Categories
Politics & government

[2711] Thank you, now move on

Some good dozens of issues are holding Malaysia back. Several big ones are legacies originating from days long gone. While we can never truly escape history, I feel it is dragging us down too much. So heavy is the baggage that sometimes, I feel the best way to move forward is to forget.

I write this because Chin Peng died on Malaysia Day. He fought for a very different version of Malaysia, possibly the very opposite of what we have today. That makes the date of his death quite ironic, although it is arguable that his struggle hastened the independence of Malaya and later the formation of Malaysia.

We can never truly know how it would have been if he had his way. But, if offered the choice between a Communist state and today’s Malaysia, I will choose today’s reality—even with its lamentable imperfections—without hesitation.

That does not mean the imperfections afflicting Malaysia today are acceptable. We can live in a society that is better than what we have today. That has to be true because otherwise we must have given up on this country.

One imperfection comes from the very era Chin Peng and his generation represent. The fight against the Communist rebellion took a toll on our way of life. We sacrificed our liberty for security then. Unfortunately years after the conflict ended, we continue to make the same sacrifices when none is needed. Instruments useful for the fight against the Communists have been abused to suppress other Malaysians.

There has been progress, like the abolition of the Internal Security Act, but the opening is happening too slowly for my liking. The promise of more liberalization remains unfulfilled, no thanks to pressure from those still unable or refuse to move on.

I hope the death of Chin Peng — and slowly, his generation regardless the sides they are on — brightens the prospect of us forgetting old fears that are increasingly irrelevant to this age. I use the word irrelevant not to deny old wounds. The wounds are real and I respect that. I write so because when you look all around you, you will not expect a Communist to shoot you. Communism itself does not deserve the attention it receives in Malaysia today.

All the silly political ding-dong on the matter like arguing about the ashes of Chin Peng, gives Communism too much undeserved attention. In fact, the government’s stubborn refusal to let Chin Peng be buried in Malaysia gives Communism too much sympathy.

As that generation slowly fades, my hope is that we can finally take a step forward and leave all the old baggage behind. I hope that the memories of past terrors and the rationale for illiberal laws that we have now will go away with that generation too bitter to move on. I believe only when they are gone will we have a freer hand to write our future.

The era of Communist insurrection is not the only legacy issue bedeviling our modern Malaysia. There is a whole set too long for a comprehensive mention. Some people are blaming the British for Malaysian woes half a century later. What is certain is that these issues are in our collective mind, no thanks to that generation which keeps reminding us of their bitterness and insecurity.

The world changes but they do not. It would be okay if they had kept their old worldviews to themselves as they enjoy their retirement. The problem is that leaders of that generation are still pulling strings.

They are Malaysians too and they deserve a place under the sun but sometimes, they influence too strongly, as Lee Kuan Yew has done in Singapore years after his retirement.

This makes efforts by current leaders, whichever side they are on, to move on more difficult than it should. Former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi knows what it feels like when Prime Minister Najib Razak comes under unrelenting pressure as the Umno election nears.

But Chin Peng reminds us all that we are mortals. It is just a matter of when.

That generation will be missed. But we need to move on.

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 Malay Mail Online on September 23 2013.

Categories
Society

[2705] A retreat from openness

There was a time when we only heard or read news of strangers becoming victims of crime. It was easy to shrug off the news because the victims were strangers. Somebody would cry for them but that somebody would not be us. We would just go on with our lives and worry about other things that were not at all worrisome. We would have to be very, very unlucky if we made it into the news ourselves.

Those days have receded into the background. It is starting to feel that it does not take random luck anymore to become a victim. We need to take active steps instead to prevent ourselves from becoming one.

In response, I think our society is becoming more reclusive than before as we collectively try to avoid becoming victims ourselves.

The idea of becoming a victim of crime is not so foreign anymore. In the past, the victim would be two, three or more degrees separated from us. Nowadays, it is likely that most of us personally know someone who has become a victim. It could be our family, friends, neighbors or colleagues.

