Category: Society

Categories
Liberty Society

[2401] No to the Ministry of Non-Muslim Affairs, again

I am a secularist. I strongly believe in the separation of the state and religion. At the very least, the state should not interfere in personal belief within libertarian constraint and religion should not influence the state to the extent that it transgresses individual liberty.

Although there are other concerns I have written throughout this blog of mine, my primary concern here contextualized within the latest development on the issue revolves around negative individual liberty.

Religion and other personal beliefs are private matters. As long as these beliefs do not contradict individual liberty, the state should get out of the bedroom so-to-speak. Recall the base function of the liberal state: the protection of individual negative liberty.

The separation between the state and religion prevents religion from hijacking the state, and the state from controlling any religion. At one fell swoop, the separation goes a long way in guaranteeing freedom of religion and other individual rights that might come into conflict with religious beliefs.

This is not just some academic concern. It is a real worry in Malaysia. Existing institutions apply highly corrosive effects on individual rights granted through individual liberty. There are religious police in Malaysia.

Within Malaysian context, the roles of Islam in the state are repulsive. Before I am being misconstrued, I am referring to the relevant religious institutions in Malaysia, not the religion itself.

There is a need to reduce the prominence of these Islamic institutions that exert unduly coercive influence on liberty. The state controls Islam and the Islam as in the form sanctioned by the state and through apparatus of the state exerts suffocating stranglehold on individuals who refuse to bow.

The latest news has it that Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia will lobby for the formation of a non-Muslim affairs ministry, again.[1] I wrote again because it has been raised since as early as 2007. This should be seen in parallel to the state of Islam in Malaysia.

Will non-Muslims be forced to fit the mould of certain religion they identify themselves with? Will the government try to interfere in how non-Muslims practice their religion?

Even if the answers are no, it will give the state a piece of the pie. The Church and its merry men, which themselves have not-so-impeccable reputation as far as individual liberty are concerned, will have to share that pie of tyranny.

For an illiberal government eager of telling individual what to believe in, perhaps the formation of that ministry is consistent.

Yet, an illiberal government is not the ideal government for me.

I oppose the formation of the ministry. The formation will give greater legitimacy to moral policing within Islam. It gives legitimacy to the division and compartmentalization of society to coerce free persons. We already have two laws in this land, one for one group and another one for another. One is free, and the other is not as far as libertarians are concerned. The establishment of non-Muslim affairs ministry will strengthen that illiberal dichotomy.

Religion should play less significant roles in the state. That ministry will only enhance the roles of religion, and at the same time, the scope of the state. There should be less government, not more. There is already a lot of room for tyranny in the state. Why should more space be made for tyranny?

A certain somebody a long time ago said the era of government knows best is over. Now is yet another chance to prove whether that statement was made in good faith or not. Prove it by not dictating private individual beliefs. Prove it by rejecting the religious lobbyists out right.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — The Roman Catholic Church here will lobby for a non-Islamic affairs ministry now that Malaysia has formalised ties with the Vatican, says Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam. [Debra Chong. Catholic Church plugs for non-Muslim affairs ministry. The Malaysian Insider. July 26 2011]

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2398] Bersih and the wider trust deficit

Somewhere in Streatham, south of London earlier this year, I found myself slouching lazily on a couch watching the BBC with a friend and his still lazier cat. On television was the Egyptian revolution ”live”, with protesters and government supporters throwing rocks at each other. Such was the lamentable state of Egypt that used to be the apex of human civilization not once, but twice. Its deeply flawed institutions had reduced Egypt into a state of anarchy.

”Don’t you find this impossible?” I think I asked my friend. ”We know these protesters want Mubarak out but what about his supporters? Are their wishes less legitimate than those protesting on the streets?”

The reply came promptly, ”The importance of a credible election. Credible elections are important in determining popular opinion. Nothing in Egypt has enough credibility or the competence to ascertain the popular opinion right now.”

The Arab Spring is an extreme example but it does highlight the importance of a working electoral system. It highlights the importance of individuals trusting a system to aggregate popular opinion fairly and peacefully.

For this reason, the effort at electoral reforms by Bersih is important. Some of its demands add transparency in the electoral process and transparency goes a long way in creating credibility.

