Category: Society

Categories
Liberty Society

[1817] Of just live and let live

Differences can be challenging. They assault routines and stereotypes to force modifications or even outright revamps of worldviews. When none of that occurs and the differences end up as irreconcilable, conflict may come to the surface. Some differences are worth fighting for while in other cases, respect and tolerance are the key to moving forward.

Conflict or not, the world is so full of individuals with different views and lifestyles from our own. More often than not, we have to live with it. This is especially so when a lot of these differences do not affect us whatsoever other than our sensibility or morality.

The requirement to respect differences is all the more important when individuals live according to different moral standards. Still, not all subscribe to the idea to respect differences. Some view the mere idea of differences as an abhorrence which must be contained in favor of only one standard.

The latest proof of intolerance for differences comes in the form of an edict recently announced by the National Fatwa Council, which declared that tomboys are now banned in Islam. Despite the announcement, various news reports have stated that the edict is not a law. As such, it is not legally binding.[1]

The edict is fine for those who wish for a guideline in practicing of Islam. From this perspective, there is really nothing wrong in the edict. This could be a source of reference for those incapable of undertaking the necessary logical steps required to reach a conclusion.

For those who wish not to submit to a group of self-elected guardians of the faith or are simply concerned with individual liberty, it is important that this edict continues to be toothless.

This is because a law based on the edict amounts to moral policing. Such laws would seek to shape individuals in a particular mould approved by self-appointed moral guardians. There would be a set of behavior for those whom the council of clerics deems to be under their authority to follow. Anything else would seem criminal.

The notion that a person could be seen as a criminal simply by behaving in a manner unsanctioned by a group of people is a scary thought. It is as scary as being prosecuted for having certain characteristics shaped by one’s environment. How would one feel to wake up one morning only to learn that one is now a criminal in the eyes of the state?

The problem in having such law criminalizing a group of people who refuse to be pigeonholed by the council is that there is no victim at all involved in the issue addressed by the edict. The tomboys behave as they do without causing harm to others or themselves. The only harm tomboys do is to the idea that a woman must behave in a certain particular manner.

To invest our legal system with the edict is to victimize the tomboys who have done no harm to others. In doing so, the state would be committing tyranny. That is an unpalatable prospect which must galvanize those who cherish individual liberty against making the edict legally binding.

For those uncomfortable with tomboys, they really do not need a repressive law to grant them some peace of mind. They are free to not interact with the source of their disgust. This includes those with religious objections against those who do not conform to female social gender roles. They just need to learn to let other people be, especially when other people let them be. Why are they so intent on making others live as miserably as possible? What malicious intent do they harbor against those who dare to be different, or those who cannot help being different?

The tomboys have done no wrong to anybody. That alone is enough for us all to just respectfully live and let live.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

[…]

Harussani said the council’s ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are immoral. [Islamic clerics in Malaysia rule to ban tomboys. Julia Zappei. The Associated Press. October 24 2008]

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
Society

[1800] Of property rights are sacred too

The importance of Hindus’ support to the Pakatan Rakyat is undeniable. It would be hard to imagine how Pakatan could be as successful as it was on March 8 without overwhelming support from the Hindus and the Indians in general. When the Sri Maha Kaliamman shrine in Ampang, Selangor was demolished, many began to wonder if Pakatan were really any different from Barisan. Hindraf was clearly unhappy and a revolt was underway. Popularity of Pakatan among the Hindus was going south until the Pakatan-led Selangor government clarified that the local council had gone against state directive and suspended the person whom allegedly ordered the demolition.

I am less sympathetic to the shrine issue than the Pakatan state government. The fact that the shrine was built in a forest reserve only pushes me away from those who share Hindraf’s position. Why, when and how a shrine found itself in a forest reserve has yet to be clearly explained to the public. Without the questions answered, my default position would be demolition.

I could not care less whether the structure was a mosque, a temple, a church or more secular structures like a luxurious bungalow, a forest reserve — or any forest — is a sacred cathedral to me. Any other structures built that has nothing to do with wildlife protection violates the sanctity of the cathedral.

