Category: Liberty

Categories
Liberty Personal

[1355] Of one-night stand for you, eternity for me

It is finally the week after. Once the crowd was over with the euphoria of superficial freedom, a kind of liberty that one shouts out loud but have none of it, life returns to its dull elements.

We wake up in the morning, trying to beat others in the traffic, cursing while we are at it. Some are still in bed, still unemployed. But the sun rises, faithfully than most of us could ever be, as it has always been since time first began, whenever that was.

Some flags still fly. Some other are on the ground, stepped upon by unsuspecting strangers. The patriotism and the cry for liberty that many made on August 31 was an one night stand. One is only so enamored with the other only before the climax. Once satisfied, life goes on as if nothing happened. We go on our separate ways after talking so much about how we loved each other. How fake.

The sky was so blue that day. I half suspected it to rain like it had the days previously. Just like how it is raining drizzly today. I woke up late after going to bed at 4AM, doing things that I used to do in college, trying to relive life that I had. It was a fool’s errand but I did what I needed to do. But the morning was so blue that I woke up and stayed on my bed, staring outside, smiling at the cloudless sky. I thought I saw the color of liberty smiled back at me.

Liberty is a foul word these days, despite how many simpletons are shouting, we are free. They celebrate freedom but scorn others that cheer for larger freedom. Their freedom needed to be defined by fascists and they celebrate blindly in their cage. True freedom reaches for the sky, a concept a meek mind incapable of even imagining. Perhaps, the sky is too high and daunting to them. Socrates was right; prisoners chained since childhood in a cave are scared of the sun. The comfort of the cave spoils them. The darkness that imprisons them are their protector.

When the Prime Minister held up his hand while shouting senseless, I could not help but recall a certain German standing on a podium, addressing a sea of smartly dressed individuals in gray at the Nuremberg Rally. Maybe I am extrapolating too much. Silly me.

The birds sang, trying to convince to me to get out of bed, to grab the moment, to live the moment. Yet, sigh, it felt so good to just lie down without worry. I told the birds, shoo, go away and let me savor this peace of mine. The mind felt so empty, as if the world is alright. Let me have my peace, just this morning.

But time conspired against me. The sun rose too fast, the clock was running on steroid. The next thing I knew, the day ended. Yet, I felt so tired. For this one day, I told myself, let me stay in bed, please. I do not wish to hear to any more lie about on how free we are. For once, leave me be. Be damned with your sanctimonious speeches. I am tired of all of it and I want no part of it. I just want to be free.

Here comes another day, another to sweep your lies aside, another day to anger you for being different, for refusing to be part of your drone, for dismantling your narrow worldview. It is another day for liberty, another day for eternity.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1348] Of formation of Malaysian identity

Malaysia is experiencing something similar to multiple personality disorder. She wears different caps at different times, being described differently by different people. Many of us are convinced who she is but Malaysia herself is confused of who she is. After so many years, the debate on Malaysian identity still rages. This by itself however is not a reason for worry because 50 years, or rather 44, for any country is a rather short time length. We, Malaysians, as a society are still searching and forming our identity.

Evidences that we as a society, like a teenager, are still looking for our own unique identity are aplenty. The debate whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state is one clear indication of such searching. The unconvincing answer given by the Prime Minister on the same issue, perhaps flip-flopping along the way, only strengthens such perception. Then there is the matter surrounding the age of Malaysia; are we 50 or 44 years old? And no less but forgotten, the issue surrounding Malacca and Srivijaya.

Our goals themselves are unclear. Are we striving to be a monocultural or a multicultural society? Are we working toward a color blind community or a society extremely conscious of our difference in skin color, belief or simply background? Are we looking for an assimilationist or diverse society?

There are people, many in fact, that feel strongly about one thing or another. I myself preferring a liberal society but the truth is, there are approximately 27 million Malaysians and none are able to completely convince the others, enough of the others of their own vision. There are competing perceptions of current state and visions among the society and the debate on it is alive; emotional, even.

Those in power are worried at the ferocity of very public debates and tried to shut it down. The Prime Minister has given out order for the public not to discuss the issues anymore but he is powerless as civil society eagerly tries to claim a role in the society, testing the waters for larger liberty.

Some shrugged off these debates as cosmetics, irrelevant and unimportant. The issue of the age of Malaysia for instance has far larger consequence than mere cosmetics and semantics however. The question on the age of Malaysia so deeply entrenched inside down so many pressing issues that too many people fail to see how greatly this question ranks in importance. Who are we? Malaya or Malaysia? Issues on the surface alas receive greater attention than items so fundamental such as Malaysian identity, if one subscribes to the idea of nation state. If such fundamental question left unanswered, shrugged off as something of unimportance, trivial, I say dream not of coherent Malaysian identity, be it Malaysian nation or anything else. The concept of Malaysian nation requires justification and at the moment, it is left unjustified to a certain extent, unless it answers the question of who are we.

