Categories
Politics & government Society

[1761] Of liberation from flawed conflation

One late morning in early November 2004, the sun was well up but with an overcast sky, it was a dark day. At the lobby of a library in Ann Arbor, the United States, the television finally broke the news that John F. Kerry had lost to George W. Bush in the US presidential race; Bush would stay in the Oval Office for four more years. And in the lobby, there was a feeling that the Republicans and meteorology had worked hand in hand to make Ann Arbor a miserable place that day.

In the days that followed, there was a widespread sense of defeat and it just would not go away. In a bastion of American liberalism where it had been joked that the Republicans urgently require affirmative action to survive, the air was filled with major disappointment.

After fierce campaigning and just over a year after the controversial invasion of Iraq, it was not hard to imagine how bad the kind of depression felt across Ann Arbor was. Already many were talking, in jest, of migrating to Canada. Some others began to speak scornfully about the Land of the Free.

Why did these mostly Democrat sympathizers hate the United States so much when the source of their discontent was the Republicans’ victory?

Something was amiss.

It is not uncommon for a fraction of Malaysians to adopt the same tone and attitude against Malaysia. In return for the injustice done on them by the policies of the Barisan Nasional government, they are content to generalize Malaysia and throw the most unflattering names against the country.

Various criticisms directed at Malaysia by these groups of Malaysians are grossly off-target. It should be at the Barisan Nasional government that these criticisms be directed, not the country.

For foreigners, perhaps the distinction between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia is not all too important since they have no say in our political process. They cannot vote and really, they are not responsible for the policies that Malaysia employs.

For Malaysian citizens, however, it is crucial to understand that the government can change while the country remains unmoved in times when international borders in the most sense are held sacred. If it is not too outrageous, the difference is analogous to a driver and a car; a political party is merely the driver of the car and the driver can change based on the collective decision of the passengers of the car which includes the driver. The car is the country. Mistakes made by the driver should not be attributed to the car.

The reason why the separation is important is due to the fact that the citizens have a say in the direction which Malaysia takes, especially when the democratic system which we have here works relatively well compared to other countries with dictatorial tendencies.

Unfortunately, there are challenges in separating the two entities from each other especially when the Barisan Nasional tries so hard to blur the lines that separate Barisan Nasional the political party and Malaysia the country.

Who can forget the so-called golden jubilee anniversary celebration — never mind the fact the federation was formed in 1963 and not 1957 — of Malaysia last year at Stadium Merdeka?

What was supposed to be a Malaysian celebration was turned into a political rally for Barisan Nasional. Flags of various kinds belonging to the component parties of Barisan Nasional flooded the whole stadium, possibly outnumbering the Jalur Gemilang, confusing neutral observers of the purpose of the celebration.

For those who can grasp the difference between political parties and the state, the shameful hijacking of the golden jubilee celebration was a distasteful political maneuver. It was turned into a divisive celebration. August 31 was supposed to be a day of unity but the way it was celebrated discouraged others who do not subscribe to the political ideas of the Barisan Nasional.

For those unaware of the important difference, that maneuvering suggested the idea that the Barisan Nasional is Malaysia and Malaysia is the Barisan Nasional. Such intentional conflation may well be what the Barisan Nasional is trying to achieve in its effort to embed its presence into voters’ consciousness. For those who bought the idea that the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia are inseparable, a Malaysia not led by the Barisan Nasional would be an unimaginable scenario. A Malaysia without the Barisan Nasional would mean the death of Malaysia.

Such conflation is bad for Malaysia. Just observe the 2007 by-elections of Ijok and Machap where public money was used to campaign for the Barisan Nasional whereas this money belonged to the people of Malaysia, the taxpayers and not the Barisan Nasional. The Barisan Nasional has no right to use public money amounting to millions of ringgit to fund its political campaigns.

Those who suffer from the conflation indirectly legitimize how the Barisan Nasional’s unscrupulous spending of public money because they see no wrong. Due to their ignorance of the difference between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia, the politicians of the Barisan Nasional have no qualms about using state machinery for their own gains. Too little people consider such spending as wrong.

The fact that the Barisan Nasional has been in power since the very beginning of our country’s history makes the purposeful conflation of the political party and Malaysia an easy goal to achieve. After all, history is always kind to the victors because the victors get to write history.

Our official narrative is skewed to glorify the victor while the contributions of others are ignored, at best mentioned as an afterthought or at worse, vilified. This creates a perception that any threat to the Barisan Nasional is a threat to Malaysia.

Take, for instance, the aftermath of the March 8, 2008 general election. Why is it that our country is said to be in crisis when in fact, the one in crisis is the Barisan Nasional? Or, why is it when the ideas championed by the Barisan Nasional are challenged, the challengers would inevitably be accused of being traitors to the country?

Freedom has been defined in so many ways and here is yet another definition of freedom with respect to the Malaysian context: freedom from the conflating the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia.

This is why the effect of March 8, 2008 is so important. And this is why the promise of September 16, 2008 is so important. It has the potential to set many who are trapped in the flawed conflated idea free.

It has the potential of liberating the mind from ridiculous conflation.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government

[1760] Of Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo

I was surprised to discover that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, despite the early enthusiasm exhibited by the Abdullah administration,

Back in February 2008, a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia read “Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability“. In the same statement, Malaysia stated that it welcomed the independence of Kosovo.[1]

As mentioned previously, such recognition maybe problematic for Malaysia, especially when there are so many separatist movements around in the world. Just outside the door step of Malaysia lay Pattani, Mindanao and Palawan, among others. Move to recognize Kosovo could be viewed with suspicion by the neighbors of Malaysia. The latest Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could also offer a challenge to effort to keep Malaysian foreign policy consistent if Malaysia recognized Kosovo.

Well, it seems that problem of consistency is no more of an issue as Malaysia has decided to be agnostic to the Kosovo question and possibly return to its policy of non-interference. The Malaysian ambassador to Serbia Saw Ching Hong expects Malaysia to support Serbian effort to refer the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice.[2]

But truly, why would the Foreign Minister issue such statement when it has no intention to recognize Kosovo outright?

Due to the statement, it caused a misunderstanding that led Kosovo to list Malaysia as one of the countries which recognize it.[3] I myself had concluded that the Kosovar declaration of independence was recognized by Malaysia. Eight months later, I learned that the statement was misleading.

Malaysia’s current position surrounding Kosovo is murky. It has to be noted that the opinion of the ambassador is not the official position of Malaysia. Or at least, I have yet to read any. Prior to the Malaysian ambassador’s statement, Serbia claimed that Malaysia had frozen the recognition process. Kosovo claimed otherwise.[4]

I think it is time for the Ministry to clarify the Malaysian position once and for all.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Malaysia said Wednesday it welcomed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which was unilaterally announced Sunday. [Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence. Kyodo. February 25 2008]

[2] — BELGRADE —  The Malaysian ambassador expects his country will back Serbia’s ICJ initiative at the UN General Assembly. [Ambassador: Malaysia to back ICJ initiative. B92. August 27 2008]

[3] — Kosovo declared independence on February 17, and has been recognised by 45 countries.Pristina initially included Malaysia in the recognition list, but it turned out that this was a misunderstanding; the Asian country had only welcomed Kosovo’s independence. [Malaysia Still Mulling Kosovo Recognition. Balkan Insight. August 14 2008]

[4] — Mansor, presenting the stance of his government, during the meeting with President Sejdiu said that there are no changes to the Malaysian stance towards Kosovo, disproving the claim of Serb Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremiq, who on Tuesday announced that “Malaysia has frozen the recognition process of Kosovo. [Malaysia refutes Serbia claims of Kosovo recognition freeze. New Kosova Report. August 15 2008]

Categories
Politics & government

[1759] Of we want McCain back!

An article in The Economist describes why independents love McCain and how McCain might lose support from the independents.

Fair use.

Another broad concern, too, needs scotching at the Republican convention and during the election campaign that will follow it. In his desire to get elected, Mr McCain has been prepared to abandon some of the core beliefs that made him so attractive. This is not so much true of foreign policy (Mr McCain has long been a hawk, since the successful NATO campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo). But even here, he used to talk much more about multilateralism than he does now. On the campaign trail, Mr McCain has tended to stress the more hawkish side of his nature, for instance by promoting his idea for a ”league of democracies” that risks being needlessly divisive.

Too polite to the right

But it is on domestic policy that Mr McCain has tacked to the right more disquietingly. Doubtless he feels he needs to shore up his support among the conservatives who mistrust him. But the result is that he could easily alienate the independent supporters who are his great strength. Mr Obama will sensibly hope to woo them away.

Mr McCain used to be a passionate believer in limited government and sound public finances; a man with some distaste for conservative Republicanism and its obsession with reproductive matters. On the stump, though, he has offered big tax cuts for business and the rich that he is unable to pay for, and he is much more polite to the religious right, whom he once called ”agents of intolerance”. He has engaged in pretty naked populism, too, for instance in calling for a ”gas-tax holiday”. If this is all just a gimmick to keep his party’s right wing happy, it may disappear again. But that is quite a gamble to take.

[…]

Hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax cuts, more talk about religion and abortion: all this sounds too much like Bush Three, the label the Democrats are trying to hang around the Republican’s neck. We preferred McCain One. [Bring back the real McCain. The Economist. August 28 2008]

Amen.

Oh, how I wish it would have been a McCain-Lieberman instead. The more I read about Palin, the scarier the story becomes.

Categories
Liberty

[1758] Of ubi libertas ibi patria

Home is where liberty is.

Categories
Politics & government

[1757] Of McCain-Palin officially makes me neutral

I like McCain because I think he could get free market with green conscious policies in place. And he has never really pandered too much to the far right. It is the rarity of a politician in support of free market as well as green policies that really attracts me.

The unfavorable points about him from my point of view is his support for a pseudo-science called intelligence design but I figure, that is just something I just have to live with it. Another is his disrespect for individual liberty.

His foreign policy, well, I share Ron Paul’s view. But in any case, Barack Obama’s policy is not too good either. He has said that is he prepared to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan even without approval from Pakistan and he do not rule out military option against Iran. Given my non-interventionist tendency, I thought both are too hawkish for my taste though I think Obama’s position is not as far right as McCain.

When Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate, I must admit that I was clueless of who she was. I was curious about her and after reading about her, I cannot say I like her as much as I like McCain.

She seems like a typical Republican, unlike McCain whom has proven willing to break ranks on debates involving the environment and abortion. Palin, however supports the drilling of Artic National Wildlife Refuge, much like the rest of the Republicans and I have problem with that. And I am sure, McCain too should have issues with Palin on that particular subject. In any case, Palin is strengthening the parts which I dislike about the Republican Party.

The Obama-Biden campaign is somewhat to the opposite to McCain-Palin. The Democrats are relatively for greater involvement of the state in the economy versus the Republicans attachment to free market philosophy while the former advocate individual liberty and the latter does not do so as much as I would them to be. This is a typical scenario for US politics, always by default, in my opinion, forcing libertarians into a dilemma.

But this US Presidential election is anything but traditional. The traditional line that divides the Republicans and the Democrats has been blurred. Republicans for the environment? Ridiculous, eh? But I still remember McCain proposing an act that sought to limit carbon emissions. He policy on ethanol is also endearing to me.

As for the Democrats, I do find Obama’s proposed economic policies are not too bad and I thought the legacy of the New Democrats did a lot of good. I am still concerned with Obama’s attitude towards free trade. Nevertheless, the influence of the New Democrats further redraws the boundary between the two parties and the line is anything but straight. Just one final example of why pigeon hole will not work in this election: Palin is somewhat a liberal on gay rights and a Republican at that.

Now, I am just here, undecided. And I thought, I cannot vote anyway. So, I just want to enjoy the show.