Category: Society

Categories
Economics Society

[1282] Of questioning the morality of minimum wage

I had supper with two friends not too long ago. The gamut of our conversation topics ran wide but I have no doubt that the crux was on morality of free market and minimum wage policy in particular. A friend expressed how such philosophy fails to provide warmth to the struggling people whom work day and night to provide for themselves and perhaps, others. He pointed to the opposition to minimum wage and how free market supporters are insensitive to the hardship the needy face as proof. He presented his point so passionately that it pained me to disagree with him. Yet, I must disagree and went on to illustrate how such insensitivity within a larger picture is really a morally superior and caring position to take.

Scarcity is a real issue and minimum wage supporters unfortunately do not grasp the idea well. If scarcity is a tale belonging to the lands of the fairies, then we would be living in the land of the fairies. Sadly, this is the real world with harsh reality of constraints. Within the issue of minimum wage, the policy imposes more constraints than necessary on the economy, turning a harsh world even harsher from a big picture.

Perhaps I am stating the obvious but minimum wage policy increases wages of the already employed. Of course, the employed have to have wages below the floor if they are to benefit from the policy. Here, the key word is employed. The policy benefits limited fraction within the society and like many other things, it is fueled by self-interest when it is fought by those that tend to benefit from it. Or to put it more bluntly, plain old greed. Those that support such policy because they think it is a compassionate thing to do however simply fail to understand the economics behind the policy, or seems to limit their consideration to limited section of the society.

The story of minimum wage does not end where supporters of such policy would like it to be. When one is playing a game of domino, one really has to be careful on which pieces one would like to touch.

Once the employed, at least the ones that riped the fruits, received their pay hike, of course they would be happy. The same cannot be said for business owners and unemployed others. And trust me, most of business owners are not multimillionaires; a majority of them are simply trying to make a living too. Higher salaries increase cost for the affected employers. Money does not grow on trees and so, with greater wages to be paid, employers cannot afford to hire more people.

Please do not get me wrong. It is not always wrong to pay individuals with high wages. If a person is capable, the person deserves every one bit of it. It is productivity that determines wages. A policy that pays somebody extra for something trivial, something that too many people could do better or cheaper than him is a bad policy and this most of the times includes minimum wage policy.

And where does this lead?

One of the direct results is the less employment opportunities. The impoverished that require jobs are denied of opportunities because of a policy that benefits a certain section of the society at the expense of another group.[1]

For those those that believe opposition to minimum wage is governed by cold rationale, do kindly explain to me this: what about the unemployed? Are the unemployed expendable?

How does opposition to minimum is colder than a policy that robs many from employment opportunities while the beneficiaries of the policy enjoy higher wages that do not reflect productivity?

Where is the morality of minimum wages when it keeps the improvised from gaining employment? Where is the morality of such policy when it denies decent people from employment opportunities?

For those that fight for minimum wages and stand to benefit from it, this is where selfishness, instead of sharing the bench with supporters of free market, is the minimum wages proponents’ best friend.

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

[1] Note — minimum wage policy may increase employment under specific conditions but we usually face the typical model where minimum wage imposed above equilibrium leads to increased unemployment. Under a monopsony model, I would to a certain extent support minimum wage to correct imperfection in the market.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1277] Of defining a liberal Malaysian nation

A nation is not a state but a nation-state is both a nation and a state. There are stark differences between nation and state but not many differentiate the two concepts. Worse, at times, the two terms are used interchangeably. Comprehension of the two terms is required if one is to grasp the impetus for Bangsa Malaysia — transliterally, the Malaysian race; more accurately, the Malaysian nation — and further, why the traditional nation-state concept based on ethnicity and religion is outdated.

A nation is a community whereas its members, individuals, share a common identity. That identity in turn is derived from history, through similarities in languages, ethnicities, religions, or in the broadest sense, culture. It is through this shared identity which nationalism arises. A nation is therefore fluid with no concrete border by itself. As the community expands or shrinks, so does the nation.

A state is more solid in nature and changes to its borders usually involve macro-events such as wars or referendum which individuals agree to come together or part ways. It is an institution that governs a set of territories with the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within that territories.

At some points in history, nations started to demand their own states. The demands later introduced the concept known as nation-state. In such concept, a nation has sovereignty over a set of territories. This has been the basis for the foundation of a number of countries in the world including but not limited to, at its inception at least, many European states, the Arab states, China and Japan.

For a multicultural state, the concept of nation-state is hard to apply; the central question is what is the shared identity?

This could be a very divisive question. Needless to say, members of a multicultural society come from diverse background and more likely than not, identities are not shared. Differences may be more pronounced than any commonality exists among communities that a nation-state depends on.

