Syed Ahmad Fathi's Blog, page 24

Ekonomi Bukan Hitam Putih

Saya bukanlah ahli ekonomi, di sekolah belajar aliran sains tak ambil subjek ekonomi. Kali pertama belajar ekonomi masa di universiti, seingat saya nama pensyarah saya adalah Radchenko semasa belajar di Russia. Dalam kelas beliau saya pertama kali dengar nama Adam Smith dan “the invisible hand”.

Selepas keluar universiti saya ada beli buku The Wealth of Nations tulisan Adam Smith, dikumpulkan 3 jilid dalam satu naskah terbitan Bantam Books. Saya mengambil masa 8 bulan untuk menghabiskan buku setebal 1264 mukasurat. Ada bab yang mudah faham seperti “division of labour” manakala banyak yang saya tak dapat hadam, terutamanya bab yang terlalui detail dan memenatkan seperti harga jagung, nilai emas dan perak.

Tahun lepas ada satu subjek ekonomi yang saya ambil untuk ICS professional exam berkenaan dengan ekonomi pengangkutan laut dan perdagangan antarabangsa. Subjek ICS ni berjaya mencetus semula minat saya untuk membaca dan memahami subjek-subjek ekonomi.

Dalam pembacaan saya, saya dapati ekonomi bukanlah sesuatu yang hitam putih. Ia bukan sains seperti mana subjek Fizik atau Biologi, ada perkara dalam ekonomi tidak boleh diberikan definisi secara objektif. Ekonomis Cambridge, Ha-Joon Chang sebagai contoh mengatakan bahawa “95% dari subjek ekonomi adalah common sense”.

Maksud saya bukan hitam putih adalah ia boleh dilihat dari banyak perspektif. Malah banyak polisi ekonomi sebenarnya polisi politik. Saya suka pendekatan sejarawan Howard Zinn, pendekatan pensejarahan yang boleh diapplikasikan dalam bidang ekonomi. Iaitu bila dikatakan sesuatu polisi itu baik, kita perlu bertanya baik untuk siapa?

Ambil contoh kelemahan nilai matawang berbanding US dollar. Dari sudut import memang tidak baik, sebab kita terpaksa membeli barang luar dengan harga yang lebih mahal. Jika kita melancong keluar negara kita terpaksa berbelanja lebih dibandingkan dengan masa matawang kita mengukuh.

Tapi dari sudut eksport kelemahan matawang akan memberi kita kelebihan. Barang kita menjadi murah dan orang luar akan lebih membeli, eksport akan meningkat. Sebab itu China mengamalkan polisi yang menyebabkan nilai Yuan lemah secara artificial. Supaya barang mereka murah dan kilang mereka boleh eksport lebih. Yang mana merupakan punca trade war hari ini apabila US mengalami trade deficit dengan China.

Begitu juga bila sebelum ini kerajaan melaksanakan polisi protectionism dalam perusahaan automobil. Jika kita lihat dari sudut syarikat automobil negara, supplier dan vendor mereka ia memang menguntungkan. Kita juga dapat mengembangkan kemahiran pekerja dalam sektor pembuatan berat, disamping boleh menyemai semangat patriotik terhadap industri tempatan.

Tapi jika kita melihat dari sudut rakyat yang terpaksa membeli kereta tempatan yang lebih kurang kualiti dengan harga yang lebih tinggi berbanding kereta import, tentu kita nampak polisi ini menjerat rakyat. Jika sektor ini diliberalisasi rakyat akan dapat membeli kereta import berkualiti dengan harga berganda lebih murah.

Jadi bila kita mendengar ahli politik berkata membangunkan pengangkutan awam tidak menguntungkan. Kita kena bertanya, tidak menguntungkan siapa? Mungkin tidak menguntungkan kerajaan dari satu segi, iaitu syarikat berkaitan kerajaan perlu mengendali kemudahan awam dengan caj minimum dan tidak menguntungkan.

Tapi ekonomi bukan hitam putih. Apabila ada infrastuktur kemudahan awam pelbagai aktiviti komersial boleh dijalankan. Sebagai contoh, orang berniaga di stesen LRT. Ia mencipta peluang pekerjaan, kerajaan dapat mengutip lebih banyak cukai dari aktiviti ini. Pekerja juga boleh pergi bekerja dengan kos yang rendah, seterusnya menggalakkkan lebih ramai orang bekerja dan kerajaan boleh mengutip lebih banyak cukai pendapatan. Tanah-tanah di sekeliling stesen pengangkutan juga naik harga dan kerajaan boleh kutip lebih banyak cukai hartanah. Ekonomi perlu dilihat dengan menyeluruh, bukan sekadar hitam putih untung rugi syarikat GLC.