I personally do not envy the idea of nation state or national identity. I fear of a national identity being forced down my throat. Besides, a national identity grossly generalizes the population. I however do concern myself with it due to pragmatism, purely due to the fact that I live in one and at the moment and in the foreseeable future, unfairly, there is no alternative other than in a nation state. This identity shapes various institution of the state. So, I fight for the least intrusive national identity. I have to care because it is so deeply connected to my own life. I have a stake in this state and that is why I participate in these debates to create Malaysian identity.

But one thing we should not worry is this: the confusion of Malaysian identity. Fifty years, or rather, 44, may be a long time for an individual but for a society, it is barely a dot in on timeline. Malaysia is still a teenager compared to far older states such as Japan, Britain, France and the United States. Unlike those states which have firmly formed their identities, be it based on liberty, or equality, or anything after years, decades or even centuries of struggle, we, the Malaysian society, are still young. These debates are supposed to happen for it is a process of identity formation. It is a process that all must endure, if one cares for Malaysia.

This is why free speech is important. Without free speech, without the liberty to discuss our visions, the process of identity formation cannot occur. If one seeks to relatively end the debate, eliminating free speech is not an advisable act.

On this August 31, in remembrance of a free Malaya, a free North Borneo and even a free Singapore[1], we Malaysians should reaffirm our rights to free speech for it is the crucial tool to the formation of our identity, Malaysian identity, whatever that may be.

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

[1] Note — Sarawak is the only Malaysian member state that has little to do with the August 31 date. Malaya gained independence on August 31 1957. North Borneo and Singapore declared independence from Britain on August 31 1963. Internal politics prevented Sarawak from declaring freedom on August 31. The formation of Malaysia occurred only later on September 16 1963.

Categories
Liberty

[1345] Of MCCBCHS and free speech

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) wanted what?

On the front page on Tuesday, the daily printed a picture of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette in one hand and a canned drink (which looked like beer) in the other with the quote: “If a person repents his mistakes, heaven awaits him.”

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism has urged the authorities to take action against the paper for hurting the feelings of the Christian community in the country. [Tamil daily says sorry over Jesus pic. The Star. August 23 2007]

If it wants to criticize the paper, go ahead but for MCCBCHS to urge the authority to take action against the paper is for it to forfeit its moral authority to advocate freedom. At the moment, it might be the case that MCCBCHS is only interested in freedom whenever it is in their convenience. That does not differ from the position of religious conservative Muslims.

The picture however was published by mistake:

S.M. Periasamy, general manager of the Tamil-language Makkal Osai, told The Associated Press that the daily published the controversial photo by mistake. [Malaysian paper apologizes for picture of Jesus holding cigarette. International Herald Tribune. August 23 2007]

If it is a genuine mistake, it is up to the paper itself to punish the responsible staff.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1344] Of fret not of Abdullah Gul

Abdullah Gul is almost certain to be the next President of Turkey. Gul’s Islamist past however is causing great consternation among Turkish secularists. They had rallied impressive public dissent that ultimately failed in the face of democracy. The defeat has further caused the secularists distress. I however believe Turkish secularists are worrying too much and harping on ridiculous issues. They are several reasons why that is so.

First and foremost is Turkey’s eagerness to join the European Union. While there are opposition to Turkey’s accession into the regional grouping, there are those that would look forward to sit together with Turkey as equal in the EU. The fact that Turkey is a secular country is one of few factors that enable such support to exist. As long as Turkey aspires to become part of EU, there is a strong reason to believe that Gul, a firm EU supporter, will work to keep Turkey secular.

Gul himself has been instrumental in booting fundamentalists and attracting moderates, as mentioned by an article at The Economist:

Mr Gul says that, as president, he will reach out to all Turks and that he will remain loyal to the secular tenets of the constitution. His four years as foreign minister leave little room for doubt. He was the driving force behind the many reforms that persuaded European Union leaders to open long delayed membership talks with Turkey in 2005. And it was Mr Gul who engineered the defection of fellow moderates from the overtly Islamist Welfare Party which was bullied out of office by the generals in 1997. [Ready to take office. The Economist. August 21 2007]

This shows that Gul is flexible and accommodating. Furthermore, Gul has promised his critics that he will adhere to the tenets of Turkish secularism:

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has pledged to protect and strengthen the country’s secular principles if he succeeds in a fresh presidential bid. [Turkey’s Gul vows secular agenda. BBC News. August 14 2007]

While I do not subscribe to Turkish secularism due to its statism as well as illiberalness, that should be of some value and comfort to local secularists.

