Category: Liberty

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 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
Education Liberty Society

[1253] Of coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty within the Malaysian education system

The issue of vernacular schools funded by public money is a very difficult subject for me. The difficulty arises due to choices involving coercion, cohesion, unity and liberty.

For liberals, the racially divided Malaysian society is a painful reality to live in. The history and nature of our society give rise to our current predicament where most issues could be seen through racial lens, be it right or wrong. Our education and political systems reflect exactly that primitive thinking that we suffer.

Before I progress further, the importance of education must be emphasized. Liberals in general, including libertarians, place education very high in their list. Through my readings, the birth of liberalism would not be possible without the accessibility of knowledge to the masses. It is through knowledge, or education, that individuals could fully appreciate personal responsibilities, placing the individuals — the basic unit of a society — on a higher plane compared the situation in a centralize society. Liberalism at its heart is about trust in the individuals; the trust that one shall respect others’ same rights. It is trust that individuals are able to do good. Aristotle’s words describe part of that trust: “I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law“. It is through this trust, through personal responsibilities that one frees oneself from shackles imposed by tyrants. Without education, it is hard for any one of us to build that trust. Lack of education provides fertile ground for dictatorship.

Education is the sculpture of a society. It is a tool. The greater the education level of individuals, the greater the possibility of a creation of a freer individuals and freer individuals create freer society; liberal society. For liberals, primitive communal thinkings do not appeal to them.

The tool could be used to eliminate the primitive division we suffer. This is why the education system receives so much attention, at the very least by liberals, within our society. Liberals understand the gravity of the matter. We understand that the education system could mole a new society that would do away with outdated communal-based politics.

There are liberals that believe the promotion of multicultural society to erase the legacy of divisive communal politics from Malaysian society. They would actively promote the creation or the enhancement of multicultural society — such policies are called multiculturalism — to answer the division that could very much lead to clear expressed bigotry. Once, this appealed to me but I found a clear hint of coercion in multiculturalism. That leads to my rejection of multiculturalism. That however does not mean I reject multicultural societies. I enjoy diversity but I do not wish to have such societal characteristic to be stuff down my throat to suffocate me.

One aspect of multiculturalism through Malaysian context, at least, I seem to think so, is the rejection of vernacular system and promotion of a religiously unbiased national system with the national language as the medium. Through this, tolerance, which is a goal of multiculturalism, would be achieved. After all, inculcating tolerance in the young is easier than trying do to the same thing for an already bigoted adults.

Rejection of multiculturalism however left me grappling to answer a question: how do we overcome this primitive communal politics without multiculturalism? Could a source of bigotry be solved with coercive cohesion at the expense of liberty? Is the liberty so sacred to liberals — libertarians — worth bypassing the unity that all liberals dream of?

The questions relevant to the Malaysian education system, with all those factors in mind is this: should the vernacular system be abolished in favor of national system in the name of unity or should it be left as it is in the name of liberty, for fear of forcefully committing active assimilation against others’ will?

My status quo position until now was the abolition of the vernacular system and placing full support for the national school. Of course, the support for the national system requires qualification and few of them are meritocracy and independence from religion.

Through limited time that I had to contemplate on the matter, I have come to a conclusion that strengthens my trust in the individuals. It is a conclusion that satisfactorily breaks the dualism between coercion and cohesion, between unity and liberty; it is possible to achieve cohesion without coercion, liberty with unity.

This is how: as mentioned earlier, education is the sculpture of a society. Greater level of education introduces greater possibility of one thinking for oneself. This enables one to trust oneself, breaking away from superstitions and illogical orthodoxies, creating confident individuals that rely on the mind to move forward towards enlightenment and beyond. The ability to self-regulate transfers sovereignty from leaders or society, benevolent or malevolent, to individuals.

Higher education level increases the possibility of the birth of another liberal individual, regardless of strain, or at least, individuals that respect others’ liberties. If all liberals are allergic to the communal politics and to an extent accept that vernacular system promotes communal politics and are concerned with coercion and liberty, they would support the national system without actively depriving others of opportunity to vernacular system, assuming all else the same, assuming all qualifications that I stated earlier are incorporated. As the education level of the population goes up, there will be a point that most would like to do away with vernacular education system and thus, only one system that is supported by public money. For a liberal that values tolerance, he would try to inculcate the liberal value in his child and he would likely enroll his child in a system that offers exposure to tolerance. Between a national and a vernacular system, there is more exposure opportunity to tolerance in the former. Hence, the liberal would choose the national system over vernacular system, with all else being the same. Through this, slowly but surely, we will phrase out the public-funded vernacular system without coercion.

