Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government

[2297] Of comment on the Selangor state secretary controversy

After writing about the need for separation between the state and federal civil services for The Malaysian Insider during the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis, I learned that the relationship of the services depend on whether the state was part of the Federated Malay States. The FMS were the first states — from the north to the south, Perak, Pahang, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan — to have federated in the modern history of what is now called Malaysia. While the civil service in other states are independent from the federal service, the services belonging to the former FMS is linked to its federal counterpart. Tricia Yeoh has written on the matter with greater insight.[1]

And so, when the controversy of the appointment of the State Secretary in Selangor erupted, I understood why the state government was more than apprehensive. What I understood less was the arguments pro-Pakatan Rakyat individuals and groups threw: how it was unconstitutional and how the state not should but have a say.

I am not an expert on the state constitution but as a layperson, the convention is clear and it is being followed, however abhorrent it is to the spirit of federalism. It is ultimately within the power of the federal civil service. Nevertheless, the federal service could at least solicit opinion from the state out of courtesy, which the state insisted did not happen. The way the federal service shocked the state government is not ideal to say the least.

I fully understand that convention does not always coincide with constitutionality, but in this case, chances are it does. The convention provides the context and the background of the issue. Many who believe that controversy is a violation of the state constitution seem to ignore history, hence context. The history of the former FMS matters. The fact that the Selangor state government has proposed to amend the state constitution to address the issue reveals how untenable the argument about unconstitutionality is.[2]

So, I am skeptical of the arguments about unconstitutionality forwarded by pro-Pakatan Rakyat individuals and groups (some have turned into conspiracy theories which I through and through reject; observed the argument related to Anwar Ibrahim and Wikileaks), although I definitely can sympathize with the fear of the possible toppling of the current Selangor government in the same style as Perak. But I am thinking that if that does happened, Barisan Nasional will be guaranteed to not to win Selangor in the next general election, whenever that will be.

In the end, regardless of my criticism of Pakatan Rakyat, I am on their side on this matter simply because I am a federalist by virtue of my distrust of an overly strong government, at the federal level or otherwise. Besides, legal or not, it is outrageous to have someone who is distrusted by the state government to work as the state’s top civil servant. When the law does that, then something is wrong with it. It needs to be changed.

I am all for greater division between the state and the federal governments. Therefore, I support the proposal by Selangor to increase the independence of its civil service. I am less enthusiastic about improving the power of the sultan though.[3] Remember, I am a republican. A dormant republican but a republican nonetheless.

But as a friend wrote to a bunch of people connected to the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, there are other concerns with regards to greater division. One involves the issue of prestige. For states other than the former FMS, the civil servants have nowhere to go. Imagine the civil service of Perlis. It is the smallest state in Malaysia and it is not too rich. It is a dead end, career-wise for state civil servants. For the service in the FMS, one can do very, very well.

Prestige is euphemism for higher compensation and perks, if you are wondering.

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

[1] — Since taking over several state governments, one of the areas the Pakatan Rakyat has had to contend most with is the civil service. A majority of the bureaucrats working within the state governments are federally appointed, especially higher-ranked officials from the prestigious Administrative and Diplomatic Service (Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik). [Civil servants at an impasse. Tricia Yeoh. Penang Economic Monthly via The Malaysian Insider. September 4 2010]

[2] — SHAH ALAM, Jan 4 — Selangor is considering amending the state constitution with retrospective effect to break the impasse over the appointment of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the state secretary. [Selangor mulls retrospective amendments over Khusrin row. Boo Su-Lyn. The Malaysian Insider. January 4 2010]

[3] — SHAH ALAM: The Selangor state government wants the state constitution amended to return the power of appointing the state secretary to the Sultan and the Mentri Besar. [S’gor MB wants state constitution amended. Wani Muthiah. A. Ruban. The Star. January 3 2010]

Categories
Politics & government

[2291] Of Chavez’s socialism

Socialism’s end in theory is admirable but what is true in theory is not necessarily true in practice. In practice, socialism always requires authoritarian power to make it work. A system of public ownership needs everybody to surrender their individual sovereignty to a central planner, voluntarily or otherwise.

And so, it is unsurprising to have Hugo Chavez assumes dictatorial power so that he can continue to forward his socialist agenda. He is the central planner in Venezuela but some Venezuelans disagree with him. That disagreement comes in form of an election. After seeing a democratic result unfavorable to his socialist government, he convinced the outgoing Chavez-friendly legislature to allow him to rule by decree for the next 18 months.[1]

The socialist agenda is bigger than democracy, so it seems. Always be careful about giving any socialist too much power, or any for that matter.

