Sigma’s Simulacrum of Reality

Living in Australia now, I am at present inundated by the full extent of the Australian Press’ backing of Tibetan independence from China.

But my personal opinion on this runs contrary to this nation’s media. I’m not sure what the majority of Malaysians’ stand are on this, but I get the feeling most are pro-China, mainly due to the fact that Malaysians under Dr Mahathir has been indoctrinated with the concept of non-interference in a nation’s internal matters.

My motivation in writing this post also came from replying to the_earthinc’s admirable (but flawed) support for a free Tibet.

Anyway, I think that Tibet is part of China. It was a region that was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century and was incorporated into the Chinese dynastic line as part of the Yuan Dynasty. First off earthinc said that we must differentiate the Mongol Empire with the Chinese Empire, and that since the Mongols conquered Tibet, and not the Han-Chinese, Tibet cannot be considered to be a part of the present Han-Chinese borders. This is only nominally true, as very early on after his successful conquest of the Chinese Empire, Kublai Khan considered himself to be a ‘Chinese Emperor’ instead of a ‘Mongol Emperor’. Furthermore, the successive dynasties of the Ming, Qing (ok a Manchu group here, but definitely part of the Chinese Dynastic line), Republic of China, and People’s Republic of China governments have all not relinquish sovereignty over Tibet. And as brutal as this sounds, nor has Tibet managed to successfully gained independence, either through bloody wars or through gaining recognition from the UN.

Pro-Tibet people must understand the stubbornness of the Chinese government in not giving an inch in regards to what they perceived as Western interference on its internal matters. To them (and me) it is akin to asking a country to give up one of its states! Here I must make something clear: My support for Tibet being part of China has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Notice the attempts by the world (ie Western) media to mesh these two issues together, equating the CCP = brutality = brutalising Tibet = ergo we must help free Tibet from the brutal repression of the CCP. Wait a minute… I know that the CCP supports the ideology of a party-state political structure, but when did the West started doing the same? Hence my emphasis on China’s legitimate claim over Tibet originating far before the CCP regime. Instead, it started during the Chinese Dynastic times.

Also, why did the Western-led international community only started protesting China’s claim towards Tibet after 1949? When Tibet unilaterally declared its independence in 1912, did any other country recognised its claim of independence? No. So why the about-face after 1949? I am inclined to believe that it was more because of the US-led aversion towards China’s new Communist govt than anything else, and thus wanted to destabilise it.

We must then question the motives for the West in their seeming zeal in the Tibetan cause. Nobody does something for nothing. Why does it seem more palatable for the US politicians to engage in wars with Arabic states as oppose to North Korea, for example? Might securing oil supplies play even a small part in their decision? Likewise, the claims that the West has their own agenda in supporting Tibetan independence. Not only is China now a rising super-power, but even more horrifying to the US, it is also a Communist country. Hence having a pro-US independent Tibet right at the doorstep of China will be a great thing to have.

On the brutality that the CCP inflicted on the Tibetan protesters, simple, I condemn it. I also condemn the Tienanmen Square Massacre of ‘86. And every other instances when the CCP brutalised dissidents. I want China to democratise itself. Democratic avenues of elections and referendums are the best way to let out steam and dissent in a country. Once China has been throughly democratise, and if Tibet is still in a state of unrest, I then advocate holding a referendum there to determine the true will of the majority of Tibetans. And not just what might be the noisy minority’s.

What do you say to this, neo-liberals?

The Scientific American’s research found that after stripping away all the ideological smokescreens and ’socialist paranoia’ of the neo-conservatives in the USA, Nordic states do fare better than Anglo-Saxon states.

It’s time for US leaders to find the courage to defy their country’s ‘tradition’ on this, for the benefit of the majority of its citizens. This also goes for Christianity. Religious zealots are pulling the strings behind US politics nowadays, and it’s a very worrying trend.

Neo-liberalism in action

Earlier, I posted a couple of rants about how I hated working at Target during the Christmas Sale 2 week period. There I railed against certain aspects of it which I thought were influenced by neo-liberalist economic ideology espoused by Uncle Sam.

During the last term of the Howard government, Australia came under intense attack from neo-liberalism. This happened when the Howard government gained rare control of both houses for the first time in decades after the 04 elections. As a result, Howard tried passing WorkChoices, a set of very neo-liberal industrial relations policies.

