Tag: libertarianism

Categories
Liberty

[2052] Of the era of paternalism is not over

The era of government knows best is over, or so said Prime Minister Najib Razak in the early part of his young administration. As a person who distrusts the government greatly, I consider that there was never a time when the government knows best. Instead, there was only a long period of paternalism where the government tramples over individuals, especially the ones conscious of liberty.

Notwithstanding the issue of trust, when the head of the government says something so liberal, it provides a glimmer of hope that finally there is a window for a liberal democratic era, however minute the opening might be. What happened in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, as the authority responded to the anti-Internal Security Act march, quickly proves that it is a false window opening to a sordid wall painted blue. In the end, we are still in a small stuffy room imprisoning us all, with blue sky nowhere in sight.

The Barisan Nasional federal government possibly sees the worst in all individuals when it comes to the exercise of freedom of assembly. It takes an almost Hobbesian view in a sense that any assembly in an open public space will degenerate into a rampage. Without control, chaos will reign, as Thomas Hobbes more or less stated in the Leviathan.

It is most unfortunate for history to side with those in Malaysia holding an overly pessimistic view of human nature. The racial riot of May 13, 1969, which has become a boogeyman of sorts that those in power have used time and again to cow individuals from discussing so-called sensitive racial issues so openly, began after groups paraded through parts of Kuala Lumpur. In 1964 in Singapore, at a time when the island city was an integral part of the Malaysian federation, a racial riot that has largely been forgotten by most — even by some in the older generations who accuse the younger generation of being ignorant about the history of the country — was also sparked by parading groups.

If indeed that is the cause of its hostile view towards the exercise of freedom of assembly, then the Barisan Nasional government needs to mature in democratic and liberal terms in order to keep up with Malaysia’s maturing civil society.

The way these protests are carried out and handled — by protesters, by those who disagree with the protesters as well as the authorities — is crucial in the training and inculcation of the culture of liberty by civil society. As long as the authorities continue to assume the worst in individuals, the training will not go far. A government that is still hung up on past fears will become a substantial barrier to the development of civil society.

Peaceful protests happen frequently in developed parts of world for various causes. What any mature government would do with respect to freedom of assembly is to have police officers and other authorities stationed at multiple locations to ensure that these assemblies, either supportive of the government or otherwise, remain largely peaceful. Anyone who causes damage to public property or hurts another person can simply be arrested. There is no problem with that. Furthermore, those interested to keep the assemblies peaceful will agree with that too.

How many times have the authorities failed to suppress peaceful marches only to have the marches end up being peaceful in Malaysia in recent times?

The Bersih march on Nov 10, 2007 ended up peacefully. There was no damage to public property, almost nobody was harmed — and if they were harmed, it was because the police fired tear gas and water cannons before relenting for some reason — and the organisers even picked up trash left behind!

The same goes with the march by lawyers as well as other sympathisers that occurred in September 2007.
This is definitely a sign of a maturing civil society. These groups are conscious of their liberty as well as the associated responsibility that comes with it.

To suppress large peaceful assemblies, like what happened on Saturday and on various occasions in the past, is to turn everything unnecessarily ugly. Actions taken by the authority on Saturday, either in the form of roadblocks or actual coercion, unnecessarily exacerbate the whole episode.

Kuala Lumpur would have not turned into a war zone if the authorities did not suppress the march. Shops would not have to close temporarily if the authorities simply respected the individual’s freedom to assembly. Commuters would not have to suffer hours in traffic if the authorities had taken a liberal stance. Malaysia would not have been painted in such a bad light by the international media.

Perhaps, the government is worried what happened in Bangkok would repeat itself in Kuala Lumpur. Before that track of thought is taken up, it is imperative to realise that the motive in Kuala Lumpur is very different from the one in Bangkok. The one in Bangkok was explicit in its intention to lay prolonged siege on important public institutions. That was never the goal in Kuala Lumpur. Those participating in the anti-Internal Security Act march in Kuala Lumpur are far too respectful of democratic ideals to supplant the legitimacy of the ballot box.

Yet, judging by the inconsistency shown by the Barisan Nasional government, it is not truly a Hobbesian view that it takes. Even if one disagrees with the idea that by nature humans are chaotic beings, the sincerity of a Hobbesian view cannot be denied if he or she takes a consistent stance on the matter. For the Barisan Nasional government, it is only almost a Hobbesian position because there is no sincerity. It is only almost Hobbesian because only assemblies expressing dissatisfaction against the Barisan Nasional government have its participants risking becoming victims of the state security apparatus, or really, given the absence of a necessary separation between the state and a political party that is required to avoid abuse of power, victims of Barisan Nasional’s apparatchiks rather than the state security apparatus.

