Here is a typical pattern used on a typical richly ornate false door. Given how various temples were built sometimes a century apart, I found the commonness as mildly surprising. It suggests innovation was really slow.
But it is pretty nonetheless.
This is at Angkor Wat.
I am unsure of its functions but my readings tell me that an actual door typically face east and the other false doors face the other three cardinal directions.
Since it will be August 31 soon, I think I want to further develop my thinking about the 55 versus 49 years old debate, i.e. how old is Malaysia?
I have shared opinion on the matter a number of times over the last, probably six years. I was September 16, before there was September 16 (kidding, don’t shoot me). Now, I want to generalize my framework on the matter.
The debate does matter in terms of historical accuracy and its logical implications are huge (honestly though, in the immediate every day, the debate is pedantic but fun nonetheless). For instance, if you understand Malaysia to be born in 1963 and that Malaysia does not exist prior to September 16 1963, then Malaysia was never colonized. What were colonized were the lands that modern Malaysia now encompasses. I think this is a strict observance of definition but many are not really interested in such strict observance.
In fact, many would ridicule that strict observance. When historian Khoo Kay Kim said that Malaysia was never colonized by the British because technically, the lands that came to form Malaysia under the British were protectorates, many thought he was crazy. But technically, he was right though those lands for all intents and purposes were colonized.
So, to many, Malaysia was colonized in the past. Not too many differentiate the history of modern Malaysian state (the 1963 federation) from the history of its member states. Really, if you read history from the perspective of the land instead of the state as an institution, there is no difference between the history of Malaysia and the history of its member states. I do think the history of the land is the lens which most Malaysians see the history of Malaysia.
The proper way to understand history is to consider each state on its own terms but at the same time, take the history of the land as continuous, whatever states that existed in the relevant period (also, history is “borderless“, i.e. one cannot apply modern boundary into the distant past in the reading of history). This allows for consistent and technically precise understanding of history but also allows for the appreciation of history in its widest, complete context. Call it the state-land dichotomy; same-same but different, or so the Indochinese would say.
While it is a dichotomy, the understanding of both is crucial. One obviously cannot understand modern Malaysian history without understanding pre-1957 history of the land.
For instance, how does one understand modern conservative Malay psyche that is a major factor in contemporary politics without knowing the history of Malay sultanates?
Also, history of foreign lands are important as well. But that would digress from my point and so, Iwill stop here as far as foreign lands are concerned.
So, according to the state interpretation, Malaysia is 49 years old. According to the land interpretation, Malaysia the land is, well, I do not know how old Malaysia is. It cannot be 55 years old because the land existed in 1956. In fact, this land has existed since time immemorial.
The third interpretation, which probably an amalgamation of the dichotomy into one, is that all those states or institutions that existed are intertemporally related states that should be taken collectively as the same state from modern point of view (as seen from the current state, which is taken as the successor of previous related state).
This has been the argument that supports the idea that Malaysia is 55 years old. But there is inconsistency here. If these institutions are really the same, why accept 1957 as the beginning? What about 1948 when the Federation of Malaya was formed? What about 1946 during the Malayan Union? There are other dates but it all leads to the same question: when did the first institution was formed? Do we need to go to all the way to Srivijaya’s time? All the way to the beginning of Kedah? I see third interpretation as eventually approximating the land interpretation.It will not have the time immemorial conclusion but it will go far enough into history that it really does not matter to contemporary life.
I know monarchists do take this interpretation in some way, by basing the “Malaysia” institution as the office of the Agong. Since the office of the Agong was established in 1957, then Malaysia is 55 years old. That intepretation does logically lead to the number 55, but I do not subscribe to that. I do not see how the office of the Agong is the state. The state does not take its power from the Agong. The office of the Agong is merely an institution within the state.
Perhaps, the question is not how old the state is but rather, it is a question of independence: how long has the current state been independent? This sidesteps the reference to 1948 or earlier dates. Unfortunately, it suffers from controversial Malayan bias: Sabah and Sarawak (and Singapore) attained independence in 1963.
But whatever it is, something happened on August 31 1957. The Federation of Malaya, formed on January 31 1948, became independent.
Four more days!
[youtube]0rfbRCx9jXA[/youtube]
I do not take hard currency idea seriously. Hard currency is a wacky idea. I generally think supporters of hard currency, gold standard advocates being the worst, as non-serious discussants of monetary policy. Hard currency is inflexible and it will exert unnecessary pain in time of crisis. If we had a hard currency all over the world during the last financial crisis, we would have easily experienced the worst depression in modern times. Worse than the 1930s Great Depression.
It would be worse because the world’s economy was so much bigger in the 2000s than it was in the 1930s and given real prices of commodities associated with hard currency, gold and silver specifically, the supply of hard currency could not accommodate the demand for money. The world’s economy would be much smaller than it was at every single point of modern history even without any crisis.
I am a libertarian but unlike too many libertarians, I prefer fiat money to gold standard. I have rationalized my position before.
On top of that, I am a monetarist because I understand the basic operations of modern monetary policy and its implications. I accept the lesson taught by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz: in times of crisis, expand the money supply. Under hard currency, the expansion is almost impossible while deflation, which as damaging to general welfare as hyperinflation is, is always a real threat.
Although I am generally reluctant to admit it, I do ultimately support previous quantitative easing exercises in the United States and other similar money supply expansion in other parts of the world. The fear of expansion is always about high rate of inflation but it is quite clear for the past few years that there is a considerable unmet demand for money that money supply expansion does not create any kind of noticeable damaging inflation. Until inflation becomes a credible threat, I will not oppose money supply expansion by too much.
In other words, I think Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has done a great job. Bernanke given his scholarship is the right man for the job.
So, I take it as a demerit when Mitt Romney said he would not reappoint Bernanke to the job if he is elected as the next President of the United States. And I take it as a huge downer for the Republicans to bow to unreasonable crowd that is the Tea Party and then push for gold standard.
This may force me to reassess my bias with respect to US politics.
I have a Republican bias just because of Republicans’ economic policy has typically been closer to my preference (notwithstanding the Clinton’s years that blurred the line; I do consider Clinton as the best President in recent times). At least, the rhetoric is. And I do think the selection of Ryan Paul as exciting. This election has catapulted libertarian understanding to the national front farther than Ron Paul has ever done.
But the contemporary Republican view on monetary policy might be too much for me.
There are many great economists within the Republican camp at the moment. It is the responsibility of these economists to advise the Republicans of the folly of gold standard.
