Category: Society

Categories
Books, essays and others Science & technology Society

[1490] Of The God Delusion

I am finally done with the Dawkins’ The God Delusion which I bought last year. Yes, I finished it just over a year after I picked it off the shelf at some bookstore.

It is filled with too much polemics and I was caught off guard on how fierce Dawkins argues against religion in The God Delusion despite being familiar with his well-publicized opinion. I should have braced myself when I read this paragraph:

A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts — the non-religious included — is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other. [The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins. Page 20]

The first chapters are dedicated to discrediting religion. Ignoring the polemics — sometimes, it is hard; I couldn’t help but smile at one point or another; simply too amusing and entertaining — reading for me was easy and I breezed through it. The one point which I stopped and pondered for awhile amid the polemics concerned the Pascal’s wager. I really think I should thank Dawkins for solving the puzzle for me.

The rhythm goes a pace higher at midpoint where he explains, to a certain extent, how evolution affected religion and — more interestingly — moral. I have read earlier on how moral might be dictated by genetics but I am convinced of it only until I read Dawkins’.

From the same idea, he insists that moral and religion are independent of each other. I have reached the same conclusion before and I could only nod in agreement with him. Dawkins goes further by stating that moral precedes religions. To strengthen that, he shows how there are commonalities of morality across most religions despite the fact that many of these religions developed separately. To answer the puzzle of commonalities, he returns to genetics and evolution, his forte.

For those unfamiliar with Dawkins, he is a biologist at Oxford. Wikipedia, as usual, has a great article on him.

What surprises me, given the Malaysian authority’s tendency to ban the most innocent of all books such as Anthony Burgess’ Malayan Trilogy and Karen Amstrong’s A History of God, is that The God Delusion escapes censorship. The escape, of course, is absolutely fine by me.

Categories
Society

[1480] Of god, God, allah, Allah, tuhan and Tuhan

By extension of free speech, I am quite indifferent to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups[1] and I frown at threats issued by the government partial to conservative Muslims to the Christian groups to desist from using the noun “Allah” in local Christian literature. This issue is not new and has been popping now and then. Yet, it has not been resolved and I think it is because the local Christians do not completely comprehend the typical conservative Muslim Malaysians’ objection to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups. I believe a review of basic grammar would significantly clear the air surrounding this issue and explain why there is a conflict in the first place.

Language may not be my forte but at least I know enough of the differences between proper and common nouns. In my humble opinion, at the center of the controversy is an unstated confusion or assumption over Malay proper and common nouns regarding god.

Before I move on, I would like readers to give special attention to capitalization. I use it to differentiate between proper and common nouns. Now that that is clear, let us move on at a measured pace.

In Arabic, at least as I understand it, “allah” comes in form of proper or common noun, depending on usage. Because of the noun ability to become a common noun in Arabic, everybody could use the noun “allah” to refer to any kind of god.

In Malay however, “Allah” is a proper noun with specific reference to Islamic God and not a common noun. The Malay noun ”Allah” enjoys a sense of exclusiveness; it refers to the Islamic god as it has been, to the best of my knowledge, until recently.

At the same time, the Arabic noun “allah” is not quite similar to the Malay noun “Allah“. This is a crucial point, at least, again, from what I understand through the reaction of conservative Muslims, or those that sympathize with that groups. The noun underwent an evolution during its importation from the Arabic to the Malay language centuries ago; it lost its ability to become a common noun in Malay during the process. That however does not mean the Malay language does not have a word to describe whatever the Arabic noun “allah” tries to describe. The Malay language has the noun “tuhan“; its usage is exactly similar to the Arabic noun “allah” within the context we are interested in. “Tuhan” unambiguously means god in both proper and common forms.

From conservative Muslims’ point of view, the Christian groups in Malaysia might be mistranslating the word “God” into “Allah” instead of “Tuhan“, by accident or on purpose. In fact, I may even sympathize with the Muslim groups since I am in the opinion that there is a confusion between the Arabic noun “allah” and Malay noun “Allah“.

