Tag: nationalism

Categories
ASEAN Economics Politics & government

[2742] Good luck Mr. Jokowi

I have not been following the Indonesian presidential election closely in the sense that I am unfamiliar with detailed policy proposals from both candidates, Jokowi and Prabowo. I remember from some time back that Jokowi specifically offered little detail, leading to the criticism that he has no idea what he is doing and betting on his clean, humble image to win. But I think I have heard or read some proposals along the way. But what I do know is that there is a difference between the two candidates and Prabowo comes out as nationalistic, protectionist candidate, which I think is bad for Malaysia and for Asean integration.

Malaysia and Indonesia are having it relatively good in the past year or so. There have not been too many ugly and petty spats around the accusation of cultural theft. Others are more serious, like the abuse of Indonesian workers in Malaysia and the haze. I should not mention the haze because looking outside right now in Kuala Lumpur, it is pretty bad. Normally I can spot the Petronas Twin Towers from here but right now, it is all white. Walking outside is unpleasant. It is hot, humid and acrid. It is impossible to tolerate the condition. In the past,  Malaysians (and Singaporeans) had been quick to blame their largest neighbor but I think both have to come suspect and possibly realize that the perpetrators of the opening burning in Sumatra and elsewhere (including in some parts of Malaysia) are Malaysian and Singaporean-held plantation companies. And besides, we consume the very products produced by the plantations there. I do not mean that Indonesia is blameless, but solving it requires regional cooperation to address it.

Still, apart from the unpleasant smell, we are not at each other’s throat and I think that is partly because of the reconciliatory tone, or rather, non-aggressive approach taken by the political leadership of both countries, Malaysia and Singapore. I suppose, it is also because the current President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has no incentive to appease the more populist crowd who love a chance to slam Malaysia. He is approaching his term limit after all. But even earlier in his term, I think he preferred discussion rather than Sukarno-style rhetoric when dealing with Malaysia.

I do not believe the relatively good period of Malaysia-Indonesia relations will last very long if Prabowo becomes the new Indonesian President. Prabowo appears very nationalistic and I think he would be easy for him to ride on those anti-Malaysian sentiments, especially if things do not go according to his plan in Indonesia. It will always easy to shift the blame to foreigners than focus on the actual problems at hand.

Prabowo also appears to be a protectionist. Having a nationalistic and protectionist President is probably bad news for Malaysia and for Asean integration. It is bad news for Malaysia because there is a lot of Malaysian investment in Indonesia, from plantation to banking. Indonesia is already trying to limit exports of raw material, hoping to develop its own industries. Prabowo looks like the person who would go further for a more comprehensive protectionism across industries. Indonesia is also behind in Asean Open Skies initiative, while most others have agreed and even done opening up.

Also, having Prabowo campaigning with fascist theme is not all too hot for a libertarian like me. Having a fascist Indonesia will take pressure off Malaysia to liberal further. As in right now, I think Indonesia has some democratic and liberal credential to nudge Malaysia in the right way, in a small way. I suppose it is like the one of those Newton’s laws: bodies of mass attract each other and Indonesia is a very large body compared to Malaysia. Having a big, bad fascist right next door is like having a big, bad, black hole across the narrow sea.

Asean wants to integrate closer by 2015. It does not appear that all the goals set will be achieved within target but having its largest members dragging its feet or even regressing will make integration harder than it already is.

This is not to say Jokowi is all free-trade liberal. But I think Jokowi is more even-minded when it comes to Indonesia’s role in making the AEC a success.

I am a regionalist and I am so because I see global effect at closer integration is going nowhere. So, I would like to see the Asean initiative moves forward. Also, as a Malaysia, it is really tiring arguing about petty stuff. I think only Jokowi can do good on both fronts.

So, good luck Mr. Jokowi. I hope you will win the Indonesian election.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty

[2704] Berlin on why fascists, nationalists and Marxists kill

This is most obvious in the case of Fascism. The Fascists and National Socialists did not expect inferior classes, or races, or individuals to understand or sympathise with their own goals; their inferior was innate, ineradicable, since it was due to blood, or race, or some other irremovable characteristic; any attempt on the part of such creatures to pretend to equality with their masters, or even to comprehension of their ideals, was regarded as arrogant or presumptuous. Caliban was considered incapable of lifting his face to the sky and catching even a glimpse if, let alone sharing, the ideals of Prospero. The business of slaves is to obey; hat gives their masters their right to trample on them is precisely the alleged fact — which Aristotle asserted — that some men are slaves by nature, and have not enough human quality to give orders themselves, or understand why they are being forced to do what they do.

