Category: Liberty

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2243] Of discuss, debate but do not threaten

Opinions abound and they are bound to hit some sensitive nerve. When it hits, there goes another police report. There goes another demand for an ISA arrest.

The right-wing group Perkasa has been at it for some time now, calling for the arrest of various individuals for challenging what the group considers as Malay rights. Leaders of MCA and MIC meanwhile have lodged police reports against Perkasa for calling for the abolition of vernacular schools. An Umno politician recently said that nobody should question the existence of these schools because the founding fathers had agreed to it — nobody should question it; neither such an ultimatum nor threat has any place in a democratic system that cherishes freedom.

Some debates are engaging in that there are outstanding ripostes to brilliant arguments as opposing sides try to outwit each other. An exploration of ideas happens along the way to awe both participants and spectators. They are well-researched and well-argued. Malaysia requires this kind of debate for it to take the next step into the future confidently. We have the infrastructure and the institutions to take that step. What we lack is the culture. The exchange of threats reflects that.

The ones taking place in Malaysia are unimpressive by any measure. There is no witty riposte. There is no brilliant argument. There are just people who disagree with each other so badly that they want to silence the other. They are unable to conjure attractive thoughts to undermine the others’ arguments. They are not creative enough to convince the others and the spectators why they are right and the others are wrong. All they can muster is ”shut up or else.”

Worse, some of these arguments are made by members of the ruling coalition. One would expect more from them, given that they are driving the car.

When an argument is really a thinly veiled threat, it betrays something about it or those who make it. It is a weakness of intellect or laziness in thoughts. The gears in their heads stop running and their muscles begin to flex.

If this was the dominating atmosphere on the fringes, it could all be ignored safely. They can flex their muscle all they want in dark corners populated by cuckoos. But all this is happening in the center of the public arena.

It is because it is taking place in the centre that this lamented trend cannot be tolerated. It creates a climate of fear that crowd freedom out from the center.

No one in Malaysia needs any reminders that multiple issues need resolutions. These are old legacy issues and problems we inherited from our founding fathers.

None can claim to know what the eventual sustainable solutions are. What is true is that the way for us to begin to imagine those solutions is by being free to debate all issues with reason, not by resorting to threats.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on August 27 2010.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2238] Of why do we have poster wars?

In Waterloo, which is about 20 minutes to the south of the central business district of Sydney, a man in his mid-30s approached me. He offered me a leaflet. The leaflet more or less says ”Vote Liberal.” Although I cannot vote in the upcoming Australian federal election, I accepted the leaflet out of curiosity. Apart from that, it has been quiet here in Australia despite the election being just less than a week away.

Let me rephrase that and stress what actually interests me. I do not see too many posters around.

A question lingers in my head. Why is that so?

Without access to newspapers, television and the Internet, it would take an effort to realize that Australia is in its campaigning period. The atmosphere in the streets and in the city right now is no different from any other typical day. People just mind their business, as if the upcoming election is a minor distraction.

Contrast that to Malaysian elections. Election time is always carnival-like in Malaysia. It is noisy and it is colorful. Loud speeches will blare into the night. More strikingly is the poster war. Colors representing major political parties will decorate the streets. Once it is election time, you will know it, even if you are apolitical.

Some Australian friends of mine try to explain this phenomenon to me by stating that Australian politics is boring. It is really a contest between two uncharismatic politicians representing two unexciting political parties, they say. Australians are not entirely excited about it. On top of that, I live in a safe seat for Labor. There is little contest to be expected. In other words, the level of excitement translates into a poster war, or lack of it.

That explanation does not explain my experience in the United States. I lived in Ann Arbor during the 2004 presidential election. It is an overwhelmingly Democrat town. I do not remember seeing too many posters hung in public places but the election was still electrifying.

One may expect infrastructure to have some part in causing poster wars. If the communication infrastructure like television and radio is unable to relay messages, posters are effective for the job.

Now, the US and arguably Australia have a more developed communication infrastructure than Malaysia. As far as Kuala Lumpur is concerned, the level is comparable. Yet, if one wants to witness a poster war, the Malaysian capital is the place to be. Or compare Kuala Lumpur with some rural area like Ijok.

If infrastructure was an issue, Kuala Lumpur should experience less of a poster war compared to other places. In fact, there were poster wars everywhere in most previous Malaysian elections that I care to remember. Thus, the state of infrastructure does not provide a satisfactory explanation.

