Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[2235] Of hitting the brakes of subsidy liberalization

I am generally in favor of subsidy cuts in Malaysia. Yet, I hesitate to support the recent liberalization.

The economic rationale for liberalization is clear. Public discourse on this front has seen enough progress that liberalization is a popular position to take in Malaysia.

Let us recap the most commonly cited arguments.

Firstly, the subsidy program has an opportunity cost, as with all policies. If a government spends on one particular program, it necessarily means not spending money on others. Moreover, blanket consumption subsidy is probably the worst of all policies in terms of opportunity cost.

Secondly, there are better policies — cash transfer or tradable quotas for the needy are two examples — compared to outright subsidy. These alternative policies can address welfare concerns more efficiently.

Thirdly, the subsidy program has to be financed. That means taxation. While taxation is required to maintain a government, the level of taxation can be controlled to accommodate other concerns. There are various reasons why a low-tax environment is favorable. A bloated subsidy program does not help in this aspect.

Finally, together with a subsidy program, multiple suffocating supply and demand control regimes typically exist to support the program. As a result, the market becomes inflexible as more and more controls are set in place. The inflexibility causes hardship to more individuals than necessary.

The subsidy cut appeals to these arguments. If these were the only concerns, I would wholly support the liberalization exercise.

But it is not.

Two pillars form the basis for my support for liberalization. One is economic concerns. The other involves concern for freedom. Specifically, it is the idea of small government.

The weight I put on these two factors changes from time to time according to situation and the situation has changed since the last time subsidy liberalization took place. The size of subsidies and the drag these place on government finance are less of an issue today compared to a year or two ago. That convinces me to place more weight for freedom vis-à-vis economic concern, although the two concerns are not mutually exclusive most of the time.

While liberalization satisfies the economic side of the balance, the desire to see a reduction in government size is unmet.

Take the Prime Minister’s Department, for instance. Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong shared recently that the size of the department has more than doubled in less than a decade. The statistics regarding the size of the civil service and the government as a whole are more harrowing. All this contributes to the structural fiscal deficit that Malaysia suffers from.

The deficit caused by rocketing expenditure is an indictment of a fat old man called the government. The current government has announced its intention to reduce it, presumably by reducing government expenditure. Whether the plan will be successful is another matter altogether.

Amid the liberalization and other government initiatives that include the formation of new government-linked companies, I have a disturbing narrative at the back of my mind: Effort to free up resources is aimed at merely funding government expansion in other areas.

It is hard to predict the net effect but experience does not encourage much hope. One possible outcome is a scenario where the areas of expansion require a more active government hand compared to the one where the government retreats.

Already, government supporters are using the opportunity cost argument eagerly to justify the recent cuts. They say the government will put the money in good use. Good use or not, they are setting the ground to use the retreat as a justification to expand the other sides of government.

The opportunity cost argument is not exclusively used by government supporters. Opposition sympathizers and others do have ideas on how to spend the money. Politics may create a trade-off between economic concern and freedom in the end.

I fear that, and that fear is holding me back from supporting the recent liberalization.

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 Malaysian Insider on August 4 2010.

Categories
Photography

[2234] Of light piercing through the Rocks

I have taken light trails at night before but it only last week when I really invested effort at it.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

I along with three friends climbed up the Cahill Expressway and looked down the Rocks to shoot this. It is an amazing spot for pictures of the Rocks as well as Circular Quay.

Categories
Photography

[2233] Of catching a fine day

The end of July presented me with this.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

It made me happy.

It was presented in the most magnificent style as well. Previous days saw endless dark clouds and rain. It was cold. It was gloomy and I hated it.

In the morning of the day I shot the photograph, rain threatened to pour. The city looked dull. But the wind blew the menacing clouds away to reveal the sun and the blue sky above. Oh my, I felt my spirit being lifted up just like that.

If there is transient heaven, this is it. I do not need further imagination and believe in a place where the unicorns gallop freely. This is real and I will focus on this one.

Categories
Economics

[2232] Of fiscal stimulus, timeliness and transparency

Although the debate on fiscal stimulus has died down in Malaysia, I am still very much amused, if not outright dismissive, of a number of arguments made by advocates of stimulus. One argument is related to transparency: stimulus has to be transparent. Although the argument for transparency is a generic one and many have voiced it, it was reiterated by somebody well-known in Malaysia recently. I am thinking of Nazir Razak of CIMB but at 3 o’clock in the cold Sydney, I have lost all desires to look for the article.

My criticism of having a timely stimulus and transparency is summarized in one word: naive.

