Category: Politics & government

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2126] Of Mill and best and brightest in government

I admire John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In it, the author succinctly describes the limits of the state and individual liberty. His defense of individual liberty against the transgression of the state and the majority is impressive to me, who is already familiar with core points Mill articulated in On Liberty even before learning Mill’s name. While all points are well-argued and logically derived from reasonable premises, I am hesitant to embrace a few of his conclusions. One of those conclusions revolves around talents and government.

Near at the end of On Liberty, Mill makes the case against government interference in the market. The context in which he frames the argument is the enhancement of the capacity of the government, or rather the state, to do evil. In order to limit this capacity, he disagrees in having the best and the brightest individuals be employed as part of bureaucracy of the state.

The idea of having the best and the brightest as part of the civil service is quite relevant in Malaysia. Various individuals in Malaysia have suggested that the civil service should attract the best through various means, including, and possibly, mainly by offering most competitive salary. Apparently, the same argument was raised in England at least before 1859, the year On Liberty was first published.

Mill’s opposition is beautifully put in a way that uses the benefits proponents of such mechanism celebrate as the mechanism’s weakness. He writes that these highly talents individuals would make the bureaucracy highly capable and beyond criticism of the public. Why? Paraphrasing Mill, the public will become ill-qualified “to criticize or check the mode of operation of the bureaucracy“. This sort of shield from criticism brings about authority to the bureaucracy to embark on programs which may or may not be useful. Furthermore, with the freedom from criticism, the bureaucracy will be comfortable in where it is and not improve.

According to Mill, if the bureaucracy is to be on its toes, they must be entity or individuals capable of raising criticism against the bureaucracy, “independently of the government“.

Perhaps, most eloquently, the more well-stocked the government is with the ablest of all mankind, the capability of evil by the state “would be greater“, delivered more “efficiently and scientifically“.

This as well as other points made against the idea of big government made in On Liberty are persuasive. I am doing an injustice by summarizing his idea here. The best way to fully appreciate the robustness of arguments made by Mill is to read the book.

Regardless of that, I think Mill may have taken a step too far down the street in forwarding the proposition on talents and the state.

I do not see how having the less capable becoming part of the bureaucracy can necessarily be beneficial to free individuals. Such bureaucrats, holders of public office and perhaps politicians may as well introduce policy based on unenlightened policy that incongruous to culture of liberty, considering that there is a relationship between being a liberal and education level.

Capable if not the best of talents will be needed to introduce and enforce policies, including those which are the most liberal. Without these talents, others out of the government would be able to outwit the state in matters such as protection of individual liberty and fraud, which is the function of a state in liberal tradition. A state that is unable to perform such function effectively is a worthless state.

Besides, Mill in On Liberty is concerned with capability of the bureaucracy to improve. Criticism is important but only capable talents can effectively bring about improvement to the bureaucracy. If improvement is a concern, surely capable talents need to be hired as part of the system to act upon the criticism.

More ominously is that the argument, while maybe attractive in a world where there is only one state and no external threat, does not account for a world with multiple different states. In a world where there are other hostile states, having incapable individuals running the bureaucracy may be disastrous. States compete with each other to forward its interest that may not coincide with the agenda of promotion and conservation of liberty. Wars do happen and incapable bureaucracy increases the likelihood a state — we are interested in liberal state — capitulating to tyranny originating from external forces.

The argument cuts both ways really. The trick is to ensure there are the brightest in and outside of government. The brightest in government will be tasked to introduce and to carry out good policies while the brightest outside will be free to criticize those inside apart from pursuing their own interests in the free market.

Therefore, I think Mill’s proposition should not be accepted unconditionally. The position taken by Mill should only be accepted when a majority or sufficiently large fraction of the best and brightest are already hoarded by the government. It should be a matter of degree, not of absolute.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[2123] Of Abbott’s plan is suspiciously boilerplate-like

Climate change has been very much the heart of Australian politics at the federal level for the past few months. It is the source of intense debate between the Labour government and the Coalition opposition. Within the Liberal Party itself, the proposed cap and trade arrangement has divided the party. Tony Abbott successfully replaced Malcolm Turnbull as the new Liberal leader exactly because of this issue.

