Tag: Barisan Nasional

Categories
Politics & government

[2307] Of the option off the ballot

There is speculation that there will be a general election in the near future. Political parties across the board are shifting gears, as if they needed to after all the by-elections.

I had a conversation with a friend several months back about the general election. Being away from Malaysia, I caught up with him, among others, to find out the latest about Malaysian politics. There is, of course, the Internet but it can get you only so far. Nothing beats face-to-face conversation. The facial expressions, the intonations and everything that matters are something that articles, podcasts and videos do not relay.

Among the topics discussed was the disillusionment that both of us had with the current political reality where both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat dominate. Although I do believe that this is the stage for Malaysians to strengthen the newly established, effectively competitive two-party system before any further steps are taken to improve the Malaysians political system, I despise the options that I face.

It was then that I contemplated the idea of refraining from voting in the next general election.

Where I am registered to vote, it has always been a contest between UMNO and PAS.

I do not believe in UMNO. I do not believe in their core values and I do not trust them for all of their abuse, regardless of the presence of some good individuals in it. I do honestly believe that for UMNO and its partners to change, they must be out of power at the federal level.

Nothing is more powerful as a driver of change than failure itself. Without power, the worse and the corrupt will be flushed out, leaving the competent and clean to work their way up, at least hopefully.

Besides, Malaysia needs to experience a proper and peaceful change of political power. The actual experience will test the country’s institutions. The outcome of that test will inform Malaysians at large whether the institutions are capable of handling peaceful transition, or that the institutions themselves needed to be changed.

Malaysia has experienced change at the state level. There are kinks but the institutions are handling it reasonably well. Federal change, however, is likely to be a different beast altogether.

While I do not think highly of UMNO and its junior partners in Barisan Nasional, the other viable alternative is not too convincing either.

Specifically, I distrust PAS. While PAS may have allayed the fears of the non-Muslims in issues like the controversy on liquor sales, they have not done so for the more liberal Malays like me. For instance, PAS has insisted that Islamic laws should not be imposed on non-Muslims. While that is more progressive relative to a more suffocating encompassing view regarding Islam and the state, that communal thinking leaves the liberal Malays trapped.

While the status quo with BN in power is not fantastic to say the least, the way PAS and Pakatan Rakyat explain the issue of Islamic laws — about how Islamic laws affect only the Muslims, hence non-Muslims need not fear — desensitizes such communal thinking.

Of perhaps larger concern is the rumor that UMNO and PAS are discussing a possible pact, either in the name of Malay unity or an Islamic one, none of which appeals to me. I thought the issue was dead long ago but it persists. That worries me. What is the point of voting against UMNO by voting for PAS only to have PAS join UMNO?

Then there is the Pakatan Rakyat coalition in general. In Selangor recently, the Pakatan Rakyat-led state government announced that they would grant PR state lawmakers RM1 million each in preparation for election while excluding those from other parties.

The state government justified this by saying that BN also does this at the federal level. The selective provision levels the field, so the state government argues. I completely understand the crass reality of politics but I also believe that state resources belong to voters, not to the parties of the day. Seeing PR stooping to the level of BN disturbs me. It forces me to reassess my premise for voting for Pakatan Rakyat.

I fully recognize some of the good that Pakatan Rakyat state governments have done. Yet, I do not want to give them a blank check. The good work should not be used to justify other less admirable actions. I gave them a blank check in the last election because the situation then was dire. Things have changed so much since then. The situation today does not warrant old premises.

In the past, I overcame this problem by resorting to voting for the lesser evil. The lesser evil was PAS. Furthermore, the idea of giving somebody new a shot appealed to me. Since PAS was — and still is — in alliance with DAP and PKR, a vote for PAS was a vote for DAP and PKR; I thought of both DAP and PKR better than any other parties in Malaysia at that time. I worked on the premise that DAP and PKR would outnumber PAS when it matters always. PAS would be powerless where it matters.

I was wrong about power and PAS within Pakatan Rakyat.

Now, I am tired of choosing the lesser evil. I am also tired of others asking me to vote for the lesser evil. They are effectively telling me that I have no option. Imagine how excited I was when they told me that my only option is PAS. Hooray.

They are wrong though. I do have an option, except that it is not on the ballot.

I told the friend that I was thinking of refraining from voting in the next election. “This would not be indifference,” I told him. “It’d be an active choice. No more blank check.”

To which he replied, “You might not be the only one who is thinking of that.”

Although I consider myself as sitting on the fringe of the Malaysian political spectrum, there are many dissatisfied voters out there if the talk of the so-called third force is of any indication.

