Embrace Teddy Roosevelt’s Conservatism


September 14, 2014

Embrace Teddy Roosevelt’s Conservatism: Equalize Opportunity

by David Skelton@www.theguardian.com

teddy_roosevelt“I wish to preach … the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labour and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes … to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.” That was how Theodore Roosevelt, never one for understatement, but arguably America’s greatest president, summed up his creed. And his was a life that was never boring – a war hero during the Spanish-American war, a perpetual man of action – he shook up the then-stuffy business of American politics with his relentless spirit. And politicians in 2014 should consider the powerful message that was at the heart of his politics.

Conservatives, in particular, should learn from a man who was able to show that conservatism could broaden its appeal and not be seen as the plaything of the rich. As British Tories consider how to break beyond their heartland they should look to Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative who claimed the progressive mantle as his own.

His message was one that successfully broadened the appeal of the Republican party, exiling the Democrats to their then “solid south” and winning more electoral college votes than any president before him. His was a conservatism that unapologetically represented enterprise, small business owners and workers. It was a conservatism that took on vested interests and legislated in the interests of ordinary voters, with measures such as the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

This was a man who believed instinctively that prosperity came from “thrift, business energy and enterprise”, but didn’t believe that being conservative should mean unthinkingly defending big business or monopolies. In his words: “We wish to shape conditions so that a greater number of the small men who are decent, industrious and energetic shall be able to succeed, and so that the big man who is dishonest should not be allowed to succeed at all.” He argued that monopolies meant higher prices for consumers, lower wages for workers and shut out the small businessmen and innovation that create prosperity.

Roosevelt was right that Conservatives should be prepared to act where market failure occurs and stand upcameron-radical against vested interests in both the private and public sector. Those who argue such an approach is unconservative would also find disagreement from other conservative icons. Adam Smith argued: “The monopolists … sell their commodities much above the natural price … and raise their emoluments … greatly above their natural rate.” Edmund Burke stood strongly against the monopoly power of the East India Company. Little wonder that Roosevelt described himself as “the true friend of property, the true conservative”.

Conservatives should be strong defenders of the power of capitalism to create prosperity and social progress, but they should remember that the free market and big business aren’t the same thing. Conservatives should create the right environment for start-ups and entrepreneurs. But supporting free enterprise isn’t the same as supporting the water monopolies, who, as Rob Halfon has pointed out, saw director’s salaries increase by between 37% and 171% over the past five years, while bills increased by up to 37%. They should be prepared to speak up about anti-consumer behaviour, whether it be over food packaging, bank charges or excessive utility prices.

It’s important that a regulatory environment is created in which encouraging competition, rather than concentration of power, is taken seriously, and monopolies aren’t allowed to abuse their dominant market position. The creation of a powerful, cross-departmental secretary of state for consumer protection would also help tackle rip-off practices. Polling last year also showed that a Conservative party that clamped down on big business that ripped off its customers would be an important way of showing that Conservatives weren’t just for the rich and powerful.

Roosevelt was a strong believer in capitalism as an engine for growth and a capitalism that works for everybody in society. His was “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best there is in him”. For him, “the essence of the struggle is to equalise opportunity, destroy privilege and give to the life and citizenship of every possible individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth”.

Conservatives should firmly position themselves as the party that is the relentless champion of opportunity and the enemy of the closed shop, with education reform, improved childcare in the poorest areas and a strong vocational offer at its heart.

It’s pretty clear that the low paid and many parts in the north and Scotland didn’t benefit from the economic growth under Tony Blair. Between 2003 and 2008, GDP increased by over 11%, but real wages stagnated at best and wages have failed to keep up with prices for more than a decade. Roosevelt argued that “no man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living”. He was an early advocate of a minimum wage – understanding that such an idea was entirely consistent with conservatism and making the free market work for everyone. Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid of looking at ways of increasing the minimum wage, which has failed to keep up with prices in recent years, whilst reforming employers’ taxes to minimise the impact on job creation.

Teddy Roosevelt stood for the “square deal” and so should today’s Conservatives. A square deal for the small businessman and the entrepreneur, for the young person who deserves to make the most of their potential, for the consumer and the low paid. Modern conservatism must be compassionate and should be about removing barriers to opportunity, tackling vested interests in both the public and private sectors and promoting a free market that creates prosperity for all. Today’s Tories should hold up Teddy Roosevelt as a guiding light.

Freedom and Development go hand in hand, says UM’s Dr Lee Hwok Aun


September 10, 2014

Freedom and Development go hand in hand, says UM’s Dr Lee Hwok Aun

by Lee Shi-Ian

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/um-lecturers-reveal-why-freedom-is-a-sign-of-a-countrys-maturity

Dr Lee Hwok AunIn its journey towards being a developed nation by 2020, Malaysia appears to have forgotten that freedom is also another measure of development, said Universiti Malaya (UM) lecturer Dr Lee Hwok Aun.

Lee, the UM Academic Staff Union coordinator for the “Solidarity4AzmiSharom” movement, cited Norway, Sweden and Taiwan as examples of developed countries which also encouraged freedom.

“Do not judge development merely based on financial factors only. Freedom is also another measure of a Azmi Sharom 3country’s development and maturity,” Lee told a crowd of students after the lunchtime “hartal”, or strike, held to protest against the Sedition Act and the sedition charges against UM Law Professor Dr Azmi Sharom.

Azmi also spoke to the crowd of about 100 students, who braved the hot weather to listen to the “outdoor lectures” on freedom. Many of the students participated in the protest earlier.

Azmi said freedom of expression was very important as it played a vital role in a nation’s development, saying without conflicting ideas, there would be no good ideas.”If everyone was just a follower who agreed with what their leaders said, the nation would just chug along without any new ideas or creativity,” Azmi said.

dr-ahmad-farouk-and-din-mericanAmi is also President of the UM Academic Staff Union. Lee and Azmi were joined by another academician from Monash University, Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa (left pic with Din Merican)  who is also the chairman of the non-governmental organisation Islamic Renaissance Front.Farouk said people like Azmi were a rarity as they were bold and courageous enough to speak up instead of keeping silent.

“Academicians should also share their knowledge with the world, and not merely within the confines of a classroom or academic journal.”

Lee said countries which have more freedom such as Taiwan, Norway and Sweden have all achieved developed nation status, and this included freedom of the press.”The principles of Vision 2020 are not being adhered to by Putrajaya, which is using a colonial-era law in the Sedition Act 1948 more frequently than ever now.”

“Instead of there being more freedom as Malaysia approaches 2020, the nation seems to be regressing with more and more people falling afoul of the Sedition Act.”

