Categories
Politics & government

[2340] What’s important and what’s not

I am tired of politics revolving around personality. With it comes excessive feudal culture and ugly mudslinging all too frequently. One can never truly escape it but there are other issues of actual importance if one wants to take a break from the ugliness of it all. These other issues are the ones that truly affect our livelihood. These issues involve our jobs, our savings and our taxes, among others.

Until very recently, Malaysian politics was grazing at the level that makes politics a worthy field to match its name. From military procurement to the mass rail transit system and to nuclear power, things that matter took the limelight.

For a period, there was nuance in the political debate held in the public sphere. It was a breath of fresh air from the stale old stuff of race and religion.

One example that took public debates to the next level was Pakatan Rakyat’s Buku Jingga. Although I do not necessarily agree with some of its points, I can definitely appreciate how the Buku Jingga forced both sides of the divide to raise the level of debates beyond name-calling. That is the greatest contribution of Buku Jingga.

There were other matters running parallel to this. One was the sodomy trial involving Anwar Ibrahim and Saiful Bukhari Azlan, which is still ongoing of course. Ongoing or not, the issue is dead to me. I have lost interest in it.

What made it even more forgettable were the outrageous details. Listening or reading graphic descriptions associated with the trial created a sensation that I call sodomy fatigue.

Yes, there is a feeling that the system is being manipulated at Anwar’s expense. Yes, there is a feeling of injustice committed against Anwar. Yes, he is important. Yes, he has a significant role to play in instituting a competitive democratic system in the country.

Yet, the country is not about Anwar Ibrahim. Too much energy is being invested in defending and discrediting him.

That energy invested towards Anwar can better be harnessed in other areas that affect our livelihood. For a country that censors the slightest hint of two persons kissing each other on television, there has to be something more than sex — in one way or another — to think about.

The issues of MRT, defense and others that involve billions of ringgit of taxpayers’ money are vying for primetime spots. Rather than reading about someone else’s private parts made public, I would rather focus on public goods treated as private property by the paternalistic few who think they can spend my money better than me.

Imagine my disappointment when morality becomes the centre of attention yet again, as a certain somebody with a lion’s courage alleged that a certain politician is involved in a sex scandal.

In scandal-crazed Malaysia with a sense of morality littered with hypocrisy, many simply drop the things that matter to moralize or hypothesize about others’ lifestyles. The same many are probably rushing to the Internet searching for the video of the scandal, and looking for a cheap thrill along the way.

I am sorry if that is crass. Still, is there anything that is not crass in this country anymore? Parliament is full of it. The courthouse is full of it. The boardrooms of some government-linked companies are so full of it. What is crass anyway? The word by its very self has been diluted by a pool of mud, and something else.

Sarawak is having an important election very soon. In the meantime, what does Malaysia have on its mind?

Sex.

Lim Guan Eng sent out the right message recently. He said ignore the scandal.

Ignore it indeed.

Focus on things that matter instead. Do not take your eyes off your public money, that belonging either to Sarawak, or to Malaysia at large.

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 March 31 2011.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2276] Of it requires an answer

At a recent public lecture in Sydney, Australia, Anwar Ibrahim said he avoids answering which he aspires to: a secular state or an Islamic state. He reasoned that the issue is contentious and unproductive to engage in. He believes what exists instead is a quasi-secular state, and a hypocritical one at that. He went on to state that the problem revolves around hypocrisy. I left the lecture dissatisfied with the message. Immediately after he ended his speech, I began to wonder about the kind of consistency he was looking for.

He argued that part of the reason why the issue is contentious is that both mean different things to different person. For instance, there are opponents of secularism who believe that secularism is anti-religion. That illiberal brand of secularism stifles religions in the public sphere, like what happened in Turkey before. And then there are proponents of secularism who assert that secularism is neutral of religion. Backed by liberal principles, a liberal secular state will treat all religions equally as long as those religions do not infringe on individual liberties. I myself subscribe to this idea.

Being the glue that holds Pakatan Rakyat together, it is completely understandable why he avoids the question. If anybody needs a reminder, DAP and the Islamist PAS are both the main component parties of Pakatan Rakyat. Both have rattled sabers over the matter within the Malaysian context. In Sydney, he stressed the need to build consensus. Fair enough.

