Tea Party vs Public Unions

Wow, cool! Governor Scott Walker has made his decision to curtail collective bargaining to all his state civil servants. He said, like most state in America which currently in ‘broke’, as elected official; he has to make tough choices such as cut pensions, cut state spending and reforming budget. This decision again is necessary to address huge deficits and most commentary says Governor Walker is attempting to rebalance the monopoly government union which faces no competition. Teachers on protest day, claims the government decision did not represent the majority of state civil servants in Wisconsin. I don’t know about the other states, are they doing well despite spending cuts policy? I am quite surprise too, when the Tea Party Movement has rally supporting Government Walker’s plan. Well done Tea Party! How about Malaysia? Does the government have the courage to do exactly the same to CUEPACS? No guts? What about Pakatan Rakyat? Oh, I almost forgot! They will distribute RM500 to teachers if they elected to Putrajaya, am I right? As mentioned below, I attach Adam Smith’s view in the case of Wisconsin protest;

From IV.2.43 of The Wealth of Nations:

“The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to thwart them, neither the most acknowledge probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services can protect him form the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.”

MRT: A Boon Or Bane

Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) is on the headlines again since its intensive study in 1998. It’s going to be implemented very soon, ground breaking in July this year. My organization, KPRU has released official statement mainly about the possibility of MRT fees based on mathematical calculation and we also questioning the government refusal to publicly emphasize specifically, its estimation of MRT fees. No one knows about it except the government. It is a bit strange to discover, when I asked one of those in charge for exhibition, he simply told us the government will decide the fees when the project is up soon. I went to MRT exhibition at Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) last Tuesday with my colleague. The moment I arrived, it's just like myself as Dagny Taggart, going through the details of MRT’s project with so much interest. But unfortunately, MRT is a conclusion of friendly partnership of government and business while Atlas Shrugged is quite the opposite, the clash of government and business interest.

Details, big figures, technical drawings, engineering drawings, and the simulation of MRT operation also have been demonstrate, well, to convince us, the public on its viability. I guess not so many people know exactly what are the organizer attempts to promote apart of relying on pretty map of MRT. All the public know is the spill over the project involving thousands of job creation and extra opportunities. I’m still skeptical because my big worry is the process, market, subsidies and the owner of MRT; government or business. My personal view on MRT as below;

Central planning, again, to accumulate all knowledge from millions of MRT users is technically impossible. A single authority namely Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) has not being able to supervise and under limited oversight, this authority also can't ensure specific objectives will be met in proper order. Remember, SPAD also has been centralized from several transportation agency in Prime Minister Office, there is a clear evident of bigger role of this authority, and therefore, of course, they will confront many issues from the beginning of the implementation and I must say, more impending bureaucratic, more time, more resources being wasted if SPAD losing their focus. Public transportation frustration is too big for SPAD to address alone. After all, what happen to Terminal Bersepadu Bandar Tasik Selatan that operates under its capacity since the opening early this year? There is more for SPAD to take care of including bus services, LRT maintenance and operation, taxis, licensing, enforcement and regulations. SPAD is expanding the insanity of central planning as widely possible with little hindsight.

Secondly, I definitely disagree with mathematical calculations in deriving estimated fees for MRT systems. I understand the sentiments of getting ‘political attention’, by doing comparison between countries without absolute acknowledgement the differences such as purchasing power, duties, transportation cost, inflation and so forth. The level of prices is completely different. The people in that particular country also have their own valuation and pricing process, so I, from free market perspectives, conclude that monetary calculation in intimidating the MRT fees is specious and delusionary. What we can do, don’t preoccupied our single mind to think the future prices because I don’t know how the future looks like, uncertain and the price does not reflects our infinite human action.

Thirdly, Austrian School of Economics always right about the complexity of human actions and its ramification. There is news recently says rich people don’t need MRT because they got own cars, but poor people are well receives the benefit of MRT. Government also fixing up (statistically) the number of passengers in phase of MRT’s project upon completion. The management of SPAD had visited Hong Kong and Singapore to learn their rails system and as usual, one size fits all, imaginary figures, engineering approach might somehow influencing the implementation of MRT in Malaysia. But let us go back to the basic that no individual man could explain the relationship between actions and preferences of 400,000 ridership per day. It is fundamentally error for any one, including government to constantly believe regulating million of consumers and alter their tastes and choices in using MRT as main mode of transportation. I see cars and motorists on the highway whenever I go to office everyday, lots of them and different direction until at one point, I couldn’t figure out what is their destination, at what cost, at what purpose, in what type of cars, and more impossible, what is their knowledge possession. No institution regulates them, but yet they successfully coordinating themselves without intervention. Similar things goes to the government, it can’t, but market can do it. This is the reason why I always propose if the oil prices reflect market origin; it will become more expensive as more spending is expected just for filling petrol in the vehicles tanks. What shall we then do? I want to save more (expensive petrol prices), I prefer MRT as my mode of transport. On the contrary, I have to spend more (expensive petrol prices) if I refuse to use MRT. Ultimately, the choice is belong to the consumers. Free market shall show you the way. As F.A Hayek said in great essay The Use of Knowledge in Society“…Economic problem arise always and only in consequence of change. As long as things continue as before or at least they were expected to, arise no new problems requiring a decision, no need to form a plan”

Monetary Policy and Jobs

Below is the Ron Paul’s Subcommittee Hearing: Can Monetary Policy Create Jobs recently in US Congress. Let’s watch what we’ll find out from this testimonial.

Rahmanian Or Road To Serfdom

Last Tuesday, I had attended the commemoration birthday of Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra and Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS)’s first anniversary at Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kuala Lumpur. I would like also to congratulate IDEAS for making this ceremony remarkably successful. Well done! It was a commendable effort too. When two party system taking, so called ‘bipartisanship’ in devoting bigger role of government, bigger fiscal policies, bigger intervention into private individual and worst, dictating our economy, it’s timely for libertarian to begin the eradication of both ideals with the hindsight of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Such event was only the beginning of truly change. More and more people are witnessing the intense of freedom promotion and the future is bright. I was surprised when Dr Zainal Aznam Yusof from National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) disparaging government decision to appoint politician as Chairman of FELDA. Common thoughts in every mind of free market, why must politician be appointed? He then said, power tends to corrupt and everybody's applauded. A true change is no government meddling in business. No government is allows to regulate its citizens. Freedom is no gift from government; it is instead a gift from Creator!

