Category: Politics & government

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2365] Should action be taken against Utusan Malaysia? A libertarian perspective

Utusan Malaysia recently alleged that Malaysian Christian heads were conspiring to make Christianity the official religion of Malaysia. The conservative Malay daily cited two blogs of questionable credibility to back its front-page report. For a society highly conscious of  ethnicity and religion issues, the report caused uproar and tension between various communities.

Assuming the allegation is false which is likely the case, should action be taken against Utusan Malaysia for reporting it and in effect, spreading falsehood?

Our incentive system is imperfect to say the least. It is not at all surprising to have somebody spreading falsehood, lying or deceiving someone else to get what he or she wants in general. To complicate the matter, those acts might not by wrong all the times. There are times when those acts might be necessary to protect the innocents.

Even when those acts are wrong, unilateral public action through state authority might be out of the question with the principle of free speech in place, along with other typical individual rights.

Individual rights do not include the legitimization of fraud. Any action based on lies and falsehood that adversely affects individual rights cannot be condoned by the state or any authority invested with the powers to protect individual rights. It just cannot be let go off the hook.

One example is this: in a transaction, one party lies about the state of a good for sale to a person. If the person bought the good while supplied with false information, then the lying seller has obtained the money wrongly, with money being a private property of the purchaser. The right to private property is an individual right and the transaction based on deceit violates that right. The lying seller has to be punished by the state — unilaterally — since the prime rationale of the establishment of the state is the protection of individual rights according. The punishment is important not just for the sake of principle, but also for a very pragmatic reason. It is imposes a cost on such act and so discourages such fraud from recurring in the future.

Within the context of Utusan Malaysia and its recent controversial report, was there any violation of rights?

I cannot answer it in the affirmative. Therefore, I cannot to support unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia. The best I can come up with is that the falsehood affects reputation. Yet, individual rights do not include reputation.

This of course does not mean individuals involved in the reporting — meaning the one reported involved the conspiracy — cannot seek redress against the Malay daily. Conflicts between private parties have always happened and a trustworthy third party can and has always been appointed to resolve the conflicts. The third party here is usually the state. The third party’s judgment then is enforced to resolve the conflict as civil as possible.

In the case of interest, the group accused by the Malay daily can bring their grouse to the courts. If Utusan Malaysia did spread falsehood and that the falsehood adversely affected the reputation of the group, then the daily should be compelled to compensate the group or be fined. The fate of the two bloggers should be the same as the Malay daily.

I like this route the best because it is clean. It makes the issue as a conflict between two private parties and makes the concern of unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia merely academic if indeed Utusan Malaysia did spread falsehood (which, again, I do not doubt that is the case).

By making it private, it does not mean that there is no public interest in the case. There is but it is hard if not impossible to account for that interest and its very public effect without resorting to discretion.

If unilateral state action has to be taken — which I will contest its legitimacy — there may be a mechanism for that. Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia may have a mechanism that can be modified to justify unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia. Be warned that I am taking the idea in a very restricted sense. Nozick is concerned with a much larger issue than that which I am focusing on now.

Early in the book, Nozick demonstrates how various insurance and compensation arrangements will address threats and actual transgressions of rights. Insurance and compensation arrangements here are simply different terms used for protection provided by an entity, which can be the state, a private security firm, a gangster group or other entities capable of provide that service. Meanwhile, threat is not simply some kind of warning or a menacing declaration that something will be done if something else is not done. Rather, it is the possibility of something bad happening. The chances of a pedestrian being hit accidentally by a car is one of such threats. The chances of a person makes good of his threat to break your leg is another example of such threats.

Nozick describes how a general open threat creates fear among the threatened. Depending on the credibility of threats and the level as well as the spread of fear the threats create, it will disrupt day-to-day activities of the person or even the society. In order words, there are costs imposed on society by the threats, regardless of realization of the threats.

I think this parallels concerns regarding lies and falsehood. It gives the qualification why some lies and falsehood should be punished. When lies and falsehood creates widespread public anxiety, then there is a case for unilateral state punishment. Under this line of thinking, the priority is fear minimization, or in the parlance of Malaysian political discourse, sedition or incitation of hatred. In the end, Utusan Malaysia clearly must be punished, if this method is adopted.

The question is how widespread before punitive unilateral state action should be taken?

This may require some kind of discretionary powers, which like any discretionary powers, are open to abuse.

The need of discretion is one reason why I do not like this method, on top of the fact it does not follow from the first principle aimed at the protection of individual rights.

Discretion tends to create dissatisfactory judgment. It will inevitably be inconsistent and in the end, ruin the reputation of the third party wielding the power to punish. Discretionary powers will lead to abuse.

