Categories
Photography

[2233] Of catching a fine day

The end of July presented me with this.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

It made me happy.

It was presented in the most magnificent style as well. Previous days saw endless dark clouds and rain. It was cold. It was gloomy and I hated it.

In the morning of the day I shot the photograph, rain threatened to pour. The city looked dull. But the wind blew the menacing clouds away to reveal the sun and the blue sky above. Oh my, I felt my spirit being lifted up just like that.

If there is transient heaven, this is it. I do not need further imagination and believe in a place where the unicorns gallop freely. This is real and I will focus on this one.

Categories
Economics

[2232] Of fiscal stimulus, timeliness and transparency

Although the debate on fiscal stimulus has died down in Malaysia, I am still very much amused, if not outright dismissive, of a number of arguments made by advocates of stimulus. One argument is related to transparency: stimulus has to be transparent. Although the argument for transparency is a generic one and many have voiced it, it was reiterated by somebody well-known in Malaysia recently. I am thinking of Nazir Razak of CIMB but at 3 o’clock in the cold Sydney, I have lost all desires to look for the article.

My criticism of having a timely stimulus and transparency is summarized in one word: naive.

Fiscal stimulus has to be timely, especially when there is no automatic stabilizers with arbitrary stimulus. If it takes too long to implement, or in other words, it takes the government too long to spend the money, there is a good chance that the stimulus will be obsolete by then. By the time the money is spent, the market situation has already improved that the stimulus is not required any more.

In fact, untimely implementation might disrupt recovery through, for instance, crowding out process by the government.

Unfortunately, transparency does not run parallel with the concern of timeliness.

Why transparency is inconsistent with timeliness?

Simple.

Transparency requires processes. Reporting is paramount. In other words, bureaucracy.

Red tapes have been derided as suffocating but it does play a huge role in rule of law. It is only through bureaucracy can controls be exerted on spending. Through those controls based on known clear rules and not through arbitrary acts which are susceptible to  abuse compared to rule-based system, transparency is achievable.

That rule-based system aimed at transparency is more convoluted than the paragraphs I have just written before this one. It take time to go through the bureaucracy. Hence, the issue of timeliness.

So, how useful is a stimulus if it is untimely done?

You know my answer.

I am for transparency but I am also a realist here. I understand that if one is concerned with transparency, it is hard to support a timely stimulus.

If you want a timely stimulus, something has to give. It is a dilemma.

Before I am accused of supporting corruption, leakage or anything of such, do note that I do consider those things negatively. Remember, I am arguing against fiscal stimulus, not transparency.

I do not have that dilemma. I am typically anti-stimulus; I cut through it.

Stimulus advocates cannot accuse me of giving nontransparent practices a blind eye. For those who like to moralize about transparency however, you my dear have a moral problem.

Categories
Politics & government

[2231] Of fluid Australian politics

It happens once every three years. That is how often the Australian Federal election has to be held. That is probably why Australian politics is as fluid as it is today.

Just how fluid is it?

Consider the fortune of Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party and its opponent the Coalition, which swung back and forth all within just a year.

In weeks prior to the ouster of Rudd, it was clear that he was becoming increasing unpopular. This is in stark contrast to the atmosphere a year ago when he was wildly popular.

Meanwhile, the Coalition — made up of the Liberals and the Nationals in the opposition — was squabbling among itself. The source of tension was Labor’s proposed carbon cap and trade legislation. Labor did not have the numbers to get it passed in Parliament. To do so, they worked with some within the Coalition, including Malcolm Turnbull, the former Opposition Leader.

It was a masterstroke by the government. While Turnbull and his fraction within the Coalition supported the legislation in one way or another, many others in the opposition did not. So bitter was the division that the Labor government under Rudd needed not do anything to come out on top. The Coalition was on self-destruct mode.

Rudd and Labor even had the option of dissolving Parliament if the legislation failed to pass. Projection at that time suggested that the Coalition could be wiped out if an election was called.

The legislation did fail. All Rudd needed to do was to finish it. Yet, he did not exercise the option. In retrospect, he should have.

After labeling the climate change as the forefront issue of his administration, his failure to get it through doomed him. There were other issues like government spending, refugees, migration, censorship and the mining tax of course but climate change was truly the battle the turned the tide against him.

He met with opposition when he first introduced the legislation on climate change. That was inevitable. When he decided not to push it, he ended up angering everyone, including the supporters of the legislation. It was yet another example of the peril of flip-flopping.