That particular piece of land is a public property appropriated as a nature reserve. To me, converting any part of that land for a shrine’s use is as angering as turning part of Kota Damansara City Forest Park as a burial ground.

I understand that context is important in considering the issue. Selangor state councilor Elizabeth Wong is content that many temples, including Sri Maha Kaliamman, “were forced over the years into this grey zone, and neglected until recently.”[1] In between the lines, maybe she is suggesting that the previous state government might have not been very forthcoming when it comes to providing land for non-Muslim religious purposes. Indeed, a 2002 report published by the US state department states that the Malaysian government “enforces some restrictions on the establishment of non-Muslim places of worship” may strengthen that opinion.[2]

Within that context, I am willing to see the state helps to relocate the shrine to somewhere else to correct the wrongs of past administration.

Baradan Kuppusamy tried to provide a big picture but I do not quite like what I read. In the article of his, he said there is no such thing as enough temples “because a person who builds temples is deemed especially close to and favoured by the gods.”[3]

Mr. Kuppusamy goes on by saying “there exists a strong urge to build and keep building more temples from roadside shrines to large temples wherever Hindus live.”[4]

I have problem with that. That somehow sounds like a ticket to have religion to trump everything else.

The quantity of temples really does not bother me. Rather, I strongly feel that construction of temples, or any religious structure for that matter, should not exploit public space without going through the necessary processes.

Having a temple in public space effectively turns a public space into a private space as its use is very exclusive. It is therefore, at its worst sounds like a land grab. How reasonable is it for anybody to build something on a piece of public land and then practically claim ownership over the land on behalf of anything, including gods?

Another factor which I am uncomfortable with is the fact that, as Mr. Kuppusamy wrote in the article, poorer Hindus do not go to or prevented from visiting to temples patronized by the richer Hindus. He implicitly makes a conclusion that the existence of the caste system which Hinduism calls for more temples despite the presence of “many larger temples that dot every major town in the country.”[5] My conclusion would definitely take a different path and call for abolition of the caste system. Yet, nobody is being forced to participate in the caste system and coercion cannot be used to abolish the discriminatory system. Yet, while the Hindus are free to practice Hinduism, the practice of their religion should not affect others’ right.

I am in the opinion that religious institutions should be treated no differently from any organization. If anybody wants to utilize public space especially on permanent or long term basis, the necessary approval must be obtained so that others’ right over the use of public space is preserved. The opinion and agreement of most stakeholders of the public space is important to legitimize the privatization of the public space. Any action which effectively turns a public space into private area without consultation from other stakeholders amount to stealing from the public, be the motive is commercial or religious.

The approval processes of course need to be fair and transparent; discrimination based on religion is a no-no. The slowness or reluctance of the authority to grant approval to the construction of places of worships belonging to religions other than Islam definitely needs to be tackled to address the issue.

Before I end, I want to stress this: this is not as much as a religious issue with me as much as a matter concerning property right. The fact that that particular piece of land is a nature preserve makes me care more about it.

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

[1] — [On the Sri Maha Kaliamman shrine. Elizabeth Wong. September 30 2008]

[2] — [Malaysia. International Religious Freedom Report 2002. October 7 2002]

[3] — [Tempers rage over Hindu temples issue. Baradan Kuppusamy. The Star. September 30 2008]

[4] — Ibid

[5] — Ibid

Categories
Liberty Society

[1796] Mengenai buang negara bangsa untuk nasionalisme yang terluas

Sering kali saya terdengar akan keperluan untuk rakyat Malaysia membentuk satu nasionalisme baru untuk mengatasi cabaran masa muka. Dengan mudahnya, nasionalisme ini mengimpikan satu bangsa yang merangkumi semua rakyat Malaysia, di mana semua memiliki hak-hak yang saksama tanpa pilih kasih. Ramai mengenali nasionalisme baru ini sebagai bangsa Malaysia. Walaupun saya mungkin bersimpati dengan konsep ini berbanding dengan apa yang sedang dipegang oleh pihak yang masih berselindung di dalam sangkar perkauman, saya berpendapat bahawa bangsa Malaysia berada tidak jauh dari tarikh luputnya.

