Category: Society

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.

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.