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

Build bridges, not walls by Shad Saleem Faruqi - The STAR

I COMMEND Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for transcending race and religion and reaching out to the Hindus of this country by joining them for Thaipusum.

As the country’s PM, he is the leader of every community and it is his duty to build bridges of friendship rather than walls of hatred.

I am dismayed and disappointed that an online media story condemned Najib’s warm gesture as “idolatrous” and “a sacrifice of

his faith”. This view is narrow-minded, intolerant and reflective of a shallow understanding of Islam.

Islamic theory accepts religious pluralism (Quran 2:113 & 256, 5:2, 10:99). Islam is most respectful of previous monotheistic religions and holds their Prophets in great veneration (42:13, 2:136).

Cooperation with and courtesy towards other religions, including the polytheistic religions, is recommended (5:5, 6:108).

There is no bar to visiting non-Muslim places of worship. It all depends on the purpose of one’s visit.

If the purpose is aesthetic or to seek knowledge or to negotiate goodwill and peace, there is no religious obstacle.

Allah is every where and Muslim texts exquisitely state that “the whole earth is a mosque”.

There is historical record, including the writings of Al-Bukhari, that in the early stages of Islam, Muslim conquerors often performed their solat in Christian churches.

In the treatise Fiqh-us-Sunnah by Sayyid Saabiq (1915-2000) it is stated that there is nothing wrong in visiting churches and synagogues. Even praying in one is allowed if one happens to be in a church at the time of solat.

In the Cathedral of Saint John in Damascus, which later became the Umayad Mosque, Muslims and Christians prayed next to each other – Muslims facing the

Read more on this article

Stop Lynas, save Malaysia… but from what? - TMI by Zuraini AR

MARCH 2 — Quick, name me another politician who is as passionate in opposing Lynas as Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh.

How about this instead: name me a politician who dared to break ranks on this Lynas issue. Besides that “nuclear scientist” guy. (His name is Che Rosli Che Mat by the way, and he taught nuclear science in UKM.)

If you are like the general public, you might have trouble naming names. Hence, the moment Tan Keng Liang of Gerakan demanded that Pakatan Rakyat politicians just shut up and agree with Che Rosli’s opinion unless they possess scientific arguments, he created an impasse that drew silence from most of his detractors.

Our elected representatives’ poor grasp on science (in this case, some basic nuclear physics) proved to be their undoing. As a result, both sides decided to either opt out or just toe their respective parties’ lines. A crucial environmental issue had effectively transformed into a political row with the government on Lynas’ side and opposition on the other.

To put things into perspective, let us recap what rare earths are, and what they are not. Rare earths by themselves are not radioactive. The by-product from their extraction, however, can contain thorium, and is radioactive. Thorium emits alpha-particles, instead of beta-particles — used usually for cancer treatments — or gamma-particles — the most dangerous of all, or in fiction, turns one into a green angry giant.

Alpha-particles cannot even go through human skin, but materials emitting it are harmful once eaten or breathed in. So, when people talk about the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) being radioactive, they should actually mean its waste is radioactive, not rare earths or the plant itself.

Che Rosli had a point when he accused his colleague of being unscientific. The same accusations can be directed towards a segment of public with anti-Lynas sentiments too, who are prone to exaggerations and scare-mongering with their appeals to emotions. It is understandable though that they would go to such lengths. After all, the consequences might be too big to bear. But are such tactics justified?

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the industry has struggled to regain its credibility. Nothing illustrates this difficulty more than some anti-Lynas activists who discredit themselves by bringing this topic up. Comparing rare earth plants to nuclear power plants reeks of desperation, and is just downright sinister. No radioactive fuel is used, nor will meltdown happen, in a rare earth plant.

Closer to home, anti-Lynas activists point to the abandoned Asian Rare Earth (ARE) plant by Mitsubishi Chemicals in Bukit Merah. This comparison is unfair, for two major reasons. First, ARE was built more than 25 years ago, which in technological terms, is ancient. Second, ARE was built to extract the rare earth yttrium from mining leftover monazite, which can contain eight to 10 per cent thorium. In comparison. Lynas claims that LAMP will not be processing monazite, but mineral from the Mount Weld mine which is prized for having very low radiation, containing 0.17 per cent thorium.

The bulk of this fear can be attributed to the level of distrust against our ruling government and local authorities. A number of Malaysians just do not trust ourselves to run something that involves nuclear science. You’d have to wonder what these people have to say about our nuclear agency which has been running a nuclear reactor in Bangi since 1982.

As noted by my fellow columnist Hafiz Noor Shams, the government has been guilty of exaggerating the economic benefit of LAMP. A 12-year tax holiday, accepting collateral money from Lynas and keeping the public in the dark until New York Times broke the story — these are easy ammunition for anyone to shoot down a government that is increasingly being distrusted by the public.