The Turnbull fraction is prepared to work with the Rudd government on the cap and trade proposal. Others, perhaps, now called the Abbott fraction, do not. With Turnbull out and Abbott in, the cap and trade proposal has been scuttled in the Australian Senate.

On the front page of The Australian yesterday, Abbott made known a curious position. He accepts the challenges climate change poses and he accepts emission targets that Turnbull agreed to. What he rejects is any introduction of tax, as direct as carbon tax or as indirect as cap and trade scheme. In his own words, “[t]he Coalition will not be going to the election with a new tax, whether it’s a stealth tax, the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straightforward tax like a carbon tax.” In its place, he proposes implementing “land management and energy efficiency measures.”[1]

This is a curious position because I am grappling to see how his plan could achieve the reduction target he agreed to. Land management and efficiency measures sound like a boilerplate idea that lacks substance.

Despite actual inferiority of cap and trade to carbon tax, if done properly, it could be as effective as the simpler carbon tax. Land management and efficiency measures on the other hand will demand maneuver more complex than cap and trade.

In fact, complexity of a scheme makes it more susceptible to higher probability of failure. That happened in Europe with its version of cap and trade. One major feature that is attributable to European failure is the granting of free permits. Free permits arrangement is present in Rudd government’s proposed cap and trade scheme.[2]

Furthermore, Abbott’s measures appear similar to the Bush administration’s proposal of encouraging development of technology to address the need to manage carbon emissions in form of the probably now forgotten Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.[3]

Technology is indeed the golden bullet. It can reduce emissions given a unit of activity. Of course, the technology is out there: carbon sequestering, micro mirror in space, the spraying of aerosol in the atmosphere, nuclear power, wind, solar, etc. But which one?

That is the weakness of Bush’s proposal.

Any proposal has to be concrete with implementable actions, Abbott’s measures are mere boilerplate. It lacks substance. It lacks actual implementable measures.

Boilerplate solution is sorely inadequate.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticize Abbott’s measures since it is still early days. After all, he is less than a week old as the new leader of the Liberal Party and as the Opposition Leader. It may be only fair to give him the opportunity to think and present his idea more thoroughly.

Unfortunately, time is running out. This is not a tired old green rhetoric. Election may loom and the Liberals risk further marginalization if there are no concrete alternative solutions, especially since the new Liberal leader accepts the need for action.

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

[1] — TONY Abbott plans to fight a climate change election using land management and energy efficiency measures to slash greenhouse emissions instead of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.

[…]

Pressed for an alternative, he said the Opposition remained committed to an unconditional target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 but would not embrace an ETS or a carbon tax. He said there were “lots of things” that could be done to reduce emissions through other means, many not involving significant costs.

These included more energy-efficient buildings, better land management and biosequestration. NSW Nationals Senator John Williams claimed Australia could offset 100 per cent of its carbon emissions for 100 years by lifting soil carbon by 3 per cent.

Mr Abbott also said he would welcome a debate on the use of nuclear energy, although he did not think it was a short-term option.

“The Coalition will not be going to the election with a new tax, whether it’s a stealth tax, the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straightforward tax like a carbon tax,” he said “We’ll have a strong and effective climate change policy, we’ll have it early in the new year,” he said. [Tony Abbott’s tax-free carbon plan. Matthew Franklin. The Australian. December 3 2009]

[2] — See Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at Wikipedia. Accessed December 4 2009.

[3] — The world’s four largest coal-consuming countries have announced a pact to share technology for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. The US, China, India, Australia – plus Japan and South Korea – signed what is being seen as a rival to the Kyoto Protocol to curb climate change, which the US and Australia have refused to sign.

