Tag: liberalism

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1600] Of activist monarchy

When DAP called for a boycott of a swearing-in ceremony for the Menteri Besar of Perak, Utusan Malaysia ran a headline labeling DAP as rude: the headline was “DAP Biadap”.[1] Now that UMNO had boycotted the swearing-in ceremony for the Menteri Besar of Terengganu, Utusan failed to replay the same message all over again. Regardless the crass hypocrisy, both episodes were caused by intervention of respective state palace in a political process which the palace should have no say in and the trend of monarchs actively interfering in the process worries me.

I have always considered a monarch as a figurehead in Malaysia. After the bloodless Thai coup d’etat in 2006, somehow, taking cue from the Thais, many Malaysians began to elevate the role of the monarchy institution as the fourth branch of government. And with that, the monarchy system starts to hold itself higher than usual, however limited their influence are.

I am fan of organic politics and therefore, I believe political power has to be primarily derived from the ground up whenever it concerns the make-up of a society. In other words, the state, or any entity that shares similar function derives its legitimacy from the governed. So, when a monarch, specifically the Sultan of Terengganu, begins to exert his power against organic processes, I find it hard to side with him, even while I quietly celebrate the fact that UMNO — particularly, the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s loyalists — found itself in a quagmire, even when I sort of like the Sultan.

At the center of the controversy in Terengganu is the sovereign’s ability to appoint the chief of the executive; the Sultan does not approve the candidate which garners the trust of the majority for the Menteri Besar post and it does not end there. The Sultan went on to appoint the candidate of his choice which very much goes against the majority power in the state assembly. Regardless the constitutional legalese which is beginning to plague the issue at hand, it is the spirit of the document that matters, not the letter and my position is that the Sultan should bow to the organic process.

To solve the issue once and for all, I favor direct election into the office of the Menteri Besar. And the Prime Ministership for that matter. With this, the monarchy will have no opportunity to overturn the wishes of the people. In fact, this method to a certain extent transfer the power of political parties’ bureaucrats to the people. It kills two birds with one stone.

Nevertheless, the friction between the Sultan and UMNO may finally give meaning to the idea of federalism in Malaysia, which by the way is experiencing a shoved-to-the-backstage treatment for far too long. The federal government has too much power over state politics and this is obvious through the Prime Minister’s influence in the selection of various states’ Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, except, possibly for Sarawak and states not under BN’s control. Therefore, the crisis may actually be a blessing in disguise; the monarchy as the fourth branch of government — activist monarchs — may not be a bad idea, after all.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR 13 Mac — Ketua Penerangan UMNO, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd. Taib menyifatkan arahan DAP supaya wakil rakyatnya di Perak memulaukan majlis angkat sumpah pelantikan Menteri Besar, sebagai sungguh biadap dan kurang ajar. [DAP Biadap. Utusan Malaysia. March 13 2008]

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[1588] Mengenai tanah yang lebih subur

Walaupun bertahun sudah berlalu, teringat lagi bagaimana rasanya pertama kali melangkah ke dalam Kolej Melayu. Institusi itu menjanjikan satu masa hadapan yang cerah kepada mereka berpeluang menjejakkan kaki di situ. Peluang bagaimanapun memerlukan satu perubahan pahit yang perlu ditelan. Untuk mencapai bintang-bintang di langit, segala kebebasan dan kemewahan yang dinikmati sebelum ini harus dilupakan. Masalah untuk menyesuaikan diri timbul; perasaan gementar menguasai jasad. Setiap hari baru dimaki hamun, hari yang dahulu dikenang. Apabila tibanya masa untuk meninggalkan Kuala Kangsar, tanpa disedari air mata berlinang di pipi.

