Yes, I was there.
Being tear gassed is not a great experience.
Categories
Category: Liberty
Categories
[2390] A disappointing Bersih compromise
Despite what I wrote yesterday, I have to agree that the stadium option is probably the best given the circumstances the electoral reform group Bersih faces.[1] It is a safe compromise for everybody.
The ultimate purpose of Bersih is electoral reforms. It is not a purely civil liberty organization. It is not bound to push through its right to freedom of assembly. It loses no ground in choosing the stadium option while backing down from its initial intention to march the streets peacefully. As as I have written earlier, because Bersih explicitly makes the King their referee, they are bound to the King’s words. The King views the peaceful march negatively.
I planned to attend the now-cancelled street march. With all the news of possible disturbance and threats issued, quite honestly I was afraid for my safety. I am sure many felt the same way. They were afraid. Afraid but brave, nevertheless.
So, the compromise is a relieve. Now they know for certain that they will not face any water cannon or arrest. There is no need to call for courage now.
Still, I am disappointed. I know, there are various arguments out there portraying the compromise as a victory. It may be a victory from various point of view but from a libertarian one, I see it as a defeat.
I see Bersih as a vehicle to push the envelope in the illiberal Malaysia. With a successful exercise of freedom of assembly, I had hope for Malaysia to become less illberal and more tolerant towards peaceful protests.
That scenario will not play out and instead, we will see a compromised scenario. That is a compromise on individual right.
Lastly, I have to say that I am not a fan of protests per se. I always try to judge the worth of a protest based on its agenda. But that statement has a qualifier: only under liberal environment where freedom of assembly is guaranteed.
Without the guarantee, the suppression of that right is enough a reason for me to sympathize with any protest exercising freedom.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, July 5 — Bersih 2.0 will continue its rally for electoral reform but in a stadium and not on the streets, the group said today fresh from an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in Istana Negara. [Syed Mu’az Syed Putra Ambiga: Bersih to rally in stadium, not on streets. The Malaysian Insider. July 7 2011]
I give my support to Bersih. As far as the rally goes, that support is based on the idea of freedom of assembly. That however does not mean I fully agree with everything that Bersih does. Specifically, I disagree with its appeal to the King.
Bersih now finds itself in a quandary. The King has just spoken up against its planned protest in downtown Kuala Lumpur.[1]
For a libertarian like me, the King’s speech should not matter. For those in Bersih who makes the King their arbitrator, it does.
Bersih binds itself to the words of the King and not primarily to the principle of liberty. That binding makes the words of the King as an imperative that Bersih must follow, if these monarchists are true to their conviction. And the King’s words have not been favorable toward it. That is the peril of making the King the referee.
Because of the King, I would imagine that there is a conflict between monarchists and civil libertarians within Bersih.
I take comfort seeing Bersih finding itself in a quandry because, again, I disagree with its appeal to the King. I have been so from the very beginning, even back in 2007 in times when many believed that the monarchy was an important balancing mechanism, especially after they observed how the Thai King helped toned down the political conflict in Thailand.
I have argued that that appeal would only politicize the monarchy and bring the monarchy into politics in times when the status quo has a republican bias. At the time, however, my argument ran against the grain. I lost because they said, “look, the model works”.
Not after a while though. These believers of the monarchy as an arbitrator have been discouraged by the sultans of Perak and Selangor. Today, they have been discouraged by the King of Malaysia. The model does not work.
So, while I sympathize with the political fortune of Bersih in light of the King’s statement, but I shall enjoy my little cake nonetheless.
[1] — “The fact is, street demonstrations bring more bad than good although the original intention is good. Instead, we should focus on our main objective to develop this country, and not create problems that will cause the country to lag behind. [Statement by Agong on Bersih Illegal Rally. Bernama. July 3 2011]
p/s — have a happy fourth of July.
The establishment that is Barisan Nasional is pretty much clueless of what is going on. Not much has changed since the Abdullah administration I guess.
Here is a guide.
The more insulting accusations thrown, more individuals will get angry and more will go down and protest. This Bersih protest is becoming larger than itself, thanks to the Barisan Nasional government.
