Category: Society

Categories
Society

[2180] Of sneaky Hadi wants to sneak in Allah

Abdul Hadi Awang saw it and he capitalized on it. Given how the Islamic party he is in positions itself in the Allah controversy, he took the next step and suggested that the first principle of the Rukunegara[0] be changed from belief in god to belief in Allah.[1] If Allah is a generic term for god and god is the generic term for Allah, then they are equivalents, right?

Except, that I take the change as more insidious in nature. Not that the Rukunegara is the law of the land — hence its importance is debatable — but execution of that suggestion is problematic for future discourse on the status of Islam in Malaysia.

Equalizing god and Allah is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it appeals to unity, at least among the Abrahamic religions especially after the divisive Allah controversy. On the other hand, quite sneakily, it offers greater ammunition for Islamists in future debates regarding secularism and the Malaysian state. I can imagine how later down the line some Islamists would support their arguments by citing the Rukunegara while conveniently forgetting that context which that suggestion was made.

I am not impressed by that suggestion. Even if the word god and Allah refer to the same concept, it is far easier to stick with the status quo rather than wade through the controversy that the change might ignite. Besides, not everybody subscribes to the argument that god and Allah refers to the same idea. I have not heard of Hindus, for instance, referring to their gods as Allah, never mind that the concept of monotheism does not appeal to Hinduism.

Consider also the atheists and the agnostics. Where are they in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Hadi? Burnt at the stake?

I feel there are many Islamists out there who subscribe to the exclusivity of the word Allah to the Muslim community in Malaysia. There would not have been a controversy if these Islamists do not exist. If the word god in the Rukunegara is to be changed to Allah, I am sure they will take this in some way as an Islamization of Malaysia. They will see it as a good move. I also will consider it as an act of Islamizing Malaysia. Unlike the Islamists however, I will be compelled to protest loudly.

As a secularist myself, I am not at all enamored by the first principle of the Rukunegara. I plainly dismiss it but I realize that raising objection to it is really a worthless exercise. Really, it is quite petty. But if Mr. Hadi wants to start a public discourse on the matter, let it be known that my default position is the abolition of the first principle.

And I think, I am not alone.

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

[0] — See Rukunegara at Wikipedia. Assessed March 22 2010.

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 (Bernama) — Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang on Monday suggested that the first Rukun Negara be amended as the word Allah was widely used by non-Muslims.

“I call on the government to amend the first Rukun Negara from belief in God to belief in Allah,” he said during the debate on the motion of thanks on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s speech, in the Dewan Rakyat.

Abdul Hadi said the Al-Quran did not bar followers of other religions from using the word Allah. [Hadi Awang Suggests That First Rukun Negara Be Amended. Bernama. March 22 2010]

Categories
Personal Politics & government Society

[2171] Of a story of migration

A dear friend was in Sydney recently. For old times’ sake, he called me up and asked if I was free for the day. I said yes. How could I say no? Both of us are Malaysians and both of us attended Michigan. We had some good times together.

We had not met for a long time prior to that meeting in Sydney. The last time we had a meal together was in Singapore, when we visited yet another alumnus of Michigan. That was a good four years ago.

February is a good time to visit the city of Harbour Bridge and Opera House. Apart from the rain, the weather is generally just fantastic. There are tons of activities to do without the need to worry about the presence of morality police. When they are not cracking jokes and become all-sarcastic, which is cute, Sydneysiders will generally leave you alone. To find a close friend visiting Sydney should not be a puzzle.

We had a long chat, reminiscing the days in good old Ann Arbor, our spur-of-the-moment road trip into the heart of South Dakota and our childish arguments. And we updated each other about our mutual close friends. I learnt that one is working in Germany.

Several are living in the United States. Another is just due west in Melbourne.

The conversation went on innocently until I felt that something was amiss. He asked, “How are they toward you?” He was referring to Australians.

The question slightly took me aback. I figured he was concerned with reports of racism in Australia. The country does have issues with racism. It is not as prevalent as in Malaysia but it is a problem nonetheless.

