Category: Society

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2118] Of less variance for democratic states versus autocracies

Just weeks ago, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad contrasted the development of China and India. As reported, he praised the single-mindedness of the Chinese government in developing the country and ridiculed the Indian government for being far too democratic and not focusing enough on development. He went on to state that freedom hurts the economy.[1]

Art Harun, a columnist at The Malaysian Insider replied to this in his column[2] stating examples where democracies have been successful, contrary to the former Prime Minister’s assertion.[3] Zaidel Baharuddin, yet another The Malaysian Insider columnist jumped into the debate at his blog by defending the former Prime Minister, stating that “starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression.”[4] Art Harun took the chance to reply to the point and various other comments too diverse to cite here[5] by arguing that economic prosperity does not have to be mutually exclusive with respect to freedom as well as adding that they are other factors that need to be considered in the determination of economic development, like leadership.[6]

Indeed but all those discussions are gradually veering off course from the point the former Prime Minister made, about how democracies perform poorly against less democratic states in terms of economic development.

This point is not necessarily true. If one wants to make that point, one cannot choose two data points and make a conclusion out of it. That is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. A better way is to take all of democracies and all of authoritarian states and compare them.

There are prominent studies on this. One important study states that while the existence of democracy or dictatorship does not affect the mean growth rate of economic development, it does affect its variance. That means there are less consistency in economic growth under authoritarian regime compared to democracies. Adam Przeworski wrote an important paper on the issue:

Political regimes have no impact on the growth of total income when countries are observed across the entire spectrum of conditions. Contrary to widespread concerns, democracies do not reduce the rate of investment even in poor countries. It appears that when countries are poor there is little governments can do, so that it makes little difference for economic growth whether rulers are elected or hold power by force. In wealthier countries, patterns of growth are no longer the same. Dictatorships rely on the growth of labor force and on keeping wages low, while democracies pay higher wages, use labor more effectively, and benefit more from technical progress. But while growth under wealthier dictatorships is more labor-extensive and labor-exploitative than under wealthier democracies, so that functional distributions of income are different, the average rates of growth of total income are about the same.

Thus, we did not find a shred of evidence that democracy need be sacrificed on the altar of development. The few countries that developed spectacularly during the past fifty years were as likely to achieve this feat under democracy as under dictatorship. On the average, total incomes grew at almost identical rates under the two regimes. Moreover, per capita incomes grow faster in democracies. The reason is that democracies have lower rates of population growth. In spite of rapid diffusion of medical advances, death rates remain somewhat higher under dictatorship and life expectancies are much shorter. Population grows faster under dictatorships because they have higher birth rates, and the difference in birth rates is due to higher fertility, not to age structures of the population. [Democracy and Economic Development. Adam Przeworski. New York University. Retrieved on November 30 2009]

Almeida and Ferreira in 2002 probably made a more direct case:

Less-democratic countries do seem to have variable growth rates and policies than more democratic ones. This corroborates the conjecture of Sah (1991). Possible explanatoins for this fact can be found in Rodrik (1999a) and in Sah and Stiglitz (1991).

The evidence presented in this paper strongly supports Sah’s conjecture. The empirical results are unaffected by many robustness and specification checks. The results are not sensitive to specific time periods, to different democracy indicies, to different econometric procedures, or to model specification. The results hold even after controlling for many plausible determinants of growth rates and democracy indicies, including the usual variables from the empirical growth literature, time dummies and country-fixed effects, GDP, natural resource dependence, and OECD membership.

The greater stability of growth rates and policy measures among democratic countries adds to the existing list of desirable features of democracies, such as the positive correlations between democracy and per capita GDP levels, between democracy and primary schooling (Barro, 1999) and between wages and democracy indices (Rodrik, 1999b). Our evidence also corroborates the common view that some autocratic countries have had the most impressive growth experiences. However, since the worst experiences are also associated with autocratic countries, in an ex-ante sense, autocracy is no prescription for growth. [Democracy and the variability of economic performance. Heictor Almeida. Daniel Ferreira. Economics and Politics. Volume 14. November 2002]

Of note is the relationship between wages and democracy indices as reported by Rodrik. People in the Najib administration may well take that into account.

