For the better part of the past two years, the Extreme Right (ER) in the guise of BN has held on and promoted the myth that liberalising Malaysia’s economy to become a completely free market will have a profoundly positive long-term effect for Malaysia. As this is the prevailing economic theory in most democracies, it’s no wonder that the ER thinks so, too.

But if you think about it, it is only true in a state of utopia where markets are always perfect and everyone acts rationally. By rational, we mean a rational government and market that acts free of greed and corruption. A government and market that gives back to the public what it reaps.

In addition, the ER is so fond of harping on the Malaysian people that we should be eternally grateful to the ruling party for pulling us out of “real poverty”. The ER takes pleasure in reminding us that our “poor” are not really poor as we have television sets, indoor plumbing, access to cheap healthcare and education. Honestly, they must have forgotten that wealth is not defined by whether you have a TV or not.

The current administration is under the delusion that unbridled trade liberalisation and unrestricted markets will benefit the people in the long run in that it will lead to sustained GDP growth.

Admittedly GDP growth is a prime indicator for economic health, albeit it is an indicator at the national level and statistically subject to law of averages. Therefore this does not necessarily translate to a sweeping increase in individual standards of living. In addition, it is not the ONLY indicator of economic health.

I tend to agree with Liew Chin Tong’s opinion in this matter. For all the praises that the ruling coalition is singing for the economy, there are structural faults emerging within the current economic model. Despite the ER’s vigour for attracting an influx of investment from China as further proof of a robust economy (that is not in need of rescue) and that is beneficial to all Malaysians, I have my doubts about it.

I would thus like to ask Loong Teck Meng and other ER MPs this - “How does the recent influx of development funds from China really benefit the people of Malaysia, and at what cost?” It is good to remember that Malaysia has always welcomed foreign direct investments in the past, but we have always been careful to such investment is a profitable venture to all, and is one that preserves Malaysia’s best interests.

It is with this debate in mind that the prime minister recently fired a salvo disputing our contention that Malaysia’s national sovereignty has been compromised by the recent spate of China-funded national projects such as the East Coast Rail Line (ECRL).

At this point, it is good for everyone to look back at the definition of sovereignty. The Cambridge Dictionary defines sovereignty as “The power of a country to control its own government”. It’s worth noting here that the key word here is CONTROL.

Sovereignty is everything to do with control of our own country. Us, the people of Malaysia want the power to control our own government. For it is that control that will determine the extent that any developments will benefit Malaysians most.

Not anti-Chinese nor anti-China, but pro-Malaysian

Don’t get me wrong. Bersatu and Pakatan Harapan are neither anti-Chinese nor anti-China. We are vehemently pro-Malaysian and we want to see Malaysians benefit most from any development that takes place on our shores. I’m sure everyone understands this and agree with this.

So I beg to consider this - when one man embroiled in a global kleptocracy scandal offers national projects and assets to a select few nations in exchange for development funding and/or loans at vaguely loose terms, one must always ask what is the measure of control Malaysia will continue to have should those vague terms be breached?

Consider how the terms can compromise our sovereignty.

China needs to create jobs for its people. At the same time, in running the development projects, they need to achieve the highest profits. Ergo, deploying Chinese nationals to work on the development project at wages lower but at higher productivity levels than current Malaysians fulfills their needs.

But Malaysia, in their overzealous drive to open the market at “competitive” terms and in their desperate need for funds, will jeopardise national interests in that jobs for the project are given to foreign nationals instead of local Malaysians. We lose control over the ability to ensure our people directly benefit from this venture in terms of filling thousands of jobs created during the project.

Other terms of the project award and development funding/loans may also be non-financial in nature such as on mandatory procurement of project materials from China instead of from local or other more cost effective suppliers. This would mean Malaysia loses control over the project spending as well as lose the opportunity to spur the local economy through supplies of the materials from local sources.

Certainly, if such terms are provided and agreed upon by ER, would that not be tantamount to a loss of sovereignty?

TARIQ ISMAIL MUSTAFA is a supreme council member, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu).