Category: ASEAN

Categories
ASEAN

[1728] Of me becoming an anti-Charter Aseanist

The Foreign Minister of Malaysia, Rais Yatim said this:

“What I would like to stress is the need to include the eastern values in the clause. For example, respecting an elder and religious values are important to us in Asia. We can’t take the Universal Human Rights Declaration as a whole and apply it here,” he told a news conference at Wisma Putra here. [Asean Unlikely To Reach Agreement On Human Rights Issue. Bernama. July 18 2008]

What? Would the Charter compel its citizens to respect the elders? If a person failed to do so, would the person be dragged to a constitutional court?

Could we have a more flimsy constitution please?

How the hell could we ratify the Charter without finalizing its content?

This and the fact that a majority of countries, Malaysia included, have the document bypassed the people, us, the citizens of ASEAN, in favor of the bureaucrats is slowly sowing my opposition to the Charter.

This is quite sad because I am supportive of the Charter in principle from the very start. If the Charter turns out to be as bad as I am imagining it would be, then I truly hope that Indonesia and the Phillipines would give it two thumbs down after deliberating the document in their respective legislative chambers.

Categories
ASEAN Economics

[1677] Of greater trade with monetary union

It was one morning during one of those ugly winters in Ann Arbor when I found myself sitting close to the front row of an economics class. The professor sounded odd but then again, I am sure I sounded odd to my friends here.

Regardless, with me still half awake, I heard the professor say something about the amount of trade between Vancouver and Seattle corresponding to the distance between the Earth and the moon. Was the professor nuts or maybe I was dreaming?

That statement was so out of this world that it halted my descent to slumberland. It turned out that the professor was discussing the relationship between trade and currency. Yawning widely, I straightened my back to have another shot at staying awake.

On the screen up front, there was a table listing trade volume between various US cities and with cities in other countries. There was a typical regression model projected on the screen too. I do not particularly remember the exact equation but the conclusion was clear: monetary union encourages trade.

Trade volume between New York and Seattle was much higher than that between Seattle and Vancouver. This was despite the fact that New York is located on the East Coast while Vancouver is situated on the West Coast just a few hundred miles up north where the people speak rather strangely. New York and Seattle, of course ,use the US dollar while Vancouver uses something else entirely.

The whole class then mentally swam across the Atlantic to trace the evolution of the Euro. The conclusion was reinforced: trade substantially increased after the Eurozone countries adopted a single currency.

The virtue of a single currency was hammered home further by another graph indicating how fluctuation of exchange rates between countries within the Eurozone virtually disappeared: uncertainty eliminated. The professor with his New Zealand accent announced that the Europeans got tired of the exchange rate fluctuation so they decided to get rid of it altogether.

I was stranded somewhere in Minneapolis when the Euro was officially introduced to the public on Jan 1, 2002. Reactions to the introduction ranged from celebratory to bitterness at the loss of local currencies. Anecdotes by individuals having trouble adjusting to the new reality were amusing but I was merely a curious observer across the Atlantic.

Close to three years later, I found myself in a class undergoing official economic training in Ann Arbor. That particular class made me an Aseanist: I became a monetary unionist. I want to see Asean repeating the same experiment the Eurozone is undergoing, hoping this will bring on yet another halcyon period of prosperity for Southeast Asia.

The years leading to the late 1990s were great but those days are gone. Sure, we have learned one or two things from the Asian financial crisis but nothing beats the feeling of being on top of the world. When Deng Xiaoping visited Southeast Asia back in those days, he was expecting to see backwaters cities but boy, he had the shock of his life. Not only were the cities modern then, they out-rivalled those of China’s. Nowadays, the feeling is almost reversed.

The rise of Southeast Asia is a story of trade and it goes all the way back to the era of Srivijaya in the first millennium. The prosperity of this region has always been linked with trade. The prosperity of this country as a small open economy has always been linked to trade.

