More information is available at the Art Gallery.
I have nothing clever to say with respect to the controversy involving the usage of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia (specifically, Catholic Christians I suppose) and objection raised by considerable number of Muslims there.[1] What I have to say is just some plain old consequences arising from my libertarian position. I think I have somewhat clarified my position while trying to explain, what I think is why some more conservative Muslims in Malaysia object to the use of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia.
In any case, I am going to explain my position.
From the principle of freedom, specifically religious freedom and more broadly, freedom of expression, there is no reason for me to be alarmed by the recent court decision to allow Christians to use the term Allah to refer to their god in Malaysia. For any group to claim exclusive right over an idea that cannot be, in a sense, privatized or perhaps — however ridiculous this may sound — trademarked, is problematic. I cannot quite find the right words to describe it but clearly, no individual liberty has been transgressed by this action taken by Christians. Meanwhile, to prevent Christians from doing so will violate their liberty, and therefore should be untenable for libertarians.
Furthermore, based on the concept of secularism, which I consider as an essential aspect of the libertarian concept of the state, the state should have no role in this at all. So, to me, the court decision is only right. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would call for government intervention in form of religious control in the society.
Not only that, that government intervention will expand the frontier of the state into private life of a person. Just imagine the kind of mechanism required to enforce a ruling that insists the term Allah belongs exclusively to Muslims and no one else in Malaysia. Well, actually, you do not have to imagine it. It is already in place.
Lastly, this conflict paints both Christianity and Islam in Malaysia in a bad light: those Christians who insist in using the term Allah when there are other alternatives and conservative Muslims for their schizophrenic attitude. It is true that the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.
[1] — Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s High Court ruled that a government ban on non-Muslim publications using the word ”Allah” is unconstitutional, settling a dispute that stoked questions about religious freedom in the country.
The Herald, a weekly publication of the Catholic Church of Malaysia, filed for a judicial review after it was temporarily ordered to stop publishing for two weeks in December 2007 after using the word, which means ”God,” in its Malay-language section. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Manirajan Ramasamy. Ranjeetha Pakiam. Bloomberg. December 31 2009]
Economics has been labeled as some sort of a discipline that predicts the future. The application of various models and efforts at testing its various hypotheses that sometimes result in the affirmative may have contributed to that reputation but it is not about predicting the future. Rather, it is about finding lessons from the past, learning from it and applying it for future endeavors. More humbly perhaps, it serves as a cautionary tale.
In this spirit, what one may expect in 2010 in terms of the national economy?
Many things obviously, and it is beyond me to list it in an exhaustive manner. Given my mischievous agenda against the state in general, I will focus on only a few. That, and based on standard economic theory, two parts of the economy may deserve some attention in light of what happened last year. Two components of Malaysia’s gross domestic product are investment — specifically private sector investment — and net exports or really, exports.
Why?
Economic theory suggests that increased government spending adversely affects net exports and ambiguously affects overall investment after some time. For those who keep tabs on the local economy, the fact that the government launched two massive measures to stimulate the economy should be common knowledge. In promoting it, the government touted it as unprecedented. It is exactly because the size is unprecedented that the concern is legitimate, possibly in a way that is unprecedented too.
The same theory highlights that government spending places upward pressure on interest rate and the exchange rate.
With additional government spending on top of normal spending, it is reasonable to hold the position that the current interest rate is higher than would under a situation without such spending. Higher interest rate means higher cost of borrowing and that itself is a disincentive to invest, especially for the private sector, even if the effect on overall investment is ambiguous. The fact that the government financed its additional spending by borrowing locally further strengthens the phenomenon of crowding out the private sector. With the government expounding on the idea of having the private sector as the driver of Malaysia’s economy, the divergence between the government’s past actions as well as its theoretical consequences and the government’s words creates a noticeable dissonance — but the sun always rises in the east and so, what is new, eh?
The same effect on interest rate is applicable to the exchange rate. In doing so, it makes Malaysian exports more expensive compared to a situation without the stimulus and foreign goods cheaper. It depresses exports, given all else the same. The likelihood of depressed exports is even more worrying given the economy of Malaysia’s trading partners.
For instance, in the United States, which is a major destination for Malaysian exports and really, the world, there is fear that once its stimulus spending runs out some time in the second half of 2010, its recovering economy would go to the other direction, possibly reflecting the artificial nature of economic recovery based on government spending. Should the US economy take a nosedive again, Malaysia’s exports will take a hit, as it had earlier. It would be a double whammy for the exports component.
The importance of the exports component to the Malaysian economy cannot be overemphasized. Despite rhetoric heard these days of the need to move away from the export-driven model, there is no realistic way to make contribution of domestic demand to Malaysian economy a close rival to foreign demand for domestic goods without devastating the local economy. The chasm between the two is just too great to close. This is not to say that improvement of domestic demand is unwanted but Malaysian consumers are simply unable to consume as much as the export markets, even if Malaysia would suddenly become a high-income country tomorrow. Anybody who harbors a dream to remove the centrality of exports and trade at large to the Malaysian economy vis-Ã -vis domestic demand must be fast asleep.
