Categories
Activism Education Liberty

[1272] Of Agung puji Projek Sayong

While I was at Fraser’s Hill last Sunday exploring the Pine Tree Trail — rock climbing, really, towards the highest point in the Fraser’s Hill area — I received a message in the middle of the jungle. Being dangling in the air after the trail decided to take a radical right angle turn to the sky, it was an awkward moment to receive a message. It rudely remained me of how I am reachable event in places where I should be unreachable. I wanted to ignore it but curiosity got the best of it. I collapsed to temptation. I just could not resist checking it out. With one hand gripping a strong tree root and another on my cell, I read this: Agung puji projek sayong!

I was unsure of the context of the exclamation until I read this today:

KUALA KANGSAR: Educational institutions should copy projects like the Malay College Kuala Kangsar’s 100-year development plan to make the country’s education system globally competitive.

The “Sayong Project” takes into account the school’s future development, its administration and direction in terms of academic and extra-curricular excellence, said Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at MCKK’s Speech Day yesterday.

“I am really impressed that such plans have been drawn up and have been acknowledged in principle by the Education Ministry,” he said. [King: Go the MCKK way. NST. June 24 2007]

That praise makes my involvement in the initiative all the more satisfying.

There were some really radical suggestions made during the initial course of the project. Some of it made it to the final document. Some were thrown out of the window because it was deemed to crazy or plainly politically unfeasible. During discussion, harsh criticism but not entirely unfair were directed towards various parties. I think it was most heated when a question on Malay agenda was posed.

In the end, at least from my point of view, the project is about giving students’ the power to manage their own lives. It is about trust on individuals slightly tempered in the name discipline. The project try not to place trust on some bureaucrats that have never set foot on the sacred ground which the green lady is alleged to roam. It is liberalism by any standard within the Malaysian public education system.

If this Project goes through, I stores high hope in my heart to see a true beginning of liberal education in the country. Perhaps, slowly, sculpting the society towards a liberal one.

Seriousness asides, the project members, and definitely I took pleasure in redesigning the College ground. So, I cannot help but wonder which structure does this refer to:

Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein commented that cluster schools should prove their excellence, and not be too engrossed in physical infrastructure.

“Infrastructure is the least of my problems,” he said after announcing that MCKK will receive an unspecified sum from the Education Ministry to build a new school hall. [King: Go the MCKK way. NST. June 24 2007]

And heh, because of the praise, I am more than willing to tone down my republican sentiment whenever I speak of the Malaysian monarchy.

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1262] Of Karen Armstrong’s lecture in Kuala Lumpur

The lecture by Karen Armstrong was not as impressive as I expected it to be. I enjoyed it nonetheless. The lecture was titled The Role of Religion in the 21st Century but the content was positively about the commonalities shared by the world’s major religions.

I reached the Mandarin Oriental Hotel early and managed to catch free breakfast at the hotel. If I had not spent too much time at the lobby, I would probably have sat somewhere closer to the front. Alas, I sat somewhere in the middle, right beside what seemed to be a fan of Armstrong. We got into a small chat and I learned through her that Armstrong’s A History of God is banned in Malaysia.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

Apart from Armstrong herself, former PM Mahathir Mohamed was there. So too was his daughter Marina Mahathir. When the former PM was introduced to the audience, there was a tremendous ovation for him, even louder than what Armstrong had received. That showed how popular he still is and how much respect he commands among the public.

Through the lecture, it is clear that Armstrong is apologetic to the idea of religion. While at it, she mentioned several religious versions of the non-aggression axiom. I of course hold the axiom due to its morality, not because I am told to do so.

One particularly interesting point she shared is about the condition during the birth of major religions. She stated that religions were born out of revulsion of violence or immorality of that time. I am unsure about the truth of such general statement but after thousands of years, I feel that that revulsion itself has become the violence that those religions abhor in the first place.

Despite being apologetic, she did criticize the religious conservatives or fundamentalists, saying it is amazing how the opinion of the deities always coincide with theirs. That remark drew laughter from the crowd.

There was the Q&A session after that. A person came to the microphone and called for the government to undo the ban on Armstrong’s book. The crowd immediately gave the person a resounding round of applause. Armstrong completely agreed with the person and continued to say something to the effect that when freedom is suppressed, the human spirit sours and so too religion with it. The call for freedom is all the more impressive because this event was organized by the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, an arm of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Syed Hamid Albar, the Malaysian Foreign Minister, was there, sitting by the former PM’s side. Furthermore, since the restriction on the book began in 2005, the remark is a direct comment against the Abdullah administration.[1]

The whole lecture finally ended around noon. As I was leaving, I unwittingly came into the former PM’s path. While I do not agree with many of his policies, I still regard him as a respectable leader and to shake his hand is an honor which I grabbed without hesitation.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

There was a small lunch after that and I noticed Haris Ibrahim there speaking to somebody. Azmi Sharom, one of the speakers at the recent DAP forum, was there too.

After all that, I visited Kinokuniya, finally bought Rumi’s Masnavi that I first encountered, briefly, years ago and later, sadly got elected as the treasurer of a special interest group within the Malaysian Nature Society.

