Update on YB Fuziah & Tan Keng Liang LYNAS debate

UPDATES on YB Fuziah Salleh & Tan Keng Liang Debate:

The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

To recap:

I came across the debate on Twitter between YB Fuziah Salleh and Tan Keng Liang on the Lynas plant issue. Both sides were already Tweeting about their willingness to debate and I offered to be the moderator and organizer to move the debate out of Twitter into reality.

Now the next step is to put things in order. To recap, the purpose of the debate is:

1. To find out the truth about the Lynas plant issue;
2. To detach the issue from politics and look squarely at the facts;
3. To provide a neutral and balanced platform for factual information to be aired.

Updates on the Debate Format

We have taken propositions from both sides as best as we could based on the debate format previously released here - http://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2012/03/yb-fuziah-salleh-tan-keng-liang-debate.html

YB Fuziah suggested

i) that more time should be given for speakers

ii) to add one more panelist to each side

We have agreed to these requests. The organizer has the final word on the following format and conditions and these will no longer be open to discussion.

Debate Format

What?

Debate Title:

The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

There will be three panelists in each team - Two debaters and one industry expert. In the interest of time, each debater will be apportioned 15 minutes, and each expert will be given 20 minutes.

The format will be as follows:

· First speaker proposition – 15 minutes

· First speaker opposition – 15 minutes

· Second speaker proposition – 15 minutes

· Second speaker opposition – 15 minutes

· Expert on opposition side – 20 minutes

· Expert on proposition side – 20 minutes

· Questions from the floor

Guidelines

In order to allow for a substantial debate session and remove any unnecessary repetitions, we recommend the following guidelines:

1. Technical and scientific facts and figures, issues of radioactivity, biochemical effects of rare earth metals on humans, etc. best be handled by experts in the field as scientific backup to the debate on both sides.

2. We suggest that the other two speakers focus on these key areas.

• Do we have the following adequately in place to allow for safe setting up and running of a rare earth refinery plant?

i. Processes and administrative systems – Are they tight enough to ensure no complications before, during and after plant is set up?

ii. Legislation – Are our existing laws adequate to support safety and deter any wrongdoing? Do we have enough law enforcement bodies to deal with issues that may arise in dealing in this industry?

iii. Procedures and standards, monitoring mechanisms, maintenance cycles etc. – What do we have in place and are they good enough?

· What are the role of politicians on all sides to ensure minimal risk to people and what are the checking mechanisms to make sure its followed through? Is it being followed in the Lynas case?

· The impacts of the project:

i. Economic impact?

ii. Technological impact i.e. transfer of technology?

iii. Business-related impact?

iv. Environmental impact?

v. Social impact?

vi. Global impact?

· Lessons from the past – Asian Rare Earth case in Bukit Merah. What have we learnt from it, what steps, systems, processes have we put in place to ensure the mistakes that caused it is in no way repeated. How far have we corrected the misgivings? Will it happen again?

Who?

Proposition:

1) Tan Keng Liang

2) *Second speaker

3) *Expert Panelist

Opposition:

1) YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh

2) *Second speaker

3) *Expert Panelist

*Both teams shall choose their own speakers and expert panelist and are free to organize their own teams.

With interest to the subject at hand, the second speaker should preferably be an environmentalist. The Expert panelist must be credible and their credentials must be furnished.

• Please submit the names of team members plus experts by 14 March 2012, Wednesday, 12 noon via e-mail to anas@zubedy.com.

***

Audience: By invitation only. Each side will be apportioned a maximum of 30 seats for supporters.

• We will request each side to register the names and I.C. numbers of their 30 supporters at a later date.
• Another 30 seats will be allocated for media representatives.
• Registered audience will be allocated numbered seats. No last minute changes will be entertained.

Where?

Debate will be held at zubedy’s training suite in Kuala Lumpur. Address as follows:

Zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.

Level 3, Wisma W.I.M.

7 Jalan Abang Hj Openg

Taman Tun Dr. Ismail

60000 Kuala Lumpur.

When?

Because it will be a rather lengthy session, the debate must be held on a weekend. We have decided on a Saturday morning. Taking into account scheduling, time to prepare, etc. we maintain either one of these proposed dates:

• 14^th April 2012 or 5^th May 2012

How?