Anyway, at the Library of Economic and Liberty, economist Byran Caplan, who introduces Almeida and Ferreira, reproduces the following diagram to drive the point home:[7]

Some right reserved.

Autocracies are represented on the left side and democracies on the right side. Note the variances and the means.

Bottom line is, there is more risk to having an authoritarian regime than a democratic one, in terms of economic development. If one wants to be more certain about achieving success, democracy is one of the ingredients one must consider.

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

[1] — Dr Mahathir singled out India as an Asian country that “made the mistake of being too democratic” and compared it unfavourably with China’s authoritarian regime.

“India, of course, will grow, but more slowly than China. It has the numbers but is not making use of them well.”

He expanded on the theme at a press conference later, saying that people “don’t understand the limits of democracy”.

“Democracy can be a hindrance to progress because you spend so much time politicking that you don’t have time to develop your country.

“In China, there’s not much politics. So, they can spend more time developing their country.

“In a democracy, everybody has a voice, everybody has a vote. But, in Malaysia, they sell their votes, which is not good at all.” [Dr M: A lot to learn from China. New Straits Times. November 17 2009]

[2] —[Enemies of the State. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 19 2009]

[3] — Yes. According to DrM, the Westerners are wrong for making democracy and freedom the cornerstone of progress. The British are so free they go on strike every other day. Well, who sent people to the moon in 1969? Which part of the world had an industrial revolution? Why have Russia, East Germany, Romania et al embraced democracy and freedom? From whom did we buy our Scorpene? Why Glasnost and Perestroika? So the people know the limits of freedom and how to behave themselves properly and in accordance with the Government’s code of behavioural acceptance?

And finally, according to Dr M, apart from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will lead the Asian charge.

Which made me thinking, were Japan, South Korea and Taiwan governed by a benevolent absolutist government? Do the people in these countries know the limits of democracy? If so, to what extent? And who impose and define these limits on them? [Enemies of the State. Art Harun. November 19 2009]

[4] — I’m pretty sure, those starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression. It is those comfortably well paid lawyers with some extra time on their hands who are more concerned about these things and write about it.

Meaning, [b]efore you talk about democracy perhaps it is wise to first elevate the people’s (rakyat) quality of living, because like the maslow’s hierarchy of needs there are more important things to fulfill before they get to the self actualization level. [Sinatra_Z – An Answer. Zaidel Baharuddin. November 20 2009]

[5] — Ahiruddin Attan for instance compared the more democratic Malaysia, which is behind the economic development curve with the less democratic Singapore, which is ahead:

I don’t think the Malaysian Insider would publish such a piece. Good try, though, Z. I do agree with you (and Dr M). We don’t need to look so far, just across the Causeway. We are way more democratic than Singapore, and look at how many of us idolize the Republic for its progress and wealth. Given the choice, however, I’d stay put here, Z. [Art Harun vs The Lipas Man. Ahiruddin Attan. November 20 2009]

[6] — My question is, why can’t we have them all? Especially in a democracy, where we elect our so called leaders to look after our well being as members of a State?

I think in this day and age, it is downright insulting — and not to mention, pathetic — for any leader to say to the people that I will give you food on your table in abundance but you would have to shut up, toe the line and do as I say, all the time and under all circumstances.

For a leader to lay the blame on the people which he or she ruled — for not understanding the limits of democracy — as a reason for his or her failure to achieve development and progress does not speak much of his or her leadership.

A comparison was made with Singapore in one of the comments. It was pointed out Singapore did not have much of a democracy and they progress well. But that does not prove that Singapore progressed well because it was less democratic.