In Indonesian, such translation may be acceptable but it has to be noted that Malay and Indonesian languages have gone through different paths from a common origin. Whatever true in the Indonesian language is not necessarily true in the Malay language spoken in Malaysia, and vice versa.

On the surface, this situation is silly and I really do not know why I care to make clarification on behalf of religious believers to another. Well, maybe, probably because it is annoying to see how both types of individuals — both Christians and Muslims — that care to raise their voices on the matter refuse to least comprehend what the conflict is all about before jumping into the fight, indulging in polemics rather than understanding. This tendency is affecting other people that simply wish to watch the days pass by peacefully without shouting matches and flying vases.

Underneath these layers of nouns, however is not something so superficial.

There seems to be an evangelical competition between Christianity and Islam for Malay-speaking non-Christians or non-Muslims. Like it or not, Arabic terms with Islamic connotations have been absorbed into Malay with ease. For Christian preachers, it may be easier for them to use these Arabic terms to convert Malay-speaking non-Christians into Christianity. It is easier to deliver a message in terms familiar to somebody. Muslims preachers however would like to have exclusive use of these words which have been traditionally utilized locally to refer to Islamic ideas. On top of that, there are Muslims would like to keep Islam clearly separated and differentiated from any other religion.

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: A Catholic weekly newspaper in Malaysia has been told to drop the use of the word “Allah” in its Malay language section if it wants to renew its publishing permit, a senior government official said Friday.

The Herald, the organ of Malaysia’s Catholic Church, has translated the word God as “Allah” but it is erroneous because Allah refers to the Muslim God, said Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry’s publications control unit. [Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of ‘Allah’ in order to renew publishing permit. AP via IHT. December 21 2007]

Categories
Liberty Society

[1479] Of establishment of non-Muslim affairs department is unhelpful

A Chinese law that came into force in September[1] states that the Chinese government has “exclusive rights to the selection of all future reincarnations of Tibetan lamas and have ordained that the Dalai Lama must be a citizen of China.”[2] Eager to cement its control over Tibet, the Chinese government ventures into the business of religion. If it were not for its underlying motive, the law would be too silly to imagine; satirists would have a field day at the Chinese government. Government interference in religion however is not hard to imagine in many parts of the world throughout various times and the idea is not foreign at all in Malaysia. We have an Islamic authority at various levels to regulate the Islam and its willing and unwilling adherents. As some liberals fights to contain expansion or even existence of the religious authority, a horror strikes in the most horrid manner: there are non-governmental organizations in response to issues surrounding Hindraf that seek the formation of a non-Muslim affairs department. If it is ever formed, it would enlarge the state’s influence over religion, further providing it with opportunity to make individual liberty irrelevant.

Already the state has considerable apparatus to disrespect religious freedom. The fact that the Sharia court will prevail over the civil court on any overlap — by virtue that the civil court refuses to rule in case of overlaps — is enough to direly demonstrate on much influence religion has over us. Needless to say, the Sharia court places religious laws above individual liberty. While non-Muslims complain how Islamic laws play a role in their lives, there are many Muslims themselves that are uncomfortable with the influence of religious authority over public and private spheres. Muslims do not enjoy religious freedom unlike other Malaysians, on top of other liberty equally deprived from all Malaysians by the state.

Apart from the Sharia court, restrictions over religious freedom and liberty in general through, for instance, moral policing, are made possible through various agencies that make Islam their business. By claiming authority over Islam in Malaysia through official sanction of the state, these agencies regulate Islam; they define Islam as they see fit. For proof, seek no further than the creation of Islam Hadhari. They even have the power to declare who is a Muslim and who is not, regardless of the opinion or decision of the individual. Almost by fiat, to some extent, it rules the Muslim community, as if the community itself is monolithic in nature.

The definition used to describe the Malays in the Constitution of Malaysia further enlarges the power of these religious authorities over Malays in Malaysia.