Being a libertarian, I find it inevitable to eventually resort to a libertarian explanation and I think it explains the phenomenon of poster war better than others do.

The libertarian explanation goes like this. Non-Barisan Nasional parties face restrictions in terms of access to the mainstream media. The restrictions naturally encourage individuals and parties to look for alternative avenues to spread their political messages or to introduce their candidates to voters. Posters and the Internet are two avenues relatively free of restrictions in Malaysia.

In Australia and the US, all parties have considerable access to the mainstream media.

Thus, there is less need for a poster war.

This may be useful in addressing the problem of a poster war. On the whole a poster war can be entertaining, more often than not those who participate in it tend to overdo it.

When you are looking at a road sign for direction and you read ”go right for Barisan Nasional or go left of Pakatan Rakyat” instead of KLCC or Bukit Bintang, you know somebody is being overzealous about those posters.

With fewer restrictions to access or even entry into the mainstream media, the problem of too many posters may be solved without resorting to more rules and regulations.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on August 16 2010.

Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[2235] Of hitting the brakes of subsidy liberalization

I am generally in favor of subsidy cuts in Malaysia. Yet, I hesitate to support the recent liberalization.

The economic rationale for liberalization is clear. Public discourse on this front has seen enough progress that liberalization is a popular position to take in Malaysia.

Let us recap the most commonly cited arguments.

Firstly, the subsidy program has an opportunity cost, as with all policies. If a government spends on one particular program, it necessarily means not spending money on others. Moreover, blanket consumption subsidy is probably the worst of all policies in terms of opportunity cost.

Secondly, there are better policies — cash transfer or tradable quotas for the needy are two examples — compared to outright subsidy. These alternative policies can address welfare concerns more efficiently.

Thirdly, the subsidy program has to be financed. That means taxation. While taxation is required to maintain a government, the level of taxation can be controlled to accommodate other concerns. There are various reasons why a low-tax environment is favorable. A bloated subsidy program does not help in this aspect.

Finally, together with a subsidy program, multiple suffocating supply and demand control regimes typically exist to support the program. As a result, the market becomes inflexible as more and more controls are set in place. The inflexibility causes hardship to more individuals than necessary.

The subsidy cut appeals to these arguments. If these were the only concerns, I would wholly support the liberalization exercise.

But it is not.

Two pillars form the basis for my support for liberalization. One is economic concerns. The other involves concern for freedom. Specifically, it is the idea of small government.

The weight I put on these two factors changes from time to time according to situation and the situation has changed since the last time subsidy liberalization took place. The size of subsidies and the drag these place on government finance are less of an issue today compared to a year or two ago. That convinces me to place more weight for freedom vis-à-vis economic concern, although the two concerns are not mutually exclusive most of the time.

While liberalization satisfies the economic side of the balance, the desire to see a reduction in government size is unmet.

Take the Prime Minister’s Department, for instance. Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong shared recently that the size of the department has more than doubled in less than a decade. The statistics regarding the size of the civil service and the government as a whole are more harrowing. All this contributes to the structural fiscal deficit that Malaysia suffers from.

The deficit caused by rocketing expenditure is an indictment of a fat old man called the government. The current government has announced its intention to reduce it, presumably by reducing government expenditure. Whether the plan will be successful is another matter altogether.

Amid the liberalization and other government initiatives that include the formation of new government-linked companies, I have a disturbing narrative at the back of my mind: Effort to free up resources is aimed at merely funding government expansion in other areas.

It is hard to predict the net effect but experience does not encourage much hope. One possible outcome is a scenario where the areas of expansion require a more active government hand compared to the one where the government retreats.

Already, government supporters are using the opportunity cost argument eagerly to justify the recent cuts. They say the government will put the money in good use. Good use or not, they are setting the ground to use the retreat as a justification to expand the other sides of government.

The opportunity cost argument is not exclusively used by government supporters. Opposition sympathizers and others do have ideas on how to spend the money. Politics may create a trade-off between economic concern and freedom in the end.

I fear that, and that fear is holding me back from supporting the recent liberalization.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on August 4 2010.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty

[2230] Of US Chief Justice John Roberts on Bill of Rights

There was a debate in Australia last year regarding adoption of its own bill of rights. Yes, as shocking as it first sounded to a foreigner like me, Australia does not have its own bill of rights.