Oleh itu penting kita sebagai rakyat untuk memahami bagaimana ekonomi berfungsi dan tidak bergantung semata-mata pada air liur ahli politik. Bila disebut untung atau rugi, kita kena selalu bertanya, untung dan rugi untuk siapa?

Every Nation for Itself – Book Review

Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World by Ian Bremmer published by Portfolio Penguin in 2012.

The book was written by Ian Bremmer which was also the
author of ‘The End of the Free Market’. In this book, Bremmer put forward his
thesis that the world is moving toward a leaderless world, a world where no
single nation or group of nations can impose anything to other states to
coordinate international respond and solve global problems. He termed this new
world G-Zero, as opposed to the grouping of established power which created a
club G7- a club of 7 powerful nation.

The G7 has diminishing power as the U.S. power slowly wane
off and the EU disintegrates, while a much larger club like the G20 produces
nothing of substance. On contrary, we have a number of emerging nations
assuming greater economic and political power on the global arena, but none of
them was capable or willing to assume global leadership.

One of the areas which are crucial for the survival of our
planet is on the issue of global warming. This global problem cannot be solved
by individual nation, it needs a coordinated and planned international effort.
Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, for example, produced nothing substantial to
come up with a global solution. India and China unwilling to cut emission that
will hamper their economic development, they instead remind western counterpart
that today’s problem was the result of the western industrial revolution, and
they are the one who needs to foot the bill.

Bremmer explained that the waning of American global
dominance is due to their swelling debt. With China on the rise, and the
Chinese willingness to invest in U.S. debt, it is harder for the U.S. to impose
anything on China. The U.S. also spending too much money on foreign war trying
to keep the world “peace, democratic and stable”. Although many would disagree
with Bremmer assessment, Chomsky for example once stated that the best way of
ending terrorism is by stop participate in one. One can argue that U.S. wars
were good or not, but no one can deny that it help dries the U.S. from the fund
it needs for productive economic development.

China also benefited from the service of U.S. navy patrol of
the major trade route but has no incentive to take over the lead. Russia on the
other hand, since the fall of the Soviet Union has lost military clout and the
ideological appeal for much of the developing world.

The book also is dense with ‘American exceptionalism’ which
made it non-objective and highly political. Some of it was not based on fact
but an assumption. For example, in discussing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), Bremmer wrote that “Iran join the club but cheat”. No evidence
cited for this accusation, instead,  in
the following line he said Iran “generally assumes” to be hiding its nuclear
weapons program. So, this accusation is not based on fact but an assumption.

In discussing the US-China trade relationship, Bremmer
prediction turns to be not very far stretched, as China keeps Yuan devalued,
the trade war looms as the U.S. and China have already slapped tariff to each
other. China manufacturing strategies also seem to be working, especially in
the telecommunication industries which has put the Western counterpart unease,
the latest is the Huawei case.

Market forces were also discussed in the book, he connected
the dots and explain how these forces impacted the price of commodities. The
growing middle-class for example, given rise to the demand of meat-based diet.
This, in turn, will push the grain price up as grain is needed so much more to
nourish livestock rather than feeding human. The rising price of grain will hit
poor countries the most as they spend a large portion of their income on food,
whilst in rich countries, the food is highly processed and the price fluctuation
usually lost after adding other costs such as processing, manufacturing and
transportation.

Who are is the possible winner in the leaderless world?

To this question, Bremmer suggests that countries with broad
cooperation and does not rely on any single superpower will thrive. As there is
no single power can impose any standard global system, these emerging states
can play using their own rules. Countries like Brazil, Turkey are possible
winners, as does the African continent.

States which does not obey the American leadership (Bremmer
called it rogues states) which have powerful friends will also have a good
advantage in the leaderless world. As the U.S. is plagued by war fatigue,
Europe troubled with fiscal austerity, the military threat was seen less
credible whilst economic sanctions were ineffective and porous.

Who will be the losers?

To this Bremmer answered states that still hang on to the
old power structure. They resist changes and stick to their own rules and
institutions. Institutions that have already accomplished their mission but not
yet decommissioned, such as NATO will also be on the losing end.

