Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1639] Of an odd path to secularism

Activist monarchy runs contrary to organic politics and for that I am not too comfortable of having monarchs meddling in business of the state. Despite that, some actions by monarch may coincide with favorable consequences like giving new breath to federalism but the involvement of monarchs in politics remains an inorganic decision. The latest case of activist monarch revolves around the royal house of Perak over-ruling the decision of the Menteri Besar to remove the state religion department director.[1] While the down side of this episode is about having the monarchy institution in the picture, the bright side of the equation provides an opportunity for secularism.

Secularism, if its definition has to be clarified, aims to separate the state from religious beliefs and vice versa. A secular state is a state neutral of religious values. As further argument for secularism goes, religious belief is a personal matter and the best way to maintain it that way and protect religious freedom is to have a secular state.

The situation in Perak at the moment basically separates religion, or at least some part of it, from the purview of the executive branch of the government. If the Sultan has the ultimate say in religious matters, that would basically make the religious department answerable only to the Sultan while the executive is left with little influence in the matter. In the state of Perak where the monarchy takes a progressive political stance while the head of the executive is a member of an Islamist political party, I cannot help but maintain a slight inclination to stand with the monarch, even when I distrust him. In my opinion, from a certain point of view, this path may lead to secularism. In my opinion, this helps in preventing PAS from enlarging the role of religion in our society through coercion.

This perspective however assumes that the monarchy institution itself is not part of the state and that only the executive, judiciary and the legislative branches of government are considered as part of the state. The truth is, the monarchy together with the three branches are the institutions of the state.

In the purest sense of the word, we are still far away from secularism. Yet, this tussle between the Sultan and the Menteri Besar, especially when the executive is backing down,[2] creates an opportunity to advance secularism in the Malaysian society. It is an odd path but it is a path nonetheless.

But of course, there is no guarantee that the monarch himself has liberty in his mind. For all we know, the Sultan may only be interested in advancing the influence of the monarchy which has long waned.

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

[1] — IPOH, May 2 (Bernama) — The Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, today ordered Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to immediately retract the 24-hour tranfer order issued to Perak Islamic Religious Department director Datuk Jamry Sury on Tuesday. [Sultan Azlan Shah Orders Transfer Order On JAIP Director Retracted. Bernama. May 2 2008]

[2] — IPOH: The Mentri Besar will apologise to the Sultan of Perak over the hasty transfer of Perak Religious Department (JAIP) director Datuk Jamry Sury without first consulting the Ruler, who is the head of Islam in the state.

[…]

Meanwhile, Jamry has yet to receive a letter reinstating him as JAIP director, although he said he has been asked to meet state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim tomorrow.[Perak MB to apologise to Sultan of Perak. The Star. May 4 2008]

Categories
Economics

[1638] Of revisiting minimum wage and food sovereignty

One of the tragedies of humanity is that of Sisyphus’. The boulder keeps rolling down the hill each time it has been pushed up.

From time to time, the same issues resurface, rejuvenating familiar debates once held in the past. Two of the issues which of great public concern at the moment, yet again, is minimum wage (no thanks to the Labor Day celebration) and food sovereignty. I have penned my opinion on both issues and in the spirit of recycling, they are:

  1. [1282] Of questioning the morality of minimum wage
  2. [1099] Of food sovereignty and comparative advantage

In the first entry, I oppose minimum wage while in the second entry, I appeal for an appeal to comparative advantage and not to food sovereignty.

Categories
History & heritage Photography Society

[1637] Of reducing Article 160 to absurdity

Farish Noor is one of those individuals whom are able to open a door that I never thought was there in the first. At a public lecture of his which coincided with the Kuala Lumpur Alternative Book Fair today, he opened a door for me which I thought I had opened earlier. As it turned out, I did not open the door as wide as I should have.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Farish Noor delivering a public lecture at Central Market, Kuala Lumpur.

