Category: Politics & government

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1481] Of clarification on statement regarding Tony Pua

I froze for a moment when I saw a short article on Tony Pua today:

KUALA LUMPUR: In February, 35-year-old self-made Internet millionaire Tony Pua made news when he sold his Singapore Stock Exchange listed company for a full-time career in opposition politics.

Pua is a well-known name in the e-commerce industry, where his string of credentials include his being the youngest founder-CEO to have listed a company in Singapore.

But a 2005 Ernst and Young audit report recently revealed that the company, Cyber Village Sdn Bhd, may be running into difficulties, and Pua’s reputation as a corporate whizz kid, which resulted in the DAP appointing him economic adviser to secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, has been called into question. [Doubts over DAP’s economic adviser. New Straits Times. December 22 2007]

There is a little storm going on and I had somewhat contributed to it by making a comment somewhere over the internet of which Jed has taken the liberty to reproduce to support her points. The comment is about how Tony Pua is not an economist. I stand by that statement but I need make myself clear: I wrote it in a matter of fact manner. It does not in whatsoever way indicate my opinion on his management or entrepreneurship skill. Or even his ability to advise on economic matters. Indeed, anybody with a good understanding of economics would be able to advise a layperson. On top of that, a good economist may not be a good businessman, vice versa. A businessman or entrepreneur need not be a economist either, vice versa. Economics after all, is larger than the realm of business.

Regardless, he is not an economist. He qualification does not merit such honor and I have not heard him claiming to be as such either. So, I do not understand why people are insisting that Mr. Pua is an economist, or why the fact that Mr. Pua is not an economist is an issue at all.

Now, who is an economist? What does one need to do to become an economist?

To answer that, I leave you with an entry at the Free Exchange, a blog at The Economist:

WHAT exactly qualifies someone to refer to himself or herself as an economist? Having suffered through many years of graduate school, I, like many others with my training, consider someone an economist only if they too have received a PhD in the subject. I can rationalise this by believing I received special and select training; privy to the secrets of the trade imparted to me by my advisor who, in turn, also learned from the great masters. My take on the economy reeks of the university I attended and the professors with whom I worked. But then, someone, like former colleague Megan McArdle, comes along with no graduate economics work, but a terrific understanding of the field.

To refer to oneself as a medical doctor or be a member of the American Medical Association there exists clear education requirements. This prevents people from taking medical advice from someone unqualified and inflicting harm upon them. No such conditions are required to be called an economist or join the American Economic Association. This results in people who enjoy thinking about the economy, but may lack even undergraduate understanding of the field, representing themselves as experts on issues pertaining to the labour market, trade, and development. Often you have to do some digging to find out they are actually … sociologists.

The years of graduate-school seminars and rigorous mathematical training empowers PhD economists to converse with each other in a language all our own. This allows us to continue to believe that our years of education were worthwhile because we can recognize each other and sneer at the impostors. In the mean time, the rest of the world takes thoughtful advice and opinions from people who sometimes, while not having our illustrious pedigree, also have some very good ideas—and sometimes better ones. [What makes an economist? Free Exchange. October 2 2007]

Personally, unless someone is a practicing economist, I would only recognize someone as an economist if he has at least a Master’s in the field. A mere undergraduate degree does not qualify one as an economist. But to call someone with an unfocused degree such as PPE as an economist, to me, is an insult to those that have actually worked their way through the field.

Categories
Politics & government

[1476] Of Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Yup.

Go Ron Paul! [Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination. The Daily Dish. December 17 2007]

Categories
Humor Politics & government

[1475] Of The Liars’ Papers

This is just too good to let go.

Earlier friend Howsy highlighted a discovery by Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin .Howsy aptly calls his post “Fake Merdeka Centre ‘Street Protests’ Survey: Results Produced Even Before Survey Conducted!”

Why is that so? Well, see it for yourself and be mindful of the dates (taken from Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin):

Fair use.

