Wait wait wait wait — The Next Generation

Okay, updates not coming at all. What’s the point apologizing, but Thoughtstreak again is on hold, unless you want me to post up a 5000-word long manifesto on my plans for PSSOC. This elections is sapping the life out of me. Back on Friday.

Wait wait wait wait

Okay, its a hectic week. Have been running around places doing things, and I haven’t found time to sit down and write. Its nearly two weeks since the conference and I haven’t barely gone half way documenting the conference. I’ll probably find some time tomorrow night, or the day after. I have plans to analyse a Riz Khan interview on Religion In Malaysia on broadcasted on youtube & Al-Jazeera, and probably another NUS Rag Article. On top of that, its more readings for everything I’m taking. Wish I could update the blog more, but life happens.

Blow-by-Blow Analysis of the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit (Pt 2)

Okay, let me try to write as much as possible this time. This was pretty long. I don’t want to get stuck down with episode 4 or 5, and its already a week past the conference I don’t think anybody cares anymore. I am also pleased to announce I have photos! Delectably taken from Facebook albums, with permission from Poh Teck Kang.

Shot at 2007-08-11

Corporate Governance and Transparency in Malaysia

Moderator: Mr. Ho Kay Tat (Group Chief Editor, The Edge Malaysia)
Speakers: YM Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim (Former President of Transparency Malaysia); Dato’ Zarinah Anwar (Chairman, Securities Commission)

First speaker up: The YM Tunku Abdul Aziz.

He started his speech by quoting Khun Anand Panyarachun, the former prime minister of Thailand (1991-1992) who he said was a very liberal leader, which the king of Thailand asked to serve his country as the PM. The quote was,

“Good governance is about putting in place the mechanisms to define what constitutes the public interest and to see that the public interest is served despite everything else.” Anad Panyarachun

He also refered to the book authored by Steve Young, Moral Capitalism.

He said that external pressure leave [Malaysia] no choice. In a globalized economy, capital ranges free and impersonally, and moral capitalism can be a part of good governance or merely a dream. I suppose what he means to say here is that global capital and FDI will not show pity or sympathy to Malaysian poverty and plight. Capital can come here because there is good governance and transparency, or it can come here and be exploited by elite business interests that do not serve the public good.

In his view, when corruption is tolerated as a business necessity, then it is the first short step to national degradation. A slippery slope argument, perhaps, but nonetheless pertinent. I wish to add something my lecturer once said to me in class: Malaysia is corrupt, but corrupt in a very reliable way. If you paid them off to get something done, you could rely on them to have it done. In comparison, in other countries, you could pay them off but they could change their minds at the very last minute.

He praised Dato’ Zarinah Anwar highly, mentioning that since her stewardship at the Securities Commission, standards of corporate behaviour has improved tremendously. He mentioned that leadership is service in the public’s duty and all of us are leaders. As in, leadership is serving a duty towards the public, and by this definition everybody is a “leader”, its our scope that differs.

Technology cannot change the abuse of trust. Many people in authority do not understand the concept of stewardship and trust. My take: no, the abuse of trust happens as much as poverty or crime being ineradicable. Technology, while making information dissemination and surveillance easier, must be implemented to full advantage before plays a part in policing and balancing forces in society. (Any technology must be implemented and used for whatever purpose before it becomes useful.) It will take some political action because (leaders of) companies don’t want to be watched.

Second Speaker: Dato’ Zarinah Anwar.

Dato’ Zarinah Anwar argument was: transparency and trust are critical to this nation which depends so much on foreign investment because investors are more likely to vote with their feet. If conditions here are bad, they’ll just invest somewhere else. No market can be complacent in ensuring the efficiency of the capital market.

But she also had a moral argument: trust and investment will prevail when duty and obligations of stewardship is not subordinate to greed, which will erode confidence levels, which is the foundation of capital markets. We need to promote shareholder activism and watchdogs.

