Categories
Economics

[1958] Of will we see the reintroduction of RM1 coins?

Over at the website of Bank Negara Malaysia — the central bank of Malaysia — there is an inconspicuous survey. The survey begins as it should: it informs readers of the purpose of the survey. The purpose is quite simple: to gauge public’s opinion on some possible changes to the Malaysian coins.

A redesigned coin series!

Oh so I thought until I went through the survey. The real objective of the survey is to gauge public’s opinion of the possibility of reintroducing RM1 coins in the market.

Reading through the survey, there is one possible rationale for such reintroduction because one question asks: If the replacing of the RM1-banknotes with the proposed RM1-coin would result in substantial cost savings to the country, which of these statements best describe your preference?

Hard to disagree with reintroduction if that is the rationale but I am wary of flip-flopping policy. Frequent changes to the coins and banknotes can be confusing for mere mortals on the streets.

Not too long ago in this very decade, the RM1 coins were taken out of circulation in favor of RM1 banknotes. If coin-form enjoys cheaper production cost compared to banknote-form, why were the coins phased out of the market?

If the cost of metal vis-à-vis paper or plastic contributes to the answer, I prefer to stick with the current banknotes. Once the economy is out of the woods, prices of metal are likely to go up again. That will again push coins out of circulation in favor of banknotes, if cost is the sole consideration.

But this may be a weak argument on my side. Cost should be a consideration and if BNM can adapt to changing variables, the users should too. Surely for a libertarian like me, opportunity cost is of concern. Furthermore, adaption or re-adaption of RM1 coins is likely to be painless anyway, probably with the exception of those teller machines.

So, adaption is not my main argument against RM1 coins.

The main argument is the weight of the coins. RM1 is probably the most popular denomination for the common people. Having a bagful worth of coins maybe a good idea if the BNM plans to force those lazy bastards who get on the elevator to get to the immediate next floor to do some extra physical movement. For those of us who are less gluttonous in their diet, the extra weight will be a drag.

But that is just me. How about you?

You can help the BNM decides by visiting their website[1] (it is under the Updates section on the right) or directly to a third party website[2] where the survey is actually hosted.

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

[1] — Bank Negara Malaysia is at www.bnm.gov.my.

[2] — [Public Opinion Survey: Third Malaysian Circulation Coin Series Project. Bank Negara Malaysia. Assessed April 21 2009]

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.

Categories
Economics

[1956] Of somebody is raising some money

Have you ever wondered how the Malaysian government plans to finance its stimulus package as well as its fiscal deficit?

Well…

KUALA LUMPUR: The RM2.5bil Sukuk Simpanan Rakyat government bond launched Tuesday is all snapped up. [RM2.3bil Sukuk bonds snapped up in 2 days. The Star. April 17 2009]

How about borrowing from PNB?

Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the country’s biggest fund manager managing RM76 billion worth of funds, will offer 3.33 billion new units of Amanah Saham Malaysia (ASM) and two billion Amanah Saham Wawasan 2020 (ASW 2020) units, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced today. [PNB offers 5 billion unit trust. Bernama via The Sun. April 20 2009]

Show me the money!!!

Malaysia: The government will today auction 4 billion ringgit ($1.1 billion) of Shariah-compliant bonds maturing in 2012. Bidding closes at 11:30 a.m. local time. The securities yielded 3 percent in pre-auction trading yesterday. Industrial production in February fell for a sixth month, declining 14.7 percent from a year earlier, a government report showed yesterday.

The yield on the 5.094 percent note maturing in April 2014 slipped one basis point to 3.66 percent, according to Bursa Malaysia Bhd. [China, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand: Asia Local Bond Preview. Lilian Karunungan. Bloomberg. April 10 2009]

Oh, oh, oh…

The issuance of government bonds is expected to leapfrog by 80% this year to a gross amount of RM90bil. [Issuance of govt bonds expected to jump to RM90bil. Yap Leng Kuen. The Star. April 20 2009]

Are you keeping track?

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1955] Of a specialized Asian column at The Economist

In the inaugural specialized column on Asia, The Economist pays respect to Perak’s democracy under the banyan tree:

In early March, in Perak in Malaysia, the state assembly convened an emergency session under a tree. It was, said outraged national ministers, a return to the jungle, making Malaysia a laughing-stock. We beg to differ. An ancient connection exists between public business and the banyan tree, as between its huge overarching shade and its deep intertwining roots. In South-East Asia, and Java in particular, the shade was a place of learning and a site where rulers vowed justice. Those are Asian values to which Banyan will happily subscribe. [In the shade of the banyan tree. The Economist. April 8 2009]

Hail.

Categories
Economics

[1954] Of what if ownership to specific bills cannot be ascertained?

Negative nominal interest rate is typically seen as impractical because nobody with profit as motivation would lend at a discount. The borrowers would hoard money at the expense of the lenders, bringing huge losses to the lenders. In a way, the consequence is like an option with unlimited loss. As a result, a supposed lender would rather hold on to their money instead of lending the money. Rather than have the borrower hoards money, the lender decides to hoard money instead.

Greg Mankiw today at the New York Times repeated an idea he blogged about in mid last month[1] to circumvent that restriction by imposing cost on holding money that is higher than the cost of lending at a discount:

At one of my recent Harvard seminars, a graduate student proposed a clever scheme to do exactly that. (I will let the student remain anonymous. In case he ever wants to pursue a career as a central banker, having his name associated with this idea probably won’t help.)

Imagine that the Fed were to announce that, a year from today, it would pick a digit from zero to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that digit would no longer be legal tender. Suddenly, the expected return to holding currency would become negative 10 percent.

That move would free the Fed to cut interest rates below zero. People would be delighted to lend money at negative 3 percent, since losing 3 percent is better than losing 10. [It May Be Time for the Fed to Go Negative. Gregory Mankiw. New York Times. April 18 2009]

I am having trouble imagining how this would work if a person or an entity does not hold cash but instead have all of their money in the banks. How exactly does this proposal work if ownership of wealth does not lead to ownership of specific bills?

Without specific ownership to a particular bill, identifying which bills to be taken out of circulation will be a problematic exercise. I foresee that by the time the time for out-of-circulation announcement arrived, everybody will place their cash in the bank, eliminating proof of ownership of particular bills to a person or entity. In effect, such act will transfer the risk of discounted face value to the banks.

To address that, it may be good to just eliminate any bills. To imitate the effect of the proposed mechanism where digits play a role, 10% (bills with a particular digit will see elimination; there are 10 digits; hence 1 out of 10) of bills should be removed from circulation instead irrespective of their serial number. That however sounds as if, regardless of level of spending, everybody will be hit with an expected 10% loss of wealth, unless a person or an entity spent all of their wealth.

Also, with money taken out of circulation, would that not increase the interest rate, running contrary to the idea of stimulating spending? This question is probably unimportant because the Federal Reserve could easily reprint the same amount of cash taken out of circulation only with different serial numbers.

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

[1] — [Reloading the Weapons of Monetary Policy. Greg Mankiw. March 19 2009]