Categories
Society

[2747] Food racism: It still stinks!

I think a lot of us Malaysians have engaged in those long never-ending debates about racism before. The problem with these debates is that they are framed within the context of Malaysian citizenry and more often than not, they ignore the universal value of equality across the human race. This gives rise to hypocrisy among those who believe in equality among Malaysians. They disapprove of racism against Malaysians, but have no problem practicing it against foreigners.

I write this as a reaction to the proposal in Penang to ban foreigners from becoming cooks in that state. I find the rationale behind the proposal extremely flimsy: the state government wants to preserve food authenticity. It is about protecting Penang heritage.

This assumes cooking styles and recipes cannot be learned, with cooking being an innate special ability. It assumes there is something special about Penang people cooking Penang cuisine.

But the reasoning should be deconstructed to its logical end, right up to its building blocks. If we are worried about food heritage, then perhaps some Malaysians should be banned from making some Malaysian food.  Chinese cooks should not be allowed to make Malay food. Malay cooks should not be allowed to prepare Indian food. Run the logic of innate cooking ability for every single ethnic group and see if you like the results.

The differentiation between Malaysian and foreign cooks is just a pretty veneer hiding the ugly prejudice. One might argue there is a difference between racism and anti-immigrant sentiment: we are not discriminating against a race but against immigrants in general. But deep down there beyond artificial categorizations, is there really a difference between racism and xenophobia? Both definitions have more than a tinge of prejudice in it. Xenophobia is just racism by another name, it smells just as stink.

Besides, the proposed ban will likely affect foreign workers from poor countries. What if the cooks are of European origin? Would we worship them as gods instead? That line separating racism from xenophobia looks thin and blurry, if there is even a line in the first place.

Additionally, around the internet, the question of hygiene has been raised to suggest foreign workers are dirty people and of poor health, supporting the proposed ban and more importantly, revealing a crasser form of racism. The counterpoint on hygiene is that if you have gone to any of the stalls in Penang manned by the locals, you would conclude hygiene is not a priority of those hawkers. I definitely concluded so when I ate my noodles and cendol on Macalister Road in George Town recently.

I am not a good cook myself but I did try cooking when I was away as a student abroad. It appears to me that you can learn cooking and what makes it good is practice. I do not practice my cooking but I am quite certain if you learn and practice something, you will be good at it. If you intend to work as a cook, then you will need to go the extra mile to be good at it.

After all, we have Chinese Malaysian cooks making relatively good roti canai on Goulburn Street in Sydney. Does that make it less authentic? I ate the roti canai anyway and ordered another. I am sure there are more examples of that in Malaysia and all around the world. If we truly bought into the point about food authenticity and heritage, then these Malaysians should be condemned for cooking something belonging not to their ethnic heritage. But we do not.

In fact, a lot of us are proud of them for spreading Malaysian culture abroad. And for those of us who travel, sometimes we miss the food from home and we are thankful we can find Penang food just around the corner in Chicago, for instance. Some of us cannot eat anything else but Malaysian food even after years of living abroad, mixing only in Kampung Malaysia in London and elsewhere, which is a bit worrying but let us not go there for now.

So, why would it be okay for Malaysians to cook Malaysian food but not foreigners? Simple. We advocate equality among Malaysians, but to hell with others. In my books that prejudice comes close to racism.

At the end of the day, the judge is the customers. If they like you, they will patronize your stalls or restaurants, paying you good money for a good meal. If you are a bad cook, whoever you are, Malaysian or not, the photo-snapping hungry crowd will not visit your establishment all too often. We do not need the government to tell us we cannot buy food from certain parties. We can decide that ourselves.

The Penang proposal is not the only example of that kind of racism. When the Federal Territory Minister wanted to ban the homeless and soup kitchens from the Kuala Lumpur city center, civil society stood up against him and all the state machineries under his control. In defending the proposal, among others, the minister said most of the homeless and beggars were foreigners anyway (not true because based on news reports, City Hall ”relocated” 965 homeless persons in 2013, with about 13 per cent of them foreigners). In his imagination, that makes the proposal more palatable. Since the homeless were foreigners, he thought he could do whatever he wanted, forgetting that foreigners are human beings too.

