure so
that it amplifies, rather than diminish, the strengths of the poor.
Perhaps nothing can better illustrate this point more than the present
intellectual property regime. Despite being in possession of the vast
majority of global biodiversity and bio-resources, developing countries
are unable to tap into this vast potential of wealth due to bio-piracy
and bio-prospecting. A few months ago, there was some controversy when
the government of Indonesia refused to share samples of the avian flu,
after finding out that its samples have been used to make vaccines for
which it would be charged the full amount of US$20 a dose. It was only
after a more equitable sharing system was introduced that the matter was
resolved. It seems that in this brave new world, for the developing
countries, even our diseases are stolen from us as a potential source of
wealth for the richest pharmaceutical companies.
11.
Further, in the rush to
patent technology, countries and companies forget that improvements on
the original model, which can be facilitated by the transfer of
technology, can make it more efficient and cost-saving. Had it not been
for the lapse in the patent caveat filed by Antonio Meucci, it might
have taken Alexander Graham Bell a whole lifetime for the opportunity to
improve upon the technology already available. The intellectual property
regime, while well meaning in many ways, is an obstacle in others,
namely the transfer of technology and access to life-saving medicines.
Madam Chair,
12.
To conclude,
globalisation, if it is to fulfill its fullest potential and the
benefits that come with it, must provide the developing world with a
greater stake in the global decision-making process. Establishing rules
and norms without the inclusion of a large chunk of the international
community should not continue. If it is a truly globalised human family
that we seek, then the principles of justice, equity and inclusion must
form the cornerstone of this new, more humane, global order.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
 |
