Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government

[2817] Dr Pangloss wants to keep Najib as PM

Who will replace Najib Razak if he goes away?

Those skeptical of attempts to legally push him out of office raise the question out of fear nothing will change. They are afraid it would achieve nothing and switch for yet another Prime Minister from Najib’s camp.

As a result, the alternative they seem to be fighting for is to do nothing and wait for a miracle. Somehow, a righteous Superman would descend down from the stars and make everything right. Perhaps, a just god would finally take a concrete form and change our fate for the better.

It seems to me, those who ask who will replace him, are embracing the Dr Pangloss character wholly. To them, we are living in the best of all possible worlds and any change would lead to a worse outcome.

Well, I am no Panglossian.

I believe keeping Najib in power risks damaging our institutions further. Pushing him out would slow the erosion, even if the next Prime Minister is less than a desirable character.

One institution now at risk because of Najib remaining in power is the central bank. The Governor is set to retire end of April and there are concerns Najib will nominate someone new who will toe the line and stop digging down the 1MDB hole. This is damaging the independence of the central bank, which will hurt the bank’s credibility to run monetary policy. In other words, if indeed the next Governor is a Najib’s man, then it would spread the trust deficit from Putrajaya to Jalan Dato Onn. The situation has gotten so bad that, believe it or not, there is something bigger at stake here than 1MDB.

Changing the Prime Minister would minimize that risk. Keeping him does nothing at addressing the risk.

As for the question, who will replace him, and if indeed it would be yet another corruptible person, so be it and the attempt to build a better Malaysia continues on. But there is a small chance the change will be for the better. Why not take it?

Have courage.

There is also another dimension people forget: expectations. Booting Najib out creates the expectations wrongdoing will be punished and so discourages, however little, the future Prime Minister from being blatantly corrupt doing as he pleases like an absolute ruler with no democratic checks and balances. In contrast, keeping Najib creates the expectations anybody can get away with murder.

Before anybody forgets, expectations are also part of institution-building. Forging the right expectations help builds trust in our institutions.

Yet, many want to do nothing about Najib and say, we need to reform our institutions for the better first. How do we reform when our expectation is Panglossian, that we live in the best of all possible worlds?

Categories
History & heritage Politics & government Society

[2808] Us during the Decadence

The Musee d’Orsay sits by the Seine in Paris. On one of the museum walls is hung a large painting by Thomas Couture. Named Romans during the Decadence, the work demands anybody passing by it to stop, decipher and contemplate Couture’s message for a minute or two.

Decadence has statues representing the better Roman spirit standing tall and looking down disapprovingly on contemporary Roman elites engaging in debauchery of various kinds. Among the living there is a boy being utterly disinterested in the immorality of his older peers. On the opposite side, two travelers stand shocked discovering the state of the Romans.

Wikipedia. Thomas Couture's The Romans during the Decadence

The Empire was on the decline and Couture captured the idea thoroughly. The painter used sex and wine to represent vices of the world but the symbols signify something bigger than excessive human pleasure. Truly, it represents corruption at its widest meaning, something relevant everywhere for all times.

Painted in 1847, Couture was not thinking about the Romans. Far from it, he wanted to depict the moral bankruptcy of another society, one which he belonged to, the French. He was utterly critical of the depravity of the ruling class then. He had the right to do so. France of the 1840s was corrupt to the bones.

At the centre of it all were the July Monarchy and its supporters. Among the worst of scandals was a corruption case involving a government minister Jean-Baptise Teste, and a military-businessman Amédée Despans-Cubières.

Desirous of a business concession, Despans-Cubières bribed Teste with ninety-four thousand francs to secure the necessary contract.

The secret ties went on for years but they were caught eventually. Despans-Cubières was allowed to retire from the military. Teste meanwhile was imprisoned in Prison du Luxembourg. Yet, the prison was more a palace than anything else. Today, it is called the Palais de Luxembourg and houses the French Senate.

Separate but concurrent to the grand corruption was a murder case involving a nobleman. Charles de Choiseul-Praslin was thought to have murdered his wife. The scandal captured the wild imagination of the French masses already unhappy with the overly luxurious life of the upper class. Unable to withstand pressure from the trial, he committed suicide.

Yet, in a society where trust was thin, rumors had it the suicide was faked to save the accused. The chattering masses were convinced the authorities had allowed him to leave France for England.

The two cases came to a head in 1847 but it was only the last among many the government experienced throughout its reign. But the people finally had enough. A year later, the February Revolution erupted and ended the monarchy.

From the corrupt ashes rose the Second French Republic.

Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in The Malay Mail on December 1 2015.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2804] TPP exit clause makes sovereignty concerns irrelevant

Text to the Transpacific Partnership came out today. I have yet to go through it fully. It is massive and it can be technical. It is worse than Sejarah Melayu. It will take time.

Nevertheless, I attended a briefing at the trade ministry earlier today and I think I understand the gist of the most important chapters. My somewhat initial impression: there are damn lots of exemptions.

All these exemptions — including the continued maintenance of the Bumiputra policy, flexibility to government procurement for up to 25 years after signing/ratification much to the benefits of local firms and even what appears to be status quo for a lot of GLICs and GLCs — should allay nationalists, protectionists and anti-globalization groups’ fears that Malaysia is surrendering our policy space to foreign governments and multinationals.

In fact, there are so many exemptions that I am unsure I should support the agreement as strongly as I did previously, notwithstanding progress made on market access and tariffs. I have always understood that any FTA is not a real free trade. We live in a imperfect world and I realize that much, but the exclusions Malaysia won exceed my expectations. Hence, my surprise.

But the one clause that blows those ”sovereignty” concerns out of the water is the exit option stated in the last chapter of the agreement. The TPP allows any country to quit the group unilaterally by giving a 6-month notice without incurring any penalty.

The easy exit clause means most of the requirements under TPP, like the extension of copyrights from 50 to 70 years and protections for biologics, are reversible by simply quitting the TPP. I reject the sovereignty argument but, if joining the TPP means losing national sovereignty, then the ability to quit and to reverse those policies must mean Malaysia is always be in control of its policy space.

(Not everything is reversible however. For instance, as I understand it the WTO disallows import tariffs to go up from any point of time and it does seem the TPP’s lower tariffs would be applicable even in the case of exit… I am unsure how post-TPP-exit discriminatory tariffs would work within WTO settings however. We need a trade law expert to answer that hypothetical.)

At the very least, the exit option lowers the cost and risk of joining the grouping.

Whatever it is, I come from the perspective we should always strive to create a rules-based world and then makes the rules as transparent as possible. To say it differently, we should reduce the discretionary powers from the authority as much as possible whenever it makes sense. I suppose, this originates from my libertarian tendency to control powers, be it states, companies or individuals.

In any case, I am a bit disappointed with the concessions Malaysia won, especially in terms of government procurement, state-owned enterprises and Bumiputra policy. I had believed TPP could liberalize Malaysia further more than local politics would allow it. Politics won.

Yet, I think I can stomach that. All this is a process and there will be another time. And right now, the TPP as it is seems okay to me. As I told somebody earlier today, better in than out.

Or, better we set the rules from a position of strength instead of wanting to join later and having to accept the rules from a weaker position.

Touching on the exemptions again, perhaps in retrospect we had too much strength at the negotiating table.

Categories
Politics & government

[2802] I am ashamed to be a Malaysian

I think I am well-exposed to foreigners’ opinions about Malaysia beyond the editorial stance of various foreign newspapers. I have friends of diverse national origins and I work for a global organization where many of my colleagues are not Malaysians. I keep in touch with them regularly and so I get to learn of their personal and professional views about the country.

Everybody has an opinion. But do they know Malaysia?

They might be able to tell you where it is on the map. They would know the Petronas Twin Towers. They might know who Mahathir Mohamad or Anwar Ibrahim is.

But if you dig a little deeper you will realize most of them usually do not track our news closely.

Sure, they would remember reading some odd news like how naked hikers supposedly angered the spirits up on Mount Kinabalu. Sometimes, some third-rated politicians — even ministers — would say the darnedest thing and make it to the news.

These friends and colleagues would turn these trivial snapshots of Malaysian life into joking jabs at me. I would not protest too much as these embarrassing episodes would pass quickly. These kinds of news are light reading of no real consequence written to amuse the world on a slow news day.

But something more serious and lasting is hogging the headlines of some of the world’s finest newspapers in the past few months. Our prime minister and his troubled brainchild 1MDB are regularly mentioned in the context of corruption and power abuse across the world. As the prime minister’s reputation is left in tatters, so too is Malaysia’s.

Foreigners are becoming more aware of the grave trouble besetting Malaysia. A London colleague told me his unsophisticated English mother living all the way up north in Newcastle had begun asking about 1MDB and Najib. That is a sign of how widely known the corruption scandal is.

My friends from abroad have also begun asking me about the situation here. The questions asked make me feel ashamed of being a Malaysian.

Not too long ago, I always felt a little bit proud talking about Malaysia. We have achieved so much over the years. I sensed a kind of economic optimism that might even match the 1990s boom years. Socially, politically and economically, I felt we were almost there with the challenges ahead of us very surmountable. As a member of that generation who sang the song Wawasan 2020 at the top of our lungs every Monday morning during our school assembly, ”there” was well within our lifetime.

