Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government

[2302] Of 1Malaysia and corporate suck-up

The 1Malaysia campaign has been around for at least two years now but it was not until recently that I fully realized how extensive the campaign is. Passing through the expressway that connects the Kuala Lumpur International Airport to the city, the term 1Malaysia assaulted me eyes endlessly. The billboards were full of it. I felt as if I was in a totalitarian country where the government controls information and the government wants to brainwash me. Believe in 1Malaysia, believe in 1Malaysia, believe in 1…

Except that, the country is not a totalitarian state and except that it was not the government that was directly promoting the term 1Malaysia on those billboards along the expressway. Not most of advertisement on the billboards anyway. Most of the billboards with 1Malaysia written on it were hired by entities with business concerns.

Politics is not really a realm these companies should typically be in. And so, something is going on.

I tried to rationalize why do these companies meddle in politics.

Are these companies government-linked?

Not so. At least not most of them. If most of them were, then it would be easy to understand why. It could have been a directive from the companies’ shareholder, which is the government.

Most of them seem to be private companies.

I was thinking, maybe these companies truly believe in the 1Malaysia campaign introduced by the Prime Minister, Najib Razak. Maybe there is some kind of altruism at work.

I do not believe in altruism. I do not believe that it exists. I consider the altruist case as improbable.

What is likely going on is that these companies in many ways are depended on the goodwill of the government of the day. Either their businesses are extensively connected to the government, or that the leadership of the companies are politically connected to those in power.

To put it more bluntly, there is corporate suck-up.

Corporate suck-up does not have to exist if the market is largely free from government meddling. In many ways, like has been written, government intervention in the market is so wide that these businesses are dependent on the goodwill of the government. To gain favor of the government that controls so many aspects of business, these businesses have to ingratiate itself to the government of the day.

Nobody ingratiates to the weak but the government is not weak. The size of the government is big.

Categories
Politics & government

[2299] Of a cab driver’s opinion of communism

On my way to Sydney Airport, I found myself sitting right beside a cab driver — who was probably close to 50 years of age — eager to convince me that he was an honest driver. “Pick any way you want, I go”, he said in outrageously fast but broken English. “I have map. You check. I go.” I almost smiled as he seemed to fit the old Western stereotype of Chinese people.

And as with most Cantonese speakers whom I have met, he seemed to shout when he spoke. I told him that I did not mind any route as long as I would get to the airport on time. Regardless of my indifference, he continued to convince me of his honesty up to the point that I wished I had taken the train instead.

It was unnecessary for him to convince me of his honesty. I know my way around enough and that makes his assertion irrelevant. I depended on his action, not his words.

I typically have a short fuse when it comes to loud and insistence individuals. I find them obnoxious and I will try to get away from them as soon as I can. But I was about to get late and I did not want to pay extra for another cab to the airport.

So, I remained polite to the obnoxious driver throughout the journey.

I am glad that I was polite because the second half of the ride was interesting.

I asked him where he was originally from, hoping that he would stop trying to convince me of his honesty. Given his mangled English, I hazarded ”Mainland China?”

He blew his top off. He insisted that he was from Hong Kong.

He has been in Sydney for 23 years. I asked why he migrated. He said he did not want to live under communism. Ah, at least he was redeeming himself; he appeared less obnoxious to me now. Just as I hid my initial discomfort of him from him, I hid my approval of him from him. I did not offer my view regarding communism and capitalism.

Hong Kong of course was a British colony before it was handed to the People’s Republic of China in 1997. More than that, it was a symbol of free market capitalism under liberal environment. Many were apprehensive of the future of Hong Kong beyond 1997. While the apprehension was justified, Hong Kong today continues to be the beckon of free market capitalism in the world.

He did not use the relevant terms as precise as he should. He was associating corruption with communism and a clean government with capitalism. The truth is that corruption is a problem in a capitalist society as well. Really, he was comparing the Australian government with the PRC government.

I played the devil advocate. I said the PRC government these days is only communist in name only but in truth, capitalism is making its round there. It is not free market capitalism but it is state capitalism. It is capitalism nonetheless and increasingly so.

To which he replied, “In communism, government officials are rich but the people are poor; in capitalism, government officials are poor but the people are rich.”

Looking at history, that is definitely true. That is the result of application of communist policy. There is more opportunity for government corruption in a centralized economy compared to a market-based economy, with all else the same.

We were approaching the international terminal. I got off and said to myself, I want to blog about this.

And yes, he was honest.

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.