Category: Society

Categories
Society

[2358] An individualist response to Ioannis Gatsiounis

I watched a documentary once. It was about Muslims in America. There was a young female Muslim in New York with typical American lifestyle. She was not the conservative type and I am on confident of that. She did wear a scarf though and that probably tells you that she identified herself with Islam.

In one segment, she said she did not feel the need to come out in the open to condemn terrorist acts done by some Muslims in the name of Islam. She said she was not responsible for it and she would not apologize for others. They happened to share the same religion as her.

I am in complete agreement with her. I am not because I am trying to defend the religion and Muslims at large. I have grown to be so much a skeptic in the past few years that I am more likely to criticize religion, any religion for that matter, than to defend it.

I am in complete agreement with her because there is a mark of individualism in that statement.

More importantly, the individualism is very much libertarian. We are responsible for our own actions and no one else. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions.

It is for this reason that I do not buy the narrative that moderate Muslims must come out to condemn terrorism or any wrongful act done by fellow Muslims. I disagree with what Ioannis Gatsiounis wrote at The Malaysian Insider today, where he wrote that the Muslim community needs to express “collective expressions of joy and relief of bin Laden’s death” to help combat the suspicion that Muslims are quietly sympathizing Osama Bin Laden and his merry men in Al-Qaeda.[1]

And then, guilt by association is a fallacy, after all.

No doubt, there are Muslims who sympathize with Bin Laden. That however does not negate the individualist argument. Those Muslims are responsible for their own positions. Other Muslims theirs, as with other individuals regardless of beliefs out there in this world.

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

[1] — Your initial reaction to news of Osama bin Laden’s death is telling. If you were disappointed, you no doubt harbour terrorist sympathies.

Of course, many non-Muslims have come to suspect many Muslims have been doing just that at least since 9/11. That impression may be inaccurate. But with repeated silence among moderate Muslims in the face of countless acts of terror committed in the name of Islam since 9/11, it’s easy to see why the suspicion arises [Hope for Islam’s image with bin Laden’s death. Ioannis Gatsiounis. The Malaysian Insider. May 3 2011]

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2346] Officer Dredd, the Blue Ocean Man

It is comforting that the Najib administration is showing some concerns about the size of government expenditure. They are doing something about it in some parts of government, even as the big picture offers a more complex and contradictory narrative. Yet, not all cuts in spending are right.

A reduction or saving cannot be done simply for the sake of reduction. That is mindless. There have to be principles behind all cuts.

For many skeptics of the state, that principle is small government. The concept demands the power of the state be kept in check. It advocates limiting the size of government while instituting a mechanism to counter the influence of the state.

As far as a system of check and balance is concerned, the idea of a small government is not an ideological extreme. A wall separating various offices — offices that if left together would corrupt the whole structure — prevails in any society subscribing to the supremacy of rule of law out of fear for potential abuse of power

That includes, believe it or not, Malaysian society. Even companies put in place some check and balance mechanism, even if in some cases it is only for show, and even if only to find scapegoats when something goes wrong like what is happening in certain government-linked companies in Malaysia.

A system of check and balance is expensive but one does not simply throw it out of the window for the sake of cutting cost. There is more at stake than failing to balance the budget.

For instance, one simply does not merge the functions of the police and the judges together to reduce government expenditure. The world of Judge Dredd — someone who is the police, judge, jury and executioner all at the same time — makes for a good comic but it is not ideal for the creation of a power abuse-free society.

Some believe in the separation wall. The Najib administration believes in the Blue Ocean Strategy. If the government is left to its own device, the blue ocean may inundate us all.

The Najib administration is encouraging closer co-operation between the police and the military. He said this was part of the Blue Ocean Strategy thinking. I call it the Officer Dredd thinking.

Some co-operation — having the military patrolling the border instead of the police and rehabilitating petty criminals in army camps instead of in prisons — seems innocent and even laudable at first glance. Not only it does cut cost, more importantly its rationale makes sense.

Others — having the police and the armed forces patrol the streets jointly and using of military facilities for police recruiting and training — are insidious in nature.

There is a reason behind the separation between the police and the military. The police force is concerned with mostly internal affairs. They are armed and trained accordingly. The traditional function of the military is to address external threats. The military does have additional roles in times of emergency but the qualifier is clear: only in times of emergency.

