Tag: The Malaysian Insider

Categories
Politics & government

[1825] Of the best America has to offer

He was a relatively unknown United States Senator candidate for Illinois when he delivered the keynote address of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. With a devastated summer coming to an end, I found myself lying forlornly on a sofa watching the DNC on television. I wanted to listen to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards and John Kerry instead of a skinny black guy with a funny name as he called himself. The commentators on television however were discussing on how Barack Obama is a rising star in the Democratic Party, much like how the Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was except that he writes well. Maybe I should give him a chance and stay in front of the television, I thought to myself.

I cannot recall who introduced him to the podium but I remember me being impressed in a way I have never been. His words, especially when he spoke of how “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is there United States of America”; how “there is not a black American and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America” moved me so much.

The next half hour was purely exhilarating that I as a foreigner in a little liberal fortress in the Midwest felt the urge to vote on November 4 even when I have no right to do that. I need not this speech to be partial to John Kerry but Obama’s address inspired me to participate in one way or another. It was hard to sit down while watching the crowd in Boston welcoming enthusiastically of Obama’s address. It was easy to be carried away by the spirit of the moment.

I keep track of him ever since that day in a July. The internet was buzzed with the possibility of Obama running for the Presidency sometimes in the future. The reason was simple: he outshone all speakers during the DNC.

The 2004 presidential race was easy for me. There was an illegitimate war in Iraq much to the disapproval of the majority in the world community. Fierce debates conducted within the hall of the United Nations Security Council and massive protests all over the world were evident to that.

Civil liberty meanwhile was under threat with the onerous Patriot Act passed. There were reports that telephone conversations were being bugged. Privacy was disrespected in the name of security.

As a Malaysian in the United States, I hated being profiled and pulled over by airport securities every time I took the airplane. That however was not as bad as some of fellow Malaysians had to suffer. They had to report to the some homeland security office all the way out of Ann Arbor in Detroit regularly.

Bush’s “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” speech made it all too angering that made it clearly, it was then anything but Bush. Well, actually, John Kerry was the only real option to George Bush. In the modern two-party system in the US, it is always between the Democrats and the Republicans.

But Kerry lost and Bush stayed in the Oval Office.

Four years later, the cycle begins anew and this time, it is between John McCain from the Republicans and Barack Obama from the Democrats, both being the US Senators. Choosing between McCain and Obama however is harder than it was between Bush and Kerry for me.

This is mostly because McCain, at least before he pandered to the base of the Republicans party for the upcoming Presidential race, has a mind of his own. He was, as others derisively called, a Republicans in name only; a RINO. He had the audacity to speak up his mind even if it is unpopular.

Who had the guts to tell off those farmers in Iowa that ethanol subsidy is wasteful, that it is far more efficient to import it from Brazil? Or facing off those automotive workers in Michigan that they need to compete fairly against their counterparts across the Pacific?

It is an unpopular but the right positions to take. Nobody who participated in the Democratic and the Republican primaries, save probably Ron Paul, has the guts to say that but John McCain.

What made McCain refreshing to me is that he is one of those blue green politicians which are so rare in American politics — he believes in free market and care for the environment. He sees the market economy and the environment as not something mutually exclusive.

In the fierce repeating debates to open the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in Alaska for drilling, he joined the Democrats in opposing it. In the early 2000s, he together with Joe Lieberman drafted a bill to do something about US carbon emissions through market-based mechanism.

McCain does however hold disagreeable political positions from my point of view. Some of them are issues on security and civil liberty, hawkish foreign policy, abortion, religion and teaching on evolution. While I was prepared to overlook these issues, they have unfortunately been amplified during the primaries. Instead of maintaining a centrist outlook, McCain’s journey to the right to join the religious conservative is disappointing. Having Sarah Palin as his running mate made it all worse.

Under Obama as the President, it is unlikely that the same social and civil liberty issues would disturb me as much. Democrats, after all, on average are conscious of civil liberty.

The best of all, having a black President would challenge the xenophobic tendency of the conservatives. At the end of the day, it is an effort at the creation of a United States less riddled with prejudice.