Yet, his tone was one not of interest in current affairs, or a concern for me. It is a tone reserved for the motive of self-interest. I became suspicious of his motive and began to challenge my assumption that he was here for vacation.

“Why are you here, exactly?” Jokingly, I added, “Do you really miss me that much?”

His answered forthrightly. He already had his application for permanent residency approved by the Australian immigration. All he needed was to have his passport stamped at an Australian gate. He needed to do that to activate his permanent resident status. “And here I am.”

I have friends who have decided to live abroad, or who have left Malaysia for good. I have heard and read stories of strangers, Malaysians nonetheless, doing the same. It is not a rare phenomenon but to hear it from him”¦ somehow, his answer surprised me.

My reaction to those who find solutions in migration had been, please, do not go, or if you do go, do come back.

It is almost a plea, because more often than not, those who chose to migrate share my values: liberty and equality. The more Malaysians holding these values leave, the harder will it be to man the dike against the tide of illiberalism, a hodgepodge of racism, religious bigotry and lack of trust in individuals that Malaysian politics is known for.

Under the bright sun, I did not find myself making such plea to him. I myself am unsure what the future holds for me any longer. Such act of convincing appeared futile to me, when I can hardly convince myself of it.

For a short moment, my mind raced to another occasion, where an Australian friend asked what I would do after earning a Master’s degree. I told him what I told so many others, “I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you just stay here? There are so many problems in Malaysia. I can’t find a reason why anybody would want to be there. Even you, as a Malay, get discriminated simply because you refuse to blend in. Besides, the pay here is much better, don’t you think so? What is the PPP per capita for Malaysia? Australia’s is over thirty thousand US dollar.”

At yet another occasion, a Malaysian who has been residing and working in Sydney for some time asked me the same question. I told him that I do not know but I would return to Malaysia.

“Why?”

I said because it is home.

“It is good that you still have the notion of home. As for me, it means nothing anymore.” He said that with incredible nonchalance that I almost took it as an insult. Deep inside of my heart however, I know that home is where liberty is.

My mind returned to the moment. Kids in school uniforms were flowing out of a building. Near the door, there was a banner, suggesting that these kids were there for some sort of recital.

The plaza besides the Town Hall is always buzzed with activities. Just days ago, a group of Iranians were there to remember February 11, the 21st anniversary of the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran rose over the ashes of old Persia soon after that. I am unsure which one of these two is worse but I know for sure that they do not have the same liberty in Iran to hold public gatherings. Or in Malaysia for that matter.

I had to return to the moment.

“Will you apply for citizenship?”

“No,” he said.

“Why not take the extra step and be done with it?” I was the devil’s advocate.

“Malaysia is a good country. Only those who are managing the country are not.”

He did not see me rolled my eyes. I was not dismissing his opinion.

On the contrary, I share his sentiment. All I wanted to do was to let go a silent sigh.

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

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2010.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2153] Of republicanism in Malaysia? Meh

Prince William visited Redfern in Sydney yesterday. He is still in Sydney today.

I walked to Redfern just to see what it was all about. By the time I got there however, he has already left. Still, there were many people around. Police officers were everywhere. So were reporters. Those there seemed excited about having the Prince in their neighborhood. Somebody had a poster professing her love for Queen Elizabeth II. I suppose, somebody — like what somebody did at the Malay College in Kuala Kangsar to commemorate the visit of the Queen to the school — would erect a small memorial to remember the occasion, effectively saying ‘Prince William was here’ in a manner more refined than that of a graffiti artist.

The premier of New South Wales, Kristina Keneally, a proponent of republicanism in Australia said that the Prince is a “very charming” and “a young man of great character.” That however does little to reverse her republicanism. The Australian Labor Party, the party which Keneally belongs to as well as the party of the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, advocates republicanism.

