Categories
Politics & government Society

[2182] Of the return of Chua Soi Lek and its potential effect on conservative mores

It is unclear what the future holds for the Malaysian Chinese Association. Popular public discourse so far is tilted to one that assumes that MCA is heading the way of Gerakan, which is one of national irrelevance. Whatever path MCA will take, Chua Soi Lek is now the President of the party.

While I myself am hostile to MCA for its position in Barisan Nasional, I celebrate this victory. There is only one reason for that: it is an assault to conservative notion of morality and the link between such morality and ability to perform public duty.

With glee if I might add. Already there is a joke running around that MCA has elected a porn star as its president. That is a cheap shot but it is still funny nonetheless. That is the fate of those who live by sex scandals.

Mr. Chua fell from power when a video of him having adulterous pleasure saw distribution in the age of the internet. The video is a very graphic depiction of his disloyalty to his wife. Malaysia’s infamous distribution network of pirated goods certainly lubricated the whole operation where the internet failed. In Malaysia at that time, the fact of such man holds public office — the Health Minister, which is an important one — is untenable. That was just over two years ago.

I hold that a person’s private life is none of our business, as long as no crime is committed. This includes the life of politicians. If Mr. Chua should be booted, it is for other reason related to very real public issues, like the health system for instance. I am adamant that the only crime in that case is the intrusion of privacy.

Notwithstanding his capability, his return is a direct rebuke to those who think otherwise. Opinion about his vision and contribution to the national health system is to be debated at other times.

Of course, Mr. Chua is not a Muslim. Some have argued that the conservative morality that conservative Muslim Malays have is irrelevant to him. True but it is still a foot in the door. Communities do not live in isolation. They interact. Development like this is akin to water acting upon rock. Enough times and the rock will give way.

Furthermore, it is not only the Muslims in Malaysia who maintain conservative world views. Mr. Chua would not have fallen from power in MCA if that was not so. The election of Mr. Chua is a proof that in MCA, the conservative opinion is being listed only at the bottom of its priority list: there are other more important things to consider.

That is encouraging.

Categories
Politics & government

[2175] Of make way for local election

What a wonderful piece of news. That aptly describes my reaction upon learning the request of the Penang state government to the Election Commission to organize two local elections in the Pearl of the Orient this year. Selangor’s decision to follow suit makes it an all the more brilliant development.

There are obstacles to overcome and there is no guarantee that the return will happen for good. There will be challenges no doubt. The EC is already showing sign of reluctance to do as requested.

It is quite clear that not everybody is convinced of the necessity of local elections. Some fear losing their power. Others are caught up in legalese.

Let them lose their powers. It is not theirs to keep in the first place. Be gone with the legalese. We are in a new time where old threats have long past.

The actual push for it in Malaysia is long overdue. This right of ours has been robbed from us. It is only right to have it returned.

What I am most excited about the prospect of having local elections returned is the devolution of power. It is yet another tool to empower citizens at the expense of the state. For too long has power been concentrated in the hand of the state. The return of the third vote will chip away that focused power by distributing it more evenly across the landscape, as it should have been.

Do you remember how such power distribution felt?

The last time such significant redistribution happened was in March 2008.

Yes, it has been two years since that day. Since then, there have been many disappointments: the lies and hypocrisy regarding freedom of association, more slogans, disloyalty and generally broken promises. Yes, many of these disappointments have began to question the wisdom of many whom gave members or former members of what is now Pakatan Rakyat a chance.

That in no way changes the fact that the 2008 Malaysian general election demonstrated that individual citizens do have the power to change the course of the country. It is a reminder that the kind of confidence in individuals that seemed to exist only in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged does exist in the real world. It blew away the feeling of helplessness that nothing can be done. It proves that in the face of a titan, individuals can be as fearsome as the titan can.

My feeling as a first time voter in the early morning of March 9 was one of pure exhilaration. After all the disillusionment, the feeling that this country belonged only to the selected few forming a cabal, the election showed that I still do have stake in the country. More importantly, I can act on that ownership.

The devolution will further prove that I, along with many other Malaysians, do have ownership over not just the country, but also the street where I — we — live in. We are the ones that should take care of our own streets.

We pay for it after all.

With the third vote, we can stop pretending that those representatives we send to national and state assemblies are taking care of our local interests.

We do not need an MP or state assemblypersons to take care of our streets and everything else in our immediate neighborhood. We can do it ourselves.

Such absurd pretentions have caused Members of Parliament and state assemblies having to deal with local problems while they are supposed to debate on nation and statewide issues respectively. It is not the jobs of these representatives to worry about sewage and trash. Those are the responsibilities of local councilors.

Local elections will enhance the division of tasks and with the division of tasks comes the division of power. Less power in the hand of the few means less opportunity for abuse. If this is what those who oppose the reintroduction fear, then let them fear it.

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 in The Malaysian Insider on March 9 2010.