It is disgusting to see both sides, “to socialists all parties” be it Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat competing for a greater welfare state philosophy materialize. I don’t think I could recognize differences between them anyway. They are indeed disgraceful! Barisan Nasional is adamantly claims implementing policies under New Economic Model despite lack of political will, become pro business which have supplanted crony capitalism, and makes profit appear disreputable. The truth is new economy but old delusion. Pakatan Rakyat is famously manifests itself taking the wealth from A and giving it to B. Renationalize all the highways and water infrastructures and others, bribing teachers with RM500 and finally mooting central economic planning policy? Promises government type, a skill of every politician in this country compulsory to possess and as consequences, millions of people have arranged their lives in the expectation of various forms of government support that will be mathematically impossible to provide. Look, I bet no politician in this country who boldly declared that government is the problem and government is not the solution.

Those who study French classical liberal Frederick Bastiat for example may recall this as “Legal Plunder”. He was thinking the greater the scope of the state over the economy, the more entrepreneurial energy will be misdirected into lobbying for special privileges and loot, and less into ongoing efforts to please the consumer.

In general, Austrian School of Economics shall tell you, central economic planning won’t work. Thus, what would exactly Tunku Abdul Rahman think if he still alive at present day? I’m afraid, I’m working under the condition of artificial economy and freedom that at any time, this will be taken away by impotent government.

I ultimately believe, Malaysians must participate together reversing this country’s journey. Like I said, Americans historically are proud of having Thomas Jefferson or better known as Jeffersonian in their meaningful nation’s destiny. It lies in every perseverance they committed, but Malaysians too, don’t forget Tunku Abdul Rahman visions were comprehend into economics freedom policy, rule of law, and individual liberty. And these principles, therefore I urge that all of us should uphold no matter how and no matter when because eventually liberty will prevail! No, really? Was he embraced classical liberalism? No, this wasn’t taught to me in classroom. His line of thoughts does not appear in school textbooks! Yes, it only happens with the government present in every classroom across the country. Here are some of precise thoughts of Tunku Abdul Rahman which I gladly to share with the readers with the absence of government particularly on free market, limited government, rule of law and individual liberty. Thanks to a libertarian, Lenard Lim Yangli (IDEAS) for his awesome compilation in Tunku’s Great Ideas.

Proclamation of Independence, 31 August 1957

“…with God’s blessing shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent State founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of s just peace among all nations”

Rule of law

In an interview with former Far Eastern Economic Review Kuala Lumpur Bureau Chief Veerasingam Kukathas better known by his pen name K. Das, Tunku Abdul Rahman had this to say when asked to define the rule of law:

“You must observe the law, respect and uphold the law that is how it is supposed to be. To respect the rule of law, you don’t have to be a lawyer. We know the rule of law is supposed to provide justice and so on. We know all that, but there are certain questions that have to do with justice with fair play…That is the main thing – natural justice”

Limited government

This is from an interview with Halinah Todd. It published in New Straits Times, February 8, 1983.

“In my time we had a Cabinet of 13 Ministers. Even they didn’t have enough work. What they do now with 45, I don’t know”

Imagine Tunku’s disgust to find out that Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the size of the ministerial ranks more than doubled to an all time high of 93!

Free market

Hence, when commenting on the news of Bumiputera Malaysia Finance (BMF), a unit of Bank Bumiputera Malaysia Bhd losing US$1 bilion, Tunku Abdul Rahman could only express his disappointments:

“I have always maintained that the government must not indulge in business. This must be left to the business community. There are many losses incurred by the government of late and this should be a good lesson to our leaders no to mix politics with business”

While giving his speech at the opening of the Japan Trade Fair in KL, February 13, 1960

“In Malaya, we welcome fair competition, even if it competes with our own industry”

Tunku Abdul Rahman even pointed fingers at the corruption created by the New Economic Policy:

“Razak started all this – only those who support UMNO get anything”

Individual liberty

“For instance, in Malaysia, it is unthinkable that the people here would prefer a regimented life; naturally they would never accept any policy that would restrict their right to choose the form of government they like of follow a way of life to which they are not accustomed” The Star, 5 May 1975

One must think wisely, do you want to leave everything to government or leave everything to yourself and manage own affairs? Please, I definitely don't want to walk through the road to serfdom. Defend liberty!

Coffee House Interview: Paul Wolfowitz

Daniel Korski interviews Paul Wolfowitz on Coffee House, The Spectator Blog
By Paul Wolfowitz
Coffee House, The Spectator Blog
Sunday, January 30, 2011

Nobody is as associated with George W Bush's drive to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East as former US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. His role in the Iraq War, and belief that the US should promote democracy in a part of the world better known for authoritarian rulers, remains controversial to this day.

But now that the Middle East is being rocked by pro - democracy protests – as people demand freedom, employment, and an end to tyranny – is this advocate of democracy finally being proven right? And what does he think about the dangers of democratic transitions? Dr Wolfowitz kindly agreed to answer a few questions about democracy and the Middle East

Daniel Korski: The Middle East seems to have been taken over by a democratic spirit not seen before, with Tunisia's Ben Ali forced from power and now Hosni Mubarak looking increasingly vulnerable. But it has obviously put the West in a bit of a bind, as it fears what the new kinds of regimes will bring. Should the West be worried? In many countries, after all, the voice of opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood – and they may take advantage of the events, even if they did not inaugurate and control them initially. Is the price of the Muslim Brotherhood in power worth accepting to set people free?

Paul Wolfowitz: Let's be clear. We didn't set the Tunisian people free. They did it for themselves. We should consider ourselves lucky that the Islamists can't claim any of the credit, but neither can the Western democracies. And the Islamists are certainly hurrying to get into the game. The question now is whether the West can recover from its past inaction in order to be able to have a positive influence on the outcome.

A somewhat similar situation is developing in Egypt, although the Muslim Brotherhood is much stronger there, so the risk of a bad outcome is greater. But there, too, the strength of popular feeling seems to have taken them by surprise and the predominant sentiment in the streets is not strongly Islamist.

DK: President Obama (but also the British government) has been hesitant in his reaction to the events in the Middle East. One Foreign Office minister even said the key for the UK was stability. In your view, should Western governments stand on the sidelines or offer more encouragement to the protesters and their demand for freedom?

PW: With so much at stake, it is a mistake to be sitting on the sidelines. Western governments can be a positive force on behalf of genuine freedom and against attempts to impose a new kind of tyranny of the Islamist variety. But we can't do that if we are seen as propping up a hated tyrant, or worse, encouraging the kind of bloody crackdown that could at best produce an artificial "stability" for a relatively short period of time. The possibility of a bad outcome is very real, particularly because we did nothing to encourage more evolutionary change earlier, but I believe we have a better chance of a good outcome if we support positive change than if we support the status quo.