That makes me wonder about the turnout of the next general election in absence of other options on the ballot. How high, or low, will it be?

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on January 26 2011.

Categories
Politics & government

[2289] Of the tap water must flow

The tussle for control of water distribution in Selangor attracts strong opinions and allegations. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government and its supporters claim that Syabas, the sole water distributor in Selangor, is being mismanaged. Some of the more vocal supporters of Pakatan Rakyat and the state government claim that Syabas is a case of incompetence and downright corruption. The state government believes it could do a better job than Syabas. Whatever it is, Pakatan Rakyat is on a relentless offensive. In the end, however, it might find itself in a situation that Napoleon once found himself in, which was in the frigid Russia.

Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor is having a successful campaign so far. That is because it is hard to disagree with most of the issues raised by Pakatan Rakyat given the negative reports surrounding Syabas. Breach of contract, conflict of interest, large compensation received by its executive chairman Rozali Ismail”¦ the list goes on and on.

The large debt accumulated by Syabas is a symptom to all of these issues and the symptom itself cannot be swept under the carpet. The debt is the immediate factor for Syabas’s request to increase its water tariff by a significant margin.

The state government opposes this, convinced that Syabas is passing the cost of its mismanagement to water consumers unnecessarily. This presents a problem for Syabas. Without the hike, it faces the possibility of bankruptcy.

The default might happen as soon as the end of this year, which is just days away. Bondholders of Syabas have argued that the default might adversely affect the wider capital market, hence the necessity of bailout. The Barisan Nasional-led federal government seems convinced of that argument and it has indicated that a bailout is possible.

The fear is very real. What is also real is the anger that will follow any bailout. Any bailout will be unfair because it is a case of privatizing profits but socializing losses. The stakeholders of the bailed-out firms stand to gain everything at the expense of taxpayers at large.

That, however, does not negate the fact that the only thing that is worse than being forced to pick up someone else’s tab is having no tap water. Any allegation made against Syabas, which is likely to be true, will stand pale against widespread unfulfilled demand for tap water. The tap water must flow regardless the issues.

If there is no resolution to the war of attrition between the state government and Syabas before the default occurs, Pakatan Rakyat’s campaign might see its fortune reversed. When push comes to shove, a bailout will be preferred to no bailout.

Without bailout, the uncertainty regarding tap water supply will be devastating. Everybody loses under the case of no bailout, and no tap water.

If a bailout does happen, somebody will have to take the blame. The federal government will not want to be that somebody. The federal government will want to be seen as the savior of the day instead.

To do so, the federal government might defend itself by stating that without a bailout, the tap water might not flow. The fear of possible water supply interruption is already making its round in the mainstream media. The Sultan of Selangor, for instance, has voiced his concerns regarding the matter.

It is in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor to not to have a bailout. It is in its interest to resolve the issue before Syabas defaults on its bonds.

Perhaps, it is even in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat to allow the water tariff hike to happen. At least that way, Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be on the offensive, leaving Syabas and, indirectly but more importantly, Barisan Nasional on the defensive well into the next state and national elections.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 15 2010.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2280] Of centrists lose with a viable “third force”

There is talk of a third force in Malaysia. Lawyer and activist Haris Ibrahim has stated that the third force is a bunch of independents ready to co-operate with Pakatan Rakyat. Zaid Ibrahim wants to form a third political party. If in the end, it comes to a third competitive and national political grouping capable of affecting national elections, then I do not think it is the wisest of all moves.

A third party will adversely affect Pakatan Rakyat more than Barisan Nasional, given that members of the so-called third force seem to be those disillusioned liberals. They sided with Pakatan Rakyat in the last general election but that alliance is unraveling. They are disappointed with Pakatan Rakyat due to various reasons.

While liberals, they are liberal in superlative terms instead of being proper liberals who adopt a comprehensive liberal worldview like the classical liberals. Some may even be social liberals, however, noting how Kua Kia Soong has written that the third force has to stand on the left of Pakatan Rakyat, assuming he is part of the so-called third force. But never mind whether they are proper liberals or not. What matters is that these groups disagree with the status quo in the country.

Furthermore, Barisan Nasional, the beneficiary of the status quo, does not have too many liberals within its ranks. The liberals are closer to Pakatan Rakyat than Barisan Nasional, hence any competitive third grouping will compete more against the former rather than the latter. I would be in agreement with Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad about the effect of a third force as defined earlier in encouraging the status quo, i.e. having Barisan Nasional continue to be in power, for better or for worse.

