Tag: unity

Categories
Society Sports

[2591] Sports and unity are false friends

It is always nice to watch Malaysians from across the spectrum uniting and cheering behind a Malaysian athlete or team in competitive sports at the international level.

That more or less happened when the number one national badminton player Lee Chong Wei was up against Lin Dan of China at the London Olympics. He failed to get Malaysia’s first gold medal but that did not deter the “I’m proud to be a Malaysian” sentiment among Malaysians.

Sports does sometimes give that warm feeling that we all live under the same brilliant, tropical sun. It can emphasize the common bonds that we share as Malaysians. It is that same feeling that has pushed the idea that sports should be supported further to unite Malaysians in times when our society appears so divisive in so many ways.

Yet, call me a skeptic. While there may be various reasons to support the development of sports further, I do not believe unity should be the driving factor in doing so.

I am skeptical of the value of sports as a substantive unifying factor for Malaysians. It is overrated as a unifying tool.

The reason I believe so is because the ability of sports to unite us is at best superficial. It is more or less effective only during the duration of the match. If we are lucky, then the feel-good atmosphere can last several days after, before we direct our attention to the next issue or event of the day.

Sports can make us temporarily forget our real world problems. That respite can be good for our health. We do need a break from time to time but that is all that it really is — a break and nothing more. Once the game is done, each of us will go our own way.

Sports just does not suddenly make us come to realize, “Hey, we are all Malaysians and so let us hug each other, and be best friends ”¦ forever.”

That kind of logic should be left in the essays of young schoolchildren as they develop their writing skills. It makes cute narrative but unfortunately, it is naïve to expect a child’s narrative to dictate the complex real world.

We do not live within school classroom settings. We are not children and unlike most children, we are not forgetful of past wrongdoings and conflicts, for better or for worst. As proof, some of us are still stuck with the May 13 incident which occurred more than 40 years ago.

Malaysia as a whole will likely move on with respect to the issue only once the generations that identified with that incident are gone and replaced by younger generations unburdened by the hangover of yesteryear.

We will go our separate ways because sports solve nothing of importance in the way we live our lives and deal with our differences. As such, old divisions will remain and we will continue to squabble over it.

Meaningful unity can only be achieved through equitable resolution to real problems and differences that we face as a society. The unfortunate thing is that problems are aplenty and it will take a very long time before we can even take a substantive step forward.

We need to have hard, sober, open and long discussions and debates on all of these problems.

We cannot run to sports to forget our problems and expect the temporary respite from our divisions to last. Sports are no refuge from our deep divisions. It is just but a wooden, creaky hut.

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 Sun on August 31 2012.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2407] Between fictitious and true unity

There is a strong emphasis in unity in Malaysia.

It is easy to rationalize why so. The country has been diverse from the very beginning of its modern history. Each group largely lives differently. While difference and diversity can be sources of strength, it can also be a source of conflict.

For all the myths believed by some that race relations nowadays are worse than yesteryears, the worst race riot of the country happened in Kuala Lumpur in May 1963. Another big race riot happened in Malaysian Singapore in July 1964. Conflict between races itself was part of the reasons why Singapore was expelled from the federation in 1965.

Those conflicts have left behind a deep scar in Malaysian society, even as many Malaysians today have never witnessed a race riot first-hand. These old fears are becoming increasingly irrelevant but it is still part of what describes our society. So entrenched is the fear of history repeating itself that many are mindful of the tiniest possibility of a race riot.

To the mindful and those whom are trapped in the 1960s and 1970s still, they believe in the narrative of unity. They believe in unity being the answer to Malaysian divisiveness.

As the wisdom goes, if everybody were united, there would be no reason to quarrel with each other. Nobody would say anything hurtful to the collective ethnic consciousness. In a united Malaysia, everybody would laugh together while waving the Jalur Gemilang happily.

On the surface, the unity narrative is appealing. The ideal provides a stark contrast to the chaotic Malaysia of the 1960s and a period of time after that. Yet, scratch the skin and it will peel to a rotten core.

Their particular unity narrative ignores differing viewpoints. At best, it considers differing positions as foreign. ”It is not part of our culture,” so the typical response goes. Malaysians holding differing ideals are accused as having their mind colonized by outsiders. Imagine in times of globalization, one talks of neo-colonialism. One has to be either paranoid or stuck in time.