DK: A few years ago you talked about "the power of the democratic idea". Since your time in office, however, US support for democracy - promotion has been on the wane, both rhetorically and financially, while many worry that the West cannot afford to talk so loudly about its values, as we've become reliant on non - democratic regimes such as China. What place do you think democracy - promotion should take – in our foreign policy and aid programmes – and how do we deal with the power that non - democratic but powerful investors like China have e.g in Sub - Saharan Africa?

PW: I've been involved with democratic transitions for several decades, going back to the remarkable changes that took place in East Asia in the 1980's – in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan – followed by the incredible changes in Central and Eastern Europe and even, for a time, in Ukraine and Russia itself. That period also saw the demise of most of the right - wing military dictatorships in Latin America. Then came another wave in places as different as South Africa and Indonesia and Serbia. Few of these countries would qualify as Westminster - style democracies, but most are far better off as a result of these democratic transitions, and so are we. Even though we often have to do business with undemocratic regimes – and even though some of those regimes do deliver economic progress for their people – it is a mistake to retreat from supporting democratic reform.

DK: Many of the protesters in Tunis and Cairo – and more of their international supporters – are clear that today's events are unrelated to the Iraq War and in fact represent a different paradigm, namely one of endogenous democratic change. But what in your view is the link between the invasion of Iraq and the events in the Middle East today?

PW: We did not go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan to promote democracy, but rather to remove regimes that were dangerous to us and to the world. Having done that, we have attempted to enable the Iraqi and Afghan people to enjoy the benefits of free and representative government. Those efforts have enjoyed mixed success, but we would have done worse – and been much more deserving of criticism – had we attempted to reimpose some new dictator. So far, Tunisia and Egypt seem to be following the paradigm of the long list of countries I mentioned earlier, from the Philippines and Chile to Indonesia and Georgia. They are proud, and rightly so, that they have had no help from the outside. Tragically, Tunisia probably enjoyed better conditions for a peaceful democratic transition than any other Arab country, but Bin Ali suppressed that possibility ruthlessly. Hopefully now Tunisia will continue to demonstrate in a positive way that Arabs too can progress through democratic reform.

DK: The on - folding events in the Middle East would seem to suggest that the premise of your policies – that people in the region yearn for freedom – was right, but the means, military power, were costly, deadly and, some would say, wrong. Did you pick the right means and allies (including in Washington) to carry out the policy of promoting democracy in the region?

PW: It is wrong to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to promote democracy. Whether right or wrong, they were fought to protect ourselves and others from dangerous regimes, but once those regimes were removed we could not reimpose dictators. At the same time, we did believe that peaceful democratic change, of the kind I've mentioned earlier, could help to change the conditions in the Middle East that were breeding terrorists and support for terrorism That is why President Bush spoke strongly, as for example in London in November 2003, that "Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.” Unfortunately, in his second term President Bush seemed to retreat from pursuing his "freedom agenda"and President Obama has retreated further. But that earlier analysis of the false stability brought by tyranny seems even more accurate today.

DK: You have previously rejected the label "neoconservative" and, in a Washington Post interview some years ago, you said you did not want people to think that you "believe that the military is the solution to most of the world's problems." Yet during your time in office, the role of the US military in promoting democracy was clearly prominent. Looking at the experiences of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think the US needs re - think the role the military plays in large - scale democracy - promoting, nation - building projects?

PW: Support for peaceful reform by the people themselves is the right way to promote democracy, not the use of force. To repeat again, we did not go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq to promote democracy. But when force is used to remove a dangerous or genocidal regime – as happened not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Liberia – we have little choice but to help people to establish some form of representative government. In the very interview that you cite I explained that I believed in an "evolutionary rather than revolutionary" approach to promoting democratic reform and specifically that "Egypt does not have to hold free elections tomorrow, but it could make a start by not throwing prominent human rights activists in jail.” If they had started that kind of reform seven years ago, we might have a happier situation today. We may not like some of the change that is coming, but I still believe, as I said then, that for the Arab world not to change at all is "a formula for eventual catastrophe.”

Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar at AEI.

Egypt 2011 Or Iran 1979?

It’s here in Egypt. There’s lot of hot bubbles on the streets right now. Millions of them are exercising their rights as individual clamoring the ends of 30 year Mubarak’s dictatorship. Advancing social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and internet have been clamp down to stifle the movement. The collapse of Soviet Union does not need Facebook or Twitter to be activated. Not easy, government controlling millions of individual which obviously more unique and smarter. Government loses his grip and this has become the most fear moment with as it stated by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard. Democracy and freedom, the cores of making great country once again being hijacked, particularly I must speak my concern over an uprising of Islamic groups; Muslim Brotherhood Mission and its allies.

And at the same time, following by no wisdom, Obama’s speech since the movement's inception, apparently might alluding empower anti democratic forces group. From what I observe, Obama responded several times from the White House with nothing substance. Mubarak at the other hand, addressing his speech in desperately soothing protesters while promise for power transition until September election. It is not simply of commenting the absolute victory of Egyptians alone, in my opinion, Israel's stakes living side by side within the most brutal regime ever in history of mankind. What happen to Israel and its peace talk? Unfortunately, nobody bother about the little tiny sovereign only democratic country. Don’t they remember the war ends because of Egypt – Israel agreement in 1979? Or they going to scrapped it?

There is no doubt that peoples get excited watching all these progress especially Malaysians. Somehow, we are so determined to emulate what Egyptians does to remove BN’s government from its mandate right away. Socialists perhaps views the rising differently as ‘peoples’, but beyond conventional observation, I think a person, an individual plays much important role regardless majority or minority camps, as Hayek’s famously wrote on individualism and economic order analysis the society to a situation is consisting of several independent persons. Hence, according to him “re1atíonship between actions and since the actions of one person must necessarily take place successively in time” It plainly tells us a person as individual is agent for purposeful action. I personally believe liberty is much closely connected with person or individual. I feel free of coercion from all sources.