And this does not stop there. Some of us think immigrants are lesser beings. That is why we abuse them. How many times have we heard of foreign maids abused in Malaysia? Some of us want them out completely, putting all kinds of blame on immigrants, regardless whether it is true or not. Low wages? Immigrants! No jobs? Immigrants! Rising crime rate? Immigrants! Low women labor participation rate? Immigrants!

Of course, really, they do not mean all immigrants and definitely not those under the Malaysia My Second Home program. Oh no, not the so-called high-skilled workers. Just immigrants from certain poor countries.

Citizenship grants us certain rights, but that does not make non-citizens less human. They bleed red too, like Malaysians.

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 Malay Mail on July 17 2014.

Categories
Society

[2483] Hypocritical accusation of cronyism

It is a bit surprising to read about the controversy revolving around both Gardenia and Federal Flour Mills. The accusations have been wild and one reason for the call for the boycott of Gardenia, apart from the racist undertone about Gardenia being Malay-owned and the FFM being Chinese-owned, is cronyism on the part of Gardenia.[1]

Gardenia is ultimately linked to Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary. With the tycoon is getting everything — that is not an overstatement — from the government, it is easy to level the accusation of cronyism against Gardenia. But this accusation is really hypocritical.

Why hypocritical?

Since on the other side of the controversy either created artificially or filled with nuanced, is Federal Flour Mills, it is important to see how it rates against Gardenia. The comparison is not pretty.

FFM is ultimately linked to Robert Kuok, yet another Malaysian tycoon. Did you know how Robert Kuok first made his fortune? It was through sugar monopoly granted by the government through the protectionist import substitution industrialization policy of the early Malaysian years. That monopoly lasted for decades, possibly shielding him from competition from abroad. That is also cronyism, just in case that fact has been overlooked. Kuok is a crony from another age, but he is a crony of the state nonetheless.

Choosing one crony over the other is not a fun game for me. None is an angel but for racists, one is the angel and the other is the demon just because of skin color.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — Faced with an unrelenting online campaign calling for the boycott of its products, Gardenia Bakeries (KL) Sdn Bhd today took out advertorials in English dailies refuting claims that it is a “crony company”.

The breadmaker also denied charges it had been directed by Padiberas Nasional Bhd (Bernas), which has a 30 per cent stake in Gardenia, to stop buying flour from Federal Flour Mills Bhd (FFM) for allegedly racist reasons. [Gardenia takes out ads to deny crony, racist claims. Yow Hong Chieh. The Malaysian Insider. December 30 2011]

Categories
Personal Politics & government Society

[2171] Of a story of migration

A dear friend was in Sydney recently. For old times’ sake, he called me up and asked if I was free for the day. I said yes. How could I say no? Both of us are Malaysians and both of us attended Michigan. We had some good times together.

We had not met for a long time prior to that meeting in Sydney. The last time we had a meal together was in Singapore, when we visited yet another alumnus of Michigan. That was a good four years ago.

February is a good time to visit the city of Harbour Bridge and Opera House. Apart from the rain, the weather is generally just fantastic. There are tons of activities to do without the need to worry about the presence of morality police. When they are not cracking jokes and become all-sarcastic, which is cute, Sydneysiders will generally leave you alone. To find a close friend visiting Sydney should not be a puzzle.

We had a long chat, reminiscing the days in good old Ann Arbor, our spur-of-the-moment road trip into the heart of South Dakota and our childish arguments. And we updated each other about our mutual close friends. I learnt that one is working in Germany.

Several are living in the United States. Another is just due west in Melbourne.

The conversation went on innocently until I felt that something was amiss. He asked, “How are they toward you?” He was referring to Australians.

The question slightly took me aback. I figured he was concerned with reports of racism in Australia. The country does have issues with racism. It is not as prevalent as in Malaysia but it is a problem nonetheless.

Yet, his tone was one not of interest in current affairs, or a concern for me. It is a tone reserved for the motive of self-interest. I became suspicious of his motive and began to challenge my assumption that he was here for vacation.

“Why are you here, exactly?” Jokingly, I added, “Do you really miss me that much?”

His answered forthrightly. He already had his application for permanent residency approved by the Australian immigration. All he needed was to have his passport stamped at an Australian gate. He needed to do that to activate his permanent resident status. “And here I am.”

I have friends who have decided to live abroad, or who have left Malaysia for good. I have heard and read stories of strangers, Malaysians nonetheless, doing the same. It is not a rare phenomenon but to hear it from him”¦ somehow, his answer surprised me.

My reaction to those who find solutions in migration had been, please, do not go, or if you do go, do come back.

It is almost a plea, because more often than not, those who chose to migrate share my values: liberty and equality. The more Malaysians holding these values leave, the harder will it be to man the dike against the tide of illiberalism, a hodgepodge of racism, religious bigotry and lack of trust in individuals that Malaysian politics is known for.

Under the bright sun, I did not find myself making such plea to him. I myself am unsure what the future holds for me any longer. Such act of convincing appeared futile to me, when I can hardly convince myself of it.

For a short moment, my mind raced to another occasion, where an Australian friend asked what I would do after earning a Master’s degree. I told him what I told so many others, “I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you just stay here? There are so many problems in Malaysia. I can’t find a reason why anybody would want to be there. Even you, as a Malay, get discriminated simply because you refuse to blend in. Besides, the pay here is much better, don’t you think so? What is the PPP per capita for Malaysia? Australia’s is over thirty thousand US dollar.”

At yet another occasion, a Malaysian who has been residing and working in Sydney for some time asked me the same question. I told him that I do not know but I would return to Malaysia.

“Why?”

I said because it is home.

“It is good that you still have the notion of home. As for me, it means nothing anymore.” He said that with incredible nonchalance that I almost took it as an insult. Deep inside of my heart however, I know that home is where liberty is.

My mind returned to the moment. Kids in school uniforms were flowing out of a building. Near the door, there was a banner, suggesting that these kids were there for some sort of recital.

The plaza besides the Town Hall is always buzzed with activities. Just days ago, a group of Iranians were there to remember February 11, the 21st anniversary of the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran rose over the ashes of old Persia soon after that. I am unsure which one of these two is worse but I know for sure that they do not have the same liberty in Iran to hold public gatherings. Or in Malaysia for that matter.

I had to return to the moment.

“Will you apply for citizenship?”

“No,” he said.

“Why not take the extra step and be done with it?” I was the devil’s advocate.

“Malaysia is a good country. Only those who are managing the country are not.”

He did not see me rolled my eyes. I was not dismissing his opinion.

On the contrary, I share his sentiment. All I wanted to do was to let go a silent sigh.

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 in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2010.

Categories
Society

[2148] Of racism and moral authority

In an ideal world, moral authority is unnecessary for a person to hold a position, to raise a point, to criticize it, to object to an action, to advocate it or anything similar. What is of value is the argument itself. It is most regrettable however that we live here down in the mud where the difference between ideal and reality is self-evident. That affects many things, including effort to address racial issues.

The sure way to avoid unnecessary disappointment in this jaded world is to assume that each person pursues his or her own interest. It is true that there are altruists even in this world but that is no reason to revise that assumption regarding self-interest. If one does meet an altruist, one should consider such meeting as a bonus, no matter how frequent such encounter is.

While self-interest has proven to be a driver of human progress, it does have its downside. It is because of self-interest that far too many individuals say and do far too many things not because they believe in it, but because it is convenient to say or do so. Honesty simply cannot be taken for granted. Skepticism is always a justifiable position.

