The China Conundrum: Economic Sovereignty or Digital Centralisation?

Over years of conversations with both domestic and foreign economists, I have found that their perspectives generally coalesce into two main narratives. 

Typically, they attribute China’s current economic imbalance problems to a granular formula: roughly 20% to individual leadership, 30% to the broader political system, and the remaining 50% to global economic cycles and external headwinds.

While analysts often interchange the weights of that 20:30 ratio depending on how they view the President's personal style versus CCP institutional mechanics, the distinction is largely artificial. In reality, the leader and the system are two sides of the same coin. The ideology of the supreme state is merely the mirror image of a society that historically accepts power concentrated within a single leader or emperor. 

Because this highly centralized architecture is inherently unstable, it can only reduce its systemic fragility if both the individual leader and the overarching ideological regime deliberately recede from daily societal and economic management. This decompression requires a committed, structural transition toward robust institutional and political reforms.

Absent these reforms, the timeline for potential systemic collapse depends on a critical question that the Chinese have to answer: can China still survive in the next 50 years as a peaceful, self-sufficient nation, or must it continue to rely on heavy state control to remain a dominant, albeit highly disruptive, "factory of the world"?

We are currently witnessing the execution of the latter scenario. Over the past five years, Beijing has aggressively reallocated resources to transform China into an advanced technological powerhouse, using hyper-competitive exports as the primary vehicle for global outreach. 

This strategy triggers profound geopolitical friction. As evidenced by escalating trade conflicts with the U.S. and Europe, Beijing will not back down on its commitment to secure dominance over the global tech supply chain regardless of the economic well-being of its citizens.

Ultimately, this state-driven technological push carries a profound existential risk. AI-driven digital ecosystems, especially the programing associated with digital payment systems, represent the ultimate singularity tool—an innovation uniquely capable of exponentially centralizing political and economic life. 

Left unchecked, this trajectory eventually leads to the absolute concentration of governmental state control, ruling out any sign of independent intellectual thought and sovereign decision-making.

A successful China–CCP model could inspire autocratic politicians to transplant its features into their countries' governance systems. The pivotal moment to watch out for is a wholesale shift from fiat money to programmable digital tokens (which is already under pilot trials among major central banks).

To quote Napoleon’s warning: when China awakes, the world will tremble. While China does not constitute a clear and present danger today as a political system, it could become one as its centralized policymaking model - much like advanced AI - gradually earns our trust and admiration through apparent, programmable economic performance. We must apply insight and foresight to anticipate this path by sounding the alarm at home.                                                                                                           

Making Sense of Gen Z Professional Workers

What I have noticed in my decades of work-life as a team leader is that there are 3 self limiting challenges of today's young generation of professionals:

(1) Intellectual courage: they are not intellectually courageous enough to take a contrarian stance from the herd mentality  (eg the ready acceptance of narratives like the pandemic origins)

(2) Power of influence: they underestimate their ability to influence and impact their clients/audience.

(3) Perspective: their passion/energy levels are admirable but they are not inquisitive enough to form a more relevant, more meaningful and more truthful perspective of the world they wish to influence constructively. (their typical response to this is that everyone's values are subjective. But before they come to that conclusion, have they done enough researching or is the response a matter of convenience?)

As a consequence of a much more dynamic and asymetrically changing world in the millennium, these three mental obstacles are being tested severely, and young professionals are pressured to make the right decisions fast. 

To some extent, I empathise with them because in my generation and my parents' generation, we had a more stable, conducive economic- social environment for young minds to learn and gradually form their own world perspective/value systems from which they can work out their calling in life.

In contrast, today's generation has to contend with a corporatised, politically biased news media (controlled by big tech companies) and social media that promotes instant distractions and 24/7 entertainment. 

As for the intellectually inquisitive, the answers to modern history's most tragic events (WW2, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, genocide, wars, corruption, evil) are clinically diluted into superficial terms (eg concepts packaged into ism and popular sound bites) that divert young minds from exploring further the truth of the matter. 

Powerful governments, agencies and media  have prioritised issues such as climate change, gender multi-diversity and ESG as if moral and spiritual solutions are peripheral in resolving society's root problems. The solution is always man-centred as if human individuals can determine their success or failure as a society through just enlightened policies, social engineering or new ecosystems. 

