Tag: diversity

Categories
Society

[1850] Of cosmopolitan Malaysia

As I prepare to leave this country once again for another land, I have rediscovered how diverse the Malaysian society truly is. There are individuals coming from all kinds of background speaking languages of the world. Give it a decade or two and I could see the demographics of this country changing due to immigration — legal or otherwise — from various countries, be it Nepal, Bangladesh or some countries in Europe.

Malaysia has always been at the crossroad of trade. The history of this country is closely associated with the volume of trade. The prominence of various states from Srivijaya to Malacca to the current day Malaysia all is linked to trade. Malaysia itself only truly assumed its place in the world after it dropped its import substitution policy in favor of export-driven policy.

While trade brings wealth, it is larger than simple exchanges of goods and services. As individuals interact with each other to complete various transactions, news and ideas are passed along. It is inevitable for a country so open to trade to welcome foreigners into the land. Some of these foreigners will fall in love with new land and adopt it as their own. Some others would be less romantic and stay here out of necessity.

Despite trouble plaguing the country, Malaysia is the land of opportunity in Asia, perhaps paralleling the United States of America in one way or another.

The history of the Straits Chinese and the Krintangs, to name a few, are testaments to this. The existence of Chinatown, Little India and even Jalan Silang, on top of what traditionally known as native culture, further stresses the diversity of this country.

The continuous intermingling of people will inevitably see the definition of native culture to evolve. It will become more inclusive to accommodate what was used to be considered as foreign. The evolution of the Malay language is a perfect example of such accommodation. The Malay culture itself has adopted cultures from the east to the west during its long history. The evolution is still ongoing.

Opposition to such accommodation may occur. The opposition however, though sometimes could be excessively xenophobic, helps in defining the path of the accommodation. Regardless the path, the destination is almost assured to be greater integration.

The Chinese and the Indians previously viewed as immigrants have been accepted as citizens of this country long ago. While there are those who view these groups as immigrants still, the idea that they are citizens of this country entitled to equal rights is there to challenge the conservatives.

The conservative individuals would continue to oppose the idea but I think the United States is a good example of how the future of equal citizenship is inevitable. And we really do not need to spend centuries to reach where the United States finds itself at the moment simply because we began our journey on a higher ground.

Considerable number of Malaysians, even the conservatives, may be on the verge of coming to term of the inevitability of right egalitarian in Malaysia. The reason is that a new generation is gradually taking over this country. And each new generation, in my humble opinion, has proven to be more opened than their predecessors.

The greater openness is a natural progression of being the benefactors of freer trade and higher education. This opens up the mind of the individuals — the notion of equal rights for all citizens is fast gaining currency and will continue to do so each time a new generation is born to assume the driver seat. Undoubtedly however several issues including the matters on vernacular education will bog down the path to right egalitarian society. Bog it will but stop it will not.

The new challenge is now to learn to accept non-citizens living in this country as individuals. These non-citizens are new migrants of which a majority of them taking up low paying jobs. Just like there are opposition to accepting the Chinese and the Indians as equal citizens of this country, they seem to be opposition of treating these non-citizens more humanely.

For a country which a majority of its people is historically linked to migration of the past, the xenophobic attitude adopted against foreigners, especially against non-western foreigners, is hypocritical.

The xenophobic attitude is easily visible.

It is not at all unusually for locals to blame foreigners for crime committed when in fact most crimes are committed by the locals itself. Not only that most crimes are committed by locals, crimes committed by foreigners are proportionately lower than crimes committed by locals. Yet, the notion that foreigners bring excessive trouble to this country continues to hold sway in spite of data. So, one has to wonder whether the attitude is due to unreasonable bias or real concern for crime rate.

In times when economic uncertainty is in the air, it is a minister no less who said if retrenchment happens, foreign workers should be retrenched first. The issue of retrenchment should be an issue handled by the owners of business and not the government because it is the business owners who face the direct prospect of loss. Yet, here we have a minister — Dr. Subramaniam of the MIC — trying to interfere in the management of business to ensure foreigners suffer first. Chua Soi Lek of the MCA too expressed the same sentiment not too long ago.

