How the Market Is Betraying Advanced Economies

April 16,2016

Apr 9, 2019 Diane Coyle

As lifestyles in the world’s developing economies improve drastically, many in the advanced economies are seeing their well being deteriorate – a trend that automation will only exacerbate. Without fundamental change in the framework of public policymaking, it is difficult to imagine a prosperous future in these societies.

 

CAMBRIDGE – Despite ever-improving conditions for millions of people around the world – documented by entities like the University of Oxford’s Our World in Data and highlighted by scholars like Steven Pinker – popular discontent is on the rise in many places. The reason is simple: whereas the first trend is being driven by low- and middle-income countries, the second is concentrated in high-income countries.

Apr 9, 2019 Joseph E. Stiglitz thinks it’s his attacks on the truth-seeking institutions that underpin economic prosperity.

Throughout the developed world, conditions for many workers are deteriorating, with no recovery in sight. Income inequality is near historic highs, wealth inequality is even higher, and economic insecurity is widespread.As the United Kingdom tears itself apart politically and constitutionally over Brexit, many of its citizens struggle with low-quality jobs, inadequate housing, and poverty so severe that they rely on food banks. France’s Yellow Vest protests have been hijacked by violent extremists, but they reflect real grievances about the growing challenge of maintaining living standards. In the United States, the Economic Report of the President touts the supposed elimination of poverty, but life expectancy does not decline in a prosperous country.In short, the post-World War II social contract in many of today’s developed economies is breaking down. And even more uncertainty and insecurity are on the way, as new technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics take root.Though the pace and scope of the next wave of automation is impossible to predict with precision, the impact will be profound. Like other digital technologies, AI and robotics will boost the value of some skills while reducing the value of others. And, by reinforcing social biases, extensive algorithmic decision-making risks amplifying existing inequalities further.It is impossible to uninvent technology. But we should not fall into the trap of technological determinism. The forces that drive structural economic change are always refracted through policy decisions, which can help ensure that technological innovations contribute to a more prosperous future.

Given the depth of the transformation ahead, however, it is not just the policies themselves that must change, but the very framework on which they are based. This means abandoning the idea – which has shaped public policy for more than a generation – that the “market” must be the organizing principle for collective decision-making.

The market, in this sense, is an abstraction – one that has little to do with actual markets, which are social institutions as varied and multitudinous as Leo Tolstoy’s unhappy families. It embodies the assumption that, overall, we secure the best economic outcomes if producers compete to respond to the desires of individual consumers (in line with their purchasing power). And its performance is measured according to the number of contemporaneous exchanges taking place.This is unlikely to be the best metric. For one thing, it does not account for the depreciation of assets, from houses in California destroyed by wildfires to insect species at risk of extinction. It also fails to account for the fact that a growing proportion of exchanges in the digital economy involve “public goods,” consumption of which is non-rivalrous (the good can be shared by any number of people without being depleted).But there is an even more fundamental problem with assessing an economy’s welfare according to the satisfaction of individual choices. As the late William Baumol pointed out, if you assume that economic agents are independent, you will conclude that independent choices maximize their well being. This is circular reasoning.In fact, economic agents are not as independent as the conventional wisdom would have us believe. People’s consumption preferences are not discovered through introspection and then upheld permanently; they are shaped socially and change over time. In the age of social media “influencers,” this may be truer than ever, with turbocharged network effects amplifying the impact of one individual’s choices on others.Likewise, in production, there is far-reaching potential for economies of scope and scale – potential that grows even larger in high-tech domains. This means that one firm’s production decisions affect production by others in the same market.The conceptual underpinnings of policymaking need to be updated to reflect this economic reality. For starters, governments need to recognize that their decisions shape the structure of production, and develop strategies to support particular strengths in production (through innovation policies or procurement frameworks) or to address weaknesses (in areas such as skills). Economists like Dani Rodrik and Justin Yifu Lin have led the way in proposing ways to think about modern industrial strategy.Governments must also improve the opportunities available to those left behind in today’s fast-changing economy. This means ensuring that all citizens have access to quality public education, public transportation and broadband infrastructure, adequate health care, and decent housing. Such basic services are more important than income subsidies, because they are public goods, which the market – where decisions are made by aggregating individual demand – will not provide.The organization of millions of interdependent individuals in a technologically complex society will always be difficult to manage. With productivity flat-lining and public anger growing, it is clear that existing policies are not up to the challenge. Without a new approach, it is difficult to imagine a prosperous future for Western societies.

Apr 9, 2019 Diane Coyle

7 Commentaries

Diane Coyle is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge.

 

• B Wilds  Apr 14, 2019

  We must recognize the natural progression that takes place as an economy matures. A failure to recognize this economic transition and reflect upon the natural progression of society ushers in conflicts and even war as politicians wrangle to produce the ever-growing growth demanded by a majority of voters.