REMINDER:

• The debate session will be STRICTLY NON-POLITICAL. Both sides and their supporters are forbidden to bear anything with political connotations, e.g. T-shirts, placards, etc. The whole session will be held in a straightforward setting, conducive for the uncovering of facts, figures and truth. Both parties MUST ensure that no gathering be allowed to take place at, in the vicinity, or in relation to this debate.
• Speakers, experts and audience must keep to the issue of the pros and cons of the Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project. Any arguments brought forth must directly address the issue at hand.

***

Off-site Viewing & Participation:

• The debate, presentation by experts and question & answer session will be streamed ‘live’ on an online platform.
• There will be ‘live’ Twitter updates. We will also receive questions via Twitter for the Question/Answer session.
• The debate, presentations and question session will be recorded in video form. A verbatim transcription of the debate will be made for future reference.
• Organizers are considering producing a booklet of the contents discussed and generated in this debate session. Costs will be borne by us; any profit will be redirected to a related cause (to be decided).

***

YB Fuziah Salleh and Tan Keng Liang are requested to indicate their confirmation for the debate via an official e-mail to anas@zubedy.com, by this Friday (9 March 2012), 6.00 p.m. Failure to do so, unless with good reason, will be considered as a pull out.

Names of team members and expert panel must be submitted by Wednesday, 14 March 2012, 12 noon.

Anas Zubedy

Why we must read History

When you read some western commentators’ take on state capitalism today, one may have the wrong impression that the West has embraced Adam Smith from the very beginning and never had to rely on state protection in growing their economy and achieving their economic success. The truth however will show the opposite.

Let me explain.

Adam Smith Vs Friedrich List

“Americans persist in thinking that Adam Smith’s rules for free trade are the only legitimate ones. But today’s fastest growing economies are using a very different set of rules. Once, we knew them – knew them so well that we played by them, and won. Now we seem to have forgotten.” James Farlow

The Anglo-American system of economics and politics, like any other system, rest in certain principles or beliefs. Basically, the world of Adam Smith. However, instead of seeing their system as one of many systems, Britons and Americans tend to elevate their version of political-economics almost to the level of a religion.

Outside United States and Britain, however, the Anglo-American world of Adam Smith is but one theory amongst several theorists who had important ideas about organizing the economy. For example, during the Meiji era from 1868-1912, Japanese scholars, individualist, industrialist and administrators while ‘shopping’ for a model for development found Friederich List’s the German economist and some other contributors’ theories about how economies grew more persuasive than the laissez-faire teachings of Adam Smith. Malaysia, just like many other East Asian economies adopted the Japanese model.

Smith’s policy of laissez-faire indicates a belief that the nation’s economy functions best when it is free from government intervention by what popularly known as the ‘invisible hand’. List suggested a government policy that is more paternalistic. Individuals might not automatically choose the best action or will act with complete rationale. As such the state must also be concerned with the processes as well as the results of the economy. In other words, society did not automatically move from farming to small industries then jump to major industries, just because millions of small merchants were making decisions for themselves.

If every person put his money where the return is the greatest, the money might not automatically go where it would do the nation best. For it to do so, it requires a plan, a push, or exercise of a central power. As such, in List’s view, economic policies will be good or bad depending on how far it is in the national economic interest, that is, national interest as compared to other nations.

How did List come to these theories? He drew his hypothesis heavily on the history of America and Britain. Yes, you heard me right - American and Britain’s. Didn’t the Americans reach their heights in economic power via laissez fair and opening of the market as they seem to claim today? Not really.

Serious studies by Fallow and other economic historians like, William Lazonick, Thomas McCraw, Geffrey Perret etc will show otherwise.

They suggested that none of the major economies today like America, Britain, Germany nor Japan conformed to today’s model of ‘getting-prices right’ and putting the consumer’s welfare first as their early model for development. All had to ‘cheat’ somehow to succeed. In other words, when their economies were growing and still developing, the countries had no time for laissez faire.

America for example, only began to preach laissez faire to the rest of the world after it had grown strong. The traditional American support and portrayal to worldwide free trade and laissez faire (as the secret of its success) is quite recent – and not telling the whole truth. A phenomenon made popular since after the Second World War.

Prior to that, from economic activities like steel and arms industries, to transportation and agriculture etc. it was more so directed by the state. In short, America took steps and actions and did not wait for them to occur. They deliberately promoted the results they desired. Tariff, was a potent weapon. Similarly, the nineteenth-century British began advocating laissez faire and free trade after their economic development had already achieved a position of strength to withstand and benefit from open competition.

