[youtube]pcNXFz_QCVU[/youtube]
Category: Politics & government
In an ideal world, the Dewan Negara would serve to strengthen division of powers in Malaysia. It is supposed to represent the interest of member states of the Malaysian federation. In the world we live in, such idealism is as mythical as a unicorn. If being a glorified rubber-stamp is not insulting enough to the idea of federalism, the upper house functions as Santa Claus’ sack, with the prime minister as Santa. Every time he reaches in to reward his political allies, the farther the myth of federalism floats beyond memory.
Yes, this refers to the recent appointment of four new senators to the Dewan Negara.
Put aside the issue of appointment as political reward for a moment. Put aside even questions regarding the capabilities of these new senators.
Consider what the appointment does to power of the 13 member states vis-Ã -vis the federal government, which for years appeared to be more of a central government for a unitary state than that of a federal one. Each time the prime minister plays the role of a generous political master, the 13 member states lose their rightful influence to shape the course of this country.
The line where the Dewan Negara begins to stop functioning as protector of state interest has long been crossed. What else is there to say when the number of senators speaking on behalf of the federal government is nearly double that of those who truly represent their states?
For federalists, a discussion on capabilities of these senators is a worthless exercise to have. For them, the Dewan Negara is dead. It is dead as a symbol of federalism and it is dead as the protector of federalism.
Life can only be injected into it by relieving the prime minister of power to advise the Agong with respect to the appointment of senators, as well as convincing the Agong and relevant institutions to give up the power to appoint senators. Without such power, there is one fewer avenue for the federal government to bully the states.
Efforts to convince the rulers to give up the power might not be as hard as it sounds. After all, it is in their best interest to have a functioning Dewan Negara, where the interests of each state can be properly forwarded without being beholden to the federal government. With greater say within the federation, member states will attain prestige. That prestige will come in the form of a more balanced relationship between the states and the federal government.
Without such power, the Dewan Negara, again, is dead. One buries the dead.
Yet, the institution and its senators walk aimlessly and pretend to debate matters of national importance with nauseating pomposity, as if their debates and votes matter. At times, these senators even have the audacity to request for more public money in the name of serving the people. The dead cannot serve the people.
Either empower the Dewan Negara, or be done with it altogether. Rather than let the dead walks to consume precious public funds the living need, it is better to let the dead be dead.
Federalists would mourn the demise of the upper house. Know however, that to mourn once is far less painful for federalists than to suffer mockery all the time.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 30 2010.
There will be a big parliamentary by-election today in Hulu Selangor. By-elections have always been big in Malaysia but the fact that Pakatan Rakyat is fielding a giant makes this edition important by its own right. Zaid Ibrahim is not an obscure name.
Important or not, I do not feel the excitement of by-elections anymore. Part of the reason is that I am away in Australia. Another part is caused by election fatigue. Yet another part is because I have grown skeptical of Pakatan Rakyat due to policy issues.
The biggest of all issue is likely related to the goods and services tax debate. Effort to nationalize highways is another issue I deeply disagree with Pakatan Rakyat. Never mind issue of subsidy of various kinds. Some individuals who I thought would defend liberal economic policies within Pakatan Rakyat turn out to be cafeteria liberals. In short, I am no longer impressed with Pakatan Rakyat’s politics.
That in no way means that I am all set to lend my support to Barisan Nasional. I simply do not trust Barisan Nasional although I am willing to give thumbs up for several initiatives that fit my economic worldview. Their racial policy is a huge turn off for me, even if the current Prime Minister is pushing for liberalization of the economy.
Liberalization, of course, does not necessarily mean economic liberal. It could mean superlatively liberal. What else do I make when the federal government is pushing for liberalization of the economy while appearing to support minimum wage or creation of more government enterprises?
I was ready to largely ignore the election until Barisan Nasional raised the issue of alcohol and how Zaid Ibrahim drinks. I frown at the personal attack because I always expect people to debate on issues. Barisan Nasional failed on that front.
Moreover, the issue of alcohol comes close to the idea of choice, or anti-choice to be more accurate.
While I do appreciate that the norm in Malaysia is for Muslims to refrain from drinking as well as the fact that Muslims do have strong opinion on the matter and thus, Muslims voters who make up the majority in Hulu Selangor may vote based on personal lifestyle, for Barisan Nasional to raise the issue and use it as its election campaign material simply assaults my principle. The fake photographs of Zaid Ibrahim drinking distributed by those close to Barisan Nasional just adds up to the mounting anger I feel with respect to the way Barisan Nasional is campaigning.
That is not the only assault on freedom that is happening as far as the by-election is concerned. A former producer at NTV7 resigned because the Prime Minister’s Department, really, to make it all the more outrageous, the Prime Minister’s wife, demanded that the channel practice censorship to the benefit of Barisan Nasional.
