Categories
Photography Society Travels

[2718] The train to Mandalay

I spent about 3 weeks in Burma recently, traveling roughly 2,000 km in Burma by trains, buses, cars, trucks and bikes. I began in Rangoon, went up north to Mandalay, west to Bagan, east to Inle and then back to Rangoon for the new year’s eve celebration. I love Burma. The people there are nice. You can just feel it all around you.

There are so many things to write, but I will just leave this picture here for now. It was somewhere north of Rangoon and far south from Naypyidaw, Burma’s own Putrajaya. It was about 2 or 3 hours into the journey to Mandalay.

Or maybe, I should share this as well: Burma does not appear to be a poor country. Neither does it appear to be a country under economic sanction or under military dictatorship. There is poverty and I saw it in many places, but it does appear Burma is farther along the development curve than, say, Cambodia. I had expected Burma to be as poor as Cambodia but I was wrong. To me, Rangoon specifically, felt modern. There were many new cars on the roads and the streets were paved and smooth. Not as modern as Kuala Lumpur but Rangoon is not a capital of a too poor a country. Upon landing in Rangoon and leaving the airport behind, those facts immediately struck me. My expectation of Rangoon was quite simply off-target.

Maybe what I saw was only the superficial stuff. After all, a foreigner, maybe, would be impressed with Malaysia but if you peeled the onion layers one by one, something would not feel right. The same with Burma I’d suppose. One has to live there, and more importantly, study the Burmese society to know its nuance. And as a foreigner, I may have had certain freedom that the locals may not have.

But maybe, all the modern looks are the liberalization dividend. Several years ago, I was told, things were very different. And there was definitely fewer tourists.

And Aung San Suu Kyi is popular there. No doubt about that. I bought a book from one of the sidewalks in Rangoon and the shopkeeper pointed his finger to a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi on the wall of his makeshift store. He said, “that is our leader.”

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
Society

[2705] A retreat from openness

There was a time when we only heard or read news of strangers becoming victims of crime. It was easy to shrug off the news because the victims were strangers. Somebody would cry for them but that somebody would not be us. We would just go on with our lives and worry about other things that were not at all worrisome. We would have to be very, very unlucky if we made it into the news ourselves.

Those days have receded into the background. It is starting to feel that it does not take random luck anymore to become a victim. We need to take active steps instead to prevent ourselves from becoming one.

In response, I think our society is becoming more reclusive than before as we collectively try to avoid becoming victims ourselves.

The idea of becoming a victim of crime is not so foreign anymore. In the past, the victim would be two, three or more degrees separated from us. Nowadays, it is likely that most of us personally know someone who has become a victim. It could be our family, friends, neighbors or colleagues.

That is definitely true in my case. While I have not become a victim myself, I know friends — not mere acquaintances — who have become victims of crime in recent years. One of them was robbed at knife-point after being taken for a ride in a cab some months ago. Thankfully the perpetrator was later apprehended and sentenced swiftly, but only after he raped a tourist.

Another almost lost his pinky while defending himself in a robbery. Yet another was beaten up and had his car taken away from him.

The whole experience is disconcerting. It is a feeling of you standing in the middle of a crowd and everybody surrounding you being eaten by wolves. Long ago there were lots of people and strangers especially between you and the wolves. Today, you can almost see the wolves themselves. It is too close for comfort.

However, the men and women of transformation try to convince us that it is merely a matter of perception — no thanks to the social media which is unhelpfully amplifying the fear as they would say — you get the feeling that you will be next. Rightly or wrongly, it gives out a sense of fatalism. It is not a matter of if. You only need to ask the wolves when.

While it is easy to be apathetic when a stranger has her handbag snatched or his house broken into, it is almost impossible to remain indifferent when your loved ones become victims. If it happens often enough, we will begin to take action on our own.

Some of us have. Looking around the city, the word ”some” is an understatement.

The first to come up noticeably were the boom gates and fences surrounding our neighborhoods in the suburbs. Along with private security services, residents put them up to deter home invasions. Sometimes, when I find myself inside one of those overzealous neighborhoods, I feel as if I am in a fortress, as if the world outside comprises of barbarians to be repelled and kept out.

The truth is that the security measures keep more than potential criminals out. Passing through these checkpoints can be a hassle. As we put them up, we will likely get fewer of the good kind of visitors in the process. In effect, we retreat inside our four walls.

Some of us have guns on ourselves. In the news some weeks back, a ”˜Tan Sri’, while waiting to meet his doctor at a clinic in Cheras in Kuala Lumpur, managed to defend himself and others in the clinic against a gang of robbers by shooting at them. One robber died. This is a rare story of a person successfully defending himself. But I wonder, what is the implication of that?

Do we now need guns to protect ourselves?

I am a libertarian and libertarians usually demand the right to bear arms. While that is so, I think libertarians, or at least just myself, also have higher ideals and that is to live in an open society. Whatever the value of the right to bear arms, guns do have a corrosive effect on openness. I would not have the guts to walk the streets where everybody is armed to the teeth.

Yet, unfortunately, we do not need the right to bear arms to be in that situation.

This week alone saw more people getting shot. One of them, a prominent local banker, was shot dead in broad daylight in the middle of the city. And who can forget, just months ago, a top official of the royal custom was shot dead in the middle of Putrajaya. If these happen all too often in a country with supposedly tough anti-guns laws, public places would be dearth of life.

