Category: Society

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1216] Of a case for organically grown leaders

According to several sources, the Prime Minister’s feet gave way at a function at Lumut. He however has denied such allegation:

LUMUT, May 13 (Bernama ) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi denied rumours spread in the internet that he collapsed while attending a people feast and officating Dataran Hadhari at Teluk Batik, Lumut at noon. [PM Denied Rumours Spread In Internet That He Collapsed. Bernama. May 13 2007]

The Sensintrovert claims that RTM confirmed that the PM fainted. TV3 aired something on it but it is not clear on whether the PM actually fainted. Regardless, I wish the allegation remains as mere allegation because the PM and his counterpart from Singapore are meeting at Langkawi later this week. The last thing we need is a weak leader to talk on matters of national interests to the Singaporean. If it is true that he lost his consciousness even for a moment, I sincerely wish him speedy recovery. But what if the PM resigned today for health reason? Or for any reason for that matter?

Just as when former PM Mahathir Mohamed resigned several years ago, I am uncertain who should be the next PM. Mahathir was the only PM that I knew for all of my life back then and the uncertainty revolving around Malaysian political succession was piercing. Even when Abdullah administration first came to power, the uncertainty was still unshakable. The only time there was certainty was before the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim second highest executive position in the country.

This kind of uncertainty arises because the flawed political system our country practices. The practice of gerrymandering prevents organic representation from taking place. Misused of public money, masqueraded as development spending clouds uninformed poorly educated voters’ decision. As if that are not enough, disrespect on individual rights further discourages free flow of information that would allow voters to make informed decision when needs be, especially during election times. All that makes selection of leaders harder than it should be.

Organic political system operates from the bottom. Leaders derive their legitimacy from the people. Such model however is handicapped by imperfections mentioned earlier and that gives a chance for power to be played inorganically. Decisions from the top, while appropriate from time to time given the right context, is unhealthy if practiced frequently. For many libertarians, the fact that such origin of power goes against the idea of spontaneous order is not lost.

At the very extreme, power play from the top could be characterized as dictatorship. While it is common in Malaysia, Malaysia does not fall into a class of autocratic nations such as Myanmar, Thailand, Pakistan, etc. But as far as selection of leadership is concerned, hint of authoritarianism is observable. The current PM himself was appointed by his predecessor rather than being elected by Malaysians from Kedah to Sarawak, from Sabah to Johor.

The inorganic power origin makes creation leaders limited to circles favored by those at the top. Give it time and slowly, a culture of subservient, the fear to criticize leaders is born. In the end, the incumbent number one has a say on everything. Any sign of challenge is dealt with illiberal ways and a perception of no option later proliferates the society. This is especially so when the leaders’ power is not derived from the people. When that is true, there is no need for the leaders to seek consent from the people, similar to Friedman’s First Law of Petropolitics:

What I find particularly useful about Ross’s analysis is his list of the precise mechanisms by which excessive oil wealth impedes democracy. First, he argues, there is the “taxation effect.” Oil-rich governments tend to use their revenues to “relieve social pressures that might otherwise lead to demands for greater accountability” from, or representation in, the governing authority. I like to put it this way: The motto of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation.” The motto of the petrolist authoritarian is “no representation without taxation.” Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people in order to survive, because they can simply drill an oil well, also do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes. [Thomas L. Friedman. First Law of Petropolitics. Foreign Policy. May 2006]

Even if such system practices meritocracy, it is only practiced in a limited manner, limited to favored circles. Leaders are inorganically grown and do not have the necessarily qualifications as typically seen in the industrialized world. There is a dearth of high quality leaders exactly because the system does not create too many high quality leaders. We cannot choose when there is no option.

With a better system that pays respect to individual rights — libertarian values — leaders could be organically grown, which only those among the best would be elected to hold power. Choices would be aplenty as each section of the society elects their own leaders, able to practice their individual rights, unsuppressed by illberal powers.

With a better system, one would not have a problem to answer, if our PM resigns today, who would succeed him. In a better system, choices, if not immediately apparent, it would be soon enough. That system is liberal democracy.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1210] Of the self-doubting Malays

Drugs is a marvelous substance when consumed with care. Among other things, it heals illnesses, relieves pain and gives us the extra boost we might need. The more adventurous use involves psychedelic pleasure. Taken with moderation, it is all that and more. Taken excessively, it is a poison that wrecks life. In parallel, the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP), an affirmative action policy, is very much like drugs to the Malays.

Though discriminatory and perhaps, flawed in its rationale, to a certain extent it eliminated race as an economic function. The NEP coupled with other policies reduced poverty and created a large middle class in the country. Above all, it guaranteed political stability and paved the way to later prosperity. That however was then. The NEP is a specific policy designed in the 1970s to rise up against the challenges of that time. Despite officially ended in 1990, the policy in actuality outlives its supposed end date, well into a new age that provides new challenges.

While the policy had its successes, its side-effects cannot be ignored. The discrimination it introduced excited the Malaysian diaspora. Those that did not benefit from the NEP and further marginalized by the same policy migrated away to other countries that offered better and fairer economic opportunities. Malaysia was bleeding the talents that it needed for modernization. The trend continues till today, as with the policy of the 1970s.