Categories
Personal Politics & government Society

[2171] Of a story of migration

A dear friend was in Sydney recently. For old times’ sake, he called me up and asked if I was free for the day. I said yes. How could I say no? Both of us are Malaysians and both of us attended Michigan. We had some good times together.

We had not met for a long time prior to that meeting in Sydney. The last time we had a meal together was in Singapore, when we visited yet another alumnus of Michigan. That was a good four years ago.

February is a good time to visit the city of Harbour Bridge and Opera House. Apart from the rain, the weather is generally just fantastic. There are tons of activities to do without the need to worry about the presence of morality police. When they are not cracking jokes and become all-sarcastic, which is cute, Sydneysiders will generally leave you alone. To find a close friend visiting Sydney should not be a puzzle.

We had a long chat, reminiscing the days in good old Ann Arbor, our spur-of-the-moment road trip into the heart of South Dakota and our childish arguments. And we updated each other about our mutual close friends. I learnt that one is working in Germany.

Several are living in the United States. Another is just due west in Melbourne.

The conversation went on innocently until I felt that something was amiss. He asked, “How are they toward you?” He was referring to Australians.

The question slightly took me aback. I figured he was concerned with reports of racism in Australia. The country does have issues with racism. It is not as prevalent as in Malaysia but it is a problem nonetheless.

Yet, his tone was one not of interest in current affairs, or a concern for me. It is a tone reserved for the motive of self-interest. I became suspicious of his motive and began to challenge my assumption that he was here for vacation.

“Why are you here, exactly?” Jokingly, I added, “Do you really miss me that much?”

His answered forthrightly. He already had his application for permanent residency approved by the Australian immigration. All he needed was to have his passport stamped at an Australian gate. He needed to do that to activate his permanent resident status. “And here I am.”

I have friends who have decided to live abroad, or who have left Malaysia for good. I have heard and read stories of strangers, Malaysians nonetheless, doing the same. It is not a rare phenomenon but to hear it from him”¦ somehow, his answer surprised me.

My reaction to those who find solutions in migration had been, please, do not go, or if you do go, do come back.

It is almost a plea, because more often than not, those who chose to migrate share my values: liberty and equality. The more Malaysians holding these values leave, the harder will it be to man the dike against the tide of illiberalism, a hodgepodge of racism, religious bigotry and lack of trust in individuals that Malaysian politics is known for.

Under the bright sun, I did not find myself making such plea to him. I myself am unsure what the future holds for me any longer. Such act of convincing appeared futile to me, when I can hardly convince myself of it.

For a short moment, my mind raced to another occasion, where an Australian friend asked what I would do after earning a Master’s degree. I told him what I told so many others, “I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you just stay here? There are so many problems in Malaysia. I can’t find a reason why anybody would want to be there. Even you, as a Malay, get discriminated simply because you refuse to blend in. Besides, the pay here is much better, don’t you think so? What is the PPP per capita for Malaysia? Australia’s is over thirty thousand US dollar.”

At yet another occasion, a Malaysian who has been residing and working in Sydney for some time asked me the same question. I told him that I do not know but I would return to Malaysia.

“Why?”

I said because it is home.

“It is good that you still have the notion of home. As for me, it means nothing anymore.” He said that with incredible nonchalance that I almost took it as an insult. Deep inside of my heart however, I know that home is where liberty is.

My mind returned to the moment. Kids in school uniforms were flowing out of a building. Near the door, there was a banner, suggesting that these kids were there for some sort of recital.

The plaza besides the Town Hall is always buzzed with activities. Just days ago, a group of Iranians were there to remember February 11, the 21st anniversary of the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran rose over the ashes of old Persia soon after that. I am unsure which one of these two is worse but I know for sure that they do not have the same liberty in Iran to hold public gatherings. Or in Malaysia for that matter.

I had to return to the moment.

“Will you apply for citizenship?”

“No,” he said.

“Why not take the extra step and be done with it?” I was the devil’s advocate.

“Malaysia is a good country. Only those who are managing the country are not.”

He did not see me rolled my eyes. I was not dismissing his opinion.

On the contrary, I share his sentiment. All I wanted to do was to let go a silent sigh.

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 in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2010.

Categories
Politics & government

[2156] Of 2009-2010 Chilean presidential election

A few days ago Chile lived through one of the most important moments in its recent history. It is the election of a President who belongs to the right-wing after 20 years of left-centre government. For some, this is a complete disaster and almost the end of Chile in the way as we know it. For others, this moment is a real breakthrough for Chilean people, now that the country will grow faster and better.

Before discussing who is right or who is wrong, if we might say so, we need to discuss why the right wing won the campaign and whether they really won or if the left-centre lost. Both things look exactly the same, but they are not. Sebastian Piñera, the President-elect of Chile, is a billionaire with roots in the middle class. He is very smart in the way that he used this to show that if you work very hard you can achieve anything that you want. The origins of his wealth are a little controversial if not at all.