That happened in 2007. I went down to the streets to protest not because I was enamored by Bersih, but because restriction to freedom of assembly.
On July 9 2011, it will likely be the same case for me. And reading stuff online, many will adopt similar attitude when protesting. Peacefully of course.
I just had a conversation with Delphine Alles, a PhD student at Sciences Po today. She is researching about libertarianism in Southeast Asia. I thought it was an interesting conversation because it forced me to straighten up my own thoughts on the history of libertarian movement in Malaysia.
One question: how did it happen? How did libertarianism spread in Malaysia?
I struggled with that. Here is my opinion nonetheless.
The spread of libertarianism — the free market kind obviously — is a recent phenomenon in Malaysia. I thought it seeped into Malaysian consciousness through Malaysian graduates from the US and UK universities. I admit that there might have been individual libertarians much, much earlier from other sources but as far as popular discourse is concerned, it is a recent phenomenon.
That is primarily thanks to the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs. IDEAS despite being a small grouping of libertarians has certainly punched above its weight. What made IDEAS a revolutionary force was that before them, libertarianism was confined almost exclusively to the blogoshere. Today, libertarian ideas are everywhere. Switch on the TV and there is a good chance you will see a libertarian speaking. Ditto for popular printed and electronic newspapers.
Did any tradition underpin the spread? Was a particular school of thought responsible for the spread?
I think not. If Malaysian libertarianism was spread by any particular tradition, then it was only through those engaged in popular discourse. Their understanding of libertarianism may be traced to certain traditions, but I think it is such a hodge-podge collectively that in the end, it is hard to see which tradition prevails. So, it is easier to say that it is due to these individuals. In some ways, these libertarians are the first generation libertarians in Malaysia.
Libertarianism has been popularly spread through issues. To put it another way, popular libertarianism in Malaysia is issue-based libertarianism. Delphine reframed it as pragmatic libertarianism. I have trouble with the term pragmatic because it alludes to cafeteria libertarians (ersatz libertarians to put it politely). Yet in a limited sense within local context, it is pragmatic libertarianism.
When I said issue-based, I meant libertarianism in the popular sphere. In the media, it is very rare if at all there is a case where libertarianism is written or explained explicitly by citing big names like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Friedman, or done axiomatically in the way Nozick did in Anarchy, State and Utopia.
Rather, it is the application of the first principles that made the spread of libertarianism possible. When issues arise, libertarian solution is offered. For instance, in the case of fuel subsidy, the virtue of free market is put forward. In case of religious conflict, freedom of conscience is offered as justification for a more liberal treatment of the issue. In education where the quality of public education is hotly debated, private initiatives are suggested as the solution to improve education outcome.
Because of this, popular libertarianism tend to be deficient compared to pure libertarianism. Questions that do not arise frequently in Malaysian society do not get answered. Malaysian libertarians in the popular arena are silent when it comes to right to arms for instance. Or a libertarian foreign policy.
Delphine asked about self-determination, i.e. what would local libertarians think about Pattani, Mindanao and the likes. A proper libertarian would have strong position on the matter but popular libertarianism gives it a shrug because it is not a concern to Malaysians, never mind a local libertarian consensus is likely hard to achieve, making a summary impossible. Whatever it is, the shrug leaves the general public unaware of the systematic view of libertarianism, which at the individual libertarian level is possibly well-argued.
In fact, it can only be well-argued and understood in intimate sessions, like in small discussion groups and such. Any full-blown discussion about libertarian in the public sphere would quickly bore laypersons, who are more interested in issues, not first principles.
The deficiency is not a problem by itself because popular libertarianism is meant for public consumption. It is meant to increase public aware of the libertarian alternatives. What is satisfying about this is when some strangers speak of an issue, he or she uses libertarian argument without realizing that argument is a libertarian implication.
That of course may create ersatz libertarians, but for a philosophy that began with a penny in its pocket here in Malaysia, it is a start.
p/s — there were some self-proclaimed classical liberals earlier but I think I have come to discount them because I distrust them from one reason or another. I have concluded that they are liberal only in superlative sense. In a conservative society like Malaysia, it does not take much to be a liberal superlatively.