Perkara yang sama berlaku apabila diri ini pertama kalinya merentasi Lautan Pasifik yang luas. Sekali lagi perubahan berlaku dan rutin kehidupan dimusnahkan tanpa belas kasihan. Ketakutan menyelubungi tubuh memikirkan apa yang bakal didepani. Amat berbeza daripada Kuala Kangsar, di Amerika adalah satu masyarakat asing tetapi jauh lebih matang dan moden, tatkala dahulu terbiasa dengan satu dunia di bawah tempurung, di mana kita kononnya tuan. Terkeluar dari tempurung, langit biru dan sinaran matahari mencabar pemahaman sempit dan seterusnya memaksa pengarangan falsafah baru untuk menyelesaikan masalah baru. Tetapi diketahui, di sebalik perubahan itu wujud satu peluang tidak terhingga untuk dikecapi. Perubahan itu harus ditempuhi demi kejayaan.

Lebih 50 tahun selepas Tanah Melayu bebas daripada tangan penjajah, Malaysia sekarang melalui satu perubahan yang layak dicatat di dalam buku sejarah. Kawan dan lawan semuanya terkejut akan terbukanya satu laluan baru ke arah matlamat agung.

Untuk mencapai kegemilangan, pengorbanan diperlukan. Pintu terbuka dan kelihatan satu denai ke tanah yang jauh lebih subur; kekabut dibersihkan oleh sang angin dan hala tuju kini jelas. Akan tetapi, denai itu mendaki gunung-ganang dan merentasi hutan belukar; usaha dan kecekalan diperlukan.

Untuk yang bercita-cita tinggi dan yang berkeyakinan, halangan itu bukanlah satu masalah. Kepada yang lain, mereka takut untuk mencuba walaupun satu takdir yang jauh lebih hebat daripada apa yang berada di sini menanti di sebalik banjaran. Bagai dipukau dengan dongengan, denai dijauhi. Bukan sahaja mereka takut, malah mereka menghalang yang lain daripada meniti denai itu. Mereka takut jika yang lain berjaya, dongengan itu akan musnah. Bagi mereka, dongengan itu terlampau suci untuk dicabar. Bagi mereka, jika dongengan itu dikapankan, mereka terpaksa mendaki gunung itu. Mereka risau mereka perlu mendaki gunung-ganang itu jika mereka tidak mahu ditinggalkan.

Ribuan tahun menetap di kampung, realiti dunia juga mula dilupakan. Dunia berubah tetapi dia tetap dengan caranya yang kolot dan tegar. Dia tidak mampu memahami perubahan lalu dia menolak realiti baru sebagai tidak relevan. Dengan dunia sebagai tidak relevan, dia meneriak di dalam tempurungnya tentang betapa hebat dia di dalam alam kecilnya. Kesian tetapi yang sedar tidak mampu untuk menunggu mereka yang tidur.

Dunia sekarang jauh berbeza dari dunia 1970-an. Jika dulu kita memperkatakan tentang Vietnam, sekarang kita berbincang tentang Iraq. Jika dahulu kita masih lagi berdebat tentang jenis hak pemilikan harta, kini pasaran bebas telah membuktikan kegagahannya. Pada masa yang sama, telegram memberi laluan kepada internet. Dan jika dahulu rakyat masih mempunyai prasangka buruk terhadap mereka yang berlainan warna kulit, sekarang satu idea mula didokong untuk menyatukan semua tanpa mengira agama dan kaum.

Dasar Ekonomi Baru dibentuk berlatarkan satu suasana yang asing kepada generasi baru. Suasana itu adalah satu situasi di mana ekonomi-ekonomi masih berdiri secara berasingan. Modal dan buruh terkongkong lalu kekayaan dan kesejahteraan boleh dibina di atas sebidang tanah yang dikelilingi tembok tinggi. Apabila Tembok Berlin tersungkur, arus globalisasi mula terpasang. Pasaran mula menjadi bebas, modal dan pakar-pakar mula mencari pulangan terbaik tanpa mengira sempadan.

DEB gagal mengambil kira akan perubahan ini. Tembok yang membolehkan DEB berjaya telah dilanggar dan kemudian diranapkan oleh gelombang globalisasi. Tanpa tembok ini, kaedah DEB tidak berkesan. Sekatan dan diskriminasi yang dikenakan oleh dasar lapuk itu hanya menghalaukan modal dan pakar keluar dari negara kita; DEB adalah antara sebab mengapa Malaysia mengalami kehilangan kepakaran secara berterusan. Jika dasar ini berterusan, Malaysia akan tertinggal berbanding negara-negara yang mengamalkan polisi yang lebih bebas yang mengambil kira keadaan semasa. Kita perlu menarik yang terbaik ke negara kita, bukan menghalau mereka dan kebebasan adalah satu faktor yang berkesan untuk menarik pelbagai sumber yang produktif.