Although the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts insisted several times that he does not intend to participate in that Australian debate, I believe it is hard not to make a connection between his recently concluded lecture in Sydney and the debate in general. An article by the Financial Review reveals that he delivered another lecture on bill of rights in Melbourne yesterday.

It was just days ago when the New York Times ran a story how the US Supreme Court under Roberts is the most conservative in decades. One could not tell where he sits on the political spectrum based on the lecture however. I definitely could not as I stood at the back of the lecture theater.

The US at its independence in 1776 did not have a bill of rights. Its adoption itself was not automatic. As Roberts said, its adoption did not derive from the first principle but rather, it was through a political process. That political process was not too conducive to its adoption, regardless of the fact that it was eventually adopted later.

The US Chief Justice mentioned several theories why the Bill of Rights was not adopted early with respect to July 4 1776 and the ratification date of the US Constitution. If my memory is not one belonging to a goldfish, he mentioned that the weather as one of them. An uncharacteristic sweltering Philadelphian summer was making further discussion on the Constitution of the US unbearable. Most understood that a discussion on Bill of Rights would lengthen an already long meeting further and most wanted it to end.

Another theory, revolves around a matter of priority. The US was a young country then and there were multiple challenges that required to be addressed urgently. Despite history of individual freedom in America, bill of rights simply was not one of them.

Furthermore, the 13 founding states have already in one way or another have their own bill of rights although interpretations differ. For instance, some states have freedom of assembly included while others do not.

Although these factors may contribute to the late adoption of the Bill of Rights, nothing was more important than the division between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared that an adoption of a national Bill of Rights might take power away from the states and to the federal government.

The battle regarding the Bill of Rights, according to Roberts, was really a proxy battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists were playing up to states’ fear of losing influence to a powerful federal government.

When James Madison — who later became the fourth US President — proposed the then controversial Bill of Rights in the Congress, he had to personally see the Bill through it. When he pushed it, the Congress decided to have a committee to contemplate on the matter. Roberts said this in a humorous manner, perhaps as an acknowledgement how things move slowly at the Capitol Hill.

Roberts contrasted this to Madison. He stressed how notoriously hardworking Madison was. He joked that two of Madison’s Vice Presidents died in office.

Unwilling to let the matter drag, Madison sat in the committee and had the committee completed its work in only a week time, maybe, much to the chagrin of the Congress. There were some other political barriers but those were eventually overcome as the slowly anti-Federalists lost interest in defeating the Bill.

By December 15 1791, the influential Bill of Rights came into effect.

Categories
Liberty Mudslinging

[2210] Of re:liberalism and authoritarian feminism

Dear Ms. Alicia,

In replying to your letter, I will probably admit to only this: perhaps I accidentally casted my net too widely by not using enough qualification when I criticized Farrelly some days ago.[1] I qualified my statement at the beginning but later, I did away with it. I tend to do this because I typically define something early and then, purely for the sake of convenience, use concise term with the expectation that my readers will understand its meaning. For instance, when I write liberal, I refer to classical liberal and not just general liberals who may or may not adhere to the tenets of classical liberalism. Such method usually works. After reading your letter, I discover that that expectation of mine fails in this instance. I should have tirelessly used the qualification until the very end. I may have been sloppy in that sense but I am not guilty of laziness or other accusations of yours.

When I referred to authoritarian feminism with respect to the burqa controversy several days ago, it was not my intention to paint feminism as authoritarian as a whole. I am merely referring to a strain of feminism that is authoritarian. Feminism as advocated by Farrelly clearly belongs to a strain of authoritarian. The litmus test for this is simply her call to use state power to ban the wearing of burqa.

You are right how a political belief such as feminism, or any political belief for that matter, is diverse and complex. Contrary to your assertion, I am well aware of that. The presence of diversity however does not negate the fact that the call for the ban of burqa has been based on feminism, whatever strain that is. It is exactly due to diversity that this can happen.

Neither is this illiberal opinion is a fringe one within feminism. Current development suggests that it is well-subscribed. Not standard — I do not claim so; I merely asked — maybe but popular nonetheless. Unless this illiberal opinion is somehow being overly represented in the media, its popularity is a proof enough that it is a major opinion within feminism. The fact that the debate is being played out in the open is another proof. Such debate suggests that this illiberal fraction within feminism exists. If it did not exist, there would not have been a debate.