The new pact will be known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. It allows the countries to set their own goals for emissions of greenhouse gases, with no enforcement measures. This is in contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrial nations to accept legally binding emissions targets. [US-led emissions pact seen as Kyoto rival. Fred Pearce. Newscientist. July 28 2005]

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2118] Of less variance for democratic states versus autocracies

Just weeks ago, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad contrasted the development of China and India. As reported, he praised the single-mindedness of the Chinese government in developing the country and ridiculed the Indian government for being far too democratic and not focusing enough on development. He went on to state that freedom hurts the economy.[1]

Art Harun, a columnist at The Malaysian Insider replied to this in his column[2] stating examples where democracies have been successful, contrary to the former Prime Minister’s assertion.[3] Zaidel Baharuddin, yet another The Malaysian Insider columnist jumped into the debate at his blog by defending the former Prime Minister, stating that “starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression.”[4] Art Harun took the chance to reply to the point and various other comments too diverse to cite here[5] by arguing that economic prosperity does not have to be mutually exclusive with respect to freedom as well as adding that they are other factors that need to be considered in the determination of economic development, like leadership.[6]

Indeed but all those discussions are gradually veering off course from the point the former Prime Minister made, about how democracies perform poorly against less democratic states in terms of economic development.

This point is not necessarily true. If one wants to make that point, one cannot choose two data points and make a conclusion out of it. That is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. A better way is to take all of democracies and all of authoritarian states and compare them.

There are prominent studies on this. One important study states that while the existence of democracy or dictatorship does not affect the mean growth rate of economic development, it does affect its variance. That means there are less consistency in economic growth under authoritarian regime compared to democracies. Adam Przeworski wrote an important paper on the issue:

Political regimes have no impact on the growth of total income when countries are observed across the entire spectrum of conditions. Contrary to widespread concerns, democracies do not reduce the rate of investment even in poor countries. It appears that when countries are poor there is little governments can do, so that it makes little difference for economic growth whether rulers are elected or hold power by force. In wealthier countries, patterns of growth are no longer the same. Dictatorships rely on the growth of labor force and on keeping wages low, while democracies pay higher wages, use labor more effectively, and benefit more from technical progress. But while growth under wealthier dictatorships is more labor-extensive and labor-exploitative than under wealthier democracies, so that functional distributions of income are different, the average rates of growth of total income are about the same.

Thus, we did not find a shred of evidence that democracy need be sacrificed on the altar of development. The few countries that developed spectacularly during the past fifty years were as likely to achieve this feat under democracy as under dictatorship. On the average, total incomes grew at almost identical rates under the two regimes. Moreover, per capita incomes grow faster in democracies. The reason is that democracies have lower rates of population growth. In spite of rapid diffusion of medical advances, death rates remain somewhat higher under dictatorship and life expectancies are much shorter. Population grows faster under dictatorships because they have higher birth rates, and the difference in birth rates is due to higher fertility, not to age structures of the population. [Democracy and Economic Development. Adam Przeworski. New York University. Retrieved on November 30 2009]

Almeida and Ferreira in 2002 probably made a more direct case:

Less-democratic countries do seem to have variable growth rates and policies than more democratic ones. This corroborates the conjecture of Sah (1991). Possible explanatoins for this fact can be found in Rodrik (1999a) and in Sah and Stiglitz (1991).

The evidence presented in this paper strongly supports Sah’s conjecture. The empirical results are unaffected by many robustness and specification checks. The results are not sensitive to specific time periods, to different democracy indicies, to different econometric procedures, or to model specification. The results hold even after controlling for many plausible determinants of growth rates and democracy indicies, including the usual variables from the empirical growth literature, time dummies and country-fixed effects, GDP, natural resource dependence, and OECD membership.

The greater stability of growth rates and policy measures among democratic countries adds to the existing list of desirable features of democracies, such as the positive correlations between democracy and per capita GDP levels, between democracy and primary schooling (Barro, 1999) and between wages and democracy indices (Rodrik, 1999b). Our evidence also corroborates the common view that some autocratic countries have had the most impressive growth experiences. However, since the worst experiences are also associated with autocratic countries, in an ex-ante sense, autocracy is no prescription for growth. [Democracy and the variability of economic performance. Heictor Almeida. Daniel Ferreira. Economics and Politics. Volume 14. November 2002]

Of note is the relationship between wages and democracy indices as reported by Rodrik. People in the Najib administration may well take that into account.

Anyway, at the Library of Economic and Liberty, economist Byran Caplan, who introduces Almeida and Ferreira, reproduces the following diagram to drive the point home:[7]

Some right reserved.

Autocracies are represented on the left side and democracies on the right side. Note the variances and the means.

