20 years ago, East Berliners scaled the walls and pushed through checkpoints into West Berlin – an action that will get themselves shot just a day before. It was the defining moment of the most liberating month of the most liberating year in history.

One of the most important lessons here was that the freedom of movement is the most important weapon against the totalitarian and the ruthless, against state failure. The inner-German barrier started going up in 1952, and the Berlin Wall in 1961, was due to the fact that the mass influx of East Germans to the West was undermining communist rule.

But the crucial bit here is that the Berlin Wall would likely still be there if the rest of Western Europe put up barriers as well – to keep East Germans out. When 13,000 East Germans crossed the Austro-Hungarian border in August 1989, they weren’t placed in internment camps to sort out their asylum status. They were welcomed. Malaysia instead sells Burmese refugees at the Thai border as slaves and wonder why the junta remain recalcitrant.

Our humanity isn’t merely measured on the respect shown to our own, but to the most downtrodden of the others.

Two things I’ve noticed about Americans, particularly the conservatives (which includes a fair number of libertarians). The first is that they have an overwhelmingly strong attachment to the political philosophy and constitution of the Founders. The second is that many of the flaws of the constitutional modal in the United States are seen as features.

One such is how prone legislatures within the United States (and the federal Congress in particular) are to deadlock, and how disconnected the electorate is to their elected legislature. The argument goes that most bills presented are stupid, making it difficult for stupid bills to be passed is a Good Thing.

Instead, what I see happening is a conglomeration of stupid bills into one Awesomely Bad bill, filled with pork – so that it can passed both houses of legislature and be signed into law. I don’t think you could find the scale of interest groups and lobbyist influencing legislature as in the United States in any other Western liberal democracies (especially the less First Past The Post). Moreover, intuitively, making it hard for bills to be passed also makes it hard for bills to be repealed.

Moreover I don’t think it safeguards freedom necessarily. In terms of economic freedom, of the top ten liberal democracies making the list (i.e. the top 12 minus Singapore and Hong Kong), all but two have parliamentary systems. Only three uses a single member, first part the post system, only one with no mode of national referendum. This means that the United States is most prone from the lot of getting stuck in political impasse, and least representative of their electorate, and quite likely to be prone to corruption (not just in interest money, Westminster’s recent parliamentarian spending scandal will barely register a blip in the United States – take Pelosi’s heavy use of the Air Force).

It would matter if the quality of legislation is better. But compare for a moment the various bills in both House and Senate for healthcare reform with, say, Netherlands’ 2006 Zorgverzekeringswet or Zvw (Health Insurance Act). Regardless of your policy preference, Zvw is simply a lot better – it is more parsimonius, lack all the requisite special interest provisions and also very likely the Act’s main sponsors actually read it.

Stumbled upon this on Wikipedia:

In one instance, during a Liberal filibuster in the Canadian Senate, Senator Philippe Gigantès was accused of reading one of his books only so that he could get the translation for free through the Hansard.

So I saw this propaganda ad on TV. Set in a village, two Malay girls enter an Indian girl’s living room. The conversation goes something like this:

Malay Girl 1: I got engineering at Universiti Malaya
Malay Girl 2: I got architecture at the International Islamic University
Indian Girl: (dejected) I got biotech at University Malaysia Sabah
Malay Girl (not sure which): What why is the problem?

They discussed the cost of transportation and the Indian girl points out that her family can’t afford the distance because her father passed away. The entire, shockingly multiracial village, collected funds, and presented it to Indian Girl and her mother. This is the meaning of 1 Malaysia, the ad boasts.

And I’m shitting myself – OMG, did I just see that? The two Malay girls got into pretty good public universities in Kuala Lumpur, the Indian girl a pathetic offer from a backwater university in Sabah (okay, okay, Sabahans, I mean no harm – 1 Malaysia and all). Is there a subtle message the script writer was trying to send?

(If you missed the subtle message, Poor Indian Girl probably had to slog through the ardous 1.5 year Form Six while the two Malay girls probably had it easy with 1 year Matrikulasi and probably one year the Indian girl’s junior).