When some students of Universiti Teknologi Mara took to the streets to protest against Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the institution should slightly liberalise its intake to include some non-Malays to encourage competition in that tertiary education institution, these apparatchiks stood silent, and perhaps, even approvingly. Meanwhile, peaceful candlelight vigils held in protest against police actions irreverent to the idea of liberty in the past have been forcefully dispersed.

In stark contrast to actions taken on Saturday by the police, juveniles were arrested and handcuffed to be treated like common thieves, while actual common thieves ran loose on the streets. The hypocrisy displayed cannot be any clearer.

A proper Hobbesian government will act consistently towards all assemblies and the Barisan Nasional government is no Hobbesian government. Its tolerance to peaceful assemblies depends on who participates and what those assemblies are about, not how peaceful they are. The fact that these assemblies are peaceful are of no consequence to actions taken by these apparatchiks to suppress individual liberty, be it the firing of a water cannon or a stormtrooper shooting teargas to politically conscious but otherwise unarmed and unaggressive individuals.

The inconsistency demonstrated by the Barisan Nasional government is worse than a Hobbesian government. It is a kind of paternalism, which leads to tyranny. They will argue that it is for the best for the country but really, it is only the best action for them to remain in power.

The ideals that Barisan Nasional holds mostly are corporatist, one based on ethnicity. The idea of individual liberty, if it is allowed and encouraged to take its rational course, will dismantle any corporatist set-up. For Barisan Nasional to remain in power while holding to its corporatist ideal, it is in its interest to curb liberty, as it did on Saturday.

Therefore, the era of paternalism is not over. It will be over only when Barisan Nasional evolves or is replaced by a more liberal democratic government. This kind of evolution however is not in its menu.

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 3 2009.

Categories
Economics

[2026] Of a step forward with thousands to go

Liberalization is on the move. Yet, the move hardly deserves to be called a liberalization effort.

Notwithstanding how truly free the local economy is, the federal government led by Barisan Nasional is finally addressing the shortcomings of affirmative action as practiced in the country. The past few weeks have seen the kind of market liberalization that one cannot imagine to be even possible before 2008. The much debated equity ownership quota imposed on public companies is now finished.

It is likely that the BN federal government was forced to address the issue. More than anything else, the Najib administration is a pragmatist concerned with its survival. One cannot be deluded into believing that the administration is doing this out of conviction to the idea of liberty.

Affirmative action was one of several major contentious issues in the 2008 general election. Both its basis and implementation suffered from relentless heavy attacks during the election campaign.

The result of the last general election suggests that the attacks were successful. Those attacks eroded popular support for the policy, even among the groups that it was supposed to benefit.

That and coupled with existing market forces that are always ready to rebel against top-down approaches, liberalization seems inevitable in retrospect. The unpopular centrally planned policy based on ethno-nationalism is now indefensible in a concrete sense. The anti-affirmative action movement has done a remarkably good job at demonstrating why it is indefensible.

As a result, no longer are the weaknesses of the affirmative action an abstraction appreciated by the critical-minded and the well-read individuals only. Many among the masses are convinced that the policy is morally and economically unacceptable. So strong is the anti-affirmative action current that BN cannot support the policy, or at least in its present form, any longer if it is concerned with its chances in the next general election, which must  be held before 2013.

Individuals belonging to the tradition of classical liberalism are generally hostile to the policy. Malaysian affirmative action is a case of government intervention. The policy spreads the tentacles of the government across the landscape to limit essential freedom that individuals and firms require to maximize their welfare. It is one more constraint to adhere to, increasing the cost of doing business.

The quota-based policy worked in the past because other factors outside of Malaysia compensated for its cost. Not too many countries had a good transportation and communication system along with a sufficiently educated workforce previously, especially before the 1990s. Some others like China meanwhile were excessively hostile to the concept of private property despite the fact that right to private property is the non-negotiable basis for a prosperous society. Options for investment in an increasingly globalizing world were limited.

That is no longer true today. Factors that made others unattractive for investment purpose are largely gone. This reduces, if not eliminates, many advantages that Malaysia had over others in the past. With a more competitive environment, the policy of affirmative action stands out as one of several major structural barriers that are handicapping Malaysia vis-à-vis other economies.