And then, there is issue surrounding the attire of Abdullah Gul’s wife. Turkish secularists are harping at the fact the she wears Islamic headscarf but surely, such issue is too silly to be a major reason why Gul should not be the President of Turkey. While Turkey does have a law against the wearing of such headscarf at civic spaces, it is not Gul himself that is wearing that headscarf. What the secularists are doing is really a logical fallacy: guilt by association. Most of all, I fail to see how his wife’s attire could affect his ability to function as the President of Turkey.

What the secularists should do now is to fully support Turkey’s accession into the EU. Through this, the secularists could hold AKP, the party which Gul is a member, at ransom.

And for many liberals like me, Turkish accession into EU is the ticket to liberalize Turkey away from its narrow nationalistic sentiment. AKP, despite being cited as an Islamist party, is already embarking into that direction. On top of that, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried hard to throw away its Islamist image, favoring a more centrist one instead. Under him, AKP has been concentrating on democratic and economic reform rather than on suffocating Islamist agenda.

In any case, AKP has marched forward farther towards liberalism than any secularist party in Turkey had. Therefore, if I were a Turk, I would be happy with AKP; that is especially so with a healthly economy.

Categories
Liberty

[1329] Of bicameralism to moderate crass democracy

Democracy in its purest form is a mere majoritarianism and a society built on mere majoritarianism is a society built on pure populism. There is nothing in populism and by extension democracy that guarantees liberty. Yet, democracy has proven to be an effective decision making tool, allowing differences to be ironed out peacefully instead of by force. For this reason, libertarians — for the sake of simplicity, liberals — prefer moderated democracy and a tool that offers that possibility is a liberal constitution which guarantees negative rights. The merging of the two tools results in a system known as liberal democracy. Unfortunately, any constitution may fail under heavy populist pressure for a constitution itself is not free from revision. Here is where another moderator of populist sentiment comes into play: bicameralism.

How is that so?

Bicameralism is simply a system of two legislatives chambers divided into the lower house and the upper house.

In the name of democracy, the lower house is sensitive to popular opinion. Representatives elected into the house have only one interest at heart and that is the people. Whenever popular opinion sways for better or for worse, so does the opinion of the lower house.

There are moments when public opinion exhibits excessive instant gratification quality with little regard to future outcomes. More often than not, such moments are filled with emotion or are made possible with limited information. It goes without saying that opinion or decisions made with incomplete information may not produce the best of all possible outcomes. Worse, in times of great distrust, some groups may try to oppress the weaker communities and the weakest of all communities are the individuals. Those are the moments when democracy looms menacingly, when tyranny of the majority is most relevant. This is why liberals are distrustful of democracy.

If placed on a two-axes graph which the horizon axis represents time and the vertical axis represents public opinion through some numeral values, short term-based public opinion sways wildly as time progresses. Extreme values toward one side or another — for instance, authoritarianism or anarchy — that prevail for only a short time frame may have destabilizing effect and undo years of progress. When emotion subsides and rationality dominates, the mob, and the society in general, may regret its actions as complete information becomes available only later.

The upper house functions to smooth out the crests and troughs of public opinion. In order words, it is less sensitive to crass democracy with farther perspective in temporal horizon. For liberals, the upper house is more interested in protecting the liberal constitution rather than kowtowing to the mob.

This however does not mean the members of the house — senators — are not elected into their seats. Democracy still plays a role in the makeup of the house but its effect is far moderated than that in the lower house. This alignment of interest is achieved by granting senators longer term compared to the members of the lower house. Through this itself, the atmosphere in the upper house is calmer, where rationality overcomes emotion, emotion that appeals to the mob. In this environment, discussion could be carried in a more productive manner.

The insensitivity to public opinion however creates another problem. Due to the longer term, upper house members — or senators — do have considerable power compared to their counterparts. This is where one must tread carefully since senators are less responsive to the people. Conferring the senators with too much power may create powerful oligarchy relatively unanswerable to the people. To reasonably eliminate such possibility, a upper house of a liberal democracy practicing bicameralism has only the power accept or reject law proposed by the lower house. The upper house itself cannot introduce or amend any law. It is not an agenda setter.

It has to be noted bicameralism itself suffers from status quo bias. Whatever the status quo, bicameralism in the form expressed here is still a moderator of democracy. Like democracy, it is a tool and it is not an end. For liberals, the only end is liberty.