For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. [Atlas Shrugged. Part 3. Chapter VII: “This is John Galt Speaking.” Ayn Rand. 1957]
Category: Liberty
Months ago, the Libyan rebellion appeared to be flattering. There were advances but despite indirect support from several world powers, forces loyal to dictator Muammar Gaddafi were able to defend their position. At one time, the rebels were pushed back to its home city in the far east. That in fact was the last time I truly gave attention to the Libyan conflict, until today.
I woke up today with CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera showing live scenes from Tripoli. The rebels are overrunning Gaddafi forces. News are making round that Gaddafi’s sons have been taken under custody by the rebels. This is a piece of wonderful news in time when the Arab Spring itself is turning out into almost a disappointment, and especially in Syria where a massacre is under way. This near victory by the Libyan rebels against the Libyan tyrant is a big encouragement to the participants of the Arab Spring, perhaps provide little pushes needed to keep the flame alive in the whole region.
I know those on the far left of the political spectrum are framing the struggle in Libya as the US against native government. For all their opposition to US “imperialism”, Gaddafi’s tyranny goes unmentioned.
Perhaps it requires no reminder. It should be obvious, but detractors of the Arab Spring allege that behind all this are the US and other western powers. That is not entirely true. It is not true when what matters is considered.
These powers are giving support to the rebellion, but I must add only indirectly. Regardless of the support in Libya, the rebellion is organic in nature just like in Egypt and Tunisia. It is born out of local discontent.
Remember, these western powers were caught by surprise at the intensity and the breadth of the 2011 Arab uprising. The initial responses by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron to Tunisia and Egypt were inadequate and they were roundly criticized for failing to act against suppression of peaceful protests, fearing western support will make these organic rebellions less legitimate in the eyes of the world and more importantly, the undecided locals. That was probably due to them smarting from past mistakes. That is not exactly the reaction of a global mastermind favored by conspiracy theorists.
In Libya, suppression of peaceful protests has turned the rebellion into armed one. Somebody had to do something. The killing has to stop.
I have voiced my opposition to foreign military intervention, fearing that would rob the legitimacy of the rebellion. That fear on legitimacy did not bear out, and that eliminates my opposition to intervention. Even so, intervention has been limited to the enforcement of no-fly zone, endorsed by the United Nations for whatever it worth. And clearly, the UN-sanctioned foreign intervention was done out of reluctance: the US military was hesitant in participate in another struggle when its forces are stretched thin.
One disappointment that I have is these powers response to the discontent in Bahrain. The Bahraini government and Saudi Arabia were given a free hand to suppress non-violent protest over there. There is hypocrisy in US policy, sure.
But again, regardless of the hypocrisy, let it be reminded that many of these uprising is organic. It has native origin, not foreign. That is what important.
If the revolution is complete, when it is complete, then the next agenda should be about sustaining a democratic Libya. Not just a democratic Libya, but a Libya that is different from Gaddafi’s tyrannical socialist republic. A Libya that respects and protects its citizens’ individual rights.
It is quite rich for someone to claim being victims of intolerance when the same person has no qualms discriminating against others. This refers to some Malaysian churches’ opposition to gay marriage.
That is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is exactly what some Christian churches in Malaysia are guilty of. Those churches not only oppose the gay marriage between a Malaysian pastor and his partner, they want the Malaysian authority to prevent the couple from holding a reception in Malaysia.[1][2]
Apart from the intolerance, it is alright for the churches to oppose gay marriage and homosexual relationship at large. They are entitled to their own opinion, for better or for worse. It is part of freedom of conscience. But to demand coercive action preventing the gay couple from holding mere reception is beyond the realm of acceptability.
Rights as defined in libertarianism are not these churches’ concern. These churches are not libertarians. Fine.
But moral authority is something that should bother them. To interfere in private relationship as these churches are calling for strips them of their moral authority to moralize about discrimination and justice. What gives these churches the platform to talk about justice and discrimination given their action?
[1] — PETALING JAYA: Several pastors have condemned their gay counterpart Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng’s upcoming marriage and want the authorities to ensure he does not hold a wedding reception in Malaysia. [No way to gay’s big day, say pastors. The Star. August 18 2011]
[2] — Mingguan Malaysia’s reports quoted various parties including the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship’s executive secretary Alfred Pais saying that homosexual practices were against the teachings of Jesus Christ. [The Star August 15 2011. August 18 2011]
Though a libertarian and in many ways individualistic in the sense that I am protective of my individual negative rights, I am highly conscious of the fact I live in a society. Even with these rights intact, there has to be a give and take, some kind of mutual and voluntary compromises.
The realization that we do not live as an island is doubly important in times when rights are unclear. The exercise of these unclear rights does create tension and ultimately bad blood in society. That is not a way to live by. This is especially so in a multicultural society where no certain way of life is necessarily taken for granted.
Yes, this about the call to prayer controversy in Penang. Although it happened it Penang, it has happened elsewhere in the past and it is really a case applicable nationwide, even elsewhere.
In Malaysia where everything done in the name of Islam is accepted by the conservatives as sacrosanct, criticism against the use of loudspeaker by mosques has been considered as an attack by Islam, at least by them. I do not think this can be seen separately from the Malay right narrative, where rightly or wrongly within local context, the idea of Malayness is seen as Islamic.
Noise (I use noise here without prejudice and only in a very general sense that it is a series of loud sound regardless of its human origin) is a complex issue as far as rights are concerned. On the default, I think I am happy to have the right of making noise stands as it own. It does seem to me like a negative liberty.
