Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2328] An arrogant free riding migrant

There are times when Malaysians living abroad can be arrogant, perceiving too highly of their worth to Malaysia. There are Malaysians abroad who are highly skilled and educated, of course, but not all of those living overseas are. Most are architects, professors, financial wizards, etc. Some are cab drivers, cooks at some fast food place, janitors, etc. Some are old people of no clear expertise.

Somehow, I get the idea that the mainstream narrative is all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated who expertise are prized.

I want to blame the Malaysians media, printed and online for that. The media or even those offering opinion on how to address the brain drain take some details for granted and tend to highlight successful Malaysians abroad only. That in the end paints the picture that all Malaysians living abroad have highly skilled or educated, who could contribute to the development of Malaysia more than others.

The truth is that not all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated. Not of all of them are successful either. There are those who can be easily replaced by locals cheaply. Some migrated because of their family connection, not so much of skills and attracting them back may only bring indirect benefits, which in the net might not present a convincing case.

There is nothing wrong with migration. I am not condemning those who migrated for whatever reason. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to migrate out of Malaysia: job opportunity, discrimination, politics, family, etc.

What I have issue with is the arrogance of some of these people who migrated, when the arrogance is clearly unearned. Here is an example.

A prominent Malaysian politician was in Sydney some months ago. He gave a talk. He attracted a large crowd. He is after all a good speaker.

At the end, there was a question and answer session, which too many have the tendency to turn that period into a soapbox session.

An old former Malaysian, now an Australian citizen, a retired teacher, probably in his 60s, came up to offer his opinion. He rambled about how if Malaysia wants him to come home, the people in Malaysia need to change first.

The people in Malaysia need to change, he said. As if he was the top candidate for Talent Corporation, whatever that government-linked entity actually does.

Is he ignorant of the fact that many Malaysians are doing what they can to change the system? There are Malaysians who disagree with the system and have to suffer the system in fact.

What is more angering about the arrogance is that he proudly announced his intention at free riding. He expects others to change the country while he lives his retired life comfortably, while possibly on a relatively generous transfer payment the Australian government provides for pensioners in Australia.

I rolled my eyes.

It is completely understandable that some people have no stomach to participate in change personally. There are always opportunity costs involved, if guts is not an issue. It is also fine if one decides to return to Malaysia if the society changes for the better. A lot of Malaysians would likely do that. I personally have a number of friends with that thinking. I do not blame them and it is only natural. I cannot think of a good reason to chastise them.

But that particular person does not have the moral authority to put it so arrogantly. No one in that situation has. The license to arrogance vanishes immediately as one free rides.

Categories
Politics & government

[2324] Shadow cabinet: give Pakatan Rakyat a break

The formation of a shadow cabinet in Malaysia is ideal. That demand has been made multiple times to Pakatan Rakyat, especially by those unfriendly to Barisan Nasional. While shadow cabinet formation does indicate the seriousness and the preparedness of Pakatan Rakyat in governing Malaysia when the time comes if it comes, and that itself has some value, one — specifically those who are unfriendly to Barisan Nasional — has to be reasonable.

Although relations between the components of Pakatan Rakyat appear to be on good terms, there have been frictions from time to time. For instance, observe the issue of Islamic state. Members and sympathizers of Pakatan Rakyat have defended some of the frictions by stating that it is part of democratic culture, where there will always be difference of opinions. That however does not cover up the fact that there are groups within Pakatan Rakyat that have different ideals. Gaps exist. Part of the gaps is due to party loyalty. The way Anwar Ibrahim has been managing it is one of the wonders of Malaysian politics.

Now, a shadow cabinet indicates that that person would be the minister if Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government. In other words, a shadow cabinet hints who is who. Imagine what a shadow cabinet could do in exacerbating those gaps. The amount of goodwill between parties that could be lost for something that might not happen — Pakatan Rakyat as the federal government — is not worth the effort. The bickering that might happen due to who should be whom might even reduce the chance of Pakatan Rakyat winning the next general election.

