I first kept abreast with development in soccer after watching the 1995 Champions League final on television, I think, when Ajax Amsterdam won the European Cup. The 2010 Australian Open is the tennis equivalence of that for me. I think, I am a tennis fan now.
I was at my first ever Grand Slam several days ago and I loved the atmosphere through and through. A little bit of sunburn was not enough to deter my enthusiasm, no siree!
The best match that I saw was a double match between Gonzalez-Ljubicic pair and the Australian Ball-Huss pair on Day 6. It was exciting because each was catching up with the other but no one was breaking through. It was especially exciting after watching Davydenko abused Monaco in men’s single and seeing Vedasco winning after his opponent retired early. I wanted some action and I got some action.
Some Australian audience turned the atmosphere into something that one would only expect during a soccer match. But then again, what do I know? This is my first Open.
Gonzalez became the target of these audience but the way he handled it was admirable. So admirable that the audience loved him even as Australians supported Ball and Huss for the obvious reason. The Australian pair lost, but I dare say that the audience won.
The next Grand Slam is the French Open in Paris. I am dreaming of perhaps an impossible dream of going there in either May or June this year. I now have a real incentive to work and save.
A few days ago Chile lived through one of the most important moments in its recent history. It is the election of a President who belongs to the right-wing after 20 years of left-centre government. For some, this is a complete disaster and almost the end of Chile in the way as we know it. For others, this moment is a real breakthrough for Chilean people, now that the country will grow faster and better.
Before discussing who is right or who is wrong, if we might say so, we need to discuss why the right wing won the campaign and whether they really won or if the left-centre lost. Both things look exactly the same, but they are not. Sebastian Piñera, the President-elect of Chile, is a billionaire with roots in the middle class. He is very smart in the way that he used this to show that if you work very hard you can achieve anything that you want. The origins of his wealth are a little controversial if not at all.
The other main reason is that the coalition in the government could not hear people’s voices who were asking more participation and renovation of leaders. It was such a problem that left-centre block chose an ex-president to be their candidate. This candidate, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, despite his experience, could not spark people’s faith again. In addition, the left wing was divided among 3 different candidates while for first time the conservatives were united behind Sebastian Piñera. The left wing promised new faces for a future government, but nobody believed them because these politicians have promised that before without fulfilling it.
Piñera showed a strong identification with the idea of change and hope, as Obama in the United States. People wanted to believe, people needed to believe. Furthermore, Piñera’s campaign was cheerful and exciting while the other side’s campaign tried to scare people by saying things such as ”Chile will be sold” and used hate as a mechanism.
This was an awful surprise because the left wing won the election for democracy 20 years ago using the strategy that Piñera used for this election. World is round and now the right wing used left wing strategies. The other mistake was that Piñera looked to the centre in political terms, while Frei turned to the left looking for communist votes. Chile is not a left wing country. Chile is a moderate and centrist country. People believe in a mix between capitalism and social welfare programs. I have to point out that this is my opinion based on the facts. All this could explain why Piñera won, or perhaps why left-centre coalition lost.
For some people, this is a horrible disaster because they believe that Piñera will end the social programs and will privatise the public companies. However, Piñera has been very clear that he will not privatise public firms, but he will implement many changes. The President-elect has promised to keep the social programs and to do them more efficient.
There is no doubt that he will pay more attention to entrepreneurship than public health or education, but he cannot change the whole system with a competitive congress. Chilean democracy has many institutions which make it difficult to change things in one direction or another. This is both good and bad. Nevertheless, this makes the system stable and reliable for private and foreign investment which is necessary for the progress of the country. Once again, this is my opinion.
The Conservatives are very glad, maybe too much. Piñera has shown himself as a liberal in the moral and economical aspects. The more extreme right politicians might be disappointed soon. Piñera supports homosexual rights and this can be an important clash between him and his followers.
In conclusion, the well-developed democracy in Chile makes the system stable and reliable providing guarantees for everyone. Because of this, every Chilean can give their opinion and work hard to build a better society irrespective of their political colour. Viva Chile!
JORGE ROJAS is an engineer and graduate student in economics at the University of Sydney. He is member of the Party for Democracy, a center-left Chilean party upholding liberal and progressive ideas.
Assume that I own an item. Somebody impersonates me and pretends to be the rightful owner of the item. The impersonator then sells the item to another bone fide buyer. To me, that transaction is clearly illegal. It violates rights to the idea of private property, one of the main pillars of libertarianism. But one does not need to be a libertarian to understand that that is utterly wrong. Fraud is always wrong. But a certain judge, Eusoff Chin, in 2000 ruled otherwise.
Roger Tan Kor Mee wrote an insightful article at Loyak Burok on the matter:
Briefly, in Adorna Properties, a Thai, Boonsom Boonyanit, who resided in Thailand was the registered proprietor of two lots land in Tanjung Bungah, Pulau Pinang (”the said lands”). An impostor, one Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit, claiming to be ”Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit” had affirmed a statutory declaration on June 18, 1988 that she had lost the original title to the said lands. The impostor then managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the land office.
On April 6, 1989, the impostor affirmed a second statutory declaration declaring that the names Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit in the title to the said lands were one and the same person, that is Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit (impostor) with a different Thai passport number. With this declaration, the impostor managed to register the transfer in favour of Adorna for a sum of RM 12Million.
