Tag: libertarianism

Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[2235] Of hitting the brakes of subsidy liberalization

I am generally in favor of subsidy cuts in Malaysia. Yet, I hesitate to support the recent liberalization.

The economic rationale for liberalization is clear. Public discourse on this front has seen enough progress that liberalization is a popular position to take in Malaysia.

Let us recap the most commonly cited arguments.

Firstly, the subsidy program has an opportunity cost, as with all policies. If a government spends on one particular program, it necessarily means not spending money on others. Moreover, blanket consumption subsidy is probably the worst of all policies in terms of opportunity cost.

Secondly, there are better policies — cash transfer or tradable quotas for the needy are two examples — compared to outright subsidy. These alternative policies can address welfare concerns more efficiently.

Thirdly, the subsidy program has to be financed. That means taxation. While taxation is required to maintain a government, the level of taxation can be controlled to accommodate other concerns. There are various reasons why a low-tax environment is favorable. A bloated subsidy program does not help in this aspect.

Finally, together with a subsidy program, multiple suffocating supply and demand control regimes typically exist to support the program. As a result, the market becomes inflexible as more and more controls are set in place. The inflexibility causes hardship to more individuals than necessary.

The subsidy cut appeals to these arguments. If these were the only concerns, I would wholly support the liberalization exercise.

But it is not.

Two pillars form the basis for my support for liberalization. One is economic concerns. The other involves concern for freedom. Specifically, it is the idea of small government.

The weight I put on these two factors changes from time to time according to situation and the situation has changed since the last time subsidy liberalization took place. The size of subsidies and the drag these place on government finance are less of an issue today compared to a year or two ago. That convinces me to place more weight for freedom vis-à-vis economic concern, although the two concerns are not mutually exclusive most of the time.

While liberalization satisfies the economic side of the balance, the desire to see a reduction in government size is unmet.

Take the Prime Minister’s Department, for instance. Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong shared recently that the size of the department has more than doubled in less than a decade. The statistics regarding the size of the civil service and the government as a whole are more harrowing. All this contributes to the structural fiscal deficit that Malaysia suffers from.

The deficit caused by rocketing expenditure is an indictment of a fat old man called the government. The current government has announced its intention to reduce it, presumably by reducing government expenditure. Whether the plan will be successful is another matter altogether.

Amid the liberalization and other government initiatives that include the formation of new government-linked companies, I have a disturbing narrative at the back of my mind: Effort to free up resources is aimed at merely funding government expansion in other areas.

It is hard to predict the net effect but experience does not encourage much hope. One possible outcome is a scenario where the areas of expansion require a more active government hand compared to the one where the government retreats.

Already, government supporters are using the opportunity cost argument eagerly to justify the recent cuts. They say the government will put the money in good use. Good use or not, they are setting the ground to use the retreat as a justification to expand the other sides of government.

The opportunity cost argument is not exclusively used by government supporters. Opposition sympathizers and others do have ideas on how to spend the money. Politics may create a trade-off between economic concern and freedom in the end.

I fear that, and that fear is holding me back from supporting the recent liberalization.

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 4 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2170] Mengenai apabila kerajaan mencipta masalah, salahkan pasaran bebas

Bekas Presiden Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur Salleh Majid menulis tentang dialog yang beliau hadiri di dalam Utusan Malaysia hari ini.[1] Beliau menyenaraikan pelbagai masalah yang dihadapi Malaysia, masalah yang diakui kewujudannya oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional hanya selepas Pilihanraya Umum 2008. Masalah-masalah ini kemudiannya dijadikan sebagai alasan untuk mengaminkan campur tangan kerajaan di dalam ekonomi negara serta polisi Barisan Nasional. Walaupun masalah-masalah ini wujud, ia tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk campur tangan yang lebih hebat kerana kerajaanlah yang menjadi sumber kepada kebanyakan masalah-masalah ini.

Sistem pendidikan yang lemah disebut sebagai satu punca kepada struktur ekonomi negara yang tidak menyakinkan. Siapakah yang mempermainkan sistem pendidikan kita? Siapakah yang mengikat kaki dan tangan pelajar serta tenaga pengajar? Siapakah yang memperbodohkan beberapa generasi rakyat Malaysia demi kepentingan politik? Kerajaan.