I certainly did not base my thoughts on only two articles. You appear to be well aware of the burqa debates within feminism, and perhaps, the larger debate surrounding the burqa. I believe you yourselves are well aware of how popular the call to ban the burqa is among feminists. It is easy to find feminists who disagree and agree with the ban.

I am picking on illiberal feminism and feminists who are supporting the ban. It is this illiberal strain of feminism as advocated by Farrelly that I call authoritarian. If you do not belong to this authoritarian feminism, then good for you.

As a side point, just because one does not have the power to coerce others does not mean authoritarian thoughts do not exist. Authoritarian thoughts and actions can exist independently of each other. Being a fringe also does not mean one does not have the ability to wield the “weapon of authoritarianism.” It is a fallacy to think otherwise. History has shown how minority groups can be authoritarian. But I am digressing. Before there is any misunderstanding, I definitely am not pointing out feminism in this specific case within the confined of this specific paragraph. I am merely proving a point, and a secondary point at that for the purpose of this reply.

So, what if Farrelly exhibits authoritarian tendency? Farrelly is not a spokesperson for feminism, as you have argued.

True. But this argument is quite irrelevant. If it were relevant, it would raise a question: are you a spokesperson for feminism? What right do you have to speak on behalf of any kind of feminism then? The use of ”˜we’ by you would be certainly questionable, if we apply the logic of she-is-not-a-spokesperson without being unfairly selective about it.

My point is that this illiberal tendency within feminism exists and Farrelly is only an agent of it. Perhaps you are a liberal manifestation of feminism. It is unproductive to dismiss Farrelly so easily, given the popularity of the illiberal view. On top of that, Farrelly, after all, writes for an influential mainstream newspaper in Australia. Whatever right you claim, it is claimable by Farrelly as well. It is both a strength and a weakness of diversity within feminism.

After all that, I think since both of us disagree with the ban, I feel there is little to discuss. Indeed, I think there is little room for harsh words. The unkind words scented with personal attack early in your letter are quite unnecessary. Disagreement can be addressed in a civil manner.

Now that the issue of burqa is out of the way, there is one last order of business. It involves reverse discrimination — or positive discrimination or affirmative action, depending which term one prefers — for women. I have made my position clear earlier and my opposition is largely due to my concern for tokenism. For your benefit, allow me to provide a brief explanation with the hope that this disagreement will evaporate in my favor.

If any woman, and indeed, anybody, suffers from endowment effect that necessarily means that she or he does not start at the same starting line and indeed behind, they need to be empowered through skills. Train them. Educate them. A more refined approach is required to address historical accident.

Merely putting them in a position because of affirmative action is counterproductive. Such tokenism will adversely affect society through incompetence, disfranchise the capable and ultimately create unfair generalization of women as a whole.

Reverse discrimination in this manner is what referred to when I wrote beyond tokenism. I despise sentences that go “[a]nd what is this fear of the demands that women may make beyond tokenism that you speak of? A dystopian future of emasculated men?” It is clearly out of context. But I guess, effective rhetoric demands so. It is the cherry on top I suppose.

Let merit be the major determination of who holds what. If women everywhere are more capable than any man anywhere is, then let all positions be dominated by women. I have no problem with that. What I have problem is tokenism brought upon by reverse discrimination.

If a capable woman is prevented from rightly reaching the top due to male chauvinists, then by all mean prosecute the chauvinists under some anti-discrimination laws. If a man is prevented from rightly reaching the top because of some tokenistic system, then you can see me actively dismantling that system. Equal representation is one that demands equality of outcome. As a libertarian, all I want is equality of negative individual rights. I want equality of opportunity as radiated from equal rights.

Oh, just because I do not believe in affirmative action for women does not mean that I have underdeveloped thoughts about gender discrimination. If you supposedly have developed advanced thoughts on the matter, then do share. I would very much like to find out how your argument will be different to those I have listened in the past, either in terms of gender, ethnicity or even business.

Until then, if you demand equality of outcome, then I am proud not to sit on the same side as you. I have raised my voice against demands for equality of outcome in terms of race and ethnicity. I will be a hypocrite if I do not raise my voice against equality of outcome in terms of gender. Merit is the only fair result to an outcome in most, if not all, situations.

With that, I believe I have my say for now.

Thank you for your letter. It gives me an opportunity to clarify my earlier thoughts with measured fashion.

Kind regards.

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

[1] — Show me authoritarian feminism, and I’ll show you some poorly researched tosh: A letter to Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Alicia Izharuddin. Cycads. May 17 2010