Asean already has a regional free trade agreement in place and progress so far has been encouraging, especially when compared to the disappointing Doha Round. We could probably see the full effect of the FTA by 2015 when all tariffs imposed on almost all Asean-based goods must be lowered to 0%. That should fuel inter-Asean trade but as demonstrated by the experience of the Eurozone, trade could be enhanced further with the introduction of a monetary union.

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

p/s — the article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster

[1674] Of Malaysia has a deal with the MILF

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) has allegedly struck a deal with Malaysia over Sabah, and that’s why the rebel group is silent on the claim issue, a high-ranking Palace official said.

This is supposedly the reason why the MILF wants Malaysia to remain as the head of the international monitoring team overseeing the ceasefire agreement with the government, the official who requested anonymity said.

The source added that Malaysia has been pressuring the Philippine government into resuming the peace talks despite the ”unconstitutional” demands of the MILF for its future homeland in Mindanao, because of the alleged agreement on Sabah. [MILF, Malaysia have deal on Sabah—official. The Manila Times. June 2 2008]

The situation in the Philippines is rather worrying.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Economics

[1669] Of no cash aid for Myanmar

Money may not be the only thing in this world but it does make a lot of people happy, including the junta of Myanmar. But keeping the junta happy is not what I have in mind when I want to help the people of Myanmar.

We may have forgotten that Cyclone Nargis took tens of thousand of lives in the Irrawaddy Delta just weeks ago. With the season finale of American Idol, Akademi Fantasi and the loss of sovereignty over a rock or two to Singapore a few days ago, who can blame us? There are far more important things going on with our lives than anything that happens in the delta.

But if we actually cared a little about the victims of Nargis, we would remember that the junta placed restrictions on foreign aid. The junta even refused aid from relief groups, stating that they preferred government-to-government transactions.

The junta of Myanmar must be the luckiest government in the world because it can afford to become a chooser in a time when it really should be a beggar. Unbelievably, it took some coaxing by governments of other countries before the junta actually relented. Even then, aid workers were barred from entering the country. To think that other governments cared more about a person than the person’s government really reflects badly on a government.

Aid eventually crept in but as the blankets, medicine, food and cash got into Myanmar, there were reports that the junta repackaged the aid as if it were provided by the junta. But I suppose, if the aid gets to the victims, it does not matter. Black cat, white cat: whichever catches the mouse is a good cat.[1]

There were also reports that some of the aid was redirected away from the victims of the cyclone.[2] The French had foreseen this by initially offering a small amount of aid and said they did not believe the junta had the trustworthiness to manage the aid. I share the skepticism of the French government.

In many cases, money transfer is a superior method of giving aid when compared to transfer in kind. Money transfer has the potential of improving the receivers’ welfare much more than what material goods can ever do. This is especially so when the receivers know exactly what they need while donors are unfamiliar with the local environment.

Money, after all, is the most generally accepted medium of exchange. It is usually harder for a person to barter blanket for food because the double coincidence of wants has to occur first before that transaction can take place. This is true for many situations, including the one involving fuel subsidy in Malaysia. Money transferred to those the authority wishes to help is a better policy in enhancing welfare than material transfer.

Money or cash transfer, however, does suffer from a problem called moral hazard. In the case of Myanmar, the donors may want to help cyclone victims buy food, blanket and rebuild their livelihood. But with little ability to oversee how it is actually spent, the victims may use the money to buy cigarettes or something less useful in improving their welfare.

Money transfer may also not be as useful in Myanmar as in other places in peaceful times. Disasters, especially the major ones, tend to push prices up as distribution channels suffer damage, causing supply problems. Add to the increased demand, prices will rocket, hence reducing its purchasing power.

Prices shot up in Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it surely is happening in the Irrawaddy. Some people derisively called it scalping but I call it economics. Regardless, donation in kind overcomes the problem of weaker purchasing power that any money donation under that scenario suffers.

Thirdly, just as how the French had expressed their skepticism, the junta cannot be trusted with money.

