It has been shown around the world that more trade and market-oriented economic policies are beneficial to workers through a combination of lower unemployment and higher income levels. Speaking as a Malaysian, I think Dr Chandra Muzaffar's views on the free trade agreement (FTA) are deeply flawed and he remains a contradiction unto himself, and here is why.

Job losses: Replacing low paying jobs with higher paying ones

The best security for workers today is a dynamic economy that guarantees job creation. Sure, jobs in agriculture and manufacturing could be lost when a country opens its economy but what is more important is that the new jobs higher up the value chain are created as the country's economy develops.

There are many examples. Take the US or United Kingdom where there are a lot fewer jobs in manufacturing today than 10 years ago but income levels are higher than ever before (per capita income of US$44,000 and US$38,000, respectively) and unemployment is lowest among developed countries.

In Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore are good examples of displaced jobs in agriculture and manufacturing being replaced by higher paying jobs in services. In India, higher paying jobs are being created in the IT sector due to the openness of the sector - isn' t that what Asian
economies should aspire to for their workers?

Labour rights: The right to a job of choice

It is always an upward struggle for the worker bee, who has limited capital resources for economic advancement. This is why we should not deny the worker an option to work for multinational corporations if he has the chance to advance himself through hard work and higher income.

Look around the multinational corporations in Malaysia the likes of HSBC, Citibank, Motorola, Siemens, etc - are they not choice employers preferred by workers? Do they not offer medical benefits that are equal if not superior to local companies? Only union leaders will begrudge workers this choice as they stand lose relevance in an environment where workers are equipped with the right skills.

Lucrative government tenders: Time to stop padding the contracts and use savings for better healthcare

Government contracts are lucrative because they are padded to benefit friends of the political elite at the expense of the average Malaysian worker. Opening up this area under the FTA will reduce procurement costs and savings could better be used to improve healthcare and education options for the Malaysian worker. Why should the Malaysian worker pay for the inefficiency of government and to preserve the profits of local corporations?

Strategic industry or local cartel?

The truth is that trade in an open economy breaks down inefficient local monopolies and cartels for the benefit of workers through lower prices on their daily consumption and higher wages through better employment opportunities. For instance, why bother with a national car industry where workers (who are also consumers) have to pay higher prices for cars than their peers in other countries?

Better to open up the auto sector as in Thailand, invite more investment and create better paying jobs which at the same time allows for lower car prices. The FTA is in the interests of the average Malaysian worker - there is no dignity in being subservient to the political elite and their crony friends.

The irony of Just

It is ironic that Chandra, as president of the International Movement for a Just World (Just), should be the defender of the affirmative action policy in Malaysia. The policy can be construed as unjust as it showers privileges on the bumiputera community at a time when government reports have shown that the Indian community is the poorest lot in Malaysia.

The point he mentions on affirmative action programmes and lucrative government tenders largely benefits only the Malay elite.