Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[1999] Of I am endorsing Husam Musa

Why?

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – An influential opposition leader running for a key post in Malaysia’s Islamist party has “guaranteed” a commitment to a free market economy and protecting the rights of the country’s multi-racial communities.

Husam Musa, vice-president of the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), the country’s second largest party in mass membership, is vying to be PAS deputy leader at its five-day annual conference which starts on Wednesday. [Malaysia Islamist to protect free market, minorities. Razak Ahmad. Reuters. June 2 2009]

Right on!

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1998] Mengenai apakah definisi liberalisme yang Zulkiflee Bakar gunakan?

Terlampau ramai telah menulis tentang cadangan membenarkan bekas pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya pulang ke kampung halamannya. Utusan Malaysia merupakan antara satu akhbar yang kuat menentang cadangan itu dan tentangannya kebanyakan berunsurkan emosi dan bukan berunsurkan ideologi.

Ini jelas apabila banyak esei dan artikel memanggil semula pembunuhan yang lalu tanpa menyentuh tentang hak peribadi terhadap harta ataupun pembentukan masyarakat tidak berkelas.

Disebabkan ini, walaupun isu ini jelas menjadi isu perdana, saya kurang gemar menyentuh akan isu ini dan oleh itu, tidak mahu terlibat secara langsung di dalam perdebatan tersebut.

Ini berubah apabila saya terbaca satu perenggan hasil penulisan Zulkiflee Bakar yang diterbitkan oleh Mingguan Malaysia hari ini:

Percayalah, mungkin ada segelintir sahaja yang menyokong gesaan untuk membenarkan Chin Peng kembali tetapi terdapat jutaan lagi rakyat Malaysia menentang keras langkah tersebut. Puak yang menyokong itu adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang bukan sahaja buta sejarah tetapi berfahaman liberalisme, mereka tidak tahu apa itu komunis. [Jangan buta sejarah kerana kepentingan politik. Zulkiflee Bakar. Mingguan Malaysia. Mei 31 2009]

Saya berminat akan definisi liberalisme yang Encik Zulkiflee Bakar gunakan. Saya hairan siapakah yang “berfahaman liberalisme”“tidak tahu apa itu komunis”?

Tiada penjelasan diberikan di dalam penulisannya. Dia bagai menulis sesedap hati, berseloroh untuk menembak sesiapa sahaja yang tidak bersehaluan dengan fahaman rasisnya yang menuntut kesetiaan tidak berbelah bagi yang wujud di dalam fasisme.

Encik Zulkiflee perlu memahami yang liberalisme beraliran klasik dan komunisme mengimpikan kebebasan walaupun haluan ke arah kebebasan berbeza. Berbanding dengan liberalisme dan komunisme, konsep kebebasan tidak wujud di dalam fasisme.

Jangan lupa, semasa Perang Dunia II, liberalisme dan komunisme bersatu memerangi fasisme yang dimajukan oleh Jerman Nazi. Kenapa itu berlaku perlu difahami oleh Encik Zulkiflee.

Categories
Environment Liberty Personal

[1991] Of butterfly, blown away

A small butterfly was slowly making its way to somewhere, as gently as any butterfly would with its fragile wings. For once in a very long time, at that very moment, I felt something that I haven’t had the luxury of experiencing.

I wondered, when was the last time I saw a butterfly?

The answer was shocking. I could not remember it and I know that that was the first butterfly I see with my own eyes for this year.

Upon that cognizance, I frowned and lamented the path I’ve taken.

It does seem that I have veered off course from that one path I dreamed of long ago. That feeling of fulfillment of just taking a weekly walk through that arboretum in Ann Arbor in summer days, watching the swans gracefully swimming by, the dogs running happily and couples haplessly trying to slow time so that they could be together a little longer.

A little longer. Just a little longer. That was how I felt when I finally understood that I had to leave Ann Arbor, my home, for Kuala Lumpur.

