Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1515] Of boogeyman stay away. We have CCTVs!

With two high-profile kidnapping cases along with perception of high crime rate, the Malaysian authority is advocating mass installation of closed circuit TV to fight crime. Advocates of CCTVs are convinced that the device will help in bringing crime rate down. While that may be so — there are debates on whether presence of CCTVs reduces or merely displaces crime — I am not too keen on the plan. Given authority’s reputation in disrespecting individual liberty, I fear that the authority will misuse the cameras installed in public spaces for other purposes.

I would imagine that self-proclaimed moral police would be the first to celebrate mass installation of CCTVs. With it, they could more effectively enforce their moral standard on others. No more would the moral police as well as vigilantes need to make rounds to catch those that reject certain moral standard. It happened before and it will happen again if the plan to install CCTVs in public face goes through.

With CCTVs sprouting like mushrooms after the rain, gone would be the days when one could sit on the bench alone to savor the evening. Deep in one’s heart, there is knowledge that somebody is watching him diligently, trying to catch the smallest of mistakes in the name of some questionable order.

The religious right would like to believe that god watches each one of us. It maybe absurd but with CCTVs everywhere, that would not be too absurd at all anymore. God is now equipped with cameras and lots of them. God now is omnipresent, wherever CCTV is available.

God is a dictator and mortal dictators love to be gods. These gods employ dogs to do their biddings and this has been true for the longest time. Gods want to know everything that private citizens do for they are jealous. While it was hard to do so in the past, cameras CCTV cameras lift godly burden off the gods.

Unchecked conflict of interest occurs widely in our government. We have seen how public fund is being used to tighten the incumbents’ grip on power without the slightest of shame. Extrapolating that trend, it is not at all too remote for the government to misuse the CCTVs for purposes other than fighting crime like theft or murder. The facilities could be use to fight “crime” such as practicing liberty.

From a terminal connected to a wide network of CCTVs, the state would be able to keep an eye anybody for whatever reasons, be it a tyrant scheming to force all into obedience or simply peeping-tom the dog running his own errands while the gods sleep soundly in their thrones far abovenaway from the wretched earth.

But surely, they would not do that. CCTVs are for fighting crime!

And maybe my liberty should be sacrifice for Sharlinie and in honor of Nurin. How selfish of me to not to sacrifice my liberty for the two children. Never mind that the parents made mistakes that cost them their children. Never mind that a lot more parents never learn from that mistakes and when somebody points out that they need to change, they fiercely bark back at that somebody. Never mind that. Forgive me. It is now the responsibility of the police, the state, to keep children safe, not parents anymore. Forgive me to not noticing that changing zeitgeist. I suppose personal responsibility is outdated.

Maybe we need the CCTVs after all. Maybe, we need the gods to install those CCTVs in our bedroom to protect us from the monsters that lurk under our beds, outside our windows at night. We need to be assured that somebody is watching us, keeping us safe all the time so that we could sleep well at night, away from the boogeyman.

Or maybe just for those whom are too scared to have personal responsibility.

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 at Bolehland.

Categories
Economics

[1514] Of bread subsidy in Egypt

Something that Malaysian politicians as well as advocates of subsidy need to learn. Quoted below are the effects of subsidy at another place on another commodity:

It is hard to make ends meet in Egypt, where about 45 percent of the population survives on just $2 a day. That is one reason trying to buy subsidized bread can be a fierce affair, with fists and elbows flying, men shoving and little children dodging blows to get up to the counter.

Egypt is a state where corruption is widely viewed as systemic, which is also why the crowd gets aggressive trying to buy up the subsidized bread. Cheap state bread can be resold, often for double the original price.

[…]

Egypt started subsidizing staples like bread, sugar and tea around World War II, and has done so ever since. When it tried to stop subsidizing bread in 1977 there were riots. Egyptians are generally not known as explosive people, but tell them you are raising the price of bread — of life — and beware.

[…]

The inspector explained why the system was so open to abuse. The government sells bakeries 25-pound bags of flour for 8 Egyptian pounds, the equivalent of about $1.50. The bakeries are then supposed to sell the flatbread at the subsidized rate, which gives them a profit of about $10 from each sack. Or the baker can simply sell the flour on the black market for $15 a bag.

[…] So they fight for cheap bread. They begin gathering outside the bare one-room bakery at about 11 a.m. every day except Friday, the day of prayer.

Over the course of an hour one recent day, 14-year-old Mahmoud Ahmed managed four trips to the counter. His job, he said, was to ensure a steady stream of bread for a nearby food vendor, who then resold it in sandwiches. It appeared that the baker let him push his way to the front to get bread before others. Was there a deal going? Mahmoud would not say.

