Categories
Economics

[1821] Of Minister Shahrir suggested elimination of fuel subsidy

According to Bernama:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 31 (Bernama) — Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad today suggested the government removed the 30 sen subsidy on fuel prices if the pump price goes below RM1.92 a litre. [Govt Should Remove 30 Sen Subsidy On Fuel Prices, Says Shahrir. Bernama. October 31 2008]

Four days ago, I suggested a similar move with the similar mechanism, i.e. removal of subsidy when the market prices fall below the current subsidized retail prices. I shamelessly quote myself:

With global crude oil prices having more than halved since it peaked at about USD150 per barrel just months ago, this is definitely one of those rare opportunities to make a permanent structural change to our economy by effectively eliminating the fuel subsidy for once and for all.

[…]

With decreasing subsidy quantum, the government could just maintain the current prices until the quantum of subsidy becomes zero. This happens when market prices equalize with the current subsidized prices. In doing so, elimination of subsidy does not require a hike in retail prices. When that happens, the government could immediately float it.

This strategy significantly reduces political opposition to the idea of subsidy removal. I suspect what was protested in the past was prices hike, not subsidy removal per se. [Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy. The __earthinc October 27 2008]

I also wrote in the same entry:

Unfortunately, there is little chance for this little maneuvering to see daylight. The government has already hinted for further reduction of RM0.15 by the end of this month. [Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy. The __earthinc October 27 2008]

I would like to take that back. There is a chance after all if the dear Minister pursues the matter with tack.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1820] Of no one must monopolize free speech

The Pakatan Rakyat seems to have the exclusive domain over free press and free speech these days in terms of reputation. The perception has to be dismantled quickly if we wish not to escape a lie only to fall into another lie.

Pakatan Rakyat — especially DAP and PKR — rightly so deserves the association with free speech. The Barisan Nasional government unabashedly uses state apparatus to suppress free speech supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, with the components of Pakatan Rakyat as the victim of suppression, particularly in the past before March 8 unraveled its chapter.

There has been some liberalization since thanks to the persistent struggle for greater freedom by many. The Barisan Nasional government still abuses state apparatus but threat posed them has receded significantly, ushering a new era of freer Malaysia. Much is to be done but clearly, we are seeing a liberal climate for us all to enjoy.

While enjoy we will, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The clear and present threats to free speech — suppressive laws, litigation and coercion for instance — are always identifiable without much effort. One that is less obvious is when those with the reputation as advocates of free speech started to use it to their advantage with detrimental effect to others. With the Pakatan Rakyat component members finding themselves in power, they are susceptible to do so to slowly betray the principle which they are associated with. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

One can despise free market philosophy all they want but the safest bet one can make is that we all have our own interests and we do promote those interests to our own benefits. The fact that liberals understand this what makes liberalism so successful compared to any of its rival up to date. It is simply human nature and other systems fail simply because those systems try to impose idealism made in the heavens rather than work with reality on the ground for the advancement of humanity.

Those in Pakatan Rakyat are no different about having and promoting their self-interest.

There is nothing wrong in having self-interest and promoting it. It is self-interest that have brought humanity tremendous wealth and knowledge unmatched at any point in the past. What is wrong is when that self-interest is pursued in a way that violates others’ right. With respect to the issue at hand, it is others’ right to free speech and the maintenance of free press.

Despite their association with free press and free speech, the component members of Pakatan Rakyat lately have shown worrying tendency of barring journalists from news organizations unsympathetic to the politics of Pakatan Rakyat.

DAP sued Utusan Malaysia and a few others about a satire; the satire is distasteful, no argument about that but it is clearly only a satire, no matter how provocative it is.

In Kelantan, the PAS controlled state assembly barred a Berita Harian reported from its premised due to unkind reports. And who can forget how Zulkifli Nordin of PKR who stormed a forum demanding it to be halted; he has yet to be punished by PKR for what he done.

All this discourages free speech and free press and therefore competition of information.

In the past, supporters of Barisan Nasional were derided as believing in their own lies. At the moment, I am beginning to see supporters of Pakatan Rakyat believing in their own lies.

The best example was when Anwar Ibrahim claimed that there is a capital flight after the World Bank released a report showing FDI outflow overtook FDI inflow when in fact, the truth of the matter is that rather than capital invested in Malaysia flowing out, Malaysian firms are investing abroad.

The case of Teresa Kok claiming she was intentionally maliciously misattributed by Utusan Malaysia when in fact she did say what Utusan Malaysia reported is yet another example. Only that in this episode, free speech caused her to paddle back. Yet, some DAP supporters defended Kok only to suffer embarrassment when Kok found herself in an impossible situation to deny it. Without competition of information, Kok would not have apologize and would have gotten away with it.

As for me, I am unwilling to live in a lie after escaping from one. I am only interested in securing my liberty and not the self-interest of politicians from either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.

I am not entirely sure if some in Pakatan Rakyat believe in fair competition. Increasingly, it seems that they believe in fair competition only when the odds are against them. When in power, the ideal of liberty is conveniently thrown out of the window.