Good corporate governance is beyond mere compliance and ethics . It is upholding collective standards and taking personal responsibility. It will translate into results which will create additional value for shareholders. SHe also mentioned that the AFN prepcitated the Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance in 2000, which [will lead? has led?] to a masterplan… can’t remember, no notes.

With regards to the Q&A session, The questions were:

1. With corruption afflicted every level of society, do we need a white knight to clean up the system?
   The response to it was, “All of us must be white knights.”
2. Because of the majority rule in governance, should we legislate minority shareholder rights?
   The response was, “There are sufficient laws and regulations. We shouldn’t just look at authority. Its the problem of enforcement: shareholders may have rights, but enforcement is not there. If companies infringe on rights, then the market must show abhorrence and not tolerate it. Dump your shares if you feel your company is not run properly.”
3. The Public is tired and outraged at the inefficiency of the Anti-Corruption Agency. Should it be put under the supervision of parliament?
   The response of Tunku was “It should be put under multiparty supervision, with both government and opposition leaders. ACA in its current form is weak. Once, the Attorney-General asked ACA to stop an investigation, and they did. Yet, the A-G has no jurisdiction with the ACA. Therefore, the whole position of the A-G should come under review.”
4. Malaysia is not ready for transparency, as enshrined in the legislature (Official Secrets Act). How do we move on?
   The response was, “When there is no transparency, there is no accountability. THe government will soon consider it necessary to remove the OSA.” Tunku also added that it took Japan 20 years to remove its official secrets act.

The session ended with a quip, “Ethics is knowing that cheating on your wife is wrong. Morality is when you don’t cheat on your wife.”
That’s basically all I can remember and all my notes of the session. Its difficult for me to reflect critically knowing very little about corporate governance. On the more cynical side, maybe the whole session was to assure people that there were people making a difference in Malaysia; and you could too. You could also be one of those people, when you’re a CEO of a big company, be part of Malaysia and making it stand tall and great.

I do believe that one person did ask: what can we do in order to ensure good corporate governance and transparency. Essentially its a political question. Its fortunate for Dato’ Zarinah Anwar, has got into a position of authority to make the relevant changes. But for the public to safeguard their interests in Malaysia, we need to maintain constant vigilance, which entails proper laws an a system for protecting whistleblowers and watchdog groups… which eventually needs to be lobbied to government. If Dato’ Zarinah goes, can we rely on her successor?

Then question is, will government accept that “western” model of balancing between public and private interests? Or is there another “third” way?

Corporate Challenges for the Young and Bright

Shot at 2007-08-14

Dato Johan Raslan, Dato Tony Fernandes

Okay, this session wasn’t very academic; it was speech-making in its purest form. “Corporate challenges for the young and bright” really means “a little bit about what you’ll face when you’re working”. At best, it was highly motivational, especially hearing about Dato’ Fernandes, who could have carved out his own life overseas but instead came back, probably out of a mixture of profit possibility, cultural relations and patriotism. It is also good to hear that you can be successful in Malaysia despite having no heavy political connections. (But ultimately he did rely on one.) That’s essentially the story of his success that he presented to us on that day.

Dato’ Johan Raslan showed us what are the popular issues in the corporate world today. He began by making a note that its a universal truth that the previous generation had it easy, still is lazy, and had screwed up. This generation will clean it up and sort it all up. But the next generation has it easy, is lazy and are going to screw up.

He talked about five values to help succeed in going forward, about the new finance minister of Malaysia who was appointed last year, about BRIC (B.. Russia, India and China), GLC transformation, etc. What was NO LONGER in currency was crony capitalism, status quo, a job for life, dominant CEOs, and “little Malaysia”. What’s IN:

• Profit managers
• Corporate accountability
• Crossing Borders
• Transforming mindset
• Software vs. Hardware
• Global perspective
• Servant leaders
• Gen Y challenges.

Issues include retaining and rewarding talent, and removing detriments. Malaysia is inexperienced with cross-border investments, and doesn’t have the expertise in investing abroad without losing money. He talked about redefining the value system, and about connectivity, connecting people, partners and networks, not competitors.