When McCain should have distanced himself from the policies of Bush, he made a u-turn to gain the favor of the socially conservatives within the Republican Party during the primaries, as he competed for votes with other candidates like Mitt Romney and the religiously conservative Mike Huckabee.

The Economist lamented McCain’s transformation months ago and recently, translated its disappointment by endorsing Obama. The disappointment is shared by many libertarians.

A number of libertarians are abandoning the Republicans by are migrating to the Obama camp. The Republican Party under Bush has betrayed the libertarians and there is a need for libertarians to make a statement.  There is a need to point out that libertarians as independents too can play the role of a kingmaker. The role is not unique to the socially conservatives or the evangelicals.

These libertarians are now hoping that Rubinomics would reign in spite of all the speeches that Obama gave, like the renegotiation of NAFTA or punishment for firms which outsource its operations outside of the US.

I am however unsure how wise that switch of camp is, especially so when the Democrats are controlling both the House of Representative and the Senate. With another Democrat in the Oval Office, there might be a tendency to take an overtly populist protectionist stance against trade, hurting the fuel of prosperity for people all over the world. The unnecessary expansion of the role of government seems inevitable with the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government.

This is especially so given the current economic climate in the US where it is easy to make a scapegoat out of the idea of economic liberty. Short term but shape pain has a way in making people forget the cumulative net benefits reaped from the very idea which they scorn.

The worry should be typical of a centrist which has the ideal candidate conscious of civil and economic liberty. I want a candidate which believes in both civil and economic liberty.

In the United States the ideal candidate is hard to come by. The Republican Party represents the socially conservative but economic liberal group, sometimes with the tendency to trump civil liberty in the name of security. The inverse is true for the Democratic Party. Both sides have their strengths and both sides have their weaknesses.

In any case, both McCain and Obama are trying to blur the traditional separation line. Obama does take up some idea of economic liberty more than most Democrats and McCain does respect civil liberty more than most Republicans. Both are less divisive than say Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton or Tom DeLay or George Bush. Both are willing to reach across the aisle.

For this reason, especially when I do not have the right to vote in the election, I am one of those undecided individuals standing by the sidelines watching race intently. Though I cannot vote, I will be affected by the results of the election because after all, the US is a superpower with presence all over the world.

Whatever the outcome to the November 4 2008 Presidential Election, the winner will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which guarantees the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever the result will be, it will be the testament of the best America has to offer; liberal democracy.

I am unable to endorse either candidate because I like and dislike both. I however can endorse something larger and I endorse the system.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1817] Of just live and let live

Differences can be challenging. They assault routines and stereotypes to force modifications or even outright revamps of worldviews. When none of that occurs and the differences end up as irreconcilable, conflict may come to the surface. Some differences are worth fighting for while in other cases, respect and tolerance are the key to moving forward.

Conflict or not, the world is so full of individuals with different views and lifestyles from our own. More often than not, we have to live with it. This is especially so when a lot of these differences do not affect us whatsoever other than our sensibility or morality.

The requirement to respect differences is all the more important when individuals live according to different moral standards. Still, not all subscribe to the idea to respect differences. Some view the mere idea of differences as an abhorrence which must be contained in favor of only one standard.

The latest proof of intolerance for differences comes in the form of an edict recently announced by the National Fatwa Council, which declared that tomboys are now banned in Islam. Despite the announcement, various news reports have stated that the edict is not a law. As such, it is not legally binding.[1]

The edict is fine for those who wish for a guideline in practicing of Islam. From this perspective, there is really nothing wrong in the edict. This could be a source of reference for those incapable of undertaking the necessary logical steps required to reach a conclusion.

For those who wish not to submit to a group of self-elected guardians of the faith or are simply concerned with individual liberty, it is important that this edict continues to be toothless.

This is because a law based on the edict amounts to moral policing. Such laws would seek to shape individuals in a particular mould approved by self-appointed moral guardians. There would be a set of behavior for those whom the council of clerics deems to be under their authority to follow. Anything else would seem criminal.

