Categories
Society

[1252] Of Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution

The Malaysian Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin declares that the new (or old; flip-flopping that is common under the Badawi regime makes the old-new dichotomy useless) Malaysian national language is the Malaysian language.

KUALA LUMPUR: Bahasa Malaysia will again be the official term to be used to refer to the national language.

In a unanimous decision last April, the Cabinet felt that reverting to the term Bahasa Malaysia would help inculcate a sense of belonging for all citizens irrespective of race, said Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin. [Back to Bahasa Malaysia. The Star. June 4 2007]

But Article 152 of the Malaysia Constitution says the national language is the Malay language.

Do tell me if there is a translation error. Or, do tell me if the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. If the Constitution is worthless, then the time is ripe for a spring revolution!

Categories
Earthly Strip

[1251] Of religious conservatives are driving on the wrong side of the road

Religious conservative Muslims have an odd siege mentality. They feel that everybody is trying to get them. They feel that:

The West is trying to get them.

Christians are trying to get them.

Hindus are trying to get them.

Buddhists are trying to get them.

Chinese are trying to get them.

Jews are trying to get them.

Thais are trying to get them.

Pagans, atheists, etc, are trying to get them.

The Liberal Islam movement is trying to get them.

The real liberals are trying to get them.

Feminists are trying to get them.

Communists are trying to get them.

Scholars are trying to get them.

Orientalists are trying to get them.

Secularists are trying to get them.

Project Petaling Street is trying to get them (ha, ha, ha!).

The moderates are trying to get them.

The progressive are trying to get them.

Even somebody in their group is trying to get them.

Paranoia? Maybe but an old story might offer better perspective of what is going on.

Once seemingly long ago, on one spring day while sitting on a bench somewhere in Ann Arbor, reading Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, I overheard two girls (later, we became friends) sharing joke with each other: There was a guy driving on a highway while listening to the radio. On the radio, an announcement warned motorist of a car driving on the wrong side of the road. He blurted out, “What? Just one? All of them are driving on the wrong side of the road!”

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

Categories
Economics Humor

[1250] Of price control rendered useless

Hahaha…

PETALING JAYA: Following the painful raids against traders who overprice their food and drinks, most restaurants are sticking to their regular prices.

The difference, however, is that some restaurants may be dishing out smaller-sized roti canai as well as diluted Nescafe or Milo drinks.

Contrary to earlier complaints by restaurant operators that they would lose out following the government move to increase the price of flour, a random survey by The Star found that they would actually make a hefty profit if the price of roti canai goes up by 10sen a piece. [Roti canai getting smaller. Goh, Michelle. Nur Akmal. The Star. June 3 2007]

Instead of liberalizing the market, I suspect the state would engage in more stifling policy by regulating the size of roti canai.

We as responsible citizens on the other hand desperately need to upgrade the mentality of our politicians. I am in the opinion that all ministers need at least at a basic lesson in economics.

Categories
Liberty

[1249] Of The Economist on Lina Joy

At The Economist:

Article 11 has been in the country’s constitution since independence from Britain 50 years ago. However, things were muddied by a 1988 amendment, which denied the regular courts all jurisdiction over matters dealt with by the sharia courts. It was not clear if this gave sharia judges the right to overrule Article 11 for those born Muslim and to tell them they must remain so. It now seems that indeed they can. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]

How many more amendments have been passed to restrict liberty, I wonder.

Also, proof that The Economist is concerned with liberty rather than appealing to irrational fear of Islam:

In many places, constitutional guarantees of liberty are undermined by laws constraining religious belief. Indonesians, for example, are also obliged to state their religion on their identity cards and to choose between just six officially recognised faiths. The governor of the state of Rajasthan, in India, is being pressed by the state assembly to approve a law punishing conversion from Hinduism. Constraints on individuals’ rights to choose their beliefs are usually backed up by claims that religions are somehow “under threat”: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]

There is one interesting similarity in the final sentence of the article: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. That is probably a clear reference to:

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

— Milton Friedman, July 31 1912 — November 16 2006.

Categories
Liberty

[1248] Of accusation of Islamophobia is just an act of poisoning the well

Some religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia accuse those that disagree with the Lina Joy case ruling as Islamophobes. While there are Islamophobes out there, just as there are xenophobes in general out there, the labeling of Islamophobes on freedom lovers is merely an act of poisoning the well. While I do not speak for others, the accusation certainly does not apply to me as well as other like-minded libertarians and sincere freedom lovers. Most libertarians disagree with the ruling not because it is specifically connected to Islam but rather, it is due to the intervention of the state in personal individual affairs. That intervention results in the infringement of individual liberty. And just like libertarians, generic freedom lovers are concerned with the restriction imposed on religious freedom by the ruling.

Imagine a hypothetical country called Hinduland where Hinduism had the exact sanction Islam enjoys in Malaysia. Imagine further of a former Hindu Muslim and he wished to remove the word Hindu from his identity card whereas by law, a Hindu must have his religion stated on the card. As is the case with the Lina Joy ruling, many individuals with strong conviction to religious freedom would support the Muslim convert’s wish and subsequent action toward that wish.

I would imagine, religious conservative Muslims would also join the freedom lovers in expressing support for the former Hindu Muslim, just because the person was a Muslim. The religious conservative Hindus in Hinduland on the other hand might take the position the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia currently take. If the ruling in Hinduland would have been the same as in Malaysia, the religious conservative Hindus would call everybody that disagreed with ruling as Hinduphobes. This is the exact parallel in Malaysia with the only difference is the names of the religions.

In that case of the Hinduland scenario, I would support the Muslim’s action. Be mindful that I would do so not because he is a Muslim but rather, because I fully respect his freewill. The same cannot be said for religious conservatives whom have issues with the concept of religious freedom. To them, freewill is a dirty word.

Before one disposes this model as merely hypothetical, do note that conversion from Hinduism to Islam is a controversial subject in India. The religious conservative Hindus in India share the same concern with the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia regarding liberty to disassociate oneself from the religion.

For sincere freedom lovers, this is not a question of loving or hating any particular religion. Freedom lovers and especially libertarians could not care less with the beliefs a person would want to migrate from and to. For freedom lovers, it is a matter of allowing a person to think and act for himself. As long as any of his action does not limit others’ same rights, he should be free choose his own course of action without coercion from others.

This clearly shows that freedom lovers’ opposition is based on dedication to an ideal of liberty and not based on irrational fear or hatred to Islam. Some religious conservative Muslims are trying to say otherwise in hope to poison the well, divert attention from the source of disagreement and indulge in disinformation.