Categories
Politics & government

[1672] Of voting is a waste of time, they say

What a waste of time. That was how some Barisan Nasional members of Parliament felt about being forced to vote in the Parliament recently.[1][2]

This clearly demonstrates their disrespect for democratic process and how they view their jobs.

The sentiment originates from the fact that BN control more than half of the seats in the Parliament. By that virtue alone, BN maintain the majority power in the Parliament. There is however a little footnote to such statement: only those present during the actual voting session can vote. As a direct result, more than 82 BN MPs must be present to ensure that they win the contest by a simple majority, assuming all 82 Pakatan Rakyat MP are present and all MPs vote according to their party line.

The event of May 28 in the Dewan Rakyat proves the importance of attendance in the Parliament. It is a lesson that majority power cannot be taken from granted.

Initially, the Speaker swung to BN way after a voice vote was taken but when PR MPs contested his decision, he agreed to bloc voting instead. This action saw BN MPs suddenly scrambling to assemble their MPs far and wide, many whom were absence. Even the Prime Minister came running into the House to vote on the matter.[3]

The question is, why are these individuals not in the Parliament in the first place? For Ministers and their deputies, it is comprehensible but for other MPs, their absence should be frown upon.

Perhaps, they think that attending parliamentary sessions is a waste of time? And it was the first ever bloc vote in the history of the Malaysian Parliament no less and they say it is a waste of time![4]

One of the very few advantages of one-party system is that such arrangement avoids arguments and debate that may delay a body from arriving to a decision, for better or for worse. Perhaps, these BN MPs were too comfortable with the autocratic system that they had lived in earlier that they have yet to wake up to the new more democratic reality.

I for one support the PR MPs’ action. It forces all MPs to take their attendance in the Parliament seriously. If attending a session is too much of a hassle, then you are not fit to be an MP.

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

[1] — That isn’t the point actually. We wasted half and hour of precious debate time for the vote despite the Opposition knowing full well that the party with the majority is the government. [Real winners and losers. Nur Jazlan Mohamed. The Malaysian Insider. May 28 2008]

[2] — After Wan Junaidi announced the voting result, Cabinet ministers and government supporters thumped their tables as a sign of ”victory” while shouts of “what a waste of time” were heard. [Bill approved by block voting for first time. The Malaysian Insider. May 29 2008]

[3] — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dashed out to the lobby and quickly signalled members to come in.

This prompted ministers, Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam and other backbenchers in the lounge to abandon their cuppas.

Some of the ministers were also summoned from the Dewan Negara, which is currently also in session.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi walked briskly from his tower block office while Najib went in just before him.

As the seconds to the vote count ran down, the backbenchers began to relax as they saw Abdullah and Najib walking to their places. [Dewan Rakyat: High drama as opposition calls a vote by division. New Straits Times. May 29 2008]

[4] — KUALA LUMPUR: Block voting was carried out in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time to allow part of the Supplementary Supply Bill 2007 to be passed after several Opposition members noted the lack of quorum in the House. [Dewan Rakyat: First ever block voting. The Star. May 28 2008]

Categories
Photography

[1671] Of facade of the old railway station in the evening

This one was taken during the Vesak Day procession. If you did not know already, The Malaysian Insider also published a set of photographs which I shot on the same day.

Anyway…

Some rights reserved.

Other photos of the old station are available at post [770], [771], [1259] and [1265].

Categories
Environment

[1670] Of a company’s only responsibility is to its shareholders but…

It could be the nuclear option to silence rebellious investors. A libertarian activist has hit back at ExxonMobil’s environmental critics by tabling a resolution that would outlaw shareholder social activism.

The Free Enterprise Action Fund, which controls $11m (£5.5m) of assets, has proposed amending Exxon’s articles of association to prevent the oil company’s shareholders from putting forward advisory resolutions at annual meetings.

The fund’s managing partner, Steven Milloy, opposes a coalition led by the Rockefeller family that is calling on Exxon to pay more attention to global warming. “They’re not bona fide shareholders,” Milloy says. “They’re not shareholders who are invested in Exxon because they think it’s a good investment – they’re shareholders who want to use Exxon to advance their social and political agenda.” [Exxon investors propose ban on green activism. Guardian. May 27 2008]

Looks like somebody in Exxon could not stand it anymore.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Economics

[1669] Of no cash aid for Myanmar

Money may not be the only thing in this world but it does make a lot of people happy, including the junta of Myanmar. But keeping the junta happy is not what I have in mind when I want to help the people of Myanmar.