The awesome firepower of the military is the reason why it is not granted the wide-ranging power of the police force in a society under normal, peaceful times. Once merged, the forces will have extraordinarily wide powers that no single entity should have. It is a step closer towards military rule. Whoever wields this power will be the dictator. The gun will always be too hot for a free democracy.

For this reason, any co-operation between the police and the military deserves critical assessment and hostile suspicion.

Suspicions aside, is the finance of the government in such dire straits that the police and the military have to participate in someone else’s fascination with Blue Ocean Strategy and, in the process, tear down the separation wall?

If the situation is so bad, the government can take other more traditional avenues without adversely affecting any public check and balance mechanism.

There are 24 ministries in the Najib administration, not including the offices of the prime minister and the deputy prime minister. Do we need so many ministries, even more ministers and their deputies?

Some government ventures in the commercial world ended up needing bailouts. Does the government need to be in the business world?

More than 20 per cent of the RM67 billion worth of stimulus spending has yet to be spent as of March 2011, two years later. Does the Malaysian economy need that stimulus spending, if it was needed in the first place at all?

And there are multiple failed economic corridors courtesy of the Abdullah administration. Why is the Najib administration still propping them up?

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 April 6 2011.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2330] The police force and the military must remain separated

The roles of the police and the armed forces are different. One enforces the law while the other stands on guard against the enemy of the state. The difference in functions and in challenges both faces necessitate the two to be separated. When two security forces are combined, the power of the military expands. With that, there is a fear that the military might see everything that it faces as enemy of the state. The military becomes paranoid and then acts upon the policing power that it has. That is a step towards military rule.

I am raising this issue because I have read in the news recently that the police is cooperating with the military in fighting crime. In the Parliament yesterday, the Minister of Home Affairs confirms the news report.[1] He said that the Ministry was having strategic cooperation with several entities including the military. The cooperation includes the use of military camps for training and recruitment of police officers and joint patrol.

Whether this militarizes the police force is arguable, but what is certain is that it will expand the influence of the military in our society.

The goal of reducing crime rate in the country is laudable. The goal however does not justify all means. The rule of laws must still be adhered to. Rights must be respected, including those belonging to criminals. The goal also does not justify the erosion of separation between the police and the armed force.

The two must remain separated.

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

[1] — Kementerian Dalam Negeri sedang dan akan mengadakan kerjasama strategik dengan pihak lain antaranya seperti Angkatan Tentera Malaysia yang telah dilaksanakan bagi menangani jenayah seperti penggunaan kem-kem tentera untuk melatih dan merekrut anggota polis, mengadakan rondaan-rondaan secara bersama dan menyerap bekas personel tentera dalam perkhidmatan polis. [Page 3. Hansard. March 9 2011.]

Categories
Society

[2329] Just one ticket, please

I have been to a number of cities with superb rail networks before but I hardly took any notice of them. I simply took the convenience that came along with them for granted. I have come to conclude that any good big city will always have a good rail network servicing the city and its suburbs. The fact that a city has one is not something that quickly impresses me anymore.

While I was wandering the streets of Paris, the issue of the planned mass rail transit system in Kuala Lumpur began to dominate Malaysian headlines. Paris is famous for many things and one of those things is its dense rail network called the Metro. With the MRT in mind, I began to compare the Metro to the existing rail network in Kuala Lumpur.

It is probably unfair to make that comparison. The French capital began building its system nearly a century earlier than Kuala Lumpur did. The French had a lot of time to build and to perfect their network while Kuala Lumpur is still building its network. Nevertheless, there are things Kuala Lumpur can learn from Paris.

One of them is definitely how the lines are integrated, given how badly the network in Kuala Lumpur performs in this respect. Prime examples of lack of integration are the monorail line at KL Sentral, the light rail transit stations at Masjid Jamek and the distance between the Bukit Nanas monorail station and the Dang Wangi station on the Kelana Jaya LRT line.

The planned MRT is poised to repeat these past mistakes. One station belonging to the MRT line is not going to be constructed at KL Sentral but somewhere near to the transportation hub of the city. The distance between the hub and the planned MRT station appears to be farther than the distance between the hub and the nearby monorail station.