I’ve only got four out of his five values:

1. Strategic vision: remember to make long-term plans, and contribute to your person. Don’t job hop because it adds an extra line to your CV but instead stay in a company for 2-3 years so that you learn new skills and benefit from a variety of experiences.
2. Focus and perserverance
3. EQ and IQ: Further up the command chain, it is vital that leaders know how to persuade and communicate.
4. Ethical behaviour: unless you’re incredibly rich, all you have is your education, your good name and (couldn’t get it). So behave, unless you want to lose your good name.

Tony Fernandes: I didn’t take any notes, I just listened to him make jokes about his history with Airasia. So I’m just recounting purely out of memory, except for this quote:

On knowing your market. “I know Malaysians. If its cheap enough, they will risk their lives. 800 ringgit to KK, ‘no lah, got SARS.’ 88 ringgit, ‘Lets go!’”

Anyway, he started out as a musician with Virgin Records, with Sir Richard Branson, and which got taken over thrice, which final company was AOL Time Warner. He got sick of it, so he left to Malaysia to manage a recording studio (I think). Then he got this brilliant idea on starting a budget airline in Malaysia, told his wife, and told her he was serious after she finished laughing. So he told his friends, (after the customary 5 minutes of laughter), he got together prices and operational costs off the internet, put together a proposal, and after a long ordeal got to see the Prime Minister, who was then Tun Dr. Mahathir. Apparently, he was not in a good mood because before that he had to meet MAS (which was in trouble at that time) and another meeting with Lim Kit Siang. So he got a deal, which was he couldn’t start a new airline, but PNB so happened to have a failing one, so he bought it off them for a customary RM1. Then the rest is history.

Anybody really ought to listen to speak. He has this “AAAAAHHHH” that half sounds like a “i-don’t-know uh” and an Ernie-and-Bert stuttered laugh, that serves very well as a joke indicator.

Okay, will try to finish as much as possible soon.

More:

Part 1

How Well Is Your Orientation Named? PT 2 — NTU edition

Okay, here’s a filler piece after MSLS. Will write more, but this has just got to get off.MORE STUFF ABOUT ORIENTATION NAMES! NTU edition.

Shot at 2007-08-10

This is NTU Hall One: The Lost Realm. Or, Lost-Vivor, which is appended at the bottom of the banner. Is it like Survivor, but with greater mindf**k? Or is it like Lost, but with more reality? Only attendance can tell.

Shot at 2007-08-10

Hall V Orientation Camp nicely acronyms to “HAVOC”.There’s this map behind as well.

Shot at 2007-08-10

For one Hall that actually has internet presence for their hall orientation, this one doesn’t have a banner up on their website. Its Oneiro, with a dream theme. A little bird tells me there are four clans: Khydra, Phaeton, Azriel, Xaedon. Ooo, more meaningless awesome names. I suppose that Oneiro is derivative of the Oneiros, “the sons of Hypnos, the god of sleep. They were personifications of dreams—black-winged daemons—and they were said to live on the shores of the Ocean in the far West, in a cavern near the border of Hades”.

Here’s another orientation trope then manifested: a dream. I’ve read in TH orientation write-ups that it was like a dream. Even last year TH’s orientation was “reverie”, almost dream-like.

Shot at 2007-08-10

There’s Hall 9 with Legion. Wonder if its themed like Sparta. Its an army trope, until the boys start bitchin’ about NS.

Shot at 2007-08-10

Hall 10 is seriously undecipherable. I think its “Heroes of X”. Its this giant poster that goes on and on and on. I can’t tell the title. From this shot you can see a light green smurf and big bird. There’s supposed to be a care bear and a ninja turtle as well. The mind reels. Check it out for yourself.