The avoidance, however, is problematic when he is critical of the double standards in the implementation of Islamic law in Malaysia, where the rich and influential get away with what Islam frowns at while others get punished. That criticism relies on the idea of equality before the law. Such equality itself is a sound concept. Yet, not all equality ranks equally in terms of preference.

While the application of unequal weight of the law is distasteful, I shudder to think of a situation of equal implementation of Islamic law, especially in its current form in Malaysia. This is because it violates individual liberties — especially for those whom the state considers as Muslims — such as freedom of conscience. That translates into law that states whom a person can marry, what he or she can eat or drink, what a person can believe in, etc. It excessively dictates one’s personal life. An Islamic state that runs on Islamic law necessarily does that.

Religion has always been a personal, private matter for liberals. When religion is a private matter then the state has no say, freedom has more opportunities to flourish. This is why liberals prefer a secular state with respect to any religious state, while holding all other concerns constant. The opportunity for liberty to flourish doubles when there are guarantees for individual liberties within a liberal democratic framework, which addresses the problem of tyranny of the majority.

Criticism of hypocrisy and the existence of preferences in different kinds of equality essentially introduce back the question of secularism and Islamic state. The question does not need to be framed in such a stark contrast. Forget the labels. Ask instead, will religion, specifically Islam, be used to dictate a person’s lifestyle? More specifically, will it be used to dictate a Malay’s lifestyle?

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 November 18 2010.

Categories
Photography Politics & government

[2273] Of Anwar Ibrahim at the University of Sydney

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1725] Of Anwar Ibrahim, liberty, due process and equality before the law

I am divided on the whole issue surrounding the sodomy allegation made against Anwar Ibrahim. I really have trouble in expressing myself on the issue from the start and that is apparent in an earlier entry of mine which I was forced to rewrite and added a post-script to express myself better. Over at the Malaysia Forum, Wan Saiful Wan Jan put it in the clearest of terms which I failed to get to clearly in the first place: the allegation of sodomy is not about prosecution of homosexuality but rather, it is about transgression of individual liberty.

I do not agree with the criminalization of victimless crime but again the allegation is not about victimless crime. It is an allegation of rights transgression. For this very reason, I am quite agnostic with a dose of skepticism reserved, about the sodomy allegation. Judgment has yet to be handed and it is only fair to maintain neutrality.

Let the due process takes its place. If the judgment was tempered, then a revolt would be justified. If Anwar Ibrahim is innocent, then by all means punish the accuser for fraud.

All is equal before the law and so too Anwar Ibrahim. Yes, I know, the weight of the law — regardless the value of the law — has not been equally applied to everybody but two wrongs do not make a right. But only those whom do the right thing have the moral authority to preach about being right.

Returning to due process, the biggest issue for me concerns the timing of the arrest. It was made more or less an hour earlier than the presented deadline.[1] I am on Anwar Ibrahim’s side as far as the arrest is concerned because of the police’s failure to adhere to due process. If the police had adhered to the timeline, Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest would have been justified.

On the allegation itself, I am, as I have written before, agnostic.

My position is this: I believe in equality before the law and due process, as long as individual liberty is preserved.

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

[1] KUALA LUMPUR, July 16 — Police feared that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was going to barricade himself in his home and resist arrest. That is why they moved in, and arrested him near his house in Segambut as he was making his way back from an interview with the Anti-Corruption Agency — an hour before he was scheduled to show up at the KL police headquarters. [So why were the police in such a hurry?. The Malaysian Insider. July 16 2008]

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

Special thanks to John Lee for lending his hand in clarifying my thought.

Categories
Politics & government WDYT

[1723] Of WDYT: Who won the debate?

You may be interested in reading my review of the debate before voting.

Who presented his case better: Anwar Ibrahim or Ahmad Shabery Cheek?

  • Ahmad Shabery Cheek (8%, 7 Votes)
  • Anwar Ibrahim (77%, 69 Votes)
  • Neither (16%, 14 Votes)

Total Voters: 90

Loading ... Loading ...