“Just to stress again, my source was in a far better position than you to be informed on the points you raise.”
I’m sorry but I don’t see this as a competition.
“Also discussion of who consented to what is potentially dangerous to the family and others. I don’t intend to talk about it further.”
I wrote to you privately today, informing you of my misgivings and what we be doing in the next few days. I sent you that message before you posted your last comment here and also suggested in that message that a public discourse was no longer appropriate. You chose, instead, to respond in public to tell me you prefer privacy. I find that a bit odd.
And please, you don’t have to rationalise or explain why you did that.
To reiterate. On the basis of ethical considerations, publishing the SMSs within hours of Ah Kong’s death and while his closest family members were still in a state of shock was, in my opinion, inappropriate. I’ve laid out in my private correspondence to you exactly why, in our judgement, a properly informed consent was not possible to achieve.
As I commented earlier I agree with you entirely that the content of the SMSs needed to be published and distributed. The question then should be when is the most opportune moment to do so with careful consideration given to the consequences. It is my view that needed to be a collective decision involving the family.
In my opinion I think you moved too quickly and without much regard for others.
Sometimes sticking to dogma hides the real issues and the meaning gets lost in the rectric. point well made on Porter’s Competitive Advantage of Nations. But when you open the book one will find out its about industries within nations rather than the nations themselves. If you go back and read Porter you will realize how brillent and ahead of his time the work was. of course he missed some variables, but the beauty about this world is no one is perfect, so it leaves room for others to make incremental improvements. Schumpeter called it creative Destruction.
The case of Malaysia is a very tradegic one. After having risen to a state of competitive advantage over other producers through the estate model in the 1980s, it started to slip away with lack of fundamental research in the cocoa area where pest and diseaese took its toll. Lower cost producers came in and eroded Malaysia’s competitive position. Those in the agriculture sector became complacent and relied upon palm oil and rubber as returns were almost guaranteed. Public servents and agency leaders misunderstood Tun Dr M’s focus on IT and neglected the sector (For example at the time MARDI only had enough funds to run air conditioning twice a week). Tan Sri Dr Yusof’s (MARDI DG at the time) call for crop diversity was ignored. Today the sector is 30 years behind the times – not knowing what direction to go.
One can say many things but that is the fundamental problem. One cannot rely upon the Malaysian Govt to fix the problem. Cabinet level people are too engrossed in sexual issues and politics. Agency leaders are too busy polishing apples, and there is basically very little extension activities left in the country. Research is ad hoc. No one in government has any vision for the future. There is not enough labour and the days of importing labour to satisfy shortages are gone.
One must also look by sector. The average age of small holders is 65+, the image of agribusiness is not very appealing to potential entrepreneurs and school leavers. There is no humus left in soils, the groundwater and dams are full of pesticide residuals, and disease is prevailent in Malaysian soils.
Even with any change of governement it is extremely (but not completely Penang is a shining light of transformation) unlikely that there will be any change in the way the country is governed. In fact there is opinion the country may go back to the dark ages with the “Anuar purge” that may occur if he gets into govt.
The reality on the ground – vis a vis any theoretical pontification – is that the only hope for transformation are from “champions” who develop successful and diverse agricultural business models that work and can be emulated by others.
Finally we do not live in a perfect world and people are not black and white. yes rockerfellow was unscrupulous in business but became the biggest philantropist in history. Your desription of Edision although not totally untrue is emotionally exaggerated to make some point I feel. Its real life just as the peoples’ entrepreneur Tony Fernandes is facing investigation by the Australian legal system for unfair pricing practices. Nothing is perfect and nothing is forever. Greg, markets are far more complex than the biased economic theories you wish to cling to. Markets are about developing brands with emotional pull (organic, ethical, halal, fairtrade, etc), value chains, and successful business models rather than the invisible hand. (Maybe there is opportunity for a massive paradigm change here in adopting a Tawhid economic model to eliminate speculation and riba to create a fair and equatable society to replace the fuedalism that still exists).
