Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”—The New Colossus. Emma Lazarus, 1883
Category: Liberty
For some sentimental reason, I opened up a box which I had not touched ever since I got back from Michigan several years ago. In it, I found a familiar magazine with yellow strip framing its front page. It was an old copy of the National Geographic magazine.
There is an article about Tibet in that edition and the final paragraph worth reproducing:
In these ways do the old and new, tradition and change, exist uneasily side by side. Among the Tibetans, even while those like Norbu, Huadon and Gama Sera are embracing change, I found a people conflicted by that change. Some candidly acknowledge the hardships and inequities of life under the Dalai Lama. Others drudgingly concede economic progress under China. No one wants to return to the old, often abusive, theocracy. But on one wants the Chinese to remain in Tibet either. They don’t miss the old days and its old ways. They simply want their country back. [Tibetans Moving Forward Holding On. Lewis M. Simons. National Geographic. April 2002]
Ahli Parlimen Tony Pua berjaya menanyakan soalan yang dekat dengan hati seorang libertarian beraliran minarkisme:
Ekonomi Malaysia sekarang amat bergantung kepada penggunaan kerajaan ataupun “public sector spending”, berbanding dengan negara-negara di Asia. Mengikut perangkaan daripada Merrill Lynch, sumbangan penggunaan keraajaan di Malaysia adalah sebanyak 24 peratus, berbanding dengan Taiwan 15%, Singapura 14%, Thailand 12% dan Hong Kong 10%. Pergantungan ekonomi Malaysia kepada sumbangan kerajaan adalah tidak sihat dan apakah langkah-langkah yang akan diambil oleh kerajaan supaya sumbangan penggunaan yang lain dapat ditingkatkan? [My First Supplementary Question! Philosophy Politics Economics. May 13 2008]
Beliau berjanji untuk menerangkan lebih lanjut tentang jawapan yang diterima beliau dari Timbalan Menteri Kewangan esok setelah Hansard dikeluarkan oleh pihak Parlimen.
p/s — Tony Pua berkongsi dengan para pembaca tentang jawapan yang diberi oleh Timbalan Menteri:
Apabila kita melihat dari segi GNP, kita melihat dari 2 sudut. Satu dari sudut output ataupun pengeluaran yang ini sumbangan dari sektor-sektor industri dan sektor-sekto industri sebagaimana kita maklum sektor perkhidmatan telah meningkat tinggi. Ini bermakna faktor key yang utama dalam pembangunan negara kita. Dari segi rancangan Malaysia, sektor perkhidmatan sekarang yang menymbang lebih kurang 53% kepada KDNK telah meningkat 59% pada tahun 2020 itu target negara kita.
Kemudian kita melihat dari sudut GNP dari sudut perbelanjaan. Perbelanjaan seperti mana yang saya nyatakan tadi, perbelanjaan swasta dari segi konsumer begitu tinggi iaitu pembelian dan pelaburan. Buat masa ini kita masih bergantung kepada kerajaan kerana kita sebuah negara ekonomi yang sedang membangun jadi kita perlu input-input kerajaan sebagaimana yang saya nyatakan tadi dalam RMK ke-9, kita belanja lebih kurang dalam RM40 bilion pada tahun 2007 dan seterusnya dalam koridor raya nanti kita akan laksanakan perbelanjaan lagi. Ini kita nampak perbelanjaan oleh pihak swasta lebih banyak dan tinggi berbanding dengan pihak kerajaan.
Di samping itu, kos ke 3 iaitu dari segi ekspot dan impot negara kita. Pada tahun ini, net ekspot negara kita hanya 0.7% dan ini dijangka akan level pada tahun hadapan kerana sepertimana kita tahu terjadinya re-section di dunia dan ia jadi leveling. [My First Supplementary Question! Philosophy Politics Economics. May 13 2008]
Yang pastinya, soalan tentang apa yang kerajaan akan lakukan untuk mengurangkan perbelanjaan awam tidak terjawab.
Saya tertarik dengan ayat berikut: “Buat masa ini kita masih bergantung kepada kerajaan kerana kita sebuah negara ekonomi yang sedang membangun jadi kita perlu input-input kerajaan…”
Saya tidak bersetuju dengan pendapat itu tetapi saya tidak berhasrat untuk membincangkan mengapa saya berpendapat sedemikian kerana saya kesuntukan masa untuk membincangkan perkara yang berat.