  The idea that the way to grow is to increase our population is flawed. Simply adding mouths to feed and efforts to merely add new workers to replace those retiring creates additional demand but is flawed and shortsighted because it ignores the problem of exploding population growth across the world. More on this subject in the article below.

  http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/10/economic-transition-reflection-upon.html

  Read More

 

• WmC Mantis  Apr 14, 2019

  Is Diane Coyle trying to tell us that economic policymakers should be doing more to ensure a continually rising mean household quality of life? If so, she could have done it in fewer words.

• Elizabeth Pula  Apr 11, 2019

 

Is this alternative NEW option really not new at all, but “indentured servitude” reserved for the 21st century?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/college-grads-sell-stakes-in-themselves-to-wall-street

Read More

• Andrew Benington  Apr 11, 2019

  Voters will determine the policy response to growing automation, capital and income concentration. Voters love something for nothing. The difficulty for policy makers is having set course on the abandonment of home ownership by the majority, they now find themselves in that awkward moment between declining home ownership and growing numbers of tenants, between promoting house price inflation and promoting rent control, secure tenancies, secure employment, higher and ever rising take home income.

  Read More

• Elizabeth Pula  Apr 11, 2019

 

“situational awareness”- perspective varies depending on your position- the state VS the citizen or state the result of social contract between and amongst citizens.

https://graphics.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/Interactives/2017/08/can-you-spot-yourself-in-the-national-day-parade/index.html

Read More

• Elizabeth Pula  Apr 11, 2019

  There are “other” issues that are developing in Advanced Economies, that may bear some very unforeseen consequences due to the possibilities in, and of the marketplace. There are many implications due to market betrayal, that could be very serious on the humanity level, that interplay with the AI issues, as mentioned in this link:
  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613277/chinese-scientists-have-put-human-brain-genes-in-monkeysand-yes-they-may-be-smarter/

  Read More

 

• Elizabeth Pula  Apr 11, 2019

  AI is an extremely complex aspect of the “market abstraction”. Individual understanding of “situational awareness” for, and by everyone will become increasingly critical to maintain “social contracts” and more critically, individual psychologically intact personal, individual identities.

  PERSPECTIVE: AI Is Changing the Game for Situational Awareness

  04/11/2019

  Read More

• Robert Bruce  Apr 10, 2019

  There is no doubt that basic services, paid for by public funding, are an essential investment for all social and economic progress. And nowhere has the lack of investment been more apparent than in housing, where the market incentive actually works to restrict the supply of affordable housing, and push prices up.

  However, that does not mean that we should be forced into an artificial choice between income subsidies and basic services – a healthy market economy needs both. Markets can only meet the essential needs of consumers, if they have the income necessary to purchase them. Without a stable income, citizens lose any agency in a market economy. As growth of the digital economy accelerates economies of scale, our economy is polarising into big centralised winners (like Amazon and Google) and many more localised losers (like retail workers and local journalists). As a result, we are starting to see whole communities and regions go into decline as their real incomes stagnate.

  Politicians can only offer ideologies of the 20th century. The right want power over jobs to rest entirely with the markets – private banks and business owners, creating a race to the bottom. Meanwhile the left want the government to control our lives – with promises of job guarantee, planned and provided for by the state. But there is another alternative. Basic Income gives power and agency to individual citizens and communites to shape their own future. It is a solution that creates local markets where consumers have both money and time to spend as they choose, and can work in cooperation to meet each others needs. This is why UBI is so much more than just an income supplement. It is a whole new way to imagine a market economy that works for everyone, and not just for the winners in “The Global Race”.

 

• Paul Friesen  Apr 12, 2019

  I agree that a basic income is one way to solve the problem of the declining need for human labour. But I think there is a better way. That is a negative income tax – an income tax that turns into an income subsidy for those with low income.

  Any such scheme needs to be paid for with taxes, and the tax rate required to run a negative income tax would be lower, because there are no payments to the wealthy, and other payments would be lower. The end result would be the same – a fairer income distribution.

  Read More

 

• vivek iyer  Apr 10, 2019

  Diane Coyle says that Economics is a worthless discipline. We agree. But, she is herself an economist. The Government employs Economists. But because economists are stupid, the Govt. makes worse decisions than any one else.

  The ‘framework of public policy making’ is sheer idiocy. All that happens is that some private sector company, which wants a padded contract for robbing the exchequer and delivering a terrible service to the public, lobbies the Govt. using some fashionable Davos speak and, though nobody is fooled, the taxpayer nevertheless takes a hit.

  It is difficult to imagine a prosperous future for kids born to poor people who will themselves have kids before they are well settled. It is easy to imagine a prosperous future for kids born to successful people who are saving money to set them up in life- perhaps in a different country with lower taxes and more opportunities.

