Tag: The Malaysian Insider

Categories
Liberty

[2052] Of the era of paternalism is not over

The era of government knows best is over, or so said Prime Minister Najib Razak in the early part of his young administration. As a person who distrusts the government greatly, I consider that there was never a time when the government knows best. Instead, there was only a long period of paternalism where the government tramples over individuals, especially the ones conscious of liberty.

Notwithstanding the issue of trust, when the head of the government says something so liberal, it provides a glimmer of hope that finally there is a window for a liberal democratic era, however minute the opening might be. What happened in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, as the authority responded to the anti-Internal Security Act march, quickly proves that it is a false window opening to a sordid wall painted blue. In the end, we are still in a small stuffy room imprisoning us all, with blue sky nowhere in sight.

The Barisan Nasional federal government possibly sees the worst in all individuals when it comes to the exercise of freedom of assembly. It takes an almost Hobbesian view in a sense that any assembly in an open public space will degenerate into a rampage. Without control, chaos will reign, as Thomas Hobbes more or less stated in the Leviathan.

It is most unfortunate for history to side with those in Malaysia holding an overly pessimistic view of human nature. The racial riot of May 13, 1969, which has become a boogeyman of sorts that those in power have used time and again to cow individuals from discussing so-called sensitive racial issues so openly, began after groups paraded through parts of Kuala Lumpur. In 1964 in Singapore, at a time when the island city was an integral part of the Malaysian federation, a racial riot that has largely been forgotten by most — even by some in the older generations who accuse the younger generation of being ignorant about the history of the country — was also sparked by parading groups.

If indeed that is the cause of its hostile view towards the exercise of freedom of assembly, then the Barisan Nasional government needs to mature in democratic and liberal terms in order to keep up with Malaysia’s maturing civil society.

The way these protests are carried out and handled — by protesters, by those who disagree with the protesters as well as the authorities — is crucial in the training and inculcation of the culture of liberty by civil society. As long as the authorities continue to assume the worst in individuals, the training will not go far. A government that is still hung up on past fears will become a substantial barrier to the development of civil society.

Peaceful protests happen frequently in developed parts of world for various causes. What any mature government would do with respect to freedom of assembly is to have police officers and other authorities stationed at multiple locations to ensure that these assemblies, either supportive of the government or otherwise, remain largely peaceful. Anyone who causes damage to public property or hurts another person can simply be arrested. There is no problem with that. Furthermore, those interested to keep the assemblies peaceful will agree with that too.

How many times have the authorities failed to suppress peaceful marches only to have the marches end up being peaceful in Malaysia in recent times?

The Bersih march on Nov 10, 2007 ended up peacefully. There was no damage to public property, almost nobody was harmed — and if they were harmed, it was because the police fired tear gas and water cannons before relenting for some reason — and the organisers even picked up trash left behind!

The same goes with the march by lawyers as well as other sympathisers that occurred in September 2007.
This is definitely a sign of a maturing civil society. These groups are conscious of their liberty as well as the associated responsibility that comes with it.

To suppress large peaceful assemblies, like what happened on Saturday and on various occasions in the past, is to turn everything unnecessarily ugly. Actions taken by the authority on Saturday, either in the form of roadblocks or actual coercion, unnecessarily exacerbate the whole episode.

Kuala Lumpur would have not turned into a war zone if the authorities did not suppress the march. Shops would not have to close temporarily if the authorities simply respected the individual’s freedom to assembly. Commuters would not have to suffer hours in traffic if the authorities had taken a liberal stance. Malaysia would not have been painted in such a bad light by the international media.

Perhaps, the government is worried what happened in Bangkok would repeat itself in Kuala Lumpur. Before that track of thought is taken up, it is imperative to realise that the motive in Kuala Lumpur is very different from the one in Bangkok. The one in Bangkok was explicit in its intention to lay prolonged siege on important public institutions. That was never the goal in Kuala Lumpur. Those participating in the anti-Internal Security Act march in Kuala Lumpur are far too respectful of democratic ideals to supplant the legitimacy of the ballot box.

Yet, judging by the inconsistency shown by the Barisan Nasional government, it is not truly a Hobbesian view that it takes. Even if one disagrees with the idea that by nature humans are chaotic beings, the sincerity of a Hobbesian view cannot be denied if he or she takes a consistent stance on the matter. For the Barisan Nasional government, it is only almost a Hobbesian position because there is no sincerity. It is only almost Hobbesian because only assemblies expressing dissatisfaction against the Barisan Nasional government have its participants risking becoming victims of the state security apparatus, or really, given the absence of a necessary separation between the state and a political party that is required to avoid abuse of power, victims of Barisan Nasional’s apparatchiks rather than the state security apparatus.

