Tag: DAP

Categories
Politics & government

[2133] Of rotation for Pakatan’s top post? Why not just vote?

The biggest event this week in Malaysia has to be the first Pakatan Rakyat Convention. It is good that Pakatan Rakyat is taking steps to institutionalize its cooperation. Despite that, there are a few issues that may appear to be a betrayal to democratic values that it claims to uphold. One is its commitment to local election, which seems to be wavering at the moment.[1] Second, which I want to touch briefly here, is the demand of DAP to rotate the top post of Pakatan Rakyat among the three parties in the coalition.[2]

When some members of PKR allegedly suggested that the position of Chief Minister for the state of Penang be rotated back in September this year, that suggestion was rightly criticized though the venom is uncalled for. One of the accusations thrown at those who allegedly made that proposal was that the proposers were “power crazy”.[3][4] Never mind the reality that all political parties are interested in power in one way or another, again, the suggestion, if it is true that it was made, should be shot down.

The principle of rotation goes against the spirit of democracy. Granted, given the system used in Malaysia for public office like the Chief Ministership, is not directly elected but surely it is only fair for the majority to hold the top post. This admittedly discounts what happened in Perak where there are real and unfair obstacles in letting the majority hold the top post.

DAP was visibly most vocal voicing out against that suggestion for the reason. This is understandably because it is the incumbent as well as the majority power within Pakatan Rakyat in Penang.

This demand by DAP, suggestion or whatever one wants to call it, should not be seen in different light to the call for rotation in Penang. It is the same principle.

Given this, to have DAP to repeat the argument for Pakatan Rakyat’s top post is hypocritical, whatever way one sees it. Would this mean DAP is “power crazy” too?

The better way to decide this is to have internal election for that post. Would this not be truer to democratic values? Of DAP really cannot win in an election and afraid of democracy?

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 16 — Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) democratic ideals will be tested at this Saturday’s convention which is being held to produce a common platform as all three component parties remain divided over local council elections. [Pakatan divided ahead of convention. Syed Jaymal Zahiid. The Malaysian Insider. December 16 2009]

[2] — KUALA LUMPUR, Dis 18 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) kemungkinan menggunakan sistem giliran jawatan ketua menerajui ikatan itu sebaik sahaja pendaftarannya diluluskan pihak berkuasa.

Timbalan Pengerusi DAP Kebangsaan Dr Tan Seng Giaw berkata kemungkinan itu boleh ditimbangkan oleh PR bagi menampakkan yang ia berbeza dari Barisan Nasional (BN). [DAP mahukan sistem giliran ketua Pakatan. G. Manimaran. The Malaysian Insider. December 18 2009]

[3] — PENANG, Sept 29 — The proposal by Penang Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Youth that the Chief Minister’s post be rotated between parties in Pakatan Rakyat has been criticised by Penang DAP Socialist Youth (DAPSY). [DAPSY raps Penang PKR Youth over call to rotate CM’s post. Bernama via The Malaysian Insider. September 29 2009]

[4] — GEORGE TOWN: Penang Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Youth chief and Balik Pulau MP Mohd Yusmadi Mohd Yusoff has denied a newspaper report on Sept 29 which quoted him as saying that the Penang chief minister’s post should be rotated. [Yusmadi denies making Penang CM rotation statement. The Edge. September 30 2009]

Categories
Economics

[2097] Of first comment on the proposed federal budget by DAP: culture of entitlement

The Democratic Action Party released its proposed 2010 federal budget this week.[1] This is definitely a good move as it brings substance to debate. It gives all of us an opportunity to debate on policies rather than engaging on ultimately empty rhetoric that boils blood.

This is not the first budget proposed by the DAP. The consistency on producing such document thus far deserves commendation and future production should be encouraged to develop policy debate in public sphere. PKR and PAS need to work with DAP or emulate DAP on this front.

Now that the pleasantries have been dispensed off, it is time to get down to business.

While I have yet to read fully the proposal, I disagree with a number of issues. One is the tweaking of contributions to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF). Two is the creation of entitlement culture.