When there is little or no shared identity and with greater differences instead, there may be an urge to create an artificial nation to justify a nation-state. For those that favor a multicultural state, this is a natural reaction to such absence because the lack of common identity coupled with the ideals of nationalism of various groups tend to divide a state into smaller states, sometimes violently.

Nationalism calls for one land for one nation. Balkanization may be the manifestation of nationalism within a multicultural state in its worst form. Events of the 1990s and early 2000s continuously broke up the multicultural, or within our context, multinational, Yugoslavia. Indeed, Yugoslavia is not a special case. The Astro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were other victims of nationalism. If I may say so, the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire, the former political center of the Muslim world is the reason why Islam is hostile to a certain kind of nationalism, fuming at how religious nationalism was undone by ethnic nationalism.

Malaysia is another example of a multinational state. Nationalism may have done to Malaysia to what it had done to the Ottoman Empire though never closer to the latter’s magnitude. At its inception in 1963, 14 states came together to form a new federation. The question of shared identity, of nationalism, quickly forced the expulsion of one of its states, Singapore, out of the federation short of two years later. Four years after that, the worst racial riot — May 13 incident — in Malaysian history erupted. The riot could have further broken up the new federation. Wary of repeating the same incident, the state, the federation, requires a common identity to create a sense of oneness. With absence of a shared identity, it becomes necessary to create a common identity. It becomes absolutely necessary to synthesize existing nations into a one or altogether create a new nation.

Indonesia in the past created a common identity which was imposed from the top to the bottom. To a lesser degree, Malaysia is pursuing similar path. This is apparent through the National Language Act of 1967, the National Culture Policy of 1970s and more nakedly, the introduction of Bangsa Malaysia during the Mahathir administration.

Despite years of cliche, Bangsa Malaysia has not been properly defined and its definition differs across individuals and groups. At the moment, the result of Bangsa Malaysia is mixed, probably because it is a work in progress but one thing is clear — Rome was not built in a day.

In a new world where free flow of capital and labor is becoming common and necessary, a nation will eventually come into frequent contact with other nations. These interactions will inevitably change the composition of the nation as well as the society. The more liberal a society is, the faster a state turns into a multicultural society from a monocultural one as liberty attracts; from uninational, it becomes multinational. These interactions do offer unprecedented challenges toward effort of building a nation-state and society becomes more diverse.

A common identity is a crux of a nation-state. The identity more often than not demands assimilation instead of co-existence and that tends to create a tension among groups that feel the chosen common identity is sidelining theirs. Assimilation is an inescapable issue from the mainstream consciousness if there are large minorities within a multicultural state. In Malaysia, the debate on language and vernacular education signify this tension.

The forces of globalization are rocking the ground which nation-states sit on. The Netherlands for instance is fast becoming a multinational state where the meaning of the word Dutch, in term of citizenship, encompasses emigrants from all over the world. An Algerian could be a Frenchman while a Turk could well be a German. The line between member of nation and citizenship of state has been blurred that some often do away with the distinction altogether. Perhaps, this is a new nation of nations but it could not have been possible without the tolerance required for co-existence and not forced assimilation. In other word, a liberal nation. Lately however, a surge of nationalism and xenophobia are undermining the creation of a liberal nation.

For Malaysia, the Malaysian nation concept is an effort by force towards a new nation; an artificial shared identity. For it to succeed, it cannot be a nation based on ethnicity or religion. Dependence on such nationalism is detrimental to the state where it encourages development of very different nations which in the end, only balkanization is the logical solution. For the Malaysian nation to stand the test of time, it has to be a nation based on an universal idea, a philosophy — liberalism — where differences are tolerated or even cherished.

With a liberal nation, a liberal Malaysia practicing liberal democracy, one does not need to artificially create a shared identity. All one has to do is observe the non-aggression axiom — every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man. Through interactions in liberal settings, a shared identity will be grown organically, spontaneously.

All one needs to do is to respect the smallest unit of the society or nation — the individuals. A nation, after all, cannot exist without individuals. If the sovereignty of the individuals is disrespected, individuals would come together to form groups to demand sovereignty for nation-state for each group, breaking apart a multicultural state.

Categories
Humor Society

[1269] Of the Malaysian government’s war on crime

So, after failed war on drugs, war on tobacco, war on Mat Rempit, war on inflation, etc, now we are on the verge of another war: war on crime.

Here is a few tips on how to reduce our horrible crime rate.