Months ago in one of the tallest buildings in the world, overlooking Kuala Lumpur, a consultant told me that at some point, the NEP has made the non-Malays stronger while weakening the Malays. I agreed with him even before he explained himself.

The privileges enjoyed by the Malays made them complacent while the rest had to endure obstacles placed for the sake of the Malays. The restriction taught the non-Malays the survival skills they needed in the face of discrimination. They learned how to become fiercely independent economically while the Malays continue to be fed by a policy designed to save them in the first place. Nietzsche wrote that which does not kill you make you stronger. He is right.

Years turned into decades and now here we are with the drugs strongly ingrained in our society. What was a privilege then has now been demanded as a right. The majority of the Malays have become so dependent on the policy that they are addicted to it. A drug addict would have to overcome a withdrawal symptom to be free. Most Malays would need to do the same in order to be truly free.

There are Malays that do not need the NEP to survive. There are those that manipulate the NEP for unfair gains. While these groups deserve the disgust some give them, we cannot overlook those that sincerely believe in how the policy is linked to their destiny. To many Malays, years of dependency have eroded their self-confidence.

Not too long ago, I had supper with two friends. One is a Chinese and another is a Malay, of whom I had been introduced to just hours earlier. At the coffee shop, one thing led to another and NEP became topic of the moment.

The Chinese friend questioned the NEP and the Malay defended it. I, half asleep, decided to stay out of it. The debate went on and at one point, the Malay friend said something to the effect that the Malays are incapable of competing against the Chinese in Malaysia.

I, whom was already bored, observing how the same argument was being repeated here, immediately awakened, felt grossly insulted by the comment. I had wanted to reply but already under assault by the other person, I felt pity for him and decided to let it pass. The day ended peacefully soon after.

That incident statement excited the cogs in my mind, asking is this really a question of self-confidence?

In the self-doubting Malay friend’s mind, the NEP is the only and the best option there is in this world. A majority of the Malays might share his sentiment. After all, how could the same side win over and over again if the majority did not believe in such defeatist mantra of insecurity?

The truth is, there are better options. But the question is not whether there are option. The question is how do we convince these Malays.

The first step in undoing the NEP is to offer hope to the majority of the Malays. We need to provide reason to have confidence in themselves. Show to them how one could be successful in life without the NEP. We must convince these groups of Malays that do not need the NEP to succeed in life. We need to show that that others have succeeded without the NEP, that the others have succeeded despite discrimination.

This particular group is the key to a better society. If this group is won over, the dream of a fairer society is one step closer.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1207] Of a moderate with no moderation

In the NYT:

One day last month, a young man stood at the center of a stage with long ropes bound around each wrist. One pulled him to the left, the other to the right — one toward secularism, the other toward religious extremism. His father struggled to hold him in the middle, shouting “Enough! Enough!” Looking at the religious side, he said, “From here, there is destruction and zeal.” Then looking to the other side, he said, “There, is doom.”

The play, “A Moderate With No Moderation,” had been performed since last November at Al Yamamah College, one of a new group of private schools that are considered a concession to the reform agenda. During the opening performance, religious zealots attacked the audience and the performers and forced a cancellation of the show. But the next day the show went on. [The (Not So) Eagerly Modern Saudi. NYT. May 6 2007]

The tug of war continues.

Categories
Society

[1193] Of food, the great divider

I have lived and traveled wide enough, I hope, to interact with many people of various backgrounds throughout my life time. I may not be a talker but I observe as much as I want to. Through experience, I believe that I have recognized many factors that could encourage assimilation or division within societies. Language is one of those factors. From time to time, issues on language reach national prominence, just like religion. While it is not uncommon for these issues to be discussed with great vigor, there are factors that are perceived as minor in importance and have been looked over without second thought by many. One of it is dietary preference. In my humble opinion, some of these minute details must be understood if we are to further comprehend the division within our society.

Some say that food is the great unifier. Such claim is commonly found in cooking or travel magazines. While true under certain light, the statement is certainly not universally embraced.

Food is a great unifier, if everybody loves and able to consume the same food under peaceful circumstances. Alas, not everybody shares the same taste or diet; preference differs from person to person. Dietary differences are even more pronounced between communities and one does not need to go far to see this. Everywhere in Malaysia, it is very usual to have people of the same background to eat together while separated from those of different backgrounds with different dietary preferences.

There are many ways to entertain oneself in good company. One could go to a theme park or shopping for something somewhere. Or, one could eat. Eating together builds bonds and within this context, food is a great unifier.

Unfortunately, it is hard to find Malays, or to be more precise, Muslim Malays in Chinese restaurants, eating together with Chinese. By Chinese restaurants, I mean those that serve Chinese food. There, it is typical to have pork served. Because Islam sees pork as unclean, typically Muslims in Malaysia, especially the less liberal ones, would not come close to it.