In short, in one way or another, the BN-led, UMNO-dominated government secures it power over Malaysia by cowing the Malays into relative obedience. The BN-led government through abuse of state devices censors those that disagree with them while promoting its own opinion unfairly through unfree widely distributed mainstream media. Criticisms by outsiders are deemed as threats to national harmony, strengthening siege mentality. Hindraf through sheer stupidity played into BN’s tactics. This further solidifies the BN-led government control over the Malays.

With a non-Muslim department, the state and really the BN-government would have an avenue to control the others as it is controlling the Malays. Suddenly, instead of just Islamic jurists working to subdue individual liberty of the Malays, now we would have clergymen from various religions, issuing religious laws. Instead of a set of secular civil laws, we would have countless religious contradicting laws governing the society. I could not imagine what would the ramification be when conflicts of authority occur between these laws.

There is no reason to believe these non-Muslim affairs would respect liberty. Already we know that there are Christians that moan when their liberty suffered transgression but are undisturbed by their own action to disrespect others’ liberty.

For those that seek to create a more egalitarian society, the formation of non-Muslim affair department only could only strengthen the polarization of Malaysian society. Through this polarization, it would hard to see each other as Malaysians.

To be fair, it is unclear what this non-Muslim affairs department would specifically do, if it would ever to be established. From a libertarian point of view, assuming the department would hold the same authority as its Islamic counterpart, its establishment would be an ominous development to liberty. It would only give the state a monopoly to religion, like what the Chinese government seeks over Tibetan Buddhism. Or, closer to home, how the state has the power to define Islam.

This however is not to ignore the grouse brought forward by the non-Muslims. Their complaints must be fairly looked into but the answer is not the establishment of a non-Muslim affairs department. The better solution is secularism, coupled with liberalism, where religious freedom for all, where liberty for all, is upheld without fear or favor. Let religion be your personal affair.

When the Prime Minister dismisses the idea of setting up such department[3], I gave out a sigh of relief. His reasoning maybe different to mine — he has no respect for liberty[4] — but that is okay for now.

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

[1] — THE Chinese government’s web portal has an odd-looking entry on its page listing laws that came into force in September. Buried among new regulations on issues ranging from registering sailors to monitoring pollution is one on how to manage the reincarnations of living Buddhas. Violators are threatened with prosecution. China’s Communist Party—though avowedly atheist—does not hesitate to pontificate on religious matters that it sees as having a political dimension. Living Buddhas make up the senior clergy of Tibet’s religion. They are traditionally selected from among boys considered to be reincarnations of deceased office-holders. Controlling the selection process, in the party’s view, is crucial to controlling Tibet. [Heresy! The Economist. November 29 2007]

[2] — It explains why over the past few months, the two sides have fought a public row over the selection of the next Dalai Lama. In August, the Chinese claimed exclusive rights to the selection of all future reincarnations of Tibetan lamas and have ordained that the Dalai Lama must be a citizen of China. [Reincarnation Rift. Phillip Delves Broughton. Wall Street Journal. December 4 2007]

[3] — SEPANG, Dec 18 (Bernama) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today it was not necessary to set up a Non-Muslim Affairs Department now because an existing special committee was playing an effective role in the matter. [Not Necessary For Non-Muslim Affairs Dept Now, Says PM. Bernama. December 18 2007]

[4] — PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia: Malaysia’s leader said Monday he is willing to sacrifice public freedoms for the sake of national stability, a day after police arrested 21 opposition members and lawyers who took part in street protests. [Malaysia’s leader says public freedoms can be sacrificed for stability’s sake. AP via IHT. December 10 2007]

Categories
Society

[1477] Of an inclusive NEP

There are many kinds of bias but one of the most common comes in kind of loss aversion through endowment effect. The bias describes a tendency to avoid any kind of loss even when the final outcome is a net gain. The endowment effect is a specific form of loss aversion which an individual values a good in possession more than the exactly similar good that he does not own. I do suffer from this bias from time to time and I have observed how others exhibit the same idiosyncrasy as well. Lately, within the context of loss aversion and Malaysian society, I have been thinking that, perhaps, an appeal to the bias may help turn our society into one of egalitarian in nature.