Tambahan lagi, DEB gagal kerana dasar itu tidak mengajar kumpulan yang ingin dibantunya tentang cara untuk bersaing dengan sihat. Apa yang pada mulanya satu usaha untuk mempercepatkan kematangan kini menjadi dadah yang menguatkan ketagihan.

Setelah sekian lama berada bersama DEB, ramai yang sudah ketagih dengannya. Ramai lagi yang bersedia untuk mempertahankan dasar lapuk itu walaupun rekahan mula muncul dan mengacam untuk merobohkan menara yang terbina, seolah-olah DEB itulah segala-gala. Seolah-olah, DEB itulah kebenaran untuk sepanjang zaman seperti konsep kewujudan ketuhanan tanpa permulaan dan pengakhiran.

Kita sebagai masyarakat perlu prihatin terhadap perubahan. Tanda-tanda di sekitar kita perlu diambil kira; tumbuhan yang dulu menghijau kini layu dan kuning; bumi yang kaya dahulu kini kering kontang. Untuk mengelakkan kejatuhan tamadun, satu penghijrahan diperlukan. Kita perlu mengatasi ketagihan kerana ketagihan membawa kepada kejatuhan. Ayuh kita bergegas ke tanah yang lebih subur sebelum terlambat.

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

p/s — satu versi tulisan ini telah diterbitkan di Bolehland.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1488] Of Kosovo is a libertarian’s dilemma

Over 15 years after Slovenia and Croatia began the process of Balkanization, Kosovo is preparing to declare itself free from Serbia. As a libertarian, I am sympathetic to the Kosovar cause; freedom appeals to all libertarians. Yet, making a stand is harder than I thought it would be. Unlike the other republics that broke free from Yugoslavia, Kosovo has never been an individual component by itself in that federation.[1] Instead, it has always been part of Serbia with — at one time or another — considerable autonomy power. This fact holds me back from properly throwing my weight behind Kosovo. The Serbs themselves consider Kosovo as the cradle of Serbian state[2] but Kosovo nowadays is primarily inhabited by Albanians.[3] Hoping to comprehend the situation deeper and eventually to form an opinion on the matter, I forced myself to read up on Kosovar history. After two days worth of reading, I may have decided that history may be more of a burden than of help. Or perhaps, we are simply being pushed into a false dilemma by various actor states.

I come to this conclusion not because I fell asleep while reading Kosovar and to some extent, Serbian, and inevitably Yugoslavian history. On the contrary, I found it quite exhilarating. Where ignorance once ruled, light shone upon me, establishing causes and effects of historical actions. The reason for my conclusion is that, its history is too convoluted and it goes back too far into the past. The hostility between Albanian and Serbs could be traced back all the way to the era when the Ottoman Empire first conquered the area in the 14th century.[4] That is about 700 years ago and the hostility still persists.

A number of atrocities were committed by both sides throughout the 700 years and the last atrocity occurred during the late 1990s Kosovo War, barely years after the horror of neighboring Bosnia. NATO brought itself to intervene by driving the Serbs army out of Kosovo, but not before scars were inflicted on both Kosovo and Serbia, perhaps, matching wounds suffered by Bosnians. Since then, while Kosovo is officially part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations.[5] But an older Old Bridge has been built and Bosnia prospers, unlike Kosovo.

The status of Kosovo now hangs in balance. The Kosovars overwhelmingly prefer independence to continued association with Serbia while the Serbs strongly insist that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbian state. With two clear diametric positions, it is unclear what will happen if Kosovo moves toward independence unilaterally.[6]

It is not impossible that violence will erupt yet again in the Balkans. Serbia has indicated that it is prepared to use force to secure the integrity of Serbian territory.[7] On the other side, Albanian Kosovars are prepared to take up arms for a free Kosovo.[8]

While traditional western powers and Russia are ready to take sides,[9] notwithstanding their hypocrisy,[10] I find both Kosovo and Serbia as having valid arguments. Almost like the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kosovo’s case is supported by current reality on the ground; the reality is that a majority of Kosovars demand freedom. For Serbia, history justifies its claim over Kosovo just as history justifies Palestinian claim to the land Israel now sits upon.