For the uninitiated, the EPF is a social security fund providing retirement benefits for its members that, basically, includes all employees employed in Malaysia, making EPF a payroll tax. Employees in Malaysia are required to contribute a certain percentage of their wages into the fund. Employers are also required to contribute some kind of percentage into their employees’ account. Employees will be able to withdraw that money after retirement or at any other point of time before retirement for certain purpose that is not worth going into here.

Early in the section (Section 9.1.3 on page 37), the proposal begins by stating how important savings is, how low-income Malaysians have trouble saving and how unequal wealth distribution in Malaysia is. After stating so, it proposes that employers’ contribution to EPF account of low-income and middle-income workers be increased.

The problem with this relates to a typical argument against such benefits and payroll tax. Employers will compensate whatever required payment on top of direct pay to employeees imposed on them by law by reducing total wages and benefits paid to employees. The idea is that there is only a certain amount of total wages and benefits, which includes the contribution, that employers are willing to pay. Increasing the contribution requirement affects only the composition of total pay, not the pay itself, at present time.

For low-income worker, this is particularly worrying because it reduces their take-home pay. This in turn goes back to the problem of intertemporal choice. While savings is important, it is useless to individuals who are desperately in need of consumption today in the following sense: what is the point of having one million dollar of savings if one cannot use it today to avoid death from hunger?

The example is extreme but it aptly captures the time value of money and intertemporal choices. The time value of money remains material even if death is removed from the equation.

Furthermore, there is enough empirical studies to suggest that low income earners spend large proportion of their income compared to those with higher income. This impresses further on the need to strengthen these workers’ take-home pay given a certain total pay, making their savings less of an issue. I stress, not unimportant, but less of an issue compared to take-home pay.

However, different path is laid out several paragraphs later, with respect to EPF contributions.

As part of its FairWage initiative, DAP proposes to decrease workers’ contribution to EPF for those earning from RM900 to (but not inclusive of) RM1,400 and waive entirely for those earning below RM900. This addresses the concern on take-home pay but notice how it starts to contradict DAP’s point on insufficient savings for retirement of low-waged Malaysians.

As part of its FairWage initiative as well, employers’ contribution is proposed to see reduction to make these workers more employable. This is the right idea but again, this proposal suffers the same contradiction as the first FairWage point.

The third component of the FairWage initiative is a set of entitlements that comes partly in cash transfer and partly transfer from government coffers into the account of certain classes of workers. This perhaps plugs the the gap in saving caused by the two FairWage points but it raises a question of unnecessary complexity.

Notwithstanding the contradiction (it seems to me that there was a war between the left and the right in preparing the proposal; what else can explain the inconsistency? Or is it a case of trying to please everybody?), looking at the FairWage initiative as a whole, the bottom line is really about cash transfer from the government to those who the DAP considered as earning low and medium level income. In the proposal, the DAP states that this is practically an earned income tax credit scheme. It is basically a negative income tax regime where those earning below a certain level of income gets money or tax credit instead of paying tax to the government. In a sense, it is already in place in Malaysia, where, if I am not mistaking the number of I saw on my tax form, the government of Malaysia gives Malaysians tax credit worth RM8,000 for living expenses. I think the proposal by DAP only enhances it.

Whatever it is, the whole design seems overly complicated. Ignoring the normative issue which I will touch later, would it not be easier to not tweak the EPF configuration and just do the transfers instead? Instead of tweaking EPF, the government can, or rather, DAP could, tweak the composition of transfers instead to achieve the same goal sought by the reduction, or in general, changes in contributions to EPF by employees and employers.

That is issue one.

Issue two is the normative aspect of the whole proposal and perhaps, more seriously and more holistically. Without writing too many words, it risks creating a culture of entitlement. The FairWage is just one factor that suggests how entitlement mentality predominates the proposal. RM1,500 is proposed to be given to non-working spouse whose partner earn less than RM3,000 (per month, I assume). This simply robs incentive to work. Individuals are rewarded for not working. This may potentially lower local labor participation rate and eventually, lower output for the economy. To note, low labor participation rate is much worse than low employment rate.