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

[1] erratum — the original factually incorrect sentence before correction: Furthermore, since the book was first published in 1994, I would assume the ban came in during the Mahathir administration. Therefore, it was a direct comment.

Categories
Activism Economics

[1261] Of distributive justice in free market

Institute for Policy Research, better known locally among restricted circles as IKD (Institut Kajian Dasar) organized a small forum on the New Economic Policy a couple of hours ago. As it turned out, the forum focused on the weaknesses of the New Economic Policy but throughout the forum, the most interesting point was raised by Dzulkefly Ahmad and later followed up by Khalid Jaafar.

Dzulkefly Ahmad, the director of PAS Research Centre, mentioned the phrase distributive justice. I quickly recognized this as another word for equitability. In my head, I was quick to point out that mainstream economics does not deal with equitability but rather, stresses on efficiency. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism to achieve a perceived efficient equitable point; the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics provides for this. In layperson’s term, the theorem proves that any efficient outcome could be achieved through a lump-sum wealth redistribution. Through the new allocation of endowment, the new efficient outcome is attainable through market forces.

While I was thinking in technical term, Khalid Jaafar came up with a more meaningful question: who would be responsible for the redistribution of wealth?

My bias wants me to say the market. After deeper casual mental masturbation however, I am struggling to answer the question of how would or could the market reallocate individuals’ endowment?

The tougher questions are these: what is an economic efficient equitable outcome? Could the market recognize that efficient equitable outcome?

At 02:40, my eyes are heavy and my brain is shutting off.

Unlike me, all speakers — Rajah Rasiah of Universiti Malaya, Dzulkelfly Ahmad of PAS and Tony Pua of DAP — prefer the easier path which requires government intervention. That endowment reallocation is of course done through taxation.

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1256] Of Lina Joy case is more than a mere procedural matter

Is the Lina Joy case is a procedural matter?

There are those that insist it is but I strongly beg to differ. Saying the case is procedural in nature downplays an issue that receives great attention from many sides that have stake in the ruling of the case. On the surface, I would agree that the case is about procedural in nature. If one looks at the issue beyond skin deep however, this is about a conflict of rights.

I was surprised to read procedure being forwarded as the cause of this confrontation. The procedure-based argument understates the issue so much that I feel there is a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or maybe, it is an act of downplaying an explosive and divisive issue. I could not care less if it were specifically, exclusively about procedure but I care because it is not. If this case were about procedure, what a pitiful society we all live in, arguing on matter of little significance. In my humble opinion, our society deserves a little bit of respect as far as this case is concerned.

The truth is, there are two groups that matter in this case. One emphasizes on individual rights and another emphasizes on community rights. From a neutral point of view, the overlapping area of the rights is the crux of this whole debate.

The fraction that stresses on individual rights is without doubt the liberals. The liberalism, at least classical liberalism, places the sovereignty of the individual on the individual. Individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person and properties as long as he respects others’ person and properties.

The other side however demands the sovereignty of an individual be transferred to the society. In other word, sovereignty of the individuals is the pregorative of the society. The religious conservatives in particular, from my observation, insist that a higher being or god rules sovereign over individuals. The community then acts on behalf of that god and takes over the sovereignty on the individual on the behalf of god. As far as the case is concerned, Lina Joy’s religious belief is god’s prerogative and by implication, it is the community’s prerogative.

Between the two, the latter does not recognize difference in belief or religious freedom while the former does. If one is to draw a Venn diagram, the overlap is obvious where the content of the universal set is claims to rights.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The source of contention is freedom of belief. Individual rights demand religious freedom while community rights do not but both stake claim for it. Therefore, the question we need to ask and answer is, which rights should take priority? For liberals, the answer is obvious.

As long as this is left unanswered, the issue — the contest of ideologies — the blurriness will stay. Furthermore, saying the Lina Joy case is a question of procedural tantamount to sweeping the dust under the carpet; attributing the case to procedural matter does not solve the matter.

If we as a society would like to come to a common ground, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge the root course. Attacking the symptoms, which is too common in Malaysia, does nothing.

After all, just as was mentioned by Jonson Chong at a forum on Lina Joy ruling organized by DAP that I attended earlier this week, the law is an mean, not an end.

Categories
Activism Liberty

[1246] Of religious freedom in Malaysia on Wikipedia and Facebook

I am happy to announce that news of the restriction on religious freedom in Malaysia has made it to the front page of Wikipedia (due to the nature of Wikipedia, the permanent link is here). That is exactly what I hoped for when I first inserted the entry to Wikipedia’s current event section a few day ago. This is important in raising awareness pertaining the tyranny that is going on in Malaysia.

Screenshots by Mohd Hafiz Noor SHams. Fair use.

Further, if you are on Facebook and if you care for religious freedom in Malaysia, do kindly consider joining in the newly created group called Uphold the Malaysian Constitution. Reaffirm religious freedom. It may not amount to real activism but at least, it helps in spreading the awareness. Without awareness, there can be no activism.