Category: Society

Categories
Conflict & disaster Personal Society

[2428] How September 11 2001 affected me?

I have told this story many times to friends.

I just woke up from sleep. It was sometime between 8AM and 9AM. My first semester at Michigan. The first or the second week of class. Chemistry class was due at 10AM. Or really, ten after ten. It was Michigan time, you see.

I needed to print some notes and check my email before class. So, I came down from my room and saw a notice on the door of the computing lab at the basement of the Michigan Union. There was a national emergency, it said. The office was closed. I had no idea what the emergency was about.

I logged on the computer, went on Yahoo! and saw a burning World Trade Center. This must be a hoax, I told myself. It was too outrageous to believe.  I dismissed it.

I was young, barely 19, and was still processing what was going on.

I went to class anyway, not wanting to miss anything. I rushed across the Diag, on a possibly clear blue morning.

There was none to be had. The professor was there and the class was a little bit more than half-full, but everybody came to realize something bigger was happening. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Class, dismissed.

Elsewhere, there were talks of repercussion. Friends through emails were warning of backlash against Muslim students. That also included most Malaysian students in the United States. There was fear.

I had heard of stories of xenophobia elsewhere, but I did not suffer from it throughout my 4 years as a Michigan undergraduate. Not ever. Maybe it was the liberal nature of Ann Arbor compared to some other parts of the US, but never once I became a victim of xenophobia.

The weeks and months following the attack formed lasting impression of the US society in my mind. It was one of admiration. There were fierce debates throughout the years about what was right and what was wrong. But the society itself survived the illiberal tidal wave that threatened individual liberty. Coming from a relatively, very much closed society that prevailed in Malaysia then, the societal dynamic of the new world was enticing and refreshing. I was impressed at the US society despite all the criticisms against it.

It was in the US where I found my values.

I have always said that I became a libertarian because of my experience in Michigan. Now, I think I became a civil libertarian because of the September 11 attack. I did not have a label to point at then, but in retrospect, I knew September 11 was the seed for me.

I saw how a free society can regulate itself and overcome fear and distrust. There was little prejudice around even after the attack to completely unravel the argument that a free society will self-destruct, an idea that was prevalent in Malaysia, and maybe still is.

And I saw how freedom needed to be defended from fear and distrust. I saw friends were forced to report to the Department of Homeland Security in Detroit regularly, just because they came from certain countries. Every time I needed to board the plane, the security team would select me for extra screening, just because I am a Malaysia. I took that as racial profiling and I despised that. It was insulting.

That too, strengthened my view on racial discrimination.

I visited New York later in 2002. I visited the site of the World Trade Center. It moved me.

September 11 was not just some event that happened on the other side of the world. It happened on my side of the planet. It deeply was personal.

Categories
Society

[2422] The libertarian case against Petknode

When parties voluntarily enter into an agreement, there is a minimum of what is expected of them. In the case of Petknode, the customers pay the company RM3.95 per night. In return, Petknode will provide care for the customers’ cat pets. Simple and uncontroversial responsibilities.

Many would take that for granted. I would. Those responsibilities are set in stone. Failure to fulfil the agreement warrants punitive action within reason and the victims have the rights to demand reasonable compensation however reasonableness is defined.

The state has a responsibility to ensure that the punitive action is taken, unless the parties mutually agree to settle it amicably among themselves. The state also has the responsibility to ensure that the victims are properly compensated by those whom breached the contract, with the same qualification. After all, one of the functions of the state within libertarian tradition is the enforcement of contract.

With about 300 cats found starving with 16 more dead in the care of Petknode according to The Malaysian Insider, the company has failed to fulfil its end of the bargain. Lawyers may argue the finer points of what care is but surely, death has to be the ultimately failure under any kind of definition with respect to this episode.

Anybody who believes in the sanctity of contract will easily find Petknode at fault. It is a breach of contract. There is no excuse for the breach so far. As at this moment, we have learned nothing that could have prevented Petknode from fulfilling its duties. This is appearing to be a case sheer negligence.

And that negligence creates a case of cheating. To take potshots, this is how Petknode advertised its service: cut cost, not quality. The fact that hundreds of pet cats were left to starve and die shows the kind of deplorable service level Petknode provided. Both cost and quality were cut.

I would very much like to see the owners and operators of Petknode not only refund the money it cheated of its customers, but also severely punished for their irresponsibility, even to the point of bankruptcy.

To many, perhaps the loss of lives is a graver wrong than the breach of contract. What makes the owners and operators of Petknode all the more repulsive really is the nonchalant attitude it assumed against lives entrusted under its care. I take that line but in a world where the value of animal lives is debatable and definitely not universal, the libertarian contract argument is the best minimum to rationalize action against Petknode.