What
I’m not talking about the usual sort of charter cities (a roughly legal, constitutional term), but rather Stanford economist Paul Romer’s conception of a charter city.

I first bumped into it on a TED video, and eventually grew into it. The concept is simple, as explained by the FAQs:

The two prerequisites for a charter city are uninhabited land and a charter granted and enforced by an existing government or collection of governments. With the right rules, a city will naturally grow as residents arrive, employers start firms, and investors build infrastructure and buildings.

Why
The broad reasons why Malaysia needs charter cities is that we are at a policy nadir. There is significant political inertia to adopt good policies that work better (things like good and low regulation, non-discrimination, a hard currency, free trade and freer immigration). All these will be compounded, not minimize, as Malaysia gets more “democratic” and divided politically – UMNO has to go back to the base and rally support, while Malaysia’s authoritarianism means there is little incentive for the rise of centrists in government.

The de facto unitary nature of Malaysia further compounds this problem. We have states without meaningful power, and local governments subservient to the federal and state governments, rather the local populations. Not only this means policy is less responsive to local issues, there is very limited policy competition. Charter cities provide this opportunity to experiment with policy, administrative and planning ideas – things like public transport and pedestrian-centric urban development, instead of the sprawl-prone, car-centric cities Malaysia has.

The second broad reason is the urban concentration in Malaysia is situated in Klang Valley – the primate city of Malaysia. The reason this happen was simply because post-independence industrialization and trade policy focused heavily on this region – other regions, with little autonomy, could hardly compete. Charter cities in Malaya’s east coast and in Borneo will even out the development inbalances, benefiting the hinterland in those regions.

How (i.e. feasibility)
Malaysia already has experience in charter cities. The Straits Settlements of Penang and Singapore were developed that way – the colonial version of the charter city. In Selangor, Kuala Lumpur was started when the Sultan gave tin mining and settlement rights to the Chinese – the frontier city of Kuala Lumpur, developed by the Chinese kapitans, soon grew rapidly into Selangor’s largest city, and eventually, its capital. In Sarawak, Kuching and other older Sarawakian towns grew rapidly under the White Rajah rule, as the Brook family took over large swathes of land from a inefficient and disinterested Brunei sultanate.

A charter city today will work for the same reason why hinterland-less Singapore became Southeast Asia’s richest country (on a per capita basis): good governance and free trade. This is a given because a charter city has to compete to survive: if they cannot attract workers, traders and investors, it would go bust. Therefore they will have the incentive to pursue policies that may not be populist (like free trade and immigration) but essential for economic growth and vibrancy. Furthermore, starting out with a low population and little built environment gives policymakers a chance to experiment.

Where
For a good chance to succeed, I’d say somewhere accessible to the sea (so it wouldn’t be dependent on other cities to trade with the rest of the world). I’d say the size of a charter city should be around the same as Malacca (which is slightly larger than New York City).

The key part of it is that there should be minimal existing human settlement under the charter city. When the British took over Singapore and Hong Kong, the local settlement was a bunch of villages. Seeing this hitch, I’d say the three most feasible states are Pahang, Sabah and Sarawak. My personal preference is for the Rajang delta region (I have a romantic perception of the Netherlands). It is sparsely inhabited by aborigines. Its potentially fertile ground, making early settlement easier. And it is downriver from Sibu and Sarikei, making such a city a viable, local entrepôt. Such a region, with abundant freshwater, will be less dependent on neighbouring states for basic utilities.

When
I predict, due to the low economic liberty and poor governance in Malaysia, growth will be rapid. Many of the world’s major cities have grown rapidly (Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York comes to mind) for good reason. Such cities grew rapidly to fill a gap where existing cities either did not exist or poorly fit the bill. Beyond economic competition, in the east coast and Borneo, such a gap (a strong economic centre) remains.

P.S. I’m not opposed to a socialistic charter city. In fact, it will set it up for an interesting policy competition – one I expect a liberal charter city to win.

So earlier this term I made the rash decision to accept an internship offer and took the term off at the last minute. No regrets at first. In fact, little regret so far. But nevertheless, not really what I expected (in SMU terms, it is like being in Week 7 throughout – you don’t have to fake the nasty Weeks 12-15 but you’re working on Week 8 and post Week 15).

