Categories
Economics

[1167] Of a fall of 0.2% or 7.2%?

An article by Bernama highlights that the Malaysian industrial production index falls 0.2%:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 9 (Bernama) — The Industrial Production Index (IPI) for February 2007 fell 0.2 per cent to 123.0 compared with 123.2 in February last year. [February Industrial Production Index Down 0.2 Pct. Bernama. April 9 2007]

While true, the magnitude of drop from the previous month is actually 7.2%:

Compared with the index of 132.5 in January 2007, the IPI for February 2007 dropped 7.2 per cent. [February Industrial Production Index Down 0.2 Pct. Bernama. April 9 2007]

Is this bad news?

Without more information, I cannot really say. From the look of it, through limited data, it seems like seasonal fluctuation and nothing more though. I however am tempted to link the decrease to the fall in demand for electronics in the US.

Regardless, this is how the index looks like at the Department of Statistics of Malaysia:

By the Department of Statistics of Malaysia. Public domain?

What do you think?

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

p/s — okay. I forgot about seasonal adjustment. Now, I am embarrassed.

Categories
Economics Society

[1166] Of wanna work in the US?

Well, bad news:

On the day after it began receiving applications for H-1B work visas, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service reported yesterday it had already received more than double the number of applications it is permitted by law to grant for 2008. The same limit took two months to reach last year.

While H-1B grants are officially capped at 65,000, USCIS reported receiving over 150,000 applications as of Monday afternoon. [H-1B Visa Limits Hit After Only 1 Day. Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews. April 4 2007]

Hat tip to Jiinjoo.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1165] Of tale of two courts: common denominator

I am in the opinion that the trend of the strengthening role of religion in Malaysia reaches a new level after the civil court directed a Hindu to seek redress in the sharia court. For the past several months, the civil court has delegated many cases to the sharia court whereas the civil court should have deliberated on it instead. From a layperson’s point of view, this action increasingly widens the scope and the power of the sharia court over all Malaysians. This creates great controversies and indeed, it is another in a series of cases which test the boundary of the civil and sharia law.

This is a very worrying trend. Having the executive branch of the government enforcing religious rule in one thing, having the judiciary trading off civil liberties for religious conservative value is quite another. The judiciary is supposed to be the bulwark against the religious conservatives. When the bulwark starts to fail, the perfect analogy would be when the dykes of the Netherlands start to leak. The consequence of the leak needs no explanation.

In Malaysia right now, more than ever, we need a little boy to plug his little finger into a tiny hole, stopping the leak. This is because we as Malaysians have achieved so much since we last formed a federation in 1963. If the dyke fails, we have too much to lose.

As a libertarian, the legitimacy of the sharia court is only possible through the consent of individuals being judged by such court. I for instance only accept any sharia court ruling on me if I assent to be judged by the court — indeed by the sharia law — in the first place.

For certain reasons in this country, Muslims have two courts in this country; those courts are civil and sharia. While I have issues of being judged in the sharia court, the bigger issue is when there is an overlap between civil and sharia laws. In particular, this occurs when Muslims and non-Muslims’ interests collide.

When such event happens, in order to resolve the dispute as civil as possible, all sides will have to agree upon on whom should be the arbitrator. When there are more than one kind of courts and each side preferring one court or the other with such preference never coincides, there must be a common denominator that everybody could or must fall back to settle the original dispute. In the case of two courts, the common denominator is the civil court.

Why the civil court is the common denominator?

I like think the reason is the obvious. While the sharia law in Malaysia in theory governs certain aspects over Muslims (regardless of what I think), the civil law governs all. It is through this reasoning why the civil court is the common denominator. Again as a libertarian, this common denominator argument is valid to all, regardless of religious belief.

If we refuse to have a common denominator, to accept the civil law as the common denominator, perhaps it is better for us to quit trying to embrace each other, to live and let live, to live separately, peacefully.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[1164] Of North Korea versus Islamic Courts Union?

Interesting fact:

WASHINGTON, April 7 — Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country’s nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa. [North Koreans Arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents. NYT. April 8 2007]

Other salient points:

American officials said that they were still encouraging Ethiopia to wean itself from its longstanding reliance on North Korea for cheap Soviet-era military equipment to supply its armed forces and that Ethiopian officials appeared receptive. But the arms deal is an example of the compromises that result from the clash of two foreign policy absolutes: the Bush administration’s commitment to fighting Islamic radicalism and its effort to starve the North Korean government of money it could use to build up its nuclear weapons program.