Karenah birokrasi kerajaan adalah satu lagi faktor yang diketengahkan. Adakah birokrasi tersebut disebabkan oleh pasaran bebas?

Kemudian disebutnya masalah korupsi dan rasuah. Ini adalah perkara yang kelakar. Siapakah penyebab utama perkara tersebut berleluasa? Pasaran bebas? Bukankah bahagian eksekutif kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh Barisan sekian lama yang telah meluaskan kuasa mereka sehingga sistem timbal balik hilang reputasinya? Bukankah kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri Barisan Nasional yang sewenang-wenangnya menggunakan duit rakyat untuk kepentingan parti? Bukankah punca korupsi itu adalah kerajaan?

Kewujudan kartel dan monopoli adalah masalah yang besar. Tetapi, siapakah yang menggalakkan pembentukan monopoli ini? Siapakah yang menggalakkan industrialisasi secara penggantian import di Malaysia? Siapakah yang menyekat pemberian lesen? Kerajaan! Kerajaan! Kerajaan!

Beliau akhir sekali menyebut beberapa negara yang mengalami masalah ekonomi yang kononnya disebabkan oleh sikap free for all. Beliau menyebut tentang Sepanyol, Portugal, Itali dan Greece. Tetapi, bukankah masalah negara-negara ini adalah saiz defisit fiskal yang besar yang disebabkan oleh perbelanjaan kerajaan yang tidak terkawal? Adakah kemampuan kerajaan-kerajaan ini untuk mengawal keadaan fiskal mereka disebabkan pasaran bebas? Mereka yang memperjuangkan pasaran bebas kebanyakan mahu saiz kerajaan dikurangkan. Penyokong pasaran bebas mahukan perbelanjaan kerajaan dikurangkan lalu mengatasi masalah defisit.

Jadi, mengapa salahkan pasaran bebas apabila kerajaan yang menyebabkan semua ini?

Ini penipuan yang tidak boleh dibiarkan.

Yang lebih mengarut lagi, masalah-masalah ini ditulisnya akan menjadi lebih teruk jika pasaran bebas dilaksanakan. Kerajaanlah penyebabnya, tetapi beliau tidak mengakui akan kebenaran ini. Malah, menurut beliau, kerajaan perlu campur tangan untuk mengatasi masalah ini.

Ini adalah satu pegangan yang mungkin lucu, jika ia tidak pernah memusnahkan negara ini.

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

[1] — BEBERAPA kumpulan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NG0), usahawan Bumiputera Semenanjung, Sabah dan Sarawak telah berpeluang memberikan pandangan mereka tentang Model Ekonomi Baru(MEB) kepada Pengerusi Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Negara, Tan Sri Amirsham Aziz pada hari Khamis 25 Februari yang lalu. [Dialog dengan Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Negara. Salleh Majid. Utusan Malaysia. Mac 1 2010]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2149] Of there are Malay alternatives to the term Allah and tuhan

I have clarified my position regarding the usage of the term Allah by Catholic group and by extension, any term by anybody. This reasoning forms the basis of my position not to oppose Catholic group’s use of the term. Indeed, I consider this line of reasoning as not only the most convincing for me, consistent with my wider libertarian philosophy that I hold, it is the only line of reasoning that informs my decision not to oppose it. This is the libertarian position. The purpose of this entry is to address another position regarding the lack of alternative.

First, there are other reasons that have been bandied elsewhere. Arguably, the argument I have seen the most is based on historical development of the Malay Bible. As it goes, certain domination of Christianity — and Sikhs — have been using the term Allah well before the 1980s, when the government first interfered in the issue. Furthermore, the first Bible that used the term Allah to refer to the Christian god was first translated into Malay in the 17th century by a Dutchman as part of Christian evangelization effort in Southeast Asia. Notwithstanding the libertarian position, this argument is acceptable because it appeals to historical accident. Moreover, it demonstrates that the use of the term by Christian, obviously, as not a recent phenomenon. Yet, it fails to kill the suspicion that use of the term Allah is really for proselytizing activities, which is one major problem associated with the whole controversy to start with. This failure what convinces me that this particular rationale as imperfect.