When some students of Universiti Teknologi Mara took to the streets to protest against Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the institution should slightly liberalise its intake to include some non-Malays to encourage competition in that tertiary education institution, these apparatchiks stood silent, and perhaps, even approvingly. Meanwhile, peaceful candlelight vigils held in protest against police actions irreverent to the idea of liberty in the past have been forcefully dispersed.

In stark contrast to actions taken on Saturday by the police, juveniles were arrested and handcuffed to be treated like common thieves, while actual common thieves ran loose on the streets. The hypocrisy displayed cannot be any clearer.

A proper Hobbesian government will act consistently towards all assemblies and the Barisan Nasional government is no Hobbesian government. Its tolerance to peaceful assemblies depends on who participates and what those assemblies are about, not how peaceful they are. The fact that these assemblies are peaceful are of no consequence to actions taken by these apparatchiks to suppress individual liberty, be it the firing of a water cannon or a stormtrooper shooting teargas to politically conscious but otherwise unarmed and unaggressive individuals.

The inconsistency demonstrated by the Barisan Nasional government is worse than a Hobbesian government. It is a kind of paternalism, which leads to tyranny. They will argue that it is for the best for the country but really, it is only the best action for them to remain in power.

The ideals that Barisan Nasional holds mostly are corporatist, one based on ethnicity. The idea of individual liberty, if it is allowed and encouraged to take its rational course, will dismantle any corporatist set-up. For Barisan Nasional to remain in power while holding to its corporatist ideal, it is in its interest to curb liberty, as it did on Saturday.

Therefore, the era of paternalism is not over. It will be over only when Barisan Nasional evolves or is replaced by a more liberal democratic government. This kind of evolution however is not in its menu.

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 August 3 2009.

Categories
Personal Society

[2039] Of ghost unseen in a cold Sydney

While I am excited to see the constellations above my head change yet again, I had some consternation about living in Australia for an extended period. Weeks prior to actually first setting my feet Down Under and even days after my arrival, allegations of Australian racism and xenophobia constantly kept my enthusiasm in check.

I would like to think that my reaction is only natural after Indian students not too long ago alleged that they were victims of racism in Australia. Who would not feel so especially if one is unfamiliar with Australian society?

For those who kept abreast with news aboard, they would surely be aware that Indian students in Australia several weeks ago organised several protests — with the largest in Sydney — to highlight what they felt as racially motivated attacks against the Indian community. It was so well highlighted that the whole issue amounted to a minor diplomatic row between Australia and India. It was big enough a brouhaha that the prime ministers of both countries contacted each other, with Kevin Rudd trying to assure Manmohan Singh of the safety of Indian students.

With respect to the protests, the Rudd administration said all the right things and it was a comfortable thing to here. Yet, that is mere politics and it may not necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. As a Malaysian who has lived through one of the most disappointing administrations in Malaysian history, it is easy for me to be sceptical of the words of any government; that attitude only doubles whatever scepticism against the state I have that stems from libertarian tradition.

To be fair, the issue faced by Indian students may be slightly more complex than a simple case of racism. Considerable number of Indians stayed in unsafe areas and this probably contributed to the occurrence of crime that they suffered. There is plethora of other factors too but all of it seems to be specific to the Indian community. And so, I thought, perhaps it was best that I should not be overly worried about the matter.

Yet, anecdotes from friends forced me to rethink about my concern.

During one of those late-nights meet-up with what now to me yet again feels like food served in heaven meant for the gods on our tables, a Malaysian friend of Chinese ethnicity complained how Australia is unbelievably racist. Undergoing his undergraduate studies in the United States, it was the summer holidays and he spent his time visiting his sister in Australia. While I do think he enjoyed his visit, he was clearly disturbed by what he believed was the worst racial abuse he had ever received. A six-year old Australian called him a chink.

Or as he vividly put it, ”A six-year old! Imagine that!” with arms in the air.

He went on to warn me to prepare myself. Among friends in a familiar environment, which was one of Kuala Lumpur’s popular suburbs, I could afford to laugh it off. Now that I find myself in the middle of Sydney and strangers, I am beginning to think it was not as funny as I found it first to be.

Perhaps, it is gross generalisation but a new friend of mine that I met in Sydney suggested that Australians have issues with Chinese from China in particular. He stated that the unfriendly attitude that that Chinese Malaysian friend of mine suffered in Australia was probably due to the inability of Australians to differentiate between overseas Chinese and Chinese from China. I am quite unsure why some Australians have issues with Chinese citizens but I will surely learn more about it later.