You are highly intelligent and winning points in blogs here and there will not do justice to the knowledge you possess. Please use it constructively to solve the problems of nations and Im sure you will gain all the recognition you are yearning. I believe you can do this and have a great future as a scholr ahead of you. Learn from Edison – success is in the application of knowledge not the knowledge itself.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then, not for the first time and probably not for the last. Just to stress again, my source was in a far better position than you to be informed on the points you raise.
Also discussion of who consented to what is potentially dangerous to the family and others. I don’t intend to talk about it further. Best regards.
Leah Hoyt: “Markets have good and and aspects, but ‘markets’ is not synonymous with letting rich people have their way. ”
So true, and their operation can be improved and be made more equitable.
Thanks. Love this article and debate. Takes more than a few seconds to digest, which probably puts it beyond the reach of most, but important nonetheless in this age of the tragic “web traffic = importance” mindset 🙂
Da Torpedo still remains behind bars, has previously been denied proper medical and her case represents, very clearly, not only the brutality of LM but also the failures of the international human rights’ NGOs, such as Amnesty, but also that of the international media in Bangkok in have done very little to research or expose her case.
I also attempted to visit her in prison but was denied access. A researcher I was working with managed to get in and I quickly scribbled down some questions. From that came a short interview http://bit.ly/nJdXYz
I agree with much you of what say on an intellectual level but as I said before I disagree 100% with the timing and don’t believe a fully informed consent was given by the family, despite any assurances you received from a third party. I am also not interested in you naming your source and haven’t suggested you do so.
My main point stands – that the safety and well-being of the family must come first and their consent must be directly sought with a chance for them to fully participate in a debate where the negatives and positives consequences of such publication and distribution are laid-out. Publishing these SMSs could, possibly, place them in greater danger and I’m sorry if this seems misinformed but I do wonder if that was fully considered by yourself before you rushed them out in the hours following Ah Kong’s death.
Right now as the family are in the first stages of grief, and as with any victims of injustice, this isn’t some “academic” or intellectual exercise where the limits of truth or liberty are discussed from the safe confines of online anonymity or from Singapore/London. It is a lived and terrible experience.
The powerful should be held to continual account – particular those who seek or hold any public office of any importance. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand with a participatory democracy and prevent cultures of impunity establishing themselves. If those who don’t hold power or who are victims of power’s excesses are subjected to the same transparency they should be involved, directly, in the decision-making process regarding any distribution/publication of material and particularly if further harm could possibly befall them as a result of distribution/publication.
You do some interesting and important work but for me, on this occasion, you got it wrong.
As for our contact with Ah Kong and family – please don’t over-egg that. I met him 3 times and his wife twice. My wife met them both several more times and has spoken to the family regular. We are not close family friends and don’t claim to be.
It is interesting how easily the government has been able to head off the LM charges that Jatuporn was facing, now that Thaksin can no longer afford to keep him out of the cabinet in the face of growing red shirt discontent with Puea Thai. Given the existence of the unjust law, Jatuporn’s comments would appear without much doubt to constitute a prima facie case to answer. At least it is extremely clear that he voluntarily made the comments himself with the intention that they should be broadcast widely around the country, whereas it was never proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ah Kong composed or sent the SMS messages that were apparently intended to be seen by only one person.
Jatuporn’s case illustrates what a wonderful political weapon Section 112 is. Thaksin who has personally filed LM charges, as well as outrageous criminal libel suits, against critics for political reasons is not going to give up this turbo taser that he can switch on or off with one click of his X box console to destroy or rescue political friends or foes.
It’s a shame about the red shirt rank and file rotting in prison for distributing anti-royalist leaflets written by the likes of the brave red leaders who are enjoying or about to enjoy getting their snouts in the cabinet trough. But there is never any gain without at least some inconsequential collateral damage.