This is already on top of the typical protectionist accusation that foreigners are stealing jobs from the locals when in fact, many of the jobs taken up by these foreigners are the jobs the locals mostly are uninterested of. The accusation happens while the massive net contributions foreign workers made to the Malaysian economy are conveniently ignored.

Never mind the fact that the Malaysian economy is possibly operating at full employment at the moment and that demands for more workers are left unfulfilled. The couple of months ahead are likely to see some unfavorable fluctuation to hurt both local and foreign workers but the long term trend is likely to see the demand for workers exceeding the capability of the local market to supply it.

And then there is the issue of how some Malaysians treat some of the foreign workers. It is a relief how the Malaysian court finally set a huge example by sentencing housewife Yim Pek Ha to 18 years of imprisonment for grossly abusing her former Indonesian maid, Nirmala Bonat. Malaysians like Ms. Yim need to realize that individuals like Ms. Nirmala, though foreigners working as a lowly maid, are human beings too. Not just Ms. Yim needs to become cognizant of this, Rela with is abysmal records on treatment of foreigners also must be reminded of it.

Like it or not, some of these foreigners may one day become the citizens of this countries, just like the economic migrants of the 19th century. There will be Nepali Malaysians, Bangladeshi Malaysians, Pakistani Malaysians, Burmese Malaysians, etc. To degrade them is to degrade the story of origin many Malaysians share.

The less talked migration is the one involving citizens of the developed countries relocating to Malaysia. While the Nepalis and the Bangladeshis fill the lower niches, these migrants from developed and rich countries mostly fill the other end, bringing capital as well as valuable expertise with them. The Malaysian government encourages this kind of immigration by the Arabs, the British, the Dutch and the likes through the Malaysia My Second Home program.

Even without the MMSH program, I have already met several individuals born not as Malaysians but have lived as Malaysians far longer than I have been a Malaysian.

And not too long ago, I met an Indian Malaysian with German as her mother tongue. I could only manage to say guten tag while astonished as the diversity that exists at a very micro level. Or perhaps, I was just caught by her beauty and that is all.

All the little things happening on the ground will affect the bigger picture soon or later.

By the time I return to Malaysia some years in the future, I do not think I would be surprise at the demographics of Malaysia then. In fact, I would be excited.

The prospect of a new demographic composition is refreshing for me because it has the potentially of assaulting the old debate about race and ethnicity, forcing both the Malays and the non-Malays traditionally made up of Chinese and Indians to rethink the stale rationale they employ against its others. It will force those with racialist worldview to reassess their idea of Malaysia.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1750] Of a diverse society is a training ground for liberty

It is hard for a person to affirm his conviction to freedom until his belief has been challenged and then came out unconvinced of any need to silent dissenting others. It is based on this premise that I celebrate diversity.

My celebration of diversity must not be construed as an advocate for multiculturalism, where the state embarks on active policy encouraging diversity. The policy of active promotion of multicultural society goes against organic processes, which is closely associated to the idea of spontaneous order.

A peaceful multicultural society needs to have tolerance embedded in it and it is highly likely that more often than not, only organic processes are capable of bringing about tolerance of differences organically. In contrast, multiculturalism inorganically introduces or enforces multicultural idea into a society that may or not may be ready for diverse society or even a change in the makeup of the society. There is an element of coercion in multiculturalism.

Inorganic processes are applied to hasten processes. The high rate of change however gives individuals little opportunity to adapt. With multiculturalism, it is a guaranteed fact that there will be individuals rebelling against it. When that happened, a multicultural society resulting from multiculturalism will face challenges which including excessive xenophobia.

Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.

For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected.

It has to be understood that the term “multicultural society” describes the state of a society while “multiculturalism” is a set of policies encouraging the inorganic creation of multicultural society. Moreover, multicultural society can exist without multiculturalism through organic processes.

Therefore, my rejection of multiculturalism does not translate into rejection of multicultural society. Indeed, I cherish multicultural society for the diversity it brings.

