Thursday, August 28, 2008

Oil Price Hike: Reuter’s Factbox & Anwar Ibrahim vs. Ahmad Shabery Public Debate

Oil price hike issue seems to extend its lifespan from prior to the 12th Malaysian General Election to the recently ended Permatang Pauh by-election. Here are some information on this issue – an extract of information from Reuters and a summary of arguments on Malaysian oil subsidy policy that mostly based on the Anwar Ibrahim versus Ahmad Shabery public debate.

Reuters’ Factbox: Why oil prices hit a record high?

Source: http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/energy
Access date: 28 August 2008

Prices have rallied from a dip below $50 at the start of 2007 and this year have risen by around 40 percent from $95.98 a barrel at the end of last year. Adjusted for inflation, oil is well above the $101.70 peak hit in April 1980, according to the International Energy Agency, a year after the Iranian revolution. The balance of demand and supply is tight with daily demand of roughly 86 million barrels per day, almost the same level as daily supply.

The following are other major factors that have driven the oil market higher.

(1) Dollar weakness and funds

A combination of weaker performance in other asset classes and expectations of continued strength across the commodities complex has drawn in investors and speculative funds, providing further support for the market. An added incentive for them has been the weakness of the dollar against other major currencies, which makes dollar-denominated commodities relatively cheap. They are also seeking an inflation hedge, as commodities tend to rise when other asset classes fall.

(2) OPEC

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been at the forefront of those citing speculation and a weak dollar as the reason for higher prices, saying it is pumping enough oil to keep the market balanced. Saudi Arabia, the biggest OPEC producer, is expected to raise output close to 9.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in June up from around 9.1 million bpd in May. OPEC has not officially increased output since a meeting last September and has no plans to meet formally until September 9.

(3) Peak oil?

Some analysts have questioned whether OPEC is capable of raising its output significantly. The so-called pessimists have argued the world's oil supplies are at or near a peak. Optimists say there is still plenty more oil and improved technology will ensure it can be extracted from the ground, but a host of political issues has hindered production from many of the biggest reserve holders. Iraq's output has been disrupted by years of sanctions and then war. Sanctions have also limited exploration in Iran and violence has interrupted flows in Nigeria.
Adding to the difficulties of getting oil out of the ground, high prices have fuelled a trend for resource nationalism, or resource-holders seeking to keep the bulk of their natural wealth for themselves. The biggest OPEC producers already prohibit foreign operators from accessing their oil reserves. Non-OPEC Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, has also been limiting foreign involvement in its upstream while its output has stagnated.

(4) Demand

There is mounting evidence high prices have begun to erode demand, but continued growth in China and other emerging economies is expected to offset the impact of any fall in developed countries. While high taxes reduce demand in some developed economies, subsidies spur consumption in emerging economies. In the developed world, some governments are considering reducing taxes, while emerging economies, struggling with the growing burden of subsidies, have started to lift them.

(5) Refinery Bottlenecks

Even if there is plenty of crude to meet demand that does not mean there is an adequate supply of refined products, such as diesel and gasoline, as there is a lack of refining capacity. Faced with planning battles and reluctance to invest in the downstream sector, which is not always profitable, the world's biggest energy consumer the United States has not built a new refinery for decades.


Anwar vs. Ahmad Shabery public debate

The debate entitled ‘Form the government today, reduce fuel prices tomorrow’ was organized by news portal Agenda Daily and took place at Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in Kuala Lumpur at 8.30pm on 15th July 2008. The contents of the debate and other off-the-stage justifications from the government as well as counter-arguments from Anwar Ibrahim are summarized as below:

Government: Global oil price increase, thus increase the government’s financial burden to subsidize.

Counter-arguments: Malaysia is a net oil exporter. Thus, increase in oil price should be beneficial to Malaysia. Increase in net oil revenue could be channel towards domestic fuel subsidies.

Government: Fuel (petrol) price in other foreign countries are much higher. Examples are Norway and Finland. Hence, fuel in Malaysia is under-priced.

Counter-arguments: Those countries that have higher fuel price are non oil-exporting countries. Furthermore, theirs income per capita are much higher than Malaysia.

Government: Petronas already contributed much of its profit back to government for subsidies. Government could not take all of Petronas profit as the company needs retain profit for further development.