The notion that a person could be seen as a criminal simply by behaving in a manner unsanctioned by a group of people is a scary thought. It is as scary as being prosecuted for having certain characteristics shaped by one’s environment. How would one feel to wake up one morning only to learn that one is now a criminal in the eyes of the state?

The problem in having such law criminalizing a group of people who refuse to be pigeonholed by the council is that there is no victim at all involved in the issue addressed by the edict. The tomboys behave as they do without causing harm to others or themselves. The only harm tomboys do is to the idea that a woman must behave in a certain particular manner.

To invest our legal system with the edict is to victimize the tomboys who have done no harm to others. In doing so, the state would be committing tyranny. That is an unpalatable prospect which must galvanize those who cherish individual liberty against making the edict legally binding.

For those uncomfortable with tomboys, they really do not need a repressive law to grant them some peace of mind. They are free to not interact with the source of their disgust. This includes those with religious objections against those who do not conform to female social gender roles. They just need to learn to let other people be, especially when other people let them be. Why are they so intent on making others live as miserably as possible? What malicious intent do they harbor against those who dare to be different, or those who cannot help being different?

The tomboys have done no wrong to anybody. That alone is enough for us all to just respectfully live and let live.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

[…]

Harussani said the council’s ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are immoral. [Islamic clerics in Malaysia rule to ban tomboys. Julia Zappei. The Associated Press. October 24 2008]

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics

[1814] Of different treatment for different circumstances

It is true that the world is more integrated than ever. Major developments on the other side of the world may affect the local environment. Being one of the top trading nations in the world with an export-driven economy, it is undeniable that a reduced consumption in the economies of our major trading partners — specifically the United States — will adversely affect our export sector and ultimately the Malaysian economy.

As the economic crisis unravels and insidiously spreads globally, it is crucial to keep in mind that the local economic environment is different from that of the US. A problem faced by the US economy may not be the same as that faced by the Malaysian economy.

The integration of the world economy is within the grasp of many Malaysians. It is amazing how many Malaysians are attuned to the economic turmoil in the US. This is a cause for celebration because this demonstrates the existence of the free flow of information. That in many ways is crucial in creating a liberal society with empowered individuals.

The idea of connectedness is enhanced by the fact that many households have access to CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg, among others, which keep them informed with the latest nightmares-turned-real on Wall Street and its counterparts across the world.

But something is horribly wrong with the picture. The centric-ness of perception bugs me.

It has been joked that the world according to a typical American begins with Hawaii and California in the west and ends with the West Coast with a whole lot of red states in the middle. To the north are people who end their sentences with “eh” for some unclear reason while to the south, always there are huddled masses yearning to breathe free trying to break into the US. Anything else beyond the US borders is irrelevant, except for some obscure countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and that one country where French fries supposedly come from and Europe. The perception is that the average American worldview is US-centric.

This is an unkind gross generalization of Americans but to a large extent, it describes the coverage of CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg. These news channels report — especially CNBC and Bloomberg given the fact that these are financial channels — news from the US perspective. It is more likely to give greater coverage over the US economy instead of the local economy. And it does not help when the coverage is biased towards that of the stock markets rather than the real economy.

While many Malaysians are exposed to events outside of our borders, one has to be cautious in taking the US economy as a complete parallel of the Malaysia economy. Yet, here in Kuala Lumpur under the incessant rain, I find Malaysians unreasonably subscribing to US-centrism.

I therefore wonder whether it is possible that some are merely absorbing US-centric commentaries word for word without critically considering their relevance to the local economy? Being informed is great but what use is it when one merely memorizes the lines without comprehending the implication or non-implication in this age of information overload?

This is not another “decoupling theory” which suggests that a particular economy could be isolated from global events. Whenever the US sneezes, the world catches a cold and that world includes Malaysia since the country is not an autarky by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, this only stresses the different issues which Malaysia and the US are facing. Malaysia needs to run a set of policies different from that seen in the US and other countries in crisis.