Shot at 2007-08-10

Finally, Hall 15 is “Revival: The Story Begins”. They forgot to put in the word “again” to make the revival for real. The story always begins in all orientations. Like “Reverie: the story begins”. There always seems to be some allusion to a new chapter of your life. Like everything else before didn’t matter. Here, have a pheonix down! REVIVE!

For the rest of the halls, I can’t find them online, except that LCC told me in a comment earlier that NTU’s Hall 14 was “WTF”.

If you do have information about other orientation camps in your JC or your hall, I would love to hear from you and about your experiences at orientation.

Blow-by-Blow Analysis of the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit (Pt 1)

I was there at the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit for all two days of its glory. I sat through every single speech. I took copious notes, and that’s not even for every one of them. Here is my analysis. This is going to take long.

First Session: Laksamana (B) Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Mohd. Anwar, Ex-chief of Defence Force of Malaysia.

The admiral spoke on leadership and how it translated or was translated from his experience in the army. What I found interesting about his speech and presentation was how he defined our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and the perceptions about the state of Malaysia’s security. He supposedly contributed greatly to the revolutionizing of the Malaysians armed forces by transforming them into a 21st century machine of war.

He presented this table, which said: Strengths, Stable politics (incomplete); Weaknesses, two separated land masses and local firms dependent on foreign firms; Opportunities, better relationships, growing local defence industry; Threats, shipping lanes prone to piracy and terrorism, and insurgency in neighbouring countries.

He also gave a description of Malaysia’s armed forces. It is capped at 126,800 members, which currently is 78,000 in the army, 15,000 in the navy, 15,000 in the airforce, and 21,800 paramilitary forces. He once said that the paramilitary forces ought to be , and that Malaysia ought to increase its paramilitary forces to 40,000. He also wanted to implement a total defence in Malaysia as well.

Its very tempting to refer to the politics of International Security right now. While he did refer to the US role in as a world police, he did not mention its role in local / ASEAN security (that was the third question I wanted to ask). He did not mention that Singapore’s friendliness towards the US — perhaps out of political goodwill. Historically Malaysia didn’t like that.

Its interesting that he did not define threats in a more national manner: it would be bad form for him to name any country in particular as a threat. As a conjecture, if there was a particular threat, it would probably be Singapore, out of high militarization. Singapore has 80,000 regulars plus 300,000 reservists at least, and the best army/navy/airforce in the region. For a country of 4 million and 400 square km, that’s pretty dense.

I asked that in view of growing military acquisitions between both our countries, if he thought there was an arms race between both these countries. He responded by saying that a war between Malaysia and Singapore are impossibilities. He acknowledged that we are not much of a match for Singapore.

This goes highly in tune with the concept of the ASEAN Security Community. Essentially, a security community is when several states find that their security is inextricably tied with one another, as opposed to the classical realist politics of balance-of-power, nations switch allegiance as soon as they find it in their interest.

However, I would not take for granted that war is an impossiblity — that is what the army is prepared for, and the protection of the nation through organized violence is the basis of all sovereign nation-states. Relationships now may be cordial but the future is always philosophically uncertain. However, based on current events I don’t think that there is a basis for worrying about conflict because the current power configuration seems to be stable.

Lets assume that the US is indeed the key superpower in the ASEAN region which maintains stability. Here’s the million-dollar question guys: What will happen to ASEAN if the US becomes disengaged in the security of the region, either out of choice or out of its possibly reducing role as world hegemon? Will the current security configuration last if the US goes away? China’s rise will not only have economic repercussions, but also security repercussion as well. What does this bode for ASEAN if the world turns bipolar again?

The other question I asked was how was Malaysian total defence supposed to be like, with respect to Singaporean total defence. His answer was primarily that we were not going to do compulsory and universal National Service like Singapore, but the army wants to mobilize the large machinery that companies possess to help the war effort (inter alia, I suppose). That’s not the same as the Singaporean Total Defence, which also has Social Defence (unity, etc.) and Pyschological Defence, and is taught at schools.