Like democracy fans extolling often; Tyrant falls, supplanted by vibrant democratic government and its sort of form in cycles? Symbolically, are they going blaming United States of America for intervenes their country to some extent the whole process as it naturally inevitable? They hates America so much not because of freedom which Egyptians also seeking for, but it's because of America say one thing and do another. They miss out some very points over there. If Mubarak steps down, I’m afraid Muslim Brotherhood Mission would seize its power in government. They therefore finally govern alongside their brothers and sisters. Who are their brothers and sisters? Hamas rules in Palestine, Hezbollah rules in Southern Lebanon. Al Qaeda? Subsequently, Middle East is anticipating major war with democracy and freedom as I’m pretty sure. Iranian rapidly dominates the agendas of the region when these whole event develops since Tunisia's revolution and I believe more is coming - has merely reminiscence the triumph of Iranian Revolution in 1979. Now I’m thinking that oldest Islamic movement in the region being motivated by the current uprising. Excellent opportunity to grab power, don’t you think? In addition, an estimated three dozen Islamist militants reportedly escaped from an Egyptian prison on Sunday amid the chaos that has enveloped the country.

A recent conversation with British historian Bernard Lewis, he said it [Egypt revolt] is a popular revolt rather than democratic revolt. It is mainly due to economic, too bad. This has brought me to second point, economic turmoil. In Egypt, poverty is very real to understand with 85 million lives for $2 per day. Corruption and private property also very badly addressed by the government. So, the other reasons on why the Egyptians revolt mainly because of outmoded economy and discouraging reality especially by the young. The government must pursue economic freedom and its lasting progress would not benefit small interest, in fact at large.

Skeptics And Thermostats

By William Easterly | Published January 26, 2011

Many have suffered from being in a building where there was a centralized thermostat for the whole building (or the whole floor), with the predictable result that some rooms are way too hot or way too cold. (Sounds like a metaphor, watch for it…)

Things were even more extreme in the former Soviet Union, where there were centralized heating plants for a whole city, and the hot air would then be pumped out to individual homes and offices. So basically the whole city had one centralized thermostat.

Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 in Siberia. In 2008 during winter temperatures of -4 degrees, a burst pipeline at this station cut off central heat for days for some 10,000 people.

What a nice and simple solution there is: give each room its own thermostat. First, there is automatic adjustment from the thermostat to keep it from being too hot or too cold. Second, the people in the room at any one moment can choose to adjust the thermostat according to their preferences.

A thermostat is a very simple knowledge processing device. So this is a great metaphor for (here it comes!) the advantages of decentralized knowledge over centralized knowledge (Hat tip to Adam Martin for the Facebook conversation that sparked this idea).

When skeptics (like me) criticize the uselessness of very aggregated centralized knowledge on “how to do development”, we get labeled nihilists, like we’re saying nobody never knows nothing nowhere no how. But what we’re really saying is that centralized knowledge is an impossible dream for overall economic development, but decentralized knowledge can work very well.

In sum:

1) Skeptics like me are not criticizing ALL knowledge, just saying some types are useful, and others are not. And so the best systems are those that can gather and process decentralized knowledge.

2) Well-functioning markets and democracy give people their own thermostats.

Orange Book In Ignorance

What is the value of Orange Book? Does Orange Book represent real solutions? I don’t think so. I don’t think by transferring subsidies from corporate to the hand of masses is going to be more efficient in allocating resources after what BN has done recklessly for a very long time in government. Unless for the purpose of getting votes, Pakatan Rakyat and its minister in waiting absolutely will do anything necessary to be in Putrajaya. I feel anxious in contrast. Everything is subsidize, who cares, rich and poor, equality in democracy defines socialism! I want less government, I want personal responsibility and I want to demonstrate my reason in satisfying myself. Sadly, where is free market anyway which acknowledge the theme of scarcity? Of course, politicians would definitely say free market policy doesn’t work in market failure. Market inflicts us poorer; market makes us slide into economic crash every ten years.

Yes, keep spending is the impulse here because it’s tells us how insatiable they are when it comes to spending. Spending is really a disgraceful policy because its makes government grows bigger. Citing the book, I read where figures shown cogently and its analyses have been properly and morally blatant. Orange Book is all about spending in deficits. I’m getting bores of Pakatan Rakyat simply put corruption and power abuses as their platform condemning the leakages or outflow illicit money from the country. Are there any other reasons that Pakatan could manifest instead of these ‘real’ political punch issues? Reallocation of subsidies is worse rather than cutting spending, don’t they realize? Government nationalizing the highways, government acquisition over water assets, government providing free Wi Fi, and government is giving RM500 for teachers; nobody ever going to tell me this “I don’t want all these gifts” but ironically many appreciates with “Thanks government for doing this” or better “This is the government all for the people interest” Pakatan is enticing us with money. Pakatan is molding us to be irresponsible and pliant citizens! This is immoral and implausible.

Yet, they still emulate BN’s policies as it inevitably? For too long BN is monstrously in spending and the most laudable countering policy, Pakatan must reduce its spending! If BN is creating more departments, then Pakatan must begin to perish this entire fat department! If BN is fixing the prices, then Pakatan must unfix the prices. If BN is controlling means of production, then Pakatan must do in contrast! If BN is manipulating interest rates, then Pakatan must let the market fixing its rates. What is so hard to implement after all?

Again, I really don’t like this Orange Book. I personally oppose several of its inimical agenda. As I said in earlier post, cutting spending is a must in making limited role of government. We must cut spending in all Ministries, abolishing all subsidies (including petrol, sugar etc), corporate welfare types, repealing unproductive regulations and releasing inefficient services to the private sectors. Save the money will bring greater investment efficiently correspond with market interest rates. It’s all for Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) which I propounded. For an instance, simple but not easy task for spending cuts in higher education, no further grants and annual allocation for established national higher institutions namely USM, UM, UKM, UTM and UPM. Privatize and be independent from the government. What am I going to do with student loans? Surrender it back to universities (giving loans only to the needy) to decide with its exclusive autonomy. Let them determine the interest rates for pay back. My proposal is to go out there to the market and developing your competitive edge. Do manage your annual student intakes without government intervention. It’s assuming the universities to earn reputation assiduously, or perhaps, this satisfy directly the stakeholders and I believe the country shall benefit with what they produce.

I wonder, I need third force to run all this lofty goals resisting Pakatan's temptation policies. A Tea Party Movement (Malaysia) perhaps? Or civil liberties movement whose claims themselves different? For certain, we need to do some reassessment to ensure government return to its small size. A government must pursue for strong individual character, respecting the rule of law and free society.