Amid that, it calls to mind a racially motivated riot in Cronulla that occurred in 2005 when I was an undergraduate student in the United States. And then, there is Pauline Hanson in the 1990s, a politician who perhaps symbolises not just racism but xenophobia at large in Australia.

All that was enough to convince me to keep my guard up the minute I stepped out of Sydney Airport.

I suppose my current path is similar to the one I took back in 2001 when I found myself adjusting to life in the US with the Sept 11 attacks in the background. Many Malaysians warned me to be careful but while the concern was legitimate, and profiling at airports did occur, time spent in the US was the happiest in my life so far. Rather than suffering xenophobic abuse, I found the US a welcoming place where I enjoyed the greatest freedom I have ever had in my life.

I am beginning to feel confident that my same experience in the US will repeat itself in Australia. I am confident because in spite of my fear of becoming a victim of racism or xenophobia in general, I am happy to state that I have not to suffer any racial abuse so far. People have generally been friendly and helpful. New friends, especially, who I have made are warm enough that I think fighting the winter in Sydney will be a walk in the park.

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 July 20 2009.

Categories
Society

[2030] Of Gender-based quota is counter-productive

We live in a world full of inequality in terms of rights and opportunities. For those who care, it is only natural for them to address it and one of the tools available to correct the inequality is affirmative action. While the tool can be useful at creating an egalitarian society, it is imperative for us to note that certain injustices do arise as a response to previous inequality or injustice. This needs to be avoided.

Two wrongs make a right: this is one of the dangers of race-based affirmative action in Malaysia. It is also one of the dangers of setting aside a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making in the government. An attempt to introduce such quotas as part of gender-based affirmative action is a policy of reverse discrimination, and hence an unjust policy.

The biggest issue about setting aside quotas for any particular group is about meritocracy. Specifically, it revolves around the availability of qualified talent within that group. The question is all the more relevant in critical areas like decision-making where competency in a particular subject is a requirement in designing good public policy. For us to move forward, we need the best individuals to articulate our public policy. Any intention to take into account factors that may deprive the government from the best talent should only be considered after thorough thinking.

If the quota is set in place, and if there are not enough qualified women to fill the quota, then those who are responsible for achieving the quota will fill the designated space with token candidates. This will be a recipe for disastrous decision-making and public policy. Or at the very least, these token candidate will not be able contribute to the kind of discussions required to form good public policy and decisions.
The quota also prevents the best, regardless of gender, from taking their rightful place. This is an act of injustice to those who are more than qualified to occupy a decision-making position but are denied that position because they belong to the wrong gender.

The formulation of good policies is in the interest of all residents of Malaysia, especially citizens. It is for this reason that the 30 per cent participation quota in decision-making for women is not exclusively a women matter. We live in an interdependent world. Decision-making in the government can affect each and every one of us. This is especially so if blunt policies are preferred to precise ones since precise policies and decision-making require highly knowledgeable policymakers.

This is not to say that women are not capable. Far from it, enough women have proven their credentials to make the reverse true. Rather, these competencies are likely gender neutral. It is this neutrality that allows capable women — or simply, capable persons — to prove themselves in the free market without prejudice. Any capable person can compete fairly in a merit-based system and need not rely on special provisions, as usually provided by affirmative action, to rise through the ranks.

Institution of an affirmative action that is based on a kind of equality of outcome may open capable women to unfair generalisation. Just as successful Malays are susceptible to the accusation that they are successful mostly due to affirmative action instead of effort, the introduction of a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making will do the same thing to capable women.

There are better ways to address inequality and downright discrimination that exists across gender. It involves a shift of focus from equality of outcome to equality of opportunities. By equality of opportunities, in this context, it means no discrimination based on gender. In fact, a society that embraces the concept of equality of rights that is a mere extension to the idea of individual liberty must eliminate such discrimination.

Along with equality of opportunities, what is more useful in addressing low representation of women in decision-making levels is the empowerment of women. This calls for awareness of opportunities that exist as well as, perhaps more importantly, access to education. Building capability or any other effort at organic improvement is more meaningful and more sustainable than achieving some sort of equality dictated from the top.

Once equality of opportunities and empowerment of women are truly done, then there is no reason why women participation in decision-making should be at only 30 per cent, given that women make up roughly half of the Malaysian population. The organic solutions will improve the participation rate without resorting to unjust reverse discrimination. It will also ensure those participating in various decision-making levels truly belong there, regardless of gender.

