Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government

[1935] Mengenai ucapan terakhir

Beberapa perkara yang disebut tidak boleh dipersetujui oleh saya. Beberapa perkara lain, walaupun patut disokong, susah untuk dipercayainya kerana tindak-tanduk yang bertentangan dengan retorik.

Walau bagaimanapun, dua perenggan daripada ucapan mantan Presiden UMNO Abdullah Ahmad Badawi harus dipetik:

Sedarilah! di luar Dewan Merdeka ini, ramai yang berpandangan bahawa jika UMNO, dan jika Barisan Nasional tidak berubah, maka pilihan raya kedua belas pada 8 Mac 2008 merupakan kemenangan terakhir kepada Barisan Nasional menubuhkan kerajaan. Selepas ini, rakyat di luar Dewan ini, tidak akan mengundi kita lagi. Di peringkat negeri, Barisan Nasional turut menghadapi cabaran yang sama. Di kalangan kita juga, malah di kalangan yang duduk di atas pentas ini, turut menyuarakan bahawa ‘UMNO wajib melakukan perubahan’. Apa yang saya ingin dengar, adalah suara yang menyatakan ‘Aku akan berubah’ lalu disusuli dengan langkah berani melakukan perubahan itu dalam diri sendiri. Betapa malangnya UMNO jika ramai yang gagal memahami bahawa UMNO itu adalah kita, selagi kita tidak berubah, UMNO tidak mungkin dapat berubah.

UMNO kini berada di persimpangan jalan. Laluan yang kita pilih akan menentukan sama ada kita kekal relevan sepanjang masa atau akan hanya menjadi satu sejarah masa lalu. Ada juga yang masih berpendirian bahawa kita tidak perlu melakukan perubahan. Mereka mempercayai bahawa UMNO akan kembali mencapai kemenangan jika kita kembali kepada cara lama – kepada order lama, dengan menyekat kebebasan warga – dengan menghalang warga dari menyuarakan kritikan. Mereka berpandangan bahawa UMNO itu boleh terus berkuasa dan kekal kuat dengan kaedah menjaga kepentingan beberapa individu tertentu, dan memenuhi tuntutan-tuntutan kumpulan tertentu. Masih terdapat di kalangan kita yang lebih tertarik dengan cerita-cerita yang menyeronokkan hingga kita menjadi leka, lena dalam ulitan mimpi bahagia.

Jika laluan lama itu yang dipilih, saya berpandangan bahawa kita telah memilih laluan yang salah; laluan yang membawa kita ke belakang. Saya bimbang laluan tersebut akan lebih mempercepatkan berakhirnya talian hayat UMNO. Jika kita tidak melakukan perubahan berani, selaras dengan transformasi masyarakat yang begitu dinamik dan perkembangan global yang begitu radikal, kita akan menyaksikan hari-hari berakhirnya parti UMNO yang kita kasihi ini. Jika kita terus bertanding begitu hebat, bermati-matian untuk merebut jawatan, tetapi apakah ertinya jawatan tersebut kepada UMNO yang telah tinggal rangka yang terbujur di kuburan. Barang dijauhkan Allah dari UMNO menimpa nasib hiba yang sedemikian. Atas kesedaran tersebut, atas rasa cinta kepada UMNO, atas rasa tanggung jawab terhadap UMNO dan bangsa Melayu, saya memilih untuk menunjukkan teladan, dengan tidak mempertahankan jawatan Presiden parti, bertujuan memberi laluan kepada pemimpin yang lebih muda walaupun masih terdapat ramai dari ahli-ahli parti dan rakan-rakan baik di dalam ataupun di luar Kerajaan meminta saya untuk terus mempertahankan jawatan. Saya menghargai keputusan rakan-rakan yang turut memilih langkah yang sama, baik di peringkat bahagian mahupun cawangan, baik di peringkat pemuda, wanita dan puteri. Bahawa jawatan dan kedudukan bukannya milik peribadi; sedangkan harta milik peribadi juga tidak akan dapat dibawa sampai ke mati. [Ucapan Dasar Presiden UMNO. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Mac 26 2009]

Mungkin ini adalah satu kesedaran, walaupun ia tidak bermakna lagi.