Closing the book, Bremmer comes out with what the future
might look like. The future according to Bremmer depends on the U.S., China,
and the other countries. This book was written in 2012, whilst this review was
written in 2019. So, we already in the future and can look back at Bremmer
proposed image of the future.

Bremmer suggested 4 possibilities, judging from the current
world affairs the most suitable candidate will be the “Wold of Regions” where
the emerging countries become stronger whilst the U.S. and China relationship
becoming more hostile. We can see the trade war currently brewing between these
two superpowers, with tariff been imposed on each other and the growing tension
on Huawei expanding their technological reach. While other countries climbing
the global political ladder. Even the U.S. sanction on Venezuela is not working
as India continue to buy Venezuelan oil. Whilst Turkey ignored U.S. threat and
continue purchasing Russian missiles system. 

Bremmer concludes the book on looking at the U.S. fate in the G-Zero world. He ends the book with his last touch of American exceptionalism saying that the U.S. always has a second act and can rise again. To do this they need to accept the world as it is and innovate to adapt.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media – Book Review

This book discussed the double-standard of U.S. foreign policies and the mass media who helped control public perception so that these policies can continue unimpeded. The propaganda propagated by U.S. media were discussed, the reasons for this phenomenon were given. Herman and Chomsky introduced a series of “filters” in their “propaganda model” which explain why the media followed state’s narrative like a herd of sheep.  

In their long introduction, they pointed out that how commercialization has blurred the line between editorial and advertising. Also in the introduction were criticism of the use of chemical weapons by the U.S. including concentrated arsenic-based and dioxin-laden herbicides, Agent Orange, napalm and phosphorus bomb against South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia – a heinous crime which was not reported by the mass media. The media also published biased report in-line with U.S. interest, with worthy victims, such as the people killed by Pol Pot were written clearly to identify the party responsible for the killing. Unworthy victims such as the one killed by Indonesian regime under Suharto, were written passively, leaving out the party who did the killing, for example The New York Times reported “a 1965 coup led to the massacres of hundred s of thousands of supposed communists” – here we can’t tell who did the killing.

Walter Lippmann referred to the special importance of propaganda, which he called “manufacture of consent”. It serves as an organ for a popular government which fix the premises of discourse, the elite decides what the general populace can see, hear, think, and discuss.  

“A mass movement without any major media support, and subject to a great deal of press hostility, suffers a serious disability, and struggles against grave odds” – Chomsky and Herman argue that many labor movement fall into serious disability once their alternative mass circulation disappeared, this is due to the contribution of one of the filter – advertising. A paper which does not center itself on consumerism and selling product will ultimately lose against other publication in which many of their readers are buyers, such publication attracted advertisers and gave them extra capital to compete.

Sourcing is also one of the filter in the mass media where “the citizenry pays to be propagandized”. Government and largesse has easy access to media coverage as they become the source of news, the media depend on them to manufacture news. They provide media relation services (paid by taxpayer) to facilitate the media. The mass media in turn will not criticize them as they are afraid to lose their source. Other critical source will have a hard time to penetrate through the media and get coverage as their resources is limited, they usually will not pass the gatekeeper.

As the authors dive in specifically on the propaganda of U.S. foreign policy, the media acted as if the government has said “concentrate on the victims of enemy powers and forget about the victims of friends”. On this basis the concept of “worthy victim” and “unworthy victim” are developed. Coverage will be given extensively toward enemy victim as they are a “worthy victim” in order to demonize the enemy. But when the same crime perpetrated by U.S., their client, or their friends, the coverage was virtually non-existent, they are regarded as “unworthy victim”. The U.S. always shows their hypocrisy in its foreign policy, suppressing bad news when their supported dictators cooperated, and denounced them once they fall.  

The book also discussed the used of propaganda on foreign election result such as in Vietnam, Guantemala, and El Salvador, whenever the result does not favored U.S. desired candidate the election result was not accepted, rebellion is no longer portrayed as rejection of democracy, large turnout was no longer proof that the elected has a legitimate mass popular support. There are also planted observers by the U.S. government which was branded as “expert’ to give the media propaganda direction. We see this trend over and over again, recent case in 2019 was in Venezuela where the U.S. recognized the unelected self-declared president as a legitimate president, never mind the election result.

In cases of foreign elections the media accepted the framing and analysis provided by the states, the media role is more on channeling the information to the public. In case of the killing of the pope in 1981, the media play a larger role as agent of disinformation. The media help originating false claim,and keep the manufactured stories alive throughout the case.

