Category: Society

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.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1754] Of enough with the swearing already

I thought we Malaysians had gone a long way in our methodology in seeking truth and justice. Apparently, I have been overly optimistic.

The Germanic people of the past subscribed to the idea of judicial duel. In absence of witnesses or a confession, they advocated the holding of a duel between the accused and the accuser to determine the status of a case. The winner will be acknowledged as being on the side of the truth. The loser meanwhile will be wrong.

After awhile and too many deaths later, enough individuals finally come to realize that this kind of trial is really about proficiency in weapon handling or strength rather than truth.

Not only law like this is barbaric, outcome of the duel has no bearing whatsoever on the truth.

In a more general sense and more widespread in other parts of the world in the past, trials by ordeal were favored. The status of the accused is determined by having him to undergo unsavory tests. Just like the judicial duel method, the result of any trial by ordeal has little correlation with the guilt or the innocence of the accused.

For the judicial duel, the accuser bears some cost in making any accusation without any proof since he could lose his life if he is not careful. This is a particularly important aspect of the method because the presence of cost acts to potentially discourage any accusation from being made so recklessly.

As for trial by ordeal, the accused cannot simply proclaim his innocence with impunity. There is no cost to the accuser however but at least, there is some still cost to one side.

Regardless, in both cases, words are not cheap and cannot be taken lightly.

In Malaysia at the moment, not only a number of individuals are mocking our judiciary system by debasing as well as preempting it, it has become a trend lately to swear on the Koran to prove one’s case. Somebody may argue that if the person lies, retribution may come in the afterlife but the reality is that, there is no cost in doing so in this life.

Hence, such oaths are cheap.

If such confessions are applied as the benchmark of truth, then desperate people could simply assert their innocence successfully even when all evidence clearly point to them. The acceptance of swearing on the Koran as the benchmark of truth is really about granting somebody a get-out-of-jail-for-free card.

Needless to say, it is impossible for justice to thrive in such situation; that card makes any judiciary system redundant.

On top of that, when such swearing and confession of innocence could be made so cheaply, is there a reason to trust the confession?

No, there is none.

If there were a reason, then we would probably be just as civilized as the barbaric society of the past in terms of dispensing justice. Just as the outcomes of judicial duel and trial by ordeal have little to do with guilt or innocence of a person, so too the oaths on the Koran.

In this imperfect world, it is only prudent to assume that every individual is interested in advancing his own interest. Whether we like it or not, it is safer to assume that the willingness to swear has more to do with promotion of self interest than anything else. Any more well meaning assumption only qualifies oneself as being naive.

Besides, does a person need to tell the truth only when he swears on over the Koran?

What an immoral world would we live in if the answer to the question is yes. Truly, the highest of all morals call upon all of us, Muslims or otherwise, to endeavor to be truthful even without the presence of the Koran or any scripture which any of us consider as holy.

It is possible that those whom swear on the Koran do not think much of the scripture but only do so to manipulate the masses. By merely taking an oath, the so-called confessors might believe that they could get away with anything.

If indeed this is what happening, it is no less than an insult to the Koran. This kind of insult is far worse than any cartoon or work of literature could ever throw to any Muslim.

The only way to know whether an insult has been committed is for Muslims to demand investigation into any oath made by citing the Koran. Any kind of serious investigation will impose a cost to the act of swearing on the Koran and this has the potential of discouraging brazen lies from being labeled as truth so publicly.

Moral and religion aside, apart from the obvious fact that these swearing and confessions are cheap, there are several reasons why swearing on the Koran or any scripture for that matter should be outright rejected in no uncertain terms.

One of them is the fact that such action, if it becomes accepted at the benchmark of truth, undermines our judiciary. What is the point of maintaining all the courts if the innocence and guilt of a person could be determined by a mere oath?

Surely millions of Ringgit could be invested elsewhere if we already had found a barometer of truth that is far more reputable than our jaded judiciary system.

Secondly, in a number of cases where the acts of swearing on the Koran have taken place, these cases do not exclusively belong to that of the Muslim community. Many of these cases are of national interests which cut well beyond boundary drawn by religions. The natural question arising from this fact is that why should any non-Muslim accept the Koran as the benchmark of truth?

Even if these cases were exclusive matters of the Muslim community in a way that both the accuser and the accused are Muslims, justice does not exclusively concern that of the accuser and the accused. A phrase commonly attributed to Edmund Burke puts it succinctly: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

In the name of truth and justice, the issues should be brought to the courts. Let a neutral ground be the medium. Bring on the evidence, keep the Koran at home and let the jury deliberate earnestly.