But the way he phrased Malaysia’s threats, strengths and weaknesses are more characteristic of Complex Interdependence than classical realist. Piracy on shipping lanes is on the threats list — not something directly or usually tied to the overall security of the nation is included as a security item (or as we call it, securitized). The Thai problem with insurgents in the South is also securitized when in realist though is usually left to the neighbour to figure out and solve. Local firms dependent on foreign firms, track two diplomacy — all indicative of complex interdependence.

Conclusion: I don’t think that’s this session is fully appreciative of the entire security environment of ASEAN and Malaysia. Too much fluff on leadership, which was nearly completely lifted off books — okay for practice, bad for a presentation. A more fruitful and academic discussion would include the nature of military stablity in the region and how we can preserve it. Apparently China-Taiwan are not in the regional security complex; they’re ignored and off our security radar. US’s role was not made specific, or maybe the US doesn’t have a specific role. In the event of a security crisis, do we have the leadership and the mechanisms in place to quickly respond? Multilateral consensus is difficult to achieve at such junctures. Is the status quo of the security scenario desirable or not?

Second Session: Prof. Emeritus Dr. Mohd Ariff Karim, Director of Malaysia Insititute of Economic Research, and Justin Leong Ming Loong, head of Investment at Genting Group Berhad.

I’ve heard comments that the presentation of the Professor Emeritus was somewhat exclusive as essentially it was an economics lecture, with all the bells and whistles of economic indicators. I think I got at least some of what he was trying to demonstrate: a course in Introductory Economics and International Political Economy helped. Essentially what he said was this:

The Malaysian economy with respect to South Korea, Singapore, and some ASEAN states were “highly interlinked” as their economic indicators follow the same trends consistently with respect to each other. However, I don’t remember hearing anything about the way they were interlinked: was it the same export market? the production of similar commodities?

Something of note was the dominate nations Malaysia trades with. 21.8% of all trade goes to US, 16% Singapore, 14% EU, 10% Japan, and the remaining, China. At least there’s one pattern that’s explainable by history and US unipolarity. However, that’s essentially not very good with respect to Malaysia’s economic security: we’re highly dependent on trade with the US, which gives them a whole lot of bargaining power unless we’re trading something that’s a vital securitized commodity. I suppose we’re trying to diversify then.

He also noted that banks have a lot of liquid funds in them as deposits are high, but lending is low. He therefore concluded that it is indicative of a bad investing environment. He also continuously stated that local investment is rather slow. Public spending seem to have been leading the way all the time. However, we were also secure in terms of debt, as most of our debt is in the long-term and medium-term, as compared to a minority amount of short-term debt, which in turn was indicative of high liquidity (I think).

The next economic crisis will be of a different nature than that of the previous economic crisis in 1997 , presumably because ASEAN nations have learnt their lessons well and have incredibly high foreign reserves as compared to pre-crisis levels (Malaysia’s probably going to hit the 100-billion US dollars wall in the next month). He predicted that the US economy will overheat sooner or later, and that all we can do is hope that it takes a soft landing. “The next crisis will be related to U.S. global imbalances. The ringgit will be stronger, the market will be down.”

He warned that to effectively survive that crisis, “We cannot export out of the situation. The domestic economy must be strong.” Which is not something Malaysia (and Singapore) is. Malaysia is one of the highest trading nations in the world, ranked around 17-19, and as stated above, a lot of that comes from the States. Once that happens, I also think that we can’t rely on public spending and pump priming any more, since a lot of revenue comes of oil sales inter alia.

He did point out that Malaysia’s economic growth rate is underperforming at 5% each other, as its optimum growth should be at 6.5%. There is also a lot of jobless growth — he claimed that there were 200,000 jobs less than there should be, possibly because we are moving from a labour-intensive to a technology and skill-intensive economy.

There is also glaring income disparity even though inter-ethic differences closed, but intra-ethnic disparities widened. Most significantly, the bumiputera community had the highest GINI coefficient, and that the NEP failed to ensure intra-ethnic economic trickle-down.