I know I am not nearly as important as some of the victims mentioned here. That probably means that I am not a target per se. Nevertheless, I would not want to be there when it happens to some important persons. Being an accidental witness cannot only be emotionally horrifying, the shooters may not like a person witnessing the crime.

If we make it there without being stabbed or shot at, our future will be a reclusive, untrusting society. The future is not fixed but the path we are taking right now leads towards that future.

An easy and safe response is to stay at home, be quiet and be reclusive. No adventure, no meeting up with strangers and not even walking on the street alone.

Already we jog in gyms and not in the parks. Even in the parks, if we do run or walk, when we come upon a stranger along the path, we will run a bit faster rather than smile and say, “How do you do?”

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 August 4 2013.

Categories
Books, essays and others Society

[2686] Stark’s system of government was based on mistrust

Stark’s system of government was based on mistrust. He looked for laziness, insubordination, drunkenness, and strife; he pretended to suppress them, and only succeeded in creating the further vices of cunning, deceit, and ill-will. Too many laws and regulations stifle the sense of good and evil. No one looks beyond his own personal interest; and nothing matters except the evasion of punishment: The plantation was an overgoverned state, as are all the European States of today; and the men were an army of demoralised by discipline. [Henri Fauconnier. The Soul of Malaya. Chapter 1. 1931]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Society

[2673] Integration, not expulsion for Sabah

There are several possible consequences that I fear from the ongoing armed conflict in Sabah. One of them is a public wide urge to expel Sulu and Filipino immigrants out of the state.

There is already considerable negative sentiment against the Sulu and Filipino people in Sabah even before the armed men landed to bring trouble in Kampung Tanduo in Lahad Datu. I do sometimes feel the sentiment borders on racism. Rightly or wrongly, they are blamed for many things in the state, ranging from high crime rate and job stealing to the grab of land from the indigenous people. Apart from that, the now postponed Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants in Sabah highlights how illegal immigrants were granted Malaysian citizenship for political expediency.  For many Sabahans who suspect that that has been the case for a very long time now, the inquiry only confirms their suspicion.

At the same time, there is a clear security threat arising from the armed conflict. There is a question regarding the immigrants’ sympathy since many of them do share the same ethnicity as those who are or were part of the armed group. Add in the Sulu and Philippine claims of Sabah, the consternation among some Malaysians of the immigrants’ loyalty will be easy to understand.

The worst case scenario has the immigrants rebelling against the Malaysian authority in support of the claims.

The two factors — the negative perception and the possible security threat — provide for a possible recipe for the expulsion of the immigrants from Sabah.

I am unsure how widespread the support for such expulsion is and I am happy to read in the mainstream media that there have been calls not to stereotype all immigrants in Sabah, especially those with Sulu ethnicity. Nevertheless, some Malaysians do talk casually about the matter.

Given the number of immigrants in Sabah, and some of them are now legal residents of Sabah now, the policy of mass expulsion is unrealistic and inhumane. It is impractical because it will be a logistical nightmare to expel so many persons.

Besides, mass deportation has been done in the past in Sabah and in other parts of Malaysia but it does not appear to be working. And if it does work contrary to past experience, the mass deportation or expulsion will likely affect the economy of Sabah adversely.

If thousands of individuals are suddenly taken out of the economic equations, something bad ought to happen. The economic growth of the state will surely take a hit. And there is more than economic cost to the policy of expulsion.

There is arguably the more important human cost to it.

Expulsion is inhumane because for better or for worse, these immigrants have been living in Sabah for decades now.

They have built their new lives in Sabah. Their families are here. Their children were born and brought up in Malaysia. These children know Malaysia as home, and not the Philippines.

Expulsion or deportation — call it however you like — would uproot the immigrants from their lives. It would force them to begin anew when there was really no need for that. After all, they migrated to Sabah in search of a better life. They escaped the instability of southern Philippines.

Any person with a hint of humanity in them will think twice about turning those immigrants away or forcing them to return to the very place they ran away from.

In fact, I am of the opinion that expulsion would contribute to the worst case scenario more than the case where the authority would leave the immigrants alone to their lives.

In an environment where immigrants may already suffer from discrimination, the policy of expulsion would create even further discrimination against them as the authority actively tried to catch all illegal immigrants.

Naturalized immigrants would also come under the unwanted spotlight. Really, the only thing that separates legal residents from illegal aliens is identification papers. Imagine having to go through security checkpoints: profiling is inevitable in that case. More often than not, profiling creates anger. It is a pointing finger that always points accusingly and nobody likes to be accused of something, especially if they have nothing to do with the things they are accused of.

So, expulsion — regardless whether they would actually be expelled — could create anger among the immigrant communities against everything Malaysian.

That anger might translate into something more sinister.

The only humane way to address the security fear is to take that high and tough road. That demands that we integrate the immigrants into our society.

With integration, they can feel that they do have ownership of Malaysia, rather than seeing the country as a foreign land that they have no stake in. This may mean the expansion of government services like education, health and security to immigrant communities in Sabah.

Once they feel fully Malaysian, the question of loyalty will be irrelevant.

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 Selangor Times on March 15 2013.