Tag: Bolehland

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1492] Of I will take both

The moment CNN announced the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at a political rally on TV, I immediately realized how the event could be sung to impress to the world of the idea that security supersedes liberty. I half expected Pervez Musharraf to justify his previous decision to impose martial law but it did not right away come across my mind on how the assassination affects Malaysian politics. Weeks earlier, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he is willing to sacrifice public freedom for public safety.[1] Indeed, Deputy PM Najib Razak wasted no time to relate the uncertainties in Pakistan with dissent in Malaysia just a day after the death of Mrs. Bhutto.[2] The pictures painted by the Malaysian government however are disagreeable. The juxtaposition between liberty and security and the supposed trade off between the two is only an illusion undeserving of consideration of the rational minded. On the contrary, it is possible to have both. In fact, individual liberty cannot exist without security.

The concept of individual liberty within classical interpretation at the very least relies on the precept that an individual is free to act according to his will, bounded only by others’ same rights. These rights — negative rights — include but not limited to rights to life, to property and to freedom of expression that we Malaysians lack. It is a grave irony of us celebrating our freedom from colonial powers on yearly basis only to suffer oppression brought upon by our own government.

We are not unique. History without fail has shown how transgression of liberty occurs throughout human consciousness. One of many lessons we could derive from history is this: we must be prepared to defend our liberty; our individual liberty. These rights that make up liberty have to be protected from all efforts to negate it. Thus, as is ever so common in literatures of freedom, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Liberty cannot stand without security. The instability of anarchy — anarchy as in the political philosophy — is a proof to that. This gives the impetus for a society to create a government, a state or any entity for that matter, to protect its members’ liberty from internal and external threats.

At the same time, a liberal constitution outlines individual liberty and in that respect, the role of government in protecting that liberty. While the entity enforcing the constitution is the rightfully elected arbiter of conflict of rights between individuals, in no whatsoever way it gives the state the authority to disrespect individual liberty, unlike the meek Malaysian Constitution.

A good liberal constitution is able to stop anybody, the state, the majority, the mob even, from robbing an individual of his liberty. Democracy by itself is useless; it has to be guided by a liberty-conscious document for tyranny of a majority is no different from tyranny of a dictator. That is the ultimate security. From there, is it not clear that for liberty to prevail, security is required?

In the end, there is no dilemma between liberty and security.

Security however does not necessarily demand liberty. One can be thrown into a cellar for hundreds of years, be safe and unfree from cradle to grave. I have a tingling suspicion that when a politician speaks as if there is a trade off between liberty and security, the term security requires qualification. He seeks not to throw himself into the cellar but instead, he seeks to throw free individuals, whom will not stand aside quietly while watching liberty is being trampled upon for whatever reason, into the cellar. When he speaks of security, he speaks for himself and not for others, not for individuals. When he speaks of security, he speaks of security to his grip to power. The only dilemma he speaks of is between others’ individual liberty and tyrants’ security.

Therefore, the next time someone presents to you an option between liberty and security, tell them with utmost confidence that you insist on having both.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: Public safety will be the Government’s top priority before public freedom and there will be no hesitation to take the stiffest action on irresponsible people, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win. I will not sacrifice my sense of accountability to the greater public, especially in the face of police intelligence about planned fighting or other violent intent.” [PM: Public safety will prevail over public freedom. The Star. December 10 2007]

[2] — Najib said political conflicts, assassinations and instability seen in some other countries should serve as a lesson for all Malaysians.

In this connection, he rapped those who had orchestrated street demonstrations that caused property damage and disrupted people’s daily activities, just to gain political mileage. [Najib: Goverment To Act Against Troublemakers. Bernama. December 29 2007]

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 on Bolehland.

Categories
Politics & government

[1465] Of angry, tired, disillusioned

Already it is December. My, oh my, how time flies. I woke up last Saturday to discover that it was already 12 hours into December. Around this time several years ago, I’d wake up in a very dark room, curtain blocking the sunlight from penetrating. I’d smile because I was thankful to be alive. I felt blessed. There was nothing more I would ask. These days however, I’m angry, disillusioned and tired. Whereas a smile came naturally then, it’s a chore now.