To block https the authorities would have to block either at DNS level or IP address level and I don’t know of any instances of this being done in Thailand right now. I’m sure somebody can help you set it up. If you’re in a hurry you can mirror everything to *.wordpress.com – every blog under that domain is https capable.
BTW I doubt you’re being blocked by ICT – most probably, ISPs are simply electing to redirect requests to MICT.
It won’t have been blocked by the ministry or it would be blanket blocked with a notice. Some providers may be blocking it because they sometimes do that on their own account. Inconceivable that it was blocked and then unblocked at government level given what you have just published. I am able to access it through both True and CSloxinfo – 2 of the main providers… And indeed I have not found a wifi point or net cafe where the site is blocked in Bangkok….. I think that is really odd because other less high profile stuff with far less explosively damaging content to incredibly powerful parties is indeed blocked.
“I don’t think the authorities are monitoring who reads my blog, and indeed it is not a crime to read it. It is potentially a crime to share material from it, share links, or comment positively on it.”
I think you are probably right…. But who knows what is round the corner and what will happen next? It is an entirely unpredictable future….. And after all this law is about one thing only…. The fostering of fear to maintain control…. And to some extent it works…. And comes back to the appallingly cruel and capricious treatment of Ar Kong. What did the cable say? ‘Kill the chicken to scare the monkey’?
#72 “the SMS messages were long and complex and Ampon convincingly insisted he didn’t know how to send SMS messages at all.”
Heartless and calculated cruelty toward the powerless. Sickening.
Best wishes with your work on this one Andrew. It is an appalling injustice.
The assumptions that under gird the EMH also under gird factor markets in neo-classical (now conventional) economics [rational/utility maximising agents, perfect information, costless exit & entry]
I agree with your comment on increasing market exposure (economic liberalisation).
My main contention is specific to Malaysia: that with the government being a significant market player, and with an economic and social structure tied to a particular political system – one that rewards political ties, racial and religious heritage, and penalises entrepreneurs with differing views, etc – how does one go about creating genuine entrepreneurs.
If the negotiated ‘base daily wage’ is 155 B while the ‘minimum wage’ in Tak is 226 B … how does that work? These folks are still paid below minimum wage?
Part of the reason why these SMS messages would be shocking to many Thais (and I agree they would be), is that so few people have ever heard anything like them before. By publicizing them, it may not help Ah Gong, but it is likely to make criticism appear less shocking next time.
If similar messages were directed at President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, or even Queen Elizabeth, they would not have nearly the impact that they do in the current instance. That is because people have heard similar comments before.
Surely the royalists know this, which is why they are so brutal in their suppression of the tiniest negative comment. They are the ones who want to prevent people from know that criticism exists, so airing the comments now may have short term negative implications, but the long term result may be different.
The SMS messages have now been added to Ah Kong’s article on Wikipedia. I was anticipating they might appear on a few .go.th sites over the weekend but with the traction they’re getting so far, perhaps not.
Thanks for your reply as well as for responding positively to my comment, which could have come off as a bit snarky.
The Efficient Market Hypothesis refers to prices of assets in broadly traded public markets in which transactions are easy to make and information is universally (or broadly) shared. I don’t think it is relevant to this discussion. Whether it has been discredited by recent events or not would be an interesting discussion (and one that I am not sure I have an answer for), but again, not really connected to Malaysia.
Increasing the exposure Malaysia’s economy to markets is a completely different, and more important, subject. It is, in my view, more complicated and less of an on-off switch than you appear to believe.
Influential groups are actually anti-market forces and true opening of the economy (although it may not be possible in relity) would hurt them. It is a common misconception that what good for markets and what is good for rich people are the same thing, but this is untrue. Entrenched interests are protected either by institutions or the lack of them, but not necessarily by markets as such.
The role of Malaysia’s government in guiding the country’s economy may well have had positive impacts and could in fact be, as you suggest, net positive. However, it is also clear that it had a major role in creating many of the influential groups that you worry about. I would suggest that they are much more the children of the government than the markets (which they surely fear).