Discussing the Indochina war, the book discussed how the U.S. bombed and invaded Cambodia, mobilizing the embittered peasant to the cause of the Khmer Rouge. The media facilitate U.S. aggression by framing the bombing in Vietnam as “defending South Vietnam”, and there is no recognition in the media that U.S. committed an act of aggression by invading Vietnam. The U.S. understand that it has no popular support, they were weak politically in Vietnam, political settlement thus is not an option, the only strength it has was military. At the end, the U.S. signed the Paris Agreement which incorporated many principles rejected by the U.S. in Geneva before the escalation of war started.    

The result of media obedience to state power, Herman and Chomsky argued, was that the state can commit serious war crimes unimpeded, without the outrage of domestic polity. In conclusion,they concluded that the media has failed to serve their real “societal purpose”, that is to search of the truth independent from authority and enable the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by giving them information needed for intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. Instead the media functioned as a ideological institution and state propaganda tool to defend the economic, social, and political agenda of the elite group.     

Refuting Hafidz Baharom’s article in Malaysiakini: On Israel and Malaysian hypocrisy

I was surprised reading this article, not that because it was written by a Malay Muslim but by its poor reasoning and lack of grip to the issue. Actually, this kind of reasoning is nothing new, if you joined a closed FB group full of Islamophobes like GE-Global, you’ll find this argument repeated everywhere. Hafidz is just parroting the same argument.

Ok, lets go into the specific detail on what he wrote. Lets start with his underlying thesis which is the bulk of the article. He argued that “why did we banned the Israeli, not others who violate human right such as the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, China”.

There are 2 main flaws with this argument. The first one, its outlandish if not idiotic that whenever we stand for some right we are hypocrites because there are other violation elsewhere. It’s like a Penang Environment Group (PEG) voicing out about the deforestation of their mountains, was jeered off because there are other cases of deforestation in Kelantan, Sarawak, Selangor, Indonesia, Uganda, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Mexico etc. So PEG is hypocrites unless they also championing the violation in other states. So if we used his logic, we cannot stand for anything unless we stand for all the right in this world all at once, which is impractical and almost impossible.

Second, it is a clever diversion from the real issue. Instead of arguing the substance, he resorted in moving the goal post. It will never end. Say we banned Israeli and U.S. athlete. Then someone can say what about Russia? We banned Russian. Then he will ask what about Turkey? We banned Turkish. He will ask what about Zimbabwe? It will be an infinite whataboutism. If the international community subscribed to his logic, Apartheid South Africa will still exist today as they cannot adopt a concerted targeted effort to end a particular injustice.

Reading through his article. It is not what he wrote were the only dishonest argument that I find, but what he left behind. I only can conclude that Hafidz Baharom was a real hypocrite rather than Tun or Syed Saddiq. We may not banned other athlete from other countries which we had a diplomatic ties, but Malaysia was far from silence. In case of Yemen, Malaysia pull-out our servicemen from the Saudi-led campaign. In the case of Uighur, Malaysia defied China by releasing Uighur detainees. In case of Rohingya, we even built them a hospital! So, while we might not banned their athletes, we respond according to the situation with a diplomatic ties we have. We, on the other hand, never recognized Israel, we have no ties with them. If he had a problem with that, maybe he can try apply an Israeli citizenship.

Then, things get more interesting. Why we singled out Israel? He claimed “Probably because it is convenient, and that is all. It is easier to ban a small, tiny nation we don’t have to trade directly with rather than the superpowers of the world.” Tun made it clear why, instead he used his made-up imagination to put up his case.

Nevermind, let’s look at this flimsy imagination. If we look at the fact, this argument collapsed spectacularly. He failed to mention that Israel is a “mini-military superpower” and was the 7th largest arms exporter in the world. Israel is armed to the teeth with a nuclear capability. Israel even wield huge political power influencing the U.S., Israel has meddled in U.S. through AIPAC long before the accusation of Russian meddling, that is why they are immune to UN resolutions. Just last Monday, U.S. senate advances bill to combat the boycott of Israel. If a country is a tiny country base on its geographical borders, tell me how come a small European island called Britain can colonize India for 200 years.

Hafidz is plain wrong and don’t even know what he is talking about.

