Tag: Pakatan Harapan

Categories
Politics & government

[2962] 2022 manifesto represents progress in PH policymaking

Going through Pakatan Harapan’s latest 94-plus pages manifesto reminds me how far things have progressed over the last 10 or so years. By things, I mean the current component PH parties’ ability to churn out policy documents, and overall sophistication in promoting policies. Ten or 15 years ago, PH struggled to produce such policy documents.

The inability to do so was among others due to lack of manpower or professionals in various fields within party ranks and volunteers. In the past, most professionals or even experts stayed well in the private sector. If they had political ambition or interest, they would join Barisan Nasional. Contributing to parties like DAP and PKR (or then Pas) then meant career suicide. Few were willing to sacrifice their living standards for partisan politics.

That has changed as the urban middle class now relies less on  government largess, and with private employment opportunities well diversified beyond the reach of partisan hands. That trend, I think, comes as multiethnic urban voters shift their party preference from that of BN to PKR, DAP and their various allies over the years. Now, PH has access to those professionals and experts.

Even when DAP and PKR were weak during those years, they were measured on a harsher scale versus the one faced by BN. BN would be allowed to play on noob mode, but the public insisted DAP and PKR played only the hard mode. Where is your manifesto? Where is your alternative budget? Where is your shadow cabinet? That BN never took their own manifesto seriously was never questioned.

Prior to the 2010s, this was perhaps understandable because most would ask, why change when things are going okay? Reading We Are Marching Now recently, most voters then were interested in stronger checks and balances, but not a change in government. Voters were scared of change and if they were to be convinced of change, then advocates of change would need to surpass a very high bar before any convincing could take place. The status quo was easier and familiar.

But by the 2010s, changes are no longer something scary. And PH is more than capable of providing policy alternative to back its overall rally for federal power.

As for the PH manifesto itself, there are measures that I disagree with. Furthermore, I do feel there is an element of kitchen sink in it. Nevertheless, I suppose I need to remind myself that this is the nature of coalition politics, a compromise between equals. Messy but that is democracy. What is important is that, there has been progress over the years, and that progress as represented by the latest manifesto is not small by any measure.

Progress in developing policy-making skills among PH members have been so significant in the past 10 years that the corporate sector no longer could ignore PH manifesto.

Categories
Politics & government

[2961] Umno’s calls for stability is a racketeering slogan

Stability is Umno and BN’s rally cry for this general election. But it is a disingenuous political messaging given that all recent instabilities are directly caused by Umno and their allies.

Umno’s argument for stability is akin to racketeering. Wikipedia has a concise definition: when somebody offers “a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket.” One concrete example involves a shop paying protection money, which the protection is from violence perpetrated by the fee collectors. Yet another concrete example is, well, Umno’s version of stability.

Umno and their allies, and this included Pas until recently, manufactured ethnic tensions throughout the 2018-2020 Pakatan Harapan administration. The manufactured inter-ethnic crisis brought instability to the country, all with the hope that Pakatan Harapan would fall, and be replaced with a government that Umno would be part of. Pakatan Harapan government collapsed under the pressure as Bersatu—naive and shortsighted as they are—fell for the racket.

Ethnic tension quietened once Umno were back in power, which highlights the fact that high ethnic tension during that period was unnatural. It was manufactured by partisan forces that were Umno and Pas. It was a racketeering done at the expense of the country: a dishonest scheme to obtain power and money. To more than a few people, it was a scheme to avoid jail time.

Despite being part of the federal government after the fall of Pakatan Harapan government, Umno members were unhappy that they played second fiddle to Bersatu. To address their unhappiness, Umno sabotaged their own government for their own partisan benefits. Instability ensued until they won. Stability is something Umno want only when they are at the apex of power. When they are out of it, stability is a liability to them and must be pushed aside, regardless the cost to the country.

And the country paid the cost: Malaysia lost anything between 2 to 6 weeks of reaction time during the Covid-19 economic and health crisis. While Umno maneuvered for private partisan gains, thousands paid the price with their lives. More than 36,000 deaths in Malaysia are linked to Covid-19 up to this day. Millions more suffered economic hardship due to incompetent and late handling of the crisis, as the Umno raced to secure their political positions.

Ultimately, the 2018 change in power itself was, in a large part, caused by Umno and their corruption. 1MDB was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was the final factor that made public anger go bubbling. Without the 1MDB corruption and the subsequent power abuses to cover up the crimes, Malaysians would not have been so angry to do what they have done in 2018. And the people did not make a mistake in 2018 as Umno alleged. The people went out of the their way to make sure the check-and-balance mechanism worked, in spite of all the institutional abuses by Umno.

If Umno really want to label the 2018 democratic change as instability, then everybody should see through the veil: that the source of the so-called instability is Umno themselves. Truly, Umno has no moral authority to campaign for stability and their calls for stability is nothing but a racketeer’s slogan.