Finally, opening up to markets in a continuum and can (in theory) be done gradually and carefully.
I don’t disagree with most of what you have said in your recent reply. I also agree with what Murray said in comment #1 and think that you have at least partially misinterpreted it. No one is suggesting that Malaysia economy be thrown open and run entirely by “markets”, whatever that would mean.
The point is that while governments and the private sector have roles to play, where the line is drawn between the two is subject to debate.
I tend to agree with Murray that Malaysia’s economy needs to be moved away from state planning and towards the private sector, which is what gave China, Vietnam, and others their fuel for growth.
But I know a lot less about Malaysia than you do and would value your opinion.
I am in the middle of a bunch of things, so this reply is quick and rough. I don’t mean to be too critical as I do think your opinion is important in this discussion (more so than my own in fact).
I would just encourage you to think a bit more about the terms you are using and what they mean. It does seem to me that you have adapted a political view of markets rather than a practical one – but I may be wrong. By the way, one can have a practical view of markets and be against opening an economy to them.
Markets have good and and aspects, but “markets” is not synonymous with letting rich people have their way. Much as capitalism doesn’t necessarily benefit current holders of capital. Markets are one of the most important ways in which the current holder of power and capital are overthrown and replaced by those who are more innovative.
By the way, I don’t think anyone would suggest that we find a husband or wife through any system but the marketplace. When it comes to personal decisions like this we certainly wouldn’t want the state to plan what is best for us. It is not markets that you should fear, but the manipulation of them. I also do think governments have a role to play in guiding (and developing) markets and protecting people from their excesses. The question is balance.
“it is certainly valid to debate whether publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do”
But you did it without the debate in the first place.
“it could potentially help others affected by this unjust law, now and in the future, by discouraging the authorities from ever again allowing such an egregious injustice to happen. ”
I don’t really see how the revelation of SMS would reach out positively to other victims of this draconian law. Presumably, the content was published with a “good heart”. But strategically it can be a failure. Authorities get discouraged or not depend on how the general public would react. I believe the majority of Thais would remain ignorant about these SMS because in no way will they ever be aired openly. Thus, the public will not bounce back with significant response, let alone to say discourage the authority to apply LM charges.
If the presumed effect is that the public grows sympathy to Ah Kong and presses the authority to drop the politicization of LM after reading the SMS, I guess for most Thais, the wording is way too intense for them to develop spontaneous sympathy towards Ah Kong.
Really, I don’t understand how you became motivated to publish it. But let’s say it’s a good heart with undesirable effects.
I think Rupert Murdoch would be proud of Malaysia’s News Straits Times hatchet job on Senator Xenaphon
Senator Nick Xenophon, who went up last month to join an international team looking at Malaysia’s electoral system, has just had a personal lesson in just how slanted and hostile its media can be. After the team published a highly critical report, the New Straits Times newspaper, owned ultimately by the ruling United Malays National Organisation or UMNO, went to work on him.
I’m not clear why anybody has given Tony’s comment a thumbs down (there are 3 so far!). Do these people think Andrew should not have tried to contact the relevant government official to ask about this?
For the last time — let’s pull this back on to the topic of Thaksin’s rally in Cambodia. Unless it has direct relevance to that topic it won’t be approved.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Analysis of Myanmar’s NLD landslide
[…] of Myanmar’s NLD landslide May 11, 2012 By Kyaw Kyaw, New Mandala Leave a […]
Ar Kong dead
AMM
“Just to stress again, my source was in a far better position than you to be informed on the points you raise.”
I’m sorry but I don’t see this as a competition.
“Also discussion of who consented to what is potentially dangerous to the family and others. I don’t intend to talk about it further.”
I wrote to you privately today, informing you of my misgivings and what we be doing in the next few days. I sent you that message before you posted your last comment here and also suggested in that message that a public discourse was no longer appropriate. You chose, instead, to respond in public to tell me you prefer privacy. I find that a bit odd.