We may have forgotten that Cyclone Nargis took tens of thousand of lives in the Irrawaddy Delta just weeks ago. With the season finale of American Idol, Akademi Fantasi and the loss of sovereignty over a rock or two to Singapore a few days ago, who can blame us? There are far more important things going on with our lives than anything that happens in the delta.

But if we actually cared a little about the victims of Nargis, we would remember that the junta placed restrictions on foreign aid. The junta even refused aid from relief groups, stating that they preferred government-to-government transactions.

The junta of Myanmar must be the luckiest government in the world because it can afford to become a chooser in a time when it really should be a beggar. Unbelievably, it took some coaxing by governments of other countries before the junta actually relented. Even then, aid workers were barred from entering the country. To think that other governments cared more about a person than the person’s government really reflects badly on a government.

Aid eventually crept in but as the blankets, medicine, food and cash got into Myanmar, there were reports that the junta repackaged the aid as if it were provided by the junta. But I suppose, if the aid gets to the victims, it does not matter. Black cat, white cat: whichever catches the mouse is a good cat.[1]

There were also reports that some of the aid was redirected away from the victims of the cyclone.[2] The French had foreseen this by initially offering a small amount of aid and said they did not believe the junta had the trustworthiness to manage the aid. I share the skepticism of the French government.

In many cases, money transfer is a superior method of giving aid when compared to transfer in kind. Money transfer has the potential of improving the receivers’ welfare much more than what material goods can ever do. This is especially so when the receivers know exactly what they need while donors are unfamiliar with the local environment.

Money, after all, is the most generally accepted medium of exchange. It is usually harder for a person to barter blanket for food because the double coincidence of wants has to occur first before that transaction can take place. This is true for many situations, including the one involving fuel subsidy in Malaysia. Money transferred to those the authority wishes to help is a better policy in enhancing welfare than material transfer.

Money or cash transfer, however, does suffer from a problem called moral hazard. In the case of Myanmar, the donors may want to help cyclone victims buy food, blanket and rebuild their livelihood. But with little ability to oversee how it is actually spent, the victims may use the money to buy cigarettes or something less useful in improving their welfare.

Money transfer may also not be as useful in Myanmar as in other places in peaceful times. Disasters, especially the major ones, tend to push prices up as distribution channels suffer damage, causing supply problems. Add to the increased demand, prices will rocket, hence reducing its purchasing power.

Prices shot up in Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it surely is happening in the Irrawaddy. Some people derisively called it scalping but I call it economics. Regardless, donation in kind overcomes the problem of weaker purchasing power that any money donation under that scenario suffers.

Thirdly, just as how the French had expressed their skepticism, the junta cannot be trusted with money.

Now, there are caring Malaysian organizations out there that seek to alleviate the suffering of those in Myanmar by sending money over directly. Noble but their actions could prove unhelpful.

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

[1] — YANGON, Burma — Burma’s military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise. [Burma Junta Turns International Aid Into Form of Propaganda. Associated Press via FoxNews. May 11 2008]

[2] — The British ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, said Britain had also received unconfirmed reports that aid was being redirected away from disaster victims. [Myanmar Government Still Blocking Relief. New York Times. May 14 2008]

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

p/s — a version of this article was first published at The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Liberty

[1668] Of they just want their country back

For some sentimental reason, I opened up a box which I had not touched ever since I got back from Michigan several years ago. In it, I found a familiar magazine with yellow strip framing its front page. It was an old copy of the National Geographic magazine.

There is an article about Tibet in that edition and the final paragraph worth reproducing:

In these ways do the old and new, tradition and change, exist uneasily side by side. Among the Tibetans, even while those like Norbu, Huadon and Gama Sera are embracing change, I found a people conflicted by that change. Some candidly acknowledge the hardships and inequities of life under the Dalai Lama. Others drudgingly concede economic progress under China. No one wants to return to the old, often abusive, theocracy. But on one wants the Chinese to remain in Tibet either. They don’t miss the old days and its old ways. They simply want their country back. [Tibetans Moving Forward Holding On. Lewis M. Simons. National Geographic. April 2002]