Nothing much to comment with respect to Justin. He’s very charismatic, very optimistic and in the words of a friend, “chirpy”. He also speaks with a comfortable British accent, not like someone else whose accent is *too* glaring. He said that last year, Genting drew 18.6 million visitors, as opposed to Singapore’s 9.6 million. Furthermore, “Not all hope is lost in that sector.” For example, he gave USCI. With respect to electronics, he said it is hollowing out because FDI is moving out towards China and that we best try to reorient the economy to a service-based economy. He reminded us of a second national car manufacturer, Perodua, which is doing quite well. He tried to cover as many sectors as possible, remind all that there are still many opportunities for bright, capable young Malaysians in Malaysia.

Now here’s an interesting thing: somebody asked about bilateral FTAs. Justin said that with respect to bilateral FTAs, Malaysia is trying to get one from everyone because it doesn’t want to get left behind. If other countries sign FTAs, then Malaysia will lose out from trade diversion as other countries become more competitive through reduction of import tariffs.

This is interesting because of Fred Bergman’s Bicycle theory of international economics. He theorized that we must continually push for liberalism, and if the momentum is lost, countries will begin to close up again — like how you must maintain speed to keep a bicycle on balance. There’s also the idea that regional and bilateral FTAs don’t help universal, global FTAs at the WTO because it gives less impetus to countries to negotiate at the WTO.

Which is partially true, I suppose. It would be easier to negotiate with one person than with everyone at the same time, although at the expense of having to repeat negotiations with key trading nations, which in turn diverts trade, either local exports or imports into the receiving country. Furthermore, if you have FTAs with your primary trading countries, the need to have economic access to other countries becomes a less immediate concern.

The opposite side of the coin is that countries will build a interconnected web of FTAs which will eventually culminate into an effective multilateral FTA. Historically, a regional trade agreement has become a global standard — its happened before. Maybe, if every country actively participated in signing FTAs with everybody else. Maybe the individual FTAs won’t have the same terms, so that there’s only selective international trade liberalism. I can also foresee that countries that don’t have the capabilities to engage many nations in FTA negotiations losing out in the mean time.

So it seems that the remark from Justin proves the latter true. Countries that sign FTAs motivate other export-dependent countries to also sign FTAs. Although this isn’t a rigorous defence of the argument.

Conclusion: Malaysia’s not in the best state of affairs. This is a given. Prof. Mohd. Ariff Karim has demonstrated that through all his graphs. However, Justin instead paints a different picture of domestic rosiness. Maybe we’re doing okay now, but in the long-term we could be heading towards disaster. The question is now, who directs where our trade goes? After all, what’s the wisdom of further strengthening economic ties with the US if we can accurately predict a meltdown in the US economy? A meltdown in the US economy is no damn joke — the world runs on US dollars, and the US dollar is backed on nothing but the US economy. If the US economy falters, so does the entire world.

Why is the local investment environment weak? Is it because domestic investors are cautious after 1997? After all, generally Asian banks prior to 1997 were borrowing on imprudent bases to unproven companies — companies which were borrowing well above their market equities. High debt-to-equity ratio spurred the growth bubble of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. So are banks now overly cautious in lending credit?

How do we connect these facts with the current economic path Malaysia is taking? We’re now going into special economic zones such as the Iskandar Development Region in Johor and the Northern Corridor Economic Region. Will that stimulate a robust domestic economy? Or do both regions cater specifically to foreign investors? Why aren’t we engaging economically with our other neighbours: Thailand, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, to a greater degree? Is it because our economies are primarily manufacturing which serve as a low-cost labour alternative to developing nations?

I’ve always thought that small nations have to adapt and conform to global, systemic trends more than larger nations which are able to dictate their positions in the global economy. Their power in relation to other players make them price-takers with respect to labour, rather than price-setters.

