Categories
Society

[2456] There is a silver lining behind the Seksualiti Merdeka ban

The Annexe Gallery is Bohemian. It is a world of its own, very different from the rest of banal Malaysian life. It attracts anything but the conservative. Its taste in art is different. Its taste in politics is different. It is young, urban, middle-class and it challenges mainstream culture. It is a special spot in Kuala Lumpur.

All kinds of festivals are held there. Farish Noor is always there to share his alternative understanding of history to challenge the official narrative. In many ways, the larger Central Market Annexe is a center of subversive politics. Hishamuddin Rais used to run a small eatery there, patronized by so many Malaysian lefties, and sometimes, yours truly too. I was there not so much of my support for his mostly left politics. I was there just because I was hungry.

And then, Pang Khee Teik is always there to make anything happen. From what I understand and observe, Pang is the pillar for anything at the Annexe. He made the Annexe what it is today. Fringe but fun. Small but popular.

Pang or really the Annexe Gallery has been organizing Seksualiti Merdeka for a number of years now without any controversy. I took that rather nonchalantly but in retrospect, it was an impressive feat. After all, to organize a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender festival in a jumpily religious Malaysia is not something advisable to do. But those festivals went on anyway, and because it was nationally politically uneventful, I thought nothing much of it. The failure to note what was supposed to be an outlier in a conservative society is perhaps a mental lapse of mine.

But I was not really interested in the fair, despite being aware of it. It is not a Mardi Gras as celebrated in Sydney. The Seksualiti Merdeka festival typically occupies merely a floor of a restored colonial shophouse. It is not big at all, size-wise. It is just some people with booths, forums and maybe performance in a privately-owned premise.

The thought of the festival’s outrageous success to go on without any repercussions within conservative context struck me only after when the Malaysian authority suddenly decided to ban the festival. Some conservatives finally took notice. It is apparent that the festival succeeded previously because the authority or the wider society did not know about the festival.

Now they know of it and decide to ban it.

The ban is a timely reminder for all of us that the LGBT community suffers from extreme prejudice and discrimination by both the state and by the wider society.

That is the silver lining. It raises the profile of the LGBT community in Malaysia and their challenges. Whereas previously the term LGBT would not appear at all in mainstream media, the past several days signaled a change.

That change is both for the better and for the worse. It is for the better because it pushes the boundary of acceptability. It is for the worse for some LGBT community members perhaps, if they want to live a quiet life.

I am not a member of the LGBT community and so, maybe I do not appreciate too much of the preference to stay in the closet. I am not at risk when I see the need for them to come out of the closet. But they need to know that for all the condemnation they receive, there are those whom will put up a thumb-up for the courage they garner.

In any fight against societal discrimination, there will always be a relatively challenging time. That is when the society first becomes aware.  That awareness is an important first stage of any anti-discrimination fight. Without awareness, there can be no fight for equality.

So fight the ban. But take heart if the first fight is lost. It is merely the first step towards a better future.

Categories
Personal Society

[2448] That fucking two ringgit

She claimed she is a student from Nepal. She approached me, asking if I am one? Many thought that I am still in my teen years, and so that question is legitimate. Those far older than me said I have a young face that does not age. Legitimate or not, I was on guard for deception. Why would a stranger ask me that?

Several exchanges of questions and answers later, it became apparent. She was soliciting for donation. A school in Nepal was building a library. No, it was not a physical library. It was an e-library.

My mind went to work. Why would a poor country like Nepal want an e-library? Why not just have a plain old library? Something did not seem right and I did not really want to entertain her. And if she was being truthful, it would be a stupid project.

I quickly said no to her. Politely of course. No reason for rudeness. She was kind enough to say have a good day to me despite the disappointment. I did not care of her disappointment. I suspected she was lying.

I have had many such encounters and I have mastered the art of saying no firmly. The train of thought ran cleanly to reach a rehearsed conclusion. Suspecting the solicitor was lying made it easier.