For Malaysia to move forward, it is exactly the kind of structural reforms like the recent liberalization on equity that is required.

Classical liberals — libertarians — are savoring this moment after years of living through suffocating government intervention. In times when many governments all around the world are enforcing their influence in the market, it is refreshing to see the government in Malaysia retreating.

Still, one has to be mindful that the recent effort at liberalization is largely confined to restrictions traditionally associated with Bumiputra policy. The government has its hands in too many aspects not just in the market but also in the lives of private citizens.

The recent fiscal stimuli based on government spending are proof that the dream for a free market is still far in the distance.

Even as the 30 per cent Bumiputra quota is liberalized, another quota, albeit less restrictive, is set in place.

In the background, the availability of government-linked companies continues to crowd the market. These entities utilize unfair advantages that no true private businesses can have. These GLCs are monopolies. With excessive market power, it kills entrepreneurship, one of the factors that keep the free market as a system superior to any other.

Meanwhile, prices and supply control regimes are still in place to distort signals in the market in the name of welfare, discouraging the development of an adaptive culture in favor of a static one.

There are other examples that affirm the illiberalness of the Malaysian market.

Hence, there is no time to rest. The pressure for greater freedom has to be applied continually. The Najib administration is one point up but it will have to suffer more criticism.

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 July 3 2009.

Categories
Liberty Photography

[2003] Of reading Utilitarianism under a tree

I have not been posting pictures for a very long time. The reason for that is a certain photography shop — ah, hell, I will just name it; Foto Flash — is taking a very long time to send it to Nikon and service my DSLR.

In the meantime, I have to settle with my old trusty Fujifilm A303. That is a very old point-and-shoot camera; it is the camera before I migrated to D40.

This is the first photo by A303 after more or less 2 years, I think.

Some right reserved.

This is not an entertaining book due to its long proses but it is enlightening anyway. I do not however agree with some that Mill writes, especially with bias towards religion. Somehow, he makes exception for his religion what he outlines for others.

Regardless, I will be in Penang next week and I need my DSLR. If Foto Flash does not return my D40 in time, I may be in need of a new DSLR. At the moment, I am looking at D60. To do that, I might sell my D40 to subsidize my upgrade.

I will be leaving for Australia in the first or the second week of July. So, I need to get it off my hand rather quickly. I am thinking of selling my D40 in between RM1,000 and RM1,500. That is between half and 3/4 of the price I bought it for. Along with it are the charger, the CD, the manual and the kit len. If you are lucky, I might throw in a tripod for you too.

So, anybody want to buy my D40?

Categories
Books, essays and others Liberty

[1985] Of Mill alluding to externality and solving it through utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill in his introduction to On Liberty writes:

It is proper to state that I forgo any advantage which could be derived to my argument from idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man’s duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is a rule; to make his answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet, there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amendable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good reasons for not holding him to the responsibility; but these reasons must arise from the special expediencies of the case: either because it is a kind of case in which he is on the whole likely to act better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their power to control him; or because the attempt to exercise control would produce other evils, greater than those which it would prevent. When such reasons as these preclude the enforcement of responsibility, the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgement-seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection; judging himself all the more rigidly, because the case does not admit of his being made accountable to the judgement of his fellow creatures. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]

First of all, wow. Look at that. That is one paragraph. But at least, it is more readable than Kant’s impossible Critique of Pure Reason.

Secondly and more importantly, it is beyond doubt this particular paragraph of Mill is filled with utilitarian idea. He justifies compulsion by society on individual by doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Gee, what am I talking about. This is Mill after all.

I am not quite sure if I agree with Mill when he writes there “are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform.” This may refer to externality but reading the whole paragraph within the context set by the introductory chapter by Mill, his idea may go beyond mine. While do believe certain negative externality requires action — for instance carbon emissions with respect to climate change — Mill mentions common defense, which may or may not mean conscription. I do have certain distaste for free riders; yet, I do have problem utilizing compulsion in against free riders. Mill suffers no such issue by reverting to utilitarianism.

Nevertheless, I am relieved to read that a “person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”

Indeed.

Mill writes further immediate after that paragraph. and it is more agreeable if I might add. I am reproducing it for the benefit of the readers here:

But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly, and in the first instance: for whatever affects himself, may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. [On Liberty. Chapter 1. John Stuart Mill. 1859]

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.