I do not pretend that the most unlimited use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of religous or philosophical sectarianism. Every truth which men of narrow capacity are in earnest about, is sure to be asserted, inculcated, and in many ways even acted on, as if no other truth existed in the world, or at all events none that could limit or qualify the first. I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby; the truth which ought to have been, but was not, seen, being rejected all the more violently because proclaimed by persons regarded as opponents. But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. And since there are few mental attributes more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgment between two sides of a question, of which only one is represented by an advocate before it, truth has no chance but in proportion as every side of it, every opinion which embodies any fraction of the truth, not only finds advocates, but is so advocated as to be listened to. [On Liberty. Chapter 2. John Stuart Mill. 1859]
Author: Hafiz Noor Shams
For more about me, please read this.
It is hard to describe how I feel about the situation in Iran as protesters clash with the basij — a paramilitary group loyal to the incumbent government — and the Revolutionary Guard.[0][1][2] It is not a matter of ambivalence about the brutality of those security force though I am still quiet unsure whether fraud did occur. The issue has gone well beyond the question of fraud to the question of freedom. And when individuals actually die for freedom, my opinion solidified against the government led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
What I find it hard to describe is the kind of anger I am in, especially after watching a video of a young woman died after being shot.[3] Something simply has to be done.
Amid the chaos, it is important to take note that the ones suppressing the protesters are the basij and the Revolutionary Guard. In contrast, there are limited reports on the roles of police and the army in suppressing protesters. Some reports further suggest that the police and the army are reluctant in moving against the protesters. As Blake Hounsell writes at Foreign Policy Passport, if “we start seeing cracks in those forces, or the regular army, then the regime will really be in trouble. But it will take sustained pressure — more demonstrations, strikes, and smart politics — to get there.”[4] This of course not to suggest that the army is of one mind just as the Revolutionary Guard is not.[5]
Is intervention by the army — presumably based out of conscience as probably evident through the kind of reluctance reported — the only way out of the quagmire Iran is in at the moment?
It is unclear if the protestors could bring down the incumbent government but with the army in, it will surely makes the possibility of a new government brighter. The problem is, of course, if having a military government desirable?
At the moment, it is hard to say no, especially if the army acts on conscience. What guarantees that that military government will not turn on the very same Iranians who are exercising their rights to assembly and freedom of expression now is another question. The burning question is, will a military government be better than the current one, no matter how far short it is from the ideal of a liberal democratic state?
[0] — Thirty years ago, during the demonstrations that led to the Shah’s downfall, one of the dominant images was scenes of uniformed soldiers firing live ammunition at protesters. This week, Iran’s clerics seem determined, at least, not to repeat that historic mistake. They remember that the daily news coverage of the Shah’s soldiers shooting and killing unarmed protesters precipitated the collapse of the regime.
Instead, bearded plainclothes militiamen have been attacking and harassing the demonstrators in Tehran this past week. These are Basijis, members of a civilian paramilitary organization founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979. It was conceived of as a civilian auxiliary force subordinate to the Revolutionary Guards, and so it has functioned over the past three decades. During the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, fervent Basijis volunteered to serve on the front lines. For a time, very young Basijis were encouraged to offer themselves for martyrdom by clearing minefields with their bodies in what became known as ”human waves”—literally walking to their deaths en masse so that more experienced soldiers could advance against the enemy. An Iranian friend of mine who is a war veteran described the Basiji boy martyrs as having played a tragic but significant role in the war, by providing Iran with a ”flesh wall” against Saddam Hussein’s vastly superior Western-supplied military technology. [Understanding the Basij. John Lee Anderson. The New Yorker. June 19 2009]
[1] — REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS: An elite military corps of more than 200,000 members that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled directly by the supreme leader. The Guards oversee vital interests such as oil and natural gas installations and the nation’s missile arsenal.
BASIJ: A powerful volunteer militia directed by the Revolutionary Guards. Basiji played a high-profile role as “morality” police after the Islamic Revolution and now are often used in crackdowns of dissidents. Some estimates place the membership at 10 million, or about 15 percent of the population. [Key players in Iran’s disputed election. Associated Press via Google News. June 18 2009]
[2] — CAIRO (AP) — They’re the most feared men on the streets of Iran.
