Most Asian countries have one form of subsidy or another, whether it's for petrol we all need to move around or cooking oil we use to cook the 3 or more meals in our daily lives.
But I'm sure when the late ex-President Suharto introduced fuel subsidies to the Indonesians, he had no hint that oil wil become such an expensive commodity and the subsidies an unbearable burden on the state's budget. Neither could he have anticipated that Indonesia has become a net importer of oil.
Will buffering our poor from market forces help them in the long run? Anyone with the slightest interest in economic theory would have know that the answer is a "BIG NO".
Distorting market forces has a heavy price - whether we pay it now or 30 years down the road. I can agree with temporary solutions and eradicating short term "obstacles" just so we get the nation building in progress. But governments have been slow to eradicate subsidies which were put in place for specific purposes. This must be a painful lesson for governments throughout Asia now.
Each time Indonesia raised fuel prices, there would be demonstrations and protests, the most severe being the one in May 1998 which rewrote history (although that was a long overdue change). The test of a government's political will when contemplating reducing fuel subsidies is immensely tougher after that fateful fuel hike in 1998.
Through the years of nation building, Indonesians have been pampered with low fuel costs to the extent that low fuel costs become a right they are born with. Budget deficits or insufficiencies, along with other things of concern in Indonesia, are aliens to the ordinary folks. They don't understand how these can and will impact on their lives and their kids' lives in future. Yet, I've not seen any effort being put in by the government to effectively communicate and educate the populace of what the country is going through and what the country needs to ensure stability and economic well being in the years to come. Every politician is busy politicking or trying to make the next million dollars from the next deal on the table. No one seems to be interested -- truly interested I mean -- in what will happen to the next generation, their own children included.
Malaysia's government is not much different, although the Malaysians are in a more enviable position as a net exporter of this expensive commodity called oil.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Soon there'll be problems with cooking oil which Indonesia and Malaysia have plenty of, from the millions of hectares of land cultivating palm oil; and rice, the staple food of most Asians. Maybe those who protested vehemently against the conversion of padi fields into golf courses saw something which our well-educated politicians didn't.
Sunday 1 June 2008
THAILAND'S STYLE OF DEMOCRACY
Throughout its history, the Thais have experienced several coups d'etat, the most recent being September last year. But the question that's baffling me is that why a smart people like the Thais cannot understand the true meaning of democracy
They recently elected a new government into office. By "elect" it's not silly to assume that the populace made their own choices. And one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is that the majority rules and the minority respects that majority. The same rules of democracy also enabled manipulators to fester, and stir up their people to demonstrate against decisions made by the majority.
Demonstrations are healthy. Most of all, demonstrations are a true sign of democracy and the freedom of expression. But what has the army got to do with this?
There is no doubt that in a mature state like Thailand, there would have been an independant judicial system and a police force with clear rules on how to enforce existing laws passed by lawmakers elected by the people.
Under the pretext of keeping peace and unity, they, the army -- whose powers were supposed to have been derived from the civilian government -- blatantly flex their muscles and use weapons purchased from taxes collected from the people who elected their governments, to throw out the democratically elected government.
Must an army be so arrogant in this day and age? Should they feel that their management of Thailand is superior to that of democratically elected representatives of the people? Should they feel that their laws are better than those of elected lawmakers? Do they think that their way of maintaining the peace is better than that of the police force under civilians. Have they not learnt anything from history of the world?
The threat of another coup is affecting not just the proper functioning of the government but also the economy's ability to continue attracting vital foreign investments. The same army which purportedly is acting in the interests of the people and the country is blinded by their "noble illusory conception" as to forget that millions of poor people need to be fed and millions of young children need to be educated for the sake of the future of their nation.
What is a democracy when decisions of the majority facing opposition from the minority become fodder for removal of the government by undemocratic means? Are there no effective laws in Thailand to deal with lawbreakers in such protests and demonstrations? Are the police so severely outnumbered as to be unable arrest anarchists? Is there no faith left in the judiciary in dealing with such anarchists? Or are these (and others) simply excuses conjured up by the men in green? Or are they so close to Myanmar such that their neighbors' ways have had a contagion effect on them?
They recently elected a new government into office. By "elect" it's not silly to assume that the populace made their own choices. And one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is that the majority rules and the minority respects that majority. The same rules of democracy also enabled manipulators to fester, and stir up their people to demonstrate against decisions made by the majority.
Demonstrations are healthy. Most of all, demonstrations are a true sign of democracy and the freedom of expression. But what has the army got to do with this?
There is no doubt that in a mature state like Thailand, there would have been an independant judicial system and a police force with clear rules on how to enforce existing laws passed by lawmakers elected by the people.
Under the pretext of keeping peace and unity, they, the army -- whose powers were supposed to have been derived from the civilian government -- blatantly flex their muscles and use weapons purchased from taxes collected from the people who elected their governments, to throw out the democratically elected government.
Must an army be so arrogant in this day and age? Should they feel that their management of Thailand is superior to that of democratically elected representatives of the people? Should they feel that their laws are better than those of elected lawmakers? Do they think that their way of maintaining the peace is better than that of the police force under civilians. Have they not learnt anything from history of the world?
The threat of another coup is affecting not just the proper functioning of the government but also the economy's ability to continue attracting vital foreign investments. The same army which purportedly is acting in the interests of the people and the country is blinded by their "noble illusory conception" as to forget that millions of poor people need to be fed and millions of young children need to be educated for the sake of the future of their nation.
What is a democracy when decisions of the majority facing opposition from the minority become fodder for removal of the government by undemocratic means? Are there no effective laws in Thailand to deal with lawbreakers in such protests and demonstrations? Are the police so severely outnumbered as to be unable arrest anarchists? Is there no faith left in the judiciary in dealing with such anarchists? Or are these (and others) simply excuses conjured up by the men in green? Or are they so close to Myanmar such that their neighbors' ways have had a contagion effect on them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)