Categories
Politics & government

[1150] Of Keadilan, the special purpose vehicle of discontent

At a point in the not so distant past, I used to hold a favorable view of Keadilan. Lately however, that opinion has slowly gone from supportive to almost ambivalence. The more I learn about the party, the more I find the party confusing. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Keadilan is a party of undecided ideological standing. It is a patchwork of this and that, neither here nor there. Its members are too ideologically diverse and they possibly band together with one purpose: protesting. Yes. Keadilan from my point of view, is a protest party and nothing more.

At the beginning, during the upheaval of the late 1990s, the party was established as a response to the sacking and the imprisonment of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. To many in the party, the black and white were clear cut; the good guys were with Anwar Ibrahim, fighting perceived injustice while those standing behind Mahathir Mohamed were villains. Day in, day out, the party’s fixation on Anwar Ibrahim became so intense that it seemed the party’s main purpose was to free Anwar Ibrahim and nothing else.

Some within the party and some outside sympathizers started to realize the centrality of free-Anwar, anti-Mahathir sentiment within Keadilan. These people criticized the party for that and suggested that Keadilan needed to go beyond a personality. In the early days however, Anwar Ibrahim was so popular among the masses that tactical change was not necessary. The 1999 general election later proved that.

If the 1999 election proved that critics were wrong, 2004 proved that the critics were right after all. By that year, Anwar Ibrahim become so irrelevant that Keadilan initially lost all of its seats. It only regained one seat after a recount. And then, the final blow came. Mahathir Mohamed resigned and soon afterward, the former prime minister was released. With that, just like how a special purpose vehicle is useless after achieving its goal, Keadilan lost its cause and risked irrelevancy.

To be fair, the party is reinventing itself. Through my limited interaction with those in the party, it, or rather its members have found a new cause, Unfortunately, that new cause is similar to that of the Democrats’ during the 2004 election. If the Democrats chanted for anything but Bush, the people in Keadilan are saying anything but BN. Just like how the Democratic Party garnered dissatisfied voters against the Republicans, Keadilan is garnering dissatisfied voters against BN. The Democratic Party was a protest party then; Keadilan is currently a protest party.

What else could explain the fact that there are so many diverse fractions within Keadilan working together in spite of incredible difference?

Surely the liberals and the lefties would argue against each other to kingdom’s come. Add the Islamists into the equation, boy, it is a recipe for Krakatoa. The ideological difference between each fraction is too great to go unnoticed or ignored. I would imagine that if BN is wiped out of the equation, those fractions within Keadilan would turn onto itself.

So, what holds Keadilan together? What attracts there fractions so greatly that the difference could be set aside?

I could think of two factors. One factor has been mentioned and it is the shared disatisfication against BN. Another is the initial raison d’être of Keadilan, Anwar Ibrahim; personality cult.

A friend told me that Anwar Ibrahim is one of the few persons that could talk to both the liberals and the Islamists comfortably. The question is why is that possible? Has he managed to connect the liberals (along possibly with the socialists) with the Islamists? From the look of it, surely he has but what exactly is that connection?

Is it pragmatism?

In the face of vast ideological difference between groups, I tend to favor pragmatism as an explanation. A deeper inquiry would venture, what is the cause of that pragmatism?

I could think of only one way to rationalize this: the cause is the various fractions’ shared discontent against BN. In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anwar Ibrahim seems to realize this; he builds his base on top of that discontent, catering everybody across the board.

Further, it seems to me that like John Kerry, Anwar Ibrahim is trying to please everybody. Because of the way he derives his political clout, he has to please every fraction within Keadilan. Everybody, meaning liberals, socialists, Islamists, the populists. Exactly because of this, he cannot afford to offend anybody. Exactly because of this, he needs to stay above the ideological jostling between the fractions of Keadilan. For if he starts to join the fray, he would lose support from some fractions. Exactly because of this, since he takes no real ideological stance, he is able to talk to both liberals and Islamists, etc. In the end, a populist.

Hence, the answer to why I think Keadilan is a mere protest party.