The pro-government Basij militia has held back its full fury during this week’s street demonstrations. But witnesses say the force has unleashed its violence in shadowy nighttime raids, attacking suspected opposition sympathizers with axes, daggers, sticks and other crude weapons.
At least once, the militiamen opened fire on a crowd of strone-throwing protesters. State media said seven were killed. [Feared Basij militia could transform Iran showdown. Associated Press via Google News. June 20 2009]
[3] — See Iranian woman killed in protests [Two Videos] at Youtube. Accessed June 21 2009.
[4] — It’s hard to tell who has the upper hand, but it seems like there are still plenty of people willing to beat, maim, even kill their fellow Iranians. That’s bad news for the good guys. Roger Cohen, the New York Times columnist who’s in Tehran, tells of a police commander who pleaded with demonstrators to go home because, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people.” From what I can glean from Twitter and various reporting, the regular police aren’t quite as eager to beat heads, in contrast with the hard-line Revolutionary Guard and basij militiamen. If we start seeing cracks in those forces, or the regular army, then the regime will really be in trouble. But it will take sustained pressure — more demonstrations, strikes, and smart politics — to get there. [War on the streets of Tehran. Foreign Policy Passport. June 20 2009]
[5] — According to Cyrus News Agency (CNA) in Iran, at least 16 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were arrested on Tuesday for allegedly attempting to join the “people’s movement.” Protests, riots and violence broke out in several cities in Iran on Saturday night following an election which many in Iran and the world say was fraudulent. [Report: Members of Iranian Revolutionary Guard arrested for joining ‘people’s movement’. Wikinews. June 20 2009]
I blew up this morning when I read a legal counsel of a person who grievously harmed another person requested for the judge to show leniency. The lawyer reasoned that the perpetrator is a single mother, implying that the welfare of her two children is at risk if the system punishes her too harshly. The audacity shown by the lawyer is deplorable.
KUALA LUMPUR: A former real estate agent has claimed trial in the Sessions Court to hurting her Indonesian maid Siti Hajar Sadli with hot water, a hammer and scissors.
[…]
Counsel M. Manoharan, however, asked the court to consider his client’s status as a single mother and that she has two young children, including an autistic son, to take care of. [Real estate agent claims trial to charges of abuse and failing to get work permit. M. Mageswari. The Star. June 19 2009]
I want to make it clear that I would like the law to apply the greatest of weight against the single mother for the physical harm she inflicted on her maid, a fellow human being. This however does not mean the welfare of her children should not be factored in any judgment.
It is utterly unfair to punish innocent children indirectly for a crime committed by others. Yet, this is a regrettable negative externality the children and our society have to suffer.
The role of the society here is not to eliminate that negative externality — assuming the single mother is a good mother; an assumption I take only with heavy heart — but to try to limit it. Elimination of that negative externality means letting the criminal that she is off the hook. That will offer bad example to others who are or plan to show no respect for another human being’s safety. Strong, forceful signal has to be sent by the system so that others will think twice about hurting another human being, specifically against foreign maids within our context.
By limiting, I mean to suggest that the State has to find a way to ensure the welfare of the children are taken care of. One way, which I most prefer, is to a find relative of the mother who is willing to take the children in and take for them. If that fails, the State may find family or individuals with good record and financial standing who wants to explore the option of adoption. If all else fails, the State simply, unfortunately, have to take care of the children. This perhaps stresses on the importance of a care system for children but that is a huge issue that deserves an essay of its own that I will not discuss further here.
Finally, I want to digress but yet make an important point. Any decision of the court gives signal not only to Malaysian society and particularly to employers who treat their maids subhumanly. It will also give signal to Indonesia. Malaysia already has a bad reputation in Indonesia for, among others, this kind of crime committed on their citizenship who come to Malaysia in search of better life. Already, nationalistic Indonesians are clamoring for proverbial Malaysians blood. Any leniency will unnecessarily fuel that nationalistic sentiment. But of course, the court should not consider populism as a factor in deciding a case.
