Categories
Liberty Society

[1726] Of the state has only itself to blame

With bludgeoning fuel subsidy beginning to affect other more productive spending, something has to give. On June 5, the subsidy was reduced and the move is understandably unpopular to many. With higher cost of living plaguing us all, there grows a tendency to blame the state for our reduced welfare lately. The government meanwhile is frustrated at being blamed for something they have little choice in the face of a very global trend. While I sympathize with the government in this particular area, it is the government that has brought this blame game upon themselves. The Barisan Nasional government deserves to be mired in this very inconvenience political scenario.

The Barisan Nasional government over the years has created a system that causes the masses to become addicted to the state. After decades of such dependency, slowly but surely it erodes confidence in the ability of individuals to surmount challenge.

From the very beginning, the BN government embarks on various efforts to expound the requirement of the state intervention for the creation of a peaceful and unified society. We have to look no farther than affirmative action practiced in our country and the rhetoric and rationale employed in support of various interrelated policies. The possibility of individuals are able to advance himself is ignored in the public policy sphere.

As if that is not enough, the specter of May 13 has been used every now and then to back up state-sanctioned affirmative action. As the argument goes, without the state enforcing the affirmative action, there would be chaos. All that reinforces the idea of Leviathan: without a strong government, there would be a war of all against all, anarchy, etc.

And then there is what Marx called the opiate of the masses. How religion is regulated in Malaysia further suppresses confidence in self. All is placed in the hands of the gods which ironically, access to the gods is controlled by the state. God is everything and inevitably, the state is everything, leaving little space of individuals to express themselves. Anything different from what the state effectively endorses, is punished, depending on the leniency of the government of the state. The ability to be different from what the state endorses diminishes with years of indoctrination.

Even the source of self-empowerment is not spared from state intervention for the state is ever jealous of individuality. From elementary level and all the way to tertiary education, the state’s presence is there. Students in our education system are being told what to do rather than providing students with the opportunity to explore their potential. Even in colleges and universities students are forced to take up irrelevant subjects just to justify the state’s role in our society.

For individuals whom have broken free from sanctioned narratives, those whom have the courage to challenge the statist ideas in favor of individualism, they are accused of being foreign agents, foreign educated, forgetful of history and all other dismissive labels. In effect, instead of facing criticism advocating for greater individual liberty logically, the state prefers to poison the well and hushes away the neutral others from developing confidence in individuality. Nobody wants to join the “enemy”. More importantly, in doing so, the state convinces the neutral others of importance of strong and wide state roles in the society.

If all that does not create a society hopelessly reliant on the state, control mechanism on prices and supplies definitely does exactly that. Yet, a state the size of Malaysia hardly has total control over its economy, especially when the economy trades with other countries relatively freely. Trends such as increasingly expensive prices of raw materials are something beyond the control of a small relatively open economy like Malaysia.

At best, the mechanism along with the impression that the state is our only savior developed throughout history, gives the public the perception that the state has complete control over the economy. In reality, it does not. And so, when these global trends render these state controls over the economy useless, it gives the perception that the state is not doing its jobs in spite of the fact that it is not the fault of the state that the global economy is at the way it is at the moment.

With an education system which fails to provide self-empowerment, a whole social apparatuses that kill self-confidence and discourages individuality along with an economy system that creates the perception of absolute control, is it really a wonder why many within the society blame that state for failing to live up to a statist ideal?

What was convenience then for the state has not become inconvenient. So inconvenient it has been that the more statist political players have turned the tables against the statist incumbent.

Let this be a lesson to Barisan Nasional, and any other aspirants with statist outlook.

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. The TMI version has the reference to Marx removed.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1725] Of Anwar Ibrahim, liberty, due process and equality before the law

I am divided on the whole issue surrounding the sodomy allegation made against Anwar Ibrahim. I really have trouble in expressing myself on the issue from the start and that is apparent in an earlier entry of mine which I was forced to rewrite and added a post-script to express myself better. Over at the Malaysia Forum, Wan Saiful Wan Jan put it in the clearest of terms which I failed to get to clearly in the first place: the allegation of sodomy is not about prosecution of homosexuality but rather, it is about transgression of individual liberty.