And please, you don’t have to rationalise or explain why you did that.
To reiterate. On the basis of ethical considerations, publishing the SMSs within hours of Ah Kong’s death and while his closest family members were still in a state of shock was, in my opinion, inappropriate. I’ve laid out in my private correspondence to you exactly why, in our judgement, a properly informed consent was not possible to achieve.
As I commented earlier I agree with you entirely that the content of the SMSs needed to be published and distributed. The question then should be when is the most opportune moment to do so with careful consideration given to the consequences. It is my view that needed to be a collective decision involving the family.
In my opinion I think you moved too quickly and without much regard for others.
But that’s just my opinion.
Ar Kong dead
I hope there is a memorial service and the attendance is massive.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Greetings All,
Sometimes sticking to dogma hides the real issues and the meaning gets lost in the rectric. point well made on Porter’s Competitive Advantage of Nations. But when you open the book one will find out its about industries within nations rather than the nations themselves. If you go back and read Porter you will realize how brillent and ahead of his time the work was. of course he missed some variables, but the beauty about this world is no one is perfect, so it leaves room for others to make incremental improvements. Schumpeter called it creative Destruction.
The case of Malaysia is a very tradegic one. After having risen to a state of competitive advantage over other producers through the estate model in the 1980s, it started to slip away with lack of fundamental research in the cocoa area where pest and diseaese took its toll. Lower cost producers came in and eroded Malaysia’s competitive position. Those in the agriculture sector became complacent and relied upon palm oil and rubber as returns were almost guaranteed. Public servents and agency leaders misunderstood Tun Dr M’s focus on IT and neglected the sector (For example at the time MARDI only had enough funds to run air conditioning twice a week). Tan Sri Dr Yusof’s (MARDI DG at the time) call for crop diversity was ignored. Today the sector is 30 years behind the times – not knowing what direction to go.
One can say many things but that is the fundamental problem. One cannot rely upon the Malaysian Govt to fix the problem. Cabinet level people are too engrossed in sexual issues and politics. Agency leaders are too busy polishing apples, and there is basically very little extension activities left in the country. Research is ad hoc. No one in government has any vision for the future. There is not enough labour and the days of importing labour to satisfy shortages are gone.
One must also look by sector. The average age of small holders is 65+, the image of agribusiness is not very appealing to potential entrepreneurs and school leavers. There is no humus left in soils, the groundwater and dams are full of pesticide residuals, and disease is prevailent in Malaysian soils.
Even with any change of governement it is extremely (but not completely Penang is a shining light of transformation) unlikely that there will be any change in the way the country is governed. In fact there is opinion the country may go back to the dark ages with the “Anuar purge” that may occur if he gets into govt.
The reality on the ground – vis a vis any theoretical pontification – is that the only hope for transformation are from “champions” who develop successful and diverse agricultural business models that work and can be emulated by others.
Finally we do not live in a perfect world and people are not black and white. yes rockerfellow was unscrupulous in business but became the biggest philantropist in history. Your desription of Edision although not totally untrue is emotionally exaggerated to make some point I feel. Its real life just as the peoples’ entrepreneur Tony Fernandes is facing investigation by the Australian legal system for unfair pricing practices. Nothing is perfect and nothing is forever. Greg, markets are far more complex than the biased economic theories you wish to cling to. Markets are about developing brands with emotional pull (organic, ethical, halal, fairtrade, etc), value chains, and successful business models rather than the invisible hand. (Maybe there is opportunity for a massive paradigm change here in adopting a Tawhid economic model to eliminate speculation and riba to create a fair and equatable society to replace the fuedalism that still exists).
You are highly intelligent and winning points in blogs here and there will not do justice to the knowledge you possess. Please use it constructively to solve the problems of nations and Im sure you will gain all the recognition you are yearning. I believe you can do this and have a great future as a scholr ahead of you. Learn from Edison – success is in the application of knowledge not the knowledge itself.