If Fascism is the extreme expression of their attitude, all nationalism is infected by it to some degree. Nationalism is not consciousness of the reality of national character, nor pride in it. It is a belief in the unique mission of a nation, as being intrinsically superior to the goals or attributes of whatever is outside of it; so that if there is a confliction between my nation and other men, I am obliged to fight for my nation no matter at what cost to other men; and if the others resist, that is no more than one would expect from beings brought up in an inferior culture, educated by, or born of, inferior persons, who cannot ex hypothesi understand the ideals that animate my nation and me. My gods are in conflict whit those of others, my values with those of strangers, and there exists no higher authority — certainly no absolute and universal tribunal — by which the claims of these rival divinities can be adjudicated. That is why war, between nations or individuals, must be the only solution.

We think, for the most part, in words. But all words belong to specific languages, the products of specific cultures. As there is no universal human language, so there exists no universal human law or authority, else these laws, his authority, would be sovereign over the earth; but this , for nationalists, is neither possible nor desirable; a universal law is not true law: cosmopolitan culture is a sham and a delusion; international law is only called law by a precarious analogy — a hollow courtesy intended to conceal the violent break with the universalism of the past.

This assumption is less obvious with the cases of Marxism, which in theory, at least, is internationalist. But Marxism is a nineteenth-century ideology, and has not escaped the all-pervasive separatism of its time. Marxism is founded on reason; that is to say, it claims that its propositions are intelligible, and their truth can be ”˜demonstrated’ to any rational being in possession of the relevant facts. It offers salvation to all men; anyone can, in principle, see the light, and denies it at his own peril.

In practice, however, this is not so. Theory of economic base and ideological superstructure of which Marxist sociology is founded teaches that the ideas in men’s heads are conditioned by the position occupied by them, or by their economic class, in the productive system. This fact may be disguised from individual persons by all kinds of self-delusions and rationalisations, but ”˜scientific’ analysis will always reveal that the vast majority of any given class believe only that which favours the interests of that class — interest which the social scientists can determine by objective historical analysis — whatever reasons they may choose, however sincerely, to give for their beliefs; and conversely they disbelieve, reject, misunderstand, distort, try and escape form, ideas belief in which would weaken the position of their class.

All men are to be found, as it were, on one of two moving stairs; I belong to a class which, owning to its relationship to the forces of production, is either moving upwards towards triumph, or downwards towards ruin. In either case my beliefs and outlook — the legal, moral, social, intellectual, religious, aesthetic ideas — in which I feel at home, will reflect the interests of the class to which I belong. If I belong to a class moving towards victory, I shall hold a realistic set of beliefs, for I am not afraid of what I see; I am moving with the tide, knowledge of the truth can only give me confidence; if I belong to ta doomed class, my inability to gaze upon the fatal facts — for few men are able to recognise that they are destined to perish — will falsify my calculations, and render me deaf and blind to the truths too painful for me to face. It follows that it must be useless for members of the rising class to try to convince members of the falling order that the only way in which they can save themselves is by understanding the necessities of history and therefore transferring themselves, if they can, to the steep stair that is moving upwards, from that which runs so easily to destruction. It is useless, because ex hypothesi members of a doomed class are conditioned to see everything through a falsifying lens: the plainest symptoms of approaching death will seem to them evidence of health and progress; they suffer from optimistic hallucinations, and must systematically misunderstand the warnings that persons who belong to a different economic class, in their charity, may try to give them; such delusions are themselves the inevitable by-product of clinging to an order which history has condemned. It is idle for the progressives to try to save their reactionary brothers from defeat: the doomed men cannot hear them, and their destruction is certain. All men will not be saved: the proletariat, justly intent upon its own salvation, had best ignore the fate of their oppressors; even if they wish to return good for evil, they cannot save their enemies from ”˜liquidation’. They are ”˜expendable’ — their destruction can be neither averted nor regretted by a rational being, for it is the price that mankind must pay for the progress of reason itself: the road to the gates of Paradise is necessarily strewn with corpses. [Isaiah Berlin. European Unity and its Vicissitudes. 1959]

Categories
ASEAN History & heritage Society

[2070] Of Indonesia did not create the tune of Negaraku or Terang Bulan

I do feel that in many cases, general Malaysians do have unfair perception of Indonesia as well as have acted unfairly against far too many Indonesians living in Malaysia. But the current sentiment in Indonesia is bordering a ridiculous level. Silly jingoism is playing out in Indonesia.