Bersih, of course, is about electoral reforms but the question of confidence in institutions is really part of the larger trust deficit problem in Malaysia. The problem of trust deficit is this: a considerable portion of Malaysians distrusts the government. And they are not libertarians. Rather, they are part of the everyday people.

It does not matter whether that portion makes up the majority of Malaysian society or not. The point is that they are big enough that they cannot be ignored, or banned just like that. There is no place for an ostrich if the country plans to solve the deficit.

For Malaysia, distrust in public institutions will not degenerate to the deplorable level seen in the Arab world recently anytime soon. It is an exaggeration to say otherwise. That is a long way down the canyon. Yet, various other not-so-ideal things can happen with the lack of confidence in public institutions.

When the public distrusts the courts, the police and everything that is commonly understood as the typical uncontroversial functions of the state, the government will have a hard time doing its job.

Take distrust in the police, for example. Crime cannot be the responsibility of the police alone. Crime fighting requires co-operation from the public. In an overly distrusting environment, is there a reason for a person to aid the police? Be a witness for the police? Is there a reason for the person to report the occurrence of crime to the police? Is there a reason for the person to believe the police will protect them?

All that will see individuals investing in their security, taking resources away from more productive activities. They make redundant activities typically funded by taxes.

This is already happening. Drive around Petaling Jaya and other neighborhoods and one can see what effectively are gated communities. Residents are pooling their resources to hire private firms to secure their property.

It shows they are distrustful of the police. Or at least how they do not believe that the police are competent enough to serve them, the taxpayers. What, one might ask, is the point of paying taxes to support the police force when one has to employ private security firms to keep one’s house safe?

And just to be naughty, if there was enough trust between the public and the government, the government would not have to spend millions of public funds for public relations exercises. That money can better be spent elsewhere. Yet, in times of great skepticism, what would be wasteful during normal times could become a necessity to keep the government running.

It is good to keep a healthy dose of skepticism against the government and the state in general. Yet, there is some optimum level of skepticism before destructive cynicism sets in.

Quite unfortunately, the current government of Malaysia — the Abdullah and the Najib administrations alike — is too good at inculcating public cynicism against itself. Given how the government tries hard to erode the independence of public institutions, the government is undermining public confidence in public institutions.

Bersih is a modest effort at trying to ultimately restore credibility to public institutions. In its little way, it is an effort to tackle the wider trust deficit.

The Najib administration, however, disagrees and demonizes Bersih instead. Maybe that is not at all surprising. The flawed institutions of status quo benefit the incumbent. The administration and its fiercest supporters are happy with the status quo. In jargon-speak, they have captured the public institutions.

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 July 16 2011.

Categories
Liberty Science & technology Society

[2377] Technology, central planning and the fate of organic organization of society

There are several reasons why organic decision-making is better than central planning. The complexity of the world is one. By complexity, it means nobody has the ability to absorb all relevant information in a timely manner to react effectively. In some ways, this is the economic calculation problem. It is an argument against the communist economic system in favor of the free market, the free price system specifically.

While this particular reasoning has stood well against the test of time to defend the libertarian case, I do not think it will stand forever. It has stood well against the case for central planning because there is a limit to calculation processing.

An individual can solve his or her own problems but a central planner must solve all problems that exist in the world. The central planner has no capacity to solve for the general equilibrium. There are billions, trillions or even more variables and data points to consider. The problem of central planning has always been an optimization problem however complex it is. How many can we calculate? How fast can we calculate? Can we calculate it at all?

None in the past and at the present time has done that in a grand scale or for a long time successfully.

The date when technology overcomes the restriction will arrive. When that happens, the libertarian case may approach an expiry date.

The seeds are already here. Thomas Friedman writes in The World is Flat of a global supply chain. Detailed record of inventory is kept. The workflow is traceable. Orders, stock and production all around the world of a particular company can be tweaked easily. All relevant information crucial to production is available on the spot all the time.

It is not hard to imagine how that capability can be expanded beyond the boundary of a firm. As technology progresses to make that possible, the prospect of effective central planning is enhanced.

With technological progress, eventually, whatever superiority the organic method has can be replicated by a central planner. Perhaps, the central planner can produce superior outcome in some cases where asymmetric information is present. After all, with the relevant sufficiently advanced technology, there can be no asymmetric information problem.

