Tag: Barisan Nasional

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1983] Of stronger federalism demands greater division

The ugly episode in Perak raises several issues revolving around the idea of separation of powers. One of the least discussed powers separation matters is closely related to the concept of federalism. The fiasco clearly highlights that the state civil service is practically dependent on the federal civil service. This dependency is abhorrent to the spirit of federalism and it must be ratified.

The dependency however is nothing new. The position of district officers, for instance, is a state post. Nevertheless, it is a common practice for members of the federal civil service to be seconded to those positions. This is also true for multiple other positions within states’ civil service.

Although the practice of secondment is permitted by the Federal Constitution, when secondment happens it does raise a question relating to conflict of interest. If a state government does not see eye to eye with the federal government, where exactly does the loyalty of these seconded federal officers lie?

The line of reporting is clear. For those holding state positions, they report to the state government but theory does not always translate into actual practice. No demonstration is more vivid than the ongoing case in Perak. Several deplorable instances that threaten the spirit of Malaysian federalism were observable.

One of it harks back to the early part of the political and legal conflicts when the state legal adviser of Perak acted as if he was an agent of the federal government. In the ruling involving Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir and Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, a judge even said that the neutrality of the state legal adviser should be taken with ”a pinch of salt”.

That really is to frame it rather too kindly when it is a fact that the person holding the office of state legal adviser is a member of the federal civil service seconded to the Perak civil service. In the conflict, the state legal adviser clearly suffers from a conflict of interest. With a federal government which imperfectly separates political parties from the State, it is not hard to imagine why that is so. His loyalty lies with the Barisan Nasional-led federal government, not to the state government as it should be.

It is absolutely possible for a member of a state civil service, as with any civil servant, to hold a political bias that is opposite to the administrator. A civil servant has all the rights to have that bias as any free individual. Nevertheless, that does not dissolve his or her professional duties.

A state civil servant is a professional and he or she must be able to execute any rightful orders of the state government regardless of his or her political bias. Or else, respectfully, the civil servant must resign out of an irresolvable conflict of interest, or be fired. By this premise alone, the action of the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak to suspend the state legal adviser — and the state secretary — is only natural and is only right in the spirit of federalism.

If this contradicts any law of the land, then the law must be amended accordingly. The law is only a tool to a goal, no more, no less. It is the spirit that matters and federalism is very much a spirit of Malaysia. To hide behind the law to subvert the spirit of Malaysian federalism is to undermine the spirit of Malaysia.

The conflict of interest is one reason why the secondment exercise as currently practiced must be re-examined. In the name of federalism, each state needs to develop its own civil service so that the federal government does not hold any state to ransom.

Until March 8, 2009, there were not too many chances to prove this point. In times where the administrations of state government and the federal government originated from the same quarter, it was hard to pinpoint a finger on any action violating the spirit of federalism.

It was easy for a Barisan Nasional-led state government to want to do something when in truth it was instructed by a Barisan Nasional-led federal government to do something. This happens concurrently with Barisan Nasional’s deplorable attitude of making machineries of the State as its private property.

For so long — the conflation between state and federal governments as well as conflation between the State and political parties — that continued unchallenged. After over 45 years of Malaysian federation with Barisan Nasional in power, actual power eventually became centralized to threaten the very foundation of Malaysia, a 13-state federation. Actual power not only centralized at the hand of the central government to make Malaysia come closer to a system of a unity state that we are not, it also centralized power in the hands of Barisan Nasional.

While it is inevitable to see the division of state and federal governments in the context of Perak through the prism of partisanship, the division is affirmatively beyond partisanship and beyond Perak. There is a genuine need for such systemic change.

Federalism is about a system of check and balance and it demands that division. This demand will remain true regardless who is in power. It will always remain especially poignant when the federal government holds too much power in relation to state power.

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 May 14 2009.