And that is okay. Justice simply will have to be served and the mother punished.
The consistent fiscal deficit the federal government currently experiences is an issue far removed from everyday life. For many, it is an abstraction without concrete consequences. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the issue will be able to capture public attention and directly become a determinant in any election. This gives the federal government too much free hand in managing its fiscal position.
Despite the lag in effect, the persistent fiscal deficit presents real challenges to the economy and perhaps, more tangibly, to all taxpayers. It is so because the idea of scarcity is not something that is only valid within the theoretical world of economics.
It is because of scarcity that the concept of deficit exists. It is also because of scarcity that any deficit requires financing.
As far as the fiscal deficit of the Malaysian government is concerned, it is being financed through borrowings. The government issues debts in which market participants — be they individuals living within Malaysia or financial firms based abroad — purchase in return for greater payoff in the future.
So far, the federal government is fulfilling its existing debt obligations by issuing more debts. The situation on the ground at the moment allows that to happen but it does not take a leap in imagination to understand how a snowball may cause an avalanche. Argentina in 2001, for instance, defaulted from fulfilling its debt payments; it borrowed to finance its deficit for the longest time until its repayment requirement became too big for it to comply.
Malaysia still has a long way to go before that happens. Nevertheless, eventually, our deficit has to be attended. There are at least three ways to address the deficit: increase revenue, decrease government spending or default.
For any self-respecting government, defaulting is not much of a choice. The Argentine economy was in ruinous state after it defaulted on its payment; capital fled and dried up, bringing the economy to a screeching halt. Regardless of preference, the current local scenario that includes the maintenance of strong foreign reserves by Malaysia makes the likelihood of default very small.
Decreasing government spending is the policy path that libertarians favor because it necessarily reduces the size of government. Unfortunately, this will not occur anytime soon. Even during the Abdullah administration when the fiscal deficit finally saw relaxation, government spending continued to rise. Keynesian thinking meanwhile reigns supreme in the Najib administration; the government has expressed its intention to spend to stimulate the economy. The two factors set the momentum for the federal government’s fiscal position in the near future.
The third way is to increase revenue. This can happen by having enough growth in either non-tax revenue, tax revenue or both. With a healthy economy, those items can help in balancing the fiscal position. Without a sufficiently healthy economy, however, taxes simply have to increase to meet the gap eventually.
A tax increase is the clearest credible solution because it is increasingly clear that the fiscal deficit is structural in nature, and not cyclical. It is structural because it is arguable that we may have seen or are seeing the completion of a business cycle. In that cycle, the federal government has been running on a persistent fiscal deficit. Year 2009 will be the 12th consecutive year that the government has either failed or refused to close the gap and there is no reason to believe why year 2010 will not be registered in red ink.
A tax hike, however, is an unpopular policy, even when it is a potent tool in arresting the runaway fiscal deficit. Under the current political atmosphere where the Barisan Nasional-led federal government faces a considerable number of hostile voters, raising taxes is committing harakiri. The political situation demands spending.
In fact, the pressure is on Barisan Nasional to continue to spend in order to keep the economy going. More importantly, it has to keep voters happy by shoring up the economy in the short term to push its expiry date farther into the future.
Government spending is not necessarily bad or undesirable even in times of deficit. Yet, unless the government spends the money for the purpose of investment, spending for the sake of spending — as the two fiscal stimulus packages are doing — will further widen the difference between revenue and expenditure. For deficit hawks, the situation is gloomy because between investment and spending, the effect of the latter comes quicker than the former. Naturally, political expediency favors quick wins; quick wins mean the deficit will continue to take a hit.
Given the situation of a structural fiscal deficit, weak economic environment and political unpopularity, the only palatable short-term option is to continue to borrow to finance the deficit.
As a result, the present generation will be free from the burden of increased taxes and so too subsequent generations that are lucky enough to live during times when the economic situation allows the government to keep borrowing to finance its deficit. With the problem being out of sight and out of mind among the current generations, regretfully, there is no pressure to address the issue of fiscal deficit.
Somebody, however, eventually will have to pay those debts. By the time that happens, it is likely that the problem will become too big to handle.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on June 15 2009.
