Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1763] Of state’s role off the waters of Somalia

In the aftermath of the hijacking of two MISC vessels off the coast of Somalia, the Malaysian Royal Navy has dispatched two war vessels to the area.[0] The military has indicated that the two vessels will not intervene in the case but the ships are there to monitor the situation and protect other Malaysian interest around the area, at least for now.[1][2] Does this signal a greater willingness for Malaysia to flex its arms in the name of security in international waters far beyond Malaysian borders?

I am more interested in asking whether Malaysia should flex its arms at all.

The answer is, uncomfortably, I do not know. I say uncomfortably because I am unclear about the role of government in this issue.

The idea of small or limited government is based on the idea that the existence of a government is only to guarantee individual liberty of its citizens. The predicate necessarily limit the role of guardian of individual liberty to that if its citizens. Under this idea, sadly, tyranny abroad is no responsible of the state unless such tyranny clearly threatens the society which the state is answerable to.

In that sense, I am a dovish libertarians and this is how I rationalize my opposition to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies. In a discourse with hawkish libertarian, I have made it clear that I have no problem with unilateralism because I firmly believe in non-aggression theorem. Aggression will be met with aggression and there is no question in that. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq is the lack of credible threat which Saddam Hussein presented to the United States or other states, not unilateralism though perhaps in the past, I have cited unilateralism as a reason.

The fact that Saddam Hussein ruled despicably over the citizens of Iraq is deplorable but it remains that well being of citizens of Iraq is not the responsibility of other states. Unless, of course, we are prepared to have a world police to preserve individual liberty all over the world.

Yet, the idea of a world police does not sound too libertarian.

I fully comprehend the moral implication of my position and the more hawkish libertarians reserve no mercy in assailing my relatively dovish position. Yet, until I have found a convincing argument for a more hawkish position, I shall remain a dove.

Before I digress further, the hijacks off the Somali waters clearly threaten individual liberty of citizens of our state. Due to the functions of government under libertarian tradition, the state has to intervene to ensure the safety of the victims, which are citizens of our state.

But, do we need the state? Why do we not just let the employer of the victims, MISC, to act deal directly with the hijackers in all the glory of Coase Theorem? In the case that MISC intends to keep this issue private, why not let it?

But does a decision of a private firm to deal with the issue directly without intervention from the state absolve the responsibility of a libertarian state to preserve the individual liberty of its citizens which are also the employees of the firm?

The whole mess could be bypassed if MISC request for aid from the state. If such request is made, then military intervention from the state will be justified.

Where does this lead?

Any military action by our state in this case may threaten the sovereignty of another state. Does this mean war?

If it is, it would be a righteous war.

Then again, would it not be silly to go to war just because of two ships?

The problem presented by this problem must truly be appreciated because acceptance of this line of thought necessarily means agreeing to various military actions around the world. Two examples would be the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq[3] and the Israeli action against Lebanon.[4] Even the United States would have ra oute to attack Pakistan in order to eliminate threats presented by Al Qaeda.[5]

We of course could request for permission to act freely but responsibility within the territory of those states but is there a government, for instance, in Somalia to start with?

The last thing we want is to get entangled in their civil war. Malaysia under a United Nations peacekeeping mission has a painful experience in Somalia and I think some Somalis would remember the Malaysian role in back in 1993.[6]

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

[0] — Malaysia will send two naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden after pirates hijacked two tankers operated by MISC Bhd., the country’s largest shipping line, in less than a fortnight. [No military ops yet to free crew. Bloomberg. September 3 2008]

[1] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [No military ops yet to free crew. The Star. September 3 2008]

[2] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [Najib: We need to protect four other vessels sailing in the area. The Star. September 3 2008]

[3] — ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. New York Times. October 10 2007]

[4] — See the 2006 Lebanon War. Accessed September 3 2008.

[5] — WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. Reuters. August 1 2007]

[6] — See the Battle of Mogadishu at Wikipedia. Accessed September 3 2008.

Categories
Economics

[1762] Of it is big but not that big

I like Tony Pua. And I damn love graphs. Graphs are the real reason why I picked up Economics 101 at Michigan during my freshman year. The second reason why I picked up Economics was that I wanted to help the poor (yeah, right).