Greater suggestion of creation of entitlement culture is the granting of citizenship bonus labeled as Malaysia Reversed Bonus. That is not the only citizenship bonus. Senior Malaysian Bonus another one. These bonuses are mentioned in other sections which I have yet to read thoroughly.

There is one aspect of the proposal that I like that falls within the section. It is a limit to employers’ contribution for those earning beyond a certain level of income. That decreases cost of doing business and even increases take-home pay of workers.

I will comment on the proposed federal budget by DAP further as I go through it slowly.

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

[1] — [Democratising Malaysia’s Economy: DAP Alternative National Budget 2010. DAP. 2009]

Categories
Politics & government

[2017] Of PAS-UMNO unity must remain dead if PAS is to live

The proposal to form a so-called unity government between PAS and UMNO finally finds its rightful place — in a dustbin. Nothing guarantees any PAS member from rummaging through the trash to rejuvenate the idea however. If the dream still lingers, I am here to offer a dire possibility. If PAS-UMNO unity comes true, PAS may break up as internal and external forces pull the political party in different directions.

Why is it a possibility?

PAS-UMNO unity will significantly affect the status quo balance of power. It will grant BN a proper majority in Perak. Selangor will suffer from a hung assembly. Other notable changes include the weakening of the opposition in many states and the absence of one in Perlis.

In sum, PAS-UMNO unity will be a major setback for Pakatan Rakyat.

That scenario has one caveat: it assumes all PAS members will remain united if the party defects from Pakatan Rakyat to work with UMNO. Given the kind of rift caused by the PAS-UMNO unity talks, that is a big assumption.

It is not every day one can expect Nik Aziz Nik Mat as the leader of PAS to tell off one of his prominent party members — Nasharuddin Mat Isa — to quit the party and join UMNO after Nasharuddin spoke warmly of the possibility of PAS-UMNO unity.

Later, 10 PAS members of Parliament went out to support Nik Aziz and to oppose any pro-UMNO activity within PAS.

The action of the 10 MPs is particularly revealing. For the more liberal members of PAS, or the Erdogans as they have come to be known, they have every incentive to not associate themselves with a pro-UMNO PAS. Many of the Erdogans contested in areas where voters come from diverse backgrounds. These Erdogans understand that they won on March 8, 2009 because they appealed to inclusive politics. They campaigned by convincing voters that PAS is for all and not just for the Muslims or the Malays, i.e. exclusive politics.

To have PAS working in concert with UMNO — as Onn Yeoh writes in The Edge[0] — amounts to betrayal of these voters. The very notion of unity between PAS and UMNO is based on the idea of exclusive politics, running contrary to the kind of campaign the Erdogans ran in the last general election. By the next election if the Erdogans are still part of a pro-UMNO PAS, these voters will not vote for the Erdogans. Hence, the future holds very little prospect for the Erdogans.

These Erdogans can of course undergo a rebranding exercise to adjust to exclusive-based politics that a PAS-UMNO coalition is expected to play. Notwithstanding the very appropriate accusation of hypocrisy that may come, these Erdogans will face stiff competition from the real conservatives within PAS as all compete for smaller pool of seats any exclusivist politician can expect to win. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect UMNO to surrender their seats to PAS in order to accommodate the Erdogans-turned-conservatives.

If PAS-UMNO unity happens, the only way for the Erdogans to secure their future is for them to demonstrate their commitment to inclusive politics and, inevitably, Pakatan Rakyat. This may translate into having the Erdogans or more generally the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS to either eject pro-UMNO members out of PAS, leave PAS in favor of PKR or even form a new party that DAP and PKR can work together under the banner of Pakatan Rakyat. In any case, the result will leave PAS utterly broken.

Only through this can they hope to secure their political future. The existing seat distribution formula within Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be used to accommodate these Erdogans, as long as they remain loyal to the coalition even as PAS finds itself in cahoots with UMNO.

For DAP and PKR, the stake is simply too high that both parties cannot allow PAS to defect so easily. It will in the best interest of PKR and DAP to embolden the Erdogans to mount a revolt against any movement towards PAS-UMNO unity, possibly leading to a breakup as described earlier.