Lastly, and this is the most funny of all. Where he used his assumption to make a case which he did not substantiate. He said, I quote “you won’t find Malaysian Muslims suddenly insisting of boycotting haj and umrah packages to Saudi Arabia over Yemen ever.” Farouk Musa of IRF has indeed call for boycott of Saudi Arabia over war in Yaman. So, again, his argument i.e. imagination collapsed miserably.

Environmental impact of shipping

picture source : Seasprout

Introduction

More than 90% of global trade is done with ships. Marine transportation still has a steady growth rate of 4% p.a. This lead to the catastrophic level of air pollution around the world. The emission from the ships has long been considered as one of the major factors that contributing to this problem. Most of the research conducted by region, transportations considered as one of the primary contributors to the air pollution with average 25%.

As we know, most of the merchant ships are
still using diesel engine. Like most engines, the fuel is burned inside the
engine through the combustion process with the presence of air and ignition.
The sulfur compound from the fuel became sulfur oxides and the nitrogen became
nitrogen oxides after reacting with oxygen at certain pressure and temperature.
These gases were released to the open air through the ship’s funnel.

What will happen to the environment?

picture source : DK Group

The high level of SOx and NOx can
significantly influencing ecosystem health. SOx will oxides further through
chemical reactions and forming sulfuric acid that eventually creates acid rain.
Besides, these gases have adverse effects on the ozone layer in the troposphere,
which resulting the greenhouse effect and may contribute to the global warming.

Rules and regulation

This problem was already recognised years
ago, resulting stricter regulation in some area known as emission control areas
(ECAs). International Maritime Organization (IMO) had laid down the MARPOL
Annex VI in 1997. The EU has implemented these rules in their directives
European Union 1999 and European Union 2012 for the North and Baltic seas,
which known as sulfur emission control areas (SECAs). This means, any ships
that trading into these areas must use fuel that contains not more than 0.1%
sulfur. Outside SECAs, the allowed sulfur content in ship fuels is currently at
3.5% but it will be reduced to 0.5% starting on January 2020.

NOx are also regulated in MARPOL Annex VI.
Since the year 2000 the NOx limits for new building ships has been set at
17gkWh-1 for low-speed engines or in simple word, the ships must use engines
that comply with the IMO tier I regulation. The NOx regulation has been further
revised in 2010 and 2016 respectively.  

Future shipping emission

picture source : Caterpillar Inc.

In a report produced by Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, it predicted that in 2030, about 6000 ships in North Sea
will run on LNG, much cleaner fuel with zero emission of SOx. Ships that sail more
than 50 % of the time in North and Baltic seas will preferably use LNG.  Today, LNG is still considered expensive and
the LNG infrastructures is still not built up to provide LNG to many ships. Another
fuel option that can be consider is methanol. The comparison between LNG and
methanol are still in debate.

Therefore, ship owners will prefer ow
sulfur fuels and catalyst (SCR) or exhaust gas recirculation system (EGR) to
comply with the rules. Some will use scrubbers only, if they do not have to
comply with the Tier III regulations (older ships).

References

International Maritime Organization, MARPOL Annex VI Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 759-776, 2016University of Utah, “The Air We Breathe”

Ship Recycling – The History & Regulations

History

Ships have always been valuable and have always been recycled. They are the greatest assets ever moved in bulk that representing such investment that entire new system of banking and government have been designed to finance them.

Given their value, ships does not simply disappear once they are no longer seaworthy. The wood from the earliest dog out canoe for example, would have provided walls and shelters to the people. The fitting on the Viking’s longship has been benefited the local village with the high quality timber and the copper on the ship’s bottom have been invaluable in the future construction projects.

Another famous example is the luxurious departmental store in London ; Liberty that has been constructed from the timbers of the fighting ships HMS Impregnable and HMS Hindustan in 1875.

As shipbuilding advances, iron and steel had replaced the woods. As a result, ship scrapping played a major part in resourcing the industrial revolution. After the World War II, a vast amount of steel available from the redundant warships and cargo ships. These ships were scrapped at places such as Inverkeithing in Britain and yielded approximately 500,000 tonnes of high quality steel.

The ship scrapping industry continued in places such as La Spezia, Italy and Japan.

During 1980s, Kaohsiung port in Taiwan and Alang, a coastal town in Indian state of Gujarat experienced their first major growth spurt in scrapping following by Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The shipping industry was slow to notice these development. This isn’t surprising as once the ship were set to be scrapped, the original owner is commonly unaware of its destination.