Just Boys

Let’s rock with My Chemical Romance, peoples! Yeah, I really love them so much. Make it happen, make it presence. I’m waiting; I’m waiting and now what? Danger Days is here on stage, buddy. Black parade to Danger Days, you know what, they are truly damn creative, luring and persuasive in producing quality lyrics and its crazy rhythm. I must say that My Chemical Romance songs have exhilarating their fans across the globe including myself which they, patronizing my heart and mind with every ‘please’ words and its beauty all the time. No one but just boys; Gerard, Ray, Mikey and Frank. I remember and remember me! Here some of my hits; Helena, You know what they do to guys in prison, Vampires will never hurt you and etc. And now, Na na na na!!!! Can’t wait to listen the entire tracks from its new album. More info, please log on www.mychemicalromance.com

Hayek Vs Keynes - Rap Anthem

Nullification

Jawatankuasa khas tangani krisis bekalan, harga barang

KANGAR 14 Jan. - Sebuah jawatankuasa khas akan ditubuhkan untuk menangani masalah bekalan dan harga barangan yang sering menimbulkan keresahan di kalangan pengguna seperti isu kekurangan bekalan minyak masak sejak kebelakangan ini.

Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob (gambar) memberitahu, Jawatankuasa Bekalan dan Harga itu akan dipengerusikan oleh beliau sendiri.

Katanya, ia juga akan melibatkan wakil Kementerian Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani, Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI), Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (FAMA) serta Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia (MPOB).

"Langkah menubuhkan jawatankuasa ini untuk menyelaraskan bentuk tindakan apabila berlaku krisis berkaitan bekalan atau harga barangan di seluruh negara dan menerusi kerjasama kesemua agensi terbabit, kita dapat bertukar-tukar pandangan sebelum membuat sebarang keputusan," ujarnya.

Beliau berkata demikian pada sidang akhbar selepas melancarkan Program Bicara Tokoh dan Penyerahan Bantuan Kepada Koperasi-Koperasi Negeri Perlis anjuran bersama kerajaan negeri, Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan dan Suruhanjaya Koperasi Malaysia (SKM) di Dewan Residensi, Jalan Kolam di sini hari ini.

Turut hadir Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perlis, Datuk Yazid Mat; Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Pertanian, Industri Asas Tani dan Koperasi, Sabry Ahmad; Pengerusi Eksekutif SKM, Datuk Md. Yusof Shamsudin dan Pengarah SKM Negeri Perlis, La'anain Jamil.

Mengulas kekurangan bekalan minyak masak khususnya di kawasan utara, Ismail Sabri memberi jaminan masalah itu akan diatasi sepenuhnya menjelang Tahun Baru Cina apabila MPOB bersetuju membenarkan tambahan sebanyak 14,000 tan metrik minyak masak bagi pasaran khususnya di Perlis, Kedah dan Pulau Pinang.

"Ia sebagai tambahan kepada bekalan minyak masak iaitu 70,000 tan metrik dan dengan keseluruhan jumlah 84,000 tan metrik ini, sudah tentu tidak ada lagi masalah bekalan, cuma para pengguna diminta supaya tidak panik sehingga membelinya dengan kadar yang banyak untuk disimpan di rumah," tambah beliau.

Given the news above, there is nothing worse than terrible and miserable government policy addressing the consequences by its own hand. The government is fixing the prices; the government enforces rules while violating private property, in addition, the government urges stakeholder to produce more goods to solve the shortage. Interesting?

Indeed, the government monopolizes the means of production assuming the market has fails. The government also endorses many instruments to ensure consumers are well protected including the Acts, regulation and deploying thousand of enforcement officers across the country. Do you know how much money to meet all these requirement? Please refer and read 2011 Budget Book; it’s available in Economic Planning Unit (EPU) website. Do you know that the government is the problem here?

What about we have enough? How about we shut down the irresponsible intervention of government under the guise of moral obligation as it did to minimum wage policy? The best way to deal with many issues, be it political, be it social or be it economics, free market and individual liberty have imply to provide the solutions. Look, the government restricts competition to occur through regulation, Acts, licensing goods and services, hence, consumers don’t have many choices to decide. When I open 2011 Budget Book particularly the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, Cooperative and Consumer, the descriptions in enforcements which expect to be implemented this year take more than a million times! Ten thousand business premises will be examined; application for fleet card (diesel) relatively hit thirty thousand annually and ironically, all these items contribute higher emoluments and expensive spending on service and supplies! Big question, shall we agree that the government is feeding bureaucrats rather than solving problem. Big facts, shall we agree that the government is struggling in uncertainties arranging, even planning which again never workable.

What about the outcomes? Every showdown, the Ministry 'essentially' has something to publicize to the media on their great success in its series of enforcement operation; arresting man for smuggling, hoarding and infringe price controls regulation. Perpetrators caught, while statistics growing. Despite heavy and deadly regulation, why there are so much subsidized items for instance, sugar, cooking oil and diesel being smuggle or sell to the foreign country? Another example, Anti profiteering Act just passed recently, yet, many cases I find businesses selling their products and services with high price and gaining profits lucratively. Profits accordingly condemned, losses suffered. Regulations - Mises skirmish wise arguments goes like this; can an individual gain by restricting production? If someone else is free to increase outputs, an individual can increase his profits only by increasing outputs, not by restricting it.

If they were failed, guess what? Set up special committee or council as high as Cabinet meeting to oversee the micro part of buyers and sellers activities every day ever, now, they’re insane! Does the government know what I had bought in the past? Does the government know where I had bought my cheap clothes? Does the government have super eyes to regulate and planning all our activities? Like Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, ‘new form of servitude’

Remember this, the rule of thumb of better price for consumer is breaking the monopoly, widening the competition and let the market evolve. High prices too suddenly, consumers bemoaning and that’s for me, normal, a reaction over something shocked and perhaps, unprecedented. If Ludwig von Mises alive, he vehemently says in progressing society, they can never be stability. Theoretically, the statements I made may sounds unrealistic given the economic structure in the country. It’s a comfort zone of many of us is so intractable to dealing with.

Because of huge subsidies flowing into the market, one realizes that any attempt to withdrawal will cause riot or demonstration on the streets. Political gains much attention when it comes to ‘public interest’. Likewise, I found excellent dialogue in Atlas Shrugged “When he was asked what he would want to do, he (Eddie Willers) answered at once, “Whatever is right”, and added , “You ought to do something great…I mean, the two us together,” “What?” she asked. He said, “I don’t know. That’s what we ought to find out. Not just what you said. Not just business and earning a living. Things like winning battles”, or saving people out of fires, or climbing mountains,” “What for?” she asked. He said, “The Minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us?” “I don’t know” “We’ll have to find the way out” For my dialogue, I ultimately say deception rules! Nullify the tyranny.