That is definitely true in my case. While I have not become a victim myself, I know friends — not mere acquaintances — who have become victims of crime in recent years. One of them was robbed at knife-point after being taken for a ride in a cab some months ago. Thankfully the perpetrator was later apprehended and sentenced swiftly, but only after he raped a tourist.

Another almost lost his pinky while defending himself in a robbery. Yet another was beaten up and had his car taken away from him.

The whole experience is disconcerting. It is a feeling of you standing in the middle of a crowd and everybody surrounding you being eaten by wolves. Long ago there were lots of people and strangers especially between you and the wolves. Today, you can almost see the wolves themselves. It is too close for comfort.

However, the men and women of transformation try to convince us that it is merely a matter of perception — no thanks to the social media which is unhelpfully amplifying the fear as they would say — you get the feeling that you will be next. Rightly or wrongly, it gives out a sense of fatalism. It is not a matter of if. You only need to ask the wolves when.

While it is easy to be apathetic when a stranger has her handbag snatched or his house broken into, it is almost impossible to remain indifferent when your loved ones become victims. If it happens often enough, we will begin to take action on our own.

Some of us have. Looking around the city, the word ”some” is an understatement.

The first to come up noticeably were the boom gates and fences surrounding our neighborhoods in the suburbs. Along with private security services, residents put them up to deter home invasions. Sometimes, when I find myself inside one of those overzealous neighborhoods, I feel as if I am in a fortress, as if the world outside comprises of barbarians to be repelled and kept out.

The truth is that the security measures keep more than potential criminals out. Passing through these checkpoints can be a hassle. As we put them up, we will likely get fewer of the good kind of visitors in the process. In effect, we retreat inside our four walls.

Some of us have guns on ourselves. In the news some weeks back, a ”˜Tan Sri’, while waiting to meet his doctor at a clinic in Cheras in Kuala Lumpur, managed to defend himself and others in the clinic against a gang of robbers by shooting at them. One robber died. This is a rare story of a person successfully defending himself. But I wonder, what is the implication of that?

Do we now need guns to protect ourselves?

I am a libertarian and libertarians usually demand the right to bear arms. While that is so, I think libertarians, or at least just myself, also have higher ideals and that is to live in an open society. Whatever the value of the right to bear arms, guns do have a corrosive effect on openness. I would not have the guts to walk the streets where everybody is armed to the teeth.

Yet, unfortunately, we do not need the right to bear arms to be in that situation.

This week alone saw more people getting shot. One of them, a prominent local banker, was shot dead in broad daylight in the middle of the city. And who can forget, just months ago, a top official of the royal custom was shot dead in the middle of Putrajaya. If these happen all too often in a country with supposedly tough anti-guns laws, public places would be dearth of life.

I know I am not nearly as important as some of the victims mentioned here. That probably means that I am not a target per se. Nevertheless, I would not want to be there when it happens to some important persons. Being an accidental witness cannot only be emotionally horrifying, the shooters may not like a person witnessing the crime.

If we make it there without being stabbed or shot at, our future will be a reclusive, untrusting society. The future is not fixed but the path we are taking right now leads towards that future.

An easy and safe response is to stay at home, be quiet and be reclusive. No adventure, no meeting up with strangers and not even walking on the street alone.

Already we jog in gyms and not in the parks. Even in the parks, if we do run or walk, when we come upon a stranger along the path, we will run a bit faster rather than smile and say, “How do you do?”

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 Malay Mail Online on August 4 2013.

Categories
Economics

[2698] Missing the TPP boat can be costly

As negotiations progress, opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is getting louder in Malaysia.

The opposition camp is focusing on possible loss of policy independence arising from the implementation of the TPP and its potential cost to ordinary Malaysians. While their concerns are legitimate and deserve attention, it is also important to know that there are possible losses from not joining the TPP.

The TPP is a proposed multilateral free trade agreement (FTA) among 12 diverse countries across the Pacific region. Those countries include Malaysia and the United States. Several other countries with reasonably large populations like Thailand have expressed interest in joining the TPP as well. If negotiations are successful, it will create the largest free trade area in the world in terms of gross domestic product.