Over a year ago, I asked why the sanctioned history of Malaysia — practically the history of the Malays in this country — began only with the establishment of the Sultanate of Malacca, despite the fact that there were prominent states — especially Srivijaya — that existed well before Malacca. There is, in my opinion, too much stress on Malacca and too little emphasis granted to earlier history of this region. I went on to suggest that religion is the answer but the answer is long-winded.

At the public lecture which concerned itself with the beginning of racial classification in Malaya, Farish Noor declared that the constitutional definition of Malay in Malaysia is flawed. The Constitution of Malaysia, specifically Article 160, defines a Malay as a Muslim, speaks the Malay language and practices the Malay custom. From there on, he derived a conclusion with the intention of proving the absurdity of Article 160. Based on the Article, by right, he said, there was no Malay prior to the coming of Islam to the Malay Peninsula in the 13th and the 14th century.

The reductio ad absurdum by Farish Noor provides a more direct path to the answer than what I had managed previously.

Categories
Mudslinging

[1636] Of is MCA think tank drunk?

Why I ask?

FOR a long time Barisan Nasional’s communal approach has been translated into policies that have guided the nation’s governance and economic management. As a result, we are now laden with a hotchpotch of economic policies which are obviously in conflict.

We have in existence an old system from a socialist ideology of using price controls and subsidies to ”deliver to the poor”. We take a neo-liberalist stand to government-linked companies (GLCs) by providing them with immense and expansive immunity to regulations and real market competition, while the rest of the business community struggles in an unlevel playing field. As a country, we are not sure if we are for ”free trade” or ”fair trade”. For the man on the street, we have not even decided if the world is flat or not (economically speaking). In essence, we seem to adopt economic models that sound good at that time. [MCA must regain its vision. Fui K. Soong. The Sun. April 30 2008]

I repeat, “We take a neo-liberalist stand to government-linked companies (GLCs) by providing them with immense and expansive immunity to regulations and real market competition, while the rest of the business community struggles in an unlevel playing field.” That comes from Fui K. Soong, the chief executive officer of an MCA think tank known as Insap.

Question: since when neo-liberalism supports government intervention in the market, much less shielding government-link companies from competition?

No wonder MCA lost badly. If the think tank could not differentiate neo-liberal from statist policy or at best, misusing the term, I wonder what kind of advices it dispensed to MCA before the election. I think, if MCA wants to regain its vision, it could start by kicking Insap out.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Society

[1635] Of violent PRC citizens in South Korea fuels anti-PRC sentiment

Violence by Chinese during the Olympic flame relay in Seoul, Sunday, has ignited anti-China sentiment among Koreans.

The Beijing Olympic torch was successfully relayed from the South to North Korea, supported by enthusiastic Chinese supporters. However, the relay was marred by a clash between human rights activists and an overwhelming number of supporters, which left a sour taste in the mouth of many South Korean citizens.

Before the event, the police’s main concern was that rallies by human rights activists to protest China’s crackdown in Tibet might disrupt the relay. However, tens of thousands of nationalistic Chinese supporters flocked to streets in Seoul, resulting in an outbreak of violence against anti-Beijing Olympic protestors.

[…]

Koreans watching the relay were surprised to see the lining up of as many as 10,000 Chinese on streets the flame passed through. About 8,300 policemen were mobilized for the event. Among other questions raised were whether all the Chinese were legal residents or not; how “foreigners” could attack citizens of their host country; and why they held a demonstration here, not in Beijing, a Seoul citizen said.

[…]

Citizens also criticized the police for their lack of stern measures against the Chinese nationalists. “It is obviously dereliction of duty,” Seong Baek-ju posted on the official Web site of the National Police Agency. “How could they not do anything about these Chinese rioters.” [Anti-Chinese Sentiment Looms After Torch Relay. The Korea Times. April 28 2008]

Hmm, foreigners attacking citizens and the police did nothing against the aggressors.

Why does that sound so familiar?