Category: Society

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.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government Society

[2001] Of Obama in Cairo:best parts

I am watching President Obama’s speech in Cairo live right now, with his prepared text on screen. This is the best part so far for me:

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. [Obama’s Speech in Cairo. Barack Obama. Washington Wire. June 4 2009]

Great to be able to watch the speech online, live:

Public domain

Another great part:

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Next:

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

Near the end:

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[1997] Of a story of abuse of power

Harun al-Rashid, the celebrated ruler who appears in the Tales of a Thousand and One Nights, reigned over an immense empire that stretched right across the Middle East and into Asia. He also won renown as poet and a lover of scholarship. When he was declared Caliph, Harun opened the treasury and distributed prizes to his friends and relatives. He hoped to receive a visit from Sufyan, his former teacher. When Sufyan failed to appear he wrote him a letter and sent a messenger named Abbad to deliver it. Abbad found Sufyan sitting with his companions inside a mosque. When he presented him with the letter Sufyan refused to touch it and instead asked one of his companions to read it for him. The letter said: ‘We await your coming to visit us; we are mindful of the friendship that binds us.’

Sufyan said to his companions: ‘Write my answer on the back of the letter.’ his disciples said, ‘Master you must write to him on a fresh sheet.’ ‘On the back of the sheet,’ he said again. he then dictated the following words: ‘To Harun the misguided, deprived of the sweetness of the Koran. You have opened the treasury of the believers and distributed its funds to gratify your desires. Have you asked permission of the widows and the orphans?’ and so on in this manner, concluding: ‘as for friendship, we have broken it off; no tie or affection binds us now. Do not write to us again; for if you do, we shall neither read your letter nor reply to it.’

After seeing this, Abbad went to the market, where he replaced his clothing with cheaper clothes. When he returned with the letter to al-Rashid, the Caliph understood the meaning of Abbad’s change of appearance and cried out, ‘The messenger has succeeded where his master has failed.’ When the Caliph read it he burst into tears and wept in the most piteous fashion. His courtiers said, ‘Sufyan has demonstrated his impertinence; have someone fetch him here.’ ‘Silence,’ said al-Rashid, ‘ for you are the ones who have misguided me.’ Harun preserved Sufyan’s letter and would take it out from time to time to read it. [Page 43-44. Chapter 4: The Servant State. Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government. Geoff Mulgan]