Regulation Enforcement

In 1995, The Baltimore Sun became the first media to became aware of the issues after Will Englund reported the issues surrounding ship recycling when USS Coral Sea was being scrapped in Brownsville. This lead to the prosecution on the responsible company under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Englund and investigative reporter, Gary Cohn published a series of articles exposing the worst excesses of shipbreaking around the world. They won Pulitzer Prize on 1998 for the fascinating reports.

The first Global Ship Scrapping Summit was held in Amsterdam in 1999. “Ship Recycling” term has been introduced for the first time by Jim Davies of the International Maritime Industries Forum (IMIF). He asserted that ship recycling was actually an enviably efficient process. An ‘Industry Working Group on Ship Recycling’ was rapidly formed under the chairmanship of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), consisting of the major shipping industry bodies. The group delivered the first practical guidance on ship recycling – the Industry Code of Practice on Ship Recycling in August 2001.

Other non-shipping legislative organizations followed the Working Group’s lead and issued guidance on ship recycling. The Basel Convention published Technical

Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Full and Partial Dismantling of Ships in 2003, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) published Safety and Health in Shipbreaking: Guidelines for Asian Countries and Turkey in 2004.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was also spurred on by the shipping industry’s initiative. The subject was formally introduced at IMO’s 43rd

Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) in 1999 when Norway proposed a new work item on ship scrapping. At MEPC 44 a correspondence group

was set up under the chairmanship of Bangladesh and at MEPC 46 in April 2001 a Working Group was established.

Despite the IMO Guidelines, there was still potential for confusion for owners wishing to recycle their ships, especially given the other recycling-related legislation which existed – legislation such as the Basel Convention. The only way forward was to create statutory requirements by developing a legally binding international convention.

The IMO set an ambitious deadline to complete this within the 2008/2009 biennium. Norway, in particular, acted very strongly in support of this and provided the first draft for discussion at MEPC 55. The text was developed over three and a half years with input from IMO member states and relevant non-governmental organisations, and in co-operation with the International Labour Organization and the Parties to the Basel Convention. Lloyd’s Register, through IACS and discussions with other stakeholders, was also actively involved in the Convention’s development. Such was the impetus at the IMO that the deadline was achieved and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships was adopted in May 2009.

 

 

Sidang Media MJIIT, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia berkaitan Isu Yuran Melampau

 

Seramai 50 mahasiswa/i telah melakukan sidang media untuk mendedahkan yuran tambahan yang menindas di bawah fakulti Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology di Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Kuala Lumpur. UTM mengenakan yuran tambahan sehingga RM5,000 untuk sebuah semester berbanding RM700 yang dijanji surat tawaran UTM.

Yuran tambahan menjadikan bayaran untuk 4 tahun sebanyak RM40,000 yang bersamaan dengan yuran di IPTS. UTM merupakan sebuah universiti awam yang menerima subsidi daripada cukai rakyat. Selepas hampir 3 tahun mencari resolusi secara saluaran diplomatik, MJIIT-Voices, UTM (gerakan yang melawan isu yuran melampau) telah melakukan sidang media untuk menekan pentadbiran UTM yang senyap selama 3 tahun.

Tuntutan MJIIT-VOICES adalah;

1. Hapuskan yuran tambahan MJIIT

2. Bayar balik (refund) yuran tambahan sejak 2016

3. “Transparency” dalam pengurusan yuran mahasiswa

UTM diberikan masa 30 hari untuk respon kepada tuntutan MJIIT Voices. Sidang media turut dihadiri oleh komrad daripada Gerakan Pembebasan Akademik, Pemuda Parti Sosialis Malaysia, Malaysia Muda dan SUARAM sebagai tanda solidariti. Mahasiswa daripada UNITEN, IUKL, UKM, UM & UIA telah juga turut memberikan mesej solidariti.

Pendidikan Hak Asasi Manusia

Student Power @ Residensi Utmkl

Mendemokrasikan intelektualisme

 

“Apabila berfikir menjadi suatu jenayah,

Hanya perlu mengambil tafsiran cendiakawan berjubah,

Ia suatu yang haram bagi awam,

Lalu keilmuan pun tenggelam karam.

Apabila mimpi digari,

Kemajuan apa yang boleh di cari,

Apabila idea dipenjara,

Bangsa mati penuh sengsara.”

Puisi ini boleh di dapati di kulit belakang buku saya, namun tulisan ini bukanlah untuk tujuan promosi buku. Sekiranya anda sedang mencari bahan bacaan, saya cadangkan anda mencari buku-buku tulisan Chomsky. Sekadar mahu menjelaskan tulisan yang bersembunyi disebalik ayat abstrak.

