Category: Politics & government

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1645] Of absolutists in the making

The hazard of appealing to interventionist monarchy has finally reared its head. With Malay nationalists rallying around a monarch, the idea of absolutism is gaining currency in the public sphere. Whether by accident or design, the monarchy institution in Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia are regaining influence that they had in times when divine rights of kings was held supreme. This jeopardizes liberty, or whatever left that we have now.

The episode began with the removal of the director of Perak religious department from office. The Sultan successfully argued that the monarchy alone has the absolute power over the director office, forcing the PAS administration to back off from its intention to exert control over the state religious department. The story does not end with the executive having a black eye however. It really exploded when Karpal Singh of DAP insisted that the Sultan has no power to overturn the decision of the state executive.[1]

Criticism in Malaysia works in a peculiar way. One has to have the same skin color in order to make inter-communal criticism and not possibly suffer the suffocating communal politics. Karpal Singh did not notice this but those in UMNO are aware of it and they wasted no time to shoot him down. With Malay nationalists under post-election siege mentality and lamenting about a so-called divided Malay community, remark by the chairman of DAP was the spark that they needed to rally the Malays around them.

The monarchy institution is closely associated with Malay politics, being the ultimate defender of Malay privileges in the country. Any attack against the institution, especially by non-Malays, is considered by the nationalists as an attack against the Malay itself.

For UMNO, the anger caused by the DAP chairman is an opportunity to rebuild their base by having Malay nationalists firmly behind their back. With a clear external source that is Karpal Singh, attention could be diverted from the trouble plaguing the leadership of UMNO. More importantly, by siding with the monarchy together with the Malay nationalists, the current leadership of UMNO creates a perception of Malay unity under them, seemingly solving the question of divided UMNO.

Regardless the ulterior motive of UMNO, all that dangerous increases the influence of the monarchy in national politics and all must take heed of that.

While the issue at the moment may forward UMNO’s interest, there will be a time for conflicts of interest between the two entities or between the monarchy and the government. Such conflict had occurred in the past under the Mahathir administration.[2][3]

What Mahathir did to the power of the monarchy is a victory to organic politics. He successfully brought the monarchy under the purview of the legal system, giving meaning to the idea that no one is above the law. The former Prime Minister however not only mowed the blades of unwanted tall grasses. The sunflowers and the poppies and the dandelions which took upon itself to decorate the air above the Malaysian field also fell. But this is not about the Mahathir administration. Rather, it is about the sincerity of UMNO. UMNO does this not because they is supporting the monarchy institution per se. Rather, they, particularly the leadership, are doing what it is doing in effort to reverse its bad political fortune.

Regardless, this particular issue and the reactions to its produce a powerful precedent that may grant the Malay monarchy institution immunity from criticism, much at the expense of liberty. With that, it possibly places the monarchy above the Constitution as mere questioning is met with coercion by the state in the name treason.

With monarchs’ powers and actions unquestioned regardless of the constitutionality of it, the route to absolutism is paved. The liberals need to act, and so too the timid Malaysian republicans.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 (Bernama) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has asked Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to lodge a police report against DAP chairman Karpal Singh over his statement on the powers of the Perak Sultan.

[…]

“It is seditious and seen by the people as ridiculing the Sultan as though the ruler did not know his duty,” he told reporters when asked about Karpal’s controversial statement. [Abdullah Asks Police Report Be Lodged Against Karpal. Bernama. May 8 2008]

[2] — See the 1993 Malaysian constitutional crisis at Wikipedia.

[3] — At a special session of Parliament beginning on Jan. 18, Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad plans to push through constitutional changes ending the sultans’ immunity from prosecution. But the sultans, who are due to meet Mr. Mahathir this Saturday, are resisting. [Royals in Trouble:Malaysia’s Sultans Have a Role. Philip Bowring. International Herald Tribune. January 7 1993]

Categories
Politics & government

[1640] Of Jindal is on the list!

The McCain campaign is adding spices into the US Presidential race by mentioning Jindal’s name.