Lynas, too, is no less shady. Their rush to complete the plant in more cost-effective Malaysia instead of Australia is tainted with suspicions of cost-cutting from two of their contractors. UGL Ltd and AkzoNobel have pointed out major flaws within the concrete containment area, which Lynas promised would spare local soil and groundwater from toxic contamination.

Considering that rare earth is now indispensable in our lives — we need to get them from somewhere, somehow — what we are left with now is a case of “not in my backyard.” Until LAMP starts operating and Molycorp restarts its California site, China holds the world ransom by controlling 97 per cent of the world’s supply. Complete disregard for environmental and legal concerns means an even worse fate for the Chinese.

Like many other Malaysians, I do wish for a cleaner and greener Malaysia, but it should go beyond a partisan affair. Che Rosli might only be a nuclear scientist (the Lynas effect is a more multi-faceted issue) but at least he had the conviction to go against party line and bring forth his own arguments.

Why aren’t there more BN politicians questioning the environmental impact of LAMP? Shouldn’t the PR politicians go beyond “if we are the federal government, we’ll shut Lynas down”? Will anyone take Tan Keng Liang’s challenge and come up with a factual retort instead of shouting “RADIOACTIVE!” over and over again?

Stopping Lynas and saving Malaysia… they don’t always need to be the same thing.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

And Thus Democracy Makes Cowards Of Us All by Farish A. Noor

The older I get, the grumpier and more cynical I become; and as I grow more cynical by the day, nothing gets my goat more than having to watch and read about the developments in Malaysia where the lowest common denominator rules the day. On this occassion I find myself riled once again by the popular and populist demand for vernacular education, and to maintain a multi-track education system in the country. Again and again this issue bedevils our national politics, and again and again most, if not all, of the political parties in the country fall back to their safe positions while banking upon what they regard as their natural and safe political constituencies.

In this regard both the ruling coalition and the opposition coalition seem to be equally at fault: Neither side seems prepared to take the bull by the horns and do what seems simply necessary if we still going to entertain the notion that there is some form of nation-building at work in this country. Malaysia boasts of its uniqueness, but in this one regard it does seem to be unique indeed. After more than half a century of independence we still cling on to the notion that an inclusive national narrative can come about through not one, but several vernacular education systems. Nowhere else in the world (or the developed world at least) can I think of an example of such an arrangement, where both the government and the opposition seem inclined to support the popular demand for vernacular-based education streaming.

Nowhere else in the world would a plural society be made all the more alienated from itself by allowing kids to study in the company of those who are more culturally and linguistically closer to them. We lament, as we often do, the declining levels of inter-ethnic contact in the country; and we bemoan that the so-called 'golden years' of Malaysia in the 1950s and 1960s are long gone. And yet we maintain this inane belief that by segregating children from an early age along linguistic-cultural lines we can still forge a Malaysian nation, together. How? And upon what basis would that shared sense of national belonging be found?

We wonder how and why the religious functionaries in the country can make the pronouncements they do, but what do we expect if we allow a condition where children from the same linguistic-cultural background are kept in the company of people similar to them from primary to secondary education, and perhaps even beyond? I have said the same thing so many times by now that I am only thankful that the internet does not incur the waste of ink and paper: Yet today, in Malaysia, it is conceivable that a child of a particular linguistic-cultural group grows up in the company of similar children up to the age of 18, without ever having to shake hands with someone of a different ethnic, linguistic or religious background. So much for diversity then - how on earth can we expect Malaysians to integrate if the educational system keeps them apart for so long?

And while on the subject of comparisons, can we imagine a similar situation in any developed country, like the UK, Germany or France? Where would France and Germany's minorities be if they were segregated from childhood in Arabic or Turkish schools? How could they hope to enter the mainstream of society that is still defined and shaped by the national language of those countries? On the contrary, while I was living in Germany I came across scores of German-Arab and Turks who wanted their kids to enter and succeed in the mainstream educational system, knowing that in that country that is the only path to higher education, and possible upward social mobility as well.

Yet what it takes for this to happen in Malaysia is political courage and the will to put forward radical proposals that may not be popular, in fact downright unpopular. It takes a politician with guts to say that Malaysian kids ought to be able to meet, study, compete and succeed in a singular national educational system that mirrors the reality of Malaysia's plural and complex society. And it takes some courage to state that if any Malaysian parent wishes his or her child to study Mandarin or Tamil, he should be able to do so in the same singular national schooling system where these languages should also be taught as Malaysian languages - languages that have been spoken in the region for centuries.