Later in the day, I found myself pumping gas into a car that I drove. It was just another day at the gas station until an old Malay man with some white hair probably in his 50s or 60s came up to me. I was listening to my iPod, trying to pass the time as quickly as possible and so, I did not really hear what he said when he came up to me. But he held up his two fingers and then made a gesture toward his mouth and stomach. I understood.

I automatically raised my hand to refuse. It was a reflex honed so well, that I did not think of what just happened. I felt nothing. It was a unthinking reflex.

Now, hours later, a pang of guilt is all over me. My conscience is rebelling, asking what if that was you?

I understand what it means to be hungry. I do not mean voluntary hunger or fasting. Despite what Muslims say of Ramadan, how fasting is meant to empathize the suffering of the less well off, the voluntary (in the sense you choose to adhere to the religious duty; it is a matter of whether you want it or not, not can or cannot) nature of it prepares one’s mind for the hunger.

Real hunger comes not out of volition. Real hunger comes due to circumstances that are out of your control. That happened while I was at Michigan. I was constantly hungry for one reason or another. Sometimes it was the cash, being too thrifty and all. Sometimes, it was the restrictive Muslim diet.

The worst was when I went on without eating for more than 24 hours while hiking deep within the Tuolumne Canyon, in the middle of nowhere. The circumstances were one out of stupidity, but it did not matter how it happened. It happened and that is all that matters.

The pain from hunger along with the exhaustion was unbelievable. I had not felt anything worse before, nor anything worse since. The stomach growled endlessly. The hands would shake in a way that shocked me. It was pain that reduced me to tears, I foolishly hoped those tears would make things better. It did not. Pure will and effort did it instead.

As I emerged from the other side of the canyon, a couple saw the state I was in. They took pity of me and drove me to the nearest food place.

It would be preposterously insulting to compare my experience to that of starvation elsewhere. My hunger then is not comparable to the more serious cases of starvation. Still, what matters is that I remember it.

I had forgotten of that experience until today. That experience replayed in my mind as I drove away from that gas station. He asked for a mere two ringgit to relieve his hunger. I said no.

In the rear-mirror, I saw a dejected face. His hunger looked genuine. Maybe out of the hunger, he decided to sit by the pump, trying not to think of it. My heart cracked, but I did not turn around. I did not notice it cracked.

I drove off and on my way home, I played various scenarios in my head. Was it real? Was he being lazy? Was he just lost? If I had given him the money, would he endeavor to prevent the same misfortune to happen again?

I understand the value of second chance. I had mine, multiple of times even, never mind a second chance happening multiple of times is oxymoronic. But it did happen and I cherished all those chances. I could have given his.

If I had given the money, would he ask for more? Justification after justification ran through my head, trying to calm my conscience down. I told myself, I do it all the time and I hate people monetizing pity. Many beggars purposefully display their pitiful state for many others instead of just investing a little effort to actually work. Real honest work. Observe the pity merchants in Bangsar or in the old part of Kuala Lumpur. The lies of it all.

It is all over the world. I have seen it to not naïvely buy whatever goods the pity merchant is selling. Pity is their business and that business is distastefully despicable.

I used that to starve off the noisy troublesome conscience of mine but it just does not want to keep quiet. It does not because the old man appeared genuinely dejected when I said no. He was not professional beggar. He was genuinely in trouble, hungry. I know he was not a pity merchant. He was real.

With that knowledge, my conscience is using my experience to punish me. The unbearable nagging continues. It is angering that it is continuing on so loudly and consistently.

To hell if the old man would beg again tomorrow till eternity. I do not care how perverse an incentive two ringgit can be to the man. I do not want to think rationally of the consequences. Two ringgit is cheap for a clear conscience. I could have bought a clear conscience. Why did I not buy it? I could buy it with my own.

A lot of others shamefully buy it with others’ money. Yes, they buy it.