Categories
Politics & government

[1932] Of UMNO blew my fuse

I have a knack of finding myself in places I would least expect doing things that I would not imagine. That happened to me as an undergraduate a couple of times with the instance of me hiking in the Sierra Nevada on a whim notice as the best example of all. Though less life-changing than that hike and instead reaffirming, I found myself with an observer pass to the ongoing UMNO assembly. I observed the Puteri UMNO session from the back and I can say that I do not remember when was the last time I felt so angry.

This was Puteri, mind you. If it was a Pemuda session, I probably would have gone berserk.

How I got the pass should be left out of this space because that is yet another story of unsuspected chain of events that if told, would force me to digress from what I really want to share here. So, please do not ask how I got the cursed pass.

I came with an open mind because I have met with some of who I would call reformists within UMNO. Despite knowing that their aspiration comes far short than my expectation, I do wish them success because if everybody is to be kept honest, there has to be competition and at the moment, UMNO — and BN in general — does not provide quality competition. The lack of quality competition is what I attribute as a factor to what I see as Pakatan Rakyat abusing the trust it has respectfully gained not too long ago.

Besides, the opening speech by Najib Razak on Tuesday’s night at Putra World Trade Center was not a bad experience after all. I am not saying I was impressed with or believed in his speech but it was a good learning experience. It was an opportunity to learn the mind of UMNO. Furthermore, this is the time of a leadership change. To witness it is something to remember, for better or for worse.

Admittedly, I arrived at the venue early with great consternation. I think, seeing myself so flagrantly among UMNO people near their headquarters is bad for my reputation. But I swallowed that feeling, advising myself to give it a chance.

That was my mistake.

To be fair, it started mildly. Puteri UMNO said this and that and I learned a thing or two about the internal politics and atmosphere of UMNO deeper. There were a lot of pretty girls too and free lunch. So I thought that could provide me with at least a break even experience: I could learn something, enjoy pretty faces and eat some good food while having my ears and consciousness abused.

Despite disagreeable ideas, the first half of the day went somewhat okay. The second half was another story.

I was on time for the second session but clearly, time is inconsequential to the members of Puteri UMNO. The program began about 30 minutes late because there were too few people in the hall. While I do not pretend to be extremely precise with my time management, a wait of 30 minutes is intolerable. I tend to get very restless when I have to wait that long. I started to talk to myself, criticizing them. Hey, this is a party that governs a country!

It was downhill from then on.

They talked about their policy on the monarchy and language to paint themselves as the most Malays of all Malays while ignoring past contradictory actions that UMNO had committed. For instance, the 1993 amendments to  the Constitution of Malaysia. To use the oft-mentioned phrase of UMNO, “Melayu mudah lupa.” Really, UMNO mudah lupa because not all Malays are forgetful of history.

A state representative of the Puteri wing proposed for money politics to be legalized in a controlled fashion in UMNO, without any hint of remorse. I have heard this suggestion at a closed door discussion before and I thought then it was just a wacky suggestion made by an outlier. To hear it in the assembly so publicly however is shocking.

Maybe, she wanted to say to allow a political donation system, like the one practiced in the US or UK but the way she presented the idea — if indeed what I think that was what she wanted to say really — was too crude.

Another suggested for UMNO to strengthen its hands in business, seemingly unaware of criticisms which UMNO seriously faces.

Still on money politics, there was an unbelievable call for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to not investigate UMNO. More audaciously, she wanted UMNO to manage its own problem with corruption and money politics while outsiders, like the MACC, should stay outside. Having UMNO to investigate itself is like having the accused being both the judge and the jury. Oh, and the legal counsel too. Yes I know, what the fuck, eh?