  1. The Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin has a brilliant idea: the press should stop reporting on crime and violence that occur in our society. Indeed that there is a positive correlation between the number of crime committed and news reporting on crime. Surely because of the positive correlation, the reduction of one factor would reduce the other. Never mind that correlation is not causation. Besides, fighting real crime is tough. We need to be smart and fight the easier battle. If the easier path leads to the same result, why not take the easier path? Biggest bang for the buck!
  2. It is all about mind over matter. If nobody is aware of any crime committed anywhere, then there is no crime at all. Seriously, who would hear a falling timber in the middle of a jungle, in the middle of nowhere? And here is the beauty of this rationale: if the press stops reporting on crime, the public would be unaware of any crime and then, voila, no crime! Seriously, there is no fork and there is no crime.
  3. People always forget that the crime rate we all hear or read about everyday in the news is actually reported crime rate. This is an important realization because if the police force records less reports, that would mean lower crime rate! Hence, the police force should just refuse recording reports from the public. The refusal would lead to lower crime rate!
  4. Oh, oh, do not forget this. More compulsory religious classes! Religion is the panacea to all of worldly miseries. Of course, crime committed in the name of religion, like kidnapping, is not crime but rather, justice as demanded god. Kill all infidels!
  5. We all know how nice we all are. We do not commit rate. In fact, the immigrants are the cause of all our woes! Do not trust statistics that says we as locals commit more crime that the immigrants. You know that statistics is untrue. But enough of statistics and here is a solution: send all of those immigrants back to hell! We do not need them (but please let me keep my maid).
  6. Ban content from the West! Western culture is corrupting the purer and better eastern values and moral. We need to censor those no good western values.
  7. Eight, redefine crime! Crime is no more crime and protesting against crime is a crime! It is imperative to arrest those that protest against crime because such protest raises awareness about crime. If awareness increases, it creates crime and that is unacceptable! Refer to number 2.
  8. Recruit criminals as crime fighters. If all criminals are now crime fighters, all criminals are basically the cops now. Hence, no more criminal to commit crime. It might have failed with the Mat Rempit but trust me, it will work now!

If implemented properly, we all would be living in a safe society. Definitely safer than living in Baghdad. Fret not Malaysians, the government will win this war for us!

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 Liberty Society

[1256] Of Lina Joy case is more than a mere procedural matter

Is the Lina Joy case is a procedural matter?

There are those that insist it is but I strongly beg to differ. Saying the case is procedural in nature downplays an issue that receives great attention from many sides that have stake in the ruling of the case. On the surface, I would agree that the case is about procedural in nature. If one looks at the issue beyond skin deep however, this is about a conflict of rights.

I was surprised to read procedure being forwarded as the cause of this confrontation. The procedure-based argument understates the issue so much that I feel there is a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or maybe, it is an act of downplaying an explosive and divisive issue. I could not care less if it were specifically, exclusively about procedure but I care because it is not. If this case were about procedure, what a pitiful society we all live in, arguing on matter of little significance. In my humble opinion, our society deserves a little bit of respect as far as this case is concerned.

The truth is, there are two groups that matter in this case. One emphasizes on individual rights and another emphasizes on community rights. From a neutral point of view, the overlapping area of the rights is the crux of this whole debate.

The fraction that stresses on individual rights is without doubt the liberals. The liberalism, at least classical liberalism, places the sovereignty of the individual on the individual. Individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person and properties as long as he respects others’ person and properties.

The other side however demands the sovereignty of an individual be transferred to the society. In other word, sovereignty of the individuals is the pregorative of the society. The religious conservatives in particular, from my observation, insist that a higher being or god rules sovereign over individuals. The community then acts on behalf of that god and takes over the sovereignty on the individual on the behalf of god. As far as the case is concerned, Lina Joy’s religious belief is god’s prerogative and by implication, it is the community’s prerogative.

Between the two, the latter does not recognize difference in belief or religious freedom while the former does. If one is to draw a Venn diagram, the overlap is obvious where the content of the universal set is claims to rights.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The source of contention is freedom of belief. Individual rights demand religious freedom while community rights do not but both stake claim for it. Therefore, the question we need to ask and answer is, which rights should take priority? For liberals, the answer is obvious.

As long as this is left unanswered, the issue — the contest of ideologies — the blurriness will stay. Furthermore, saying the Lina Joy case is a question of procedural tantamount to sweeping the dust under the carpet; attributing the case to procedural matter does not solve the matter.

If we as a society would like to come to a common ground, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge the root course. Attacking the symptoms, which is too common in Malaysia, does nothing.

After all, just as was mentioned by Jonson Chong at a forum on Lina Joy ruling organized by DAP that I attended earlier this week, the law is an mean, not an end.