Tag: Malaysian elections

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2975] Do not blame Muda by too much

Ralph Nader was a popular figure in some of the progressive parts of America. He gave speeches in Ann Arbor several times when I lived there, and once ahead of the 2004 presidential election, he had to defend himself from vote-splitting accusation. In 2000, Al Gore lost the presidential election to George Bush with the narrowest of margin, with the Naders’ Greens won substantial votes as the third party candidate. Given that Nader and the Democrats’ bases overlapped, it was easy for bitter Democrats to claim that Nader took votes away from Al Gore, and paved the way for Bush’s presidency. Nader defended himself by saying that if he did not put himself on the ballot, those who had voted him would likely have not gone out to vote anyway.

I see Pakatan Harapan supporters blaming Muda for vote-splitting, and for easing Perikatan Nasional’s advances in Selangor. For a number of seats PH lost, the loss margin was smaller than the votes Muda won, even as Muda lost all of their deposits.

And it is easy to dislike Muda this time around. The episode in Bukit Gasing was Muda’s act of self-sabotage. Their asset declaration exercise was less than truthful, and so, to me, insulting. More than several candidates were nothing more than rich kids with little understanding of society or policy. Their campaign messages were jumbled up badly, confusing local, state and national policies all at once. I came out of the 2 weeks campaigning period from a position of neutral-to-mild skepticism near the beginning, to that of a dismissal by voting day. The latest set of candidates undid some good work earlier ones like Lim Wei Jiet have done.

Yes, it is easy to dislike Muda but Nader’s defense applies here.

The low turnout suggests PH bases were uninspired this time around. PH’s pandering to the deep conservatives on the far side is one possible reason for these people not to go out and vote. And there are people, who voted for PH the last round, openly said their would vote for a third choice as a sign of protest.

So, if there was no Muda, it is hard to say whether those Muda votes would have gone to PH or BN.

But more than that, for every vote Muda got, there were more PH voters who did not go out and vote. Blaming Muda is an excuse to ignore the much bigger point: PH base is dissatisfied. PH is committing the same mistake PH 2018-2020 did: trying to get the votes they could never get on the far side of the spectrum, at the expense of the middle voters and PH bases. And these voters protested and did not bother to go out.

This dissatisfaction has to be addressed.

Categories
Politics & government

[2962] 2022 manifesto represents progress in PH policymaking

Going through Pakatan Harapan’s latest 94-plus pages manifesto reminds me how far things have progressed over the last 10 or so years. By things, I mean the current component PH parties’ ability to churn out policy documents, and overall sophistication in promoting policies. Ten or 15 years ago, PH struggled to produce such policy documents.

The inability to do so was among others due to lack of manpower or professionals in various fields within party ranks and volunteers. In the past, most professionals or even experts stayed well in the private sector. If they had political ambition or interest, they would join Barisan Nasional. Contributing to parties like DAP and PKR (or then Pas) then meant career suicide. Few were willing to sacrifice their living standards for partisan politics.

That has changed as the urban middle class now relies less on  government largess, and with private employment opportunities well diversified beyond the reach of partisan hands. That trend, I think, comes as multiethnic urban voters shift their party preference from that of BN to PKR, DAP and their various allies over the years. Now, PH has access to those professionals and experts.

Even when DAP and PKR were weak during those years, they were measured on a harsher scale versus the one faced by BN. BN would be allowed to play on noob mode, but the public insisted DAP and PKR played only the hard mode. Where is your manifesto? Where is your alternative budget? Where is your shadow cabinet? That BN never took their own manifesto seriously was never questioned.

Prior to the 2010s, this was perhaps understandable because most would ask, why change when things are going okay? Reading We Are Marching Now recently, most voters then were interested in stronger checks and balances, but not a change in government. Voters were scared of change and if they were to be convinced of change, then advocates of change would need to surpass a very high bar before any convincing could take place. The status quo was easier and familiar.

But by the 2010s, changes are no longer something scary. And PH is more than capable of providing policy alternative to back its overall rally for federal power.