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

[1750] Of a diverse society is a training ground for liberty

It is hard for a person to affirm his conviction to freedom until his belief has been challenged and then came out unconvinced of any need to silent dissenting others. It is based on this premise that I celebrate diversity.

My celebration of diversity must not be construed as an advocate for multiculturalism, where the state embarks on active policy encouraging diversity. The policy of active promotion of multicultural society goes against organic processes, which is closely associated to the idea of spontaneous order.

A peaceful multicultural society needs to have tolerance embedded in it and it is highly likely that more often than not, only organic processes are capable of bringing about tolerance of differences organically. In contrast, multiculturalism inorganically introduces or enforces multicultural idea into a society that may or not may be ready for diverse society or even a change in the makeup of the society. There is an element of coercion in multiculturalism.

Inorganic processes are applied to hasten processes. The high rate of change however gives individuals little opportunity to adapt. With multiculturalism, it is a guaranteed fact that there will be individuals rebelling against it. When that happened, a multicultural society resulting from multiculturalism will face challenges which including excessive xenophobia.

Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.

For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected.

It has to be understood that the term “multicultural society” describes the state of a society while “multiculturalism” is a set of policies encouraging the inorganic creation of multicultural society. Moreover, multicultural society can exist without multiculturalism through organic processes.

Therefore, my rejection of multiculturalism does not translate into rejection of multicultural society. Indeed, I cherish multicultural society for the diversity it brings.

To a large extent, individuals are shaped by experience. Each experience gives rise to unique worldviews which in turn affect a person’s thoughts and actions.

A diverse society is exactly diverse because of each member of the society underwent different path to reach wherever they are at the moment. This naturally gives rise to difference in opinion.

For those professing belief in liberty, a multicultural society or more generally a diverse society offers an opportunity to challenge one’s belief in liberty. It offers an opportunity to prove one’s conviction in liberty. It is only in a diverse society, especially in a realm of intellectual diversity, opinion allergic to each other could exist and advocated for with high intensity and frequency. Such society is the perfect environment for training in freedom.

A true believer of liberty would not initiate any kind of coercion to silent the others due to difference in opinion, even in the heat of an argument. Until one passes that test, a person can never truly discover whether the person believes in liberty.

Categories
Education Society

[1745] Of quid pro quo for an egalitarian society

Ethnic integration does not top my list as an issue we as a society face. I used to be bothered a lot by it but I have long learned to accept the wisdom that birds of the same feather tend to flock together.

More importantly, I have accepted that organic integration is a painfully slow process. This effectively means the idea of Bangsa Malaysia for me remains a dream in the near future. Nevertheless, if indeed ethnic integration is a goal, then I think the special rights enjoyed by the Malays as well as the vernacular schools would have to go.

The idea of Bangsa Malaysia has never been satisfactorily and properly defined. What exists are competing definitions. For me personally, I take Bangsa Malaysia — or the Malaysian nation and not the Malaysian race — as simply the concept of rights egalitarianism embedded in the idea of Malaysian citizenship. That means the state does not discriminate its own citizens on anything except, mostly, merits.

I do not have to demonstrate about how large a role race and religion play in our society and I think a lot of us realize how central race and religion are to our society, for better or for worse. While I have resigned to the fact that it takes years to restructure our society organically, I still despise how race and religion are exceptionally central to our society and how both factors have been manipulated to the effect that they erode liberty.

As a result, a tiny insignificant part of me wants to throw liberty out of the equation and use coercion to encourage integration, to do away with factors which encourage ethnic division in this country. Part of me wants to hasten the integration process, preferring an inorganic method over organic.

But I am a libertarian and I am proud of it. I plan to neither resort nor consent to forced integration or assimilation. For others without libertarian tendencies and who are fiercely working for a more integrated society, coercion through the elimination of public funded vernacular schools and streamlining the education system with just one national school stream may indeed be a tool of great use.

Embracing the concept of rights egalitarian would be the first step in encouraging ethnic integration. Any policy which discriminates people based on creed and skin color only fuels anger of the discriminated against the favored. As long as the hatred is there, ethnic integration will be a pie in the sky.

