Heh:
[youtube]6J8-Zfzd55E[/youtube]
[youtube]y0UZ7xeni28[/youtube]
[youtube]uPnoqGHhmWc[/youtube]
Go the BBC! Go John Sweeney. Now, the BBC should interview people from PAS!
Categories
A majority of Malays are content to look only as far as the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th and the 16th century, apparently accepting the era as the golden age of ancient, classical or medieval Malay civilization. Thanks to the education I received through the Malaysian system, I had the same perception too and I do think even Malaysians as a society in one way or another accept Malacca was the greatest civilization in ancient, classical or medieval Malaysian history. My love for history has allowed me to delve far beyond Malaysian textbooks. While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya, an empire that was almost forgotten. I truly believe that Srivijaya was that brilliant light that stayed bright from nearly a millennium. Malacca was a just spark, though brilliant as it may be.
The Malaysian education system fails to give Srivijaya the respect it deserves. So many Malaysian textbook pages concentrate on Malacca and successive minor Malay states but ignored that one large Malay empire that spanned from the Isthmus of Kra all the way down to Central Java and, at one point in time, even the banks of the Mekong. Admittedly, Srivijayan border was porous unlike modern states but its sphere of influence was far wider than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.
Perhaps part of the reason why the Malays stress so much on Malacca is the fact that so little information is known about Malay history earlier than the 14th century. Relatively modern Malays have been so ingrained with the notion that their history starts with Malacca. That misconception pushes Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes to.
Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. The reason why it was so easy to overlook Srivijaya’s existence is the material used for Srivijayan architecture; many of Srivijayan structures were made out of wood. In harsh tropical climate, wood would not last for too long, definitely not for one thousand years. Malacca itself did not leave too much behind to be marveled at by tourists and so, one could not hope too much for Srivijaya. The rain and the sun conspired to erase a chapter of a history book, hushing Srivijaya from history to myth to total obscurity.
That does not mean Srivijaya failed to leave its mark in history. The Sailendra, under the auspice of the Srivijayan Emperor Samaratunga, constructed the Borobudur which still stands today in the middle of Java. But even that monument was only rediscovered in the 19th century by Stamford Raffles. As for the Sailendra, the East Javanese pushed them out of central Java, causing the Srivijayan ally to migrate to the west and built a new hope under the protection of Srivijaya. The royal court of Sailendra was finally eliminated by Srivijayan Emperor Culamanivarmadeva after the Sailendra betrayed the emperor. That act led to the loss to Srivijayan capital, Palembang, to the East Javanese in the early 11th century. Palembang was reconquered by Culamanivarmadeva but by that time, Srivijaya had gone over its hill. It was dusk time.
Notice the names? Yes. The Malays were Hindus then. And Buddhists, and animists, despite whatever the religious conservatives might assert, despite how our history is being rewritten by those that have no respect for truth.
The Sultanate of Malacca itself was founded by an heir to the Srivijayan throne. The struggle between the Malays and the Javanese continued well into the 14th century and sometimes by the late 1300s, Parameswara, a Malay Srivijaya prince, fled Sumatra when Majapahit finally crushed the last remnant of a Malay empire that started humbly by the Musi River.
In a way, Malacca was the successor of the glorious Srivijaya. If Malacca could be seen as a sultanate that later led to Malaya and Malaysia, then Srivijaya could be seen as such as well.
While I was in Bangkok, I visited some of the museums there. It is truly sad to find out that the Thais are more appreciative of the Malay empire than the Malays and Malaysians in Malaysia themselves. Perhaps, that could be explained by the presence of Srivijayan temples, biaras, in Thailand, reminding the Thais of an empire long ago. In Malaysia, almost nothing.
Almost nothing but the Bujang Valley which was under the control of Old Kedah, a state within the realm of Srivijaya. Is it not odd that Bujang Valley, itself being far richer in historical terms, has been outshone by relatively young ruins (if it could be called as such) of Malacca?
Something must explain this bias that sides with Malacca. Could it be religion?
Categories
[1218] Of time for a rate cut?
An article in the Business Times today states that inflationary pressure has subsided:
INFLATIONARY pressures in Malaysia, which have abated since oil prices settled, are expected to subside further this year, say economists.
The economy is unlikely to experience strong cost-push inflationary pressures like that felt by consumers last year when pump prices were hiked following a spike in global crude oil prices, they said. [Rupa Damodaran. Inflationary pressures in Malaysia seen weakening further. Business Times. May 14 2007]
This might signal a possibility of a rate cut some time soon. In fact, there are at least four factors that might make interest rate cut favorable.
One is low inflation as mentioned in the article. Having an inflation-fighting policy when inflation is weak is kind of harsh.
Two, real interest rate is nominal rate minus inflation. Falling inflation, given constant nominal rate causes real rate to go up. Higher returns, in turn, encourages saving, discourages spending or investment, ceteris paribus:
”If real returns continue to swell, we fear it would have some dampening effect on private consumption spending, a trend that may go against the move to spur private consumption,” he added. [Rupa Damodaran. Inflationary pressures in Malaysia seen weakening further. Business Times. May 14 2007]
Further, higher real returns might have caused greater demand for Malaysian bonds:
There was a strong buying interest in the local government bond market last week, especially from offshore parties, which caused yields to fall quite significantly.
[”¦]
Week-on-week, the three-year and five year benchmark MGS fell 24 bps and 25 bps respectively to close at 3.18 per cent and 3.19 per cent.
