Category: Liberty

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1492] Of I will take both

The moment CNN announced the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at a political rally on TV, I immediately realized how the event could be sung to impress to the world of the idea that security supersedes liberty. I half expected Pervez Musharraf to justify his previous decision to impose martial law but it did not right away come across my mind on how the assassination affects Malaysian politics. Weeks earlier, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he is willing to sacrifice public freedom for public safety.[1] Indeed, Deputy PM Najib Razak wasted no time to relate the uncertainties in Pakistan with dissent in Malaysia just a day after the death of Mrs. Bhutto.[2] The pictures painted by the Malaysian government however are disagreeable. The juxtaposition between liberty and security and the supposed trade off between the two is only an illusion undeserving of consideration of the rational minded. On the contrary, it is possible to have both. In fact, individual liberty cannot exist without security.

The concept of individual liberty within classical interpretation at the very least relies on the precept that an individual is free to act according to his will, bounded only by others’ same rights. These rights — negative rights — include but not limited to rights to life, to property and to freedom of expression that we Malaysians lack. It is a grave irony of us celebrating our freedom from colonial powers on yearly basis only to suffer oppression brought upon by our own government.

We are not unique. History without fail has shown how transgression of liberty occurs throughout human consciousness. One of many lessons we could derive from history is this: we must be prepared to defend our liberty; our individual liberty. These rights that make up liberty have to be protected from all efforts to negate it. Thus, as is ever so common in literatures of freedom, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Liberty cannot stand without security. The instability of anarchy — anarchy as in the political philosophy — is a proof to that. This gives the impetus for a society to create a government, a state or any entity for that matter, to protect its members’ liberty from internal and external threats.

At the same time, a liberal constitution outlines individual liberty and in that respect, the role of government in protecting that liberty. While the entity enforcing the constitution is the rightfully elected arbiter of conflict of rights between individuals, in no whatsoever way it gives the state the authority to disrespect individual liberty, unlike the meek Malaysian Constitution.

A good liberal constitution is able to stop anybody, the state, the majority, the mob even, from robbing an individual of his liberty. Democracy by itself is useless; it has to be guided by a liberty-conscious document for tyranny of a majority is no different from tyranny of a dictator. That is the ultimate security. From there, is it not clear that for liberty to prevail, security is required?

In the end, there is no dilemma between liberty and security.

Security however does not necessarily demand liberty. One can be thrown into a cellar for hundreds of years, be safe and unfree from cradle to grave. I have a tingling suspicion that when a politician speaks as if there is a trade off between liberty and security, the term security requires qualification. He seeks not to throw himself into the cellar but instead, he seeks to throw free individuals, whom will not stand aside quietly while watching liberty is being trampled upon for whatever reason, into the cellar. When he speaks of security, he speaks for himself and not for others, not for individuals. When he speaks of security, he speaks of security to his grip to power. The only dilemma he speaks of is between others’ individual liberty and tyrants’ security.

Therefore, the next time someone presents to you an option between liberty and security, tell them with utmost confidence that you insist on having both.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: Public safety will be the Government’s top priority before public freedom and there will be no hesitation to take the stiffest action on irresponsible people, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win. I will not sacrifice my sense of accountability to the greater public, especially in the face of police intelligence about planned fighting or other violent intent.” [PM: Public safety will prevail over public freedom. The Star. December 10 2007]

[2] — Najib said political conflicts, assassinations and instability seen in some other countries should serve as a lesson for all Malaysians.

In this connection, he rapped those who had orchestrated street demonstrations that caused property damage and disrupted people’s daily activities, just to gain political mileage. [Najib: Goverment To Act Against Troublemakers. Bernama. December 29 2007]

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

This article was first published on Bolehland.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1489] Of CNN: Benazir Bhutto is dead

While the situation in Pakistan is bad, but news on CNN comes as a shock; Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated:

Fair use. Copyrights by CNN. Screenshot by Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

There are conflicting reports though:

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto escaped injury when a suicide bomber attacked her election rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. At least six people were killed, a government spokesman said. [Bhutto Unhurt in Suicide Bomb Attack at Pakistan Election Rally. Bloomberg. December 27 2007]

The NYT is not quite sure what is going on and so, it says… maybe:

Fair Use.

Regardless, scenes from before and after the blast are being shown on CNN.

It is unclear who committed the attack but Islamist groups and the military may be two of the clearest suspects yet.

What is clear is that there is so much confusion. Al-Jazeera on TV reports that she was shot before the bomb exploded. CNN reports otherwise. Some sources report that she was killed by the explosion itself.

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

p/s — the NYT makes up its mind:

Fair use

RAWALPINDI, Islamabad — An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker. [Bhutto Assassinated in Attack on Rally. NYT. December 27 2007]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1488] Of Kosovo is a libertarian’s dilemma

Over 15 years after Slovenia and Croatia began the process of Balkanization, Kosovo is preparing to declare itself free from Serbia. As a libertarian, I am sympathetic to the Kosovar cause; freedom appeals to all libertarians. Yet, making a stand is harder than I thought it would be. Unlike the other republics that broke free from Yugoslavia, Kosovo has never been an individual component by itself in that federation.[1] Instead, it has always been part of Serbia with — at one time or another — considerable autonomy power. This fact holds me back from properly throwing my weight behind Kosovo. The Serbs themselves consider Kosovo as the cradle of Serbian state[2] but Kosovo nowadays is primarily inhabited by Albanians.[3] Hoping to comprehend the situation deeper and eventually to form an opinion on the matter, I forced myself to read up on Kosovar history. After two days worth of reading, I may have decided that history may be more of a burden than of help. Or perhaps, we are simply being pushed into a false dilemma by various actor states.