Pakatan Rakyat, however, will not be the only side to lose because of a third force. A system of one-party dominance is bad for centrists because it provides only one choice to centrists. Instead of Sophie’s choice, one faces Hobson’s. In fact, it is worse than that. Regardless of choices, there is only one outcome: more of the same.

Another point on the adverse effect of a third force can be demonstrated through the famed Hotelling-Downs model.

The model is a location game. In a two-party (or two coalition like in Malaysia; it does not matter as long as the parties within the respective group collude) democratic system, both political parties gravitate to the center. This happens because political parties want to win elections and they win it by garnering the most votes. Meanwhile, voters will vote for the party that is closest to them. As a result, a party that sits farther from the center with respect to the other party will get fewer votes than its rival. Both sides know this, sooner or later. Eventually, there is only one solution: sitting at the center is the best winning strategy.

Now, I do not think highly of centrists. More often than not, their positions are inconsistent. It is forged out of convenience rather than conviction. Their positions are a hodgepodge of points assimilated from everywhere, regardless of contradictions. Some centrists are centrists simply because they are apathetic.

Nonetheless, centrists do provide the stability required in a political system. They are the anchor in society. Given that many views are diametrical, centrists would process these views and hold compromised ones instead, if they care at all. Since the Hotelling-Downs model suggests centrist voters — more accurately the median voters — will win, the other side of the coin suggests that a competitive two-party system has the capability of preventing extremists from assuming power.

Unfortunately, this central tendency within the model is weak. The moment the system accommodates a third competitive third party or more, the central tendency weakens, or even disappears. It has been proven under the Hotelling-Downs assumption that there is no equilibrium with three competitive parties or more.

It will always be optimal for parties to change their positions, be it at the center or somewhere else. A party can always do better than the others can until the other parties respond by changing their positions. That in turn encourages the original party in question to change its position to outdo the others. The process will continue on forever.

There is no guarantee that the center position will be taken. There is really no reason why the center position is special anymore. The political centrists cease to be the anchor. Their influence on national politics decreases with respect to extremists. Thus, it is quite possible for extremists to hold power in the end, even if for a short while.

The lack of equilibrium is not necessarily bad, of course. It is an opportunity for diverse political views to prevail. There are many other benefits to having a third competitive party, but breaking the one-party dominant system is not it.

Even so, it is hard to see these liberals switching their positions too much in order to win elections. Their views are ones based on conviction and not convenience. The same cannot be said about Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. If the Hotelling-Downs model can be used and if the competitive third party is strong enough to affect the election outcome, then this suggests that it will be optimal for Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to move away from the third party and away from the center.

Again, centrists will lose out.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on November 24 2010.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2243] Of discuss, debate but do not threaten

Opinions abound and they are bound to hit some sensitive nerve. When it hits, there goes another police report. There goes another demand for an ISA arrest.

The right-wing group Perkasa has been at it for some time now, calling for the arrest of various individuals for challenging what the group considers as Malay rights. Leaders of MCA and MIC meanwhile have lodged police reports against Perkasa for calling for the abolition of vernacular schools. An Umno politician recently said that nobody should question the existence of these schools because the founding fathers had agreed to it — nobody should question it; neither such an ultimatum nor threat has any place in a democratic system that cherishes freedom.

Some debates are engaging in that there are outstanding ripostes to brilliant arguments as opposing sides try to outwit each other. An exploration of ideas happens along the way to awe both participants and spectators. They are well-researched and well-argued. Malaysia requires this kind of debate for it to take the next step into the future confidently. We have the infrastructure and the institutions to take that step. What we lack is the culture. The exchange of threats reflects that.

The ones taking place in Malaysia are unimpressive by any measure. There is no witty riposte. There is no brilliant argument. There are just people who disagree with each other so badly that they want to silence the other. They are unable to conjure attractive thoughts to undermine the others’ arguments. They are not creative enough to convince the others and the spectators why they are right and the others are wrong. All they can muster is ”shut up or else.”

Worse, some of these arguments are made by members of the ruling coalition. One would expect more from them, given that they are driving the car.

When an argument is really a thinly veiled threat, it betrays something about it or those who make it. It is a weakness of intellect or laziness in thoughts. The gears in their heads stop running and their muscles begin to flex.

If this was the dominating atmosphere on the fringes, it could all be ignored safely. They can flex their muscle all they want in dark corners populated by cuckoos. But all this is happening in the center of the public arena.