Azmi said a developed country needed a strong and free press to report on corruption and abuse of power.“Otherwise, the public will remain in the dark,” he said, and warned that “a heavy price” will be paid by political parties which relied on oppressive laws during the general elections.

Azmi Sharom Hartal

Azmi  said “nobody was looking for absolute freedom of expression” in Malaysia. However, there appeared to be no curb on the restrictions imposed by Putrajaya. “That is the problem with Malaysia, there is no limitation on the limitations. Freedom is the ideal, you do not have to justify the freedom, you should justify the limitation.”Freedom is what gives us dignity as human beings. We cannot be dignified without freedom,” Azmi said.

Azmi pleaded not guilty to sedition charges on September 2 over comments made in an article on the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis while speaking about the current Selangor Menteri Besar impasse.

Turning Malaysia Airlines Around


September 4, 2014

Blogging from Tokyo, Japan

Turning-MAS-around-Issue-inside-banner

Story by
Chan Quan Min (09-02-14)
quanmin@kinibiz.com

Make no mistake about it, Malaysia Airlines’ fourth rescue plan in as little as 14 years is more daring than ever. KiniBiz points out the differences, one of which is the severe job cuts, and asks if this is part of a strategy that will lead to a smaller airline with a clear focus on yield management.

_______________________________________________________________________

Over a hundred reporters crammed into a library on the 33rd floor of the Petronas Twin Towers last Friday to hear Khazanah Nasional managing director Azman Mokhtar lay out the details of a 12-point restructuring plan that will plough RM6 billion into Malaysia Airlines over the next three years.

As Azman spoke, it was immediately clear Khazanah had taken over the reins. The “complete overhaul” of struggling Malaysia Airlines or MAS, with an end-2017 deadline to return to profitability, would be under the purview of the state investment fund.

In contrast, previous turnaround plans were initiated not by Khazanah but by former MAS CEO Idris Jala in 2006 and 2009, and more recently, by current CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya in 2011.

It turned out that rumours of Jauhari stepping down at the end of his three-year term in September were only half-true. False because Jauhari would stay on as CEO for another year and true because he would be leading what would eventually become just a shell company with up to 6,000 redundant employees.

Khazanah’s restructuring or “recovery” plan is perhaps the most daring yet for being the first to make decisive job cuts.

About 30% of the staff count will lose their jobs and to facilitate this painful process a new company will be set up as the “new MAS.” Just the employees that Khazanah wishes to retain will transfer to this new company in the coming months, an arrangement that eliminates the need for what might be a messy retrenchment process.

“This takes guts, and I give it to them for having the courage,” Mohshin Aziz, an aviation analyst at Maybank IB said in an email to bank clients.Employees left in the old company can elect to join programmes specifically set up for them to learn new skills for employment elsewhere.

Azman MokhtarAccording to the recovery plan, the operations, assets and liabilities of the old company will be migrated to the new company by July 2015. The MAS identity and branding will not be lost in the process, Azman assured.

The new company or new MAS, as Azman puts it, will “critically involve a significantly corrected cost and operational structure” because the airline will unceremoniously terminate any contracts that are deemed unfair during the migration process.

In short, Malaysia Airlines will start on a clean slate. And to make sure that there are no stumbling blocks on the way, the government will seek to pass legislation – a MAS Act – to specifically address any legal issues that might arise.

The likelihood that such a piece of legislation will pass Parliament is without doubt. The highest levels of government have at this early stage shown the conviction to apply the required medicine to nurse MAS back to health.

“Only wholesale change will deliver a genuinely strong and sustainable Malaysia Airlines,” Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who in also the Chairman of Khazanah, said in a foreword to the 38-page recovery plan.

“If we seek a different outcome from past experiences, we must have the courage to choose a different method. Piecemeal change will not work,” he insisted.

Global search

Aside from the job cuts, Khazanah’s Azman appears to have also committed himself to another “different method,” that of a “global search” for a new CEO to lead the new MAS. Khazanah found the current CEO, Jauhari, from within its group of related companies. But his replacement, according to Azman, could come from just about anywhere.

“The search has begun,” he said. “And we are looking at both Malaysian leadership talent and global aviation specialists.”

One of the new CEO’s first tasks, Azman told reporters, would be to make the “decision on who stays and who leaves.”

Khazanah’s mention of “aviation specialists” points to a shift in hiring practices. Past CEOs Idris Jala and Tengku Azmil Zahruddin as well as current CEO Jauhari were appointed without any prior aviation experience. Jauhari’s admission that his turnaround plan was not working, made after the last Malaysian Airline System Bhd Annual General meeting in late June could have spurred Khazanah to consider an aviation man (or woman) as his replacement.

READ On:

http://www.kinibiz.com/story/issues/105921/mas-rescue-4.0-what%E2%80%99s-different-this-time.html?utm_source=applet_mkinicom&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mkinicom

AND This:

http://www.kinibiz.com/story/issues/105921/mas-rescue-4.0-what%E2%80%99s-different-this-time.html

Sale of the Century: The Privatisation Scam


Sale of the Century: The Privatisation Scam

Privatisation promised to turn the UK into an island of small shareholders. It failed: the faceless state bureaucrats have been replaced by faceless (better-paid) private bureaucrats – and big foreign corporations. How did we get to this point?
by James Meek* (08-24-14)–The Guardian, UK
London Bridge train station

Train fares are going up. We learned that last week, although “learn” is putting it strongly. We knew they would. It’s not as if they would go down: train fares go up, like electricity bills, gas bills, water bills, rent and chief executives’ salaries. To the loyalists of the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron succession, higher train fares are a positive, because they mean lower subsidies: another incremental step in a 35-year programme to shift the burden of paying for infrastructure from the well-off to the strugglers. To most of us, it’s another sign of the folly of selling off the railways. But amid the dismal annual round of fare rises, it’s easy to miss another, stranger, more gradual sign of the failure of the vast social and economic experiment conducted on the British people since 1979: privatisation

A trio of awkward synthetic words has begun to appear among the owners of private train companies that looks as if a computer has been asked to name the new musketeers: Abellio; Govia; Keolis. What these bland corporate signifiers mask is state-owned but commercialised European rail firms. Collectively, European state railways now own more than a quarter of Britain’s passenger train system.

I imagine they will do a decent job. And that’s the trouble. If competition shows that the best companies to run Britain’s privatised railways are state-owned railways from other countries, what does that say about the justification of privatisation? And what does it say about what privatisation has done to Britain? How did we get to the point where this country’s railways, power stations and postal service were ready to be taken over by foreign versions of British organisations that our own government, claiming patriotism, systematically took to pieces?