Despite the importance of the US to the Malaysian economy, the two economies are different. For example, first of all, the main cause haunting the US economy is the deflating of the housing bubble. For Malaysia, there is no housing bubble; even if there was one, it has not deflated it. Secondly, sub-prime lending along with the associated securities are practically non-existent in Malaysia. Even if there was one, that would be dependent on the housing bubble. The closest shave Malaysia saw was probably the one involving AIG. After considering the level of debt, foreign reserve, laws and regulation as well as other important indicators, the difference between the two economies is as clear as daylight.

There may be more close shaves later and if one does hit us, it is likely that the crisis would be exogenous in nature — meaning originating from outside of our borders — instead of endogenous or caused from within. In all likelihood, if a crisis does hit us — knock on wood — it is likely that Malaysia will defend the local economy from exogenous waves rather than protecting the local economy from itself.

The impacts will be different from that seen in the US and the solutions will be different from those employed in the US. Therefore, any effort to stimulate the Malaysian economy will require policies tailor-made to local circumstances rather than cut-and-paste ones.

That requires the relevant authority to keep close tabs on various indicators of the local real economy. These indicators at the moment suggest that issues plaguing the US economy are different from what Malaysia is facing, though the issues are connected in one way or another.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Politics & government

[1808] Of the continuing relevance of racial politics and its implication to Barisan Nasional

These days, it is presumed that racial politics in this country is dead. It is understandable why this conclusion is appealing but it is certainly wise to refrain from signing off racial politics as a factor in Malaysia politics.

This presumption has its basis in the outcome of the March 8 general election. Barisan Nasional lost considerable number of state and federal seats to the alliance of DAP, PAS and PKR on that historic day. With Barisan is seen as the symbol of racial politics and the three-party alliance — Pakatan Rakyat — is viewed as the antithesis, it is absolutely tempting to relate the electoral outcome to the dichotomy between racial and non-racial politics.

The competition between the two ideas does have a role in the outcome of the election but it is definitely not the sole factor.

Prior the general election, the Barisan-led government on almost daily basis continued to insult the intelligence of Malaysians through its control over the mainstream media. That insult later turned into a battle of credibility as many fought back on the internet and with other means. What happened afterwards was a very personal and public battle between the former Information Minister Zainudin Maidan and the local blogosphere.

BERSIH, meanwhile, took to the streets to demand democratic reforms. This not only attracted sympathizers of DAP, PAS and PKR but also those that truly believe in the need for better democratic system. Others just simply wanted to express their general discontent with the BN-led federal government.

Corruption, meanwhile, was perceived as rampant thanks to several cases such as the ones involving Zakaria Mat Deros, ECM-Libra and even the procurement of weapons. The 2007 Auditor-General’s report, which lists down the excesses of various ministries, made the situation even worse for the BN.

Crime also was on the list. The tragic story of Sharlinie remained unsolved unresolved while the Altantuya murder case with its links to the upper echelon of government very much unsettled ordinary voters.

There are more but while these issues are racially neutral, they do not fit into the racial-non-racial dichotomy. One can definitely be a believer in racial politics but at the same time be concerned with issues of crime, corruption and democratic reforms.

One could even fight against Barisan while believing in racial politics and in Barisan. The anti-Abdullah fraction is one group falling in this category. The former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed went as far as encouraging UMNO members to vote against Barisan.

In short, people on both sides were angry at Barisan. All things considered, protest votes rather than believe in non-racial politics may have played a larger role in the result of the March 8 general election.

Not only the role played by racial politics is pushing votes away from Barisan may be overemphasized, the role of racial politics in attracting votes to Pakatan has also been underemphasized.

This can be proven through how PKR place itself in front of a less liberal Malay audience with regard to matter concerning the New Economic Policy. While PKR as well as Pakatan indeed promote an inclusive merit-based affirmative action dubbed the New Economic Agenda as an alternative, the argument against the NEP — the one policy with great association with the racial politics of Barisan — is not position diametrically.

On the contrary, PKR continues to persuade the average Malays to abandon the NEP or its legacy by impressing on the idea that the implementation of the NEP has been corrupted over the years by the corrupt UMNO. PKR is happy to point out that the implementation of the NEP nowadays is flawed while acknowledging the past success of the NEP which improved in the Malay lot. One will be hard-pressed to find a statement which PKR officially stated the NEP is conceptually flawed. PKR simply will not do that, much to the dismay of its sympathizers of libertarian leaning.