Categories
Politics & government

[1966] Of and then there are the independents

The concept duality is helpful in understanding context a particular issue is set in. Without the idea of cold, how does one define the idea of hot? Without evil, how does one appreciate good? Without tyranny, how does one taste the sweet nectar of liberty? While such monochromic perception has its advantage in rationalizing the world, one must not take it too far lest one falls victim of false dichotomy.

To commit such elementary fallacy is especially easy in a highly politicized environment with heightened blind partisanship. Blind partisanship begins with prejudice taking over as the prevailing sentiment as trust and assumption of good faith vanish. With humanity’s amazing ability at selectively accepting evidence only when it is convenient to do so, our capability to confirm our prejudice even as we are unaware of our own effort at the confirmation bias should not be underestimated.

However fallacious the process is, the so-called evidence provides the foundation for paths to the mind be shut. So strong the foundation becomes that criticisms along with evidence to contrary become a squash ball to a wall. The ball bounces off and the wall stands so proudly, rightly or wrongly.

So strong they hold on to their prejudice — and emboldened by their confirmation bias — that everything now is colored in only black and white in the dullest of manner. But dullness is of no concern when one is right or rather, when one feels that one is right.

It is a kind of intellectual arrogance, except that intellectual arrogance is a property of those who are rigorous — slow perhaps for all evidences has to be considered objectively and mental model has to be set out right but rigorous nonetheless — in their thinking process. Intellectual arrogance is of no property of simpletons who resort to logical fallacies just because fallacies are easy to do. That arrogance is of no property of those who seek to merely confirm their bias.

As their colorful world turns monochromic, it is all about us versus them. The like-minded people versus the different others.

Close as I might come, fret not for I am here today not to burst into a raving recluse lunatic that I am sometimes as I sit in a corner embarking on a soliloquy amid a world which at times appears beyond saving. I am not here today to expound organic politics and to soil divine rights despite the enjoyment that I derive from doing so.

No. No.

I am here today to celebrate valiant individuals and to ridicule dronish collectives. I am here today to demonstrate as arrogantly as I find possible why my arrogance will trump monochromic arrogance. I am here today to admonish those who horrendously unjustifiably adopt arrogant monochromic worldview that there are only two groups in the world; that it is all about us versus them; that it is all about Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

Yes, today is not all about abstract idea while the mind wonders in the clouds. Today is about a very real issue.

While BN does exhibit some waning in terms of arrogance, only a blind cow would think BN is finally beginning to adopt a humble outlook. Ignore the slogans from the top echelon of BN leadership because the true measure of an organization’s sentiment is to be seen at the grassroot. No sincerity from the leadership in advocating change can supplant the unmoving signal from the grassroot.

The grassroot of BN, specifically UMNO, are unambiguous in its signal. As the Democrats in the United States used to say prior to November 4 2008, they want more of the same. The grassroot of UMNO still have not learned enough lessons to comprehend that globalization is here and that globalization is going to dismantle their precious affirmative action by hook or by crook. The time is up and to hide behind that crumbling wall is folly.

When Reagan said out loud in Berlin in 1987, ”Mr. Gorhachev, open up this gate. Mr. Gorhachev, tear down this wall!” the communists understood that the end was near. If somebody is to say the same thing to the grassroot of UMNO, do they understand it at all?

For them, what worked in the past will work forever.

Whatever arrogance BN manages to dust off its back, Pakatan accumulates. After a wild success, many in Pakatan feel that they are beyond criticism. Even if those criticisms are justified, they implicitly assume that voters really have no choice but to stay which Pakatan because Pakatan is the lesser of the two evils.

Oh, the arrogance is so suffocating that I just wish a general election to come quick for me to prove that Sophie’s choice is but an eroded disk brake of no use any longer. Pakatan does not get a get-out-of-jail-free card any more. The time for free ride is over. No more handicaps. It is time for free and fair competition that is the essence of a proper democracy.

For far too many, in BN and Pakatan as well as their sympathizers, this environment of heightened blind partisanship has encouraged them to adopt a monochromic worldview; a worldview of us versus them. So strong they hold on to their view and so paranoid at that that any opposition towards their position is automatically categorized as ”˜them’, ”˜the other’. It is all about us and them. The other is Pakatan if they are BN; the other is BN if they are Pakatan.

