Category: Society

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1875] Of time to kill it

I am sympathetic to the Pakatan Rakyat. I helped one of their candidates during the last general elections and I hang around with people from Pakatan too often. That however does not mean that I need to agree with every little thing the component parties of the Pakatan hold. I for one categorically oppose implementation of hudud as it currently being proposed and indeed, the imposition of any religious ideal upon free individuals. For this reason, I am afraid that I have to write this, especially after Anwar Ibrahim states that PKR would not reject hudud outright and that it would only be application to Muslims. I would like both PAS and PKR to be punished for their position on hudud.

Before anything else, the importance of this election has been grossly overblown. It means nothing to both BN and Pakatan on the margin. Victory by any side does not change the balance of power in the Dewan Rakyat. BN will still hold the majority power at the end of the day.

A win by PAS will of course reduce the number of seats Pakatan requires to takeover the federal government via mass defection of BN members of Parliament to Pakatan. However, if there is anyone among us who still believes in that possibility, all I can say is that winter has passed and summer is nigh. Wake up and smell the roses.

Even within Pakatan, this election is meaningless on the margin. A win by PAS does nothing in rearranging the fact that PAS is the junior partner. PKR and DAP will remain the bigger component parties in Pakatan regardless of the outcome for the Kuala Terengganu by-election.

For BN, is this a referendum on the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak since that he is the designated Prime Minister of Malaysia come this March?

I am always wary of a small by-election with an awfully limited and biased sample being used as a referendum of national proportions. Not only turning this little by-election into a national referendum is statistically flawed, the BN candidate has been labeled as the BN President’s man rather than Najib Razak’s.

And of course, this by-election is not a referendum on hudud either. Hudud, as journalists on the ground have it, is hardly an issue at all. Bread-and-butter matters dominate the list of concerns of the electorate.

The issue of hudud itself cropped out almost by accident. It seemed almost like a trap set by Khairy Jamaluddin on Husam Musa in a public forum in Kota Bahru back in December. The former asked the latter if PAS would implement hudud if the party became part of the federal government. If it was a trap in the first place, Husam Musa certainly took the bait by answering it in the positive. Immediately after that, BN, especially MCA, has been milking the issue ever since.

I would like to risk digression by stating that, with little backbone, MCA hardly has the moral authority to question DAP’s position on hudud. MCA should ask UMNO on items like the use of Chinese language, on Chinese school and on Ketuanan Melayu among other things. Or even hudud for that matter.

The courageousness of MCA notwithstanding, it is with great regret that the wedge is being driven in between Pakatan so deeply at the most inopportune time much to the benefit of BN. Hudud is exactly the same issue which brought Barisan Alternatif to its demise some years ago. Hudud has been the item that plagues the unity between DAP, PKR and PAS and it is because of this hudud needs to be erased from the agenda of Pakatan.

After some years since the collapse of Barisan Alternatif, Anwar Ibrahim brought everybody far and wide together sufficiently tightly to stand up against BN. What Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad identified as big tent politics worked beyond skeptics’ wildest dreams. What happened next was sheer delight: March 8 2008 radically changed the whole dynamic of suffocating local politics, thanks to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. BN was downright humbled.

It has been more than 10 months now since the last general election and the scenario of January 2009 is very different from March 2008. The same impetus to support PAS as part of the Pakatan coalition is simply not there. Win or lose, January 17 in Kuala Terengganu simply does not share or even come near to the significance and the urgency of March 8. Therefore, those who disagree with PAS have the luxury to not come to the aid of PAS. Pakatan simply can afford to lose the by-election simply because the election is meaningless.

While Kuala Terengganu is not a referendum on hudud, it certainly could give some signal that could alter future actions. The right signal — a loss to PAS — could inform future election campaigns not to put hudud on the agenda. A loss in Kuala Terengganu for Pakatan could kill hudud off as an agenda of Pakatan for a very long time and hence, save the coalition from future disaster that befell upon Barisan Alternatif.

And the stage in Kuala Terengganu offers the opportunity for a kill since non-Muslims are seen as the kingmakers there.

This is where the idea that hudud only affects Muslims comes into play. The idea aims to reduce apprehension the non-Muslim community in voting PAS while the party advocates for the implementation of hudud, regardless of its afterthought qualifications. In order to kill off hudud as an agenda of Pakatan and save Pakatan from the fate of Barisan Alternatif, the repulsive idea that the non-Muslim community is decoupled from the Muslim community must be killed first.

The problem with the argument hudud only affects Muslims assumes that all Muslims are for the implementation of hudud. I definitely would not mind if hudud is implemented as long as individuals, and not at the community level, could choose between hudud — and truly, sharia — and secular civil laws. I would not mind if hudud is implemented as long as I could choose between hudud and secular civil law. Under the current proposal, I and many others do not get that choice.

I have also mentioned this before but just to stress it again, the argument that non-Muslims need not worry with the implementation of hudud also builds unnecessary walls among Malaysians, further dividing an already divided society. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine how the minority will be left unaffected if there is great development within the majority community.