Best Regards
Murray
Ar Kong dead
Andrew Spooner #81
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then, not for the first time and probably not for the last. Just to stress again, my source was in a far better position than you to be informed on the points you raise.
Also discussion of who consented to what is potentially dangerous to the family and others. I don’t intend to talk about it further. Best regards.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Leah Hoyt: “Markets have good and and aspects, but ‘markets’ is not synonymous with letting rich people have their way. ”
So true, and their operation can be improved and be made more equitable.
Thanks. Love this article and debate. Takes more than a few seconds to digest, which probably puts it beyond the reach of most, but important nonetheless in this age of the tragic “web traffic = importance” mindset 🙂
Ar Kong dead
Da Torpedo still remains behind bars, has previously been denied proper medical and her case represents, very clearly, not only the brutality of LM but also the failures of the international human rights’ NGOs, such as Amnesty, but also that of the international media in Bangkok in have done very little to research or expose her case.
Here’s something I wrote over a year ago on Da Torpedo http://bit.ly/hbn5cV
I also attempted to visit her in prison but was denied access. A researcher I was working with managed to get in and I quickly scribbled down some questions. From that came a short interview
http://bit.ly/nJdXYz
Let’s not forget Da Torpedo.
Ar Kong dead
AMM
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with much you of what say on an intellectual level but as I said before I disagree 100% with the timing and don’t believe a fully informed consent was given by the family, despite any assurances you received from a third party. I am also not interested in you naming your source and haven’t suggested you do so.
My main point stands – that the safety and well-being of the family must come first and their consent must be directly sought with a chance for them to fully participate in a debate where the negatives and positives consequences of such publication and distribution are laid-out. Publishing these SMSs could, possibly, place them in greater danger and I’m sorry if this seems misinformed but I do wonder if that was fully considered by yourself before you rushed them out in the hours following Ah Kong’s death.
Right now as the family are in the first stages of grief, and as with any victims of injustice, this isn’t some “academic” or intellectual exercise where the limits of truth or liberty are discussed from the safe confines of online anonymity or from Singapore/London. It is a lived and terrible experience.
The powerful should be held to continual account – particular those who seek or hold any public office of any importance. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand with a participatory democracy and prevent cultures of impunity establishing themselves. If those who don’t hold power or who are victims of power’s excesses are subjected to the same transparency they should be involved, directly, in the decision-making process regarding any distribution/publication of material and particularly if further harm could possibly befall them as a result of distribution/publication.
You do some interesting and important work but for me, on this occasion, you got it wrong.
As for our contact with Ah Kong and family – please don’t over-egg that. I met him 3 times and his wife twice. My wife met them both several more times and has spoken to the family regular. We are not close family friends and don’t claim to be.
Ar Kong dead
It is interesting how easily the government has been able to head off the LM charges that Jatuporn was facing, now that Thaksin can no longer afford to keep him out of the cabinet in the face of growing red shirt discontent with Puea Thai. Given the existence of the unjust law, Jatuporn’s comments would appear without much doubt to constitute a prima facie case to answer. At least it is extremely clear that he voluntarily made the comments himself with the intention that they should be broadcast widely around the country, whereas it was never proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ah Kong composed or sent the SMS messages that were apparently intended to be seen by only one person.
Jatuporn’s case illustrates what a wonderful political weapon Section 112 is. Thaksin who has personally filed LM charges, as well as outrageous criminal libel suits, against critics for political reasons is not going to give up this turbo taser that he can switch on or off with one click of his X box console to destroy or rescue political friends or foes.
It’s a shame about the red shirt rank and file rotting in prison for distributing anti-royalist leaflets written by the likes of the brave red leaders who are enjoying or about to enjoy getting their snouts in the cabinet trough. But there is never any gain without at least some inconsequential collateral damage.
Ar Kong dead
> “today the whole blog was blocked by ICT”
https
To block https the authorities would have to block either at DNS level or IP address level and I don’t know of any instances of this being done in Thailand right now. I’m sure somebody can help you set it up. If you’re in a hurry you can mirror everything to *.wordpress.com – every blog under that domain is https capable.
