Categories
Liberty Society

[1092] Of liberalism, multicultural societies and multiculturalism

One of the characteristics of liberalism is tolerance. While that might be true of liberalism taken as a whole, as usual, I am interested in classical liberalism and will refer such liberalism as simply liberalism. This tolerance originates from the non-aggression axiom. While I understand the relationship between tolerance and the non-aggression axiom, I had a hard time trying to justify multiculturalism in the name of liberalism. It turns out that it is hard to justify because it is unjustifiable.

I had the impression that multiculturalism is the apex of tolerance where different people from very different backgrounds come and live together in harmony, respecting each others’ rights. This impression, that both are related to tolerance, has brought me to assume that liberalism actively supports multiculturalism by virtue that both share the characteristic of tolerance. That opinion further strengthened my opinion on the relationship between liberalism and multicultural societies; that a liberal society is a multicultural society and multicultural society is synonymous to multiculturalism.

After a couple of headaches, enlightenment rained upon me. I somehow began to realize the difference between the descriptive multicultural and the prescriptive multiculturalism. The former merely describes a state of a society without espousing what state should the society be. The latter actively advocates for a state of multicultural through policies collectively called multiculturalism. With that realization, I have come to the conclusion that liberalism is neutral of multicultural society and unsupportive of multiculturalism.

It must be noted that a multicultural society is the natural course of a liberal society. Be aware that this is not similar to stating that the only cause a multicultural society is liberalism.

Liberalism by its very nature is tolerant and a liberal society is a tolerant society. This tolerance exhibited by liberal societies attracts people from all over, especially from illiberal societies. While liberalism produces multicultural societies, multicultural societies are not the goal of liberalism. To make the idea clearer, multicultural society is a side effect of liberalism; liberalism indirectly causes the creation of multicultural societies. The relationship between liberalism and multicultural societies stops there and goes no farther.

To actively encourage the formation of a multicultural society is taking it one step farther; that is multiculturalism and not liberalism.

A pillar of liberalism is spontaneous order. The policies of multiculturalism contradict the spirit of spontaneous order. A liberal must not force to turn a society into a multicultural one. By force, I mean, the state, which has the monopoly of policing power, actively promoting multicultural society as an end. It is worth reiterating that a liberal society would sooner or later become multicultural unconsciously. Forcing the process to go faster is counterproductive. Just as we cannot force others to be free, we cannot force society to become multicultural.

While multicultural society is, depending on point of view — I certainly do see it as such — a positive unintended effect of liberalism, liberals themselves, or rather, liberal states, should be neutral on issues relating to multicultural societies. Such neutrality is essential because whether a society is multicultural or monocultural, it is not related to liberty. In an already liberal society when negative rights are secured, do we expect the state of multicultural to affect liberty in any way?

I would answer no.

I do believe that I was not the only that that had tried to say multiculturalism is part of liberalism. A lot of multiculturalists do call themselves as liberals and it is easy to understand how such confusion could occur.

As stated earlier, a creation of a multicultural society is a side effect — a symptom — of liberalism. Advanced liberal societies more often than not are multicultural societies. Those that misunderstood the relationship between liberalism and multiculturalism will try to emulate these advanced liberal societies to the letters, instead of to the spirit. The strong relationship between liberalism and multicultural societies blurs the causality and causes many liberals — I would call these liberals as neophytes — to accept multicultural societies as central to liberalism.

Again, multicultural society is a symptom of liberalism; a multicultural society is simply a sign of a maturing liberal society. Multicultural society is not central to liberalism while multiculturalism is out of the equation.

For us to emulate advanced liberal societies, we need to secure the roots of liberalism, not the symptoms of liberalism. For once the roots are secured, the symptoms will come in good time.

Categories
Photography

[1091] Of rainforest canopy from the ground

The other day, I found myself hugging trees:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

I am too tired to say anything else. So, good night.

Categories
Sports

[1090] Of Ajax is three points away from first placed PSV

Ajaxtalk. Fair use.Ajaxtalk. Fair use.Ajaxtalk. Fair use.Ajaxtalk. Fair use.

The race to the top is on.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics History & heritage Politics & government

[1089] Of the Scramble for Africa II

During the era of imperialism, European powers as well as a few others scoured the face of the Earth for territories. In Central Asia in the 19th century, the scour was called The Great Game. On the continent which the Nile flows, where the wildebeests roam the Serengeti, the Game had another name: the Scramble for Africa. Two centuries later, history is repeating itself in Africa as well as in Central Asia. Though the race does not come in the form it once took or with players that once played the game, it is a race nonetheless. Africa in particular has been the center of attention by both the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China.

For China, its economic growth requires so much fuel that it is embarking on a massive global search for precious resources to quench its thirst. In quest to secure sustainable growth, realizing that Africa is rich in natural resources, China is buying influence there by promising no-interest loan worth billion of dollar to improvised but resources-rich African nations:

Before arriving, he announced soft loans worth another $3 billion and a doubling of aid to Africa over the next three years.