He should have called an election when he had the chance. It would have saved him from the flip-flop, the embarrassment and the backlash. Furthermore, it would have prevented the Coalition from reorganizing itself.

Tony Abbott replaced Turnbull. By the time the government tried to introduce an unpopular mining tax, Abbott went full steam ahead on the offensive along with the mining industry.

Combined with Labor’s failure and a resurgent opposition, Labor’s approval rating fell. This was worrying to Labor because election had to be called soon. The balance tipped so much that the factions in Labor decided that Rudd was a liability. The issue on tax sealed his fate.

At first, there were just rumors. Australian media were highlighting the popularity of his deputy Julia Gillard. Later, it happened: the first female prime minister for Australia.

The first thing she did as prime minister was to — so-called — clear the deck. She undid some of Rudd’s major initiatives and helped Labor salvage some points in the approval rating polls. The factions in Labor, nervous about going through an election, bet on Gillard and it worked. That is, it worked in a sense that Labor is now predicted to have enough support — just barely — to form the government in the next term.

Of course, it is yet to be seen who will form the next government in Australia. Pundits are expecting a close election. It appears that although Gillard is more popular compared to Abbott, the support for her has not translated into support for Labor so far.

That will depend on the rollercoaster ride in the next four weeks or so.

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 26 2010.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty

[2230] Of US Chief Justice John Roberts on Bill of Rights

There was a debate in Australia last year regarding adoption of its own bill of rights. Yes, as shocking as it first sounded to a foreigner like me, Australia does not have its own bill of rights.

Although the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts insisted several times that he does not intend to participate in that Australian debate, I believe it is hard not to make a connection between his recently concluded lecture in Sydney and the debate in general. An article by the Financial Review reveals that he delivered another lecture on bill of rights in Melbourne yesterday.

It was just days ago when the New York Times ran a story how the US Supreme Court under Roberts is the most conservative in decades. One could not tell where he sits on the political spectrum based on the lecture however. I definitely could not as I stood at the back of the lecture theater.

The US at its independence in 1776 did not have a bill of rights. Its adoption itself was not automatic. As Roberts said, its adoption did not derive from the first principle but rather, it was through a political process. That political process was not too conducive to its adoption, regardless of the fact that it was eventually adopted later.

The US Chief Justice mentioned several theories why the Bill of Rights was not adopted early with respect to July 4 1776 and the ratification date of the US Constitution. If my memory is not one belonging to a goldfish, he mentioned that the weather as one of them. An uncharacteristic sweltering Philadelphian summer was making further discussion on the Constitution of the US unbearable. Most understood that a discussion on Bill of Rights would lengthen an already long meeting further and most wanted it to end.

Another theory, revolves around a matter of priority. The US was a young country then and there were multiple challenges that required to be addressed urgently. Despite history of individual freedom in America, bill of rights simply was not one of them.

Furthermore, the 13 founding states have already in one way or another have their own bill of rights although interpretations differ. For instance, some states have freedom of assembly included while others do not.

Although these factors may contribute to the late adoption of the Bill of Rights, nothing was more important than the division between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared that an adoption of a national Bill of Rights might take power away from the states and to the federal government.

The battle regarding the Bill of Rights, according to Roberts, was really a proxy battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists were playing up to states’ fear of losing influence to a powerful federal government.

When James Madison — who later became the fourth US President — proposed the then controversial Bill of Rights in the Congress, he had to personally see the Bill through it. When he pushed it, the Congress decided to have a committee to contemplate on the matter. Roberts said this in a humorous manner, perhaps as an acknowledgement how things move slowly at the Capitol Hill.

Roberts contrasted this to Madison. He stressed how notoriously hardworking Madison was. He joked that two of Madison’s Vice Presidents died in office.

Unwilling to let the matter drag, Madison sat in the committee and had the committee completed its work in only a week time, maybe, much to the chagrin of the Congress. There were some other political barriers but those were eventually overcome as the slowly anti-Federalists lost interest in defeating the Bill.

By December 15 1791, the influential Bill of Rights came into effect.

Categories
Economics

[2229] Of a huge decrease in labor participation rate

I just ran through the recently released Malaysian labor force participation rate for May 2010 and I find it odd to see a huge drop in the rate. I wonder what explains the drop. Why suddenly a lot of individuals decided not to look for jobs anymore in May?