Subsidi: Asas Analisis Sempit

Subsidi: Asas analisis sempit

Oleh PROF. DATUK DR. NOOR AZLAN GHAZALI

RUMUSAN Makmal Rasionalisasi Subsidi yang dibentangkan oleh Ketua Eksekutif Unit Pengurusan Prestasi dan Pelaksanaan (Pemandu), Datuk Seri Idris Jala memeranjatkan pelbagai pihak. Pemandu menganggarkan jumlah subsidi pada 2009 mencecah RM74 bilion, menyamai 10.2 peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam Kasar Negara dan hampir 47 peratus daripada perbelanjaan operasi untuk tahun 2010.

Pemandu juga berpandangan sekiranya trend subsidi itu tidak diubah, maka negara berhadapan dengan risiko menjadi bankrap pada 2019 seperti kemelut yang melanda Greece. Dengan pelbagai sudut analisis dan perbandingan lain yang dikemukakan, beberapa langkah rasionalisasi secara berperingkat dicadangkan yang umumnya menjurus kepada mewujudkan ekonomi yang berpaksikan kuasa pasaran.

Hasrat kerajaan untuk menilai dan menstruktur semula sistem pemberian subsidi dengan menubuhkan Makmal Rasionalisasi Subsidi di bawah Pemandu adalah tepat. Untuk melonjakkan ekonomi negara ke arah mencapai Wawasan 2020, sistem subsidi adalah satu isu utama yang perlu kita tangani.

Dilihat secara umum, lapan pendekatan yang mendasari cadangan rasionalisasi jelas meletakkan sempadan dan keberkesanan inisiatif ini. Namun, beberapa aspek utama yang menjadi asas analisis dan saranan Pemandu (bersandarkan slaid pembentangan Idris Jala dari web Pemandu) agak menggusarkan. Ia tidak mencakupi perekonomian subsidi yang menyeluruh. Asas analisis yang sempit dan salah berkemungkinan membawa kepada justifikasi dan strategi rasionalisasi subsidi yang tidak optimal.

Saranan rasionalisasi oleh Pemandu wajar diperkemas dan dirasionalkan semula. Setidak-tidaknya itulah tujuan hari terbuka yang diadakan pada 27 Mei untuk berkongsi idea dan pandangan.

Rasionalisasi subsidi adalah isu makro

Strategi merasionalisasikan subsidi perlu dilihat dalam konteks yang lebih luas kerana ia mempunyai rantaian penyebab dan implikasi yang besar. Agenda ini bersifat makro merentasi pelbagai lapisan masyarakat dan sektor mencakupi aspek ekonomi dan sosial. Ia bukan isu mikro khusus yang bersifat dalaman seperti mengurangkan perbelanjaan bagi mempertingkatkan kecekapan dan keberuntungan sebuah organisasi. Pemandu perlu memandu dengan peta yang lebih luas kerana keputusan untuk membelok ke kanan atau ke kiri hari ini membawa implikasi yang besar dan memerlukan persediaan yang rapi.

Penilaian perlu atau tidak subsidi dan tatacara rasionalisasi subsidi yang disarankan Pemandu agak bias dan terlalu tertumpu kepada isu 'kuantum', iaitu mengurangkan jumlah subsidi yang ditanggung kerajaan. Ia kelihatan seperti langkah menjaga dompet kerajaan tidak lebih daripada itu.

SMS yang dilontarkan oleh Pemandu kepada rakyat, sama ada kita patut meneruskan sistem subsidi yang berjumlah RM74 bilion pada 2009 ini adalah provokasi yang bias. Ia tidak wajar dijadikan sandaran kukuh untuk mengiyakan saranan seterusnya. Soalan yang dikemukakan Pemandu hanya membuka ruang untuk satu jawapan, 'ya'. Menjawab 'tidak' pada SMS Pemandu menjadikan kita terasa amat bersalah, lantas ramai mungkin memilih 'ya' tanpa menilai konteks yang lebih luas.

Mengapa subsidi perlu dirasionalisasikan?

Amat benar sekali kita perlu menilai semula dasar dan mekanisme pemberian subsidi sedia ada. Polisi ekonomi adalah sesuatu yang 'hidup' bukan dipahat di atas batu dan memerlukan penilaian berterusan secara berkala.

Dengan kemajuan dan pembangunan yang dicapai setelah lebih 50 tahun merdeka, struktur ekonomi dan sosial negara telah banyak berubah. Justifikasi asal yang menjadi sandaran untuk sesuatu subsidi diperkenalkan mungkin tidak lagi wujud hari ini.

Pada tahun 1970-an ketika hampir separuh daripada isi rumah berada di bawah garis kemiskinan, sebilangan besar masyarakat menggunakan pengangkutan awam, tidak ramai yang memiliki kenderaan persendirian. Subsidi petrol, bahan makanan asas, gas dan elektrik secara economy-wide sesuai dan tidak membebankan.

Kini, kadar kemiskinan menurun kepada 3.6 peratus, jumlah terkumpul kenderaan yang berdaftar meningkat mencecah 16.8 juta pada 2007, pendapatan rakyat juga telah meningkat kepada AS$6,999 (RM23,096) per kapita. Justeru, mekanisme subsidi economy-wide bukan sahaja tidak sesuai, malah membebankan. Ia perlu diubah.

Hakikatnya kedudukan semasa defisit fiskal bukanlah perkara pokok bagi rasionalisasi subsidi. Walaupun sekiranya kedudukan fiskal kita kukuh berada dalam lebihan, rasionalisasi ini masih tetap diperlukan. Hubungkait yang dicadangkan Pemandu dengan kedudukan fiskal adalah faktor sampingan yang berlaku secara kebetulan. Ia bukan penyebab utama rasionalisasi ini diperlukan.

Menggerunkan negara dengan cerita kebankrapan ala Greece mungkin gimik Pemandu. Rasionalisasi subsidi adalah inisiatif mewujudkan sistem subsidi efisien yang dipadankan dengan struktur ekonomi dan sosial negara, bukannya usaha mengelak negara menjadi muflis.

Kelesuan respons pada kuasa pasaran

Sistem subsidi yang berpanjangan tanpa semakan secara berkala melesukan kepekaan masyarakat dan sektor ekonomi terhadap perubahan kuasa pasaran dan juga berpotensi mewujudkan sikap tidak mahu berubah dan tidak ambil peduli. Episod kenaikan harga petrol, bahan mineral dan bahan makanan yang mendadak sekitar 2006-2007 menyaksikan ketidakupayaan Malaysia (rakyat dan kerajaan) respons kepada perubahan pasaran secara pantas dan efektif. Hambatan yang cuba mengekalkan harga di paras jauh rendah daripada pasaran merugikan kita.