It is not a primary right I suppose but only a derived right, derived from freedom of expression. One perhaps could derive it from religious freedom but I tend to believe religious freedom itself is a derived right, and as far as the Islamic call to prayer in Malaysia is concerned, I think freedom of expression is more relevant than religious freedom. That does not mean religious freedom is being negated. I am simply stating that freedom of expression is more relevant. Sometimes, reiterating that in useful as an emphasis. I have found that typical readers read only to forget what they read in the previous sentence.
In any case, given the default position, there clearly is a problem with individual or organization like mosques using its right in early morning in a residential area, causing discomfort to others, especially for those who do not appreciate being effectively shouted at with a loudspeaker.
I personally have bad experience with mosques and call to prayer. My childhood home in Malaysia is surrounded by at least three large mosques, never mind the smaller ones dotting the neighborhood. During call to prayer, the three will seemingly engage in a competition with the loudest call will win the day.
This is very, highly annoying. Things are made worse when these mosques use loudspeakers and project their reading of the Koran or the actual prayer outward.
While the default position belongs to the mosques, it is much better for the general harmony of the neighborhood to not, at least, use the loudspeakers at every single chance these mosques have. Even with the right, voluntary compromise goes a long way in creating tolerating neighborhood. One does not what to live a neighborhood which bad blood prevails.
Respect, compromise and harmony may be a something-in-the-cloud or everything-and-nothing kind of approach. It sounds nice, but what exactly does it entail?
Well, I think it means mosques need to use their loudspeakers discriminately. Personally, I think the best is by turning the loudspeaker inward rather than outward. Realistically, use it only for actual call to prayer, and be extra mindful about its morning usage. Lower the volume by some notch, especially when there are oppositions. If there were none, the problem would not have existed in the first place.
Be as that may be, with the default case of right belonging to the mosque, freedom of expression and free speech is a two-way street. If the mosques insist in using its right, then criticism will be mounted. The mount of such criticism is also part of negative individual right. It is part of free speech.
So, if negative rights and liberties are adopted as the way forward by the mosques to justify their use of loudspeaker and projecting it outward to show its Islamic credential, they must face the criticism in the spirit of free society. Do not issue threat. Do not think that that criticism is some kind of unfair demand.
This goes with churches and temples as well.
In fact, I think it goes for all of us. Loud radio, loud TV, loud party, firecrackers, speaking into the phone loudly in the train, etc.
Just be mindful of your neighbors. Do not be obnoxious.
And I think that is reasonable.
p/s — while I am supportive of any move of reducing the use of loudspeakers by mosque, I do not support having a central authority telling local mosques what to do. That however is another issue that I will give it a pass right now.
There is a strong emphasis in unity in Malaysia.
It is easy to rationalize why so. The country has been diverse from the very beginning of its modern history. Each group largely lives differently. While difference and diversity can be sources of strength, it can also be a source of conflict.
For all the myths believed by some that race relations nowadays are worse than yesteryears, the worst race riot of the country happened in Kuala Lumpur in May 1963. Another big race riot happened in Malaysian Singapore in July 1964. Conflict between races itself was part of the reasons why Singapore was expelled from the federation in 1965.
Those conflicts have left behind a deep scar in Malaysian society, even as many Malaysians today have never witnessed a race riot first-hand. These old fears are becoming increasingly irrelevant but it is still part of what describes our society. So entrenched is the fear of history repeating itself that many are mindful of the tiniest possibility of a race riot.
To the mindful and those whom are trapped in the 1960s and 1970s still, they believe in the narrative of unity. They believe in unity being the answer to Malaysian divisiveness.
As the wisdom goes, if everybody were united, there would be no reason to quarrel with each other. Nobody would say anything hurtful to the collective ethnic consciousness. In a united Malaysia, everybody would laugh together while waving the Jalur Gemilang happily.
On the surface, the unity narrative is appealing. The ideal provides a stark contrast to the chaotic Malaysia of the 1960s and a period of time after that. Yet, scratch the skin and it will peel to a rotten core.
Their particular unity narrative ignores differing viewpoints. At best, it considers differing positions as foreign. ”It is not part of our culture,” so the typical response goes. Malaysians holding differing ideals are accused as having their mind colonized by outsiders. Imagine in times of globalization, one talks of neo-colonialism. One has to be either paranoid or stuck in time.
When differing viewpoints becoming too intellectually challenging for the simple narrative, threats are issued. When there is nowhere to go within the realm of pure reasons, talk of feelings. File a police reports when feelings are hurt. In the unity narrative, one is not supposed to hurt anyone else’s feeling.
And some fly the flags because for the government demands so. The government even threatened to do something to remedy the failure to fly a piece of cloth back in 2006. In Ipoh in 2010, businesses had to fly the Jalur Gemilang if business owners wanted to renew their licenses.
One can see how pretentious that unity is.
See how it belligerently pushes aside liberty.
It seeks monotony. It rejects colors. It is either you are with us, or against us.
Unity is not mutually exclusive of liberty of course. In fact, true unity can only arise under free environment, where every person is free. It will be hard to achieve unity under such a set-up because individuals in a free society will have difference but if ever dialogue and understanding will overcome the difference, then everybody will unite out of their own free will.
That is the route to true unity. It is tough but it is the unity that is sincere.
The proponents of unity whom are trapped in the 1960s possibly know of this. They probably realize the tough road to true unity. Too cowardly to trust in individual effort to bridge the gap perhaps, they choose the ersatz version.
That version of unity is one that is shown only because there is a big stick somewhere, waiting to be taken out if someone dares say, no, I am different.