Barisan Nasional has made freedom as an issue for me.
For that, I am stating that, for whatever it is worth and I know that it is not much, I am endorsing Zaid Ibrahim.
The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. suggests that Malaysia is siding with the United States with respect to the issue of Iran and nuclear proliferation. Apparently, even before the meeting between Prime Minister Najib Razak and President Barack Obama, Petronas, the state petroleum enterprise of Malaysia, has ceased shipping of gasoline to Iran in early March, anticipating an international, or at least a US-led trade sanction on Iran.[1] I say apparent because the Prime Minister claims the report is incorrect, stating it is only a spot sale instead of a stop of some long term contract.[1a] I am unsure what is the truth at the moment.
Notwithstanding the accuracy of the report, I seriously doubt the effectiveness of economic sanctions. I am not a fan of wide-ranging sanction and it is easy for me to rationalize this position.
I am also not a fan of the Iranian government for far too many reasons but if the proposed sanction is as wide ranging as I think it will be — adding gasoline into the list is a big thing — it is likely to hurt ordinary Iranians in Iran more than hurting Ahmadinejad government.
While the possible hardship may provoke popular Iranian sentiment against the Iranian government, such tactic appears too pragmatic — too realpolitik? — for my liking. Furthermore, the large protest immediately after the election in Iran demonstrates how hard it is for such sentiment to prevail.
This thinking of mine is a product of observing both Myanmar and North Korea. What exactly has trade sanction achieved there? Both regimes are still in power. In fact, their policies have hardly changed.
Sanctioning Iran may potentially further isolate Iran like how Myanmar and North Korea have been isolated without any real success in achieving the expressed goal of the sanction.
This has not even considered the fact that for the sanction to work — work in the sense that Iran will not be able to get its supplies from alternative source — the whole world must work together. A sanction by only the US and its allies will benefit others who refuse to participate, at the expense of countries like Malaysia. China for instance is dragging its feet in joining such sanction. If it refuses, the US-led sanction will be worthless.[3]
Despite this, I do appreciate Malaysia’s position and the reality on the ground. Malaysia has a lot more to gain by cooperating with the US than with Iran. Total trade between Malaysia and the US far exceeds that between Malaysia and Iran. Thus, I personally rather have Malaysia be diplomatically closer to the US than with Iran. I for one support better relationship with the US although, I can agree with Tunku Aziz that it should not be done “at any cost”.[4]
Still, ideally, I would prefer to have Malaysia to work with both the US and Iran. To have to choose between the two is an unfortunate choice to have.
[1] — Petronas, the Malaysian state oil company, said on Thursday it had stopped selling petrol to Iran. The move follows growing pressure from the US to shut off Tehran’s access to refined oil products.
The company, which is a long-term supplier of Iran, said it had not shipped petrol to Iranian ports since the middle of March. Petronas refused to give any further details on its decision to put an end to sales. [Petronas halts petrol sale to Iran. Kevin Brown. Financial Times. April 15 2010]
[1a] — NEW YORK, April 17 — Foreign news reports quoting Datuk Seri Najib Razak as saying that Malaysia had cut off gasoline supplies to Iran are incorrect, the prime minister said.
The prime minister said Petronas was involved in a spot sale to Iran in mid-March under a third party deal but since then there had been no requests. [Report On Gasoline Cut To Iran Incorrect, Says Najib. Tham Choy Lin. Bernama. April 17 2010]
[2] — Petronas gave no reason for the pullout but an industry source in Dubai said the company wanted to safeguard its business exposure in the United States.
On Monday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib and US President Barack Obama agreed on the importance of Iran strictly abiding by its obligation under international nuclear non-proliferation pacts. [Petronas halts fuel sales to Iran as sanctions loom. Reuters via The Malaysian Insider. April 15 2010]
[3] — Companies around the globe have been reducing ties with Iran ahead of possible new U.N. sanctions against Tehran’s controversial nuclear program. But a Chinese-owned company is taking a different approach on trade with Iran.
Traders from Singapore say China’s Sinopec oil company is sending more than 200,000 barrels of gasoline to Iran. The move comes as more and more Western nations have cut or reduced business with the Islamic Republic fearing international sanctions. [Chinese Companies Pursue ‘Talk Now, Invest Later’ With Iran. Carla Babb. Voice of America. April 16 2010]
[4] — [The cost of Malaysia-US relations. Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim. The Malaysian Insider. April 17 2010]
Malaysia requires multiple reforms. Development in recent years proves that moving away from the status quo is incredibly hard, however. This is due to opposition mounted by beneficiaries of the current system, as well as beneficiaries of circumstances.