If the US economy contracts again this year, the political pressure on the Najib administration for yet another fiscal stimulus would be great as Malaysia’s own ongoing fiscal stimulus measures expire. Already there are calls for a third stimulus in Malaysia. Needless to say, further government spending will exacerbate issues associated with the investment and exports components.
This may further discourage investment by the private sector and there may be an urge for the government to take a more active role in the economy.
Granted, at the moment, there is an effort to liberalize the economy. Yet, the reduction and the expansion of government happen in different parts of the economy, bringing about unclear net government intervention in the market as a whole. Economic theory suggests that the government of the economy portion will expand. Further involvement through stimulus spending will tilt the arrow towards the appropriate side.
Critics of this line of reasoning tend to point out that there is excess capacity during an economic downturn and hence, the negative impact of increased government spending is only a theoretical worry to be shrugged off. They forget that, as with most economic policies, there is a lag between implementation and effect. In the very short term, the impact of crowding out caused by government spending is non-existence. Notwithstanding other arguments against fiscal stimulus such as the relative ineffectiveness of fiscal stimulus for a small open economy such as Malaysia, they can hold on to their criticism in the heat of the crisis. In 2010 and farther into the near future however, the lag will catch up to make the issue less theoretical and more real as each day passes.
How the Najib administration will address that lagged impact will be an interesting economic problem. If the global economy — really the US economy — continues to improve, it will give a boost to Malaysia’s exports component. In doing so, it may solve the problem associated with the lagged adverse impact of the economic stimulus measures. Out of prudence, however, that is a bet deserving of hedging.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on January 1 2010.
Categories
[2142] Of oh, before I forget…
….Happy New Year.
Should I edit out the hand and the phone? I kind of like it though.
Below is another among my favorites.
It was an email produced after a sequence ”guided by pure randomness.” He said he might need a place to stay for a day or two, or maybe more in Australia. I think I just woke up from a nap because I found myself unclear when he planned to come exactly . Apparently, he must have slept through writing the email as well. He wrote ”[s]o I booked really cheap tickets to Melbourne and will be there at and occasionally in between 19 June and 12 July 2009.” But it was already August. In the following email, he wrote, ”2010, rather.”
I thought to myself, and later wrote back telling him to email me again next year because with a commitment so far away into the future, anything could happen. I keep a conservative outlook with odds. I was thinking of myself because there were a number of uncertainties that I needed to negotiate throughout the year.
Little did I realize that anything also included death.
Friend Rajan Rishyakaran died earlier today in a road crash. I do not know the details, and I do not want to know the details. But I knew something else about him. Something that gives his existence a huge significance to me.
I knew Rajan first by reputation before becoming a friend of his. I think, many of those early bloggers, especially those whom used to patronize Project Petaling Street portal in its heydays knew him by his frequent saber rattling with another blogger over religion. I followed the argument between the two with interest, even if it was for pleasure. I later fought the same battle he had fought. Rajan was a libertarian. It was not a surprise that we disagreed (I still disagree) deeply with that blogger whom clearly despised the liberties libertarians cherish.
We take the defense of liberty seriously. It is no hobby.
He was, in fact, one of two early self-proclaimed libertarians in Malaysia that I know. It is for this reason that I appreciate his friendship. Weirdly enough, with the three of us, there was a Malay, a Chinese and an Indian libertarians. It is a coincidence resulting in a tiresome cliché.
For the life of me, I cannot remember when I first personally met him. I do however know that I only met him in person years after we knew each other online. The last time I met him was at a crazy summer party in Petaling Jaya with a bunch of other new friends that colored my dull life.
When we first knew each other, I was in the United States and he was preparing for his STPM, a Malaysian version of A-Level. He went on to do economics in Singapore.
Death comes to us all, but somehow, there is a painful sense of injustice here. He was too young to go. He had so many to offer to the libertarian movement in Malaysia, especially with his interest in debating and developing knowledge in economics. Many times when he wrote at his blog, I found myself in agreement with him. The loss of him is a loss to Malaysian libertarian movement. His death is a loss to me because I now have one less libertarian perspective to listen to, amid limited libertarian circle that exists at the moment in Malaysia.
But that makes him as if he was a tool for some political development. He was not. A man is the end, and not a mere mean.
Alas, he is no more.
His family is having a service for him tomorrow in Shah Alam. I wish I could be there. I really do. The suddenness of this all left me with little option but to give my last respect from here in Sydney.
Goodbye, dear friend.
p/s — I shall post links of other obituary that I found over the blogosphere here:
- For Rajan Risyakaran, an obituary. Yvonne Foong. December 30 2009.
- How do you know… Like a magpie, I live for glitter. December 30 2009.
- Chapter 22-08: Cherish Life. Fern Yit. December 30 2009.
- In memoriam. December 30 2009.
- Remembering Rajan Rishyakaran. John Lee. December 30 2009.
- Rest in Peace, Rajan Rishyakaran. Nathaniel Tan. December 31 2009.
- Conversations with Rajan Rishyakaran (1986 — 2009). Zareth Lim. January 1 2010.
pp/s — for those interested, there is service for Rajan on December 31 in Shah Alam. Kindly refer to this particular forum post at usj.com.my.