I come to this conclusion not because I fell asleep while reading Kosovar and to some extent, Serbian, and inevitably Yugoslavian history. On the contrary, I found it quite exhilarating. Where ignorance once ruled, light shone upon me, establishing causes and effects of historical actions. The reason for my conclusion is that, its history is too convoluted and it goes back too far into the past. The hostility between Albanian and Serbs could be traced back all the way to the era when the Ottoman Empire first conquered the area in the 14th century.[4] That is about 700 years ago and the hostility still persists.

A number of atrocities were committed by both sides throughout the 700 years and the last atrocity occurred during the late 1990s Kosovo War, barely years after the horror of neighboring Bosnia. NATO brought itself to intervene by driving the Serbs army out of Kosovo, but not before scars were inflicted on both Kosovo and Serbia, perhaps, matching wounds suffered by Bosnians. Since then, while Kosovo is officially part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations.[5] But an older Old Bridge has been built and Bosnia prospers, unlike Kosovo.

The status of Kosovo now hangs in balance. The Kosovars overwhelmingly prefer independence to continued association with Serbia while the Serbs strongly insist that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbian state. With two clear diametric positions, it is unclear what will happen if Kosovo moves toward independence unilaterally.[6]

It is not impossible that violence will erupt yet again in the Balkans. Serbia has indicated that it is prepared to use force to secure the integrity of Serbian territory.[7] On the other side, Albanian Kosovars are prepared to take up arms for a free Kosovo.[8]

While traditional western powers and Russia are ready to take sides,[9] notwithstanding their hypocrisy,[10] I find both Kosovo and Serbia as having valid arguments. Almost like the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kosovo’s case is supported by current reality on the ground; the reality is that a majority of Kosovars demand freedom. For Serbia, history justifies its claim over Kosovo just as history justifies Palestinian claim to the land Israel now sits upon.

Alas, we are living in the moment and adherence to history will cause too much pain. This calls for pragmatism. Just as the most palatable solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution instead of ejection of all Israelis into the sea, perhaps, the same goes to the question of Kosovo.

An astute libertarian would ask, but what about property right? Does Serbia not entitle to it?

I believe we can do better without resorting to crude pragmatism. Indeed, from a libertarian perspective, what important is the guarantee of individual liberties. With such guarantee, where all is treated equally, the idea of Kosovo in Serbia is possible just as the idea of one secular Israel is possible. Israelis and Palestinians as well as Kosovars and Serbians do not have to entrap themselves within the limiting framework of statehood.

The question is, are all sides prepared to live side by side as equal?

With respect to that, individual liberty may be the last thing on the mind of the Kosovars. If that is the case, then, I cannot find the most moral solution to the Kosovo question from the point of liberty.

If I had to choose, if I had to play into the despicable dilemma, unless Serbia could guarantee individual liberty to all Kosovars and indeed, all Serbians, I would be partial to Kosovo. In the face of tyranny, a free Kosovo prevails over Serbian claim. In face of tyranny, history has to be sidelined.

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

[1] — Kosovo did exist as a component independent of Serbia while it was under the Ottoman Empire. But in Yugoslavia, Kosova has always been part of Serbia. See Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire at Wikipedia.

[2] — Nikolic said Serbia could not sit idly by as its cherished Kosovo province, considered the cradle of Serbia’s medieval state, wins recognition by the United States and most EU countries. [AP Interview: Ultranationalist leader calls for Russian military bases in Serbia. AP via IHT. December 18 2007]

[3] — See the Demographics section under Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[4] — See Battle of Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[5] — See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 at Wikipedia.

[6] — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed Friday that international negotiations over the future of Kosovo had reached a dead end, even as its probable new prime minister said that Kosovo would not seek independence from Serbia until early next year.

After a meeting of NATO foreign ministers here, Ms. Rice indicated that diplomacy had been exhausted and that Washington was ready to move to the next phase.

[…]

“That means we have to move on to the next step,” she said. “It is not going to help to put off decisions that need to be taken.” Serbia, which is vehemently opposed to Kosovo’s independence, has offered the province broad autonomy, but Kosovo does not want any agreement that falls short of full independence. [Talks on Kosovo Hit a Dead End, Rice Says. NYT. December 8 2007]

[7] — BELGRADE: Serbia is ready to use force to prevent Western nations from recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, a senior Serbian official warned Wednesday. [Serbia threatens to use force if West recognizes Kosovo. IHT. September 5 2007]

[8] — The Albanians, making up 90 per cent of the 2.2 million inhabitants, are hostile to Serbia and have threatened to take up arms if they do not win independence. [Kostunica: Serbia would annul Kosovo’s independence. EUX.TV. December 17 2007]

[9] — The twist is all the stranger because Serbs have so far looked mostly to Russia for assistance, because most Western countries have supported Kosovo’s independence drive. [Serbia Enlists Some Unlikely Faces in Its Quest to Keep Kosovo. NYT. December 23 2007]

[10] — MOSCOW President Vladimir Putin says the world must apply the same standards to the separatist Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as it does to the Serbian province of Kosovo, where many are seeking independence. [Putin says world should regard Kosovo, separatist Georgian regions on equal footing. NYT. September 16 2006]

Categories
Humor Liberty

[1485] Of what would a libertarian do on Christmas Eve?

Ever wonder what?

Well, a true-blue libertarian would exercise his right to bear arms and wait for a chance to shoot Santa for trespassing private property.

Hey Santa! Merry Christmas! BAMN!

Oh, wait, wait. Merry Eid-mas! (That would make somebody scream in horror! LOL!)

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]