One winter’s morning in 1991 I loaded a guitar, a condensed edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and a Teach Yourself Russian course into an old Volkswagen, left the house near Edinburgh where I had been staying and drove to Kiev. Five days passed on the road. I left the familiarity, order and prosperity of Britain, the island where I had grown up, and travelled east to wait for the Soviet Union to dissolve. I didn’t have to wait long. A few weeks after I arrived, it ceased to be. Russia and Ukraine went their separate ways. The Kiev traffic policeman waving down my foreign-plated car had time to utter the words, “What are you doing in the Soviet Union?” before the colour left his face, his mouth went dry, and he turned away, lost, a bully orphaned of his corporate father.

A 70-year experiment to test whether the ethos of the commune could be imposed on a transcontinental empire of hundreds of millions of people was over, long after the answer was in (it couldn’t). I wasn’t sorry to see Soviet communism go. Despite all that’s happened since, I still don’t mourn it. There was hope in the beginning that something fine would grow in the gap that was left. It was a while before I realised the cynical, grasping figures who moved in to take possession of the ruins were not, as I had hoped, transitional symptoms of change, but the essence of that change.

Thatcher and BlairWatching the vultures come to feast on the carcass of the world’s largest state-owned, planned economy, I began to find the terms to question what had been done by politicians, economic theorists, lobbyists and business people in my own country. I had thought, when I left Scotland, in the unconscious way certainties are stowed in one’s mind, that I knew Britain; that some essential way of being would be resilient to Margaret Thatcher‘s rearrangements, which must, as transient policies, be superficial. I had to go home by way of Kiev and Moscow to see that I was wrong, to begin to see how, and how deeply, she and her followers altered Britain.

With hindsight, 1991 was a pivotal year. When it began, the free market economic belief system, with its lead proselytisers Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, had been pushing back for more than a decade against various attempts to impose levelling communitarianism around the world. The Berlin Wall had fallen, as had communist regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

The market belief system, which holds that government is incompetent by default, that state taxation is oppressive, that the desire for wealth is the right and principal motivator of achievement and that virtually all human wants can best be met by competing private firms, was becoming entrenched in the non-communist world, from Chile to New Zealand.

Made bold by a popular public perception that government overspending and selfish organised labour were to blame for economic stagnation and high inflation in the 1970s, Thatcher and Reagan had taken on powerful trade unions, and won. Barriers to the international movement of goods and money had fallen; the European Union was, on paper, a single marketplace. In Britain, restrictions on how much ordinary people could borrow to finance their everyday needs had been scrapped, and millions had acquired credit cards.

Volumes of regulations controlling how banks were allowed to use people’s deposits had been torn up, and unimaginably vast sums were being moved privately from country to country. Government spending had been cut, as had income tax and corporation tax. Sales tax and fees for everyday services had been raised. Council houses and big state enterprises had been privatised, with more on the way, leading to hundreds of thousands of redundancies. Thatcher’s programme in Britain was an inspiration for the IMF and the World Bank as they experimented with the conditions they attached to bail-out loans to developing countries.

But at the end of 1990, the triumph of marketism seemed to hang in the balance. Reagan and Thatcher had relinquished the stage to less fervent, less charismatic successors. The man who’d introduced the market economy to China, Deng Xiaoping, had been blamed by traditional communists for fostering the Tiananmen Square protests, and was in disgrace. In the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, the great hope of free marketeers, was facing a similar backlash from hardliners, and the Baltic countries’ hopes of escape from the USSR looked bleak. Saddam Hussein, dictator of semi-socialist Iraq, had invaded semi-capitalist Kuwait.

Yet the following year conviction began to grow among the marketeers that the final defeat of centrally planned, communitarian government was at hand, the sense that seemed to confirm such ideas as America having “won” the Cold War, and the “end of history”. Early in 1991 it became clear that the Soviet leadership had lost the necessary unanimity and ruthlessness to keep Lithuania within the USSR. The humiliating collapse of the coup against Gorbachev that summer presaged recognition of Baltic independence, Ukraine’s vote to go the same way, and the end of the Soviet Union. In Kuwait at the beginning of the year I saw experienced British war correspondents squabble for reporting billets among the frontline troops with the ferocity of those who believe something is being offered for the last time; we thought British and American armies might never fight another war.

Few doubted Saddam would be beaten, and he was. That November, as I drove off the ferry at Ostend, heading east, it seemed a racing, expanding tide of victorious free marketism glimmered at my wheels, a tide that has gone by many names – consumer capitalism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus. Though the watchtowers still stood at the old border between two Germanys, the border was gone. In eastern Germany, the narrow cobbled streets of medieval towns had jammed solid with second-hand cars. I passed a field where an impatient western German DIY chain, unwilling to wait for steel and breeze blocks, had erected a vast, circular retail marquee, blazing with lights. The canvas superstore seemed to have landed, like a spacecraft from a flashier civilisation, come down to offer shrink-wrapped packs of rawl plugs and a choice of bathroom fittings.

In Poland, I got lost in fog near Wrocław, and saw how small shops had sprung up everywhere, even in the tiniest villages. In the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, in damp, coal-scented murk so thick I wasn’t sure which way my car was pointing, I came across an entrepreneur hawking coffee from a roadside kiosk; the best coffee I ever tasted. He was like a champion of Thatcherite values, the small businessman standing ready to serve at all hours, in all weathers, making up for lost time under communism, silently mocking the market-questioning scepticisms I had brought with me from Scotland.

The effect on me of witnessing the unplanned collapse of a planned economy, where there’d been virtually no private property or private enterprise, was a series of viscerally direct lessons in economics. I saw how badly the Soviet communist system had failed on economic grounds alone, quite apart from its denial of personal freedoms. Long before the end, there was a hopeless housing shortage. Multiple households were sharing two-roomed flats; families were living in dormitories. Apartments seized from their bourgeois owners after the 1917 revolution were still unrepaired more than 70 years later. The infrastructure was rotten; there were cities and suburbs built around factories in the 1960s and 1970s where homes only had mains water for a few hours a day.

Surpluses of goods nobody wanted (copies of the complete works of Soviet politicians, busts of Lenin) prevailed beside shortages of goods everybody wanted (cheese, coffee, sausage) because the element sticking together demand for a thing and the amount of trouble it took to produce and deliver it – the price – had been scraped out of transactions and replaced with a made-up figure concocted by planners in Moscow. Inequality was rampant, reflected not just in monetary wealth or property but in the degree to which you actually had access to the cheap goods everyone was supposed to have access to. One consequence of food and drink being allocated by civil servants according to central decrees, rather than by price, was that the restaurant business became an incubator for the black market and organised crime.