I do not agree with the criminalization of victimless crime but again the allegation is not about victimless crime. It is an allegation of rights transgression. For this very reason, I am quite agnostic with a dose of skepticism reserved, about the sodomy allegation. Judgment has yet to be handed and it is only fair to maintain neutrality.

Let the due process takes its place. If the judgment was tempered, then a revolt would be justified. If Anwar Ibrahim is innocent, then by all means punish the accuser for fraud.

All is equal before the law and so too Anwar Ibrahim. Yes, I know, the weight of the law — regardless the value of the law — has not been equally applied to everybody but two wrongs do not make a right. But only those whom do the right thing have the moral authority to preach about being right.

Returning to due process, the biggest issue for me concerns the timing of the arrest. It was made more or less an hour earlier than the presented deadline.[1] I am on Anwar Ibrahim’s side as far as the arrest is concerned because of the police’s failure to adhere to due process. If the police had adhered to the timeline, Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest would have been justified.

On the allegation itself, I am, as I have written before, agnostic.

My position is this: I believe in equality before the law and due process, as long as individual liberty is preserved.

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

[1] KUALA LUMPUR, July 16 — Police feared that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was going to barricade himself in his home and resist arrest. That is why they moved in, and arrested him near his house in Segambut as he was making his way back from an interview with the Anti-Corruption Agency — an hour before he was scheduled to show up at the KL police headquarters. [So why were the police in such a hurry?. The Malaysian Insider. July 16 2008]

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

Special thanks to John Lee for lending his hand in clarifying my thought.

Categories
Pop culture

[1724] Of and we touched the face of God

I am moved.

[youtube]0ByU35CMv2Y[/youtube]

Categories
Politics & government WDYT

[1723] Of WDYT: Who won the debate?

You may be interested in reading my review of the debate before voting.

Who presented his case better: Anwar Ibrahim or Ahmad Shabery Cheek?

  • Ahmad Shabery Cheek (8%, 7 Votes)
  • Anwar Ibrahim (77%, 69 Votes)
  • Neither (16%, 14 Votes)

Total Voters: 90

Loading ... Loading ...

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1722] Of Anwar Ibrahim-Ahmad Shabery Cheek debate

UPDATED: I am surprised by the performance of the Information Minister in the debate tonight. I had expected the Minister to fail to present his case against subsidy, losing to Anwar Ibrahim’s oratorical skill. Delightfully however, I found myself underestimating the Minister, at least, in the earlier parts of the debate. Unfortunately, despite my initial excitement at the Minister’s performance, as time progressed, his performance began to regress downward, veering to irrelevant issues.

The personal attacks done by the Minister are deplorable. He should concentrate on policy, not on personality.

While digressing, he made one sketchy economic point. He said something to the effect that subsidy encourages inflation, citing Iran and Venezuela as examples. I think inflation in those countries is caused by other factors, not subsidy. In fact, subsidy plays a role in moderating inflation, not flaming it, regardless the inefficiency involved.

But an indirect relationship between inflation and subsidy is possible however, though not quite sanctioned by mainstream economics. For one, subsidy increases expenditure which may increase fiscal deficit. In the case of Malaysia, a subsidy as massive as the fuel subsidy is definitely related to our government’s fiscal deficit by the virtue that we already have approximately 3% deficit out of GDP. That deficit encourages capital outflow and depreciate local currency because the expenditure does not encourage confidence as it is practically a type of spending with no returns. Nobody would want to invest if the government spends money but receives no returns. Through the weakening of the currency, goods of foreign origins would become more expensive. How that would affect the local inflation rate depends on the consumption composition.

While I have seen an example of budget deficit leading to capital outflow — Indonesia in 2006 if I recall correctly — I admit that there is a problematic explanation for this. In theory, fiscal deficit means higher interest rate since higher expenditure due to the deficit reduces saving. Higher interest rate leads to capital inflow.

Still, I think inflation in the two countries mentioned has little to do with this. It has more to do with the confidence for those economies in general which subsidy is only a tiny factor.