If Keadilan plans to be more than a mere protest party, it must find its ideological home.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Politics & government

[1149] Of the US might penalize Malaysian firm for doing business with Iran

This, it seems, has gone largely unnoticed in Malaysia:

WASHINGTON, March 20 — For all its efforts to apply economic and political pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, the United States has never used a potentially potent tool in its arsenal — penalties on foreign companies that assist Iran in producing oil and natural gas.

That may be about to change. The Bush administration has quietly been warning energy companies, including Shell, Repsol and SKS, the Malaysian oil company, as well as the governments of China, India, Pakistan and Malaysia, that penalties are possible if they pursue energy deals with Iran. [U.S. Cautions Foreign Companies on Iran Deals. NYT. March 21 2007]

Earlier, US Senator Tom Lantos demanded the President Bush to suspend all FTA negotiations with Malaysia because of the USD 16 million (or USD 20 million, depending on sources) deal between SKS Ventures of Malaysia and National Iranian Oil Company.

Categories
Humor Society

[1148] Of literally, whistle-blower

I was a little bit confused, perhaps, hilariously confused for awhile, after reading a report today:

KUALA LUMPUR: If everyone carries a whistle and blows it when a crime occurs, the nation will be a safer place.

This is what the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) believes, and so it unveiled the “safety whistle” campaign at its 14th AGM on Saturday as a crime prevention method for the people.  [MCPF kicks off whistle-blowing campaign. The Star. March 24 2007]

A little bit too literal, if you ask me. When I read the term “whistle-blowing“, I was thinking of a different kind of whistleblower. Anyway, further in the report:

“When, for example, burglar breaks into a house, the houseowner or anyone who witnesses the crime can immediately call for help and attention by blowing his whistle and, hopefully, that will scare the burglars away,” said MCPF executive council member Datuk Robert Phang.

Yeah folks. If you happen to stumble into a burglar in your house in the middle of the night, take a whistle and blow it as hard as possible. Hopefully, the burglars would run away, fearing the all powerful shrieking whistle!

Prreeettt! Prreeettt! Prreeettt!

Categories
Economics

[1147] Of preparing for rate cuts?

On Thursday, the Federal Open Market Committee kept the federal fund rate unchanged at 5.25%.

Phrase of the week: neutral bias.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Fed’s shift toward a more neutral bias on interest rates is likely to deal a blow to the dollar in the longer term, but bears expecting a sharp fall in the currency may have to wait a little longer yet.

The dollar slumped to a two-year low against the euro on Wednesday after the Federal Reserve left interest rates on hold at 5.25 percent but dropped a phrase in its statement pointing to future monetary policy tightening. [Shift in Fed tone signals dollar down but not out. Reuters. March 22 2007.]

The Fed is expected to cut rate later this year; a rate cut signals an economic slowdown.

Given Malaysian dependence on the US market, I am convinced that Malaysia would be affected.

The ancients said, all roads led to Rome. With slowing US economy as well as stronger ringgit which hurt local export, this particular road might lead to Rome indeed. So, I am confident of winning this bet.

Our own Bank Negara left our interest rate as unchanged at 3.50% at the last monetary policy meeting on February 26. If the Bank Negara is worried about slowdown, it should cut down rate. In the news however, the Malaysian central bank seems to be very bullish given current circumstances:

KUALA LUMPUR: Bank Negara is confident Malaysia’s economy will remain resilient and grow at a healthy 6% despite moderate global growth predicted for the first half of the year. [Bank Negara says economy still resilient. The Star. March 21 2007.]

If Bank Negara is as bullish as it says, conventional wisdom would either advice the central bank to either increase the rate up or leave it be, depending on the situation, if inflation is the bank’s main concern.

Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1146] Of globalization is not new

Globalization is loved and loathed by so many people for so many reasons. Too many people however seem to talk as if globalization is a modern phenomenon. This is understandable given that it is only around the 1990s that many started to recognize the forces of globalization. The Battle of Seattle in 1999 especially brought aspects of globalization into public consciousness. On the contrary, globalization is not a recent invention; only the word is. The phenomenon itself could be observed from dawn of time right here in Southeast Asia, and everywhere else around the world.