When differing viewpoints becoming too intellectually challenging for the simple narrative, threats are issued. When there is nowhere to go within the realm of pure reasons, talk of feelings. File a police reports when feelings are hurt. In the unity narrative, one is not supposed to hurt anyone else’s feeling.

And some fly the flags because for the government demands so. The government even threatened to do something to remedy the failure to fly a piece of cloth back in 2006. In Ipoh in 2010, businesses had to fly the Jalur Gemilang if business owners wanted to renew their licenses.

One can see how pretentious that unity is.

See how it belligerently pushes aside liberty.

It seeks monotony. It rejects colors. It is either you are with us, or against us.

Unity is not mutually exclusive of liberty of course. In fact, true unity can only arise under free environment, where every person is free. It will be hard to achieve unity under such a set-up because individuals in a free society will have difference but if ever dialogue and understanding will overcome the difference, then everybody will unite out of their own free will.

That is the route to true unity. It is tough but it is the unity that is sincere.

The proponents of unity whom are trapped in the 1960s possibly know of this. They probably realize the tough road to true unity. Too cowardly to trust in individual effort to bridge the gap perhaps, they choose the ersatz version.

That version of unity is one that is shown only because there is a big stick somewhere, waiting to be taken out if someone dares say, no, I am different.

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 August 5 2011.

Categories
Politics & government

[2017] Of PAS-UMNO unity must remain dead if PAS is to live

The proposal to form a so-called unity government between PAS and UMNO finally finds its rightful place — in a dustbin. Nothing guarantees any PAS member from rummaging through the trash to rejuvenate the idea however. If the dream still lingers, I am here to offer a dire possibility. If PAS-UMNO unity comes true, PAS may break up as internal and external forces pull the political party in different directions.

Why is it a possibility?

PAS-UMNO unity will significantly affect the status quo balance of power. It will grant BN a proper majority in Perak. Selangor will suffer from a hung assembly. Other notable changes include the weakening of the opposition in many states and the absence of one in Perlis.

In sum, PAS-UMNO unity will be a major setback for Pakatan Rakyat.

That scenario has one caveat: it assumes all PAS members will remain united if the party defects from Pakatan Rakyat to work with UMNO. Given the kind of rift caused by the PAS-UMNO unity talks, that is a big assumption.

It is not every day one can expect Nik Aziz Nik Mat as the leader of PAS to tell off one of his prominent party members — Nasharuddin Mat Isa — to quit the party and join UMNO after Nasharuddin spoke warmly of the possibility of PAS-UMNO unity.

Later, 10 PAS members of Parliament went out to support Nik Aziz and to oppose any pro-UMNO activity within PAS.

The action of the 10 MPs is particularly revealing. For the more liberal members of PAS, or the Erdogans as they have come to be known, they have every incentive to not associate themselves with a pro-UMNO PAS. Many of the Erdogans contested in areas where voters come from diverse backgrounds. These Erdogans understand that they won on March 8, 2009 because they appealed to inclusive politics. They campaigned by convincing voters that PAS is for all and not just for the Muslims or the Malays, i.e. exclusive politics.

To have PAS working in concert with UMNO — as Onn Yeoh writes in The Edge[0] — amounts to betrayal of these voters. The very notion of unity between PAS and UMNO is based on the idea of exclusive politics, running contrary to the kind of campaign the Erdogans ran in the last general election. By the next election if the Erdogans are still part of a pro-UMNO PAS, these voters will not vote for the Erdogans. Hence, the future holds very little prospect for the Erdogans.

These Erdogans can of course undergo a rebranding exercise to adjust to exclusive-based politics that a PAS-UMNO coalition is expected to play. Notwithstanding the very appropriate accusation of hypocrisy that may come, these Erdogans will face stiff competition from the real conservatives within PAS as all compete for smaller pool of seats any exclusivist politician can expect to win. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect UMNO to surrender their seats to PAS in order to accommodate the Erdogans-turned-conservatives.