Even if pork is not on the menu, Islamic requirement related to slaughtering is a huge barrier that prevents Muslims from patronizing such places as it is doubtful whether the Chinese would adhere to such requirement. In fact, there is no reason for the Chinese — non-Muslim Chinese (I hate the term “non-Muslim”. It signal exclusiveness instead of inclusiveness. Unfortunately, my limited vocabulary prevents me from finding suitable replacement for the term. Hence, I am forced to use the term) — to follow such strict requirement.

Further, liquors consumption is unheard off in Muslim tradition while many others, such consumption is seen as casual. This creates yet another barrier to greater interaction between the communities.

These restrictions generally prevent Muslims and those that does not share the same restriction from mingling together to a greater extent. They are unable to share the same joy.

Of course, there are food that both Muslims and the rest could enjoy together. Yet, such overlap is limited.

Only those that are liberal with their diet are able to cut through the gastronomical barrier. The evident is clear. While Muslims rarely patronize restaurants that served restricted food, those that have no dietary restriction are able to patronize all kind of restaurants, including Muslim restaurants.

For a vegetarian, I would imagine, it is even worse.

Despite all, perhaps, it is not too bad after all. Food does not prevent those of different backgrounds from forming some sort of friendly relationships. Food is not the only factor that affects relationship between people. Still, for those with conservative dietary — with all things remain the same — taking those relationships to another level is a challenge.

This however does not mean we all should consume the same food and create a monotonous society. All I am saying is that, we should recognize how food could act as a divider. From that recognition, perhaps, we all could or would learn to appreciate differences or diversity better.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1191] Of Turkish secularism

There are those that point Turkey as an example of secularism. While secular, Turkey is not my ideal secular state. Turkey, as well as France, has taken secularism beyond what is required, turning the state hostile to religion whereas it is sufficient to be neutral instead. Religion is matter of personal choice and individuals must be able profess their conviction as long as such activity does not prevent others from living freely. The state should not have a say in individual’s belief.

One of the most controversial issues that concern secularism in Turkey is the Islamic headscarf. Muslim women are prevented from wearing headscarf at public institutions such as schools and the parliament. Back in May 1999, there was a dispute between a Muslim woman MP that wore a headscarf and many secularists in the Turkish parliament:

The first session of the newly-elected Turkish parliament has broken up in turmoil after a woman MP arrived for the swearing-in ceremony wearing an Islamic-style headscarf.

The newly elected MP Merve Kavakci, of the pro-Islamist Virture Party, refused demands to leave the chamber. Caretaker prime minister Bulent Ecevit accused her of violating the basic principles of the secular Turkish Republic. [Headscarf row in Turkey parliament. BBC. May 3 1999]

I am unsure what exactly is the basic principle of secular Turkish Republic but I am sure that the MP was prevented from exercising her individual right. Her religious freedom was threatened and that, to me, is unacceptable.

Farther into the past, Islam as a religion was suppressed to an extent that it is difficult to believe that Turkey was once the center of the Islamic world. The call to prayer was forced by the state to be sung in Turkish instead of Arabic, as it has been traditionally done all around the world. Worse, religious properties were confiscated by the state; a violation of private property. Restriction placed on Islam in Turkey was almost very authoritarian and I find it repulsive. As time progressed fortunately, the Turkish state has found ways to respect religious freedom better though there are spaces for improvement still.

Perhaps, in Turkey, the meaning of secularism goes far beyond simple separation between religion and the state. As I take it, or rather, the secularism I have in my mind is the one that simply separates public policies and religion, instead of pushing religion rudely into an dark, empty box, infringing religious freedom.

Secularism in no way should infringe any individual liberty. Let me get this straight — individual freewill sit on higher plane to secularism. Secularism is a only tool — useful nonetheless — in promoting liberty.

As one may be overzealous in pursuing religious goals, one may be overzealous in pursuing secular goals; so overzealous that one forgets that secularism is the absence of religion in the workings of the state and the absence of the state in religious matter. Turkish secularism, only fulfills the former rule but fails to satisfy the second requirement. The state has no business in regulating religion, be it in favor or against. It is worth reiterating that secular state is merely neutral of religion.

Repeat what I have written again, Turkish secularism fails to respect liberty. This is a reason why whenever somebody cites Turkey as a secular state, I am rather reluctant to accept such example. A better example would be something like Canada, United Kingdom or the United States when all individuals are free to practice their faith in public, while the state is free from religious influence and religions from the state.

But, when I read the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, a candidate for the next President of the Turkish Republic made the following statements…:

Mr Gul insisted that “the president must be loyal to secular principles”, adding: “If I am elected I will act accordingly”.

Both Mr Erdogan and Mr Gul have wives who wear the Islamic headscarf – a highly divisive issue in Turkey.

Mr Gul defended the headscarf choice on Tuesday, saying “these are individual preferences and everybody should respect them”. [Turkey ‘must have secular leader’. BBC. April 24 2007]

…I cannot help but nod in approval.

I seek a secular state that respect individual liberty; a liberal state above anything else. Notwithstanding that, that particular statement by Mr. Gul, Turkish secularism, in its current and past forms, does not my profile and thus, I cannot give it full support. What I can give is mere sympathy for the lesser devil for I do not believe an Islamist state would respect liberty more than the status quo.