  On the other hand, I do agree with the learned Professor regarding insect species. They are under represented not just in Parliament but also in the Media. For this reason, many are becoming disheartened and going extinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messag

 Cancel

Please select a

 

 

First Name

Last Name

 

 

Please provide more details about your request

Cancel

1. Putin’s Art of the Purge

   

   Putin’s Art of the Purge

   Apr 15, 2019 Andrei Kolesnikov predicts that the recent arrests of former government ministers will have a chilling effect on Russia’s elites.

   0 Add to Bookmarks
2. Will Free Trade Make Africans Sick?

   

   Will Free Trade Make Africans Sick?

   Apr 15, 2019 Walter Ochieng urges governments to address the health risks stemming from the continent’s increasing openness.

   0 Add to Bookmarks
3. How to Tax a Multinational

   

   How to Tax a Multinational

   Apr 15, 2019 Jayati Ghosh argues that a single corporate-tax rate on firms’ global profits would benefit developing and developed countries alike.

   3 Add to Bookmarks
4. Our Zero-Emission Future

   

   Our Zero-Emission Future

   Apr 15, 2019 Jeffrey D. Sachs describes how the world’s energy and food systems can – and must – be transformed by mid-century.

   2 Add to Bookmarks
5. The Roots of Right-Wing Dominance in Israel

   

   The Roots of Right-Wing Dominance in Israel

   Apr 15, 2019 Shlomo Avineri points to several structural factors, not least the cumulative impact of profound demographic change.

   2 Add to Bookmarks
6. The Brexit Impossibility Triangle

   

   The Brexit Impossibility Triangle

   Apr 12, 2019 Emily Jones & Calum Miller provide a definitive outline of the tradeoffs involved in any scenario for a post-European United Kingdom.

   13 Add to Bookmarks
7. The Rising Cost of Strongman Rule in Cambodia

   

   The Rising Cost of Strongman Rule in Cambodia

   Apr 12, 2019 Sam Rainsy warns that Prime Minister Hun Sen’s repression of workers and opponents risks hobbling the economy.

   1 Add to Bookmarks
8. Closing Europe’s Confidence Gap

   

   Closing Europe’s Confidence Gap

   Apr 12, 2019 Ana Palacio asks what can sustain the European project now that peace and prosperity are no longer enough.

   2 Add to Bookmarks

• On Point
• Sections
• Big Picture

• Videos
• Podcasts

• Columnists
• Archive

Get our weekly newsletter

• Donate
• Magazine
• Subscribe
• The PS Store

• About Us
• Careers
• Contact

• Syndication
• Submission policy

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Youtube
• LinkedIn
• G+

© Project Syndicate – 2019 | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Cookie Policy

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and p

Who understands our times, Bernie or The Donald?

April 13, 2019

by Fareed Zakaria.com

https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2019/4/11/who-understands-our-times-bernie-or-the-donald

There are many explanations for Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory in this week’s election that have to do with Israel’s particular situation — its economic boom, stable security climate and the prime minister’s political talent. But he is also part of a much larger phenomenon: the continued strength of populist nationalism around the world — and the continued inability of left-of-center parties to respond to it.

 

The case for populist nationalism goes something like this. It’s a nasty world out there. People are trying to take our jobs, undermine our security, move into our country. The cosmopolitan urban elites don’t care; they benefit from these forces. So we need a tough guy who will stand up for the nation and against the liberals in our midst.

In some variant or another, this is the argument made by Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Jair Bolsonaro, the Brexiteers — and, of course, President Trump.

In 1972, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote that nationalism “expresses the inflamed desire of the insufficiently regarded to count for something among the cultures of the world.” He placed the roots of modern nationalism in Germany, a country obsessed with finding its place in the sun. But the sentiment — a kind of victim mentality — can be found in almost all modern variations, even among rich and powerful nations.

Look at Putin’s claim that Russia has been pushed around by the West since the Cold War, the Chinese obsession with their humiliation since the opium wars, the Israeli right’s complaint that the world is biased against Israel and Trump’s constant refrain that all foreigners — from Mexicans to Chinese to Europeans — take advantage of the United States. These leaders promise to rectify the situation and restore their countries’ proper standing in the world.

Trump’s embrace of the word “nationalism” illustrates the simultaneous attacks on domestic elites (with their politically correct language) and on perfidious foreigners. “We’re not supposed to use that word,” Trump said in October. “You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word.”

When asked the next day what he meant by the term, Trump responded, “I love our country. And our country has taken second fiddle. . . . We’re giving all of our wealth, all of our money, to other countries. And then they don’t treat us properly.”

Netanyahu, for his part, has long argued that Israel deserves a much better “place among the nations,” a phrase that was the title of his 1993 book that argued for a robust Israeli nationalism that is aggressive and unapologetic. Though Israel’s strength and security have grown immeasurably, as its historical enemies — Saudi Arabia and Syria, among others — have either become buddies or basket cases, the argument that the world is against it has somehow persisted.