Pardon my French for I think I should not restrain myself any longer. That would be bad for my psychological health. How can I restrain myself? Why should I restrain myself?

I restrained myself long enough when I was in the middle of the whole circus. That earned me my right to say fuck.

There were some good points: a representative questioned why Ali Rustam was punished while others were let off the hook. The chairperson tried to encourage the representative to not to talk about it but she persevered.

One sang a song despite being reminded that her time was up, several times by the chairperson of the session. Nice voice and face too but, man, this is not American Idol, babe.

Good points however were short and what I considered as bad were aplenty. I do not remember them and I do not intend to refer to my notes. What I remember is that my ears were red. The temperature of my ears was above room temperature.

I was bad at concealing my emotion after some period of time and I think some people started to notice my demeanor at some point of time.

I finally blew my fuse — in a very silent way; I did not make a scene — when a representative spoke of how Malays are successful not mostly because of their own effort but because of BN-government policy which, in no uncertain terms, refers to the New Economic Policy.

Enough, I said. No more of this.

So, I packed by stuff and went out of the hall only to suffer a slow elevator ride downward. There was a beautiful Puteri UMNO who smiled at me but I was at a stage where if I had a shotgun, I would have gone on a shooting spree. She would be my first victim. I impolitely ignored her because the air in the elevator was suffocating and filthy and sinful and full of cruel intention.

The door finally opened but only to a floor full of people shouting and campaigning for candidates which I would rather generalize and accuse them so liberally all as corrupt racists. Something was boiling inside of me and yet here I was, having to navigate myself through a sea of people I would rather not associate myself with. These are the people that make me ashamed to be a Malay.

I marched, determined to get out while putting a straight face, trying to mask my anger and disgust.

Once outside under the cloudy but still open sky of Kuala Lumpur, I breathed deep. My lungs were almost busting until the time was right for me to breath out. All that vicious feelings melted all at once, giving way to a feeling of liberation. My pace started to slow down and finally to a halt. I wanted to relish the fact that I was out of that ill-filled hall and building.

And I saw Australia.

I cannot wait for Australia anymore, even when Australia for me is expected to be a temporary experience.

July come quick!

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1931] Of change? Who am I kidding?

Will there be change in Barisan Nasional?

With Samy Vellu still manning the steering wheel of MIC,[1] it is not hard to present a case which BN would continue doing business as usual despite requirement for change along with internal almost Darwinian political rhetoric of change.

But with Najib Razak expected to assume the post of Prime Minister from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi soon, in the strictest sense, change will definitely happen. The composition of the Cabinet is likely to change too, if the signal that the current Deputy Prime Minister is giving out is to be believed in.[2]

The willingness of BN to pull a political coup in Perak too gives the air that there is more tolerance for — to put it politely — unorthodox maneuvers that are uncharacteristic of the current Prime Minister. That is change too, for better or for worse.

In that light, a more meaningful question to ask is whether there will be a change for the better?

That is harder to answer and I personally would like to be fair by giving Najib Razak a chance to prove himself. To pre-judge him maybe an unfair position to take.

Indeed, he is riddled with controversies but with cognizance of how unclean politics is, I am unwilling to believe those far too many accusations until it is proven. No doubt, some events related to the DPM and BN are curiously questionable but I am a skeptic in many ways. It is only right for me to keep to that tradition of mine.

Still, there are signs that changes which Najib Razak plans to introduce might be unpalatable to individuals like me. One clearest sign yet is the recent 3-month ban imposed on Harakah and Suara Keadilan as announced today by the Ministry of Home Affairs.[3]

On TV3 just now, the announcer stated that the reason for the ban is the seditious nature of both papers. In the same breathe, the announcer read what she was supposed to read: the Home Ministry has no intention of infringing free press but Harakah and Suara Keadilan have gone too far.

Give me a break. They actually still believe that kind of tricks work still.

