Category: Society

Categories
Economics Society

[2259] Of more open immigration as a source of growth

Foreigners from poorer countries working in unglamorous low-skilled industries in Malaysia have it tough. Stereotyped, some Malaysians associate them with the worst.

They are blamed for various problems — from the high crime rate to stagnating wages — while their contributions to the local economy are ignored. Seeing low-skilled foreigners as a source of trouble, there are Malaysians who want to limit the number of these foreigners in the country.

In times when economic growth is an obsession, that protectionist sentiment needs to be kept in check. It needs to be kept in check because immigration can be a key to economic growth.

More generally, population growth can lead to economic growth. High population growth rate enlarges the size of an economy in absolute terms. In this respect, immigration is the easiest route to take.

That is not the main reason why immigration is a powerful tool for long-term economic growth, however. Instead, it is the potential of their children along with ours.

The larger a particular society is, the likelier it would organically host inherently exceptionally talented individuals. Creation of talents does depend on multiple factors such as quality education quality but it is impossible to deny that some people are exceptionally brilliant compared to others. In a perfectly level-playing field stripped of other effects, these individuals would distinguish themselves from the masses, regardless of environmental factors.

Economist Robert Lucas once explained this to demonstrate the link between population growth, technical progress and economic growth. He wrote: ”If I could re-do the history of the world, halving population size each year from the beginning of time on some random basis, I would not do it for fear of losing Mozart in the process.”

These highly talented individuals would contribute to society and make it richer. By richer, it is not only in terms of material wealth but also other aspects that make life worth living.

If Malaysia is to enjoy the benefits of a larger population in the long run, it has to adopt a relatively open immigration policy. This can easily be done by granting productive foreigners who have spent considerable time in the country a pathway to citizenship, or at least a shot at permanent residency.

Some may consider this as an overly liberal policy. It is not and in fact, it is a realistic policy. Consider for a moment that there are more or less two million foreigners in Malaysia. That figure is before accounting for illegal aliens. One surely cannot believe that the government can reduce the number by a significant margin, much less boot of all of them out without hurting the economy.

Many of them have lived in Malaysia for some time. Many do speak Malay. They are acclimatized to Malaysian culture. In other words, the cost of accommodation and integration for them and for Malaysian society would not be too great.

At the same time, Malaysia does not have a comprehensive welfare system, which is a typical barrier to open immigration policy. As new citizens, they will have to work their way through. They have the necessary motivation to work and to contribute to society. This reduces the short-term cost of such liberal policy.

Implementation of the liberal policy may even give a short run boost to the local economy. Foreign workers face radical changes in their future given that they have to return to their home country once their stay permit expires.

It is reasonable to speculate that that places a limit on their spending within the local economy. If one has no future in the country, one has little reason to spend too much in that country — little incentive for them to undertake large, long-term purchases or investments at individual levels.

If they are given the chance to pursue Malaysian citizenship or permanent residency status, and if such speculation is a fact, then that limit could be removed. This could boost private demand in Malaysia.

In fact, some of these foreigners have proven to be entrepreneurial sorts. Citizenship will grant them security. That encourages them to establish private enterprises, which can only enhance the vigor of the free market and reduces the need for government involvement in business, if there is ever a need for such statist involvement in the first place.

This cannot be bad for the local economy in both the short and long run.

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 October 1 2010.

Categories
Books, essays and others Economics Society

[2247] Of Veblen on religion

Veblen introduced some interesting ideas in The Theory of the Leisure Class. My professor seems to insist that Veblen was an early pioneer in the field of signalling.

Although Veblen drove his ideas to the extreme to bring in absurd implications that I simply will not buy, there are specific arguments that I find attractive and readily agreeable. This is one of them:

The same pervading canon of vicarious leisure is also visibly present in the exterior details of devout observances and need only be pointed out in order to become obvious to all beholders. All ritual has a notable tendency to reduce itself to a rehearsal of formulas. This development of formula is most noticeable in the maturer cults, which have at the same time a more austere, ornate, and severe priestly life and garb; but it is perceptible also in the forms and methods of worships of the newer and fresher sects, whose tastes in respect of priests, vestments, and sanctuaries are less exacting. The rehearsal of the service (the term ”service” carries a suggestion significant for the point in question) grows more perfunctory as the cult gains in age and consistency, and this perfunctoriness of the rehearsal is very pleasing to the correct devout taste. And with a good reason, for the fact of its being perfunctory goes to say pointedly that the master for whom it is performed is exalted above the vulgar need of actually proficuous service on the part of his servants. They are unprofitable servants, and there is an honorific implication for their master in their remaining unprofitable. It is needless to point out the close analogy at this point between the priestly office and the office of the footman. It is pleasing to our sense of what is fitting in these matters, in either case, to recognize in the obvious perfunctoriness of the service that it is a pro forma execution only. There should be no show of agility or of dexterous manipulation in the execution of the priestly office, such as might suggest a capacity for the turning off the work. [The Theory of the Leisure Class. Chapter 6: Pecuniary Canons of Taste. Thorstein Veblen. 1899]