If the non-Muslims are prepared to buy that argument set forth by PAS and PKR that hudud only concerns Muslims while ignoring the fact that under the proposal, Muslims who prefer secular environment instead would be forcefully subjected to religious laws, well, perhaps we all should put blind eyes to each other’s problems. If my problem is not yours, then the discrimination that the non-Malays suffer is not my problem either. Each time you suffer injustice, too bad because it shall not be mine. Those are non-Muslim problem and so, why should I care at all?

Is that the new arrangement you prefer? Shall we make that as the basis of our social contract, our new constitution?

If the answer is no, then PAS must lose in Kuala Terengganu. It is regrettable that implication is victory for BN especially when it is becoming clear that BN has learned nothing from March 8. Nevertheless, I am unwilling to sacrifice my ideal for too much political expediency. There is such thing as a limit and this whole issue on hudud, as especially the argument brought forward by PAS and supported by PKR, has gone over and beyond mine.

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 January 12 2009.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1868] Of they want to divide us, rule over us and steal from us

It is common for advocates of a greater role for Islam in the public sphere in Malaysia to hold the position that any such expansion concerns only Muslims and no one else. Since it concerns only Muslims and hence internal matters, others identified as outsiders need not be concerned or participate in any discussion about the expansion.

While it is an attractive take on the issue — especially in a country like Malaysia where racial and religious issues are a powder keg — because it minimizes the potential for inter-communal exchange, it insidiously threatens individual liberty.

When the religious edicts on tomboys and yoga were issued, ABIM expressed its dissatisfaction against adherents of other beliefs criticizing the rulings. In the matter of implementation of hudud, PAS tried to coax the non-Muslims from opposing the party by stating only Muslims would come under the jurisdiction of such a law. Others who share a religious conservative outlook but have little or no association with ABIM or PAS have aired similar views.

The underlying rationale that outsiders need not worry is the idea that a community is presumed to be homogenous and specific rules apply to the community. Those outside of the community have no locus standi in expressing their opinion on the internal matters of the community.

In the case of those sympathizing with the argument of ABIM and PAS, the homogeneity is based on being Muslims. Or rather, more accurately, the prerequisite for membership into the community is for one to be recorded as a Muslim by the state. Actual personal belief itself is mostly irrelevant since the Constitution of Malaysia establishes Malays as automatically Muslims. Sincere conscience is only a childish concern belonging to the Wonderland where Alice lives.

Upon the clear demarcation of this imaginary boundary, it sets the stage for them to impose religious rules over the community. What the limitation does is that it shuts out considerable opposition to the agenda of expansion from participating in the debate on the roles of religion in the public sphere. In doing so, it weakens the group of individuals deemed as insiders opposing the expansion, which erodes individual liberty through legitimization of coercion to create uniformity. It separates the liberty-conscious individuals from their allies, forcing those who guard their liberty jealously to stand alone against tyranny. After all, the best way to transgress individual rights is to use majority power to bully the minority.

The creation of an insider-outsider dichotomy and exclusion of outsiders from participating in the supposedly internal discussion is also a sign of intolerance of criticism. Rather than deal with the criticism through frank discussion, voices other than theirs are suppressed.

This division is a classic case of divide and rule. It was applied by the colonial administrators of the 19th- and 20th-century Malaya in order to keep the locals easier to manage. Barisan Nasional with its racial-based political parties continued to practice the same policy to much success until recently. Now, here we are witnessing yet another group trying to do the same thing all over again.

It is through divide and rule that those pushing for greater roles of religion in public space insist that a community — the Muslim community in Malaysia — has a right to manage its own affairs without intervention from outsiders. Following the same track, these advocates would like to have the community be regulated by a standard which they would like to see imposed on all individuals unlucky enough to be deemed by them as members of the community.

These advocates may seem to fight for their community’s interest. There is nothing wrong in promoting the interest of a community in itself however but the danger here is when that interest flagrantly infringes on individual rights. It is worse when the promoters claim to fight for the community when a significant fraction within the community itself vehemently disagrees with the agenda of the promoters.

When the interest of any group seeks to submit individuals to the group’s desire, the interest has just turned into a form of oppression.

Oppression is not an exclusive concern of those labeled as Muslims and it certainly is not a concept exclusive to this issue. It could happen anywhere and anytime. It could happen in any community.

There are various diverse communities in this country but when there is threat against individual liberty in any community, then there is only one big community and that community is Malaysian society. Niemöller’s “First They Came”¦” poem succinctly describes why that is true.

Besides, those recognized as Muslims by the state undoubtedly make up the majority of the population. How is it possible for anybody to honestly believe that the minority groups would be left unaffected when something happens to the majority? Have we forgotten the controversy revolving around religious conversion or morals?

Most disappointingly, the argument set forth by the advocates is trapped in a communal worldview. Everything must be viewed in terms of community. This narrow worldview generalizes the individuals as drones, incapable of individuality. This is perhaps the legacy of years of the implementation of the divide and rule policy either by the British colonialist or Barisan Nasional.

