Apparently Johor UMNO is asking the Malaysian Federal Government:
to cancel all projects that would benefit Singapore more than it would Malaysia, especially the proposed Kuala Lumpur-Singapore Bullet Train project.
Ok, let us think about this. Imagine a scenario where there are 2 parties, and they have 2 options: they can choose to cooperate, or they can choose not to cooperate. If they choose to cooperate, both parties will benefit, although there is a possibility that one party will benefit more than the other. If they choose NOT to cooperate, then neither party will benefit.
When you look at the options available, the only rational option is to choose to cooperate. There are 2 very important concepts underlining this reasoning. The first is that improvements occur at the margin, and the second is that when different parties are good at doing different things, both can benefit by cooperating and trading with each other.
What do I mean when I say “improvements occur at the margin”? It is important to realise that economic growth, productivity gains, improvements in living standards, all take place in tiny little steps. As long as these tiny steps are happening, then the lives of people will improve. The crucial question is not whether someone else is better off than you are: the crucial question is are you better off than you were X amount of time ago.
So effectively, what Johor UMNO is saying, is that the whole of Malaysia should not cooperate with Singapore and sacrifice their own opportunities for growth, simply because they feel that Singapore is benefiting at a greater rate than they are. This is not only plainly stupid, it is also perpetrating a fraud onto the people of Malaysia.
We must wonder what would possess Johor UMNO to advocate such mutually detrimental policies. One very important thing that I have learnt from reading and listening to Milton Friedman: never judge a policy by its label, always look at its real-world effects, and look at those who support that policy.
We can see that Johor UMNO has consistently opposed any increase in direct transportation links between Singapore and KL. They have opposed increasing the number of flights and number of carriers that could fly between Singapore and KL, and now they oppose the bullet train project. Why? We can conclude that there is a pattern in their objections: they oppose any agreement between Singapore and KL that would allow people to travel between Singapore and KL directly, and bypass Johor.
This conclusion raises some important questions about Johor UMNO. They are willing to sacrifice the mutually beneficial interests of Singapore and Malaysia out of spite and jealousy. They are willing to sacrifice the interests of the people of Kuala Lumpur and Singapore because they wish to protect the business interests of their lobbies in Johor. And worst of all, they cloak their economic protectionism behind false nationalist rhetoric in order to distract the Malaysian people from realising how craven they actually are.
AsiaOne - Cancelling S’pore investments could send wrong signals : Najib
Comparative advantage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10 Comments
Actually experiments show people have some notion of equity and in the ultimatum game, will refuse even if they will gain less otherwise than they would have if they’d accepted.
Also see: Are the rich a form of pollution?
Han, I’m a Malaysian and I can tell you that most non-Malays, as well as an increasing number of disillusioned Malays, despise UMNO for their ineptitude and racial outlook in their policy formations disguised under the guise of ‘Malay nationalism’.
To put it simply, here’s how Malaysian politics work.
We have UMNO, who because they’re not very good at anything else, rally support for them by constantly finding boogeymen.
Before Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks, they have no qualms about making their own Chinese-Malaysian countrymen their boogeyman by targeting the only Chinese Chief Minister in Penang (which incidentally belongs to a party in coalition with it!).
Now, they’ve got another, thanks to LKY’s speech. Like the syphocantic party that it is, UMNO Johor is not doing a ‘follow-the-leader-blindly’ stunt by helping federal UMNO to lambast Singapore. And the only way it can think of doing that is the dumb ‘let’s not construct anything that will be beneficial to S’pore’ idea, which won’t suprise many long-time Malaysian political observers.
Here’s another idea for them, why not try to develop Johor to become a state that’s as clean, efficient and modern as Singapore to show S’pore up? But I guess that’s too much effort to ask from those comatose UMNO apparchiks.
Well, they may fail economics (though this is debatable) but they certainly will ace “Introduction to Realist International Relations”.
While your point relating to the possible camouflaging of interests might be valid, from a statist point of view, the argument of UMNO certainly has some merit - whatever their limitations as politicians might be.
