Categories
Activism Politics & government

[1961] Mengenai politik bukan jalan eksklusif ke arah perubahan

Seminggu yang lalu, saya secara sukarelanya mengurus satu petak kecil yang diberikan oleh penganjur Pesta Fotografi Kuala Lumpur kepada Persatuan Pencinta Alam Malaysia (persatuan ini lebih dikenali luas sebagai Malaysian Nature Society; MNS) bersama beberapa sukarelawan yang lain. Di situ, saya menemui satu sebab yang kukuh yang mengatakan bahawa penyertaan di dalam parti politik bukan satu jalan eksklusif untuk melakukan perubahan ke arah kebaikan.

Tugas saya di pesta tersebut adalah amat mudah: menyakinkan para pelawat untuk menyertai atau menyumbang kepada MNS. Dengan bahan-bahan bacaan yang berkaitan di tangan saya, saya berusaha untuk menambahkan lagi bilangan anggota MNS. Salah seorang pelawat yang saya temui adalah seorang wanita muda yang berkemungkinan berkongsi umur saya. Rambut lembutnya yang melepasi bahu serta senyuman yang menawan membuatkan saya tergaman sementara.

Saya tidak tahu mengapa tetapi saya sering gementar akan wanita yang mempunyai paras rupa seperti dewi. Meraka yang rasional tidak mungkin berani untuk menaikkan nafsu amarah seorang dewi, lalu menjemput bencana dan saya adalah seorang yang rasional. Akan tetapi, Si Dewi bagai satu jasad cakerawala menghasilkan satu daya penarik yang terkuat, yang mengatasi kerdil-kerdil yang lain; wajahnya mengingatkan saya akan seorang rakan yang pernah saya dampingi suatu masa dahulu. Teringat kembali zaman yang gemilang bebas daripada tanggungjawab yang besar.

Saya yang mulanya segan menebalkan muka untuk menghampiri Si Dewi yang saya yakin menetap di kayangan dengan harapan supaya Si Dewi menyertai MNS; ini akan membolehkan saya menemuinya dengan kerap. Setelah saya cuba mempengaruhinya, Si Dewi kemudiannya berkata di dalam bahasa Inggeris yang tidak tercemar dengan bahasa pasar masyarakat awam, mengapakah saya perlu menyertai MNS untuk mencintai Bumi sedangkan saya boleh menyayangi Bumi dengan sendirinya?

Saya berjaya menjawab persoalan itu dengan baiknya dan kemudian, kami mula berbual kosong. Terampung rasanya seketika di awang-awangan!

Tidak beberapa lama kemudian, kami terpaksa berpisah. Untuk mengawal kaki yang mula lemah setelah berdiri di sebelah seorang dewi, saya duduk di atas kerusi lalu mencuba menenteramkan hati yang bercelaru. Sewaktu inilah saya berfikir kembali akan persoalan Si Dewi: mengapakah saya perlu menyertai MNS untuk mencintai Bumi sedangkan saya boleh menyayangi Bumi dengan sendirinya?

Walaupun saya berpuas hati dengan jawapan yang diberikan, tetapi persoalan itu terus bermain di dalam fikiran saya beberapa hari selepas pesta fotografi itu. Gusar rasa hati tetapi lama-kelamaan, saya memahami sebabnya.

Rakan-rakan selalu mengkritik pendirian saya yang tidak mahu terlibat secara langsung di dalam parti politik walaupun saya mempunyai pegangan politik yang tegas dan mungkin sedikit selaras dengan kiblat mereka. Mereka sering menyindir, mengatakan apa gunanya saya berkongsi pendapat dan mencadangkan polisi-polisi jika saya sendiri tidak mahu terlibat secara langsung di dalam bidang politik. Saya jarang menjawab sindiran itu dan hanya mampu memberikan senyuman sebagai balasan kerana saya tahu, mereka akan menang, buat masa itu. Tetapi tidak lagi sekarang dan saya ingin berterima kasih kepada Si Dewi yang membantu saya menepis sindiran rakan-rakan yang aktif berpolitik.