As a libertarian, I find it tiring to present effective but template-like arguments against such reason. I feel like a broken record but the sad part is, those questions are still relevant. Too far to whom? Who is the judge?

The timing, as suggested by Mr. Teoh of The Malaysian Insider, further invites critical questions . The fact that the timing of the ban coincides with three by-elections to be held on April 7 is inescapable. Among many questions, the convenient date for BN highlights possible abuse of government machinery to forward an unkosher political agenda.

Then, there is a question of equal application of the law. If sedition is the benchmark, clearly with the untruth and inflammatory style, Utusan Malaysia deserves reprimand as heavy as Harakah and Suara Keadilan. Even the TV3 too if I may add.

Change?

Who am I kidding?

I need to remind myself that I am a skeptic. And I am applying my skepticism with equal pressure on all sides.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 (Bernama) — Former MIC vice-president Datuk M. Muthupalaniappan, who failed in his bid today to contest the party top post, has declared that democracy is dead in the MIC.

He said this was evident from the fact that he had many of his nominations disqualified.

Muthupalaniappan had submitted 53 nominations supporting him at the party presidential nomination at the MIC headquarters this morning. Forty-eight of the 53 nominations were rejected due to non-compliance with the MIC constitution and the presidential election by-laws.

At the end of the day, he only had five valid nominations as opposed to incumbent president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s 455. Samy Vellu was declared president of the party for the 11th consecutive term. [Muthupalaniappan Cries Foul, Says Democracy Dead In MIC. Bernama. March 22 2009]

[2] — PETALING JAYA: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has listed out the qualities he is looking for in his new Cabinet line-up when he takes over as Umno president and Prime Minister.

He said those in his Cabinet must have ability, credibility and general public acceptance so that he could institute reforms in both the party and the Government. [Najib wants an able and credible Cabinet. The Star. March 23 2009]

[3] — KUALA LUMPUR, March 23 — In a move that appears to be geared towards handicapping the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) machinery ahead of the three by-elections on April 7, Suara Keadilan and Harakah have been banned for three months by the Home Ministry with immediate effect.

The party organs of Pas and PKR respectively were informed of the decision around 5pm this evening by fax with no reason given. [Harakah and Suara Keadilan banned. Shannon Teoh. The Malaysian Insider. March 23 2009]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1917] Of revisiting the roles of government and other matters

Friend Ho Yi Jian[1] currently at the National University of Singapore asks several questions pertaining libertarianism. One question asks what many have asked: how small is a small government? The second question is about wealth inequality. Third, is there a way to overcome speculation associated with the operations of free market?

Let us explore the three questions one at a time.

The hardest question is the first. How small — or big — should a small government be?

There is no objective way of measuring the size of government but there are principles. In no way however these principles are universally adopted throughout the schools of libertarianism.

In the famed Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, Judeans were against Roman rule and there were multiple resistance groups. They however just could not agree with each other. In the classic comedy, the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea seemed to hate each other more than the Romans though both groups shared a common goal of ridding Judea of Roman presence. The same is applicable for libertarianism.

Different strains of libertarianism have their own idiosyncrasies which one libertarian may disagree with each other. I therefore cannot provide an answer to represent all libertarianisms. But I can present my version of libertarianism and that is green libertarianism. This is the green-blue alliance that is probably currently seen in form of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom under the exciting David Cameron.

In this kind of libertarianism, the purpose of the state defines the boundary and hence size of the state. The purpose in my libertarianism — with regards to this particular purpose — is uncontroversial in common libertarian circle because it is the universal truth in libertarianism. The first and foremost purpose of the state is the protection of individual negative liberty. This is further enhanced with rights egalitarianism: all are granted the same negative rights as long as the person respects others’ same rights.

As first formally rationalized by Isaiah Berlin, negative liberty is the freedom from interference. This definitely includes protection from coercion and fraud. This freedom is mostly bounded by the non-aggression axiom.