I believe that Howard’s rhetorics and expectations that WorkChoices would increase the flexibility for employees and employers to design their own contracts are incredibly naive and unrealistic. Already, Australia’s ’socialist tendencies’ are considerably less pronounced when compared to other developed countries such as France or Germany. Strikes aren’t frequent occurrences, and even when they happen, they are usually quite accommodating and those unions provide skeleton crews to continue to man vital posts. Militant unionism are only a tiny minority in the national union body, and they are repeatedly marginalised by both sides of politics (yes, by Labor too).

One of the key ideologies underlying WorkChoices is that it sidelines unions in the contract bargaining between employees and employers. The Liberals argued that employees and employers knows best what each want from each other, and trade unions are an unnecessary party in these deliberations. However, especially for blue-collared workers, their bargaining powers are considerably less compared to their employers. Hence coming together in the form of a union is the only way they can compensate for their power disparity in these bargaining rounds to protect their wages, benefits and working conditions. Without unions, employers will easily steamroll over the concerns of a single employee in those areas. Here, the adage ’strength in unity, death in disunity’ holds very true. The Lib’s introduction of the AWAs seeks to eliminate the influence of unions in those deliberations.

Right now, as a result of Howard’s 11 years of gradual neo-liberalisationism, the workplace of Australia is increasingly becoming more casualised. This means that many jobs are on a ‘we’ll call you when we need you’ basis. Although this might be a neo-liberalist’s wet dream, it isn’t as erotic for the working-class. The casualisation of the workplace has resulted in unpredictable shifts and hours of work for them. These workers would also be subjected to an unpredictable income flow.

I used to be a bit critical towards the Australian restriction imposed on businesses to operate only between 9-5pm. However, my recent experience has persuaded me towards that camp now. True, extending the operating hours for shops is beneficial to consumers. But till what end? There has to be a balance with this. The employees in those shops are humans too. They need time to socialise, to rest, and to enjoy life in general. To swing too much towards consumer convenience (as well as employer profitability) is unfair. Constantly getting the late shift is no fun, I can tell you that. It restrict one’s social life. Luckily, Australia still hasn’t gone full ‘Asian’ in this regard atm. Its adoption of a one day a week late night shopping is a good compromise, IMO.

WorkChoices also seeked to eliminate penalty rates and worker’s prerequisite conditions. These aims are just blatant transferences of power to employers and pandering towards its voting bases. Penalty rates are fine as they are, which if I’m not mistaken are 1.5x for Sunday and after 5pm shifts, and 2x for public holidays. These are traditionally rest days for most Aussies but it’s cool if businesses want to continue to earn more profits during these times. They just have to pay their workers more for trading in their rest days to slave away on those days. It was this issue that played a big part in the ACTU and Labor campaigns against WorkChoices in the 07 election, which ultimately contributed to their victory over the Liberals.

WorkChoices have also transferred minimum wage setting powers from the National Wage Cases at the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to the newly created Australian Fair Pay Commission. Again, this body is just another unashamed attempt by the Libs to exercise their neo-liberal ideologue and has almost nothing to do with necessity as the AIRC has performed its role well in the past. I am not a diehard supporter of the minimum wage. Instead, I am a supporter of proper welfare net for the disadvantaged in society. Hence I’m open to other methods of achieving this. John Lee and Rajan seem to be big supporters of the income tax credit method of achieving this. After perusing it for a bit, I don’t really see why it seems so enticing to them. Basically, this model just transfers the tax burden towards the poor from businesses to the government, which in extension to the public taxpayers. Plus the increased complexity of this method will surely increase the cost of administering it.

The problem I feel with neo-liberals and such is that they tend to view the workforce as merely another commodity, when it so isn’t the case. Workers can never just be viewed as something which which companies can obtain and discard subject to economic conditions, however enticing this idea may be to the neo-libs. This is because there are serious flow on effects with those actions that adversely affect workers. The welfare of families are at stake when a worker is sacked. Societal ills could then easily follow suit. Therefore, increased consideration before the sacking of workers is, IMO, essential.

Of all the WorkChoices aims, I can say that I only agree with one. This is the exemption of companies with fewer than 101 employees from unfair dismissal laws. I guess this is because I can’t stand over-whining spoilt lousy workers who tries to screw their bosses with large payouts and costly termination processes. So sue me.

