In the Malaysiakini.com article “We need a more caring, innovative government“, Stanley Koh said,
“Bear the pain, short-term. In the long term, it’s good for the nation,” a typical imagined reaction from any top professional decision-maker.
It is easy for the highly paid – PhD economists, self-claimed “think tank” experts and ivory-towered academicians who in typical fashionable “high-flown” rhetorical arguments taking the side of the government’s decision on the price hike.
Harsh realities
But these can be “thinking tanks with out-hearts.” The harsh and cruel socio-economic realities of the sudden hike will further impoverish the low and middle income Malaysian families and lower their standard of living.
The economic realities can be hard-hitting and are indeed real – the ‘pain’ is beyond intellectual and partisan arguments.
As someone who has written an analysis on this fuel subsidy issue, supposedly in the “academic” way, I must reply to such a claim, point to point, and then some.
“Bear the pain, short-term. In the long term, it’s good for the nation,” a typical imagined reaction from any top professional decision-maker.
We must first distinguish between “processes” and “side effects.” Take healing a disease as an analogy. Someone contracted a cold and would have to take the medicine. But the patient is told that by taking the medicine, he would feel drowsy. He took the medicine, feel drowsy, and recovered.
Look at the processes and how it could be interpreted? One way is that the patient takes the medicine, the medicine takes effect, he feels drowsy first but eventually recovered. Another way is that the patient takes the medicine, feels drowsy and that heals his cold. Yet another is that the patient takes the medicine and recovered, but he must feel drowsy. It is apparent enough, but nevertheless, I should stress that each of these three ways of interpretation is completely different from another.
Similarly, I would like to know how the writer interprets the statement “Bear the pain, short-term. In the long term, it’s good for the nation.” The statement per se is useless; it does not form a complete argument. There are more than three ways of interpreting the statement, depending on the premises employed and flow of the argument. However, the statement, isolated, could be used to great rhetorical effect by painting a very distorted picture of the intention of the fictitious “top professional decision-maker.”
It is easy for the highly paid – PhD economists, self-claimed “think tank” experts and ivory-towered academicians who in typical fashionable “high-flown” rhetorical arguments taking the side of the government’s decision on the price hike.
I have no comments about the feeling of the “PhD economists, self-claimed “think tank” experts and ivory-towered academicians,” since I do not qualify as one of them. But let me describe my economic situation right now. My father is ill and unable to work. My mother earns a three-figure income, but since we ‘operate’ a restaurant, we can have our meals for free. I had a 93-year-old grandfather who I think is reasonable that he is not working. And I am studying in Singapore.
Now, is that easy for me? I won’t say it’s easy, but still manageable. In spite of my situation I conjecture that all the subsidies – not only fuel but education, food, you name it – must be abolished. I also conjecture that we must let our currency float and the purchasing power be fully reflected. This is a tried-and-true method of ending our endless series of problems resulting from greater and greater government intervention as one intervention after another fails – look at Chile in 1970s, the United States in early 1980s. And of course, compare our case with that of Venezuela.
Now to “rhetorical arguments”. From what I understand, “rhetoric” means “the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language.” Of course academics can make rhetorics – on their personal capacity. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But academics’ speech does not amount to logical argument – a quality “academic arguments” is supposed to have. If I’m not wrong, the writer asked “Did the government “listen” only with their “eyes and ears” (without the heart) to cronies, bankers, economists, “think-tank” rhetoricians?” Well, I would like to question whether the writer equates “what economists say” as “academic arguments”? If the writer disagrees with the viewpoints of some academicians or economists, he should address them directly, instead of hastily generalize academics’ speech as “academic argument”, “rhetorical arguments” and then attacking a strawman. It is ironic that by apparently arguing, the writer himself is writing a rhetoric.
Oh, before I forget, let me share with you an “academic joke” – “rhetoric argument” is actually an oxymoron. “Rhetoric” connotes “lack of logical force”, and argument connotes “logical structure.” It is nice that these two contradictory terms can co-exist!
But these can be “thinking tanks with out-hearts.” The harsh and cruel socio-economic realities of the sudden hike will further impoverish the low and middle income Malaysian families and lower their standard of living.
Aside from the first sentence, which I had attempted to refute above, I agree with the rest of the quote. However I did offer a solution – by letting the ringgit float and its purchasing power be fully reflected. Imports would be bought with full purchasing power, instead of at an inflated price caused by undervaluation of ringgit, as our current situation is. However, this is not a nice context of discussing such a float – perhaps I will write another article about this.
The economic realities can be hard-hitting and are indeed real – the ‘pain’ is beyond intellectual and partisan arguments.
My limited knowledge prevents my knowing methods that could quantify “pain”. However, in economics, losses and gains are quantifiable, and many reports have applied methods of quantifying losses and gains to ascertain whether such and such policies have achieved its intended outcome. Quantifying losses and gains may be far less ideal than quantifying pain, but it is something achievable, and the most consistent way of ascertaining whether harm or benefit has occurred. The pain is indeed beyond academic discussion, so far as I’m concerned – but the losses caused by distortionary policies and economic mismanagement is not.
Something about the title itself – I’m not in need of a caring and innovative government. I simply want a government which does what it is supposed to do – to ensure rule of law exists in the country, and let the people do what they want.
I would like to end by talking a little about my situation. I have encountered too many people who advised me that “you have the potential to go to better places, just leave this country for good and make a better life for yourself” – indeed this is consistent with economic theory, that similar resources tend to agglomerate, and that leads to the brain drain problem. Instead of making a better life for myself, I am participating in such discussions, which, while does not earn me a single penny, has incurred myself an opportunity cost of lost income – clearly not in the best of my self-interest. Yet it is my conviction that such discussion is crucial in preventing the situation of our country from getting worse. My intellectual ability is limited, but nevertheless, I seek to utilize it to the best I could. I believe you too can contribute to the effort of saving the country (now I’m making rhetoric!)!
p/s to the writer: If you’re reading this I hope you’re not angry over me. I’m certainly feeling the same way over some ‘academics’ who misused their capacity in making spurious claims, which appears to be ‘academic arguments’. My aim here is to correct some of your views, to the best I can. It might be convenient to shoot all of them at once, but it’s logically fallacious. There is no free lunch indeed – if we want to advance, we have to work hard!
But I did have extensive experience of being betrayed -.- The best thing to do would be to forget it. And of course, watch my back; you never know what will come up next.
Regret, but not disappointed. Such misunderstanding is too common in the world we live in.