Kuala Lumpur was a home so foreign at that time. I was not quite sure I could fit in. I still struggle till today though I’ve confidently mastered the spaghetti-like unplanned roads paved long ago. While I adapted, I found myself unconsciously gradually being sucked into a city life.

Of concrete jungle, steel lions, uncultured individuals who jump queue, people that speak too loudly over the phone…

The list goes on and on.

The good things in life were missing in that list.

I did try, going out once in a while but I am bad at making time for myself. First, it was a corporate life but I hated it. It was as if work owned me.

Fine, I get to know a couple of CEOs and other seemingly important people. I did learn a couple of things or two and I do think it enriched me as a person. But corporate life is just not my place. I do not relish it as much as I appreciate sitting on a bench amid the trees, just knowing that I breathe that sweet Huron air.

That was what I did almost every Friday when I was in school. And that is something I’ve been robbed of once I found myself in the awful labor market.

And then it was the political scene and again I got to meet interesting people. My involvement however was nothing serious and on the fringe. Still, somehow, it was emotionally consuming.

And I write and later, finding myself writing for a popular media regularly. That regular slot is taking my time for myself away from me, from that pool of reserve of whatever time I have left. Worse, I find myself writing about economics and politics, leaving behind others things that are more beautiful, things that demand more eloquence. Things that make writing fulfilling.

But from the realm of economics and politics, I do get some interesting offers from time to time. And I’ve met with a couple of ministers, MPs and assemblymen on both sides of the aisle.

I admit, I do like the attention. It makes me feel special.

Yet again, it is not my place. It is so fake; many people are so pretentious it seems. I feel that I am so pretentious in those places too.

I hate it when people who recognize me come up to me and begin to speak about politics. They begin to speak about their views and expecting me to listen. They wanted to listen to my views. I hate it when I feel I am obliged to speak.

With all due respect, I don’t care and I just, really, want to be alone and sometimes with friends. I mean, I do care for developments in the society and all but there are times when I would just like to observe while being incognito. I just want to listen and maybe catch up with some people – nothing deep, just perhaps holding shallow conversation – and then leave.

Although I am deeply ideological, I’m not that eager to speak about ideology at times when I just want to walk around and rather talk about all that stuff that make life vain. Something is wrong when my conversations keep having names such as Hayek, Keynes, Ricardo, Marshall, Malthus, Marx, Lenin, Reagan, Smith, Walras, etc. I want my conservations to be filled with name of friends, not of such dead individuals, however important they are or were. Yet, I’m sucked in.

That butterfly reminded me of everything that is wrong with me.

There I was in a park, walking with a friend that I meet only rarely.

She drew my attention from the butterfly to her. She spoke with idealism that I had long decided to keep in my diary ago. She spoke of issues that I held so dearly long ago. She spoke of mother nature with passion that I admire.

Unlike me, she is pursuing that path and is going all around the world doing what he holds dearly.

She tried to explain about Costa Rica to me. How beautiful it was. How serene it was. How she likes it so much.

She gets to be amid nature. Amid the greens, of cool water, of mosses, of leeches, of elephants, of hills and mountains, and that valley of life. She’s free.

I strive for freedom but she has that freedom. And for that, I am envious of her.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1990] Of unclenched fist and open hand

As a person who spent parts of his formative years in the United States and, more importantly, shared the ideals which the US is founded on, I cannot deny that I have a certain inclination towards the Land of the Free. And so I cannot help having a sense of joy after seeing the Foreign Minister Anifah Aman having a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Department of State. Finally, here is a chance for Malaysia to have good relations with the US.

I believe it does not take much convincing to say that our relations with the US have been dysfunctional for the longest time. The Mahathir administration was intent in demonizing the US, and the US in return kept criticizing Malaysia’s admittedly unenviable records on human rights. Under the Abdullah administration, Malaysia apparently relegated ties with the US down its priority list. The US meanwhile increasingly looked at Malaysia with a lackadaisical attitude at best or at worst ignored the country altogether with an occasional customary criticism just to keep its educated local audience who can spot where Malaysia actually is on the globe happy.