 

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2957] Pakatan Harapan should avoid kitchen sink manifesto

Election is nearing and among policy-minded voters, it is not difficult to spot manifesto discussions. As someone with some implementation experience in government, let me say the last Pakatan Harapan manifesto was difficult. I knew this before I was pulled into the whole business: I reviewed the manifesto and summarized it as the following: the economic plank was “difficult to stomach wholly” but the other parts, particularly the institutional agenda, were what we needed. Given my concerns were institutional in nature, I was willing to give a blind eye to the economic plank, and support the institutional aspect wholly.

Looking back, the economic manifesto rode on popular anger quite effectively. That explained the kitchen sink approach taken by its authors. GST, monopoly, living costs, corporate corruption and other concerns were all meshed into one big document, which did not jive together. The authors knew what they wanted.

Unfortunately, riding the wave, and actually executing the policies were two very different things. Mahathir famously said ‘we’ did not expect to win, and so did not expect to implement those promises. Manifesto bukan kitab suci; manifesto isn’t a holy book. That highlighted the difficulties associated with the economic aspects of the manifesto, especially after GST was abolished just weeks after the 2018 election, and more importantly, before the Finance Minister was sworn in to bring SST back.

The next election, Pakatan Harapan can do better. They need to do better because the same mid-2010s anger is no longer there. There is little to match that economic anger, save the stubborn but relaxing global food prices and rising recession risks.

If I were to write the manifesto all by myself, I would reiterate the institutional aspects and reuse a good chunk for the 2022/2023 general election, and come up with a new one for the economic side. On the economics, I would reject the 2018 kitchen sink approach. I would instead set up overarching national goals. What do I mean by that?

In the kitchen sink approach, almost everything economic-related concerns were siloed off with little concerns to bigger concerns. One way to put it simply is that the proposed solutions were necessarily single-minded and siloed that the same proposed solutions ignored their effects on other things, like government finances and economic growth. At the implementation stage, at times this left those solutions contradicting each other, leaving individuals implementing those siloed solutions fighting each other and accusing the other side as blocking manifesto fulfillment. For instance, when Pakatan Harapan abolished GST without regards to policy sequencing, notwithstanding the previous problem with refunds (truly, the additional government revenue was lowered than BN admitted), how exactly the government would finance other parts of its economic promises? PTPTN? Highways? Petrol subsidies?

As you can see, the kitchen sink approach works from funding supply first, and then effectively takes the funding demand as an afterthought. This caused the troubles Mahathir identified so early. You ended up with insufficient funding supply to meet rising funding demand.

In the overarching national goals, it should work the other way round: start from funding demand-side first, and then work the funding supply-side afterwards.

To do this, we have to ask ourselves, what do we want for Malaysia?

Do we want to maintain our largely free, government revenue-financed healthcare system?

Do we want a welfare system given the damage Covid-19 has done to the financial security of many Malaysians?

Do we want a good education system? What kind?

Do we want better cities? Transport policy?

Do we want stronger defense?

Do we want to climate change infrastructure? Energy policy?

What?

This requires deep discussions among many parties, from lay users to experts. It has to be multidisciplinary, exactly so to avoid the silo problem that the 2018 Pakatan Harapan manifesto suffered (and contemporaneously, the Ministry of Health’s ongoing white paper).

And this way, we can be honest when it comes to taxation: taxes have to rise.

The truth few willing to say loudly because it is unpopular is that the Malaysia government lacks funding to do a whole lot of things due to low taxation. We can raise the deficit ratio, but even so it would not be enough to meet various legitimate demand associated with basic functions of government like health and defense (let us not talk about unorthodox fairy tales about ‘printing money’). For a country aspiring to be a “first-world” with worsening demography (but still young), our tax (and the bigger government) revenue to GDP ratio is low. That fact has caused unnecessary outsourcing of basic functions to the private sector. The same fact is the reason behind a whole lot of off-budget borrowings and spendings, which are nontransparent and significantly raises corruption risk in an environment where underfunded institutions cannot play their check-and-balance role properly.

To tell this truth, you have to tell the funding demand-side story: what do you want?

Of course, not all wants can be entertained lest the same problems besetting the 2018 manifesto would come back. You cannot want a well-run public transport system while wanting blanket petrol subsidies and eye-roll-worthy car duties cut. You cannot want a working revenue-funded health system while supporting tax cut for private insurance and spending at private hospitals. You cannot want a fully-funded education system while supporting tax cut for private education institutions. You cannot want a healthy Malaysian population but keep sugar cheap. You cannot want a good road while wanting a low road tax and cheap petrol.

Manifesto authors have to choose instead of putting everything into the kitchen sink. Here is where leadership is needed: decide on the policy direction instead of a Hail Mary rush.

And also, of course, manifesto has to be popular. It has to have its hooks. But those populist promises can be brought in line with the overarching themes. For example, have public transport cheap, with discount and vouchers and everything, and admit the system will always be in the red, to which the government will have to fully fund it directly (leaving financial performance for public transport system second in priority to physical performance).

Be direct about the funding demand, and through that, we can be honest about funding supply, and taxation.

I should add that the institutional aspect of the 2018 manifesto worked because it had an overarching goal: improving the overall check-and-balance mechanism and all of them are linked to one another in one way or another. It was not a kitchen sink.