[…]

Several officials said they first learned that Ethiopia planned to receive a delivery of military cargo from North Korea when the country’s government alerted the American Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, after the adoption on Oct. 14 of the United Nations Security Council measure imposing sanctions.

“The Ethiopians came back to us and said, ‘Look, we know we need to transition to different customers, but we just can’t do that overnight,’ ” said one American official, who added that the issue had been handled properly. “They pledged to work with us at the most senior levels.”

[…]

The measure had special relevance for several African states that have long purchased low-cost military equipment from North Korea. Ethiopia has an arsenal of T-55 tanks that it acquired years ago from the Soviet Union and Eastern European nations. For years, it has turned to North Korea for tank parts and other equipment to keep its military running.

The Ethiopians bought the equipment at a bargain price; the North Koreans received some badly needed cash. In 2005, the Bush administration told Ethiopia and other African nations that it wanted them to phase out their purchases from North Korea. But the Security Council resolution put an international imprimatur on the earlier American request, and the administration sought to reinforce the message.

[…]

It is not clear if the United States ever reported the arms shipment to the Security Council. But because the intelligence reports indicated that the cargo was likely to have included tank parts, some Pentagon officials described the shipment as an unambiguous Security Council violation. [North Koreans Arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents. NYT. April 8 2007]

Would we be seeing radical Islamists targeting North Korea in the future?

Categories
Economics

[1163] Of blog war between DeLong, The Street Light and Free Debate

Economists are taking sides. It starts at The Economist:

Despite a dispiriting start that saw the imposition of steel tariffs, the Bush administration has made great efforts on trade, pushing forward with both multilateral and bilateral deals. Its biggest goal, a substantive deal from the Doha round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, is currently on life support. But the administration has managed to secure a variety of smaller deals, while letting steel tariffs die a death at the hands of the WTO. Now even progress of that sort may end. [Trouble with trade. April 2 2007. The Economist]

The Street Light fires the first shot:

The Economist takes a massive dive today, as they continue to bizarrely and irresponsibly assume the best (or maybe “the least bad” would be more accurate) of the Bush administration. [The Economist on Bush on Trade. April 2 2007. The Street Light.]

The DeLong as reinforcement:

Kash Mansouri writes… [Kash Mansouri Is Very Unhappy with the Economist on Bush on Trade. April 3 2007. Grasping Reality with Both Hands]

Free Debate, the blog of the Economist, counterattacks:

BRAD DE LONG approvingly links Kash Mansouri, as he goes after us for claiming that the Bush administration has been relatively strong on free trade issues…

[…]

Despite the good professor’s endorsement, this take on the Bush administration’s trade policy is an implausibly uncharitable reading. I confess I am stonkered at the willingness to blame the Bush administration for being insufficiently active on Doha, since without the trade team’s efforts, Doha would not be on life support; it would be dead. The Bush administration did everything but a fan dance to lure all parties back to the table after the catastrophe at Cancun, and while it has not gone as far on farm subsidies as anyone would like, this is widely regarded as driven by (Democratic and Republican) farm interests in Congress, not some failure on the administration’s part. It does the administration no good to negotiate a treaty that can’t be signed.

[…]

The Bush administration is far from perfect on trade; I think particularly of its ridiculous stance on sugar ethanol. But the Bush administration is constrained by political realities. It has failed to take many damaging steps despite intense political pressure, such as declaring China a currency manipulator, and where it does impose anti-trade measures, they are pleasingly often something like the steel tariffs, which were guaranteed to be overruled by the WTO. And as Mr DeLong’s commenters point out, whatever Mr Bush’s trade sins, they are at this point thoroughly overshadowed by the Democratic protectionists currently flexing their muscles in the House. That’s less an endorsement of the Bush administration than a sad comment on the state of trade policy in the world today: the Bush administration is the best we’ve got. [Tu quoque. April 3 2007. Free Debate]

Would Mankiw and Krugman (or heh, by proxy, Mark Thoma) get a keg and make a merrier party?