Walau bagaimanapun, nampaknya, pemikiran Keynesianisme masih lagi kuat di dalam kerajaan kita. Saya telah menyangkakan bahawa para Keynesian sedang ditendang keluar dari kerajaan tetapi malangnya, kesimpulan itu dibuat secara terburu-buru. Pembatalan perbelanjaan awam itu mungkin hanya satu permainan politik dan bukannya pengeseran dasar yang jujur.
The hazard of appealing to interventionist monarchy has finally reared its head. With Malay nationalists rallying around a monarch, the idea of absolutism is gaining currency in the public sphere. Whether by accident or design, the monarchy institution in Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia are regaining influence that they had in times when divine rights of kings was held supreme. This jeopardizes liberty, or whatever left that we have now.
The episode began with the removal of the director of Perak religious department from office. The Sultan successfully argued that the monarchy alone has the absolute power over the director office, forcing the PAS administration to back off from its intention to exert control over the state religious department. The story does not end with the executive having a black eye however. It really exploded when Karpal Singh of DAP insisted that the Sultan has no power to overturn the decision of the state executive.[1]
Criticism in Malaysia works in a peculiar way. One has to have the same skin color in order to make inter-communal criticism and not possibly suffer the suffocating communal politics. Karpal Singh did not notice this but those in UMNO are aware of it and they wasted no time to shoot him down. With Malay nationalists under post-election siege mentality and lamenting about a so-called divided Malay community, remark by the chairman of DAP was the spark that they needed to rally the Malays around them.
The monarchy institution is closely associated with Malay politics, being the ultimate defender of Malay privileges in the country. Any attack against the institution, especially by non-Malays, is considered by the nationalists as an attack against the Malay itself.
For UMNO, the anger caused by the DAP chairman is an opportunity to rebuild their base by having Malay nationalists firmly behind their back. With a clear external source that is Karpal Singh, attention could be diverted from the trouble plaguing the leadership of UMNO. More importantly, by siding with the monarchy together with the Malay nationalists, the current leadership of UMNO creates a perception of Malay unity under them, seemingly solving the question of divided UMNO.
Regardless the ulterior motive of UMNO, all that dangerous increases the influence of the monarchy in national politics and all must take heed of that.
While the issue at the moment may forward UMNO’s interest, there will be a time for conflicts of interest between the two entities or between the monarchy and the government. Such conflict had occurred in the past under the Mahathir administration.[2][3]
What Mahathir did to the power of the monarchy is a victory to organic politics. He successfully brought the monarchy under the purview of the legal system, giving meaning to the idea that no one is above the law. The former Prime Minister however not only mowed the blades of unwanted tall grasses. The sunflowers and the poppies and the dandelions which took upon itself to decorate the air above the Malaysian field also fell. But this is not about the Mahathir administration. Rather, it is about the sincerity of UMNO. UMNO does this not because they is supporting the monarchy institution per se. Rather, they, particularly the leadership, are doing what it is doing in effort to reverse its bad political fortune.
Regardless, this particular issue and the reactions to its produce a powerful precedent that may grant the Malay monarchy institution immunity from criticism, much at the expense of liberty. With that, it possibly places the monarchy above the Constitution as mere questioning is met with coercion by the state in the name treason.
With monarchs’ powers and actions unquestioned regardless of the constitutionality of it, the route to absolutism is paved. The liberals need to act, and so too the timid Malaysian republicans.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 (Bernama) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has asked Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to lodge a police report against DAP chairman Karpal Singh over his statement on the powers of the Perak Sultan.
[…]
“It is seditious and seen by the people as ridiculing the Sultan as though the ruler did not know his duty,” he told reporters when asked about Karpal’s controversial statement. [Abdullah Asks Police Report Be Lodged Against Karpal. Bernama. May 8 2008]
[2] — See the 1993 Malaysian constitutional crisis at Wikipedia.
[3] — At a special session of Parliament beginning on Jan. 18, Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad plans to push through constitutional changes ending the sultans’ immunity from prosecution. But the sultans, who are due to meet Mr. Mahathir this Saturday, are resisting. [Royals in Trouble:Malaysia’s Sultans Have a Role. Philip Bowring. International Herald Tribune. January 7 1993]
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.
[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]