 

Hasn’t it occurred to any of us that Singapore progressed because of the mentality and work ethics of its leaders? [Freedom lifts us up to where we belong. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 24 2009]

[7] —[Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Variance of Growth. Byran Caplan. Library of Economics and Liberty. October 2 2009]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2108] Of a liberal separation between religion and state

An optimist may take the view that politics is unifying. A realist will understand that politics is divisive. It is possible that this realization is the reason why the Sultan of Selangor expressed his concern about the use of mosques for political purposes. For better or for worse, political activities in mosques are inevitable, if there is respect for freedom. Divisiveness is a symptom of difference in opinion and freedom of conscience. Any effort to eliminate such divide, in most cases, involves abolition of freedom. It is for this reason that I do not share his concern. Rather, I am more concerned with the roles of mosques in Malaysian society.

When I speak of mosques, I do not speak of them literally, buildings with calligraphy adorning minarets, walls or domes. I am referring to a more substantial issue that is relevant within the context of separation of mosque and state, or the separation of church and state, if you will. I am talking about the role of religion in state and, therefore, public space.

While this debate has been going on for a long time, the issue still suffers from misunderstanding of what the separation entails. For liberals, more than anything else, such separation exists to support freedom.

It is true that separation between religion and the state — call it secularism if you must — can exist on its own without the idea of liberty as a pillar, and subsequently, may be hostile to religion. This happened in the Soviet Union in the past, when the communist state was openly hostile to religion.

The Soviet Union perhaps went to the extreme by adopting an atheistic outlook for the state, creating a nightmare state for both liberal and religious individuals. But then again, Soviet Union was not secular state. It was not a state that was neutral of religion. It was a state that was anti-religion and that is not the definition of a secular state. Thus, perhaps Soviet Union is an inappropriate example of a secular state.

A more appropriate example is likely to be Turkey, where secularism is embedded with hostility to religion is observable. In the country, especially in the past and perhaps less so nowadays, the state regulated religions to cement its own influence in the society.

Those states were and still are jealous beings, as with any authoritarian state.

Such separation is abhorrent to the concept of liberty and it deserves no contemplation at all. Adoption of such illiberal separation here in Malaysia will only witness migration from one unacceptable tyranny where religions breathe down the neck of individuals to another woeful type of tyranny where religious freedom comes under relentless attacks. That should never be the purpose of a person upholding the principle of liberty.

The function of the state is the protection of individual rights. It is the protection of individuals from coercion and fraud. Any further function that the state adopts, in most cases and within our context with respect to freedom of conscience, is excessive. And, too much excessiveness lays down the path towards tyranny.

Just as the institution of separation of powers of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary arms exists as an effort to ward off tyranny, the separation between the state and religion should be instituted to ensure the two forces would have less success in conspiring against free individuals. To have the mosques function as moral police stations, as proposed by Hasan Ali in Selangor, is surely good enough proof to demonstrate how such conspiracy is more than a product of someone’s wild imagination.

The separation may begin by having the state to not wield power to enforce religions and its rules on individuals. Religious laws should only be applied on the willing. Given that the religious laws themselves do not contradict individual liberty, the state has no role in their enforcement.

An individual is a sovereign and he or she alone is the final determinant of his or her conscience within the constraint of the physical world. It is not the business of a state to determine the religious belief — or lack of it, or even any kind of belief — of a free individual. It is not the business of the state to sanction any lifestyle that any religion deems acceptable for an individual to adopt.

That separation also means that no religion should receive funding from the state. Or if it must, the state can provide only limited funding to religious institutions, as the state may provide to various advocacy groups or non-governmental organizations.

Truly, religious institutions should only survive through donations which individuals or the faithful are willing to provide. After all, religious belief is about sincere belief. It follows that any money or resources for religion should come from the heart, not through coercion.

This separation prevents religions from being manipulated by the state and prevents individuals from being subjected to laws of conscience without his or her consent.

