Admittedly, Malaysia has not had many great opportunities to rise to leadership in any sort of viable or high potential industries. This is compounded by the fact that Malaysia is neither the cheapest place to run a factory, nor well-equipped and well-run enough to be host to the regional HQs of the largest companies. Simply put, Malaysia today just does not have the comparative advantages available to countries like China, India or Singapore.

As such, every high potential opportunity available to our country must be pursued ardently, including the growing halal industry recently spotlighted at the inaugural World Halal Forum held at Kuala Lumpur a few weeks back. It is said to be already a US$500 billion-a-year industry, and with the ever-increasing Muslim population, the halal industry’s growth opportunities are almost infinite.

Malaysia’s key comparative advantage is clear. Malaysia is one of the very few moderate (i.e. scientifically and economically-inclined) Islamic countries in the world with the necessary infrastructure, well-diversified labour force and related resources to provide foreign multinational companies (MNCs) a stable, and relatively low-cost Islamic hub to produce, promote, export and manage their halal products. MNCs will not have to be worried about an overly aggresive religious environment, an unstable political and socio-economic climate, or a ridiculously tight regulatory framework.

In fact, Malaysia fulfills all the necessary qualities to serve as a successful platform not only for the traditional halal food market, but also for financial services and tour packages. Malaysia already has in place multiple Islamic banks with a well-documented Islamic regulatory framework, and a labour force well-suited for the Islamic tour industry given its multi-racial nature. Perhaps its simpler to say that Malaysia is well-suited to be a forerunner in the largely untapped global halal logistics industry.

So, what steps must Malaysia take? In the short to medium run, we should be looking at accelerated efforts to not only promote the strict halal certification process touted by the Government, but also attract foreign MNCs to Malaysia by offering the “standard” tax and infrastructure incentives, not unlike the Transport Ministry’s planned trade mission to Dubai. In the long run, developing a central hub for the halal industry, where supporting industries (e.g. transport and distribution) can take root, should be a key aim.

But of course, the real question still remains. Can the Goverment effectively develop the halal industry in Malaysia without creating the same problems we have seen in prior high potential industries?

Since the currency peg on the Malaysian ringgit was released, we’ve seen the ringgit rise by around 4.8 percent to its current status of US$1 = MYR3.60. While this is predominantly a good thing given its adherence to the free market principles our Government desperately hopes will propel Malaysia’s future development, it hasn’t really helped Malaysian students aiming to go overseas to study as much as we’ve hoped.

Why? Well, the two traditional tertiary education hotspots overseas, i.e. the United Kingdom and United States, have held their own on the foreign exchange market pretty well - especially in recent weeks. The Pound Sterling has recovered much of its strength in the past month, and is now close to returning to the RM 7.00 = 1 Pound threshold UK-bound students know and fear.

But there is hope for the future, at least analysts think so. Recently, it was announced by the ANZ Bank (plus some other organisations) that it is likely that the Malaysian ringgit will appreciate further over 2006 and 2007 due to strong economic prospects, and of course, a weak US dollar. Expectations of higher interest rates have also assisted the ringgit’s rise, and will help underpin a stronger ringgit.

But if the Pound Sterling continues displaying its remarkable strength… urghh, a British education will continue to be hell to pay for. At least students bound for the US have a better outlook given the strong belief that the US Dollar will continue its fall in the medium to long term.

Well, with Malaysia recently lifting its import ban on American beef, rumours that the United States will soon start free trade talks with Malaysia are easy to believe, and should indeed happen given that news reports already point towards International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz arriving in the US.

But while free trade between the US and Malaysia should be wholly welcomed by any Malaysian at all, we can see easily that free trade today isn’t exactly “free” - especially when it comes to Malaysia, and its past history with the United States. It shouldn’t be too difficult to recall that our ex-Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir was always a sharp critic of the United States.

In any case, I, and probably any other Malaysian, would love to see a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the US and Malaysia in the near future. If these talks somehow work out, Malaysia will be the second ASEAN country with a FTA with the United States (after Singapore).

The recent fuel hike and subsequent measures taken by the Malaysian Government (e.g. urging Govt. staff in northern Malaysia to cycle to work) has met with more disapproval than support in recent days. We have the Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations (FOMCA) president saying that the hike was “simply too much”, the Kuala Lumpur Lorry Operators Association secretary-general claiming that “…even the present diesel subsidy was not enough…” and even the president of the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers chiming in with “…the recent hike in fuel price may have a significant negative impact on the manufacturing industry if there is a potential increase in electricity charges.”

But that’s not all. Malaysiakini is host to much more “disturbing” talk on the fuel hike. Try the “durian story” analogy which argues that there’s no reason to decrease fuel subsidies when Petronas - a highly profitable fuel company - is government-owned (or more accurately, citizen-owned). Try this reader’s call for more transparency and accountability by Petronas (or rather, the Government). If you want even more arguments against the fuel hike, look at the responses of MDP (arguing that the Govt.’s aim of using the extra funds for public transportation and etc. would turn up empty, yet again) and DAP (arguing that the move is “highly irresponsible and uncaring”).

Luckily, we do have positive statements from Malaysians. There are those that applaud the Government’s move, arguing that subsidies benefited the rich more than the poor in the first place (but still pushing for greater accountability of Petronas’ gains). Personally, I feel that Malaysian demand for petrol has been far too high in the first place - a clear symptom of the circumvention of basic economic principles. Subsidies have undeniably served their purpose, but oversubsidies have possibly cost Malaysian companies their international competitiveness.

It’s therefore a brave move to remove these competitive hindrances, now that they are less needed. Better to wean Malaysian firms from “petrol overdependence” now rather than later as no longer can we expect kindness in today’s harsh global economy. Of course, we do also have to hope that the financial gains from the fuel hike are used appropriately.