Category: Politics & government

Categories
Activism Politics & government

[1459] Of letter to Titiwangsa MP

Dear Sir,

I am a resident in the area of Titiwangsa and I would like to thank you for the work you have done for the area so far. I have written to you before and I would greatly appreciate it if you could invest in some time to read this email.

I write to you to express my concern regarding a proposed amendment to Article 114 of the Constitution of Malaysia to extend the retirement age of EC members from 65 to 66 that is currently being discussed in the Parliament. I would like to kindly encourage you to vote no to the amendment.

The amendment is being proposed to accommodate one person at a particular point in time and nothing else. It is no accident that the current EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman is nearing his mandatory retirement age.

Amendments of this nature is very damaging to our country’s institutional structure. It gives the impression that our institution and our Constitution are easily made undone at a moment’s whim. I strongly feel that for any law to be respected, it shouldn’t be easily amended to suit a very short-term goal. It is hard to have respect for the law when the law is being formed, modified and unformed in a very discretionary manner. The Constitution is the document that governs us and it worries me that the Constitution is being considered for an amendment with clear disregard for the future in favor of instant gratification.

Greater consideration that firmly keeps a long term view on the integrity of our institution must prevail over any short-term amendment such as that in question.

I kindly hope you are able to agree with me and vote no to the amendment.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Hafiz Noor Shams

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1458] Of schism in environmentalism

From the authors of the The Death of Environmentalism:

Shellenberger and Nordhaus have now launched an effort to expand the frame of political environmentalism to encompass core American values. Earlier this year the dynamic duo issued a new book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, in which they attempt to outline a positive vision for the future. Shellenberger and Nordhaus identify an emerging faultline that they argue will divide the environmentalist movement of the 21st century. On one side stand the traditional anti-immigration, anti-globalization, and anti-growth greens. They believe these neo-Malthusians “will seek to establish and enforce the equivalent of an international caste system in which the poor of the developing world are consigned to energy poverty in perpetuity.” Eternal limits to growth for the already impoverished.

One the other hopeful side, according to Nordhaus and Shellenberger, stand “those who believe that there is room enough for all of us to live secure and free lives. It will be pro-growth, progressive, and internationalist.” Nordhaus and Shellenberger see this new positive environmentalism as embracing markets and technological innovation in order to create prosperity and protect the natural world. Central to their positive pro-growth version of environmentalism is the development of cheap low-carbon energy technologies. Not only will such technologies prevent dangerous global warming, but they will also lift billions of people out of poverty by the end of the century. But how to get there? [Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism. Reason Magazine. November 27 2007]

Yup. Red green and blue green.

But emerging? I have always taken it for granted, meaning it is already there, here, now and real.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1456] Of non-interventionist, not isolationist

I’m not an isolationism — an isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel, but I don’t want… to send our troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here, and they’re going to object to us over there.

— Congressman Ron Paul during the November 28 2007 Republican Presidential Debate, in response to Senator John McCain.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1451] Of welcome Australia to the Kyoto Protocol?

The new Rudd administration vows to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As far as environmental policy is concerned, I am quietly celebrating the fall of the Howard administration in favor of the incoming one. Nevertheless, I doubt Australian ratification of the Protocol will directly affect global greenhouse gases emissions. That however does not mean having Australia amounts to nothing.

Politically, it puts pressure on the United States to do the same. Furthermore, ratification of the Kyoto Protocol or more importantly, clear directed action to reduce greenhouse gases gives Australia the moral authority to pressure developing countries, specifically China and India to improve their emissions.

There are only 5 more years before the Protocol lapsed and while I do hold high hopes for it, results from the Protocol have been mixed so far. The disastrous handling of emissions permits in Europe is especially disheartening, perhaps suggesting and illustrating how emissions permits-based policy may be practically inferior to Pigovian taxes, despite theoretically being an equivalence. But take hearts for discussion on the son of Kyoto to improve the Kyoto Protocol in already under way. The conference in Bali in December this year is the next important step towards that direction, almost 15 years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Just earlier this week, the final part of the 4th Assessment Report was released by the IPCC. The key point of the report is that we as a species now are more certain that human is the cause of the current climate change. That has helped steered debate on climate change away from “what caused it?” to “how to prevent and mitigate its effects?”.

On other front, the award of two Nobel Prizes to climate change related topics increases public awareness on the issue. In fact, being a person that loves to go against the flow, with so many people now a green-convert, I think it is now unfashionable for me to be a green. But at least, I could say, I became a green before you became a green. Hah!

Meanwhile, allow me to congratulate all Australians. I, as a citizen of ASEAN, will look forward to embrace a more understanding, cooperative and respectful Australia.

Categories
ASEAN Economics Politics & government

[1447] Of aww, crap

SINGAPORE/MANILA (Reuters) – Myanmar should commit to democracy and release its opposition leader if it signs the new ASEAN Charter, or risk the Philippines not ratifying it, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said on Monday. [Myanmar needs democracy for ASEAN charter: Manila. Reuters. November 20 2007]

I hope that does not derail the planned regional-wide economic integration in 2015.

If it does, we, as in ASEAN, need to kick Myanmar off the tightrope and continue a step towards freer trade. I do not support kicking the country out of ASEAN for such move reduces ASEAN’s say over the country but if Myanmar is dragging the rest of ASEAN member states from achieving freer trade (okay, okay; I know it is regionalism, a slightly perverted idea of free trade but given the pace of the Doha Round, regionalism free trade is the next best thing), we might as well cut Myanmar lose. We may have responsibilities to the people of Myanmar but we also have responsibilities to ourselves. Myanmar must not be that wall that prevents ASEAN from moving forward.

We have waited long enough and I do not want to wait much longer than necessary.