The breaking up of PAS will limit any gain made by UMNO. It may prevent Selangor — the jewel of the crown — from experiencing a hung assembly. If Pakatan Rakyat is lucky, the maneuver can even prevent BN from gaining the coveted two-third majority in Parliament.

For PKR especially, there is an extra motivation to break PAS apart in case PAS-UMNO unity becomes a reality. PKR may enjoy an influx of high-quality members from PAS, especially if the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS decide to leave the party and not form a new party. PKR may need high-caliber individuals to strengthen its ranks and the Erdogan MPs do just that, if ever the Erdogans have a reason to part from PAS.

But, at the end of the day, the most preferable solution for DAP and PKR is to have PAS as a committed member of Pakatan Rakyat. Both DAP and PKR will want work to keep PAS within the young three-party coalition to build on the existing momentum. As we have seen, this is exactly the path taken by DAP and PKR.

As long as the most preferred option works, there is no need to resort to the second most preferred option. This is something everybody who wishes to see a strong PAS must understand.

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 24 2009.

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

[0] — The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal.

From Pakatan Rakyat’s perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want. [Unity govt a betrayal all around. Oon Yeoh. The Edge. June 22 2009]

Categories
Environment

[1934] Of quite possibly, a DAP’s PGCC if mishandled

The mantra of ecotourism is take only photographs and leave only footprints. Due to far too frequent violations of that principle, I maintain the position that the term ecotourism in Malaysia has been perversely interpreted. While in other countries ecotourism means divulging oneself in nature without damaging it, on the contrary in Malaysia it means building a multimillion-ringgit resort on a remote island while damaging its prized coral reef, constructing a posh hotel in the middle of jungle complex while cutting down the trees and having a tiger park in the middle of the city with no history of tiger population.

When the Chief Minister of Penang Lim Guan Eng announced in the name of ecotourism a proposal to set up a 40-hectare tiger park on Penang Island, I found myself putting my face in my hands saying, “here we go again.”

Here we are with yet another politician with a brilliant idea, proving the point that brilliance — or lack of it — is no monopoly of any side.

I can only be thankful for whatever free speech and backbone to not succumb to blind partisanship we have left in this seemingly forsaken country. I am thankful because this is exactly one of those times when it is required of us to raise sensible objections to insensible ideas. And I will not waste that opportunity.

In light of other options, the tiger park is an insensible idea. George Town has already been granted the status of World Heritage by the UNESCO. As far as tourism is concerned, that is the unchallenged comparative advantage of Penang. Resources should be channeled to that aspect instead of into area of questionable potential.

If Penang really wants to promote ecotourism in the state, perhaps Penang should preserve and rehabilitate its degraded mangrove swamp. Prof. Gong Wooi Khoon of Universiti Sains Malaysia in 2003 estimated that Penang may lose its mangrove swamp by 2020. Do something about that instead of bringing mammals foreign to the local environment into Penang. Or cleanup those dirty rivers of Penang, like what the Selangor state government valiantly plans to do with its rivers.

More than being insensible, Mr. Lim really went on to stretch an already twisted green washing definition of ecotourism as applied in Malaysia. Whereas in the past in this country, at least the so-called ecotourism happened in natural settings albeit the destruction it brought, the Chief Minister seeks to artificially import tigers to entertain children like how a distasteful circus would present freaks to entertain the public while treating them inhumanely.

He dares call such gross pretension as ecotourism. It is an insult to one’s intelligence as well as to those who truly care for the environment. Such green washing is despicable.

The act of promoting ecotourism should not be so twisted and flawed as currently utilized with respect to the tiger park or in Malaysia generally. Ecotourism should be — as it was defined originally and used in developed countries with heightened sense of responsibility to the world we live in — about conserving and enhancing the environment while using it responsibly. That includes the protection of the habitat of various endangered species, like tigers.

The truth is that the tiger park is merely about conventional tourism. While perhaps the experience of the tiger park could be packaged as an educational experience to raise awareness, the tiger park does not help in conservation.

A proper ecotourism project revolving around tigers should be about large tiger sanctuary with tigers living in their natural habitat, not in some small enclosure in the middle of a developed island full of household cats that fight endlessly in the middle of the night.

