Category: Society

Categories
Society

[1850] Of cosmopolitan Malaysia

As I prepare to leave this country once again for another land, I have rediscovered how diverse the Malaysian society truly is. There are individuals coming from all kinds of background speaking languages of the world. Give it a decade or two and I could see the demographics of this country changing due to immigration — legal or otherwise — from various countries, be it Nepal, Bangladesh or some countries in Europe.

Malaysia has always been at the crossroad of trade. The history of this country is closely associated with the volume of trade. The prominence of various states from Srivijaya to Malacca to the current day Malaysia all is linked to trade. Malaysia itself only truly assumed its place in the world after it dropped its import substitution policy in favor of export-driven policy.

While trade brings wealth, it is larger than simple exchanges of goods and services. As individuals interact with each other to complete various transactions, news and ideas are passed along. It is inevitable for a country so open to trade to welcome foreigners into the land. Some of these foreigners will fall in love with new land and adopt it as their own. Some others would be less romantic and stay here out of necessity.

Despite trouble plaguing the country, Malaysia is the land of opportunity in Asia, perhaps paralleling the United States of America in one way or another.

The history of the Straits Chinese and the Krintangs, to name a few, are testaments to this. The existence of Chinatown, Little India and even Jalan Silang, on top of what traditionally known as native culture, further stresses the diversity of this country.

The continuous intermingling of people will inevitably see the definition of native culture to evolve. It will become more inclusive to accommodate what was used to be considered as foreign. The evolution of the Malay language is a perfect example of such accommodation. The Malay culture itself has adopted cultures from the east to the west during its long history. The evolution is still ongoing.

Opposition to such accommodation may occur. The opposition however, though sometimes could be excessively xenophobic, helps in defining the path of the accommodation. Regardless the path, the destination is almost assured to be greater integration.

The Chinese and the Indians previously viewed as immigrants have been accepted as citizens of this country long ago. While there are those who view these groups as immigrants still, the idea that they are citizens of this country entitled to equal rights is there to challenge the conservatives.

The conservative individuals would continue to oppose the idea but I think the United States is a good example of how the future of equal citizenship is inevitable. And we really do not need to spend centuries to reach where the United States finds itself at the moment simply because we began our journey on a higher ground.

Considerable number of Malaysians, even the conservatives, may be on the verge of coming to term of the inevitability of right egalitarian in Malaysia. The reason is that a new generation is gradually taking over this country. And each new generation, in my humble opinion, has proven to be more opened than their predecessors.

The greater openness is a natural progression of being the benefactors of freer trade and higher education. This opens up the mind of the individuals — the notion of equal rights for all citizens is fast gaining currency and will continue to do so each time a new generation is born to assume the driver seat. Undoubtedly however several issues including the matters on vernacular education will bog down the path to right egalitarian society. Bog it will but stop it will not.

The new challenge is now to learn to accept non-citizens living in this country as individuals. These non-citizens are new migrants of which a majority of them taking up low paying jobs. Just like there are opposition to accepting the Chinese and the Indians as equal citizens of this country, they seem to be opposition of treating these non-citizens more humanely.

For a country which a majority of its people is historically linked to migration of the past, the xenophobic attitude adopted against foreigners, especially against non-western foreigners, is hypocritical.

The xenophobic attitude is easily visible.

It is not at all unusually for locals to blame foreigners for crime committed when in fact most crimes are committed by the locals itself. Not only that most crimes are committed by locals, crimes committed by foreigners are proportionately lower than crimes committed by locals. Yet, the notion that foreigners bring excessive trouble to this country continues to hold sway in spite of data. So, one has to wonder whether the attitude is due to unreasonable bias or real concern for crime rate.

In times when economic uncertainty is in the air, it is a minister no less who said if retrenchment happens, foreign workers should be retrenched first. The issue of retrenchment should be an issue handled by the owners of business and not the government because it is the business owners who face the direct prospect of loss. Yet, here we have a minister — Dr. Subramaniam of the MIC — trying to interfere in the management of business to ensure foreigners suffer first. Chua Soi Lek of the MCA too expressed the same sentiment not too long ago.