The wielding and the exercise of the discretionary powers have caused troubles in the past. Some newspapers have been punished for publishing controversial material while others have been let go. Indeed, Utusan Malaysia has been let go off the hook by the government despite its controversial report of unverified truth. If reported by other newspapers less friendly to the government, that newspapers would have been punished.

So, long story short, no to unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia but yes to making the case a private conflict between two parties involved.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2360] Competition Act is a farce

Competition puts a downward pressure on prices. It is one of the forces behind innovation. It enhances welfare. Therefore, initiatives aimed at creating a competitive market are worth supporting.

For those who truly believe in a free and competitive market, however, the Malaysian Competition Act passed last year deserves neither admiration nor respect. It is worthless.

How can one respect the Act when the government itself is unimpressed with the spirit of the Act?

This question is especially pertinent after the Najib administration recently granted Bernas with another 10-year monopoly over rice imports in Malaysia.

The Act will be enforced in 2012. One would expect any government that is sincere or serious about encouraging competition to prepare the ground. What we are seeing instead is business as usual. Instead, the government continues to grant monopoly power to a specific company without any regards for the Act.

Government-sanctioned monopoly is not a phenomenon exclusive to the rice market. In the sugar market, the government awards import quota to a limited number of sugar producers. Here is something that makes it even more interesting. Tradewinds effectively monopolizes the sugar market, and it is related to Bernas.

In Sarawak, there is CMS Berhad, which has a disproportionate access to government procurements and tenders. It is the grand monopoly of Sarawak and it is a prime target for a proper anti-trust law.

One must not forget the various government-linked companies. They are so large and so powerful that their ability to distort the market is not doubtable. What makes it worse is that, one would rightly expect these companies to sleep in the same bed as the government, at the expense of consumer welfare.

The government after all has an interest to see that these companies are profitable because the government is the shareholder. For companies that it only has an indirect relationship with, bad performance is just bad politics.

In the name of competition, a respectable anti-trust law must subject everybody under the same rules.

Yet, ”activities, directly or indirectly in the exercise of government authority” are excluded from the Act. Companies that obtain their monopoly power through a government authority like Bernas easily fit the bill. It is also easy to argue that GLCs will enjoy the exemption as well.

Even if that stated exemption does not cover those companies, the Competition Commission as established by the Act has wide discretionary powers to exempt anybody from the Act. With a perverse incentive system that exists within the government, selective prosecution will likely be the norm. Private firms that attain large market share through sheer ingenuity will be prosecuted in the name of competition while GLCs and companies like Bernas continue to be shielded from market forces by the government.

In short, not only does the Act not encourage competition, it is a tool to make the market less perfect.  This Competition Act is no anti-trust law. It is a discrimination law.

The truth is that competitiveness of the Malaysian market can be enhanced without this Act, which shamelessly masquerades as an anti-trust law.

Government policy created these monopolies and because of that, it is arguable that a proper anti-trust law is like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. Instead of expanding the role of government, a reduction can be just as effective as a proper anti-trust law. Such a retreat will definitely be more effective than the farce that is the Competition Act.

This is how a retreat should look like: The government to divest away from most GLCs, to institute an open and competitive process to most of its procurements and to stop granting monopoly powers to the likes of Bernas. Do all that and with a little luck, even a real anti-trust law might be redundant.

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 May 4 2011.

Categories
Politics & government

[2357] A little less conversation, a little more action please

It is easy to dismiss any grand statement made by PKR nowadays. This is not at all unreasonble, unfortunately. PKR has a reputation of boasting to either boost its members’ morale or to attain higher ground while negotiating with other parties, allies or foes alike. Its claim that there would be a change of federal government on September 16 a few year ago is the epitome of they are capable . What happened in Sarawak solidifies PKR’s dented reputation. Now, PKR Selangor is stating that it is it is confident of winning two thirds majority in the state.

Whether that confidence is grounded in reality or in the clouds, I think it is wise for them to not make any claim colored by exuberant confidence any more. Talk is cheap and a person’s reputation can only suffer so much.

For the party to be taken more seriously, it needs to repair its reputation by proving its capability, rather than talking it up only to have the balloon pricked by a pin. By doing more and talking less, perhaps the party can build up its fast depleting reservoir of credibility. PKR needs to do this quickly because the gap in its reputation is substantial.

Although PKR is becoming a laughing stock each time its leaders open up their mouth — observe their justification for their selfishness in Sarawak; while the breakthrough is encouraging, the overall result is disappointing and the denial is astonishing — this is no laughing matter for those who believe in competitive democracy.