But politicians tend to be timid in the face of democratic populism, and the will of the voter - no matter how uninstructed, how bigotted or biased - seems to hold sway over their own opinions. I have met politicians on both sides of the fence who have confided in me their fears and anxiety over where the nation-building process in Malaysia is heading, and who know that if this trend continues there will not be one Malaysia but several Malaysias, that live side by side but remain clueless about their neighbours. But these very same politicians seem captive to the ballot box and paralyzed when it comes to doing what is necessary, albeit unpopular. They cannot speak out for fear of losing their so-called 'natural vote bases', that happen to be ethnic and linguistic vote bases, reflective of our fractured society. And so the charade continues, and we remain a nation that studies, and lives, apart. Thus has Populist Democracy made cowards of us all.

End.

The Multigenerational Workforce Survey – Aspirations, Attitudes, and Alignment with one another

We are happy to inform you that we are conducting a survey on the multigenerational workforce to learn their aspirations, attitudes and how they see each other.

This is the second survey we are conducting on the multigenerational workforce. The first one done in 2009 was focused more towards the attitudes of the Gen Y, but this time, we are interested to find out the interrelation between Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers.

We need your help to encourage the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y in your organisation to answer the survey. They can do this by visiting https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFZ3cjN4djlPZFdaTG5KZTNhaXRKU3c6MQ

There will be three separate survey forms:
i. for Baby Boomers
ii. for Gen Xs
iii. for Gen Ys

From the results gathered from the survey, we will produce a report which we will be happy to send to you. We will also be giving a free talk to present our findings, to be informed at a later date.

Thank you.

Let us add value,
zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.

I Believe

Dear Brother and Sister Malaysians,

I believe…

‘Until we give NO FREE RIDE to every candidate, no matter which party they may represent, we cannot stand proud and say "WE, THE RAKYAT, ARE IN CHARGE”.’

I believe that a single voter can make a difference. You and I, we are powerful!

I believe that we, the rakyat, are in charge. I believe that our votes and actions count for everything.

I believe that as we, the rakyat, move for the good of the nation, we are changing our nation for the better. I believe that we the rakyat are more powerful than all the party machineries put together.

I believe we can win when we do the right thing. I believe that God is with us when we are genuine, truthful and have faith in Him. I believe.

I am looking for fellow believers.

I am writing to you as a fellow Malaysian, a fellow believer with a heart for Malaysia. Let’s find ways as rakyat to work towards changing Malaysians and Malaysian politics for the better - with love, care and mindfulness; not with anger and hatred.

It is our collective responsibility to ensure we improve the quality of our lawmakers, regardless which party they are from. We are the real third force. This moment in time calls us as rakyat to act to make sure we get only our best people to represent us in parliament. When we get the best, it does not matter which party they are from.

If we grant the mandate for unfit Malaysians to become our leaders, we are directly responsible for letting our nation fall to neglect. So let’s work. Let’s work to make sure only the smartest, uncorrupted, hardworking, sound and healthy candidates are elected.

I need to convince you that when we believe, we can make a difference…

This is what we can do to ensure we have good leaders after the next elections:

1. Make an appointment with the potential candidates for your voting area and go meet with them. Go individually, or better still gather a few friends/family from the same voting area and go together.

2. Before you meet them, make sure you have decided what you want to ask from them. List down your wishes. Remember to use your Reason, Conscience and the Constitution as a guide. For an example, go to http://www.letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-letter-to-nurul-izzah.html

3. When meeting your potential candidates:

Things to bring

Your wish list from your MPs/ADUNs

A video recording device (your phone camera will be good enough)

What to do:

Choose to be respectful. Tell them you have a list of what you look for when deciding which leader to vote. Tell them that it will help you decide how to vote if they promise to keep this ‘halal contract’ between you, a rakyat, and your political representative.

Be clear: let them know that regardless of your political inclination, you will choose whoever is better at representing the rakyat. If anything, you want to be guided only by Reason, Conscience and the Constitution.

Show them your wish-list and ask them to choose which of the requests they agree with. The more they agree with, the more likely you will vote them.

Record a video of their clearly stated promise to keep to these wishes. Request that they say,

‘I, _________, if elected as an MP/ADUN, promise to (items on the list which they agree with)’.

4. This is how we can cause the ripple effect:

Once you have the recording, spread the news - post it up to your Facebook and link it to your Twitter, blogs, and other social media platforms. As a way to share it with other like-minded Malaysians, link the video back to   www.facebook.com/Campaign.NoFreeRides

5. This ‘halal contract’ is your lasting proof and accountability check. If, at any time after elected, your MP/ADUN fails to keep his promise, you can follow up with this proof to remind him, and the rest of the nation, of his/her promises.

One rakyat in each voting area is all it really takes. You can be that person.

When, because of our actions, we make this country better, one day we will look back and know that the reason we made a difference was because we believed.

I believe. Do you?

anas zubedy