Furthermore, the death is a consequence of the breach of contract. I always prefer to derive the solution from the root, not from result. Even if there was no death, it would still be a breach of contract and therefore, punishable by the state (of course, with the typical caveat of a guilty verdict in a court of law of repute). Nine days spent trapped in a small cage with terribly insufficient food and water is not care. It is torture.

I am also in the opinion that the victims should pursue civil suit against Petknode rather than letting the incompetent Department of Veterinary Service or the police exhausts their options, if they are going to exhaust it at all. Judging how the police are handling the case, it seems that the police do not think much of it. The accused are roaming free and the crime scene is being cleaned up by family members of the accused. It is as if nothing happened.  This goes back to how much an individual values a life of an animal. The police officers handling this case are probably thinking, ah, they are just cats.

I think the lawyers would be more ferocious in pursuing the case, and have (libertarian or otherwise) justice served. Need I say, people respond to incentive?

Categories
Liberty Society

[2414] The Church of Hypocrisy

It is quite rich for someone to claim being victims of intolerance when the same person has no qualms discriminating against others. This refers to some Malaysian churches’ opposition to gay marriage.

That is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is exactly what some Christian churches in Malaysia are guilty of. Those churches not only oppose the gay marriage between a Malaysian pastor and his partner, they want the Malaysian authority to prevent the couple from holding a reception in Malaysia.[1][2]

Apart from the intolerance, it is alright for the churches to oppose gay marriage and homosexual relationship at large. They are entitled to their own opinion, for better or for worse. It is part of freedom of conscience. But to demand coercive action preventing the gay couple from holding mere reception is beyond the realm of acceptability.

Rights as defined in libertarianism are not these churches’ concern. These churches are not libertarians. Fine.

But moral authority is something that should bother them. To interfere in private relationship as these churches are calling for strips them of their moral authority to moralize about discrimination and justice. What gives these churches the platform to talk about justice and discrimination given their action?

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

[1] — PETALING JAYA: Several pastors have condemned their gay counterpart Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng’s upcoming marriage and want the authorities to ensure he does not hold a wedding reception in Malaysia. [No way to gay’s big day, say pastors. The Star. August 18 2011]

[2] — Mingguan Malaysia’s reports quoted various parties including the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship’s executive secretary Alfred Pais saying that homosexual practices were against the teachings of Jesus Christ. [The Star August 15 2011. August 18 2011]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2410] Rights, loudspeakers and call to prayer in Malaysia

Though a libertarian and in many ways individualistic in the sense that I am protective of my individual negative rights, I am highly conscious of the fact I live in a society. Even with these rights intact, there has to be a give and take, some kind of mutual and voluntary compromises.

The realization that we do not live as an island is doubly important in times when rights are unclear. The exercise of these unclear rights does create tension and ultimately bad blood in society. That is not a way to live by. This is especially so in a multicultural society where no certain way of life is necessarily taken for granted.

Yes, this about the call to prayer controversy in Penang. Although it happened it Penang, it has happened elsewhere in the past and it is really a case applicable nationwide, even elsewhere.

In Malaysia where everything done in the name of Islam is accepted by the conservatives as sacrosanct, criticism against the use of loudspeaker by mosques has been considered as an attack by Islam, at least by them. I do not think this can be seen separately from the Malay right narrative, where rightly or wrongly within local context, the idea of Malayness is seen as Islamic.

Noise (I use noise here without prejudice and only in a very general sense that it is a series of loud sound regardless of its human origin) is a complex issue as far as rights are concerned. On the default, I think I am happy to have the right of making noise stands as it own. It does seem to me like a negative liberty.

It is not a primary right I suppose but only a derived right, derived from freedom of expression. One perhaps could derive it from religious freedom but I tend to believe religious freedom itself is a derived right, and as far as the Islamic call to prayer in Malaysia is concerned, I think freedom of expression is more relevant than religious freedom. That does not mean religious freedom is being negated. I am simply stating that freedom of expression is more relevant. Sometimes, reiterating that in useful as an emphasis. I have found that typical readers read only to forget what they read in the previous sentence.

In any case, given the default position, there clearly is a problem with individual or organization like mosques using its right in early morning in a residential area, causing discomfort to others, especially for those who do not appreciate being effectively shouted at with a loudspeaker.

I personally have bad experience with mosques and call to prayer. My childhood home in Malaysia is surrounded by at least three large mosques, never mind the smaller ones dotting the neighborhood. During call to prayer, the three will seemingly engage in a competition with the loudest call will win the day.

This is very, highly annoying. Things are made worse when these mosques use loudspeakers and project their reading of the Koran or the actual prayer outward.

