Category: Society

Categories
Personal Society

[2039] Of ghost unseen in a cold Sydney

While I am excited to see the constellations above my head change yet again, I had some consternation about living in Australia for an extended period. Weeks prior to actually first setting my feet Down Under and even days after my arrival, allegations of Australian racism and xenophobia constantly kept my enthusiasm in check.

I would like to think that my reaction is only natural after Indian students not too long ago alleged that they were victims of racism in Australia. Who would not feel so especially if one is unfamiliar with Australian society?

For those who kept abreast with news aboard, they would surely be aware that Indian students in Australia several weeks ago organised several protests — with the largest in Sydney — to highlight what they felt as racially motivated attacks against the Indian community. It was so well highlighted that the whole issue amounted to a minor diplomatic row between Australia and India. It was big enough a brouhaha that the prime ministers of both countries contacted each other, with Kevin Rudd trying to assure Manmohan Singh of the safety of Indian students.

With respect to the protests, the Rudd administration said all the right things and it was a comfortable thing to here. Yet, that is mere politics and it may not necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. As a Malaysian who has lived through one of the most disappointing administrations in Malaysian history, it is easy for me to be sceptical of the words of any government; that attitude only doubles whatever scepticism against the state I have that stems from libertarian tradition.

To be fair, the issue faced by Indian students may be slightly more complex than a simple case of racism. Considerable number of Indians stayed in unsafe areas and this probably contributed to the occurrence of crime that they suffered. There is plethora of other factors too but all of it seems to be specific to the Indian community. And so, I thought, perhaps it was best that I should not be overly worried about the matter.

Yet, anecdotes from friends forced me to rethink about my concern.

During one of those late-nights meet-up with what now to me yet again feels like food served in heaven meant for the gods on our tables, a Malaysian friend of Chinese ethnicity complained how Australia is unbelievably racist. Undergoing his undergraduate studies in the United States, it was the summer holidays and he spent his time visiting his sister in Australia. While I do think he enjoyed his visit, he was clearly disturbed by what he believed was the worst racial abuse he had ever received. A six-year old Australian called him a chink.

Or as he vividly put it, ”A six-year old! Imagine that!” with arms in the air.

He went on to warn me to prepare myself. Among friends in a familiar environment, which was one of Kuala Lumpur’s popular suburbs, I could afford to laugh it off. Now that I find myself in the middle of Sydney and strangers, I am beginning to think it was not as funny as I found it first to be.

Perhaps, it is gross generalisation but a new friend of mine that I met in Sydney suggested that Australians have issues with Chinese from China in particular. He stated that the unfriendly attitude that that Chinese Malaysian friend of mine suffered in Australia was probably due to the inability of Australians to differentiate between overseas Chinese and Chinese from China. I am quite unsure why some Australians have issues with Chinese citizens but I will surely learn more about it later.

Amid that, it calls to mind a racially motivated riot in Cronulla that occurred in 2005 when I was an undergraduate student in the United States. And then, there is Pauline Hanson in the 1990s, a politician who perhaps symbolises not just racism but xenophobia at large in Australia.

All that was enough to convince me to keep my guard up the minute I stepped out of Sydney Airport.

I suppose my current path is similar to the one I took back in 2001 when I found myself adjusting to life in the US with the Sept 11 attacks in the background. Many Malaysians warned me to be careful but while the concern was legitimate, and profiling at airports did occur, time spent in the US was the happiest in my life so far. Rather than suffering xenophobic abuse, I found the US a welcoming place where I enjoyed the greatest freedom I have ever had in my life.

I am beginning to feel confident that my same experience in the US will repeat itself in Australia. I am confident because in spite of my fear of becoming a victim of racism or xenophobia in general, I am happy to state that I have not to suffer any racial abuse so far. People have generally been friendly and helpful. New friends, especially, who I have made are warm enough that I think fighting the winter in Sydney will be a walk in the park.

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 20 2009.

Categories
Society

[2030] Of Gender-based quota is counter-productive

We live in a world full of inequality in terms of rights and opportunities. For those who care, it is only natural for them to address it and one of the tools available to correct the inequality is affirmative action. While the tool can be useful at creating an egalitarian society, it is imperative for us to note that certain injustices do arise as a response to previous inequality or injustice. This needs to be avoided.