The Bumiputras form a majority of the Malaysian society. The group exerts strong influence over Malaysian politics and under majoritarian democratic means, anyone that wishes to mold the Malaysian society as a whole would have to consider the Bumiputras into his equations. With the absence of liberal democratic tradition, one ignores or insults the Bumiputras at his own perils. This is especially so if one’s goal is a creation of an egalitarian society, where all are equal before the law; no favoritism. What could be viewed as traditional Bumiputra — or really, Malay — interest is affected by any move to create a fairer society.

Our society is anything but egalitarian. Through the path that our predecessors have taken, the Bumiputras enjoy unrivaled benefits compared to other groups with all else being equal. Cover it with a blanket of roses and it is called affirmative action. Unvarnished it and it becomes outright apartheid.

The Bumiputra group, which is mainly comprised of the Malays, enjoys affirmative action which is actively supported by the state. It has been so for decades now and it has been as good as since the beginning of Malaysia. A person with an advantage would not be willing to relinquish the advantage to another person. He would defend it instead. That may be the case how certain Bumiputras felt about the affirmative action introduced by the New Economic Policy. Those discriminative policies however are outdated in the face of closer global integration and to some extent, freer market. Those policies are unable to attract talent that Malaysia needs to develop its economy further.

Yes, there are various other factors that may have stronger claim to the clinging to the outdated policies but regardless, the affirmative action now signifies substance abuse. The Bumiputras are addicted to it even when the NEP-related policies have outgrown its usefulness. A majority of the Bumiputras refuses to place the policy into a trash can for something better that would stand the onslaught of globalization. The majority is afraid of losing something in return for something far greater promised by free trade. Thus, the cognitive bias of loss aversion; thus, the endowment effect.

If the loss aversion through the endowment effect is the main reason why so many Bumiputras are reluctant to let the NEP die as it was supposed to years ago, perhaps it would be wise for opponents of the NEP — and egalitarians in a wider scope — to not seek the abolition of the NEP and its related policies. Strategically, the better maneuver is to expand it instead.

By expansion, I mean to make the philosophy that drives the NEP to be more inclusive as opposed to being an exclusive policy as it is now. An inclusive NEP would recognize more groups as Bumiputras. As with all things thing of concern to any society, the modification has to be done diplomatically as to not unnecessarily agitate fractions within the Malays that might actually support an inclusive policy.

To the skeptics, the expansion is not impossible. There are many Bumiputras that have ancestors whom were of recent migrants. For instance, Bumiputras of Indian, Arab, or even Chinese origin are not a rare sight. The expansion could eventually cover all Malaysians and in the end, turning the definition of Bumiputras almost synonymous to citizenship. In one way or another, the expansion appeals to the concept of Malays as citizenship instead of ethnicity as once presented in the 1940s.

The greatest obstacle to the expansion is religion. All other prerequisites — Malay language and culture — are easily digested without coercion. It is because of this, I think, for such expansion to be successful, secularism must prevail so that the issue of religion could be overlooked and overridden. Else, such expansion would suffer the flaws worse that what had been done in Indonesia in the past, when forced assimilation was the order of the day.

Through expansion, one would circumvent loss aversion bias to reach an egalitarian society. The mean may be superficial, meandering and possibly appeal to irrational fear but if it leads the egalitarian end, so be it.

The issue with the expansion of NEP is that it may turn Malaysia into a welfare state.

Categories
Society

[1455] Of liberal and racist?

When I criticize those that share my skin color, those that do not share my skin color celebrate me as a liberal.

When I criticize those that do not share my skin color, they denounce me as a racist.

That is most unfair. Nobody is immune from criticism.

I think many people have yet to free themselves from primitive communal thinking.