I just realized that I lost my favorite sweater, probably in Port Dickson.
I know I lost my favorite short in Bangkok. That realization ruined one of my weeks.
And I know I lost my favorite shirt in New York. That ruined what otherwise would have been a great vacation.
I wonder, what else will I lose next.
I really liked that sweater of mine. I really, really do. It was blue. It wore it to the stadium. I brought it everywhere. Sigh…
Irreplaceable.
Libertarians typically have no reason to protest the typical annual meeting of Group 20 (G20). G20 is of course the grouping of the richest and most influential countries in the world. This year’s meet up in London however is not a typical gathering. It is extraordinary because of the global economic turbulence we are witnessing at this very moment. In trying to address the problem, both the Obama and the Brown administrations are advocating large spending and they will likely call for others to do the same at the G20. This call — probably made for the first time in recent memory — gives libertarians a reason to join the protest against the G20, particularly, against the US and the UK.
Both administrations have been building the spending momentum for weeks, if not months now. Indeed, both countries are leading the way in economic stimulus with government spending as a major pillar. Much has been spent but both English-speaking countries — especially the Obama administration — content that too many are not spending enough. The idea is that the problem is not spending too much. Rather, it is about doing too little.[1]
In Malaysia, the Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak has unfortunately embraced that idea. With as much as RM67 billion worth of stimulus plan with another RM5 billion injected into the equity market with much opacity by the Malaysian government, the credential of the expected next administration of Malaysia — the expected Najib administration — as a big spender is not in question. This is by no mean that Malaysia is following the footstep of the US and UK. Indeed, the current administrator of Malaysia is gloating by the fact that they did it first during the Asian Financial Crisis when the US was dead against it. The Malaysia’s administration takes the current trend as a justification of their past action.
Momentum or not, both Obama and Brown administrations’ effort to lobby for more spending from other countries is meeting resistance, especially from Europe and Latin America. For regions not known for their love for free market, this is certainly refreshing when the traditional advocates of free market are taking steps in the wrong direction.
Germany called United Kingdom Prime Minister Brown’s method as crass Keynesianism.[2] Although eventually capitulating by increasing its spending but still short from what the Brown and the Obama administration had hoped for, Germany was unhappy at what they saw as them bailing out imprudent others. Germany had worked hard to keep its accounts in order and it despised the idea of spending their money to correct others’ mistakes, while undoing Germany’s successes.[3]
Czech Premier who also holds the presidency of the European Union went as far as calling Obama’s call for greater spending as the road to hell. He has been reproached by other European leaders for the harsh words but nevertheless, it exhibits the sentiment of the member states of the European Union.[4]
In Latin America where Brown and later the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden flew down earlier, both faced similar but more politely put opposition. The hero of the moment was Chile, as President Michelle Bachelet, an economic left, practically rehashed argument forwarded by the Conservative Party led by David Cameron in the United Kingdom to Brown.[5]
Judging from the results of these meetings, both Obama and Brown are likely to meet heavy resistance at the table of G20 when it comes to how to address the global economic crisis.
In all likelihood, the reversal of roles probably has little to do with philosophical difference and much to do with the fact that the economic crisis has unequal effect across the world. In Europe unlike the United States, far more comprehensive social safety nets are in place. The automatic pervasive mechanism as advocated by economist John Taylor is already in place.
Germany meanwhile had saved enough in good times that they believed that the country was able to ride on the wave safely. The same argument is applied by Chile when Bachelet effectively said no to Brown’s call for support for greater spending, which he is expected to repeat at the table of G20.
For Asian countries especially for the export-driven economies, while the pain is undeniable, it is unlikely to go as bad as in the US. And indeed, the different nature of economic crisis in Asia demands different solutions. What the US and the UK are asking is but only a one-size fit-all policy.
Also, there is a sense of the often used German word which has found its way to mainstream English language: schadenfreude. Schadenfreude means pleasure derived from watching others’ misfortune. The latest prominent leader seemingly to enjoy the scenario is the Brazilian President when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He reminded all that this crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes.”[6] This schadenfreude however has become excessive lately and risks of becoming masochism.
For libertarians, the opposition mounted against the US and the UK is something to be supported of, even when the causes of opposition differ. As it goes, there are no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. There are only permanent interests.
[1] — In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children’s prosperity. [Obama’s Down Payment: A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results. Lawrence Summers. Washington Post. December 8 2008]
[2] — Mr Steinbruck questioned why Britain was “tossing around billions” and closely following the high public spending model put forward by 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes.
“The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking,” he said. [Germany questions UK rescue plan. BBC News. December 11 2008]
[3] — German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a speech to Germany’s parliament on Thursday that her government was doing more than most to support the world economy through higher spending and lower taxes. Germany’s stance could come under pressure from financially weaker countries within Europe as their economies sink deeper into trouble, economists say.