Airports and railway stations looked like refugee camps because tickets cost virtually nothing, yet there weren’t enough flights or trains to move the people who wanted to take them. The first response of the Russian and Ukrainian authorities after independence was to massively increase the production of a single essential item that people were chronically short of: money. Hyperinflation resulted, and millions of people had their savings wiped out.

The other side of the collapse of communism, along with the post-Soviet boons of freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of initiative, was the flourishing of enterprise. Armies of tough middle-aged women made epic journeys to the bazaars of Poland, Turkey and China and returned to Ukraine and Russia with clothes to dress a handsome people as they’d yearned to dress, in jeans, leather and gold. Shops, restaurants, bars, cafés and night clubs opened up; book and music stalls were everywhere. Foreign firms brought wonders: a tampon factory, international direct dialling. Kiev went from a place where you couldn’t buy anything to a place where you could buy anything, if you had the means.

Contempt for the planned economy, a new appreciation of the danger of printing excess money, gratitude to the entrepreneurs – there were times, in those early months in Kiev, that I asked myself whether I was becoming a Thatcherite. I can’t pinpoint the moment when it soured for me. It might have been the sight of a solid rank of impoverished pensioners, some several hundred respectable old ladies, standing shoulder to shoulder in the freezing winter darkness outside Belarus station in Moscow, each holding a single sausage for sale – the free market as desperation. Or a visit to the Arctic mining city of Vorkuta, where miners were being paid in sandwiches while their bosses pocketed the money from the coal for which they were earning free-market prices.

In the first stages of disillusionment, it didn’t seem obvious to me to make connections between the extremes of marketisation and privatisation in the former Soviet Union and the partial privatisation of a British economy that had always been mainly private anyway. After all, where Britain had a series of regulators to set rules for the privatised industries – Ofcom, Ofwat and so on – the principal regulator of privatisation in Ukraine and Russia, at least in the early days, was murder.

In Russia in particular, a small number of individuals quickly became fantastically rich when they took private control of state producers of petrochemicals and metals. They were grotesquely rewarded, or grotesquely undertaxed, and money that should have gone to rebuild roads or hospitals or schools went instead towards yachts, property in London and foreign football teams. But that had nothing in common with privatisation in Britain – did it?I began to notice something odd about the British and American business people and financial advisers I met in Ukraine and Russia in the 1990s. It was no surprise, I suppose, that they cared more about businesses being overtaxed than undertaxed, more about protection of private property than about protection of pensioners; that they didn’t care how weak and bullied the local trades unions were.

Besides, their Russian interlocutors kept being assassinated. What was revealing was how many of these emissaries of the capitalist way seemed to believe the myth that all that was good in the British and American economies had been constructed by the free market. They seemed to believe, or talked, made speeches, wrote papers as if they believed, that the entire structure of their own wealthy modern societies – the roads, the electricity grids, the railways, the water and sewage systems, the universal postal services, the telecoms networks, housing, education and health care – had been brought into being by individual entrepreneurs driven by desire for gain, with the occasional lump of charity thrown in, and that a bloated, parasitical state had come shambling onto the scene, seizing assets and demanding free stuff for its shirker buddies.

I don’t want to absolve the Russians or Ukrainians of responsibility for their handling of the aftermath of communism, but the template they were handed by the fraternity of the Washington Consensus was based on fake history. If this is what the triumphalists of Wall Street and the City of London told the Russians about the way of the capitalist world, I thought when I moved back to Britain in 1999, what have they been telling us? And what came of it?

When Thatcher’s Conservatives came to power in Britain in 1979, much of the economy, and almost all its infrastructure, was in state hands. Exactly what gloss you put on “in state hands” depends on your political point of view. For traditional socialists, it meant “the people’s hands”. For traditional Tories, it meant “in British hands”. For Thatcher and her allies, it meant “in the hands of meddling bureaucrats and selfish, greedy trade unionists”. How much of the economy? A third of all homes were rented from the state.

The health service, most schools, the armed forces, prisons, roads, bridges and streets, water, sewers, the National Grid, power stations, the phone and postal system, gas supply, coal mines, the railways, refuse collection, the airports, many of the ports, local and long-distance buses, freight lorries, nuclear-fuel reprocessing, air traffic control, much of the car-, ship- and aircraft-building industries, most of the steel factories, British Airways, oil companies, Cable & Wireless, the aircraft engine makers Rolls-Royce, the arms makers Royal Ordnance, the ferry company Sealink, the Trustee Savings Bank, Girobank, technology companies Ferranti and Inmos, medical technology firm Amersham International and many others.

n the past 35 years, this commonly owned economy, this people’s portion of the island, has to a greater or lesser degree become private. Millions of council houses have been sold to their owners or to housing associations. Most roads and streets are still under public control, but privatisation has reached deep into the NHS, state schools, the prison service and the military. The remainder was privatised by Thatcher and her successors. By the time she left office, she boasted, 60% of the old state industries had private owners – and that was before the railways and electricity system went under the hammer.

The original background to Thatcher’s privatisation revolution was stagflation, a sense of national failure, and a widespread feeling, spreading even to some regular Labour voters, that the unions had become too powerful, and were holding the country back. Labour, and Thatcher’s centrist predecessors among the Conservatives, had tried to control inflation administratively, through various deals with unions and employers to hold down wages and prices; Labour had, under pressure from the IMF, cut spending. But Thatcher and her inner circle planned to go further, horrifying moderates in their party with the radicalism of their intentions.

The late Alan Walters (right), her chief economic adviser, believed a key source of inflation and the weak economy © Desmond O’Neill Features:-www.donfeatures.com  photos@donfeatures.comwas the amount of taxpayers’ money being poured into overmanned, old-fashioned, government-owned industry. Just as in the Soviet Union, he thought, Britain’s state industries concealed their subsidy-sucking inefficiency through opaque, idiosyncratic accounting techniques that took little account of how much time and effort were required to do and make things, or what people actually wanted to buy, or how much they were prepared to pay for it. As long as the subsidies kept coming, neither managers nor workers had much incentive to come up with smarter working methods or accept new technology, because that would mean fewer jobs, which would mean less power for the bosses and a smaller union.

Yes, Walters knew, his protégée would slash spending on steel and coal and power and all the rest, yes, hundreds of thousands of workers would be sacked, but that wasn’t enough. As many state-owned companies as possible must be privatised – be divided up into shares and sold to the public. They’d no longer be subsidised; they’d have to borrow money like any private company, account meticulously to shareholders for every penny they spent or earned, and strive to make a profit. The bigger the profit, the more efficiently the firm would be doing its job, and the more management would be rewarded. Most importantly, they’d have to compete with other firms. If they fell behind their competitors, they’d risk bankruptcy.