It is because it is taking place in the centre that this lamented trend cannot be tolerated. It creates a climate of fear that crowd freedom out from the center.

No one in Malaysia needs any reminders that multiple issues need resolutions. These are old legacy issues and problems we inherited from our founding fathers.

None can claim to know what the eventual sustainable solutions are. What is true is that the way for us to begin to imagine those solutions is by being free to debate all issues with reason, not by resorting to threats.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on August 27 2010.

Categories
Politics & government

[2218] Of wanted: political capital and will

There is mutual frustration between those in government and those who identify themselves as ordinary citizens in Malaysia. The frustration originates from the incapability of both to understand the other side’s challenges. This makes the gears of a huge machine — the government — stuck. It needs to work again.

The period immediately after the March 8, 2008 was supposed to be an opportunity for major reforms. The machine was supposed to work again after years of abuse that exhausted its credibility. The filters were supposed to have been washed, even if partly. Rusted wheels replaced. The joints, oiled.

That was not enough, apparently. Skepticism against the government — or perhaps more generally, against the state — not only persists but also grows. It has grown so much that it is disconnecting the government from the people, and the people from the government. It is threatening the idea that the government is the people, and the people are the government.

Given the record of the Barisan Nasional federal government, however, that skepticism is justified. In fact, skepticism against the state is a good thing to have. It is the first line of defense against tyranny.

Yet, skepticism is healthy only up to a certain dose. If there is too much skepticism, the central functions of the state cannot be carried out. Too much skepticism erodes the reason for a state. And there are signs that skepticism has become a monster in Malaysia, devouring too many regardless of agenda.

In the current political and economic climate, that skepticism has grown to a point that no reform can take place. The size of government is big so that it needs to be cut down so that there is less opportunity to repeat abuses of the past. Unfortunately, efforts to reduce it and put public finance in order are widely seen by many as a deliberate attempt to short-change citizens.

The problem of a big government is very real. Its effects on individuals and society are observable. Its growth over the years in Malaysia is something that cannot be missed. The Abdullah administration committed gross gluttony while the supposed benefits of big government were unseen. Something has to be done now, but nothing moves. Loud popular opposition stands in the way.

Part of the reason is that the challenges associated with big government are far removed from the ground. Public finance, for instance, means little to men and women on the streets. Individuals do not directly face it and hence, they do not see it as problems to solve, at least not soon.

Incapability to see it does not mean all is fine and dandy. The tragedy is this: Efforts to solve it inflicts relatively immediate pain while its benefits will only come relatively later. Furthermore, benefactors of big government will obviously defend it. Coupled with those is the fact that most of us enjoy the idea of instant gratification, so the loud popular opposition is not a surprise.

In justifying their opposition to initiatives to cut the size of government, they do raise very pertinent questions. What about corruption, what about leakage and what about inefficiency in the public sector? These are among the questions many have asked. Why should we pay for their excesses?

Recent allegation by the civil servants’ union, Cuepacs, that nearly half of civil servants in the country were suspected to be involved in graft does not instill confidence. The size of the civil service suggests that the government is uninterested in cutting down its expenditure seriously. Purchases of overpriced defense equipments suggest unwise spending. The investigation of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) is going unsatisfactorily, if there is any progress at all. Recent large losses of enterprises linked to the government exacerbate the image of the government of the day as incompetent.

Slammed with the idea of a goods and services tax along with the withdrawal of subsidies, rightly or wrongly, taxpayers get the perception that they are picking up the tab for somebody else’s mistake. As far as critics are concerned, the government is swimming in excesses, disconnected from the concerns of the masses.

The boilerplate answer to this two-way disconnect is commitment to democracy: Voters should till the land. Get a completely new captain and crew to staff the bridge.

It is an attractive solution as it removes one disconnect. As with any boilerplate argument however, it is insufficient. A libertarian fear revolves around this: Such a democratic solution solves only one part of the equation. It may build the trust that is required to run the machine smoothly again. What it may fail to do is to address the problem of big government.

The alternative in the form of Pakatan Rakyat has not demonstrated their grasp of the issue. They are happy with mere populism so far, such as promises of free water and bigger subsidies.

They really cannot be blamed for that. It is only expected. The truth is that Pakatan Rakyat needs to run a populist campaign to enter Putrajaya.

That does not negate the fact that economic populist policy tends to run a country down. That does not negate the fact that unpopular moves are required to solve the problems. Clearly, political capital is required to run unpopular policy.

But who has the political will? Who has the political capital?

Putrajaya, so far, lacks at least one of them.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on June 14 2010.