As the Najib administration puts in effort to address criticism directed against the flawed affirmative action, it faces fierce opposition from its own base in UMNO. There are at least two proofs to back this assertion.
First, while Perkasa is officially independent, the majority of Perkasa members ”are ordinary UMNO members”, as reported by The Nut Graph. Secondly, the editorial of Utusan Malaysia, which traditionally has been a very eager promoter of UMNO, supports Perkasa openly. Perkasa is an unrelenting critic of liberalization with respect to the affirmative action.
Perkasa and its allies fear the dumping of the current affirmative action. They are inside and they are loud. The internal opposition has already forced the Najib administration to postpone the announcement of the so-called New Economic Model several times now. How much eventual reform will occur on this particular front is suspect after deputy minister and a prominent UMNO member Mukhriz Mahathir said the new policy would have the spirit of the old New Economic Policy.
The preceding federal government also faced opposition from the inside, with respect to its effort to ensure judicious use of police power. The Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) proposal did not go through.
While the Abdullah administration then was already treading the path of the tattered, it still enjoyed huge majority in the House. Yet, there was no political will to deal with the police force decisively. The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission was instead born, but critics say it is an ersatz to the IPCMC.
The Abdullah administration is now gone partly due to resurgent democratic culture in Malaysia, among other things. It is crucial to capitalize on the resurgence to seal the future of a more democratic Malaysia.
The reinstatement of local election is one way to institutionalize democratic culture. Unfortunately, standing in the path of further democratization is the Najib administration. Given the prime minister’s exhortation of the need for Malaysia to change, it is utterly disappointing to have him to prefer the undemocratic status quo.
Regardless of the outcome of all three cases, outside forces, which more often than not come in form of Pakatan Rakyat, have been crucial in pushing the case for both. Unfortunately, a warning is in order. While it can be helpful, outside force, i.e. Pakatan Rakyat, is no less influential in affecting reforms adversely.
Take the liberalization of the fuel subsidy regime under the Abdullah administration, for instance. The subsidy regime has proven to be disastrous to government finance. Massive expenditure dedicated to it sapped and is sapping resources that can be better used for other more productive purposes.
Yet, Pakatan Rakyat opposed such liberalization. In riding populist sentiment, Anwar Ibrahim even announced that he would cut fuel prices and, in effect, increase subsidy if he was in power at a time when global crude oil prices were going through the roof.
Fortunately, the restructuring of the fuel subsidy went through. Fortunately, partly because the populist path would have brought great damage to the economy in the long run. The reform is not complete yet but at least, it is moving along. What is of note is that the Abdullah administration only managed to push through the liberalization after suffering huge political cost.
Another example involves the proposed goods and services tax (GST) pushed by the Najib administration. The GST modernizes the tax system by addressing tax evasion committed by free riders who want every benefit but refuse to pay for it, or rather have others to pay for them.
There is considerable apprehension against the GST, especially when it is pushed by a government that does not have a stellar reputation in fiscal discipline and is perceived as corrupt. Yet, that in no way negates the need to reform the way government collects revenue because the solutions to all these concerns on government size and corruption are not mutually exclusive issues. They can be solved together.
Yet, Pakatan Rakyat is developing into a party of ”no”. It states that while GST is a good concept, it still opposes it due to a number of reasons. Lim Guan Eng, in an anti-GST forum, said that GST would tax everybody and painted the idea that not everybody is paying consumption tax at the moment. He backed his statement by erroneously comparing the fact of a narrow tax base relevant to income tax to the tax base of a consumption tax, which is a completely different animal.
Furthermore, quite conveniently, he was pretty much silent on two points that do not fit his narrative. First, the existence of a consumption tax in form of sales and services tax; all of us face prices after that tax at the moment, and that in effect says that everybody pays consumption tax.
Second is that the GST is to replace that consumption tax at a lower standardized rate with possible replication of existing tax exemptions, making the GST potentially not inflationary. The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs has made a stronger claim that the GST at the proposed rate is disinflationary.
Another argument against the GST from Pakatan Rakyat revolves around wealth inequality of Malaysia. But if the GST is not inflationary, then it should not affect inequality; if it is disinflationary, then it should have an equalizing effect on wealth inequality.
Whatever the effect of GST on price levels, the truth is that the GST system can be tweaked to satisfy a lot of concerns. Income tax rates can be lowered if there is concern about excessive burden. Rebates can be designed for some purpose. Exemptions can be made. Really, discussions on how to make GST better or more palatable than its current form need to take place. That it is not happening, though. Instead, Pakatan Rakyat is giving a solid no and prefers to ride on anti-tax sentiments. That is, in effect, a preference for the status quo.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on March 25 2010.