That reversal of a three-point McCain lead to a six-point deficit for the McCain ticket suggests what might happen (a) when the Democrats unite, and (b) if McCain were to choose a conventional running mate, who, as it were, reinforced the Republican brand for the ticket. As the McCain aide put it, this is what will happen if we run a traditional campaign; our numbers will gradually regress toward the (losing) generic Republican number.

Maybe that’s why, in separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak. [McCain-Jindal? William Kristol. New York Times. May 5 2008]

Who is Jindal?

A young governor of Louisiana.

If McCain picks Jindal as his running mate, the Republican Party may have found their answer to Obama.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1639] Of an odd path to secularism

Activist monarchy runs contrary to organic politics and for that I am not too comfortable of having monarchs meddling in business of the state. Despite that, some actions by monarch may coincide with favorable consequences like giving new breath to federalism but the involvement of monarchs in politics remains an inorganic decision. The latest case of activist monarch revolves around the royal house of Perak over-ruling the decision of the Menteri Besar to remove the state religion department director.[1] While the down side of this episode is about having the monarchy institution in the picture, the bright side of the equation provides an opportunity for secularism.

Secularism, if its definition has to be clarified, aims to separate the state from religious beliefs and vice versa. A secular state is a state neutral of religious values. As further argument for secularism goes, religious belief is a personal matter and the best way to maintain it that way and protect religious freedom is to have a secular state.

The situation in Perak at the moment basically separates religion, or at least some part of it, from the purview of the executive branch of the government. If the Sultan has the ultimate say in religious matters, that would basically make the religious department answerable only to the Sultan while the executive is left with little influence in the matter. In the state of Perak where the monarchy takes a progressive political stance while the head of the executive is a member of an Islamist political party, I cannot help but maintain a slight inclination to stand with the monarch, even when I distrust him. In my opinion, from a certain point of view, this path may lead to secularism. In my opinion, this helps in preventing PAS from enlarging the role of religion in our society through coercion.

This perspective however assumes that the monarchy institution itself is not part of the state and that only the executive, judiciary and the legislative branches of government are considered as part of the state. The truth is, the monarchy together with the three branches are the institutions of the state.

In the purest sense of the word, we are still far away from secularism. Yet, this tussle between the Sultan and the Menteri Besar, especially when the executive is backing down,[2] creates an opportunity to advance secularism in the Malaysian society. It is an odd path but it is a path nonetheless.

But of course, there is no guarantee that the monarch himself has liberty in his mind. For all we know, the Sultan may only be interested in advancing the influence of the monarchy which has long waned.

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

[1] — IPOH, May 2 (Bernama) — The Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, today ordered Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to immediately retract the 24-hour tranfer order issued to Perak Islamic Religious Department director Datuk Jamry Sury on Tuesday. [Sultan Azlan Shah Orders Transfer Order On JAIP Director Retracted. Bernama. May 2 2008]

[2] — IPOH: The Mentri Besar will apologise to the Sultan of Perak over the hasty transfer of Perak Religious Department (JAIP) director Datuk Jamry Sury without first consulting the Ruler, who is the head of Islam in the state.

[…]

Meanwhile, Jamry has yet to receive a letter reinstating him as JAIP director, although he said he has been asked to meet state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim tomorrow.[Perak MB to apologise to Sultan of Perak. The Star. May 4 2008]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1615] Of China is no stranger to the politicization of the Olympics

In addressing the proposed boycott of the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, supporters of People’s Republic of China are urging the world community to not to politicize the Olympic Games. That is a fair comment. After all, in ancient times, the Games offered an Olympic truce during war. Yet, supporters of China cannot really be truly honest about the issue of the politicization of the Olympics until they condemn China too; China itself is guilty of politicizing the Olympics on a number of occasions in the past.