This happened despite the US being one of Malaysia’s major trading partners and the world’s only superpower. The US has its military all over the world and its political pressure can be felt everywhere. And until recently, its economic influence was unrivalled. The signs insist that Malaysia cannot abuse the US too much and yet we had two consecutive administrations which went against the signs: one was unabashedly anti-US to become a hero of Third World countries like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and the other appeared not to care.

The source of rocky relations between Malaysia and the US is none other than the former Deputy Prime Minister Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The US came out to criticize the Mahathir administration against the unjust treatment Anwar received beginning in the late 1990s. Former Vice-President Al Gore later openly declared support for the Reformasi movement, in Kuala Lumpur no less. That was the final straw for former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

And then, of course, there was George W. Bush. The Bush administration’s foreign policy after the Sept 11 attacks made the world environment not conducive for any significant improvement to Malaysia-US ties.

As a person who wishes to see more fulfilling relationship between the two countries, I find this unfortunate because our country was initially close to western countries and by extension the US. At one time, former US President Lyndon Johnson visited Malaysia. That visit in the 1960s remains the one and only time a sitting US President has ever set foot in this rich but problematic country. It was that long ago.

Oh my, how far we have gone in the wrong direction: from pro-western to neutrality and from neutrality to anti-western. In the process, due to prevailing liberal ideas in the West, liberals were victimized as Western countries were demonized. Liberals and the West were equated. It was an unfair equation but far too easy to make because the same ideals were shared by both.

Whereas in the beginning the idea of liberty was imbedded in the constitution of this country, we gradually saw illiberal ideas finding their way into the fabric of our society to usurp liberal ideas. What was supposed to be ingrained in our constitution later was considered as foreign and almost treasonous at times. The equation between liberals and the West was used to cast local liberals as traitors. It was a hurtful experience for liberals, and it still is.

But to borrow John Kerry’s lines used during the US presidential election in 2004, hope is on the way.

Regardless of misgivings I may have towards the Najib administration as well as the Obama administration, signs suggest that ties are changing for the better. The Najib administration so far appears to be less provocative and more engaging in dealing with the US. The invitation the Foreign Minister received from the US Department of State is perhaps a reciprocal sign.

The quick submission of a new name for ambassadorship to the US is another. Notwithstanding the reputation of the person, this may show how the Najib administration is out to repair relations with the US. The submission of a new name is no little matter given that the US has refused to confirm Malaysia’s previous choice to head its embassy in Washington DC due to the candidate’s connection to the disgraced Jack Abramoff.

Despite an implicit request by the US for a new name, the Abdullah administration did not offer a new one. The result? Malaysia has not had an ambassador to the US for more than half a year now. A quick confirmation by the US may lay the path to more cordial bilateral relations between the two countries whose flags likely trace their common origin back to the flag of the British East India Company.

Furthermore, US President Barack Obama appears very sincere in undoing the damage the Bush administration had brought to the reputation of the US in the international arena. To add to that, while Southeast Asia and Malaysia were ignored by the Bush administration as it focused on China, the Obama administration seems intent on bringing Southeast Asia up in its priority list. Malaysia has always been central to Southeast Asian politics and I find it impossible for the US to ignore Malaysia if it plans to again take Southeast Asia seriously.

Improved relations however do present Malaysian liberals with a conundrum.

On one hand, better relations with the US present an opportunity to push for liberal reforms like protection of individual rights, creation of a right egalitarian society and a real democratic society in Malaysia. On top of that, better ties could see less vilification of liberals by the Malaysian government by virtue that liberals more or less share the same ideals as espoused by the US constitution; vilification of liberals may lead to vilification of the US and inevitably hurting ties with the US at a time when good relations are sought. Not too long ago, Barisan Nasional went as far as to accuse liberal ideas as dangerous foreign ideas and collectively an antithesis to Malaysian society and the so-called social contract. A genuine interest to forge closer ties with the US could prevent that from happening again, rhetorically and in terms of policies.