Boonyanit then sued for the return of the said lands. The High Court Judge of Penang, Justice Vincent Ng Kim Khoay, ruled in favour of Adorna (judgment dated April 25, 1995). On appeal, the Court of Appeal, comprising Gopal Sri Ram, Siti Norma Yaakob and Ahmad Fairuz, allowed the appeal in its judgment dated March 17, 1997. Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court comprising Eusoff Chin, Wan Adnan Ismail and Abu Mansor Ali allowed Adorna’s appeal in its judgment dated Dec 13, 2000 and pronounced in open court on Dec 22, 2000 (”main judgment”), but by then Boonyanit had passed away in May that year. [Can landed property be validly transferred land using a forged instrument? Roger Tan Kor Mee. Loyar Burok. January 20 2010]
But even if the law actually justified the year 2000 ruling, then the law has to be deeply flawed and repulsive to the notion of justice. It practically legalizes robbery. Is such law deserving of adherence?
It is therefore highly comforting for me to learn that the Federal Court today overturns that despicable ruling, restoring ownership of the land to its rightful owner.
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court on Thursday departed from its judgement nearly 10 years ago in the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit case, plugging a loophole in the law to thus allow landowners who lost their land through fraudulent means to redeem their right to the property.
In its landmark unanimous ruling, the five-man bench led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi held that land transferred by fraudulent means will no longer be legally accepted. [Federal Court reverses its decision in landmark land case. The Star. January 21 2010]
Alas, the rightful owner is already dead.
Still, it is righting a wrong and it preserves the sanctity of right to private property. That, is something to celebrate for.
In spite of opposition that saw the streets of Kuala Lumpur filled with pro-fuel subsidy groups during the Abdullah administration, efforts to liberalize the fuel subsidy regime have gone a long way. Several arguments, including one that criticizes the untargeted and blanket nature of the policy have gained tremendous traction. The fact that it benefits those who do not need or deserve the subsidy is clearly one of the main motivators — the bigger drivers are probably cost and waste — behind the reformation of the policy.
The Najib administration is addressing this particular criticism. That has resulted in multiple novel moves and proposals from the federal government. Among the proposals reported in the mainstream media are different prices for different groups, a cap on subsidized fuel consumption and access to subsidy based on engine size. All of it tries to discriminate consumers at the pump. While the moves and proposals may reduce the size of fuel subsidy either in value or in quantity, the proposals under explicit fuel subsidy regime are too convoluted. The more convoluted the methods are, the more complex the implementation will be. That is a recipe for a disaster, policy wise.
I appreciate the government’s effort at making the policy more targeted and hence, making it less wasteful in terms of opportunity cost. Yet, these novel ways are unnecessary given the existence of at least one simpler alternative.
Just observe the recent attempt to limit the sale of subsidized fuel to foreigners at the border. So complicated was it that everybody was confused and in the end, it did not work. Consumers found ways around the restriction.
There is a better and much simpler way to do to this.
Before we proceed to that better and simpler policy, it is crucial for us to recall the purpose of the fuel subsidy. Its goal is ultimately to reduce the cost of living of the less well-to-do Malaysians. On top of that, fuel subsidy is not the only way to achieve that goal.
With that in mind, the better alternative to targeted fuel subsidy is a simple targeted cash transfer from the government to those who deserve it.
Why targeted cash transfer?
The first reason is that it paves the way for total elimination of fuel subsidy to free up the market. Since free prices signal scarcity, individuals and entities will make decisions that are more reflective of the reality of the energy market. On top of that, it creates real competition among pump owners. The same system of free prices already exists in the United States and Australia. Its effectiveness is proven.
Not only that, elimination of subsidy at the pump reduces consumption, all else being constant. That means lower carbon emissions. In times when carbon emissions are a worldwide concern and in light of the Najib administration’s promise to announce a carbon cut roadmap in the near future, this is an opportunity to integrate transportation and energy policies together environmental policy. Such integration is important given that, according to the International Energy Agency in 2007, the transportation sector was the source of 30 per cent of Malaysia’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2005.
Thirdly, cash can be used for a variety of things and not just fuel. Maybe a beneficiary of such a cash transfer appreciates books or food more than fuel. This has the potential of increasing the beneficiary’s welfare higher than what a fuel subsidy policy can bring. If the beneficiary does appreciate fuel more than anything else, then he or she can simply buy the same amount of fuel he or she would have otherwise bought under the fuel subsidy policy. In other words, there are more choices. The economics behind cash transfer is clearly more welfare enhancing than a simple fuel subsidy.
The next question is, naturally, how to do it.
If the sale of subsidized fuel is to be limited, then the government will have a good idea about the maximum amount of money it needs to spend on fuel subsidy. Furthermore, the lower the cap, the higher the likelihood a beneficiary of the subsidy will exhaust his or her quota. From there on, certain statistical manipulations can give us the size of money transfer per capita required to make the cash transfer method the equivalent of the fuel subsidy policy in terms of value.
The cash transfer itself can be delivered to the deserving via the existing tax system. Here is another beauty of cash transfer. It pays only to those who have filed their taxes. Thus, this is yet another incentive for those who have yet to file their tax to finally do so.
For those who just want to fill up their vehicles, here is another reason to support a simple cash transfer instead of an explicit targeted fuel subsidy policy: no weird rule at the pump. With cash transfer, any discriminative method used to ensure that the policy is targeted is done not at the pump but during the transfer of cash. This makes its implementation simpler.
So, what about it that is not to like?
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on January 19 2010. Unlike the TMI edition, I added several sentences and phrases here to emphasize or rather, to clarify that the cash transfer is targeted in a sense that whatever discriminative method introduced in a subsidy regime can be applied to cash transfer system.