Categories
Society

[2648] The future importance of the Malay language

I have two related conversations to share. The first happened in a cab in Sydney and the other happened over lunch in Jakarta. Combined, the conversations are possibly a testament of the future importance of the Malay language.

The first conservation was not really a conversation. The cab driver, who was probably in his 40s or 50s, was overly chatty. He drove both the car and the conversation alone. “I came from Hong Kong,” he said without being asked.

“Oh, did you?” I answered with feigned surprise. I was tired and I wanted to go wherever I needed to go quickly and painlessly. So I took the cab. He did not take the hint, however, and so he went on talking.

So I learned that he immigrated to Australia some time when the United Kingdom returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China in 1997. He left because he did not trust the communists and he did not want to risk his livelihood under communism.

Since he was already at it and I was trapped in his cab, I decided to somewhat participate in the conversation. I was especially encouraged to do so when he demonstrated that he was an anti-communist. At least, I thought, there would not be any ideological battle here.

But I wanted more nuance. So I suggested to him that China might be communist in name only these days as the Chinese government had embraced capitalism with a surprising fervor. He would have none of that. “The communists are not good.”

“I’m an Australian now,” he said to end that part of the conversation. To him, communism is communism and it is all the same.

The fact that he is a first-generation immigrant was easy enough to spot. He did not sound like a completely naturalized Australian. He shouted his English with a strong, harsh south Chinese accent. He failed to use the word ‘mate’ whenever it is proper to do so. He also did not end his sentences with question marks, like a stereotypical Australian would do.

Between the accent and the shouting, I had to frown to catch his words. I know it does not make sense but somehow frowning helps with my hearing.

Another thing that I made out of the conversation was that he understood the importance of Mandarin in this era. Who does not, really? With about one billion native speakers in China alone and the country becoming more and more open than the China that the cab driver once knew, there is really no room for a dispute.

However, he confidently said there are only two languages that mattered in this world: English and Mandarin. The word only stirred me.

“Only two?” I asked skeptically. In my head, I could name several more languages of global importance.

“Two only,” he replied with an almost angry tone. I could not be sure if he was really angry because he sounded angry throughout the conversation anyway.

The really interesting part of the conversation came after he gleefully expounded on the importance of Mandarin, almost exhibiting a hint of cultural superiority. Or maybe he was not. Something might have been lost in translation.

“What language do you speak?” he asked.

“I speak Malay,” I answered.

With the same confidence, he dismissed the Malay language as useless. “What would you do with that language of yours?”

I smiled, looked outside and tuned out. “Are we there yet?”

More than 5,000 kilometers to the northwest, in Jakarta two years later, a friend was treating me to lunch. The friend is an Indonesian of Chinese descent who is currently residing in Sydney. He was on Christmas holiday and I was travelling with Jakarta being my first stop.

“I’ve been in school for too long. I want to take a gap year. I want to see the world,” he told me after we argued whether Malaysia or Indonesia is the real owner of nasi goreng and batik, among many other things.

He is training to be a surgeon and he has been in university for too long. That means English has been his primary language for some years now. He has little opportunity to practice the other two languages that he speaks, which are Indonesian and Mandarin.

He plans to spend his gap year by staying in Beijing for six months to practice his Mandarin and another six months somewhere in Indonesia to practice his Indonesian, which is not very different from the standard Malay language. To most speakers of standard Malay, understanding Kelantanese is likely harder than understanding Indonesian.

He wants to practice Indonesian because he knows that the Indonesian economy is growing rapidly and the population is large; the country is the fourth most populous country in the world. A population of more than 200 million, add another 30 million from Malaysia and several more million from elsewhere, the importance of Indonesian and Malay will be as undeniable as Mandarin, contrary to the opinion of the Australian cab driver. The friend does not want to be in a disadvantageous position when the language finally becomes a major world language in the future. The friend is in his 20s and he has a more urban, modern and global worldview than the cab driver. He has some ideas of how the future will look like and he is preparing for it.

In contrast, the cab driver is living in the present and stuck with old ideas. All he sees are the vehicles on the road and nothing beyond that. The only fortunate thing for the cab driver is that, the development outside of Sydney or even Australia probably does not matter so much to him. So, he can afford to keep his opinion.

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

First published in the The Malaysian Insider on January 16 2013.

Categories
Economics

[2647] Sometimes, some inequality does not matter much

Wealth inequality does worry a lot of people. Malaysia’s Gini coefficient has been bandied around as a proof that something must be done to address the inequality that we see in the country. ”We are the 99%” is the favorite rhetoric to pound in the message that wealth inequality is a problem.

Yet not all kinds of wealth inequality deserve the indiscriminate worry that it receives. What defines inequality as an issue of importance is its cause and causes of inequality are aplenty and diverse.

Some causes may warrant serious attention and more importantly, action. A particularly worrisome kind of equality is the one caused by monopoly of power. Such power tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the rest. The monopolistic few can become so powerful that they begin to amass further wealth through unfair means to create an excessively unequal society not merely in terms of wealth, but also in terms of rights.

