Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2574] Declining crime rate may not be enough

The statistics show that total crime in general has been declining since 2009, according to PEMANDU. Yet many members of the public distrust the statistics and insist that they do not feel what the statistics suggest. Others in the wild, wild world of cyberspace, where discussions can be very unrefined, openly call those in authority outright liars, which is not the first time that has happened. Suffice to say those in the government are frustrated at incredulity exhibited by many members of the public towards the official narrative of declining crime.

Idris Jala, the head of PEMANDU, cited an article entitled ”Cockeyed optimists” in The Economist some time ago. The message of the article, among others, is that perception lags behind actual crime statistics. The article referred to the United Kingdom to support its claim. In short, Idris Jala was defending the statistics amid widespread disbelief. He tried to rationalize the seemingly contradictory signals inferred from the reported crime statistics and public perception of the level of crime within the society, and he hoped others believed it. If he had not hoped, he would not have shared his rationalization in the first place.

Eugene Tan, a PEMANDU director, was clearer in delivering the same message. ”Changes in perception do not immediately follow changes on the ground. And even when people fear crime less and perception changes, the change is slower than the actual reduction of cases,” he reportedly said.

Crime may be falling. Or at least the reported official crime statistics are declining. And it may be true that perception lags behind crime rate.

Or it may be that falling crime rate itself is not the real concern. Maybe, the actual issue is that the public tolerates only so much crime.

It can be that is a maximum level of crime that the public can endure while maintaining their composure. If total crime is above the level in general, then the public will complain loudly about the performance of the authority in tackling crime. If total crime is below that level, then maybe it will ease the public.

If it is indeed true that there is a ceiling that the public tolerates, then the question is not whether the total crime has been falling. The whole new hypothesis makes the point on declining crime statistics somewhat redundant. The trend itself becomes of little comfort to the public and is of little value in improving public sentiment with respect to crime and overall safety of self, their loved ones and property.

Instead of focusing on whether the crime rate has fallen — conditional on the truth value of the assumption of comfort ceiling — the relevant concern now takes a slightly different form. The question now is whether total crime has fallen low enough?

Taking the continuing public dissatisfaction within this new context, then the answer seems to be no. It appears that there is still some way to go before the public is satisfied with the level of crime within our society.

So, the alternative way to convince that public with issues regarding general crime is to identify the ceiling, compare the total crime to the ceiling and work towards pushing total crime below that.

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 August 3 2012.

Categories
Economics Personal Politics & government

[2572] The bitterness of a financial conservative

I handle my finances conservatively. I spend very little for someone my age and my profile. In fact, I impose a sort of limit on my spending. I am conscious of it and get mildly nervous if my total spending grows too fast even when I can more than afford it.

I probably do buy too much insurance and I do save or invest a large part of my earnings. My credit card service provider probably hates me for having to finance me without getting the chance to charge me interest too often too much.

I can afford to save a lot partly because I do not have too many financial responsibilities.

The other factor behind my saving habit has a lot to do with my upbringing and education.

As a very young school kid, I never really needed to spend too much. Canteen food was clearly subsidized. I rarely asked my parents for expensive items.

The more important thing was that my parents did not give me a generous allowance when I was in primary school. My pocket money was very little. Not that I needed too much anyway but at that age, the limited pocket money effectively curbed any spending impulse I might have then. I was always mindful of my limits. It trained me to be financially prudent.

The same was true as I attended a boarding school in Kuala Kangsar; I rarely had expensive lunches or dinners. Meals were again subsidized and there was rarely a need to spend lavishly in a small rural royal town in Perak. While my allowance did increase, it was definitely less than that of my more well-off peers. I lived spartanly then. This continued during my undergraduate years in America. Formal lessons in economics further solidified my attitude towards personal finance.

During my time living abroad, I did learn to enjoy the finer things in life, but I rarely, if ever, overspent. I rarely overspend still.

So, I can say with certainty that I live by the morality of a financial conservative very strictly.