Furthermore, PKR does endeavor to convince the average Malays that the welfare of a lot of Malays would continue to be guaranteed under the NEA since the Malays, as it is generally believed, make up a majority of the Malaysian underclass.

The point with the position of the PKR with respect to the NEP and the Malays is that the average Malays are still concerned with the well-being of their race. PKR recognize this and with this cognizance, have frequently pointed out that the party will defend Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, which safeguards the special position of the Malays in the country. If PKR is to outright reject Article 153, it would be interesting to see how the average Malays, even those supportive of PKR, would react.

While there is a hint of racial politics in the way PKR handle the NEP in front of average Malay audience, the tactics leads to a strategic end of a non-racial outcome, i.e. the end justifies the mean. After all, the creation of a right egalitarian society is dependent on convincing the average Malays the needs and benefits of an egalitarian society.

Even stronger case of racial politics in Pakatan can be observed within PAS. The existence of PAS itself is closely predicated upon racial politics. Within the Malaysia context, religion is a component of racial politics, as with language and education among others. This is especially so when Article 160 of the Constitution defines a Malay as a Muslim.

If that is an unconvincing point, then consider the existence of factions within PAS which wish to cooperate with Umno in order to secure Malay-Muslim influence in local politics. The prospect of non-Malays, non-Muslims dominating Pakatan is enough of an incentive for some in PAS to work with UMNO.

And surely, Pakatan has been the great beneficiary of racial politics as demonstrated by the support the coalition receives from Hindraf and the sympathizers of the movement. While it is possible to see Hindraf as a civil liberty movement which seeks equality, the movement undeniably positioned itself well within the scope of racial politics.

Perhaps, the greatest proof of the continuous relevance of racial politics is the oft-overlooked fact that Barisan actually won the general election in terms of popular votes and seats won.

Nevertheless, just as the success of Pakatan cannot be fully attributed to the appeal of non-racial politics, the victory of Barisan cannot be fully attributed to racial politics either. Yet, it is likely that after controlling for other factors, racial politics would still play a large factor.

Even if racial politics has lost its appeal to a many Malaysians, racial politics still appeal to considerable number — if not the majority — of Malaysians.

The only way to ascertain the end of the racial politics as a major factor of Malaysian politics is to see how large a factor racial politics will play in the next general election or even the one after. Everybody should be wary of making one grand conclusion based on one observation, however reliable the observation is.

All that brings me to one question: what is the possible implication of continuing relevance of racial politics?

The most obvious is the possibility of heeding the call of Dato’ Onn: for Barisan Nasional to abandon racial politics in one way or another.

If indeed racial politics still has great relevance in Malaysian politics, the abandonment of racial politics by Barisan would see schism in its three great parties, namely UMNO, MCA and MIC. Though purely a conjecture, the prospect of ethno-nationalists — be it Malay, Chinese, Indian or the mysterious others — breaking away from a unitary multiracial Barisan is not an outlandish possibility.

Maneuvered unwisely, the new Barisan Nasional may find itself sandwiched between Pakatan on the left and a new ethno-nationalists entity on its immediate right. Hitler lost his war by fighting on two fronts simultaneously; a new Barisan, finding itself in between a rock and a hard place, may just share the same fate.

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

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider. Two paragaphs (the question and the reference to Dato’ Onn) were removed from the TMI version.

Categories
Economics

[1802] Of looking at the wrong barometer

The Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation sure does take its job seriously. Amid news of bank runs, financial meltdowns, recession abroad and the spectre of — heaven forbid — depression in the United States, the corporation or PIDM is going all out to inform the public that their savings are insured up to a certain level. It is great that the PIDM is taking the initiative to assure savers but I wonder how justified is it for savers and the public in general to take such a negative perspective of the local economy.