Two wrongs make a right: this is one of the dangers of race-based affirmative action in Malaysia. It is also one of the dangers of setting aside a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making in the government. An attempt to introduce such quotas as part of gender-based affirmative action is a policy of reverse discrimination, and hence an unjust policy.

The biggest issue about setting aside quotas for any particular group is about meritocracy. Specifically, it revolves around the availability of qualified talent within that group. The question is all the more relevant in critical areas like decision-making where competency in a particular subject is a requirement in designing good public policy. For us to move forward, we need the best individuals to articulate our public policy. Any intention to take into account factors that may deprive the government from the best talent should only be considered after thorough thinking.

If the quota is set in place, and if there are not enough qualified women to fill the quota, then those who are responsible for achieving the quota will fill the designated space with token candidates. This will be a recipe for disastrous decision-making and public policy. Or at the very least, these token candidate will not be able contribute to the kind of discussions required to form good public policy and decisions.
The quota also prevents the best, regardless of gender, from taking their rightful place. This is an act of injustice to those who are more than qualified to occupy a decision-making position but are denied that position because they belong to the wrong gender.

The formulation of good policies is in the interest of all residents of Malaysia, especially citizens. It is for this reason that the 30 per cent participation quota in decision-making for women is not exclusively a women matter. We live in an interdependent world. Decision-making in the government can affect each and every one of us. This is especially so if blunt policies are preferred to precise ones since precise policies and decision-making require highly knowledgeable policymakers.

This is not to say that women are not capable. Far from it, enough women have proven their credentials to make the reverse true. Rather, these competencies are likely gender neutral. It is this neutrality that allows capable women — or simply, capable persons — to prove themselves in the free market without prejudice. Any capable person can compete fairly in a merit-based system and need not rely on special provisions, as usually provided by affirmative action, to rise through the ranks.

Institution of an affirmative action that is based on a kind of equality of outcome may open capable women to unfair generalisation. Just as successful Malays are susceptible to the accusation that they are successful mostly due to affirmative action instead of effort, the introduction of a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making will do the same thing to capable women.

There are better ways to address inequality and downright discrimination that exists across gender. It involves a shift of focus from equality of outcome to equality of opportunities. By equality of opportunities, in this context, it means no discrimination based on gender. In fact, a society that embraces the concept of equality of rights that is a mere extension to the idea of individual liberty must eliminate such discrimination.

Along with equality of opportunities, what is more useful in addressing low representation of women in decision-making levels is the empowerment of women. This calls for awareness of opportunities that exist as well as, perhaps more importantly, access to education. Building capability or any other effort at organic improvement is more meaningful and more sustainable than achieving some sort of equality dictated from the top.

Once equality of opportunities and empowerment of women are truly done, then there is no reason why women participation in decision-making should be at only 30 per cent, given that women make up roughly half of the Malaysian population. The organic solutions will improve the participation rate without resorting to unjust reverse discrimination. It will also ensure those participating in various decision-making levels truly belong there, regardless of gender.

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 9 2009.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2021] Of we, the people

If you had switched on the television, listened to the radio or read the newspapers for the past number of weeks, you may have noticed how so many individuals and entities are claiming to represent the people. The people wish for this and the people wish for that but oddly enough, your wish never coincides with that of the people.

So, who exactly are these people?

There are incessant talks of the people’s opinion. It is in the air but it is just not there. It is as elusive as god, or Shangri-La, or El Dorado, or the princess on top of Ledang, or simply a dodo bird.

More confusingly, somebody claiming to speak for the people would say one thing and then another somebody would insist the people seek another different agenda altogether. It is almost hilarious how the people would hold diametrically opposing thoughts at a particular point in time without a pause for reflection. It seems that contradiction is of no concern to the people. Unless if these representatives are telling convoluted truth.

We could gauge the people’s opinion and ignore the representatives. In this country however, the absence of free press and liberty in general generates a reason to be skeptical of any sampling done to measure public opinion. Instead of reflecting the public opinion, such sampling is used to shape the opinion of the masses.