I myself am a republican, though not quite a fan of the Labor Party. This stems from my distrust of institutions which claim authority from above rather from the bottom. I reject the idea of divine rights outrightly. Granted, these days the monarchy institution does not explicitly claim as such but its origin firmly belongs to that tradition. My egalitarianism mops up any spot that such distrust fails to sweep clean.

In that sense, to have an Australian republic is good. To have a Malaysian republic is ideal.

Yet, republicanism is never a priority for me, given a myriad of burning issues deserving more attention. It is down there somewhere in the priority list. To fight for republicanism appears to be indulging in an unwise battle where energy can better be used to issues that are more concrete.

This is especially so when the monarchy in Malaysia — a total of 9 houses and the Agong as the head of the 13-state federation — has limited power although from time to time, its influence has national repercussions, as observed in the aftermath of the 2008 general election, especially so in Perak. All this is thanks to the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. He may have overdone it but his maneuver ensures restriction to royal powers.

Besides, while I am reluctant to give ground to monarchists, the monarchy does in a way play a balancing role in Malaysia. The highly flawed Malaysian system of governance, due to damages done to it by Mahathir, ironically, enhances the space for the monarchy.

Until the issue of separation of powers between the three arms of government is addressed, and until the empowerment of states as proper member states of the federation rather than just units of a practically unitary state, republicanism in Malaysia, will remain bottom out of pile of concerns and even unlooked.

Despite considering myself a republican, I just could not care less about republicanism at the moment. I want my liberal democracy first.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2151] Of barking up the wrong tree

How many times have we heard the statement that if so and so did not exist, certain problems would go away? Specifically, one side would blame UMNO and Barisan Nasional for racial and religious problems in Malaysia, while the other would blame PKR and its allies for the instability in the country.

The truth is that politicians and political parties get too much credit for the various issues the country faces. As controversial issues erupt, the blame game begins in earnest. The usual suspects get apportioned with the blame at the slightest chance by the other side, as if there were quota to fill. The controversy revolving around the use of the term “Allah” is a case in point.

At this juncture, where venom is thrown so easily as to make the atmosphere too toxic for fruitful exchange, the air needs clearing. This can be achieved by recognizing the sources of issues and identifying proxies for what they are.

Granted, politicians and political parties — especially those in government — have disproportionate power to influence politics. There is no doubt that there are cases where the blame clearly belongs to one side.

Yet, the relationship of politicians and political parties with society is not characterized by one-way traffic. It is a two-way street. In many cases involving grander issues like race, religion, democracy or liberty, for instance, the causal flow to the other side is greater than the direction that blame-gamers typical take.

However imperfect our democracy is — condemn it as crass majoritarianism all you want — it is a democracy nonetheless. This means the views of real individuals, with real wants and real needs, along with real hope and real fear — like you and I — get represented in the system. Elected individuals in Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat and others as well, largely represent diverse opinions that exist within Malaysian society.

Even if they are not elected, individuals still have voices of their own. There is no reason to discount these voices as irrelevant when it resonates so well with other individuals.

From this perspective, these individuals are effectively proxies within the issues. To put it another way, they are mere reflections of what the society at large thinks. Without issues — the concerns lingering in our society — these proxies will not exist.

Hence, to accuse these proxies as the sources of our problems is effectively an effort to dismiss real issues that real people care for as merely artificial issues created by special interest groups. Such accusations pretend that the other side does not have real concerns.

That path will essentially result in a misdiagnosis of the problem. Based on that misdiagnosis, any solution provided to address the problem will disproportionately take the proxies into account while disproportionately discounting the issues. In the end, the intended result will likely be unsatisfactory because it will address the proxies and not the issues.

Realize that if these proxies are somehow immediately removed while the issues remain unresolved, different players will take over the proxies’ places to champion those issues. If Barisan Nasional were to be done away with, would racial issues disappear? If Pakatan Rakyat were to removed, would the demand for equality suddenly vanish?

It is naïve to answer in the affirmative.