In summary, what America and Britain did while industrializing is not what they have been telling the world about industrialization today. Commenting on the ‘Asian model’, Farlow stressed,

“Today’s Americans and Britons may not like this new system, which makes their economic life more challenging and confusing than it would otherwise be. They are not obliged to try to initiate its structure, which in many ways fits the social circumstances of East Asia better than those of the modern United States or Britain. But, the English-speaking world should stop ignoring the existence of this system and stop pretending that it doesn’t work.”

It is not a surprise for student of economics that Joseph Schumpeter who popularized the term ‘creative destruction’ in economics never lectured on his own theories despite entreaties from his students and colleagues. Some scholars suggested that he felt that in the last analysis, his formulations were inadequate. However, everyone who is interested in economics must come to grip with him. Not only because of what he accomplished within the discipline, but because in his very achievements he demonstrated its limitation. Thus, it is interesting to note that Shumpeter towards the end of his long career as an economist, contemplated that if he were to be given a second chance to start all over again, he would have devoted his life to studying economic history instead of economic theory or statistics.

Economic history is very telling. It can help us debunk some very strong beliefs and open our minds to other alternatives.

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

YB Fuziah Salleh & Tan Keng Liang Debate: The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

I am happy that through the Twitterverse I am connected to YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh, Member of Parliament of Kuantan, and Mr. Tan Keng Liang, youth chief of Parti Gerakan Kedah. YB Fuziah is spearheading a campaign to stop the Lynas rare earth refinery; Tan is a proponent that the project can be allowed to proceed.

In our interactions via Twitter, we have come to a juncture where both sides have agreed that they are willing to take part in a debate on the issue. While personally I do not see debates as an ideal way to deal with contentious issues as it is easy for it to degenerate into mere talk, what we want to try to do now is provide a platform for proponents and opponents of the Lynas plant to air their opinions, in the interest of truth. To do so, we will tighten up the debate structure in order to get to the facts of the issue and weed out unnecessary concerns that are not directly related.

For this purpose, I have offered to be the organizer and moderator of a debate between the two parties. As a moderator, I will be fair, firm, no-nonsense and have been known to cut any speaker short if he or she does not follow the rules, regardless of who the person is.

The purpose of this debate will be:

1. to find out the truth about the Lynas issue;
2. to detach the issue from politics and look squarely at the facts;
3. to provide a neutral and balanced platform for factual information to be aired

DEBATE FORMAT

Title: The Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project – Pros and Cons

What?

Debate: Each side will be given 8 minutes to present their constructive speech, followed by a 4 minute summary and rebuttal speech.

Presentation by experts: An expert in the field appointed by each side will present a 20 minute factual explanation to support the points brought up by the speakers. Profile and credentials of the expert will be required to be made clear in the interest of legitimacy.

Question & Answer session: The two speakers and two experts will receive questions from the floor.

Who?

Proposition: Mr. Tan Keng Liang

Opposition: YB Hajjah Fuziah Salleh

Each side will appoint one expert in the field to offer a 20 minute explanation and help field questions in the question and answer session.

Audience for the debate session is by invitation only. Each side will be apportioned a maximum of 30 seats in the audience for supporters.

Another 30 seats will be allocated for media representatives.

Where?

Debate will be held at zubedy’s training suite in Kuala Lumpur. Address as follows:

Zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.

Level 3, Wisma W.I.M.

7 Jalan Abang Hj Openg

Taman Tun Dr. Ismail

60000 Kuala Lumpur.

When?

14^th April 2012 or 5^th May 2012 (to be agreed)

How?

• The debate session will be strictly non-political. Both sides and their supporters will not be allowed to bear anything with political connotations, e.g. T-shirts, placards, etc. The whole session will be held in a straightforward setting, conducive for the uncovering of facts, figures and truth. Both parties must ensure that no gathering be allowed to take place at, in the vicinity, or in relation to this debate.
• Speakers, experts and audience must keep to the issue of the pros and cons of the Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) project. Any arguments brought forth must directly address the issue at hand.
• While politics is out of the picture, Malaysian administration issues related directly to the issue of rare earth refineries and related processes may be discussed, i.e. in talking about implementation of processes, systems of monitoring, etc.
• The debate, presentation by experts and question & answer session will be recorded in video form and streamed live on an online platform for clear information to all who are interested. Media representation will also be invited to record the event.

Anas Zubedy