With the advent of AI throughout all aspects of society, we are heading into a world where perspectives depend more on what we wish the world to look like rather than what it actually is. It is a strange mix of the t.v. series Black Mirror, George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World.

The New Myth of Sisyphus

So going back to the challenges facing young people, can they see clearly the path that the 21st century world is taking them? 

As a visual metaphor, I view the dilemma of the current and future young generation as a new myth of Sisyphus. 

In Albert Camus's book, he advocates that we accept the absurdity of life (i.e. the boulder that Sisyphus was condemned to roll up the hill only to have it roll back down and for him to haul it up again repeatedly) and find happiness in our own self-discovery.  

In the new myth of Sisyphus, the boulder for the young generation gets heavier every time it rolls back down the hill. Like the illustration below, the solution is to choose a less steep hill to roll it. That requires removing the thick outer layers of cognitive biases and convenient preconceptions that make the task heavier. 

The longer they accept their fate and not cut through the fake concepts and facile ideologies, the more world events will make the load heavier and eventually crush them. 

At the end of the day, their barriers to the truth (deeper insights into human nature and the world) is self-inflicted. And this means they have to climb a steeper, more frustrating learning curve while at the same time pushing up the rock of world challenges (in their jobs and social lives) that stretches their critical thinking skills.

At the intellectual breaking point when these young people give up original thinking altogether, they may either revert to traditional solutions or outsource their decisions to AI. 

Soon, it is very likely that AI will be so advanced that they become indispensable assistant-cum-mentors to all generations, young and old. So I see this process of giving in —both intellectually and morally — as a slow and insidious immersion like a frog in boiling water.

                        

The Asymmetrical Question

Many people I have talked to (especially in discussions with atheists and agnostics) often ask the wrong  philosophical question to Christians:

"Why would your God be so cruel and demanding that He will send you to be punished in Hell if you don't believe in Him?"

The right question that touches on the raw truth of this asymmetrical dilemma for mankind is:

"Why would Satan be so cruel as to kill and torture the souls of people even after they died, knowing  full well that he himself is destined to an even worse fate in the eternal lake of fire?"

Before I answer that question, let us ponder on the nature of evil as we see in the world. There are two related truths about evil:

1. Men and women are perpetrators of the worst unimaginable cruelties & savagery throughout history. No rational explanation can stand up to this part of human nature.

2. If an unstoppable evil force exists in this world, it is best understood as an Artificial Intelligence–like entity—a living, corrupting influence that seeks to shape the minds, hearts, and souls of people. It cannot read our thoughts directly, but it can infer them through our actions, reactions, and weaknesses, using those insights to manipulate and mislead.

If we can pause and ponder over these two insights without any knee-jerk intellectual response, we will realise that there is no power on earth that can stop the destructive nature of evil except within the domain of the highest supernatural power, and that is God Himself. 

Why is this an asymmetrical dilemma for mankind? 

It is asymmetrical because aligning oneself to unbelief and skepticism undermines the centrality of God, the creator and judge of the universe. It shifts the responsibility and accountability of every tragedy to the human being. Therefore, it is up to us to correct our flaws and errors of judgement. 

If man is influenced by forces that are more powerful than what his mind and body can handle, then he will remain a pawn in the hands of spiritual forces. Just as God is no respecter of mankind (rich or poor, smart or dumb), the devil likewise is no respecter of man. 

But there is hope because God's Word says in 1 Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

Since time immemorial, the enemy's modus operandi is to steal, kill and destroy. But God's purpose is to give life and bless our lives on earth and in heaven abundantly.

The absolute and eternal damnation of hell is not designed for mankind but it is for the devil and his army of agents. 

People who are spiritually lost will be guided to the light. But those who seek comfort in the darkness and deteriorate into destructive acts will have lost the fear of hell. 

So the right question to ask is not why is God so cruel. Rather we should ask ourselves, why is the devil so cruel. 

Once you see the weakest blind spot of humanity (the lack of faith in a good, purposeful God), you then realise your purpose in life is to tell the world about the perils of a life without God.

But which God should we put our faith in? The Muslim God? The Jewish God or the Christian God?

That is another question for another day. Suffice to say, you will have a more wholistic, big picture of life once you see the asymmetrical offer of Jesus Christ: 

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” Mathew 22:37-38

To love or not to love our Creator is a choice offered to our free will. But in taking that choice with the full powers at our disposal, we bear the consequences of our decision (faith is a decision, not an idea).