Sidetracking, the non-aggression axiom does not eliminate force as an option. It merely prevents libertarian from initiating force. If coercion was initiated by the other, then by all means pick up your arms and fight. The state motto of New Hampshire describes it all: live free or die.

I would like to think I am a Friedman libertarian to a certain extent. This is mostly because while preferring for a small government which at the very least defined by protection of individual negative rights and non-aggression axiom, the government has a crucial role in education. A liberal society as in libertarian society requires an educated society and education is the sculpture of society. Without education, individuals would not be empowered to take destiny into their hands and that would bring the downfall of a liberal society. Its importance can never be overemphasized in sustaining a liberal society.

While we are at it, allow me to answer Jed Yoong’s question posed much earlier[2] and answer Yi Jian’s second question too.

Before we begin, it is crucial to point out of problematic label liberalism as utilized by Jed. It is problematic because of the inconsistency of her usage of the word, which is probably due to her unfamiliarity with US politics. The title of her entry betrays that fact. She carelessly uses liberalism to describe the free market sort by including me and John Lee[3] as adherents of liberalism in the same line as the US liberals — more accurately the Democrats. This is a misuse of label because in US tradition, the liberals are the social democrats and I am definitely not a social democrat. Admittedly, libertarians in the classical liberalism sense may support the Democrats but that is due to employment of pragmatism and nothing more.

Under the flawed definition, she asked, how egalitarian will your (here, I take it as me. Others can answer that question for themselves; the two other names mentioned were John Lee and Nik Nazmi) NEP-free Malaysia truly be?

A loaded question with flawed assumption is hard to answer. She fails to understand the libertarians are not quite concerned with wealth egalitarianism. Instead, libertarians are firm believers of rights egalitarianism. Libertarians are not supportive of and oppose to any effort at achieving equality of outcome.

This is why libertarians or classical liberals are the great philosophical enemies of communists and socialists.

The question of endowment does disturb me however. Here, my concern is poverty and not wealth inequality.

In my opinion, poverty has greater propensity to create instability than wealth inequality. Proof: supposedly equal communist state always without fail, fail. Less communistic and socialist state and more capitalist countries have proven to outlast communist state, so far. But of course, there is no absolute capitalist state in the world at the moment. What are there are states on a spectrum sitting close to capitalistic end, vis-à-vis the other end in a simple two dimensional spectrum.

Take note of my concern for poverty. I hold that poverty is the problem, not wealth inequality. I also hold that a lot of people accidentally mixed the two concepts together without realizing it because the two concepts are similar on the surface. Below the skin, the difference cannot be missed.

It is that endowment question, or if your will, the question of poverty, that led me to rationalize the need for government’s active role in education. It is education that is capable of breaking the cycle of poverty, the great machine which provides equality of opportunities. Education may also create a more wealth egalitarian society, but only as a side effect, not as an expressed goal.

But if — and that is a damn big if — affirmative action is a must, I prefer it to be inclusive, not exclusive, need-conscious affirmative action.

Coming back to the first question, one final factor in defining the size of government is market failure. While market is the superior form of social technology in its class — and definitely far more superior than socialism — it does suffer weakness and that is market failure. Many libertarians, especially the minarchists of minarchist somehow choose to ignore this but market failure presents both theoretical and practical problems.

It is important to define market failure, lest others misconstrue losses caused by corrections made by the market for bad decisions made by actors as market failure. Bad decisions made by actors are actors’ failure, not market’s. This is applicable to bubble bursting, from tulips, to dot com, to housing. In those cases, the market is merely turning around and saying, hey, you made a mistake and you have to pay for it.

Market failure here is in the line of tragedy of the commons. The problems associated with pollution and harvesting of public goods in situations where there is consistent and systemic divergence of social and private costs called externality, especially negative externality are market failure. In this, the government has a role to narrow wide gap between social and private cost. This can happen through introduction of Pigovian taxes — of special interest is the informal Pigovian Club founded by economist Greg Mankiw — or issuance of permits.