If my reasoning is sound, then what we need to do is to increase the quality of our education system to create a less communal politics within our society. This would mean that all we need is the patience and resilience to improve the quality of our education system and eventually, through that system, a quiet revolution for a liberal society.

Categories
Liberty

[1249] Of The Economist on Lina Joy

At The Economist:

Article 11 has been in the country’s constitution since independence from Britain 50 years ago. However, things were muddied by a 1988 amendment, which denied the regular courts all jurisdiction over matters dealt with by the sharia courts. It was not clear if this gave sharia judges the right to overrule Article 11 for those born Muslim and to tell them they must remain so. It now seems that indeed they can. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]

How many more amendments have been passed to restrict liberty, I wonder.

Also, proof that The Economist is concerned with liberty rather than appealing to irrational fear of Islam:

In many places, constitutional guarantees of liberty are undermined by laws constraining religious belief. Indonesians, for example, are also obliged to state their religion on their identity cards and to choose between just six officially recognised faiths. The governor of the state of Rajasthan, in India, is being pressed by the state assembly to approve a law punishing conversion from Hinduism. Constraints on individuals’ rights to choose their beliefs are usually backed up by claims that religions are somehow “under threat”: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]

There is one interesting similarity in the final sentence of the article: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. That is probably a clear reference to:

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

— Milton Friedman, July 31 1912 — November 16 2006.

Categories
Liberty

[1248] Of accusation of Islamophobia is just an act of poisoning the well

Some religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia accuse those that disagree with the Lina Joy case ruling as Islamophobes. While there are Islamophobes out there, just as there are xenophobes in general out there, the labeling of Islamophobes on freedom lovers is merely an act of poisoning the well. While I do not speak for others, the accusation certainly does not apply to me as well as other like-minded libertarians and sincere freedom lovers. Most libertarians disagree with the ruling not because it is specifically connected to Islam but rather, it is due to the intervention of the state in personal individual affairs. That intervention results in the infringement of individual liberty. And just like libertarians, generic freedom lovers are concerned with the restriction imposed on religious freedom by the ruling.

Imagine a hypothetical country called Hinduland where Hinduism had the exact sanction Islam enjoys in Malaysia. Imagine further of a former Hindu Muslim and he wished to remove the word Hindu from his identity card whereas by law, a Hindu must have his religion stated on the card. As is the case with the Lina Joy ruling, many individuals with strong conviction to religious freedom would support the Muslim convert’s wish and subsequent action toward that wish.

I would imagine, religious conservative Muslims would also join the freedom lovers in expressing support for the former Hindu Muslim, just because the person was a Muslim. The religious conservative Hindus in Hinduland on the other hand might take the position the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia currently take. If the ruling in Hinduland would have been the same as in Malaysia, the religious conservative Hindus would call everybody that disagreed with ruling as Hinduphobes. This is the exact parallel in Malaysia with the only difference is the names of the religions.

In that case of the Hinduland scenario, I would support the Muslim’s action. Be mindful that I would do so not because he is a Muslim but rather, because I fully respect his freewill. The same cannot be said for religious conservatives whom have issues with the concept of religious freedom. To them, freewill is a dirty word.

Before one disposes this model as merely hypothetical, do note that conversion from Hinduism to Islam is a controversial subject in India. The religious conservative Hindus in India share the same concern with the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia regarding liberty to disassociate oneself from the religion.

For sincere freedom lovers, this is not a question of loving or hating any particular religion. Freedom lovers and especially libertarians could not care less with the beliefs a person would want to migrate from and to. For freedom lovers, it is a matter of allowing a person to think and act for himself. As long as any of his action does not limit others’ same rights, he should be free choose his own course of action without coercion from others.

This clearly shows that freedom lovers’ opposition is based on dedication to an ideal of liberty and not based on irrational fear or hatred to Islam. Some religious conservative Muslims are trying to say otherwise in hope to poison the well, divert attention from the source of disagreement and indulge in disinformation.