Too small? Well, the second paragraph reads:

This was revealed in a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre between Dec 17 and Dec 21. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]

For larger view, click here.

As mentioned by Howsy, today is December 17 and if the statement in the article were true, the result would be out before it could come in! Nothing less than magic!

Go get the dead tree edition quick and parade the copy to the whole wide world. In fact, parade it to the Information Minister’s residence!

Later, perhaps realizing that the mistakes or just maybe, realizing that bloggers are feasting on The Star, they deleted the dates from the online version. The second paragraph then read:

This was revealed in a survey conducted recently by the Merdeka Centre. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]

After awhile, the paragraph was yet amended to put in new dates. Currently as of 17:00 local time, it reads:

This was revealed in a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre from Dec 7 to 12. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]

So, is this a case of misplaced 1’s, too much spinning until the editors dazed himself up or the invention of time machine?

Just in case The Star decides to amend its article again, this is the screenshot of the article at about 17:00.

Fair use.

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

p/s — Desi followed up on the matter. The Star has yet to, however.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1474] Of hero of the COP 13

The US changed its mind after this was uttered (via):

We ask for your leadership. We seek your leadership. But if for some reason you’re not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.

— Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea.

For background:

After two weeks of intense discussions and bitter wrangling, delegates from over 180 nations at the Bali climate summit reached agreement on a two-year “roadmap” for finding a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

The last-minute deal came on Saturday after the US delegation made a U-turn in a final negotiating session. The US had opposed a proposal by the G77 bloc, which represents developing countries, for rich nations to do more to help the developing world combat increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Paula Dobriansky, leader of the US delegation, and her colleague James Connaughton found themselves the targets of naked animosity. When Dobriansky announced that the US would not sign up for the Bali roadmap, boos echoed through the room. The Americans were sharply attacked by several delegations. “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way,” said a US environmental activist representing Papua New Guinea.

Other opponents of binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as Japan or Russia, failed to come to the US delegation’s defense. Left isolated, the American delegation gave in and agreed to the roadmap. “We will go forward and join consensus,” said Dobriansky. This time the delegation was rewarded with a standing ovation from some participants. [Climate Change Deal Reached after US U-Turn. Spiegel. December 15 2007]

There still a long way to go but we are marching on to 2012. But what exactly were achieved?

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

It recognizes that “deep cuts” in global emissions will be required to prevent dangerous human interference in the climate. It references scientific reports that suggest a range of cuts between 25 and 40 percent by 2020, but prescribes no such targets itself.

DEADLINE:

Negotiations for the next climate accord should last for two years and conclude in 2009 in order to allow enough time to implement it at the end of 2012. Four major climate meetings will take place next year.

RICH AND POOR:

Negotiators should consider binding reductions of gas emissions by industrialized countries, while developing countries should consider moves to control the growth of their emissions. Richer countries should work to transfer climate-friendly technology to poorer nations.

ADJUSTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE:

Negotiators should look at supporting urgent steps to help poorer countries adapt to inevitable effects of global warming, such as building seawalls to guard against rising oceans.

DEFORESTATION:

Negotiators should consider “positive incentives” for reducing deforestation in developing countries, many of which are seeking international compensation for preserving their forest “sinks” absorbing carbon dioxide. [A Look at the Bali Climate Change Plan. Associated Press via NYT. December 15 2007]

The last point, which essentially the internalization of positive (i.e. living trees) and negative externalities (i.e. loss of carbon sink) though on theory is fantastic, in practice, pricing might be tough or even expensive if done properly. The reason is, the forest should be priced as high as the most productive activities that cause deforestation. This means that those that enjoy positive externality and suffer negative externality from forest and deforestation need not only to match returns from the timber industry but also from industries such as agriculture. This would mean the full compensation could amount to billions.