I certainly do not expect a bank run to occur in Malaysia. To expect otherwise just because there are bank run in other countries seems excessively pessimistic. The reason is that the economic circumstances in countries where bank runs have occurred in the past months are different from that in Malaysia despite the fact that the world economy is more integrated than ever before.

But then again, a bank run is usually about a crisis of confidence and rarely about the soundness of a bank. With doomsayers and conspiracy theorists working overtime all over to undermine public confidence, maybe explaining to the public the benefits of savings insurance is not a bad idea after all.

Perhaps, especially so when even the latest data released by the Merdeka Centre showed that “economic issues” is among the top concerns of Malaysians. With the stock market not doing too good either, the headlines in the business section typically play an unhappy tune.

Despite the concerns, yet, looking at various economic indicators, the Malaysian real economy seems to be doing okay. It is not doing great but the sky is not falling either.

One of the few things which may be helpful in judging the state of the economy is to watch for the yield curve of Malaysian government bonds.

An inverted yield curve could signal an economic slowdown because a yield curve in a way measures the expected economic environment in the future. A rising yield curve may indicate better expected returns in the future while an inverted curve may indicate worsening expected returns in the future.

A brief check shows that the yield curve for Malaysian government bonds is healthily normal. The yield for a three-year bond is over 1 per cent lower than that of 20-year bond. Suffice to say, the future does not look too gloomy from this perspective.

Meanwhile, the consumer price index is expected to tatter the further we go into the future. At the same time, core inflation remains relatively low. The reason Bank Negara did not increase the overnight lending rate the last time it deliberated on the matter is exactly because expected inflation is expected to be low in the near future.

Granted, Bank Negara’s loose policy may increase inflation rate in the future and even the yield seems to show that inflation may rise. Still, with falling crude oil prices in part due to an economic slowdown as well as perhaps persistent adaptive responses made earlier with respect to record fuel prices, a tendency for the rate to increase will be met with a downward force.

And how many people are jobless right now?

Surely we would expect a lot of people to be out of jobs if the Malaysian economy is melting away like an ice cream in a middle of a field at noon time. Yet, the unemployment rate was just about 3.5 per cent in the second quarter of 2008. That is pretty much the same for the second quarter of 2007 as well as 2006. How similar?

Well, the unemployment rate for the second quarter of 2006 and 2007 was both 3.4 per cent. That is not exactly a disaster, if you ask me.

Furthermore, it is quite hard to see how the measure of joblessness would increase dramatically, especially when the industrial production index does not show a decrease according to the latest figures we have for this year.

The prospect of growth also does not convince me that the unemployment rate would go up after controlling for seasonal effect. The growth rate of Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product is expected to be positive in spite of mountains of bad news from overseas. In the most liberal manner, a recession happens if two consecutive quarters see negative growth rate. Malaysia has yet to see that and probably would not see that happening anytime soon.

Malaysia will miss its target but the rate will still be positive; both the Asian Development Bank and RAM expect the country to grow by at least 5 per cent. To make it clear how the fundamentals do not align with the prevalent pessimism in the market, the GDP growth rate for the second quarter of 2008 actually is higher than that for the same period a year ago.

Despite the respectable showing of various indicators including those of the real economy, the public and even the media are accepting the stock market as the barometer of the economy. Hell, some even take whatever direction the Dow Jones would take as indicative of the future path of the Malaysian economy.

The stock markets, however, do not measure the real economy. In fact, the stock market actually lags behind economic cycles. What it means is that whenever the stock markets are down, it is probably already too late to do anything. On top of that, the stock markets take into account various information which has little to do with the real economy. And the fact is that the real economy is doing better than the stock markets.

However, I am not belittling the economic slowdown we are experiencing. For some people, it is getting harder to make a living. After all, the coincident and the lagging indices do suggest that the economy is slowing down. Indeed, the situation in the US, the largest trading partner of Malaysia, is adversely affecting the local economy. Yet, despite dire prediction, the exports sectors are doing better than expected. Truly, believe it or not, the electronics sector is actually growing. The growth is at a snail pace but growing nonetheless.

What I am trying to get at is you should take your eyes off the stock markets and watch the indicators of the real economy instead. That, and keep your chin up.

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

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.