Maybe one should be more sympathetic to socialism. Maybe one should argue instead that it is Chavez the dictator who is corrupting the system while hiding behind socialist facade.

Maybe.

Yet, having socialists all around defending Chavez makes that separation as real as socialist dream. And a socialist dream is a pipe dream.

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

[1] — CARACAS, Dec 17 (Reuters) – Venezuela’s parliament gave President Hugo Chavez decree powers for 18 months on Friday, outraging opposition parties that accused him of turning South America’s biggest oil producer into a dictatorship.

The move consolidated the firebrand socialist leader’s hold on power after nearly 12 years in office, and raised the prospect of a fresh wave of nationalizations as the former paratrooper seeks to entrench his self-styled “revolution.” [Venezuela assembly gives Chavez decree powers. Jack Frank Daniel. Reuters. December 17 2010]

Categories
Politics & government

[2289] Of the tap water must flow

The tussle for control of water distribution in Selangor attracts strong opinions and allegations. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government and its supporters claim that Syabas, the sole water distributor in Selangor, is being mismanaged. Some of the more vocal supporters of Pakatan Rakyat and the state government claim that Syabas is a case of incompetence and downright corruption. The state government believes it could do a better job than Syabas. Whatever it is, Pakatan Rakyat is on a relentless offensive. In the end, however, it might find itself in a situation that Napoleon once found himself in, which was in the frigid Russia.

Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor is having a successful campaign so far. That is because it is hard to disagree with most of the issues raised by Pakatan Rakyat given the negative reports surrounding Syabas. Breach of contract, conflict of interest, large compensation received by its executive chairman Rozali Ismail”¦ the list goes on and on.

The large debt accumulated by Syabas is a symptom to all of these issues and the symptom itself cannot be swept under the carpet. The debt is the immediate factor for Syabas’s request to increase its water tariff by a significant margin.

The state government opposes this, convinced that Syabas is passing the cost of its mismanagement to water consumers unnecessarily. This presents a problem for Syabas. Without the hike, it faces the possibility of bankruptcy.

The default might happen as soon as the end of this year, which is just days away. Bondholders of Syabas have argued that the default might adversely affect the wider capital market, hence the necessity of bailout. The Barisan Nasional-led federal government seems convinced of that argument and it has indicated that a bailout is possible.

The fear is very real. What is also real is the anger that will follow any bailout. Any bailout will be unfair because it is a case of privatizing profits but socializing losses. The stakeholders of the bailed-out firms stand to gain everything at the expense of taxpayers at large.

That, however, does not negate the fact that the only thing that is worse than being forced to pick up someone else’s tab is having no tap water. Any allegation made against Syabas, which is likely to be true, will stand pale against widespread unfulfilled demand for tap water. The tap water must flow regardless the issues.

If there is no resolution to the war of attrition between the state government and Syabas before the default occurs, Pakatan Rakyat’s campaign might see its fortune reversed. When push comes to shove, a bailout will be preferred to no bailout.

Without bailout, the uncertainty regarding tap water supply will be devastating. Everybody loses under the case of no bailout, and no tap water.

If a bailout does happen, somebody will have to take the blame. The federal government will not want to be that somebody. The federal government will want to be seen as the savior of the day instead.

To do so, the federal government might defend itself by stating that without a bailout, the tap water might not flow. The fear of possible water supply interruption is already making its round in the mainstream media. The Sultan of Selangor, for instance, has voiced his concerns regarding the matter.

It is in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor to not to have a bailout. It is in its interest to resolve the issue before Syabas defaults on its bonds.

Perhaps, it is even in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat to allow the water tariff hike to happen. At least that way, Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be on the offensive, leaving Syabas and, indirectly but more importantly, Barisan Nasional on the defensive well into the next state and national elections.

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 December 15 2010.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2288] Of ridiculously supernatural by too much

As long as there are those who believe in supernatural explanations to rationalize the completely natural world and as long as there are public choices that require collective decisions, religion will be relevant in our society. The relevance of religion, however, is not a ticket to be used with impunity in the public arena.

In The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World, author Matthew Stewart described how the religious of 17th-century Europe were anxious about the advancement of science. As the explanatory power of science grew, the room for supernatural explanation shrank. Four hundred years on, the room for the supernatural continues to shrink as we continue to understand more about the world around us. We have become more rational than ever.