As for the PH manifesto itself, there are measures that I disagree with. Furthermore, I do feel there is an element of kitchen sink in it. Nevertheless, I suppose I need to remind myself that this is the nature of coalition politics, a compromise between equals. Messy but that is democracy. What is important is that, there has been progress over the years, and that progress as represented by the latest manifesto is not small by any measure.

Progress in developing policy-making skills among PH members have been so significant in the past 10 years that the corporate sector no longer could ignore PH manifesto.

Categories
Politics & government

[2961] Umno’s calls for stability is a racketeering slogan

Stability is Umno and BN’s rally cry for this general election. But it is a disingenuous political messaging given that all recent instabilities are directly caused by Umno and their allies.

Umno’s argument for stability is akin to racketeering. Wikipedia has a concise definition: when somebody offers “a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket.” One concrete example involves a shop paying protection money, which the protection is from violence perpetrated by the fee collectors. Yet another concrete example is, well, Umno’s version of stability.

Umno and their allies, and this included Pas until recently, manufactured ethnic tensions throughout the 2018-2020 Pakatan Harapan administration. The manufactured inter-ethnic crisis brought instability to the country, all with the hope that Pakatan Harapan would fall, and be replaced with a government that Umno would be part of. Pakatan Harapan government collapsed under the pressure as Bersatu—naive and shortsighted as they are—fell for the racket.

Ethnic tension quietened once Umno were back in power, which highlights the fact that high ethnic tension during that period was unnatural. It was manufactured by partisan forces that were Umno and Pas. It was a racketeering done at the expense of the country: a dishonest scheme to obtain power and money. To more than a few people, it was a scheme to avoid jail time.

Despite being part of the federal government after the fall of Pakatan Harapan government, Umno members were unhappy that they played second fiddle to Bersatu. To address their unhappiness, Umno sabotaged their own government for their own partisan benefits. Instability ensued until they won. Stability is something Umno want only when they are at the apex of power. When they are out of it, stability is a liability to them and must be pushed aside, regardless the cost to the country.

And the country paid the cost: Malaysia lost anything between 2 to 6 weeks of reaction time during the Covid-19 economic and health crisis. While Umno maneuvered for private partisan gains, thousands paid the price with their lives. More than 36,000 deaths in Malaysia are linked to Covid-19 up to this day. Millions more suffered economic hardship due to incompetent and late handling of the crisis, as the Umno raced to secure their political positions.

Ultimately, the 2018 change in power itself was, in a large part, caused by Umno and their corruption. 1MDB was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was the final factor that made public anger go bubbling. Without the 1MDB corruption and the subsequent power abuses to cover up the crimes, Malaysians would not have been so angry to do what they have done in 2018. And the people did not make a mistake in 2018 as Umno alleged. The people went out of the their way to make sure the check-and-balance mechanism worked, in spite of all the institutional abuses by Umno.

If Umno really want to label the 2018 democratic change as instability, then everybody should see through the veil: that the source of the so-called instability is Umno themselves. Truly, Umno has no moral authority to campaign for stability and their calls for stability is nothing but a racketeer’s slogan.

 

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2960] Election time: my preferred transport policies

Recently, I wrote election manifestos should have overarching themes, while avoiding the kitchen sink approach. While I focus on Pakatan Harapan, Barisan Nasional also had a kitchen sink approach before. Kitchen sink is the favorite way of doing things among political parties.

I do not have the energy to come out with a manifesto myself, but if I had to choose one area, then it has to be transport policy, which intersects with many other areas that includes fiscal, climate and urban development policy.

My ideal transport policy will be constrained by at least 3 factors:

  • Promoting responsible fiscal policy to rapidly build up government capacity in healthcare, education, defense and overall industrial policy
  • Reducing carbon emissions with respect to concerns for climate change
  • Improving connectivity across the country, especially in and around major cities where most of the population work and live.

These constraints mean, especially in the cities, fewer private vehicles on the road, and greater reliance on public transport.

