Tag: United States of America

Categories
History & heritage Liberty

[2230] Of US Chief Justice John Roberts on Bill of Rights

There was a debate in Australia last year regarding adoption of its own bill of rights. Yes, as shocking as it first sounded to a foreigner like me, Australia does not have its own bill of rights.

Although the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts insisted several times that he does not intend to participate in that Australian debate, I believe it is hard not to make a connection between his recently concluded lecture in Sydney and the debate in general. An article by the Financial Review reveals that he delivered another lecture on bill of rights in Melbourne yesterday.

It was just days ago when the New York Times ran a story how the US Supreme Court under Roberts is the most conservative in decades. One could not tell where he sits on the political spectrum based on the lecture however. I definitely could not as I stood at the back of the lecture theater.

The US at its independence in 1776 did not have a bill of rights. Its adoption itself was not automatic. As Roberts said, its adoption did not derive from the first principle but rather, it was through a political process. That political process was not too conducive to its adoption, regardless of the fact that it was eventually adopted later.

The US Chief Justice mentioned several theories why the Bill of Rights was not adopted early with respect to July 4 1776 and the ratification date of the US Constitution. If my memory is not one belonging to a goldfish, he mentioned that the weather as one of them. An uncharacteristic sweltering Philadelphian summer was making further discussion on the Constitution of the US unbearable. Most understood that a discussion on Bill of Rights would lengthen an already long meeting further and most wanted it to end.

Another theory, revolves around a matter of priority. The US was a young country then and there were multiple challenges that required to be addressed urgently. Despite history of individual freedom in America, bill of rights simply was not one of them.

Furthermore, the 13 founding states have already in one way or another have their own bill of rights although interpretations differ. For instance, some states have freedom of assembly included while others do not.

Although these factors may contribute to the late adoption of the Bill of Rights, nothing was more important than the division between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared that an adoption of a national Bill of Rights might take power away from the states and to the federal government.

The battle regarding the Bill of Rights, according to Roberts, was really a proxy battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists were playing up to states’ fear of losing influence to a powerful federal government.

When James Madison — who later became the fourth US President — proposed the then controversial Bill of Rights in the Congress, he had to personally see the Bill through it. When he pushed it, the Congress decided to have a committee to contemplate on the matter. Roberts said this in a humorous manner, perhaps as an acknowledgement how things move slowly at the Capitol Hill.

Roberts contrasted this to Madison. He stressed how notoriously hardworking Madison was. He joked that two of Madison’s Vice Presidents died in office.

Unwilling to let the matter drag, Madison sat in the committee and had the committee completed its work in only a week time, maybe, much to the chagrin of the Congress. There were some other political barriers but those were eventually overcome as the slowly anti-Federalists lost interest in defeating the Bill.

By December 15 1791, the influential Bill of Rights came into effect.

Categories
Liberty

[2025] Of happy birthday to the world’s first liberal state

Happy Fourth of July.

Categories
Liberty

[2022] Of Lyndon B. Johnson in Malaysia

As we toy with the possibility of having President Barack Obama in Malaysia, it is good to remember President Lyndon Johnson.

I am delighted to be here in Malaysia. I feel that I know you because Malaysia, like the United States, is a federation of States which were once colonies of Great Britain–and because Malaysia is, like the United States, a nation of many diverse peoples, different religions, and different cultures. Here, as in America, you are working to reduce racial tensions so that all men may live in peace with one another.

Malaysia, like the United States, has been making great social and economic progress, based on the concept of personal initiative. That concept–that a man should be free to make the best of his life as he sees fit–is one that the people of America cherish. [Remarks upon Arriving at Subang Airport, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Lyndon B. Johnson. October 30 1966. Archived by The American Presidency Project. Accessed on June 29 2009]

He is the first and remains the only US President to ever visited Malaysia.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1990] Of unclenched fist and open hand

As a person who spent parts of his formative years in the United States and, more importantly, shared the ideals which the US is founded on, I cannot deny that I have a certain inclination towards the Land of the Free. And so I cannot help having a sense of joy after seeing the Foreign Minister Anifah Aman having a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Department of State. Finally, here is a chance for Malaysia to have good relations with the US.

I believe it does not take much convincing to say that our relations with the US have been dysfunctional for the longest time. The Mahathir administration was intent in demonizing the US, and the US in return kept criticizing Malaysia’s admittedly unenviable records on human rights. Under the Abdullah administration, Malaysia apparently relegated ties with the US down its priority list. The US meanwhile increasingly looked at Malaysia with a lackadaisical attitude at best or at worst ignored the country altogether with an occasional customary criticism just to keep its educated local audience who can spot where Malaysia actually is on the globe happy.

This happened despite the US being one of Malaysia’s major trading partners and the world’s only superpower. The US has its military all over the world and its political pressure can be felt everywhere. And until recently, its economic influence was unrivalled. The signs insist that Malaysia cannot abuse the US too much and yet we had two consecutive administrations which went against the signs: one was unabashedly anti-US to become a hero of Third World countries like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and the other appeared not to care.

The source of rocky relations between Malaysia and the US is none other than the former Deputy Prime Minister Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The US came out to criticize the Mahathir administration against the unjust treatment Anwar received beginning in the late 1990s. Former Vice-President Al Gore later openly declared support for the Reformasi movement, in Kuala Lumpur no less. That was the final straw for former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

And then, of course, there was George W. Bush. The Bush administration’s foreign policy after the Sept 11 attacks made the world environment not conducive for any significant improvement to Malaysia-US ties.

