Category: Politics & government

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2623] The death of politics of development

I was Sarawak for two weeks in early 2011. It was election time and the campaigning period was well underway.

From my observation, I think I can conclude that the politics of development is very much alive in Sarawak. It is not hard to understand why.

While the standard of living in Kuching, the state capital, was respectable, a number of communities just outside of the city limits still did not have access to the local electricity grid. They wanted electricity. On the road to Bau, the residents complained how dark it was at night along the road. They wanted streetlights. The journey to Sri Aman meanwhile felt like a mild rollercoaster ride. Users wanted a smoother and wider road.

The politics of development there is very much about physical infrastructure. It is about promises and execution of development. Incumbents make lavish promises for more and better infrastructures. Challengers harp on unfulfilled promises.

While there were other concerns lingering in the mind of Sarawakian voters I am sure (indeed, it would be a remiss if I did not mention that the Chief Minister of Sarawak, a popular brand of lightning rod among urban voters), the way the campaigns were sometimes framed was as if the primary concern was development. It was a matter of whether the electorates should reward the incumbents for a job well done, or punish them for not bringing in sufficient development.

To be sure, the politics of development is relevant not only to Sarawak, but also to other places throughout the country. Else, the authority would not have paved the roads just before a critical election.

In other places where road connections are respectable, with clean water supply and electricity taken for granted, the same brand of politics is less appealing to the electorates.

Voters in these places—likely urbanites—have expectations too sophisticated than anything the politics of development can cater to. Educated urbanites are no longer mostly concerned about physical infrastructure. They will shrug it off and they will probably return to say that mere development is no longer enough. There are other concerns.

That comes close to what economist Amartya Sen has articulated in one of his books, Freedom as Development. He argued that development should be understood in its widest sense. Economic development is not merely about paved road, tall buildings and everything that is concrete but it is also about the soft aspect of individual freedom. It is about individual empowerment. Institutions should be created and improved so that individual freedom is guaranteed.

With such freedom, individuals can take upon themselves to promote their own welfare. After all, the end of development is enhancement of individual welfare.

So, freedom is one of the necessary means of development and the focus on physical development alone is not enough.

And if one subscribes to something similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs where individuals prioritize economic well-being and other basic needs over political rights, then perhaps, for many Malaysians, the basic needs for brick and mortar development have been fulfilled. Any more of that kind of development returns less satisfaction than it did before. Now, the same Malaysians may want to fulfill other needs down the list that they have ignored previously.

So, faced with the widened definition of development, the old way of doing things becomes inadequate.

There are at least two major cases illustrating how the traditional development argument alone is insufficient and sometimes rejected altogether because it clashes so nakedly against other concerns. One will bring us to Pahang, where Lynas is building a rare earth processing plant. The other will bring us to Johor, where Petronas is investing in a massive petrochemical complex.

The proponents of the projects have highlighted the projects’ merits: foreign investment, jobs creation, technology transfer, tax revenue, etc. In a society that hungers for more old development, the projects would have gained popular support.

Yet the projects face popular opposition for a variety of reasons, the most notable perhaps being environmental and health concerns. In the past, not too many would oppose such development. Many needed it. Today, the acceptance of development comes with conditions. The conditionality is a sign of the end of the old politics of development.

The politics of development itself suffers from fatalism. Its appeals will end because development, whether the narrow definition or the more holistic one, is not an end by itself. It is a mean to an end. What is the appeal of the promises of more development, when we are nearing the very end that any development aimed for? What is the appeal, when we are at the end? We already have it.

The politics of development only lasts as long as development has not reached its stated end. The death of development politics is the natural ending for any successful development.

Only failure prolongs the life of old-style development politics.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in Selangor Times on October 26 2012.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
nb — I am disatifised with this particular essay. I initially had wanted to make the connection about how politicians who have engaged or engaging on the politics of development can no longer expect gratitute from voters because of the death of the politics of development. I also wanted to highlight that there are pockets where politics of development still work but I was running out of time and space to expand on the idea. I also suffered from writer’s block. Those are the reasons why the final part of the essay seems rushed. Verbosity is the death of me.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Humor Poetry Politics & government

[2621] Sandy, Sandy, go away

Sandy, Sandy everywhere,
Sandy messes with your hair,
Sandy says she’s coming,
Sandy sends everyone flying.

Sandy crashes into the shore,
straight into Jersey Shore,
Sandy’s a storm that’s horrible,
crossing a show that’s terrible.