Counter-arguments: Repayment from Petronas is enough; only the usage of its repayment is questionable. Example is channeling government revenue to infrastructures and giving tax relief incentive for the benefit of industry players is actually another form of “subsidy”, but not to the poor but to the capitalist. Unnecessary projects and corruption cause leakage to the needed fund to subsidy for fuel. Deals with IPP also seen as leakage and benefit to capitalists rather than the poor citizen.

Government: Malaysia’s oil reserve will finished in near future. Therefore, government needs to have prudent saving from current oil revenue for the benefit of the future. Otherwise, a more shocking bigger fuel hike may happen once Malaysia turn from net oil exporter to net oil importer.

Counter-arguments: Those reports about exhaustion of Malaysia oil reserve are based on assumption that no other oil field would be found in Malaysia. Thus, if more new oil field found, Malaysia would still be net oil exporter. Furthermore, Petronas is currently exploring oil field overseas instead of locally. Petronas should be encouraged to continue doing so to prolong exhaustion of oil reserve in Malaysia. Investment returns from Petronas could also be another source of funds for fuel subsidies.

Monday, August 25, 2008

One World, One Dream: Whither Malaysia?

The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games finally came to a conclusion, offering few thoughts to the world and also to Malaysian. China topped the standings by winning the highest number of gold medals. This shows the world that the emerging of China as a potential superpower is not merely a dream or myth. Therefore, some Western powers lead by the United States shows sign of distress by “attacking” the credibility of China. Attacks started even before the bidding for this Olympic Games. China lost in its first attempt, believing that anti-China propaganda, particularly on human rights issues, did the damage to China. During the torch run, disturbance were everyway as sentiment over the issues of Tibet been fanned up non-stop in Western media. Some Western media have been criticizing host China since the opening ceremony. Criticisms included questioning China’s ethical behaviour over the issues of Lin Miaoke’s photogenic stand-in for the real singer, Yang Peiyi, China boasting their military might in the opening ceremony, alleged fake (recorded) live fireworks display, continuous voicing out on China’s human right abuse and accusation of China’s gymnast being underage. Perhaps, a clear jealousy over China success is the medal ranking – putting the United State as No. 1 by using the “total medals” as yardstick for ranking instead of ranking by number of gold medals is seen in various Western media. See Telegraph’s report that criticized US media on this issue. Anyway, all those criticisms as well as ranking method discrepancy may have their respective merits in this rhetoric-oriented world.


Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Final Medal Standings

Rank

Country

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Total

Rank by total

1

China

51

21

28

100

2

2

United States

36

38

36

110

1

3

Russian Fed

23

21

28

72

3

4

Great Britain

19

13

15

47

4

5

Germany

16

10

15

41

6

6

Australia

14

15

17

46

5

7

Korea

13

10

8

31

8

8

Japan

9

6

10

25

11

9

Italy

8

10

10

28

9

10

France

7

16

17

40

7









Selected Asian countries






31

Mongolia

2

2

0

4

=44

31

Thailand

2

2

0

4

=44

33

DPR Korea

2

1

3

6

=30

39

Azerbaijan

1

2

4

7

=27

40

Uzbekistan

1

2

3

6

=30

42

Indonesia

1

1

3

5

=38

50

India

1

0

2

3

=51

51

Iran

1

0

1

2

=57

52

Bahrain

1

0

0

1

=69

65

Kyrgyzstan

0

1

1

2

=57

65

Tajikistan

0

1

1

2

=57

71

Malaysia

0

1

0

1

=69

71

Singapore

0

1

0

1

=69

71

Vietnam

0

1

0

1

=69

80

Chinese Taipei

0

0

4

4

=44

81

Afghanistan

0

0

1

1

=69

Source: Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games at http://en.beijing2008.cn. [Note: Original link to respective countries medal intact for access to further information]

Compliments to host China are plenty as well. Quoting Reuters, “China basked in the glow of their 51st gold medal and got a clear thumbs-up from International Olympic Committee on the last day of the Games on Sunday…The hosts finished well clear atop the medals table with 15 more golds than the United States.” CNN reported “Grand fireworks and spectacular choreography brought to a close the Beijing Games Sunday as one of the most remarkable Olympics in recent history were declared at an end” while AFP wrote that “For China, the investment of more than 40 billion dollars on the Games reaped handsome rewards. They not only topped the gold medal count, but a near flawless organisation meant the controversies that marred the build-up largely slipped into the background.” AFP also quoted IOC President Jacques Rogge described the Games as “truly exceptional”. Rogge further elaborated that "more than 40 world records were set, more than 100 Olympic records, and of course we had the two icons of the Games, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt" say it all for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