As a person who wishes to see more fulfilling relationship between the two countries, I find this unfortunate because our country was initially close to western countries and by extension the US. At one time, former US President Lyndon Johnson visited Malaysia. That visit in the 1960s remains the one and only time a sitting US President has ever set foot in this rich but problematic country. It was that long ago.

Oh my, how far we have gone in the wrong direction: from pro-western to neutrality and from neutrality to anti-western. In the process, due to prevailing liberal ideas in the West, liberals were victimized as Western countries were demonized. Liberals and the West were equated. It was an unfair equation but far too easy to make because the same ideals were shared by both.

Whereas in the beginning the idea of liberty was imbedded in the constitution of this country, we gradually saw illiberal ideas finding their way into the fabric of our society to usurp liberal ideas. What was supposed to be ingrained in our constitution later was considered as foreign and almost treasonous at times. The equation between liberals and the West was used to cast local liberals as traitors. It was a hurtful experience for liberals, and it still is.

But to borrow John Kerry’s lines used during the US presidential election in 2004, hope is on the way.

Regardless of misgivings I may have towards the Najib administration as well as the Obama administration, signs suggest that ties are changing for the better. The Najib administration so far appears to be less provocative and more engaging in dealing with the US. The invitation the Foreign Minister received from the US Department of State is perhaps a reciprocal sign.

The quick submission of a new name for ambassadorship to the US is another. Notwithstanding the reputation of the person, this may show how the Najib administration is out to repair relations with the US. The submission of a new name is no little matter given that the US has refused to confirm Malaysia’s previous choice to head its embassy in Washington DC due to the candidate’s connection to the disgraced Jack Abramoff.

Despite an implicit request by the US for a new name, the Abdullah administration did not offer a new one. The result? Malaysia has not had an ambassador to the US for more than half a year now. A quick confirmation by the US may lay the path to more cordial bilateral relations between the two countries whose flags likely trace their common origin back to the flag of the British East India Company.

Furthermore, US President Barack Obama appears very sincere in undoing the damage the Bush administration had brought to the reputation of the US in the international arena. To add to that, while Southeast Asia and Malaysia were ignored by the Bush administration as it focused on China, the Obama administration seems intent on bringing Southeast Asia up in its priority list. Malaysia has always been central to Southeast Asian politics and I find it impossible for the US to ignore Malaysia if it plans to again take Southeast Asia seriously.

Improved relations however do present Malaysian liberals with a conundrum.

On one hand, better relations with the US present an opportunity to push for liberal reforms like protection of individual rights, creation of a right egalitarian society and a real democratic society in Malaysia. On top of that, better ties could see less vilification of liberals by the Malaysian government by virtue that liberals more or less share the same ideals as espoused by the US constitution; vilification of liberals may lead to vilification of the US and inevitably hurting ties with the US at a time when good relations are sought. Not too long ago, Barisan Nasional went as far as to accuse liberal ideas as dangerous foreign ideas and collectively an antithesis to Malaysian society and the so-called social contract. A genuine interest to forge closer ties with the US could prevent that from happening again, rhetorically and in terms of policies.

On the other hand, in the interest of improving ties with multiple important countries which lack enough reverence for human rights, the Obama administration may decide to tone down its criticism. There is a precedent for this: in her first visit to China in her capacity as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was quiet on issues of human rights in China.

My fear is that the Obama administration may adopt the same stance with Malaysia. The danger is that it may embolden the Najib administration to test the boundary of individual liberty in this country knowing full well that the US may be unwilling to criticize the Malaysian government too harshly. A US that is less willing to criticize means one less big international pressure off the back of the Najib administration.

During the joint press conference at Foggy Bottom, Clinton was asked about the charge of sodomy — believed by the US as being politically motivated — made against Anwar. Her answer was most diplomatic, content to say that she raised the issues of rule of law and that ”that speaks for itself.”

The trade-off between good relations and criticism is real on government-to-government basis but for me as a liberal, I want good relations as well as that criticism too to help prod Malaysia farther towards the goal of liberal democracy. I would not be able to fully appreciate good relations with the US where the US keeps mum on violations of individual liberty that may happen in Malaysia in the future.

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 May 20 2009.

Categories
Economics

[1984] Of inverse relations between safety net and savings

If you think of the exports as the first link in the causal chain, the resulting pile of Chinese savings is the second. Much of this savings has been by the corporate sector, which is subsidized by the government in all sorts of ways (an undervalued currency, low interest rates, cheap energy). The economic boom brought big profits, and companies held on to much of them. The government has also increased its savings in this decade by collecting more taxes and, until the financial crisis, running a budget surplus. And households increased their own savings in the 1990s, in reaction to the dismantling of many bloated state-run companies and the cradle-to-grave benefits, known as the ”iron rice bowl,” they once provided to their workers. When a Chinese citizen is rushed to the hospital after a car accident today, the first stop for the victim’s family is often the cashier’s window. Many hospitals won’t admit patients until they have paid, and many families have no health insurance. Instead, they insure themselves, by saving. [Will China still bankroll us? David Leonhardt. New York Times. May 13 2009]

Leonhardt’s article suggests that lack of social safety net encourages saving. It makes sense.

The reversed relation is interesting: does availability of safety net discourage savings?

Indirectly, this asks how does that affect consumption? Does it increase consumption?

Implicitly, this may suggest that people may be less judicious with their consumption and more happily go into debt to spend with the presence of safety net. This is so when one contrasts the situations without social safety net in China and the availability of one in the United States as described by Leonhardt; massive savings in the former and large debt in the former on individual level, on average.

I really think I want to explore this when I finally get back to school. Ah, approximately 72 days before school begins. I just cannot wait.