Now, there are caring Malaysian organizations out there that seek to alleviate the suffering of those in Myanmar by sending money over directly. Noble but their actions could prove unhelpful.

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

[1] — YANGON, Burma — Burma’s military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise. [Burma Junta Turns International Aid Into Form of Propaganda. Associated Press via FoxNews. May 11 2008]

[2] — The British ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, said Britain had also received unconfirmed reports that aid was being redirected away from disaster victims. [Myanmar Government Still Blocking Relief. New York Times. May 14 2008]

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

p/s — a version of this article was first published at The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Environment Liberty

[1642] Of for humanity’s sake, Myanmar must open up

The attitude of the junta government of Myanmar does not make the situation in the Irrawandy delta any better for the country. While the government has appealed for aid from the United Nations,[1] its reluctance in accepting aids from any side is a huge impediment to relief efforts. The reluctance of the government of Myanmar is exemplified by the string attached to its request: they prefer government-to-government aids only and has refused aids from some groups.[2][3][4] Under pressure of time, Myanmar does not have the luxury to be a chooser; it has to be more open in this matter.

The reluctance to allow relief groups to enter into Myanmar is politically comprehensible. Presence of foreigners in the country could potentially expose the locals to ideas hostile to the military junta. If the junta indiscriminately allows all foreigners to access the country, not all of these foreigners would be aid workers. Some would be journalists reporting news that the junta government would want to censor while other may simply be pro-democratic activists hoping to campaign for the upcoming referendum on the new constitution of the country.

From humanitarian point of view however, the reluctance is confounding and angering. How could a government think of its power first above the people?

In answering the question, the junta government is an authoritarian government. Of course it is more concerned for its welfare than that the people the junta rules upon. An authoritarian government is unaccountable to its people and it is no wonder why the junta government places the welfare of the people down in its list.

As the world learns more of the true impact of the horrible disaster, the more unacceptable the action of the junta becomes. If the junta continues with its decision, if there is a government that deserves to be toppled, the junta government has to be the one.

In Myanmar where communication infrastructure is much left to be desired,[5] the provision of aids will be a great challenge. As a result, the action of dispensing aids to those in great need will require time. The government of Myanmar’s reluctance in accepting aidswill only lengthen the time required to get food, blanket and medicine to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. If the United States government performed miserably in New Orleans, the government of Myanmar with its policy centered on isolationism may potentially redefine the term government failure to a new low.

In times like this, it is best for Myanmar to be more open. In the name of humanity, it must open its border.

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

[1] — The government of Burma formally appealed to the United Nations for assistance, which is quite a breakthrough. That allows us to work now with the government to decide how we can mobilize assistance. Now the question on the ground is about capacity: do we have enough capacity for the U.N. agents to carry out assistance and provide assistance? I can tell you right now: no. Current capacity there now is for normal situations. What we have now is a tragic situation, so the capacity should be commensurate to the level of the crisis. [Some aid delivered in cyclone-ravaged Myanmar. CNN. May 6 2008]

[2] — The government of Myanmar has not officially endorsed international assistance, the UNJLC added, but said Myanmar “is willing to accept international assistance, preferably bilateral, government to government.” [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]

[3] — YANGON, Myanmar – Myanmar’s isolationist regime blocked United Nations efforts Thursday to airlift urgently needed high-energy biscuits to survivors of a cyclone that may have killed more than 100,000 people, U.N. officials said. [Myanmar blocks U.N. airlift for cyclone victims. Associated Press via MSNBC. May 8 2008]

[4] — The government is demonstrating its reluctance now by its slow acceptance of the aid it requested, complicating visa procedures for international donors and apparently seeking to limit the access of foreign relief workers. [A crack in Myanmar’s wall. Seth Mydans. International Herald Tribune. May 7 2008]

[5] — Before we do anything, one has to take into account the specific damage that has been waged. The roads have been blocked, communications [are] down, and the area is not the most advanced in terms of communication capabilities. So it’s very difficult to assess the damage at this point. [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]