China boycotted several Games to object to the participation of Taiwan in the Olympics from the 1950s up to the 1980s.[1] In 1976 in fact, not only China boycotted the Olympics, it forced the host Canada to pressure Taiwan on the issue of national identity. That eventually caused Taiwan to refrain from competing in the Games.[2] In 1980, China again showed its willingness to politicize the Olympics: it boycotted the Moscow Olympics to protest the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.[3]

Supporters of China must acknowledge China’s past politicization of Olympics and criticize China for that if they would like to have the moral authority to criticize those whom propose a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Regardless of that, I do not support a boycott of the Olympics, be it in partial or in full. Rarely does a boycott work. In my opinion, the better way of highlighting issues associated with the Games is engagement. Witness the torch relay first hand, watch the opening and the closing ceremonies and follow the Games.

But do it in protest. While attending or watching the Games, whether in private or public, express your displeasure of China’s action peacefully. Put banners up. Distribute pamphlets around. Engage the crowd and make them aware of the situation in Darfur and Tibet as well as China’s record of disrespecting liberty.

It is only through greater awareness could the world gently realize of the issues at hand and apply gentle pressure on China to reform and respect liberty.

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

[1] — China participated in 1952 but boycotted the Games after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognized Taiwan. The Taiwanese team carried the “China” banner in 1956, and China did not return to Olympic competition until the 1980 Winter Games. [Cold War Olympics highlights. CNN. Accessed April 9 2008]

[2] — See the 1976 Summer Olympics at Wikipedia.

[3] — See the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott, at Wikipedia.

Categories
Politics & government

[1613] Of Mr. Ma has a herculean task

May 20 will be the day the new Taiwan President gets sworn in.

While I am an avid admirer of Mr. Ma, I think he is facing an impossible task ahead of him.

For eight years, this country had laid stagnant due to political infightings while the government that was more interested in advancing its political agenda of Not Part of China than taking care of its own people. National pride and maintaining the dignity of the country is important, but it is nothing compare to improving the living standard of your own people and developing the economy.

Most casual outside observers would look at the election result and ask, “So, are 60% of the Taiwanese people pro-reunification?” These people most likely drew the same conclusion in 2000 and again in 2004. While it is true that the China topic has always been hotly debated in all the presidential elections, Taiwanese people ultimately cast their vote based on the issues that concerns them the most: it’s the economy, stupid!

In 2000, KMT was the poster child of corruption and ineffective government. It was essentially living off its past glory and getting out of touch with the people. DPP meanwhile was the fresh alternative to KMT and the candidate at that time was a charismatic leader who is vocal about changes, getting rid of corruption and running a government that is more for the people. DPP’s Chen Shui-bian won that election.

DPP did not do a fantastic job during its term. The opposition however was just as pathetic and the next 4 long years turned out to be grudge match between the two sides. Essentially, the same factors that contributed to the defeat of KMT in 2000 were still applicable in 2004. While you can always blame the shooting scandal for the upset, KMT wouldn’t have gotten a pretty win, and on hindsight, had KMT won that election, it will just mean reverting back to the old way of doing things as KMT offered the same deal to voters as they did 4 years previously.

This time around though, KMT, at least on surface, have more young blood surfacing to the front. While many would argue that the old faces had merely moved into the dark acting as puppet masters, this at least offers some progress. So, to a lot of people, the 2008 election may not be an indication of how well KMT had transformed, but more of how bad a job DPP had done over the last 8 years and how quickly it had followed in the footstep of the “old” KMT. Over the last 8 years, we saw corrupt officials, we saw ineffective government, we saw policies that ignored the need of the people and we saw Taiwan continued to lose its competitiveness in the global economy.

So by electing Mr. Ma into the office, voters have extremely high (and even unrealistic) expectation of him. He will need to catch up on what was not done over the last 2 terms, he will need to grow the Taiwanese economy at the backdrop of a possible global recession, he will need to convince people that there are no puppet masters in the dark and he can control the different factions in his own party and ultimately, he is the leader that will take Taiwan back onto the right track. And yes, he also needs to protect Taiwan from the 1,400 missiles aimed at the island right now.

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

LIU YEN LIN, the author, is a Taiwanese living in Singapore. He is an economics and political science graduate of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.