Meanwhile, the 10-year lost 26 bps to close at 3.47 per cent. [Strong buying interest in govt bonds. Business Times. May 14 2007]
A rate cut would cause real returns to go down and reverse the carrot and stick model, spurring more robust economic activities.
Three, the ringgit is at a nine-year high.
KUALA LUMPUR, May 14 (Bernama) — The ringgit closed higher against the US dollar Monday to hit a new nine-year high since 1998, supported by continued inflow of funds and strong trade surplus, dealers said. [Ringgit Ends Firmer Against US Dollar. Bernama. May 14 2007]
Appreciating ringgit hurts Malaysian export. Strong ringgit makes Malaysian goods more expensive to buyers that uses other currencies.
Four, an expected economic slowdown later this year. Anticipating a slowdown, a rate cut could spur investment and thus possibly stopping an expected slowdown dead on its track.
For recording purpose, below is a table reproduced from Business Times:
The Malaysian equivalent of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Monetary Policy Committee will meet on this coming May 28.
I, of course, prefer the market to set the rate instead of a central bank.
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
— Rudolph W. Giuliani, ‘Freedom Is About Authority’: Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime. March 20 1994.
While authority to some extent is desired, ceding “a great deal of discretion about what you do” to the authority sounds wrong.
Well, it is not too hard to strike Giuliani off the list. Bye bye.
Anyway, how well do you know the candidates for the office of the President of the United States of America?
Head over to an NYT quiz to find out.
According to several sources, the Prime Minister’s feet gave way at a function at Lumut. He however has denied such allegation:
LUMUT, May 13 (Bernama ) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denied rumours spread in the internet that he collapsed while attending a people feast and officating Dataran Hadhari at Teluk Batik, Lumut at noon. [PM Denied Rumours Spread In Internet That He Collapsed. Bernama. May 13 2007]
The Sensintrovert claims that RTM confirmed that the PM fainted. TV3 aired something on it but it is not clear on whether the PM actually fainted. Regardless, I wish the allegation remains as mere allegation because the PM and his counterpart from Singapore are meeting at Langkawi later this week. The last thing we need is a weak leader to talk on matters of national interests to the Singaporean. If it is true that he lost his consciousness even for a moment, I sincerely wish him speedy recovery. But what if the PM resigned today for health reason? Or for any reason for that matter?
Just as when former PM Mahathir Mohamed resigned several years ago, I am uncertain who should be the next PM. Mahathir was the only PM that I knew for all of my life back then and the uncertainty revolving around Malaysian political succession was piercing. Even when Abdullah administration first came to power, the uncertainty was still unshakable. The only time there was certainty was before the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim second highest executive position in the country.
This kind of uncertainty arises because the flawed political system our country practices. The practice of gerrymandering prevents organic representation from taking place. Misused of public money, masqueraded as development spending clouds uninformed poorly educated voters’ decision. As if that are not enough, disrespect on individual rights further discourages free flow of information that would allow voters to make informed decision when needs be, especially during election times. All that makes selection of leaders harder than it should be.
Organic political system operates from the bottom. Leaders derive their legitimacy from the people. Such model however is handicapped by imperfections mentioned earlier and that gives a chance for power to be played inorganically. Decisions from the top, while appropriate from time to time given the right context, is unhealthy if practiced frequently. For many libertarians, the fact that such origin of power goes against the idea of spontaneous order is not lost.
At the very extreme, power play from the top could be characterized as dictatorship. While it is common in Malaysia, Malaysia does not fall into a class of autocratic nations such as Myanmar, Thailand, Pakistan, etc. But as far as selection of leadership is concerned, hint of authoritarianism is observable. The current PM himself was appointed by his predecessor rather than being elected by Malaysians from Kedah to Sarawak, from Sabah to Johor.
The inorganic power origin makes creation leaders limited to circles favored by those at the top. Give it time and slowly, a culture of subservient, the fear to criticize leaders is born. In the end, the incumbent number one has a say on everything. Any sign of challenge is dealt with illiberal ways and a perception of no option later proliferates the society. This is especially so when the leaders’ power is not derived from the people. When that is true, there is no need for the leaders to seek consent from the people, similar to Friedman’s First Law of Petropolitics:
What I find particularly useful about Ross’s analysis is his list of the precise mechanisms by which excessive oil wealth impedes democracy. First, he argues, there is the “taxation effect.” Oil-rich governments tend to use their revenues to “relieve social pressures that might otherwise lead to demands for greater accountability” from, or representation in, the governing authority. I like to put it this way: The motto of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation.” The motto of the petrolist authoritarian is “no representation without taxation.” Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people in order to survive, because they can simply drill an oil well, also do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes. [Thomas L. Friedman. First Law of Petropolitics. Foreign Policy. May 2006]
Even if such system practices meritocracy, it is only practiced in a limited manner, limited to favored circles. Leaders are inorganically grown and do not have the necessarily qualifications as typically seen in the industrialized world. There is a dearth of high quality leaders exactly because the system does not create too many high quality leaders. We cannot choose when there is no option.
With a better system that pays respect to individual rights — libertarian values — leaders could be organically grown, which only those among the best would be elected to hold power. Choices would be aplenty as each section of the society elects their own leaders, able to practice their individual rights, unsuppressed by illberal powers.
With a better system, one would not have a problem to answer, if our PM resigns today, who would succeed him. In a better system, choices, if not immediately apparent, it would be soon enough. That system is liberal democracy.