Alas, we are living in the moment and adherence to history will cause too much pain. This calls for pragmatism. Just as the most palatable solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution instead of ejection of all Israelis into the sea, perhaps, the same goes to the question of Kosovo.

An astute libertarian would ask, but what about property right? Does Serbia not entitle to it?

I believe we can do better without resorting to crude pragmatism. Indeed, from a libertarian perspective, what important is the guarantee of individual liberties. With such guarantee, where all is treated equally, the idea of Kosovo in Serbia is possible just as the idea of one secular Israel is possible. Israelis and Palestinians as well as Kosovars and Serbians do not have to entrap themselves within the limiting framework of statehood.

The question is, are all sides prepared to live side by side as equal?

With respect to that, individual liberty may be the last thing on the mind of the Kosovars. If that is the case, then, I cannot find the most moral solution to the Kosovo question from the point of liberty.

If I had to choose, if I had to play into the despicable dilemma, unless Serbia could guarantee individual liberty to all Kosovars and indeed, all Serbians, I would be partial to Kosovo. In the face of tyranny, a free Kosovo prevails over Serbian claim. In face of tyranny, history has to be sidelined.

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

[1] — Kosovo did exist as a component independent of Serbia while it was under the Ottoman Empire. But in Yugoslavia, Kosova has always been part of Serbia. See Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire at Wikipedia.

[2] — Nikolic said Serbia could not sit idly by as its cherished Kosovo province, considered the cradle of Serbia’s medieval state, wins recognition by the United States and most EU countries. [AP Interview: Ultranationalist leader calls for Russian military bases in Serbia. AP via IHT. December 18 2007]

[3] — See the Demographics section under Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[4] — See Battle of Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[5] — See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 at Wikipedia.

[6] — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed Friday that international negotiations over the future of Kosovo had reached a dead end, even as its probable new prime minister said that Kosovo would not seek independence from Serbia until early next year.

After a meeting of NATO foreign ministers here, Ms. Rice indicated that diplomacy had been exhausted and that Washington was ready to move to the next phase.

[…]

“That means we have to move on to the next step,” she said. “It is not going to help to put off decisions that need to be taken.” Serbia, which is vehemently opposed to Kosovo’s independence, has offered the province broad autonomy, but Kosovo does not want any agreement that falls short of full independence. [Talks on Kosovo Hit a Dead End, Rice Says. NYT. December 8 2007]

[7] — BELGRADE: Serbia is ready to use force to prevent Western nations from recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, a senior Serbian official warned Wednesday. [Serbia threatens to use force if West recognizes Kosovo. IHT. September 5 2007]

[8] — The Albanians, making up 90 per cent of the 2.2 million inhabitants, are hostile to Serbia and have threatened to take up arms if they do not win independence. [Kostunica: Serbia would annul Kosovo’s independence. EUX.TV. December 17 2007]

[9] — The twist is all the stranger because Serbs have so far looked mostly to Russia for assistance, because most Western countries have supported Kosovo’s independence drive. [Serbia Enlists Some Unlikely Faces in Its Quest to Keep Kosovo. NYT. December 23 2007]

[10] — MOSCOW President Vladimir Putin says the world must apply the same standards to the separatist Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as it does to the Serbian province of Kosovo, where many are seeking independence. [Putin says world should regard Kosovo, separatist Georgian regions on equal footing. NYT. September 16 2006]

Categories
Society

[1455] Of liberal and racist?

When I criticize those that share my skin color, those that do not share my skin color celebrate me as a liberal.

When I criticize those that do not share my skin color, they denounce me as a racist.

That is most unfair. Nobody is immune from criticism.

I think many people have yet to free themselves from primitive communal thinking.

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.