One of the simplest reasons why I’m not a supporter of neo-liberalism is the same reason why I’m not a supporter of communism: The examples of countries where they’re implemented leaves a lot to be desired. The USA is undoubtedly the champion of neo-liberalism. There, unions are castrated. Big businesses flourish. Minimum wage is peanuts.

And the results of all that? The emergence of the ‘working poor-class’, people who hold 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs (hooray, employment flexibility!). Ummn, doesn’t that kinda give us a clue as to how accurate their ‘minimum wage’ definition is?? A society where there exist a big and growing income disparity among its people. Where big corporations have undoubtedly demonstrated that they are incapable of ’self-regulation’, putting the neo-liberal’s beliefs of this to shreds. True, the USA is still the no. 1 economic power in the world, but what’s the point of that if the majority of its people don’t get a decent piece of the pie?

The mere fact that there are 3 major US presidential candidates on both sides of politics: Edwards and Obama for the Dems and Huckabee for the Reps, which based their campaign platforms on championing the interests of the ‘little guys’ says a lot about the very unequal wealth distribution in that country.

I take a look at the Human Development Index (HDI) ranking and what do I see? The top 10 countries consist of 5 strongly social democratic countries: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and France, with the rest consisting of countries with nominal social democratic traditions: Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland and Japan (strong government intervention and partnership policies).

And where’s the great proponent of neo-liberalism on this list? The largest and strongest economy in the world is merely at no. 12. Unimpressive.

And therein lies the greatest flaw in neo-liberalism: Too much emphasis on profit generation at all cost and not near enough effort on wealth redistribution. This results in the formation of a ’super-rich’ class which merely reinvest their considerable wealth as capital to further accumulate more wealth, generating an impenetrable and under-taxed ‘wealth cycle’. The middle-class there have little chance of breaking into this ‘financial heaven’ due to insufficient income accumulation, while the working-class have nothing to look forward to except further exploitation of their labour in return for pitiful wages. Factor in the extra ‘barriers’ that the rich class have constructed to perpetuate their position in society: private schools, private healthcare services, exclusive suburbs, costly university fees, and you have a society that’s clearly divided into 2 (like what Edward has pickup up on in his ‘Two Americas” speech).

So do we really want to live in a society like this? My answer to this is a big, resounding “NO, THANK YOU“. I’ll take my $12/hour minimum wage, welfare safety net, union-involved social democratic country any day instead, thanks.

Unfortunately, this Merdeka (Independence) Day is marred by irresponsible racial politicking by UMNO Youth only 2 days before.

Thanks for nothing, Khairy. I’ll blog more on that later.

Anyway, back to Merdeka. Lemme see what can I still remember about my former country’s Independence from the Brits.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s first PM, declaring Malaysia’s Independence, by raising his hands and shouting “Merdeka” 3 times

Obviously, Malaysia gained Independence from the British Empire on the 31th of August, 1957. Unlike many other British colonies at that time, Malaysia’s independence was gained bloodlessly. The independence movement wasn’t at all militaristic, unlike the Indonesian’s or the Vietnamese’s. Nor was it marred by violence on the part of the British, like the Indian’s struggle for Independence.

It was practically ‘given’ to the Malaysians by the Brits, when they realised that they can no longer sustain their Empire. Better to part with their Malaysian colony on amicable terms to ensure future good relations, than to try to crush the Independence movement, they said. And they were right. Malaysia has adopted various British imports after Independence, from their Westminster parliamentary political system, to the Common Law legal system, to their language even. Plus, just look at how many Malaysian students are sent to the UK for their tertiary education each year.

And like what BN never lets us forget, Independence was granted by the British after Malaysia observed one of their major conditions: The formation of a stable political coalition encompassing all the major races there to take over power. The Alliance (predecessor of BN), with UMNO, MCA and MIC was that coalition. I’ve read before that it was very nearly Dato Onn Jaafar’s multiracial IMP (Independence for Malaya Party) which could have been granted that price. Early on in its formation, Dato Onn tried to coax the then MCA’s President, Dato Tan Cheng Lock, to join his party in order for IMP to have a better representation of Malaysians. But he was too late as Tan Cheng Lock and MCA had by then already become a member of the communalist Alliance.

What a pity huh?

Anyways, Selamat Hari Merdeka then Malaysia!