Categories
Politics & government

[1264] Of not so new politics

From the NYT political blog:

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s rivals, including the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, went through the list of the Clinton’s financial holdings that Mrs. Clinton filed with the Senate and released a very detailed and critical analysis about where the Clintons had gotten and invested their money.

[…]

Mr. Obama’s aides circulated the memorandum to news organizations on the condition that news organizations not say where they obtained the information.

[…]

This turned into a bit of a dust-up because by all appearances, the Obama campaign got a little sloppy in circulating what turned out to be two critical memos. They ended up in the hands of the Clinton campaign.

[…]

Why would the Clinton campaign want to circulate documents attacking its candidate? Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined comment. But the Clintons have been seeking to undercut the effort by Mr. Obama to present himself as the face of a new-kind-of-politics that eschews these kind of attacks. [The Backstory on Obama-Clinton Attack Memos. The Caucus. June 15 2007]

Clinton seems to be winning at the moment.

The Obama campaign was forced to acknowledge authorship when the Clinton campaign got a copy and shared it with The New York Times.

For the Clinton campaign, drawing attention to a document attacking its own candidate had the effect of demonstrating that Mr. Obama, like other candidates, is not above a bit of political street fighting and, by implication, should not be allowed to cast himself as a champion of a purer version of public service. But in this case, the disclosure also threatened to create a substantive problem for Mr. Obama by leading an Indian-American group to accuse Mr. Obama of engaging in racial stereotyping. [A New Kind of Politics Closely Resembles the Old. NYT. June 16 2007]

Read also 2008: Not-So-New Politics, New Fallout.

Categories
Economics Environment

[1263] Of new waste management bills

Finally, on the surface at least, sensible new policies:

People who waste more will have to pay more and every household will have to start separating recyclable items from other waste.

These are two of the implications of the Solid Waste Management and Public Clean-Up Bill, which the Housing and Local Government Ministry expects to table in parliament in two weeks. [Start sorting out and recycling your waste. NST. June 17 2007]

To be honest, I have not read the bills. The website of the Parliament is not so helpful and its search function is not working at all. Therefore, I am quite unclear what the bills are specifically seeking for other than the establishment of a government-owned centralized waste management entity. It is hard to form some sort of opinion without proper information.

I am unsure how the service providers are going to enforce that pay-as-you-go system. Under that model, the providers would need to identify which trash belongs to whom. It is easy imagine that waste owners would try to dump their waste at public space and then disown the trash to escape the need to pay for trash collection altogether. The property rights of the waste must be properly enforced to ensure the success of the model.

Another matter concerns recycling. The bill wants to make recycling mandatory but I prefer to provide consumers with incentive to recycling rather than coercing them. A good system would reward those that separate their trash by charging them less. In other word, offer them discount and this discount should include the cost of waste separation.

Those that failed to do the same should pay a premium. This premium would include the cost of separating the trash and some sort of penalty.

I wonder though if a waste management service provider has the economies of scale and the technology to separate trash at least as good as that being done by the consumers. If it does, perhaps it makes sense to do the separation on the other side of the equation rather than on the consumer side.

Apart from the payment schedule and recycling, another issue is this:

Along with the bills, the interim agreements between concessionaires of solid waste management facilities, which were arranged under the national privatisation of solid waste management programme, would be turned into concession agreements.

However, once this was done, the concessionaires would be subjected to strict key performance index and have to meet standards set by the government. [Better solid waste services once bills passed. NST. June 13 2007]

I am surprised that these waste management service providers are operating without any proper contract!

The introduction of contractual relationships would indeed improve the situation for all of us because with contracts, the service rendered by these management firms could be used to assure fund providers of repayment for any borrowing made by the firms to strengthen their business.

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1262] Of Karen Armstrong’s lecture in Kuala Lumpur

The lecture by Karen Armstrong was not as impressive as I expected it to be. I enjoyed it nonetheless. The lecture was titled The Role of Religion in the 21st Century but the content was positively about the commonalities shared by the world’s major religions.

I reached the Mandarin Oriental Hotel early and managed to catch free breakfast at the hotel. If I had not spent too much time at the lobby, I would probably have sat somewhere closer to the front. Alas, I sat somewhere in the middle, right beside what seemed to be a fan of Armstrong. We got into a small chat and I learned through her that Armstrong’s A History of God is banned in Malaysia.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

Apart from Armstrong herself, former PM Mahathir Mohamed was there. So too was his daughter Marina Mahathir. When the former PM was introduced to the audience, there was a tremendous ovation for him, even louder than what Armstrong had received. That showed how popular he still is and how much respect he commands among the public.

Through the lecture, it is clear that Armstrong is apologetic to the idea of religion. While at it, she mentioned several religious versions of the non-aggression axiom. I of course hold the axiom due to its morality, not because I am told to do so.