BTW I doubt you’re being blocked by ICT – most probably, ISPs are simply electing to redirect requests to MICT.
Ar Kong dead
#73 Andrew
“Intriguing name! ”
You can call me ‘woof woof’….
“Yesterday it generally wasn’t blocked.”
It won’t have been blocked by the ministry or it would be blanket blocked with a notice. Some providers may be blocking it because they sometimes do that on their own account. Inconceivable that it was blocked and then unblocked at government level given what you have just published. I am able to access it through both True and CSloxinfo – 2 of the main providers… And indeed I have not found a wifi point or net cafe where the site is blocked in Bangkok….. I think that is really odd because other less high profile stuff with far less explosively damaging content to incredibly powerful parties is indeed blocked.
“I don’t think the authorities are monitoring who reads my blog, and indeed it is not a crime to read it. It is potentially a crime to share material from it, share links, or comment positively on it.”
I think you are probably right…. But who knows what is round the corner and what will happen next? It is an entirely unpredictable future….. And after all this law is about one thing only…. The fostering of fear to maintain control…. And to some extent it works…. And comes back to the appallingly cruel and capricious treatment of Ar Kong. What did the cable say? ‘Kill the chicken to scare the monkey’?
#72 “the SMS messages were long and complex and Ampon convincingly insisted he didn’t know how to send SMS messages at all.”
Heartless and calculated cruelty toward the powerless. Sickening.
Best wishes with your work on this one Andrew. It is an appalling injustice.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Appreciate the advice Leah.
I do think of markets in political terms.
The assumptions that under gird the EMH also under gird factor markets in neo-classical (now conventional) economics [rational/utility maximising agents, perfect information, costless exit & entry]
This articles captures how I see institutions.
http://www.newmandala.org/2011/08/22/malaysia-%E2%80%93-a-simple-institutional-analysis/
I agree with your comment on increasing market exposure (economic liberalisation).
My main contention is specific to Malaysia: that with the government being a significant market player, and with an economic and social structure tied to a particular political system – one that rewards political ties, racial and religious heritage, and penalises entrepreneurs with differing views, etc – how does one go about creating genuine entrepreneurs.
Here is a practical example of these discussion – deciding on biofuel support.
http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/final_malaysia_2.pdf
Cheers.
Anatomy of a Burmese migrant strike
Congratulations on being there.
If the negotiated ‘base daily wage’ is 155 B while the ‘minimum wage’ in Tak is 226 B … how does that work? These folks are still paid below minimum wage?
Ar Kong dead
Bunny,
Part of the reason why these SMS messages would be shocking to many Thais (and I agree they would be), is that so few people have ever heard anything like them before. By publicizing them, it may not help Ah Gong, but it is likely to make criticism appear less shocking next time.
If similar messages were directed at President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, or even Queen Elizabeth, they would not have nearly the impact that they do in the current instance. That is because people have heard similar comments before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen_(Sex_Pistols_song)
Surely the royalists know this, which is why they are so brutal in their suppression of the tiniest negative comment. They are the ones who want to prevent people from know that criticism exists, so airing the comments now may have short term negative implications, but the long term result may be different.
Ar Kong dead
The SMS messages have now been added to Ah Kong’s article on Wikipedia. I was anticipating they might appear on a few .go.th sites over the weekend but with the traction they’re getting so far, perhaps not.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply as well as for responding positively to my comment, which could have come off as a bit snarky.
The Efficient Market Hypothesis refers to prices of assets in broadly traded public markets in which transactions are easy to make and information is universally (or broadly) shared. I don’t think it is relevant to this discussion. Whether it has been discredited by recent events or not would be an interesting discussion (and one that I am not sure I have an answer for), but again, not really connected to Malaysia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
Increasing the exposure Malaysia’s economy to markets is a completely different, and more important, subject. It is, in my view, more complicated and less of an on-off switch than you appear to believe.