The need to travel the distance to change trains is an annoyance for commuters but sometimes it is understandably unavoidable. The issue of cost, land ownership or other innocent constraints may prevent perfect integration between lines. In Paris, there are places where one has to walk for a considerable distance to change trains.

The ticketing system in Paris fortunately makes the action less of a chore. Whatever the train line a commuter needs to take, he or she simply needs to buy the ticket once. There is no need to buy a different ticket for a different line. That means there is no need to queue at the counter or machine multiple times. It also means a commuter need not pass through a ticket verification barrier one time too many.

In Kuala Lumpur, different lines have their own tickets. The need to purchase multiple tickets because one needs to change trains causes long queues. Add to that the fact that these machines in Kuala Lumpur tend to accept exact change only, never mind that some of these machines tend to be offline typically; riding the trains can be an extremely stressful experience.

There is of course the Touch ”˜N Go and other cards that partially address the problem of lack of ticket integration across all the intracity lines.

Yet, not everybody can afford to store considerable credit in those cards and even if affordability is not an issue, not everybody wants to use it. Many times, individuals need to ride the intra-city train infrequently. That makes these cards a relatively expensive investment for a person in a country where a lot of individuals earn less than RM2,000 per month.

My suggestion for the new MRT line and together with the LRT network is this: if the intracity lines cannot be integrated physically with verification barriers placed everywhere, at least integrate its ticketing systems. Since the LRT is under Syarikat Prasarana Negara and so too the MRT eventually, surely such an integration will not be too hard to do.

And yes, please make those machines a little bit more flexible in accepting bills.

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 March 2 2011.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2328] An arrogant free riding migrant

There are times when Malaysians living abroad can be arrogant, perceiving too highly of their worth to Malaysia. There are Malaysians abroad who are highly skilled and educated, of course, but not all of those living overseas are. Most are architects, professors, financial wizards, etc. Some are cab drivers, cooks at some fast food place, janitors, etc. Some are old people of no clear expertise.

Somehow, I get the idea that the mainstream narrative is all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated who expertise are prized.

I want to blame the Malaysians media, printed and online for that. The media or even those offering opinion on how to address the brain drain take some details for granted and tend to highlight successful Malaysians abroad only. That in the end paints the picture that all Malaysians living abroad have highly skilled or educated, who could contribute to the development of Malaysia more than others.

The truth is that not all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated. Not of all of them are successful either. There are those who can be easily replaced by locals cheaply. Some migrated because of their family connection, not so much of skills and attracting them back may only bring indirect benefits, which in the net might not present a convincing case.

There is nothing wrong with migration. I am not condemning those who migrated for whatever reason. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to migrate out of Malaysia: job opportunity, discrimination, politics, family, etc.

What I have issue with is the arrogance of some of these people who migrated, when the arrogance is clearly unearned. Here is an example.

A prominent Malaysian politician was in Sydney some months ago. He gave a talk. He attracted a large crowd. He is after all a good speaker.

At the end, there was a question and answer session, which too many have the tendency to turn that period into a soapbox session.

An old former Malaysian, now an Australian citizen, a retired teacher, probably in his 60s, came up to offer his opinion. He rambled about how if Malaysia wants him to come home, the people in Malaysia need to change first.

The people in Malaysia need to change, he said. As if he was the top candidate for Talent Corporation, whatever that government-linked entity actually does.

Is he ignorant of the fact that many Malaysians are doing what they can to change the system? There are Malaysians who disagree with the system and have to suffer the system in fact.

What is more angering about the arrogance is that he proudly announced his intention at free riding. He expects others to change the country while he lives his retired life comfortably, while possibly on a relatively generous transfer payment the Australian government provides for pensioners in Australia.

I rolled my eyes.

It is completely understandable that some people have no stomach to participate in change personally. There are always opportunity costs involved, if guts is not an issue. It is also fine if one decides to return to Malaysia if the society changes for the better. A lot of Malaysians would likely do that. I personally have a number of friends with that thinking. I do not blame them and it is only natural. I cannot think of a good reason to chastise them.

But that particular person does not have the moral authority to put it so arrogantly. No one in that situation has. The license to arrogance vanishes immediately as one free rides.