One outcome is the final destiny of Heaven and the other leads to eternal perdition. It is asymmetrical simply because no one, in their right minds, would choose destruction and darkness over life-giving joy and happiness.

The Unseen Tiger Stripes of A Mono-Religious, Mono-Ethnic Political Party

While many Malaysians (non-Muslims and to a lesser extent Muslims) recognise and call out Parti Islam Malaysia (PAS) for its extreme religious stance,  I firmly believe the present governing coalition (comprising the Pakatan Harapan, Barisan Nasional and the East Malaysian parties) do not  understand enough the great dangers facing Malaysia in the next 5 years.

As an analyst of global geopolitics and economics, I highlight two inter-related dangers (internal and external) that can be turned into a great opportunity for truly unifying and strenghtening the uneasy partnership between PH and BN:

(1) Mono-religious vs a balanced multi-ethnic society: Malaysia as one of the most unique and diverse multi-ethnic and multi-faith society in Asia will be totally weakened economically and politically when it gives way to the dominance of a party (PAS) whose goal is to turn the country into a mono-ethnic and mono-religious society.

(2) Sovereignty vs globalist agendas: Following hot on the heels of the pandemic and the movement restriction orders, Malaysia's economy has reopened this year like many other nations. 

But our sovereignty as a small, South East Asian country is going to be further threatened again by the globalist forces (World Economic Forum agenda on the one hand and the rising monetary influence of the CCP on the other hand).

The globalist agenda is driven by two strategies: 

(a) Divide and conquer: exploiting the ideological divisions, partisan politics and religious differences to further undermine society and transfer the nation's independent rights to a globalist agenda of climate change, central bank digital currencies and non-democratic global governance (similar to the European Union). 

(b) Binary political choices: offer small and powerless nations a false dichotomy of choice: either a chaotic and weak democracy or a global and regional coalition of nations governed by a global government and controls (new viruses and new vaccination programs). 

This is done through the constant biased reporting by and collusion with the mainstream media, big tech (recall how Twitter colluded with the Democrat party and the FBI to censor truthful facts about Joe Biden's son in 2020?) and institutions like the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Given the above facts (supported by a keen due diligence study of global developments), I believe the unity government under Malaysia's 10th Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim can identify and strategise a two fold attack-and-defense strategy against the common enemy, namely ideological polarisation and the submission of our country's sovereignty to global powers (China, U.S. and other emerging superpowers).

The current Prime Minister is well-respected by world leaders based on the congratulatory messages at his appointment. But what is concerning is that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim Prime has built, over three decades, a network of global contacts/friends which tends to comprise a mix of the U.S. Democrats and Islamist leaders (Bill Clinton, Paul Wolfowitz, PLO's Arafat, Turkey's Erdogan and Hamas). 

He has to be well-advised and enlightened that these two forces of ideological polarisation and global deep state are both deeply inter-related and will eventually come into full force undermining every country it seeks to dominate.

Three Local Tigers

In conclusion, the tiger is clearly a national symbol of strength and vitality for Malaysia. 

But there are localised tigers with hidden stripes that are dangerous if they are mishandled and misconstrued to be domestic pets. 

As I said before, the three dangerous tigers are: corruption, racism and religious extremism.

Following the election results of Malaysia's 15th General Election on 19th November 2022, the nation seems to have tamed the tiger of corruption (with the decimation of BN's votes). 

The tiger of racism is still a threat but he is weakened and getting old after six decades of running around scaring the various communities.  

The last tiger of religious extremism (riding on a supposedly conservative wave of going back to spiritual roots) has emerged now as the most hungry tiger.

But his power is being briefly checked by the unity government which was deemed by Malaysia's King as the best solution to Malaysia's unstable political and economic crises (three prime ministers within three years).

My suggestion is that the unity government has to come up with a stronger medicine to tame all three tigers once and for all. 

Setting personal political agendas aside, this is the only approach and mindset that the leaders of the grand coalition have to take to truly bring Malaysia out of its political and social stagnation.

A Tax-Returns Based System For Targeted Fuel Subsidy

A simpler, more cost-effective and less ambitious targeted fuel subsidy program can be based on tax-returns whilst maintaining the same pump prices for all consumers.