When he posted a graph at his blog, I began to really like him.[1]

This is the graph and the figures are in RM billion.

Fair use. Copyrights by Tony Pua.

Unfortunately, I spotted a problem when I checked the figures which he based his comment on: his year 2005 figure of RM89.1 billion as visible above exactly matches with the figure read by the Prime Minister in 2005. The figure for budgeted operating expenditure in 2005 as stated in the 2005 budget document is exactly RM89.1 billion.[2]

If the figures are the same, which it is, that means whatever analysis which Mr. Pua carried out fails to account for inflation.

Mr. Pua said that the budgeted operating budget has increased by approximately 189% between year 2000 and year 2008. True but only in nominal terms.

Comparison made in nominal terms is always unhelpful in times when inflation is high. Without accounting for inflation, it is really hard to know if any increase or decrease in spending is due to actual increase in quantity of goods or services (i.e. real spending) or simply an increase in price, i.e. inflation.

And thanks to Mr. Pua, I cannot continue with my readings until I know how much the Malaysian government opex has increased between year 2000 and year 2008 accounting for inflation.

Assuming inflation rate was steady at 2% for the whole period, there would have been an increase of roughly 142% only. Assuming the rate at 3%, it would have been 121%. Assuming at 4%, it would be 103%.

Below is a table which I have created to illustrate the effect of inflation on the figures as well as the increase of opex under three different inflation rates.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Public domain.

If you love graph, like me, here is a gift for you.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Public domain.

Figures are in RM billion at 2009 prices.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not trying to defend the Barisan Nasional government. I only believe that the right perspective has to be put in place before any analysis or criticism is leveled at.

The context which to the deficit took place in has to be considered. The fact that crude oil, food as well as other commodities had become dearer as part of a larger trend has to be factored in for any of us to understand the increase. This is on top of the fact that the opex, if I am not mistaken, also included subsidies. With more expensive food, fuel and commodities, the larger would the subsidies be.

That said, the real increase is still huge and I would prefer to see a more modest opex. I am unsure how much of those increase is attributed to leakage and corruption but I think removal of subsidies would help a lot in slowing down the bludgeoning opex.

Finally, Mr. Pua said:

This rapid expansion of operational expenditure has deprived the country of sizeable funds for development expenditure which has greater economic multiplier effects.

Multiplier effects, sir?

Come back to the light, sir!

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

[1] — [Budget 2009: Skyrocketing Operational Expenditure. Philosophy Politics Economics. September 2 2008]

[2] — 13. To implement the above strategies, the Government proposes an amount of RM117.4 billion be appropriated in 2005 Budget. With revenue estimated at RM99.2 billion, the overall Federal Government deficit is expected to be reduced to 3.8 percent of GDP. Of this, RM89.1 billion or 75.9 percent is for Operating Expenditure and RM28.3 billion for Development Expenditure. [The 2005 Budget Speech. Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. September 10 2005]

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1761] Of liberation from flawed conflation

One late morning in early November 2004, the sun was well up but with an overcast sky, it was a dark day. At the lobby of a library in Ann Arbor, the United States, the television finally broke the news that John F. Kerry had lost to George W. Bush in the US presidential race; Bush would stay in the Oval Office for four more years. And in the lobby, there was a feeling that the Republicans and meteorology had worked hand in hand to make Ann Arbor a miserable place that day.

In the days that followed, there was a widespread sense of defeat and it just would not go away. In a bastion of American liberalism where it had been joked that the Republicans urgently require affirmative action to survive, the air was filled with major disappointment.

After fierce campaigning and just over a year after the controversial invasion of Iraq, it was not hard to imagine how bad the kind of depression felt across Ann Arbor was. Already many were talking, in jest, of migrating to Canada. Some others began to speak scornfully about the Land of the Free.

Why did these mostly Democrat sympathizers hate the United States so much when the source of their discontent was the Republicans’ victory?

Something was amiss.

It is not uncommon for a fraction of Malaysians to adopt the same tone and attitude against Malaysia. In return for the injustice done on them by the policies of the Barisan Nasional government, they are content to generalize Malaysia and throw the most unflattering names against the country.