Sadly, that optimism is fading fast. Whenever I talk about Malaysia today, it is no longer about that country on the cusp of something grander. Instead, I feel like I am referring to a Third World country with its Third World regime where power abuse is common and might is right.

At one time, it was the in-thing for government supporters to say that Malaysia was better than many Third World countries and we should be grateful for that. The joke now is we are directly comparable to some corrupt Third World regime out there.

The joke hurts because it is true in a substantive way. All those joking jabs are no longer petty. It saps our pride away.

I know who to blame for that. I put the blame squarely on the prime minister and 1MDB. They are an acute source of embarrassment for me.

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 Malay Mail on September 28 2015.

Categories
Politics & government

[2799] Singaporean silent majority are no Malaysians

PAP’s better-than-expected victory in Singapore has gotten BN supporters in Malaysia excited.

It tickles me to no end watching BN people looking into the Singaporean mirror and seeing men in white instead of their own reflection. They see the Singaporean reality and confuse it for a Malaysian one. Perhaps there is something wrong with the lens they wear for BN is no PAP and Najib Razak is no Lee Hsien Loong. And Singapore is no Malaysia.

Salleh Keruak, the unelected information minister, thinks otherwise. He believes the Singaporean election has proven a point about the silent majority defeating the noisy minority at the ballot box. He believes this will be the case for Malaysia and encourages the government to act as so.[1]

Former PM Mahathir Mohamed loved the argument when he was in power but in our last general election in 2013, there was no silent majority voting for BN. Did we forget 51% of us voted for Pakatan Rakyat, and that BN received only 47% for the votes? In fact I would even go farther and say the the silent majority argument has been irrelevant since at least 2008 because our society is essentially divided in the middle.

Will 2018 show otherwise?

I do not know and as a person who believes strongly in the need for institutional reforms (read power change at the federal level) instead of more investment in malls and condominium to boost the GDP, the dynamics involving PAS and the rural votes worry me. But the differences between Singapore and Malaysia are so big that there is a limit to how much the Singaporean experience is applicable to Malaysia. The minister’s confidence does not recognize that limit at all.

For one, Malaysia had no Lee Kuan Yew. His death sparked the politics of thankfulness much to the benefits of the PAP, never mind the nationalism in conjunction of Singapore’s 50th year as an independent state. What Malaysia has in contrast is Mahathir and he, unlike Lee, does not think highly of the incumbent government.

Furthermore, Singapore has no real scandal of its own. There were issues causing the PAP to lose some support back in 2011. But the party set out to address those concerns after that and apparently, sufficiently successful at doing so. This, I think, is the most important point that has been raised out there to rationalize PAP’s victory.

Malaysia? The sitting government has created more problem than it has solved. The power abuse and corruption concerns of 2008 have been amplified instead.

The minister and the proponents of the silent majority would do better if they compare and contrast the Malaysian and the Singaporean contexts closely. In fact, there is no guarantee those keeping quiet will vote for BN when the time comes.

Remember 2008?

The social media is not the best national barometer, but do not take the hostility in cyberspace to mean all is fine and dandy on the ground.

In Wangsa Maju, there is a big water pipe visible from the main road leading to Taman Melawati. On it written “Undur Najib. Kekal BN” in red paint. In Keramat, I am surprised Najib’s big poster on the UTC facade has not been vandalized yet. Maybe because there is a police station inside of it.

But talk to these Malays in Keramat, Kampung Baru, Kerinchi, Wangsa Maju and Setapak for instance. See if you will be celebrated as a superstar.

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

[1] — There may be thousands marching and screaming and demonstrating its displeasure. But there may be an even larger group that has no issues and do not share the views of this minority group of noisy protestors.

Politicians do not fear that noisy minority. What they fear is the silent majority because one never knows what the silent majority is thinking and what they will do come Polling Day.

The Singapore general election has proven this point. The noisy minority dominated the internet and the social media. They made it appear like they represent the majority rather than the minority. And the election result proved that the silent majority were not with the noisy minority.

Undeniably, in Malaysia as well the noisy minority dominates and monopolises the internet and the social media. In fact, many are intimidated and do not want to post their views on the internet because if you disagree with the noisy minority you would get vilified and insulted.

However, just like what happened in Singapore, the silent majority got turned off with what the noisy minority was saying on the internet and in the social media. They watched silently what was being said and the more the silent minority talked the more people were turned away. Sometimes overkill can work against you, like what the Singapore election has proven. [The noisy minority and the silent majority. Salleh Said Keruak. September 12 2015]