Kajian dan perbincangan untuk menstruktur semula sistem subsidi petrol, peningkatan keefisienan pengangkutan awam, promosi teknologi hijau dan kecekapan tenaga dan pengukuhan stok bekalan makanan yang pada ketika itu rancak kini tidak sehebat dahulu. Seimbas lihat, struktur ekonomi dan sektor benar masih lagi sama tidak berubah.

Antara punca krisis harga minyak dan makanan yang melanda sekitar tiga tahun lalu ialah permintaan global yang meningkat dengan ketara berikutan kepantasan pertumbuhan ekonomi baru muncul yang besar seperti China dan India. Dalam konteks ini, kita 'beruntung' kerana ekonomi global meleset secara mendadak pada 2008-2009 akibat krisis kewangan di Amerika Syarikat. Trend harga bahan api, mineral dan makanan beralih menurun secara mendadak.

Jangan leka, kini negara China dan India sudah mula melonjak semula. Apakah kita akan berhadapan dengan situasi yang sama seperti beberapa tahun yang lalu sekiranya permintaan global meningkat semula? Sudahkah kita menguruskan kekangan struktur yang kita hadapi tiga tahun lalu? Semakan subsidi amat kritikal dalam menyediakan negara untuk bersedia menghadapi sebarang kemungkinan. Kecekapan ekonomi perlu dipertingkatkan. Sekali lagi, bukan isu bankrap ala Greece.

Hambatan kepada lonjakan ekonomi

Di samping perubahan struktur ekonomi dan sosial, apa yang lebih merisaukan ialah sistem subsidi yang diperkenalkan satu ketika dahulu yang bertujuan meningkatkan kualiti hidup rakyat dan daya saing ekonomi negara kini mungkin menjadi penghalang atau kekangan yang memerangkap negara daripada melonjak ke hadapan.

Prestasi ekonomi negara sejak krisis ekonomi 1997-98 agak kaku, seolah-olah ada yang mengikat kita dari terus melonjak dan terperangkap dalam kategori negara berpendapatan menengah atas. Kewujudan subsidi secara meluas menyebabkan agihan sumber yang tidak optimal. Paras harga yang tidak mengikut rentak pasaran menghilangkan peranan harga sebagai isyarat utama yang mendorong peletakan sumber yang optimum.

Sistem subsidi yang meluas bukan sahaja melemahkan kepekaan rakyat terhadap perubahan harga lemah, malah yang lebih merugikan adalah pembangunan industri juga turut terjejas. Kecekapan dan daya saing industri negara tidak lagi tulen, lebih bergantung kepada kesanggupan kerajaan menyerap kos dan bukannya peningkatan produktiviti dan penerapan teknologi yang canggih.

Ia menjadi lebih buruk apabila kewujudan subsidi ini menjadi asas tarikan pelabur asing ke negara kita. Industri yang dahagakan tenaga (dan juga cenderung mencemarkan alam sekitar) amat berminat dengan tawaran sedemikian. Kita akan akhirnya terperangkap dengan permainan pelaburan asing ini.

Isu beban subsidi yang ditanggung kerajaan hakikatnya bukan isu pokok dalam proses rasionalisasi ini. Dasar dan mekanisme pemberian subsidi perlu disemak semula. Ia bukan hanya persoalan menjaga dompet kerajaan tetapi isu struktur yang kritikal dalam memastikan kita mampu mencapai status negara maju dan berpendapatan tinggi seperti yang digariskan oleh model baru ekonomi untuk merealisasikan Wawasan 2020.

Menilai semula angka Pemandu

Usaha merealisasikan subsidi memerlukan asas analisis yang kukuh dan tepat serta kerangka yang jelas dan komprehensif. Tanpa semua ini, cadangan rasionalisasi tertumpu kepada elemen yang lazim dan 'popular'.

Pemandu menganggar jumlah subsidi pada 2009 mencecah RM74 bilion dan RM42.4 bilion (56 peratus) daripada jumlah itu adalah dari sektor sosial yang berkemungkinan besar meliputi sektor pendidikan dan kesihatan (slaid Pemandu # 37). Selebihnya ialah bahan api dan tenaga (RM23.5 bilion: 32 peratus), infrastruktur (RM4.8 bilion: 7 peratus) dan hanya RM3.4 bilion (5 peratus) untuk subsidi makanan.

Adakah anggaran di atas tepat dan wajar? Adakah ia mencerminkan isu sebenar yang dihadapi negara dalam konteks pemberian subsidi? Bukan semua subsidi beban kepada kerajaan. Ada kalanya kerajaan sememangnya penanggung kos terbaik dan paling sesuai khususnya bagi memastikan pembangunan sosial. Dalam konteks ini adalah tidak wajar dikategorikan perbelanjaan yang berkenaan sebagai 'subsidi' secara mutlak kerana ia sememangnya kos bagi sebuah kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab membangunkan negara.

Pemandu agak keliru di sini. Sebagai contoh, bandingkan dua kategori penggunaan yang melibatkan 'subsidi' gula dan program pengajian ijazah di IPTA. Siapa yang mendapat manfaat? Gula memanfaatkan (dan juga memudaratkan sekiranya berlebihan). Seorang yang berpendidikan bukan sahaja memanfaatkan dirinya, malah ahli keluarga, masyarakat dan negara.

Jelas bahawa bagi setiap bentuk perkhidmatan dan barangan, ada kos yang boleh diasingkan secara khusus dan mesti ditanggung oleh penggunanya dan ada juga komponen yang dianggap sebagai kos sosial. Kewujudan masyarakat berpelajaran dan sihat akan meningkatkan pembangunan negara, daya saing dan kualiti hidup rakyat. Sebahagian besar 'subsidi' dalam sektor sosial yang dianggarkan Pemandu adalah dalam kategori ini. Menjumlahkan semuanya sebagai 'subsidi' yang ditanggung kerajaan dan dijadikan angka pokok dalam merasionalisasikan subsidi adalah matematik yang salah.

Tepung-Gula vs Pendidikan-Kesihatan

Dari sudut pecahan yang berbeza (slaid Pemandu # 42), Pemandu juga menunjukkan bahawa RM30.8 bilion (42 peratus) daripada RM74 bilion adalah untuk pelajar dan menimbulkan kegerunan apabila Pemandu melaporkan hanya RM1.9 bilion (3 peratus) sahaja yang diperuntukkan kepada golongan miskin, petani dan nelayan. Sekali lagi matematik Pemandu kurang tepat.

