Categories
Politics & government

[2307] Of the option off the ballot

There is speculation that there will be a general election in the near future. Political parties across the board are shifting gears, as if they needed to after all the by-elections.

I had a conversation with a friend several months back about the general election. Being away from Malaysia, I caught up with him, among others, to find out the latest about Malaysian politics. There is, of course, the Internet but it can get you only so far. Nothing beats face-to-face conversation. The facial expressions, the intonations and everything that matters are something that articles, podcasts and videos do not relay.

Among the topics discussed was the disillusionment that both of us had with the current political reality where both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat dominate. Although I do believe that this is the stage for Malaysians to strengthen the newly established, effectively competitive two-party system before any further steps are taken to improve the Malaysians political system, I despise the options that I face.

It was then that I contemplated the idea of refraining from voting in the next general election.

Where I am registered to vote, it has always been a contest between UMNO and PAS.

I do not believe in UMNO. I do not believe in their core values and I do not trust them for all of their abuse, regardless of the presence of some good individuals in it. I do honestly believe that for UMNO and its partners to change, they must be out of power at the federal level.

Nothing is more powerful as a driver of change than failure itself. Without power, the worse and the corrupt will be flushed out, leaving the competent and clean to work their way up, at least hopefully.

Besides, Malaysia needs to experience a proper and peaceful change of political power. The actual experience will test the country’s institutions. The outcome of that test will inform Malaysians at large whether the institutions are capable of handling peaceful transition, or that the institutions themselves needed to be changed.

Malaysia has experienced change at the state level. There are kinks but the institutions are handling it reasonably well. Federal change, however, is likely to be a different beast altogether.

While I do not think highly of UMNO and its junior partners in Barisan Nasional, the other viable alternative is not too convincing either.

Specifically, I distrust PAS. While PAS may have allayed the fears of the non-Muslims in issues like the controversy on liquor sales, they have not done so for the more liberal Malays like me. For instance, PAS has insisted that Islamic laws should not be imposed on non-Muslims. While that is more progressive relative to a more suffocating encompassing view regarding Islam and the state, that communal thinking leaves the liberal Malays trapped.

While the status quo with BN in power is not fantastic to say the least, the way PAS and Pakatan Rakyat explain the issue of Islamic laws — about how Islamic laws affect only the Muslims, hence non-Muslims need not fear — desensitizes such communal thinking.

Of perhaps larger concern is the rumor that UMNO and PAS are discussing a possible pact, either in the name of Malay unity or an Islamic one, none of which appeals to me. I thought the issue was dead long ago but it persists. That worries me. What is the point of voting against UMNO by voting for PAS only to have PAS join UMNO?

Then there is the Pakatan Rakyat coalition in general. In Selangor recently, the Pakatan Rakyat-led state government announced that they would grant PR state lawmakers RM1 million each in preparation for election while excluding those from other parties.

The state government justified this by saying that BN also does this at the federal level. The selective provision levels the field, so the state government argues. I completely understand the crass reality of politics but I also believe that state resources belong to voters, not to the parties of the day. Seeing PR stooping to the level of BN disturbs me. It forces me to reassess my premise for voting for Pakatan Rakyat.

I fully recognize some of the good that Pakatan Rakyat state governments have done. Yet, I do not want to give them a blank check. The good work should not be used to justify other less admirable actions. I gave them a blank check in the last election because the situation then was dire. Things have changed so much since then. The situation today does not warrant old premises.

In the past, I overcame this problem by resorting to voting for the lesser evil. The lesser evil was PAS. Furthermore, the idea of giving somebody new a shot appealed to me. Since PAS was — and still is — in alliance with DAP and PKR, a vote for PAS was a vote for DAP and PKR; I thought of both DAP and PKR better than any other parties in Malaysia at that time. I worked on the premise that DAP and PKR would outnumber PAS when it matters always. PAS would be powerless where it matters.

I was wrong about power and PAS within Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, I am tired of choosing the lesser evil. I am also tired of others asking me to vote for the lesser evil. They are effectively telling me that I have no option. Imagine how excited I was when they told me that my only option is PAS. Hooray.

They are wrong though. I do have an option, except that it is not on the ballot.

I told the friend that I was thinking of refraining from voting in the next election. “This would not be indifference,” I told him. “It’d be an active choice. No more blank check.”

To which he replied, “You might not be the only one who is thinking of that.”

Although I consider myself as sitting on the fringe of the Malaysian political spectrum, there are many dissatisfied voters out there if the talk of the so-called third force is of any indication.

That makes me wonder about the turnout of the next general election in absence of other options on the ballot. How high, or low, will it be?

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 January 26 2011.

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]