Sesungguhnya, penglibatan langsung di dalam parti politik bukan satu jalan yang eksklusif ke arah perubahan, ke arah kebaikan, yang diingini oleh sesiapa. Malah, kadang-kala penyertaan di dalam parti politik boleh mengugat usaha ke arah kebaikan disebabkan prasangka yang wujud di dalam masyarakat. Ini bukan satu kesimpulan yang ketara tetapi kesimpulan ini perlu dimasyhurkan sekuat hati lagi mengemarkan dunia. Sudah tiba masanya untuk saya tersenyum atas sebab yang lebih baik.

Ada pelbagai cara untuk melakukan perubahan selain daripada menyertai parti politik. Satu daripadanya adalah dengan menyertai badan bukan kerajaan, seperti MNS. Atau, dengan bekerjasama atau mendesak kerajaan yang sedia ada dari dalam. Ini bagaimanapun tidak bermaksud saya bersedia menyokong kerajaan yang sedia ada tetapi ia lebih cendorong kepada pragmatisme. Kadang-kala, sesuatu yang baik dari segi moral itu boleh dicapai dengan bekerjasama; kadang-kala, pertumpahan darah tidak mungkin dielak. Kebolehan mengenali peluang yang sedia ada adalah penting bagi membina satu masyarakat yang agung.

Yang paling penting dalam memperkuatkan kesimpulan saya adalah satu konsep yang sering disebut di dalam bidang ekonomi: pengkhususan.

Bukan semua orang berbakat untuk berpolitik dan bukan semua orang boleh menyumbang secara terbaik melalui parti politik. Dalam konsep pengkhususan, seseorang itu patut atau akan berkecimpung di dalam perusahaan yang mana dia paling produktif. Melihat dari sudut ini, saya yakin yang saya lebih produktif dalam satu bidang yang tidak berkaitan dengan penyertaan parti politik. Saya mungkin menyimpan rasa simpati yang jujur kepada sesuatu parti politik tempatan tetapi saya yakin sumbangan saya di dalam bidang yang lain akan memberi kesan yang lebih hebat ke atas masyarakat. Tambahan lagi, jika saya terlibat secara langsung ke dalam parti politik, terdapat kos peluang yang terpaksa saya harungi. Kos peluang ini, buat masa ini, adalah terlampau besar untuk ditempuhi. Bukan sahaja saya tidak mampu menerima kos itu, tetapi cita-cita saya tidak memanggil saya aktif berpolitik.

Saya mempunyai impian saya sendiri yang perlu dikejar. Saya tidak percaya dan masih tidak yang penyertaan di dalam politik buat masa ini dapat membantu saya mengambil madu lebih yang terletak tinggi mencapai langit yang membiru. Apabila madu itu sudah puas dirasai, mungkin penyertaan saya boleh difikirkan dengan lebih mendalam.

Akhir sekali, saya mencintai kebebasan. Penyertaan politik, lebih lagi di dalam keadaan politik semasa masa, memanggil sesetengah semangat kebebasan itu dipatahkan. Saya sama sekali tidak menerima membatasan ini. Aku tidak akan menghina pemikiran aku sendiri. Aku tidak dayus seperti ahli-ahli politik yang sedia ada, yang tidak langsung mengenali apa itu maksud pendirian yang selaras.

Ada sesuatu yang lebih agung daripada politik dan aku inginkan keagungan itu.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

Tulisan ini telah pertama kali diterbitkan di Bolehland pada Ogos 2007.

Categories
Liberty

[1960] Of Judge Brandeis in 1927

In Malaysia, the slightest possibility of unrest due to free speech is taken by those in power as a ticket to suppress individual rights.

In California in 1927, that rationale was rejected by Judge Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court:

But it is hardly conceivable that this court would hold constitutional a stature which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral rights to cross uninclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgement of the rights of speech and assembly. [Whitney v. California. Louis Brandeis. 1927]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1959] Of who is right?

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Categories
Economics

[1958] Of will we see the reintroduction of RM1 coins?

Over at the website of Bank Negara Malaysia — the central bank of Malaysia — there is an inconspicuous survey. The survey begins as it should: it informs readers of the purpose of the survey. The purpose is quite simple: to gauge public’s opinion on some possible changes to the Malaysian coins.

A redesigned coin series!