With the recognition that we do not live in an ideal world and with the assumption that one needs to make in order to avoid disappointment, moral authority becomes a useful indicator in determining the worth of an argument to some extent. Here, moral authority refers to the appropriateness of a person’s action or position in a particular issue in the eyes of others or even one’s own in an earnest way. It provides context for us to assess the level of honesty of a particular argument.

In discussing racial discrimination or downright racism in Malaysia, perhaps it is sometimes useful to look at the issue through the prism of moral authority.

There are various ways to gain moral authority but with respect to racism, one significant way is by becoming a victim of racial discrimination, or simply hatred grounded on race. By becoming a victim, one experiences actual stress caused by racism. This may sound like a tautology but such experience requires stressing so that the point made here is clear.

For example, US senator and war veteran John McCain has the moral authority — or at least he has greater gravitas compared to other politicians — to speak on the issue of prisoners of war because he was a prisoner himself. Without being one, he would have little authority to speak on the matter. Others would not give his opinion the necessary weight otherwise, controlling for other factors such as consistency.

As much as his personal suffering gives McCain his moral authority on a particular subject, a victim of racism gets elevated above others untouched by racism. Victims speak from experience, unlike innocent others. Lacking personal experience, the innocent others may look at the victims for leadership or as heroes of the issue until the innocents become victims themselves, if ever. In the same line, since the victims speak from experience, the victims may see themselves as the logical opinion leaders or heroes among the innocent others.

As a result, any person that does not speak from experience, but only speaks from the position of knowledge, suffers some sort of dismissal by others in speaking against racism compared to those who speak from experience, even if the point is the same. Such is the curse of a world less than ideal.

As such, moral authority is a marvelous resource if utilized against all versions of racism.

The same moral authority unfortunately can be a resource to promote further racism in the reversed direction and in doing so, exacerbating the problem. The perceived moral authority may explain why there are individuals who respond to racism by espousing racism. With the moral authority as victims, they consider their racist actions as justified.

When a person sees his or her racism as justified, it becomes hard to convince them why such racism is wrong. This is especially so when such racism is justified in the person’s eyes as well as in the eyes of others too. What moral authority conferred by others reinforces the moral authority a person perceives that he or she has.

Despite so, when victims of racism use their moral authority to commit further racism, there are reasons to think how that negates their moral authority on the issue. From a third party perspective or the innocent others, if the victim commits the very same act he or she suffered from onto another person, the new victim will gain moral authority to speak out against racism, or to perpetuate it. When both victims have such moral authority following a game of tit-for-tat, a third person will not be able to decide who has greater moral authority in the case. As a result, the victim gains moral authority only to lose it.

What is the case in one’s own eyes? If a person thinks that his or her racism is justified because he or she has gone through victimhood, then one must necessarily find others’ act of racism against him or her as justified when others obtain their moral authority by the same way the person obtains his or hers. Here lies the danger. The original victims and subsequent victims trapped in a racist loophole may consider themselves as obtaining additional moral authority to commit racism, each time they become victims yet again.

When individuals find themselves trapped in the loop, the ones who may be able to break the cycle are a third party and the victims of racism who use their moral authority to speak out against all kind of racism instead of committing racism in the reversed direction.

The third party, who are the innocent others and presumably impartial parties, may highlight how racists lose their moral authority from a third person perspective. Unfortunately, because the third party is the innocent others, the racists’ perception — racists born out victimhood of racism — that the innocent others do not have the moral authority to speak out against racism may limit the influence of the innocent others.

This leaves victims of racism who do not perpetuate racism in return as a formidable force in effort to break the loop of racism from the point of view of moral authority. In their own eyes, they do not see any act of racism as justified — unlike the other victims — while having they moral authority intact. In the eyes of third parties as well, they certainly have moral authority intact unlike the other victims of racism who exacerbate the problem of racism.

Therefore, if effort to address racism is to be successful in terms of moral authority, then voices of these victims who use their moral authority to speak against all kind of racism have to be amplified. We have to give them space to speak out against racism. Not only that, we need to encourage them to speak out.