I say this from personal experience. Every time I criticize Pakatan, I am called a BN lackey and everything I criticize BN, I am called a Pakatan apologist, or something to the same effect.

I cannot accept this outrageous accusation for I am independent of Anwaristas and Umnoputras.

No. I will not take that for since when this country of over 26 million Malaysians is cleanly divided between BN and Pakatan?

There are those that do not belong to either party but care nonetheless about the country. To them, to fight for the country does not necessarily mean automatically aligning to either party. No party has a monopoly over the country and these people know it. These people are the independents.

The independents are known for swinging. They walk around for options and shop only they are satisfied with the goods, very unlike blind partisans who will continue buy the same old good from the same vendor, regardless of quality of the good.

Yes, sir. The independents shop around and the independents are no blind partisans.

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 April 29 2009.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1957] Of should we pay income tax?

Why do some people refuse to pay income tax?

Perhaps the word ”˜some’ understates the gravity of the matter. The Ministry of Finance just recently shared that out of approximately two million Malaysians within taxable income bracket, only just over about half of them paid their due last year. This has prompted the Internal Revenue Board to hunt down those who have not paid their income tax yet.

It is likely that a majority of them do not actually explicitly refuse to pay their taxes. It could be a simple oversight, for instance. Indeed, there are multiple possible reasons contributing to non-payment but I am only interested in those who actually explicitly refuse to pay income tax. It is so because this question is crucial in understanding how much trust citizens have for the State, the direct benefactor of such taxes.

Before we explore the original question together further, it is imperative to understand the reasons for taxation.

From classical liberal perspective, there is no doubt that the biggest reason of all is to support the State for rendering services which in effect protect citizens and those within the jurisdiction of the State. That protection at minimum means protection of individual rights.

If the State fails to do so, the obligation to pay taxes evaporates. In fact, failure on behalf of the State to protect these rights eliminates a reason for such a State. This later calls for the creation of a new State capable of discharging its duties better, lest the dissolution of the previous incompetent or tyrannical State leads to an unstable state of anarchy.

This is part of a social contact between citizens and the State as embraced by classical liberals, henceforth libertarians.

Within Malaysian context, the State or the Barisan Nasional-led federal government in many cases has failed to protect various individual rights. Worse, the State itself has in the past threatened and actually infringed on the rights of its citizens.

To be fair, the current administration has so far refrained from doing so and seems to have given some commitment to continue the trend of restraint. How long will that restraint persists is anybody’s guess. We are after all still too early in the days of Najib administration to be confident of anything.

Notwithstanding the question of fairness, the Najib administration is still a BN-led government and the BN-led government has developed a very bad reputation among various groups in Malaysia.

That bad reputation affects classical liberals’ willingness to contribute to the State’s coffer in no little way. Why should libertarians contribute to the State which has the reputation of infringing on private citizens’ rights? To contribute is idiotic and libertarians are not so idiotic.

The unwillingness of libertarians to pay taxes is enhanced further on the economic front. This tax money will in one way or another financed State’s enterprises which will inevitably compete against private enterprises. Why should business owners support their competitors? I will not pursue this point further in hope that I do not digress from the main point and that I do not complicate the flow of thought here unnecessarily. I believe a focus on civil liberty will be sufficient to demonstrate my point clearly.

Admittedly, there are not so many libertarians in Malaysia and therefore, a libertarian explanation does not come even near in explaining comprehensively why so many people refuse to pay their income tax.

The more all encompassing answer probably relates to trust citizens — or more specifically individual taxpayers — maintain for the BN-led government. When seen from this angle, the libertarian answer forms as a subset to a larger explanation.

The trust is associated with the manner which BN-led government manages the tax money. Here, again, the reputation of the BN-led government does not shine and sucks in unsavory adjectives.

Corruption is seen as rampart. Observe the Auditor-General reports highlighting multiple suspicious dealings which include a screwdriver with an astronomical price tag. Has any action been taken to allay such suspicion? Have any culprits been taken to task?

