Categories
Society

[2717] Moral police with guns? A very bad idea

The killing of Ahmad Rafli Abdul Malek, the enforcement chief of the Pahang Islamic Religious Department, is a case of yet another shooting-related death for yet another day under the Malaysian sun. The authorities are panicking, despite a certain mainstream English newspaper claiming the police’s war on crime is already a success not too long ago. Minister Jamil Khir Baharom said the government was contemplating arming federal religious officers with guns in response to the murder. The state of Terengganu is already arming its religious enforcers and urging other state authorities to follow suit.

I find this deeply disagreeable.

Guns are a symbol of power. One does not tempt a man or woman with a gun. When a person points a gun at you, there is no room for argument. ”Just do as I say, or I will shoot.”

In a less than friendly environment, the mere presence of a gun is enough to instill fear. It drives almost everybody but the bravest away from public space, effectively killing any open public sphere. For those who enjoy having a vibrant open society, the threat alone is enough reason to oppose the greater proliferation of guns.

Even the authorities whom we trust to be among the most competent to handle firearms has given us reasons to doubt them. Having the Inspector-General claim that the missing guns highlighted by the Auditor-General’s report could have fallen into the sea just does not create confidence. The fact the guns are missing alone is worrying enough in times when it feels more and more crooks have guns these days.

Now, the government wants to give guns to the religious authorities, which are quite incompetent at handling firearms.

The proliferation of guns, at least since the recent past, is a new concern in Malaysia. An old threat to an open society is the troop of moral police all around the country. The situation is not as bad as in Saudi Arabia just yet, but the religious authorities are convinced that it is their job to keep our society morally upright, and uptight according to norms defined by them.

They do this not just by roaming public spaces and imposing their values on others. They also invade private spaces. Respect for privacy is of no concern to them. They spy and snoop around because they think they have the moral right to do so. ”Morality is paramount. I am the guardian of morality. I am an agent of god. Obey me.”

These are the bunch of men who the Minister thinks may benefit from having guns. It is a double whammy for an open society. It is bad for our society.

These moral police are not just concerned with catching youth dating somewhere in the park or Muslims eating in public during Ramadan. While it is comically outrageous to have dudes with self-proclaimed moral superiority needing guns to arrest those whom in their eyes, are offending common sensibility — sorry, or was it the religious authorities’ sensibility? Was it god’s? — there is a more serious fear behind it all.

These religious authorities are also vigilant against religious teachings which do not follow the government’s official religious prescription. The Shias suffer from discrimination and persecution in Malaysia, with these religious authorities being the primary tool of religious oppression.

Several news reports stated that the police are investigating whether the murder is linked to the recent gazette of anti-Shia law in Pahang. Other reports linked the murder case to a cult referred to in the media as Tuhan Haron. If the Shia connection is true, then maybe after so much oppression the religious authorities, some of the oppressed are rising up.

Religious enforcement officers, used to oppressing others, now feel insecure. To provide these enforcers with security to oppress further, they get guns.

I do not think these religious authorities need guns. Instead, I think they need sledgehammers to crack open their narrow provincial xenophobic minds. Maybe, just maybe, if the religious authorities had not been oppressing the religious minority, those groups would not resort to hostile action.

Just leave the gun business to the police.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in The Malay Mail Online on November 14 2013.

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2487] Religious conservativism and priorities

Words for Malaysian religious conservatives, maybe especially for Hasan Ali and his sympathizers.

In November, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, an independent Salafist cleric and presidential candidate, was asked by an interviewer how, as president, he would react to a woman wearing a bikini on the beach? ”She would be arrested,” he said.

The Al Nour Party quickly said he was not speaking for it. Agence France-Presse quoted another spokesman for Al Nour, Muhammad Nour, as also dismissing fears raised in the news media that the Salafists might ban alcohol, a staple of Egypt’s tourist hotels. ”Maybe 20,000 out of 80 million Egyptians drink alcohol,” he said. ”Forty million don’t have sanitary water. Do you think that, in Parliament, I’ll busy myself with people who don’t have water, or people who get drunk?” [Thomas Friedman. Political Islam Without Oil. New York Times. January 10 2012]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2397] Reminded of my misgiving of PAS

I do not believe in specific individuals or organizations. I believe in institutions to make everybody honest, so-to-speak. I truly believe for governance in Malaysia to improve, political competition must flourish at the federal level. The first step is to have Barisan Nasional served some time in the opposition.

While the blood reference is excessive, the spirit of Jefferson’s “[t]he tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” underlines the need for BN to lose its political power. It is about bloodletting. Power corrupts whoever whom holds it for too long. Hopefully, the bloodletting will flush out the worst within the ranks of BN. They will need to improve and be better than its rivals in order to survive. This applies to everybody as well. The competitive force will keep everybody on their toes.

A near loss is not enough. The so-called Pekan lesson is not good enough. Nobody truly remembers it because it was merely a near miss. BN has to lose.

Despite my harsh criticism of BN, I am not against BN per se. At least, not in the last year or so. I think I have grown out of that pure anti-BN sentiment. Now, it is simply an institutional requirement for me.

Pakatan Rakyat is the obvious candidate to replace BN. Within democratic institutional dynamics, I am supportive of PR.

Since PAS is an essential member of PR, I have discovered that somehow I am subconsciously trying to be more mild and measured in my criticism against PAS. This is all the more important because I increasingly see PKR as the most incapable of the lot in PR. PAS is the party that needs to pick up that slack. I do not believe DAP can do that in the short run. DAP needs to widen its base before it can cover for PKR.

And really, PAS has been moving to the center now, much to my delight. Obviously, my positions are very far from PAS in many ways but the distance is somewhat narrowing. So, it is not just that I am giving PAS a blind eye, there is also less for me to criticize on.

Until this week.

What happened in Kedah with respect to Ramadan dan entertainment outlets reminds me why I am distrustful of PAS in the first place. The PAS-led Kedah government has decreed that several types of entertainment outlets need to close during Ramadan, which is the Muslim holy month.

This is an effort at moral policing.

I reject moral policing through and through and I do not want to be voting for PAS to only to have them biting me. I do not mean to rear a boa that will swallow me whole later.

Voting for PAS has always been problematic for me. I voted for them in the last election. I am not so sure for the next election.

A friend has suggested that I change my address to solve my problem. That is really a creative way addressing it but it does not solve it. It only circumvents it. If PAS becomes part of the federal government, no amount of address changing will solve my problem, unless I move abroad again.

I thought the institutional requirement argument would be good enough for me to vote for PAS. But then I do not want to change from one bad scenario to another. I want a better scenario. I do not want to shortchange myself by eliminating choice. I do not want to guarantee PAS my vote.

I am a nobody. I realize that. So, I should make the following demand with humility. Nevertheless, for me to vote for PAS in the next round, I will need a guarantee from PAS that such moral policing will not happen.

Or maybe, a guarantee from PR is enough. Or least, from either PKR or DAP. Maybe I cannot rely on PKR due to how they have argued that non-Muslims need not worried if hudud is implemented. I am not impressed with that. Besides, their words are becoming less and less of value to me. Only BN has worse reputation.

So, under a system of consensus, I am looking at DAP. I am looking at that one golden vote to prevent the moral police from roaming the streets. If DAP can guarantee the existence such consensus system requiring unanimous agreement (which exists, I think), and that they can guarantee that they will always oppose moral policing on anybody, Muslims or non-Muslims alike, then I will vote for PAS in the next general election.

Until then, I will not, unless someone moderate contests in my area.

(Dr. Lo’ Lo’, the current Parliamentarian for Titiwangsa, will not do. I have seen her debated in the Parliament while I was working with a Member of Parliament in the last few months. I can say that I am not her greatest fan. But I guess, Dr. Lo’ Lo’ will not be contesting the next time around due to her health, hence the point on a moderate contesting. As far as her health is concerned, I wish her well.)