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 January 9 2010.

Categories
Society

[2073] Of busting the myth of the monolithic community

What happened on a Friday in Shah Alam—when a group of individuals protesting against construction of a Hindu temple chose to do it by parading a severed cow’s head knowing full well that Hindus hold the cow sacred—is disgusting. There are ways to protest but the method employed by them is so despicable that it should be unthinkable and, hence, unspeakable. Malaysians who believe in a more inclusive future have every right to be angry at the protesters, whatever their political inclinations may be.

So reckless was the action that it left far too many thinking individuals with a revolting aftertaste that lingers on the tongue, even days after. It reminds too many Malaysians of one of the worst facets, if not the worst, that Malaysia can offer. It invokes all kinds of negative emotion: fear, sadness, disgust, anger. Pessimism reigns.

Regardless of debate regarding the ideals of Malaysia, this is no way to enter August 31, or September 16.

On the other side of the coin is the romantic Malaysia at play however.

If one concentrates just barely, one would realize an oft-overlooked but yet obvious and crucial fact in the whole episode. It is a fact that is capable of holding the tide of pessimism as the Hoover Dam to the Colorado.

It is a fact that the one who is standing up for a minority group against the majority is Khalid Samad, a Muslim Malay. It is a hopelessly cliched romantic narration in which a Malaysian of a different background stands up for another Malaysian of different background.

Nonetheless, this important fact deserves greater attention because it provides a concrete example in combating generalization that leads to the perception that a community is homogeneous in its opinion and that that opinion is one where all Malays are out to oppress the non-Malays. It is especially useful in undoing views that the whole majority population—every Malay—is bent on pushing the minority aside with impunity.

For the action of a very limited number of individuals, there are those who condemn the whole Malay population as they condemned the outrageous protesters. This generalization is unfair and unbecoming of anybody that dreams of an inclusive Malaysia.

That generalization is absurd. More than absurd, it is dangerous because that itself leads to a greater downward spiral into bigotry. While they themselves claim to abhor bigotry, they themselves are falling into the same trap that forms the basis of such bigotry.

It cannot be emphasized enough that one large factor contributing to the racial and religious mess in Malaysia is the perception that ethnic groups in Malaysia are monolithic and that there is no individual but only a unit listening to the hive mind inside each of this group.

This is not a conflict between Muslim Malays against the minority. Rather, it is a conflict between inclusiveness and intolerance. For this reason, for their offence, these barbarians deserve focused criticism with the spirit of inclusiveness. But not with further bigotry and racism.

Any criticism that has with it a hint of bigotry and racism—in this particular case, by equating the whole Malay population with that of the few barbarians—is counterproductive. Such criticism against the protesters only justifies and strengthens the flawed notion of monolithic community because it attacks other Malays and Muslims who are innocent of the appalling act done on Friday in Shah Alam. When these Malays and Muslims are unfairly criticized, the likelihood of them to fall in line with the perceived communal pattern increases to worsen the situation.

The presence of Khalid Samad—not him as a person per se but the fact that he is a Muslim Malay—standing in opposite to the position of bigots forces anybody contemplating to unfairly commit that gross generalization. The role of Khalid Samad makes good the abstract criticism that has been made against the perception of monolithic community for the longest time.

Granted, such roles as that played by Khalid Samad frequently plays out in smaller settings every day around Malaysia and, in fact, around the world. Khalid Samad is not an exception to a generalization. Instead, the generalization of monolithic community is downright wrong.

Unfortunately, those who hastily generalize too often are too blind to see so small a deed. What they need is a big one to convince them.

With the temple controversy becoming a national issue, the role Khalid Samad has assumed provides Malaysians with an opportunity to demonstrate and convince themselves how flawed the notion of monolithic community is. It provides a chance to smash the idea of homogeneity to smithereens.

That is something Malaysians should celebrate and that should be the spirit as Malaysia celebrates its day, be it August 31, September 16 or any other day for that matter.

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 September 1 2009.