Down the road, five blocks away, a 12-year-old, Muhammad Abdul Nabi, was selling bread, the same kind of bread, from a makeshift table for more than double the price at the bakery. But there were no lines. [Egypt’s Problem and Its Challenge: Bread Corrupts. Michael Slackman, Nadim Audi. NYT. January 17 2008]

Subsidy, lines and pressure to sell the commodity at a higher price. Sounds familiar?

Categories
Economics

[1513] Of winners need not compensate losers

Steven Landsburg:

All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?

[…]

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

[…]

Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation — even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don’t want you to. [What to Expect When You’re Free Trading. Steven Landsburg. NYT. January 16 2008]

Categories
Books, essays and others

[1512] Of a time for a tiger

I thought the Malayan Trilogy by Anthony Burgess was still banned in Malaysia and so I stopped looking for it. Very unlike the effort, my interest in the novel did not die out and when I found out that Sharon, along with Malay College Old Boys’ Association, said it was time for a Tiger, I wasted no time to shoot her an email for a spot in that function. Two weeks later, when the time finally came, I found myself staring at a pile of The Malayan Trilogy!

A pile, I tell you!

“But aren’t those banned?” I asked myself in shocked. Ignoring my promise to have North’s as the first book to join my collection in 2008, I hastily grabbed my wallet and enthusiastically paid the scruffy looking old boy behind the counter.

Inside the hall, I spotted several familiar characters. It was a MCOBA event after all. A. Samad Said was there too though I am unsure how does he relate to the Malay College.

But I did not know anybody personally. Or least, I doubt they would remember me. They were old, old boys anyway. Conversation with them would not have gone far and it would have been awkward. So, I sat alone patiently while chewing some kuih and drinking watermelon juice (Was it watermelon?).

I must have looked sad because Sharon came over to me and invited me to her table which was full of people. In my mind, did I look that sad?

I almost protested, asserting that I was enjoying a company of cheerful imaginary friends. But she insisted and confidently picked my drink in effort to make me accept her offer. I was hard to refuse and I moved over to her table.

At that table, a face looked way too familiar. It was not until he introduced himself as Amir did I realized that he was Amir Muhammad. Rob Spence, the speaker of the evening, was at the same table too. Truly, conversation of the table had one theme: books. When I cracked an economics joke, trying the steer the conversational wheel away from what seemed to me obscure books, it backfired. Everybody only gave me pitiful smiles.

And so, I kept quiet, keeping to typical conversation like what do you do, where are you from and other lame things. After what seemed like eternity, the event began.

While Sharon was introducing the guest of the evening, she told the audience that the ban on the book was removed after it was stealthily banned by Malaysian authority in 2007 due to noises made over the local blogosphere and she was part of the campaign. She received a applause for that. As a libertarian, I have no choice but to join the clapping.

It was a good evening. Dr. Rob Spence gave an entertaining primer on Burgess and laughter filled the hall countless of times. I do not remember a lot of what Dr. Spence said but I remember how loud I laughed when he told the audience that Burgess had the cheek to write a book and then assumed another pseudonym to review his own book and gave it high marks. That would have looked bad on a lot of people but with Burgess, it was just hilarious. Burgess’ encounter with the Duke of Edinburgh was another funny story.

What was equally entertaining were anecdotes told by various students of Burgess themselves! It was incredible to listen to individuals that knew Burgess, or Mr. Wilson as they referred to him, personally. As these old boys recalled their days in Kuala Kangsar, laughter filled the hall once again, again and again. At times, I could not breathe because of too much laughing. I was grasping for air, really!

After all was done, I thought I saw Michelle Gunaselan, a co-contributor at Bolehland. I wanted to sat hi but it was already late and I had to go to work the next day. So, I shook some hands and bid farewell.

Before I went to bed, I took a peek at A Time For A Tiger and now, I have another reason to finish up Sophie’s World fast!

Categories
Politics & government

[1511] Of Ron Paul outperforms Giuliani again!

Ron Paul has outdone Giuliani yet again. This time, it is in Michigan!

Fair use. Copyrights by NYT.

It is good to remember that Michigan primaries is more important to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Indeed, unless the penalty on Michigan is removed, Clinton’s win is practically worthless. And it is good to note that Wastenaw, the country which Ann Arbor is situated in, is one of two counties that refuse to commit to anybody (read, Clinton), probably in protest of the penalty imposed on Michigan.

For the Republicans, three different candidates — Huckabee, McCain and Romney — have won three different primaries.