Picture source: Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games

Besides China, South Korea and Japan are the only Asian countries managed to be ranked among the top ten (by gold medals count). Another 16 more Asian countries managed to win at least a medal, including a silver achievement for Malaysia. But, the question is should Malaysia has won more medals? Relentlessly boasting its “dynamic” economic, why Malaysia seem so proud of merely winning a silver medal? Please do not compare with Singapore. Benchmarking towards a lower level of achievement is not a good culture for the country, indeed any country. One of the higher benchmarks that could inspire Malaysia is Jamaica. Jamaica won 6 gold medals, 3 silver medals and 2 bronze medals with Usain Bolt creating world records in men 100 meters, men 200 meters and men 4x100 meters rally. Even fellow Asians like Mongolia, Thailand and DPR Korea respectively have two gold medals.


From the opening and closing ceremony, host China gave emphasis on Chinese writing and system, including the arrangement of participating countries parade (that surprisingly seeing Australia delegations coming out at the end of the parade), the countdown and its President’s speech. If Olympic is held in Malaysia, will our national language, Bahasa Malaysia being emphasized and given priority over English? Not to dream of topping the medal standings like China, but when will Malaysia produce its first gold medallists and world record breakers? When will Malaysia have a world sport icon?


One world, one dream. Sports such as Olympic (and maybe Soccer World Cup) could bring all countries around the world to share a dream of sportsmanship. Regardless of triumph or disappointment, it would be good if the world could stop all conflicts (even for a short while) to savour the excitement of the Games peacefully. Nevertheless, dreams may be different again after the Games. When China is realizing its dream, the United States may begin to have nightmare of losing its superpower status. Meanwhile, Malaysia seems have not wake up from its sweet dream since long time ago. Hence, in four years time in London 2012 Olympic Games, whither Malaysia?


Reference:


AFP. 2008. Curtain down on 'truly exceptional' Beijing Games. Source: http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/newsmlmmd.eec675fb1ae4cc3ca249a6b0eb442603.101.html. Access date: 24 August 2008.

CNN. 2008. Grand spectacle closes Beijing's Olympics. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/08/24/olympics.close/index.html. Access date: 24 August 2008.

Reuters. 2008. IOC says China Games leave positive legacy. Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyid=2008-08-24T094553Z_01_SP110934_RTRUKOC_0_US-OLYMPICS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-R1-MostViewed-1. Access date: 24 August 2008.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Non-bumis will be an asset for UiTM

My comment was published in malaysiakini’s “Your Say” column, available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/87828. An extract from that column is as below:


[Background of the issue: Khalid Ibrahim, the Selangor Menteri Besar’s (MB) suggestion to reserve 10 per cent of places in Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) to non-Bumiputeras and foreigners. His suggestion received heavy protest]


Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races.

If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'.

Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM.

Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud!


[Note: My other published articles in malaysiakini – shorten and modified from the entries in this blog is as below]


Fuel price hike: Alternative suggestions

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/84381

A post-tsunami, early-Merdeka wish list

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/87363

Unstoppable Anwar against immovable BN

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/87496

Monday, July 21, 2008

The Malaysian Politic of “Unstoppable Forces against Immovable Object”

“Batman: The Dark Knight” make its remarkable debut recently and threaten to rewrite some of those blockbuster records. Besides adoring the battle actions and Batman’s high technology gargets, the Malaysian audience could seriously ponder the Joker’s metaphor about his battle with Batman, mentioned towards the end of the movie: “unstoppable forces against immovable object”. Well, it is similar with the battle between the Pakatan Rakyat’s “unstoppable” forces of Makkal Sakhti (People Power) against the “immovable” dominance of the Barisan Nasional (BN)? Who shall prevail? The People Power Revolution of 1986 against Ferdinand Marcos in Philippine resulted in the “unstoppable” beating the “immovable”. In the Philippine scenario, its citizens raised against years of “unmovable” authoritarian regime of Marcos that suppressed their dissatisfactions through repressive laws and political assassinations. The assassination of opposition leader Ninoy Aquino on 21 August 1983 sparked off the “unstoppable” forces of people power. Nevertheless, the same success never shared in Myanmar where the “unstoppable” forces of people power failed to free Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.

Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto leader of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition continuously insists that the currently “immovable” BN-lead government will fall by August or latest September 2008. He seem building up on the “unstoppable” forces of Makkal Sakhti that denied BN a two-third majority in Parliament for the first times in Malaysian election history. In that election, few top leaders and Ministers of the BN have been defeated include Samy Vellu (MIC president), Shahrizat Jalil, Koh Tsu Koon (Gerakan party acting President) and S. Kayveas (PPP President). The opposition coalition also won control of five states, namely Kedah, Penang, Perak, Kelantan and Selangor. Anwar “win” in his public debate with the Information Minister over the issue of oil price hike foster the forces of “unstoppable”. Yet, the BN still managed to form the federal government, giving them the invaluable chance to fortify their “immovable” defense.

Since the general election, everything remains status quo abide some non-Parliamentarians crossover between both coalitions. Anwar’s claims that Member of Parliament from the BN will be joining the PR never materialized thus far nor the BN’s claims of PAS members will cross over to UMNO and they will be taking back the Perak state. The battle remains evenly fought but will it still even few weeks or months down the road? How will the battle possibly unfold?

This battle game is simple. The BN just need to fade out the PR’s strength. Hence, time is on the BN side. The longer this battle drag on, the higher chance of victory for the BN. PR need speed and agility. Therefore, the sodomy case against Anwar is directly or indirectly a “time-buying” advantage for the BN. Perhaps, the same applies to the Prime Minister’s claim on “high level” talk between UMNO and PAS. Anwar Ibrahim is the PR’s greatest strength and also theirs greatest weakness as the whole hope of the coalition seem put on the shoulder of this man. Well, common investment lesson tells us that putting all egg in one basket is very risky but yet Warren Buffet has a different perspective – better to put all your egg in one basket (or very few baskets) and watch that basket very well to reap better return. PR seems follow the later advise that may be the reason to this phenomenon called “Anwar bashings”. Personal attacks on Anwar are obvious during and after the election campaigns and in the mentioned public debate, perhaps having the idea that if Anwar is defeated, so does the whole PR.

An interesting question here is whether the Malaysian can differentiate between logic and personal attacks? The answer to this question is a very difficult task, as it needs understanding of philosophy of logic versus rhetoric. Logic reasoning rooted back to Socrates who seeks the truth through questioning (known as “Socrates questioning”). Nowadays, his teaching hardly found not only in Malaysian but global academia, thus weakening the critical reasoning part of human mind. Of course, in Malaysian context, any critical mind is further subjected to government’s suppression, particularly causing the death of dialectics since schooling era (see Burniske 1998). There are some 47 pieces of legislation and ordinances affected mass media operations in the country. Some dated to the colonial era, such as the Printing Presses and Periodicals Act (1948) (Atkins 2002: 22). Specifically to education sector, there are various restrictions imposed on members of the academia through laws such as the Universities and Universities Colleges Act (UUCA) and Statutory Bodies Act (Manan 2005). All these instil fear for Malaysian to speak up, thus thwarting constructive support to the PR. In the absent of support from all layers of the society due to fear factor, the PR’s “unstoppable” could be running out of steam soon. Nevertheless, Malaysian praise the BN-led government’s effort to relax the control of media and freedom of speech recently, which among resulted in live telecast of Parliament preceding and agreeing to the live telecast of the public debate on oil price. On the other hand, all these freedom of speech and press are no good to the BN defence and may shaken its “immovable” dominance. Well, it is a hard decision for the BN to ponder but certainly Malaysian public do appreciate those efforts.

So, is that all their got in this historical battle of the Malaysian politic? Malaysian could expect more “unstoppable” forces from the blog; most celebrated one goes to Raja Petra Kamaruddin and perhaps the academic arena too. Anwar’s various ceramah on explaining the sodomy case ensure the “unstoppable” forces remain unfazed. There could be much more surprises from both sides as result from the on going high profile court cases. Whatever happens, this battle of “unstoppable forces against immovable object” is real, not movie and tends to have lasting impact to Malaysia’s politic, economy and social.

Reference

Atkins, William. (2002). The politics of Southeast Asia’s new media. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.

Burniske, R. W. (1998). The shadow play: How the integration of technology annihilates debate in our schools. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 80 (2). Source: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbur9810.htm. Access date: 7 January 2008.

Manan, Adriana Nordin. (2005). Chandra: Neo-feudal culture stifles academic freedom. 27 May. Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/36511. Access date: 28 May 2005.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A Dead-end to Malaysian Politics?

Written by Farish A. Noor
Wednesday, 09 July 2008

Source: http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/191/1/
Access date: 9 July 2008

It has become the common blight of many a postcolonial state that the discrepancy between political idealism and the realities on the ground grow wider by the day. It has also been my singular misfortune that the nature of my work as a political scientist who studies the uneven development of many such nation-states means that I have grown somewhat jaded by such contradictions that are all too evident when one is distant from the country in question.