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 July 9 2009.

Categories
Politics & government

[2017] Of PAS-UMNO unity must remain dead if PAS is to live

The proposal to form a so-called unity government between PAS and UMNO finally finds its rightful place — in a dustbin. Nothing guarantees any PAS member from rummaging through the trash to rejuvenate the idea however. If the dream still lingers, I am here to offer a dire possibility. If PAS-UMNO unity comes true, PAS may break up as internal and external forces pull the political party in different directions.

Why is it a possibility?

PAS-UMNO unity will significantly affect the status quo balance of power. It will grant BN a proper majority in Perak. Selangor will suffer from a hung assembly. Other notable changes include the weakening of the opposition in many states and the absence of one in Perlis.

In sum, PAS-UMNO unity will be a major setback for Pakatan Rakyat.

That scenario has one caveat: it assumes all PAS members will remain united if the party defects from Pakatan Rakyat to work with UMNO. Given the kind of rift caused by the PAS-UMNO unity talks, that is a big assumption.

It is not every day one can expect Nik Aziz Nik Mat as the leader of PAS to tell off one of his prominent party members — Nasharuddin Mat Isa — to quit the party and join UMNO after Nasharuddin spoke warmly of the possibility of PAS-UMNO unity.

Later, 10 PAS members of Parliament went out to support Nik Aziz and to oppose any pro-UMNO activity within PAS.

The action of the 10 MPs is particularly revealing. For the more liberal members of PAS, or the Erdogans as they have come to be known, they have every incentive to not associate themselves with a pro-UMNO PAS. Many of the Erdogans contested in areas where voters come from diverse backgrounds. These Erdogans understand that they won on March 8, 2009 because they appealed to inclusive politics. They campaigned by convincing voters that PAS is for all and not just for the Muslims or the Malays, i.e. exclusive politics.

To have PAS working in concert with UMNO — as Onn Yeoh writes in The Edge[0] — amounts to betrayal of these voters. The very notion of unity between PAS and UMNO is based on the idea of exclusive politics, running contrary to the kind of campaign the Erdogans ran in the last general election. By the next election if the Erdogans are still part of a pro-UMNO PAS, these voters will not vote for the Erdogans. Hence, the future holds very little prospect for the Erdogans.

These Erdogans can of course undergo a rebranding exercise to adjust to exclusive-based politics that a PAS-UMNO coalition is expected to play. Notwithstanding the very appropriate accusation of hypocrisy that may come, these Erdogans will face stiff competition from the real conservatives within PAS as all compete for smaller pool of seats any exclusivist politician can expect to win. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect UMNO to surrender their seats to PAS in order to accommodate the Erdogans-turned-conservatives.

If PAS-UMNO unity happens, the only way for the Erdogans to secure their future is for them to demonstrate their commitment to inclusive politics and, inevitably, Pakatan Rakyat. This may translate into having the Erdogans or more generally the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS to either eject pro-UMNO members out of PAS, leave PAS in favor of PKR or even form a new party that DAP and PKR can work together under the banner of Pakatan Rakyat. In any case, the result will leave PAS utterly broken.

Only through this can they hope to secure their political future. The existing seat distribution formula within Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be used to accommodate these Erdogans, as long as they remain loyal to the coalition even as PAS finds itself in cahoots with UMNO.

For DAP and PKR, the stake is simply too high that both parties cannot allow PAS to defect so easily. It will in the best interest of PKR and DAP to embolden the Erdogans to mount a revolt against any movement towards PAS-UMNO unity, possibly leading to a breakup as described earlier.

The breaking up of PAS will limit any gain made by UMNO. It may prevent Selangor — the jewel of the crown — from experiencing a hung assembly. If Pakatan Rakyat is lucky, the maneuver can even prevent BN from gaining the coveted two-third majority in Parliament.

For PKR especially, there is an extra motivation to break PAS apart in case PAS-UMNO unity becomes a reality. PKR may enjoy an influx of high-quality members from PAS, especially if the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS decide to leave the party and not form a new party. PKR may need high-caliber individuals to strengthen its ranks and the Erdogan MPs do just that, if ever the Erdogans have a reason to part from PAS.

But, at the end of the day, the most preferable solution for DAP and PKR is to have PAS as a committed member of Pakatan Rakyat. Both DAP and PKR will want work to keep PAS within the young three-party coalition to build on the existing momentum. As we have seen, this is exactly the path taken by DAP and PKR.