I wish I could turn back time, forever savoring that blissful moment again and again and again. I wish I could just stare at the ceiling for the whole morning, knowing full well that for that day at least, I was happy and nothing would bother me. I would breathe in cool fresh air filling my pair of lungs with sweetness and then slowly releasing the air. All worries would dissipate by mere breathing. By just breathing, I was satisfied. I would just lie on my bed, breathing, smiling and eyes wide opened, for hours. It was bliss that seems so distance now.

I could hear Haydn in the background. No, it was not on the radio. It was in my head and only I alone could hear it. I had listened to him too many a time the previous night. I had closed my eyes, concentrated to the music and fell asleep over it. If I may, there was an afterimage, an aftertaste that lingered in my consciousness. And I cried before I embarked on a journey to slumber, as I am right now. I cried not because of Haydn but because of that bliss, knowing that it wouldn’t last. And I cry now, for I have tasted the fruit and I long for it. No more could I hear Haydn in the background.

Suddenly a voice, “carpe diem!”

Realizing the sun would not wait for me, I would take a walk, enjoying my time in the sun. I would stroll along the river, enjoying the breeze with an empty mind. I would imagine that I was flying amid a field where the long grasses grew just over the hill away from the clumsy ducks. Before long, I would find myself staring into the blue sky, liberated, lying on the earth, again smiling to myself. And breathing, and satisfied.

That has past and I am growing increasingly bitter now. Each day provokes anger continuously without fail. Already the anger is saturating to a point that it begins to define the opposite of bliss. I dread waking up every day. I really do. I wish I would sleep and never to wake up. I wish for liberty from physical constraints.

Let others argue for I am tired. It is the same argument over and over again. It is the same polemics, the same flaws, the same rationale, the same answers. Enough.

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

p/s — the early edition of this article was first published at Bolehland.

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[1435] Of it is poverty that matters, not wealth inequality

The issue of wealth redistribution and inequality in wealth can be overly stressed by many in Malaysia. Up goes the Gini coefficient for Malaysia and there goes the alarmists. These alarmists, wealth egalitarians do not quite understand that it is poverty that matters, not wealth inequality.

Individuals are different and different persons follow different paths in their life; that rationalizes the difference in wealth; the difference in wealth is synonymous to difference in outcomes. Egalitarians effectively demand all to achieve the same outcome; the best way to achieve such equality is to force everybody to be the same — uniformity is cherished while difference is scorned upon — or to forcefully redistribute wealth after differences manifest itself in the society. For this, egalitarianism violates liberty. Communism and socialism seek this egalitarianism and in the past, as history has noted, the results were disastrous. Yet, communists and socialists still roam this earth, seemingly ignoring lessons in history.

Despite failure of systems that hold wealth equality close to heart, egalitarianism has been identified by the masses as an idea markedly friendly to the poor while non-egalitarian free market advocates are recognized as the manipulative monsters ever-hostile against the poor. This stereotype is beginning to annoy me especially when egalitarianism is increasingly becoming more about hating the rich than about helping the poor. In 1999, economist Martin Feldstein recognized these people with such thinking as spiteful egalitarians.

Wealth inequality is not necessarily, or usually the problem in a society. There are several factors that contribute to wealth inequality; the sources of inequality must be identified to demonstrate why inequality is not an issue one should be concerned about.

At the very top, those factors can be categorized into two groups: deterministic and non-deterministic factors.

For deterministic factors, for example, it is a case of when one is born into the world. One cannot choose their parents, so to speak. And it is not too rare for one to be born without a limp, or be blind or deaf or endowed with any other unfortunate deformation that later affects one’s ability to wade through this life, which can be beautiful or cruel, at birth. It all comes down to one word: luck. Inequality caused by these factors may justify wealth redistribution under pragmatic terms. I am comfortable to suggest that this inequality is the unfavorable type for it adversely affects opportunities; liberty-conscious affirmative action to overcome inequality caused by deterministic factors is essentially action to create equality in opportunity.