Struggling EU countries range from Ireland and Spain, where housing-market bubbles have burst, to Hungary and Latvia in the continent’s post-communist East, where capital flight has forced governments to seek IMF aid.
Although Germany is in its worst recession in 60 years, Europe’s biggest economy has relatively strong public finances and enjoys the trust of capital markets.
That means Germany could be doing more to raise its domestic demand through higher government borrowing, say critics. Germany’s reluctance to do so means its neighbors’ recessions will be worse than necessary, says Julian Callow, European economist at Barclays Capital. [EU Rebuffs Calls to Increase Fiscal Stimulus, Aid. Marcus Walker. Adam Cohen. Wall Street Journal. March 20 2009]
[4] — BERLIN, March 25 — The president of the European Union on Wednesday ripped the Obama administration’s economic policies, calling its deficit spending and bank bailouts “a road to hell.”
The comments by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, which holds the E.U.’s rotating presidency, startled some U.S. and European officials, who are preparing for President Obama’s visit next month to several European cities, including Prague, the Czech capital. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Washington Post. March 26 2009]
[5] — Gordon Brown suffered another setback over his diplomatic offensive yesterday, as the Chilean president inadvertently echoed Conservative attacks on the prime minister’s handling of the economy. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]
[6] — Mr Brown’s decision to use the South American leg of his trip to call for a G20 $100bn (£70bn) deal to support world trade was overshadowed when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, blamed the financial crisis on “white people with blue eyes”. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]
Just got back from the UMNO General Assembly and among top leadership of UMNO, Khairy Jamaluddin will probably have the hardest time to lead, simply because the division within the wing he is leading.
Each time his name was mentioned, a big boo followed. On the contrary, when Mukhriz Mahathir joined the hall to take his seat in the wing, he received a raving applause. Odd indeed because the sentiment in the hall did not reflect the election result.
When Khairy Jamaluddin spoke behind the rostrum, he took a humble tone, probably realizing his unpopularity in the hall.
Ali Rustam was popular. Add the adverb very if I am guilty of underemphasizing the support he enjoyed today. The hall definitely considered the judgment against the politician from Malacca by UMNO diciplinary board as injustice. From my outsider perspective, clearly, there is perverse incentive in UMNO at the moment; a convicted corrupt politician can be a star, the darling of the hall. If there is a lesson from there, it is that do not act unjustly because the victim of unjust act, even if he is less than innocent, can become the prince of heart.
Zahid Hamidi was the first to realize that and to utilize the popularity of Ali Rustam at the Putra World Trade Center, mostly because his turn to speak was right after Ali Rustam’s. He mentioned Ali Rustam a couple of times and each time he did so, the crowd went wild without fail.
Mahathir Mohamad was welcomed whole-heartedly by UMNO members. Muhyiddin Yassin was speaking when he entered the hall and the new Deputy President of UMNO had to take a pause as the crowd gave the former Prime Minister a standing ovation. Muhyiddin Yassin, rather than finishing his interrupted sentence, decided to give Mahathir Mohamad the spotlight by citing his name, almost to the point of too much.
Not as much as Shahrizat Abdul Jalil though. With a divided UMNO, she went on to mention everybody’s name, from Rafidah, to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to Najib Razak to more names than I care to remember. She appeared as a person earnestly trying to hedge her bet across the board.
And this time unlike two days earlier, I stayed to the end because while some points are very disagreeable (being a secularist, a passive republican and a liberal in an UMNO pow-wow, what a surprise, eh? The too many mentions of religion and ethnonationalism were dizzying), the quality of the speeches were noticeably better than the previous ones.
Finally, Najib Razak. I do have other reservation, especially about the divergence between his rhetoric and the the rhetoric of so-called UMNO grassroot present in the hall, and between his rhetoric and events I am witnessing in as a citizen of Malaysia. Nevertheless, he appeared as a person that have the ability to lead. I was in the hall and I have to admit he managed to bring out the fighting spirit in UMNO members there. It was as if, an unconfident UMNO finally found the rock they require. He called for unity and showed courage to implicitly inform Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that he is a man of his own.
In my humble opinion, Pakatan Rakyat will have to on their toes because they — if the momentum I saw in the hall continues — have just found their match. In the last general election, UMNO entered the ring wounded. This time, some recuparation had taken place.
Beberapa perkara yang disebut tidak boleh dipersetujui oleh saya. Beberapa perkara lain, walaupun patut disokong, susah untuk dipercayainya kerana tindak-tanduk yang bertentangan dengan retorik.