This list is not comprehensive, but I think the areas it broaches are major concerns. Here are my preferred policies.

Fuel policy: Switch from petrol subsidy to cash transfer

Current fuel subsidy policy is expensive. It takes resources away from many other areas. As reported in the media, as of June, 2022 subsidy bill alone (not including other social assistance) was expected to hit RM78 billion. This is bigger than 2022 allocation for the Ministry of Health (RM32 billion), Ministry of Defense (RM16 billion) or Ministry of Education (RM53 billion). While subsidies alleviate short term pain, it does not build long term capacity: it takes resources away and weakens already underfunded health, defense and education systems, among others. Imagine what these systems would look like if they had an additional RM78 billion for their services and asset acquisition.

Here, I would like to return to the late-2000 policy of switching from fuel subsidies to cash transfers (before it was abused as goodies). It does not have to be a one-to-one switch since cash has higher value than fuel subsidies: the former has many more use cases than fuel subsidies.

Cash transfer implementation will have to be discussed elsewhere, together with the introduction of tax identification number.

Fuel policy: Tax petrol through SST (or GST)

Simultaneously, I advocate fuel tax. SST (or GST) should be charged on purchase of petrol. While I do not support ring-fencing income from fuel tax for any particular purpose, additional income here should be able to fund a large cash transfer program, as well as to introduce new public transport service while improving existing ones (more about public transport later).

Such tax will discourage excessive use of private vehicles, which will:

  • Improve journey time by taking cars off the road
  • Shift some traffic from private vehicles to public transport
  • Reduce carbon emissions

I would think removal of subsidies and introduction of fuel tax alone would provide the government with resources to build its capacity in multiple areas. And of course, in public transport too.

Specific subsidies (however the implementation is) can be provided to a limited number of people based on geographies or industries. I would imagine logistics service providers and other transport operators should have access to fuel subsidies. Small-time farming and fisheries probably should be subsidized too.

Public transport: government to fund rail transport directly

The current state of public transport is deplorable, and part of the problem is that rail service providers are putting financial rather than service performance first. That financial focus is part of the reason city rail policy in the country has become a bit of a real estate play, rather than about moving people around efficiently.

It is time we admit public transport, city rail in this current state especially, are financially nonviable. While admitting so, we must take into account those rail services are a public good.

With these two things in mind, the government should directly fund these rail services, and reform various rail service providers’ key performance indices from financial-based, to primarily performance-based. (Let us not play with paper-shifting accounting anymore and get serious about public transport).

Besides, for all intends and purposes, these services are already funded by the government indirectly through committed guarantees. It is just that too many people are in denial about public transport finances in Malaysia (see the chart below for the 2023 Fiscal Outlook report, which is the result of lasting reporting reforms made in 2018-2020. Observe commitment linked to DanaInfra, Prasarana and Malaysia Rail Link). They hide behind accounting standards to avoid the truth: the government is already funding these rail services through convoluted means.

This however does not mean public transport is free, but it should be cheap enough, particularly with respect to costs of private vehicle ownership.

Which rail services should under this? I am thinking primarily monorail, LRT and MRT in KL.

Public transport: Postpone MRT3 and HSR to later years when ridership demand is more appropriate, and improve existing rail services instead

Given the current state of rail transport usage and efficiency in Kuala Lumpur, I am unconvinced of the need for MRT3 at the moment. I rather wait until the current rail system nears full or even three-fourths capacity before moving ahead with MRT3. At the same time, with the ringgit weakening, it might be a good idea to control government-induced imports: MRT3 and HSR would definitely need large imports that would exacerbate the situation we are in.

I also am not too warm about having new city rail services in other cities. There are very few cities in Malaysia that have enough population to rationalize building a new city rail line.

As for HSR, I rather we strengthen and expand KTMB’s ETS.

For ECRL, it is too late to do anything about it. But I suppose, the long run goal is to integrate it into KTMB. We should streamline such rail service instead of fragmentizing them.