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

p/s — I have just realized this:

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

— Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737 — June 8, 1809)

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

pp/s — Or more explicitly…

[youtube]r0O7RmIsvEQ[/youtube]

Categories
Politics & government

[1471] Mengenai pemimpin separuh jalan

John Kerry, seorang calon Demokrat untuk kerusi Presiden Amerika Syarikat pada tahun 2004 pernah dituduh sebagai calon yang sering menukar fikiran. Mereka yang menentang pencalonannya dengan mudah melabelkan ahli Demokrat itu sebagai tidak berpendirian. Jawapan Kerry terhadap satu soalan mengenai pembiayaan perang setinggi USD87 billion di Kongress masih lagi berdengung di gegendang telinga: “Saya sokong cadangan USD87 billion itu sebelum saya menentangnya” (I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it). Kata-katanya itu menjadi tema tidak rasmi kempennya yang gagal. Walaupun Lautan Pasifik memisahkan dua negara yang berkongsi jalur merah-putih ini, pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tidak jauh berbeza dengan John Kerry dari segi keyakinan pendirian.

Beberapa contoh perlu diberi untuk menguatkan persamaan itu dan peristiwa pembatalan pembinaan jambatan untuk mengantikan Tambak Johor ada untuk diimbas kembali. Pada mulanya, pentadbiran negara ini beria-ia untuk memulakan pembinaan jambatan itu walaupun tanpa persetujuan daripada negara jiran Singapura. Saya adalah seorang daripada mereka yang menyokong pembinaan jambatan itu atas beberapa sebab. Malah, saya juga menyokong Malaysia untuk tarik diri daripada perbincangan mengenai jambatan itu kerana pilihan yang tersedia di dalam pertemuan itu kurang berupaya mengatasi pulangan yang wujud di luar. Setelah menyedari akan kenyataan itu, kerajaan Malaysia memulakan kerja-kerja awal pembinaan jambatan. Beberapa minggu kemudian bagaimanapun, pembinaan dibatalkan dengan mengejutnya. Saya berasa amat kecewa akan keputusan itu yang dicapai seolah-olah oleh seorang remaja wanita yang mengalami haid. Yang lebih menyakitkan hati, duit rakyat sebanyak RM100 juta terpaksa dibayar kepada satu syarikat yang terlibat di dalam pembinaan jambatan itu sebagai pampasan ganti rugi. Ini tidak termasuk malu yang ditanggung oleh Malaysia akibat keputusan kerajaan yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Jikalau pentadbiran Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tidak bersedia untuk membina jambatan itu dari awal, tidak perlulah mereka memberi janji-janji palsu. Saya percaya, saya mampu menerima keputusan “tidak” dengan baik jika ia dilakukan dari awal lagi. Saya jamin, ramai yang bersependapat dengan saya mengenai perkara ini.

Satu lagi contoh menyentuh penjualan sebahagian daripada saham Proton kepada Volkswagen. Saya secara amnya menyokong dasar-dasar liberalisasi. Tarian mengacah yang berlaku di meja rundingan seperti yang disampaikan oleh media massa bagaimanapun tidak membantu menerangkan keadaan. Seperti iklan biskut Chipsmore, sekejap ada, sekejap tiada. Kemudiannya, kerajaan melalui Khazanah Nasional Berhad membuat keputusan untuk menarik diri daripada meja bulat setelah pembincangan penjualan itu berlangsung dengan baik.[1] Ini menguatkan lagi corak yang disaksikan di sekitar isu jambatan pengantian Tambak Johor: pendirian yang goyah. Ini mengugat segala keyakinan yang ada di dalam seseorang kepada kerajaan.