Equality has the greatest potential in dousing the fire of communal hatred. Within the Malaysian context, this calls for the dismantling of various policies which discriminate our own citizens. It goes as far as requiring the Constitution to be amended to conform to the spirit of rights egalitarianism, where all are truly equal before the law which is ever conscious of individual liberty.

The dismantling of discriminatory policies, however, will not be popular with the majority power, which is Malay. In as much as the Malay community is not monolithic in its political outlook, considerable members of the Malay community do hold dearly to policies which grant them special privileges. The continuous support which UMNO receives from a majority of Malays proves that.

Due to that, removal of policies derived from the New Economic Policy will be highly unpopular. As a direct result, the political support for a rights egalitarian society may not be there. If equality of rights is a goal to be achieved, it is the Malays that the advocates of egalitarianism need to convince, especially in the illiberal democracy that we live in.

The first step in convincing the majority is an exposition of the weaknesses of the current race-based affirmative action policies and juxtaposing it with a better merit-based alternative. The majority has to be persuaded that if the majority of Malays are really poorer than the average Malaysian, a merit-based affirmative action would aid them anyway. Therefore, there is no reason for those who truly require aid to worry about the switch from a race-conscious to race-blind and merit-based policy.

I have come to believe that this is the strongest point that exists against the status quo. It is so because it appeals to the concepts of justice and fairness apart from being an economically superior policy compared to race-conscious affirmative action.

Theoretically, it is impeccable and I have seen it work in practice, especially during the election. This very line has been used from time to time. With patience and good orators at hand, many Malays who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of impoverished Malays are convinced by this point.

That notwithstanding, I personally do not subscribe to any kind of state-based affirmative action. A merit-based policy nevertheless is a potent tool to bring down the current policy; my support for a merit-based over race-based policy only exists due to the virtue of thinking on the margin.

But why should only the Malays sacrifice their position?

I am convinced that rights egalitarianism is one of few ideas that is capable of bringing this country forward. It is one of those abstract developments that this country needs more than physical developments. Our current societal structure is not conducive to attracting talents and egalitarianism — as well as liberty — is one of our best bets to catalyze our economy forward, which at this point, is stagnating.

So, I tend to think that this is not a zero-sum game. Rights egalitarianism has the prospect of increasing the economic pie but while the point is taken but a lot of Malays seem unconvinced about why they should give up their privileges.

It is possible that this is a matter of time horizon. While it is beneficial in the long run to have an egalitarian society for everybody, in the short run, the Malays really do not have the incentive to give up their privileges. This is even more so when there is a heavy discount on future gains.

This sounds like a bias called loss aversion. To explain the phenomenon slightly deeper, loss aversion describes a situation when a person considers a loss as unacceptable even when there is an eventual net gain.

This bias later transforms the original question into “Why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?”

Failure to answer this question may cause the Malays to question the sincerity of others in building a less ethnic-conscious society. I think I can safely say that the conservative Malays see vernacular schools as the special privileges of others as how others see affirmative action enjoyed by the Malays as special privileges.

I have been thinking and I do not pretend I have given it very deep thought but my initial feeling is that the abolition of vernacular schools funded by public money could be the answer to that question.

This absolutely makes sense if we return to the original intention of ethnic integration. This is also important to demonstrate to the conservative Malays that there is sincerity in building unity among various communities. There are Malays whom distrust calls for equality because of the question. A sacrifice by the other sides do a lot in proving the sincerity in building an egalitarian society and thus renders the question irrelevant.

One cannot expect to have an integrated society when children are not given the opportunity to mingle with their peers of different backgrounds. Vernacular schools, be they Chinese, Indian or even schools like the Malay College, work like silos, isolating children in the same community from one another. It is the silo nature of vernacular schools that is detrimental to the idea of ethnic integration.

Surely separation from the very beginning does little in bridging the gap that already exists between cultures. If bridging the gap is truly the goal, then the silos have to be removed and replaced with the grand mixer that is the national school. Concerns about languages and religions, which are the typical criticism directed at the idea of national schools, could be addressed by making language classes available and making the national school neutral of religious influence.

All in all, in the abolition of both Malay privileges and vernacular schools, there would be a quid pro quo arrangement, solving the question of “why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?” It gives the appearance that both are sacrificing something in the name of unity.

On a final note, I want to reiterate that I do not consider ethnic integration a burning question. With regards to school systems, I prefer the concept of charter schools to typical public-funded ones, which schools are given the liberty to do whatever they like as long as they deliver results. With a charter school system in place, it would be likely that the abolition of vernacular schools would lead to merely a change in label, which would render abolition meaningless.