The late 20th century has been characterized as a century of trade. So many Asian countries had, and still are, directly benefiting from trade. The Asian tigers built their economies around trade and that later became a template for economic growth. From this perspective, globalization is increased economic connectivity, perhaps, synonymous to free trade. While we as a species have never been closer to each other, globalization has been true even before we, the current generation, came into being.

The previous era of intense globalization was during the Pax Britannica in the 19th century and to a certain extent, the early 20th century. Trade within and without the British empire was so impressive in volume. Goods flowed so freely between nations that it is possible that those decades were the closest point in history we had ever come close to true free trade. Goods crisscrossed nations with great ease; the only restriction then was technology. The speed at which trade was conducted nevertheless amazed those of that era, with goods as far as Malaya could reach London through the Suez Canal in just a few months when previously, it had taken almost eternity. Despite that, no, the 19th century is not the origin of globalization.

The 17th and the 18th century were another, earlier, bout of globalization. The formation of the Dutch and the British East India Company connected Europe with the world in a greater way. More remarkable is that this century marked the rise of free trade as an ideology, pushing mercantilism out of the deck and to the bottom of the sea. After tearing down the wall of protectionism in Europe, free trade continued its march to the east in search of prosperity, albeit violently, initially.

Back in Southeast Asia in the 15th and the early 16th, the Sultanate of Malacca acted as a broker between the east and the west. So famous was it that Barbarosa said “Whoever is Lord in Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice“. The wealth Malacca gained from trade, specifically, spice trade, attracted the Portuguese to this part of the world. The fall of Malacca to the Portuguese somewhat halted trade for a moment but it did not take long for trade to reorganize itself to take Malacca out of the equation; others like Aceh took over Malacca’s role as Christianity and Islam brought over their rivalry in the west to the east.

Just as Malacca and Aceh, many kingdoms of Southeast Asia rose and fell with elements of globalization. During its golden age, not only Srivijaya controlled the important Malacca and Sunda Straits as well as land bridge up in the Malay Peninsula — Langkasuka-Kedah and Pan Pan — to monopolize trade while the Silk Road faded into ancient history, it was also the center of Buddhism. In other words, it was an agent of cultural globalization. The great Srivijaya — with Sailendra, the builders of the wonderful Borobudur — only started to experience decline and eventually extinction not because of internal strive but instead, by external forces. The restriction of trade in China and harsh raids conducted by Chola from southern India, Srivijaya had its fate sealed by those that lived thousands of miles away from the Malay Archipelago.

Even before Srivijaya — it existence was only noticed by modern historians more than five centuries after its fall — even before Brutus stabbed Caesar in Rome in 44 BCE, the globalization was apparent. How else would one explain the presence of Chinese silk and Persian rug in Rome and Roman vases in the far east? Or the Moluccas spices on the steps of Genoa? And surely, the introduction of paper-making technology from China to Europe by the Muslims is another proof of globalization.

When the safe passage across the Silk Road was threatened, first by the advancing Persian armies, later the Greeks, then the Mongols and finally, the Chinese struggle during the period of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, globalization refused to die. Trade diverted itself from land to sea. Mushrooming across the Malay Archipelago, along the coast of eastern Indochina and the banks of Mekong were small kingdoms that suddenly saw the influx of traders and the wealth that come with it. That sudden increase in trade created an economic boom in the region. Each one of them took advantage of the change. That prosperity only ended when China under the Sui dynasty practiced isolationist policy in the 6th and the 7th century. It was a good run for the kingdoms of Southeast Asia regardless, lasting long enough to enrich our history.

We are currently riding another wave of globalization. Our ancestors rode theirs and carved their names in history. If we carefully embrace our wave and not succumb to the fear-mongering protectionists, just as we recall Malacca, Srivijaya, etc as great trading nations, our children would remember, that we lived during an era of unprecedented prosperity.