Sebelum kita berbicara tentang mengapa saya berfikiran demikian, kita perlu memahami mengapa bangsa Malaysia lahir. Tidak perlu kita membelek buku-buku sejarah, politik ataupun falsafah untuk memahami perkara itu. Jawapan ringkas tetapi tepat boleh diperoleh dari batu asas kepada pemikiran kenegaraan yang memperjuangkan satu bangsa yang mengandungi pelbagai kaum untuk satu negara; batu asas itu adalah negara bangsa atau nation-state.

Negara di sini bukan yang segera difahami oleh semua. Bahasa Melayu — seperti apa yang akan ditegaskan oleh penyorak-penyorak bangsa Malaysia, bahasa Malaysia atau sekurang-kurangnya pembicaraan popular tempatan yang bersangkut paut tentang kenegaraan — gagal membezakan konsep country (negara, negeri atau wilayah boleh dilukis di atas kertas), nation (negara atau lebih tepat bangsa) dan state (negara sebagai satu institusi) secara memuaskan. Kekeliruan ini menjadikan perdebatan tentang negara Islam di Malaysia berganjak satu perkara yang penting kepada satu pertunjukan sarkas yang tidak bermakna. Susah untuk seseorang itu memastikan sama ada penyokong dan penentang negara Islam berdebat tentang Islamic state atau Islamic country. Ini sendiri membuatkan saya duduk jauh daripada perbahasan mengenai negara Islam di mana para pendebat tidak sedar akan perbezaan penting ini.

Kembali kepada perkara pokok dengan harapan masalah penterjemaah tidak mengaburi apa yang saya mahu kongsi bersama, negara bangsa mengatakan bahawa sesuatu bangsa, satu kelompok manusia yang berkongsi warna kulit, bahasa, agama atau secara amnya budaya, berhak mentadbir dirinya sendiri. Pentadbiran ini direalisasikan dengan mendirikan satu institusi iaitu negara atau state.

Pemimpin-pemimpin Malaya dan kemudiannya Malaysia sendiri cuba mendirikan negara kita di atas konsep negara bangsa, di mana bangsa itu adalah bangsa Malaya (Malayan) and kemudiannya Malaysia (Malaysian). Bagi negara yang berbilang kaum, pelbagai bangsa, usaha untuk mendirikan satu negara bangsa akan bertemu dengan satu halangan yang besar: ketiadaan satu bangsa organik yang merangkumi semua bangsa; ketiadaan bangsa mengiakan negara yang mengandungi pelbagai bangsa organik; tiada bangsa yang organik yang menerima bangsa Melayu, Cina, India dan ”bangsa lain-lain” sebagai anggota dengan yakin.

Mungkin bangsa longgar wujud beberapa dekad setelah imigrasi besar-besaran ke negeri-negeri Melayu serta Borneo berlaku. Pendapat ini bagaimanapun terlampau bersifat subjektif dan sukar dibentuk di dalam minda dengan baiknya tanpa pencanggahan.

Walau bagaimanapun, jika kita melupakan sementara masalah definisi itu dengan semangat pragmatisme, bangsa yang baru itu tidak bernama dan hanya dirujuk sebagai satu apabila negara kita terdiri. Dalam usaha untuk mengesahkan negara ini dari pandangan negara bangsa, konsep kerakyatan tidak mencukupi. Keperluan untuk membentuk satu bangsa tiruan wujud di atas ketiadaan bangsa organik. Oleh itu, bangsa longgar yang tidak bernama itu mula dirujuk sebagai bangsa Malaysia, bersemperna negara Malaysia.

Tetapi, falsafah yang diketengahkan oleh negara bangsa berdiri dengan tanggapan yang satu bangsa itu berhak untuk mentadbirkan dirinya sendiri. Soalan yang perlu ditanya adalah ini: perlukan sesuatu negara itu berdiri dengan bangsa sebagai tunggak asas?