Influential groups are actually anti-market forces and true opening of the economy (although it may not be possible in relity) would hurt them. It is a common misconception that what good for markets and what is good for rich people are the same thing, but this is untrue. Entrenched interests are protected either by institutions or the lack of them, but not necessarily by markets as such.
The role of Malaysia’s government in guiding the country’s economy may well have had positive impacts and could in fact be, as you suggest, net positive. However, it is also clear that it had a major role in creating many of the influential groups that you worry about. I would suggest that they are much more the children of the government than the markets (which they surely fear).
Finally, opening up to markets in a continuum and can (in theory) be done gradually and carefully.
I don’t disagree with most of what you have said in your recent reply. I also agree with what Murray said in comment #1 and think that you have at least partially misinterpreted it. No one is suggesting that Malaysia economy be thrown open and run entirely by “markets”, whatever that would mean.
The point is that while governments and the private sector have roles to play, where the line is drawn between the two is subject to debate.
I tend to agree with Murray that Malaysia’s economy needs to be moved away from state planning and towards the private sector, which is what gave China, Vietnam, and others their fuel for growth.
But I know a lot less about Malaysia than you do and would value your opinion.
I am in the middle of a bunch of things, so this reply is quick and rough. I don’t mean to be too critical as I do think your opinion is important in this discussion (more so than my own in fact).
I would just encourage you to think a bit more about the terms you are using and what they mean. It does seem to me that you have adapted a political view of markets rather than a practical one – but I may be wrong. By the way, one can have a practical view of markets and be against opening an economy to them.
Markets have good and and aspects, but “markets” is not synonymous with letting rich people have their way. Much as capitalism doesn’t necessarily benefit current holders of capital. Markets are one of the most important ways in which the current holder of power and capital are overthrown and replaced by those who are more innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
By the way, I don’t think anyone would suggest that we find a husband or wife through any system but the marketplace. When it comes to personal decisions like this we certainly wouldn’t want the state to plan what is best for us. It is not markets that you should fear, but the manipulation of them. I also do think governments have a role to play in guiding (and developing) markets and protecting people from their excesses. The question is balance.
Ar Kong dead
@Andrew Marshall #72
“it is certainly valid to debate whether publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do”
But you did it without the debate in the first place.
“it could potentially help others affected by this unjust law, now and in the future, by discouraging the authorities from ever again allowing such an egregious injustice to happen. ”
I don’t really see how the revelation of SMS would reach out positively to other victims of this draconian law. Presumably, the content was published with a “good heart”. But strategically it can be a failure. Authorities get discouraged or not depend on how the general public would react. I believe the majority of Thais would remain ignorant about these SMS because in no way will they ever be aired openly. Thus, the public will not bounce back with significant response, let alone to say discourage the authority to apply LM charges.
If the presumed effect is that the public grows sympathy to Ah Kong and presses the authority to drop the politicization of LM after reading the SMS, I guess for most Thais, the wording is way too intense for them to develop spontaneous sympathy towards Ah Kong.
Really, I don’t understand how you became motivated to publish it. But let’s say it’s a good heart with undesirable effects.
Malaysia’s struggle for reform is on the streets, and in the news
I think Rupert Murdoch would be proud of Malaysia’s News Straits Times hatchet job on Senator Xenaphon
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/najibs-malaysia-still-stuck-in-the-murk-20120504-1y3z9.html#ixzz1uWSjOt5e
A statue in Naypyidaw: Exploring motifs and meanings
I’m not clear why anybody has given Tony’s comment a thumbs down (there are 3 so far!). Do these people think Andrew should not have tried to contact the relevant government official to ask about this?
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Thanks for these more recent comments:
For the last time — let’s pull this back on to the topic of Thaksin’s rally in Cambodia. Unless it has direct relevance to that topic it won’t be approved.
Best wishes to all,
Nich