To summarize it all: the next manifesto should be driven by overarching goals, instead of a laundry list of grouses. In other words, do not throw everything into the kitchen sink.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2953] In Kampung Baru issue, PH supporters need to develop greater capacity for empathy

The expected eviction of some Kampung Baru residents by a private company during the administration of a Umno-led government has more than some Pakatan Harapan supporters feeling a little bit smug. Schadenfreude is aplenty. The residents are targets of that smugness.

This is the wrong.

Nevertheless, it is easy to understand the cause of those feelings RM1,000 per square foot offer was made on a willing buyer-willing selling basis, with a cash portion, as part of a plan to redevelop Kampung Baru comprehensively. It was not a perfect plan, but it was a plan. Many residents rejected the offer and many had legitimate reasons to do so.

But many too rejected it because they bought argument brought by Umno and Barisan Nasional’s politicians. Umno, Najib Razak especially, pushed for a ridiculous rate of RM3,000 per square foot deal. Ismail Sabri Yaakob, then leader of the opposition, also had commented on the issue to encourage residents to say no.

Roughly two years after the fall of PH government, Umno is back in power with Ismail sitting in the Prime Minister’s office. And here is where the incongruity happens.

Based on news reports from The Malaysian Insight and Malaysiakini, the private company is offering those whose properties have been taken over RM400 cash per square foot as compensation. This is approximately 3 times lower than the 2021-2022 market rate of RM1,500 per square foot. In addition, each household would be given the option to purchase a newly developed property there at discounted rates.

The numbers might change, but what will not is the sense of betrayal experienced by residents, and observed by third parties. There is no RM3,000 per square foot to be seen. Worse, eviction notice has been served regardless whether a resident agrees with the takeover term.

While it is tempting for PH supporters to hold that grin, and pontificate the residents on chances lost, and the betrayal the residents suffered, that is a self-defeating position to take.

PH needs those very residents’ support to win an election. But the way things are going, those residents will not be encouraged switch their political leanings. And if they are PH supporters in the first place, then the smugness will drive them away.

One has to remember, this is Titiwangsa, a seat PH won in 2018 but lost to political betrayal. That shared experienced of becoming victims of betrayal should enhance our capacity to be sympathetic to each other. But no. We prefer to say, “we told you so” instead.

PH supporters need to develop a larger capacity for empathy. Not just with respect to the Kampung Baru eviction, but also on other national issues. Build bridges instead of widening the chasms.

Again, this is Titiwangsa, a Malay majority seat in Kuala Lumpur. The way things are set up, if you cannot win urban Malays, you likely will not return to Putrajaya. Without empathy, you can wait for 10 years, and still not win federal power.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2916] Change must lead to greater political stability

Early on during the Pakatan Harapan government, a majority of market investors were concerned about Malaysia’s policy direction. The magnitude of political change Malaysia experienced in 2018 undoubtedly brought uncertainty. Such uncertainty needed to be addressed. To allay those concerns, the Ministry of Finance then frequently engaged with representatives from various funds invested in Malaysia.

A great deal of these funds were fixed income investors. So, they were concerned with the state of public finance. What will the government’s spending priority be? What will the projected deficit level be? How is tax collection with the GST abolished? How is the health of the banking system? How is the government facing the trade war between China and the US?

Such questions were easy to answer because the storyline was clear and plans were in place. Data was available and progress updates could be shared easily. Close engagement and high transparency level alleviated a great deal uncertainty in the market.

One concern was difficult to handle however. Mahathir had promised to handover power to Anwar Ibrahim. But the transition date was blurry. “When?” they asked.

“When” was an important question. Transition could mean, and likely would mean, policy change. And with it, investment rationale.

However the Ministry answered it, they could not be convinced and some of them were the biggest funds in the world.

Regardless whether they believed the transition plan, they were in the opinion that Malaysia could focus better on the economy if it had addressed its political uncertainty. Specifically, the trade war was once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Malaysia to move up the value chain and gain from the reorienting global supply chain. Yet to the investors, political transition was distracting Malaysia from the task at hand.

Unfortunately, the level of political uncertainty in the country has worsened since then.

Muhyiddin’s supporters claimed formation of the Perikatan Nasional government would calm the politics down. We now know such claim is patently false. The faintest rumors would cause our collective heart to skip a beat.

It has become so bad that policymaking is grinding to a halt. Measures needed to mitigate the ongoing recession have been weak and late. Meanwhile, unemployment rate is shooting up and it will rise further. The result: we as Malaysians are experiencing more economic pain than necessary.

Not enough has been done. Continued inadequate and untimely government response will have long-term repercussions on the prosperity of the country. Remember, Malaysia has never fully recovered from the Asian Financial Crisis. Our growth since has been slower than before. This current crisis if not handled well would reduce the pace of our growth further.

Malaysia needs political stability to address the recession well. At the rate things are going, Perikatan Nasional is incapable for providing that stability.

Pakatan Harapan sees an opportunity to retake the power it won in 2018. If it succeed, could PH provide the much needed stability?

In order to answer the question confidently in the affirmative, I think PH will need to avoid having to face the transition question all over again. Either let their candidate be the PM until the next election (presumably in 2023), or ideally, do away with the transition plan altogether.