Ini sangat berbeza dengan cara pemerintahan PM Mahathir Mohamed yang tegas. Oleh sebab inilah saya percaya bahawa 50 tahun akan datang, tiada siapa akan mengingati PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Selain jambatan dan Proton, bagai lalang ditiup angin, dasar yang dibuat semata-mata melalui budi bicara yang merosakkan reputasi negara kelihatan di projek landasan keretapi berkembar. Pentadbiran sebelumnya memulakan projek tersebut hanya untuk dibatalkan, atau ditanggungkan oleh pentadbiran kini. Kata kerajaan, membazir; defisit pembelanjaan negara yang besar.[2] Apabila Rancangan Malaysia Ke-9 dilancarkan, tidaklah pula PM memikirkan tentang defisit. Oh ya, setelah beberapa tahun kemudian, projek itu dilancarkan kembali.[3] Janganlah kita lupa pula tentang bagaimana Ircon dari India dipermainkan oleh kerajaan Malaysia pimpinan Barisan Nasional semasa pemberian kontrak landasan berkembar itu.[4]

Pola pemerintahan yang gemar menggunakan budi bicara ini hanya memikirkan apa yang berlaku dijangka masa yang terdekat tanpa menghiraukan kesan jangka masa panjang. Siapa yang akan mempercayai Malaysia apabila kita selalu gagal dan cuba untuk melarikan diri daripada memenuhi kata-kata kita? Jika ini berterusan, janji Malaysia akan kehilangan nilai.

Jadi, apabila PM menyatakan bahawa beliau bukan pemimpin separuh jalan[5], sukar untuk saya mempercayai beliau. Saya menjemput para pembaca untuk menilai rekod pentadbiran ini dengan mata dan telinga sendiri dan tidak mempercayai apa yang diperkatakan oleh PM tanpa usul periksa. Rekod dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa PM ini memandu kereta ke satu arah dan kemudian patah balik ke belakang tanpa tiba di destinasi yang dijanjikan. Atas sebab inilah, bagi saya, kata-kata PM tiada nilai lagi.

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

[1] — FRANKFURT/KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 20 (Reuters) – Malaysia and Volkswagen (VOWG.DE), the world’s fourth-largest carmaker, have ended talks aimed at setting up a cooperation deal with struggling national carmaker Proton Holdings (PROT.KL).

It was the second time in two years that VW-Proton talks over cooperation have ended without a deal, but VW said it still planned to build up a production base in Southeast Asia.

Malaysia announced on Tuesday that it would no longer look for a foreign partner for the ailing Proton for now and added that state investment firm Khazanah Nasional had stopped its talks with both VW and U.S. rival General Motors (GM.N). [Malaysia ends talks with VW, GM over Proton. Reuters. November 20 2007]

[2] — On his move to cancel or postpone certain mega projects after becoming prime minister, Abdullah said it was because the government was facing a deficit budget at that time. [Rules eased to woo foreigners yet help Bumis. New Straits Times. December 5 2007]

[3] — He said some of the projects were being revived, citing the double-tracking project as an example. [Rules eased to woo foreigners yet help Bumis. New Straits Times. December 5 2007]

[4] — New Delhi – Malaysia has re-issued an invitation to the Indian Railway Construction Company (IRCON) to participate in the double tracking railway project from Seremban to Gemas.

The invitation by Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was handed personally to Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh by Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar who is attending the Malaysia India joint commission meeting in New Delhi.

Commercial relations between Malaysia and India hit a sour note in 2003 after Malaysia denied IRCON the USD$3.4 billion double-tracking contract despite having issued a letter of intent to the company. [Malaysia re-issued an invitation to IRCON for the double tracking railway project. RTM. February 17 2007]

[5] — PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata, semua janji yang terkandung dalam manifesto Barisan Nasional (BN) pada Pilihan Raya Umum 2004 sedang dilaksanakan dan ia mengambil masa lebih daripada sepenggal untuk disempurnakan.

Sambil menyatakan beliau bukan pemimpin separuh jalan, Perdana Menteri berkata, segala perancangan kini berjalan lancar dan negara sudah memasuki fasa kedua pelaksanaan program pembangunan bagi mencapai matlamat Wawasan 2020. [Saya bukan pemimpin separuh jalan: Abdullah. Berita Harian. December 11 2007]