In this environment, parallel to the spirit of freedom of conscience, individuals can practice and express their religious belief. The proviso is that they can do so only without forcing others to live by the same ideals. These religious individuals may persuade others of their alleged morally superior lifestyle in line with freedom of speech but coercion is simply out of the question.

If there is coercion in that respect, then the liberal state will be there to meet the illegitimate coercion with legitimate force.

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 November 3 2009

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2084] Of not humored by the accusation of Malayan imperialism

Those who value liberty place responsibility on a pedestal. Without responsibility, an entity is undeserving of liberty and deserves admonishment for its oversight. While it is heartening to witness the culture of liberty flourishing in Malaysia, it is unclear if the necessary responsibility associated with freedom is experiencing parallel development required of a mature free society. Many Malaysians are delighted at the prospect of greater freedom but remain unwilling to take up the required responsibility.

Sentiments prevalent in several issues can demonstrate this clearly. The issue of fuel subsidy is one: advocates of subsidy want to consume fuel but are unashamedly unwilling to pay for its fair, free market cost.

Another example, which I would like to go into greater depth, is the discussion regarding the relationship between eastern and Peninsular Malaysia.

I am not at all humored by complaints raised by critical Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak on how they have been short-changed in the 46-year-old partnership between the two states in Borneo and the 11 states in the Malay Peninsula. Some public discourse in eastern Malaysia exhibit varying levels of hostility to Peninsular Malaysia that sometimes in jest includes the mention of Malayan imperialism. Along with it are matters such as underdevelopment, allocation of resources, immigration and even the date of National Day, among other things.

This hostility is unfair because the peninsular states should not be their punching bag. Only the federal government has the power to effectively address those issues both Sabah and Sarawak face individually or collectively. It is utterly crucial to differentiate between the peninsular states and the federal government. Failure to do so will not solve the problem and is likely to make the problem worse by introducing new ones. Hence, the resentment should be directed at the federal government.

Furthermore, while admittedly the other 11 states theoretically dominate the national legislature, federalism is only rarely a priority item among these 11 states due to years of the centralization policy of the federal government that flagrantly disrespected individual states’ rights. In fact, perhaps that is true for all states in Malaysia, including Sabah and Sarawak. Simply observe the Dewan Negara. What is supposed to be a symbol of states’ rights has been reduced to a rubber stamp of the executive, contrary to the spirit of democracy, even in the crudest definition of democracy.

Actually, even the federal government is unworthy of the resentment. If it has been forgotten, Sabah and Sarawak are part of the federal government. Two factors need stress.

One, Sabah and Sarawak are over-represented in the Lower House of Parliament in terms of population. Both states combined have approximately only six million people but are associated with 56 seats. The other 11 states have close to 20 million Malaysians but have only 153 seats in the Dewan Rakyat.

Two, moreover, as a direct result of the March 8, 2008 general election, both states have unprecedented influence in the federal government.

If the interests of Sabah and Sarawak have not been secured, it is clear that those who are frustrated at national discourse regarding both states should not blame the peninsular states or even the federal government. Rather, their representatives have failed.

Their federal representatives failed because despite over-representation in Parliament and commanding influence in the federal government, these eastern Malaysian representatives failed to effect national discourse. Meanwhile, their state representatives failed because they did not stand up to federal pressure when called upon to do so.

Yet, the majority in Sabah and Sarawak continuously voted for these representatives who sometimes seemingly colluded with the federal government to erode state rights of not only that of Sabah and Sarawak, but all 13 states of the 46-year-old federation.

Ultimately, this is a failure of assuming rightful responsibility. It is a failure of Sabahans and Sarawakians, especially those who are unhappy with the status quo. They demand their rights but they do not stand up and be counted. Thus, they brought this upon themselves and therefore, they have only themselves to blame.

What other conclusion can one draw?

