Tricia Yeoh

Last weekend a Forum was held on the Federal Constitution: Protection for all.

How many of us Malaysians know for a fact that the written Constitution in itself guarantees certain fundamental rights?

Loads of things were brought up during the morning debate and discussion, but these are some of the more important notes:

• The Constitution is Supreme
• Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation (Article 3(1))
• Whilst some feel the Constitution is a secular document, others felt it is a hybrid one – combining secular and Islamic frameworks.

*note: Secular insofar as it contains laws that are not necessarily linked to any religion. this does not mean that they fully contradict any religion, but that they are not expected to follow any one in totality. Click below to see the open letter.

Continue reading →

If you drop a buttered piece of bread, it will fall on the floor butter-side down. If a cat is dropped from a high and towering place, it will land on its feet. But what if you attach a buttered piece of bread, butter-side up to a cat’s back and toss them both out the window?

The laws of butterology demand that the butter must hit the ground, and the equally strict laws of feline aerodynamics demand that the cat cannot smash its furry back. If the combined construct were to land, nature would have no way to resolve this paradox. Therefore it simply does not fall.

That’s right, you have discovered the secret of antigravity! A buttered cat will, when released, quickly move to a height where the forces of cat-twisting and butter repulsion are in equilibrium. This equilibrium point can be modified by scraping off some of the butter, providing lift, or removing some of the cat’s limbs, allowing descent.

from Physics Humour. the best sort.

So what’s the big deal about cronyism anyway? Wikipedia refers to cronyism as partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to public office without regard for their qualifications.

But let’s take it down to its root word: crony. A crony is a friend, a pal. Someone who stands by your side. A chum, basically.

Think about this. Do you believe that a friend in need is a friend indeed? Do you believe that friends ought to help each other out? Would you go the extra mile in support of a friend?

If you believe in all these altruistic values above, then you should not logically be averse to the literal definition of the term cronyism.

Let’s take the argument further. In any friendship, there is a level of trust and relationship building involved. One cannot quantify this in any way. It is simply the dynamism between two people who have grown to rely upon each other.

Say friends A and B met in college many years ago. They hung out in the pub, chased girls together. Many years later, they meet each other by coincidence. Friend A works in a large corporation, and they find themselves struggling with an IT system that keeps crashing on them. He laments the sorry state of his inefficient computer. Friend B happens to work in an IT service provider company. He says, hey, I could do good stuff for you, man. Why waste your time on these old guys?

Friend A to Friend B: That makes sense. Let’s call it a deal.

Seems clean so far? What more of relationships built over the years? If I have a problem with my car, I logically go to my mechanic who’s given me years of service. If I have a problem with my crazy plumbing system I’m going to call the Ah Keong who serves with a smile.

While there is much talk of open tenders, how much use is this really? Does it serve any purpose except to deplete the resources of the poor guy who writes a proposal, only to end up rejected? (But we all knew he was going to be pushed aside anyway)

Where does one draw the line between cronyism and friendship-business? Perhaps, it is when there is blatant advantage a vendor has over the “Friend” involved, and yet this friend is chosen.

It’s all very subjective. I’m not sure exactly how I would respond were I to be in the position to make strategic decisions on a high level.
But until then… I can speak out and say… Malaysia: Cronyism? More like Cronymafiasm.

Graveyard Blog: A blog that is dead and left to rot by its irresponsible owner who, due to the busy-ness of her schedule, forsakes all worthy principles of blogging for the (luxury?) of 3 hours of sleep a night.

Blogging is not just a social phenomenon for the fun of it.

It requires some level of commitment. The blogger has a relationship that it initiated with the people who visit the site. Like any other relationship, this needs to be nurtured and contributed to on a regular basis.

But what does one do when time is so short?

One blogs an empty, useless piece on responsible blogging and pretends to bemoan the sorry state of blogs in cyberspace!

So, 2000 people demonstrated in front of our Petronas Twin Towers last Friday. How characteristic. Placards showing disgust for the government and calling for the PM to step down. I can just see the headlines: Oil price up, PM steps down.

Is the RM0.30 increase in petrol price justified?

The government’s reasons for increasing the price are twofold: One, that it has been heavily subsidising petrol prices for far too long. If the subsidy was removed totally, the price would be RM2.50 per litre, an estimated 25% higher than the current price. Two, that this saves the government a whopping RM4.4 billion, which it can in turn use for government spending.

The wave of globalisation is slowly but surely coming our way, and there is no choice but to pick up sails and ride upon it – or lose out. It means competing on a global level. It means focusing on efficiency. It means that without subsidies, people are forced to think creatively and work harder.

We keep talking about making Malaysia able to compete on a global level, but yet are unwilling to come out of the shadow of protectionist policies.

The second issue is the more complicated one. The savings of RM4.4 billion will surely ensure the government’s higher level of spending for the country, especially as it plans the 9th Malaysia Plan (to be tabled on the 31st March in Parliament). In the economic model, an increased injection of government spending eventually takes on a multiplier effect, with money circulating in the market. This is normally viewed as a good thing.

As is the case with theoretical models, glitches occur. Why people are disgruntled: Bad government usage of public funds. Nothing more than that. Splurging on white elephants. Bailing out failed Government-Linked Companies. Spending on unnecessary Mega-Projects. This is an issue of transparency and effective monitoring.

With or without the RM4.4 billion in hand, the government is still warrant to make bad decisions without a proper accountability system. So although the petrol hike certainly fanned the flame, it points to a bigger picture of dissatisfaction with the government and not an issue in and of itself.

Objectively, therefore, the slash in subsidy might be a good thing. To borrow analyses from economists, “the benefits that come from the removal of subsidies will far outweigh the cost”. Neighbouring countries that did the same last year are showing positive economic signs – currency appreciation and bigger trade surpluses.

Is it justified? I think so.

The recent petrol hike of RM0.30 per litre has been the cause of much dissatisfaction from members of the public. The reasons for unhappiness can be condensed into the following:

• That the government announced the price increase barely 2 hours before it took effect, without leaving its citizens much chance to fill up their empty tanks for one final time. No grace period.
• That this means simply, cutting a hole in the pockets of all. More monthly expenditure.
• That the reasons given for the increase are not justifiable.

Point number One is demonstrative of a government that does not quite act in a merciful manner. However, because it would only have saved people one load of petrol-pumping, and around RM10+ at that, I feel this is a negligible point.

Point number Two is inevitable. For the government to increase the price of anything, its citizens suffer the consequences. If government imposes higher taxation rate on its people, citizens suffer. But there are economic reasons behind this, if justified. This is linked to the next point.

If point number Three is indeed correct, then it is right that the citizens are not happy with the increase in petrol prices. If, however, the reasons given for the increase in petrol price are valid and proven, then why should the people complain?

People ought to think about the reasons they are unhappy about a certain policy implementation. I will argue that if certain measures as taken by the authorities are justified, then there should be no reason to incessantly protest, argue and make noise.

But that is a big if.