The greatest victims are the individuals, and individuals must transcend the self-limiting communal thinking. The so-called internal matter ceases to be internal when it threatens individual liberty.

The transcendence, if it has not begun yet, begins by rejecting the rationale that outsiders have no standing to comment on the supposedly internally matters of the local Muslim community. It is imperative for the argument be rejected for its naive flaws, thrown out of the window for its frightening implications and into the fire for its insidious intents, especially when it adversely affects individual liberty.

And here is where the irony sets in. While the advocates seek to shut what they consider as outsiders out from discussions, they themselves are busy trying to regulate the moral and beliefs of private individuals. These advocates need to take a hard look into the mirror before labeling others as outsiders. The reason is that the only insider is the individual and everything else is the outsider, especially the busybody.

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 December 29 2009.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1860] Of we are all for hudud goddamnit

Deputy President of Barisan Nasional and UMNO Najib Razak verbally attacked PAS after Husam Musa declared that PAS would continue to fight for the implementation of hudud in this country:

“In the last election, PAS used the slogan welfare state. They did not bring up the issue of hudud but before that they did. Now it seems like the party leaders want to implement hudud,”

“This is a matter of credibility. Hudud is used as a political slogan only but nothing is implemented by them,” said Najib. [Najib: Pas using hudud as a political slogan. Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani. The Malaysian Insider. December 22 2008]

Okay. Regardless, all the more reason to make sure PAS is always the junior partner of any coalition. But with UMNO supporting hudud, keeping advocates of hudud as a junior partner might be tough.

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 22 – Kelantan Umno will lobby the federal government to allow the Islamist party Pas to introduce hudud law, which prescribes stoning, whipping and amputation as punishment for criminal offences, in what will certainly spark intense debate and rouse opposition from non-Muslims.

The Malaysian Insider understands the Kelantan state Umno leadership is planning to declare their support, which comes on the heels of Pas vice president Datuk Husam Musa’s admission on Saturday that his party would introduce hudud if it wins federal power. [Kelantan Umno backs hudud. Leslie Lau. The Malaysian Insider. December 22 2008]

Oh, the shock. But could this be a slogan too?

Categories
Education Society

[1855] Of celebrating a blackeye to racial chauvinism

I am guilty. I am guilty of grinning when I found out that the Malaysian education system is maintaining English as the medium of instruction for science and mathematics in the primary and secondary levels.[1]

I am guilty because despite preferring for the courses to be taught in the language best comprehended by the students, I actually find myself in a celebratory mood upon learning the decision of the ministry.

I am guilty because despite preferring for English to be properly taught as a course of it own, I am satisfied with the outcome of the roundtable meeting.

I am guilty because despite comprehending why forcing students to learn science and mathematics in a language which many students find themselves struggling in may hurt their interest and comprehension in those subjects, I give today’s decision two thumbs up.

I am guilty because despite preferring the schools themselves to decide their medium of instruction, I am relieved that the medium remains English.

I am guilty because despite being a fan of charter schools, I am glad the state stands firm in its action.

I am guilty because despite the fact that I fought for autonomy for the Malay College and supportive of its wider implication in the name of fairness, English is the language.

I am guilty because despite calling myself a libertarian, I appreciate the state’s action.

Why am I so guilty of contraction and yet, unremorseful?

It is because it is not everyday one could shove so many chauvinists around. To all sides, at the same time, to boot. This chance only happens once in a blue moon.

It is true not all who oppose having English as a medium of instruction are chauvinists. Many like friend Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad opposes it because he first hand witnesses how the policy hurts academic performance and interest in classes of Malaysian children born to not-so-well-off parents. These people are honest people and I sympathize with their position. Furthermore, honestly, frankly, I prefer the reversion of the status quo to the previous state because the previous state comes closer to my ideal.

Yet, I also note that many of those opposing the policies are chauvinists with overtly racial worldview, if not downright racist. It is against this people that I gloat against, not to the sincere supporters of reversion.

To the others, I deeply apologize.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA, Dec 16 — Maintaining the current practice of teaching science and maths in English is the most popular choice among education stakeholders.

This was the general sentiment at a roundtable meeting held today to debate seven options on the medium of instruction for the two subjects.

The stakeholders present, which included parents, politicians and teachers, and their consensus for the English policy to be maintained, will be the strongest reason for the government to maintain the status quo. [English it is. Shannon Teoh. Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani. The Malaysian Insider. December 16 2008]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Photography Society

[1853] Of it has no religion

This was the Wall Street Journal Asia in the week of the attack on Mumbai.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Not that I fully agree with it but I thought it sufficiently captures that there are oppositions among Muslims against the use of terror, contrary to accusation that terror happens because the moderates do not voice their opposition out. One form of the accusations, sadly, came from Friedman the other day:

On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai? [Calling All Pakistanis. Thomas Friedman. December 2 2008]

I deeply disagree with Friedman.

I disagree here not to defend Pakistanis or Muslims but rather, the logic used. It paints as if there is passive support among moderate Muslims of terrorism. As if, moderate Muslims need to employ the childishness of those whom violently protested the Danish cartoon to express their disagreement to the use of terror.