But what’s the price,
of an October Surprise,
when everybody expects,
what everybody expects?

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2617] Is the Selangor state government being a hypocrite by owning a stake in IPPs and highways?

Member of Parliament for Rembau, Khairy Jamaluddin yesterday repeated the accusation he made at a forum organized by Chevening alumni association last week. He said that Pakatan Rakyat is being hypocritical about its criticism of government policy regarding highways and independent power producers. As he pointed out, PR opposes these policies to the point that they want to nationalize those highways and power plants but at the same time, the Selangor state government holds shares in those private companies which operate the assets in Selangor. So, the state government enjoys dividend from the investment.

First off, I oppose government involvement in these matters and I balk at nationalization. At the same time, I dislike monopoly. These two concerns force me to adopt a gray area because while these highways and power plants are now operated by private companies (the definition private is increasingly blurry these days with state funds owning significant shares of these private companies), they were granted excessive monopoly power or overly generous concession at the expense of consumers, especially in terms of electricity generation in the past.

So, I do not want the government, state or federal, to nationalize highways or power plants, and I do want to see those monopoly power granted by the government curb. So, I am stuck. On these matters, I will bark at both both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat’s policy. The former is responsible for granting the monopolies and perpetuating the status quo with limited improvement possibly because of political entanglement with the business community and the latter trying to do too much to overcome those monopolies with too much state power.

And I do not really trust BN in fighting PR because BN has proven to oppose PR’s proposal only in words but in action, they would do what PR proposes anyway. Proof: the Eastern Disperal Link in Johor which the government took over and abolished the toll. The EDL has another disturbing dimension to it: it is really a bailout of MRCB by the government. MRCB was in trouble because the government did not have the political will stick to its words. This by far is not the only example.

But, on the issue at hand, I am unsure if it is hypocritical of the Selangor state government to hold a stake in companies operating the same highways and power plants that PR proposes for the government to take over, as Khairy accused.

Would it not be wise for the Selangor state government under Pakatan to own interest in these power plants and highways in Selangor so that the state has a say in the respective companies’ board of directors?

One has to remember that the reason PR proposes to take over these assets is that PR claims that the companies or rather the arrangements which allowed these companies to profit in the first place are burdensome to Malaysians. PR claims that nationalization is a cheaper option to the status quo. As far as I understand it, it is not really about some socialist dream. It is really a matter of which is cheaper, which I think is a technocratic approach. Technocratic in the sense that it is number driven.

I actually am swayed by that technocratic argument but not to the point of nationalizing those private assets. I say so because nationalization is not the only conclusion to that technocratic argument. I am sure if we sit down and think about it, there are multiple ways which any party can achieve so.

One way is to have a say in the Board of Directors of those companies. The state government can voice its discontent over any possible revision to prices charged to consumer. This has its own conflict of interest issue—if one is profit-driven, then the state itself may want to optimize its returns; in this sense, Khairy is right—but like I wrote, it is also a way to influence companies’ decision from within towards the objective of reducing burden to Malaysian consumers.

Is that hypocritical?

On the net, maybe yes, maybe not.

Now, I do not know whether the Selangor state government has a seat in the Board of Directors or if the state does, then whether that rep’s voice is in line with PR’s rhetoric. If Khairy’s accusation is to be credible, I think he has to go one layer deeper to the dynamics of the Board of Directors.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2611] That contrast between public and private space

Walking out of the door of a nice little restaurant in Kuala Lumpur is very much like traversing between two worlds. It is a journey from a world of no worry to a world that almost qualifies as a dystopian science fiction.

There are plenty of nice restaurants which are not necessarily posh but are appropriately organized to fit certain appealing themes. It targets the relatively well-off middle class, especially the relatively well-paid young adults. That makes the crowd well-educated and armed with proper etiquette. Not too many speak too loudly over the cell phone, or leave their kids to run around unleashed. Everything accommodates for low-decibel conversations.

Being inside one of these restaurants makes me expect to come out to a grand boulevard of some great cities of the world. Yet the truth is that these restaurants are an oasis in the middle of an ugly suburb sprawl. The walls of the restaurant isolate patrons from the harsh reality of many parts of Kuala Lumpur. Inside, it is just nice. Outside, it is hot, humid, chaotic and dirty.

Sometimes the road barriers put up by the communities in these neighborhoods can remind you that it can be unsafe as well. Then news reports of snatch theft suddenly flash through in your mind. The effect of the blue pill you had as an entrée earlier is now gone after the goodbyes, hugs and kisses. You just had the red pill as dessert and now you instinctively walk faster, hands clutching your bag, all alone and scared for something that might or might not happen.