In fact, despite the pose of victim hood adopted by most of these populists, nationalism is probably the most widely held ideology in the world today. Which American politician today does not speak up for the United States? The real debate is whether nationalism should be informed and influenced by other values such as liberty and equality and, if these two sets of values conflict, which one should be preferred. That’s why the most ardent capitalists — from Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman — have always been in favor of globalization and economic freedom above nationalist protections and controls.

The danger for liberals is that they underestimate the power of these raw, emotional appeals. For centuries, liberals have assumed that nationalism was a kind of irrational attachment that would grow weaker as people became more rational, connected and worldly. In fact, Berlin wrote, like a twig that is bent in one direction and has to snap back, as globalization grew in its reach, nationalism would be the predictable backlash.

Populist nationalists understand the core appeal of their ideology. I recently asked a Bolsonaro supporter whether the Brazilian president’s economic policies (which are free-market-oriented and reformist) or his cultural nationalism was the key to his appeal. The supporter’s answer: Nationalism is the party’s core; the economics is simply about efficiency and growth.

Meanwhile, liberals in the United States still don’t seem to get it. The Democratic Party continues to think the solution to its woes is to keep moving leftward economically. This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) revealed his new Medicare-for-all plan, which was immediately co-sponsored by four other presidential candidates. The plan will probably require an additional $2 trillion to $3 trillion in annual tax revenue.At the same time, Trump tweets about the Democrats’ love of “open borders” and insists he will protect the country and enforce its laws. What if Trump understands the mood of our times better than Sanders?

(c) 2019, Washington Post Writers Group

 

Long live the Rome Statute! Long live idiocy?

April 10, 2019

Opinion  |  Azly Rahman

Published: 7 Apr 2019, 10:11 am  |  Modified: 7 Apr 2019, 10:11 am

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/471215

 

COMMENT | Long live the Rome Statute! Long live Idiocy! What kind of government and society shall we be? From a cashless society we want to be a moral-less society, in a world plagued with genocide and the disease of violent ideologies.

The Pakatan Harapan government’s U-turns on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racism and Discrimination (ICERD) and now the Rome Statute signify our entry in our own Age of Mass Ignorance. If opposing war, genocide, crimes against humanity is opposed, we have a government that needs to be deposed.

Rome Statute as peace document

In Malaysia, will all the rallies against Israeli atrocities, Rohingya massacres, & bombing of churches & mosques be banned? Seems that the more we want to have flying cars and a cashless society, the more we show ignorance on issues of war, aggression, and global morality.

The Rome Statute is about stopping the rise of global fascism. What part of it does this PH government not understand? So shallow is our education system’s curriculum on race relations and global issues this idiocy on Rome Statute needs to be exposed?

From a self-proclaimed Asian tiger roaring in the UN condemning aggression, we have become a country mouse dying of ignorance of crimes against humanity. Most ridiculous arguments on “threatening Malay rights” are used to justify the defence of our ignorance on global issues!

They say ignorance is bliss. In Malaysia, on the Rome Statute issue, ignorance is blessed. Will our diplomats now abstain from voting on global aggressions, in order to respect the rights of kampong warriors? Insane!

In matters of universal human rights and global peace, no race or nation should be stupefied by its own leaders and rulers. What are we teaching our children? That it’s OK to discriminate and to condone war crimes? I thought the “lawmakers” in the PH government are more globally conscious? Are they falling now into a deep state of unconsciousness?

Resist mass idiocy

Committing to the principles of justice vis-a-viz international human rights in regards to the ICERD, the violation of human rights in Malaysia as in the recent missing person cases, and to the Rome Statute, is a no brainer.

The most ridiculous logic we hear is that if you oppose war crimes, enforced disappearances, aggression, and genocide, your power as a national government will be challenged, and that the bangsa, agama, and negara will be in danger.

There are principles crafted by the UN that are universal. There are those that are culturally-relative. But not the ICERD nor the Rome Statute. These are human principles that are meant to have us evolve into peaceful global citizens, by condemning mass murder and genocide.

Bebalism or incurable idiocy is what’s governing the new consciousness when it comes to speaking up against human rights injustices. Why is Pakatan Harapan losing the very principles that attracted people to vote for them? Insincerity? Hypocrisy? Idiocy?

As one who has been teaching global issues for years, it will be embarrassing to tell my students how idiotic Malaysia is. O’ Malays, revolt against any attempt by your leaders who attempt to spread ignorance and fear through issues of race and religion.

Hitler mounted ridiculous arguments on race, crafting falsehood to turn it into truth, creating fascism, committing war crimes. Kingdoms that survive on the power of ignorance cannot last long, in an age wherein power and wealth are challenged and eventually get destroyed.

