Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[1257] Of a sensible US proposal but a better German option

Anthropogenic climate change is a contentious issue in the international arena; it is a tragedy of the global commons. The latest high profile debate took place at the Germany-hosted G8 summit in the week of June 6 2007. The discussion stayed true to the current trend that no longer doubts the existence of human-induced climate change but rather, seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change. At the meeting, two road maps were presented: one by Germany and another by the United States with the former being supported by a clear majority. Within this context, I fall within the majority but that does not necessarily mean I reject the US version outright.

The German proposal calls for the halving of the 1990 global carbon dioxide level by 2050. Such suggestion would limit temperature increase to between 1.5 and 2.5 ºC. If it is adopted as the son of Kyoto, it would be binding just like Kyoto. As a note, the Kyoto Protocol demands a 5% cut of carbon dioxide as well as five other greenhouse gases from the 1990 level by 2012.

The US has refused to that proposal and has come up with an alternative of its own. Instead of reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it seeks to concentrate on reducing carbon intensity. Carbon intensity is simply a fancy word describing the ratio of carbon emissions to gross domestic product (GDP): the lower the figure, the more efficient the economy operates in term of carbon emissions.

While politically angry at the US, I am sympathetic to the US suggestion after giving it a fair inspection.

It is typical to blame countries with the larger total annual emissions of contributing to climate change. Applying the total annual national emissions as a basis of comparison is dependent on the size of the country, population and geography-wise. The larger a country is, the higher the emissions would be with all else equal. For instance, Malaysia contributed 0.6% of global emissions in 2002. If ASEAN is to be taken as a state, it, inclusive of Malaysia, would produce approximately 3.7% of global carbon emissions in 2002. That would rival a smaller Germany which contributed 3.3% of global emissions in the same year; Germany according to Wikipedia, based on figures produced by the United Nations Statistics Division, was the sixth largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2002. Such comparison does not control for population or economy size. Without such control, the data is noisy and produces misleading conception.

In other words, using annual national carbon emissions for comparison purpose is almost meaningless and unfairly put too much blame related to climate change on the shoulders of large countries. What would be better for comparison purpose is the carbon intensity measurement as proposed by the US. Or, perhaps, my favorite, emissions per capita.

Take a look at annual national emissions in 2002:

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions.PNG

Then, observe carbon intensity in 2005 (in this graph, the red is below world’s average and green is above; the dimension is GDP/emissions. The inversed dimension means higher figure equals to higher efficiency):

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png

For emission per capita in 2003:

GFDL. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png

Despite me preferring carbon intensity used as comparison purpose to annual national emissions, why would I not lending my support to the US proposal?

The answer is this: we need to lower the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, not just carbon dioxide but other sensible greenhouse gases. Lower carbon intensity alone does not do that job. Indeed, effort to lower carbon intensity does not mean lower global carbon level. During a period of economic boom and technological progress, efficiency as well as the carbon level could increase. Depending on the rate and volume, it would lead to increase in carbon level in the atmosphere.

How is that possible?

Efficiency is essentially a multiplier and it basically could reflect emissions reduction know-how. Greater technological level could permit greater efficient; lower rate. Then we have volume which could be interpreted as economic activities. Finally, of course, there is some rate of carbon absorption by nature. The diagram below illustrates the flow versus level model which is typical in economics:

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The product of efficiency and volume, subtracted with the amount of absorption could be positive. To make it clearer, assuming increased efficiency leads to lower emissions, ceteris paribus, a sufficient increase in volume could erase any reduction made possible through higher emissions if volume is held constant.

The US proposal does not address that but the German proposal does. Hence, my support. Despite that, the German proposal should incorporate the other suggestion without losing sight of the level reduction goal.

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1256] Of Lina Joy case is more than a mere procedural matter

Is the Lina Joy case is a procedural matter?

There are those that insist it is but I strongly beg to differ. Saying the case is procedural in nature downplays an issue that receives great attention from many sides that have stake in the ruling of the case. On the surface, I would agree that the case is about procedural in nature. If one looks at the issue beyond skin deep however, this is about a conflict of rights.

I was surprised to read procedure being forwarded as the cause of this confrontation. The procedure-based argument understates the issue so much that I feel there is a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or maybe, it is an act of downplaying an explosive and divisive issue. I could not care less if it were specifically, exclusively about procedure but I care because it is not. If this case were about procedure, what a pitiful society we all live in, arguing on matter of little significance. In my humble opinion, our society deserves a little bit of respect as far as this case is concerned.