As long as the most preferred option works, there is no need to resort to the second most preferred option. This is something everybody who wishes to see a strong PAS must understand.

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 June 24 2009.

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

[0] — The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal.

From Pakatan Rakyat’s perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want. [Unity govt a betrayal all around. Oon Yeoh. The Edge. June 22 2009]

Categories
History & heritage Society

[2002] Of move on

Members of the older generations generally adopt a paternalistic attitude towards the younger generations when discussing the history of this country. It is true that not all of them assume that attitude but come Aug 31 and without fail, there is no escape from hearing the same old lament, especially in the media. Not to deny the importance of history, but perhaps it is exactly that disconnect from history allegedly prevalent among the younger generations that may bring this country forward.

While there are those among the younger generations who are no doubt ignorant of history, I do not fully agree with the accusation that all members of these generations are guilty as accused. The whole generalization is grossly overdone. Furthermore, even when a member of the younger generation has better knowledge of history compared to his or her older counterparts, the same paternalistic attitude prevails on the latter’s part. Why is that so?

Purely speculative of course but I suspect that it is emotional detachment of the younger generations from the old eras that the older generations lament. The young simply do not relate to the older generations’ experience. The more I think of it, the more I feel that it is not about the young’s knowledge in history.

Without making judgment, that detachment is inevitable.

Many problems besetting our society are something we inherited from the past. These are legacy issues. As Billy Joel wrote about 20 years ago, we did not start the fire; it has always been burning since the world was turning. When I use the pronoun we, I mean my generation and our peers who grew up during the information revolution, young enough to not have emotional attachment to the bogeyman that haunts Malaysian society.

There is certainly no shortage of legacy issues even when those issues which supposedly settled. For proof, look no farther than an old ghost called communism that has seen a resurrection recently. Judging by bitter responses to a suggestion to allow former Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng to return home from exile, especially from veterans of the security forces, old hurtful feelings obviously linger still. Time fails in healing old wounds.

For the generations that lived through the Emergency and indeed, unlucky enough to remember the gap between the last day of the Japanese Occupation and the eve of the British Military Administration in Malaya, nobody can deny their emotional attachment to that era. The attachment is far stronger if they suffered from personal loss. While the younger generations can learn history from any medium, it is hard to imagine how the same generations can grasp the same emotional connection the older generations have.

Maybe, the older generations with their personal emotional attachment to that era earned a right to assume a paternalistic attitude.

Nevertheless, the young’s emotional detachment does not always bring about a negative connotation. I am here to argue that that emotional detachment might exactly be an advantage the younger generations have to judge previous successes and mistakes objectively and to produce new paths forward for the country.

Emotional attachment of the older generations may become a liability for us all in times when progress means breaking away from the past. Strong emotional attachment may give unnecessary extra weight to historical factors at the expense of new realities. And perhaps, their emotional attachment make them hopelessly partial about their past successes and mistakes.

Consider, for instance, what I consider as an overemphasis on communism. Despite the brouhaha, how many Malaysians actually believe that the communists will take up arms in Malaysia again? Do we really need to have the police to monitor so-called communist activities?

As a steadfast believer of the right to private property, I vehemently oppose communism but surely, this scare is something irrelevant today. I personally do befriend individuals who maintain communist tendency but I do not seriously expect them to call me a capitalist pig, much less pick up a bayonet to stick it into my gut.

With all due respect, anybody who believes otherwise in these days is far too detached from reality. Concern about the communists taking up arms in Malaysia — even if Chin Peng finds himself in Malaysia — should be an issue that goes all the way down in the public priority list compared to issues of public safety, for instance. Or that lemon socialism and other possible improprieties related to the Port Klang Free Zone fiasco.

As for me, I fear robbers and murderers more than I fear the communists. In fact, I fear the odds of the police abusing private citizens are much, much higher than the chance of a Malaysia getting killed by a communist.

I find this preoccupation with threat of communism all the more ridiculous when the same groups riling against communism are blind to the central planning policies that the Barisan Nasional-led government currently runs on. Look all around and it is not hard to notice policies of price control, supply control, imposition of quotas and five-year plans. Worse, our own government has no shame in curtailing the liberty of Malaysians. A communist government would do these things anyway.

And so, we won the war against the communists for what? To exile Chin Peng only to implement policies that the communists will implement, anyway?

It does not make sense, does it?

This is what one gets if one bases his or her opposition on emotions. This is why emotional attachment is a liability. This is why the young, with their emotional detachment to that bygone era, will be able to move on to focus on issues that matter and discuss the future of this country instead.

I say move on.

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 June 3 2009.