Bottom line is, there is more risk to having an authoritarian regime than a democratic one, in terms of economic development. If one wants to be more certain about achieving success, democracy is one of the ingredients one must consider.

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

[1] — Dr Mahathir singled out India as an Asian country that “made the mistake of being too democratic” and compared it unfavourably with China’s authoritarian regime.

“India, of course, will grow, but more slowly than China. It has the numbers but is not making use of them well.”

He expanded on the theme at a press conference later, saying that people “don’t understand the limits of democracy”.

“Democracy can be a hindrance to progress because you spend so much time politicking that you don’t have time to develop your country.

“In China, there’s not much politics. So, they can spend more time developing their country.

“In a democracy, everybody has a voice, everybody has a vote. But, in Malaysia, they sell their votes, which is not good at all.” [Dr M: A lot to learn from China. New Straits Times. November 17 2009]

[2] —[Enemies of the State. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 19 2009]

[3] — Yes. According to DrM, the Westerners are wrong for making democracy and freedom the cornerstone of progress. The British are so free they go on strike every other day. Well, who sent people to the moon in 1969? Which part of the world had an industrial revolution? Why have Russia, East Germany, Romania et al embraced democracy and freedom? From whom did we buy our Scorpene? Why Glasnost and Perestroika? So the people know the limits of freedom and how to behave themselves properly and in accordance with the Government’s code of behavioural acceptance?

And finally, according to Dr M, apart from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will lead the Asian charge.

Which made me thinking, were Japan, South Korea and Taiwan governed by a benevolent absolutist government? Do the people in these countries know the limits of democracy? If so, to what extent? And who impose and define these limits on them? [Enemies of the State. Art Harun. November 19 2009]

[4] — I’m pretty sure, those starving hard working farmers in India who has to fight drought and fertilizer prices don’t give a damn about freedom of speech or expression. It is those comfortably well paid lawyers with some extra time on their hands who are more concerned about these things and write about it.

Meaning, [b]efore you talk about democracy perhaps it is wise to first elevate the people’s (rakyat) quality of living, because like the maslow’s hierarchy of needs there are more important things to fulfill before they get to the self actualization level. [Sinatra_Z – An Answer. Zaidel Baharuddin. November 20 2009]

[5] — Ahiruddin Attan for instance compared the more democratic Malaysia, which is behind the economic development curve with the less democratic Singapore, which is ahead:

I don’t think the Malaysian Insider would publish such a piece. Good try, though, Z. I do agree with you (and Dr M). We don’t need to look so far, just across the Causeway. We are way more democratic than Singapore, and look at how many of us idolize the Republic for its progress and wealth. Given the choice, however, I’d stay put here, Z. [Art Harun vs The Lipas Man. Ahiruddin Attan. November 20 2009]

[6] — My question is, why can’t we have them all? Especially in a democracy, where we elect our so called leaders to look after our well being as members of a State?

I think in this day and age, it is downright insulting — and not to mention, pathetic — for any leader to say to the people that I will give you food on your table in abundance but you would have to shut up, toe the line and do as I say, all the time and under all circumstances.

For a leader to lay the blame on the people which he or she ruled — for not understanding the limits of democracy — as a reason for his or her failure to achieve development and progress does not speak much of his or her leadership.

A comparison was made with Singapore in one of the comments. It was pointed out Singapore did not have much of a democracy and they progress well. But that does not prove that Singapore progressed well because it was less democratic.

 

Hasn’t it occurred to any of us that Singapore progressed because of the mentality and work ethics of its leaders? [Freedom lifts us up to where we belong. Art Harun. The Malaysian Insider. November 24 2009]

[7] —[Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Variance of Growth. Byran Caplan. Library of Economics and Liberty. October 2 2009]

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[2114] Of the Liberals are in such a mess

I cannot help but laughed out loud after reading these sentences.

Of all the extraordinary things on display in the past 48 hours in Canberra, two stand out.

