Big govt vs small govt
Aidan Chan
Switzerland has been a safe haven for many centuries – both financial and political.
this stable country does not have a central government...its central bank is tiny in comparison to its size.
The Swiss “government”, or collection of governments, is entirely bottom-up, with plenty of volatility. In fact, it is the last main nation that is not a nation-state in the modern definition of the term. It has a small government, or a coalition of small governments. Because so many decisions are made at the municipal or cantonal level, the Swiss are intimately involved with laws and regulations which affect their lives. In Malaysia, by comparison, very few people relative to the Malaysian population know the Constitution.
Each canton is different, so the Swiss are able to see for themselves which policies work best.
Swiss citizens can then decide which policy suits them best and “vote with their feet” by moving to the canton which they find the most attractive. The result is that good policies tend to drive out bad.
When Malaysians vote with their feet, they move to another country, not another state. Encouraging more intra-Malaysian competition between states might help to mitigate this.
I like to think of the Swiss system as a free market, competitive, federalist system of government.
Another good reason for the coalition of governments system is that Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups – Germans, French, Italians and Romans. Over the years, whenever conflicts arose between the language groups, or between Catholics and Protestants, the Swiss resolved these by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves. Thus single cantons (Swiss states) have divided into half-cantons, new cantons have been formed, and border communes have opted to leave one canton to join another. In this way, the Swiss system allowed people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. It is a system Malaysia can learn from, a system where all political dissent and noise is allowed to rise to the surface. In contrast, we are currently fond of stoking dissent and not allowing it to rise to the surface.
Politicians are more easily held accountable in a small government. A government bureaucrat would not be as ashamed of overspending taxpayers’ money as someone you see in the town square every day.
In the spirit of libertarianism, we should promote the idea of downsizing big governments, or moving big governments towards a coalition of small governments. Small is beautiful; small governments are beautiful governments.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/177340
-----------------------------------------
Same rules of the game
Tricia Yeoh
Their message is simple: a protest against the well-oiled financial and economic system that is led by the 1% of the population, made up of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans; the same system that despite having wreaked havoc on the country’s (and therefore, the world’s) economy, still continues running unabashedly on the same rules of the game as it did previously.
The principle of privatisation is to maximise competitiveness and productive efficiency, but the Malaysian version seems to have emerged with the opposite results.
One wonders if real competition and private-led initiatives will be permitted to flourish. Especially since recent privatisation schemes with similar modus operandi have continued.
although the federal government will pay the concession companies the additional fees, this is only for the first five to seven years. These funds dispensed by government are effectively taxpayers’ money anyway.
The privatisation model seems to be a repetition of schemes that in the past have failed to deliver public benefits effectively. Further, it enriches a rentier, crony class disproportionately to corporate performance. Unending “corporate welfare” provided by government could instead be channelled more effectively for public good.
Given the trend, one hopes Budget 2012 will tackle structural reform. Failing which, Malaysians may begin to ask themselves whether they belong to the 1% of society – or the 99%.
Egalitarian
Adjective:Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
Noun: A person who advocates or supports such a principle.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/169226
Aidan Chan
Switzerland has been a safe haven for many centuries – both financial and political.
this stable country does not have a central government...its central bank is tiny in comparison to its size.
The Swiss “government”, or collection of governments, is entirely bottom-up, with plenty of volatility. In fact, it is the last main nation that is not a nation-state in the modern definition of the term. It has a small government, or a coalition of small governments. Because so many decisions are made at the municipal or cantonal level, the Swiss are intimately involved with laws and regulations which affect their lives. In Malaysia, by comparison, very few people relative to the Malaysian population know the Constitution.
Each canton is different, so the Swiss are able to see for themselves which policies work best.
Swiss citizens can then decide which policy suits them best and “vote with their feet” by moving to the canton which they find the most attractive. The result is that good policies tend to drive out bad.
When Malaysians vote with their feet, they move to another country, not another state. Encouraging more intra-Malaysian competition between states might help to mitigate this.
I like to think of the Swiss system as a free market, competitive, federalist system of government.
Another good reason for the coalition of governments system is that Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups – Germans, French, Italians and Romans. Over the years, whenever conflicts arose between the language groups, or between Catholics and Protestants, the Swiss resolved these by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves. Thus single cantons (Swiss states) have divided into half-cantons, new cantons have been formed, and border communes have opted to leave one canton to join another. In this way, the Swiss system allowed people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. It is a system Malaysia can learn from, a system where all political dissent and noise is allowed to rise to the surface. In contrast, we are currently fond of stoking dissent and not allowing it to rise to the surface.
Politicians are more easily held accountable in a small government. A government bureaucrat would not be as ashamed of overspending taxpayers’ money as someone you see in the town square every day.
In the spirit of libertarianism, we should promote the idea of downsizing big governments, or moving big governments towards a coalition of small governments. Small is beautiful; small governments are beautiful governments.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/177340
Tricia Yeoh
Their message is simple: a protest against the well-oiled financial and economic system that is led by the 1% of the population, made up of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans; the same system that despite having wreaked havoc on the country’s (and therefore, the world’s) economy, still continues running unabashedly on the same rules of the game as it did previously.
The principle of privatisation is to maximise competitiveness and productive efficiency, but the Malaysian version seems to have emerged with the opposite results.
One wonders if real competition and private-led initiatives will be permitted to flourish. Especially since recent privatisation schemes with similar modus operandi have continued.
although the federal government will pay the concession companies the additional fees, this is only for the first five to seven years. These funds dispensed by government are effectively taxpayers’ money anyway.
The privatisation model seems to be a repetition of schemes that in the past have failed to deliver public benefits effectively. Further, it enriches a rentier, crony class disproportionately to corporate performance. Unending “corporate welfare” provided by government could instead be channelled more effectively for public good.
Given the trend, one hopes Budget 2012 will tackle structural reform. Failing which, Malaysians may begin to ask themselves whether they belong to the 1% of society – or the 99%.
Egalitarian
Adjective:Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
Noun: A person who advocates or supports such a principle.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/169226