As a side note, I am beginning to understand why a Veblen good is called a Veblen good. It all begins with this book.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2243] Of discuss, debate but do not threaten

Opinions abound and they are bound to hit some sensitive nerve. When it hits, there goes another police report. There goes another demand for an ISA arrest.

The right-wing group Perkasa has been at it for some time now, calling for the arrest of various individuals for challenging what the group considers as Malay rights. Leaders of MCA and MIC meanwhile have lodged police reports against Perkasa for calling for the abolition of vernacular schools. An Umno politician recently said that nobody should question the existence of these schools because the founding fathers had agreed to it — nobody should question it; neither such an ultimatum nor threat has any place in a democratic system that cherishes freedom.

Some debates are engaging in that there are outstanding ripostes to brilliant arguments as opposing sides try to outwit each other. An exploration of ideas happens along the way to awe both participants and spectators. They are well-researched and well-argued. Malaysia requires this kind of debate for it to take the next step into the future confidently. We have the infrastructure and the institutions to take that step. What we lack is the culture. The exchange of threats reflects that.

The ones taking place in Malaysia are unimpressive by any measure. There is no witty riposte. There is no brilliant argument. There are just people who disagree with each other so badly that they want to silence the other. They are unable to conjure attractive thoughts to undermine the others’ arguments. They are not creative enough to convince the others and the spectators why they are right and the others are wrong. All they can muster is ”shut up or else.”

Worse, some of these arguments are made by members of the ruling coalition. One would expect more from them, given that they are driving the car.

When an argument is really a thinly veiled threat, it betrays something about it or those who make it. It is a weakness of intellect or laziness in thoughts. The gears in their heads stop running and their muscles begin to flex.

If this was the dominating atmosphere on the fringes, it could all be ignored safely. They can flex their muscle all they want in dark corners populated by cuckoos. But all this is happening in the center of the public arena.

It is because it is taking place in the centre that this lamented trend cannot be tolerated. It creates a climate of fear that crowd freedom out from the center.

No one in Malaysia needs any reminders that multiple issues need resolutions. These are old legacy issues and problems we inherited from our founding fathers.

None can claim to know what the eventual sustainable solutions are. What is true is that the way for us to begin to imagine those solutions is by being free to debate all issues with reason, not by resorting to threats.

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 August 27 2010.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2238] Of why do we have poster wars?

In Waterloo, which is about 20 minutes to the south of the central business district of Sydney, a man in his mid-30s approached me. He offered me a leaflet. The leaflet more or less says ”Vote Liberal.” Although I cannot vote in the upcoming Australian federal election, I accepted the leaflet out of curiosity. Apart from that, it has been quiet here in Australia despite the election being just less than a week away.

Let me rephrase that and stress what actually interests me. I do not see too many posters around.

A question lingers in my head. Why is that so?

Without access to newspapers, television and the Internet, it would take an effort to realize that Australia is in its campaigning period. The atmosphere in the streets and in the city right now is no different from any other typical day. People just mind their business, as if the upcoming election is a minor distraction.

Contrast that to Malaysian elections. Election time is always carnival-like in Malaysia. It is noisy and it is colorful. Loud speeches will blare into the night. More strikingly is the poster war. Colors representing major political parties will decorate the streets. Once it is election time, you will know it, even if you are apolitical.

Some Australian friends of mine try to explain this phenomenon to me by stating that Australian politics is boring. It is really a contest between two uncharismatic politicians representing two unexciting political parties, they say. Australians are not entirely excited about it. On top of that, I live in a safe seat for Labor. There is little contest to be expected. In other words, the level of excitement translates into a poster war, or lack of it.

That explanation does not explain my experience in the United States. I lived in Ann Arbor during the 2004 presidential election. It is an overwhelmingly Democrat town. I do not remember seeing too many posters hung in public places but the election was still electrifying.