But wealth inequality can also be caused by factors that we should inculcate in our society. Those factors are so desirable that we should tolerate inequality caused by them. For instance, some level of inequality is preferable simply because inequality is a symptom of meritocracy. As long as we reward successes, there will be some level of inequality in our society.

In between lies inequality created by benign causes. It is a kind that nobody should go down to the streets shouting their lungs out in protest in the name of the people, whoever the people really are. In fact, so benign is the inequality that it should be discounted from any serious informed discourse on inequality.

One of these kinds of inequality is caused by demographics. Or probably in clearer language, it is inequality caused by age difference.

When the young enters the labor market, it is only expected they will not earn too much. But as they age and gain more experience, their income will grow and so too will their wealth. In the same line of reasoning, the older generations will likely be wealthier than their younger counterparts, controlling for other factors.

So when we place age profile and wealth side by side, it is reasonable to expect the existence of wealth inequality. Wealth will likely concentrate in the hands of the older generations than in the hands of the younger generation. It is an inequality between the young and the old. It does not explain everything about overall wealth inequality but it does contribute to overall wealth inequality.

This phenomenon is particularly important to a youthful society. In a society where the median age is low, wealth concentrates in the hands of the few members of the older generations. That fits the definition of wealth inequality: few rich old men (and women) and lots of not-so-rich young men (and women).

But as that society grows grayer — when there are fewer youth and more ”˜older persons’ around — wealth will be more well-distributed among members of the society: lots of well-off middle-aged or old men (and women) and few not-so-rich young men (and women). To put it more concisely, as the median age grows older, one expects to see a reduction in inequality.

Coincidentally, Malaysia has a young population. Based on the Department of Statistics’ Population and Housing Census published in 2010, the median age is approximately 26 years old. The median Malaysian just entered the labor market and still developing their career, if they have chosen one to start with. A consideration portion of the population is made up of young adults. One can expect to observe wealth inequality just because the demographics evolve just as such.

For Malaysia, that reduction inequality may happen in a decade or two when a significant fraction of the population enters their middle age and experience considerable income growth.

The Gini coefficient however takes everything into account, regardless of the causes of inequality. Demographic-driven inequality will correct itself sooner or later and there is not much we can do to address the root cause without resorting to population control.

These benign types of inequality should be discounted from a discourse of inequality. If somehow we can correct the Gini coefficient to reflect that, then perhaps the hard numbers would show us that the situation is not as bad as some make it out to be, that it is not really a case of the 99% versus the one percent.

Besides, in many case, it is poverty that mostly matters and not so much wealth inequality. Why would inequality matters when everybody is living comfortably and a few persons live rather lavishly but ultimately of no adverse effect on others? Jealousy is not strong enough a reason for us to ”˜correct’ wealth inequality in the society.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in the Selangor Times on December 28 2012.

Categories
Photography Travels

[2646] Yogyakarta!

As I wrote earlier, I was in Java for more or less three weeks. After Jakarta, I took the train to Yogyakarta. Indeed, I traveled from Jakarta to Bali mostly by train. The journey to Yogyakarta took about 9 hours. The rain made the journey longer than it should.

I must say, I like Yogya, as the locals call it, very much that I wished I had spent more time there and less time in Jakarta. Jakarta is big and it is good to be there to see what is going on with Indonesia. But the city despite its energy has serious infrastructure issues and its traffic congestion, the macet, is truly legendary. It took me around 5 hours to get to my hotel from the airports, and the distance is not that great. So, if you want to learn some early lessons about Indonesia, Jakarta it is a good place to start. For holiday, skip it.

I like Yogya because it is lively and always full of backpackers. I love that atmosphere and meeting like-minded people from all over the world. Unlike Jakarta, Yogya has a far more relaxed pace. You do not have to worry about cars. If you are to die by a road accident, it is likely to involve horse and carriage instead of roaring steel lions.

Yogya has a special position within the Indonesian republic in terms of history, culture and politics. Unlike most other places throughout Indonesia (remember, this is a republic), Yogya has its own royal house.  It is the way the republic chooses to thank Yogya for its contributions to the Indonesian republic.

So, one of the main attractions in Yogya is the kraton, which is the royal palace. The kraton is manned by various servants. And this is probably one of my favorite photos from the kraton.

Some rights reserved. Creative Commons 3.0. Hafiz Noor Shams

Categories
Photography Travels

[2645] Jakarta!

And so, I was in Jakarta in the middle of December, where I began my backpacking trip across Java for three weeks. From Jakarta, I took an overnight train journey to the cheery Yogyakarta, from there on a night in Indonesia’s second largest city, Surabaya and then a more than 12 hours journey to Bali by train, ferry and bus.

In the Indonesian capital, I had free meals twice. Once was the welcome meal paid by a friend, which was also kind enough to pick me up from the airport and send me to my hotel.