Another cause of inequality is the one determined purely by wit and effort by the human spirit. Inequality arises by this group of factors is a direct consequence of success and failure; of reward and punishment. One of the greatest lessons in economics is that individual responses to incentives. In order to encourage success, reward must be granted to those that succeed while failure is punished; in many instances, lack of reward itself suffices as punishment. For one to be successful, effort is required and for effort to be there, the reward must justify the effort. As long as there are winners and losers; as long as we cherish meritocracy, there will be inequality in outcome. Meritocracy is meaningless amid egalitarianism.

If losers are granted that same reward as granted to the victors in the name of egalitarianism, or for any reason for that matter, the victors would have not the incentive to work to be successful. Equality in outcome, equality in wealth means one gets rewarded regardless of effort, even for no effort at all. If fruits of effort could be plucked without effort, why commit effort at all?

Consider education level; it has been well documented that on average, greater years of education increases income level, given everything else is the same. Consider further two persons of the same gender enjoying the same endowment granted by their parents or some entity but have different attitude or capability to mental prowess. The person (let us call him, or her, E) with the greater mental capability will be able to endure longer years of sitting on in front of desk, in front of a book or a computer, working on theses, enriching his, or her, faculty, compared to another person (person F) whom invests less in education. The end result: E will have greater income that F. In the long run, wealth inequality will exist; what was a scenario wealth equality at the beginning is modified by difference in education which leads to difference in income level and finally, wealth inequality. It is the result of meritocracy.

This pattern could be expanded internationally. Different levels or paths of investment will lead to different levels of income. This differences lead to inequality among countries. Luck does have a role but luck, or in a more respectable term, history, can be overcome with enough will. Where there is a will, there is a way.

For this reason, it is far more helpful to concentrate on fighting poverty rather than dreaming for wealth egalitarianism. To achieve an egalitarian society, it is necessary to slow down growth of all people, waiting for those at the bottom to play catch-up; it brings everybody down instead of raising all boats. More worryingly it is becoming a fad lately among self-proclaimed wealth egalitarians to express clear hostility against the successful in hope of achieving an egalitarian society; they seeks to bring the top down rather than the bottom up.

One need not be spiteful to create a better society. For a better society, poverty fighting is enough; egalitarianism is unhelpful in many cases. We should fight for equality in opportunity, not equality in outcome. If one is really concerned for the poor, one should concentrate on fighting poverty, not on achieving an egalitarian society.

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

p/s — this entry was first published at Bolehland.

Categories
Society

[1420] Of I am a Malay but which Malay?

The wall was white and blank but yet there I was, taking interest in the uninspiring wall. A public discussion was going on inside a small hall. I came because the names of the panel were sufficiently widely known across the urban society but as I found out later and too late, the discussion failed to fill my body with a soul; the discussion was filled with repetitive mosaic of clichés. So, there I was, inattentive, until a friend got up and announced to the audience, explaining, that we were all Malays, once. That took my eyes off the wall, my ears off the low hum of air conditioner, my mind off a pie in the sky.

I have heard many points about race and religion but this was the first time I heard a person saying that we all were Malays. As he went so eloquently, the idea of Malays was far greater than the notion ethnicity as most of us comprehend today. He asserted, if I correctly interpreted his point, that all groups living in Southeast Asia or more accurately the Nusantara were Malays.

Right or wrong, it was a curious notion, and provocative. Indeed, the crowd which was relatively chatty throughout the discussion, fell into silence, perhaps dumbstruck. The fact that the number of Malays amid the audience was limited to few people probably contributed to that silence. After a few seconds of information processing, I said to myself, ”Oooo”¦”

I have given up on the effort to define Malay due to various competing definitions. Though I do prefer certain definition , I do not dwell too much on the matter. Still, the varying definitions do provide one with the amusement one requires when one has little tasks to fill one’s time.

The Malaysian constitution defines a Malay as a Muslim, among other things. This allows Arabs, Chinese, Indians and others originated from outside of the Nusantara who are Muslims to be considered as Malays; Malays whom do not embrace Islam are somehow not Malays. This is as absurd as a pink invisible unicorn.

