Advantages Of Privatisation In Malaysia

Free trade is refer to policy made between two or more country to eliminate tariffs, quotas and. the import and export trade restrictions and barriers. When there is decrease in tariff for the imported goods and services that mean will benefit the all the consumer in the country. Free trade can increase prosperity for all citizen of a nation by allowing access to high quality of good and services imported from other countries with cheaper price. Good and services that with lower price from other countries will be benefit to consumers that made consumer have more choices of brands, styles and varieties as well as cheaper goods may be same quality at better price.

Foreign direct investment FDI is an investment of a company from one country to another whereby assets are acquired, operations are set up and joint ventures with local firms are made (Financial Times , n.d.). FDI is a risky and more expensive method of venturing globally as compared to licensing and exporting, however it does not stop companies from doing so due to its many advantages. FDI is one of the key drivers in speeding up the development and economic growth in Malaysia. Sound macroeconomic management, presence of a well-functioning financial system and sustained economic growth has made Malaysia an attractive country for FDI. Moreover, FDI plays a crucial role in Malaysia economy as it generates economic growth by increasing capital formation through the expansion of production capacity.

In the 20th century, trade unions is an important labour force through which working people have a collective voice at work and an avenue to equality, fair treatment and economic security. However, in the 21st century, it was argued that ‘organised labour seems heading for extinction’ (The Economist, 21 September 2006) as cited in Schnabel (2012). It seems that trade unions in various countries, including Malaysia, are slowly declining its density and membership.

In order to understand the reasons behind privatisation of public services, it is essential to study the socio-political environment of the UK in the 1970’s. During this period of time, the UK was hit by the post-war crisis, which led the Tories British political party, also known as the Conservative Party, to lose dominance in the parliament. During this time, in the Ridley Report, the Thatcher shadow cabinet started suggesting about the need to break up the public sector and to disjoint unions. Initially, privatisation was subordinate to other policy themes. Nonetheless, during Margaret Thatcher’s governance starting in 1979, a certain degree of privatisation was put in place, notably regarding British Aerospace and Cable & Wireless (1). Nonetheless, during this period of time, the government’s aim was to privatise profitable entities, in order to increase revenues and therefore minimize borrowing from the public-sector.

State-owned enterprises are regarded as a particular circumstance of business organisations and considered as the basis of economic growth in many countries (Zhang, 2011). It can be seen that the proportion of state-owned companies has increased from nine percent in 2005 to 23 percent in 2014 especially in China which has a proportion of 15 percent in 2014 (PwC, 2015). Furthermore, state-owned companies might be a necessary tool for development in emerging countries, because they can be directed and achieved by governments. Although state-owned companies have played an important role in an economy, they sometimes seem to perform poorly compared with private sectors on average in many countries, partly because the goals of public policy sometimes are complicated to be achieved (World Bank Group, 2014). Therefore, many countries have decided to privatise because they have expected that private sectors would operate and perform better than the government would do. Thus, privatisation has become an international phenomenon globally particularly in addressing inefficiency from state enterprises. However, there might have some benefits and drawbacks of privatisations, but all of the procedures are most likely to depend on the quality of contracts and regulation in each circumstance. For this reason, this essay will examine: firstly, the agency costs that seem to occur in state-owned companies, secondly a privatisation will be analysed as a result from those costs. Thirdly,

Privatization (outsourcing) is the process of transferring ownership of property or business from a government to a privately owned entity. Privatization is an ongoing trend in many parts of the developed and developing world. It conjures both positive and negative emotions within the corporate arena as well as often ignite as much heat as light within an education discussion. Proponents of privatization maintain that the competition in the private sector fosters more efficient practices, which eventually yield better service and products, lower prices and less corruption. On the other hand, critics of privatization argue that some services should be in the public sector to enable greater control and ensure more equitable access.

It is common practice now for governments to contract with private companies for services which were traditionally under public administration. As a general concept, administrative law regulates public bureaucracy while private bureaucracies are subject to other private law areas such as torts or contract law.

According to the Oxford dictionary, an education is the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. Exam conveys the meaning of a formal written, spoken or practical test, especially at school or college, to see how much you know about a subject, or what you can do. When these two words are associated together, it brings a whole new meaning which is, an education is valued or assessed by obliging the students taking exams. By referring to the title: Education System in Malaysia is Too Exam Orientated, it shows that the Malaysia’s education system is relying on only exams and this eventually indicates the engagement is either by learning and teaching an instruction given by teachers. According

In my opinion, the politicians based its support to the de-privatization on how to take the greatest advantage of the system for their personal benefit, not to its population. As mentioned previously, in an ideal world with an honest government, the implementation of the privatization would be only in cases where private companies are making illegal movements that interfere and harm the development and prosperity of the country. In these cases, the intervention of the government will be imperative. However, I see more benefit for the country and for the government (if used the funds and benefits properly) in the privatization than the de-privatization

Savas (2005) argued that privatization initiatives had reached their fruition, realizing that public interest viewed the public/private partnership were strong opposition among labor unions and believed that the proposed contracts threaten employment. Situations such as perceived abuse in political power became a common place for grass root organizations advocating progressive change to the free enterprise markets by organizing campaigns to block elected officials who supported public/private partnerships. However, some of the service contracts which dominated the privatization methods were sheer volume activity; that thirty-two of the sixty-six privatization contracts were not a mixed of the private-public partnership; out of the $1, 148 million

HYPERLINK l "_Toc325293928" Privatization Is Strategic Solution That Can Scale If Rolled Out Regionally PAGEREF _Toc325293928 h 11

According to Vision Launch, cities have already tried privatization in the past, and the results weren’t too satisfactory. Considering that private financing costs more than public financing, many people are often under the false perception that it is the other way around, which gives them the impression for a short term that privatization will be more beneficial in the long term. Taxpayers in the end are the ones who are left paying for these projects through their monthly bills. Gaining

The privatization of various segments of government are currently being utilized to increase efficiency and productivity while driving down costs; privately-run prisons are one example. As public trust in government diminishes, due to bureaucracy and lackadaisical government officials, it would be imprudent to not to consider the benefits of allowing private organizations to operate various segments of government. From the perspective of the taxpayer, this would be a wise choice as tax

The process of planning and approving the projects in the PSIP reinforces the achievement of ministry objectives, many

In the previous years ago, the word privatization was not well-known same as today. Conversely, word nationalization was popular at that time because of the government at that time owned all of the important enterprises such as infrastructure businesses while private sector owned in the diminutive enterprise which not important about the lifestyle of the people that illustrated the government had more bargaining power than private sector. Almost people knew nationalization but did not know about privatization. They had negative view point in privatization and thought the private sector could not develop the services or products like the government. Until 1969 Peter F. Drucker is the first person who wrote about privatization in the book