Various criticisms directed at Malaysia by these groups of Malaysians are grossly off-target. It should be at the Barisan Nasional government that these criticisms be directed, not the country.

For foreigners, perhaps the distinction between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia is not all too important since they have no say in our political process. They cannot vote and really, they are not responsible for the policies that Malaysia employs.

For Malaysian citizens, however, it is crucial to understand that the government can change while the country remains unmoved in times when international borders in the most sense are held sacred. If it is not too outrageous, the difference is analogous to a driver and a car; a political party is merely the driver of the car and the driver can change based on the collective decision of the passengers of the car which includes the driver. The car is the country. Mistakes made by the driver should not be attributed to the car.

The reason why the separation is important is due to the fact that the citizens have a say in the direction which Malaysia takes, especially when the democratic system which we have here works relatively well compared to other countries with dictatorial tendencies.

Unfortunately, there are challenges in separating the two entities from each other especially when the Barisan Nasional tries so hard to blur the lines that separate Barisan Nasional the political party and Malaysia the country.

Who can forget the so-called golden jubilee anniversary celebration — never mind the fact the federation was formed in 1963 and not 1957 — of Malaysia last year at Stadium Merdeka?

What was supposed to be a Malaysian celebration was turned into a political rally for Barisan Nasional. Flags of various kinds belonging to the component parties of Barisan Nasional flooded the whole stadium, possibly outnumbering the Jalur Gemilang, confusing neutral observers of the purpose of the celebration.

For those who can grasp the difference between political parties and the state, the shameful hijacking of the golden jubilee celebration was a distasteful political maneuver. It was turned into a divisive celebration. August 31 was supposed to be a day of unity but the way it was celebrated discouraged others who do not subscribe to the political ideas of the Barisan Nasional.

For those unaware of the important difference, that maneuvering suggested the idea that the Barisan Nasional is Malaysia and Malaysia is the Barisan Nasional. Such intentional conflation may well be what the Barisan Nasional is trying to achieve in its effort to embed its presence into voters’ consciousness. For those who bought the idea that the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia are inseparable, a Malaysia not led by the Barisan Nasional would be an unimaginable scenario. A Malaysia without the Barisan Nasional would mean the death of Malaysia.

Such conflation is bad for Malaysia. Just observe the 2007 by-elections of Ijok and Machap where public money was used to campaign for the Barisan Nasional whereas this money belonged to the people of Malaysia, the taxpayers and not the Barisan Nasional. The Barisan Nasional has no right to use public money amounting to millions of ringgit to fund its political campaigns.

Those who suffer from the conflation indirectly legitimize how the Barisan Nasional’s unscrupulous spending of public money because they see no wrong. Due to their ignorance of the difference between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia, the politicians of the Barisan Nasional have no qualms about using state machinery for their own gains. Too little people consider such spending as wrong.

The fact that the Barisan Nasional has been in power since the very beginning of our country’s history makes the purposeful conflation of the political party and Malaysia an easy goal to achieve. After all, history is always kind to the victors because the victors get to write history.

Our official narrative is skewed to glorify the victor while the contributions of others are ignored, at best mentioned as an afterthought or at worse, vilified. This creates a perception that any threat to the Barisan Nasional is a threat to Malaysia.

Take, for instance, the aftermath of the March 8, 2008 general election. Why is it that our country is said to be in crisis when in fact, the one in crisis is the Barisan Nasional? Or, why is it when the ideas championed by the Barisan Nasional are challenged, the challengers would inevitably be accused of being traitors to the country?

Freedom has been defined in so many ways and here is yet another definition of freedom with respect to the Malaysian context: freedom from the conflating the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia.

This is why the effect of March 8, 2008 is so important. And this is why the promise of September 16, 2008 is so important. It has the potential to set many who are trapped in the flawed conflated idea free.

It has the potential of liberating the mind from ridiculous conflation.