Jika kita membaca discourse berkenaan social justice kita sering akan berjumpa dengan terma “class society”, yang membawa maksud wujudnya sekumpulan elit yang berkuasa menentukan bagaimana manusia biasa lain hidup – rakyat kebanyakan. Kelas elit mempunyai kuasa ekonomi, politik, taraf sosial yang lebih tinggi, mereka menentukan polisi. Classical proletariat vs bourgeoisie.

Dalam kehidupan seharian kita juga, sama ada kita sedar atau tidak, kita mempunyai kelas elit intelektual. Yang menentukan bagaimana manusia lain berfikir. Mereka sering dipanggil expert, mempunyai autoriti untuk memberi definisi, dimana definisi berlawanan adalah salah, tidak tepat, kolot, anti-moden dan lain-lain.

Mungkin kalau dalam studi berkenaan orientalisme kita bercakap bagaimana kita memahami kebudayaan timur mengikut definisi dan analisa barat, begitu jugalah kita, sentiasa memerlukan kelas intelektual untuk memberi kita definisi berkenaan dengan aturan sosial, tatacara politik, susunan ekonomi dan lain-lain. Mereka meletakkan pagar sempadan pemikiran.

Saya teringat kata-kata ahli ekonomi di Cambridge, Ha-Joon Chang dalam syarahan beliau, beliau menyebut “95% of economics is common sense”.

Kelas intelektual yang saya maksudkan bukanlah spesifik kepada ahli akademik atau agamawan, tetapi terbuka kepada mana-mana persona yang menutup ruang fikir, termasuk saya sendiri. Persepsi minda yang saya ingin bawakan adalah bukan untuk menolak golongan intelektual, tapi berani berfikir meskipun berlawanan dengan autoriti. Kerana sering kali kita menerima kesimpulan kerana kita tidak faham hujahan, kita terima dan berkata “dia betul, aku yang terlalu bodoh untuk faham”.

Sebaliknya apa yang saya ingin bawa adalah kita mendengar hujahan baik dari orang yang bergelar intelektual atau tidak, dan berfikir sendiri kebenarannya, adakah ia masuk akal atau tidak. Bukan percaya buta orang dengan semua yang diberikan kepada kita hanya kerana dia mempunyai tag intelektual. Akal itu bukan milik eksklusif mana-mana kelas, ia adalah anugerah buat semua.

Untuk membina bangsa yang berjaya, ilmu tidak boleh bersifat eksklusif.

 

Masalah pada sistem demokrasi

 

Hari ini saya berpeluang berdiskusi dengan seorang rakan berkenaan dengan Malaysia dan polisi yang ada. Walaupun kami berbeza pendapat, kami dapat berbincang dengan rasional. Saya mendengar pandangannya dan saya kemukakan pendapat saya. Kami akhirnya setuju untuk tidak bersetuju antara satu sama lain.

Antara yang kami bincangkan adalah masalah dalam sistem demokrasi. Ramai yang berpandangan demokrasi boleh membawa perubahan, saya pula berpandangan bahawa ia tidak boleh mendatangkan perubahan. Ia boleh mengubah kerajaan, tetapi bukan polisi.

Argumen untuk hujah ini adalah demokrasi berfungsi dengan kuasa majoriti. Ramai menyangka pemimpin politik sentiasa mengutamakan kepentingan rakyat. Ini adalah salah faham utama. Ahli politik sentiasa mengutamakan kepentingan pengundi. Perbezaan ini perlu difahami. Tidak semua rakyat adalah pengundi. Orang gila sebagai contoh, tiada parti yang memperjuangkan hak orang gila. Mungkin orang gila adalah rakyat, tapi dia tidak ada voting power.

Sebab itu polisi berdasarkan ras pada pandangan saya akan terus kekal, at least for now. Kerana ia adalah concern besar buat majoriti yang mempunyai kuasa undi. Menamatkan polisi ini akan menyebabkan parti hilang undi majoriti. Sama ada polisi berdasarkan ras adalah baik atau tidak adalah beyond the scope of this writing. Mungkin boleh dikupas dalam penulisan lain kali.