This is a scary notion for libertarians. It should be a scary notion for all who believes in individual liberty. It will give birth a full and perfect information aggregator that is an omniscience state or anything that may function as a state. It will create a god none can disobey. Everything the god says is for the best. This will be the real god.

My question is, when the time comes, will the case for organic organization of society be obsolete?

After considering that, I think any case in support of libertarianism cannot be dependent on technology. Else, it puts an expiry date on the philosophy.

Whenever the expiry will be, I am inclined to believe that it is will be far off into the future, possibly making the technology-dependent argument useful still.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2370] Is longer national service the solution?

The Malaysian Defense Minister said that the national service might be extended.[1] He reportedly said that three months were too short a duration to develop noble character and sense of patriotism. The suggestion to extend the program is not new. The then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak himself suggested in 2007 that “one year is most ideal, but two years would be better.”

Implicitly, the effort by the government to extend the duration suggests that the program in its current form has failed.

When it was first introduced, it was described as if it was a panacea. But a panacea it is not.

After 18 years exposed to the Malaysian reality, it is hard to believe a 3-month make-belief, propagandistic summer camp will undo what some perceived as unwanted behaviors and worldview shaped by the society by much, never mind that the government itself partly contributes to the problem through the mangled education system. Those in the government know this. Else, they would not have wanted to extend the duration.

While there are reasons to believe by stretching the duration longer may make the program more effective for better or for worse — for me, it is the worse — it is easy to parallel this to the sunk cost fallacy. A program fails and somehow by investing more into it, it will work. If indeed a longer program will fail just as it has failed in its current form, that would mean more public money wasted. Already the program is costing more than RM500 million per year according Khairy Jamaluddin.[2]

If the extension would improve the program, I would still oppose it. I oppose the program on principle, not because of its duration or its general farce.

While the current Malaysian national service is a misnomer — especially when compared to proper program that exists in Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea that has militaristic aspects — the Malaysian version is still conscription. It is a draft. Extending the duration only makes the draft worse, never mind that for many, it is an interruption to their education plan.

Never mind the deaths associated with the program. Having a program that runs more than 3 months will increase the likelihood and the cases of death in the program. For a summer camp that is not really part of the national defense force, it is deadly farce.

The national service is unneeded. All of its objectives and modules — in its website, the four modules are physical training, nation-building,  character-building and community service[3] — can be done in schools. Or better, voluntarily in or outside of schools.

Did you not do all these things while in elementary and high schools? Oh wait, even if you did, it was within a largely Malay environment, a largely Chinese environment, etc. And the government is supporting that system.

The fact that the national service is considered necessary by the power that says something about the public education system: it is defective. One would expect the solution is to improve the system.

But no. To some, the solution is to introduce another compulsory program that has shown to fail.

A failed program to augment a defective education system.

What a policy.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – The National Service training programme’s three-month period may be extended, said Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

He added that the ministry was studying the possibility as three months was too short a time to develop noble characters and foster a sense of patriotism.

“The matter will be discussed at a meeting of the National Service Training Council,” he told reporters after the presentation of 2010 National Service Training Department Excellent Service awards at the ministry here yesterday. [NS term may be extended. The Star. May 27 2011]

[2] — Khairy sebelum ini meminta kerajaan mengurangkan pembelanjaan untuk program yang dikatakannya kurang berkesan dan menelan belanja yang besar contohnya Program Latihan Khidmat Negara (PLKN) yang memakan belanja RM560 juta setahun. [Tempoh Latihan PLKN Mungkin Dipanjangkan – Zahid. Bernama. May 26 2011]

[3] — See Training Module at Jabatan Latihan Khidmat Negara. Accessed May 28 2011

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2365] Should action be taken against Utusan Malaysia? A libertarian perspective

Utusan Malaysia recently alleged that Malaysian Christian heads were conspiring to make Christianity the official religion of Malaysia. The conservative Malay daily cited two blogs of questionable credibility to back its front-page report. For a society highly conscious of  ethnicity and religion issues, the report caused uproar and tension between various communities.

Assuming the allegation is false which is likely the case, should action be taken against Utusan Malaysia for reporting it and in effect, spreading falsehood?

Our incentive system is imperfect to say the least. It is not at all surprising to have somebody spreading falsehood, lying or deceiving someone else to get what he or she wants in general. To complicate the matter, those acts might not by wrong all the times. There are times when those acts might be necessary to protect the innocents.