Right now, the foremost requirement for Pakatan Rakyat is to present a united front, especially when a general election is expected soon. The so-called shadow committee covering the existing ministries should do fine at the moment.

Besides, what is the purpose of a shadow cabinet?

Is it about knowing who is who, or about knowing what are the alternative policies?

Given the current general circumstances, I would say the latter. There is more substance in alternative policies compared to alternative persons. I am interested in issue-based politics, not personality cult.

So, Pakatan Rakyat should cross the bridge, only when they come to it. And the bridge is not in sight yet.

Nevertheless, members of those shadow committees need to raise their game. They are too quiet. Some of the members of the shadow committees have defected, making the members list outdated. It has to be updated.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2322] Bus operators should go bust

Here is another case of private gains but socialized losses.

The Star reports that some bus operators wanted the government to bail them out. They reasoned that they would go bankrupt. Fares “that they collect can no longer cover costs.”[1]

That is nice, is it not?

When things go awry, get somebody to pay for you. When the going is good, keep the money for yourselves.

Without any doubt, I prefer bankruptcy to bail out. In fact, bankruptcy is likely to be good for these bus operators.

One, if they face competition along the routes that they serve, then some of them will be out of business, which then grants the surviving operators  monopoly power. The fares can be raised after that, subject to other constraints, like train services, cabs or private cars. The government of course should refrain from the temptation of regulating those fares. If they cannot compete with these other means of transportation, then clearly the market does not appreciate the bus service, and thus, no need for this type of bus service.

Two, these bus operators will stop losing money once they are bankrupt. That is the point of bankruptcy, anyway. Coupled with limited liability, bankruptcy can do wonders. Of course, some banks in Malaysia demand individual guarantee, which makes limited liability irrelevant. Still, that is a different issue that requires solution that I cannot think of right now.

Apart from that, the Pan Malaysia Bus Operators Association president Ashfar Ali reasoned that the “government is no longer our proponent, but our competitor.”

This is the only hard point to counter.

I however prefer the government to privatize some of the services instead, like that belonging to Mara, i.e. Transnasional. For others like RapidKL and RapidPenang, I wonder how many of these private bus operators actually compete with RapidKL and RapidPenang?

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

[1] — PETALING JAYA: Hit by escalating cost of operations, stage bus operators nationwide have asked the Government to take over their businesses and liabilities.

Pan Malaysia Bus Operators Association president Datuk Ashfar Ali has sent a memorandum to Land Public Transport Commission (LPTC) chairman Tan Sri Syed Hamid Syed Albar proposing that the Government buy over their assets. [It’s bailout or bust, bus firms tell Govt. Teh Eng Hock. The Star. February 21 2011]

Categories
Politics & government

[2320] Not so private initiative now

The Najib administration and its supporters defended the proposal by Perbadanan Permodalan Nasional Berhad to build a 100-storey skyscraper earlier by stating it was a private company’s initiative.[1] And so, the government should not be blamed for the proposal. I seriously doubt PNB was a private company but perhaps, it is a matter of definition.

This week, the Deputy Prime Minister said something that convinced me that it is not a matter of definition. As in politics, it is a matter of convenience and dishonesty.

What did the DPM say?

He was commenting on an issue completely different from the tower. It was about wages of GLCs in the plantation sector.

He believed plantation workers at government-linked companies should received higher wage since commodity prices are at good levels. Bernama reported that he said that the Cabinet agreed to review the wages for these workers.[2] The government will meet these GLCs to discuss the issue.

This raised a flag in my mind. Which plantation companies are government-linked?

At least one name comes to mind: Sime Darby. Sime Darby is linked to PNB, the same entity that some people, including the DPM, argued that PNB is a private entity.

Then again, it could be Felda that is both a GLC and not involved in the tower, hence I could be wrong. In the report, no name was mentioned. So, I decided to give the issue the benefit of the doubt.

That was, until I saw a television news report in which the DPM actually mentioned companies linked to PNB. So much for PNB-and-its-private-initiative-100-storey-skyscraper line.