In the Jakarta Globe, a state recording executive claims that Malaysia — to use the zeigeist of anti-Malaysia in Indonesia — ‘stole’ the tune of Negaraku from the Indonesian song of Terang Bulan.

An executive of Lokananta, a state recording company based in Solo has drawn attention to Malaysia’s national anthem, ”Negaraku,” claiming that it is suspiciously similar in tune to ”Terang Bulan,” a song written by the Bandung Ensemble and first recorded by Lokananta in March 1956 — a year before Malaysia’s independence was announced on Aug. 31, 1957.

”Terang Bulan is a keroncong song, meant for entertainment. Why did they take it for their anthem?” asked Ruktiningsih, head of Lokananta.

”Does Malaysia really have no dignity at all?”

Keroncong is a melodious musical genre that has its roots in Portuguese music and is usually played on violins, flutes and a small, ukelele-like guitar.

Ruktiningsih said that ”Terang Bulan” was one of 49 Indonesian songs recorded in Jakarta by national radio station RRI on the orders of then President Sukarno in 1956. The songs were later made into a record by Lokananta. [Malaysian anthem actually Indonesian, says record company. Candra Malik. Jakarta Globe. August 29 2009]

Let us disregard the fact that modern Southeast Asian states, Indonesia and Malaysia included, did not exist before about mid-20th century. Let us ignore the fact that the current boundary between the two countries only came into existence in the 1820s by virtue of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Let us ignore that culture spread and shared by lands what are now called Indonesia and Malaysia. Let us ignore too that many Indonesian citizens became Malaysians in modern times and that they too practice their culture, which is more or less similar to Indonesian, bar assimiliation process that occurred while their adopt local practice.

Even after discounting those historical accidents, the insinuation is odd.

It is odd because the tune was first recorded to be heard in Seychelles in mid-19th centry, and first played by the government of Perak as its state anthem in 1888 or 1901 in England. On top of that, the tune was composed by a Frenchman. The Federation of Malaya later decided to modify Perak’s anthem into the federation’s anthem. The anthem continues to act as the national anthem of a larger federation called Malaysia when the 11 states of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore decided to federate.[1]

Rather than Malaysia internalizing an Indonesian song, the 1956 Indonesia song originated from the same source as Negaraku. If the executive is to define ownership of the tune as the one that first created it, then both Malaysia and Indonesia have no ownership over it. The ownership should belong to that dead Frenchman.

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

[1] — See The National Anthem of Malaysia – Negaraku at Malaysian Monarchy. Accessed August 29 2009.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1796] Mengenai buang negara bangsa untuk nasionalisme yang terluas

Sering kali saya terdengar akan keperluan untuk rakyat Malaysia membentuk satu nasionalisme baru untuk mengatasi cabaran masa muka. Dengan mudahnya, nasionalisme ini mengimpikan satu bangsa yang merangkumi semua rakyat Malaysia, di mana semua memiliki hak-hak yang saksama tanpa pilih kasih. Ramai mengenali nasionalisme baru ini sebagai bangsa Malaysia. Walaupun saya mungkin bersimpati dengan konsep ini berbanding dengan apa yang sedang dipegang oleh pihak yang masih berselindung di dalam sangkar perkauman, saya berpendapat bahawa bangsa Malaysia berada tidak jauh dari tarikh luputnya.

Sebelum kita berbicara tentang mengapa saya berfikiran demikian, kita perlu memahami mengapa bangsa Malaysia lahir. Tidak perlu kita membelek buku-buku sejarah, politik ataupun falsafah untuk memahami perkara itu. Jawapan ringkas tetapi tepat boleh diperoleh dari batu asas kepada pemikiran kenegaraan yang memperjuangkan satu bangsa yang mengandungi pelbagai kaum untuk satu negara; batu asas itu adalah negara bangsa atau nation-state.