If PAS-UMNO unity happens, the only way for the Erdogans to secure their future is for them to demonstrate their commitment to inclusive politics and, inevitably, Pakatan Rakyat. This may translate into having the Erdogans or more generally the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS to either eject pro-UMNO members out of PAS, leave PAS in favor of PKR or even form a new party that DAP and PKR can work together under the banner of Pakatan Rakyat. In any case, the result will leave PAS utterly broken.

Only through this can they hope to secure their political future. The existing seat distribution formula within Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be used to accommodate these Erdogans, as long as they remain loyal to the coalition even as PAS finds itself in cahoots with UMNO.

For DAP and PKR, the stake is simply too high that both parties cannot allow PAS to defect so easily. It will in the best interest of PKR and DAP to embolden the Erdogans to mount a revolt against any movement towards PAS-UMNO unity, possibly leading to a breakup as described earlier.

The breaking up of PAS will limit any gain made by UMNO. It may prevent Selangor — the jewel of the crown — from experiencing a hung assembly. If Pakatan Rakyat is lucky, the maneuver can even prevent BN from gaining the coveted two-third majority in Parliament.

For PKR especially, there is an extra motivation to break PAS apart in case PAS-UMNO unity becomes a reality. PKR may enjoy an influx of high-quality members from PAS, especially if the pro-Pakatan Rakyat members of PAS decide to leave the party and not form a new party. PKR may need high-caliber individuals to strengthen its ranks and the Erdogan MPs do just that, if ever the Erdogans have a reason to part from PAS.

But, at the end of the day, the most preferable solution for DAP and PKR is to have PAS as a committed member of Pakatan Rakyat. Both DAP and PKR will want work to keep PAS within the young three-party coalition to build on the existing momentum. As we have seen, this is exactly the path taken by DAP and PKR.

As long as the most preferred option works, there is no need to resort to the second most preferred option. This is something everybody who wishes to see a strong PAS must understand.

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 June 24 2009.

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

[0] — The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal.

From Pakatan Rakyat’s perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want. [Unity govt a betrayal all around. Oon Yeoh. The Edge. June 22 2009]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government Society

[1189] Of is that unity in Iraq real?

When I first read over the news about the occupying force in Iraq was constructing a wall between Sunni and Shiite Arab areas in Baghdad in hope to reduce violent contact between the two groups, I felt a hint of disapproval toward that plan, as much as I felt against the proposal to turn Iraq into a three-state federation. Yet, the continuing violence between the two groups does make a case for the erection of walls in the city. Existing walls have proven to reduce the number of attacks:

Although the strategy of using barriers to safeguard areas of Baghdad is not new, the Adhamiya plan to enclose the neighborhood entirely was promoted as an advanced security measure. About two years ago, the American military erected a wall along the section of the Amiriya neighborhood that borders the airport road. While hardly foolproof, it reduced the number of attacks on American convoys on the route. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]

The separation barriers roughly run along the periphery of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is another supporting case of how it could reduce attacks. Nevertheless, it divides community, cutting friends and relatives from each others. I am therefore am undecided on the issue of separation barriers in Iraq.

While undecided, I am happy to read that there are those from both Sunnis and the Shiites Arab communities that oppose the walls. It does show that both communities are willing to work together toward an end, regardless of creeds. Perhaps, there is hope for Iraq after all.

The ability of the Arab Iraqis to trust the Kurds might be another signal of hope:

Arabs see them as a neutral force, the Americans say.

“The reason why people are willing to trust the 1-3-4 is because they’re Kurdish,” said Capt. Benjamin Morales, 28, commander of Company B of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, the partner unit of Captain Hamasala’s company. “They don’t care about Sunni or Shia.” [In Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad. NYT. April 24 2007]

Yet, I doubt if this is a clear cut sign that Sunni and Shiite Arabs in general could live together. I feel so because the opposition to the walls might be fueled by common dissatisfaction against a force rather than true respect:

The American involvement in the wall’s construction has united Iraqis of different sects. Sunni political parties, as well as some Shiite groups, strongly oppose the wall. Shiite groups fear that though Sunni Arab neighborhoods are the ones being cordoned off this week, next month it could be Shiite areas as well. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]

Much like Keadilan.

The uniting factor is more of ad hoc in nature, rather than permanent. It is ad hoc because it is superficial. I do not believe commonality based on hate would produce lasting alliance. Once that commonality is removed, what other intransient factor would peacefully hold the communities together?