The immediate primary purpose of having an FTA is to increase trade volume by reducing cost. That can be done by liberalizing trade tariffs or by standardizing regulations, among others. The ultimate aim of having greater trade volume is to improve the population’s average welfare. Greater trade volume means greater opportunity for increased income and more job creation.

That certainly has been true for Malaysia. In the years after the formation of Malaysia, the country embraced an import substitution industrialization policy (ISI), where imports were discouraged and actively replaced by domestic production. It did industrialize some parts of the economy but with a small population therefore small demand, industrialization efforts did not go far enough to push overall income and general welfare up convincingly. Furthermore, it was an expensive way to industrialize.

Malaysia and several other Asia-Pacific countries, most notably the four Asian Tigers, only really began to grow rapidly upon the adoption of an export-oriented industrialization policy (EOI) in the 1970s and the 1980s.

While the ISI looked inward and had limited trade, the EOI explored the world for growth to cater to global demand apart from domestic demand. With the explosion of trade volume, these countries grew rapidly soon after.

New jobs that did not even exist before were created. Average incomes of Malaysians zoomed up in a way no one had ever seen before. The result was the Asian Miracle: where others took centuries to achieve, these Asian countries took only a few decades thanks to trade.

The FTA helps support the EOI by granting low-tariff access to the international market.

Now, there are at least two effects of trade. One is the creation of new trade, which is good because it benefits the trading partners without hurting a third party. The other is trade diversion, which benefits the trade partners but hurts a third party.

There is an aphorism in support of free trade: a rising tide lifts all boats. That means trade is not a zero-sum game and the benefits outweigh the costs after all things are considered. The truth is that happens only if new trade is created.

Right now, the best way to create new trade is through a global trade agreement where every country co-ordinates with each other to liberalize its trade. Unfortunately, that global effort in the form of the Doha Round has been dead for some years now. In its place, countries are resorting to bilateral and regional trade arrangements.

While these bilateral and regional arrangements, which the Asean Free Trade Area and the TPP belong to, can create new trade, they can also create some diversionary effect to hurt countries which are not party to the arrangement. In some ways, such FTA can be thought as a preferential trade agreement, especially if the trade diversion effect is stronger than the trade creation effect.

A dramatic example effect of trade diversion would be China before it joined the WTO in late 2001. While the WTO is not exactly an FTA in a traditional sense, it functions as such.

All WTO members must treat each other equally and there is no requirement to treat non-members equally. That leads to a situation where trade barriers imposed by a member state against another member state are generally lower than that imposed on non-members. Since most countries in the world are WTO members, non-members are screwed… to put it simply.

A lot of trade flows circumvented China, the non-member. That was not because China had nothing to offer to the world but it was only because of trade diversion.

Once China joined the WTO, the trade diversion effect was reduced. Proof: China is now the factory of the world and that may not be just a figure of speech. It is worthwhile to take note that China became a global economic powerhouse when it opened up.

Here, we return to the TPP. It has the potential of becoming the largest FTA in the world. Because of its sheer size, the trade diversion effect from Malaysia missing the TPP boat can be so big that it can hurt, never mind the lost opportunity for new trade creation. It means job and income growth could be at stake, making Malaysia’s effort to catch up with the developed Asian Tigers harder than it should be.

This however does not mean the worry of the anti-TPP camp should be shoved aside. Certain provisions within the TPP may provide too much monopoly power to foreign corporations as the proposed agreement tries to put in place overly strong intellectual property rights that seem to turn the debate into the issue of market monopoly. Malaysia is already struggling to address pre-existing monopolists throughout its economy. The TPP may just exacerbate the situation by creating more monopolies in more sectors.

Nevertheless, those concerns and several others are sectoral in nature. It is wise to move out of the respective silos and look at the bigger picture from time to time.

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 Malay Mail Online on June 27 2013.