Walau bagaimanapun, dua perenggan daripada ucapan mantan Presiden UMNO Abdullah Ahmad Badawi harus dipetik:
Sedarilah! di luar Dewan Merdeka ini, ramai yang berpandangan bahawa jika UMNO, dan jika Barisan Nasional tidak berubah, maka pilihan raya kedua belas pada 8 Mac 2008 merupakan kemenangan terakhir kepada Barisan Nasional menubuhkan kerajaan. Selepas ini, rakyat di luar Dewan ini, tidak akan mengundi kita lagi. Di peringkat negeri, Barisan Nasional turut menghadapi cabaran yang sama. Di kalangan kita juga, malah di kalangan yang duduk di atas pentas ini, turut menyuarakan bahawa ‘UMNO wajib melakukan perubahan’. Apa yang saya ingin dengar, adalah suara yang menyatakan ‘Aku akan berubah’ lalu disusuli dengan langkah berani melakukan perubahan itu dalam diri sendiri. Betapa malangnya UMNO jika ramai yang gagal memahami bahawa UMNO itu adalah kita, selagi kita tidak berubah, UMNO tidak mungkin dapat berubah.
UMNO kini berada di persimpangan jalan. Laluan yang kita pilih akan menentukan sama ada kita kekal relevan sepanjang masa atau akan hanya menjadi satu sejarah masa lalu. Ada juga yang masih berpendirian bahawa kita tidak perlu melakukan perubahan. Mereka mempercayai bahawa UMNO akan kembali mencapai kemenangan jika kita kembali kepada cara lama – kepada order lama, dengan menyekat kebebasan warga – dengan menghalang warga dari menyuarakan kritikan. Mereka berpandangan bahawa UMNO itu boleh terus berkuasa dan kekal kuat dengan kaedah menjaga kepentingan beberapa individu tertentu, dan memenuhi tuntutan-tuntutan kumpulan tertentu. Masih terdapat di kalangan kita yang lebih tertarik dengan cerita-cerita yang menyeronokkan hingga kita menjadi leka, lena dalam ulitan mimpi bahagia.
Jika laluan lama itu yang dipilih, saya berpandangan bahawa kita telah memilih laluan yang salah; laluan yang membawa kita ke belakang. Saya bimbang laluan tersebut akan lebih mempercepatkan berakhirnya talian hayat UMNO. Jika kita tidak melakukan perubahan berani, selaras dengan transformasi masyarakat yang begitu dinamik dan perkembangan global yang begitu radikal, kita akan menyaksikan hari-hari berakhirnya parti UMNO yang kita kasihi ini. Jika kita terus bertanding begitu hebat, bermati-matian untuk merebut jawatan, tetapi apakah ertinya jawatan tersebut kepada UMNO yang telah tinggal rangka yang terbujur di kuburan. Barang dijauhkan Allah dari UMNO menimpa nasib hiba yang sedemikian. Atas kesedaran tersebut, atas rasa cinta kepada UMNO, atas rasa tanggung jawab terhadap UMNO dan bangsa Melayu, saya memilih untuk menunjukkan teladan, dengan tidak mempertahankan jawatan Presiden parti, bertujuan memberi laluan kepada pemimpin yang lebih muda walaupun masih terdapat ramai dari ahli-ahli parti dan rakan-rakan baik di dalam ataupun di luar Kerajaan meminta saya untuk terus mempertahankan jawatan. Saya menghargai keputusan rakan-rakan yang turut memilih langkah yang sama, baik di peringkat bahagian mahupun cawangan, baik di peringkat pemuda, wanita dan puteri. Bahawa jawatan dan kedudukan bukannya milik peribadi; sedangkan harta milik peribadi juga tidak akan dapat dibawa sampai ke mati. [Ucapan Dasar Presiden UMNO. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Mac 26 2009]
Mungkin ini adalah satu kesedaran, walaupun ia tidak bermakna lagi.
The mantra of ecotourism is take only photographs and leave only footprints. Due to far too frequent violations of that principle, I maintain the position that the term ecotourism in Malaysia has been perversely interpreted. While in other countries ecotourism means divulging oneself in nature without damaging it, on the contrary in Malaysia it means building a multimillion-ringgit resort on a remote island while damaging its prized coral reef, constructing a posh hotel in the middle of jungle complex while cutting down the trees and having a tiger park in the middle of the city with no history of tiger population.
When the Chief Minister of Penang Lim Guan Eng announced in the name of ecotourism a proposal to set up a 40-hectare tiger park on Penang Island, I found myself putting my face in my hands saying, “here we go again.”
Here we are with yet another politician with a brilliant idea, proving the point that brilliance — or lack of it — is no monopoly of any side.