Finally, the third question: speculation is a problem, what can we do about it? Here, he qualifies speculation as over-speculation.

In answering the question, I would like to begin from the top. Is speculation a problem?

The question, much like Jed’s question of egalitarianism, is loaded. I do not accept that speculation is a problem. What I consider as a problem is incomplete information or more accurately, asymmetric information. It is especially so when it is associated with fraud. Does the government have a role to play in that?

Yes. Refer back to the first purpose of government: protection of individual negative rights.

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

[1] — [Labour Politics, Libertarianism and Business Cycles. Thoughtstreak II.V. March 6 2009]

[2] — [Liberalism In America + Malaysia, 1968 vs 2008 Jed Yoong. January 3 2009]

[3] — John Lee blogs at Infernal Ramblings of a Thoughtless Mind.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1906] Of an insidious prospect for greater moral standardization

The episode surrounding state assemblyperson Elizabeth Wong is beginning to assume a new twist. Slowly subverting violation of privacy as the main issue at hand is a desire to impose one’s moral on others. For a society like ours, that is hardly surprising. Recent event indicates what many have already known: we have a long way to go before enjoying a society of free individuals but it might just get worse. If the call for the resignation of Wong is successful, we are in the prospect seeing greater standardization of moral across all communities when previously, it was only mostly visible within a particular community.

I might be beating a dead horse but for those who are truly concerned with the state of individual right to privacy should not let the issue die. In that spirit, I am only glad to repeat what others have said: Elizabeth Wong is a victim.

Unfortunately, far too many individuals with Khir Toyo possibly as flag bearer of the informal group of thought are pummeling the victim while ignoring the occurrence of crime. If it is unclear, the only crime that happened is the violation of Wong’s privacy.

The same rationale is applicable to the case of Chua Soi Lek though this is not to say that the cases of Chua and Wong are the same. Chua is married and he broke the trust of his wife. Wong on the other hand is single. The contexts differ and so too the justifications.

In Chua’s case, the betrayer of trust is him — here, trust refers to his family trust on him — while in Wong’s case, the betrayer of trust is her former boyfriend — here, trust refers to trust between Wong and her friend. Notice that the betrayer of trust in the latter case is not the victim of violation of privacy, unlike other case.

Yet, in both cases, the crime is the violation of privacy and nothing else.

When the calls for resignation for both were made, it only showed that the callers are trying to impose their morality on others. This is especially visible when Khir Toyo called for Wong’s resignation. While it is still wrong from the perspective of liberty, the imposition of morality on others has more or less occurred within a community, specifically the local Muslim community. While being mindful that a community is not monolithic, the opinion of those identified themselves as belonging to the community and taking conservative position previously only wanted to impose their morality on those who they deem as belonging to the same community, their community. They do so on the assumption that there is only one moral standard in their imagined monolithic community.

Khir Toyo’s demand is definitely one of the more prominent calls that cross into another community where the moral standards — if one use the logic of monolithic community, which is typically used by UMNO, however flawed it might be — differ.

Khir Toyo and those from his community — that is an assumed Malay community —  supporting the call for Elizabeth Wong’s resignation because of Wong’s private life wrongfully made public due to intrusion of privacy may demonstrate an increasing tendency of the cultural or religious conservatives to impose their morality on others from outside of their perceived homogeneous community.

Alternatively, if that is wrong, then the call for resignation of Wong is done out of malice, lacking honesty based not at all on moral and principally driven by excessively vicious political competition otherwise, rightly called by others, as gutter politics.

This cannot be allowed to happen because it creates an perverse opportunity to standardize morality across different communities. While effort to standardize morality within community is already a step towards tyranny if not tyranny itself, wider standardization is a step towards hell if not hell itself.

There is a direction I will oppose and that is the reason why I wish for Elizabeth Wong to continue to serve to the people of Selangor and beyond as a member of the Executive Committee of Selangor and as a assemblyperson for Bukit Lanjan.