To a large extent, individuals are shaped by experience. Each experience gives rise to unique worldviews which in turn affect a person’s thoughts and actions.

A diverse society is exactly diverse because of each member of the society underwent different path to reach wherever they are at the moment. This naturally gives rise to difference in opinion.

For those professing belief in liberty, a multicultural society or more generally a diverse society offers an opportunity to challenge one’s belief in liberty. It offers an opportunity to prove one’s conviction in liberty. It is only in a diverse society, especially in a realm of intellectual diversity, opinion allergic to each other could exist and advocated for with high intensity and frequency. Such society is the perfect environment for training in freedom.

A true believer of liberty would not initiate any kind of coercion to silent the others due to difference in opinion, even in the heat of an argument. Until one passes that test, a person can never truly discover whether the person believes in liberty.

Categories
Education Society

[1745] Of quid pro quo for an egalitarian society

Ethnic integration does not top my list as an issue we as a society face. I used to be bothered a lot by it but I have long learned to accept the wisdom that birds of the same feather tend to flock together.

More importantly, I have accepted that organic integration is a painfully slow process. This effectively means the idea of Bangsa Malaysia for me remains a dream in the near future. Nevertheless, if indeed ethnic integration is a goal, then I think the special rights enjoyed by the Malays as well as the vernacular schools would have to go.

The idea of Bangsa Malaysia has never been satisfactorily and properly defined. What exists are competing definitions. For me personally, I take Bangsa Malaysia — or the Malaysian nation and not the Malaysian race — as simply the concept of rights egalitarianism embedded in the idea of Malaysian citizenship. That means the state does not discriminate its own citizens on anything except, mostly, merits.

I do not have to demonstrate about how large a role race and religion play in our society and I think a lot of us realize how central race and religion are to our society, for better or for worse. While I have resigned to the fact that it takes years to restructure our society organically, I still despise how race and religion are exceptionally central to our society and how both factors have been manipulated to the effect that they erode liberty.

As a result, a tiny insignificant part of me wants to throw liberty out of the equation and use coercion to encourage integration, to do away with factors which encourage ethnic division in this country. Part of me wants to hasten the integration process, preferring an inorganic method over organic.

But I am a libertarian and I am proud of it. I plan to neither resort nor consent to forced integration or assimilation. For others without libertarian tendencies and who are fiercely working for a more integrated society, coercion through the elimination of public funded vernacular schools and streamlining the education system with just one national school stream may indeed be a tool of great use.

Embracing the concept of rights egalitarian would be the first step in encouraging ethnic integration. Any policy which discriminates people based on creed and skin color only fuels anger of the discriminated against the favored. As long as the hatred is there, ethnic integration will be a pie in the sky.

Equality has the greatest potential in dousing the fire of communal hatred. Within the Malaysian context, this calls for the dismantling of various policies which discriminate our own citizens. It goes as far as requiring the Constitution to be amended to conform to the spirit of rights egalitarianism, where all are truly equal before the law which is ever conscious of individual liberty.

The dismantling of discriminatory policies, however, will not be popular with the majority power, which is Malay. In as much as the Malay community is not monolithic in its political outlook, considerable members of the Malay community do hold dearly to policies which grant them special privileges. The continuous support which UMNO receives from a majority of Malays proves that.

Due to that, removal of policies derived from the New Economic Policy will be highly unpopular. As a direct result, the political support for a rights egalitarian society may not be there. If equality of rights is a goal to be achieved, it is the Malays that the advocates of egalitarianism need to convince, especially in the illiberal democracy that we live in.

The first step in convincing the majority is an exposition of the weaknesses of the current race-based affirmative action policies and juxtaposing it with a better merit-based alternative. The majority has to be persuaded that if the majority of Malays are really poorer than the average Malaysian, a merit-based affirmative action would aid them anyway. Therefore, there is no reason for those who truly require aid to worry about the switch from a race-conscious to race-blind and merit-based policy.

I have come to believe that this is the strongest point that exists against the status quo. It is so because it appeals to the concepts of justice and fairness apart from being an economically superior policy compared to race-conscious affirmative action.