One particularly interesting point she shared is about the condition during the birth of major religions. She stated that religions were born out of revulsion of violence or immorality of that time. I am unsure about the truth of such general statement but after thousands of years, I feel that that revulsion itself has become the violence that those religions abhor in the first place.

Despite being apologetic, she did criticize the religious conservatives or fundamentalists, saying it is amazing how the opinion of the deities always coincide with theirs. That remark drew laughter from the crowd.

There was the Q&A session after that. A person came to the microphone and called for the government to undo the ban on Armstrong’s book. The crowd immediately gave the person a resounding round of applause. Armstrong completely agreed with the person and continued to say something to the effect that when freedom is suppressed, the human spirit sours and so too religion with it. The call for freedom is all the more impressive because this event was organized by the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, an arm of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Syed Hamid Albar, the Malaysian Foreign Minister, was there, sitting by the former PM’s side. Furthermore, since the restriction on the book began in 2005, the remark is a direct comment against the Abdullah administration.[1]

The whole lecture finally ended around noon. As I was leaving, I unwittingly came into the former PM’s path. While I do not agree with many of his policies, I still regard him as a respectable leader and to shake his hand is an honor which I grabbed without hesitation.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

There was a small lunch after that and I noticed Haris Ibrahim there speaking to somebody. Azmi Sharom, one of the speakers at the recent DAP forum, was there too.

After all that, I visited Kinokuniya, finally bought Rumi’s Masnavi that I first encountered, briefly, years ago and later, sadly got elected as the treasurer of a special interest group within the Malaysian Nature Society.

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

[1] erratum — the original factually incorrect sentence before correction: Furthermore, since the book was first published in 1994, I would assume the ban came in during the Mahathir administration. Therefore, it was a direct comment.

Categories
Activism Economics

[1261] Of distributive justice in free market

Institute for Policy Research, better known locally among restricted circles as IKD (Institut Kajian Dasar) organized a small forum on the New Economic Policy a couple of hours ago. As it turned out, the forum focused on the weaknesses of the New Economic Policy but throughout the forum, the most interesting point was raised by Dzulkefly Ahmad and later followed up by Khalid Jaafar.

Dzulkefly Ahmad, the director of PAS Research Centre, mentioned the phrase distributive justice. I quickly recognized this as another word for equitability. In my head, I was quick to point out that mainstream economics does not deal with equitability but rather, stresses on efficiency. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism to achieve a perceived efficient equitable point; the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics provides for this. In layperson’s term, the theorem proves that any efficient outcome could be achieved through a lump-sum wealth redistribution. Through the new allocation of endowment, the new efficient outcome is attainable through market forces.

While I was thinking in technical term, Khalid Jaafar came up with a more meaningful question: who would be responsible for the redistribution of wealth?

My bias wants me to say the market. After deeper casual mental masturbation however, I am struggling to answer the question of how would or could the market reallocate individuals’ endowment?

The tougher questions are these: what is an economic efficient equitable outcome? Could the market recognize that efficient equitable outcome?

At 02:40, my eyes are heavy and my brain is shutting off.

Unlike me, all speakers — Rajah Rasiah of Universiti Malaya, Dzulkelfly Ahmad of PAS and Tony Pua of DAP — prefer the easier path which requires government intervention. That endowment reallocation is of course done through taxation.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[1260] Of divided and occupied Palestine

Now, we have Hamas-controlled Gaza and Fatah-controlled West Bank. Instead of fighting for Palestinian sovereignty, both groups have turned against each other.

BY THE end of this week, the Islamists of Hamas will have either destroyed the secular-minded Fatah in the Gaza Strip, or at least shown that they can. The relative quiet after a deadly burst of violence between the rival Palestinian parties in May was broken by a series of tit-for-tat killings that quickly got out of hand. After troops from the presidential guard of Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, fired rockets at the house of Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister, the Islamist party launched a full-scale attack. Hamas troops have taken control of most of the Gaza Strip and have chased Fatah forces out of their bases, while several top Fatah commanders have either fled Gaza or been killed. [The road to Hamastan. The Economist. June 13 2007]

Earlier today, a state of emergency has been declared by the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed the Hamas-led coalition government and declared a state of emergency.

Aides said the president would seek to call elections as soon as possible, after deadly clashes between his Fatah faction and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

[…]

Hamas fighters overran most of Gaza on Thursday, capturing the headquarters of Fatah’s Preventative Security force and hailing Gaza’s “liberation”. [Abbas sacks Hamas-led government. June 15 2007]

An election is useless if nobody would accept the democratic outcome. Whatever it is, at the moment, the Palestinian cause is lost.

I wonder how the election of Shimon Peres as the new president of Israel would affect the condition.