Managers would face incentives for success and penalties for failure. British industry would become more competitive internationally. It would serve citizens better. Government would save the taxpayer money. The sacked workers would get redundancy payments; they’d go off and start businesses, or find other, more useful jobs once the economy was working properly. Everyone would win, except the lazy, and Arthur Scargill.

Millions did buy shares. Most Britons, bemused by the process, assumed the main reason for privatisation was to raise cash for a desperate government. Harold Macmillan, who before his death provided a snarky Wodehousian commentary from the wings on the work of the grocer’s daughter, observed in an often paraphrased line: “The sale of assets is common with individuals and states when they run into financial difficulties. First, all the Georgian silver goes, and then all that nice furniture that used to be in the saloon. Then the Canalettos go.”

Charles Saatchi Launches New Gallery - LondonAnother leal privatiser, Nigel Lawson (left) , a minister in the Thatcher government from the beginning almost to the end, dismissed the idea that the government cared about the price it was getting for selling off the family silver. Having many ordinary people owning shares, he writes in his memoirs, was the point. “The prime motives for privatisation were not Exchequer gain,” he declares, “but an ideological belief in free markets and a wider distribution of private ownership of property.”

Neither Walters nor Lawson, nor other allies like Keith Joseph, the ex-communist Alfred Sherman or Nicholas Ridley, would have been able to implement their ideas without Thatcher herself, her extraordinary sense of the way the political wind was blowing, her conviction of her own rectitude, and the stamina and persistence with which she was able to go on insisting on something until her opponents in government gave in. Hers was a different emphasis to Walters, who saw the curbing of “bloody-minded trades unions” as a useful side effect of privatisation.

For Thatcher, privatisation, in the beginning at least, was simply one of many weapons to use in her battle against the unions, which was, in turn, a single episode in her war to exterminate socialism, to be fought in one unbroken front from Orgreave Colliery to Andrei Sakharov’s place of exile in Gorky. Her great political inspiration, apart from her father, was the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, written in Cambridge during the war.

Hayek was regarded as an able economist; he eventually won a Nobel prize for it. But The Road to Serfdom friedrich-hayek-2isn’t an economics book. It’s a book about society, the recent past and human nature that bears the same relation to sociology, history and psychology as Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged bears to literature. It is devoted to the idea that Winston Churchill later nodded to, catastrophically for him, in the 1945 election campaign, when he said Labour would have to fall back on “some form of Gestapo” to implement its welfare and nationalisation programme. Churchill was thrown out of office, and Labour won a huge majority.

The Road to Serfdom claims that socialism inevitably leads to communism, and that communism and Nazi-style fascism are one and the same. The tie that links Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany, in Hayek’s view, is the centrally planned economy – as he portrays it, the attempt by a single central bureaucracy to direct all human life, to determine all human needs in advance and organise provision, limiting each to their rationed dole and their allotted task. Such a bureaucracy will no more tolerate dissent and deviation than the engineers tending a vast production line will accept a pebble jamming the gears. Confusingly, Hayek denies he is a pure libertarian, and declares the free market must have rules; he also says it is acceptable for government to “provide an extensive system of social services”.

Yet this is in contradiction to his main message, which is that there can be no mixture of state planning and free market competition. To him they are mutually exclusive. “By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany,” he writes. “And it was socialism that had killed it.” Even to try to make socialism work, according to Hayek, is dangerous: “in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realise that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself.”

Hayek was proven wrong. As in other western European countries, socialists came and went from power in Britain, introduced a welfare state and took control of large swathes of the economy without democracy and individual freedoms being threatened. The NHS was set up, council houses were built, social security was established, state education was expanded, coal, rail and steel nationalised, yet despite all the planning this required, millions of private businesses, small, medium and large, carried on merrily competing (or co-operating) with each other, flourishing or going to the wall as the market determined.

Private doctors kept their clinics on Harley Street, young aristos still ruggered their way across the playing fields of Eton, the private shop windows of Harrods still blazed forth at Christmas time. Bankers and stockbrokers thronged the City, and the farmers owned their land. No one was forced by the government to live in a particular place or do a particular job. There was an argument to be made about how much tax people and businesses paid, and how much of that money government would have been better letting them choose for themselves how to spend. The argument was made, and will always be made; in the end, neither the Gestapo, nor the English Hitler, nor the English Politburo appeared, or looked like appearing.

Daniel BellHayek’s work, that of a frightened refugee in wartime, in the blackouts and shortages of a besieged island, had been superseded by the 1970s. A better framework for understanding the Britain of the time would have been the American Daniel Bell’s masterful introduction to his 1976 book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, where, though he spoke in general terms, he seemed to capture the actual contemporary problems of the UK: “A system of state capitalism could easily be transformed into a corporate state … a cumbersome, bureaucratic monstrosity, wrenched in all directions by the clamour for subsidies and entitlements by various corporate and communal groups, yet gorging itself on increased governmental appropriations to become a Leviathan in its own right.”

Thatcher, however, never stopped seeing the world through a Hayekian prism. After she defeated the attempt by Britain’s coal miners to stave off mass redundancies and pit closures by downing tools, she wrote: “What the strike’s defeat established was that Britain could not be made ungovernable by the Fascist Left.”

About 10 years ago, I began to investigate what happened after the early Thatcherite zeal took effect. I was sceptical when I began my inquiries, but I was prepared to be convinced that privatisation in these half-dozen cases had been a success. I learned that it has not. Privatisation failed to turn Britain into a nation of small shareholders. Before Thatcher came to power, almost 40% of the shares in British companies were held by individuals. By 1981, it was less than 30%. By the time she died in 2013, it had slumped to under 12%. What is significant about this is not only that Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson’s vision of a shareholding democracy failed to come to pass through privatisation, but that it undermines the justification for the way the companies were taken out of public ownership.

There’s no doubt that since privatisation the old nationalised industries have sacked colossal numbers of workers and brought in new technology. If efficiency is doing the same job or better with fewer workers, many of the privatised firms are more efficient. But this simply suggests some or all of the nationalised industries should have been commercialised – that is, had their subsidies shrunk and been removed from direct government control, obliging them to borrow money at commercial rates and operate in a world of market prices without making a loss. Apart from the failed attempt to encourage wider share ownership, there was no obvious reason to privatise them by floating them on the stock market and selling them to shareholders. There are many forms of private ownership. The department store chain John Lewis, an unsubsidised commercial firm in a fiercely competitive market, is owned by its employees.