I think I can say without too much pretension that I am an economist. I understand the various reasons for fiscal deficits. Some of the causes for deficit are justifiable, and some are not. I do understand how the government is not a household in a way that the government can do certain things beyond typical household economics, the point which many defenders of the roles of government in society rush to in deflecting criticism against many facets of government spending. After six years of education in economics, I do not think I need too much schooling in that matter excessively.

Rather, put the economics aside and understand the psychology instead. Understand the worldview of a financially conservative taxpayer.

The state of federal government finance does not impress a person like me. Deep inside, I do feel something along the lines of ”if I can do it, why can’t Putrajaya?” It is a dismissive attitude towards the federal government. It is a damning judgment against a failure to adhere to certain brands of secular morality.

It is a kind of sentiment that is almost always in the background. It is the ever-present demand for financial discipline. Putrajaya violates this conservative morality so blatantly. Each violation accumulates further moral condemnation.

What further justifies the dismissive attitude is the inevitability that the indiscipline — add in the irresponsible economic populism that has happened throughout the year and earlier — will one day, one way or another, result in higher tax on the conservative, and everybody else, sooner or later. Whether I like it or not, I, will have to finance the fiscal indiscipline of Putrajaya.

That fuels my bitterness towards Putrajaya.

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 July 26 2012.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2563] Why I do not want to see a Eurozone break-up

I understand the case for the breaking up of the Eurozone. I do appreciate the virtue behind a flexible exchange rate, especially for cases like Greece. There is a need for rebalancing that a monetary union cannot provide. Yet, I am uneasy at the suggestion of a break-up, of Grexit, because deep inside of me, I am more or less an internationalist.

The internationalist sentiment is derived from my libertarian belief. It is about freedom of movement. Free flow of labor. Free flow of capital. All around the world.

I dream of a world where I would not have to present identification whenever I land in some foreign airports. I dream that I would be free to be anyway I choose without the need to ask permission from the state.

Unleash the ideal world and what I call the crazy me would come out as an anarchist. Specifically, an anarcho-capitalist. Freedom unbounded.

But I am not an anarchist because I understand anarchism is inherently unstable. I settle for the second best option available and that is free-market libertarianism.

Just as anarchism is the ideal but unattainable and thus the second-best solution is libertarianism, internationalism is the ideal but the second best approach is regionalism, for now.

This fuels my sympathy for the Eurozone. I want the Eurozone to be intact because of my bias. It has nothing to do about being western or Europe-centric.

I want it intact so that in the future, the Asean version can emerge. An Eurozone failure will likely inform decision on a more integrated Asean. Already the Indonesian President warned Asean of repeating the European mistake. The warning is appropriate but as I have argued, there are appropriate lessons to learn from the European crisis without jettisoning a closer Asean idea.

And I do think Europe will succeed, if recent history is of value.

The end of World War II saw closer cooperation between European countries: observe the Marshall Plan. Not all and definitely it was easy to cooperation when your opponent is dead, but the cooperation happened and that is the point.

The Cold War saw closer integration: observe the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community.

Post-Cold War saw even more: observe the European Union and its expansion.

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis brought closer cooperation: observe the introduction of the Eurozone.

Now, the latest Eurozone crisis may bring in closer cooperation: observe the fiscal union proposal.

So, do not ring the bell yet. The regionalist game is not over yet and the outcome of death is not certain.

As a libertarian, the issue is the creation of a stronger state but I think, this can be a largely enlightened state, with a federal structure is can be a counterforce to the central government.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2559] Election now leads to less populism

We live in a time of widespread economic crisis.

Europe is in recession. For some European countries like Greece, it is effectively the Great Depression all over again. Economic recovery in the US is slow, with the labor market in May registering horrible statistics to suggest that the US recovery may be flagging.

On the other side of the Pacific Ocean, the Chinese economy is slowing down. Meanwhile, Asian production and trade are growing very slowly as well, if not contracting altogether like in Taiwan and South Korea.