Oh so I thought until I went through the survey. The real objective of the survey is to gauge public’s opinion of the possibility of reintroducing RM1 coins in the market.

Reading through the survey, there is one possible rationale for such reintroduction because one question asks: If the replacing of the RM1-banknotes with the proposed RM1-coin would result in substantial cost savings to the country, which of these statements best describe your preference?

Hard to disagree with reintroduction if that is the rationale but I am wary of flip-flopping policy. Frequent changes to the coins and banknotes can be confusing for mere mortals on the streets.

Not too long ago in this very decade, the RM1 coins were taken out of circulation in favor of RM1 banknotes. If coin-form enjoys cheaper production cost compared to banknote-form, why were the coins phased out of the market?

If the cost of metal vis-à-vis paper or plastic contributes to the answer, I prefer to stick with the current banknotes. Once the economy is out of the woods, prices of metal are likely to go up again. That will again push coins out of circulation in favor of banknotes, if cost is the sole consideration.

But this may be a weak argument on my side. Cost should be a consideration and if BNM can adapt to changing variables, the users should too. Surely for a libertarian like me, opportunity cost is of concern. Furthermore, adaption or re-adaption of RM1 coins is likely to be painless anyway, probably with the exception of those teller machines.

So, adaption is not my main argument against RM1 coins.

The main argument is the weight of the coins. RM1 is probably the most popular denomination for the common people. Having a bagful worth of coins maybe a good idea if the BNM plans to force those lazy bastards who get on the elevator to get to the immediate next floor to do some extra physical movement. For those of us who are less gluttonous in their diet, the extra weight will be a drag.

But that is just me. How about you?

You can help the BNM decides by visiting their website[1] (it is under the Updates section on the right) or directly to a third party website[2] where the survey is actually hosted.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Bank Negara Malaysia is at www.bnm.gov.my.

[2] — [Public Opinion Survey: Third Malaysian Circulation Coin Series Project. Bank Negara Malaysia. Assessed April 21 2009]

Categories
Liberty Society

[1957] Of should we pay income tax?

Why do some people refuse to pay income tax?

Perhaps the word ”˜some’ understates the gravity of the matter. The Ministry of Finance just recently shared that out of approximately two million Malaysians within taxable income bracket, only just over about half of them paid their due last year. This has prompted the Internal Revenue Board to hunt down those who have not paid their income tax yet.

It is likely that a majority of them do not actually explicitly refuse to pay their taxes. It could be a simple oversight, for instance. Indeed, there are multiple possible reasons contributing to non-payment but I am only interested in those who actually explicitly refuse to pay income tax. It is so because this question is crucial in understanding how much trust citizens have for the State, the direct benefactor of such taxes.

Before we explore the original question together further, it is imperative to understand the reasons for taxation.

From classical liberal perspective, there is no doubt that the biggest reason of all is to support the State for rendering services which in effect protect citizens and those within the jurisdiction of the State. That protection at minimum means protection of individual rights.

If the State fails to do so, the obligation to pay taxes evaporates. In fact, failure on behalf of the State to protect these rights eliminates a reason for such a State. This later calls for the creation of a new State capable of discharging its duties better, lest the dissolution of the previous incompetent or tyrannical State leads to an unstable state of anarchy.

This is part of a social contact between citizens and the State as embraced by classical liberals, henceforth libertarians.

Within Malaysian context, the State or the Barisan Nasional-led federal government in many cases has failed to protect various individual rights. Worse, the State itself has in the past threatened and actually infringed on the rights of its citizens.

To be fair, the current administration has so far refrained from doing so and seems to have given some commitment to continue the trend of restraint. How long will that restraint persists is anybody’s guess. We are after all still too early in the days of Najib administration to be confident of anything.

Notwithstanding the question of fairness, the Najib administration is still a BN-led government and the BN-led government has developed a very bad reputation among various groups in Malaysia.

That bad reputation affects classical liberals’ willingness to contribute to the State’s coffer in no little way. Why should libertarians contribute to the State which has the reputation of infringing on private citizens’ rights? To contribute is idiotic and libertarians are not so idiotic.