The answer is a resounding no.

More recently, three prominent UMNO members were convicted of corruption by their own political party. Surprisingly, they were allowed to contest for party positions. One of them even went on to win an important party post. Another continues to hold a Chief Minister post.

If the party that leads the state government is seen as corrupted, there is no reason to expect the state government is clean. The same logic goes for the federal government. Does this encourage trust?

The answer is yet again a resounding no.

And then there is the abuse of power, characterized by the slogan ”Satu lagi projek Kerajaan Barisan Nasional”. There is a tendency among BN politicians to obfuscate the difference between the State or the government and political party. This tendency can be seen during by-elections when the BN unabashedly spends millions of ringgit of public money as part of its campaigns, be it in form of direct cash handouts or newly paved road.

BN has no qualms in using state machineries for its benefits. They without guilt consider government machineries as their own private property.

During the last UMNO General Assembly, a delegate made parallel the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to a dog turning around to bite its master’s hand. That is a highly inappropriate statement and yet, it is hard to imagine if UMNO members attending the assembly saw any problem with that statement.

The best example of obfuscation yet is the nature of Radio Televisyen Malaysia. Despite being a public institution, it is woefully a mouthpiece of BN. To understand further how badly the function of RTM has been abused by BN, a comparison with the National Public Radio in the United States of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation in the United Kingdom is necessary.

Both the NPR and the BBC are public institutions like RTM. Unlike RTM however, both the NPR and the BBC serve public interest, not the interest of the ruling political party. This can be proven by its independence and largely neutral reporting as far as local politics are concerned.

RTM lamentably is just one institution which has been abused by BN. There are others like KEMAS, the police and the civil service. Many times whenever I listen to members of these institutions speak, I wonder if I were listening to the government or to BN.

So, given the corruption, the abuse of power and disrespect for individual rights, why should taxes be paid? These money are paid to fund wrongdoings.

When a group of people believe that the government does not belong to them and instead belong to someone else which they do not identify with, the group of people will hold that they do not have a stake in the government or the State. When they do not believe that they have a stake in the State, then they will have no moral obligation to support the State, i.e. pay taxes.

Even if this group paid their taxes, it is only akin to paying protection money to some parasitic thugs.

The antidote for this is simple: convince a majority of taxpayers that they do have a stake in the State. This can be done by making public institutions independent and free of political bias. Make these institutions accountable to them and not to political parties. Such setup is working in the US and the UK and there is no reason for it not to work in Malaysia.

Trust me, income tax collection will go up leap and bound if people feel they do have a stake in the State. More so if they actually feel proud about their State.

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 April 20 2009.

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

nb — a lot of people at The Malaysian Insider failed to differentiate between positive (descriptive) and normative (prescriptive) statements. This article is a positive article, not a normative article.

Many thought that I was advocating for all to not to pay income tax (normative). On the contrary, I am only offering a reason why nearly a million people do not pay their income tax (positive).

A person try to imply that I am against the idea of taxation. No, I said not such thing. This article is not an opposition to the idea of taxation in general. Again, it is only an effort at suggesting several reasons why many individuals do not pay their income tax. It is not an advocate of shirking from responsibility of every citizens.

Remember the positive-normative dichotomy. If you failed to comprehend the positive-normative dichotomy, then you might misunderstand the message.

Categories
Politics & government

[1953] Of Najib’s BN is trying to outflank Pakatan Rakyat

When Najib Razak said by-elections are distracting attention from things that matters like the economy, he might risk contradiction if he had said Barisan Nasional would participate in the Penanti by-election, made possible by the resignation of former Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Mohamad Fairus Khairuddin. By indicating that BN may forfeit the by-election, Najib Razak may have taken the battle to another plane where the odds suddenly shift against Pakatan Rakyat.