Malaysia sendiri berjaya dibentuk tanpa adanya bangsa yang satu. Penekanan terhadap bangsa Malaysia hanya berlaku selepas terbentuknya negara Malaysia. Ini adalah satu tanda yang mengatakan negara bangsa itu tidak menjadi satu syarat dalam pembentukan negara.

Yang lebih ditakutkan, konsep negara bangsa itu sendiri mungkin akan membawa kepada perpecahan negara. Malaysia mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya tiga bangsa yang berpengaruh besar. Jika konsep negara bangsa dipatuhi dengan taatnya, lambat laun Malaysia akan terbahagi kepada sekurang-kurangnya tiga negara. Ini belum lagi mengambil kira perbezaan agama yang boleh menjadi asas kepada pemikiran negara bangsa.

Di negara-negara lain seperti Perancis, negara bangsa tidak lagi memainkan peranan utama dalam pentadbiran negara. Malah, Kesatuan Eropah sendiri tidak memerlukan satu bangsa luas untuk mengemudi dirinya ke hadapan. Kesatuan tersebut ada masalah-masalahnya sendiri tetapi perlu diingatkan, pembentukan negara itu sendiri memerlukan masa. Apa yang ingin disampai di sini ialah konsep kerakyatan itu sendiri sudah mencukupi.

Tambahan pula, demografik sesuatu negara sering berubah. Pergerakan manusia serta modal yang semakin bebas sering menukarkan kandungan bangsa sintetik seperti konsep bangsa Malaysia itu sendiri. Apabila kandungan bangsa sintetik itu diubah disebabkan pergaulan di antara bangsa-bangsa organik dan lebih penting, para individu, apakah perlu kita mengembleng tenaga sekali lagi untuk mentakrifkan bangsa yang baru? Adakah perlu kita melindungi takrifan bangsa sintetik itu daripada berubah?

Perubahan itu bagaimanapun tidak meminta konsep kerakyatan berubah, jika asas kerakyatan itu bersifat liberal dan buta kepada idea negara bangsa.

Saya sebagai seseorang individu mahu mendekati satu bentuk nasionalisme yang lebih unggul dan luas daripada yang berasaskan negara bangsa. Kita perlu melihat lebih jauh dari konsep bangsa. Ini tidak bermakna kita harus menghapuskan bangsa-bangsa organik. Kita semua adalah seorang individu dan setiap individu itu berhak menentukan cara hidup mereka sendiri dengan syarat tindakan mereka itu tidak merampas hak-hak yang sama yang dinikmati oleh orang-orang lain.

Sebagai satu negara yang kecil, kita harus cergas menerima apa yang terbaik daripada tamadun manusia. Sudah hilang waktu di mana kita boleh melihat kepada kaum kita sendiri untuk mencari kekuatan. Kita harus menjemput mereka yang ingin berusaha untuk membina kehidupan yang terulung walaupun mereka orang asing. Negara atau masyarakat yang mengandungi individu-individu ini akan menaikkan taraf kehidupan masyarakat itu sendiri. Selamat datang diucapkan kepada mereka yang ingin menyumbang dan sanggup menghormati hak-hak individu terhadap kebebasan.

Nasionalisme saya berkisar kepada pembukaan sempadan kita kepada mereka yang terlatih untuk membangunkan negara. Sebelum itu berlaku, kesaksamaan hak-hak terhadap kebebasan perlu dijamin. Nasionalisme ini perlu melindungi semua dengan sama rata, tanpa mengira kerakyatan. Negara yang menjamin semua ini akan menarik yang terbaik di kalangan manusia dan seterusnya membolehkan kita membina satu tamadun yang hebat tanpa sekatan yang terbina atas nama ketakutan.

Konsep negara bangsa merupakan satu sekatan untuk kita maju ke hadapan, jauh meninggalkan yang lain yang masih terkongkong di dalam pemikiran lama.

Saya yakin, inilah nasionalisme yang tertinggi dan terbaik, di mana bangsa itu adalah bangsa manusia. Tidak perlu kita mewujudkan bangsa yang sintetik untuk bersatu. Hanya yang diperlukan adalah kesanggupan untuk kita untuk hormat-menghormati hak-hak asasi individu tanpa memilih kasih.