Okay, that’s enough for tonight. I think to do each topic justice I really need to write a few thousand words on each, but this is a blog, not a fully blown essay topic. Still got something like… 8 more sessions PLUS comments about the group sessions as well. Stay tuned!

NEXT: PART 2 

What about an Inter-Hall Blog?

I want to start an Interhall Blog. It’s as simple as that.

The reason is that Halls are really opaque between themselves. All we hear are hearsay and rumours about different halls doing different things. The only contact we have between halls are other friends who just happen to be in other halls, and certain interhall events — such as IHG and Rag, which also occur on a competitive basis, which doesn’t really help contact at all.

Do you believe in the power of openness and transparency? I do. Openness, transparency and the free flow of information between people from different places will trickle down to provide an oral history — but even better, an interhall blog which is supported by all the halls will provide a written history instead, giving the first roots to a culture of being proud of who we are: NUS undergraduates.

For instance, did you know that in the earlier years of NUS, Rag was not the affair it is today? Raggers built their floats not for the sake of pure spectacle, but as tanks on which to throw waterbombs at other floats. They paraded their floats by driving through the Business District of Singapore, making noise and generally being a nuisance to the large, corporate banks. Now, its just a show for charity, an activity for the sake of activity, a presentation of hall spirit to the almighty Chancellor of NUS.

I just want to get representatives from different halls to blog about their experiences in hall together in once place so that comparison and diversity can be immediately highlighted. I want to document the human side of hall life without the self-censorship of “my hall did well no matter what”, the rah-rah attitude and the positive spin that gets injected into every single written piece there is about hall activity.

Are we afraid that we might lose our “hall identity” because we hear more of other halls? Or are we afraid that our weaknesses and dirty laundry might be exposed for all to see?

I don’t think there’s anything much to lose between halls. Sure, we might see that one particular hall is particularly better at something. But ultimately it will be for the better: other halls will be forced to adapt to better practices. Eventually, we’ll be better off. With better hall relations, we might even get more support for hall events than not. Other halls might even attend plays and dance productions not because they want to see their friends perform, but because they’re simply excited about it.

Then, for once, a student civil society might just take root. And that’s what I’m all about.

Just a few notes on International Politics

I hope I’m not violating any copyright law by putting this online. This is for MSLS participants and this is something everybody who cares about politics should appreciate. Political realism is the fundamental theory when it comes to international relations. Thuycidides and Hobbes were the influences, but the modern father of realism is Hans Morgenthau. J. Ticker has summed it up very well in her feminist criticism of it. I won’t go into her feminist criticism of it though because Morgenthau’s the real star today.

Political Realism

1. 1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature, which is unchanging; therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
   2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.
   3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is the control of man over man.
   4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirement of successful political action.
   5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us from moral excess and political folly.
   6. The political realist maintains that the autonomy of the political sphere; he asks “How does this policy affect the power of the nation?” Political realism is based on a pluralistic concept of human nature… But, in order to develop an autonomous theory of political behaviour, “political man” must be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.

      J. Ann Tickner, “A Critique of
      Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism”

This conception of international relations, or the nature of state-to-state relations in its entirety, rests on power and self-importance rather than cooperation or organization (that’s a liberal theory critique anyway). I am highlighting this because I think that this is an important tool to understand the thought processes of elites in Malaysia, except that they place themselves both in an international context, and a domestic one, especially with regards to Singapore. I’ve seen it being expressed in other terms by Singaporean ministers too.

The other concept that should be well known by all is sovereignty. I’ve learn the concept of sovereignty in PS1101E: Introduction to Political Science, but this is probably the best conception of sovereignty I’ve read so far. Its a bit long, but its clear in getting there.