At the same time, improvement in services will require purchases of new assets. This, obviously, has to be done through open tender. No more sweet deal with China-based companies, which has proven to be overpriced in the long-term despite appearing cheap at the outset.

Furthermore, improving existing rail services would be a chance to further develop Malaysia’s industrial capacity, instead of importing from China technology that we already have.

Public transport: More bus services, and bus lanes in the cities

To improve public transport around in cities all around the countries, buses are likely the most cost-effective ways doing it. And it is flexible unlike rail. Focus on buses instead of rail should keep Malaysia’s transport policy from ballooning the way it has (without the associated improved performance) in the past decades.

Two things:

  1. For buses operated by Rapid, the same government-funded model used in rail applies. These are city-buses.
  2. For buses run by private entities, the government to subsidize fares given some service-level requirements. This is likely applicable in small cities, and interstate services, which do not compete with government-provided services. This should also help with rural buses, where low ridership might kill off services.

It is also time to consider dedicated bus lanes on existing roads. Here, we have Jakarta to learn from. More bus lanes will also discourage private car use in the city, by taking lanes away from private vehicles.

Highway: No new highways in the Klang Valley

With the exception of Sabah and Sarawak, and some parts of the East Coast, the Peninsular West Coast probably does not need new highways (particularly so the Klang Valley). So, no need highways in the Klang Valley.

Tolls: Congestion charges in the cities

I prefer to have congestion charges in the cities. This also means no abolition of tolls, or lower of tolls outside of congestion charges model (abolition of toll means the barrier of switching from private vehicles to public transport will be higher and we need to avoid that). The implementation of total congestion charges may have to come with stages and the easiest is probably to wait for all the concession to end and have the government, or the relevant city authorities take it over. This is probably most relevant for KL and its satellites, and possibly George Town too.

For interstate tolled highways, I am ambivalent. We could keep the current system, but refrains from seasonal toll discounts.

Tolls: payment methods

There are too many lanes for different payment methods.

Makes all lanes capable of accepting all payment methods. Also, no express lanes. Everybody should line up and wait for their turns.

Private vehicle ownership/etc

I am going to list down several items without much elaboration:

  • Doubling (tripling) of excise duties on luxury vehicles for carbon emissions
  • Banning of large vehicles (i.e. pick-up trucks) for individual uses for carbon emissions and safety concerns
  • Banning of white headlamps for safety concerns
  • Cash for clunkers program to address emissions and safety concerns
  • I am ambivalent about this, but we possibly need ideas on investment for electric vehicle infrastructure.

Aviation

Yes, refunds mean refunding in cash, not in funny credits. This shall be the law.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2959] Budget 2023 and Undi Banjir are examples of BN irresponsibility

Barisan Nasional believes the yet to be approved Budget 2023 is an asset to them, with their supporters are taking it as their election manifesto. Unfortunately for them, a yearly government budget is no replacement for a 5-year manifesto. To me, using Budget 2023 as a manifesto, with its process halted midway, is a sign of irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility, because we are no longer living in at a time when BN is assured of returning to power. It could be PH, PN or any other permutation out there. If a different government gets elected, the budget process will have to be recalibrated. Any government will want to execute their own agenda. Indeed, even if BN gets into power, there is no guarantee Budget 2023 will not change. Even BN PM candidate is uncertain, with assurance given incredible.

The smooth running of the government should sit beyond partisan politics, but BN places that below their political fortune. The risk of disruption to the budget process is of no cost to them, but only to the people of Malaysia at a time when the global economy is risking recession.

Such irresponsibility of course should be apparent to many in the past two years through various instances of double standard in the application of rules during the Covid-19 pandemic that brought so many unnecessary deaths.

But such irresponsibility should not be a surprise. After all, BN wants a general election during flooding season. Just like during the pandemic, they are willing to gamble our lives for their partisan benefits.

The Budget 2023, unapproved, and risked being redone, is just yet another example of BN irresponsibility.