This is already on top of the typical protectionist accusation that foreigners are stealing jobs from the locals when in fact, many of the jobs taken up by these foreigners are the jobs the locals mostly are uninterested of. The accusation happens while the massive net contributions foreign workers made to the Malaysian economy are conveniently ignored.

Never mind the fact that the Malaysian economy is possibly operating at full employment at the moment and that demands for more workers are left unfulfilled. The couple of months ahead are likely to see some unfavorable fluctuation to hurt both local and foreign workers but the long term trend is likely to see the demand for workers exceeding the capability of the local market to supply it.

And then there is the issue of how some Malaysians treat some of the foreign workers. It is a relief how the Malaysian court finally set a huge example by sentencing housewife Yim Pek Ha to 18 years of imprisonment for grossly abusing her former Indonesian maid, Nirmala Bonat. Malaysians like Ms. Yim need to realize that individuals like Ms. Nirmala, though foreigners working as a lowly maid, are human beings too. Not just Ms. Yim needs to become cognizant of this, Rela with is abysmal records on treatment of foreigners also must be reminded of it.

Like it or not, some of these foreigners may one day become the citizens of this countries, just like the economic migrants of the 19th century. There will be Nepali Malaysians, Bangladeshi Malaysians, Pakistani Malaysians, Burmese Malaysians, etc. To degrade them is to degrade the story of origin many Malaysians share.

The less talked migration is the one involving citizens of the developed countries relocating to Malaysia. While the Nepalis and the Bangladeshis fill the lower niches, these migrants from developed and rich countries mostly fill the other end, bringing capital as well as valuable expertise with them. The Malaysian government encourages this kind of immigration by the Arabs, the British, the Dutch and the likes through the Malaysia My Second Home program.

Even without the MMSH program, I have already met several individuals born not as Malaysians but have lived as Malaysians far longer than I have been a Malaysian.

And not too long ago, I met an Indian Malaysian with German as her mother tongue. I could only manage to say guten tag while astonished as the diversity that exists at a very micro level. Or perhaps, I was just caught by her beauty and that is all.

All the little things happening on the ground will affect the bigger picture soon or later.

By the time I return to Malaysia some years in the future, I do not think I would be surprise at the demographics of Malaysia then. In fact, I would be excited.

The prospect of a new demographic composition is refreshing for me because it has the potentially of assaulting the old debate about race and ethnicity, forcing both the Malays and the non-Malays traditionally made up of Chinese and Indians to rethink the stale rationale they employ against its others. It will force those with racialist worldview to reassess their idea of Malaysia.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty Society

[1848] Of Sultan of Selangor’s definition recalls the Malay Annals

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah of Selangor defines the social contract as “compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.”[1]

This is a new definition when compared to the typical understanding of the subject. The conventional understanding refers to the willingness of the Malays to accept various non-native migrants as citizens on the condition that the special position of the Malays is respected always.[2]

I do not agree to such unwritten contract. The only contract I hold is the non-aggression axiom, which in many ways given the current environment, it satisfyingly embedded in the Constitution. There is room for improvement but the Constitution does provide a good point to begin any journey of similar nature.

If such social contract as conventionally defined really had existed, it would be outdated anyway and incapable of moving this country forward. It unfairly condemns newer generations to mistakes of the past.

My opinion notwithstanding, the definition employed by the Sultan, while new, actually tries to reach back as far as the time the Malay Annals was compiled and edited by Tun Sri Lanang in the early 17th century in Johor. The concept of a contract between the king and the people was articulated by the Malay Annals more than 100 years earlier than Rousseau, the author whom popularized the actual term “social contract”.[3][4]

In the Malay Annals, the so-called contract between the monarchy and the Malays is mentioned during a conversation between Sri Tri Buana, the Prince and Demang Lebar Daun, the minister representing the Malays in time when Palembang was the center of the Malay universe.[5]

Sri Tri Buana as claimed by the Malay Annals traced his lineage back to Alexander the Great. The veracity of the claim made by Tun Sri Lanang in the Malay classic is suspect but such claim is typical of effort to legitimize the rule of any monarchy, including that of Johor. Tun Sri Lanang was the Bendahara, or the Prime Minister, within the royal court of Johor at the time and the Sultan of Johor then was the direct descendant of the last Sultan of Malacca originated from the royal court of Palembang.