Sovereignty

“[...] sovereignty is also a bothersome concept. Many believe, as the anthropologist M. G. Smith has said, that ‘in a system of sovereign states no state is sovereign.’ The error lies in identifying the sovereignty of states with the ability to do as they wish. To say that states are sovereign is not to say that they can do as they please, that they are free of others’ influence, that they are able to get as they want… The sovereignty of states has never entailed their insulation from the effects of other states’ action. To be sovereign and to be dependent are not contradictory conditions. Sovereign states have seldom led free and easy lives. What then is sovereignty? To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems, including whether or not to seek assistance from others and in doing so to limit its freedom by making commitments to them. States develop their own strategies, chart their own courses make their own decisions about how to meet whatever needs they experience and whatever desires they develop. It is no more contradictory to say that sovereign states are always constrained and often tightly so that it is to say that free individuals often make decisions under the heavy pressure of events.”

Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics”

This is in response to some of the gripes we have with regards to sovereignty as used by elites in Malaysia. Waltz essentially says that sovereignty is deciding for yourself how to respond to dangers, not doing as you please. Therefore, the answer to “Where’s Malaysia’s sovereignty in its airspace?” or “Where is Malaysia’s sovereignty in building a bridge to Singapore?” is really just, its there. Malaysia has all the rights to cope with its claimed rights. The real question that’s trying to be asked is “Where’s Malaysia’s power in control over its airspace?” or “Where’s Malaysia’s power when its not able to build a bridge to Singapore?” — which is also related to the realism piece above.

However, its a really good move to mix up “Sovereignty” with “Power”. The word “power” to the regular person just seems so self-righteous, and not something you want Singapore or whoever you’re dealing with to hear. On the other hand, sovereignty is something that the other country will respect out of courtesy, and to citizens it brings forward ideas of Merdeka, our independence from colonial powers, etc.

Like the parallels that Waltz draws between a person and a state, individual freedom and state sovereignty are both things that should be celebrated and dreaded at the same time. We celebrate our personal freedom, but like Sartre postulates, freedom is the problem of our existence. What do we do when we are free? Do we jump in one direction or another? A more regular saying is freedom entails responsibility.

Similarly, state sovereignty must also imply that it is also a burden: The burden of caring for Malaya, “the white man’s burden”, no matter how misguided, is no longer there. Now the burden is on us, the citizens of the sovereign state of Malaysia. That’s Waltz’s sovereignty. The moment somebody stops carrying that burden is the moment that he or she loses political citizenship (which is not legal citizenship; there’s also another way to lose it, its called disenfranchisement).

In capitalism and modern democracy, the people are divided into different tasks; we have career civil servants and people in the government tasked to safeguard our nation’s welfare. So, the answer of “where is Malaysia’s sovereignty?”also lies in the government’s capacity to respond to international and national problems. By government I mean bureaucracy, elected leaders, MPs, Senators, the civil defence force, and associated wings. Of course the next question is, “How good is Malaysia’s sovereignty?” You answer that for yourself, but make sure you’re not making too many generalizations.

There isn’t really a good ending for this one, I’ll go on and on forever. Maybe this should be my August 31’s piece. Or maybe i’ll write another one. Maybe I’ll say something like, “Two questions like these are the first footsteps in becoming a true Malaysian…” or something like that. Hah.

A few words before the summit

So the summit’s this weekend, and I will more or less be away for the weekend. I’m going to try to write down everything that has happened at the summit which means I might take time off the blog. I might be publishing part of it here but no guarantees. So in the meanwhile, I’ll just make a few comments about the books I’ve been reading.

Malaysia: Recent Trends and Challenges.  Mostly boring stuff. Had the mistake of reading “Population Trends and Patterns in Multiracial Malaysia” first which is basically numbercrunching population growth patterns. The others seem quite promising thought, but never got to them. Will try to.

An Insider’s Guide to the UN. Plan to read this on the bus back.

Introduction to International Relations. Just got re-primered with Realism and its general history. Will need to read up on IPE and liberalism.

I also borrowed another one more book, “The Great Divergence: Hegemony, Uneven Development and Global Inequality”, edited by K.S. Jomo. I’ll try to get one chapter out of Malaysia’s foreign policy tomorrow at the library.

So much to read, so little time!