Furthermore, the culture of gauging public opinion through the use of good sampling method is not widespread in Malaysia. Or at least, the organizers of the poll do not have the reputation of neutrality and the desire to produce reliable and trustworthy surveys. Thus, public surveys forever skillfully evade the opinion of those that actually make up the people.

But who needs surveys anyway. There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics, so said Benjamin Disraeli.

And so, our only recourse is the self-proclaimed representatives of the people that, if I may, are popping like mushrooms after the rain lately. The problem is, I do not remember electing these representatives to speak for me. In fact, I do not recall of them winning elections to public offices. Yet, they claim to speak for the people. They certainly do not represent me but maybe, I am just not part of the people.

Here’s a question: do they speak for you? Are you part of this elusive “people”? Let me put it this way — take a breath — the representatives speak for the people and you are part of the people but the representatives do not speak for you. Huh?

Something is terribly wrong here, do you not think so?

The truth is numbers as well as perception matter and there are those that seek to create the illusion of numbers. It is far easier to make claim that millions of people support an individual rather than having that individual going down to the ground to convince the people to join his cause. This has encouraged many to abuse the phrase “the people”, even when the people — you and I and some dudes out there collectively — have nothing to do with those self-elected and unsanctioned representatives.

On top of that, there are those that — sincerely confused or otherwise — think that society is a monolithic entity. To refer to the people as a monolithic entity sadly falsely assumes that there is uniformity of opinion within the society. It ignores the diversity of opinion of the people. To me personally, it gravely disrespects individuality; it is an insult to intelligence.

The people are not of one mind; they are of millions.

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

First published in Bolehland on December 17 2007.

Categories
ASEAN Society

[2014] Of between justice, welfare of children and Indonesia

I blew up this morning when I read a legal counsel of a person who grievously harmed another person requested for the judge to show leniency. The lawyer reasoned that the perpetrator is a single mother, implying that the welfare of her two children is at risk if the system punishes her too harshly. The audacity shown by the lawyer is deplorable.

KUALA LUMPUR: A former real estate agent has claimed trial in the Sessions Court to hurting her Indonesian maid Siti Hajar Sadli with hot water, a hammer and scissors.

[…]

Counsel M. Manoharan, however, asked the court to consider his client’s status as a single mother and that she has two young children, including an autistic son, to take care of. [Real estate agent claims trial to charges of abuse and failing to get work permit. M. Mageswari. The Star. June 19 2009]

I want to make it clear that I would like the law to apply the greatest of weight against the single mother for the physical harm she inflicted on her maid, a fellow human being. This however does not mean the welfare of her children should not be factored in any judgment.

It is utterly unfair to punish innocent children indirectly for a crime committed by others. Yet, this is a regrettable negative externality the children and our society have to suffer.

The role of the society here is not to eliminate that negative externality — assuming the single mother is a good mother; an assumption I take only with heavy heart — but to try to limit it. Elimination of that negative externality means letting the criminal that she is off the hook. That will offer bad example to others who are  or plan to show no respect for another human being’s safety. Strong, forceful signal has to be sent by the system so that others will think twice about hurting another human being, specifically against foreign maids within our context.

By limiting, I mean to suggest that the State has to find a way to ensure the welfare of the children are taken care of. One way, which I most prefer, is to a find relative of the mother who is willing to take the children in and take for them. If that fails, the State may find family or individuals with good record and financial standing who wants to explore the option of adoption. If all else fails, the State simply, unfortunately, have to take care of the children. This perhaps stresses on the importance of a care system for children but that is a huge issue that deserves an essay of its own that I will not discuss further here.

Finally, I want to digress but yet make an important point. Any decision of the court gives signal not only to Malaysian society and particularly to employers who treat their maids subhumanly. It will also give signal to Indonesia. Malaysia already has a bad reputation in Indonesia for, among others, this kind of crime committed on their citizenship who come to Malaysia in search of better life. Already, nationalistic Indonesians are clamoring for proverbial Malaysians blood. Any leniency will unnecessarily fuel that nationalistic sentiment. But of course, the court should not consider populism as a factor in deciding a case.

And that is okay. Justice simply will have to be served and the mother punished.