As one can see, even without the grand claim to Alexander, the lineage of the Sultan of Johor at that time was already impressive, reaching back to the days of Srivijaya. But Tun Sri Lanang needed to reposition the royal line to assume more Islamic tone while discarding the Buddhist and Hindu past.

Back to the conversation, Sri Tri Buana was requesting for the hand of Demang Lebar Daun’s daughter in marriage. The marriage here is really symbolic to the partnership between the royalty and the Malay people.

The latter would only consent to the marriage if the Prince would agree to two conditions. Firstly, the daughter must never be banished from the palace. The second condition demands, as translated by Sabri Zain,[6] “the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty’s throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law.”

The Prince quickly agreed to the conditions.

Upon agreeing to the condition, Sri Tri Buana wanted Demang Lebar in return to agree “that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them.”

Both further agreed that if one or the other departed from the undertakings, the pact would become undone by itself.

But is that the Malaysian social contract?

It seems as if the idea from the Malay Annals is being combined to the conventional definition.

Like the idea of Bangsa Malaysia, the Malaysian social contract is becoming so nebulous that it basically could assume so many definitions. As for me, I have mentioned before, I prefer the simpler non-aggression axiom.

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

[1] — SHAH ALAM, Nov 30 — De facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday blamed Prime Ministergo to table a motion of no confidence against the government. [Social contract means compromise, Selangor Sultan explains. Leslie Lau. The Malaysian Insider. December 7 2008]

[2] — See Social Contract (Malaysia) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[3] — See Malay Annals at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[4] — See Social Contract (Rousseau) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[5] — Page 25 – 26. Sulalatus Salatin: Sejarah Melayu. Tun Sri Lanang. Edited by A. Samad Ahmad. Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka. 1997

[6] — Sejarah Melayu: A History of the Malay Peninsula. The Tuah Legend. Sabri Zain. Accessed December 9 2008.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1845] Of status quo for the monarchy

Various anecdotes insist that the act of placing a baht note in your pants back pocket is a terrible faux pas to commit in Thailand. It is because all bills have a portrait of Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej and placing one in that particular pocket is a sign of disrespect. More so if a person actually sits on it. As it goes, anybody caught doing so by the Thais would be admonished, or sometimes worse.

Though the veracity of the anecdotes is unconfirmed, the message is clear: the Thai monarchy commands tremendous respect from the people of Thailand. This enables the King to exert some influence in Thai politics especially in times of turmoil. Perhaps envious of their counterpart up north, several Malaysian royal houses are looking to play greater roles and claim greater power within Malaysian society. Whether that is a good idea is debatable.

This idea first came to mainstream consciousness in recent times when the Thai monarchy apparently brought the country’s political deadlock to an end. This proved to be temporary but at that particular time, it inspired Malaysians to turn to the monarchy in search of ways to challenge the Barisan Nasional-led government.

In a time when the Barisan Nasional government exercised stifling control over almost all tools of the state to silence disagreements towards its policies, it did not take much of a nudge for many Malaysians to imitate their neighbor up north. Bersih, in particular, held a huge rally to raise concerns to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in protest of the executive arm of the state.

The support for the monarchy was further strengthened when the royal houses of Terengganu and Perak were deeply involved in the appointment of the Menteri Besar of the respective states. The Sultan of Terengganu rejected the BN-preferred candidate for the MB post, preferring a person more palatable to the taste of the royal house. In Perak, the Sultan played an active role in the appointment to the state’s highest executive office and in doing so effectively resolved the uncertainty that followed immediately after the March 8 general election.

Both episodes demonstrated the capability and the usefulness of the institution. The monarchy proved that it could provide leadership when the situation requires so.

Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean the monarchy deserves an expansion in role or in power. Rather, it is just the case that the status quo works.

While the status quo works, the role of the monarch over society may have been overstated. Just as Thailand inspired Malaysians to turn to the monarchy, the case for overstatement also inspired the events in Thailand as turmoil riddles the country.