The PH government seems to be surrendering to those wishing to see chaos take root. Did the people vote for cowardice? It has been my argument that education must address issues of polarization, class-based poverty, ecological destruction, and religious extremism.

Utterly shameful and gutless it is for a country claiming to be progressive and a promoter of regional peace, and advocating the global principle of “prosper thy neighbor”. What does opposing genocide, enforced disappearances, aggression, and war got to do with challenging “agama, bangsa, negara?” Are we going mad now?

A few leaders of the Pakatan said that those who criticized the prime minster and the PH government for pulling out of the Rome Statute are cowards who cannot be trusted. How is that logical?

Is the withdrawal due to confusion? Or cowardice? Why allow the tantrum of one man to deny the expression of the people of a nation? It is a basic expression of opposing violence as a global community, aspiring to be cosmopolitan citizens rather than trapped in the prison-nation-state of communalism, post-industrialism, ghetto-ism, and kampong-ism, is it not?

What must we do for the next generation to get out of this intellectual quagmire and the structuring of mass bebalisma?

We must turn to education as the only means for a sustainable personal, social, and cultural progress. Governments, monarchy, and those in power via whatever ideology come and go. But education should set us free.

Not the illusion of knowledge and wisdom. Not the installing of fear. These will not. They will turn the masses into people who continue to support leaders who are now on trial for corruption.

Educate for peace

Students need to be taught how to develop critical thinking and apply those skills in evaluating international systems, environmental issues, and human rights. We need to help them demonstrate the global dimensions of crucial contemporary issues, so that they could develop relational and rational thinking on how to study and think about global problems and relationships of war and conflict and how to address them and find peaceful solutions.

The urgent educational agenda is also to focus on global issues and how human rights, political-economy, ecological destruction, issues of power, wealth, powerlessness are all inter-related contributors to war and peace.

Students need to be taught to recognize the interdependence of the individual and the community in creating the challenges and opportunities in a global society through the examination of sustainability, human rights and peace and conflict. This is necessary so that when they become leaders and rulers, they will not be ridiculous, and not become people with money and power, but with no soul and morals.

Right now, this government is beginning to be a huge mess, unable to stand for the very basic principles of human rights, bowing down to some ridiculous tantrum not worth entertaining. What in the name of global sanity did Malaysians vote for?

---

AZLY RAHMAN is an educator, academic, international columnist, and author of seven books available here. He holds a doctorate in international education development and Master’s degrees in six areas: education, international affairs, peace studies communication, fiction and non-fiction writing. He is a member of the Kappa Delta Pi International Honour Society in Education. Twitter @azlyrahman. More writings here.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

 

The real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

April 11, 2019

What are the real reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute

Opinion  |  P Gunasegaram

Published: Today 6:41 am  |  Modified: Today 6:41 am

 

QUESTION TIME | I am not confused at all – not one little tiny bit – about the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But I am utterly confused about the reason why Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said the cabinet won’t ratify the statute – the people are confused about it.

I don’t for a moment think the Malaysian people as a group are stupid – if they were, Najib Abdul Razak would still be prime minister and strutting around going about his business of running the government and stealing when the opportunity arises, while Mahathir remained in opposition.

Let’s not insult the Malaysian people – the bumiputera (including the Malays), Chinese, Indians and everybody else who collectively booted out the previous government. Yes, yes, I know, this government does not have the majority support of the Malays.

But remember, most Malays voted for the opposition in GE14, which included Harapan and PAS. And remember too, neither UMNO nor PAS had the majority Malay support. But the majority of Malays wanted UMNO out. That counts for more.

Back to the Rome Statute, what is there to be confused about? This is what the Rome Statute, an international agreement among nations and states on the setting up of an international court to try certain categories of criminals, states:

“The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression.”

It goes on to state what these kinds of crime are. Only when these acts are committed would the Rome Statute kick in for any country which has ratified the statute. There is no question that members of the monarchy will not be affected by state actions as Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy.

Unless members of the Royalty commit the acts themselves, they will not be affected.

This is the position of the government and of constitutional experts, such as Shad Saleem Faruqi who dismissed fears of ratification thus: “These fears are absolutely unfounded and bereft of logic, and appear to be based on advice that is motivated by politics, not law, emotion, not reason. The advice misleads Their Majesties and paints Their Royal Highnesses in a bad light.”

It appears that the fears of the royalty over the ratification may have resulted from a paper which was presented to them by some academics. But why would the rulers just rely on such narrow advice and not engage the government and other experts?

However, Mahathir talked about a plan using the royalty to overthrow him – but he was not clear about where and how that would be carried out.

Uncharacteristically, despite agreeing that there was nothing wrong in ratifying the Rome Statute, Mahathir announced a withdrawal from the earlier commitment.