Categories
History & heritage Society

[2002] Of move on

Members of the older generations generally adopt a paternalistic attitude towards the younger generations when discussing the history of this country. It is true that not all of them assume that attitude but come Aug 31 and without fail, there is no escape from hearing the same old lament, especially in the media. Not to deny the importance of history, but perhaps it is exactly that disconnect from history allegedly prevalent among the younger generations that may bring this country forward.

While there are those among the younger generations who are no doubt ignorant of history, I do not fully agree with the accusation that all members of these generations are guilty as accused. The whole generalization is grossly overdone. Furthermore, even when a member of the younger generation has better knowledge of history compared to his or her older counterparts, the same paternalistic attitude prevails on the latter’s part. Why is that so?

Purely speculative of course but I suspect that it is emotional detachment of the younger generations from the old eras that the older generations lament. The young simply do not relate to the older generations’ experience. The more I think of it, the more I feel that it is not about the young’s knowledge in history.

Without making judgment, that detachment is inevitable.

Many problems besetting our society are something we inherited from the past. These are legacy issues. As Billy Joel wrote about 20 years ago, we did not start the fire; it has always been burning since the world was turning. When I use the pronoun we, I mean my generation and our peers who grew up during the information revolution, young enough to not have emotional attachment to the bogeyman that haunts Malaysian society.

There is certainly no shortage of legacy issues even when those issues which supposedly settled. For proof, look no farther than an old ghost called communism that has seen a resurrection recently. Judging by bitter responses to a suggestion to allow former Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng to return home from exile, especially from veterans of the security forces, old hurtful feelings obviously linger still. Time fails in healing old wounds.

For the generations that lived through the Emergency and indeed, unlucky enough to remember the gap between the last day of the Japanese Occupation and the eve of the British Military Administration in Malaya, nobody can deny their emotional attachment to that era. The attachment is far stronger if they suffered from personal loss. While the younger generations can learn history from any medium, it is hard to imagine how the same generations can grasp the same emotional connection the older generations have.

Maybe, the older generations with their personal emotional attachment to that era earned a right to assume a paternalistic attitude.

Nevertheless, the young’s emotional detachment does not always bring about a negative connotation. I am here to argue that that emotional detachment might exactly be an advantage the younger generations have to judge previous successes and mistakes objectively and to produce new paths forward for the country.

Emotional attachment of the older generations may become a liability for us all in times when progress means breaking away from the past. Strong emotional attachment may give unnecessary extra weight to historical factors at the expense of new realities. And perhaps, their emotional attachment make them hopelessly partial about their past successes and mistakes.

Consider, for instance, what I consider as an overemphasis on communism. Despite the brouhaha, how many Malaysians actually believe that the communists will take up arms in Malaysia again? Do we really need to have the police to monitor so-called communist activities?

As a steadfast believer of the right to private property, I vehemently oppose communism but surely, this scare is something irrelevant today. I personally do befriend individuals who maintain communist tendency but I do not seriously expect them to call me a capitalist pig, much less pick up a bayonet to stick it into my gut.

With all due respect, anybody who believes otherwise in these days is far too detached from reality. Concern about the communists taking up arms in Malaysia — even if Chin Peng finds himself in Malaysia — should be an issue that goes all the way down in the public priority list compared to issues of public safety, for instance. Or that lemon socialism and other possible improprieties related to the Port Klang Free Zone fiasco.

As for me, I fear robbers and murderers more than I fear the communists. In fact, I fear the odds of the police abusing private citizens are much, much higher than the chance of a Malaysia getting killed by a communist.

I find this preoccupation with threat of communism all the more ridiculous when the same groups riling against communism are blind to the central planning policies that the Barisan Nasional-led government currently runs on. Look all around and it is not hard to notice policies of price control, supply control, imposition of quotas and five-year plans. Worse, our own government has no shame in curtailing the liberty of Malaysians. A communist government would do these things anyway.

And so, we won the war against the communists for what? To exile Chin Peng only to implement policies that the communists will implement, anyway?

It does not make sense, does it?

This is what one gets if one bases his or her opposition on emotions. This is why emotional attachment is a liability. This is why the young, with their emotional detachment to that bygone era, will be able to move on to focus on issues that matter and discuss the future of this country instead.

I say move on.

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 June 3 2009.