I wish I had just given the damn two ringgit of mine to the old man. It is my money and no one else’s. It is my conscience and no one else’s. Fucking two ringgit for a whole lot of trouble is not worth it.

But it is too late now.

Categories
Economics Society

[2446] Homeownership isn’t the only way

It is not a crime to dream of a place to call one’s own. It is hard to beat having a roof none can take away in the worst of times. If anything happens, at least there is a home to run to. It is a comforting feeling to have a haven. That is the sort of sentiment fuelling the dream of homeownership. So pervasive is the thought that the inability to own one is seen as a problem by many.

Across the Pacific Ocean, the American Dream is invariably linked to having a good home. With a government subscribed to the Dream, measures were taken to encourage homeownership. As the housing market crashed partly due to the pro-homeownership policy, the Dream grew distant to create a pessimistic American worldview.

Across the straits, the Singapore government built high-rise flats all over the island, partly to encourage homeownership. The product of that encouragement is a contemporary culture. These flats are ubiquitous enough to form part of the Singaporean consciousness. The Complaints Choir of Singapore sings: ”I’m stuck with my parents till I’m 35, ”˜cause I can’t apply for HDB.” Failure to own a home is a source of shame.

It is no different in Malaysia. Homeownership occupies the collective mind. The high prices of ordinary homes stand as a barrier. That barrier is stirring up discontent among the middle class and down.

The Malaysian government knows this and it has introduced various incentives to make homeownership a cheaper endeavor for Malaysians.

For the longest time, the government has relied on low-cost housing projects to encourage homeownership. Despite the name, the term low-cost can be a misnomer. What is cheap for the financially well-off Malaysians may not be cheap for the impoverished. The whole enterprise can add too much financial burden to would-be owners, pulling them down into a deep unsustainable debt hole.

That concern does not stop the Najib administration from expanding its pro-homeownership policy by introducing the 1 Malaysia Housing Program. Proponents of the program tout the initiative as an affordable home program. Just as the term low-cost can be misleading, so too can the term affordable.

In the eagerness to translate private dream into reality through very public means, not many have asked, is there a better option to homeownership?

Popular opinion immediately accepts homeownership as the only respectable option.

The debates on homeownership ignore other housing options altogether.

For one, renting can be a superior option to ownership. That can be so when rental cost can be much cheaper than mortgage payment, when mortgage payment eats too much of current income and when the financial market is sophisticated enough to handle the substantial saving arising from the difference between the mortgage and the rental rate. The saving can present a whole lot of possibilities that homeownership cannot. There is virtue in flexibility and whatever virtue homeownership has, flexibility is not one of them.

Perhaps more substantially, one has to realize the importance of having decent home. If a decent home means homeownership, so be it. The relationship can be true but it is not necessarily true. Neither does homeownership absolutely mean decent home.

Pro-homeownership sentiment ignores this complexity and instead falsely assumes homeownership stands above having a decent home or that homeownership is about having a decent home.

Despite an alternative that focuses on having a decent home instead of homeownership, many individuals and the government continue to believe in the virtue of homeownership without question. The former complains about the affordability of homeownership and the latter, indulging the former, refuses to believe and to adapt to a new reality.

Ownership must have made sense in the past but just as time changes, so too can the justification for homeownership. It could very well be that individual and societal preferences, formed after years when the financial logic actually made sense, lag behind the market. When expectation lags behind market and with the government supporting the indulgence, something bad is bound to happen.

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 Malaysian Insider on October 24 2011.

Categories
Society

[2444] Large numbers, small minds, majority voters

I find it hard to take the masses seriously sometimes. Here is a story why that is so.

I attended a Pakatan Rakyat-organized forum a few weeks ago. The organizers were promoting the coalition’s proposed federal budget. There is nothing wrong with that.

My problem is with the audience.