Theoretically, it is impeccable and I have seen it work in practice, especially during the election. This very line has been used from time to time. With patience and good orators at hand, many Malays who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of impoverished Malays are convinced by this point.

That notwithstanding, I personally do not subscribe to any kind of state-based affirmative action. A merit-based policy nevertheless is a potent tool to bring down the current policy; my support for a merit-based over race-based policy only exists due to the virtue of thinking on the margin.

But why should only the Malays sacrifice their position?

I am convinced that rights egalitarianism is one of few ideas that is capable of bringing this country forward. It is one of those abstract developments that this country needs more than physical developments. Our current societal structure is not conducive to attracting talents and egalitarianism — as well as liberty — is one of our best bets to catalyze our economy forward, which at this point, is stagnating.

So, I tend to think that this is not a zero-sum game. Rights egalitarianism has the prospect of increasing the economic pie but while the point is taken but a lot of Malays seem unconvinced about why they should give up their privileges.

It is possible that this is a matter of time horizon. While it is beneficial in the long run to have an egalitarian society for everybody, in the short run, the Malays really do not have the incentive to give up their privileges. This is even more so when there is a heavy discount on future gains.

This sounds like a bias called loss aversion. To explain the phenomenon slightly deeper, loss aversion describes a situation when a person considers a loss as unacceptable even when there is an eventual net gain.

This bias later transforms the original question into “Why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?”

Failure to answer this question may cause the Malays to question the sincerity of others in building a less ethnic-conscious society. I think I can safely say that the conservative Malays see vernacular schools as the special privileges of others as how others see affirmative action enjoyed by the Malays as special privileges.

I have been thinking and I do not pretend I have given it very deep thought but my initial feeling is that the abolition of vernacular schools funded by public money could be the answer to that question.

This absolutely makes sense if we return to the original intention of ethnic integration. This is also important to demonstrate to the conservative Malays that there is sincerity in building unity among various communities. There are Malays whom distrust calls for equality because of the question. A sacrifice by the other sides do a lot in proving the sincerity in building an egalitarian society and thus renders the question irrelevant.

One cannot expect to have an integrated society when children are not given the opportunity to mingle with their peers of different backgrounds. Vernacular schools, be they Chinese, Indian or even schools like the Malay College, work like silos, isolating children in the same community from one another. It is the silo nature of vernacular schools that is detrimental to the idea of ethnic integration.

Surely separation from the very beginning does little in bridging the gap that already exists between cultures. If bridging the gap is truly the goal, then the silos have to be removed and replaced with the grand mixer that is the national school. Concerns about languages and religions, which are the typical criticism directed at the idea of national schools, could be addressed by making language classes available and making the national school neutral of religious influence.

All in all, in the abolition of both Malay privileges and vernacular schools, there would be a quid pro quo arrangement, solving the question of “why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?” It gives the appearance that both are sacrificing something in the name of unity.

On a final note, I want to reiterate that I do not consider ethnic integration a burning question. With regards to school systems, I prefer the concept of charter schools to typical public-funded ones, which schools are given the liberty to do whatever they like as long as they deliver results. With a charter school system in place, it would be likely that the abolition of vernacular schools would lead to merely a change in label, which would render abolition meaningless.

Abolition furthermore seems to be an act to force individuals into a system with the system trying to mold an individual with a template. That disturbs me.

Thus, my agnosticism to abolition. And since I am agnostic to the idea of ethnic integration anyway, preferring to take the time to organically integrate our society instead, I really could not care less for abolition.

For those dreaming of a rights egalitarian society, however, the proposed quid pro quo arrangement is something for all egalitarians to consider. If the arrangement is rejected, the egalitarians would still have to answer the question why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain.

Unless that question is satisfactorily answered, I do not think we can see the rise of a rights egalitarian society anytime soon.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

I felt the original version does not have a smooth logical transition. This is most likely due to me rushing the article through. Regardless, I have added a sentence or two in this version. In the TMI version, there are  no sentences on sincerity.