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

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government

[1760] Of Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo

I was surprised to discover that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, despite the early enthusiasm exhibited by the Abdullah administration,

Back in February 2008, a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia read “Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability“. In the same statement, Malaysia stated that it welcomed the independence of Kosovo.[1]

As mentioned previously, such recognition maybe problematic for Malaysia, especially when there are so many separatist movements around in the world. Just outside the door step of Malaysia lay Pattani, Mindanao and Palawan, among others. Move to recognize Kosovo could be viewed with suspicion by the neighbors of Malaysia. The latest Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could also offer a challenge to effort to keep Malaysian foreign policy consistent if Malaysia recognized Kosovo.

Well, it seems that problem of consistency is no more of an issue as Malaysia has decided to be agnostic to the Kosovo question and possibly return to its policy of non-interference. The Malaysian ambassador to Serbia Saw Ching Hong expects Malaysia to support Serbian effort to refer the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice.[2]

But truly, why would the Foreign Minister issue such statement when it has no intention to recognize Kosovo outright?

Due to the statement, it caused a misunderstanding that led Kosovo to list Malaysia as one of the countries which recognize it.[3] I myself had concluded that the Kosovar declaration of independence was recognized by Malaysia. Eight months later, I learned that the statement was misleading.

Malaysia’s current position surrounding Kosovo is murky. It has to be noted that the opinion of the ambassador is not the official position of Malaysia. Or at least, I have yet to read any. Prior to the Malaysian ambassador’s statement, Serbia claimed that Malaysia had frozen the recognition process. Kosovo claimed otherwise.[4]

I think it is time for the Ministry to clarify the Malaysian position once and for all.

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

[1] — Malaysia said Wednesday it welcomed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which was unilaterally announced Sunday. [Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence. Kyodo. February 25 2008]

[2] — BELGRADE —  The Malaysian ambassador expects his country will back Serbia’s ICJ initiative at the UN General Assembly. [Ambassador: Malaysia to back ICJ initiative. B92. August 27 2008]

[3] — Kosovo declared independence on February 17, and has been recognised by 45 countries.Pristina initially included Malaysia in the recognition list, but it turned out that this was a misunderstanding; the Asian country had only welcomed Kosovo’s independence. [Malaysia Still Mulling Kosovo Recognition. Balkan Insight. August 14 2008]

[4] — Mansor, presenting the stance of his government, during the meeting with President Sejdiu said that there are no changes to the Malaysian stance towards Kosovo, disproving the claim of Serb Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremiq, who on Tuesday announced that “Malaysia has frozen the recognition process of Kosovo. [Malaysia refutes Serbia claims of Kosovo recognition freeze. New Kosova Report. August 15 2008]

Categories
Politics & government

[1759] Of we want McCain back!

An article in The Economist describes why independents love McCain and how McCain might lose support from the independents.

Fair use.

Another broad concern, too, needs scotching at the Republican convention and during the election campaign that will follow it. In his desire to get elected, Mr McCain has been prepared to abandon some of the core beliefs that made him so attractive. This is not so much true of foreign policy (Mr McCain has long been a hawk, since the successful NATO campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo). But even here, he used to talk much more about multilateralism than he does now. On the campaign trail, Mr McCain has tended to stress the more hawkish side of his nature, for instance by promoting his idea for a ”league of democracies” that risks being needlessly divisive.

Too polite to the right

But it is on domestic policy that Mr McCain has tacked to the right more disquietingly. Doubtless he feels he needs to shore up his support among the conservatives who mistrust him. But the result is that he could easily alienate the independent supporters who are his great strength. Mr Obama will sensibly hope to woo them away.

Mr McCain used to be a passionate believer in limited government and sound public finances; a man with some distaste for conservative Republicanism and its obsession with reproductive matters. On the stump, though, he has offered big tax cuts for business and the rich that he is unable to pay for, and he is much more polite to the religious right, whom he once called ”agents of intolerance”. He has engaged in pretty naked populism, too, for instance in calling for a ”gas-tax holiday”. If this is all just a gimmick to keep his party’s right wing happy, it may disappear again. But that is quite a gamble to take.

[…]

Hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax cuts, more talk about religion and abortion: all this sounds too much like Bush Three, the label the Democrats are trying to hang around the Republican’s neck. We preferred McCain One. [Bring back the real McCain. The Economist. August 28 2008]

Amen.

Oh, how I wish it would have been a McCain-Lieberman instead. The more I read about Palin, the scarier the story becomes.