Negara di sini bukan yang segera difahami oleh semua. Bahasa Melayu — seperti apa yang akan ditegaskan oleh penyorak-penyorak bangsa Malaysia, bahasa Malaysia atau sekurang-kurangnya pembicaraan popular tempatan yang bersangkut paut tentang kenegaraan — gagal membezakan konsep country (negara, negeri atau wilayah boleh dilukis di atas kertas), nation (negara atau lebih tepat bangsa) dan state (negara sebagai satu institusi) secara memuaskan. Kekeliruan ini menjadikan perdebatan tentang negara Islam di Malaysia berganjak satu perkara yang penting kepada satu pertunjukan sarkas yang tidak bermakna. Susah untuk seseorang itu memastikan sama ada penyokong dan penentang negara Islam berdebat tentang Islamic state atau Islamic country. Ini sendiri membuatkan saya duduk jauh daripada perbahasan mengenai negara Islam di mana para pendebat tidak sedar akan perbezaan penting ini.

Kembali kepada perkara pokok dengan harapan masalah penterjemaah tidak mengaburi apa yang saya mahu kongsi bersama, negara bangsa mengatakan bahawa sesuatu bangsa, satu kelompok manusia yang berkongsi warna kulit, bahasa, agama atau secara amnya budaya, berhak mentadbir dirinya sendiri. Pentadbiran ini direalisasikan dengan mendirikan satu institusi iaitu negara atau state.

Pemimpin-pemimpin Malaya dan kemudiannya Malaysia sendiri cuba mendirikan negara kita di atas konsep negara bangsa, di mana bangsa itu adalah bangsa Malaya (Malayan) and kemudiannya Malaysia (Malaysian). Bagi negara yang berbilang kaum, pelbagai bangsa, usaha untuk mendirikan satu negara bangsa akan bertemu dengan satu halangan yang besar: ketiadaan satu bangsa organik yang merangkumi semua bangsa; ketiadaan bangsa mengiakan negara yang mengandungi pelbagai bangsa organik; tiada bangsa yang organik yang menerima bangsa Melayu, Cina, India dan ”bangsa lain-lain” sebagai anggota dengan yakin.

Mungkin bangsa longgar wujud beberapa dekad setelah imigrasi besar-besaran ke negeri-negeri Melayu serta Borneo berlaku. Pendapat ini bagaimanapun terlampau bersifat subjektif dan sukar dibentuk di dalam minda dengan baiknya tanpa pencanggahan.

Walau bagaimanapun, jika kita melupakan sementara masalah definisi itu dengan semangat pragmatisme, bangsa yang baru itu tidak bernama dan hanya dirujuk sebagai satu apabila negara kita terdiri. Dalam usaha untuk mengesahkan negara ini dari pandangan negara bangsa, konsep kerakyatan tidak mencukupi. Keperluan untuk membentuk satu bangsa tiruan wujud di atas ketiadaan bangsa organik. Oleh itu, bangsa longgar yang tidak bernama itu mula dirujuk sebagai bangsa Malaysia, bersemperna negara Malaysia.

Tetapi, falsafah yang diketengahkan oleh negara bangsa berdiri dengan tanggapan yang satu bangsa itu berhak untuk mentadbirkan dirinya sendiri. Soalan yang perlu ditanya adalah ini: perlukan sesuatu negara itu berdiri dengan bangsa sebagai tunggak asas?

Malaysia sendiri berjaya dibentuk tanpa adanya bangsa yang satu. Penekanan terhadap bangsa Malaysia hanya berlaku selepas terbentuknya negara Malaysia. Ini adalah satu tanda yang mengatakan negara bangsa itu tidak menjadi satu syarat dalam pembentukan negara.

Yang lebih ditakutkan, konsep negara bangsa itu sendiri mungkin akan membawa kepada perpecahan negara. Malaysia mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya tiga bangsa yang berpengaruh besar. Jika konsep negara bangsa dipatuhi dengan taatnya, lambat laun Malaysia akan terbahagi kepada sekurang-kurangnya tiga negara. Ini belum lagi mengambil kira perbezaan agama yang boleh menjadi asas kepada pemikiran negara bangsa.

Di negara-negara lain seperti Perancis, negara bangsa tidak lagi memainkan peranan utama dalam pentadbiran negara. Malah, Kesatuan Eropah sendiri tidak memerlukan satu bangsa luas untuk mengemudi dirinya ke hadapan. Kesatuan tersebut ada masalah-masalahnya sendiri tetapi perlu diingatkan, pembentukan negara itu sendiri memerlukan masa. Apa yang ingin disampai di sini ialah konsep kerakyatan itu sendiri sudah mencukupi.