While the default position belongs to the mosques, it is much better for the general harmony of the neighborhood to not, at least, use the loudspeakers at every single chance these mosques have. Even with the right, voluntary compromise goes a long way in creating tolerating neighborhood. One does not what to live a neighborhood which bad blood prevails.

Respect, compromise and harmony may be a something-in-the-cloud or everything-and-nothing kind of approach. It sounds nice, but what exactly does it entail?

Well, I think it means mosques need to use their loudspeakers discriminately. Personally, I think the best is by turning the loudspeaker inward rather than outward. Realistically, use it only for actual call to prayer, and be extra mindful about its morning usage. Lower the volume by some notch, especially when there are oppositions. If there were none, the problem would not have existed in the first place.

Be as that may be, with the default case of right belonging to the mosque, freedom of expression and free speech is a two-way street. If the mosques insist in using its right, then criticism will be mounted. The mount of such criticism is also part of negative individual right. It is part of free speech.

So, if negative rights and liberties are adopted as the way forward by the mosques to justify their use of loudspeaker and projecting it outward to show its Islamic credential, they must face the criticism in the spirit of free society. Do not issue threat. Do not think that that criticism is some kind of unfair demand.

This goes with churches and temples as well.

In fact, I think it goes for all of us. Loud radio, loud TV, loud party, firecrackers, speaking into the phone loudly in the train, etc.

Just be mindful of your neighbors. Do not be obnoxious.

And I think that is reasonable.

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

p/s — while I am supportive of any move of reducing the use of loudspeakers by mosque, I do not support having a central authority telling local mosques what to do. That however is another issue that I will give it a pass right now.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2407] Between fictitious and true unity

There is a strong emphasis in unity in Malaysia.

It is easy to rationalize why so. The country has been diverse from the very beginning of its modern history. Each group largely lives differently. While difference and diversity can be sources of strength, it can also be a source of conflict.

For all the myths believed by some that race relations nowadays are worse than yesteryears, the worst race riot of the country happened in Kuala Lumpur in May 1963. Another big race riot happened in Malaysian Singapore in July 1964. Conflict between races itself was part of the reasons why Singapore was expelled from the federation in 1965.

Those conflicts have left behind a deep scar in Malaysian society, even as many Malaysians today have never witnessed a race riot first-hand. These old fears are becoming increasingly irrelevant but it is still part of what describes our society. So entrenched is the fear of history repeating itself that many are mindful of the tiniest possibility of a race riot.

To the mindful and those whom are trapped in the 1960s and 1970s still, they believe in the narrative of unity. They believe in unity being the answer to Malaysian divisiveness.

As the wisdom goes, if everybody were united, there would be no reason to quarrel with each other. Nobody would say anything hurtful to the collective ethnic consciousness. In a united Malaysia, everybody would laugh together while waving the Jalur Gemilang happily.

On the surface, the unity narrative is appealing. The ideal provides a stark contrast to the chaotic Malaysia of the 1960s and a period of time after that. Yet, scratch the skin and it will peel to a rotten core.

Their particular unity narrative ignores differing viewpoints. At best, it considers differing positions as foreign. ”It is not part of our culture,” so the typical response goes. Malaysians holding differing ideals are accused as having their mind colonized by outsiders. Imagine in times of globalization, one talks of neo-colonialism. One has to be either paranoid or stuck in time.

When differing viewpoints becoming too intellectually challenging for the simple narrative, threats are issued. When there is nowhere to go within the realm of pure reasons, talk of feelings. File a police reports when feelings are hurt. In the unity narrative, one is not supposed to hurt anyone else’s feeling.

And some fly the flags because for the government demands so. The government even threatened to do something to remedy the failure to fly a piece of cloth back in 2006. In Ipoh in 2010, businesses had to fly the Jalur Gemilang if business owners wanted to renew their licenses.

One can see how pretentious that unity is.

See how it belligerently pushes aside liberty.

It seeks monotony. It rejects colors. It is either you are with us, or against us.

Unity is not mutually exclusive of liberty of course. In fact, true unity can only arise under free environment, where every person is free. It will be hard to achieve unity under such a set-up because individuals in a free society will have difference but if ever dialogue and understanding will overcome the difference, then everybody will unite out of their own free will.

That is the route to true unity. It is tough but it is the unity that is sincere.

The proponents of unity whom are trapped in the 1960s possibly know of this. They probably realize the tough road to true unity. Too cowardly to trust in individual effort to bridge the gap perhaps, they choose the ersatz version.

That version of unity is one that is shown only because there is a big stick somewhere, waiting to be taken out if someone dares say, no, I am different.

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 August 5 2011.