So far, my takeaways are:

1) I have a better idea what I want and don’t want do to with my life. I’ve been in sorta denial about my interests, simply because it is a tad hard to pursue them. Not pursuing my interests seems to be harder.

2) I know way more about myself. You know the Serenity Prayer: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” I know full well my weaknesses before this internship, but I have a far better idea what I cannot change now.

3) Nevertheless, I heartily recommend nobody to walk in my footsteps. I don’t think the tradeoffs are worth it. I could learn all these lessons post-graduation, but with a better paycheck and no stupid hostel duties.

In fact, don’t drink from the internship Kool Aid. If anything, I regret wasting so much time doing stuff I don’t like when I have the freedom to do things I like. Have fun. Make the best out of college (inasmuch as SMU is a pretty shitty place).

The worst part is that I doubt each subsequent internship will improve my chances for a job.

I just read the open letter of Moaz Yusuf Ahmad, founder of TRANSIT Malaysia.

To a large extent, I agree with him. Mismanagement, poor investment, and severe economic distortions plague the Klang Valley (and to the lesser extent, other Malaysian cities). I disagree with a few points – for example, the three mass transit companies that created PUTRA LRT (now rapidKL’s Kelana Jaya line), STAR LRT (now rapidKL’s Ampang and Sri Petaling lines) and KL Monorail weren’t private initiatives. They were public-private initiatives, with significant GLC equity.

My fundamental disagreement however is with the idea of more investment.

Firstly, the state of Malaysian public finances is terrible. There are limits on how much the federal government can invest without affecting the macroeconomic stability of the country.

Secondly, some of the most worth it investment can’t possibly be afforded by Malaysia today. Increasing the rolling stock and fleet of public transport operators may be a good thing, and even necessary so it could cope with demand, but the more long-term strategic investments is too expensive for Malaysia to spend right now. For one, replacing most of our rapid transit system in KL with a proper mass rapid transit system (which has lower operating cost per passenger and higher capacity to cope with the demand) should be a goal – but it is just far too expensive for debt-ladled Malaysia to handle.

Thirdly, congestion and poor public transport can be fixed without breaking the bank.
1. Remove price controls for petrol and diesel – this will prevent subsidization of fuel. Better yet, impose a tax on it. Its a lot better giving cash handouts to poor households than to control fuel prices.

2. Price congestion – through quotas or usage taxes for vehicles and congestion charges on certain congested roads. This, obviously, pays for itself.

3. Create a public transport authority – a single source of decision-making, regulation and enforcement. There are too many agencies behind public transport, which lends to incoherent policy, expensive red tape and a poor regulatory environment. Points 4 and 6 especially won’t work without a local, responsive and centralised authority.

4. Revamp the bus system – assign fare and routes, and let private (yes, private, not GLC) companies bid for routes (or groups of routes). A system of fines can be used to ensure bus companies to a set of KPIs – like frequency, maintenance of busses, etc. The contract can be re-tendered if a private company fails to meet KPIs.

5. Because busses won’t be enough, I’d say allow mini-busses or paratransit. Essentially paratransit involves flexible routes. It is extremely efficient (try living in a city that depends on it, like Bandung – its awesome). And it can be modernised, if Hong Kong is any indicator. And because this can be an entirely private endervour, it doesn’t cost a public dime.

6. Deregulate taxi fares. Or at least set them at market clearing rates. Taxis, while should be treated as chauffered cars in things like tolls (currently they pay less than private cars) and congestion charge, is necessary to a functioning public transport system. The wide availability of taxis makes it easier for commuters to give up their cars – if they’re in a hurry or when public transport doesn’t cover a journey (such as late-night journeys), they aren’t left on a lurch. A market-clearing metre rate will end touting and price-jacking, and will encourage more taxis to enter the market.

7. For trains/rapid transit, I see past investment as a sunk cost – if there is no way to run the system without actively subsidising it, I think the mature thing to do is to shut down rail services. By actively subsidising lines, it will create an impediment towards good, forward-looking investments when Malaysia is better capable of making them.