This was seen during the September 2007 coup d’état by the Royal Thai Army. Almost immediately after tanks secured Bangkok, the military rushed to the palace to obtain endorsement from the King. The endorsement however came after the military coup happened, not before. Regardless whether the King was in favor of the military coup mounted against an elected government, the King could have acted merely as a rubber stamp. In a practical sense, it was the military that gained control of Thailand, not the King.

It is true however all the successful coups had the endorsement of the Thai King while the ones that failed — namely in 1981 and 1985 — did not get royal endorsement.

Yet, the military’s action was more or less aligned with the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the group opposed to former Thai Premier Thaksin Shinawatra and the two successive Thai Prime Ministers allegedly tied to him.

PAD positions itself as royalists and assumes yellow — the royal color — as its own. It has frequently accused its rivals of being disloyal to the King. With an association like that, it is hard not to disagree with the PAD without being accused as disloyal, especially in a country which makes criminal any criticism against the royal house.

The frequent accusations of disloyalty however have brought suspicion that the PAD is manipulating its relationship with the royal class to forward its own agenda with gross disrespect for the democratic process.

In any case, Bersih was a show of organic power and hardly had anything to do with royalty. As much as many would want to believe, there is not enough proof to show how receptive the Malaysian King was to the movement. Bersih, like PAD, only associated itself with the monarchy as a strategy to pit the executive and the institution to forward its own agenda.

The democratic process itself is not sacred since from time to time, tyranny of the majority does occur. Democracy does suffer from failure, especially when all its checks and balances have been exhausted.

Early liberals held a deep suspicion for democracy because of the fear of tyranny of the majority. Voltaire, for instance, advocated enlightened absolutism where idiocy of the masses is kept in check while preserving liberty and everything relating to the Enlightenment.

This is the same thinking PAD is applying in rationalising its action. It argued that the majority of Thais — the rural voters — are not educated enough to do the right action, like voting properly. By using this argument, it could basically reject any democratic outcome against its favor and refer to the King who, in its view, is an enlightened monarch.

Liberal thoughts however do not stop at Voltaire, and classical liberals distrust absolutism as much as crass majoritarianism. Evolution of ideas later introduced the concept of liberal democracy superior to Voltaire’s. The monarchy is replaced by a liberal constitution which ferociously defends individual liberty from infringement by the majority.

The reason for the superiority of liberal democracy to an enlightened monarch is obvious: not all monarchs are enlightened. And enlightened monarchs do not exist all the time either. Voltaire, somehow, overlooked this.

In the case of Malaysia, the country has neither an absolutist nor a liberal constitution in its purest sense. The county does however, perhaps, have several enlightened monarchs who are able to rise above the noise to appeal to the greater good. And there is some security over individual liberty in this country. The imperfections in the protection of liberty by the state may sometimes call upon the enlightened monarchs to play, in some ways, part of the role that Voltaire advocated.

Thus, the monarchy finds itself as a check and balance apparatus. In times when the power of the executive is beyond disgust, the resurgence of the monarchy to check the excesses is most welcome.

It has to be noted that the idea of checks and balances imbeds within the system parts which are capable of limiting the power of the other parts and vice versa. If one part has the ability to overwhelm the other, however, the idea of checks and balances simply loses its meaning.

The same applies to the monarchy. If invested with greater power, chances are the monarchy will stop functioning as part of a check and balance mechanism. The greater power could upset any balance that exists in Malaysia at the moment.

And one of the easiest ways to upset the balance is to grant all nine monarchies in Malaysia with immunity. Immunity will place any royalty above the law, well beyond the reach of any check and balance mechanism.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1838] Of the National Fatwa Council is not a god

Kings of the past used to claim authority over the masses through self-proclaimed association with some kind of gods. The pharaohs of Egypt were famous of this. The Japanese emperors also claimed lineage to some god. Somewhat less absurd claims come in form of the divine rights of kings. Through the concept of divine rights, the rulers obtained their rights to rule by authority supposedly invested in them from above, not from below unlike, modern and liberal democratic system. The bottom line is that their decision is absolute. Any act of questioning these authorities is as good as questioning the authority of god.

