For more about me, please read this.
For those who fear confrontation with respect to Perak may lead us to the path of Thailand:
Democracies exist only because enough people were unwilling to be sheep, and brave enough to fight violent wars to achieve a share in power. [Page 227. Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government. Geoff Mulgan.]
I consider it as a game of war of attrition.
John Stuart Mill in his introduction to On Liberty writes:
It is proper to state that I forgo any advantage which could be derived to my argument from idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man’s duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is a rule; to make his answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet, there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amendable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good reasons for not holding him to the responsibility; but these reasons must arise from the special expediencies of the case: either because it is a kind of case in which he is on the whole likely to act better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their power to control him; or because the attempt to exercise control would produce other evils, greater than those which it would prevent. When such reasons as these preclude the enforcement of responsibility, the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgement-seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection; judging himself all the more rigidly, because the case does not admit of his being made accountable to the judgement of his fellow creatures. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]
First of all, wow. Look at that. That is one paragraph. But at least, it is more readable than Kant’s impossible Critique of Pure Reason.
Secondly and more importantly, it is beyond doubt this particular paragraph of Mill is filled with utilitarian idea. He justifies compulsion by society on individual by doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Gee, what am I talking about. This is Mill after all.
I am not quite sure if I agree with Mill when he writes there “are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform.” This may refer to externality but reading the whole paragraph within the context set by the introductory chapter by Mill, his idea may go beyond mine. While do believe certain negative externality requires action — for instance carbon emissions with respect to climate change — Mill mentions common defense, which may or may not mean conscription. I do have certain distaste for free riders; yet, I do have problem utilizing compulsion in against free riders. Mill suffers no such issue by reverting to utilitarianism.
Nevertheless, I am relieved to read that a “person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”
Indeed.
Mill writes further immediate after that paragraph. and it is more agreeable if I might add. I am reproducing it for the benefit of the readers here:
But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly, and in the first instance: for whatever affects himself, may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]
If you think of the exports as the first link in the causal chain, the resulting pile of Chinese savings is the second. Much of this savings has been by the corporate sector, which is subsidized by the government in all sorts of ways (an undervalued currency, low interest rates, cheap energy). The economic boom brought big profits, and companies held on to much of them. The government has also increased its savings in this decade by collecting more taxes and, until the financial crisis, running a budget surplus. And households increased their own savings in the 1990s, in reaction to the dismantling of many bloated state-run companies and the cradle-to-grave benefits, known as the ”iron rice bowl,” they once provided to their workers. When a Chinese citizen is rushed to the hospital after a car accident today, the first stop for the victim’s family is often the cashier’s window. Many hospitals won’t admit patients until they have paid, and many families have no health insurance. Instead, they insure themselves, by saving. [Will China still bankroll us? David Leonhardt. New York Times. May 13 2009]
Leonhardt’s article suggests that lack of social safety net encourages saving. It makes sense.
The reversed relation is interesting: does availability of safety net discourage savings?
Indirectly, this asks how does that affect consumption? Does it increase consumption?
Implicitly, this may suggest that people may be less judicious with their consumption and more happily go into debt to spend with the presence of safety net. This is so when one contrasts the situations without social safety net in China and the availability of one in the United States as described by Leonhardt; massive savings in the former and large debt in the former on individual level, on average.
I really think I want to explore this when I finally get back to school. Ah, approximately 72 days before school begins. I just cannot wait.
The ugly episode in Perak raises several issues revolving around the idea of separation of powers. One of the least discussed powers separation matters is closely related to the concept of federalism. The fiasco clearly highlights that the state civil service is practically dependent on the federal civil service. This dependency is abhorrent to the spirit of federalism and it must be ratified.
The dependency however is nothing new. The position of district officers, for instance, is a state post. Nevertheless, it is a common practice for members of the federal civil service to be seconded to those positions. This is also true for multiple other positions within states’ civil service.