The unwillingness of libertarians to pay taxes is enhanced further on the economic front. This tax money will in one way or another financed State’s enterprises which will inevitably compete against private enterprises. Why should business owners support their competitors? I will not pursue this point further in hope that I do not digress from the main point and that I do not complicate the flow of thought here unnecessarily. I believe a focus on civil liberty will be sufficient to demonstrate my point clearly.

Admittedly, there are not so many libertarians in Malaysia and therefore, a libertarian explanation does not come even near in explaining comprehensively why so many people refuse to pay their income tax.

The more all encompassing answer probably relates to trust citizens — or more specifically individual taxpayers — maintain for the BN-led government. When seen from this angle, the libertarian answer forms as a subset to a larger explanation.

The trust is associated with the manner which BN-led government manages the tax money. Here, again, the reputation of the BN-led government does not shine and sucks in unsavory adjectives.

Corruption is seen as rampart. Observe the Auditor-General reports highlighting multiple suspicious dealings which include a screwdriver with an astronomical price tag. Has any action been taken to allay such suspicion? Have any culprits been taken to task?

The answer is a resounding no.

More recently, three prominent UMNO members were convicted of corruption by their own political party. Surprisingly, they were allowed to contest for party positions. One of them even went on to win an important party post. Another continues to hold a Chief Minister post.

If the party that leads the state government is seen as corrupted, there is no reason to expect the state government is clean. The same logic goes for the federal government. Does this encourage trust?

The answer is yet again a resounding no.

And then there is the abuse of power, characterized by the slogan ”Satu lagi projek Kerajaan Barisan Nasional”. There is a tendency among BN politicians to obfuscate the difference between the State or the government and political party. This tendency can be seen during by-elections when the BN unabashedly spends millions of ringgit of public money as part of its campaigns, be it in form of direct cash handouts or newly paved road.

BN has no qualms in using state machineries for its benefits. They without guilt consider government machineries as their own private property.

During the last UMNO General Assembly, a delegate made parallel the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to a dog turning around to bite its master’s hand. That is a highly inappropriate statement and yet, it is hard to imagine if UMNO members attending the assembly saw any problem with that statement.

The best example of obfuscation yet is the nature of Radio Televisyen Malaysia. Despite being a public institution, it is woefully a mouthpiece of BN. To understand further how badly the function of RTM has been abused by BN, a comparison with the National Public Radio in the United States of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation in the United Kingdom is necessary.

Both the NPR and the BBC are public institutions like RTM. Unlike RTM however, both the NPR and the BBC serve public interest, not the interest of the ruling political party. This can be proven by its independence and largely neutral reporting as far as local politics are concerned.

RTM lamentably is just one institution which has been abused by BN. There are others like KEMAS, the police and the civil service. Many times whenever I listen to members of these institutions speak, I wonder if I were listening to the government or to BN.

So, given the corruption, the abuse of power and disrespect for individual rights, why should taxes be paid? These money are paid to fund wrongdoings.

When a group of people believe that the government does not belong to them and instead belong to someone else which they do not identify with, the group of people will hold that they do not have a stake in the government or the State. When they do not believe that they have a stake in the State, then they will have no moral obligation to support the State, i.e. pay taxes.

Even if this group paid their taxes, it is only akin to paying protection money to some parasitic thugs.

The antidote for this is simple: convince a majority of taxpayers that they do have a stake in the State. This can be done by making public institutions independent and free of political bias. Make these institutions accountable to them and not to political parties. Such setup is working in the US and the UK and there is no reason for it not to work in Malaysia.

Trust me, income tax collection will go up leap and bound if people feel they do have a stake in the State. More so if they actually feel proud about their State.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 20 2009.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

nb — a lot of people at The Malaysian Insider failed to differentiate between positive (descriptive) and normative (prescriptive) statements. This article is a positive article, not a normative article.

Many thought that I was advocating for all to not to pay income tax (normative). On the contrary, I am only offering a reason why nearly a million people do not pay their income tax (positive).

A person try to imply that I am against the idea of taxation. No, I said not such thing. This article is not an opposition to the idea of taxation in general. Again, it is only an effort at suggesting several reasons why many individuals do not pay their income tax. It is not an advocate of shirking from responsibility of every citizens.

Remember the positive-normative dichotomy. If you failed to comprehend the positive-normative dichotomy, then you might misunderstand the message.