One may expect infrastructure to have some part in causing poster wars. If the communication infrastructure like television and radio is unable to relay messages, posters are effective for the job.

Now, the US and arguably Australia have a more developed communication infrastructure than Malaysia. As far as Kuala Lumpur is concerned, the level is comparable. Yet, if one wants to witness a poster war, the Malaysian capital is the place to be. Or compare Kuala Lumpur with some rural area like Ijok.

If infrastructure was an issue, Kuala Lumpur should experience less of a poster war compared to other places. In fact, there were poster wars everywhere in most previous Malaysian elections that I care to remember. Thus, the state of infrastructure does not provide a satisfactory explanation.

Being a libertarian, I find it inevitable to eventually resort to a libertarian explanation and I think it explains the phenomenon of poster war better than others do.

The libertarian explanation goes like this. Non-Barisan Nasional parties face restrictions in terms of access to the mainstream media. The restrictions naturally encourage individuals and parties to look for alternative avenues to spread their political messages or to introduce their candidates to voters. Posters and the Internet are two avenues relatively free of restrictions in Malaysia.

In Australia and the US, all parties have considerable access to the mainstream media.

Thus, there is less need for a poster war.

This may be useful in addressing the problem of a poster war. On the whole a poster war can be entertaining, more often than not those who participate in it tend to overdo it.

When you are looking at a road sign for direction and you read ”go right for Barisan Nasional or go left of Pakatan Rakyat” instead of KLCC or Bukit Bintang, you know somebody is being overzealous about those posters.

With fewer restrictions to access or even entry into the mainstream media, the problem of too many posters may be solved without resorting to more rules and regulations.

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 August 16 2010.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2216] Of solution to Methodist Church’s fear of politicization

The Methodist Church in Malaysia is apparently under heavy criticism after it accepted money from the BN federal government during the recent Sibu parliamentary by-election. Quite clearly, the context in which the money was given strongly suggests that the money transfer was political of nature. The transfer could have been done outside of election time but I am confident that without the election in Sibu, the money would not have found its way to the Church’s hand.

Bishop Hwa Yung of the Church’s Council of Presidents in defending the Church, among others, states that it is the responsibility of the government to give grants to religious bodies.[1]

The Bishop insists that the Church cannot takes sides in politics. Yet, the Church suffers from politicization and it was presented with difficult fork: accept the money and be dammned as pro-government; reject the money and be deemed as pro-opposition.

A pragmatist would look at the options, understand the inevitability of politicization under the scenario and settle for the least hurtful outcome. Between suffer politicization, or suffer politicization and be several millions richer, the optimal solution is non-brainer. The Church is a pragmatist. It took a pragmatist action. It took the money. It is as simple as that. Save the moral argument.

The fear of politicization issue would have been comprehensible if it is not how the Bishop defended the action of the Church. The Bishop writes “the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities“.

It is hard for me to sympathize with the Church when it uses that reasoning as its shield. First of all, the Church should realize that this is an arbitrary gift from the government. The grant in no way solves the problem of unfairness that the Bishop raises. Besides, no wrongdoing should be used to correct a wrong. The act of justifying the arbitrariness is thus problematic, making the Church’s fear sounds hollow.

As a secularist, his statement that it is the responsibility of the government to give grants to religious institutions makes it impossible for me to sympathize with the Church.

Perhaps such dilemma would not have existed if the state was secular. By secular, it is the idea that it is not the responsibility of the state to provide religious bodies with money.

If the Church does not want to find itself in such dilemma ever again, it should support such secularism. Under such secularism, the Church will never have to face the oh-so-painful problem of accepting or rejecting money from the government.

Secularism solves the dilemma cleanly. Why not try it?

But really, is it a dilemma to start with? Who are we kidding? A lot of us can do with a little bit of money. That includes religious institutions as well.

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

[1] — Many of our church members are aware of the reports in the media that the government made grants to four Methodist churches in Sibu, on the eve of the recent parliamentary by-election. The Council of Presidents discussed this matter at its May 25 meeting.

Pending fuller deliberations on the matter by the General Conference Executive Council at its upcoming meeting, we wish to issue a pastoral letter stating the following:

1. First, the giving of grants to religious bodies for the advancement of religion, as well as to other bodies like schools, etc, is a government responsibility. To receive such is a citizen’s right. After all, the money given is actually taxpayers’ money. [Church is non-partisan, grants put us in dilemma. Hwa Yung. Malaysiakini. May 28 2010]