“The whole idea is to get royalty in Malaysia to go against the government. That is the motive. Because of that conclusion, we have made a decision not to recognise (the Rome Statute). We have ratified it, but still have time to withdraw. It is not because it is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised,” he said.

Why not just explain the situation and ratify it anyway?

A full transcript of Mahathir’s press conference reveals his thinking in respect of this. Here are extracts: “But having said all that against the Statute of Rome, we understand that this is a political move. A political move to get the rulers to back them up.

“Of course, some members of the royal family also may be involved, but the whole idea is to get the Royalty in Malaysia to go against this government. That is the motive.

“But because of this confusion, and the confusion also among the rulers, we have made a decision that we will not recognise the Statute of Rome. We have ratified it, but we still have time to withdraw, and we will withdraw.

“Not because the Statute of Rome is harmful to us, but because of the political confusion raised by some people, including some people who have some political ambition. We know this.

“Jadi kita punya keputusan kabinet this morning is that we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome kerana confusion, bukan kerana we believe it is going to be bad for us, but because of the confusion created by one particular person who wants to be free to beat up people and things like that. And if he beats up people again, I will send the police to arrest him, I don’t care who he is.”

The last paragraph is an oblique reference to members of the royalty who may have been involved in violent acts in the past. He continues:

“So, while we will withdraw our ratification of the Statute of Rome, it is not because we think it is harmful to our country, but it is because of the politics of this country where sometimes people are easily misled by emotional feelings, that what we are doing is against our own interest.

“So that is the true reason I have to explain to you.

“And I would like to say this of these cowards, who during the last regime saw Najib stealing money, doing all kinds of things, and they said nothing. There were a lot of cowards who want to benefit from Najib’s misrule so that they also can benefit.

“I am saying this directly at them. Who they are, you can guess. But that is the reason why they were silent then, but sekarang ni wah bukan main lagi jaguh nak pertahankan hak orang Melayu, kononnya.”

 

OK, understood. There was a plan to overthrow Mahathir and to get the royalty behind that plan using the ratification of the Rome Statute. But who was behind this plan? How far advanced was it? And how were they were going to do it? The public deserves to know the answers to determine what were the threats to democracy and how serious they were.

Why succumb to these pressures like this? Surely that will embolden them and make them even more demanding in future and try to confuse the public even more.

The best thing to have done is to convince the public by clear argument why there is nothing wrong with endorsing the Rome Statute and then go ahead and ratify it, even if the royalty objects.

The government and the larger public cannot be held to ransom by the dark side or the deep state, whatever that may be. Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had talked about a vague deep state which may overthrow a democratically-elected government through undemocratic means, implying a coup.

This is a very serious allegation. It is incumbent upon this government to get to the root of the matter and establish if there is any such move to overthrow the government and bring the perpetrators to book. We are talking about treason here, nothing else.

If no such evidence is forthcoming, then members of the government should stop such fear-mongering and go on about the business of running the country efficiently, honestly and with regard to all citizens, keeping as much as possible the promises they made during the last election campaign.

I fail to see how the withdrawal of the commitment given to the Rome Statute will stop those who want to overthrow the country through unconstitutional means. It will only give them greater courage to continue doing what they are doing.

I still do not understand the reasons for the Harapan government abandoning the Rome Statute. I suspect a lot of us don’t.

P GUNASEGARAM says when things are not what they seem, something else is happening somewhere else.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

On legal immigration, Trump might be right

April 7, 2019

by Dr . Fareed Zakaria

https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2019/4/4/on-legal-immigration-trump-might-be-right

 

President Trump’s threat to close the U.S.-Mexico border has confused even his allies. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said it “would be bad for everybody.” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) remarked, “I’m not sure that’s a particularly good idea, and I’m not sure it gets the desired result.” Most assume the threat is part of the usual Trump style — bravado and bluff — and will eventually get dialed back, and there are already indications that this is happening.

But on the broader issue of legal immigration, Trump seems to be shifting his position. In his State of the Union address in February, he said, “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” Immigration hardliners did not take this well.

The president has since reasserted the idea. The day after the State of the Union, Trump told reporters: “I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in.” And Politico reported this week that Jared Kushner is quietly developing a proposal to increase legal immigration into the United States.

If this is Trump’s new and improved immigration position, the president might find his way to a powerful compromise — real crackdowns on illegal immigration, coupled with reform and actual increases in legal immigration. This also happens to be a smart policy idea.

A recent essay in the journal International Security points out that by 2050, the United States is projected to be the only major world power with an increase in its population . The four authors, all university professors, tie this factor to more dynamic economic growth and also the United States’ continued ability and willingness to play a major military and political role.

The data on other major powers is striking. United Nations projections show that by 2050, China and Russia will have a 20 percent drop in people of working age. Germany’s working-age population will drop by 17 percent, and Japan’s by 29 percent. This will probably translate into slower growth, less economic vitality and greater passivity on the world stage, the report says.