The other main reason is that the coalition in the government could not hear people’s voices who were asking more participation and renovation of leaders. It was such a problem that left-centre block chose an ex-president to be their candidate. This candidate, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, despite his experience, could not spark people’s faith again. In addition, the left wing was divided among 3 different candidates while for first time the conservatives were united behind Sebastian Piñera. The left wing promised new faces for a future government, but nobody believed them because these politicians have promised that before without fulfilling it.

Piñera showed a strong identification with the idea of change and hope, as Obama in the United States. People wanted to believe, people needed to believe. Furthermore, Piñera’s campaign was cheerful and exciting while the other side’s campaign tried to scare people by saying things such as ”Chile will be sold” and used hate as a mechanism.

This was an awful surprise because the left wing won the election for democracy 20 years ago using the strategy that Piñera used for this election. World is round and now the right wing used left wing strategies. The other mistake was that Piñera looked to the centre in political terms, while Frei turned to the left looking for communist votes. Chile is not a left wing country. Chile is a moderate and centrist country. People believe in a mix between capitalism and social welfare programs. I have to point out that this is my opinion based on the facts. All this could explain why Piñera won, or perhaps why left-centre coalition lost.

For some people, this is a horrible disaster because they believe that Piñera will end the social programs and will privatise the public companies. However, Piñera has been very clear that he will not privatise public firms, but he will implement many changes. The President-elect has promised to keep the social programs and to do them more efficient.

There is no doubt that he will pay more attention to entrepreneurship than public health or education, but he cannot change the whole system with a competitive congress. Chilean democracy has many institutions which make it difficult to change things in one direction or another. This is both good and bad. Nevertheless, this makes the system stable and reliable for private and foreign investment which is necessary for the progress of the country. Once again, this is my opinion.

The Conservatives are very glad, maybe too much. Piñera has shown himself as a liberal in the moral and economical aspects. The more extreme right politicians might be disappointed soon. Piñera supports homosexual rights and this can be an important clash between him and his followers.

In conclusion, the well-developed democracy in Chile makes the system stable and reliable providing guarantees for everyone. Because of this, every Chilean can give their opinion and work hard to build a better society irrespective of their political colour. Viva Chile!

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

JORGE ROJAS is an engineer and graduate student in economics at the University of Sydney. He is member of the Party for Democracy, a center-left Chilean party upholding liberal and progressive ideas.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2155] Of damage to sanctity of right to private property, undone

Assume that I own an item. Somebody impersonates me and pretends to be the rightful owner of the item. The impersonator then sells the item to another bone fide buyer. To me, that transaction is clearly illegal. It violates rights to the idea of private property, one of the main pillars of libertarianism. But one does not need to be a libertarian to understand that that is utterly wrong. Fraud is always wrong. But a certain judge, Eusoff Chin, in 2000 ruled otherwise.

Roger Tan Kor Mee wrote an insightful article at Loyak Burok on the matter:

Briefly, in Adorna Properties, a Thai, Boonsom Boonyanit, who resided in Thailand was the registered proprietor of two lots land in Tanjung Bungah, Pulau Pinang (”the said lands”). An impostor, one Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit, claiming to be ”Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit” had affirmed a statutory declaration on June 18, 1988 that she had lost the original title to the said lands. The impostor then managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the land office.

On April 6, 1989, the impostor affirmed a second statutory declaration declaring that the names Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit in the title to the said lands were one and the same person, that is Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit (impostor) with a different Thai passport number. With this declaration, the impostor managed to register the transfer in favour of Adorna for a sum of RM 12Million.

Boonyanit then sued for the return of the said lands. The High Court Judge of Penang, Justice Vincent Ng Kim Khoay, ruled in favour of Adorna (judgment dated April 25, 1995). On appeal, the Court of Appeal, comprising Gopal Sri Ram, Siti Norma Yaakob and Ahmad Fairuz, allowed the appeal in its judgment dated March 17, 1997. Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court comprising Eusoff Chin, Wan Adnan Ismail and Abu Mansor Ali allowed Adorna’s appeal in its judgment dated Dec 13, 2000 and pronounced in open court on Dec 22, 2000 (”main judgment”), but by then Boonyanit had passed away in May that year. [Can landed property be validly transferred land using a forged instrument? Roger Tan Kor Mee. Loyar Burok. January 20 2010]

But even if the law actually justified the year 2000 ruling, then the law has to be deeply flawed and repulsive to the notion of justice. It practically legalizes robbery. Is such law deserving of adherence?

It is therefore highly comforting for me to learn that the Federal Court today overturns that despicable ruling, restoring ownership of the land to its rightful owner.

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court on Thursday departed from its judgement nearly 10 years ago in the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit case, plugging a loophole in the law to thus allow landowners who lost their land through fraudulent means to redeem their right to the property.

In its landmark unanimous ruling, the five-man bench led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi held that land transferred by fraudulent means will no longer be legally accepted. [Federal Court reverses its decision in landmark land case. The Star. January 21 2010]

Alas, the rightful owner is already dead.

Still, it is righting a wrong and it preserves the sanctity of right to private property. That, is something to celebrate for.