[youtube]FfSOX-fFDCY[/youtube]
Happy new year.
Categories
Categories
[1492] Of I will take both
The moment CNN announced the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at a political rally on TV, I immediately realized how the event could be sung to impress to the world of the idea that security supersedes liberty. I half expected Pervez Musharraf to justify his previous decision to impose martial law but it did not right away come across my mind on how the assassination affects Malaysian politics. Weeks earlier, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he is willing to sacrifice public freedom for public safety.[1] Indeed, Deputy PM Najib Razak wasted no time to relate the uncertainties in Pakistan with dissent in Malaysia just a day after the death of Mrs. Bhutto.[2] The pictures painted by the Malaysian government however are disagreeable. The juxtaposition between liberty and security and the supposed trade off between the two is only an illusion undeserving of consideration of the rational minded. On the contrary, it is possible to have both. In fact, individual liberty cannot exist without security.
The concept of individual liberty within classical interpretation at the very least relies on the precept that an individual is free to act according to his will, bounded only by others’ same rights. These rights — negative rights — include but not limited to rights to life, to property and to freedom of expression that we Malaysians lack. It is a grave irony of us celebrating our freedom from colonial powers on yearly basis only to suffer oppression brought upon by our own government.
We are not unique. History without fail has shown how transgression of liberty occurs throughout human consciousness. One of many lessons we could derive from history is this: we must be prepared to defend our liberty; our individual liberty. These rights that make up liberty have to be protected from all efforts to negate it. Thus, as is ever so common in literatures of freedom, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Liberty cannot stand without security. The instability of anarchy — anarchy as in the political philosophy — is a proof to that. This gives the impetus for a society to create a government, a state or any entity for that matter, to protect its members’ liberty from internal and external threats.
At the same time, a liberal constitution outlines individual liberty and in that respect, the role of government in protecting that liberty. While the entity enforcing the constitution is the rightfully elected arbiter of conflict of rights between individuals, in no whatsoever way it gives the state the authority to disrespect individual liberty, unlike the meek Malaysian Constitution.
A good liberal constitution is able to stop anybody, the state, the majority, the mob even, from robbing an individual of his liberty. Democracy by itself is useless; it has to be guided by a liberty-conscious document for tyranny of a majority is no different from tyranny of a dictator. That is the ultimate security. From there, is it not clear that for liberty to prevail, security is required?
In the end, there is no dilemma between liberty and security.
Security however does not necessarily demand liberty. One can be thrown into a cellar for hundreds of years, be safe and unfree from cradle to grave. I have a tingling suspicion that when a politician speaks as if there is a trade off between liberty and security, the term security requires qualification. He seeks not to throw himself into the cellar but instead, he seeks to throw free individuals, whom will not stand aside quietly while watching liberty is being trampled upon for whatever reason, into the cellar. When he speaks of security, he speaks for himself and not for others, not for individuals. When he speaks of security, he speaks of security to his grip to power. The only dilemma he speaks of is between others’ individual liberty and tyrants’ security.
Therefore, the next time someone presents to you an option between liberty and security, tell them with utmost confidence that you insist on having both.
[1] — PUTRAJAYA: Public safety will be the Government’s top priority before public freedom and there will be no hesitation to take the stiffest action on irresponsible people, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
“If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win. I will not sacrifice my sense of accountability to the greater public, especially in the face of police intelligence about planned fighting or other violent intent.” [PM: Public safety will prevail over public freedom. The Star. December 10 2007]
[2] — Najib said political conflicts, assassinations and instability seen in some other countries should serve as a lesson for all Malaysians.
In this connection, he rapped those who had orchestrated street demonstrations that caused property damage and disrupted people’s daily activities, just to gain political mileage. [Najib: Goverment To Act Against Troublemakers. Bernama. December 29 2007]
This article was first published on Bolehland.
Categories
[1491] Of Capital One Bowl
Does anybody know if the game will be aired in Malaysia?
I am finally done with the Dawkins’ The God Delusion which I bought last year. Yes, I finished it just over a year after I picked it off the shelf at some bookstore.
It is filled with too much polemics and I was caught off guard on how fierce Dawkins argues against religion in The God Delusion despite being familiar with his well-publicized opinion. I should have braced myself when I read this paragraph:
A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts — the non-religious included — is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other. [The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins. Page 20]
The first chapters are dedicated to discrediting religion. Ignoring the polemics — sometimes, it is hard; I couldn’t help but smile at one point or another; simply too amusing and entertaining — reading for me was easy and I breezed through it. The one point which I stopped and pondered for awhile amid the polemics concerned the Pascal’s wager. I really think I should thank Dawkins for solving the puzzle for me.
The rhythm goes a pace higher at midpoint where he explains, to a certain extent, how evolution affected religion and — more interestingly — moral. I have read earlier on how moral might be dictated by genetics but I am convinced of it only until I read Dawkins’.
From the same idea, he insists that moral and religion are independent of each other. I have reached the same conclusion before and I could only nod in agreement with him. Dawkins goes further by stating that moral precedes religions. To strengthen that, he shows how there are commonalities of morality across most religions despite the fact that many of these religions developed separately. To answer the puzzle of commonalities, he returns to genetics and evolution, his forte.
For those unfamiliar with Dawkins, he is a biologist at Oxford. Wikipedia, as usual, has a great article on him.
What surprises me, given the Malaysian authority’s tendency to ban the most innocent of all books such as Anthony Burgess’ Malayan Trilogy and Karen Amstrong’s A History of God, is that The God Delusion escapes censorship. The escape, of course, is absolutely fine by me.
While the situation in Pakistan is bad, but news on CNN comes as a shock; Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated:
There are conflicting reports though:
Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto escaped injury when a suicide bomber attacked her election rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. At least six people were killed, a government spokesman said. [Bhutto Unhurt in Suicide Bomb Attack at Pakistan Election Rally. Bloomberg. December 27 2007]
The NYT is not quite sure what is going on and so, it says… maybe:
Regardless, scenes from before and after the blast are being shown on CNN.
It is unclear who committed the attack but Islamist groups and the military may be two of the clearest suspects yet.
What is clear is that there is so much confusion. Al-Jazeera on TV reports that she was shot before the bomb exploded. CNN reports otherwise. Some sources report that she was killed by the explosion itself.
p/s — the NYT makes up its mind:
RAWALPINDI, Islamabad — An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker. [Bhutto Assassinated in Attack on Rally. NYT. December 27 2007]