The United States’ working-age numbers are set to rise by 12 percent in the same period. In fact, only three other major developed countries will see increases in their working-age cohort: Australia, Canada and Britain. But all four countries are expected to enjoy this boost only because of immigration. Without immigration, by 2050, the U.S. working-age population would actually shrink by 4.5 percent. Canada’s would plummet by 20 percent.

China, on track to be the greatest economic, political and technological competitor to the United States, faces a demographic challenge that’s even more dire than was previously anticipated. Last year, China’s birth rate fell to its lowest level since 1961, a year of widespread famine. It appears that the Communist regime’s efforts to reverse the nation’s long-standing “one child” policy have not worked. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in January that for China’s population, “the biggest event in the first half of the 21st century is the arrival of negative growth,” according to the South China Morning Post.

Amid all the noise in this country about immigration, it’s easy to forget the big picture. Immigration means a more robust economy. It usually means younger workers, which translates into greater dynamism and more innovation. Most Nobel Prizes are awarded to scientists for work they did when they were young. Most companies are founded by people when they are young. Younger populations are more risk-seeking, adventurous and entrepreneurial.

Despite the rhetoric around it, legal immigration in the United States is actually not that high. Before he became chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Kevin Hassett published a piece in National Review ranking wealthy countries on their ratio of new immigrants to total population in 2010. The United States had the third-lowest figure, higher only than Japan and France. Canada and Germany had more than twice as many new immigrants as a share of the population, and Norway and Switzerland had more than four times.

During the past two decades, many of the United States’ crucial competitive advantages have been copied by the world to the point that other nations do it better — with well-regulated market economics, technological investments, infrastructure, mass education. What does America have left to truly distinguish itself?

Over the past half-century, the United States has handled immigration better than most countries. It takes in people from everywhere, assimilates them better, integrates them into the fabric of society and is able to maintain an environment in which the new immigrants feel as invested as the old. This will be its core competitive advantage in this century.

(c) 2019, Washington Post Writers Group
Washington Post
April 4, 2019

Siti Kasim: An Inconvenient Woman

February 13, 2019

Opinion  |  S. Thayaparan

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/463761

• 

  Our government does not seem to realise that we have a serious terrorist mentality bred with extreme prejudice inside our society, which needs to be eradicated. This is a serious problem today.—Siti Kasim.

“If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

― Abigail Adams, The Letters of John and Abigail Adams

COMMENT | For those of us who view religious extremism, which is reaching critical levels as the existential threat facing this country, Siti Kasim is the raised middle finger to the religious bigots, fascist crypto-Islamists and race supremacists who have control and influence in this country.

Whether fighting for the rights of women, indigenous people, the LGBTQ community or opposing radical Islam, Siti Kasim has made herself a target for the religious bureaucracy and political operatives in the establishment.

While most Muslims who do not support the darker paths of Islam are content to hope for a moderate agenda from the political and religious elite, Siti openly advocates a progressive agenda for all Malaysians.

In this interview, Siti reminds us why people who read are dangerous to the established order of things, and continues in her efforts to save Malaysia from the political and religious class who view her as a real threat to their dominion.

Siti Kasim is an inconvenient reminder that the progressive forces in this country that could save Malaysia are being marginalised, and that speaking truth to power is problematic in these partisan times.

Do you think the persecution you face is based on the fact that you are a woman questioning religious dogma?

Yes, being an outspoken woman does not sit well with the patriarchy culture of radical Islamism. Also, a woman who does not conform to their view on how a Muslim woman should be.

How do you cope with the harassment you receive?

I try to ignore and focus on my causes. Of course, I can’t run away from reading the nasty messages sent to me, but I take it in my stride and believe that what I am doing is right for my country and my fellow Malaysians. The supportive messages I receive give me the strength to continue, and I know I am on the right path. I thank God for giving me a strong constitution to face all the negativity thrown at me.

What do you think is the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) role in the current charges against you?

I am not sure what is the AGC’s role in the current charges against me. (Note: This interview was conducted before the AGC dropped the charges against Siti Kasim for showing her middle finger to hecklers in a forum.) From what’s stated by OCCI Fadzil, he received the endorsement to charge me from the previous AGC. I believe it’s selective persecution against me by certain quarters within the government.

How do you engage with Muslims who believe in the Islamist mode of thinking and believe that sanctions against you are justified?

You have no hope of engaging with them. These are people who are indoctrinated in radical Islamism. The teachings, the mentality of which is no different from that of Talibanism and ISIS terrorists. Only Taliban and ISIS terrorists will sanction others for being different from them. The only difference between them and the Taliban and ISIS is that they have no power or weapons to carry out their threats. When they have those, the country will be torn asunder.