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 January 14 2010.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2149] Of there are Malay alternatives to the term Allah and tuhan

I have clarified my position regarding the usage of the term Allah by Catholic group and by extension, any term by anybody. This reasoning forms the basis of my position not to oppose Catholic group’s use of the term. Indeed, I consider this line of reasoning as not only the most convincing for me, consistent with my wider libertarian philosophy that I hold, it is the only line of reasoning that informs my decision not to oppose it. This is the libertarian position. The purpose of this entry is to address another position regarding the lack of alternative.

First, there are other reasons that have been bandied elsewhere. Arguably, the argument I have seen the most is based on historical development of the Malay Bible. As it goes, certain domination of Christianity — and Sikhs — have been using the term Allah well before the 1980s, when the government first interfered in the issue. Furthermore, the first Bible that used the term Allah to refer to the Christian god was first translated into Malay in the 17th century by a Dutchman as part of Christian evangelization effort in Southeast Asia. Notwithstanding the libertarian position, this argument is acceptable because it appeals to historical accident. Moreover, it demonstrates that the use of the term by Christian, obviously, as not a recent phenomenon. Yet, it fails to kill the suspicion that use of the term Allah is really for proselytizing activities, which is one major problem associated with the whole controversy to start with. This failure what convinces me that this particular rationale as imperfect.

I have no problem with propagation of any religion as long as those religions do not violate liberty but in addressing the issue in Malaysia, the suspicion seriously have to be addressed. To say that there is a law to prevent propagation of other religions among Muslims as an answer to that concern is utterly deficient because — ignoring its anti-liberty rationale — would such law work? Do differentiate the normative and positive aspects.

Despite its failure, I reiterate, the argument based on history may have some sway.

The second argument, which is the purpose of this entry, is the point that there is a lack of alternative to describe the term god. Ignore the fact that terms can be imported from other languages, even the Malay language has alternatives to Allah and tuhan. There are more than two words to describe the idea.

While I set out to disprove the argument that there is no alternative to the word Allah and tuhan in Malay, knowing that there are alternatives, my casual research on the language and terms to describe the idea of god really surprises me even.

Consider the fourth edition of R. O. Winstedt’s An Unabridged English-Malay Dictionary published in 1963. For god, Winstedt listed Allah, tuhan, dewa, dewi, dewata, indera and khalik. These words are detailed by Teuku Iskandar’s Kamus Dewan as published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1970. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka’s Kamus Dwibahasa Bahasa Inggeris-Bahasa Malaysia adds another one and that is betara. This has not even considered other words and phrases like pencipta, tuan and dato’ which can be made to mean the same as god within specific context.

There are also older words like Hyang or Sang Yang that are rarely used but remains Malay nonetheless.

I personally have never encountered the word khalik and betara but that shows how, even for a native speaker of Malay, the full breadth of the language is larger, as it should typically be, than everyday popular vocabulary bank. In this sense, arguing that there is no alternative is an act of sheer arrogance of one’s pool of knowledge. Arrogance can be justified but when it is based on ignorance, then humility must take its place.

Thus, this renders the argument of no alternative to naught. In fact, I consider such argument as a point in ignorance, if not outright dishonesty.

This requires highlight in political terms. Even I as a person who is generally dismissive of religions and its activities and as a libertarian who actually does not oppose the use of the term Allah by Catholic Church in Malaysia am distrustful of the motive behind the employment of the rationale. Consider what would conservative Malay Muslims would think? The label conservative Malay Muslims is rather misleading. A lot of not-so conservative Malay Muslims feel distressed about the issue. I can divorce the flaw of the ”˜no alternative’ argument from my overall position but the less libertarian Malays would not do so and would use it instead to strengthen their illberal opposition.

Using the ”˜no alternative’ argument will just give more fuel to the opposition fire. Not only it defeats effort at bridge building, it helps to popularly defeat libertarian position on the matter.

So, my advice is, do not use the argument that there is no alternative. It is simply not true. Just stick to the historical accident and libertarian arguments.