Unlike in the days of old, this is an era when many assertions relating to the secular world require rational reasoning as its thrust. Many individuals no longer accept an assertion as true simply because someone invokes the name of god, or any being of similar status.

While the relevance of religion in society is not denied, it is easy to see how its relevance has been overestimated by some. That overestimation invites ridicule, especially so when the invocation of god’s name is based on self-interest.

When Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan swore on the Quran that Anwar Ibrahim violated him, it was quite clear that his purpose was to strengthen his case, regardless of the truth behind his allegation. While the truth in his case was at best uncertain, he tried to use religion to pre-empt the civil justice system. One can take comfort that the supernatural bows to rationality in the justice system for else, truth would be so cheap that it would be worthless.

A starker example involves former Selangor state assemblyman Lee Hwa Beng of the MCA. When he wrote that the Christian god commands Christians to oppose the concept of an Islamic state, he was using religion for his own political purpose. He linked the DAP with an Islamic state as promoted by PAS to cultivate the fear of Christians towards PAS so that they would vote for BN instead.

Of interest here is the use of supernatural-based rationale against another supernatural-based position. Even in the realm of the supernatural, supernatural rationale is problematic. It was so problematic that criticisms came in fast and harsh. What was supposed to be an insignificant statement on Twitter became a considerable embarrassment for Lee and he was forced to retract his statement and apologize.

Lee’s was a case where a person spoke on behalf of a god. He is, of course, not unique. Many members of PAS have taken the tone where the Islamic god wants this and that. Still, they are more or less Islamists and it is only expected of them to use religion to justify their political ambition. Nevertheless, they do struggle to justify the goal of an Islamic state while trying to widen their appeal and achieve their national ambition of wrestling Putrajaya from Barisan Nasional. Rather than appealing to supernatural reasoning, PAS has in the past tried to promote some of its ideal by stressing universal concepts like justice instead. If the 2008 general election is any indication, then secular methods are more successful than ones inspired by divine diktat.

And recently, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, president of PKR, said that her husband Anwar Ibrahim is a person granted by god to Malaysians to become our leader. As if the obvious needs pointing out, it is not hard to see how the fortune of Anwar is closely related to PKR. Maybe after criticism regarding PKR’s recent direct election, she thought that the outdated concept of divine right might justify Anwar’s position. Well, it did not work. She burnt her fingers. The wolves of Barisan Nasional pounced on her and she deserved it.

In each case, if they had resorted to the more rational path, they would have been less susceptible to ridicule. Saiful’s legal counsel could have presented convincing evidence in court. Lee could argue that an Islamic state may discriminate individuals based on creed. Wan Azizah could instead say that Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership is indispensible, for instance.

But no. They had to tickle the pink unicorn. Whether the unicorn has been entertained, we will never know. What we do know is that if they had chosen the more rational path, they would have been less susceptible to ridicule.

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 December 13 2010.

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2286] Of underestimation in Transparency International’s report

While I am at the issue of bribery, I would like to touch on the recently released Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2010 report that the chart from the Daily Chart blog is based on.

After reading it, or rather, skimming through it, I suspect some of the results underestimate what are actually happening on the ground. Of a particular interest in one question where it asks whether the questionnaire participant has bribed a public official within the past 12 months. According to the report, in Malaysia the survey was done through face to face method.[1]

Now ask this question. If some stranger asked, ”Have you bribed a public official before?”, what would be your answer?

Given that you do not know who the stranger is, and if you have bribed a public official before, would you actually say yes?

What if the stranger is a police officer and he or she is trying to trap you? What if the stranger recognizes you and reports you to the police after the interview? What if the stranger shares the information with the public, thus ruining your reputation?

Would it not be safer to say no?

I would think there is an incentive to be dishonest and say no. It is the most rational action to take given the uncertainty caused by the face to face method.

Thus, the aggregate answer to the question is likely to underestimate the true occurrence of this specific kind of bribery.

The further implication arising from this problem is this: the report indicates that 9% of members of the Malaysian sample have bribed a public official before in the last 12 months. Assuming good faith that the survey is representative, one could generalize that 9% of Malaysians have bribed a public official before. Due to the concern of underestimation however, the best one could say about the result is that at least 9% of Malaysians have bribed public official before in the same period.

If one wants to take the implication to the extreme, notice that there is no qualification about the maximum limit. Scary, is it not?

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

[1] — Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Page 35 and 39. Transparency International. December 2010