Even when those acts are wrong, unilateral public action through state authority might be out of the question with the principle of free speech in place, along with other typical individual rights.

Individual rights do not include the legitimization of fraud. Any action based on lies and falsehood that adversely affects individual rights cannot be condoned by the state or any authority invested with the powers to protect individual rights. It just cannot be let go off the hook.

One example is this: in a transaction, one party lies about the state of a good for sale to a person. If the person bought the good while supplied with false information, then the lying seller has obtained the money wrongly, with money being a private property of the purchaser. The right to private property is an individual right and the transaction based on deceit violates that right. The lying seller has to be punished by the state — unilaterally — since the prime rationale of the establishment of the state is the protection of individual rights according. The punishment is important not just for the sake of principle, but also for a very pragmatic reason. It is imposes a cost on such act and so discourages such fraud from recurring in the future.

Within the context of Utusan Malaysia and its recent controversial report, was there any violation of rights?

I cannot answer it in the affirmative. Therefore, I cannot to support unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia. The best I can come up with is that the falsehood affects reputation. Yet, individual rights do not include reputation.

This of course does not mean individuals involved in the reporting — meaning the one reported involved the conspiracy — cannot seek redress against the Malay daily. Conflicts between private parties have always happened and a trustworthy third party can and has always been appointed to resolve the conflicts. The third party here is usually the state. The third party’s judgment then is enforced to resolve the conflict as civil as possible.

In the case of interest, the group accused by the Malay daily can bring their grouse to the courts. If Utusan Malaysia did spread falsehood and that the falsehood adversely affected the reputation of the group, then the daily should be compelled to compensate the group or be fined. The fate of the two bloggers should be the same as the Malay daily.

I like this route the best because it is clean. It makes the issue as a conflict between two private parties and makes the concern of unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia merely academic if indeed Utusan Malaysia did spread falsehood (which, again, I do not doubt that is the case).

By making it private, it does not mean that there is no public interest in the case. There is but it is hard if not impossible to account for that interest and its very public effect without resorting to discretion.

If unilateral state action has to be taken — which I will contest its legitimacy — there may be a mechanism for that. Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia may have a mechanism that can be modified to justify unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia. Be warned that I am taking the idea in a very restricted sense. Nozick is concerned with a much larger issue than that which I am focusing on now.

Early in the book, Nozick demonstrates how various insurance and compensation arrangements will address threats and actual transgressions of rights. Insurance and compensation arrangements here are simply different terms used for protection provided by an entity, which can be the state, a private security firm, a gangster group or other entities capable of provide that service. Meanwhile, threat is not simply some kind of warning or a menacing declaration that something will be done if something else is not done. Rather, it is the possibility of something bad happening. The chances of a pedestrian being hit accidentally by a car is one of such threats. The chances of a person makes good of his threat to break your leg is another example of such threats.

Nozick describes how a general open threat creates fear among the threatened. Depending on the credibility of threats and the level as well as the spread of fear the threats create, it will disrupt day-to-day activities of the person or even the society. In order words, there are costs imposed on society by the threats, regardless of realization of the threats.

I think this parallels concerns regarding lies and falsehood. It gives the qualification why some lies and falsehood should be punished. When lies and falsehood creates widespread public anxiety, then there is a case for unilateral state punishment. Under this line of thinking, the priority is fear minimization, or in the parlance of Malaysian political discourse, sedition or incitation of hatred. In the end, Utusan Malaysia clearly must be punished, if this method is adopted.

The question is how widespread before punitive unilateral state action should be taken?

This may require some kind of discretionary powers, which like any discretionary powers, are open to abuse.

The need of discretion is one reason why I do not like this method, on top of the fact it does not follow from the first principle aimed at the protection of individual rights.

Discretion tends to create dissatisfactory judgment. It will inevitably be inconsistent and in the end, ruin the reputation of the third party wielding the power to punish. Discretionary powers will lead to abuse.

The wielding and the exercise of the discretionary powers have caused troubles in the past. Some newspapers have been punished for publishing controversial material while others have been let go. Indeed, Utusan Malaysia has been let go off the hook by the government despite its controversial report of unverified truth. If reported by other newspapers less friendly to the government, that newspapers would have been punished.

So, long story short, no to unilateral state action against Utusan Malaysia but yes to making the case a private conflict between two parties involved.