I can only be thankful for whatever free speech and backbone to not succumb to blind partisanship we have left in this seemingly forsaken country. I am thankful because this is exactly one of those times when it is required of us to raise sensible objections to insensible ideas. And I will not waste that opportunity.
In light of other options, the tiger park is an insensible idea. George Town has already been granted the status of World Heritage by the UNESCO. As far as tourism is concerned, that is the unchallenged comparative advantage of Penang. Resources should be channeled to that aspect instead of into area of questionable potential.
If Penang really wants to promote ecotourism in the state, perhaps Penang should preserve and rehabilitate its degraded mangrove swamp. Prof. Gong Wooi Khoon of Universiti Sains Malaysia in 2003 estimated that Penang may lose its mangrove swamp by 2020. Do something about that instead of bringing mammals foreign to the local environment into Penang. Or cleanup those dirty rivers of Penang, like what the Selangor state government valiantly plans to do with its rivers.
More than being insensible, Mr. Lim really went on to stretch an already twisted green washing definition of ecotourism as applied in Malaysia. Whereas in the past in this country, at least the so-called ecotourism happened in natural settings albeit the destruction it brought, the Chief Minister seeks to artificially import tigers to entertain children like how a distasteful circus would present freaks to entertain the public while treating them inhumanely.
He dares call such gross pretension as ecotourism. It is an insult to one’s intelligence as well as to those who truly care for the environment. Such green washing is despicable.
The act of promoting ecotourism should not be so twisted and flawed as currently utilized with respect to the tiger park or in Malaysia generally. Ecotourism should be — as it was defined originally and used in developed countries with heightened sense of responsibility to the world we live in — about conserving and enhancing the environment while using it responsibly. That includes the protection of the habitat of various endangered species, like tigers.
The truth is that the tiger park is merely about conventional tourism. While perhaps the experience of the tiger park could be packaged as an educational experience to raise awareness, the tiger park does not help in conservation.
A proper ecotourism project revolving around tigers should be about large tiger sanctuary with tigers living in their natural habitat, not in some small enclosure in the middle of a developed island full of household cats that fight endlessly in the middle of the night.
Even the idea of a 40-hectare tiger park sounds exceedingly cruel to the tigers. How could such cruel move be part of ecotourism?
If any of us have not notice, tigers are large mammals. It needs large area to live in and to put them in small enclosure is similar to imprisoning any one of us in a cell.
For those unfamiliar with the unit hectare, 1 Ha is 0.01 km2. To put it into perspective, 40 Ha is only 0.40 km2, slightly smaller than Zoo Negara located in Ulu Klang, Selangor. Not to forget, facilities for both administrators and visitors would require erection. That would further reduce space for the large mammals. It is unclear if the tigers would live in cages but given the size of the park, that is likely the case.
I am not advocating for equal rights for animals but at least have a heart. Tigers are living beings and that much is for sure. Be humane and do not put these tigers in small enclosure. Please, and pretty please, Mr. Lim.
The only serious benefit that I could think of is potential the park might have in alleviating acute tigers overcrowding problem in Zoo Melaka, which is operated by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN). That particular zoological park is the place where PERHILITAN keeps all captured tigers due to tiger-human conflicts in Peninsular Malaysia.
If you want an emotional experience when it comes to tigers, then visit to Zoo Melaka. Ask the administrators to show you where they keep all the captured tigers and you will fast discover how sad the situation there is.
PERHILITAN of course is not to be blamed because they are operating the best they could with limited resources. They are, at least, trying to save the tigers from death sentences.
But is there a guarantee that the proposed tiger park in Penang would help Zoo Melaka address that problem? What guarantee there is that it would not end up like Zoo Melaka?
The best bet to the problem comes back to the establishment of tiger sanctuary in their natural habitat, not a small park. Before anybody gets any funny idea, that sanctuary should not be in Penang. It should be located within the large jungle complexes on the mainland, in Perak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang and Johor, capable of naturally sustaining tiger population.
Nevertheless, despite my opposition to the idea and multiple criticisms mounted against the DAP-led Penang state government by local and international influential environmental groups, the state government should be commended for its effort to solicit public opinion.
Yet, soliciting does not automatically mean listening and that much is clear from the dreadful process of Draft Kuala Lumpur 2020 City Plan. The meaningless solicitation process of the KL 2020 City Plan appeared merely a public relations act. The KL City Hall was roundly criticized because of that. The whole process, without any overemphasis, was a failure.
That mistake must be taken to heart: the Penang state government should not repeat the same mistake done in KL by unelected officials. Why?
The wrong move could quite possibly turn the small tiger park into DAP’s PGCC.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on March 23 2009.