Questioning the authority of god in any conservative society familiar with lynching, beheading and burning at the stake is not something one would like to do so openly.

This idea is dangerous for the obvious reason. It implicitly equates an entity formed by humankind to god. To god-fearing society, the power of pharaohs, emperors and kings are absolute, regardless of the idea of right or wrong. Such scenario is a fertile ground for tyranny.

As society matures, individuals become to realize the fallibility of these rulers and began to learn to disassociate these rulers from some all mighty beings. This realization has been crucial in creating freer societies in which individuals are empowered to take their fate into their own hands.

The trend of self-empowerment is observable in Malaysia but there are no doubt challenges. One of the challenges lately came in form of religious edicts read out by the National Fatwa Council. Tomboys and Yoga are recently declared banned for Muslims by the Council.[1]

The edicts have been criticized for trying to dictate lifestyle of an individual. Others accuse the Council of having nothing better to do, judging from the triviality of the issues addressed, compared to the issue of corruption for instance, by the Council.

Utusan Malaysia on its front page today reports that the President of Persatuan Peguam Syarie Malaysia (PGSM; roughly the Sharia Lawyers’ Association of Malaysia), Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar is responding to that criticism by advocating for legal action to be taken against the critics of the decisions of the National Fatwa Council. He rationalizes his position by stating any challenge mounted against the Council is a challenge to Islam.[2]

In that statement is the assumption that the Council represents Islam and inevitably, god. The problem is, they have nothing to prove their appointment by god as the representatives of god or Islam. Neither does the PGSM.

In fact, Islam itself says there is no god by God alone. An act of equating anything to the God is considered a big no no in the religion. Yet, here we have Muslims trying to do that and labeling other Muslims as doing what no Muslims should do.

People like Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar seek to invest the National Fatwa Council with powers by limiting individuals’ right to self-determination. In doing so, he basically accepts the words of the Council as absolute, probably as good as the words of the god the Council is supposedly to represent.

This is clear in the way he is responding to the criticism directed to the National Fatwa Council. Rather than reasoning his support for the Council’s decision, he instead seeks to end the ongoing conversation on the matter while backing his demand with threat. He seeks to make the words of the Council, and his, as absolute, regardless the idea of right and wrong.

The streak of authoritarianism is unmistakable.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: The National Fatwa Council has declared that yoga is haram (prohibited) in Islam and Muslims are banned from practising it. [Fatwa Council deems ancient form of exercise from India ‘haram’ for Muslims. Mazwin Nik Anis. The Star. November 23 2008]

[2] — KUALA LUMPUR 23 Nov. — Persatuan Peguam Syarie Malaysia (PGSM) mendesak kerajaan menggunakan peruntukan undang-undang di bawah Enakmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah dan Kanun Keseksaan bagi bertindak ke atas pihak yang mempertikaikan institusi fatwa.

[…]

”˜”˜Mencabar keputusan Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan adalah sama seperti menghina agama Islam kerana institusi fatwa mempunyai peranannya yang tersendiri dan diiktiraf syarak serta Perlembagaan Persekutuan. [Fatwa: Ambil tindakan. Hernan Hamid. Utusan Malaysia. November 24 2008]

Categories
Books, essays and others Society

[1832] Of infected by Western ideology

I thought, the following words in the Dreams from My Father describe something also relevant to the Malaysian society.

“Truth is usually the best corrective”, Rukia said with a smile. “You know, sometimes I think the worst thing that colonialism did was cloud our view of our past. Without the white man, we might be able to make better use of our history. We might look at some of our former practices and decide they are worth preserving. Others, we might grow out of. Unfortunately, the white man has made us very defensive. We end up clinging to all sorts of things that have outlived their usefulness. Polygamy. Collective land ownership. These things worked well in their time, but now they most often become tools for abuse. By men. By government. Any yet, if you say these things, you have been infected by Western ideology.” [Barack Obama. Dreams from My Father]

Not too long ago, I remember Malaysian politicians — religious conservatives too — accusing those who think disagree with various government policies and various traditions as being influenced by Western ideology.