The Najib administration and its supporters defended the proposal by Perbadanan Nasional Berhad to build a 100-storey skyscraper earlier by stating it was a private company’s initiative. And so, the government should not be blamed for the proposal. I seriously doubt PNB was a private company but perhaps, it is a matter of definition.

This week, the Deputy Prime Minister said something that convinced me that it is not a matter of definition. As in politics, it is a matter of convenience and dishonesty.

What did the DPM say?

He was making a statement on a completely different issue. Nevertheless, it reveals the kind of honesty that the argument used to defend the tower lacks.

The DPM believed plantation workers at government-linked companies should received higher wage since commodity prices are at good levels. Bernama reported that he said that the Cabinet agreed to review the wages for these workers. The government will meet these GLCs to discuss the issue.

This raised a flag in my mind. Which plantation companies are government-linked?

At least one name comes to mind: Sime Darby. Sime Darby is linked to PNB, the same entity that some people, including the DPM, who argued that PNB is a private entity.

Then again, it could be Felda, and I could be wrong. In the report, no name was mentioned. As such, I decided to maintain give the issue the benefit of the doubt.

That was, until I saw a television news report in which the DPM actually mentioned companies linked to PNB. So much for PNB-and-its-private-initiative-100-storey-skyscraper line.

To me, these people think that PNB is a private company in some circumstances, and a GLC in another, based on convenience. I call that downright dishonest.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 1 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today said public opposition towards the proposed 100-storey Warisan Merdeka was due to a lack of clear explanations for the RM5 billion project, which he stressed was a private venture despite belief it was a government effort.

When asked about the concerted protest against the project on social media outlets, personified by the ”1M Malaysians Reject 100-storey Mega Tower” Facebook page, the deputy prime minister reiterated that the undertaking would not be government funded.

He also highlighted that the project will be solely borne by PNB Merdeka Ventures, which is a wholly-owned unit set up by Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) to undertake the RM5 billion skyscraper project on land it bought from Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad in 2000. [Warisan Merdeka misunderstood, DPM says. Melissa Chi. The Malaysian Insider. November 1 2010]

[2] — PUSA (Sarawak): The federal government will hold discussions with the plantation-based government-linked companies (GLCs) to review the wages of their workers, especially since the prices of palm oil were ”good”, said the Deputy Prime Minister.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said on Friday, Feb 18 the review of the wages was agreed to at the Cabinet meeting last week and it would be expedited. [Muhyiddin: Federal govt to meet plantation-based GLCs over workers wages. Bernama via The Edge. February 18 2010]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2313] Of hook me up a new revolution?

While having a quiet dinner in Montmartre in Paris, I overheard the waiter talking in French to a group sitting at a table. The waiter answered, I assumed to an English equivalent of the question where are you from, “Tunisie. Révolution!” He further said, this time in English, “Now, I can go home”.

The whole table was excited. I do not need to understand too much French to know that. Some time within the conversation, somebody mentioned Mubarak. By the time I got back to my hostel, “Mubarak Steps Down” was written on the front page of the New York Times.

This is a joyous day. The Arab world is full of dictators. That is beginning to change. The wave that began in Tunisia begins to resemble the Spring of Nations that happened in 1848, when the revolutions across Europe prepared various states for real liberal change for decades to come.

Nevertheless, immediately in my mind, I remember a verse belonging to Foo Fighters’ Learn to Fly. As it goes, “hook me up a new revolution, ’cause this one is a lie.”

The protest in Egypt has been exciting to me because it is genuinely organic. Nobody can claim to lead the protest but everybody can claim to be part of it. While I was watching the BBC in London with an old friend less than a week ago, we discussed exactly this and we shared the conclusion of the danger how this revolution may end up, which could be a disappointment.

Mubarak has been reported of handing over power to the military. I am not an expert in Egyptian politics but the idea of having the military in charge, I would think, is not ideal. An interim civilian government would be great, although who should form the interim government, given the lack of leadership of the revolution, is unclear.

Let us just hope that the military will not be addicted to power, and stand ready to return its newly assumed power to the legitimate civilian government soon.