Dalam konteks Malaysia, argumen kedua saya berkenaan dengan mengapa polisi ini akan terus kekal, adalah faktor demografi. Pertumbuhan kaum cina sebagai contoh, mengikut statistik, semakin menurun. Manakala orang melayu terus bertambah, orang Melayu Islam terus mempunyai keluarga besar walaupun dalam keadaan ekonomi mencabar. Mungkin kerana anak dianggap rezeki bukan liabiliti ekonomi.

Argumen ketiga saya mengapa sistem berdasarkan ras ini akan kekal adalah pendidikan. Pendidikan berdasarkan ras, sekolah vernakular akan terus mengekalkan status quo. Masyarakat tidak akan berintegrasi. Ahli politik tidak akan berani mengubah sistem ini kerana mereka akan akan hilang undi.

Kawan saya bertanya bagaimana keadaan ini boleh diubah. Saya kata secara praktikalnya, kita harus berubah kepada sistem good dictatorship, dimana polisi boleh diubah tanpa pemimpin takut hilang kuasa dari pengundi. Dan perubahan boleh dilakukan dengan konsisten tanpa terganggu dengan perubahan polisi setiap kali pilihanraya. Namun masih ada risiko ia menjadi bad dictatorship.

Kita boleh duduk dimana-mana spekrum politik, kanan, kiri, atau centrist. Ia tetap tidak akan mengubah kenyataan bahawa sistem demokrasi ada masalah dan limitasi.

Malawan naratif apologis Maszlee

Saya ingin mulakan penulisan ini dengan satu quote yang sehingga hari ini masih terngiang-ngiang di minda saya. Ia merupakan petikan dari novel ‘The Kite Runner’ yang ditulis oleh Khaled Hosseini, seorang doktor dari Afghanistan.

There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness, there is no act more wretched than stealing.

Apologis Maszlee sering menggunakan ayat, “tengok banyak perubahan baik yang dibuat, kenapa asyik fokus pada kasut hitam”. Ya betul dari satu sudut seolah isu remeh yang diketengahkan, sedangkan banyak isu lain yang lebih mendesak dan penting. Tapi ini tidak menjawab punca permasalahan sebenar. Mengapa masih ramai yang tidak dapat menerima menteri ini walau “banyak” perubahan baik baru yang dibawa?

Kita sering mendengar bahawa sesuatu perkara perlulah dimulakan dengan baik. Dalam hal ini kita melihat bagaimana ahli politik menipu untuk mendapatkan undi. Walau apa pun kebaikan yang dibawa, dia akan sentiasa dihantui penipuannya. Penipuan seperti janji pemansuhan tol, penangguhan bayaran pinjaman pendidikan, perlu dibetulkan dahulu jika mahu mematahkan kritikan. Jika tidak, masih berdolak dalih, kritikan itu tetap valid, rakyat berhak membenci penipu, sehinggalah dia membetulkan penipuannya.

Bagi saya, pujian terhadap perkara yang baik tidak boleh memadamkan kritikan terhadap perkara yang tidak baik. Kerajaan dahulu pun ada juga kebaikan yang dilakukan, tetapi kenapa dahulu tidak puji sebaliknya fokus terhadap keburukan? Pendidikan membangkang seperti inilah yang membentuk pola bangkangan hari ini, cuma berubah wajah. Bila kena muka sendiri baru terasa panas?

Begitu juga dengan tulisan-tulisan satira, padahal dahulu dialah yang rajin menulis satira. Sehingga terpaksa memadam pantun “siakap senohong gelama ikan duri, bercakap bohong lama-lama jadi..”. Semasa zaman dia menulis satira, apologis ini tidak pula membawa dalil-dalil agama melarang satira. Apabila satira terkena muka sendiri dibawa dalil agama, bukankah itu namanya menunggang agama? Menggunakan agama untuk menutup penipuan sendiri.

Saya kira, ini adalah punca kebencian kebanyakan rakyat. Ahli akademik yang diharap membawa pembaharuan terhadap panorama politik baru, sebaliknya hampa ditipu sama seperti ahli-ahli politik lain. Selagi “barang yang dicuri” (janji kepada pengundi) ini tidak dipulangkan, selagi itu kebencian dan kritikan rakyat adalah adil.

Gambar hiasan (tiada kena mengena dengan penulisan, sekadar ulangkaji sejarah), ‘Haymarket Affair’ – dimana golongan pekerja melakukan protes menuntut sistem bekerja 8 jam sehari, sistem yang kita nikmati hari ini. Peristiwa yang juga merupakan asal usul sambutan hari pekerja.