Over the past decade I have travelled across South and Southeast Asia looking at the painfully slow pace of development in countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia. The political elite of these countries talk on and on about development, progress, emancipation (both economic and mental) and yet remain beholden captives to the racialised ideologies of the colonial past. Their feeble attempts at deconstructing the legacy of Empire often dwindles down to little more than a vulgar pastiche of reversed Orientalism at best, (as if the racism of Asians is somehow better than the racism of the European colonialists who came before); and their steadfast refusal to adapt to changes around them is irritating and infuriating to witness at close range.

In India and Pakistan I watched as my fellow academic friends who play the role of public intellectuals and who have been calling for peace and reconciliation between the two countries have been systematically denounced as 'race traitors', 'cowards', the fifth column within, etc. Some of the best minds that secular democratic India has produced have been pilloried and harrangued by right-wing Hindutva fundamentalists who have called them 'traitors' to the great Hindu cause, labelled them 'Muslim-lovers' or worse still, apologists for the great Western conspiracy against the motherland.

The same level of puerile non-debate can be seen in Southeast Asia too: Thai pacifists who have called for a settled end to the hostilities in the Muslim south have been denounced as apologists for Muslim extremists; in Malaysia academics who have called for the re-working and re-negotiation of the social contract have been labelled 'race traitors'; in Indonesia moderate Muslim intellectuals who have defended Indonesia's plural society and culture have been branded enemies of Islam. So what gives?

The country that is closest to my heart is, of course, Malaysia and the recent developments in the country has given me reason to be worried about its future. Religious and racial sectarianism remain the dominant features on its political landscape and there is the apparent need for some form of national reconciliation and healing.

Yet events over the past two weeks have made a mockery of Malaysia's claim to be a developing country with first world ambitions: Despite the skyscrappers that claw at the heavens above Kuala Lumpur, the mega-malls that devour their consumers by the thousands, the massive highways that are crammed with cars; the state of Malaysian politics today beggars belief.

At a time when all of Asia is on the brink of a global recession sparked by the rising costs of oil and gas and the collapse of the American Dollar, the issues that count ought to be structural-economic ones instead. But what has transpired over the past two weeks have shown that despite the flashy suits and corporate videos broadcasting the bold and brazen image of Malaysia Inc., the country's politics remains trapped in the swamp of the banal and ridiculous.

For a start sodomy season has returned to Malaysia with a vengeance with allegations of sodomy being levelled against Anwar Ibrahim, de facto head of the Peoples Justice Party (PKR) and advisor to the Peoples Alliance opposition coalition. Not to be outdone, those close to Anwar have also made disclosures about the alleged sexcapades of Malaysia's ruling elite and senior politicians in the country; but only to have the very same allegations withdrawn a day later. The rally to protest the rise in oil prices on 6 July that was aiming to gather a million Malaysians only managed to bring together 25 to 30 thousand, and was marred by an equally embarrassing incident when conservative Islamists stormed the stage during the performance of a punk rock band, the lead singer of which decided to moon the crowd. In the midst of this, have we forgotten our economic essentials? And the real reason behind this global economic meltdown which happened to be the skewered uneven global economy we have all inadvertently created thanks to our dependency on the US economy? Or has politics been reduced to bottoms and sodomy for now?

All of this has made it increasingly difficult for me to explain the nature of Malaysian politics to my European colleagues where I am currently on the seminar circuit. How, pray tell, does a global economic crisis degenerate to the level of sodomy allegations and why on earth does the personality of politicians matter more at a time when the overbearing global economic structures have taken on a life of their own?

Voodoo politics was a term once fashionable in the 1970s and we seem to have returned to our political myths and ghost-stories with relish. As oil and gas prices are set to soar across Asia, the manifestations of public outrage and frustration is bound to spill into the streets. But in Malaysia, as in the case of Indonesia, the results are freaky and unpredictable at best. Why, in Indonesia the ones who seem to have benefitted the most are the Islamist parties that have been scoring hits at all the local elections. So once again, what gives?

Politics has always been influenced by elements that are variable and sometimes even irrational; but this time round the wierd and wonderful manifestation of collective anger and frustration may take us to the end of politics itself, and with that our aspirations for development, progress and political maturity can be dumped into the bin as well. How terribly sad.