Abolition furthermore seems to be an act to force individuals into a system with the system trying to mold an individual with a template. That disturbs me.

Thus, my agnosticism to abolition. And since I am agnostic to the idea of ethnic integration anyway, preferring to take the time to organically integrate our society instead, I really could not care less for abolition.

For those dreaming of a rights egalitarian society, however, the proposed quid pro quo arrangement is something for all egalitarians to consider. If the arrangement is rejected, the egalitarians would still have to answer the question why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain.

Unless that question is satisfactorily answered, I do not think we can see the rise of a rights egalitarian society anytime soon.

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.

I felt the original version does not have a smooth logical transition. This is most likely due to me rushing the article through. Regardless, I have added a sentence or two in this version. In the TMI version, there are  no sentences on sincerity.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1726] Of the state has only itself to blame

With bludgeoning fuel subsidy beginning to affect other more productive spending, something has to give. On June 5, the subsidy was reduced and the move is understandably unpopular to many. With higher cost of living plaguing us all, there grows a tendency to blame the state for our reduced welfare lately. The government meanwhile is frustrated at being blamed for something they have little choice in the face of a very global trend. While I sympathize with the government in this particular area, it is the government that has brought this blame game upon themselves. The Barisan Nasional government deserves to be mired in this very inconvenience political scenario.

The Barisan Nasional government over the years has created a system that causes the masses to become addicted to the state. After decades of such dependency, slowly but surely it erodes confidence in the ability of individuals to surmount challenge.

From the very beginning, the BN government embarks on various efforts to expound the requirement of the state intervention for the creation of a peaceful and unified society. We have to look no farther than affirmative action practiced in our country and the rhetoric and rationale employed in support of various interrelated policies. The possibility of individuals are able to advance himself is ignored in the public policy sphere.

As if that is not enough, the specter of May 13 has been used every now and then to back up state-sanctioned affirmative action. As the argument goes, without the state enforcing the affirmative action, there would be chaos. All that reinforces the idea of Leviathan: without a strong government, there would be a war of all against all, anarchy, etc.

And then there is what Marx called the opiate of the masses. How religion is regulated in Malaysia further suppresses confidence in self. All is placed in the hands of the gods which ironically, access to the gods is controlled by the state. God is everything and inevitably, the state is everything, leaving little space of individuals to express themselves. Anything different from what the state effectively endorses, is punished, depending on the leniency of the government of the state. The ability to be different from what the state endorses diminishes with years of indoctrination.

Even the source of self-empowerment is not spared from state intervention for the state is ever jealous of individuality. From elementary level and all the way to tertiary education, the state’s presence is there. Students in our education system are being told what to do rather than providing students with the opportunity to explore their potential. Even in colleges and universities students are forced to take up irrelevant subjects just to justify the state’s role in our society.

For individuals whom have broken free from sanctioned narratives, those whom have the courage to challenge the statist ideas in favor of individualism, they are accused of being foreign agents, foreign educated, forgetful of history and all other dismissive labels. In effect, instead of facing criticism advocating for greater individual liberty logically, the state prefers to poison the well and hushes away the neutral others from developing confidence in individuality. Nobody wants to join the “enemy”. More importantly, in doing so, the state convinces the neutral others of importance of strong and wide state roles in the society.

If all that does not create a society hopelessly reliant on the state, control mechanism on prices and supplies definitely does exactly that. Yet, a state the size of Malaysia hardly has total control over its economy, especially when the economy trades with other countries relatively freely. Trends such as increasingly expensive prices of raw materials are something beyond the control of a small relatively open economy like Malaysia.

At best, the mechanism along with the impression that the state is our only savior developed throughout history, gives the public the perception that the state has complete control over the economy. In reality, it does not. And so, when these global trends render these state controls over the economy useless, it gives the perception that the state is not doing its jobs in spite of the fact that it is not the fault of the state that the global economy is at the way it is at the moment.

With an education system which fails to provide self-empowerment, a whole social apparatuses that kill self-confidence and discourages individuality along with an economy system that creates the perception of absolute control, is it really a wonder why many within the society blame that state for failing to live up to a statist ideal?

What was convenience then for the state has not become inconvenient. So inconvenient it has been that the more statist political players have turned the tables against the statist incumbent.

Let this be a lesson to Barisan Nasional, and any other aspirants with statist outlook.

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. The TMI version has the reference to Marx removed.