Yet our government does not seem to realise that we have a serious terrorist mentality bred with extreme prejudice inside our society, which needs to be eradicated. This is a serious problem today.

Malay-Muslims are participating in and leading terrorist organisations all around the world. We have groups like Skuad Badar, which is nothing more than a terrorist organisation without weapons terrorising people. We have people like Amri Che Mat and Pastor Koh disappearing in plain daylight and never to be heard again. We should be terrified. Not talking about it is not going to make it go away. We need to tackle it head-on with extreme conviction.

Does being a “liberal” Muslim who appeals to a certain demographic bring with it more problems when engaging in the Islamic discourse?

It should not be. Remember our Rukun Negara has the word ‘liberal’ in it, and it was written by Malay leadership at a time when Malay society needed to progress. In fact, most of the liberal Muslims I know have more knowledge about the Quran than the majority of the Malay population because liberals read more on their own and don’t depend on the cleric class to tell them about their religion.

Do you think that Mujahid Yusof Rawa (photo) is doing enough to offer a counter-narrative in the Islamic discourse in this country?

No. They are still not facing the fact that our religious-bent Malaysian education system is delivering to us every year a more radicalised Islamist generation who are intolerant and increasingly militant in mindset. It is no surprise that PAS is increasing in strength, and UMNO has to be more radical Islamist than before in order to gain Malay votes.

We need to change this mindset by changing education to go back to our secular humanist roots. The roots that made the Malays progressive and more developed in the 80s.

What do you think is the most important issue facing the Orang Asal community in this country and what has the Harapan government done to address this issue?

First, I’d like to correct the usage of Orang Asal and Orang Asli. The ‘Orang Asal’ term is used for Sabah and Sarawak indigenous people, whilst Orang Asli is for those in the peninsula.

The Orang Asli are largely forest or agriculture based, although several individuals have achieved levels of educational and economic success comparable to those of the dominant population.

Nevertheless, it is no hidden secret that the Orang Asli rank among the most marginalised of Malaysians today, not just in terms of numbers, but in their ability to determine their own fate.

The once politically autonomous and independent people are but a pale likeness of their ancestors.

Much of this has to do with the fact that the Malaysian nation state does not recognise the Orang Asli as a separate people – that is, as distinct groups associated with particular territorial bases and requiring ‘government’ on a different basis from that of the other communities.

But, as can be discerned from their demands, the Orang Asli are not, at least not yet, seeking self-determination in the sense that they want to secede from the Malaysian nation-state. Rather, the desire is to exercise full autonomy in their traditional territories, both in the control and ownership of their lands, and in the determination of their way of life and in the way they deal with the dominant society.

The issue of Orang Asli land rights is but the most visible and deeply-felt manifestation of the principal problem facing the Orang Asli viz-a-viz the unwillingness of the state to recognise the Orang Asli as a distinct people.

Using the ‘land rights’ problem as a strategy for Orang Asli political mobilisation is rational because the issue is deeply felt among the communities, easily identifiable, and it is the source of much social stress for the Orang Asli.

With the recent suit which our federal government initiated against the Kelantan state government, it can be seen that the Pakatan Harapan government is attempting to correct the wrongs. We have also seen more Orang Asli senators being appointed when they came into power.

From our engagement with the current government, we can see there is a lot more improvement than before, at least with the current minister in charge of Orang Asli Affairs. We hope the Harapan government will continue with its determination in trying to solve our Orang Asli problems.

Do you believe that Harapan has a moderate Islamic agenda?

They have, but they do not know how to go about it. They do not have the leadership for it. The political will is missing. I will be talking in more detail on this subject in my column soon.

Do you think it is important for non-Muslims to speak up when they witness Islamic transgressions or does this make the situation worse?

Yes. We need them to stand up for fellow Malaysians, and Malays who are being persecuted by the conservative Islamist authorities, to ensure Malaysia will always be the home for their children and grandchildren to live in and prosper. When any public policy is based on any religious ideology, every citizen must have the right to speak up about it.

Is the press doing its part in highlighting Islamic provocations?

No. It has not done enough to highlight and criticise.

Why do think “moderate” Muslims are afraid to speak up?

Just look at the social media comments by their so-called fellow Muslims against anyone who does not conform to them. The amount of vile comments, threats of sanctions, harassment, persecution and even threat of physical harm by the Islamist elements in Malay society are enough to scare away and silence many Muslims.

Do you think the Malay community needs Islamic departments at state and federal levels?

Under ideal conditions, the answer would have been ‘no’, but in our environment we need a federal department that can monitor and revamp radical Islamic teaching that is going on today to abolish them. That should be their job. We don’t need them to do dakwah (proselytisation). No government should be using tax money to propagate any religion.

---

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. A retired barrister-at-law, he is one of the founding members of Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessar