Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1349] Of The Economist on hypocritical Malay dilemma

One of the bibles of libertarianism says:

The social contract may once have seemed necessary to keep the peace but now it and the official racism that it is used to justify look indefensible: it is absurd and unjust to tell the children of families that have lived in Malaysia for generations that, in effect, they are lucky not to be deported and will have to put up with second-class treatment for the rest of their lives, in the name of “racial harmony”. When the mild-mannered Abdullah Badawi took over as prime minister from the fire-breathing Mahathir Mohamad in 2003, there were hopes of change for the better. Mr Badawi preached a moderate, “civilisational” Islam and pledged to crack down on corruption.

Four years on, corruption, facilitated by the pro-Malay policies, is unchecked. The state continues to use draconian internal-security laws, dating back to the colonial era, to silence and threaten critics. UMNO continues to portray itself to Malays as the defender of their privileges yet tries to convince everyone else that it is the guarantor of racial harmony. One commentator this week gently described this as a “paradox”. Hypocrisy would be a better word. [Tall buildings, narrow minds. The Economist. August 30 2007]

Indeed, the social contract is obsolete.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1348] Of formation of Malaysian identity

Malaysia is experiencing something similar to multiple personality disorder. She wears different caps at different times, being described differently by different people. Many of us are convinced who she is but Malaysia herself is confused of who she is. After so many years, the debate on Malaysian identity still rages. This by itself however is not a reason for worry because 50 years, or rather 44, for any country is a rather short time length. We, Malaysians, as a society are still searching and forming our identity.

Evidences that we as a society, like a teenager, are still looking for our own unique identity are aplenty. The debate whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state is one clear indication of such searching. The unconvincing answer given by the Prime Minister on the same issue, perhaps flip-flopping along the way, only strengthens such perception. Then there is the matter surrounding the age of Malaysia; are we 50 or 44 years old? And no less but forgotten, the issue surrounding Malacca and Srivijaya.

Our goals themselves are unclear. Are we striving to be a monocultural or a multicultural society? Are we working toward a color blind community or a society extremely conscious of our difference in skin color, belief or simply background? Are we looking for an assimilationist or diverse society?

There are people, many in fact, that feel strongly about one thing or another. I myself preferring a liberal society but the truth is, there are approximately 27 million Malaysians and none are able to completely convince the others, enough of the others of their own vision. There are competing perceptions of current state and visions among the society and the debate on it is alive; emotional, even.

Those in power are worried at the ferocity of very public debates and tried to shut it down. The Prime Minister has given out order for the public not to discuss the issues anymore but he is powerless as civil society eagerly tries to claim a role in the society, testing the waters for larger liberty.

Some shrugged off these debates as cosmetics, irrelevant and unimportant. The issue of the age of Malaysia for instance has far larger consequence than mere cosmetics and semantics however. The question on the age of Malaysia so deeply entrenched inside down so many pressing issues that too many people fail to see how greatly this question ranks in importance. Who are we? Malaya or Malaysia? Issues on the surface alas receive greater attention than items so fundamental such as Malaysian identity, if one subscribes to the idea of nation state. If such fundamental question left unanswered, shrugged off as something of unimportance, trivial, I say dream not of coherent Malaysian identity, be it Malaysian nation or anything else. The concept of Malaysian nation requires justification and at the moment, it is left unjustified to a certain extent, unless it answers the question of who are we.

I personally do not envy the idea of nation state or national identity. I fear of a national identity being forced down my throat. Besides, a national identity grossly generalizes the population. I however do concern myself with it due to pragmatism, purely due to the fact that I live in one and at the moment and in the foreseeable future, unfairly, there is no alternative other than in a nation state. This identity shapes various institution of the state. So, I fight for the least intrusive national identity. I have to care because it is so deeply connected to my own life. I have a stake in this state and that is why I participate in these debates to create Malaysian identity.

But one thing we should not worry is this: the confusion of Malaysian identity. Fifty years, or rather, 44, may be a long time for an individual but for a society, it is barely a dot in on timeline. Malaysia is still a teenager compared to far older states such as Japan, Britain, France and the United States. Unlike those states which have firmly formed their identities, be it based on liberty, or equality, or anything after years, decades or even centuries of struggle, we, the Malaysian society, are still young. These debates are supposed to happen for it is a process of identity formation. It is a process that all must endure, if one cares for Malaysia.

This is why free speech is important. Without free speech, without the liberty to discuss our visions, the process of identity formation cannot occur. If one seeks to relatively end the debate, eliminating free speech is not an advisable act.

On this August 31, in remembrance of a free Malaya, a free North Borneo and even a free Singapore[1], we Malaysians should reaffirm our rights to free speech for it is the crucial tool to the formation of our identity, Malaysian identity, whatever that may be.

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

[1] Note — Sarawak is the only Malaysian member state that has little to do with the August 31 date. Malaya gained independence on August 31 1957. North Borneo and Singapore declared independence from Britain on August 31 1963. Internal politics prevented Sarawak from declaring freedom on August 31. The formation of Malaysia occurred only later on September 16 1963.

Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1347] Of Kant’s perpetual peace

Immanuel Kant wrote that free trade creates perpetual peace. Under the mercantilist era which he had lived in, the truth behind such idea cannot be any clearer.

Mercantilism holds that trade is a zero-sum game with constant volume of global trade. As such, the most prosperous country is the country with the most supply of capital. To a mercantilist, this means export should be encouraged while import should be actively discouraged. One may recognize this as some sort of protectionism.

In a world dominated by mercantilists, low volume of trade would be a norm as each and every mercantilist seeks to accumulate vast amount of capital. This is so because everybody refrains from buying anything from anybody. Trade meanwhile is dependent on the act of buying and selling; without either one, there can be no trade. Mercantilism necessarily limits resources any mercantilist state could muster to only those found within its boundaries.

Individuals demand so many things and not all of those things could be obtained locally. Without trade, demand would be unfulfilled, turning life duller than it should be. Mercantilists of the past realized this and sought to solve it by expanding its boundaries; they internalized resources into their boundaries. In doing so, mercantilists eliminated the need for import and possibly maintained a positive trade balance. This requirement for expansion is one of many factors that fueled colonialism and wars in the past.

As demand becomes more sophisticated, it becomes impossible for local industry to satisfy local demand in the absence of trade. Boundaries of mercantilist states thus require further expansion to internalize more resources to satisfy greater demand. In the end translates into one conclusion: the biggest state, all else being equal, would have the greatest amount of resources. Britain of old, the great mercantilist state, was well on its way to be the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Alas, the Earth is only so big. Continuous expansion eventually will bring mercantilists to each other door step and finally, in absence of trade, the only way to obtain what a mercantilist state needs is by expanding its boundaries into other states’ borders. This typically means war and wars involving mercantilist states did happen from the 16th to the 18th century.

The madness brought by mercantilism was only suppressed after the rationale of trade overwhelmed the prevailing thinking in the late 18th century. Through trade, various states can obtain what it requires without the need to expand its boundaries, without going to war. Sooner or later, trading states will depend on each other to achieve prosperity. To quote Kant:

By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war… the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers… that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace… and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1346] Of sad pragmatism for communal lines-cutting criticisms

An honest criticism is the first step towards identifying and subsequently, rectifying mistakes. In a society sensitive to ethnic issues such as in Malaysia, such honest criticism may be hard to make when it crosses ethnic lines. By crossing, I mean to say the critic and the criticized belong to different communities. Too often, innocent criticisms that cut communal boundaries are taken as acts close to racism if not racism itself, with the concept of non-interference is applied thoroughly.

That is an unfortunate tendency which may show that how far a person is from a racialist worldview. I suspect the misperception of an honest criticism as something racial in nature is closely related to a person’s inability to take criticism as well as personal bias.

When criticized, instead accepting the criticism attributing as directed towards his own mistake, he seeks to attribute such criticism to something unrelated to the mistake, thus putting the criticism in a way that it might be unjustified. In doing so, he changes the subject from honest criticism to something else. For a criticism that cuts communal barriers, if the criticized person views his world through communal lens, race or other communal-identifying factors become the obvious candidate for the purpose of diversion.

Sometimes, honest misunderstanding may occur but even then, there must be a basis for such misunderstanding. I am inclined to believe that certain misunderstanding is based on a person’s consciousness of communal-identifying factors, possibly placing too much emphasize on race, etc rather than the criticism on the mistake itself. In this case, when such criticism is made, the first thing that comes to his mind is skin color, etc — which is irrelevant to honest criticism — instead of the beef of the criticism itself.

In many cases, the concept of non-interference is held with utmost jealousy by communities. Any criticism coming from outside a community would be deemed as interference and only criticism coming from inside the community could be taken as sometimes legitimate. I could offer a few instances as examples to illustrate my point. Religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia do have problems having non-Muslims to criticize the status of religious freedom within Muslim Malaysian community. Another is the example was when EU ambassador to Malaysia, Thierry Rommel criticized Malaysian discriminatory economic policies. Malaysian political leaders in turn told the EU to stop meddling in Malaysian affairs.

These two possible causes do not make an exhaustive list but they are particularly important to recognize in politics. For a society that places too much political correctness rather than truth, along with one’s the ability to divert attention as mentioned earlier, any poor critic would find himself being unfairly accused of being a racist by too many people whom are particularly adept at coming up with conclusions only after piercing any issue only skin deep. In the end, if the critic does not have the stomach to fight on active or passive misconception, the mistake which the critic had pointed out would be drowned, forgotten and left uncorrected.

For this reason, in a society as diverse as Malaysia, it is perhaps desirable for any legitimate criticism to be kept inside a community, where the critics and the criticized belong to the same community. Through this, at least, communal issues could not be used to divert attention. More importantly, pragmatically speaking, is that any for legitimate politically-related criticism is to be made, it is good to have partners with different background. When there is communal difference between the would-be critic and the would-be criticized, the critic would be better off to find a partner to eliminate the communal difference and have the partner to criticize would-be criticized.

This is a sad conclusion that appeals to pragmatism, if the assumptions are true. It is sad because the art of criticism itself becomes the victim of racism, trying to avoid the diversion the non-interference policy grants. It is sad for the highest moral demands honest criticisms against all wrongs, regardless whether if it cuts communal lines.

Categories
Liberty

[1345] Of MCCBCHS and free speech

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) wanted what?

On the front page on Tuesday, the daily printed a picture of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette in one hand and a canned drink (which looked like beer) in the other with the quote: “If a person repents his mistakes, heaven awaits him.”

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism has urged the authorities to take action against the paper for hurting the feelings of the Christian community in the country. [Tamil daily says sorry over Jesus pic. The Star. August 23 2007]

If it wants to criticize the paper, go ahead but for MCCBCHS to urge the authority to take action against the paper is for it to forfeit its moral authority to advocate freedom. At the moment, it might be the case that MCCBCHS is only interested in freedom whenever it is in their convenience. That does not differ from the position of religious conservative Muslims.

The picture however was published by mistake:

S.M. Periasamy, general manager of the Tamil-language Makkal Osai, told The Associated Press that the daily published the controversial photo by mistake. [Malaysian paper apologizes for picture of Jesus holding cigarette. International Herald Tribune. August 23 2007]

If it is a genuine mistake, it is up to the paper itself to punish the responsible staff.