The antidote to this is the encouragement and maintenance of competition of sources. Any effort to limit competition should be viewed with utmost suspicion and nothing less.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1817] Of just live and let live

Differences can be challenging. They assault routines and stereotypes to force modifications or even outright revamps of worldviews. When none of that occurs and the differences end up as irreconcilable, conflict may come to the surface. Some differences are worth fighting for while in other cases, respect and tolerance are the key to moving forward.

Conflict or not, the world is so full of individuals with different views and lifestyles from our own. More often than not, we have to live with it. This is especially so when a lot of these differences do not affect us whatsoever other than our sensibility or morality.

The requirement to respect differences is all the more important when individuals live according to different moral standards. Still, not all subscribe to the idea to respect differences. Some view the mere idea of differences as an abhorrence which must be contained in favor of only one standard.

The latest proof of intolerance for differences comes in the form of an edict recently announced by the National Fatwa Council, which declared that tomboys are now banned in Islam. Despite the announcement, various news reports have stated that the edict is not a law. As such, it is not legally binding.[1]

The edict is fine for those who wish for a guideline in practicing of Islam. From this perspective, there is really nothing wrong in the edict. This could be a source of reference for those incapable of undertaking the necessary logical steps required to reach a conclusion.

For those who wish not to submit to a group of self-elected guardians of the faith or are simply concerned with individual liberty, it is important that this edict continues to be toothless.

This is because a law based on the edict amounts to moral policing. Such laws would seek to shape individuals in a particular mould approved by self-appointed moral guardians. There would be a set of behavior for those whom the council of clerics deems to be under their authority to follow. Anything else would seem criminal.

The notion that a person could be seen as a criminal simply by behaving in a manner unsanctioned by a group of people is a scary thought. It is as scary as being prosecuted for having certain characteristics shaped by one’s environment. How would one feel to wake up one morning only to learn that one is now a criminal in the eyes of the state?

The problem in having such law criminalizing a group of people who refuse to be pigeonholed by the council is that there is no victim at all involved in the issue addressed by the edict. The tomboys behave as they do without causing harm to others or themselves. The only harm tomboys do is to the idea that a woman must behave in a certain particular manner.

To invest our legal system with the edict is to victimize the tomboys who have done no harm to others. In doing so, the state would be committing tyranny. That is an unpalatable prospect which must galvanize those who cherish individual liberty against making the edict legally binding.

For those uncomfortable with tomboys, they really do not need a repressive law to grant them some peace of mind. They are free to not interact with the source of their disgust. This includes those with religious objections against those who do not conform to female social gender roles. They just need to learn to let other people be, especially when other people let them be. Why are they so intent on making others live as miserably as possible? What malicious intent do they harbor against those who dare to be different, or those who cannot help being different?

The tomboys have done no wrong to anybody. That alone is enough for us all to just respectfully live and let live.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

[…]

Harussani said the council’s ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are immoral. [Islamic clerics in Malaysia rule to ban tomboys. Julia Zappei. The Associated Press. October 24 2008]

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics Humor

[1818] Of tautology of the day

Prediction is hard, especially about the future. [Slippery slope. Free Exchange. October 28 2008]

Shall we predict the past?

But here is something less tautologous by Myron Scholes (via):

Economic theory suggests that financial innovation must lead to failures. And, in particular, since successful innovations are hard to predict, the infrastructure necessary to support innovation needs to lag the innovations themselves, which increases the probability that controls will be insufficient at times to prevent breakdowns in governance mechanisms. Failures, however, do not lead to the conclusion that re-regulation will succeed in stemming future failures. Or that society will be better off with fewer freedoms. Although governments are able to regulate organisational forms, they are unable to regulate the services provided by competing entities, many yet to be born. Organisational forms change with financial innovations. Although functions of finance remain static and are similar in Africa, Asia, Europe and the United States, their provision is dynamic as entities attempt to profit by providing services at lower cost and greater benefit than competing alternatives.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1817] Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy

With global crude oil prices having more than halved since it peaked at about USD150 per barrel just months ago, this is definitely one of those rare opportunities to make a permanent structural change to our economy by effectively eliminating the fuel subsidy for once and for all.

The growth rate of subsidy size at the current prices must be relatively small compared to months ago. Back in June, Malaysians saw retail prices for gasoline jumped by approximately 40%. Since then, somewhat in tandem with falling global prices of crude oil, the Malaysian government has decided to significantly reduce the retail prices though we have yet to see the levels seen prior to the hike in June.

Why does the current environment offer the best time to execute this?

With decreasing subsidy quantum, the government could just maintain the current prices until the quantum of subsidy becomes zero. This happens when market prices equalize with the current subsidized prices. In doing so, elimination of subsidy does not require a hike in retail prices. When that happens, the government could immediately float it.

This strategy significantly reduces political opposition to the idea of subsidy removal. I suspect what was protested in the past was prices hike, not subsidy removal per se.

So, this is the political sustainability required for economic sustainability.

Unfortunately, there is little chance for this little maneuvering to see daylight. The government has already hinted for further reduction of RM0.15 by the end of this month.[1]

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

[1] — JOHOR BARU, MALAYSIA: The petrol price may fall by up to 15 sen when it is reviewed at the end of the month. [Petrol cheaper by 15 sen?. Satiman Jamin. New Straits Times. October 26 2008]