Back to News Menu About the Rat Asia Pacific Management Forum

What's New? Site Map

Search the Asia Pacific Management Forum database of almost 1,000 pages. Updated weekly. Use today's topical search terms or clear the box and enter your own. Click options for complex or phrase search. Or click on the icon for our full search facilities.

Google! is one of the publicly accessible Web document databases recommended by the APMF for professional and business research. Developed at Stanford university for research purposes, it is acknowledged by many as being the clear leader in returning relevant results. Use our suggested search or clear the box and enter your own.

Recovery strategies differ markedly, with Malaysia and Vietnam opting for more control, while Thailand, Korea and Indonesia had no choice than to conform to IMF prescriptions. Singapore made a free choice, and that was to open up further, in direct contrast to the Malaysian approach. All approaches have met with creditable success, except in the case of Vietnam whose recovery is more limited. It was certainly a case of different strokes for different folks. The tendency of some countries leaders to boast that "their approach was best" thankfully has been limited to only a few, and is based on a view that Asian economies are more similar than diverse. Of course that is absolutely incorrect if you compare the economic base, population, GDP, level of development and ethnic make-up of all Asian countries.

The concomitant view however, that the causes of the crisis were different is logically flawed. All affected economies were hit at around the same time. A domino effect ensued for sure, but it was all predicated on the same cause that this column has espoused since the outset that fateful day in June. Our direct quote was that the economic crisis was "...a correction, though a bloody big one...".

Nothing since has caused us to correct that analysis. Asian economies had benefited from the lack of international investment opportunities elsewhere for ten years. Greed and waste set in, and the trickle-down theory much-beloved by free market apologists failed to materialise. Most of the wealth generated by fool-hardy Western and local investors went into the hands of local élites, not to the people as a whole, nor into developing the fundamentals of value-added business. Money was funneled into symbols of success (Western capitalism meeting Chinese "face" in a vitriolic and ultimately fatal mixture), rather than substantive projects that could have alleviated the social side-effects or making organizations leaner and more efficient. Less money was spent on building business than dividing up the profits. Management skills failed to develop. With a bubble economy, wealth increases without the need for good management. Salaries, real estate and other business costs increased, without a congruent rise in value, and investors found other playgrounds like Latin America and Eastern Europe where conditions mirrored those of Asia in a previous time.

To paraphrase Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street" -

"..Greed is good - (but only in a bubble economy)..."

The prescience of our own forum readers was demonstrated by the results of our survey on Recovery prospects late last year, when Singapore was viewed by far as the economy most likely to recover.

With a freeing up of some of the IMF prescriptions, the economies under IMF tutelage can look forward to a freer choice in future, and to choose between two so-far successful models. - the open strategy model of Singapore that embraces globalization, or the more closed strategy of Malaysia. Both also have been accompanied by changes in society and the role of government. Singapore has encouraged free speech and the free market in recent years, Malaysia has controlled the press, and attempted to silence, by arrest, denigration and side lining, those who disagreed with their strategy.

While success may have followed both strategies, and apart from any argument that may be had with the ethical implications of the loss of human rights and control of information in Malaysia, the great concern is that Malaysia has created a "secondary bubble economy", extending the life of the first one in Malaysia alone. On the argument that the global financial system is flawed and biased against developing nations, particularly those of a certain social color, business has been shielded from the realities of the global market place, and is not learning how effectively to compete within that market place in future. Now that would be fine of course if Malaysian economies don't have to compete globally sometime in the future, but the bet is they will! Even with a staged exposure to the real world, valuable time is being lost.

Thailand is now looking at that choice, and Montri Chenvidyakarn, secretary general of the Thai Financial Sector Re-structuring Authority had some interesting comments in the Nation's "Street Wise"... Key excerpts follow

After two years in the job (Montri) has learned that Thailand must become more global to survive, and the model to follow is Singapore, not Malaysia...

Selling off the assets - which in previous auctions have gone for an average 25% of their face value - has led Montri to conclude that stringent international business demands require Thailand to allow more involvement by foreign investors.

Malaysia last year imposed capital controls that trapped foreign investment in a country for a year to stave off any sudden economic collapse. Montri said Malaysia's example should not be followed.

"Mahathir is building a very tall embarkment to prevent flooding." Montri said. "..You cannot just say `I am trying to protect Malaysia as a country' and forget about other things going on outside.... ... Sooner or later when the barriers are dismantled, you will be flooded by others who are more adaptable.."

Montri, a former university professor said the Thai government should now concentrate fully on restructuring the banking structure.

After all, Indonesia has paid a heavy price for their claim to a place in the global community.