In the realist IR story, states are not and should not be concerned about absolute gain. Rather, the focus should be about relative gains in an anarchical international society where the intentions of your neighbours are questionable and cannot be convincingly determined.
4 fundamental assumptions about this theory must of course be stated:
1) States are primary actors
2) Uncertainty of intentions
3) Anarchy is the order of international society
4) States all possess offensive capability
This is not a particularly stupid stance especially if you consider the biggest threat to the sovereignty of a state is the perpetuation of a regional hegemon (something that arises much through the disguise of interests and the feeding of relative gains with other states) and the best way to secure a state’s future is to be that very hegemon. The Americas is a good indication of this fear.
there is a long story to it, but the point here is that the argument offered about relative gains is not without merit.
Kelvin:
I guess I disagree with the “Realist International Relations” theory because of the first assumption. I do not ascribe to the view that states are primary actors. I believe that only INDIVIDUALS are primary actors: states only exist to protect individuals.
Secondly, I believe that the only legitimate purpose of states is to enforce voluntary agreements between individuals, and conversely to prevent coercion and/or violence between individuals.
In this scenario Johor UMNO is arguing for an immoral exercise of state power: they are preventing more airlines from flying between SG and KL. Furthermore, they are also coercing businesses into facing higher costs of travel should they decide to travel between SG and KL. And lastly, they are coercing travellers between SG and KL into travelling through Johor.
Therefore, my argument is that whatever arguments they can put up is not only without merit, it is also irrational, it is also an illegitimate and immoral exercise of power.
Erm, there’s a reason why it’s called Realist - no one cares about rationality, legitimacy or morality.
Truth is all politics is local. Take the US for example. Congressmen and Senators tend to think about their home districts and states. So while the high speed train will benefit KL and Singapore, it would hurt Johor. As a local Johor assemblyman, you would be opposed to this. Of course the elected national MPs from Johor may differ depending on how safe their seats are.
If Singapore had provinces or states, it would be an issue for us too. We’re lucky that we are a city-state. We don’t have urban-rural tensions and center-periphery tensions.
I think there are very real limitations to calling anything based on premises with which you disagree as ‘irrational’ in a conclusorily dismissive way. You may find the Realist view morally problematic, and I would probably agree, but that would certainly be for reasons that bear discussing. Someone who is irrational because they do not subscribe to your axioms of discussion is not necessarily irrational in the sense of foaming at the mouth and having nothing worth listening to. I find it troubling that the word is often applied as a label to shut out discussion when it is usually not true that there is nothing to discuss. If nothing else, it is probably worth thinking about the fact that such a label can only ever preach to the choir. Who ever changed their mind from what they thought a considered opinion just because someone else called it irrational?
Jol:
In retrospect, I was wrong about one thing: whether they were irrational or not depends on what they thought.
If UMNO Johor truly believed that sacrificing travel between Singapore and KL would be beneficial for the WHOLE of Malaysia, then there is no other conclusion than that they are irrational, or stupid.
If UMNO Johor did not believe at all that sacrificing travel between Singapore and KL would be beneficial for the whole of Malaysia, but rather made that statement as a cynical ploy to garner support for their lobbying, then they are not irrational at all, but merely craven liars.
HAHAHAHAHA
You did not grasp Jol’s point at all.
If we accept the fundamental premise of their outlook to be realist, then certainly their arguments are NOT irrational. Assuming they are realist, then certainly their concern over relative gains for the whole of malaysia relative to Singapore and not just concerns over certain portions of malaysia is extremely rational! You may disagree with them, but that does not make them irrational.
It is also extremely probable that they made the statement as a cynical ploy to garner support as well. That makes them very rational. as for being craven liars…I find it hard to find a successful politician / political party who is not. People generally like lies.
Whether you disagree with the fundamental principles behind that formation of their argument is a separate issue altogether.
As for individuals being the main actors in the international arena, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to disagree quite vehemently.