When Malaysia can better afford it, we should build several metro (four to eight car mass rapid transit), light metro (less than four car MRT), light rail (and I don’t mean the KL definition of it, I’m thinking more along the lines of Dublin’s Luas and Portland’s MAX), bus rapid transit, and suburban rail lines. All of these require high capital investment, investment we scarcely can make now.

But by taking the policy steps I recommended, it would alleviate the dire conditions of transport and air quality in the Klang Valley. Moreover, it would discourage sprawl (as the external cost of it – congestion and pollution – are internalised) – making any future rapid transit system significantly easier to design and build.

I strongly disagree that a public transport system needs subsidization. Instead, its infinitely more efficient to have targeted subsidies (handouts to poor households) and tax reduction (abolishing or lowering the company tax will do more to lower prices than perpetuating price controls, for example).

P.S. I’m aware that none of this is politically feasible. Some are too unpopular – floating fuel prices, fuel tax, and congestion tax. And others just deprive cronies of their leakages. Or both. Except, perhaps, recommendation no. 5.

So 8 October was supposed to be the day Malaysia rued the day Discovery aired a commercial about Malaysia with the Balinese pendet dance. That was delayed. Why you ask?

But he did say that one of their wooden boats (sampan) was damaged recently and took some time to repair. “The sampan is fine now,” he said.

A decidedly minor setback. But tomorrow, those living near the Kalimantan-Malaysia border, as well as those with Indonesian maids, see Indonesians on the bus, work in a factory that hires Indonesians, or hire Indonesians at Chow Kit for, erm… back to the Indonesians – fear them. They kill slit your throats for claiming rendang is Malaysian.

Alas, the Indonesian government is repressing the patriotic sons of Indonesia in the Benteng Demokrasi Rakyat (Bendera). They’re putting out all the stops to this present and serious danger to Malaysia:

“Surely our officers at the borders already know what to do. The officers will take the best steps, which in this case, will be by asking them to go home,” Tamboen said.

But on a more serious note, I think it would be awesome if Bendera actually invades Malaysia. Just think of history books from now on. Malaysia. Invaded by 13 spies and 200 men armed with traditional weapons. And they will rape our women, and our future children will have their blood. And they shall be a proud race that can send fear into the hearts of every nation just by sharpening our bamboo sticks.

Chinese national and Singapore PR Zhang Yuanyuan, who moved back to China last year, enraged the Temasek Review. How?

A Chinese national and Singapore Permanent Resident by the name of Zhang Yuanyuan humiliated Singapore publicly on China’s CCTV by flashing her NRIC on the screen and subsequently declared her undivided loyalty to her motherland, China!

How can Singapore ever recover from this?

“I happened to view this clip on Youtube and I got the biggest shock of my life when I reach 1min 05sec of the clip! It proudly displays a PRC woman by the name of Zhang Yuanyuan denouncing her Spore pink IC & return to China to work & participate in PRC’s 60th National Day celebrations. With the opening of the floodgate for the foreigners, I seriously wonder if there’s a small fraction of possibility that I will trust them in times of national crisis.”

WTF, times of national crisis? Again, I reiterate, she’s a Chinese citizen who is no longer living in Singapore.

Some news you can’t make up:

KUALA LUMPUR: An Indonesian Embassy official here dismissed reports of vigilantes in Jakarta waging war on Malaysia on Oct 8.

The embassy’s counsellor for information, Widyarka Ryananta, said the report in the Jakarta Globe about a group calling itself Benteng Demokrasi Rakyat (Bendera) planning to invade Malaysia was “too ludicrous to respond to officially.”

And yet, they kinda did respond somewhat officially. The hillarity is here:

The Daily Chilli on Monday reported that Bendera has amassed bows and arrows, samurai swords and bamboo spears for an invasion of Malaysia. [...]

The Jakarta Globe quoted Bendera’s coordinator Mustar Bona Ventura as saying that over 1,000 volunteers had been recruited and another 300 were expected to sign up soon.

Bendera also claimed that 10 “spies” had been sent to Malaysia to conduct reconnaissance and draw up battle positions, adding that the strike would be launched by “air, land and sea.”

I think Malaysia’s better off giving up and welcome our new Indonesian overlords.