The latest export statistics reveal that Malaysian April exports contracted for the second consecutive months as Europe and others demanded less goods and services. Europe will likely continue to demand less in the near future as its governments, firms and households rebalance their finance towards more saving and less spending on average. The rebalancing is needed and overdue. As always, there is cost to the exercise. The cost will be significant even to those halfway around the world.

These external developments are important to Malaysia because the country has one of the highest trade exposure in the world. The openness and generally liberal trade attitude has allowed Malaysia to enjoy significant secular economic progress so far. But the same factor also makes Malaysia sensitive to the global business cycle.

The awful trade data has not been translated fully into the domestic economy. The domestic labor market, for instance, is holding up pretty well and close to full employment. The resilience of the domestic economy is encouraging but if trade growth continues to be dismal, sooner or later things will change for the worse.

So, there is crisis abroad and Malaysia may very well feel the heat soon enough.

The country needs to be ready for the possible headwind. Politically, it is hard to see how Malaysia is ready given that the general election is just over the horizon, somewhere.

That means policymakers and politicians are politicking.

While this behavior is only to be expected, there is a fear that the government’s collective eyes are off the economic ball. Both sides of the divide — more importantly, the government of the day — are making populist promises and policies to outdo each other and win votes. That may hurt the country’s ability to address possible economic troubles when the time arrives.

While the election is a must to preserve and to enhance our democracy, there is a cost to it. That cost is populism. We have to bear the cost but we do not need to exacerbate it.

How does populism exacerbate cost?

The cost will be higher the longer the politicking opportunity persists. That is so because the longer the politicking period, the higher the likelihood of populist policy will emerge.

That in turn may cause us as a society to meet potential economic trouble with a rifle loaded insufficiently. The point is especially relevant because the federal Budget is expected to be tabled in September. A ”people’s budget” will not be ideal if Malaysia wants to weather the gloomy days successfully.

So, this is a case to hold the general election as soon as possible. A resolution is needed as soon as possible. It is only by having an election as soon as possible that there can be less opportunity for politicking to lessen the probability of economic populism winning the day and ruining the future.

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 June 11 2012.

Categories
Politics & government

[2551] Class is something DAP supporters can learn from Tunku

I am disappointed at the treatment which Tunku Aziz received with respect to his comment about the Bersih’s sit-in. It is quite clear the DAP-led Penang state government ended Tunku’s senatorship to punish him for criticizing the sit-in.

While I disagree with Tunku’s position and I do support the sit-in, the path taken by the state government is utterly disproportionate to the issue at hand. It reveals immaturity of those in power in handling disagreement over what I see as a minor issue. Worse, it suggests some kind of intolerance towards differences of opinion.

Some differences may require severe punishment. The case of Hasan Ali in PAS is a perfect example where there were severe differences that translated into actual actions that caused real unrest and consternation among the populace. Hasan Ali appeared determined to weaken the state government.

In the case of Tunku however, this is really the first real public disagreement. Furthermore, the disagreement is over something that cannot be turned into action. What could the Tunku do as a senator? To be sure, nothing as nearly as severe as what Hasan Ali did. And Tunku has no intention to bring down the state government or break the unity of Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

Another disappointment is the naivety on the part of the state government. It is pure foolishness to peg Tunku’s senatorship to his take on the sit-in. The result of the pegging has now raised questions about DAP’s commitment to free speech. That opens DAP to attack unnecessarily, especially when the general election is just around the corner. Now that Tunku has decided to quit the party, the DAP finds itself in a deeper hole dug by the party itself.

Among these disappointments, there is an insulting opinion floating around accusing Tunku as an UMNO mole.

What is this? Prior to this, the man was praised as the hallmark of integrity. Now, the man has none?

The DAP-led state government is a mistake. DAP supporters and sympathizers need to realize that. Step out for awhile and see the larger picture.

Instead of that they are leveling an outrageous accusation against a gentleman that is Tunku.

What is this? How is this filth any different from the slime UMNO is employing?

Have a bit of class. Now, class is something they can learn from Tunku.