Worst of all, they are shifting the cause of their failure to those on the peninsula. Not only those who cry Malayan imperialism each time the federal government comes in sight failed to act by changing their representatives, they refused to shoulder the consequences for their failure to act by making a scapegoat out of Peninsular Malaysia.

As I said, I am not at all humored.

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 September 17 2009.

Categories
Society

[2073] Of busting the myth of the monolithic community

What happened on a Friday in Shah Alam—when a group of individuals protesting against construction of a Hindu temple chose to do it by parading a severed cow’s head knowing full well that Hindus hold the cow sacred—is disgusting. There are ways to protest but the method employed by them is so despicable that it should be unthinkable and, hence, unspeakable. Malaysians who believe in a more inclusive future have every right to be angry at the protesters, whatever their political inclinations may be.

So reckless was the action that it left far too many thinking individuals with a revolting aftertaste that lingers on the tongue, even days after. It reminds too many Malaysians of one of the worst facets, if not the worst, that Malaysia can offer. It invokes all kinds of negative emotion: fear, sadness, disgust, anger. Pessimism reigns.

Regardless of debate regarding the ideals of Malaysia, this is no way to enter August 31, or September 16.

On the other side of the coin is the romantic Malaysia at play however.

If one concentrates just barely, one would realize an oft-overlooked but yet obvious and crucial fact in the whole episode. It is a fact that is capable of holding the tide of pessimism as the Hoover Dam to the Colorado.

It is a fact that the one who is standing up for a minority group against the majority is Khalid Samad, a Muslim Malay. It is a hopelessly cliched romantic narration in which a Malaysian of a different background stands up for another Malaysian of different background.

Nonetheless, this important fact deserves greater attention because it provides a concrete example in combating generalization that leads to the perception that a community is homogeneous in its opinion and that that opinion is one where all Malays are out to oppress the non-Malays. It is especially useful in undoing views that the whole majority population—every Malay—is bent on pushing the minority aside with impunity.

For the action of a very limited number of individuals, there are those who condemn the whole Malay population as they condemned the outrageous protesters. This generalization is unfair and unbecoming of anybody that dreams of an inclusive Malaysia.

That generalization is absurd. More than absurd, it is dangerous because that itself leads to a greater downward spiral into bigotry. While they themselves claim to abhor bigotry, they themselves are falling into the same trap that forms the basis of such bigotry.

It cannot be emphasized enough that one large factor contributing to the racial and religious mess in Malaysia is the perception that ethnic groups in Malaysia are monolithic and that there is no individual but only a unit listening to the hive mind inside each of this group.

This is not a conflict between Muslim Malays against the minority. Rather, it is a conflict between inclusiveness and intolerance. For this reason, for their offence, these barbarians deserve focused criticism with the spirit of inclusiveness. But not with further bigotry and racism.

Any criticism that has with it a hint of bigotry and racism—in this particular case, by equating the whole Malay population with that of the few barbarians—is counterproductive. Such criticism against the protesters only justifies and strengthens the flawed notion of monolithic community because it attacks other Malays and Muslims who are innocent of the appalling act done on Friday in Shah Alam. When these Malays and Muslims are unfairly criticized, the likelihood of them to fall in line with the perceived communal pattern increases to worsen the situation.

The presence of Khalid Samad—not him as a person per se but the fact that he is a Muslim Malay—standing in opposite to the position of bigots forces anybody contemplating to unfairly commit that gross generalization. The role of Khalid Samad makes good the abstract criticism that has been made against the perception of monolithic community for the longest time.

Granted, such roles as that played by Khalid Samad frequently plays out in smaller settings every day around Malaysia and, in fact, around the world. Khalid Samad is not an exception to a generalization. Instead, the generalization of monolithic community is downright wrong.

Unfortunately, those who hastily generalize too often are too blind to see so small a deed. What they need is a big one to convince them.