Nasionalisme yang terluas inilah yang akan mengatasi nasionalisme yang lain.

Baiklah.

Saya mengaku.

Ini sebenarnya menuju ke arah liberalisme.

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

Satu versi tulisan ini telah pertama kali diterbitkan di Bolehland.

Categories
Education Liberty Personal Society

[1783] Of breaking free from a cursed shackle

I experienced a tremendous surge of security today and I have not felt such feeling in such a long time. The only regret I have is that I did not set a higher target for myself. I might have set a goal too low for myself. Ever since graduation a few years ago from Ann Arbor, life has consistently tried to bring me down and the toll it took on my confidence was breaking me. My self-esteem suffered but after a few rallying personal events, I am on my way back up.

I am happy because I am overcoming the shadow of my former self. I am winning against myself.

I have secured my path into the future. That path was in the state of flux previously and I really did not know what I wanted in life. There were too many unknowns to think of, too many factors to consider, too many calculations required. Too many a time, I found myself staring blankly outside to see everything but see nothing.

Now, however, now, the path forward is as clear as daylight and all I need to do now is walk down the lane and never to look back. I have earned a place for a post-graduate work abroad.

If everything goes well for the next few months, I should be out of this country again. The only issue that may pull me back is matter of finance. A back-of-the-envelope suggests I need to raise approximately RM100,000 in the next few months to live comfortably, on top of whatever savings that I have at the moment. Despite the my training, I was surprised of the requirement for additional fund. I had budgeted that I would be able to fund myself through this journey. As it turned out, I have not considered my whole expected expenses in a comprehensive manner. That is my only fear.

Despite concerning regarding the additional money which I need to raise, the fact that I am able to depend on my ability through and through thrills me. It thrills me because this is the chance for me to escape from one criticism which I think is unfair and I extremely deplore.

In A Malaysian Journey, Rehman Rashid writes something to the effect that the Malays are cursed of not knowing whether he had succeed because of his ability or because of affirmative action. My personal experience has taught me the truth of those words. Given my unfriendly position with respect to the flawed affirmative action in Malaysia, my critics have used that very same idea raised by Rehman Rashid against me.

I went to the Malay College and I attended the University of Michigan. While Michigan accepted me based on merit, it is really hard to say if the government scholarship which I received to go to Michigan as well as the somewhat subsidized education which I was obtained at the Malay College was on merit or simply because of the affirmative action. I therefore grappled to answer criticism against my position to the affirmative action.

I cannot live with that. Only the stars know how much I want to silent my critics and a spot in a post-graduate program gives me the chance to do everything on my own, the personal responsibility which I am undertaking, provides everything that I need.  It provides me the hammer for me to use to break free from that curse, once and for all, and more.

I earned my time to bask in the sun and nobody, nobody, can rob me of this. I am now free in one more aspect of my life.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1761] Of liberation from flawed conflation

One late morning in early November 2004, the sun was well up but with an overcast sky, it was a dark day. At the lobby of a library in Ann Arbor, the United States, the television finally broke the news that John F. Kerry had lost to George W. Bush in the US presidential race; Bush would stay in the Oval Office for four more years. And in the lobby, there was a feeling that the Republicans and meteorology had worked hand in hand to make Ann Arbor a miserable place that day.

In the days that followed, there was a widespread sense of defeat and it just would not go away. In a bastion of American liberalism where it had been joked that the Republicans urgently require affirmative action to survive, the air was filled with major disappointment.

After fierce campaigning and just over a year after the controversial invasion of Iraq, it was not hard to imagine how bad the kind of depression felt across Ann Arbor was. Already many were talking, in jest, of migrating to Canada. Some others began to speak scornfully about the Land of the Free.

Why did these mostly Democrat sympathizers hate the United States so much when the source of their discontent was the Republicans’ victory?

Something was amiss.