[…]

This, probably more than anything else, is what makes Mr Hu popular with African governments. His largesse comes with no strings attached, unlike pesky Westerners who insist on anti-corruption drives or improving human-rights records in exchange for money. China’s hand-outs come without the tang of neo-colonial interference so disliked by many Africans.

This is on top various investments made by the Chinese across the continent. It is suffice to say that to Africa at the moment, China is Santa Claus.

In a way, Africa is the perfect target for China. The competition for natural resources might not be as fierce at it is in the Middle East and Central Asia. In the Mideast, there are United States as well as other powerful corporations that in some ways monopolize the world’s supply of fuel. With Iraq in shamble and Iran rattling saber with the US, risk is high.

In Central Asia, there is the ever-jealous Russia trying to reassert its influence on the former states of the Soviet Union. And of course, the United States is everywhere, worthy of the label superpower it claims to. In these two regions, I would use the word crowded to describe the situation. Africa on the contrary has so many places remain unexplored. So far, it is a free for all and China is leading the pack.

The spotlight on Chinese interest on Africa has attracted the world to both. I trust the US is especially suspicious of the Chinese activities in Africa. Further, the US is not new in Africa. Earlier, there was rumor that the US was indirectly involved in the recent conflict in Somalia:

The officials said the C.I.A. effort, run from the agency’s station in Nairobi, Kenya, had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to secular warlords inside Somalia with the aim, among other things, of capturing or killing a handful of suspected members of Al Qaeda believed to be hiding there.

And then, who could forget of CNOOC’s failed bid for Unocal back in August 2005?

To be fair, the US interest in Africa is not mainly due to Chinese presence. The US fears Islamist influence and indirectly, anti-US groups. This is in line with the US alleged role in Somalia. The issue on security has led the United States to establishing a new command center in Africa:

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon will establish a new military command to oversee its operations in Africa, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced.

Creation of the U.S. Africa Command, which had been expected, will “strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” Bush said Tuesday.

And of course, China and the US are not the only players of the race. Other countries, including Malaysia have already created substantial presence in Africa:

American sanctions have kept many companies from Europe and the United States out of Sudan, but firms from China, Malaysia, India, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are racing in. Direct foreign investment has shot up to $2.3 billion this year, from $128 million in 2000, all while the American government has tried to tighten the screws.

Competition will be fierce. In fact, Malaysian national oil and gas company has been kicked out of Chad. Suspiciously, that episode has proven to be profitable for the Chinese.

Nevertheless, while the last scramble brought most of Africa to its knees, I have a feeling that this race will be different. With all the investment coming in and increasing trade, something good is bound to happen. I am optimistic that Africa is looking forward to a better future. I am optimistic that the second scramble is the precursor to the prosperity globalization promises. There will be obstacles of course but this scramble is too precious to squander that I do not think the obstacles would stop Africa from gaining respect from the rest of the world.

Categories
History & heritage Personal

[1088] Of family connection to the death railway

I woke this morning to a documentary entitled the Bridge on the River Kwai on the Discovery Channel. I have seen it before but there nothing on TV on Sunday morning and so, I was sort of stuck with it; too lazy to do anything else. The most exciting news of the day so far might be Obama’s decision to officially run for the Presidency of the United States of America. That however had already been anticipated by too many people that it was not a surprise. My Sunday surprise was the revelation that my great-grandfather, my mother’s granddad might have been a forced laborer for the construction of the infamous death railway connecting Thailand and Myanmar, then Burma.

My mom told me that great-granddad was tapping running early in the morning when a couple of Japanese soldiers picked him up. I am unsure how she knows that but I assume it is one of those stories that are passed down orally. I presume that it happened in Malacca since I have strong family ties to the former Straits Settlements. Since then, he was never heard from again. Family presumed him to have died in Thailand or Burma.

His wife was rather young when that occurred. Back then when the general education level of the population was low especially among Malays, marriage occurred at a very young age. I am unsure when exactly my great-grandparents got married but my mom said she was about 20 by the time the Japanese occupied Malaya. With a kidnapped husband and fear of being disturbed by the Japanese soldiers, she had to place a pillow under her clothes to give her the appearance of being pregnant. It seems that the pregnancy trick works even in times of war.

I looked up for the railway on Wikipedia and discovered that if he was indeed a forced laborer constructing the railway, he would be among 200,000 Asian laborers that contributed to the line. If he had died building the line, he would be one of 100,000 Asians that died during the construction of the death railway. And unlike the Allied prisoners of war, I am unaware of any memorial dedicated to the anonymous Asians, which might include my great-grandfather.

Reading a map of the line on Wikipedia

Public domain. Wikipedia. User W.wolny

…I wonder where did he work at.