While the Minister continued attacking his opponent, Anwar Ibrahim started well especially with matter revolving around IPP. His suggestion is acceptable and it may be good to implement it. Yet, as I have pointed out earlier, savings from the suggestion should be directed to developmental purposes, not something that merely temporarily encourages expenditure.

The former Deputy Prime Minister’s economic reasoning on other matters is twisted. One concerns the definition of subsidy. He said investment in infrastructures to benefit corporations as well as incentives given are forms of subsidy, no different from the current fuel structure. Wow. Just wow. He just redefined the meaning of subsidy. According to him, investment is subsidy!

I just cannot accept that and I reject such redefinition.

That notwithstanding, Anwar Ibrahim compared bailouts costing billions of ringgit with the cost of subsidy. This is an attractive argument but I am in the position that we need to refrain from both bailouts as well as subsidy. The wrong of one policy does not make another policy necessarily good, especially where there are better options out there compared to both.

On the reduction of retail fuel price itself, Anwar Ibrahim proposed a RM0.50 reduction off the current RM2.70. Yet, fuel prices went up from RM1.92 to RM2.70 or by RM0.78 and the former Deputy Prime Minister promised to reduce the price prior to the price hike. Given that fact, I am not sure how Anwar Ibrahim would make good of his promise by just RM0.50 reduction. He would need to reduce the price by at least RM0.79. Shabery Cheek rightfully pointed this gap in Anwar’s reasoning.

By merely reducing fuel by RM0.50 from current price, Anwar Ibrahim would effectively raise retail price by RM0.28 from the pre-June 5 price.

Anwar Ibrahim did say that RM0.50 is only an initial step however. Fine but what would happen next? He presented figures to justify the RM0.50 but he did not rationalize for any further reduction. So, the main question was not answered.

In the debate further, he said he would not touch Petronas in order to reduce price. Yet, listen to this video:

[youtube]nzK5BAt8ets[/youtube]

Pay attention to around 2:25 when he mentioned about reducing the profit of Petronas. So, I am highly skeptical of what Anwar said about not touching Petronas.

As for the Information Minister, I thought his reference to how Norway managed their oil money is good. Anwar however dismissed it by merely saying that Norway is a country far richer than Malaysia. I am content to say that the difference between having a trust fund and fuel subsidy has nothing to do with living standard.

While Anwar Ibrahim refrained from replying to Ahmad Shabery Cheek’s personal attacks, the former Deputy Prime Minister did shoot his sparring partner down on a couple of occasions. One was about oil running out in 2015. The Minister said oil would run out by 2015 but Anwar Ibrahim corrected him by stating the assumption for that: if there is no new exploration.

But that digressed from a very legitimate question directed to Anwar: if Malaysia ran out of oil, would Anwar advocate for subsidy still since his argument for fuel subsidy is based on the fact that we are net exporter of oil, however small is that net?

Anwar did not answer the question.

Finally, Anwar Ibrahim’s patience is admirable. If the debate was purely about ethics, the Minister would lose out through and through but it is not. This is an economic debate and Anwar Ibrahim failed to convince me.

This is not to say that the Information Minister did better than Anwar Ibrahim though. I side with the policy endorsed by the Minister because of its economic rationale, not because of the Minister. I have decided my mind long before the debate. If I had been neutral without the luxury of any economic training, I think Anwar would have convinced me of his points.

But let us look at the bright side: at least, Shabery Cheek carried himself better than what Zainuddin Maidin possibly could.

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

p/s — this entry at first praised the Information Minister. After watching the debate twice, I think I over-praised the Minister. I have to admit that I focused on Anwar Ibrahim more than the Minister because I support total elimination of subsidy. So, I do not need to be convinced by the Minister and am more interested in listening to what Anwar had to say. So, forgive me for being overly critical of Anwar but I could not help it.

After some thinking, I have rewritten the entry to reevaluate my position with respect to the minister and to get what Anwar said right before criticizing it.

After all, the entry was written on the go. There is always a trade-off between speed and accuracy of what was said and what I really think beyond the surface. I am only glad to be able to revisit this entry and revise it.