On the other hand, in the interest of improving ties with multiple important countries which lack enough reverence for human rights, the Obama administration may decide to tone down its criticism. There is a precedent for this: in her first visit to China in her capacity as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was quiet on issues of human rights in China.

My fear is that the Obama administration may adopt the same stance with Malaysia. The danger is that it may embolden the Najib administration to test the boundary of individual liberty in this country knowing full well that the US may be unwilling to criticize the Malaysian government too harshly. A US that is less willing to criticize means one less big international pressure off the back of the Najib administration.

During the joint press conference at Foggy Bottom, Clinton was asked about the charge of sodomy — believed by the US as being politically motivated — made against Anwar. Her answer was most diplomatic, content to say that she raised the issues of rule of law and that ”that speaks for itself.”

The trade-off between good relations and criticism is real on government-to-government basis but for me as a liberal, I want good relations as well as that criticism too to help prod Malaysia farther towards the goal of liberal democracy. I would not be able to fully appreciate good relations with the US where the US keeps mum on violations of individual liberty that may happen in Malaysia in the future.

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 May 20 2009.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1987] Of my support for election does not negate my belief in freedom of association

Why election in Perak? Why do I support dissolving the state assembly in light that I see no wrong in a person exercising his or her freedom of association? Is it not political defection that caused the whole fiasco in Perak?

Am I being inconsistent?

No. I hold consistency as a personal value and therefore, I can say with certainty that I am being consistent. Allow me to explain my position and demonstrate my consistency.

From my perspective, the issue in Perak has long stopped being about freedom of association. It is not about political defection of the three state assemblypersons from DAP and PKR that brought down the Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak. Therefore, point raised by Barisan Nasional — and more so by UMNO members as BN component parties begin to break rank on the matter — about BN having the majority in the state assembly is moot.

It is clear to me that there is a serious deadlock in the state assembly even after accounting for the 3 defectors who are now supposedly to be independent assemblypersons friendly to BN. The deadlock comes not from the composition of the legislative hall which practically favors BN but is caused instead by the fact that the Speaker and the de facto government — BN, that is — are terribly hostile against each other. It is this deadlock, not the defection per se, that convinces me to support dissolution of the assembly and inevitably election.

Speakers in Malaysia, be it at the federal or state level, have extensive powers that he is the dictator of the house. With a culture of neutrality that should be held by Speaker absent, the Speaker is able to frustrate the government and bring any government’s business to a halt. However disagreeable a Speaker’s action is, the fact is in the imperfect system that Perak and Malaysia adopt considers Speaker’s extensive power as legal.

Not only that, the Speaker can suspend anybody seemingly indiscriminately.

BN tried to remove the Speaker but the truth is that BN cannot hope to succeed if they want to remove the Speaker legally without dissolving the state assembly. What happened on May 7 was a series of constitutional violations where BN eventually usurped the power the Speaker. It was wrong.

The power of the Speaker needs to be addressed but it has to be addressed through amendment of laws, not through the illegal use of brute force as was done on May 7 by BN. This means I consider Sivakumar as the only lawful Speaker.

While BN’s action on May 7 compounds the problem from imperfect system to dishonorable disrespect for the Constitution, it is really irrelevant to my support for dissolution and election. While it does have a great impact on political reality — I think it does make the emotional case for election stronger — the trigger point for my support of election is, as I mentioned, the conflict between the Speaker and the de facto government, the BN government in Perak.

Yes, the de jure government is the Pakatan Rakyat government as highlighted by the High Court in its May 11 ruling but the de facto government is the BN government.

Furthermore, if the apex Court reaffirmed the High Court’s decision, Pakatan Rakyat may become a minority government. Theoretically, if the laws are observed, Pakatan Rakyat can remain a minority government until 2013 because the Speaker can ensure any vote of confidence to bring down the minority government is thrown out. To me, a minority government is unacceptable if there is another group in the same House which is able to form a majority government. It is undemocratic.

To solve the issue, dissolution is necessary.

Notice, the two points do not at all affect freedom of association.