The truth is, there are two groups that matter in this case. One emphasizes on individual rights and another emphasizes on community rights. From a neutral point of view, the overlapping area of the rights is the crux of this whole debate.

The fraction that stresses on individual rights is without doubt the liberals. The liberalism, at least classical liberalism, places the sovereignty of the individual on the individual. Individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person and properties as long as he respects others’ person and properties.

The other side however demands the sovereignty of an individual be transferred to the society. In other word, sovereignty of the individuals is the pregorative of the society. The religious conservatives in particular, from my observation, insist that a higher being or god rules sovereign over individuals. The community then acts on behalf of that god and takes over the sovereignty on the individual on the behalf of god. As far as the case is concerned, Lina Joy’s religious belief is god’s prerogative and by implication, it is the community’s prerogative.

Between the two, the latter does not recognize difference in belief or religious freedom while the former does. If one is to draw a Venn diagram, the overlap is obvious where the content of the universal set is claims to rights.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The source of contention is freedom of belief. Individual rights demand religious freedom while community rights do not but both stake claim for it. Therefore, the question we need to ask and answer is, which rights should take priority? For liberals, the answer is obvious.

As long as this is left unanswered, the issue — the contest of ideologies — the blurriness will stay. Furthermore, saying the Lina Joy case is a question of procedural tantamount to sweeping the dust under the carpet; attributing the case to procedural matter does not solve the matter.

If we as a society would like to come to a common ground, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge the root course. Attacking the symptoms, which is too common in Malaysia, does nothing.

After all, just as was mentioned by Jonson Chong at a forum on Lina Joy ruling organized by DAP that I attended earlier this week, the law is an mean, not an end.

Categories
Economics

[1255] Of a tip to improve the tourism industry

About six years ago, I found myself awfully famished and called for a pizza. What felt like a century later, a pizzaman called me back to let me know that he was standing at the door. What exciting news! I grabbed some cash, rushed down to the door, gave the guy some cash and expected some change. I never got that change and I was puzzled by the fact that he just took the cash and left nonchalantly. I almost protested, thinking it was theft but with just a couple of dimes, nickels and pennies and an empty stomach, I decided to enjoy my pizza instead. Later, I learned that it is a culture called tipping. More importantly, that culture might be the key to an excellent tourism-related service industry.

Tipping is not big in Malaysia. I myself am not a big fan of tipping. After all, why should I pay more on top of an overpriced meal, especially with the bad service that comes along with it?

I was very thrifty while I was in the US. I am still is now but once in New York, my friends and I were scolded for giving what I would guess was an insulting amount of tip. What a lecture we had! It was enough to heat us up in the frigid New York winter! But please do not blame me for that for I am but a product of Malaysian culture.

But back to the question, why should we tip?

The answer is simple and relates to one truth in economics: people respond to incentive. This is an universal truth. Well, almost but let us pretend that there is no irrational people in this world.

When I say tourism-related service industry, I really mean the sector such as hoteling and restaurant. If I might add, Malaysia has a relatively terrible service industry. A friend of mine from India once lamented on how terrible the service he received at what could be considered as a posh place in the middle of Kuala Lumpur. I was shocked to hear him complaining about that place.

The fortunately could be changed if the culture of tipping is introduced in a big way in Malaysia. With it, visitors would have the power to reward those whom exhibited good effort and, in some way, punish the sloppy ones. Alas, introducing a new culture is an Herculean task. A more sensible proposal is to start it with a more humble manner: develop a personal habit of tipping.

In order to get good service, one has to develop a reputation for tipping. In an environment where tipping is alien, one does not have tip too much to be well served. One has to repeatedly tip the same service provider over some time to gain that reputation. Just like in a repeated game model, players learn. The same fact is true in the real world.

So, if you hate the service you get in Malaysia, start tipping. Trust me. Once one has a tipping reputation, many in the tourism-related service industry would try to please you. If everybody tips, we would have a great tourism industry in no time.

If that is not enough a reason for you to start tipping, there is another reason why you should tip: tip big enough, you may get lucky.

Categories
Economics Environment Politics & government

[1254] Of G8 on climate change

Categories
Education Liberty Society

[1253] Of coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty within the Malaysian education system

The issue of vernacular schools funded by public money is a very difficult subject for me. The difficulty arises due to choices involving coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty.

For liberals, the racially divided Malaysian society is a painful reality to live in. The history and nature of our society give rise to our current predicament where most issues could be seen through racial lens, be it right or wrong. Our education and political systems reflect exactly that primitive thinking that we suffer.