Rumusan Pemandu yang mengasingkan pelajar dan golongan miskin dalam pecahan yang sama adalah tidak wajar. Mungkinkah sebahagian besar pelajar yang menerima subsidi ini juga datang dari keluarga berpendapatan rendah? Mungkinkah 'subsidi' kesihatan juga meliputi golongan berpendapatan rendah? Rumusan bahawa hanya RM1.9 bilion yang diagihkan kepada golongan miskin, petani dan nelayan adalah satu kesimpulan yang salah dan tidak adil kepada usaha kerajaan mempertingkatkan kualiti hidup rakyat.

Hakikatnya keputusan kerajaan untuk memberi perhatian yang besar pada sektor sosial (pendidikan dan kesihatan) sejak awal kemerdekaan menjadikan Malaysia sampai ke tahap pembangunan hari ini. Benar, banyak lagi yang perlu dilaksanakan, namun pencapaian 50 tahun lalu harus diiktiraf.

Tepung-gula dan pendidikan-kesihatan tidak wajar disamakan. Longgokan kos sosial ini dalam bakul yang sama berkemungkinan mencetus takrifan dan strategi yang salah. Namun, ini tidak bererti semakan tidak perlu. Semakan subsidi masih perlu dilaksanakan dalam semua sektor tetapi dengan mengambil kira perekonomian yang tepat dan asas analisis yang betul.

Ke arah mewujudkan ekonomi pasaran

Secara umumnya, sebahagian besar cadangan Pemandu tertumpu kepada langkah mengembalikan harga yang kini disubsidikan kepada harga yang berlandaskan kuasa pasaran. Benar, penentuan harga berdasarkan kuasa pasaran adalah yang terbaik tetapi bersyarat.

Mengembalikan penentuan harga kepada kuasa pasaran perlu disertakan dengan inisiatif membangunkan infrastruktur pasaran sihat. Langkah rasionalisasi yang dicanangkan Pemandu banyak tertumpu pada elemen harga tetapi tidak begitu jelas dalam konteks pembangunan pasaran yang sihat dan adil.

Struktur persaingan dalam rantaian bekalan yang memberi ruang pada kuasa mopolistik membolehkan manipulasi harga berlaku. Tanpa peraturan dan perundangan serta tahap persaingan yang mencukupi, penghapusan kawalan harga yang dicadangkan oleh Pemandu berhadapan dengan risiko manipulasi harga yang selalu menghantui pemikiran rakyat.

Kuasa pasaran memang terbaik tetapi ia juga terdedah kepada sifat rakus. Setelah sekian lama berfungsi dalam sistem ekonomi yang subsidinya agak meluas, perhatian terhadap pembangunan rantaian industri yang kompetitif dan keperluan memperkenalkan perundangan persaingan yang efektif tidak begitu ketara. Akibatnya beberapa industri utama dipelopori oleh struktur yang agak monopilistik sifatnya.

Untuk sekian lama, perhatian polisi lebih tertumpu kepada penentuan harga yang melibatkan perbincangan antara kerajaan dan sebilangan pembekal utama. Dengan struktur monopolistik yang terbentuk lazimnya pihak industri yang menjadi penentu utama. Di sinilah kemungkinannya subsidi RM18 bilion yang diterima oleh industri yang dianggarkan oleh Pemandu.

PENULIS ialah Ketua Kluster Ekonomi dan Kewangan, Majlis Profesor Negara

Prepare For The Worst - Ron Paul

Get The Hell Out Of My Way

Here is the situation;

Can you imagine how proud I was when, I finally bought the best price for two way flight ticket from Kuala Lumpur to Air Asia during Christmas holiday last year?

I went to several retail shops somewhere in New Town this morning and found no cooking oil. I actually don’t want to ask the shopkeeper as I know earlier the answer “shortage of supply”

Then, I saw in TV last night where enforcement agencies were so eager to ransacking every premise hoarding cooking oils, onions and other items and pledging to double triple their effort tracking down the perpetrator. Luckily, the government didn’t send trucks of army to confiscate all these items from proprietors!

Shortage of these items, the government blames private sectors. Someone’s portray of wonderful things about the government and the worst behavior of the markets.

And I had a dinner with my friend nearby and interestingly, he opined that the peoples are too overreacting over some government policies which they could address on their own as individual. This is personal responsibility which they do not exercise in maximal. Well, I think he feels that too much government 'occupations' and distorting his mandate as individual.

Why?

There are not many of us who aware of utilizing information and knowledge in their possession, purely reason making such great decision in any purchases or actions. Yeah, Firefly is offering better price than MAS and AirAsia and tempting me to use their service very soon. The choices I have and intense aviation industry certainly giving credit to the consumers. Don't we think it's damn beautiful if Malaysians enjoy such choices and variety of product and services without being suffocated by government regulations? What if the ideals of competition and unregulated takes place in providing broadband and transportation services?

The useful and relevant knowledge which Hayek’s did work often, no such entity on this planet including government has ability and capable to delving in others thought, perception, taste and opinion . I believe each one of us has localized ideas of what is going on within 'sovereign spheres' and how does this knowledge applying in our rational judgement.

Let me tell you this, government must come in limited form and acknowledging its superior power (e.g coercive and terrible crime) as artificial strength and deluded information. The inexorable of these lines resulted the policymakers and the policies itself become futile and create more painful lengthy bureaucratic layers. What happen in Malaysia, although all sorts of committee, regulations and laws to curb the ongoing issues ‘effectively’, apparently, outcomes goes contradict. Minister is wasting his time figuring out the solution seeing him as obligation of moral politics. Government is not the solution. I'm smart enough to self governed rather than regulators scrutinizing my details life.

The point here is lifting up price control. Lift up all distorting competition regulations and law. Government must pro business. When I prepared a write up about how Pakatan Rakyat could empower small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the future, first and foremost, I asked myself, what do you define as pro business government according to free market principles? Today’s pro business allows chambers of commerce and big corporate influential figure lobbying government with the purpose to crush competition and even celebrating political ties among them! Sounds familiar?

How about this, the transaction involved Robert Kuok’s flagship PPB Group Bhd divesting its sugar related assets to Felda Global Ventures Holdings Sdn Bhd for RM1.5 billion in January 2010, and since then, the government has raised the selling price of sugar more than once. Government entities know best is the worst form of capitalism. I say it again, government, the monopoly of vast production and trade between individuals is the opposite of capitalism.

I usually prefer Atlas Shrugged 1957 by Ayn Rand values of government approach toward business. Freedom given to hardworking entrepreneurs and risk takers businessman, not giving handout or political favor. The government priority is protecting right to property, free trade and enforcing contracts. Get the hell out of my way, big government!