I have no problem with propagation of any religion as long as those religions do not violate liberty but in addressing the issue in Malaysia, the suspicion seriously have to be addressed. To say that there is a law to prevent propagation of other religions among Muslims as an answer to that concern is utterly deficient because — ignoring its anti-liberty rationale — would such law work? Do differentiate the normative and positive aspects.

Despite its failure, I reiterate, the argument based on history may have some sway.

The second argument, which is the purpose of this entry, is the point that there is a lack of alternative to describe the term god. Ignore the fact that terms can be imported from other languages, even the Malay language has alternatives to Allah and tuhan. There are more than two words to describe the idea.

While I set out to disprove the argument that there is no alternative to the word Allah and tuhan in Malay, knowing that there are alternatives, my casual research on the language and terms to describe the idea of god really surprises me even.

Consider the fourth edition of R. O. Winstedt’s An Unabridged English-Malay Dictionary published in 1963. For god, Winstedt listed Allah, tuhan, dewa, dewi, dewata, indera and khalik. These words are detailed by Teuku Iskandar’s Kamus Dewan as published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1970. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka’s Kamus Dwibahasa Bahasa Inggeris-Bahasa Malaysia adds another one and that is betara. This has not even considered other words and phrases like pencipta, tuan and dato’ which can be made to mean the same as god within specific context.

There are also older words like Hyang or Sang Yang that are rarely used but remains Malay nonetheless.

I personally have never encountered the word khalik and betara but that shows how, even for a native speaker of Malay, the full breadth of the language is larger, as it should typically be, than everyday popular vocabulary bank. In this sense, arguing that there is no alternative is an act of sheer arrogance of one’s pool of knowledge. Arrogance can be justified but when it is based on ignorance, then humility must take its place.

Thus, this renders the argument of no alternative to naught. In fact, I consider such argument as a point in ignorance, if not outright dishonesty.

This requires highlight in political terms. Even I as a person who is generally dismissive of religions and its activities and as a libertarian who actually does not oppose the use of the term Allah by Catholic Church in Malaysia am distrustful of the motive behind the employment of the rationale. Consider what would conservative Malay Muslims would think? The label conservative Malay Muslims is rather misleading. A lot of not-so conservative Malay Muslims feel distressed about the issue. I can divorce the flaw of the ”˜no alternative’ argument from my overall position but the less libertarian Malays would not do so and would use it instead to strengthen their illberal opposition.

Using the ”˜no alternative’ argument will just give more fuel to the opposition fire. Not only it defeats effort at bridge building, it helps to popularly defeat libertarian position on the matter.

So, my advice is, do not use the argument that there is no alternative. It is simply not true. Just stick to the historical accident and libertarian arguments.

Categories
Liberty

[2147] Of actual, libertarian and ideal constraints

The controversy on the use of the term Allah has helped me to clarify the difference between the act of supporting, not supporting, opposing and not opposing. I generally had considered it as merely a binary fork in the style of if one does not support, then one must oppose and vice versa.

I do not oppose and I do not support the use of the term Allah by The Herald.

By both not supporting and not opposing, it by no mean I am indifferent.

By not opposing, I am simply acknowledging the right of the Catholic Church to use the term Allah in its publication The Herald. At the same time, I do not support the use because of all the trouble it brings. This is not contradictory. What I oppose is effort to rob The Herald of its right to use the term Allah, or any term really. The distinction has to be made clear. Like what I have written previously, “the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.”

The realization of those cases — of supporting and opposing and everything in between — is a byproduct of cognizance of the difference between ideal and libertarian constraints.

I consider this as revolutionary in terms of my own thinking. I had some grasp on the matter before but not as clearly as I see it now.

This really turns my worldview over its head because previously, I considered the libertarian constraint as the ideal case while whatever happening on the ground is the — pardon me for my failure of imagination — actual constraint. It might be inappropriate to call it actual constraint because it might not be a constraint per se. It is the world as it is. But no matter. I will worry about the semantic later.

