Recently I attended the wedding reception of a school mate who has settled down in the UK but chose to celebrate his daughter\’s wedding amongst family, friends and community. What struck me most was the father\’s pride and joy in the marriage of his daughter to a very humane gentleman of English descent.

His wife, the bride\’s mother is of Indonesian descent. The wedding was truly a cultural celebration and party time for all guests; as the evening ended with almost everyone on the floor doing cultural and modern dancing to music ranging from Hindi hits to bhangra beats.

The father toasted the nation with his speech; after meticulously mentioning family members who had nurtured his growth and maturity in life, friends who helped along the way, including a teacher who shaped his perspective to life.

The toast to the nation took me by complete surprise; although he is an Old Putera of the RMC.

\"\"

We were in fact trained and nurtured to put the nation before self! But, few do today. And he even spoke this thesis before the new British Prime Minister, David Cameron (left) , who said: \”We are announcing a new politics, a new politics where the national interest is more important than party interest.\”

Is not such national pride and public spiritedness also the third party interest for national development?

Is not putting the public interest above all else, equally important also for Najib\’s high income vision for the nation?

Or, is this all simply a gimmick to make the wealthy wealthier, without any real effort but with nothing much of real value added?

Let me give two examples to make my point.

My brother works with a public service department and was required to make an official trip to a faraway land. He asked his office to get him quotations for the trip.

The difference in price offered by two legitimate and approved contractors was RM13000. Yes, for this round trip ticket. His office could have used either a contractor, without breaking any rules, other than the rule of prudence.

Another case study: the NGO I am involved with needed the services of a contractor for tables and chairs for a function. Again the quotes from two approved and accredited contractors of another non-profit agency had some ridiculous differences in price.

These two everyday case studies lead me to my rhetorical question, if a high cost is a necessary condition to achieve a high income nation? Is this really Najib\’s vision for the high income nation?

Missing link

I am no economist, even if I remain a student of economics. Simple economics taught me that supply and demand defines price.

Therefore the more suppliers and the more demand, the better the price competitiveness. At least this is the theory. But, there is a trick and a missing link here.

There can be a good and fair price only if there is market competitiveness and if there is free flow of information, and there is access of the correct information to the right decision-makers.

In the cases of the travel agencies of the public department or the table suppliers of the non-profit agency, either the relevant officials do not use their brain or they do not know where or how to undertake a bench marking exercise or the supplier system is flawed.

Or, some must believe that high cost must equal to high income. Maybe also, we are careless with prudence when the money is not ours. But, is it not? Let me make my case further.

I needed to fly to the US to attend my son\’s wedding and we needed to buy three cheap tickets.

Therefore I requested my 14-year old to undertake a search and soon enough he learns to use ‘Expedia;\’ one of many price-cost information agencies who act like travel agents on the net, and after an extensive price-comparison and preference for flights and routes and stops; we made a decision for the choices we preferred.

We got some fairly cheap travel rates; but more importantly we knew we were not being cheated, as we knew the price and full cost of almost every other option, from almost every airline.

Good economics of demand and supply with correct and competitive information was made available to the decision makers.

\"najibNow, my question and thus the reflection for this column; what does Najib (right) really mean by a high income nation?

Does it always have to mean high cost but poor value added services because it was delivered without real market competition?

Does the purchase model have to protect rent seekers and monopolistic players? What is the role of free market competition and full information?

Let us take the example of our current electricity supply. What and why are our current rates going higher and higher with no end in sight, while the trustee is doing as bad job with costs and productivity?

Is the monopolistic market condition really good for the nation in terms of electricity supply?

Are not electricity rates and delivery of this basic necessity always a public good?

Does paying high rates to incompetent suppliers and high cost producers lead to higher income?

Who will take care of the wage of the farmer or the small shop keeper or the ordinary consumer?

‘Renter capitalism\’

I believe our current model for public good services delivery operates on what can be called ‘renter capitalism.\’

The payment of extra costs is always to fulfill the rent-seeking appetite of traditional feudal lords who control \”the flow of passengers and goods down a river.\”

Traditionally these rent collectors got their privilege and license from the local chieftains and power rangers. Today they are called toll collectors and license holders?

Why should public finances and funds support the greed and insatiable desires of these new feudal lords? Is not efficiency and effectiveness, or productivity of services delivery equally important?

Should we not benchmark our public good delivery vehicles against our neighbors for service and cost excellence? Is that also not part of cost efficiency and effectiveness?

Therefore, for the life of me, and although I worked faithfully in Ministry of Trade and Industy for five years, I still do not quite understand the logic for why we need to issue Approved Permits to support the monopoly of imported vehicles only to support few non-market players?

Other than distorting free market competition, which we can ill afford; I cannot see why these individuals are given the APs; as if they have God-ordained rights and privileges of the select few.

To my simple mind, and even if we choose to protect our local kampung class automotive industry, why not auction the APs to finance the public good delivery of good public transportation instead of funding the wealthy lifestyles of selected individuals!

For, as surely as they do in Singapore, these auctions can create good money and good value for proper public service use and the delivery of excellent public transportation which benefits the majority and the public interest.

High income does not have to mean high cost of local services in the domestic market! May God help us to be honest, true and sincere!