It is not uncommon for a fraction of Malaysians to adopt the same tone and attitude against Malaysia. In return for the injustice done on them by the policies of the Barisan Nasional government, they are content to generalize Malaysia and throw the most unflattering names against the country.

Various criticisms directed at Malaysia by these groups of Malaysians are grossly off-target. It should be at the Barisan Nasional government that these criticisms be directed, not the country.

For foreigners, perhaps the distinction between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia is not all too important since they have no say in our political process. They cannot vote and really, they are not responsible for the policies that Malaysia employs.

For Malaysian citizens, however, it is crucial to understand that the government can change while the country remains unmoved in times when international borders in the most sense are held sacred. If it is not too outrageous, the difference is analogous to a driver and a car; a political party is merely the driver of the car and the driver can change based on the collective decision of the passengers of the car which includes the driver. The car is the country. Mistakes made by the driver should not be attributed to the car.

The reason why the separation is important is due to the fact that the citizens have a say in the direction which Malaysia takes, especially when the democratic system which we have here works relatively well compared to other countries with dictatorial tendencies.

Unfortunately, there are challenges in separating the two entities from each other especially when the Barisan Nasional tries so hard to blur the lines that separate Barisan Nasional the political party and Malaysia the country.

Who can forget the so-called golden jubilee anniversary celebration — never mind the fact the federation was formed in 1963 and not 1957 — of Malaysia last year at Stadium Merdeka?

What was supposed to be a Malaysian celebration was turned into a political rally for Barisan Nasional. Flags of various kinds belonging to the component parties of Barisan Nasional flooded the whole stadium, possibly outnumbering the Jalur Gemilang, confusing neutral observers of the purpose of the celebration.

For those who can grasp the difference between political parties and the state, the shameful hijacking of the golden jubilee celebration was a distasteful political maneuver. It was turned into a divisive celebration. August 31 was supposed to be a day of unity but the way it was celebrated discouraged others who do not subscribe to the political ideas of the Barisan Nasional.

For those unaware of the important difference, that maneuvering suggested the idea that the Barisan Nasional is Malaysia and Malaysia is the Barisan Nasional. Such intentional conflation may well be what the Barisan Nasional is trying to achieve in its effort to embed its presence into voters’ consciousness. For those who bought the idea that the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia are inseparable, a Malaysia not led by the Barisan Nasional would be an unimaginable scenario. A Malaysia without the Barisan Nasional would mean the death of Malaysia.

Such conflation is bad for Malaysia. Just observe the 2007 by-elections of Ijok and Machap where public money was used to campaign for the Barisan Nasional whereas this money belonged to the people of Malaysia, the taxpayers and not the Barisan Nasional. The Barisan Nasional has no right to use public money amounting to millions of ringgit to fund its political campaigns.

Those who suffer from the conflation indirectly legitimize how the Barisan Nasional’s unscrupulous spending of public money because they see no wrong. Due to their ignorance of the difference between the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia, the politicians of the Barisan Nasional have no qualms about using state machinery for their own gains. Too little people consider such spending as wrong.

The fact that the Barisan Nasional has been in power since the very beginning of our country’s history makes the purposeful conflation of the political party and Malaysia an easy goal to achieve. After all, history is always kind to the victors because the victors get to write history.

Our official narrative is skewed to glorify the victor while the contributions of others are ignored, at best mentioned as an afterthought or at worse, vilified. This creates a perception that any threat to the Barisan Nasional is a threat to Malaysia.

Take, for instance, the aftermath of the March 8, 2008 general election. Why is it that our country is said to be in crisis when in fact, the one in crisis is the Barisan Nasional? Or, why is it when the ideas championed by the Barisan Nasional are challenged, the challengers would inevitably be accused of being traitors to the country?

Freedom has been defined in so many ways and here is yet another definition of freedom with respect to the Malaysian context: freedom from the conflating the Barisan Nasional and Malaysia.

This is why the effect of March 8, 2008 is so important. And this is why the promise of September 16, 2008 is so important. It has the potential to set many who are trapped in the flawed conflated idea free.

It has the potential of liberating the mind from ridiculous conflation.

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 published in The Malaysian Insider.