For example, if a T20 car owner (earning above RM10k and owns two cars) spends RM4k pa, he/she has to collect all receipts and declare on the tax form at the annual filing to the Inland Revenue.

Assume he ought to pay a flat RM5k to Inland Revenue based on a computation of the subsidy vs prevailing market price of petrol. 

To reduce his tax liability, he has to use his receipts to deduct RM4k from the RM5k liability on his income. Then he is only liable to pay RM1k to the Inland Revenue instead of RM5k (with no receipts declared). 

The key challenge of this system is getting the average annual fuel spending for T20 and M40 consumers right. And this computation can be facilitated by data analytics on household spending, car ownership types and income groups.

The advantages of this system are: 

(a) it is cost effective as there is no need for the government to spend and implement an expensive smart card system. 

(b) it minimises loopholes. The alternative proposals for smart cards can be transferred between relatives. 

(c) Furthermore, even if Touch & Go e-wallets are linked to income groups, it will pose security and privacy issues.

(d) Last but not least, if we have different retail prices for different income groups, Malaysia will be the first to pioneer such an ambitious project. If it fails, the new unity government may be the laughing stock of the world.

However, my tax-returns system may have a few loopholes: 

(a) the authenticity of receipts, which can be duplicated. But why would consumers bother if its for the good of the country? 

(b) it may encourage overspending on fuel in order to reduce the fixed tax liability. However, it is the same cash outflow for the user whether it is for the petrol kiosk or the inland revenue.

(c) only 10% of income earners in Malaysia pay taxes. So this system would have to ensure that the M40 group pay their fair share of the subsidy. The B40 are totally exempt. 

Meanwhile, the former governments' incentives for car buyers to switch to EV (Electric Vehicles) and hybrid cars should be increased to reduce pollution and save money on the petrol subsidy. 

Incidentally, the government's total subsidy expenditure on petrol is estimated to be about RM37.3bil this year. Under the tax-based returns system, the petrol subsidy bill can be reduced by half and the actual amount to be charged on T20 and B40 car owners can be more accurately synchronised with the actual movement of oil prices by the end of the calendar year.

From an economist's principles, there ought not to be any substantial subsidy on petrol over the long term as this distorts the supply and demand dynamics of fuel. 

But from the social-political perspective, Malaysia is a net oil exporting country and the benefit of high oil prices for the overall economy should not lead to higher cost of living for Malaysian citizens.

Eventually, whatever the new subsidy scheme, the current unity government has to overhaul the tax system by rebranding the re-introduction of the Goods & Services Tax (GST) one way or another. 

Caravaggio's Missing Masterpiece: “Nativity with St. Francis and St. Lawrence”

 

The Strange Story of Bitcoin & A New Financial Order

Despite the skeptics and critics of Bitcoin as an asset class or a currency, there is one thing that is compelling about the shift in money (speculative, retail and increasingly institutional) into Bitcoin: it’s the idea of a safe haven from the implosion of the fiat money system.

As a currency, it does not serve as a stable store of value with a volatility of 480% and a mean annual return of 226% over the last eight years. Is it an inflation hedge? 

Well if you compare its annual movements with the CRB All Commodities Index, it has very low correlation of 25% and with gold, the correlation is slightly higher at 39%. Against equity assets such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, the correlation with Bitcoin is around 45%.

So in principle, Bitcoin’s low correlation with most asset classes makes it a potentially good asset class to be part of a diversified portfolio. But what is interesting in my study is that Bitcoin is reasonably well correlated with Emerging Markets as shown in the chart below. Does this suggest that it is also inversely correlated to the U.S. dollar?  

Based on the three key functions of a currency (measure of value, store of value and means of exchange), Bitcoin does not qualify as a viable and efficient currency given that its value fluctuates and it is slow in processing transactions.

But the key attraction of Bitcoin, apart from serving as a diversification tool for portfolio investors, is that it is a decentralized currency that is independent of government and central bank controls, and by implication, it has no underlying liability.

Anyone who holds fiat currency will be subject to devaluation in its real purchasing value as central banks continue to print money and debase the currency in order to reduce their public debt burdens. 

In the past year, governments have piled on their debt levels in order to rescue their economies from the pandemic-induced recession. This increase in debt was accompanied by massive money printing by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan among the leading economies.

It is therefore no surprise that the fear of fiat money devaluation and hyperinflation has driven demand for Bitcoin, whose supply is limited at 21 million units.