The first is Malcolm Turnbull’s chutzpah. The second is his extraordinary lack of political guile. [Nothing to crow about. Laura Tingle. The Australian Financial Review. November 26 2009]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2113] Of be fair to the police with respect to the November 8 shootout

The November 8 in Klang incident when the police shot dead several suspected criminals after a car chase has emboldened a number of individuals, more prominently perhaps a strong accusation from DAP, of summarily killing. While the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan’s response of you are either with the police or you are with criminals[0] as well as the police force’s whole reputation are hardly convincing at all, for this particular episode, I view the criticism against the police as utterly unfair.

I am extremely skeptical of implicit accusation of racism, as implied by The Malaysian Insider’s report which frames a DAP politician accusation as “waging a war of revenge against the Indian community by ordering the police to kill suspected criminals.”[1] To be fair to P. Sugumaran, the DAP member of Ipoh Barat, he seemed to be making that statement within context of other incidents which the police acted wrongly. Nevertheless, the statement was made with strong reference to the November 8 incident.

This is a delicate subject to tackle. At its heart is a question why certain ethnic groups are perceived to heighten the likelihood of a person being a criminal. It could be either wrongful stereotype or that the statistical distribution actually sided with the unwanted side of conclusion. One has to be very careful for in fight crime and committing racial prejudice. Nevertheless, increasingly, any police action taken against a certain ethnic group is considered an act of racism, regardless whether there is a strong case or not against a particular person.

I am further unimpressed and disappointed by the stress on alleged criminal. The status of the deceased as alleged criminal has been used to justify condemning the police for killing the suspects. Due to that, they argue the police should not have opened fire. This stress fails to take a holistic view of the event.

Indeed, everybody is innocent until proven guilty but these condemnations ignore crucial two things.

First, the suspects opened fire first. They even tried to force the police off the road.[2] If the police’s assertion is true, then one should not expect the police to go meet up with the suspects to ask kindly them to surrender. What kind of mad man would walk up to a suspect asking, “sir, would you surrender your weapon please?” when the suspect is threateningly pointing a pistol at the officer?

Even if the police decided to be ridiculously polite in their approach, the suspects were running away.

As a third person, I see that the police right to retaliate. Furthermore, while having somebody killed is always deplorable, it is, for the lack of better word, a gunfight.

Second is the very fact that these suspects have guns that should be obvious because the suspects used it in an aggressive manner.

The police deserve a lot of criticism, but not in this case. Criticism thrown at the police so far has been irrationally partisan to the point that the police can do no right.

Be fair.

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

[0] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 18 — Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan today said those who questioned police action in shooting suspects should consider whether they wanted to support those who upheld the law or the criminals.

He said this when asked to comment on claims that the police had used excessive force in a recent shooting in Klang, where five suspected robbers were gunned down

 

”The duty of the police is to protect the people. We do not protect criminals,” Musa was quoted as saying by state news agency Bernama. [IGP: To question police action is to support criminals. The Malaysian Insider. October 18 2009]

[1] — IPOH, Nov 15 — A DAP politician has accused the Barisan Nasional (BN) government of waging a war of revenge against the Indian community by ordering the police to kill suspected criminals.

Ipoh Barat DAP secretary P. Sugumaran (pic) lambasted the action, saying that the police had no right to pass judgement without first asking them to surrender.

”Their actions are clearly the BN’s political agenda to take revenge on the Indian community in the country.

”But how different are they from the suspected criminals they murder when their actions are tantamount to a criminal act in itself?” Sugumaran said in a statement here yesterday.

He cited the Nov 8 incident in Klang when the police had shot dead five robbers during a high-speed car chase and the recent shooting of the Deva Gang leader in Penang. [DAP blames BN for cops playing cowboys with Indians. The Malaysian Insider. October 15 2009]

[2] — KLANG: Police shot dead five suspected robbers in a shootout after a high speed car chase in Taman Klang Utama at 12.30am Sunday.

The five, believed to be dangerous and high on the wanted list, were involved in at least 10 robberies in Selangor and the Klang Valley for the past one year.

Selangor CID chief Senior Asst Comm II Datuk Hasnan Hassan said a team from the Klang district serious crime division spotted the five men in a Perodua Kelisa in Lorong Sungai Keramat around 12 midnight.

Realising that they were being followed, the robbers tried to forced the police car off the road while firing a few shots at them. [Five robbers killed in shootout with police (Update). The Star. October 8 2009]