In the spirit of gap analysis, the job then was to work from the actual constraint towards the ideal constraint, which is the libertarian constraint. The libertarian constraint is simply the typical limit imposed on individuals with negative individual right in mind.

My new realization introduces libertarian constraint not as the ideal constraint but as the actual limit of individual and society with the ideal case becoming more restrictive within libertarian constraint. The work now is to set from actual and libertarian constraints to the ideal one. Perhaps I have been a libertarian for so long that I am simply internalizing libertarian belief system and taking it as the actual limit that society must observe at minimum.

I have yet to define the ideal constraint properly and I think that will prove to be much harder than defining libertarian constraint. I doubt I will ever comprehensively define that ideal constraint. The reason is, unlike libertarian constraint that is general in nature, the ideal constraint is far more specific in nature and has to be to assess on case by case basis, notwithstanding the demand on consistency.

There is one thing that I can be certain. Because the ideal constraint is located within libertarian constraint, the ideal constraint does not contradict libertarian constraint. This is where I am able to hold the position of not oppose and not support the use of the term Allah by The Herald without contradiction. Libertarian constraint demands me to not oppose the use because it is The Herald’s negative right, i.e. right from interference in exercise. Ideal constraint, within libertarian limit, allows me to not support it because my ideal constraint here is conscious of the adverse effect of the use of the term on peace and goodwill within Malaysia society.

Another example is warranted. Consider a racist speech.

Libertarian constraint says that no one can prevent the speech from being made. It is part of right to free speech. My ideal constraint prefers that the speech not being made at all because how the speech may encourage bad blood among individuals.

Libertarian constraint discounts the use of force to reach the ideal constraint. While the ideal constraint agrees with the libertarian constraint on the use of force and preservation of liberty, it seeks to discourage the racist speech.

This brings in an uncomfortable possibility. Does this approach to what is called as libertarian paternalism, or paternal libertarianism (as if there is a difference between the two)?

Categories
Liberty Society

[2144] Of libertarian position on the Allah controversy

I have nothing clever to say with respect to the controversy involving the usage of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia (specifically, Catholic Christians I suppose) and objection raised by considerable number of Muslims there.[1] What I have to say is just some plain old consequences arising from my libertarian position. I think I have somewhat clarified my position while trying to explain, what I think is why some more conservative Muslims in Malaysia object to the use of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia.

In any case, I am going to explain my position.

From the principle of freedom, specifically religious freedom and more broadly, freedom of expression, there is no reason for me to be alarmed by the recent court decision to allow Christians to use the term Allah to refer to their god in Malaysia. For any group to claim exclusive right over an idea that cannot be, in a sense, privatized or perhaps — however ridiculous this may sound — trademarked, is problematic. I cannot quite find the right words to describe it but clearly, no individual liberty has been transgressed by this action taken by Christians. Meanwhile, to prevent Christians from doing so will violate their liberty, and therefore should be untenable for libertarians.

Furthermore, based on the concept of secularism, which I consider as an essential aspect of the libertarian concept of the state, the state should have no role in this at all. So, to me, the court decision is only right. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would call for government intervention in form of religious control in the society.

Not only that, that government intervention will expand the frontier of the state into private life of a person. Just imagine the kind of mechanism required to enforce a ruling that insists the term Allah belongs exclusively to Muslims and no one else in Malaysia. Well, actually, you do not have to imagine it. It is already in place.

Lastly, this conflict paints both Christianity and Islam in Malaysia in a bad light: those Christians who insist in using the term Allah when there are other alternatives and conservative Muslims for their schizophrenic attitude. It is true that the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.

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

[1] — Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s High Court ruled that a government ban on non-Muslim publications using the word ”Allah” is unconstitutional, settling a dispute that stoked questions about religious freedom in the country.

The Herald, a weekly publication of the Catholic Church of Malaysia, filed for a judicial review after it was temporarily ordered to stop publishing for two weeks in December 2007 after using the word, which means ”God,” in its Malay-language section. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Manirajan Ramasamy. Ranjeetha Pakiam. Bloomberg. December 31 2009]