Although the practice of secondment is permitted by the Federal Constitution, when secondment happens it does raise a question relating to conflict of interest. If a state government does not see eye to eye with the federal government, where exactly does the loyalty of these seconded federal officers lie?
The line of reporting is clear. For those holding state positions, they report to the state government but theory does not always translate into actual practice. No demonstration is more vivid than the ongoing case in Perak. Several deplorable instances that threaten the spirit of Malaysian federalism were observable.
One of it harks back to the early part of the political and legal conflicts when the state legal adviser of Perak acted as if he was an agent of the federal government. In the ruling involving Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir and Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, a judge even said that the neutrality of the state legal adviser should be taken with ”a pinch of salt”.
That really is to frame it rather too kindly when it is a fact that the person holding the office of state legal adviser is a member of the federal civil service seconded to the Perak civil service. In the conflict, the state legal adviser clearly suffers from a conflict of interest. With a federal government which imperfectly separates political parties from the State, it is not hard to imagine why that is so. His loyalty lies with the Barisan Nasional-led federal government, not to the state government as it should be.
It is absolutely possible for a member of a state civil service, as with any civil servant, to hold a political bias that is opposite to the administrator. A civil servant has all the rights to have that bias as any free individual. Nevertheless, that does not dissolve his or her professional duties.
A state civil servant is a professional and he or she must be able to execute any rightful orders of the state government regardless of his or her political bias. Or else, respectfully, the civil servant must resign out of an irresolvable conflict of interest, or be fired. By this premise alone, the action of the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak to suspend the state legal adviser — and the state secretary — is only natural and is only right in the spirit of federalism.
If this contradicts any law of the land, then the law must be amended accordingly. The law is only a tool to a goal, no more, no less. It is the spirit that matters and federalism is very much a spirit of Malaysia. To hide behind the law to subvert the spirit of Malaysian federalism is to undermine the spirit of Malaysia.
The conflict of interest is one reason why the secondment exercise as currently practiced must be re-examined. In the name of federalism, each state needs to develop its own civil service so that the federal government does not hold any state to ransom.
Until March 8, 2009, there were not too many chances to prove this point. In times where the administrations of state government and the federal government originated from the same quarter, it was hard to pinpoint a finger on any action violating the spirit of federalism.
It was easy for a Barisan Nasional-led state government to want to do something when in truth it was instructed by a Barisan Nasional-led federal government to do something. This happens concurrently with Barisan Nasional’s deplorable attitude of making machineries of the State as its private property.
For so long — the conflation between state and federal governments as well as conflation between the State and political parties — that continued unchallenged. After over 45 years of Malaysian federation with Barisan Nasional in power, actual power eventually became centralized to threaten the very foundation of Malaysia, a 13-state federation. Actual power not only centralized at the hand of the central government to make Malaysia come closer to a system of a unity state that we are not, it also centralized power in the hands of Barisan Nasional.
While it is inevitable to see the division of state and federal governments in the context of Perak through the prism of partisanship, the division is affirmatively beyond partisanship and beyond Perak. There is a genuine need for such systemic change.
Federalism is about a system of check and balance and it demands that division. This demand will remain true regardless who is in power. It will always remain especially poignant when the federal government holds too much power in relation to state power.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on May 14 2009.
I am not a fan of soccer column. I do read that kind of column once in a while but that is usually about Ajax. But this one at The Malaysian Insider may encourage me to take more interest in it.
It is just that the decisions that have favoured Man U have come at the very best times for the Devils. As they struggled for early season form — after a demoralising defeat against a Liverpool without Torres and Gerrard and a draw against Chelsea, they had four points from as many games — and seemed to have run out of ideas against Bolton, the referee managed to award them a penalty, ostensibly after being so awed by Jlloyd Samuel’s perfect tackle on Ronaldo that he accidentally breathed into his whistle. [It’s over. Shannon Teoh. The Malaysian Insider. May 14 2009]
Too hilarious, man. And any Manure-hater column deserved to be read.