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.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2153] Of republicanism in Malaysia? Meh

Prince William visited Redfern in Sydney yesterday. He is still in Sydney today.

I walked to Redfern just to see what it was all about. By the time I got there however, he has already left. Still, there were many people around. Police officers were everywhere. So were reporters. Those there seemed excited about having the Prince in their neighborhood. Somebody had a poster professing her love for Queen Elizabeth II. I suppose, somebody — like what somebody did at the Malay College in Kuala Kangsar to commemorate the visit of the Queen to the school — would erect a small memorial to remember the occasion, effectively saying ‘Prince William was here’ in a manner more refined than that of a graffiti artist.

The premier of New South Wales, Kristina Keneally, a proponent of republicanism in Australia said that the Prince is a “very charming” and “a young man of great character.” That however does little to reverse her republicanism. The Australian Labor Party, the party which Keneally belongs to as well as the party of the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, advocates republicanism.

I myself am a republican, though not quite a fan of the Labor Party. This stems from my distrust of institutions which claim authority from above rather from the bottom. I reject the idea of divine rights outrightly. Granted, these days the monarchy institution does not explicitly claim as such but its origin firmly belongs to that tradition. My egalitarianism mops up any spot that such distrust fails to sweep clean.

In that sense, to have an Australian republic is good. To have a Malaysian republic is ideal.

Yet, republicanism is never a priority for me, given a myriad of burning issues deserving more attention. It is down there somewhere in the priority list. To fight for republicanism appears to be indulging in an unwise battle where energy can better be used to issues that are more concrete.

This is especially so when the monarchy in Malaysia — a total of 9 houses and the Agong as the head of the 13-state federation — has limited power although from time to time, its influence has national repercussions, as observed in the aftermath of the 2008 general election, especially so in Perak. All this is thanks to the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. He may have overdone it but his maneuver ensures restriction to royal powers.

Besides, while I am reluctant to give ground to monarchists, the monarchy does in a way play a balancing role in Malaysia. The highly flawed Malaysian system of governance, due to damages done to it by Mahathir, ironically, enhances the space for the monarchy.

Until the issue of separation of powers between the three arms of government is addressed, and until the empowerment of states as proper member states of the federation rather than just units of a practically unitary state, republicanism in Malaysia, will remain bottom out of pile of concerns and even unlooked.

Despite considering myself a republican, I just could not care less about republicanism at the moment. I want my liberal democracy first.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2151] Of barking up the wrong tree

How many times have we heard the statement that if so and so did not exist, certain problems would go away? Specifically, one side would blame UMNO and Barisan Nasional for racial and religious problems in Malaysia, while the other would blame PKR and its allies for the instability in the country.

The truth is that politicians and political parties get too much credit for the various issues the country faces. As controversial issues erupt, the blame game begins in earnest. The usual suspects get apportioned with the blame at the slightest chance by the other side, as if there were quota to fill. The controversy revolving around the use of the term “Allah” is a case in point.

At this juncture, where venom is thrown so easily as to make the atmosphere too toxic for fruitful exchange, the air needs clearing. This can be achieved by recognizing the sources of issues and identifying proxies for what they are.

Granted, politicians and political parties — especially those in government — have disproportionate power to influence politics. There is no doubt that there are cases where the blame clearly belongs to one side.

Yet, the relationship of politicians and political parties with society is not characterized by one-way traffic. It is a two-way street. In many cases involving grander issues like race, religion, democracy or liberty, for instance, the causal flow to the other side is greater than the direction that blame-gamers typical take.

However imperfect our democracy is — condemn it as crass majoritarianism all you want — it is a democracy nonetheless. This means the views of real individuals, with real wants and real needs, along with real hope and real fear — like you and I — get represented in the system. Elected individuals in Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat and others as well, largely represent diverse opinions that exist within Malaysian society.

Even if they are not elected, individuals still have voices of their own. There is no reason to discount these voices as irrelevant when it resonates so well with other individuals.

From this perspective, these individuals are effectively proxies within the issues. To put it another way, they are mere reflections of what the society at large thinks. Without issues — the concerns lingering in our society — these proxies will not exist.

Hence, to accuse these proxies as the sources of our problems is effectively an effort to dismiss real issues that real people care for as merely artificial issues created by special interest groups. Such accusations pretend that the other side does not have real concerns.

That path will essentially result in a misdiagnosis of the problem. Based on that misdiagnosis, any solution provided to address the problem will disproportionately take the proxies into account while disproportionately discounting the issues. In the end, the intended result will likely be unsatisfactory because it will address the proxies and not the issues.

Realize that if these proxies are somehow immediately removed while the issues remain unresolved, different players will take over the proxies’ places to champion those issues. If Barisan Nasional were to be done away with, would racial issues disappear? If Pakatan Rakyat were to removed, would the demand for equality suddenly vanish?

It is naïve to answer in the affirmative.

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

First published in The Malaysian Insider on January 14 2010.