With the temple controversy becoming a national issue, the role Khalid Samad has assumed provides Malaysians with an opportunity to demonstrate and convince themselves how flawed the notion of monolithic community is. It provides a chance to smash the idea of homogeneity to smithereens.

That is something Malaysians should celebrate and that should be the spirit as Malaysia celebrates its day, be it August 31, September 16 or any other day for that matter.

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 September 1 2009.

Categories
Science & technology Society

[2071] Of masquerading: H1N1, facemasks and soap

Last week in Kuala Lumpur, I was at the Plaza Rakyat LRT station when a family lugging wheelie suitcases asked me whether they were at the right platform to get to KL Sentral. Being from out of town myself, I said I did not know, but continued to watch them because the two teenage daughters were wearing surgical masks. I have had a rather ghoulish fascination with infectious diseases since childhood, and when the pandemic started back in April, my lab-mates and I followed it like Malaysians watching the English Premier League.

The family eventually got affirmation from someone else that we were indeed on the correct platform. As we waited for the train, one of the girls’ shoulders shuddered, and she pulled down her mask to cough vigorously without covering her mouth. Relieved, she replaced the mask and continued staring into space.

Despite advisories from the Ministry of Health and other experts, most people still have the wrong end of the stick regarding surgical masks: their primary purpose is to protect other people from your germs, not the converse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advice on facemask use is that sick persons, not well, should wear them. They do protect the wearer from large splatters, but they do not filter out aerosol-sized droplets and have big gaps around the nose and sides, unlike a real respirator. When I had to wear an N95 respirator for working with viruses in graduate school, the fitting involved trying on several different models and jumping up and down while being sprayed in the face with a saccharine solution to check if any droplets got through.

(On the other hand, the use of facemasks in healthcare settings such as clinics and hospitals can help to slow the spread of flu, since many people may be infected and shedding virus in those locations. This still does not mean that an uninfected individual wearer is protected, and neither WHO nor the CDC recommend mask use in community settings.)

If facemasks do not work, why are people so enthusiastic about them?

First, it gives people a sense of control over the situation. We can watch out for robbers, but an invisible virus is a terrifying, insidious idea for most (especially those who cannot do math and think the world is ending). Unlike the advice to stay healthy, wash your hands, and go home if sick — which a sensible person should practice all the time anyway — buying a mask gives the consumer a sense of having done something concrete. The same goes for heading to the doctor to demand Tamiflu, which to me is really terrifying because antiviral abuse inevitably leads to viruses becoming drug-proof.

Secondly, I think Malaysians are exceptionally susceptible to silly claims about health because we are muddled between our Asian cultures with their various traditional remedies, modern biomedical science, and Western pop-culture pseudoscience. All you have to do is look at the number of ads in the newspapers and on banners selling health products (Tongkat Ali vs. Quantum Pendants). The exorbitant prices that masks were going for, before the introduction of price controls last week, further encouraged the perception that masks were a valuable prophylaxis against the dreaded flu. The terrible quality of science and math education does not help either, since it creates the mentality that those are things you memorize for exams, not tools for real-world application.

The final irony is that influenza virions (virus particles) are notoriously fragile and break down quickly at room temperature — this is in comparison to viruses like polio, which can hang around in water supplies for quite a long time. In particular, the stability of the virus in aerosols at tropical heat and humidity is significantly less than in the cold, dry winter in so-called ”temperate” countries, which is why we usually have low levels of flu year-round rather than seasonal outbreaks like Europe, Australia, and North America.

Some researchers think that flu is more likely to spread by contact or fomites (contaminated objects) in tropical regions. That means that your best friend is not a facemask, but a soap bottle. As an enveloped virus, flu is particularly susceptible to detergents. Why this has not been more strongly emphasized by the MOH, and why you can see toilet attendants wearing facemasks while guarding public toilets with no soap, boggles the mind.

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

HWA SHI-HSIA recently finished her MS in comparative biomedical sciences at the University of Wisconsin. She maintains http://xenobiologista.com/blog/.