The regionalist Malays describe Malays as the indigenous populace of the Nusantara; the Malaya Irredenta. The formation of the now defunct Maphilindo was formed to appeal to this regionalist Malay concept, among other things. I myself prefer this definition; it is inclusive enough to bring most people of Southeast Asia organically together but yet, it is exclusive enough for “us” to be unique. I however have met Filipinos and Indonesians who frown when they are described as Malays. Old rivalries and wars between the Malays and the Javanese strengthen the difference. Yet, those wars were called Pamalayu, perang antara Melayu, a Malay civil war.

The cosmopolitan Malays prefer a more inclusive idea: everybody who resides in the Nusantara is a Malay. This, perhaps, was what the friend of mine was referring to.

Another concept of Malay refers to the citizenship of Malaya, just as the citizens of Germany are Germans, the citizens of Italy are Italians, for France French, for China Chinese; a naturalized Nepali could be a German. This was once put forward by Putera-AMCJA in the People’s Constitution of 1947 which was rejected in favor of another constitution that we Malaysians now live under. Well, after all that amendments, sort of.

These definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is likely not exhaustive either. That however does not prevent me from asking, which Malay appeals to your bias?

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

p/s — this entry was first published at Bolehland.

Categories
Science & technology Society

[1403] Of investment in space is beyond instant gratification

There was a period in my life, when I was younger, I admired the unreachable diamonds in the sky. At one time when I was older, I gazed into the clear night sky and witnessed the celestial heaven in all of its majesty from within the Grand Canyon of Tuolumne, under the clear Californian night sky. It was so full of stars, untainted by intrusive city light that characterizes human civilization. So far away from trouble, so near to the heaven above.

That love allowed me to recognize some of the constellations with little effort; Orion, Ursa Minor and Major, Draco and my own star Gemini, among others. In that canyon, amid the peaceful continuous music of water gushing through nearby rapids, I smiled alone, reliving that childhood preoccupation. Lying on my back, I connected the stars with each other, making constellations of my own, in hope to amuse myself before I succumbed to fatigue, partly due to the hiking I did earlier in the day, partly due prolonged withdrawal from my virtual world.

It was only natural for the love of stars to nurture interest in space exploration. That was exactly the case when I was a kid. I remember that when I was 6 or 7, I had to list down three trades which I would like to practice; in that tiny boxes with that bad handwriting of mine, I wrote “astronaut”. But that childhood interest died out, like too many good things in exchange for maturity. The reality of life has the knack of pulling one down to earth; there are issues that require urgent attention at the expense of greater things. Since then, I have not thought much of stars, of constellation, of space exploration until lately. The Malaysian space program, if one could call it as such with a straight face, entices me to revisit that childhood dream of mine.

On Liberty Street in Ann Arbor, from State towards Main, just beyond the first Borders store in the world is a quaint bookstore that I used to visit every semester, looking for inexpensive books to fill whatever time I had, whatever space I had on my shelf, as partners during many of my cold lonely nights. It was there where I finally got my hands on Blue Mars, the last novel of the Martian trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The trilogy on colonization of Mars is one of few widely celebrated science fiction novels of the 1990s.

Believe it or not, I had searched for that novel for almost 3 years and only found it after I had crossed the Pacific Ocean. It was amazingly hard to find the novel in Kuala Lumpur and I practically had given up looking for it. I remember very vividly, my muscles froze upon the unexpected discovery of Blue Mars in the store. Only after full realization of what hit me sunk in did I grab the book and decide immediately to purchase it, lest the serendipity turned into regret.

That same year, the Bush administration was cutting NASA budget and that news was greeted by many with deep murmur of protest. The person behind the counter was one of many individuals that strongly disagreed with the decision, adding on to whatever resentment he already had from the ongoing war in Iraq.

The title of the book probably betrayed my interest in space exploration and science fiction to him because he decided to start a conversation with me by saying, politely paraphrased, that the President is shortsighted. I smiled back, agreeing with him. But Blue Mars awaited and I had no time for idle talk! So I paid the cashier and made a dash from Liberty to Thompson and East Madison, up to the third floor and jumped on my bed to hurry to explore the first sentences of Blue Mars.