Before I progress further, the importance of education must be emphasized. Liberals in general, including libertarians, place education very high in their list. Through my readings, the birth of liberalism would not be possible without the accessibility of knowledge to the masses. It is through knowledge, or education, that individuals could fully appreciate personal responsibilities, placing the individuals — the basic unit of a society — on a higher plane compared the situation in a centralize society. Liberalism at its heart is about trust in the individuals; the trust that one shall respect others’ same rights. It is trust that individuals are able to do good. Aristotle’s words describe part of that trust: “I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law“. It is through this trust, through personal responsibilities that one frees oneself from shackles imposed by tyrants. Without education, it is hard for any one of us to build that trust. Lack of education provides fertile ground for dictatorship.

Education is the sculpture of a society. It is a tool. The greater the education level of individuals, the greater the possibility of a creation of a freer individuals and freer individuals create freer society; liberal society. For liberals, primitive communal thinkings do not appeal to them.

The tool could be used to eliminate the primitive division we suffer. This is why the education system receives so much attention, at the very least by liberals, within our society. Liberals understand the gravity of the matter. We understand that the education system could mole a new society that would do away with outdated communal-based politics.

There are liberals that believe the promotion of multicultural society to erase the legacy of divisive communal politics from Malaysian society. They would actively promote the creation or the enhancement of multicultural society — such policies are called multiculturalism — to answer the division that could very much lead to clear expressed bigotry. Once, this appealed to me but I found a clear hint of coercion in multiculturalism. That leads to my rejection of multiculturalism. That however does not mean I reject multicultural societies. I enjoy diversity but I do not wish to have such societal characteristic to be stuff down my throat to suffocate me.

One aspect of multiculturalism through Malaysian context, at least, I seem to think so, is the rejection of vernacular system and promotion of a religiously unbiased national system with the national language as the medium. Through this, tolerance, which is a goal of multiculturalism, would be achieved. After all, inculcating tolerance in the young is easier than trying do to the same thing for an already bigoted adults.

Rejection of multiculturalism however left me grappling to answer a question: how do we overcome this primitive communal politics without multiculturalism? Could a source of bigotry be solved with coercive cohesion at the expense of liberty? Is the liberty so sacred to liberals — libertarians — worth bypassing the unity that all liberals dream of?

The questions relevant to the Malaysian education system, with all those factors in mind is this: should the vernacular system be abolished in favor of national system in the name of unity or should it be left as it is in the name of liberty, for fear of forcefully committing active assimilation against others’ will?

My status quo position until now was the abolition of the vernacular system and placing full support for the national school. Of course, the support for the national system requires qualification and few of them are meritocracy and independence from religion.

Through limited time that I had to contemplate on the matter, I have come to a conclusion that strengthens my trust in the individuals. It is a conclusion that satisfactorily breaks the dualism between coercion and cohesion, between unity and liberty; it is possible to achieve cohesion without coercion, liberty with unity.

This is how: as mentioned earlier, education is the sculpture of a society. Greater level of education introduces greater possibility of one thinking for oneself. This enables one to trust oneself, breaking away from superstitions and illogical orthodoxies, creating confident individuals that rely on the mind to move forward towards enlightenment and beyond. The ability to self-regulate transfers sovereignty from leaders or society, benevolent or malevolent, to individuals.

Higher education level increases the possibility of the birth of another liberal individual, regardless of strain, or at least, individuals that respect others’ liberties. If all liberals are allergic to the communal politics and to an extent accept that vernacular system promotes communal politics and are concerned with coercion and liberty, they would support the national system without actively depriving others of opportunity to vernacular system, assuming all else the same, assuming all qualifications that I stated earlier are incorporated. As the education level of the population goes up, there will be a point that most would like to do away with vernacular education system and thus, only one system that is supported by public money. For a liberal that values tolerance, he would try to inculcate the liberal value in his child and he would likely enroll his child in a system that offers exposure to tolerance. Between a national and a vernacular system, there is more exposure opportunity to tolerance in the former. Hence, the liberal would choose the national system over vernacular system, with all else being the same. Through this, slowly but surely, we will phrase out the public-funded vernacular system without coercion.

If my reasoning is sound, then what we need to do is to increase the quality of our education system to create a less communal politics within our society. This would mean that all we need is the patience and resilience to improve the quality of our education system and eventually, through that system, a quiet revolution for a liberal society.