Tambahan pula, demografik sesuatu negara sering berubah. Pergerakan manusia serta modal yang semakin bebas sering menukarkan kandungan bangsa sintetik seperti konsep bangsa Malaysia itu sendiri. Apabila kandungan bangsa sintetik itu diubah disebabkan pergaulan di antara bangsa-bangsa organik dan lebih penting, para individu, apakah perlu kita mengembleng tenaga sekali lagi untuk mentakrifkan bangsa yang baru? Adakah perlu kita melindungi takrifan bangsa sintetik itu daripada berubah?

Perubahan itu bagaimanapun tidak meminta konsep kerakyatan berubah, jika asas kerakyatan itu bersifat liberal dan buta kepada idea negara bangsa.

Saya sebagai seseorang individu mahu mendekati satu bentuk nasionalisme yang lebih unggul dan luas daripada yang berasaskan negara bangsa. Kita perlu melihat lebih jauh dari konsep bangsa. Ini tidak bermakna kita harus menghapuskan bangsa-bangsa organik. Kita semua adalah seorang individu dan setiap individu itu berhak menentukan cara hidup mereka sendiri dengan syarat tindakan mereka itu tidak merampas hak-hak yang sama yang dinikmati oleh orang-orang lain.

Sebagai satu negara yang kecil, kita harus cergas menerima apa yang terbaik daripada tamadun manusia. Sudah hilang waktu di mana kita boleh melihat kepada kaum kita sendiri untuk mencari kekuatan. Kita harus menjemput mereka yang ingin berusaha untuk membina kehidupan yang terulung walaupun mereka orang asing. Negara atau masyarakat yang mengandungi individu-individu ini akan menaikkan taraf kehidupan masyarakat itu sendiri. Selamat datang diucapkan kepada mereka yang ingin menyumbang dan sanggup menghormati hak-hak individu terhadap kebebasan.

Nasionalisme saya berkisar kepada pembukaan sempadan kita kepada mereka yang terlatih untuk membangunkan negara. Sebelum itu berlaku, kesaksamaan hak-hak terhadap kebebasan perlu dijamin. Nasionalisme ini perlu melindungi semua dengan sama rata, tanpa mengira kerakyatan. Negara yang menjamin semua ini akan menarik yang terbaik di kalangan manusia dan seterusnya membolehkan kita membina satu tamadun yang hebat tanpa sekatan yang terbina atas nama ketakutan.

Konsep negara bangsa merupakan satu sekatan untuk kita maju ke hadapan, jauh meninggalkan yang lain yang masih terkongkong di dalam pemikiran lama.

Saya yakin, inilah nasionalisme yang tertinggi dan terbaik, di mana bangsa itu adalah bangsa manusia. Tidak perlu kita mewujudkan bangsa yang sintetik untuk bersatu. Hanya yang diperlukan adalah kesanggupan untuk kita untuk hormat-menghormati hak-hak asasi individu tanpa memilih kasih.

Nasionalisme yang terluas inilah yang akan mengatasi nasionalisme yang lain.

Baiklah.

Saya mengaku.

Ini sebenarnya menuju ke arah liberalisme.

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

Satu versi tulisan ini telah pertama kali diterbitkan di Bolehland.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1604] Of us and them

Foreign Affairs has an article on ethnonationalism and in my opinion, how it is the most stable form of nationalism. It focuses on European experience but it is relevant to Malaysian politics. This is surely something the adherents of Bangsa Malaysia, or liberal nationalists whom despise ethnonationalism, may want to read.

It is especially pertinent when chatters in the background seem to suggest that race-based politics is coming to an end in Malaysia. As much as I would like to believe that, I feel “protest votes” describes the result of the last election better. So, there is still future for race-based politics in Malaysia. The issues surrounding the appointment of Menteri Besar in Perak, the deputies in Perak and Selangor and the appointment of members of states’ Executive Committee definitely highlights the relevance of race in politics.

Back to the article:

In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere. Increased urbanization, literacy, and political mobilization; differences in the fertility rates and economic performance of various ethnic groups; and immigration will challenge the internal structure of states as well as their borders. Whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]

What I find most disconcerting is the suggestion that separation, may be the the best answer to communal conflicts.

Partition may thus be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflicts. It inevitably creates new flows of refugees, but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland, and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption. The bill for all of this will be huge, but it will rarely be greater than the material costs of interjecting and maintaining a foreign military presence large enough to pacify the rival ethnic combatants or the moral cost of doing nothing. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]