That reminds me of Robocop’s Detroit. That picture of Detroit is not one of hot and humid but it is still chaotic, dirty and unsafe. It is an almost believable dystopia—minus the cyborg of course—and it almost describes the commercial centers of Damansara, Bangsar, Hartamas, Subang Jaya, Petaling Jaya and who knows where else. It is one that many live in and others frequent.

Drawing parallel between the dystopian Detroit with these commercial centers is an exaggeration. Admittedly, it is a rhetorical device.

Nevertheless, even without the concerns for crime, there is a contrast between public and private spaces.

If money can really buy the good things in life, then surely these neighborhoods can afford and should have a better environment for themselves beyond the restrictive four walls of their homes or some restaurants. The contrast between the world inside and the world outside—between private and public spaces—should not be too great. But it is.

Perhaps this is a reflection of an overly individualistic community in the city. Most of us are so concerned with our small private space that most of us ignore the commons that we share. We jealously maintain our private space against nature but left the public space just beyond our private boundary at the mercy of nature. We use the commons almost daily, so we do care for the commons but none of us have enough incentive to take upon ourselves to make the commons as orderly, clean and safe as our private space.

Although I hold that the individual is the most basic unit of any society, I do find the individualism that I see proliferating in our society as too much for my liking. Besides, seeing a fat rat or two tip-toeing across the pavement in the evening in Bangsar and Damansara does not paint a great picture of a community that enjoys a kind of welfare that is well above the median. I think it is a damning symptom of the excessive individualistic attitude that we have. I think the excessive individualism is adversely affecting the viability of public space.

Individualism can be a force of good. A healthy dose of individualistic culture provides a bulwark to tyranny. It is also a fertile ground for creative thinking among others. A society cannot really progress far with a hive mind that will never challenge the status quo.

That, however, does not negate the fact that there are costs to excessive individualism. One of the costs can be the unviability of the commons.

Thankfully, the setup of our society and institutions are designed partly to address problems arising from individualism. We have our local authority funded by public resources to take care of the commons. The establishment of the local authority is in line with the liberal rationale for the establishment of the state: we establish the state to provide crucial services to us all which we cannot individually provide for ourselves. And the local authority is part of the state.

Yet, there is significant a contrast between private and public space. The private space is well taken care of by private individuals and firms while the commons—the commercial centers of Kuala Lumpur’s suburbs—are a dump.

I take this as a sign that the local authority is not doing its job well. If the viability of the commons is a benchmark to a working local authority, then the local authority is broken.

It is possible that the local authority is failing its job as the janitor of our commons because it is not responsive to the community it is supposed to serve. By that I mean to refer to the fact that most of us already know. Our local authority is unelected and so it is unaccountable to the beneficiaries of the commons, which is us.

The unelected and unaccountable local authority can afford to fail at its jobs without any real repercussions. That the commons are chaotic, dirty and arguably unsafe is linked directly to the unelected and the unaccountable nature of our local authority. The beneficiaries of the commons can complain but the local authority really has no incentive to take it seriously.

If we do care about the stark contrast between private and public space, if we do care for our commons, then we need to make local authority responsive. We need our local election back.

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 October 11 2012.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2609] Income equality. Isn’t it wonderful?

Since coming to power 14 years ago, Mr. Chávez has manufactured dependency on a scale unseen elsewhere in the post-Soviet world. He has nationalized farms, steel mills, cement factories, telecoms and the assets of foreign oil companies. His government subsidizes everything from oil to milk. Government spending, much of it on cheap housing, has risen at a blownout rate of 30% in the past year alone.

The result? Chronic shortages of everything from oil to milk. A 24% inflation rate. A homicide rate that in 2011 clocked in at 67 per 100,000 people-nearly five times the rate in Mexico. Latin America’s lowest growth in GDP per capita over the past decade, despite record-high oil prices. Constant devaluations. The diversion of an estimated $100 billion in recent years to a slush fund controlled exclusively by Mr. Chavez. Rolling blackouts. A credit rating on a par with Ghana’s and Bolivia’s. The steady degradation of the country’s once formidable oil company, PdVSA.

The only bright spot, according to the BBC, is that Venezuela “now boasts the fairest income distribution in Latin America.” Isn’t that wonderful? [Bert Stephens. Chávez and the 47%. The Wall Street Journal. October 10 2012]