It is hard to imagine how BN would win in Penanti, despite the possibility of seeing Pakatan on the defensive due to the scandals associated with a number of Pakatan politicians, specifically attached to Parti Keadilan Rakyat. This is so because Penanti is part of Permatang Pauh, the Parliamentary constituency of the wildly popular Anwar Ibrahim.

BN may have taken a fatalistic perspective towards the outcome of Penanti by-election and that is a fair position to take. At the same time, further defeat at the hand of Pakatan will contribute to downward momentum suffered by BN, despite talks of renewal by BN and BN-backed media. Further defeat will work against the BN media, further distancing created image promoted by the mainstream media and reality on the ground.

And so, skipping the by-election is a good option for Najib Razak. Indeed, with it, he kills two birds with one stone.

It is so not only because skipping the by-election puts a stop — notwithstanding time horizon — to the expanding divide between created image and reality by eliminating a possible further proof for BN unpopularity. The act also gives BN and more than anything else, the Najib administration a chip to shore up its position of concentrating on the economy, which is taking a beating despite sporadic good news appearing here and there.

By skipping the by-election and appearing above politics, the Najib administration takes over a moral high ground of fighting for the benefits of the people, the country. While doing so, BN can continue accusing Pakatan of interested only in politicking and not the greater good. This is especially easy to do if Pakatan continues to assault BN on issues of Perak.

That is almost unfair to Pakatan since Perak was wrestled by BN from them and therefore, Pakatan has every right to continue to politically assault BN in Perak. One has to remember however that there are increasing number of individuals becoming tired of such politicking. Already, the phrase voter fatigue is out and about, indicating that Malaysians may have finally approached a politicking saturation point.[1]

This is really a chance for BN to outflank Pakatan. For Najib Razak himself, it is chance to prove that he is a statesman instead of a mere politician. Whether this is real or apparent, that is hard to say but tactically, his maneuver is an effort to achieve that statesman status.

Pakatan should be mindful of being outflanked because that is not the only effort based on outflanking by the Najib administration.

Already the Najib administration tries to appear to be liberal despite the illiberalness of UMNO grassroot. His rhetoric appears as such, talking about a more open society. Najib’s rhetoric may appear empty, fuzzy and cloudy but it does show some effort at becoming a more open government, however small the steps that is.

Liberal attitude, specifically regarding open society, has been the domain of Pakatan. Even the conservative PAS — despite the debate in PAS on the matter — is regarded as more liberal than UMNO with respect to freedom.

If UMNO in particular can prove that it is liberal enough — meaning, not as in a real liberal’s wet dream but just enough to show its commitment to a more open society — UMNO and in general BN may be able to eliminate a reason why many individuals vote for Pakatan.

Whether that gap can be closed or not, the intention or at least the appearance to do so is there. Pakatan must take heed of this trend, lest they may find themselves at a disadvantaged position come the next general election.

Because of this, if BN decides to forfeit Penang, Pakatan should not celebrate too hard. In fact, Pakatan watch out to its sides to secure its flank because Pakatan Rakyat is probably facing a new BN smarting for past mistakes, even if that smarting process is going at a slow rate.

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

[1] — “By and large, there is fatigue among voters,” says Ibrahim Suffian, chief of opinion research firm Merdeka Centre. However, he says that this by-election is notable as it could be the first where a state assembly representative has resigned on account of integrity issues. [As Penanti by-election looms, polls fatigue a concern . Lee Wei Lian. The Malaysian Insider. April 16 2009]

Categories
Politics & government

[1945] Of that channel called TV3

In the aftermath of March 8 2008, TV3 kept repeating general election results from Sabah and Sarawak, seemingly in denial that something big happened in the Peninsula. They preferred to transmit limited happy news amid a torrent of bad news.

The same trend is being repeated again today. In Buletin Utama produced by TV3, possibly the foremost evening news program albeit suffering from declining popularity, the ticker kept repeating news in what might be an endless loop: BN won Batang Ai in Sarawak. BN won Batang Ai. BN won Batang Ai…

No mention of the current trend in Perak and Kedah. We of course know that BN is losing big time there, just like on March 8.