Since the proposal is a plan for public finance at the national level, the numbers do run to the billions. The nominal size of the economy itself is more than a trillion ringgit and the federal government intends to spend more than 200 billion ringgit in 2012. Various ticket items come with large numbers indeed.

These large numbers awed the audience. I found this a bit shocking. Yet another billion mentioned, there came another chatter. These murmurs mostly came in the fashion of “that’s big.” They were too easily impressed with a lot of things. The way they experienced the awe made me doubted that they understood what impressed them.

For instance, they were surprised that the federal government owes billions but they did not know that that is normal all around the world, and what matters is the ability to service the debt. Even so, the absolute billions impressed them. If the Malaysian government had a debt of only one billion ringgit, they would awe still, never mind that a billion to 200 billion is like 0.005 sen to a ringgit. They could not grasp the triviality of the large numbers.

To them, large numbers are, well, large. It is so large that, it has to be awfully serious.

Granted, the most of the audience did not seem like the professional type. They were not the overly-critical wonkish type. They were those whom loved their politics instead.

They are probably the majority within the realm of electoral politics. And democracy demands they are taken seriously. That is dispiriting.

But at least I learned something new. If you want to pull a fast one, just mention something very, very big.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2439] When it comes, they will run

The return of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China was imminent. After years of a hands-free approach taken by the colonial government, the citizens of Hong Kong were used to a liberal atmosphere. The prospect of a continuous liberal environment after the 1997 handover was unclear however. The uncertainty convinced many to fear the worst. Rather than suffer the uncertainty, they took action and sought refuge elsewhere. They applied for permanent residency and citizenship in other countries to escape the possibility of living in an oppressive society. The PRC, regardless of what it is now with all of its contradictions, was perceived as a repressive and decidedly communist country. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident was still fresh in everybody’s minds.

Money is not always the only consideration in any decision regarding migration. There are other factors that are not necessarily less important than money. Security is one. Love is two. Freedom has often been cited as a factor. A way of life is another.

The implementation of hudud or the adoption of more comprehensive Islamic laws will affect the way of life in Malaysia.

Proponents of hudud argue that the implementation of such laws will be applicable to Muslims only. They guarantee it.

Neither their argument nor their guarantee are good.

The argument of exclusive application is unlikely to be true. Previous conflicts from child custody to death and burial have proven that even the milder version of Islamic laws as practised in Malaysia impacts non-Muslims. These proponents might have forgotten these episodes. They must be reminded of it because these conflicts do create a fear of creeping Islamization in the hearts of non-Muslims as well as others who care for religious freedom.

These past conflicts can tell us what to expect in the future.

The likelier outcome of the wider implementation of Islamic laws is this: whatever affecting the majority will likely affect the minority. A more comprehensive version will not leave non-Muslims alone, even if the legal rights are discriminated among citizens so strongly.

It is naïve to believe such an incredible guarantee.

The minority will float along with the majority, whether they like it or not, for better or for worse. The wider implementation of Islamic laws will be a change in lifestyle for everybody. It will first affect the lifestyle of Muslims, regardless of their piety. The group will become more conservative, voluntarily or otherwise.

Then through the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, the lifestyle of the latter will be affected. The rest will have to respect the new conservativeness.

In the end, whatever is the way of life that prevails will change. Whatever openness and liberalness within the society that exists will gradually vanish to satisfy rising conservativeness. Whatever lifestyle that was will have to give way to the Islamic one, however those in power define the Islamic laws. The outlook of Malaysian society itself will change. None will escape such a wholesome change unless they leave.

There is a point where the religious and non-religious minorities along with Muslims who hold more relaxed religious positions will choose migration over further tolerance of growing Islamization within their society. The potential lifestyle change can be too drastic to stomach. There is a point where enough is enough.

If it comes, there will be those who will walk off to a more open society permanently. They have the means to do so, just like many former citizens of Hong Kong.

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 Malaysian Insider on October 6 2011.