The Nationwide Building Society, an unsubsidised commercial firm in a fiercely competitive market, is owned by its members. The Guardian Media Group, an unsubsidised commercial firm in a fiercely competitive market, is owned by a trust set up to support its journalistic values and protect it from hostile takeover. And so on. None of the many alternatives to stock market flotation were put up for discussion by either side: it was either shareholder capitalism or the nationalised status quo.

Privatisation failed to demonstrate the case made by the privatisers that private companies are always more competent than state-owned ones – that private bosses, chasing the carrot of bonuses and dodging the stick of bankruptcy, will always do better than their state-employed counterparts. Through euphemisms such as “wealth creation” and “enjoying the rewards of success” Thatcher and her allies have promoted the notion that greed on the part of a private executive elite is the chief and sufficient engine of prosperity for all.

The result has been 35 years of denigration of the concept of duty and public service, as well as a squalid ideal of all work as something that shouldn’t be cared about for its own sake, but only for the money it brings. The magic dust of the market was of little use to the bosses of the newly privatised Railtrack in the mid-1990s. They thought they could sack people with impunity – not just signalling and maintenance staff but expert engineers and researchers – and carry out a massive line-upgrade cheaply with the most advanced new technology. Unfortunately the people who could have told them that the new technology didn’t exist were the people they had sacked. As a result, the company went bust in 2002, and had to be renationalised.

Privatisation failed to make firms compete or give customers more choice – said to be the canonical virtues of privatisation. Pretty hard, you would think, to privatise water companies, when they are all monopolies, with nobody to compete with, and can’t offer customers a choice – neither the choice of which supplier to use nor the choice of whether to take a service or not. And yet the English water companies were privatised, and in such a way that customers have been overcharged ever since. The privatisers loved competition, but the actual privatised competitors hate it. The competitive vision of those who designed Britain’s electricity privatisation – a rumbustious, referee-supervised free-for-all between sellers and makers of electricity old and new, large and small – has degenerated into an opaque oligopoly of a handful of giant players.

Royal Mail

The impression grows, on reading Thatcher’s autobiography, that she believed the transformational effect of privatisation was such as to turn executives into self-consciously moral, patriotic, civically minded entrepreneurs like her father; as if a monopoly on water supply for several million people were a local grocery shop in a small English town in the 1940s. Privatisation, she claimed, was “the greatest shift of ownership and power away from the state to individuals and their families in any country outside the former communist bloc”.

The reality is that the faceless state bureaucrats of the old electricity boards have been replaced by the faceless (and better paid) private bureaucrats of the electricity companies. Not only are the privatised utilities big, remote corporations; most of them are no longer British, and no longer owned by small shareholders. Indeed electricity and water privatisation could not have failed more absolutely to foster the emergence of world-beating, innovative British companies.

Most of the electricity made and sold in England is now owned by dynamic, tech-savvy companies from western Europe, a region doomed, Thatcher thought, by creeping socialism. As a direct result of the way electricity was privatised, much of it has now been renationalised – but by France, not Britain. Of the nine big English water and sewerage firms, six have achieved the seemingly impossible feat of being privatised a second time, delisted from the stock market by East Asian conglomerates or by private equity consortia.

Today much of England’s water industry is, it is true, in the hands of individuals and their families, but they don’t use English water; they are millions of former civil servants in Canada, Australia and the Netherlands, investing, unwittingly, through their pension funds. The National Health Service is a special case. It hasn’t been privatised, and the political parties vie with each other to show that it’s safest in their hands. Yet it has been commercialised and repeatedly reorganised, with competition introduced, in such a way as to create a kind of shadowing of an as-yet-unrealised private health insurance system.

The story of the transformation of the NHS is part of the wider story of the inheritance of the Thatcher legacy by a Blairite Labour administration over-filled with politicians who struggled to separate their ambitions for Britain from their ambitions for their own and their families’ ascent into the six-figure-income class. After their Sisyphean struggles with the Tories and the conservative socialists in their own party, New Labour in power yielded with all too apparent relief to the charms of the business world. It wasn’t the creation of foundation trusts for hospitals – or academy schools, or support for housing associations – that was the mistake, rather a lack of awareness that without elaborate safeguards these structures might prove mere way points to the next set of privatisations.

Blair and NHS

What the story of the latter years of the NHS shows is that the most powerful market force eating away at the core of the welfare state is not so much capitalism as consumer capitalism – the convergence of desires between the users of a public service and the private companies providing it when the companies use the skills of marketing to give users a sense of dissatisfaction and peer disadvantage. “If consumption represents the psychological competition for status,” writes Daniel Bell, “then one can say that bourgeois society is the institutionalisation of envy.” Hip replacement, a procedure invented within the NHS by John Charnley, began as a blessed relief from pain for which patients were, as Charnley said, pathetically grateful. It rapidly progressed to a rationed entitlement. It has now become a competitive market.

This points to a difficulty for anti-marketeers. Since 1945, even if privatisation had never happened, socialism would have struggled with the move from a world of unsatisfied needs to a more complex world of unsatisfied wants. The selling off of Britain’s municipal housing without replacing it was supposed to be a triumphant coming together of the individual and free market principles. It actually ended up as one of the most glaring examples of market failure in postwar history. It wasn’t like the other privatisations; its justification as anything other than an electoral bribe to its relatively well-off beneficiaries always rang false.

It certainly did to Thatcher in the beginning. She was, she wrote, “wary of alienating the already hard-pressed families who had scrimped to buy a house on one of the new private estates at the market price … They would, I feared, strongly object to council house tenants who had made none of their sacrifices suddenly receiving what was in effect a large capital sum from the Government”. In the end, she came round, and made the policy her own. But the gap where the economic rationale for privatising council houses should be becomes a window through which it becomes possible to see beyond the individual privatisations to the meta-privatisation, and its one indisputable success: that it put more money into the hands of a small number of the very wealthiest people, at the expense of the elderly, the sick, the jobless and the working poor.

What do we think we know about taxes since the Thatcher revolution? Government spending has been cut, we know that. Income tax is lower than it used to be, we know that. And we might remember that the one time Thatcher tried to change the principle of progressive taxation, where the amount of tax you pay depends on your income, to a flat fee, where everyone pays the same – when the Conservatives tried to introduce the infamous “poll tax” on council services – it was the catalyst for her downfall. Low tax was her mantra. Her core political message was this, in her own words: “I believe the person who is prepared to work hardest should get the greatest rewards and keep them after tax. That we should back the workers and not the shirkers: that it is not only permissible but praiseworthy to want to benefit your own family by your own efforts.”