Fiscal stimulus has to be timely, especially when there is no automatic stabilizers with arbitrary stimulus. If it takes too long to implement, or in other words, it takes the government too long to spend the money, there is a good chance that the stimulus will be obsolete by then. By the time the money is spent, the market situation has already improved that the stimulus is not required any more.

In fact, untimely implementation might disrupt recovery through, for instance, crowding out process by the government.

Unfortunately, transparency does not run parallel with the concern of timeliness.

Why transparency is inconsistent with timeliness?

Simple.

Transparency requires processes. Reporting is paramount. In other words, bureaucracy.

Red tapes have been derided as suffocating but it does play a huge role in rule of law. It is only through bureaucracy can controls be exerted on spending. Through those controls based on known clear rules and not through arbitrary acts which are susceptible to  abuse compared to rule-based system, transparency is achievable.

That rule-based system aimed at transparency is more convoluted than the paragraphs I have just written before this one. It take time to go through the bureaucracy. Hence, the issue of timeliness.

So, how useful is a stimulus if it is untimely done?

You know my answer.

I am for transparency but I am also a realist here. I understand that if one is concerned with transparency, it is hard to support a timely stimulus.

If you want a timely stimulus, something has to give. It is a dilemma.

Before I am accused of supporting corruption, leakage or anything of such, do note that I do consider those things negatively. Remember, I am arguing against fiscal stimulus, not transparency.

I do not have that dilemma. I am typically anti-stimulus; I cut through it.

Stimulus advocates cannot accuse me of giving nontransparent practices a blind eye. For those who like to moralize about transparency however, you my dear have a moral problem.

Categories
Politics & government

[2231] Of fluid Australian politics

It happens once every three years. That is how often the Australian Federal election has to be held. That is probably why Australian politics is as fluid as it is today.

Just how fluid is it?

Consider the fortune of Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party and its opponent the Coalition, which swung back and forth all within just a year.

In weeks prior to the ouster of Rudd, it was clear that he was becoming increasing unpopular. This is in stark contrast to the atmosphere a year ago when he was wildly popular.

Meanwhile, the Coalition — made up of the Liberals and the Nationals in the opposition — was squabbling among itself. The source of tension was Labor’s proposed carbon cap and trade legislation. Labor did not have the numbers to get it passed in Parliament. To do so, they worked with some within the Coalition, including Malcolm Turnbull, the former Opposition Leader.

It was a masterstroke by the government. While Turnbull and his fraction within the Coalition supported the legislation in one way or another, many others in the opposition did not. So bitter was the division that the Labor government under Rudd needed not do anything to come out on top. The Coalition was on self-destruct mode.

Rudd and Labor even had the option of dissolving Parliament if the legislation failed to pass. Projection at that time suggested that the Coalition could be wiped out if an election was called.

The legislation did fail. All Rudd needed to do was to finish it. Yet, he did not exercise the option. In retrospect, he should have.

After labeling the climate change as the forefront issue of his administration, his failure to get it through doomed him. There were other issues like government spending, refugees, migration, censorship and the mining tax of course but climate change was truly the battle the turned the tide against him.

He met with opposition when he first introduced the legislation on climate change. That was inevitable. When he decided not to push it, he ended up angering everyone, including the supporters of the legislation. It was yet another example of the peril of flip-flopping.

He should have called an election when he had the chance. It would have saved him from the flip-flop, the embarrassment and the backlash. Furthermore, it would have prevented the Coalition from reorganizing itself.

Tony Abbott replaced Turnbull. By the time the government tried to introduce an unpopular mining tax, Abbott went full steam ahead on the offensive along with the mining industry.

Combined with Labor’s failure and a resurgent opposition, Labor’s approval rating fell. This was worrying to Labor because election had to be called soon. The balance tipped so much that the factions in Labor decided that Rudd was a liability. The issue on tax sealed his fate.

At first, there were just rumors. Australian media were highlighting the popularity of his deputy Julia Gillard. Later, it happened: the first female prime minister for Australia.

The first thing she did as prime minister was to — so-called — clear the deck. She undid some of Rudd’s major initiatives and helped Labor salvage some points in the approval rating polls. The factions in Labor, nervous about going through an election, bet on Gillard and it worked. That is, it worked in a sense that Labor is now predicted to have enough support — just barely — to form the government in the next term.

Of course, it is yet to be seen who will form the next government in Australia. Pundits are expecting a close election. It appears that although Gillard is more popular compared to Abbott, the support for her has not translated into support for Labor so far.

That will depend on the rollercoaster ride in the next four weeks or so.

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 Malaysian Insider on July 26 2010.