Even the idea of a 40-hectare tiger park sounds exceedingly cruel to the tigers. How could such cruel move be part of ecotourism?

If any of us have not notice, tigers are large mammals. It needs large area to live in and to put them in small enclosure is similar to imprisoning any one of us in a cell.

For those unfamiliar with the unit hectare, 1 Ha is 0.01 km2. To put it into perspective, 40 Ha is only 0.40 km2, slightly smaller than Zoo Negara located in Ulu Klang, Selangor. Not to forget, facilities for both administrators and visitors would require erection. That would further reduce space for the large mammals. It is unclear if the tigers would live in cages but given the size of the park, that is likely the case.

I am not advocating for equal rights for animals but at least have a heart. Tigers are living beings and that much is for sure. Be humane and do not put these tigers in small enclosure. Please, and pretty please, Mr. Lim.

The only serious benefit that I could think of is potential the park might have in alleviating acute tigers overcrowding problem in Zoo Melaka, which is operated by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN). That particular zoological park is the place where PERHILITAN keeps all captured tigers due to tiger-human conflicts in Peninsular Malaysia.

If you want an emotional experience when it comes to tigers, then visit to Zoo Melaka. Ask the administrators to show you where they keep all the captured tigers and you will fast discover how sad the situation there is.

PERHILITAN of course is not to be blamed because they are operating the best they could with limited resources. They are, at least, trying to save the tigers from death sentences.

But is there a guarantee that the proposed tiger park in Penang would help Zoo Melaka address that problem? What guarantee there is that it would not end up like Zoo Melaka?

The best bet to the problem comes back to the establishment of tiger sanctuary in their natural habitat, not a small park. Before anybody gets any funny idea, that sanctuary should not be in Penang. It should be located within the large jungle complexes on the mainland, in Perak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang and Johor, capable of naturally sustaining tiger population.

Nevertheless, despite my opposition to the idea and multiple criticisms mounted against the DAP-led Penang state government by local and international influential environmental groups, the state government should be commended for its effort to solicit public opinion.

Yet, soliciting does not automatically mean listening and that much is clear from the dreadful process of Draft Kuala Lumpur 2020 City Plan. The meaningless solicitation process of the KL 2020 City Plan appeared merely a public relations act. The KL City Hall was roundly criticized because of that. The whole process, without any overemphasis, was a failure.

That mistake must be taken to heart: the Penang state government should not repeat the same mistake done in KL by unelected officials. Why?

The wrong move could quite possibly turn the small tiger park into DAP’s PGCC.

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 March 23 2009.

Categories
Environment

[1933] Of Lim Guan Eng came back with BN-style reply

Today:

GEORGE TOWN: Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has ”roared” at critics of his proposed tiger park project, saying they should come up with constructive criticisms. [Criticisms against tiger park not constructive, says Penang CM. The Star. March 26 2009]

I think, when he says constructive criticism, he means supportive criticism. Sorry brother, you will get none of that from me. And I can bet, none of that from green NGOs.

”If non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are so concerned about the matter, then they should push for the closure of zoos.

”This is an eco-tourism project where tigers will be able to roam freely. If the animals are caged up, they will lose their natural instincts,” he said. [Criticisms against tiger park not constructive, says Penang CM. The Star. March 26 2009]

If others commited wrongdoing, that does justify your wrongdoing?

Besides, how exactly a 0.4 km2 (Mr. Lim, apparently, prefers, to use the unit acre because 0.4 km2 is equivalent to about 100 acres; 100 acres sounds big, eh?) will not encourage the tigers to “lose their natural instincts”?

What kind of reply is that?

Roam freely, he said. Eco-tourism, he said.

At least for zoo, those promoting it have the honesty not to package their product as an eco-tourism effort. On top of that, zoo plays a unique role. Zoo Melaka, for instance, with respect to tigers, is meant for conservation effort.

Lim said the state government was still receiving feedback on the proposal. [Criticisms against tiger park not constructive, says Penang CM. The Star. March 26 2009]

With all due respect, are you looking for feedback or Pak Turut, sir?