What we think we know is wrong. Yes, government spending was cut, and it is being cut again, by Thatcher’s coalition successors. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979 the top rate of tax was 83%, the basic rate 33. The top rate is now 45% and the basic rate 20%. The message seems clear enough.

cameronThe Conservatives cut public spending and cut taxes, they kept their promises to working people, and Labour went along with it. But that is not all that happened. At the same time as they cut income tax and public spending, the first Thatcher administration hiked the sales tax, VAT – a flat-rate tax far more remorselessly regressive than the poll tax. When they came to power, the main VAT rate was 8%. It is now 20%. And the poorer you are, the harder VAT hits you. A study by the Office of National Statistics in 2010 showed that, for the richest fifth of the population, VAT added an extra 4 per cent to their tax bill. But the poorest fifth, often thought by the better off to pay no tax at all, actually pay 8.7 per cent of their income to the Treasury in VAT. When the Coalition came to power that year, its first Chancellor George Osborne raised VAT by 14 per cent.

Where privatisation comes into this is that VAT isn’t the only flat-rate tax on the poor. There are others, and they are onerous; they just aren’t called taxes, though they should be – private taxes. One of the other ways the Thatcherites tried to balance the books in their first budgets was by hiking the price of gas, electricity and council rents, then all still under state control. After privatisation, above-inflation price rises have continued, in the private sector. A tax is generally thought of as something that only a government can levy, but this is a semantic distortion that favours the free market belief system. If a payment to an authority, public or private, is compulsory, it’s a tax. We can’t do without electricity; the electricity bill is an electricity tax. We can’t do without water; the water bill is a water tax. Some people can get by without railways, and some can’t; they pay the rail tax. Students pay the university tax. The meta-privatisation is the privatisation of the tax system itself; even, it could be said, the privatisation of us, the former citizens of Britain.

By packaging British citizens up and selling them, sector by sector, to investors, the government makes it possible to keep traditional taxes low or even cut them. By moving from a system where public services are supported by progressive general taxation to a system where they are supported exclusively by the flat fees people pay to use them, they move from a system where the rich are obliged to help the poor to a system where the less well-off enable services that the rich get for what is, to them, a trifling sum. The commodity that makes water and power cables and airports valuable to an investor, foreign or otherwise, is the people who have no choice but to use them. We have no choice but to pay the price the toll-keepers charge. We are a human revenue stream; we are being made tenants in our own land, defined by the string of private fees we pay to exist here.

It is not racism that makes the foreign identity of some of the owners of our privatised infrastructure objectionable. It’s the selling of taxation powers to foreign governments over whom we have even less democratic control than our own. It is the hypocrisy, in particular, of a party that claims to loathe nothing more than communism and totalitarianism obliging Londoners to pay a tithe to the Chinese government just for turning on the tap.

Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else is published next month by Verso.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/22/sale-of-century-privatisation-scam

Ethnic Inequalities in Malaysia remain after 57 Years of Independence


August 27, 2014

Ethnic Inequalities in Malaysia remain after 57 Years of Independence

by Jenni Dixon (received via e-mail)

Mahathir and his wards

Ethnicity has played a major role in Malaysian political and economic policy since the inception of the federation in 1963. The launching of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971, with the primary aim of promoting economic growth, with particular emphasis on exports, had another important objective: to promote unity and harmony in one of the most ethnically diverse of nations.

The laudable idealism of the project, which attempted to raise incomes and reduce unemployment in all ethnic groups, to reduce poverty and create a restructured society in which race played no part may have kept ethnic differences, prejudices and jealousies at bay while the country prospered, but the simmering tensions below the surface of society were bound to boil over as the country’s economy began to decline.

However, while many observers do accept that the NEP reduced overall poverty, it has to be said that it was only partially successful in achieving its goals. The policy of Bumiputera, which gives preferential treatment to the Malay ethnic majority, has gone some way towards reducing disparities in income and wealth, but has sharpened the rift between Malays and the other main ethnic groups, the Chinese and Indians. New policies following on from the NEP after 1990 have adhered to its philosophy of affirmative action. These have targeted education, employment and the development of new enterprises.

Programmes aimed at halting the decline of standards in primary and secondary education, increasing the manufacturing base and stimulating regional development have benefited some sectors of the urban population while neglecting the problems of the Malay rural and urban poor. While the reality of Malaysia’s social problems may be seen more clearly from a perspective of class, as a division between rich and poor, the country’s more visible ethnic differences colour much political analysis so that the division between the Malay/Muslim sector and the rest of the population has perhaps been allowed to dominate more than it should.

Playing the percentages

In 1971, over 66% of the Malaysian corporate sector was foreign-owned, while the indigenous Bumiputera, who made up 60% of the population, owned only around 2%. The NEP target was to increase Bumiputera holdings to 30%, that of other Malaysians to 40%, and reduce foreign holdings to 40% by 1990. The outcome was disadvantageous to the Bumiputera, who increased their holdings to only 20.4%, while the other Malaysians, mainly Chinese, benefited most with a rise to 46.8% that exceeded expectations, against a decline of foreign holdings to 25.1%. However, a booming economy during the 1990s and the early years of the 21st century ensured that all sectors increased the value of their holdings, which went some way to disguising ethnic resentments.

The current slowdown in the economy has only deepened the distrust between Chinese and Malays. Prime Minister Najib Razak has appeared to ignore these rising ethnic tensions in favour of strengthening his Malay support base. For several years he had been pressing for a review of Bumiputera policy. His recent close election victory, with his ruling National Front coalition winning a majority in the lower house with only 47% of the popular vote, compared to the 51% who voted for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, has put into sharp relief his lack of support among the ethnic Chinese, causing him to consider the benefits of pursuing policies favourable to the ethnic Malays. Indeed, in the autumn of 2013, he announced a new low-price housing policy aimed only at Malays.

Prejudices and disadvantages

Over the decades since 1970, when Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamed delineated the controversial ‘Malay Dilemma’, which helped to create the political climate for the instigation of the NEP, political rhetoric has only accentuated the fallacious negative image of Malays as struggling to overcome their ethnic inferiority. For those who want to believe these prejudices, Bumiputera policies that introduced quotas for education, scholarships and business contracts only seemed to confirm their validity. The false logic of this argument says that because Malays needed help in these areas, they were clearly lazy, uneducated and lacking in the business acumen for which the Chinese and Indians were renowned. Malays happen to make up the majority of the rural population, where there is a lower per capita income and more people live in poverty.

Social problems associated with poverty are necessarily more common among Malays; for example, the percentage of people needing help for drug abuse is far higher for Malays, which in 2008 was 74.97% against 12.61% for Chinese and 9.75% for Indians, and drug rehabilitation programmes show a recidivism rate of over 50%. On Anti-Drug day 2014 Prime Minister Najib Razak urged Malaysian families to do everything in their power to prevent their children becoming prey to drug addiction. These sorts of problems associated with poverty are better remedied in this way, in giving general encouragement and advice and relieving poverty than targeting a particular ethnic group.