And second was within the green compound of the National Monument for my effort to speak Bahasa Indonesia. The last time this happened, I tried to converse in French in Paris. He guy took pity on me and he gave me a free meal. That of course was not the first…

I am that endearing.

Anyway, the National Monument. This is probably one of several landmarks of Jakarta which are known abroad. Or at least, I know it. It is truly big. There is a museum underneath. Full of nationalistic propaganda but a museum nonetheless.

Some rights reserved. Creative Commons 3.0. Hafiz Noor Shams

This structure is sometimes called Sukarno’s last erection. Jakarta has several big sculptures and monuments. They are magnificent but it took a toll on the economy after awhile. The price you have to pay for grandiosity.

But that was in the 1960s. Indonesia is now an emerging economy (again) and all.

Categories
Books, essays and others Economics Society

[2644] Albert Hirschman, and Exit, Voice and Loyalty

I just learned that Albert Otto Hirschman, the economist who wrote Exit, Voice and Loyalty, died in December 2012 as I was traveling across Java. Perhaps, this is an opportune time to review Exit, Voice and Loyalty which was published in 1970. I read the book some years back.

The idea presented in the book is pretty widely known now. So if one is to read about the book now, one would probably go, ”what is the big deal?” But you see, that idea came from this particular book. It is an influential book. At the very least, Hirschman was the one who formalized the very intuitive idea of dealing with disagreement in an organization.

The New York Times in its obituary of Hirschman told a story of William Safire and Albert Hirschman. William Safire was an amazing writer. I remember enjoying his sometimes hilarious column at The New York Times. Being an expert on language, he wanted to learn the origin of the term “exit strategy.” Safire traced it back to Hirschman.[1]

That is one proof how influential the book is.

Exit, Voice and Loyalty introduces a simple idea. A person in an organization has two options: exit and voice. The organization can be anything. It could be marriage, firm or even a state. It should be noted that the full title of the book is Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States.

A member of an organization is a member of an organization because he or she agrees with it to some extent. Depending on how tolerant the member is to the differences, he or she may decide to first voice out against the disagreement in hope to affect the position of the organization. The member does so because he or she cares about the organization.

If the divergence of position becomes too great, the member may decide to leave the organization altogether. The decision to leave may hurt the organization as the organization loses members.

The two options interact with each other. Some members have no opportunity to leave and so they employ the voice option to express their dissatisfaction. For Malaysia, the easiest example may involve Muslims where apostasy is hard if not impossible given all the restrictions imposed. This may explain why some Muslims are very critical of the religion, or at least the one sanctioned by the state in Malaysia. Of course, that is not the only reason for criticism. Many criticize the way Islam is practiced in Malaysia because they care about Islam. There’s loyalty in the religion. To them, leaving is impossible not because they are not allowed to leave, but because leaving is unimaginable.

So, loyalty is the glue that encourages the use of the voice option. Exit option is exercised if the glue fails.

The exit and voice option and its interplay which involves the notion of loyalty is probably best demonstrated in political settings. Application of the idea within political parties is probably the most widely known.

Another application involves immigration. I think I have written something about this as part of my degree requirement in what seems like a long time ago. It is easy to see how robust the model is. How many people have migrated out of Malaysia because they disagree with the prevailing policy?

What is interesting is that when a country has an authoritarian setting when the voice option can be deadly and exit is not really an option for one reason or another. I am unsure if this particular example is presented in the book itself but on Wikipedia:

Exit need not be physical, but can be mental or emotional. For example, under communism, many could not physically exit the country, but did not want to participate in the system either. In these cases, citizens could be said to exit from civic or political participation, as they were neither loyal to the party nor were they willing to voice their dissatisfaction (except for noted times of dissent, e.g., 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Prague and the Revolutions of 1989) because doing so could lead to imprisonment, exile, or even death. Many thus mentally and emotionally exited their countries for the duration of a repressive regime they did not agree with but felt they could not fight or topple. The consequences of this exit can sometimes provide an explanation for why voter turnout is often low in countries where free elections are being held for the first time in years (or ever). [Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Wikipedia. Accessed on January 11 2013]

This obviously is not a comprehensive review. But what I can say is that it can be an enlightening reading, even if it is a common idea. It is not a thick book but there can multiple pow moments when you would go wow. You should read it as a tribute to a great economist.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — In 2003, William Safire, the columnist for The New York Times who also wrote the On Language column for The New York Times Magazine, led an informal search for the roots of the phrase ”exit strategy.” The search led to economists, who pointed to Mr. Hirschman, who denied culpability, sort of.

”Did he coin the phrase?” Mr. Safire wrote after interviewing Mr. Hirschman. ”No; it’s nowhere in his book. He used exit option. ”˜It was a somewhat new concept then,’ Hirschman recalls. ”˜I used exit to indicate a possibility, a strategy. When you are dissatisfied, you can use your voice option or your exit option. It is not so different from the political use today. Speak up or get out.’ ” [Nelson Benjamin Albert Hirschman, Optimistic Economist, Dies at 97. The New York Times. December 23 2012]