PKR is an important component of Pakatan Rakyat. For better or for worse, it is the leader of Pakatan Rakyat. As a leader, its reputation reflects the whole pact. PKR should not abuse its reputation as it is abusing right now. That is most unfair to other members of the pact.

Furthermore, in a country with history rich of opposition coalition breakup, the solidarity of Pakatan Rakyat should not be taken for granted by PKR. An asset can become a liability. There will be a point where PKR stops becoming an asset to other members of Pakatan Rakyat.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2356] A dead Osama means dead Republicans

President Obama has just announced that Osama Bin Laden is dead.  I am sure there will be a lot of discussions on the matter, of how it will affect relationship with the Muslim world, of how this will affect military operation in Pakistan and many others.

One question I want to explore is its potential effect on the 2012 Presidential election.

This is a huge achievement for the Obama administration for one reason: by choice or by accident, the Republicans made Bin Laden the center of their administration and they failed to close the issue it satisfactorily. President Bush was positioned as a war president and I remember during the 2004 election when I was in Ann Arbor, the Republicans relentlessly attacked the Democrats for being soft on War on Terror. The Republicans put themselves as the only party that could lead the US in time of war.

In the end, Bin Laden was the political object of the war, regardless of his strategic value. Yet, four years later, eight years later, he was nowhere in sight, still roaming the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, the Republican administration under Bush failed politically.

Now that Bin Laden has been killed by the US military, the objective has been achieved. And was achieved by a Democrat administration.

For a party that is traditionally seen as the one with the experience and the backbone in terms of foreign policy, this cannot be good for the Republicans of 2012. Surely, among the pro-war groups that centered its motive around the need to avenge, the Democrats are the heroes, not the Republicans.

As security concerns slowly retreat into the background and merge with various political noise, so too the likelihood of us seeing a Republican President in 2012.

Categories
Politics & government

[2352] What if I spam with my 1Malaysia email?

I am still on the 1Malaysia email controversy. I must admit, this is starting to get ridiculous because its investment cost is only RM50 million. That is nothing compared to other big projects announced which on the surface and without being too ideological at least, are a-okay. For such a small project, maybe I am criticizing PEMANDU too harshly.

Nevertheless, I find the way the whole issue has been handled infuriating. Each piece of information makes me angrier: as it turns out, the email will cost the government RM0.50 per unit. It is not free, as it was promoted earlier.

A PEMANDU director justified the cost by stating it would save the government money. He compared the RM0.50 per unit cost to the cost of sending out actual mails, which is RM1.00 per unit.[1]

Saving or not, I am unconvinced that there is a need for that email, as with a lot of other Malaysians out there. Do we even need to pay for the RM0.50 in the first place, hence saving even more, if saving is a concern?

Another other concern — out of many unstated here — and the driver of this post is the director’s comparison of the RM0.50 per unit cost to the RM1.00 per unit of sending out actual mail. The director’s logic is completely sound, if each comparable actual mail is replaced by exactly one email and that there is no additional email sent out.

The 1Malaysia email at the moment however appears like any normal free email out there, except that it is authenticated. Supposedly, that is the main point. The question is, what if a person uses the 1Malaysia email for everyday use?

I typically send out between 5 to 10 emails per day. I receive even more daily. If I use the 1Malaysia email exclusively (I hate having multiple email accounts), these everyday emails will add to the cost of running the program.

Who will pay the cost of sending out email?

Also, there will be a breakpoint where saving turns into additional expenditure. The breakpoint will not be too big, which makes the chances of incurring additional cost highly likely. This is based on the assumption that the government typically does not send out too many letters to citizens. I personally have not received a letter from the government so far this year. In the previous years, if I am not mistaken, I received only one yearly.

Now, what if a spammer gets his hand on the account?

In short, I doubt this will be a cost-saving exercise. And again, who will pay for it?

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

[1] — Fadhlullah Suhaimi said he expected agencies to pay Tricubes about 50 sen per e-mail, cheaper than the RM1.00 printing, stationery, postage and dispatch cost of sending a regular letter.

He said that, as the per unit cost of regular mail might double to RM2.00 if a misaddressed letter was sent back on the taxpayer’s dime, the government stood to save between 50 sen to RM1.00 per e-mail.

”The poor taxpayer, without realising, is actually allowing wastage of RM2.00 per post that goes out,” Fadhlullah Suhaimi said.

He cautioned, however, that these expected savings were based on Tricubes’ own estimates. He said the actual cost per unit would vary depending on the volume and complexity of the transaction, as well as the number of people who eventually sign up. [Pemandu: Government agencies to pay for 1 Malaysia email database. Yow Hong Chieh. The Malaysian Insider. April 21 2011]