In the Martian trilogy, it took a Malthusian disaster to go to Mars. In the second half of the 20th century in the real world, it took a cold war to go to space. For the US, it took a charismatic Kennedy to go to the moon.

For Malaysia, it is much less inspiring for it takes a dish of roti canai to go to space.

Well, not quite, but you get the idea.

The Malaysian space program has been derided as space cab and unfortunately, it is not without merit. This is especially so when many are under the perception that the Malaysian government is paying the Russian to send a Malaysian up to space. The truth is that the Malaysian government paid almost nothing for the program because the deal was part of the Malaysian purchase of a fleet of Russian-designed jet fighters. In other words, the opportunity to taxi a Malaysian to space was merely a matter of sweetening the pot. The purchase went through and so was the deal. Therefore, in relative term, practically no public money was spent, unlike the downright misused of public funds at recent by-elections at Ijok and Manchap. On whether the purchase of the jet fighters itself was a waste of money, or how the jet fighters were purchase, that is another matter altogether.

The truth however does not rally total support from the public, especially after the Malaysian authority announced — no, stressed is a better verb — that the Malaysian astronaut, cosmonaut, spaceflight participant or whatever one wishes to call it, was going to introduce roti canai in space, among other things. They probably thought it was amusing but many were and still are disturbed at how precious resources are being spent when there are so many matters of bread and butter left unattended on the ground.

While I am dismayed at the celebration of roti canai in space, I am excited at the prospect of Malaysian presence in space. Yet, I feel the government is not embarking on the program for the sake of space exploration or the developmental benefits that entails it but rather, is more interested in shallow achievement that have been characterized with the spirit of “Malaysia Boleh“. Needless to say, the term Malaysia Boleh has been polluted with the penchant for the largest cake, the largest flag, the tallest tin structures, or whatever superlatives of superficiality that suit ridiculous efforts. This is perhaps to add to the grandness of the number 50 and within a larger context, to encourage a feel good atmosphere for the anticipated general election. By the way, the atmosphere is turning increasingly sore on the economic and the social fronts.

Sure, there are experiments to be conducted by the Malaysian “angkasawan” but those experiments were announced only after the outcry against the roti-canai-in-space announcement. That made me, and probably many others too, suspicious of the sincerity of the experiments and the space program itself. It is, as if, the experiments are organized in an ad hoc manner just to avoid further criticism.

It is sad for Malaysia to take the journey to space so lightly. I do not mind Malaysia hitching a ride through the Russian space program as part of our learning curve. There is a lot to learn from the Russian; what Malaysia could learn from the Russian during the launch is this: the way the Russian organizes its spaceflight. In my humble opinion, any soft assets obtained will be at least as valuable as any hard investment related to spaceflight. I do hope that the realization of this opportunity is not lost upon the Malaysian space authority, amid the euphoria, of having a Malaysian in space.

Ventures into space require great investment and its benefits do not bare fruit immediately, just like any other earthly investment. Amid competing demands for limited resources, it is easy to ignore the final frontiers in favor of more earthly businesses; a larger return on investment is being overlooked for a large initial investment required. Detractors of the Malaysian space program deride the ventures as costly national pastime but the benefits the US, Russian and European space programs brought to the global community have proven these detractors wrong. Yet, these myopic detractors ignore that and employ instead selective reasoning on space program: they demand return on investment from the space program immediately. These myopic suffer from instant gratification.

For Malaysia to have the same success as those programs, Malaysia needs to stress on the future benefits of this space venture, instead of the novel idea of consuming roti canai in space. Only through this would the myopic be soundly defeated.

Alas, the way the angkasawan program is marketed to the public may have granted the opponents of any space program the victory they seek, much to the chagrin of those that sincerely hope for a credible and sustainable space program, national or otherwise, for advancement in science. For the next bout, the same mistake must not be repeated. Any future venture into space must stress on its return on investment, not as a joy ride.

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

p/s — this entry was first published in Bolehland, as indicated here.