New Bumiputera policies

In March 2014, Prime Minister Najib Razak launched the new Bumiputera Business Expansion Fund worth RM200 million, which is designed to help Bumiputera technology companies to expand internationally. These will be flexible loans offered without the need for collateral with a generous payment period of six years, beginning two years after the beginning of the loan. Another RM25 million has been given to the Bumiputera Agenda Steering Unit, to be managed by the Malaysian Technology Development Corporation, and a further RM1.4 billion in Facilitation Fund Grants had already been approved for Bumiputera companies to develop 132 projects, creating about 23,000 new local jobs. The Prime Minister said that the loans were aimed at businesses in the cutting edge of a wide range of technological industries, and stressed that each proposed project must have a clear prospect of profitability and expansion.

The downside of Bumiputera is that while it is an attempt to stimulate the economy by preferential loans, it also by definition ignores other important sectors of the population. It has caused many Chinese Malaysians to emigrate as well as put off Chinese nationals from coming to study in Malaysia. The signs of a new ‘Malay Dilemma’ are already there to see, which may not be easy to remedy. In Kuala Lumpur, for example, preferential treatment is given to Malays for jobs and University places, and Malay shop owners and restaurateurs enjoy lower rents and ease of access to premises. Chinese resentment over these inequalities has created increased ethnic tension.

Sources

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Malaysias-ethnic-tensions-rise-as-its-economy-declines

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/06/21/nep-the-good-and-the-bad/

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/06/21/nep-the-good-and-the-bad/

http://www.academia.edu/531386/Rethinking_the_Malay_Problem_in_Singapore_Image_Rhetoric_and_Social_Realities

https://my.news.yahoo.com/najib-announces-rm200-million-bumiputera-business-expansion-fund-112631364.html

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/02/19/PM-urges-families-to-unite-against-drug-abuse-Establish-a-happy-and-trusting-home-environment-says-N/

http://hornbillunleashed.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/50340/

http://www.malaysia-today.net/how-to-criticize-bumiputera-policies-101/

Symmetrical characters, parallel fates


August 19, 2014

Symmetrical characters, parallel fates

COMMENT by Terence Netto@www.malaysiakini.com

Men of destiny seek proof of their greatness by exercising a license to go too far, and as the fear grows that destiny may have played a terrible joke on them, they double and redouble the stakes on the wheel of fortune. In this way they destroy themselves.-Terence Netto

hype_najib1Now that the cat has sprung out of the bag and is dashing about among a wider public, the only news would be if anyone has died of shock from the revelation that Dr Mahathir Mohamad has withdrawn support for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

After months of premonitory sniping at the Premier by his satraps, notably A Kadir Jasin and Zainuddin Maidin, the man himself has come out in the open with a formal declaration of hostilities. There is no more cogent example of déjà vu nor self-parody than the producer himself reiterating he is about to re-start a familiar business – the demolition of a sitting PM.

A fortuitous benefit of this incipient extravaganza – to the federal opposition, Pakatan Rakyat – has been the confirmation that their self-destructive shenanigans in Selangor have furnished the opportunity to the premier demolisher of incumbent PMs to fix on this as the most opportune time for the unleashing of his decanal decapitation of national head honchos, not to mention a few deputies as well.

The wonder is that anyone at all, at this advanced juncture of their career trajectories, could be surprised at how the two protagonists, one of the drama about to start and the other of an already running one in Selangor, confirm a truism of classical Greece – that character is fate.

Character here is taken to mean the way in which a person confronts the things that happen to him, a number of which may come about as a consequence of his characteristic behavior. Fate is the sum of the decisive things that happen to a person, whether as a result of his characteristic behavior, or fortuitously, at the behest of some transcendent power.

That the characters of Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim have fed off each other is by now a staple of Malaysia’s modern history. Malaysians are beginning to realise that the one’s career could not have been possible without the other and vice versa.

Truly, the reformasi movement would not have been catalyzed into something urgent and insistent without what Mahathir did to Anwar in September 1998 and how the latter reacted to the events.

Before September 1998, the movement was an inchoate yearning; after Anwar’s jailing and obloquy, reform became a national agenda. Mahathir would not have been able to prolong his tenancy of the PM’s office – 22 long years – without Anwar’s lieutenancy for 16 years of that tenure.

Certainly, the accretion of power to the office of the PM and UMNO President could not have taken place without Anwar’s tacit support, as heir presumptive to Mahathir.

The long running drama of their interaction since they first met in 1971 and their influence on the life of this nation over the last four decades is so pivotal that our history itself becomes confused with their own biographies which goes to illustrate historian Thomas Carlyle’s theory that humanity advances by means of these demi-gods or ‘heroes’.

Succumbing to the danger of self parody

But as the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson cautioned: “Every hero becomes a bore at last”: the two are presently in danger of inducing a yawn in arenas they once bestrode as giants. If it happens it would be due to their succumbing to the danger of self-parody each is tempted to flirt with, Mahathir more so.

Tun Dr. MahathirMen of destiny seek proof of their greatness by exercising a license to go too far, and as the fear grows that destiny may have played a terrible joke on them, they double and redouble the stakes on the wheel of fortune. In this way they destroy themselves.

By claiming at the commencement of his unseat Najib campaign, after the fashion of Brutus, that it is not because he loves his leaders less but that he loves the people and country more, Mahathir is parodying what Anuar Musa, then a young delegate from Kelantan to the UMNO general assembly in 1983, who quoted from the Shakespearean play Julius Caesar the words Brutus used before stabbing Caesar. The Roman emperor was surprised that a friend like Brutus could be part of squad of assassins with regicide in mind.

Anuar cited the quotation in the course of rhetorical flights faintly critical of Mahathir’s leadership of UMNO. Mahathir’s response was characteristically brusque. “Brutus stabbed Caesar” he reminded the UMNO delegates. In other words, back-stabbers are back-stabbers, their lofty motives notwithstanding.

If Mahathir unseats Najib, the wheel would have come full circle in his career: he began his ascent to the top of the greasy pole by destroying one UMNO President (Tunku Abdul Rahman) and is set to end his career by destroying the son of the man (Abdul Razak Hussein) who gave him the chance to rise after a display of Oedipal rage against the Tunku.

If PKR allows Anwar to convert the party into his personal fiefdom, his thrust to the top of the totem pole that began with his rebellion against nepotism, cronyism and corruption in 1998 would flirt with what could well be a fatal contradiction. Not for the first time in history would pivotal allies-turned-adversaries have symmetrical characters/parallel fates.